Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR. THE SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, UNITED STATES WATERS REVISED NOVEMBER 1981 GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL TAMPA, FLORIDA DRAFT UPDATE OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SHRIMP GULF OF MEX I CO NOVEMBER, 1981 THE GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCI L LINCOLN CENTER, SUITE 881 5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAMPA, FLORI DA 33609 ~i '---' 1.0 2.0 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I NTRODLCT I ON ...... . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 2.3 Goal and ObJectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management Measures Cons I de red and Adopted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Definitions of Terms Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF FISHERY 3.1 3.2 . . . . ....... . . . ...... ....... . . . Area and Stocks Involved History of Exploitation . . . . 3.2.1 . . . ....... . . . .. . . . . . ........ .......... . . . Domestic Fishery ..... 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 3.2.2 ..... ..... . . . . ..... Description of User Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Description of Fishery Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . Catch Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1.3.1 3.2.1.3.2 Commercl al Catch Trends by Specl es Landing Trends by State. . . . . . . . ..... . . ...... Description of Vessels and Gears Employed ........ History of Foreign Exploitation .......... ...... 3.2.2.1 3.2.2.3 General Vesse I s 3.2.3 Description of User Groups, Fishing Effort, and Gear Emp i oyed ................ . . . Fishing In Foreign Waters. ......3.3 ..... . . . . ....... H I story of Management 3.3.1 ...... ........ . . . . . . . . Management Institutions, Policies, Jurisdiction .....3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2 ......... Regulatory Measures Employed to Regulate the Fishery Cons I stency ReQul rements of Coastal Zone Management Act Management and Regulation of Foreign Fishery . . . . 3.3.2 3.4 3.5 ..... ........ His tory of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socioeconomic Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 3.5.1 ..... Output of the Subject Domestic Reported Commercial Fishery ........3.5.1.1 3.5.1.2 3.5.1.3 3.5.1.4 3.5.1.5 3.5.2 . . . Exvessel Value of the Catch. . . . . . . . . . Wholesale Value of the Product . . . . . Domestic Marketing Channels. . . . . . . . . . Imports and Utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ...... 3.5.1.4.1 3.5.1.4.2 Importance, Source and Type. Measured i mpacts of Imports. ...... ............. ......... Economic Impact of the Domestic Fishery ............ Domestic Commercial Fleet Characteristics. ....... 3.5.2.1 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3 3.5.2.4 3.5.3 . . . . Total Gross i ncome of the Fleet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investment In Vessels, Boats, and Gear. . . . . . . . . . Cap I ta II zat Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual Participation In the Fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic Commercial Processing Characteristics ...... . . . 1-1 2-1 2-3 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-16 3-20 3-27 3-27 3-27 3-33 3-33 3-34 3-36 3-36 3-37 3-37 3-37 3-37 3-45 3-47 3-59 3-59 3-62 3-69 3-69 3-69 3-78 3-81 3-87 3-95 , 4.0 3.5.3.1 3.5.3.2 3.5.3.3 Total Gross I ncome from the Shrimp Investment In Plant and Equipment Total Emptoymentand Labor Incom and All Related Fisheries. . . . . . .................. ........ 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.8 Recreational Fishing Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subs I stence Shr I mp I ng ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Treaty Fishing Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output of Domestic Commercial Bait-Shrimp Fishery. . . . . . . . . . . Area Community Characterlst.lcs .................... 3.5.8.1 3.5.8.2 3.5.8.3 Tota i Pop u i at Ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Employment In Shrimp Fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Shrimp Fisheries to Total Work Force. . . i nteract Ion Between and Among User Grou ps3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 . . . . ..... Shr I mpers I nteract Ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prevalent Conflicts with Shrimpers and Other National Interests. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Incidental Catch of Flnf Ish by Shrimpers and of Shrimp by Groundflsh Fishermn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habits, Distribution, and Incidental Capture of Sea Turtles In the Gulf of Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 State and Federal Revenues Derived from the Shrimp Fishery. . ........ 4.5 4.5.1 BIOLOGY DESCRI PTORS . . . . ........ ........ ,...... 5.0 3.6.2.1 3.6.2.2 L I f e His tory F eatur es ............................ Stock Un' t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calch-E f fort Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey and Samp II ng Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hab I tat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1.1 Physical Description of the Habitats ............... 4.5.1.2 4.5.1.3 4.5.1.4 4.5.1.5 4.5.1.6 4.5.2 ..... . . . .. ..... Bottom Types. . . . . ...... 4.5.1.1.1 4.5.1.1.2 Offshore Bottom Types Estuarl ne Bottom Types .................................. Surface Water Discharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estuarl ne Sa II n I ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estuarl ne Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Sa II n I ty Water Qua II ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Currents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habl tat Concerns ..... 5.1 Annua i Capacl ty 4.6 4.7 .......... ......... Qua II tv of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Status of the Stocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . ....... ....... ...... 4.7.1.1 4.7.1.2 4.8 Explanation and Specification of MSY . . Technical Description of MSY Calculations ................ Estimates of Future Stock Conditions. . . . . . ....... ....... ..... CATCH AND CAPACITY DESCRIPTORS ..... ..... ..... . . . . .............................. . 1-2 3-95 3-95 3-95 3-95 3-101 3-102 3-102 3-103 3-103 3-104 3-106 3-106 3-106 3-110 3-110 3-111 3-121 4-1 4-1 4-16 4-17 4-17 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-19 4-20 4-20 4-22 4-25 4-25 4~25 4-25 4-25 4-25 4-26 4-26 4~27 4-42 5-1 5-1 6.0 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.3 Phys Ical Domestic Annual Capacl ty CDAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . EconomIc CapacIty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data and Analytical Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected Domestic Annual Harvest CDAH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 5.3.2 Expected DAH for the Combl ned Specl es . . . . . . . . . . . Expected DAH of Royal Red Shrimp. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 5.4 5.5 Domestic Annual Processing Capacity CDAP) Addl t Ions to DAH to Account for Jol nt Ventures . ...... 6.1 6.2 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . OPTIMUM YIELD COY) . . . 7.0 ..... . . . ..... . . . . ...... ...... Determination of Optimum Ylel d COY) SpecifIcation of Optimum Yield. . . . . . 7.1 7.2 7.3 ...... . . . . 5.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 ..~.. . . ...... . . . . ...... . . . Shr I mp Other Than Roya i Red S hr I mp Royal Red Shrimp. . . . . . . . ...... ...... . . . . ..... . . . . ...... Alternatives to Optimum Yield Considered and Rejected . . ....... . . . 6.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 6.3.4 5.3.5 6.3.6 Optimum Yield for Brown, White and Pink Shrimp to be Set at MSY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishing to Stop When Optimum Yield Is Reached for Brown, Wh Ite and PI nk Shrimp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimum Yield for Royal Red Shrimp to be Set Above MSY ........ Optimum Yield for Róyal Red Shrimp to be Set at~SY With Fishing to be Permitted to Exceed OY . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimum Yield for Royal Red Shrimp to be Set Below MSY ........ Optimum Yield Set at Higher Estimate of ABC. . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FOREI GN CATCH CTALFF) ....... 8.0 ...... ...... Brown, White, and Pink Shrimp. . . . . Roya i Red S hr I mp . . . . . . . . . . . . Seabob and Rock Shrimp. . . . . . . . . ...... 8.1 8.2 ..... . . . ....... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . MANAGEMENT REG I ME ...... . . . . ......... . . . ...... . . . ....... Areas and Stocks I nvo I ved Management Unit and Period ...... 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.3 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Management Un I t Management Period ..... ....... . . . . ..... ...... . . . . ...... . . . . ...... Prob lems I n the Fishery Objectives. . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Management Objectives .................... Alternative Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. A I ternat I va 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A I ternat Ive 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. A Iter nat I ve 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. A I ternat i va 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Management Measures and Rationale . . .. . . ..... ........... Management Measures Cons Idered and Adopted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1.1 Optimize the Yield of Shrimp Recruited to the Fishery. . . . Meas ur e 1 .......................... 1-3 5-1 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-5 5-7 5-8 5-8 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-2 6-3 6-3 6-3 6-3 6-3 6-3 6-3 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-1 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-4 8-4 8.5.2 8.5.3 8.5.4 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.5.1.2 8.5.1.3 8.5.1.4 8.5.1.5 8.5.1.6 8.5.-1.7 8.5.1.8 Measure 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measure 3 .......................... Encourage Adequate Habitat Protection Measures. . . . . . . . Measure 4 .......................... Coord I nate, Where Feas I b Ie, the Gu If Shr I mp Management Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measure 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measure 6 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promote Consistency with the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammals Protection Act ................ Measure 7 .......................... When Appropriate, Minimize the Incidental Capture of F I nf I sh by Shr I mpers .................... Measure 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimize Conf Ilcts B.etween Shrimp and Stone Crab Fishermn. . Measure 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mlmlmlze Adverse Effects of Underwater Obstructions to Shr I mp Traw II ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measure 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provide for a Statistical Report Ing System. . . . . . . Measure 11 . . . . . . .......... . . . . ...... A Iternatlve Management Measures Cons Idered but not Adopted . . . No Act ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Size and/or Season Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spawn I ng Area Closures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Llcenslng and Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limited Entry and Gear Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . Recommend Cons Ideratlon to Change Endangered Specl es Act to Permit I ncldental Catch and Release of Sea Turtles. . Management Measures for Foreign Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Recommended Measures to Existing Laws and Policies. . 8.9.1.1 8.9.1.2 8.9.1.3 8.9.1.4 8.9.1.5 8.9.1.6 Other Fishery Management Plans Prepared by a Council or the Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federa I Laws and Po II c I es .................. State Laws and Po II cl es ................... Enforcement Req u I rements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative Research Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perm f t Req u r rements ............................. F I nancl ng Req u I rements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2.1 8.5.2.2 8.5.2.3 8.5.2.4 8.5.2.5 8.5.2.6 8.5.4.1 8.5.4.2 8.5.4.3 Management and Enforceent Costs . . . . . . . .8.9.1 8.9.2 ..... ...... Tortugas C' osure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shore-side Enforcement for Inspections Relative to Mandatory Report I ng ..................... Investigations to Support Sea and Shore Enforcemnt. . . . . Support for all Enforceent Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Staff Years of Effort Required and Total Cost of Vessel and Aircraft Patrols, Inspections, Investigations and Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected State and Federal Revenues, Taxes, and Fees ..... . . . . 1-4 8-11 8-15 8-15 8-15 8-17 8-17 8-17 8-18 8-18 8-18 8-18 8-19 8-19 8-19 8-19 8-19 8-20 8-21 8-21 8-22 8-24 8-25 8-25 8-26 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-32 8-32 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-34 8-34 ~ 9.0 STATEMENT OF COUNC I L I NTENTI ON TO REV I EW THE PLAN AFTER APPROVALBY THE SECRETARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 SELECT ED B I BLI OGAPHY . . . . . . ..... ..... ...... 1-5 . . . . . . . ..... 9-1 10-1 r;. , 2.0 I NTRODUCT I ON The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) provides for exclusive Un I ted States management authorl ty over the fishery resources wi th I n a fishery conservat Ion zone extending from the seaward boundary to the United States territorial sea (three nautical miles for the Gulf of Mexico states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and nine nautical miles for Texas and the west and northwest coasts of Florida) to a point 200 miles from shore. Responsibility for developing a shrimp fishery management plan for the Gulf of Mexico Is vested In the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; and Implementation and enforcement of any regulations pertinent to the management of fisheries within the fishery conservation zone are the responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Department wherein the U.S. Coast Guard Is located. Successful Implementation of the plan will require unity of purpose between federal regulations and those of the five Gulf states (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas). Authority for Implementing state regulations Is vested In the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the A labama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Comml ss Ion. The fishery addressed Is composed of six species, occurring In the area of jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councl I as well as In the territorial seas adjacent thereto and the associated bays, Inlets, wetlands, and upland areas as appropriate. Species Include brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus i ves), wh Ite shr I mp (Penaeu5 setl ferus L I nnaeus), pi nk shr I mp (Penaeus .duorarum Burkenroad), and roya I red shr I mp (Hymenopenaeus robustus Sml th 1), p i us seabobs (XI phopeneus kroyerì Heller) and rock shrimp (Slcyonla brevlrostrls Stlmpton), which are Incidental bycatch. The manage ment unit Is to be equal to the fishery throughout Its range; however, federal Implementation wi I i occur on' y I n the fishery conservat Ion zone. Biological aspects of the shrimp species have been reviewed, and the maximum probable catch Is estimated at: (see Sec. 4.7.1.1) Brown shr I mp Wh Ite shrl mp Pink shrimp Roya i red shr I mp 132 m I i lion 64 mil lion 20 mil lion 0.392 mil lion pounds pounds pounds pounds (tails) (tails) (tal Is) (tails) per year per year per year per year Each year's take of brown, white, and pink shrimp will be heavily Influenced by water salinity and temperature during critical periods of estuarine shrimp growth. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) estimates for the seabobs and rock shrimp cannot be made with any authority because they are caught Incidentally by fishermen trawling for the other species. Seabobs and rock shrimp are caught Incidental to the three main species of penaeld shrimp. estimates are weakened because of lack of data. MSY None of the stocks appear to be biologically overflshed. Major concern for future stocks Is related to concern for adequate habitat, particularly for the estuarine-dependent brown, white, and pink shrimp, which account for most of the annual shrimp harvest. 1 The genus Hymenopenaeus Is the same as Pleotlcus according to Isabel Farfante. 2-1 ~ The effects of shrlmplng on sea turtles and Incidentally caught finfish are considered In the plan. The fishery Is the most valuable and probably the most diverse In the nation. Harvesters Include (1) a large commercial fleet fishing the Inshore, nearshore Gulf, and open' Gulf waters, (2) an undetermined (but large) number of recreational shrimpers mainly fishing the Inshore and nearshore Gulf waters, and (3) a substantial number of bait shrimpers mainly fishing the Inshore waters. Processed products Include frozen, canned, fresh, and breaded shrimp as wel I as a host of specl alty Items. Present management regimes differ In the fishery over the allowable size of shrimp at first harvest as size Is related to whom can harvest and process the shrimp. Unfortunately, socioeconomic data are Insufficient for this complex fishery to evaluate fully the relative needs of various user groups for shrimp of different sizes. Care has therefore been taken In making recommendations to reduce the waste of current culling practices so that one user group will not be favored over another. No recommendations are made on limiting fishing effort because the resource Is not biologically overflshed. There Is Insufficient socioeconomic data to suggest methods or reasons, consistent with MFCMA, to limit entry at this time. During a period of public review of the Draft Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 21 public hearings were held and written comments were received by mall. Public comments and responses are contained In the Final Environmental Impact Statemnt. The p I an I s to be rev I ewed annua I I Y so that management measures can be eva I uated for the I r fa lr ness and effectiveness and so that other methods of optimizing yield can be assessed. Problems In the Fishery (See Section 8.3) The Councl i has Identified the following problems associated management regime and has prepared the plan objectives to address access fishery, a management regime to maximize protein ylel d and of Importance. with the fishery and the present and alleviate them. In a free economic return to the fisherman Is 1) Conf II ct among user groups as to area and size at wh I ch shr I mp are to be harvested. 2) Discard of shrimp through the wasteful practice of culling. 3 ) The continuing decline In the Quality and Quantity of estuarine and associated Inland habitats. 4 ) Lack of comprehens I ve, coord I nated and eas II y ascerta I nab Ie management authorl t I as over shrimp resources throughout their ranges. '5) Conflicts with other fisheries such as the stone crab fishery In southern Florida, the groundflsh fishery of the north central Gulf, and the Gulf's reef fish fishery. 6 ) i ncldental capture of sea turtles. 7 ) Loss of gear and traw II ng grounds due to man-made underwater obstruct Ions. 8) Partial lack of basic data needed for management. 2-2 2.1 Goa I and Obj ect I ves GOAL: To manage the shrimp fishery of the United States waters of the Gulf of Mexico In order to attain the greatest overal' benefit to the nation with particular reference to food production and recrea tional opportunities on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield as modified by relevant economic, social or ecological factors. OBJECT I VES: 1. Optimize the yield from shrimp recruited to the fishery. 2. Encourage habitat protection measures to prevent undue loss of shrimp habitat. 3. Coord I nate the deve I opment of shr I mp management measures by the GMFMC with shr I mp management programs of the several states, where feasible. 4. Promte consistency with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 5. Minimize the Incidental capture of finfish by shrimpers, when appropriate. 6. Minimize conflicts between shrimp and stone crab fishermen. 7. Minimize adverse effects of underwater obstructions to shrimp traw II ng. 8. Provide for a statistical reporting system. 2.2 Management Measures Cons I dered and Adopted (See Sec. . 8.5.1.1 ) In order to obtain the above objectives, the Council has adopted the following management measures: Measure 1: Establish a cooperative permanent closure with the State of Florida and the U.S. Department of Commerce of the area de II neated I n Tab Ie 8.3-1 to protect sma i i pink shr I mp until they have generally reached a size range larger than 69 tails to the pound. Measure 2: Establish a cooperative closure of the territorial sea of Texas and the adjacent U.S. FCZ with the State of Texas and the U.S. Department of Commerce durl ng the time when a substantial portion of the brown shrimp In these waters weigh less than a count of 65 tails to the pound (39 heads-on shrimp to the pound). Measure 3: Recommend that all Gulf states consider establishing shrimp management sanctuaries In Important segments of nursery grounds under their sole jurisdiction. Measure 4: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has established an Internal committee to review and assess the status of Gulf fishery habitats, with particular attention to those factors which might further stimulate "the downward trends In Quality and Quantity of fish habitats." (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, et al., 1977.) Measure 5: The Gulf states are encouraged to adopt flexible management procedures which would provide regulation by administrative agencies of the shrimp resources In Inland waters and terrltorl al seas. 2-3 Measure 6: The Gu I f states are encouraged to adopt rec I proca I I nterna I management dec I s Ions flexible enough to allow joint management of shrimp with other states and with the Department of Commerce. Measuré 7: Develop and Implement an educational program to Inform shrimpers of status of sea turtle populations and of proper methods of resuscitation and Incidentally captured sea turtles. the current return to sea of Measure 8: Encourage research on and deve i opment of shr I mp I ng gear I n order to reduce the I ncl denta i catch without decreas I ng the overa I I ef f I c I ency of shr I mp I ng or excess I ve i y I ncreas I ng the cost of gear. Measure 9: Consistent with the Stone Crab Management Plan, establish a seasonal closure of a portion of the Dry Tortugas shrimp grounds In order to avoid gear conflicts with stone crab fishermen. Measure 10: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will attempt to reduce, where feasible, the loss of offshore trawlable bottom by establishing within GMFMC, a committee to monitor and review construction of offshore reefs, with attention to the needs of the reef f Ish and shrimp user groups. Measure 11: All statistical reporting requirements will be mandatorx. 2.3 Operational Definitions of Terms Used Acceptable Blologlcal Catch (ABC) Is a seasonally determined catch that may differ from MSY for biological reasons. It may be lower or higher than MSY In some years for species with fluctuating recruitment. It may be set lower than MSY In order to rebuild overflshed stocks. Annual Crop Is a species which Is harvested essentially as a o-year class (less than one year of age) . Boats are crafts that displace less than five gross tons. Catch Per Unlt of Effort (CPUE) Is the total number or weight of fish harvested by a defined unit of fishing effort. Commrcial Shrimpers are shrimpers who sell any portion of their catch. Culling Is the practice of discarding those shrimp caught which are smaller than a size the fisherman wishes to retain. Determlnatlon for Total Allowable Level of Forelgn Flshlng (TALFF). The fore.ign allowable catch Is determined by deducting the expected domestic annual harvest from the optImum yield. Detritus Is considered as decaying plant material and Its associated community of microscopic plants and animals. Domestlc Annual Flshlng Capaclty (DAFC) Is the total potential physical fishing capacity of the fleet, modified by logistic factors. The components of the concept are: a. An Inventory of total potential physical capacity, defined In terms of appropriate vessel and gear characteristics (that Is, size, horsepower, hold capacity, gear design, etc.). 2-4 b. Loqlstlc factors determlnln9 total annual and gear performance, trip len9th between constra I nts, etc.). flshln9 capacity, (that Is, variations In vessel flshln9 locations and landln9 points, weather Domestlc Annual Processlng Capaclty (DAPC) Is the amount that can be processed If supplies are available. EQulllbrlum Yleld (EY) Is the annual or seasonal harvest that maintains the resource at approxi mately the same level of abundance (apart from the effects of environmental variation) In succeeding seasons or years. Estuarlne Dependent Species are those or9anlsms that must complete a portion of their life cycle within an estuary. Expected Domestic Annual Harvest (EDAH) Is the total expected catch of the U.S. shrimp fleet. Fishery Con servat Ion Zone (FCZ) I s the area of federa I j ur I sd I ct Ion, beg Inn I ng at the outer II m It of the states' territorial seas and extending 200 miles from shore. FlshlnQ Effort Is the total flshln9 gear In use for a specified period of time. Flshln9 Mortality Includes all deaths to The exploited populations associated with the harvesting pract Ices. Growth Overflshlng Is a level of effort whIch prevents the exploited population from providing Its maximum yield but does not Impare the reproductive capacity of the stock. Incidental Catch refers to The catch of species other than the target species (bycatch). Inland Waters (Inside waters) are areas of state jurisdiction and Include al I bays and lagoons Inland from the baseline from which the territorial sea Is measured. Maxlmum Economlc Efflclency (MEE) Is that level of fishing effort at which the value to society of the last unit of shrimp produced Is equal to the cost to society of producln9 that unit. Maxlmum Economlc Yleld (MEY) Is the level of harvest from the common property resource that maximizes the stream of generated net Incomes over time. Maxlmum Sustalnable Yleld (MSY) Is an average over a reasonable length of time of the largest catch which can be taken continuously from a stock, under current environmental conditions. Natural Mortality Includes deaths from al i causes except capture by man. Omnivore Is an animal which eats whatever dead or alive animal or plant material Is available. Optimum Yield (OY) with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish: (a) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities; and (b) which Is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from such fishing, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. 2-5 ( ~ Recreational Shrimpers are shrimpers who do not sell their catch. Recrultment Overflshlng Is used to denote that level of fishing effort which reduces the spawning stock size to the point where there Is a reduction In the amount óf young recruited to the fishery. Spawner-Recrult Relationship Is the Quantifiable relationship between the number of reproducing adults and the resulting number of young recruited to the fishery. Stock I s a group of fish manageab Ie as a un It. Target Species are the species at which the fishery Is directed. Terrltorlal Sea Is the area of state jurisdiction extending from the baseline to three nautical miles seaward for Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and to nine nautical miles for Texas and the Fiori da west and northwest coasts. Total Allowable Level of Forelgn Flshlng (TALFF) Is any surplus In the optimum yield above the expected domest I c annua i harvest. Unlt Flshlng Effort Is a measure of harvesting pressure whIch has been adjusted to account for differences In the ability of boats and vessels of different types to harvest the resource. Vessels are crafts with displacement greater than or equal to five gross tons. Year-class Is the fish spawned In a given year. Yield Is the amount of a species harvested by man. 2-6 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHERY 3.1 Area and Stocks I nvo I ved The fishery being addressed Is comprised of the species listed below and occurs In the area of jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councl l as wel I as In the area of jurisdiction of the various Gulf states Including their territorial seas, associated bays, Inlets, wetlands, and upland areas as appropriate. Consideration of this large area Is necessary because of the migratory natures of the exploited species and fishermen, the critical role of estuaries In the life cycles of the dominant shrimp species, and the Impacts upland alterations may have on the Quality of shrimp habitat. Shrimp species within the fishery are: Brown shr I mp (Penaeus aztecus I ves) White shrimp (Penaeus setlferus Llnnaeus) Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) Roya i red shr I mp (Hymenopenaeus robustus Sml th) Seabobs (Xlphopeneuskroyerl Heller) INCIDENTAL BYCATCH Rock shr I mp (S I cyon I a brev I rostr I s St I mpton ) i NC I DENTAL BYCATCH In addition to these shrimp species, shrimpers also catch sea turtles and other shellfish and finfish. The sea turtle catch Is of concern to the development of this plan because all the sea turtles which occur In the Gulf are listed as either endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act which prohibits capture of endangered species. Though primary responsibility for protection of these sea turtle species lies with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the plan contains appropriate suggestions to minimize the Impact on sea turtle populations. The Incidental catch of other shellfish and finfish Is also of concern because much of this catch Is discarded at sea. Since much of the discarded catch Is dead or dies as a result of being caught, this operation largely represents a direct conversion of national resources I nto food for scavengers. Many of these resources can be used by other national Interests. Primary responsibility for managing these resources lies with the GMFMC, NMFS, and the Gulf states. Management plans are currently being prepared by GMFMC for two major bycatch groups--groundflsh and reef flsh--In which appropriate measures are suggested to reduce this bycatch. In addition, the groundflsh management plan contains a thorough treatment of current efforts to develop markets for these dl scarded specl es. Brown shrimp range along the north Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, to the northwestern coast of Yucatan. The range I s not cont I nuous but I s marked by an apparent absence of brown shrimp along Florida's west coast between the Sañlbel and the Apalachlcola shrlmplng grounds (Perez Farfante, 1969). In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, catches are high along the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi coasts. Mark-recapture experiments Indicate a mixing of brown shrimp populations along the north central and northwestern Gulf coast. A southward drift of brown shrimp off the Texas coast towards Mexico has been proposed (Gunter, 1962). There Is some speculation that the Mississippi River may act as a barrier to east-west migration. Brown shrimp are caught out to at least 50 fathoms, though most come from less than 30 fathoms. The season begins In May, peaks In June and July, and gradually declines to an April low. 3-1 White shrimp range along the Atlantic coast from Fire Island, New York, to Saint Lucie Inlet, Florida, and along the Gulf coast from the mouth of the Ochlachonee River, Florida, to Campeche. In the Gulf there are two centers of abundance: one along the Louisiana coast and one In the Campeche area (Perez Farfante, 1969). There appears to be a general mixing of white shrimp west of the Mississippi River to at least the northeast coast of Mexico, with an observed northward migration along the Mexico-Texas shore to at least Aransas Pass, Texas, during the spring (Lindner and Anderson, 1956). A reciprocal southward movement In the fall and winter has been proposed (Gunter, 1962). It has been suggested that again the Mississippi River may act as a barrier In east-west migration (Lindner and Anderson, 1956; Perez Farfante, 1969). White shrimp are a comparatively shallow-water shrimp, with most of the catch coming from less than 15 fathoms. Annua I catch has two peaks: the major one I n I ate summer-ear I y fa I i, with an October high; the minor one Is the "Easter fishery" on over-wintered shrimp which peaks In May. Largest U.S. catches occur west of the Mississippi River to the Freeport, Texas, area, though catch Is considerable a i ong the ent I re north centra I and western Gu If. Pink shrimp range along the Atlantic from lower Chesapeake Bay south to around the Florida Keys and up and around the Gulf coast to Isla Mujeres, Mexico. They are also found In the Bermuda Islands and the northern coast of Yucatan. Major concentrations are off southwest Florida and In the south eastern part of Gol fo de Campeche (Perez Farfante, 1969). The two major pink shr I mp grounds southwes tern F i or I da. There I s II tt I e from largely dl fferent estuarl ne areas I n the Un I ted States are the Tortugas and movement of shr I mp between 'these grounds, (Costello and A lien, 1965). Sanlbel grounds In and they are derived Pink shrimp catch comes mainly from less than 25 fathoms, with a peak catch at 11 to 15 fathoms. Because of continuous recruitment In southeastern Florida, the catch exhibits a broad peak October through May. U.S. catch Is mainly restricted to Florida and Is greatest In southwestern Florida. Royal red shrimp are deepwater shrimp occurring as far north as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to as far south as the coast of the Gulanas, and primarily In depths of 140 to 300 fathoms. Concentra tions of royal red are known to exist In three geographical areas: (1) east of St. Augustine, Florida, I n the western Atlantic; (2) south-southeast of the Dry Tortugas In the Florida Straits; and (3) southeast of the Mississippi River Delta In the Gu If of Mexico (Roe, 1969). Seabobs are caught most often In In estuaries (Renfro and Cook, 1963). through December. shallow waters at six to seven fathoms or less and almost never U.S. catch Is highest along the Louisiana coast In October Rock shrimp occur along the Atlantic coast from Virginia to the Florida Keys and up along the Gulf coast to Cabo Catoche, Mexico (Cobb, et al., 1973; Hildebrand, 1954). Major concentrations occur at Cabo Catoche, Mexico, and In the Cape Canaveral, Florida, area (Christmas and Etzold,1977). Major Gulf catch (1971-1975) comes from the Panhand Ie area of Florida at depths of 10 to 22 fathoms (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). 3.2 History of Exploitation 3.2.1 Domst I c Fishery 3-2 ,~ - 3.2.1.1 Descr I pt Ion of User Groups The shrimp fIshery of the Gulf can be dlvlded Into four general categorIes of users -- harvesters (dIrecly Involved In the takIng of shrImp), processors, marketers, and consumers. The actual takIng of shrimp Is done by recreatIonal fIshermen, commercIal bait shrimpers, and commercial (food) shrImpers. The commercIal shrimp user category Includes employees as well as owners of vessels and may be divided Into sma I ler boat operations, which are restricted to Inland bay and shallow offshore activities, and the offshore vessels, which range from the territorial seas out to the i Imlts of the FCZ and Into foreign waters. The structure of the shrimp fishery Includes a large number of harvesters, the boatyard and gear Industry, and the suppliers of Ice and fuel (essential Inputs for shrlmplng operations). Procssors Include the shrimper as a first level processor, If he heads the shrImp. Fish houses may perform one or all processing activities such as headIng, peeling, grading, packing In Ice, and freezIng, cooing, or drying. The non-shrimper processors handle the shrimp between the fish house and the purchaser. The three basic types of processors are: (1) producers of "green" (fresh) or fro zen shrimp; In 1974 they accounted for 86.25 million pounds valued at $152.6 million, or 59 percent of the total value of shrimp produced In the Gulf that year; (2) "breeders," who In 1974 produced 52.66 million pounds of breaded shrimp (Including Imports) valued at $75.7 million, or 29 percent of the total value of shrimp processed In the Gulf regIon (Florida and Texas acconted for 91 percent of the breaded shrimp); (3) canners, who generallý use sma i 1- TO medIum-sized shrImp; such canning plant~ are located primarily In south Louisiana and Mississippi, with the greatest concentration found In the New Orleans area. They accounted for $13.1 million worth of canned shrimp represented by 1.9 mIllion standard cases, or seven percent of the total value of all shrimp processed In the Gulf region. In addition, there Is a wide' array of specIalty Items such as dried shrimp, gumbo, etc. Restaurants are also an Important processing entIty. It Is estimated that more shrimp are consumed In restaurants than used In homs. The role of restaurants as processors ranges from mInimal, limited to the actual cookIng process, to the handling of shrimp In raw and unpeeled form. Marketing of shrimp Involves every stage of the Industry; there also are groups which engage solely In marketing. with their processing function limited to possible repackaging. TransportatIon of shr I mp Is usual i y hand I ed by trucks operated by the who I esa I e market I ng ent I ties. Consumers are given a choice of several different ways to purchase shrimp, ranging from heads-on to stove-eady status. 3.2.1.2 General Description of FIshery Effort Prior to the Introduction of the otter trawl In 1917, most shrimp were commercially harvested In shallow Inshore areas wIth haul seines. WhIte shrimp were the main shrimp caught and marketed until the early 19505. QuantIties of seabobs and brown shrimp were used for .drled products. DurIng these years, fishIng efforts were concentrated In areas where whIte shrimp were abundant. From 1917 to the late 1940s,most shrimp were caught from vessels rigged wIth single otter trawls which operated withIn about sIx miles of shore. However, vessels occasionally went out about ten miles and, In som I nstances of f Lou I s I ana, out fifty mIl es. Wing or butterf I y nets were a I so use I n Lou I s I ana passes. By the ear I y 1950s, I ncreased markets for brown and pink shr I mp and the dIscovery of new fIsh I ng grounds Initiated a period of rapId expansIon of the shrimp Industry. As a result, so vessels bean to move farther offshore because of the Increasing difficulty of making profItable catches on tradi tIonal fishing grounds. By the early 1960s, U.S. shrimp vessels were fishing off the coasts of MexIco 3-3 " ì and South AmerIca. A major change In gear methodology took place In the late 1950's with the Intro duction of double-rig trawlIng. Two small trawls were pulled Instead of a single large net, resulting In a substantial Increase In catch efficiency and a reduction of handling problems. Double-rig trawls were used by most vessels fishing for pink and brown shrimp. More recently the twin-trawl has becom popular In the offshore Gulf shrimp fleet because of Its efficiency (Figure 3.2-11). With this arrangement four smal I trawls are towed Instead of two from a sIngle vessel. The Inshore shrimp fishery Is primarIly confined to the territorial waters of each of the Gulf states. There are numerous small bots rigged with single otter trawls whIch harvest shrimp commercially from the bays and marshes. Som of the boats may fish In the Gulf during favorable weather condItions, especially for wh I te shr Imp. Fish I ng ef forts for roya i red shr I mp occur I nterm I ttent I y when shr I mp I ng along the coast I spoor. Royal red shrimp are harvested from vessels using a single trawl. The deep-water habItat of the species necessItates the use of heavier winches and cables than are used to catch shallow-water shrimp species and, In general, the use of larger vessels. The lIve-bait shrImp fishery Is generally limited to bays and the shallow Inshore waters of the Gulf. Bait shrimp catches on the Florida west coast consIst primarIly of pink shrimp. whIch are har vested In shallow grass beds from boats equipped with sIngle or double side-frame trawls. The bait shrimp fishery In the remIning Gulf states Is usually dependent upon white and brown shrImp, whIch are harvested with bots rigged with a single-otter trawl. Mortality of the live shrImp Is mInImIzed by trawling for short durations during the cooler early morning hours and then rapIdly sorting the catch. The limited capacity of live-holding facilities aboard the boat and the perishability of I..he shrimp probably restrict bait shrlmplng operatIons to areas near the dealer where the catch Is sold. The dealer In turn, however, may transport live shrimp considerable distances, I.e.. 200 or more miles. Recreational shrlmplng efforts are generally concentrated In shallow Inshore waters, though few Individuals may occasIonally vent~re Into the territorial sea durIng favorable weather conditions. It I s un II ke I y. however, that any recreat lona I shr I mpers operate I n the fishery conservat Ion zone. The boats used In the recreatIonal shrimp fIshery are usually outboard or Inboard pleasure craft rigged to tow a single otter trawl ranging from about 16 to 40 feet In width. Although most of the recreational catch Is harvested with otter trawls, other gear such as cast nets, wing nets. channel nets, and dip nets may account for a substantial amount of the harvest In local.lzed areas. The actual amount of fIshIng effort applied In the shrImp fishery and a more descriptive analysis of the gear employed are discussed In detail In several other sections of the management plan. For example, see Sections 3.2.1.4. 3.5.2.1. 3.5.2.4, 3.5.3.2, 4.7 and 5.0. Fishing effort In the shrimp fIshery from a physIcal standpoInt Increases through more vessels entering the fishery and through more technologically efficIent harvesting techniques. More units of effort due these two factors occur due to Industry responses to hIgh profit levels and returns on Investment. Becuse of the open access characteristic of the shrImp fishery and some periods of rapidly rising product prIces, fishing . effort sometimes reaches levels beyond that whIch yIelds satisfactory economic returns durIng certain . time perIods. The reasons for thIs occurrence In a fishery and Its relation to perIodically poor finan CIal years In the shrimp fishery are dIscussed In detal i In Sections 3.5.2.3 and 5.1.2. . 3.2.1.3 Catch Trends Trends In the shrImp fishery dIscussed here are based on two data sets. The first Is the reported commercial catch by specIes (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1959-1975). The second Is the re ported commercIal landings by state (U.S. Department of Commerce. 18801975). These two data sets are not Identical. The catch Is the amount of shrImp caught In a specific Inshore or offshore area. Landings are the total catch. whose orIgIn may not be known. delIvered at a port and sold commercially. ~4 ( 3.2.1.3.1 ComrcIal Catch Trends by Species Annua' Catch Patterns + The average annual reported commercial catch of shrimp ~one standard deviation) by species In the U.S. Gulf area: Brown shr I mp 66.5 ~ 16.6 mil II on pounds (hils) 36.9 + 7.2 mil ii on pounds (hils) 13.0 + 1.8 mil lion pounds (tall s) .83 + .091 million pounds (tails) 1.4 + 1.6 million pounds (hils) .331 ~ .358 million pounds (tails) Wh Ite shr Imp 1 Pink shrimp Roya I Red shr I mp * Seabob shrimp .. Rock shrImp ... 1963-1977 . 1959-1975 .. 1959-1975 ... 1971-1976 The most recent Information, 1977, Indicates that brown, white and pink shrimp account for 97 percent of the total catch. This ref lects essentially no change from the average total catch of 98 percent for the 1959-1975 period. Shrimpers, processors, consumers, and resource managers recognize the hIstorIcal annual varIation In annual catches of the dominant species (brown, white, pink). The vulnerability of shrImp during the critical estuarine growth phase to environmental pertubatlons Is the basic cause of catch varIation (Section 4.1). Griffin and others (1976) calculated a yield function for shrimp using the level of discharge from the Mississippi. Discharge was useful because of Its Impact on salinIty and temperature while the shrimp are In the nursery ground. Two recent Incidences of environmntally Induced problems with shrimp production resulted In the Small Business AdminIstration (SBA) declaring areas of Louisiana and Texas to have suffered economic disasters. Tropical storms In coastal areas of Texas durIng 1979 caused heavy rains wh Ich SBA found to adversely affect the shrimp catch. Heavy sprIng ralnfal Is In LouIsIana during 1980 were judged by SBA to have severely Impaired brown shrimp catch. Boh of these natural events caused unacceptable variation, In the eyes of SBA, In earning potential of small businesses. The variation In catch of the thre~ minor species Is more related to the market conditions and the supply of other shrimp than to variation In their abundance. This Is particularly evident for seabob shrimp. Primarily a fall-early winter fishery off Louisiana, ca.tch has fallen only once between 1969-1975 compared to the white shrimp fishery decline In catch during fIve of those years (Fig. 3.2-1 and Fig. 3.2-2). Catch for a given year appears to be Independent of the preceedlng year's catch. The absence of any def I ned spawner-recru It relatlonsh Ip suggests that the shrimp catch can fluctuate wi del y from year to year. The critIcal determinant Is estuarl ne environmental conditions wh Ich vary annually, often times radically. No apparent or significant linear trends In annual catches of brown, white, or pink shrimp (Fig. 3.2-1 and Table 4.7-1) have yet been determined. 3-5 Brown Shrimp White Shrimp Pink Shrimp " ---~ 100 3 59 60 61 62 63 6. 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 710 75 Yeor 6 '77 59 60 .61 62 63 6. 65 7772 73 74 75 16 14 13:: oi: 12 i: .2 :: 11~ . ~. 60 ~ ~ 63 6. 65 66 67 ~ M ro ~ 72 ~ 74 ~ Yeor 6 17 Figure 3.2-1. Annual reported commercial catch of brown, white, and pink shrimp from the US Gulf of Z.iexico (US Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-1977). Weight is in pounds of tails. 3-6 3D Seabob i 2. Shrimp I J ~ U 1. .5 63 ~ 65 66 9 61 '" 10y 770 2AO 210 180 Royal Red Shrimp ..~ c:" o.. ~ c: o; o oJ.. 120 90 60 30 63 ~ bS 66 ti 68 72 74 75 7673 69 70 71 72 7A 75 76 7773 Yeor Annual reported co~e~c~al catch of seabob (1963~1975) and royal red shrimp (1963-1977) fro~ the U. S. Gulf of Mexico (U. S. Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data,1963-l975). Weight is in pounds of tails. Figure 3.2-2. 3-7 ~ì Annual catch of minor species has Increased with time (Table 4.7-3). As effort Increased to harvest major species, the catch of minor species Increased (Table 4.7-1). Annual catch of royal red shrimp ranged between 4,600 and 270,000 pounds of. tails with an average Increase of 14,000': 5,000 pounds of tails per year (1963-1976). The acceptability of seabob shrimp In Louisiana by the canning Industry was In part responsible for the catch Increase over the 1963-1975 period (Fig. 3.2-2). The seabob catch results In part from incldentlal catch during white shrlmplng activitIes (Table 4.7-5), though a targeted fIshery develops when price Is high and other shrimp are In short supply (P. Juneau, personal communication, 1978). The reported catch of rock shrImp Is relatIvely recnt, with the first report occurring In 1971. Catch for the 1971-76 period Is lIsted In Table 4.7-3. Rock shrImp are mostly caught Incidentally with other species, especially pink shrimp (Table 4.1-9), however, a small dIreced fishery does exist. Area D I str I but I on of the Catch The reported commercial catch of shrimp Is classified by NMFS Into 21 areas along the U.S. Gulf coast (Fig. 3.2-3). The average annual commercial catch by area Is compared for brown, whIte, and pink shrimp In Fig. 3.2-4 and for royal red, seabob, and rock shrimp In Fig. 3.2-5. Brown and white shrimp exhibIt a slml rar broad peak In catch from the Apalachee to Brownsvl I Ie areas. Pink shrimp catch Is substantIal In the Key West to Apalachee Bay areas. There Is lIttle over I ap of dom I nant pink areas with brown or wh I te shr Imp. Brown shrimp catch normlly exceeds two mIllion pounds of tails annually In each of the NMFS grid areas In the Blloxl to Brownsvllie areas. The Freeport area normlly has the largest catch, averagl ng 12 million pounds of tails annually. Wh~te shrimp catch normlly exceeds four millIon pounds of tails annually In the Baratarla, Terrebonne, and Atchafalaya areas. Catches from the Rockefeller through Freeport areas are also normally high, averaging about 2.5 mIllion pounds of tails annually. Pink shr I mp harvest I s concentrated I n the Dry Tortugas areas with an annual catch of nine ml I "on pounds of tails. There are two main areas for the royal red shrimp catch. One Is off the Dry Tortugas areas; the other Is off the mouth of the Mississippi River and Is reported for the Blloxl and Baratarla areas. Catch Ish I ghest from January through June and I n September and occurs at depths of 100 to 300 fathoms. Seabob catch Is normlly highest In waters associated with the LouIsIana coast, peak catch normally occurring In the Atchafalaya area at 0.5 million pounds annually. Rock shrimp catch (1971 to 1975) Is maInly limited to waters associated wIth Florida. Annual catch Is hIghest In the Panam City and Apa lachee areas. Month, Depth, and Size Patterns In Catch of Brown, White and Pink ShrImp Br.own and wh I te shr I mp exh I bIt dl st I nct annual cyc les I n the I r abundance and size at different. depths ¡"n the shrlmplng grounds of the U.S. Gulf. Although pink shrimp have an expected size-depth relatIonship (Section 4.1), theIr seasonal and size patterns In reported commercl al catch are nat as d ramat I c as those of brown and wh I te shr I mp; pink shr I mp have a more or I es s cont I nua i recru I tmnt In the Dry Tortugas area and Florida has practiced area closures to protec undersized pink shrimp. Pink shrimp catch (FIg. 3.2-8) exhibIts a peak from October through May at 11 to 15 fathoms. Seasonal pat terns In size or depth of catch are not pronounced because of the fairly continual recruitmnt of pink shrimp In the Dry Tortugas area and closure of the Tortugas shrimp bed by Florida to protec under sIzed shrImp. 3-8 ". .. !' fI "" I i i- I. '5,~,t5 i I i I I :t --L-- ------I- :t I I I I I 17 16 I I I I I i I I I I i ~) Ii I . I CULr 0 r MIXICO . ~ i--%---~~- ., -- . - . I , Area code index to prominant city, bay, or federal game reserve associated with the area: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ZO. Zl. Key Wes t Dry Tortugas . Everglades Naples Tampa Tarpon Springs Apalachee Panama City Fort Walton Mobile Biloxi Chandeleu ( Barataria Terrebonne Atchafalaya Rocked eller Calcasieu Galveston Freeport Corpus Christi BroWTsville Figure 3. Z.:3. National Marine Fishery Service Shrimp Fishery Grid Zones in the US Gulf of Mexico (US Department of Commerce, Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-1975). 3-9 12 Brown Shrimp . l 10 8 .! ! II ~ ~ 6 ~i 4 2 r r o 1 3 5 7 Floida 9 111 113 15 1 1:;'lll Louisiana 19 2 Texas 5 Whil. Shrimp 4 .! ! 3 II ~ ::o a. l 2i o 1 3 5 7 Florida 10 Pink Shrimp 8 .! ! 6 II ~ ~ .. ~ 4 i 2 o 1 Figure 3.2-4. Average reported commercial catch of brown, white, and pink shrimp along the US Gulf Coast (US Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-1975). Catch is represented as averages reported for the 21 NMS statistical reporting zones along the US Gulf Coast (Fig. 3.2-3). 3-10 . .. !: ¡ o.. i i.. '0..¡c. :J ~ '0 ~1 o.. '0 ~ o. ~ I .c.. 3 .. .. !: Figure 3.2-~. Average reported ~ommr~1al ~at~h of seabob (1963-197~), ro~k (1971-197~), and royal red shr1mp (1963-197~) along the US Culf Coast (US Dept. Com.. Culf Coast Shr1mp Data, 1963-197~) - Averages are for the 21 NMS 8tat18t1~al reportiDl zones (F1g- 3.2-3). 3,.11 .( As shown In FIg. 3.2-6, the fishery on o-year class brown shrimp normlly starts In Inland waters In May on shrImp of a count greater than 67 tails to the pound. The Inshore catch peaks In June at an average catch of 6.6 ml III on pounds of ta II s. A Ithough I t cons I sts ma In' y of sma Iler size shr I mp, this Inshore catch Is popular among recreational and small boat commercl al shrimpers whose gear does not normally al low them to fish the open waters of the Gulf. The offshore fishery for brown shrImp peaks In Ju Iy and August at depths of 11 to 20 fathoms. The dominant size class In the reported commercial catch Is 31 to 40 taIls to the pound. The actual average size shrImp caught may be much smaller since a considerable number of undersized shrimp are dIscarded off the Texas coest (Baxter, 1973; SecIons 4.7 and 8.3) and the primary brown shrimp catch during this time also occurs off the Texas coast. The September brown shrimp catch Is domInated by 26 to 30 talls-to-the-pound shrimp at 16 to 20 fathoms. The catch becomes further restricted to deeper waters and larger shrImp In October to December. The January to April pattern Is relatively constant, with greatest catch In open Gulf waters of 21 to 40 fathoms and of shr I mp of a count i ess than 21 ta II s to the pound. The s I ze-depth-month patterns In wh I te shr I mp catch are not as simp I e as those of brown shr I mp, but they do ref lect theannua I nature of the wh I te shr I mp' s II fe cyc Ie. The fIshery on the o-year class white shrimp, spawned In the spring and summer, essentially begins In August and September (Fig. 3.2-7). The white shrimp catch In Internal waters contains much larger size shrimp than does the brown shr I mp catch. Th Is size d If ference ref i ects the rap I d growh rate of wh I te shr I mp and the I r tendency to leave the estuaries at a larger size than brown shrImp. Catch remIns comparatively h'gh from August to November, though It Is essentially limited to water shoreward of 11 fathoms. The com parative Increase In shrimp catch In the 68 tails and over count group In October through Deceber reflects a decline In the growth rate of white shrimp as wel I as a migratIon of shrimp to deeper waters. Boh of these phenomena are associ ated wi th col d fronts advancl ng durl ng these months and the accompany 1 ng dec II ne I n temperature. Catch declInes from December through February. The conditions for shrlmplng but also the dwIndling supplies durIng this period. decline reflects, In part, adverse weather and comparatively smal i sIze of wh Ite shrimp In March through June with the sprIng warming of the estuaries and shallow Gulf, the overwintered wh I te shr I mp are be II eved to exh I bIt an I ncrease I n the I r growh rates. Th I s I ncrease I s ref i ectsd In the commercial catch: peak sIze classes of white shrimp shift from those greater than 61 taIls to the pound to 31 to 40 taIls to the pound In March, to shrimp 15 to 20 tails to the pound In June and July. The May and June Inshore catch of whIte shrimp reflects the reentry of overwIntering white shrimp Into the estuaries for a period of pre-spawning growth. Catch by Size, State, and SpecIes for Brown, White and Pink Shrimp Different harvestIng strategies have developed among the several Gulf states. These differences largely relate to the evolution of the domInant fisheries at different tImes (SectIon 3.2.1.2). The Loulslana-lsslsslppl fIshery developed comparatively early on Inshore and nearshore Gulf con centratlons of whIte, brown, and seabob shrImp. The brown shrImp fishery In Texas and the pink shrimp fishery In Florida developed In the 1950s on offshore concentrations of shrImp In comparatively deep water. In large part local management stili reflects the needs of the historIcal fisherIes In these areas for shrimp of certain sIzes or of theIr gear restrictIons limIting the depth of harvest. Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 compare estimates of the average commercIal white, and pink shrimp In the various reported size categorIes In terms (see Table 3.2-2 for method In whIch number of shrimp were estImated). (1963 to 1976) catch of brown, of pounds and estImated number 3-12 Figure 3.2-6. Inland waters . May i ~~ ~ ~ 6876S.-J2 June :: j 876.5" 3 2 I July :L8765.321 'I , Aug. ~876S.tJ2i Sept. Ii L- 876 S" 3 2 1 Oct. 'I~8765.. 3 21 'INov. ~ Dec iC 876.5.. 3 2 1 Jan. 'L Feb. 'L' 816.5.. 3 21 March 'L Apr;1 f7."'"" 876.s..:) 2 1 0-' L ~ L. ~ - .. .. 6 - 10 21 - 2:: Depth in fathoms of Gulf walers 36 - .0ii-is 16 - 20 .-- -- .. .. 26 - 30 )1 -35 .1 -'5 --~ lA 1 J. u.. ~ .. .. ... 46 - so -- -- ~ ---. ~ -- -- . --- ----- --- --- - ~ ----- - - ~~ --- ... ~ Brown shrimp average catch in the US Gulf by size, class, depth, month (US Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-:nS). Code to size of shrimp: 1 = under 15 tails per pound; 2 = 15-20 tails per pound; 3 = 21-25 tails per pound; 4 = 26-30 tails per pound; 5 = 31-40 tails per pound; 6 = 41-50 tails per pound; 7 = Sl-67 tails per pound;" 8 = 68 and over tails per pound. 3-13 Figure 3.2-7. l~ -- --- . Depth in fathoms of Gulf waters Inland waters " 0-' 6 - 10 JI -15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 -30 JI -3, "'I -'536 -'0 40 - so ! "'M~-- - 8765.. J 21 i'll ~ ~ 876"" J 21 j g ~l. .. -Å---876"..:) 2 1 --- l ~L ~ .. 876.5.. 3 2 i 1:5, :i. LQi~ . 876".. 3 2 r ~'LL --8765.. J 2 i ~. .. ~ of i L 8765" J 2 i 1~L 876" .. 3 2 1 ' ¿"La.4( ~ 8765.. 3 2' ¡'L -.. -.. 8765.321 -- , ~ I ~ L - -- -. ..876".. J 2 I 5, ~ ; .¿ L --.8765.. 32 I ~ White shrimp average catch in the US Gulf by size, class, depth, month (US Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-1975). Code to size of shrimp: 1 = under 15 tails per pound; 2 = 15-20 tails per pound; 3 = 21-25 tails per pound; 4 = 26-30 tails per pound; 5 = 31-40 tails per pound; 6 = 41-50 tails per pound; 7 = 51-67 tails per Dound! ~ = ~g - .. ---- u Figure 3.2-8. Infand warers ) 10" a- à-.. i~ 176'021 i ) Feb i .-816'.321 ) Marcn ~- --816.5.321 April 8165.321 Máy i .. -876"32t June i ~81td.J21 July l -8765"32' Au. 8165.321 Sepl i-11765.321 " Oct ii 876"321 " No... ;m i J. Dec 8765"32'1 ë)"'D'l- 'n ¡'JIh.O"', ~, Gull -me" '0 - 20 11 J' ~ 1 l .. .I .. .. .. l .. ---.. Mo .. ..l -- - u -- - A .J L .. - ~ .. .. -- - - L --- l .. l ~1-Å Pink shrimp average catch in the US Gulf by size class, depth, month (US Dept. Com., Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, 1959-1975). Code to size of shrimp: 1 = under 15 tails per pound; 2 = 15-20 tails per pound; 3 = 21-25 tails per pound; 4 = 26-30 tails per pound; 5 = 31-40 tails per pound; 6 = 41-50 tails per pound; 7 = 51-67 tails per pound; 8 = 68 and over tails per pound. 3-15 Catch from the states of MIssissIppi and Alabama were combIned due to sImIlaritIes In the minimum sIze of harvest and overlapping areas In the reported catch statIstics. The brown shrimp catch off the Texas coast accounts for 46 percent of the total poundage and 25 percent of the number of brown shrimp caught commercIally In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The catch asso c I ated with Lou I s I ana accounts for 40 percent of the poundage but 64 percent of the number of commer cially caught brown shrimp. The apparent dl~crepancy i les In the fact that LouIsIana Is estImated to harvest a tremndous number of shrimp In the smallest commercIal sIze category, some 54 percent of average total catch of brown shrImp In the Gulf. Much of these shrImp are utIlIzed In the LouisIana cannIng Industry. Conversely, the reported catch of brown shrImp off Texas, peaks at a larger sIze, 31 to 40 taIls to the poun,d of shrimp. There are no shrImp canneries In Texas and much of thIs pro duct Is utilized by the fresh-frozen Industry. The Introduction of several peeling machines has recntly allowed utilization of smaller shrImp, however. The MIssIssIppI-Alabama and FlorIda catches of brown shrimp exhibIt a peak catch at 51 to 67 tails to the pound sIze category. Lou I s I ana has by far the I argest catch of wh I te shr I mp, account I ng for som 82 percent by number and 77 percent by weight of the average reported catch. As with brown shrImp, the 'peak In catch occurs In the smallest commercial size group, though there Is a comparatIvely better mIx of larger size shrimp than with brown shrImp. The Texas whIte shrimp catch peaks at a sIze sImIlar to the brown shrimp catch, or 31 to 40 taIls to the pound. Though the Florida whIte shrimp catch peaks at the same size class as Its brown shrImp catch, the MIssIssIppI-Alabama catch of whIte shrImp peaks at a larger sIze, 15 to 20 tails to the pound In terms of weight, and 31 to 40 taIls to the pound In terms of number. Florida accounts for 98 percent of the pounds and numbers of pInk shrImp caught In the reported comrcIal fIshery of the U.S. Gulf of MexIco. Pounds and numbers both peak at a sIze of 51 to 67 taIls to the pound. Although the previously mentIoned dIfference In harvesting strategies has resulted In larger shrImp being harvested In Texas vIs-a-vIs Loulslana-lsslsslppl, there has been a trend toward landIng more small shrImp. Call1ouet, e~ al. (1979) report that for brown and whIte shrImp In both LouisIana and Texas there was a sIgnIficant trend toward Increased proportIons of smal I shrImp In the 1959 to 1976 catches. LouIsiana catches contaIn greater proportIons of small shrimp than Texas catches. It Is Important to note that the proportIon of LouisIana Inshore catch In the 68 count and smaller cate gory Increased markedly durIng 1963 to 1976 wIth the major change occurrIng between 1973 to 1976 (Sass, 1979). Sass reports the major change to be In the sIze compositIon of the whIte shrImp catch. 3.2.1.3.2 Land I ng Trends by State The hIstorical pattern of landings among states durIng 1880-1975 Is evIdent In Figure 3.2-9. Landings data dIffer from the catch data used In the preceding section. LandIngs are reported In heads-on unIts and are attributed to the state where off-loaded regardless of catch locatIon. Due to the lengthy hIstorical perIod portrayed, the data may not have been collected consIstently; however, 'the data are suItable for reflectIng long run trends- and accurately depict In recnt tIme the frequent f I uctuat Ion I n land I ngs.' Before about 1920, LouIsIana and MississIppI were the dominant shrImp producIng states In the Gulf. Between 1920 and 1948 the fisheries off Texas and Alabama began to rIval that of MIssIssIppI. At the same time, I.oulslana's landIngs far exceeded any of the other states. During these early years the fIshery was maInly an Inshore and shallow water fIshery predominantly of whIte shrimp, wIth minor catches of seabob and brown shrimp used mainly as dried shrimp. After World War II, the fishery began to expand. Sudden Increases of landings In Texas and Florida were due to the discovery of concentra tions of offshore populations of brown and pink shrimp, respectively, and the successful development 3-16 T a b le 3 .2 1 . A v e r a g e w e i g h t o f c a t c h o f br ow n, w h i t e , a n d p i n k s h r i m p b y s i z e a n d st at e 1 i n t h o u s a n d po un ds o f ta il s (U S D e p t. C om m .. 1 9 6 3 1 9 7 5 ) ~ S ha ( T a i l . p e r P o u n d ) T ot al S hr ii ip S ta te 6 8 . . o ve r 51 6 1 41 5 0 31 4 0 26 30 21 2 5 15 2 0 U n d e r 1 5 B ro w F L 31 84 50 64 18 4 2 25 9 A L A H I S S 11 24 22 23 12 88 15 13 78 4 61 4 46 1 13 81 46 L A 13 59 8 26 12 16 25 26 36 12 56 15 50 19 14 52 0 25 11 1 T X 13 23 22 81 .. .. .. .. .. i il C U L F 16 68 2 12 06 63 61 12 93 9 '6 48 4 14 62 59 49 10 76 64 15 9 W hi t. F L A 18 9 15 4 81 10 4 64 34 22 1 64 9 A L A H IS S 14 13 3 16 4 26 0 22 0 34 5 37 9 31 16 06 L A 12 20 36 46 21 87 37 80 22 12 26 40 25 93 51 6 24 19 4 W T X l l ~ 12 12 .. i 67 9 13 5 .. I .. C U L P 80 02 45 20 29 22 53 56 32 69 38 12 36 73 68 3 32 23 7 .. P in k F L 11 35 31 99 21 64 21 86 14 11 12 45 54 1 27 12 51 4 A L H IS S 16 19 61 46 23 16 5 1 24 1 L A 1 3 3 3 1 1 12 T X G U P 11 52 32 81 22 28 28 38 11 36 12 63 55 3 2B 12 17 9 S pe cl u G U F 25 83 6 15 00 7 ll 51 1 21 13 3 1l l8 ' 12 53 7 10 11 5 11 81 10 91 15 C o m b I n e d 1 . A L K I S S a t a t i . t i c a l a r e a 1 0 1 1 . L o u i . i a n a . t a t i . t i c a l a r . a 1 2 1 7 . T a x a a a t a t i . t l c a l a r a a 1 8 2 1 . S a. F l o r i d . . . t . t i . t i c a l a r e a 1 9 . F I B . 3 . 2 3 f o r 1 0 c a t t o n o f . , t a t t a t t c a l a r e . . . T ab le 3 .2 2. E a tim a te d a ve ra g e D u m e r1 2 o f b r o w , v h i t e , a n d p i n k a h r i m p b y a i z e a n d a t a t e i n t h o u a a n d a o f a h r i m p ( U S D e p t . o f C o m m . , 1 9 6 3 1 9 7 5 ) . S iz e ( T a i l s p e r P o u n d ) T ot al S hr im p S ta te 6 8 , D v e r 51 6 7 41 5 0 31 4 0 26 3 0 21 2 5 15 2 0 U n d e r 1 5 8r ov F L 25 36 49 54 22 53 22 70 51 3 99 31 12 65 6 A L H IS S 15 17 42 13 11 34 58 61 8 53 69 9 21 94 2 15 51 3 81 74 91 2 44 17 34 L A 21 89 35 5 15 41 16 73 92 0 93 59 7 35 15 9 35 64 0 34 55 4 64 96 26 22 83 7 T X 89 94 9 13 49 49 15 45 94 il ~ ll 61 36 4 .. lQ G U L F 24 33 58 2 42 51 53 28 93 85 45 93 30 18 15 34 17 16 45 10 41 23 13 45 1 40 78 20 3 W hi te F L 12 84 8 90 89 36 69 3 7 0 9 . 17 82 7. 89 38 4 8 32 27 8 A L A H IS S 63 41 78 34 74 61 92 36 61 48 79 39 66 36 38 9 51 98 4 L A 62 09 18 21 51 32 99 52 8 13 42 04 61 93 3 60 72 1 45 37 1 64 46 12 44 25 3 T X 35 29 8 ~ 22 28 3 ~ ~ 18 24 0 11 88 6 16 90 18 86 89 G U L F 67 54 05 26 66 89 13 29 41 19 01 69 91 50 1 87 68 9 64 27 7 85 33 15 17 20 4 P in k F L 77 20 0 18 87 31 98 48 7 98 92 0 39 49 7 28 64 5 95 70 34 3 54 13 93 A L H IS S 13 92 46 58 27 65 16 28 64 0 37 1 90 11 11 55 5 L A 24 1 19 7 12 2 12 2 31 14 7 73 4 T X ~ ~ G U L F 78 83 4 19 36 04 10 13 97 10 07 85 40 19 7 29 04 9 96 85 35 5 55 39 06 W ~ p e c l e s G U L F 31 87 82 1 88 54 46 52 37 23 75 02 84 31 32 32 28 83 83 17 80 85 22 33 9 61 49 31 3 1 i C D m b i n e d 00 I T h e n u m b e r D r s h r i m p c . u g h t i n e . c h s i z e c a t e g D r y v a s e s t i m a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n l . . n n e r i 1f d ze eq u. h T h e n n u m e r e q u a ls p o u n d s tim e s U n d e r 1 5 15 2 0 21 2 5 26 3 0 31 4 0 41 5 0 51 6 7 6 8 . n d D v e r i n F l a o r T x 68 a nd D ve r br ow D r pi nk sh ri in H iu A la 6 8 a n d D v e r b r D w n D r p i n k s h r i m p i n L a 6 8 a n d a v e r w h i t e s h r i i n i n L a D r H i s s A l s 12 .5 17 .5 23 28 35 .5 45 .5 59 68 8 8 .~ l: : 16 1 86 2 F I D r i d a . s t a t i s t i c . l a r e . 1 9 . A L H I S S . s t . t i . t i c a 1 . r e a 1 0 1 1 . F i g . 3 . 2 3 f D r l o c a t i o n o f a t a t i a t i c a 1 a r e a . L o u i a i a n a . . t a t i s t i c a l a r e a 1 2 1 7 . T e x a s . s t a t i . t i c a 1 a r a a 1 8 2 1 . S ea W J .. \C 6 . 8 0 J " I 6 0 .6 .. :i .. : ~ ~ j : ~ " "/ /" . : \ . . ~ . :~ .\ i\ ~ ¡ \ r\ \. .. .. .. 1 . .. .. . . . ..1 1 1 1 ,f " ~ .' .. . . r ~ \ " 1 j A ,. . 4 0 i I \ I ¡ l ii. V \ i ~ . " , \ : . , A A . , J ¿ . ,' .. V '.. ' .' . . . ~ " ' , ''' r' : .. .. .. .. .. .. ., : . . . . . . ~ . I " / ' " . : ' . , ' . ~ . " " ' .' '0 " ~ ~ .. '' ' '' g , . . . . ~ . . " L . ~ ~ .. ,, ., . . . . ." ', .. .' . \ ... ..~ . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... r. ... . .. ... " ~ .~ '.~ . . V . . . . . . . ~ 18 L o ... ... ... .. T 8K M ii s ' .. ' F 1 . . . A lb a 18 19 19 0 19 20 F ig ur e 3. 2 9. 19 Y ea r 19 40 19 50 19 60 19 11 A n n u a l r e p o r t e d c o m m e r c i a l l a n d i n g s o f s h r i m p ( h e a d s o n ) b y G u l f s t a t e ( U S D e p t . C o m . , 1 8 8 0 1 9 7 5 ) . N o t e t h a t l a n d i n g s d a t a a r e f o r h e a d s o n s h r i m p o f f l o a d e d w i t h i n a s t a t e r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e r e t h e y w e r e c a u g h t . T h i s g r a p h i s n o t d i r e c t l y c o m p a r a b l e w i t h c a t c h d a t a u s e d i n t h i s r e p o r t . ~ 1Q B O ' of markets for these species. The gradual decline In landings from Florida (west coast) after 1954 may reflect a change In landing patterns of shrimp caught In Central and South America. The dramatic decline In landings In Louisiana from 1945 to about 1961 may reflect a salinity-Induced shift In estuarine production of the state from predominantly white shrimp to a mixture of brown and white shrimp. However, data are Insufficient to support this hypothesis. The period from the mld-1950s to 1979 clearly depicts two Important features of shrimp landings. First a mature fishery Is evident from the standpoint that landings overall are neither Increasing nor decreasing over time. The maturity Is also visible from the fact that no trend In the share of landings has developed since the mld-1950s. Florida landings may have decreased slightly but Louisiana and Texas have maintained their respective relationships. Figure 3.2-9 also reveals that major fluctuations In landings are common. Peaks and valleys occur frequently and are large In magn 1 tude. Since 1955 the annual landings have reversed the trend set In the preceding year on the average about 50 percent. This Is Interpreted to mean that landings following a good (bad) year are equally likely to Increase or decrease. Shrimp businesses are often financially stressed by the variation In landings. The figure (3.2-9) Indicates that shrimp harvesters cannot assure themselves of astable catch by journeying to adjoining states. Generally, poor (or successful) seasons occur simultaneously , I n the states. 3.2.1.4 Description of Vessels and Gears Employed Early Gulf coast shrimp trawlers were generally shallow-draft open skiffs ranging In length from 15 to 25 feet and powered by Inboard gasoline engines. These early designs were gradually replaced In the 1920's by trawlers constructed with decks and pilot houses (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). The Introduction of the diesel engine In the 1930s was considered a major advancement over gasoline engines In terms of safety, reliability, and reduced maintenance. The limited holding facilities and range of these early trawlers confined shrlmplng operations to areas relatively near the major shrlmplng ports. As a result, many coastal areas of the Gulf were Inaccessible to the small trawlers (Johnson and Lindner, 1934, cited In Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Until the late 1940s, commercial shrimp landings In the Gulf of Mexico consisted primarily of white shrimp (Idyll, 1963). By the early 1950s, however, Increasing Quantities of brown and pink shrimp were being caught and sold In response to a growing public acceptance of these unfamiliarly plgmènted species (Idyll, 1963). The strong demand for shrimp and the opening of new fishing grounds off Florida, Alabama, Texas, and Mexico Initiated a period of rapid growth In the size of the shrimp fleet. The expansion of offshore fishing grounds dictated the need for larger vessels with greater horsepower capable of remaining at sea for extended periods. Innovations In design and construction, such as steel hulls and onboard freezer units, were Incorporated Into the newer offshore trawlers of the late 1940s (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Captlva (1966) stated that the modern trends In the design and construction of shrimp trawlers were: (1) the Increasing use of all-welded steel construction Instead of wood; (2) more powerful engines, (3) on board Installation of sorting, packaging, and freezing equipment; (4) more comfortable crew accommodations; (5) development of multipurpose vessels which may be rapidly rerlgged with a variety of fishing gears; (6) modern hydraulic equipment; (7) Increased use of modern electronic equipment; and (8) Increased use of newer hull materials such as aluminum and fiberglass-reinforce plastics. '-, The shrimp boat design most commonly seen In the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico Is believed to be a derivation of Greek designs used In the sponge fishery on the Florida west coast (Idyll, 1963). The "Florida-type" vessels are characterized by the forward placement of the wheelhouse and engine room. Current construction trends are toward larger offshore Florida-type vessels ranging from 75 to 80 feet or more In length (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). 3-20 The "Blloxl-type" vessel design, with the wheelhouse and engine room aft, Is used shrlmplng In the Inshore waters of the Gulf region (Idyll, 1963). These vessels range feet In length and are less common than the Florida-type ,designs (Idyll, 1963). primarily for from 30 to 45 The boats used In Inshore shrimp fisheries are made of wood or fiberglass and range In length from 16 to 50 feet. Most of the boats use gasoline-powered Inboard or outboard motors for propulsion, and some may be equipped with powered winches to retrieve nets. The smaller boats are rigged In a variety of ways and are primarIly confined to. sheltered Inshore waters. The larger ~oats may occasionally fish offshore If weather conditions are suitable. The "mosquito" fleet of Louisiana Is made up of numerous sma I , boats, generally operated by one person, that shrimp commercially In the . Inshore bays and marshes. These boats are typically shallow-draft, open skiffs. Deep-water trawling for royal red shrimp In the Mississippi and Tortugas grounds has been steadily Increasing In the past few years. Royal reds are fished by wood, steel, and aluminum vessels ranging In length from 56 to 86 feet. Most of the vessels are double-rigged and are capable of shrlmplng In both the shallow and deep water of the Gulf. Smaller vessels and boats usually do not have the winch capacity or sufficient stability In rough seas to fish for royal reds (Klima and Ford, 1970). Although the otter trawl Is the most common of the gears used In the Gulf shrimp fisheries, other kinds of gear are also used. The star trawl was developed for shallow-water shrlmplng In the Gulf of Mexico (Marlnovlch and Whlteleather, 1968, cited In Klima and Ford, 1970). Sideframe trawls, used almost exclusively to harvest bait shrimp on the Florida west coast from Cedar Key to Naples (Woodburn, et al., 1957; Saloman, 1965), are virtually unknown In the other Gulf states. Researchers are conducting experiments with the electric traw I, beam traw I, separator traw I, and excluder panels. Other gear types used by both commercial and recreational shrimp fishermen Include haul seines, cast nets, channel nets, wing nets, and push nets. The haul seine was the primary gear used to harvest shrimp until the Introduction of the otter trawl In Beaufort, North Carolina, between 1912 and 1917 (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Tullan (1920) reports that the otter trawl was Introduced Into the Louisiana shrimp fisheries In 1917. The use of the otter traw i spread rap I d i Y among shr I mp fishermen I n Lou I s I ana becau se of the I ncrease I n catch per man-hour possible over hau I seines. An otter trawl consists of a heavy mesh bag with wings on each side desIgned I nto the codend or ta II. A pa I r of otter boards or traw i doors pos I t loned at the ho i d the mouth of the net open by exert I ng a downward and outward force at tow I ng to funnel the shr I mp end of each wing speed . The two basic otter trawl designs used by the Gulf shrimp fleet are the flat and the semi-balloon trawls (Klima and Ford 1970). The mouth of the flat trawl Is rectangular In shape, whereas the mouth of the semi-balloon design forms a pronounced arch when In operation. The basic design of each trawl type Is shown In Figure 3.2-10. The semi-balloon designs tend to maintain an efficient shape under repeated towing strains; flat nets require perIodic rerlgglng and rehanglng to maintain maximum efficiency (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). The two-seam semi-balloon trawl (Figure 3.2-10) was Intro duced In the Gulf of Mexico In 1947 (Marlnovlch and Whlteleather, 1968, cited In Christms and Etzold, 1977). The two-seam design was followed by the development of the four-seam semi-balloon trawl, which has "a shorter jib with wings on either s I de between the top and bottom be i II es," whereas the "top and bottom bellies were joined directly together" In the two-seam design (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). The four-seam trawl maintains an efficient shape under towing strains and therefore creates less res I stance I n the water than the two-seam traw i. About 90 percent of the fishermen In the royal red fishery use 55 to 75-foot flat otter trawls, and the reminder use semi-balloon trawls ranging In width from 45 to 60 feet (Klima and Ford, 1970). 3-21 CODEND Gulf flat nee COD END Gulf four-seam semi-balloon trawl Figure 3.2-10. ', COD END Two-seam semi-balloon trawl CODEND Star net Diagrams of the four basic designs of otter trawls used by the Gulf of ~lexico shrimp fleet (after Christmas and Etzold 1977). 3~22 .,¡.~~ " ~."'.u "-.?- .. ... .ë...~!...." .. .,- "" - ~ ii~~-...d. '-,;.,'" ,,;. ~~"-' ~~~'~,;., '~~I'~-;3 "\ J:~~~~1~~;:4.¿.:t'=.. ~~~~2f..~,r..r' iE~.:~' I Figure 3.2-11. Diagram of the twin-trawl rig (after Harrington et al. 1972) . 3-23 Try nets are small otter trawls about 12 to 15 feet In width which are used to test areas for shrimp concentrations. These nets are towed during regular trawlIng operations and lifted periodically to al low the fishermen to assess the amount of shrimp and other fish and shellfish being caught. These amounts In turn determine the length of time the large trawls will remain set. Until the late 1950's, most shrimp vessels pulled single otter trawls ranging from 80 to 100 feet In width (Idyll, 1963). Double-rIg trawling was InTroduced Into the shrimp fleet during the late 1950's. The single large trawl was replaced by two sma i ler trawls, each 40 to 50 feet In width, which were towed simultaneosly from stoutly constructed outriggers located on the port and starboard sides of the vesse I s. The port traw I was towed about 150 feet I n back of the starbord traw i to prevent fouling. The advantages of double-rig trawling are (1) Increased catch per unit of effort, (2) fewer handling problems with the small nets, (3) lower Initial gear costs, (4) a reduction In costs asso cIated with damage or loss of the nets, and (5) greater crew safety (Idyll, 1963). The haul seine consists of a large rectangular panel of webbing ranging up to 1,000 feet In length and 20 feet In depth. It was mainly used before 1917. At that time mesh size ranged from 0.5 to 1.5-lnch bar and a large crew was required to set and fish the net. Typically, a corkllne buoyed the top of the net and a lead lIne was attached to the bottom edge. Haul seines were frequently constructed with bags or pockets where the captured shr I mp were forced to congregate. A Ithough the haul seine Is no longer used to harvest commercial Quantities of shrimp, It Is stili licensed In some states. Cast nets are used mostly by sportsmen along tidal creeks, bayous, and weirs where shrimp congregate seasonally. Cast nets are circular, usually ranging from six to 12 feet In diamter, with a leadllnÈÈ sewn around the periphery of the net. A cord line passes through a metal or plastic thimble In the center of the net and radiates out to several smaller cords which are attached at even Intervals to the leadllne. Cast nets are usually constructed of nylon webbing with a 0.25- to 0.75 Inch mesh. The nets are thrown In a circular pattern and allowed to sink to the bottom. The cord line Is pulled In, causing the leadUne to be drawn to the center of the net where the shrimp aretrapped. . Channel nets are statIonary nets whIch resemble otter trawls and catch emigrating shrimp In narrow cuts and bayous In areas with large tidal amplitude. The mouth of the net Is held open with anchors or poles Instead of trawl doors. The contents of the net are periodically dumped Into a small skiff or a box located onshore. Butterfly or wing nets are bags constructed of nylon webbing which are hung on a recangular frame and attached to the side of a boat. Bots equipped for "butterf Iy" shrlmpl ng anchor themselves heading Into the current and lower the nets Into the water perpendicular to the gunwales. The tidal currents are then allowed to sweep emigrating shrimp Into the mouth of the net. The net can be checked without ra I sing the frame by II ft I ng the codend on board with a i azy II ne and empty I ng the contents I nto a sort I ng box. The net I s then put overboard to resume fish I ng wh Ii e the catch Is sorted. Push nets, which are occasionally used to catch shrimp In shallow-water areas of Florida and Texas, are small mesh bags hung on recangular frames. The operation of a push net usually Involves an Individual wading and pushing the net before him In shallow water. " 3-24 Table 3.2':3-. - Estimates of Foreign Catch (in tails) of Shrimp (1971-1976) in Waters Now Considered as Within the US Fishery Conservation Zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Data from Charles Fuss, NMS, personal communication 1978). Foreign country involved: Total Bordering Year Estimated catch estimated state Cuba Mexico Panama foreigncatch - - - - - - Pounds - - - - - - - Florida 1971 57,440 0 0 57,440 1972 10,240 0 0 10,240 1973 20,480 0 0 20,480 1974 75 , 000 0 75 , 000 1975 135,000 105, 000 0 240,000 1976 a a 0 0 6-year average 49,693 17 ,500 67,193 Texas 1971 a 2,783,300 0 2,783,300 1972 a 83,820 a 83,820 1973 1,710,000 a 0 1,710,000 1974 1,110,000 90,000 0 1,200,000 1975 1,665,000 225,000 0 1,890,000 1976 722,750 0 126,000 848,750 6-year average 867,958 530,353 21,000 1,419,311 3~.25 Tabl. 3.2-4. E.ti..t.a of Honthly ForeiR" Effort and Cat~h Dir.~ted Toward Shrimp (1971-1976) in Watera Now Conaidered aa Within the US Fiahery Conaervation Zone of tbe Culf of HeKi~o (vata fro. Char1ea Fuaa, NKS, peraoDal commnication 1978). W.ight ia tail weight. 80rderiDi Pr1lipal Eat1ated EatÚDt8d Eat1atad EatÚDtad Ea t 1a t edf..r Uah1 Uab1n¡ clya --er of catch par totd catchatat.. , vaaa.la montha per vene1 venee daya vesad day (pounda) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Meico - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3.2.2History of Foreign Exploitation3.2.2.1--3.2.2.3 General Description of User Groups, Fishing Effort, Vessels and Gear EmployedForeign shrimp fishing In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has been virtually nonexistent In 1977-1978(Charles Fuss, NMFS, personal communication, 1978) as a result of the passage of the MFCMA. Prior to1971, Mexican vessels had been shrlmplng In U.S. waters for many years; Cubans entered the fishery In1971, and some Panamanian boats shrlmped off Texas In 1976 (Table 3.2-3). Annual harvest for theyears 1971-1976 ranged from zero to 2.8 mil lion pounds In resources In Inland waters and In tails off Florida. Mexican harvest off Texas ranged from zero to 2,783,000 pounds In tails. Cuban boat activities off Texas were concentrated In the months of June, July, and August, the peak brown shrimp season (Table 3.2-4). It Is estimated that 30 boats worked 29 days per month and harvested 408,000 pounds In tails per month. Mexican boats, present In the same waters during the same period, In 1971 totaled 345 and took an estimated 2.3 million pounds. The catch fell sharp Iy In ensul ng years. Cuban boat activities off Florida occurred mainly during the winter months; from one to ten vessels were Involved, and the take was as high as 135,000 pounds In tails annually. Seven Mexican vessels took 105,000 pounds of shrimp tails off Florida In July 1975 (Charles Fuss, NMFS, personal communication, 1978). Foreign vessels are of the same configuration as the U.S. offshore fleet and utilIze similar gear. 3.2.3 Fishing In Foreign Waters The United States and Mexico signed a treaty In November, 1976, concerning U.S. shrlmplng actl!lty In Mexico's portion of the Gulf of Mexico affected by the 20o-mlle extended jurisdiction. A three and one-half year phaseout period was negotiated, and all U.S. shrimp fishing within Mexico's 20o-mlle offshore fishing zone was terminated by January, 1980. Historical U.S. Shrlmplng Activity In the Gulf of Mexico The shrimp grounds In the Gulf of Mexico begin with Area 1 off the southwestern tip of Florida and extend to Area 40 just off Quintana Roo; these areas and depth zones In ten-fathom Increments are shown In Figure 3.2-12. Areas 1 to 21 off the U.S. coast, and Areas 22 to 40, off Mexlc9's coast, conform to those used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) In collecting and reporting shrimp landings data. Landings from Mexican waters decreased from around 18 to 10 million pounds for the period 1962-1974 with the average for the last five years being 9.6 million pounds (Table 3.2.5). The decrease In landings came from regions 31 to 40 off the Yucatan Peninsula where catch dropped from 12 million pounds to four million pounds. Landings from Areas 22 to 30 remined fairly constant at five to six million pounds. During 1970-1974, 90 percent of U.S. shrimp landings came from U.S. waters and 10 percent from Mexican waters. Within the last five years almost two-thirds of the landings from Mexican waters came from Areas 22 to 30 on the Texas side of the Gulf. Total value of èatch (nomtnal dollars) at $13 million. Areas 22 to .30 have becom than Areas 31 to 40. While Mexican vessels catch and associ ated va i ue was neg II gl b Ie. from Mexican waters (Areas 22-40) remained fairly constant relatively more valuable to Gulf shrimpers In the U.S. began to fish In U.S. waters In the early 1970s, their Days fished In Mexican waters decreased from around 30,000 to 16,000 between 1952 and 1974. noticeable In this shift was between 1955 and 1966 when days fished dropped In Areas 31 to 40 of Mexican waters. Days fished In Areas 22 to 30 of Mexican waters remined nearly constant at about 10,000 days for the 13-year period. Most 3-27 W I N 00 \ ') I ~ \O U IS IA N A M IS S . i I i ¿ . . t . ' . . \ j . A L A . 1 . . l. . . ' i. I i T E X A S 10 I U N I T E D S T A H S II 17 15 15 14 13 I 21 u G U L F O F M E X I C O 5 4 M ui eo U 24 25 25 35 27 34 2t 30 31 2 36 31 31 39 .. .. , " .. : ~ :: : ~ :~ ~ ;~ .: r" , " " J. .. ¡r ~ ' ' ./ ' ,.. 1 II . ,j ~ Y U C A T A N P E N IN S U L A F i g u r e 3 . 2 1 2 G u l f o f M e x i c o w i t h t e n f a t h o m d e p t h l i n e s . Distribution of Landings from Mexican Water Landings data for the period 1970 to 1974 Indicate that more than 99 percent of the catch from Mexican waters was landed In Florida and Texas (Table 3.2.6). For the five Gulf states an average of 85.0 million pounds (90 percent) of the shrimp landed durl ng the 1970-1974 period came from U.S. waters whereas 9.5 million pounds (10 percent) came from Mexican waters. Eighty-nine percent of Florida landings (and revenue) came from U.S. waters and 11 percent from Mexican waters. Texas was somewhat more dependent on Mexl can waters s I nee 17 percent of Its land I ngs and 19 percent of I ts reve nue came from Mexican waters. Table 3.2.5. Total landing and value by U.S. vessels and days fished from statistical reporting areas In Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico, 1962-1974. Land I ngs Value Days F I shed Year 22-30 31-40 22-40 22-30 31-40 22-40 22- 30 31-40 22-40 mil lion pounds---- -------ml' lion $------- --------- ( 1000 ) 1962 5.9 13.9 19.8 5.0 10.7 15.7 11.5 26.5 38.0 1963 3.3 10.7 14.0 2.5 7.7 10.2 5.9 20.4 26.3 1964 5.2 12.3 17.4 3.9 7.5 11.4 8.9 22.1 31.0 1965 5.0 11.4 16.3 3.7 8.0 11.7 7.8 20.1 27.9 1966 6.1 4.1 10.1 5.6 3.5 9.1 10.3 7.2 17.5 1967 5.0 5.0 10.0 4.6 4.5 9.1 7.1 7.5 14.6 1968 8.1 6.3 14.4 8.0 5.9 13.9 11.8 11.1 23.0 1969 4.1 4.2 8.3 4.5 4.4 8.9 9.2 7.6 16.8 1970 5.2 3.9 9.1 4.9 4.2 9.1 7.7 7.8 15.5 1971 6.3 2.7 9.1 8.3 3.1 11.5 10.5 4.3 14.8 1972 8.3 3.4 11.7 11.6 4.4 16.0 12.3 4.5 16.8 1973 5.7 4.4 10.1 11.1 7.7 18.8 10.5 7.2 17.7 1974 4.8 3.4 8.2 8.1 4.3 12.4 10.3 4.7 15.0 1970-1975 Average 6.1 3.6 9.6 8.8 4.7 13.6 10.3 5.7 16.0 Percent of Total Gulf 6.4 3.7 10.1 7.5 4.0 11.5 6.7 3.7 10.4 Source: Griffin and Beattie (1978). 3-29 Most of the catch taken from Mexican waters and brought to Texas was landed In the ports of Brownsville and Port Isabel. For these two ports, located across the Rio Grande River from Mexico, 58 percent of the landings come from U.S. waters and 42 percent from Mexican waters. Thus, vessels operating out of Brownsville and Port I sabel were very dependent on Mexican waters. Based on a Griffin and Beattie (1978) article, Table 3.2.7 shows the number of Florida and Texas vessels that were estimated to be direcly affected by the 200-mlle extended jurisdiction by Mexico before the phase-In of the fishing moratorIum was begun. The average number of Texas vessels that fished In Mexican waters for the period 1971-1974 was 565; for Florida, the average was 85. Of the 565 Texas vessels, 464 fished In Areas 22 to 30, 207 fished In Areas 31 to 38 and 59 fished In Areas 39 to 40. The F lor Ida vesse i s were more dependent on Areas 39 to 40 where 80 of the 85 vesse i s f I shed. Only nine of the Florida vessels fished In Areas 31 to 38 and only one fished In Areas 22 to 30. Economic Consequence of Mexican Extended Jurisdiction Griffin and Beattie (1978) rei led on economic theory and statistical models to estimate the eco nomic consequences of extended Mexican jurisdiction. The nature and extent of the economic losses estimated were highly dependent on assumptions made with respect to shrimp prices, costs, length of adjustment period and alternative uses of shrimp vessels. Slightly more than 10 percent, 30,600 units, of the total effort (real days fished) expended by U.S. shrimpers on the Gulf shrimp fishery occurred In Mexican waters during the 1970-1974 period (Griffin and Beattie, 1978). In theIr analysis, Griffin and Beattie (1978), assumed that these 30,600 units of effort (Em In Figure 3.2-13) would be diverted to U.S. waters when Mexico's extended jurl~ diction went Into full effect In 1980. Assuming that the U.S. Gulf of MexIco fishery was In open access equilibrium where total value product (TVP)' equals total cost (TC), a temporary disruption of that equlil brl um was expected. Present Va I ue of Negat I ve Rent Stream When the 30,600 unIts of effort exerted In Mexican waters were diverted to U.S. waters over a three and one-half year period ending In 1980, the Industry as a whole was estimated to Incur negative rents temporarily. Since rent Is zero at equilibrium In an open-access common property resource, rent (r) was temporar II y negat I ve due to the exces s effort. The term rent refers to "exces s prof Its." Excess profit may be defined as a return over and above the normal profit return to labor and capital used In the fishery. The expected Increase In effort (Em = 30,600) resulted In an Increase In total value product of shrimp from $147.6 million to $156.4 million and In total cost (TC) from $147.6 million to $161.4 million (Griffin and Beattie, 1978). At 291,400 units of effort, rent accruing to the fishery would be a negative $5.1 million per year. Assuming the Industry was no longer In equilibrium after being remved from Mexican waters, It moved toward the equilibrium effort level of 260,800 units If cost-price relationships did not change. The magnitude of the real cost to the Industry can be represented by the annual stream of net loss over that period of time untIl equilibrIum Is reached. Table 3.2.8 shows the present value of the stream of losses for alternative adjustment periods ranging from one to seven years, and prices per pound of shrImp landed ranging from $1.70 to $3.00 assuming a ten percent discount rate over tIme. Adjustment was assumed to take place In equal Incremnts of effort each year until equilibrium was reestablished (I.e., at 260,800 unit of effort). At a price of $1.70 (see Table landed, and a three-year adjustment mated to be $8.6 mIllIon. Assuming 3.2-8 for other price and time scenarios) per pound of shrimp period, the present value of the stream of net losses was estl the same price and discount rate but five years to adjust the net 3-30 Table 3.2-6. Total pounds and value (and percentages) of shrimp landed In the five Gulf states, Florida, Texas and BrownsvlllelPort Isabel by areas of the Gulf of Mexico, average over the five years, 1970-1974. Area Five Gu i f States Florida Texas Brownsville & Port I sabe I Pounds Dollars Pounds Do liars Pounds Do lIars Pounds Do liars (mil) (mil) (mil) (mil) (mil) (mil) (mil) (mil) U.S.: 1-21 85.0 103.6 13.5 15.1 38.2 49.5 9.9 12.6 (90) (89) (89) (89) (83) (84) (58) (54) Mexl co: 22-30 6.0 8.7 * * 5.9 6.8 6.0 8.6 (6) (7) (13) (12) (34) (37) 31-40 3.6 4.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.8 1.4 2.1 (4) (4) (11) (11) (4) (5) (8) (9) Total Gu If: 1-40 94.5 117.0 15.2 16.9 46.0 59.1 17.3 23.3 ( 100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (1 OQ.) * Less than 100,000 Source: Griffin and Beattie (1978), p. 17. Table 3.2-7. Number of vessels from Texas and Florida fishing In the Gulf of Mexico by areas, 1971-1974. Texas Vesse I s-------------- -----------F lor I da Vesse I s Total * Total * Year 22-40 22-30 31-38 39-40 22-40 22-30 31-38 30-40 1971 570 460 158 78 75 4 11 72 1972 632 528 193 74 90 0 7 86 1973 615 480 323 53 96 0 14 86 1974 444 393 153 30 79 5 77 Average 565 465 207 59 85 9 80 *Exc I us I ve of dup II cat Ion Source: Griffin and Beattie (1978). 3-31 present value of the stream of losses was estimated to be $12.1 million. adjustment period, the larger the loss. Obviously, the longer the Also presented In Table 3.2.8 are estimates of the present value of the negative rent stream assuming alternative shrimp prices. Since a change In product price shifts TVP and thus the equilibrium effort level, the estimates presented assume that costs of production shifted simulta neously so that the same (260,800) eQùlllbrlum effort level was maintained. Given this assumption, the present value of the stream of losses was estimated to be $12.8 million assuming a $2.50 shrimp price and three years to adjust. At the same shrimp price but assuml ng a five-year adjustmnt period, the present value of the loss stream was estimated to be $18.0 million. Tab Ie 3.2-8. Present value of U.S. cost due to Mexico's extended jurisdiction In the Gulf of Mexico for alternative adjustment periods and product prices (assuming equilibrium effort at 260,800 un I ts and a ten percent discount rate.) Exvesse i Pr I ce Per Pound Years to adj ust $1.70 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 mlilion do Ilars 4.6 5.5 6.9 8.3 3 8.6 10.1 12.8 15.4 5 12.1 14.3 18.0 21.8 7 15.2 18.0 22.7 27.4 Source: Griffin and Beattie (1978) 3-32 3.3 History of Management 3.3.1. Management I nstltutlons, Policies, Jurisdiction Inland water management of the Gulf shrimp fishery Is based on the laws and regulations of the five states affected. All the states have restrictions on the size of shrimp which may be taken; ai' have exclusive state authority for the determination of shrlmplng seasons; all require licensing of or permits for various types of shrimp dealers and vessels; all provide for restricted waters to som degree; all have penalties for violations of laws and regulations; Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have som administrative authority to negotiate reciprocal shrimp agreements with other states while Texas has none. All Gulf states have agencies concerned with wetlands management; shrimp habitat protection In nursery areas coms within their purview as advisory or rule-making bodies. Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs which would embrace all the laws and regulations of the governing bodies, both local and state, affecting the state-controlled shrimp fishery and nursery areas. The five states all have repo~lng requirements, but the type of Information asked for and the diligence with wh Ich It Is sought vary. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are authorized to collect taxes based on volume from shrimpers and/or processors. None of the states have a limited entry law. Alabama: The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Is responsible for shrimp fishery management. Its powers Include determination of open and closed seasons, regulation of time, place, and method of taking seafood, and authority to require submission of statistical Information from shrimpers and processors. Dlrsct supervision of seafoods Is handled by the Department's Division ~ Marine Resources, headed by a director named by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources. A thirteen-member advisory board meets at least twice each year to review regulations pro posed by the Commissioner and to establish policy on proposed legislation. The advisory board can revise or repeal regulatlons proposed by the Commissioner, or It can adopt Its own regulations by a two-thirds vote and the consent of the Governor. All seafood In state-owned waters Is declared to be state property. Wetlands management In Alabama Is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Board (appointed by the Governor). ,Its area of authority begins at the ten-foot contour line and Is con cerned wIth habitat protection. A fourteen-member advisory committee of experts In all fields of coastal usage advises the Coastal Area Board. Alabama has entered Into reciprocal shrimp agreements with Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Texas: Overall control of the Texas shrimp fishery Is either vested In the six-member Parks and Wildlife Commission appointed by the Governor or controlled by the legislature. The Commission establishes rules and regulations In some coastal counties and may adjust the closed Gulf season; enforcement Is handled by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The Texas Shrimp Conservation Act Is applicable all along the Texas coast because the Commission has adopted It as a regulatory policy. State juri sdl ct Ion extends seaward three leagues (n I ne naut Ica I miles) from the coastll nee The state distinguishes between Inside waters--all bays, passes, rivers, or other bodies of water landward from the Gulf--and outside waters, extending from the shoreline seaward to the exfent of Texas jurisdic tion. The Texas Coastal Coordination Act requires the Texas Natural Resources Council to study problems and Issues In connection with coastal natural resources and to submit a biennial study with recommendations for action on Identified problems. The Council Is also to recommend research and data acquisition priorities. Texas has no reciprocal shrimp agreement with the other Gulf states; legisla tive approval of any such agreement would be required. The Commission Is empowered to coordinate any Texas shrimp management plans with those drafted for the federal fishery zone. Louisiana: The Wildlife and Fisheries Commission has exclusive control over the shrimp fishery and the shrimp Industry. Rules and regulations are promulgated by the seven-member Commission. Its members are named by the Governor to serve overlappl ng terms and represent various segments of f Ish and wildlife-related Industries and sportsmen's groups. AdmInistration Is handled by the Department 3-33 of Wildlife and FisherIes. The Department's Office of COastal and Marine Resources Is responsible for enforcing regulations and monItoring the shrimp fishery. A severance tax, payable by the first purchaser and collected by the Department, Is levied on shrimp taken from Louisiana waters. Data reporting Is required from shrimp processing plants and wholesale dealers. The Department has a limited degree of authority to enter Into reciprocal agreemnts with other states. Louisiana's juris diction extends seaward three nautical miles from the coastline. The state differentiates between Inside waters, Including the large bays, and outside waters. Shrlmplng seasons are set for Inside waters; there Is no closed season for outside waters. Regulations proposed by the Commission are subject both to rev I ew by the Jol nt Senate and House Natura I Resources Comml ttee and to the Administrative Procedures Act which requires public notice through publication In the Louisiana State Register prior to their adoption by the Commission. The State Department of Transportation and Development Is In the process of developing a Coastal Zone Management Program covering coastal marshes and estuaries and extending to Louisiana's seaward boundary. The vast LouisIana shrimp nursery grounds are Included In the territorial limits to be covered by the program. Mississippi: The policy making body of the MissIssippi Department of WIldlife Conservation Is a five-member Commission on Wildlife ConservatIon. ExecutIve authority Is vested In the Direcor of Wildlife who Is elected by the Commission for a four-year term. A Bureau of Marlne.Resources Is super vised by a director experIenced In marine conservation; this Bureau aids the Commission In "formulating policies, discussing problems and considering other matters." The Commission determines seasons, restricted waters, and size of shrimp to be taken. The Commission Is authorIzed to require such report I ng as may be needed to meet the needs of any research project, and persons rac Ivl ng such Questionnaires are required to respond factually. Fines are Imposed for failure to respond or for falsifying data. A severance tax Is Imposed on all shrimp processed, transported In or from the state, or caught within state waters. The state has a broadly-worded statute covering reciprocal agreemnts. The Bureau of Marine Resources Is authorized to study "plans, proposals, reports, and recommendatIons" for development and utilization of coastal and offshore lands, waters, and marine resources. F i or I da: The F i or I da Department of Natura I Resources I s the state's shr I mp fishery regu i at I ng agency. It Is empowered to adopt rules and regulations governing "method, manner, and equipment" used In taking shrimp and to define areas where shrimp may be caught. Its DivIsion of Marine Resources Is charged to "preserve, manage ~ and protect" fishery resources and to regu i ate vesse i sand fishermen "withIn or without" the boundaries of the state. However, the legislature has adopted numerous local laws (general bl i Is of local applicatIon) which regulate shrlmplng. In the particular counties. Special county acts govern shrlmplng seasons In Apalachlcola Bay, St,. VIncent Sound, and the area from Cape San Bias to Cape St. George. By legislatIve act, some nursery areas are permanently closed to all except bait shrlmplng. Florida has unIform rule-making procedures for all administrative agencIes; these procedures require prior notice, an economic Impact statemnt, and an opportunity for "substantially affected" persons to challenge proposed rules on the grounds of Invalid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Proposed rules are also to be reviewed by a legislative Administrative Procedures Committee. Florida has no statute specIfically taxing the taking or handling of shrimp. The Department of Natura i Resources Is authorl zed to enter Into recl proca i agreemnts with other states, gIving shrimpers based In such states the same "rights and privIleges" that resIdents of states In which they are fIshing have. 3.3.1.1 Regu latory Measures Emp loyed to Regu late the Fishery The followIng Is summarized from CraIg, et al. (1978). 3-34 Legal Size of Shrimp; Catch Limits Texas: In 1981, Texas amended Its shrimp regulations to eliminate Its minimum size restriction of 39 whole shrimp to the pound on Gulf shrimp so long as there Is a Shrimp FMP In place which provides for a closed season In the FCZ which corresponds to the Texas closed Gulf season. Commercial shrimpers are not limited as to amount of shrimp taken In outside waters; 300 pounds per day limit In spring open season for Inside waters; no limit on fall catch In major bays; however, August 15 to October 31, minimum count of 50 whole Is required; no count restriction November 1 to December 15. Recreational shrimpers may take 100 pounds per day In outside waters, 15 pounds per day from major bays In spring, and 15 pounds per day In fall open season. Commercial bait shrimpers are limited to 200 pounds per day. Louisiana: Inside waters size limit Is 68 whole shrimp to the pound; limit not applicable In out side waters or to any species taken during spring Inside waters open season, nor to brown shrimp taken after November 20. There are no catch limits on commercl al shrimpers; unlicensed recreational shrimpers are limited to 100 pounds per boat per day. Bait shrimp are excluded from size requirements. Mississippi: Size limit Is 68 whole shrimp to the pound. Bait shrimpers are limited to a mum of 20 pounds of dead shrimp. In addition, bays are not opened to live bait shrlmplng until time as the shrimp are determined by sample catch to be 95 whole shrimp to the pound of larger. catch limits otherwise. maxl such No Alabama: Size limit Is 68 whole shrimp to the pound. Bait shrimp are excepted. There are no catch limits for commercial Including bait shrimpers. Recreational boats are limited to 25 pounds per boat In areas open to commercial shrimpers and 15 pounds per boat In bait shrlmplng areas. Florida: Statewide sIze limit for shrimp taken In state waters Is 47 to the pound, heads on, and 70 tails to the pound; In three Panhandle counties local size limit Is 55 to the pound, heads on, In. open Inside bays and sounds. No catch limits. Licensing of Vessels and Fishermen T~xas: Commercial Gulf shrimp boat, bay shrimp boat, bait shrimp boat, and sport shrimp trawl must be licensed; "John Doe" licenses are also required for the captain and each crewman of commercial vessel and a personal license for each recreational shrimper. Louisiana: Commercial boat license based on length; no license needed for recreational boats; license required for all gear except noncommercial 16 feet and under In length. Mississippi: Vessel license Is based on length; bait shrimp boats and Interstate vessels pay additional annual fees. No shrimp gear license required. Alabama: Vessel license for Alabama residents and non-resident shrimpers required unless there Is reciprocal agreement with state of their residence; gear license Is based on length of trawl. Florida: Vessels are registered according to size; permits are required for trawling but no charge Is assessed. Allen and nonresident commercial fIshermen are required to obtain license. Season Texas: InsIde waters In major bays are open May 15 to July Outside waters are normally closed June 1 to July 15, subject to closing. White shrimp may be caught during the closed season at 15 and August 15 to December 15. 15-day a I terat Ion I n open I ng and zero to four fathoms dur I ng the day. 3-35 Outs I de waters are a I so closed December 16 to February 1. Dur I ng the closed season seabobs harvested during the day, but catch can contain no more than ten percent of other specl es. seven fathoms at night closed year round. may be Zero to Louisiana: For Inside waters, the spring season opens no later than May 25 and continues for at least 50 days or until technical data Indicate a closure Is needed to protect newly recruited white shrimp; however, at least one zone must have a 50 day-open season. Fall season opens the third Monday In August and closes December 21. Comission .may set special seasons. No closed season In outside waters. Mlsslsslpl: The season opens first Wednesday In June, dependent on shrimp size of sample catch, and usually runs from the second or third week of June until December 1 unless declared otherwise. Alabama: Closed from late April to mId-June, depending on samples. Florida: Season var I es accord I ng to area. Restr I cted Waters Texas: AI I passes to and from outside waters are closed to Is limited to major bays and bait bays as defined by law. Other L sery areas and no shrl mpl ng Is allowed. trawling. Shrlmplng In Inside waters I ns I de waters are c lass I fled as nur Louisiana: State and federal wildlife refuges, Bayou Judge Perez, and sanctuaries In Lake Pontch artra I n and Lake Cather I ne are res tr I cted waters. Mississippi: Commercial shrlmplng Is forbidden within one-half mile of mainland from Mlsslsslppl Alabama line west to Bayou Caddy, off Gulf Island National Seashore, and In all bayous with the excep tion of two pipeline ditches In Hancock County. (Shrlmplng within the one-half mile sanctuary Is limited to licensed live-bait dealers.) Alabama: All rivers, streams,. bayous, creeks, and portions are restrIcted. No shrlmplng Is allowed within 200 yards of the Pol nt from May 5 to September 15. of bays des I gnated as nursery areas beach off Dauphin Island and Mobile Florida: Portions of Santa Rosa Sound, Tortugas shrimp bed In Florida waters, and that portion of the Tortugas shrimp bed In the FCZ are closed to Florida residents. Other areas are subject to local seasonal restrictIons. Certain areas designated as state parks or recreational areas are closed to commercial fishing. 3.3.1.2 Consistency Requirements of Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act require a Council, In preparation of a fishery management plan, to address and consider the extent of fishing within state waters, on the premise that good management prInciples "require that the FMP address an Individual stock of fish as a unit throughout Its range, Including Its presence within state waters." Councils should "make every effort to coordinate their FMP development activities with the state coastal zone agencies." 3.3.2 Management and Regu I at Ion of Fore I gn Fishery The present extent of the U.S. fishery conservation zone In the Gulf of Mexico Is defined on the basis of two treaties on maritime boundaries, one with Mexico and the other with Cuba. Bath treaties are now pending Senate advice and consent to ratification. In the meantime, the maritime boundaries specified In the treaties are being applied provisionally. 3-36 Access to the FCZ for foreign shrimp fishermen must be predicated on an available surplus of shrimp In excess of the U.S. harvesting capacity, as well as a Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA) with their hom country. Likewise, for U.S. shrimp fishermen to gain access to the zones of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction of Mexico or Cuba, there must be a surplus over the harvest Ing capacity of the domestic fishermen Involved. Cuba has a GIFA with the United States effective September 26, 1977. However, the MFCM does not permit allocations to the fishermen of either country unless a shrimp surplus Is determined. The current U.S.-Mexico Fisheries Agreemnt as discussed In Section 3.2.3 allows for no access to shrimp by U.S. fishermn In Mexico's fishery zone. The United States continues to negotiate with Mexico In an effort to obtain some form of shrimp access. U.S. fishermn have no access to fish or shrimp In the Cuban fishery zone. The U.S.-Cuba Convention for the Conservation of Shrimp was terminated on April 28, 1978, after being In force twenty years. 3.4 H I story of Research Other than the work of Percy Vlosca and various annual reports by the Gulf states, little was recorded about Gulf shrimp until the 1930's. During the 1930's, the various Gulf states and the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Initiated a series of Intensive studies on the life history of white shrImp (Lindner and Anderson, 1956). These mark-recapture and associated studies provided the basis for our knowledge of Gulf shrimp as well as' providing a model for subsequent studies and an Initial group of fishery scientists knowledgeable about Gulf shrimp and their environment. The section. dl rect Iy history of research since that time Is too extensive and diverse to summarize In this Indeed, th Is ent I re p I a n attempts to summar I ze on I y that port Ion of the research wh I ch Is relevant to the mandates of MFCMA. No articles were encountered which would Indicate studies on U.S. Gulf shrimp had been supported by fore I gn cou ntr I es. 3.5 Socioeconomic Characterization 3.5.1 Output of the Subject Domestic Reported Comrcial Fishery Measured by the value of shrimp at dockside, the shrimp fishery Is the most valuable of all domestic fisheries, averaging 23 percent of the value of all fish and shellfish landed In the United States for the period 1964 through 1979. Translated Into dollars, the 1979 fish and shellfish landings were worth $2,233,679,000. Shrimp accounted for $471,573,000; salmon, $412,776,000; and tuna, $158,387,000. The Gu If of Mexico commercl al shrimp fishery In 1979 accounted for 80 percent of the dockside value of the U.S. shrimp landings and In terms of pounds of shrimp, the relative Gulf contri bution Is 61 percent of the U.S. shrimp landings. 3.5.1.1 Exvessel Value of the Catch Exvessel value of' Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings Increased over six-fold between the late 1950's and the late 1970's (Table 3.5.1 and Figure 3.5.1). Although the overall trend In volume was upward for the twenty-two year period, most of the Increase In value of landings was due to Increases In exvessel prices. Since 1964 total value of shrimp landings only decreased In 1974. Between 1964 and 1970 total value Increased steadily while after 1970 total value of shrimp landings Increased dramati cally. The overall trend In prices has been upward since 1967 causing most of the Increase In total value. Prices generally moved In opposite direcion than volume landed, causing the total value trend to be much smoother. Price movements changed direcion In twelve of the twenty-two years, declining two years In a row only In 1958 and 1959 while Increasing three years In a row during two periods. 3-37 Texas, with an average of 46 percent of the value of" all Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings, has consistently had the largest exvessel value of all the Gulf states. Louisiana accounts for 28 percent of the average annual value of the landings. Florida ranks third at 15 percent of the total value. Value of shrimp landings Increased In all states between 1958 and 1977 (Table 3.5.2). Average annual rate of Increase In value of landings ranged from 5.2 percent for the Florida west coast to 16.6 percent for Alabama. Texas and Louisiana, the two most Important states, averaged over nine percent per year. Table 3.5-1. Total volume and value of U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp commercial landings, 1958-1980 Heads-on Do liars Year pounds do liars per pound 000 1958 173,354 63,871 .37 1959 193,503 50,348 .26 1960 205,725 57,631 .28 1961 133,795 43,650 .33 1962 14 1 ,726 60,557 .43 1963 203,116 63,539 .31 1964 179,032 62,695 .35 1965 195,237 70,907 .36 1966 179,230 82,973 .46 1967 225,731 90,575 .40 1968 204,024 95,829 .47 1969 200,429 101,062 .50 1970 230,474 108,186 .47 1971 227,376 136,274 .60 1972 228,94 1 164,101 .72 1973 182,206 171,854 .94 1974 186,211 138,042 .74 1975 170,084 178,227 1.05 1976 210,078 275,222 1.31 1977 265; 903 296,785 1.12 1978 248,327 319,590 1.29 1979 206,564 377 ,642 1.82 1980 204,914 295,212 1.44 Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States and FIsheries of the United States. 3-38 380 360Million 340 Pounds 0 r 320 Dollars 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 , I , I I I J , I I Val u e 1,.\ i \' \ i !'. t""" ',; ,: ". .. I \i.:""':,. . ,.'.I ,.. I ",: j ./ "'"f,,. .". .8". ,.'",' .',,' " /' ,"', ",'. ..... . / ,"", ,,'..' ", ,,' ,,' '..' ~. .:- ....:~.::,,,...,. ,., I .','..,;. , .'"". . .'\, Price 1 .40 1.30 1 .20 1 .10 1.00 .90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40 .30 .20 .10 pe r pound Dollars 76 78 Years Figure 3.5.1.--Total volume and value of Gulf of ~exico shrimp landings and average ex-vessel prices, 1958-79 ~8 60 6~ 7262 66 7064 3-39 74 Area Distribution of the Value of the Catch Figure 3.5-2 compares the average value distribution of the combined brown, white and pink shrimp catches from 1959 to 1975. Area 19 (the Freeport, Texas, grid) has. the highest ex-vessel value. It has accounted for an average of 19 percent of the total value. Waters adjacent to Texas provide 42 percent of the average shr I mp catch va I ue. The va' ue of the catch of f Lou I s I ana accounts for 36 per cent of the total value; FlorIda, 11 percent; and Alabama and Mississippi each six percent. A comparIson of the value of landIngs (Table 3.5-2) and the average percent of the value of catch (Fig. 3.5-2) Indicates some apparent dIfferences, for example, Texas and FlorIda have larger percent age va I ues In' and I ngs (see above) than are accounted for I n percentage va I ue of catch, whereas Mississippi and Louisiana have smaller values In landings than expected from the reported value of the catch. These differences reflect the mobility of much of the Gulf fleet. For example, until recently many vessels from Florida and Texas, because of their proximity, had shrlmped off Mexico and landed a portion of their catch In the United States. Som vessels from Florida often mIgrate north In the spring and summr to fish off MissIssIppI and LouIsiana and then Texas. Vessels from Louisiana frequent the shallow waters off Galveston, Texas, fishIng for white and brown shrImp. Texas boats may fish off Louisiana during the Texas closed season In June and part of July. Alabama's Bayou La Batre vessels have the capability to "roam" the Gulf In search of shrimp, though they are larger than the average s I zed vesse i I n the northern Gu If. Harvest I ng reg I mes examp Ie, resu It I n much 1975 study showed Texas 1.2 times that of white exert a substantial Influence on exvessel value. Texas regulations, for greater landings of larger-sized shrimp than do those of LouisIana. A 195& prices for brown shrimp to be 1.6 times .that of Louisiana brown shrimp, and shrimp (Cal' louet and Patella, 1978). Although there have been variations In the relative Importance of the exvessel value of brown, white, and pink shrimp, the brown shrimp Is the most valuable, accounting for 52 percent of the total value of all species from 1958 to 1967 and for 56 percent of the total value from 1958 to 1977. White shrImp are the second most valuable species. The relative position of white shrImp Increased from 25 percent of the total value In the 1958-1967 period to 30 percent of the total value during the 1968 1977 period. The percentage of total value of Gulf shrimp catch attributable to pink' shrimp has fallen from 21 percent In the 1958-1967 period to 13 percent for 1968-1977. Approximately 57 percent of the annual value of the brown shrimp catch Is from Texas, 28 percent from Louisiana, and the remInIng 15 percent from Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Fig. 3.5-3). Louisiana waters furnish 51 percent of the value of the white shrImp harvest, Texas 30 percent, Mississippi five percent, Alabama three percent, and Florida one percent (Fig. 3.5-4). The Florida catch accounts for 97 percent of the total pInk shrimp value (FIg. 3.5-5). The Dry Tortugas area accounts for 70 percent of this value. Seabob are concentrated In the Atchafalaya River area of Louisiana (Fig. 3.5-6). These waters furnish 92 percent of the value of the catch. Texas adds four percent and the remainder coms from areas east of the mouth of the MissIssippi (F1g. 3.5-6). Florida accounts for 98 percent of the rock shrimp exvessel value (Fig. 3.5-7). The royal red fishery Is concentrated In two areas (Fig. 3.5-8): the Dry Tortugas catch Is 45 percent of the total value, whIle the catch off the Mississippi Delta Is 42 percent of the value. Price Structure and SensitivIty by Size Distribution of the Catch The price per pound of shrimp varies In direct proportion to size. There are significant prIce differences between size groups of shrimp. Price differentials playa key role In the substitution of 3-40 , Table 3.5-2. Exvessel value of shrimp landings by state Florida Year West Coast Alabama Mississippi Lou I s I ana Texas 1 ,000 do I i a rs 1958 16,312 1,984 2,377 13,533 29,665 1959 9,752 1 ,991 2,345 13,067 23,193 1960 12,155 2,090 2,899 15,881 24,606 1961 11,094 1,154 1,281 8,913 21,208 1962 14,556 1,647 2,220 14,985 27, 149 1963 12,256 2,419 2,484 19,789 26,591 1964 13,322 2,630 1,805 18,794 26,144 1965 13,905 3,654 2,523 19,584 31,241 1966 12,427 4,920 2,751 24,390 38,485 1967 10,476 6,049 3,122 24,573 46,355 1968 12,695 7,964 3,677 25,623 45,870 1969 12,021 8,788 4,011 33,358 42,884 1970 13,108 8,040 3,810 34,614 48,614 1971 12,985 11,451 4,362 43,285 64,191 1972 17,309' 14,661 4,966 47,066 80,099 1973 22,601 14,165 3,698 44, 511 86,879 1974 21,445 13,490 3,225 32,203 67,679 1975 27,799 17,843 3,825 40,968 87,902 1976 36,842 30,393 8,418 79,688 119,881 1977 39,971 33,487 10,113 87,183 125,620 percent Average Annua i change 5.2 16.6 6.5 9.5 9.1 for 1958 1977 Source: FIshery StatisTIcs of the United States. 3-41 .c u 8LJ Cd U ll 0 C1 ::i Cd ~ 6i Cd.¡ 0.¡ ll 0.¡ i: C1 4u i. C1 p. Figure 3.5-2. 19 All species all waters 10 2 o NMS grid zones Average percent of total value of the Gulf catch for all species 1959-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1959-1975). 3-42 .. ~10 ~ c. P. S.. ~.. CJ ~ 8o ~ .c ~ ~ ~ o~ 4 o 6 ~ c: Q) c. ~ Q) P Figure 3.5-3. 24:: 14 12 4 2 o (-- ~ 1 Brown shrimp all waters NHFS grid zones Average percent o~ the total value of the brown shrimp catch 1959-1975 by area (US Dep~. Com., 1959-1975). 3-43 16 14 12 .c 10() +J el () p. E oM i .c u: Q) 8 +J oM § ,. el +J 0 +J ~ 6o +J i: Q) () i Q) p. 4 2 o FigUre 3.5-4. i \3 1 White shrimp all waters 3 NMS grid zones Average percent of the total value of the white shrimp catch 1959-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1959-1975). 3:-44 certaIn sizes for others Into various øroducts such as breaded Item. This price structure appears to be partially sensitive the ca~ch (Toevs and Johnson, 1978). shrimp, fresh-frozen, and specl alty to changes In the size distribution of Larger shrimp are consume' primarIly through restaurants, while fresh seafoo retaIlers, canners and other processors. Sma I I shrimp dryed or specl a I ty products. med I ums are so I d to breaders, are often procesed I nto canned, A more recent study (Chul, 1980) also Indicates an exlstance of separate markets by size of Gulf shrimp; large (under 30 count), medIum (30 to 50 count), and sma I i (over 50 count). ExYessel demand for shrimp was concluded to vary sIgnificanTly by size of shrimp. Dend Is higher for the larger sizes of shr I mp and with the except Ion of sma Ii shr I mp, the I arger the sIze the greater the pr I ce response to changes In supply. Price responsIveness was, however, shown to be small wIThIn regIons of the Gu If: eastern, northern and western Gu If. 3.5.1.2 Wholesale Value of the Product Total value of procssed shrimp products more than doubled between 1971 and 1977, IncreasIng from $253.7 mIllion to $528.9 mIllion (Table 3.5-3). Texas has consIsTently been the leading state, wIth Florida's west coast second. In percentage terms, Alabama has had the largest growh rate whIle the Texas growth rate was the smal lest. Frozen raw head less Is by far the most Important processed product form accounTing for 55.9 percent of processed shrImp products In 1976 (Figure 3.5-9). Breaded shrimp ranks second with 21.0 percent. Percentage product Ion by states by product type I s shown In FIgure 3.5-10. Wholesale prIce of processed products depends on exvessel prices, decrease or Increase In product weight through processIng, costs of marketIng and processing and demand for the processed product. With the exceptIon of exvessel prices, none of these parameters are reported on a consIstent and continuous basIs In published statistics. Wholesale prices computed by dIvIding volume of procse product Into value of processed products are an estimate of value per unIt of product as It leaves the processors estab II shment. Wholesale prices Increased for all processed products between 1958 and 1978 with the largest percentage Increase for raw head less at 7.5 percent annually (Table 3.5-4). Annual wholesale prices vary widely because of exvessel prices, processIng costs and demand shl.fts. ExYessel price variations are probably the most Imprtant factor determinIng variation In wholesale prIces. Breaded raw products have consistently been the lowest valued products per pound since 1961. RequIred pounds of heads-on shrImp per pound of processed product are: 1.58 pounds, raw headless; 2.04 pounds, raw peeled, 1.0 pounds, breaded raw; 3.13 pounds, peeled and cooed; 3.21 pounds, canned; and 7.69 pounds, drIed (based on conversIon factors In Flshery Statlstlcs of the United States). MultIplyIng these factors by the exvessel prIce gIves the cost of raw product per unIt of processe product and Is referred to as the raw product equIvalent prIce. ThIs component Is the largest part of the wholesale price. Wholesal'e price varIatIon Is then expected to.vary dIrecly wIth exvessel prices and the amounT of varIatIon Is dIrecly related to the conversIon factor. Percentage of wholesale price varIatIon Is greatest for products utIlizing a hIgh ratio of shrimp to processed product. The difference between the raw product equIvalent price and the wholesale price Is the marketIng margIn. ThIs Imputed marketIng margIn covers transportatIon, processing costs and prof Its to processors. MarketIng margIns were Imputed for raw headless, breaded raw, and cooed and raw peeled processed shr I mp products (Tab Ie 3.5-5). These marg I ns were estimated by subtract I ng the I mputed raw product equivalent prices from the wholesale prIces. The raw product equIvalent prices were estlma~ed by multiplying the conversion factors dIscussed above by average exvessel Gulf of MexIco shrImp prices reported In Table 3.5-1. 3-45 Table 3.5-3. Wholesale values of processed shrimp for Gulf of Mexico states State 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 mlilions of dollars F lor I da , W .C. 70.2 70.9 80.0 69.5 83.3 133.2 150.9 Alabama 11.6 23.2 30.7 20.3 28.9 59.0 68.3 Mississippi 12.7 13.7 15.7 16.9 15.7 26.9 40.0 Lou I s I ana 65.7 64.8 76.9 72.4 64.1 95.6 125.4 Texas 93.6 110.2 120.6 80.7 67..7 141.4 144.2 Gulf Total 253.7 282.6 330.0 259.9 259.8 456.1 528.9 Numbers do not add due to rounding. Totals are correc. Source: National Marine Fisheries Serv I ce,Processed Fishery Products Annua I Summry (Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce, various years). 3-46 Marketing margins for shrimp Increased from $.18 per pound of processed product In 1958 to $1.20 per pound In 1978. The Increase was fairly slow through 1972 at which time the margin was $.30. Substantial Increases took place between 1973 and 1974 and between 1976 and 1977. A comparison of exvessel price movements from year to year with changes In marketing margins shows no overall negative or positive relationship. Marketing margins for breaded shrimp also Increased over time but not as consistently nor as substantially. Marketing margins for breaded raw shrimp Increased from $.30 per pound In 1958 to a high of $1.10 In 1977. Marketing margins for peeled shrimp generally Increased until the late 1960's but then declined throughout the 1970's. The negative Imputed margins during the late 1970's may ref lect the margin estimation procedure for this product. Raw product price equivalents may have been over stated If smaller than average size shrimp were used In the processed product or If lower valued Imported shrimp were used for th I s processed product. 3.5.1.3 Domestic Marketing Channels The marketing of shrimp from the vessels to consumer may be handled through a variety of channels with as many as 11 components (Figure 3.5-11). The usual participation Is more limited, however, Involving fishermen, wholesalers, processors, transporters, and retailers. Other seafood products are usually also hand led by members of the shrimp marketing system. Since shr I mp may range from five to more than 200 ta Ii s per pound, size I s the pr I ncl pa i factor Influencing market channels and use. Larger size shrimp usually go to restaurants; those In the 30 to 65 per pound range go principally to breaders, fresh seafood retailers, canners, and other pro cessors. Smaller shrimp are used by canners, driers, and specialty producers. In recent years there has been a growing trend to use the full range of shrimp sizes for breaded, peeled, and stove-ready products. Variation In use of marketing channels depends on many factors: shrimp size, processed form, location of processor, degree of Industry concentration, source of raw shrimp, amount of Imported shrimp used, and amount of foreign labor Involved In processing. Area differences prevent extrapola tion of the Alvarez, et al. (1976) study of Florida's marketing channels to the entire Gulf coast (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). A telephone survey of shrimp processors and middlemen In each of the Gulf states was conducted In the drafting of this plan. The survey revealed a general pattern of marketing channels, shown In Fig. 3.5-11. The bold lines In the figure Indicate major channels. Dea i ers The dealer Is the first middleman to take possession of the shrimp. He normally operates docking facilities with allied provisions for service and storage. His relationship with the fisherman Is that of purchaser of shrimp and, on occasIon, purveyor of fuel, Ice, and supplies. But he may also offer financial services ranging from credit extension to maintenance of records for boats based at his dock. In this relationship there Is usually an understanding that the shrimper's catch will be hand led by the dealer; such a relationship may have a corrolary price Impact. Louisiana dealers surveyed reported purchasing shrimp on a regular basis with the median about 110. Dealers may also get shrimp from other craft on a operate craft of their own. from 80 to 120 craf t, part-time basis; some Among the dealer's functions are processing of shrimp for the market--headlng, grading, packing, refrigerating, and storing. Some, especially In Louisiana, have operations for handling of heads-on shrimp for drying. The drying operations reduce loss of shrimp due to spoilage and permit the utili zation of shrimp In periods of peak landings. 3-47 ( Table 3.5-4. Wholesale prices of Gulf of Mexico shrimp processed products, 1958-1978 Year Rawa Rawa Breadeda Cooked a Cannedb Dr I eda Head less Pee i ed and Pee led 1958 .76 1.06 .67 1.89 10.38 1.41 1959 .59 .82 .62 1.54 8.89 .90 1960 .61 .98 .63 1.64 8.29 1.12 1961 .76 1.09 .75 1.63 9.09 1.78 1962 .92 1.24 .81 1.93 10.43 1.61 1963 .72 1.18 .71 1.77 8.59 .84 1964 .82 1.16 .80 1.67 8.63 1.99 1965 .83 1.16 .80 1.67 9.63 1.99 1966 .96 1.32 .90 1.97 10.66 2.02 1967 .88 1.37 .85 1.92 10.21 1.65 1968 1.03 1.55 .94 2.39 10.92 1.90 1969 1.09 1.75 1.00 2.04 10.29 1.74 1970 1.04 1.45 .99 1.57 10.51 no data 1971 1.28 1.69 1.07 2.51 11.14 1.87 1972 1.44 1.90 1.24 1.95' 13.28 2.42 1973 2.42 2.25 1.48 3.44 18.91 3.87 1974 1.74 1.80 1.44 3.11 16.25 2.72 1975 2.35 1.77 1.61 3.36 16.74 4.92 1976 2.79 2.67 2.02 3.82 19.74 3.81 1977 2.81 2.41 2.22 3.43 22.66 3.88 1978 3.24 2.32 2.15 3.08 21.92 4.00 percent Average annua I Increase 7.5 5.0 5.7 4.1 4.0 6.7 a Price per pound of finished product. b Price per standard case of canned shrimp. Source: Computed from Fishery Statistics of the United States and Current FIshery Statistics. 3-48 , , Table 3.5-5. I mputed market I ng marg I ns for se I ected Gu I f of Mexl co processed shrimp products, 1958-1978 Pee I ed Year Raw Head less Breaded Raw Raw Cooked do liars per pound 1958 .18 .30 .31 .73 1959 .18 .32 .29 .73 1960 .17 .35 .41 .76 1961 .24 .42 .42 .60 1962 .24 .38 .36 .58 1963 .24 .40 .55 .80 1964 .25 .36 .41 .51 1965 .26 .44 .42 .54 1966 .23 .44 .38 .53 1967 .25 .45 .55 .67 1968 .29 .47 .59 .92 1969 .30 .50 .73 .47 1970 .30 .52 .49 .10 1971 .32 .47 .47 .63 1972 .30 .52 .43 -.31 1973 .93 .54 .33 .50 1974 .57 .70 .29 .79 1975 .69 .56 -.37 .07 1976 .72 . .71 0 -.28 1977 1.04 1.10 .13 -.08 1978 1.20 .86 -.31 -.96 Source: Estimated by multiplying conversion factors reported In text by average annual exvessel prices and then subtracting this value from wholesale prices. 3-49 70.2 .. t).. cc t) 6 ~., i-.. CI .. i:.,i: 4,. cc.. a.. 4 a .. i: QJ 2t) i QJ p. Figure 3.5- 5. o Pink shrimp all waters NMFS grid zones Average percent of the total value of the pink shrimp catch 1959-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1959-1975). 3..50 10 .. u.¡ 8C\u ~~ i-.. en en ,0 6o,0 C\ Q, en r C\.¡ 0.¡ 4- 4o.¡¡: Q, u i Q, p. 2 o Figure 3.5-6. 1 Seabobs all waters 3 NMS grid zones Average percent of the total value of the seabob shrimp catch 1963-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1963-1975). 3..51 75.1 10 .c CJ.¡ø CJ ~~ 8i. .c (I ~ CJ 0 i. rlø.¡ 6o.¡ ~ 0.¡ i: QJ CJ i. QJ 4p. Figure 3.5-7. 12 Rock shrimp all waters 2 o NMS grid zones Average percent of the total value of the rock shrimp catch 1963-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1963-1975). 3-52 .. CJ ~ Cd CJ f§.. ,... en 'Ö QJ ,. ,. 6 Cd ~ 0 ,. ,. Cd ~ 0~ .. 4 o ~ i: QJ CJ ,. QJ p. 2 32 Royal red shrimp all waters o NMS grid zones Figure 3.5-8. Average percent of the total value of the royal red shrimp catch 1963-1975 by area (US Dept. Com., 1963-1975). 3-53 Figure 3.5-9 Value of Shrimp Products of the Gulf States, 1976 OTHER (includes specialties) 0.4% PEELED AN DEVEINED (cooked or raw) 15.6% BREAED 21. 0% FROZEN RAW HEADLES S 55.9% NOTE: Some of the products may have been procesed from raw products imported from other states or from foreign countries. SOURCE: National Marine Fisheries Service, Processed Fishery Products, Annual Sumary, 1976 (Washington D.C.: Dept. of Commerce). 3-54 ," Dealer operations tend to be seasonal In nature. At peak periods the work force Is augmented largely by women, teenagers, and members of the fishermen's families. The workweek can vary from three to seven days, and the workIng day can last from six to fifteen hours. Most of the dealer's output Is sold directly to processors; wholesalers also figure largely In this market. Dealers generally have up to 10 major customers and ship their output In their own trucks or with common carriers. Processors Processors are the breading, and preparing processing. shrimp companl es engaged In peel I ng and develnl ng, coo I ng, freezl ng, cannl ng, specialty products. Som also deal In green headless shrimp, requiring no In the southeast region, Including the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries, 69 percent of the processors are single facility corporations; 25 percent are either corporations with branches or divisions of parent corporations. Nearly half of the Individual corporations are family owned; six percent of all southeastern processors are partnership operations. The shrimp handling and processing Industry Is expanding In total volume, but the rate of withdrawal of Individual firms exceeds the rate of new entrants. A shortage of domstic landings appears to put a severe constraint on the entrance of new firms and the expansion of existing ones. Major factors contributing to the shrimp shortage are: (1) the decline In U.S. landings of shrimp. caught In Central and South American waters, and (2) the current exploitation of the major domestic Gulf stocks at their MSY levels. An example of the decline In U.S. landings from foreign waters Is Florida's landings of Campeche shrimp, which have declined from a high of more than 30 million pounds In 1953 to two to three million pounds annually (1970-1975). There are an Increasing number of processors who maintain their own fleets or dockside faclll ties. Others cont I nue to depend on dea i ers for the I r shr I mp su pp II es. Due to the seasona I nature of the shrimp catch, processors carry large raw product and frozen finished product Inventories. Unlike dealers, processors tend to operate their plants throughout the year. Market forms of processed shrimp Include breaded, frozen, canned and specialty products (dried, pastes, sauces, and convenience (dishes). Brokers and Who I esa I ers Brokers act as an Intermediary between the buyers and sellers of shrimp products at the various marketing levels, usually from the various marketing levels, usually from the processor level on up. The biggest use of brokers Is In Interstate and International contracts and sales, promtion of new products, and estab II shment of bus I ness contacts for new firms. Wholesalers also act as Intermediaries In the marketing system. They take possession of shrimp products and provide storage and transportation functions for firms In the Industry, thereby creating benef I ts and econom I es for a II firms. Market I ng Channels used to market processed shrimp products vary from firm to firm. Som processors have their own distribution channels--such as an organization of sales representatIves or a subsidiary seller--whlle many other firms almost exclusively employ brokers to sell their products. Though net flows cannot be given, most processors do not limit their geographic marketing territories as much as dealers do; Indeed, most processors sellon a national or at least regional basis, and many of them export shrimp, primarily to Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Tables 3.5-6 through 3.5-8 provide data on U.S. exports for 1977. Data on exports by Gulf processors are unavailable. 3-55 Figure 3.5-10 Percentage of Value Production, by States, of the Major Gulf Shrimp Products (Percentage figures based on wholesale dollar values) RAW HEALESS PEELED AN DEVEINED Mississippi 6.8% Mississippi 6.6% BREAED CANED* ALAM 2.6% LOUISIANA 84.2% *All other states combined produce less than one percent. SOURCE: National Marine Fisheries Service, Processed Fishery Products, Annual Summary , 1976 (Washington D.C.: Dept. of Commerce) 3-5~ Figure 3. 5-11' Major Marketing Channels for Shrimp Products FOREIGN SHRIMP FISHERMN u. S. SHRIMP FISHERMN IMPORTING BROKERS OR WHOLESALERS DOCKSIDE "DEAERS" DOMESTIC BROKERS OR WHOLESALERS PROCESSORS: Breader, Canners, Driers, Freezers, Peelers, Specialty Producers JOBBERS INDEPENDENT WHOLESALERS BROKERS Retailers, Restaurants, Food Chain Warehouses, Co-ops, Institutions, and Importing Countries ULTIMATE CONSUMRS Bold lines indicate mast heavilv m::..rr ,.h",y""..l.. , - Table 3.5-6. United States Export of Domestic and Foreign shrimp Products (Flshery Statlstlcs of the Un I tad States, 1977). / Item Fresh and frozen: Domestic Forelgn* Total Percent of Total Quant Ity Thousand Thousand Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars 74.6 69.5% 26,089 $60,731 25.4 30.5 8,902 26,643 100.0 100.0 34,991 87,374 99.5 99.2 8,966 18,066 0.5 0.8 48 144 100.0 100.0 9,014 18,210 79.7 74.6 35,055 78,797 20.3 25.4 8,950 26,787 100.0% 100.0% 44,005 $105,584 Canned : Domestic Forelgn* Total Total: Domestic Foreign Total * Foreign shrimp exports are shrimp exported out of the United States that were of foreIgn origin prior to processing. Table 3.5-7. Exports of Domestic Fresh and Frozen Shrimp. StatIstics of the United States, 1977). by Country of Destination (Fishery Country Percent of Total Quant Ity Thousand Thousand Pounds Do liars Pounds Do liars Canada 33.1% 33.9% 8,634 $20,610 Mexico 33.8 31.3 8,811 19,003 Japan 18.1 19.7 4,718 11,957 Sweden 6.6 6.3 1,734 3,815 United Kingdom 2.4 2.4 630 1,474 Denmark 1.6 1.6 428 941 Bermuda 0.4 0.7 115 412 New Zeal and 0.7 0.6 176 363 Netherlands 0.5 0.5 124 312 Other 2.8 3.0 719 1,844 Total 100.0% 100.0% 26.089 $60,731 3-58 . Domestic per capita consumption of shrimp has Increased at a rate of 2.8 percent per year (1960 1977), a remrkable Increase gIven that shrimp prices Increased by 600 percent while the Consumer Price Index Increased by slightly more than 100 percent. Exceptions to this general Increase In shrimp consumption are associated with a slowing In the growth of the U.S. economy (1961-1962, 1966, late 1973-1974) or with extraordinarily high Increases In shrimp pr-ces (1971, 1975). In addition, the energy crisis In 1974 was a factor In reducing Important consumption In restaurants. Shrimp Is becoming a larger portion of the total seafood products consumed iñ the nation (1960 1977). A large part of this relative Increase has come withIn the last few years despite a faster growing price for shrimp than for other processed fish products. The socioeconomic characteristics of domestic consumers of shrimp were assessed In 1969 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973). An update of this data Is necessary In order to evaluate what effect, If any, management of shrimp decIsions may have on dIfferent types of consumers. 3.5.1.4 Imports and UtilIzation The role of shrimp Imports In the U.S. shrimp Industry Is substantial. This role can be examined from two sources. The first Is from an analysis of secondary data that demonstrates how Important shrimp Imports are to U.S. supply, Illustrates the source of Imports and outlines the types of pro ducts Imported. The second source Is from past econometric studies that attempted to statistically measure the Impact of Imports on the domestic Industry. These two sources are examined In the next sect Ions. 3.5.1.4.1 i mportance, Source and Type The role of shrimp Imports In determining the supply of shrimp Is demonstrated In Table 3.5-9. The supply of shrimp In the U.S. annually Is determined by beginning stocks, landings, Imports, and exports. From 1960 to 1979, the total supply of shrimp In the U.S. has ranged from 289.6 million pounds In 1961 to the high of 618.8 million pounds In 1977. Supplies have always been over 500 million pounds since 1910. Supplies were high In 1974, fell In 1975, Increased dramatically In 1976 and 1977 and then fell In 1978 ånd 1979. Supplies are In part Influenced by the amount consumers are willi ng to take of f the market. Another factor of late. that has probab i y I nf I uenced supp II es has been the high cost of financing Inventories due to high Interest rates. The ratIo of Imports to U.S. lan dings demonstrates the Importance of Imports. Between 1967 and 1976, the level of Imports ranged from 106 to 119 percent of U.S. domestic landIngs (with the exception of 90 percent In 1971). However, the ratio was 94 percent In both 1977 and 1978 and 129 percent In 1979. Dostic landings were Quite high In 1977 and 1978 and low In 1979 and 1980. Apparent consumption of shrimp In the U.S. was the highest on record In 1977 and 1978. Apparent consumption fell to 407.2 millIon pounds In 1979, the lowest since 1971. The first-half year apparent consumption for 1980 Is two percent below 1979 levels. The ratio of Imports to apparent consumption was 65 percent In 1979, the highest ratio ever recorded. Per capita consumption fell to 1.85 pounds In 1979, the lowest recorded since 1969. This represents a decline from the all time hIgh of 2.244pounds ln 1977. . The ratio of total U.S. Imports to Gulf of Mexico landIngs Indicates that during 1979, Imports were more than double Gulf landings (208 percent). In the two previous years the ratio was 163 and 154 percent. From 1973 to 1976 the ratio had been between 200 and 228 percent. It Is clear that Imports are an Important supply source to the U.S. shrimp Industry. Comparing the 1960's to the 1970's, Imports, U.S. landings and apparent consumption have all Increased. ..-' In the first half of 1980, the supplies, consumptIon and prices of shrimp were down from 1979 levels according to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (1980). Landings In the Gulf and south 3-59 Table 3.5-8. ( - Exports of Domstic Canned Shrimp, by Country of Destination, 1974. Country Percent o.f Total Pounds Do liars Canada 70.7% 72.4% Sweden 5.5 6.7 United Kingdom 6.0 4.7 Switzerland 3.3 3.2 Austra II a 4.1 3.0 Japan 3.9 2.9 France 1.9 2.3 New Zealand 0.9 0.8 Other 3.7 4.0 Total 100.0% 100.0% Quant I ty Thousand Thousand Pounds Do liars 5,340 $13,076 493 1,205 542 845 293 582 368 536 345 526 169 417 82 151 719 1 ,844 8,966 $18,066 From National Marine Fisheries Service, Flsherles of the Unlted States, 1977, (Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, April 1978). 3-60 U.S. T a b l e 3 . 5 9 . S u p p l y a n d u t i l i z a t i o n o f a l l s h r i m p I n t h e U . S . , a n n u a l , 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 9 , w i t h e m p h a s i s o n I m p o r t s . H a n d s o f f w e i g h t . S up pl y U t I I I z a t I o n R at io o f I m po rt s to , Y ea r B e g I n n I n g U .S . I m p o rt sa T ot al E n d I n g E xp or ts A p p a r e n t C o n s u m p t i o n U .S . A pp ar en t G u l f o f M e x i c o ' st oc ks L a n d I n g s S to ck s T ot al P e r C a p I t a L an di ng s C on su m pt I on L a n d I n g s m l i l i o n p o u n d s po un ds P er ce nt 19 60 46 .0 14 8. 5 11 9. 1 31 3. 6 51 .0 11 .0 25 1. 0 1. 39 8 80 47 97 19 61 51 .0 10 3. 9 13 4. 6 28 9. 6 26 .2 14 .6 24 8. 3 1. 35 7 13 0 54 16 9 19 62 26 .2 H 9. 2 15 2. 5 29 7. 9 37 .9 9. 9 25 0. 0 1. 34 6 12 8 61 17 1 19 63 37 .9 15 0. 7 16 7. 3 35 5. 9 55 .8 20 .4 27 9. 6 1. 48 3 11 1 60 13 0 19 64 55 .8 13 3. 1 16 9. 5 35 4. 4 45 .5 22 .8 29 0. 1 1. 51 8 12 7 58 15 0 19 65 45 .5 15 2. 3 17 9. 0 37 6. 8 38 .2 22 .0 31 6. 6 1. 63 6 11 8 57 14 7 19 66 38 .2 14 8. 2 19 4. 9 38 1. 4 42 .5 25 .5 31 3. 4 1. 60 2 13 2 62 17 3 w 19 67 42 .5 19 0. 0 20 2. 1 43 4. 6 57 .6 34 .9 34 2. 1 1. 73 2 10 6 59 14 3 l 19 68 57 .6 18 4. 1 21 0. 1 45 1. 8 55 .8 29 .6 36 6. 4 1. 83 8 11 4 57 16 4 0\ .. 19 69 55 .8 19 5. 0 21 8. 7 46 9. 5 62 .5 47 .4 35 9. 5 1. 78 5 11 2 61 17 3 19 70 62 .5 22 4. 3 24 5. 7 53 2. 5 72 .2 56 .8 40 3. 5 1. 98 0 11 0 61 16 9 19 71 72 .7 23 8. 1 21 3. 9 52 3. 2 69 .9 57 .5 39 6. 8 1. 92 4 90 54 14 9 19 72 69 .9 23 5. 9 25 3. 1 55 9. 0 92 .7 52 .2 41 4. 1 1. 98 9 10 7 61 17 6 19 73 92 .7 22 9. 4 22 9. 3 55 1. 4 79 .0 67 .7 40 4. 7 1. 92 4 10 0 57 20 0 19 74 79 .0 22 4. 4 26 7. 5 57 0. 9 76 .2 48 .0 44 6. 7 2. 11 3 11 9 60 22 8 19 75 76 .2 20 7. 6 23 1. 0 51 4. 8 47 :4 47 .2 42 0. 2 1. 97 2 11 1 55 21 5 19 76 47 .4 24 3. 0 27 0. 7 56 1. 1 61 .0 48 .1 45 2. 0 2. 10 6 11 1 60 20 5 19 77 61 .0 28 7. 4 27 0. 4 61 8. 8 80 .2 52 .9 48 5. 7 2. 24 4 94 56 16 3 19 78 80 .2 25 5. 4 23 9. 0 57 4. 6 58 .2 60 .4 45 5. 7 2. 08 8 94 52 15 4 19 79 56 .2 20 6. 9 26 7. 1 53 0. 2 77 .5 45 .7 40 7. 2 1. 85 12 9 65 20 8 a A I m o st a I I I s fr e sh a n d f ro ze n S ou rc e: S he I I fi sh M ar ke t R ev I e w , N ov em be r, 1 97 8. L a st t h re e c o i u m n s ca I c u I a te d . D at a fo r 19 78 1 97 9 fr om t he S he I i fi sh M ar ke t R ev ie w , N ov em be r, 1 98 0 (I n p r I nt ). Atlantic were sharp Iy lower. Imports were above first Quarter 1979 levels but the the Quarter progressed and Imports were sharp Iy lower I n the second Quarter. High torles were drawn down to 1979 levels by the end of June, 1980. lead declined as beginning Inven Landings of shrimp In the Gulf and south Atlantic were 43 million pounds (heads-off) In the first half of 1980 which was 23 percent below 1979 levels. However, during later months gains were made that put landings closer to 1979 levels. Total Imports of shrimp were 92 million pounds (product weight) In the first half of 1980. This was eight percent below 1979 levels. The major drop was because of a restriction of Imports of peeled raw shrimp from India due to actions by the FDA because of quality problems. Imports from Mexico were up slightly. Imports of shrimp by Japan through July, 1980, were 16 percent lower than In 1979. This decrease In world demand has also been a contribution to price problems In the U.S. Beginning Inventories In 1980 of 78 mil lion pounds were 14 percent above the 1974-1978 average. Inventories on July 1, 1980 were 40 million pounds, seven percent above 1979 same period levels. Inventories normally drop to a seasonal low about July 1 and rise to a seasonal high about January 1. The steeper than norma i I nventory drop of 49 percent I n the first ha I f of 1980 was associ ated with low landings and Imports and an effort to cut Inventories to reduce carrying costs. As discussed In section 3.5.2.3, beginning In late 1979 the price of 21-25 raw headless shrimp fell rapidly to a low of $3.82 In May, 1980. Prices Increased again from June through August but fell again In October, 1980, due primarily to good late summr landings. Retail prices have remined h~h and did not fall to the same degree beginning In late 1979, as did exvessel prices and wholesale pri ces. This may explain the failure of consumption to Improve from 1979 levels In the second half of 1979 and first hal f of 1980. The primary type of shrimp Imported Into the U.S. are raw headless as shown In Table 3.5-10. In terms of product weight, raw he~dless shrimp represented 123.4 million pounds (55 percent), raw peeled, 86.1 million pounds (38 percent), canned, 4.2 million pounds (two percent) and other forms, 10.6 million pounds (five percent) of the total Imports of 224.5 million pounds In 1979. These per centages have been falrly.conslstent the last few years. The North American Continent continues to provide slightly. over one-half of all shrimp Imports Into the U.S. as shown In Table 3.5-11. Mexico Is the dominant supplier with about 35 percent of ai I U.S. Imports. Panama, EI Salvador and Nicaragua are the other major suppliers. The South American Continent supplied about 15 percent of U.S. Imports from 1975-1979, down from almost 19 percent from 1970-1974. Ecuador, Columbia and ßrazil were the major suppliers the last five years. Guyana, Venezuela, and French Guiana were major suppliers the first half of the decade. Imports from Asia Increased from 26 percent of the total from 1970-1974 to 32 percent from 1975-1979. The major supplying country Is India at almost 17 percent. Increases were seen for India, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Bangledesh. Small amounts of shrimp are Imported from the continents of Europe, Africa and Australia and Oceania. 3.5.1.4.2 Measured i mpacts of Imports As stated In the USITC (1976), shrimp Imported Into the U.S. have historically been free of duty. Under the Tariff Schedules of the U.S., shrimp are provided for under Item 114.45. The duty-free sta tus of peeled shrimp In airtight containers and other peeled shrimp If dried or cooed, but not breaded Is bound as a result of concessions granted by the U.S. In the sixth round of trade negotiations (Kennedy Round) under the Genera I Agreement on Tarl f fs and Trade. The duty-free status of shr I mp In other forms Is not bound. Imports that enter In the forms for which the duty-free treatmnt Is bound account for only a small part of the U.S. Imports of shrimp. A particular Question to be answered 3-62 Table 3.5-10. U.S. Imports of shrimp by product type, annual 1960-1979. Product weight. Year Raw Raw Canned Other Total Total Head less Pee led Heads-off We I ght 1960 93.0 18.1 a 2.3 113.4 119.1 1961 101.3 20.3 a 4.7 126.3 134.6 1962 108.6 24.7 a 7.9 141.2 152.5 1963 111.7 29.5 4.1 6.2 151.2 167.3 1964 112.1 27.4 3.0 12.0 154.6 169.5 1965 114.2 32.0 2.2 14.6 162.9 179.0 1966 129.9 37.2 1.5 9.8 178.5 194.9 1967 131.9 39.0 2.2 13.0 186.1 202.1 1968 128.0 47.5 4.3 9.7 189.5 21b.1 1969 121.3 63.8 3.6 5.1 193.7 218.7 1970 140.0 69.5 3.9 5.4 218.7 245.7 1971 123.9 60.1 2.7 4.5 191.3 213:9 1972 126.8 90.1 1.1 5.2 223.2 253.1 1973 123.3 71.4 3.0 4.9 202.6 229 . 3 1974 132.0 83.2 6.1 7.7 228.9 267.5 1975 117.2 76.7 1.1 6.4 201.5 231.0 1976 129.7 86.4 2.3 11.3 229.8 270.7 1977 125.8 87.8 2.8 11.6 228.0 270.4 1978 101.3 83.1 2.7 11.0 198.0 239.0 1979 123.4 86.1 4.2 10.6 224.5 267.1 a I nc I uded I n other Source: Shellfish Market Review. November, 1978. 3-63 T a b le 3 .5 1 1 . I m p o r t s o f a l l ' s h r l m p I n t o t h e U . S . b y c o u n t r y o f o r i g i n , 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 9 . (P ro d u ct w e ig h t) c . - 1970 1 9 7 4 A v e r a g e 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 9 A v e r a g e C ou nt ry b 19 70 19 71 19 72 19 73 19 74 19 75 19 76 19 77 19 78 19 79 m il li on pe rc en t m il li on pe rc en t po un ds of t ot a i po un ds of t ot ë; l , m i l l i o n s o f p o u n d s N o r t h A m e r I c a M e x I co 72 .0 74 .6 80 .7 76 .1 78 .1 75 .0 80 .4 76 .3 72 .5 71 .9 76 .3 35 .8 75 .2 34 .8 P an am a 11 .6 9. 3 10 .1 10 .4 10 .1 9. 8 11 .6 10 .0 9. 2 12 .2 10 .3 4. 8 10 .6 4. 9 E I S a l v a d o r 6. 4 6. 7 5. 7 5. 9 6. 1. 6. 8 5. 6 5. 4 5. 0 6. 3 6. 2 2. 9 5. 8 2. 7 N ic ar ag ua 6. 0 5. 6 6. 6 6. 1 6. 4 6. 2 6. 5 7. 4 5. 6 5. 4 6. 1 2. 9 6. 2 2. 9 G u a ta m a I a 2. 9 2. 3 1. 3 3. 0 2. 9 3. 6 2. 7 3. 8 4. 2 3. 6 2. 5 1 . 1 3. 6 1. 7 H on du ra s 2. 6 3. 9 4. 8 3. 4 3. 4 3. 6 3. 9 4. 7 3. 5 3. 1 3. 6 1. 7 3. 8 1. 8 O th er s 9. 1 5. 6 4. 9 5. 3 5. 6 4. 3 4. 9 10 .8 4. 3 4. 6 6. 1 2. 9 5. 8 2. 7 iJ T ot al C 11 O . 6 10 8. 0 11 4. 1 11 0. 2 11 2. 6 10 9. 3 11 5 . 6 11 8. 4 10 4. 3 10 7. 1 11 1. 1 52 .2 11 O . 9 51 .3 i " S o u t h A m e r I c a ;: G uy an a 10 .2 9. 0 6. 9 10 .1 7. 3 5. 4 4. 2 4. 6 3. 4 3. 7 8. 7 4. 1 4. 3 1. 2 F re n ch G u I a n a 5. 1 3. 8 3. 6 3. 9 2. 4 1. 9 1. 4 1. 6 1. 7 3. 6 3. 8 1. 8 2. 0 .9 E cu ad or 6. 0 5. 3 6. 9 7. 5 6. 2 8. 1 9. 4 8. 6 10 .9 13 .7 6. 4 3. 0 10 .1 4. 7 V en ez ue la 11 .6 10 .1 8. 0 5. 7 6. 5 4. 9 5. 8 2. 8 1. 3 2. 3 8. 4 4. 0 3. 4 1. 6 C o i um b I a 4. 8 4. 8 6. 0 6. 0 6. 2 5. 7 6. 3 5. 7 4. 2 4. 1 5. 6 2. 6 5. 2 2. 4 S u r I n a m 2. 6 2. 1 2. 1 1. 9 1. 6 3. 1 3. 8 3. 7 2. 0 1. 5 2. 1 1. 0 2. 8 1. 3 B ra zi l 2. 1 4. 4 8. 9 4. 3 3. 0 1. 4 2. 0 3. 5 3. 9 9. 7 4. 5 2. 1 4. 1 1. 9 O th er s 1 . 2 . 6 1. 5 1. 0 .5 .7 1. 0 .9 .8 1. 2 1. 0 .5 .9 .4 T ot al C 43 .6 40 .1 43 .9 40 .4 33 .7 31 .2 34 .0 31 .4 28 .2 29 .8 40 .3 18 .9 32 .9 15 .2 E ur op e 1. 0 1 . 1 1. 2 1 . 1 .9 1. 5 1. 5 2. 2 .7 1. 9 1 . 1 .5 1. 6 .7 T a b le 3 .5 1 1 . I m p o r t s o f a l l s h r i m p I n t o t h e U . S . b y c o u n t r y o f o r i g i n , 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 9 . (P ro d u ct w e I g h t) c . - 1970 1 9 7 4 A ve ra g e 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 9 A v e r a g e C ou nt ry b 19 70 19 71 19 72 19 73 19 74 19 75 19 76 19 77 19 78 19 79 m l r li on pe rc en t m il lio n pe rc en t po un ds o f to ta I po un ds o f t o t a ' m i l l i o n s o f p o u n d s A si a i In do ne si a a a 2. 4 2. 5 6. 3 1. 6 4. 6 4. 6 3. 8 5. 5 2. 2 1. 0 4. 0 1. 9 In di a 33 .6 22 .8 33 .5 20 .6 31 .4 29 .6 41 .6 41 .1 39 .2 30 .8 28 .4 13 .3 36 .5 16 .9 P a kl s ta n 7. 1 2. 9 2. 6 1. 4 a a a .8 .8 1. 0 2. 8 1. 3 .5 .2 T ha il an d 3. 6 2. 0 4. 0 2. 9 3. 7 2. 7 3. 2 4. 2 3. 9 10 .6 3. 2 1. 5 4. 9 2. 3 C h i n a , T a i w a n .9 .9 6. 0 5. 4 5. 3 5. 6 5. 1 3. 6 3. 2 7. 9 3. 7 1. 7 5. 1 2. 4 H o n g K o n g a a a a 1. 5 2. 2 5. 1 3. 9 3. 6 5. 3 .3 .1 4. 0 1. 9 B a n g I a d e sh a a .7 1. 2 2. 0 2. 2 3. 7 3. 4 3. 5 2. 7 .8 .4 3. 1 1. 4 O th er 12 .9 6. 5 10 .8 12 .9 23 .9 12 .5 11 .9 11 .0 5. 5 9. 4 13 .4 6. 2 10 .1 4. 7 T ot al C 58 .1 35 .1 60 .0 46 .9 74 .1 56 .4 75 .2 72 .6 . 63 .5 73 .2 54 .8 25 .7 68 .2 31 .5 w A u s t r a l i a a n d ) 0\ O ce an l a 1. 6 3. 1 1. 5 .6 4. 8 .9 .8 .8 .2 1. 2 2. 3 1 . 1 .8 .4 li A f r I c a 3. 9 . 2. 5 3. 4 2. 8 2. 3 2. 7 2. 5 1. 3 1. 4 3. 3 1. 6 2. 7 1. 3 G ra n d T o ta i C 21 8. 7 19 1. 3 22 3. 2 20 2. 6 22 8. 9 20 1. 5 22 9. 8 2 2 8 . 0 19 8. 2 2 2 4 . 5 21 2. 9 10 0. 0 21 6. 4 10 0. 0 a N o li st ed s ep ar at el y In o ri gi na l da ta s ou rc e. b T h e o r i g i n a l d a t a s o u r c e u s u a l l y l i s t s a b o u t 4 5 c o u n t r i e s . A c o u n t r y w a s l i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y o n t h i s t a b l e I f a t a n y t i m e f r o m 1 9 7 0 t o 19 79 a nn ua l Im po rt s fr om t ha t co un tr y ex ce ed ed 3 .5 m il l Io n po un ds . c T o t a l s m a y n o t a d d d u e t o ~ u n d l n g . S o u r c e : F i s h e r i e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , A n n u a l I s s u e s . should a tariff ever be levied on shrimp, Is whether shrimp caught by U.S. vessels but landed In foreign ports and then shipped to the U.S. would be taxed. See USITC (1976) for a complete discussion of this poInt. On November 17, 1975, the NatIonal Shrimp Congress filed a petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission for Imprt relief pursuant to sectIon 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. The USITC Instl . tuted an Investigation to determIne whether shrImp; fresh, ch Illed, frozen prepared, or preserved . (IncludIng pastes and sauces), provIded for In Item 114.45 of the TarIff Schedules of the U.S., were being Imported Into the U.S. In such Increased QuantitIes as to be a substantIal cause of serious Injury or threat to the domstIc Industry producIng 'an artIcle like, or dIrecly competitive with, the Imported article. The USITC (1976) report IndIcates that before a cause of Injury or threat of Injury can be found that: 1. An article Is being Imported Into the U.S. In IncreasIng quantItIes. 2. That the domstic Industry producIng an article lIke or dIrecly competItive wIth the Imported artIcle Is being seriously Injured or threatened with serIous Injury. 3. That such Increased Imprts of an artIcle are a substantIal cause of the serious Injury to the domstic Industry. FIve of the six USITC commissIoners participated In the findIng of the commIssIon. One com- mIssioner found that shrImp; fresh, chIlled, frozen prepared, or preserved was being Imported In such Increased quantitIes as to be a substantIal cause of serious Injury to the domstIc shrImp fIshIng Industry. The commIssioner further found that from the InformtIon avaIlable that the shrimp Items were not being Imported .In such Increased quantities as to be a substantIal cause of serIous Injury, or the threat thereof, to the domstic shrimp processing Industry. The "domstIc Industry" was thus defIned as two Industries: (1) shrimp boats and (2) shrimp processors. Two other commIssIoners found that shrImp was beIng Imported Into the U.S. In such Increased QuantitIes as to be a substantIal cause of serious Injury to the domestic shrimp catchIng sector. These two commissIoners dId not address the Impact on the processing sector. The remining two commIssIoners found that Increaed Imports of shrimp were not a substantIal cause of any serIous Injury or the threat therea, whIch the domstic shrimp fishing Industry may be sufferIng. Further, they found that the domstic shrimp procssing Industry was not beIng serIously Injured or threatened with serIous Injury. The overal i determInation was such that shrImp were beIng Imprted Into the U.S. In such Increased QuantItIes as to be a substantial cause of serIous Injury to the domstic shrImp catch Ing Industry. Adjustmnt assistance to the Industry was recomnded. MIller (1975) also dIscusse the role of shrimp Imports. This discussIon focuse on the Impact of shrImp Imports at a tIme when the overal i market for seafoods was declinIng. Miller (1975) Indica tes that the need and deslrabl Ilty for the U.S. to purchase substantial Imports of shrimp has ben amply demonstrated over the long run. StartIng In the early 1960's, Imports as a rule supplied slightly more than half the QuantIty of shrImp supplIes In the U.S. The growing level of demand required these rmports for satIsfactIon. Imports kept production lines busy In processIng plants durIng the off season for U.S. shrImp fishermn. Hoever, Miller Indicated that begInnIng In 1970, the level of Imports fluctuated wIdely and contrIbuted to the volatIlity of U.S. domstIc shrImp markets. The primary reason for this Is reflected primarily through changes In competitive conditIons for world shrImp supplies. Japan became a domInant competitor for shrimp durIng 1973. The Japanese bid away neeed U.S. shrImp supplIes whIch caused a sharp price Increase. DurIng 1974, Japanese demand softened, and the world shrimp catch was focused on U.S. markets which were soft. Major supply Ing countries such as Indonesia and Pakistan were force to adjust accordIngly. The Impct of the world demand and supply for shrImp on the U.S. Industry Is never more read I Iy apparent than today. ThIs external factor Impact on domstic prices, coupled with much hIgher energy costs and sluggish consumer demand have led to an unstable economIc sItuatIon In the shrimp Industry. 3-66 Doll's (1972) analysIs of shrimp exvessel prices from 1950 to 1968 examined the Influence of Imports on domstIc prIce. Doll points out that Imports were about one-thIrd the size of domstic landIngs In 1950 but began to Increase rapidly In 1955 and have exceeded domstic landings In every year between 1961 and 1968 (the last year of data covered In his analysIs). Doli's analysis suggested that during the study perIod Imports had a larger dIrec Impact on exvessel price than on wholesale prIce. Beginning shrImp stocks (first Quarter) were found to have a larger effect on wholesale price, than on exvesse i pr I ceo i mports entered throughout the year but were largest dur I ng the fourth quarter. Doll hypothesIzed that Imports are placed In storage and sold durIng the first and second quarters when domstIc landings are seasonally low. The effect of Imports on wholesale price Is thereby reflected through begInning stocks for the next year. BegInning stocks also have an Important effect on exvessel prIce. Thus, over time, Imports were estimated to have a lagged effect on boh prl ces. The prIncIpal objective of Imprt restrictIons on shrImp Is to reduce supplIes and thereby elimI nate or lesson the negative price effects of Imports. The analysis by Doll (1972) 'Indlcates that exvessel prIce levels are hIghly Inversely sensitIve to changes In the level of supplies and positI vely related to Increases In consumer Income. Doli (1972) stated specifIcally that exvessel prIces were found to decrease as beinning stocks and landings Increase, but to Increase as Incom Increases. The study also concluded that Imprts have a negatIve Impact upon domstic prices. It was estImated that an Increase In Imports by one million pounds, (heads-off) would, If sustaIned for five years, reduce exvessel price by sIx cents per pound. ThIs appears to be underestimated, however, because be tween the study perIod of 1950 to 1968, Imports Increased an average of nine mIllIon pounds per year. Miller (1975) also outlIned three questions whIch must be answered regarding raIsIng domstIc exvessel prIces. These are (1) how much of a cutback In supplies Is needed to brIng about a desIred change In exvessel prices, (2) how should a cutback be allocated, as between domstic production and Imports and (3) what would be the Impact of reduced supplies on consumer prIces? The second Question must be answered by political processes. MIller (1975) performd an analysIs usIng data from 1960-1974 In an attempt to answer the other two QuestIons. According to MIller's analysIs, a 12 per cent reduction In total supplies In 1975 of shrImp would have been accompanied by a 20 percent Increase In average exves.sel shrImp prices for the year (assuming "real" per capIta disposable Incom dropped three percent). If, In thIs case, domstic landings matches 1974 totals, Imports would have" to be reduced about 63 mIllIon pounds, or 23 percent. (Imports In 1974 entered at an average monthly rate of 22.5 mIllion pounds, with a hIgh of 30 mIllIon pounds and a low of 18 mIllIon pounds.) For exvesse I pr I ces to Increase 30 percent, tota I supp II es wou I d have to have dropped about 18 percent. This would mean a 36 percent cutback In Imprts (96 millIon pounds) assuming no change In the domstic catch. It nees to be stressed that these are not precise estimates, given the short comIngs of the statistIcal techniques applIed. The analysis does clearly demonstrate that taking Into account the relatIvely hIgh level of carryover holdIngs goIng Into 1975, a substantial reduction In Imports would have Improved the exvessel prIce sItuation measurably If domstIc production stayed abot the same as In 1974. RestrIctions on Imprts of shrImp offer one avenue of relief for U.S. shrImp fIshermn. Hoever, It nee~ to be recognIzed that restrIcted Imprts may run counter to the Interests of som sectors of the shrImp Industry and would lIkely be opposed by these sectors. Processors of breaded shrImp, for example depend In part upon Imprts for .thelr raw material requiremnts. A ban on Imports cou Id prove disruptive for these processors. Also, U.S. private capital underwrItes certain foreIgn shrImp opera tIons which produce for the U.S. market. Adding to thIs the International polItIcal Implications makes It clear that there are perl Is, as well as benefits, In restrictIng Imports of shrImp, and that cautIon and thought should precede such action. The Importance of outsIde supplies of raw shrimp to the shrImp processing Industry durIng the mid-1970's was documented by Prochaska and Cato (1975). Based on thIs article, shrimp landIngs durIng 1972 were greater than the amonts procese In that 3-67 I. st~te for only North ~nd South C~rolln~ of all southeastern states. Loulsl~na, Texas, Alabama, MissIssIppI, Georgl~ and Florld~ shrImpers supplied only about 97, 84, 76, 57, 35 and 18 percent, respectively, of r~w product needs of their processors. International trade and Imports are thus Quite Import~nt to these st~tes. Miller and Marasco (1976) a i so addressed the Question of whether or not som form of governmnt~1 control should be Imposed on the Importation of shrimp Into the U.S. This analysIs was done because at that tIme (1974 and 1975) the longest and most severe economic downturn occurred In the U.S. shrImp Industry. The princIpal Issues addressed were the justlflc~tlon for government InterventIon, the potentl~1 effectiveness of Intervention, and the long term Impllc~tlons. Beginning In I~te 1973, ~nd through 1974, the market for shrimp was unfavor~ble and fishermn bec~me concerned over the large Qu~ntltles of shrImp Imports entering the U.S. markets that were already he~vl Iy over supplied. Imports norm~lly are required to s~tlsfy U.S. demand and to keep pro cessIng lines open. However, during this period prices were depressed and most people linked the problem to Imports. The Industry turned to the government for asslst~nce. As MI I ler ~nd Mar~sco (1976) point out, government Intervention Is not always the best answer when the market mechanisms are not effective In bringIng order to ~ chaotic market In a short time period. Nonetheless, there has been precedence for government Intervention to assIst lagging market forces, particularly In agrl cu Itural commodl ty sItuations. Based on past perIods, the market mechanIsm appears to work In the shrImp market, although Io.a highly volatile fashion. The shrimp market appears to somtimes over reac and over correc. After 1975, the rapid prIce rIse and correcion of t~e supply problem makes It ~ppear that If Imprt contro I s had been I mp I emented, there woo I d have been a more serIous shortage prob lem due to the low level of Imports In 1975. If shrImp Imports act as the stabilizing factor In the market ~nd govern ment Interference Increases the volatility of this factor, Import controls mIght not be In the bet Interest. Producers through consumers gain from reducing Inst~bli Ity In the shrimp market. Incom st~bl 1 Ity among primary food producers has always been a natIonal policy problem. The processing sector depends heavily upon stability of raw m~terl~1 supplIes and resources. Consumers benefIt from a lesser price swing In the retail market. Retail shrImp prices are slow to move downward durIng prIce adjustment periods at the wholesale and exvessel level. Any condItions that move retail prIces to Inordinately hIgh levels contrIbute to overall higher price levels and are thus Inflationary. Miller and M~rasco (1976) also reported a price analysis of the effects of Imports whIch found th~t Imports In a given month have considerably less effect on exvessel prIces than any of the other major prIce determInants. Current monthly exvessel prices are most affected by domstic landl ngs, and In order of Import~nce, choice beef prices, retail marketIng costs and wholesale marketing costs. A ten percent Increase In Imprts was associated with one-tenth of one percent drop In exvessel pr-lces. However, Imports move first Into cold storage, and these Inventory levels Influence prices over tIme In 8 cumulatIve .fashlon. Sust~lnlng the one-month Increase In Imports of ten percent over three mOnths leads to a 3.4 percent drop In exvessel prices. The Influence on prIce of the other factors, . hawevèr, stIli overshadows that of Imports. ThIs conclusion Is conslstant with recnt findings by Chul (1980). . MIller and Marasco (1976) concluded that Import restrictions benefits would probably be short term and narrowly focused. Dostic shrImp fishermn would probably benefit, but consumers would pay hIgher prices. Imports appe~r to be a stabilizing factor In supply and do not exert tremndous Influence on domstic prices. Import restrictions did not appear to be the promising cure for market Inst~blllty In the shrImp Industry as analyzed In 1976. 3-68 3.5.1.5 EconomIc Impact of the DomstIc Fishery The harvest, processIng, and marketing of shrImp are the readily vIsIble aspects of shrImp utll 1 zatlon. Since each year varIous user groups generally Increase their demand for Gulf shrimp resour ces, the econom I c contr I but Ion of users shou I d be cons I dered I n dec I s Ions. The econom I c I mpact of the commercial user groups Is more easily estimated than that of recreational users. An IndicatIon of an Industry's Impact can be made wIth the use.of multiplier analysIs. A multiplIer shows the rela tionship between a prImary, readIly observable economic event and the total economIc activIty stImu lated by the primary event. The primary event of landing shrimp at a dock resu Its In sales, Incom, and emloyment In numerous busInesses. Insight to the overall Impact of commercial landings Is gained by Identifying the sales, Incom and employment multipliers In the shrImp Industry. A few studies of fishery economic Impacts have been completed In the Gulf (see Jones, et 211., 1974, MorrIs, et 211., 1979; and Nlsson, et 211., 1978). The most useful analysis was the Jones, et 211., study of the shrimp Industry In Texas. By makIng the explIcIt assumptIon that theIr results reflect the general situatIon In other Gulf states, estImates for the Gulf were obtaIned. Using a sales multIplier of 3.09 yIelds an Impact of $1.2 billion In 1979. Included In the $1.2 bIllIon Is the approximate $377.6 millIon of landIngs and $789.3 mIllion of Indirec and Induced output by sup port Industries. Direc and Indirec Incom payments to workers In shrimp related busInesses were estimated to approximate $336 mIllion of the $1.2 billion total. The employment of workers In shrlmplng and related busInesses Is often a major element of Isolated resource based economics. UsIng the Texas results of .8 people employed direcly In the shrimp Industry per $10,000 of landIngs, IUdl cates 30,200 IndIviduals employed throughout the Gulf In 1979. When the multIplIer effect (1.22) of employment In shrlmplng was Included, the total employment estimate for the Gulf became 36,800 Indlvl dua I s. 3.5.2 Domst I c Comrc I a I Fleet Character I st I cs 3.5.2.1 Incom of the Fleet Gross Incom Reported annual pounds and exvessel value for domstIc catch of U.S. Gulf shrImp by bots Is computed In Table 3.5-12. Annual total Incom for boh vessels and bots this time perIod 1962-1974. by vessels and I ncreased over A 10.3 percent average annual growh rate In gross Incom of shrimp vessels Is due to a 2.3 per cent average annual growth rate In ponds of shrimp landed, plus an 8.0 percent Increase In exvessel prIce. A ten percent growth rate In gross Incom to shrImp bots Is due to a 3.2 percent Increase In pounds caught and a 6.8 percent Increase In exvessel prIce. As evIdent In Tables 3.5-13 and 3.5-15 thIs average annual growh rate (2.3 percent) In ponds of . shrimp landed has occurred from an IncreasIng numbr of vessels and bots In the fishery. Bots have Increas.ed theIr share of total da.ys fished through their larger growh l-n numbers and average days . fished per boat. Vessels whIle fIshIng slightly more days per year through the perIod, are exertIng more effectIve effort beause of their upward trend In vessel sIze. Larger horsepower and nets are generally correlated with Increased vessel size. Thus, the Increase In total gross Incom associated with the small Increase In catch results from more vessels and bots, more days fished, and larger vessels. ShrImp vessel and bot InformatIon more current than 1975 was not available at this writIng. InsIght to the general trend In shrimp vessel numbers Is evIdent from revIewing recnt data from state agencIes In the two largest producing Gulf states, LouisIana and Texas. The number of licensed shrimp vessels In Texas Increased 23 percent between 1975 and 1979 (Swartz, 1980). Approximately half of the growth rate was due to Increases In vessels larger than 40 feet. NeIghborIng LouisIana 3-69 Table 3.5-12. Reported annual pounds and value of the dOITléstíc catch of US Gulf Shrimp by boats and by vessels, 1962-1974 (ChristDas and Etzo1d 1977). ',-," Million Price Per Total Days Poiids Poiids Value Poimd Fished Effort Per Day Year (Heads-off) (Million $) ($) 1000 1000 Fished 1962 45.4 33~4 0.74 88.5 144.0 513 1963 77.0 41.5 0.54 112.9 181. 8 682 1964 71.0 40.7 0.57 114.4 186.3 621 1965 80.1 49.1 0.61 113.7 187.6 704 ~(I 1966 78.3 61.9 0.79 187.6 190.5 688 uuli 1967 99.7 68..5 0.69 116.0 201. 7 859 (I.. 1968 83.7 68.4 0.82 121.5 218.1 688 "" 1969 82.4 74.3 0.90 147.8 273.6 557 ...en 1970 96.1 81.4 0 85 134 . 6 249.1 713 ::o 1971 91.3 100.8 1.10 137.0 259.0 566 ..'o 1972 94.3 120.1 1.27 146.8 282.6 642 1973 71.0 118.6 1.67 140.0 269.7 507 1974 73.9 99.8 1.35 132.4 243.6 558 Anual Growth Rate 2.3\ 10.3\ 8.0\ 3.1\ 4.7\ -1. Ò\ Million Price Per Total Days Poiids POlIds Value Pound Fished Per Day Year (Heads-off) (Million $) ($) ( 1 000) F is hed 1962 25.2 11.9 0.47 58.0 434 1963 33.3 9.4 0.28 38.5 865 1964 23.5 9.6 0.41 55.4 424 1965 25.5 9.5 0.37 56.7 450 tD 1966 24.6 12.2 0.50 62.2 395 0 p) 1967 30.6 12.1 0.40 66.1 463 rr 1968 29.9 13.2 0.44 70.0 427 "".. 1969 35.5 17~8 0.50 52.6 675 en:: 1970 40.1 17.6 0.44 65.4 613 n t1 1971 42.5 23.7 0.56 67.9 626 ". 1972 37.7 27.5 0.73 82.1 459 1973 33.6 34.3 1.02 98.0 343 1974 33.0 22.7 0.69 90.3 363 Anual Growth P.ate 3.2% 10.0% 6.8% 5. l% 1. 7% From The Shri Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States: A Re iona1 t-1ana e ment Plan, J.Y. Christmas and D.J. Etzo1d et al. 3,"70 " ~~ Table 3.5-13. Annual estimates of vessels and boats In the U.S. Gulf shrimp fishery Year Number of Gross Tons Otter Traw Is Number of Gulf Shrlmplng Per Vessel Per Vessel Gu i f Shr Imp I n9 Vessels* Boats 1960 2,941 41.3 1.76 3,089 1961 2,686 42.6 1.80 2,987 1962 2,600 41.9 1.77 3,927 1963 2,697 41.5 1.76 4,481 1964 2,782 42.0 1.74 4,360 1965 2,849 42.7 1.72 4,785 1966 2,942 44.9 1.74 4,797 1967 3,146 48.9 1.76 4,983 1968 3,430 52.5 1.77 5,109 1969 3,569 53.7 1.76 4,817 1970 3,579 53.8 1.73 4,495 1971 3,487 57.8 1.77 4,828 1972 3,683 59.2 2.20 4,500 1973 4,091 59.9 1.78 4,723 1974 3,785 61.5 1.77 4,589 1975 3,680 (est.) 59.5 1.78 5,054 * This total Is exclusive of duplication. From NMFS data from Fishery StatIstics of the United States. 3-71 Table 3.5-14. Cost of new U.S. Gulf shrimp vessels by various sizes and types of construction, 1971 to 1977 Year Vessel Length and Type Cost $ 57,000 76,000 93,000 118,000 114,000 121,000 134,000 148,000 185,000 147,000 164,000 195,000 220,000 1971 : 53 - 65 ft. wood and steel 66 - 72 ft. woo and steel 63 - 69 ft. woo 63 - 69 ft. steel 70 - 78 ft. steel 1973: 1975: 68 ft. wood 73 ft. wood 68 ft. steel 73 ft. steel 1977: 68 ft. wood 73 ft. wood 68 ft. steel 73 ft. steel Source: Warren and Grl f fin (1978) Table 3.5-15. Annual participation In the subject fishery by vessels and boats Year Vessels Days* fished Boats Days fished per vessel per boat 1962 2,600 34.0 3,927 14.8 1963 2,697 41.9 4,481 8.6 1964 2,782 41.1 4,360 12.7 1965 2,849 39.9 4,785 11.8 1966 2,942 38.6 4,797 13.0 1967 3,146 36.9 4,983 13.3 1968 3,430 35.4 5,109 13.7 1969 3, 569 41.8 4,817 10.9 1970 3,579 37.6 4,495 14.5 1971 3,487 39.3 4,828 14.1 1972 3,683 39.9 4,500 18.2 1973 4,091 34.2 4,723 20.7 1974 3,785 35.0 4,589 19.7 * Day = 24 hours of fishIng time Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. 3-72 experIenced a 41 percent Increase In licensed resident shrimp vessels between 1976 and 1979 (Roberts and Thomson, 1981). Bets lIcensed In Louisiana Increased 47 percent In the same period. Licensed sport shrimpers Increased 22 percent. The Increase In total Louisiana shrimp licensees (licensed sport, comrcl a I bet, commercl a I vesse I, and non res I dent commercl a I shr I mpers) was 37 percent for the perIod. The recent fIgures for LouIsiana and Texas IndIcate that the growh In shrimp Industry partIcIpants contInued through 1979. The contribution of these additional vessel and boat par tlcJpants to the Increase In gross fleet Incom of the perIod Is unknown. Identification of the growth rate In ponds and exvessel price Is necessary prIor to specifying the productivIty of this major I ncrease In peo i e and cap I tal. Net Incom Gross Incom Is known to fluctuate widely In the shrimp fishery. The fluctuatIon Is due to: (1) varl atlon In shrImp ava liabIlity arl sing from uncontrollab Ie environmental forces, and (2) prIce varIation resulting from changes In economIc conditions of consuming natIons. Gross Incom wIll fluc tuate sharply when both factors are unfavorable. The major fuel price Increases since 1973 have been the most visIble long term Inf luence on net Incom. Fuel Is the largest component of operatIng costs. The Inability to change to less fuel IntensIve technology will make net Incom heavily dependent on catch, exvessel price, and now cost of effort. Changes In these factors produce the varl atlon over the 1971-1977 period shown In Tables 3.5-16 and 3.5-17. Coparable cost and return budgets for Louisiana vessels Indicate posItIve returns to owner management and Investmnt In 1978 and 1979, Table 3.5-18. Generalization of results from the studIes yIeldIng the budgets conceal that net Incom varies by vessel size and hull materIal. Wooen. vessels (Warren and GrIffIn, 1978) and medium sIze vessels (Roberts, 1979) have earned hIgher returns to owner management than larger steel hu lied vesse I sIn the recnt years of major cost and pr I ce Increases. To get a better picture of Increasing cost and revenue for the period 1971 to 1977, Table 3.5-19 shows the Index of Increasing cost and revenue for vessels. -Indexes are calculated to reflect nomInal percentage Increase In each Item. The consumer prIce Index Is Included for comparison. Fuel and f I xed cost stand out as areas where costs have risen the most (I ncreased 208 percent and 149 per cent, respectively). Total cost and total revenue have Increased approxImately the same amont over the seven year perIod. In 1980 the exvessel price on average fell from the record hIgh levels experI enced In 1979. Thus, with fuel prIces rising continually over the 1971-1980 perIod, a major cost price squeeze occurred In 1980. Information presented to the Gulf States MarIne FIsheries CommIssIon annual meetIng In October, 1980, forecst negatIve returns to the average vessel owner's management and Investment (Roberts, 1980). The forecst was based on large vessels (greater than 65 ft.) landIng on the average 41,000 pounds of taIls. This catch level would reflect the average catch level for the vessel class experienced In LouIsIana during 1979. The reasonableness of this vessel catch forecst Is reflected by comparIng the 1979 and 1980 Gulf landings. Through October 1980, Gulf-wide landIngs were slIghtly hIgher than 1979 (Shrimp StatIstIcs, 1980). The LouisIana forecast Is thought to reflect the fInancial sJtuatlon facing the average offshore shrimper In the Gulf. As cIted elsewhere In the plan, the severIty of the financIal situatIon Is exemplIfied by the October 28, 1980, U.S.D.C. announcement of a .$12.2 millIon aId program for Gulf shrimpers. As IndJcated In FIgures 3.6-1 through 3.6-5, the sale of Incidentally caught finfIsh has no potential to relIeve the tJght net Income situation. In the short run, the shrImp vessels are of limIted usefulness In other economic endeavors. Therefore, the near term prospects are for vessels to be predomInately dependent on the shrimp catch, exvessel prIces, and fuel prices to determine theIrnet Incom. . The fluctuatIon In net Income experience by shrimpers on an annual basIs occurs on top of seasonal varIation. Shrlmplng In the Gulf Is very seasonal. Table 3.5-20 shows monthly cash flows for 1971 (a year when profIts were made) and 1975 (a year when substantlonal losses were made). In boh years the net flow of cash Is negative January through June and positIve net flows are Incurred July 3-73 Table 3.5-16. Average annual costs and returns for Gu If of Mexico shrimp vessels, 50 to 80 feet In length, ai' types of construction, 1971 to 1977 . 197121 1973b 1974c 1975c 1977a Returns Land I ngs (pounds) Pr I ce per pound Receipts from sales Varl able costs Ice Fuel Net, supplies, groceries Repa I rand ma I ntenance Crew shares Payroll taxes Packing Subtotal Returns above var I ab Ie costs Fixed Costs Insurance Deprecl atlon Overhead Interest Subtotal Total Operating Costs Prof It or loss Required return to equity Return to owner management Vessels In sample New cost of vesse I Percent financed Deprecl ab Ie II fe (years) Sa I vage va I ue (percent) Required return rated ( percent) Do liars 50,618 1.20 60,742 1,387 6,561 2,358 11 ,708 19,437 388 2,411 44,250 16,492 3,532 6,333 o 2,256 12,221 56,471 4.271 2,636 1,635 25 77.949 67 8 35 10.25 40,073 1.85 74, 135 1,579 9,539 6,747 9, 593 23,723 474 1,899 53,554 20,581 4,291 8,177 2.415 2,611 17 ,494 71,048 3,087 3,155 68 103 100,641 67 8 35 9.50 a Florida and Texas vessels In sample b FlorIda, MississIppI and Texas vessels In sample 46,390 1.70 78,864 1.541 18,976 9,885 9,337 26,593 1,547 2,428 70,307 8,557 4,306 11,228 3,201 5,604 24,339 94 ,646 15,782 16,590 32,372 109 138,188 67 8 35 13.00 44,054 2.30 101,324 1,766 19,144 11,211 11,643 32,422 1.815 2,905 80,876 20,448 4,840 12,607 3,073 6,984 27,504 108,380 7.056 12,587 19,643 101 155,168 67 8 35 14.00 c Texas vessels only In sample d Reflects a base rate, determined by bond yields. plus a financial risk premium. Source: 56,576 2.39 135,216 2,788 20, 194 13,131 11,143 43,320 257 3,852 94 ,685 40,531 5.677 14,623 3,194 6,880 30,374 125,059 10.157 5,399 4,758 81 179,981 80 8 35 15.00 (Blom and Griffin (1978); Griffin (1978); Hayenga, Lacewel' and Griffin (1974); amd Wardlaw and Griffin (1974). 3-74 Table 3.5-17. Dollars per pound and pounds landed for typical vessel fishing In the Gu If of Mexico shrimp fishery, 1971 to 1977 Varlablel Fixed Total Year Fuel cost cost cost Revenue Pounds 1971 0.13 0.43 0.24 1.12 1.20 50,618 1973 0.19 0.54 0.35 1.40 1.85 40,073 1974 0.41 0.86 0.52 2.04 1.70 46,391 1975 0.43 0.99 0.62 2.46 2.30 44,054 1977 0.46 0.78 0.54 2.21 2.39 56,576 Does not Include crew shares, payroll taxes and packl ng. Source: Coputed from Table 3.5-16. Table 3.5-18. Average annual costs and returns for Louisiana shrimp vessels, 1978 and 1979 1978 size In feet 1979 size In feet 51-65a 66 and overb 51-65 66 and over do i Jars Gross Income 94,409 166,439 104,586 188,564 Costs: As soc I atec with catch 30,482 45,789 33,882 52,163 AssocIated with ef fort 20,690 49,231 28,616 74,484 Fixed 8,385 24,949 8,230 24,034 TOTAL 59,557 119,969 70,729 150,682 Captain's pay 18,708 25,003 20,703 28,300 Return to owner's management & Investment 16,144 21,467 13,154 9,582 a n = 48 b n = 44 Source: Roberts & Sass (1979). 3-75 I -- Table 3.5-19. Index of IncreasIng total cost and total revenue for vessels operating In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, 1971 to 1977. (1971 = 100). Year 1971 1973 1974 1975 1977 Var I ab Ie Cost Not proportIonal to catch: Fuel 100 145 289 292 308 Other 100 116 134 159 175 Proport I ona I to catch 100 121 159 183 213 Fixed cost 100 143 199 225 249 Total cost 100 106 167 191 221 Total Revenue 100 122 129 166 223 Consumer Pr I ce Index 100 110 122 133 150 Source: Computed from Tab Ie 3.5-16 through December. These monthly flows Indicate the need for fInancIal plannIng wIthIn a year by vessel owners In the Industry. The annual budgets (Table 3.5-16) Indicate the need for fInancIal p I ann I ng over the II fe of the vesse I. FIshIng ActIvItIes Supplemntal to Shrlmplng The rise of fuel prIces has Interjected an aspect of uncertainty Into the shrImp harvest busI ness. Shrimp vessels are subject to operating with a fuel Intensive technology. OperatIng costs are therefore certa I n to rIse more rap I d I Y than the genera I pr I ce i eve I . Th I s has prompted experI mentation wIth shrimp vessel sin other flsherl es. Although there Is much written on underutlllzed species, shrimpers are experImenting wIth the suitabIlity of theIr vessels In fIsherIes with establIshed markets. The most prominent examples are the refittIng of vessels to harvest swordfIsh, snapper and grouper, and tunas. EquIppIng a vessel to mId-water longllne for swordfish may cost $20,000 to $40,000. SImIlar costs may be experience by shrimprs attempting to boto longllne for reef fIsh or other specIes such as tlleflsh. MinImal Investmnt Is requIred to equip a vessel for the po Ie fIshery for b lackf I n tuna. Texas shrImprs are more actIve In refItting vessels for supplemental fisherIes. The most pro mIsIng alternatIve has been long lIning for swordfish, where as many as 40 to 45 vessels attempted to enter thIs fIshery from Texas durIng 1980 (John NIchols, Texas A&M, personal communIcatIon). No all these vesse Is part I c I pated the ent Ire s I x month season. . Work In pr-ogress has attempted to measure the economic success of this alternatIve for shrimp vessels during 1980 (John Nichols, personal communication). Vessels nonmally shrimp In Texas from May through October and have the possibIlities of a six-month season for swordfish from November through AprIl. The estimated InItIal capItal cost of fIrst time vessel conversIon to go swordfish longllnlng Is $26,205. This Includes structural changes In the vessel, winches and all the longllne equipment for a 19 mIle longllne. Based on preliminary projectIons for 1980, a shrimp vessel fIshIng for shrImp during six months and not fishIng for sIx months would have encountered a loss of $36,309. Returns 3-76 Tab Ie 3.5-20. Cash f low by months for Gulf of Mexico shrimp vessels 50 to 80 feet In length, 1971 and 1975. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 19711 Total Inflow 3,009 3,107 3,107 3,115 3,654 4,667 Total outf low 4,370 4,252 5,043 4,967 4,567 5,617 Net flow -1,361 1,145 -1 ,936 -1,852 -913 -950 Accumu lated net returns -1,361 2,506 -4,442 -6,294 -7,207 -7,957 19752 Total Inf low 3,503 4,001 3,956 3,535 4,960 6,653 Total outf i ow 6,071 6,298 6,501 6,720 7,052 8,437 Net flow -2,568 2,297 -2,545 -3,185 -2,092 -1,784 Accumu lated net returns -2, 568 -4,865 -7,410 -10,595 -12,687 -14,471 Ju Iy Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 19711 Total Inf low 7,367 9,356 8,003 9,673 7,916 6,696 Total outf low 6,255 6,715 6,368 7,532 6,845 5,742 Net flow 1,112 2,841 1,635 2,141 1,071 954 Accumu lated net returns -6,845 -4 , 004 -2,369 -288. -834 1,797 19752 Total Inf low 13,074 11 ,969 11,929 11,775 12,645 13,319 Total outf low 11,636 10,977 11,246 11,192 10,498 12,398 Net flow 1,438 992 683 583 2,147 921 Accumu lated net returns -13,033 -12,041 -11,358 -10,775 -8,628 -7,707 Florida and Texas. 2 Texas only. \ Source : Lacewell, GrIffin, Smith and Hayenga (1974); Griffin, NIchols, Anderson, Buckner and Adams (1978). 3-77 aboe varIable costs would have been $7,743. However, fixed costs over the entire year were great enough to cause the loss. Converting the vessel to longllnlng -during the winter months would have caused a total annual return to the owner's equity and management of $10,477. This results from sel lIng 56,600 pounds of swordfish ($2.60 per pound) and covering both the variable costs of longllnlng and the fixed costs not covered by shrlmplng. The break-even poInt for the vessel owner would be at 6,500 pounds of swordfish whIle the crew would break even at 46,000 pounds due to the way In which crews hares are calculated. While these data are prelimInary, It Is clear that swordfish longllnlng may be a vIable alternative for only a few of the vessels In the shrimp fIshery because of the limited swordfIsh resource. Two factors In this supplemental actIvity are especIally noteworthy. The supplemental fIsherIes are not being developed as a year round substItute to shrlmplng. Rather the majorIty of conversIons are to the supplemental fIsheries for brIef perIods durIng the year. As shown In Table 3.5-20 shrlmplng vessels experience negative cash flows In several months. Secondly, the share system on shrImp vessels hIstorIcally have placed the cost of fuel solely upon the owner. Supplemntal fisherIeS whIch are not fuel IntensIve may return more net Incom to the owner per dollar of gross Incom than the sItuatIon with shrImp. Consequently, the supplemental fisherIes do not have to yIeld the same gross Incom as shrlmplng to be competitIve. 3.5.2.2 i nvestmnt In Vesse is, Boats, and Gear Table 3.5-13 lists annual estimates ot the number of vessels and boats In the domstIc shrImp fleet, as well as estimated gross tons and otter trawls per vessel. These estimates IndIcate that since 1970 Gulf shrimp vessels have averaged 76 percent of the number and 83 percent of the gross ton nage of total U.S. shrimp vessels. The average gross tons per vessel In the Gulf Is half agaIn as large as that In the South AtlantIc fleet. Since 1970, Gulf shrImp boats have averaged 83 percent of the total number of U.S. shrImp bots. The Gulf vessels are comparatively new: In 1975, 23 percent of the vessels had been constructed wIthIn the 1970 to 1975 period and 52 percent In the 1965 to 1975 decade. Investment In vessels and gear Is only available for a lImited portIon of the vessel component of the fleet (Table 3.5-14, from Warren and GrIffin, 1978). As IndIcated, the cost of a vessel has jumped sharply durIng the 1970's. In addition, data from one manufacturer IndIcates the basIc prIce of a typical woo vessel has Increased by 44 percent from 1977 to 1980. The Increase of a fIberglass vessel has been 42 percent. Inflation, the trend to larger vessels, and additional equipment are the princIpal causes of the Increase. Obviously, a larger Incom Is now required to justify Investmnt In the vessels. Larger Incom has been forthcoming, however. FIgure 3.5-12 shows that the value of land Ings per gross ton of vessel has Increased by $150 per ton or more from 1962 to 1974. NotIce, however, that catch declIned over 300 pounds per ton for the same period. The 16 year trend shown In Table 3.5-13 shows a signIficant Increase In average gross tons per vessel. ThIs statistic may reflect the larger vessel's abIlIty to fish In Inclement weather, Its increased range, and Its attractIveness to more competent crew members. There are- no current studIes over as~fflclently long perIod of tIme to Investigate economIc profitabIlity by size of vessel, however, studIes that examIned thIs questIon have been done for several IndIvidual years (Lacewel I, GriffIn, SmIth and Hayenga (1974); Wardlaw and GrIffIn (1974); Griffin, NIchols, Anderson, Buckner and Adams (1978); and GrIffIn (1978); Roberts and Sass (1979). Figure 3.5-13 shows the results of a regressIon analysIs of average cost based on 1973 data collected from 115 vessels In Florida, MissIssippI and Texas. In the regressIon analysIs constructIon, length and effort (effort Is based on horsepower and length of foorope) were used as dumm varIables In estImating the average cost equatIon. All coefficients were sIgnIfIcant at the 99 percent level. The estImated cost equatIon explained 79 percent of the variatIon of the data. PredIcted average cost values for the 115 vessels are plotted wIth average cost on the vertIcal axis and pounds landed on the horIzontal axIs. Vessels 3-78 700 600 500 400 300 200 ioa Values and pounds per ton of vessel ./ -"" -,,/ "-/ "-;" """.J - -- -- ", .. Dollar value/vessel ton ..;" "., "./ " .. , " ~ /./ Pounds landed/vessel ton 1962 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Figure 3.5- 1 2 = Pounds and Value of landings per vessel ton harvested in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery (calculated from Tables 3.5-12 and 3.5-13). 3-79 + + . . + + .\ ve rô ge C o st ( $ ) F ig ur e 3. S "" 1 3 P re di ct ed a ve ra ße c os t da ta p oi nt s fo r . v a r i o a s v e s s e l e l a s s i f i e a t i o o £ . J 9 7 3 . t o h e l p ¿ i s t i n g u i s h c l a s s e s o f v e s s e l s 1 1 5 G u l f o f ~ ~ x i c o s h r i m p v e s s e l s f o r ( N o t e : L i n e s b e t w e e n e u r v ~ s a r e m e r e l y a n d a r e n o t c o s t c u r v e s ) . 4 . ' ; 0 0 ( ' 0 0 0 0 + H 3 . 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( \ + I I I I I I I I I 7 . 9 0 1 ) " 0 0 0 0 + A C . 5 . 0 6 0 . 1 0 3 5 ( : ß ) + 0 . 0 0 0 7 ( L B ) 2 0 . 1 1 0 3 + 0 . 1 1 0 3 ( S t e e l ) 0 . 3 3 1 3 ( L f 1 ) 0 . 0 5 3 8 + 0 .3 85 1 (L " 3) 0 . 2 6 û 5 ( E P 1 ) + 0 . 1 4 3 8 + O . U 47 ( E F 3 ) (U D O I! ) (L E 2 ) (E F 2 ) L E G E :I D C o n s t r u e t i o n L en gt h ~ E f f o r t I n d e x i ~ ~ bo l H ! W o o d 4 5 6 2 1 6 4 1 8 9 . \ W o o d 4 5 6 2 1 9 () 2 l9 B W o o d 6 3 6 9 1 6 4 i 8 9 C W o o d 6 3 6 9 1 9 U 2 1 9 D W oo d 63 6 9 22 0 25 1 E S t e e l 6 3 6 9 1 9 0 2 1 9 F S te e 1 63 6 9 22 0 25 1 G S t e e l 7 0 7 8 1 9 0 2 1 9 H S t e e l 7 0 7 8 2 2 0 2 5 1 U J , 00 o y H 7 .1 0 1 )( 0 0 0 (' . I Ii C U S S C L A S i¡ \ . 3 0 0 ( ' 0 0 0 0 + . i: C U .S $ I II M C i. A S S iV C : . S S V c. s co e 00 1' + I I -- - ------+ ~ -------- ------+ ------- ------- - + .- -- ---- ------ - -- -+ - -------- - ---- -- -+ - - - ---- -- -- - + 6. 01 0: )0 00 0 22 .0 C C C O O O O 3/ 1. 00 00 0J O O '5 4. 00 00 00 00 70 .0 00 00 00 0 86 .0 00 00 00 0 A A u a l P o u u . S h ri m L a d e d ( In 'l o u 8 a iic l.) S o u rc :: ; G r i f f i n . : m à ~ 1 . r d l ~ w ( 1 9 7 4 ) (- -. tend to fall Into fIve general classes. Notice In Figure 3.5-13 that at any given pounds produced that larger vessels have a hIgher average cost which means they have a higher breakeven price per pound. Conversely, at any given price larger vessels must land more pounds of shrimp to break even. A comparison of wood and steel vessels shows that steel vessels have a higher average cost than woo. Wooen vessels wIth a hIgher effort Index (larger engines and nets), but of the same length category, have higher average costs per pound. This could be caused by less fuel efficIency and/or larger I nvestment In eng I nes. The combined Influence of hIgh fuel prIces and lowered exvessel shrImp prices In 1980 focused attention on the cost-price squeeze In the shrimp Industry. Fuel efficIency In trawl fisheries, Including shrImp, was a topIc frequently discussed by shrImprs when plannIng vessel construction and operation. Unfortunately, economIc budgets developed for vessels In the mId to late 1970's were not suffIcIently detailed to make definitIve conclusions about vessel fuel effIcIency In relation to vessel size. Roberts and Sass (1979) report medIum size (51 to 65 feet) shrimp vessels In LouIsIana during 1978 had about twice the gross revenue per dollar of fuel as did large vessels (greater than 65 feet). Since the large vessels caught shrimp valued at $3.14 per pound In 1978 compared to $2.47 for medium vessels, It Is evident that large vessels are harvestIng shrimp of a sIze not harvestable by the medium vessels. It should also be noted that the LouIsiana research IndIcated sma I i (less than 50 feet) vessels were less efficIent In terms of gross revenue per dollar of fuel costs than medIum vessels. Thus, caution Is advIsed when attempting to correlate vessel sIze wIth fuel effIcIency. Warren and Griffin (1978) In a 1977 survey constructed economic budgets for two shrImp vesseL groups. Small wooen vessels (28 to 55 feét) landed $7.74 worth of shrImp per dollar of fuel cost. Wooen vessels In the largest (56 to 80 feet) class landed $7.65 of shrImp per dollar of fuel cost. Another aspect of theIr study poInts out the problem of generalIzing about fuel effIcIency of varIous vessels. Whl Ie wooden v~ssels In the large class landed $7.65 of shrimp per dollar of fuel, steel vessels of the same length class landed $5.88 of shrImp. Thus, specific studIes would be necsary to clarify the sItuatIon with respect to fuel efficIency of varIous types of vessel types and sIzes. Analyses should explore efficIency by several crIterIa. Investment In new vessels appears to be cyclical In nature; several consecutive good shrlmplng years Induce a major Increase In new craft construction and several consecutIve bed years result In a pronounced reduction. An example of this can be seen In the number of licenses sold for vessels to fish In the Gulf waters of Texas, Table 3.5-21. Economlç conditions In the Gulf shrimp Industry began to declIne In late 1973. Economic condItions were unfavorable through the middle of 1975 when they turned around and were favorable through 1978. In 1979 condItIons were near the breakeven poInt and 1980 Is a clear, negatIve net Incom sItuation. As a result of these economIc ups and downs, Texas Gulf licenses sold decreased from 1975 to 1976 by 89 vessels, a lag effect of a year to a year and a hal f. LIcenses sold Increased through 1979 but are expected to decrease In 1981 because of current economIc problems. The favorable economIc condItIons from 1976 to 1978 precipItated an expans.lon In vessel and boet Investmnt In Louisiana. Due to the lag effect, expansion can be more accurately portrayed by viewing the '1976 to 1979 period. ResIdent shrImp vessels Increased 41 percent between 1976 and 1979 .(778 to 1,093). Bots In LouIsIana Increaed from 9,692 to 14,217. Using the average market value of LouIsIana vessels In 1978, the Increase In vessel Investmnt between 1978 and 1979 was estImated to be $7.5 mIllIon. Bot Investment In LouisIana Increased $4.6 millIon for a combIned one year Increase of $12.1 ml I lIon (Roberts, 1980). 3.5.2.3 CapItalIzation BiologIcal literature deal I ng wIth fIshery management Is rep lete with the dl scusslon of "overflshlng". The economIcs profession has developed a simIlar boy of literature which attIbutes 3-81 Teble 3.5-21. Number of Texes licenses sold for Gulf shrlmplng only Yeer Total Net Change 1975 1,763 1976 1,674 -89 1977 1,804 130 1978 1,852 48 1979 1,937 85 Source: Swartz (1980). the eventualIty of overflshlng to the common property naturé of fIshery resources. Economic lItera ture also IdentIfIes economic waste as an Inherent aspect of harvesting common propert fIshery resources. Fectors AffecIng Cepltallzatlon As outlined In so detail In Secion 5.1.2, economic capacity In any firm Is determIned by the level of product prIces, the expected margInal productivity of Inputs and Input prices. Industry expansion or growth takes place when firms In the Industry are earning a profIt. This expansIon, through the entrence of new firms, or through Individual firms growing larger, will ceuse greeter demands on resources. The Increased demand for resources Increases Input prices whIch Increeses pro duction costs to producers usIng the resources (Inputs). At the same time the Increased supply of products reduces flnel product prices. This growth pattern contInues until profits to Individual fIrms In the Industry are elImInated. These same economic forces are et work In the fishing Industry. However, one prImary resource . or Input (the stock of fish) Into the productIon process Is common property rather than prlvete pro pert. The fish be long to no one person, but to a Ii the pee I e I n common. Tbey becom pr I vete pro perty by InstItutIonal arrangement or after they are harvested. Thus, no "price" Is paId for the fish resource and the fIshery Is usually referred to as an "open access" situatIon. The normal restraints that Increased Input prIces place on Industry growh are thus not fully effectIve In common propert IndustrIes. That Is, Inputs Into the fishery will contInue to be used longer In the growh process then they would In prIvate property IndustrIes. This results In total Industry fIshIng effort beyond the level necessary to produce maximum economic yield (MEY). Total Industry fishing effort could even expand to the extent that maxImum sustalneble yield Is surpassed. These events occur due to ratIonal economIc decIsIons of fIshermn acting as Individuals. Increased effort by Individual fishermn Imposes an unaccounted for cost on all other fishermn. This Increesed cost due to overflshlng eventually curtaIls production. ThIs sItuatIon Is somtImes referred to as the "tragedy of the commons". The exceptIon to thIs occurs when growing consumer demand Increases exvessel prices more than the Increased costs resulting from overflshlng. SInce there Is no "price" or "cost" put on the raw fish 3-82 Input, Its prIce does not rIse as the factor demand for It becoms greater as It becoms more scarce. I f the fish resource were "pr ICed", cost wou I d I ncrease and fishermn wou I d be encouraged to decrease fish Ing effort, and further cap Itall zatlon I nto the fishery woo I d be dl scouraged. During periods of economIc prosperIty when shrimp prIces are rapIdly rIsing, profits to the owners of shrimp vessels have been over and above the returns their capItal could have earned In other alternatIves. In economIc terms, "excess profits" have been generated. Bah exIsting owners and new entrants Into the fishery have been encouraged to make new capital Investmnt~ In the fIshery. When prIces declIned, vessels contInue to fIsh In the short run even at a loss as long as the return generated covers varIable operatIng (trip) costs. When revenues were not large enough to cover varIable costs, vessels have been tied up for periods of time. The norml decIsIon of the owner would be to sell the vessel and use the capital elsewhere. However, as Is the case wIth much agricultural equIpment, shrImp vessels represent a classic case of asset fixIty (Johnson, 1958). No entrepreneur wants to Invest capItal In a shrimp vessel that wli i yIeld a negative return whIch makes It dIfficult to sel I vessels. Thus, along wIth the other problems caused by the open access nature of the shrImp fishery, vessel owners sotIme face economic hardshIps because of Investmnt decisions made durIng times of rap Id Iy rls Ing prIces. In summry, the argument Is that gIven an open access fishery and rapIdly rIsIng prIces (more rapidly than costs) for the product, overcapitalizatIon from an economIc standpoInt Is InevItable and will becom worse as product prIce continues to rapidly rIse. The only way to slow down the over capItalizatIon process Is to artIfIcIally Increase costs of fishIng to the fIshIng vessel through fees for the right to fish. Free access and risIng demand wli i result In effort levels beyond that necessary for the maxImum economIc yield and possIbly beyond that requIred to harvest the maxImum sustaInable yield. This sItuatIon wli i usually place vessel owners In negatIve return sItuatIons durIng tImes of fa i lIng demand for shrImp. FocusIng on the economIc Impact of free access, then, Involves dell beratlon over the quantItIes harvested and the ef fort and cap I ta I expended. Much debate norm i i y occurs when proponents of MEV management argue that not only less effort but also lower harvests wIll be beneficIal to fIshermn, processors, and society at large. As Gulland (1972) Indicates, shrimp flsnerles exhIbit flat-topped yIeld curves. At high levels of effort, the Implication Is that reductIons In fishIng effort are likely to result In proportIonally smaller decreases In shrImp landings. Thus, managemnt of fishIng effort at som poInt below MSV must be concerned with the benefits and costs of reducing fishIng effort. Economists note that free access to fishery resources leads to overf Ish lng, lower sustaIned yIeld, and higher costs. WIth overflshlng and lower sustained yIeld prevIously cited as not a valid concept In the Gulf shrImp fIshery, the benefits to society from any benefIt-cost measuremnt must mainly com from reductIons In harvest costs. ReducIng the total harvest cost would Involve reducIng the number of fIrms (fIshIng effort) In the Industry. There Is evidence that other measures to reduce fIshIng effort, such as quotas, gear restrictions, shortened seasons, etc., actually Increae capital IzatIon and costs (CrutchfIeld and Zellner, 1962). Although the annual nature of the shrimp crop provIdes so bIological unIqueness, the Gulf shrImp fIshery Is subjec to the sound scIentific argument that all mature free access fisherIes becom overcapltal I zed (overcapItalIzation being the fIshIng effort or number of firms beyond that necssary to harvest the MEY). Very little analysis Is requIred to show that the Ideal world, perhaps MEV for the economIst or MSY for the biologist, Is better than the laissez-faIre real world of free access to fishery resources (Coase, 1968). As poInted out above, however, methods to achieve MEY or even MSY may be more burdensom to the resource users, socIety, and governmnt. SImply stated, the Issue of overcapitalizatIon and lImited entry as a means of eliminating It really only requIre that a proposed shrimp harvest be judged better or worse than the existing harvest when all benefIts and costs are considered. The problem of overcapItalization In the shrImp fIshery, however, Is not as sImple as mIght first appear. 3-83 Capltallzatlcn In the Shrimp Fishery The extent of overcapitalization In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery cannot be precisely stated at this time from the standpoint of a specific research study designed to address this question. Griffin, Lacewell and Nichols (1976), estimated the optimum effort level for the Gulf shrimp fishery for 1973. This study Indicated that the equilibrium level of effort under open access fishery con ditions at 1973 average prices with a normal return to labor, management and Investment was 201,800 units of effort or 2,277 vessels. Actual fishing effort during 1973 was estimated at 304,431 units of effort or 3,435 vessels. The optimum effort that maximized economIc rent to the fishery was 105,300 units or 1,213 vessels. This generated an economic rent of $22 million dollars, reduced total Industry revenue from $136 mIllion to S89 million and reduced shrimp landings from 80 million to 52 million pounds. It Is clear that the management of the shrl~ fishery to achieve economic optlmums would necssi tate a drastIc reduction In the amount of effort applied In the fishery, and hence a reductIon In the number of vessels allowed to fish. The results of such a management goal would be a lower total Industry cost, possibly lower revenues (depending on elastIcity of demand for shrimp), fewer vessels, higher profits per vessel and probebly higher shrimp prices to consumers. To accomplish thIs goal a program would have to be Implemented that would tax away the economic rent generated and return the rent to society. The central question would be concerned with whether the benefit to society of such a management program wou i d be greater than the cost to socl ety of Imp lement I ng the program. There are two other Issues, each dealing with the demand for shrimp, that also have an effect on the extent and Importance of overcapitalization. The first Is that Gates and Norton (1974) clearly demonstrate that the level of fishing effort (capital) yieldIng MEY Is not necessarily the same as that representing maxImum economic efficiency (MEE). MEE Is that level of fishing effort at which the value~ to society of the last unit of shrimp produced Is equal to the cost to society of producing that unit. MEY Is equal to MEE only when the price of shrimp Is perfectly elastic, that Is, when unlimited quantities can be purchased without the price rising. The demand for shrimp Is quite different from this situation, and the result Is that MEY and MEE are not Identical. In this case, MEE, not the rent maximization associated with ME~, might be the appropriate economic goal for society. Further, the MEE goa I wou I d I nduce an even ioWer harvest than that of MEY, since the I ndustry generates costs to society by usIng a common property resource. These costs Involve the physical, human and monetary resources used In the fishery which could be better employed In other sectors of the econom. Their use In the fishery bids up their prices thereby creating Inf latlonary pressures. The second Issue Is concerned with the Impact high levels of consumer demands have on the size of cost savings from decreasing the number of shrlmplng firms (capitalization). Bell (1972) recognizes that, at high levels of consumer demand, maximum economic yield (MEY) and maximum economic efficiency (MEE) for all practical purposes are IdentIcal goals, even In view of the above argument. If MEE Is consIdered the approprIate economIc gol, then the degree of overcapitalization would be much less durIng levels of high demand for shrimp. While there Is som evidence of overcapItalizatIon In the shrImp fIshery the economic performance of harvestIng firms, their owners and emloyees have at cer tall' time appeared satIsfactory. Performances durl ng other times have not been so satisfactory. Per~aps the most Important factor that regulates the economIc status of the shrlmplng Industry Is consumer demand and the rIse and fall of consumers discretionary Incom. Shrimp are normlly thought of as a luxury consumer Item with their consumption highly responsive to the availabIlity of consumer dIscretionary Incom. Estimates of the amount of shrimp eaten outside the home In restaurant situations range from 60 to 80 percent of all shrimp sold. In fact, according to Quick Frozen Foos (1980), 85 percent of the frozen shrimp consumed In the U.S. during 1979 were consumed In the Institu tional trade with the remining sold at retail. Thus, as discretionary Incom declines the demand for 3-84 ,- shrimp declInes. Processors sotimes have large Inventories of shrimp purchased at hIgher prices which must be sold at a loss or held untIl price rebounds. Exvessel prices normally drop as the decline In consumer demand reaches the docksIde. level. The price movement of shrimp as related to hIstorical downturns In the U.S. economy can be vividly Illustrated. Miller (1975) Indicates that historIcal downturns In shrimp prices have occurred during 1954 to 1955, 1958, 1963, 1967, 1970 and 1974. Four of these sIx years (all except 1963 and 1967) were recesslonary years as measured by declInes In real gross national product whIle the others were associated with business downturns. The '. same situation occurred during 1977 and 1979 to 1980. The shrimp Industry has also lagged behind the general economy In terms of recovery. It Is during these periods of price declines that the shrImp Industry has suffered through periods of economIc loss, particularly at the vessel level. As dIscussed earlIer, the Industry has operated wIthout apparent problems during periods of rIsing prices. Hoever, economIc success during these perIods has led to capital Investment and reinvestment In the fIshery to such levels that short-term economic losses have occurred durIng the price decline perIods. Further compounding these problems has been the rapid rise In the cost of diesel fuel whIch Is a major Input cost Item In the harvestIng of shrImp. The Importance of thIs rapId Increase In fuel prices was masked somewhat by the more rapId Increase In shrimp prices. Most shrimp vessels were returning good profIts and many owners were using high profits to reinvest In the fishery during this periOd with replacemnt and/or new vessels. Many used thIs profit as leverage capital for new loans to expand fleet sIzes. Surdl, et al. (1979) report that a total of 311 shrImp vessels were buIlt or on order for the Gulf of Mexico during 1979, wlth.271 built or on order for 1980. This represents an approximate 10 percent Increase In the fleet size In abot a one year period which represents a dramatic Increase In capItal Investmnt In the fIshery. When the U.S. economy entered Into the recesslonary period beinnIng In late 1979, consumer demand slacked and the price of 21-25 raw head less shrImp fell rapId Iy to a low of $3.82 In May, This represented a declIne of 29 percent In a nine month period. 1980. Fuel prices dId not decll nee Investment signals misread durIng 1978 and 1979, when rapid Iy risIng shrImp prIces masked the Importance of the rapidly rising fuel prices, placed many shrImp vessel owners In severe economic straits, beginnIng In the early summr of 1980. Beteen 1971 and 1977, fuel costs represented between 14 and 24 percent of total revenues of most shrImp vessels. Since fuel prices almost doubled between 1977 and 1980, and prIce (and hence total revenues) fel I by almost 30 percent from 1979 hIghs, It Is easy to see that fuel costs could have represented almost half of total revenues. Many shrImp vessel owners have not been able to meet mortgage payments and have attempted to generate support for controls on Imports In an attempt to stimulate domstIc prIces. Representatives of the shrImp Industry met wIth the Secretary of Commerce during October, 1980, to discuss the economic sItuatIon In the shrImp Industry. ThIs meeting resu Ited In a statemnt Issued by the Secretary of Commerce on October 28, 1980. ThIs statemnt Jndlcated that the shrimp Industry was facIng a critIcal economIc sItuation. A cost price-squeeze caused by rIsIng fuel costs combined with 'decllnlng consumer demand and depresse prIces had placed a sIgnifIcant portIon of shrImp harvesters In jeopardy of bankruptcy and had undermIned the long-time viabIlIty of the Industry. The Secretary offered a program of assIstance to help shrImp vessel operators weather the current economic and energy crisIs and to promte restructuring the Industry to enhance long-term productivity and competitiveness. In summry, the program cal Is for the formation of a high-level NOAA task force to oversee the Implementation of: 1. $11 million of Department of Commerce funds made available for low cost loans with the possi bility of an additional $5 million In the future. These monIes will result from remvIng a morltorlum on the Fisheries Loan Fund and through EDA funds. 3-85 5.50 5.00 Dollars 4.00 oe r 3.00 Pound 2.00 1 .00 600 500 Index 400 300 200 100 I !''''''. . ...~/.:...... ""'...:.' ..-.... Deflated Price 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Months and Years ..,... Con sum e r p r ice /' i n d e x f u e l, 0 i.l , ...,: uti lit i e s .¡ i /: .,' .' ... ,.....'.......'.'... ..~./-. ....-'... ...~. " Wholesale price index all commodities 1 972 1 9 7 3 1 974 1 97 5 1976 1 977 19 78 1979 1 9 8 0 Months and Years Figure 3.5-14.--Monthly current and deflated price of 21-25 raw headless shrimp in the Gulf and South Atlantic, consumer price index for fuel, oil and utilities and wholesale price index for all commodities, 1972-1980. 3-86 2. EncouragIng passage of the American Fisheries Promtion Act which will place $20-30 million In foreign fees In the Fisheries Loan Fund by late 1981. 3. ExaminatIon of the legl s latlve poss Iblil ty of a vessel debt conso II dation program wi th possIble Interest subsIdIes. 4. AssIstance on a case-by-case basis with EDA loans for refitting of vessels for participation In underutllized fIsheries and purchase and Installation of new energy and other cost-saving equipment for vessels remining In the shrimp fishery. A direc one-tIme fuel adjustmnt grant requested by the Industry was not felt to be consIstent with the policy of encouraging fuel conservatIon. 5. Use of $200,000 In S-K money In 1981 to make avaIlable fishery production and market services for shrimp operators desiring to sel I their vessels Into underutllized fisheries. 6. MakIng available $1 ml i lion for a major seafood consumer educatIon and InformtIon effort. 1. Support for a shrimp marketing council. 8. FormatIon of a top-level commIttee to Identify research and development prIorItIes dIreced at ImprovIng vessel productivity and efficiency with first attention given the shrImp produc t Ion sector. 9. ProvIde support through S-K money for the establishment of a ShrImp Research FoundatIon. 10. DirecIon for the U.S. InternatIonal Trade Commission to begin the ImmdIate examInatIon of the range of possIble remdies under existing law of any harm shrImp Imports are causIng the domstIc shrImp Industry to suffer through their effect of a dampenIng on prices. The U.S. Trade RepresentatIve will also be asked to establIsh an Interagency task force to analyze the Impact of shrImp Imports and to provide recommendations whether temporary Import relief measures are necessary and advisable. Talks will also be held with shrImp exportIng countr I es. Hence, It becomes quite apparent that with an open access fishery and rapIdly rIsing demnd, the capitalization level of the shrimp fIshery can be dramatically raised. The Inf luence of uncontrollable external factors such as rapidly risIng fuel prices and the normal consumer demnd related prIce movements then makes the overcapitalIzatIon question apparent during the less satisfactory economIc perIods. The rei event questIon becoms do the posItive economIc benefIts enjoyed during periods of rapIdly rIsing prIce outweIgh the negatIve benefIts which becom evident durIng perIods of low prIces and to what degree would lImIted access reduce these negative benefits? 3.5.2.4 Annual ParticIpatIon In the Fishery ,Annual particIpatIon In the fishery may be measured In terms of total boats and vessels par tIcIpatIng In the fIshery. A more precIse estimate Includes consIderatIon of time spent fIshing such as vessel and bot days fIshed and/or man days fished per perIod of time. These alternatIve estImates of annual partIcIpatIon are consIdered In this section. Vesse i s and Boats The number of bots and vessels In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery are available In publIshed form through 1975. ShortcomIngs, however, exist In the data. Boats and vessels recorded In Fishery StatIstIcs of the United States contaIn duplication when IndivIdual states are reviewed. These data 3-87 record the number of craft land I ng shr I mp I n each and vesse I s are recorded I n more than one state. duplication. state. Due to the moblil ty of the fleet som bots Gulf totals but not state totals are adji,sted for Total shrimp vessels fishing In the Gulf of Mexico Increased from a low of 2,600 In 1962 to a high of 4,091 In 1973 for the 1960 to 1975 period. After 1973 the number of shrimp vessels In the Gulf declined to 3,690 by 1975 (latest year of publIshed data). The number of vessels landing shrImp has been greatest In Texas each year sInce 1960 (Table 3.5-22). Overall the number of vessels Increased over the 16 year period to a high of 2,294 In 1973. LouIsiana Is the second most Imprtant state for landings by shrImp otter trawl vessels. The Louisiana trend In vessel numbers Is sImilar to the trend for Texas; the number gradually Increased and reached a peak In 1973. Florida and Alabama also have had Increases In number of shrimp vessels over the perIod and both also had peak years In 1973. MississIppi Is the only state showing an overall decrease In number of shrimp vessels landing In their ports. The total number of shrimp otter trawl boats gradually Increased to 5,109 In the Gulf of MexIco In 1968 and then declIned to 4,500 In 1972 (Table 3.5-23). By 1975, the number of shrimp bots Increased to 5,054. Lou I s I ana has the greatest number of shr I mp otter traw i boats land I ng I n her ports, accont I ng for between 60 to 70 percent of a Ii shr I mp boats I n the Gu If. Texas and Miss I ss I pp I are the next two states In Importance In terms of number of shrImp boats landing In their ports. Boh states experIenced an Increase In number of shrimp bots over the 16 year perIod. Number of shrImp boats landing catch In FlorIda and Alabama declined over the same tIme period. Trends In number of otter trawl shrImp bots were less conslstant by state than were trends In number of shr I mp vesse Is. Year-to-year var I at Ion was greater and peak years were usua Ii y d If ferent for each state. Years of peak shrimp boat actIvIty by state were: 1966, Texas; 1972, LouIsIana; 1968, MissIssIppI, and; 1963 for both the Florida west coast and Alabama. Comparison of bot and vessel totals wIth and without duplIcatIon (Table 3.5-22 and 3.5-23) gives an IndIcatIon of participatIon of vessels and bots In the shrimp fIshery In states other than theIr hom state. The number of vesse i s recorded I n more than one state ranged from a i ow of 1,022 In 1962 to a hIgh of 2,080 In 1973. If each vessel only lands shrImp In one other state In additIon to Its hom state, these estimates represent maxImum estimates of vessels partIcipatIng In the fishery In neIghborIng states. If each vessel fishIng outsIde of Its hom state landed shrImp In all Gulf sta tes, a minimum of between 270 and 520 vessels would have participated In fisheries outside of theIr hom states. These mInImum and maxImum estimates provide a range on the number of vessets par ticipatIng In fisherIes In other states. Between 1960 and 1967 relatively few boats landed shrImp outside of theIr hom states (Table 3.5-23). After 1967 no bots landed shrImp In Gulf states other than their ~ states. In addItIon to the particIpation of Gulf of MexIco boats and vessels In several Gulf states there has been recent reports of movement Into Gulf waters by the south Atla.ntlc fleet, especIally during periods of low productIon In the south AtlantIc states. Studies now under way pinpoint current cesual evidence of mobility. Only unpublIshed estImates developed from the "code boo" used by port agents are avaIlable for current IndIcatIons of the number of vessels and boats partIcIpating In the Gulf of MexIco shrimp fishery (personal comunIcations wIth J. Ernest Snell, NMFS, MiamI Center). These estimates are based on the vessel code boo through June, 1980. The total number of shrimp otter trawl vessels In the Gulf of Mexico was 4,585 as of June, 1980 (Table 3.5-24). This represents a considerable Increase 3-88 Table 3.5-22... Number of shrImp otter trawl vessels by state, 1960 to 1975 ,. Year Florida Alabama Mlsslsslsslppl Lou I s I ana Texas West Coast 1960 869 222 435 1,235 1,521 1961 875 187 447 962 1,541 1962 823 168 451 905 1,275 1963 847 247 432 1,262 1,356 1964 901 230 405 1,343 1,387 1965 845 295 409 1,299 1,371 1966 886 366 410 1,342 1,409 1967 891 397 351 1,422 1,675 1968 986 467 486 1,447 1,815 1969 932 506 464 1,502 1,806 1970 813 448 452 1,693 1,723 1971 756 456 344 1,517 1,931 1972 849 451 310 1,624 1,900 1973 1,054 550 365 1,908 2,294 1974 913 439 245 1,446 2,006 1975 932 455 237 1,387 1,758 Year Total exclusIve Totaia Including Vesse i sIn more than one state of duplIcatIon duplIcatIon Max I mumD MI nlmumc 1960 2,941 4,282 1,791 448 1961 2,686 4,012 1,326 332 1962 2,600 3,622 1,022 256 1963 2,697 4,144 1,447 362 1964 2,782 4,266 1,484 371 1965 2,849 4,219 1,130 343 1966 2,942 4,413 1,471 368 1967 3,146 4,736 1,590 398 1968 3,430 5,201 1,771 443 1969 3,569 5,210 1,641 410 1970 3,579 5,129 1,550 388 1971 3,487 5,004 1,517 379 1972 3,683 5, 134 1,451 363 1973 4,091 6,171 2,080 520 1974 3,785 5,049 1,264 316 1975 3,690 4,769 1,079 270 a Computed as the summatIon of vessel s landIng In each state. b MaxImum number of vessels landIng In more than one state. Computed as the dIfference In totals wIth and wIthout duplIcation. Assumé each vessel fIshes only In one other state. C MInImum number of vessels. Computed by dIvIdIng maxImum number of vessels by four. vessel fIshes In all states In addItIon to Its homes state. Assume each Source: FIshery Stat I st I cs of the Un I ted States. 3-89 Table 3.5-23. Number of shrImp otter trawl boats by state, 1960 to 1975 Year FlorIda Alabama Mlsslsslsslppl Lou I s I ana Texas West Coast 1960 90 206 385 1,999 421 1961 104 192 346 1 ,920 429 1962 111 231 356 2,443 803 1963 127 247 357 2,867 919 . 1964 107 231 360 2,967 695 .1965 114 206 396 3,236 845 1966 98 203 380 3,261 861 1967 95 174 594 3,402 724 1968 84 139 634 3,471 781 1969 76 129 615 3,452 545 1970 76 149 600 3,250 420 1971 70 169 618 3,465 506 1972 66 179 540 3,625 438 1973 82 156 452 3,603 430 1974 78 127 416 3,581 387 1975 73 133 455 3,549 844 Year Total exclusIve Totaia IncludIng Boats I n more than one state of duplIcation duplIcatIon Max I mumD Mlnlmumc 1960 3,089 3,101 12 3 1961 "2,987 2,991 4 1 1962 3,927 3,944 17 4 1963 4,481 4,517 36 9 1964 4,360 4,360 0 0 1965 4,785 4,797 12 3 1966 4,797 4,803 6 2 1967 4,983 4,989 6 2 1968 5,109 5,109 0 0 1969 4,817 4,817 0 0 1970 4,495 4,495 0 0 1971 4,828 4,828 0 0 1972 4,848d 4,848 0 0 1973 4,723 4,723 0 0 1974 4,589 4,589 0 0 1975 5,054 5,054 0 0 a Computed as the summatIon of boats landIng In each state. b MaxImum number of boats landIng In more than one state. Computed as the difference In totals wIth and wIthout duplIcation. Assume each vessel fIshes only In one other state. c MInImum number of boats. Computed by dIvidIng maxImum number of boats by four. vessel fIshes In all states In addItIon to Its homes state. d Reported Incorrecly as 4,500 In publIshed statIstIcs. Assume each Source: FIshery Stat I st I cs of the Un I ted States. 3-90 ( from 3,690 vessels In 1975 (Table 3.5-22). The number of bots also Increased from 5,054 In 1975 to 5,475 In 1980. The relatIve Importance of Individual states In terms of number of bots and vessels Is the same as Indicated In the previous dIscussion, however, the numbers recorded by state are lower due to a lack of duplicatIon In the 1980 estimates. Boat and Vesse I Days F I shed Annual partIcipation In the shrImp fishery can be approximated In several ways. Total days (24 hour units) fished represents an estImate based on the number of bots and vessels and number of days fIshed per craft. Total vessel days fished were 88,400 In 1962 after which time total vessel days Increased to a maxImum of 149,184 days In 1969 (Table 3.5-25). Overall the number of vessel days fished per year Increased 32.8 percent from the 1962 to 1964 perIod to the 1972 to 1974 period. Th Is Increase In annual partIcIpatIon In vessel days per year was maInly a function of the number of vesse I s wh I ch I ncreased over the perIod wh II e there was no overa Ii trend I n number of days f I shed per year. Hoever, peak number of tota I vesse i days per year were assocI ated with years with high days f I shed per vesse i. Annual participation In the boat fishery was approximately 50 percent of the particIpatIon In the vessel fishery durIng the 1962 to 1964 period (Table 3.5-25). The large Increase In average days fished per bot over the perIod, however, Increased total days fished by boats to approximately 65 percent of total days fished by vessels. Total days fished per boat Increased from approxImately 50,000 days at the begInnIng of the period to approximately 90,000 days per year durIng 1972 to 19¡4. Overall the total days fished by boh boats' and vessels was 229,802 days annually during the 1972 to 1974 period. The level of annual participation Is a functIon of profits In the fishery whIch depend on catch, costs and prices. Data are not avaIlable on all of these variables over tIme. Catch per day fIshed generally declined for both bot days and vessel days over the 1962 to 1974 perIod (Table 3.5-12). However, Increases In prIces were sufficIent that total annual revenue per boat and per vessel more than doubled over this period. (Table 3.5-26). The total number of boats and vessels par tIcIpating In the fishery was positively related with exvessel prIces (compare Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-13). Man-Days F I shed Per Season Total man-days fished per season on vessels was estimated as the number of vessel fIshermn (from Table 3.5-26) multiplied by the number of days fIshed per vessel per year. These were computed on a 24 hour day bas I s. Man-days on bots were computed I n the same way (from Tab Ie 3.5-27). Total man-days on vessels varIed wIdely from year to year with an overal i Increase of approxima tely 30 percent between the 1962 to 1964 period and the 1972 to 1974 perIod. (Table 3.5-28). Total number of days fished on bots remIned relatively stable between 1964 and 1971 but then Increased consIderably. Total days fished on boats and vessels averaged 326,181 days during the 1962 to 1964 perIod and then Increased 34 percent to an average of 437,894 days per season durIng the 1972 to 1974 perIod. 3-91 ( Table 3.5-24. Number of commercial vessels and boats participating In Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishing by state exclusive of duplication, 1980 State and Reg I on Vesselsa Boatsa Fiori da West Coast 690 175 Alabama 465 150 Mississippi 280 450 Louisiana 1,300 4,000 Texas 1,850 700 Total Gulf 4,585 5,475 a Recorded vessels and boats landing through an Identified dealer. Source: Code book used by port agents of the NMFS. Personal communication with J. Ernest Snell. Table 3.5-25. Annual participation In the shrimp fishery by vessels and boats, 1962 to 1974 Vessels Boats Daysa fished Total days Total days Days f I shed Year Number per vesse i f I shed Number f I shed per boat 1962 2,600 34.0 88,400 3,927 58,120 14.8 1963 2,697 41.9 113,004 4,481 38,537 8.6 1964 2,782 41.1 114,340 4,360 55,372 12.7 1965 2,849 39.9 113,675 4,785 56,463 11.8 1966 2,942 38.6 113,561 4,797 62,361 13.0 1967 3,146 36.9 116,087 4,983 66,274 13.3 1968 3,430 35.4 121,422 5,109 69,993 13.7 1969 3,569 41.8 149,184 4,817 52,505 10.9 1970 3,579 37.6 134,570 4,495 65,178 14.5 1971 3,487 39.3 137,039 4,828 68,075 14.1 1972 3,683 39.9 146,952 4,848 88,234 18.2 1973 4,091 34.2 139,912 4,723 97,766 20.7 1974 3,785 35.0 132,475 4,589 90,403 19.7 a Day = 24 hours of fishing tIme. Source: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. 3-92 Table 3.5-26. Gross sales per vessel and per boat, 1962 to 1975 ,- Total boats Gross sa I es Gross sates Gross sales Year and vesse Is per vessel per vessel per boat (catch stat I st I cs ) (catch stat I st I cs ) ---------------------------------- do liars 1962 6,527 9,278 12,846 3,030 1963 7,178 8,852 15,387 2,098 1964 7,142 8,778 14,630 2,202 1965 7,634 9,288 17,234 1,985 1966 7,739 10,721 21 ,040 2,545 1967 8,129 11,142 21,774 2,428 1968 8,539 11,222 19,942 2,584 1969 8,386 12,051 20,818 3,695 1970 8,074 13,399 22,744 3,915 1971 8,315 16,389 28,907 4,909 1972 8,183 19,234 32,609 5,672 1973 8,814 19,498 28,990 7,262 1974 8,374 16,485 26,367 4,947 1975 8,834 20,188 Computed from Tables 3.5-12, 3.5-13 and 3.5-2. Table 3.5-27(a). Resident vessel shrimp fishermen for the Gulf and Gulf states (1958 to 1975) Total Fiori da Year Gu If* West Coast Alabama Mississippi Lou I s I ana Texas 1958 8,171 2,669 518 1,221 2,749 4,592 1959 8,225 2,520 577 1,261 3,235 4,222 1960 7,849 2,119 564 1,106 3,432 4,142 1961 7,186 2,091 462 1,152 2,613 4,268 1962 6,661 1 ,955 428 1,174 2,348 3,406 1963 7,252 2,601 659 1,157 3,380 3,824 1964 7,121 2,254 582 1,000 3,503 3,749 1965 7,223 2,105 706 1,010 3,341 3,657 1966 7,466 2,140 882 1,020 3,524 3,787 1967 8,219 2,161 961 972 3,782 4,723 1968 8,851 2,412 1,164 1,195 3,824 4,932 1969 9,266 2,350 1,283 1,166 3,987 4,975 1970 9,386 2,033 1,143 1,127 4,450 4,737 1971 9,042 1,897 1,160 851 4,063 5,247 1972 9,534 2,159 1,166 766 4,170 5,264 1973 10,573 2,710 1,438 904 4,948 6,312 1974 9,733 2,377 1,175 615 3,675 5,415 1975 9,507 2,425 1,179 573 3,552 4,751 Source: Fishery Statistics of the Un I ted States * exclusive of dUD! Icatlon between states ** estimates for 1975 are all the latest available 3-93 Table 3.5-27(b). Resident full-time boat shrimp fishermen for the U.S. Gulf, by states (1958 to 1975) Total Fiori da Year Gu If* West Coast Alabama Mississippi Loul s I ana Texas 1958 4,358 219 348 322 2,824 645 1959 4,280 149 340 270 2,789 768 1960 4,116 140 346 248 2,836 570 1961 3,903 147 315 208 2,668 573 1962 4,108 172 371 216 2,815 565 1963 4,443 203 395 220 3,098 594 1964 4,451 160 380 232 2,974 705 1965 4,457 178 335 235 2,997 735 1966 4,312 142 311 178 2,919 772 1967 4,195 110 279 168 2,949 699 1968 3,988 104 227 146 2,910 601 1969 3,771 88 188 150 2,914 431 1970 3,774 97 174 200 2,791 512 1971 3,879 93 171 254 2,808 553 1972 3,794 75 177 218 3,188 475 1973 4,078 94 158 200 3,152 41 1974 3,937 94 125 222 3,130 366 1975 4,159 75 147 216 3,168 553 Source: Fishery Stat I st I cs of the Un I ted States Table 3.5-28. Man-days fished per season, 1962 to 1974 Man-Days F I shed (24 Hours) Year On Vessels On Boats Total 1962 226,474 60,798 287,272 1963 303,859 38,210 342,069 1964 292,673 56,528 349,201 1965 288,198 52,593 340,791 1966 288,188 56,056 344,244 1961 303,281 55,794 359,075 1968 313,325 54,636 367,961 1969 387,319 41,104 428,423 1970 352,914 54,723 407,637 1971 355,351 54,694 410,045 1972 380,407 69,051 449,458 1973 361,597 84,415 446,012 1974 340,655 77,559 418,214 Computed from Tables 3.5-15, 3.5-26 and 3.5-27. 3-94 (-- 3.5.3 Domstic Comrcial Processing Characteristics 3.5.3.1 Total Gross Incom from the Shrimp and All Related Fisheries Annual production for the Gulf region by product type of shrimp Is shown In Table 3.5-29. Raw headless shrimp appear to generate the most revenue for Gulf processors: they constitute 45 percent of gross Incom In the 1967 to 1976 time perIod. Raw peeled shrimp make up 26 percent of the total, . and breaded shrimp 17 percent. Although It Involves a substantial amount of poundage processed, 'cannlng accounts for only ten percent of revenue, and the remaining two percent Is spilt between dried shrimp and cooed and peeled shrimp. 3.5.3.2 I nvestment In P I ant and EQu I pment The number of seafood processing plants In the Gulf totaled 356 In 1976 (Table 3.5-30). No data are available for the capital assets or the yearly Investment In shrimp processing either at national or at Gulf-wide levels. Data are available at the national level to construct an accurate capital series for all canned and cured seafood processing plants and for all fresh and frozen seafood processing plants. These data will be useful for comparative purposes If, at som future time, a shrimp processing capital serIes can be constructed. 3.5.3.3 Total Employment and Labor Income Statistics for the Gulf shrimp processing Industry cannot be Isolated from the total fish processing data. Table 3.5-31 gives the pattern of employment and Table 3.5-32 shows the average hourly wage, for the nation and for the Gulf region. The annual rate of Increase In fish processing employment has exceeded the national average for all manufacturing Industries. Employment, reflected In both yearly average and seasonal high, declined for Louisiana and Texas In the 1970 to 1976 Inter val, while the other three states In the Gulf fishery all registered Increases. 3.5.4 Recreational Fishing Characteristics From 1955 to 1970, .the number of marine recreational fishermen In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico more than doubled, from 1.1 million to 2.3 million, and expenditures by recreational fishermen more than Quadrupled, from about $98 mil lion to $405 million. A 1975 marine recreational survey conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggested that the total poundage of shellf Ish, In terms of live weight, taken by recreational fishermen amounted to more than 56 million pounds, or about 25 percent of the finfish catch. Brown, 1981, estimated In excess of 239,000 recreational participants In shrlmplng In the Gulf exclusive of Florida In 1979. He estimated the Gulf recreational catch exclu sive of Florida to be about 10.5 million pounds In 1979 and 6 million pounds In 1980. Most of the shrimp caught by recreational fishermen are taken with otter trawls ranging from 16 to 40 feet In width. Se I nes, cast nets, dip nets, butterf i y nets, and push nets are a I so used I n som areas. It Is not possible from avaIlable data to determine what portion of the -total recreational shrimp catch Is used for home consumptIon and what may be sold commercl ally. State-by-state summries of the recreational shrimp fishery are: Florlda west coast: No permit Is required; total catch and effort are not quantified. number of boats Is estimated at 500 to 650 (Charles R. Futch, Florida Department of Natural Resources, persona I commun I cat Ion). The 3-95 Tab Ie 3.5-29. Vblume and value from Gulf of Mexico shrimp processing plants, 1958 to 1978 Year Breaded coked and raw Coked and pee I ed Raw head less shr Imp Do liars Fbunds Do II ars Fbunds Do I r ars Fbunds tho usand 1958 20,854 19,392 2,265 2,368 43,474 57, 284 1959 18,094 18,156 1 , 739 2, 227 32,914 55,486 1960 25,608 25,530 2,379 2,851 45,263 74,730 1961 32,016 26,941 2,354 2,839 31,993 42,297 1962 33, 399 25,870 1,925 1,965 43,743 47,646 1963 30,437 27,092 2,465 2,745 44,748 62, 143 1964 35,459 31,661 2,243 2,745 44,271 55,295 1965 45,211 35,605 3,580 4,216 48,689 58,928 1966 52,001 36,349 3,707 3,705 54 ,207 56,242 1967 43,494 32,319 3,922 4,039 81,121 91 ,860 1968 53,257 35,687 4,327 3,569 76, 448 74,205 1969 59,545 37,396 5,510 5,318 88,031 80,452 1970 55,900 35,462 4,586 5,751 91,342 88, 061 1971 61,085 36, 048 6,378 5,013 112,342 87,860 1972 76,451 38, 763 4,004 4, 038 125,159 86,824 1973 95,767 40,680 4,927 2,819 149,473 43,642 1974 75, 1 73 32,888 4,788 3,032 114,077 65,537 1975 68, 066 26,716 4,319 2,535 132,084 56, 183 1976 92,835 28,935 3,549 . 1,832 255,877 85; 459 1977 118,016 53,.18 4,162 1,213 308,635 109,984 1978 136,735 63,667 7,333 2,378 355,521 109,848 Year Raw Peeled Canned Dried Do II ars Fb un d s Dollars Fb unds Dollars Fbunds thousand 1958 4,402 5,309 16,759 22, 034 493 1,688 1959 6,056 9,437 13,259 21,207 291 1 ,555 1960 19,519 13,702 14,853 24,428 796 3,430 1961 13,058 15,402 8,760 13,142 745 ' 2,019 1962 14,360 14,825 16,502 21,584 598 1,796 1963 17,258 18,676 17, 503 27,765 380 2,194 1964 19,155 21,957 11,929 17,812 461 1,092 1965 21,286 23,430 19,560 27,724 547 1 ,329 1966 26,443 25,664 20,383 26,057 685 1,640 1967 33, 033 30,842 19,833 26,489 582 1,701 1968 37,71 5 31,068 22,079 27, 527 1 ,066 2,707 1969 42,260 30,852 20,898 27,663 1,135 3,141 1970 45,540 40,228 26, 730 34,664 n.a. n.a. 1971 48, 934 36,893 23, 787 29, 130 1,356 3,498 1972 47,380 31,917 29,160 29,937 1,439 2,876 1973 43,371 24,671 38,024 27,420 1,250 1,558 1974 33,937 24, 145 31,137 26,131 1,401 2,482 1975 34,824 25,249 1 7, 486 14,235 2,931 2,879 1976 67,685 32,437 32,606 22,511 1,748 2,2171977 62,683 25,967 48,271 2,073 1978 83,839 83,314 33, 563 2,042 So urce: Processed Fishery Products. 3-96 c-- Tab I e 3.5-30. Number of process I ng p I ants I n the Gu I f coast states, 1970 to 1978 Florida Year Total West Q:ast A I abama Mississippi Lculslana Texas 1970 435 438 44 43 122 88 1971 428 127 48 44 128 81 1972 417 118 51 42 124 82 1973 407 118 51 40 118 80 1974 360 103 44 37 112 64 1975 350 106 43 37 104 60 1976 356 113 43 36 109 55 1977 388 107 50 38 139 54 1978 425 139 50 40 136 60 So urce: Fishery Statistics of the United States and Processed Fishery Products, Annual Surrary. Table 3.5-31. Year I y average and seasonal high employment In seafood process I ng Total Gulf F lor I da West Coast A I abama Year Yearly Avg. Sea. High Yearly Avg. Sea. High Yearly Avg. Sea. High 1970 11,527 15,659 3,507 4,137 875 1,383 1971 11,488 15,912 3,562 4,321 1,018 1 , 590 1972 11,477 15,372 3,409 3,971 1,158 1,732 1973 11,405 1 5, 440 3,477 3,951 1,196 1 , 786 1974 9,316 13,245 2,953 3,473 1,040 1,496 1975 9,058 12,028 2,860 3,319 1,005 1,419 1976 10,399 13,590 3,393 4,014 1,297 1,839 1977 11,146 15,481 3,482 4,228 1,488 2,298 1978 11,164 15,159 3,717 4, 487 1,284 1,869 Missl ss Ipp I Louisiana Texas Year Year Iy Avg. Sea. High Yearly Avg. Sea. H I gh Yearly Avg. Sea. High 1970 990 1,458 3,177 4,612 2,978 4,069 1971 1,025 1 ,604 3,122 4,699 2,771 3,698 1972 1,087 1,564 3, 262 4,775 2,561 3,328 1973 1,016 1 , 466 3,233 4,807 2,483 3,430 1974 1,088 1,516 2,953 4,242 1,282 2,518 1975 1,035 1,468 2,733 3,780 1,425 2,042 1976 1,124 1,530 2,865 3,958 1,720 2,249 1977 1,295 1,782 3,103 4,676 1,778 2,497 1978 1,290 1 , 788 3,140 4,611 1,733 2,404 Source: Fishery Stat I st I cs of the Un I ted States and Current Fisher I es Stat I st I cs. 3-97 Table 3.5-32. Hour I y waççe rates for seafood processlnçç 1958 to 1976 Year Canned and Cured Fresh and Frozen Nation Gu If Nat Ion Gulf 1958 $1.57 $1.10 $1.17 $ .82 1959 1.68 1.18 1.19 .83 1960 1.79 1.25 1.20 .84 1961 1.79 1.25 1.28 .90 1962 1.88 1.32 1.41 .98 1963 1.91 1.34 1.41 .98 1964 1.94 1.36 1.46 1.02 1965 2.07 1.56 1.65 1.24 1966 2.12 1.59 1.71 1.28 1967 2.19 1.64 1.80 1.35 1968 2.28 1.72 1.90 1.42 1969 2.34 1.86 2.04 1.62 1970 2.74 2.19 2.00 1.60 1971 2.86 2.29 2.17 1.73 1972 3.09 2.81 2.59 2.36 1973 3.34 3.04 2.72 2.48 1974 3.60 3.27 3.07 2.79 1975 3.87 3.52 3.32 3.02 1976 4.50 4.10 3.65 3.31 Source: Census of Manufacturers and Annua I Survey of Manufacturers, U.S. Department of Commerce. Alabama: About a third of the owners of boats In the coastal counties less than 26 feet In lenqth owned, 16-foot trawls, for which no licenses are reQuired (Swlnççle, et al., 1976). There are more than 6,000 such boats. Swingle, et al. (1976) estimate that recreational shrimpers harvested 15 to 25 percent of the total catch In the Inland waters (Table 3.5-33). Brown, 1981, estimated 20,423 recreational participants took 785,242 pounds of whole shrimp In 1979, and 29,194 took 710,492 pounds In 1980. Because of catch limitations, some recreational shrimpers often purchase commercial licenses during open commercial seasons to avoid poundage restrictions Imposed on sport shrimpers. Mississippi: Weaver and Christmas (n.d.) estimate that recreational shrimpers constituted an averaqe of 67 percent of the licensed shrimpers In 1974-1976 and took more than a half mil lion pounds of shr I mp or about one-e I ghth of the reported Ins hore commercl a I catch dur I ng the three-year per I od (Table 3.5-33). Brown, 1981, estimated 8,929 participants In 1979 catching about 900 thousand pounds. There Is no distinction between commercial and recreational shrimpers under the law. In their study, Weaver and Christmas classified recreational shrimpers as those who reportedly did not sell their catches. Lou I s I ana: More recreat lona I shr I mpers are i ocated I n Lou I s I ana than I n any other state. i tis estimated that In 1973 sport shrimpers In Louisiana equipped som 30,000 boats with otter trawls and 3-98 harvested some 23.6 millIon pounds (heads-on) of shrImp, Table 3.5-33 (U.S. Army Corps of EngIneers n.d.). At the present tIme, both the number of boats equIpped wIth trawls and the total catch are probably much hIgher. Brown, 1981, reports 173,948 partIcIpants catchIng 7.8 mIllIon pounds In 1979 and 122,522 particIpants catch Ing 3.8 mIllIon pounds In 1980. No lIcense Is requIred for recreatIonal trawls up to 16 feet. LIcenses are requIred for trawls In the 17- to 50-foot range. The smaller trawl operators may take up to 100 pounds of shrImp, heads-on, per day wIth no sIze lImItations. A sport trawling lIcense permIts the shrImper to take as many shrimp each day as he can, provIded the shrImp are not sold. RecreatIonal shrImpers often purchase commercIal lIcenses whIch permIt them to shrImp on a part-tIme basis and sell all or part of the catch. Most of the shrImp sold go to outlets whIch are not statistIcally monItored, so the magnItude of thIs commercIal catch cannot be defined. Texas: KIng (1975) estImated that 1.1 percent of the Texas shrImp harvest was caught by recreatIonal shrimpers In 1973. RecreatIonal shrImpers harvested about 846,000 pounds from Texas' bays and about 55,000 pounds from the Gulf waters adjacent to Texas (Table 3.5-33). Brown, 1981, reported 49,853 participants takIng 1.4 mlliloo pounds In 1980. LIcenses are requIred of Texas recreational fIshermen. An addItIonal license Is requIred for trawls. Cast nets, dIp nets, traps, and mInnow seInes do not requIre lIcenses. Catch i Imlts are two Quarts per person durIng any Inland waters closed season. Up to 100 pounds may be taken In major bays during the open season, August 15 to December 15 and from Gulf waters under state jurIsdIctIon durIng the July 16 to May 31 season. The lImIt Is 15 pounds In major bays durIng the May 15 to Jury 15 season. RecreatIonal shrImpers are pro h Iblted from sellIng any portIon of theIr catch and are subject to the same size restrIctIons as com mercl al fIshermen. Persona I Commun I cat Ions from FIshery Managers The followIng Information on recreatIonal shrlmplng was collected by means of personal com munIcations with fIshery management personnel from each of the fIve Gulf states. Florlda west coast: Most of the Interest In recreatIonal shrlmplng appears to be centered In the Apa I ach I co I a Bay reg Ion. The boats used I n the fIshery range Ins I ze from about 15 feet to large cabIn cruIsers, and Include a number of small (20-25 feet) fully-rIgged shrimp boats. Most of the recreational effort Is expended on weekends during summer and autumn by resIdents of 'the coastal coun tIes and adjacent Inland countIes. Trawls range In sIze from 14 to 18 feet wIth an average sIze of 16 feet. Other gear types are seldom used to harvest shrImp for home consumptIon. The popularIty of recreatIonal shrlmplng In FlorIda appears to be related to the retail prIce of shrImp rather than to the avaIlabIlIty of the resource. The number of partIcipants In the recreatIonal shrimp fIshery may Increase If shrImp prIces contInue to rIse. (Charles R. Futch, AssIstant ChIef, Bureau of MarIne ScIence and Technology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, 9 May 1978). Comparatlvel y lIttle recreatIonal shr Impl ng occurs on the FlorIda west coast. Some recreatIonal effort may occur out of the Cedar Key area by Inland county resIdents travelIng to the coast for the weekend. There may have been a declIne In the number of partIcipants In the recreational shrImp fIshery In the past few years because of the rIsIng prIces of fuel, nets, and equIpment. Also, obtainIng the necessary Information on how to shrImp may be. more dIffIcult here than In other areas (Jeffrey A. FIsher, Marine AdvIsory Agent, Panama CIty, 10 May 1978). Alabama: Enforcement of f I cers have observed an apparent I ncrease I n the number of recreat lonal shrImp boats In the past few years which Is belIeved to be maInly due to the risIng retaIl prIce of shrImp. The number of partIcIpants wIll probably Increase If shrImp prIces contInue to rIse. Most of the recreatIonal effort Is expended In the MIssIssIppI Sound and lower MobIle Bay where the greatest concentrations of brown shrImp occur. Some recreatIonal effort may occur In Wolf and Perdldo Bays but Is small by comparIson. RecreatIonal shrImpers reside prImarIly In BaldwIn and MobIle countIes, although some lIve In the Inland countIes and travel to the coast to shrImp. ResIdents of other 3-99 T ab .5 3 3. G u l f o f M e x i c o r e c r e a t i o n a l s h r i m p f i s h e r y : th e s u r' m e t h o d s , n u m b e r o f s p o r t t r a w l s , e s t i m a t e d t o t a l e f f o r t ( m . ~ m an h o u r s , a . d . = a n g l e r d a y s , m . d . = m a n d a y s ~ a n d T = 1 " r l p s ) , e s t i m a t e d t o t a l c a t c h a n d d a t a s o u r c e b y s t a t e a n d y e a r . S ta te Y ea r S u r v e y M e t h o d N um be r of E st im at ed E st im at ed D a t a S o u r c e S p o rt T r a w I s 1 T o t a l E f f o r t T o t a l C a t c h (I b s. h ea ds o n) F io rI d a W es t C oa st 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ A la ba m a 19 72 P o s t a l a n d T e l e p h o n e S u r v e y 5, 72 73 / 4/ 27 7, 05 1 S w i n g l e e t a l . , 1 9 7 6 19 73 P e rs o n a i I n te rv I e w 5, 72 7 3 0 9 ,6 4 4 m .h . 20 4, 57 7 S w i n g l e e t a l . , 1 9 7 6 19 74 P e rs o n a I I n te rv I e w 5, 72 7 1 8 9 ,9 4 4 m .h . 29 0, 54 1 S w i n g l e e t a l . , 1 9 7 6 19 79 I n te rv l e w a n d T e le p h o n e 4/ 5 3 , 3 3 0 T 78 5, 24 2 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 19 80 I n t e r v i e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 4/ 8 8 , 5 5 6 T 71 0, 49 2 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 M is si ss ip pi 19 74 P e rs o n a I I n t e r v I e w 1, 53 5. 1 9 , 9 5 8 a . d . 16 6, 66 7 W e a v e r a n d C h r i s t m a s n . d . 19 75 P o s t a l a n d T e l e p h o n e 1 , 7 7 0 1 5 , 4 1 0 a . d . 17 6, 35 3 W e a v e r a n d C h r i s t m a s n . d . 19 76 S ur ve y 1, 87 4 1 6 , 5 7 1 a . d . 18 2, 11 1 W e a v e r a n d C h r i s t m a s n . d . 19 79 I n te rv I e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 4/ 3 1 , 6 4 2 T 90 1, 34 3 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 19 80 5/ I n te rv I e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 4/ 1 1 , 4 6 4 T 70 ,5 28 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 L ou is ia na 19 68 T e l e p h o n e S u r v e y 1 4 , 0 0 0 3 7 8 ,0 0 0 m .d ¿ , 19 ,0 00 ,0 00 U . S . F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 2 19 73 7/ 30 ,0 00 4 7 2 ,0 0 0 m .d . 23 ,6 00 ,0 00 U . S . A r m y C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s n . d . 19 79 I n te rv I e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 4/ 4 8 2 , 4 1 4 T 7, 79 5, 02 4 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 19 80 I nt er v I ew a nd T el e p ho ne 4/ 1 8 9 , 3 2 9 T 3, 83 8, 74 0 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 T ex a¿ ! 19 73 P o s t a l a n d T e l e p h o n e S u r v e y 10 ,1 17 4/ 5 / 90 0, 82 3 K i n g , 1 9 7 5 U J I ~ 11 8, 08 0 .. 4/ 0 19 79 I n t e r v i e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 9 5 , 3 1 5 T 97 9, 00 4 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 0 19 80 I n te rv I e w a n d T e l e p h o n e 4/ 1 0 7 , 4 8 6 T 1, 36 3, 77 0 B r o w n , 1 9 8 1 2 ! T h e n u m b e r o f r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a w l s ( ~ 1 6 f e e t I n l e n g t h ) I n B a l d w i n a n d M o b I l e C o u n t i e s , A l a b a m a , w a s e s t i m a t e d f o r 1 9 7 2 b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t I o n s t h a t a i I r e c r e a t I o n a I t r a w i s w e r e o w n e d b y b o a t o w n e r s a n d t h a t a I I r e cr e a t I o n a I s h r I m p I n g w a s co n d u ct e d f ro m b o a ts ~ 2 6 f e e t I n l e n g t h . T h e e s t i m a t e d n u m b e r o f r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a w l s I n L o u i s i a n a d u r i n g 1 9 7 3 w a s b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t 2 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e l i c e n s e d s p o r t b o t s w e r e e q u i p p e d w i t h t r a w l s t o h a r v e s t s h r i m p . T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f t r a w l s I n M i s s i s s i p p i w a s b a s e d o n t h e r e s u l t s o f a s u r v e y o f l i c e n s e d t r a w l h o l d e r s w h o r e p o r t e d n o s a l e o f c a t c h . I n T e x a s , t h e t o t a l ~ u m b e r o f r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a w l s w a s d e t e r m i n e d f r o m d i r e c t c o u n t s o f t h e n u m b e r o f " I n d i v i d u a l B a i t S h r i m p T r a w l " l i c e n s e s s o l d d u r i n g 1 9 7 3 . 2 / N o d a t a a v a i l a b l e . ~ C a t c h e s t i m a t e s f o r 1 9 7 3 a n d 1 9 7 4 w e r e b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s n o c h a n g e I n t h e n u m b e r o f t r a w l s o w n e d s i n c e 1 9 7 2 . ~ N ot d et er m l ne d. ~ I n c o m p l e t e . 6 / B a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t 1 4 , 0 0 0 s h r i m p e r s f i s h e d a n a v e r a g e o f 2 7 m a n d a y s e a c h I n 1 9 6 8 . 2 ! T h e e s t i m a t e d t o t a l c a t c h a n d e f f o r t f o r 1 9 7 3 w e r e p r o j e c t i o n s b a s e d u p o n t h e r e s u l t o f t h e 1 9 6 8 s u r v e y . . ~ D o e s n o t I n c l u d e d a t a f o r M a y / J u n e . ~ , states have been perIodIcally observed trawling recreatlonally In Alabama. Most of the recreatIonal effort occurs on the weekends, and to a lesser extent, after work on weekdays. The boats generally range from 14 to 30 feet In length, wIth the majorIty In the 14 to 20 foot class. Most of the recreatIonal catch Is harvested wIth 16-foot otter trawls. Owners of 16-foot trawls sometImes purchase commercIal lIcenses to avoId the poundage lImItatIons Imposed on recreatIonal shrImpers. (Steven R. Heath, MarIne BIologIst, Alabama Department of ConservatIon and Natural Resources, DauphIn Island, 11 May 1978.) MIssIssIppI: RecreatIonal shrlmplng occurs prImarIly In MIssIssIppI Sound between Blloxl and Pascagoula, with a comparatIvely smal i effort In the vIcinIty of Waveland. Most recreational shrlmplng Is conducted usIng a small boat (30 feet long or less) outfItted wIth a sIngle 16-foot trawl wIth one to two people aboard. The majorIty of the recreatIonal shrImpers resIde In HarrIson and Jackson counties; relatIvely few i Ive In Hancock county. The number of lIcensed trawls In MIssIssIppI has Increased sharply In the last three years. (Tom Van Devender, Fishery BIologIst, Gulf Coast Research Lab, Ocean SprIngs, 8 May 1978.) LouIsIana: There are a large number of partIcIpants In the recreatIonal shrimp fIshery. About 25 percent of the estimated 200,000 recreational boats registered In LouIsIana are equIpped wIth otter trawls. Although the majorIty of the recreatIonal catch Is taken In otter trawls, some effort occurs wIth wIng nets and cast nets. Wing nets may be attached to fIxed platforms or boats; cast nets are used In the Rockefeller Refuge, Lake Pontchartraln vIcInIty, and other accessIble marsh areas. The boats used for recreational shrlmplng range In length from about 14 feet and up. Most of the resI dents of the coastal parI shes who own boats 16 feet I n length have otter traw Is. Many recreatlonar shrImpers are resIdents of larger citIes and choose to shrImp In the wetland areas nearby. However, on a typIcal trIp, recreatIonal shrimpers travel 50 to 80 mIles to shrimp In coastal areas. ComparatIvely few people from the northern part of the state above Baton Rouge travel to the coast to shrimp. There Is no known recreatIonal shrlmplng by residents of other states. (Harry Schafer, ChIef; Will lam S. Perret, Federal AId CoordInator; Judd Pollard, BIologIst, DIvIsion of Oysters, Water Bottoms and Seafoods, LouIsIana WildlIfe and FIsherIes CommIssIon, New Orleans, 6 June 1978.) Texas: The general ,Increase In the number of "IndIvIdual BaIt-ShrImp Trawl" licenses sold In recent years suggests that the number of particIpants In the Texas recreatIonal shrimp fIshery has shown the same growth trends as the other Gulf states. The growth of the recreatIonal shrImp fIshery In Texas may be attrIbuted to (1) populatIon growth In the coastal areas, (2) an Increase In leisure tIme, and (3) the rIsIng retail prIce of shrImp. The boats used by recreatIonal shrImpers average about 16 to 21 feet In length. Most of the shrImpers resIde In coastal counties or adjacent Inland counties. There Is no known recreatIonal shrlmplng effort by resIdents of other states. The majorIty of the recreatIonal catch Is taken with otter trawls. (Roy B. Johnson, RegIonal Direcor, Coastal FIsherIes, Texas Parks and WIldlIfe Department, La Porte, 13 June 1978.) 3.5.5 Subs I stence Shr I mp I ng Accepting the defInItIon of a subsistence shrImp fIsherman as one who catches just enough shrimp to provIde for ImmdIate sustenance of hIs famIly, no IndIvIduals, communItIes, or socIetIes fIttIng Into thIs category could be IdentIfIed as part of the Gulf of MexIco shrImp fIshery. There are apparently some fIshermen who partIally subsIst on shrimp. In a broader sense, there are substantIal numbers of south LouIsIana resIdents who alternate theIr subsIstence actIvIty from shrlmplng to crabbIng, trappIng, and huntIng and who have lIttle or no Income other than that derIved from these actIvItIes. 3-101 3.5.6 I nd I an Treaty FIsh I ng Character I st I cs No treaties or CongressIonal actIons wIth IndIans (Native AmerIcans) which would affect a Gulf of MexIco fIshery management plan have been located. One lawsuIt, pendIng In Federal DIstrict Court for the Eastern D I str I ct of Lou I s I ana, seeks to enjol n enforcement of a Ii Lou I s I ana w I I d II fe and fishery laws "unsupported by legitimate conservatIon considerations" as applied to three tribes domIciled In Louisiana. It seeks to overturn Louisiana laws regulatIng gIll nets and seInes, defIning the lIne of demarcatIon between Inside and outside waters for shrImp lng, and regulating nets and gear used for takIng shrimp, by havIng them declared unconstitutional as applied to Houmas, Chlttlmacha, and Choctaw I nd I ans on the grounds that treat I es entered I nto between France and Spa I nand var lous I nd I an tr I bes were carr I ed over In fu II force by the terms of the Lou I s I ana Purchase. 3.5.7 Output of Domestic Commercial BaIt-ShrImp Fishery A baIt-shrimp Industry of considerable economic Importance has arIsen In some areas of the Gulf of Mexico due to the popularity of shrImp, live or dead, as baIt for numerous varIeties of saltwater game fIsh (Section 4.1, Predation). Each of the Gulf states has laws regulating the bait-shrimp Industry. Generally there are no reStrictions as to season, count size, or closed areas. The bait fIshery Is based primarily on the juveniles of brown, pink, and white shrimp, with pink shrimp dominant for Florida and brown and white shrimp dominant In the other states. Otter trawls, side-frame trawls, cast nets, seines, and baIted traps are used to harvest baIt. The catch Is sorted rapidly, and shrImp are placed In aerated live-bait wells. Live-baIt shrlmplns operatIons are conducted primarily at night. A state-by-state summary: FlorIda: An average of 74.75 million shrimp, valued 1975 period (Table 3.5-34). The number of permits Issued In 1974 (Table 3.5-34). A decline In the total catch has 3.5-34). at $1.42 million, was produced In the 1968 Increased from a 1968-1969 low of 182 to 761 accompan I ed the I ncrease I n permits (Tab Ie Alabama: Swingle (1972) reports that 24 bonaflde bait dealers In Baldwin and Mobile counties sold 1,544,000 live shrimp wIth a retail value of $64,500 during 1968. In addition to the live bait sales, a total of 22,200 pounds of dead shrimp was sold for bait with a retail value of $12,040. Balt-shrlmplng Is a part-time occupation, primarily durIng the May-September period, for most of the bait dealers; 40 licenses were Issued for 1977-1978 fiscal year (Steven R. Heath, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, personal commun Icatlon.) Mississippi: Christmas, et al. (1976) estimate that baIt-shrimpers In the coastal counties of MIssissIppi harvested a total of 60,317 pounds 'of live shr:Imp wIth a retail value of $96,804 during May to November, 1971. In addition, they estimate that 44,860 pounds of shrimp valued at $25,875 were used as dead bait during the same period. Louisiana: Saltwater flnflshermen In LouIsiana used an estImated 1,529,000 pounds of bait shrimp during 1973 (U.S. Fish and WII dllfe Service data 1976, cited In U.S. Army Corps of EngIneers n.d.). Live balt-shrlmplng In Louisiana comes under strict regulation, and a $1,000 property, cash, or performance bond must be posted by the deal er as surety for observance of regu I at Ions. The number of i Icenses Issued during 1971-1978 varIed between 11 and 28 per year; a recent high was 28 In 1974, and the 1978 total was 12 (W.S. Perret, LDWF personal communication). Texas: Chin (1960) estImates that a total of 460,995 pounds of live bait-shrimp and 206,624 pounds of dead bait-shrimp were harvested from Galveston Bay from June 1957 to May 1959. The total retail value of the catches were $653,520 and $112,761 for live and dead bait-shrimp, respectively. 3-102 Stokes (1974) estimates that a total of 53,181 Quarts of live bait-shrimp with a retail value of $265,905 were harvested In the Lower LaQuna Madre area from November 1970 through October 1972. NMFS estimates that a total of 2,340,000 pounds of live and dead bait shrimp valued at $6,790,000 were harvested on the Texas coast In 1978. There were approximately 1,500 commercl al bait-shrimp boat II censes I ssued that year. 3.5.8 Area Community Characteristics 3.5.8.1 Total Population A very substantial settlement of the coastal area has occurred during the twentieth century, resulting In substantial changes to the estuarine habiTat of the Gulf shrimp populations (Llndal I and Saloman, 1977). The most recent population trends In the coastal area are presented In Figure 3.5-15. The coastal parishes/counTies display no uniform pattern of recent population change. However, on a state-by-state comparison the coastal parishes/counties that have been experiencing the most rapid growth tend to be situated alonQ the Florida coast. Several Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas counties that show moderately stronQ growth appear to do so In conjunction with the spread of population I nand around meTropolitan areas. Rapid growth of Florida counties has long been associated with retirement. Tab Ie 3.5-34. Total number of bait-shrimp permits Issued, total live shrimp production and value of the catch In Florida for the years 1968 throuQh 1975 (after Christms and Etzold 1977). Year Permits Live shrimp production Value ( x 106 I nd I v I d ua Is) (x 106 dollars) 87.02 1.49 88.55 1.76 78.72 1.40 67.04 1.23 73.64 1.32 70.31 1.34 61.30 1.29 71.43 1.55 1968 182 1969 182 1970 399 1971 401 1972 544 1973 361 1974 761 1975 699 'ì 3-103 The shr I mp I ndustry makes of Mexl co. However, In on I y a ports tend a I so to be sites of Its presence felt In virtually all ports that lie on or near the Gulf handful of ports could It be considered the dominant Industry. The shipbull dl ng, petrochemical manufacture, and marl ne transport. 3.5.8.2 Total Employment In Shrimp Fishery Average total employment In the shrimp fishery can only be estimated. A maximum estimate would be to assume all seafood wholesaling and processing employees were associated with processing and marketing of shrimp products. Under this assumption and with 1978 seafood processing and wholesaling data and 1975. numbers of full time fishermen, It Is estimated that total employment In the Gulf Is 31,440 at seasonal peaks and 26,692 on an annual basis (Table 3.5-35). Florida and Louisiana are leading states In the employment of processing employees while Texas Is the leading state for employment In seafood wholesaling. Louisiana Is the leading state for total employment. An alternative, more conservative, estimation Is to proportion processing and wholesaling employment In the same proportion as value of processed shrImp products Is to total processed pro ducts. In 1978 processed shr I mp products were 69 percent of total processed seafood products I n the Gulf. With this proportion, total Gulf seasonal shrimp related employment Is estimated to be 25,884 employees while the yearly average Is estimated to be 22,608. Table 3.5-35. Employment on shrimp boats and vessels and In seafood processing and wholesaling, 1~75 and 1978, respectlveiya Seafood Process I ng Seafood Who I esa II ng State Averages Averages Seasona I Yearly Seasona I Year Iy Fiori da West Coast 4,487 3,717 546 501 Alabama 1,869 1,284 181 101 Mississippi 1,788 1,290 151 95 Loul sl ana 4,611 3,140 617 498 Texas 2,404 1 ,733 1,268 815 Total Gulf 15, 159 11 , 164 2,763 2,010 Ful i time Fishermen Total Employment State Vessels Boats Seasona I Year i y FiorI da West Coast 2,425 75 7,533 6,718 Alabama 1,179 147 3,376 2,711 MississIppi 573 216 2,728 2,174 Loul s I ana 3,522 3,168 11,918 10,328 Texas 4,751 553 8,976 7,852 Total Gulf 9,359b 4,159b 31,440 26,692 a Latest years avaIlable. level s. For total employment It Is assumed 1975 level of fIshermen represent 1978 b Total exclusive of duplicatIon. Souce: FisherIes of the United States, 1979, and Tables 3.5-26 and 3.5-27. 3-104 M ag ni tu de o f th e C h a n g e G ai ns 4 0 ~ o o r m o r e 30 .: 39 .9 C fo W I l- o Ln 2 0 . 2 9 . 9 ~ o 1 0 . 1 9 . 9 ~ o 5 . 9 . 9 ~ o o 4. 9% lo ss F ig ur e 3. 5 15 . G ul f A re a M in us F lo ri da I S E st im at ed C ha ng e in P op ul at io n, 1 97 0. 75 F lo ri da I 10 I S I 10 N u m b e r o f C o u n tie s A ll G ul f C ou nt ie s I 5 I 10 I lS " (~ 3.5.8.3 Relationship of Shrimp Fisheries to Total Work Force Census Information about numbers of shrimp fishermen Is unavailable as It Is masked among counts of people employed In agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. A frequency distribution of Gulf counties, In terms of the percent of the labor force that was employed, Is given In Figure 3.5-15. It does not appear that shr I mp fish I ng I s a major contr I butor to overa I I emp loyment I n most of Gu I f counties. The highest proportion employed In agriculture, forestry, and fisheries combined was 30 percent. Table 3.5-36 compares, by county, the number of people Identified as employed In the fisheries, mining, contract construction, and petrochemical manufacturing Industries (county business patterns) for Texas and Louisiana countIes Identified as major centers of shrImp Industry activity. The data Indicate that the shrimp Industry Is overshadowed In all these units by other marine-orIented Industries alone. The data suggest that the shrimp Industry could not contribute, even at Its peak, much more than 25 percent to the employment profile of any of these Gulf counties. In most cases, the peak contribution very likely Is far less than 25 percent. The presence of other Industries In the shrimp ports Is a mixed blessing to the shr1mpers. Offshore 011, In particular, can provide off-season employment. However, In a number of ports shrimpers have had to relinquish berthing space to offshore 011 or oceanic transshipment, both of whIch provIde more revenue to port authorities. 3.6 I nteractl on Between and Among User Groups 3.6.1 Shrimpers Interactions Recreational, bait, and commercial offshore and Inshore shrimpers are the major direc users of the shrimp resource. Though easily grouped In this manner, there are differences within groups that occas I ona i 'y resu It In dIsputes. There are d I f ferences on the size of shr I mp preferred for harvest as well as varied techniques used by the groups to harvest. The migratIng nature of shrimp make them Initially susceptible to capture In shallow areas where gear alternatives are greater as opposed to the sIngle technology of trawling by offshore shrimpers. The Inshore commercial shrimper, particularly In Louisiana, also has more busIness alternatives than the offshore shrimper. A survey of Louisiana shrimpers usIng undocumented boats In 1978 revealed that- approxlmatel y 90 percent retaIned fu II-time emp loyment other than shr I mpl n9 (Sass and Roberts, 1979). The high IncIdence of casual shrimpers In Inshore areas of Gulf states signIfies the supple mental Income approach to shrlmplng. The large number of participants In the LouIsiana Inshore f!shery, as well as fisheries In other states, can occasionally stress the ability of shores Ide facI lities to adequately handle the catch. The then record season In 1977 stressed canning and Ice faci lities to the point where some shrimp spoIled prior to utilization. This occurred only during the Initial week of the May-June Inshore season. Subsequent seasons have not resulted l-n a shortage of Ice. Louisiana facIlities are adequate to support the processing and marketing of the Louisiana catch. Inshore shrimpers whether full-time or part-time generally operate theIr boats alone with a few occasionally using one or two crewmen when catch rates are high. Vessels operating a portion of their time Inshore typically have one or two crewmen on board. This difference between Inshore boats and vessels Is marked by a preponderence of family members or friends serving as crew on the boats while the traditional crew relationship of sharing the value of the catch prevails on Inshore vessels. Offshore vessels operated by the owners are characterized by several methods of sharing the pro ceeds from the catch. Basically all the share systems call for the vessel and captain with crew to receive a share of the value of the catch after certain expenses are deducted. The expenses deducted 3-106 Figure 3.5-16. li .~ 10 i: :J o U o 5 .. GJ.. E :J Z The percent of all county residents employed who were active in Agriculture, Forestry, anã Fisheries. ~' . ~'! '0' ~ '! I' ,C) C\ . ~., ,~'1, Cò'. C\ '! Percent in Agriculture, Forestry, end Fisheries 3-107 '"r- t. ~ ~.ã '"~~~., $. - ~..," '" a =' '" ~ I ~ ~ QJ U ~ ~o.. ~,. 0 -- i ON ~ QJ QJ0 as N 0 in I I .¡en,.0 ll \0 ~ I ONONO ., QJ .¡ $. :: -- 0 0 O-OMO 0. 0 U ~ ex ir 0 ir + --. in in en 'U æ ~ r- - -\0- QJ en'- 'U en i: en i en as QJ ., i: .¡.¡ en en as., as 0. 00 .. eni- ~ H i: en QJ ., NN\ON in ~ ir ex as en.. ~ -- ir ir .. ". ex 0 .. i- QJ.¡ \OO~M \0 ir 0 . -c i:0 ~ " " -- en. .,QJ en., . ::i- ,. .. 0 as öO.¡ ~ QJ ., .¡ ~ .¡ 0. i:as as ::0 CJ CJ 0., CJU öO 0.U 0 i: a i-0 :: 0 ir" ., ., 0as $. .. ex -- \0 N en i-~ a: $. U M ex ex ex M " N ir en .. QJ U a: ir N ~ ex .. ".. .. QJ en QJ., i: ~ MM -- \0 ." M CJ au 0 0 -- 0 en., ~ U U i- - .u :: 0. 'U 0 ,. en U i- i- ., \0 0 o,.0." ~.ua~ '" '" Q1 ., -- $. ~ ~ 'U QJ ~ i- 0 -- ~ as ,. i:.. ~ 0. N ~ i- .u .,ti as .. QJ a I I. .¡ as1. ~ a: N -M 0 0 ~ öOC' i- as QJ 0 $. ~ 0 0 'Ö ,. -c i 0 -M $. .... ex -- in 0 QJL1 or a: 't ~ ~ en N - .-- 0 en ~"B 0 ~ .uC' 0 as., ~ 0 tt QJ i 11 i:H !I a: en .u.¡ en enr- "" QJ QJ :: :: QJ.a 't en .. 0 'Ö enas a: ~ 't .¡ .u i: 0~ S as 't' 0 ., 0.QJ "C 0 0 C" ~ .. i-11 a: ~ CI tt \0 "' 0 ~ öO ::.u !I ~ S- !I -- --- .¡ i: 0..u ~ as :: QJ ~ ~., as QJ UUt/ i: :: en .¡p. ~ asoenen .u ll U QJ QJ ~ CJ 'Ö~ 0 ., 0 0 0 CI ., i- a ~. 'ÖCJ 0.I CD QJ ., i-o CI ,. " C" O' ~O .¡ i- 'Ö ::.. r- QJ ir ~ \0 ir in i- .¡ i: 0 0. 0 r- -- 0 as as a §:: 0. i: i-~ QJ 00 0 i- i: i:~ as ., QJ ti,. i: i- as QJ as i: en :; ., QJ QJ 00 en ,. COCO~ .u .. 0 QJ i: en,. .¡;¡~ø. \0 \0 -- ex ir OJ 0 QJen~as .. u ø. OJ--~ N "00 ~ as ::CD~at C" -- -- 0 -- C" i: ø. C" M :: S- -- en a QJ iz :: E ., en ., 'U ,. as $. as .. CD,. en as i: en ~ QJ .¡ as i QJ en i- QJ QJ~ QJ -c ,. :; o r- .a,. OQJas .¡ ~ 0 i: ,. QJ 0oM .u N i: QJ QJ O .u ., :: i: QJ ~ ~ oM as .u en QJ~ CI o.. ~ at 0 .. .. CJ i-o oM en 0 0 oM ~ u .u .¡ as as as at CD'" i- .a S- oenas ~ i fi as CI :: CI 0 S- CI i: QJ QJ as QJ OllO.. N CI:; .¡ QJ :; .u.a .. r- ~ iz .. aa ar- ~ o.. as as a CD as CI cd CI II $. as cd Z .¡.."C :: -M U~ H~ aa tQ Uøtl r-Z :: ~0 CI H ~ may vary as do the percentages going to the captain and crew. When seven mining shares to captain and crew were analyzed by converting to a common to range from 21 to 28 percent of gross revenue (Sass and Roberts, 1979). comp i ex methods of deter denom I nator, they were shown If the vessel operator Is not the owner, a different relationship exists. The captain and crew share from 42 to 33 percent of the "take" -- the net value of shrimp less a portion of such operating expenses as fuel, Ice, processing charges, and gear repair. Although crewmen have traditionally resisted sharing the cost of fuel (Griffin, et al., 1976) the large fuel Increases of the 1970's has resulted In some shift to sharing fuel expenses (Roberts, personal communication). There Is another complex set of relationships -- between the owner and the dealer where the shrimp are unloaded. In som areas there Is no apparent bond; In others, with such fluctuations as periodic Ice shortages or marked shrimp supply-demand fluctuations, a fairly permanent relationship may develop. The relationship seems to work to the benefit of both dealer and owner In som cases, for example, when Ice, fuel or shrimp supplies are scarce. This kind of relationship, In which bah parties are mutually Interdependent, appears to be an amicable one with few signs of antagonism or conflict. In other areas, where It Is custoary for a dealer rather than a banker to advance operating capital to the shrimper, the lack of Independence In business transactions apparently can I ead to antagon I sm. Ethnic Interactions have provided few conflicts until Vietnamse fishermn became Increasingly Involved In the bay shrimp fishery of the Gulf coast after 1975. By using aggressive and often more efficient fishing strategies, this group hás becom economically competitive with the established fishermen. The Vietnamese generally fish longer hours on shortèr trips, may use sma i ler crews (often family members), and are equally skilled as compared with their American counterparts. Becuse of their lower operating costs, thrift, wi i Iingness to experience more hardship and risk, and reinvest ment Into better equipment and facilities, the Vietnamese fishermen have becom well established In the fishery (Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc., 1981). This same report estimates the numbers of Vietnamese owned bay shrimp boats on the Gulf coast as follows: Port Area Number of Boats Panam City Pensacola Blloxl PlacQuemlnes Parish Ga i veston Bay PalacIos Rockport-F u Iton 35 - 37 20 75 30 - 35 70 45 - 50 35 - 38 Approximate Total Gulf Coast 315 - 375 Conflicts have occurred between the Vietnamse and the local fishermen, with the latter- accusing the former of violation of fishing regulations and custos. Action programs by state and other agen cIes have Improved the understanding of language, regulations, and local custos by the Vietnamse fishermen. Other ethnIc groups making up the ownership of boats and vessels In the Gu If shrimp fishery I nclude Anglos, Mexican-Americans, Hondurans, eastern Europeans, and persons of French descent. These groups have been well assimilated Into the Gulf fishery, and their problems tend to be the problems of the Industry as a whole (Gu If and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc., 1981). 3-109 3.6.2 Prevalent Conflicts with Shrimpers and Other National Interest Gulf shrimp are harvested by one of the largest and most diverse group of fishermen In the nation. Harvest occurs from the shallow-water estuarl ne areas out to open Gu I f waters of 300 fatnos. The reported commercIal fleet averaged 8,300 boats and vessels trawling an average of som 5.2 million hours annually during the 1970 to 1974 period. All Information Indicates a general Increase In these figures. In addition, there Is growth In the number of recreational users (3.5.2.1). Conf Ilcts of '. these groups with other national Interests may Involve: 1) Capture of finfish and shellfish, which are harvested and then discarded. 2) Incidental capture of sea turtles. 3 ) Loss of estuarine habitat necessary for growth and survival of brown, white and pInk shrimp. 4) Gear conf I I cts with stone crab fishermen I n southern Fiori da. 5) AccIdental or Intentional creation of underwater obstructIons to shrimp trawling. The danger to bots and vessels from underwater obstructIons relates to safe navigation as well as hazards to traw i gear. Sign I f Icant prob lems caused by underwater obstruct Ions I n Lou 1 s I ana waters and the Gu I f are be I ng rec I fled by two government programs. Fishermen' can app I y to the federa I government for compensatIon to cover damage to gear, vessels, and lost Incom resulting from under: water obstructIons In the FCZ (U.S.D.C. 1979). A comprehensive program establIshed In 1980 enables LouisIana shrimpers to receive compensatIon for damage to gear and vessels from obstructions In state waters (Dept. Natural Resources, Louisiana, 1980). Measures are suggested In Section 8.3 to alleviate these conflicts through consideration of the needs boh of shrimpers and other national Interests. Two of these conflicts (those over sea turtles and finfish) are treated In more detail In this section. 3.6.2.1 Incidental Catch of FInfish by Shrimpers and ShrImp by Groundflsh Fishermen The dIscard of the IncIdental catch of finfish durIng commercial Shrlmplng operations In the Gulf of Mexico Is a matter of concern to fishery managers. During the process of sorting shrImp from the reminder of the catch brought In by a trawl, most of the IncIdental catch die from trawling, handling, and exposure before they are dIscarded. In recent years thIs problem has becom accentuated by the movement of shrImp trawlers Into offshore areas traditionally used by the groundflsh fleet. Seidel (1975) estImated that four to 12 pounds of finfish are taken for each pound of shrImp har vested. The annual fInfish dIscard was approximated In Table 3.6-1 by multiplying the low and ~Igh estimates (four and 12 pounds, respectively), by the total yearly shrimp catch In the Gulf of MexIco. The analysis of experImental tows taken In the north central Gulf by the National MarIne Fisheries Servlce, Pascagoula Laboratory, Indicates that fISh-to-shrlmp ratios vary wIdely' by season, locallty, year, and fishIng strategy. The flsh-to-shrlmp ratios presented In Table 3.6-2 are composIte figures computed from many tows taken In the Inshore and offshore areas of the north central Gulf. Up to 70 percent (by weight) of the discard are species u~uable by the groundflsh Industry. During the perIod of concentrated Shrlmplng effort In estuarine areas, shrimp trawls capture and kIll large numbers of juvenile groundflsh and other species. At present It Is not known If current levels of trawl-Induced mortality of juvenl ie fishes In estuarIes have a detrimental effect on offshore groundflsh populations. 3-110 Gulf-wide the Income from sale of Incidental catch taken In shrimp trawls Is low. Statistics reported to NMFS In 1974 Indicated (by states): Florida, 1.7 percent of the value of the shrimp landings; Alabama, 13 percent; Mississippi, 7 percent; Louisiana, 0.8 percent; and Texas, 0.5 percent (Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-5). Specifically, only 19 percent of Louisiana shrimp vessel captains sold a portion of the Incidental catch (Sass and Roberts, 1979). The Income potential was further constrained by markets, Quality, and fish size. Sixty percent of those selling some of the Incidental catch responded that they were not ab Ie to sell a II of the food fish harvested. The conc Ius Ion Is that shrimp vessels are highly specialized units dependent almost entirely on Income from the sale of shr Imp. There Is no Information currently available on the magnitude of the Incidental catch discarded by recreational shrimpers. Most òf the recreational catch and effort occurs In estuarine areas. The total amount of finfish discards, based on the estimated number of participants In the recreational shrimp fishery, may be substantial ,In som states. Louisiana has by far the largest number of par ticipants In the recreational shrimp fishery, followed by Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. No Quantitative data are available on the mortality of the Incidental catch taken during live balt-shrlmplng operations. Bait shrimpers operate primarily at night In the estuaries. The mortality of the Incidental catch Is probably minimized by: (1) the short duration of the tows; (2) the speed at which the catch Is sorted; and (3) cooler, humid conditions at night. Juhl (1974) estimates that the average Incidental catch of shrimp was eight pounds and seven and a half pounds (heads-on) per hour of fishing effort by Industrial and foodflsh trawlers, respectlveJy. Although Quantities of shrimp are caught and marketed by the' Industrial and foodflsh fleet (Gutherz, et al., 1975) these catches are not specifically listed In the annual summaries of landing statistics published by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 3.6.2.2 Hab Its, D I str I but I on, and i nc I denta I Capture of Sea Turt I es In the Gu I f of Mex I co (See Appendix FEIS for ,detail Information) Six of the seven species of sea turtles In existence are found In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. These sea turtles are sometimes .accldentally caught during trawling operations for shrimp and groundflsh. The listing of the Kemp's ridley, hawksblll, leatherback, and Florida populations of the green turtle as endangered species, and of the green, loggerhead, and olive rldley turtles as threatened species, necessitated a careful consideration of the effect of shrlmplng on these species. A considerable ef fort was made, to document what was known about the i I fe h I story and factors af fect I ng the dec 11 ne In their numbers, and shrlmplng operation measures which would alleviate these problems. (See Appendix FEI S.) Exploitation and habitat loss are two major causes of the drastic decline In sea turtle numbers. Incidental capture by shrimp and groundflsh fishing operations Is Increasingly Important as popula tions decline. Preservation measures are aimed at reducing adult and subadult mortality and I ncreas I ng juven Ii e reeru I tment. The accidental capture of sea turtles during shrimp and groundflsh fishing activities Is a major problem along the southern Atlantic and Gulf coasts (Ogren, et al., 1~77). An estimated 800 to 1,000 sea turtles are caught each year off the south Atlantic coast (based on Hillestad, et al., 1977; Ulrich, 1978). Similar estimates for Incidental turtle catch In the Gulf of Mexico are not available. All of the Gulf states have laws aimed at conservation of sea turtles. At the federal level, designation of critical habitat areas Is under consideration. Headstartlng -- protection dur.lng Incubation and the first year of life -- stili Is In the experimental stage. Predator control, primarily for raccoons, can protect nests from destruction. 3-111 Table 3.6'-1. Annual Gulf of .Mexico shrimp catch and estimated finfish discards using fish:shrimp ratios of 4:1 and 12:1. 1959-1975. Shrimp catches were converted to heads-on poundages from headless data furnished by the U. S. Department of Commerce. 1959-1975. Discard ratios encompass the range reported by Seidel (1975) and are presumably based on round (live) weight. Shrimp catch Estimated Estimated discard discard Year (heads-on) 1 4:1 ratio 12:1 ratio (million pounds) (million pounds) (million pounds) 1959 143.4 573.6 1.720.8 1960 166.1 664.4 1.993.2 1961 90.7 362.8 1.088.4 1962 106.6 426.4 1.279.2 1963 176.5 706.0 2.118.0 1964 150.1 600.4 1.801.2 1965 167.7 670.8 2.012.4 1966 163.4 653.6 1.960.8 1967 207.7 830.8 2.492.4 1968 180.4 721. 6 2.164.8 1969 187.8 751. 2 2.253.6 1970 215.6 862.4 2.587.2 1971 211. 4 845.6 2.536.8 1972 208.2 832.8 2.498.4 1973 165.3 661. 2 1.983.6 1974 169.1 676.4 2.029.2 1975 157 . 9 631. 6 1,894.8 l) Heads-on poundages were estimated from headless data using conversion factors for each species and average percent species composition of Gulf catches from 1959-1975: brown shrimp -- 1. 61, 55%; white shrimp 1.54, 32%; pink shrimp -- 1.60, 11%; sea bobs -- 1;53, 1%; royal red shrimp -- 1.80. 0.8%; rock shrimp -- 1.67, 0.2%. The conversion factors for all species except rock shrimp are from the U. S. Depart ment of Commerce (1959-1975). The conversion factor for rock shrimp was computed from data published by Cobb et. a1. (1973). 3-112 I --~ ". , . Table 3.6-2. Comparison of fish discard ratios derived from trawl data collected in the inshore and offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico between 87° 30' and 91° 31', 1973-1977 (data collected and su~rized by the National Marine "risheries. Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi). Inshore Off shore Year Sample Sample size Ratio size Ratio 1973 52 4.9 (1) (1) 1974 19 1.0 15 4.3 1975 47 5.9 52 20.3 1976 27 3.6 53 12.6 1977 24 2.7 19 6.0 . (1) No data. 3-113 T a b le 3 .6 3 . E a t i . . t e d a n n u a l d i a c a r d ( m e t r i c t o n a ) o f t h e a i x . . j o r a p e c i e a o f C u l f o f H e . i c o f r o m 8 7 . 3 0 ' t o 9 0 . 3 0 ' , 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 6 . P e r c e n t a g e a i n e a c h a p a c i e a a n d a r e c o m p o a i t e f i ¡ u r e a d e r i v e d f r o m d a t a c o l l e c t e d F i a h e r i e a S e r v i c e , P a a c a i o u l a , H i a a i a a i p p i ) . f i n f i a h e a t a k e n d u r i n i i n a h o r a a n d o f f a h o r a a h r i m p i n . o p e r a t i o n a i n t h a p a r e n t h e a e a r e f e r t o t h e p e r c e n t c o m p o a i t 1 0 n o f t h e t o t e l c e t c h f o r d u ri n g 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 7 ( d e ta c o lle ct e d e n d a u m m r1 .e d b y th e N a tio n a l K a ri n e In ab or e 0 f l8 re T ea r A tl an ti c S an d S aa A tl an ti c S il ve r A tl an ti c S an d A tl an ti c S ii ve r S ea C ro ak ar S aa uo ut S po t C at U ah C ut l. aa fh h S ea tr ou t C ro ak er S ea tr ou t C ut la aa U ah S po t S a a u o u t C at U ab (3 2. 8% ) (1 0. 6% ) (1 0. 6% ) (7 .5 % ) (6 .0 % ) (1 .7 % ) (5 ~ .U ) (6 .1 1) (5 .0 % ) (J .3 I) (2 .0 1) (1 .7 % ) 19 69 28 ,8 54 9, 32 5 9, 32 ~ 6, ~ 98 ~ ,2 78 1, 49 ~ 13 3, 29 8 1 4 , 7 ~ 9 12 ,0 96 7, 98 3 4, 83 8 4, 11 3 19 70 29 ,8 90 9, 6~ 9 9, 65 9 6, 83 4 ~ ,4 68 1, ~ 49 14 0, 57 6 U ,~ 63 12 ,7 56 8, 41 9 5, 10 2 4, 33 7 W 19 71 33 ,1 96 10 ,7 28 10 ,7 28 7, ~ 90 6, 07 2 1, 72 0 15 3, ~ 43 16 ,9 98 13 ,9 33 9 ,1 9 6 , ',~ 73 4, 73 7 I I 19 72 26 ,2 74 8, 49 1 8, 49 1 6, 00 8 4, 80 6 1, 36 2 14 2, 41 7 15 ,7 67 12 ,9 24 8, ~ 30 5, 16 9 4, 39 4 I- .¡ 19 73 18 ,3 69 ~ ,9 36 5, 93 6 4, 20 0 3, 36 0 95 2 89 ,9 39 9, 95 7 8, 16 1 5, 38 6 3, 26 4 2, 77 5 19 74 1 9 , ~ 0 4 6, 30 3 6, 30 3 4, 46 0 3, 56 8 1, 01 1 92 ,5 83 10 ,2 50 1, 40 1 5, 54 5 3, 36 0 2, 85 6 19 75 16 ,1 83 ~ ,2 30 5, 23 0 3, 70 0 2, 96 0 83 9 96 ,7 13 10 ,7 07 8, 77 6 5, 79 2 3, 51 0 2, 98 4 19 76 29 ,4 30 9, 51 1 9, 51 1 6, 73 0 5, 38 4 1, 52 5 13 4, 18 8 14 ,8 56 12 ,1 77 8, 03 7 4, 87 1 4, 14 0 " t a b l e 3 . 6 4 . E a t 1 . a t e d p e r c e n t e p e c 1 e a c o . p o e 1 t 1 o n o f t h e t o t a l c a t c h o f f 1 n f 1 e h e e t e k e n 1 n e h r 1 8 p t r a w l a C o r e a c h o f t h e e i x . . j o r e p e c 1 e e d 1 . c . r d e d 1 n t h e 1 n e h o r e a n d o f f e h o r e w a t e r e o f t h e C u l f o f H a a 1 c o b e t w e e n 8 1 . 3 0 ' a n d 9 1 . . 3 0 ' . 1 9 1 3 1 9 1 1 ( d a t a c o l l e c t e d a n d e U 8 r 1 a e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l K a r 1 n e r 1 e h e r i . e S . r v 1 c e . P a ~ c a 8 o u l a . H 1 e e 1 . . 1 p p 1 ) . In eh on O fh ho n tu r A tl an tl c S an d S po t S aa A tl an t1 c S H ve r A tl an t1 c S an d A tl an t1 c S po t S H yu S ea C ro al te r S ut ro ut C at U .h C ut la uU eh S .a tr ou t C ro al te r S ea tr ou t C u tla u f b h S .a tr ou t C at fh h 19 13 11 .3 4. 6 21 .4 8. 5 7. 6 0. 6 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) l, 19 14 46 .2 2. 61 19 .7 13 .2 7. 0 80 .9 1. 1 (3 ) (3 ) i 2. 2 6. 0 I i- i 19 75 36 .2 12 .9 7. 7 7. 0 6. 3 2. 1 56 .2 6. 3 6. 2 1. 9 1. 6 O .E . V I 19 76 24 .1 4. 6 15 .4 8. 2 2. 5 0. 3 45 .1 6. 9 2. 0 9. 6 3. 8 3. 2 19 77 16 .9 9. 8 16 .7 5. 0 5. 1 0. 3 23 .5 6. 1 5. 1 14 .1 (3 ) 6. 3 l I n c l u d e . S 1 l v e r S e a t r o u t . 2 N o d a t a c o v e r a i e . ~ o r . c o r d . o f h a v i n a b . e n c a p t u r e d . W i .. .. 0\ U I l- aa r- r- o "Ø l- o '+ o UI ~ o .. r- r- .. :: 55 F L O R ID A u ' P o u n d s o f s h r i m p ' ' ' V a l u e o f s h r i m p ( d o l l a r s l I n c i d e n t a l c a t c h ¡ p o u n d s ) "' ''' ''' 'V a lu e o f in ci d e n ta l c a tc h ¡ d o lla rs l 5 4 5 , í . . / " . . . . " . . " " . " " ' / " " / .. . ", " .. ,. . . , ' ' i. . " ' . . , " " " ' " . , , . ' . ., .' "" " . / " ". ". .,, ' . ." . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . .. . . ' ' . ' ' . .,. " "" ... '.t t . . . . . . . " , ,. ,.' ,.' 5ï " O j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i p r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 1 3 6 4 6 1 5 6 1 6 6 7 6 '8 6 1 9 7 '0 7 1 7 '2 7 '3 7 '4 Y ea r F ig ur e 3. 6 1. A n n u a l F l o r i d a l a n d i n g s a n d v a l u e o f s h r i m p a n d m a r k e t a b l e i n c i d e n t a l c a t c h , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . P o u n d a g e s a r e i n r o u n d ( l i v e ) w e i g h t . S o u 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 , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . , io J. ~ r- o 'Ò J. o io 'Ò i: U J :: i 0 .. ø. .. " 4- 0 io i: 0 .. r- r- :2 17 .6 16 . A L A B A M A u u P o u n d s o f sh ri m p ' . . Y a l u e o f s h r i m p ( d o l l a r s ) I n c i d e n t a l c a t c h ( p o u n d s ) .'' ''' '.' 'Y a lu e o f in ci d e n ta l c a tc h ( d o lla rs ) . . ~ . g g . ~ g . / ' . . ' . . l ~ . . ' . / . \ " . , , " " '\ /r ,, /" ,' , .. .. ' .. ' ~ " --- J 11 .2 9. 6 8. "" ." ". ~ ." ". ... /. ./ . ./ ./ ." " ." " ... ." " ." " ." " . .." . . . . . " . . . . 1 6 1 . . . . . ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... .. . 0 1 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .= ~ = .~ = .~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . I I I I I I I I I I I I . 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 Y ea r 6. 4 4. 8 3. 2 F ig ur e 3. 6 2. A n n u a l A l a b a m a l a n d i n g s a n d v a l u e o f s h r i m p a n d m a r k e t a b l e i n c i d e n t a l c a t c h , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . P o u n d a g e s a r e i n r o u n d ( l i v e ) w e i g h t . S o u r c e : F l 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 , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . ~ , W I I- I- 00 11 0 10 to l. 9 II .. .. 0 8 "d l. 0 to § 0 ø . 4- 0 to i: 0 .. .. .. ;! M IS S IS S IP P I u P o u n d s o f sh ri m p . . . V a l u e o f s h r i m p ( d o l l a r s ) I n ci d e n ta l c a tc h ( p o u n d s) . ." '.. .. ." V a lu e o f in ci d e n ta l c a tc h ( d o lla rs ) .' ~ ... .~ ,. ' . ... . ~ " , . . . . . . . ..~ :, " . . ... .. .: .: :~ U A .. .. .. M M ''' ''' I': :: :. := :. :'. . . . .~ : ~ ~ : :~ .. .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .I I 5 9 " 6 0 61 62 63 65 6 6 6 7 Y ea r 6 8 70 6 9 71 72 73 74 F ig ur e 3. 6 3. A n n u a l M i s s i s s i p p i l a n d i n g s a n d v a l u e o f s h r i m p a n d m a r k e t a b l e i n c i d e n t a l c a t c h , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . P o u n d a g e s a r e i n r o u n d ( l i v e ) w e i g h t . S o u 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 , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . L O U IS IA N A P o u n d s o f sh ri m p V a lu e o f sh ri m p ( d o lla rs ) I n c i d e n t a i c a t c h ( p o u n d s ) V a lu e o f in ci d e n ta l c a tc h ( d o lla rs ) . ... V J I l- l- \0 C D J. as .. .. o 't J. o CD . 't § 8 . 5 .. o ... ... ... .. . .~ . ~ . . ~ . " " . " . ." " , . . " . , ". ." .. .. .. . .. 2 :J . . . . " . ' . ' . ' . " , . . . 1 '. o. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ,.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. I , I I I , i I i I i I i I i i 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 Y ea r 1 ' \ . . ~ " " " , 6 0 1 . . . . " " " " I , ' \ . \ . , / J " " / " \ \ ' \ , . . . , , ' ' . , , . ' ' \ l ~ , , 1 " ' . , , ' \ , I ' V 70 C D i: o .. .. .. .. :: F ig ur e 3. 6 4. A n n u a l L o u i s i a n a l a n d i n g s a n d v a l u e o f s h r i m p a n d m a r k e t a b l e i n c i d e n t a l c a t c h , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . P o u n d a g e s a r e i n r o u n d ( l i v e ) w e i g h t . S o u 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 , 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . T eX A S ' ' ' ' P o u n d s o f s h r i m p ' ' . V a l u e o f s h r i m p ( d o l l a r s ) I n c i d e n t a l c a t c h ( p o u n d s ) .. .. ~ .. .. V a lu e o f in ci d e n ta l c a tc h ( d o lla rs ) 11 11 U I .. 9 C d i- i- 0 8 ø .. 0 7 W i .. N .. 5 a i. 0 UI .. ø 0 or 3 i- i- or 2,:: / \ ' \ " 0 0 / , . . " / , . . . . " " " " " " '\ ,, ~ / . .. 1 0 0 0 ' ''' ~ '\ \ . / . . " o ' . . . ' " . " . ' / ~ , / ' " / . / ' \ / , ~ . / " " " , . ~ ' " , ' , ~ . ~ . . . " ". " ,. "" , , " " . . . ~ . 60 61 62 63 64 6 S 68 69 72 73 'r 4 .I I ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .~ ... ". ... ... ... ... ..; '.. ~ .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . F ig ur e 3. 6 5. A n n u a l T e x a s l a n d i n g s a n d v a l u e o f s h r i m p a n d m a r k e t a b l e i n c i d e n t a l c a t c h . 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . P o u n d a g e s a r e i n r o u n d ( l i v e ) w e i g h t . S o u 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 . 1 9 5 9 1 9 7 4 . , Of the sea turtles In the Gulf, the Kemp's rid ley Is In the greatest danger of extinction. Almost all of Kemp's rid ley nesting Is restricted to a small stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaullpas, Mexico, although nestlngs are also recorded for Padre Island on the Texas coast. Seventeen recaptures of tagged nesting females show that these rid leys are distributed throughout most of the Gulf. Eight -- all taken by shrimp trawlers -- occurred In 1969 between Brownsville, Texas, and the mouth of the Mississippi. Captures of Kemp's rldleys through the years are recorded from Brownsville to the Dry Tortugas off Florida; It Is believed that these turtles migrate along the shores back to MexIco for nesting. One of the smallest sea turtles with a primary range In the Gulf of Mexico, the rid ley Is a turtle of coastal areas -- primarily a carnivore and a bottom feeder. The National MarIne Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are currently Involved In research and public workshops whose goal Is to restore those sea turtle populations In a manner consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Three approaches to reducing the Incidental catch are most prominent: first, delineation of crItical habitats and restriction of trawling In these areas; second, an education program to Inform shrimpers and groundflsh fishermen of the methods of, and reasons for, adequately handling Incidentally captured sea turtles In order to reduce mort a II ty; and th Ird, deve I opment of gear such as the exc I uder panel, wh Ich reduces the capture of sea turtles during trawling operations. Currently work Is underway on all three approaches. 3.7 State and Federal Revenues Derived From ShrImp Fishery State and federa I revenue f I gures from the shr I mp fishery are not I so rated by data process I ng systems of the state agencl es I n the Gu If; these data are I nc i uded, however, at the federa I I eve I ~I th non-related activities. The only aval !able documentation applies to licenses and severance taxes Imposed by the states. Revenues by states are listed below: State 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 Texas $881,084 $845,556 $887,768 $969,899 $644,781 Loul s I ana 645,867 517,877 405,651 405,152 405,507 Mississippi 54,696 43,889 37,912 42,483 37,842 Alabama 46,285 25,846 19,017 17,099 16.218 Florida west coast 470,109 450,431 439,439 431,078 398,062 Such I tems as taxes pa I d for fue I s, Income, participants In the shrimp fishing effort do not pinpoInted material on government Income derived socl a I secur I ty, and emp loyment secur 1 ty by appear In any statistical breakdown, nor Is there any from the onshore processing and distributIng segment. 3-121 ~ 4.0 BIOLOGY DESCR I PTORS 4.1 Life H I story Features Genera I Features of the Spec I es The general life cycles of brown, white, and pink species of shrimp are similar. Adults the Gulf. Fertile eggs hatch Into free-swtmmlng larvae, and the larvae pass through a series mo i ts. Dur I n9 the post I arvae stage, the shr I mp enter an estuary and become bottom feeders. spawn In of Within the estuary the juvenile shrimp feed mainly at the marshwater or mangrove-water Interface or In submerged grass beds. These areas apparently offer both a concentrated food supply of detritus, algae and microfauna and some protection from predators. Growth and survival In the estuary are largely dependent upon local sa I Inlty and temperature regimes. As they grow larger the shrimp shift to deeper waters and become more predacious. At a variable size 2.75-4.7 In (70 to 120 mm) they emigrate to the Gulf. This emigration Is a function of size, tide, and temperature. Growth continues at a rap I d rate I n the Gu i f under opt I mum temperatures, though It dec II nes as shr I mp approach the I r maximum size. Spawning probably occurs before the shrimp are 12 months old. Major d If ferences I n the II fe cyc les of the brown, wh I te, and pi nkshr I mp are due to sh I fts In the time and space at which various life stages reach their maximum abundance. These shifts apparently al low the species to avoid direct competition even when one species predominates In the same general geographical area. In areas where shrimp stocks co-occur, management has built Its harvest strategies around these shIfts. For example, the Louisiana estuaries are closed In winter and early spring In order to protect juvenile brown shrimp. The Inshore brown season Is closed when appreciable numbers of juvenile whites appear In trawls for brown shrimp. There are five overriding biological factors which seem to account for the resiliency of the shrimp resources: 1) The migration of the life stages through several environments. 2) The food habits of juveniles and subadults In the estuary provide access to rich, wldely based food supply. 3) The apparent rapid growth rate of shrimp under favorable conditions results In a harvestable size shrimp withIn a short time. 4) High fecund I ty and extended spawn I ng seasons he i p to prevent recru I tment overf I sh I ng In sp i te of Intense fish I ng pressure. 5) A large portion of the Gulf Is Inaccessible to harvesting, e.g., rocky bottom, loggerheads, etc. The other three shrimp species exploited In the Gulf (royal red, seabob, and rock shrimp) are not estuar I ne-dependent and apparent i y spend the I r II fe cyc les with I n the open waters of the Gu If. Roya I red shrimp differ considerably from other species In that they: 1) are harvested from depths of 100 to 300 fathoms, 2) have an estimated five year classes occupying the same fishing grounds, 3) exist In a relatively stable environment, and 4) do not reach sexual maturity as a zero-year class shrimp. Seabob shrimp are harvested, along with white shrimp, October through December when they migrate towards the Gu i f beaches from deeper water, I n response to advancl ng co i d fronts. Rock shr I mp are harvested mainly from Florida's sandy bottoms. They are taken primarily as bycatch. 4-1 Sexua I Matur I ty The minimum size at which shrimp become sexually mature (males--fully developed spermatophores; females--rlpe ovaries) are lIsted In Table 4.1-1. Spawning, Larval Development, Recruitment of Postlarvae to Either Estuaries or Fishing Grounds Brown S hr I mp Renfro and Brusher (1965) found brown shrimp spawned In Gulf waters of greater than ten fathoms from spr I ng to ear I y summer and cont I nuous i y at 25 to 60 fathoms. Two peaks were noted, a major one In September to November and a minor one April to June (Renfro and Brusher, 1965). A February to March spawnIng peak has been proposed (Gunter, 1950; Kutkuhn, 1962), based on juvenile abundance In estuaries; however, no direct evidence was presented. Temple and Fisher (1967) note that off the Texas coast planktonic stages of Penaeus species were greatest at 14.8 fathoms from August to November and In 25.2 fathoms and 44.8 fathoms from September to November. They suggest that as these peaks corresponded to peaks I n the occurrence of adu It brown shr I mp at these depths, the larvae were those of brown shr I mp. The reported commercl a I catch peaks In Ju I y on the zero-year c lass; and spawn I ng reaches I ts he I ght after th I s Ju I y peak and occurs dur I ng the I ntense fa I I of fshore fish I ng season for brown shr I mp. Baxter and Renfro (1967) found that postlarval brown shrimp recruitment to Galveston Bay peaks In March and ml d-Apr II. Second and th Ird peaks are somet I mes noted June through September. Estuarl ne. recruitment may occur slightly earlier In Louisiana. White and Boudreaux (1977) and Galdry and White ( 1973) report that post i arva I brown shr I mp recru I tment norma I i Y peaks I n Lou I s I ana I n February to March. Thus peak recruitment of postlarval brown shrimp to the estuaries occurs months after the peak I n spawn I ng. Basing their claim on a comparison of their work with Baxter and Renfro (1967), Temple and Fisher (1967) proposed an overwintering of postlarval brown shrimp In the Gulf. They suggest that the postlarvae burrow In the offshore bottom and await the advent of warmer temperatures before entering the estuaries. In support of this theory they note the laboratory work of Aldrich, et al. (1967) wh i ch showed that post I arva I brown shr I mp burrowed at i ow temperatures. Wh I te S hr I mp A single female white shrimp releases between 500,000 and 1,000,000 eggs In a spawn (Burkenroad 1934, Anderson, et a i ., 1949). Spawn I ng occurs In Gu i f waters at four to seventeen fathoms, spr I ng through fa II (L I ndner and Anderson, 1956; Renfro and Brusher, 1964; Joyce, 1965; Bryan and Cody, 1975). The spring spawn Is believed to be accomplished by females which have overwintered, while the fall spawn Is largely attributed to females spawned In the early spring (Lindner and Anderson, 1956). Multiple spawning of white shrimp In a single season Is believed to occur (King, 1948; Lindner and Anderson, 1956; and Renfro and Temple, personal communication In Perez Farfante, 1969). Off the Texas coast the greatest abundance of planktonic stage Penaeus species occurred from May to August at 7.6 fathoms (14 m) (Temple and Fisher, 1967). They suggest that this peak was composed of wh I te shr I mp and note that the t I me corresponded to the reported spawn I ng peak for wh I te shr Imp. Larval development requires between ten to twelve days (Johnson and Fielding, 1956) and two to three weeks (Anderson, et al., 1949). By the time the postlarval stage Is reached, the shrimp have normally entered the estuarine nursery areas (Anderson, et al., 1949). However, Anderson, et al. (1949) reported that "schools of adult white shrimp have been known to approach the coast and spawn 4-2 Table 4.1.1 Estimate of the Minimum Sizes at Which Shrimp Reach Sexual Maturity (Fully Developed (Fully Developed Spermatophores for Males and Ripe Ovaries for Females) Species/Sex Size (Total Length) Source mm Brown shr Imp males 140 (assumed) Renf.ro (1964) f ema I es 140 Renfro (1964) White shrimp males 155 (Perez Farfante's (1969) convers Ion of Burkenroad' s (1934) estimate) females 135 (Perez Farfante's (19691 conyers Ion of Burkenroad' s (1934) ,estimate) Pink shrimp males 34 Perez Farfante (1969) fema i es 92 Eldred et al. (1961) Roya i red males 125 Anderson and Lindner (1971) fema I es 155 Anderson and LI ndner (1971) Rock shrimp males 34 Cobb et a i. (1973) 42 Kennedy et al. (1977) fema i es 49 Cobb et al. (1973) 64 Kennedy et al. (1977) Seabob males n.a. fema I es 63 Anderson (1970) 4-3 close to Inlets. When such a spawning occurs, the eggs may be swept through the passes on Incoming currents, and larvae (nauplll) may reach the nursery grounds within a few hours." Postlarval white shrimp recruitment to the estuaries of the northern Gulf occurs over a fairly uniform tIme period. In MIssissippi It extends from May through October (Christmas, et al., 1966). In Louisiana, postlarvae are primarily recruited to the estuaries from July to August though recruit ment begins In June (Galdry and White, 1973; White and Boudreaux, 1977). In Texas, postlarval white shrimp recruitment to the estuary extends from May through October (Baxter and Renfro, 1967). Pink Shrimp Pink shrimp In the Dry Tortugas area spawn year round at 12 to 26 fathoms, with a more Intense spawn In spring through fall (Ingle, et al., 1959; Cummings, 1961; Tabb, et al., 1962; Jones, et al., 1964, In Perez Farfante, 1969). In the Tampa and Apalachlcola areas, spawning occurs In summer, and juveniles overwinter In the bays (Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Matosubrato (1974) estimates fecundity at about 500,000 eggs per female. Minimal larval development time Is 15 days (Ewal d, 1965; Jones, et al., 1964). In the Dry Tortugas, estuarine recruitment Is continuous, with peaks In abundance reported for April to June (Tabb, et al., 1962) and July through October (Jones, et al., 1964). A May through December recruit ment of pink shrimp In Mississippi Is reported (Christmas, et al., 1966). In Texas, Copeland and Tru I tt (1966) report an August to September peak In recru I tment. With the three major species, copulation Is Farfante (1969) suggests multiple copulation for often lose the attached spermatophore and fema I e not directly asSociated with spawning. Indeed, Perez white and pink shrimp, since female white shrimp pink shrimp shed the spermatophore upon molting. Royal Red Shrimp Anderson and Lindner (1971) observe that the St. Augustine population of royal red shrimp have a major spawning peak during the winter and spring, with some spawning occurring throughout the year. Their analysis of length-frequency distributions by sex for all sample periods combined suggests that r ecru I tment to the f I s hery beg I ns at one year of age but I s not comp i ete unt I i the shr I mp reach maturity at about three years of age. They note that the majority of shrimp taken In their samples were fully mature. Even though this population Is outside of the management area, this Information Is thought to be true of the Gu i f of Mex Ico stock. Rock Shrimp Spawning of rock shrimp In Gulf waters off Tampa to Fort Myers, Florida, Is continuous, with a peak In October through January (Cobb, et al., 1973). Development time t9 postlarvae requires 29 days In the laboratory at 700 to 760 F (210 to 24.50 C) and 24 to 27 ppt (Cook and Murphy, 1965). Cobb, et al., (1973) note that rock shrimp less than 1.2 In. (30 mm) total length appeared In their samples In March, May to July, and November, whereas slightly larger Individuals occurred In all other months except December. They therefore suggest recru I tment to the fish I ng grounds occurs year round. Rock shrimp are not believed to be estuarine dependent (Eldred, 1959; Joyce, 1965; Cobb, et al., 1973). Cobb, et al., (1973) suggest that the shrimp found by Rouse (1959) In Chatham River, Florida, were other species of Sicyonia and not rock shrimp. The life cycle of rock shrimp Is apparently passed In offshore waters and mainly at depths of 10 to 45 f (18 to 82 m) (Cobb, et al., 1973). 4-4 Seabob S hr I mp Juneau (1977) reports gravid beaches In Ju I y and August, wh II e December and March. He conc I udes December. seabob fema I es were taken I n peak numbers a long the Lou I s I ana smaller non-gravid females were taken In large numbers between that spawn I ng most II ke I y occurs I n the Gu I f between Ju i y and Renfro and Cook (1963) observe that early larval development from spawning to first protozoeal stage requires 58 hours In the laboratory at 73-750 F (23°to 240 C) and 27 ppt. Juneau (1977) revIews current Information avaIlable on sea bob shrimp and concludes with Renfro and Cook (1963) that the species Is probably not estuarine dependent and Is found most commonly from the beach line to Gulf waters of five fathoms (9 m) and are primarily caught In one to two fathoms (1.8 to 3.6 m) along the LouIsiana coast (within the Territorial Sea). Emigration of Brown, White, and Pink Shrimp From Estuaries The time, size, and causes of emigration have Important management Implications for brown, white, and pink shrimp. The specific reasons for their Importance may vary from area to area. In Louisiana, wIth Its large Inshore harvester group, the setting of opening dates must Include a recognition that a portion of the catch may be lost for smaller boats If the shrimp emigrate before the Inshore season Is opened. Conversely, In Texas and southern Florida where estuarine and near-shore Gulf harvest Is ) restricted, the expected emigration time Is needed In order to close offshore waters to protect th~ emigrating crop. In general, emigration Is keyed to environmental conditions such as tides, temperature, or salinity. Fishermen take advantage of this knowledge and fish the surface waters of channels and passes with a butterfly, or wIng net used at night, although efforts during the day are sometimes rewarded. Brown Shr I mp Copeland (1965) sampled ebb tIde March to December In Aransas Pass, Texas. He found that brown shrimp emigration peaked In association with full moons In May through August, the high tides and faster currents of full moons being a stimulus to emigration. Trent (1967) samp led the ma I n t I da I pass to Ga I veston Bay, day and night on the ebbl ng t I des (May to August) with a bottom trawl as well as from June to August wIth a surface trawl. Catch per unit ef fort was greater on the bottom dur I ng the day and at the top dur I ng the night, though the d If ference was not significant. Trent (1967) found two peaks In abundance of emigrating shrimp: one In mld-May and another In mid-June. The mean size of emigrating shrimp Increased linearly from 400 tall count (58 mm) on May 18 to 40 tall count (108 mm) on July 28 or 0.14 In. (3.6 mm) per week. (See Table 4.1.5 for length we I ght convers Ions) . Galdry and White (1973) observed that emigration of brown shrimp from the Louisiana nursery grounds occurs I n two stages. The fIrst movement norma I i Y beg I ns at a size of 264 to 415 ta II count (60 to 70 mm) when juveniles leave the shallow marsh areas for the open bays. These bays serve as a "stag I ng area" where the shr Imp cont I nue to grow and feed unt II they beg I n a second movement--the migration to offshore waters--at a size of 3.5 to 4.3 In (90 to 110 mm). This offshore movement begins In middle to late May, Increases In Intensity In June and July, and continues l-n diminished magnitude until November when essentially all the shrimp have left the bays. 4-5 Blackmon (1974) sampled a small tidal pass In Camlnada Bay, .Loulslana, from May to November on the full and new moons. He found that the mean length of emigrating shrimp generally Increased from 3 In. (79 mm) In May to 3.8 In. (98 mm) In September and then declined to 3.3 In. (84 mm) In November. Mean lengths of emigrating shrimp were always greater than those In the bay: during the May to September period, the average emigrating shrimp was at least 0.39 In. (10 mm) larger than Its average counterpart I n the bay. The highest percentage of emigrating brown shrimp occurred during or just after twilight. No correlation was found between the percentage of emigrating shrimp and current speed, temperature, or salinity. Distribution of emigrating shrimp In the three-meter water column changed with time of day. Dur I ng the day, peak dens I ty of em I grat I ng shr I mp was greatest on the bottom; at tw III ght, the peak occurred In the middle; and at night, the peak occurred In the top meter (Blackmon, 1974). White Shrimp White shrimp that enter the Louisiana estuaries as postlarvae In the spring and early summer emigrate to the Gulf In September through November (Galdry and White, 1973). Those white shrimp postlarvae recruited to the estuary later In the summer and early fall may be forced offshore by advancing cold fronts In October to December at a size much smaller than that of shrimp emigrating In the summer. These "later-recruited" white shrimp overwinter In the nearshore Gulf and reenter the estuaries at an average size of 100 mm during the spring warming. After a second period of growth, they emigrate to the Gulf to spawn In the spring and early summer (Lindner and Anderson, 1956; Galdry and White, 1973). Pink Shrimp In the Everglades nursery areas, Yokel, et al., (1969) observed that juvenile pink shrimp emigrate almost exclusively at nIght, and on night ebb rather than night flood tides. Catch per unit effort of emigrating was 37 shrimp per minute as during new and full moons opposed to 20 shrimp per minute during the first and third lunar Quarter. The effect of moon phase was directly dependent upon the relative abundance.. They observed that the size of emigrating shrimp ranges from 2 to 45 mm (carapace length), and averaged 14 mm (carapace length). Using Kutkuhn's (1966, Fig. 7) carapace length vs. weight plot for pink shrimp, the size range equates to a weight range of up to 80 g for male shrimp and an average of 2.0 to 2.5 g for ma I e and fema I e shr I mp. The average shr I mp I eav I ng the Everg i ades I sin the 300 to 200 ta Ii s to the pound range. Migration Patterns In Offshore Waters Brown S hr I mp Brown shrimp released off the Mississippi coast In June (Klima and Benigno, 1965) traveled less than an average of one mile per day from the release site. An offshore movement was not apparent since less than one percent of returns came from waters deeper than 16 fathoms. The longest dl stance traveled was 85 mlles--from the release site off Horn Island to the Mississippi River's Southwest Pass. This Information Indicates that the Mississippi River may not be an absolute barrier to brown shr I mp mlgrat Ion. Most of the brown shrimp released off Grand Isle, Louisiana, In July (Klima, 1964) were recap tured near the release site. A slight seaward and westward movement was noted. § Movement of brown shrimp released off Galveston, Texas, In Ju Iy led Klima (1964) to suggest that brown shrimp from the Galveston estuary were recruited to the fishery all along the Texas coast. 4-6 Brown shrimp released off the central Texas coest at 21 to 24 fathos In April (Klima, 1964) showed little coastwlde movement. No major offshore movement was apparent from April to June because 99 percent of the returns were within 25 fathoms and none were beyond 30 fathoms. From an examination of commercial catch trends, Gunter (1962) suggested a southward drift of brown shr I mp of f the Texas coas tin the fa' I . The comrcial catch statistics Indicate that brown shrimp migrate out to the deeper waters of the Gu If. The I nshore catch peaks I n May -to Ju i y on shr I mp sma I ler than those measur I ng 67 ta I' s to the pound. After Texas opens Its Territorial Sea, offshore brown shrimp catch In the Gulf asa whole peaks In July and August at depths of 11 to 20 fathoms, with most of the landed shrimp being 31 to 40 tails to the pound. By December, the largest catch comes from 25 to 30 fathos, and the 15 to 20 ta II s to the pound shr I mp predom I nate. Genera i i y, the data I nd I cate a four to five fatho per month depth migration of the catch. However, the relationship of the shift In the catch to the actual depth migration of the shrimp Is somewhat obscured by the Texas closure In June and mid-July and by the multiple waves of shrimp emigrating from the estuaries. Wh I te S hr 1 mp White shrimp east of the Mississippi River to Mobile Bay tend to migrate from the estuaries to deeper waters along the barrier Islands and towards the Mississippi River Delta during the summr to fall (Lindner and Anderson, 1956). The Mississippi River may act as a barrier to east-west movement (Lindner and Anderson, 1956; Perez Farfante, 1969). Other than Shoals, Lindner Lou I s I ana coest the offshore-onshore migrations and a tendency to concentrate between Ship and Trinity and Anderson (1956) observed no definite migration patterns of white shrimp along the west of the Mississippi River dur¡n~ the fall and winter. Klima (1964) noted a coastwlde movement or dispersion of tagged white shrimp along the Louisiana coast between Cameron and Verm II lion Bay. Perret, et a i. (1978) observed that movement a long the western portion of the Louisiana coast was mainly westerly, though the majority of the tagged shrimp were returned within 60 nautical miles of the release area. Lindner and Anderson (1956) observed a migration of white shrimp from off the coast of Mexico to Aransas Pass, Texas, during the spring. There also appears to be a reciprocal southward movemnt from central and southern Texas Into northern Mexico during the fall and winter. From an analysis of reported commercial catch patterns, Gunter (1952) suggested a similar southward movemnt of white shrimp. Pink Shrimp Juvenile pink shrimp emigrate from the estuaries of southern Florida Into the deeper waters of the Gulf. Costello and Allen (1965) found that the nursery grounds of pInk shrimp on the Tortugas grounds were estuarl es from Fiori da Bay and from as far north as I nd 1 an Key, whereas the nursery ~rounds of shrimp on the Sanlbel grounds were estuaries from Indian Key north to Pine Island SOund. They observed little movement of shrImp between the Tortugas and Sanlbel grounds. Iverson, et al. (1960) observed that larger pink shrimp tended to occur at deeper depths on the Tortugas grounds. Roya I Red and Rock Shr I mp Apparent I Y noth I nQ I s recorded about ml grat Ion patterns of roya i red or rock shr I mp. 4-7 Seabob Shrimp Immediately following passage of a cold front, seabob shrimp along the LouisIana coast migrate toward the beach from offshore areas. In July and August, gravid females also move close to shore (C.J. Juneau, personal communication In Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Substrate The substrate preferences of shrimp appear to be Important to their. distribution patterns along the Gu I f coast. I n genera I, pink and rock shr I mpprefer ca I careous sed I ments and are found ma I n I y along the Florida coast. Brown, white, and seabob shrimp prefer soft mud or peat bottoms and are found mainly along the coast from Texas to Alabama. The juvenile brown and white shrimp prefer a soft mud or peat bottom with large Quantities of decaying organic matter or vegetation (Williams, 1955, 1959; Mock, 1967; Jones, 1973). Sand or clay substrates are sometimes satisfactory for young brown shrimp, unless these substrates are bare clay, sand, or shell (Williams, 1959). Adult brown shrimp are found on mud or silt and also on mud, sand, and shell (Perez Farfante, 1969). In the Gu If, wh Ite shrimp are also found on muddy or silty bottoms and on clay or sand with fragments of shell (Springer and Bullis, i954; Hildebrand, 1954, 1955). Pink shrimp apparently prefer firm mud or silt bottoms with coral sand containing a mixture of mollusk shells (Springer and Bullis, 1954; Hildebrand, 1954, 1955; Wllll.ams, 1958) and firm sand bottoms (Farfante, 1969). Royal red shrimp show no apparent preference for a partIcular sediment type; they occur on sand, silty sand, terrigenous, and calcareous sediments (Roe, 1969). Rock shrimp occur most frequently on sandy bottoms (either terrigenous or biogenic) and sporadically on mud bottoms (Hildebrand, 1954, 1955; Cobb, et al., 1973). Hildebrand (1955) bottoms"were "strays" from' areas of hard sand. In South Carolina, the rock shrimp Is called coral shrimp because It Is occasionally taken from coral banks (Lunz, 1957). only suggests the Seabob shrimp are taken from bottoms of mud, silt, or silt mixed with sand (Nelva, 1967; Christmas and Etzold, 1977). Food Larva I Stages Larval stages are planktonic and eat algae and zooplankton levels of Gulf waters may be a necessary environment for larval c~uses poor surv I va I due to entang I ement. (Pearson, 1939; Ewald, 1965). Nutrient stages because a high density of food The postlarval stage Is not strictly planktonic but Is capable of deposit feeding (Pearson, 1939). Zlen-Elden and Griffith (1969) have fed this stage on algae, Artemla salina nauplll, and groundflsh or shrimp In the laboratory. Juveniles to Adults Juvenile and adult brown, white, and pink shrimp Ingest whatever Is available, Including decaying organic matter, animals, and plants (Vlcosa, 1920; Weymouth, et al., 1955; Flint, 1956; Darnell, 1958; Broad, 1965; Perez Farfante, 1969; Odum, 1971; Jones, 1973). 4-8 Jones (1973) Intensively studied the food habitats and absorption efficiency of brown shrimp 1 to 4 In. (25 to 104 mm) In a Louisiana marsh. He observed a shift In diet and habitat as shrimp grew larger. Juveniles 1 to 1.75 In. (25 to 44 mm) were concentrated In the nearshore environment. Here they Indiscriminately Ingest the top layer of sediment containing detritus and microorganisms. Jones classified this stage as omnivores or encounter-feeders. At 1.8 to 2.5 In. (45 to 64 mm) they selected the organic fraction of the sediment and were classified as opportunistic omnIvores. At 2.6 to 4 In. (65 to 104 mm) shr.lmp had dispersed from the nearshore environment to the deeper waters of the marsh and became active predators feeding Intensively on polychaetes, amphlpods, nematodes, and chlronomld larvae. However, they continued to Ingest detritus and algae and were classified as omnivore predators (Jones, 1973). Darnell (1958) found the foreguts of white shrimp 3.6 to 5.6 In. (91 to 142 mm) contained sand, detritus and ground organic matter, and fragments of mollusks, ostracods, copepods, Insect larvae, and forams. Eldred, et al., (1961) found pink shrimp In the Tampa Bay contained both animal and plant remains. These Included aquatic macrophytes, red and blue-green algae, diatoms, dinoflagellates, polychaetes, nematodes, shrimp, mys Ids, copepods, Isopods, amphlpods, mollusks, forams, and fish. Rock shrimp are apparently nocturnal, generalized carnivores (Cobb, et al., 1973). Smal I bivalve mollusks, decopod crustaceans, gastropods, and other crustaceans are an Important part of the diet which also Includes foraminifera, nematodes, po-Iychaetes, ectoprocts, echinoderms, and finfish (Cobb, et al., 1973; Kennedy, et al., 1977). Nothing is apparently recorded on the food habits of seabob or royal red shrimp. Predat I on Penaeld shrimp, In general, are Ingested by many carnivorous fish (Gunter, 1945; Darnel I, 1958; Farfante, 1969). Table 4.1-2 lists some fish known to Ingest brown, white, or pink shrimp. Included In this list are speckled trout, black drum, redflsh, Atlantic croaker, southern flounder, bass, and several varieties of catfish. Many of these prey species are an Important component of the bycatch discarded by shr I mpers. Growth Rates Genera i Cons I derat Ions As In most fisheries, growth rates are estimated from changes In the length time. Growth In weight Is estimated by converting growth In length estimates to lists length-weight estimates for shrimp. of the species with weight. Table 4.1-3 The method of measuring growth varies with the size of shrimp. Growth (In length) of "smaller" shrimp 1 to 3.5 In. (25 to 90 mm) Is normally estimated from length frequency measuremnts of trawl samples taken In estuarine nursery areas over a period of time. Growth Is expressed as the Increase either In the mean size of the trawl sample or In each of the peaks In the polymodal length-frequency data with Increasing time. Growth estimates range from 0.003 to 0.13 In. (0.1 to 3.3 mm) per day. Variability has been attributed to temperature, salinity, recruitment, density, and emigration. Growth of "large" shrimp greater than 2.75 In. (70 mm) has normally been recapture experiments. A simple linear relationship of length (or weight) to The shrimp enter a sel f-Ilmltlng period of growth. estimated from mark and time Is not applicable. 4-9 (' Table 4.1-2. Fish Identified by Gunter (1945) or Darnell (1958) as feeding on penaeld shrimp Specl es Common Names Carcharhlnus leucas (Miller and Henle) Bu II shark Dasyatls sabina (LeSueur) 1 St I ngaree Lep I sosteus spatu I a (Lacepede) Alligator Gar Elops saurus (Llnnaeus) Boneflsh, Shlpjack, Blgeye Herrl ng, Ten-pounder i cta i urus furcatus (LeSueur) Blue catfish Bagre mar I na (M I tche I I ) Gaf ftopsa II catf I sh Galelchthys fel Is (Llnnaeus) Hardhead or sea cat Morone I nterrupta (G II i ) Yellow bass Mlcropterus s. salmoldes (Lacepede) 1 Northern largemouth bass Sc I aenops oce Ii ata (L I nnaeus) Redf I sh, channel drum MI cropogon undu latus (LI nnaeus) Atlantic croaker Pogonlas cromls (Llnnaeus) 2 Black drum Cynosclon nebulosus (Cuvler and Valenciennes) 3, 4 Speck led trout Para II chthys i ethost I gma (Jordan and GII bert) Southern flounder Assumed to Ingest shrimp by Darnell (1958). 2 Darnel I (1958) states that when black drum are In the marine waters Gulf penaeld shrimp are a significant portion of Its diet. 3 Gunter (1945) states that In Texas shrimp are the predominant food of speckled trout dòrlng the summer. However, when shrimp are scarce, as In January, speckled trout shift to fish (Mugil species). 4 Darnell (1958) states that pink shrimp are the stable diet of speckled trout In Florida. 4-10 T ab le 4 .1 3. I . e n g t h w e i g h t r e l a t i o n s h I p s r o r b r o w n . w h 1 t ~ . p i n k . i " o y a l r ~ J . i i n d r o c k s h r L m p ( i J f t e r C h r i s t m a s d u d E r z o l d 1 9 7 7 ) . S pe c It !a lS ex . . l'u tiJ J !. cn ~ th t :o ~ ~ b S i z e N o . W "" a i. R a n g e n ll! a s ( u u ) u r e d B ro w n s h ri m p C om bi ne d tl al e F em al e C om bi ne d M al e ¡" em 81 ~ W h i t e s h r i m p C o m b t o e d M al e F em al e C om bi ne d P i n k s h r i m p ) M al e F em al e C om bi ne d M al e F em al e C om b 1 oe d C om bi ne d M al e F em al e ~ I f- f K o y a l r e d s h r i m p : D r y T o r t u g a s A r e a M al e F em al e C oi ii nc d 2. 12 9 1 6 . 1 3 4 7. 86 0 K is 8 1 ss 1 p p i R iv e r D e l t a A r e a M al e F em al e C om bi ne d R oc k sh ri m p 4 4. 32 5 13 .3 06 5. 85 3 M al e F em al e C om b 1 oe d B ro w n s h ri m p P i n k s h r i m p x 1 0 6 12 .3 11 . 6 1 9. 53 10 .5 2 7. 69 2. 02 2. 32 2. 16 4. 49 5. 06 9. 79 10 .0 2 5. 93 7. 71 3. 02 2. 91 1 2. 96 6 2. 93 8 2. 97 6 3. 26 1 3. 23 4 3. 24 7 55 1 60 70 2 00 70 2 14 70 2 14 C a ra ~ .~ !! ß .. !~ . T o t& W . ig ll. b S i z e N o . W ' 8 i i . R a n g e U I C i l S i " b ( D u n ) u r e d ~ dp ac c L C I1 .8 ~ ~ b S i z e N o . L ~ a I I C R a n K c in e a s ; 1 1 ~ ( i u m ) u r e d S ou rc e ~ .. 65 1 65 45 2 04 55 2 40 45 2 40 21 04 13 96 20 16 34 12 0. 00 08 19 0. 00 11 3 2. 94 2. 84 10 4 2 10 4 2 M cC o y (1 9 6 8 )1 F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l F o n ta in e a n d N e ct l F o n ta in e a n d N t! a l t l c C o y ( 1 9 7 2 ) 1 M cC o y (1 9 7 2 )1 (1 97 1) (1 97 1) (1 97 1) 1 1 ' o r sh ri m p f ro m N o rt h C a ro lin a . 2 M c C o y ( 1 9 7 2 ) d e r i v e d t h e f o U o w i n g e q u a t i o n . f o r c o n v e n i n g c a r a p a c e l e n g t h ( C L ) t o c o r a l l e n g t h ( T L ) i n m m f o r N o r t h C a r o U n a p o p u h t l o n a o f : 3. 13 3. 12 2. 98 2. 96 7 3. 92 3. 02 9 35 1 75 35 2 15 65 1 65 70 1 75 60 U 4 60 1 75 10 0 97 0 U 20 20 90 72 9 88 8 26 41 U 73 21 25 32 98 0. 00 1' 0. 00 2' 3. 04 2. 79 25 9 24 3 (2 ) (2 ) 3. 22 2. 82 2. 96 U ) 1 54 95 2 09 95 2 09 0. 00 62 0. 00 14 8 0. 00 20 9 3. 03 44 3 2. 77 2. 66 P e n e t (1 9 6 6 ) F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l (1 97 1) (1 97 1) (1 97 1) 3. 06 2. 83 3. 00 12 5 17 4 13 5 22 9 12 5 22 9 10 9 U 8 22 7 90 U 4 20 4 0. 00 06 01 0. 00 05 89 0. 00 06 04 3. 12 2 3. 14 4 3. 12 8 8 40 8 55 72 9 88 8 5. 27 6. 14 0. 96 0. 90 35 1 75 35 2 15 72 9 88 8 K ut ku hn ( 19 66 ) K ut ku hn ( 19 66 ) M cC oy ( 19 68 ) 1 F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) F o n t a I n e a n d N e a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) T a b b , e t a 1 . ( 1 9 6 2 a ) M cC o y (1 9 7 2 )1 M cC o y (1 9 7 2 )1 M al e F em al e M al e F em al e T L 3 . 5 0 + 4 . 1 6 C L T L . 1 0 . 5 0 + 3 . 8 3 C L T L ~ 1 2 . J 7 + 3 . 8 1 C L T L 2 1 . 9 0 + 3 . 4 0 C L 6 22 10 4 2 10 4 2 29 7 50 3 (2 ) (2 ) K U m a (1 96 9) K U m a (1 96 9) K U . . ( 1 9 6 9 ) K U m a (1 96 9) K U m a (1 96 9) K U m a (1 96 9) n. s. n. a. 3 J7 n. a. n. a. 97 3 C o b b e t a 1 . ( 1 9 7 3 ) C o b b e t a 1 . ( 1 9 7 3 ) C o b b e t a 1 . ( 1 9 7 3 ) 3 r v e r s o n d n d l ~ y l l ( 1 9 6 0 ) p r o v I d e w l l v e r s J o n t a b l e s f o r p I n k . h , I m p I n t e r m s o f t o t a l l e n g t h , c a r a p a c e l e n g t h , a n d t a i l s t o t h e p o u n d . 4 K e l l u ~ d y . e l c t ! . ( 1 9 7 7 ) ~ l v t : t h e t o l l o w i l l l ; r ~ l a L l o n ~ t o r r u c k s l i r t i i p u f t t h e ~ t 1 s t c o a s t o f F l o r i d a : C a r c . p a c e l e n g t h v e c s u : : w i d g h i : .: :0 I IU D C L M al e~ : W 4 . 1 0 4 x 1 o 4 C L 3 . 3 0 ) W " 3. 39 8 x io 4 C i. 3. 36 4 F er ua ) e~ : w he re C I. ¿ ii id 1 '1 . a rt : l: i. I" dp .i U ' . in d (, ¡C at ) 2 3 D i m C L W ~ i . 8 8 6 C L 3 0 . 9 2 2 I i ~ 1 . 8 1 8 c c 3 0 . ~ 7 5 C ar al a ce l en gt h ve rs u~ t .o ta l l. .u i: th : " 2 0 I W D C L ß .~ O D 1 f C L M al es : T L . 3 . 8 0 3 C L + 0 . 2 4 9 1 ' L . 3 . 7 8 6 C L . + 0 . 1 1 8 1 'L 3 .4 4 8 C L + 7 .5 2 3 1 'L 2 .8 8 1 C L + 1 8 .4 9 8 F t'm a le s: l ~ l l g , i h i n I M I a n d W b \ . t d g l l i i n ! : O I S . It i s ;: :H g, ,~ c: :H ~ J L ii ac f 1g U 1" ~ S p ub li sh ed I n il K ui ku ll n' s i. ar up ac e w t: ig ht e "" u~ H io n: du n ot t it ' h l~ p ul ll Js ll ed i L H a. I .'V i. Jc ll il y ~ hl L t i1 r ou nd in g er ro r. K u t k i i h n ( 1 9 6 6 ) b e U S E : d 1 . n : : l ~ a d ú f t l l e u e e q u a t l . i . l l : : t o c o n v e r t c . . r a p a c e l e n g t h t u w e i ~ h t . , Brown Shr I mp Growth In length Is slow 0.019 In. (0.5 mm per day) during January and February, Increases In March, and reaches a maximum .02-.13 In. (0.5-3.3 mm per day) In April and June (Loesh, 1965; Ringo, 1965; St. Amant, et al., 1966; Broo, 1968; Ford and St. Amant, 1971; Jacob, 1971; Swingle, 1971). This monthly variation In growth rate has been associated with the spring warming of the estuaries (St. Amant, et al., 1962; Ford and St. Amant, 1971). Parrack (1978) estimates growth rate of brown shr I mp from mark and recapture experl ments con ducted In the northern Gulf of Mexico In 1967,1968, and 1969 (Clark, Emilianl, and Neal, 1974). HIs discussion Indicates that females grow more rapid Iy than males, weigh more than males of the same age, and attain a larger final length and weight than males. White Shrimp Growth rates of white shrimp estimated from trawl samples range from .02-.08 In. (0.6 to 2.2 mm) per day I n the summer (W IIII ams, 1955; Gunter, 1955; Loesch, 1965). Growth rates of wh I te shr I mp have been est I mated by a number of workers from mark and recpture experiments. Llndne~ and Anderson (1956) marked white shrimp 200 to 18 tall count (5 to 180 mm) In the south Atlantic and northern Gulf and calculated formulae for growth In length and weight. The results Indicated that growth In length was a function of size and month, growth being faster for the smaller than the larger shrimp, and faster In April to June and September to December than from . December to March. Klima (1964, 1974) calculated formulae for growth In length and weight. In com par I ng growth rates for twot I me per I ods, he notes that growth was faster I n August to October than In September to November. He suggests that the difference Is due to differences In water temperature. Pink Shrimp Higman, et al. (n.d.) determined the growth of postlarval-juvenlle pink shrimp held In enclosures In the estuarine area of Everglades National Park. Multlvarlant regression analysis was used to determine signIficant relationships between weekly growth rate estimates and weekly estlmates of bottom salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Salinity appeared to be the most Important factor. Since the salinity regime of this area Is dependent upon drainage through southern Florida Into the Everglades, pink shrimp success In the Dry Tortugas may be related to local rainfall In the Everglades drainage basin as well as to man-made alterations which block the normal waterflow patterns. Several growth estimates from tagging experiments are available. Iverson and Idyll (1960) tagged pInk shrimp In the Dry Tortugas In December, 1957, and recovered them through April, 1958. Femles Increased In weight from 39 to 31 tails per pound In 45 days, whereas males Increased from 60 to 50 tails per pound In the same time. This approximates a growth rate of .07 oz. (0.75 g) per week for female shrimp and of .013 oz. (0.38 g) per week for male shrimp. The authors caution that these estimates were made In the "unusually cold winter of 1957-1958 and may be slower than the growth In a more normal winter." Kutkuhn (1966, Table 4) estimates that pink shrimp tagged In the Dry Tortugas area September to December 1961 grew from 5.9 g to 19.5 g In 12 weeks. Lindner (1966) also derived growth curves for pink shrimp In the Dry Tortugas. Roya I Red and Seabobs Apparent I Y noth I ng I s recorded about the growth rates of seabobs and roya I red shr Imp. 4-12 ,, Morta II ty Rates The death of fish In a population Is due either to natural causes or to harvest by man. Coefficients of fishing (F), natural (M), and total (Z) mortality are defined as Instantaneos death rates fora cohort of N Individual fIsh over a short time, noted as dt. The rate of decline of the population numbers over time Is presented as a function of these observed values. The reported estimates of natural (M), fishing (F), and total (Z) mortality of shrimp are com pared In Table 4.1-4. Values of the weekly natural mortality coefficient range from .01 to .55 or a loss of from 1 to 42 percent of the population from the beginning to the end of the week. Estimates of fishing mortality range from .02 to .96. Based on recently developed data by NMFS the weekly Instantaneous natural mortality rate of brown shrimp In offshore regions Is believed to be approxima tely 0.025 to 0.075 (Fox, 1981, personal communication). The variations In mortality estimates make It dl ff I cu It to construct yl el d per recru I t mode i s. Yield Per Recruit The pounds of brown, white, or pink shrimp which can be harvested from a given number of post larval shrimp reaching an estuarine system Is a function of the population's rates of growth and mortality, age at which harvest begins, and the rate of fishing mortality once the shrimp are subject to harvest. The age at which yield will be maximized wi I I be dependent on the trade-off between growth and natural and fishing mortality. Brown shr I mp There are no published yield per recruit estimates available on brown shrimp. M. Parrack (NMFS, Galveston Lab) prepared a. preliminary yield per recruit analysis using his sex specific growth rate equations for brown shrimp (Parrack, 1978) and two levels of monthly Instantaneous natural mortality rate, M = .05 and M = .10 (Annon, 1978). (These levels of M on a monthly basis compare to estImates of M = .011 and .023 on a weekly basis.) If M = .05, yield was maximized when harvesting began on shrimp six months of age, or 21 tails to the pound (assuming a sex ration of 50:50). If M = .10, yield was maximized when harvesting began on shrimp five months of age, or 24 tails to the pound (assuming a sex ratio of 50:50). He points out that these sizes are much larger than size limits currently Imposed In the U.S. Gulf. His analyses Indicate that If the above estimates of M approximate reality and If F Is at the level estimated by Berry (1971), then current harvesting strategies employed In the Gulf result In a harvest considerably below the theoretical maximum. Klima and Parrack (1978) review the Question of the size of shrimp at harvest which will maximize yield and state that "data on hand Indicates that these two rates (growth and natural mortality) balance at 6-9 months of age or at a size of 20-30 shrimp tails per pound." I f their analyses are correct, then a reduction In the size at first harvest of brown shrimp In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico would result In a decrease In protein yield. Further, an Increase In yield Is expected If the size at first harvest of brown shrimp Is Increased In any of the areas of the U.S. Gulf. White shrimp Data are Insufficient at this time to estimate the expected yield per recruit for white shrimp In the U.S. Gulf. Pink Shrimp The most extensive published yield per recruit estimates of Gulf shrimp are for pink shrimp off southeastern Florida (Kutkuhn, 1966; Lindner, 1966; Berry, 1971). Although there Is some disagreement 4-13 ~ '- Table 4.1-4. Comparison of Instantaneous rates of mortality (In weekly values) for shrimp In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (Modified from Berry, 1970) Natura i Fish Total S peel es Morta II ty Mortal I ty Morta II ty M F Z Brown shr I mp .21 .06 .27 K II ma (1964) (Offshore) .025 - .075 Fox (1981) pers. comm. White shrImp .08 .06 - .91 .14 - .27 Klima & Benigno (1965) .04 - .12 .10-.13 .16 - .22 Klima (1974) (Lake) .214 - .556 .027 - .020 .241 - .576 Phares (1980) Pink shrimp .27 .09 .36 Iversen (1962) .55 .95 .76 - 1.51 Kutkuhn (1966) .08 - .12 .12-.18 .25 LI ndner (1966) .02 - .06 .16 - .23 .22 - .27 Berry (1967) .08 - .11 .03 - .07 .11 - .18 Costello & A lien (1968) .01 - .03 .02 - .16 .07 - .15 Berry (1970) between authors, the data I nd I cate that a reduct Ion In y lei d w III be expected' f pink shr I mp are harvested before they reach a size of 70 ta Ii s to the pound. Temperature and Salinity Temperature and salinity are Important driving forces In the life cycles of brown, white, and pink shrimp, affecting growth, mortality, migration, and spawnl-ng. These factors can be Incorporated In models used to predict annual yield (see Section 4.7.1.2). The major Influx of postlarval brown shrimp to the estuaries of the northern Gulf occurs February to March (Baxter, 1963; Baxter and Renfro, 1967; Galdry and White, 1973; Christmas and Etzold, 1977). LI ttl e growth I s expected unt" water temperature exceeds 20° C (St. Amant, et a I., 1963; Ford and St. Amant, 1971). 4-14 T a b le 4 .1 5 L e n g t h w e i g h t C o n v e r s i o n T a b l e f o r D r o w n . W h i t e . P i n k . a n d R o y a l l t e J S h r i m p ( S e x e s C o m b i n e d ) . ( E q u a t i o n s a r e l i s t e d i n T a b l e 4 . 1 3 . ) D r o w n s h r i m p 1 S h ri m p T a ils e r D o u n d n e r p o u n d C ou nt T ot al 1 e n g th nm i 50 44 0 70 8 51 9* 79 9* 42 0* 67 3* * * 60 25 8 41 5 30 1 46 4 24 2 38 7 * * 70 16 4 26 4 22 7 34 9 15 2 24 3 * * 80 11 1 17 8 14 7 22 7 10 1 16 2 13 7 24 7 90 78 12 6 10 0 15 5 71 11 3 97 17 4 10 0 57 92 72 L L O 52 82 71 12 8 11 0 43 70 52 81 39 62 53 96 12 0 34 54 40 61 30 47 41 74 13 0 26 43 31 47 23 37 32 58 14 0 21 34 24 37 18 30 26 47 .p i 15 0 17 28 19 30 15 24 21 38 I- \J 16 0 14 23 16 24 12 20 18 32 17 0 12 19 13 20 10 16 15 26 18 0 10 16 11 16 9* 14 * 12 22 19 0 9 14 9 14 * * 10 19 20 0 7 12 8 12 * * 9 16 21 0 6 10 6 10 * * 8 14 1 F ro m F o n ta in e a n d N e a l ( 1 9 7 1 ). 2 . 5 0 6 0 m m e s t 1 m a t e s f r o m P e r r e t ( 1 9 6 6 ) a n d 7 0 2 1 0 D n n e s t i m a t e s f r o m F o n t a i n e a n d N e a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) . 3K li m a (1 96 9) . * O u t s i d e o f d a t a r a n g e . W h i t e s h r i m p 2 S h ri m p T a ils . e r D o u n d D e r D o u n d sh ri m p 1 R o y a 1 r e d s h r i m p 3 S h ri m p T a ils e r D o u n d D e r p o u n d Post I arva I wh I te shr I mp norma I I Y enter the major bays of the Gu I f when temperatures are above 25 ° C (Baxter and Renfro, 1967) and are apparent I y opt Imum for growth and surv I va I. As the temperatures decline In the fall with advancing cold fronts, growth apparently also declines (Lindner and. Anderson, 1956; Klima, 1974). Annual production In the northern Gulf has been associated. with estuarine salinity regimes. A similar salinity effect, caused by different weather patterns seems to operate In Texas and Louisiana. Gunter and Edwards (1969) observed a posItive correlation between the annual successes (1922-1954) of white shrimp In Texas with the rainfall In the state for that year and the two previous years. They suggest that the lag effect of rainfall was a result of the arid conditions of the state. In Louisiana, an Inverse relationship between annual white shrimp catch and the annual discharge of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers has been noted (Barrett and Gillespie, 1973). White and Boudreaux (1977) obtained statistically significant linear regressions of catch against river discharge by dividing the data Into two periods, 1958-1958 and 1969-1974. Gunter and Edwards (1969) suggest that high rainfall Is necessary In Texas to dilute the estuaries for optimum white shrimp production, while lower than normal river discharge Is necessary In Louisiana for optimum white shrimp production, since these estuaries were less saline than those In Texas. Growth of post larva I and juvenile pink shrimp In Florida appears to decline as salinity Increases from 10 to 28 ppt and may Increase as tempera-ture Increases from 15° C to 32° C (Higman, et al., n.d.). This apparent relationship between growth and salinity Is In contrast to the observation that juvenile pink shrimp normally occupy a higher salinity area on nursery grounds than do brown or white shrimp (Gunter, et al., 1964). Highest densities of royal red shrimp are found at 9° to 10° C and most occur within 8° to 12° C (Roe, 1969). Migration and Spawning Spawning of white shrimp has been associated with the sudden warming In the spring of the of fshore waters of the northern Gu If (L I ndner and Anderson, 1956). Both wh I te and pink shr I mp apparent i y seek deeper water as water temperatures fa i I I n the fa i I and winter and will reenter shallow water If temperatures rise (Lindner and Anderson, 1956; Tabb, et a i ., 1962 ) . B I oeconom I c Mode i s Grant and Griffin (In press) and Blom, et al. (1978) have developed a bloeconomlc simulation model of the brown shrimp fishery of Galveston Bay, Texas, and Its associated offshore waters. The model Is designed to assess the change In yield and revenue recruited to the fishery If various restrictions are Imposed on either area of catch or fishery effort. Work Is currently underway to adapt this model to the Dry Tortugas pink shrimp fishery (Griffin, personal communication, 1979). 4.2 Stock Unit A stock Is defined as a group of fish manageable as a unit. This definition differs from the biological concept of a stock as a more or less freely Interbreeding population of a species. The effects that strategies for Increasing the yield for one of these species may have on other species of national Interest as well as other multipurpose uses of the area Involved must be con sidered (Section 3.6). Management and conservation of Gulf shrimp has been carried out mainly by the several Gulf states. Management policies employed by these states differ (Section 3.3.1); these differences largely reflect differences In the history of exploitation (Section 3.2). 4-16 Given this apparent genetic continuity, the need for a multipurpose approach to management, and the partial lack of data necessary to evaluate potential benefIts derived by modifying current manage ment practices, the GMFMC, realizing that management must consider other multipurpose uses for national resources and may have to consider area differences In harvesting strategies, has adopted the FMP group of specl es as the management un I t for the Gu If shr Imp fishery. 4.3 Catch-Effort Data The Natlonãl Marine Fisheries Service has collected data men. Griffin (1978) has prepared estimates for the 1963-1975 white, and pink shrimp. on shrimp landed by commercial flsher period on unit fishery effort for brown, Pub II shed accounts of recreational and ba It-shrimp catch and effort are comparatlvel y sparce. The few published estimates of discarded catch are summarized In Section 4.7. 4.4 Survey and Samp II ng Data Christmas and Etzold (1977) reviewed the major survey and sampling programs which exist In order to monitor the shrimp resource and predict yields. Texas: Texas has sampled Its key bay areas from March to May for brown September for whHe shrimp. In addition Texas Parks and W"dllf~ Department distribution, and abundance of shrimp In the open Gulf. shr I mp and from June to also monitors the size, Lou I s I ana: Lou I s I ana has an ongo I ng shr I mp mon I tor I ng program I n the estuar I es March through October. The program prov I des the data needed to set the open I ng date and pred I ct the success of the brown shrimp season. Mississippi: There Is a year-round monitoring of all of MIssissippi IS marine resources. In addition, an Intensive sampling of juvenile shrimp occurs from mid-April through summer to provide growth and size data for opening of the Inshore brown shrimp season. Alabama: An ongoing shrimp monitoring program extends from April through September of each year to prov I de background data as we i i as to set seasons. Florida: Florida surveys for age Information, and for the life cycle and population dynamics of rock and pink shrimp In offshore waters. NMFS: NMFS surveys provide the number, weight, and specl es compos Itlon. 4.5 Habitat Brown, white, and pink shrimp use a variety of habitats as they grow from planktonic larvae to spawning adults. In part, this migration tends to separate the various life stages so that they are not In direct competition for the same resources. As planktonic larvae the shrimp feed on phytoplank ton and zooplankton and exist mainly In the open Gulf. As postlarvae they enter the estuaries and adopt a benthic existence at the marsh-water, mangrove-water Interface, or within grassbeds. The estuarine phase Is considered a critical stage because local fluctuations In temperature and salinity have a dramatic affect on both the acres of marsh available for growth and the actual growth rate of the shr I mp. As the shr I mp grow, they move away from the marsh-water or mangrove-water I nterface Into deeper, more open waters. At some point they begin an offshore migration to the Gulf. The major species tend to be partly separated In the Gu If. Brown and wh Ite shrimp predominate on the mud and sandy mud bottoms of the northwestern and northern Gulf; pink shrimp predominate on the coral sand 4-17 bottoms of the southeastern Gu If. Adu It brown shr I mp tend to ml grate to deeper waters (30 to 50 fathoms) than adult white shrimp (10 to 20 fathoms). The weakest link In the life cycle chain Is'the estuarine phase of growth. Man's the fragile environment has remved much of the area that would be considered suitable Some of these a I terat Ions are eas II y assessed. These I nc i ude: alteration of shrimp habitat. o Impoundments that prevent I nf i ux of shr Imp. o bulkheadlng that remves the critical marsh-water or mangrove-water Interface. o alterations In freshwater discharge that create an unfavorable salinity regime. The Immediate effects of other alterations are not as easily assessed. These Include: o stimulation of saltwater Intrusion. o the continuing encroachment of polluted waters on the estuarine waters. Despite any uncertainty about the effects of these alterations, we do have Indications of the kind of environment necessary for shrimp survival. Turner (1977) observed that the yield of shrimp In Louisiana's estuaries Is directly related to the acreage of marsh, while )hat from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico Is directly related to the acreage of marsh and submerged grassbeds. He found no relationship between yields and estuarine water surface, average water depth, or volume. His findings concur with the observations of Barrett and Gillespie (1973) that annual brown shrimp production In Louisiana Is correlated with the acreage of marsh with waters above 10 ppt salinity, but not with acres of estuarine water ~bove 10 ppt salinity. These findings suggest that the brown, white, and pink shrimp yields In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico depend on the survival of the estuarine marshes, mangrove areas, and grassbeds In their natural state. These areas not only provide postlarval, juvenile, and subadult shrimp with food and protection from predation, but they help to maintain an essential gradient between fresh and salt water. 4.5.1 Phys I ca i Descr I pt I on of the Hab I tats The fo i i ow I ng parameters are used I n character I zing shr I mp hab I tats around the Gu' f Coast: 1. Bottom types a. Offshore b. Inshore 2. Surface water discharge Into estuar I es 3. Estuarine salinities 4. Areal extent of estuaries 5. Estuarine availability (access from open Gulf) 6. Water Quality (with emphasis on low salinity) All of these factors vary over space and time. 4-18 , -- , Habitats can change from one type to another, and the changes can be either culturally Induced ( I.e., filii ng or dredgl ng of wet lands) or natura Ily Induced (I.e., subs I dence of wet lands resu It I ng In Its conversion to open water). These changes are critically Important to the Gulf's estuarine dependent species. Documented evidence of the effect of permanent changes In essential habitats Is severely limited, except for the change In wetland area. An I mportant component I n the hab I tat of the Gulf coast. Salinity regimes critically production (vegetation) Is the basis for the the estuarine dependent shrimp Is the wetland zone along needed for shr I mp occur I n these areas, and the I r pr I mary shrimp's detritus food web. The wetlands along the Gulf coast have formed during approximately the past 5,000 years, when alluvial sediment supplied to the coast exceeded that remved through erosion and subsidence. The general physiography of the Gulf coast has favored extensive wetland formation. Som 60 percent of the coastal wetland area of the conterminous United States occurs along the Gulf coast. Tidal marsh, mangroves, and submerged aquatics that comprise this area amount to some 6.2 ml i lion acres. An additional 8.4 mil lion acres are classified as un vegetated estuarine open water (Crance, 1971; Chabreck, 1972; McNulty, Llndall, and Sykes, 1972; Christmas, 1973; Diener, 1975). Wet i ands are not even' y d I str I buted à long the Gu' f coast. Some 63 percent of the emrgent wetlands along the Gulf are found In Louisiana as the result of an abundant sediment supply transported by the Mississippi River. Some 395,000 acres of mangrove are found almost exclusively along the Florida coast. While substrate and currents (to carry germinated seeds) are generally favorable along the entire Gulf coast, mangrove distribution .Is limited to areas where hard freezes-do not occur. Submerged vegetation Is found along most of the Gulf coast but Is particularly abundant and diverse along the shores of central and southern Florida. Information on submerged vegetation Is genera Ily lackl ng for other states. The relative abundance and type of submerged vegetation depends mainly on bottom type, turbidity, salinity, water temperature, bottom slope, and tidal range (McNulty, Llndall, and Sykes, 1972). Along the Gu i f coast of southern F i or I da near I y 50 percent of the estuar I ne bottoms are covered by submrged vegetation. Cover density generally decreases as one moves northward, with bays along the panhandle having only five percent of their bottoms vegetated. Reports for Isolated study sites Indicate that the five percent figure wou I d ho i d for the rema I nder of the Gu i f coast, except for port Ions of Louisiana where the percentage would be less, and the lower Texas coast where abundance Is greater. Llndall and Saloman (1977) report 796,806 acres of submerged vegetation In estuaries along the Gulf, of which 63 percent are found In Florida and 31 percent are found In the Laguna Madre and Copano-Aransas Bays In Texas. 4.5.1.1 Bottom Types 4.5.1.1.1 Offshore Bottom Types There are three genera' of fshore bottom type reg Ions extend I ng to the 200 m I sobath I n the Gu i f of Mexico. One occurs from the Texas-Mexico border to just west of the Texas-Louisiana border. Here the offshore zone consists mainly of sand and finer grain sediments. Occasional pockets of sand and shell are found from the 11 to 109 fms (20 m to 200 m) I sobath. The second zone extends eastward to a point approximately even with Pascagoula Bay, Mississippi, and Is mainly a complex of fine grain sediments with occasional surface deposits of sand and shell. The dominance of muddy bottoms In this zone Is attributed to the deposition by the Mississippi River. The third region encompasses the remaining area offshore Alabama and Florida, which Is almost exclusively comprised of sand, shell, and coral. Coral becomes more prevalent along the central and southern Florida coast. The first two zones are primarily associated with brown and white shrimp, while the third zone Is primarily associated with pink shrimp. 4-19 4.5.1.1.2 Estuar I ne Bottom Types Many of the estuaries found along the Gulf of Mexico represent drowned river valleys, which have subsequently undergone some degree of fill. Generally those estuaries that stili have considerable freshwater f low coming In at the head contain bottom sediments that ref lect the stream loadl Those with little or no stream flow are generally dominated by marine sediments and are usually coarser. Estuaries formed by deltaic progradation and subsequent deterioration are dominated by muddy bottoms. 4.5.1.2 Surface Water Discharge Freshwater flow Into the estuaries of the northern Gulf of Mexico Is variable In space and time (Fig. 4.5-1) largely because of differences In drainage basin area, lithology, climate, and land use. Two aspects of surface water flow are consIdered In terms of their effect on shrimp habitat: 1) the volume entering the estuaries and 2) the seasonal variability of the hydrography. Four regions of surface water f low are I dent I fled: 1. Lower Texas coast 2. Upper Texas coast through the Panhandle of Florida, except for the Deltaic plain of Louisiana. 3. Deltaic plain of Louisiana 4. Central and lower Florida coast Lower Texas Coast Rivers of the lower Texas coast have relatively low discharges, with peaks occurring In the spring and fall. Low discharge Is due to the semi-arid conditions and relatively sma i I drainage areas of the rivers. More to the south, the fall peak Is first noticeable on the hydrographs of streams entering the Matagorda Bay system. In the San Antonio Bay system, the fal i peak Is very pronounced, and, from Aransas Bay through Laguna Madre, the fa II peak exceeds the spr I ng peak. I n Laguna Madre, however, the total volume of discharge Is àxtremly low, 9 to 200 cfs (1950-1977). Occasional heavy rains (often associated with tropical disturbances) can have a substantial short term effect on the estuaries and may affect shrimp yields If the resulting flood waters enter the estuaries during critical growth periods of shrimp. . Upper Texas coast through the Panhandle of Florida, except for the Deltaic plain of Louisiana Most of the rivers from the panhandle of Florida west to Galveston Bay, Texas, have a peak discharge In early spring, followed by low discharge during the summer and early fall months. Mean monthly precipitation Is generally similar throughout the year; however~ a high degree of variability exists from year to year. The dIfferences In seasonal distributions of precipitation and discharge are primarily attrIbuted to the seasonal differences In evapotranspiration rates and to the spring release of precipitation stored In winter as soli moisture and snow. Deltaic Plain of Louisiana The Mississippi and the Atchafalaya are by far the largest suppliers of of Mexico (Fig. 4.5-1). Peak discharge usually occurs In April through May; In September through October. During periods of flood, fresh water, carried mouths of neighboring estuaries, results In lower salinities. fr es h water to the Gu If low flow typically occurs by the Gu i f I nto the 4-20 1,000,000 100,000 V) u. U 10,000 1,000 / I I" / "' / 100 i M i A i J fo DN J AM J Figure 4.5-1 Missississippi Delta Mobile Boy Galveston Bay Pontchartrain loke Corpus Christi Bay Everg lades 5 Ten Year Mean Freshwater Discharge Into Selected Gulf Coast Estuaries (U. S. ACOE and USGS Water Resource Data). 4-21 Though extremely variable In magnitude, the monthly flow of the Mississippi River Is less variable In relation to average flow than any other gauged rivers entering the Gulf. Its variance In flow, however, has a notice-able effect on the yield of brown shrimp In the Gulf (Section 4.1) and on white shrimp In LouIsiana (White and Boudreaux, 1977). Centra i and Lower F lor I da Coast Stream flow entering the Everglades Is lower than most areas of the Gulf, largely because of the small contributing drainage area. The additional Input of groundwater Is recognized, but Its signifi cance cannot be determl ned. The seasonal flood cycle Is asymmetrical. The peak rises rapidly In early summer, continues Into the fall, and then drops slowly to a low stage during the months of April and May (Fig. 4.5-1). The summr maximum differs from most other Gulf rivers In that the latter are tYPically at low stage dur I ng the summer. Th Is d If ference ref i ects the greater I nf I uence of trop I ca I c II mate I n the Everglades where summer showers are typically Intense and result In higher stream flow despite evapotranspiration rates. From Charlotte Harbor north to Suwannee Sound, the seasonal hydrograph Is In transition between the summer-fall peak of the south and the late winter-spring peak common along the northern Gu I f coast. South of Suwannee Sound the tot a I vo I ume of stream f low I s sma I I. 4.5.1.3 Estuarine Salinity Throughout Salinity ranges Diener, 1975). the Gulf of Mexico estuarine salinity Is highly variable In both time and space. from 0 ppt to a high of 113.9 ppt recorded In Laguna Madre (Hedgepeth, 1953, In Because of severe data Inadequacies, It Is rather difficult to make a Gulf-wide comparison of salinity In the varIous estuaries. There are few estuaries In which salinity Is continually moni tored. In those which are monitored by public agencies, station locations are such (for example, along major dredged waterways) that data often do not reflect general conditions of the estuary. This section Is limited to presentation of averages and extremes; these values, However, are generally based on limited data and present a superficial picture. As a result, many of the estuaries appear Quite similar with respect to salinity. The ensuing description of salinity In various estuaries Is based largely on secondary reference material, and all values are for surface salinities un less otherw I se noted. Laguna Madre: The only estuary In the Gulf which Is almost continually hypersaline had average annual Isohallnes ranging from 35 to 55 ppt (1963-1966), with lower salinities occurring at tidal passes rather than Inland (Diener, 1975). Corpus Chr I st I Bay: The Nueces River he I ps to ma I nta I n sa II nit I es lower than those of average seawater. Most of Corpus Chr I st I Bay averaged between 30 to 35 ppt (1963-1966). Hypersa II ne con ditions can be expected during low dIscharge periods. Copano-Aransas Bays: Sa II n I ty ranged from 6 ppt I n Copano Bay and 12 ppt I n Aransas Bay near the Gulf InTracoastal Waterway (GIWW) during flood periods, to 32 ppt In Copano Bay and 35 ppt In Aransas Bay during low discharge periods of the Mission River (1965-1967, McGowen, et al., 1976). San Antonio Bay: The Guadalupe River strongly Influences the salinity In San Antonio Bay. During periods of flood, the entire bay above the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway may be fresh; during low flow, slightly hypersaline conditions occur In some parts of the bay (1965-1967, McGowen, et al., 1976). Average salinities range from 6 ppt at the head to 20 to 25 ppt at the GIWW and decrease s II ghtl Y on the lee side of Matagorda I s land. 4-22 Matagorda Bay Comp lex: The Lavaca River and severa I streams af fect sa II n I ty. Sa II nit I es range from 0 ppt at the head of Lavaca and Tres Pa I acl os Bays and 20 ppt near Port 0 'Connor dur I ng flood periods, to 30 ppt at the head of the bays and sf Ightly hypersall ne conditions near Port O'Connor during low discharge (1965-1967, McGowen, et al., 1976). East Matagorda Bay Is separated from Matagorda Bay proper by the Colorado River Delta. Several streams flow Into East Matagorda Bay, and Its opening to the Gulf consists of a single narrow cut. Salinities here are generally lower, averaging 10 to 15 ppt and ranging from a reported low of 8 ppt to a high of 24 ppt at Brown Cedar Cut ~ 1965-1967). Galveston Bay Complex: Considerable surface flow enters via the Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers and several small streams and bayous. These are the westernmost estuaries Influenced by a humid climate, and hypersaline conditions are rare. Highest salinities are recorded In West Bay, averaging 25 to 30 ppt (1965-1967, Fisher, et al., 1972). Galveston and Trinity Bays average from 10 to 15 ppt near the head to 20 to 25 ppt In the lower portions. During high discharge, surface salinity ranges from 2 ppt to 14 ppt, and during low discharge perIods the range Is from 20 to 32 ppt (Fisher, et al., 1972). Circulation between East Bay because of numerous oyster reefs, Pass In 1955 Improved clrcu latlon and Ga I veston Bay I s rather poor (Gossel I nk, I n press) perhaps and sa II nIt I es are somewh at higher. The reoen I ng of Ro i i over Fish I n the eastern ha I f of East Bay. Sabine Lake: Dredging of the Sablne-Neches Ship Channel and the construction of the Toledo Bend Reservoir are classic examples of how man has altered the natural salinity regime of Gulf estuaries. The dam stores winter surp Ius water, wh Ich Is released .In mld-May for hydroelectric generator deman~s (White and Perret, 1973). The mid-May release corresponds to the peak period of brown shrimp estuarine production. Alteration In this discharge pattern means the loss of the lake as a shrimp habitat (White and Perrett, 1973). The natural opening of Sabine Lake to the Gulf was narrow and approxl-matefy 4 m deep (Gossellnk, In press). This narrowness, combined with the large discharge Into the estuary, probably resulted In low salinities throughout the area. The Sablne-Neches Ship Channel 46 ft. (14 m In depth) has resulted In unusual hydrographic changes. Spoil from the channel Is continuous until the mouth of the Neches River, at which point an Increase In lake salinity Is noted. The ship channel acts as a corridor facilitating saltwater Intrusion during low discharge periods and allows for more rapid runof f of high discharge. Combined effects of the natural physiography and of these perturbations have resulted In relatively low and monotonous annual salinity regimes. Salinities at the estuary's head range from 2 to 10 ppt (wet and dry years) and from 16 to 20 ppt (wet and dry years) at the south end of Sabl ne Lake (Fisher, et al., 1973). Calcasleu Lake: This estuary Is similar to Sabine Lake In Its size, Its orientation, and In that Its constricted opening to the Gulf has been dredged. Salinity In the ship channel has Increased since Its construction (Gosse i Ink, In press). Historic changes In oyster distribution. and In marsh acreage and vegetation Indicate that salinity has Increased In the lake. Means and extrems are not known for the lake, but It seems that salinity here Is somewhat higher than In Sabine Lake (Barrett, 1971). Atchafalaya-Vermilion Bays Complex: Salinities are generally low due to the Atchafalaya River as well as to other lesser sources of fresh water. A significant decrease In salinity has occurred In the Verml I Ion Bay area since 1950, and the expected continued growth of the Atchafalaya Delta will result In continued high turbidity levels and lower salinities. If the Delta grows out to the present coastline It may act as a barrier decreasing water exchange with the Gulf. The Immediate estuarine area will probably deteriorate In terms of shrimp habitat over the foreseeable future. Over the long term, If the normal sequence of deltaic processes Is not Inhibited, the result will be a significant Increase In estuarine habItat area (Gosse i Ink, In press). 4-23 Terrebonne and Baratarla EstuarIes: Since artificial levies block the normal flow of the Mississippi River, these estuaries are no longer greatly Influenced by freshwater runoff. During flood periods, Mississippi waters can enter Into the mouths of these estuaries via the Gulf of Mexico and create a reversa i I n the sa II n I ty grad I ent (Barrett, 1971). Wh Ii e sa II n I ty data I s extrem I y sparse, the extensive salt and brackish marshes Indicate favorable conditions for shrimp habitat. Mississippi Delta: The Delta marshes are generally Surface salinities are usually near zero ppt; however, a low stage. too fresh to be significant shrimp habitats. we I I-deve i oped sa I t wed ge moves u pr I ver at Pontchartraln-Breton Sound: Marshes In Breton Sound have salinities similar to those of the lower portions of the Baratarla and Terrebonne estuaries (20 to 25 ppt, 1967-1968, Barrett, 1971). Mississippi Sound Complex: Salinities In Mississippi Sound, despite Its numerous wide passes, are considerably less than those of the Gulf. Freshwater discharge Is considerable both direcly (via the Pascagoula system and weirs entering Into St. Louis and Blloxl Bays) and Indirecly (via Mobile Bay to the east and the Pear I River and Pontchartra I n-Borgne system to the west). At the western end, surface salinity ranged from 6 to 20 ppt, while at the east end It ranged from 14 to 30 ppt (1962 1964,1966-1969, Christmas, 1973). The east-west gradient reflects differences In surface water Inputs. In the landward estuaries, such as Blloxl and St. Louis Bays, surface salinities range from less than eight ppt to 20 ppt. A fairly strong salinity gradient ,Is present from the mouths of the estuaries seaward to the offshore barrier Islands. This gradient Is most evident from Blloxl Bay to Dog Keys Pass where surface salinities differ by about 12 ppt, with a range of 10 to 20 ppt over the 131 m distance. Mobile Bay: Mobile Bay Is another example of a shallow-water estuary modified by channel that allows for saltwater Intrusion. Mobile Bay receives more freshwater flow U.S. Gulf estuary except for the Mississippi River and Its tributary, the Atchafalaya. salinity has a strong Inverse relationship to stream flow. a deep-water than any other ConseQ uent i y, Florida Estuaries: In the panhandle area and south to Suwannee Sound, salinity patterns are similar to those of the estuaries to the west. Salinities are highly variable and are related to stream flow, which Is substantial for these areas. Choctawhatchee Bay Is a glaring exception because of a well-defined persistent salt wedge (McNulty, et al., 1972). Despl te the lack of major freshwater surface f low, the coastil ne south of Waccassa Bay and north of Tampa Bay has salinities similar to those of the large-discharge panhandle estuaries. These lower than-normal Gulf salinities have been a factor In the presence of offshore oyster reefs and submrged aquatIcs, suggesting the strong possIbility of springs emerging In the offshore zone (McNulty, et al., 1972) . Relatively high salinities from Tampa Bay south through Florida Bay are due to the absence of major stream f low and high evapotranspiration rates. The frequency and degree of hypersall nlty genera II y I ncreases I n a souther i y direc Ion, except for the Char I,otte Harbor area where stream f i ow Is normally sufficient to mitigate hypersallnlty. Hypersallnlty, a normal and frequent occurrence In Florida Bay, Is brought about by natural drought periods and Is Intensified by man's diversion of normal freshwater flow (McNulty, et al., 1972). Higman (n.d.) discusses the possible Inverse relationship between growth rate of postlarvaf and juvenile pink shrimp and salinity In Florida Bay estuarl es. 4-24 t ~ 4.5.1.4 Estuar I ne Access The area becomes closed as a nursery ground considerable and may cause changes In water flow grounds landward of the structures. If wetlands are Impounded. Indirec effects may be patterns. Control gates can close off nursery Weirs constructed along the Sabine Navigation Channel and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway In the Keith Lake area of southeast Texas to protect the neighboring marshes from saltwater Intrusion were removed In 1977 reopening the Keith Lake area as a shrimp nursery ground (R. Fish, personal commun I cat Ion). 4.5.1.5 Non-Sa II n I ty Water Qua II ty The ef fects of available estuarine consumption. pollutants on Gu If shrimp Is stili relatively unknown. Pollutants can reduce the habitat area and result In high concentrations of substances harmful for human 4.5.1.6 Currents The most Important process In producing currents In the Gulf of Mexico Is the stress of the wind upon the water surface. While the loop current In the eastern Gulf has been documented for some time, a major current In the western Gulf has only recently been firmly established (Sturges and Blaha, 1976). The loop current may serve as an eastern boundary to the Mexican current (Sturges and Blaha¡ 1976), especially during summer months. Tidal currents are of particular Importance In the nearshore area and affect movement Into and out of estuaries. Despite the small tidal range throughout the Gulf, tidal current velocities are relatively high. In the estuaries high velocity Is due to constricted outlets that characterize many of the lagoons and bays. In the nearshore area, water level changes occur over a shallow continental shel f. Wind can have a pronounced effect on the overall water level change. Two of the most dramatic examples are cold fronts that push water out of the northern Gulf estuaries and tropical disturbances that raise water levels In these same estuaries. Shrimp migration, from these estuarine areas Is associated In part with the relative magnitude of the tidal exchange (Section 4.1). 4.5.2 Habitat Concerns See Introduction to Section 4.5, Habitat, and Section 4.8, Estimates of Future Stock Conditions. 4.6 Quality of Data Despite the Importance of the Gulf shrimp fishery, there are some significant data deficiencies which limit the selection of management measures. Some of these deficiencies Include: o lack of a clear understanding of natural mortality rates, of temperature and salInity effects on growth rates, and of migration patterns. o lack of data on utilization of the shrimp resources. o lack of cost-earn I ngs and catch-ef fort data. 4.7 Current Status of the Stocks 4-25 ("- 4.7.1 Maximum Sustainable Yield 4.7.1.1 Explanation and Specification of MSY The biological characteristics which affect sustainable yields for penaeld shrimp are unusual. They are an annual crop. Very few Individuals live a year and the majority harvested are less than six months old. There Is no demonstrable stock-recruitment relation and recruitment overflshlng, given present technology, Is essentially Impossible. That Is, It Is not economlcaf Iy or technically feasible to take so many shrimp that there are too few survivors to provide an adequate supply for the following year. Because of these characteristics, fishing mortality and yield In one year do not affect yield In the following year. The maximum yield In number for a given year Is essentially all the shrimp available to harvest, using current technology. Growth overflshlng Is caused by taking the available recruits at too sma i i a size. If growth overflshlng Is occurring, allowing additional time for growth will result In a greater total yield In weight, although the total number of Individuals will be less. The rapid growth rate of penaeld shrimp makes them resistant to growth overflshlng until high levels of effort are reached. Effort In the fishery has been Increasing rapidly, and It Is probable that the total yield of penaeld shrimp could be Increased If the average sIze taken were larger. However, the poor Quality and small amount of avail able data makes It difficult ~o precisely estimate the magnitude of any Increase (see Section 4.1). The abundance (number of recruits) and therefore yield and catch per unit effort, vary greatly from year to year depend I ng on the temperature and sa II n I ty I n the estuar I ne nursery areas. Th Is Hs evident when regression coefficients for the different models are compared. For example, linear regressions of catch on effort showed that effort alone explained only 38 percent of the variation In catch of Louisiana white shrimp and 57 percent of the variation In Gulf brown shrimp catch. Multiple regressions Including environmental parameters explained 89 percent and 88 percent respectively. For brown shrimp, the environmental model predicts that at a fishing effort of 100,000 units (essentially the record unt Ii 1976), annua I catch wou I d vary from 57 to 88 m II lion pounds prov I ded temperature and sat Inlty ranged within 1963-1975 levels. If environmental conditions were more favorable, a greater yield would be expected.. Given environmental conditions slightly better than previously observed and high levels of effort, the maximum probable catch Is estimated at 116.4 million pounds tails, 37.6 percent greater than the point estimate of MSY from a Schaefer surplus production model. Surplus production models utilize trends In catch and fishing effort over a series of years. They were designed for, and are usually applied to, species with multiple year classes, (I.e., Individual animals live longer than one year). They do not consider fluctuations In recruitment controlled by environment, but assume that environmental effects are constant. The predictive ability of these models, particularly In the range of fishing effort which might produce overflshlng, Is at Its best for long-lived species and/or those which are not subject to large, environmentally produced fluctuations In recruitment. Because penaeld shrimp meet neither of these criteria, application of surplus production models must be made with caution and with an understandIng of what Is being pre d I cted by the mode I. Estimates of MSY produced shou i d be cons Idered as long-term averages wh Ich are greatly affected by environmental condltlons~ They should not be considered a maximum allowable catch for a given year. The Schaefer version of the surplus production model was chosen to estimate MSY In all three species because: sufficient data were available; It fit the data as wet I as other models which gave similar estimates of MSY, and was mathematically easier to use. The estimate was calculated using only reported catch and effort from the commercial fishery. Estimates of the recreational catch, bait catch, and discarded undersized shrimp are added. 4-26 ,--- -~ , Schaefer Commerc I a I * Recreat I ona I Bait Discard Total Brown shr I mp 85 8 2 5 100 Wh Ite shr Imp 38 8 1 3 50 Pink shrimp 14 1 15 for a total MSY of 165 million pounds of tails annually for the three species. For royal red shrimp, MSY was estimated as 392,000 i bs. of tails using a Schaefer model. For rock shrimp, MSY was estimated as 1.1 million pounds of tails using a Schaefer model. estimate Is a very poor one because most landings are Incidental catch, making effort estimates unrell ab Ie. This For seabob shrimp, no accurate MSY could be calculated due to lack of effort data. Seabobs 'are treated as an Incidental catch, to the white shrimp fishery where they account for an average of 4.3 percent of the total catch or 1.4 million pounds (tails) for the years 1959-1975. This must serve as the best available MSY. The catch of seabobs Is almost entirely within the Territorial Sea (Sec. 4.1). For the three penaeld species, surplus production models Indicate only a long term average yield, and not an allowable maximum. The catch In any given year can only be estimated using environmental factors and expected effort for that particular year. A reasonable estimate of the maximum probable catch of white and pink shrimp can be estimated by applying the percentage by which the maximum probable catch of brown shrimp exceeds the Schaefer MSY estimate to all specl es. Estimates of ba It catch, recreational catch and dl scards are then added to give a total maximum probable catch (see Sec. 4.7.1.2). These estimated are: Maximum Commercial Schaefer Yield Considering Commercial Environmental Factors Recrea Estimate (137.6%) tlonal Bait Discard Total Brown shr I mp 85 117 8 2 5 132 White shrimp 38 52 8 1 3 64 Pink shrimp 14 19 1 20- -Total 137 188 16 4 8 216 for a total of 216 million pounds of tails 4.7.1.2 Technical Description of MSY Calculations Yield Models Incorporating Environmental Driving Forces To achieve reasonable accuracy, the calculation of specific yields for penaeld shrimp must be made for specific points In time and must Include environmental driving forces, since yield Is dependent on those forces and not on abundance In previous years. Such models are much more appropriate and useful for penaeld shrimps because of the overriding Impact of the environment on yield. * A Ii weights are In millions of pounds, tall weight 4-27 ( The environmental models presented below do not estimate MSY In the classical sense, rather they provide a yield estimate for any year under given conditions. They fit empirical relationships to observed data but are not direcly tied to biological parameters of the species such as growth rate or mortality rates. The estimates from these models become Invalid If extreme and unrealistic values are used for fishing effort and/or environmental parameters. At average levels of river discharge and effort, these models produce yield estimates which approximate MSY estimates from surplus production mode is. Griffin and Beattie (1978) attempted to do this using freshwater discharge from the Mississippi River as a proxy for estuarine salinity conditions. Their formula, a modified Spillman production equation (Heady and Dillon, 1961) estimates yield for that portion of Gulf shrimp resources of all species caught by vessels (I.e., five gross tons or larger). It predicts maximum yield will be attaIned only at Infinite fishing pressure, although the rate of Increase In yield decreases rapidly with I ncreas I ng ef fort. To estimate average yield, equivalent to MSY, Mississippi River discharge was used as an Index of environmental driving forces, and the predictive equation derived Is Y = 6593D-0.60134(1-0.995701E) EQ. 4.7-1 where Y Is yield In million pounds of tails, D Is Mississippi River discharge In thousand cubic feet per second, and E Is fishing effort In thousand units.' For a year with ar average river discharge pattern, their equation predicts an average yield for Gulf shrimp vessels of 128.7 million pounds at tails. Within rounding error, 90 percent of this catch would be achieved at an expenditure of 314,300 effort units. The current range Is 100,000 to 300,000 units. For the purposes of this plan, It was necessary to consider each species Individually. shrimp, the data was available only for Louisiana (Fig. 4.7-1). For wh I te The association of Louisiana's reported commercial catch of white shrimp (on a year-class basis) to unit fishing effort and Mississippi River discharge was Investigated. It was found that the log of average river discharge for the May through August per I od (LMJ JA) cou I d be used as a forecster for the success of the coming year's harvest (Y) If an estimate of commercial fishing effort (E) could be made (Figure 4.7-4), Y = 127.8 + .6411 E - 49.4 LMJJA (R2 = .84) EQ. 4.7-2 where Y Is In million pounds tails of white shrimp, LMJJA Is the log of river discharge In 1,000 cfs and E Is In 1,000 units. This time period encompasses the early phase of estuarine growth. It was also noted that the relationship In EQ. 2 was Improved (Increased R2) If the time period over which river discharge was averaged was I ncreased from the May through August per I od to May through December. Y = 129.1 + .6411 E - 51.48 LMD (R2 = .89) EQ. 4.7-3 where LMD Is the log of the average river discharge In i-,OOO cfs for the May through December period. This longer time period essentially encompasses the first growing season for white shrimp. These models could not be applied to the entire Gulf white shrimp catch because shrimp production from estuarine areas not conneced to the MississippI River are substantial and do not always corre late well with Louisiana production. For pink shr I mp no data was ava II ab Ie to fit these types of mode I s. 4-28 For ~rown shrimp In Louisiana, a correlation has been drawn between the annual success of the brown shrimp harvest and the temperature of both the estuarine water during mid-April and the acres of marsh above 10 ppt. (Barrett and Gillespie, 1973, 1975, 1976; Barrett and Ralph, 1977). In general, good product Ion I s expected I f the spr I ng I s dry and warm, whereas poor product Ion I s expected for a wet, cold spring. A similar phenomenon has been observed In Texas (T. Leary, GMFMC, personal com munication, 1978). After the success of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries In predicting Its brown shrimp harvest with these environmental variables, and given the fact that the successes of many of the major brown shrimp fishery areas In the Gulf are correlated with the Louisiana catch, "Barrett's" Indicators were then tested for their ability to predict the annual Gulf brown shrimp catch. Results of the multiple regression equation generated are shown In Figure 4.7-2. The equation, Catch = -51.73 + 3.664 (Temp) - 0.01496 (River) + 0.5061 (Effort) EQ. 4.1-4 predicts 88 percent of the annual variance In catch, where ''Catch'' Is annual brown shrimp catch In mil lion pounds, "Temp" Is average water temperature In degrees Centigrade at Grande Terre, LouIsiana, April 16 to 22, "River" Is Mississippi River discharge In 1,000 cfs March to May, and "Effort" Is unit fishing effort In 1,000 units (Griffin, 1978). In general, low freshwater discharge and high temperatures mean large yields (temperature Is the most Important factor). The estimated yield for the most favorable recorded combination of temperature (26.3° C In 1967), river discharge (480,000 In 1963) and effort (113,569 In 1972) Is 9~9 million pounds. This compares WITh the best reported catch of 91~5 million pounds In 1967. To calculate a maximum probable yield, It Is reasonable to assume slightly better environmental con ditions and higher levels of effort. Using 27° C, 480,000 cfs and 150,000 effort units, the yield estimate Is 116.4 million pounds of tails. This estimate Is 37.6 percent greater than the estimate of MSY from the Schaefer surplus production model and more nearly resembles true conditions. This model Is an adequate predictor of reported I s cons I derab Ie roo for ref I nemnt and Improvement. type of model shou Id be used for all penaeld shrimp. annua I Gu i f brown shr I mp harvest, a i though there When the necessary data becomes available, this As shown by the calculations above, surplus production models which do not Incorporate environ mental forces are Inappropriate for these species. They are only used because of a lack of the required environmental data. Surp I us Product I on Mode I s Klima and Parrack (1978) used the Schaefer form of the Generalized Stock Production (GSP) model to pred I ct a MSY for the sha I low-water catch of Gu If shr I mp (brown, wh I te, pink, seabob, and rock shrimp). They used estimates of reported commercial catch and days fished for the period 1956-1975, excluding 1957, 1961, and 1962 as years of major hurricane activities and therefore not Indicative of normal fishing activity. Their equation, 7 Y = E (.45528 - 9.3870396 X 10 E) EQ. 4.7-4 (where Y = yield In metric tons and E Is effort In days fished) predicts an annual MSY for these shal low-water shrimp of 55 thousand metric tons (121 million pounds) of tails harvested by 225,000 days fished. They noted that annual catch has fluctuated around this maximum since 1970 and conclude that the shal low-water shrimp "have been fully exploited In recent years." In developing this plan an attempt was made to flnd'the most predictive model relating catch to fishing effort for each of the shrimp species harvested In the U.S. Gulf. Models used were the 4-29 !! 33 i 30i æ 27 c: o ; 241 21l :J i 63 La. White Shrimp Catch .s a function of commercial fls..lng effort and average Mississippi River Discharge May- July 42 .\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ I\ I.. I".. I.. I""'''- / "" "-; - - J i -- i68 67 68 39 .---.. Observed Catch Pred icted .. ,.--- " I I I , \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.. 36 i 64 i 65 i 69 Vear i 70 i 71 i 72 i 73 i 74 i 75 La. White Shrimp Catch as. funct Ion of commercial "shlng effort and aver.ge Mississippi River Discharge May. December 42i\ 39 \ 3 !! IV 33~ '" 'a c: 30:: 0 Q. c: 27.2 2 24 21 18 . 15 63 64 65 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I I, i '....- -4 68 i 67 .---.. Observed Catch Predicted i 68 i 69 Vear i 70 i 71 i 72 i 73 i 74 i 7S Figure 4.7-1. Louisiana white shrimp commercial reported catch as a function of commercial fishing effort and average Mississippi River discharge. 4-30 96 8 8 80 el 72 II !; el 64 ~ c ~ 0 56 a. .p c i .2 w 4 l :: C a tc h : 5 1 .7 3 .. 3 .6 6 4 ( T e m p ) 0 .0 1 4 9 6 ( R iv e d .. 0 .5 0 6 1 ( E rf o rt ) R 2: .8 8 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Y ea r 71 72 73 75 74 70 F ig ur e 4. 7 2. P r e d i c t i n g t h e a n n u a l U S G u l f o f M e x i c o h a r v e s t o f b r o w n s h r i m p b y t h e c o m m e r c i a l f l e e t . T E M P i s t h e t e m p e r a t u r e a t G r a n d T e r r e , L o u i s i a n a , A p r i l 1 6 2 2 i n ° C , R I V E R i s . t h e a v e r a g e H i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r D i s c h a r g e i n 1 0 0 0 d s f o r M a r c h t h r o u g h M a y , a n d E F F O R T i s 1 0 0 0 u n i t s o f u n i t f i s h i n g e f f o r t . T h e s o l i d l i n e r e p r e s e n t s t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r e d i c t i v e e q u a t i o h a n d t h e p o i n t s r e p r e s e n t t h e a c t u a l r e p o r t e d c o m m e r c i a l h a r v e s t . Spillman production equation COil Ion and Heady, 1966) (for brown, whIte, and pink shrimp) and Generalized Stock Production model (GSP) (Pella and Tomllnson, 1969; Fox, 1975). Four levels were used In fitting the GSP model: m = 0.5, 1.5,2.0, 3.0. The parameter m Is a measure of stock reacts to Increasing fishing effort and overflshlng. the of m how a The ava Ii ab Ie catch data I nc i ude the reported commercl a i catch-ef fort data pub' I shed I n the Gu If Coast Shrimp Data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963-1975) as well as point estimates of recreational, bait, and discarded catch and (In some cases) effort. To test the fit of the models to available data, on I y the reported commercl a i catch and ef fort data were used, since these were the on I y data with reliable time-series, catch-effort estimates. Brown, wh Ite, and pi nk shr Imp commercl al catch-effort data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963 1975; Griffin, 1978) are listed In Table 4.7-1. Yield curves were fitted to this reported commercial catch and are compared In Figure 4.7-3 and Table 4.7.2. Essentially, al i the models suggest that brown, white, and pink shrimp are being harvested within their respective MSY ranges. With each species, the fit (compare the residual sum of squares) Is generally better with the GSP models than with the Spillman equation, and within the GSP models the fit becoms better with Increasing m. Choosing one of these models over another because of the apparent fit of the data Is Questionable. The fit of the data points to any of the surplus production models Is relatively poor because of fluctuations In abundance caused by environmental factors. Although the GSP model where m = 3 appears to give the best fit, this level of m Is usually associated with species which are very susceptible to recruitment overflshlng. Penaeld shrimp are very resistant to this type of over fish Ing. There are other factors which may be affecting the fit of the data. Most of the points lie near the peak of the yield curve. This makes prediction of the effects of higher levels of effort unreliable. A fraction of the catch Is unreported. If this fraction Is Increasing and Is large, It would cause the reported catch effort data to fit the curve where m = 3 more closely. Environmentally Induced fluctuations In abundance cause great scatter In the points. In the case of white shrimp the shape of the curve Is greatly affected by one point, 1975. Remval of this point would result In a i arge change I n the right ha i f of the curve. The Schaefer model, which Is equivalent to the GSP where m = 2, was chosen as representative of the current commercial catch-effort relationships of brown, white, and pink shrimp. The Schaefer model appears to fit the data well, Is mathematically easier to use, and generates MSY estimates comparable to those of other models giving similarly good fits. The MSYestlmates excluding unreported bait, recreational, and discards, were 85 million pounds of brown shrimp, 38 million pounds of white shrimp, and 14 million pounds of pink shrimp. Catch and ef fort data for roya i red shr I mp are shown I n Tab Ie 4.7-3; the data are compared to the Generalized Stock Production model In Table 4.7-4, for m equal to 0.5, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0. As with brown, white, and pink shrimp, all models have fairly similar fits to the data. Despite the similarity, however, the Schaefer model Is suggested as representative of the royal red shrimp since they exist In a relatively constant environment In which at least three year classes occupy the same feeding grounds (Anderson, 1971). A MSY of 392,000 pounds of tails annually Is predicted. This result Is compatible with Roe's estimate of a potential royal red shrimp yield of 425,000 pounds (In Klima, 1976). Catch and effort estimates made to fit the data to the GSP seabob and rock shrimp Indicate 4.7-5 and 4.7-6). for seabob and rock shr I mp are shown I n Tab Ie 4.7-3. An attempt was model despite the fact that the reported commercial catch data for that they are caught and landed Incidentally with other shrimp (Tables 4-32 T . b l . 4 . 7 1 . l e p o r t . d c o m m . r c 1 . 1 c . t c h . n d . f f o r t d . t . f o r b r o w n , ~ h l t . . . n d p 1 n k . h r 1 8 p f o r 1 9 6 J 1 9 7 6 ( d . t . f r o . G r 1 f f 1 n 1 9 7 8 ) . U e 1 g h t 1 . t . l 1 w e l g h t . B r o w n . h r 1 1 1 p \ / i t e . h r l . . p P ln k .h rh ip lu r C .t ch D .y . U nl t C .t ch D .y . U n1 t C .t ch D ay . H ~ U .h ed ef fo rt fh he d ef fo rt f h h e d eH or t K 11 11 0n T ho uu nd T ho u. .n d 11 11 10 n T ho u. .n d T ho u. .n d K il l1 0n T ho uu nd T ho uu nd po un d. d. y. un it . po un d. da y. u n i t . po un d. d. y. ~ 19 63 50 .2 82 .0 5 1 . 3 46 .6 80 .0 55 .7 12 .4 21 .9 U .3 19 64 16 .4 14 .1 48 .0 43 .6 95 .3 6J .3 14 .2 n. o IB .5 19 65 51 .0 10 2. 4 61 .6 )) .2 74 .5 5 1 . 2 14 .6 n. J 17 .4 19 66 57 .7 11 1. 9 73 .6 29 .8 12 .1 4J .6 13 .9 23 .1 11 .5 19 67 9 1 . 5 11 6. 6 84 .2 24 .2 61 .6 40 .9 10 .2 2 1 . 7 16 .7 19 68 11 .1 11 7. 8 84 .9 30 .1 77 .4 52 .0 11 .4 22 .4 17 .5 ~ I 19 69 6 1 . 5 11 4. 6 90 .6 44 .5 11 5. 1 78 .4 1 1 . 1 21 .5 17 .8 W W 19 70 15 .3 11 1. 4 86 .1 45 .B 91 .1 72 .6 12 .7 20 .2 16 .8 19 11 B 1 . 1 12 6. 2 10 2. 6 42 .0 8B .l 68 .2 10 . J 11 .8 U .L 19 72 81 .4 14 4. 0 11 3. 6 31 .1 91 .8 16 .1 10 .9 21 .5 IB .l 19 73 52 .8 11 5. 1 90 .0 14 .0 11 5. 6 86 .5 14 .5 n. 4 22 .4 19 74 55 .8 10 1. 8 14 .9 3 1 . 1 96 .1 67 .5 15 .1 27 .1 21 .9 19 75 50 .6 86 .6 67 .8 27 .6 12 1. 8 92 .1 14 .6 1 1 . 1 28 .6 19 76 77 .8 1 8 1 . 9 13 0. 1 16 .5 11 1. 4 81 .7 13 .0 29 .4 26 .2 87i I fa 1 n &J ~ 72 ... : S.a " BROWN ~ L WHITE 15. 15. 14. . :; 13.." PINK -: 13." 0.. c 12.8 .! :: 12. n. 1a. 14 Fig. 4. 7 - 3. 27.5 04 32 24 10 ''' 120 128 13242 48 50 80 88 n 78 14 10 IH Uii" FI.//I". Ellort i 10' 102 25 ,48 51 8710'81 .. 74 28 28 '--- .~:" / 78 18 18 2021 22 23 24 Un" FI./I'ii, Ellort i 10~ 25 28 27 Comparison of the fit of various surplus yield modes to the reported commercial catch of brow, white, and pink shrimp in the US Gulf of Mexico. Equations and estimates of MSY and f opt are listed in Table 4.7-2. Spillman - - - ; GSP, m = O. 5 - . - . - . '; GSP, m = i. 5 ............. GSP, m = 2.0 ; GSP, m = 3.0-........-; 4-34 T ab le 4 .7 2 . C o m p a r l a o n o f p o l n t e a t l m a t e a o f H S I c e n e r a t e d b y t l t t l n s l v a r l o u a a u r p l u a y l e l d m o d e l a t o t h a r e p o r t e d c o m m e r c l a l c e t c h d e t e f o r b r o w , v h l t e , a n d p l n k a h r l m p a e r e p o r t e d l n T a b l e 4 . 7 1 . S pe du H od el E qu at lo n P re dl ct ed R u l d u a l S U 1 8 o f S q u a r e . . . . P re dl ct ed t o pt P re dl ct ed H S I Ir ow n S hr lm p S pl 11 m an " e s p " , . . O . S . . 1 . S . . 2 . 0 . . . 3 . 0 ii I t a S hr im p S pi ll .." C S P , m . O . S . . . 1 . S .¡ I W VV . . 2 . 0 1 8 . 3 . 0 P in k S hr im p S pl l I. .a n e s p , . . O . S II .. 1 .S m . 2 . 0 i i . 3 . 0 . U 1 1 o n p o u n d a ta U a u e l t f l l h l n l e f f o r t ( t h o u i i e d u n l t e ) I . . 1 1 3 . S ( 1 . 9 8 9 6 E ) I . . . S 2 6 8 E ( . 6 5 1 3 + . 0 0 1 9 1 0 E ) 2 I . . . S 4 3 1 E ( 1 . 4 4 8 . 0 0 2 8 4 6 E ) 2 I . 1 . 0 8 7 E . 0 0 3 4 9 1 E 2 I . . 3 E ( 1 2 . O S 9 £ ) . S in s 11 3. S H 20 10 2. 6 3) 1 12 96 8S .8 17 0 12 83 84 .6 1S 6 12 6S 81 .4 13 6 T . 3 9 . 9 2 ( 1 . 9 2 1 2 £ ) T . . . 9 6 2 6 £ ( . 1 8 2 1 + . 0 0 8 1 4 4 E ) 2 T . . 1 0 1 3 E ( 1 . 2 9 9 . 0 0 6 0 4 1 E ) 2 I . . 1 . 1 0 2 E . 0 0 1 8 8 S £ 2 S 82 39 .9 S 13 31 .8 96 .0 48 1 38 .0 11 .1 44 1 30 .S 69 .9 31 1 39 .6 69 .2 1 . 6 0 3 9 £ ( 2 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 6 0 4 £ ) . S T . 1 6 . 2 3 ( 1 . 9 2 1 1 £ ) I . . . 9 1 0 2 £ ( . 8 2 2 4 + . 0 1 1 8 2 £ ) 2 T . . . 8 8 S 1 E ( 1 . 1 1 S . 0 1 2 S S E i 2 25 .7 16 .2 2 S . 7 15 .S 46 .1 25 ,) 29 .6 25 .1 14 .4 21 .8 25 .0 14 .4 26 .2 I . 1 . 0 3 6 E . 0 1 8 6 6 E 2 I . . . 3 0 4 3 E ( ~ . 7 9 4 . 2 4 9 4 E I ' S I T h e N L I N p r o c e d u r e l n a i r r e t 1 1 . ( 1 9 7 6 ) v a i u i e d t o f l t t h e d i t i t o t h e c u r v l 1 l n e a r m o d e l i . A l l t h r e e t t e r a t l v e p r o c e d u r e a p r o v l d e d t n t h e N L I H p r o s r a m v e r e u i e d . O n l y t h e e o l u t l o n v l t h t h e l o v e i t r e e l d u a l a u 1 8 o f i q u a r u 1 8 p r e u n t e d l n t h e " E q u a t i o n P r e d i c t e d " c o l u m n f o r e i c h I p e c l u m o d e 1 c o m b i n a t l o n . " I . H ( l A E ) w h e r e T 1 1 y t e l d I n m l 1 1 l o n p o u n d i t a l 1 e , H 1 . t h e m a x l m u m y l e l d , A 1 . a c o n . t a n t , . n d E 1 . t h o u . . n d u n l t e o t t l l h l n l e f f o r t . . ' E q u i t l o n 4 . 7 1 v h e r a c a t c h t n 1 8 1 1 1 1 0 n p o u n d . a n d e f f o r t 1 . l n 1 0 0 0 u n l t . o t e f f o r t . . " ' C o r r e c t e d t o t a l a u 1 8 o f . q u a r e e f o r b r o w n i h r l . . p d a t a l a 3 1 3 8 , f o r v h l t e a h r 1 m p d a t a 1 . 6 9 2 , a n d t o r p 1 n k a h r 1 m p d a t a 1 . 3 9 . 3 . The MSY's predicted for rock shrimp are compared In Table 4.7-4. The Schaefer model (GSP, m = 2) was chosen because the predicted relation between catch and effort was similar to other GSP models and because It Is mathematically easy to use. The MSY predicted for rock shrimp Is 1.1 million pounds of tails annually. This figure cannot be compared to published reports of rock shrimp density; rather It should be viewed with skepticism because' the effort estimates for 1971 to' 1976 are poor (since the species Is an Incidental bycatch) and new fishing grounds for these shrimp may be found, as a market for them cont I nues to deve I op. Solutions predicting a MSY were not obtained for seabob shrimp. Is due to unreliable effort estimates since seabob shrimp are usually shr Imp. This Inability to predict a MSY landed Incidentally with other Modification of Surplus YIeld Estimates for Penaeld Shrimp The estimates of MSY from surplus production models for penaeld shrimp must be modified to Include unreported catch, bait, recreational, and discards. The demonstrated Influence of environ mental driving forces must also be Included. These considerations have much less Impact on other species In this plan and need not be considered for them. Estimates of recreational and bait catches of brown, white, and pink shrimp are listed In Tables 4.7-7 and 4.7-8. In addition, there are Important harvesting areas In the Gulf where shrimp are caught and discarded. Some estimates of these discarded catches on an average annual basis are: o five mil lion pounds (tails) of brown and white shrimp along the Texas coast, June through August (Terry Leary, GMFMC, personal communication, 1978). o two to four millIon pounds (tails) of brown and white shrimp along the LouIsiana coast (Charles White, LDWF, personal communication, 1978). o 316,000 pounds (tails) of pink shrimp In the Dry Tortugas for the 1963-1966 period (Berry and Benton, 1969). The lack of sufficient data series prevented the development of MSY figures for the recreational, bait, and discard ,catch. Because estimates of these catches are low In comparison with the commercial MSY figure, they have been rounded of f and added to l tin the case of each of these three specl es. This "add-on" Is a reasonable approach when, as In this case, the amount to be added Is a small fraction of the total. An alternate approach would assume trends In annual CPUE for recreational, bait, and discarded catch to be sImilar to observed commercial CPUE, adjust the point estimates of the catches accordingly, and add them to the commercial catch and effort In each year. While this might be more technically correc, the estimated MSY would be unchanged. The "add-on" approach was only necessary with brown, white, and pink shrimp because estimates for royal red shrimp are not believed to be significant. The Impact of environmental factors on the Gulf brown shrimp catch has been demonstrated. Although the available data for whites and pinks does not allow Individual calculation, It Is reason able to expect a very similar Impact. This Is supported by visual Inspection of the figures for Gulf brown shrimp catch and for LouIsiana white shrimp catch. Both show a very similar amount of variation In yield, slightly greater than 100 percent between the lowest and highest yields. In order to estimate a maximum probable yield for all three species, the percentage by which the maximum probable yield estImate for brown shrimp exceeded the surplus production model estimate (137.6 percent) was applied to all three penaeld species. The point estimates for bait, recreational, and discards were then added on. The estimates for the "add-on" do not consider environmental factors 4-36 T ab le 4 .7 3. 1 R e p o r t e d c o m m e r c i a l c a t c h a n d e f f o r t f o r r o y a l r e d , s e a b o b , a n d r o c k s h r i m p i n t h e u . s . G u l f o f M e x i c o ( U . S . D e p t . o f C o m m e r c e , 1 9 6 3 1 9 7 6 ) . Y ea r R o y a l R e d S h r i m p S ea . B ob S hr im p " ' . . . . R o c k . S h r i m p . . C A T C H E F F O R T C A T C H E F F O R T C A T C H E F F O R T t h o u s a n d p o u n d s d a ys f is h e d I I H l i o n p o u n d s d a ys f is h e d t h o u s a n d p o u n d s d a ys f is h e d ta il s ta il s ta il s 19 63 5. 0 8. 4 1. 14 70 9. 19 64 4. 6 6. 1 .3 3 77 8 19 65 17 .0 27 .3 .7 1 79 0 19 66 23 .5 36 .5 .4 8 73 7 19 67 37 .7 88 .4 .2 1 57 5 19 68 73 .5 88 .7 .6 9 2, 42 0 19 69 27 1. 3 50 6, 2 .5 2 81 7 19 70 40 .9 65 .8 2. 13 1, 90 5 19 71 64 .1 90 .7 .3 2 34 4 .1 .4 .¡ 1. 43 1, 63 5 19 8. 5 16 7. 4 i 19 72 36 .6 34 .8 w ' 17 7. 6 19 73 23 0. 8 41 0. 3 2. 97 3, 54 8 29 9. 2 19 74 22 6. 9 50 3. 8 4. 3. 6 4, 35 0 60 .9 58 .4 19 75 11 2. 6 22 9. 7 4. 58 4, 58 0 67 3. 9 46 3. 1 19 76 16 4. 2 38 2. 1 .7 4 1, 64 1 8 8 0 . a 9 8 1 . 5 1 D a y s f i s h e d f o r s e a b o b a n d r o c k s h r i m p ( 1 9 6 3 1 9 7 5 ) w a s c a l c u l a t e d b y a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e f i s h i n g e f f o r t f o r a g i v e n t r i p w a s p r o p o r t i o n e d d i r e c t l y a s t h e w e i g h t o f t h e v a r i o u s s p e c i e s c a u g h t a n d l a n d e d . I n t e r v i e w e d d a y s f i s h e d e s t i m a t e s w e r e c o n v e r t e d t o t o t a l d a y s f i s h e d e s t i m a t e s b y u s i n g t h e r a t i o o f i n t e r v i e w e d d a y s f i s h e d t o i n t e r v i e w e d t r i p s o n a n a n n u a l b a s i s f o r r o y a l r e d , s e a b o b , a n d r o c k s h r i m p , 1 9 6 3 1 9 7 5 . E s t i m a t e s o f 1 9 7 6 d a y s f i s h e d f o r e a c h s p e c i e s w e r e t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m N M F S e s t i m a t e s o n t h e G u l f C o a s t S h r i m p D a t a t a p e s . T a b le 4 .7 4 C o m p a r i a o n o f p o i n t e a t i m a t e a o f H S Y 8 e n e r a t e d b y f l t t l n 8 1 v a r l o u f o r = o f t h e e s p m o d e i 2 t o t h e r e p o r t e d c o m m e r c i a l c e t c h d a t e f o r r o y a l r e d , . e . b o b , a n d r o c k . h r i m p a . r e p o r t e d l n T . b l e S pe cl eo H od el E qu at lo n P re di ct ed R e o l d u a l S U 1 o f S q u a r e . P re dl ct ed P re di ct ed H S Y f o pc t h o u u n d p o u n d . d a y. f lo h e d ta U . 65 0 42 40 4H 16 96 )9 2 12 90 35 2 10 20 . . . . U U R o y a l R e d S h r lm p e s p , . . 0 . 5 . . 1 . 5 . 2 . 0 . ) . 0 S e o B o b S hr im p e s p , . 0 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 0 + : i W 00 m ) . 0 R oc k S h r l a a p e s p , . 0 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 0 . ) . 0 T . 7 0 4 8 E ( 1 . 0 7 2 ) + . 0 0 0 2 5 2 9 ~ ) 2 T . 6 0 6 ) E ( . 9 9 7 4 . 0 0 0 1 9 6 0 E ) 2 Y . 6 0 6 8 E . 0 0 0 2 ) 4 7 E 2 Y . 1 9 7 6 E ( 9 . 1 5 0 . 0 0 5 9 8 E ) . 5 35 47 35 77 35 88 )6 1) Y 1 . 1 8 2 E ( . 2 6 0 4 + . 0 0 0 9 6 9 E ) 2 Y 0 . 0 0 2 5 ) 8 E ( 5 . 0 8 6 . 0 1 6 0 0 E ) 2 T . 5 0 7 7 E + . 0 0 0 1 0 ) 9 E 2 .. ( n o p o i n t . p r o d u c e d & v a l i d a u . o t s q u a r e . ) Y . 6 4 6 5 E ( . 6 9 0 9 + . 0 0 0 1 5 2 8 E ) 2 Y . 2 0 5 4 E ( 2 . 5 2 5 . 0 0 0 4 2 1 4 E ) 2 Y 1 . 2 9 7 E . 0 0 0 ) 8 8 9 E 2 T . 2 0 8 7 E ( ) 7 . 2 4 . 0 1 8 5 ) E ) . 5 S 76 21 15 31 45 22 56 44 6 ii 62 19 97 55 97 0 10 81 16 68 55 13 1 98 5 1) )9 l I b . N L I N p r o c e d u r a 1 0 a e r r e t a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) v . . u . e d t o f i t t h e d e t e C o t h e c u r v l l i n e a r m o d a l . . A l l t h ~ e e I t e r a t l v e p r o c e d u r e a p r o v i d e d 1 0 t h e N L I N p r o a r e . v e r a u e e d . O n l y t h e o l u t l o n w i t h t h e l o v e e t r e e l d u a l a u . o f . q u a r e . 1 . p r e 8 e n t e d 1 0 t h e U ! q U 4 t l o D P r e d i c t e d " c o l u m n f o r . a c h . p . c l . . m o ~ i c o a b 1 n a t l o n . 2 E q u e r l o n )C or re ct ed 4 . 7 1 v h . r . c e t c h I n t h o u . e n d p o u n d . . n d e f f o r t 1 I n d a y a f l h e d . t o t e l . u . o f e q u e r e f o r r 0 7 e l r e d h r l ø p d e t e I e 1 1 0 9 4 9 a n d f o r r o c k h r l . . p d a t e l e 6 4 2 4 9 9 . 4 E q u e t i o n e p r e d i c t e d f o r . e a b o b . h r i . p d . t e e r e n o t t h e o r e t i c a l l , e x p e c t e d a n d d o n o t p r e d i c t a H S T . a A l t h o u l h e q u e t i o n . , I e l d . o l u t i o n . , t h e e . t l a a t e . a p p e a r . e a o l n i l e . . a n d p l o t o f c a a l d u e l . I n d l c . t a t h a t t h a e q u a t i o n a c b l a a e d . U E qu at lo n ii en er et ed ol no t th eo re ti c ii y ex pe ct ed . T ab le 4 .7 5 . C o m p a r i s o n o f s e a b o b s h r i m p c a u g h t w i t h a n d w i t h o u t o t h e r s h r i m p i n t h e U . S . G u l f o f M e x i c o ( G C S D , 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 5 ) . S e a b o b s h ri m p S e a b o b s h ri m p P e r c e n t t o t a l s e a C a t c h o f o t h e r R a t i o s e a b o b c a t c h r e p o r t e d a s c a t c h r e p o r t e d a s bo b sh ri m p ca tc h sh ri m p re po rt ed sh ri m p ca t ch n o t o c c u r r i n g o cc u rr in g w ith o c c u r r i n g w i t h o u t w i t h s e a b o b t o o t h e r , Y ea r w i t h o t h e r s h r i m p o t h e r s h r i m p o t h e r s h r i m p sh ri m p ca tc h sh ri m p c a u g h 't ( m i l l i o n p o u n d s ) ( m i l l i o n p o u n d s ) (% ) ( m i l l i o n p o u n d s ) 19 70 .0 73 2. 06 3. 4 11 .8 1: 5. 7 19 71 .0 03 0. 25 1. 3 11 .0 1: 43 .7 19 72 .0 73 1. 36 5. 1 17 .6 1: 12 .3 19 73 .7 82 2. 19 26 .3 8. 8 1: 4. 0 19 74 .7 40 3. 62 17 .0 13 .8 1 :3 .8 ~ 19 75 .3 44 4. 24 7. 5 19 .2 1: 4. 5 i w 1. T a b l e 4 . 7 6 C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e c a t c h o f r o c k s h r i m p c a u g h t w i t h a n d w i t h o u t o t h e r s p e c i e s o f s h r i m p i n t h e U . S . G u l f o f M e x i c o ( G C S D , 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 5 ) . R o c k s h r i m p c a t c h R o c k s h r i m p c a t c h P e r c e n t t o t a l r o c k C a t c h o f ot he r r e p o r t e d a s n o t r e p o r t e d a s sh ri m p ca tc h sh ri m p re po rt ed R a t i o r o c k sh ri m p o cc u rr in g \ Ji th o c c u r r i n g w i t h o c c u r r i n g w i t h o u t w i t h r o c k c a t c h t o o t h e r , Y ea r o t h e r s h r i m p o t h e r s h r i m p o t h e r s h r i m p sh ri m p ca tc h s h r i m p c a u g h t (" po un ds ) (p ou nd s) (% ) (p ou nd s) 19 71 0 11 3 0 25 3 1 : 2 .2 19 72 3, 03 9 19 5, 46 1 1. 5 34 9, 30 5 1: 1. 8 19 73 2, 91 5 17 4, 73 4 1. 6 65 1, 46 9 1: 3. 7 19 74 7, 81 3 5~ , 0 64 12 .8 27 0, 29 3 1: 4. 4 19 75 11 ,1 99 66 2, 72 3 1 . 7 82 8, 14 9 1: 1. 2 T a b l . 4 . 7 ' 7 l a t i m a t . i o f i n n u a l r . c r . i t i o n a l i h r i m p c i t c h b y ~ t e r i i i a o c i l t e d ~ i t h t h e f i v e i u l f i t l t . i . S t. t. le po rt ed e .t lm at i o f i n o u a l c o m m e r c l i l r i c r e i t l o n a l i h r i m p A i. um pt io na m ad e to co nv er t re po rt ed e at 1m t. 1 t o i p e c l e i c i t c h I n ht 1m at ed E it 1m te d la t1 Jt ed in nu al an nu al a nn ud br ow n .h r 1n p ~ h i t i i h r t a p p i n k i h r l m p T ho u. an d T ho ui in d T ho ui in d po un d i o f td h po un di o f ta I h po un d i o f td h y 12 5 37 94 16 1. 32 9 7, 66 2 43 1 13 4 T ho ui in d p o u n d i o f t d h (h ea di o n) F lo r id a A la ba m al v 2 5 1 J 4 6 A . i u m e c i t c h i i 7 8 1 , b r a v o 6 i h r i m p i n d 2 2 1 w h i t i I h r L m p m U lu ip P i2 11 5 t 9 A i i u m . c a t c h I i 8 6 % b r a v o 6 i h r i m p a n d 1 4 1 w h i t a I h r 1 n p .¡ I .¡ a L ou hl an a3 23 ,6 00 A i i u m . c a t c h i i 5 0 1 b r a v o 6 ih r im p an d 50 1 w hi t. a hr im p T a. .a 4 9 0 1 1 1 1 8 A i i u m i c a t c h I i 7 1 1 b r o w n 6 i h r l m p a n d 2 3 1 w h i t i i h r i m p l'\ ... a. . 2 A v . . i . . 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 4 ( S w i o , l l I t a l . 1 9 7 6 ) . 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 5 ( W a a v i r i n d C h r i l t m a i n . d . ) . 3 1 9 7 3 u t i m a t . ( U . S . A . . , . C a r p i o f l n i i n u u n . d . ) . 4 1 9 7 3 I l t i m a t l ( K i n i 1 9 7 5 ) . 5 M o d a t a i v i l l a b l e . 6 C o m p u t e d f r o m r a t i o o f a n n u a l a . e r i i e r e p o r t e d ( o ~ e r ( i a l c i t c h o f b r a v o a h r i m p t o w h i t a . h r i m p f r o a t h e a r e i . T a b l e 4 . 1 8 t : a e t m a c u o f a n n u a l c o e c c t a l b a t t a h r i l a " c a t c h b y w a e e c a . . a o e l a t e d w t t h e h e f i v e g u l f a c a e a o . S ca ea R ep or ea d ea c 11 ce o f an nu al co e cc 1 .l b a lt a h r 1 a p c a t c h A aa ul ap el on a m ad e to co nv er t re po rt ed e at 1 1t ea t o . p . c l . a c a t c h l n t . U w d a h t ht im at ed .n n. .1 br ow n ah rt la p cd ch E a t 1. . t c d an nu ai pl nk .h rl la p ca tc h he lm at ed . n nu a i w hl ee ah rl la p ca tc h F lo r id e 1 4 . 7 5 t 9 . S la U U on .h rl la pl l , S 4 4 , 0 0 0 . h r l i o 2 , p l u a 2 2 , 0 0 0 p o u n d . . h r 1 a p A t. be .. H l u l u l p p 1 4 J , 4 0 1 p o u n d . . h r l l a p J .p I .p I L ou h h. . l,S 2 9 ,O O O p o u n d . a h r ila p 4 le ... 2, J 40 , 0 00 p ou nd a a h r ila p S i S T l H A T f O T O T A L T ho uu nd po un d a of e c1 h T ho uu nd p o u n d e o f t e U a T bo uu nd p o u n d e o f t e l l a A a . u . . . 1 1 ¡ h r 1 a p e r a p i n k a h r 1 8 p a n d 6 8 t e l 1 e p e r p o u n d 1, 09 9 A , . u l a e e l l . h r 1 a p e r e 6 8 t e l l . p e r p o u n d . A a a u l a e c e t c h i a 7 8 1 b r o w e n d 2 2 1 w h l t e a h r 1 a p 6 28 8 ah ra p A .a u la e c e tc h ia 8 6 1 b ra vo a h rl la p a n d 1 4 1 v h le e a h rt la p 6 U 4 41 S 49 6 l, U 9 J4 9 A . . u l a e c e e c h l a S O L l r a v n a h r l . p a n d 5 0 1 v h l t e a h r i m p A a a u l a e c a e c h l a 1 1 1 p r a w n a h r t l O p a n d 2 JI w h te e a h rl .. p o l, 64 S 85 1 1, 09 9 lA ve ra .a 1 9 6 9 1 9 1 S , C h rt a e .. a e n d E tio 1 d ( 1 9 1 1 ). 2 E a t 1 8 t e f a r e h a 1 9 6 8 p e r l o d , f r o m S w l n i 1 e ( 1 9 7 2 ) . J E 8 t 1 8 a t . f o r 1 9 7 1 , f r o m C h r l a e m e a e t e 1 . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 4 i . t 1 1 e e f o r 1 9 1 J , f r o . U . S . A r C o r p . o f E D . 1 D e e r a ( n . d . ) c i t l n i e m e n u a c r l p e f r o . t h e U . S . r l a h e n d W l 1 d 1 i f . S e r Y i c . . S i a e 1 1 t . f o r 1 9 1 8 f r O M O . R . r a r l e y ( N H S , p e r a o . . l c o m m n l c a t l o n 1 9 7 9 ) . 6C ou te d fr o. r ee lo o f an n. .i a v. ra ~ a ra po rt ed c o. .r cl el c ae ch o f br ov e o vh it . a hr li a fr om t he a re e. and are probably conservative for that reason. The max I mum probab Ie catches In millions of pounds of tails for the three penaeld species are: Maxi mum YI el d Cons Iderl ng Schaefer Environmental Factors Recrea Estimate (137.6%) tlonal Bait Discard Total Brown Shr I mp 85 117 8 2 5 132 Wh Ite Shr I mp 38 52 8 3 64 Pink Shrimp 14 19 20 Total 137 188 16 4 8 216 These estimates of probable maximum catch, particularly for white and pink shrimp are subject to considerable uncertainty, and are only achievable under optimum environmental conditions with high levels of effort. The'Councll will monitor data points throughout the life of the plan In order to obtain data which will allow the derivation of specific formula for species other than brown shrimp. 4.8 Estimates of Future Stock Conditions Although effort Is expected to Increase, there Is no reason to believe that recruitment over fishing will occur. Growth overflshlng could occur and decrease the total yield If effort In Inshore areas cont I nues to I ncrease. Management measures I n the p I an shou I d prevent th I s from occurrl ng and Increase yield beyond present levels. 4-42 5.0 CATCH AND CAPACITY DESCRIPTORS 5.1 Annual Capac I ty The capacity of any firm or Industry can be measured and/or expressed In both physical and econo mic terms. These expressions will usually lead to widely divergent conclusions regarding the emplrl .cal measure of capacity. Both are valid and the use of each depends upon the objectives which are to 'be sat I sf led. The d I f ferences In phys I cal and econom I c capac I ty as ap p II ed to the shr I mp fishery are discussed I n the fo I low I ng sect Ions. 5.1.1 Phys I ca I Domst I c Annual Capac I ty (DAC) The capacity of a production unit or plant such as a shrimp vessel or shrimp breading plant usually refers to an engineering Input-output ratio. For each Input level there Is a certain level of output that can be expected to be produced. In the case of a shrimp vessel, Inputs as measured through un I ts of ef fort, resu It In shr I mp be I ng caught. For a gl ven vesse I and a gl ven stock of shrimp, more shrimp will be caught with each added unit of effort until at som point, total output will decline with more effort. Maximum physical capacity occurs at the point of absolute diminishing returns for the Individual vessel. The same capacity relationship exists throughout the shrimp landing and processing system. Maximum capacity In fishery management plans Is usually estimated fór the purpose of determining the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF). A demonstrated capacity and Intent to use that capacity equal to or greater than the optimum yield estimate from the fishery Indicates that no foreign fishing would be allowed. In this plan, capacity was estimated to be the highest catch per day per vessel during a ~peclfled period, times total days fished for all vessels In the fishery. Measuring highest catch per day per vessel also provides an Indirec measure of the amount that was I anded and processed through the ent Ire product Ion and market I ng system. Domstic Annual Capacity Is considered to be the total physical capacity of the fleet and the pro cessing sector. The basic physical Indicators of the U.S. commercial Gulf fleet and Its estimated annual capacity to harvest Gulf shrimp are given In Table 5.2-1 for the 1962 to 1975 period. The number of commercial boats Increased from 1962 to 1968, declining In the early 1970's then Increased to 1968 levels In 1975. The number of commercial vessels, average gross tons, average effort Index, and total days fished by vessels and boats Increased generally over the 1962 to 1975 period. The Increases In days fished by boats and by vessels were similar over this period (Christms and Etzold, 1977, Fig. 17). In estimating the DAC of the Gulf shrimp fishery, the Intent should be to use the largest annual catch per day experienced during the 1963 to 1975 analysis period. This figure when multiplied by the number of days fished each year wlll'estlmate DAC In pounds. Note In Table 5.2-1 that the catch. per day fished In 1963 and 1967 was 731.1 and 717.7 pounds, respectively. Although the average catch per day was slightly higher In 1963, the DAC calculation was based on 1967 'for two reasons. Several eco nomic- variables ref lectlng prices and costs are Indexed .by using 1967 as the base year. Selection of 1967 as the base for the DAC calculation will facilitate wider use of the estImate. The second factor Is evIdent from vIewing the days fished column of Table 5.2-1. The record dally catch In 1963 resulted In large part from a 18 percent decrease In days fished from the previous year. An obvIous trend over the fourteen year period covered In Table 5.2-1 Is the major Increase In days fished. Rather than Ignore this trend by makIng the DAC calculation on an atypical base, the sImIlar figure experience In 1967 was utIlized. Thus, the commercial domestic annual capacity In the following years was computed by using 718 pounds per day as an estimate of Mc In Eq. 5.2-2 In the following sec tIon. The actual reported days fished In each year through 1975 were used to estimate the natIon's capacity to fish commercIally for shrimp In the U.S. Gulf during that year. These estimates are given In Table 5.2-1. 5-1 T a b le 5 .2 1 . B a a 1 c C a t c h a n d C a p a c i t y I n d 1 c a t o r a o f t h e R e p o r t e d C o m m e r c i a l U . S . G u l f F l e e t a n d E a t i m a t e a o f D o m e a t 1 c A n n u a l C a p a c 1 t y 3 t o H a r v e a t S h r i m p . N .. "C . . " "C "C .. N .c .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ., N '" .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . , C . . . . ~ i " ... . .." .. . . . . u . . : : u . t 0 . . 0" ... . 0 '" .. N ". c .. u" c D o 0 D o" '" ., . . " .. ." .. 58 . . . " . . . c . . ... . . . = .. c . . . . . " U ." .. .,: ", C "' '' .. .. = 0 . . = .. "' c ... . ... . "" .. "' . .'õ '" . . . . . . . . ... " u . . u . " . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . " . . ... . .. ... . "u .. c .. .. 0" " 0" " .. " = ' 0 0 .. 0' " 0" ... . ~ iB .. .. = u u .. .. D o U D o D o" . . U U .. ... . ... . . . 0 .. " . . . . ... . . . D o .. " .. .. .. i l . . . . .. .. ... 11 . . i . . . . .. B D o .. .. ... . 1 l = .. ~ ~ .. '5 8 ~ . . . . ' " 0 oi .. .. 0 c o .. '" z u Z u u " u M ll l1 0n T ho us an d P ou nd a H ll l1 0n H 11 11 0n T on a po un ds ds ys ~ po un da po un da P er ce nt 19 62 39 27 26 00 41 .9 1. 63 69 .9 14 6. 5 47 7. 1 19 63 44 81 26 91 41 .5 1. 61 11 0. 7 12 1. 4 73 1. 1 19 64 43 60 27 82 42 .0 1. 63 95 .9 16 9. 8 54 6. 1 19 65 41 85 28 49 42 .7 1. 6 5 10 7. 1 17 0. 4 62 8. 5 V I 19 66 47 97 29 42 44 .9 1. 67 10 3. 7 17 5. 9 58 9. 5 I N 19 61 49 83 31 46 48 .9 1. 7 4 13 0. 1 18 2. 1 11 7. 1 19 68 51 09 34 30 52 .5 1. 80 11 3. 9 1 9 1 . 5 59 4. 7 13 7. 4 23 .5 17 19 69 48 17 35 69 53 .7 1. 85 11 8. 3 20 0. 4 55 0. 3 14 3. 8 25 .5 18 19 70 44 95 35 79 53 .8 1. 85 13 6. 3 20 0. 0 6 8 1 . 5 14 3. 5 7. 2 5 19 11 48 28 34 87 57 .8 1. 89 13 4. 1 20 4. 9 65 4. 4 14 7. 0 13 .1 9 19 72 45 00 36 83 59 .2 1. 93 13 2. 1 22 8. 9 57 7. 1 16 4. 3 32 .2 20 19 73 47 23 40 91 59 .9 1. 9 3 10 4. 7 23 8. 0 53 9. 9 17 0. 8 66 .1 39 19 74 45 B 9 37 85 61 .5 1. 84 10 6. 9 22 2. 7 48 0. 0 15 9. 8 52 .9 33 19 75 50 54 37 80 64 .0 99 .5 26 6. 5 46 6. 0 1 9 1 . 3 91 .8 48 1" C rH f1 n C 19 7e '. 2 C h r 1 a t m a i a n d E t E o 1 d 1 9 1 7 . J C o m p u t e d a i D A C . E x H w h e r e D A C e q u a 1 a d o m e i t 1 c I n n u a 1 c a p a c i t y , E 1 . t h e o b a e r v e d d a y i f 1 a h e d , a n d H 1 a t h e ..x 1m u ob ie rv ed c at ch ~ er d ay f 1l he d fo r a pe ak c at ch y ea r du r1 nl t he p er io d of o ba er va ti on . c c In general, the annual U.S. capacity to harvest shrimp commercially Increased over the 1968 to 1975 period from an estimated 138 to 191 million pounds of tails annually. This Increase In Domstic Annual Capacity reflects a general Increase In the desire and physical facilities to harvest Gulf shrimp. In addition, recreational and bait shrimp catches are expected to remin at least at current levels. These levels have been estimated as 16 and four million pounds of tails, respectively. The estimated total Domstic Annual Capacity 211 mil lion pounds of tails annually, as of 1975. 240 million pounds. The DAC for royal red shrimp to harvest U.S. Gulf brown, white and pink shrimp Is Estlmated capaclty at the present tlme (1981) Is Is estimated to be 270,000 pounds. 5.1.2 Economic Capacity In general, economic capacity Is addressed from the viewpoint of the Individual firm (or vessel). However, It Is also Important to examine the economic capacity of the Industry and the Implications of these capacity levels on-societ. In extendlnQthe discussion to economic capacity, not only Is phy sical capacity Important but the rate at which the physical capacity Is utilized Is Imprtant. Four factors are Important In determlnlnQ physical capacity and the rate of capacity utilization. These are (1) prices of the Inputs employed In catching shrimp and the actual catch per unit of effort, (2) product or shrimp prices thrOUQhout the market system, (3) the available Quantities and associated prices of products that substitute for shrimp In the market and (4) physical Input constraints such as Ice, fuel, etc. The determination of economic capacitY In fisheries Is complicated by a number of factors. Fisheries are common property resources and the prob lem of open access with no charge for the raw fish (or shrimp) Input Into the production process a'iong with the fact that one person's action or entrance Into the fishery affects the production of other producers and causes unrealized costs on them compli cates the capacity Question (see Section 3.5.2.3). The fact that shrimp boats can be to a limited degree converted and used for other f I sheri es on a seasonal bas Is means that the same vessel or pro duction unit can have excess economic capacity for one fishery and limited capacity for another. Seasonal gluts and fishing patterns may strain the capacity of dockside facilities and In fisheries there may be "good" and "bad" product Ion years due to external factors such as the envl ronment wh Ich makes the estimation of economic capacity difficult. The rational optimum economic capacity of the firm must be determined subject to both short run and long run considerations. In the short run, the vessel owner tries to maximize net profit for the given vessel. Only In the long run Is the owner afforded the opportunity to try to change vessel size and design to take advantage of economies of scale and thereby change the net profit situation. The rational firm's optimum economic capacity level of output Is that point where the marginal revenue (addition to total revenue) for each new unit of effort Is just equal to the marginal cost (addition to total cost) of that unit of effort. If the cost of an added effort unit Is greater than the added revenue produced by that unit, the vessel will reduce effort until marginal revenue equals mergl~al cost. This Is the optimum economic capacity of the firm. Marginal -revenue for each unit of effort Is affected by both the price ~f shrimp and the. addl~ tlonal shrimp caught for each added unit of effort. Shrimp prices affect the long run Industry capa city In terms of Investmnt In vessels and equipment and price also affects the rate of utilization of existing vessels. Additional units of shrimp caught are affected by the available stock of shrimp and the number of vessels seeking to harvest from that stock. The catch per unit of effort for a vessel decreases as each additional unit of effort Is applied and the catch per unit of effort Is also affected as more vessels enter the fishery. Additional vessels enterlnQ the fishery cause existing vessels as well as the new vessels to fish harder (more effort) to maintain the same level of catch as before. 5-3 Marginal cost or the cost of each added unit of effort Is affected by the cost of Inputs such as Ice and fuel. However, since there Is no charge or "cost" on the raw shrimp as an Input Into the pro duction process, their cost does not change as they become more scarce due to the added etfort of more vessels. A real cost Is not felt but the entrance of new vessels puts a'n unrealized cost on others by effectively making their cost per unit of effort higher: more vessels means each vessel catches fewer shrimp at the same cost or Incurs higher costs for the same level of catch. External factors also affect the economic capacity of the firm through the effect of these fac tors on marginal revenue and marginal cost. The price of shrimp Is affected by consumer demand which In turn Is affected by the price of substitute products and Incom. Imports also affect the price of domstIcally caught shrimp. The stock of shrimp, and hence the amount caught for each unit of effort, Is affected by the environmntal factors affecting shrimp growth, mortality and availability. The cost of Inputs faced by shrimp producers Is also affected by the demand by other Industries competing for these same factors of product Ion. Economic capacity of a fishery Industry (rather than Individual firms) can also be examined from the viewpoint of society. This approach estimates a return to al i resources employed In the fishery and determines the most efficient allocation of these resources from society's viewpoinT. This level of Input use Is usually called the maximum economic yield level of effort. In an open access fishery (see Section 3.5.2.3) fishing effort usually Is beyond that level of optimum economic capacity from the standpoint of maxImum economic yield. This level of effort generates economic rent that accrues to the producing sector unless taxed away and returned to society. In summry, physical capacity .Is the maximum amount of shrimp that the Industry can catch, pro cess, and market. Economic capacity Is determined by physical capacity, shrimp price plus total cost of product Ion. 5.2 Data and Analytical Approach Catch (Y) can be vi ewed as Y = fCP) .E EQ. 5.2-1 where f Is the catchability coefficient; P, the population density and E, the fishing effort. The population density will depend In large part upon prevalent environmental conditions. The expected fIshing effort will be- the summation of physical and economic parameters limiting fishing effort, as well as physical and economic parameters limiting the landing, storage, and consumption of shrlmp.~' Domstic annual capacity (DAC) can be def Ined as DAC = E x M c EQ. 5.2-2 where E Is annual days fished and Mc Is the average maximum catch per day fished that could be . harvested,. landed', procesed, and later consumed, for that. annual period of fishing effort. In estimating the DAC of the Gulf shrimp fishery, the largest annual catch per day (during a peak year) for the 1963 to 1975 period and the actual number of days fished In each year was use. After 1975 the annual number of days fished (E) was estimated by a linear regression of days fished on year for 1968-1975. E=(-17958.6) + 9.22 (year) r2 = .81 5-4 The shrimp catch of the Gulf vessel fleet In any year can be expressed by the following Identity: Yv = V (Dv/V) (E/Dv) (Yv/E) EQ. 5.2-3 where Yv Indicates the pounds caught by vessels, V represents the number of vessels, Dv Is the total number of days fished by the vessel fleet, and E Is total fishing effort of the vessel fleet. Similarly, the shrimp catch by Gulf boats In any year can be expressed as Yb = B (Db/B) (E/Db) (Yb/Db) EQ. 5.2-4 where Yb represents the pounds landed by boats, B the number of boats, and Db the number of days fished by all shrimp boats. 5.3 Expected DomstIc Annual Harvest (DAH) The DomstIc Annual Harvest Is the record and projections of actual shrImp harvest. 5.3.1 Expeced DAH for the Combined Species DAH was estimated from trends In the reported commercial harvest and from point estImates derived for recreational, bait, and dIscarded catches. Trends In commercial harvest and effort were examl~ed by boat data and vessel data separately. . The number of commercl al vessels (V) have had statistIcally significant lInear relatlonsh Ips and the unit effort per day fished (E/Dv) of these vessels I ncreases from 1962 to 1974 that are repr esented by the V= 2461 + 117 YR (R2 = .93) E/Dv = 1.57 + .029 YR (R2 = .86) EQ. 5.3-1 EQ. 5.3-2 where YR I s the ca lendar year ml nus 1961. The catch and effort statIstics for commercial vessels are listed In Table 5.3-1. Although sta tistically signIficant linear Increases In number of vessels and effort per day fished existed for the period, no significant trend was found In days fished per vessel (Dv/V) or catch per unit of fishIng ef fort (Yv/E). Rather these seem to have exh I b I ted averages of 38.1 days f I shed per vesse i, and 367.1 pounds (tails) per unit effort. The conclusion that catch per unit of fishing effort showed no sIgnificant trend during the period nees per.lodlc reassessment. Choice of the base period Is obviously Important. BasIng the calculation In 1967 when the number of vessels was shOwIng a major trend upward when combIned wIth the major Increase In effeCtIve effort per day fished would likely lead to a different conclusIon. Since 1974 the number of vessels has Increased along wIth average vessel tonnage. The ImplIcation Is that when comparable data for the post 1974 period are available, these calculations should be repeated. The practice of calculatIng DAH wIth equations Including calendar years as variables (see 5.3-1 and 5.3-2) needs Improvement. Though a high R2 Is obtained It must be recognized that use of the equations Ignores arguments made In the biological sections of the plan. That Is, production In a 5-5 T ab le 5 .3 1 . P a r a m e t e r s u s e d t o e s t i m a t e e x p e c t é d d o m e s t i c a n n u a l h a r v e s t f o r t h e r e p o r t e d c o m m e r c i a l s h r i m p f i s h e r y . uu I 0\ V E S S E L Y E A R C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S B O A T S nu m be r1 2 . i 3 3 nu m be r1 2 p o u n d s p e r3 da ys f is he d r a t i o u n t po un ds da ys f is he d o f v e s s e l s p e r v e s s e l e ff o rt t o . p e r u n it of bo at s p e r b o a t d a ys f is h e d , d a ys f is h e d ef fo rt i 62 26 00 34 .0 1. 63 31 5 39 27 14 .8 43 4 63 26 97 41 .9 1. 61 42 3 44 81 8. 6 86 5 64 27 82 41 .1 1. 63 38 1 43 60 12 .7 42 4 65 28 49 39 .9 1. 65 42 7 47 85 11 .8 45 0 66 29 42 38 .6 1. 67 41 1 47 97 13 .0 39 5 67 31 46 36 .9 1. 7 4 49 4 49 83 13 .3 46 3 68 34 30 35 .4 1. 80 38 3 51 09 13 .7 42 7 69 35 69 41 .8 . 1. 85 30 1 48 17 10 .9 67 5 70 35 79 37 .6 1. 85 38 6 44 95 14 .5 61 3 71 34 87 39 .3 1. 89 35 2 48 28 14 .1 62 6 72 36 83 39 .9 1. 93 33 3 45 00 18 .2 45 9 73 40 91 34 .2 1. 93 26 3 47 23 20 .7 34 3 74 37 85 35 .0 1 .8 4 . 30 3 45 89 19 .7 36 3 1 F r o m T a b l e 3 . 5 8 . 2 D a t a o n d a y s f i s h e d f r o m T a b l e 3 . 5 7 . 3 F ro m C h ri st m a s a n d E tz o 1 d ( 1 9 7 7 ). ~'. year Is not dependent on catch, production, or mature shrimp In the previous year. The weakness of using the equations to predict DAH for 1980 and 1981 Is evident from viewing the 1980 prediction (139 million pounds) and 1981 prediction (144 ml I lion pounds) In relation to historical vessel landings. Catch and boat fleet has per day f I shed pounds per day 1974). days fished statistics for commercial boats are listed In Table 5.3-1. The commercial not exhibIted statistIcally signifIcant linear trends In number of boats (B) or catch (Yb/Db). The averages over the 1962 to 1974 period have been 4,645 boats and 503 fished. The number of days fished per boat (DblB) has Increased significantly (1962 to DblB = 9.72 + .66 (Time) (R2 = .55) Eq. 5.3-3 The expected commercial boat catch In 1981 Is estImated (by substitutIng the estimated values for B, Yb/Db, and DblB Into Eq. 5.1-4) to be 54 mIllion pounds of tails. The expected reported commercIal catch for 1981 Is 198 million pounds. Bait and recreatIonal catches are not expected to decline from 1963 to 1967 levels. A conservatIve estImate of expected recreatIonal catch Is 16 mIllion pounds (taIls) and four million pounds (tails) for the expected baIt shrimp. The total expeced domstic catch Is 218 mIllion pounds. These estimates of expected harvest must be vIewed with consIderable caution because of lImita tIons Inherent In the formulas or model being used. The periods for which catch Is estimated are six or more years beyond the lImits of the avaf"lable data series. Such a large tIme extensIon Increases the risk that the observed trends may change. The model assumes constant CPUE and Increases In catch with I ncreas I ng ef fort. Catch per un I t ef fort was assumed constant because the trend between 1962 and 1974 was not statistically sIgnIfIcant. However, the data does Indicate a downward trend as effort has Increased. Because the catch Is approachIng the maximum available In a given year, further Increases In effort must, Inherently, decrease CPUE. When the data becoms available, the estImate of expected harvest may be reduced -If CPUE Is declInIng. The Council wIll closely monitor the fIshery to estab II sh the rell ablil ty of these estImates. 5.3.2 Expected DAH of Royal Red ShrImp Royal red shrimp deserve specIal attentIon because these deep-water shrImp were subject to a direced fishery. AvaIlable data IndIcated they were undereKplolted. In this case annual catch was regresse against year by sImple linear regression. The relationshIp ImplIes that as tIme progresses, catch will Increase. This has som validIty In that o catch has tended to Increase with time (1963-1976); o the major shrImp resources of the Gulf are being harvested at levels approximating MSY; and o there has been a ,general Increase In effort In the U.S. Gulf shrImp fIshery despite the fact that the major stocks are be I ng harvested at leve i s approxl mat I ng MSY. A sImple i I near Increase Is not expected to continue as catch of this lImited resource approaches Its MSY. The relationshIp derIved Is DAH of royal red shrimp = -890 + 14.2 (year) Eq. 5.3-4 2 = .41, H.S.) (R 5-7 where year Is In the form 63, 64, etc. The expected domestlc annual harvest of royal red shrlmp Is 260,000 pounds. EQ. 5.3-4 Is considered a crude estimator and should be reevaluated as new data are available. 5.4 Domestic Annual Processing Capacity (DAP) Cato (1975) reported that 1970 shrimp landings In Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida represented 97, 84, 76, 57, and 35 percent respectively of the raw shrimp processed In each state. There have been no subsequent studies to Identify more recent conditions. If similar figures apply after 1970, then the capacity to process domestic landings exceeds domestic landings. The deficit Is overcome with shrimp Imported from other states and foreign nations. A 1972 (Alvarez) survey of fifteen Florida shrimp processors who accounted for 85 percent of the state's production revealed that the Industry was utilizing only 55 percent of total plant capacity. This poor utilization of plant capacity occurred despite the use of significant Imports from other states and countries. On the average, firms In the "sma i i" class used more of their capacity than did firms In the "medium" and "large" classes. The same relationship held true between the "medium" class and the "large" class. A shortage of raw shrimp for processIng was responsible for the excess capa city. Prochaska and Andrew (1974) point out that the entire southeast Is deficient In raw shrimp supplies In comparison with processing capacity. A detailed analysis of the situation In Florida reveals that shortages of raw shrimp result In an Increasing share of processed shrimp being produc~ by a few firms. Wh "e exces s capac I ty Is fr eq uent i y i eads to the conc i us Ion that Gu i f shr I mp domestIc landings. found In an Industry, the available Information here clearly processing capacity Is far In excess of the region's The Florida studies adequately addressed shrimp processing functions similar to those In most Gulf states. However, the absence of Information on shrimp canning operatIons means that the results cannot completely describe the major Gulf shrimp canning Industry. Capacity measures for the canning Industry located In Louisiana and Mississippi were developed from key machinery capacities and a specified number of operating days per year; the production year was based on 147 operating days during the approximate 180 days of the Inshore seasons. Average dally plant capacity was estimated to be 4,400 standard cases containing 24 cans, each four and one-half ounces. When these figures are applied to the 14 shrimp canners reporting production In 1978, a maximum capacity of 9,055,20 standard cases Is derived. In the three most recent years Gulf shrimp canners produced 1,618,322 (1976), 2,104,625 (1977), and 1,464,722 (1978) standard cases (U.S. Department of Commerce 1979). Excess capacIty In shrImp canning operations exists for a number of reasons, among which are the necessity of designing plants to handle peak volumes of fresh shrimp, recent high ex-vessel prIces, and cash-flow problems related to the difficulty of financing Inventories. 5.5 Additions to DAH to Account for Joint Ventures The domestIc market for shrimp and shrimp products has been sufficiently strong historically to attract significant Quantities of Imported shrimp. The economic cJlmate has been such that no Incentive exists for the transfer at sea of U.S. shrimp caught In the FCZ to flag vessels of other nations. In fact, domestlcall.y based shrimpers have sought harvesting arrangements In foreign waters to secure Increased supplies of shrimp. The catch by U.S. flag vessels off Central and South America was reported to be 14 million pounds annually worth about $18 million (G.A.O., 1976). However, there Is Information available which Indicates that the practice as relates to Mexican waters decreased sign I f I cant i y between 1962 and 1974 (Gr Iff i n, 1976). 5-8 I The shrlmplng activities of foreign nations In the FCZ have been Quite limited. From 1971 to 1975 harvest by Cuba and Mexico In the FCZ averaged slightly more than one million pounds (G.A.O., 1976). Thus, there has been little spatial Interaction In the FCZ between major shrimp harvesting nations on which a transfer business could be based. The lack of historical occurrence of the transfer of shrimp to foreign vessels and a domestic market strong enough to attract approximately 50 percent (Sec. 3.5.1.3) of domestic needs from Imported shr I mp lead to the conc i us I on thar trans fers are un II ke I y to occur. The market cond I t Ions are such that this conclusion should have merit over the next five years. While this conclusion relates to shrimp It Is possible that the transfer of Incidental catch could be arranged. The domestic market condition for the bulk of the Incidental catch Is essentially the antithesis of that for shrimp. Transfer of some or ai' of the Incidental catch of cooerating vessels to foreign vessels may become an avenue to Improve the utilization of Incidental catch. 5-9 6.0 OPTIMUM YIELD A program of Improved management as speclfl.ed In this plan Is expected to Increase the yield from the fishery which Is not operating at optimum harvest levels. Basic factors limiting the attainment of optimum harvest Include: 1) Conflict between user groups as to area and size of shrimp to be harvested. 2) Discarding of shrimp through the wasteful process of culling. 3) Continuing decline In Quality and Quantity of estuarine habitat. 4 ) Lack of comprehensive, coordinated, and easily ascertainable management authorities over shrimp resources throughout their ranges. 5) Conflicts with other fisheries such as the stone crab fishery In southern Florida, groundflsh fishery In the north central Gulf, and the Gulf's reef fish fishery. 6) I ncldental capture of sea turtles. 7) Loss of gear and traw I I ng grounds due to man-made underwater obstruct Ions. 8) Partial lack of the basic data needed for management. Specific objectives and measures to alleviate these problem$ and to attain OY levels are suggested In Section 8.0. None of these measures are likely to result In a reduction In present levels; some are likely to Increase yield In a manner consistent with the National Standards for Fishery Conservat Ion and Management. catch 6.1 Determination of Optimum Yield (OY) Optimum yield Is defined as "the amount of fish (A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities; and (B) which Is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yIeld from such fishery, as mod I fled by any rei evant econom I c, socl a I, or eco i og I ca i factor." It Is the Intent of this plan In conformance with the first of the national standards to prevent overflshlng while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield. The shrimp fishery, however, Is unique for several reasons. Most shrimp harvested are about six months old, and few survive beyond a year. They are prolific spawners, and the Quantity of one year's brood stock.has no apparent rela tIonship to the abundance of the next year's population. Natural environmental forces have a dramatic and overriding effect on the annual yields of brown, white, and pink shrimp (Section 4.1). Because of their great fluctuation and the high spawning ability of shrimp, a predetermined classical MSY Is not a good Indicator to use In determining If overflshlng will occur. For example, the classical MSY levels were exceeded In four years from 1966 to 1975, years of favorable environmental conditions. For these species of shrimp the optimum yield essentially Is all of the shrimp that can be harvested from the stock given certain management conditions. Recruitment overf Ishlng has not and 6-1 will not occur with the use of present technology and fishing Sect Ion 8 are I ntended to prevent growth overf I sh I ng where It higher yield from a same level of recruitment. gear. Management measures proposed In may presently occur, thus achieving a For the purpose of favorable environmental s I dered to be a ce III ng th I s plan OY shou i d be regarded as a goa I to be ach I eyed and exceeded under conditions without fear of damage to future stocks. It should not be con above wh I ch recru I tment overf Ish I ng occurs. 6.2 Specification of Optimum Yield In deriving OY from MSY as adjusted by environmental conditions, the Councl i paid close attention to the following criteria: 1. Provide each associated processing Industry with the count size of the shrimp resource most suited to the several needs. 2. Prevent discrimination among fishermen based on boat/vessel size. 3. Eliminate conditions wherein boat/vessels would shrimp In the FCZ and claim the landings came from the territorial sea for Inland waters and vice versa, depending on location of open and/or closed waters. 4. Protect the resource during specific periods to Improve yield. 6.2.1 Shrimp Other Than Royal Red Shrimp ,OY Is determlned to be: All the shrimp that can be taken during open seasons In permissible areas In a given fishing year with existing gear and technology. The Council has determined that, because of the annual nature of the resource, a numerical value for OY cannot be calculated for any given year until the environmental factors can be determined and evaluated. However, under optimum environmental conditions and maximum effort, the maximum probable catch for brown, white and pink shrimp Is estimated to be 216 million pounds of tails. Fishing, however, will not be stopped when this numerIcal estimate Is reached. The Council has also determined that adjustments to OY need nOt be made yearly as economic, biological, and technological factors prevent the taking of sufficient shrimp during a single year to harm the next year's resource size. The Council will monitor closely the appropriate factors of the management regime established by the plan and, In particular, the environmental factors surrounding the determination of MSY. Should conditions warrant, the' Council will provide the Information to the Secretary of Commerce and a new MSY/OY relationship will be established through rule making. 6.2.2 Royal Red Shrimp Royal red shrimp differ from brown, white, and pink shrimp In that they are not estuarine dependent but exist In a relatively constant environment In the deeper waters of the Gulf (100 to 300 fathoms). They are not an annua I crop but are harvested from grounds be II eved to conta I n at i east five year classes. Thus, they conform more cloSely to a classical SChaefer-type fishery. For this reason, the optimum yield of royal red shrimp should be the total pounds of royal red shrimp which can be harvested without biologically overflshlng this resource. An estimate of the allowable catch Is 392,000 pounds (tails). These figures should be reassessed as new annual catch-effort data become available. OY Is set at this figure and fishing will stop when It Is reached. 6-2 6.3 Alternatives to Optimum Yield Considered and Rejected 6.3.1 Optimum Yield for Brown, White, and Pink Shrimp to be Set at MSY Setting OY for these three species at MSY or 165 million pounds of tails annually would have reduced the 1977 catch by 27 million pounds. Because this fishery can support a yield of all that can be harvested with present gear and technology, setting a lower level of harvest would result In a wasted resource In an annual crop. The loss of 27 million pounds of shrimp at 1976 wholesale prices would have resulted In a loss of $75.3 million to the Industry. No benefit from stockpiled shrimp nor an Increased number of recruits the following season would result from taking less than Is available. 6.3.2 Flshlng to Stop When Optlmum Yleld Is Reached for Brown, Whlte, and Plnk Shrimp The Intent of the first National Standard Is to achieve OY while preventing overflshlng the stocks. If the stocks cannot be overflshed, any reduction of catch from the available, harvestable stock Is a direct loss to the fishing Industry. 6.3.3 Optimum Yield for Royal Red Shrimp to be Set Above MSY The fishery for royal red shrimp differs substantially from that for brown, white and pink shrimp. It Is composed of a slower growing species with up to five year classes In the catch. Is known about the population dynamics of royal red shrimp, and recruitmnt overflshlng may be possible. The establishment of OY above MSY could result In overflshlng and stock damage. Little 6.3.4 Optimum Yield for Royal Red Shrimp to be Set at MSY With Fishing to be Permitted to Exceed OY Exceeding the catch of OY equal to MSY (as In alternative 6.3.3) could result In biological over fishing. This alternative was rejected for a more conservative approach In an area of limited data. 6.3.5 Optimum Yield for Royal Red Shrimp to be Set Below MSY This alternative for a multiyear class fishery would have the Royal red shrimp have, however, been fished well below MSY and may utilized resource. No rebuilding Is necessary at this time. result of rebuilding the stock. be cons Idered to be an under 6.3.6 Optimum Yield Set at Higher Estimate of ABC An expected range of the seasonally determined estimates for Acceptable Biological Catch when the upper range of variation In catch data was considered as an ABC for each fishery; the following ranges were proposed: brown shrlmp--51 to 107 million pounds of tails annually. white shrlmp--37 to 59 million pounds of tails annually. pink shrlmp--11 to 16 million pounds of tails annually. The Council considered determining that OY for these species should be at the upper level of the expected ABC ranges: brown shrlmp--107 million pounds of tails annually. white shrlmp--59 million pounds of tails annually. 6-3 (-- -~ pink shrlmp--16 million pounds of tails annually. for a total of 182 million pounds of tails annually. This option was rejected for two reasons. It was based only on past recorded landings with little basis In the biology of the stocks. This OY can be and has been (1977, 1978) exceeded when environmental conditions are favorable and effort Is high. There Is no evidence that exceeding this OY option had an adverse Impact on recruitment In subsequent years. 6~ 7.0 TOTAL ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF FORE I GN FISH I NG (TALFF) 7.1 Brown, White, and Pink Shrimp There Is no surplus available for a TALFF In the fisheries for brown, white, and pink shrimp. Domestic Annual Harvesting Capacity for brown, white and pink shrimp Is estimated to be 234 million pounds In 1980 and 240 million pounds In 1981. Expected Domestic Annual Harvest for 1980 and 1981 Is estimated at 211 and 218 million pounds of tails; OY Is designated to be all the shrimp that can be harvested In allowable times and àreas under present conditions. Major stocks are currently being harvested at optimum yield levels by the U.S. shrimp fleet. 7.2 Royal Red Shrimp It Is generally believed that royal red shrimp are not being harvested at their OY level of 392,000 pounds of tails annually. Annual reported commercial catch has never exceeded 270,000 pounds of tails (1963-1975); expected domestic harvest for 1980 and 1981 are 246,000 and 260,000 pounds of tails. A foreign TALFF of some 146,000 pounds In 1980 and 132,000 pounds In 1981 Is, therefore, estimated to be available. Catch trends should be relnvestlgated, however, as new data becom available. Further domestic development of this fishery Is exl sts and the specl a II zed gear req ul red to fish It, product during processing. hampered by thè great depth at wh Ich the resource high production costs, and shrinkage of the 7.3 Seabob and Rock Shr I mp Data ava II ab Ie on seabob and rock shr I mp I nd I cate that o they are caught Incidentally to other shrlmp--seabob shrimp mainly with white shrimp and rock shrimp with pink shrimp; o they are not being harvested at MSY levels (1963-1976); o the catch has Increased markedly In recent years (1971-1976). Seabobs and rock shrimp are caught Incidentally with white and pink shrimp respectively. There Is no surplus of white and pink shrimp from the domestic fishery available for foreign fishing. Therefore, In order to prevent foreign harvest of nonsurplus species, no TALFF for seabobs or rock shrImp Is provided. 7-1 ( 8.0 MANAGEMENT REGIME 8.1 Areas and Stocks I nvo I ved The fishery being addressed Is comprised of the species listed below and occurs In the area of jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council as well as In the territorial seas adjacent thereto and the associated bays, Inlets, wetlands, and upland areas as appropriate: Brown shr I mp (Penaeus aztecus I ves) White shrimp (Penaeus setlferus Llnnaeus) PI nk shr I mp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) Royal red shrimp (Hymenopenaeus robustus Smith) Seabobs (Xlphopeneus kroyerl Heller) Incidental Rock shrimp (Slcyonla brevlrostrls Stlmpton) Incidental bycatch bycatch The Council recogn I zes that the stock and the fishery extend across po II tlca I and International boundaries. While It Is the Intent to manage the stock as a unit, the authority of the Council Is restricted to the development of plans and prpposal of management measures In the United States' FCZ I n the Gu I f of Mex I co. An arrangement for joint management of common stocks with Mexico would require a bilateral agreement. Negotiations with Mexico to renew the U.S./Mexlco bilateral are underway; however, a mechan I sm for jol nt management does not seem II kel y for the near future. With the present lack of . such an International management mechanism this plan addresses only the stock In U.S. waters and makes the assumption that shrimp movement across the border flows equally In both direcions. 8.2 Management Unit and 'Perlod 8.2.1 Management Un It This management unit Is comprised of brown, white, pink, royal red, seabobs and rock shrimps In the area of Jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council as well as the territorial seas adjacent thereto and the associated bays, Inlets, wetlands and upland areas as appropriate. Federal Implementation of regulations will occur only In the FCZ. On the east coast of the United States a natural biological break In fauna Is found on the southeast coast of Florida. On the western edge the InternatIonal boundary between MexIco and the U.S. serves as a political break. 8.2.2 Management Per lod The Council has specl fled that the management year for a II specl es except roya i red shou I d beg In May 1 and extend through April 30 annually. The beginning of the period coincides with a time of low harvest In all of the major species of the management unit. The fishery year for royal red shrimp will be the calendar year because of the TALFF associated with the fishery. 8.3 Problems In the Fishery The Council has Identified the following problems management reg I me and has prepared the p i an obj ect I ves access fishery a management regime to maximize protein of Importance. . associated with the fishery and the present to address and allevl ate them. In a free yield and economic return of the fisherman Is 1) Conflict among user groups as to area and size at which shrimp are to be harvested. 8-1 2) Discard of shrimp through the wasteful practice of culling. 3) The continuing decline In the Quality and Quantity of estuarine and associated Inland habitats. 4) Lack of comprehensive, coordinated and easily ascertainable management authorities over . shrimp resources throughout their ranges. 5) Conf Ilcts with other fisheries such as the stone crab fishery In southern Florida, the groundflsh fishery of the north central Gulf, and the Gulf's reef fish fishery. 6 ) Incidental capture of sea turtles. 7) Loss of gear and traw II ng grounds due to man-made underwater obstruct Ions. 8 ) Part I a i i ack of bas I c data needed for management. 8.4 Objectives 8.4.1 Spec I f I c Management Obj ect I ves The following are the specific management objectives of this plan and are proposed to the appropriate authorities In charge of Gu If of Mexico shrimp resources. These objectives are to: 1) Optimize the yield from shrimp recruited to the fishery. 2) Encourage habitat protection measures to prevent undue loss of shrimp habitat. 3) Coordinate the development of shrimp management measures by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council with the shrimp management programs of the several states, where feasible. 4 ) Promte consIstency with the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protecion Act. 5 ) Minimize the Incldentái capture of finfish by shrimpers, when appropriate. 6 ) Minimize conf Ilcts between shrimp and stone crab fishermen. 7) Minimize adverse effects of underwater obstructions to shrimp trawling. 8) Provide for a statistIcal reporting system. 8.4.2 Alternative Objectives AlternatIve management objectIves were considered by the Council and rejected for the reasons I nd Icated: Alternative 1. Estab II sh the preferred size at wh I ch prov I de a reasonab Ie accommodat Ion for the current I y compete for the shr I mp resources groups as a resu It of measures adopted. shrimp will be harvested. In establishing this size conflicting Interests of the various groups which con In order to prevent the economic dislocation of particular 8~ 1.' Rationale: The Council did not establish one preferred size for harvest because, based on economic and sociological factors, this size varies regionally. The variation Is due to the local vessel size composition of the fleet and prevailing methods of processing shrimp. The establishment of one preferred size throughout the Gulf and the regulation of catch to that size would have severely disrupted the economy and work force of those areas where the fishery Is direced to a different size. Alternative 2. Define and restrict shrlmplng In areas where preferred size shrimp are not normally taken on a seasonal or yearly basis. Rationale: This alternative was rejected as a specific management objective because Its scope was narrow. Its goa i I s I nc i uded under the se I ected obj ect I ve number 1. Alternative 3. Minimize the Incidental catch and the adverse effects of the Incidental catch of sea turtles by shr'mpers. Ratlona Ie: The word I ng of th I s a I ternat I ve was rev I sed to become obj ect I ve number 4. Alternative 4. Establish a preferred level of capitalization. Rationale: There Is no economic evidence to suggest that the shrimp fishery differs from the classic example of a fishery near open access equIlibrium. (Open access equilibrium refers to firms having free access to the fishery, generating just enough revenue to cover total costs over a long period of time, and entering or exiting the fishery In the short run with prevailing economic conditions.) Reductions In fishing effort are unlikely to result In anythIng other than small decreases In shrimp landings and a loss of jobs to fishermen and shore support personnel. Alternative 5. Insure cont I nùance of the resource. Rationale: this fishery. Objective number 1 Includes this optIon. Recru I tment overf Ish I ng I s not a prob lem In 8.5 Management Measures and Rat I ona i e 8.5.1 Management Measures Cons I dered and Adopted Management measures considered by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councl i and suggested for IncorporatIon Into a shrimp management plan are discussed below. Some of these management measures are recommended for federal Implementation by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Other measures are either administrative policies adopted by the GMFMC or are recommended for consideration by the var lous states and other agencl es. Other measures cons I dered, but not recommended, are documented In Section 8.5.2 and In the notes of the various meetings conducted to develop and evaluate the draft plan. The recommended measures are grouped with the objective addressed. 8~ I ~ 8.5.1.1 Objective 1: OptimIze the Yield of Shrimp Recruited to the Fishery Measure 1: Establlsh a cooperatlve permenent closure In conjunctlon wlth the State of Florida and the U.S. Department of Comrce of the area dellneated In Table 8.5-1 to protect smell pink shrlmp until they have generally reached a slze larger than 69 talls to the pound. The area to be closed Is to be denoted as the "Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary" and Is generally represented by the line drawn In Figure 8.3-1. The historIc Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary as established by the State of Florida has been modified slightly as the result of public hearIngs to reduce Its size. This modificatIon wIll allow Shrlmplng In so deeper areas containIng larger shrImp north of Smith and New Ground Shoals north of Key West. The U.S. Department of Commerce wIll close that portion of the FCZ within the -area defined as the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary to al I shrlmplng. All shrimp which are caught In open waters of the FCZ may be retained. In 1981 Florida amended Its shrimp regulations to allow the landing of shrimp of any size taken outs I de F i or I da waters. NMFS will monitor biological, economic, ecological, and sociological data collected through Implementation of the plan and provided by other surveys and research. NMFS will annually assess bath the adverse Impacts and benefits derived from closure of the sanctuary In the FCZ and advise the Reg I ona i D I recor and Council of the find I ngs by Ju I Y 15 of each year. The CouncIl may ut ILL ze Its Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel to review and advise on the findIngs. The RegIonal Director shall have the authority, after consultation wIth the CouncIl, to Implement action to revIse this management measure through the Regulatory Amendment process. Criteria to be consIdered In reachIng the decIsion to amend the regulations Include: 1. Benefits In Increased pounds of shrimp caught and/or dollars derIved resulting from the clo sure. 2. Adverse effects from ~n Increase In fishIng pressure In other areas as a result of the clo sure which causes a decrease In catch per unit of effort. 3. Identification of arees (a) within the sanctuary containing an abundance of shrimp of harvestable size, or (b) outsIde the sanctuary containing shrImp populations too smal i for harvest. 4. Adverse effects from stress on support facilities for the shrimp fleet because of fleet mIgration resultIng from the closure. 5. Any other InformatIon determined by the Regional Director to be relevant. The Reg I o~a i D I rector may, after - determ I n I ng that benef I ts may be I ncreased or adverse I mpacts be deCeased, take either of the fo i i ow 1 ng act Ions tò ach I eve the goa i sand obj ect I.ves of the S hr I mp F'lshery Management Plan consistent wIth the National Standards and other applicable federal laws. The first actIon Is considered to be less drastic and mey be employed where a lesser degree of change Is requ!red. 1. Mo I fy by no more than ten percent the geograph Ica i scope of the extent of the Tortugas ShrImp Sanctuary In the FCZ of the Gulf of Mexico south of latitude 26. North. 2. Eliminate the closure of the FCZ off Florida for one season. 8-4 1 Table 8.5-1. DelineatIon of suggested Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary The Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary Is described as follows: That part of the fishery conservation zone shoreward of the following line (see Figure 8.5-1): Begin at the IntersectIon of the Florida territorial sea with a line drawn between point N (Coon Key Light, 25° 52.9' north latitude, 81° 37.95' west longItude) and point F (24° 50.7' north latitude, 81° 51.3' west longItude); thence proceed on a straight line to poInt F; thence proceed on a straIght line to point G (New Grounds Shoals Light, 24° 40.1' north latitude, 82° 26.7' west longitude); thence proceed on a straight line to point H (Rebeèca Shoals Light, 24. 34.7' norh latitude, 82° 35.1' west longitude); thence proceed on a straight lIne to the Intersection of the Florida territorial sea with a line drawn from point H to point P (MarQU9sas Keys, 24- 35' north latItude, 82° 08' west longitude). The Regional Direcor shall by August 15th of that year publish In the Federal Register his I ntent to take act Ion as prov I ded In 1 and 2 above or not to take act Ion. If the proposed actIon Is believed to be a substantial federal action likely to have a signifIcant effect on the human environment, a supplemental envIronmental Impact statemnt and regulatory Impact analysis shall be prepared. The Regional Direcor may hold public hearings on the proposed actIon. The State of Florida Is encouraged to contInue Its present restrictIons on shrlmplng In the area and to continue to allow the retentIon of all shrimp whIch are caught In open waters of the FCZ, as well as establIshing a samplIng program to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area. RatIonale: This measure would essentially re-establIsh most of the 01d Tortugasshrlmp nursery area which until recently has served as a sanctuary for pink shrimp recruited to the Tortugas and Sanlbel shrlmplng grounds. (The area withIn the FCZ can currently be shrlmped by non-Floridians because Florida does not have jurIsdIctIon.) Currently, the minImum legal size In Florida Is 70 taIls to the pound. No more than five percent of the catch can be of smaller-sized shrimp. This proposal Is based on available biological data and on the fact that a mature fishery appears to be dependent on It. Lindner (1966) and Berry (1970) report growth and mortalIty data which Indl-. cate' t~at pink shrImp yield will. be maximized If harvest beins after shrImp reach a size of about 70 tal Is to the pound. 8-5 LEGEND BLACK LI~ES - NMS GRID ZONES DOTTEg LINE - TERRITORIAL SEA ," .". "0810A. so 2 1 FCZ Figure 8.5-1. Location of proposed Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary. Between line N F G H f and the territorial sea. 8-6 Tab Ie 8.5-2. Expected average weight of male and female pink shrimp In the Dry Tortugas area as a function of depth 1. Shrimp We I ght Count2 of a Depth Males F ema I es 1.1 mixture males (heads-on) (heads-on) to females fm g g ta Ii s per pound 7 6.6 9.8 89 8 7.1 10.8 81 9 7.7 11.8 74 10 8.3 12.9 68 11 9.0 14.0 63 12 9.6 15.2 58 13 10.3 16.5 54 14 11.1 17.8 50 15 11.9 19.3 47 Expected average weight was calculated from carapace length-depth relationships derived by Iversen et al. (1960) (See EQ. 4.1-1, 4.1-2) and the carapace length-weight relationships of Mc Coy (1972) (See Table 4.1-3). The formulas used are: Males: Females: W = 0.00148 W = 0.00209 (16.394 + 0.618 D)2.77 (17.914 + 0.868 D)2.66 where W I s we I ght of shr I mp I n grams and D I s depth I n fathoms. 2 Currently the minimum legal size In Florida for shrimp caught In state waters Is 70 tails to the pound which cannot exceed five percent of the catch. the table estimates that at a given depth the entire catch will average a given count. It does not denote the depth at which the minimum legal size mix currently In effect In Florida will occur. Costello and A lien (1965) summar I zed extens Ive sampll ng and mark and recapture data wh Ich Indicate that estuaries within the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary are Important nursery areas for post larval and juvenile pink shrImp eventually recruited to the Tortugas and Sanlbel beds. Yokel, et al. (1969) observed that the average shrimp leaving the Everglades nursery area Is In the 300 to 200 tails to the pound range. Iversen, et al. (1960), sampling extensively In the southern portion of the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary area and In the southern portion of the Tortugas shrlmplng grounds, observed a relationship between size of shrimp and depth of water. Table 8.5-2 was constructed using these observed relationships and McCoy's (1972) carapace length-weIght relationships. The table Indicates that at 10 fathoms shrimp will average 68 tails to the pound, and at 13 fathoms they will average 54 tails to the pound. Essentially, none of the proposed sanctuary area Is deeper than 13 fathoms, and most of It Is shallower than ten fathos. Thus the closure should protect shrimp until they have reached an average count of around 70 tails to the pound. However, given the variation In size of shrimp according to depth reported In Iversen, et al. (1960), It does not seem likely that the sanctuary will protec shrimp until they have reached a size of no more than five percent of the catch cons I st I ng of shr Imp 70 or more ta Ii s to the pound. For 8-7 ( example, Table 8.5-2 Indicates that at 13 fathoms the catch will average around 54 tails to the pound. A spot check of the reported commercial catch (U.S. Department of Commerce, Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, Annual Summaries for 1972 and 1974) shows that catch In the 11 to 15 fathom Interval of the Dry Tortugas does have a peak In the 51 to 57 tails to the pound range. However, although cons Iderab Ie pounds of shrimp larger than this count were reported, only minor Quantities of smaller shrimp were reported as landed. This apparent discrepancy In size distribution may relate to a possible discard of large Quantities of unders Ized pi nk shrimp. Florida law presently prohibits all shrlmplng (except for live bait fishing under permit) In Its n Ins-mile terrl tori al sea wi th In the sanctuary (F Igure 8.3-1). FIori da proh Ibl ted Fiori da vessel s from shrlmplng In the sanctuary beyond Its territorial sea. Thus, the vessels displaced by this measure were non-Florida vessels fishing the sanctuary beyond the territorial sea and Florida vessels that fished the area contrary to state law. No estimates on the number of these vessels Is available. No special provision Is made for live bait shrlmplng In the sanctuary In the FCZ because none Is presently conducted there. It Is limited to the nearshore waters of the territorial sea. No allocation or redistribution among user groups Is expected to result from this action. A Ithough the Dry Tortugas shr I mp nursery area has been def I ned by the best ava Ii ab Ie data, at times pink shrimp smaller than the size preferred for local harvest may be taken beyond the closed area. Similarly, large shrimp may also be found within the nursery area. The present dell neat Ion provides for the best conservation and use of the resource accord I ng to known Information, but the. Council recogn I zes the need for better data and recommends a program of samp II ng I n order to I dent I fy more precisely the actual range of small shrimp In this area. When the area can be better defined, It can be adjusted accordingly. Although the concept and rationale for the sanctuary was well established by Costello, Allen, I versen, and Yokel I n the 1950s, more recent researchers have attempted to eva I uate varl atlons of the extent of the closure both by area and time. Grant, et al. (1980), Blom (1979), Khllmanl and Tse (1980), and Costello, et al., estimated effects of these variations. Grant, Isakson and Griffin (1980) evaluated the closing of the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary. The basic model used was developed at Texas A&M University by Grant and Griffin (In press) and Is called the general bloeconomlc fishery simulation model (GBFSM). The analysis characterizes the fishery as having two depths (0-10 and 11 fathoms and greater), four size classes of shrimp and NMFS statistical areas 1-3 as the study area. In a previous study (Blom, 1979), FlorJda shrimp prices were shown to have varied negligibly with changes In Florida landings; therefore, prices In the model remained constant. The model allowed five Important biological variables to vary randomly. These variables were rate of recruitment, natural mortality, growth, movement from depth 1 to depth 2 and the proportion of organisms harvested during one real day fIshed. Simulations were run on two specific options of (1) the baseline situation during 1953-1975 of the traditional nursery area In depth 1 closed year round, and (2) depth 1 open May through October. The model allows pol Icy options to be tested for significant differences from the baseline situation. Since the baseline situation reflects the traditional Tortugas (closed) nursery area, deviations from the baseline will Indicate the effectiveness of the permanent closure. Opening the nursery grounds from May through October results In the harvest of significantly more biomass of shrimp In the two sma I lest legal size classes from depth 1 but has a negligible effect on the harvest from depth 2. Total harvest, revenue and rent (profit) were all greater than the baseline but within ten percent (Table 8.5-3). 8-8 1- Blom (1979) also evaluated the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary In conjunction with the stone crab shrimp separation line (Measure 9) by using the GBFSM cited above. As In Grant, et al. (1980), the baseline situation reflects the traditional fishery during 1963-1975 with a permanently closed nursery area. This study Included NMFS statistical areas 1-5, three depth levels In fathoms (1-5, 6-10 and 11 and greater) and three size classes of shrimp by tall count (51-70/pound, 31-50/pound and under 30 per pound). A regional demand model by size class of shrimp was Included. A I though the study ana I yzed an ear I y vers Ion of Measure 1 wh I ch was comb I ned with Measure 9, It does point out the effectiveness of the permanent closure when deviations are made from It. The first deviatIon was opening the nursery area year-round as a result of several court cases testIng Florida's jurisdiction (U.S. v. Florlda; Allen et al. v. Tlngley; Tlngley v. Allen et al.). An open fIshery resulted In slightly greater landings, lower prices and greater revenue and rent for harvesters Table (8.5-4). The second deviatIon was the Institution of a seasonal closure of the nursery area In conjunction with the stone crab-shrimp separatIon lIne. Here the results In terms of landIngs, prices, revenue and rent lie between the baseline and the open fIshery case. In both deviatIons, there was a greater percentage of smaller shrImp In the landl ngs. Khllmanl and Tse (1980) used the FIsheries System Management Model (FISYS) developed at Stanford University to evaluate closure of the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary. This study analyzed two grounds by fathom levels (up to nine and ten and greater), and two sizes of shrImp by taIls to the pound (72 to 35, and under 35). The study evaluated the fishery over a six-month period (peak actIvIty) by modeling separately the fall and winter months. The study's results are Influence by a demand model wherein prices are affected by Florida land'ings; the effect of shrimp landings elsewhere In the Gulf was not cons I dered. Three d If ferent closures of the sha Ii ower grounds are eva I uated: a sIx-month closure (November-Apr II) and two closures of a three-month durat Ion (November-January and February-Aprl I), none of which conform to the management measure as proposed and Implemented. In all three closures landIngs decrease but at magnitudes no more than 150,000 pounds (Table 8.5-5). Decreased supplies Increase consumer prices In two cases and harvester revenue Increases In two cases due to reduction of operating costs. In a sensItivity analysis of the basic model when the catchablrtty coe~flclent of shrimp by the fleet In the shallower ground was greatly reduced, the catch In the offshore ground Increased by almost three millIon pounds. Decreasing the catchabl i Ity coefficient Is analogous to closIng the shallower ground as thIs management measure actually does. In another review of the Tortugas nursery area, Costello, Raulerson and Lyons (NMFS, personal communIcation) Indicated that total shrimp landings would Increase by one million pounds. In addItIon the average size of shrimp landed would Increase, thus Increasing the per unit value of the Increase In landIngs as well as the proteIn yield of the managed fishery. The total exvessel value of the Increased landings would Increase by $2.78 million, using a price of $2.78 per pound (fIrst quarter 1980, eastern Gu I f ports for 41-50 count shr I mp). The contr I but Ion of these I ncreased i and I ngs !o the nation's Gross National Product would be $9.4 million based on the regional multiplier of 3.37 for south Florida (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977) for fresh or frozen packaged fish. . In all of these estimates, the variation In the biological parameters which would Influence changes In catch Is quIte large. However, all the studies Indicate Increased size of shrImp caught (more weight per IndivIdual), greater harvester revenue and prof It, decreased operating costs and Increased vessel efficiency. It should be noted that the economic Impacts described are for the first year only. Where Industry experIences profits over the baselIne, these cannot be maintained. Under open access common property resources, additIonal vessels will move Into the shrimp fishery untIl first round excess profits are dissIpated. The Industry wIll becom more capitalized unless som mechanism for remving excess profIts or effort Is applied. 8-9 Table 8.5-3. Harvest of pink shrImp and associated revenue and rent to the fishery predicted under the basellng sItuation and two management policies. Item Baseline Situation Lower Size Count to 90 Heads Off Open Nursery Grounds May-Oct. Tota I Harvest (metr I c tons) (Percent d If ference) 5,551 Total Revenue (million dollars) (Percent dl fference) 33.1 6,678 (21) 37.1 ( 12) 5,989 (9) 35.1 (6) Total Rent (million dollars) (Percent dl fference) 13.0 15.6 (20) 14.2 (9) Source: Grant, Isakson and Griffin (1980) Table 8.5-4. Changes I n producers and consumer surp I us for se I ected management a I ternat Ives for the pink shrimp fishery, Statistical Areas 1-5. Opt Ion Price Quant Ity $/Ib. M I I . I bs. F Is hery open2 year round -0.12 1.6 (Percent d If ference) (5.8) ( 14.4) 1-8Fms c losed2 Jan 1 - Apr 15 -0.09 1.4 (Percent difference) (4.0) (12.6) Change In Consumer ~ Surp I us Producer Surp I us Net Surp i us Mil. $-----------------------~ 1.43 0.9 2.33 1.06 1.00 2.06 A slope of -1 was assumed for the demand curve. Therefore, In computing the change In consumer surplus the change In price was multiplied by the average of the Quantity consumer under the alter native and the Quantity consumed under the original situation. 2 Compared with base II ne s I mu lat Ion. Source: Blomo (1979). Table 8.5-5. Changes In net revenue and consumer surplus for selected management alternatives for the pink shrimp fishery. Item November - Apr Ii Close Ground 1 November - January February - Apr II Change In Price (dollars per pound) 0.43 Change In Processor Consumption (106 kg) -0.15 Change In Net Revenue/Vessel (do lIars) 6,887 Change 6 -2.28In Consumer Surplus (10 dollars) Source: Khllmanl and Tse (1980) 0.07 0.03 0.30 0.12 838 0.38 5,396 1.78 8-10 Me8sure 2: ESt8bllsh a cooperatlve closure of the terrltorlal sea of Tex8S and the adjacent U.S. FCZ wlth the St8te of Tex8s and the U.S. Department of Comrce durlng the tlme when a substan t' 81 port I on of the brown shr I mp In these w8ters. we I gh less than a count of 65 ta II s to the pound (39 he8ds-on shrlmp to the pound). The U.S. Department of Commerce will close the FCZ, and the time of closing should correspond to the closure by Texas of Its terrltorl81 se8. Closure normally occurs June 1 to July 15; however, the effects of climatic variation on shrimp growth may necessitate flexibility In the closing and opening dates to provide for a closure of n? more than 60 days. Provision Is to be made to 81 low taking of royal red shrimp beyond the 100 fathom contour (where brown shrimp do not occur). NMFS will monitor biological, economic, ecological, and soclologlc81 data collected through Implement8tlon of the plan and provided by other surveys and research. NMFS wIll assess both the adverse Impacts and benefits derived from the se8sonal closure In the FCZ 8nd advise the Regional Direcor and the Council of the findings by December 1. The CouncIl mey use Its Scientific and Statlstlc81 Committee and Advisory Panel to review and advIse on the findings. The Regional Direcor shall h8ve the authority, after consult8tlon with the Council, to Implement actIon to revise this management measure through the Regul8tory Amendment process. CriterIa to be consIdered In reaching the decision to amend the regulations Include: 1. BenefIts In Incre8sed pounds of shrimp caught and/or dOl18rs derived resultIng from the clo sure. 2. Adverse effects from 8n Increase In fishing pressure In other areas as a result of the clo sure which causes a decrease In catch per unit of effort. 3. Adverse effects from stress on support facilities for the shrimp fleet In other areas beC8use of fleet migration resulting from the closure. 4. Any other Inform8tlon determined by the Regional Direcor to be relevant. The Reg I ona i D I recor may, after determ I n I ng that benef I ts may be I ncre8sed or adverse I mpacts be decre8sed, take either of the following actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan consIstent with the National Standards and other appllc8ble federal laws. The first action Is considered to be less drastic and may be employed where a lesser degree of change Is required. 1. Modify the geographlc81 scope of the extent of the seasonal closure of the FCZ off Texas west of a line beginning 8t 18tltude 29. 32' 06.784" North, longitude 93° 47' 41.699" West, dr8wn In the general direcion of 166.6° true and ending at the seaward limit of the FCZ 8t 18TI tude 26° 11' 24" North, longItude 92° 53' 00" West. (This line Is an extension of the boun d8ry of Texas and LouIsIana through the terrltorl81 se8 Into the FCZ.) 2. Ellmln8te the clósure of the FCZ off Texas for one season. The RegIonal Direcor shall by January 15 of the following year publish his Intent to take 8ctlon as provided In 1 and 2 above or not to take action. i f the proposed action Is believed to be a subst8ntlal federal actIon likely to have a signifI cant effect on the human environmnt, 8 supplemental envlronmnt81 Impact statemnt and regul8tory Impact 8nalysls shall be prepared. The Regional Direcor may hold public hearings on the proposed action. 8-11 The State of Texas Is encouraged to continue the present seasonal closure of Its territorial sea, to contInue to allow the landing of shrimp of any size, and to evaluate the effect of Its allowing fishing for white shrimp In the Gulf Inside of four fathoms. Rationale: In general, the measure Is recommended to Increase the yield of shrimp and to elimi nate waste by discard of undersized brown shrimp In the FCZ. Data Indicate that closure would protec the shrimp untIl they have reached a greater biomass and generally reached a more valuable size. The elimination of the Texas count restriction In May of 1981 allows all the shrimp that are caught to be landed. This Act Is contIngent on there being an FMP In place which provides for a closed season In the FCZ contiguous to Texas and which conforms to the Texas territorIal sea closure. A Texas study of the benef I ts of Its wh 1 te shr I mp fIshery I n the terr I tor I a i sea with I n four fathos dur I ng the closed season seems necessary because of the Incidental catch of considerable numbers of small brown shrimp. The brown shrImp discard off the Texas coast was estImated to average 33 percent by number of the May-through-August catch (Berry and Benton, 1969; Baxter, 1973). Bryan (1980) estimated a June-July discard of 5.8 million pounds (whole shrimp) In 1973 and 4.3 millIon pounds In 1974. This amounted to 77 and 63 percent of the probeble discards off Texas for those years. The discard apparently occurred not only because of the former legal- count restriction In Texas but also because prIce and market favor larger sIzes In the Texas area (Baxter, 1973). In Texas there are relatively less landings of smaller-sized shrimp than In LouisIana. There are no shrimp canneries In Texas, and most of the shrimp are processed by freezing. The economy of the Industry In the western Gulf Is tIed to the har vest of shrimp larger than 65 tails to the 'pound. Bryan, et al. (1978) found relatIvely large numbers of small brown shrimp In waters beyond the state's terrItorial sea oUT to 20 fathoms off the central Texas coast during June and July and In the open area I ns I de 4 fathoms dur I ng June. They recommended that a seasonal closure of these waters based on biological sampling would protec the brown shrimp untIl they had reached a useful sIze for the area's fishery and would elIminate the need for a force dIscard of undersIzed shrImp under Texas law. Unpub II shed data from the Texas Parks and W Ii d II fe Department I nd I cate that -shr I mp beyond 20 fathoms, approxImately 20 miles, off the central Texas coast generally are larger than 65 tall count. Because of the variabilIty of distance of the 20 fatho Isobath from shore, a zone 30 miles from shore was consIdered for protecion of small brown shrimp. However, only seven percent of the shrimp landed from Gulf waters off Texas In June and July came from beyond 30 miles offshore. In July of 1981, NMFS studIes found small brown shrimp well below the former Texas mInimum count size off the lower Texas coast to 28 fa or 25 nml offshore (K. N. Baxter, personal communication). The Council, with support from Its AdvIsory Panel, has made the determInation that the entIre FCZ off Texas should be closed to Increase total yield (weight and value), catch per unit of effort, and to facilItate effectIve law enforcement. Th!s action Is presently limited to the FCZ off Texas as a measure which would enhance an existIng management regIme In the territorial sea. It Is expected to be Immediately beneficIal to the majorl ty of present users In the area. The Council, however, recogn I zes that the seasonal closure could result In displacemnt and shift of effort In an already hIghly migratory shrimp fleet. It Is the Intent of the CouncIl that the bIological, ecologIcal, social and economIc Impact of this measure be mon I tored so that rev I s Ions of the management measure may be made when warranted. An' attempt has been made to assess the possible change In yield associated with thIs measure. The most recent data Indicate that the closure could result In the availability of an addItIonal four 8-12 mIllIon pounds of shrImp taIls with an exvessel value of $6.8 millIon to $12.7 mIllion. ThIs would contrIbute between $13.6 mIllIon and $25.4 mIllion to the Gross NatIonal Product (GNP). The Increase In landIngs results from a !=aln of 3.5 mil lion pounds of tails (expected size 36 to 50count) from sur vival and growth of shrImp prevIously dIscarded durIng the closed perIod based on discard data from Bryan (1980) and an Instantaneous weekly natural mortality rate of 0.05 (Fox, 1981, personal communIcatIon). Growth was calculated usIng the monomlecular model descrIbed by Parrack (1978). On reopenIng of the season In mid-July these shrimp wIll have reached at least 65 tall count (the mInImum sIze previously required by Texas law). Another 0.5 mIllIon pounds (expected sIze 40 count) becomes avaIlable from the addItIonal growth of shrimp formerly caught and landed from the area durIng June/July. The dollar value at docksIde assocIated wIth these Increased landings can vary between $6.8 millIon and $12.7 mIllIon. The value wIll fluctuate from year to year because the prIce per pound wIll be Influenced by more than just the effects of the management measure Itself. Prices wIll vary due to the size of the total catch, the level of shrimp InventorIes, the flow of Imports, and the state of the economy. A i I these factors, I nc i ud I ng the management measure wh I ch I s I ntended to Increase IndIvIdual shrimp sIze as well as total harvest yIeld, wIll cause exvessel prIces to vary. The extent of thIs varIation can be seen from a July-August prIce swIng from a hIgh of $3.17 per pound In 1979 to a low of $1.70 per pound In 1977 (for the expected sIze range of 41 to 50 count). These prices from the fIve-year 1977 through 1981 perIod were used to estImate the Increased gross benefIts from th I s measure. The $13.6 mIllIon to $25.4 million contrIbutIon these landings economIc actIvity was derIved by multlplyln!= the exvessel values by 3.0 (average for the Texas coast for fresh or frozen packaged fIsh; 1977) and subtractIng the exvessel val ues. make to the GNP from addItIonal an economIc-actIvity multIplIer of from U.S. Water Resources ConcIl, An extensIon of the closure to offshore LouIsIana could have a major Impact on the fIshery In that area. The measure would not be compatIble wIth present terrItorIal sea managemnt and may have a negative Impact on the Industry presently !=eared to the processln!= of smaller shrImp. The Texas closure may affect other areas by causIng a dislocation of effort. Some vessels wIll tIe up, but others wIll lIkely fIsh off other states such as LouIsiana, as many do now. The Gulf shrImp fleet Is presently migratory. In 1978, LouIsIana sold over 2,300 non-resIdent shrImp trawl/vessel lIcenses even though many of the lar!=er Texas vessels dId not fIsh withIn LouIsIana's terrItorIal sea or land In Louisiana. In 1976, about 20 percent of the volume and 25 percent of the value of LouisIana's Gulf shrimp catch was landed In Texas (Gulf Coast ShrImp Data). In 1979 the Texas-based shrimp fleet capable of fIshing In the FCZ consIsted of approximately 1,269 vessels over 55 feet long. Another 218 simIlar vessels from other states, IncludIng LouIsIana, were Ucensed to fish In Texas durIng a portIon of the year. (Warren and Bl:yan, 1981.) . In 1980, of the 2,302 vessels landing shrImp In Texas, 1,912 were based In Texas; 127 In LouIsIana; 204 In FlorIda; 38 In Alabama and fIve In MIssIssIppI. SIxteen were unIdentIfIed (Farley, 1981, personal commun Icatlon). An estImate of numbers of vessels by state Is presented In Table 3.5-24. Because of hlqher operatIng costs mostly due to fuel prices, the Texas shrImp fleet Is remaInIng In port durIng perIods of low productIvIty (NatIonal Marine FIsherIes ServIce, 198Oa). The extent to 8-13 ( whIch these vessels make longer trips to offshore Louisiana during the seasonal Texas closure cannot be pred I cted. In determining that the closure should extend through the entire FCZ off the Texas coast the Council made the following determInations In conformance with the NatIonal Standards: 1. Management Objectives 1 and 3 will be met by IncreasIng the opportunity ~or greater yield In product and value and by enhancIng the existing management regime of the adjacent state. In thIs measure the brown shrimp stock will be managed In Its range from the estuary and terri torial sea through the FCZ. 2. There will be no discrimination against any group by thIs measure. All vessels will have the same opportunIty to catch the larger, more valuable shrimp during open season. Small boats restricted to near-shore operation are already excluded from fishing during this period by the nlne-ml Ie Texas territorial sea closure and may resume fIshIng when the season reoens for all boats and vessels. No allocation Is made among fishermen. 3. The low yield of large shrimp offshore and beyond 20 fathos durIng thIs perIod does not provIde for an efficIent fishery according to the advisory panel and landing statIstIcs. 4. Enforcent difficulties presently encountered by the state wIth vessels movIng from the FCZ to the closed territorial sea would be greatly reduced. Closure of the FCZ to 200 mIles would prevent a sImilar enforce~t problem In the FCZ. 5. The measure takes Into account the variation In the brown shrimp fishery In Texas dIreced toward a larger sIze product. 6. The measure would minimize costs by enhancing an exIsting management regime. 7. The measure conforms to best data available from state and other researchers concerning thIs fIshery. 8. Most Importantly, this measure Is dIreced toward achIevIng optImum yIeld In the fishery wh II e prevent I ng growh overf i sh I ng. 9. ThIs measure Is parallel with the establishment of the Tortugas shrimp. Plnk'shrlmp emigrate from Inshore nursery grounds over shrimp move In a major migration In late Mayor early June. Shr I mp Sanctuary for pink a long perIod wh lie brown Dur I ng pub 11 c hear I ngs som comments I nc I uded concern that th I s management measure wou i d be I nef feclve and could adversely affect other areas by diverting excessive fishIng effort to them durIng the. closed periods. LouIsIana shrImp fishermen and processors were partIcularly concerned becauSe all fishermen were to be excluded seasonally from shrlmplng the FCZ off Texas and because they feared . Incre~sed shrlmplng effort off Louisiana would resultdurl~g that same period. The Councl I, through the Southeast FisherIes Center of National Marine FIsheries ServIce CNMFS), Is monitorIng to Identify the effect of the closures which became effectIve In 1981. A number of stu dies wI Ii monitor the condItIons and yield of the Gulf shrimp fishery. The scIentists have been care ful to poInt out, however, that because of the natural, ecologically based fluct~atlons In the abundance of shrImp, no clear-cut measuremnt of cause and effect will be produCed from anyone study. EconomIc factors such as fuel cost will also affect the production of shrimp. An analys Is of the effect of this management measure must consIder many factors and the varIables whIch Influence them. 8-14 If an analysis of the study results Indicates that the plan objectives can best be met with a revision of the management measure, the Council wishes that the plan provide a mechanism for such action. This measure directs the Regional Director of NMFS to review research findings each year and authorizes him to adjust the regulations In accordance with findings and plan objectives. He Is to publish annually his Intent to take action or not to take action as provided. Regulation change would allow correction of any undue hardship to participants In the fishery before the fol lowing season. This provision Is Included for both Management Measures 1 and 2. Measure 3: Recomend that al I states conslder establlshlng shrlmp management sanctuarles In Important segments of nursery grounds under thelr sole jurisdiction. Within these areas shrimp would be protected from harvest until they have reached an optimum size for harvest by the user groups dependent upon them. i n a I i open areas shr I mpers wou i d be a i lowed to keep a i i shr I mp they harvest that Is, there shQuld be no laws whIch would force the culling of shrimp caught. A II states are encouraged to cont I nue the I r mon I tor I ng of data for management--especlally data on habitat Quality, yIeld distribution of shrimp. these areas I n order to prov I de bas I c predictIons, and variations In the area Rationale: There are diverse user groups dependent on shrimp of differing sizes In the Gulf area. i n fact, the conf II ct between I nterest groups I s often acute I n the states' I nternal waters.' Currently, the Gulf states are attempting to provide accommodation for the various groups dependent upon these resources while protecting shrimp smaller than useful sIze. This problem will not be easy to solve since the number of recreational and commercial shrimpers Is apparently Increasing. The most vulnerable area appears to be shallow water estuaries. These areas, critical for growth and development of brown, white, and pink shrimp, are also fragile ecosystems which are being affected by man (Linda; i and Saloman, 1977). It Is conceivable that shrimp wIthin these areas could be harvested and used at an extremly small size, say 300 tails to the pound, particularly by recreatlonlsts. On the other hand, basIc biological data reviewed In the development of this plan Indicate that yield would be maximized If shrimp were harvested at sizes larger than minimum count laws currently enforced In the Gulf area. These viewpoints provide the Gulf states biologIcal flexibility In deciding which size ranges of shrimp would give the best yields. The respective Gulf states can protect critical habitat areas, reduce the waste of shrimp from culling, and probably Increase the yield of shrimp by Identifying the areas where shrimp smaller than useful size exist and closIng those areas to shrlmplng on a seasonal or permanent basis. Without such closures It Is likely that these areas will be subject to Increased fishing effort as competition for the resource Intensifies. Increased effort will likely reduce the overall yield of shrimp. This measure Is consIstent wIth the groundflsh plan and would afford protection to juvenIle recreational and commercial fisheries whIch utilIze the same nursery areas as shrimp. Where feasible, area closures based on biological sampling are preferred to count laws which force discarding of unders Ized shrimp and direcly waste the resources. The effect of such closures mIght be to shift fishIng areas several mIles or more to the larger lakes and bays. The Council will work toward a common management reg I me throughout the area on a state-by-state bas I s. 8.5.1.2 Objective 2: Encourage Adequate Habitat Protection Measures Measure 4: The Gulf of Mexlco Flshery Management Councll has establlshed an I nterna i committee to revlew and assess the status of Gulf flshery habltats, wlth partlcular attentlon to those factors whlch mlght further stlmulate "the downward trends In Quallty and Quantlty of flsh habitats." (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, et al., 1977). The committee Interacts where 8-15 appropriate, with federal and state agencies to Insure that adequate consideration Is given to possible Impacts of the agencies' actions on these renewable resources. The agencies Include, but are not limited to, the states' wildlife management agencies, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and coasta I zone management agencl es (I n those states wh Ich have them). The Council will adopt the policies set forth In the National Plan 'Eastland Fisheries Survey (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, habitat protection and pollution control to: for Marine Fisheries and the et al., 1977) regarding 1) I~everse the downward trends In Quantity and Quality of fish habitats by minimizing further losses and degradation of these habitats, restoring and enhancing them where possible, and establishing protected areas where necessary, while recognizing other compatible essential uses of fish habitat areas. . a) Improve the consideration given to fish habitats In key decision-making processes. b) Where possible, mitIgate losses of habitats, restore habitats lost or degraded, and develop economically feasible enhanceent opportunities. c) Establish sanctuaries, resources, or other systems when necessary to protect critical fish habitats and maintain fish production. d) Improve the Quality and Increase the dissemination of Informatfon required for effective fish habitat conservation. 2 ) Prevent rap I d deve i opment of coasta I and mar I ne areas I nc i ud I ng those of the Cont I nenta I Shelf, where development Is based on hastily gathered and often critically Incomplete data. 3 ) Take stronger action to Insure abatement and control of pollution that contaminates fish or adversely Inf luences fish environment and prevent development of new environmental degrada tion or fish contaminatIon." Rationale: Man's alteration of the Gulf estuarine and offshore fish habitats appear to pose the greatest threat to viability of fish resources. This Is especially true for estuarine areas, since about 90 percent of the commercl al and 70 percent of the recreational catches are estuarl ne-dependent (Llndall and Saloman, 1971). The shrimp fishery depends on acreage of suitable marsh or estuarine habitat not merely on acreage of Inland waters. The Councl I encourages the Secretary of Commerce to aid In achieving wetland conservation. Quantitative studies are needed both to assess potential Impacts on fishery habitats by man-made alterations and to support recommendations for workable alter natives. Some direct action Is needed now; a Council committee working with the appropriate state and federal agencies appears to be not only a logical extension of the review and advice role of the Councl I but also a mechanism to Insure adequate consideration of the habitat needs of fishery resources addressed In Its fishery management plans. This committee Is concerned with fishery habitats In general, because of the similarities In specIes requirements, and because It Is necessary to approach these Impacts with a multlspecles understanding and to carry out the mandate of FCM (reducing, where possible, duplication of effort). The committee makes recommendations to the Council as needed. This measure particularly addresses National Standard Number 3 which requires management of the stock throughout Its range. Because authority In the estuaries and marshes lies with the various states, the Council recommends coordinated efforts for habitat protection for the shrimp resource. 8-16 8.5.1.3 Objective 3: Coordinate, Where Feasible, the Gulf Shrimp Management Programs Measure 5: The Gu I f states are encouraged to adopt f I ex I b I e management procedures wh I ch wou i d prov I de regu' at I on by adm In I strat I ve agenc I es of the shr Imp resources In In i and waters and terr 1 torlal seas. These agencies would operate withIn legislative parameters but would have sufficient f i ex I bill ty to perform such essent I a I tasks as sett I ng the seasons, based on env I ronmenta I mon I tor I ng. o The State of FlorIda Is encouraged to consider settIng Its regulations by general law rather than by special laws of local application and to codify al I such laws. o The State of Louisiana Is encouraged to enact laws which would authorize LDWF to regulate s hr I mp I ng act I v I ties I nits terr I tor I a I sea. Ratlon¡:le: The yield of the dominant shrimp stocks Is related to prevalent environmental con ditions during the estuarine phase of growth. This dependency results In yearly variations In the times at which shrimp reach a minimum useful size and begin their offshore emigrations. In order to Increase the yield of shrimp, various minimum useful sizes have been established In the Gulf region. ApproprIate state agencies are responsible for monitorIng the resource and openIng and closIng seasons based on evaluations of theIr monItorIng. To accomplish this essential task, the agencies must have sufficient flexibility to be able to establish seasons based on Interpretations of current, relevant data. Without this flexibility, shrImp are wasted through culling because statutory seasons open on shrimp smaller than a useful size. If the Gulf states adopt such flexible management where It does not already occur In conjunction with allowing all shrimp caught to be landed, wasteful culling of shrimp should be eliminated; the opening and closing of seasons will then be based on Interpretation of current data on the shrimp populations. This management should not drastIcally affect present seasons because the flexibility required would not normally adju.st the seasons more than a few weeks. Also, programs can be devIsed to provIde shrimpers with suitable lead time. Nor will this management measure result In a drastIc Increase In the monitoring responslbl' Itles of the various states, since programs are currently In effect to assess the major'l ty of needed parameters. Measure 6: The Gu I f states are encouraged to adopt rec I proca I I nterna I management dec Is Ions f i ex I b I e enough to a I low j o I nt management of shr Imp with other states and with the Department of Comerce. Rationale: Shrimp and shrimpers In the Gulf states are not limited by state or federal jurIsdictional boundaries. Migrations of these populations from one area to another require coor dinated flexible management to better protect the biologIcal basis of the resource, to reduce conf II cts among shr I mpers and the waste of resources, and to ease enforceent prob lems. The usefulness of such Interaction was evidenced In the preparatIon of this management plan. The measures recommended hereIn are, In large part, results of the Interaction of state and federal per sonnel who suggested and assessed measures to reduce the waste of resources and to enhance the Industry's vitality. As Is approprIate, the final plan will reflect the open public review of these measures to Insure that they are sound, acceptable, and designed to promte conservation of our resources. The continued InteractIon of the appropriate state agencies with the GMFMC Is essentIal If the shrimp resources In the area are to be harvested at optimum levels. I f management measures were coord I nated wherever feas Ib Ie, the II kel y resu It wou i d: 1) provide a stronger base for protecting the environmental basis of the resource; 8-17 2 ) reduce waste of shr I mp resources through the cooperat Ive protect Ion of shr I mp sma I ler than a minimum size for an area; 3) reduce conflicts between fishermen by coordinating, where feasible, such regulation measures as opening and clos Ing dates; 4 ) ease enforcement problems; and 5) reduce the cost of management by coordinating the monitoring, enforcement, and environmental assessment programs. 8.5.1.4 Objectlve 4: Promte Conslstency wlth the Endangered Specles Act and Marlne Mammals Protect I on Act. Measure 7: Develop and Implement an educatlonal program to Inform shrlmpers of the current status of sea turtle populatlons and of proper methods of resuscltatlon and return to sea of I nc I denta Ii y-captured sea turt' es. Rationale: All of the sea turtles that Inhabit the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are listed either as threatened or endangered and must be protected. The shr I mp fishermen, therefore, need to be Informed of the necessity of following good conservation practices In relation to this species. Informed shrimpers would be prepared both to take adequate measures In releasing turtles In a viable state and to give reliable Information on Incidental sea turtle capture. 8.5.1.5 Objective 5: When Appropriate, Minimize the Incidental Capture of FinfIsh by ShrImpers. Measure 8: Encourage research on and deve i opment of shr I mp I ng gear wh I ch reduces I nc I denta I catch wlthout decreaslng the overall efflclency of shrlmplng or excesslvely Increaslng the cost of gear. This program would Include current efforts on an excluder panel to prevent accidental catch of sea turtles; examInation of the feasibility of reducing the harvest of shrimp smaller than a given size through adjustments In trawl mesh size and configuration; and development of a trawl to reduce Incidental capture of fInfishes (Includes efforts on excluder panel, beam trawl, separator trawl). However, the emphasis on gear development should not rule out consideration of alternatives such as seasonal area closures and shortened "drags" as cost effective methods of achieving desIred results. ImplementatIon of measures to reduce Incidental catch should be phased In as means of assuring compliance and allowing orderly disposItion of unsuitable gear. Rationale: This optIon would generally reduce the waste not only of marIne resources but also of labor efforts, gear damage,' and conflIcts with other users. Development and use of an excluder panel would greatly reduce the IncIdental capture of sea turtles and facilitate compliance with the Endangered Specl es Act. A shrimp trawl that Is size selective for shrimp would allow protection of undersIzed shrImp without area closures. ReductIon In Incidental catch of finfish would reduce waste of these resources and conflicts with the groundflsh and reef fish fisheries. However, efforts to reduce Incidental catch will negate the sale of bycatch to the human food and pet food processors In 1979 (Mavar, per sona i commun I cat I on) . . The Indirect Impact of thIs option Includes the possibility of (1) a reduction In flnf Ish bycatch (usually discarded), (2) Increases In predation on shrimp by escaping finfish predators, (3) Increased competItIon for food and shelter between shrimp and escaping finfish whIch occupy ecological niches similar to those of shrImp, (4) a reduction In the amount of food available to scavengers, (5) a 8-18 reduction In finfish growth rate through stocks not being thinned out, (6) shrimpers might be able to shrimp In areas not previously used, (7) stimulate the development of fisheries utilizing escaping finfish, and (8) the effect of discarding the bycatch on the fertility of the area may be ascertained. The ecosystems should be monitored to determine the best mix of benefits.. 8.5.1.6 Objective 6: Minimize Conflicts between Shrimp and Stone Crab Fishermen. Stone crab traps are placed on the bottom where they are Inadvertently destroyed trawlers. Trawling for pink shrimp Is done at night when buoys are not visible. The stone crab fishery Is estimated to be $80,000 per year (Table 1, Stone Crab EIS). by shrimp loss to the Measure 9: Conslstent wlth the Stone Crab Management Plan, establlsh a seasonal closure of a portlon of the Dry Tortugas shrlmp grounds In order to avold gear confllcts wlth stone crab fishermen. The area to be closed Is outlined In Table 8.5-10 and Is generally shown In Fig. 8.5-7 and 8.5-8. The seasonal opening of this area will not affect the "Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary." As a result of adopting this line from the Stone Crab FMP, the seasonal exclusion of shrimp vessels from this Inshore area would at low for a longer growth period for these generally sma I ler shrimp. The Increase In pounds of shrimp landed has been estimated at 60 thousand. The Increase In value due to growth from delay In harvest has been estimated to be $46.2 thousand. Rationale: The Stone Crab Fishery Management Plan contained a measure to avoid gear conflicts between shrimpers and stone crab fishermen. The seasonal closure developed In that plan Is a reasonab Ie comproml se between the requl rements of these two groups and I s I ncorporated I nto the plan In order to provide consistency. However, the seasonal opening of the area outlined In the Stone Crab Management Plan will not affect that area closed as the "Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary"; this area Is closed to provide for conservation of shrimp recruited to the Tortugas and Sanlbel shrlmplng grounds. 8.5.1.7 Objective 7: Minimize Adverse Effects of Underwater Obstructions to Shrimp Trawling. Measure 10: The Gulf of Mexlco Flshery Management Council will attempt to reduce, where feaslble, the loss of offshore trawlable botto by establ iShlng wlthln GMFMC, a comlttee to monitor and revlew constructlon of offshore reefs, wlth attentlon to the needs of the reef flsh and shrimp user groups. Rationale: In the Gulf shrimp fishery, there Is a considerable loss of gear and time associated with trawls becoming entangled on artificial underwater obstructions. The adverse effect of these obstructions must be minimized In a way cons Istent with other national Interests. 8.5.1.8 Objective 8: Provide for a Statistical Reporting System Data Which Shrimp Processors Must Submit to the Secretary of Comrce to Calculate DAP Shrimp processors In the Gulf of Mexico participate In data collection programs of varied natures. Most states have some reporting requirements of processors; these requirements must be recognized prior to the development of mandatory data systems for the Gulf Shrimp Management Plan. The comparability of the requirements among the states and the Information collected through the voluntary programs of the National Marine Fisheries Service must also be considered. ReportIng requirements of the Gulf stat~s are Identified In section 3.3.1, Management Institutions, Policies, and Jurlsdlctlons/- A brief summary for each state follows: A labama--Seafood dealers are required to make monthly reports of the names and addresses of persons from or to whom fish, seafood, or other saltwater products of the state are purchased 8-19 or sold, the QuantIty purchased from or sold to each vendor or buyer, and the date of each transaction. The data reporting requirements are not well accepted. Florlda--Indlvlduals harvestIng or buying shrImp for canning, drying, or shipping must state the number of barrels of shrimp caught or sold each month and any other Information FDNR may require. Wholesale dealers make Quarterly reports on the number of pounds purchased from commercial fishermen but this Is not applied or enforced as to purchases of shrimp. Mlsslsslppl--Processlng or landing firms are the points at which data on harvestIng activities are reported. Loulslana--AII shrimp processing plants and dealers must keep records of the date, Quantity, and point of origIn of each lot of shrImp received. Retailers must complete a Quarterly report on the amount of shrimp purchased and the name and lIcense number of the seller. Texas--No reporting on processing actIvities Is required. f I sherman for resa i e must report month Iy. Anyone who purchases shrImp from the Shrimp processors, rangIng from dealers to canners, frequently provide Information to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a variety of topics. The amount of product hand led, Its value, frozen shrimp holdIngs, and the number of seasonal and full-time employees are all reported to the public through the NMFS Current Fisheries Statistics publicatIon series and Market News Reports. The Information collection procedure Involves voluntary contribution of statistics. Although there mat be previously unmeasured problems wIth the representatIveness of the statistics, they do Identify poundage, locations, disposition; and prices. In the majority of Instances species IdentIfication Is not maintained beyond the dealer level. The NMFS Information collection effort, other U.S. government surveys on economic activities of businesses, and the reportIng requIrements of some states do not make for a climate conducIve to the successful addItion of another Information system. Thus, the management objectives concerning the processIng sector that are proposed here require no additional InformatIon collecting programs. Then too, many shrimp processors are Involved In the processing of other specl es, and, untl.1 a systematIc program of InformatIon collection on processing activIties Is developed, a species approach to data collection could create a chaotIc situation. Instead, emphasis should be placed on Improving the coverage, frequency, and currency of the existing voluntary system. When developed, comprehensIve Information systems on processing activities should show their consideration of the statistics that ref lect processing capacity. Measure 11: AII statlstlcal reportlng reQulrements wlll be mandatory. As a unit, the Gulf shrimp fishery Is the most valuable one In the natIon. It Is also complex and supports a large recreational effort mainly limited to InsIde state waters, as well as a dIverse commercIal effort wh Ich ranges out to Gu I f waters of 200 to 300 fathoms. Data usefu i for wise management of these resources Includes the following (however, not al i Is to be Included In the statistIcal reporting program) : A. Harvesting sector--all harvesters, recreational and commercial 1. Number of fishermen and mall Ing addresses. 2. Boat or vessel: home port, length of hull, construction of hull, year built, number In crew, type, make and model number of engine, type, size, and number of gear, presence or absence of salt box, and, when developed and deployed, type of excluder panel used (If required). 8-20 3. Catch data by boat or vessel Including: date left port; date returned to port; date shrimp landed; catch and value by species, size, area, and depth; shrlmpln9 time by spe cies area and depth; size distribution of catch Including discards; species composition of catch (Including discards). B. Proces sing sector Number and locations of processing plants Identified by type of product, seasonal production of types and species processed, and number of employees and seasonality of employment. Because of the high cost of gatherl ng a II the data II sted I n A and B above, the fo Ilowl ng alternative system Is recommended. The NMFS will be responsible for the design for Council review, Implementation and management of surveys to obtain the necessary Information to manage the fishery Including, but not limited to the following guidelInes: Statistical reporting requirements recommended: 1. Maintain at least the existing commercial statistical reporting system with more timely publ I cation. 2. Require the collection of minimum data on catch, effort, biological and socioeconomic Infor mation needed to manage this fishery under MFCMA. 3. Require mandatory reporting of ~ selected shrimp fishermen and al I selected shrimp dealers and processors. Selection of respondents to be made by NMFS. 4. Utilize the vessel enumeration system to Identify saltwater shrimp fishermen. 5. The Fisheries Survey Task Force of Southeast Fisheries Center will be responsible for the design, Implementation and management of this survey and will spell out details on what Is to be co, lected based on resources prov I ded. 6. Consideration should be given to Improvement of the data base on boat catch and the bait harvest I n state waters. Rationale: Basic statistical data are needed In monitoring the fishery In order to Insure the viability of the stocks, to evaluate reasonable solutions to conflicts, and to provide for the manage ment of the fishery. 8.5.2 Alternative Management Measures Considered But Not Adopted 8.5.2.1 No Action The Council has determined In the plan that management of shrimp stocks In the FCZ can provide a hIgher yield of shrimp In both weight and value. Management measures, therefore, were developed to provide this optimum yield from the fishery. Taking no action would result In continuing waste from culling and discard of small shrimp, degradation of shrimp habitat, conflicts among users, and Inade Quate statistics to monitor the fishery. Implementation of management measures will serve to address and meet the objectives of the plan. The anticipated benefits and costs presented earlier from management measures In this plan pro vide a comparison with a "no action" alternative. Without these measures, either the status Quo would prevail, as In the case of shrlmplng In the Texas FCZ, or the Tortugas area would continue to experi ence a lower total yield than when the traditional nursery area was closed by Florida. 8-21 i' 8.5.2.2 Size and/or Season Regulations 1. Mod I fy Any of the M I n I mum Size Ranges of Wh I te Shr I mp Seasona I I Y Imposed by the Gu I f States and/or Estab II sh M I n I mum Size Ranges for Wh I te Shr I mp I n the Fishery Conservat I on Zone (FCZ). Minimum size limits require culling and discarding of small shrimp, a wasteful and self-defeating practice. The purpose, to direct fishing effort toward larger, more valuable shrimp, can more construc tively be attained. This plan uses closed areas and seasonal closures on small shrimp to accomplish the objective. No size restr I ct Ions are proposed I n the FCZ but the management reg I me se I ected shou I d encourage harvesting In the FCZ of the optimum weight and value, and the plan encourages states to permit the landing of any size shrimp from open areas. Because the fishery for white shrimp Is Inshore, the plan suggests that states Identify and close to trawling those areas In their Internal waters and territorial seas where shrimp are too sma I I for best loca I use. The exl st I ng ml n I mum size patterns as current I y out II ned by the states do not appear to threaten the biological basis of the resource. As the size of shrimp Is frequently associated with the area and depth of harvest, the ability of the fleet to harvest the resource would be affected If the minimum size were changed; boats could be dislocated or excluded from the fishery. Additionally, as most states currently Impose size regulations based on local Industry demands, local processors In the Gulf could be disrupted. 2. No Size Regu I at I on No size regulation with no area closures to protect undersized shrimp would likely result In a harvest with a wider range of sizes. The mix would consist of more smaller size shrimp and con sequently less large shrimp. Because there are few sufficiently developed markets for the smaller ranges of shr I mp except I n Lou I s I ana, discard cou i d be expected to Increase, resu It I ng I n greater biological waste. It could also be expected to result In a greater concentration of fishing effort In nearshore and Inland waters on juvenile shrimp. This could result In a decreased harvest for deep water vessels. More shrimp would be harvested, but with less total poundage and lower total value. 3. Determlne Preferred Mlnlmum Size and Regulate Area and Season for That Size. Retent I on of A i I Catch Regard I ess of Size Allow Th Is approach has been proposed I n those measures wh Ich estab II sh seasonal closures for areas off of Texas and Florida as an extension of present state management schemes, as well as In Option 3, Section 8.3.1.1, where It Is suggested that the Gulf states consider such delineations and closures. Adopting a no size regulation will take state action by Mississippi and Alabama since presently state laws proh I bit catch I ng sma Ii shr I mp. The shrimp fishery has a number of processing entities (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, etc.), each of which contributes to the econom of the nation, and each of which has preferred sizes. If this alternative were Implemented, It would provide protection for the resource until the preferred minimum size for the area were attained thus delaying the harvest. Some processors might be disrupted tem porarily due to the loss of fresh shrimp during the time of closure. The congestion of boats and vessels within open waters could Increase, Intensifying conflicts over trawlable space. The elimina tion of forced discard would reduce biological and economic waste. Those shrimpers who have traditionally fished In an area of closure would be displaced. Boats smaller than 47 feet In length would not be entirely displaced as a closure of an area In the FCZ 8-22 ( would stil I permit shrlmplng within a state's Inland and territorial waters. Those using deepwater vessels would move to further fishing grounds that were not withIn the area of closure with an atten i dant Increase In fuel consumption. The extent of the dislocation would depend on the area closed. 4. Establlsh a Mlnlmum Shrlmp Count Size In the FCZ, Under Whlch Whlte Shrlmp May Not Be Reta I ned White shrimp which reach the FCZ are large enough to comply with area. There Is no need to protect undersized whIte shrimp In the FCZ overf I sh I ng I s not ev I dent there. the landl ng laws of the adjacent because recruitment or growth The ImposItion of a minimum size count with a forced discard Is unnecessary and would result In Increased bIologIcal waste due to- the culling of shrimp smaller than permitted, If and when they shou I d occur there. 5. Establ Ish a Cooperatlve Seasonal Closure to Shrlmplng In the FCZ off Texas wlthln 20 fathoms In June and July to Protect Undersized Brown Shrimp Currently, the Texas territorial sea Is usually closed from June 1 through July 15. variable, but often substantial discard of small brown shrimp In the territorial sea and associated with Texas during the May-August period. This closure reduces the bIologIcal presently occurs when large Quantities of undersized shrimp are discarded. There Is a FCZ waste that The extens Ion of the closed season to 20 fathos I n the FCZ was cons Idered because Texas researchers found that small shrimp usually do not extend beyond 20 fathoms. Shrimp of the preferred sIze do occur beyond that depth off the central Texas coast with Infrequent mixing of smaller sizes. The 20 fathom Isobath Is about 20 miles from shore In the study area but Is much closer on the lower Texas coast and more than 50 miles offshore near Louisiana. Size distribution offshore Is as much a function of distance as depth. Shrimp fishermen document occasions when small shrimp are taken beyond this depth. Because a meandering depth contour was not practical as a line of closure, various dIstances from shore were suggested as alternatives. Closure of only a portion of the FCZ would cause substantial enforcement problems In monitorIng the area of limited closure. Because the line of closure Is based on a depth delineation, there may result some hardship to fIshermen attempting to stay just beyond the 20 fathom range. Texas' present terrtorlal sea closure Is difficult to enforce because vessels move Inshore under cover of darkness when shrlmplng occurs. The enforcement costs requiring full at-sea patrols were estimated by NMFS to be $202,400. 6. Establ Ish a Cooperatlve Season a i Closure of the Terrltorlal Sea off of Texas and the Associated FCZ wIthIn 30 Nautical Miles to Protect Undersized Brown Shrimp This alternatIve Is similar to the previous measure. It Is an extens Ion of present Texas manage ment policies. Currently, the Texas territorial sea Is usually closed from June 1 through July 15. There Is a variable, but often substantial discard of brown shrimp In the territorial sea and FCZ associated with Texas during the May-August period. This closure would reduce the biological waste that presently occurs when large Quantities of undersized shrimp move beyond the state's closure of the territorial sea. The 3D-mile line was considered to provIde a zone beyond which most shrimp would provIde an optimum yield In weIght and value. With support from Its advisory panel, the Councl i has determined that a partial closure of the FCZ In this Instance would be Ineffective. Shrlmplng Is done at nIght and vessels can move Into the 8~3 i' closed area to fish. Small shrimp do move far offshore on occasion. Only seven percent of shrimp landed from Gulf waters off Texas during this period came from beyond 30 miles. The alternative of expanding the closure to encompass the entire FCZ associated with Texas was adopted. The enforcent costs requiring full at-sea patrols were estimated by NMFS to be $136,000. 8.5.2.3 Spawning Area Closures 1. Protect Spawning White Shrimp From' Harvest In April Through July Although white shrimp have the shal lowest depth range of the three major species and are fished extensively throughout their range, catch-effort data do not Indicate a decline as a result of recruitment overflshlng. Data also Indicate multiple spawning of white shrimp In a season with wide ranging spawning areas which are difficult to delineate. No scientific data exist to show an advantage from protecting spawning shrimp. relationship between the number of spawners and recruits. There I s no 2. Estab II sh a Tr I a i Sanctuary In Apr Ii and May In the FCZ South of Miss I ss I pp I to Protect Spawning White Shrimp and Assess Spawner Recruit Relationship i n recent years there has been a dec II ne I n the wh I te shr I mp fishery of f M ì ss I ss Ippl and Alabama. Because white shrimp live In the bays, sounds, and Inshore Gulf, they are heavily fished throughout their range. Some fishermen have suggested that heavy fishing on spawning adults off Mississippi may be a factor In the decline of stocks In that area. Best available scientific data, however, show no relationship between the number of spawners and subsequent number of recruits to the fishery. Establishment of a seasonal sanctuary for the spawners would result In the loss of the spring catch In that area with no evidence of justification. 3. C lose the Offshore Waters of the Northern Gu i f Sea) to AII Shrlmplng from Approxlmately April Least East of the Mississippi River). (Fishery Conservation Zone and Territorial 15 to Approximately June 15 Each Year (At 4. Area Closures to Protect Spawning Populations of Brown Shrimp 5. Area Closures to Protect Spawning Populations of Pink Shrimp The same rationale for rejection was established for measures 3, 4, and 5 as for all other proposals for protection of spawning shrimp. There are no scientific data to support a measure to protect spawning shrimp because no relationship between number of spawners and subsequent number of recru I ts to the fishery has been found. 6. Area Closures to Protect Spawn I ng Popu i at Ions of Roya I Red, Rock and Seabob Royal reds (off St.. Augustine, Florida) are believed to spawn during the winter. species of shrimp, they are harvested over several year classes. Un II ke other The area of spawning for rock shrimp has not been determined as they are not believed to be estuar I ne dependent. Seabobs spawn I n the Gu i f of f of Lou I s I ana dur I ng Ju i y-December. dependent. They are not estuarl ne 8-24 1- ~ Present data on a II three specl es I s I ncomp I ete. Rock and seabob shr I mp have been harvested maInly as an IncIdental bycatch. SpawnIng area closures would be dIffIcult to Identify and might conflict with peak harvestIng for the major specIes, thus restrIcting shrImpers In those areas so closed, and dIsruptIng local processors. ThIs could be an unnecessary dIsruption as there Is no apparent spawner-recruIt relatIonshIp. 8.5.2.4 LIcensIng and Data Collection 1. A No-ost Perm I t Be I ssued to nRecreat I ona I n Shr I mpers (Traw I ers On I y) ThIs measure would permit IdentifIcatIon and determInatIon of the effort by recreatIonal shrImpers In the FCZ. SubstantIal costs would OCQJr In the governmntal sector. These costs appear unjustified because most recreatIonal Shrlmplng OCQJrs wIthIn Inland and nearshore waters. RecreatIonal shrimpers wIll be IdentIfied by a vessel enumeratIon system through state boat regIstra tion. 2. Numerous Recomndatlons Were Consldered Deallng Wlth the Llcenslng of Dlfferent Types of Traw i s Costs of ImplementIng thIs type to be derived from such regulatIon. enumeratIon program. of regulatIon would be substantIal to fishermn wIth no benefIts IdentIfication of users Is to be obtaIned through a vessel 8.5.2.5 Limited Entry and Gear Restrictions Management schems desIgned to prevent bIologIcal overf Ishlng or restore a fishery stock are usually formulated around gear restrIctIons, sIze or catch limits, and closed seasons or areas. These type schemes do not address effectIvely the common property resource problem. LImited entry Is a tool that attempts In part or total to deal wIth the common property problem by: (1) selectIng those that may have access and (2) allowIng people to QualIfy for access by usIng economIc criterIa such as taxes, auctIons, leases or outrIght endowments for the rIght to fIsh. Three basIc approaches exIst for accomplIshIng limIted entry. The fIrst Is to license all users of the fishery and then Issue no more future lIcenses. ThIs essentIally freezes effort, lImIts expansIon, transfers propert rIghts from the publIc sector to the fishermn, and allows tecnology to Increase. SInce lIcenses are usually transferable, entry Is not actually limIted, just effort to a degree. The second method Is to InstItute landing Quotas per craft through the Issuance of stock cer tifIcates whIch can be bought and sold among fIshermen. This method Is not attractIve from a pirely economIc standpoInt sInce the capItal Invested In vessels remIns Idle after Quotas are reached. The third method Is the use of dIrec taxes, lIcense fees and/or auctions for the rIght to fIsh. ThIs method can control the amount of fIshIng effort and Is effectIve In taxIng away the economIc rent generated In the fishery durIng periods of prosperIty. If the primary managemnt objective Is nnxl mlzlng the return to socIety as a whole from the fishery, thIs method provIdes the most efficIent techniques from.the standpoInt of economIcs to accomp.llsh thIs objective. Several provIsIons of the MFCM are Important to lImited access systems. Sectlon303(b) (6) establIshes the authorIty to establIsh lImited access systems subject to the consIderation of a numbr of consIderatIons. SectIon 303(B) (1) establishes the rIght to obtaIn vessel permIts and charge fees for the permIt. However, SecIon 304(d) established that the level of the fees shall not exceed the adminIstratIve costs Incurred In IssuIng such permIts. SectIon 301(a)(5) Indicates that management measures wh,ere practical, shall promte effIcIency In the utilizatIon of fishery resource; except that no such measure shall have economIc allocatIon as Its sole purpose. 8-25 !- . These stIpulatIons of the act thus allow the ImplementatIon of limited access systems. Hoever, the restrIctIve QualificatIons are such that any limIted access system desIgned only to accanpllsh plTe economIc efficIency from the standpoInt of socIety as a whole (such as allowIng only the maxImum eco nomIc yIeld level of effort) would not be allowed. One of the necessary optIons In a plTely economIc lImIted entry system Is the abilIty to levy a tax or fee at a hIgh enough rate to tax away economic rent generated In the fIshery. SecIon 304(d) would probably not allow hIgh enough fees to be charged to permIt thIs. Management measures desIgned to achIeve the maximum economIc yIeld In the fIshery could be Interpreted as measures wIth economIc al locatIon as the sole crIterIa. Secion 301(a)(5) probably would not permIt thIs. EssentIally the ImplementatIon of a lImited access system could be Implemented whIch would In effect create property rIghts In the fIshery to the fIshermn. Then sInce hIgh enough fees could not be charged to tax away economIc rents generated, the benefIts of the comiin property resource would be gIven to the fIshermn, rather than to socIety for the publIcly owned resource. Impose LImIted Entry In the FIshery ConservatIon Zone1. ProvIded there was no tncrease In effort In the states' waters, the ImposItIon of lImIted entry In the FCZ would have substantial economic Impact. The catch per unIt of effort could be expected to Increase and provtde stable Incomes for those permItted to particIpate In the fIshery. There would be reductIon In the amount of dIsturbance to the benthIc habitat as well as possIble reductIon In the IncIdental capture of assocIated fIsherIes. There would be an overall decrease In consumptIon of fuel wIthIn the Industry as wel i as reduced conflIcts over space for trawling 'In the FCZ. IncIdental fac tors such as lack of Ice supplIes could be expected to Improve. WIthout a lImit on entry In the states' waters, thIs measure could also be expected to result In IntensIfied effort In waters wIthin state jurIsdictIon. The Increased pressure on juvenIle shrImp In these areas may decrease the poundage of ylel d harvested by deepwater vessels. AddItIonally, It mIght be dIffIcult for people not presently In the fIshery In the FCZ to partIcIpate, partIcularly young peop Ie. ExcessIve economIc rent may accrue to Industry mebers because of the current lImItatIons provIded by the MFCM. ' The measure was not recommended because there Is tnsufflclent data on who Is usIng the resource, on what the benefits (If any) to socIety at large would be, and on how methods to lImIt entry would be made consIstent wIth the mandates of MFCM. The only study examInIng maxtmum economIc yIeld In the fIshery was for the year 1973 and Is not consIstent wIth current effort levels and the Industry sItuatIon. A complete dIscussIon' of overcapttallzatlon Is presented In SectIon 3.5.2.3. 2. VarIous LImItatIons on the WIdth, Mesh, and Type of Trawl RegulatIon of the wIdth, mesh, and type of trawls mIght reduce dIsturbance of the benthIc habI tat, reduce conflicts over trawlIng space, and reduce the IncIdental catch of assocIated fisherIes. ' As the Industry Is presently usIng the most effIcient gear economIcally available, changes renderIng current gear useless could result In Increased costs to the fIshermn as well as' the consumer. AddI tIonally, such restrIctIons cou Id reduce the catch per unIt of effort and possIbly result In lay-offs In the 'processlng Industry. - There Is evidence that gear restrIctIons actually Increase capItalIzatIon and cosTs (Johnson and Toevs, 1979). 8.5.2.6 Recnd Conslderatlon to Change Endangered Specles Act to Permlt Incldental Catch and Release of Sea Turtles Sea turtles proteced by the Endangered SpecIes Act may be captured unwIttIngly. Even thogh shrImpers may release the turtles unharmd, they are In technIcal vIolatIon of the Act when they cap ture an endangered turtle. The suggestIon was made to recommend that the.Act be changed to provIde for IncIdental capture and release of endangered and threatened turtles. 8-26 ThIs proposal was rejected as beIng beyond the authorIty of the Councl' 's plannIng respon sIbIlIty. 8.5.3 Management Measures for ForeIgn FIshIng Currently there Is no foreIgn fIshIng for shrImp In the U.S. Gu If of MexIco, nor are there appl 1 cations for the only stock (royal red shrimp) whIch has an estImated surplus In 1980 and 1981 for total allowable level of foreIgn fIshIng (TALFF). Measures to provIde catch data and area/depth restrIctIons to elImInate non-surplus bycatch wIll be specIfIed In the permIts or In the regulatIons as may be approprIate. In addItIon, the Secretary Is requested to place the followIng three restrIc tIons on any foreIgn natIon fishIng for royal red shrImp were adopted by the CouncIl. 1. ForeIgn fishIng for royal red shrimp Is to be accomplIshed by trawl; however, gear other than standard shrImp trawl may be used after approval by the Secretary after consultatIon wIth the CouncIl. 2. ForeIgn fIshIng for royal red shrImp Is to be permItted only In depths beyond 100 fathoms. 3. Bycatch of foreIgn vessels fIshIng for royal red shrimp Is to be monItored and the Secretary, after consultatIon wIth the CouncIl, may requIre approprIate conservatIon measures. 8.5.4 RelatIonshIp of Recommended Measures to ExIstIng Laws and PolIcIes 8.5.4.1 Other FIshery Management Plans Prepared by a Counc Ii or the Secretary The plan Is consIstent wIth the Stone Crab Management Plan, the Draft Reef FIsh Management Plan, and the current .status of the Groundfrsh Plan. 8.5.4.2 Federal Laws and PolIcIes The plan attempts to be consIstent wIth the Endangered SpecIes Act and MarIne Mammals ProtectIon Act. SectIon 7 consultatIons have been requested from. approprIate federal agencIes to assure con formance (EIS AppendIx B, ExhIbIts 1 and 2). 8.5.4.3 State Laws and PolIcIes The followIng section contaIns a dIscussIon of the relatIonshIp exIstIng state laws and polIcIes. Where dIscrepancIes are apparent, slderatlon by the approprIate state. between the shrimp plan and the they are pol nted out for con Texas Laws and PolicIes: RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.1, Measure 2: The Texas terrItorIal sea Is closed from June 1 to July 15 to protect small brown shrImp durIng the major emIgratIon perIod. Based on sound biologIcal data, the season may be extended to no more than 60 days by the Texas Parks and WIldlife CommIssIon changIng the openIng or closIng dates. Currently, whIte shrImp wIthIn four fathoms may be harvested durIng the closed season. Texas, In 1981, elImInated Its mInImum sIze restrIctIon on Gulf shrimp contIngent on there beIng a shrImp FMP In place whIch provIdes for a cooperatIve seasonal closure of Gulf waters adjacent to that state's terrItorIal sea. 8-27 RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.1, Measure 3: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department currently has the flexibility to determine opening and closing of the summer season In outside waters. However, the department has no flexibility In deter mining the time of the winter closed season. Section 77:062 might be amended to provide the CommIssion the authority to change closIng of bath the summer and winter season (or areas), the decision to be based data acquired through samplIng. Conceivably the seasons (or areas) could then be have reached the size desired. the open I ng and on sound biological opened when shrimp A 1979 amendment to the Texas ShrImp ConservatIon Act provides for some bays to serve as shrimp sanctuarIes In which no shrimp trawling Is permitted. Relationship to 8.5.1.3, Measure 5: The Parks and WildlIfe Commission Is vested with control of the Texas shrimp fishery and Is authorIzed to establIsh rules and regulatIons for the conservatIon and management of shrImp. At present, the CommIssIon has only mInImal flexibility In determining the seasons. Texas mIght amend the statutes and clearly establish that the Commission has full flexibility to set seasons based on the I r env I ronmenta i mon I tor I ng. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 6: The Texas statutory scheme provides the Department the authorIty to negotiate recIprocal agreements with other states. However, agreements are i Imlted to the application In Texas' contiguous zone of another state's shrlmplng regulations to cItIzens of that state. The Department also has 'Imlted authority to cooperate with the Gulf Councl i In developing a fishery management program. Texas mIght broaden the Department's authority to allow It to enter Into any reciprocal agreements necessary to Insure coordInated management with other Interested states. Additionally, the limitation on the Department's authorIty to cooperate with the Gulf Council puts the state In a difficult posItion. Texas mIght make cooperative management easIer by repealing Sec. 79:002, which limits the authority granted In Sec. 79:001. Relationship to 8.5.1.5. Measure 8: There Is a SpecIal Game and Fish Fund (Sec. 11:031-11:033) available for varIed uses approved by the Legislature. Since the Department Is authorized to conduct research on the use of trawls, nets, and other devices for taking shrimp, there are funds to carry out this measure If requIred by the state agency and appropr I ated by the Leg I s I ature. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.8, Measure 11: The Department of Parks and W I i d II fe dealers purchasing seafood from fIshermen products. Is authorized to acquire certaIn data from all licenses, and for resale are required to report Quantity and value of Other measures would have little or no effect on existing Texas law and polIcies. LouisIana Laws and Policies: RelationshIp to 8.5.1.1, Measure 3: 8-28 LouIsIana has desIgnated certaIn areas as "sanctuaries," closed to most forms of sttlmplng (R.S. 56:801); these areas, however, are II ml ted I n scope. I f Lou I s I ana adopts the sanctuary concet (Management Measure No.3), legIslatIve actIon would be needed to Implement thIs provIsIon:. the LouIsIana legIslature might amend R.S. 56:493, authorIzIng the Department of WIldlIfe and FIsherIes to desIgnate areas as needed, or It could create sanctuary areas by specIal provIsIon. ((t Is noteworthy that, durIng 1975, a serIes of publIc hearIngs on the feasibilIty of establIshIng addItIonal sanctuarIes was held throughout the state. A renewal of these efforts appears justifIed.) LouIsIana's present management procedures dIvIde the waters In whIch shrimp are found Into InsIde and outsIde waters. Because of the IndefInIte nature of LouIsIana's water/land Interface, the defInItions are QuIte precIse, and the statute draws the lIne delIneatIng these waters. If a sanctuary area Is desIgnated, LouIsIana mIght create these dIvIsIons: the sanctuary waters, InsIde waters (whIch would refer to open bays), and outsIde waters as already defIned. The exact delineatIon of the sanctuary areas may be dIffIcult and perhaps lIkely to result In legal challenges and enforcement problems. The state mIght grant thIs authorIty to the LDWF by amendIng R.S. 56:495 to provIde for the desIgnatIon of the protected areas In the same manner that InsIde and outsIde waters are determined; however, It may be more feasIble to permIt LDWF to open and close areas as approprIate (R.S. 56:497). RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 5: The WIldlIfe and FIsherIes CommIssIon does not have exclusIve control of the shrImp fIshery or shrImp Industry. Although the CommIssIon Is authorIzed to open or close seasons occasIonally at tImes other than the regular seasons and may set specIal seasons for all or part of the InsIde waters, tbe two major seasons are set by statute. These seasons apply only to InsIde waters and are determIned by samplIng data; the CommIssIon has only mInImal flexlbl i Ity In settIng the sprIng season and none In setting the fa I i season. To provIde the flexIbIlIty necessary for the best yIeld, LouIsIana mIght amend R.S. 56:497, gIvIng the CommIssIon the authorIty to establIsh open and closed seasons wIthIn both InsIde and out sIde waters. These seasons should be determIned on the basIs of bIologIcal data acquired through samplIng, such as are currently used to determIne the openIng of the sprIng season. Relatlonsh Ip to 8.5.1.3, Measure 6: The Department of WIldlIfe and FIsheries Is authorIzed to enter Into recIprocal agreemnts wIth MIssIssIppI and Texas for the protectIon of aquatic i Ife found wIthIn common waters. Wh I Ie thIs provIdes part of the framework for recl proca I agreements, Loul s lana might cons Ider leg I s latlon author I zl ng the Department of WI I d i I fe and F Isherl es to enter Into approprl ate agreements wIth Alabama, FlorIda, and the Gulf Councl I, as well as wIth Texas and MIssIssIppI. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.5, Measure 8: LouIsIana currently has suffIcIent authorIty to Implement thIs measure and does In fact conduct such research. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.8, Measure 11: The Department of WIldlIfe and FIsheries Is authorIzed to acquIre certaIn data from commercIal shrimpers and processors, but enforcement Is lImIted. LouIsIana has no provIsIons for collectIng data from recreatIonal shrImpers. Other measures would have lIttle or no effect on LouIsIana's exIsting laws and polIcIes. 8-29 ~ - ~ , M~sslsslppl Laws and Policies: Relationship to 8.5.1.1~ Measure 3: The MIssIssIppI MarIne ConservatIon CommIssIon Is authorIzed to enact all regulatIons necessary for the "protectIon, conservatIon, or propagatIon of all shrImp..." (Sec. 49-15-15 3 k). The CommIssIon has prevIously enacted ordInances closIng certaIn areas to shrImplng In order to protect juvenl Ie stage shrimp. For example, the CommIssIon has closed to all but baIt shrImpers that portIon of the state's waters lyIng one-half mIle from the coastlIne from July 15 to August 15 (Sec. 8100). If MIssIssIppI adopts the polIcy, It may have to denote and close other areas or elImInate Its count restrIctIon on catch. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 5: SupervIsIon of matters concernIng marIne aquatIc lIfe Is vested In the MIssIssIppI MarIne ConservatIon CommIssIon. The CommIssIon has broad authority to adopt and supervIse approprIate management plans for marIne fIsherIes. If It adopts the suggestIons of the ShrImp Management Plan, the CommIssIon has the mechanIsm to carry them out. Relatlonsh Ip to 8.5.1.3, Measure 6: MIssIssippI Is a member of the Gulf States MarIne FIsherIes CommIssIon, whIch was developed t~ foster cooeration between the states In matters of fIsh management. The CommIssIon Is authorIzed (49-15-15 j) to enter Into agreements wIth offIcIals of other states for the protectIon, propagatIon, and conservatIon of seafood. RelationshIp to 8.5.1.5, Measure 8: MissIssIppI has no specIfic authorIzatIon to conduct research on shrlmplng gear but Is authorized to contract the servIces and facilities of the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, or of state higher educatIon facilItIes, for research It deems necessary to foster the seafood Industry. . RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.8, Measure 11: The CommIssion Is authorIzed to collect I Imlted data from varIous sources. Other measures would have Ilttle- or no effect on MIssIssIppI's exIstIng laws and polIcIes. Alabama Laws and PolIcies: RelationshIp to 8.5.1.1, Measure 3: Alabama closes Its season on about Aprl' 30 and does not open It agaIn untl I samplIng shows an average shrImp count of 68 or less per pound. UndersIzed shrImp are supposed to be dIscarded. If Alabama adopts thIs measure, current laws mIght be amended to allow possessIon of all shrimp caught In open areas. Alabama already desIgnates certaIn sanctuary areas as closed 9-12-48). Supplemental legIslatIon mIght be needed to the extent Inadequate for producIng the best yIeld. to shrlmpl ng for any purpose (Sec. that Alabama fInds the sanctuarl es 8-30 Relationship to 8.5.1.3, Measure 5: The Division of Marine Resources, under the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, has been established to develop and administer management schemes for conservation and use of seafoods. It presently has fairly wide latitude In carrying out Its programs and could adapt these programs to suggested guidelInes If the Division so desired. .Relatlonshlp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 6: Alabama Is a member of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission which was designed to promte this type of cooperation. The Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources Is authorized by Sec. 9-12-160 to enter Into agreemnts of reciprocity with other states for the taking of seafood. Relationship to 8.5.1.5, Measure 8: Alabama has no specific authorization for the study and development of Improved shrlmplng gear. However, the state has established a Seafoods Fund (9-2-87), which can be used by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources (9-2-89) in any way deemed appropriate for the benefit of the seafood industry. The governor's approval Is necessary for such expenditures. Relationship to 8.5.1.8, Measure 11: The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Is authorized the realm of commercial seafood production, but enforcèment Is limited. collecting data from recreational shrimpers. to acquire certain data wlt~ln Alabama has no provisions for Other measures would. have little or no effect on Alabama's existing laws and policies. Florida Laws and Policies: Relationship to 8.5.1.1, Measure 1: Closure of the portion of the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary In the FCZ will, In large part, relmplement what Florida has done In the past. As noted previously, part of the Tortugas area was reoened to shrlmplng as a result of a U.S. Suprem Court decision delimiting Florida's Submerged Lands Act juriSdiction. While under Sklrlortes, Florida law was stili applicable In those waters beyond state waters but had no jurisdiction In the area over out-of-state fishermn. The Supreme Court decision led to a heated controversy between shrimp fishermen and bers, because shrimpers began moving Into areas of the Tortugas from which they had been under previous law. Enactment of this recommendation by the Council decreased conf Ilcts shrimpers and crabbers. stone crab exc luded between the In accord with the establishment of the Tortugas Shrimp Sanctuary In the FCZ, Florida In 1981 amended Its law to al low possession of any size shrimp not taken In Florida waters. Relationship to 8.5.1.1, Measure 3: In Florida waters, however, It Is unlawful to catch and keep shrimp with more than five percent "sma' I shrimp" -- that Is, those smaller than 47 with heads or 70 without heads. 8-31 ,-- , RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 5: There Is presently some flexlbl I Ity In the admInIstratIon of fisherIes In Florida. The DIvIsIon of Marine Resources wIthIn the Department of Natural Resources apparently has authorIty to open and close areas (based on bIologIcal dáta), but the authorIty has not been'exerclsed to the fullest extent. The FlorIda legIslature mIght consIder the enactment of a clearly wrItten statute authorIzIng the DIvIsIon of MarIne Resources to use bIologIcal data In openIng and closIng areas to shrlmplng durIng the year. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.3, Measure 6: FlorIda has a reciprocal agreement wIth Alabama concernIng access to shrlmplng waters. However, there have been no agreements adopted that would provIde for joInt management, and It Is Questionable whether the Department of Natura I Resources has statutory author I ty to make such an agreemnt. If FlorIda adopts the optIon, Its legIslature mIght provIde the Department wIth thIs authorIty. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.5, Measure 8: FlorIda's Department of Natural Resources presently manner, and equIpment used In the takIng of shrImp," but to deve i op gear I s be I ng cond ucted. . has authorIty to regulate "the method, there I s no I nd I cat Ion that ongo I ng research RelationshIp to 8.5.1.6, Measure 9: I f FlorIda adopts seasonal closure of a portIon of the Dry Tortugas ShrImp Grounds, It wI Ii requIre legIslatIve actIon. Presently, Sec. 370.151 clòses an area desIgnated as the Tortugas ShrImp Bed. FlorIda mIght find It useful to amend thIs law so that It also dIfferentIates the seasonal closure of a delIneated portIon of the Dry Tortugas ShrImp Ground. AlternatIvely, the DIvIsIon of MarIne Resources Is authorIzed by Sec. 370.15 to control the method, manner, and equIpment used In the takIng of shrImp, as well as lImItIng and defInIng the areas where shrImp can be taken. There appears to be suffIcIent authorIty to regulate a seasonal closure of the Tortugas ShrImp Grounds, whIch could be accomplIshed wIth a specIfIc subsectIon for thIs area. RelatIonshIp to 8.5.1.8, Measure 11: FlorIda has legIslatIon authorIzIng the acquIsItIon of the varIous data lIsted In the recommen dat Ion, but the prov I s Ion I s not enforced. Other measures would have lIttle or no effect on FlorIda's exIstIng laws and polIcIes. 8.6 Enforcement RequIrements Enforcement agents of NMFS wI Ii be requIred. Coast Guard aIrcraft and patrol vessels are needed for patrol. 8.7 Cooperative Research RequIrements Data needs In the fIshery have been IdentIfIed by the InterdIscIplInary team whIch prepared ChrIstmas and Etzold (1977). These data are a i so needed under FCM and are therefore adopted here. dIffer; for example, adequate socIoeconomIc data are crItIcally needed. However, prIoritIes may 8-32 8.8 PermIt RequIrements No permIts are requIred except as may be requIred of foreIgn vessels. 8.9 F I nanc I ng ReQu I rements 8.9.1 Management and Enforcement Costs 8.9.1.1 Tortugas Closure (year round) Measure No.1: EstImated vessel populatIon = 1,000 50 percent at-sea enforcement mode Patrol days requIred = 83 Cost of patro I days = $232,400 Atrcraft hours requIred = 83 Cost of aIrcraft hours = $83,000 Enforcement offIcers requtred = 1.4 Cost of offIcers = $35,000 Subtotal - Tortugas closure = $350,400 8.9.1.2 Texas Closure (45 days) Measure No.2: EstImated vessel populatton = 1,500 50 percent at-sea enforcement mode Patrol days requIred = 125 (annual) Forty-ftve day patrol requIrement = 16 Cost of patrol days = $44,800 Atrcraft hours requIred = 16 Cost of aIrcraft hours = $16,000 Enforcement offIcers requIred = 0.3 Cost of of f t cers = $7,500 Subtotal - Texas closure = $68,300 8.9.1.3 Shore-sIde enforcement for tnspecttons relatIve to mandatory reportIng, etc., Measure No. 11: EstImated vessel populatton - 4,000 50 percent shore-s I de enforcement InspectIon days requIred = 667 Inspectors requIred = 3.0 Cost of Inspectors = $75,000 8.9.1.4 InvestIgatIons to support sea and shore enforcement: Total sea and shore staff requIred = 4.7 InvestIgators fIgured at 30 percent of (a) Agents requtred = 1.4 Cost of agents = $35,000 above 8.9.1.5 Support for a II enforceent ef forts: Total sea, shore and InvestIgatIve = 6.1 Support ftgured at 10 percent of (a) aboVe 8~3 Support staff requIred = 0.6 Cost of support = $15,000 8.9.1.6 Total staff years of effort requIred and total cost of vessel and aIrcraft patrols, InspectIons, InvestIgatIons and support: Staf f years requl red = 6.7 Total cost = $543,700 8.9.2 Expected State and Federa I Revenues, Taxes, and Fees No changes In exIstIng revenues are expected other than those whIch would be requIred to obtaIn basIc catch-effort data to manage the stocks. 8~4 9.0 STATEMENT OF COUNCIL INTENTION TO REVIEW THE PLAN AFTER APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY It Is the Intention of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to monitor and review the plan and Implementing regulations on a continuing basis, after Its approval by the Secretary. The Council Intends that the Secretary of Commerce, after consultation with the Council, develop annual estimates of MSY, DAH, DAP, OY and TALFF using the methodology developed by the Council and specified In Section 4.7. The Secretary will develop the data necessary to derive the specifications according to the equatlon(s) In the plan. The Secretary will publish the yearly figures as a notice for public review. The Council will monitor the management regime closely to assure that It attains the desired objectives of the management plan. 9-1 10.0 SELECTED B I BLI OGRAPHY Abramson, N. J. 49: 174-182. 1963. Distribution of California angling effort In 1961. Calif. Fish and Game Acheson, J. M. 1977. Social and cultural aspects of the south Atlantic shrimp Industry--a pilot study. University of Maine, Orono, Maine. Aldrich, D. V., C. E. Wood, and K. N. Baxter. postlarval shrimp. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 1967. 48:80. Burrowing as a temperature response In A I varez, J., C. O. Andrew, and F. shr I mp process I ng Industry. 16 pp. J. Prochaska. 1976. Dual structure equilibrium In the Florida Florida Sea Grant Program. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Alvarez, J., C. process I ng 46 Pp. O. Andrew, and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. Economic structure of the. Florida shrimp Industry. Florida Sea Grant Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Rep. 9. Alvarez, J., C. O. Andrew, and F. J. Prochaska. 1975. Florida shrimp: from the sea through the market. Florida Sea Grant Program. Unrverslty of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 15 pp. A Iverson, D. L. 1975. Management of the ocean's i Ivlng resources: Intern. Law J. 3:99. an essay review. Ocean Dev. aDd Anderson, L. G. 1977. A classification of fishery management problems to aId In the analysis and proper formulation of management problems. Ocean Dev. and Intern. Law J. 4:113. Anderson, W. W. 1970. Contributions to the life histories of several penaeld shrimps (Penaeldae) along the south Atlantic coast of the United States. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Serv., SSR-F. 605. 24 pp. Anderson, W. W., M. J. Lindner, and J. E. KIng. States. Comm. Fish. Rev. 11:1-17. 1949. The shrimp fishery of the southern United Anderson, W. W., and M. J. Lindner. Hymenopenaeus robustus Sml tho 1971. Contributions to the biology of the royal red shrimp, Fish. Bull. 69: 313-336. Andrew, C. 0., and F. J. Prochaska. 1974. structura I change. S. J. of Ag. Eco. Shr I mp process I ng I n the southeast: (1974): 247-252. supply problems and Anon. 1977. Review of the shallow water shrimp fishery management unit, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Area. Copiled by staff of the NMFS Galveston Lab. 165 PP. Associ at Ion of V Illage Council 1977. Recommendations on Unpublished manuscript. Presidents of the Yukon-Kuskokwln Delta Region In Southwestern Alaska. lands that support Alaska's subsistence living Eskimo and Indian. Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission, Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission, and Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission. 1977. Eastland Fisheries Survey: A report to the congress. 91 pp. Barr, A. J., J. H. Goodnight, J. p. Sail, and J. T. Helwig. I nst Itute, Inc. Ra I e I gh, N.C. 329 PP. 1976. A user's guide to SAS 76. SAS 10-1 Barrett, B. B. 1971. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine Inventory and study, Louisiana. Phase II, Hydrology, and phase "I, Sedimentology. La. Wildlife and Fish. Comm., New Orleans, La. 191 PP. Barrett, B. B., and M. C. Gillespie. product Ion I n coastal Lou I s I ana. 1975. 1975 environmental conditions relative to shrimp La. Dept. Wildlife and Fish., Tech. Bull. No. 15:22 PP. Barrett, B. B., M. C. Gillespie. 1973. Primary factors which Influence commercial shrimp production In coastal Louisiana. La. Dept. Wildlife and Fish., Tech. Bull. No. 9:28 PP. Barrett, B. B., and E. J. Ralph. 1976. 1976 environmental conditions relative to shrimp production In coastal Louisiana. La. Dept. Wildlife and Fish., Tech. Bull. No. 21:20 PP. Baxter, K. N. 1973. Shrimp discarding by the commercial fishery In the Western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Rev. 35:26. Baxter, K. N., and W. C. Renfro. 1967. Seasonal and white shrimp near Galveston, Texas, with Serv., Fishery Bull. 66:149-158. occurrence and size distribution of postlarval brown notes on species Identification. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Beardsley, G. L. 1970. Distribution of migrating juvenile pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, Burkenroad, In Buttonwood Canal, Everglades National Park, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99:401-408. Bell, F. W. 1972. Technologlca I externalities and common-property resources: the US northern lobster fishery. J. Political Eco. 80: 148-158. an empirical studyef Bell, F. W., et al. 1970. The future of the world's fishery resources: forecasts of demand, supply, and prices to the year 2000 with a discussion of Implications for public policy, Washington, D.C.: NMFS, Division of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 65-1, December 1970. Berry, R. J. ,and R. C. Benton. FAD Fish. Rep. 3:983-999. 1969. DlscardlnQ practices In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Berry, R. J. 1970. Shrimp mortality rates derived from fishery statistics. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 22d Ann. Sese Pages 66-78 In Proc. Beverton, R. J. H., and S. J. Holt. 1957. I nvestlQatlon, London, 19: 533 Pp. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fishery Biennial Report - Louisiana Dept. of Conservation. of Aprl i 1, 1916-Aprll 1, 1918. 151 PP. 1918. Miscellaneous comments In biennial report Blackmon, J. H., Jr. 1974. Observation on the ImmlQratlon of through a t I da i pass I n the Caml nada Bay, Lou I s I ana area. University, Baton Rouge, La. 58 PP. the brown shr Imp, Penaeus aztecus, Master's thes I s, Lou I s I ana State Blomo, V., K. Stokes, W. Griffin, W. Grant, and J. Nichols. 1978. Bloeconomlc simulation model for the manaQement of the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery. So. J. Ag. Eco. 10: 119-125. Blomo, V. J., and W. L. Griffin. 1978. Traw lers, 1977. TAMU-SG79-604. Cost and Returns Data: Florida-Based Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Blomo, V. J., 1979. Bloeconomlc analysis and management of the shrimp fishery of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. dlss., Texas A&M University. 150 Pp. , 10-2 Blomo, V. J., and J. p. Nichols. 1974. Utilization of finfIshes caught Incidental to shrimp trawling In the Western Gulf of Mexico. Part I: Evaluation of markets. Texas A&M Unlv., College Sta., Tex. Sea Grant publ. TAMU-SG-74-212. 85 pp. Bromley, D. W. 1969. Economic efficiency In common property natural resource use: the ocean fishery. Ph.D. dlss., Oregon State University. 162 pp. a case study of Brood, A. C. 1965. Environmental requiremnts of shrimp. In Clarence M. Tarzwel I, ed. Biological problems In water pollution. U.S. Dlv. Water Supply Pollution Control, 3d Seminar, 1962. Broo, J. G. 1968. Pond culture of shrimp on Grand Terre Island, Louisiana, 1962-1968. and Fish. Comm., Mar. Lab., Grand Terre Island, La. 15 pp. La. Wild I. Brown, G. L. 1981. A survey of recreational shrlmplng In the bay and sound systems of the Gulf coast for 1980. Final Report, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Miss. 147 pp. Bryan, C. E. (Penaeus Christi, 1980. Organisms captured by the aztecus i ves) grounds. Masters' Texas. commercl a I shr I mp fleet on the Texas brown shr I mp thesis, Corpus Christi State University, Corpus Bryan, C. E., and T. J. Cody. 1975. A study of commercial shrimp, rock shrimp, and potentially com mercial fInfish 1973-1975. Part I. White shrimp, Penaeus setlferus (Llnnaeus), spawning In the Gulf of Mexico off Texas. Coast. Fish. Branch, Texas Parks and Wlldl. Dept. p. L. 88-309 Prod. 2-202-R: 1-29. Bryan, C. E., T. J. Cody, and K. W. Rice. 1978. Monitoring of shrimp populations and an evaluation of the Texas shrimp laws In the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 1-29 In Completion Report for Texas Parks and Wildlife Project 2-276-R with U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bullis, H. R. 16 PP. 1951. Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl designs. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Servo Fish. Leafl. 394, Burkenroad, M. D. 1934. The Penaeldae of Louisiana with a discussion of their world relationships. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hlst. 68:61-143. Burkenroad, M. D. 1939. Further observations on Penaeldae of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Bingham Ocean. Collect. 6:1-62. Bull. Burnett, W. E. 1979. Prototype 'tongue trawl' outshrlmps flat nets nearly 20 percent. F I sherman 59 ( 11 ): 53. National Butlln, J. A. 1974~ The role of economics In fisheries management research. Management 2: 56. Maritime Policy and Caillouet, C. W., and F. J. Patella. 1978. Relationship between size composition and ex-vessel of reported shrimp catches from two Gulf coast'states with different harvesting strategies, Marine Fisheries Rev. 40:14-18. value Cal'louet, C. W., F. J. Patella, and W. B. Jackson. 1980. Trends toward shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and white shrimp (P. setlferus) In reported Louisiana. Fish. Bull.: Vol. 77, No.4. decreas I ng size of brown annua i catches from Texas and Captlva, F. J. 1966. Trends In shrimp trawler design and construction over the past five decades. Pages 23-30 In Proc. Gu i f Carl b. Fish. i nst., 19th Ann. Sese 10-3 Cato, J. 1975. Shrimp supplies In the southeast and their effect on processing firm size. Paper presented to the Annual Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States. 7 Pp. Cato, J., and F. J. Prochaska. Fishing Gazette 18: 10. 1975. Economic growth aspects of the Florida shrimp Industry. Cato, J. C., and F. J. Prochaska. 1977. Primary economic Impact of shrimp landings on the Tampa Bay. economy. University of Florida, Galnesvl i Ie, Fla. Chabreck, R. H. 1972. Vegetation, water and soil characteristics of the Louisiana coastal region. Louisiana State Unlv. Agrl. Exper. Sta., Baton Rouge, LA. Sui I. 1664, 72 PP. Chavez, E. A. 1973. A study on the growth rate of brown shrl mp (Penaeus aztecus I ves, 1891) from the coasts of Veracruz and Tampaullpas, Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep. 4:278-299. Chin, 1:. 1960. The bait shrimp fishery of Galveston Bay, Texas. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 89:135-141. Chleborowlcz, A. G. 1974. Evaluation of twin-trawl shrimp fishing gear. (Addendum), North Carol I na State Unlv. 14 PP. Sea Grant Pub. UNC-SG-74-10 Christmas, J. Y. 1973. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine I: Area description. Phase Ii: Hydrology. Phase III: Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, Miss. 434 pp. Inventory and study, Mississippi. Phase Sedimentology. Phase IV: Biology. Chrl stmas, J. Y., and D. regional management 2: 128 PP. J. Etzold. 1977. The shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States: plan. Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, Miss., Tech. Report Sere No. a Christmas, J. Y., G. Gunter, and p. Musgrave. penaeld shrimp In the estuarine waters of Gulf Res. Rep. 2: 117-212. 1966. Studies on annual abundance of postlarval Mississippi as related to subsequent commercl al catches. Christmas, J. Y., W. Langley, and T. Van Devender. 1976. Investigations of commercl ally Important penaeld shrimp In Mississippi. Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, Miss. 66 pp. Chul, M. K. 1980. Exvessel demand by size for the Gulf shrimp. Unlverslth, College Station, Texas. Masters Thes Is. Texas A~ Clark, S. H., p. A. Emilianl, and R. A. Neal. 1974. Release and recovery data from brown shrimp mark-recapture studies In the northern Gulf of Mexico May 1967-November 1969. Rept. 85. 152 pp. and wh Ite NMFS Data Cleary, D. p. 1975. Demand and prices for shrimp. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Economic Research, Washington, D.C. Working Paper No. 15. Coase, R. H. 1968. The problem of social cost. Pages 423-456 In Readings In microeconomics, ed. WllllamBrlet and H. M. Hochman. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Cobb, S. p., C. R. Futch, and D. K. Camp. Sicyonia brevlrostrls Stimpson, 1871 38 PP. 1973. Memirs of the Hourglass cruises: the rock shrimp, (Decapoda, Penaeldae). Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Mar. Res. Lab. Cohen, Y. A., ed. i ". 1968. Man In adaptation: the cu Itura I present. Aldlne Publishing Co., Chicago, 10-4 Cook, H. L., and M. A. Murphy. 1965. Early developmental stages of the rock shrimp, Sicyonia bre vlrostrls Stimpson, reared In the laboratory. Tulane Stud. Zool. 12: 109-127. Copeland, B. J. 1965. Fauna of the Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas. I. collections. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., Unlv. of Texas. 10:9-21. Emigration as shown by tide trap Copeland, B. J., and M. V. Truitt. 1966. Fauna of the Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas. shrimp postlarvae. Texas J. Scl. 18:65-74. 11. Penae I d Cordell, J. 1974. The lunar-tide fishing cycle In northeastern Brazil. Ethno logy 13: 379-392. Costello, T. J. 1964. Pink shrimp life history. Pages 30-31 In U.S. Fish. and Wlldl. Clr. 183. Costello, T. J., and D. M.Allen. 1960. duorarum). Proc. Gu I f Carl b. Fish. Notes on the migration and growth of pink shrimp (Penaeus Inst. 12:5-9. Costello, T. J., and D. M. Allen. 1961. Migrations, mortality, and growth of pink shrimp. 21 In U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Servo Clr. 129. Pages 18 Costello, T. J. and D. M. Allen. 1965. Migrations and geographic distribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, of the Tortugas and Sanlbel Grounds, Florida. Fish. Bul i. 65:449-459. Costello, T.J. and D. M. AI len. 1968. Mortality rates In populations of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, on the Sanlbel and Tortu~s grounds, Florida. Fish. Bull. 66:491-502. Costello, T. J., and D. M. Allen. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad,. 1939. FAO Fish. Rep. 57:1499-1537. Craig, F. J. i Ii, J. T. Bockrath, and K. D. Marcel. 1978. jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries. University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, Management Institutions, po" cl esand Unpublished manuscript. Louisiana State La. Unpublished manuscript. 210 PP. Crance, J. H. 1971. Description of Alabama estuarine area--cooperatlve Gulf of Mexico Inventory. A la. Mar. Res. Bu". 6. 85 PP. Critchfield, R. 1973. The golden bowl Is broken: Press, Bloomington, Ind. 312 PP. peasant II fe I n four cu Itures. Indiana Unlv. Crutchfield, J. A. 1973. Fisherman Quotas: Unpublished manuscript. 7 PP. A tentative suggestion for domestic management. Crutchfield, J. A., and A. Zellner. Indus. Res. 1:41-77. 1962. Economic aspects of the Pacl f Ic Hall but Fishery. Fish. Cummings, W. C. 1961. Maturation and spawning of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Am. Fish. Soc. 90:462-468. Trans. Darnel i, R. M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger Invertebrates of Lake Pontchartraln, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., Unlv. of Texas 5:353-416. Davis, H. H. Jr. 1940. The ecology and geologic role of mangroves In Florida. Washington Pub. No. 517. Papers Tortugas Lab. 32:303-412. Carnegl e I nst. 10-5 Department of Natura I Resources ~ Lou I s I ana. fund. 1980. Regulations for the fishermen's gear compensation Diener, R. A. 1975. Cooperative Gu If of Mexico estuarl ne Inventory and study, Texas: tlon. U.S. Dept. Comm., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS CIRC-393. 129 pp. Area descr I p Do I I, J. p. 1972. 54: 431-440. An econometric analysis of shrimp exvessel prices, 1950-1968. Am. J. of Ag. Eco. Eldred, B. 1959. Notes of Trachypeneus (Trachysalambrls) slmilis (Smith) In the Tortugas shrimp fishery. Quar. J. Florida Acad. Scl. 22:75-76. Eldred, B., R. M. Ingle, K. D. Woodburn, R. F. Hutton, and H. Jones. 1961. Biological on the commercl al shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, In Florida waters. Florida Conserv., Prof. Paper Series 3:1-139. observat Ions St. Board Everhart, W. H., A. W. Elpper, and W. D. Young. University Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 288 Pp. 1975. Principles of fishery science. Cornel i Ewald, J. J. 1965. The laboratory rearing of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. 449 In Contrlb. no. 615 from Mar. Lab." Inst. of Mar. Scl., University of Miami. Pages 436 Farfante, I sabe i Perez. 591. 1969. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. Fish. Bull. 67:461 Farfante, I sabel Perez. 1977. American solenocerld shrimps of the genera Hymenopenaeus, Hal I porol des, Pleotlcus, Hadropenaeus, new genus, and Mesopenaeus, new genus. Fish. 261-346. Bu 11. 75: Farley, Orman. 1981. Persona I commun I cat Ion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, Texas. Firth, R. 1946. Ma i ay fishermen: their peasant economy. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London. Fisher, W. L., L. F. Brown Jr., of the Texas Coastal Zone: Austin, Texas. 93 pp. and J. H. McGowen, Beau lI nt-Port 9 plates. and C. G. Groat. - 1973. Environmental geologic atlas Arthur Area. Bur. Eco. Geol., University of Texas, Fisher, W. L., J. H. McGowen, L. F. Brown Jr., and of the Texas coastal zone: Ga i veston-Houston Austin, Texas. 91pp. and 9 plates. C. G. Groat. 1972. Environmental geologic atlas areà. Bur. Eco. Geol., University of Texas, Flint, L. H. 1956. Notes on the algal food of shrimp and oysters. Proc. La. Acad. Scl. 19:11-14. Ford, T. B., and L. S. St. Amant. 1971. Management guidelines for predicting brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, production In Louisiana. Pages 149-161 In Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 23d Ann. Sese Forman, S. 1970. The raft fishermen: tradition and change In the Brazill an peasant economy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Ind. 158 pp. Fontaine, C. T., and R. A. Neal. 1971. Length-weight relations for three commercl ally Important penaeld shrimp of the Gulf of Mexico. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100:584-586. Fox, W. W. Jr. 1975. Fitting the generalized stock production IIdel by least-squares and equilibrium approximation. Fish. Bull. 73:23-36. 10-6 Fox, W. W. Jr. 1981. Personal communication. Center, Miami, Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Fuller, D. A. 1978. The habits, distribution and Incidental capture of sea turtles In Mexico. LouisIana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, La. manuscript. 46 PP. the Gulf of Unpub II shed Futch, C. R., and D. S. Beaumarlage. 1965. A report on the bait shrimp fishery of Lee County, Florida. Fla. St. Board Conserve Mar. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL, FBCML No. 65-1. 22 pp. Galdry, W. J. III, and C. J. Wh Ite. 1973. Investlqatlons of commercl ally Important penaeld shrimp In Louisiana estuaries. La. Wildlife and Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. 8. 154 PP. Gates, J. M., and V. J. Norton. 1974. The benefits of fisheries regulation: A case study of the Nèw England yeilowtail flounder fishery. University of Rhode Island Mar. Tech. Rep. 21. 35 PP. GI I lesple, W. C., J. C. Hlte, and J. S. Lytle. Industry. Clemson University Agricultural Resources No.2, AE330. 1969. An economtric analys Is of the U.S. shrimp Experl ment Station, Clemson, S.C. Economl cs of Marl ne Gossellnk, J. G., ed. In Press. A characterization of the Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. USFWS, FWS/OBS-78/11. Gossellnk, J. G., and R. H. Baumann. 1978. Wetland Inventories: wetland loss along the United States coast. Paper presented at the Coastal Symposium of the joint Assoc. of Amer.Geog/lntern. Geog. Union meetings. New Orleans, La. 1978. Unpublished manuscript from Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouae, La. 25 PP. Grant, W. E., and W. L. Griffin. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. i n Press. A bloeconomlc model of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Grant, W., K. Isakson and W. Griffin. 1980. A General blo-economlc simulation marine fisheries. Manuscript submitted to Journal of Ecological Modeling. Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and Department of Agricultural EconomIcs. COllege Station, Texas. mode i for annua I-crop Department of Texas A&M Un I vers I ty, Griffin, W. L. 1978. Estimation of relative fIshing power from Interviewed landlnqs to total land Ings. Texas A&M University, Col lege Station, Texas. Unpublished manuscript. 23 pp. Griffin, W. and 8. Beattie. 1977. Mexico's 200-Mlle offshore fishing zone: Its economic Impact on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Sea Grant Publication TAMU-SG-77-210. Department of Agriculture Economics. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. Griffin, W. L., and B. R. Beattie. 1978. Economic Impact of.Mexlco's 200-mlle offshore fishing zone on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Land Economics. 54:27-38. Griffin, W. L., and J. R. Nichols. 1975. Trends In catch-effort relationships with economic Implications: Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery. Marine Fisheries Rev. 37:1-4. Griffin, W. L., D. Smith, R. D. Lacewell, and J. p. Nichols. 1973. shrimp landings: Description of data availability. Texas A&M Int. Rept. No. 73-3: 17 PP. National Marine Fisheries Service University Ag. Exp. Station, Dept. 10-7 Griffin, W. L., R. D. Lacewell and J. p. Nichols. 1976. Optlmumceffort and rent distribution In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. Vol. 58, No.4. PP. 644-652. Griffin, W., J. Nichols, R. Anderson, J. Buckner and C. Adams. 1978. Cost and returns data: Texas shrimp trawlers Gulf of Mexico, 1974-75. Sea Grant Publication TAMU-SG-79-601. Department of Agriculture Economics. Texas A&M University, Col lege Station, Texas. Griffin, W., W. Grant, J. Warren, and J. NI(:hols. (In press). Analysis of sugqested policies for the Texas shrimp fishery. Department of Agriculture Economics. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Texas A&M University. Staff Paper Series. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1980. Portion of June, 1980 minutes relating to shrimp IndusTry economl c condl tlon and cond I tlonal fishery. Nap les, Fiori da. Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries DevelopmenT Foundation, Inc. 1981. Minority participation In the fisheries of the Gulf and south Atlantic. Interim Report prepared by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. Gulland, J. A. 1972. Some Introductory guidelines to management of shrimp fisheries, FAO, Rome. Cons. Perm. InT. Explor. Mer. 33:471-477. J. Gulland, J. A. 1974. Wash. 198 PP. The management of marine fisheries. Un I vers I ty of Was hi ngton Pres s. Seattle, Gunter, G. 190. 1945. Studies on marine fishes of Texas. publ. InST. Mar. Scl. University of Texas 1:1 Gunter, G. 1950. Invertebrates University of Seasona I popu I at Ion of the Texas coast, Texas. 1 :7-51. changes and distribution as related TO salinity, of certain Including the commercial shrimp. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., Gunter, G. 1955. 8th Ann. Sese Prlnclp les of fishery management. Pages 99-106 In Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. Gunter, G. 1962. Shrimp landings and production of the state of Texas for the period 1956-1959 with comparison with other Gulf States. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., University of Texas. 8:216-226. Gunter, G., ard J. C. Edwards. 1969. The relation of rainfall and ductlon of penaeld shrimp (Penaeus f luvlatilis Say and Penaeus Louisiana waters. FAD. Fish Rep. 57:875-892. fresh water dra I nage to the pro aztecus I ves) I n Texas and Gunter, G., and W. E. Snell. 1958. A study of an estuarine area with water-level control In the Louisiana marsh. Proc. La. Acad. Scl. 21 :5-34. Gutherz, E. J., G. M. Russell, A. F. Serra, and B. A. Rohr. 1975. Synopsis of the northern Gulf of Mexico I ndustrl al and foodf I sh I ndustrl es. Marl ne F Isherl es Rev. 37: 1-11. Harrington, D. L. 1975. Four nets, more shr Imp. NOAA magazine, Vol. 15, No.3. Harrington, D. L., M. R. Bartlett, and J. Higgins. 1972. University of Georgia, Marine Ext. Bul i. No.1. Shrimp fishing with twin trawls (Addendum). Hayenga, W. A., R. D. Lacewell, of Mexico shrimp vessels. Contract No. 03-3-042-19. and W. L. Griffin. 1974. An U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Texas A&M Un I vers I ty Ag. Exp. economic and financial analysis of Gulf National Marine Fisheries Service, Sta. MP No. 1138. 10-8 Heady, E. 0., and J. L. DI I Ion. Ames, Iowa. 667 pp. 1961. Agriculture production functions. Iowa State Un I vers I ty Press, Hedgpeth, J. W. 1953. An Introduction to the zoogeography of the northwest Gulf of MexIco with reference to Invertebrate fauna. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., University of Texas 3:107-224. Higman, J. B. 1952. Preliminary Investigation of the live bait shrimp fishery of Florida Bay and the Keys. Fla. St. Board Conserv., Mar. Lab., Unlv. Miami, 52-20, 8 pp. Higman, J. B. Florida. 1955. Observations on the live bait shrimp Industry of Pasco and Plnellas Counties, Fla. St. Board Conserv., Mar. Lab., Unlv. Miami, 55-15,4 pp. Higman, J. B., and R. EI lis. 1955. Investigation of sport and commercial fishery activities In Old Tampa Bay north of Gandy Bridge. Fla. State Bd. Conserve Mar. Lab., Unlv. Miami, 55-20:5 pp. Higman, J. B., B. J. Yokel, and M. A. Roessler. n.d. Growth of pink shrimp In the Everglades estuary, 1968-1971. Final report to NMFS on contract UM-RSMAS-72007. Unlv. of Miami, Rosenstlel School of Mar. and Atmos. Scl. 55 Pp. Hildebrand, H. H. 1954. A study of the fauna of the brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives) grounds In the western Gulf of Mexico. Pubt. Inst. Mar. Scl., Unlv. of Texas 3:234-366. Hildebrand, H. H. 1955. A study of the fauna of the pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) grounds In the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar. Scl., Unlv. of Texas 4:159-232. Hillestad, H. 0., J. I. Richardson, shrimp trawlermen In Georgia. Inc., Athens, Ga. 106 PP. and G. K. Willi amson. 1977. Incidental capture of sea turtles by A report to NMFS, Miami, Florida by Southeast Wlldl. Services, Holloway, S. 1981. Personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston Laboratory, Galveston, Texas. Hutton, R. F., B. Eldred, K. D. Woodburn, and R. M. Ingle. special reference to dredging and filling operations. 1956. The ecology of Boca Clega Bay with Fla. St. Board Conserve Tech. Sere 17. 87 pp. Hydraulic Laboratory, Department of Civil EngIneering, UniversIty of Florida. trawl--deslgn, construction and operation. Report 7804. 42 PP. 1978. Shr I mp beam I dy II, C. p. nology. 1963. The shrimp fishery. Pages 150-182 In M. E. Stansby, ed. Industrial fishery tech Reinhold Publishing Co., New York. 393 pp. Ingle, R. M. 1960. Synoptic rationale of existing Florida shrimp regulations. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 13th Annual Session. Pages 22-27 In Proc. Ingle, R. M., B. Eldred, H. Jones, and R. F. Hutton. 1959. Preliminary analysis of Tortugas. shrimp sampling data 1957-1958. Fla. St. Board Conserve Tech. Series 32. 45 pp. Inglis, A., and E. Chin. 1966. The bait shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Bioi. Lab., Galveston, Texas, Fish. Leaflet 582. 10 Pp. Bur. Comm. Fisher I es Iversen, E. S., and C. p. Idyll. 1960. Aspects of the biology of the Tortugas pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 89:1-8. 10-9 Iversen, E. S., A. E. Jones, C. p. Idyll. 1960. Size and fleet concentrations on the Tortugas grounds. Report 356. 62 PP. distribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Servo Special Scientific Jacob, J. W. Jr. and subadu It Baton Rouge. 1971. Observations on the distribution, growth, survival, and biomass of juvenile Penaeus aztecus I n southern Lou I s I ana. Master IS thes Is, Lou I s I ana State Un Ivers Ity, 68 PP. Johnson, D.G. 1958. "Supply function-some facts and notions." Agricultural Adjustments Problems In a Growing Economy. Ames: Iowa State Co! lege Press. Johnson, F., and M. Lindner. 1934. Shrimp Industry of the South Atlantic and Gulf States with notes on other domestic and foreign areas. U.S. Bur. Comm. Fisheries Investigational Rep. 21:1-34. Johnson, M. C., and J. R. Fielding. 1956. Propagation of the white shrimp, Penaeus setlferus (Llnnaeus) In captivity. Tulane Studies In Zoology. Vol. 4:173-190. Jones, A. C., D. E. Dlmltrlou, J. J. Ewald, and J. H. Tweedy. 1964. Distribution of pink larvae (Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad) I n waters of the Tortugas Shel f, Gu I f of Mexl co. Scl., Unlv. of Miami. 105 PP. shrimp Inst. Mar. Jones, L. L., J. W. Adams, W. L. Griffin, and J. Allen. 1974. Impact of commercial shrimp landings on the economy of Texas and coastal regions. TAMU-SG-75-204. jones, R. R. Jr. 1973. Utilization of Louisiana estuarine sediments as a source of nutrition for the brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus. Ph.D. dlss., Louisiana State University. 125 PP. Joyce, E. A. Jr. 1965. The commercial shrimps of the northeast coast of Florida. Conserv., Prof. Paper Serl es 6. 224 PP. Fla. St. Board Juhl, R. 1974. 36: 39-42. Economics of Gulf of Mexico Industrial and foodflsh trawlers. Marine Fisheries Rev. Juhl, R., S. B. Drummond, E. J. Gutherz, C. H. Rolthmayer, J. A. Benigno, and J. A. Butler. 1976. Ocean Ic resource surveys and assessment task, status report. NMFS, SEFC, Pascagou la, MI SSe PP. 50 Juneau, C. L. 1977. A study of the seabob, Xlphopeneus kroyerl (Heller) In Louisiana. Wildlife and Fish. Tech. Bull. 24. 24 PP. La. Dept. Kennedy, F. S., J. J. Crane, R. A. Schlelder, and D. G. Barber. 1977. Studies S I cyon I a brevlrostrls St Impson, 1871, a n.8W fishery resource on Fiori da IS Florida Mar. Res. Publ. No. 27. 69 Pp. of the rock shrimp, Atlant Ic shel f. Khllmanl, A. and E. T. S. Tse. 1980. Integrated approaches to fisheries policy analysis: A case . study of the Tortugas shrimp fishery. Unpublished report to the Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS, NOAA. Dept. of Engineering and Economic Systems. Stanford University. Stanford, California. King, B. D. III. (19751. Harvest of shrimp by Texas sport fishermen 1973. Pages 22-36 In Coastal Fisheries Project Report 1973, Texas Parks and Wlldl. Dept., Austin, Tex. King, J. E. 1948. A study of the reproductive organs of the common marine shrimp, Penaeus setlferus (Llnnaeus). 8101. Bull. (Woods Hole). 94:244-262. 10-10 Klima, E. F. Mexl co. 1964. Mark-recapture experl ments with brown and wh I te shr I mp I n the northern Gu I f of Pages 52-64 In Proc. Gu I f Carl b. Fish. I nst., 17th Ann. Sese Klima, E. F. 1974. A white shrimp mark-recapture study. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103: 107-113. Klima, E. F. 1976. Studl es No.3. A review of the fishery resources In the western central Atlantic. 77 PP. FPI WECAF Klima, E. F., and J. A. Benigno. Clr. No. 230. 1965. Mark-recapture experl ments. Pages 38-40 In U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Klima, E. F., and R. S. Ford. 1970. Gear and techniques employed In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Conf. on Canadian Shrimp Fishery. 26 PP. Klima, E. F., and M. Parrack. 1978. Constraints on food production from wild Penaeld shrimp In the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 317-330 In p. N. Kaul and C. J. Sinderman, ads. Drugs and from the sea: myth or reality? University Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. stocks food Knight, C. E. 1966. Mark-recapture experl ments. Pages 21-23 In U.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Clr. No. 246. Kreltler, C. W. 1977. Fau Itlng and land subs Idence from ground-water and hydrocarbon production, Houston-Ga i veston, Texas. Pages 435-446 In Proc. Second International Sympos lum on Land Subsidence, I~ternat. Assoc. of Hydrol. Scl. Publ. No.. 121. Kutkuhn, J. H. 1962. Recent trends In white shrimp catch of the northern Gulf. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish Inst., 14th Ann. Sese Pages 3-19 I n Kutkuhn, J. H. 1966. Dynamics of a penaeld shrimp population and management Implications. Fish. Wlldl. Servo Fish. Bul I. 65:313-338 U.S. Lacewell, R. D., for Gu If of Rept. w. L. Griffin, J. E. Smith, and W. A. Hayenga. 1974. Estimated costs and returns Mexico shrimp vessels: 1971. Texas A&M University System Agrl. Exp. Sta. Tech. Lapin, L. L. 1973. Statistics for modern business decisions. Francl sco, Ca I I forn I a. Harcourt Brace Jovanovl ch, Inc. San Lee, E. 1979. Progress report on shrimp population dynamics and management. 900 E. Commerce, Harrahan, La. . Unpublished manuscript. 10 pp. Dept. of Energy, SPRMO, Lelpper, D. F. 1954. Physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 117-137 In D. S. Galtsoff, ed. Gulf of Mexico, Its origin, waters and marine life. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Bull. No. 55. Llndall, W. N., and C. H. Saloman. 1977. Alteration and destruction of estuaries affecting fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Rev. 39:1-7. Lindner, M. J. 1966. What we know about shrimp size and the Tortugas fishery. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 18th Ann. Ses., 1965. Pages 18-26 I n Proc. Lindner, M. J., and W. W. Anderson. 1956. Growth, migrations, spawning and size distribution of shrimp, Penaeus setlferus. Fish. Bull. 56:555-645. Loesch, H. 1957. Observations on bait shrlmplng activities In rivers north of Mobile Bay Causeway. J. Ala. Acad. Scl. 29:36-43. 10-11 , Loesch, H. 1965. Distribution and growth of penaeld shrimp In Mobile Bay, Alabama. Scl., Un I v. of Texas 10:41-58. Publ. Inst. Mar. Lunz, G. R. Jr. 1957. Notes on rock shrImp, Sicyonia brevlrostrls Stimpson from exploratory trawling off the South Carolina coast. Contrlb. Bears Bluff Lab. 25. 10 Pp. Marlnovlch, S., and R. T. Whlteleather. 1968. Gulf of Mexico shrimp des Ign, and prospective developments. The future of the fishing University of Washington Fisheries Publ. Vol. 4 N.S. trawls, current trends In I ndustry of the Un I ted States. Martosubrato, p. 1974. Fecundity of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Gu I f and Carl b. 24: 606-627. Bull. Mar. Scl., McCoy, E. G. 1972. Dynamics of North Carolina commercial shrimp populations. North Carolina Dept. of Nat. and Eco. Resources, Dlv. Comm. and Sports Fish. Special Scl. Rep. No. 21. McGowen, J. H., C. V. Proctor Jr., L. F. Brown Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas of Texas, Austin. 107 PP. and 9 plates. Jr., T. J. Evans, W. L. Fisher, and C. G. Groat. 1976. coastal zone-Port Lavaca Area. Bur. Eco. Geol., Unlv. McGowen, J. H., L. F. Brown Jr., T. J. Evans, W. L. Fisher, and C. G. geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone-ay City-Freeport Area. Texas, Austin. 97 PD. and 9 plates. Groat. 1976. Environmental Bur. Eco. Geo'., Un I v. of McHugh, J. L. 1966. Management of estuarine fIsheries. Pages 133-154 I n Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. pub. No.3. McNulty, J. K., W. N. Llndall Jr., Inventory and study, Florida: NMFS CIRC-368. 126 PP. and J. E. Sykes. 1972. Cooperative Gu If of Mexico estuarl ne Phase I, area description. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Rep. Miller, M. M. 1975. The role of shrimp Imports In a declining seafoods market - A background paper. DivIsion of Economic and Marketing Research. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. NMFS mlmeo. Miller, M. and R. Marasco. 1976. Statement on applyl ng Import controls on shrimp products enterl ng the United States. Unpublished National Marine Fisheries Service Draft Report. Washington, D.C. Mock, C. R. 1967. Natural and altered estuarl ne habitats of penaeld shrimp. Gulf CarIb. Fish. Inst., 19th Ann. Sese Pages 86-98 In Proc. Moraney, J. R., and A. L. Toevs. and natural resource Inputs. 1977. Factor costs and factor use: S. Eco. J. Vol. 44. An analys Is of labor, capital Morris, R. A. and F. Prochaska. 1979. Economic Impact of the processing and marketIng of commercial Florida marine landings. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 26. National Marl ne Flsherl es Service. 1980. Shellfish Market Review. Wash I ngton, D.C. Novembe r . NatIonal Marine Fisheries Service. Galveston, Texas. December. 1980a. Trends and Conditions of the Fisheries of Texas. Nelva, G. de S. 1967. Observations on the shrimp fisheries of the central and southern coast of Brazil. FAD Fish. Rep. 57:847-858. Nelson, R. K. 1969. Hunters of the northern Ice. Unlv. of Chicago Press, ChIcago, Ill. 429 Pp. 10-12 Neter, J., and W. Wasserman. Homewood, III. 842 PP. 1974. Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Nletschmann, B. 1973. E as tern N I ca ragua. Between land and water: Semi nar Press, New York. the subsistence ecology of the Mlsklto Indians, 279 PP. Nlssan, E., D.C. WII Iiams, Jr., and T. Green. 1978. An economic Input-output analysis for Mlsslsslppl-A labama coastal counties. . Ms.-A I. Sea Grant Program MAS-GP-78-o29. Odum, W. E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow In a south Florida estuary--Unlv. of Miami Sea Grant Program Tech. Bull. 7. 161 PP. Ogren, L. H. 1977. Survey and reconnaissance of sea turtles In the northern Gulf of Mexico. Panama City, Fla. 8 PP. (mlmeo). NMFS , Olson, F. L. 1975. Fisheries management with landing fees and subsidies, presented at the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Northeast Division, American Fisheries Society. Orbach, M. K. 1978. Socl al and the workshop and conference Unlv. of Washington. cultural aspects of limited entry. Unpublished paper prepared for on limitation of entry Into fisheries, Institute for Marine Studies, Owers, J. 1975. LimitatIon of entry In the United States fishing Industry, a comment. Economics 51: 177-178. Land Parrack, M. L. 1978. Aspects of brown shrimp In the northern Gulf of Mexico. ma nu scr I pt, NMFS, Ga I ves ton Lab. 26 p p. Prepub II cation Pearson, J. C. 1939. The early life histories of some American Penaeldae, chiefly the commer cial shrimp, Penaeus setlferus (Llnnaeus). U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. Vol. 49. 73 pp. Pella, J. J., and p. K. Tom I I nsòn. Comm. Bu i I. 13:419-496. 1969. A 'generalized stock production model. Inter-Am. Trop. Tuna Perez, L. 0., and p. G. Groth. 1978. Interaction among user groups of the U.S. Gulf shrimp fishery. Unpublished manuscript. Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, La. 10 PP. Perrett, W. S. 1966. Occurrence, abundance, and collected with otter trawl In Vermilion Bay, Southwestern Lou I s I ana, Lafayette, La. size distribution of fishes and crustaceans Louisiana. Master's thesis, University of Perrett, W. S., B. B. Barrett, W. R. Lataple, J. F. Pollard, W. R. Mock, G. B. Adkins, W. J. Galdry, and C. J. White. 1971. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine Inventory and study, Louisiana. Phase I, Area Description and Phase IV, Biology. LouisIana Wildlife and Fish. Comm., New Orleans, La. 175 PP. Perrett, W. S., S. T. Kuzenskl, and J. M. Lyon. Conservationist 30:22-23. 1978. Dollars In your shrimp trawl? Lou I s I ana Phares, P.L. 1978. An analysis of some shrimp trawl mesh size selection data. prepared for the Gu I f of Mexl co Fishery Management Councl i, Tampa, Fiori da. M I meogr ap hed report 33 Pp. 10-13 Phares, P.L. 1980. Estimates of natural fishing mortality for white shrimp In the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-58. 21 PP. Price, W. A. 1954. Gu I f of Mexl co: Shorell nes and coasts of the Gu If of Mexico. Pages 39-65 InD. S. Galtsoff, ed. Its origin, waters, and marine life. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Servo Bull. No. 55. Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato. Flshln~ Gazette. October. 1975. Economic Growth Aspects of the Florida shrimp Industry. New York. PP. 18-20. Quick Frozen Foods. 1980. 1979 Retail and Institutional frozen fish and seafood poundage and estimated dollar value. October. Renfro, W. C., and H. A. Brusher. Fish Wlldl. Clr. No. 183. 1964. Population distribution and spawning. Pages 13-15 In U.S. Renfro, W. C., and H. A. Brusher. 1965. Distribution and Intensity of shrimp spawning activity. Pages 68-70 In U.S. Fish Wlldl. Clr. 230. Renfro, W. C., and H. L. Cook. 1963. Early larval sta~es of the seabob, Xlphopenaeus kroyerl (Heller). U.S. Fish Wi Idl. Fish. Bul i. 63: 165177. Ricker, W. E. 1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish populations. Fish. Res. Board Canada. No. 119. 300 Pp. Bu II. Ringo, R. D. 1965. Clr. No. 230. Dlspers Ion and growth of young brown shrlmp~ Pages 68-70 In U.S. Fish Wlldl. Roberts, K. J. 1980. Current economic condition and forecasts for Louisiana shrimp vessels. to Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Annual Meeting. Orlando, October, 1980. Speec Roberts, K. J. and M. Thompson. Grant Publ. 1981. Commercial fishing licensees In Louisiana 1976-1980. Sea Roberts, K. J. and M. E. Sass. Publ. No. LSU-TL-79-o07. 1979. Financial aspects of Louisiana shrimp vessels, 1978. Sea Gra nt Roberts, K. J. and M. E. Sass. LSU- TL80-003. 1980. Louisiana's Inshore shrimp fishery. Sea Grant Pub" cat Ion No. Roe, R. 1969. Distribution of royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus, on three potential commer cial grounds off the southeastern United States. U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Serv., Fish Ind. Res. 5:161 174. Roedel, p. M., ed. 1975. Fish. Soc. 89 PP. Optimum sustainable yield as a concept In fisheries management. J. Am. Rouse, W. L. 152. 1969. Littoral crustacea from southwest Florida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Scl. 32:127 Russell, E. S. 1931. Som theoretical considerations on the 'overflshlng' problem. Int. Explor. Mer. 6:3-27. J. Cons. Perm. Ryan, J. J. 1969. A sedimentologic study of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Sedimentological Res. Lab. Contrlb. 30. 110 PP. Florida State Unlv. Dept. Geology, 10-14 Saloman, C. H. 1965. Bait shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) In Tampa Bay, Florlda--blology, fishery economics, and changing habitat. U.S. Fish Wlldl. Serv., Spec. Scl. Rep. No. 520. 16 Pp. Saloman, C. (genus 350. H., D. M. Allen and T. J. Costello.' 1968. Distribution of three species of shrimp Penaeus) In waters contiguous to south Florida. Bull. of Marine Science. 18: 343 S~rkar, S. R. 1974. Socioeconomic aspects of sponge fishing. Anthropos. 69: 569-589. Sass, M. E. 1979. Descriptive annual statistics for brown and white shrimp In Louisiana waters. 1963-76. Sea Grant Publ. No. LSU-TL-79-o04. Sass, M. E. and K. J. Roberts. Publ. No. LSU-TL-79-o06. 1979. Characteristics of the Louisiana shrimp fleet, 1978. Sea Grant Schaefer, M. B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations Important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Sui letln Inter.-Am. Trop. Tuna Comm. 1:25-56. Schaefer, M. B., and R. J. H. Beverton. 1963. Paqes 464-479 In M. N. Hili, ed. The Sea. Fishery dynamics: Their analysis and Interpretation. 2 vo Is. I nterscl ence Pub II shers. Seidel, W. R. 1975. A shrimp separator trawl for southeast fisheries.. Pages 66-76 In Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 27th Ann. Sese S I age i, S. York. 1956. Nonparametrlc statistics for the behavioral sciences. 312 pp. McGraw-H II I Book Co., New Sinclair, W. F., and R. W. Morley. 1975. Statistical bias problem In on-site surveys: The severity of the problem and Its potential for solution. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:2520-2524. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 593 PP. 1978. Statistical methods. Iowa State Unlv. Press. Ames, Iowa. Springer, S., and H. R. Bullis. 1954. Exploratory shrimp fishing In the Gulf of Mexico, summary report for 1952-1954. Comm. Fish. Rev. 16:1-16. St. Amant, L. S., J. G. Broo, and T. B. Ford. 1966. Studies In Baratarla Bay, Louisiana, 1962-1965. Pages 1-17 Proc. Sese of the brown shr Imp, Penaeus aztecus, Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst., 18th Ann. St. Amant, L. S., K. C. Corkum, and J. G. Broo. 1962. Studies of growth dynamics of the brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, In Louisiana waters. Bull. Mar. Scl., Gulf and Carib. 15:14-26. Stokes, G. M. 1974. The distribution and abundance of penaeld Texas, with a description of the lIve bait shrImp fishery. Serl es No. 15. 32 PP. shrl mp I n the Lower Laguna Madre of Texas Parks and W II d i. Dept. Tech. Sturges, W., and J. p. Blaha. 192: 367-369. 1976. A western boundary current I n the Gu I f of Mexl co. Scl ence Surdl, R., M. Miller, R. Morasco. 1979. Report on 1979 survey of commercial fishing vessel construction In the U.S. UnpubliShed National Marine Fisheries Service Report. Washington, D.C. 10-15 t - Swartz, A. N. 1980. The characteristics of the Texas shrimp fleet. Papers, Olr. 80-1, SP-2. TAMU, Dept. of Ag. Econ. Staf f Sw Ingle, H. A. Inventory. 1971. Biology of Alabama estuarine areas. Ala. Mar. Res. Bull. 5: 123 Pp. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine Swlngl~, H. A., D. G. Bland, and W. M. Tatum. A la. Mar. Res. Bul I. 11:51-57. 1976. Survey of the 16-foot traw I fishery of Alabama. Sw I ng Ie, W. E. 1972. Survey of the lIve bait shrimp Industry of Alabama. Ala. Mar. Res. Bul I. 8:1-8. Tabb, D. C., D. L. Dubrow, and A. E. Jones. 1962. Studies on the biology of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad, In Everglades National Park, Florida. Florida St. Board Conserve Tech. Sere 30 PD. Taylor, C. C., et a'i. 1949. Rural life In the United States. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 549 pp. Temple, R. F., and C. C. Fisher. 1967. Seasonal distributIon and relative abundance of planktonlc stage shrimp (Penaeus sp.) In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1961. Pages 323-334 In U.S. Fish. Wlldl. Fish. Bull. No. 66. Texas Parks and W Ii d II fe Department. 1977. Digest of shrimp laws. TPWD Leaf' et 2000-1. Titcomb, M. 1972. Native use of fish In Hawaii. University of HawaII Press, Honolulu. 175 pp. Toevs, A. L., and D. B. Johnson. 1978. Economic characterization of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, La. 168 pp. Trent, L. 1967. Size of brown .shrlmp and time of emigration from Galveston Bay system, Texas. 7-16 In Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst., 19th Ann. Sese Pages Tullan, E. A. 1920. Loul.slana--greatest In the production of shrlmp--Penaeus setlferus. 114 In 4th Biennial Report, Louisiana State Department of Conservation, New Orleans. Pages 106 Turner, R. E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields 'of penaeld shrimp. Soc. 106:411-416. Trans. Am. Fish. Ulrich, G. F. 1978. IncIdental catch of loggerhead turtles by South Carolina commercial fisheries. A report to NMFS. 36 PP. and 11 tables. Upshaw, C. F., W. B. Creath, and F. L. Broos. 1966. Sediments and microfauna off the coasts of Mississippi and adjacent states. Miss. Geol. Eco. Topograph. Bull. No. 106. u.S. Army Corps of Engineers. n.d. Fish and wildlife study of the Louisiana coastal area and the Atchafalaya basIn floodway. USAGE, New Orleans District. Unpublished manuscript, App. D. U.S.D.C. 1979. Fishermen's Contingency Fund. Federal Register. Vo I. 44, No.1 02: 30292-30304. U.S.D.C. 1980. Industry. NMFS NEWS: Commerce Secretary Klutznlck announces $12.2 millIon In aid to shrimp Press release Oct. 18, 1980. U.S. Department of Commerce. South Atlantic and Gulf: Various years. Annual summary. Fisheries of the United States. NMFS. Wash I ngton, D.C. Shrimp landings In the 10-16 (~ ----~ u.s. Department of Commerce. D.C. Various years. Statistical abstract of the United States. Wash I ngton, U.S. Department of Commerce. Various years. Statistics. NMFS. Washington, D.C. Fisheries of the United States. Current Fish U.S. Department of Commerce. Various years. Flsherl es of the United States. the United States. NMFS. Washington, D.C. Fishery statistics of U.S. Department of Commerce. Various years. and outlook. NMFS. Washington, D.C. Fisheries of the United States. Shellfish market review U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 1958-1976. Bureau of Census. Annual Survey of Manufacturers. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1958, 1963, 1967, 1973. Census of Manufacturers. Wash I ngton, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce. NMFS . 1959-1975. Gulf coast shrimp data. Annual Issues 1959-1975. NOIA, U.S. Department of Commerce. D.C. 1976. Processed fishery products annua' summary. NMFS . Wash I ngton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1972. Sportflsh and wildlife work unit report. Vicksburg, MS. Unpublished manuscript. Field Office, U.S. International Trade Commission Report to the President. 773. Washington, D.C. 1976. Shrimp. USITC Publication, No. U.S. Internatlonal Trade Commission. 1976. Shrimp: Report to the President on Investigation No. TA-20112 under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. USITC Publlcatlón 773. Washington, D.C. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1977. Regional Multipliers: Guldell ne 5. Wash I ngton, D.C. 135 PP. Vanstone, J. W. 1962. Seattle. 177 pp. Pol nt Hope: an esklmo village In transition. Un I v. of Was hi ngton Pres s, Vlosca, p. 1928. 9:216-229. Louisiana wetlands and the value of their wildlife and fishery resources. Eco logy von Bertalanffy, L. 1938. A Quantitative theory of organic growth (Inquiries on Growth Laws II). Human Bioi. 10: 181-213. Walford, L. A. 1946. 90: 141-147. A new graphic method of describing the growth of animals. Biological Bull. Walford, L. A. 1965. Research needs for salt-water sport fisheries: States. Pages 81-90 In Canadian Fisheries Report No.4, Special Economic Aspects of Sport Fishing. experl ence I n the Un I ted i ssue on a Sympos lum on the Wardlaw, N. J., and W. L. Griffin. Mexl co shrl mp vessel s: 1973. 1974. Economic analysis of costs and returns for the Gulf of Texas A&M Ag. Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. No. 74-3. 10-17 Warren, J. P., and C. E. Bryan. 1981. The Texas shrimp fleet: a description. Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Management Data Series No. 18. 8 pp. Texas Parks and Warren, J. p., and W. L. Griffin. 1978. Costs and return trends In the 1970s for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp vessels. Texas A&M Ag. Eco. Dept., College Sta., Texas. 20 pp. Watson, J. W. Jr. 1976. Electrical shrimp trawl catch efficiency for Penaeus duorarum and Penaeus aztecus. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 105:.135-148. Watson, J. W. Jr., and C. McVea Jr. 1977. Development of a selective shrimp trawl for the southeastern United States shrimp fisherIes. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:18-24. Weaver, T., and J. Y. Chr I stmas. Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, MS. n.d. StatIstics on subsistence fishing In Mississippi. Unpubll shed manuscript. 16 PP. Gulf Coast Weymouth, F. W., M. J. Lindner, and W. W. Anderson. 1955. Preliminary report on the life history of the common shrimp, Penaeus setlferus (Llnnaeus). Bur. Fish. Bull. 48:1-26. Wheeland, H. A., and B. G. Thompson. 1975. Commer. NMFS. Curro Fish. Stat. 6700. Fisheries of the United States, 98 PP. 1974. U.S. Dept. White, C. J., and C. J. Boudreaux. 1977. Development of an areal management concet for Gulf penaeld shrimp. Louisiana Wlldl. and Fish. Comm., Tech. Bull. No. 22. 77 pp. White, C. J., and W. S. La. Pages 710-721 Comml ss loners. Perret. 1973. Short-term effects of the Toledo Bend Project on Sabine Lake, In Proc. 27th Annua I Conference, Southeastern Associ atlon of Game and Fish Williams, A. B. 1955. Contribution to the life histories of commercial shrimp (Penaeldae) In North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Scl. Gulf and Carib. 5:116-146. Williams, A. B. 290. 1958. Substrates as a factor In shrimp distributIon. Llmnol. and Oceanogr. 3:283 Williams, A. B. 1959. Spotted and brown shrimp postlarvae (Penaeus) In North Carolina. Scl. Gulf and CarIb. 9:381-390. Bu I I. Mar. Wise, J. P., and B. G. Thompson. 1978. Fisheries of the United States, 1977. NMFS. Curro Fish. Stat. 7500. 112 pp. U.S. Dept. Commer. Woodburn, K. D., B. Eldred, E. Clark, R. F. Hutton, and R. M. Ingle. 1957. Industry of the west coast of Florida (Cedar Key to Naples). Fla. St. St. Petersburg, Tech. Series No. 21. 33 pp. The live baIt shrimp Board Conserv. Mar. Lab., Yokel, B. J., E. S. Iverson, and C. p. Idyll. 1969. Prediction of the success of commercial shrimp fishing on the Tortugas Grounds based on enumeratIon of emigrants from the Everg lades National Park Estuary. Pages 1027-1039 In FAO Fish. Rep. 57-3. Zein-Eldin, Z. P., and G. W. Griffith. 1969. An appraisal of the effects of salinity and temperature on growth and survival of postlarval penaelds. Pages 1015-1026 In FAO Fish. Rep. 57-3. 1CH8