Amendment No. 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE REEF FISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN (includes Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) AUGUST, 1989 GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 881 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 (813)228-2815 1. TITLE . . . . . 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 3. SUMMARY ..... 4. 5. 6. INTRODUCTION . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. History of Management Since the Fishery Management Plan . . . . . . . . .. .... . 4.2. Problems in the Fishery ............ . 4.2.1. Problems Identified in the FMP .. . 4.2.2. Problems Requiring Plan Amendment .... . 4 . 3 . Management Obj ecti ves • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1. FMP Management Objectives •... 4.3.2. Amendment 1 Management Objectives ..... FISHERY MANAGEMENT UNIT AND FISHERY . . • . 5.1. Areas and Stocks ••...•..•... 5.2. Species in the Management Unit .•... 5.2.1. Management unit Identified in the FMP ... 5.2.2. Proposed Additions to the Management Unit. 5.3. species Included in the Fishery but not in the Management Unit • • . . •. ....•• 5.3.1. Species Identified in the FMP .. 5.3.2. Proposed Additions to the Fishery •. HABITAT CONCERNS •.• • • • • • • . • . . . . • . 6.1. Description of Habitat of the Stocks Comprising the 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. Management Unit • • • • • . . . . Habitat Condition • • • . • Habitat Threats • • • • • . Habitat Information Needs .... Habitat Protection Programs Habitat Recommendations 7. DESCRIPTION OF THE REEF FISH FISHERY 7.1. Description of Available Data .•. 7.2. Description of The Reef Fish Fishery • 7.2.1. Review of Landings, Effort and Value in the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 7.2.1.1. Commercial Fishery . • • • • . . . . 7.2.1.2. Recreational Fishery • • . • • . 7.2.2. Description of Commercial Fishing Gear 7.2.2.1. Handline and Bandit Fishing .•.. 7.2.2.2. Fish Traps •••.•••.•. 7.2.2.3. Longline Fishing • • • • • • . 7.2.2.4. Buoy Fishing ••••••.•. 7.2.2.5. Shrimp Bycatch of Red Snapper 7.2.3. Stressed Area •.•••.••..•. 2 '\ 1 2 6 22 22 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 29 30 30 33 34 37 37 40 41 41 41 42 42 50 53 53 54 57 60 61 65 8. STATUS OF THE REEF FISH STOCKS 8.1. Red Snapper ........... . 8.1.1. Harvest Trends .. . 8.1.2. Trends in Recruitment 8.1.3. Meristics and Growth .... . 8.1.4. Size Composition of the Harvest .. . 8.1.5. Mortality Estimates ........ . 8.1.6. Fecundity and Maturity ...... . · 121 121 · 121 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 125 8.1.7. yield and Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit . . ... . . . 126 8.1.8. Shrimp Bycatch • • . . 127 8.1.9. Spawning Stock Status .... 127 8.2. Vermilion Snapper . . . • . 128 8.2.1. Harvest Trends . . . 128 8.2.2. Meristics and Growth 128 8.2.3. Size composition of the Harvest. . 129 8.2.4. Mortality Estimates. . . • . 129 8.2.5. Fecundity and-Maturity 130 8 . 3 . Gray (Mangrove) Snapper • . . . . . . . • • . . . 131 8.3.1. Harvest Trends .. • . . . • . 131 8.3.2. Meristics and Growth . . . • 131 8.3.3. size Composition of the Harvest. 132 8.3.4. Mortality Estimates • . . • • •. 133 8.3.5. Fecundity and Maturity • •. 133 8.4. Lane Snapper. • • • • . • . . . . . •... 134 8.4.1. Harvest Trends • • . . • •... 134 8.4.2. Meristics and Growth . . •... 134 8.4.3. Size Composition of the Harvest .••... 135 8.4.4. Mortality Estimates. . . •. 135 8.4.5. Fecundity and Maturity .•... 135 8.5. Mutton Snapper • • • • • • • . . • • • . • •. 136 8.5.1. Harvest Trends • • . . . • • •. 136 8.5.2. Meristics and Growth . • • 136 8.5.3. Size Composition of the Harvest .•...• 137 8.5.4. Mortality Estimates • . • • • . . • • . 137 8.5.5. Fecundity and Maturity .•... 137 8.6. Yellowtail Snapper .••••.•••..••..• 138 8.6.1. Harvest Trends •••.•••..••... 138 8.6.2. Meristics and Growth· .•... 138 8.6.3. Size Composition of the Harvest ..•... 140 8.6.4. Mortality Estimates ••.••..••... 140 8.6.5. Fecundity and Maturity ••••...•..• 140 8.7. Groupers. • . • • . • • • • . . • • . . . • . . . 141 8.7.1. Harvest Trends • • • • • • • . . • 141 8.7.2. Red Grouper. • • • • . • • •..• 142 8.7.2.1. Meristics and Growth. • •..• 142 8.7.2.2. Size composition of the Harvest .• 143 8.7.2.3. Mortality Estimates •••... • . . • 143 8.7.2.4. Fecundity and Maturity. • .•..• 143 8.7.2.5. yield and Spawning Stock Biomass per . Recruit............. 144 3 8.7.3. Gag Grouper .......•........ 145 8.7.3.1. Meristics and Growth . . . . . . . . 145 8.7.3.2. Size composition of the Harvest .. 147 8.7.3.3. Mortality Estimates . . 147 8.7.3.4. Fecundity and Maturity ....... 147 8.7.4. Black Grouper ............... 148 8.7.4.1. Meristics and Growth ........ 148 8.7.4.2. Size Composition of the Harvest . 148 8.7.4.3. Mortality Estimates ........ 149 8.7.4.4. Fecundity and Maturity. . . .. 149 8.7.5. Nassau and Yellowfin Groupers ..••... 149 8.7.5.1. Meristics and Growth ........ 149 8.7.5.2. Size Composition of the Harvest 150 8.7.5.3. Mortality Estimates .•... 150 8.7.5.4. Fecundity and Maturity 150 8.8. Jewfish . . • . • . • • . • • . 151 8.8.1. Harvest Trends . . . . • . . 151 8.8.2. Meristics and Growth . . • . . 151 8.8.3. Size Composition of the Harvest. . 151 8.8.4. Mortality Estimates. . . 151 8.8.5. Fecundity and Maturity . . . • . 151 8.9. Black Sea Bass. • . . . • • • . • . 152 8.9.1. Harvest Trends • • .. .• • •. . 152 8.9.2. Meristics and Growth • • . . 152 8.9.3. Size Composition of the Harvest. . 153 8.9.4. Mortality Estimates • • • . . . . •. . 153 8.9.5. Fecundity and Maturity • . • • • 153 8.10. Greater Amberjack • • • • • • • . . • • . 154 8.10.1. Harvest Trends ••• •• . • • 154 8.10.2. Meristics and Growth. • • • • . •. . 154 8.10.3. Size Composition of the Harvest . 155 8.10.4. Mortality Estimates •. . • • . •. . 155 8.10.5. Fecundity and Maturity. . • . . •• . 156 8.10.6. Yield and Spawning Stock Biomass per Recru.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9. OPTIMUM YIELD, OVERFISHING, AND TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH 10. 11. PROCEDURE • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • . · 217 9.1. optimum yield as a Long-Term Goal ••••••.. 9.2. Definition of Overfishing •..•••..••. 9.3. Annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Designed to · 217 · 221 Achieve OY Goal. • • • • • • •• PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MEASURES . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF ADOPTED AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES ••• • • • • • • • • • • • 11.1. Size and Catch Limits •••••••• 11.1.1. Red Snapper .•••••.•• 11.1.2. Other Reef Fish Species ••. 11.1.3. Multiple-day Possession Limits 4 224 · . 229 · . 234 • • . . 234 · . 234 · . 241 • • . . 250 12. 11.2. Gear Restrictions. 11.2.1. Fish Traps . . . . . . . . 11.2.2. Trawls ..... . 11.2.3. Longlines and Buoys .. 11.2.4. Additional Gear Restrictions 11.3. Fishing Year ............ . 11.4. stressed Area Boundaries ... . 11.5. User Group Conflict Resolution 11.6. Closed Seasons and Areas .... 11.7. Permits and Gear Identification. 11.8. statistical Reporting Requirements RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . •. 12.1. Research Recommendations Identified 12.2. Research Recommendations Identified Amendment .••.......• in the FMP in this · 252 · 252 · 258 · 263 · 268 · 270 · 271 · 276 · 280 · 281 · 287 · 328 · 328 · 329 13. RELATED FEDERAL LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS •...••... 331 13.1. Vessel Safety Concerns • . • • • . • . . . 331 13.1.1. Fishery access and weather-related vessel safety. . • . . . . . . • • 331 13.1.2. Coast Guard Evaluation. • • •... 331 13.1.3. Procedures... • . . • • 331 13.1.4. Other Safety Issues . • • 332 13.2. Paperwork Reduction Act. . . 332 13.2.1. Proposed Data Collection Program. . 332 13.2.2. Estimate of Reporting Burden and Cost . 332 13.3. Federalism ••••..••..••..•.... 332 13.4. Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Act 333 13.5. Coastal Zone Management Act .••....•... 333 13.6. National Environmental Policy Act -- Environmental Assessment. •. . . • • . . • 334 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . · 337 5 3. SUMMARY History of Management Since the Fishery Management Plan The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council submitted the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan in August, 1981; it was approved by the Secretary of Commerce in June, 1983, but not implemented until November, 1984. The implementing regulations designed to rebuild declining reef fish stocks included these measures: (1) prohibitions on the use of fish traps, roller trawls, and powerheads within an inshore stressed area; (2) construction requirements, maximum size, and numerical limits for fish traps; (3) permit requirements for fish trap operators; and, (4) a minimum size limit of 13 inches total length for red snapper. The record keeping and reporting requirements specified in the FMP were implemented in July, 1987. The approved reporting requirements include: (1) persons fishing fish traps; (2) commercial vessel owners and operators; (3) dealers and processors; and, (4) commercial vessel, charter vessel, and headboat inventory. Proposed recreational fishermen and charter/headboat interviews have not been implemented. Problems Requiring Plan Amendment 1. The adult population of red snapper has declined since 1979, and this decline may be greater in the western Gulf. The current snapper fishery is supported primarily by younger fish ages one to three. 2. Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. 3. Longline gear has been introduced in the fishery since the FMP was written; this gear needs to be recognized as a segment of the fishery. If longlines" are used in areas where other gear have been traditionally used, an increase in the level of mortality and conflicts among user groups may result. 4. The geographic extent of the stressed area requires modification to address fishing mortality and user conflicts under current and potential use patterns. 5. Some reef fish species are growth and recruitment overfished. 6. Management measures specified in the FMP to establish a data base for management have not been successfully implemented. statistical data for many species have been aggregated into ge"nus or family groups which has made it impossible to assess the condition of specific stocks adequately. Biological profile data are needed throughout the Gulf of Mexico on a 6 continuing basis; the present system of opportunistic dockside sampling ·of the commercial catch is not providing a representative characterization. 7. A significant portion of the catch in the reef fish fishery consists of species not in the fishery management unit. 8. Present definition of OY for the reef fish fishery is an overestimate and does not provide adequate protection for the resource due to different vulnerabilities among reef fish species to overfishing. 9. Mortality to juvenile red snapper due to trawl bycatch reduces potential yield. 10. Fishing pressure has increased dramatically in the past decade due to increased number of vessels, greater use of sophisticated electronic equipment, and increased use of more efficient gear by all sectors of the fishery. 11. Definitive research is needed to determine whether artificial reefs contribute more ~o overfishing or to the rebuilding of the reef fish resource in the various Gulf of Mexico habitats. 12. The user groups utilizing and dependent on the reef· fish resources need to be identified and their socia-economic and socia-cultural characteristics delineated to enable analysis of their respective impacts on the resource and the differential impacts alternative management measures may exert on the various user groups. 13. The stock boundaries of reef fish are unknown. 14. Overfishing of the reef fish stocks is the result of directed and nondirected recreational and commercial fishing mortality. Amendment 1 Management Obiectives The management objectives of this amendment are: 1. The primary objective of the FMP shall be to stabilize long term P9Pulation levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit. 2. To reduce user conflicts and nearshore fishing mortality. 3. To .respecify the reporting requirements necessary to establ ish a database for monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions. 7 4. To revise the definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery to reflect the current species composition of the reef fish fishery. 5. To revise the definition of optimum yield to allow specification at the species level. 6. To encourage research on the effects of artificial reefs. 7. To maximize net economic benefits from the reef fish fishery. species in the Management unit Identified in the FMP The following species are managed by the Fishery Management Plan: Snappers - Lutjanidae Family Queen snapper Mutton snapper Schoolmaster Blackfin snapper Gulf red snapper Cubera snapper Gray [mangrove] snapper Dog snapper Mahogany snapper Lane snapper Silk snapper Yellowtail snapper Wenchman Vermilion snapper Etelis oculatus Lutjanus analis Lutjanus apodus Lutjanus buccanella Lutjanus campechanus Lutjanus cyanopterus Lutjanus griseus Lutjanus jocu Lutjanus mahogoni Lutjanus synagris Lutjanus V1vanus Ocvurus chrysurus Pristipomoides aquilonaris Rhomboplites aurorubens Groupers - Serranidae Family Rock hind Speckled hind Yellowedge grouper Red hind Jewfish Red grouper Misty grouper Warsaw grouper Snowy grouper Nassau grouper Black grouper Yellowmouth grouper Gag Scamp Yellowfin grouper 8 Epinephelus adscensionis Epinephelus drummondhayi Epinephelus flavolimbatus Epinephelus quttatus Epinephelus itajara Epinephelus morio Epinephelus mystaeinus Epinephelus nigritus Epinephelus niveatus Epinephelus striatus Mycteroperea bonaei Mycteroperca interstitial is Mycteroperea microlepis Mycteroperca phenax Mycteroperca venenosa .j Sea Basses - Serranidae Family Black sea bass Bank sea bass Rock sea bass Centropristis striata Centropristis ocyurus centropristis philadelphica proposed Additions to the Management unit The following species are to be added to the fishery management unit FMP: Tilefishes - Malacanthidae CBranchiostegidae) Family Goldface tilefish Blackline tilefish Anchor tilefish Blueline tilefish Tilefish Caulolatilus chrysops caulolatiluscyanops Caulolatilus intermedius Caulolatilus microps Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Jacks - Carangidae Family Greater amberjack Lesser amberjack Seriola dumerili Seriola fasciata Grunts - Pomodasyidae Family White grunt Haemulon" plumieri porgies - Sparidae Family Red porgy Pagrus pagrus Leatherjackets - Balistidae Family Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 9 optiumum yield· Optimum Yield is any harvest level for each species which maintains, or is expected to maintain, over time a survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least a 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) population level, relative to the SSBR that would occur with no fishing .• Definition of overfishinq 1. A reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished when it is below the level of 20 percent of the spawning stock biomass per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishing. 2. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished, overfishing is defined as harvesting at a rate that is not consistent with a program that has been established to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit level. 3. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is not overfished, overfishing is defined as a harvesting rate that if continued would lead to a state of the stock or stock complex that would not at least allow a harvest of oy on a continuing basis. Proposed Annual Procedure for Adjusting Management Measures optimum Yield can be achieved with annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) specifications for each species or species group. The Council will establish a framework procedure where, on an annual basis, a scientific working group will establish an Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) range and Council sets annual TAC and prescribes fishing restrictions annually to attain the management goa~ of OY for implementation by the Regional Director (RD) of NMFS prior to the beginning of a fishing year. Procedure for Specification of TAC: 1. Prior to April 1 each year, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and Regional Director, the SEFC will: a) update or complete biological and economic assessments and analyses of the present and future condition of the stocks for .red snapper and other reef fish stock or stock complex: b) assess to the extent possible the current SSBR levels for each stock; c). estimate F in relation to F (SSBR); d) estimate annual surplus production, F(max), or other population parameters deemed appropriate: e) summarize statistics on the fishery for each stock or stock complex; f) specify the geographical 10 variations in stock abundance, mortality, recruitment and age of entry into the fishery for each stock or stock complex; and, g) analyze social and economic impacts of any specification demanding adjustments of allocations, quotas, or bag limits. 2. The council will convene a scientific stock assessment panel, appointed by the Council, that will, as a working group, review the SEFC assessment(s), current harvest statistics, economic, social, and other relevant data and will prepare a written report to the Council specifying a range of ABC for each stock or stock complex which is in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. The ABC's are catch ranges that will be calculated for those species in the management unit that have been identified by the Council, NMFS, or the working panel as in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. The range of ABC's shall be calculated so as to achieve reef fish population levels at or above the 20 percent SSBR goal by January 1, 2000. For stock or stock complexes where data in the SEFC reports are inadequate to compute an ABC based on the SSBR model, the above working group will use other available information as a guide in providing their best estimate of an ABC range that should result in at least a 20 percent SSBR level. The ABC ranges will be established to prevent an overfished stock from further decline. To the extent possible a risk analysis should be conducted showing the probabilities of attaining or exceeding the stock goal of 20 percent SSBR and the annual transitional yields (i.e., catch streams) calculated for each level of fishing mortality within the ABC range and the economic and social impacts associated with those levels. The working group report will include recommendations on bag limits, size limits, specific gear limits, season closures, and other restrictions required to attain management goal, along wi th the economic and social impacts of such restrictions, and the research and data collection necessary to improve the assessments. The working group may also recommend additional species for future analyses. 3. The Council will conduct a public hearing on the working group report(s) at, or prior to the time, it is considered by the Council for subsequent action. other public hearings may be held also. The Council will request review of the report(s) by its Reef Fish Advisory Panel and Standing Scientific and statistical Committees and may convene these groups to provide advice before taking action. . 11 4. The Council in selecting a TAC level for each stock for which an ABC range has been identified will, in addition to taking into consideration the recommendations provided for in (1), (2), and (3), utilize the following criteria: a. Set TAC within or below the ABC range or set a series of TAC's to obtain the ABC level within 3 years or less. b. Subdivide the TAC's into commercial and recreational allocations which maximize the net benefits of the fishery to the nation. The allocations will be based on historical percentages harvested by each user group during the base period of 1979-87. If the harvest in any year exceeds the TAC due to either the recreational or commercial user group exceeding its allocation, subsequent allocations pertaining to the respective user group will be adjusted to assure meeting the January 1, 2000 spawning stock biomass per recruit goal. 5. The Council will provide its recommendations to the RD for any specifications in TAC's for each stock or stock complex, the quotas, bag limits, trip limits, size limits, closed seasons, and gear restrictions necessary to attain the TAC, along with the reports, a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment of impacts and the proposed regulations before October 15 or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. 6. Prior to each fishing year or other such time as agreed upon by the RD and Council the RD will review the Council's recommendations and supporting information, and if he concurs that the recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the National Standards, and other applicable law he shall forward for pUblication notice of proposed TAC' sand associated harvest restrictions by November 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD; providing up to 30 days for additional public comment. The RD will take into consideration all information received and will forward for pUblication in the Federal Register the notice final rule by December 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. 7. Appropriate regulatory changes that may be implemented by notice include: a. The TAC I S for each stock or stock complex to achieve. a specific level of ABC within the first year or annual levels of TAC designed to achieve the ABC level within.three years. b. Bag limits, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, and quotas designed to achieve the TAC level. 12 .Proposed Management Measures Size and Catch Limits--Red Snapper 1: Establish a red snapper minimum size limit of 13 inches total length, a recreational bag limit of 7 fish per angler per day, and a commercial quota of 3.1 million pounds that would effect a 20 percent reduction in the 19a5-87 average annual recreational and commercial catches, respectively. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 2: Prohibit the sale of red snapper smaller than the size limit. 3: Delete the allowance for keeping five undersize red snapper. Size anq Catch--other Reef Fish Species 1: Establish a size limit of 20 inches total length on red, Nassau, yellowfin, black, and gag groupers, a 50-inch limit on jewfish, a five-fish recreational daily possession limit for ~11 grouper, and a commercial grouper quota of 11 million pounds. e~l to 90 percent of the aggregate 1985-87 grouper landings. Tlie grouper quota is to be subdivided into the following two quotas: 1.8 million pounds for deep water groupers (misty, snowy, warsaw, and yellowedge groupers); 9.2 million pounds for shallow water groupers (includes all grouper species other than those listed above as deep water species). Jewfish is not included in the grouper quotas. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 2: Establish minimum sizes of .12· inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and 8 inches total length on lane and vermilion snappers. An overall snapper recre~tional daily possession limit of 10 fish shall be established, excluding lane, ve'rmilion, and red snappers. There is no bag limit for lane and vermilion snappers and the red snapper limit is separate and distinct from this 10 fish limit. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. 3: Establish a minimum size of 8 inches total length for black sea bass. This limit shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment 1S implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 13 4: Establish a greater amberjack m~n~mum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a 3 fish per angler per day possession limit for recreational fishermen and a 36 inch fork length minimum size limit for commercial fishermen. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 5: Prohibit the sale of reef fish smaller than the established size limits. If a larger size limit has been set for commercial fishermen, as with greater amberjack, then no fish smaller than the commercial size limit can be sold. Multiple-day Possession Limits 1: To allow a maximum of 2 days possession limit for charter vessels and head boats fishing under the bag limits on fishing trips that extend beyond 24 hours duration provided the charter vessel or head boat has two licensed operators aboard as required by the u.s. coast Guard for multiple-day fishing trips and each passenger can provide a receipt to verify length of fishing trip. All other fishermen fishing under a bag limit are limited to.a single day possession limit. Gear Restrictions--Fish Traps . , . 1: Permitted commercial fishermen may obtain a special fish trap permit (endorsement) to fish up to a maximum of 100 fish traps per permit holder. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. Gear Restrictions--Trawls 1: Trawl vessels must comply with the same size and bag limits that are established for the recreational fishery harvesting reef fish. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. Gear Restrictions--Lonqlines and Buoys 1: Prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50 fathom isobath west of Cape San Blas, Florida (8S·30'W) and inshore of the 20 fathom isobath east of Cape San BIas, Florida (8S 0 30'W). The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e. g. , shark) is limited to the recreational bag limit. The restricted area boundary is specified by latitude-longitude coordinates that approx~mate the depth zones (Table 11.27). Subsequent changes are to be made b1'following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 14 Gear Restrictions--Additional 1: Prohibit the use of entangling nets for the directed harvest of reef fish. The retention of reef fish captured in entangling net operations targeting other species is limited to the recreational bag limit. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. Fishing Year 1: Status Quo - The fishing year is from January 1 through December 31. Stressed Area Boundaries 1: Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to include waters off Texas out to the 30 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Texas (see Figure 11.8). 2: Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to include waters off Louisiana out to the 10 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Louisiana (see Figure 11.9). User Group Conflict Resolution 1: status Quo - No regulation. Closed Seasons and Areas 1: Season and area closures for selected reef fish will be considered under the Total Allowable Catch Procedure. Permits and Gear Identification 1: Require an annual commercial fishing permit for fishing under the commercial quota (exceeding a bag limit) and for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition that more than fifty percent of an individual's (owner or operator) earned income must be derived from commercial or charter (for-hire) fishing. Charter and head boat applicants must submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit their documented vessel number on the permit application. Only those fish caught by a permitted vessel can be sold; where a commercial quota has been established only those fish caught under the commercial quota can be sold. Charter and head boats with permits to fish under the commercial quota are required to fish under the bag limit when under charter or when there are more than 3 persons aboard, including captain and crew. Other fishermen on unpermitted vessels are limited to the established bag limits. 2: Special fish trap permits (endorsements) and trap tags shall be required for all vessels fishing or possessing fish traps in the 15 EEZ for the harvest of reef fish. The permit and trap tags shall be issued (or reissued) 'annually and shall be valid until the end of the fishing year for which the permit is issued unless revoked for violation of a fish trap related regulation. A fee shall be charged to recover the direct and indirect costs associated with the issuance of trap permits and tags. Except for the fish trap permit provisions in this paragraph, all other fish trap permit requirements shall remain as specified in section 641.4 of the current reef fish regulations. Statistical Reporting Requirements 1: Data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents from a statistically valid survey sample of commercial and recreational catch that is of SUfficient size to provide representative measures of all major segments of a category of users of a resource and statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and quota monitoring. Any such data collection should rely upon techniques that ensure comparability of data. Those fishermen and dealers selected by the Science and Research Director, or his designee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at dockside for inspection by those agents. 2: Require head boat operators who are selected by NMFS to maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information to NMFS on at least a monthly basis. 3: Require charter boat operators who are selected by NMFS to maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Science and Research Director that are to' be submitted weekly (as is required in the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP). Information to be included in the forms must include, but not be limited to: (1) Name or official number of vessel. (2) Operator's Coast Guard license number. (3) Date of trip. (4) Number of fishermen on trip. (5) Area fished. (6) Fishing methods and type of gear. (7) Hours fished. (8) Species targeted. (9) Number and estimated weight of fish caught by species. 4: The current reporting requirements for fish traps are modified in the following paragraph to implement the Council's intent to st:-rengthen the enforceability of fish trap reportinqrequirements. The owner or operator of a fishing vessel or any other person permitted under §641.4 to fish with fish traps must provide the following information ,regarding all fishing trips on which reef fish are harvested to the Science and Research Director. This 16 ./ information must be submitted within 7 days of completion of each trip: (1) permit number as provided for in §641.4; (2) pounds of catch of reef fish by species by gear if gear other than fish traps were also used; (3) date of trip, depths fished, and fishing locations by statistical area; (4) number of trap hauls resulting in catch; {5} duration (days and hours) traps were fished before each haul; (6)mesh size of traps. Routine reporting shall be required of all trap permittees. At a minimum, monthly reports shall be required of permittees even if no fishing for reef fish occurred in a particular month. Violation of any of the reporting requirements shall result in revocation of the fish trap permit for one year. NMFS shall provide quarterly reports concerning compliance with the fish trap regulations. Rejected Management Measures Size and Catch Limits -- Red Snapper 1: Status Quo -- An allowance of incidentally harvested red snapper less than 12 inches in fork length is established at five fish per person in possession, and (b) any domestic vessel fishing trawls in the EEZ with the exception of roller trawl vessels fishing in the stressed area is excluded from the possession limit. 2: Immediately reduce fishing mortality by 74 percent to rebuild the spawning stock biomass per recruit to the 20% level (relative to the unfished condition). This reduction would be effected by a 2 fish recreational bag limit and a commercial quota of 1.4 million pounds. 3: Establish larger size limits up to 24 inches total length or smaller bag limits down to a 2, 3 or 5 fish bag limits and quotas down to 1.4, 2.l, or 2.9 million pounds. 4: Establish different catch quotas, bag limits, and minimum sizes by geographical area. . 5: Allocate' red snapper between recreational and commercial fisheries by allocating to the commercial fishery all red snapper killed by the shrimp and qroundfish trawl fisheries and allocate the remaining red snapper to the recreational fishery. 17 .. catch and Size Limits -- other Reef Fish Species 1: status Quo -- no regulation. 2: Establish larger size limits or smaller bag limits and quotas for the reef fish species identified in the above proposed options. 3: Establish a recreational bag limit and commercial quota for jewfish to reduce current levels of fishing mortality. 4: Require all reef fish to be landed in accordance with state landing regulations for size and possession when state regulations are more restrictive than those in the EEZ and are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and National Standards. Multiple-day Possession Limits 1: Make no allowance for multiple-day fishing trips. 2: Allow multiple-day possession limits, up to a maximum of 5 days cumUlative bag limit catch, for vessels making multiple-day trips. Gear Restrictions--Fish Traps 1: FMP regulation -- Require vessels fishing traps in the EEZ be limited to no more than 200 traps. 2: Require trap bottoms to be made of 2 by 4 inch mesh to grade fish during trap retrieval. This measure shall be effective one year after approval by the Secretary. 3: Require at least two sides of a trap to be constructed with 2 by 4 inch mesh to allow escapement of juvenile target fish and small nontarget fish. 4: Require all mesh on fish traps to be 2 by 4 inches or larger. 5: . Prohibit the use of fish traps in areas where they are not presently in use. 6: Allow the use of sea bass fish traps for the directed harvest of sea bass, as defined by Florida law, in the EEZ north of 27· north latitude adjacent to Florida I s territorial sea. Florida statutes define a black sea bass trap as a fish trap of outer dimensions not to exceed two feet in any dimension. Each trap must have a biodegradable panel and a throat or entrance with the narrowest point of not more than five inches in height and two inches in width. Such traps are also not allowed to be fished south of latitude 27° North. 7: Prohibit the use of fish traps for the directed harvest of reef fish throughout the entire EEZ. 18 Gear Restrictions -- Shrimp Trawls 1: status Quo--Any domestic vessel fishing trawls for species other than reef fish in the EEZ with the exception of roller trawl vessels fishing in the stressed area is excluded from the minimum size limit for red snapper. A trawl is assumed to be fishing for species other than reef fish when the total weight of reef fish aboard does not exceed five percent of all other fish (including shrimp) aboard. 2: Trawl vessels must comply with the same size and bag limits that are established for the recreational fishery harvesting red snapper. Bag limits on other reef fish would not apply to trawl vessels. 3: Prohibit shrimp fishing in areas and during periods of sUbstantial red snapper prerecruit bycatch. 4: Require trawls to be designed to reduce finfish bycatch by a minimum percentage compared to trawls not equipped to exclude finfish. 5: Limit shrimp trawling to 90 minutes tow time to increase probability of survival of juvenile red snapper returned to the sea. 6: Delete the red snapper bycatch exclusion for trawl vessels. 7: Exempt trawl vessels from the minimum size limit for red snapper provided the total weight of undersize red snappers does not exceed one percent of all other fish (including invertebrates) landed. Gear Restrictions -- Longlines 1: Prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50 fathom isobath throughout the Gulf EEZ. The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e.g., shark) is limited to the recreational bag limit. 2: Prohibit use of longlines for directed harvesting of reef fish. 3: Prohibit use of longlines for directed harvesting of reef fish in the stressed area. 4: Status-quo - no regulation on the use of longlines. 19 Additional Gear Restrictions 1: Establish minimum hook sizes. 2: Only the following gear may be used to take reef fish: hook and-line, speargun (without powerhead), fish traps, longlines, and runaround nets (including gill and trammel nets). 3: Permit only hook-and-line and spear fishing in the stressed area. Fishing Year 1: Define the fishing year to begin at another time of the year or set different fishing years for different species groups. stressed Area Boundaries 1: Modify the present boundary of stressed area off the West Florida coast from the current stressed area boundary point at latitude 28 ° 10' North, longitude 83 ° 14' West to extend east along the same latitude to 83° 5' West and from there to extend north northwest to a point at 28° 54' North, 83° 15' West and from there to extend northwest to a point 29° 38' North, 83° 44' West and from there to extend due west to longitude 84· 00' West which is an existing point on the stressed area boundary. (See Figure 11.10, map section III). 2: Modify the present boundary of stressed area off the west Florida coast from the current stressed area boundary line along the 20 fathom isobath inshore to the 15 fathom isobath which requires making the following changes to the boundary points: move the boundary point at latitude 26° 26' North, longitude 82° 59' West inshore, along the same latitude to longitude 82° 45' west and the boundary point at latitude 28° 10' North, 83° 45' west inshore along the same latitude to longitude 83° 30' West (Figure 11.10, map section IV). 3: . Modify present boundary of stressed area off the southwest Florida coast from the point at latitude 25 ° 40' North .and longitude 82" 39' West to extend shoreward to a point at 25° 40' North and 81° 39' West and from there to extend south-southeast to a point at 25" 03' North and 81° 27' west and then to extend southwest to rejoin the present stressed area boundary at point 6 (24° 48' North, 82" 06.5' West) (Figure 11.10, map section V). 20 User Group Conflict Resolution 1: Prohibit or restrai~ specific fishing gear around artificial reefs with the establishment of Special Management Zones (SMZ). 2: Implement a Notice Action procedure for ~erminating a conflict or preventing a violent confrontation between fishermen fishing different gears. Closed Seasons and Areas 1: Establish a closed season for selected species or species groups to assure maximum protection of spawning potential. Permits and Gear Identification 1: Require an annual commercial permit, with no qualifying conditions, for the sale of reef fish. 2: Require an annual commercial fishing permit for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition that ten percent of an individual's (owner or operator) income must be derived from commercial fishing. 3: Require annual permits for charter and head boat vessels. 4: Require annual permits for ,fish trap possession and their use in the reef fish fishery. 5: Vessels or persons harvesting reef fish in the EEZ for subsequent sale must possess a state permit that allows the sale of reef fish in the state of landing. 6: Establish a moratorium on the issuance of fish trap permits. statistical Reporting Requirements 1: Replace the fish trap logbook with a dockside sampling program, designed by NMFS, and patterned' after the present state/federal Trip Interview Program. 21 i I 4. INTRODUCTION 4.1. History of Management Since the Fishery Management Plan The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management council submitted the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan in August, 1981; it was approved by the Secretary of Commerce in June, 1983, but not implemented until November, 1984. The implementing regulations designed to rebuild declining reef fish stocks included these measures: (1) prohibitions on the use of fish traps, roller trawls, and powerheads within an inshore stressed area; (2) construction requirements, maximum size, and numerical limits for fish traps; (3) permit requirements for fish trap operators; and, (4) a minimum size limit of 13 inches total length for red snapper. The record keeping and reporting requirements specified in the FMP were implemented in July, 1987. The approved reporting requirements include: (1) persons fishing fish traps; (2) commercial vessel owners and operators; (3) dealers and processors; and, (4) commercial vessel, charter vessel, and headboat inventory. Proposed recreational fishermen and charter/headboat interviews have not been implemented. statement of MSY, OY, EDAH and TALFF (millions of pounds) in FMP GROUP MSY Snapper and Grouper 51.0 Sea basses 0.5 4.2. Problems in the Fishery OY 45.0 0.5 4.2.1 Problems Identified in the FMP EDAH 45.0 0.5 TALFF o o 1. A sUbstantial decline in reef fish stocks has occurred in some areas under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. A known factor contributing to this decline is overfishing in many areas of the Gulf of Mexico by directed recreational and commercial users. Other possible factors contributing to the decline are: a. Reduction of habitat, both natural and man-made. b. A large bycatch in other fisheries. c. Major environmental changes (which can be documented for 1973-1975). 2. An insufficient data base exists to pinpoint the causes and magnitude of the decline by exact geographical area. 22 .. 3. There is expanding competition between users competing for the resource and the space the resource occupies. This expanding competition is in part due to: a. Increasing fishing effort and the concentration of that effort in localized areas. b. Increasing fishing effort in other fisheries that have a bycatch of reef fish •. c. Declining catch per unit effort in some areas. d. Introduction of new gear. 4.2.2. Problems Requiring Plan Amendment 1. The adult population of red snapper has declined since 1979, and this decline may be greater in the western Gulf. The current snapper fishery is supported primarily by younger fish ages one to three. 2. Habitat loss is negatively affecting reef fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. 3. Longline gear has been introduced in the fishery since the FMP was written; this gear needs to be recognized as a segment of the fishery. If longlines are used in areas where other gear have been traditionally used, an increase in the level of mortality and conflicts among user groups may result. 4. The geographic extent of the stressed area requires modification to address fishing mortality and user conflicts under current and potential use patterns. 5. Some reef fish species are growth and recruitment overfished. 6. Measures specified in the FMP to establish a data base for management have not been successfully implemented. statistical data for many species have been aggregated into genus or family groups which has made it impossible to assess the condition of specific stocks adequately. Biological profile data are needed throughout the Gulf of Mexico on a continuing basis; the present system of opportunistic dockside sampling of the commercial catch is not providing a representative characterization. 7. A significant portion of the catch in the reef fish fishery consists of species not in the fishery management unit. 8. The present defini~ion of OY for the reef fish fishery is an overestimate and does not provide adequate protection for the 23 I resource due to different vulnerabilities among reef fish species to overfishing. 9. Mortality to juvenile red snapper due to trawl bycatch reduces potential yield. 10. Fishing pressure has increased dramatically in the past decade due to . increased number of vessels, greater use of sophisticated electronic equipment, and increased use of more efficient gear by all sectors of the fishery. 11. Definitive research is needed to determine whether artificial reefs contribute more to overfishing or to the rebuilding of the reef fish resource in the various Gulf of Mexico habitats. 12. The user groups utilizing and dependent on the reef fish resources need to be identified and their socio-economic and socio-cultural characteristics delineated to enable analysis of their respective impacts on the resource and the differential impacts alternative management measures may exert on the various user groups. 13. The stock boundaries of reef fish are unknown. 14. Overfishing of the reef fish stocks is the result of directed and nondirected recreational and commercial fishing mortality. 4.3. Management Objectives 4.3.1. FMP Management Objectives Overall Goal: To manage the reef fish fishery of the united states within the waters of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council jurisdiction to attain the greatest overall benefit to the nation with particular reference to food production and recreational opportuni ties on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield as modified by relevant ecological, economic, or social factors. Objectives: 1. To rebuild the declining reef fish stocks wherever they occur within the fishery. 2. To establish a fishery reporting system for monitoring the reef fish fishery. 3. To conserve and increase reef fish habitats in appropriate areas and to provide protection for juveniles while protecting existing and new habitats. 4. To minimize conflicts between user groups of the resource and conflicts for space. 24 4.3.2. Amendment 1 Management Objectives Management objectives of this amendment are: 1. The primary objective of the FMP shall be to stabilize long term population levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit. 2. To reduce user conflicts and nearshore fishing mortality. 3. To respecify the reporting requirements necessary to establish a database for monitoring the reef fish fishery and evaluating management actions. 4. To revise the definitions of the fishery management unit and fishery to reflect the current species composition of the reef fish fishery. 5. To revise the definition of optimum yield to allow specification at the species level. 6. To encourage research on the effects of artificial reefs. 7. To maximize net economic benefits from the reef fish fishery. 25 5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT UNIT AND FISHERY 5.1. Areas and stocks Reef fishes and the fishery for them have historically been largely conducted within waters shallower than 100 fathoms a depth that approximates the outer edge Of the continental shelf. Most reef fish species do not reach commercially exploitable sizes in shallow water. The Exclusive Economic. Zone (EEZ) encompasses 263,525 square miles, the continental shelf encompasses 121,204 square miles, using the mean low water depth, excluding bays and estuaries, to a depth of 100 fathoms. Reef fishes are generally confined to reef or reef-like hard bottom areas within the area of the continental shelf. It was calculated that the inhabitable and fishable area available in the Gulf is approximately 15,054 square miles(estimated from Lynch, 1954: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management charts of the outer continental shelf Visual No.4 ,OCS base sale No. 41). More recent surveys by the R/V Oregon II indicate the live bottom in the Gulf to be 20,000 square miles within the 55 fathom contour. Offshore sport fishing areas, offshore groups of commercial banks, and reported hard banks were considered as potentially inhabitable areas. These data indicate that approximately 12.4 percent of the Gulf of Mexico shelf within the EEZ is available as habitat for reef fishes but only 5.7 percent is inhabitable within the entire area of the EEZ. Although there have been no studies published as yet on se.parate reef fish species stocks within the Gulf of Mexico, several studies conducted on other species indicate that there are separate stocks of many demersal fishes occurring east and west of the Mobile Bay area. until this suspicion is confirmed each species is treated as its own stock within the Gulf. Because of the lack of data with regard to distribution and recognition of biologically distinct populations, the concept of "unit stock" defined by Cushing (1968) cannot be applied at the present time on the reef fish species of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The FMP and this amendment manages the reef fish resources in the are'a of authority of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The area which will be regulated by the federal government under this plan is confined to the waters of the EEZ. 26 5:2 Species in the Management Unit 5.2.1 Management Unit Identified in the FMP The following species were identified for management by the FMP: Snappers - Lutjanidae Family Queen snapper Mutton snapper Schoolmaster Blackfin snapper Red snapper Cubera snapper Gray [mangrove] snapper Dog snapper Mahogany snapper Lane snapper Silk snapper Yellowtail snapper Wenchman Vermilion snapper Etelis oculatus Lutjanus analis Lutjanus apodus Lutjanus buccanella Lutjanus campechanus Lutjanus cyanopterus Lutjanus griseus Lutjanus jocu Lutjanus mahogoni Lutjanus synagris Lutjanus v~vanus Ocyurus chrysurus pristipomoides aquilonaris Rhomboplites aurorubens Groupers - Serranidae Family Rock hind Speckled hind Yellowedge grouper Red hind Jewfish Red grouper Misty grouper Warsaw grouper Snowy grouper Nassau grouper Black grouper Yellowmouth grouper Gag Scamp Yellowfin grouper Epinephelus adscensionis Epinephelus drummondhayi Epinephelus flavolimbatus Epinephelus guttatus Epinephelus itajara Epinephelus morio Epinephelus mystacinus Epinephelus nigritus Epinephelus niveatus Epinephelus .striatus Mycteroperca bonaci Mycteroperca interstitial is Mycteroperca microlepis Mycteroperca phenax Mycteroperca venenosa Sea Basses - Serranidae Family Black sea bass Bank sea bass Rock sea bass Centropristis striata centropristis ocyurus Centropristis philadelphica 27 5.2.2 Proposed Additions to the Management Unit The FMP included the species Pristipomoides macropthalmus which is now recognized as being synonymous with P. aguilonaris, the wenchman (Hoese and Moore, 1977). Also centropristis melana is now recognized as a subspecies of c. striata and red porgy Pagrus sedecim has been synonymized with P. pagrus (AFS committee on Names of Fish, 1980). The Reef Fish Scientific Task Team and Scientific and statistical Committee report the current definitions of the fishery and management unit do not fully characterize the major species comprising the reef fish fishery. Recommended changes include specification of tilefish and amberjacks by species and their inclusion, along with white grunt, in the fishery management unit. In addition, the scientific committees recommended the queen triggerfish be included in the fishery due to its widespread occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico. Initially, these species were not in the management unit because they were not included in the original calculation of MSY and OY. The following species are to be added to the fishery management unit FMP: Tilefishes - Malacanthidae (Branchiostegidael Family Goldface tilefish Blackline tilefish Anchor tilefish Blueline tilefish Tilefish Caulolatilus chrysops Caulolatilus cyanops Caulolatilus intermedius Caulolatilus microps Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Jacks - carangidae Family Greater amberjack Lesser amberjack Seriola dumerili Seriola fasciata Grunts - Pomodasyidae Family White grunt Haemulon plumieri Porgies - Sparidae Family Red porgy Pagrus pagrus Triggerfishes - Balistidae Family Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 28 5.3. Species Included in the Fishery but not in the Management unit 5.3.1. species Identified in the FMP Tilefishes - Malacanthidae Family Great northern tilefish Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Caulolatilus spp. Amberjacks Jacks - carangidae Family seriola spp. Triggerfishes- Balistidae Family Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Hogfish Tomtate White grunt Pigfish Wrasses - Labridae Family. Lachnolaimus maximus Grunts - Pomadasyidae Family Haemulonaurolineatum Haemulon plumieri Orthopristis chrysoptera Porgies - SparidaeFamily Red porgy Knobbed porgy Jolthead porgy Littlehead porgy Pinfish Grass porgy Sand Perches· Dwarf sand perch Sand perch Pagrus pagrus Calamus nodosus Calamus bajonado Calamus proridens Lagodon rhomboides Calamus arctifrons Serranidae Family Diplectrum bivittatum Diplectrum formosum 5.3.2 Proposed Additions to the Fishery Species to be added to the fishery are: Triggerfishes - Balistidae Family Queen Triggerfish Balistes vetula 29 6. HABITAT CONCERNS 6.1. Description of Habitat of the Stocks Comprising the Management Unit: The Gulf of Mexico covers an area of approximately 617 million square miles. Its continental shelf ranges in width from about 12 miles off the Mississippi River to nearly 220 miles off west Florida. Geologic formations in the central and western Gulf of Mexico consist mainly of Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata beneath the coastal plain and adjacent continental shelf. Texas and western Louisiana shelfs are characterized by massive accumulations of silt, clay, and sand deposits between uplifted domes and have no major regional structures. Eastern Louisiana and Mississippi shelfs are transitional in nature and composed of fine grain deposits with occasional surface deposits of sand and shell. Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata of the Florida Platform dominate the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Florida Platform is fronted by shelf edge reef complexes of the Cretaceous Era. It is characterized by three regional structures: the Apalachicola Embayment, the Ocala Uplift and the South Florida Basin. within these structures are better known smaller features such as the Florida Middle Ground, the Tampa Arch, and the Southwest Florida Reef Tract. Corals are most prevalent along southwest Florida while the shelf of upper Florida and Alabama is primarily sand and shell. Within the Gulf . of Mexico a minimum of six distinct habitats can be defined as follows: I. Bottom characteristics between Brownsville and Galveston, Texas are variable, consisting principally of hard sand-silt bottom with little freshwater discharge. Salinities are high throughout the year and temperature shows seasonal variation; II. Between Galveston and the mouth of the Mississippi River the shelf becomes broader with the bottom changing from hard sand-silt to softer sand-mud to soft mud when approaching the mouth of the river. Considerable freshwater is discharged throughout this area from both the Atchafalaya and the Mississippi Rivers. Salinity and temperature vary seasonally and are somewhat dependent on rates of freshwater discharge. Estuarine areas increase in magnitude. III. Between the Mississippi River Delta and Mobile Bay, Alabama, the shelf remains fairly broad with the bottom changing from mud to mud-sand and hard sand-shell offshore. Freshwater discharge into this area is somewhat reduced. Salinity is generally higher than west of the Delta; IV. The area between Mobile Bay and Cape San BIas, Florida, is characterized by a fairly broad shelf outside of 10 fm. There is only a limited amount of estuarine area. A hard sand bottom interspersed with small areas of coral and sponge 30 are found throughout the area. fairly constant. Temperatures faunal break is noted east of becomes more tropical: salinity is quite high and vary seasonally. A sharp Mobile Bay were the fauna v. south of Cape San BIas to Tampa, Florida, bottom characteristics are predominantly sand-coral with sponges and marl outcroppings. Offshore salinities remain high throughout the year, but temperatures vary seasonally. salinity and temperature are variable in the Apalachee Bay because of the Suwannee River discharge. The water also tends to be somewhat turbid: and VI. South of Tampa to the Tortugas the bottom is composed of sand and shell inshore and coral-sponge farther offshore. Salinity and temperature are high throughout most of the year and are generally higher than in the area north of Tampa. Reef fish utilize both pelagic and benthic habitats during their life cycle. A planktonic larval stage lives in the water column and feeds on zooplankton and phytoplankton. Juvenile and adult reef fish are typically demersal and usually associated with bottom topographies on the continental shelf « 100 m) which have high relief: i. e., coral reefs, artificial reefs, rocky hard-bottom substrates, ledges and caves, sloping soft-bottom areas, and limestone outcroppings. More detail on these habitat types is found in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Corals and Coral Reefs (GMFMC and SAFMC, 1982). However, several species are found over sand and soft-bottom substrates. Juvenile red snapper are common on mud bottoms in the northern Gulf. Some juvenile snapper and grouper such as mutton, gray, dog, lane, and yellowtail snappers and jewfish, red, gag and yellowfin groupers have been documented in inshore seagrass beds, mangrove estuaries, lagoons, and larger bay systems (GMFMC, 1981). Habitat ranges, preferences and ranges of depth zones, notes on distribution and migration, as well as information on temperature and salinity preferences are presented in section 4.1 Life History Features, of the Reef Fish FM~ (GMFMC, 1981). Man-made artificial reefs also were utilized in the Gulf of Mexico to attract fish and increase fish harvests. An artificial reef system of considerable importance is the large number of petroleum platforms and associated structures (approximately 3500) off the shores of Texas and Louisiana (Driessen, 1985a). Their shape, extensive surface area, high and low areas of relief, and hard substrate are very similar to the best Japanese designs of artificial reefs today. Available reef fishes habitat in the Gulf of Mexico may have increased with the construction and emplacement of artificial reefs and oil and gas energy structures. Oil and gas structures include drilling rigs, production platforms, caissons, capped well heads, etc. 31 Research on man~made reefs including those composed of cars, tires, pipes, etc., is limited. Tennison (1985) discussed the use of offshore oil platforms to develop artificial reefs and enhance fish assemblages. It has been suggested that such platforms support diverse and abundant fish populations not normally found on open sandy bottoms (Hastings et al., 1976; Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982). opinions differ as to whether or not artificial structures actually promote an increase of reef fishes or merely concentrate fishes by attracting them from nearby natural areas. Some evidence indicates that artificial reefs actually increase the standing stock of reef fishes (Stone, 1978; Stone et al., 1979). The following excerpt from Bohnsack and Sutherland (1985) adequately portrays the current state of knowledge on artificial reefs: "General agreement exists that artificial reefs are effective fish attractants and an important fishery management tool. Most published papers deal with building artificial reefs or are qualitative descriptive studies detailing successional changes and species observed. Conclusions were often based on little or no scientific data. Few studies· used quantitative experimental methods and many lacked scientifically valid controls. Drastically different approaches to artificial reefs in terms of purpose, funding, research, materials, and size have been taken by Japan and the United States. Most marine artificial reefs in the united states are large, low budget, and haphazardly constructed from scrap materials, using volunteer labor. These reefs are usually built in deeper offshore waters for use by recreational fishermen with boats. Japan's artificial reefs, however, are designed and constructed by engineers, built of durable, non-waste, prefabricated materials, placed in· scientifically selected sites in shallow and deep water, and are primarily used by commercial fishermen. . In this paper, 29 recommendations are made for future studies. ,Improved professional publication standards and more carefully controlled studies using an experimental approach are suggested. Greater emphasis should be placed on determining optimal design, size, and placement of artificial reefs to maximize production •••. Also, reefs designed for increasing larval and juvenile recruitment, survival, and growth should be considered. Improved quantitative assessment techniques are needed to describe artificial reefs, reef communities, and to monitor biotic changes. Artificial reef data bases should be maintained so that the effectiveness of various artificial reefs can be more easily assessed. The importance of fish attraction versus fisn production and the relationship between standing crop and fish catch have not been adequately addressed. The economics and social impact of artificial reefs also have not been 32 . . carefully examined, especially the benefits from alternative designs and approaches." Presently, Florida has at least 175 active permitted artificial reef sites (Driessen, 1985a). Artificial reef programs have been underway in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, since the 1970's. Alabama has 300-square miles of ocean bottom permitted for artificial reefs. 6.2. Habitat Condition Offshore areas used by adults appear to be the least affected by nearshore habitat alterations and water quality degradation. Since most of the catch comes from offshore in water deeper than 100 feet, there is an unknown effect of pesticides, herbicides, and other harmful wastes which have been considered as deleterious to many inshore fisheries (Ketchum, 1972; Walsh et al., 1981; Boesch, 1983; Walsh, 1984). Nearshore reefs have been adversely affected to various degrees by man, but overall are in good condition. Some coral reef tracts are protected as marine sanctuaries. These include Dry Tortugas (Ft. Jefferson National Monument) and other parks not located in the Gulf of Mexico. The estuarine phase of some juvenile reef fishes, if obligatory, may be critical as alterations of the environment coupled with local changes in environmental parameters such as temperature and salinity have occurred to a large extent in estuaries. Natural and man-induced changes have altered freshwater inflow and removed much habitat. Natural wetland losses result from forces such as erosion, sea level rises, SUbsidence, and accretion. The major man-induced activities that have impacted environmental gradients in the estuarine zone are: 1. construction and maintenance of navigation channels; 2. discharges from wastewater plants and industries; 3. dredge and fill for land use development; 4. agricultural runoff; 5. ditching, draining, or impounding wetlands; 6. oil spills; 7. 'thermal discharges; 8. mining, particularly for phosphate, and petroleum; 9. entrainment and impingement from electric power plants; 10. dams; 11. marinas; 12. alteration of freshwater inflows to estuaries; 13. saltwater intrusion; and, 14. non-paint-source discharges of contaminants. All of the Gulf's estuaries have been impacted to some degree by one or-more of the above activities. The estuaries also have been the most impacted by water quality degradation. Numerous pollution-related reports and publications exist, but there still 33 is no complete list of chemical contaminants, their effects, or concentrations. A comprehensive inventory to assess how seriously the Gulf's estuaries are polluted is also needed. The majority of reef fish spend their entire life cycle offshore where env ironmental conditions are more stable and man's effect on estuaries is less severe. However, if an obligatory relationship between juvenile reef fish and estuarine habitats is determined, estuaries will have to be managed to the same degree for reef fish as for other estuarine-dependent species such as shrimp and red drum. Habitats of particular concern (HPC) are those which play an essential role in the life cycle of the species. Specific areas have been identified in the Gulf of Mexico in the Corals and Coral Reefs FMP (GMFMC and SAFMC, 1982). These include the Flower Garden Banks, Dry Tortugas, Florida Middle Ground, and the Gulf of Mexico Topographic Highs. Since these reefs also provide excellent reef fish habitat, they are again identified here as HPCs. We are unaware of any current habitat condition that affects the ability to harvest and market reef fish resources. The same applies to recreationally caught fish. stout (1980), however, has found low levels of DDT, PCB, endrin, and dieldrin organochlorines in red and black grouper, gag, and red snapper. If the residue levels of organochlorines or other pesticides ever becomes dangerous to humans, it is likely that the marketability of reef fish could be adversely affected. 6.3. Habitat Threats Currently, the primary threat to offshore habitat comes from oil and gas development and production, offshore dumping, platform removals, and the discharge of contaminants by river systems, such as the Mississippi River, which empty into the Gulf' of Mexico. The destruction of suitable reefs (natural and man-made) or other types of hard bottom areas also may prove deleterious to this fishery as most of the current data indicate an affinity for these habitats by.reef fish (Starck, 1968; Bright and Pequegnat, 1974; Shinn, 1974; Gallaway et al., 1981; Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982; Huntsman and Waters, 1987). Natural impacts on reef habitat may arise from severe weather conditions such as hurricanes, red tide, and excessive freshwater discharge resulting from heavy rain. Human impacts on reef habitat result from activities such as pollution, dredging and treasure salvage, boat anchor damage, fishing and diving related perturbations, and petroleum hydrocarbons (Jaap, 1984). Ocean dumping and nutrient overenrichment also may cauSe local problems. An additional problem occurs in the northern Gulf, mainly off Louisiana, where large areas of oxygen depleted waters have been observed (Stuntz et al., 1982; Boesch, 1983; Renaud, 1986). The effect of this "hypoxia" is unknown. 34 Nearshore reefs, especially off Florida, may be impacted by coastal pollution such as sewage and non-point-source discharges, urban runoff, herbicides, and pesticides (Jaap, 1984). Residues of the organochlorine pesticides DDT, PCB, dieldrin, and endrin have been found in gag, red grouper, black grouper, and 'red snapper (stout, 1980). Heavy metal accumulations in sediment and reef biota near population centers have been noted (Manker, 1975). Disposal of wastes has created local problems. Jaap (1984) reports of batteries and refuse disposed of on the reef flat at carysfort Lighthouse in Florida. Juvenile snapper and grouper temporarily residing in estuaries may be adversely affected by coastal pollutants and alterations. The habitat section for the amended Red Drum FMP (NMFS, 1986) provides details on the value of estuaries and the impacts to them. Dredging and salvaging near or on reefs is potentially the most damaging physical human activity. Dredge gear impacts reefs by dislodging corals and other organisms and by creating lesions or scars that lead to infection or mortality. Sedimentation from dredging may seriously damage reefs. Dredged sediments may be anaerobic and bind up available oxygen thereby stressing corals and other sessile reef organisms. If the organisms cannot purge the sediments deposited on them, they generally are killed. silt generated by dredging may remain in the area for long periods and continue to impact reefs when suspended during storms. Reef habitat also may be removed by dredging for borrow materials and disposal on beaches and by dredging and filling associated with navigation channel construction and maintenance. Anchor damage is a significant threat to reefs, especially those composed of corals. Anchors, ground tackle, lines, and chains can break hard and soft corals, scar reefs, and open lesions which can become infected. Heavy use of reef areas by boaters can compound the problem. Although anchoring by oil and gas lease operators is prohibited on most of the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico, anchoring for other purposes is not "restricted. Fishing gear such as bottom trawls, bottom longlines, and traps also may damage reefs. Effects would be similar to anchor damage. Hook-and-line fishing and related losses of line, leaders, hooks, and sinkers also may damage corals. Disposal of garbage by boats has been identified as a problem at Pulaski Shoal near Dry Tortugas (Jaap, 1984) . Recreational spearfishing has damaged corals and may become more of a problem in areas of heavy diver concentration. Divers often illegally overturn corals and cause other damage. Specimen collecting also may result in localized reef damage# especially when chemical collecting agents are improperly used. Collecting corals and the use of chemicals are regulated under the Coral FMP (GMFMC' and SAFMC, 1982). Although there are some potential positive aspects of existing operational platforms acting as artificial reefs, unfortunately; these positive aspects are 35 severely compromised due. to adverse effects on fish and other biota from the discharge of drilling muds, drill cuttings, and minor petroleum pollution due to wash down activities, effluent discharges, and trash disposal. Malins (1982) reviewed laboratory experiments describing the deleterious effects of petroleum fractions on fish. Grizzle (1981) and Pierce et al., (1980) have documented that wild fish have been injured by petroleum pollutants. Grizzle (1983) suggested that larger liver weights in fish collected in the vicinity' of production platforms versus control reefs could have been caused by increased toxicant levels near the platforms. He also suspected that severe gill lamella epithelium hyperplasia and edema in red snapper, vermilion snapper, wenchman, sash flounder, and creole fish were caused by toxicants near the platforms. These types of lesions are consistent with toxicosis and their prevalence and severity increased near drilling platforms. The kinds of effects listed above could result from typical daily activities at platforms. In addition, the possibility of major spills and/or well blowouts exists. Extensive environmental impact statements were a prerequisite to the installation of offshore platforms. However, prior to 1986 no formal environmental monitoring of structure removals was required. The U. S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service (1987), estimates that there were 3,435 platforms in the federal outer continental shelf as of December, 1986 and predicts between 60 and 120 platforms will be removed annually for the next five years. The National Research Council (1985) estimates approximately 1,700 platforms will be removed between 1984 and 2000. The Council predicts about 100 to 130 removals annually between 1990 and 2000. This projection raises questions about the impacts of the potential loss of valuable habitat to a wide variety of marine life. Serious consideration should be given to research projects centered on assessing the importance of platforms to reef fish productivity. Besides the loss of potential habitat, the removal of a platform often destroys the associated platform ecosystem where one exists. In addition to killing fish at a platform removal site, platform removal will result in dispersal of survivors. This would adversely affect some of the commercial and recreational fishermen that fish near platforms. For example, approximately 112 commercial snapper/grouper boats from Florida fish the platforms off Mississippi and Louisiana on a regular basis (Dimitroff, 1982). The removal of platforms in the Gulf of Mexico may reduce the catches of reef fish. Accordingly, new methodologies for platform removals aside from the standard use of bulk explosives should be devised. . 36 6.4. Habitat Information Needs The following research needs relative to reef fish habitat are provided so that state, federal, and private research efforts can focus on those areas that would allow the 'council to develop measures to better manage reef fish and their habitat: 1. Identify optimum reef fish habitat and environmental and habitat conditions that limit reef fish production; 2. Determine the relationship between juvenile reef fish and estuarine habitat; 3. Quantify the relationships between reef fish production and habitat; 4. Identify areas of particular concern for reef fish; 5. Determine methods for restoring reef fish habitat and/or improving existing environmental conditions (platform environments) that-adversely affect reef fish production; and 6. Identify mitigative methods for preserving and/or relocating oil platforms for use as artificial reefs. 7. The 29 recommendations in Bohnsack and Sutherland (1985) for future studies should be followed. Especially the issue whether artificial reefs contribute to population productivity or primarily congregate fish. 8. Determine the impacts of butterfish trawling on reef fish habitats. 6.5. Habitat Protection Programs state and federal agencies and laws and policies that affect reef fish habitat are found in Section 3.3 of the Reef Fish EIS and FMP (GMFMC, 1981). Specific involvement by other federal agencies are identified below. ottice ot Coastal Zone Xanagement, Xarine sanctuaries program, NOAA: specifically, this program manages and funds the marine sanctuaries program. On-site management and enforcement are generally delegated to the states through special agreements. Funding for research and management is arranged through grants. National Xarine Pisberies service: The enactment of the Magnuson Act provides for exclusive management of fisheries seaward of state jurisdiction. This includes both specific fishery stocks and habitat. The process for developing FMPs is highly complex. It includes plan development by various procedures through fisheries 37 management councils. National Marine Fisheries service implements approved plans. The Coast Guard, National. Marine Fisheries Service, and states enforce fishery management plans. Fishery management plans for billfish, corals and coral reefs, coastal migratory pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, stone crab, and swordfish are in force in the Gulf of Mexico. National Park service: National parks and monuments are under the jurisdiction of National Park Service. Management, enforcement, and research are accomplished in house. Minerals Management service: This agency has jurisdiction over mineral and petroleum resources on the continental shelf. Management has included specific lease regulations and mitigation of exploration and production activities in areas where coral resources are known to exist. Fish and Wildlife Service: Fish and wildlife Service assists with environmental impact review, develops biological resource evaluations, and administers the endangered species program with the NMFS. In the Keys area the Fish and Wildlife Service manages several national refuges for wildlife. Geological SurveYI In the coral reef areas, the Geological Survey has conducted considerable reef research and assisted or cooperated with other institutions and agencies to facilitate logistics and support of coral reef research. coast Guard: The 1978 Waterways Safety Act charges the Coast Guard with marine environmental protection. The Coast Guard is the general enforcement agency for all marine activity in the federal zone. Among the duties are enforcement of sanctuary and fishery management regulations, managing vessel salvage, and coordinating oil spill cleanup operations at sea. u.s. Army Corps of Enqineers: The Corp contracts and regulates coastal engineering projects, particularly harbor dredging and be~ch renourishment projects. The Corp also reviews and is the permitting agency for coastal development projects, artificial reefs, and offshore structures. Environmental Protection Aqency: This agency has a general responsibility for controlling air and water pollution. Disposal of hazardous wastes and point-source discharge permitting are Environmental Protection Agency functions. certain mineral and petroleum exploration and production activities are managed by Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental research germane to waste disposal and pollution also are funded • . Federal environmental agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mineral Management Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency also analyze 38 projects proposing inshore and offshore alterations for potential impacts on resources under their purview. This is similar to the function of the Gulf council's Habitat Coromi ttee. Recommendations resulting from these analyses are provided to the permitting agencies (the Corp for physical alterations in inshore waters and territorial sea, the Mineral Management Service for physical alterations in the Outer continental Shelf or the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Environmental Protection Agency for chemical alterations). Even though the Corp of Engineers issues permits for oil and gas structures in the EEZ, they only consider navigation and national defense impacts, thus leaving the rest to the Department of Interior, in a nationwide general permit. In administering the oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Department of Interior through the Minerals Management Service has not been recognizing the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Instead they have contended that the Outer continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, supersedes the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. They also require that the oil and gas lease permit stipulations be more closely coordinated with other Department of Interior bureaus, e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service, as provided in Departmental Manual 655. Coordination with other federal and state agencies is less frequent. For example, coordination between National Marine Fisheries Service and Minerals Management Service results from NOAA participation in the Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Board's Gulf of Mexico Regional Technical Working Group, which usually conven~s three times a year, and from authorities under the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The latter involves the periodic review of environmental statements for proposed lease sales. While review under the Endangered Species Act generally involves exploration and development plans, it is very difficult for agencies like National Marine Fisheries Service to have Minerals Management Service implement less environmentally damaging procedures in oil and gas operations around reefs, etc., if the Fish and Wildlife Service has not already objected to the procedure during the Department of Interior, OM 655 coordination. However, though not required to do so, the Fish and Wildlife Service frequently informally coordinates their proposed actions under OM 655 with National Marine Fisheries Service. None of the fish and wildlife agencies have veto power over Minerals Management Service permitting for oil and gas exploration, development and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, or on essentially the EEZ. Environmental Protection Agency is the permitting agency for chemical discharges into the Gulf of Mexico, under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) program of the Clean Water Act for chemicals used or produced in the Gulf (i.e., drilling muds, produced water or biocides) and then released, or under the Ocean Dumping Regulations of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act if the chemicals are transported into the Gulf for the purpose of dumping. When discharge or dumping 39 permits are proposeq, federal and state fish and wildlife agencies may comment and advise under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and National Environmental Protection Act. The Gulf Council may do likewise under the Magnuson Act and National Environmental Protection Act. The Gulf Council also protects reef fish habitat under the Corals and Coral Reefs Fishery Management Plan. 6.6. Habitat Recommendations The reef fish fishery contributes to the food supply, economy, health of the nation, and provides recreational and commercial fishing opportunities. The fishery is dependent upon the survival of reef fish resources, which can only be assured by the wise management of all aspects of reef fish habitat. Increased productivity of reef fish stocks may not be possible without habitat maintenance and regulatory restrictions. Recognizing that all species are dependent on the quantity and quality of their essential habitats, it is the policy of the Council to protect, restqre, and improve habitats upon which commercial and recreational marine fisheries depend, to increase their extent and to improve their productive capacity for the benefit of the present and future generations. This policy shall be supported by three objectives which are to: 1. Maintain the current quantity and productive capacity of habitats supporting important commercial and recreational fisheries, including their food base (This objective may be accomplished through the recommendation of no loss and minimization of environmental degradation of existing habitat); 2. Restore and rehabilitate the productive capacity of habitats which have already been degraded; and 3. Create and develop productive habitats where increased fishery productivity will benefit society. To achieve these goals the Council has formed a Habitat Committee and Advisory Panels for the Gulf states. The purpose of the Committee is to bring to the Council's attention activities that may affect the habitat of the fisheries under their management. The Council, pursuant to the Magnuson Act, will use its authorities to support state and federal environmental agencies in their habitat conservation efforts and will directly engage the regulatory agencies on significant actions that may affect reef fish habitat. The goal is to ensure that reef fish habitat losses are kept to the minimum and that efforts for appropriate mitigation strateg.ies and applicable research are supported. 40 7~ DESCRIPTION OF THE REEF FISH FISHERY 7.1. Description of Available Data The primary data source for the recreational harvest of red snapper is the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) , Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) which covers the period 1979-85. This survey did not include boat-mode sampling in Texas during the period 1982-84 or party boats throughout the Gulf in 1986. Party boat catch estimates for 1986 were obtained from a survey conducted by the NMFS, Beaufort, NC (data courtesy of Gene Huntsman). Estimates for boat-mode catches of red snapper in Texas for 1982-1984 were obtained from Parrack and McClellan (1986) and are based on data collected by the Texas Parks and wildlife Department. These data were used to adjust the MRFSS data to provide estimates of total numbers of red snapper captured by the recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico from 1979-1986. Data from the Trip Interview Program of the State/Federal cooperative statistics Program (TIP) were obtained to characterize the size composition of red snapper landed by different commercial gears. Data were available from 1983 through part of 1987. The records were sorted by gear type and location of capture (statistical·area)~ Commercial annual landings data were obtained with statistical area location and gear information from the NMFS General Canvas Landings files and monthly data were from the NMFS ALARM reports (Brown et al., 1988) and covered the years 1972-1986 and 1979-1986, respectively. Data from the stock assessment (Goodyear, 1988a; 1988b) were based on the General Canvas Landings files. 7.2. Description of The Reef Fish Fishery The reef fishes apparently represent the first target fishery of any consequence for demersal fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout the period prior to the late 1970's; the basic fishing gear, hook and-line, prevailed. However, since the late 1970' s both fish trap and longline gear have grown in importance for the commercial fishery. Users of the reef fish resources can be divided into the two broad user groups of recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen. Recreational users consist of individual sport fishermen and divers. Commercial users consist of "for hire" (charter or head boat) boats and commercial food fishermen. Those fishermen earning their livelihood from the fishery were considered the commercial users •. 41 Recreational fishermen include those fishing from privately owned craft ranging from small outboard powered boats to the more sophisticated charter and "head boat" equipped with modern electronic equipment. Some recreational users combine their sport fishing activities with sport diving. other divers simply observe the underwater environment but may occasionally do some incidental fishing. Many of these recreational users belong to local, state, national, and even international associations which are active in promoting their interests in the reef fish fishery and the marine environment. Similarly, commercial fishermen fall into two categories: charter boat or "head boat" operators and commercial fishermen. Through these commercial users, the general public is brought into the overall user group category either as fishermen, providers of services to fishermen, or as consumers. 7.2.1. Review of Landings. Effort and Value in the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries This section reviews available data pertaining to the economic status of the reef fish fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Several sources of data are available, none of which is ideal. For the commercial fishery, aggregated data on landings and value received by fishermen give a general idea about trends in the fishery as a whole. There is limited information about the economic status of individual participants in the fishery. Information about the recreational fishery is limited to estimates of the aggregate catch of reef fish as derived from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Surveys. For both commercial and recreational fisheries, data are available only through 1986. 7.2.1.1. commercial Fishery u.S. fishermen have fished for red snappers and groupers since the 1830's and 1840's. Camber (1955), Carpenter (1965), and Allen and Tashiro (1976) have reviewed the history and status of the fishery. Lesser quantities of other species associated with reefs (e. g. , otl'ier snappers, sea basses, grunts, porgies, tilefishes, triggerfishes, and jacks) are also marketed, principally in Florida. This discussion reviews trends in landings and exvessel value from 1955-1986, with 1986 being the last year for which reasonably complete data are available. Landings: Total commercial landings of reef fish during the 1980's have been the highest since the 1960's, with landings ranging from 21.9 to 26.2 million pounds per year between 1981 and 1986 (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1). However, the species composition of the catch has changed markedly. Landings of red snapper, once the principal species' for the fishery, exhibited an almost uninterrupted decline between 1965 and 1980, from 14.0 million pounds to 4.9 million pounds, then increased for three consecutive years to 7.3 million 42 . . " pounds in 1983, and have. since dropped to a low of less than 4.1 million pounds in 1986 •. Red snapper represented approximately 18% of the total commercial catch of reef fishes in 1986. In contrast, red snapper accounted for 30% of the catch in 1980, 43% in 1970 and 55% in 1960. The decline in landings is due in part to a loss of foreign fishing grounds and a probable decline in the size of the domestic fish population. Florida ports handled only 25% of the red snapper catch (1.0 million pounds) in 1986, down from·an average of 53% from 1955-1983 (Figure 7.2, Table 7.2). Similarly, landings at ports in Alabama and Mississippi handled only 20% of the red snapper catch in 1986 (0.8 million pounds), down from an average of 32% from 1955-1983. While landings in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi have declined, landings in Louisiana and Texas have increased from a combined total of 0.45 million pounds in 1978 to 2.3 million pounds in 1986. Fish caught in the western gulf that previously would have been landed in Florida are now landed in Louisiana and Texas. The long run decline in landings of red snapper has been more than offset by the growth of the grouper fishery, primarily due to increased exvesse1 prices and the use of bottom 10nglines. Landings of all groupers combined averaged 8.2 million pounds between 1955 and 1980, and 12.9 million pounds between 1981 and 1986 (Figure 7.3, Table 7.1). Landings increased from less than 6.3 million pounds in 1978 (the lowest level since 1958) to a record of 15.3 million pounds in 1982. Groupers have accounted for more than 50% of all reef fish landed at U.S. gulf ports in every year from 1979-1986. Commercial fishermen landed 12.5 million pounds in 1986. Landings at Florida ports, especially in the central (Charlotte Levy) counties, dominated the overall catch of groupers. Florida fishermen landed 89-98% of the grouper catch between 1955 and 1986 (Figure 7.3, Tables 7.3, 7.4). Commercial landings of other (than red) snappers increased to 3.8 million pounds in 1986 (Table 7.1), largely due to increased landings of vermilion snapper (from 0.4 million pounds in 1982 to 1.7 million pounds in 1986), primarily in the northern Gulf (Table 7.5). Yellowtail snapper, gray snapper and lesser quantities of mutton, lane and vermilion snappers are caught in southwest Florida and the Keys. Fishermen landed a record 1.47 million pounds of yellowtail snappers in 1982. Increasingly significant quantities of other reef fish are also caught, primarily in Florida (Tables 7.1, 7.6). For example, landings of amberjacks have increased from 0.4 million pounds in 1983 to 1. 4 million pounds in 1986. Landings of miscellaneous reef fishes r including amberjacks, grunts, hogfish, pigfish, porgies, sea basses, sand perch, tilefishes and triggerfishes, amounted to over 10% of the total catch of all reef fishes in 1985 and 1986 43 (Table 7.1). However, the exvessel value of the miscellaneous reef fish was less than 5% of total exvessel value. Historically, the National Marine Fisheries service has reported landings by county in Florida, with Monroe County consid'ered to be part of the Gulf Coast. However, the current jurisdictional boundary between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils splits Monroe County, with only fish caught from the north and west of Route 1 being under the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council. To maintain a consistent time series of data, Tables 7.1-7.6 have followed the traditional pattern of attributing all landings in Monroe County to the Gulf Council. Technically, however, landings from the Atlantic side of Monroe county should be excluded. Data for 1978-1986 were used to divide Monroe County landings into Atlantic and Gulf sides according to water body codes, with NMFS codes 2.1, 1.2, 600.0, 748.0 and 744.0 assigned to the Atlantic side, code 0 assigned to fish of unknown origin, and all other water body codes assigned to the Gulf side. Based on the geography of Monroe County, one would expect most reef fish to originate within the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. In fact, between 57% and 74% of all reef fish landed in Monroe County came from the Atlantic side (Table 7.7). At least 70% of the reef fish came from the Atlantic side in each year between 1981 and 1985. Most of the catch for 1986 was of unknown origin: hence valid comparisons for 1986 were not possible. The boundary between Councils is of minor consequence for management of red snapper because relatively few of them are landed in Monroe County. only 0.02% to 0.28% of all red snappers originated on the Atlantic side of Monroe County (Tables 7.7, 7.8). But Monroe County accounts for a significant fraction of total catches of other reef fishes, except for vermilion snapper, black sea bass, gray triggerfish, and sand perch (Table 7.8). Approximately 76% of all yellowtail snappers landed from 1978-1985 originated on the Atlantic side of Monroe County. Other percentages include: 54% for lane snapper, 31% for gray snapper, 48%, for mutton snapper, and 5.7% for groupers (Table 7.8). other Sources of supply: Ports along the Gulf of Mexico (including all of Monroe County) averaged approximately 85% of the snappers and 83% of the groupers landed in the southeastern United States between 1980 and 1986. The south Atlantic Coast represents the primary alternative source of domestic supplies of reef fish. Historically, there has always been a small fishery for snappers and groupers along the eastern coast of Florida. Then in the mid 1970's, commercial fishing for snappers and, especially, groupers began in earnest along the North and South Carolina coasts. From 1980 to~1986, commercial fishermen along the south Atlantic coast averaged nearly 1. 5 million pounds of snappers and 2.5 million pounds of groupers annually (Table 7.9). Significant quantities of other reef fish, including black sea bass and porgies in the 44 Carolinas and· tilefish in Florida and South carolina, are also landed in the south Atlantic. There is a growing fishery for reef fish in Hawaii, with 0.6 million pounds landed in 1984 and 0.7 million pounds landed in 1985 (Meyer, 1987). Despi te substantial landings of snappers and groupers in the southeast, domestic production must be supplemented with imports to satisfy increasing quantities demanded in domestic markets. Unofficial data collected from the New Orleans Market News Reports indicates snapper imports have increased over time in both volume and as a percentage of total supplies in the southeast. Snapper imports averaged 9% of total snapper supplies, or 1. 2 million pounds on a whole weight basis, from 1960 to 1972, and 38%, or 4.9 million pounds, from 1973 to 1982 (Table 7.10). Imports have increased rapidly since 1982 and now account for more than 50% of total snapper supplies in the southeast (Figure 7.4, Table 7.11). The Market News Reports indicate that until recently imports have represented a relatively large fraction (30-45%) of total grouper supplies in the southeast (Figure 7.4, Table 7.11). Imports declined during the early 1980's when the domestic fishery expanded. Imports have increased since 1984, however (Table 7.10) . There was a curious decline in grouper imports between 1967 and 1971. Imports fell from 7.0 million pounds (live weight) and 41%. of total supplies in 1966 to less than 1.0 pounds and 8% of total supplies in 1967. Imports remained approximately constant until 1972 when they jumped to 8.1 million pounds and 46% of total supplies. There was a similar but less noticeable decline in snapper imports between 1967 and 1972. Imports fell from 13% of total snapper supplies in 1966 to 9% in 1967, and then increased from 10% in 1972 to 3~% of total supplies in 1973. Keithly and Prochaska (1985) hypothesized that imports declined because Catholics no longer had to observe meatless Fridays after December, 1966. Their hypothesis could explain the sudden decline in imports in 1967, but the sudden increase in imports in 1972 and 1973 suggests that, perhaps, as an unofficial data source, the Market News Reports failed to record significant quantities of imports between 1967 and 1973. Also, as a regional publication, the New Orleans Market News Reports recorded imports into the southeast only. The New York Market News Report indicates that fresh and frozen snappers and snapper fillets are imported from Central and South America and southeast Asia for sale at the Fulton Fish Market. These data have not been compiled. There is no information about the quantities of snappers and groupers imported into other regions of the country. Exvessel Value: Exvessel value received by commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico increased throughout the 1955-1986 period to a record $32.4 million (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1). However, much of the increase was due to inflation, as measured by the producer 45 price index (PPI) for, all commodities. After adjusting for inflation, total exvessel value remained relatively constant between 1964 and 1980 despite the general decline in landings. Since 1980, increases in total landings resulted in substantial increases in real exvessel value (i.e., after adjusting for inflation). Real exvessel value in 1986 was 80% greater than that received in 1980. Historically, red snapper has been the most valuable species in the fishery, but its relative importance has declined. In 1986, red snapper contributed 25% to overall value received, whereas it contributed 45% in 1980, 64% in 1970 and 73% in 1960 (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1). Although exvessel prices increased steadily over time (Figure 7.5, Table 7.12), the increases were unable to offset both inflation and the long term decline in landings; consequently real exvessel value for red snapper generally declined from 1964 to 1986, with a brief increase between 1980 and 1983 to disrupt the long term trend (Figure 7.2). Red snapper prices are slightly higher in Florida and Louisiana than in other gulf states, probably because trips are shorter and hence fish are fresher when landed. Florida fishermen received 27% of the exvessel value in 1986 although they landed only 24.5% of the catch (Figure 7.2, Table 7.2). In 1986, exvessel prices averaged $2.44 per pound, gutted weight. Exvessel value for groupers has increased rapidly since 1978 and in 1981 exceeded for the first time value received from red snapper (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1). In addition to the large quantities of groupers landed, average annual grouper prices have, increased in real terms and relative to red snapper prices (Figure 7.5, Table 7. 12). Hence, groupers have contributed an increasingly important share of total exvessel value to commercial fishermen, accounting for over 50% of exvessel value in both 1985 and 1986 (Table 7.1). In 1986, commercial fishermen' earned $23.4 million in Florida, $5.1 million in Louisiana, $2.3 million in Texas, $1.2 million in Mississippi and $0.6 million in Alabama. Demand for Reef Fish; Exvessel demand curves are used to calculate the price flexibility of demand, which is a statistic useful for predicting the direction in which total revenues would change if industry landings were to change. If demand were found to be price inflexible, then a decline in landings would cause prices to increase by a relatively small amount and total revenues would decrease. If demand were price flexible, then a decline in landings would cause a relatively large increase in price and total revenues would increase. If demand were unit flexible, then a decline in landings would cause • proportionately equal increase in price and total revenues would ~-~main the same. It is important for fishery managers~ who can reduce industry landings by regulating the fishery, to know if demand is price inflexible, price flexible or unit flexible. 46 / cato and Prochaska (1976) and Keithly and Prochaska (1985) estimated exvessel demand curves for reef fish in the Gul f of Mexico. Cato and Prochaska (1976) used annual data for 1952-1971 to estimate nominal prices for red snapper in Florida as a function of landings in Florida and total personal income in the u.s. They did not calculate price flexibility; however by using their results, observed landings, and average annual red snapper prices, it can be calculated that exvessel demand became more inflexible over time. Before 1970, demand was price flexible and after 1970 it was price inflexible, apparently because imports have accounted for an increasing share of total red snapper suppl ies in the southeast. Upon further analysis, Cato and Prochaska concluded that red snapper prices in other gulf states were based on the Florida price. cato and Prochaska estimated grouper prices in Florida as a function of landings in Florida and total personal income in the u.s. By using their results, it can be found that since 1967 the exvessel demand for groupers also has been price inflexible. Later, Keithly and Prochaska (1985) used annual data for 1960-1982 and a more sophisticated statistical technique to estimate exvessel demand curves for snappers and groupers. Snapper prices (apparently averaged over all species of snappers) were estimated as a function of snapper landings in the gulf, total disposable income in the U. S ., snapper imports and a binary variable to represent a decline in demand after 1967 when Catholics no longer were required to observe meatless Fridays. Grouper prices were estimated as a function of grouper landings in the gulf, total disposable income in the U. S., grouper imports and the binary variable. Both demand curves were found to be price inflexible. The implication of exvessel demand curves that are price inflexible is that industry revenues to domestic fishermen would increase when landings increase and would decrease when landings decrease. Prices would not increase by enough to offset losses caused by unusually low catches, and they would not fall by enough to offset the benefits of unusually high catches. In addition, regulations that reduce industry catches would cause total revenues to decrease. Effort: Reef fish are caught and retained primarily with handlines and, since 1980, bottom longlines (Tables 7.13-7.16). Lesser quantities of reef fish are also caught and retained with other gears (e.g., fish and shrimp trawls, lobster traps, gill nets, trammel nets, haul seines, etc.), usually as a bycatch in other fisheries. Increasingly significant quantities of groupers have been caught with fish traps since 1984. The exact amount of fishing effort expended in the fishery is not known. The NMFS collects data about the number of fishing craft and fishermen by gear type, but not of their intensity of use. 47 Hence, the number of vessels (i.e., craft> five gross tons) and fishermen using handliries and the number of vessels plus boats (i.e., craft < five gross tons) using reef fish longlines is taken as an approximate measure of effort in the commercial fishery. In 1986, the last year for which the NMFS has reasonably complete data, 852 craft with approximately 2,900 fishermen used handlines and reef fish longlines in the gulf (Table 7.17). These data reflect potential effort in that most of these vessels and fishermen probably were employed in the reef fish fishery for at least part of the year, although the data file does not indicate the species for which these vessels fished. The number of vessels using handlines was relatively high during the 1978-1986 period, with a peak in 1980 of 779 vessels and 2,586 fishermen (Table 7.17). Participation in the handline fishery declined through 1983, but has since increased to approximately 610 vessels and 1,983 fishermen in 1986 (Table 7.17). Appendix tables 29 and 1 in the FMP for the reef fish fishery (GMFMC 1980) reported that there were approximately 300 to 500 handline vessels and 1,000 to 2,300 fishermen in the fishery between 1957 and 1974, with peak employment occurring during the early 1960's. Groupers have become relatively more important in the overall catch of reef fish due in part to the increased use of bottom longlines. NMFS records indicate that the number of fishing craft that used bottom longlines rose from 3 in 1979 to a peak of 282 in 1982 and then declined to 242 in 1986 (Table 7.17). Longlines are more' labor intensive th~n handlines. Hence, the total number of fishermen has increased as vessels shifted from handlines to longlines. The gear classification for reef fish longlines was new in 1979; therefore craft that used bottom longlines before 1979 or 1980 were grouped with swordfish vessels that used surface longlines. Prytherch (1982) described the longline fishery in the gulf. The number of traps fished ranged from approximately 530 to 2,300 between 1978 and 1986 (Table 7.18), the last year for which we have data •. The Southeast Regional Office issued 489 permits for 32,217 traps between November 1984, when permits were first required, through June 9, 1988 (Joann Turner, NMFS, SERO, 9450 Koger Blvd., st. Petersburg, FL 33702). Vessels are limited to 200 traps each. Annual Costs and Revenues: Although economic aggregates such as total exvessel value and total landings describe the overall performance of the fishery, they do not describe the status of individual participants. To fill this void, cato and Prochaska (1977) and Poffenberger (1985) have described annual costs and revenues of reef fish vessels in the southeast. cato and Prochaska (1977) presented income statements for snapper grouper vessels along the west coast of Florida during 1974 and 1975. They stratified their sample by vessel size (large and small 48 vessels) and geographic region (northern and western coasts of Florida). Their analyses found that the net return to captain and owner was greater for vessels along the northern coast than for vessels along the western coast, regardless of size, because red snappers are primarily caught in the northern gulf and groupers are caught along the western coast. The results for vessel size were mixed. Larger vessels earned more than small vessels in the northern region and less than small vessels along the western coast. Poffenberger (1985) summarized a 1980 survey of vessels in the reef fish fisheries of the west coast of Florida and the south Atlantic. He classified vessels according to region (south Atlantic versus gulf), mode of ownership (owner operated versus firm owned with a hired captain), and gear type (longlines versus handlines). Data for gulf vessels (Figure 7.6) generally agreed with the earlier results by Cato and Prochaska. Larger vessels earned more than smaller vessels, and vessels in the northern gulf earned more than vessels along the midwestern coast of Florida, other factors (vessel length and gear type) being equal. Gear type was a significant determinant of net revenues. There were 53 handline vessels and 10 longline vessels in the sample. The relatively small number of longline vessels was approximately correct given that longliners comprised only 10% of the total number of vessels in the fishery in 1980 (Table 7.17). On average, longliners landed more fish, received more revenue and incurred higher costs than did vessels using handlines (Figure 7.6). The extra revenues earned by longl ining exceeded the extra costs incurred; hence, net revenues to be shared by the vessel owner, captain and crew were greater for longlining than for handlining. The existence of a higher net return to be shared by owner, captain and crew was required to offset the higher 'opportunity costs (the amounts that fishermen could earn elsewhere for their capital and. labor) . of longlining compared to handlining. Longline vessels represented larger investments, and hence, higher opportunity costs of capital for vessel owners. In addition, longline vessels usu.ally carried more crew members; hence the total opportunity costs for the entire crew would be higher than for handl ine vessels. Also, net returns were higher for longline vessels because longlining was more profitable than handlininq. Opportunity costs for captains and for individual crew members were unknown, but given the large differences in net revenues between gear types, it seems likely that longliners earned economic rents (i.e., incomes greater than what they could have earned elsewhere) during 1980. Productivity: Longlining was more profitable than handlining primarily because longliners had higher catch rates. The economic implication of a profitable longline fishery was that longlining effort would increase until it became no more profitable than traditional handlining. This outcome would most likely occur due 49 to declining catch r~tes. As competition increases in the fishery, each fisherman would earn a smaller portion of the total available. In addition, greater effort could reduce the population of fish, causing further reductions in catch rates. Apparently, this was exactly what happened. Table 7.17 indicated that the number of vessels using reef fish longlines increased from 1979 to 1982 and then declined through 1986, the last year for which we have data. The trip interview program (TIP), conducted by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center, yielded frequency distributions for productivity in terms of pounds of reef fish caught per trip, pounds per day fished and pounds per man per day fished for commercial reef fish trips in Louisiana (Figures 7.7-7.9) and ports along the west coast of Florida (Figures 7.10-7.12) from 1984-1986. Mean and median catch rates varied for Louisiana fishermen, but with no particular trend either up or down (Table 7.19). For 1984-1986 combined, the median catch of reef fish per trip was 1309 pounds with bandit reels, 1050 pounds with buoys and 2744 pounds with longlines. The median catch per day fished was 363 pounds with bandit reels, 335 pounds with buoys and 558 PQunds with longlines. The median catch per man per day fished was 100 pounds with bandit reels, 121 pounds with buoys and 151 pounds with longlines. Along the west coast of Florida, the medians for all three measures of productivity declined between 1984 and 1986 for both handlines and longlines (Table 7.20). The TIP data probably reflect accurately the general trend in productivity along the west coast of Florida. However, substantial differences over time in sampling intensity with respect to gear type and port suggest that data for any given year may not necessarily be representative of the entire west coast fishery. 7.2.1.2. Recreational Fishery Most of the available information about the recreational fishery comes from the marine recreational fishery statistical surveys (MRFSS) conducted annually since 1979. Data are available for the 1979-1986 period (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 19~4, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987). However, data for 1986 are incomplete in that recreational fishermen in Texas and headboat fishermen throughout the gulf were not sampled by the MRFSS. Another survey conducted in 1981 (Hiett et ale 1983) summarized various socio economic aspects of marine recreational fishing in the Gul f of Mexico. This section reviews the recreational catches of snappers, groupers and other reef fish in the management unit. With only eight MRFSS surveys (1979-1986), the time series of information is too short to distinguish between trends and short run variations in the fishery. The MRFSS categorizes fish as types A, B1 or B2. Catch type A is based on the number of whole fish available for' inspection by 50 samplers. Catch type B1 is based on fish that were not available for inspection or not available in whole form, i.e., fish used for bait, discarded dead, filleted, etc. Catch type B2 is based on fish that were caught and released alive. Of these, an unknown percentage (p) survived the stress of being caught and released and successfully reentered the fish population. All fish caught (A+Bl+B2) add to fishermen's satisfaction and hence the value of the marine recreational fishery. However, only those fish killed (A+B1+(1-p)B2) reduce the population of fish available to be caught in the future. Recreational fishermen caught significant numbers of reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Except for 1982 and 1986, the total (types A+Bl+B2) recreational catch of snappers, groupers, sea basses and other reef fish in the management unit ranged from approximately 26-32 million fish (Table 7.21). As in the commercial fishery, catches peaked in 1982, at 43 million fish. The estimated catch of only 17.8 million fish in 1986 was the lowest total during the 1979-1986 period. However, as noted before, the 1986 estimates are incomplete in that catches by recreational fishermen in Texas and by headboat fishermen throughout the gulf were not included. The headboat catch was estimated in a separate survey to be approximately 2.4 million fish (Gene Huntsman, NMFS, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, N.C. 28516). Information about recreational catches in Texas was unavailable for 1986. Porgies were the most frequently caught species group, accounting for 30% to 50% of the total catch (Table 7.21). Most of the porgies were pinfish caught in Florida (Table 7.22) from shore or private boats (Table 7.23) in inland or nearshore waters (Table 7.24). And most were released alive (type B2), suggesting that they were too small to be kept or, perhaps, less desirable than the snappers, for example. The data also include red porgy and small numbers of grass and jolthead porgies. In addition to the porgies, a consistently high proportion of the sea basses (mostly black sea bass, rock sea bass and bank sea bass) and grunts (white grunt, tomtate, pigfish) were released alive. Other species groups have had high release rates on occasion, but not consistently. Overall,· approximately 37% to 52% of the reef fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico were released alive. The snappers were the principal species that were caught and kept by recreational fishermen. Snappers as a group accounted for 43% to 47% of the keepers between 1979 and 1984, but only 24% to 33% of the total catch (Table 7.21). These proportions fell to 16-18% of the total catch and 23% of the keepers in 1985 and 1986. The estimated total number of red snapper caught by recreational fishermen has declined over time, falling from 6.0 million fish in 1979 to 2.0 million fish in 1985. Approximately 1.0 million fish were caught in 1986 (0.65 million from the MRFSS survey and 0.33 million from the independent headboat survey), but this figure 51 excludes catches by fishermen in Texas (except for red snappers caught from headboats). Red snappers were caught throughout the gulf whereas other snappers were caught primarily in Florida. Most snappers were caught in oceanic waters from privately owned boats, charter boats and headboats. A large number of gray snappers were caught from shore. The release rate for snappers as a group appears to have increased (from 5-10% to 15-25%) since 1982 (Table 7.21). However, the proportion of snappers that were released did not increase noticeably for individual species. The MRFSS data suggest that, as in the commercial fishery, groupers have become increasingly important recreationally (Table 7.21). The proportion of the total recreational catch of reef fish accounted for by groupers has increased steadily from less than 4% in 1979 and 1980 to approximately 10% in 1984 and 1985. Red grouper, black grouper and gag, the most frequently caught groupers, were caught almost exclusively in Florida (Table 7.22). The aggregate biomass of fish caught by recreational fishermen is uncertain, partly because the MRFSS estimates catches based on a sample rather than a census. Also, estimates of the biomass of type A fish were reported, but fish in catch types B1 and B2 were not available for weighing by survey interviewers and hence weights were not recorded rather than to depend on the ability of fishermen to recall them. The biomass of type B1 fish can be approximated as the number of B1 fish caught multiplied by the average weight per type A fish, although B1 fish may weigh less on average than A fish if fishermen tend to land and show unusually large fish in whole form. The biomass of fish killed by recreational fishermen is unknown because the survival rate for released fish is unknown. Recreational fishermen caught and kept approximately the same quantities of red and other snappers as did directed commercial fishermen (Table 8.1). The quantity of red snappers caught and kept ranged from approximately 2 to 10 million pounds, while the cat.ch of other snappers ranged from 2 to 4 million pounds annually. The year 1982 was an exception with the catch of other snappers estimated at 6.5 million pounds for type A fish and nearly 11 million pounds for types A and B1 fish combined. Fishermen caught and kept four to seven million pounds of groupers annually, approximately one-half the quantities that were caught by commercial fishermen. Exceptions occurred in 1982 and 1985 when the recreational quantities were nearly as large as the commercial quantities. Recreational fishermen landed larger quantities of other reef fish than did commercial fishermen. The total quantities of type A and B1 fish accounted for JO% to 40% of the total r~creational catch. And because relatively high percentages of other reef fish were released alive, the total kill of other reef fish could have been much higher depending on the survival rate for released fish. 52 In 1986, recreational fishing effort for all species numbered 17.9 million trips (s.e.=1.2 million), excluding recreational effort in Texas. There were approximately 13.4 million trips in Florida (s.e.=1.1 million), 0.67 million trips in Alaba~a (s.e.=0.11 million), 0.67 million trips in Mississippi (s.e.=0.18 million), and 3.1 million trips in Louisiana (s.e.=0.4 million) (Table 7.25). There were an additional 0 ~ 3 million angler days fished from headboats in 1986. The number of trips on which snappers, groupers and other reef fish were caught is unknown. In fact, 36% of recreational fishermen did not identify a target species (U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service 1987). Red snapper was the primary species of only 1.6% of all fishing trips sampled. Groupers were the primary species of 1.8% of the fishing trips. In addition, most fishermen rated the number of fish caught as the primary determinant of the level of satisfaction of a fishing trip. other factors, such as species caught and the size of fish, were infrequently mentioned as primary determinants of satisfaction (Hiett et ale 1983). 7.2.2. Description of Commercial Fishing Gear Since 1982 an average of about 900 vessels (more than five net tons) has operated in the reef fishery (Table 7.26 and Waters 1988). The number of boats (less than 5 net tons) participating in the reef fish fleet is unknown. Currently Florida vessels account for nearly 85 percent of the total Gulf of Mexico reef fish fleet. Prior to 1984. Texas had the second largest fleet but since then the Louisiana fleet has expanded from 0 to 79 vessels whereas the Texas fleet has declined to about 40 vessels. Most of the growing Louisiana fleet is comprised of fishermen from Florida who had either regularly fished off Louisiana and simply decided to relocate to reduce operating costs or gone to Louisiana due to declining catch rates of reef fish in the eastern Gulf (Ronald Anderson, personal communication) . Only about 8 and 122 vessels respectively have fished out of Alabama and Mississippi ports since 1982. 7.2.2.1. Handline and Bandit Fishing The basic fishing gear, hook-and-line, has prevailed throughout the development and growth of the fishery (see Table 7.27). The original tarred cotton line gave way to hard lay net twine and that in turn to stainless steel. Similarly, the single handline gave way to the hand-driven reels, and eventually the modern power-driven reels that have become prevalent throughout the commercial fishery. Fishing with the hand- and power-driven reels is commonly referred to as bandit fishing. other methods, such as gill nets, longlines, hoop nets, fish traps and fish trawls had been tried but with only limited success and until the development of a fish trap fishery 53 in south Florid-a and a longline fishery beginning in 1980 the line and baited hook remained by far the most popular and productive gear both commercially and recreationally. The typical 'bandit rig', snapper reel, used today may be either manually cranked or powered hydraulically or electrically. A reel may be spooled with either 300-lb test monofilament or small diameter stainless steel cable. A ground rig with 10-15 hooks and a sash weight attached is attached on the end of the reel line; ground gear can be rigged in different ways depending on the fisherman's preference (Horst and Bankston, 1987). In the Louisiana fishing fleet bandit rigged boats are generally the largest being typically greater than 60 feet in length (Russell et al., 1986) and employ a crew of five-seven fishermen. These boats usually target the smaller red snapper, one-four pounds, but have large incidental catches of other reef fish. Vermilion snapper is targeted at night. The bandit boats are usually restricted to shallower shelf waters (25-35 fathom) but have the advantages of being able to fish close to oil rigs and over very rough coral bottoms, both of which are difficult or impossible to fish with longlines and buoys. 7.2.2.2. Fish Traps Presently the fish trap fishery is conducted primarily in Florida, with two major areas of concentration being the Florida west coast and south Florida. Until the 1980's sea bass had been the primary target of trap fishermen. Catch of sea bass with traps was 300,900 j pounds in 1968. Sea bass catch declined steadily after 1968 to a low of 22,200 pounds in 1975. In recent years, groupers and snappers have become the most important component of the fish trap catch (Table 7.28) with grol;--er predominating. Studies conducted in south Florida by National Marine Fisheries Service and Florida Department of. Natural Resources in the late 1970's resulted in the following estimates of fish trap effort: Dade county - 575 traps, 90 fishermen; Broward County - 665 traps, 18 . fishermen; Monroe county - 998 traps, 43 fishermen; Collier County - 250 traps, 8 fishermen (Sutherland and Harper, 1983; Taylor and McMichael, 1983). In the early 1980' s an estimated total of 2,488 traps were being fished by 159 fishermen in south Florida. The Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) recommended a logbook program for fish trap fishermen that was implemented by NMFS in 1987. In June 1988 475 fish trap permit holders possessed about 34,000 trap tags however, although we have no estimate of the number of traps actually in use, it is likely to be much less than the number of trap tags issued (Angelovic, letter to w. Swingle dated June 29, 1988). The NMFS mailed a questionnaire to the fish trap permittees but only 94 reported they were actively fishing traps; these fishermen were subsequently issued logbooks. Another 164 permittees claimed not to be using fish traps, and 199 did not respond to the questionnaire. By the end of April 1988 only 12 54 fishermen had submitted 30 logbook trip reports documenting the catch of reef fish using traps (NMFS, ESO, 1988). The majority of fishing activity was off the coasts of Monroe and Collier counties. There appears to be little use of traps elsewhere in the Gulf. It is commonly believed that traps are highly nonselective and that many species of noncommercial interest are consequently killed in this type of fishing. Noncommercial fish taken incidental to trapping operations are sometimes killed by embolisms when traps are hauled from deep waters. However, the same problem exists for fish that are taken by hook-and-line from deep reefs. In most Caribbean areas, trap catch rates for snappers are relatively low and generally represent an insignificant portion of the total catch (Munro, Reeson and Gaut, 1971). In a study of the Monroe County, Florida trap fishery, Taylor and McMichael (1983) reported that target species in the Monroe County fishery made up 69 pe'rcent of the weight and 51 percent of the number of total catch monitored. Groupers composed 71 percent of target weight and 29 percent of target number. In the Collier County fishery target species made up 77 percent by weight and 62 percent by number. Snappers, groupers, grunts, porgies, and hagfish were the most desired target species and made up 55 percent of the catch. Mutton snapper, hagfish, gag grouper, and doctorfish were the principal species taken. The Council's logbook reporting system for fish traps indicates that about 96 percent of the fish caught are listed in either the reef fish management unit or fishery (NMFS ESO Unpublished Report, 1988). Red and black grouper were the predominate species accounting for 53 percent of the total catch; snappers comprised 9 percent and porgies, grunts, and hogf ish comprised another 24 percent of the catch. It appears that traps can be fished to target particular species by setting them according to bottom topography (Craig, 1976: Boardman and Weiler, 1980). One way to prevent high losses of incidentally taken fish would be to require a larger minimum mesh size. Because the minimum size limits usually enacteq for reef fish (12 inches for snappers and 18 inches for groupers) are larger than the minimum size selected for by the Gulf traps (see Figures 7.13-7.16), which ty~ically use 1x2 inch mesh with 2x2 inch windows, it is likely that larger mesh sizes would be appropriate for the Gulf of Mexico. A study of the relationship of mesh size in wire fish traps to catch composition and size distribution of reef fish off south Florida was recently completed by NMFS (Bohnsack et al., 1988: Sutherland et al., 1987). Approximately two-thirds of the sampling effort was off Key Biscayne in southeast Florida at depths of 20 to 130 feet along the reef tract and the remainder was off southwest Florida inside and outside the stressed area. The ability of traps to catch fish depends on the availability of fish in the area, the willingness of a fish to enter traps, and the ability of a fish to escape a trap. In addition, both species specific fish size and body shape are important factors in determining retention by a given mesh size. In this particular 55 study total value, total species caught, nUmber of individuals, and mean total weight per haul tended to decline with meshes larger and smaller than the 1. 5 hexagonal mesh (Figure 7.17). Mean weight per fish tended to increase with mesh size ranging from a low of 0.4 lbs for a .5x.5 inch mesh to a high of 2.9 lbs for the 4x4 inch mesh; mean weight increased noticeably for meshes 2x3 inches and larger. Mesh size of 2x3 inches or larger should allow snapper and grouper less than 12 inches to escape. The total number of species caught in larger mesh traps was considerably less than with smaller mesh. However larger mesh sizes, caught significantly less weight and value of commercially important species. In general, while the presently specified legal minimum mesh sizes appears to optimize commercial catch and value they do little to reduce bycatch of nontarget species and fish less than the minimum size harvest limits. Catch composition within traps may change appreciably during the period of submergence, especially if soaktimes are long. Fish traps do not necessarily prevent escapement of fish from the trap although there is large variability among species in ability to escape. Munro (1974 and 1983c) reported escapement rates averaging 12 percent of the daily catch. This suggests that the concern that lost traps will operate as "death traps" or "ghost traps" (see Hipkins, 1974) until their deterioration may be appropriate only for some species. A two week survey of the trap fishing grounds was conducted off south Florida with a manned submersible in the fall of 1981 (Sutherland, Beardsley, and Jones, 1983). A total of 23 derelict (18) and ghost (5) traps were observed. Though derelict traps (those that fishermen cannot locate and are incapable of catching fish due to structural damage or deterioration) often had no major structural damage, small holes apparently rendered them ineffective as only two fish were observed to be entrapped. The 5 ghost traps (those still capable of catching fish) contained 8 grouper, 14 spiny lobster, 3 cowfish, 1 hogfish, 1 angelfish, and 1 barracuda skull. Although the groupers appeared healthy some had small cuts anq abrasions on their snout. All the ghost traps were equipped with zinc anodes whereas none of the derelict traps had intact zinc anodes. The condition of the zinc anodes on four of the ghost traps indicated they had been lost about 4-6 months. In addition to derelict and ghost fish traps, nine actively fished traps were observed in the EEZ. Fifteen species of reef fish were in the traps and all appeared to be in good physical condition. The observed fish traps caused little apparent damage to reef habitats. No information is available on the capture rates of ghost traps or of predation on captured fish. Traps a~e fished (soaked) for varying periods depending upon the species sought and their abundance and upon local fishing customs. Soak time is short, averaging 20-40 minutes per trap, for black sea bass. Sea bass are extremely gregarious and are rather quickly 56 attracted to baited, traps. Daily catches of 6,300 pounds per boat have been reported (Ri.vers, 1966). Craig (1976) reported an average catch per unbaited trap haul of 20.4 pounds for trap sets of five days duration off southeast Florida; however his traps were 64 cubit feet in volume--much larger than the size (14-24 cubit feet) of fish traps currently in use (Sutherland and Harper, 1983; Bohnsack et al., 1988). Sutherland and Harper (1983) found the average catch to be 8.6 pounds per trap haul for traps fished for seven days in Broward County, Florida. A similar study conducted in Monroe County, Florida revealed an overall average catch of 11.37 pounds per haul (Taylor and McMichael, 1983). From the 30 logbook trips reported by trap fishermen in 1987 (ESO, 1988), about 20 pounds of fish and shellfish per trap haul were harvested with about 120 trap hauls per fishing trip. In the caribbean where the great majority of all fish harvested are taken by traps with few or no regulations on mesh size, several scientists have expressed concern over overfishing of the resources. This gear has provoked considerable reaction by both commercial and recreational fishing groups who claim that it harmful to the resource and· bottom habitat, and expansion of this fishery may create social conflicts between fish trappers and other fishermen. The concern is that traps may deplete local reef populations and sports groups fear that the commercial trappers will be expanding their operations to compete on local artificial reefs. However, properly regulated, traps may be a viable component of a fishery. conversely, if excessive trap fishing is introduced to areas currently fished by hook-and-line, the CPUE of hook-and-line fishermen could be materially reduced and user group conflicts could ensue. A potential but unknown source of fish mortality is by lobster traps which are typically left in the water unattended for 1 to 2 weeks. An advantage of fish traps over other reef fish gear is the increased potential for greater selectivity of fish traps depending on mesh size. Adjusting mesh size offers a means for regulating and managing the reef fish fishery (Bohnsack et al., 1988). 7.2.2.3. Longline Fishing Exploratory fishing in the Gulf of Mexico with bottom longlines targeting the deep water species complex of tilefish and groupers was first attempted in the late 1960' s by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Nelson and Carpenter, 1968). The golden tilefish and yellowedge grouper were found in potentially commercial concentrations off Texas in 400 to 1200 feet. From 1978 through 1980 the Texas Parks and wildlife Department conducted explorations off the central Texas coast targeting thQse species that occur in depths less than 300 feet (Cody et al., 1980 and 1981) .' The only species caught that occurred in sufficient quantities to support a commercial fishery was sharpnose shark. 57 Description of- the developing fishery: Bottom longline fishing did not develop in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery until the late 1970' s (Prytherch, 1983) and by 1981 longline gear was established in the red snapper and grouper fisheries. In the early 1980' s three major areas developed for longlines fishing--the eastern Gulf off west central Florida: the northeastern Gulf off the Florida panhandle: and the western Gulf off Texas. In the eastern Gulf the majority of the fishing craft operated out of Pinellas county were longline or bandit rig vessels or a combination of the two. Approximate~y 45 percent of the fleet were converted shrimp trawlers. Most of the older craft, primarily shrimp trawlers, had wood hulls. The newer, snapper-grouper vessels were constructed of fiberglass. The overall length of 162 longline vessels operating in 1982 was about 40 feet. These boats were crewed by an average of 4 fishermen and made fishing trips of about 9 days average duration. Prior the establishment of longlines in 1981 the predominant fishing gear was 'bandit rigs'. Typically a longline vessel was also equipped with 'bandit rigs'. The fishing grounds were approximately 50 miles offshore, along the 20 fathom isobath, and extended west for another 100 miles to the 140-160 fathom isobaths. These grounds ranged from about 29 degrees North latitude southward to the Dry Tortugas. The predominant species harvested were, in order of importance, red grouper, snowy grouper, yellowedge (called yellowfin by prytherch) grouper, and black grouper which comprised, respectively, about 34, 29, 22, and 10 percent of the catch. Red snapper accounted for less than 1 percent of the catch., The northeastern Gulf longline fishery consisted of about 55 boats in 1982. The fleet was quite diverse being comprised of converted shrimp trawlers, snapp~r-grouper boats, charter boats, and even outboard motorboats. Boat sizes ranged from the 75 foot shrimpers down to 24 foot outboards. Panama City was the major longlining port although some fishing also occurred from Appalachicola, Destin, Niceville, and Pensacola. Commercial bottom longlining may have begun in this area since Prytherch (1983) reports that a small amount of longlining had occurred as early as 1978. By 1982 longline gear was well established in the snapper-grouper fleet. Al~hough some vessels longlined year-round others varied their fishing activity with the season, ranging from charter fishing, shrimp trawling, and surface longlining. The fishing grounds extended from Pensacola south and east to about the northernmost point of the eastern Gulf fishing grounds however the favored area was about 60 miles southwest of Panama City. Fishing depths averaged about 100 fathoms but ranged from 30 to 150 fathoms. Most fishing trips were conducted with a crew of 4 fishermen and lasted on average about 5 days. The principal species harvested were yellowedge grouper and red snapper which accounted for about 82 and 10 percent of the total catch respectively. The western Gulf longline fishery originally operated primarily out of the Aransas Pass, Brownsville, and Port Isabel. This fleet 58 / was composed entirely of commercial shrimp trawlers, which ranged in length from 55 to 85 feet. Closed shrimp seasons and cyclic variations in abundance resulted in approximately 85 vessels converting to longlines which, unlike the eastern longline fisheries, ceased longlining when shrimp were available; in 1982 no vessels longlined from May through December. Texas shrimpers began rigging their vessels to fish longlines during the late 1970.'s (Prytherch, 1983). The fishing grounds extended about 300 miles along the central and south Texas coast ranging in depth of 50 to 170 fathoms and encompassing the Flower Gardens reef to the north and 'steamer Rock' to the south. The area most extensively fished in 1982 was southeast of Aransas Pass along the 50 fathom isobath where large concentrations of grouper were found. Most fishing trips were conducted with a crew of about 4-6 fishermen and lasted about 9 days on average. The principal species harvested were yellowedge grouper and red snapper which comprised 18 and 77 percent of the total catch respectively. By 1983 some of the Florida panhandle and Texas fishermen began fishing the deeper waters of the northern Gulf off Louisiana with longlines (Bankston and Horst, 1984) but landing their catch in their respective home states. In 1984 only three snapper boats were permanently based in Louisiana (Bane et al., 1985). Shortly afterwards however due to fuel and other operating costs associated with fishing so far from port many decided to begin landing in Louisiana to reduce costs. By 1985 the Louisiana reef fish fleet was well established and Louisiana landings increased dramatically (Horst and Bankston, 1987). with them these fishermen brought their fishing techniques including longlines and buoy fishing (to be described below). The boats land at Texas, Alabama, and Florida ports, depending on weather, ex-vessel price, and seasonal proximity to the more productive fishing grounds (Russell et al., 1986). Longline boats in the Louisiana fleet were, in 1985 and 1986, from 30-50 feet long and carried a crew of 3-6 fishermen; typically crewsize was 3-4 but occasionally larger crews of 5-6 were used to fish continuously for 24 hours per day. Trips lasted from 4-8 days. The target species of the longline fishery off Louisiana was red snapper, yellowedge grouper and golden tilefish each species requiring the fishermen to work on different bottom types and at different depths (Horst and Bankston, 1987; Russell et al., 1986). Today the reef fish longline fleet operates throughout the Gulf of Mexico EEZ landing approximately 8 percent of the red snapper, 34 percent of the grouper, and 24 percent of all reef fish landed commercially (Goodyear, 1988b). Description of longline gear: Prytherch (1983) also described the type ot longline gear and its use at the time the it was being established as a major component of the commercial fishery. Additional descriptions of longline gear are available in Cody et ale (1980), Bankston and Horst (1984), and Horst and Bankston 59 (1987). Since the FMP did not contain a description of this gear type prytherch's description will be summarized below. "Fishing operations were conducted with a crew of 3-4 fishermen, including the captain. The longline was deployed by dropping one end overboard with an anchor, float line, flag staff, radar reflector, and light. The vessel moved forward at about 3-7 knots. While one person was controlling the speed of the line being set two others were attaching prebaited gangions onto the groundline with line snaps (see Figure 7.18). Bait was normally purchased and varied depending on seasonal availability and included mullet, eels, skate, pollock, spanish mackerel, spanish sardines, cigar minnows, or squid. Sometimes when the bait ran out incidental catches of dolphin, sharks, barracuda, amberjack, and tilefish were used. The spacing of the gangions varied; if a good catch was anticipated hooks would be set about 10-12 feet apart but if an unknown area was being sampled the hooks would be set from ;':0-50 feet apart. Typically tuna circle hooks, sizes 4,6,7j or 8, or Mustad 'sure hold' Japanese hooks were used. The end of the line was equipped identically t·o the beginning for easy location and retrieval. "Retrieval of the longline was essentially the reverse of the setting out process. One person controlled the retrieval speed of the groundline while another unsnapped the gangions from the groundline and handed them to the third fisherman who placed hooks with fish on them in one area of the deck and hooks without fish back into the cans or tubs for rebaiting. Vessel speed during retrieval was about 2-3 knots. Most of the bottom longlines were from 1 to 6 miles in length. The groundlines were made up of several shorter sections interconnected with either snaps or brummel hooks. Buoy and anchor lines were also attached with brummel hooks for quick and easy attachment or removal. "A vessel using A 1 mile longline averaged setting and retrieving it about 5 times a day. Some vessels even set 2 to3 lines at a time. Longliningis a labor intensive operation with a typical fishing day lasting 18 hours; some vessels even fished for a full 24 hours. Crewmen were constantly busy baiting hooks, unhooking and gutting fish, setting and retrieving lines, etc. Smaller boats stored groundline in tubs or garbage cans while the larger vessels normally used a large spool or drum. Those working out of cans used hydraulic or electric winches or pothaulers to retrieve line. Leaders with baited hooks were stored ready to be snapped onto the outgoing groundline by either hanging them from a tub, line, or 'magazine' (a series of short sections of PVC tubing cut and glued together in rows, staggered like pipes in an organ)." 7.2.2.4. Buoy Fishing Buoy fishing is the newest form of reef fishing in. the Gulf of Mexico usually used in conjunction with longlines. Although this 60 form of fishing, also called vertical longlining, has been known since the early 1970's (Olsen et al., 1974) Prytherch (1983) reported that in the NMFS survey of the developing Gulf of Mexico longline fishery no evidence of buoy fishing was detected. The first description of buoy gear appeared in (Russel et ale 1986), although earlier Bane et al., (1985) reported that in 1984 17 vessels used only buoy gear and another 27 vessels used a combination of bandit, longline or buoy gear. Buoy boats, which appear to be limited to the Louisiana fleet, come in various sizes with crews of 3-5 fishermen. A buoy consists of a float with an attached radar deflector and a weighted line long enough to reach the bottom with 6-10 baited hooks attached. Each buoy is a separate unit and is deployed individually in sets of about 20 each for one hour. Some boats use two strings, setting one out while picking up the first string set. The advantage of this type of fishing is that a large area of good bottom can be fished, including both smooth mud and rough coral. However, buoys cannot be used in waters greater than 50 fathoms depth or near oil rigs. Buoy boats usually target the larger size classes of red snapper (greater than 4 pounds) and yellowedge grouper. 7.2.2.5. Shrimp Bycatch of Red Snapper Throughout the Gulf, most of the prerecruit red snapper bycatch is taken from September through November (Bradley and Bryan, 1975; Gutherz and Pellegrin, 1988) and at depths from 11-20 fathoms. Relatively fewer prerecruit red snappers are caught in depths less than 10 fathoms or greater than 30 fathoms. Based on the bycatch estimates in Table 7.29, the maximum impact of commercial shrimping on red snapper appears to be off Texas where 55 percent of the total bycatch occurs; 41 percent occurs off Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, while 4 percent occurs off Florida. However during the warm se~son, May-November, 76 percent of the bycatch occurred off Alabama through Texas and the average bycatch of red snapper was more evenly distributed by depth. From 1979 through 1986, commercial red snapper catches averaged 5.6 million pounds annually with 14 and 44 percent coming from waters off Texas and Louisiana, respectively (Goodyear, 1988b). Similarly, from 1979 through 1986, recreational red snapper catches averaged three million fish annually with 19 and 41 percent coming from Texas and Louisiana respectively (NMFS MRFSS). Apparently; the area and season of maximum prerecruit red snapper bycatch coincides with that of maximum brown shrimp production. About 46 and 40 percent of the total annual brown shrimp catch in the U.S. Gulf is taken off Texas (27 million pounds) and Louisiana (16 million pounds) respectively (Figure 3.2 through 4 and Pages 3 though 16 in Shrimp FMP; Nance, et al., 1988). After the Texas closure opens, offshore brown shrimp catch in the Gulf as a whole peaks in July and August at depths of 11-20 fathoms. Generally, there appears to be an offshore migration of brown shrimp of 4-5 61 fathoms per month, and by December the largest catch comes from 26 30 fathoms. Best available information indicates that through 1987, red snapper bycatch in shrimp trawls was sUbstantial with averages ranging from about 4 to 12 million fish annually (Gutherz and Pellegrin, In press; Nichols, et al., 1987) (see Table 7.29). The quantity of reef fish other than red snapper caught in trawls is minimal (Bryan, cody, and Matlock, 1982; Gutherz and Pellegrin, 1985) and probably does not significantly impact the fish populations. Elimination of the red snapper trawl bycatch, most of which consists of prerecruit fish, has the potential to increase yield to the fishery by 10 to 90 percent (Powers, et al., 1987). Goodyear (1988b) presented results indicating the loss in potential red snapper production could range from 0.1 to 12.8 million pounds, depending on population parameters and bycatch estimates selected (Table 8.8). Shrimp trawls designed to separate shrimp from fish were first developed in Europe in the early 1960' s and the development of shrimp separator trawls in the u.S. was initiated in 1968 at the Northwest Fisheries Center for use in the Pacific pandalid fisheries (Watson and Taylor, 1986). These separator designs all used panels of webbing placed in the mouth, throat, or along the wings of the trawl to lead fish toward escape openings, allowing shrimp to pass through relatively large panel meshes into the codends. Mechanical separation of fish and shrimp with webbing panels has been successful in fisheries where the difference between sizes of shrimp and fish is significant. Panel type separator trawls tested in the Gulf of Mexico, however, were not successful in both separating fish while maintaining shrimp catches. The major problem with these trawls is the combined problems offish and shrimp in the Gulf being of similar size and the substantial abundance of fish in some· areas require a more efficient separator design. The NMFS, SEFC, Mississippi Laboratories began a separator trawl development project in the Gulf in 1974 (Seidel 1975). This work resulted in the development of the "V" design vertical separator panel (Watson and McVea 1977). In 1978 a selective trawl employing electricity to effectively separate shrimp from fish was designed (Seidel and Watson 1978). Although the electric trawl worked effectively, the electronic technology at that time was expensive and not reliable enough to warrant commercial production of electric trawls. Work on separator trawls was discontinued until the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) was developed. The TED was designed to allow turtles to escape from the trawl net through a trap door positioned in the throat of the trawl (Watson and Seidel 1980). - During underwater observations of fish and shrimp in the experimental TEDs it was noted behavioral differences between fish and shrimp wi thin the trawl could be used to modify the TED to allow finfish escapement. Design modifications proved to be 62 '\ ) effective in eliminating tinfish, j~llyfish, sharks, rays and other bycatch. The original TED used solely as a turtle excluder was not an effective finfish separator, however the TED modified with accelerator funnels, finfish deflector webbing panels, and openings in the trawl behind the TED do permit fish escapement. The modified TED was effective in reducing finfish catches by as much as 85% during daytime fishing and 54% during nighttime fishing with no significant reduction in shrimp catch rates. The TED utilizes differences in the behavioral reaction of finfish and shrimp and the better swimming ability of the fish to separate and exclude fish from the catch. A funnel of webbing panels accelerates water flow entering the codend of the trawl which carries the weak swimming shrimp into the codend. Finfish actively swimming in the trawl also pass through the funnel but are stimulated by the crowding of webbing to attempt escape and as they pass through the funnel, they either strike a finfish deflector or enter an area of reduced water flow at the sides of the trawl where they are guided by webbing panels through side exits in the trawl. And, as in an unmodified TED, larger objects or organisms that can not pass through the opening of the main deflector grid are ejected through the hinged door at the top of the TED. The effectiveness of the modified TED in separating finfish varies with individual species and appears to be related to the swimming ability of the individual species and their behavior. Separation rates thus vary with the species composition of the catch and may also be related to the size of the· individual as it relates to their swimming ability. Prior to implementation of the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) requirements for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery in January, 1988, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, no regulations, state or federal, required the use of gear or modifications to gear that reduced finfish bycatch. The Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, implemented in May, 1981, contained a management measure to: "Encourage research on and development of shrimping gear which reduces incidental catch without decreasing the overall efficiency of shrimping or excessively increasing the cost of gear." Independent of government efforts, the shrimp industry has attempted to resolve the bycatch problem on its own by incorporating various gear modifications designed to reduce finfish bycatch (Collins, 1988). Additionally, NMFS has promoted the modified TED to the shrimp fishery as a Trawling Efficiency Device since it substantially reduces finfish bycatcn. A form~l NMFS program was initiated in 1978 to encourage shrimp fishermen to use the TED voluntarily. NMFS built and delivered TEDs to shrimp fishermen who agreed to use them in commercial trawling operations. Gear experts worked with shrimp fishermen to 63 demonstrate how to properly install and use TEDs. Sea Grant and a number of industry groups assisted with the transfer of this technology to the shrimp fishing industry. However, despite these efforts, the voluntary program did not result in acceptance of TEDs by the shrimp industry. The failure of the voluntary TED program prompted the NMFS to implement regulations in 1987 to require TEDs on all offshore shrimp vessels over 25 feet in length. In the Gulf of Mexico, the use of TEDs by shrimp trawlers larger than 25 feet in length will be required in May 1989. Vessels and boats that are either less than 25 feet or fishing internal waters are not required to use TEDs but are required to restrict their tow time to 90 minutes or less. However, pending the outcome of a court case challenging the TED regulation the TED requirements have been suspended. The overall effectiveness of TEDs in reducing red snapper bycatch is unknown. To date no research program has been implemented to evaluate the industry-wide effects of TED use on either finfish bycatch reduction or shrimping efficiency. Christian and Harrington (In press) evaluated the effectiveness of the Georgia, Louisiana, modified NMFS, and Texas TEDs off Cape Canaveral, Florida. The NMFS and Texas TEDs reduced bycatch biomass (excluding turtles) by about 44 percent each, whereas the Louisiana and Georgia TEDs achieved an average biomass reduction of 34 and 24 percent, respectively. The percentage shrimp catch change by weight for each TED-equipped net was 3.6 percent gain for Georgia, 4.9 percent loss for NMFS, 9.5 percent loss for Louisiana, and 22.3 percent loss for xas TE;s. The NMFS TED tested was specifically modified to excl-~a finf:sh. The version of the NMFS TED being used in the shrimp fishery to exclude turtles may not be designed to exclude small finfish as well. With any of the TEDs, it is not known if the prerecruit red snapper would be excluded since they comprise less than one percent of the total finfish bycatch (Bryan, et al., 1982) and are smaller and weaker swimmers than the majority of . the species caught by trawls.· Annual red snapper bycatch estimates (Nichols, et al., 1987) indicate a Gulf-wide average catch rate of about two to three red snapper per hour of shrimping effort which suggests that one red snapper is encountered by a shrimp trawl about every nautical mile of towing (personal communication, Dayton Graham). Therefore, although the present implementation of. TEDs will likely effect a reduction in red snapper bycatch, the industry-wide effect is unknown. The tow time restriction of 90 minutes may effect a decrease in finfish bycatch mortality, but a significant number of prerecruit red snapper may still suffer mortality. 64 7.~.3. stressed Area The council in the Reef Fish FMP established a stressed area in those waters ot the Gult ot Mexico shoreward ot the tollowing discontinuous line: (1) From the boundary separating the jurisdiction ot Gult and South Atlantic Councils terminating at 24- 35' North and 83- 0.0' West thence north and east around the Dry Tortugas to a point north ot Rebecca Shoal at 82- 35' West the outer boundary shall tollow the loo-toot contour: 1 (2) From the point at 82- 35' west thence easterly and northerly to the south end ot Sanibel Island (2S- 2S' North) the outer boundary shall tollow the so-toot contour: (3) From 2S- 2S' north to a point oft Tarpon sprinqs (28- 10') the outer boundary shall tollow the 120-toot contour: (4) Prom 28- 10' north and west to a point oft cape San Blas (85- 52' and 29- 30.5') the outer boundary shall tollow the so-toot contour: (5) From 85- 52' and 29- 30.5' west to a point ott Mobile Bay on the 88- lonqitude line, the outer boundary shall tOllow the lSO-toot contour. The outer boundary shall then be a line trom the point on the 88- lonqitude north west to the Alabama/ Mississippi state line alonq the 80-toot contour (88- 23.7' and 30- 01.51); (S) From 88- 23.7' and 30- 01.5' the outer boundary will be a line runninq directly west along the 30 01.5' parallel and terminatinq at the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana; (7) Prom the Texas/Louisiana state line to a point on the 95 - lonqi tude line, the outer boundary shall tollow the loo-toot contour (Piqure 7.19 and Table 7.30) The stressed area concept provides a mechanism for addressing excessive fishing mortality on predominantly juvenile segments of reef fishes (FMP Problem 1) and user group conflicts (FMP Problem 3 and Amendment Problem 3 and 4) and supports FMP Objectives 3 and 4 as well as Amendment, Objective 3 by providing a mechanism for rebuilding inshore reef fish abundance, protecting juveniles, and minimizing user group conflicts, respectively. The criteria for evaluating the geographic extent of the stressed area include: (1) The fishery and conditions of the stocks in localized geographic areas. (2) The amount of fishing pressure applied to the geographic area. (3) Proximity of the offshore geographical areas to cities of high population. (4) Coastal access to the reef areas. (5) Historical fishing practices occurring in the area. (6) A need for protection of special habitat. The prohibition of fish traps in the stressed area reduced fishing pressu~e on nearshore juvenile segments of reef fish populations. This measure also increased protection of shallow water corals which form integral habitat for reef fishes by preventing the 65 placement of fish traps on the inshore coral reef areas of the " eastern Gulf of Mexico .. The stressed area also permitted the delineation of areas highly susceptible to growth overfishing and within which restrictions on gear more efficient than hook-and-line were applied. Generally the stressed area concept impacts the biology of the reef fish stocks only indirectly since additional regulations to control fishing mortality must accompany the establishment of the stressed area. The stressed area impacts the economics of the fishery only in conjunction with gear restrictions. The stressed area creates positive social impacts through increasing the public's awareness about the problems associated with overfishinq, gear conflict, and the susceptibility of the nearshore segments of fish populations to overfishing. The establishment of the stressed area provides a mechanism for addressing user group conflicts and reducing fishing mortality on the nearshore fishes. 66 LANDINGS FIGURE 7.1 35 Million Pounds IZJ RIll IilIePIIeN 30 Cl GIaupera • at.. SnllPpel'll ~ ather te., fleh F£EF FISH COVtrvEFClAL LANDINGS AND VALUE AT U.S. GULF a=- tvEXlCO PCFlTS. 1955-86 EXVESSEL VALUE REAL VALUE Million Dol... $12.,..;-:-.-----------------, ISJ 0Ulet AM' f .... $10 Cl GI'CIl/peN • 0Ulet IiIlIPPIN $8 1Zl ... IiIlIPPIN S20 $10 $15 $36 M111k1n DoIJ8N ~ ou.r AM' filii $30 0 ...... $25 .ou.r ......... IZI ........ LANDINGS 16TMI;:::IUOn~Auld8=~ ---. 80 CJ u.rx Al..... IZJ FlDridll 7570iii60 4 2 6 B o~..;.u."~4-40~'a4'''''''++~44~~:+.1 95 12 10 14 FIGURE 7.2 FED SNAPPER CCJvIvEFCIAL LAl'OI\lGS M'O VALUE AT U.S. GU..F CF t4:X1CD PCHTS. 1955-86 EXVESSEL VALUE REAL VALUE 8070 75 'wear 60 11 SO"'++~"",,"~~'..{-I."#~~~~"'+++04 aD • 1& S4 Ii! to 95 60 70 7!i 80 'It!ar $14 I4IIIlIn Dol.. CliNT)( $12 AI.... IZJ f1llrtlII $10 LANDINGS FIGURE 7.3 GFOPER3: LAI\IOINGS AND VALUE AT U.S. GUF CF rvEXlaJ PCFITS. 1955-86 ,-MI~IIIon~Fbunda.:-:...: 16T 12 10 8 6 2 EXVES3EL VALUE FEAL VALUE 8070 75 ~ar IZlF..... • ouw 60 S7.;..M1~UIon~OD:..:;.;J:..:;.;"'~ ---.. so~~~ot'+~~~~~~~'++....fo+~044"1 55iiieo70 75 ~ar 60 so~~;z;z;z~~~~m~~ 55 S10 '15 FIGURE 7.4 S\JAPPER SJPPLIES IN TrE SC1.JT.-EASTEA'J U.S.• 1960-1984 MIllIOn AIunde25..------------...,.------, lZJad'LMIIIlIIe .a........... 0 ...... 20 GFOJPER SUPPLIES IN TrE SClJTHEASTER'-i U.S.. 1960-1984 MillIOn PDundI21,.------------------. 20 70 75 'dtar 80 Grouper Price/F€d 9lapper Price Rlltlo 1.0...==~----·---··----· - -- .. - -- - -. FIGURE 7.5 Price AItIG 0.8 . Average Annual Exvessel Prices for Fed Snappers and Groupers in Florida. 1955-1986 0.6 - . 0.4 .... 02••••·•• ~ 1 1•••••· 80757060 0.0 .........~......~~1.4J'.... 56 Nominal Prices=Exvessel value/Landings Feal Prices=Nominal PriceslPPl 11967=100) ~d 9lapper Groupers Dol.. Pw FOund $3.00------------------, IZlNlIIIIIneI ....a RIIII~ S2.5O .............................•........................ 001lllr8 Per FQund $3.00r-:-----------------------., I2JNDIllMI Pra AMI Price 12.50 . S2.OO . $2.00 . 11.50 . 11.50 . $1.00 . 11.00 . $0.50 . 8070 75 'lear 6660 $0.00 ...-MJMJ~~~lQQJQJm~ !15eo75 LAl\JDINGS ~en. 7Ql1l;r---.;'---------------. ....... N FIGURE 7.6 LANJII'GS. FEVENl£S, Af'.O CCSTS Fffi FEEF FIs-i VESSELS ALQ\JG TI-£ ~ CDAST a= FLCRDA, 1980 FEVENUES [Z) .-ndllne .. LQngllne .. o DO 100 110 200 2iO 300 3150 MIdpollt CThousand Ruldsl TOTAL CCETS 120o 20 .eo 60 80 tOO Mijpaint (Ttwsand ())Ilarsl e.: ~ III CIIP'* c-. -a 7Ql1l;~ -~ 1Zl ......~ [Z) ....une .......... .~~ !OIl' -....... ".... aQlIl; «* «* 3QlIl; 30X 2C* CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER TRIP, 1985 FIGURE 7.7 CATCHES OF REEF FISH ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS IN LOUISIANA, 1984-1986 11P~TA SurnmarfHd on 1-'1-81 .. •j-.-o.. I: .aa • j .. .......~I... .lIIA ••••••• 7 •• " ••••••• 7 •• " ••••••• 7 •• " t--- ••• --t t---- w. ----t r-- La...I.n•• ----t UidpoInt of 1houea.. of Pound. of Reef Fi8h per Trip CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER TRIP, 1986 J B 1..-1 rA 11~ ~ I~r:J ' .1<7> IV .IIAVlYI • • • • .. • • 7 • ••• • .,.... •• e 0 • ., •••0 t--- .,. --. ~ w -----i ~ L4tnel.n•• -1 • • : i .. t.. ~ ; .. I• CATCHES OF REEf fiSH PER TRIP, 1984 o • • • .. • • 7••.00....... 7' •• I. •a • 4•• 7' •••0 t---- DUD --t t--- w. ---1 t-- LoftOU ---t , : i .. I• ~ ; .. I "ldpolnt of~ of Pound. of Roef F1ah per Trip Uidpoint of Thousand. of Pound. of Reef Ash oer Trin FIGURE 7.8 CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER DAY FISHED ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS IN LOUISIANA. 1984-1986 TIP D.\TA Sumrnortzed on 1-18-88 CATCHES PER DAY FISHED, 1985 4Or • 1 j .. I.. -t •... J•• ............... .. -- -- ......- .&8 ---i t----- II. --i t-- Lo U . --i • YIdpoInt of HundredI of P0und8 of Reef F1ah per Day Flahed o • ao •• eo 80. 0 • 10 .e ao -.0. o. &0 I. ao r- ~. •• j ••i .. •• • o CATCHES PER DAY FISHED. 1984 ~ ~ ~ B~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V V 1/ .~V' V Vr/ r/ '/lrnlZl (7] o • &0 ..... ao o. 10 ..... ao o. &0 •• eo - ~ .-..n. ---i t----- II. ---i t-- Lo...U .~ CATCHES PER DAY FISHED, 1986 . r.. Uidpoint of Hundred. of Pound. ofR..f rllh per Day Fished Uidpoint of Hundreds of Pound. of Reef Fish per Day fi: FIGURE 7.9 CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER MAN PER DAY FISHED ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS IN LOUISIANA. 1984-1986 11PDATA SummartzecI on 1-11-81 CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY ASHED. 1984 CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY FISHED, 1985 eo ----..--------- -" I i. ! t J •• ~V""VAr'TJ ..................... to-- ... ---t ......- w. ---t t--- umeUn•• --i MIdpoInt of Hundrede of PoundII of Reef Ftah per Man per Day Flahed CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY FISHED, 1986 eoT'"'"""---------------------, • i. I.. ~ ••• i •• ..~ ! I. I.. t •... . 0 ....... oa ....... e ...... ~- n. ---t t---- w. ----t t- uneu . --i Midpoint of Hundrod. of Pounct. of Roof fiatt por Man per Day Fl.hod • ....... 0 0 ....... t-- as. ----f t--- If. --i ~ L.n.Un•• - i Midpoint of Hundred. of Pound. of Ree' Fl.h per Man por Day fished CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER TRIP. 1985 FIGURE 7.10 CATCHES OF REEF FISH ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS ALONG THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA, 1984-86 11PB\TA SumIncIrbecI on 1-11-11 I i :01-~.. •, lao.., ..11."JI/J • a •••• 7 •• ao+ 0 a 0 • 4- •• 7 •• ao+ YIdpoInt of 1hou8anda of Pounda of Ree' A8h per Trip CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER TRIP, 1984 o • 0 • 4 • • 7 • .... 0 • • • 4 • • 7 • 0 ... ~- ..~..... t----- ,--...~.n a. ~- Ian•• --- - --t ~-- LenoUn•• eo • • • • 4 • • 7 • • ao. 0 • • • • • • ? • • ~Q. CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER TRIP, 1986 r .. • r:; 7:~ ~~? ~~~ Y~y ~~ "/ :I y ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ '/~ ~ ~~ ? ~ /. :/ "/ ~ ~r:; ., .~ it".A .,~ 11 ~ o I j .. • Midpoint of Thouaanda of Pound' of Reef A8h per Trip Midpoint of Th0U8onda of Pounda of Roof nah por Trip CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER DAY FISHED. 1985 .or-----------'------ -, FIGURE 7.11 CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER DAY FISHED ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS ALONG THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA. 1984-86 11PDATA Summartzed on 1-11-11 ... j •i .• •• • • 4 ...... '4 .... •• 4 •••••• '4 •••••• WIdpoInt of Huncnda of Pounda of Roef F1ah per Day Fished CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER DAY FISHED. 1984 CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER DAY FISHED. 1986 J · o • • •••••••••••• 0.. •••0 •••••••• • .----- •• .... Lene" • 10 '.80"o 10 'e ~. o . 0~la- £2L -.-t~Jlli-::1t1U1 •• I.. ~ ~ ~ ~~1/ ~~r/ r/ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ r7: / ~ ~r71~ ~ VJ/ ~~ /' rI r..;'/ ri1 • • •• I" i I E•• Lfldpolnt of Hund"" of Pound. of Reef Fiah W Day flahed Lfjdpoint of Hundred. of Pound. of Reef fi.h por Doy fishod CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY FISHED, 1985 FIGURE 7.12 CATCHES OF REEF FISH PER MAN PER DAY FISHED ON COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS ALONG THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA. 1984-86 lIPD4TA Summaltzed on 8-11-1I ~ : j ! ~ •• ...... 00 ........ • a.... ~ U ---i t---~U -----i UIdpoInt of Pounda of Reef Aah per Wan per Day Aahed CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY FISHED. 1984 CATCHES PER MAN PER DAY FISHED, 1986 • 800 800 ~ 400 ~ 0 &00 -.00 ~ 400 8OP' .... t--- Ian ---1 t----- LAnoun•• oo a 0 a ~ Ia ---t t---~U ---t .,--..--- . ------------, J J-.. .. J- I I I.. l-~ • •• •j ao I ao t.tidpolnt of Pounda of R..f f1ah per Uan per Day f1ahod t.tidpoint of Pounda of Reef filt! per "on per Day f1ahc FIGURE 7.13 LEHGrH J'REQUDtCy or FISH FROfI FISH tRAPS I"RO" 1984-1986 TIPS 2S 28 P E R 15 C E "r 18 5 8 8 5 31· TOTAL LING!H (IHCHIS) 3S 45 58 Length frequency of red grouper sampled from fish traps by the state/Federal Cooperative Trip Interview Program (TIP) during the period 1984-1986. 79 FIGURE 7.14 LEPtGTH FJlEQUDtCY OF FISH FJIOIt FISH tRAPS FlOI' 1984-1986 UPS 28 584S48355I I 16 .. GAG CiJIOUPER " = zs P I R 12 C I "l' 8 TOrAL I..DCTH (INCHES) Lenqth trequency ot gag grouper sampled from fish traps by the State/Pederal cooperative Trip Interview Proqram (TIP) during the period 1984-1986. 80 FIGURE 7.15 LEHGTH FREQUDtCy or rlSH FJOfI rlSH TRAPS FJIOft 1984-1986 TIPS 58'IS...185., .. ., 28 BLACK c:ROUPER " =67 16 P E R C E "l' 8 TOfAL LDtGfH (IttCHIS) Lenqth frequency of black qrouper sampled from fish traps by the State/Federal Cooperative Trip Interview Proqram (TIP) durinq the period 1984-1986. 81 FIGURE 7.16 LENGTH FREQUDtCY OF FISH I'ROft FISH TRAPS noI' 1984-1986 TIPS 58 584531 . 3S2S58 8 48 18 YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER " =T1 P E R 38 C E "T Z8 TOfAL LDtGfH (INCHES) Lenqth frequency of yellowtail snapper sampled from fish traps by the State/Federal cooperative Trip Interview Proqram (TIP) durinq the period 1984-1986. 82 FIGURE 7.17 MEAN NO. FlSH PER TRAP HAUL 10 ~ MEAN WEIGHT PEA TRAP HAUL1,.--------------.:.::.----. •Ie • I A I +++.+- L.-..:....I ...... .. .-.....,,\11I8 au HI .... ... .... lID CINCHISJ MEAN WEIGHT PER FISH,...,...----....;.--~-...;.;..; fA ... Iff.c~. of ...h alae on flah trap catch••. Bars show me.na and 95' confidence interval•• 83 FIGURE 7.18. A typical bottom longline . .. : ~ : : ~ 1. MARKER IUOY WITH 'LAGS, LIGHT" RADAR "FLECTOR . 2.IUOY LINE- 'OLYNOPOLENE 3. ANCHOR- MUSHROOM OR OTHER •. MAINLINE- ITIIL, IIOLYItROPOLENI, OR MONOFILAMENT 5. GANGIONS- MONOFILAMENT, 30- LONG, 10 TO 50 FlIT A'ART, WITH CIRCLI HOOK ONSIRT A.) .. 8IW....IL HOOKS UNIIRT ..) 7. LINE SNAPS (INSIRT CO» 84 I. c. JO 26 94 90 88 86 LONGITUDE (ff) 84 60 Map or lhe slressed area boundaries in lhe GuU or Mexico as ddl/lcd in the Hcd Fish FMP (1981). TABLE 7.1. COMMERCIAL REEF FISH LANDINGS (1000s) AND VALUE (1000s) AT U.S. GULF OF MEXICO PORTS, 1955·1986 Year Red Snapper Other Snappers Groupers Other Reef Fish Total Pounds Dollars Real S Pounds Dollars Real S Pounds Dollars Real S Pounds Dollars Real S Pounds Dollars Real S 1955 9,484 2,265 2,580 624 106 121 6,023 520 592 652 26 30 16,783 2,917 3,322 1956 9,356 2,165 2,387 372 66 73 7,396 619 682 90s 28 31 18,032 2,878 3,173 1957 9,100 2,204 2,362 681 121 130 8,066 679 728 425 33 35 18,271 3,037 3,255 1958 10,443 2,532 2,6n 782 125 132 5,443 511 540 663 22 23 17,332 3,190 3,372 1959 10,759 2,639 2,784 851 151 159 7,500 732 772 324 22 23 19,434 3,544 3,738 1960 10,760 2,606 2,746 985 185 195 7,679 741 781 260 19 20 19,683 3,551 3,742 1961 12,433 3,061 3,239 1,115 203 215 8,296 716 758 194 14 15 22,037 3,994 4,226 1962 12,417 2,968 3,131 1,574 296 312 9,289 812 857 160 11 12 23,441 4,087 4,311 1963 13,268 3,381 3,578 1,349 242 256 8,902 765 810 174 13 14 23,692 4,401 4,657 1964 13,987 3,864 4,080 1,590 323 341 10,264 952 1,005 165 13 14 26,006 5,152 5,440 1965 13,995 3,912 4,050 1,715 351 363 11,112 1,030 1,066 234 18 19 27,056 5,311 5,498 1966 13,046 3,954 3,962 1,305 298 299 9,551 1,020 1,022 234 19 19 24,135 5,291 5,302 1967 12,447 3,884 3,884 1,585 397 397 8,464 1,015 1,015 461 41 41 22,957 5,337 5,337 1968 11,084 3,643 3,554 1,976 539 526 8,435 1,171 1,142 951 96 94 22,445 5,449 5,316 1969 9,976 3,990 3,746 1,697 533 500 9,293 1,469 1,379 918 102 96 21,885 6,094 5,722 00 (J\ 1970 8,923 3,829 3,468 1,975 630 571 9,192 1,419 1,285 689 84 76 20,779 5,962 5,400 1971 8,848 4,OOS 3,519 2,017 697 612 8,464 1,381 1,212 730 91 80 20,059 6,177 5,423 1972 8,874 4,582 3,850 1,943 765 643 8,654 1,856 1,560 683 92 77 20,154 7,295 6,130 1973 8,564 4,867 3,613 2,039 922 684 6,923 1,676 1,244 595 94 70 18,122 7,559 5,612 1974 8,893 5,586 3,491 2,177 1,016 635 7,916 2,212 1,382 571 98 61 19,557 8,912 5,570 1975 8,218 5,635 3,224 1,979 985 564 8,949 2,913 1,666 624 110 63 19,770 9,643 5,517 1976 7,490 5,895 3,221 2,292 1,272 695 8,519 3,294 1,800 670 128 70 18,971 10,589 5,786 1977 5,646 5,033 2,592 2,278 1,501 m 6,643 3,220 1,658 684 142 73 15,251 9,896 5,096 1978 5,006 5,223 2,495 2,357 1,752 837 6,290 3,684 1,760 788 194 93 14,441 10,853 5,185 1979 4,937 6,313 2,680 2,258 1,937 822 8,198 5,457 2,316 869 259 110 16,262 13,966 5,928 1980 4,945 7,275 2,707 2,000 1,947 725 8,715 6,611 2,460 752 254 95 16,412 16,087 5,987 1981 5,927 9,499 3,238 2,174 2,305 786 12,506 10,911 3,719 1,279 514 175 21,886 23,229 7,917 1982 6,27Z 10,172 3,399 3,240 3,681 1,230 15,281 13,013 4,348 1,392 580 194 26,185 27,446 9,170 1983 7,289 11,998 3,958 2,938 3,314 1,093 11,926 11,952 3,943 1,255 557 184 23,4OS 27,821 9,179 1984 6,443 11,123 3,585 2,911 3,757 1,211 12,036 13,843 4,461 1,6n 873 281 23,067 29,596 9,538 1985 4,924 9,341 3,026 2,942 4,030 1,305 13,439 17,351 5,621 1,988 1,173 380 23,293 31,895 10,332 1986 4,084 8,106 2,704 3,804 5,302 1,769 12,470 17,597 5,870 2,587 1,441 481 22,945 32,446 10,823 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service Notes: Real S is exvessel value adjusted for inflation by dividing by the producer price index for all commodities (1967=100). Florida landings were converted to round weights by multiplying reported landings (assumed to be gutted weights) by the following factors: snappers, 1.1; groupers and sea basses, 1.18; arnberjack, grunts, pigfish, hogfish, porgies, and triggerfish, 1.04; sand perch, 1.14; and til ef i sh, 1, '.2. TABLE.7.2. RED SNAPPER COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND VALUE (1000s) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1955-1986 Year Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Pounds Dollars POLnis Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Real S 1955 6,831 1,614 1,173 289 147 35 71 15 1,262 312 9,484 2,265 2,580 1956 6,442 1,457 1,065 261 271 62 44 9 1,534 376 9,356 2,165 2,387 1957 6,146 1,443 933 232 550 143 28 6 1,443 380 9,100 2,204 2,362 1958 6,428 1,520 1,418 349 1,110 274 88 16 1,399 373 10,443 2,532 2,6n 1959 5,940 1,420 1,819 452 1,022 255 313 n 1,665 435 10,759 2,639 2,784 1960 5,992 1,416 1,nO 426 1,469 367 426 104 1,153 293 10,760 2,606 2,746 1961 5,991 1,449 1,784 470 2,152 537 6n 150 1,829 455 12,433 3,061 3,239 1962 5,913 1,328 1,893 495 2,176 544 694 157 1,742 444 12,417 2,968 3,131 1963 6,510 1,562 2,315 663 1,886 471 388 95 2,169 590 13,268 3,381 3,578 1964 7,185 2,009 2,393 685 1,849 461 310 78 2,250 631 13,987 3,864 4,080 1965 6,679 1,931 2,495 707 2,366 589 243 57 2,212 628 13,995 3,912 4,050 1966 5,709 1,809 2,701 803 2,775 nl 208 59 1,653 512 13,046 3,954 3,962 1967 5,558 1,804 2,288 690 2,890 850 302 78· 1,409 462 12,447 3,884 3,884 1968 4,739 1,757 1,214 328 3,726 1,118 2n 73 1,128 367 11,084 3,643 3,554 1969 4,707 2,279 1,246 375 2,968 959 130 35 925 342 9,976 3,990 3,746 1970 4,250 2,122 983 326 2,519 930 255 71 916 380 8,923 3,829 3,468 0) 1971 4,266 2,232 939 341 2,399 886 162 54 1,082 495 8,848 4,008 3,519 ....... 1972 4,060 2,526 1,051 443 2,266 944 259 97 1,238 572 8,874 4,582 3,850 1973 4,138 2,790 960 . 442 2,331 1,089 354 144 781 402 8,564 4,867 3,613 1974 5,073 3,650 891 439 1,900 942 286 139 743 416 8,893 5,586 3,491 1975 4,898 3,nO 833 460 1,709 988 151 74 627 393 8,218 5,635 3,224 1976 4,426 3,914 635 388 1,876 1,201 58 39 495 353 7,490 5,895 3,221 19n 3,147 3,246 520 352 1,440 944 99 70 440 421 5,646 5,033 2,592 1978 3,038 3,702 426 315 1,094 755 71 59 3n 392 5,006 5,223 2,495 1979 2,954 4,337 535 458 1,057 1,057 176 199 215 262 4,937 6,313 2,679 1980 3,085 5,156 418 423 930 944 201 272 311 481 4,945 7,275 2,708 1981 3,448 6,067 504 654 975 1,205 421 645 578 928 5,927 9,499 3,238 1982 3,652 6,402 581 758 1,041 1,413 468 685 529 915 6,272 10,172 3,399 1983 4,195 7,523 535 651 1,116 1,509 718 1,207 724 1,107 7,289 11,998 3,958 1984 2,863 5,546 340 415 1,029 1,386 1,487 2,480 723 1,296 6,443 11,123 3,585 1985 1,806 3,837 199 261 937 1,272 1,215 2,524 767 1,447 4,924 9,341 3,026 1986 1,003 2,224 146 237 673 896 1,359 3,007 903 1,743 4,084 8,106 2,704 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service Notes: Real S is total exvessel value adjusted for inflation by dividing by the producer price index for all commodities (1967=100). Florida landings were converted to round weight by multiplying reported landings (assumed to be gutted weights) by 1.11. TABLE 7.3. GROUPERS COMMERCIAL lANDINGS (1000s) AND VALUE (1000s) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1955-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; • means no observations) Year Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total PCUIds Dollars PCUIds Dollars PiUlds Dollars POUlds Dollars POI.M1ds Dollars POI.M1ds Dollars Real S 1955 5,745 481 152 22 17 3 2 ° 107 14 6,023 520 592 1956 7,186 590 157 23 17 3 1 ° 35 3 7,396 619 682 1957 7,874 652 117 18 19 3 ° ° 56 6 8,066 679 728 1958 5,167 474 179 27 35 4 1 ° 61 6 5,443 511 540 1959 7,014 669 249 38 75· 11 30 3 132 11 7,500 732 n2 1960 7,209 676 240 37 115 17 44 4 71 7 7,679 741 781 1961 7,799 658 246 30 135 16 25 3 91 9 8,296 716 758 1962 8,543 730 253 29 246. 28 57 6 190 19 9,289 812 857 1963 8,056 666 336 46 271 30 36 3 203 20 8,902 765 810 1964 9,330 843 423 56 268 29 19 2 224 22 10,264 952 1,005 1965 10,080 923 522 56 322 33 19 2 169 16 11,112 1,030 1,066 1966 8,718 923 483 61 235 24 19 2 96 10 9,551 1,020 1,022 1967 7,793 941 394 45 188 19 4 ° 85 10 8,464 1,015 1,015 1968 7,578 1,075 422 47 329 38 6 0 100 11 8,435 1,171 1,142 00 1969 8,648 1,394 299 35 266 32 7 1 73 7 9,293 1,469 1,379 00 1970 8,518 1,332 338 41 266 39 11 1 59 6 9,192 1,419 1,285 1971 7,8n 1,307 221 27 228 34 5 ° 138 13 8,464 1,381 1,212 1972 8,009 1,769 309 41 233 35 5 ° 98 11 8,654 1,856 1,560 1973 6,333 1,581 257 40 219 39 14 1 100 15 6,923 1,676 1,244 1974 7,540 2,150 158 26 131 25 2 ° 85 11 7,916 2,212 1,382 1975 8,647 2,842 137 34 89 25 5 1 71 11 8,949 2,913 1,666 1976 8,247 3,219 92 27 96 32 15 3 69 13 8,519 3,294 1,800 19" 6,379 3,125 112 45 126 44 4 1 22 5 6,643 3,220 1,658 1978 6,106 3,605 73 33 73 37 2 1 35 8 6,290 3,684 1,760 1979 8,061 5,395 72 31 49 24 2 1 14 7 8,198 5,457 2,316 1980 8,601 6,556 53 25 38 19 2 1 21 9 8,715 6,611 2,460 1981 12,059 10,558 75 43 52 48 5 5 316 257 12,506 10,911 3,719 1982 14,941 12,752 49 32 95 " 34 40 160 112 15,281 13,OB 4,348 1983 11,539 11,604 75 58 47 47 21 13 244 230 11,926 11,952 3,943 1984 11,403 13,186 104 127 38 38 270 286 221 206 12,036 13,843 4,461 1985 12,353 16,055 99 107 42 43 563 "9 382 367 13,439 17,351 5,621 1986 11,139 15,987 103 144 42 43 949 1,184 231 239 12,470 11,597 5,870 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service Notes: Real S is total exvessel value adjusted for inflation by dividing by the producer price index for all commodities (1967=100). Florida landings were co,)v",ned to round weights by multiplying reported landings (assumed to be gutted weights) by 1.18. !~-.- .'./' , TABLE 7.4. GROOPERS: COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (1000s) BY REGION, 1978·1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; • means no observations) Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 Keys Pounds 1,246 995 620 1,078 Dollars 699 666 458 919 Southwest Pounds 1,178 1,301 1,613 1,583 Florida Dollars 637 776 1,111 1,251 Midwest Florida Pounds 2,953 4,304 4,666 5,853 Dollars 1,862 3,034 3,744 5,304 FL Panhandle Pounds 730 1,461 1,702 3,544 Dollars 407 919 1,242 3,083 Alabama Pounds 73 72 53 75 Dollars 33 31 25 43 Mississippi Pounds 73 49 38 52 Dollars 37 24 19 48 Louisiana Pounds 2 2 2 5 Dol lars 1 1 1 5 Texas Pounds 35 14 21 316 Dollars 8 7 9 257 Total Pounds 6,290 8,199 8,715 12,506 Dol lars 3,684 5,457 6,611 10,911 Keys = Monroe County, Florida Southwest Forida a Collier and Lee Counties 89 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1,221 1,033 1,317 897 765 972 948 1,383 1,015 1,088 1,886 2,101 1,883 2,114 2,635 1,457 1,859 2,075 2,498 3,792 8,283 6,428 6,309 6,702 6,702 7,156 6,767 7,377 8,962 9,639 3,550 1,9n 1,895 2,640 1,037 3,168 2,030 2,351 3,580 1,467 49 7S 104 99 103 32 58 127 107 144 95 47 38 42 42 77 47 38 43 43 34 21 270 563 949 40 13 286 m 1,184 160 244 221 382 237 112 230 206 367 239 15,281 11,925 12,036 13,439 12,470 13,014 11,952 13,843 17,351 17,597 Midwest Florida = Charlotte-Levy Counties FL Panhandle = Dixie-Escambia Counties TABLE 7.5. SNAPPERS: COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (1000s) BY REGION, 1978·1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; . means no observations) Species Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Red Snapper Keys Pounds 17 11 33 23 18 9 10 5 4 Dollars 24 16 49 42 32 16 18 10 8 Southwest Pounds 210 154 214 254 260 258 83 32 18 Florida Dollars 260 229 379 464 465 453 155 63 39 Midwest Pounds 661 573 407 350 .395 483 621 440 168 Florida Dollars 1,021 996 m 689 780 979 1,276 937 367 FL Panhandle Pounds 2,150 2,216 2,431 2,820 2,978 3,442 2,149 1,329 812 Dollars 2,397 3,097 3,955 4,870 5,122 6,066 4,097 2,827 1,810 Alabama Pounds 426 535 418 504 581 535 340 199 146 Dollars 315 458 423 654 758 651 415 261 237 Mississippi Pounds 1,094 1,057 930 975 1,041 1,116 1,029 937 673 Dollars 755 1,057 944 1,205 1,413 1,509 1,386 1,272 896 Louisiana Pounds 71 176 201 421 468 718 1,487 1,215 1,359 Dollars 59 199 272 645 685 1,207 2,480 2,524 3,007 Texas Pounds 377 215 311 578 529 724 723 767 903 Dollars 392 262 481 928 915 1,107 1,296 1,447 1 i 743 Total Pounds 5,006 4,937 4,945 5,926 6,271 7,285 6,443 4,924 4,084 Dollars 5,223 6,313 7,275 9,497 10,169 11,989 11,123 9,341 8,106 :\ Lane Snapper Keys Pounds 17 35 27 31 58 47 45 30 25 Dollars 7 24 18 20 39 34 35 26 22 Southwest Pounds 0 1 0 2 3 2 16 24 35 Florida Dollars 0 0 0 1 2 2 12 17 27 Midwest Pounds 1 2 11 1 3 6 9 Florida Dollars 0 2 16 0 3 6 10 FL Panhandle Pounds 0 0 2 0 2 8 4 Dollars 0 0 3 0 1 8 4 Louisiana Pounds 4 Dollars 6 Total Pounds 19 38 28 46 63 52 69 71 69 Dollar. 7 27 19 40 43 39 54 60 59 (CONTI NUED ) 90 TABLE 7.5. (eontinued) Species Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Gray Snapper Keys Pounds 264 278 307 307 517 586 658 532 458 Dollars 187 241 297 336 575 615 742 645 565 southwest Pound. 400 367 367 382 353 322 91 35 44 Florida Dollars 117 127 156 183 213 208 103 37 52 Midwest Pounds 59 86 92 59 92 98 93 66 88 Florida Dollars 41 72 85 66 102 119 132 89 125 FL Panhandle Pounds 9 10 11 11 25 20 14 51 7 Dollars 9 9 ' 10 9 25 22 17 58 9 Alabama Pounds 0 a Dollars 0 a Louisiana Pounds 2 3 Dollars 3 4 Total Pounds 733 741 m 759 987 1,026 857 685 600 Dollars 354 449 547 594 914 964 996 831 755 Mutton Snapper Keys Pounds 1n 179 154 160 285 202 166 162 163 Dollars 133 174 178 200 367 254 227 221 231 Southwest Pounds 65 48 55 41 14 66 39 33 22 Florida Dollars 46 34 48 44 17 80 54 47 37 Midwest Pounds 4 13 11 23 .19 39 21 28 39 Florida Dollars 4 11 12 27 21 51 30 38 59 FL Panhandle PCMnia 0 1 1 Doll.rs 0 2 2 Total PCMnia 246 239 221 225 318 307 227 224 226 Dollars 183 219 239 272 405 385 311 308 329 Vermi I ion Keys PCMnia 2 2 10 5 4 6 3 5 Snapper Doll.rs 2 2 13 5 4 8 3 6 Southwest Pounds 0 0 2 0 a 0 Florida Doll.rs D o. 3 1 1 0 Midwest Pounds 22 7 2 26 15 31 11 24 5 Florida Doll.rs 26 9 3 36 22 60 15 33 6 FL Panhandle Pounds 423 427 303 . 332 379 524 673 802 854 !loll .... 355 369 325 338 400 573 834 1,155 1,140 Alaballll Pounds 9 52 129 112 Doll.rs 8 49 133 130 MiSSissippi Pounds 0 111 Doll.rs 0 150 Louisi Pounds 0 85 443 Doll.rs 0 131 619 Texas POU'Ids 1 37 128 Doll.rs 0 43 194 Tot.l Pounds 446 435 307 368 399 569 744 1,D79 1,656 Doll.rs 382 380 329 386 428 647 907 1,497 2,244 (CONTINUED) 91 TABLE 7.5. (continued) Species Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Yellowtai l Keys Pounds 809 722 589 704 1,384 931 948 838 968 Snapper Dollars 729 779 728 932 1,791 1,214 1,400 1,276 1,545 Southwest Pounds 103 81 74 59 55 46 22 15 26 Florida Dollars 95 81 81 68 68 54 29 23 42 Midwest Pounds 2 4 29 7 33 9 8 Florida Dollars 1 4 28 10 52 10 12 FL Panhandle Pounds 0 0 0 Dollars 0 0 0 Louisiana Pounds 0 Dollars 0 Total Pounds 913 805 667 764 1,468 984 1,003 863 1,002 Dollars 826 861 813 1,000 1,886 1,278 1,481 1,309 1,599 Other Snappers Keys Pounds 12 Dollars 15 Southwest Pounds 5 Florida Dollars 6 Midwest Pounds 92 Florida Dollars 117 FL Panhandle PCUIds 98 Dollars 125 Alabama Pounds 0 11 7 4 , Dollars 0 8 8 2 Mississippi Pounds 0 Dollars 0 Louisiana Pounds 0 12 32 Dollars 0 17 42 Texas POI.I'Ids 13 Dollars 9 Total POI.I'Ids 0 11 19 251 Dollars 0 8 25 316 Keys z Monroe County, Florida Midwest Florida = Charlotte-Levy Counties Southwest Forida = Collier and Lee Counties FL Panhandle = Dixie-Escarrbia Counties 92 TABLE 7.6. OTHER REEF FISH: COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (1000s) BY REGION, 1978-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; • means no observations) Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Amber jacks Keys Pounds 9 26 16 15 97 71 107 60 149 Dollars 1 3 2 2 14 20 69 35 58 Southwest Pounds 2 2 4 a 1 4 7 8 41 Florida Dollars 0 1 1 0 a 1 3 3 13 Midwest Pounds 53 41 47 55 48 47 105 93 210 Florida Dollars 8 7 8 11 14 13 23 36 94 FL Panhandle Pounds 109 125 145 205 193 253 432 532 426 Dollars 16 26 32 46 58 92 203 273 248 Alabama Pounds 3 19 43 62 Dollars 1 9 16 30 Mississippi Pounds 5 1 9 37 67 Dollars 4 0 7 21 49 Louisiana Pou-ds 0 0 96 314 Dollars 0 a 36 134 Texas Pounds 14 51 120 Dollars 10 29 65 Total Pounds 173 194 212 276 345 378 694 920 1,389 Dollars 25 36 42 59 90 129 325 448 693 Grunts Keys Pounds 36 44 41 50 60 41 48 41 82 Dollars 6 9 8 11 13 8 11 9 23 Southwest Pounds 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 19 Florida Dollars 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 Midwest PCUIds 110 100 31 10 36 22 45 21 54 Florida Dollars 19 18 7 2 12 5 15 6 14 FL Panhandle POU'Ida 0 2 0 1 1 3 2 3 3 Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Alabama POU'Ida 0 Dollars 0 Total Pounds 146 146 n 60 98 69 96 71 158 Dollars 25 27 15 13 25 16 27 18 42 (CONTINUED) 93 TABLE 7.6. (continued) Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Hogfish Keys Pounds 36 38 31 41 27 26 35 37 28 Dollars 17 25 24 31 18 17 28 32 24 Southwest Pounds 9 16 5 3 6 5 3 Florida Dollars 6 12 4 4 2 3 4 Midwest Pounds 3 2 2 2 3 Florida Dollars 2 1 2 3 3 Total Pounds 39 50 49 46 31 34 38 44 34 Dollars 20 32 37 36 23 20 31 38 31 Porgies Keys Pounds 12 19 12 14 21 11 11 8 3 Oollars 2 4 3 3 7 3 5 3 2 Southwest Pounds 8 5 6 2 9 13 23 24 26 Florida Dollars 3 2 3 1 6 7 13 16 19 Midwest Pounds 63 71 49 n 43 49 26 51 53 Florida Dollars 27 32 22 40 23 24 14 31 33 Fl Panhandle Pounds 97 90 102 117 143 152 175 231 180 Dollars 32 36 47 49 66 71 91 134 106 Alabama Pounds 1 3 8 6 15 Dollars 0 1 3 2 7 Mississippi Pounds 2 11 15 Dollars 1 6 13 louisiana Pounds 0 7 21 Dollars 0 5 14 ) Texas Pounds 1 25 Dollars 0 53 Total Pounds 179 185 170 209 217 227 247 363 312 Dollars 63 73 74 93 102 106 129 249 194 Sea Basses Keys PO\.rda 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 Southwest POU'1ds 10 4 0 0 1 0 Florida Dollars 4 0 0 0 0 0 Midwest Pcx.rds 17 31 10 7 14 9 17 12 20 Florida Dollars 4 12 3 3 4 4 6 5 10 Fl Panhandle POI.rda 2 13 7 6 17 4 8 6 3 Dollars 1 4 2 2 5 1 2 2 1 Alabama Pcx.rds 2 0 0 Dollars 0 0 0 Total POU'1ds 29 44 17 19 30 13 25 19 23 Dollars 8 15 5 6 8 5 9 7 11 (CONTINUED) 94 TABLE 7.6. (continued) Region 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Tiletishes Keys Pounds 45 38 26 64 68 38 42 76 67 Dollars 16 18 16 39 47 24 30 60 64 Southwest Pounds 0 1 2 6 14 7 8 12 7 Florida Dollars 0 0 1 3 8 5 6 7 6 Midwest Pounds 41 44 37 327 71 36 24 16 81 Florida Dollars 14 19 20 165 33 18 16 10 57 FL Panhandle Pounds 4 2 10 53 122 34 210 153 173 Dollars 1 1 5 30 69 22 168 115 164 Alabama Pounds 1 8 Dollars 0 5 Mississippi Pounds 1 0 16 1 0 Dollars 0 0 12 0 0 Louisiana Pounds 0 7 10 47 94 Dollars 0 5 5 40 83 Texas Pounds 79 79 8 Dollars 62 80 7 Total Pounds 92 86 74 450 297 116 382 385 430 Dollars 31 38 41 237 173 69 294 313 383 Triggerfishes Keys PO\rIds 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southwest PO\rIds 4 0 0 0 0 0 Florida Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 0 Midwest Pounds 6 19 15 13 8 10 10 15 21 Florida Dollars 1 5 5 5 3 4 4 7 10 FL Panhandle Pounds 56 87 81 80 92 63 48 63 48 Dollars 9 18 20 18 30 23 21 33 29 Alabama PO\rIds . 3 15 12 6 Dollars 0 4 3 2 Mississippi P~ 0 4 Dollars 0 2 Louisiana P~ 0 5 14 Dollars 0 2 6 Texas P~ 0 1 Dollars 0 0 Total P~ 61 105 100 93 100 n n 96 95 Dollars 11 23 25 23 33 27 29 45 49 Keys" Monroe County, Florida Midwest Florida • Charlo~te-Levy Counties Southwest Forida " Collier and Lee Counties FL Panhandle = Dixie-Eseambia Counties AZ 95 TABLE 7.7. COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND VALUE (1000s) OF REEF FISH BY COUNCIL JURISDICTION IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1978-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; • means no observations). Species Counci l 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Red Snapper Atlantic Pounds 12 14 10 13 7 4 1 0 Dollars 18 22 19 22 13 7 2 0 Gulf Pounds 5 11 18 12 5 2 6 4 0 Dollars 7 16 27 23 10 3 11 8 a Unknown Pounds 4 Dollars 8 Total Pounds 17 11 33 23 18 9 10 5 4 Dollars 24 16 49 42 32 16 18 10 8 Other Atlantic Pounds 788 879 746 939 1,844 1,308 1,294 1,064 34 Snappers Dollars 665 891 848 1,183 2,301 1,587 1,747 1,496 50 Gulf Pounds 479 336 333 271 406 461 529 501 238 Dollars 391 329 374 318 476 533 665 674 368 Unknown PO\rds 1,358 Dollars 1,965 Total Pounds 1,267 1,216 1,079 1,211 2,250 1,769 1,823 1,565 1,630 Dollars 1,056 1,220 1,222 1,501 2,m 2,121 2,412 2,170 2,383 Groupers Atlantic Pounda 641 671 352 635 651 622 9n 501 34 Dollars 358 451 261 543 520 572 1,024 570 49 j Gulf Pounds 605 324 267 443 571 411 345 396 72 Dollars 341 215 198 3n 451 375 359 445 104 Unknown Pounda 659 Dollars 935 Total PO\rds 1,246 995 620 1,078 1,221 1,033 1,317 897 765 Dollars 699 666 458 919 9n 948 1,383 1,015 1,088 Other Reef Atlantic Pounda 97 93 91 166 244 163 235 209 29 Fish Dollars 33 30 39 79 87 63 139 132 17 . Gulf Pounda 55 99 35 18 30 24 10 15 10 Dollars 12 36 14 7 11 9 5 8 6 Unknol«1 POU"ds 0 290 Dollars 0 149 Total POU"ds 152 192 126 184 273 187 245 223 329 Dollars 45 66 53 86 99 n 144 140 172 Total Atlantic POU"ds 1,538 1,643 1,204 1,751 2,751 2,100 2,~04 1,775 97 Dollars 1,074 1,371 1,170 1,824 2,931 2,236 2,916 2,201 117 Gulf Pounds 1,144 no 654 745 1,012 898 890 915 320 Dollars 751 597 613 n4 949 921 1,040 1,134 478 Unknown Pounda 0 2,311 Dollars 0 3,057 Total Pounds 2,682 2,414 1,857 2,495 3,763 2,998 3,394 2,690 2,728 Dollars 1,824 1,968 1,782 2,548 3,879 3,157 3,957 3,335 3,651 96 TABLE 7.S. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL GULF'WIDE LANDINGS OF REEF FISH THAT ORIGINATED ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Speci •• 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 AV."lge Red Snlppe,. 0.24 0.0 0.28 0.17 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.13 Lane Snlpper 57.9 50.0 75.0 43.5 60.3 73.1 52.2 33.8 53.6 Gr.y Snapper 16.9 25.6 25.4 22.5 32.7 34.2 42.1 42.6 30.6 Mutton Snapper 41.5 41.0 44.3 50.2 60.7 46.9 46.3 45.5 47.6 Venai I ion Sna,:lPer 0.22 0.0 0.33 2.7 1.3 0.70 0.67 0.19 0.64 Yellowt.f I Sna,:lPer 60.2 71.2 64.3 81.8 87.5 78.6 78.5 74.6 75.9 G,.~rs 10.2 8.2 4.0 5.1 4.3 5.2 8.1 3.7 5.7 "'*'er jacks 2.9 12.9 6.6 5.4 27.8 18.8 15.4 6.5 12.3 Gr",U 12.3 15.1 31.9 66.7 44.9 40.6 45.8 47.9 33.4 Hotfish 69.2 43.0 40.8 76.1 51.6 50.0 78.9 68.2 60.1 Por,f" 0.0 6.5 5.3 5.7 9.7 4.4 4.5 2.2 4.6 Bleck Se. B ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMd Perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Til.fish" 41.9 10.5 35.1 14.2 22.9 32.S 11.0 19.7 19.6 Trf,gerffsh" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tot.l 10.7 10.1 7.3 8.0 10.5 9.0 10.9 7.6 9.3 97 TABLE 7.9. COMMERCIAL LANDINGS AND EXVESSEL VALUE OF SNAPPERS AND GROUPERS LANDED ALONG THE U.S. SOUTH ATLANTIC COAST, 1960-1986 Snappers Groupers POU'lds Dollars R.al S POU'lds Dollars Reel S Year (10DOs) (1000.) ( 1000s) (1000S) (1000.) ( 1000s) 1960 914 241 261 329 33 35 1961 1,121 254 269 338 29 31 1962 1,006 245 25a 316 2a 30 1963 a53 212 224 268 23 24 1964 934 269 284 313 31 33 1965 1,005 2a1 291 435 42 43 1966 1,015 371 372 320 35 35 1961 1,300 412 412 631 7S 7S 1968 1,539 564 550 1,010 147 143 1969 1,151 541 515 729 121 119 1910 1,196 612 554 a18 155 140 1911 1,101 629 552 953 174 153 1972 1,186 149 629 739 182 153 1913 1,016 113 514 154 222 165 1914 1,301 951 594 991 359 224 1915 1,467 1,136 650 1,224 450 251 1976 1,174 1.170 639 1,214 536 293 \ .' 1977 1.376 1,709 aao 1,525 820 422 ,. 1918 1.442 2.102 1,004 2,417 1,515 724 191'9 1,322 1. &44 2,276 1,652 101 1980 1,411 2,217 825 2,lla 1,113 631 19a1 1,418 2,363 80S 2,601 2,451 835 1982 1,490 2,406 804 2,411 2,21a 141 1983 1.406 2,363 180 3,004 2,984 984 1984 1. 2,361 161 2,553 3,177 1,024 1985 1.468 2,513 137 2,013 2,919 946 1986 1.634 2,948 913 2,432 3,143 1,249 R.al S la uvn .. l value adJuated for Inflation bv dfvldl". by th. prGcer prlc. index for aU ca.Ddltl .. (1967.'00). Florlca landl".. ...... converted to r~ weltht. bv IIIIltlplyl". reported landl".. (--...d to be gutted wei thU) bv 1.1 for snappers and 1.1a for grouper •• 98 TAILE 7.10. SNAPPER AND GROUPER IMPORTS INTO THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960·1987 (THOUSANDS OF POUNDS, PRODUCT AND EQUIVALENT LIVE WEIGHTS) C. means data were not aveilable) SNppers Groupers Product Live Product Live Year Weight Wei gtlt Weight Weight 1960 474 n5 62 164 1961 890 1,307 174 457 1962 705 891 710 1,710 1963 7'96 1,031 1,306 3,104 1964 1,235 1,481 2,175 5,186 1965 1,410 1,986 2,317 5,609 1966 1,392 2,099 2,799 6,970 1967 952 1,365 331 m 1961 621 1,071 331 829 1969 734 1,154 491 1,236 1970 743 1,132 360 867 1971 332 419 331 730 1972 732 1,077 3,141 a,091 1973 2,a70 4,617 2,627 6,541 1974 3,155 4,611 1,659 4,01a 1975 3,a73 5,591 2,369 5,21a 1976 3,920 6,097 4,001 7,331 1977 3,113 4,921 3,344 1,051 1911 3,904 5,369 3,049 6,616 1979 3,1ao 3,962 1,861 3,916 1980 2,201 4,239 573 1,226 19a1 3,902 4,517 341 604 1982 4,493 4,921 592 1,070 19&3 5,093 6,016 534 869 1984 6,963 a,429 1,914 . 3,129 1m 10,616 3,263 19. 11,640 6,011 1917 10,421 6,496 Sourc .. : Liv .... fght.: date for 1960-1912 ... r. obtafned fre. Wal ter Kef tilly (Lm, center for wetlend It .. ourc .. , aaton Rouge, LA 7'OIDS): date for 1911 ... '''' ... re abufned fra. .. olin Vondrualce (NM", South ... t RegfONll Offfce, 9450 Koger Ihld, St. P.ter"", FL 33702. Pr~t ... fttlt.: date for 1960-1972 ... r. lfalled In Cato end Procll..u (1976): data for 1973-1977 ... re obtefned fra. Appendix Tibl .. 39 end 40 fn the It f Ffall MMeg lt Pllft CGMFIC 1910): date for 1911-1911 ... re obtained fr. CIIuck ~ CUnI.,. of Florldl, 1170 McCerty Hell, Gainesville, FL 32611). Note: Pr~t ... fttlt. ar. the ca.blned wefght. of flllPOrta of all pr~t for... 99 TABLE 7.11. SNAPPER AND GROUPER SUPPLIES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1960-1986 . (THOUSANDS Of POUNDS, LIVE WEIGHT) (. means that data were not available) Snappers Groupers Gulf S. Atl. Total Total Gulf S. Atl. Total Total Year Landings Landings Landings In.,arts Supplies Landings Landings Landings In.,arts Supplies 1960 10,760 974 11,733 725 12,458 7,679 329 8,007 164 8,171 1961 12,433 1,127 13,560 1,307 14,867 8,296 338 8,634 457 9,091 1962 12,417 1,006 13,424 891 14,314 9,289 316 9,605 1,nO 11,375 1963 13,268 853 14,121 1,038 15,159 8,902 268 9,170 3,104 12,274 1964 13,987 934 14,921 1,488 16,409 10,264 313 10,5n 5,186 15,762 1965 13,995 1,005 15,000 1,986 16,986 11,112 434 11,546 5,609 17,155 1966 13,046 1,075 14,121 2,099 16,219 9,551 320 9,871 6,970 16,841 1967 12,447 1,299 13,747 1,365 15,112 8,464 631 9,095 m 9,866 1968 11,084 1,539 12,623 1,071 13,694 8,435 1,010 9,445 829 10,274 1969 9,976 1,151 11,127 1,154 12,281 9,293 729 10;022 1,236 11,258 1970 8,923 1,196 10,120 1,132 11,252 9,192 878 10,071 867 10,938 0 1971 8,848 1,101 9,949 489 10,438 8,464 953 9,417 730 10,147 0 1972 8,874 1,186 10,060 1,On 11,138 8,654 739 9,393 8,091 17,484 1973 8,564 1,076 9,641 4,617 14,258 6,923 754 7,6n 6,541 14,218 1974 8,893 1,301 10,194 4,681 14,875 7,916 997 8,913 4,018 12,931 1975 8,218 1,467 9,685 5,591 15,2n 8,949 1,224 10,173 5,218 15,391 1976 7,490 1,174 8,664 6,097 14,762 8,519 1,214 9,733 7,331 17,064 19n 5,646 1,375 7,022 4,927 11,949 6,643 1,525 8,168 7,051 15,219 1978 5,006 1,442 6,448 . 5,369 11,817 6,290 2,417 8,707 6,676 15,383 1979 4,937 1,322 6,259 3,962 10,221 8,198 2,276 10,474 3,976 14,450 1980 4,945 1,481 6,427 4,239 10,666 8,715 2,118 10,834 1,226 12,059 1981 5,927 1,478 7,405 4,517 11,923 12,506 2,601 15,108 604 15,712 1982 6,272 1,490 7,762 4,921 12,683 15,281 2,487 17,768 1,070 18,838 1983 7,289 1,406 8,695 6,076 14,771 11,926 3,004 14,930 869 15,799 1984 6,443 1,388 7,831 8,429 16,260 12,036 2,553 14,589 3,129 17,718 1985 4;924 1,468 6,391 13,439 2,083 15,522 1986 4,084 1,634 5,718 12,470 2,432 14,901 TABLE 7.12. I AVERAGE ANNUAL EXVESSEL PRICES FOR RED SNAPPERS AND GROUPERS IN FLORIDA, 1955·1986 Real Price=Nominal Price/PPI (1967=100) I Red Sna,:lPer Groupers I Nominal Relll Nominal Relll Price Price Price Price Year (S/lb.) (S/lb.) (S/lb.) (S/lb. ) I 1955 0.26 0.30 0.10 0.11 1956 0.25 0.27 0.10 0.11 1957 0.26 0.28 0.10 0.10 1958 0.26 0.27 0.11 0.11 1959 0.26 0.28 0.11 0.12 I 1960 0.26 0.27 0.11 0.12 1961 0.27 0.28 0.10 0.11 1962· 0.25 0.26 0.10 0.11 I 1963 0.26 0.28 0.10 0.10 1964 0.31 0.32 0.11 0.11 1965 0.32 0.33 0.11 0.11 I 1966 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.13 1967 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.14 1968 0.41 0.40 0.17 0.16 1969 0.53 0.50 0.19 0.18 I 1910 0.55 0.50 0.18 0.17 1971 0.58 0.51 0.20 0.17 1972 0.68 0.58 0.26 0.22 1973 0.74 0.55 0.29 0.22 I 1974 0.79 0.49 0.34 0.21 1975 0.84 0.48 0.39 0.22 1976 0.97 0.53 0.46 0.25 I 1977 1.13 0.58 0.58 0.30 1978 1.34 0.64 0.70 0.33 1979 1.62 0.69 0.79 0.34 1980 1.84 0.68 0.90 0.33 1981 1.94 0.66 1.03 0.35 1982 1.93 0.64 1.01 0.34 1983 1.97 0.65 1.19 0.39 1984 2.13 0.69 1.36 0.44 1985 2.34 0.76 1.53 0.50 1986 2.44 0.81 1.69 0.56 I NCilinel prices were calculated a. e.ves.el value in Flori~ divided by landing •• Prices Ire in lIIi t. of dollars per pcx.nd, gutted weights. I I I 101 I I • Gear Fish Trawls • Shrimp Trawls • Fish Traps Gill Nets '. Handl ines • Longl ines Unknown • Total • • • I • • • • • I .. -;. TABLE 7.13. RED SNAPPERS: COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (1000s) BY GEAR, 1978-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; . means no observations) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Pounds 9 4 3 2 Dollars 5 2 3 1 Pounds 199 126 169 180 155 212 176 78 Dollars 153 102 170 191 158 262 260 120 Pounds 1 0 Dollars 2 0 Pounds 9 Dollars 8 Pounds 4,798 4,592 4,325 4,939 5,287 5,807 4,912 3,810 Dollars 5,065 5,946 6,384 7,968 8,558 9,586 8,366 7,206 Pounds 138 227 295 538 621 268 Dollars 238 410 535 1,031 1,191 567 Pounds 215 311 578 531 n4 n3 767 Dollars 262 481 928 918 1,107 1,296 1,447 Pounds 5,006 4,937 4,945 5,926 6,271 7,285 6,443 4,924 Dollars 5,223 6,313 7,275 9,497 10,169 11,989 11,123 9,341 102 1986 2 1 56 57 2,007 3,851 113 231 1,906 3,966 4,084 8,106 " TABLE 7.14. GROOPERS COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (10005) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (10005) BY GEAR, 1978-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; . means no observations) Gear 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Fish Trawls Pounds 0 Dollars 0 Shrifll) Trawls Pounds 33 19 24 28 32 49 19 15 5 Dollars 7 4 16 22 26 40 19 17 4 Fish Traps Pounds 315 149 99 106 125 50 675 962 Dollars 180 101 74 91 101 47 714 1,091 Gill Nets Pounds 0 Dollars 0 Handlines Pounds 5,926 7,908 7,650 7,812 7,118 6,192 6,652 7,654 278 Dollars 3,490 5,279 5,841 6,748 5,979 6,086 7,682 10,122 322 Longl ines Pounds 59 904 4,200 7,797 5,353 4,451 4,374 810 Dollars 37 662 3,761 6,763 5,524 5,210 5,713 1,044 Spears Pounds 0 17 Dollars 0 0 8 Diving Outfits Pounds 15 49 16 45 49 36 17 35 Dollars 8 30 8 32 33 25 12 32 Unknown Pounc» 14 21 316 160 244 221 382 11,377 Dollars 7 9 257 112 230 206 367 16,226 Total Pounc» 6,290 8,199 8,715 12,506 15,281 11,925 12,036 13,439 12,470 Dollars 3,684 5,457 6,611 10,911 13,014 11,952 13,843 17,351 17,597 103 TABLE 7.15. OTHER (THAN RED) SNAPPERS COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (1000s) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (1000s) BY GEAR, 1978·1986 (0 means less than SOD pounds or dollarsj • means no observations) Gear 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Haul Seines Pounds 30 39 10 4 Dollars 12 20 9 3 Shri"" Trawls Pounds 18 14 11 11 5 5 24 Dollars 12 9 7 7 7 5 28 Fish Traps Pounds 82 161 93 72 45 64 55 72 Dollars 57 159 lOS 84 53 n 66 90 Other Traps Pounds 13 11 2 6 6 Dollars 16 13 3 6 7 Gill Nets Pounds 325 333 124 107 138 140 290 235 Dollars 102 145 83 76 121 125 327 282 Trlllllllel Nets Pounds 42 38 35 37 30 27 6 4 Dollars 13 15 18 22 19 18 7 4 Handl ines Pounds 1,864 1,675 1,659 1,787 2,810 2,453 2,381 2,435 662 Dollars 1,557 1,585 1,670 1,939 3,250 2,805 3,117 3,398 891 Longl inn Pounds 35 115 181 232 165 148 24 Dollars 23 131 204 275 227 199 33 \ i Spears Pounds 1 .. ~ Dollars 2 Diving OUtfits Pounds 14 12 26 " 7 7 Dollars ;1 11 28 12 8 7 Unknown Pounds ° 1 37 3,095 Dollars 0 ° 43 4,350 Total Pounds 2,357 2,258 2,000 2, '60 3,2~5 2,937 2,910 2,942 3,804 Dollars 1,752 1,937 1,947 2,292 3,676 3,313 3,756 4,030 5,302 104 TABLE 7.16. OTHER REEF FISH COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (10005) AND EXVESSEL VALUE (10005) BY GEAR, 1978-1986 (0 means less than 500 pounds or dollars; . means no observations) Gear 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Haul Seines Pounds 25 31 2 0 41 20 Dollars 4 8 0 0 11 10 Shri~ Trawls Pounds 3 3 5 2 2 6 0 Dollars 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 Fish Traps Pounds 54 37 22 27 15 8 21 25 Dollars 10 10 7 9 5 2 9 15 Other Traps Pounds 2 1 Dollars 1 1 ,) Gill Nets Pounds 65 44 11 4 5 7 59 60 Dollars 12 9 3 2 2 2 17 34 Tranmel Nets Pounds 1 4 0 0 0 0 10 10 Dollars 0 1 0 0 a 0 3 5 Handl ines Pounds 631 717 615 942 856 759 1,074 1,223 315 Dollars 166 219 213 371 330 307 520 649 162 Troll ing lines Pounds 1 0 7 0 Dollars 0 0 2 0 Longl ;nes Pounds 24 31 176 240 139 351 463 299 Dollars 9 16 82 111 60 236 275 180 Spears Pounds 0 3 Dollars 0 2 Diving OUtfits Pounds 1 2 2 6 2 2 4 2 Dollars 0 1 1 4 1 1 3 2 Other Pounds 1 0 1 1 0 Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 Unkno.., Pcx.nda 1 94 155 1,954 Dollars 0 73 162 1,099 Total Pcx.nda 780 862 695 1,157 1,121 915 1,662 1,979 2,569 Dollars 194 259 241 468 456 3n 873 1,162 1,441 ,I 105 Table 7.17. Numbers of Fishing Craft and Fishermen Using Handlin.s and ~eef Fish Longlines in the Gulf of M.xico, 1978·1986 Handt ines Longl in.s Total Year Craft fi4en Craft fi4en Craft Men 1978 529 1806 0 0 529 1806 1979 565 1931 3 3 564 1934 1980 779 2586 85 308 841 2818 1981 700 2298 239 906 853 2922 1982 666 2233 282 1074 862 3019 1983 544 1764 231 878 77'5 2646 1984 593 1921 251 954 844 2881 1985 572 1859 255 969 821 282e 1986 610 1983 24Z 920 852 2903 Sourc. for 1978-1982: V .... t Operating Units Fit., ~lIst1ed data fra. the National Msrine Fisheri .. Servic., Southe .. t Fisheri .. Cent.r, Offic. of Econo.ies .nd Stati.tic., a.aufort Laboratory, aeaufort, N.C. 21516 (Attn: Kenneth Harris). Sourc. for 1983-1986: Preli.inary at. frail the National Narine Fish.ri .. S.rvic., South ••• t Fish.rl .. Cent.r, Offic. of Ec~ics and Statistics, 75 Vir,ini. a.1Ch Drive, Mi .. i, Ftorida 33149 (Attn: Ernest Snell). Not.S: Th''''''''''r of fishing craft using handlinn is the I"UIIbIr of v.s.als (cra't>5 ,rOl' tons) although ICtusl speci .. sought i. not known. Th."...,. of craft usi,. reef fish longl inn i. the su. of v.s •• ts (cr.ft>5 trosa tons) .nd bosts (crafte5 gro •• tons). Total """"'r of fishing craft excludes ~lication of craft th.t use both g.ars. Th. totl' rullber of flsheMllln .xclusive of duplication ",a ... ti tld .. the total for hallnn .nd longlfnn minus the averag. rullber of .. per handlf". VIII •• l ..,Uiplitd by the number of ves •• t. theC UIId both ttl,... 106 .,\ ? Table 7.18. ~umbers of Fishing Crafe and Fishermen Using Fish Traps in the Gulf of M.xico, 1978·1986 reer Cr.ft Men Traps 1978 32 6S 2102 1979 38 83 2284 1980 36 6S 1434 1981 35 66 1404 1982 13 30 534 1983 18 47 540 1984 43 107 1290 1985 60 150 1800 1986 50 125 1500 Sourc. for 1978-1982: V .... l Operatl", units File, ~lIshed dlta fro. the Natlon.l Marine Fisheri .. S.rvlce, South ••• t Fish.ri .. Center, Office of Econa.lca end Statistic., •• aufort Laboratory, •• aufort, N.C. 28516 (Attn: Kenneth Harris). Source for 1983·1986: Pr.lI.fnary data frOll the Netlonal Marl". Fish.rie. S.rvice, South ... t Fisheri .. Cent.r, Office of Ec~ics and Staelstlci, 75 Vlr,lftla '.ach Drlv., MI .. t, FloriO. 33149 (Attn: Ernest Snell). Notes: SOllIe fishing craft al.o used handllnes endJor 10000llnes. Henc., th ... o.ta ClNtOt be edded to data about handllnee end lOl'llllnee to derive .. tl t .. of total -.pl~t In the flahery. 107 TABLE 7.19. MEASURES OF EFFORT AND P OOUCTIVITY FOR COMME CIAL ~EEF FISH T IPS IN LOUISIANA, 1954·1986 N l.IIi)e r 0 f MinillUll MuillUll Handard Variable Gear Type Year Interviews ~esponse l!esponse Mean Devi at i on M~ian POI.Inds Per T rip Bandit HIs 1984 43 40 9098 2441.9 2641.7 lC82 1985 82 13 10270 1796.3 2214.4 795 1986 56 54 10076 3149.9 2382.6 2971. Buoys 1984 10 167 3472 1409.8 1076.5 1257 1985 43 33 7088 1448.0 1602.4 1000 1986 43 36 4054 1186.6 855.3 1057 Long I inn 1984 14 840 107'90 5022.1 3179.2 4418 1985 40 3 10137 3631.4 2850.7 2624 1986 37 16 8440 2900.9 2326.7 1968 Calendar Days Bandit Resls 1984 43 12 3.9 2.7 3 Fished Per Trip 1985 82 12 4.2 3.0 3 1986 56 14 6. I 3.1 6 Buoys 1984 10 2 6 3.7 1.3 4 1985 42 1 II 4.2 3.0 3 1986 42 1 13 3.7 2.4 3 Longlinn 1984 14 2 13 7.3 3.3 7 1985 37 1 12 5.7 2.9 6 1986 37 1 10 4.4 1.9 4 N\.IN:)er of Bnlt Resl. 1914 43 2 7 3.a 1.7 4 Persona Aboard 1m 52 1 9 4.0 La 4 1986 56 2 9 4.5 1.8 4 '. " .. Buoya 1. 10 2 7 3.7 1.9 3 1m 42 2 7 3.2 1.2 3 1916 42 2 6 3.2 1.0 3 Longlinn 1. 14 3 6 4.5 0.9 5 1m 37 2 a 3.4 1.2 3 1986 l6 2 5 3.3 0.7 3 Poc.n:iI Per Bnit Resls , 43 14 3033 5aa~0 577.6 409 Day Fished ,. 12 1 2215 393.6 394.6 290 ,. 56 11 2519 501.2 386.3 443 Buoya 1 10 56 1422 434.1 403.4 363 ,. 42 11 1484 392.4 322.3 294 ,. 42 9 2702 465.1 496.5 371 LontllNa , 14 254 1541 nt.6 3U.9 717 ,. 37 8 1820 641.1 470.2 477 1916 37 3 4220 72a.7 716.5 564 Poc.n:iI Per Men hndft ... l. , 43 7 607 151.4 123.a 128 Per Day F i sIIed ,. 52 0 381 90.5 62.9 89 1. 56 3 630 115.2 !I.4 100 Buoys 19M 10 9 237 120.6 79.4 115 1m 42 6 371 125.2 97.a 103 1916 41 2 993 163.5 197.1 130 Lontlinn ,. 14 51 514 184.5 141.2 133 1985 37 3 850 203.7 161.9 154 1916 l6 1 2110 245.2 344.7 154 Source: Unpublished trip ~nterview deta a. of SepteMber 9, 1988, fraa the Nationel Narine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fishari .. Center, Office of Econo.ics end Statistics, 75 Virginia Beech Drive, Ni~i, Florida 33149. 108 TABLE 7.20. MEASURES OF EFFORT AND PRODUCTIVITY FOR COMMERCIAL REEF FISH TRIPS ALONG THE wEST COAST OF FLORIOA, 1984·1986 NUITi:ler of Minirrun Maxinun Standard Variable Gear Type Year Interviews Response Response Mean Oevi ati on Medi an Pounds Per Trip Handlines 1984 126 2 11964 2630.1 2620.6 1660 1985 101 198 11583 2363.5 2345.9 1453 1986 23 100 6576 1665.3 1512.7 1189 Longlines 1984 7.3 21 21084 4617.7 3905.2 4337 1985 59 189 18286 41n.3 3040.9 3668 1986 178 21 11355 2648.6 2398.9 1913 Calendar Oays Handlines 1984 53 0 13 5.3 3.5 5 Fished Per Trip 1985 58 1 12 3.3 2.6 3 1986 14 1 12 7.1 3.0 8 Longl ines 1984 43 2 16 7.7 4.2 7 1985 29 2 17 7.1 3.1 7 1986 94 1 15 6.4 3.9 6 NUTtIer of Handl ines 1984 69 1 8 3.9 1.9 4 Persons Aboard 1985 52 2 7 4.5 1.4 5 1986 18 1 6 2.3 1.1 2 Longlines 1984 41 2 5 3.8 0.8 4 1985 30 2 5 3.1 0.8 3 1986 120 1 5 2.8 1.0 3 PO\Jnds Per Handlines 1984 53 19 2117 699.8 431.8 653 Oay Fished 1985 58 44 2267 676.9 484.7 537 1986 14 89 1644 326.6 396.2 231 Longl ines 1984 43 10 1984 715.8 380.1 683 1985 29 86 1199 621.8 270.9 606 1986 94 12 1143 428.3 275.6 351 Pounds Per Man Handl inn 1984 48 10 423 146.4 76.6 136 Per Qay Fished 1985 50 15 756 151.1 120.9 121 1986 13 43 274 122.7 n.7 110 Longl inn 1984 33 41 397 188.8 87.6 186 1985 26 22 400 215.4 97.4 211 1986 75 6 550 146.2 88.4 147 Source: Unpublished trip interview dati IS of September 9, 1988, from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Office of Economics and Stltistics, 75 Virginia Beach Orive, MiaMi, Florida 33149. 109 TABLE 7.21. ESTIMATED CATCH BY SPECIES GROUP ~UMBERS OF REEF FISH CAUGHT BY RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1979-1986 (0 means less than 500 fish or pounds; • means no observations) Source: NMFS, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) . -------------------------. . ---------------------------------- .-- .. ---------------------------.------------------ .. Species-Group Year Est. Total S.E Est. IoIgt (A+81+B2 Total Est. A S.E. A Est. 81 S.E. Bl Est. B2 S.E. 82 A (1000 in 1000s) (1000s) (1000s) ( 1000s) ( 1000s) ( 1000s) ( 1000s) (lOaDs) Pounds) . .. ----+---------+--- . -.-+- . -----+---------+-----. . +--- .-. -+ . . ----+--- .-. -+ Red Snapper 1979 5,966 974 3,686 718 1,762 524 518 397 3,178 1980 4,146 428 2,223 229 1,842 361 81 25 5,813 1981 4,891 1,238 2,783 1,014 2,040 711 67 22 5,503 1982 3,792 1,464 3,034 1,423 699 342 58 36 4,306 1983 3,618 973 3,291 964 322 132 4 3 3,537 1984 1,296 326 623 190 650 264 23 19 963 1985 1,954 440 1,459 369 217 96 278 220 4,111 1986 645 189 443 181 178 53 24 8 927 Gray Snapper 1979 2,126 1,340 1,562 1,325 553 199 11 8 1,781 1980 845 130 459 89 222 85 163 42 489 1981 718 130 258 82 314 90 145 47 331 1982 6,490 2,995 1,439 751 2,562 2,075 2,490 2,026 1,237 1983 2,959 1,051 1,256 568 271 96 1,433 879 1,007 1984 3,012 736 781 282 1,916 670 315 115 608 1985 1,657 399 502 173 486 228 669 278 813 1986 1,561 318 493 145 568 199 500 202 445 Lane Snapper 1979 38 17 38 17 0 0 0 0 19 1980 109 27 74 20 17 14 18 12 127 1981 363 149 346 149 17 13 0 0 110 1982 410 115 247 94 140 67 23 12 208 1983 336 123 256 114 9 7 70 44 152 1984 800 516 52 31 n1 515 26 21 15 1985 284 264 284 264 a 0 0 a 105 1986 174 42 73 25 35 15 66 29 81 Vermilion 1979 768 382 698 381 27 15 43 24 485 Snapper 1980 670 143 340 65 330 128 1 1 134 1981 219 65 151 52 68 40 0 a 94 1982 1,202 458 1,185 458 8 8 9 9 1,216 1983 250 65 138 53 67 34 44 17 99 1984 420 161 390 161 14 7 16 6 208 1985 462 179 144 64 292 167 26 13 120 1986 303 106 95 8S 159 59 50 22 152 Yellowtail 1979 399 397 3 2 0 0 397 397 1 Snapper 1980 247 54 90 39 53 22 104 30 62 1981 1,494 646 1,312 642 91 51 90 43 969 1982 2,161 837 1,414 787 349 192 398 212 2,033 1983 930 344 539 294 136 50 255 173 433 1984 2,119 492 506 255 886 361 n7 215 408 1985 535 252 333 239 107 59 95 51 434 1986 302 78 100 36 101 62 101 30 163 Other 1979 252 83 71 16 126 80 55 18 13 Snappers 1980 273 52 183 44 48 18 41 20 170 1981 683 220 264 111 300 182 118 50 200 1982 882 217 479 174 155 76 24a 107 1,805 1983 329 97 216 88 62 30 51 26 713 1984 1,212 357 359 135 610 315 243 98 263 1985 187 47 76 29 60 27 51 24 149 1986 200 81 30 11 39 14 131 79 88 . --------.---------- ..... ..... ---..... ------- ..•...•..•••... -..... ------- ....... ..•........ ------ .... ~. (Continued) 110 TABLE 7.21. (continued) .. -..... - .-- . -. -----------------------------------------------------------.---. Species-Group Year Est . . Total S.E. Est. IIgt (A+81+82 Total Est. A S.E. A Est. 81 S.E. 81 Est. 82 S.E. 82 A <1000 in 10005) (10005) (10005) <1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (10005 ) (1000s) Pounds) +---------.---------+ . . . --+---------+---------+---------+ .-------+--- . ---+----- .. -. Red Grouper 1979 213 119 198 119 10 7 4 4 1,058 1980 185 32 144 24 33 20 8 4 588 1981 5n 183 208 94 273 154 96 32 933 1982 627 176 297 118 230 118 101 58 1,489 1983 n7 153 464 136 74 21 189 67 1,700 1984 1,615 401 360 128 871 354 383 137 1,337 1985 974 232 200 84 648 213 126 40 997 1986 1,067 238 225 159 411 127 431 123 738 Gag and Black 1979 756 373 149 27 136 38 471 370 793 Groupers 1980 638 111 393 73 136 65 108 52 1,625 19B1 B19 151 248 46 182 58 388 131 1,105 1982 970 194 420 142 389 123 161 48 2,796 1983 1,332 403 780 375 10O 33 452 145 2,982 1984 768 211 484 197 137 65 146 43 1,497 1985 1,278 278 623 173 335 162 320 146 3,762 1986 904 164 176 51 380 119 343 100 901 Other 1979 108 57 93 57 9 5 6 3 1,182 Groupers 1980 105 14 41 9 43 11 20 3 756 1981 318 236 233 234 78 25 7 4 921 1982 638 202 275 110 156 65 208 156 3,160 1983 154 34 123 32 24 11 8 5 412 1984 269 124 119 50 101 56 49 99 463 1985 631 345 376 324 71 42 184 111 1,592 1986 254 n 109 53 31 15 114 46 890 Sea Basses 1979 3,231 939 1,390 915 428 139 1,413 158 712 1980 1,182 142 412 96 198 53 571 90 247 1981 845 197 298 99 194 112 354 128 197 1982 4,150 1,317 1,329 380 288 99 2,533 1,257 885 1983 1,930 457 778 282 48 23 1,104 359 345 1984 1,175 362 304 85 93 49 778 348 267 1985 7,321 2,149 2,302 1,577 1,283 567 3,735 1,345 1,863 1986 2,390 329 536 209 688 165 1,166 193 481 White Grunt 1979 2,585 327 747 143 8n 225 1,265 184 582 1980 1,688 344 260 31 197 50 1,232 339 239 1981 3,162 1,693 2,456 1,684 217 70 489 164 1,106 1982 3,068 822 631 136 1,206 775 1,231 237 614 1983 2,782 437 782 205 601 147 1,399 357 333 1984 3,575 89S 1,187 610 716 349 1,672 554 436 1985 3,973 1,266 1,892 923 1,010 699 1,071 514 1,334 1986 992 151 314 78 128 49 550 120 191 Other Grunts 1979 468 231 108 71 297 217 63 34 36 1980 1,939 276 169 24 678 210 1,092 176 54 1981 1,800 318 510 207 469 130 821 204 344 1982 2,169 416 754 321 225 70 1,190 256 504 1983 1,439 266 238 83 228 99 974 232 73 1984 1,227 413 86 32 244 101 897 399 26 1985 1,751 302 170 61 234 59 1,346 290 46 1986 1,039 241 106 47 124 73 809 225 31 ~ .. ------.-----... --.-----.-----.. ---- •....•.••.•.. --- ... .... -.-.- ........ . - ..... .... -....... (Continued) III TABLE 7.2L (continued) .--.------.---------------.------ .--.-.-------.--------------------------------------.- . Species-Group Year Est. Total S.E. Es t. IIgt (A+81+82 Total Est. A S.E. A Est. 81 S.E 81 Est. 82 S.E. 82 A (1000 in 10005) (10005) (1000s) , (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) ( 1000s) ( 1000s) Pounds) +---------+------- .+-------.-.---------+--------.+-------.-+---------+------- .. + Porgies 1979 11,977 963 1,146 318 2,775 456 8,056 787 261 1980 13,358 1,184 1,431 '163 2,855 396 9,072 1,104 505 1981 11,128 1,238 1,087 275 2,251 423 7,790 1,130 710 1982 12,830 1,251 2,552 793 2,840 431 7,438 866 1,569 1983 11,602 1,967 544 111 2,137 383 8,921 1,927 225 1984 8,592 1,048 852 207 2,881 529 4,859 881 279 1985 10,494 1,113 750 213 3,182 545 6,562 947 478 1986 7,425 882 854 296 2,995 695 3,576 454 220 Ti lefishes 1979 5 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 18 1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1981 37 24 34 24 3 3 0 0 126 1982 305 150 24 22 0 0 281 148 8 Gray 1979 1,037 348 922 347 33 12 81 26 1,292 Triggerfish 1980 716 133 387 65 223 108 106 41 741 1981 729 228 403 199 179 77 147 81 604 1982 2,316 1,568 1,943 1,561 242 132 131 62 3,668 1983 164 31 sa 25 42 16 33 11 225 1984 221 130 55 21 29 13 137 127 137 1985 203 59 109 49 43 26 51 21 229 1986 214 69 32 12 127 46 55 50 100 ~rjacks 1979 215 107 102 52 102 93 12 6 1,370 1980 294 55 121 18 130 50 44 14 4,193 1981 237 72 187 68 41 25 9 6 1,428 1982 1,320 781 1,177 779 80 33 64 32 9,201 1983 320 80 173 57 62 20 84 52 1,791 1984 154 37 96 32 38 15 21 10 1,124 1985 275 61 227 55 46 26 1 1 2,11 I 1986 320 58 82 27 146 46 92 24 1,266 Total 1979 30,444 6,661 10,918 4,517 7,130 2,010 12,395 2,416 12,781 1980 26,395 3,125 6,727 989 7,005 1,591 12,661 1,953 15,744 1981 28,020 6,781 10,178 4,980 6,717 2,164 10,521 2,042 14,681 1982 43,330 12,963 17,200 8,049 9,569 4,606 16,564 5,522 34,699 1983 28,872 6,481 9,666 3,387 4,183 1,102 15,021 4,297 14,027 1984 26,455 6,209 6,254 2,416 9,907 3,663 10,292 3,072 8,031 1985 31,979 7,386 9,447 4,597 8,014 2,916 14,515 4,001 18,144 1986 17,790 3,018 3,661 1,415 6,110 1,737 8,013 1,705 6,674 -.---- ..... -- .. .. ----.-.. -.... -.. -.. --•.••................. .......... -- .............. --------- ... -... --. 112 Group Year TABLE 7.22. ESTIMATED TOTAL CATCH (TYPES A+Bl+B2) BY STATE AND SPECIES ~UMBERS OF REEF FISH CAUGHT BY RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1979'1986 (0 means less than SOD fish; . means no observations) Source: NMFS, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total ..... ------- •. +-- .•. --------+---------------.---------------+---------------+ Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total (10005) (10005) (10005) (10005) (lOaDs) (10005) (1000s) (1000s) (10005) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) '--+-------+--- .--+-------+. . ---+-------+-------+-------+- . . -+-------+-------+-------+ Snappers 1979 1,410 158 4,988 1,632 862 273 1 1 2,288 540 9,549 2,604 1980 104 23 2,904 269 1,598 231 58 20 1,626 316 6,290 859 1981 1,079 368 3,869 732 2,m 1,048 647 522 8,366 2,670 1982 635 322 11,521 3,161 2,7'52 1,410 29 16 14,937 4,909 1983 1,385 675 4,898 1,128 2,066 686 8 8 64 33 8,421 2,530 1984 893 269 7,214 1,082 711 255 a a 40 22 8,858 1,628 1985 453 168 3,331 580 612 243 2 2 682 312 5,080 1,305 1986 253 128 2,613 350 302 154 17 11 3,185 643 +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+. . ---+-------+-- .. --+-- . . +-------+ Groupers 1979 4 1,044 395 6 4 23 19 1,0n 419 1980 909 116 5 I 2 12 I 928 119 1981 10 4 1,703 334 I 1 1,714 339 1982 23 14 2,184 330 13 5 15 5 2,235 354 1983 2 1 2,186 432 26 16 2,214 449 1984 I I 2,429 432 7 3 0 a 214 185 2,651 621 1985 26 12 2,849 500 8 6 2,883 518 1986 14 8 2,194 297 13 8 5 7 ~ . 2.226 320 -------- .+ ........... + ••••••• + ....... + .. -.. -.+.-.----+ ...... +- ... -.+ •••••• +. . --+ •••• -+---- ... +.-- ..•. + ••••••• Other Reef 1979 503 82 17,954 1,430 75 14 53 II 1,233 223 19,818 1,760 Fish 1980 175 30 14,183 1,087 596 134 469 422 3,753 509 19,176 2,182 1981 219 68 I 1,924 1,917 374 109 147 48 5,276 950 17,940 3,092 1982 179 69 22,277 2,653 522 147 155 33 3,026 417 26,159 3,319 1983 584 189 14,895 2,022 n8 360 165 56 1,864 300 18,236 2,927 1984 205 54 13,548 1,483 17'5 35 229 74 781 101 14,944 1,747 1985 383 85 20,262 2,683 1,031 518 95 32 2,246 288 24,017 3,606 1986 237 48 1 I ,431 9n 396 99 315 136 12,379 1,255 •••••••••• + ••••••••••• + ••••••• + ••..••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••••• + ••••.•• + .••.••• Total 1979 1,917 241 23,986 3,457 943 291 54 12 3,544 782 30,444 4,783 1980 279 53 17,996 1,4n 2,199 366 529 443 5,391 826 26,394 3,160 1981 1,308 440 17,496 2,983 3,145 1,157 147 48 5,924 1,473 28,020 6,101 1982 837 405 35,982 6,144 3,287 1,562 199 54 3,026 417 43,331 8,582 1983 1,971 865 21,979 3,582 2,820 1,062 173 64 1,928 333 28,871 5,906 1984 1,099 324 23,191 2,997 893 293 229 74 1,041 308 26,453 3,996 1985 862 265 26,442 3,763 1,651 767 97 34 2,928 600 31,980 5,429 1986 504 184 16,238 1,619 711 261 337 154 17,790 2,218 -.-....... .... ---.- .......••.• - ...... -- ... . -.--.. --- ........ -.--.... . . --.-- .... ---.- .- ... -...... ------- . Notes: Est. A = the esti ... ted nud»r of type A fish caught (in thousands), based on the nurtler of whole fish avai lable for inspection (catch type A) by MRFSS interyievers. S.E. A = the standlrd error of the .. timate of catch type A, in thousands of fish. Est. B1z the IStimeted nud»r of type 11 ffsh caught, based on fish that were not Iy.ilable for inspection in whole fonft (f.e., fish that were filleted, used for bait, discarded deed, etc.). . Est. B2z the estimated number of fish that were caught and relea.ed IliYe (catch type B2). 113 TABLE 7.23. ESTIMATED TOTAL CATCH (TYPES A+Bl+B2) BY MODE OF FISHING AND SPECIES ~UMBERS OF REEF FISH CAUGHT BY RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1979-1986 (0 means less than 500 fish; • means no observations) Source: NMFS, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Species-Group Year Shore Charter boat Party/charter Private/rental Total .----+-------- . --- . +-------. - . . --.----.-. --.-. ---+ . . --------- . Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total ( 1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) (1000s) < 1000s) <1000s) . . ---+----- . +----- . +--------+---- .. -+--------+ . . ---+ . .---+--------+-- . .--+ Snappers 1979 1,419 743 5,008 1,609 3,122 335 9,549 2,687 1980 315 58 2,921 350 3,054 318 6,290 726 1981 331 71 3,815 1,086 4,220 926 8,366 2,083 1982 662 125 11,287 3,426 2,987 580 14,936 4,131 1983 2,726 1,065 3,488 836 2,206 659 8,420 2,560 1984 881 185 2,436 456 5,542 1,041 8,859 1,682 1985 310 83 1,513 344 3,257 631 5,080 1,058 1986 875 237 662 152 1,647 288 3,184 677 +--------------+--------.--------.--------.--------.--------+--------.--------.--------+--------.-----. Groupers 1979 490 523 192 125 394 60 1,076 708 1980 57 19 307 35 565 109 929 163 1981 145 47 1,041 320 528 89 1,714 456 1982 32 13 571 164 1,632 287 2,235 464 1983 77 36 421 64 1,715 426 2,213 526 1984 306 189 602 183 1,743 390 2,651 762 1985 27 8 871 188 1,984 464 2,882 660 1986 87 26 202 31 1,937 295 2,226 352 .--------------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------+--------.--------.--------+--------. Other Reef 1979 7,688 1,265 1,981 1,001 10,149 540 19,818 2,806 Fish 1980 9,274 1,474 1,749 201 8,153 638 19,176 2,m 1981 9,255 1,453 1,540 324 7,145 1,803 17,940 3,580 1982 10,035 1,145 7,323 2,296 8,800 1,096 26,158 4,537 1983 9,149 2,068 1,482 250 7,606 826 18,237 3,144 1984 5,977 870 953 189 8,013 1,337 14,943 2,396 1985 7,340 1,162 1,823 345 14,855 2,600 24,018 4,107 1986 5,397 812 983 170 6,000 535 12,380 1,517 .--------------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------+--------.--------.--------+--------. Total 1979 9,597 2,531 7,181 2,735 13,665 935 30,443 6,201 1980 9,646 1,551 4,977 586 11,772 1,065 26,395 3,202 1981 9,731 1,571 6,396 1,730 11,893 2,818 28,020 6,119 1982 10,729 1,283 19,181 5,886 13,419 1,963 43,329 9,132 1983 11,952 3,169 5,391 1,150 11,527 1,911 28,870 6,230 1984 7,164 1,244 3,991 828 15,298 2,768 26,453 4,840 1985 7,677 1,253 4,207 877 20,096 3,695 31,980 5,825 1986 6,359 1,075 1,847 353 9,584 1,118 17,790 2,546 .-. ----. - .-. --------- .... - .... . .- ......... - . .......... -.. --.- ... --- .. -. -.... -- ... -.. -. .. -- ........ Notes: Est. A • thl .. tiNted r'UlWr of type A ffsh caught (fn thousands), t.sed on thl ruaer of whole fish aVli lable for inspection (catch type A) by MRFSS intlrvitwtrl. S E. A • thl st ..... rd Irror of th ... tiNtl of catch type A, in thousands of ff.h. .. Est. Bl- thl estiNted rumer of type .1 ffsh caught, t..ed on fish thlt Wlrl not avai labl. for inspection in whole fonn (i.e , fish that Wire filleted, used for t.it, dfscarded deed, ItC.). Est. B2- the estimated rumer of fish that Wire caught and released alive (catch type B2). 114 Year TABLE 7.24. ESTIMATED TOTAL CATCH (TYPES A+Bl+B2) BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE AND SPECIES NUMBERS OF REEF FISH CAUGHT BY RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1979-1986 (0 aeans less than 500 fish; . .eans no observations) Source: NMFS, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Ocean «=3 .i) Ocean (> 3 .i) Ocean «=lOmi) Ocean (>10 .i) Inland Unknown Total +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ Est. S.E. Total Total 1000s l000s Est. S.L Total Total l000s l000s Est. S.E. Total Total l000s 1000s Est. S.E. Total Total 1000s l000s Est. S.L Total Total 1000s 1000s Est. S.L Total Total 1000s l000s Est. S L Total Total tOOOs tOOOs +-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ Snappers 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1916 1,393 173 975 6,598 3,111 3,2n 19 32 596 47 191 2,919 1,041 589 9 19 4,302 3,007 5,372 4,540 2,010 1,4a8 990 544 621 386 1,263 1,640 685 367 291 200 742 453 945 147 2,255 2,533 2,029 143 486 278 125 708 539 335 1,634 812 2,636 860 1,482 1,401 444 198 241 888 269 565 377 84 2,269 397 89 138 122 199 85 134 1,379 107 54 65 42 74 33 51 1,585 337 665 80 2,103 163 53 643 67 335 53 746 57 44 9,549 6,290 8,366 14,937 8,420 8,859 5,081 3,183 3,239 948 2,570 5,843 2,908 2,360 1,293 689 +------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+-----.+-------+ Groupers 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 519 35 223 781 736 963 4 2 371 7 52 191 173 234 2 2 207 147 124 369 26 4 29 43 50 45 35 167 16 2 13 17 224 68 142 209 592 860 641 83 331 27 1,151 45 819 84 1,084 186 1,015 239 1,882 70 1,521 41 228 194 384 345 431 289 351 162 19 115 13 51 107 19 129 53 7 13 35 53 82 11 29 129 10 86 25 1,077 11 928 234 1,714 5 2,236 28 2,214 97 2,65,0 2,882 2,226 550 240 583 675 720 917 767 389 +------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+-~----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ Other 1979 Reef Fish 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 2,534 1,135 7,544 12,277 10,979 10,200 1,085 271 328 502 1,005 992 1,n8 1,222 171 70 3,m 991 3,265 1,766 451 92 169 93 419 156 1,705 810 250 29 45 29 2,105 691 1,825 1,382 1,580 12,535 6,800 367 182 533 310 294 1,677 622 1,448 1,509 5,913 2,083 1,086 7,212 2,132 220 341 2,236 433 400 2,086 336 13,396 8,652 3,185 3,671 2,647 1,342 2,981 3,083 1,338 656 438 522 980 282 602 685 111 4,846 1,146 707 694 643 34 171 19,818 2,256 865 19,177 2,766 584 17,940 4,255 199 26,159 5,292 232 18,236 3,933 632 14,943 2,859 26 24,016 4,607 12,379 1,742 +------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+ Total 1979 4,446 1,295 8,286 1,090 16,016 2,846 1,696 814 30,444 6,045 Notes: 1980 1,343 556 4,145 587 3,011 593 3,413 459 9,211 816 5,212 943 26,395 3,954 1981 8,742 1,248 8,761 3,003 1,212 695 3,472 810 3,293 499 2,540 1,153 28,020 7,408 1982 19,656 4,102 6,675 2,617 2,912 856 9,368 3,318 3,924 660 797 257 43,332 11,810 1983 14,893 2,942 2,487 951 1,738 519 4,027 1,086 2,842 1,057 2,883 1,006 28,870 7,561 1984 14,435 2,045 1,584 398 4,427 1,188 3,583 1,310 1,592 409 831 786 26,452 6,136 1985 1,108 182 1,188 349 15,928 2,455 10,495 2,894 3,173 717 87 70 31.979 6.667 1986 305 91 680 246 9,470 1,027 4,097 109 3,236 747 17,788 2,820 Est. A = the estimated number of type A fish caught (in thousands), based on the number of whole fish available for inspection (catch type A) by MRfSS interviewers. S.E. A = the standard error of the estimate of catch type A, in thousandS of fish. Est. B1= the estimated number of type B1 fish caught. based on fish that were not available for inspection in whole torlll (i.e., fish that were filleted, used for bait, discarded dead, etc.). Est. B2= the estimated number of fish that were caught and released alive (catch type 82). Table 7.25. ~arine Recreational Fishing Effort Estimated by the ~arine Recrlational Fishlry Statistics Survey (~RFSS) NUli:ler of Fishing Trips (Thousards) 1919 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Flo .. idl! rripa 10,750 11,904 9,217 12,103 10,224 11,451 13,3n 13,1.36 5.1. S46 995 2,124 2,989 1,482 911 1,325 1,070 Alablllle r .. ipa 1,012 989 523 962 1,139 521 603 67'; 5.1. 187 267 105 225 295 78 91 109 ~issi !Sippi r .. ipa 655 1,319 581 576 909 546 536 672 s .•• 87 306 136 104 163 97 67 178 Louisia". T .. lpa 3,170 2,994 1,611 2,167 2,M2 1,434 2,446 3,114 S.I. 405 351 203 285 315 163 4~ 1.25 rlxa. r .. lpa 5,685 7,265 7,157 4,712 5,365 2,445 7,270 5.'. 467 655 131 435 426 244 692 Totll T .. fpa 21,273 24,471 19,089 20,520 20,500 16,397 24,227 17,897 s ••• 1,067 1,306 2,299 3,044 1,609 965 1,578 1,170· • Th ... tf,.t .. fo .. 1986 exclude flshi,. t .. ipa in r.XI. end tr i 1=11 on tI.~ ts " '\ .ls~ .... in the IUlf. . 116 TABLE 7.26. Distribution of reef fish .vessels by state and gear type fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, 1982 • 1986. * Nurber of vessels .......................................................... -........ - ............................................. 'fear State Traps Stabnet Handl ine Longl ine Totals 1982 FL 10 0 603 205 818 AL 0 0 7 0 7 MS 0 0 12 0 12 LA 0 0 0 0 0 TX 0 0 67 36 103 Totals 10 0 689 241 940 1983 FL 18 17 497 192 n4 AL 0 0 7 0 7 MS 0 0 12 0 12 LA 0 0 0 0 0 TX 0 0 28 0 28 Totals 18 17 544 192 n1 1984 FL 43 35 502 202 782 AL 0 0 7 1 8 MS 0 0 12 0 12 LA 0 0 46 3 49 TX 0 0 26 45 71 Totals 43 35 593 251 922 1985 FL 60 33 481 224 798 AL 0 0 1 8 MS 0 0 12 0 12 LA 0 0 54 4 58 TX 0 0 18 26 44 Totals 60 33 512 255 920 1986 FL 50 20 506 207 183 AL 0 0 1 1 8 MS 0 0 12 0 12 LA 0 0 10 9 19 TX 0 0 15 25 40 Totals 50 20 610 242 922 ... ..............•............... •.••••..•...•...•.....•. * Personal communication fro. Ernie Snell, NMFS, December, 1987. There may be some duplication between gears and stites due to the flexibility and mobility of reef fish vessels. 117 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS OF ALL REEF FISH (EXCLUDING fOREIGN CATCH) BY PERCENT Of CATCH fOR EACH GEAR TYPE fROM 1972-1986. Data froa MMfS Stock Assea~t (Goodyear, 198Bb). Year GEAR TYPE 19n 1971 1974 1975 1976 1917 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Hand/Power Linn O.U 0 •• 0.91 0.9] 0.96 0.91 0.92 0.92 O.U 0.71 0.62 Langt inn 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.16 Fhih Jr..- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0] 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 ShrillP Jrawta 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Fiah ·Jrawla 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miae. G.ara 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0] 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 unctesai lied 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.0] 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jotets 11111 16994 1149Z 19161 1174] 14800 13805 15710 15782 20176 25103 1983 1984 1985 Totals 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.80 0.31 0.28 0.25 O.ll 0.00 0.02 0.01. 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01. 0.02 22637 22022 22399 26la42 . ----------------.. -------------.---------------------------.-----.-----------. Note: 1916 Floriu t .... i ... b¥ .. er tp ere not pr ...... tly aveilabte. ,..... t oo TABLE 7.28 Gulf of Mexico Reef fish trap catch (pounds) for 1975 - 1985 by major species groups. Only Florida has reported fish trap catch of reef fish. Groupers Grunts Sea Bass Snappers 1975 14,600 61,100 22,200 1,400 1976 40,200 3,500 27,900 8,600 1977 154,300 23,000 55,700 1978 319,200 31,100 4,000 72,000 1979 126,600 8,500 12,600 146,000 1980 84,116 8,203 6,511 86,054 1981 89,411 14,281 4,096 65,371 1982 106,117 8,901 2,192 41,199 1983 42,650 3,139 2,437 58,290 1984 572,172 11,658 1,449 50,600 1985 815,475 7,945 744 65,242 Data from NMFS General Canvas Landings Data: 119 .TABLE 7.29 A~~?AGE 3Y~ATCH Of RED SNAPPER rNU~BERS OF F!SH) ASD SH?r~p ?RODUCT!ON (POUNDS, HEADS OFF), 1972-L985 !5eas=ns: ~ar~=May-November: cool=Dece~ber-April. Z=~es: ~es~=:X: central=L~-AL; east=W fL.) SEASON ZONE WARM WEST CENTRAL EAST COOL WEST CENTRAL EAST GRANO TOTAL DEPTH <10 FM >10 fM <10 fM >10 FM <10 FM >10 FM <10 FM >10 FM <10 fM >10 E'M <10 E'M >10 .FM RED SNAPPER 1872528 3691828 2254612 1876045 191970 185610 470443 971757 501328 511449 66344 70843 12664 7S 7 SHRIM? L4574025 25935253 17363783 7530073 1395459 1155929 2762595 4169932 3377172 2718742 793649 540234 82316846 Data fro. Nichola, parsonal co •• unication to Gr.90 ry, 1988. 120 'TABLE 7.30 Pol,,. I.atl tude I.ongl tude I.o,.an C Coord Inat 2 ~O. ~.ference I.ocatlon ' (Nortll) ( est) " X '( Z 1 I(ey est 24· 33.0' 81· 48.7' 13927.8 30238.2 '36~.2 526 ".1 2 "'.,.quesas I<ey 24· ".0 82· 06.2' 13894.' 30189.2 '3748.8 62726.6 3 ~ulf/Soutll Atlantic Sounda,.y 24· 3'.0' 83· 00.0' 13768.' 29992.2 "049.2 62941.1 4 Tortugas Sank South 24· 36.0' 83· 06.0' 13"3.4 U08~.4 62965.5, Tortugas Sank Nortll 24· 4~.0' 83· 04.0' 13772.3 u087.4 62960.3 6 es t of S,.' til Silo.' 24· 48.0' 8Z· 06." 13915.1 43760.2 62727.7 7 Oft C.pe Sable 2'· ".0 8Z· OZ.O' 13974.7 43"9.8 62704.9 8 Off Sanibel ,,1.'" 26· 26.0' 82· 29.0' 14060.3 43117.4 62824.3 9 Off S.nlbel lsi .... 26· 26.0' 82· ".0' 13990.0 43347.6 62970.7 10 Of f Anc tO1'e Keys ze· 10.0' 83· 45.0' 1414'.8 4'321.0 632156.8 II Off AnclO1'e Keys ze· 10.0' 83· 14.0' 14224.3 4'092.0 63086.4 12 Of f Oe.IMn Bay 29· 31.0' ,,- 00.0' 14412.4 4"67.7 6"'42.2 13 SW of Cape S.n SI •• 29· 30." ,,- 'Z.O' 13173.2 46702.0 639715.2 14 Oft St. And".s Bay 29- 53.0' 86- 10.0' 13116.' 46922.3 64050.8 1, Desoto C.nyOft 30- 06.0' 86- ".0' 13434.6 30600.6 4704'.' 16 AI.~/'lorlda lin. 29- 34." ,,. 31.0' 12171.' 30023.4 46116.0 17 Off bll. Bay 29- 41.0' 8'- 00.0' 12766 ' 29141.2 46930.' 18 Nlssls.'ppI/AI.~ lin. JO- 01." 8'- 23.7' 12537.6 29697.7 47021.3 19 Ch..... leu" Isla"', 30- 01." 8'- ".0' 12212.0 29422.2 47021.6 20 sabin. PIIS 29- 39.0' 93- 4'." 11027.' 26367.1 46966.6 21 T....tLoul".n. lin., lOUt" 28- 31 0' ,,- 32.0' 11139.4 26220.7 4661'.1 22 Oft GaIVie'to" lsI.'" ze- 2'.0' ,,- 00.0' 11016.2 2'301.9 4"'7.0 23 Off GalVie.ton Isla'" 21- Of " ,,- 00.0' 11036.' 2"".4 46909.0 Z Lo"a" cooNl"at••r. prowl4ed to al4 the tI ......" affected by the •••". and a". SUbject 1'0 local vlrlatlons due to .tlmepfterlc condltlou, the"efo,.., .,.. ,,01' U..... p."'" of the legal descriptio" of the .tr....."... 121 8. STATOS OP THE REEP PISR STOCKS 8.1. Red Snapper 8.1.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. The bulk of the commercial catch of red snapper is from the northern Gulf of Mexico between Panama city, Florida, and Galveston, Texas, with a decided peak in grids 13 and 14 off Louisiana (Figures 8.la and lb; Table 8.2). A significant proportion of the snapper landed in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi was harvested from areas west of the Mississippi River. Louisiana and Texas landings of red snapper are dominated by fish caught off each respective state (Goodyear 1988a). Reported commercial landings in 1987 were the lowest since 1972 (Tables 8.1 and 8.2). The landings of red snapper taken in fish trawls, shrimp trawls, and fish traps were much less than those attributable to handlines and bandit rigs (power reels) (Table 8.2). Red snapper longline landings increased in the early 1980's to a peak in 1983 but have subsequently declined. Recreational harvest. About 70% of the estimated number of red snapper caught by recreational fishermen in 1986 was from Louisiana and Texas. These data indicate a substantial decline in the numbers and weight of red snapper landed by recreational fishermen since 1979 (Tables 8.1 and 8.3). Combined catch. The combined landings of red snapper by all components of the fishery declined since 1979 and 1980 (Tables 8.1 8.3). Both the commercial and recreational components were lower in 1987 than in any previous year. 8.1.2. Trends in Recruitment Indices of juvenile abundance ~ere obtained from the Fall Groundfish Survey conducted by the NMFS Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS (data courtesy of Scott Nichols). This survey is conducted using bottom trawls. For each set, the number of snapper caught, their total weight and the trawl duration are known. This information provides an index of numerical abundance (i.e., the number captured per trawl hour). It also provides information on the mean size of the red snapper that are caught. Data are available from 1972 to 1988. Mean size ranged from 0.08 to 0.29 lb during the period, indicating that most of the fish caught are very small. Thus, annual variations in the number caught per hour would be expected to largely reflect variations in the abundance of juvenile (pre-recruit) red snapper. These data then provide a time- series of juvenile abundance estimates beginning in 1972, and suggest that recruitment was lower in each of the last 6 years than in any of the previous years (Figure 8.2). 121 The total annual harvest of 10 and 11 inch red snapper by recreational fishermen was derived as a product of the sampled length frequency and estimated total numbers harvested (Table 8.5). The estimated harvest of these fish by the recreational fishery was significantly correlated with the juvenile abundance index the previous year (Figure 8.3). The strength of the relation is exceptional given all the known potential sources of error (R2=0. 97: p<O. 001) . Nonetheless , it argues that the decl ine in landings in recent years is in part explained by reduced recruitment. 8.1.3. Meristics and Growth Data sources. Meristic and growth characteristics were evaluated using a composite of length and other measurements of Gulf of Mexico red snapper that have been collected by investigators throughout the years. A description of the data and sources are given in Parrack (1986a and 1986b) and Parrack and McClellan (1986), who obtained and maintained computer files of the various data sets. The data in these files constitute the base of information upon which the present meristic and growth analyses were developed. The present analysis converted all length data to inches (see.Goodyear, 1988a). Length conversions. The relation between fork (FL, in), standard (SL, in), and total lengths (TL, in) is TL = 0.038 + 1.275 * SL (r2 = 0.99, n = 1285), and TL = 0.120 + 1.070 * FL (r2 = 0.99, n = 265). Length to weight conversions. The length (TL, in) - weight (W, lb) relation is W = 0.000414 *TL3•07 (r2 = 0.97, n = 4143) • Growth. The previous assessment used separate growth models for the eastern and western Gulf based on the fact that the parameter values fitted to a von Bertalanffy growth equation were significantly different between the two areas. However, the predicted lengths at age from the two models are very similar over the range of the data to which they were fitted (Figure 8.5), suggesting that growth could be characterized by a single equation. A von Bertalanffy model was fitted to the back-calculated lengths by least squares. The reSUlting fit is plotted along with a scattergram of the observed lengths at age and the mean of backcalculated lengths in Figure 8.6. Actual age at capture for these fish was determined by adding to the integer of the age, the fractfon of a year which had elapsed from the previous June 15 when the fish was captured (i.e., annulus formation on June 15). 122 The predicted lengths· from the von Bertalanffy equation were compared with mean observed length at capture by age class. Mean length at age was simply the mean of lengths of fish in an age class, and mean age was the mean of the estimated actual ages. There was generally good agreement between the mean back-calculated lengths, mean lengths at capture, and the predicted length. A least squares fit of the inverted von Bertalanffy equation was performed for estimating age as a function of length (Figure 8.7). 8.1.4. Size composition of the Harvest The age composition of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock by year was estimated by assigning ages to sampled length distributions by year using the inverted von Bertalanffy equation of Figure 8.7. It is apparent from the length frequencies of Figures 8.8 th.at there are large differences in the sizes of fish captured by various gears. In particular, the hydraulic and electric powered reels (bandit rigs) catch larger fish than hand lines, bottom longlines catch even larger fish, and buoys catch a different size composition than of the other gears. The commercial landings data are categorized by gear of capture: however, there is no distinction in the landings data between hand lines and hydraulic/electric (bandit) lines, and there is no category for red snapper landed through the use of buoys. As a result, the commercial landings were stratified into fish caught via longlines and those caught by all other gears combined. J Unknowns were assigned to the latter category. Recreational landings and lengths were pooled across fishing modes by year. This convention provided three strata for which annual length frequencies and landings estimates were required - the catch by recr~ational fishermen, longlines, and by all other gears comb~ned. The required length samples could not be constructed for all combinations of gear and year. Length measurements were inadequate for describing lengths of the harvests in 1980, 1981, 198.2, and 1983 for commercial gear other than longlines and in 1980, 1981, and 1983 for bottom longlines. In contrast to the small numbers of length measurements for the commercial fishery components in some years, large numbers of red snapper have been measured from the recreational fishery for each year for which catches were estimated. The combined length and age frequencies from the three harvesting strata are presented in Tables 8.6 and 8.7 for 1979 and 1984-1986. Commercial harvest. Red snapper measured from unknown gear, traWls, trolling lines, and hand lines were predominately less than 17 inc~s (Goodyear 1988a, Figure 8.8). In contrast, the sample of fish taken on electric and hydraulic reels tended to be larger, with the majority between 17 and 24 inches. However, the sample of fish caught with this gear was dominated by observations from 123 the Eastern GUlf, ,and those from the West were of lengths similar to the hand lines. Fish sampled from the bottom longline catches tended to be even larger than those captured by hydraulic and electric reels but represented a broad range of sizes. The distribution was bimodal with those sampled from the Western Gulf responsible for the mode with the largest fish. Fish sampled from the buoy catch represented a broad size range from the Western Gulf. It would appear from these data that red snapper have been commercially harvested from about 9 inches to about 40 inches for the period 1983-1987. The harvest in the Western Gulf represents a broader size distribution than those to the east, primarily as a result of the inclusion of larger numbers of smaller fish. Recreational harvest. Intercept data from MRFSS provide length measurements for samples of fish encountered during the interviews. These data permit characterization of the length frequencies of landings by fishinq mode and are available since 1979. Similar data were gathered in the 1986 headboat survey. The lenqth frequency from the MRFSS samples from party boats for 1979-1985 range from 6 inches to about 35 inches with a peak at 11 inches (Figure 8.9). Fish above 20 inches are rare. Data from the 1986 headboat survey are similar with a peak at 11 inches (Figure 8.10). The same pattern is repeated for charter boats and private/rental boats. The lenqth frequencies of all modes sampled by MRFSS are similar and suqqests that the red snapper are fully vulnerable to the recreational fishery by 11 inches. The 1986 headboat survey provided lenqth samples for seven areas of the Gulf. Those from the western Gulf locations differed from areas to the east in that the decline in relative abundance with increasinq size fell more rapidly from the peak of about 11 inches (Goodyear 1988a). As a result, snapper in the 15 to 17 inch range are less represented in the Texas samples. A similar trend was evident with lenqth frequencies from the 1979-1987 MRFSS intercept data. This difference may be the effect of the nature of the fisheries, or the result of the larqer samples from Texas. These data are consistent with a hiqher mortality rate on the newly recruited fish in the Western Gulf which would cause a more rapid decline of these incominq year classes. Such a hiqher mortality rate is also consistent with the previous observation that the commercial fishery in the Western Gulf beqins harvestinq red snapper at a smaller size than is typical in the Eastern Gulf. 8.1.5 .. Mortality Estimates Goodyear (1988a) estimated mortalities with two different methods however only the results based on the catch curve analysis are 124 presented here. A' comparison of the catch curves for 1979 and 1984-1986 suggests a relative change in the shape of the curve between the two periods (Figure 8.11). The change, if real, could be interpreted as an increase in the mortality rate after 1979. However, the apparent difference is not very persuasive and may simply reflect the effect of the strength of the 1972 year class on the estimated age distribution. Estimates of total mortality rates (Z) from these catch curves are: 1979 - Z = 0.63 (R2 = o . 9 5); 1984 - Z = o. 47 (R2 = O. 97); 198 5 - Z = O. 54 (R2 = o. 96) ; 1986 - Z = 0.53 (R2 = 0.93). The estimated mean from this approach would be 0.54 which, if the natural mortality rate (M) is a constant 0.2, would imply an average fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.34 for all ages. Catch curve estimates for each gear type based on data from all years combined (Figure 8.12) produced a range of Z (F) estimates from 0.38 (0.18) to 0.81 (0.51) with an overall estimate of 0.53 (0.33). These estimates are intermediate of fishing mortality rates ranges of 0.58-0.74 for Louisiana and 0.23-0.25 for West Florida estimated by Nelson and Manooch (1982). The present analysis is directed at the Gulf of Mexico stock as a whole, and might be expected to produce mortality estimates intermediate between those observed from the two local i ties by Nelson and Manooch (1982). However given that the bulk of both the recreational and commercial fishery is to the west of Florida, their Louisiana estimates may be more comparable to the results of this study. In any event, their results do not appear to be . ;/ inconsistent with the current estimates. For purposes of further analysis F will be assumed to be constant at F=0.34 (constant F). 8.1.6. Fecundity and Maturity Fecundity. The relation between length and ovarian weight (Figure 8.4; Goodyear, 1988a) is expressed by Gonad Weight - 1.018 * 10.7 + TL5•87 Fecundity (Fee) in number of eggs produced has also be estimated by Collins et ale (unpublished manuscript) relative to fork length (FL, mm) and total fish weight (W, grams) as Fee =- 5.146 * 10.8 + FL3•79 Fee = 5.463 * 10.2 + W'·24 (r2 = 0.53, n = 51), and (r2 = 0.60, n = 51). As typical of other species, gonad weight increases more rapidly with length than does the total weight· of the fish. Seasonality. spawning occurs from spring through fall for red snapper with peak activity in the late summer. Nelson (1988) observed female red snapper with ripe ovaries only during the summer months in the Flower Gardens. Camber (1955) reported 125 spawning activity from. July through September but with a peak of activity in July and August. Futch and Bruger (1976) observed spawning in the eastern Gulf from July through October with peak acti vi ty in August and September. Similarly ColI ins et al. (unpublished manuscript) reported the spawning season to extend from May through September. Maturity. Red snapper appear to first obtain sexual maturity sometime in ages 2 and 3 (Futch and Bruger, 1976) or after 286 mm (11 in) FL (Nelson, 1988). Camber (1955) also reported maturity to be from 300 to 320 mm (12-13 in) FL. However, Collins et ale (unpublished manuscript) based on a more extensive analysis of maturation at size concluded that most males and females did not mature until 425 mm (17 in) and 375 mm (15 in) respectively. 8.1.7. Yield and Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit Yield computations. Yield-per-recruit calculations (Goodyear, 1988a) utilized the Beverton and Holt yield model (Ricker 1975), modified to reflect the mortality suffered by undersized fish that are released upon capture (Waters and Huntsman 1986). Based on the observed length frequencies in the existing red snapper directed fishery, the fish were assumed to be fully vulnerable to the fishery at 10 inches TL. Growth parameters were from Figure 8.6 with the maximum weight (W.) estimated from Lw using the length weight relation described earlier. Natural mortality (M) was assumed to be 0.20 (Nelson and Manooch 1982). The results are presented as curves of constant yield over the range of minimum size and fishing mortality examined. CUrves were plotted for 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99% of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space examined (Figures 8.13 and 8.14). Spawning stock biomass computations. Spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) was evaluated as the average lifetime production of eggs per recruit at equilibrium population densities, plus those eggs that would have been produced under conditions of optimum growth and natural mortality (see Goodyear 1988a). The SSBR was evaluated as the ratio (percentage) of the fished to the unfished level for each combination of minimum size and fishing mortality examined in the yield per recruit analyses (Figures 8.13 and 8.14) . Results. In the absence of release mortality, biomass yield would be maximized by delaying harvest until the fish reach about 27 inches TL and then subjecting them to high fishing mortality (Figure 8.13). As the release mortality increased, the optimum minimum size and fishing mortality fell (Goodyear,1988a). At a release mortality of 33%, the maximum yield would occur at a minimum size of about 20 inches at F a 0.2. These results suggest that management for maximum yield per recruit through minimum size regulations must account for existing fishing mortality in setting size limits or somehow control the fishing mortality rate. 126 Given the current sizes harvested the SSBR ratio was estimated to be about 20% at an fishing mortality rate of 0.08 (Figure 8.14). However, it is clear that the protection afforded the spawning stock by minimum size regulations diminishes as the mortality of released fish rises. 8.1.8. Shrimp Bycatch The shrimp industry I s bycatch of age a (young-of-the-year) red snapper, as estimated in Nichols et. ale (1987) suggests that the impact of the shrimp bycatch could easily exceed a million pounds annually (Table 8.8; Goodyear, 1988a). Depending on the true survival rates the loss could be as great as the existing catch. The strong correlation between the juvenile index and subsequent recreational catch is indicative of remarkably constant and high survival of juveniles between the period they are exposed to bycatch mortality and the time they enter the directed fishery. These estimates compare favorably with those derived by Powers et. ale (1987) who estimated that the elimination of the bycatch could increase recruitment to the fishery and long term yield by 10% to 90% for the Nichols et. ale (1987). 8.1.9. Spawning stock Status The current status of the spawning stock was evaluated using the SSBR methods described above. The analysis was performed for constant F as defined above. The SSBR ratio was estimated to be 0.048, considerably below the 0.20 guideline established by the Council as an indicator of overfishing • . Presently the commercial handline fishery is having the most dramatic impact on spawning stock followed, in order of decreasing impact, by the recreational, bottom longline, and shrimp trawl fisheries (Table 8.9). The relative. impacts of each fishery on the spawning stock was derived by examining the impact of a particular fishery given that it was the only source of mortality on the red snapper population. However, all the above fisheries are impacting the red snapper population; the shrimp trawl, handline and recreational fisheries are harvesting or killing too many juveniles to allow replenishment of the spawning stock and longlines are depressing the abundance of older larger spawning fish. At the current rate of fishing both the landings and spawning stock size are predicted to decline from the present levels . (Figure 8.15). Clearly the red snapper population is severely overfished, and the combination of a 5 percent level of spawning stock biomass and six consecutive years of depressed recruitment indicates that red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico will experience a stock collapse if something is not done to reverse the current trend. 127 ~I / 8.2. Vermilion Snapper 8.2.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. The major proportion of the commercial catch of vermilion snapper is from the northeastern Gulf between Panama City and the Mississippi River (Figures 8.16 and 8.1b) and until 1984 essentially all landings were made in Florida (Table 8.10); particularly in the Florida panhandle area (Brown et al., 1988). Commercial landings remained relatively steady during the 1970's but have been increasing each year since 1980 (Table 8. 10) , reaching an all time high of 1.66 million pounds in 1986 (Tables 8.1 and 8.10). Hand and power lines (bandit rigs) have consistentlY taken over 90 percent of the catch (Table 8.10) and only since 1982 have vermilion been caught by longline gear but it has not accounted for more than 6 percent of the total annual catch. Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of vermilion occurs primarily off Florida and Alabama whose anglers together have harvested from 85 to 90 percent of the gulfwide annual recreational catch and most of the harvest was from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Table 8.11). The major proportion of recreational harvest has been by party and charter boat anglers (Table 8.12). The recreational catch peaked in 1982 at a lit.tle over one million pounds but has since averaged about 200 thousand pounds (Tables 8.1 and 8.11). Combined harvest. The combined landings of all segments of the fishery exhibited a peak harvest of 1.6 million pounds in 1982, but was followed by a dramatic decline in 1983 and 1984 (Table 8.1). In the last two years, for which data are available, total vermilion landings averaged 1.6 million pounds with the commercial sector comprising between 80 and 90 percent of the total. 8.2.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. The available data are from Grimes (1978) for vermilion snappers from the south Atlantic area. Total length (TL, mm), standard length (SL, mm), and fork length (FL, rom) were highly correlated. The conversion equations are: TL = 2.348 + 1.105 * FL , SL = -3.869 + 0.780 * TL , and SL = -2.037 + 0.863 * FL. Length-to weight conversions. Two vermilion length-weight (L, rom; W, g) equations are available. Grimes (1978) developed one from 1,804 fish ranging 52-618 mm. (2.0-24.3 in) taken in the South 128 Atlantic and Nelson (1~88) developed another from 906 fish ranging 168-510 rom (6.6-20.1 in) taken in the western Gulf Flower Garden Reef. W = 0.00001722 * TL2•946 W = 0.0000314 * FL2 •8816 South Atlantic Flower Gardens Growth. Grimes (1978) fit the von Bertalanffy growth model to back-calculated total lengths and derived the equation L t = 626.5 * [1 - e·O•198 * (t-O.128) ]. Nelson (1988) fit the von Bertalanffy growth model to fish (L, mm, FL) from the Flower Gardens and obtained L t = 500 * [ 1-e -0.22 * (t - 0.30) J. Nelson concluded his estimate of the growth parameters were consistent with that of Grimes above; the observed differences were due to the use of different length measures--Grimes used total length whereas Nelson used fork length. The growth of males and females does not differ until age 8, when females are larger (Grimes, 1978). Vermilion from the Flower Gardens grow approximately 148 mm (5.8 in) FL during their first year with annual increments of 23-57 mm/yr (0.9-2.2 in/yr) through the seventh year of life (Nelson, 1988). In the South Atlantic annual incremental growth decreased from a high of ~1 mm (3.6 in) at age 1 to about 70 mm (2.8 in) at ages 3 and 4 and 10-20 mm (0.4 0.8 in) after age 8. 8.2.3. Size Composition of the Harvest Vermilion measured from the commercial fishery were generally greater than 10 inches FL whereas the predominant recreational catch was less than 10 inches (Figures 8.17 and 8.18). Few fish larger than 12 inches were caught by recreational anglers. Fish up to 16 inches were common in the commercial fishery. Vermilion snapper are harvested over a size range of 7 to 17 inches. 8.2.4. Mortality Estimates Goodyear (1988b) made catch curve estimates for each gear type based on NMFS Trip Interview Program data from all years combined (1979-1986 for recreational and 1984-1987 for commercial samples) produced a range of total mortality estimates (Z) from 0.56 to 1.00 with an overall estimate of 0.73. Nelson (1988) estimated total morta~j..ty in the western Gulf to be about 0.85. Natural mortality (M) has been estimated to be 0.20 (Goodyear, 1988b), 0.25-0.5 (Huntsman et al., 1983), and 0.22-0.50 (Nelson, 1988). ~129 8.2.5. Fecundity and Maturity South Atlantic. The proportion of females in the population increases as the cohort ages (Grimes, 1979). Some vermilion are sexually mature at three years of age and nearly all are mature at age four. Fecundity (Fec) estimates for individual females varied from about 100,000 to 1.8 million ova. Fish weight (W, g) (Grimes, 1979) and fish length (TL, rom) were used as predictors of fecundity than length (Grimes and Huntsman, 1980). Fec = e 10.2183 + 0.0019 • W , (r2=.86, n=?). Fec = e7.065 + 0.013 • TL , ( r2= . 86 , n=41). Males and females with ripe-appearing gonads were collected from April through september (Grimes and Huntsman, 1980). Gonad index values also indicated spawning from late spring through early fall. Huntsman and Grimes (1980) found that most fish attain sexual maturity during their third or fourth years of life (186-324 mm or 7.3-12.7 in TL). Also, fish age 4-9 (> 12.7 in TL) ripen earlier and remain in reproductive condition longer than younger spawning fish. In contrast, a more thorough study on the relationship between size and maturity demonstrated that female vermilion snapper attain maturity at about 160 mm (6.3 in) TL with males attaining maturity at about 6 in. Flower Gardens. Nelson (1988) examined 881 vermilion snapper for reproductive condition. Males were more abundant than females accounting for 55 percent of the sampled fish. A protracted· spawning season was evident extending April-September. Throughout that period male and female vermilion were collected in imminent spawning condition at night from depths of 61 to 112 meters. The smallest female and male with mature gonads was 209 mm (8.2 in) and 260 mm (10.2 in) in length, respectively. Nelson concluded that females begin to mature in the second year and males in their th~rd year of age. Estimates of fecundity ranged from 62,000 to 392,000 eggs per fish. The relationship between fish body size (L, mm, FL) and fecundity (Fee) was modeled by the linear regression equation Fec = 2425.66 * L - 490405 (r2=0.59, n-21). The estimates of fecundity from this study was generally greater than those derived by Grimes and Huntsman (1980). A 450 mm (17.7 in) TL vermilion snapper from the Carolinas would contain an estimated 410,000 eggs whereas the same sized fish from the Flower Gardens would contain 601,000 eggs. 130 8.3. Gray (Mangrove) snapper 8.3.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. Over 99 percent of the gray or mangrove snapper is harvested in waters adj acent the state of Florida. Since 1979, 86 percent of all commercial landings have come from southwest Florida and the Florida Keys (Brown et al., 1988). In addition, 31 percent of the Gulf of Mexico commercial landings is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Table 8.13; Waters, 1988). During the 1970'S annual commercial gray snapper landings averaged 655 thousand pounds. The peak commercial harvest occurred in 1983 with 1.014 million pounds being landed, but subsequent landings have declined to the 1987 value of 631,000 pounds (Table 8.13). Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of gray snapper occurs almost exclusively off Florida (Table 8.3) with about 80 percent being taken in the state waters (Table 8.11). The recreational harvest is about equally divided among anglers fishing from shore, private boats, and charter/party boats (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. The combined commercial and recreational harvests peaked in 1982 at 4.4 million pounds with the recreational sector harvesting 79 percent (Table 8.1). Since 1979 the recreational sector has typically harvested the majority of gray snapper annual landings. 8.3.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. Manooch and Matheson (1981) sampled 95 fish from the South Atlantic headboat fishery to develop the following fork length (FL, mm), standard length (SL, mm), and total length (TL, mm) equations. FL ~ 3.6474 + 0.9359 * TL SL = 2.7381 + 0.7781 * TL (r2=O.99) • (r 2=o. 99) • Length to weight conversions. Croker (1962) developed the following weight (W, g) -length (FL, cm) equation from 168 gray snapper caught by recreational fishermen in the Everglades National Park. w ~ 0.2453 * FL2•7261 (~=?) • Croker cautioned that the above equation was most appropriate for fish ~eighing under 2 pounds. 131 Manooch and Matheson (1981) also developed a length-weight equation from 119 fish sampled from headboat catches in the South Atlantic. The length (TL, mm) - weight (W, kg) equation for gray snapper was w = 0.000000024 * TL 2.9122 The equation developed by Manooch and Matheson was used in the yield and spawning stock biomass calculations discussed below. Growth. In the Everglades National Park during 1959 and 1960 (Croker, 1962), the Florida Keys a decade later (Starck and Schroeder, 1971), and the South Atlantic headboat fishery (Manooch and Matheson, 1981) the estimated size in total length (rom) at age distribution was: Age South Atlantic Florida Keys Everglades 1 95 84 83 2 198 155 188 3 276 216 254 4 335 278 311 5 381 320 372 6 424 365 457 7 465 413 483 8 503 474 9 536 520 Manooch and Matheson (1981) also fitted the following von Bertalanffy growth equation to 568 fish ranging 80-775 mm (3.1-30.5 in) TL. L t = 890 • [ 1 - e-0•1009 * (t-0.3161) ]. In the South Atlantic stUdy growth increments for the first 2 years were about 100 mm (3.9 in). Gray snapper continue to grow at a relatively fast rate for the next two years but afterwards annual growth slows and generally declines to an annual increment of about 20 mm (0.8 in) after age 12. 8.3.3. Size Composition of the Harvest Gray snapper caught by the commercial fishery were generally larger than 12 inches TL (Figures 8.19). The recreationally caught fish exhibited a wider size distribution ranging from 7 inches to 20 inches fork length. The majority of the fish harvest by the recreational sector occurring between 7 and 12 inches in length. 132 8.3.4. Mortality Estimates Goodyear (1988b) made catch curve estimates for each gear type based on NMFS Trip Interview Program data from all years combined (1979-1986 for recreational and 1984-1987 for commercial samples) produced a range of total mortality estimates (Z) from 0.39 to 1.01 with an overall estimate of 0.42. Total mortality estimates for gray snapper in the South Atlantic was 0.60 for south Florida and 0.39 for north Florida (Manooch and Matheson, 1981). The overall estimate calculated here for the Gulf fish is between those of the South Atlantic and therefore seems reasonable .. Natural mortality (M) was assumed to be 0.22 by Manooch and Matheson (1981) and subsequently used by Goodyear (1988b). Current fishing mortality (F) then is estimated to be equal to 0.20. 8. 5. Fecundity and Maturity As in the other snappers the sexes are separate and females predominate in the shallower waters whereas males are found more frequently offshore (Reef Fish FMP, 1981). Females mature at about 195 mm (7.7 in) in standard length and males mature at 185 rom (7.3 in) • Females also attain a larger size than males. Multiple spawning apparently occurs offshore at dusk and may have peak spawning periods that follow a lunar cycle durinq the spawning season which lasts form June to Auqust (Starck, 1971). Females produce about 12,000 eggs per gram of ovary. The only fecundity equations for gray snapper was reported in Bortone and Williams (1986) and was based on data from Venezuela (Guerra-Campos and Bashirullah, 1975). The two equations, relatinq fecundity (Fee) to total length (TL, mm) and weight ( W, g) are as follows. Fee = 0.00299 * T~·~. Fee - 1478.82 * wO·973 • 133 8.4. Lane Snapper 8.4.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. The commercial harvest of lane snapper is small averaging about 40,000 pounds per year since 1972 and never exceeding 70,000 in any year (Table 8.13). Over 99 percent of the lane snapper is harvested in waters adj acent to the state of Florida. since 1979 approximately 77 percent of all commercial landings have come from southwest Florida and the Florida Keys (Brown et ale, 1988). In addition, 54 percent of the Gulf of Mexico commercial landings is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Table 8.13; Waters, 1988). During the 1970's annual commercial lane snapper landings averaged 27,000 pounds. Commercial harvest since 1980 has been increasing somewhat and in 1987, 76,000 pounds were landed (Table 8.13). Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of lane snapper occurs almost exclusively off Florida (Table 8.3) wi th approximately 64 percent being taken in the state waters (Table 8.11). The major proportion of the recreational harvest is taken by anglers either fishing from private boats (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. The combined commercial and recreational harvests peaked in 1982 at 355,000 pounds with the recreational sector harvesting 83 percent of the total (Table 8.1). Since 1979 the recreational sector has typically harvested the majority of lane snapper accounting for 75 percent of the harvest since 1979. 8.4.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. Manooch and Mason (1984) developed the following fork length (FL, mm) to total length (TL, mm) conversion from 100 lane snapper sampled from South Atlantic headboat catches. TL :I -2.6252 + 1.0891 * FL Thompson and Munro (1983c) developed length conversions for 23 fish sampled in Jamaica waters (lengths in cm and SL = standard length) : SL a -0.2 + 0.86 * FL; TL a 1. 087 * FL. Length to weight conversions. Manooch and Mason (1984) developed the following weight-length equation from 101 fish (W, g; TL, mm). W :I 0.000102 * TL2.6524 134 Thompson and Munro '(1983c) developed the following equation from 224 fish from Jamaica ranging from 17-35 cm fork length {W, g; FL, cm}. W = 0.0189 * FL2•943 • Growth. Lane snapper sampled (n=320) from the South Atlantic headboat fishery were aged and observed average sizes (TL, mm) at age were as follows (Manooch and Mason (1984). Age o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number Mean TL Standard Error 1 168 2 194 4.5 29 219 2.2 33 243 3.7 69 274 3.9 69 296 4.9 57 305 6.7 35 346 9.7 18 376 15.0 5 428 24.9 2 461 51.0 The Bertalanffy growth equation fitted back-calculated ages was L t = 501 * [ 1 - e-0.1337· (t + 1.49) ].. 8.4.3. Size Composition of the Harvest No information is available on the size composition of the harvest. 8.4.4. Mortality Estimates Mortality rates for lane snapper in the Gulf of Mexico have not been calculated. Total mortality rate was estimated for the South Atl~ntic to be 0.678 from 1977 to 1982 (Manooch and Mason, 1984). 8.4.5. Fecundity and Maturity No information on fecundity and maturity of lane snapper is available from the u.s. fishery. In Cuba lane snapper spawn from March through september, with spawning peaks in July and August, however in Puerto Rico and Jamaica peak spawning app~ars to occur in the spring (Bortone and Williams, 1986). Age at maturity °is unknown. Thompson and Munro (1983c) reported the smallest fish with indications of maturity was 18 centimeters (7 inches) fork length~. Fecundity studies in the Gulf are nonexistent, but lane snappers from 225-335 mm (8.9-13.2 in) FL have been reported to produce from 347,000 to 995,000 eggs (Pino, 1962: as quoted by Bortone and Williams 1986). 135 8.5. Mutton Snapper 8.-5.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. Over 98 percent of the mutton snapper is harvested in waters adjacent the state of Florida. Since 1979 approximately 88 percent of all commercial landings have corne from southwest Florida and the Florida Keys (Brown et al., 1988). In addition, 48 percent of the Gulf of Mexico commercial landings is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Waters, 1988). Handline catches account for most of the commercial harvest (Table 8.15). During the 1970's annual commercial mutton snapper landings averaged 260,000 pounds (Table 8.15). The peak commercial harvest of 330,000 pounds occurred in 1987. Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of mutton snapper occurs almost exclusively off Florida (Table 8.3) with about 48 percent being taken in state waters (Table 8.11). About 90 percent of the recreational harvest is taken equally by anglers either fishing from private and party/charter boats (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. The combined commercial and recreational harvests peaked in 1982 at 2 million pounds with the recreational sector harvesting 86 percent of the total (Table 8.1). On average, since 1979 the commercial sector has harvested only 43 percent of the mutton snapper but 63 percent since 1985. 8.5.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. The only available length conversion equations for mutton snapper are from fish taken in Jamaican waters (Thompson and Munro, 1983c). Thirteen fish from 22-45 cm fork length were measured to develop the following equations in fork length (FL, cm), standard length (SL, em), and total length (TL, cn). SL = - 0.2 + 0.85 * FL. TL = 0.7 + 1.09 * FL. Length to weight conversions. Mason and Manooch (1985) developed length-weight equations for 140 mutton snapper sampled from the South Atlantic headboat survey and reported similar equations developed by Pozo (1979) for mutton snapper in Cuba. For the South Atlantic the total length (TL, mm)-weight (W, kg) equation was W = 1.0 * 10.8 * TL3•0449 For Cuban fish the length (FL, cm)-weight (W, grams) equation was W = 0.1138 * FL2•53 for males 136 W = 0.0912 * FLZ•59 for females C(r-0.96). The mutton snapper sampled in Cuba were smaller than those sampled in the South Atlantic and not as representative of the full size range of fish (Mason and Manooch, 1985). Growth. Mutton snapper sampled (n=1005) from the South Atlantic headboat fishery were aged and observed average sizes (TL, rom) at age were as follows (Mason and Manooch, 1985). Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Number 4 113 238 147 120 109 III 75 34 25 13 7 6 3 Mean TL 318 364 407 450 493 546 588 635 681 718 757 770 772 808 Standard Error 5.6 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 3.6 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.9 5.6 7.7 6.5 8.0 The growth equation fitted to back-calculated ages was L t = 861.5 • [ 1 - e"0.1534 * (t + 0.5788) ] •. 8.5.3. Size Composition of the Harvest No information was available on the size composition of the mutton snapper harvest. 8.5.4. Mortality Estimates Mortality rates tor mutton snapper in the Gulf of Mexico have not been calculated. Total mortality rates estimated for the South Atlantic ranged 0.29-0.37 for 1977-1981 (Mason and Manooch, 1985). 8.5.5. Fecundity and Maturity No information on fecundity and maturity of mutton snapper is available from the U.S. fishery. Age at maturity is unknown. Fecundity studies in the Gulf are also nonexistent however a mutton snappsr in Cuba (Rojas, 1960; cited by Bortone and Williams, 1986) a 20.2 in FL mutton snapper had approximately 1.4 million eggs. 137 8.6. Yellowtail Snapper 8.6.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. Over 99 percent of the yellowtail snapper is harvested in waters adjacent the state of Florida. Since 1979 98 percent of all commercial landings have come from southwest Florida and the Florida Keys (Brown et al., 1988). In addition, 76 percent of the Gulf of Mexico commercial landings is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Table 8.16: Waters, 1988). Yellowtail snapper constitute about 35 percent of the total snapper landings (Table 8.13). Yellowtail snapper landings since 1972 have fluctuated but have exhibited no long term increasing or decreasing trend. During the 1970' s annual commercial yellowtail snapper landings averaged 910,000 pounds. The peak commercial harvest occurred in 1982 with 1.289 million pounds being landed but since then landings have somewhat declined and ranged from about 800, 000 to 1.3 million pounds annually (Table 8.16). Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of yellowtail snapper occurs almost exclusively off Florida (Table 8.3) with approximately 50 percent being taken in the Territorial Sea. The major proportion of the recreational harvest is taken by anglers either fishing from private boats (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. The combined commercial and recreational harvests peaked in 1982 at 3.8 million pounds with the recreational sector harvesting 66 percent of the total in that year (Table 8.1) . Since 1985 the commercial sector has landed about 67 percent of the yellowtail snapper harvest. 8.6.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. Johnson (1983) developed the following equation from yellowtail snappers sampled in the Florida Keys for converting total length (TL, mm) to fork length (FL, mm). FL = 17.7 + 0.78 * FL Similar equations developed for fish from Jamaica (Thompson and Munro, 1983c) were SL = 0.3+ 0.828 * FL, and TL = -0.8 + 1.266 * FL, where fish lengths ranged 8-52 cm fork length (n=23). 138 Length to weight conversions. Johnson (1983) also measured 517 fish ranging 100-500 mm (3.9-19.7 in) fork length to determine the length (FL, mm) - weight (W, g) relationship as follows: w = 0.0000613 * FL2 • 76 Thompson and Munro (1983c) measured 393 yellowtail snapper (15-49 cm) from Jamaica and developed the following length (FL, em) weight (W, g) relationship: W = 0.0145 * FL3•032 • Piedra (1969), in Cuba, measured 5,823 yellowtail snapper ranging 100-515 mm (3.9-20.3 in) FL and 30 to 2265 grams and developed the following length (FL, mm) - weight (W, g) relationship: W = 0.00007327 * FL2.73927. Johnson (1983) concluded the above length - weight equations predicted similar weights within the sampled size ranges. Growth. Yellowtail snapper sampled (n=1005) from the Florida Keys commercial fishery were aged and observed average sizes· (FL, mm) at age were· as follows (Johnson, 1983). Age Number Size Standard Error 1 77 222 4.3 2 243 256 1.9 3 190 292 2.4 4 133 334 3.5 5 92 355 4.7 6 30 386 4.9 7 10 373 29.4 8 12 445 . 2.9 9 10 453 10.8 10 5 458 30.9 11 2 496 24.0 12 2 518 49.5 13 0 14 1 443 The growth equation fitted to back-calculated ages was L t ~ 450.9 * [ 1 e -0.279 • Ct + 0.355) ]. Thompson and Munro (1983c) estimated, from modal progression analys~s, the coefficient of growth, K, to be about 0.25: this compares favorably with the estimate of 0.279 by Johnson (1983). Piedra (1969) reported an average annual growth of 30 mm (1.2 in) fork length from 1 to 8 years of age. 139 8.6.3. Size Composition" of the Harvest Yellowtail snapper caught by the commercial fishery were generally larger than 11 inches fork length (Figures 8.20). With the exception of fish traps all commercial gears caught relatively large fish; fish trap caught fish 10 inches fork length or smaller. Therecreationally caught fish ranged primarily from 7 to 14 inches fork length but were predominantly less than 12 inches fork length. ~.6.4. Mortality Estimates Goodyear (1988b) made catch curve estimates for each gear type based on NMFS Trip Interview Program data from all years combined (1979-1986 for recreational and 1984-1987 for commercial samples) produced a range of total mortality estimates (Z) from 0.21 to 0.45 with an overall estimate of 0.36. Natural mortality (M) was assumed to be 0.2 by Goodyear (1988b). Current fishing mortality (F) then, using the overall total mortality estimate above, was estimated to equal 0.16. 8.6.5. Fecundity and Maturity. Piedra (1969) examined over 6000 fish for maturation and found that yellowtail mature at about 130-140 mm (5.1-5.5 in) FL and reproduced between March and September. The fecundity of yellowtail snapper in CUba was determined from 4 individuals as follows (sizes,mm FL - number of eggs in ovary): 292 - 176,660; 302 - 99,666; 305 - 1,472,594; 382 - 618,742. Thompson and Munro (1983c) reported maturity of yellowtail snapper in Jamaica occurred at about 26 em fork lerigth for males and 29 to 31 em for females. The main spawning periods in Jamaica were in the spring, February-April and fall, September-october although some reproducing fish were taken throughout the year. No estimates of fecundity are available from the Jamaican study. Collins and Finucane (Manuscript in preparation) evaluated the reproductive bioloqy of 1,621 yellowtail snapper taken in the recreational and commercial hook and line fisheries in the Florida Keys. Length at maturity was estimated at 200 mm (7.9 in) FL for both females and males. Spawning occurred during April-August but with maximum reproduction, as evidenced by ripe ovaries, occurring in June and July. Fecundity (Fee) was significantly correlated with fish size (FL, mm) and was expressed by the following equation: . Fee = 0.04575 * FL2•627 (r2=0.658; n=44) . Fecundity estimates ranged from 11,000 to 1,391,000 eggs from 44 fish that ranged in size from 200 to 480 mm (7.9 to 18.9 in) FL. 140 8.7. Groupers 8.7.1. Harvest Trends Since commercial landings of groupers have not been segregated by species, this section will contain a description of the harvest trends for all groupers cOmbined. Individual species trends will be discussed where data exist for a species or species group. Commercial harvest. The major proportion of the commercial catch of groupers is from the eastern Gulf between Panama city and the Florida Keys. (Figures 8.21 and 8.1b). Since 1979 51 percent of the total gulfwide commercial grouper harvest has come from the west coast of Florida, and more specifically from ports in and around the Tampa Bay area (Brown et al., 1988). The geographic distribution of the remaining landings by area was 24 percent Florida Keys and southwest Florida, 19 percent in the Florida panhandle, and 6 percent in the other Gulf states. Commercial landings remained relatively steady during the 1970's averaging about 7 million pounds per year but, with the introduction of bottom longlines grouper production increased until 1982 when landings peaked at 15 million pounds (Table 8.17). Since 1982 annual landings have averaged about 12 million pounds. Prior to 1980 hand and power lines (bandit reels) consistently took over 95 percent of the catch (Table 8.17) but since 1981 longline gear has accounted for 36 to 52 percent of the annual catch. Recreational harvest. The recreational harvest of groupers is taken primarily by Florida anglers who have harvested consistently over 95 percent of the qulfwide annual recreational catch (Table 8.3). About two-thirds of the recreational harvest was from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Table 8.11). The major proportion of recreational harvest has been ~y private boat anglers (Table 8.12). Since 1979 grouper recreational catch has averaged about 1. 8 million pounds annually (Table 8.1). Although the highest annual harvest was in 1985, with 11 million pounds, annual harvests have fluctuated and with no discernable trend. Combined harvest. The combined landings of all segments of the grouper fishery exhibited a peak harvest of 25.3 million pounds in 1982 but was followed by a dramatic decline in 1983 and 1984 (Table 8.1). In the last two years for which data are available total grouper landings have averaged about 18 million pounds with the commercial sector taking about two-thirds of the total harvest. 141 8.7.2. Red Grouper 8.7.2.1. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. Moe (1969) measured red grouper taken from the recreational and commercial fishery operating in the Gulf of Mexico off central west Florida, and developed the following relationship between standard (SL, mm) and total lengths (TL, mm): TL = 12 + 1.16 • SL (n=215) . Length to weight conversions. The only available information for converting lengths to weight is from Moe (1969) but the equation he presents on page 68 is apparently in error. However, using the average observe lengths (in) and weights (lb) given in his Table 12, the following length-weight conversion formula was developed: W = 0.001265 * TL2•923 (r2=0.99, n=12). Growth. Red grouper sampled (n=202) from the Florida commercial fishery were aged and back-calculated average sizes (TL, rom) at age were as follows (Moe, 1969:Table 4). Ag§ Average size rom (inches) 1 164 (6.5) 2 260 (10.2) 3 327 (12.9) 4 373 (14.7) 5 413 (16.3) 6 449 (17.7) 7 484 (19.1) 8 513 (20.2) 9 539 (21.2) 10 565 (22.2) 11 586 (23.1) 12 601 (23.7) 13 613 (24.1) 14 629 (24.8) 15 634 (25.0) The growth equation fitted to back-calculated age values was ~ = 672. [ 1 - e-0•179 -(1:+0.449) ]. The oldest fish examined was 26 years and measured 700-710 mm (27.6~28.0 in) TL. 142 8.7.2.2. Size Composition of the Harvest Red grouper measured from all segments of the fishery were generally greater than 12 inches TL (Figures 8.22). However, commercial electric reels tended to capture fish greater than 18 inches in length, and the recreational sector did not target fish less than 14 inches TL. Samples of catch from the NMFS headboat survey indicate that red grouper of 14 inches and larger comprised most of the catch (Figure 8.23). 8.7.2.3. Mortality Estimates Catch curve estimates for each gear type based on data from all years combined (1979-1986 for recreational and 1984-1987 for commercial samples) produced a range of total mortality estimates (Z) from 0.23 to 0.58 with an overall estimate of 0.28 (Figure 8.24). Due to the expansion of the grouper longline fishery in the past 8 years, and that the historical fishery had been prosecuted by handlines it was assumed that the mortality estimate provided by the traps and handline category was most indicative of the true mortality rate. It was reasoned that lengths of fish caught by handline gear were more consistent, over time, because the same geographic areas were fished, whereas the length frequency from electric reels and longlines represented fish that were caught during the exploitation of new fishing areas; however, there is no supporting data to verify the above argument. Conversely, it is possible that the handline segment of the fishery is targeting only on the smaller fish that tend to occur in shallower water. If the latter scenario were true then the estimates of total mortality and consequently fishing mortality that are used here in assessing the condition of the stock would be overestimates. Moe (1969) estimated that total mortality in the fishery during the mid 1960's was 0.322 therefore the above assumption of using the estimate of 0.541 for total mortality for the entire fishery during the past few years, is not unreasonable. Natural mortality (M) was assumed to equal 0.15 due to the life history characteristics of grouper whereby they first mature as females and later transform into males (Goodyear, personal communication) • consequently, the estimated present fishing mortality rate is 0.431. 8.7.2.4. Fecundity and Maturity. The only information available on the reproduction of red grouper is from Moe (1969), who determined, from a sample of about 800 fish, that red grouper females matured at 400-425 mm standard length (18.7-19.9 in TL). Red groupers, as probably are most groupers, are born females and after a period of egg production transform into males. consequently, the larger individuals in a population are usually males. The consequence of this life history strategy on fisheries management is unclear; we do not know if 143 grouper are more prone or more resistent to overfishing than species in which the sexes are separate. Grouper typically are managed similar to other species where the sexes are separate. Moe (1969) found that transition from female to male usually occurs before age 10 between 425 and 650 rom standard length (19.9-30.2 in TL). Active reproduction occurred from January through May with peak activity in April and May. Moe (1969) examined 14 gonads for fecundity determination of fish ranging in size from 495 to 667 mm (23.1-30.9 in TL) standard length (ages 8-28: 3 fish were not aged). The range of eggs estimated ranged from 196,000 eggs (29.5 in TL, age 11) to 5,735,000 eggs (29.3 in TL, no age). The average number of eggs per fish was 1,469,000 eggs. No fecundity equation was developed. 8.7.2.5. Yield and Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit Yield computations. Yield-per-recruit calculations utilized the Beverton and Holt yield model for F = 0.01 to F = 0.5 as a function of minimum size at recruitment to the fishery (Ricker 1975), modified to reflect the mortality suffered by undersized fish that are released upon capture (Waters and Huntsman 1986). The rate of capture of the undersized fish was assumed to be the same as the rate of capture of fully recruited fish in the analysis. Based on the observed length frequencies in the existing red grouper fishery, the fish were assumed to be fully vulnerable to the fishery at 12 inches TL. Growth parameters were from Moe (1969). Natural mortality (M) was assumed to be 0.15. The results are presented as curves of constant yield over the range of minimum size and fishing mortality examined. Curves were plotted for 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99% of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space examined (Figures 8.25 and 8.26). Spawning stock biomass computations. Spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) was evaluated as the average adult biomass at equilibrium population densities. The SSBR was evaluated as the ratio of the fished to the unfished level for each combination of minimum size and fishing mortality examined in the yield per recruit analyses. The curves corresponding to SSBR ratios of 20% of the unfished level were determined for undersize release mortalities of zero and thirty percent (Figures 8.25 and 8.26) . Results. In the absence of release mortality, yield would be maximized by delaying harvest until the fish reach about 22 inches TL and then subjecting them to high fishing mortality (Figure 8.25). As the release mortality increased, the optimum minimum size and fishing mortality fell (Goodyear, 1988c). At a release mortality of 33%, the maximum yield would occur at a minimum size of abo~t 17 inches at F = 0.18 (Figure 8.26). Given the current sizes - harvested and an assumed 33 percent undersize release mortality the SSBR ratio was estimated to be about 20% at a fishing mortality rate of 0.28 (Figure 8.26). 144 8.7.3. Gag Groupei 8.7.3.1. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. The only information available on length conversions is from a study that sampled about 2,400 gag groupers from the recreational and commercial hook-and-line grouper landings on the west coast of Florida (Schlieder, unpublished manuscript). Total length (TL, mm) and fork length (FL, rom) were related to standard length (SL, mm) by the following equations. TL = 30.323 + 1.147 * SL FL = 32.309 + 1.107 * SL (r2=0. 99) • (r2=0. 99) • McErlean (1963) provided graphs of the relationship between total and standard length but no equation. Length to weight conversions. Schlieder also weighed 804 fish and developed the following weight (W, g) - length (SL, mm) equation. W - 0.0000269 * SL2•96 (r2=O.99). Manooch and Haimovici (1978) measured 252 gag from the headboat fishery operating in the South Atlantic area to develop the following length (TL, mm) - weight (W, kg) equation. \ W = 1.2 * 10·s * TL2•996 (r2=0.99). McErlean (1963) provided graphs of the relationship between total and standard length for Gulf gag grouper but no equation. Growth. Manooch and Haimovici (1978) examined over 1,000 gag grouper sampled from the South Atlantic headboat fishery during 1972-1976. Growth rates were determined for 136 fish by examining growth rings on otoliths. The growth rate was rapid the first 2 years, declined somewhat for ages 3 to 4, and then leveled off. 145 Number Weighted Mean of fish back-calculated Age Observed total length 1 13 269 2 23 417 3 18 525 4 16 612 5 17 686 6 12 753 7 3 806 8 8 857 9 6 902 10 7 948 11 7 988 12 4 1014 13 2 1080 The growth equation fitted to back-calculated age values was Lt = 1290 * [ 1 e -0.12154 • (t + 1. 127> ]. Schlieder (Unpublished manuscript) aged 761 gag grouper sampled from the eastern Gulf fishery from 1977 to 1980. Age 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Number of fish Observed 15 28 50 104 118 131 90 63 56 34 32 15 6 9 8 2 Weighted Mean back-calculated standard length 269 367 446 523 589 643 696 739 777 809 837 856 877 893 903 930 The growth equation fitted to back-calculated age values was L t = 1014 * [ 1 - e"0.156·(t+1.402) J. 146 8.7.3.2. Size Composition of the Harvest Gag grouper measured from all segments of the commercial fishery were generally larger than 25 inches TL and 4 years of age (Figures 8.27). However, commercial fish traps and the recreational sector tended to capture fish less than 25 inches in length. The other commercial gear types exhibited remarkably similar length frequency distributions with modes occurring between 28 and 30 inches TL. 8.7.3.3. Mortality Estimates Schlieder (Unpublished manuscript) estimated, from the age distribution of 882 fish, total mortality of gag grouper in the eastern Gulf to be 0.37. Goodyear (1988b) evaluated catch curves based on length frequencies of each gear type collected by the NMFS Trip Interview Program that were aged by the von Bertalanffy equation of Manooch and Haimovici (1978); total mortality values from 0.301 to 0.476 were obtained. 8.7.3.4. Fecundity and Maturity McErlean (1963) first reported on reproduction of gag grouper, however, his observations were limited to macroscopic identification of those females with eggs present in the ovaries. Only 17 of 35 females examined with eggs could be accurately aged. The age distribution of females with eggs indicated that females probably do not mature until age five. Later, McErlean and Smith (1964) examined histologically the gonads of 32 fish and concluded that gag grouper first mature as females at 5 or 6 years of age and transform to males at 10 or 11 years of age. Schlieder (Unpublished manuscript) examined, histologically, 877 fish and concluded that although some females as young as age 1 (18.1 in TL) may mature, but the majority (over 50 percent of an age (size) class) was not mature until age 5 (29.4 in TL). Similarly, males as young as age 5 (36.2 in TL) were observed but males were not numerous until age 9 when they accounted for 21 percent of an age class. About 63 percent of all males were larger than 875 mm SL (40'.7 in TL). All fish greater than age 15 were male. Also, males were generally larger than females McErlean (1963) suggested than spawning probably occurred between January and March. Schlieder (Unpublished manuscript), based on data collected from 1977 to 1980, concluded that spawning occurred from late December through April, with peaks in February and March. McErlean (1963) examined 3 fish ranging in size from 787 to 795 mm SL (36.7-37.1 in TL; ages 7-8) and obtained fecundity estimates from 5a9 thousand to 1.5 million eggs. No fecundity equation is available for gag grouper. 147 8.7.4. BlackGrouper 8.7.4.1. Meristics and Growth Length conversions;, No length conversion equations for black grouper are available. Length to weight conversions. Manooch and Mason (1987) derived the following weight (W, g) -length (TL, nun) relationship for black grouper from fish sampled from the South Atlantic headboat fishery. W = 0.000005548 * TL3• 141 (n=108, r 2=O.98). Growth. The only growth information is from Manooch and Mason (1987) who aged about 150 black grouper sampled from the South Atlantic headboat fishery from 1972 to 1985. Growth was most rapid for the first three to four years of age, but then gradually declined throughout the remaining years of life (see table below) . Number Weighted mean of fish back-calculated Age Observed total length 1 146 260 2 144 397 3 130 504 4 118 591 5 98 664 6 74 734 7 51 806 8 25 873 9 14 925 10 8 975 11 5 1010 12 3 1054 13 2 1077 14 1 1110 The von Bertalanfty growth equation fitted to back-calculated age values was L t = 1352 * ( 1 e-0.1156 * (t + 0.927) ]. The oldest black grouper observed was 14 years of age .. and measured 1110 rom (43.7 in) TL. 8.7.4.2. Size composition of the Harvest Black grouper measured from all segments of the commercial fishery were generally larger than 15 inches TL (Figures 8.28). The recreational sector tended to capture fish less than 20 inches in 148 length. The buoy and longline commercial gear harvested a wider size range of fish taking fish that were larger than 30 inches TL. 8.7.4.3. Mortality Estimates Black grouper in the South Atlantic headboat fishery were not fully recruited until ages 5 to 7 (Manooch and Mason, 1987), after which total mortality rate (Z) equals 0.49-0.53. Catch curves based on length frequencies of each gear type sampled from the Gul f recreational and commercial fishery, aged by inverting the von Bertalanffy equation of Manooch and Mason (1987) (Figure 8.60), produced a range of total mortality values from 0.178 to 0.557 (Goodyear, 1988b). An overall total mortality rate of 0.303 was estimated from the combined data from all gear types. 8.7.4.4. Fecundity and Maturity No information is available on the fecundity and maturation of black grouper. 8.7.5. Nassau and Yellowfin Groupers 8.7.5.1. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. Thompson and Munro (1983a) developed the following standard length (SL, cm) to total length (TL, cm) conversion equation for Nassau grouper in Jamaica ranging in size from 43 to 75 cm TL. TL = 3.0 + 1.09 * 5L (n=26). Thompson and Munro (1983a) also developed the following standard length (SL, cm) to total length (TL, em) conversion equation for yellowfin grouper in Jamaica ranging in size from 26 to 77 cm TL. TL a 1.0 + 1.16 * 5L (na 36). Length to weight conversions. Olsen and LaPlace (1978) estimated the weight (W, g) -length (5L, em) equation of Nassau grouper between 18 and 76 cm standard length to be: . W = 0.0097 * 5L3•233 ( n=2 41 , ~==O. 93) . No information is available on lengths and weights of yellowfin groupers. 149 j " Growth. Olsen and LaPlace (1978) developed the following von Bertalanffy growth equation for Nassau grouper in the Virgin Islands (length measures in cm). L t = 97.4 * [ 1 e·0• 183 • Ct + 0.488) ]. Thompson and Munro (1983a) analyzed Randall's (1962, 1963) tagging data on Nassau grouper and concluded the growth rate, as expressed by the growth coefficient (K), ranged from 0.05 to 0.13 and averaged 0.09. Maximum size (L.) was assumed to be about 90 cm TL. A period of about 4 years is required for yellowfin to reach a size of 46-57 cm TL and 10 years to reach a size of about 70 cm TL (Thompson and Munro, 1983a). Overall, yellowfin grouper in Jamaica grow about J cm a year. The growth coefficient (K) and asymptotic length (L.) for yellowfin grouper were estimated to be 0.1 and 86 cm TL, respectively. 8.7.5.2. Size Composition of the Harvest Available information on Nassau and yellowfin groupers is too sparse to be useful. 8.7.5.3. Mortality Estimates No information is available on Nassau or yellowfin grouper. 8.7.5.4. Fecundity and Maturity Thompson and Munro (1978: as cited by Shapiro, 1987) determined, macroscopically, that Nassau grouper mature at about 480 rnm (18.9 in) TL, and that yellowfin grouper mature at about 510 mm (20.0 in) TL. The spawning season, in Jamaica, is January-May for Nassau and April-May for yellowfin (Munro et al., 197J; as cited by Shapiro, 1987; Thompson and Munro, 198Ja). Ol~en and LaPlace (1978) estimated average fecundity of Nassau grouper from 42 females with ripe ovaries to be 4.8 million eggs. No information on the fecundity of yellowfin grouper is available. 150 8.8. Jewfish 8.8.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. Commercial landings of jewfish averaged about 240,000 pounds from 1971 to ~983 (Table 8.18). Since 1983 annual landings have steadily declined to about 100,000 pounds in 1987. Recreational harvest. Data on the recreational harvest is available only since 1979. Jewfish are harvested recreationally primarily in Florida, with some harvest also occurring in Louisiana (Table 8.3). About equal numbers of fish are taken in state and federal waters (Table 8.11), primarily by private boat anglers (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. The combined commercial and recreational harvest is available since 1979. Peak harvest of 1.4 million pounds occurred in 1982 (Table 8.1), with harvests fluctuating afterwards (220,000-1983; 338,000-1984; 410,000-1985; 145,000-1986; 293,000 1987) • 8.8.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. No information is available. Length to weight conversions. No information is available. Growth. No detailed information is available on growth of jewfish, however, steidinger (1988 letter to Roy Williams)· reported the oldest jewfish of 324 collected by Florida Department of Natural Resources was 37 years of age and 75 inches TL. 8.8.3. Size Composition of the Harvest No information is available. 8.8.4. Mortality Estimates No information is available. 8.8.5. Fecundity and Maturity No detailed information is available on the fecundity and maturity jewfish, however, Steidinger (1988 letter to Roy Williams) reported that jewfish, similar to other groupers, were born as females and later transformed into males. Approximately 60 males and females each were examined for reproductive activity. The smallest mature female was 47 inches TL but some females were still immature at 53 incheS' -TL. The youngest mature female was 10 years old. The smallest mature male was 43 inches TL. 151 8.9. Black Sea Bass 8.9.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. All species of sea basses have been combined in the NMFS landings, therefore, identification of landings of individual species was not possible. Sea basses have not constituted a significant fishery since the mid 1970 I s (Table 8.19). The reported commercial landings declined from a peak of 143,000 pounds in 1972 to a minimum of 13,000 pounds in 1983. Recreational harvest. Data on the recreational harvest of black sea bass is available for 1979 through 1986. Annual average harvests have averaged about 700 thousand pounds (Table 8.1), however annual landings have fluctuated widely exhibiting no discernable trend. Combinedharyest. The combined annual commercial and recreational harvest of sea bass has fluctuated being dominated by the recreational harvest which since 1979 has accounted for 97 percent of the total (Table 8.1). 8.9.2. Meristics and Growth Data sources. Meristic and growth information is available only from studies on the Atlantic populations of black sea bass. Length conversions. The relationship of standard length (SL, mm) to total length (TL, mm) of black sea bass in the South Atlantic was (Waltz et al., 1979): . SL .. 8.179 + 0.7387 * TL (r2 = 0.94, n = 1903). Length to weight conversions. The relationship of length to weight (W, g) in the South Atlantic was (Waltz et al., 1979): Both sexes: Females: Males: W .. 0.01130 * SL2•9I7 W .. 0.01004 * TLz•897 W - 0.01231 * SLz•951 W - 0.01058 * TL2•87S W .. 0.01279 * SL2•934 W .. 0.01213 * TL2•817 152 (r2 = 0.98, n = 1771) , (rZ = 0.96, n = 1773), (r2 = 0.96, n = 693), (rZ = 0.94, n = 683), (r2 = 0.94, n = 568), ,(r2 = 0.90, n= 564). Growth. Observed average lengths and weights at age for black sea bass in the South Atlantic was as follows (Waltz et al., 1979). Females Males Age SL TL W SL TL W 1 4.6 5.9 0.12 4.5 5.7 0.10 2 6.4 8.2 0.30 6.6 8.5 0.34 3 7.4 9.6 0.46 8.3 10.9 0.67 4 7.9 10.2 0.56 9.2 12.1 0.87 5 9.1 11.7 0.86 10.6 13.9 1. 28 6 10.6 13.7 1.33 11.0 14.5 1. 39 7 11.1 14.1 1.42 11. 5 15.2 1. 67 8 10.3 13.2 1.13 ·12.0 15.5 1.85 9 11. 7 16.0 1. 38 10 13.0 16.7 13.4 17.6 2.10 Kendall (1977) provided a Bertalanffy growth equation for measures in standard length (mm) and weight. The equation, in length, is: L t = 625 * ( 1 - e"O.088 * Ct + 1.33) ). 8.9.3. size Composition of the Harvest No data are available on the size composition of the black sea bass commercial harvest. A description of the fishery, as it existed in the late 1960' s can be found in Godcharles (1970). The recreational fishery harvests primarily fish between 9 and 13 inches fork length (Table 11.21). 8.9.4. Mortality Est~mates No mortality estimates are available for black sea bass in the Gulf of Mexico. 8.9.5. Fecundity and Maturity Black seas bass are protoqynous hermaphrodites with the males dominating the larger sizes ( > 8.7 in SL) and older ages ( > 4 yrs). Sex reversal takes place over a large size and age range; however transitional fish are most commonly age 3. Mature males and females were found in all age groups in the South Atlantic (Waltz, et al., 1979). Estimates of fecundity (Fee) of fish from South Carolina were . derived from (CUpka et al., 1973 as cited by Kendall, 1977): Fec = 2.0344 * SL1.913 (r2 = 0.45). Observed fecundities of fish, ages 1-5, ranged from about 30,000 to 122,000 eggs. 153 8.10. Greater Amherjack 8.10.1. Harvest Trends Commercial harvest. Greater amberjack historically has been a relatively minor component of the reef fish fishery with annual commercial harvests below 100,000 pounds prior to 1975 (Berry and Burch, 1979), and less than 300,000 pounds until 1983 (Table 8.20). Since 1983 amberjack landings have grown, increasing to an all time high of 1.4 million pounds in 1986. Most of the commercial harvest is taken east of the Mississippi River (Figure 8.29) with 60 and 22 percent being landed in Florida and Louisiana, respectively (Table 8.20). A minimum of 66 percent of the commercial harvest is taken by hand and power lines and about 13 percent by longlines. Recreational harvest. Annual recreational landings since 1979, the first year of record, have fluctuated from a low of 1.7 million pounds in 1984 to a high of 9.6 million pounds in 1982 (Table 8.1). Annual recreational landings have averaged about 4 million pounds. Approximately 80 and 15 percent of the recreational harvest has been taken by Florida and Louisiana anglers, respectively (Table 8.3). Most (83%) of the amberjack harvest comes from the EEZ (Table 8.11) and is taken principally by anglers fishing from charter and party boats (Table 8.12). Combined harvest. Total combined harvest trends have mirrored those of the recreational fishery. Recreational anglers have taken about 90 percent of the total amberjack harvest since 1979 (Table 8.1), however the recreational component has declined from over 95 percent prior 1982 to about 66 percent in 1987. 8.10.2. Meristics and Growth Length conversions. greater amberjack. No length conversions are available for Length to weight conversions. Burch (1979) provides the only length (FL, cm)-weight (W, lb) conversion equations available. W d = 0.0000886 * FL2•m (r2=0. 87 , n-270, range 61-141 cm) • W9 .. 0.0000528 * FL2•88I 2 n=187, 50-156 cm) .(r =0.90, range Wd+9" 0.0000640 * FL2•S42 (r2=0.91, n=?, range 39-156 cm). Females were heavier at a given length, but the rate of weight gain with increasing weight was the same for both sexes. Growth. The only growth information is from Burch (1979) who aged, with scales, 160 male and 183 female greater amberjack sampled from the charterboat fishery off southeast Florida. Observed a~erage size at age is given below. (Note: the category labeled "both 154 sexes" includes the'above 343 fish plus an additional 89 fish that could not be classified as either male or female.) Average observed fork length (cm) Age Males Females Both sexes 1 41 41 42 2 63 63 63 3 80 81 80 4 90 94 91 5 97 104 102 6 103 112 110 7 108 121 117 8 124 130 127 9 136 134 10 140 140 The growth equations Burch '(1979) fitted to greater amberjack data were: LtCd') = 146.3 * ( 1 e"0.193*Ct+0.798) ) for males, Lt(9) = 159.7 * ( 1 e"0.194 * Ct +0.490) ) for females, and LtCd+9) = 164.3 * ( 1 e"0.174 * Ct +0.653) ) for both sexes. 8.10.3. Size Composition of the Harvest Greater amberjack measured from all segments of the commercial fishery were generally larger than 25 inches fork length (Figure 8.30). The recreational sector tended to capture fish less than 25 inches in length (Figures 8.30 and 8.31). The headboat anglers harvest fish predominantly smaller than 25 inches but also harvest significant quantities of fish up to about 40 inches in length. 8.1~.4. Mortality Estimates Catch curves based on length frequencies of each gear type (Figure 8.71) aged by inverting the von Bertalanffy equation of Burch (1979--both sexes combined) produced a range of total mortality values from 0.544 to 0.958. Total mortality with all gear types combined was estimated to be 0.599 which compares favorably with an independent estimate of 0.61 made with headboat data (Figures 8.32 and 8.33). Thus assuming a natural mortality rate of 0.2 we used the estimate of 0.399 for fishing mortality in subsequent analyse~. 155 8~10.5. Fecundi~y ~nd Maturity Burch (1979) reported the smallest reproductively active female and male observed was 81 and. 83 cm (32 inches) fork lengths, respectively. spawning apparently occurs from March through June, with peak activity in April and May. No fecundity information is available for greater amberjack. 8.10.6. Yield and Spawning stock Biomass per Recruit Yield computations. The rate of capture of the undersized fish was assumed to be the same as the rate of capture of fully recruited fish in the analysis. Based on the observed length frequencies in the existing greater amberjack fishery, the fish were vulnerable to the recreational fishery somewhere between 10 and 15 inches fork length and to the commercial fishery between 25 and 30 inches fork length. Growth parameters were from Burch (1979). Natural mortality (M) was assumed to be 0.2. The results are presented as curves of constant yield over the range of minimum size and fishing mortality examined. Curves were plotted for 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99% of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space examined (Figures 8.34 and 8.35). spawning stock biomass computations. Spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) was evaluated as the average adult biomass at equilibrium population densities. The SSBR was evaluated as the ratio of the fished to the unfished level for each combination of minimum size and fishing mortality examined in the yield per recruit analyses. The curves corresponding to SSBR ratios of 20% of the unfished level were determined for undersize release mortalities of zero and thirty percent (Figures 8.34 and 8.35). Results. In the absence of release mortality, biomass yield would be maximized by delaying harvest until the fish reach about 45 inches fork length and then subjecting them to high fishing mortality (Figure 8.34). As the release mortality increased, the optimum minimum size and fishing mortality fell (Goodyear, 1988c). At a release mortality of 33', the maximum yield would occur at a minimum size of about 32 inches at F = 0.20 (Figure 8.35). These results suggest that management for maximum yield per recruit through minimum size regulations must account for existing fishing mortality in settinq size limits or somehow control the underlying fishing mortality rate. However, it is clear that the protection afforded the spawning stock by minimum size regulations rapidly disappears as the mortality of released fish rises. Given the current sizes harvested and an assumed 33 percent undersize release mortality, the SSBR ratio was estimated to be about 20% at a fishing mortality rate of 0.20 (Figure 8.35). 156 FIGURE S.la SPATIAL DISnUBUrIOH OF 1972-1986 RED SMPPEI CO""UCIAL CATCH 28 8 16 12 135 FLORIDA 81815 LOU ISIMA 1119Zl P E R C E "T o F T o T A 4 L GIIID spatial distriDution ot the commercial catch of red snapper in the Gult ot Mexico reqardless ot the location where they were landed. The qrids correspond to the NMFS shrimp grid designations. Catch fro. qrid 7 was divided equally between grids 6 and 8 and that fro. qrid 12 was divided equally between g~ids 11 and 13. 157 .... VI CO G U L f Of M E X leo co Chart of Gulf of Nexico W19torlcal red snapper thhlng grounds and S[4lttll£ teal reporting zones (A • U .. a .... rn .nnn 0 - ,..1 ...... FJ;GURE 8.2 58.8 r----------------------------. 1998198619821978 DATA COURTESY scon .. ICHOLS. MISSISSIPPI LABORATORIES. PASCAGOULA 1974 8.8 1978 48.8 18.8 28.8 GULF OF MEXICO JUVENILE RED SNAPPER ABUNDANCE 38.8 'fEAR Abundance estimates for juvenile red snapper from the NMFS Fall Groundfish Survey from 1972-1988. / 58 ttODEL IS IJUCAtaU=A+BCYEAJU 38 48 ac := Q = ac w ""= 28 <oJ.. « <oJ 18 INTERCEPt =9.38Z SLOP. = -.888 R-Square =8.359 " = 17 88 8 78 72 74 76 78 88 YEAR 8Z 86 Trend line of juvenile red snapper abundance by year from 1972 through 1988. 159 2588 FIGURE 8.3 RELATIOft BET\lE~ THE RECREATIOML CAT04 or 18-11 IHCH RED SMPPER AND PRE-RECRUit ABUttDNtCE ESTIMTED ~E PRECEEDIHG YEAR INTERCEPT = 24.3 SLOPI = 69.1 R-Squuoe =8.982 N = 8 Q 28. w... 1:12 W ~ 1588 ~ :c 1:12 Q 1888z ~ 1:12 =g 588... 8 8 3 5 8 18 13 15 18 28 23 25 CArat PER HOUR IN THE FALL GJlOlIQ)r ISH SURUEY Relationship of the juvenile abundance estimates from the NMFS Fall Ground-fish Survey and the estimated total catch of 10 and 11 inch (TL) red snapper by recreational fishermen the following year. The recreational catch estimate. are the sum ot The type A and B1 catch from the NMFS Marine Recreational Survey for all year., plus e.timat•• of the party boat catch tor 1986, and Texas boat mode catches for 1982-1984 and 1986. The ntllD.ber of 10-11 inch fish was e.timated as the product of the annual estimate of the number of fi.h harvested and the annual proportion ot the harvest in the.e lenqth clas.e. (updated 4/18/88). 160 FIGURE 8.4 25 LENGTH - FECUHDITV RELATIOHSHIP FOR GULF OF "EXICO RED SKAPPER "ODEL IS LOCHGOMD WT)=A+SttLOGCLptGTlU INTERCEPT =-16.1 SLOPE = 5.87 R-Square =8.717 N = 148 3528 .... 2S ,. .. 21181411748 8 5 28 18 15 G o "A D W E I G H l' TOTAL LEttGTH CIttCHES) Relation between gonad weight (grams) and total length for red snapper. The fitted relationship includes data pairs with gonad weights welloabove the plotted range. 161 FIGURE a.5 LEMGniS AT AGE GUll or "!)CICO RED SMPPEJI POPULATIOftS 68 PREU IOUS EAST AltD WEST GULF GJIOWTH I'tODELS f WESTERN GULF EASTEM GULl' .•••. I ......•............- " JIAItGI or MfA IN FI! -) T 48 o T A L 36 L E N • 24 G T H 8 8 4 8 12 AGI (YEARS) 16 28 comparison at the two growth models used to separate Gult at Mexico red snapper into Iteastern" and "western" stocks. Note thac although there were significant ditterences in the parameter estimate., the predicted lengths at age are very similar over the rang at daca employed in the estimates. 162 FIGURE 8.6 OBSElND LEHGrHS Ar AGE FOR QJLF or "DICO RED SMPPEH 58 28 r 48 o r A L 38 L E "c; r H 18 AGE ESrIMrES ASSUttE AHHlJUJS FORMrIOtt CIt JUttE 15 " =2693 LEHGTH=45.9[1-exp(-8.11S(AGE-I.S8))] 8 8 4 8 12 AGI (YEARS) 16 28 Observed and mean back-calculated lenqths of red snapper plotted aqainst aqa and compared with a von-Bertalanffy equation fitted to the back-calcula~ed leriqths at aq•• 163 FIGURE 8.7 AGE AS A FUNCTION or LENGTH FOR GULF or "EXICO RED SHAPPER 15 113733382623191612 AGE =-(1.47.LOG(1-LENG~47.1)~.11» "= 2684 95 3 6 I 12 A 9 G E TOTAL LEltGIH CIHCHES) Von-Bertalanffy relation predictinq aqe as a function of lenqth. The data were pooled from the several sources described in Parrack (1986b). 164 FIGURE 8.8 Length frequency of red snapper harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. ~O r BOTrO" LOMG LINE M: 578 ALL CO""ERCIAL M: 1634 . j 58 ALL "EtHODS N: 12457 48 HAHD LIHES H : 689 IECHEArJOMAL " : 18823 ELECTRIC REELS H : 198 28 ~ FORI LENGtH (INCHES) 11 20 10 5... z: 10 ~ 5 CJ 20 =: ~ 10 Q.. 20 10 20 10 0 8 165 FIGURE 8.9 RED SMPPEJI I.!:I't'rH FREQUEHCY FROft 1979-1987 RECREArlOML UtrERCEPTS 25 2S . 232119 PRIVATE AI'ID RDCrAL "= 962 J 171513 ,. '.~ , ,', I , '.' • I '. , " , .... ',<- OfARTEJI BOAT.... ', "= 1913 '.,'., :. '" "" "\, , ,,,, , \ ,, 119 : I . I , I : , : , : I : I : I " I " I I J 7 PARrY IOAT -> ...."= 1~ : 5 5 8 28 18 15 P E R C E "r rOTAL LDtGrH CIttCHES) Comparrison of the lenqth frequencies of red snappers captured by party, charter and private/rental boats as sampled by the NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey during the period 1979-1987. 166 FIGURE 8.10 RED SMPPER LDtGTH FREQUEttCy noIt 1986 HEADBOAT SUJNE'I zs GULFWIDE TOTAL " =6415 28 P E R 15 C E "T 18 5 8 s 9 13 17 21 2S 33 41 45 Lenqth trequency of red snapper captured from party boats and sampled by the NMFS Headboat sampling proqram in 1986. Data courtesy Gena Huntsman, NMFS, Beaufort NC. 167 ...) FIGURE 8.11 CATCH aJRUES FOR RED SHAPPER 197CJ AftD 1984-1986 16.8 13.6 L 0 G 11.2 ....•. "U " tB 8.8 1984-1986 E R 6.4 4.8 8 2 4 6 8 18 AGE 12 14 16 18 28 catch curves for Gulf of Mexico red snapper for 1979, and 1984-1986. NUmbers at age were estimated from the length frequencies ot red snapper' by mode of capture (weiqhted by estimated total landings by mode of capture). 168 FIGURE 8.12 Total mortality estimates of red snapper harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The estimates were derived from lengths from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. 8 HAHD LIMES Rt : ,898 Z : ,818 ELEC TR ICREEL HZ: ,974 Z : ,376 DA fA SOURCE RHD RESULT BOTTO" LOHG LIME IZ : ,921 Z : ,483 Z85 18 15 ESII"ATED AGE ..~ • • • .~ • 8 4 2 4 I 3 8 o ALL CO""ERC IAL H' : .958 10 1-- ~ -r-- -r- -4- Z:.-:~.4.:.:.,8:...2 ~ RECHEAflOHAL 5 HI : .939 10 t---~--r--~..,....--+- ---:Z=--:..:..:'1:..::32=--~ ALL "ETHODS H' : .953 Z: .531 169 • FIGURE 8.13 RED SMPPEJI REUIORT=8TL=4S.9[1-EXP(-.11SCAGE+.S») 59.9 42.B 18.8 34.B 26.8 18.8 8.88 8.18 8.28 8.38 8.48 8.58 B.68 8.78 8.88 B.98 1.B8 IHSTMTAttEOUS FISHItIQ ttORTALlfV Mtl CF) .. I "I "U.. S I Z E Yield and spawninq stock biomass per recruit for red snapper as a function ot minimum lenqth in inches and the instantaneous rate ot fishinq mortality {F). The shaded reqions represent areas where fishinq has reduced.spawninq stock biomass per recruit to levels below 2.5' (lower riqht), 5', 10',20', and 30' (upper lett) ot the untished level. Each yield isopleth traces a contour where the combination ot lenqth at recruitment and fishinq mortality produce a constant biomass yield. The contours are for yields that are 25', 50', 75', 90', 95' and 99' ot·the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The qrowth and mortality estimates are taken tro. this study and Nelson and Manooch (1982). M is the natural mortality rate employed in the calculations, and RELMORT is the fraction ot released subleqal fish that die as a result ot capture. 170 FIGURE 8.14 RE1J'tORT=.33 RED SMAPPER TL=4S .9U-EXP(- . 115(AGE•. 5» ) "=.Z sa W N ... c.1 III : Co) J: J: =J:-II: 18-I: 1. .... '.IS '.1' '.15 '.28 '.25 1.31 '.35 '.41 8.45 8.se INSTANTANEOUS 'ISHING "ORTALITY IATI CF' Yield in pound. for each isopleth ~~~--~-~--------~-------~------~----25' 0.534 90' 1.921 50' 1.067 95' 2.028 75' 1.601 99' 2.114 Yield and spawninq stock bioma•• per recruit (SSBR) for red snapper a. a function of minimua lenqth in inches and the instantaneous rate of fishinq mortality (P). The boundry of the shaded reqion i. the i.opleth tor 20' of the unfished SSBR. Parameter combination. within the shaded are. cau.e SSBR to be reduced below 20'. Each yield i.opleth trace. a contour where the combin.tion of lenqth at recruitment and fishinq mortality produce • con.t.nt bio•••• yield. The contours are for yields that are tst, 50t, 75t, 90t, 95' and 99' of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The qrovthand mortality .stimate. are taken from this study and Nelson and Manooch (1982). M is the natural mortality rate employed in the calculations, and RELMORT is the fraction ot released subleqal fish that die as a result of capture. A shrimp trawl bycatch mortality of sot is assumed in the S8BR estimates. 171 FIGURE 8.15 Projections of future landings and spawning stock size of red snapper that would occur with no change in present regulations. 15 R SHA SINULAfl1 LANDIN'I co Q Z ~ o •.. o co z o-....-K 9 , 3 • 1983 OISIIUII 1985 1917 1911I 1991 , SIAIUI GUO 1 1,. 1997 1", 1 2883 VIAl SINULAII. I'AYNINI Sloel SIZI.. C-.. •III.. o • w ~-.. u =•o ••III • 24 18 ~ . 12 ~ ~ , "" ~ . • • • ,SIAIUI OUO • 1917 1981 199119113 1 • • • • • • • • 1911 1991 1997 1", 1 2883 VIAl 172 FIGURE 8.16 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION 01 1972-1986 C~ERCIAL UE~ILIOH SHAPPER CATCH 3S FLORIDA .--.~p=-------------.. P E R C E "T o 1 T o T A L 28 21 14 7 ., 21 19 17 LOU IS lAM 15 13 18 8 5 3 1 GRID Spatial distribution of the 1972-1986 commercial catch of vermilion snapper regardless of where they were landed. The grid desiqnations are trom the NMFS shrimp grid system. Landings from grid 7 are equally divided between grids 6 and 8, and landings from grid 12 are equally divided between grids 11 and 13 tor presentation. 173 FIGURE 8.17 Length frequency of vermilion snapper harvested recreational anglers. The data were obtained data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, by commercial from the NMFS 1979-1986. and TIp RECREATIONAL 25 595 145 3849 4835 4356 9191 H " H N " " 28151858 ALL "ErHODS HAHD LIHES 24 24 24 30 24 o 12 30 15 15 12 12 12 FORI LENGTH (INCHES) 174 FIGURE 8.18 VEMILIOIt SMPPER LD4GfH FREQUEltCy FROft 1986 HEADBOAT SURVEY 38 45413733Z9 .zs211713,s8 24 6 GUU"UIDI TOTAL " =389Z P E R 19 C E "l' 1.2 TOTAL LDtQ!H (IIICHIS) Lenqth frequency of vermilion snapper sampled from the Headboa~ fishery throuqhou~ the Gulf ot Mexico in 1986. Data courtesy Gene Huntsman, NMFS, Beaufort, NC. 175 FIGURE 8.19 Length frequency of gray (mangrove) snapper harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. 24 ,..---------------------.., 12 PUR! HAHD LIHES H : 1145 H : 278 H : 338 " : 1776 " : 1165 GILL NETS RECREATIONAL BOTTO" LONG LINE 40 ~- r -~~~.g~~==:J 20 12 20 ~ -... -a~z 10 20 ~ ..t;;i 12 ALL "JIHODS N: 2941 10 o 8 5 18 : 15 12." rL FORI LENGTH (I"CHES) L:... /I. 3 II y::L. =I ~ l'rJ...)' 28 25 176 FIGURE 8.20. Length frequency of yellowtail snapper harvested oy commercial and recreational anglers . The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. JIJ 25 H • 97 " : 182 " : 1668 H - 6692 N : 9378 " : 2118 " : 114g8 2818 15 FORI LENGTH (INCHES) 5 GILL HErS ALL "EtHODS FISH TRAPS HAKD LIKES ELECTRIC REELS RECREATIONAL BOTTOR LONG LIKE 8 2S 20 r-----r--..J.;;;;;.;;¥~..a::I:~:r::----....,----J 10 20 r----,-----I;~~~~~~~~~---J 10 40 t-----r----,..-~~.~~~~E:::l::===="J 20 20 r-----r---..-:.;F~~¥:::I:I:a:c::lI:I::air------J 10 20 1"----,----~~~~~~~i2---~ 10 30 r----.--~.~~~~~~::IiI::I:II.----J 15 20 ~--,..-d~Em~~~;::ma--,.-...-----J 10 o 177 FIGURE 8.21 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION or 1972-198& GROUPER CO""ERCIAL CATCH 35 P E R C E "T o F T o T A L Z8 21 7 8 21 19 17 LOUISIANA 15 GRID 18 8 FLORIDA 5 3 1 spatial distribution of the 1972-1986 commercial catch of grouper and scamp regardless of where they were landed. The grid designations are from the NMFS shrimp grid system. Landings from grid 7 are equally divided between grids 6 and 8, and landings from grid 12 are equally divided between grids 11 and 13 for presentation. 178 FIGURE 8.22 Length frequency of red grouper harvested by commercial and. recreational anglers. The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. 45 58 HAMD LIMES H : 1582 FISH TRAPS H : 2951 ELECTRIC REELS H : 3364 15 28 25 38 3S 48 TOTAL LENGTH (IHCHES) 5 18 30 15 20 10 ~ 12 Z 6 ~ 12 U & "~ 10 ~ 5 14 1 10 5 0 8 179 FIGURE 8.23 RED GROUPER LDtG1'H FREQUEl'tCY FROIt 1986 HEAD8OA1' SURVEY 28 GUL.FWIDI rorAL " =367 16 P E R 12 C E "l' 8 4 8 5 MrAL LDtG!H (lItCHIS) 33 41 45 Length frequency of red grouper sampled from the Headboat fishery throughout the Gulf of Mexico in 1986. Data courte.yGene Huntsman, NMPS, Beaufort, NC. 180 FIGURE 8.24 Total mortality estimates of red grouper harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The estimates were derived from lengths from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. 181 FIGURE 8.25 RED GROUPER 35 fL=31.16£1-EXPC-.179(AGE+.449»] "'=.15 RELI10RT=8 15 ........... ' ........ . : . ................ : •. : .. : .. ........ : .. ...... ",',. ..... ' ," "," ".' ' : .. : .. : .. 8.85 8.18 8.15 8.28 8.25 8.38 8.35 8.48 8.45 8.58 IHSTAHTAHEOUS FISHIHG "ORTALITV RATE eF) 38 25 18 8.88 W N-'" I: :) ~ 28 z-I: Yield in pounds for each isopleth ~-25' 0.780 90' 2.807 50' 1.560 95' 2.963 75' 2.339 99' 3.088 Yield and spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) for red grouper as a tunction of minimum length in inches and the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality (F). The boundry of the shaded region is the isopleth for 20' of the unfished SSBR. Parameter combinations within the shaded area cause SSBR to be reduced below 20t. Each yield isopleth traces a contour where the combination of length at recruitment and fishing mortality produce a constant biomass yield. The contours are for yields that are 25', 50', 75', 90', 95' and 99' of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The growth and mortality estimates are derived from Moe (1969). M is the natural mortality rate employed in the calculations, and RELMORT is the fraction of released sublegal fish that die as a result of capture. 182 FIGURE 8.26 RED GROUPER 35 TL=31.16[1-EXPC- . 179CAGE+ .449»' l. ."=..15 .. REL"ORT=. 33 W N-CI2 I: := z:-z:-I: 38 2S 28 15 18 8.88 8.85 8.18 8.15 8.28 8.25 8.38 8.35 8.48 8.45 8.58 IHSTAHTAHEOUS FISHIHG "ORTALITV RATE CF> Yield in pounds for each isopleth 25' 0.559 90% 2.011 50' 1.117 95' 2.123 75' 1.676 99' 2.212 Yield and spawninq stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) for red qrouper as a function of minimum lenqth in inches and the instantaneous rate of fishinq mortality (F). The boundry of the shaded reqion is the isopleth for 20' of the unfished SSBR. Parameter combinations within the shaded area cause SSBR to be reduced below 20t. Each yield isopleth traces a contour where the combination of lenqth at recruitment and fishinq mortality produce a constan~ biomass yield. The contours are for yields that are 25t, sot, 75t, 90t, 95' and 99' of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The qrowth and mortality estimates are derived from Moe (1969). M is the natural mortality rate employed in the calculations, and RELMORT is the fraction of released subleqal fish that die as a resUlt of capture. 183 FIGURE 8.27 L-ength frequency of gag grouper harvested by commercial and recreational angl~rs. . The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. 58 H : 25 M: 316 H: 3814 " : 7232 " : 5853 " : 1319 28 38 48 TOTAL LENGTH (INCHES) .. . 18 ALL "EfHODS HAMD LIMES RECREATIONAL BOffO" LOMG LIME 8 14 ,.--------------------~ 7 14 ~-- ,~~~::6...,.~~""-~--lii;~- ---~ 7 10 1----~--.r:~~~~~~~~~~....c...- 1 5 10 ~-- ..,~---J::..a::Iij:~~~~~~.w;;;;w...,..~~- l 5 10 I------r----~~~~~~~~~&l;;;;,i;:;::z l 5 10 J------r---a5:Ii':~~~~~~~~~~ j 5 10 ~ -e:IIIIi~E;,I~~~:tii~~~d:..,.. -- i 5 o 184 FIGURE 8.28 Length frequency of black grouper harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. .; H : 288 H : 311 H : 639 H : 26B " : 1644 . -.: .. " ... HAHD LIHES BLL AHD BUOYS FISH TRAPS 7 5 5 14 r--------------------~ 7 14 1------r----~~~;;J;;.J;;J~~~Si::lC--~-- 4 7 14 ~-- ,.--a~:iiI:Wi;~::Ii:OI:oiI:oii:li:l:il~~~Ii:E:ioI:ii~~"'I;;.I;"'~-=--f 7 10 ~-~ Eili§~ ~~~~~D..,.--~ 5 o ... Z CII (J g: ~. 10 ...-- ..--,. ...........~.......~ii:oI:oIOi~~~ .....~~~~ Q.. 8 18 28 38 tOtAL LEHGrH (INCHES) 48 58 185 FIGURE 8.29 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIO" or 1912-1986 ~BERJACX C~ERCIAL CATCH 8 16 12 135 nORIM 81815 LOU IS lAM 1119 TEXAS 21 8 28 P E R C E.. T o F T o T A 4 L GJlID Spatial distribution at the 1972-1986 commercial catch of amberjack regardle•• of where they were landed. The grid designations are tram the NMFS shrimp grid system. Landings from grid 7 are equally divided between grid. 6 and 8, and landings from grid 12 are equally divided between grids 11.and 13 for presentation. . 186. . FIGURE 8.30 Length frequency of greater arnberjack harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The data were obtained from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. HAHD LIMES H: 358 TROLLED LIMES H: 33 BUOYS H: 31 20 ..- --iij:~ ~-IiOoIo-~~~:iI:ii&iiOlIi:iC:iil:ii;~~~ l 10 ALL CO""ERCIAL N: 686 10 r-----------------------, 5 20 1o----,......"-"-"'~~ ......~~ol::ooIOooloo~~~~~~ .......~ 10 20 Io----,..---......*---,..---O;'W'.........~~~......~~----l 10 12 ..------r-----r--~~I:oi;Iii;;li;~~~~~ I & BOTTO" LONG LINE " : 82 sa4828 38 FORK LENGTH (INCHES) 188 10~- , ~~~:I::£J~~J.a:;E~=:fi3iS~~::J:J..~ 5 10~ ....~Hi:~~~~~&!~~~~~ 5 o 187 FIGURE 8.31 GREATn AI'IBERJ'ACK LENGTH FREQUDtCY FROft 1986 HEADBOAt SURVEY 28 584SS8 8 4 GULFWIDE TOTAL .. =592 16 P E R 12 C E.. T 8 TOTAL LEHQTH (IHCHES) Length frequency of greater amberjack sampled du~ing the 1986 Headboat survey from the Gulf of Mexico (Data courtesy Gene Huntsman, NMFS, Beaufort, NC). 188 FIGURE 8.32. Total mortality estimates of greater amberjack harvested by commercial and recreational anglers. The estimates were derived from lengths from the NMFS TIp data files, 1983-1987 and the MRFSS data files, 1979-1986. OTHER GEAR HZ : .768 Z: .958 HAHD LINES RZ: .957 Z: .881 ALL "ETHODS HI : .958 Z: .599 RECREATIONAL HZ :.987 Z : .544 ALL CO""ERCIAL HZ : .893 Z: .844 • .~ ..~ 4 6 4 4 2 3 8 6 3 8 8 5 18 15 ESrl"AfED AGE 28 DA fA SOURCE AMD HESUL t 189 FIGURE 8.33 CATCH CURVE FOR GREATER A~BERJACX 8 ESTI"ATED FRO~ 1986 HEADBOAT LEHGTH FREQUEHCY DATA 18987643218 8 6 L IHTERCEPT = 6.19 0 SLOPE =-8.61 G R-Square =8.972 5 H = 18 H U • "B 3 E R 2 Catch curve for qreater amberjack based on the lenqth frequency observed in the 1986 headboat survey in the Gulf of Mexico. Ages were estimated from lengths based on the von Bertalanffy growth equation. The slope of the regression (-0.61) is an estimate of total mortality (Z). If th~ headboat catch is a random sample of the Gulf of Mexico population of amberjack and natural mortality is 0.2, fiShing mortality would be estimated to about 0.40 from this approach. 190 FIGURE 8.34 78 TL=64.96£1-EXPC-.174CAGE+.653))] ~=.2 RE~ORT=a 68 ~ N- 58~ c=z 48-z c 38 28 8.88 8.18 8.28 8.38 a.48 8.58 8.68 8.71 8.88 8.98 1.Ba INStANtANEOUS FISHING "ORtALIty RAtl CF) Yield and spawning stock biomass per recruit for amberjack as a function of minimum lenqth in inches and the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality (F). The shaded regions represent areas where fishing has reduced spawning stock biomass per recruit to levels below 2.5' (lower right), 5t, lOt, 20t and JO' (upper left) of the unfished levels. Each yield isopleth traces a contour where the combination of lenqth at recruitment and fishing mortality produce a constant biomass yield. The contours are for yields that are 25t, sot, 75t, 90t, 95t and 99' of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The growth and mortality e.timate. are from D. Gregory (personal communication). M'is the natural mortality rate employed in the calCUlations, and RELMORT is the fraction of released sublegal fish that die as a result of capture. \ 191 ~ N ~ ~ = z z 78 68 58 48 38 28 FIGURE 8.35 GREATER ~BERJACX TL=64.96(l-EXP(-.114 8.81 8.18 8.28 8.38 8.48 8.sa 8.68 8.78 8.88 8.98 1.88 INSTANTANEOUS FISHING "ORTALITY RATZ (r) Yield and spawning stock biomass per recruit for amberjack as a function of minimum length in inches and the instantaneous rata of fishing mortality (F). The shaded regions represent areas where fishing has reduced .spawning stock biomass per recruit to levels below 2.5' (lower right), 5', 10',20' and 30' (upper left) of the unfished lavels. Each yield isopleth traces a contour where the combination of length at recruitment and fishing mortality produce a constant biomass yield. The contours are for yield. that are 25t, 50', 75', 90t, 95' and 99% of the maximum obtainable within the parameter space. The growth and mortality estimate. are from D. Gregory (personal communication). M is the natural mortality rate employed in the calculations, and RELMORT is the fraction of released sublegal fish that die as a result of capture. 192 ..... '-0 W TOTAL ANNUAL LANDINGS, IN THOUSAND POUNDS, PERCENT CONTRIBUTION Of THE COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SECTORS Of SELECTED REEf fiSH fOR THE GULF OF MEXICO, 1979·1987. Cogaercial dJta includes onlV ~stic catches. Data fro. NHfS data files (General Canvas and MRfSS). SPECIES Snappers . total Grav Mutton Red Vel1lill ion Yellowtail Lane Grt. Allberjack Groupers Jewfish Sea ba&&es Totals SPECIES Snappers . total Grav Mutton Red Ver.ill ion Yellowtai I Lane Grt. Allber jack Groupers Jewfish Sea basses Totals 1979 Com.ercial Recreatioanl Total 6788 747 242 4510 439 812 38 194 7969 191 44 15186 471 7632 241 2411 1001 0 491 4697 471 504 l00x 1 671 19 61 2863 671 3837 511 187 41 9aa 491 15507 1982 531 14420 761 3158 01 242 511 9207 531 943 01 8U 331 57 941 lOS 7 331 11806 491 378 96X 1032 511 30693 C~rcial Recreatioanl Total 9100 932 278 6143 398 .1289 60 251 14933 199 30 24513 381 14544 621 23644 211 3439 m 4371 141 1721 541 5299 251 1224 341 2535 161 326 31 9581 591 10360 141 1174 31 1092 401 36751 861 1999 461 11442 751 1622 661 3824 841 386 91'l 9832 'IX 25293 861 1373 971 1122 601 61264 1980 Com.ercial Recreatioanl Total 6462 784 223 4445 309 673 28 212 8433 240 17 15364 351 11963 521 725 721 87 291 10631 541 264 81'l 98 151 158 ]X 7272 721 3252 21'l 663 4X 377 651 18425 481 1509 281 310 711 15076 461 573 13X 771 851 186 971 7484 281 11685 731 903 96X 394 401 23527 601 38891 1983 Coamercial Recreatioanl Total 10075 1014 277 1210 570 955 49 301 11545 220 U 22160 62X 6202 451 1224 531 248 651 3883 79X 147 641 543 241 157 11X 2493 671 5783 1001 0 ]X 166 601 14844 18X 16277 551 2238 471 525 351 11093 211 717 361 1498 761 206 891 2800 331 17328 01 220 971 319 401 37004 1981 Commercial Recreatioanl 10lai 7450 731 173 5435 362 708 41 263 12133 219 19 20084 391 11617 501 714 751 58 361 9536 731 117 411 1037 261 115 131 1744 721 4752 1001 0 51 335 521 18448 1984 61X lYuof 50X 1465 25% 231 64% 14971 271 499 59X 1745 74X 156 871 2007 28X 16885 OX 219 95X 354 48X 38532 Commercial Recrealioanl Total 8861 838 180 6091 746 943 63 593 11212 112 25 20803 60X 5929 29% 2099 38X 295 761 1969 78X 216 461 1124 221 226 261 1654 621 6807 33X 226 7X 141 58X 14957 40X 14790 711 2937 621 475 24X 8060 22X 962 541 2067 781 289 74X 221,7 381 18019 671 338 911 366 42X 35760 ...................................................... ····················r································· ......................... . « COli I Inued » TOTAL. ANNUAL LANDINGS, IN THOUSAND POUNDS, PERCENT CONTRIBUTION Of THE COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SECTORS Of SELECTED REEF FISH fOW THE GUlf Of' MEXICO, 1979-1981. Ca..ercial data includes only ~stic catches. Data fra. NHfS data files (General Canvas and MRFSS) .-. --------------------------------------- .. 1985 1986 1987 SPECIES C~rcial Recreat ioanl Total C~rcial Recreat ioanl Total COIIIIIercial Recreatioanl lotal ------------ ------------ -------- ... -... .--- .... -- .. -- ........................ Snappers - total 73n 5R 1493 5R 14865 7301 691 3240 311 10541 6988 671 3~20 33% 10~08 Gray 661 291 1600 111 2268 590 381 956 621 1546 631 33X 1286 671 1911 Mutton 195 60X 132 40X 327 218 63X 128 311 146 330 651 115 351 505 led 4565 491 4n2 511 9287 383a 751 1301 251 5139 3111 761 991 241 4108 Veraillion 1086 751 161 251 1441 1661 8R 408 201 2069 1565 851 266 151 1831 Yellowtail 790 sax 513 421 1163 924 141 327 261 1251 1215 691 566 311 1841 Lane 61 391 105 611 173 70 311 120 631 190 16 251 230 151 306 Grt. AeerjKk 829 251 2542 751 3371 1331 291 3220 711 4551 1843 341 3627 661 5470 Groupers 13146 551 10960 451 24106 12569 68X 5916 321 18485 . 12608 761 3923 241 16531 Jewfish 133 321 271 68X 410 109 741 38 261 147 101 141 192 661 293 Sea basses 19 11 2827 99X 2846 24 21 1076 981 1100 37 51 673 951 710 ., .... )0 \0 OJ .J>o &; Totals 21499 411 24099 531 45598 ·21334 611 13490 391 34824 21577 641 11935 36% 33512 ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... ------------------------------------------- OJ ..... . 1919-87 1985-81 0 SPECIES Ca.ereial Iec:reat ioanl Total C.-reial lecreatioanl Total 0 !:J ... --------- ------------ -- ... - ------------ ------------ ----- IT Snappers - total 70397 491 72140 511 142537 21661 601 14253 401 35914 0 Gray 6935 321 14474 68X 21409 1889 nx 3842 671 5731 Mutton 2116 431 2844 511 4960 743 63X 435 311 1118 led 45348 511 43035 491 88383 11514 621 7020 381 18534 Vend II ion 7136 611 3527 331 10663 4312 811 1035 191 5347 Yellowtail 8369 55X 6804 451 15173 2989 671 1466 nx 4455 lane 493 25X 1456 15X 1949 214 32X 455 68X 669 Grt. Allber jack 5823 141 34996 861 40819 4003 301 9389 701 13392 Grouperro 104548 651 SSS90 3S1 160138 38121 6S1 Z0799 :m: 59122 Jewfish 1524 36X 2157 641 4281 343 401 507 601 8~0 Sea basses 228 ]X 8015 971 8303 80 2X 4576 981 4656 Totals 182520 51% 173558 49% 356078 64410 57"" 49524 43% 113934 .... -.............. - ----- ........... -... - ... -- -.. - -.. -....... -- -- .... --.. -.. --... - -...... .. - .. - - ........ .. - - ... -- ........ - ... - ......... - - ........ -..... - .. - ............................................... REO SNAPPER COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSANDS O~ POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GULF STATE AND PERCENT OF OF CATCH BY GEAR TYPE. FOR 1912-1981. Data fra. the NMFS Stock AssesSient for red snapper (GoodVear, 19888 and 1988b)and NHFS, ESO, General Canvas landings files. Year .------------------.-----.-.-.-.--.-----.------------------.-.-.------ .---------.--.-.-----------.----------.-.-. STATE 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 19n 1918 1919 1980 1981 1982 1981 1984 1985 1986 1987 .-.------.-----.-----.-------------------------------------------.------------. Florida 1149 4011 4961 4841 4]9] ]14] 2966 2981 ]113 3413 3616 4228 2885 1822 1034 713 Aiabalia 133 128 693 723 534 343 276 248 164 346 514 443 340 199 146 139 Mississippi 1531 1831 1615 1325 1332 1215 1001 891 136 674 958 1096 926 565 396 265 Louisiana 259 ]54 286 151 51 99 71 176 201 421 464 718 1487 1215 1359 1285 Tellas 1238 711 74] 627 341 440 221 215 2]1 521 510 124 452 764 903 709 t-3 ) tlJ GEAR TYPE Percentage Contribution ~ .-.--------.-.-.---.-.-----.--------.-.---.-----------.-.------------------------------ 00 Entangl ing Nets OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX .- Handlines/8andit 78X 82X 86X 88X 95X 891 95X 921 91X 84X 86X 81X M 76X 671 6SX ~ \0 Longl ines/lIuovs OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 5X l1X l1X 15X lOX 9X lOX 13X U1 Fish Traps OX OX OX OX 01 01 OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Shrillp Trawls 6X 7X 5X 4X 5X ]X 4X ]X 4X 4X 3X 4X ]X 2X IX 2X Fish Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Mise./Unk. Gear 161 lOX 91 ax OX ax OX 5X OX OX OX OX 7X 14X 22X 214 TOTAL LAND I NGS 1516 nl1 8304 1661 6658 5]00 454] 4511 4445 5415 6142 7209 6090 4565 3838 3111 . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-.--------------------.------------. TABLE 8.3 Percentage distr ibution, i n n\J1i)ers of fish, of recreational reef fish landed (A+Sl) by Species, s~3:e, 3rd year in the Gulf of Mexic~, 1979·1987. The Texas data do not inclUde charter/party or private/re~cal :cat modes in 1982·1984 nor any modes for 1986·1987. The party boat mode is not inc I uded for any s tat e dwr 1,"9 1986·1987. Oata are from the NMFS Marine Recreetional Fishery Statistics Survey • .................. -------- ... ... -.- ......... ................ ...... ... -............. -.... - ..... ----------- .. -...... Recreational harvest (A+Sl), 1979·1987 ... -.. .. -.. --- ..... .. - .. ---- .. --.- .. -. ------- .. ... ------------ .... - ...... - .•......... SPECIES STATE 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79·97 ................................................ + ................... - ............ -+- ............ -.- .............. + .............. + ................................. + ...................................... + ................ Red Alabama 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 grouper Florida 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. a Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'J MiSSissippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NUTi:)er 208696 ln167 480741 526361 537863 1231794 847884 636604 429854 5076964 Warsaw AlabaIM 9.4 0 0 0.8 0 0 0.2 0 7.5 0.7 grouper Florict. 0 17.8 85.3 99.2 53.7 50.5 99.8 100.0 78.6 91. 7 Louisian. 0 50.4 0 0 46.3 0 0 0.0 0 2.5 Mississippi 0 31.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9 0.3 TeXIS 90.6 0 14.7 0 0 49.5 0 0 0 4.8 NUTi:)er 24784 5430 n13 190743 31419 18602 392280 11861 3248 685580 Nassau AlabaIM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 grouper Florict. 100.0 99.4 100.0 91.7 100.0 96.2 44.4 99.6 100.0 98.1 Louisiana 0 0 0 8.3 0 2.1 55.6 0.4 0 1.4 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.0 Tex.s 0 0.6 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0.5 NUTi:)er 48964 67365 65823 32466 30328 133541 2851 93801 43854 519000 Gag AlabaIM 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 3.3 0.1 0.3 grouper Florict. 100.0 100.0 98.3 100.0 100.0 57.9 98.4 90.1 97.4 91.0 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 1.1 0 0.3 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 2.5 0.4 Teus 0 0 0 0 0 42.1 0 0 0 8.0 N .... r 126630 106745 249893 466633 310513 437241 374456 91037 145506 2308724 Slack Al.baIM 0.5 0 2.9 0 0.3 0 4.4 1.9 0.1 1.3 grouper Florid. 96.0 100.0 97.1 98.6 99.4 99.9 95.6 97.9 98.5 98.1 Louisiana 3.6 0 0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0 0.3 1.4 0.5 Mississippi 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Teus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .... r 158061 422442 180816 342679 569n4. 184599 513113 464971 284043 3190505 SC8ll'4' Al.t... 0 0 0.5 23.7 0.3 0 0 0 0 6.2 Florict. 100.0 100.0 99.5 71.7 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.6 Louisi.". 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 MissiSSippi 0 0 0 4.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 Tex.s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .... r 1271 9055 133911 90995 40606 29892 332. 13601 5975 358671 Jewfish Al.~ 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 Floridli n.9 90.4 100.0 86.3 0 0 100.0 10.9 97.8 80.5 Louisiana 0 9.6 0 13.7 0 100.0 0 89.1 2.2 18.2 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teus 22.1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 1.2 N .... r 3823 16904 14330 10175 0 2456 10651 7963 3039 69341 Sea basses AlabaIM 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Florict. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 94.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 . Louisi.". 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MiSSissippi 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Texas 0.0 0 0 0 6.0 0 0 0 0 0.4 N .... r 1811303 610512 491209 1617044 825139 396963 3585243 1223975 743645 1.131E7 .. ---- .....•.... -••.•..........•.••....••.•••..•..••••..••...•..••.•.•..•..••.••..•..........•........ -- ... -..... -~-. ~in..s;p 196 TASLE 8.3 (cont'd) Percentage distribution, in numbers of fish, of recreational reef fish landed (A+S1) by species, s~ate, 3 year in the Gulf of Mexico, 1979·1987. The Texas data do not include charter/party or private/rental ~at modes in 1982-~984 nor any modes for 1986·1987. The party boat mode is not included for any state dur'rg 1986-1987. aata are from the ~MFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. ~- ....... -.. -.- ................................................ -......................................... ................... -- ........................ -.. -.. -....................................... -.......... Recreational harvest (A+81), 1979-1987 .. - ......... - ........ -.... -............................ - .................... -- .. -- -....................... -........ -...... -- ...... -.. -.. .. -.. - .... SPECIES STATE 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79· 37 .............................................. + ................. + .................. + ................... + .... -.- ........................................... +- .............. + ................ + .................................. Greater Alabama 2.1 5.4 29.1 0.3 a a a 5.1 5.2 3.9 Amberjacic Florida 81.8 55.6 56.5 92.1 65.4 35.7 71.0 92.2 87.0 80.2 Louisiana 9.2 32.9 14.0 7.6 34.6 64.3 29.0 2.6 7.8 15.0 Mi ss iss i ppi a a a a a a a 0 0 0 Texas 7.0 6.2 0.5 a a 0.0 a 0 0 0.9 ~YlCer 192320 196873 228357 12'5311 196655 102788 230407 208550 397187 2968448 Gray Alabama 0.3 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 a 0 0 0.6 0.2 snapper Florida 99.7 98.7 97.4 100.0 97.6 100.0 100.0 99.4 98.6 99.4 Louisiana 0 0.9 a 0 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Mississippi 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.8 0.1 Texas a a 0 0 2.1 0 0 a a 0.2 NYlCer 2115331 681312 5n207 4000094 1526526 2696796 987969 1060992 1246967 1.489E7 Mutton AlabaIM 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 a a a snapper Florida 0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 Louisia'" 0 4.0 a 0 a 0 0 a a 0.1 Mississippi 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a a a Texas a a a 0 a 4.0 0 a a 1.3. N~r 0 20356 199030 284626 102973 368802 29174 43407 89165 1137533 Red AlabaIM 23.9 1.9 20.2 16.4 37.3 36.1 27.0 24.8 32.8 21 -; snapper Florida 24.5 20.8 10.9 20.9 9.1 7.2 16.6 29.5 37.8 17 )' Louisiana 15.1 38.4 55.5 62.0 53.2 55.0 29.0 45.5 19.4 42 .• ' Mississippi 0.0 1.3 0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 10.0 0.5 Texas 36.5 37.6 13.1 0 0.1 1.6 27.3 0 a 18.0 NUli)er 5448019 4065227 4823718 3733637 3613444 1273516 1676449 621071 523091 2.578E7 Lane AlabaIM 85.0 2.8 a 0 0 a 0 0.2 1.7 1.5 snapper Florida 0 75.6 99.7 70.4 79.3 98.2 99.5 93.4 93.4 89.6 Louisi.". 0 14.5 0 29.6 20.7 1.3 0 6.4 3.1 8.0 Mississippi 0 4.9 a 0 a 0 0 a 1.7 0.4 Texas 15.0 2.1 0.3 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 N~" 37105 91321 363001 387014 265565 m402 284479 107801 317738 2628026 Yellowtail AlabaIM 0 0 0.0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0.0 snaPP!'r Florida 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.6 Louisiana 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0 0.1 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a Texas 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0.3 N~r 2623 142596 1403265 1762780 675670 1391566 440086 201364 412131 6432081 Vermilion AlabaIM 6.3 0.5 25.5 1.7 16.5 85.3 0 36.3 14.7 14.5 snapper Florida 89.9 97.9 67.1 83.7 73.9 14.7 89.7 62.6 85.2 78.8 Louisia'" 0 0.1 6.9 14.6 9.6 0.0 10.3 1.2 0.2 5 .9 Mississ~ppi 0 0 0 0 a 0 • 0 a 0 0 Texas 3.8 1.1 0.5 0 0 0 0 a 0 0.8 N~r 725554 669610 215532 1193753 205269 403659 436436 253689 310922 4417424 ...................................................•......................... -.......... - ..•.•..•... --- •••.......... 197 TABLE 8.4 Estimltes of the numbers of red snapper caught in the Gulf of ~exico he~.t fishery in 1986. (dat. courttsy G. Huntsman, NMFS, Beaufort, NC). ~e." Location N~r Pot.nd. Weight ~ .............. ---- ... ........... . ........... Dry Tortug .. 9 23 2.5 Southwest Florida 509 1282 2.5 Florida Middle Grou-da 943 2330 2.5 NY Florida' Alae.m. 14903 34133 2.3 Louisi.". 14247 27796 2.0 Northe .. t Texa. 220703 219003 1.0 Port Aransas, Tex •• 24049 32235 1.3 Port Isabll, Texa. 57091 92828 1.6 ........................ ......... .. .......... Total 332454 409630 1.2 198 TABLE 8.5 Estimlted total recreationel harvest of red snapper in nureers 1979-1986. The estimltes are derived frOll! the .. arine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey adjusted for missing strata (4/18/88). Adjustments ...... ----- .... ----- ... -- .. Year MRFSS A B C Total ............ ........... ....... ------- . . ........... 1979 5448000 5448000 1980 4065000 4065000 1981 4824000 206000 5030000 1982 3734000 489667 4224000 1983 3613000 463555 4077000 1984 1214000 348975 1623000 1985 1676000 1676000 1986 621000 364175 985000 A. Adjustment for missing first .,.ve of protr. based on proportion of total IMUIII lending. thn occurred in the first wave of other years. B. Adjustment for years in which rexa. boet mode wa. not estimlted by MRFSS. S .. Parr.ck (19861) for the derivation of the.e e.tlmates. C. Adjustment to include party booIt catch which w •• not s~led byMFRSS in 1986 (N • 332454) end rexa. boat mode. (N • 31721). The data are fra. the NMFS Heecl:loat survey, courtesy G. HlA'1tSlllln, NMFS, Beaufort, Ne, and frOM rexa. Park. end Wildlife Department coqlUter printouts of recreational catch esti t ... 199 ,c TABLE 8.6 Estimated tOUl ~rl of red snapper llnded by conmercial and recreationel fishennen by length and yeer for 1979 end 1983·1986 (4/18/88) • . -- . .................. -.... - •........... YEAIt .. .•........•... -............. -....... ---. lent 1979 1984 1985 1986 5 0 1070 3886 283 6 6896 351 11651 425 1 45515 8200 84189 5807 8 182546 39134 213709 26636 9 486622 121841 139841 96308 10 625241 268919 51560 167133 11 900139 411255 188399 174546 12 910565 468587 541222 249314 13 665317 345844 311611 224333 14 485995 248325 251037 205534 15 289336 213648 163603 138716 16 190451 179688 157012 89610 17 166453· 121450 12886 60035 18 100486 102859 62270 52474 19 84007 94807 49325 42737 20 123169 98626 45602 33128 21 103617 68509 30663 27010 22 118m 12571 29930 27494 23 99644 62563 34761 21854 24 16453 43929 28185 18587 25 11682 31740 21218 20252 26 48111 25940 22686 18371 27 68928 lallO 17386 16921 28 14845 10654 12732 13758 29 54800 14443 13062 11590 30 57965 13347 14259 10989 31 45066 11398 15333 10399 32 3]646 17404 16415 11058 33 13371 11957 12067 11556 34 11920 11866 11700 12801 35 4131 am . 5172 9071 16 2351 4464 4459 3261 37 972 1636 1779 1941 31 243 3597 1066 351 39 486 873 259 703 40 0 0 259 78 41 0 0 0 39 42 0 246 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 U 6157046 3170870 264127'9 1821178 200 TABLE 8.7 Estilllllted tot.l l'Uli»rs of red snapper lvdad by comnerci.l arod recreltional fishermen by Ige and ye.r for 1979 and 1983-1986 (4/18/88) • .... -- ........ -•••••.•••..•.•.•...•........ YEAR ..................... -- ... .•.....•• age 1979 1984 1985 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1 296129 69330 376906 43915 2 2968675 1296328 865941 687603 3 1462031 902676 828077 616118 4 401735 355150 228015 178841 5 321071 237912 108m 89395 6 235291 131041 74310 57719 7 130059 57975 47587 39136 8 150984 29637 29266 31372 9 100116 23837 24859 20060 10 57473 23'E~2 26695 17210 11 17831 18:08 20014 11728 12 11106 12807 7680 14159 13 2837 4377 5165 4433 14 972 2823 2320 2319 15 243 3597 1066 351 16 486 873 173 410 17 0 0 259 371 18 0 0 86 39 19 0 0 0 0 20 0 246 0 0 .-..... U. 6157045 3110870 2647279 1821178 201 TABLE 8.8 EstiIMtecl lo •• in nure.rs II"d weight of potentlll red snapper in the combined com.ercill and recreltional cltch I. e consequence of the bycltch of juvenile snlpper. in the shrimp fishery. Fishing mortility is .ssumed to be either constant It 0.34 or to be I decrel.ing function of Ige (s .. tlxt). S I. the assumed survivll between the bycatch Ige Ind recruitment to the fishery. M is assumed to be constant 0.2. EstiIMtecl .hrimp trl~l bycltch . . - .- .......•.. ----- ......... .... 12 million 4.4 million ...... - .......... . - .•••..••...•... Fishing I'lUItler ~ I'lUItler powIds mortal ity S 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000. ........ -... -....... F constant 1.00 7556 12769 2170 4682 F constant O.SO 6044 10215 221' 3745 F con.tant 0.60 3627 6129 1330 2247 F constant 0.40 1451 2452 532 899 F constant 0.20 290 490 106 180 F verilble 1.00 8899 7904 3263 2891 F variable O.SO 7119 6323 2610 2319 F vlriable 0.60 42n 3794 1566 1391 F vlriable 0.40 1109 1511 627 556 F varilble 0.20 342 304 125 111 202 N o w (sti.-led geer specific fishing'~rtaliIV rates and .pewning stock ratios (55R) for Gulf of MeKico red sn.pper. S"RI"" BYCAJ'" BOHON l(llG LIME COIMERCIAl HA.UII( RlCRUJlOIIAl , .. - . ------------ . ----- .---- ....... --- ............. -- ..... --- - ... - .. -- ..... --- ..... - ............... .. ...... --- .. -....... --- .............. -- .. AGE lOO'S PROP fl f2 o 120000 1.000 1.040 0.940 I 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 6 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 7 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 a 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 a 0.000 0.000 0.000 11 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1) 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 14 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 15 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 16 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 17 a 0.000 0.000 0.000 la a 0.000 0.000 0.000 19 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 loo'S PROP fl f2 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 21 0.001 0.002 0.001 45 0.01' 0.010 0.006 90 0.062 0.028 0.021 91 0.104 0.042 0.0)5 59 0.122 0.041 0.041 11 0.122 0.0)1 0.042 11 0.164 0.049 0.056 49 0.218 0.065 0.074 42 0.221 0.066 0.015 24 0.201 0.062 0.011 14 0.291 0.089 0.101 5 0.208 0.06) 0.071 ) 0.206 0.062 0.070 2 0.115 0.115 0.1)1 1 0.5JS 0.160 0.112 o 1.000 0.)00 0.140 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 l00'S PROP fl f2 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0.00) 0.000 0.000 1579 0.166 0.125 0.057 4014 0.522 0.))9 0.171 1120 0.111 O.J94 0.244 "14 0."5 0.)67 0.271 7U9 0.101 0.12) 0.215 192 0.11) 0.215 0.271 241 0.101 0.242 0.274 110 0.715 0.2)6 0.267 168 0.14' 0.224 0.254 144 0.765 0.2)0 0.260 90 0.716 0.2)) 0.264 )) 0.102 0.211 0.2J9 " 0.715 0.220 0.250 7 0.411 0.111 0.149 2 0.170 0.111 0.126 1 0.465 0.140 0.15' o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000' 0.000 0.000 1 1.000 0.)00 0.)40 l00'S PROP fl f2 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 1629 0.997 0.129 O.05a 7911 0.111 0.62S 0.281 1711 0.415 0.JD9 0.16l 615 0.266 0.146 0.090 179 0.121 0.056 0.042 77 0.011 0.015 0.010 11 0.065 0.021 0.022 21 0.011 0.02i 0.024 12 0.051 0.015 0.017 1 0.015 0.010 0.012 1 0.014 0.004 O.ODS 2 0.016 O.ODS 0.006 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.057 0.017 0.019 6 0.156 0.107 0.121 0.245 0.014 0.081 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 o 0.000 0.000 0.000 COM I MiD too'S /I r2 120000 1.040 0.940', 1614 0.129 0.05a 9500 O. no 0.140 182] 0.650 0.140 2540 0.550 0.140 1454 0.450 0.140 an 0.400 0.140 482 0.]50 0.140 101 0.]00 0.140 229 0.100 0.J40 225 0.)00 0.)40 188 0.)00 0.J40 115 O.JOO 0.)40 47 0.)00 0.J40 25 O.JOO 0.)40 17 0.)00 0.)40 5 0.)00 O. )40 2 O.JOO 0.J40 o O.JOO 0.J40 o O.JOO 0.J40 O.JOO 0.)40 ............ ..... -,. ...................... -- .... --- -- ......... - .. -- .. " ----- ...... ....... -............ -- .... -.. -.. -.- ... -- .. -- ........ -- .............. --- ... ~ .. --- .. -.. ~ .. -.................. --- ........... -- -- -~ ~ - .. - .. -- .. - ..... .. .. SSR 0.15] 0.191 0.716 0.711 0.104 0.161 Colu.n definitions: l00's = estilNled 1984·1986 an catch by age in hundreds of fish. PlOP z proportion of tola' catch in that age class that were captured in the spr~ified gear. f1 = eslilNled gear 5pr~ific partia' f assu.ing the varieble f vector. '2 = estiMated gear spe~ific partie' f essu.ing the constent f veccor. 0.252 0.471 0.009 0.027 Q) VERMILION SNAPPER COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN TWOUSANDS Of POUNDS, EXCLUDING fOREIGN CATCH) fOR EACH GULf STATE AND PERCENT Of Of CATCH BY GEAR TYPE FOR 1972-1987. Data from the NMfS Stock Assess.ent for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMfS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data. Year ~.---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------------. STATE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1 <,Jill .----------------------------.-------------.---.------------------------------------------------.-----. --------------' Florida 127 191 197 392 310 532 450 439 309 362 398 562 694 836 874 703 Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 52 129 112 61 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a a 111 149 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 85 443 610 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 37 121 42 t-3 ~ tv GEAR TYPE Percentage Contribution t'"i ttl .------------ .-----------------------. -----------------------------.--------- .--------------. N Entangl ing Nets OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 00 0 ~ Handlines/Bandit 100X 100X 100X 100X l00X 100X 100X 100X 100X 96X 97% 95X 95X 94X 91X 95X I-' 0 Longlines/Buovs OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 4X 3X 5X 4X 6X 5X lX fish Traps OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Shrillf) Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX IX OX IX OX Fish Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Misc./Unk. Gear OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 3X 2% ANNUAL TOTALS 127 191 197 392 310 532 450 439 309 362 398 571 746 1087 1661 1565 TABLE 8.11 Percentage distribution, in numbers of fish, of recreational reef fish landed (A+81) by species, area fished, ard year in the Gulf of Me~ico, 1979-1987 (TS = Territorial Sea, EEZ = E~clusive Economic Zone). The Te~as data do not include charter/party or private/rental boat modes in 1982-1984 nor any modes for 1986-1987. The party boat :node is not included for any state during 1986-1987. Data are from the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. .. --------.----.---.-------.- .. ----.-.-------.-.-.-.-----.--------.---.-.---.-----.------------.-.-.-----.-. Recreational harvest (A+Bl), 1979-1987 .-.-.----------------------.---.------.---.-.-.-.-.---.----.---.-.---------- .-. SPECIES AREA F I SHED 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79-87 +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------.--------.--------+--------+ .... .-. Red TS 58.3 23.4 6.5 39.1 49.4 51.6 25.1 22.7 36.9 35.8 grouper EEZ 41.7 76.6 91.4 60.9 48.3 48.1 74.9 77.3 63.1 63.7 Unknown 0 0.0 2.1 0 2.3 0.2 0 0 a 0.5 Number 208696 177167 480741 526361 537863 1231794 847884 636604 429854 5076964 IJarsaw TS 25.8 0 22.5 26 1 34.1 98.5 6.0 a 74.6 16.5 grouper EeZ 74.2 100.0 n.5 73.9 65.9 1.5 94.0 100.0 25.4 83.5 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a Number 24784 5430 7213 190743 31419 18602 392280 11861 3248 685580 Nassau TS 100.0 80.8 52.5 26.4 54.5 97.8 44.4 22.5 82.2 67.9 grouper EeZ 0 7.3 40.2 73.6 15.6 2.2 55.6 77.5 17.8 27.9 Unknown 0 11.9 7.3 0 29.8 0 0 0 a 4.2 Number 48964 67365 65823 32466 30328 133548 2851 93801 43854 519000 Gag TS 61.6 49.6 4.6 32.2 15.7 66 3 2.7 42.1 23.4 30.9 grouper EEZ 38.4 50.4 90.6 67.8 83.1 33.7 97.3 57.9 76.6 68.4 Unknown 0 0 4.8 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0.7 Number 126630 106745 249893 466633 310583 437241 374456 91037 145506 2308Z24 Black TS 69.5 41.1 26.4 80.0 24.9 76.1 52.1 32.2 35.9 45. ?o grouper eEZ 30.5 57.2 65.7 20.0 n.3 23.9 47.9 67.8 64.1 53., I Unknown 0 1.7 7.9 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 1.2 Number 158068 422442 180816 342679 569774 184599 583113 464971 284043 3190505 Sca~ TS 100.0 37.9 6.6 32.8 3.0 0 46.1 6.8 12.5 17.2 EEZ 0 62.1 54.4 64.2 97.0 100.0 53.9 93.2 87.5 67.5 Unknown 0 0 38.9 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 15.3 Number 1278 9055 133981 90995 40606 29892 33288 13601 5975 358671 Jewfish TS 100.0 44.2 100.0 93.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 37.5 52.3 eEZ 0 45.1 0 6.9 0 0 100.0 100.0 62.5 41.6 Unknown 0 10.7 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 6.2 N~r 3823 16904 14330 10175 0 2456 10651 7963 3039 69341 Sea basses TS 69.8 47.7 18.8 65.8 76.4 65.6 39.1 41.2 55.1 52.4 EEZ 30.2 51.8 73.7 33.9 23.2 32.5 60.9 58.8 44.9 47.1 Unknown 0 0.4 7.4 0.3 0.5 1.8 0 0 0 0.5 NLriler 1818303 610512 491209 1617044 825839 396963 3585243 1223975 743645 1.131E7 . --.-.-.---. .--.-.-.---.-.- .. -.- .. -.-.... -.-.-.-.----------- .•.........•. --.---....... -....... -- ... <Cont i nued> 205 TABLE 8.11 (cont'd) Percentage distribution, in numbers of fish, of recreational reef fish landed (A+Bl) by species, area fished, ard year in the Gulf of Mexico, 1979-1987 (TS = Territorial Sea, EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone).The Texas data do not include charter/party or private/rental boat modes in 1982-1984 nor any modes for 1986-1987. The party boat mode is not included for any state during 1986-1987. Data are from the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. Recreational harvest (A+B1), 1979·1987 SPECIES AREA FISHED 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79·87 . .--------------------.--. ----.--------.--------+--------+--------+--------.-- . . -+----- .-.--------.- .. . . Gray snapper Mutton snapper Red snapper Lane snapper Yellowtai l snapper vermilion snapper Greater amberjack TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer TS EEZ Unknown Numer 94.2 5.8 o 2115331 o o o o 1.4 71.2 27.3 5448019 15.0 85.0 o 3n05 100.0 o o 2623 89.9 10.1 o 725554 n.o 23.0 o 192320 49.2 26.2 24.6 681312 75.1 17.8 7.1 20356 11.0 86.7 2.2 4065227 32.8 60.4 6.8 91321 42.5 50.6 6.9 142596 5.2 94.7 0.1 669610 21.6 70.4 8.1 196873 50.6 44.4 5.0 572207 84.9 15.1 o 199030 6.6 81.6 11.8 4823718 66.8 33.2 o 363001 17.2 82.8 0.0 1403265 1.2 90.4 8.4 218532 24.6 73.7 1.7 228357 72.7 26.4 0.9 4000094 5.2 94.3 0.5 284626 27.2 72.3 0.5 3733637 49.5 50.2 0.3 387014 42.3 57.6 0.1 1762780 14.2 84.2 1.7 1193753 4.4 95.4 0.2 1215311 206 74.3 22.0 3.7 1526526 74.2 3.9 21.9 102973 2.3 60.2 37.5 3613444 74.3 25.2 0.4 265565 42.2 3.5 54.2 675670 15.9 66.1 18.0 205269 2.0 97.0 1.1 196655 92.3 6.1 1.6 2696796 44.9 55.1 0.0 368802 10.1 86.3 3.6 1273516 49.9 50.1 0.0 m402 73.3 26.3 0.3 1391566 5.1 94.9 o 403659 17.2 52.7 30.1 102788 80.1 17.9 2.1 987969 54.4 45.6 o 29174 4.1 94.0 1.9 1676449 98.6 1.4 o 284479 96.8 3.2 o 440086 40.9 59.1 o 436436 12.1 87.9 o 230407 89.2 10.8 a 1060992 72.0 28.0 o '43407 18.6 81.4 o 621071 70.1 29.9 o 107801 81.7 18.3 o 201364 22.3 n.7 o 253689 12.9 87.1 o 208550 84.4 15.6 o 1246967 61.2 38.8 o 89165 29.5 70.5 o 523091 86.7 13.3 o 31m8 64.2 35.8 o 412131 43.0 57.0 o 310922 17.0 83.0 o 397187 80.2 17.5 2.4 , .489E7 47.7 50.1 2.2 1137533 9.4 76.7 14.0 2.578E7 64.1 35.6 0.3 262B026 49:9 44.1 6.0 64320B1 29.0 69.3 1.7 4417424 15.0 8-3.2 1.8 2968448 TABLE 8.12 Percentage distribution, in nunbers of fish, of recreational reef fish landed (A+B1) by species, f:shi~g :no. and year in the Gulf of Mexico, 1979·1987. The Texas data do not include charter/party or private/rental bca, modes in 1982·1984 nor any modes for 1986·1987. The party boat mode is not included for any state during 1986·1987. Data are from the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. 4. .. .. • .. • .. . .. • .. .. • .. .. . . . Recreational harvest (A+Bl" 1979·1987 ......... -- .. -- ......... -............. -- ... -.. -- ................ -.................. --- ....... -- ...... --.- .... ------- ... - ....... SPECIES FISHING MOOE 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79·87 +------- .. +----- ... + ..... -- ..... -+ .. -- .. ---+--------+--------+--------+--------+--- .. ----+--- .-. Red Shore 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 2.9 3.1 0.0 1.1 2.5 1.7 grouper Party/charter 46.9 42.6 78.8 28.3 17.3 26.3 33.6 5.2 12.1 29.3 Private/rental 53.1 57.4 18.7 70.9 79.8 70.6 66.4 93.7 85.4 69.0 Nunber 208696 177167 480741 526361 537863 1231794 847884 636604 429854 5076964 Warsaw Shore 0 0 0 0 0 49.5 0 0 0 1.3 grouper Party/charter 4.8 28.0 62.9 74.1 20.5 2.7 0.3 1.6 18.5 23.0 Private/rental 95.2 72.0 37.1 25.9 79.5 47.8 99.7 98.4 81.5 75.7 Nunber 24784 5430 7213 190743 31419 18602 392280 11861 3248 685580 Nassau Shore 0 12.5 51.1 0 41.8 1.6 14.9 6.3 24.3 14.2 grouper Party/charter 100.0 4.8 15.6 0 3.8 1.1 54.7 0 0.8 12.9 Private/rental 0 82.7 33.4 100.0 54.4 97.3 30.4 93.7 74.9 72.9 Nunber 48964 67365 65823 32466 30328 133548 2851 93801 43854 519000 Gag Shore 0.8 0 1.3 0.7 0 43.7 0.0 16.9 0 9.3 grouper Party/charter 2.4 30.2 79.4 28.3 59.7 22.4 67.3 33.7 11.7 41. 1 Private/rental 96.8 69.8 19.3 71.1 40.3 34.0 32.7 49.4 88.3 49.7 Nunber 126630 106745 249893 466633 310583 437241 374456 91037 145506 2308724 Black Shore 34.4 5.6 4.1 2.4 7.S 8.7 1.4 4.2 0.0 5 grouper Party/charter 24.7 38.8 33.9 10.1 0.8 12.0 31.0 14.8 5.9 18 . Private/rental 40.9 55.6 62.0 87.5 91.4 79.4 67.5 81.0 94.1 75:0" Nunber 158068 422442 180816 342679 569774 184599 583113 464971 284043 3190505 Sca~ Shore 0 0 3.0 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 Party/charter 100.0 67.5 89.2 62.7 81.8 100.0 21.9 34.0 32.8 72.8 Private/rental 0 32.5 7.8 29.2 18.2 0 78.1 66.0 67.2 24.1 Nunber 1278 9055 133981 90995 40606 29892 33288 13601 5915 358671 Jewfish Shore 22.1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 1.2 Party/charter 0 35.4 0 0 0 100.0 0 0.0 39.7 13.9 Prj vate/rental n.9 64.6 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 100.0 100.0 60.3 84.9 NLlfi)er 3823 16904 14330 10175 0 2456 10651 7963 3039 69341 Sea basses Shore 1.0 1.9 0.8 1.5 13.8 8.4 1.8 2.4 0.0 2.6 Party/charter 41.7 34.7 29.9 31.4 15.5 10.2 8.9 18.4 3.6 20.9 Private/rental 57.3 63.5 69.2 67.2 70.7 81.4 89.3 79.2 96.4 76.5 NLlfi)er 181830] 610512 491209 1617044 825839 396963 3585243 1223975 743645 1.131E7 .... -- .... -- .. ----.--.--.--.---- .. --.--.--.----.-----.-- .. ---- •.•..•.••.•..•.•.......... ... - ..... -.. ----.- ..... <Cont i nued> 207 TABLE 8.12 (cont'd) Percentage distribution, in mJTb!rs of fisn, of recreational reef fish landed (A+B1) by species, fiShirg "'cee and year in the Gulf of Mexico, 1979-1987. The Texas data do not include charter/party or private/rental ::ca: modes in 1982·1984 nor any modes for 1986-1987. The party boat mode is not included for any state durirg 1986·1987. ~ata are from the ~MFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. SPECIES Greater Anberjack Gray snapper Mutton snapper Red snapper Lane snapper Yellowtai l snapper Vermi lion snapper FISHING MOllE 79 Shore 48.5 Party/charter 29.2 Private/rental 22.3 Number 192320 Shore 21.7 Party/charter 71.5 Private/rental 6.7 ~umber 2115331 Shore Party/cnarter Private/rental Number o o o o Snore 1.2 Party/charter 53.1 Private/rental 45.7 Number 5448019 Snore Party/charter Private/rental ~umber Shore Party/charter Private/rental Number 15.0 64.0 21.0 3n05 100.0 o o 2623 Shore 0 Party/charter 73.8 Private/rental 26.2 Number 725554 80 6.0 59.9 34.1 196873 25.3 35.9 38.8 681312 7.1 80.2 12.7 20356 o 50.3 49.7 4065227 6.7 8.1 85.1 91321 8.5 43.5 ·48.1 142596 o 67.4 32.6 669610 Recreational harvest (A+Bl), 1979-1987 81 0.0 66.9 33.1 228357 19.9 23.7 56.4 572207 1.4 1.1 97.5 199030 o 67.8 32.2 4823718 0.5 5.4 94.1 363001 6.4 9.4 84.2 1403265 o 71.2 28.8 218532 82 0.7 88.7 10.7 1215311 7.8 79.8 12.3 4000094 0.3 73.5 26.2 284626 o 84.7 15.3 3733637 8.1 52.2 39.7 387014 7.7 33.8 58.5 1762780 o 99.3 0.7 1193753 83 o 73.3 26.7 196655 64.7 24.5 10.8 1526526 72.7 20.4 6.9 102973 0.3 57. , 42.5 3613444 0.3 7.7 92.1 265565 17.5 70.1 12.4 675670 o 90.4 9.6 205269 208 84 2.7 93.0 4.3 102788 16.0 5.6 78.4 2696796 5.8 63.1 31.1 368802 1.6 82.7 15.6 1273516 1.9 3.9 94.2 m402 5.9 25.4 68.7 1391566 o 95.5 4.5 403659 85 o 82.3 17.7 230407 13.7 10.6 75.7 987969 7.8 92.2 o 29174 0.9 64.5 34.6 1676449 o 2.0 98.0 284479 6.6 13.3 80.1 440086 0.2 28.8 71.0 436436 86 o 59.1 40.9 208550 59.6 6.4 33.9 1060992 17.7 13.5 68.7 43407 0.0 54.3 45.7 621071 7.1 6.1 86.7 107801 11.5 5.4 83.1 201364 o 74.2 25.8 253689 87 1.0 41.6 57.4 397187 55.8 1.7 42.5 1246967 23.9 8.4 67.7 89165 0.4 49.1 50.5 523091 22.3 4.7 73.0 31m8 3.5 8.2 88.3 412131 o 43.7 56.3 310922 79·87 4.0 71. 5 24.5 2963448 26.5 39.0 34.5 1. 489E7 11.6 45.9 42.5 1137533 0.4 62.7 36.9 2.S78E7 5.3 12.6 82.1 2628026 7.9 26.7 65.4 6432081 0.0 75.8 24.2 4417424 N o \0 GRAY SNAPPER COHHERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GEAR TYPE fROM 1972 TO 1987. Data from the NMFS Stock Assessment for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMFS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data. Year .-.--.-.---------.----.-.---------.--------.----.------.---------.-.--.-.----.----.--------------------. GEAR TYPE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 .-------------.----.-.------.---------------------------------------------------.-.-. -.-----------------------------------.-.-. -----. Entangling nets 140 188 216 252 131 335 400 412 171 145 163 164 289 HandlinesJBandit 447 429 436 285 525 298 259 298 554 524 690 721 495 Longl inesJBuoys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 52 95 52 Traps 0 0 0 2 8 61 80 31 16 20 11 18 2 Trawls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 11 10 Misc.JUnk. Gear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 8 5 6 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 587 617 652 539 664 694 739 748 785 731 932 1014 839 NOTE: Over 98 percent of the gray snapper ca..ercial landings in each year were landed in Florida. Thirty-one percent of the gray snapper landings were taken fra. the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Waters, 1988; Table 8). . 234 162 125 392 379 281 38 41 44 2 6 11 2 169 669 590 631 00 N .. o LANE SNAPPER COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSA~S OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GEAR TYPE FROM 1972 TO 1987. Data from the NMFS Stock Assessment for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMFS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data. Year GEAR TYPE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Entangl i09 nets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 8 Handlines/Bandit 16 22 20 28 51 16 16 29 19 21 52 38 34 Longl ines/Buoys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 Traps 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 8 9 6 4 10 18 Trawls 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc./Unk. Gear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 16 21 20 28 53 17 18 39 28 40 60 49 63 1985 1986 lY!ll 6 3 4 34 36 33 7 3 4 22 28 33 0 0 0 69 71 76 .... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------.-.-------- NOTE: Over 98 percent of the lane snapper coanercial landings in each year were landed in florida. Fifty-four percent of the lane snapper landings were taken fra. the South Atla""c Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Waters, 1988; Table 8). 00 N ...... ...... HUTTON SNAPPER C(JIIfRCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOU~ANDS OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GEAR TYPE FROM 1972 TO 1987. Data fra. the NHFS Stock Assessment for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NHfS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data. Year ~-----------------------------------------------------------------.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-------------------------------------. GEAR TYPE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 .-.-.---------------.-.--------------.-------.------------------------.-.-.-----.--------------------------. Entangling nets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 HandlinesJBandit 263 287 286 288 251 199 234 196 186 101 147 159 106 LonglinesJBuoys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 48 99 93 56 Traps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 14 21 30 20 15 Trawls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 Misc:.JUnk. Gear 0 0 0 0 12 11 14 6 16 0 0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 263 287 ·286 288 263 210 248 242 225 173 278 276 180 NOTE: Over 98 perc:ent of the ~tton snapper C:OIIIIIerc:ial landings in eac:h year were landed in Florida. Forty-eight perc:ent of the ~tton snapper landings were taken fro. the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the florida Keys (Waters, 1988; Table 8) • ,;.' 2 4 4 121 125 214 60 63 94 10 25 16 0 2 195 219 330 00 tv .... tv YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN T"OUSANDS OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GEAR TYPE FROM 1972 TO 1987. Data from the NMFS Stock Assessment for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMFS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data. Year GEAR TYPE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Entangl ing nets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handlines/Bandit 961 927 1041 750 1024 846 923 729 607 681 1276 938 901 746 Longlines/Buoys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 13 7 23 8 Traps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 55 23 0 9 19 36 Trawls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Misc./Unk. Gear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 961 927 1041 750 1024 846 923 812 674 708 1289 954 943 790 NOTE: OVer 98 percent of the yellowtail snapper commercial landings in each year were landed in Florida. Seventy-six percent of the yellowtail snapper landings were taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of juriSdiction in the florida Keys (Waters, 1988; Table 8) •. 1986 1981 0 0 888 1261 11 5 25 0 0 1 0 8 924 1275 00 GROUPER, EXCLUDING JE~FISH, COHHERCIAL LAN~INGS (IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING FOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GULf STATE AND PERCENT Of CAICH BY GEAR TYPE FROM 1972-1987. Data from the NMfS Stock Assessment (Goodyear, 1986c) and NMFS, ESO, General Canvas Data Files. Year ... ------- .. ----------- ....... -... ---- .. -.. --- .. --- .... -------------- .. ------------------------------------------------ .. - ---- ..... STATE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 198~ 19116 1 'Ill ( . Florida 7534 5985 6941 8420 7707 6097 5818 7873 8363 11722 14616 11172 10776 12082 11248 11489 Alabama 164 143 86 91 65 64 55 35 17 46 31 61 96 86 102 60 Mississippi 178 187 121 80 71 119 69 45 32 46 91 47 37 32 33 18 Louisiana 5 8 2 5 14 4 2 2 2 5 34 20 270 563 946 663 Texas 98 100 85 71 39 22 29 14 20 314 161 245 33 363 237 379 ., ~ tv GEAR TYPE Percentage Contribution ~ . Entangling Nets OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% 00 Kandlines/Bandit 99X 98X 99X 99X 99X 96X 94X 97X 88X 62X 46X 51X 56X 57X 50X 40% ..... IV OX OX OX OX 0% 0% OX 1% l1X 37X 52% 48X 39X 34% 41% 51X ...I ..... Longlines/Buoy w fish Traps OX 0% OX OX 'X 3X 5% 2% lX 'X 'X OX 4% 7l 7l 5% Shriql Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% OX OX 0% fish Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX ox OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% Misc./Unk. Gear 1X 2X 1X 1X OX 1X OX 11 OX OX OX OX OX 2% 2% 4% TOTAL LANDINGS 7979 6423 7235 8667 7896 6306 5973 7969 8434 12133 14933 11545 11212 13146 12568 12609 .. N ....... ~ JEWflSH COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSANDS 01 POUNDS, EXCLUDING fOREIGN CATCH) fOR EACH GULf STATE AND PERCENT Of CATCH BY GEAR TYPE fROM 1972'1987. Data from the NMfS stock Assessment (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMfS, ESO, General Canvas Data files. Year -. STATE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 I'm I ---- ... - ........ --- .... -- ........ ---- ........ -- ...... --- ............ -... -- ... '"' -... ------ ... ---- -- -- -- ............... --- .. -- ......... -... - ... -- ---- ... -... --- ....... - ....................... -- .. -- ................ .... .... ...... florida 178 191 190 219 218 236 227 189 238 213 185 206 105 120 108 100 Alabama 57 48 25 19 14 17 4 3 2 6 13 14 7 13 1 0 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GEAR TYPE Percentage Contribution Entangl ing Nets OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% 0% 0% 0% Or. Handlines/Bandit 97X 89% 93% 85X 92X 93X 92X 87% 88X 81X 71X 66X 69% 46X 40% 40% longl ines/Buoy OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 7X 11X 20X 25X 19X 28% 20% 14% fish Traps OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% 0% Shriq> Trawls 3X 11X 7X 15X 7X 6X 6X 7X lX IX IX IX IX OX 3X 2% Fish Trawls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% 0% Misc./Unk. Gear OX OX OX OX OX 1X IX 5X 4X 6X 8X 8X 11% 26% 37"" 45% Total Landings 235 245 215 238 232 253 231 192 240 219 199 221 112 133 109 101 ., »0 OJ t-t ttl Ql . I-' 00 N ..... Vl SEA BASS COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS, EXCLUDING fOREIGN CATCH) FOR EACH GEAR TYPE fROM 1972 TO 1987. Data from the NMFS Stock Assessment for red snapper (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMFS,ESO, General Canvas Landings Data files. Year .------.---------.-------------------------------------------.----.-.------.--------------.-.---------. GEAR TYPE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 19n 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 198] 1984 1985 1986 1',1117 .-----------.----.----------------.-----------.-.------------------.- .----------------.----.-.------.--------------.-. Entangl ing nets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handlines/Bandit 28 44 20 14 25 39 22 26 9 11 21 6 18 13 16 30 Longlines/Buoys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 6 5 4 3 Traps 115 89 40 26 33 0 5 15 8 5 3 3 2 1 ] ] Trawls 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc./Unk. Gear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 143 133 60 45 58 39 30 44 17 19 31 13 26 19 24 36 NOTE: Over 99 percent of the sea bass commercial landings in each year were landed in florida. 00 N .... (J\ AHOERJACK COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (IN THOUSANDS Pf POUNDS, EXCLUDING fOREIGN CATCH) fOR EACH GULf STATE AND PERCENT Of CATCH OY GEAR TYPE fROM 1972·87. Data from the NHfS Stock Assessment (Goodyear, 1988b) and NMfS, ESO, General Canvas Data files. Year STATE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 florida 46 40 60 95 99 136 173 194 212 263 246 303 550 603 768 Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 43 62 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 9 37 67 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 314 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 50 120 GEAR TYPE Percentage Contribution Will 1279 31 46 381 105 .------.--------------------------------------. . -----------------------------------. Entangl iog Nets 22X OX OX OX 2X 7X lX lX 2X OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Handlines/Bandit 78X l00X 100X 100X 98X 93X 99X 96X 95X 90X 82X 83X 87X 75X 68X 76X Longlines/Buov OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 2X 2X lOX 17X 17X 11X 212: 24X 14X fish Traps OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Shrillf) Tra.,ls OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 0% OX 0% Fish Tra.,l, OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX Misc./Unk. Gear OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX OX 2% 3X 8X lOX Total Landings 46 40 60 95 99 173 194 212 263 251 307 592 829 1331 1842 8 )lI OJ &; OJ tv 0 9. OPTIMUM -YIELD, OVERPISBING, AND TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH PROCEDURE optimum yield (OY) from a fishery is considered to be that amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities, and which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from that fishery, as modified by any relevant ecological, economic, or social factor (P.L. 94-265). The Council considered the following goals in choosing an OY: (a) To provide the greatest benefit to the nation harvesters, processors, and consumers. (b) To assure the conservation and management of the stocks. (c) To provide mechanisms for preventing overfishing and rebuilding of declining stocks. (d) To provide a reporting system for more precisely assessing the status of the individual stocks. The Council's reef fish scientific advisory committees recommend the definition of optimum yield in the FMP be changed to reflect species specific levels of optimum yield because the current aggregate definition does not protect the resource from overfishing. It was also recommended that when supporting data are available, optim~m yield should be specified quantitatively. 9.1. optimum Yield as a Long-Term Goal. proposed option: optimWll yield is any harvest level for each species which maintains, or is expected to maintain, over time a survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at. least a 20 percent spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) population level, relative to the SSBR that would occur with no fishing. a. Ecological impacts This alternative potentially can provide for more stable population structures through improved reproduction and the harvest of larger fish. The principal impact will be to maintain the spawning stocks at a level that assures, relative to the quality of available data, recruitment overfishing will not occur. This measure directly addresses the need to protect the reproductive potential of a population. Ideally, the relative percent SSBR chosen as the management goal would be based on an 217 analysis of actual estimates of spawning stock biomass and subsequent recruitment, but with reef fishes the data simply are not available for evaluating alternative levels of SSBR. Based on the work done on Northwest Atlantic groundfish by the NMFS NEFC (see Gabriel, 1987), the 20 percent SSBR was chosen as a reasonably conservative starting point. The NMFS SEFC should initiate monitoring programs that would measure stock size and recruitment levels for reef fish with the goal being determination of the appropriate SSBR level for each stock or stock complex. b. Socioeconomic impacts In the long-term a more stable fishery would develop and management can exercise greater flexibility in maintaining optimum yield through a combination of size limits, quotas, bag limits, or closed seasons and areas. The value of the commercial fishery will be increased through the harvest of larger, more valuable fish and the recreational fishery would improve due to greater abundance of fish once the 20 percent SSBR level is reached. In the short-term the inshore recreational· and commercial fisheries will experience a decline in harvestable fish due to the implementation of more restrictive management measures designed to allow the fishery to recover to OY. However, since mortality rates will decrease, an increase in the recreational catch rates will occur immediately due to the increased abundance of fish, primarily undersize fish. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option because it provides the most appropriate management goal for the mixed recreational and commercial reef· fish fishery and explicitly defines overfishing relative to reproductive potential (see section 9.2 below). This option provides for direct protection against recruitment overfishing. The Council has determined this definition of OY will produce the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. Rejeoted option 1: status Quo -- AD OY of 45.5 million pounds for snapper/qrouper and 0.5 for sea bass. a. Ecological impacts An overall OY for all snapper and grouper species does not protect anyone species from overfishing. Thus, the reef fish resource is vulnerable under status quo because each species can be selectively overfished without exceeding OY. Also, not all species respond equally to similar fishing pressures. This OY estimate is based on a MSY which is an overestimate for the reef fish complex (Goody~ar 1988a). Best available data on the reef fish fishery are insufficient for calculation of MSY in the traditional sense. 218 b. Socioeconomic impacts If the resource becomes overfished the economic benefits projected in the FMP will not be realized. This can happen if the market value of a particular species increases and that species is overharvested without exceeding OY with the consequence that the economics of the overall fishery will be negatively impacted. Overfishing of anyone of the major reef fish species would have negative impacts on landings, employment, and recreation. Rejected option 2: specify OY as the combination of a fishing mortality level and optimum size limit that maximizes YPR for those species for which yield-per-recruit (YPR) models can be developed. For those species in need of management but for which YPR values cannot be calculated, OY can be expressed nonquantitatively as all fish that can be taken in accordance with provisions in this plan. a. Ecological impacts Relative to the status quo this alternative will significantly increase yield (at optimum size) and will provide for improved control of fishing mortality on individual species, and consequently result in more stable population structures through improved reproduction and the harvest of larger fish since the optimum size of a species usually coincides with size at maturity. The use of size limits that maximize's yield would result in rebuilding the stocks. However, an F(max) management goal such as this option implies is not as conservative as the F(O.l) goal which has been widely applied in recent years, nor does this goal directly address protection of the reproductive potential of a population. In some cases an F (max) management strategy may provide for adequate reproduction, but it is not assured. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure, by attempting to maximize yield implies that absolute production alone is important; relative economic efficiency, differences in user group goals, and population productivity are not' addressed as explicit goals. Clearly in a recreational or mixed commercial/recreational fishery, maximization of total yield may not be the optimal goal. In the long-term a more stable fishery would develop. The value of the commercial fishery would be increased through the harvest of larger, more valuable fish, and the recreational fishery would improve due to greater abundance of fish. In the short-term the inshore recreational and commercial fisheries would experience a decline in harvestable fish due to the required release of undersize fish; the recreational fishermen would see an increase in their catch rates due to the increased survival of undersize fish. If fish sizes are immediately increased to the size that maximizes yield rather than gradually over several years, then 219 inshore fisheries ma'y be completely displaced for several years. Adaption of comparable size limits by the Gulf States and a prohibition on the possession and sale of undersize fish is necessary for effective shores ide enforcement. Rejected option 3: OY shall be equivalent to the yield available from each species when fished at a fishing mortality rate of FCO.l). For those species in need of management but for which FCO.l) values cannot be calculated OY can be expressed nonquantitatively as all fish that can be taken in accordance with provisions in this plan. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts are similar to those described under Option 2, however an F(0.1) management strategy implies that economic efficiency and not maximum yield is the primary management goals. Reproductive productivity is better protected by this measure than an F(max) strategy. b. Socioeconomic impacts The F(0.1) concept was first developed in the early 1970s (rCNAF 1972, Gulland and Borema 1973) and has an explicit economic basis. Essentially, F(O.l) is the fishing mortality level at which, for a given size of entry into a fishery, the marginal yield is 10 percent of the marginal yield per recruit in a lightly exploited fishery. (Marginal yield is the increase in total yield that would be achieved by adding one extra unit of fishing effort.) The F(0.1) level was chosen arbitrarily--F(0.2) or other levels could have also been chosen--but it had immediate appeal to both economists and biologists. The initial argument to adopt this management strategy was threefold: 1) At some levels of fish size at entry into a fishery F(max) does not exist but rises to an asymptote; however a unique F(0.1) always exists. 2) As a fishery develops and begins to reach F (max) the increase in yield is disproportionately small relative to the increase in effort required to take that yield. consequently, as a fishery approaches F (max), economic efficiency suffers. 3) Biologically F(0.1) is more conservative than F(max) , not only providing better protection of reproductive potential but also serving as a buffer to prevent a fishery from exceeding F(max). 220 9.2. Definition of 'Overfishing The NMFS has recently published amended proposed guidelines (CFR Part 602.11) for the National Standards related to optimum yield and overfishing. In general, the guidelines, provided below, specify that OY and associated management measures must prevent overfishing. "overfishing is a level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the long-term capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. Each FMP must specify, to the maximum extent possible, an objective and measurable definition of overfishing for each stock or stock complex covered by that FMP, and provide an analysis of how the definition was determined and how it relates to reproductive potential" (CFR Part 620.11 (c) (1». "The definition of overfishing for a stock or stock complex may be developed or expressed in terms of a minimum level of spawning stock biomass ("threshold"); maximum level or rate of fishing mortality; formula, model, or other measurable standard designed to ensure the maintenance of the stock's productive capacity. Overfishing must be defined in a way to enable the Council and the Secretary to monitor and evaluate the condition of the stock or stock complex relative to the definition" (CFR Part 620.11 (c) (2». "Overfishing definitions must be based on the best scientific information available. Councils must build into the definition appropriate consideration of risk, taking into account uncertainties in estimating domestic harvest, stock conditions, or the effects of environmental factors. In cases where scientific data are severely limited, the Councils' informed judgment must be used and effort should be directed to identifying and gathering the needed data" (CFR Part 620.11 (c) (4» • "Secretarial approval or disapproval of the overfishing definition will be based on consideration of whether the proposal: (i) (ii) ( iii) (iv) has sufficient scientific merit: is likely to result in effective Council action to prevent the stock from closely approaching or reaching an overfished status: provides a basis for objective measurement of the status of the stock against the definition; and is operationally feasible" (CFR Part 620.11 (c)(S» 221 "An FMP must contain management measures necessary to prevent overfishing. (i) If overfishing is defined in terms of a threshold biomass level, the Council must ensure that fishing effort does not cause spawning stock biomass to fall and remain below that threshold. (ii) If overfishing is defined in terms of a maximum fishing mortality rate, the Council must ensure that fishing effort on that stock does not cause the maximum rate to be exceeded. (iii) If data indicate that an overfished condition exists, a program must be established for rebuilding the stock over a period of time specified by the Council and acceptable to the Secretary. (iv) If data indicate that a stock or stock complex is approaching an overfished condition, the Council should identify actions or combination of actions to be undertaken in reponse. (v) Depending on the obj ecti ves of a particular FMP and the specific definition of overfishing established for the stock or stock complex under management, a Council may recommend measures to prevent or permit pulse, iocalized, or growth overfishing" (CFR Part 620.11 (c) (6». "Significant adverse alterations in the environment/habitat conditions increase the possibility that fishing effort will contribute to a stock collapse. Ca·re should be taken to identify the cause of any downward trends in spawning stock sizes or average annual recruitment. (i) Whether these trends are caused by environmental changes or by fishing effort, the only direct control provided for by the Act is to reduce fishing mortality. (ii) Unless the Council asserts, as supported by appropriate evidence, that reduced fishing effort would not alleviate the problem, the FMP must include measures to reduce fishing mortality regardless of the cause of the low population level. (iii) If man-made environmental changes are co~tributing to the downward trends, in addition to controlling effort Councils should recommend restoration of habitat and other ameliorative programs, to the extent possible, and consider whether to take action under section 302(i) of the Act" (eFR Part 620.11 (c) (7» . "There are certain limited exceptions to the requirement of preventing overfishing. Harvesting the major component of a 222 mixed fishery at its optimum level may result in the overfishing of a minor stock component in the fishery. A council may decide to permit this type of overfishing if it is demonstrated by analysis that it will result in net benefits to the Nation, and if the Council's action will not cause any stock to require protection under the Endangered Species Act" (CFR Part 620.11 (c) (8». The alternative oy options presented above define oy such that overfishing occurs whenever oy is exceeded, therefore the Council has adopted the following definitions (conditions) for overfishing and an overfished stock that satisfy the above NMFS guidelines. 1. A reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished when it is below the level of 20 percent of the spawninq stock biomass per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishinq. 2. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished, overfishing is defined as harvestinq at a rate that is not consistent with a proqram that has been established to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the 20 percent spawninq stock biomass per recruit level. 3. When a .reef fish stock or stock complex is not overfished, overfishing is defined as a harvestinq rate that if continued would lead to a state of the stock or stock complex that would not at least allow a harvest of OY on a continuinq basis. Rationale: Spawning stock biomass per recruit eSSBR) is recommended as the model for defining overfishing to prevent recruitment overfishing directly (see -OY discussion below). The SSBR (reproductive potential) is determined by integrating or summing the multiple, for each age, of relative number of fish alive times the fraction mature times the weight of fish. The two models used to determine SSBR, both variants of yield per recruit models, are the Severton-Hol t continuous model or the Ricker discrete model. The total contribution of an cohort to the spawning stock biommass over its lifetime is found by summing the cohort's contribution at each age, which is then scaled to a per recruit basis to derive a theoretical measure of SSBR. The SSBR measure can be used to evaluate alternative fishing mortality scenarios without knowing actual levels of recruitment or spawning stock. Maximum SSSR is obtained by setting fishing mortality to zero. These definitions satisfy the NMFS guidelines in that they have SUfficient scientific merit; are likely to result in effective Council action to prevent the stock from closely approaching or reachil'lg an overfished status; provide a basis for objective measurement of the status of the stock against the definition; and, are operationally feasible. 223 ,/ 9.3. Annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Designed to Achieve OY Goal. Proposed option: optimum Yield can be achieved with annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) specifications for each species or species group. The Council will establish a framework procedure where, on an annual basis, a scientific workinq qroup will establish an Allowable Bioloqical Catch (ABC) ranqe and Council sets annual TAC and prescribes fishinq restrictions annually to attain the manaqement qoal of OY for implementation by the Regional Director (RD) of NKFS prior to the beqinninq of a fishinq year. Procedure for specification of TAC: 1. prior to April 1 each year, or such other time as aqreed upon by the council and Reqional Director, the SEPC will: a) update or complete bioloqical and economic assessments and analyses of the present and future condition of the stocks for red snapper and other reef fish stock or stock complex; b) assess to the extent possible the current SSBR levels for each stock; c) estimate P in relation to P (SSBR); d) estimate annual surplus production, P (max), or other population parameters deemed appropriate; e) summarize statistics on the fishery for each stock or stock complex; f) specify the qeoqraphical variations in stock abundance, mortality, recruitment and aqe of entry into the fishery for each stock or stock complex; and, q) analyze social and economic impacts of any specification demandinq adjustments of allocations, quotas, or baq limits. 2. The Council will convene a scientific stock assessment panel, appointed by the council, that will, as a workinq qroup, review the SEPC assessment(s), current harvest statistics, economic, social, and other relevant data and will prepare a written report to the Council specifyinq a ranqe of ABC for each stock or stock complex which is in need of catch restrictions for attaininq or ~aintaininq OY. The ABC's are catch ranqes that will b. calculated for those species in the manaqement unit that have been identified by the council, NMFS, or the workinq panel as in need of catch restrictions for attaininq or maintaininq OY. The ranqe of ABC'S shall be calculated so as to achieve reef fish population levels at or above the 20 percent SSBa qoal by January 1, 2000. Por stock or stock complexes where data in tha SEPC reports are inadequate to compute an ABC based on the SSBa model, the above workinq qroup will use other available information as a quide in providinq their best estimate of an ABC ranqe that should result in at least a 20 percent SSBR leval. The ABC ranqes will be established to prevent an overfished stock from further decline. To the extent possible a risk analysis should be conducted showinq the probabilities of attaininq or exceedinq the stock qoal of 20 percent SSBR and the annual 224 transitional yields (i.e., catch streams) calculated for each level of fishinq mortality wi thin the ABC ranqe and the economic and social impacts associated with those levels. The workinq qrotip report will include recommendations on bag limits, size limits, specific qear limits, season closures, and other restrictions ,required to attain manaqement qoal, alonq with the economic and social impacts of such restrictions, and the research and data collection necessary to improve the assessments. The workinq qroup may also recommend additional species for future analyses. 3. The council will conduct a pU))lic hearinq on the workinq group report(s) at, or prior to the time, it is considered by the council for subsequent action. other public hearings may be held also. The council will request review of the report(s) by its Reef pish Advisory Panel and standinq scientific and statistical committees and may convene these groups to provide advice before takinq action. 4. The council in selecting a TAC level for each stock or stock complex for which an ABC ranqe has been identified will, in addition to takinq into consideration the recommendations provided for in (1), (2), and (3), utilize the following criteria: a. set TAC within or below the ABC range or set a series of annual TAC's to obtain the ABC level within three years or less. b. Subdivide the TAC' s into commercial and recreational allocations which maximize the net benefits of the fishery to the nation. The allocations will be based on historical percentaqes harvested by each user qroup durinq the base period of 1979-87. However, if the harvest in any year exceeds the TAC due to either the recreational or commercial user group 8xceedinq its allocation, subsequent allocations pertaininq to the respective user qroup will be adjusted to assure meetinq the January 1, 2000 spawning stock biomass per recruit qoal. 5. The council viII provide its recommendations to the RD for any specifications in TAC's for each stock or stock complex, the quotas, bag limits, trip limits, size limits, closed seasons, and qear restrictions necessary to attain the TAC, alonq vith the reports, a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment of impacts and the proposed requlations before october 15 or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. 6. Prior to each fishinq year or other such time as agreed upon by the RD and council the RD will review the council's 225 recommen'dations anes" supporting information, and if he concurs that the recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the National standards, and other applicable law he shall forward for publication notice of proposed TAC' sand associated harvest restrictions by November 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the council and RD; providing up to 30 days for additional public comment. The RD will take into consideration all information received and will forward for publication in the Federal Register the notice final rule by December 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RD. 7. Appropriate requlatory changes that may be implemented by notice include: a. The TAC's for each stock or stock complex that are designed to achieve a specific level of ABC within the first year or annual levels of TAC designed to achieve the ABC level within three years. b. Bag limits, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, and quotas designed to achieve the TAC level. a. Ecological impacts Direct catch controls through the establishment of TAC's can most effectively limit catch at predetermined levels and more effectively attain the long-term OY goal. However, with the exception of red snapper, the available database may be insufficient to quantitatively evaluate the impacts of a TAC on reef fish populations and future probable conditions under TAC management •. Reducing catch through TAC's for other species stocks or stock complexes, using the SSBR model as a guide, may alleviate the necessity to institute more stringent restrictions for these species in the future when data to assess their condition becomes available. This would also provide better protection against overfishing. . b. socioeconomic impacts The determination of short-term socioeconomic impacts are likely to be negative and directly related to the level of TAC established relative to present total catch. Long-term impacts will invariably be positive in that a more stable fishery will result from improved population abundance and stability. Preseason and inseason adjustments provide by this TAC Procedure will p.rovide for the more timely management of the reef fish fishery needed due to ·the overfished status of some of the stocks and the dynamic nature of the fishing fleets that has the ability to pulse fish one species after another. The proposed procedure 226 provides for public input to both the Council and NMFS prior to implementation of management changes. Recreational harvests are regulated by bag limits only, without an overall quota, because recreational harvest data are not available in a timely fashion. If the recreational sector should exceed its allocation (e.g., ~ue to increased fishing effort, availability of fish, etc.) in a particular year then adjustments, such as in bag limits, will be made in the following years to ensure the Council's goal of attaining 20% SSBR by January 1, 2000 will not be jeopardized. The proposed allocation based on the historical percentage harvested by each user group during 1979-87 provides the best available basis for allocating reef resources because it represents the longest time period of documented commercial and recreational annual harvests. It is the goal of the Council to allocate reef resources so that the net benefits to the nation are maximized. Therefore alternative allocation procedures will be regularly reviewed relative to the goal to maximize net benefits. Other allocation methods may be developed in subsequent years based on other periods or criteria, but since they may involve significant impacts on the respective user groups, the Council intends that such allocation changes be made only by plan amendment, thus affording the fullest possible public review. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option because it provides for continuing assessment of the reef fish resources, management flexibility and, most importantly, timeliness in management. Plan amendments are not sufficiently timely for making preseason or inseason adjustments of management measures on the reef fish stocks which need to be maintained at or restored to the 20 percent SSBR level. The reef fish fishery is dynamic and diversified and can shift fishing effort among species dramatically from one year to the next. This proposed TAC procedure which utilizes a regulatory amendment approach with time-certain constraints is the only practical means for making effective timely preseason management adjustments. The Council, recognizing the potential for the assessment panel to recommend an ABC range that would significantly impact the fishery, established a three year period during which management measures may effect a less than desired biological recovery to allow for a transitional period during which the industry can adjust to the modified, or in some cases new, management regime. The three year period is intended to be in effect only at the initiation of management of a s~ock or stock complex under the TAC procedure because it was recognized that probably some fisheries have been overfished for a number of years but have gone undetected simply due to the lack of information on the status of the stock. It was felt that the provision for a three year transition period would reduce negative impacts and burdens on the industry without jeopardizing the long-term conservation of a fishery resource. 227 Rejected option 1: specify TAC tor each species to be the yield that results from the recommended minimum size which can be changed by requlatory amendment to the size that optimizes YPR. This option implies the only harvest limitations needed are the minimum size limit and the rate at which the size limit will increase. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts are summarized under the proposed option above. Size limits that gradually increase to· the size that maximizes yield will greatly increase the poundage available from the resource. The increase in yield gained is a function of the time period utilized to reach that size. b. Socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts are summarized under the proposed option above. A gradual (yearly or biennial) increase in size limits would reduce the short-term impact on users (especially recreational fishermen) who would be unable to harvest most of the fish they are currently harvesting for several years if the size limit was initially set to maximize yield. A rapid increase in size limits would likely result in vessels fishing further offshore at greater expense and may in some instances, because of the distances involved, completely deny harvest to some fishermen until the fish have reached the larger size. Rejected option 2: Reduce annual TAC by 10 percent each year until tishinq mortality is at the level that would rebuild saBR to a 20 percent level. a. Ecological impacts The risk with this approach is that the stocks may decline faster than the TAC is reduced. b. Socioeconomic impacts Approximately 38 million pounds (M) of reef fish were landed in 1986, of which 11.0 M were snappers, 18.0 M groupers, and 5.0 M of amberjacks and red snapper each. (See Table 8.1 of combined recreational/commercial catches annual landings (1979-1987) for each species or species group). Short-term losses would be 10 percent of landings per year to the rebuilding level, and the cumulative annual loss until stocks are rebuilt. At that time, landings could increase to the level consistent with maintaining a 20 percent SSBR. This level of landings would, presumably, be higher than current landings and represent a long-term gain. 228 10. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MEASURES Size and Catch Limits Red Snapper 1: Establish a red snapper m~n~mum size limit of 13 inches total length, a recreational bag limit of 7 fish per angler per day, and a commercial quota of 3.1 million pounds that would effect a 20 percent reduction in the 1985-87 average annual recreational and commercial catches, respectively. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. 2: Prohibit the sale of red snapper smaller than the size limit. 3: Delete the allowance for keeping five undersize red snapper. Other Reef Fish Species 1: Establish a size limit of 20 inches total length on red, Nassau, yellowfin, black, and gag groupers, a 50-inch limit on jewfish, a five-fish recreational daily possession limit for all grouper, and a commercial grouper quota of 11 million pounds equal to 90 percent of the aggregate 1985-87 grouper landings. The grouper quota is to be subdivided into the following two quotas: 1.8 million pounds for deep water groupers (misty, snowy, warsaw, and yellowedge groupers); 9.2 million pounds for shallow water groupers (includes all grouper species other than those listed above as deep water species). Jewfish is not included in the grouper quotas. These limits shall be esta-blished during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 2:' Establish minimum sizes of 12 inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and 8 :nches total length on lane and vermilion snappers. An overall snapper recreational daily possession limit of 10 fish shall be established, excluding lane, vermilion, and red snappers. There is no bag limit for lane and vermilion snappers and the red snapper limit is separate and distinct from this 10 fish limit. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 3: Establish a minimum size of 8 inches total length for black sea bass. This limit shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the 229 amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. 4: Establish a greater amberjack minimum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a 3 fish per angler per day possession limit for recreational fishermen and a 36 inch fork length minimum size limit for commercial fishermen. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 5: Prohibit the sale of reef fish smaller than the established size limits. If a larger size limit has been set for commercial fishermen, as with greater amberjack, then no fish smaller than the commercial size limit can be sold. Multiple-Day Possession Limits 1: To allow a maximum of 2 days possession limit for charter vessels and head boats fishing under the bag limits on fishing trips that extend beyond 24 hours duration provided the charter vessel or head boat has two licensed operatores aboard as required by the U.S. Coast Guard for multiple-day fishing trips and eac~ passenger can provide a receipt to verify length of fishing trip~ All other fishermen fishing under a bag limit are limited to a single day possession limit. Gear Restrictions 1: Permitted commercial fishermen may obtain a special fish trap permit (endorsement) to fish up to a maximum of 100 fish traps per permit holder. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in Section 9.2. 2: Trawl vessels must comply with th~ same size and bag limits that are established for the recreational fishery harvesting reef fish. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure desqribed in Section 9.2. 3: Prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50 fathom isobath west of Cape San BIas, Florida (85°30'W) and inshore of the 20 fathom isobath east of Cape San BIas, Florida (8S 0 30'W). The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e.g., shark) is limited to the recreational bag limit. Th~ restricted area boundary is specified by latitude-longitude coordinates that approximate the depth zones (Table 11.27). Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. 4: Prohibit.'the use of entangling nets for the directed harvest of reef fish. The retention of reef fish captured in other 230 entangling net operations targeting other species is limited to the recreational bag limit. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. Fishing Year 1: status Quo - The fishing year is from January 1 through December 31. stressed Area Boundaries 1: Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to include waters off Texas out to the 30 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Texas. 2: Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to include waters off Louisiana out to the 10 fathom isobath along the entire coastline of Louisiana. User Group Conflict Resolution 1: Status Quo - No regulation. Closed Seasons and Areas 1: Season and area closures for selected reef fish will be considered under the Total Allowable Catch Procedure. -' permits and Gear IdentificatioD 1: Require an annual commercial fishing permit for fishing under the commercial quota (exceeding a bag limit) and for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifying condition that more than fifty percent of an individual's (owner or operator) earned income must be derived from commercial or charter (for~hire) fishing. Charter and head boat applicants must submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit their documented vessel number on the permit application. only those fish caught by a permitted vessel can be sold: where a commercial quota has been established only those fish caught under the commercial quota can be sold. Charter and head boats with permits to fish under the commercial quota are required to fish under the bag limit when under charter or when there are more than 3 persons aboard, including captain and crew. Other fishermen on unpermitted vessels are limited to the established bag limits. 2: Special fish trap permits (endorsements) and trap tags shall be required for all vessels fishing or possessing fish traps in the EEZ for the ,harvest of reef fish. The permit and trap tags shall be issued (or reissued) annually and shall be valid until the end of the fishing year for which the permit is issued unless revoked for violation of a fish trap related regulation. A fee shall be 231 charged to recover the direct and indirect costs associated with the issuance of trap permits and tags. Except for the fish trap permit provisions in this paragraph, all other fish trap permit requirements shall remain as specified in section 641. 4 of the current reef fish regulations. statistical Reporting Requirements 1: Data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents from a statistically valid survey sample of commercial and recreational catch that is of sufficient size to provide representative measures of all major segments of a category of users of a resource and statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and quota monitoring. Any such data collection should rely upon techniques that ensure comparability of data. Those fishermen and dealers selected by the Science and Research Director, or his designee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at dockside for inspection by those agents. 2: Require head boat operators who are selected by NMFS to maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information to NMFS on at least a monthly basis. 3: Require charter boat operators who are selected by NMFS to maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Science and Research Director that are to be submitted weekly (as is required in the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP). Information to be included in the forms must include, but not be limited to: (1) Name or official number of vessel. (2) Operator's Coast Guard license number. (3) Date of trip. (4) Number of fishermen on trip. (5) Area fished. (6) Fishing methods and type of gear. (7) Hours fished. (8) Species targeted. (.9) Number and estimated weight of fish caught by species. 4: The current reporting requirements for fish traps are modified in the foll.owing paragraph to implement the Council's intent to strengthen the enforcability of fish trap reporting requirements. The owner or operator of a fishing vessel or any other person permitted under §641.4 to fish with fish traps must provide the following information regarding all fishing trips on which reef fish are harvested to the Science and Research Director. This information must be submitted within 7 days of completion of each trip: (1) permit number as provided for in §641.4: 232 (2) pounds of catch of reef fish by species by gear if gear other than fish traps were also used: (3) date of trip, depths fished, and fishing locations by statistical area: (4) number of trap hauls resulting in catch: (5) duration (days and hours) traps were fished before each haul; (6) mesh size of traps. Routine reporting shall be required of all trap permittees. At a minimum, monthly reports shall be required of permittees even if no fishing for reef fish occurred in a particular month. Violation of any of the reporting requirements shall result in revocation of the fish trap permit for one year. NMFS shall provide quarterly reports concerning compliance with the fish trap regulations. 233 \ 11. ANALYSIS ··OJ' ADOPTED AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES 11.1. Size and Catch Limits 11.1.1. Red Snapper Adopted Management Measures: 1: Establish a red snapper minimum size limit of 13 inches total length, a recreational bag limit of 7 fish per angler per day, and a commercial quota of 3.1 million pounds that would effect a 20 percent reduction in the 1985-87 average annual recreational and commercial catches, respectively. These limits shall be established durinq the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts This measure would reduce fishing mortality on juveniles and less so on adults since most recreational and commercial fishermen fish primarily on juveniles and young adults. The potential mortality associated with the release of recreationally caught undersize fish will be less with this combined bag and size limit than with the existing size limit alone since some fishermen will probably curtail fishing once the bag limit is reached. It is anticipated that this measure, based on 1985-87 average catches, will reduce recreational and commercial catches--and to a similar extent fishing mortality-~by approximately 20 percent in the first year of implementation (Tables 8.1 and 11.3). Without a limit on total recreational effort or catch the bag limit may effect less than the desired reduction in recreational fishing mortality and therefore should be closely monitored. This measure, in conjunction with other proposed measures (TAC Procedure and longline and stressed area geographic restrictions) will have both short- and long-term pos~tive impacts on the red snapper resource. The size limit is the same that was originally implemented in the FMP and will have no additional ecological impacts. Size limits alone will not effectively restore spawning stock levels if undersize release mortality is significant (see Figures 11.1-11.3). The Council, based upon scientific results (Gitschlag and Renaud 1987) and public testimony, has concluded that size limits for red snapper should be established based on an undersize release mortality of 33 percent. The 13-inch size limit in conjunction with an initial 20 percent catch reduction will virtually halt the decline of the red snapper stock (see Figure 11.4) and provide an adequate basis for future evaluation by the stock assessment panel and Council as established in the TAC Procedure of section 9.2. 234 It is not anticipated that this measure will create any negative impacts on red snapper habitat or on the bycatch of "endangered" or "threatened" species. b. socioeconomic impacts In the short-term this measure would effect about a 20 percent reduction in both recreational and commercial catch (see Tables 8.1 and 11.3). Although this proposed measure would have a significant negative impact it would be substantially less than the impact that would occur if the Council chose to rebuild the stock as quickly as the Scientific and Statistical committee recommended (see Rejected Measure 2 below). However, without highly restrictive measures the stock is expected to decline further resulting in even more significant negative long-term impacts. The size limit is the same as that specified in the FMP except that only the total length will be used to determine a legal size fish. Use of total length only reduces confusion on the part of the fishing public and eases enforcement of the size limit. catch and size limits on red snapper will affect fishermen primarily in the northern Gulf, from Alabama through Texas (Figure 8.1, Table 8.3). Red snapper is the primary reef fish harvested in the northern Gulf. The Texas headboat fishery is dependent on red snapper for 90 percent of their catch (Table 11.6). This measure does not directly impact vessel or crew safety since it is anticipated that the commercial fishing season will remain open throughout most of the year. The recreational fishing season will not be affected by this measure. c. Rationale The Council reviewed a number of catch limit combinations to reach the SSBR goals needed to restore the red snapper population (see Rej ected Measures 1-4) and has proposed this option to reduce fishing mortality sufficient to significantly slow the decline in the spawning stock without imposing an undue burden on the fishing public. The council, sensitive to the concerns expressed by the public about such drastic restrictions, deliberated extensively about the most appropriate size and catch limit combinations required for restoring the population without overly restricting the fishing public. However, even this proposed measure will be difficult for the public to accept since it will require a SUbstantial change in their present fishing operations. Future modifications, as recommended by the assessment panel, will be needed but for now the Council believes this option is most appropriate because in conjunction with the TAC Procedure in Section 9.2 it provide$ a time period for arresting overfishing of this valuable resource--in conformance with the NMFS FMP Operational Guidelines 602.11 (c) --which will lead to increased future landings (Figure 11.4) and stability of the fishery. 235 2: Prohibit the sale of red snapper smaller than the size limit. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be positive relative to the reduction in harvest of undersize fish e.ffected by prohibiting their sale. Effectiveness of the proposed size limit is dependent on this measure. No direct impacts will occur on habitats or protected species due to this measure. b. socioeconomic impacts This measure would have minimal socioeconomic impacts since no directed harvest of undersize fish would be allowed anyway. Enforcement would be greatly enhanced since it would allow shores ide enforcement and be regulated by dealers purchasing reef fish. Enforcement would be more effective if each state adopted similar sizes and prohibitions on sale. To avoid problems with imported fish, enforcement would be at the fisherman/primary dealer level rather than at the secondary processing marketing level. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to strengthen the minimum size requirement and to further protect the resource. Without this measure the effectiveness of the size limit would be seriously weakened. 3: Delete the allowance for keeping five undersize ~ed snapper. a. Ecological impacts This measure should result in increased survival of undersize snappers with resultant increases in juvenile and adult abundance (see Table 11.4). No direct impacts will occur on habitats or protected species due to this measure. b.. socioeconomic impacts Removing this allowance may negatively impact some charter and head boats that depend on the catch of undersize snappers as a bag limit to attract paying customers. A negative perception of wasting fish may be developed by the public relative to the numbers of released fish that die or are moribund before release. A long-term positive impact will occur as more larger snappers are captured. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to strengthen the minimum size requirement and to further protect the resource. Without this measure the effectiveness of the size limit would be seriously weakened. 236 Rejected'Management Measures: 1: status Quo -- AD allowance of incidentally harvested red snapper less than 12 inches in fork lenqth is established at five fish per person in possession, and (b) any domestic vessel fishinq trawls in the EEl vi th the exception of roller travl vessels fishing in the stressed are. is excluded from the possession limit. a. Ecological impacts New information provided by the 1988 stock assessment (Goodyear, 1988a) demonstrates that present management measures do not adequately protect the red snapper population from overfishing. Red snapper first mature at a size range of 10-13 inches fork length (Grimes, 1987); however, the size at which 50 percent of the female population matures--the single most important measure of maturity relative to evaluating the effects of size limits--is unknown but presumably is larger than 13 inches fork length. Based on an analysis of fecundity by age Goodyear (personal communication) recommends use of a maturity size equivalent to one half the size of maximum length as an index of maturity, as determined from the von Bertalanffy growth equation: thus red snapper, for the SSBR analyses, are assumed to be fully mature at 23 inches total length. The FMP (1981) projected that a l3-inch total length minimum size alone would potentially increase overall yield to the fishery by 18 to 25 percent, provided hook-and-release mortality was not excessive. However, the retention of five undersize snapper largely negated the potential benefits of the minimum size limit (see Tables 11.4 and 11.5, Goodyear, 1988c). The continued decline in red snapper is indicative the measures implemented with the FMP are not adequate to rebuild the resource. Indeed, a size limit alone will not adequately protect the resource if the undersize release mortality is as significant as claimed by the industry--assumed to equal about 33 percent--therefore additional measures are needed to reduce fishing mortality. b. Socioeconomic impacts The minimum size limit was expected to have a long-term positive economic impact as yield from the fishery increased. In the short term, the economic impact on the commercial fishery was minimally negative since most commercial fishing activity focused on larger fish in deeper waters. The head boat and inshore handline fisheries in northern Texas and west Louisiana were impacted more negatively since the broad continental shelf off west Louisiana and north Texas restricted head boats and handliners to relatively shallow' water where juvenile red snappers are known to occur in abundance. 237 ,-. ./ In the long-term, the minimum size limit was expected to provide positive social benefits as population size and average fish size increased. The short-term impacts were negative due to the perception of the fishing public toward having to release undersize fish in varying states of stress that would appear to lead ultimately to the death of released fish. The five undersize fish allowance provided for short-term benefits in that the fishing public was allowed to selectively keep those undersize fish, up to five for anglers, that under current stock conditions in the fishery may be the only size class available in certain areas, i.e., the allowance for undersize fish is really acting as a bag limit. However, the long-term impacts are negative because new evidence indicates present management measures do not provide for either sustained levels of yield or population stability. 2: Immediately reduce fishing mortality by 74 percent to rebuiid the spawning stock biomass per recruit to the 20% level (relative to the unfished condition). This reduction would be effected by a 2 fish recreational bag limit and a commercial quota of 1. " million pounds. a. Ecological impacts Given that 33 percent undersize mortality occurs this would be the most effective measure, short of a complete closure, for rebuilding the stock to 20% SSBR as quickly as possible (Figures 11.2-11.4, Table 11.2). Such a reduction in fishing mortality· (F) would rebuild the stock to 20% SSBR in about ten years. A more gradual incremental reduction in F would delay rebuilding but a too gradual reduction in F would involve the risk that the stock will continue to decline and eventually require complete closure of the fishery to effect a recovery of the resource. b. Socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts of this option would be significantly negative. The 2 fish bag limit would severely impact the charter and .. headboat fishing fleets of the northern Gulf and probably discourage many private anglers. The commerc ial quota would result in an very short season forcing most fishermen to either go out of business or to operate during the winter months, since the fishing year begins January 1, thus potentially creating a vessel safety problem. 238 3: Establish larqer size limits up to 24 inches total lenqth or smaller baq limits down to a 2, 3, or 5 fish baq limits and quotas down to 1.4, 2.1, or 2.9 million pounds. a. Ecological impacts Larger size limits would provide increased benefits to the spawning stock if undersize release mortality is not too significant. Smaller bag limits (and quotas) would be beneficial in rebuilding the spawning stock if total recreational (and commercial) fishing effort did not increase significantly. The ecological impacts of smaller bag limits from 2 to 7 fish and quotas from 1.4 to 3.1 million pounds would be similar but less than those stated above for Rejected Measures 2. b. Socioeconomic impacts Larger size limits would severely impact the catches of recreational and commercial fishermen (Figures 8.8-8.10, Tables 11. 4 and 11.5). The Council considered larger size limits but decided they did not provide optimal benefits because of the minimal impacts to the resource due to undersize release mortality (Figure 11.1) and the significant short-term impact larger size limits would have on catches. Smaller bag limits and quotas than those proposed above was deemed to have an unacceptable negative socioeconomic impact. The Council considered specific proposals of 12, 15, and 16 inch size limits, 2-15 fish bag limits, and commercial quotas as low as 1.4 million pounds during its review of the draft amendment but concluded that theses measures, although appropriate long-term goals, would unnecessarily disrupt the red snapper fishery. The Council decided to implement restrictions on the fishery over a three year period, following the TAC Procedure which assures that adequate measures will be taken to rebuild the resource over time. 4: Establish different catch quotas, bag limits, and minimum sizes by qeoqraphical area. a. Ecological impacts Different geographic catch and size limits for red snapper would have minimal positive impacts on the resource and potentially negative impacts because there is no clear delineation of differences in population characteristics in the northern Gulf. Red snapper primarily occur in the northern Gulf with its population center occurring off Louisiana and east Texas. There is no biological evidence that red snapper comprise more than a single population. Differing limits by geographic area may actually result in greater overfishing than overall limits due to the difficulty in determining geographic differences and the cumulative effects of separate limits. 239 b. socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts on those areas with the least restrictive limits may be positive if the commercial and for-hire fishing fleets do not move their base of operation from the more restrictive areas to the less restrictive areas. The long-term impacts are dependent on the dynamics of the fishery. 5: Allocate red snapper between recreational and commercial fisheries by allocatinq to the commercial fishery all red snapper killed by the shrimp and qroundfish trawl fisheries and allocate the remaininq red snapper to the recreational fishery. a. Ecological impacts This measure, by eliminating the traditional commercial red snapper fishery, would provide immediate protection to the older fish inhabiting the deeper continental shelf waters that are beyond the reach of the recreational angler. It would be expected that adult biomass would accumulate slowly due to the relatively slow growth and longevity of the species, and then only if additional measures are taken to reduce the mortality of juvenile fish. b. Socioeconomic impacts The commercial reef fish fishery would be completely closed with a loss of about 5 million pounds of production annually. However, the recreational fishery would eventually realize benefits in increased abundance of juveniles and young adults. This measure was rejected due to the substantial negative impact that would be imposed on the commercial fishery. 240 11.1.2. Other:Reef .Fish Species Adopted Management Measures: 1: Esta))lish a size limit of 20 inches total length on red, Nassau, yellowfin, black, and qag qroupers, a 50-inch limit on jewfish, a five-fish recreational daily possession limit for all qrouper, and a cOJllJllercial qrouper quota of 11 million pounds equal to about 90 percent of the aggreqate 1985-87 grouper landinqs. The qrouper quota is to be subdivided into the following two quotas: 1.8 million pounds for deep vater groupers (misty, snowy, warsaw, and yellovedge qroupers) and 9.2 million pounds for shallow water qroupers (includes all qrouper species other than those listed above as deep water species). Jevfish is not included in the qrouper quotas. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaininq portion of the fishinq year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by followinq the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts The size limits proposed by this measure would significantly reduce growth overfishing and mortality on juvenile groupers and jewfish. Female maturity first occurs at approximately 10, 19, and 20 inches for red, Nassau, and yellowfin groupers, respectively (Shapiro, 1987). However the size of 50 percent maturity for red grouper in us waters is about 19 inches total length (Moe, 1969). Jewfish mature at a size of about 50 inches total length (see section 8.8). Gag grouper mature at 29 inches total length (see Section 8.7.3.4). No information is available on black grouper. Nassau and yellowfin grouper mature at about 19 and 20 inches total length, respectively (section 8.7.5.4). The Council has chosen to use·the red grouper assessment information as an index for the other shallow water groupers listed above. The proposed 20-inch size limit and 10 percent reduction in harvest should begin rebuilding the spawning stock and increasing overall yield (Table 11.7 and Figure 11.5). It is not anticipated that this measure will create any negative impacts on red snapper habitat or on the bycatch of "endangered" or "threatened" species. b. socioeconomic impacts Over 90 percent of the harvest of these species are landed in Florida ports (Goodyear, 1988b). Florida has established an 18 inch size limit on the above groupers (see Table 11.1). The proposed size limits would impact primarily the recreational and inshore handline commercial fisheries (Figures 8.22, 8.27, and 8.28). Short-term recreational catches, using 1986 and 1987 as an index, would be reduced by about 75-90 percent for red (Tables 11.8 241 and 11.9),30-50 percent for gag groupers (Tables 11.10 and 11.11), and 40 percent for black (Table 11.12). No data are available on the length distribution of catches of the other species. A long term increase in yield would accrue to the commercial fishery which harvests the larger fish further offshore. The recreational fishery would be expected to benefit in the long-term because larger fish would occur inshore as well. The present absence of larger fish inshore is probably as much the result of present high fishing mortality as that due to emigration into deeper water. The recreational bag limit and commercial quota should effect, in the short-term, a 10-20 percent reduction in total grouper harvest (Tables 8.1 and 11.13). The long-term impacts are dependent on a variety of presently unknown factors. However, as with any quota where effort is not similarly constrained, the commercial fishing season will not be expected to extend the full year with the fishing season becoming shorter as the stocks recover and effort increases--these are generally recognized characteristics of open access fisheries where only output controls are implemented. The long-term impacts of the size and bag limits on recreational fishermen can only be guessed. The large fish that presently do not frequent inshore waters will return as population levels increase. Recreational catch rates should increase with a greater proportion of the catch consisting of larger legal-size fish. This measure should not negatively impact vessel or crew safety, in the short-term, since the quotas are only "10 percent less than reported landings and the season should extend for most of the fishing year. However, a number of fishermen have reported that grouper landings are substantially under-reported and that the proposed quota will have a greater negative impact that anticipated. There is no means for evaluating the magnitude of such under-reporting which in recent years has probably been in violation of Florida state law which requires documentation of all saltwater product sales purchased by licensed wholesale seafood dealers. c. '. Rationale The Council adopted this option because it initiates the rebuilding of the spawning stock of groupers without unduly restricting harvest levels. Future management action will be based on the annual TAC Procedure described in Section 9.2. The short-term negative impacts resulting from the size limit are unavoidable and will result in spawning stock increases and improved future commercial and recreational catches. 242 2: Establish -minimum sizes of 12 inches total length on gray, mutton, and yellowtail snappers and 8 inches total length on lane and vermilion snappers. AD overall snapper recreational daily possession limit of 10 fish shall be established, excluding lane, vermilion, and red snappers. There is no bag limit for lane and vermilion snappers and the red snapper limit is separate and distinct from this 10 fish limit. These limits shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts Gray snapper first exhibit indications of sexual maturity at about 9-10 inches total length in the Florida Keys (Grimes, 1987). However, due to the absence of data relating to full maturity, it was assumed that full maturity occurred at about 17 inches total length (one-half the size of theoretical maximum length--Goodyear, personal communication). Total mortality was estimated to equal 0.42 (Goodyear, 1988b) which, with an assumed natural mortality rate of 0.20, provides a fishing mortality rate of 0.22. Adults do not migrate long distances (Beaumariage, 1969) and are reported to spawn in groups during a prolonged summer spawning season with peak spawning occurring in July and August (Bortone and Williams, 1986). The characteristic of congregating around reef structures for spawning (Grimes, 1988) makes gray snapper more vulnerable to fishing during the spawning season. The proposed size and catch limits would protect gray snapper from overfishing. Lane snapper, in Jamaica, first exhibit indications of sexual maturity at about eight inches total length (Thompson and Munro, 1983c): no data are available from U.S. waters. No estimates of fishing mortality for the Gulf fishery are available. Lane snapper, in Cuba, spawn from March through september with peak spawning occurring in July and August (Bortone and Williams, 1986). Aggregate spawning is also reported for this species. The proposed 8-in.ch size limit would protect lane snapper from overfishing since recruitment and maturity occur at this size. Mutton snapper are reported, in CUba, to first exhibit indications of sexual maturity at about 17 inches total length (Grimes, 1987; Thompson and Munro, 1983c). No estimates of mortality are available for mutton snapper in the Gulf. Adults do not migrate long distances (Beaumariage, 1969) and are reported to spawn in groups during a prolonged summer spawning season (Bortone and Williams, 1986). The proposed size and catch limits together would provide protection against overfishing. Yellowtail snapper mature at about nine inches total length in the Florida Keys (Grimes, 1987) and 13 inches total length in Jamaica (Thompson and Munro, 1983c). Yellowtail grow faster than most 243 other reef fishes (Johnson, 1983). Yellowtail, in Cuba, spawn from March to september with peak activity during April-May, however, in Jamaica Thompson and Munro (1983c) found spawning to occur year round with peak activity in the spring and fall. Yellowtail do not migrate long distances (Beaumariage, 1969). Juveniles occur over shallow grass flats and reefs, whereas adults are found on deeoer reefs (Thompson and Munro, 1983c). Yellowtail frequently form schools and are easily captured at these times. The proposed size and catch limits will prevent overfishing of yellowtail snapper. Most vermilion snapper mature from 6 to 8 (Grimes and Huntsman, 1980). The spawning April to september (Grimes and Huntsman, Pinckney,1988). The proposed size and catch vermilion snapper from overfishing. inches total length season extends from 1980: Collins and limits would protect Using gray snapper as an index, the proposed size and catch limits will rebuild the populations of these species at levels equal to or greater than the 20 percent SSBR goal (Figure 11.6). b. Socioeconomic impacts Gray snapper landings peaked in 1982 at 4.4 million pounds but have declined to the 1987 level of 1. 9 million pounds (Table 8.1). Since 1979, 86 percent of all commercial landings have come from southwest Florida and the Florida Keys, and less than one percent of both recreational and commercial landings have come from the other Gulf states (Brown et aI, ·1988; Goodyear, 1988b). Approximately 80 percent of the gray snapper harvested recreationally are taken in state waters (Table 8.11). Also, 31 percent of the Gulf commercial harvest is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Table 8.13, Waters, 1988). This proposed measure would have a SUbstantial impact on recreational fishermen if Florida adopts a similar size limit (Table 11.15). commercial fishermen would be affected minimally (Figure 8.19). In the long term, this measure would provide for increased availability of larger fish to all users and a more stable fishery. . Lane snapper landings are a minor component of the fishery comprising about four and one percent of the Gulf recreational and commercial catches respectively (Goodyear, 1988b: Brown et aI, 1988). Since 1979, recreational landings have increased from 37 to 300 thousand fish (Table 8.3), and the commercial landings have increased from 38 to 76 thousand pounds (Table 8.14) ~ About 90 percent of recreational landings are taken off Florida, and over 64 percent are taken in state waters. Similarly, 99 percent of the commercial harvest is landed in Florida (54 percent of the total is taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction). only 6 percent of the current·recreational catch is less than 8 inches total length (Table 11.17), This proposed measure will have minimal impact on the fishery. 244 Mutton snapper recreational and commercial landings peaked in 1982 at 1.9 million pounds (Table 8.1) but have since declined to 500 thousand pounds in 1987. since 1979, approximately 99 percent of both commercial and recreational harvest has been landed in Florida (Brown et aI, 1988; Tables 8.3 and 8.15). Also, 48 percent of the Gulf commercial landings are taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction (Waters, 1988). only 25 percent of the present harvest is less than the proposed size limit (Table 11.18) and approximately 98 percent,of the recreational harvest is taken in state waters (Table 8.11). Therefore, this measure will have a minimal impact on the EEZ fishery. Yellowtail commercial and recreational landings peaked in 1982 at 3.8 million pounds respectively (Table 8.1) but have declined to 1.9 million pounds in 1987. virtually all yellowtail harvest is landed in Florida (Brown et aI, 1988; Tables 8.3 and 8. 15) . Although about 20 percent of the recreational catch is less than the proposed size limit (Table 11.19) the majority of recreational catches are taken from state waters, and about 76 percent of the commercial Gulf landings are taken from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in the Florida Keys (Waters, 1988). Consequently, the proposed size limit will have a minimal impact on the fishery, since few fish are harvested within the Gulf EEZ. Recreational vermilion snapper landings peaked in 1982 at 1.2 million pounds but have since declined to about 600 thousand pounds (Table 8.1). Commercial landings have exhibited a steady increase since 1979 from a low of 400 thousand pounds to the 1986 high of 1. 6 million pounds (Table 8.10). Over 96 percent of the commercial harvest is taken in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (Brown, et a1., 1988, Figure 8.16) with the panhandle area of Florida representing 70 percent of the total. Recreational harvests come predominantly from the EEZ (Table 8.11). The proposed 8 inch size limit would impact only about 3 percent of the recreational harvest (Table 11.20) and a minimal impact on commercial harvest (Figure 8.17). The-size and catch limits proposed here should protect the above snapper species from overfishing. Florida presently provides daily possession limits of 10 snapper per person for any combination of snapper, excluding lane and vermilion, with an off-the-water possession limit of 20 snapper. Florida also has a 12-inch size limit for mutton and yellowtail snappers, and the South Atlantic Council has 12-inch limits on vermilion and yellowta!l. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure to prevent overfishing on these predominantly inshore species and to be more compatible with both the State of Florida and South Atlantic reef fish limits to provide for regulatory consistency. 245 3: Establish -. minimum size ot 8 inches total length for black sea bass. This limit shall be established during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Subsequent changes are to be made by fOl~owinq the 'lAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts The proposed minimum size would· have a minimal positive impact since in 1986 and 1987 less than 5 percent of the recreational catch was below eight inches (Tables 11.21). Most undersize black sea bass occur in shallow waters and can be easily released with minimal injury. b. Socioeconomic impacts The impacts of this measure would be minimal since the fishery apparently already complies with Florida's minimum size limit of 8 inches (see Table 11.21), and the fishery for sea bass is largely limited to Florida's coast. Both Florida and the South Atlantic Council have implemented an eight-inch size limit on black sea bass. Landings for all sea bass have been minimal since 1980 (Table 8.1), averaging less than one million pounds per year. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure not only to extend the protection currently provided by Florida's size limit into the EEZ, but also to become more compatible with the state to provide f.or regulatory consistency. 4: Establish a greater amberjack minimum size limit of 28 inches fork length and a 3 fish per angler per day possession limit for recreational fishermen and a 3' inch fork length minimum size limit for commercial fishermen. These limi ts shall be estaDlished during the first fishing year or for the remaining portion of the fishing year in which the amendment is implemented. Su):)sequent changes are to be made by follovinq the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts Greater amberjack first exhibit indications of maturity at 32 inches fork length (Burch, 1979). Spawning may occur year round. Total mortality rate was 0.599 (Figure 8.32) which, with a natural mortality of 0.2, provides a fishing mortality of 0.399. Greater amberjack apparently do not migrate great distances (Burch, 1979); consequently the Gulf fish probably constitute separate stock(s) from those found in the Atlantic. The proposed 28-inch size and 3 fish bag limits for recreational fishermen and 36-inch size limit for commercial fishery·, should allow stocks to recover to the 20 percent SSBR goal established in section 9.2 (Table 11.22). The proposed three-fish possession limit would effect about a 45 246 percent reduction in the 1985-87 average recreational catch (Table 11.24). The proposed commercial size limit should effect a similar reduction in the commercial harvest (Figure 8.30). b. socioeconomic impacts Amberjack landings peaked in 1982 at 9.8 million pounds but have averaged 3.4 million pounds from 1983 through 1986 (Table 8.1). Both commercial and recreational harvests are primarily from the northeastern Gulf, including Louisiana, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle (Figure 8.29, Table 8.3), with the recreational catch predominantly taken in the EEZ (Table 8.11). The proposed size limits would significantly impact recreational and commercial fishermen (Figure 8.30, Table 11.23). Since 1979, the recreational sector has taken about 86 percent of the total harvest; however the proportional commercial harvest has increased from less than 5 percent prior in 1982 to 34 percent in 1987. c. Rationale The council proposed this option to protect amberjack from overfishing. As the other reef fish decline in abundance, anglers are turning more to species such as amberjack to compensate for reduced catches. Consequently, amberj ack has been a target species only in the past few years and the Council is concerned that continued unregulated harvest would result in overfishing. 5: prohibit the sale of reef fisb smaller than tbe established size limits. If a larqar size limit has beeD set for commercial fishermen, as with qreatar amberjack, then no fish smaller than the commercial size limit can be sold. a. Ecological impacts The impacts of this measure would be positive relative to the reduction in harvest of undersize fish effected by prohibiting their sale • . . b. Socioeconomic impacts socioeconomic impacts would be minimal since no directed harvest of undersize fish would be allowed anyway. Enforcement would be difficult since only Florida and the South Atlantic Council have implemented similar size limits. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to strengthen the minimum size requirements. and to protect the resource. 247 Rejected Management Measures: 1: status QUo -- no requlation. a. Ecological impacts continued growth overfishing and possibility of recruitment overfishing would occur. Virtually all the above species for which management is proposed are fully utilized. b. Socioeconomic impacts Loss of yield through growth overfishing and the potential for recruitment overfishing would occur. The quality of recreational experience and the relative size of the commercial fishery would be expected to decline in proportion to expected future losses in yield. 2: Establish larger size limits or smaller bag limits and quotas for the reef fish species identified in the above proposed options. a. Ecological impacts Size limits up to the estimated size of full maturity for the above reef fish would have reduced benefits to the spawning stock if undersize release mortality is as significant as that reported by fishermen. Smaller bag limits and quotas would be beneficial in rebuilding the spawning stock if total fishing effort did not increase significantly. b. Socioeconomic impacts Larger size limits would severely impact the catches of recreational and commercial fishermen. The Council considered larger size limits but decided they were inappropriate because of the unknown and possibly improbable benefit to the resource and the si9rtificant impact larger size limits would have on catches. Smaller bag limits and quotas than those proposed above would have an unacceptable negative impact on the fishery. 3: Establish a recreational bag limit and commercial quota tor jewfish to reduce current levels of fishing mortality. a. Ecological impacts No scientific studies exist on jewfish (see section 8.8), however, given that jewfish are long lived slow growing fish that are easily harvest~d -- they bite a hook readily and do not try to evade spearfishermen (Mark Godcharles, personal communication) they can be very susceptible to overfishing. Jewfish first mature at about 50 inches total length. Uncontrolled fishing mortality, even with 248 the proposed 50 inch size limit, would negatively impact the jewfish resource in the long-term. The main difficulty with establishing a quota for jewfish is that there is no stock assessment from which to objectively evaluate the effect of a particular quota. b. socioeconomic impacts The short-term socioeconomic impacts would be negative relative to the quota level established. Commercial landings in 1986 were about 100,000 pounds and have averaged about 178 thousand pounds per year since 1979 (Tables 8.1 and 8.18). Recreational harvest has averaged about 300 thousand pounds since 1979. 4: Require all reer fish to b. landed in accordance with state landinq regulations for size and possession when state requlations are more restrictive than those in the EEZ and are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and National standards. a. Ecological impacts This measure would result in greater conservation of and yield from the resource in those areas where state regulations are more restrictive. b. socioeconomic impacts This measure would enhance enforcement of state rules and simplify public understanding of fishery regulations where a state is more restrictive. Regulatory consistency problems would still exist in those instances where a state is less restrictive. A state could set possession limits that would preclude commercial vessels from landing, but that would only result in the fish being landed in other states since the fleet is generally a mobile distant water fleet. For areas where states have smaller size limits, the effective limit for prohibition of sale would become that of the state. Enforcement would be more effective if each state adopted simi,lar sizes and prohibitions on sale. To avoid problems with imported fish, enforcement would be necessary at the fisherman/primary dealer level rather than at the secondary marketing level. 249 11.1.3. Multiple-da~ Possession Limits Adopted Manaaement Measures: 1: To allow a maximum of 2 days possession limit for charter vessels and head boats fishing under the bag limits on fishing trips that extend beyond 24 hours duration, provided the charter vessel or head boat has two licensed operators aboard as required by the o.s. Coast Guard for multiple-day fishing trips, and each passenger can provide a receipt to verify length of fishing trip. All other fishermen fishing under a bag limit are limited to a single day possession limit. a. Ecological impacts This measure will have no direct ecological impacts. Indirectly it will facilitate compliance with the proposed bag limits and thus aid in restoring the reef fish resources. This measure will have no negative impacts on reef fish habitats or protected species. b. socioeconomic impacts The measure will have positive impacts because allowance of a cumulative two-day limit would permit those charter vessels and head boats away from port for more than one day to retain cumulative daily bag limits and provide for greater flexibility in their operations. The head and charter vessels in this category make primarily weekend two-day trips. The requirements for these vessels desiring to possess multiple-day limits are minimal and are not designed to be burdensome but are to provide a minimum level of documentation to prevent the multi-day allowance from being used to circumvent the proposed bag limits. A potentially negative impact is that recreational anglers fishing from private vessels on multiple-day trips will not be allowed to possess more than a single day's bag limit; however it is believed this category of anglers is very sma1.l. A private angler multiple-day allowances would create a loophole and negate the effectiveness of the adopted bag, limits. This measure should not result in any negative impacts on vessel or crew safety. c. Rationale This measure was adopted because it reinforces the proposed bag limits without unduly restricting those charter vessels and head boats limited by a bag limit which make multiple-day fishing trips. 250 ReJected Management Measures: 1: Make no allowance for multiple-day fishing trips. a. Ecological impacts No direct ecological impacts would result from this measure. b. Socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts of not allowing cumulative bag limits for vessels making multiple-day fishing trips would be negative. This measure would result in significant loss of business for those head and charter vessels that depend on the overnight fishermen for business. Similarly, this measure would restrict the bycatch of those commercial vessels that will be limited by the bag limit. 2: Allow multiple-day possession limits, up to a maximum of 5 Clays cumulative bag limit catch, for those vessels that make multiple day fishing trips. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts would be minimal if the multiple-day limit was fully complied with. If allowance of multiple-day possession limits provide a loophole (see discussion below under Socioeconomic impacts) that can be used by anglers to circumvent the daily bag limit requirement then this measure would have negative ecological impacts by retarding or preventing the recovery of the stock. b. Socioeconomic impacts Allowance of multiple-day limits would permit those vessels that are away from port for more than one day to retain cumulative daily bag limits and provide for greater flexibility in their operations. At present those vessels most in need for multiple-day limits are the charter and head boats that advertise multiple-day trips to distant fishing grounds and the shrimp vessels that typically are at sea for 5 or more days. The major difficulty with this measure is in determining those operators that qualify for multiple-day possession limits. If everyone is allowed multiple-day limits, then this cumulative limit would effectively become the daily bag limit since it would be impossible for enforcement agents to determine actual trip length. 251 11.2. Gear Restrictions 11.2.1. Fish Traps Adopted Management Measures: 1: Permitted commercial fishermen may obtain a special fish trap permit (endorsement) to fish up to a maximum of 100 fish traps per permit holder. Subsequent changes are to be made by following the TAC procedure descri~ed in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts This measure will have no short-term impacts but its long-term impacts will be positive because it will prevent an excessive deployment of traps that when lost could both damage reef fish habitat and increase ghost fishing mortality similar to problems now being experienced the spiny lobster fishery. Due to the potential fishing power of fish traps, this measure will further protect the reef fish resources from overfishing. b. Socioeconomic impacts The proposed limitation will not affect the present activity of trap fishermen in the Gulf because few or no trap fishermen deploy more than 100 traps at a time and most deploy less. As of June, 1988, NMFS had issued 475 fish trap permits for the Gulf fishery and 32,786 trap tags, for an average of 69 trap tags per permittee. In July, 1987, only 94 permittees reported to NMFS they were actively fishing traps during the past year; 72 percent were fishing fewer than 50 traps and about half fished traps for 6 months or less. About 120 permittees did not respond to the questionnaire (ESO, 1988). Apparently, the number of fish traps typically fished is less than the proposed 100-trap limit. The trap fishery off southwest Florida is prosecuted on a trip basis where the traps are taken to sea on the boat and returned to shore at the end of the fishing trip; therefore, the number of traps fisned are restricted by relative size of the vessel. Those fishermen working the Tortugas area typically leave their traps in the water for extended lengths of time, from one fishing trip to the next, but most of their traps are typically fished in the South Atlantic. In the long-term this measure may limit the total fishing effort of each fishermen. The fish trap permit or endorsement should not create a significant paperwork or cost burden on the government since it will be a part of the commercial fishing permit. The issuance of trap tags will cost about $.70 per tag and will be paid by the permittee who requests them. 252 c. Rationale The Council proposed this measure because of concern that unrestricted fish trap use would negatively impact the reef fish resource and habitat, as has occurred throughout the Caribbean. This measure will allow continued development of the fish trap fishery while decreasing the potential for overfishing of the resource by uncontrolled expansion of an efficient, relatively new gear (fish traps were not routinely used commercially until the late 1970's). The potential for user group conflicts will also be averted. The long-term benefits of this measure are expected to be positive through reducing possibility of overfishing by fish traps and by preventing, or at least delaying, overcapitalization in the trap fishery. ReJected Management Measures: 1: FMP regulation -- Require vessels fishinq traps in the EEZ be limited to no more than 200 such traps. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts of this measure would be minimal in the short-term (see discussion under adopted measu"re above), but in the long-term may contribute to overfishinq of the reef fish stocks and habitat destruction. b. Socioeconomic impacts The restriction of 200 traps per vessel prevented, or at least delayed, gear overcapitalization in the trap fishery. The trap fishery, concentrated in Collier and Monroe Counties, is conducted primarily during the spiny lobster and stone crab closed seasons of April I-July 2S and May lS-October 15, respectively. A few fis~,ermen fishing the Tortugas area do use fish traps year-round. 2: Require trap bottoms to be made of 2 by 4 inch .esh to qrade fish durinq trap retrieval. This measure shall be effective one year after approval by the Secretary. a. Ecological impacts Mortality on juvenile fish and small nontarqet species would be reduced due to escapement through the larger mesh as the trap is pulled. The overall effectiveness of this measure is unknown, but underwater observations of fish traps beinq hauled indicate that fish are forced against the bottom of the trap and thus some opportunity exists for escapement of small fish. Fish would have 253 greater difficulty escaping from lost (ghost) traps and from predation in the trap than under option 4 below. b. socioeconomic impacts Trap costs would change minimally since the required mesh size can be provided by cutting sections of the smaller sized mesh typically used, or only the bottom mesh would need to be replaced. Long-term catches of larger, more valuable fish would result. 3: Require at least two sides of a trap to be constructed with 2 by " inch lIlesh to allow escapement of juvenile target fish and slIlall nontarget fish. a. Ecological impacts This measure would allow small fish to escape both while the trap is actively fishing on the sea floor and while it is being hauled. Recent work by NMFS indicates that the selectivity of traps can be modified by enlarging only the mesh on the top of the trap (Bohnsack, et al., 1988). By requiring that at least two sides be of a particular mesh size the trap will always have at least one exposed side with the required mesh. Harvest of undersize fish could be controlled better with this measure. A 2x4" mesh would select for gray snapper and white grunt larger than 15, and 12 inches fork length, and red grouper greater than 14 inches total length (Sutherland et al., 1987). b. Socioeconomic impacts Rectangular mesh sizes of 2x3" and 2x4" retains larger fish than a 1x2" mesh. The 2x4" mesh was equally productive to .5x.5" and lx2" meshes; only the loS" square and hexagonal meshes produced a more valuable catch (Bohnsack, 1988). The hexagonal mesh produced about $5.50 per haul, whereas 2x4" mesh produced $4.75 per haul; no statistical analyses were provided to determine if these differences are statistically supported. In Bermuda, the 1.5 inch, 2 inch, and 3.25 inch hexagonal mesh caught 10, 9, and 4 pounds per haul respectively (Ward, In press). ·This measure would allow fishermen to use smaller mesh on the other sides so the trap will continue to attract fish; traps constructed entirely of large mesh may fail to attract fish in sufficient quantity to make the operation profitable (Luckhurst and Ward, In press). Also, smaller meshes tend to add strength to the trap. Trap costs should change minimally since the required mesh size can be provided by cutting sections of the smaller sized rectangular mesh typically used. Traps constructed with hexagonal mesh may require complete replacement of two sides with the larger mesh. 254 4: Require all mesh on fish traps to be 2 by 4 inches or larger. a. Ecological impacts This measure would have the same ecological impacts as those described under option 4 above. b. Socioeconomic impacts In the ongoing NMFS study, rectangular mesh sizes of 2x3" and 2x4" retained larger fish. The 2x4" mesh was equally productive to .5x.5" and 1x2" meshes: only the 1.5" square and hexagonal meshes produced a more valuable catch (Bohnsack, 1988). The hexagonal mesh produced about $5.50 per haul, whereas 2x4" mesh produced $4.75 per haul: no statistical analyses were provided to determine if these differences are statistically supported. In Bermuda, the 1.5 inch, 2 inch, and 3.25 inch hexagonal mesh caught 10, 9, and 4 pounds per haul respectively (Ward, In press). Traps constructed entirely of mesh of sufficient size to release juvenile groupers and snappers may result in reduced catches if the trap does not offer enough of an attraction to fish (Luckhurst and Ward, In press). Although most traps are baited, fish enter traps due to curiosity or conspecific behavior as much as they do to search for food. 5: Prohibit the use of fish trap. in are •• where they are not presently in use. a. Ecological impacts Restriction of fish traps geographically will have no short-term ecological impacts: however, over the long term, this measure would prevent the expansion of this gear to other areas where reef fish are already overfished. b. Socioeconomic impacts Approximately 475 fish trap permits have been issued to date with 452 in Florida, 13 in Texas, 10 in Louisiana, and one in North Carolina. Florida permits are geographically distributed as 15 percent on the east coast, 65 percent on southwest coast, 17 percent on west coast, and 3 percent on the northwest coast (panhandle) • Clearly the majority (76 percent) of fish trap permittees live in south Florida. 255 6: Allow the use of sea bass fish traps for the directed harvest of sea bass, as defined by Plorida law, in the EEl north of 27· north latitude adjacent to Plorida's territorial sea. Florida statutes define a black sea bass trap as a fish trap of outer dimensioDs not to exceed 2 feet in any dimension. Each trap must have a biodegradable panel and a throat or entrance with the narrowest point of not more than five inches in height and two inches in width. Such traps are also Dot allowed to be fished south of latitude 27· North. a. Ecological impacts The sea bass fishery is localized being prosecuted only along the northern part of the west Florida coast. The extent of bycatch of other reef fish in sea bass traps is unknown but due to the required dimensions any bycatch would probably be minimal and consist of commercially valuable juvenile fish or of small, nontarget fish and invertebrates. b. Socioeconomic impacts Allowance of sea bass traps in the EEZ would have a positive impact on the fishery because it would result in an expansion of their current fishery into the EEZ, which is now closed due to the establishment of the stressed area. 7: Prohibit the use of fish traps for the directed harvest of reef fish throughout the entire EEl. a. Ecological impacts This measure would result in a decrease in fishing mortality on reef fish species that occur in areas where traps are used extensively, primarily southwest Florida. Currently fish traps account for approximately five percent (1.0 million pounds in 1985) of total reef fish landings in the Gulf (Goodyear, 1988b). The benefits gained by this measure would be related to the extent that increases in effort with other gear by.fishermen currently using traps in an attempt to maintain production will not increase fishing mortality on species and sizes now harvested by fish traps. Some southwest Florida fishermen have indicated that this measure would force them to turn to bottom longlining. Long-term benefits of this measure would be positive on major target species, relative to the effected reduction in juvenile mortality, and may be positive for nontarget species which represent integral components of the reef community and are not easily caught by other gear. Fish traps are a passive efficient gear that are capable of capturing substantial numbers of nontarget species (Craig, 1986; Dammann", 1980; Stevenson and Stuart-Sharkey, 1980). Fish traps in other regions of the western central Atlantic, where management is minimal, have severely depopulated the reef fish communities (Stevenson and stuart-Sharkey, 1980). Logbook reports to date 256 indicate that the bycatch ·of nontarget species is less than five percent (ESO, 1988). Taylor and McMichael (1983) found, during their 1979-80 study, that target fishes comprised 91 percent of total weight and 73 percent of total number of fish caught in fish traps off Collier County; similarly off Monroe County, target fishes made up 69 percent of the total weight and 51 percent of the total number of fish trap catches. b. Socioeconomic impacts In general, gear restrictions do not solve the problem of excessive fishing mortality, they only postpone the problem until additional, more inefficient gear accumulate to the point where fishing mortality again reaches current levels. Economic theory predicts that within a commercial fishery, gear restrictions actually increase the costs of harvesting fish and consequently the price of fish, which results in a reduction in quantity produced due to decreased demand for the product. However, given the high esteem placed on the recreational fishing experience where one attempts to catch the largest fish on the lightest tackle, the desire to restrict more efficient gear is a logical extension of this sports philosophy. This measure would result in complete closure of the commercial trap fishery with a loss of up to 1.0 million pounds in total production from the commercial fishery. Economically this measure would only marginally affect the total reef fish fishery but would have significant impacts on southwest Florida (Collier and Monroe Counties); approximately 76 percent of the fish trap permits have been issued to individuals living in south Florida. Trap fishermen will likely be switch to less efficient single line and longline gear, which would increase operating costs since fishermen would have to refit their vessels. The fish currently caught by fish traps probably would be redistributed to fishermen using other gear. 257 11. 2.2. Trawls Adopted Management Measures: 1: Trawl vessels must comply with the same size and baq limits that are established for the recreational fishery harvesting reef fish. Subsequent changes are to be made by followinq the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts Since 1972 trawl vessels harvested an average of 221,000 pounds of reef fish, representing only two percent of the total commercial reef fish harvest (Table 7.27). Consequently this measure will have minimal effect in reducing the fishing mortality on reef fish. b. Socioeconomic impacts The trawl industry will be minimally affected by this measure since reef fish typically comprise a minor component of their harvest. Anecdotal information indicates that reef fish caught in shrimp trawls are usually sold by the boat's crew independent of the main catch. A potential enforcement problem and burden on groundfish trawl fishermen may occur in that this measure would require all reef fish on groundfish vessels be separated from the catch to be sold which may be difficult to do. This measure would prevent trawl vessels from diversifying into the reef fish fishery to harvest those species which are regulated by bag limits. In the South Florida area up to 50 vessels fish for reef fish which sometimes accounts for 60-70 percent of the vessel's monthly income when shrimping is relatively nonproductive (see Key West Public Hearing Minutes). c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to discourage reef fish harvest by trawl vessels because the reef fish stocks are in a state of overtishing and directed fishing effort, in conjunction with unavoidable trawl bycatch mortality, is more than sufficient for taking available optimum yield. 258 Reiected Management Measures: 1: S.tatus Quo--ADy domestic vessel fishing trawls for species other than reef fish in the BBZ with the exception of roller trawl vessels fishinq in the stressed area is excluded from the minimum size limit for red snapper. A trawl is assumed to be fishing for species other than reef fish when the total weiqht of reef fish aboard does not exceed five percent of all other fish (including shrimp) aboard. a. Ecological Impact The shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper may potentially be taking from 4 to 12 million fish per year which may be depriving the directed fishery of 600,000 to 10 mill ion pounds per year of future production (Table 8.8); this assumes a range of 40 to 80 percent survival rates of fish between their exposure to shrimp mortality and entry into the directed fishery. b. Socioeconomic impact The status quo could potentially result in loss of 10 million pounds of red snapper valued (using 1987 commercial exvessel value) at $21 million. Recreational value is not available but 7.1 million fish would equate to 2.4 million 3-fish bag limits. This compares to the exvessel value (1987 prices) of 1972-85 average landings of shrimp for the Gulf of Mexico of nearly $250 million. The bycatch representing the loss of potential for one additional red snapper, is associated with 11 pounds of shrimp catch worth $32 (Table 11.25). Each pound of potential snapper foregone corresponds to shrimp catch of 12 pounds. Put a different way, avoiding enough bycatch to produce additional commercial snapper catch worth one dollar would cost $17 in shrimp. 2: Trawl vessels must comply with the same size and bag limits that are. established for the recreational fishery harvestinq red snapper. Bag limits on other reef fish would not apply.to trawl vessels. a. Ecological impacts Since 1976 trawl vessels harvested less than 5 percent of the total commercial red snapper harvest; and 2 percent or less since 1985 (Table 8.2). Consequently this measure would have minimal effect in reducing the fishing mortality on red snapper. b. Socioeconomic impacts The trawl industry will be minimally affected by this measure since red snapper typically comprise a minor component of their harvest. 259 Anecdotal information indicates that red snapper caught in shrimp trawls are usually sold by the boat's crew independent of the main catch. This measure would prevent trawl vessels in the northern and western Gulf from diversifying into the red snapper fishery to harvest those species which are regulated by bag limits. A potential enforcement problem and burden on groundfish trawl fishermen may occur in that this measure would require all red snapper on groundfish vessels be separated from the catch to be sold which may be difficult to do. 3: Prohibit shrimp fishinq in areas and durinq periods of substantial red snapper prerecruit bycatch. a. Ecological impact A decrease in red snapper bycatch in the shrimp fishery would result in increased production in the commercial and recreational red snapper fishery (Table 8.8). The loss in pounds of shrimp that would be incurred to gain an additional red snapper and an additional pound of red snapper, in various time-area windows of the Gulf of Mexico was evaluated (Table 11..25). The largest addition to potential red snapper catch could be obtained by prohibiting trawling off Texas in over 10 fathoms of water during May through November, but at a relatively high cost of foregone shrimp catch (Table 7.29). b. Socioeconomic impact The lowest ratios of shrimp catch to potential red snapper catch occur May to November in greater than 10 fathoms off Louisiana, and from December to April in greater than 10 fathoms off Texas (Table 11.25). Even in these time-area windows, to gain an additional snapper would require foregoing $24-$26 worth of shrimp. That is an additional dollar of red snapper in the commercial catch would cost $13-$1.4 in shrimp. 4: Require trawls to be desiqned to reduce finfish bycatch by a minimUDl percentaqe compared to trawls not equipped to exclude finfish. a. Ecological impact The increase in potential red snapper catch and reduction in shrimp catch would depend on the characteristics of the trawl developed. b. Socioeconomic impact Complete elimination of reef fish bycatch may not be possible: trawl gear is not currently available to reduce finfish bycatch with the possible exception of the NMFS TED specifically modified for finfish exclusion. The Groundfish FMP specified that an acceptable gear should reduce the finfish bycatch by at least 50 260 percent. However, the Groundfish FMP also specified that the gear should not reduce the shrimp catch by more than three percent nor increase the overall cost of the gear by more than 10 percent. S: Limit shrimp trawling to 90 minutes tow time to increase probability of survival of juvenile red snapper returned to the sea •. a. Ecological impacts This measure would reduce mortality over that which existed in the fishery before TEDs were required. The extent of possible reductions are unknown, but may be limited to fish caught in the last 15-30 minutes· and by exposure on deck. TEDs may be more effective in reducing mortality than reduced tow time. b. socioeconomic impacts This measure would adversely impact the efficiency of shrimp vessel harvest operation over that for the normal 3-4 hour tow by the increased trawling time and costs, and lost fishing time. This measure is largely unenforceable unless engine RPM recorders are required. 6: Delete the red snapper bycatch exclusion for trawl vessels. a. Ecological impacts This measure would improve survival of undersize red snapper relative to the directed fishing activity on undersize fish that is curtailed. The survival rate of fish released after capture in a trawl, as bycatch, is unknown but not expected to be significant. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure would have a minimal negative on the trawl fisheries, as only about 100,000 to 200,000 pounds of red snapper of all sizes hav~ been landed annually between 1972 and 1985 by trawl vessels (Table 7.27). However, as the red snapper population increases, the expected trawl bycatch would also increase. 7: Exempt trawl vessels fro. the .inimwa si ze limit for red snapper provided the total weight of undersize red snappers does not exceed one percent of all other fish (including invertebrates) landed. a. Ecological impacts Positive relative to amount of undersize red snapper harvest eliminated by preventing the sale of large quantities of undersize fish that are presently "claimed" to be part of the trawl bycatch. 261 b. Socioeconomic imp~cts Minimal since this measure would affect only the illegal harvesting practices currently used to circumvent the minimum size limit. If a directed reef fish trawl fishery develops, this measure will not unnecessarily restrict such vessels if undersize fish are incidentally harvested but will discourage such directed effort on undersize red snapper. Socioeconomic impacts would be positive since this measure supports the present minimum size limit and affects only purposeful illegal fishing activity. A potential enforcement problem and burden on trawl fishermen is that this measure, in conjunction with the no sale provision would require that all undersize red snapper on groundfish vessels be separated from the catch to be sold. The difficulty of doing this on all trawl vessels is unknown but perceived to be a problem for groundfish vessels. 262 11.2.3. Longllnes and Buoys Adopted Management Measures: 1: Prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50 fathom isobath west of Cape San Blas, Florida (8S D 30'W) and inshore of the 20 fathom isobath east of Cape San Blas, Florida (8S·30·W). The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other lonqline operations (e. q. , shark) is limited to the recreational baq limit. The restricted area boundary is specified by latitude-longitude coordinates that approximate the depth zones Table 11.27. Subsequent chanqes are to be made by following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts Restriction of lonqline and buoy gear to waters deeper than 50 fathoms west of Cape San BIas, Florida would concentrate this effort on the deep water reef fish complex (tilefish, and snowy, misty, and yellowedge groupers) which due to the relatively lower productivity of their environment may be susceptible to overfishing (Moore and Labisky, 1984). This measure should reduce red snapper harvests bylonglines by a significant amount; from 11 to 73 percent of the annual red snapper catch by longlines has been taken at depths less than 50 fathoms (Table 11.26) •. The prohibition of longline and buoy gear inshore of the 20 fathom isobath in the eastern Gulf will still allow the continued operation of the Florida grouper longline fleet without significant disruption as less than 10 percent of the red grouper is taken at depths less than 20 fathoms (Table 11.26). This measure would reduce inshore fishing mortality by an unknown but sUbstantial amount in the short-term but in the long-term the use of other gear such as handlines and bandit rigs may expand with a corresponding increase in fishing mortality. b. socioeconomic impacts Gear restrictions, in general, only solves the problem of excessive fishing mortality only in the short-term since they simply postpone the problem until additional, more inefficient gear accumulate where fishing mortality again reaches current levels. Economic theory predicts that within a commercial fishery, gear restrictions actually increase the costs of harvesting fish and consequently the price of fish, which results in a reduction in quantity produced due to decreased demand for the product. However, given the high esteem .placed on the recreational fishing experience where one attempts to catch the largest fish on the lightest tackle, the desire to restrict more efficient gear is a logical extension of this sports philosophy. 263 / This measure would have a negative, but unquantifiable, immediate impact on the longline fishery which has developed during the last decade. The long-term impact is unknown; the longline fishery in the western Gulf may be able to adapt and maintain a somewhat lower level of production. The longline fishery in the eastern Gulf should be only minimally affected since less than 10 percent of the red grouper catch is from depths less than 20 fathoms. In the northern Gulf many fishing vessels have begun to target different species and use multiple gears to harvest these species (Ronald Anderson, personal communication). This measure will effectively preclude the use of longlines and buoy gear because a vessel with multiple gears, (e.g., bandit rigs in addition to a longline) will be prevented from fishing inside 50 fathoms on a given trip simply because longline or buoy gear is on board. Although the type of gear used on a particular fishing trip currently is not determined prior to leaving port, it will have to be determined in advance of leaving port to avoid inadvertent violation of this proposed area longline prohibition. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to protect the spawning component of the reef fish resources. About 50-60 percent of the present longline red snapper harvest is taken inshore of 50 fathoms (Table 11. 26) • This measure would restrict the continued use of a relatively new gear (first used in 1979-1980 in the reef fish fishery) which has targeted the adult fish in the Gulf. If longlines, being more efficient than other gears used in the fishery, are not restricted they have a greater potential to prevent rebuilding of the spawning stock. Although the longline industry has grown substantially since 1980, it is not a historical component of the fishery. Because the reef fish resources have declined since the introduction of longlines and it is believed longlines have disproportionately impacted the resource, the Council believes th~s measure is appropriate. 264 Relected Management Measures: 1: Prohibit the use of longlines and buoy gear for the directed harvest of reef fish inshore of the 50 fathom isobath throughout the Gulf EEZ. The retention of reef fish captured incidentally in other longline operations (e.g., shark) is limited to the recreational bag limit. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts on red snapper would be the same as those above in the proposed option but for the shallow water groupers the ecological impacts would be more significant since 70 to 80 percent of all red grouper are harvested in depths less than 50 fathoms. b. Socioeconomic impacts About 50 percent of the longline reef fish catch is taken in waters deeper than 50 fathoms (Table 11.26). This option while providing protection to red snapper would have a significant negative impact on the eastern Gulf grouper longline fishery. 2: Prohibit use of longlines for directed harvesting of reef fish. a. Ecological impacts \ A 20 to 50 percent decrease in fishing mortality would occur 7' immediately on red snapper ages 9 and older (Table 8.9) captured by longline gear. The expected impacts of this measure is that the red snapper percentage SSBR would increase from the present level of 0.9-2.7 percent to 1.3-3.8 percent (calculated as 1.3 = .009/ .716 from Table 8.9). The positive impacts expected on groupers would be greater since they are the major target species for longline gear. In the long term, fishing mortality by other gear will increase to present levels if an overall limit on catch or effort is not established as well. Deep water species such as misty, snowy, and yellowedge groupers the tilefishes are most efficiently harvested by longline gear. Effort would likely be redirected with other, less effective gear, such as handlines. Some reef fish will still be captured as incidental species in the shark longline fishery. b. Socioeconomic impacts Prohibiting longlines would result in a complete closure of the commercial longline fishery with loss of up to about 5.6 million pounds in total production (based on 1985 landings--see Table 7.27) from the commercial fishery worth $6.6 million at 1986 prices, and significant loss in capital equipment required in refitting vessels or pur,chase of other vessels. Longline vessels are relatively more 265 efficient than- the traditional bandit rigged vessels (based on catch per unit effort, costs per trip, and costs per pound of catch see poffenberger, 1985), especially for species or areas with low fish densities. Consequently, effort for reef fish would likely be redirected with less efficient gear and production would be partly maintained although at. a higher cost. Longlining vessels, if not refitted, would likely be redirected to the tuna, swordfish, or shark fisheries (thereby increasing bycatch mortality of bill fishes). Disruption of the c'ornmercial longline fishery would require significant restructuring of the fishery activities of about 300 firms. The non-Iongline commercial fishery should experience short-term increased income through increases in catch resulting from decreased competition from longliners. To the extent that recreational fishermen fish the areas vacated by longliners, there could be potential enhancement of the recreational reef fish fishery. Recreational anglers would experience increased satisfaction in the short-term, until effort increased, reducing catch rates to their former levels. Non-longline commercial effort would be expected to increase also in response, dissipating the short-term income increase. 3: prohibit use of lonqlines for directed harvestinq of reef fish in the stressed area. a. Ecoloqical impacts This measure would provide for increased short-term protection of nearshore reef fish through a reduction in fishing mortality by eliminating the use of the efficient longline gear. However, some reef fish will still be captured as incidental species in the shark longline fisheries. In the long term, without limits on total fishing mortality, as the use of other gear increases the short term protection against overfishing will be dissipated by the increased fishing mortality by other gear. b. '. Socioeconomic impacts A negative unquantifiable impact would occur on longline fishermen who have been operating within the stressed area: the proportion of longline fishing activity presently conducted in the stressed area is unknown. Longlining is already prohibited in state waters. A potentially positive impact on the recreational fishery would result from increased catch rates and greater participation could occur. However, since most longlining occurs offshore of the recreational fishery, this effect is likely to be minor. As long as the recreational and commercial handline fishery does not expand its fishing effort to fill the void left by exclusion of longlines, the increased catch rates will be maintained. 266 4: status-quo"- no requlation on the use of lonqlines. a. Ecological impacts The status quo option would have no direct short-term ecological impacts. In the long-term unregulated longlines, being the most efficient gear used in the fishery, would negatively impact the reef fish resources. b. Socioeconomic impacts The status quo option would have no short-term socioeconomic impacts. In the long-term longlines, being the most efficient gear used in the fishery, would create user conflicts if unregulated. with a quota system the more efficient gear such as longlines may, over time, dominate the fishery displacing the less efficient gear. 267 11.2.4. Additional Gear Restrictions Adopted Management Measures: 1: prohi~it the use of entangling nets for the directed harvest of reef fish. The retention of reef fish captured in entangling net operations targeting other species is limited to the recreational ~ag limit. Sul)sequent changes are to be made ~y following the TAC procedure described in section 9.2. a. Ecological impacts From 1978 through 1985 vessels fishing entangling nets (drift and runaround gil1nets, sink, and trammel nets) harvested an average of only 1 percent of the total commercial reef fish harvest (Table 7.27) . This measure will have minimal effect in reducing the short-term total fishing mortality on reef fish but may have significant positive impacts in the long-term by preventing the development of a larger fishery based on these gears which have the potential for ghost fishing and killing of nontarget species, including protected species such as turtles. b. Socioeconomic impacts The impact of this measure will be minimal on the commercial reef fish industry but may have some significant local impacts. The fish currently caught by entangling nets would be redistributed to fishermen using other gear. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to prohibit directed reef fish harvest by entangling nets because many of the reef fish stocks are overfished and entangling nets have the potential for ghost fishing and killing nontarget and protected species. The potential problems with a growing entanglement net fishery outweigh the benefits that would accrue to those few fishermen using these nets. Relected Manaaement Measures: 1: Establish minimua hook sizes. a. Ecological impacts This measure, if effective, would reduce fishing mortality on juveniles and those species that take smaller prey. -The Advisory Panel reports that a range of hook sizes catch similar size fish and this measure would not be effective. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure would likely reduce efficiency by an unknown amount. Higher costs of fishing as well as at-sea enforcement costs would 268 offset possibl~ long-term benefits of reduced growth overfishing. This measure is essentially unenforceable and so would require an effective educational program. This measure would be most appealing if all fish caught could be kept as it would be the least restrictive on fishing activity. 2: Only tbe followinq qear may be used to take reef fish: book and-line, spearqun (without powerhead), fisb traps, lonqlines, and runaround nets (includinq qill and trammel nets). a. Ecological impacts As these gear already occur in the fishery, the short-term ecological impacts would be minimal. However as more species become regulated through size limits some gear such as spearguns may he harmful in that the mortality of undersize fish captured would be great since it is not always possible to accurately determine the size of fish while underwater (a similar argument led to the banning spearguns in the spiny lobster fishery) ~ b. Socioeconomic impacts Short-term impacts would be minimal, however, the long-term development of new commercial gear would be prevented. 3: permit only book-and-line and spear fishinq in the stressed area. a. Ecological impacts This measure would provide increased protection to nearshore reef fish through a reduction in fishing mortality by eliminating the use of gear more efficient than hook-and-lines. Longlines are the primary gear affected immediately, however, introduction of new gear would also be prevented. Some reef fish will still be captured incidentally in the trawl and shark longline fisheries. without limits on total fishing mortality, as the use of permitted gear increases the short-term protection against overfishing will be dissipated by the increased fishing mortality by other gear. b. Socioeconomic impacts A potentially negative but unknown impact will occur on longline and net fishermen that have been operating wi thin the stressed area. A potentially positive impact on the recreational fishery will result from increased catch rates possibly leading to greater recreational participation. Potential enhancement of the recreational fishery will occur through increased satisfaction for anglers and increased CPUE, thus, business for charter and head boat operators, at least until effort increases to the point that catch rates return to former levels. This measure will also effect a wider distribution of limited resources among more users. 269 11.3. Fishing Year· Adopted Management Measures: 1: status Quo - The fishing year is from January 1 through December 31. a. Ecological impacts The ecological impacts of this measure will be minimal. b. Socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts of this measure will be negligible on the recreational fishery but for the commercial fishery the impacts will be directly related to the relative differences in the length of the commercial fishing seasons. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure because the first half of the year provides the better prices and, except for the first months, better fishing weather. The proposed quotas are sufficiently large relative to past years landings that fishing should continue throughout most of the year. Relected Management Measures: 1: Define the fishing year to begin at anotber time of the year or set different fisbing year. for different speci.. groups. a. Ecological impacts The direct ecological impacts of this me~sure would be minimal unless the fishing year can be selected so that it begins just after the main period of spawning activity. This would be pa~~icularly beneficial for those species managed by quotas that are filled before the end of the fishing year thus providing a closure during the spawning season. b. Socioeconomic impacts .The socioeconomic impacts of this measure would be negligible on the recreational fishery but for the commercial fishery the impacts would be directly related to the relative differences in the length of the commercial fishing seasons. An enforcement problem would occur with different seasons for because oftentimes harvest activity can not be directed at a single species group and the release mortality of the bycatch, for which the season may be closed, would result in wastage of fish. 270 11.4. stressed Area-Boundaries Adopted Management Measures: 1: Extend the present boundary ot the stressed area to inc~uQe waters oft Texas out to the 30 fathom isobath alonq the entire coastline ot Texas (Figure 11.8, map section I; Table 11.28). a. Ecological impacts This measure would decrease fishing mortality on nearshore reef fishes in the short-term if prohibited gear types are currently fished within these waters. The relative impacts of this measure on reef fish stocks and reduction in fishing effort effected are not known. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure would displace those fishermen currently using prohibited gear--fish traps, powerhead spear guns, and roller trawls--inshore the 30 fathom isobath. There would be a potential dislocation of commercial trap and recreational powerhead fishermen. A potential reduction in user group conflicts would result, as well as potential increased recreational satisfaction if catch rates increase. Fish traps currently are not a significant fishinq gear in this area. However since fish traps are relatively efficient gear at low abundance levels (as a result of reef fish aggregating around any object projecting above the bottom) the prohibition would prevent them from competing with hook and line for the available resource. The only roller trawls known to be in use in the Gulf are those used by butterfish vessels fishing off the central and western Gulf. These vessels are currently fishinq much further offshore but could potentially use this gear to harvest reef fish. The proposed stressed area would prohibit their use in nearshore areas. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to extend protection to the nearshore. reef fish populations to the waters off Texas. The condition of the red snapper stock off Texas is severely overfished and in need of stringent protection. Red snapper is also the principal species targeted by charter vessels, head (party) boats, and private recreational fishermen in the nearshore .. areas which are, thereby, subject to much more intensive fishing pressure as a result of beinq close to shore. The Council, therefore, proposed this extension of the stressed area to eliminate the potential use of more efficient gear on these already stressed local aggregations of reef-fish.. As a result of coastal access and fishing pressure off Texas the Council proposed a 30-fathom boundary for the entire Texas coast, whereas under the FMP rule the stressed area was only 271 off east Texas: Because of the configuration of the continental shelf off Texas the proposed boundary is much further offshore in the highly populated east Texas area. This measure also carries a strong educational message to the public that the reef fish resources in the nearshore areas are overfished and that conservation attitudes among the fishing public need to be encouraged. 2: Extend the present boundary of the stressed area to include waters off Louisiana out to the 10 fathom isobath alonq the entire coastline of Louisiana (Piqure 11.9, map section II: Table 11.28). a. Ecological impacts In the short term, this alternative will decrease fishing mortality on nearshore reef fishes if prohibited gear types are currently fished within these waters. The relative impacts of this measure on reef fish stocks and reduction in fishing effort effected are unknown. The extent of reef fish abundance at depths less than 10 fathoms is also unknown. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure would displace those fishermen currently using prohibited gear within the 10 fathom isobath. A potential reduction in or prevention of user group conflicts would result. Fish traps are not a significant fishing gear in this area. However since fish traps are relatively efficient gear at low abundance levels (as a result of reef fish aqgreqating around any object projecting above the bottom) the prohibition would prevent them from competing with hook-and-line for the available resource. The only roller trawls known to be in use in the Gulf are those used by butterfish vessels fishing off the central and western Gulf. These vessels are currently fishing much further offshore but could potentially use this gear to harvest reef fish. The proposed stressed area would prohibit their use in nearshore areas. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option to extend protection to the nearshore reef fish populations to the waters off Louisiana. The condition of the red snapper stock off Louisiana, which is the principal reef fish found, is severely overfished and in need of stringent protection. Red snapper is also the principal species targeted by charter vessels, head (party) boats, and private recreational fishermen in the nearshore areas which are, thereby, subject to much more intensive fishing pressure as a result of being close. to shore. The Council, therefore, proposed this extension of the stressed area to eliminate the potential use of more efficient gear on these already stressed local aggregations of reef fish. As a result of coastal access and fishing pressure 272 off Louisiana -the Council proposed a lO-fathom boundary for the whole Louisiana coast, whereas under the FMP rule there was no stressed area off Louisiana. The lO-fathom boundary was proposed rather than one further offshore, as in Texas, because access to coastal areas of Louisiana is limited. This measure also carries a strong educational message to the public that the reef fish resources in the nearshore areas are overfished and that conservation attitudes among the fishing public need to be encouraged. Relected Management Measures: 1: Modify the present boundary of stressed area oft the West Florida coast froll the current stressed area boundary point at latitude 28- 10' North, longitude 83- 14' west to extend east along the same latitude to 83- 5' west and froll there to extend north northwest to a point at 28- 54' North, 83- 15' west and froll there to extend northwest to a point 29- 38' North, 83- 44' west and trom there to extend due vest to longitude 84- 00' west which is an existing point on the stressed area boundary. (See Pigure 11.10, map section III). a. Ecoloqical impacts This measure would allow an increase in fishing mortality on nearshore reef fishes off west Florida, most particularly on sea basses which would be the primary target species. Florida's minimum size limits and those implemented by this amendment may prevent harvest of juvenile fishes for which minimum sizes exist. Reportedly, specialized sea bass traps are pulled at regular intervals during the day, thus facilitating the live release of captured juvenile fish for which size limits exist and non-target species. The condition of the stocks and fishing effort within this area are unknown. The area that would be excluded by this measure encompasses depths from 45 to 60 feet in the southern half and, depths from 30 to 60 feet in the northern half. b. Socioeconomic impacts Concern has been expressed by fishermen that the sea bass trap fishery in the west central Florida area is unduly restricted by the present stressed area boundaries because sea bass traps are ·legal under Florida state law but are prohibited within the stressed area. This measure would allow expansion of the commercial trap fishery off west Florida into an area that is not extensively used by recreational fishermen due to the remoteness from lqcal human population centers. Principal users will be vessels from the stone crab fishery fishing during the closed crab season. If the proposed excluded area does not result in increased user group conflicts, then social impacts will be positive. The 273 Levy county chapter of organized Fishermen of Florida which represents the shrimpers in the area reports fish trap use would not interfere with present shrimping operations. The proposed change will permit existing trap fishing boats to operate in the shallower waters and reduces the dangers the small 40-foot crab boats endure when attempting to fish outside the present boundary. At-sea enforcement will be required to ensure posi ti ve impacts occur. 2: Modify the present boundary of stressed area off the west Florida coast from the current stressed area boundary line along the 20 fathom isobath inshore to the 15 fathom isobath which requires making the followinq change •. to the boundary points: move the boundary point at latitude 2'- 2" North, longitude 82- 59 1 west inshore, along the same latitude to lonqitude 82- 45 1 west and the boundary point at latitude 28- 10' North, 83- 45 1 west inshore along the same latitude to longitude 83- 30 1 west (Figure 11.10, map section IV). a. Ecological impacts If moving the boundary does not result in more fishermen harvesting from the area between 15 and 20 fathoms the ecological impacts would be minimal. If more fishermen participate in the newly opened area, 'the impact may be negative due to increased fishing mortality. b. Socioeconomic impacts This change would have minimal impact if few trap and powerhead fishermen operate in this area. 3: Modify present boundary of stressed area off the southwest Florida coast from the point at latitude 25- 40' North and lonqitude 82- 39' We.t to extend shoreward to a point at 25- 40 1 North and 81- 39' .eat and from there to extend south-southeast to a point at 25- 03' North and 81- 27' West and then to extend southwest to rejoin the present stressed area boundary at point 6 (24-' 48' North, 82- 0'.5' .est) (Fiqure 11.10, map section V). a. Ecological impacts This measure would allow an increase in fishing mortality on nearshore reef fishes off southwest Florida. The area both inside and outside the present boundary apparently serves as a nursery area for red grouper because fishermen report a greater preponderance of small fish off southwest Florida than off other areas of west Florida. However, the Florida minimum size limit and size limits implemented with this amendment may prevent the harvest of juvenile fishes for which minimum sizes exist, thus reducing harvest mortality. 274 b. socioeconomic impacts Fishermen contend that the present boundary of the stressed area off Florida, due to the distances offshore that the stressed area encompasses, may be unnecessarily preventing the development of a shallow water trap fishery where potential user group conflict is minimal. This measure would allow expansion of the commercial trap fishery off southwest Florida into an area not extensively utilized by recreational fishermen due to the remoteness from local human population centers. Principal users would be vessels from the crab and lobster fisheries, during periods when those fisheries are closed. If the proposed excluded area does not result in increased user group conflicts, then social impacts will be positive. This measure would permit existing trap fishing boats to operate in the shallower waters and reduces the dangers the small 40-foot boats endure when attempting to fish outside the present boundary (AP June 15, 1987). 275 > j 11.5. User Group Conflict Resolution Adopted Manaaement Measures: 1: status QUo - No requlation. a. Ecological impacts status quo will provide minimal impacts in addition to the protection already afforded by the stressed area in reducing user conflicts. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure will provide minimal impacts since it requires no regulation. However, impacts may be somewhat negati ve in that builders of an artificial reef may perceive that they are den.ied the full benefit of their efforts and not acquire an equitable share of the reef fish resources associated with their reef, if no explicit protective mechanisms exist. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option because the gear that causes the conflicts with recreational and commercial handline fishermen are fish traps and lonqlines, and since these gear are proposed to be prohibited or restricted to offshore waters specific procedures are not necessary. Other conflicts among fishermen at sea can be adequately handled by the state and federal enforcement agencies. Relected Manaaement Measures: 1: Prohibit or restrain specific fishing qear around artificial reefs with the establishment of Special Management Zones (SMZ). Upon request to Council, by the permittee (possessor of a corps of Engineers permit) for any artificial reef or fish attraction device (or other modification of habitat for the purpose of fishinq) the modified area and aD appropriate surrouncUnq area may 1:te desiqnated as a special Hanaqament Zone (SMZ) that prohibits or restrains the use of speaific types of fishing gear which are not compatible with· the intent of the perai ttee for the artificial reef or fish attraction device. Pertinent inforaation the permittee should provide includes, but is not limited to, location and depth of permitted reef, adjacent habitats, historical users of the area and expected primary users, target species and the status of their stocks, susceptibility of the reef to overfishing, reasons for partic~ar gear restrictions, and whether the purpose of the 8HZ designation is to prevent overfishinq or to prevent gear conflicts. The following procedure. (adopted from the South Atlantic Council's Snapper-Grouper PMP) will be followed: 276 1. The Reef pish operations unit will evaluate the request and provide a written report considerinq the followinq criteria: a. Fairness and equity. b. Promote conservation. c. Excessive shares. d. Historical users. e. Location. 2. At the request of the Hanaqement Committee, the Council Chairman may schedule me.tinqs of the Advisory Panel or Scientific and Statistical CODUllittee to review the report and associated documents and to advise the Council. 3. The council, follo.inq review of the Team's report, supportinq data, public comments, and other relevant information, may recommend to the Reqional Director that a SHZ be approved. Such a recommendation would be accompanied by all relevant backqround data. 4. The Reqional Director will review the Council's recoDUllendation, and if he concurs in the recommendation, will prepare a requlatory amendment in accordance with the recoDUllendations. If the Council's recommendation is rejected or modified, the Reqional Director must provide written reasons and supportinq analysis for the rejection or modificatioD. a. Ecological impacts within the localized area of the SHZ, the ecological impacts would be positive in that gear restrictions would reduce fishing mortality but only in the short-term. Long-term impacts would be. minimal as angler pressure increased. b. Socioeconomic impacts The', objective of this measure is to vest rights to use of an artificial reef in the user group that constructed the reef. Posi ti ve impacts would occur for the user groups not excluded. This measure would encourage the construction of additional reefs, however, the excluded user groups would be affected negatively relative to area of fishing qrounds excluded. A significant long term negative impact would occur if an accumUlation of SM7 effectively excluded a particular user group from fishing prim? fishing grounds. At-sea enforcement would be required unless enforcement COl' effected by private citizens filing of affidavits aga.' particular user who had violated the conditions of a SMZ. 277 ./ 2: Implement .-Notice Action procedure for terminating a conflict or preventing a violent confrontation between. fishermen fishing different gears. 1. a. b. c. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. . . c. d. If the Secretary determines a conflict exists between user groups in the reef fish fishery, one or more of the following actions may be taken by notice in the Federal Reqister: Immediately prohibit fishing in the area for five to ten days while a fact-findinq meetinq is held. Divide the are. into fishinq zones for each gear type. Specify on an equitable basis the days of the week or a month that a specific gear may be utilized in the area. The following procedures will be used to determine whether a conflict exists for which a notice is appropriate: When the Secretary is advised by any person that a conflict exists, he will confirm the existence of such a conflict throuqh information supplied by NMFS, the u.s. coast Guard, other appropriate lav enforcement agencies, or personnel of the appropriate state aqency. The secretary shall confer with the Chairman of the Gulf of Mexico I'ishery Management Council (Council), the state agency with marine fishery manaqement responsibility,- and such other persons as the Secretary deems appropriate. Restrictions on I'ederal Reqister notice. area. follows: No action may result in exclusive access of any user qroup or gear type to the fishery durinq the time the notice is in effect. No notice may be effecti ve for more tban 10 days, except under the conditions set forth in paraqraph 4(e) • The area affected shall be the minimum required to resolve the conflict. When the notice is submitted, a fact-findinq meetinq sball be arranged in the area of the conflict, to ba convened no later than 72 hours from the time of implementation of the notice. . The follovinq persons vill be advised of such a meetinq: 1) The Chairman of the council. 2) The state aqency vith fishery manaqement responsibility. 278 3) Local media. 4) such user group representatives or organizations as may be appropriate and practicable. 5) other persons as deemed appropriate by the Secretary or as requested by the Chairman of the Councilor the State agency. 4. The fact-finding meeting will be held for the purpose of evaluating the following: a. The existence of a conflict needing resolution by notice and the area affected. b. The appropriate term of the notice, i.e., either greater or less than five days. c. other possible solutions to the conflict besides Federal intervention. d. other relevant matters. e. If the secretary determines that the term of the notice should exceed 10 days, he may, after consultation with the Chairman ot the Council and the State agency, extend such notice tor a period not to exceed 30 day. fro. the date of initial implementation. It the secretary determines that it is necessary or appropriate for the term ot such notice to extend beyond 30 day., he may extend it a second time, after consulting with the Chairman ot the Council, for such period of time a. necessary to resolve the conflict. f. The secretary may rescind a notice if he find., through application of the same procedures set forth in section (2), that the conflict no longer exists. a. Ecological impacts No direct ecological impacts would be expected. b. Socioeconomic impacts positive social impacts would result from alleviatinqor resolving serious user confrontations. Minimal negative economic impacts would result from localized restriction of fishing which may be offset by avoidance of gear damage. 279 11.6. Closed Seasons and Areas Adopted Management Measures: 1: season and area closures for selected reef fish will be considered under the Total Allowable Catch Procedure. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be positive and relative to the extent spawning potential is protected through reduced fishing mortality. Many reef fish either form spawning aggregations or migrate to specific locations to spawn (Grimes 1987, Shapiro 1987) and consequently they become more susceptible to harvest during this time; most fishermen know the habits of their target fish and use this knowledge to increase their harvest. b. socioeconomic impacts The extent of socioeconomic· impacts will be dependent on the length and timing of closures. Most reef fish spawn from the late spring to early fall (May-September) with the spawning season probably more restricted to the summer months in the northern Gulf which also coincides with the peak fishing season. c. Rationale The Council proposed this option at the request of both recreational and commercial fishermen who feel that spawning season closures would provide substantial protection to the reef fish resources. Relected Manaaement Measures: 1: Establish a closed seaSOD for selected specie. or species groups to assure maximum protectioD of spawniDq poteDtial. a. Ecological impacts The impacts of spawning season closures would be positive since some reef fish may be more susceptible to harvesting during the spawning season. The data are not available to determine the quantitative benefits of this measure. b. Socioeconomic impacts The socioeconomic impacts can be calculated for the short-term reduction in catch that would occur with a closure by examining monthly catches. The long-term gains or losses at present cannot be quantified. 280 11. 7. Permits and G'earldentification Adopted Management Measures: status Quo--Permit and gear identifications specified in FMP Permits shall be required for vessels or persons fishing fish traps in the EEZ. All fish traps used in the fishery within the EEZ shall be identified by a number, and trap buoys be identified by a color code. Further, each trap or string of traps must be marked by a floating buoy or by buoys designed to be submerged and automatically released within a certain time period; each string of traps shall be marked with a buoy at opposite ends of the string. Each boat, vessel, or structure fishing traps shall be clearly marked with the same number and color code to allow identification from aerial and water patrol craft. Each vessel permitted shall be issued identification tags that must be permanently affixed to each trap. Such tags shall have the permit number of the vessel and shall be numbered consecutively. Replacement tags for traps lost may be obtained. As a condition of obtaining a permit to fish traps, the permittee must allow federal officers reasonable access to his property (vessel or dock) to inventory traps for compl iance with the measures of this plan. Each applicant for a permit must specify the number, dimensions and estimated cubic volume of the traps that will be fished under the permit. 1: Require an annual commercial fishinq permit for fisbinq under the commercial quota (ezceedinq a baq limit) and for the sale of ree,f fish, with the qualifyinq condition that more than fifty percent of an individual's (ovner or operator) earned income must be derived from commercial or charter/head boat fishinq. Charter and head boat applicants mu.t submit their Coast Guard Masters license number and commercial applicants must submit their documented ve •• el number on the permit application. only those fish cauqht by a permitted ve •• el CaD be soldl where a commercial quota has been estaJ)lished only those fish cauqht under the commercial quota can be sold. Charter and head boats with permits to fish under the commercial quota are required to fish under the baq limit when under charter or when there are more than 3 persons aboard,. includinq captain and crew. other fishermen on unpermitted vessels are limited to the established baq limits. 281 a. Ecological impacts This measure is the same as the permitting requirements proposed in Amendment 4 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP. The ecological impacts will be positive because this measure should significantly reduce commercial fishing effort on the resource in the EEZ. However unless the states adopt similar requirements, this effort may be relocated to state waters in some areas (e.g., off Florida and Texas). b. Socioeconomic impacts Some negative impacts would occur to part-time commercial and recreational fishermen who sell their catch but do not meet the qualifying condition. positive impacts on full-time commercial fishermen would occur due to an increase in CPUE and by reduced competition for fishing areas. This measure would allow effective enforcement of the commercial quotas and recreational bag limits. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure as a means of achieving an equitable reduction in catch of both commercial and recreational fishermen. The for-hire income is included due to the dependence of this user group on the commercial sale of reef fish during a part of the year. The Council believes requiJ;ing permits of boats fishing a commercial quota that is likely to be reached during a fishing season is the procedure which imposes the least regulation and imposition while still maintaining the catch within established quotas. 2: special fish trap permits (endorsement) and trap tags shall be required for all vessels fishing or possessinq fish traps in the EEZ for the harvest of reef fish. Th. permit and trap taqs shall be issued (or reissued) annually and shall be valid until the end of the fishing year for which the permit is issued unless revoked for'.violation of a fish trap related requlation. A fe. shall be charged to recover the direct and indirect costs associated with the issuance of trap permits and tags. Except for the fish trap permit provisions in this paragraph, all other fish trap permit requirements shall remain as specified in section 641.4 of the current reef fish requlations. a. Ecological impacts Impacts would be minimal and indirectly positive as this alternative should help to improve supporting data required for stock assessments which should ultimately lead to improved population productivity throuqh improved management. 282 b. socioeconomic impacts Long-term impacts would be indirectly positive due to improved stock assessments and management. The present implementation of the trap permit does not provide adequate data for management purposes. Over 400 permits have been issued to date, but only 94 permittees are reportedly active (ESO, 1988). The permit system does not provide an appropriate level of information on the universe of fish trap fishermen. This measure would allow management to track the dynamics of the trap fishery and facilitate the deployment of logbooks. Presently, 475 permittees are on file as of June, 1987. To date, only 12 fishermen have turned in logbooks. Currently, we have no information as to the number of active trap fishermen. Without this modification to the permitting system, the utility of requiring permits for the purpose of monitoring the fish trap fishery is questionable. Our information needs are as great today as they were when the FMP was written in 1981. The permitting system, when corrected, should provide improved identification of the commercial fish trap user group and evaluation of relative impacts of management measures. This measure has the support of the advisory panel and would result in only a minimal burden on fishermen. This measure will result in improved identification of the commercial fish trap user group and evaluation of relative impacts of management measures, and be a minimal burden on fishermen. It is estimated by the NMFS, SERO that a permit will cost $17.00 and each trap tag $.70. Total costs involved in issuing annual permits and trap tags will be borne by the permit applicant. c. Rationale This measure implements changes to the current fish trap permit system that will provide usable information on the dynamics of the fishery and will reduce costs to the government since the pemittees wil~ now pay for the cost of the permit and trap tags. Without the modifications included in this measure the permitting of fish traps serves a limited, even counterproductive purpose. 283 ' " " / Relected Management Measures: 1: Require an annual commercial permit, with no quali~yinq conditions, for the sale of reef fish. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be minimal and indirectly positive as this al ternati ve should help to improve supporting data required for stock assessments which should ultimately lead to improved population productivity through improved management. b. socioeconomic impacts Socioeconomic impacts would be minimally negative relative to administrative costs and reporting burden. Positive impacts would result from improved identification of commercial and recreational user groups and improved estimates of the impact of the commercial fishery on the resource. Improved identification of size of commercial user group and evaluation of relative impacts of management measures would be a positive impact also. 2: Require an annual commercial fishinq permit for the sale of reef fish, with the qualifyinq condition that ten percent or an individual's (owner or operator) iDcome must l:». derived rrom commercial fishinq. a. Ecological impacts Impacts would be minimal and indirectly positive as this al ternati ve should help to improve supporting data required for stock assessments which should ultimately lead to improved population productivity through improved management. b. Socioeconomic impacts This measure is the same as the permitting requirements now in plaoe for coastal migratory pelagics. Somewhat negative impacts may occur relative to administrative costs and reporting burden, but these are expected to be minor. Positive impacts will result from improved identification of commercial and recreational user groups and improved estimates of the impact of the commercial fishery on the resource. Part-time fishermen and recreational fishermen that sell their catch would be negatively impacted. This measure would lead to improved identification of commercial user group and evaluation of relative impacts of management measures. 284 3: Require annual permits for charter and head boat vessels. a. Ecological impacts Impacts would be minimal and indirectly positive as this alternative should improve supporting data required for stock assessments of both reef fish and mackerels which should ultimately lead to improved population productivity and management. b. Socioeconomic impacts A similar measure is already in place through the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP. Minimally negative impacts would occur relative to marginal administrative costs and reporting burden over that imposed by the mackerel permit requirements since most party boats harvest both mackerels and reef fish. Positive impacts will result from improved identification of the for-hire user group and improved estimates of their impact on the resource. Improved uniformity in reporting burden for party boats will reduce problems with confusion and compliance associated with present party boat permit requirements implemented by Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP. " : Vessels or persons harvestinq reef fish in the EEZ for subsequent sale must possesa a state permit that allows the sale of reef fish in the state of landinq. a. Ecological impacts. The ecological impacts of this measure would be minimal. b. Socioeconomic impacts. These permits typically cost from one to five dollars so many permittees will be recreational fishermen--if 51 percent criterion is selected then this requirement should be in addition to the 51 percent requirement. If option 7 of Section 4.3 is selected, requiring conformance with state law, this measure would be redundant and could be included in the regulations. Positive results would occur relative to the support this measure provides to existing state law requiring permits for the sale of reef fish presently fishermen may circumvent current state law by claiming fish were harvested in the EEZ and not subject to state permitting requirements. It is unknown whether the state permitting requirements will fulfill management needs in identifying user groups or regulating catch on a Gulf-wide basis since not all state systems similarly identify reef fish fishermen. 285 5: Establish a moratoriua on the issuance of fish trap permits. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be positive in that the number of permittees has been increasing rapidly and most live or operate in south Florida. other measures such as a 51 percent income requirement may reduce effort more significantly and make this measure unnecessary. b. socioeconomic impacts This approaches the creation of a limited entry system where only existing permit holders are included in the fishery and there is no opportunity for entry either through the marketplace or the permitting agency. The Magnuson Act requirements are more stringent for such systems, and from a policy standpoint OMB appears reluctant to approve completely closed systems. From a sociological perspective what is likely to occur is that when the concept is presented to the public, permit requests will increase significantly before it can be implemented. 286 .. 11.8. statistical Reporting Requirements Adopted Management Measures: 1: Data will be collected by authorized statistical reporting agents from a statistically valid survey sample of commercial and recreational catch that is of sUfficient size to provide representative measures of all major seqments of a category of users of a resource and statistically valid estimates for stock assessment analyses and quota monitorinq. Any such data collection should rely upon techniques that ensure comparability of data. Those fishermen and dealers selected by the Science and Research Director, or his desiqnee, must make their reef fish (head and fins intact) available at dockside for inspection by those agents. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be indirectly positive relative to improvements in stock assessments resulting from improved data. b. Socioeconomic impacts The impacts would be indirectly positive relative to improvements in management resulting from improved data collection. Presently, fishermen are not required to land reef fish with head and fins intact. without such a measure dockside data collection will be potentially hindered. The FMP implementing regulations required ,/ that all red snappers be landed with head and fins intact--this measure would extend that requirement to all reef fish. costs involved would be minimal since this measure would not change present data collection efforts. Only if non-compliance became a significant problem would enforcement actually be required. Reporting burden would be minimal since reporting by the commercial and head boat sectors of the fishery is already required. c. Rationale The 'Council adopted this measure because the current recreational and commercial data collection programs are inadequate to provide the data needed to assess the status of the reef fish populations or the dynamics of the fisheries harvesting these resources. It is the intent that all data collection programs instituted in support of the Reef Fish FMP be done on a mandatory basis; while the NMFS has the authority to selectively sample a segment of the fishery those persons selected shall be required to report the information requested. The population analyses required for characterization of the fishery and the status of its supporting resources depend on parameters such as standardized CPUE I sand age length keys that are not available for the reef fish. Without an improved database it will be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the effectiveness of management. 287 2: Require head boat operators who are s.lected by NHFS to maintain a fishery record for each trip and report this information to NMPS on at least a monthly basis. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be indirectly positive, as data collection would be improved resulting in improved stock assessments and better informed decision base for management. b. Socioeconomic impacts Socioeconomic impacts and reporting burdens required by this measure are negligible. The NMFS head boat survey has been collecting data on a monthly basis since its inception in the early 1970's. When NMFS implemented the FMP reporting requirements for head boats in 1987, the frequency of reporting was changed to quarterly. If the industry adopts a quarterly reporting schedule, the quality and timeliness of the data will seriously deteriorate. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure to ensure the integrity and timeliness of the headboat data collection program, which is vital for monitoring the health of the reef fish stocks and regulatory impacts of implemented measures. 3: R.quir. chart.r boat op.rator. who are s.l.cted by NKJ'S to maintain a daily fi.hing record on form. provided by the science and Re.earch Dir.ctor that are to b. submitted weekly (as is required in the Coastal Migratory p.lagia PMP). Information to be included in th. form. must includ., but not b. limited to: (1) Nam. or official numb.r of v •••• l. (2) operator's coast Guard licen •• number. (3) Dat. of trip. (4) Number of fi.h.rm.n on trip. (S) Area fished. (.6) Fishing m.thod. and type of gear. (7) Hour. fish.d. (8) sp.ci •• targ.t.d. (9) Numb.r and •• timat.d w.ight of fish caught by sp.cies. a. Ecoloqical impacts Ecoloqical impacts would be indirectly positive, as data collection would be improved resul tinq in improved stock assessments and better informed decision base for manaqement. b. Socioeconomic impacts The additional reporting burden this measure would put on the charter boat industry is minimal because they are already required 288 to provide similar data for coastal pelagics. The collection of these data were proposed in the FMP but not implemented by NMFS due to perceived duplication of data collection between the charterboat and MRFSS. However, as long as the coastal pelagics requirements are in place, the absence of the above requirements creates confusion with respondents and results in voluntarily provided reef fish data that is of such inconsistent quality that NMFS scientists believe the data to be inadequate for stock assessment purposes. c. Rationale The Council adopted this measure to ensure the integrity and timeliness of the charter boat data collection program which is vital for monitoring the health of the reef fish stocks and regulatory impacts of implemented measures. 4: The current reportinq requirements for fish traps are modified in the followinq paraqraph to implement the council's intent to strenqthen the enforcability of fish trap reportinq requirements. The owner or operator of a fishinq vessel or any other person permitted under §641.4 to fish with fish traps must provide the followinq information reqardinq all fishinq trips on which reef fish are harvested to the Science and Research Director. This information must be submitted within 7 days of completioD of each trip: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) permit number as provided for in §'41.4' pounds of catch of reef fish by species by qear if gear other than fish traps were also used, date of trip, depths fished, and fishinq locations by statistical area; number of trap hauls resultinq in catch, duration (days and hours) traps were fished before each haul; and mesh size of traps. Routine reporting shall be required of all trap pe~ittees. At a minimum, monthly reports shall be required even if no fishing for reef fish occurred in a particular month. Violation of any of the reporting requirements shall result in revocation of the fish trap permit for one year. NJlJ'S shall provide quarterly reports concerninq compliance with the fish trap requlations. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be indirectly positive, as this measure would result in better information for managing the resource. b. SOcioeconomic impacts The permitting and reporting requirements established in the FMP were to provide information on the growing fish trap fishery. 289 Little was, and sti~l is, known about the catch characteristics of fish traps in the Gulf of Mexico; these requirements were to provide information on the dynamics of a segment of the fishery whose potential impact on the reef fish resource was unknown but potentially deleterious. The permit and vessel and gear identification requirements serve as a useful enforcement tool. The permit was initially designed to track participation in the fishery but, as implemented, serves only an enforcement purpose because permits are issued for indefinite periods of time. The reporting requirements, implemented as a logbook program, were to provide biological information on the impacts of fish traps on the resource. However, it has been concluded that logbooks can be required only of those fishermen who have used fish traps to harvest reef fish. Therefore, of 428 permits issued to trap fishermen in the Gulf since implementation of the FMP in 1984, only 94 logbooks have been issued to trap fishermen since the reporting requirements were implemented in July, 1987. Consequently, to date, the permitting and reporting requirements have not served the purpose for which they were initially designed. The initial letter of Jul"y, 1987, sent to permittees by NMFS introducing the logbook program indicated that logbook records must be kept of all fishing trips, and if no fish trap fishing occurred during a particular month a monthly negative report would be required. Subsequently, NOAA General Counsel advised NMFS that monthly negative reporting cannot be required because the regulations did not specifically address negative reporting. This measure would close that loophole and improve the capability of the logbook program to document the dynamics of the fishery and its impact on the resource. Participants in the fishery have generally refused to comply with the reporting requirements indicating a social rejection of this new requirement or a lack of understanding of the importance of the data. In that the fishery is either fully or over exploited, some fishermen fear the data will be utilized in formulating more restrictions on their activities. The economic impact would be in buraen hours for either the fisherman or, more likely, the dealer purchasing the fish. Permit revocation would result in a significant impact on fishermen who would have to seek alternative employment. Overall, this measure may increase the reporting burden on the fishing public somewhat, the resulting improvements in communication between government and industry and, in our knowledge of the fish trap fishery, should offset any concern over the potential increase of reporting burden. The present system does not provide adequate information on the fish trap fishery which has the pot~ntial to exert far reaching impacts on the reef resources. 290 c. Rationale The modifications in this measure to the current reporting requirements are necessary to obtain more reliable information on the trap fishery. This measure will strengthen the enforceability of the logbook requirements with a minimum of addition burden on the fishermen or cost to the government over current requirements. Relected Manaaement Measures: 1: Replace the fish trap logbook with a dockside sampling program, designed by NKFS, and patterned after the present state/federal Trip Interview Program. a. Ecological impacts Ecological impacts would be positive in that better data will be collected, particularly size composition information. Total landings by gear type is collected by dealers under FMP rules and Florida Trip Ticket System. b. Socioeconomic impacts This option would reduce the reporting burden on the fishery and facilitate the collection of more accurate data. Logbook programs, to be successful, require sUbstantial government resources to enforce and validate the data that is submitted by fishermen. Presently, the Trip Interview Program (TIP.) does not include the fish trap fishery officially. Although NMFS and Florida port samplers attempt to obtain fish trap information, it is collected sporadically because of the remote location of fish trap fishermen in southwest Florida. A dockside sampling approach, if appropriately designed, would provide more accurate information on catch and effort than the present logbook program. The government costs involved may be greater for the collection of data, but it would require no enforcement or validation and may actually be less expensive to government overall. However, this measure was considered too costly relative to the benefits of the logbook program already in existence. Presently, the Florida Trip Ticket System does not require fishermen to report the type of gear used or its soak time. Fishermen are not volunteering the gear information in sufficient frequency or detail to be of management use. This gear information is very. important in determining its impact on the resource and in evaluating the status of the fishery. 291 FIGURE 11.1 .15 projections of RED SNAPPER yield-per-recruit and spawning-stock biomass-per-recruit effects of only minimum sizes ranging from 10 to 18 inches total len-gth with a 33 percent undersize release mortality. (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). Z.5 COI4STMT F VECTOR Z.8 .. 1.5......-.. 1.1 [ )... .... :-- .. -.s::p ::••••••••• 111111 • . 8.5 ZI14281119961992 L.. ......... --L. -...J ....L- --'- --L -.JI..-. ....L- -J.- --l .88 2888 1.1 1988 YEAR 292 FIGURE 11.2 Projections of RED SNAPPER yield-per-recruit and spawning-stock biomass-per-recruit effects of only reductions in fishing mortality (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%). (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). . 18 .38 . .. ---- . - .. ---- .... --- ... ~-:"l ::::::: ---===:::::========~.18 .. • - •• [ ••• - - ~ • - - • • Z8".,..,. .. -.,. --".,. ..... .... ... - .. ..... -' .. '.-.,-: .... ' ------- .---- . .- ..... . ------- .. ------•••• ia::::::::: ... . .. . . . . .. r----------------------- .58 COHST~T r VECTOR 2.8 2.5 1.5 1.8 8.S .. ........ 8 •81g'-e-e-.....L..--1-9L..9-Z-...J---l...J91...9-6-....L.--2-8..J.8-8---..I..--2-8..L.8-"--..J..--z.J e 8:8 YEAR 293 FIGURE 11.3 .58 Projections of RED SNAPPER yie~d-per-recruit and spawning-stock biomass-per-recruit effects of a 75% reduction in fishing mortality in combination- with minimum sizes of 12, 14, 16, and 18 inches total length with a 33 percent undersize release mortality. (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). 2.5 COHST~r r VECTOR .28 .18 .38 ) l----:::::::::::::::: .,==i=;;;;;:::::::::-----··· .. .. :==: •• :ill' .... .... ~i·I.· ii'" .1 1,I·, ""••.. ".--•• c: ••••••• •• • • •••. ... ~ ---=::;;;; --~~ .482.8 1.S 1.8 8.S .. 288428881996 YEAR 1992 L ..L- ~ I --L. --'- J J~ ..L- ~ J .88 2888 8.8 1988 294 Figure 11. 4 ~EO SN~PPEQ SPAUNING';~OCK 810M~SS :.:. - I 2 ;,sH ~ I 7.5 . .3.2.0 C1 J.r"\ l S oJ' :~ I c: 7 FISH -.::.. Ul .30 ~ )I( STArUS CUO 20 10 0 90 92 94 96 98 2000 91 93 95 97 99 YEAR RtO S~D SSBA R~TIO 50 a 2 FISH \I 40 u.. ) 7.5 . .3.2.0 « ~ Ul 7 FISH ~ )I( t5 20 STATUS QUO « ) z UJ u a::: 10 ~ 0 90 92 94 96 98 2COO 2 4 91 93 95 97 99 1 3 5 YEAR Proj ections of future spawning stock biomass and the spawning stock biomass per recruit ratio, in percentage, for red snapper effected by 4 harvest scenarios: 1) 2 fish recreational bag limit and 1.4 million 'pound (MP) commercial quota; 2) 7, 5, 3, 2, 0 fish bag 1 imi ts and 3.1, 2. 7, 2. 1 , 1. 4, and O. 0 MP quotas phased in over a 5 year period; 3) 7 fish bag limit and 3.1 MP quota; and 4) status quo. All projections were made based on initial implementation January, 1990. Data from LSIM - A length-based fish population simulation model, developed and available from C. Philip Goodyear, Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. 295 . "". I FIGURE 11. 5 pr~jections of RED GROUPER yieid per recruit and spawning stock biomass per recruit effects of minimum sizes ranging from 10 to 18 inches total length with an undersize release mortality of 20 percent (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). 3.5 .38 EFFECTS OF "I"I~ SIZES OKLV - 18 TO 18 I"CHIS TL ........ 2.8 2.1 1.4 -Ii: - : 8.7 , .... lliI s• .Z4 [ ~ .12 ~-~::::----- . . . -- . . - . - . .. --- . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .86 = ~... 28142111 YEAR 19961992 L.- -'- '-- -'-- ---' ~ a. ........ ' .l ...... 88 2888 8.8 1988 296 FIGURE 11.6 Pr'ojections of,- GRAY SNAPPER yield per recruit and spawning stock biomass per recruit effects of minimum sizes ranging from 10 to 14 inches total length with an undersize release mortality of 33 percent (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). ..... .. 1.8 1.88 EFFECTS OF "I"Irut SIZES 0ftL1t - 18, 12 I 14 IttCHES l'L 8.8 8.88 8.6 8.68 ~ ~ -= .. 8.4 = 8.48 => [-----~----------------------, 8.2 ---::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::' 8 28 ....•••.••.. ::==::------------------------------------ e. • ~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~8.B8 8.8 1988 1992 1996 2888 2888 YEAR 297 .... -o FIGURE 11.7 projections of GREATER AMBERJACK yield-per-recruit and spawning stock-biomass-p~r-recruit·effects of only minimum sizes ranging from 24 to 36 inches total length. (Goodyear, personal communication, 1988). 12.8 GREATER AMBERJACH ,-----~~~..:..:.-=--=....:..:.-~~-=~~;...=.......:...:::.....=:.....=..::..------, .58 "INIMU" SIZES ONLY - 24, 28, 32 AND 3& INCHES FL .38 .28 ~--[-----~---------------------­",~ ,,~-~ ' -,-- ------------------------------- 18 ~~'~~~ ~,~~- -------------------------------- .",-". 4~:::::::: ... , ••••• ~c 4I' 9.6 7.2 2.4 4.8 2884288819961992 L -L.- -..I- ---ll-- ...L.- --J... -..J. L.- -L.- -J.. .--I .88 2888 8.8 1988 YEAR 298 ~60 II' I t' ,rl'\ J6 '"'1... 11" 1828 :,.0,' '. 16 1& ,f "~" 'II 3~ 107"-,{n ;- -~ --- - ~~ ""t 6CJO~ --------I I ......'-h,ivp SI r£ 560 t I ((J.a••IX""". ...P...~, I fIt''' S (J~ n"'" S)1. . IfI 991-. I I [1,."'''< fr .''''.'r< 0'960 I tR 75· II , I - ,--------, I I V.O ~n ' 1250 I \ .",. ",\0 9]'11 61'; 1500 1I~, n 17"11I'1"',"k r."'......,.f.,. ., eoo ; 900 1100 "70, I?SI '63!L('J,... , II. U)O -:10.. 4 e'," '\ I ('r 'f.f ,"" ,. ~.,' ,\. ' •• J ~ . 1775 ~ ~~ ltl05 I ,,0 . I \\0 :'t4 I. 1\ 8(" 1 I " .."Ii \1' I ....... PA "1 "..1' . - - -,'" .. tf" ,.r'.. - ." It - ." .... - " ' 12" v, -.. ....... { ..- . ,,,, 1QR"• - ,. "A' - I \1"• - PA '0# " - ' 14 .. 1 11 .:••~ 12-'13 . . j R '~~. ~PA 11Cel 'A "i 18 PA • ~. ~~o- "Hr'R~ .'" ,~,- ~....~':::::;" 960 "'Oflt, 790 910. 1400 860 "'2~5 17 9 14 t. " 840 19"J 940 1030 . ,,1770 : 850 1690 Q<,O "5 12 545 310 1~t; 455 ~ 540 4<1" 5eo 900 MO 610 140 ,./11 17':> 610 4'0 210 + ,,, I ~ • \. \' < "., p q, "I. .·.f t,y hl!'''' '0,"0. ",'"10"",,,,,,,,,\ :: .. f/I. ~ •• ,. ,,-, '. 21 ~ (9. 'm r~pJ I PA. '1,.. :' I. i21 , • ",. I 0·' 16 15 ',13 "\ tl 13U 12.~n'···· ~. ," . ,., ' .~12 14 18 • PA \. <.' 'I' ' ; { " " ,. •• ... . . ". : ~;I"'." '." ""'" , :\ ~, 1 .. ~,~ 0'· 1 I 28 , .. ~ "Ie ...,~PA I "'~"'If :t; 2S 27 2.,......6- ~f ., .., ~ "..... "," ~.r, 16 ",." I ,,"' ", ......-- . . .• -~. .., 13 ' " .- I(J'PIIN>'" " -- - '2 ,104 35' I. n,. ..... ."~ H2O .... ". ,.~ I" •....., ~ .T I - . '".",.,,~ ,. ". ,. " " ." '"M"', '.". • " ,." • ....... ., .. N, 13 0 ., .... .. «<I .' 7"' -----. 65 . I ,'5]. .~....:. '.. V....... , 0 ' • ~....... • . --..~- - - ""S '. ' , . . ~ r . . .., • '.,&,.'" r.~~.7' . Co 31 - ~T'~-"'" ~ "'.~t -~ ....' :t." " ",-" "J ,r ,.'" 'ro. n' ~ " '"" ~ ". ,'" • '47 r ~ .- v I ,"6-.1.-->ft ,."t. I" , ~I./ Oft.... .J;'. .'I" "" ,<I' JOe " ,ill47' ""I' " '.., .,' ~ . \." L I \." ",,.'.. ..'" " ''':to,..."," , '''' ""'7 I {I'" J" 300 1G,'lJ 416 ~45'j / \f·/I···. ,0.'2 ". '." ".' , ,,,'",.... '" ". ,,, ",.... .~ ,,,,, ..... ,.... ' . . n. ... ---,. ',,' • ...3 ,.6,.... • - ....- ,,,," • 2'5 I . :Ii' I ' ,,-.~-.l " 25 ' 70,' n r~"1 (l5lVf.~ \ 7 820 I ,/'" "",. 5/ ',II 400 I J'j {1 231 I "'.IMI'Wt'.A~ 10 l' 1~P'l \ 450J ,,,,:(/,,//; 'FA --~- \\ 535 • ,. I - L. 57S 2' , ' : 210 , . 7!;l 39' • '.1.ll1 \23\ ' " ... ,. I·· fl" 'C. ~ 1 1::) , • ')'I. :,'t"'\ ;' ArllO lie' W~6'Polttl ' fill'" 4: 'I '\',1\ f 2!1" ~II' 1) ~ :'2 c ':) 'll =..c<1J VI ' \J rU- ...... 0°-0 ~..c~ ' VI >'rU<1J Lo .0 Lo rU':) .... \J",,,, C - <lJ ::J~..co ..... .0 0 <t1 -S ~ ~<t1"O ." ...... <lJ "00-0 <lJ ....... .2 ~ <lJ ~ I1J ..c . '- >oJ >oJ I1J '" no.o o c °v2 .... .- tU )( ""0 V <lJ .:"<lJ", ~co '0:.:: g ...... "0'--vo..,:;..c tU '--'~11J C-o, '- - rU ~ C <lJ tno.c v.;: I-3 . "0 •...... -0...;>o tU V1 0.. tU<1:I <1:I"0 0 ..c ...... l1J u .......>: tn 8.~3 '0 >< -0 '- <1J <1J 0..1- -X L. "0 <lJ rtl C..c r c : <1:1~. . co. r-i M rr.l p:: o ~ H Ii.. l' l*·' 111' I .", -g t • ' C""l I 1I!1t~ 1112 I,. ~~O - i,,- . . . L I 5J~ I J~I )3~ II\' \I'/rn( 11:' .. ---...1,' I. ('~ , \, " I ' ,. ~ ~ ~ ~~- t:~{ . " ~...'\. I ' ; "M, . ; . " I -L lr,"J. ()(. i f ,-. 'rA J..'. Ij7~ I ~ I ,-:'"lO ' .. .J., '0 .".1;>0 .. 'v 1317 1"20 121,0 .,' ; ,c,() I~2 13$'; 1;170 lC,liJl 1360 'r , I. 1240 J(..': ;". ',lI ~/. :.',, ., 1270 1529 1780 N 30 1t3!) <::1 ."'", ,.p,... I' 7.'7~I' I "10 I 41 f'J~ ,.310 278' ,......J 1 \ 2fJ R~p,JA ! rr, ("""-1 /.-J II II.' fL' "., I /'" (191~", 1.r'v1.33~ ,11-71. I i Jl~'1 I 'J~q ,.ff/4 • 158 '452 ," I 460 LL '1" 1" • ," • I r ," ·If' .' - I ' , , -1 '. J. ,,' .' . ,,' R' .' '8 I J . ' .~ 6S.\ 136 1» ~?lt ''''10 lI;J RI 909 :',;. II §e', , ,. " 'V 73~ ':ti -< , . 59 .11·:-..126 '.. I t- ---1 {l"MrJ", ~f :~,., p: . . ~a . f 4 fl..d"."'.",C..,,.../ I .. ~"'" "I;, -=...~ , ,..~~f't""'~lJ .. 0 f,J '. '-1 d~ ,IT~~ ~ 3t 18 .,.' ~Jf'2f • .J '4 ' 900 " .. -1 A 10'5 .... .:tow., :...-: ~ I 990 ." -~. 1060 830 .... ~ J9 ". " 1340 r\''t 900 ::: t. 25:"ull-fI6'tI. :"": .... .J.. •• •.,. 21' ~~I 23 ". . ~ OA"r ,,"s";"';"" ",I 34 29 . '41 ., - ..,o\!-" 43 t'l' .... '",~l .... , " 990, I' - 'I· 'r ., ••1> 1 - - S, 311 (r ,n,! 311 Map of northern Gulf of Mexico stressed area boundaries {solid lines} and proposed addition (dashed line) along the 10 fathom isobath offshore the Louisiana coast. The area proposed to be included in the slressed area is marked with a rv. 27 ....- "'.,;, 74... I '\ 2!" Po,. rA P're f'A e" \.,,,..,~. (r(l,,~'«f Ij ,,",,0 ',i. ('~"~'.'."J I I I',,.. , 'i'," I,}"~ 33 34 " '. ~"h'" "It,,, I '~'J ,,,,. ....,., •11 44 If. " III 70,. ·29 30 Q7'l o '9 tt. 15 ,," 27 ,,, 'ill 14 n",.'.. ...rr,A ;1.' llliO 760 fi~O 1110 , ~ h~..,(f\ ,~I'.() 7'1" a,:; ,I.' 870 "90 \... 1'4 ." I ~ll I~' 11 " 0\. r-f r-f ~ ~ ::> t' H c... RWI 7~O 4r;n 61"> .1 1 . fI,. Mj .t') \1\ 1/1 \ "lllf' tI.u 16 iio 38 40 7A ""\" ~8 (,",-,,,.. ,.,.' .12 <17 1\1\ 7"0", ," /' (0 ~ I',p,..,.." Il 1.,) If,q''Ir'''III~ '"~ 'H',1113 17 21 20 .'~ ,1,...1 ", "0, ... / 71 \.' '1'" 4 T, o,f;O ;f,,~ ;1 707 7<,0 7R ....., 4"0 ' -- - - ...... I ",<to I I I.' '9, 7r (-;;- ,\.' ,', ;u; ( i· '0\" ",nf ~' ..... ,or .. ", <;~1~ ... ""',1'''' ':1 Ii'r, ( J~"'.I'lIt.r f lutrl... '1\'",..... ( T),,'.. .tJ'\ ;"I."•••• ;':,.~. 3) In•• """~'• ···-"''''ft1'\\) ( 1.' ~ ...,.w/l J. 1\,.1.\ ~ ~-.~ ",. '" ~l .1.1'1',"'J t· ,'r, '...·n ... on I I.' I ~1 I r '1.' ~ I(J' 'PA I"~, F L , ...l!l TAMP" • .01110 ... Ja FIGURE 11.10 .... 27 301 ,I L 110. . ' .. 393:" .'. 41 I' 17~ .( I (7' .... 11 6 '.1 .• t '4.1 /w :'I: i I i, f 28 31 '2.7 ..... G1 2t .( 58 '21., , ~ 19S J .. . ,J" "~ \ ~,61 'io '. 37 46 '.-9 ... 72 :'. '0 ',9& , r 93: - .. riot ~ 32 .." 39 .. ~. liS 36 122 " '"- ... I' ~~ .•, c::. ~~.. .. ' 635 IS' ,,96 ' ,;i' ... '.,. SIC Map of eastern Gulf of Mexico stressed area boundary (solid line) and proposed modications (dashed lines) with associated areas (I-III) that \ would be excluded from stressed area by changes in current boundary. , 35 , .. 57 ...... .-, " :SOO ". ,0 ~~ '8/0< ,.;: .:r., .. . 79l ...::> 1797.,... .,; 1? .. $ , " .... '\ :;s;,J"'-<4-r-' -.)0 ,';" ' ~-- ..,-------,,-&7-'-102--+-~::----~=-'':.'''1!!!~ 1780 ..... , '. 32' OJ ./ .J. - .-, I ;2~'\ ••• 80 .. .;.- 263 -----.~,':""'""-------------11~:...; ! '2 ~~' :1' " . !(~1. ".........~. "- ..:J 22 \. ,2 ' ,,., . ·io TABLE 11.1 Curren t minimum size limits for reef fish in jurisdictions adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico EEZ listed by management authority. The sizes are in inches total length. Cur ren t Min imum Size Species Amberjack Red snapper Vermilion snapper Mutton snapper YeHowtail snapper Black sea bass Red grouper Nassau grouper YeHowfin grouper Black grouper Gag grouper Jewfish SAFMC FL 302 AL MS LA TX TABLE 11. 2 Red snapper--percentage reduction in fishing mortality required to achieve 20 percent SSBR given different combinations of minimlJiTl size limits (inches to tal length) and percent undersize release mortali ty. Percent Release Mortality Size Lbs Age 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 .49 1.6 76 76 76 76 76 76 11 .65 1.9 74 74 74 74 74 74 12 .85 2.1 74 74 74 74 74 74 13 1.09 2.4 74 74 74 74 74 74 14 1.37 2.7 71 74 74 74 74 74 15 1.69 2.9 71 71 71 74 74 74 16 2.06 3.2 71 71 71 71 74 74 17 2.48 3.5 68 71 71 71 71 74 18 2.96 3.8 68 68 68 71 71 71 19 3.49 4.1 65 68 68 68 71 71 20 4.08 4.5 62 65 68 68 71 71 21 4.74 4.8 62 62 65 68 68 71 22 5.47 5.2 56 62 62 65 68 68 23 6.27 5.5 53 59 62 65 65 68 24 7.15 5.9 47 53 59 62 65 68 *These estimates are based on the Beverton-Holt yield per recruit model and, as such, reprsent long-term equilibrium values. The von Bertalanffy growth parameters were tQ=-0.5, K=0.1l5, and Lmax=45.9 inches total length. Other parameters mcluded: natural mortality=0.2, fishing mortality exerted by shrimp trawls=0.69 for snapper sizes 4-10 inches total length, directed fishing mortality rate=0.331, size of entry into the directed fishery= 10 inches total length, and size at maturity=22.9 inches total length (Goodyear 1988 and pers. comm.). 303 TABLE 11. 3 Estimates of percentage reduction in reaeational catches of red snapper during 1979-1987 for 1-10 fish bag limits (derived from MRFSS intercept data). Years Bag Limit 79 80 81 82 83 84 8.5 86 87 79-87 85-87 87 88 88 81 81 81 84 76 77 82 78 2 77 79 79 68 69 66 71 .57 .59 69 61 3 68 71 72 57 59 54 60 43 44 58 47 4 60 64 65 48 51 46 50 32 34 49 37 5 53 58 59 40 44 39 42 24 27 42 29 6 47 53 53 3' 38 34 3.5 19 22 36 24 7 41 49 49 30 33 29 29 1.5 18 J2 19 8 37 46 4.5 2' 28 2' 24 13 l' 28 16 9 32 42 41 21 24 21 20 11 13 24 14 10 28 39 38 18 21 18 16 10 11 22 11 N* 2,892 3,937 1,744 1,6119 3,907 2,382 2,117 4,010 3,742 26,380 9,869 *N : number of harvested fish (types A and 81) by anglers interviewed by the MRFSS intercept survey. 304 TABLE 11. 4 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of REO SNAPPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987•. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. See Reef Fish Amendment 1 text for fork length to total length conversion equation. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Total < 10 13.12 16.13 3.58 10.81 5.35 5.24 4.55 2.38 1. 12 6.32 < 11 31.81 22.15 10.75 16.42 10.17 7.07 8.82 8.16 6.48 12.71 < 12 49.90 35.91 27.69 34.72 34.94 14.40 21.12 23.47 17.32 29.30 < 13 66.80 53.33 35.83 51.56 46.71 25.39 31.02 33.50 26.26 41.45 < 14 78.33 65.16 49.51 63.20 63.84 31.41 41.44 48.98 35.64 54.12 < 15 86.08 74.84 63.52 72.14 76.76 38.74 57.49 67.35 52.74 67.09 < 16 90.06 83.23 73.94 n.55 83.64 52.88 66.04 74.66 65.25 75.54 < 17 93.64 90.32 82.41 81.29 90.67 69.37 74.87 83.84 75.42 83.61 < 18 94.23 91.83 86.64 84.41 93.50 79.06 81.55 86.90 80.34 87.37 < 19 95.43 93.12 91.21 89.81 95.34 81.15 85.83 90.48 84.25 90.31 < 20 95.63 94.41 93.81 92.10 96.56 86.39 90.64 92.01 86.93 92.44 < 21 95.83 94.41 95.11 92.93 97.32 88.74 93.58 93.71 89.83 93.85 < 22 97.02 95.27 96.42 95.01 98.17 90.05 94.65 94.73 92.51 95.25 < 23 97.81 95.91 97.39 96.26 98.32 92.67 96.26 95.41 94.41 96.29 < 24 98.41 96.34 97.39 96.88 98.39 93.72 96.26 96.09 95.87 96.85 < 25 98.81 96.n 97.39 97.71 98.93 93.98 97.06 96.43 97.09 97.45 < 26 99.20 97.42 97.72 98.13 99.01 95.55 98.13 96.94 97.n 97.98 < 27 99.40 97.85 98.37 98.54 99.16 95.81 98.40 97.28 97.99 98.27 < 28 99.60 98.28 98.70 98.75 99.16 95.81 98.40 98.13 98.32 98.51 < 29 99.60 98.71 99.35 99.58 99.16 96.34 98.66 98.47 99.11 98.89 < 30 99.60 98.92 99.35 99.58 99.24 97.12 98.93 98.47 99.22 99.02 < 31 99.60 98.92 99.67 99.79 99.46 97.64 99.20 98.81 99.78 99.30 < 32 99.60 98.92 99.67 99.79 99.46 97.64 99.73 98.81 99.78 99.34 < 33 99.60 98.92 100.00 99.79 99.54 97.64 99.73 99.49 99.89 99.47 < 34 99.60 98.92 100.00 99.79 99.69 97.91 99.73 100.00 99.89 99.59 < 35 99.60 99.57 100.00 100.00 99.n 97.91 99.73 100.00 99.89 99.68 < 36 99.60 99.78 100.00 100.00 99.n 98.17 99.73 100.00 100.00 99.74 < 37 99.60 99.78 100.00 100.00 99.85 98.17 99.73 100.00 100.00 99.75 < 38 100.00 99.78 100.00 100.00 99.92 98.17 99.73 100.00 100.00 99.81 < 39 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 98.17 99.73 100.00 100.00 99.83 < 42 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 99.48 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.94 < 43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 99.74 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.96 < 46 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99;74 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 < 51 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nurber of . fish measured 503 465 307 481 1308 382 374 588 895 5303 305 TABLEoll.5 Percentage cumulative length frequency of RED SNAPPER harvested on headboals In the Gulf of Mexico during 1986. Data from NMFS Headboat Survey (Gene Huntsman, pers. comm.) Size ( inches) Flurida Luuisiana < 11 2.4 2.1 14.3 l 3.5 I 1 6.0 15.2 32.3 31.0 12 18.1 37.6 50.1 4::1.~ 13 31.3 48.' 67.3 65.7 14 44.6 57.0 78.3 76.7 15 , 1.8 67.' 8'.1 ~).6 16 62.7 78.' 89.' 88.4 17 71.1 84.8 92.3 91.5 18 80.7 90.3 94.3 93.8 19 8'.' 92.4 9'.5 95.1 20 89.2 93.7 96.3 96.1 21 92.2 9'.4 97.2 97.0 22 92.8 96.2 97.8 97.6 23 97.0 98.4 98.2 24 9'.2 98.6 98.4 ) 24 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nit 166 237 6,015 6,41 ~ *N =number of" fish measured by NMFS samplers. 306 TABLE 11. 6 Percentage distribution of 1986 Gulf of Mexico head boat catches in numbers and pounds for selected reef fish species by area. Species Percentage 5&W FL NW FL &AL LA TX Totals Red No. 0.4 4.5 4.3 91.0 332,454 Snapper Wt. 0.9 8.3 6.8 &4.0 409,630 Vermillion No. 5.0 85.6 0.1 9.2 570,993 Snapper Wt. 6.& 80.8 0.6 11.8 298,117 Gray No. 97.6 2.2 <0.1 0.2 55,222 Snapper Wt. 96.7 2.8 <0. L 0.4 151,412 Red No. 96.3 3.7 0.0 <0.1 32,913 Grouper Wt. 92.& 7.1 0.0 <0.1 118,083 Gag No. 66.& 31.1 0.9 . 1.2 42,495 :, Grouper Wt. 66.1 33.1 0.3 0.5 323,291 .' ;; Greater No. 64.0 24.1 0.9 11.0 86,024 Amberjack Wt. 75.6 15.0 0.6 8.8 749,066 All Reef No. 33.& 47.7 0.8 17.7 2,270,899 Fish Species Wt. 50.6 30..3 1.4 17.7 2,893,266 307 iABLE 11.7 Red grouper~-percentage reduction in fishing mortality required to achieve 20 percent SSBR given different combinations of .minimum size limits (inches total length) and percent undersize mortality. Percent Release Mortality Size Lbs Age 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 1.06 1.7 54 54 54 54 54 54 12 1.&1 2.3 50 50 50 51 52 0 14 2.&3 2.9 43 44 46 47 48 49 16 4.19 3.6 32 35 3& 41 44 46 18 5.91 4.4 11 20 27 33 37 41 20 &.04 5.3 a 0 10 22 30 36 22 10.62 6.4 a 0 0 7 20 30 24 13.69 7.& a 0 0 0 10 23 26 17.30 9.6 a 0 0 a 0 17 * These estimates are based on the Beverton-Holt yield-per-recruit model and, as such represent long-term equilibrium values. The von Bertalanffy growth parameters were: to=-.0449, K=0.179, and Lmax=31.16 inches total length (Moe 1969). Other parameters included: natural mortality rate=0.15, current fishing mortality rate=0.431, size of entry in fishery =10 inches total length, and maturity= 15.5 inches totallength (Goodyear pers. comm.). 308 TABLE 11.8 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of RED GROUPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79-87 < 10 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.81 0.88 0.79 2.38 0.00 3.31 1.83 < 11 0.00 0.00 6.56 4.76 0.88 1.59 2.38 0.00 6.62 3.00 < 12 0.00 1.61 9.84 10.48 7.89 3.97 4.76 6.85 12.58 7.56 < 13 6.06 17.74 13.11 25.71 17.54 11.11 4.76 13.70 24.50 17.08 < 14 6.06 25.81 22.95 33.33 28.07 15.08 9.52 20.55 36.42 25.03 < 15 9.09 40.32 34.43 44.76 38.60 26.19 14.29 34.25 43.71 35.20 < 16 15.15 46.77 45.90 49.52 44.74 31.75 23.81 47.95 50.99 42.63 < 17 15.15 59.68 59.02 55.24 52.63 38.10 28.57 64.38 60.26 51.37 < 18 15.15 72.58 63.93 63.81 56.14 43.65 42.86 72.60 66.89 58.28 < 19 18.18 79.03 67.21 72.38 62.28 49.21 52.38 78.08 73.51 64.54 < 20 24.24 83.87 67.21 73.33 64.91 55.56 57.14 87.67 80.13 69.23 < 21 30.30 90.32 77.05 75.24 66.67 60.32 69.05 94.52 86.09 74.58 < 22 42.42 91.94 80.33 76.19 68.42 65.08 73.81 95.89 90.73 77.97 < 23 54.55 91.94 86.89 80.00 69.30 70.63 76.19 98.63 92.05 81.23 < 24 54.55 93.55 88.52 82.86 71.05 74.60 78.57 100.00 92.n 83.18 < 25 60.61 96.77 91.80 84.76 71.93 80.95 80.95 100.00 95.36 86.05 < 26 63.64 98.39 93.44 86.67 74.56 83.33 85.71 100.00 96.69 88.01 < 27 63.64 98.39 93.44 90.48 78.95 84.92 90.48 100.00 97.35 89.83 < 28 66.67 98.39 95.08 92.38 84.21 88.10 95.24 100.00 98.01 92.05 < 29 (2.73 100.00 95.08 94.29 87.72 90.48 97.62 100.00 98.68 93.87 < 30 n.73 100.00 96.72 96.19 90.35 94.44 97.62 100.00 99.34 95.44 < 31 78.79 100.00 98.36 96.19 92.98 95.24 97.62 100 .00 99.34 96.35 < 32 84.85 100.00 98.36 97.14 94.74 97.62 97.62 100.00 100.00 97.52 < 33 84.85 100.00 98.36 99.05 97.37· 97.62 97.62 100.00 100.00 98.17 < 34 87.88 100.00 98.36 99.05 99.12 99.21 97.62 100.00 100.00 98.83 < 35 90.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.48 < 36 93.94 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.61 < 37 96.97 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.74 < 38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.87 < 39 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nunber of fish measured 33 62 61 105 114 126 42 73 151 767 309 TABLE 11. 9 Percentage cumulative length frequency of RED GROUPER harvested on headboa ts 111 the Gulf of Mexico during 1986. Data from NMFS Headboat Survey (Gene Huntsman, pers. comm.) Size ( tnche~) Florida Louisiana Texas < II l.4 100 l.7 II 4.5 4.7 12 8.6 ~.9 13 12.3 l2.5 14 21.7 21.9 15 3.5.4 3.5.6 16 47.9 1+8.1 17 .58.2 58.3 18 65.5 6.5.6 19 70.8 70.8 20 74.9 75.0 21 79.4 79.1+ 22 84.4 84.4 23 8'.2 85.3 24 87.7 87.8 ) 24 100.0 100;0 Nlt 359 0 360 *N = number of fish measured by NMFS samplers. 310 311 TABLE 11.11 Percentage cumulative length frequency of GAG GROUPER harvested on headboats in the Gulf of Mexico during 1986. Data from NMFS Headboat Survey (Gene Huntsman, pers. comm.) Size (inche~) Florida Louisiana Texas All States < 11 3.2 0.2 II 0.3 0.5 12 0.8 6.5 1.1 L3 1.9 8.3 L6.1 2.7 14 4.3 16.7 5.L L5 7.2 25.0 8.0 16 11.7 41.7 25.8 L2.9 17 18.0 50.0 41.9 19.7 18 25.5 58.3 51.6 27.3 19 31.9 61.3 33.8 20 37.4 66.7 67.7 39.3 21 42.5 75.0 80.6 44.9 22 47.7 83.3 83.9 50.0 23 53.6 55.6 24 58.7 90.3 60.7 ) 24 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nit 623 12 31 666 it N = number of fish measured by NMFS samplers. 312 TABLE 11.12 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of BLACK GROUPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79·87 < 10 0.00 6.25 16.47 5.26 9.52 8.06 1.41 0.73 2.55 5.30 < 11 16.67 6.25 17.65 9.21 9.52 8.06 2.82 2.19 3.18 6.94 < 12 16.67 9.82 23.53 17.11 9.52 16.13 2.82 3.65 5.10 10.09 < 13 20.00 14.29 28.24 32.89 9.52 22.58 4.23 8.76 7.01 14.75 < 14 20.00 22.32 34.12 34.21 12.70 32.26 5.63 10.22 7.64 18.16 < 15 23.33 50.00 38.82 35.53 25.40 50.00 21.13 16.79 8.92 27.99 < 16 26.67 55.36 42.35 39.47 33.33 59.68 33.80 19.71 12.74 33.42 < 17 40.00 58.93 50.59 42.11 36.51 66.13 38.03 24.82 16.56 38.34 < 18 43.33 64.29 57.65 46.05 44.44 67.74 43.66 26.28 23.57 43.25 < 19 50.00 66.07 62.35 47.37 49.21 n.58 54.93 33.58 30.57 48.80 < 20 53.33 67.86 68.24 50.00 53.97 75.81 66.20 43.07 36.31 54.48 < 21 53.33 72.32 70.59 53.95 57.14 79.03 n.46 45.26 43.31 59.02 < 22 53.33 74.11 7'i .29 55.26 61.90 82.26 84.51 47.45 47.13 62.30 < 23 56.67 76.79 81.18 63.16 76.19 83.87 85.92 52.55 55.41 68.10 < 24 63.33 78.57 83.53 65.79 80.95 85.43 87.32 57.66 61. 15 71.75 < 25 73.33 79.46 88.24 n.37 87.30 81.10 90.14 62.n 66.24 76.17 < 26 73.33 83.93 89.41 75.00 92.06 88.11 91.55 68.61 n.61 80.08 < 21 73.33 85.71 95.29 80.26 92.06 88.71 91.55 75.18 73.25 82.n < 28 73.33 81.50 95.29 80.26 93.65 90.32 95.n 81.75 81.53 86.38 < 29 73.33 88.39 95.29 81.58 95.24 91.94 98.59 86.13 87.26 89.03 < 30 80.00 88.39 95.29 85.53 95.24 95.16 98.59 89.05 92.36 91.42 < 31 83.33 91.07 95.29 86.84 96.83 95.16 98.59 91.97 96.18 93.44 < 32 83.33 91.96 95.29 88.16 98.41 95.16 100.00 92.70 96.82 94.20 < 33 83.33 91.96 96.47 90.79 98.41 95.16 100.00 94.16 96.82 94.83 < 34 83.33 91.96 96.47 90.79 98.41 95.16 100.00 94.89 96.82 94.96 < 35 86.67 92.86 96.47 92.11 98.41 96.n 100.00 96.35 97.45 95.84 < 36 86.67. 93.75 96.47 93.42 98.41 96.n 100.00 91.81 91.45 96.34 < 37 86.67 93.75 91.65 96.05 98.41 96.n 100.00 98.54 97.45 96.85 < 38 90.00 96.43 98.82 96.05 98.41 98.39 100.00 99.27 97.45 97.73 < 39 93.33 96.43 100.00 98.68 98.41 98.39 100.00 99.27 97.45 98.23 < 40 93.33 96.43 100.00 100.00 98.41 98.39 100.00 100.00 97.45 98.49 < 41 96.67 96.43 100.00 100.00 98.41 98.39 100.00 100.00 97.45 98.61 < 42 96.67 96.43 100.00 100.00 98.41 98.39 100.00 100.00 97.45 98.61 < 43 96.67 96.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.39 100.00 100.00 98.73 98.99 < 44 96.61 97.32 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.73 99.24 < 45 96.61 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.73 99.62 < 46 96.61 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.36 99.75 < 47 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.36 99.75 < 48 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.87 < 49 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.87 < 50 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.81 < 51 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.87 < 52 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nunber of fish measured 30 112 85 76 63 62 71 137 157 793 313 TABLE 11. 13 Estimates of percentage reduction in recreational catches of groupers during 1979-87 for 1-10 fish bag limits (derived from MRFSS intercept data). Years Bag Limit 79 80 81 82 83 84 g5 86 87 19-87 85-87 40 43 58 54 41 62 62 64 47 56 58 2 22 27 43 36 21 47 47 47 27 39 41 3 12 18 36 2' 12 39 36 3' 16 29 30 4 8 I' 32 18 7 33 29 27 10 22 23 , , 12 29 13 4 28 24 22 7 18 18 6 4 10 27 9 2 24 21 18 , 1.5 15 7 3 9 2' 6 1 20 IS 16 4 13 13 8 2 8 24 4 17 16 14 3 11 11 9 7 23 3 0 l' ·14 13 2 10 10 10 1 7 22 2 0 14 13 12 2 9 9 N* 156 338 607 717 5.59 849 1,040 1,939 1,187 7,392 4,166 *N = number of harvested fish (types A and 8D by anglers interviewed by the MRFSS intercept survey. 314 TABLE 11.14 Gray snapper-- percentage 'reduction in fishing mortality required to achieve 20 percen t SSBR given different combinations*,of minimum size limits (inches total length) and percent undersize release mortality. Percent Release Mortali ty Size Lbs Age a 10 20 30 40 50 10 0.5 3.0 L8 L8 18 L8 L8 18 il OJ 3.4 i3 14 14 15 15 16 L2 0.9 3.8 8 9 La il L2 '13 L3 1.1 4.3 3 5 7 9 10 14 1.4 4.7 a a a 2 4 7 " These estimates are based on the Beverton-HoLt yieLd per recruit model and, as such, represent long-term equilibrium values. The von BertaLanffy growth parameters were: t =-0.3161, K=0.1009, and Lmax=3.5.04 inches total Length (Manooch and Matheson 1~8l). Other parameters included: natural mortality=O.2, current fishing mortality rate=O.22, size of entry in fishery=lO inches total Length, and size of maturity= 17.5 inches total length (Goodyear pers. comm.). 315 ·. 316 TABLE 11.16 Percentage cumulative length frequency of GRAY SNAPPER harvested on headboats lfl the Gulf of Mexico during 1986. Data from NMFS Headboat Survey (Gene Huntsman, pers. comm.) Size ( lnches) Florida Louisiana Texas All ~tate:) < 11 0.8 5.0 1.0 11 6.6 25.0 7.2 12 14.4 35.0 14.9 13 26.0 55.0 26.0 14 34.0 75.0 34.9 15 43.' 80.0 18.2 44.4 16 53.6 53.9 17 62.7 85.0 62.6 18 68.2 90.0 27.3 68.2 19 76.7 76.2 20 81.9 36.4 81.2 21 86.6 95.0 85.9 22 90.' 89.5 23 92.4 45.5 91.5 24 94.6 72.7 94.2 ) 24 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nit 48' 20 11 ;16 *N : number of fish measured by NMFS samplers. 317 TABLE 11.17 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of LANE SNAPPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the HRFSS Intercept Survey. See Reef Fish Amendment 1 text for fork length to total length conversion equation. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Total < 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.34 < 8 4.00 0.00 6.38 11.54 0.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 6.08 3.96 < 9 8.00 2.70 46.81 46.15 10.96 8.33 15.00 0.00 16.57 16.18 < 10 24.00 8.11 76.60 71.15 28.77 10.42 25.00 0.00 29.28 28.57 < 11 48.00 27.03 85.11 76.92 41.10 14.58 40.00 4.08 40.33 38.55 < 12 68.00 43.24 89.36 80.17 65.75 54.17 60.00 6.12 51.38 51.98 < 13 96.00 56.76 93.62 84.62 78.08 79.17 80.00 18.37 61.33 64.20 < 14 100.00 62.16 97.87 88.46 90.41 100.00 85.00 25.51 71.27 73.15 < 15 100.00 70.27 100.00 88.46 95.89 100.00 95.00 52.04 83.98 83.30 < 16 100.00 70.27 100.00 96.15 95.89 100.00 95.00 66.33 91.71 88.81 < 17 100.00 n.97 100.00 98.08 98.63 100.00 100.00 78.57 95.03 92.17 < 18 100.00 81.08 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 91.84 95.03 95.87 < 19 100.00 83.78 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.86 97.79 97.07 < 20 100.00 89.19 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ~.92 98.90 98.28 < 21 100.00 91.89 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.96 100.00 99.14 < 22 100.00 94.59 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.66 < 27 100.00 97.30 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.83 < 30 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nl.Jli:ler of fish measured 25 37 47 52 73 48 20 98 181 581 318 TABLE 11.18 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of MUTTON SNAPPER landed by recreational anglers in tile Gulf of MeJlico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. See Reef Fi sl! Amendment 1 teJlt for forK length to total length conversion equation. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 rotal < 10 0.00 22.22 5.88 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.95 < 11 0.00 33.33 8.82 5.00 13.79 6.67 0.00 6.06 9.60 < 12 0.00 33.33 14.71 5.00 20.69 6.67 4.55 6.06 12.43 < 13 16.67 38.89 23.53 10.00 24.14 33.33 9.09 12.12 20.34 < 14 16.67 44.44 23.53 15.00 34.48 40.00 18.18 12.12 24.86 < 15 16.67 50.00 26.47 15.00 48.28 40.00 27.27 21.21 31.07 < 16 16.67 66.67 29.41 30.00 58.62 60.00 27.27 27.27 39.55 < 17 16.67 72.22 29.41 30.00 62.07 60.00 31.82 36.36 42.94 < 18 16.67 88.89 29.41 30.00 68.97 66.67 40.91 48.48 49.72 < 19 16.67 88.89 38.24 35.00 n.41 66.67 40.91 57.58 54.24 < 20 16.67 94.44 38.24 35.00 n.41 66.67 40.91 66.67 56.50 < 21 50.00 94.44 41. 18 35.00 75.86 73.33 40.91 n.73 60.45 < 22 50.00 100.00 44.12 35.00 75.86 73.33 54.55 78.79 64.41 < 23 83.33 100.00 50.00 35.00 86.21 73.33 59.09 78.79 68.93 < 24 83.33 100.00 52.94 40.00 86.21 80.00 59.09 78.79 70.62 < 25 83.33 100.00 52.94 50.00 86.21 80.00 68.18 81.82 73.45 < 26 83.33 100.00 55.88 50.00 86.21 80.00 n.n 87.88 75.71 < 27 83.33 100.00 67.65 65.00 93.10 80.00 77.27 93.94 82.49 < 28 83.33 100.00 73.53 65.00 93.10 86.67 77.27 93.94 84.18 < 29 100.00 100.00 79.41 70.00 93.10 86.61 81.82 93.94 87.01 < 30 100.00 100.00 85.29 75.00 96.55 86.61 86.36 96.97 90.40 < 31 100.00 100.00 91.18 75.00 96.55 93.33 86.36 96.97 92.09 < 32 100.00 100.00 94.12 75.00 96.55 100.00 95.45 100.00 94.92 < 33 100.00 100.00 97.06 80.00 96.55 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.61 < 34 100.00 100.00 97.06 85.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.74 < 35 100.00 100.00 100.00 85.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.31 < 36 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.87 < 37 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 NUTber of fish measured a 6 18 34 20 29 15 22 33 ln 319 TABLE 11.19 Cumulative lengtn frequency by percentage of YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. See Reef Fish Amendment 1 text for fork length to total length conversion equation. YEAR length ( inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Total < 10 50.00 36.11 12.96 10.73 3.n 12.50 7.27 2.27 1. 71 8.74 < 11 100.00 38.89 29.01 12.20 7.02 20.31 10.91 4.55 5.13 14.24 < 12 100.00 41.67 41.36 17.07 16.94 31.25 12.73 9.09 9.40 21.79 < 13 100.00 44.44 53.70 24.88 30.17 42.19 16.36 11.36 14.53 30.96 < 14 100.00 44.44 58.64 34.15 50.00 45.31 21.82 13.64 29.06 41.53 < 15 100.00 47.22 64.81 42.44 63.22 62.50 30.91 13.64 44.44 51.67 < 16 100.00 58.33 75.93 48.29 75.21 68.75 43.64 25.00 55.56 61.60 < 17 100.00 69.44 83.33 59.02 84.71 75.00 49.09 52.27 65.81 71. 52 < 18 100.00 n.22 87.65 66.83 90.08 76.56 60.00 52.27 75.21 77.45 < 19 100.00 86.11 89.51 78.54 96.28 79.69 70.91 52.27 83.76 84.47 < 20 100.00 91.67 91.36 84.88 98.35 82.81 76.36 52.27 86.32 87.81 < 21 100.00 97.22 93.83 90.24 99.17 92.19 85.45 56.82· ''3.03 91.48 < 22 100.00 100.00 95.06 93.66 99.17 95.31 89.09 70.45 ,2.31 94.17 < 23 100.00 100.00 96.30 98.05 99.17 98.44 94.55 79.55 94.87 96.66 < 24 100.00 100.00 98.n 99.51 99.59 100.00 100.00 90.91 97.44 98.81 < 25 100.00 100.00 99.38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 93.18 98.29 99.35 < 26 100.00 100.00 99.38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.89 < 27 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nurber of fish measured 2 36 162 205 242 64 55 44 117 927 320 TABLE 11.20 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of VERMILION SNAPPER landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. See Reef Fish Amendment 1 text for fork length to total length conversion equation. YEAR length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Total < 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 < 8 3.18 3.85 1.05 2.88 9.15 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.52 2.99 < 9 10.19 13.46 5.26 11.26 15.25 10.53 5.63 0.00 1.29 8.49 < 10 21.02 40.38 27.37 25.13 28.14 42.86 12.68 7.81 7.99 22.05 < 11 61.15 69.23 52.63 51.57 50.85 71.43 22.54 15.63 24.23 45.45 < 12 75.16 84.62 70.53 70.94 65.08 84.21 39.44 21.87 44.85 62.31 < 13 82.17 90.38 82.11 84.29 77.97 90.23 60.56 39.06 67.01 76.60 < 14 90.45 92.31 94.74 98.69 89.83 98.50 78.87 48.44 80.93 88.82 < 15 98.09 98.08 98.95 99.21 95.59 100.00 81.69 67.19 91.24 94.56 < 16 99.36 100.00 98.95 99.21 97.29 100.00 94.37 79.69 96.39 97.31 < 17 100.00 100.00 98.95 99.74 98.31 100.00 98.59 84.37 98.45 98.53 < 18 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.64 100.00 100.00 92.19 99.74 99.39 < 19 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.32 100.00 100.00 93.75 100.00 99.63 < 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.32 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.88 < 21 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.66 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.94 < 22 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Nl.JI'ber of fish measured 157 52 95 382 295 133 71 64 388 1637 321 TABLE 11.21 Cumulative length frequency by percentage of BLACK SEA BASS landed by recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1979-1987. Fish size is in total length. Data from the MRFSS Intercept Survey. YEAR Length (inches) 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Total < 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 < 6 0.78 0.56 0.00 4.88 0.00 4.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 1. 36 < 7 5.47 0.56 7.14 12.20 0.00 9.33 3.10 0.00 0.00 3.82 < 8 16.41 3.89 14.29 24.39 3.51 28.00 17.83 0.00 3.27 11.12 < 9 29.69 8.89 21.43 31.22 10.53 46.67 25.58 0.84 7.19 17.66 < 10 50.00 26.67 28.57 46.34 31.58 65.33 48.84 10.97 20.26 33.79 < 11 68.75 44.44 28.57 59.02 56.14 74.67 64.34 32.49 39.22 51.02 < 12 83.59 81.67 42.86 71.71 n.19 80.00 79.07 58.65 64.05 72.16 < 13 95.31 93.89 64.29 87.32 92.98 81.33 89.15 84.81 79.74 87.52 < 14 98.44 97.78 71.43 96.10 96.49 82.67 97.67 93.67 90.85 94.48 < 15 100.00 100.00 92.86 98.54 100.00 85.33 100.00 97.05 96.73 97.71 < 16 100.00 100.00 92.86 100.00 100.00 89.33 100.00 100.00 98.69 99.07 < 17 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.00 100.00 100.00 98.69 99.32 < 18 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.67 100.00 100.00 98.69 99.49 < 19 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.00 100.00 100.00 99.35 99.66 < 20 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100;00 97.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.83 < 21 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.83 < 22 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 < 23 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 < 24 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92 < 25 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Num,er of fish measured 128 180 14 205 57 75 129 237 153 1178 322 TABLE 11.22 Greater amber jack -- percen tage reduction in fishing mortality required to achieve 20 percent SSBR given different combInations of minirll-um size limits (inches fork length) and percent undersize release mortality. Percen t Release Mortahty Size Lbs Age 0 to 20 30 40 50 24 7.6 2.0 36 38 40 42 43 45 26 9.5 2.3 31 34 37 40 42 44 28 11.7 2.6 26 30 34 37 40 42 30 14.2 2.9 19 25 30 34 37 40 32 17.2 3.3 10 18 25 30 35 38 34 20.4 3.6 0 9 19 26 31 36 36 24.0 4.0 0 0 10 20 28 34 38 28.0 4.4 0 0 4 17 26 33 40 32.3 4.8 0 0 1 12 23 31 42 37.1 5.3 0 0 1 3 17 27 44 42.4 5.8 0 0 1 1 15 26 46 48.1 6.4 0 0 1 1 8 21 48 54.3 7.1 0 0 1 1 1 17 50 61.0 7.8 0 0 1 1 1 17 * These estimates are based on the Beverton-Holt yield-per-recruit model and, as such, represent long-term equilibrium values. The von Bertalanffy growth parameters were: to=-0.653, K=O.174, and Lmax:64.96 inches fork length (Burch 1979). Other parameters included: natural mortality=0.2, present fishing mortalitY=O.399, size of entry {tc)=10 inches, and size of maturity=32.5 inches (Goodyear pers. comm.). 323 324 TABLE 11.24 Estimates of percentage reduction in recreational catches of amberjacks during 1979-87 for 1-10 fish bag limits (derived, from MRFSS intercept data). Years Bag Limit 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 79-87 85-87 64 62 61 66 57 54 56 75 73 69 73 2 57 46 41 48 38 27 41 63 54 51 56 3 51 37 27 34 28 10 33 53 41 40 45 4 49 28 17 25 20 6 27 46 33 32 37 5 47 20 11 19 16 4 22 39 26 26 30 6 45 16 6 14 1·4 4 18 33 21 21 25 7 43 14 J 11 11 3 14 28 17 17 20 8 42 12 9 10 3 10 23 13 14 17 9 40 11 a 8 8 J 6 20 10 12 13 10 38 10 0 6 6 J 3 16 8 9 lO N* 53 218 128 381 497 386 240 1,364 2,345 5,612 3,949 *N = number of fish harvested (types A and BO by anglers interviewed by the MRFSS intercept ,survey. 325 TABLE 11.25 SHRIMP CATCH ASSOCIATED WITH AMOUNT RED SNAPPER BYCATCH WQlLD HAVE TO BE REDUCED TO PRODUCE AN EXTRA UNIT OF RED SNAPPER IN THE COMBINED COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL CATCH. SEASON ZONE DEPTH LBS/FISH LBS/LB S/FISH WARM WEST <10 FM 13.12 14.77 >10 FM 11. 85 13.33 CENTRAL <10 FM 12.99 14.61 >10 FM 6.77 7.62 EAST <10 FM 12.26 13.79 >10 FM 10.50 11. 82 COOL WEST <10 FM 9.90 11.14 >10 FM 7.24 8.14 CENTRAL <10 FM 11. 36 12.78 >10 FM 8.36 10.09 EAST <10 FM 20.17 22.70 >10 FM 12.86 14.47 GRAND TOTAL 10.96 12.33 SEASONS: WARM=MAY-NOVEMBER; COOL=DECEMBER-APRIL. ZONES: WEST=TX; CENTRAL=LA-AL; EAST=W FL.) 30.84 42.65 30.52 24.37 28.81 37.81 23.27 26.05 26.70 32.27 47.41 46.29 31. 5 7 PRICES: SHRIMP <3MI = SHRIMP <10FM = $2.35/LB HEAD OFF SHRIMP >3MI = SHRIMP >10FM = $3.60/LB HEAD OFF SHRIMP TOTAL = $2.88/LB HEAD OFF RED SNAPPER = $2.09/LB WHOLE SIS 16.61 22.96 16.43 13 .12 15.51 20.36 12.53 14.03 14.37 17.37 25.52 24.92 17.00 VALUES SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED AS RATIOS OF SHRIMP CATCH (HEADS OFF POU~DS OR VALUE BASED ON 1972-1985 AVERAGE LANDINGS AND 1987 PRICES) TO UNITS OF RED SNAPPER CA~CH (ONE FISH, POUND OR $ COMMERCIAL VALUE IN 1987 PRICES). BYCATCH ASSOCIATED WITH UNITS OF POTENTIAL CATCH IN THE SNAPPER FISHERY CALCULATED AFTER GOODYEAR USING THE VARIABLE F VECTOR AND SURVIVAL PROBABILITY FROM BYCATCH PERIOD TO RECRUITMENT OF 0.8. DATA FROM GOODYEAR, CRD 87/88-16; NICHOLS, PERSONAL COMMUNICATION TO GREGORY, 1988; AND NMFS 1987 CATCH BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE PRINTOUTS. 326 TABLE 11.26 Percentage distribution of longl ine catches of selected species by depth in fathoms. No. triRs represents the number of fishing trips sampled and Pounds the pounds, in hundreds, caught by the sampled trips .. ' Data from NMFS Trip Interview Program. - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - ... - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - . RED SNAPPER' - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - Depth 1984 1985 1986 1987 (fathoms) <20 OX 0% OX OX <3D lOX 2X 3X 2X <40 lX 2X 21X 34% <50 62% ~ 22% 26X >50 2~ 89% 54% 38% Pounds (xloo) 203 297 126 50 No. trips 40 66 96 39 RED GROUPER Depth 1984 1985 1986 1987 (fathoms) <20 6% 0% 6% en <30 63X 40X 34% 15X <40 91 18X 25X 1~ <50 9% 1~ 1~ 2~ >50 13X 25X 191 32X Pounds (xl00) n8 1580 3100 1558 No. trips 32 81 191 n YELLOWEDGE GROUPER------------------·········· Depth 1984 1985 1986 1987 (fathoms) <20 OX OX OX OX <30 OX OX OX OX <40 OX OX OX OX <50 OX lX lX OX >50 100X m 98% 100X Pounds (xl00) 936 558 919 335 No. trips 19 20 55 24 ···················-·····················ALL REEF FISH··············-···-············· Depth 1984 1985 1986 1987 ( fathoms) <20 lX OX 5X 6X <30 16X 22X 22X llX <40 41 12X 211 lSI <50 18X 18X lSI 251 >50 601 491 381 421 Pounds (xl00) 3363 3255 5171 2358 No. trips 235 442 869 355 327 '\ TABLE 11. 27 Seaward coordinates of reef fish longline restricted area. Point No. Reference Location' North West Latitude Longitude 84°24.8' 84 °47.0' 85°09.0' 84°24.8' 85°30.0' 84°07.0' 84°00.0' 89°26.0' 90°08.5' 89°59.5' 90°02.5' 90°31.5' 95°00.0' 96°02.0' 96°23.5' 96°39.0' 96°37.5' 96°21.0' 96°24.5' 85 °30.0 ' 86°55.0' 87°19.0' 87°27.5' 88°28.0' 82°48.0' 82°34.0' 82°59.0' 83°21.5' 83"45.0' 28°26.6' 28°11.0' 28°11.0' 29°21.0' 28°42.5' 29°05.0' 29°02.5' 24°48.0' 25°07.5' 26°26.0' 27°30.0' 28°10.0' 28°58.7' 30°06.0' 29°46 •. 0' 29°29.0' 29°14.5' 28°46.5' 28°38.5' 28°34.5' 28°22.5' 28°10.5' 27°58.0' 27°43.0' 27°30.0' 27°00.0' 26°44.0' 26°22.0' 26°00.5' 13 1 Seaward limit of Florida's waters North of Dry Tortugas 2 North of Rebecca Light 3 Off Sanibel Island 4 West of Egmont Key 5 West of Anclote Keys 6 southeast corner of Florida Middle Ground protected area 7 Southwest corner of Florida Middle Ground protected area 8 West corner of Florida Middle Ground protected area 9 Northwest corner of Florida Middle Ground protected area 10 South of Carrabelle 11 South of Cape st. George 12 South of Cape San BIas bell buoy 20 fathom contour South of Cape San BIas bell buoy 50 fathom contour 14 Southeast of Pensacola (Desota canyon) 15 South of Pensacola 16 South of Perdido Bay 17 East of Mississippi River - North Pass 18 South of Mississippi River Southwest Pass 19 Northwest tip of Mississippi Canyon 20 west side of Mississippi Canyon 21 South of Timbalier Bay 22 South of Terrebonne Bay 23 'South of Freeport 24 Off Matagorda Island 25 Off of Aransas Pass 26 Northeast of Port Mansfield 27 East of Port Mansfield 28 Northeast of Port Isabel 29 U.S./Mexico EEZ boundary Then westerly along U.S./Mexico EEZ boundary to the seaward limit of Texas' waters. , Nearest identifiable landfall, boundary, navigation aid or submarine area. 328 TABLE 11. 28 Seaward coordinates of reef fish stressed area boundary. Point No. Reference Location' North West Latitude Longitude 28°57.3' 29°09.0' 89°28.2' 89°47.0' 82°41.5' 82°06.5' 82°02.0' 82°29.0' 82°59.0' 83°21.5' 83°45.0' 83°14.0' 84°00.0' 90°42.0' 92°37.0' 93°41.0' 93°28.0' 96°19.5' 96°51.0' 96°52.0' 96°35.0' 96°36.0' 85°27.1' 85°52.0' 86°10.0' 86°55.0' 87"38.0' 88°00.0' 88°23.7' 88°40.5' 88°37.0' 24°45.5' 24°48.0' 25°15.0' 26°26.0' 26°26.0' 27°30.0' 28°10.0' 28°10.0' 29°38.0' 28°32.5' 29°10.0' 29°09.0' 28°21.5' 27°49.0" 27°12.0' 26°46.5' 26°21.5' 26°00.5' 29°32.2' 29°30.5' 29°53.0' 30°06.0' 29°34.5' 29°41.0' 30°01.5' 30°01.5' 29°35.5' 1 Seaward limit of Florida's waters Northeast of Dry Tortugas 2 North of Marquesas Keys 3 Off Cape Sable 4 Off Sanibel Island - Inshore 5 Off Sanibel Island - Offshore 6 West of Egmont Key 7 Off Anclote Keys - Offshore 8 Off Anclote Keys - Inshore 9 Off Deadman Bay 10 Seaward limit of Florida's waters, East of Cape st. George Then westerly along the seaward limit of Florida's waters to 11 Seaward limit of Florida's waters, South of Cape San BIas 12 Southwest· of Cape San BIas 13 Off st. Andrews Bay 14 Desoto Canyon 15 Alabama/Florida line 16 Off Mobile Bay 17 Mississippi/Alabama line 18 Horn/Chandeleur Islands 19 Chandeleur Islands 20 Seaward limit of Louisiana's waters off Mississippi River North Pass Then southerly and westerly along the seaward limit of Louisiana's waters to 21 Seaward limit of Louisiana's waters off Mississippi River Southwest Pass 22 'Southeast of Grand Isle 23 Quick flashing horn buoy south of Isles Dernieres 24 Southeast of Calcasieu Pass 25 South of Sabine Pass on 10 fathom contour 26 South of Sabine Pass on 30 fathom contour 27 East of Aransas Pass 28 East of Baffin Bay 29 Northeast of Port Mansfield 30 Northeast of Port Isabel 31 U.S ./Mexico EEZ boundary Then westerly along U.S./Mexico EEZ boundary to the seaward limit of Texas' waters. 1 Nearest identifiable landfall, boundary, navigation aid or submarine area. 329 12. RESEARCH- RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1. Research Recommendations Identified in the FMP Recommendations To the Secretary of Commerce 1. Initiate research designed to evaluate the need for protection of juvenile reef fish and habitat in specific locations from damage or excessive mortality by gear such as traps or other gear taking reef fish. (Research underway by SEFC) . 2. Encourage immediate development of escape panels or devices on trawls for use in areas where bycatch of juvenile snapper and grouper are high. (Research underway by SEFC on TED modifications to release fish bycatch) . 3. Encourage and support the construction of permitted artificial reef habitats. 4. Initiate research to determine the optimum minimum mesh size for traps which will allow escapement of juvenile reef fish. (Research completed by SEFC). 5. Develop information on sizes of reef fish that should be released by fishermen in the stressed area. (YPR analyses was conducted in 1988 stock assessment) • 6. Initiate research to determine the impact of fish traps on reef fish populations and the reef ecosystem. (This should include catches of targeted species and bycatch of other species as well as information on other relevant parameters. ) (Research underway by SEFC). 7. The development of self-destruct panels on fish traps. research planned) • (No 8. since there is a question on the use of artificial reefs to increase fish stocks, the need exists for a five-year program to be immediately initiated to determine the level of reef effectiveness. Research should be directed toward the following areas: (a) Recruitment to reefs. (b) contribution of reef fauna to support the food requirement of resident reef fish. (c) Determination of whether reef fish forage in areas adjoining the reefs for their primary food sources. 330 (d) The -effectiveness of artificial reefs as habitat. (Research being conducted by SEFC in south Atlantic) . 9. Provide information on optimum mesh size of fish traps or ini tiate research to provide this information. (Limited research has been completed by SEFC and FDNR). 10. NMFS is to provide information on the procedure for puncturing the air bladder of reef fish so that council staff can prepare information and education brochure on this procedure for distribution to the public. (No activity planned) . 11. That NMFS SEFC place observers on longline vessels fishing for reef fish in the Gulf, provided the vessel owners agree to such an arrangement. (An observer study was completed by SEFC in 1983). 12.2. Research Recommendations Identified in this Amendment Recommendations To the Secretarv of Commerce 1. Greater emphasis must be placed on the collection of bioprofile and catch-effort statistics from all user group~ by geographic area. 2. The spawning stock biomass and recruitment levels of reef fish populations need to be monitored on a continuing basis by geographic area. 3. Better growth, mortality, maturity, and fecundity information is needed for species in the fishery management unit. 4. The effectiveness of the different trawl designs (including TEDs) used within the shrimp fishery in reducing the bycatch of reef fish, especially prerecruit reef fish needs to be evaluated. Catch rates of all bycatch species need to be determined for various trawl designs fished in different . regions of the Gulf for both day and night trawling. 5. The socio-economic and socio-cul tural aspects of the reef fish fishery needs to be evaluated with the purpose of examining the potential utility of a limited entry management strategy and for purposes of allocations. Recommendations To the states The Council recommends that the states implement the management measures proposed in this Amendment within their territorial jurisdiction)' where applicable. The Council further encourages the states to assist the Secretary in addressing and supporting the research and other special recommendations. 331 '. 13. RELATED FEDERAL LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS 13.1. Vessel Safety Concerns Amendment by P. L. 99-659 to the Magnuson Act requires that a fishery manangement plan or amendment must cons ider , and may provide for, temporary adjustments (after consultation with the Coast Guard and persons utilizing the fishery) regarding access to the fishery for vessels otherwise prevented from harvesting because of weather or othe ocean conditions affecting the safety of the vessels. No vessel will be forced to participate in the fishery under adverse weather or ocean conditions as a result of the imposition of the management regulations set forth in this fishery management plan. Therefore, no management adjustments for fishery access will be provided. 13.1.1. Fishery access and weather-related vessel safety. There are no fishery conditions or management measures or regulations contained in this amendment that would result in the loss of harvesting opportunity because of the crew and vessel safety effects of adverse weather or ocean conditions. Concern wa~ expressed by grouper longline fishermen that the prohibition of longlines within 50 fathoms in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico would create vessel safety problems, particularly during the winter, because many of the Florida longline boats were ill equipped for long distance fishing (see minutes of September, 1988 Council Meeting). The Council subsequently modified the proposal to allow longlining in the Eastern Gulf into 20 fathoms thus significantly reducing the potential. vessel safety problem. No other concerns have been raised by the Coast Guard or by people engaged in the fishery that other aspects of the proposed management measures directly or indirectly pose a hazard.to crew or vessel safety under adverse weather or ocean conditions. Therefore, there are no procedures for making management adjustments in the amendment due to ¥essel safety problems because no person will be precluded from a fi:lir or equitable harvesting opportunity by the management measures set forth. 13.1.2. Coast Guard Evaluation No vessel safety issues, whether pertinent to fishery access and weather related vessel safety or to other significant or relevant safety issues have been identified by the Coast Guard. 13.1.3. Procedures There are na'procedures proposed to monitor, evaluate and report on the effectsw of management measures on vessel or crew safety, under adverse weather or ocean conditions. 332 13.1.4. Other Safety Issues There have been no significant and releveant safety issues raised by fishery users, other public or the coast Guard. 13.2. Paperwork Reduction Act The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to control paperwork requirements imposed on the public by the federal government. The authority to manage information collection and record keeping requirements is vested with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This authority encompasses establishment of guidelines and policies, approval of information collection requests, and reduction of paperwork burdens and duplications. 13.2.1. Proposed Data Collection Program The Councils propose through this amendment to establish a permit system to 1) define commercial and recreational user groups, 2) establish a vehicle for permit sanction against repeat fishery violators, and 3) prevent recreational fishermen from circumventing the possession limit. 13.2.2. Estimate of Reporting Burden and Cost Approximately 1200 permit applications are expected to be received with about 780 meeting the income requirements (M. Justen, NMFS, SERO). The administrative costs of application form production, mailing, and review for eligibility determination is expected to be $23.36 per permit and $0.70 for each trap tag cost about. The overall permit costs will be $18,221.00. It is estimatedd that about 200 fishermen will also request trap tag that will cost an additional $140.00. All administrative costs will be paid by the permitee. The reporting burden on the public is expected to be about 170 hours for completing and filing permit applications at an approximate cost of $1000.00 for the time required and mailing costs • . 13.3. Federalism No Federalism issues have been identified relative to the actions proposed in this amendment and associated regulations. The affected states have been closely involved in developing the proposed management measures and the principal State officials responsible for fisheries management in their respective states have not expressed federalism related opposition to adoption of this amendment. 333 13.4. Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Act The proposed actions have no anticipated impact on threatened or endangered species or on marine mammals. A Section 7 consultation was conducted for the original FMP and it was determined the FMP was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered animals or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat that may be critical to those species; this amendment proposes no changes to the FMP relative to species included in the Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammal Act. 13.5. Coastal Zone Management Act section 307 (c) (1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that all federal activities which directly affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved State coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed changes in Federal regulations governing reef fish in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico will not necessarily make federal regulations more consistent with either existing or proposed State regulations but the proposed regulations are necessary to maintain the health of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish resource. While it is the goal of the Councils and the state to have complementary management measures, Federal and State administrative procedures vary and amendments are unlikely to be fully instituted at the same time. Based upon the assessment of this amendment's impacts in previous sections, the Councils have concluded that this amendment is an improvement to the Federal management measures for the reef fish fishery. This amendment is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi to the maximum extent possible. This determination· has been submitted to the responsible State agepcies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act admi"nistering approved Coastal Zone Management Programs in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The State of Texas does not have an approved Coastal Zone Management Programs. 334 13.6. National Environmental Policy Act Assessment. Environmental The discussion of the need for this amendment, proposed actions and alternatives and their environmental impacts are contained in Section 11 of this amendment. The proposed amendment is not a major action having significant impact on the quality of the marine or human environment of the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed action is an adjustment of the original regulations of the FMP to improve enforceability and fishery yield. The proposed action should not result in impacts significantly different in context or intensity from those described in the Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) published with the initial regulations implementing the approved FMP. The preparation of a formal ElS is not required for this amendment by Section 102(2) (c) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act or its implementation regulations. For a discussion of the need for this Reef Fish FMP Amendment please refer to section 11. Mitigating measures related to proposed actions are unnecessary. No unavoidable adverse impacts on protected species, wetlands or the marine environment are expected to result from the propose~ management measures in this amendment (see Section 11). , Both the short- and long-term benefits of more compatible regulations, reductions in reef fish mortality and fishing effort and documentation of resource users and their impacts on the resource will help to improve fishery production, to achieve the objectives of the FMP, and to lessen the environmental impacts of the fishery. Overall, the benefits to the nations resulting from implementation of this amendment is greater than management costs incurred. Findings of No Significant Environmental Impact Having reviewed the environmental assessment and the available inf~rmation relating to the proposed actions, I have determined that there will be no significant environmental impact reSUlting from the proposed actions. Approved: Assisstant Administrator for Fisheries Date 335 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 881 Lincoln center 5401 west Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 (813) 228-2815 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED In addition to extensive comments received during the development of this amendment and thirteen public hearings (minutes and list of persons attending are available upon request) comments were solicited of the following governmental bodies. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Reef Fish Advisory Panel Reef Fish Special Scientific and statistical Committee standing Scientific and Statistical Committee Reef Fish Assessment Panel Law Enforcement Advisory Panel Alabama Coastal Zone Management Program Florida Coastal Zone Management Program Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program Mississippi Coastal Zone Management Program Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Florida Marine Fisheries Commission Florida Department of Natural Resources Louisiana Department of wildlife and Fisheries Mississippi Department of wildlife Conservation Texas Parks and wildlife Department National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Center Southeast Regional Office United states Coast Guard LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS: C. Phillip Goodyear, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Douglas R. Gregory, Jr., Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Paul J. Hooker, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Antonio B. Lamberte, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Andy Mager, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office Maurice Renaud, NMFS, SEFC, Galveston Laboratory Wayne E. Swingle, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council James R. Waters, NMFS, SEFC, Beaufort Laboratory 336 LOCATION AND DATES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS March 6, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 8, 1989 March 9, 1989 March 27, 1989 March 28, 1989 March 29, 1989 April 3, 1989 April 4, 1989 AprilS, 1989 April 6, 1989 April 27, 1989 July 12, 1989 Key West, Florida Naples, Florida Madeira Beach, Florida Panama city, Florida Port Isabel, Texas Port Aransas, Texas Freeport, Texas Lake Charles, Louisiana Thibodaux, Louisiana Biloxi, Mississippi Fairhope, Alabama Tampa, Florida Key West, Florida 337 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, D. M., and J. E. Tashiro. 1976. status of the u.s. commercial snapper-grouper fishery. Pages 41-76 In Bullis, Harvey R., Jr., and Albert C. Jones, editors. Proceedings: Colloquium on Snapper-Grouper Fishery Resources of the western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 17. Available from Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Bane, G. W., s. J. Russell, J. H. Render, C. Boulet, S. Ellsworth, and S. Locy. 1985. Commercial mackerel, snapper, grouper, black drum, mullet, and inshore shrimp fisheries research program in Louisiana: Annual report. Coastal Fisheries Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana state University, LSU-CFI-85-10. Bankston, D., and J. Horst. 1984. Exploratory bottom longline fishing off Louisiana's coast. Louisiana state University Coastal Ecology and Fisheries Institute Technical Series 1:1-62. Berry, F. H., and R. K. Burch. 1979. Aspects of the amberjack fisheries. proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 31: 179-194. Boesch, D. 1983. Implications of oxygen depletion on the continental shelf of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Ocean Pollution Assessment News 2(3):25-28. Bohnsack, J. A. and D. L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1):11-39. Bohnsack, J. A., D. L. Sutherland, D. E. Harper, D. B. McClellan, Lt. (jg) M. W. Hulsbeck, and C. M. Holt. 1988. The effects of fish trap mesh size on reef fish catch. NOAA/NMFS SEFC CRD Contribution number 87/88-30. Unpublished report. Available from Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Bortone, S. A., and J. L. Williams. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Florida)--Gray, lane, mutton, and yellowtail snappers. U. S. Fish and Wildlife service, Biological Report 82(11.52). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 18 pages. Bradley, E. and C. E. Bryan. 1976. Life history and fishery of the red snapper (Lutianus campechanus) in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 1970-74. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 27:77-106 • . Bright, T. '}!'. and L. H. Pequegnat, eds. 1974. Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. 435 pages. 338 Brownell, w. N. and W. Ew Rainey. 1971. Research and development of deepwater commercial and sport fisheries around the Virgin Islands Plateau. contribution of Virgin Island Ecological Research Station, carib. Rest. Inst., No.3. 88 pages. Bryan, C. E., T. J. Cody, and G. C. Matlock. 1982. organisms captured by the commercial shrimp fleet on the Texas brown shrimp (Penaeus astecus Ives) grounds. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Technical' Series Number 31, 26 pages. Buesa Mas, R. J. 1962. La nasa Antil1ana. Contr. Cent. Invest. Pesq. Habana (15):5-26. Bullis, H. R. and A. C. Jones (editors). 1976. Colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of Central Atlantic Ocean. Sea Grant Rept. No. 17. Available from Florida Sea Grant, University Gainesville, Florida 32611. Proceedings: the Western 333 pages. of Florida, Burch, R. K. 1979. The greater amberjack, Serio1a dumerili: its biology and fishery off southeastern Florida. Master of Science Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 113 pages. Burnett-Herkes, J. 1975. contribution to the biology of the re4 hind, Epinephe1us quttatus, a commercially important serranid fish from the tropical western Atlantic. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Miami. 166 pages. Camber, C. I. 1955. A survey of the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico with special reference to the Campeche Banks. Florida state Board of Conservation Technical Series 12:1-64. carpenter, J.S. 1965. A review of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery. u.s. Fish and wildlife Service Circular 208. 35 pages. Cato, J. C., and F. J. Prochaska. 1977. A statistical and budgetary economic analysis of Florida-based Gulf of Mexico red snagper-grouper vessels by size and location, 1974 and 1975. Marine Fisheries Review. 39(11) :6-14. Cato, J. C., and F. J. Prochaska. 1976. The Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational red snapper-grouper fishery: an economic analysis of production, marketing, and prices. Pages 95 128 In Bullis, Harvey R., Jr., and Albert C. Jones, editors. Proceedings: Colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 17. Available from Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. 339 Christian, P. A., and D. L. Harrington. In press. Loggerhead turtle, finfish, and shrimp retention studies on four turtle excluder devices (TEDs). Proceedings of the Nongame and Endangered wildlife symposium, september 8-10, 1987, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Social Circle, GA 30279. Cody, T. J., and R. M. Avent. 1980. Assessment of bottom longline fishing off the central Texas coast. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Coastal Fisheries Branch, Management Data Series 16:1-24. cody, T. J., B. E. Fuls, G. C. Matlock, and C. E. Bryan. 1981. Assessment of bottom longline fishing off the central Texas coast, a completion report. Texas Parks and wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch, Management Data Series 22:1-51. Collins, L. A., and J. H. Finucane. Manuscript in preparation. Reproductive biology of Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) from the Florida Keys. Available from L. Alan Collins, Panama City Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32498. Collins, M. R., and J. L. Pinckney. 1988. Size and age at maturity for vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) (Lutjanidae) in the South Atlantic Bight. Northeast Gulf Science 10(1) :51-53. craig, A. K. 1976. Trapping experiments with snappers in south Florida. Pages 222-236 in H. R. Bullis, Jr. and A. C. Jones, eds. Proceedings: Colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Program, Report Number 17, 333 pages. Available from Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. cupka, D. M., R. K. Dias, and J. Tucker. 1973. Biology of the black sea bass, Centropristis striata (Pisces: Serranidae) from South Carolina waters. South' Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Unpublished manuscript. 93 pages. cusQing, D. H. 1978. Fisheries biology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 200 pages. Dammann, A. E. 1980. Caribbean reef fish: fish traps and management. proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 32:100-105. Dammann, A. E., W. E. Swingle and J. A. Yntema. 1969. Study of the fisheries potential of the Virgin Islands. Special Report: contribution Virgin Island Ecological Research Station. (1):1-197. Dimitr~ff, F. 1982. Survey of snapper and grouper fishermen of the northwest Florida coast. Florida Sea Grant Program. 340 Driessen, P. K: 1985a. Oil platforms as reefs: oil and fish can mix. Proc. Fourth Symp. Coastal and Ocean Mgmt. 2:1417-1438. Driessen, P. K. 1985b. studying 'Neptune's Gallery', Offshore rigs provide a habitat for marine life as the largest artificial reef system. Sea Technology 26:34-36. Futch, R. B. and G. E. Bruger. 1976. Age, growth, and reproduction of red snapper in Florida waters. Pages 65-184 In H. R. Bullis and A. C. Jones (Editors). Proceedings: Colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western Central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Report 17: 65-184. Available from Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Gallaway, B. J., L. R. Martin, R. L. Howard, G. S. Boland and G. D. Dennis. 1981. Effects on artificial reef and demersal fish and macrocrustacean communities. pages. 237-293. In: Middleditch, B. S. (ed.). Environmental effects of offshore oil production. The Buccaneer Gas and Oil Field Study. Marine Science Vol. 14, Plenum Press, New York. 446 p. Gallaway, B. J. and G. S. Lewbel. 1982. The ecology of petroleum platforms in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: A community profile. FWS/OBS-82/27, 91 p. Godcharles, M. F. 1970. Exploratory fishing for southern sea bass, Centropristis striata melana, in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory, Technical Series 63:1-26. Goodyear, C. P. 1988a. Recent trends in the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, CRD 87/88-16. Unpublished report. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 west Kennedy Boulevar.d, Tampa, Florida 33609. Goodyear, C. P. 1988b. The Gulf of Mexico fishery for reef fish species A descriptive profile. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, CRD 87/88 19. Unpublished report. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 west Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Goodyear, C. P. 1988c. Spawning stock biomass and yield per recruit for several reef fish species of the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, CRD 87/88-24. Unpublished report. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. 341 Grimes, C. B. '1976. Certain aspects of the life history of the vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier) from North and South Carolina waters. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. North Carolina (Chapel Hill). 251 pages. Grimes, C. B. 1978. Age, growth, and length-weight relationship of vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens, from North Carolina and South Carolina waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 107:545-456. Grimes, C. B. 1987. Reproductive biology of the lutjanidae: A review. Pages 239-294. in J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston (editors). Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management. westview Press, Inc., 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Grizzle, J. M. 1981. Effects of hypolimnetic discharge on fish health below a reservoir. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:29-43. Grizzle, J. M. 1983. Histopathology of fishes in relation to drilling operations near Flower Garden Banks. Vol. II. In: Ecological effects of energy development on reef fishL ichthyoplankton and benthos populations in the Flower Garden Bank~ of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1980-1982. A Final Report to EPA, EPA-79-D~X0514, 131 pages. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1981a. Draft fishery management plan, environmental impact statement, and regulatory analysis for groundfish in the Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished manuscript. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management council, 5401 west Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 881, Tampa, FL 33609. . Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981b. Environmental impact statement and fishery management plan for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 west Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1981c. Fishery management plan for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. 154 pages. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1981d. Fishery management plan for the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 881 Lincoln penter, 5401 west Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. 342 Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 1982. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact statement for coral and coral reefs. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Gulland, J. A. 1968. exploited fish stocks. The concept of the marginal yield from Journal du Conseil 32(2):256-261. Gulland, J. A. 1969. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment, Part 1. Fish population analysis. FAO Manual in Fishies Science 4(FRs/M4). 154 pages. Gulland, J. A. 1977. The Management of Marine University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Fisheries. 198 pages. Gulland, J. A., and L. K. Boerema. 1973. Scientific advice on catch levels. Fishery Bulletin 71:325-335. Gutherz, E. J., and G. J. Pellegrin. 1988. Estimate of the catch of red snapper, Lutj anus campehanus, by shrimp trawlers in the U. S. Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 50(1):17-25. Harper, D. E., and D. B. McClellan. 1982. Observations on the behavior and survival of trap-caught reef fish: progress report for the period January-August 1982. Unpublished report. Available from Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine ':, Fisheries service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149. ./ Harper, D. E., and D. B. McClellan. 1983. Observations on the behavior and survival ·of trap-caught reef fish: final report to Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Unpublished report. Available from Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149. Hastings, R. W., L. H. Ogren and M. T. Mabry. 1976. Observations of . the fish fauna associated with offshore platforms in the nor~western Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 74:387-402. Haynes, J. M. 1988. Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico: (1) Review of life history characteristics and sampling methods relevant to obtaining relative abundance estimates and (2) a proposed experimental design for determining sampling gear effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript. Available from Mississippi Laboratories, National Marine Fisheries Service, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, Mississippi, 39567. Herbert, T. M. 1987. Observations on the Collier County, Florida fish trap fishery, summer 1987. written report from National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Economic and Statistics Office, P. O. Box 217, Ft. Myers, FL 33902. 343 Hiett, R. L., K. A. Chandler, A. K. Reniere, and A. R. Bolstein. 1983. socioeconomic aspects of marine recreational fishing. Final report for contract 80-ABC-00152. KCA Research, Inc. , 5501 Cherokee Avenue, suite 111, Alexandria, Virginia 22312. High, W. L., I. E. Ellis, and L. D. Lusz. 1969. A progress report on the development of a shrimp trawl to separate shrimp from fish and bottom-dwelling anaimal. Commercial Fisheries Review 31(3) :20-33. Higman, J. B. 1956. The behavior of pink grooved shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, Burkenroad, in a direct current electrical field. Florida state Board of Conservation Technical Series 16:1-23. Horst, J., and D. Bankston. 1987. Bottom longline fishing off Louisiana's coast: Techniques for profit. 37 pages. Available from Coastal Fisheries Institute and Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana state University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. Huntsman, G. R., C. S. Manooch III. and C. B. Grimes. 1983. '!ield-per-recruit models of some reef fishes of the us South Atlantic Bight. Fishery Bulletin 81:679-695. Huntsman, G. R. 1980. The biological bases of reef fish production (abstract). Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 32:131. Huntsman, G. R. and J. R. Waters. 1987. Development of management plans for reef fishes--Gulf of Mexico and U. S. South Atlantic. pages. 533-560. In: Polovina, J.J. and S. Ralston (eds.). Tropical snappers and groupers, biology and fishery management. westview Press, London. Jaap, W. C. 1984. The ecology of the South Florida coral reefs: a community profile. Fish wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82/08. 138 pages. Johnson, A. G. south Florida. 112:173-177. 1983. Age and growth of yellowtail snapper from Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Juhl, R. and J. A. Suarez Caabro. 1973. Fish pot fisheries in PUerto Rico. contribuciones Agropecuarias y Pesqueras, Departmento de Agricultura 5(4): 1-18. Kawaguchi, K. 1974. Handline and longline fishing exploration for snapper and related species in the Caribbean and adjacent waters. Marine Fisheries Review. 36(9):8-31. 344 Keithly, W. R.~ and· F. J. Prochaska. 1985. The demand forrnajor reef fish species in the Gulf and south Atlantic regions of the United states. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas, Texas A&M Sea Grant TAMU-SG-86-102, pages 59-72. Kendall, A. W. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on black sea bass, Centropristis striata (Linnaeus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Technical Series Report 7:1-29. Kessler, D. W. 1965. Electrical threshold responses of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, Burkenroad. Bulletin of Marine Science 15:885-895. Ketchum, B. H. (ed). 1972. The waters edge--critical problems of the coastal zone. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma., 393 pages. Klima, E. F. 1968. Shrimp behavior strudies underlying the development of the electreic shrimp-trewl system. Fish. Ind. Res. 4: 165-181. Kumpf, H. E. 1980. Practical considerations and testing of escape panel material in fish traps. . Proceedings' of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 32: 211-214. ' Luckhurst, B., and J. Ward. In press. Behavioral dynamics of coral reef fishes in Antillean fish traps at Bermuda. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 38th Annual Meeting, November 1986, in Bermuda. Malins, D. C. 1982. Alterations in the cellular and subcellular structure of marine teleosts and invertebrates exposed to petroleum in the laboratory and field: a critical review.Canandian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:877-889. Manker, J. P. 1975. Distribution and concentration of mercury, lead, cobalt, zinc, and chromium in suspended particles and bottom sed!ments - Upper Florida Keys, Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay. Ph.D. Thesis. Rice University, Houston, Tx. 114 pages. , Manooch, C. S., III. 1987. Age and growth of snappers and groupers. Pages 329-373. in J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston (editors). Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management. Westview Press, Inc., 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Manooch, C. S., III, and M. Haimovici. 1978. Age and growth of the gag, Mycteroperca microlepis. and size-age composition of the recreational.'catchoff the southeastern United states. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107(2):234-240. 345 Manooch, C. S~,III, and D. L. Mason. 1984. Age, growth and mortality of lane snapper southern Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 7:109-115. Manooch, C. S., III, and D. L. Mason. 1987. Age and growth of the warsaw grouper and black grouper from the southeast region of the United States. Northeast Gulf Science 9(2) :65-75. . Manooch, C. S.,III, and R. H. Matheson, III. 1983. Age, growth and mortality of gray snapper collected from Florida waers. Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlike Agencies 35:333-346. Mason, D. L. and C. S. Manooch, III. 1985. Age and growth of mutton snapper along the east coast of Florida. Fisheries Research 3:93-104. Matheson, R. H., III, G. R. Huntsman, and C. S. Mannoch Age, growth, mortality, foods, and reproduction of Mycteroperca phenax, collected off North Carolina Carolina. Bulletin of Marine Science 38:300-312. III. 1986. the scamp, and South McErlean, A. J. 1963. A study of the age and growth of the gag~ Mycteroperca microlepis Goode and Bean (pisces: serranidae) on the west coast of Florida. Florida state Board of conservation; Technical Series 41:1-29. McErlean, A. J. and C. L. Smith. succession in the protogynous microlepis. Transactions of the 93 (3) : 301-302. 1964. The age of sexual hermaphrodite, Mycteroperca American Fisheries Society Menzel, D. W. 1960. Epinephelus guttatus. Utilization of food by a Bermuda reef fish, J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 25(2)216-222. Meyer, P. A. 1987. Access control for the northwestern Hawaiian Islandsbottomfishery. Developed for the WesternPacific Regional Fisflery Management Council by Meyer Resources, Inc. Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Room 1405, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813. Minerals and Management Service. 1987. Final environmental impact statement 1987, proposed oil and gas lease sales 113/115/116 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, OCS EIS MMS 87-0077. Minerals Management Service. 1987. programmatic environmental assessment. structure removal activities (central and western Gulf of Mexico planning areas). OCS EIS/MMS 87-0002, 81 pages. 346 Moe, M. A., Jr. 1969. Biology of the red grouper, Epinephelus moria, (Valenciennes) from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory Professional Papers Series 10:1-95. Moe, M. A., Jr., D. S. Beaumariage and R. W. Topp. 1970. Return of a tagged gag, Mycteroperca microlepis and Caribbean red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, after six years of freedom. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:428-429. Morris, R. A. 1977. Primary economic impact of Florida IS commercial fishing industry. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 181 pages. Moseley, F. 1965. Biology of the red snapper, Lutjanus aya Bloch, of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas 11:90-101. Munro, J. fishing. 1973. Large volume stackable fish traps for offshore Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 25:121-128. Munro, J. L. 1974 (b). The mode of operation of Antillean fish traps and the relationships between ingress, escapement, catch an4 soak. Journal du Conseil 35(3):337-350. ' Munro, J. L. 1983a. Chapter 4: The composition and magnitude of line catches in Jamaican waters. Pages 26-32 .in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Munro, J. L. 1983b. Chapter 5: The composition and magnitude of trap catches in Jamaican waters. Pages 33-49 in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Munro, J. L. 1983c. Chapter 18: Assessment of the potential productivity of Jamaican fisheries. Pages 232-248 in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Munro, J. L., P. H. Reeson, and V. C. Gaut. 1971. Dynamic factors affecting the performance of the Antillean fish trap. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 23:184-194. 347 Munro, J. L. and R. Thompson. 1983. Chapter 3: Area Investigated and the Objectives and Methodology. Pages 15-25 in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Munro, J. L., V. C. Gaut, R. Thompson and P. H. Reeson. 1973. The spawning seasons of Caribbean reef fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 5:69-84. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986. Final secretarial fishery management plan, regulatory impact review, regulatory flexibility analysis for the red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA, NMFS, st. Petersburg, Fla. National Research Council Marine Board. 1985. Disposal of offshore platforms. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. 88 pages. Nelson, W. R. and J. S. Carpenter. 1968. Bottom longline explorations in the Gulf of Mexico. Commercial Fisheries Review 30(10):57-62. Nelson, R. S. 1980. Growth and mortality aspects of natural populations of red snapper, Lutj anus campechanus, in the. wes~ central Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis. North Carolina state University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Nelson, R. S., C. S. Manooch III, and D. L. Mason. 1986. Ecological effects of energy development on reef fish of the Texas Flower Garden Banks: Reef fish bioprofiles. Draft final report of work unit A4. 253 p. Nelson, R. S., and C. S. Manooch III. 1982. Growth and mortality of red snappers in the west-central Atlantic ocean and northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111:465-475. Nichols, S., A. Shah, G. Pellegrin, Jr., and K. Mullin. 1987. Est1mates of annual shrimp fleet bycatch for thirteen finfish species in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished manuscript. Available from Pascagoula Facility, Mississippi Laboratories, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, P. O. Drawer 1207, Pascagoula, MS 39568. Nichols, S., A. Shah, G. Pellegrin, Jr., K. Mullin. 1987. Estimates of annual shrimp fleet bycatch for thirteen finfish species in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Mississippi Laboratories, PascagQula F~cility, pascagoula, MS. 348 Olsen, D. A. and J. A. LaPlace. 1978. A study of a Virgin Island grouper fishery based on a breeding aggregation. Proceedings of the Gulf and caribbean Fisheries Institute 31:130-144. Olsen, D. A., A. E. Dammann, and J. A. LaPlace. 1978. Mesh selectivity of West Indian fish traps. Marine Fisheries Review 36(9) :49-61. Olsen, D. A., A. E. Dammann, and D. Neal. 1974. A vertical longline for red snapper fishing. Marine Fisheries Review 36:7-9. Parrack, N. C. 1986a. A review of Gulf of Mexico red snapper age and growth. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami CRD-86/87-2. Parrack, N. C. 1986b. Review and update of Gulf of Mexico red snapper biometrics: 1 length-weight relations, 2. length-length conversions. National Marine Fisheries service, Southeast Fisheries center, Miami Laboratory, Miami CRD-86/87-3. Parrack, N. C. and D. B. McClellan. 1986. Trends in Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Population Dynamics, 1979-85. National Marine Fisheries service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami CRD~ 86/87-4. Pease, N. L., and W. R. Seidel. 1967. Development of the electro shrimp trawl system. Commercial Fisheries Review 29:53-63. Pellegrin, G. J., Jr. S. B. Drummond, and R. S. Ford, Jr. No date. The incidental catch of fish by the northern Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet. Unpublished report from the Mississippi Laboratories, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi 39568-1207. Pellegrin, G., Jr. 1982. Fish discards from the southeastern United States shrimp fishery. Pages 51-54 in Fish by-catch-bonus from the sea: report of a technical conSUltation on shrimp by catqh utilization. Georgetown, Gyuana, 27-30 October, 1981. IRDC: 133 pages. Piedra, G. 1969. Materials on the biology of the yellowtail snapper (Ocvurus chrysurus, Bloch). Pages 251-269 In A. S. Bogdanov, Ed. Soviet-Cuban fishery research. All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Marine Fishery and Oceanography, Fishery Res" Center Nat. piscicultural Inst. Rep. of Cuba. (Transl. from Russian.) Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1969. Keter Press, Jerusalem. Pierce, K. ,v., B. B. McCain, and S. R. wellings. 1980. Histopathology of abnormal livers and other organs of starry flounder Platichthys stellus (Pallus) from the estuary of the Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington, J. Fish Dis. 3:811-91. 349 Poffenberger, J. R. 1985. operational and financial characteristics of reef fish vessels in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico areas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:379-388. Powers, J. E., c. P. Goodyear, and G. P. Scott. 1987. The potential effect of shrimp fleet bycatch on fisheries production of selected fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. Unpublish manuscript. contribution number CRD-87/88-06 available from Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 Pozo, E., 1979. Edad y crecimiento del pargo criollo (Lutjanus analis Cuvier, 1928) en la plataforma nororientel de Cuba. Rev. Cubana Invest. Pesq., 4:1-24. Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato. 1975. Northwest Florida gulf coast red snapper-grouper party boat operations, an economic analysis, 1974. SUSFSG-75-007. Available from Florida Sea Grant, Marine Extension Service,· university of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato. 1977. An economic profile o~ Florida commercial fishing firms: Fishermen, commercial activities and financial considerations. 19:1-22. Available from Florida Sea Grant, Marine Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato. 1977. Economic analysis of production and marketing of Florida east coast king and spanish mackerel. Mackerel systems Workshop. University of Miami, Sea Grant Special Report 14:1-23. Prytherch, H. F. 1983. A descriptive survey of the bottom longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-122, 33 pages. Randall, J. E. 1962. Tagging reef fishes in the Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the Gulf and caribbean Fisheries Institute 14:201 241. Randall, J. E. 1963. Additional recoveries of tagged reef fishes from the Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 15:155-157. Reggio, V., V. Van Sickle and C. Wilson. 1986. Rigs to reefs. Louisiana Conservationist 38(1):5-7. , Renaud, M. L. 1986. Hypoxia in Louisiana coastal waters during 1983: Implications for fisheries. Fishery Bulletin 84:19-26. 350 Ricker, W. E. 1975. computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 191. 382 p. Robins, C. R. 1967. The juvenile of the serranid fish Epinephelus rnystacinus and its status in Florida waters. Copeia 1967 (4) : 838-839. Rojas, L. E. 1960. Estudios estadisticos y biologicos sobre el pargo criollo, Lut;anus analise Cent. Invest. Pesq. Habana Nota Sobre Invest. 2: 3-16. Russell, S. J., J. H. Render, S. Ellsworth, R. M. Parker, and G. W. Bane. 1986. State/federal cooperative fishery statistics program in Louisiana: Annual report 1985-86. Coastal Fisheries Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana state University, LSU-CFI-86-11. Schlieder, R. A. Age, Growth and reproduction of the Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis, (Pisces:Serranidae), from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished manuscript. Available from Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue, st. Petersburg, Florida 33701. seidel, W. R., and J. W. Watson, Jr. 1978. employing electricity to selectively capture Fisheries Review 40(9):21-23. A trawl des ign i shrimp. Marine Seidel, w. R. 1975. A shrimp separator trawl for southeast fisheries. Proceedings of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 27:66-76. Seidel, W. R. 1969. Design, construction, and field testing of the BCF electric shrimp-trawl system. Fish. Ind. Res. 4:213-231. Shapiro, D. Y. 1987. Reproduction in groupers. Pages 295-327 in J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston (editors). Tropical snappers and groupers: Biology and fisheries management. Westview Press, Inc., 550d Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Shinn, E. A. 1974. oil structures as artificial reefs. pages.91-96 in L. Colunga and R. Stone, eds. proceedings of an international conference on artificial reefs. Center for Marine Resources, Texas A&M University, college Station, Tx. Smith, G. B. 1976. Mexico reef fishes. smith, G. B., H. M. H. Ogren. .'1975. comments on ecology Publications 9:1-14. Ecology and distribution of eastern Gulf of Florida Marine Research PUblications 19:1-78. Austin, S. A. Bortone, R. W. Hastings and L. Fishes of the Florida Middle Grounds with and zoogeography. Florida Marine Research 351 starck, W. A., II ~ 1968. A list of fishes of All igator Reef I Florida, with comments on the nature of the Florida reef fish fauna. Undersea BioI. 1:1-40. starck, W. A., II. 1971. Biology of the gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus), in the Florida Keys. Pages 1-150. In W. A. Starck, II and R. E. Schroeder. Investigations on the gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus, Studies in Tropical Oceanography, University of Miami 10:1-224. stevenson, D. K. 1978. Management of a tropical fish pot fishery for maximum sustainable yield. Proceedings of the Gulf and caribbean Fisheries Institute 30: 95-115. stevenson, D. K., and P. stuart-Sharkey. 1980. Performance of wire traps on the western coast of Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the Gulf and caribbean Fisheries Institute 32: 173-193. stone, A. 1987. Impacts of fish traps on artificial and natural reef fish populations. Resource Management Technical Report 87 (1) . Available from American Littoral Society, Sandy Hook, Highlands, New Jersey 07732. Stone, R. B., H. L. Pratt, R. o. Parker, Jr. and G. E. Davis. 1979: A comparison of fish populations on an artificial and natural reef in the Florida Keys. Marine Fisheries Review 41:1-11. Stone, R. B. 1978. Artificial reefs and management. Fisheries 3(1):2-9. stout, V. F. 1980. organochlorine residues in fishes from the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 78(1) :51-58~ stuntz, W. E., N. Sanders, T. D. Leming,K. N. Baxter, and R. M. Barazotto. 1982. Area of hypoxic bottom water found in northern Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Ocean. Climatol. News 4:37-38. Sutherland, D. L., G. L. Beardsley, and R. S. Jones. 1983. Results of a survey of the south Florida fish-trap fishing grounds using a manned sUbmersible. Northeast Gulf Science 6(2): 179-183. Sutherland, D. L., J. A. Bohnsack, D. E. Harper, C. M. Holt, M. W. Hulsbeck, and D. B. McClellan. 1987. Reef fish size and species selectivity by wire fish traps in south Florida waters: preliminary report. NMFS, SEFC CRD 86/87-33. Available from Miami Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Bea~h Drive, Miami, FL 33149. 352 Sutherland, D. L., and D. E. Harper. fishery of Dade and Broward counties, September 1980. Florida Department of Marine Research Publications 40:1-21. 1983. The wire fish-trap Florida: December 1979 Natural Resources, Florida Swingle, W. E., A. E. Dammann, and J. A. Yntema. 1970. Survey of the commercial fishery of the Virgin Islands of the United states. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 22: 110-121. Sylvester, J. R. 1974. A preliminary study of the length composition, distribution and relative abundance of three species of deep water snapper from the Virgin Islands. Journal of Fish Biology 6(1):43-49. Sylvester, J. R. and A. E. Dammann. 1972. Pot fishing in the Virgin Islands. Marine Fisheries Review 34 (9-10):33-35. Sylvester, J. R. and A. E. Dammann. 1973. contribution to the biology of the silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus from the Virgin Islands. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102:843-845. Tashiro, J. E. and S. E. Coleman. 1977. The Cuban grouper anq snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 39(10):1-5. Taylor, R. G., and R. H. McMichael. 1983. The wire fish-trap fisheries in Monroe and Collier Counties, Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications 39:1-19. Tennison, D. E. 1985. Offshore structures as artificial reefs (abstract). Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1) :401-402. Tesch, F. W. 1968. Age and Growth. Pages 93-122 in W. E. Ricker (editor) • Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters. IBP Handbook No.3. International biological programme, London, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Edinburgh. Thompson, R. and J. L. Munro. 1978. Aspects of the biology and ecology of Caribbean reef fishes: Serranidae (hinds and groupers) . Journal of Fish Biology 12:115-146. Thompson, R. and J. L. Munro. 1983a (74b). Chapter 7: The biology, ecology and bionomics of the hinds and groupers, serranidae. Pages 59-81 in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila,' Phil~ppines. 353 Thompson, R. and J. L. Munro. 1983b (74a). Chapter 8: The biology, ecology and bionomics of the jacks, carangidae. Pages 82 93 in J. L. Munro (editor). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Thompson, R. and J. L. Munro. 1983c (74c). Chapter 9: The biology, ecology and bionomics of the snappers, Lutjanidae. Pages 94-109 in J. L. Munro (ed). Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, 276 pages. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management,Manila, Philippines. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979-1980 (Revised), 1981-1982, 1983-1984, 1985, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics 8322, 8324, 8326, 8327, 8392. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS, Washington, D. C. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987b. Final supplement to the final environmental impact statement listing and protecting the green sea turtle, loggerhead turtle, and pacific ridley sea turtle under the endangered species act of 1973. Available from Southeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, 9450 Koger Boulevard~ st. Petersburg, Florida 33702. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987a. Draft Supplement to the final environmental impact statement on listing and protecting the green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and pacific ridley sea turtle under the endangered species act of 1973 and regulatory impact review/regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations which require the use of turtle excluder devices by shrimpers to conserve sea turtles. Available from Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9450 Koger BOUlevard, st. Petersburg, Florida 33702. Wallace, R. K., Jr. 1977. thermal acclimation, upper temperature tolerance, and preferred temperature of juvenile yellowtail snappers, OCVUrus chrysurus (Bloch) (pisces: lutjanidae). Bulletin of Marine Science 27(2):292-298. " . Walls, J. G. 1975. Fishes of the northern Gulf of Mexico. T. F.H. Publications, Incorporated, Limited. Hong Kong. Ward, J. In press. Mesh size selection in antillean arrowhead fishtraps. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 38th Annual Meeting held in Bermuda, November 1986. Walsh, J. J. 1984. Delaware Bay on the rebound. Science 223:1385. Walsh, J. J •. # G. T. Rowe, R. L. Iverson and C. P. McRoy. 1981. Biological export of shelf carbon is a sink of the global C02 cycle. Nature 291:198-201. 354 Waltz, W., w. A. Ro~millat, and P. K. Ashe. 1979. Distribution, age structure, and sex composition of the black sea bass, Centropristis striata, sampled along the southeastern coast of the Uni ted states. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Marine Resources Center, Technical Report 43:1-18. Waters, J. R. 1988. Review of the reef fish fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Beaufort Laboratory. Unpublished report. Available from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Council, 881 Lincoln Center, 5401 West Kennedy BOUlevard, Tampa, Florida 33609. Waters, J. R., and G. R. Huntsman. 1986. Incorporating mortality from catch and release into yield-per-recruit analyses of minimum size limits. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:63 471. Watson, J. W., Jr. 1976. Electrical shrimp trawl catch efficiency for Penaeus duorarum and Penaeus aztecus. Transactions of American Fisheries society. 105(1):135-148. Watson, J. W., Jr. and C. McVea Jr. 1977. Development of a selective shrimp trawl for the southeastern united states penaeid shrimp fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review 39(10):18-24. Watson, J. W., and C. W. Taylor. 1986. Research on selective shrimp trawl desiqns for penaeid shrimp in the united states: A review of selective shrimp trawl research in the United states / since 1973. FAO Expert Consultation on Selective Shrimp Trawl Development. Mazatlan, Mexico. 24-28 November 1986. Watson. J. W., J. F. Mitchell, and A. K. Shah. 1986. Trawling efficiency device: a new concept for selective shrimp trawling gear. Marine Fisheries Review 48(1):1-9. Watts, N. H., andG. J. Pellegrin, Jr. 1982. Comparison of shrimp and finfish catch rates and ratios for Texas and Louisiana. Marine Fisheries Review 44(9-10):44-49. Wolf, R. J., and G. R. Chislett. 1971. Trap fishing explorations for snappers and related species in the Caribbean and adjacent waters. UNDP/FAO Caribbean Fisheries Devevelopment Project Report SF/CAR/REG 189F6. 36 pages. Wolf, R. S., and G. R. Chislett. 1974. Trap fishing explorations for snapper and related species in the Caribbean and adjacent waters. Marine Fisheries Review 36(9): 49-61. Wolf, B. J. and W. F. Rathjen. 1974. Exploratory fishing activities of the UNDP/FAO, Caribbean Fisheries Development Project, 1965-1971: A Summary. Marine Fisheries Review 36(9)1:8. 355 wyatt, J. R .. 1976. The biology, ecology, exploitation and management of Caribbean reef fishes V. The biology, ecology and bionomics of Caribbean reef rishes: Holocentridae, squirrelfishes. Zoology Department, university of the west Indies Research Report 3: 1-41. Zastro, C. E. 1984. Age and growth of the red snapper, tutjanus campechanus, and the vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens, from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, Bryan, Texas, USA. 78 pages . . . 356