Amendment No. 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Mackerels)

REVISE D AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) IN C L U DES EN V I RON MEN TAL ASS E SS MEN T , SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW, AND INITIAL REGUL ATOR Y FLE X IBILITY AN AL YSIS MARCH 1987 GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL LINCOLN CENTER, SUITE 881 5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAM P A, F LOR ID A 33609 (813) 22'8-2815 AND SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 1 SOUTHPARK CIRCLE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29407 (803) 571-4366 I. hïtrod uction A fishery m anagem ent plan for coastal migratory pelagic fishes was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and was implemented by federal regulation in February, 1983. Severe recruitment problems developed in the fishery for king mackerel, and the plan was amended in September of 1985 to allow more flexible and responsive management, particularly for king m.ackerel. Recently obtained inform ation indicates that a substantial redu ction of ca tch of Spanish mack erel is needed to allo w the stock to recover from a population decline. The structure of the am ended plan does not provide for allocation of Spanish mackerel among fishing interests; therefore, a simple reduction of allowable catch could result in an unfair lIocation geographically or to users by right of first access to the migratory species. This second am endm ent clarifies the intent of the Councils to set total allowable catch (TAC) for mackerels within framework guidelines, revises maximum sustainable yield, adjusts T AC, and establishes allocation procedures for Spanish mackerel, regulates mackerel fishing gear, and provides for fishing permits. ii. Descriptiòn of Fishery and Utilization Patterns The Am endm ent No.1 to the FMP described the fishery and landings through 1983. Recent landings for king mackerel are shown in Table 1 and for Spanish mack erel in Tab Ie 2. The fishery for Atlantic group king mackerel expanded rapidly from 1979 through 1985 and has reached a level near full exploitation. Significant increases in catch would likely result in loss of yield (Appendix 1). For the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel there continue to be reductions in recruitment and spawning stock biomass since 1979. Reductions are more severe in U.S. waters if that is a separate group from an international Gulf group (Appendix 1). Landings of Spanish mackerel were relatively stable until the mid-1970s. Following several years of exceptionally high production, catches have declined. The comm ercial fishery has changed from a six-month fishery to one consolidated in three southeast Florida counties and occurs in December, January, and/or February (T able 3). The Councils' Stock Assessment Panel reported: liThe recent history of Spanish mackerel catches is one of declining landings and catch rates. Over 90 percent of the comm ercial fishery occurs in Florida and is mostly by gill nets, and most catches come from south Florida during winter. Commercial fisheries account for over 77 percent of the landings in the South Atlantic during 1979-84 and 64 percent of catches in the Gulf" (Appendix 1). The use of purse seines to take limited quotas of king and Spanish mackerel for study purposes was authorized in Federal waters with the implem entation of the FMP in 1983. Prior to that time the use of purse seines to take mackerel in State waters was severely restricted by state laws. 2 III. The original FMP provided for king mackerel purse seine quotas of 400,000 pounds each for the Gulf and South Atlantic. Amendment 1 revised this to not more than 284,000 pounds for the Gulf migratory group in the initial am endm ent year and no more than 400,000 pounds in the South Atlantic. In subsequent years the Gulf purse seine allocation was to be six percent of the Gulf group commercial allocation but no more than 400,000 pounds. All king mackerel purse seine catches were made in the Atlantic on Gulf group fish with the highest landings being under 135,000 pounds in the 1983-1984 season, Fable, et al. (1986). Annual purse seine quotas of 300,000 pounds of Spanish mackerel were set for the Atlantic and Gulf areas. Gulf catches were low while Atlantic catches reached 189,000 pounds in 1985, Fable, et al. (1986). The number of permitted purse seine vessels ranged from 18 in 1983 to 11 in the 1985-1986 season. Of the permitted vessels using purse seines in 1986 all but two also indicated the use of gear other than purse seines for mackerel (gill nets, hook and line, etc.). Issues To Be Addressed 1. Am endm ent 1 provided a mechanism for annual determ ination and adjustm ent of MSY, acceptable biological catch (AB C). total allowable catch (T AC). quotas, bag limits, and permits. It is the intent of the Councils that these changes may be implemented by Notice Action at any appropriate time. 2. Amendment 1 and implementing regulations are in conflict regarding the relationship of T AC to ABC. 3. Amendment 1 provided for an estimate of MSY for Spanish mackerel at 27 million pounds (M). More recent inform ation indicates that MSY should be 18 M and allowable catch should be reduced to restore the condition of depleted stocks. The am ended plan did not provide an allocation procedure for this species which is necessary to distribute the reduced catch fairly among fisherm en. 4. The fishing year for Spanish mackerel is the calendar year; however, peak commercial catches are made in December and January; thus the fishing year splits the actual fishing season. 5. Yield per recruit may be increased by increasing the size (age) of the Spanish mackerel landed. 6. The FMP and amendment provided for a three-year evaluation of a purse seine fishery for mackerels. The study and final report were completed in 1986, and changes in allocation or regulation of gear may be implemented only by F M P am endm ent. 7. The Councils have allocated and restricted landings of recreational fishermen through bag lim its and com m ercial fisherm en through catch quotas. Charterboat operators are allowed to fish in either allocation; however, their 3 iv. catch is not known and the identification of charter boats for survey purposes is difficult. Proposed Action The action proposed through this amendment to Amendment 1 of the FMP consists of the following new measures or revision of existing measures: o The framework measures providing for seasonal adjustment are clarified and revised within new guidelines. o The relationship of T AC to AB C is re-specified. o MSY for Spanish mackerel is revised downward, present and probable future condition of stocks are assessed, a reduced T AC is specified, and allocations are provided to distribute the allowable catch among fisherm en. o A geographic division of the stock into subpopulations or management groups is provided to conform to recently obtained biological information. o The fishing year for Spanish mackerel is modified to conform to fishing patterns and to allow equitable allocation. o Purse seines are prohibited for stressed mackerel stocks and the allocation is redistributed; gill net mesh size is specified for Spanish mackerel. o Permits are to be required for comm ercial Spanish mackerel boats and for charter boats fishing for coastal migratory pelagics. o Seasonal closures are provided for comm ercial fishing for Spanish mackerel as quotas are filled. o Recreational bag limits are established for Spanish mackerel. ACTION l:SPANISH MACKEREL MSY, PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION OF STOCK Section 5.4.2.1 Spanish Mackerel: revised as follows: Assessm ent and Specification of MSY is 5.4.2.1 Spanish. Mackerel: Assessm ent and Specification of MSY Based on 1975 commercial landings and the adjusted estimate of recreational catch from the 1970 Saltwater Angling Survey, the original FMP and Amendment 1 set MSY for Spanish mackerel at 27 M in a range of 13.5 to 49.1 M. This wide range was due to data limitations, and MSY was set too high. The procedure used yield-per-recruit values calculated from data on growth rates, maximum size, and rates of fishing, and natural mortality. An estimate was made of the num ber of recruits entering the fishery for 1970 and 1975. Yield was also calculated by multiplying yield-per-recruit values by the number of recruits. The MSY was selected from the 1975 estimates which were considered to be more accurate. The natural mortality rates used were 0.5 to 0.9. 4 Eldridge (1986) provided estimates of Spanish mackerel MSY using stock production and yield per recruit methods. He suggested 15 to 19 M as a reasonable range of sustainable yield. He repeated the original work using mortality rates of 0.2 to 0.4 and new growth data. He found the two major effects of lowering the annual instantaneous natural mortality rates were to decrease substantially the estimate of recruits and to raise slightly the yield-per-recruit values. Also the age/size at first capture increased when the lower mortality rates were used. The overall effect of lowering the natural mortality rate was to decrease the MSY estimate. The Councils' Stock Assessment Panel reviewed Eldridge's work and analyses using virtual population analysis, revised mortality estimates, and recent catches to determine MSY for the U.S. stock, Nichols (1986). The Panel recomm ended a range of 15.7 to 19.7 M with the best estimate of 18 M (Appendix 1). In this amendm ent the Councils have revised their specification of MSY for Spanish mackerel to 18 M in a range of 15.7 to 19.7 M. Rationale: Additional information obtained subsequent to the implementation of Amendment 1 showed that the original estimate of MSY was too high and would result in recruitm ent overfishing of the stock. Rejected AI terna tivesfò r Ac tiò ri1 a. No change, MSY to remain at 27 M with a range of 13.5 to 49.1 M. Rationale: Estimated U.S. landings of Spanish mackerel since 1967 were about 15 M unti i they rose to about 23 M in 1977. Since that tim e there has been a general decline to the present Ie vels below 10M, Eldridge (1986). Section 5.4.2.2 Spanish Mackerel: Assessment and Specification of Present and Probable Future Condition is Revised as Follows: 5.4.2.2 Spanish. Mackerel: Assessment and Specification ofP resent and Probable Future Condition The present level of unrestricted catch of Spanish mackerel is about 9M or about half of MSY. Landings have declined in both Gulf and Atlantic. The average size of fish has appeared to decline, especially in the Atlantic (Appendix 1). Recovery of the stock is approximately achieved when the spawning stock biomass is doubled. Continued fishing at a level of about 9M would allow the spawning stock biomass to increase 15 percent in 5 years but not increase after that. A reduction to 3.7 to 4.5M would allow the spawning stock biomass to increase 100 percent in 3 years (Appendix 2). With recent reductions in allowable catch of king mackerel it is likely that both recreational and com m ercial fisherm en wi ii transfer effort to the Spanish mackerel fishery. Without a reduction in allowable catch the fishery can be expected to expand resulting in a decrease in spawning stock biom ass and an eventual further decline in stock. 5 ACTION 2: OY - TAC FOR MACKERELS Section 12.5.1.1 Specification of OY and TAC for Mackerels is revised as follows: 12.5.1.1 Mackerels The long-term goal of optimum yield from mackerels is maximum sustainable yield. The amount of optimum yield which may be harvested annually for each species, defined as total allowable catch (T AC), may vary due to fluctuatin g recruitm ent, fluctuating abundance by area or unit of stock, intensity of fishing effort by area or unit of stock, social, economic, or ecological factors, and improved estimates of MSY. The best available estimates are in millions of pounds: MSY* TAC**ABC RANGE*** King Mackerel Gulf Group At i ant i c Group 26.2 2.9 9.68 1.2 - 2.9 6.9 - 15.4 Spanish Mackerel Gulf Group Atlantic Group 18.0 1.8 2.9 1.6 - 1.8 2.2 - 2.9 * MSY is assessed and specified in Section 5.4. MSY is the level of maximum surplus production of the population. It may be a target or goal which is to be achieved. In order to reach that goal, fishing mortality rate and, thus, the catch must be altered. The annual catch levels specified as a particular strategy for achieving the goal are the TACs. Therefore, MSY is a biologically determined level which may be the target of management, whereas, TAC is the catch level specified solely by management to realize a particular management strategy and goal (J. Powers, 1983, pers. comm.). * * Note: The sum of the Atlantic and Gulf ABCs does not necessarily add up to MSY. If one group is overfished its ABC wi ii be lower than the long-term average; the reverse is true if a group is underfished. Only if both groups are producing exactly at MSY will the sum of the ABCs from both areas equal MSY. *** Acceptable biological catch (ABC) is a biological determination from which T AC is deri ved. Rationale: This action sets the biological base for OY and uses maximum sustainable yield as a goal, not a fixed number. It established the base for flexible management which can address both mackerel species and multiple stocks within each species. The annual amount of OY (T AC) is lim ited within a range (from zero to an upper limit which may not exceed MSY by more than 10 percent and may not exceed the upper range of ABC if overfishing occurs). It is possible to set it extremely low to protect an overfished stock or set it very high to take advantage of exceptionally good recruitm ent. 6 It can protect a stock from overfishing or maintaining a goal of obtaining MSY. restore dep leted stocks whi Ie The TACs specified initially for the amended plan conform in principle to the ABC recommendations made in the report of the Councils' Stock Assessment Panel, March 5-6,1986 (Attachment 1) and a stock assessment review provided by the Southeast Fishery Center (Appendix 2). The king mackerel TACs as specified have been implemented by Notice Action. Because the Stock Assessment Panel focused on issues which could be revised by Notice Action, the T AC recomm endation for Spanish mackerel of 3.7 to 4.5M was for a total U.S. catch. By plan amendment the Council is adopting another recomm endation of the panel, to di vide the stock geographically. The separate T AC s for each group were discussed by the panel and fu rther analyz ed by the Center as being approximately equivalent to the management option for the total U.S. stock. Rapid recoveries are expected on average to increase spawning stock biomass 100 percent in three years according to the Center's analysis (Appendix 2). The Councils set the TACs allowable catch to about 42 years. at the upper range of the AB Cs, a reduction of the percent of the average total landings of the last five These initial TACs reduce the 1985 total catch of 9.4M pounds to 4.7M pounds for three years, with the expectation that the MSY of IBM pounds would be available at that time. Unfortunately, comparable comm ercial and recreational values for both the foregone and increased catches are not available. If the average ex vessel comm ercial price of .30 per pound for Spanish mackerel is taken as a proxy for the true values and a discount rate of 10 percent is assumed, a present value analysis indicates that the unregulated fishery would be worth $28.2 M at present, if it did not decline further. The fishery subjected to a three year reduction in catch with a subsequent return to the IBM pound MSY would have a present value of $44 M. Yields to the comm ercial fishery under some of the various options considered are shown in Table 4. Rejected Alternatives for Action 2 Rejected Alternative 1: mack erel. No Action - TAC (and MSY remains at 27 M for Spanish Rationale: This action would allow the fishery to continue without restraint. MSY however has been determ ined to be IBM and T AC may not exceed MSY by more that ten percent. No action would result in continued overfishing of the stocks. Rejected Alternative 2: Set TAC at MSY,18 M for Spanish mackerel. Rationale: The fishery at about 9 M is currently operating The ultimate goal is to restore the stock to a level at which be achieved. The Stock Assessment Panel recommended restore the stock to tha t Ie vel. well below its MSY. MSY may eventually redu ced catches to 7 Rejected Alternative 3: of AB C. Set TAC for Spanish mackerel at 3.7 M, the lower limit Rationale: This action would be more conservative and would provide for a more rapid recovery of the stock. The cost to current users would be greater due to the lost ca tch (see Table 4). Rejected Alternative 4: Set TAC for Spanish mackerel in the Gulf EEZ at zero. Rationale: This action would close the Gulf EEZ to catching Spanish mackerel. Any catch would have to come from the territorial sea of the states. In the case of Texas and the Florida west coast which have nine-mile territorial seas a large portion of the distribution of Spanish mackerel would be under the regulatory authority of the states. Off states with a three-mile territorial sea much of the resource would become unavailable to fishermen. Rejected Alternative 5: Set TAC for U.S. Spanish mackerel initially at some point at or below upper bound of ABC and allocate by area and user according to recent catch patterns. In subsequent years when the stock assessm ent panel has endorsed separate ABCs for Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups separate TAC's may be implemented by Notice Action. Rationale: The emphasis of the recommendations made by the Councils' Stock Assessment Panel was for procedures which may be taken by Notice Action. The panel suggested an ABC range of 3.7 to 4.5 M for the total U.S. Spanish mackerel stock. The stock may not be divided by Notice Action. The Councils considered various alternati ves for T AC and for allocations based on various ti m e series for which catch data were available. The effects of these options on spawning stock biomass are described in Appendix 2. The Councils sought a TAC which would restore the spawning stock biomass to 100 percent in a reasonable period of tim e and still have a minimum of economic and social impact on the fishermen. The restoration of the spawning stock biomass was of principal importance to conform to the primary objective of the plan to stabilize yield at MSY. The Council deemed the upper level of ABC, 4.5 M pounds to provide an acceptable level of catch which would restore the spawning stock biom ass in three years and still provide a limited fishery. The separate ABC ranges discussed in Appendix 2 are approximately equal to the one ABC range, and the Councils selected the upper range of each for T AC. R ejected A Iternati ve 6: allowable catch. Reduce mortality on sm all fish and increase total Rationale: A combination of management options could allow an increase in TAC (s e e A p pen d i x 2, Tab I e 1). The C 0 u n c i I con sid ere din ere a sin g the m in i mum s i z e limit but determined that retention of 12-inch limit was appropriate (see Action 13). Rejected Alternative 7: 5.1 M. Allow a recovery period of five years and set TAC at 8 Rationale: This would allow an increase of 0.4 M over the preferred option but w ou Id require a Ion ger period of redu ced catch es. The pr es ent va lu e of th is alternati ve is $26.2 million and is about $3 million below the preferred option. This alternative provided by the Southeast Fisheries Center would on the average increase the spawning stock biomass by 100 percent in five years (Coastal Resources Division, 1986). ACTION 3: FISHING YEAR Section 12.2 of Amendm ent 1 is modified as follows with respect to Spanish mack erel: Fishing Year: For the Gulf groups of king and Spanish mackerel the fishing year is July 1 st through June 30th. April 1 st through March 31 st is to be the fishing year for the Atlantic groups. For other species in the fishery the fishing year rem ains January 1 st through December 31 st. Rationale: The calendar year, the fishing year for Spanish mackerel as specified in the original FMP, was convenient because catch statistics are usually presented in that time frame. The comm ercial fishery which is the major user of the fishery lands the great majority of its catch in December, January, and February which straddles fishing years (Table 3). A change to a more appropriate biological year would allow the com m ercial fishery allocation to be set for a fishing season. The change would distribute comm ercial fishing opportunity geographically. In the case of a low com m ercial quota it is possible that the entire quota could be taken in January in Southeast Florida. There is little comm ercial fishing elsewhere throughout the year, but the opportunity for such activity would be provided. A fishing year beginning during the warmer months allows recreational fishing to begin when the fish are widely distributed, giving a fair opportunity to recreational fishermen throughout the migratory range. The magnitudes of the social and economic impacts of changing the fishing year are unknown. However, it is evident that if the fishing year remains on the calendar year basis, the entire com m ercial quota (given the low T AC) could be taken in a couple of counties on the southeast coast of Florida by February, leaving none for other areas. While the commercial activity in other areas is not known to be great, it undoubtedly encompasses a large number of individuals. To meet the spirit of National Standard 4, the fishing year should be set so as not to discriminate against these geographically and temporally disadvantaged users. This seasonal arrangement corresponds to that for king mackerel and thus allows for simultaneous stock assessment and review for preseason adjustment reducing administrative costs. Setting the seasons to be the same as king m(lckerel would facilitate permit application for fishermen. Rejected Alternatives for Action 3 Rejected Alternative 1: No change - Retain the fishing year January 1 st through Decem ber 31 st. Rationale: While this simplifies utilization of annual catch records, the com m ercial fishing season is split in the middle of its most productive period. 9 Setting seasonal quotas for a biological season would be difficult. The entire annual quota could be taken in South Florida in January. If the com m ercial fishing year splits the next productive fishing period, economic theory indicates that, ceteris paribus, competition among fishermen for the available catch will lead to a shortened seasonal "race", with each boat taking as much as it can imm ediately on season opening until the quota is filled. The early part of the normal productive season wil be eliminated due to the filled quota at the beginning of the year. Not only will fishermen in other areas be precluded from obtaining their small share of the quota, but the competition in the intense South Florida fishery is likely to lead to intervessel conflicts on the grounds. Starting the fishing year in an "off" season may not greatly reduce the adverse economic social consequences of the intense competition in the South Florida fishery, but it will preserve more of the normally productive fishing season as well as distribute parts of the quota to areas where the stock is not so concentrated. Rejected Alternative 2: Set a single fishing year for Spanish mackerel for som e period, i.e., April through March, July through June, or June through May. Rationale: Anyone of the above periods which do not divide the peak fishing months would be more suitable than the calendar year. All were considered but rejected in favor of seasons compatible with king mackerel. ACTION 4: DELINEATION OF SPANISH MACKEREL GROUPS A new Section 12.6.2.A is added to read as follows: 12.6.2.A Delineation of Spanish Mackerel Groups 12.6.2.A.l Preferred Delineation of Spanish Mackerel Groups The Dade/Monroe County line (250 20.4' N. latitude) in south Florida is to be the migratory group boundary for Spanish mackerel. Comm ercial fishery landings and recreational catch have historically included Monroe County landings with the Gulf. There are few commercial landings off Dade and Palm Beach Counties and few ports available north of Marathon in Monroe County. Thus, there is a broad area of low catch on either side of this line which will facilitate enforcement. Rationale: While the stock identification for Spanish mackerel is not well defined, there is some evidence of Gulf and South Atlantic subpopulations with a mixing zone off south Florida, Wiliams, Murphy, and Muller (1985). The Councils' Stock Assessm ent Panel basing its recomm endation on evidence from electrophoresis studies, distributional patterns, spawning areas, and the history of exploitation felt a separation of Gulf and Atlantic groups to be appropriate. The Panel suggested the Dade/Monroe County, Florida boundary as being a practical boundary because both recreational and comm ercial catch data for the Gulf and Atlantic have used this boundary. Dade County is the Miami area; while Monroe County includes the Florida Keys. Rejected Alternative for Action 4: 12.6.2.A.2 Rejected Alternative 1: Use the boundary between the Councils dividing Monroe County through the Keys to separate the Spanish mackerel groups. 10 Rationale: This action would allow individual Council management of a migratory group through agreem ent to allow each to manage its own group. Monroe County, Florida, an area of high Spanish mackerel landing has historically been included in Gulf landings in fishery statistics. Recreational catch for Monroe Country cannot be extracted from the Gulf data. Com m ercial catch for Monroe County can be separated roughly to Gulf and Atlantic Areas. In recent years (1981-85) an average of 20 percent of the U.S. com m ercial landings are from Monroe County. If this amount is redistributed between the Gulf and Atlantic (based on the estimates of N MFS statistical agents as in Table 2) and the recreational catch is not divided, the catch ratios between these users changes in the Gulf and Atlantic areas. This procedure unnecessarily complicates the calculations of T ACs. The Stock Assessm ent Group will not likely be able to estimate ABCs based on a U.S. Highway 1 dividing line, but will use the Dade/Monroe line for which the data conform. ACTION S: REVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT OF STOCK ASSESSMENT PANEL Section 12.6.1.1 C is revised as follows: The Councils wil consider the report and recomm endations of the assessm ent group and such public comm ents as are rele vant to the assessm ent group's subm ission. A public hearing wil be held at a time and place where the Counci Is consider the group's report. the Councils may convene the joint Advisory Panel and may convene the Scientific and Statistical Comm ittee to provide advice prior to taking final action. After receiving public input7 Councils wil make findings on the need for changes. Rationale: This section presently requires the convening of the joint Advisory Panel whether or not changes are being proposed. A meeting of the Scientific and Statistical Committee may be held if the Councils choose. A change of the wording gives the Councils more flexibility to convene the Advisory Panels as appropriate. A new Section 12.6.1.4 is added as follows: Section 12.6.1.4 Rejected Alternative 3. Alternative 1: No change in Section 12.6.1.1 C - Councils continue to require annual meetings of the Advisory Panels. Scientific and Statiscial Committee meetings remain at the discretion of the Council. ACTION 6: ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF TAC Section 12.6.1.1, F.2 is revised as follows: Appropriate regulatory changes which may be implemented by the Regional Director by Notice Action (in the Federal Register) include: 2. Setting total allowable catches (T AC's) for each stock or group of fish which should be managed separatelY7 as identified in the FMP provided: 11 a. No T AC may exceed the best point estimate of MSY by more than ten perc ent. No T AC may exceed the upper range of ABC if it results in overfishing as defined in Section 12.6.1.1. A.4. Downward adjustments of TAC of any amount are allowed in order to protect the stock and prevent overfishing. Reductions or increases in allocations as a result changes in the T AC are to be as equitable as may be practical utilizing similar percentage changes to allocations for participants in a fishery. (Changes in bag limits cannot always accommodate the exact desired level of change.) b. c. d. Rationale: A limitation that TAC may not be increased by more than 30 percent in any year has been eliminated as overly restrictive and unnecessary. With this restriction a TAC of zero could never be increased. This limit also would prevent the achievement of OY when stocks increase by preventing a TAC in excess of a 30 percent increase. Item b. is a new requirement that T AC be controlled by the upper range of ABC. It provides flexibility by aiiowing a T AC higher than ABC on underfished stocks. ABC is calculated using a fishing mortality rate of FO.l which is a conservative figure used for rebuilding depleted stocks. Variations in other uncertain parameters are used to provide a range in the ABC. When a stock is in good condition and recruitm ent is high, fishing at FO.l is very conservative and may unnecessarily restrict the yield with a low ABC range. In such a case, fishing above ABC would be permissible within the limit of the surplus production. The following Sections are added: 12.6.1.5 Rejected Alternative 4: increase in T AC in one year. Retain limitation of no more than 30 percent Rationale: This limit was imposed in Amendm ent 1 to provide a reasonable limit for changes by Notice Action. It is unnecessary and overly restrictive by preventing appropriate increase in very low T AC1s. 12.6.1.6 Rejected Alternative 5: No change - TAC may be at any point but may not exceed MS Y by more tha t ten percent. Rationale: This procedure was in conflict with the implementing regulations, and N MFS was reluctant to approve a T AC in excess of ABC or allow modification of regulations. It could allow a T AC which results in recruitm ent overfishing. 12.6.1 .7 ABC. Rejected Alternative 6: Require that T AC be set within the range of Rationale: This would pre.vent overfishing but would deny the Councils the option of setting TAC below ABC if they thought it appropriate. the Councils may determine it to be more appropriate to close a fishery completely for a year to restore it more quickly or to prevent stock collapse. 12.6.1.8 Rejected Alternative 7: limit of ABC. Require that no TAC may exceed the upper 12 Rationale: This option would limit flexibility of the Council options to fish above the ABC range when a strong year class recruits to the fishery. ACTION 7: KING MACKEREL ALLOCATION Section 12.6.3.1 King Mack erel Allocation is am ended as follows: 12.6.3.1 King Mackerel Allocation 1. The T AC's for king mackerel ha ve been divided between recreational and comm ercial fishermen based on catch ratios from 1975 to 1979. 2. The T AC for king mackerel in the Gulf group is to be allocated with 68 percent for the recreational fishermen and 32 percent for the commercial fishermen. 3. The commercial allocation for the Gulf migratory group is divided between eastern and western zones with the separation to be the Florida-Alabama border and extending south. The allocation is divided with 69 percent of the T AC for the eastern zone and 31 percent for the western zone. 4. For the Atlantic group of king mackerel the T AC is allocated with 62.9 percent for recreational and 37.1 percent for comm ercial fisherm en. 5. The initial allocation is to be as follows: Gu If king mackere I TAC = Gulf recreational allocation (6~) Gulf commercial allocation (32%) Eastern zone commerc i a I (69%) Western zone commercial (31%) 2.9 M 1 .97 M 0.93 M 0.64 M 0.29 M At lant i eking mackere I TAC = Atlantic recreational allocation (62.9%) Atlantic commercial allocation (37.1%) 9.68 M 6.09 M 3.59 M Rationale: There is no change in the current ratios of allocation between commercial and recreational fishermen established in Amendment 1. This amendm ent provides a technical deletion of the provision for future readjustment of the ratios of allocations between recreation and com m ercial fisherm en based on all years for which catch data are available. This provision was not approved by NMFS in Amendment 1 and is not applicable. Therefore, the ratios are retained without change. This amendm ent also provides for the deletion of separate allocations for purse seine studies withing the commercial allocations. The use of purse seines for mackerel is prohibited in Action 14 following completion of the study period in 1986. Section 12.6.3.2. is a m ended by addin g: 13 Rejected Alternative 9: Retain purse seine allocations for king mackerel. (Six percent of Gulf group com m ercial allocation but not to exceed 400,000 pounds and 400,000 pounds from the Atlantic group. No more than 400,000 pounds is to come from the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction.) Rationale: the purse seine studies were completed in 1986, and on the basis of the final report the Councils have concluded that the use of purse seines are not warranted in the mackerel fishery. (See Action 9.) ACTION 8: SPANISH MACKEREL ALLOCATION Sections 12.6.3.3 and 12.6.3.4 are deleted and replaced with the following: 12.6.3.3 Spanish Mackerel Allocation 1. Allocation of T AC within each migratory group of Spanish mackerel is to be divided between comm ercial and recreational fishermen based on the average ratio of the catch for the period 1979 through 1985. 2. For the Atlantic group the ratio is to be 76 percent for comm ercial fishermen and 24 percent for recreational fishermen. 3. For the Gulf group the ratio is to be 57 percent for comm ercial fishermen and 43 percent for recreational fishermen. 4. The initial allocation is to be as follows: Gulf Group (ABC range 1.6 - 1.8M) T AC = Comm ercial allocation (5796) = Recreational allocation (4396) = 1.8 1.03 0.17 Atlantic Group T AC = (ABC range 2.2 - 2.9) Comm ercial allocation (7696) = Recreational allocation (2496)= 2.9 M 2.2 M 0.7 M Rätionalè: This allocation uses the average ratio of catches from 1979-1985, the most recent period for which comparable catch statistics are available, to allocate the TAC's (set in Action 2) between recreational and commercial fishermen. The decrease in T AC to restore the fishery requires a limitation of catch. In order to di stribute the catch fairly aJloca tio ns are made for recreational and commercial users. The allocations are to be revised with TAC adjustments using fixed ratios to assure that each group receives its fair share. The present value of the comm ercial fishery under this action is $29.45 million using an ex-vessel price of .30 per pound (Fisheries of the United States, 1985) as a proxy for average value and a sidcount rate of 10 percent. This compares favorably with the present value of $18.6 million for the unregulated fishery (T able 4). 12.6.3.4 Rejected Alternatives to Action 8 14 Rejected Alternative 1: No change. Fishing ceases when the T AC is filled. No allocation is provided among users. Rationale: Fishermen with most advantageous access at the comm encement of the fishing year (by reason of geographic availability or gear efficiency) would have the opportunity to fill the total T AC to the exclusion of other users. Rejected Alternative 2: the initial allocation of Spanish mackerel is as follows: Gulf Group T AC = (49%) Com m ercial allocation (60%) Recreational allocation (40%) 2.2 M 1.32 M 0.88 M Atlantic Group T AC = (51 %T AC) Comm ercial allocation (74%) Recreational allocation (26%) 2.3 M 1.7 M 0.6 M Rationale: This ratio of allocation uses catch data for the past five years, 1981 1985, based on a division of the stock into migratory units at the Dade/Monroe County line. The T AC's are allocated both geographically and to user groups using a U.S. TAC set at the upper level of the ABC range of 3.7 - 4.5 M. the Councils determined that the preferred option using separate ABC ranges was a more technically sound procedure for setting T AC's for migratory groups. Rejected Alternative 3: The initial allocation of Spanish mackerel is based on division of groups at the Council boundary is as follows: Gulf Group TAC = (44% TAC) 1.98 M Comm ere i a I a i i 0 cat ion (5 5%) 1 .09 M Recreational allocation (45%) 0.89 M Atlantic Group TAC = (56% TAC) 2.52 M Commercial allocation (76%) 1.92 M R e ere a t ion a i a i I 0 cat ion ( 24% ) o. 6 M Rationale: This ratio of allocation uses catch data for the past five years but separates the migratory groups at the Council boundary and divides the commercial landings of Monroe County between Gulf and Atlantic. The recreational catch remains separated at the Dade/Monroe County line because there is no way to further subdivide the data. This option was eliminated when the Councils chose to separate the migratory groups at the Dade/Monroe County line in Action 4. Rejected Alternative 4: A combination of an allowable catch of 4.3 to 5.1 million pounds with no fish killed under 14 inches would allow the 100 percent recovery of the spawning stock biomass in three years and 125 percent recovery in five years. U .S. T A C = 5.1 M * Gulf T AC (49%) = 2.5 M Commercial Allocation (60%) = 1.5 M Recreational Allocation (40%) = 1.0 M 15 Atlantic T AC (51 %) = 2.6 M Com m ercial Allocation (74%) = 1.92 M Recreational Allocation (26%) = 0.68 M *Based on Dade/Monroe boundary, allocations on 1981-1985 catches. Rationale: This option provides virtually the sam e reco very tim e as the 4.5 M T AC. If the Councils choose options for a 14 inch fork minimum size or a 14 inch minimum size for recreational fishermen with a minimium gill net mesh size for commercial fishermen, this option becomes available. This alternative was rejected by the retention of the 12 inch minimum size limit in Action 13. The benefits are dependent on adoption of the larger (l4-inch) siz e limit by the States. Most of the recreational fishery occurs in state waters, and it is unlikely that they would adopt this measure. Therefore, the lower T AC is a more conservative action given the reality of the situation. ACTION 9: PU RSE SEINE ALLOCATION Section 12.6.3.6 Purse Seine Allocation is revised as follows: 12.6.3.6 No allocation of king and Spanish mackerel is made for purse seines and the use of purse seines for these species is prohibited execpt for incidental catch allo wane es. A bycatch of no more than one percent of king mackerel or ten percent of Spanish mackerel by weight or number7 whichever is less7 is allowed in purse seines. This bycatch is to be counted in the comm ercial quota7 and when the quota is filled7 no more of that species may be landed for sale. When a stock or migratory groups of overfished mackerel recovers to the level that it can produce MSY and when traditional comm ercial fisherm en are not taking their allocation7 the Councils wil re-evaluate the use of purse seines at that time. The Councils consider the prohibition of the use of purse seines to be severable with respect to the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. Rationale: The stocks of king and Spanish mackerels are stressed with restrictions placed on catch of all migratory groups in order to rebuild the stocks. Traditional participants in the fishery have faced lim ited bag lim its and seasonal closures. The one exception is in the fishery of the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. The seasonal commercial quotas for this group have not yet been filled though the total catch is approaching its T AC. The Counci Is are concerned there may be a shift of effort to this group as fisherm en are restricted from fishing other groups of mackerel. There is no traditional use or indeed no known record of any purse seine fishery on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. The use of purse seines to take mackerel was essentially prohibited by regulation in most states and by Florida fishermen anywhere when introduced at the insistence of N MFS with implementation of the mackerel plan in 1983. A limited catch was provided for study purposes. At the end of the three-year study, the Councils were to decide on the future of the special allocation. 16 The study has shown that all directed purse seine catches were made off Florida. All king mackerel were from the Gulf group, and most Spanish mackerel were from the Atlantic group. Some incidental catch of Spanish mackerel was made off Louisiana. The catches since the introduction of the use of purse seines for king mackerel have been relatively declining in spite of small allocations in recent years (Tables 5 and 6). The purse seine fishery is minor and is an opportunistic fishery for mackerels. As an efficient gear, it has, however, the potential for taking a major portion of the comm ercial quota in a short time. The largest catch was 66,600 pounds of Spanish mackerel off Ft. Pierce. Catches during the study amounted to less than three percent of the comm ercial catch of Gulf group king mack erel and less than three percent of the com m ercial catch of Spanish mackerel. Subsequent to the study in 1986, purse seine catch was 296,000 pounds in quota of 300,000 pounds. The Councils reviewed the results of the three-year purse seine study, Fable and Nakamura (1986), for which the temporary allocation was made. They reported the annual landings by purse seines never equaled their annual quota, and even the aggregate landings for the entire period from March 1983 through March 1986 have not equaled the first year's king mackerel quota. The Councils concluded that the allocation and use of purse seines for mackerels should be discontinued because: 1 . Purse seine boats are not historic participants in the mackerel fishery, not having been used since 1969, until introduced in federal waters in 1983 for study purposes. The mackerel fishery appears to be only an opportunistic fishery for purse seines with mackerel being taken in 48 of the 305 purse seine trips (16 percent) reported by Fable and Nakamura, 1986. 2. It is imprudent and unfair to introduce a new user group into a stressed fishery while existing, historic users are forced to limit catches because of reduced allocations. As stocks recover and traditional com m ercial fisherm en are not taking their allocation, this issue will be reconsidered. The effect of commercial closures and resulting transfer to other mackerel fisheries and migratory groups is not clear at this time. 3. The Councils are allocating the resource fairly based on traditional use to the greatest number of fishermen. 4. The use of purse seines for mackerel is inconsistent with the management procedures in all adjacent state waters. 5. Given that the low purse seine quotas have remained untaken while other commercial king mackerel fisheries have been and assuredly will be closed on reaching their quotas, it is obvious that the marginal value of a fish allocated to the traditional com m ercial fisheries is higher than that of a fish allocated to the purse seine fisheries (See SFI, in press for the economic condition for optimal allocation). Thus, the economic value of the commercial quota would be increased by reallocating the small, unused purse seine quota to the 17 traditional comm ercial fishermen. Rejected Alternatives for Action 9 Section 12.6.3.7 is revised as follows: 12.6.3.7 Rejected Alternative 1: purse seines. No change, continue a special allocation for Rationale: The purse seine allocation comes from the commercial allocation and is unavailable to other com m ercial fisherm en. The purse seine fishery during the study period failed each year to take its quota even though other comm ercial king mackerel fishermen filled their own quotas and had to cease fishing. The special purse seine allocation is a loss to traditional comm ercial fishermen. Rejected Alternative 2: Do not specify a separate allocation for purse seines and allow them to fish under the comm ercial quota. Rationale: While purse seine catches have been relatively small, they have the potential of taking large quantities of mackerel in a short period of time. This catch would be taken at the expense of traditional commercial mackerel fishermen already fishing under severely reduced quotas. ACTION 10: PERMITS Section 12.6.4 Permits is revised as follows: 12.6.4 Perinits 12.6.4.1 A Comm ercial Vessel Permits Annual permits are required for vessel fishing under the comm ercial quota on king or Spanish mackerel. These vessels are exempt from the recreational bag limit. All fishermen who apply for permits must be able to show they derived more than ten percent of their earned income from comm ercial fishing~ i.e.~ the sale of onels catch during the previous calendar year. Vessels fishing a group for which comm ercial permits are issued and which do not possess a permit are presumed to be recreational boats and are subject to recreational bag limits. Qualifying Charterboats may obtain commercial permits to fish under the comm ercial quotas but must adhere to bag limits when under charter or when more than three persons are aboard. Permits are issued for an April through March permit year and are available at any time and are valid through the following March. Permits valid for the following permit year become available in February. Permits are transferable on sale of vessel with new owner being responsible for changing name and address. The new owner or operator must be able to show that ten percent or more of his earned income was derived from comm ercial fishing 18 the previous calendar year. Boats with permits must cease fishing for that group or zone for mackerel when its comm ercial quota is reached and the season closed. Charterboats with comm ercial permits may continue to fish under the bag limit. A fee may be charged for the permit. but shall not exceed adm inistrative costs incurred in issuing the permits. Fees are expected to be less than ten dollars. The vessel's official num ber is to be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from enforcement vessels and aircraft. The number is to be in black arabic numerals at least 18 inches in height for vessels over 65 feet in length and 10 inches in height for all other vessels. 12.6.4.1 B Charterboat P errrits Annual permits are required for charter boats fishing for coastal migratory pelagics for hire. Charter boats normally fish under bag limits but may also be eligible to obtain comm ercial permits to fish under the comm ercial quota when not under charter. Permits are issued for an April through March permit year. are available at any time. and are valid through the following March. Permits for the following permit year become available in February. Rationale: This action makes no change in the commercial permit requirements for king mackerel. It provides for availability of permits throughout the year. It brings the amended FMP into conformance with changes made subsequently by Notice Action. New requirements under this action are for a commercial permit for vessels fishing for Spanish mackerel under the comm ercial quota and for charterboat permits for vessels fishing for hire for coastal migratory pelagics. The same need for comm ercial permits applies to Spanish mackerel vessels as did for king mackerel vessels under allocation of a reduced T AC. It is the Councilsl intent that the reductions in allocations made from within the T AC's be fair and equitable. This is to be accomplished by restricting the users other than charter boats to one or the other allocation. It will also provide further assurance that the T AC is not exceeded. The Councils believe that requiring 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 on fishermen while still maintaining the catch within TAC. In 1986 there were 1,216 permits issued for Atlantic and 771 for Gulf commercial king mackerel boats. There are duplications in permits for the two areas, howe ver. The limitation of quota permits to comm ercial fishing vessels is not intended as economic distribution; rather it is to be a means of achieving an equitable reduction in catch by both recreational and comm ercial fishermen. The allocations are based on recent catch ratios. In order to prevent large numbers of recreational fishermen from fishing under the commercial permit system, not 19 selling their catches, and causing T AC to be exceeded through this uncounted catch, the permit is limited to commercial fishermen. The ten percent of earned income from commercial fishing was judged by the Councils to be sufficient to include those who may be partially dependent on social security, retirem ent benefits, or investments. New entrants in the mackerel fishery may establish eligibility with a record of income from other commercial fishing and bag limit sales. King and Spanish mackerel taken under the bag limit may be sold until the com m ercial quota for that group or zone is closed. Danville Research Associates estimated the Spanish mackerel commercial fishery to consist of 188 small and 121 power assisted net boats in 1983. By the 1985-86 season the number of the latter declined to less than 50 according to testimony presented to the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, Williams (1986). These are located in south Florida and are the source of the great majority of the com m ercial catch. Most vessels also fish for king mack erel. The Magnuson Act provides that a permit fee may be charged but that it not exceed adm inistrative costs of issuing the perm it. It is expected that this wi II be less than ten dollars per permit if any fee is changed. Charter boats are treated separately with the ability to fish both with commercial permit under that quota and under the recreational allocation. Charter boats also may have more liberal bag limits (Gulf king mackerel). The number of charter boats in the area is believed to be about 1,500 ,Burgess (1986); however, all may not fish for coastal pelagics. The annual catch by this major user group and relation to comm ercial sales is not fully understood. Atte mpts to identify vessel owners or operators have been unsuccessful. There is a high turnover among operators, and there is no licensing program by which most charter fishing boats may be identified. A perm it system for this group would identify the users and make possible an estimate of their use of the resource. Arne n d See t ion 1 2.6.4.2 Rejected by adding: Alternative Permit Requirements Considered and Rejected Alternative 6: pel a g i c s. Require permits for all vessels fishing for coastal Rationale: Requiring that all vessels fishing for coastal pelagics have permits would provide a universe for data gathering and would, if separate permits are required, identify recreational and comm ercial boats. The public cost of operation and analysis of the system would be large and not cost effective. It would duplicate some states' licensing programs. Rejected A Iternati ve 7: Require no perm its. Rationale: Permits are an imposition, and some vessel owners may forget to obtain them. The use of a permit system is, however, intended to allocate the resource fairly and to prevent exceeding quotas and T AC. It would be difficult to enforce a recreational bag limit when the commercial season is open. The acquisition of a free permit is a very small imposition to pay for comm ercial use of a public resource. R ejected A Iter nati ve 8: Status Quo, permits required only for commercial king 20 mackerel boats. Rationale: Allocation of Spanish mackerel between comm ercial and recreational fishermen becomes very difficult when the users are not identified. Charter boats would remain an unknown entity with special allocation privileges but whose catch and sales are not know n. ACTION 11: SEASONAL CLOSU RES Section 12.6.5, Seasonal Closures is revised as follows: 12.6.5 SeasonalC losures 12.6.5.1 Boats with commercial permits for mackerel must cease fishing in the EEZ for the species within a migratory group or zone for the remainder of the fishing year when the comm ercial quota for that species is reached for that zone. Charter boats with comm ercial permits may continue to fish under recreational bag limits; however mackerel caught within a zone after its quota is reached may not be sold. Commercial quotas may be adjusted by Notice Action in accord with Section 12.6.3, Allocations. The initial comm ercial quotas for mackerel are specified in Section 12.6.3 under Actions 7 and 8. Rationale: Seasonal closure procedures now applicable to king mackerel are extended to apply to Spanish mackerel in order to restrict commercial fishermen to their quotas. (Atlantic king mackerel were previously included by Notice Action.) The closure of the comm ercial permit fishery when the quota is reached wil require coordinated closure by adjacent states in order for this measure to be effective. States will be requested to adopt similar measures so that the fishery may be closed in the territorial sea as well as in the EEZ when the quota is filled for a season. Sections 12.6.5.2 and 12.6.5.3 are deleted. These sections provided separate mechanisms for closures of Spanish and Atlantic king mackerel. These have been revised and are included in the new Section 12.6.5.1. Section 12.6.5.4 is renumbered as Section 12.6.5.1 and an additional Alternative 3 is added as follows: Rejected Alternative 3: No Action - All fishing for Spanish mackerel is to cease when the T AC is reached. Rationale: Prior to establishment of allocations among users and division of the stocks, this procedure would have limited total catch to TAC. With separate allocations it no longer becomes necessary to close the entire fishery when an a II 0 ca tion is fi lie d. 21 AC TIO N 12: BAG LI MITS Section 12.6.6.1 is revised: 12.6.6.1 King and Spaii ish Mackerel Bag Limits The recreational allocation of mackerels wil be controlled by bag limits for anglers per boat trip. Different bag limits may be set for anglers on charter or private recreation vessels. The bag limit is intended to reduce the recreational catch and distribute fairly throughout the fishing year. If overfishing as defined in Section 12.6.1.1. A4 is occurring in a stock or group of fish. the bag limit for that group wil revert to 0 when its quota is caught. The initial bag limits proposed by this amendm ent are: o Gulf Migratory Group King Mackèrel Private recreation boats: 2 per person per trip Charterboats: 3 per angler excluding captain and crew or 2 per person all inclusive per triP. whichever is greater. o A tlanticGroup K irìg Mackerel All recreational boats: 3 per person per trip. o Spanish Mackerel Action deferred and to be implemented by notice action. Rationale: No changes are made in the king mackerel bag lim its which are presently in effect. They are based on percent reductions des cribed in the amended FMP and by Eldridge and Powers, 1983. This action does clarify the intent of the Councils that the recreational catch be term inated (i.e., reversion of the bag limit to 0) when the recreational allocation is filled on a mackerel group which is overfished. This action is conservative in that it provides a safeguard to prevent overfishing the allocation and T AC. It is recommended for mackerels because of the poor condition of the stocks. It protects the stocks perhaps to the disadvantage of some fisherm en. An early closure of the season could result in exclusion of opportunity to retain fish in some geographical areas and could interrupt scheduled fishing tournaments. It is Councils' intent to distribute the recreational allocation of Spanish mackerel so that the catch can be apportioned fairly to all users throughout the geographic range of the management area. The use of a bag limit to restrict the recreational catch to an allocation can be a fair and efficient method of reducing catch. Recent recreational catch ratios may be used to estimate the percent reduction in catch resulting from a specific bag limit. This procedure was previously used to reduce king mackerel recreational catches to a quota as proposed by Eldridge and Powers (1983). Data from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey were used to estimate percentage reduction in Spanish mackerel recreational catch by various bag limits. 22 The Councils wil receive the annual report of their stock assessment panel in April of 1987. They will review the recommendations of the panel and take appropriate action to adjust T AC and revise allocations in accord with ratios specified in Section 12.6.3.3. Bag limits to distribute and restrict recreational catch are to be set at that time by notice action. If the TAC for Spanish mackerel remains unchanged from the initial allocation as specified in Section 12.6.3.3, the following is an example of a method to reduce the recreational catch through the use of bag lim its. If the 1985 recreational catch (Tabe 2) is used as proxy for current unregulated catch, the percent reduction to achieve the proposal recreational allocations are: For the Gulf group 1985 recreational catch Allocation Percent reduction needed =2.0 M =0.77 M 61 %= For the Atlantic group 1985 recreational catch Allocation Percent redu ction needed =1.2 =0.7 42% M M = Tables 7A, 7B, or similar procedures may be used to reduce the recreational catch by the desired amount. Section 12.6.6.2 Alternative Bag Limits considered and Rejected is amended by adding new Rejected Alternatives: Rejected Alternative 10: Status Ouo for Spanish mackerel, i.e., no bag limit. Ratiònale: With the specification of a reduced T AC for Spansih mackerel it becomes necessary to allocate amoung users if everyone is to have an opportunity to fish. Without a bag limit those recreational fishermen with forst access to fish could quickly fill the quota before fishermen in other areas had access. Rejected Alternative 11: Limit the recreational fishery only by a bag limit estimated to reduce the seasonal catch to the desired level. Rationale: This option has the advantage of providing a consistent fishery through a season. It distributes the allocation to all recreational fishermen. It also runs the risk of exceeding the allocation if the bag limit is overestimated or is fishing pressure is greater than anticipated. It any, however, be reduced to the appropriate level the following year. It would prevent reversion of the bag limit to zero for the latter part of a season, there by allowing scheduled fishing tournam ents during that period. Alternative 12: A uniform bag limit is to be established for each migratory group. Rationale: Consistent bag lim its would be in effect throughout the ranges of a migratory group. The local effect of a bag limit may vary, however, due to variations in fishing effort and local availability of fish. 23 R Alternative 13: A bag limit different for Florida than other states; i.e., four fish for Florida and 10 fish for other states. Rationale: On October 30,1986, Florida implemented a recreational bag limit of four fish to reduce mortality by an estimated 45 percent based on 1979-1984 catches. Consistent bag limits in Florida and adjacent federal waters would enhance enforcem ent by enabling dockside check of catches. . Most of the total U.S. catch of Spanish mackerel will continue to be landed in Florida because of the larger recreational and commercial fisheries in that state. Florida's efforts to reduce comm ercial catches could shift considerable effort to the recreational fishery for the large overw intering schools off that states. It is likely that a decline in the mackerel stocks began with the large catches made off Florida in the mid 1970's. Florida fishermen (comm ercial and recreational) catch the vast majority of Spanish mackerel, and the commercial harvest outside of Florida is minimal. The differential bag limit will insure that Florida fishermen do not harvest a disporportionate share of the Spanish mackerel resource.. In addition the four-fish bag limit in Florida corresponds to existing Florida law thus providing dockside enforcem ent. State directors from states other than Florida indicate they may be able to implement a ten-fish bag limit in state waters but that a four-fish limit would be next to impossible to implem ent at the state level. While the estimated reduction in catch from the 10/4 bag limit alone may not achieve the target allocation, a reversion of the bag lim it to 0 on filling the quota will prevent overfishing. ACTION 13: SPANISH MACKEREL SIZE LIMITS No Change: Minimum size limit for Spanish mac;kerel is to remain 12 inches fork length or 14 inches total length. An undersized catch of up to five percent by weight of the boat catch of Spanish mackerel is allowed. Section 12.6.7.1 remains unchanged. Amend Section 12.6.6.3 by adding a new rejected alternative as follows: Rejected Alternative 4: A minimum Spanish mackerel size of 14-inch fork length for recreational fisherm en. Rationale: The FMP provides for a minimum size limit of 12 inches fork length or 14 inches total length for Spanish mackerel which corresponds to a fish less than one year old and at a weight of 0.5 pounds. Female mackerel grow faster and attain a larger size than males. Som e age i fern ales (14 inches, Florida) apparently spawn and age ii (18.6 inches, Florida) fish likely make a significant contribution to the stock. 24 The Councils considered advantages of increased yield by increasing the 12-inch minimum size limit. A change was rejected because fish available from piers and small boats in state waters are usually smaller fish. The Councils had requested states to adopt the 12 inch lim it, and several have done so. It is unlikely that further changes would be adopted by those states. The larger comm ercial fishery is directed at larger siz e fish. The comm ercial fishery targets fish of 1.25 pounds and above (16 inches, FL) and uses 3-1/2 inch stretch gill nets. Larger fish may bring a slightly higher price per pound over the usual 27 to 34 cents ex-vessel price paid. The report of the Stock Assessm ent Panel has said that yield per recruit can be maxim iz ed with a mini mum si z e of 18 inches. There would be a short ru n reduction of 10 percent but spawning stock could double in five years. The Southeast Fisheries Center has estimated that a 25 percent increase in spawning stock biomass would occur in five years as a result of no fish under 14 inches being killed (Coastal Resources Division, 1986). Almost all of the commercial catch is made by gill net, and mesh size regulation does not provide a knife-edge control of fish size. Thus, a minimum size lim it could result in discard and waste of a portion of the catch unless som e tolerance was provided. The Gulf Mackerel Advisory Panel recomm ended that the comm ercial size be regulated by net mesh size and that the recreational fishery be regulated by a bag Ii m it. ACTION 14: PU RSE SEINES FOR KING AND SPANISH MACKEREL Section 12.6.8.2 is am ended as follows: 12.6.8.2 Purse Seines for King and Spanish Mackerel The use of purse seines to take king and Spanish mackerel is prohibited. Rationale: the rationale for this measure is provided in Action 9 (Section 12.6.3.6) Purse Seine Allocation. An allowable bycatch is provided in that section. ACTION 15: SPANISH MACKEREL GILL NETS A new Section 12.6.8.4 is added as follows: 12.6.8.4 Spanish Mackerel Gil Nets Minimum mesh size may not be less than 31/2 inches stretched mesh. Rationale: See discussion in item 13 regarding Spanish mackerel size. Gill net studies conducted by N MFS, Trent et.al. (1983), found gill nets with 3 1/2-inch and larger mesh took few Spanish mackerel under 14 inches and practically none smaller than 12 inches. This mesh size will direct comm ercial catch to preferred com m ercial size. 25 Florida has set 3 1/2-inch mesh for its east coast, 3 3/8-inch mesh for its southwest coast, and three inches for its northwest coast. This applies to the monofilament portion of Spanish mackerel nets. There are about 50 power assisted Spanish mackerel net boats in the Florida fishery, (Williams, 1986). N MFS port agents estimate approximately 40 to 50 in Monroe County and 17 in the Port Solerno - Fort Pierce area with some duplication numbers. Florida's territorial jurisdiction extends three nautical miles off its east coast and 9 nautical miles off its west coast. The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission has estimated that the percent catch of Spanish mackerel in state waters is 60 percent on the east coast, 90 percent on the southwest coast, and 100 percent off the Panhandle. Thus, where there is a substantial EEZ fishery, the mesh conforms to those allowable in state waters. A new Section 12.6.8.5 is added as follows: 12.6.8.5 Alternatives to Regulation of Spanish mackerel nets. Rejected Alternative 1: Minimum mesh size may not be less that 3 1/2 inches stretched mesh after (April, 1988) or (October, 1988). Rationale: The Gulf Councils' advisory panel has recommended the April date effective at the end of the 1987-88 season, and Florida has adopted the October da te effecti ve prior to the 88-89 season to go to 3 5/8 inches throughout the State. This opportunity to phase out smaller mesh nets allows fishermen to amortize the cost of smaller mesh nets made obsolete. There are some 50 power block vessels in the fishery. The cost of a replacement net is about $18,000. If half of the vessels have undersize mesh, imm ediate replacement costs would be $450,000. The nets may, however, be used in some state waters until October 1 988. Rejected Alternative 2: No Change - No regulation of mesh size, size of fish to be regulated only by a minimum length. Rationale: Fishermen using a small mesh would have an excessive bycatch of small fish especially if the minimum fish size is increased. This would result in discard and waste and growth overfishing of the resource. Rejected Alternative 3: Prohibit the use of gill nets on weekends. Rationale: Florida has proposed this restriction in order to reduce effort and to reduce conflict among users. The Councils rejected this option because the comm ercial fishery has already been restricted to a quota. ACTION 16: ADD A NEW OBl ECTIVE TO the FMP No Action. Amend Section 12 as follows by adding: o b j e c ti v e s. See t ion 1 2.4.1 Rejected A Iternati ve R ejected A Iternati ve 1: of the early 1970s. Restore the Spanish mackerel fisheries to the condition 26 Rationale: The Councils proposed the objective as a means to direct efforts to restoration of the stocks. They noted that fishing effort and fishing areas have changed in the last 16 years so that the earlier conditions are impractical to restore. The present primary objective of this FMP is to stabilize yield at MSY, allow recovery of overfished populations and maintain population levels sufficient to ensure adequa te recruitm ent. ACTION 17: Reconsider an alternative to Section 12.6.2.1. Delineation of king mackerel migratory group to establish the winter boundary from the FlaglerlVolusia to the Volusia/Brevard County line. No action. Amend Section 12.6.2 by adding a new rejected alternative as follows: Rejected Alternative 12.6.2.7. Rejected Alternative 6. king mackerel at the Volusia/Brevard county line. Set winter boundary for Rationale: Preliminary results of 1985 tagging studies support those that believe the winter fishery off Volusia county are Atlantic fish. All recoveries of fish tagged in that area have thus far come from the Atlantic side of Florida. The study however is incomplete at this time. the average king mackerel landings in Volusia county 1981-1985, are 265 thousand pounds. Moving the line would require a recalculation of the T AC's for the migratory groups and transfer of allowable catch from the Gulf to the Atlantic group. Because the Councils are to convene a stock identification workshop on mackerel in early 1987, this action is postponed for further study. V. Enviro om ental. Consequ ences The actions proposed in this amendment have no adverse impact on the physical environm ent. The effect of these actions is to reduce catches temporality in order to restore the spawning biomass of Spanish and king mackerels to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields. Present yields of Spanish mackerel are about 9 M whereas MSY is estimated to be 18 M. Recruitment of king mackerel has declined severely, and prior to Amendment No.1 to the FMP the fishery was producing only about 18 million pounds with MSY estimated to be 26.2M. Spanish mackerel catches are to be reduced by about 50 percent from about 9 M to 4.7 M beginning in 1987. the expected result is the rapid rebuilding of the stock with the biomass to be doubled in three years. Continued fishing of Spanish mackerel at current effort levels would result in further degradation of the spawning stock, loss of recruitment, and a continued decline in catch. 27 iv. Economic and social impacts include the short term loss of yield. Using a discount rate of 10 percent yields a present ex-vessel value of the unregulated commercial fishery of $18 M, assuming that catches continue indefinitely at a level of 6.2 M pounds per year instead of declining as expected. Quota restrictions on the comm ercial fishery would reduce annual landings from about 6.2 M in 1985 to about 3 M. The average ex-vessel value of the catch is about 30 cents per pound yielding a short term loss of $960,000 per year to the comm ercial fishery. The Stock Assessment Panel estimated that the spawning stock biomass would double in three years, and presumably the MSY of 18 M would be available at that time. If com m ercial catches are reduced to 3 M pounds per year for three years and then return to 12 M pounds per year (two-thirds of an 18 M pound MSY) for posterity, then the present ex-vessel value of the catch stream is $ 29.3 M (T able 4). Clearly, the comm ercial fishery benefits from proposed actions. If marginal valuations for the recreational catch were available comparable to ex-vessel price (or, better, consumer price), a similar analysis would be possible for the recreational catch stream. While the absolute magnitudes of the present values of the catches with and without the action would doubtless vary from the commercial values, a similar result would hold in terms of benefit from the action. The proposed actions have no anticipated impact on threatened or endangered species or on marine mammals. A Section (7) consultation was held for the FMP with a "no jeopardy opinion" being rendered. The proposed actions do not alter provisions of the FMP that would affect these animals. Conclusions o Mitigating Measures Related to the Proposed Action None. o Unavoidable Adverse Effects None. o Relationship Betw eenL ocal, Short-Term.Users of the R esou rce and Enhancement ofL ong- Term ProdUctivity The reduction in allowable catch of Spanish mackerel from current levels of about 9 M to 4.7 M will substantially reduce the harvest of both com m ercial and recreational fishermen for the imm ediate period but should provide for recovery of the stocks within a few years. the stock is presently producing about half of its potential MSY; because it has been overfished. Allowing the stocks to rebuild, should restore total harvest to about 18 M. o Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources None. o Enforcement Costs Updated enforcement costs for management measures of this amended plan are estimated to be $58,000 annually if sates adopt compatible regulations for their 28 jurisdiction and $132,000 if they do not. These costs include enforcement of existing regulations and a small percent increase for addition of new Spanish mackerel measures. RECOMM END ATION I have determined that the proposed actions will not significantly affect the hum an environm ent. App ro ved: Title Date Comm ents on this Draft are to be received by the responsible agencies before . .. , 1987. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 (813) 228-2815 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Southpark Building, Suite 306 1 Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407 (803) 571-4366 LIST OF AGEN CIES AND PERSONS CONSUL TED Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery M ana gem ent Councils Scientific and Statistical Comm ittees Mack erel Advisory Panels Mack erel Stock Assessm ent Panel Coastal Zone M anagem ent Program s North Carolina South Carolina Florida A labam a Mississippi Louisiana National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Center Fisheries Management Division, Southeast Regional Office United States Coast Guard 29 LIST OF PREP ARERS Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Terrance Leary, Biologist Paul G. Hooker, Ph.D., Economist South Atlantic Fishery m anagem ent Cou ncil Gregg W au gh, Biologist LOCATION AND DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS September 29,1986: Corpus Christi, Texas September 30,1986 Houma, Louisiana October 1, 1986 Biloxi, Mississippi October 2,1986: Tampa, Florida October 6, 1986 Key West, Florida October 7,1986 Ft. Pierce, Florida October 8,1986 Daytona Beach, Flori da October 9, 1986 Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Oct 0 b e r 1 0, 1 986 Myrtle Beach, South Carolina October 14,1986 Kure Beach, North Carolina October 15,1986 Atlantic Beach, North Carolina October 16,1986 Manteo, North Carolina October 27, 1986 St. Simons, Georgia LITERA TURECITE D Burgess, E. 1986. Personal communication. Edward Burgess, NMFS,Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. Coastal Resources Division. 1986. King and Spanish Mackerel Managements Options. M iam i Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Unpublished document. September 26,1986. Eldridge, P. 1985. Com m ercial and Recreational Fisheries Statistics for Spanish Mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus, in the Southeastern United States. report. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. Draft . 1986. Estimated of Spanish Mackerel MSY Using Stock Production and Yield Per Recruit Methods. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. 30 Eldridge, P. and J. Powers. 1983. Effect of Potential Bag Limits on Recreational Catch of King Mackerel. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. Fable, W. A. Jr. and E. L. Nakamura. 1986. Observations on Purse-Seined Mackerels, March 1983 - March 1986. Final Report. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Panama City Laboratory. Nichols, S. 1986a. Virtual Population Analysis Techniques Applied to the Spanish Mackerel Fishery. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. ~ 1986b. Updated Assessment Information for King Mackerel. N MFS, Southeast F ish e r i e s C en t e r, Mia m i, F lor i d a. Powers, J. 1983. Personal communication. C en t e r, Mia m i, F lor i d a. Joseph Powers, N M FS, Southe ast Fisheries 1986. Memorandum to Mackerel Stock Assessment Paneli May 23,1986. NMFS, Southeast Fish er i es C en ter, Mia m i, Flori da. Sport Fishing Institute. A research agenda for the Economics of the King Mackerel Fishery. Unpublished manuscript. Trent, L., C. H. Saloman and S. P. Naughton. 1983. Selectivity of Gill Nets on Spanish Mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus, King Mackerel, S. cavalla, and Bluefish, Pomatomus saltiitrix. Williams, R. 1986. Personal communication. Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. Roy Williams, Florida Department of Williams, R. 0., M. D. Murphy and R. G. Muller. 1985. A Stock Assessment of the Spanish Mackerel, Scomberomorus rnaciilatlls, in Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. 31 TABLE I Annual Catch Estimates For King Mackerel In Pounds (Through October 1985) From Nichols (1986b) Gu i f Mi gratory Group July ~ JunePishing Yeat OOMME RC i AL Tota I West Zone East Zone Total Recr eat i onal u.s. Gulf 1981-82 0 5996433 5996433 8564018 14560451 1982-83 1272625 3485186 4757811 3269797 8026608 1983-84 529165 2599873 3129038 2750942 5879980 1984-85 902887 2419544 3322431 3906242 7228673 1985-86* 137876 7163 145039 1364416 1509455 Atlantic Migratory Group April ..March Fishing Year . Comnerc i a I Recr eat i ona I Total Atlantic 1981-82 2567044 5649584 8216628 1982-83 4225567 5456806 9682393 1983-84 2592358 10047380 12639736 1984-85 2070650 8064796 10135446 1985-86* 1920844 7491826 9412670 32 TABLE I Annual Catch Estimates For King Mackerel In Pounds (Through October 1985) From Nichol s (1986b) Gu If Mi gratory Group July - June Fishing Year COM\ RC i AL Tota I West Zone East Zone Total Recreational U ~S. Gu I f 1981-82 0 5996433 5996433 8564018 14560451 1982-83 1272625 3485186 4757811 3269797 8026608 1983-84 529165 2599873 3129038 2750942 5879980 1 984-85 902887 2419544 3322431 3906242 7228673 1985-86* 137876 7163 145039 1364416 1509455 Atlantic Migratory Group Apri I-March Fishing Year . Comn e r cia i Recreational Total Atlantic 1981-82 2567044 5649584 8216628 . 1982-83 4225567 5456806 9682393 1983-84 2592358 10047380 12639736 1984-85 2070650 8064796 10135446 1985-86* 1920844 7491826 9412670 32 T A B L E 2 ( S o u u : e : E s t i m a t e d C a t c h o f S p a n i s h M a c k e r e l 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 5 E l d r i d g e ( 1 9 8 6 ) a n d N M S S t a t i s t i c s f o r 1 9 8 5 a n d M o n r o e C o u n t y ) T h o u s a n d s o f P o u n d s G U L F O F r .X i r o 'A T L A N T IC ( I n c l u d i n g M o n r o e C o u n t y ) M on ro e. U .S . C o u n t y G ra nd Y ea r C o m n e rc I a I R e cr e a t I o n a I T ot al C o m n e rc i a I C o m n e rc I a I R ec re at io na l T ot al T o ta I 19 81 3, 7 09 2, 87 1 6, 58 0 2, 21 3 4, 22 7 1 , 7 2 9 5 , 9 5 6 12 ,5 36 19 82 3, 45 5 1 , 3 4 2 4, 7 97 2, 28 4 3, 95 1 2, 35 7 6, 30 8 1 1 , 1 0 4 19 83 2 , 2 6 6 3 , 1 6 2 5, 42 8 1, 31 7 5, 98 9 20 8 6 , 1 9 7 1 1 , 6 2 6 19 84 3 , 5 0 5 1 , 0 8 6 4 , 5 9 2 3, 09 9 2, 52 6 1, 62 6 4, 15 3 8, 7 44 19 85 2, 74 2 2, 03 3 4, 7 75 1 , 8 8 1 3, 41 8 1 , 1 7 9 4, 59 7 9, 37 2 w w .N ot e : M o n r o e C o u n t y c o m n e r c l a l l a n d i n g s m a y b e r e a l l o c a t e d t o r e f l e c t a r e a o f c a p t u r e a s f o l l o w s : Y ea r 19 81 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 ,8 5 G ul f A tl an ti c 90 % 10 % 50 % 50 % 80 % 20 % 95 % 05 % 40 % 60 % T A B L E 3 S p a n l s l t M a G k . r . 1 C o . . . r G l a l L a n d l . i s o n E a s t a . d W . s t C o a s t s O F F l o r i d a f o r . " 1 5 1 6 t h r o u i " " 8 5 6 F l s h l n i S . a s o n s , I n T h o u s a n d s o f P ou nd s (F R O M E L O R l O G E , 19 85 ) E a s t C o a s t F I sh ln i Y ea r M on th 19 75 7 6 1 9 7 6 7 7 1 9 7 7 7 8 19 78 7 9 19 79 8 0 19 80 8 1 19 81 8 2 19 82 8 3 19 83 8 4 19 84 8 5 1 98 5 86 N ov em be r 30 9 72 7 71 0 13 9 88 97 16 2 77 33 2 83 42 i D e G G m b e r 1 , 1 8 9 1, 16 1 2, 35 5 2, 08 7 69 7 4, 37 5 2, 07 3 84 2 1, 80 7 45 6 71 0 i Ja nu ar y . 2, 96 0 4, 36 8 2, 50 2 1, 18 4 4, 13 2 1, 56 1 22 9 3, 46 5 67 9 72 9 89 7 F eb ru ar y 2, 94 6 2, 80 3 52 0 2, 58 1 1 , 0 4 9 15 3 16 6 65 32 8 1, 49 0 1, 65 4 M ar G h 1 , 4 4 4 47 4 17 3 11 9 47 24 2, 17 1 25 76 5 2U 19 4 A pr il 11 1 12 28 33 19 11 73 96 14 13 28 : A nn ua l w T oU I 9 , 2 1 7 9, 73 8 6, 54 9 6, 07 6 6, 13 6 6, 31 3 5, 07 8 4, 75 4 3, 92 5 2. 98 9 3. 52 5 ~ W es t C oa st F is hi ng Y ea r M on th 1 9 7 5 7 6 , 1 9 7 6 7 7 19 77 7 8 19 78 ..7 9 19 79 8 0 19 80 8 1 19 81 8 2 19 82 8 3 19 83 8 4 1 9 8 4 8 S 19 85 8 6 N ov em be r 44 2 38 7 22 5 65 24 50 55 5 63 3 17 1 30 3 14 3 D e e e m b e r 1, 16 0 90 2 50 8 12 2 63 5 13 2 1, 26 6 61 1 36 2 1, 37 3 77 4 Ja nu ar y 2, 57 6 92 5 41 1 20 8 57 3 39 2 81 8 71 7 1 . 1 3 5 98 4 19 3 F eb ru ar y 2, 13 8 19 3 40 8 44 5 36 3 68 87 18 0 27 6 32 2 15 3 M ar ch 1, 05 1 73 15 71 38 38 41 4 3S 49 17 5 84 A pr il 30 5 '1 09 10 6 21 3 22 0 66 1 31 2 17 8 12 1 26 7 33 3 A nn ua l T ot al 8, 36 9 3, 28 2 1 , 9 8 4 1 , 6 0 9 2, 17 9 1, 84 5 3, 99 7 2. 88 4 2. 11 4 3. 42 4 1. 68 0 Tabl e 4 Comparison of Present Value (P.V.) of Spanish Mackerel Commercial Yield Streams for Three Managem ent Options 1. No Action (Unregulated Fishery): PV. = $18.6M Year 1 2 3 4 5 Mlbs 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 2. Immediate TAC reduction to 4.7M and commercial catch reduction to 3.23 M: PV. = $29.45 M Year 1 2 3 4 5 Mlbs 3.23 3.23 3.23 12 12 3. Immediate TAC reduction to 6.1 M and commercial catch reduction to 4.22 M for 5 years: PV. = $22.7M Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mlbs 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 9.6 9.6 4. Immediate TAC reduction to 5.1 M and commercial catch reduction to 3.42 M for 5 years: PV. = $26.2 M Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mlbs 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 12 12 . Assumes value of $0.30 per pound and an annual discount rate of 10 percent. 35 T ab le 5 . ç o m m e r c ~ a l l a n d i n g s ( p o u n d s ) o f G u l f M i g r a t o r y G r o u p k i n g m a c k e r e l ( f r o m E . S n e l l ) ? * 3 / 1 /8 3 6 /3 0 /8 3 7/ 1/ 83 6 /3 0/ 84 7 / i / 8 4 6 1 3 0 /8 5 7 / i / 8 5 2 /2 8 /8 6 3/ 1/ 83 2 /2 8/ 86 H o o k a n d li n e 66 9, 00 0 1, 67 8, 00 0 1, 80 9, 00 0 1, 80 6, 00 0 5 , 9 6 2 , 0 0 0 G i i i n e t 90 8, 00 0 1, 06 9, 00 0 96 8, 00 0 1, 18 5, 00 0 4, 13 0, 00 0 P u rs e s e in e 20 ,1 02 13 4, 64 3 5 6 , 6 2 a 32 ,4 86 '" 2 4 3, 85 i , T ot al co m m er ci al i ,5 97 , 1 02 2, 88 1, 64 3 2, 83 3, 62 0 3, 02 3, 48 6 I 0, 33 5 , 0 00 P er ce nt ag e of t ot al 1. 26 % 4, 67 % 2. 00 % 1. 07 % 2. 36 % c o m m e r c i a l c a t c h b y p u r s e s e i n e P u rs e s e i n e q u o ta 40 0, 00 0 40 0 ,0 00 40 0, 0 00 28 4, 00 0 W 0" * I n c l u d e s 1 , 6 6 7 I b s t a k e n i n n o r t h e r n g u l f a s a b y c a t c h . m a c k e r e l w e r e l e s s t h a n 1 % o f t h e t o t a l c a t c h . N o o b s e r v e r w a s p r e s e n t o r r e q u i r e d s i n c e k i n g * * F r o m N a k a m u r a a n d F a b l e ( 1 9 8 6 ) Tab Ie 6. Comme rc i a I I an din 9s (pounds) of Span ish macke re I (F rom E. Snell).--* 3/1/83- I / I / 86 - 3/1/83-12/31/83 1984 1985 2/28/86 2/28/86 Atlantic total 2 ,91 I ,000 4,835,000 3 ,840,000 1,939,000 13,525,000 Pu rse se ine ca t ch 21,250 62 ,986 189,224 i 75 ,370 448,830 Pu rse se i ne % 0.73 i. 30 4.93 9.04 3.32 Pu rse sei ne quota 300,000 300,000 300,000 300, 000 Gulf total 912,000 1,224,000 1,954,000 700, 000 4,790 ,000 Pu rse se ine ca t ch 37,055 9,300 i I ,567", a 5 7 , 922 Pu rse se i ne % 4. 06 0.76 0.59 0 J .21 Pu rse se ine. quo t a 300, 000 300, 000 300,000 300,000 Ove ra I I total 3,823,000 6,059,000 5 ,794,000 2,639,000 '8,3 i 5,000 Pu rse se ine ca t ch 58,305 72 , 286 200,791 175, 370 506,752 Pu rse se i ne % J. 53 i. 19 3.47 6.65 2.77 * Taken in northern gulf as by-catch. No observer was present or required since Spanish mackerel were less than 10% of total catch. ** From Nakamura and Fable (i 986) 37 Tab I e 7 Recreational Catch Achieved by a Bai Limit. Mackerel. Percent Reduction of Present Spanish 7A Table is -based on Florida catches. of Spanish mackerel from 1979 through 1984 (Powers, 1986).. BAG LI M IT PER PERSON EAST COAST WEST COAST TOTAL FLORIDA 50% 55% 54% 43% 51 % 48% 37% 46% 43% 31 % 40% 37% 25% 35% 30% 20% 33% 23% 15% 21 % 19% 3 FISH 4 FISH 5 FISH 7 FISH 10 FISH 1 5 F IS H 20 FISH 7B Table is based on regional Spanish mackerel catches. from 1981 through 1985. BAG LlM IT PER PERSON SOUTH ATLGULF EAST F L WEST FL A TL x . FL GULF x . FL 2 60 68 44 62 67 70 3 52 59 34 53 60 60 4 4S 52 27 47 53 53 5 39 46 21 42 47 46 6 34 40 17 38 42 41 7 30 36 15 34 37 36 8 27 32 12 31 34 33 9 25 29 10 28 31 30 10 23. 27 9 25 29 27 . Based on National Recreational Fishery Statistics Surveys. x. Exclusive of Florida 38 APPEND I X I REPORT OF THE MACKEREL STOCK ASSESSMENT , PANEL MEET i NG MA RCH S-6, 1986 MIAMI, ~L.'. At the dire~tion of the Gulf of Mexi~o and South Atlantic .Fi.h.ry ""anag.m.nt Coun~i i. the ""ack.rel Stock A..e..ment Panel (Jointly appointed by the Coun~il.) met in Mia.i on ""arch ~-6, 1986. The ta.k. 0' this Panel were specified DY the Counci i. in their Fi.h.ry Management Plan for the Coa.tai Migratory Pelagi~. (""a~k.rel.) i Am.ndment 1 (April, 198~). Specifically, the Panel wa. dire~t.d to r.a..... the .tatu. 0' .ach stock of king and Spani.h mack.r.1 and to make r.commendation. on MSV and 0' Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) for the next fi.hing .ea.on. l.vel 0' ABC i. to be ba.ed upon criteria .p.ci'ied in Amendm.nt In addit ion the Panel wa. dir.~ted to dei ineate pos.ibl. manag.ment opt ions for achieving ABC, to addr... other biologi~al con.iderat ion. a. appropriate, and to pre.ent a written report of their finding. and recommend at ion. to the Coun~i i.. The Report of the Panel i. pre..nted below. tn. I.vel Tn. 1. KING MACKEREL. Th. Panel r.vi.wed the updat.d .to~k a..e..m.nt Analy.e. pr. ..nt.d to the Panel. The.eanaly.e. included virtual populat ion asse..m.nt. through October, 198~, cat~h-per-unit-effort indie.. froM nothw..t Florida 196~-198S, .ummer .ast coa.t 0' Florida 1973-1984, TeMa.-re~r.ational ~atch-p.r-e"ort 1979-198S, and Qther catch-per-effort .erie. 0' .hort.r durat ion. Addit ionally, .tock identification information wa. examined. The.. data and analys.. (in addit ion to in'ormat ion pr.viou.ly review.d by the Panel) were the ba.e. 0' the Panel'. d.liberation. (L.ist of Docum.nts atta~hed). 1 . Stock Ident t ftcat ton In 1985 the Panel .uggested that ~th.r boundaries S.pArat in; the Atlantic Migratory Group frOM the Gulf Migratory Group on the eAst eoa.t of Florida might be more appropriate, but informAtion WAS iacking to make that ehoice, thu., the Panel had recommended a tag; i ng researeh program to be direeted at this problem. In re.pons. to this recommend at ion, the re.earch program ~as init iated. Ho~ever, thAt ., udy ha. not yet concl uded. Therefore, the pre.ent Panel again concluded that there ~a. not an adequate .cient i fie basi. to alter the pre..nt boundary ..par ating the Atl.ntic Migratory Gro~Pr'rom the Gulf Migratory Group. Th. .vid.nc. for .toek ..paration ~ithin the Gul' Migratory Group was r.-.Mamin.d. Th. Pan.l .val uated ..parat ion. ~ith in the US port i on of t h. Group and b.t ~een t h. MeM i can and US port ion.. Tagging data indicated some mixing throughout the US Gui,. Catch-p.r .ffort data w.r. not .upportive of differ.nt recruitm.nt patterns ~ithin the US Gulf. Preliminary biochemicai studi.s .ugg.st hypoth.... for ..parat ion within the US Gul f.' Ho~.v.r, the re.ul ts of thes. analy... do not al loW the ..parat ion of the .a.tern and ~..t.rn Gulf at this time. Th. Panei concluded that th.r. i. more evid.nc. for a single .tock than for multiple .tock.. Ther.for., the Panel again coneluded that atock .eparation within the US Gulf i. not biologically warrant.d. ". Th. Panel, al.o, conelud.d that no additional information ha. ari.en to .upport ..paration 0' the US portion of Gul~ Migratory Group catches from the Mexican portion. Ho~ev.r, sine. there ha. b.en 1 itt i. .tudy of this, the Pan.l cont inu.d the conv.ntion (.stablish.d in the August, 198~ m.eting) of pre..nting r.eomm.ndation. for two Gulf Migratory Group alternativ... 1) Un¡ t.d Stat.. Gul f Mi gratory Group, and 2) Totai Gulf Migratory Group CUS and M.Mico, cOMbined) 2 Gul f ~i gratory Group--------- Status of Stock . . The assessment analy.es cont inued to indicate that there h.ve b.en reduct ions in recruitment and spawning stock biomass in the Gulf ~igratory Group since 1979 for both the US Gulf hypothesis and the Total Gul f hypothesis. The decreases have been more severe f~r the US Gulf, if,1n fact, the US Gulf i. separate. These conclusions are in.ensit ive to the assumpt ions required to generate the populat ion analyse.. Therefore, the Panel remains confident that si gni ficant decl iae. in recruitment and spawning stock biomass in the US Gulf have occurred. For the Total Gulf hypothesis, a .teady decline in spawning stock bioma.. i. st ill' indicated, a. well as some decl ine in recruitment in the 1981-82 period. In neither case are the.e decl ines a. eHtreme as indicated in the Panel's 1985 report. However, the re.ults of the new analyses using MeMican data are .ensitive to changes in eatch and size frequency data from last year to the pre.ent. This indicate. that le.s confidence can be placed in these result. and that grea~er uncertainty eMists in the management advice that can be offered about the stock that is impacted by MeMican removals. Cri teria for ABC Procedure. for determi ni ng the range of ABC and for proJect i ng future stoek .iz.s were discussed. The methods availabl. to the Panel were e.sent ial ly proscribed by two mandate.. 1) the definition of allowable rates of recovery .pecified in Amendment 1 of the Fishery Management Plan (MSAP/86/1) I and. 2) the need for an eMpres.ion of the degree of reI iabi i ity in the ABC recommend at ions. 3 / .) . The Panel sele~ted the ..t of p~o~edu~es whi~h met the.e two requirements. Thus, the ~.~omMended ~anges of ABC were b~.ed upon the mandated ~e~ove~y .rates and e~pressed the un ~ert~inty in th. P~oJ.~tions. The specific c~ite~ia used for generAt ing the ranges of ~BC w.~e the .am. a. us.d in ~ugu.t, 1985, i. e., l 1) Reduct ion in recent catch 2) Fishing Mortality Rat. of F(0.1) 3) N~turAl Mortality between 0. 1~ And 0.3 4) Futu~e recruitment bet~een the level. thAt .~isted in 197~-78 and 1980-81 (the periods of high and low recruitment, respectively) . ABC Determinat ion Using these criteria the fol lowing r.commendat ions for ~BC are madei If the Gulf MigrAto~y Group is impAct.d sol.ly by US fisheries (US Gul f hypothesis), then The p~esent sRason'. cAtch (1ga~-86) is P~OJ.ct.d to be appro~ imately ~ mi I 1 ion pound.. ~iiowable Bioiogi~al Catch for the 1986-1987 se~son is estimated to be between 1.2 and 2.9 million pounds. If thi~ ~egulatory strategy is maintAined, then the spawning stock is e~pe~ted to recover to between 18 and 112 percent of the 197~-78 level in the ne~t decade. If the catch were to be~educed to zero, the sp~wning stock i. e~pøcted to ~ecover to between 39 and 266 percent of the 1975-78 level in the ne~t decade. If fishing effort w.~e allowed to continue at recent level., then the spawning stock could cont ¡nue to decline, pe~hap. to 9 pe~c.nt of 197~-78 levels in the ne~t de~ade. 4 If tne Gulf Mig~ato~y G~ou~ is im~a~ted by both US and M.Ki~an fisne~ies (Total Gulf hypothesis), then The p~esent s.ason' s ~at~n (198:-86) is p~oJe~t.d to be about 1~ million pounds (assuming a Mexican catch of about 10 mi I 1 ion pounds). ~ Allowable Biological Cat~h fo~ the 1986-1987 .eason is .stimated to be between ~.1 and 11.2 million pounds. If tnis regulato~y strategy is maintained, then tn." spawning stock is eKpe~ted to be between 3~ and 128 pe~cent of the 1975-78 level in tne next decade. If the US And Mexican catch we~e to be ~educed to zero, the spawning stock is expected to recover to between 106 and 424 pe~cent of the i97~-78 level in the next decade. Re~ent Recru it ment The Panel ~emain. ~onfident that the qual itat ive ~esults are vaiid, i.e.,that spawning stock and recruitment decline. have o~~ur~ed within the US Gulf. Simi larly, the Panel remains Ie.. confident in quant i tat i ve proJect ions of ABC into the fut ure. For this ~eason, avai lable data and fishe~y informat ion were reviewed to dete~mine if re~~uitment in 198~ has been substantially different f~om re~ent yea~s. Evidence of exceptionally high levels of recruitment would indicate that the range of ABC est imated using the above methods could be raised. Conve~s.ly, exceptionally low level. o~ recruit ment would indicate that the range should be lowered. Inc~eases in catch-pe~-effort were shown by several indic.. in the Gulf in 198~. However, tn. levels of incr.as. were not indi~at ive of an .xcept ional ly good y.ar class entering the fish e~y. The indices also include fish that a~e older than rect~uitment age. Th.~efo~e, the increa... in CPUE's are even less likely to ~eflect exceptionally good recruitment. The Panel again concluded that overfishing in the US Gulf has occur~ed. Therefore, as .peci fied in Amendment 1 of the FMP, an ABC mu.t be determined such that stock ~ecov.ry is achieved. It should be ~.~ognized that a catch that is higher than the upper end of the range of ABC may have a .mal I chance of al lowing tne stock to begin recovery. However, the Panel agre.s that the~e would be a large cnance that a higher catch would not al low the stock to recover at all. Tne risks of continued decline would be large. Thus, tne mandate for ~e~overy of the ov.r-fished sto~k would not be met. For these ~ea.ons, the Panel concluded that the range of ABC given above ~e'lects the reasonable risks faced by tne stock. 5 Atlantic Migratory Group Status of Stock The fishery on the Atlantic Migratory Group rapidly expanded from 1979 to the present such that catches are now high and variable from year to year. Analyses indicated that recrui tment levels are near to those of the 1975-78 period and spawning biomass has not declined. Fishing mortali ty rates appear to be near rates of full exploitation. Significant increases in the fishing rate would likely result in losses of yield. ABC Determination A range of catch predictions was generated uSing the results of the virtual population analysis and the cri teria: M = 0.15 to 0.3, future fishing mortali ty rate levels main tained at FeO. 1) and future recruitment to be between that which occurred in 1975-78 and that which occurred in 1980-81. The resul ting range of catch was estimated as 5.4 to 18.5 million pounds. This is not substantially different from our present estimate of MSY of 6.9 to 15.4 million pounds. Therefore, Allowable Biological Catch for the 1986-87 season is estimated to be between 6.9 and 15.4 million pounds. If this regulatory strategy is maintained, then spawning biomass should remain at adequate levels. The 1985-86 season's catches are projected to be approxi mately 10 million pounds. ~ SPANISH MACKEREL The recent history of Spanish mackerel catches is one of declining landings and catch rates. Over 90% of the commer cial fishery occurs in Florida and 1s mostly by gill nets and most catches come from South Florida during winter. Commercial fisheries account for over 77% of landings in the South Atlantic during 1979-84 and ~4% of catches in the Gulf. On the Gulf coast, commercial catches were relatively stable until the 1976/77 season when they declined from a 10-year average of 7.3 million lbs to 2.5 million lbs thereafter, most of the decline occurring from the 1975/76 to 1976/77 season. At the same time, recreational catche~ in Everglades National Park declined from over 6,000 fish in 1974 to about 500 fish annually during 1981-85. The NMFS, 1979-84 recreational catches on the Florida Gulf coast showed a decline in size of fish but no change in catch rates. On the Atlantic coast, commercial landings were relati vely stable before 1975, averaging 3.5 million lbs in the previous decade. Landings increased to over 9 million lbs in 1975/76 and 1976/77, declining steadily thereafter to 4 6 million lbs in 1983/84. Recreational catch rates on the east coast of Florida steadily declined from 4.5 fish/angler in 1979 to 0.9 fish/angler in 1984 and mean size declined signi fi cantly. Stock Identification Little study has been made of stock identification of Spanish mackerel. Presently in the FMP, Spanish mackerel in ~S waters are considered to represent a single stock occurring in the Gulf and the Atlantic. There is currently evidence for discriminating between Gulf and Atlantic groups of Spanish mackerel with a zone of mixing in south Florida. This evidence is based on electrophoresis studies, distribu tional patterns, spawning areas and the history of exploi ta tion. The Panel felt that such a separation of Atlantic and Gulf groups was appropriate. The Dade-Monroe County line in south Florida was suggested as the most practical boundary between the two at this time. However, under the mandate of the FMP, the Panel con tinued to present advice relati ve to a total US stock. The Panel concluded that there was no available infor mation to support stock differentiation wi thin the US Gulf, thus a single stock was assumed. Over 90% of the US Gulf catch occurs in the eastern Gulf. Therefore, results of ana lyses assuming a US Gulf are virtually indistinguishable from resul ts assuming an eastern Gulf. Stock assumptions which include Mexican catches were rejected by the Panel. Al though such connections may exist, the Mexican historical catch and size-frequency data are of limi ted reliabili ty. Mexican catches in recent years have appeared relatively stable at 11-13 million pounds. Therefore, the Panel could offer no advice on the status of a stock that might include Mexican catches. Status of Stocks Spanish mackerel landings have declined in both the Gulf and Atlantic. In addition, the average size of fish has appeared to decline, especially in the Atlantic. Indices are inconclusi ve about recrui tment levels. Analyses were conducted uSing virtual population methods, mortali ty estimates and recent catches to determine the surplus production. Based upon these results, the Panel determined that the maximum surplus for the US stock (MSY) was Range Best Estimate 18 million lbs15.7 to 19.7 million lbs 7 The Panel concluded that this maximum surplus would not be achieved wi thout some reduct ion in fishing pressure. The Panel felt that the natural mortality rate (M) on Spanish mackerel is between 0.3 and 0.5 with more likelihood that it is at the lower end of the range. If M is low, then the decline in the fishery's production is more attributable to reduced yield-per-recrui t (too many young fish are taken). If M is high, then the decline in production is more attribu table to reduced recrui tment. The Panel could not dis-~ .tinguish the relati ve contri bution of these two factors. ABC Determination Under Amendment 10f the FMP, the Councils have available a limi ted number of management options. Most importantly, current procedures to reduce fishing mortali ty are limited to establishing a Quota on total take within the total US fishery. Other management procedures may be more appropriate for the Councils' objecti ves and these are presented in the section below enti tled Other Management Strategies. However, the set of procedures presently available for current action implies a management strategy which l1mi ts total fishing mor tali ty alone. Therefore, an ABC may be estimated which redu ces fishing mortali ty and stimulates recovery. The Panel used the F (0. 1) cri terion Amendment as the fishery mortali ty rate ABC was estimated to be current catches F (0. 1) to the current fi shing mortal! ty catches were defined by the Panel to be and the average of 1983-84 levels. This strategy will result in rapid rebuilding of the stock and lower risk of recruitment declines. The spawning stock biomass is expected to double in three years. However, such restrictions would lower the harvest of the current fishery. suggested in the for recovery. The times the ratio of ra te. Current a range between 1984 ,. The ABC range under rapid (F (0. 1 )) recovery would be 3.7 to 4.5 million lbs. Other Management Options Potentially, the Spanish mackerel fishery in both the Gulf and the Atlantic could respond very favorably to manage ment raising the minimum size of capture. Yield per recruit would be maximi zed wi th a minimum size of about 18 inches at current levels of fishing. Establishment of an 18-inch mini mum would in the short run reduce yields about 10~, but after 3-5 years, yield per recrui t would increase to 20~ above current levels, if the current intensi ty of fishing on fish above 18 inches were maintained. Spawning stocks would approximately double wi thin 5 years, enhancing chances for 8 i improved recruitment, so increases in yields might be greater than 20%. There would be some risk in employing increased minimum size management without an ultimate cap on catch or fishing mortali ty, because if fi shing mortali ty on fish above the minimum increased wi th ena-ctment, most of the improvement in spawning stock would not be realized. However, there are some inherent problems (cryptic mor tali ty, wasted yi eld) wi th trying to regulate all forms of €ishing by minimum size regulation. A good management stra tegy might be to apply different standards of regulation to each type of gear to minimize wasting undersized fish and to eliminate hidden fishing mortali ty. The Panel also recommends that al ternati ve fishing years be considered due to the seasonal nature of the fishery. 9 6 ,." I' ' LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Mackerel Stock Assessment Panei Jos.ph E. Powers (Chairman) Gi i bert W. Bane Roy Wi i Iiams Nelson M. Ehrhardt Gregg T. Waugh Edward D. Houde (unable to attend, comments telephoned) Non-member Part iCipants Scott Nichols, Southeast Fisherie. Center Terrance R. Leary, Gul ~ Counci i Sta~f . Peter Eldridge, South.ast Fish.ries Center, Chairman South At lant Ie SSC Gene Nakamura, Southeast Fi sherie. Center, Speciai Mackerel Committee Walter R. Nelson, South.ast Fisheries Center AleM M. Jernigan, Gul~ Council Bradford E. Brown, Southeast Fisherie. Center Bill Lindall, Southeast Regional O~~ice . -10 APPENDIX II King and Spanish Mackerel Manageiænt Opt ions Coastal Resources Division . Mi ami Laboratory Southeast Fi sheri es Center Miami, FL September 26, 1986 ATLANTIC MIGRATORY GROUP KING MACKEREL Based upon data through October, 1985, presented at the meeti ng of the Stock Assessment Panel in March, 1986, the following statements were made relative to the Atlantic Migratory Group of king mackerel: Status of Stock liThe fishery on the Atlantic Migratory Group rapidly. expanded from 1979 to the present such that catches are now high and variable from year to year. Analyses. indicated that recruitment levels are near to those of the 1975-78 period and spawning biomass has not declined. Fishing mortality rates appear to be near rates of full exploitation. Significant increases in the fishing rate would likely result in losses of yield. ii ABC Determi nat ion IIA range of catch predictions was generated using the results of the virtual population analysis and the criteria: M = 0.15 to 0.3, future fishing mortality rate levels maintained at F(O.l) and future recrui tiænt to be between that which occurred in 1975-78 and that which occurred in 1980-81. The resulting range of catch was estimated as 5.4 to 18.5 million pounds. This is not substantially different from our present estimate of MSY of 6.9 to 15.4 million pounds. Therefore, Allowable Biological Catch for the 1986-87 season is estimated to be between 6.9 and 15.4 million pounds. If this regulator.. strategy is ma.intained, then spawning biomass should remain at adequate levels. ii liThe 1985-86 season's catches are projected to be approximately 10 million pounds.1I During the period November, 1985 through March, 1986, the commercial ki ng mackerel 1 andi ngs from the Atl ant ic Migratory Group were approx imate ly 0.5 million lbs. Recreational landings during this period were estimated to be less than 0.2 million lbs. These values are very similar to histori cal landings during the winter period that were used in the assessment analyses presented to the Panel. Therefore, the actual 1985-86 season catches were not significantly different from the projection used by the PaneL. This cursory examination of the data does not indicate that the Panel's advice shoul d be changed based upon compl et ion of the 1985-86 fi sh ing year. However, as the Panel indicated, the fishery appears to be near full exploitation. Given that situation, a rapid expansion to the upper end of the ABC range wi 11 increase the risk of subsequent dec 1 i nes in yi e 1 d . SPANISH MACKEREL The following definition of overfishin~ given in Amendment 1 of the FMP (12.6.1.1.A.4) formed the basis for the determination of ABC for spani sh mackerel: "Overfi shing. A stock of fi sh shall be considered overfi shed if the fishing mortality rate exceeds Fmsy or FO.l, or spawning biomass is low enough to affect recruitment. The FO.l fishing rate is the level of fishing mortality at which an increase in effort produces ten percent of the i ncre~se in yi e 1 d that would occur in a lightly fished fishery for a compa~able increase in effort. An FO.l yi e 1 d per recru i t management strategy better protects against growth overfishing and maintains a larger spawning population than does a Fmax management strategy. If any stock or subgroup is overfished, the assessment group will estimate levels of ABC which would allow that stock to recover in one year, three years, five years, or other period as requested by the Councils." The Stock Assessment Panel responded to these direct ives, as well as to the recognized management limitations in the present Amendment by providing the following advice: "Under Amendment 1 of the FMP, the Councils have available a 1 imited number of management options. Most importantly, . current procedures to reduce fi shi ng mortal i ty are 1 imi ted to establishing a quota on total take within the total US fishery. Other management procedures may be more appropriate for the Councils' objectives and these are presented in the section below entitled Other Management Strategies. However, the set of procedures presently available for current action implies a management strategy which limits total fishing mortality alo~e. Therefore, an ABC may be estimated which reduces fishing mortality and stimulates recovery." "The Panel used the F(O.l) criterion suggested in the Amendment as the fi shery mortal i ty rate for recovery. The ABC' was estimated to be current catches times the ratio of F(O.l) to the current fishing mortality rate. Current catches \'re defined by the Panel to be a range between 1984 and the average of 1983-84 levels." "This strategy will result in rapid rebuilding of the stock and lower risk of recruitment declines. The spawning stock bi amass is expected to doub 1 e in three ye ars. However, such restrictions woulc! lower the harvest of the current fi shery. II "The ABC range under rapid (F(O.l)) recovery would be 3.7 to 4.5 million lbs." Other Man agemen t Str ategi es 'IPotentially, the spanish mackerel fishery in both the Gulf and the Atlantic could respond very favorably to management raising the minimum size of capture. Yield per recruit would be maximized with a minimum size of about 18 inches at current levels of fishing. Establishment of an 18-inch minimum would in the short run reduce yields about 10%, but after 3-5 years, yield per recruit would increase to 20% above current levels, if the current intensity of fishing on fish about 18 inches were maintained. Spawning stocks would approximately double withi n 5 years, enhanci ng chances for improved recruitment, so increases in yields mignt be. greater than 20%. There would be some risk in employing increased minimum size management without an ultimate cap on catch or fishing mortality, because if fishing mortality on fi sh above the mi nimum increased wi th enactment, most of the improvement in spawning stock would not be realized." "However, there are some inherent problans (cryptic mortality, wasted yield) with trying to regulate all forms of fishing by minimum size regulation. A good management strategy miqht be to apply different standards of regulation to each type of gear to minimize wasting undersized fish and to eliminate hidden fishing mortality." "The Panel also recommends that alternative fishing years be considered due to the seasonal nature of the fishery.1I The Stock Assessment Panel recommended that reductions in fishing mortality will contribute to longer term increases in yield approaching MSY. However, results were inconclusive as to whether the declines in catch relative to the 1970's were due to reductions in yield-per-recruit or to reductions in recruitment or both. The Panel suggested options which would address both~roblems, simultaneously, by decreasing overall fishing pressure and/or fi shing pressure on small fi she Both mechanisms woul d likely lead to increases in yield per recruit. Similarly, both methods would increase spawning biomass (to address recruitment problems should they exi st) . As can be seen, the Panel addressed rapid recovery (two or three years) using the F(O.l) criterion and longer tenm recovery (approximately five years) by suggesting limitation on the mortality of small fish. Obviously, there are combinations of these options which would produce the same ends. Additionally, the Panel suggested the establishment of separate man agement uni ts between the Atl ant ic and Gulf wi th the Dade/Monroe county line as being an analytically convenient border. Although the Panel was presented analyses based upon such a separation, they 1 imi ted their advice to management options which could be implemented under the existing amend ment, i.e., for the total US (Gulf plus Atlantic) resource. The following is a discussion of expanded management options which address the issues of alternat ive "recovery periods" and separat ion of management un its. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Tota 1 US Stock Table i gives several management options for the total US resource and their consequences on spawning biomass. The options are grouped into quota options (which control overall fishing mortality), minimum size options (which control fishing mortality on small fish) and combinations of the two. The stock wi 11 have approximately "recovered" to MSY when the spawn i ng bi omass is doubled (spawni ng bi omass increases 100%). - Not~ that the recovery times are very imprecise. A single, moderately large year class of spanish mackerel which was protected from fishing until it matures at 2 or 3 years coul d produce rapid recovery of the spawni ng bi omass. Converse ly, a low year class will del ay the process. When we say "the spawni ng stock wi 11 recover in five years", we mean that on average we expect enough good year classes to enter the fishery in the next five years such that the spawning biomass will increase to levels that will produce yields that are near MSY. See Table 1. . Note that the spawn i ng bi omasses in Table 1 are based upon constant fishing mortality'strategies over the five ~ars. It is possible for management to be more stringent in the first part of the five years and less stringent in the second part and still end up at the same place. The converse is also true. The effects of other opt ions may be detenmi ned by i nterpo 1 at i ng in Table 1. For example, if an overall quota of 5.2 to 6.1 mill ion 1 bs is specified and a minimum size of 14 inches were to be imposed in a segment of the fishery, then the effect on spaW'ing stock biomass would be beheen th at of Opt i on I I I.A.) and I. C. ) . Separate Stock Opt ions . The Panel was .presented an anålysis in which the spanish mackerel were separated into Gulf and Atl ant ic Groups wi th the boundary bei ng the Dade/ Monroe county line in south Florida. Management options which result from that analysis were generated using the rapid recovery criterion (F(Q.l)) and a slower recovery (no fish killed less than 18 inches). The resultswere: . Separate Stock Management Options for Spanish Mackerel Expected Ca tch i n 1987 (on aver age)Option A). Quota Only (rapid recovery) Quota Atlantic stock Gulf stock 2. 2 to 2. 9 1 . 6 to 1. 8 2.2 to 2.9 1. 6 to 1. 8 B) No Fish Killed Less Than 18 inches (s lower recovery) Atl antic stock Gulf stock 3 . 8 to 4. 8 4. 1 to 4. 5 The IIrecovery" times are approximately equal to the equivalent manage ment option for the total US stock, i.e., the rapid recoveries are expected on average to increase spawning stock biomass 100% in three years, whereas the slower recoveries are expected on average to increase spawning stock biomass 100% in five years. . Resulting average expectations of catch and recovery period resulting from other options of quotas and reductions in small fish catch can be generated by looking at the equivalent options for the total US stock and us i ng the percentage changes. Note that al ternative stock boundaries wi 11 change what the above ranges will be. At this point we cannot tell even qualitatively what the changes would be. For example, it has been proposed that the boundary should be the same as the Councils' boundary. If that were the case, Monroe County in south Florida would be split between Atlantic and Gulf. From 1981-85, the annual cammerci al 1 andi ngs in Monroe County were 2.2 million lbs. The annual percent of these catches (in lbs) that occurred in the Atlantic (as defined by the Council boundary) varied from 5% to 60%. Thus, it is unclear what the qualitative effect of this proposed boundary would have upon an assessment. . Table 1. Spanish mackerel management options Management Opt i on l//. Implement a quota only I . A.) 3.7 to 4.5 . million lbs i. B.) 4. 3 to 5.1 million lbs I. C.) 5. 2 to 6.1 mi 11 ion 1 bs i. D.) 7.9 to 9.2 million lbs Expected Catch in 1987 (on aver age) Given Managemnt Opt ion 1.1 Effect s on Spa\1 i ng Biomass (SSB) 3.7 to 4.5 On average SSB wi 11 increase lOoo in 3 ~ars and 130% in 5 years On aver age S SB wi 11 . increase 100% in 5 ye ars 4.3 to 5.1 5. 2 to 6. 1 On aver age S SB wi 11 increase 50% in 5 ye ars and will not increase further after that. 7.9 to 9.2 On averaç¡e SSB will increase" 15% in 5 years and will not increase further after that. 1/11. Reduce Mortality on Small Fish Only II.A.) No fish killed which are less than 18 inches I i. B.) No fish killed which are less than 16 inches II.C.) No fish killed which are less than 14 inches III. Combinations of I and II III.A.) Overall quota of 5.2 to 6.1 million lbs and no catch of fish~ss than 14 inches ((I.C) (II.C)) III. B.) Overall quota of 4.3 to 5.1 million 1 bs and no catch of fish~ss than 14 inches ((I.B) (I). C)) On average SSB will increase 100% in 5 ye ars.7. 9 to 9. 2 8.3 to 9.7 On cwerage SSB wi 11 increase 60% in 5 ~ars and wi 11 not increase further after that. On average SSB wi 11 increase 25% in 5 years and wi 11 not increase further after that. 8.5 to 10.0 5.2 to 6.1 On average SSB wi 11 increase 80% in 5.years and not increase further after that. 4.3 to 5.1 On average SSB will increase lOoo in 3 ~ars and 125% in 5 years. 1!.Recovery. of the stock is approximately achieved when the spawning stock biomass (SSB) dOibles, i.e., increases 10oo. . ~ 11.Quota Only. opt tons assume that the present minimum size 12" and the present fishing practices relative to size remin in place. 11Mortality on Small Fish Options assume that no fish less than the critical size die due to fishing and that there will be no çhange in overall fishing effort