Amendment No. 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Mackerels)

FIAL AMNDrd 3 m TH FISHERY MAAGEMENT PLAN FOR TH COASTAL MlGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MCKRELS) OF TH GULF OF MEXICO AND TH SOUT ATLANC INCLUDES ENVONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN REGULATORY IMACC REVIW ì~, . ..., MACH, 1989 South Atlantic Fishery Management Counci 1 Southpark Circle Southpark Building, Suite 306 Charleston, South Carolina 29407-4699 (803) 571-4366 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 . 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609-2486 (813) 228-2815 FIAL AMENDlVNT 3 m THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MCKERELS) OF TH GULF OF MEXICO AND TH SOUTH ATLANTC INCLUDES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN REGULATORY IMACC REVIW Prepared By The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management CouucIl MARCH, 1989 Financial assistace for producing this Amendment was provided by grt funds from the National Marne Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admstration, under Public Law 94-265, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 2 1. INODUCTON The "Mackerel" fishery management plan, approved in 1982 and implemented by regulations effective in Februar of 1983, treated king and Spanish mackerel each as one U.S. stock (GMFMC and SAFC, 1983). Allocations were made for recreational and commercial fisheries, and the commercial alocation was divided between net and hook & line fishermen. Amendment 1, implemented in September of 1985, provided a framework procedure for preseason adjustment of total allowable catch, revised king mackerel maximum sustainable yield downward, recognized Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel, and established fishing permts and bag limits for king mackerel (GMFC and SAFC, 1985). Objectives of the Mackerel fishery management plan were modified and ar as follows: (1) To stabilze yield at maximum sustainable yield, allow recovery of overfshed populations and maintain population levels sufficient to ensure adequate "recruitment; (2) To provide a flexible management system for the resource which miimizes regulatory delay while retaiing substantial Council and public input into management decisions and which can rapidly adapt to changes in resource abundance, new scientific infonDation, and changes in fishing patterns among user groups or by area; (3) To provide necessar information for effective management and establish a mandatory statistical reportg system for monitorig catch; and (4) To miimze gear and user group confcts. Amendment 2, implemented in July, 1987, revised Spanish mackerel maximum sustainable . yield downward, recognized two migratory groups, set commercial quotas and set bag limits (GMFC and SAFMC, 1987). Charerboat permts were required, and it was clarfied that total allowable catch must be set below the upper range of the acceptable biological catch. In addition, pure seines were prohibited for the Atlantic and Gulf migratory grups of Spanish mackerel and for the Gulf migrtory group of king mackereL. Amendment 3 (this current amendment) addresses the prohibition of purse seines and run-around gillnets for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel and drft gilnets in the coastal migratory pelagics fishery. This amendment also adds a new objective, updates the habitat section of the fishery management plan, and adds vessel safety considerations to the fishery management plan. The purse seine prohibition for Atlantic king mackerel proposed by the Councils in Amendment 2 was disapproved because the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel was not in an overfshed status and the commercial allocation had never been met. The situation has changed. . suffciently (Le. overfshed status of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel and the fact that the commercial quota was filed in November) such that the Councils are again requesting the prohibition of pure seines. Run-around gillnets have not been trditionally used on the Atlantic migrtory group of kig mackerel and ths may be attrbuted to diferences in the schooling behavior of Atlantic ,and Gulf migratory group king mackereL. - C~tches by purse ~eines and run-around gillnets have occured sporadically durg April in prior years but most recently durg April 1988. The Councils ar prohibitig this gear because it is non--traditional and catches by this gear increase 3 the probabilty of an early closure for the commercial fishery, thereby impacting traditional 'commercial.users. Drift gillnets were intruced in 1980; landigs increas.ed from virualy zero in 1985 to approximately 217,00 pounds durng 1986 and furer to approximately 800,000 pounds in 1987. Preliminar 1988 catches were 808,000 pounds and final figues are expected to be higher. Ths expansion has contrbuted to the overfshed status of Atlantic migrtory group king mackerel and led to a number of problems negatively affecting traditional users, Le., overfshed status of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel which trggers a recreational closure if the recreational quota is exceeded and the fact that the commercial quota was filled early this year. Therefore, the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils have voted to prohibit drft gillnet gear in the coastal migrtory pelagics fishery within their areas of jurisdiction and prohibit the use of purse seines and run-around gill nets on the Atlantic Migratory Group of King Mackerel based on the following: (1) spawning stock biomass has remained relatively constant until 1984, after which a decrease may have occurd; (2) fishing mortalty rates appear to be at or slightly above rates of full exploitation; (3) catches were high and varable from 1980 to 1985, but catches from 1986 and 1987 declined; and (4) four of five catch per unit effort data sets indicate declines in abundance. These results have led the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico . Fishery Management Councils to conclude that the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel is overfshed. In addition, the commercial allocation is sufficiently low that allowing use of purse seines and run-around gilnets in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery has resulted (and wil likely result in the future) in the early closure of the commercial fishery which negatively impacts trtional hook & lie commercial parcipants. II. DESCRION OF FISHERY AND UTIZATION PATTRNS The Fishery Management Plan, Source Document, and Amendments 1 and 2 descrbe the fishery and utilzation patterns (including purse seines) within the king and Spanish mackerel fisheries. More recent informtion on the use of pure seines is included later in this document. Quotas, bag limits, catches and closure dates for the 1987/88 and 1988/89 fishing years are shown in Table 1 (Appendix A). In addition, Table 2 in Appendix A reviews recreational and commercial catch data from 1979 though Octo1?er 1987. The 1988 Assessment Panel Report provided the following infonnation on the Spansh and king mackerel resources: 1. Gulf Migratory Group King Mackerel - The U. S. Gulf resource appears to have responded toward recovery somewhat. Spawning stock biomass has increased a small amount and the fishing mortality rate is at or just below the target rate of Fo.i. However, the 1987/88 fishing season is the first year in which catches wil be reduced to levels within the recommended acceptable biological catch range since ths PaneÌ has been makng recommendations. Therefore, a large recovery should not have been expected. While the spawning stock biomass has shown some gains, the recruitment has remained stable at low levels. Therefore, we have yet to see a large year-class enter the fishery 4 which might accelerate reovery. 2. Atlantic Migrat~ry Group King Mackerel - The fishery on the Atlantic Migratory Group has rapidly expanded since 1979. Catches were high and varable from 1980 to 1985, but catches from 1986 and 1987 (though October) declined. Commercial landings have remained relatively stable . durng this period, . whereas the recreational catch has declined, paricularly durng the 1986 and 1987 fishing seasons. It is not known whether ths reduction in recreational catch is the result of the bag limit, first imposed in 1986,' or perhaps is due to a decline in abundace, reduced fishing effort, or some other factor or combination thereof. Analyses indicate that spawning stock biomass has remained relatively constant until 1984 after which a decrease may have occurred. If this pattern exists, then caution should be exercised. Fishing mortality rates appear to be at or slightly above rates of full exploitation. These results combined with decreased catches in recent years suggest that harest levels ar close to their upper lit. 3. Spanish Mackerel - U. S. landings of Spanish mackerel have vared between 8.9 and 14 millon pounds since 1979. The Atlantic landigs have declined over these year, whereas the Gulf has vared without trend. Over 85 percent of the commercial fishery for U. S. Spanish mackerel occurs in Florida and most of the landings are taken in the winter fishery in south Florida. Commercial landings quotas were instituted in Florida state waters as well as for the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the 1986-87 and 1987-88 fishing years. The 90 percent landings cutoff, requird by Florida law (not federal law) for power assisted gilnet vessels was reached within two weeks (December 29, 1987) of Florida's December 15th opening date for the 1987/88 fishing season for Atlantic group Spanish mackereL. Atlantic spawning biomass apparently has declined, whereas the Gulf spawning biomass appear to have increased. Recritment of small fish may be up for both stocks. . Southeast Florida Drft Gilnet Fishery The newly devel?ped drft gillnet fishery is described based on recent information (NMFS, 1987). There are currently 13 vessels operating in the fishery with less than six other local hi-roller gilnet boats in the ara that have not purchased king mackerel drft gilnets. Without an influx of distant boats, it is doubtful that the drft gillnet fleet would increase by more than two to three boats in 1989. Eacc~ boat is operated by a captain (not necessarly the owner) and cares two to three crew members. There ar a total of 39 to 52 individuals curently in the fishery. These vessels also fish in the run-around gillnet fishery for Gulf migratory group king mackerel, Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, and the shark drft gilnet fishery. Gulf group Spanish mackerel are seasonally available 140 miles south of Ft. Pierce, below the. . Dade/Monroe County, Florida year-round boundar (see map in Appendi B). Traditional hook & line fishermen catch king mackerel throughout the year off Ft. Pierce: Atlantic migratory group, April 1- October 31; Gulf migrtory group, November 1-- March 31. Run-around gilnet boats generaly taget Gulf kings, Januar - March. The fishermen periodcally fish smaler giUnet boats 5 (outboards) in the Indian River and outside the inlets. Traditional commercial gear in the Ft. Pierce ara incl~ded handlines (trolling) and run-around gillnets (for Gulf migratory group kig mackerel and Atlantic migrtory group Spanish mackerel). Drft entanglement nets were tred in 1980-81, initiallÝ fishing the Ft. Pierce area, with little success due to problems with sharks damaging catch and gear. The time from 1982 to 1984 was a period of experimentation. In 1985 there was renewed interest by a few of the Pt. Salerno boats and during 1986 seven boats fished out of the Ft. Pierce - Pt. Salerno area with better success. The number of boats iIIcreased to 13 in 1987 and catches also incrased. Nets are made of #9 nylon webbing, white when bought but later dipped in black plastic paint. The 5" stretched mesh nets are 140-150 meshes (about 50 feet) deep; most ar 150 meshes. Floats are placed about every yard on top of the net and a weighted lead core line weighing 85 pounds per 200 yards attached to the bottom. The nets range from 1,200 to 5,000 yards (0.68 2.84 miles) with most full-time boats having at least 3,000 yards (1.70 miles). Nets have strobe lights (some with rada reflectors) at each end and drft about 5 miles at most each night. Nets cost $5 to $6 per yard which works out to $15,000 to $18,000 for a 3,000 yard net. There is an additional cost of $1,300 to dip a 3,00 yard net durng the season; this must be done twice durng a season. Usually drft gillnet boats leave port late in the afternoon and retu with their catch the next morning. When a boat reaches the fishing grounds, a strobe-light buoy is attached to one end of the net and dropped overboard. The boat then moves in a straight line away from the trailing net and buoy and continues until the entire net has been pulled over the stern. Then another buoy is attached to the end of the net. The net is usually set running east and west, perpendicular to the coast and is never deployed before sunset. Optimally, the net remains in a straight line perpendicular to shore for the enti drft, but wind and curent may cause it to cure or fold, thus reducing the effective fishing length. When a strng curnt is running, the nets wil sometimes be set at an angle to the shore. Once the net has been set, the boat may tie onto one end of the net, drt along with the net (but not tie to it), or anchor the boat and let the net drt; the decision is based on weather and current conditions. The boats are normally in radio contact with each other while settng the nets to assur that there is suffcient space separting each net to keep them from gettng entagled. All drt gillnet boats ar equipped with Lora C. Soak time vares but is usually six to eight hours. Boats rarely make more than one set per night with a maximum of two sets per night. Nets are rarely left in the water beyond dawn because king mackerel catches decrease dramatically and the bycatch increases with daylight. Soak time decreases as the water gets warer to prevent deterioration of the catch. Haulback usually begins prior to sunrse and takes thee to five hours using a hi-roller, over which the net passes to be pulled onto the boat. Crewmen on either side of the boat pull and stack the net; fish are remoyed by the same crew pullng the net. One strand of the mesh may have to be cut to remove gilled fish. Some fish fal out of the net onto the deck as they move to the hi-roller. Kig mackerel and other valuable 6 species are placed in a holding comparent or ice box; ice is usually shoveled onto the catch several ties durg haulback. Un.wanted fish ar discarded overboard; most are dead when the net is hauled, though some fish are released alive. Once the haulback is completed, the crew guts and ices the catch as the boat returs to port. 'The 13 vessels in the fishery are 30-50 feet in length and are curently fishing the southeast grounds (centered between St. Lucie and Ft. Pierce Inlets) and Bethel Shoal. Boats must fish outside Florida State waters due to Florida law and usually set thee to six mies offshore in 45 to 65 feet over a sand bottom. Fishermen avoid fishing directly offshore of inlets, because of high boat traffic and due to the fact that these areas often have a large abundance of sharks. "Takng these requirements into consideration, there are few new areas for expansion of this gear in the Ft. Pierce-Port Salerno area" (NMFS,.1987). The season usually runs from April through September but may run into October until the Spanish mackerel show up in the area. There has been no deliberate gear daage known so far although one report was received of a hook & line boat being entangled in a drft gillnet (Source: U. S. Coast Guard). Landings. data from 1986 and 1987 are shown below. April to September 1987 landings were at about the same level as durng 1986 (1.4 and 1.3 milion pounds respectively). (Note: The king mackerel commercial quota on the Atlantic migratory group was 3.59 millon pounds for the 1987/88 fishing year). ATLANTIC MIGRATORY GROUP COMMERCIAL KING MACKEREL LANDINGS (Pounds, gutted weight) S1. Lucie & Marn Counties: April-Sept '86 April-Sept '87 Drft Net Landigs 208,554 45% 765,226 79% Hook & Line Landigs 250,274 55% 198,737 21% Tota 458,828 963,963 Pal Beach, Brevard & April-Sept '86 April-Sept '87 Indian River Counties: Drft Net Landings 0 0 Hook & Line Landigs 808,300 452,307 TOTAL LANINGS 1,267,128 1,416,270 The drft gillnet fishery has increased its catch of king mackerel from almost zero in 1985, to 208,554 pounds (45 percent of the tota king mackerel catch in St. Lucie and Marn Counties) in 1986 and funher to 765,226 pounds (79 percent) in 1987. Catches by hook & line during April-September have decreased in S1. Lucie and Marin Counties from 250,274 pounds (55 percent) in 1986 to 198,737 pounds '(21 percent) in 1987. Catches by hook & line during April-September have äecreased in Palm Beach, Brevard, and Indian River from 808,300 pounds in 1986 to 452,307 pounds in 1987. 7 Although there have been report of poor quality net-caught fish, sampled catches have been consistently of accept~ble quality; most dealers have stated that there is no problem with the qualty of net caught fish. There has been no substantiated discarding of fish due to poor quality. However, there was a price break for king mackerel by gear durng the 1987 season: $0.92 to $ 1.50 per pound for net caught fish; hook & line usually brought about $0.20 more per pound. Some mackerel ar shark bitten while in the net; observers have estiated the numbers of damaged king mackerel at about 4 percent. King mackerel averaged 10 pounds gutted weight; recrationally caught fish were smaller, while commercial hook & line fish were the same at the star of the season, then smaller. A total of 723 drft net trps were made durng the 1987 season (April - September) and observers were on 38 trps (5.3 percent coverage). Trips were made at least once aboard each of the boats that fished drft ginets ful-time in the ara and obsèrvers reported that at ties there were 3 to 4 other boats fishing in the same general area (within several miles of each other) as the boats . that had an observer. In addition to at-sea observations, dock interviews were conducted; infonnation collected durng dock interviews was consistent with that collected by observers. Thus . there was no indication that observed trps fished in different areas or in a different manner than unobserved trps. No mane mamals or birds were observed tangled in the nets on any trp. Porpoises and sea tunles were observ.ed in the vicinity of the nets on haulback on numerous trps. One turte, . (leatherback) was observed by a fishennen in the net at haulback; however, by the tie the observer reached the stem, the ture had freed itself and swam away. A few fish caught by hook & line vessels exhibit net marks suggesting that some mackerel do surive after penetratig a drft gillnet. It is felt that these marks ar from drt gillnets because run-around gillnets ar not operating dung this time of year. Little tunny made up 67 percent of the discarded bycatch durng the observer study and 23 percent of the total catch by number. BaIacuda comprised 11 percent of the discarded bycatch and 4 percent of the total catch; other species comprised less than 3.6 percent and 1.2 percent respectively. There were 22 sailfish caught on observed trps for an average of 0.58 per trp. If this is expanded for the total number of trps (723), the total sailfish bycatch was 419. (Note: For . furher information on bycatch, the reader is referrd to Table 3) . As shown in Table 3, approximately 14 percent of the total bycatch is landed and sold. This represented approximately 66,00 Ib based on the projected total catch. In addition, the Councils have received public input that fish dealers ar marketing little tunny as bait and are attempting to develop a higher value market for ths discarded species. 8 III. STA lEMENT OF TH PROBLEM A change in status of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel was reported in the 1988 mackerel stock assessment: (1) spawning stock biomass has remained relatively constant until 1984, after which a decrease may have occured; (2) fishing mortlity rates appear to be at or slightly above rates of full exploitation; (3) catches were high and varable from 1980 to 1985, but catches from 1986 and 1987 declined; and (4) four of five catch per unit effort data sets indicate declines in abundance. These results have led the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery . Management Councils to conclude that the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel is overfshed Based on the 1988 assessment, the Councils reduced tota alowable catch from 9.68 millon pounds to 7.0 millon pounds (28 percent reduction). This reduction was based on the Councils' concern for apparent declining stocks and their desir to be conservative rather than risk continued overfshing. The resulting commercial allocation was reduced from 3.59 to 2.6 millon pounds. This allocation was sufficiently low that the continued use of drft gillnets, purse seines, and run-around gilnets in the Atlantic migratory group kig mackerel fishery resulted in the early closure of the commercial fishery, thus negatively impactig traditional hook & line commercial parcipants. The Councils are also concerned about waste and bycatch in the recently developed drft gillnet fishery. Allowing the continued or introductory use of drft gillnet gear in any of the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero mackerel, little tunny, , dolphin and in the Gulf of Mexico bluefish) would likely produce a king mackerel catch or bycatch resulting in the early closure of the commercial king mackerel fisheries, thus negatively impacting traditional hook & line commercial parcipants. Allowing the contiued use of drft gilnets would also result in contiued waste and bycatch in the fishery. iv. PROBLEMS IN TH FISHERY The Fishery Management Plan, as modified by Amendment 1 (April, 1985), identified the following problems: 1. Fishing effort is jeopardizing the biological tntegrity of the king mackerel fishery. That porton of the stock which inhabits the Gulf of Mexico during the summer and supports the winter fishery in southeast Florida appears to be severely overfshed, and fishing mortality on this group needs to be reduced. That porton of the stock which inhabits the Atlantic coast has been exploited to a lesser degree, and fishing mortality rate on that group is below the level which wil produce maxum yield~ . 2. Adequate management has been hindereß by lack of cuuent and accurate biological and statistical and economic information. The present system does not provide a mechanism which insures rapid incorporation of new data intb stock assessments. Fuuer, there is no coordinated 9 plan to generate stock assessment data. ~ . Intense conflcts and competition exist between recreational and commercial users of the mackerel stocks; and between commercial users employing diferent gears. 4. The existence of separte state and federa jursdiction and lack of coordnation between these two makes biological management diffcult, since in some instances, the resource may be fished beyond the alocation in state waters. 5. Cobia ar presently harested at a size below that necessar for maximum yield and may be overfshed in some areas beyond the management area. Most southeastern states have not yet adopted the recommended minimum size limit. Also, no management action has been taken by states which have jursdiction over cobia populations in Chesapeake Bay, which appear to have been overfshed. Federal enforcement capabilty is limted an not believed to be very effective in this case. 6. Development of a fishery targeting large, mature king mackerel in the wintertme off Louisiana may eventually reduce recruitment to the resource. Total catch of large, mature king mackerel has gratly increased due to development of a commercial fishery in Louisiana durig the winter months. Reporred commercial.catch increased from zero durng 1981-82 to 1.2 millon pounds durng the 1982-83 winter season. Given the already excessive fishing effort on smaller fish in the Gulf of Mexico, increasing fishing effort on the spawning population could result in recrutment declies. v. OBJECTS The Fishery Management Plan, as modified by Amendment 1, identified the following objectives: 1. The primar objective of this Fishery Management Plan is to stabilze yield at maximum sustainable yield, allow recovery of overfshed populations, and maintain population levels suffcient to ensur adequate reruitment. 2. To provide a flexible management system for the resource which miimizes regulatory delay while retaining substantial Council and public input into management decisions and which can rapidly adapt to changes in resource abundace, new scientific information, and changes in fishing patterns among user groups or by area. 3. To provide necessar information for effective management and establish a mandatory reportg system for monitorig catch. 4. To minimize gear and user group conflcts. Ths Amendment includes a modfication to ths list of objectives to reflect cha,nges that have occured since Amendment 1. . 10 Vi. PROPOSED ACTION ACTION 1: PROHIBIT PURSE SEINES FOR ATLANTIC KING MACKEREL. Section 12.6.3.6 Purse Seine Allocation is curntly worded as follows (GMFMC and SAFMC, 1987): 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 except for incidental catch allowances. A bycatch of no more than one percent of king mackerel or ten percent of Spanish mackerel by weigh.t or number, whichever is less, is allowed in purse seines. This bycatch is to be counted in the commercial quota, and when the quota is filled, no more of that species may be landed for sale. When a stock or migrtory group of overfshed mackerel recovers to the level that it can prouce MSY and when trditional commercial fishennen ar not takng their allocation, the Councils wil reevaluate 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 migrtory group of king mackereL. Because the prohibition of purse seines on the Atlantic migrtory group of king mackerel was not approved a catch allowance for up to 400,000 pounds of the commercial allocation was continued for this gear. This curent amendment proposes to modfy Section 12.6.3.6 as follows: '12.6.3.6 Purse Seine Allocation Delete the .Iast sentence: "The Councils consider the prohibition of the use of purse seines to be severable with respect to the Atlantic migratory group of king mackereL. " Ths has the effect of extendig the prohibition of purse seines on Spanish mackerel and Gulf group king mackerel that wàs approved in Amendment 2 (GMFC and SAFMC; 1987) to the Atlantic migratory group of kig mackereL. Because stocks of king and Spanish mackerels are overfshed catch restrctions were placed on all migratory groups in order to rebuild the stocks. Accordingly, traditional paricipants in the fishery have experienced restrctive bag limits and early closures. The one exception has been the fishery for the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel which had not been closed prior to the 1988/89 fishing year. Seasonal commercial quotas for this group have not been filled in the past, although harest was approaching total allowable catch (TAC). Durng the 1988/89 fishing year, the commercial quota was reached and the fishery was to be closed on November 23, 1988 but remained open through court order. In addition, the Councils are concerned about the shifting effott onto Atlantic migratory group king mackerel as fishermen ar restrcted from fishing other mackerel migratory groups. There is no traditional use or indeed n.o known record of any purse seine fishery tagetig Atlantic migratory grup king mackerel until April 1988. At that time purse seines took king mackerel in the Ft. Pierce area and directed catches were also made with . . 11. . run-around gillnets (Table 1). These unprecedented catches possibly occured because prolonged cool weather retained migratory king mackerel in that area later than usual, thus makng them available to purse seine and run-around gillnet fishing operations (total catch for both gears was approximately 340,000 pounds). A change in status of the Atlantic migratory grup of king mackerel was reported in the 1988 stock assessment repor which concluded the followig (Note: The table and figu are included in Appendi A): "The fishery on the Atlantic Migrtory Group has rapidly expanded since 1979. Catches were high and varable from 1980 to 1985, but catches from 1986 and 1987 (though October) declined (Table 2). Commerèial landings have remained relatively stable during this period, whereas the recreational catch has declined, parcularly durng the 1986 and 1987 fishing seasons. It is not known whether this reduction in recreational catch is the result of the bag limit, first imposed in 1986, or perhaps is due to a decline in abundace, reduced fishing effort or some other factor or combination thereof. Analyses indicate that spawning stock biomass has remained relatively constant until 1984 after which a decease may have occured (Figue 2). If this pattern exists, then caution should be exercised. Fishing mortity rates appear to be at or slightly above rates of full exploitation. These results combined with decreased catches in recent years suggest that harest levels ar close to their upper lit." The stock assessment panel reduced the acceptable biological catch range from 6.9 - 15.4 ,milion pounds to 5.5 - 10.7 millon pounds for the 1988/89 fishing year. . In doing this, they pointed out to the Councils that in setting tota allowable catch for the 1988/89 fishing year, they should be aware that some decline in abundace may be occurg. A background report presented at the 1988 assessment meeting (Powers et al., 1988) contained four catch per unit effort (CPUE) data sets for the Atlantic migratory group of king mackereL. The catch per unit effort trends for headboats and charterboat logbook information in the South Atlantic and private boats on the Florida east coast all showed declines in abundace; the Panama City charerboat surey for boats from Georgia thugh NorthCarolina showed an increase from 1982 through 1985 but a decline in 1986 (Appendi A). Ths declining trnd in catch per unit effor furher indicates to the Council that the Atlantic migrtory group of king mackerel is overfshed. When the Councils initially were preparg the mackerel fishery management plan, the purse seining of mackerel was essentially prohibited by regulation in most state waters and in all waters for Florida fishermen. The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils concluded that the use of purse seines in the mackerel fishery was inappropriate and proposed the prohibition of this gear. The original plan was rejected by National Marne Fisheries Service because, in the opinion of Na~onal Marne Fisheries Servtce, suffcient data and rationale were not presented. Therefore a limited catch allowance was provided for study puroses. At the end of the the year study, the Councils were' to decide on the futuè of that special allocation.. . The study (Fable and Nakamura, 1986) showed that all diected purse seine catches were made off Florida and consisted of kig mackerel from the Gulf migrtory group and mostly Spanish 12 mackerel from the Atlantic migratory group. Some incidenta catches of Spansh mackerel occured off Louisiana. Since. the introduction of purse seines for king mackerel, catches have been relatively low and never exceeded the small allocations. The largest annual purse seine catch of Gulf migratory group king mackerel was 134,643 pounds from July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1984. Purse seine catches of Gulf migratory group king mackerel never exceeded 5 percent of the commercial catch. For the entie study period (March 1, 1983 though Februar 28, 1986), Gulf . migratory group king mackerel catches totaled 243,851 pounds or 2.4 percent of the commercial catch. Total Spanish mackerel catches were highest during 1985 when 200,791 pounds were landed, but never exceeded 7 percent of the total commercial catch. For the entie study period (March 1, 1983 through Februar 28, 1986), Spanish mackerel catches were 506,752 pounds or 2.8 percent of the commercial catch. This information supports the conclusion that the purse seine fishery is a mior and opportunistic fishery for mackerels. As an efficient gear, however, it has the potential for takng a major porton of the commercial quota within a short time period. (NOTE: More detaled catch informanon is provided in GMFC and SAFC (1987) which is Amendment Number 2 to the mackerel fishery management plan.) Subsequent to the study in 1986, the purse ,seine catch was 296,000 pounds in a, quota of 300,000 pounds. Durng April, 1988 run-around gillnets and purse seines accounted for 338,703 pounds of Atlannc migratory group kig mackereL. This represents the ffrst recorded time these gear tyes have taken Atlantic migratory group king mackereL. The April purse seine catch cannot be provided separately due to the confidential nature, . of this information. The Councils reviewed results of the thee year purse seine study (Fable and Nakamura, 1986) for which the temporar allocation was made. The authors reported the annual landings by pure seines never equaled their annual alowance, and even the aggregate landings for the entie period from March 1983 though March 1986 had not equaled the fit year's kig mackerel quota. The proposed amendment wil not severely impact purse seine fishermen because they target species other than mackerel; furer, prior to April 1988, pure seines were not used on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackereL. In addition, this proposed amendment is not expected to result in increased cost to consumers. The Councils concluded that the use of purse seines for mackerels should be discontiued on . Atlannc migratory group kig mackerel because: 1 . The Atlannc migratory group of king mackerel is overfshed. 2. It is imprudent and unfair to introduce a new user group into an overfshed fishery while existing, historic users are forced to limt catches because of reduced allocations. As stocks recover and trtional commercial fishermen are not tang their alocation, this issue will be reconsidered. 3. Purse seine boats are not historic paricipants in the mackerel fishery, not having b.een used since 1969 .until introduced in federal waters in 1983 for study purposes. The mackerel fishery appears to be only an opportunistic fishery for pure seines with mackerel being takën in 48 of the 305 purse seine .trps (l6 percent) as reported by Fable and Nakamura (1986). 13 4. The Councils are allocating the resource fairly, based on traditional use, to the greatest number of commercial fishermen. 5. Al states prohibit the use of pure seines for mackerel in al adjacent state waters. 6. The marginal value of a fish allocated to the trditional commercial fishery is higher than that of a fish allocated to the purse seine fishery (See SF!, in press for the economic condition for optimal alocation). Section 12.6.3.7 is revised as follows: 12.6.3.7 Rejected Alternative 1: .No change, continue a special allowance for purse seines on Atlantic migrtory group kig mackereL. The purse seine allowance provided within the commercial allocation is capped at 400,000 pounds. If taken by purse seines, this porton of the commercial quota would be unavailable to other commercial fishermen. The purse seine fishery during the study period failed each year to take its allowance even though other commercial king mackerel fishermen (hook & line and run-around gilnets) filed their quota and had to cease fishing. However, under certain circumstaces it has been demonstrted, the potential exists for this gear to tae a signifcant porton of the Atlantic migrtory group kig mackerel commercial allocation with the potential of adversely impacting the resource and disrupting traditional fishermen (Table 1). The special purse seine allowance for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel represents a potential loss to traditional commercial fishermen. Rejected Alternative 2: Do not specify a separte allowance (curently 400,000 ppunds) for purse seines on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel and allow them to fish under the commercial quota. While purse seines have taken relatively smal catches, they have the potential of takng large quantities of mackerel in a short period of time. An unrestrcted purse seine catch could severely jeopardize the abilty of traditional commercial hook & line mackerel' fishermen to prosecute their fishery because they ar fishing under severely reduced quotas and premature closures. ACTION 2: PROHIBITION OF DRIFT GILLNETS FOR ALL COASTAL' MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES A new Section 12.6.8.6 is added as follows: . 12.6.8.3 Drift Gilnets for Coastal Mii:ratory Pelai:ic Resources The use of drift gil net gear for all coastal migratory 'pelagic resources (king ma.ckerel~ Spanish mackerel, cobia, ceromackerel, little tunny, dolphin and in the 14 Gulf of Mexico bluefish) in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Councils' area of jurisdiction is prohibited and the retention prohibited in other drift gilnet fisheries. Mexico within the of these species is In prohibiting drft gill nets in these fisheries, it is the Councils' intent that this gear not be altered (e.g. fished with anchors, set in a different manner, etc.) so as to circumvent the above prohibition. To that end, the following definitions were approved with the understading that they may be modified by technical amendment of the regulations if necessar. Gilnet means a wall of nettig, suspended vertcally in the water by floats along the top and weights along the bottom, that entangles the head, gils, or other body pars of fish that attempt to pass though the meshes. Drift gilnet means a gilnet having a float line that is more than 1,000 yards in length; or any giUnet having a float line that is 1,000 yards or less in length, other than a run-around gillnet, that, when . used, drfts in the water, that is, is not anchored at both ends, whether or not it is attached to a vesseL. Run-around gilnet means a gilnet having a float line that is 1,000 yards or less in length that, when used, encloses an area of water. The following definitions ar from Sainsbur (1975): "The gilnet is a large wall of netting which may be set either just above the sea bed when fishing for demersal species, or anywhere from mid-water to the surace when pelagic fish are being sought. When working inshore in relatively shallow water, the nets ar ,:sually set and anchored in position, but an alternative is the drift net which is free to move according to tide and wind conditions." His Figure 85 which depicts varous methods of setting gillnets is included in AppendixA. The Councils are concemed that they cannot adequately protect overfshed king and Spansh mackerel resources if they ar alowed to be taen as a bycatch in drft net fisheries for other coastal pelagic species. Curently, there is no diected drft gillnet fishing for cobia, cero mackerel, little tunny, dolphin, or bluefish. Because drft gil nets are an indiscriminate gear, they cannot exclusively fish for any of these coastal pelagic species without takng a bycatch of king and Spanish mackerel.~ In addition, the Councils are prohibiting the retention of coastal migratory pelagics in other drft gilnet fisheries in order to faciltate enforcement and make the drft gilnet prohibition more effective. The shark drft net fishery is the only fishery, of which the Councils are aware, that wil be impacted by the prohibition on retention of all coastal migratory p.elagic resources. The Councils have no information on this fishery with which to evaluate the level of impact. When this information is provided by the NMS, the Councils wil be able to quantify this impact. . ' ANALYSIS OF IMACTS Receational Recrational catches of kig mackerel are reported to have declined and fishing touraments negatively impacted in 1986 and 1987 which coincides with the introduction of drft gillnets. Data 15 . provided by the Ft. Pierce Sportfishing Club for five touraments show a decline of 69 percent between 1988 (27 king mackerel caught) and 1987 (88 king mackerel caught). Recreational catch . data is limited mang it dificult to determe the magntude of the impact on recrational catches in areas ditly afecte by drt giet activity. Estimates of recrational catches ar most accurte for the entire South Atlantic Region and are somewhat less accurate for the Florida East Coast depending upon the sampling leveL. The recreational catch of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel on the Florida East Coast for the months Apri though September (drft gillnet fishing season) is shown in Figure 1. Catches did decline for the entie east coast of Florida in 1986 but were up in 1987 though still below the 1985 leveL. Catch data from the charerboat fleet when king mackerel were targeted for April though October, as determed from logbook responses to the mandatory charerboat surey, for 1986 and 1987 were 1,129 kings and 253 kings respectively - a decline of76 percent (Source: Letter from Brad Brown to Joan Butler dated October 20, 1988). Dr. Brown indicates that some qualifications to the data must be made: "Public relations problems with the mandatory surey may have resulted in the inclusion of suspect data. Therefore, the numbers in these tables must be viewed as approximations with confidence limits in excess of 100% I-n some cases." Dr. Brown also provided the 1987 headboat catch for southeast Florida. The kig mackerel catch was 54,956 fish weighing 356,016 pounds. Monthly catches of kig mackerel by number for Januar though March were 16 percent, 17 percent, and 20 percent respectively of the total king mackerel catch. The drft gil net fishing season begins in Apri and ends in September. The monthly headboat catch was 12 percent in April and May and then averaged between 3 percent and 4 percent for the rest of the year. This may provide additional evidence o~ the decrease in recreational catch after the introduction of drft gilnets although other factors may have afected headboat catches. Total prohibition on drft gillnets would potentially make available their porton of the king mackerel catch (765,226 pounds; Table 2) for harest by traditional recreational and commercial hook & line fisheries. This should not be confused with altering existing allocations since it simply refers to the increased local availabilty that will result from prohibiting drft gillnets. How these king mackerel would be distrbuted among these two user groups is unknown, but the Councils concluded that this action would improve the recreational catch in the Ft. Pierce area and southward due to increased local availabilty. Also, other highly valued recreational species taken incidental to the mackerel drft gilnet fishery (Table 3) would become avaiable to recreational users. Commrcial Hook & Line Commercial hook & lie catches in Brevard County has vared over tie (Figure 2). Catches in -Indian River County show a general downward trnd in recent years (Figue 2). Hook and line catches declined by 21 percent from 1986 to 1987 in St. Lucie and Marin Counties and by 56 percent fr?m 1986 to 1987 in Palm Beach County (from Figure 2). Total hoök &- line catch for . --~' 16 Broward, Indian River, St. Lucie, Marn, and Palññ Beach counties declined from 1.2 milion pounds in 1985 to 1.1 millon in 1986 and declined furher to 0.7 millon pounds in 1987 (Figure 2). King mackerel catch per trp data were made available by the National Marne Fisheries Service's Southeast Fisheries Center durng the Januar (1988) Council meeting. Palm Beach County's monthly catch per trp for 1986 and 1987 declined in April and May, then increased in June and July, then declined in August and increased in September. Overall, the annual catch per trp for Palm Beach County was 150 pounds in 1985 (F DNR), 186 pounds in 1986 (NMS) and 174 pounds in 1987 (NMS). Other possible reasons for a decline in Palm Beach County's catches are competition, a strong south tide, and major upwellngs of cold water. These factors may move the fish furher offshore. Also, the.l 0% eared income requirment (implemented in 1987) reduced the number of fishermen. In 1987, Florida implemented a two fish recreational bag limit in State waters and a 50 fish limit for commercial fishermen holding a federal permit. After reviewing all available informtion, the Councils concluded that the introduction of drft gi1lnets was a major contrbutor to decreased hook & line catches. Catch data from commercial hook & line fishermen was provided by Mr. Ben Harig. Examning the catch pertrp data from Mr. Harg's data for 1980 through 1987 (calculated by . SAFC staff), there does not appear to b~ a decline due to the introduction of drft gillnets in 1986 and 1987 durng the April- June time period. The July - September time period does not appear to. be affected in 1986 (catch per trp =418 pounds) but the 1987 catch per trp was only 95 pounds (13 trps with a catch of 1,230 pounds). The same type of data from Mr. Tom Heisler does not appear to indicate a decline during the April - June time period. For the July - September time period, the data track that of Mr. Harg: catch per trp in 1986 for 17 trps was 635 pounds and for 6 trps in 1987 the catch per trp was 267 pounds. Mr. Harig provided updated catch information for his 1988 catch: catch per trp for April - June was 547 pounds and catch per trp for July September was 63 pounds (18 trps with a catch of 1,129 pounds). The catch records from these two individual's fishing withìn 15 miles of the Jupiter Inlet suggest that the drft gillnet catches durng 1987 (and 1988 for Mr. Harig's records) may have reduced the hook & line catch per trp in the Jupiter Inlet area, however, the average catch per trp for the industr as a whole only decreased from 186 pounds in 1986 to 174 pounds in 1987. For some reason the catches of these individuals. were much lower than the average for the industr as a whole durng 1987. Total prohibition on drft gill nets would potentially make available their porton of the king mackerel catch (765,226 pounds) (Table 2) for harest by trditional recreational and commercial hook & line fisheries. Ths shoûld not be confused with altering existing allocations since it simply refers to the increased local availabilty that wil result from prohibiting drft gilnets. How these king mackerel would be distrbuted among these two user groups is unknown, but the Councils concluded that this action would improve the recreational catch in. the Ft. Pierce area and southward 17 due to increased local availabilty. An ådditional unkown is how much of this potential increase would be taken by commercial hook & line fishermen in Brevard and Indian River Counties prior to these fish arving in Pal Beach County. Drift Gilnet Durng 1987 there were thireen vessels in ths fishery, with each boat operated by a captain (not necessarly the owner) and caring two to three crew members (NMFS, 1987). Industr representatives have pointed out that the total number of vessels was 14 with only 13 vessels actually fishing durng 1987 (Joan Butler, pers. comm.). According to National Marne Fisheries Service port agents, fleet size durng 1988 should not have exceeed 13 vessels. Total number of fishermen in the fishery ranges between 39 and 52. These vessels and fishennen also fish in the run-around gillnet fishery for Gulf migrtory group king mackerel and Gulf and Atlantic migrtory . group Spanish mackerel and the shark drft gilnet fishery. Periodically they fish smaller gillnet boats (outboards) in the Indian River and outside the inlets. As of September, 1987, there was a total of approximately 34,500 yards (19.6 miles) of drft gillnet gear in the fishery (excluding two boats with unkown net length). if the estiate net lengths given in Table 2 are included, the total . length of drft gillnet gear in the fishery is 38,800 yards (22 miles). At a cost of $5 to $6 per yard, the total investment in drft gillnet gear is between $194,00 and $232,800. The Council's preferred alternative would totally prohibit the use of drft gilnet gear for all coastal migratory pelagic resources (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero mackerel, little tunny, dolphin and in the Gulf of Mexico bluefish) in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico within the Councils' area of jurisdiction. This would result in the loss of 765,226 pounds of king mackerel (based on 1987 drft gillnet catches) to the thireen vessels in the fishery (Table 2). Catches during April and May of 1988 were 83,646 and 388,944 pounds respectively (Table 1). Catches for these two months increased over the same months in 1987 by 14 percent and 134 percent respectively. Total drft gillnet catches increased from 795,268 pounds in 1987 to 808,046 pounds in 1988 (16% increase). The 1987 catches are available by vessel and have been used to estimate the impacts at the vessel level; ths level of informtion for 1988 is not avaiable. The value of the 1987 catch was estimated to have been $925,923 using the mid-point of the price range reported for the 1987 season ($1.21 per pound). The range of losses to the individual drft gillnet vessels would be between 3,968 and 122,987 pounds worth between $4,801 and $148,814. These losses only represent losses due to foregone king mackerel catches. There would be additional losses from other incidental bycatch species curently landed and sold. Based on the projected tota landed catch (Table 3), 65,755 pounds offish other than king mackerel were landed. If one assumes an ave~age price per pound of $1.00, then the loss would be $65,755; different assumptions about price 'per pound yield different estiates of the loss. Under the Councils' preferred alternative there would not be a net loss in revenue. As pointed out previously, fish that were harested by ~ft gilnets would be potentially available for 18 harest by commercial and recreational hook & line fishermen. If, for analytical purposes, we assume that the entie 765,226 pounds would be harested by commercial hook & line fishermen, the fish would be worth $1.41 per pound (NMFS, 1987), for a total value of $1,078,969. This exceeds the losses to the drft gillnet fishermen ($925,923) by $153,046 but does not take,into account the loss of other species in the catch (value unkown but not expected to be very large) or the loss from money invested in drft gillnet gear ($194,000 to $232,800). National Marne Fisheries Service (1987) reported that the life expectancy of net gear vared from 60 - 84 months for five of the top vessels in the drft gilnet fishery. Given that these vessels have probably parcipated since 1986, the losses shown above may overestimate the actual losses invested in net gear date of fit purchase, additional amounts aded each season, and rate of depreciation must be determed to quantiy the actual lost value. The assumption that al kig mackerel would be caught by trditional commercial hook & line fishermen is not entirly COITect. However, given historical catches, the run-around gillnet fishery would not be expected to harest many, if any, of these fish (NOTE: In addition, action in this amendment will prohibit this gear on Atlantic migrtory group kig mackerel). Due to the potential increased local availabilty resulting from the drft gilnet prohibition, recreational fishermen probably would also harest some porton of these additional king mackereL. This should not be confused with altering existing aliOCations since it simply refers to the increased local availabilty that wil result from prohibiting drift gilnets. The value of this recreational portion, although unknown, would tend to offset the remaining losses identified above. Therefore, the Councils concluded that when the non-quantified benefits ar factored into the quantified benefits and costs, the preferrd option of prohibitig drft gillnets results in a net benefit to society. . Because of continuing low commercial allocations, the fisheries for Gulf migratory group king and Spanish mackerel and Atlantic migratory groups of Spanish mackerel do not appear to . offer an acceptable alternative source of income for displaced drft gilnet fishermen. The shark fishery-may off-set some of their losses;. This option appears limited, however, because of the unkown status of the shark resource and the available life history information indicates that sharks cannot sustain heavy exploitation. Drift gillnet fishermen have advised that winter income from run-around gilnetting was, in the past, sufficient to tie-up the boats ,during six months in the summer. However, reduced allocauons have changed this such that the vessels must supplemental fish during the summer, the shark fishery takes place durg winter and these vessels are too big for mackerel troll fishing. Consequently, there do not appear to be any other fisheries available to absorb this effort that are not aleady fully or over-exploited. However, as the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel and Atlantic Spanish mackerel rebuild, these fishermen may be able to harest larger catches with ru-around gillnets, thereby offsetting some loss of income. The drft gillnet prohibition would bring the Councils into functional agrement with existing Florida State regulations thereby makng enforcement of Florida's prohibition much more effective. Existing Florida regulations do not prohiqit the use of drft gilnets in state waters; however, . 19 targeting of king mackerel with any net gear is impractical within Florida waters because only catches under the 2 fish bag limit are permtted. Florida also permts a one percent or 250 pound (whichever is less) bycatch of king mackerel in legal harests of Spanish mackerel taken in state waters. BACKGROUND The Council's requested the Secretar to prohibit drt gilnets by emergency action based on conflct within the fishery. This request was rejected, however, based on lack of sufficient rationale. The Councils contended that "competition" as defined in the original fishery management plan is a form of conflct and therefore is an acceptable rationale for prohibitig this gear through the regulatory amendment process. Using the regulatory amendment process, the South Atlantic Council attempted to reverse reportd decreases in receational and commercial hook & line catches south of the Ft Pierce - Pt. Salerno ara that the Councils believed resulted from drft gillnet use in the Ft. Pierce - Pt. Salerno area durng 1986 and 1987, and to prevent fuer declines in the future. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council concured with this position. The Councils' regutatory amendment was disapproved by the National Marne Fisheries Service Southeast Acting Regional Dirctor with the following reasoning: (1) without first establishing that a user or gear conflct exists, the regulatory amendment process is not authorized, and (2) the present record does not establish a user or gear conflct within this fishery. The National Marne Fisheries Service Acting Regional Director stated that the present problem appears to be one of allocation among competing users rather that a user or gear conflct and concluded that if the Councils desire to resolve a problem they believe is caused by drft gillnets, they should amend the plan. The Councils ar now proceedig with development of this Amendment 3 to prohibit drft gillnets. Past mackerel assessment reports have indicated that the Atlantic king mackerel migratory group was fully utilzed whereas the Gulf migratory group was considered overfshed (Annual National Marne Fisheries Service Assessment Reports). In disapproving the Councils' September, 1987 request for emergency action to prohibit drft gillnets, the National Marne Fisheries Service Actig Regional Director based par of his decision on these assessments and indicated this was not a resource problem, because the quota had never been reached on the Atlantic migratory group. Furer, and conversely, he stated that if drft gillnets were deployed in a diected fishery for Gulf king mackerel in the exclusive economic zone, he would prohibit use of the gear by emergency action. Subsequent to these actions, the status of Atlantic migrtory group king mackerel was altered in the 1988 mackerel assessment. A summar of this report is presented ~der Action 1 and is not repeated here. In the 1988 stock assessment report, the acceptable biological catch range was reduced and the Councils were cautioned that in settig tota allowable catch for the 1988/89 fishing year to be aware that some decline in abundace may be occurng. In addition, the declining trend in catch per unit effort furter .indicated to the Councils that the Atlantic migrtory group of king ~' 20 inackerel is overfshed. The Councils ar concerned about the overfshed status of Atlantic group king mackerel and . believe that conservative management must be immediately implemented. In par, this is based on the Councils' experience with Gulf migratory group kig mackerel which have become severely overfshed. Because of this concern, and based on the 1988 mackerel assessment, the Councils at their April, 1988 meeting reduced total allowable catch on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel by 28 percent from 9.68 millon pounds to 7 millon pounds. The resulting commercial allocation was reduced from 3.59 to 2.6 millon pounds. The drt gillnet fishery has the capacity to harest a large number of fish in a relatively short period of time which in 1988 contrbuted to the early closure of the fishery. This negatively impacted traditional hook & line commercial parcipants durng 1988 and these impacts are expected to contiue in the futue if this gear is not . prohibited. The hook & line catch in St. Lucie and Marn Counties decreased by 21 percent from 1986-1987 and the hook & line catch in Palm Beach, Brevard and Indian River Counties decreased by 44 percent from 1986-1987 (see data presented under Section IT). Total hook & line catches for April - September from the southeast Florida fishery were down 25 percent and 37 percent, respectively (Table 1). Additionally, the hook & line contrbution to total seasonal landings has progrssively decreased from 1986 though 1988 frm 83 percent to 38 percent (Table 1). The drft gilnet catch increased by ~73 percent from 1986-1988. As a result of these catches, drft gillnets are impacting traditional fishing methods (handlines and trollng) and, as previously discussed, increases the potential for closure of the commercial fishery. The Florida East Coast hook & lie commercial fleet increased from about 50 vessels in 1969 to 250 vessels in 1976 (GMFMC and SAFMC, 1985). The number of commercial permts in Florida for the Atlantic migratory group was 979 in 1986/87 (NMFS SERO). Of these, 861 were hook & line, 49 net and hook & line, 66 net and 3 miscellaneous. The total number decreased to 756 in 1987/88 with 630 hook & line, 63 net and hook & line and 63 net only. Permts issued from Apri1, 1988 to July 22, 1988 for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (Appendix B indicate an increase in Florida to 794 total permts with 647 hook & line, 102 net and hook & line, 42 net only and 2 other gear. Drift gilnet fishermen represent less than 2 percent of the permt holders, yet harested 42 percent of the commercial Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel taken on the east coast of Florida durng the 1988/89 fishing year. The commercial quota for Atlantic migrtory group of kig mackerel was revised downward from 3.59 milion pounds to 2.6 millon pounds as a result of the Councils' actions based on the 1988 stock assessment. In previous year, the commercial allocation was never reached; however. ' the early closure during the 1988/89 fishing year is shown in Figure 3. Under a commercial alloc-ation of 3.59 millon pounds average landings from 1979/80 though 1985/86 fishing years were 2.5 millon pounds, approximately 1.0 millon pounds below the quota. With the 2.6 millon pound quota in place, average landings from 1979/80 through 1985/86 would. have been ~ 21 approximately 100,000 pounds below the quota. The last two complete fishing years are shown separately because they give a more accurate picture of the currnt status of the resource. The quota of 2.6 millon pounds would have been exceeded in December during the 1986/87 fishing year and durng November durng the 1987/88 fishing year. No actual closure took place because the quota during these fishing years was 3.59 millon pounds. Catches thus far in the curent fishing year (1988/89) under the quota of 2.6 milion pounds are also shown in Figure 3 though the end of December. The quota was exceeded durng November which should have resulted in closure of the commercial fishery; however, the fishery remained open by court order until Februar 23, 1989 when an appeals cour order resulted in closure of the fishery. The negative socioeconomic impacts to the traditional hook & line fishermen that resulted from this closure perhaps could have been avoided if drft gillnets had not been permtted in this fishery because a significant porton (47% April-September on the Florida East Coast) of the 1988/89 catches were taken by drft gilnets (Table 1). The Councils concluded that the early closure was exacerbated by the use of drft gilnet gear and that without drft gilnet gear in the fishery, a closur of the commercial fishery could have been avoided. Given the overfshed status of the Atlantic migrtory group of king mackerel and the potential for the commercial allocation to be fully utilized by traditional gear, the Councils concluded that prohibiting the use of drft gillnet gear for al coasta migratory pelagic resources (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero mackerel, little tunny, dolphin and in the Gulf of Mexico bluefish) in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico within the Councils'ara of authority is the most appropriate management alternative: 1. To meet the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan, 2. To provide the gratest net societa benefit, 3. To be the least burdensome, ard 4. Most likely to correct the problems of overfshing and full utilization of the commercial allocation resulting in the inequities of early closurs present in the fishery. The Councils' conclusions were based on the best available scientific information, the National Marne Fisheries Service's drft gilnet observer report (NMS, 1987), and extensive public input from all user groups. In addition, the Councils have the following concerns about drft gillnet gear but for which data is limited, nonexistent or confictig: 1. Large net catches taken in a limited area, within a short period of time can disrupt schooling behavior and result in localized overfshing. Negative impacts on endagered and threatened sea turles. Wastage of incidentay caught fish (parcularly sailfsh). 2. 3. 22 4. Removal of bycatch may adversely affect predator-prey relàtionships. 5. Lost or ghost drft gill nets continue to fish. 6. Extent of habitat dage due to nets becoming tangled on Ii ve bottom material. 7. Displacement of traditional fishelDen and gear by drft ginets. 8. Drft gillnet gear hampers navigation. 9. Gear conflct. 10. Impact of drt gilnet harest on exvessel price. 11. Lower qualty of net caught fish as compar to hook & line caught fish. A new Section 12.6.8.7 is added as follows: 12.6.8.7 Alternatives to Prohibition of Drft Gilnets Rejected Alternative 1. No Action Alternative: The no action alternative would allow the continued use of drft gillnets in the coastal migratory pelagics fishery. This would result in the continued threat of early closure of the commercial fishery and result in negative impacts on trditional commercial fishermen. In addition, the potential exists for drft gillnet gear to be used on the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel which is overfshed and undergoing rebuilding with strngent bag limits and quotas. Fishermen have agreed voluntarly to not 'use drft gilnets on the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel and the then Acting National Mare Fisheries Service Regional Director indicated that if drft gillnets . were used on Gulf migratory group king mackerel he would prohibit this gear by emergency action. The Councils rejected this alternative because it would not address the problems of the overfshed status of AtlantiC migratory group king mackerel, the potential for early closure of the commercial quota for Atlantic kings and the overfshed status of Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of Spanish mackerel and the Gulf migratory group of king mackereL. Detailed impacts from allowing drft gillnets in ths fishery ar discussed under Action 2. Rejected Alternative 2. Limt the number of units in conflct area though the regulatory amendment procedure specified in Amendment 1 to the mackerel fishery management plan. This would be better than a forma1limited entr program because the lengthy process for approval of a formal program would exacerbate the problem. Ths alternative was rejected because the Councils feel that even alowing a limted number of vessels in this fishery would continue the tye of impacts discussed under the no action alternative above and under Action 2. Capping the number of vessels at 14 would do nothing to address the problems identified. Rejected Alternative 3. More observers. Supported by drft gillnet (ishermen. The Councils rejected this alternative because it would not do anything in the immediate future to address problems discussed under the no action alternative and under Action 2. Continuous monitoring for ~--' 23 consecutive year would provide a historical data bàse to better quantify other problems that have been alluded to but for which insufficient data is avaiable. However, the National Marne Fisheries Service does not have the resources to continue the observer program and have not done so during the 1988/89 fishing year. Rejected Alternative 4. Prohibition on the use of drft gilnets on only the Gulf migratory group king mackereL. Supported by drft gillnet fishemmen. Even though this alternative would provide protection for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel, the Councils rejected this alternative because it would not address the problems discussed under the no action alternative and under Action 2. Rejected Alternative 5. Proposal by Organized Fishennen of Florida (OFF) on behalf of the 14 drt giet fishennen: (a) Cap the number of vessels at 14 (curent industr estimate). (b) Limit net length to 4,00 yards and only allow 1 net per 'boat. Ths was rejected for the reasons mentioned in rejected alternatives 1 and 2 above and under Action 2. Rejected Alternative 6. Base drft .gillnet quota on the percentage of total commercial permts that drft gilnet boats represent. If there are 1,014 tota commerciai permts composed of 776 hook & line and 238 net, 17 of which use drft gillnets, the drft gillnet allocation would be 2 percent of 3.56 millon pounds or 60,000 pounds. Under the new commercial allocation of 2.6 millon pounds, the drft gillnet quota would be 52,00 pounds. This measur is so restrctive that it would essentially prohibit the use of drft gillnets since the catch per trp can exceed 5,000 pounds (NMFS, 1987). As such it would prevent the problems discussed above and under Action 2 but would increase enforcement costs and probably result in catches in excess of the quota due to the number of vessels and the high catch per trp. The Councils rejected this alternative because it stil would allow drft gilnet gear and would result in some of the problems (e.g. bycatch, impact on turles, ghost nets, habitat damage, navigation problem, gear conflct and lower quality of net caught fish) discussed above and under Action 2. Rejected Alternative 7. Cap the harest by providig a quota of 480,000 pounds (average for 1986 and 1987) for the drt gillet fishery on the Atlantic stock of king mackerel and provide a maxmum net length of 3,000 yards per vessel and place a total ban on drft gi1net gear for the Gulf stock of king mackereL. (NOTE: The average catch for drft gillnets in 1986 and 1987 was actually 486,890 pounds.) Limiting the maximum length of drt gillnets to 3,000 yards would reduce the length of nets on vessels A, B, C and D (Table 2); thee vessels would be unaffected and six vessels would b"6 24 allowed to increase their nets (Table 2). (NOTE: Net lengths of 2,800 and 1,500 yards were assumed for vessels I and L, respectively, based on similar catches for vessels with a known net length.) The net limit of 3,000 yards would reduce catch (based on assuming a proportional relationship between net length and catch and assuming number of trps remains the same) and value to the vessels as shown in Table 2. Overal, the drft gillet fishery would lose $151,904; the four larger vessels would lose between $22,487 and $66,552, thee vessels would be unaffected and the remaiing vessels would gain between $2,768 and $9,603. The additional measur of a quota of 486,890 pounds would reduce the overall catches of the . drft gillnet vessels by 152,795 pounds representing a furer loss of $184,882. The fishery would be expected to close sometime durng July. Therefore, total industr losses resulting from the net limit of 3,000 yards and the quota of 486,890 pounds would be $336,786. How these losses are distrbuted among individual vessels would depend on whether or not additional vessels enter the fishery, whether vessels leave the fishery, whether all vessels fish the maximum length of net and number of trps made durng the fishing season. These factors mae it impossible to quantitatively estimate losses at the individual firm leveL. This measure would prevent any furer expansion of this fishery but the Councils rejected this alternative because it would not prevent other problems (e.g. bycatch, impact on tures, ghost nets, habitat damage, navigation problem, gear conflct and lower quality of net caught fish) mentioned above and under Action 2. . ACTION 3: PROHIBITION OF RUN-AROUND GILLNETS FOR ATLANTIC MIGRATORY GROUP KING MACKEREL Section 12.6.8 is amended to add a new 12.6.8.6 to read as follows: 12.6.8.6 Run-Around Gilnets for Atlantic Mieratory Group Kin2 Mackerel The use of run-around gil nets to take Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is prohibited. Run-around gilnets catches of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel were first taken durng April, 1988 (Table 1), however, this gear has not historically been used to harest Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (NMFS, 1987). Public input durng the he.arng process indicated that this gear has been used sporadcally in the past, however historical data is not available by gear. , After reviewing available information the Councils have voted to prohibit run-around gilnets for takng Atlantic migratory group king mackerel because this group is overfshed and continuing the use of run-around gilnets wi11ikely result in early closure of the commercial fishery causing , 25 corresponding negative impacts to tradtional hook & line commercial parcipants. The rationààe to prohibit run-around gillnets is entiely consistent with that included ,under Actions 1 (Purse seine prohibition) and 2 ( Drft gi1net prohibition) and that rationale, as well as, infonnation on the status of the Atlantic migratory group of kig mackerel, is not repeated here. Furer, run-around gilnet gear is not considered a tradtional gear in the Atlantic migrtory group king mackerel fishery. This prohibition is not being requested for Atlantic or Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel or Gulf migratory group king mackerel because run-around gillnet gear is considered traditional gear in those fisheries. . A new Section 12.6.8.7 is added as follows: 12.6.8.7 Alternatives to Prohibition of Run-Around Gilnets on Atlantic Migratory Group King MackereL. Rejected Alternative 1: No Change - Continue to allow the use of run-around gillnets on Atlantic migrtor grup king mackereL. Run-around gillnet gear was not used on Atlantic migratory group king mackerel prior to April, 1988 and mayor may not be used in the future. The Councils concluded that the potential for run-around gillnet gear to be used is suffcient to warant its prohibition due to the negative impacts that result to trditional commercial users when this gear is utilized, resulting in early closure of the commercial quota. As a result, both the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have voted to prohibit this gear. ACTION 4: ADD A NEW OBJECTIVE TO THE FMP Section 12.4 Specific Manai:ement Objectives is revised by adding the following objective: o b iective 5 Minimize waste and bycatch in the fishery. Waste catch and economic wastage due to product quality. includes both discarded The Councils have become very concerned over the recent introduction of drft gilnets into the coastal migratory pelagics fishery. In paricular, the bycatch (Table 3) and resulting wastage is not resulting in optimum use of these resources. An additional factor is the quality of the product in that the price per pound for the drft gilnet catch is less than that of the hook & line catch which causes economic wastage to commercial parcipants. --.. 26 ACTION~: UPDATE OF THE HABITAT SECTION OF AMENDMENT 1 TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES (MACKERELS) Replace Section 6.0 of Amendment 1 with the following: 6.2 DESCRIPTON OF HABITAT OF TH STOCKS COMPRISING TH MANAGEMENT UNIT The habitat of al adults in the coasta pelagic management unit, except dolphin, is the coastal waters out to the edge of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Dolphin is an oceanic species that may be found on the shelf. Within that area, the occurrence of these species is governed by temperature and salinity. All species except bluefish are seldom found in water temperatures less than 20° C. Bluefish are commonly found in water temperatures down to 12° C. Salinity preference vares, but is generally for high salinity. Dolphin are seldom found in waters with salinity less than 36 ppt. The scombrids prefer high salinities, but less than 36 ppt. Salinity preference of little tunny ard cobia is not well defined. Bluefish exhibit a wide preference and can be found in estuarne waters of relatively low salinity. Some populations of bluefish are estuarne-dependent in the juvenile stage. The laral habitat of all species in the coastal pelagic management unit is the water column. These areas ar identified for each species in Section 5.1 of the FM. Within the spawning ara, eggs and larae are concentrted in the surace waters. Estuares are important habitats for most of the major prey species of coastal pelagics. For this reason, estuarne habitats and factors which affect them should be considered as a par of the . coastal pelagic management unit. All the coasta pelagic species, except the dolphin, move from one area to another and seek as prey whatever local resources happen to be abundat. Many of the prey species of the coastal pelagics ar estuarne-dependent in that they spend all or a portion of their lives in estuares. Accordingly, the coastal pelagic species, by virue of their food- source, are to some degree also dependent upon estuares and, therefore, can be expected to be detrmentally. afected if the productive capabilties of estuares ar greatly degraded. 6.1 Habitat Condition Offshore areas used by adults appear to be the least affected by nearshore habitat alterations and water quality degradation. Since most of the species reside offshore in deeper water, there is an unkown effect of pesticides, herbicides, and other harul wastes which may be deleterious to many inshore fisheries. Alterations of the environment, coupled with local changes in environmental pareters such as temperatu and salinity, have occurred to an unkown extent in estuares and nearshore waters. Therefore, habitat degradation is more likely to affect eggs and larae, because of 11eir sensitivity to environmental changes, or indiectly affect the adults through predator:-prey relations. . The prey species, which are largely estuarne-dëpendent, may be directly threatened by 27 . estuarne alterations. Natural and man-induced changes have altered freshwater inflow and removed much habitat. Natural wetland losses result from forces such as erosionl sea level rises, subsidence, and accretion. The major man-induced activities that have impacted environmental grdients in the estuarne zone ar: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. constrction and maitenance of navigation channels; discharges from wastewater plants and industres; dredge and fill for land use development; agrcultu runoff; ditching, drning, or impounding wetlands; oil spils; therm discharges; mining, paricularly for phosphate, and petroleum; entraiment and impingement from electrc powerplants; das; maras; alteration of freshwater infows to estuares; saltwater intrsion; and non-point-source discharges of contamnants. All of the south Atlantic' and Gulf of Mexico estuares have been impacted to some degree by one or more of the above activities. The estuares also have been the most impacted by water quality degradation. Numerous pollution-related reports and publications exist (e.g., NOAA, 1987), but there still is no complete list of chemical contamnants, their effects, or concentrtions. A comprehensive inventory to assess how seriously the estuares are polluted also is needed. The coastal pelagics spend almost all of their life cycle offshore where environmental conditions are more stable and man's effect is less severe. However, if depletion of estuarne-dependent coastal pelagic food sources begins to affect the stocks, then estuares wil have to be managed to the same degree for coasta pelagics as for estuarne-dependent species such as shrp. 6.1.1 Habitat Areas ofParcular Concern Habitat areas of paricular concern would be those areas that are spawning grounds and habitats where eggs and larae develop. Estuarne habitats that provide prey species along migration pathways also are vital. Such areas, however, are still poorly known and requie furher delineation before specific critical habitats can be designated. 6.1.2 We ar unaware of any curent habitat condition that affects the abilty to harest and market coasta pelagic resources. The same applies. to recreationa11y caught fish. 28 6.2 Habitat Thats At present, there is no documented evidence that egg and laral habitats have been degraded by natual or ma-made impact to a degree suffcient to affect recruitment. However, man's impact on the habitat has grater pote.n.tial to affect the eggs and larae than the adults, and the magntude of man's impact in ,the spawning area has ben rapidly increasing. . Oil pollution from offshore oil spils or chrnic leakage or discharge from operating oil wells is a potential dager to the spawning grounds of coastal pelagic species. The water soluble aromatic hydrocarbon component of crude oil is daaging to fish eggs and embryos. Fifty percent mortality was experienc.ed in herrng and anchovy larae exposed to benzene'in the range of 20 to 25 ppm in a laboratory experiment (Strhsaker et aI., 1974). ~ublethal effects observed in laboratory experiments were abnormal development and altered respirtion rates. Eggs collected from areas impacted by chronic oil pollution showed a lower hatching rate (20-25 percent did not hatch) and larae showed a higher percent of abnormalities than eggs and larae collected from other sites (Strhsakeret al., 1974). Other pollutants such as pesticides may act synergistically with oil to produce deleterious effects on young stages of fish (Strhsaker et aI., 1974). Oil dispersants with water soluble aromatic hydrocarbon fractions also have been found to be damaging to eggs and larae (Wilson, 1976), although the second generation dispersants are less toxic than those originally used after oil spils, due to the reduction in aromatic hydrocarbons (Wilson, 1977). . 6.3 Habitat Information Needs The vast majority of our highly-valued living marne resources are criticaly dependent upon healthy environments. Declines in several of these commercially and recreationally important fisheries have been attrbuted to overfshing, loss of habitat, pollution, envionmental alteration, disease, and natu varabilty of the stocks. Effective fisheries management requires an improved understading of these factors. Our chief concern related to living marne resources is how human activities impact fishery productivity. Research is needed to provide knowledge of the factors that affect energy flow. This understanding of ecological processes must then be combined with information on the health, distrbution, and abundance of ecologically important organsms. By understanding the ecological linkages and information on the status of fishery stocks, managers of fisheries and habitat wil be better able to manage estuare-dependent living mare resources. To understand the causes of fishery declines and better predict the effects of human activities on fishery population~, the following research needs relative to coastal pelagics are provided so that state, federal, and private research efforts can focus on those areas that would allow the development of measurs to better maaage coasta pelagics an4 their habitat: 29 1. Identify optimum coastal pelagic hàbitat and environmental and habitat conditions that limit production (e.g., focus more on life history studies that wil define the critical fisheries habitats for food, cover, spawning, nursery areas, and migration routes); 2. Determne whether or not king mackerel hatching or laral development in the western Gulf, a major spawning area, are significantly affected by proximity to operating oil wells (or brine discharges) and if this affects recritment; 3. Quantify the relationships between coastal pelagic resources production and habitat (e.g., what are the key trophic pathways in the ecosystem, and how does the flux of essential nutrents, carbon compounds, and energy through these systems influence fisheries productivity?); and 4. Determne the relative effects of fishing, pollution, and natual mortality on fishery population dynamics. Also determne the effects of cumulative habitat loss on fisheries productivity and economic value. 6.4 Habitat Protection Pro~ams State and federa agencies and laws and policies that afect coastal pelagics habitat are found in Section 7 of the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP (GMFC and SAFC, 1983) and in Section 6 of Amendment 1 to the FMP (GMFC and SAFC, 1985). Specific involvement by other federal agencies ar noted as follows: Offce of Coastal Zone Management, Marne Sanctuares Program (MSP), NOAA. Specifically, this program manages and funds the marne sanctuares progr (MSP). On-site management and enforcement ar generally delegated to the states though special agrements. Fundig for research and maagement is aranged though grts. In terms of complementing the protection of nearshore habitat that may be used by coastal migratory pelagics from a site-specific perspective, this is one of the most important federal programs. This program was authorized under Title III of the Marne Protection Research and Sanctuares Act (MPRSA) of 1972. Its purose is to preserve or restore the conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values of localized ara "... as far seaward as the outer edge of the continental shelf, ...(and in) other coasta waters whether the tide ebbs and flows ..." (MRSA, Section 302a). In effect, the MSP is a coastal water counterpar to the more famiar national park, forest, wildlife refuge, and wilderness systems. Site management and admnistrtive responsibilty for a sanctuar may either be retained by , OCZM or delegated with necessar funding support to other appropriate management units. The MSP is parcularly interested in protecting outstanding cora reef areas. One of the six existing sanctuares - the KLCRNMS off Key Largo, Florida, - complements state.effort at John 30 Pennekap State Park by protecting a 343 km2 (100 nm2 , section of the upper Florida reef ttact. A management plan for the Key Largo sanctuar has been designed to provide the protection necessar and insure long-term viabilty of the ecosystem. The management plan also addresses public education, environmental and regulatory enforcement monitoring, and regulatory enforcement needs at the site. Enforcement is conducted cooperatively by the DNR (Marne-Patrol and Park Rangers) and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Lo Key National Marne Sanctuar covers a 5 nm2 çoral reef ara located 6.7 nm east of Big Pine Key, Florida. It was designated in Januar 1981 to maintain, protect, and enhance the quality of the natural, biological, aesthetic, and cultural resources of the Looe Key system, to promote and stimulate marne research efforts diected toward improved management decision makg and identication and analysis of marne ecological interrelationships, and to enhance public awarness of the functioning of the Lo Key cora reef system. National Marne Fisheries Service (NMFS). The enactment of the Magnuson Act provides for exclusive management of fisheries seaward of state jursdiction. This includes both specific fishery stocks and habitat. The process for developing FMPs is highly complex. It includes plan development by varous procedures by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. NMFS implements approved plans. The Coast Guard, NMFS, and states enforce FMPs. FMPs for coral and coral reefs, reef fish, grouper and snapper, coastal migratory pelagics, swordfish, bilfish and spiny lobster are in force. ' National Park Service (NPS). National parks and monuments are under th~ jurisdiction of NPS. Management, enforcement, and researh ar accomplished in house. The system of national parks and monuments operated by the NPS, in the broadest terms, preserve for all times scenic beauty, wilderness, native wildlife, indigenous plant life, and aras of scientific significance and antiquity §16 U.S.C. (l)r. Although the NPS include~ several marne areas, their distinctly land-based orientation makes them somewhat less likely to include new marne areas within their system. Nevertheless, areas operated by the NPS within the present study area include and manage significant areas that could be used by coastal migratory pelagics or their food sources - the Everglades National Park, the Biscayne National Park north of Key Largo, Florida, and the Fort Jefferson National Monument in the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Both the statement for management for the Jefferson National Monument and the general management plan for Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park, include as major management objectives the protection of natual resources within their boundares. At the Fort Jefferson Monument,. all areas within the Monument's administrative boundares (with the exception of Garden Key), are classified as an outstanding natural area under the NPS's land .classification system. Prohibited activities include commercial fishing, while allowed uses include sport fishing and nonconsumptive recreatioI1al activities. 31 Minerals Management Service (MMS). This agency has jursdiction over mineral and petroleum resources on the continental shelf. The MMS along with the U.S. Geological Surey is charged with admistering mineral exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), pursuant to the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended in 1978 (43 U.S.C. (1331 et seq.)). The MMS serves as the admnistrative a~ency for leasing submerged federa lands. . Of parcular interest is MMS' abilty to withdrw trcts from proposed OCS mineral lease sales for lack of informtion, aesthetic, environmen~, geologic, or other reasons. The presence of coral reefs, hard bottoms, or other marne areas containmg signficant resources could be reasons for withdrawing tracts. Further, the OCSLA (43U.S.C. (1341)) also provides for permanent disposition from leasing; Key Largo Coral Reef was provided such protection by President Eisenhower, though Proclamation No. 3339 (55 CPR 2552) which established the KLCRMS. Durg 1988, the Secreta of the Interior and State öfFlorida have reached an agreement that OCS drllng wil not be allowed south of 26° N. latitude to assur protection of nearshore habitats. The Oil Pollution Convention (T.I.A.S. 4900,6109) and the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. (1001-1016)) also prohibit oil discharges within 50 nm of shore by U.S. and foreign vessels. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). FWS assists with environmental impact review, develops biological resource evaluations, and admnisters the endangered species progrm with the NMFS. Thre National Wildlife Refuges ar located in the Florida Keys which undoubtedly contain habitats that may be of use to coastal migratory pelagics or their food source: The National Key Deer Refuge, The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, and the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Geological Surey (USGS). The USGS has conducted considerable research in nearshore areas and assisted or cooperated with other institutions and agencies to faciltate logistics and support of research. The USGS also is charged with supervsing mineral development operations on the OCS. Furer, the USGS must ensure oil company compliance with regulations and lease stipulations once a lease is sold. This represents a key management authority for ensuring protection of nearshore communities. Although these authorities are not comprehensive, they are significant because of the widespread interest in curnt OCS oil and gas development and its potential impacts on corals. Coast Guard. The 1978 Waterways Safety Act charges the CG with marne environmental protection. The CG is the general enforcement agency for all marne activity in the federal zone. Among th.e duties are enforcement of sanctuar and fishery management regulations, managing vessel salvage, and coordiating oil spil cleanup operations at sea. 32 u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. The COE contracts and regulates coastal engineering projects, parcularly harbor and chanel dredging and beach renourshment projects. The COE also reviews and is the permitting agency for coastal development projects, arificial reefs, and offshore strctures. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This agency has a general responsibilty for controlling air and water pollution. Disposal of hazardous wastes and point-source discharge permtting are EPA functions. Certain mineral and petroleum exploration and production activities also are managed by EPA. Environmental research germane to waste disposal and pollution also are funded. EP A regulates chemical discharges into Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic waters, under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program of the Clean Water Act for chemicals used or produced in the Gulf and south Atlantic area (Le., drling muds, produced water or biocides) and then released, or under the Ocean Dumping Regulations of the MPRSA if the chemicals are trsported into the Gulf and south Atlantic area for the purose of dumping. Federal environmental agencies such as the NMFS, FWS, and the EPA also analyze projects proposing inshore and offshore alterations for potential impacts on resources under their puriew. Recommendations resulting from these analyses are provided to the permtting agencies (the COE for physical alterations in inshore waters and terrtorial sea, the MMS for physical alterations in the OCS or the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and EPA for chemical alterations). Even though the COE issues permts for oil and gas strctues in the EEZ, they only consider navigation and national defense impacts, thus leaving the rest to the Deparment of Interior (DOl), in a nationwide genera permt. 6.5 Habitat Recommendations The coastal pelagic fishery contrbutes to the food supply, economy, and health of the Nation, and provides recreational and commercial fishing opportunities. The fishery is dependent upon the surival of these resources, which can only be assured by the wise management of all aspects of the fishery. This includes assurance of a steady food supply of species that that may require estuares as feeding, spawning, or nursery areas. Accordingly, activities that adversely affect estuares also wil require action by the Councils. Increased productivity of stocks may not be possible without habitat maitenance and regulatory restrctions. Recognizing .that all species are dependent on the quantity and quality of their essential habitats, it is the policy of the Councils to protect, restore, and improve habitats upon which commer~ial and recreational marne fisheries depend, to increase their extent and to improve their productive capacity for the benefit of the present and future generations. This policy shall be supported by thee objectives which are to: 33 1. Maintain the current quantity and productive capacity of habitats supporting important commercial and recreational fisheries, including their food base. (This objective may be accomplished through the recommendation of no net loss and minimization of environmental degradation of existig habitat); 2. Restore and rehabiltate the productive capacity of habitats which have alady been degraded;and ' 3. Create and develop productive habitats where increased fishery productivity wil benefit society. The Councils have formed Habitat Commttees and Advisory Panels for the south Atlantic and Gulf states to bring to the Councils' attention activities that may affect the habitat of fisheries' under their maagement. The Councils, pursuant to the Magnuson Act, wil use existing authorities to support state and federal environmental agencies in their habitat conservation efforts and wil directly engage the regulatory agencies on significant actions that may affect habitat. This may include commenting on specific ac.tions, policies, or regulations that affect the habitat of species being managed. Public hearngs and the building of admistrative records also may be conducted to assure an adequate disclosure of facts and public parcipation in actions that adversely affect habitat The goal is to insure that habitat losses are kept to the minimum and that efforts for appropriate mitigation strtegies and applicable researh are supported. ACTION 6: ADD VESSEL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS TO THE FISHERY . MANAGEMENT PLAN Amendment by P.L. 99-659 to the Magnuson Act requirs that a fishery management plan, must consider and may provide for, tempora adjustments, after consultation with the Coast Guard and persons utilzing the fishery regarding access to the fishery for vessels otherwise prevented from haresting because of weather or other ocean conditions affecting the safety of the vessels. No vessel wil be forced to participate in the fishery under adverse weather or ocean conditions as a result of the imposition of the management regulations set forth in the original Fishery Management Plan, as amended, or in Amendment 3. Therefore, no management adjustments for fishery access wil be provided. ' 1. Fishery access and weather related safety. There are no fishery conditions or management measures or regulations contained in the original Fishery Management Plan, as amended, or Amendment 3 that would result in the loss of haresting opportnity because of the crew and vessel safety effects of adverse weather or ocean conditions. There have been no concerns raised by the Coast Guard or by persons engaged in the fishery, that the proposed maragement measures diectly 34 or indictly pose a hazard to crew or vessel safety under adverse weather or ocean conditions. . 2. No Impact Determnations. Vessel safety has not been identified as a relevant or significant issue in the mackerel fishery or in the management measures set forth. 3. Adjustments. There are no procedures for makng management adjustments in the original Fishery Management Plan, as amended, or Amendment 3 because no person wil be precluded from a fai or equitable harestig opportnity by the management measurs set forth. 4. Coast Guard Evaluation. No vessel safety issues, whether pertinent to fishery access and weather-related vessel safety or to other signifcant or relevant safety issues have been identified by the Coast Guard. . 5. Procedurs. There ar no procedures proposed to monitor, evaluate and report on the effect of management measurs on vessel or crew safety, under adverse weather or ocean conditions. 6. Other Safety Issues. There have been no significant -and relevant safety issues raised by fishery users, other public or the Coast Guard, therefore, there are no social or economic , implications resultig. VII. ENVIRONMNTAL CONSEQUENCES Ph~sical Environment The actions proposed in this amendment wil have no adverse impact on the physical environment. The effect of these actions is to prohibit the use of purse seines and run-around gillnets for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel and the use of drft gil1nets for the capture of all coastal migratory pelagic resources (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero mackerel, little tunny, dolphin and in the Gulf of Mexico bluefish ). Fishery Resource The proposed actions would have an indiect benefit by slowing the rate of harest in an overfished fishery. This wil reduce the lielihoo of a closure and possibly allow faster rebuilding of the resource due to the lower rate of harest. Human Envionment The proposed action wil eliminate the drft gilnet harest component of the catch from thireen vessels that fished during 1987. Impacts from prohibiting use of drft gilnets is in excess of $925,923. These fishermen do not appear to have the opportunity to replace this lost income 35 utilizing these vessels and other gear, ho~ever, as the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel rebuilds, they may have the opportunity to replace some of this lost income by fishing run-around gilnet gear. These fishermen also have the opportunity to fish smaller vessels in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel hook & line fishery. One action would also eliminate the catch of Atlantic migratory group -king mackerel taken, for the first time this year, by purse seines and run-around gillnets. Individual cat~hes ar confdential and cannot be released but together totaled 326,262 pounds wort $394,777 using the price of $ 1.21 per pound. The proposed amendment would increase the potential catch of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel by recreational and co~ercial hook & line fisheijes in nearby geographical areas. Effect on Endagered Species and Mare Maals One of the proposed actions wil remove a potential mortalty source on turles but wil have no demonstrated impact on marne mamals in this specific fishery. The observer study reported that one tule was observed by a fisherm in the drft gilnet at haulback, however, by the time the observer reached the stem, the turtle had freed itself and swam away. To the extent that drft gillnets catch and kill tures, prohibition of this gear wil remove that source of mortity and result in a positive impact. Effect on Wetlands . The proposed actions wil have no effect on any flood plains, wetlands, trls or rivers. VITI. CONCLUSIONS Mitigatig Measurs Related to the Proposed Action None. Unavoidable Adverse Effects Prohibition on the use of drft gillnets in the mackerel fishery wil affect thireen vessels during the April though September time period. These affected fishermen do not appear to have the opportunity to replace this lost income by utilizing these vessels and other gear at present. However, as the Gulf migratory group of kig mackerel rebuilds, they may have the opportnity to replace some of this lost income by fishing run-around gillnet gear. These fishermen also'have the opportunity to fish smaller vessels in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel hook & linefishery. . There will be a small impact on less than three purse seine vessels and an unkown number of run-around gilnet vessels from foregone Atlantic migratory group king mackerel catches that occurred for the first time in 1988. . 36 Relation Between Local, Short-Term Users of the Resource and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Utilization of the resource by thireen vessels while fishing with drft gillnets, a rare and limited harest by a small number of pUrse seine vessels and an unkown number of run-around gilnet vessels wil be prohibited. This action wil help to limit fishing mortality on Atlantic migratory group king mackerel which are overfshed and wil help to continue rebuilding of Gulf migratory group kig mackereL. The net affect wil be to rebuild and maita harests at or near the maxmum sustainable yield Ireversible or Iretrevable Commtment of Resources None. Enforcement Costs Enforcements costs for the preferred alternatives is less than the costs of options considered and rejected because enforcement of the purse seine, drt gilnet, and run-around gilnet prohibition wil consist of primarly dockside enforcement. Finding of No Significant Environmenta Impact Having reviewed the environmental assessment and available information relating to the proposed actions, I have determed that the proposed actions will not signifcantly affect the human environment. Assistant Admistrator For Fisheries Date Comments on this Draft are to be received by the responsible agencies before 1988. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 1 Southpark Circle Southpark Building, Suite.306 Charleston, South Carolina 29407-4699 (803) 571-4366 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609-2486 (813) 228-2815 37 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED In addition to extensive comments received durg the 10 public hearngs (miutes and list of persons attending are available), 97 letters from individuals, 60 form letters, and petitions with 55 signatues comments were received from the following organzations and agencies: Pt. St. Lucie Anglers Club, FL - 200 anglers Organized Fishermen of Florida SC Wildle Federation Florida League of Anglers, FL . Charlotte Offshore Sportshing Club, NC Top Sai Offshore Fishing Club, NC Atlantic Coast Conservation Association of SC US Open Mackerel Tourament, NC New Hanover Fishing Club, NC - 400 members Wrightsvile Beach Kig Mackerel Tourament, NC Sebastian Inlet Sportshing Association, FL Azalea Coast Mare Dealers Association, NC Stuar Saish Club, FL . Central Florida Offshore Anglers - 900 members Rep. H.E. Pearce, Jr., SC National Marne Fisheries Service LIST OF PREPARERS South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Gregg T. Waugh, Fishery Biologist/Statistician Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management C~)Uncil TeITance R. Lear, Biologist LOCATION AN DATES OF PUBLIC HEARGS. October 17, 1988 October 18, 1988 Qctober 19, 1988 October 20, 1988 October 21,1988 October 24, 1988 October 25, 1988 October 26, 1.988 REFERENCES Amercan Legion Ha Ft. Pierce Elementar School Holiday Inn - Oceanfront Qualty In Thunderbolt Town Hal Murlls Inet Community Center Marne Resource Center Island Recreation Center New Hanover County Courthouse Careret Community College Key West, Florida Ft. Pierce, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Brunswick, Georgia Thunderbolt, Georgia Murlls Inlet, South Carolina Manteo, Nort Carolina Hiton Head, South Carolina Wilmington, North Carolina Morehead City , North Carolina 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. 23 pp. GMFC and SAFC 1983 Fishery Management Plan, Final Environmenta Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact , Review. and Final Regulations for the Coasta Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels). Prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management 38 Council, Februar, 1983. GMFC and SAFC 1985 Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels). Prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, April, 1985. GMFC and SAFC 1987 Revised Amendment Number 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coasta Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) includes Envionmental Assessment, Supplemental Reguatory Impact Review, and Intial Reguatory Flexibility Analysis. Prpared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, March, 1987. NMFS 1987 Report on the Drit Gillnet Fishery in the Fort Pierce - Port Salerno Area off the East Coast of Florida. Final Report. NMFS/NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miam Laboratory . NOAA 1987. A summar of selected data on chemical contaminants in tissues collected durig 1984, 1985, and 1986. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 38. Rockvile, Marland. 23 pp. & Appendices. Powers, J. E., P. L. Phars and G. P. Scott 1988 Calibration of kig and Spanish mackerel viral population assessments with catch per unit effort indices. Miam Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS, Coastal Resources Division Contrbution CRD-87/88-18. Sainsbury, J.e. . ' ' 1975 Commercial fishing methods - an introduction to vessels and gears. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., 23 Rosemount Ave., West Byfleet, Sun. First prited in 1971. Second printing in 1975. 118 pp. Sport Fishing Institute. A research agenda for the economics of the king mackerel fishery. unpubl. ms. Strhsaker, J.W., M.B. Eldrdge and T. Echeverra 1974 Effects of benzene (a water-soluble component of crude oil) on eggs and larae of Pacific herrng and nortern anchovy. P.253-284. Vemberg and Vemberg, (eds.). Academic Press. New York. Wilson, K.W. 1976 Effects of oil dispersants on the developing embryos of marne fish. Mar. BioI. 36:259-268. Wilson, K.W. 1977 Acute toxicity of oil dispersants to mare fish larae. Mar. BioI. 40:65-74. TABLE 1. SOUTH ATLANTIC GROUP KING MACKEREL COMMERCIAL LANDINGS. (Source: NMFS SERO) RUNAROUND GILLNET HOOK AND LINE DRIFT GILLNET & PURSE SEINE YEAR/MONTH TRIPS POUNDS LB/TRIP TRIPS POUNDS LB/TRIP TRIPS POUNDS LB/TRIP Year=1986 April 884 195,480 221 13 18,667 1,436 0 0 May 1,641 392,444 239 36 32,051 890 0 0 June 448 45,982 103 15 5,259 351 0 0 July 1,206 103,457 86 98 61,879 631 0 0 August 1,437 245,107 171 86 86,341 1,004 0 0 September 573 65,010 113 33 12,612 382 0 0 TOTAL 6,1891,047,480 169 281 216,809 772 Year=1987 April 1,130 239,206 212 92 73,475 799 0 0 May 1 ,166 247,582 212 115 165,983 1,443 0 0 June 497 70,512 142 146 137,327 941 0 0 July 551 59,590 108 155 191,540 1,236 0 0 August 897 112,689 126 125 166,745 1,334 0 0 September 510 50,750 100 90 60,198 669 0 0 TOTAL 4,751 780,329 164 723 795,268 1,100 Year=1988 April 603 203,408 337 58 83,646 1,442. 24 338,703 14,113 May 814 273,500 336 172 388,944 2,261 0 0 June 152 17,721 117 107 64,734 605 0 0 July 114 7,182 63 11 9 65,178 548 0 0 August 588 70,574 120 181 158,224 874 0 0 September N/A N/A 58 47,320 816 0 0 TOTAL 2,271 572,385 252 695 808,046 1,163 24 338,703 14,113 Data for 1988 represents. landings of 10 major dealers Data for 1986 & 1987 are from all commercial dealers N/A Not Available 0 Zen c: W en . en enZa c: ..ø ::ii wi enü: I Wz t: ii cc wI I a I Cf " I ~ a. ~ cc w ~ :: ~ w C\ W a: ;: .. .. .. .. It c\ 0) .. 0 0 0 It CX ~ ~ co C" o It It CX Eß El:Hß. It co .. 0) 0 0co II It ~ " .. ''' ~ II co mcD~Ñ c;Ñ~r-cDm~ co ~ C\ Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß Eß "' '- '- .. :: i- i- ~ 0 C" CX C" .. 0 0 CX .. C\ " C\ ~~ ~ ~ .. co ,. .. en " C" ,. .. C\ ex ,. 0~::'- "!~~~~~~~Lq~~~~ W i- 00 en 0) It co .. It " co .. C\ ~ (" ~ :: W 0 en .. 0) en en 0) It It ~ ,. ,. ,. .. .. C" Eß Eß EE Eß Eß EE EE EE Eß EE EE EE Eßc:Z-~ :: fi"' C\ 0 .. CX ,. ex ~ .. en co ~ ~i- i- CI en 0 ,. ~ N (' C\ ~ .. ~ CX II 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f' ~ :: .. 0 .. co ex en 0 0) " co ~ 0 C\ 0 .. o i- 0 CX co " .. CX .. ~ ~ C" .. ,. ,. ..i- W 0c:Z~o ::i- ø enZOWa: .. c: t¡ G Z .. Ww a: :: W ~ c:O~ ~ ..mw--ii -wO~W00 c: Z ~ :5 ~æ:: Z a:i ~ 00000000000000000000000000 It It It .. 0 0 0 CX CX 0 It II 0 ~ It ~ (' C" C" (' C\ C\ C\ ,. ,. .. ~ It " 0 .. 0 0 ~ en CX ~ co .... ,. " co en " (' co ~ ~ 0) 0 0 CX ~ co CX .. CX co It .. C" ~ II CX cD cD c: cD r- iÒ ,,~ C\ cD cD r- cD ~ ~ ~ ~ .. en 0) It It C" Eß EE EE Eß ,. ,. ,. .. Eß EE EE Eß Eß EE EE EE Eß .. ~ It ,. CX ,. ex ,. ~ 0) (' " CX CX 0 ,. C" C\ (' C\ ~ N 0) 0) " co en 0 0) C\ C" C\ co ~ 0 CX ,. (" en C\ .. " CX 0 0) " (' N co co II C" C\ C\ ,. en CX .. ~ ~ C" ,. .. ,. en CX It N .. C" 0) ~ en CX co (' 0 .. co CX CX .. CX " co C" .. .. ,. C\ c:IDOOWLLØ:: J~--~ ~o 0) ,. It.. EE 0),.o ~"" EE I" ex (J. It CX co 0) C" co .. CD .D o Ü o (j LL ::zoo CX CX (' CD Ü.. :J o ~ C" C\ en It C\ enEß co C\ C\ It co.. ~ ~ t? TABLE 3. DRIFT GILLNET BYCATCH INFORMATION (Source: NMFS,1987). KING MACKEREL BLUE RUNNER BLACKTIP SHARK SPANISH MACKEREL COBIA SHARK BLACK FIN TUNA RED SNAPPER BARRACUDA AFRICAN POMPANO CREV ALLE JACK GREATER AMBERJACK WPP DOLPHIN TRIPLE TAIL TOTALS 'SOME WEIGHTS MISSING LlTTL Y TUNNY BARRACUDA SMTH DORSH FILEFISH SHARK LOODO\N REMRA MON FISH HAMMERHEAD SHARK CREV ALLE JACK SAILFISH ATLANTIC BUMPER ATLIC CROAKER COE RAY GREATER AMBERJACK FLOUNDER AFRICAN POMPANO BLUE RUNNER SCORPION RSH TRIGGERFISH MANTA RAY BLACK SNAPPER STINGRAY , GAGROPER BLACKTIP SHARK COWFIH ATlNTC BONITO ATlNTIC THREAD HERRING STRIPED SEA ROBIN TIGER SHARK PERMIT ATlNTIC GUITAR FISH BUTTER FISH TOTALS NUMBER 4,831 106 67 93 54 31 29 21 15 1 1 5 4 4 3 1 5,275 OBSERVED LANDED CATCH (38 TRIPS) WEIGHT*(LB) AVG. WT. (LB) 46,325 9.59487 4.59 478 7.13 367 3.95 857 15.87 90 2.90 604 20.83 64 3.05 90 6.00 260 23.64 68 13.60 8 2.00 81 20.25 2 0.67 49,781 OBERVED DISCARDED CATCH (38 TRIPS) 1,854 300 95 73 89 53 32 100 16 12 22 8 15 27 6 . 5 8 21 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 2,766 PROJECTED TOTAL LADED CATCH (723 TRIPS) NUMBER WEIGHT (LB) 91,916 881,394 2,017 9,266 1,275 9,095 1,769 6,983 1,027 16,306 590 1,712 552 11,492 400 1,218 285 1,712 209 4,947 95 1,294 76 152 76 1,54157 3819 0 100,364 947,14S PROJECTED DISCARDED CATCH (723 TRIPS) 35,275 5,708 1,808 1,389 1,693 1,008 609 1,903 304 228 419 152 285 514 114 95 152 400 57 38 38 38 1 9 1 9 19 1 9 19 190 38 1 9 19 1 9 19 52,627 7 no s. 6 o f 5 . h 4 fi s 3 F ig u re 1 . F lo ri d a E a st C o a st K in g M a ck e re l ( A p ri I t h ro u g h S e p te m b e r) fr om t he r ec re at io na l (n um be rs c au gh t) a nd c om m e rc ia l (p ou nd s ca ug ht ) fi sh er ie s (i n hu nd re ds o f th ou sa nd s) 2 1 o '7 9 80 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 1 I I R e c r e a t i o n a l . C o m m e r c i a l I 86 87 (R e c. d a ta s o u rc e : Jo h n W itz ig , N M F S W a sh in g to n , D .C ., p e rs . co m m u n ., 1 /2 1 /8 8 ) (C o m . d a ta s o u rc e : E rn ie S n e ll, N M F S M ia m i, F L , p e rs . co m m u ii. , 1 /2 1 /8 8 ) H o o k a n d L in e Y e a r R e c r e a t i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l ( n u m b e r s ) ( p o u n d s ) 25 I b s . 7 9 2 0 8 0 o f 8 1 1 5 8 2 f i s h 8 3 1 0 8 4 85 86 87 5 o 20 3, 21 2 64 3, 86 2 17 1, 41 0 33 6, 17 5 39 2, 29 0 39 7, 61 0 21 6, 56 6 13 7, 66 5 18 4, 85 4 1, 28 2, 94 5 1, 58 8, 75 4 1, 33 2, 18 5 2, 23 7; 39 5 1, 17 6, 77 8 92 9, 05 5 1, 17 9, 46 6 1, 05 8, 57 4 65 1, 04 4 eã'ë Q) E Eoo (/ ca o ()-(/ ca (/ W"O ca i: :g ~ .Q 5i. .. Q) --= 0 E (/ o "0 .; ~"0 Q) i: .. :: Q) ..~o .!: ca ~ ~ OJ .. .!: .ê ~ .~- -o (/ "0 i: :: o a N Q).. :: OJü: Q) .!: =ë i: ca.. co ~. N.. .. T" o,. co .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.:.:.:.: CD i: .. "0 co -. C\ o .. co co co .. co co co it co . co (f co N co T" co .. o co 0).. "0. .. ca :: Q).. m. .. .- Q)~ c CI . "-°cI Q)c = CI "0 -cO as I :: ..o ca Q) m Eeã a. o i:-.. ca :: EJ Q).õ :: J .. en II .. Q) .2: a: i: .~ "0 i: co a N"" ,. N .. co co T" N -. ,. T" i. ~ it it co Ll co -. ~~itcoo)""Llco""~mr-T"(f""O~LlO~~ c\CON..comenCOT" co co (f (f .. C\ .. Ll it C\ it (f N .. m ,. 0 co ,. ,. ., C\ ?- T" ,. .. Co CI Q) a: E ~Ll"" mcoco....C\ m ,. en N co Ll C' C\ .. Ll .. (f co ~ C\ .. r- en----....... mcococo~(Oco""it (' m ,. co r- ~ ,. co a (0 .. co -. Ll ~ co co (fCI a. ,. c ('COT" coenC\o ~""LlO co m (f (f N m C' Ll it Ll "-~~~~en('C'N""O.... - ............ (f co .. 0) 0 co co Ll 0) Ll C'(fcoitco..~m~T"mo . " CI :æ Q) '(3 :: J C\coO)m,.('cooom(O co it it .. co co Ll N co m LlmcoococoC\ooO)-.o.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. C\ ~ (f co ,. 0 .. it co C' C\r-~CONCO-.~O""..(o (f (f (f ~ (f C' C' NT""" C'cñ " Q) == a: \( ,. 0 co (f -. 0 0) com Ll co co .. m C' 0) co C' Ll ~ (f co (' i. ~ co-- .. .. menN OCOO.. (fT" (0 .. (f .. C\ "- m co co .. C\ N ,. ,. c CI "C C "C " CI == Q) " a: ..c\CO(fmcom~O)..(f,.~COC\..""~ Ll (f co (f co "- co a ~.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..r-""NooC'm..~ co 0 -. co C\ C\ C\ (f co.. " CI Q) ;) m 0 ,. N (f -. Ll co .. (0 " r- co co co co co co co co co co Q) Q)i: i: .. .. "C "C C .2 ro .S=i::: E Eo(. eÜi:o In.. CDc. LL . E .S!2 (/ LL 2z ã3i:(/ Æ i:.. W CD (...::o~ Figure 3. Atlantic migratory group King Mackerel cumulative commercial landings by month for various fishing years (Source:NMFS1). 4,000,000 3,500,000 / 3.59 mil Ib ~87/88 comm. alloc. 3,000,000 / 2.6 mill Ib .-.---.---P lf88/89 comm. alloc. 0-0 - ,2--0O 2,500,000 ~ --.-.-.~..D~~~.~ 2,000,000 r:~~ D 1,500,000 0--0 ~~?yS / .~~ 1,000,000 / ~l":ö' 500,000 ~Í" ~0,000 I i I I I i APR MAY JUN JUL PL SEP a: rD CE JAN FEB MAR ... 7 9/8 0 - 8 51 8 6 .(). 8 61 8 7 APR MAY JUN JUL, AUG SEP oc NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR ... 8 7/8 8 SUMMED MONTHLY CATCH 79/80-85/86 245,523 861,222 1,045,228 1,240,476 1,630,450 1,835,056 2,111,887 2,381,853 2,474,468 2,485,292 2,492,943 2,516,961 86/87 318,684 879,164 1,012,069 1,285,763 1,718,246 2,031,960 2,373,177 2,551,004 2,648,646 2,664,857 2,677,284 2,773,998 87/882 376,631 934,881 1,170,037 1,481,383 1,844,895. 2,190,166 2,587,676 2,997,372 3,052,328 3,105,872 3,137,444 3,224,563 '0- 8 81 8 9 88/893 746,339 1,505,649 1,630,837 1,764,561 2,053,730 2,294,831 2,534,858 2,766,885 2,809,058 11988/89 NC and SC monthly summed catch approximated from NMFS computerized tracking program; GA from G. Rogers (GA DNR); FLEC from G. Davenport (SEFC). 2does not include Florida Jan-Mar 88 landings. 31989 data not available Figure 4. Atlantic migratory group King Mackerel cumulative commercial landings by state by month for the 1988/89 fishing year. P 2,000,000 o U N D S 3,000.0:~,,~=~lIa!;'~ . -~2,500,000 ~ ~~--~ -i: i: .. --i:--11- ~-o- -i: i: o 1,500,000 /11-i:.. 1,000,000 .. 500,000 f . o i APR .. JUN . ii ~ " '" II lI SEP a: t- DE A. MAY . ii JUL . IIft .. NORT CAROUNA 0. SO CAROUNA .. GE -0. FLORIDA EA CO ..,,.. TOTAL SUMMED MONTHLY CATCH NC SC GA FL EAST COAST TOTAL APR 46,980 8,383 1,625 689,351 746,339 MAY 102,017 17,510 5,702 1,380,420 1,505,649 JUN 131,742 23,147 9,208 1,466,740 1,630,837 JUL 164,301 30,872 12,649 1,556,739 1,764,561 AUG 181,249 -44,445 25,480 1,802,556 2,053,730 SEP 281,970 64,739 26,669 1,921,453 2,294,831oc 493,931 78,411 27,928 1,934,588 2,534,858 NOV 696,442 105,653 29,360 1,935,430 - 2,766,885 DEC 723,122 117,212 29,360 1,939,364 2,809,058 11988/89 NC and SC monthly summed catch approximated from NMFS computerized tracking program; GA from G. Rogers (GA DNR): FLEC from G. Davenport (SEFC). 2does not include Florida Jan-Mar 88 landings. 31989 data not available APPENDIX A T A B L E 1 . A T lA T IC M IG R A T O R Y G R O U P S P A N IS H M A C K E R E L Q U O T A S , B A G L IM IT S , C A T C H E S , A N D C L O S U R E S . M IL L IO N S O F P O U N D S B A G L IM IT S S E A S O N R E P O R T E D P E R C E N T O F R E P O R T E D D A T E A B C T A C A L L O C A T IO N S Q U O T A ( p e r p e r s o n B E G A N C A T C H E S Q U O T A T H R O U G H C L O S E D p e r tr ip ) F IS H IN G Y E A R = 1 98 7/ 88 S P A N IS H M A C K E R E L M S Y = 1 8. 0 m il il b A tl an ti c M ig ra to ry G ro up 1 . 7 3 . 1 3. 1 A tl an ti c R ec re at io na l 24 % 74 0, 00 0 4 F L 4/ 1/ 88 1, 59 6, 17 0 21 6% 12 /3 1/ 87 , 9/ 17 /8 7 A tl an ti c C om m er ci al 76 % 2, 36 0, 00 0 1 0 N C , S C 4/ 1/ 88 2, 51 5, 30 0 10 7% 12 /2 8/ 87 12 /2 8/ 87 N G A F IS H IN G Y E A R = 1 98 8/ 89 S P A N IS H M A C K E R E L M S Y = 1 8. 0 m il ib A tl an ti c M ig ra to ry G ro up 1. 3 5. 5 4 M an ti c R ec re at io na l 24 % 96 0, 00 0 4 F L 4/ 1/ 88 2, 45 0, 00 0 25 5% 10 /3 0/ 88 10 /3 /8 8 A tl an ti c C om m er ci al 76 % 3, 04 0, 00 0 1 0 N C , S C 4/ 1/ 88 3, 04 6, 20 0 10 0% 12 /3 0/ 88 12 /3 0/ 88 P H G A Tale 2. Kig Mackeel Atlatic Stok Catch SU (April-Mh fishig yer) . " Nur of fish (thousands) 1 / FISH RE~ CC ro 79 216 249 465 80 373" 1238 1611 81 305 611 916 82 456 564 1020 83 238 1049 1287 84 188 980 1168 85 296 840 1136 86 298 555 853 87 294 482 776 'lousan of Poun 1 / FIsam~ CCM RE Ta 79 2157 2166 4323 80 3088 9260 12348 81 2568 ' 5885 8453 82 4230 5458 9688 83 2597 9765 12362 84 1943 8071 10014 85 2480 7868 10348 86 2823 4924 7747 87 2533 3434 5967 1 / Fishi year 79 bein on 1 April 1979 an en on 31 March 1980. Fishig year 87 data thgh Ocber 1987 only an should be considere prelim. SOURCE: 1983 Stock Assessment Report. SOURCE: King Mackerel us .Gulf Stock, M-O.15 Spawning Stock Biomass (million pounds) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 o 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year Figure 1. Estimated female spawning stock biomass of US Gulf Migratory Group king mackerel from 1978-87. Natural mortality rate M-O.15. King Mackerel Atlantic Stock, M-O.15 Spawning Stock Biomass (million pounds) 10 8 6 4 2 o 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year Figure 2. 'Estimated female spawning stock biomass of , Atlantic Migratory Group king mackerel from 1978-87. Natural mortality rate M-O.15. i 988 Stock Assessment Report. 0. 4 0. 2 0. 0 7 8 79 80 1. 2 1. 0 I n d 0. 8 e x 0. 6 V a I u e C P U E s e t 2 1 K in g M ac ke re l, A tl an ti c S to ck M O .1 5 81 86 88 82 83 Y ea r 84 85 A C P U E f N A T L A N T I C H E A D B O A T ( S O U R C E : P o w e r s e t a 1 . , 1 9 8 8 ) 87 1. 2 1. 0 I n d 0. 8 e x 0. 6 V a I 0. 4 u e 0. 2 0. 0 7 8 79 80K in g M ac ke re l, A tl an ti c S to ck M O .1 5 81 82 88 83 Y ea r 84 85 86 87 A C P U E G N C P U E s e t 2 2 ' C H A R T E R B O A T L O G B O O K D A T A ( S O U R C E : P o w e r s e t a l . , 1 9 8 8 ) 1 .2 . 1. 0 I n d 0. 8 e x 0. 6 V a I 0. 4 u e 0. 2 0. 0 7 8 C P U E s e t 2 4 K in g M ac ke re l, A tl an ti c S to ck M O .1 5 79 80 81 82 83 Y ea r 84 85 86 87 A C P U E e N F L O R I D A E A S T C O A S T P R I V A T E V E S S E L S ( S O U R C E : P o w e r s e t a l . , 1 9 8 8 ) 88 , CC C' CC co CT .,. f' co CC .. OJ UJ~ i.OJo to :;a o CC p.~ .. Cf i: U I. ~;= o 0) aen'-.-~ zc: u-. :z~ CC f- .:~ LO c.c: ~ ~ .... C' CO a .. 0 ~CC ~ W ~- . Q).~ :: en i-~ ' CL i:en Q) N 0 en.~~ CC 1 ;: o ~a ~ ~.: ~ ~ E-CC .:i: C' ~aa c: 0 i:c..- CC a~ i- ';. E-i U Q) ::f' ~ :z.: Po CC N 0 CC CO ~ C\ 0 f' C'. C\- - 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD C:'t CD X ~ (0- :J CD u. ~ Q.0 STATIC GEAR 95 , buoy b~' , . f'loatline net "'.,'.. . "", . "" I...., leadline .. . .... - '-~.. "'t -'" l. .f" ~'.: ~ . ":":-'al e lead line. . --..~......~ . .ri. .~,~ a.~, ,-- ""~'--:." 4~: 'r .. ".. vessel rides at l' ward end of set to ensure net is s tre tchednets may extend end to end for several miles J:... ,~: .-. ~':, ".~:,.... ... \;~.: ~.i:a ~f3~.1,-.--.. ~.. .'..... .-. -'"- --, -..~ . ..r. .." Fig. 85. Various methods of setting gillnets. Top: bottom gilnet. Middle: mid-water gilnet. Bottom: drift net; surface gillnet.' SOURCE: Commercial Fishing Methods - an intorduction to vessels and gears by John C. Sainsbury. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., 23 Rosemount Avenue, West Byfleet, Surrey. First printed in 1971. Second printing in 1975. APPENDIX B GENERAL FORMLA FOR THE COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC PERMITS IS AABD-XXXX-YY WHERE: AA = KA, AA = KG' AA = KB AA = KN BB :8 SA BB :8 SG BB = SB BB :8 SN D :8 N D :8 C XXXX :8 Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. Gulf of Mexico migratory group of king mackerel. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory 9roups of king mack~rel . Neither migratory group of king mackerel. Atlantic migratory gr9ups of Spanish mackerel. Gulf of Mexico migratory groups of Spanish mackerel. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory groups of Spanish mackerel. Neither migratory group of Spanish mackerel. Non charter. ~oastal migratory' pelagic charter. 4 digit permit number. 2 dig i ts of the permit year. All permits are issued for the period April i - March 31. UP TO 64 DIFFERET COMBINATIONS ARE POSSIBLE. yy = NUMCODE AM GM KASAC KASAN KASNN KBSAN KBSBC KBSBN KBSNN KGSGC KGSGN KNSBN KNSNC NUMCODE DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIPTION ATLANTIC MACKEREL; KING (OBSOLETE) GULF MACKEREL; KING (OBSQLETE) KING ATLANTIC; SPANISH ATLANTIC; CHARTERn ":" n; NO CHARTER " "; SPANISH NO; NO CHARTER KING, BOTH ATL. & GULF; SPAN. ATL.; NO CHARTER KING, BOTH ATL. & GULF; SPAN., BOTH ATL. & GULF: CHARTER KING, BOTH ATL. & GULF; SPAN., BOTH ATL. & GULF; NO CHARTER KING, BOTH ATL. & GULF; SPAN. NO; NO CHARTER KING GULF; SPAN. GULF; C9ARTER KING GULF; SPAN. GULF; NQ CHARTER KING NO; SPAN., BOTH GULF & ATL.; NO CHARTER KING NO; SPAN. NO; CHARTER I A I ~ B ~ ! C I ~ D ~ E ~ F ~ I G l~ H ~ A L A 8 1 0 ii A (' . r' ¡' ~ O .. Q ; r; .. iil i " .. . . . \, \. '\ , '. , . t" ~ 'Ò ~ i.. i G ) \ M i l i O l t C l f . . " o . ' l l l I ~ ' 1 " ' ì ~ 1 8 l f f i G f 8 . ) ' ' ' ' ' ~ . 5 "" .8 1 , \ ~ . . . l ." . F W "j . , d !~ " "" ' f L 0 .. .; f .r r u. .,' 8 ... ... 1. ': . ~ . ~ L ' '¡ ' . ." .. t. .. :~ ' P C I I ' I . o k . " . C .. l i ! I\ c .lo o .ii i. ~ "i . , ,, C O U N T I E S A N D C O U N T Y S E A T S ' ' ' ' s ' ' i ~ . . j ~ ~ ~ w ith K e y to M a p ~ ;; 5. .1 . c .p ,i a G ''' T a l l . . . . o . i g ~ , ~ ." M :h u .. C a ln e n ;il e f .i B ,d ie t. . \'a ¡c ltn n v F i 8. .) ', 'I U kl m d C il ii ,~ B n Jr o lll . S ,, ,, A . C 2 B re ur d. T ih uv il li H .. 8 ro w a rd . F o rt L 4 u d n d a e 7 C ,d hi )u R , 8 Io un 'd i. u' "" l C lw rl od c. P un Jd C ll rd C C it ni s, ln i. en ii F .. C I. y, C ". .. C a a . S p n ,. .. ¡ C o lli cr ,li u t .\ lø p lt. C 7 C ol um bi .. L L .k C il V F .2 D .d c, .\ it ll ni I ~ 7 D c S tJ lD , . 1. rC 'a d5 i C 5 D i, i~ . C m u C jt ll f '.~ O U \' ..I , / lJ lJ lm L :I II . e: : E '~ '.i in h i.. r e lU u co lo A .l F I" "I II C 'r , B u n n ,. II H 3 fr a n kl in , ," "J Jl u u 'h k o /ll 0 2 C ..J ,J cn , Q u' nn ll o .l C ilc h ri st . T re n kl n F 2 C I. de s. .\ 'u or . H il un H 6 C ul f, P or t S t, /o c i 1 I. u lh o n .J .J I~ r F . l lI .i dr e, " '~ uc l. uI 4 C H cn c. ry , L JB il l~ H 6 H e n u n d o . 8 r o o l . l l / c F ' " 1I II Ih l, ¡d ..S ..b rn , H .S 1 1 1 1 1 ~ h o ro lil ih . T iJ m p ø F 4 H ù ln n ~ i, B ù n i/4 1 j i In d i.n R I\ 'C 'r , V ir a B & "o cl i H S 'K ki an . . \f ii ri nt C .l Jc ff C 'n on . . \'u nt ic & "l Io E i l.. )C n ~ . .W a ljo F .2 W e , T . . & : d t ' . L ee . F ur l U ~ ~ L eo n, T "U .J w ,,, ,.i o. i u vy , B ru n n o ll r. J L lb er t. 8n .l ol o .i M .a di lo R . , "a J. ,ù ll E 1 M .R .le e . 'r a iÚ ,. i.. ,, F .. M ¡r io n, O ca ld M .u n, S tU A rt I oS M o n l O . 1 W " ' e d S ¿ s w u ; F c n w n d i l l B c i i l t . . i O bl oo ia C ... ": i, W :S i m ..i .i . 04 ,,, /o ,,. I I, 5 O ra ni ie ,o ,I øn do O ic co l. . K i. ui m m t. H P ..l ln I k. ..h , " ," " P ..i ", B tu cl t l. e P ~ I( '. aø el C il ii C P in cl l¿ s. C I~ G tK 'O t" . F 4 P ot ll . B ~ rl nt l C P U ln ... ,. .I "r l" ..2 S i. Ju h n i, 5 1 . .4 .C C II o U lr w C .2 51 . l uc ie , F or , P it rn I .s S ..n ta R ow . . \f i't o, , A I s. ra lt Q , S "r ". ot 4 F o S S em in ul e. S ii nf un l H "" S u m l e r . 8 . . I t ~ " G S u w .. n n ce . U L '. o .. A : r. ;¡ T .1 )' 10 ', ''" E .1 U ni on . L .1 6 B ,," cr F ~ V ol u. i. . D eL l" "H 3 W ,a llu ll. . C ry u :/ u rd n llc D 2 W ..l lo n, IH F un id S pr "" . B .I W ..h in ii on . C II 'p l" , . l T u ' a l . r c ~ , 3 " q u a . e m i l e . T u i.. ii. .n d . .n :. .. I3 6 'q u ilt . m ile s f. .I ;¡ 1 w ill e r ilr e a . 2 "q u il, . m ilC '1 P i i p u l . . . i o n 1 9 5 0 ( e d e r a l cc n1 1u l :J ,7 71 .3 S R . . n l l . m o n c \ I . ' e i i n 1 9 5 0 pn pu l; .l il Jn ~ O Ih P u p u l i l i i u n 1 9 6 0 (: C 'ß \u i .9 5I .5 R . . n l l i l l R O n e 1 1 ~ 1 C ' 1 i n 1 9 6 0 pn pu l, ,'i on l O th Iu c' l'. .s e of 1 96 0 po pu l. .U on o ve r 1 9 ~ 0 1 H .1 p e r ce n l P O D u l l l ' i o n 1 9 7 0 c' ''. ..~ .7 91 .l I8 I n e r u i e u f 1 9 7 0 p u p u l " l i o n o w e r 19 6~ 17 .1 p er c .n l " o I n l l i l m o n d a h ~ i i n 1 9 1 0 po pu l. .l io ll 9t h I: ~ lii n iil cd p o p u l;; U o n ) 1 0 1 )' i, 1 9 7 S .9 6. m ?t M g ;a d (c de ul I l ' r n M o ( 1 9 1 8 p o p u l a l t o n o v e r 1 9 7 0 . 0 3 p e t c e n l R . n l l a m o n g i l . l e i I n 1 9 7 8 po p. .i ." oo S ih . L :n l( h nu tt h .n d \u ui h (S t. \ 1. .1 )1 .h c r '0 K e , \\ C ',U H 7 in ilc :: \\ ïd ih C 'iI ,l .n d w e d ( ,\ ila n lic u u a n 1 0 P er di do r iv e' .h lf l m il c. lI ii ch c\ 1 II uw n lI oI lu r; a1 p ul ni h il o f :l lS f ee l n~ ii . i ... ll cw nu d in n or th C 'd \V .. h iin c O O n ') ' C e ß II .il p h ic : cC 'n le r l:: m U 1 C 1 w e ll o f nu rt h o( B ru nl ln il e in C .U ru l co un ty P u p u lO O liu n u n lc . P a llr c o u n l" n e a r I. .r 'o w , I n 19 70 . i i. :: .. & Y . ~ . 8 1 .U '1 2 " \Y . S um hC ' q f i ll ul il ie t 7 S iii n h c. u f & :u m in u n iii c: : in 1 9 7 B 1 In t" o rp 'il lc o d il c ili c. , lu w n i, u . \o il. 1" lC co il 1 6i 1 un iU l: ll rp ol lo ol ed p l" c: co l ,i f 1 ,0 0 in h .b ilõ iih o r m u ic o o ~ F il ii ( 'll in i, al Ïo n P en ". .c ol . I ii " b, S p iin iiu d .. 1 .) 9 . S e lll e m C 'n l . h im dl m C '1 1 "f tC '. IW Q ) 'r ii n O ld cl l pc nn ii nc u' '5 ll lc m cn ' S I. ., u. ii u\ li ll c, h y S po an i. .d . i n U 6S 1 ..1 10 ol dl = \1 i n U ni il = cl S I" Il 'i) .\ & :c iu i.a = d h y l'i iil co d S i.. le .. (r o m S p .in . b) ' I rr ii l) ' i n l. .~ 1 .\ d ln ill C 'd lu L 'n iu n . .. S lõ llc M lll C h : J. l~ l5 R .. n ll .. m C lll j 1 1 ;a le . 0 1 õ õ d m in io n ; l7 Ih S I; ;'c : \1 11 1I ..l n C ud W e T n. .' S I. .'. : 'jd lU un e T he S un \h ii ie S i; ¡i . S il tl e hi rd : \I IK .l ll n. hi rd S I. lc t 1 o w cr n m ce B lu .. u m S ia le 'n nc O ld t ul h ii il iu m e S t. 'e 1 'C 'e S ilh lll '. .I m S i. .l e d. .t A p. iI i S I; ;I C ' b C '¥ e rl ll! c o ri a n .C ' J u ic e f. d. ..1 E o R A G b "" l ~ ( ' ') a o . ~ W .'I o . . , , . " , f S a . . o . . . . . . O Ø ' // 1/ . i 1 i 2 I 3 1111 4 i T i 51 :~ 8 i Ii 7 11 I 8 ": , (, :¡ " 1, . t'l ' ~ .. .. ;: .' ,! ( , 1 ; ' ; ~ .': 1 ,\ , Jt ,; ; TABLE 1. NUMBER OF VESSELS WITH CHARTER PERMITS FROM APRIL 1, 1988 ira JULY 22, 1988 BY STATE OF HOME PORT STATE NUMBER AL 48 FL 472 GA 5 LA 27 MO 1 MS 33 NC 187 NJ 1 PA 2 SC 64 TX 54 VA 2 TOTAL 896 T A B L E 2 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T , B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 t 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 t 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P .S . /N E T S P .S ./ N E T S /H & L P . S . / H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 1 1 C T 1 1 F L 59 0 1 3 1 41 93 44 9 2 G A 4 4 L A 3 3 M S 3 3 N C 32 2 2 1 73 24 1 5 N J 4 1 3 P A 1 1 S C 34 1 1 31 1 T X 2 1 1 V A 10 1 9 97 5 0 T "5 "5 44 16 6 74 3 8 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 3 . T O T A L C O M M E R C IA L P E R M IT S I S S U E D B Y S T A T E O F H O M H :I Ji l:: .: '. 1 \1 ' G ~ ;A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L i , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . /N E T S P . S . /N E T S / H & L P . S . /H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 2 . 1 1 F L 53 8 1 3 38 91 40 3 2 G A 2 2 L A 38 37 1 M S 11 3 6 1 1 N C 28 2 8 18 N J 3 1 2 S C 6 1 5 T X ' 5 5 V A 1 1 63 4 1 5 4 44 10 3 47 4 3 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 4 . T O T A L C O M M E R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T t B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 t 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 t 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . / N E T S P .S . /N E T S /H & L P . S . /H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 2 1 1 C T 1 I D E 1 1 F L 79 4 1 3 1 42 98 64 7 2 G A . 5 5 L A 4 4 M S 4 3 1 N C 38 2 2 2 81 29 1 6 N J 5 1 4 P A 1 1 S C 42 1 2 36 3 T X 2 1 1 V A 12 1 11 12 55 0 1 5 5 46 18 4 10 03 11 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 5 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T , B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P .S ./ N E T S P .S ./ N E T S /H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 3 1 2 D E 1 1 F L 70 8 1 3 1 39 97 56 7 G A 2 2 L A 57 56 1 M S 11 3 6 1 1 N C 29 2 8 19 N J 3 1 2 S C 6 6 T X 10 10 V A 1 ~ 83 1 0 1 . 5 5 45 10 8 66 6 1 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . TABLE 6 CHARTER VESSEL PERMIT HOLDERS BY COUNTY OF HOME PORT FOR FLORIDA FROM APRIL 1, 1988, TO JULY 22, 1988 COUNTY NUMBER VESSELS GULF OF MEXI CO Santa Rosa 27 Okaloosa 54 Bay 57 Dixie 1 Ci trus 3 Pasco 1 Pinellas 36 Hi 11sborough 6 Manatee 2 Sarasota 11 Char lot te 4 Lee 7 Collier 14 Monroe 82 Total 305 ATLANTIC Duval 27 St. Johns 16 Vol us ia 28 Brevard 7 Indian Ri ver 2 St. Lucie 5 Mar tin 7 Palm Beach 34 Broward 14 Dade 27 Total 167 Grand Total 472 T A B L E 7 . T O T A L C O M M R C IA L P E R M IT S I S S U E D B Y C O U N T Y O F H O ~ ff P O R T F O R F L O R ID A , B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L C O U N T Y G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . / N E T S P . S .! N E T S /H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R G U L F O F M E X I C O G U L F 1 1 F R A N K L IN 1 1 C IT R U S 2 2 H E R N A N D O 1 1 P IN E L L A S 5 1 4 C H A L O T T 1 1 L E E 2 1 1 C O L L IE R 6 1 5 M O N R O E 13 2 1 5 25 . 99 1 T O T A L 15 1 0 0 T 0 8" 29 11 2 T A T L A N T IC N A S S A U 1 1 D U V A L 19 19 S T . J O H N S 1 1 V O L U S IA 24 1 1 22 B R E V A R 17 4 13 I N D I A N R I V E R 47 2 2 43 S T . L U C I E 66 11 18 37 M A T IN 35 1 13 12 9 P A L M B E A C H 12 9 1 1 25 10 1 1 O K E E C H O B E E 1 1 B R O W A R D 11 11 D A D E 88 6 3 79 T O T A L 43 9 0 T "2 T T I 64 33 7 T G R A D T O T A L 59 0 0 1 3 1 41 93 44 9 2 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 8 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y C O U N T Y O F H O M E P O R T F O R F L O R I D A , B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F O F M E X I C O M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L C O U N T Y G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . / N E T S P . S . /N E T S / H & L P . S . / H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R G U L F O F M E X I C O S A N T A R O S A 1 1 O K A L O O S E 2 2 B A Y 7 7 G U L F 1 1 F R A L IN 1 1 C IT R U S 2 2 H E R N A N D O 1 1 P IN E L L A S 12 1 11 M A T E E 1 1 S A R S O T A 2 2 C H A L O T T 1 1 L E E 4 2 1 1 C O L L I E R 7 1 1 5 M O N R O E 13 8 1 5 26 10 6 T O T A L 18 0 0 0 T 0 IT 30 13 8 0 A T L A N T IC N A S S A U 1 1 D U V A L 7 7 V O L U S IA 18 1 2 15 B R E V A R 14 4 10 I N D I A N R I V E R 44 2 2 40 S T . . L U C IE 59 10 17 32 O K E E C H O B E E 1 1 M A T IN 28 1 11 11 5 P A L M B E A C H 11 3 1 25 87 B R O W A R 10 10 D  D E 63 2 3 58 T O T A L 35 8 0 T 2 0 27 62 26 6 0 G R A D T O T A L 53 8 0 1 3 0 38 92 40 4 0 B L A N K S P A G E I N D I C A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 9 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y C O U N T Y O F H O M E P O R T F O R F L O R I D A , B Y G E A R T Y P E ' F R O M A P R I L 1 , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F O F M E X I C O M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L C O U N T Y G E A R ' T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . /N E T S P . S . /N E T S /H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R G U L F O F M E X I C O S A N T A R O S A 1 1 O K A L O O S E 3 3 B A Y 3 13 G U L F 1 1 F R A L IN 1 1 C IT R U S 2 2 H E R N A N D O 1 . 1 P IN E L L A S 12 ' 1 11 M A T E E 1 1 S A R S O T A 3 3 C H A L O T T 1 1 L E E 5 2 1 2 C O L L IE R 11 2 1 8 M O N R O E 17 3 1 5 28 13 9 T O T A L 22 8 0 0 1 0 i2 32 18 3 0 A T L A N T IC N A S S A U 1 1 D U V A L 10 10 . O K E E C H O B E E 1 1 V O L U S IA 32 1 2 29 B R E V A R D 30 4 26 I N D I A N R I V E R 54 2 3 49 S T . L U C I E 72 10 19 43 M A T IN 34 1 11 11 11 P A L M B E A C H 16 1 1 1 25 13 4 B R O W A R D 16 16 D A D E 69 2 3 64 T O T A L 48 0 0 1 2 1 27 65 38 4 0 G R A N D T O T A L 70 8 0 1 3 1 39 97 " 56 7 0 : B L A N S P A C E I N D I C A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 1 0 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S I S S U E D B Y C O U N T Y O F H O M E P O R T F O R F L O R I D A , B Y G E A R T Y P E F R O M A P R I L 1 , 1 9 8 8 T O J U L Y 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L C O U N T Y G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . /N E T S P . S . /N E T S / H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R G U L F O F ' M E X IC O B A Y 4 4 G U L F 1 1 F R A L I N 1 1 C IT R U S 2 2 H E R N A N D O 1 1 P IN E L L A S 6 1 5 C H A L O T T 1 1 L E E 4 2 2 C O L L IE R 9 . 1 8 M O N R O E 17 2 1 5 27 13 8 1 T O T A L 20 1 0 0 i 0 9" 3õ 16 0 1 A T L A N T IC N A S S A U 2 2 D U V A L 34 34 S T ~ J O H N S 1 1 .v O L U S IA 39 1 1 37 B R E V A R D 34 4 30 I N D I A N R I V E R 56 2 3 51 S T .L U C IE 80 11 20 49 M A T IN 41 1 13 13 14 P A L M B E A C H 19 4 1 1 25 16 6 1 B R O W A R D 18 18 D A D E 94 6 3 85 T O T A L 59 3 0 T 2" T 33 68 . 48 7 T G R A N D T O T A L 79 4 0 1 3 1 42 98 64 7 2 B L A N K S P A C E I N D I C A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . TABLE 11. NUMBER OF COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC PERMITS BY NUMCODE 'FROM APRIL 1, 1988 TO JULY 22, '1988 Numcode Consolidated number of Permi ts Indi vidual Fisheries Total Permits KASAC KASAN KASGN KASNC KASNN KBSAC KBSAN KBSBC KBSBN KBSGN KBSNC KBSNN KGSBN KGSGC KGSGN KGSNC KGSNN KNSBN KNSNC 110 300 2 8 112 1 13 86 462 5 11 145 2 24 52 4 26 1 652 3 2 2 2 1 4 3 5 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 330 600 4 16 112 4 39 430 1848 15 33 290 6 72 104 8 26 2 6.52 Total Vessels 2016 Ave # Permi ts Per Vessel 2.28 Total Permi ts 4591 TABLE 12. NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED BY COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC. FMP FOR PERMIT YEAR 1988 . Numcode Consolidated number of Permi ts Indi vidual Fisheries Total Permi ts AM GM KASAC KASAN KASNN KBSAN KBSBC KBSBN KBSNN KGSGC KGSGN KNSBN KNSGN KNSNC 794 519 60 74 4 6 36 217 2 8 32 1 1 566 1 1 3 2 1 3 5 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 794 519 180 148 148 18 180 868 4 24 64 2 1 566 Total Vessels 2320 Average # Permi ts Per Vessel 1.45 Total Permi ts 3372 TABLE 13. . TOTAL CHARTER PERMITS BY STATE OF HOMEPORT ISSUED AS OF MARCH 31, 1988 GEAR TYPE STATE NUMBER AL 29 DE 1 FL 337 GA 4 LA 8 MS 3 NC 137 NJ 2 PA 4 SC 59 TX 49 TOTAL 670 T A B L E 1 4 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T I S S U E D A S O F M A C H 3 1 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . / N E T S P . S . /N E T S /H & L p , S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 1 1 F L 25 2 7 4 1 42 34 16 4 L A 1 1 M I 1 1 M S 3 3 N C 12 5 1 17 10 7 N J 2 2 P A 1 1 S C 7 1 6 V A i i 39 4 0 7 8 1 43 53 28 2 0 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 1 5 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T I S S U E D A S O F M A C H 3 1 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . / N E T S P . S . /N E T S / H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 4 1 3 F L 70 2 1 7 6 1 56 55 57 6 L A 55 55 M I 1 1 M S 7 1 3 3 N C 28 7 21 N J 5 5 P A 1 1 S C 6 6 T X 9 9 V A 1 1 81 9 2 7 10 1 56 63 68 0 0 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 1 6 . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T I S S U E D A S O F M A C H 3 1 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E G U L F M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F S P A N I S H M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . /N E T S P .S . /N E T S /H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 1 1 F L 25 3 7 4 1 39 34 16 8 L A 11 11 M I 1 1 M S 3 3 . N C 15 3 12 N J 2 2 P A 1 1 T X 7 1 6 V A 1 1 29 5 0 7 8 1 39 39 20 1 0 B L A S P A C E I N D I C A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . T A B L E 1 ~ . T O T A L C O M M R C I A L P E R M I T S B Y S T A T E O F H O M E P O R T I S S U E D A S O F M A C H 3 1 , 1 9 8 8 F O R T H E A T L A N T I C M I G R A T O R Y G R O U P O F K I N G M A C K E R E L S T A T E S G E A R T Y P E T O T A L P U R S E S E IN E P . S . /N E T S P . S . /N E T S /H & L P .S ./ H & L N E T S N E T S /H & L H & L O T H E R A L 1 1 D E 1 1 F L 78 5 1 7 6 1 55 58 65 7 G A 2 2 L A 18 18 M I 1 1 M S 6 1 3 2 N C 32 6 2 74 24 9 1 N J 6 6 P A 1 1 S C 40 1 39 V A 6 3 3 11 93 2 7 10 1 57 13 6 97 9 1 B L A N S P A C E I N D IC A T E S G E A R T Y P E N O T U S E D . Billing Code: 3510-22 DEPARTMENT OF COMMRCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 642 (Docket No. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic AGENCY: National Mar ine Fisheries Service (NMS) , NOAA, Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMY: NOAA issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP) and to remove inconsistencies that have developed in implementing Amendment 2. This proposed rule would (1) prohibit the use of purse seines for the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel, a prohibition already in effect for the Gulf of Mexico migratory group of king mackerel and Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of Spanish mackerel, (2) prohibit the use of drift gill nets for all coastal migratory pelagic species, (3) prohibit the use of run-around gill nets. for the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel, (4) state more clearly the scope of each management measure, (5) clearly differentiate between commercial and recreational fisheries, ( 6) make minor changes that are necessary to reflect the previous implementation of Amendment 2 to the FMP, and (7) clarify or correct minor ambiguities, inconsistencies, and errors in the regulations. The intended effects of t~is proposed rule are to prevent the adverse impacts on the users of traditional hook and line gear of early closures of the commercial fisheries, such closures being the likely result of allowing the use of purse seines, run-around gill nets, and drift gill' nets in the commercial fisheries; and to . clarify the regulations. DATE: Written comments must be received on or before (Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERA REGISTER). ADDRESS: Comments may be sent to, and copies of the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review may be obtained from, Mark F. Godcharles, Southeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 9450 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, FL 33702. FOR FURTHER INFORMTION CONTACT: Mark F. Godcharles, 813-893-3722. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMTION: The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish" mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is managed under the FMP, prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South i " Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 642, under the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) . Recent reduction of the total allowable catch (TAC) of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel has increased the risk' of early closure of the commercial fishery. Early closures cause adverse economic impacts to traditional hook and line commercial fishermen. Amendment 3 proposes to ameliorate this potential problem by prohibiting the use of newly introduced net gears that are highly efficient and capable of capturing a substantial portion of the reduced commercial allocation quickly. Prohibition of purse seines, run-around gill nets, and drift gill nets 'from the commercial fishery for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel would reduce the potential for early closure and, thus, would protect users of 2 traditional hook and line gear. Further, to reduce bycatch and" waste, .Amendment 3 would prohibit the use of drift gill nets in all fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic species. Draft Amendment 3 was prepared and distributed to interested parties in September and October, 1988. Public hearings were held in 10 cities from Key West, FL to Manteo, NC in October 1988. After considering comments rece,ived at the public hearings and Council meetings, written public comments, and comments from their Scientific and Statistical Committees and Advisory Panels, the Councils made their final selection of preferred options at the November/December 1988 joint meeting. The issues, their impacts, and the rationale for the Councils' preferred options are summarized below. A more complete analysis appears in Amendment 3, the availability of which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (53 FR ; ) . Background According to the 1988 mackerel stock assessment, the status of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel changed is as follows: (1 ) spawning stock biomass remained relatively constant through 1984, after which a decrease may have occurred; (2) fishing mortality rates appear to be at or slightly above rates of full exploitation; (3) catches were high and variable from 1980 to 1985, but catches from 1986 and 1987 declined; and (4) four of five data sets of catch per unit effort indicate declines in abundance. These results led the Councils to conclude that the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel is overfished. Based on the 1988 assessment, the Councils reduced TAC from 9.68, million pounds to 7.0 million 'pounds (28 percent .reduction) . This 3 reduction was based on the Councils' concern for the apparent . declining stock and their decision to be conservative rather than risk continued overfishing. The resulting commercial allocation was reduced from 3.59 to 2. 6 million pounds. This allòcation was exceeded in November 1988 because of the catches of purse seines, drift gill nets, and run-around gill nets. The quota having been exceeded would have resulted in the early closure of the commercial fishery which negatively impa~ts traditional hook and line commercial participants However, the fishery was kept open by court order until February, 1989. If these net gears continue to be allowed in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery, early closures and resulting negative impacts are expected to occur each year. The Councils are also concerned about waste and bycatch in the, , recently developed drift gill net fishery. Allowing the use of drift gill net gear in the coastal migratory pelagics fishery will result in continued waste and bycatch in the fishery. Issue 1. Purse Seines in the Atlantic Migratory Group King Mackerel Fishery. Current regulations prohibit the use of purse seines for Gulf group king mackerel and Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of Spanish mackerel because they are overfished and the existing commercial allocations are fully utilized by historical commercial . gear types. For these species/migratory groups, the users of historical gear have had seasonal closures. Commercial allocations for the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel had not been filled in the past, though the harvest was approaching TA~. Dur ing the 1988/89 fishing season, however, the' commercial allocation was 4 reached and the fishery was to be closed on November 23, 1988 but remained open until February 23, 1989 through court order. In addition, the Councils are concerned there may be a shift of effort onto the Atlantic migratory group as fishermen are restricted from fishing other groups of mackerel. The Councils considered three options: Option 1 (status quo) continue a separate allowance (currently 400,000 pounds) for purse seines on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel; Option 2 not specify a separate allowance for purse seines but allow them to continue to fish under the commercial allocation; and Option 3 prohibit the use of purse seines on the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. The Councils selected Option 3 because: 1. The Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel is currently overfished. 2. Allowing a new user group into an overfished fishery when existing, historic users are forced to reduce catches is imprudent and unfair. When stocks recover and traditional commercial fishermen do not take the. allocation, this issue will be reconsidered. 3. The use of purse seines in the fishery for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is of recent origin and limited in number. There is no record of a purse seine fishery on Atlantic migratory group king mackerel before April 1988 in the Ft. Pierce, FL area. Catches at that time may have been on Gulf migratory group king mackerel that had remained in the area due to unusually cool weather. Purse seine and run-around gill nets together caught approximately 340,000 pounds of king mackerel. 5 4. Allocating the resource to the users of traditional fishing gears benefits the greatest number of fishermen. 5. Prohibiting the use of purse seines for mackerel is consistent with the management procedures in all adjacent State waters. 6. The marginal value of a fish allocated to the traditional commercial fishery is higher than that of a fish allocated to the purse seine fishery. The number of purse seine vessels that participated in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery for the first time in April 1988 was very small. The number of vessels was so small that purse seine catches must be combined with run-around gill net catches for presentation t'O avoid confidentiality problems. Using the combined purse seine and run-around gill net catches, the prohibition would impact the affected fishermen by preventing the harvest of approximately 340,000 pounds of, king mackerel. Issue 2. Drift Gillnets in the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery. Currently, no federal regulations specifically address this newly developed fishery. Drift entanglement nets were first tried in 1980, initially fishing the Ft. Pierce, FL area, with little success due to problems with sharks damaging catch and gear. By 1987 and 1988, 13 boats were using drift gill nets with catches in 1987 of 800,000 pounds of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. . Preliminary catch figures for 1988 are 808,000 pounds with final figures expected to be higher. Nets are made of #9 nylon webbing, have 5 inch stretch mesh, are about 50 feet deep, and range from 1,200 to 5,000 yards long with most full-time boats using at least 3,000 years. During an òbserver program, no marine mammals or birds were observed tangled in the nets on any trip. Porpoises and " 6 sea turtles were observed in the vicinity of the nets on haulback on numerous trips. One leatherback turtle was observed in the net at haulback by a fishermen; however, by the time the observer reached the stern, the turtle freed itself and swam away. Reports from the observer study indicate that little tunny made up 23 percent of the total catch and 67 percent of the discarded bycatch, by number; barracuda comprised 4 percent of the total catch and 11 percent of th~ discarded bycatch; and other species comprised less than 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent respectively. There were 22 sailfish caught on observed trips for an average of 0.58 per trip. If this is expanded for the total number of trips in 1987, the total sailfish bycatch would be 419 per year. Approximately 14 percent of the total bycatch is landed and sold. The Councils considered eight options for regulating drift gill nets ranging from no action to a total prohibition. The Councils chose to prohibit the use of drift gillnet gear in directed fisheries for all coastal migratory pelagic resources in the South Atlantic and Gulf ot" Mexico and to prohibit the retention of these species in other drift gill net fisheries ~ The Councils are concerned that they cannot adequately protect overfished king and Spanish mackerel resources if they are allowed to be taken as a bycatch in drift gill net fisheries for other coastal pelagic species. Currently, there is no directed drift gill net fishing for cobia, cero, little tunny, dolphin, or bluefish. Because drift gill nets are an indiscriminate gear, they cannot exclusively fish for any of these.coastal pelagic species, without taking a bycatch of king and Spanish~mackerel. Th~ shark drift net fishery is the only fishery, of which the Councils are aware, that will be impacted by 7 . the prohibition on' retention of all coastal migratory pelagic resources. The Councils do not have sufficient information about this fishery to evaluate the level of impact. . Impacts on Commercial Hook and Line Fisheries Based on drift gill net catches in 1987, a prohibition on use of drift gill nets would potentially make an additional 765,226 pounds of king mackerel available for harvest by the traditional commercial hook and line fisheries. How this additional catch would be distributed geographically is unknown, but in all probability the catches in the area of Ft. Pierce and southward would increase due to increased local availability. Also, highly valued recreational species taken incidentally to the mackerel drift gill net flshery would become available to the recreational fishery. The addition of 765,226 pounds of king mackerel if caught entirely by the commercial hook and line fishery, would produce revenues of' $1, 078, 969. Impacts on the Drift Gill Net Fishery Data for 1987 and preliminary data for 1988 indicate that 13 vessels and' between 39 and 52 fishermen were engaged in the drift gill net fishery for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. These vessels and fishermen also fish (1) in the run-arouna gill net fishery for Gulf migratory group king mackerel and Gulf and Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel and (2) the shark drift gill net fishery. Pèriodically they also fish smaller gill net boats (outboards) in the Indian River and outside the inlets. As of September 1987 there was a total of approximately 38, 000 yards (22 miles) of gill net gear. in the fishery worth between $194, 000 and $232,800 when new . Prohibiting this gear for coastal migratory pelagic species would result in foregone catches of king mackerel of 8 765,226 pounds, based on drift gill net catches in 1987: . revenue produced by this catch is estimated at $925,923. The The range of losses to the individual drift gill net vessels would be from 3,968 to 122,987 pounds with revenues from $4,801 to $148,814. In addition, loss from other species that are landed and sold would total approximately 65,755 pounds with an estimated revenue of $65,755 for the fishery as a whole. Loss in value of gill nets is unknown because of uncertainties as to age and the amount that would not be convertible to other fisheries. The Councils selected the option of total prohibition of drift gill nets because: 1. It most appropriately meets the objectives of the FMP, is least burdensome, and has the greatest likelihood or correcting the problem of early closure ?f the commercial fishery, which adversely affects traditional hook and line fishermen. 2. When the quantified and non-quantified benefits are combined, a net benefit to society results. 3. It is in agreement with Florida's regulations, thereby easing enforcement. Issue 3. Run-around Gill Nets in the Atlantic Migratory Group King Mackerel Fishery. The Councils considered two options: Option 1 (status quo) continue to allow the Use of run-around gill nets on Atlantic migratory group king mackerel and Option 2 - prohibit the use of run-around gill nets to take Atlantic migratory group king mackerel . Run-around gill nets have only been u~ed sporadically to harvest At1"antic migratory group king mackerel. The 'only recent catches were taken during Aprii 1988. The Councils reviewed available 9 information and chose to prohibit run-around gïllnets for taking Atlantic migratory group king mackerel because of the overfished . status of this group and because allowing the use of run-around gillnets will likely result in early closure of the commercial fishery which would adversely impact traditional hook and line commercial participants. Further, run-around gill net gear is not considered a traditional gear in the Atlantiè migratory group. king mackerel fishery. This prohibition is not being applied to Atlantic or Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel or Gulf migratory group king mackerel because run-around gill nets are considered traditional gear in those fisheries. The number of run-around gill net vessels that participated in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery for the first recorded time in April 1988 was very small. The number of vessels was so small that run-around gill net catches must be combined with purse seine catches for presentation to avoid confidentiality problems. Using the combined run-around gill net and purse seine catches, the prohibition would impact the affected fishermen by preventing the harvest of approximately 340, 000 pounds of king mackerel. In this proposed rule, a dri£t gill net is defined by the length of its float line and, in the alternative, by how it is used. Length was chosen as a determinant because of its relative ease of discernment ashore. The length of 1, 000 yards was selected because . the vast majority of drift gill nets exceed that length. The use determinant will be employed only for gill nets that are 1, 000 yards or less in length. Drift gill nets are not, per s~, prohibited only their use to fish for coastal migratory pelagic fish or the 10 possession of such fish aboard a vessel with a drift gill net aboard. In addition to the above issues, Amendment 3 also does the following: 1. Adds an objective to the FMP to minimize waste and bycatch in the fishery. Waste includes both discarded catch and economic waste due to product quality. 2. Adds to the FMP the most recent information available to the Councils concerning habitat. 3. Adds to the FMP an evaluation of the FMP ' s effects on vessel safety. Additional Changes In addition to the regulatory changes associated with Amendment 3, NOAA proposes changes necessary to fully reflect the previous implementation of Amendment 2 and to otherwise correct anQ clarify the regulations. The purpose and scope section (§642. 1) would be modified to express the scope of the regulations in the broadest terms consistent with the FMP. NOAA has determined that the public is better served by a general expression of scope in this section with the specific scope of each general provision or management measure stated in that provision or measure. This approach avoids the possibility of misleading fishermen, dealers, and processors as to the scope of the regulations in this part. To clarify what constitutes the commercial and recreational fisheries, the definition for Commercial fisherman would be removed and new definitions for Commercial fishery and Recreational fishery would be added. The definition for Charter vessel would be revised 11 ~-.--' to clarify that (1) a charter vessel holding either a king or Spanish mackerel commercial permit is subject to the criteria specified for establishing when the vessel is under charter and (2) the number of persons aboard is not the sole criterion for determining when a vessel is under charter. Other minor changes to some of the definitions are proposed for clarity and consistency. The introductory texts for the reporting requirements (§642.5 (a) , (b), and (c)) would be revised to more succinctly state the geographical extent of fishing for which reports may be required. In §642. 5 (b), reference is added to the section requiring permits for charter vessels to add emphasis to that requirement. Other changes to these ~ections and to §642. 5 (e) are proposed for clarity. The vessel identification requirements relating to the official number (§642. 6 (a)) would be restated for clar~ty, and brevity. Section 642.7 (j) would be modified to correct the references in that paragraph. The prohibition on fishing for, retaining, or having in possession a?oard a permitted vessel king mackerel after a closure (§642.7 (k)) would be clarified to include in the exceptions reference to the limited incidental catch of king mackerel in the Spanish mackerel~ gill net fishery (§642. 24 (c) ) . Such incidental catch of king mackerel is not excepted from the prohibition on sale (§642.7 (1)). Prohibited activities relating to king or Spanish mackerel under a recreational allocation after reduction of a bag limit to zero (§642.7 (r)) would be restated to parallel prohibited activities specified for king or Spanish mackerel harvested or possessed in 12 .. excess of a bag limít (§642. 7 (n) ) . The allocations and quotas section (§642. 21) would be revised to clarify that both king and Spanish mackerel are counted against a commercial allocation when they are first sold. To express more, clearly the contents of the closures section . (§642. 22), the heading for that section would be revised by adding reference to bag limit reductions.' Section 644.22 (b) would be revised to describe the geographical extent of a bag limit reduction in language parallel to the description in the preceding paragraph of the geographical extent of a commercial closure and to clarify that a bag limit reduction applies to the EEZ. The catch allowance for undersized Spanish mackerel (§642 .23 (a) (2)) would be revised to clarify that the allowance applies only to the commercial fishery. To enforce the minimum size limits, the head and fins of Spanish mackerel and cobia must be intact. The present wording of the requirement for head and fins to be intact precludes enforcement of that requirement when a vessel is boarded at sea. Accordingly, §642. 23 (c) would be revised to require head and fins to be intact on any Spanish mackerel or cobia possessed in the EEZ and, when taken from the EEZ, through landing. The language regarding gill nets (§642. 24 (a)) would be revised to clarify that the speci.fied mesh sizes are the minimum allowable sizes. The purse seine catch allowance (§642. 24 (d)) would be revised to clari.fy that the allowance is for incidental catch and the amount of such catch is restated ~for clarity. NOAA proposes other minor, technical changes to remove redundant 13 language an"d conform to current usage. Classification Section 304 (a) (1) (D) (ii) of the Magnuson Act, as amended by Pub. L. 99-659, requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish regulations proposed by a Council within 15 days of receipt of an FMP amendment and regulations. At this time, the Secretary has not determined that Amendment, 3, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the Magnuson Act, and other applicable law. The Secretary, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NQAA, determined that this proposed rule is not a "major rule" requiring the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis under E. O. 12291. This proposed rule, if adopted, is' not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of Ù. S. -based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. The Councils prepared a regulatory impact review which concludes that this rule will have the economic effects discussed above in the analysis of the management measures of Amendment 3. A copy of the review may be optained at the address listed above. This proposed rule is exempt from the procedures of E. O. 12291 under section 8 (a) (2) of that order. It is being reported to the 14 ~' Director, Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation òf why it is not possible to follow the procedures of that order. The General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. An estimated thirteen vessels (small entities) used drift gillnets to fish for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel during the period, April-September. Those thirteen vessels, which would be adversely impacted by this proposed rule, constitute less than two percent of the commercial vessels in the coastal migratory pelagics fishery. These fishermen will have some opportunity to replace lost income by engaging in the shark fishery, the Gulf migratory group king mackerel fishery as it rebuilds, and some of the other inshore fisheries. Purse seipes and run-around gill net catches were first recorded during the 1988/89 fishing year and involve such a small number of entities that the catch data for these two gear types is confidential and cannot be reported separately. The vessels will have the opportunity to replace lost income in the fisheries which they prosecuted prior to first participating in the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel fishery during April 1988. As a result, a regulatory flexibility .analysis was not prepared. The Councils determined that this rule will be implemented in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal zone management programs of North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Georgia and Texas do not have approved coastal zone management pr~grams. This determination has been submitted for review by the responsible State 15 , agencies under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Councils prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that discusses the impact on the environment and concludes that there will be no significant adverse impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of" the EA may be obtained at the address listed above and comments on it are requested. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. . This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E. O. 12612. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 642 Fisheries, Fishing. Dated: For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR Part 642 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 642 -- COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLATIC 1. The authority citation for Part 642 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 ~ ~. 2. In §642. 1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: §642 . 1 Purpose and scope. 16 * * * * * (b) This part governs conservation and management of coastal migratory pelagic fish off the Atlantic. and Gulf of Mexico coastal States south of the Virginia/North Carolina border and in the Gulf of Mexico. 3. In §642. 2, the definition for Commercial fisherman is removed; in the definition for Charter vessel crew, the word "captain" is revised to read "operator"; in the definition for Regional Director, the semicolon after the ZIP code is removed and a comma is added in its place; in the definition for Species, the words "refers to" are removed and the word "means" is added in their place; the definition for Charter vessel is revised; and new definitions for Commercial fishery, Drift gill net, Gill net, Recreational fishery, and Run-around gill net are added in alphabetical order to read as follows: §642.2 Definitions. * * * * * Charter vessel (includes a headboat) means a vessel whose operator is licensed by the U. S. Coast Guard to carry paying passengers and whose passengers fish for a fee. A charter vessel with a permit to fish on a commercial allocation for king or Spanish mackerel is under charter when it carries a passenger who fishes for a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard including operator and crew. * * * * * Commercial fishery means the harvesting of king or Spanish mackerel by a person fishing under the annual vessel permit specified in §642. 4 (a) (1) . i 7 ~'-' * * * * * . \ Drift gill net means a gill net having a float line that is more than 1, 000 yards in length; or .any gill net having a float line that is 1, 000 yards or less in length, other than a run-around gill net, that, when used, drifts in the water, that is, is not anchored at both ends, whether or not it is attached to a vessel. * * * * * Gill net means a wall of netting, suspended vertically in the water by floats. along the top and weights along the bottom, that entangles the head, gills, or other body parts of fish that attempt to pass through the meshes. * * * * * Recreational fishery means the harvesting of king or Spanish mackerel by a person fishing under a bag limit. * * * * * Run-around gill net means a gill net having a float line that is 1, 000 yards or less in length that, when used, encloses an area of water. * * * * * 4. In §642. 4, in paragraph (a) (1), the word "which" before "fishes" is revised to read "that" and the phrase" in the EEZ" is added after the word "mackerel"; in paragraph (a) (3) .the word "which" before fishes is revised to read "that" and the phrase" in the EEZ" is added after the word "fish"; in paragraphs (b) (3) and (c), the words "or his de.signee" after "Regional Director" are removed; and in paragraph (a) (2), the second sentence is revised to read as follows: ./ . §642.4 Permits and fees. 18 '~ (a) * * * (2 ) * * * A charter vessel in the EEZ must adhere to the applicable bag limit while under charter. * * * * * 5. In §642.5, in paragraph (a) (2), a comma is added after the word "fish" and the words "as defined" are removed; and paragraphs (-a) introductory text, (b) introductory text, (c) introductory text, and (e) are revised to read as- follows: §642.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. (a) Commercial vessel owners and operators. An owner or operator of a fishing vessel that fishes for or lands coastal migratory pelagic fish for sale, trade, or barter in or from the EEZ or adjoining State waters, or whose vessel possesses a permit issued under §642. 4 (a) (1), and who is selected to report, must provide the following information regarding any -fishing trip to the Science and Research Director: * * * * * (b) Charter vessel owners and operators. An owner or operator of a charter vessel that fishes for or lands coastal migratory pelagic fish in or from the EEZ or adjoining State waters, or whose vessel possesses a permit issued under §642.4 (a) (3), and who is selected to report, must maintain a daily fishing record on forms provided by the Science and Research Director. These forms must be submitted tò the Science and Research Director weekly and must provide the following information: * * * * * (c) Dealers and processors. A person who receives coastal migratory pelagic fish, or parts thereof, by way of purchase, 19 barter, trade, or sale from a fishing vessel or person that fishes for or lands such fish, or parts thereof, in or from the EEZ or adjoining State waters, and who is selected to report, must provide the following information 'to the Science and Research Director at monthly intervals, or more frequently if requested, and on forms provided by the Science and Research Director: * * * * * (e) Availability of fish for inspection. An owner or operator of a commercial, charter, or recreational vessel or a dealer or processor shall make any coastal migratory pelagic fish, or parts thereof,available, upon request, for inspection by the Science and Research Director for the collection of additional information or by an authorized officer. 6 ~ §642.6 In §642. 6, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: Vessel identificatiun. (a) Official number. A vessel engaged in fishing for king or Spanish mackerel under a commercial allocation and the permit specified in §642. 4 (a) (1), must display its official number (1) On the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from an enforcement vessel or aircraft; (2) In block Arabic numerals in contrasting color to the background; (3) At least 18 inches in height for fishing vessels over 65 feet in length and at least 10 inches in height for all other .. vessels; and (4) Eermanently affixed to or painted on the vessel. " * * * * * 20 7. In §642. 7, in paragraph (k), a comma is added after the phrase "under a commercial allocation" and the reference and word "§6~2. 24 (c) and" are added between the word" in" and the reference "§642. 28 (c) (2) "; in paragraph (m), a comma is added after the phrase "under a commercial allocation"; in paragraph (n), after the reference to "§642. 28", the comma and the phrase "except as provided for under §642. 21 (a) and (c)". are removed; in paragraph (v), the word "which" is revised to read "that"; paragraphs (e), (g) , (j) , (q) , and (r) are revised; and new paragraphs (x) and (y) are added to read as follows: §642 . 7 Prohibitions. * * * * , * (e) Fish in the EEZ for king or Spanish mackerel from either the Gulf or Atlantic migratory group using a purse seine, as specified . in §642. 24 .(b) ~ * * * * * (g) Falsify or fail to report information, as specified in §§642.4 and 642.5. * * * * * (j) Purchase, sell, barter, trade, or accept in trade king or Spanish mackerel harvested in the EEZ from a specific migratory group or zone for the remainder of the appropriate fishing year, specified in §642. 20, after the allocation or quota for that migratory group or zone, as specified in §642. 21 (a) or (c), has been reached and closure has been invoked, as specified in §642. 22 (a) . (This prohibition does not apply to trade in king of Spanish mackerel harvested, landed, and bartered, traded, or sold prior to the closure and held in cold storage by dealers and processors.) 21 * * * * * (q) Possess or land Spanish mackerel or cobia without the head and fins intact, as specified in §642.23(c). (r) Land, consume at sea, sell or possess, in or from the EEZ, king or Spanish mackereÏ harvested under a recreational allocation set forth in §642. 21 (b) or (d) after the bag limit for that recreational allocation has been reduced to zero under §642. 22 (b) . * * * * * (x) Fish with a drift gill net for coastal migratory pelagic fish or possess any such fish aboard a vessel with a drift gill net aboard, as specified in §642. 24 (a) (3) ~ (y) Fish with a run-around gill net for king mackerel from the Atlantic migratory group or possess any such fish aboard a vessel with a run-around gill net aboard, as specified in §642. 24 (a) (4) . 8. In §642.21, in paragraph (a) (2), the last sentence is removed, and a new paragraph (c) (3) is added to read as tollows: §642.21 Allocations and quotas. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) A fish is counted against the commercial allocation when it is first sold. * * * * * 9. In §642. 22, the heading, the second sentence of paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows: §642.22 Closures and bag limit reductions. ~ (a) * * * The notice of closure for an allocation or quota specified under §642. 21 (a) or (c) will also provide that the purchase, barter, trade, and sale of king or Spanish mackerel taken 22 in the EEZ from the closed area after the closure is prohibited for the remainder of that fishing year. (b) The Secretary, after consulting with the Councils and by * * * . publication of a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER, will reduce to zero the bag limit for the king or Spanish mackerel recreational fishery in the EEZ for a particular migratory group when the allocation under §642. 21 (b) or (d) for that migratory group has been reached or . is projected to be reached and when that group is overfished. After such reduction, a king or Spanish mackerel caught in the EEZ from that group must be returned immediately to the sea and possession of king or Spanish mackerel of that group in or from the EEZ on board a vessel in the recreational fishery is prohibited. 10. In §642. 23, in paragraph (a) (1), the word "or" between the words" recreational" and" commercial" is revised to read "and"; in paragraph (a) (2), the phrase "in the commercial fishery" is added between the words "allowed" and "equal"; and paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: §642.23 Size restrictions. * * * * * (c) Head and fins intact. A Spanish mackerel or, cobia possessed in the EEZ must have head and fins intact and a Spanish mackerel or cobia taken from the EEZ must be landed with the head and fins intact. 11. In §642.24, in the first sentence of paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) the word "allowable" .is added after the word "minimum" and the phras'e "in the EEZ" is added after the word "fish"; new paragraphs (a) (3) and (4) are added; and paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as follows: 23 §642.24 Vessel, gear, equipment limitations. * * * * * (a) * * * (3) Drift ~ill nets. The use of a drift gill net to fish in the EEZ for coastal migratory pelagic fish is prohibited. A vessel in the EEZ or having fished in the EEZ with a drift gill net aboard may not possess any coastal migratory pelagic fish. (4) Run-around ~ill nets. The use of a run-around gill net to fish in the EEZ for king mackerel from the Atlantic migratory group is prohibited. A vessel in the EEZ or having fished in the EEZ within the range of king mackerel from the Atlantic migratory group with a run-around gill net aboard may not possess any king mackerel. (b) Purse seines. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the use of a purse seine to fish in the EEZ for king or Spanish mackerel is prohibited. * * * * * (d) Purse seine incidental catch allowance. A vessel with a purse seine aboard will not be considered as fishing for king mackerel or Spanish mackerel in violation of the prohibition of purse seines under paragraph (b) of this section provided the catch of king mackerel or Spanish mackerel does not exceed one percent or ten percent, respectively, by weight or number (whichever provides . the lesser percentage), of the catch of all fish aboard the vessel. Such king or Spanish mackerel will be counted toward the allocations and, quotas provided for under §642. 21 (a) or (c) and are subject to the prohibition of sale under §642. 22 (a) . 12. In §642. 28, in paragraph (a) introductory text, the word 1.. "incidental" is added betwe~n the words "seine" and "catch". 24