Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment

02/24/99 GENERIC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT TO THE FOLLOWING FMPS • Gulf Coral and Coral Reef Resources • Coastal Migratory Pelagics • Red Drum • Reef Fish • Shrimp • Spiny Lobster • Stone Crab (Includes Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment) February 1999 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council The Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619-2266 Phone: 813-228-2815 Fax: 813-225-7015 Email: gulf.council@noaa.gov This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and financial assistance for this options paper was provided by grant funds pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA87FC0003. ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS IN THIS AMENDMENT ABC acceptable biological catch AP advisory panel BMSY long-term average biomass achieved fishing at FMSY BRD bycatch reduction device ComFIN Commercial Fisheries Information Network Council Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council CPUE catch per unit effort CSAP Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel DEIS draft environmental impact statement EA environmental assessment EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order F instantaneous fishing mortality rate F0.1 fishing mortality rate at which slope of equilibrium YPR is reduced to 10% of slope at F=0 FMAX fishing mortality rate at which slope of equilibrium YPR is zero FMSY fishing mortality rate which if applied constantly would result in MSY FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FL fork length FMFC Florida Marine Fisheries Commission FMP fishery management plan FSAP Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council GSAFDF Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries M instantaneous natural mortality rate MARFIN Marine Fisheries Initiative MFMT maximum fishing mortality threshold, same as overfishing threshold for some stocks MP million pounds MRFSS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey MSAP Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act) MSST minimum stock size threshold, same as overfished threshold for some stocks MSY maximum sustainable yield NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OY optimum yield RA Regional Administrator of NMFS RecFIN Recreational Fisheries Information Network RDSAP Red Drum Stock Assessment Panel RFSAP Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel RIR Regulatory Impact Review SAP stock assessment panel SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center of NMFS SEP Socioeconomic Panel SERO Southeast Regional Office (NMFS) SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SPR spawning potential ratio SSAP Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel SSBR spawning stock biomass per recruit SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee TAC total allowable catch TL total length TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department VPA virtual population analysis YPR yield per recruit i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 PROBLEMS REQUIRING A PLAN AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6.0 SFA DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1 Statement of SFA Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2 Consistency of FMPs with SFA Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.0 BYCATCH PROVISIONS FOR FMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2 Measures for Standardized Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2.1 General Bycatch Reporting Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.3 Measures to Minimize Bycatch and/or Bycatch Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.3.1 Shrimp Fishery Bycatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3.2 Stone Crab Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3.3 Finfish Regulatory Discards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.0 OVERFISHING CRITERIA AND REBUILDING PERIODS FOR STOCKS . . . . . . . 28 8.1 REEF FISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.1.1 Current Status of Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.1.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8.1.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8.1.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives (MFMT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1.5 Rebuilding Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.1.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.1.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.2 COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS (MACKERELS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 8.2.1 Current Status of Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 8.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 8.2.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 8.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 ii 8.2.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 8.2.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 8.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives (MFMT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 8.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 8.2.5 Rebuilding Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 8.2.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 8.2.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 8.3 RED DRUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 8.3.1 Current Status of the Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 8.3.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.3.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.3.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 8.3.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 8.3.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8.3.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8.3.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 8.3.5 Rebuilding Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 8.3.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 8.3.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 8.4 SHRIMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 8.4.1 Penaeid Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 8.4.1.1 Current Status of the Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 8.4.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 8.4.1.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 8.4.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 8.4.1.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 8.4.1.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 8.4.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 8.4.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 8.4.1.5 Rebuilding Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 8.4.2 Royal Red Shrimp Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 8.4.2.1 Current Status of the Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.4.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 8.4.2.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 8.4.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4.2.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4.2.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.4.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.4.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.4.2.5 Rebuilding Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 8.5 SPINY LOBSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 8.5.1 Current Status of Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 8.5.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 8.5.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 iii 8.5.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 8.5.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 8.5.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 8.5.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 8.5.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 8.5.5 Rebuilding Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 8.6 STONE CRAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 8.6.1 Current Status of Stock (from Muller and Bert 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 8.6.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 8.6.2.1 MSY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 8.6.3 Optimum Yield (OY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 8.6.3.1 OY Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 8.6.4 Overfishing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 8.6.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 8.6.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 8.6.5 Rebuilding Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 8.7 CORAL AND CORAL REEF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.0 FISHING COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.2 Gulf Fishing Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 10.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 11.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING SECTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 12.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 12.2 Problems and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 12.3 Methodology and Framework for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 12.4 Impacts of Proposed Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 12.5 Private and Public Costs of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 12.6 Summary of Expected Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 12.7 Determination of a Significant Regulatory Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 12.8 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 13.1 Effects on Physical, Human, Fishery, and Wetlands Environments . . . . . . . . . 144 13.2 Effect on Endangered Species and Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 13.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 13.4 Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 14.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.1 Habitat Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 iv 14.2 Vessel Safety Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.3 Coastal Zone Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.4 Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.5 Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 15.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 16.0 PUBLIC HEARING LOCATIONS AND DATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 17.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 18.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 APPENDICES A. Chapter 46-13, Florida Code of Law B. Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel Report C. First Finfish Stock Assessment Panel Report D. Second Finfish Stock Assessment Panel Report E. Florida’s West coast Stone Crab Fishery F. Florida’s Spiny Lobster Fishery G. Demographic and Economic Data on State Fishing Communities 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This generic amendment serves to amend the following fishery management plans (FMPs) to comply with the provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) that amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M-MSFCMA): C Coastal Migratory Pelagics (mackerel) FMP C Reef Fish FMP C Red Drum FMP C Shrimp FMP C Spiny Lobster FMP C Stone Crab FMP C Gulf Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP The amendment addresses principally the new provisions of Section 303(a) of the M MSFCMA, with the exception of the provision for identifying and describing essential fish habitat, which is addressed in a separate generic amendment to the FMPs listed above. In addressing the new provisions of the M-MSFCMA, the Council finds that the management measures of all of its FMPs are already in compliance with most of the new provisions. The Council’s finding in this regard is discussed in the appropriate sections of the amendment. While the amendment addresses all the new provisions of Section 303(a) and Section 3, the principal changes to the FMPs relate to specification of overfishing criteria and rebuilding periods, and of bycatch measures. The amendment section on overfishing criteria and rebuilding periods (8.0) serves two purposes. For those stocks that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified as overfished in 1997, the amendment includes management measures to restore those stocks and specific rebuilding periods based on the current criteria specified in each FMP as provided for in Section 304(e) of the M-MSFCMA. The section also specifies new overfishing criteria and rebuilding schedules based on the guidelines for National Standard 1 as set forth in 50 CFR 600.310. When the amendment is approved and implemented by NMFS, these new criteria will serve as the basis for the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to judge whether additional stocks should be classified as overfished or approaching an overfished state. Should the Secretary reach that conclusion, as provided for in Section 304(e), he will immediately notify the Council and request that action be taken to end overfishing by subsequent amendment, based on the new criteria approved in this amendment. 2 2.0 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council/GMFMC) developed or participated in development of eleven draft FMPs principally during the period 1977-1981. Five of the draft FMPs were joint plans with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and all were implemented, while two of the draft plans for the Gulf were not implemented (i.e., groundfish and sharks). The history of management for each of seven FMPs listed below has been routinely included in each of the amendments to those FMPs and is incorporated by reference and not restated here. The FMPs are listed in order of implementation dates below, with the most recent amendment listed as a reference for the most recent discussion of the history of management for that fishery. FMP/DEIS Implementation Date Last Amendment Implementation Date Stone Crab 9/79 Amendment 5 3/95 Shrimp 5/81 Amendment 9 4/98 Spiny Lobster* 6/82 Amendment 4 8/95 Mackerel* 2/83 Amendment 8 4/98 Coral 7/84 Amendment 3 10/95 Reef Fish 11/84 Amendment 15 12/97 Red Drum 12/86 Amendment 3 10/92 *Joint plan with SAFMC 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need for this generic amendment are to comply with the changes to the M MSFCMA through the passage of the SFA. Each of the aforementioned FMPs and their subsequent amendments contain statements regarding the purpose and need for the actions that were proposed. 4.0 PROBLEMS REQUIRING A PLAN AMENDMENT As previously noted, this generic amendment was mandated by the M-MSFCMA. Primarily, the new provisions require the Council to review consistency of definitions between FMPs and the SFA (Section 6.0); address bycatch (Section 7.0); establish new definitions of “overfishing” and “overfished,” with rebuilding periods (Section 8.0); consider the effects on fishing communities (Section 9.0); and review consistency with regard to reporting requirements (Section 10.0). Problems with each individual fishery are contained in the original FMP and subsequent amendments. They are cumulative to the most recent amendment (see reference table above). 3 5.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS BYCATCH PROVISIONS FOR FMPs (Section 7.0) 7.2 Measures for Standardized Reporting 7.2.1 General Bycatch Reporting Measures As part of the reporting requirements for each of the FMPs, NMFS is authorized to collect bycatch information using the most practical reporting requirements and methodology. Such reporting is mandatory for persons selected to report. If it is determined that observers are needed to collect bycatch information, or substantiate the information collected through reporting, and if determined by the Council, it shall be mandatory that vessels selected by NMFS carry observers, consistent with Section 403 of the M-MSFCMA. 7.3 Measures to Minimize Bycatch and/or Bycatch Morality 7.3.2 Stone Crab Fishery Adopt in the Stone Crab FMP the construction characteristics of stone crab traps set forth in Chapter 46-13.002(2)(a) of Florida law. OVERFISHING CRITERIA AND REBUILDING PERIODS FOR STOCKS (Section 8.0) 8.1 REEF FISH 8.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY is equivalent to 50 percent static SPR for Nassau grouper and jewfish. MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for reef fish stocks under Section 8.1, except for red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. MSY is equivalent to 26 percent static SPR for red snapper. 8.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) OY is equivalent to 50 percent static SPR for Nassau grouper and jewfish. OY is equivalent to 36 percent static SPR for red snapper. 4 OY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for reef fish stocks under Section 8.1, except for red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. 8.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 50 percent static SPR for Nassau grouper and jewfish. Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 26 percent static SPR for red snapper. Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for all of the reef fish stocks in Section 8.1, except red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. 8.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) The overfished threshold will be implemented by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the RFSAP, SSC, and the Council. 8.1.5 Rebuilding Periods The rebuilding period for red snapper will be completed on or before year 2033. There is insufficient scientific information to compute the rebuilding periods for Nassau grouper and jewfish. 8.2 COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS (MACKERELS) 8.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Gulf-group king mackerel, Gulf-group Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero, dolphin (fish), bluefish, and little tunny. 8.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) OY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Gulf-group king mackerel, Gulf-group Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero, dolphin (fish), bluefish, and little tunny. 5 8.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for the following stocks or migratory groups: Gulf-group king mackerel, Gulf-group Spanish mackerel, cobia, cero, dolphin (fish), bluefish, and little tunny. 8.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) The overfished threshold will be implemented for each stock by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the MSAP, SSC, and the Council. 8.2.5 Rebuilding Period The rebuilding period for Gulf-group king mackerel to MSY (30 percent static SPR) will be for 10 years, 1999 - 2009. 8.3 RED DRUM 8.3.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR. 8.3.3 Optimum Yield (OY) OY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR. 8.3.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR. 8.3.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) The overfished threshold will be implemented by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the RDSAP, SSC, and the Council. 8.3.5 Rebuilding Period There is insufficient scientific information to compute the rebuilding period for red drum. 6 8.4 SHRIMP 8.4.1 Penaeid Shrimp 8.4.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The proxy for the MSY spawning stock size is defined as the parent stock numbers (as indexed from current VPA procedures) for the three penaeid species of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico at or above the following levels: Brown Shrimp - 125 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 330 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 100 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. 8.4.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) Set OY equal to MSY (or proxy for MSY). 8.4.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) The overfishing threshold is defined as a rate of fishing that results in the parent stock number for any of the penaeid species being reduced below the MSY minimum levels listed below: Brown Shrimp - 125 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 330 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 100 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. 7 8.4.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) An overfished condition would result when a parent stock number falls below one-half of overfishing definition, i.e.: Brown Shrimp - 63 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 165 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 50 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. 8.4.2 Royal Red Shrimp 8.4.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Set MSY at a range of 392,000 to 650,000 pounds. 8.4.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) Set OY equal to MSY. 8.4.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) The overfishing threshold is defined as a rate of fishing that results in landings exceeding OY. 8.4.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) There is insufficient scientific information to specify the threshold. 8.5 SPINY LOBSTER 8.5.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY is defined as a harvest strategy that results in at least a 20 percent SSBR (transitional SPR). 8 8.5.3 Optimum Yield (OY) OY is defined as a harvest strategy that results in achieving a 30 percent SSBR (transitional SPR). 8.5.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) Overfishing exists when the fishing rate results in SSBR being reduced below 20 percent. 8.5.4.2 Overfished Threshold (MSST) The minimum stock size threshold proxy is an SSBR level of 15 percent. 8.6 STONE CRAB 8.6.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY is defined as the harvest that results from a realized egg production per recruit at or above 70 percent of potential production. This harvest capacity is currently estimated at between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws (minimum 70 mm propodus length). 8.6.3 Optimum Yield (OY) Set OY equal to MSY 8.6.4.1 Overfishing Threshold (MFMT) Overfishing is defined as a harvest level (or fishing mortality rate) that would result in a realized egg production per recruit of below 70 percent of potential production (see Figure 9). 8.6.4.2 Overfished Threshold The overfished condition would occur when the realized egg production per recruit is reduced below 40 percent of potential production. 9 6.0 SFA DEFINITIONS 6.1 Statement of SFA Definitions The SFA added new definitions related to the new required provisions of plans under M-MSFCMA Section 303(a) and the new national standards under Section 301. In addition, it modified other existing definitions to be compatible with Section 2 on Congressional Findings, Purposes and Policy; the most important of these is the definition of optimum as used in optimum yield (OY). The new definitions are as follows: The term bycatch means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch-and-release fishery management program. The term economic discards means fish which are the target of a fishery, but which are not retained because they are of an undesirable size, sex, or quality, or for other economic reasons. The term regulatory discards means fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard whenever caught, or are required by regulation to retain but not sell. The term charter fishing means fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire (as defined in section 2101(21a) of title 46, United States Code) who is engaged in recreational fishing. The term commercial fishing means fishing in which the fish harvested, either in whole or in part, are intended to enter commerce or enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade. The term recreational fishing means fishing for sport or pleasure. The term fishing community means a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in such community. The term individual fishing quota means a Federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) of a fishery that may be received or held 10 for exclusive use by a person. Such term does not include community development quotas as described in section 305(I). The term optimum with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which, (A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; (B) is prescribed on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor; and (C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery. The terms overfishing and overfished mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. The term essential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. 6.2 Consistency of FMPs with SFA Definitions One of the tasks carried out by the NMFS, Southeast Regional Office (SERO) in complying with the SFA, was to examine the code of regulations for the Gulf FMPs to determine if the word usage was in compliance with the new set of definitions. The initial conclusion by NMFS, SERO was that the regulations were in compliance (Rod Dalton, NMFS, personal communication). The FMPs contain other language setting forth policy and procedures under which management measures are promulgated as rules. This type of FMP language that deviates from the new definitions is addressed here, with the exception of language related to the definition of “overfishing and overfished,” as interpreted by the Guidelines for National Standard 1 under 50 CFR 600.310. These definitions are addressed in Section 8.0 of this amendment. There are some minor word usages in FMPs that differ from the definitions, such as the use of individual transferable quota (ITQ) instead of individual fishing quota (IFQ), but both terms are used with the same meaning. Some of the current FMP statements of OY, are somewhat different from but not necessarily inconsistent with the new definition of OY, as based on the definition of optimum above. Some may not be expressed quantitatively; or in some instances, they are based on relatively poor quantitative information. Examples of the first case (where OY is not expressed quantitatively) are as follows: 11 Brown, White, and Pink Shrimp: OY is determined to be: All the shrimp that can be taken during open seasons, in permissible areas, in a given fishing year, with existing gear and technology. The Council has determined that, because of the annual nature of the resource, a numerical value for OY cannot be calculated for any given year until the environmental factors can be determined and evaluated. Under optimum environmental conditions and maximum effort, the maximum probable catch for brown, white, and pink shrimp is estimated to be 216 million pounds (MP) of tails. Fishing, however, will not be stopped when this numerical estimate is reached. The Council has also determined that adjustments to OY need not be made yearly as economic, biological, and technological factors prevent the taking of sufficient shrimp during a single year to harm the next year’s resource size. The Council will monitor closely the appropriate factors of the management regime established by the plan and, in particular, the environmental factors surrounding the determination of MSY. Should conditions warrant, the Council will provide the information to the Secretary of Commerce and a new MSY/OY relationship will be established through rule making. Red Drum: OY is defined as: 1. All red drum recreationally and commercially harvested from state waters landed consistent with state laws and regulations under a goal of allowing 30 percent escapement of the juvenile population. 2. All red drum commercially or recreationally harvested from the Primary Area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the TAC level and allocations specified under the provisions of the FMP, and a zero retention level from the Secondary Areas of the EEZ. Note: TAC has been set at zero for the EEZ since 1988. Examples of the second case (use of poor quantitative information) are as follows: Spiny Lobster: Optimum yield is specified to be all lobster more than 3.0 inches carapace length or not less than 5.5 inches tail length that can be harvested by commercial and recreational fishermen given existing technology and prevailing economic conditions. (This amount is estimated to be 9.5 MP in 1981.) (See Section 12.2 for analysis of the proposed OY and four alternatives which were not accepted). With improvement of enforcement capability and possible development of alternative baits, the amount of OY may increase to approach a maximum of 12.0 MP. 12 Stone Crab: The statement of OY for stone crabs is a verbatim statement from the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) and needs to be modified to conform with the current definition. This statement of OY, along with all the others, are addressed in Section 8.0 of this amendment, and may be respecified in terms of a spawning potential ratio (SPR) or spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) or some other aspect of spawning biomass. Royal Red Shrimp: The new definition of OY, based on a level of MSY “as reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor” has made the current management measures for closure of the royal red shrimp fishery inconsistent with the M-MSFCMA. That measure allows a harvest of up to 30 percent above MSY for up to two consecutive years to obtain information to respecify MSY. The Council felt that the MSY figure used as a base for annual closure of that fishery was unreliable, and likely an underestimate (see Shrimp Amendment 8 for discussion), as did the scientist developing the MSY (Richard Condrey, personal communication 7/21/95). This issue is addressed in Section 8.0 of this amendment. No other inconsistencies have been detected with regard to the definitions in the regulatory language of the other FMPs. 7.0 BYCATCH PROVISIONS FOR FMPs 7.1 Introduction The SFA includes as required provisions under MSFCMA Section 303(a)(11) that FMPs shall: (1) establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery; and (2) include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority, shall: (A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided. The SFA defines bycatch as fish which are harvested in the fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program. Economic discards means fish which are the target of a fishery, but which are not retained because they are of an undesirable size, sex, or quality, or for other economic reasons. Regulatory discards means fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard whenever caught, or are required to retain but not sell. 13 This section summarizes data available (or lack of availability of such data) on bycatch in fisheries managed by the Council. It does not include data on bycatch in the shrimp fishery for the Gulf area west of Cape San Blas, Florida, since those data are available in Shrimp Amendment 9 (GMFMC 1997), which regulates bycatch with BRDs in that area. Spiny Lobster Fishery Mathews, Cox, and Eaken (1995) examined the contents of 21,309 lobster traps. The traps were constructed of wood (88 percent), wire reinforced wood (9 percent), wire (2 percent), and plastic (>1 percent). Sixty-seven percent of the traps had no organisms other than lobster. They observed 15,536 individuals, including lobster, comprising 172 species of which 65 percent were stone crabs, grunts, spider crabs, and sea urchins, in that order (see Table 1). Of the 44 most abundant species listed in Table 1, 21 invertebrates and 7 finish were reported as dead. Of the 4,898 stone crab taken, 1,514 (31 percent) were undersize, regulatory discards. Of the 87 groupers taken, 90 percent were undersize, regulatory discards. Additionally, 36 (44 percent), 43 (77 percent), 25 (66 percent), and 5 (20 percent) of mutton snapper, lone snapper, gray snapper, and yellowtail snapper, respectively, were undersize, regulatory discards. Stone Crab Fishery There is no similar set of data for the stone crab fishery. However, the Spiny Lobster Advisory Panel (AP) and Stone Crab AP, in a joint meeting addressing bycatch (4/94), indicated that stone crab traps typically had less finfish bycatch than spiny lobster traps, partially because the traps are smaller. A likely exception to this is the wire stone crab traps used in the Big Bend area of Florida. These traps had an additional funnel constructed in the side of the traps with the longest axis oriented vertically. The AP members indicated that these traps were likely fished for finfish as well as stone crabs. Dr. Terri Bert (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP], personal communication, 4/98) indicated that since 1978 she had monitored the contents of plastic and wooden stone crab traps in the Everglades National Park, Florida Bay area and the Tampa Bay area. She indicated in her experiments that, in the great majority of trap sets there were no finfish at all, and she caught almost zero legal size fish. 14 Reef Fish Commercial Longline Fishery There are two bottom longline fisheries for reef fish, one west of Cape San Blas where the gear is restricted to offshore of the 50-fathom contour and the other offshore of 20 fathoms on the Florida shelf. There are no data on bycatch in the western fishery, and likely, if regulatory discards are taken beyond 50 fathoms, the fish are dead or will die. Pooled logbook data for longline landings in the western Gulf (Statistical Areas 9 - 21) for the years 1990 - 1997 indicated that the catch landed (30,097 pounds) was composed as follows: Sharks 57% Tuna 3% Shallow-water Grouper 9% Deep-water Grouper 7% Snappers 4% Amberjacks 1% Tilefish 1% Others 18% NMFS (1995) monitored the longline fishery on the Florida shelf (see Figure 1 for area sampled). They sampled 311 sets (227,607 hooks). Average depth of the sets was 47.8 fathoms. Of the 5,016 fish observed, 55.9 percent were kept, 28.3 percent were released alive, 4.5 percent released dead, 9.4 percent used as bait, and 1.8 percent were discarded with fate unknown (Table 2). Survival was based on swim down observation. Of the red groupers caught, 43 percent were released alive and 6 percent dead. Considering that the average depth of trips targeting red grouper was 34.1 fathoms, mortality of fish released alive may have been higher than 33 percent. Of the deep-water grouper and tilefish, almost all (>99 percent) were either kept or used for bait. Release mortality for discards by the commercial sector would appear to be much higher than for the recreational sector. For the longline fishery, the discard rate in numbers of fish was 53 percent (Table 2). This fishery takes approximately 64 percent of the annual commercial landings, and is restricted to areas seaward of the 20-fathom contour. The NMFS (1995) observer study monitored 311 sets in water depths from 18 to 129 fathoms. Of the 236 sets targeting red grouper, fishing occurred from 18 to 65 fathoms and the average water depth fished was 34.1 fathoms (see Figure 1). The Wilson and Burns (1996) in situ study indicated no survival of red grouper taken from 30 to 41 fathoms and less than 33 percent survival for all groupers. Reef Fish Fish Trap Fishery NMFS (1995) monitored the fish trap fishery from statistical area 3 north through statistical area 7 (Figure 2). A total of 517 sets (10,654 trap hauls) were monitored, with 34 percent of sampling in the summer and the remainder essentially evenly 15 divided over the other seasons. Depths ranged from 10 to 17 fathoms, and average soak time was 10 hours. Of the 15,148 individuals observed, 55.4 percent were released alive, 1.6 percent dead, and 0.4 percent with the fate unknown (Table 3). This study did not monitor the fishery off Monroe County, except for some sampling directly north of the Dry Tortugas, and catch likely would not be representative of the species taken near the coral reef complexes. The NMFS (1995) study probably did not proportionally sample effort in statistical area 6 where about 30 percent of the trap fishermen reside (i.e., Tarpon Springs to Cedar Key) (see Figure 2). The fish trap fishery harvested about 10 percent of commercial red grouper landings annually, and discarded 77 percent of the number caught (Table 3). This fishery occurred in depths ranging from 10 to 23 fathoms (NMFS 1995); therefore, the survival of fish discarded should be very high. The NMFS (1995) study recorded “swim down” rates for red grouper that were very high for both fish trap and longline fisheries. The Mote Marine Laboratory studies raised questions about the survival of grouper observed swimming down when harvested from the deeper waters. The hook and-line commercial fishery takes about 26 percent of red grouper landings. An observer study of limited scope indicated that these vessels were fishing between 8 and 56 fathoms (23 fathoms average depth) (Ms. Scott-Denton, NMFS, personal communication). Taylor and McMichael (1983) monitored 1,694 trap hauls off Monroe County, and of the 619 released fish they observed 20 percent were dead. Their study monitored the fishery principally on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Keys (South Atlantic Council area) where most of the coral complex is located. At the time of the study, traps were left continually deployed at sea. Fish observed by Taylor and McMichael (1983) off Monroe County, Florida, consisted of a much higher proportion of fish important to the aquarium-trade harvesters, e.g. angelfish, butterflyfish, etc., as was the case in the study of the trap fishery in the coral reef tract by Bohnsack et al. (1989). (Also see Reef Fish Amendment 5, GMFMC 1993.) The Council, through Reef Fish Amendment 16A (GMFMC 1998a) has proposed phasing-out the fish trap fishery off Monroe County by 2001, partly because of the bycatch of aquarium-trade species. This action would restrict the trap fishery to the Florida area between 25.05/ north latitude on the south and Cape San Blas, Florida, (85/ 30' west longitude) on the north and west (GMFMC 1996). Reef Fish Hook-and-Line Fishery There is very little information available on catch and discards for the bandit and other hook-and-line gear. Goodyear (1995) reported on a limited observer study during the 1995 season in which 40.7 percent of red snapper were discarded. Only 1.6 percent was discarded dead, but most of the discarded fish had eyes or stomachs protruding. For captains who recorded red snapper discards in logbooks, the discards were 31 16 percent in 1993, 28 percent in 1994, and 30 percent in 1995. Render and Wilson (1994) reported that 19.7 percent of the discarded red snapper were dead from 69 feet. Wilson and Burns (1996) reported good survival (86 to 100 percent) for red grouper and scamp released from water shallower than 44 m (24 fathoms). For grouper released from water deeper than 44 m, survival was poor (<33 percent). For stock assessment purposes, the release mortality of snapper and grouper by the commercial sector was assumed to average 33 percent (Goodyear, 1993). Between 1990 and 1994, the recreational release of red snapper was estimated to range between 500 and 900 thousand fish or 40 to 60 percent of the catch (Table 4). Table 5 presents more recent data on number and percentages of red snapper released by anglers, as well as for other dominant reef fish species. Most of the releases of red snapper, groupers, and amberjack are likely due to regulations on these species for size and bag limits, and would be classified as regulatory discards. In recent years, these release levels have been on the order of 50 percent for red snapper, 80 percent for gag, 85 percent for red grouper, and 50 percent for greater amberjack. For stock assessment purposes, the release mortality levels of released snapper and grouper by the recreational sector were assumed as 20 percent (Goodyear 1993 and 1995). Recreational anglers are discarding more than 80 percent of the gag and red grouper they catch as regulatory discards (Table 5). These discards appear to be largely in response to the 20-inch minimum size limit that was implemented in 1990, along with an aggregate bag limit of 5 fish. Holiman (1995) computed MRFSS catch and landing frequencies for red grouper and all shallow-water grouper for 1991-1993. During these years the average number of red grouper caught per angler ranged between 4.5 and 5.8 fish; and the average number landed ranged between 1.7 and 1.8 fish, indicating that the size limit was the principal reason for discarding fish. The red grouper fishery is conducted almost entirely off Florida. For the shallow-water grouper complex of which gag and red grouper are the major components, average catch ranged between 3.6 and 3.7 fish and landings between 1.3 and 1.8 fish for 1991-1993. The shallow water grouper complex extends across the Gulf, but grouper are less abundant outside of the Florida area; therefore, average catch and landings are less. The percentage of gag discarded has increased by about 10 percent since 1990, while the percentage of red grouper has declined somewhat (Table 5). Figure 6 from the most recent stock assessment for gag (Schirripa and Legault 1997) depicts total kill, including that from release mortality of discarded gag. It illustrates that there are almost no regulatory discards of gag by the commercial sector. That is consistent with the NMFS (1995) longline observer study (Table 2), i.e., most fish encountered are of legal size. Figure 6 also illustrates that if the assumed release mortality rate (20 percent) is correct, then the kill of gag in numbers of fish by recreational discards is higher than the kill from landings for both 1994 and 1995. Similar assumptions on release mortality (at 33 percent) were made for both recreational and commercial sectors in the 1993 red grouper stock assessment 17 (Goodyear and Schirripa 1993). At this rate, estimated recreational discard kill likely would exceed recreational landings kill each year since 1990. Information for red grouper indicates a significant discard rate from the commercial longline fishery. The NMFS (1995) observer study indicated that rate to be 53 percent (Table 2); however, the majority (43 percent) were observed to swim down. The regulatory restrictions of bag and size limits and commercial quotas are necessary to manage the stocks and prevent overfishing. Relatively high levels of regulatory discards are a natural consequence of those actions. They become a concern only when the release mortality is high. For example, assuming a 20 percent release mortality rate, the size that maximizes yield per recruit (YPR) for gag is about 24 inches total length (TL) (Schirripa and Goodyear 1994, Figure 60), which is also the size that 50 percent of females are mature (Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel [RFSAP] October 1997). At an assumed mortality rate of 33 percent, the size that maximizes YPR would be about 20 inches TL. Similar YPR analyses for red grouper indicate yield would be maximized at 20 and 18 inches TL for assumed release mortalities of 20 and 33 percent, respectively (Goodyear and Schirripa 1993, Figure 61 and 62). However, bias in the age-length data used for those computations may have affected their reliability. The only more recent information on YPR for red grouper was by Goodyear (1995a). He examined YPR for 3 minimum sizes of 30, 50, and 70 cm in relation to variations in length at age for modeled populations at F0.1 and Fmax. YPR was maximized at both F0.1 and Fmax at 50 cm (20 inches) TL. However, Goodyear (1995a) pointed out this conclusion might not hold at a finer resolution of alternate minimum sizes. Mackerel and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery There is even less bycatch information for this commercial fishery. Harvest is largely by trolling, with the exception of a small run-around gill net fishery for mackerel in the Florida Keys. Since the fish are not removed from the net immediately, the probability of survival of released fish is probably poor. There are no known studies of catch and bycatch in the mackerel gill net or troll fisheries. Probably most of that catch, except for economic discards, is sold. The mesh size of the nets (4½ x 4½ inches) probably preclude catching most economic and regulatory discards. The troll fishery lands fish by pulling them aboard on the line and dropping them in a chill box (ice and water). This practice apparently allows them to release unwanted fish with little mortality. Table 6 indicates the number and percentage of coastal migratory pelagic species that are released by anglers. In recent years, the release levels have been approximately 20 percent for king mackerel, 35 percent for Spanish mackerel, 60 percent for cobia, and 15 percent for dolphin. Probably most of this release is regulatory discards related to bag and size limits on these species, with the possible exception of dolphin (fish). The only regulation applying to recreational harvest of dolphin is a bag and possession 18 limit for fish landed in Florida; however, as most of the Gulf recreational landings occur in Florida, the discards could be a result of the size limit. Data on the mortality associated with releasing the coastal migratory pelagic species is limited to two studies by Edwards (1994 and 1996). For king and Spanish mackerel, the mortality rates that he reported using sonic tagging were 18.2 and 16.7 percent, respectively. Shrimp Fishery The Council, through Shrimp Amendment 9, required bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in shrimp trawls fished in the EEZ from Cape San Blas, Florida to the Mexican border (west of 85/ 30' west longitude). The purpose of this requirement was to reduce the incidental harvest of juvenile red snapper and assist in the restoration of that stock. Most of the bycatch in the shrimp fishery are discards of no value to the vessel crew, with a limited amount being regulatory discards. The current provisions of Shrimp Amendment 9 apply to a portion of statistical area 8 through statistical area 21. Statistical areas 1 through 7 and one-half of area 8 are not affected (see Figure 1 for area boundaries). Table 7 summarizes annual average shrimping effort for these two areas of the Gulf for the periods 1990-1993 and 1994 1995. For these two periods, 8 to 12 percent of the total annual shrimping effort occurred in statistical areas 1 through 7. In terms of total Gulf EEZ, statistical areas 1 through 7 make up more than one-third of the total area of the statistical zone because the Florida shelf is broader. As indicated in Table 8 from Shrimp Amendment 9 addressing bycatch, the ratio of weight of finfish caught in trawls to weight of shrimp is fairly uniform (near 3 to 1) for nearshore areas (inside 10 fathoms) across the Gulf. For the offshore areas (outside 10 fathoms), it is much higher for the Louisiana area, which comprises most of the primary area for harvest of groundfish (GMFMC 1980). For the Florida area (statistical areas 1-10), the finfish/shrimp ratio by weight for the offshore areas was 3 to 1. Table 9 summarizes the finfish to shrimp ratios for statistical areas east of Cape San Blas, Florida (i.e., statistical areas 1-8) and by water depth within those areas. This is the area for which there is currently no requirement for shrimp vessels to use BRDs. Water depths less than 5 fathoms are all within the fishery jurisdiction of the state of Florida (inshore of 9 nautical miles), and part of the depth zone 5 to 10 fathoms is within that jurisdiction in some areas. The ratios of finfish weight to shrimp weight in the EEZ range from 1 to 1 for statistical areas 1 and 2 to 4.8 to 1 for water depths greater than 15 fathoms in statistical areas 6, 7, and 8. Most of the shrimping effort off Florida is associated with the Tortugas Shrimp Grounds which includes portions of statistical areas 1 - 3, with most of the catch occurring from statistical area 2, and to a lesser extent, in the Sanibel Shrimp Grounds in statistical area 4 (see Figure 3). Therefore, information on bycatch for statistical areas 1 and 2 (Table 9) is likely more 19 representative of the bycatch. The data set used for Table 9 included data with much higher finfish to shrimp ratios for statistical areas 9 - 10, but the number of tows sampled was only 11; therefore, the data were not used. The species composition in shrimp trawl bycatch for statistical areas 1 - 8 (Table 10) differs significantly from that for the remainder of the Gulf (Shrimp Amendment 9, GMFMC 1997), where the catch is predominantly species of the drum family. In statistical areas 1 and 2, the dominant species groups were sea basses, searobins, pinfish, mojarras, and small species of the flounder family. In statistical areas 3 through 5, the dominant species were sea basses, searobins, grunts, lane snapper, and small species of the flounder family. In statistical areas 6 through 8, the dominant species groups were porgy, spot, sea basses, grunts, searobins, and small species of the flounder family (Table 10). 7.2 Measures for Standardized Reporting The collection of landings data and other fisheries-dependent data is in the process of transition. Through the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), the states have developed and are developing cooperative state-federal data collection programs (GSMFC 1998). The GSMFC currently manages and coordinates the Southeast Fishery Information Network (FIN) of which RecFIN and ComFIN are the recreational and commercial components, respectively. Over time, all or most of the fishery dependent data will be collected under the umbrella of this program, which includes such state programs as the Florida and Louisiana trip ticket programs for collection of commercial fishery statistics. It is expected that under the RecFIN program, the states will eventually collect all or most of the intercept data for the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). The ComFIN and RecFIN(SE) are still in the developmental stages regarding a discards and protected species interactions monitoring program. The ComFIN Data Collection Work Group met in August 1997 to discuss this issue and developed some basic guidelines regarding discards and protected species interactions. For the commercial aspects, the group talked about several methods, such as an observer program, fishery-independent sampling, and some type of sampling program which randomly selects vessels to examination of discards and protected species interactions, for collecting this type of information. For the recreational aspects, the group agreed that a minimum standard data elements including quantity released dead, quantity released alive, and disposition of catch should be collected. It was agreed by the group that the type of method used to collection discards and protected species interactions information is dependent upon the fishery that is being sampled and collection of discards and protected species interactions could be implemented by special studies to address specific issues and may not be a long-term sampling program. The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) has done a lot of work regarding the development of a discards and protected species interactions collection program, and 20 ComFIN and RecFIN(SE) will utilize their experiences in the development of their program. Section 303(a)(5) of the M-MSFCMA requires the Councils to specify the fishery dependent data that “will be reported to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the fishery . . .” The Council does this by including management measures in the FMPs and in the regulations providing authority for the Science and Center Director (SCD) of the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) to collect these data from fishermen and dealers (for example, see Figure 4). The SCD, under the regulatory authority provided, may and does collect much of the data from existing state programs. For example, almost all of the fishery-dependent data on the commercial fisheries for spiny lobster and stone crab are collected through the Florida trip ticket system. Most of the commercial landings data for other FMP fisheries are also collected through state data collection programs. However, the mandatory data collection provisions of the FMP regulations provide authority for agents of the SCD to directly collect information, including Trip Interview Program (TIP) data on length-frequency of fish landed or in possession and weekly landings information from dealers used for monitoring quotas. Such agents include state personnel designated by the head of a state agency that has entered into a cooperative agreement with NMFS to collect fishery data. 7.2.1 General Bycatch Reporting Measures The Council has not selected a proposed alternative for this section. Proposed Alternative 1: As part of the reporting requirements for each of the FMPs, NMFS is authorized to collect bycatch information using the most practical reporting requirements and methodology. Such reporting is mandatory for persons selected to report. Proposed Alternative 2: If it is determined that observers are needed to collect bycatch information, or substantiate the information collected through reporting, and if determined by the Council, it shall be mandatory that vessels selected by NMFS carry observers, consistent with Section 403 of the M-MSFCMA. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: If it is determined that observers are needed to collect bycatch information or substantiate information collected through reporting, a voluntary observer program shall be utilized. Alternative 2: In order to optimize the use of the available fiscal and personnel resources, bycatch information will be collected only from those fisheries for 21 which NMFS and the Council determine the bycatch level is adversely impacting fishery resources. Alternative 3: Status Quo - Do not implement one or more of the alternatives above. Discussion: Proposed Alternative 1 is similar to the reporting measures of most of the original FMPs. The Council provided NMFS with authority to collect fishery statistics from commercial, recreational, recreational for-hire vessels, and dealers, and to determine the data that would be reported and the system to be used for collection of the data. In a few instances, the Council specified the level of sampling, e.g., all the dealers, and the data to be collected. However, in the last instance, NMFS still had the authority to collect other data than that specified by the Council. This process provided NMFS with the flexibility to standardize reporting forms and to utilize the existing data collection systems of the states. The Council made all reporting mandatory, if a person was selected by the NMFS SCD to report. This mandatory requirement has been used to require that data be provided to the agents of the SCD through legal action. Proposed Alternative 2 recognizes that for some fisheries, observers will be necessary to collect bycatch data or to periodically ground-truth data collected through reporting. For some studies to effectively use the limited observer resources, it is very important that NMFS is able to randomly select the vessels to which the observers will be assigned. This allows the data collected by the observers to be statistically representative of the fisheries being monitored. However, the Council consensus on this issue was that in most instances voluntary observer programs were likely to yield less biased information, but in certain instances the quality of the information collected may depend on random selection by NMFS; however, that decision should be by the Council, rather than NMFS. A large portion of the Council members, including state directors, have been associated with observer programs assessing the effects of BRDs and collection of bycatch information on shrimp and other fisheries at federal and state levels. For example, seven members of the Council served on the Bycatch Steering Committee for the cooperative program by NMFS, Sea Grant, industry, and states. Many of the members felt that voluntary systems yielded better and more reliable data, and that if persons are forced to carry observers against their will, the vessel operator may bias the data collection process. Other members felt that for the data to be representative of the fishery, the participants must be randomly selected and the process mandatory. Section 403 of the M-MSFCMA, the guidelines promulgated by NMFS under that section (50 CFR 600.756), and guidelines under 50 CFR 600.506 regulate the use of observers by NMFS. For example, Section 403 provides that a vessel is not required to carry an observer if the facilities on board a vessel are inadequate for quartering the observer. 22 If it is determined that an observer program is necessary to collect bycatch information, Rejected Alternative 1 provides that observers will be placed only on vessels whose master agrees voluntarily to carry the observers. Many Council members feel that mandatory programs are usually ineffective and create unnecessary ill will from persons forced to carry observers. Rejected Alternative 2 somewhat moderates the general authority provided to NMFS under Proposed Alternative 1 for collection of bycatch information under all FMPs from all fishing vessels. It recognizes that existing information indicates that there is no problem caused by the bycatch taken in many fisheries (See discussion in Section 7.1 above.). Therefore, there is no need to place a reporting burden on the fishermen or to utilize NMFS limited manpower or fiscal resources to collect and process data from these fisheries. Fisheries that currently appear to fall into this category are spiny lobster, stone crab, coral, and red drum. Rejected Alternative 3 is the no action alternative for any of the 4 alternatives above. Biological Impacts: There are no direct biological impacts associated with implementation of the alternatives. Proposed Alternative 1 will result in the collection of information that, when subsequently used, may eventually result in beneficial biological impacts for some stocks. Proposed Alternative 2 would have a beneficial effect on the reliability of the stock assessments or analyses in which the observer data is used. A major criticism of current observer programs and collection of other assessment data, such as length-frequency information, is that the data were not randomly collected, and therefore, is likely not representative of the fishery. The proponents of Rejected Alternative 1 feel that if an observer program is mandatory the data may be biased intentionally, because of the objections of crew members to carrying an observer. Economic Impacts: Considering that these alternatives are provided in more general forms, the determination of their specific economic impacts cannot be assessed. Once any of the alternatives (except status quo which in principle has no impacts on fishing participants) is given more specificity, a more complete determination of its economic impacts will be conducted. At this stage, only general statements can be made about the various alternatives’ economic impacts. The SFA requirement regarding the collection of bycatch information virtually renders Rejected Alternative 3 as a non-viable alternative; thus, any of the first 4 alternatives, or combinations thereof, would have to be adopted. Each alternative differs in terms of both the information collected and the costs involved. A comparison of the benefits from having bycatch information with the associated costs is the major issue in the determination of economic impacts of each of the alternatives. 23 The bycatch information collected would be used to devise conservation and management measures that would minimize bycatch or minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided. The better the information, the more effective would likely be the bycatch reduction measures developed. But whether or not an effective bycatch reduction measure generates more benefits depends materially on the type of measures adopted, including the overall management strategy governing both the fisheries dependent on the bycatch species and those generating the bycatch species. In addition, such benefits would have to be compared with the costs of the bycatch reduction measure, and a good part of this cost is likely be borne by the industry that generated those incidental catches. It may be noted in passing that both the bycatch and directed fisheries could be one and the same fishery. Given this caveat, it is simply assumed that among the alternatives considered in this section, the one that is likely to generate better information is judged to bring about larger benefits. Proposed Alternative 1 and Proposed Alternative 2 only implicitly include an observer program among the various possible means of collecting bycatch information, although it may be assumed that both alternatives would not use observers, as is the current experience with Proposed Alternative 1. While logbooks and other means of generating bycatch information from fishermen’s reports would provide some baseline information, the information so generated cannot be validated for consistency and accuracy. Logbooks and other reporting mechanisms dependent on fishermen’s reports impose reporting burdens on fishermen, and while there may be no intent on not reporting bycatch information, fishermen’s recollection of such information may be deficient considering that logbooks are generally filled at the dock. This problem would especially occur if there were no economic incentives for reporting bycatch. Under this condition, Proposed Alternative 2 and Rejected Alternative 1, both of which explicitly provide for the development of an observer program, may be adjudged superior to the other alternatives in generating bycatch information. Proposed Alternative 2 and Rejected Alternative 1 presuppose that some means other than an observer program are first employed in generating some preliminary data on bycatch. Such preliminary information leads the way for the need to proceed further in collecting bycatch information through observers aboard fishing vessels. One of the major differences between these two alternatives is that one is voluntary and the other, mandatory. Noting the fact that it would be impractical to put observers on all vessels, sampling may have to be done. Within this context, the mandatory program is more desirable than the voluntary one insofar as it affords more flexibility in defining statistically valid sampling frame. The downside of a mandatory program, as mentioned elsewhere, is that fishermen’s cooperation may be so low as to render questionable the validity of the collected information. This problem may be addressed only if there is enough pressure coming from industry associations and/or there are economic incentives provided to the sampled vessels. These incentives could be in the form of direct monetary or non-monetary awards to the participating vessels or in form of some believable benefits that participants can expect from better management of the 24 fishery. At this stage, it is not possible to conclude one way or the other, except to point out that both mandatory and voluntary observer programs have been tried in some fisheries. The observer program in Alaska to monitor bycatch is mandatory and funded mainly by the industry. In the Gulf of Mexico, the limited observer program in the shrimp fishery has been conducted under an essentially voluntary program and funded in large part by the government. While an observer program offers the better approach to generating bycatch information, it is also more expensive to administer. The Alaska program carries a cost of about $8 million a year. The most recent experience in the Gulf of Mexico designed to evaluate BRDs cost NMFS as much as $1.8 million, and this program was designed to cover only approximately 100 vessels over a period of 5 months. The large cost involved is definitely the major obstacle to conducting an observer program. Environmental Consequences: Human Environment: The alternatives will create a reporting burden on those persons selected by NMFS to report. Likely this will be a random sample of the participants from only some of the Gulf fisheries each year. The actual cost of observers, if used at all, will probably be born by the federal government rather than the vessels, since that is currently the case for all fisheries, other than those in the North Pacific region; however, other costs and burdens on the selected vessels would be expected for quartering and allowing access to catch, gear, communications, and other facilities and records. Fishery Resources: Although the measures will have no direct impact on the fishery resources managed by the Council, the information collected on regulatory and economic discards may result in actions that do have a beneficial impact. Other Fishery Resources: The information collected on bycatch of other fishery resources may result in actions that have a beneficial impact for some stocks. 7.3 Measures to Minimize Bycatch and/or Bycatch Mortality The SFA added National Standard 9 to the M-MSFCMA addressing bycatch. This standard provides that “conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch, and (B) to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” Section 303(a)(11) restates National Standard 9 as a required provision of FMPs and indicates that a higher priority should be placed on minimizing bycatch than on minimizing the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. This section contains management alternatives to reduce bycatch in the stone crab fishery. 25 7.3.1 Shrimp Fishery Bycatch The Council elected to proceed as quickly as possible to prepare an amendment to the Shrimp FMP that will address collection of bycatch data and possibly reduction of bycatch in other unregulated areas of the Gulf. The Council proposes to complete the draft amendment by July 1999, and to submit it to NMFS within 1999. This has a major advantage in that a great deal of additional information on bycatch characterization has become available during the period in which this generic amendment was being developed. This should result in additional and more reliable information to assess the bycatch and for development of alternatives for reducing bycatch. Therefore, this amendment does not contain alternatives for that purpose. 7.3.2 Stone Crab Fishery As indicated in Section 7.1, wooden and plastic stone crab traps take very little bycatch, probably less than spiny lobster traps. However, as also noted in that section, some of the wire traps being used in the fishery in the Big Bend area of Florida appear to be designed to also capture finfish, predominantly sea bass and grunts. The Stone Crab FMP regulations require degradeable panels in traps, but do not describe the construction characteristics of legal traps used in the EEZ. This omission creates a potential for persons to use wire stone crab traps to circumvent the Council’s moratorium on and phase-out of the fish trap fishery. The FMFC has promulgated rules within the last two years to specify construction characteristics of stone crab traps that would prevent this from happening in state waters and minimize finfish bycatch in wire stone crab traps. Proposed Alternative: Adopt in the Stone Crab FMP the construction characteristics of stone crab traps set forth in Chapter 46 - 13.002(2)(a) of Florida law. Rejected Alternative: Status Quo - no action. Discussion: Typically, most stone crab fishermen use a trap design that they feel is most effective for harvesting stone crabs, and the traps are usually smaller than the maximum size specified by the state. Most of these traps are constructed of wooden or plastic lath material and have the funnels located in the top. In the development of the state rule, the FMFC was advised by FDEP scientists that the size, configuration, and location of the funnel regulates the egress of finfish into the traps, as does the size of the traps. All of these characteristics are addressed in the state rule that is appended to this amendment as Appendix A. The principal changes affecting finfish catch by wire stone crab traps are to require that the funnel entrance (throat) be horizontally oriented and limit its size. 26 Adoption of the Proposed Alternative will probably have little effect on stone crab fishermen because most fish in both state and federal waters and are likely in compliance with the Florida rule. The only likely effect would be on the few fishermen that are targeting both stone crab and finfish with wire traps that have one or more vertically-oriented throats (funnels). Adoption of Alternative 1 would allow this practice to continue in the EEZ. Biological Impacts: The Proposed Alternative would minimize the bycatch of finfish in stone crab traps to the extent practicable. Whether it would have a positive biological impact is not known, because the condition of the stocks of grunts and sea basses is not known. Economic Impacts: The Proposed Alternative would affect those fishermen who target or catch both stone crabs and finfish (mostly grunts and black sea bass) using the same traps. Finfish caught by these vessels using gear types other than traps remain unaffected. Waters (1996) reported that the number of reef fish vessels engaged in stone crab fishing ranges from 69 in May to 114 in November. In their stone crab trips, high-volume vessels generated 81 percent of their revenue from stone crabs and the rest from other species while low-volume vessels earned 93 percent of their revenue from stone crabs and the rest from other species. It is not known how much of the revenues from other species were from species caught in traps or how many vessels earn part of their revenues from other species caught in traps. Nonetheless, it is quite safe to surmise that, on a per vessel basis, the adverse revenue impact of the Proposed Alternative would be relatively small. The proposed change may be expected to increase the fixed costs of the vessels affected, although such costs would be mainly a one-time expense. One other important effect of the Proposed Alternative is that it would render fairly consistent the EEZ rules with those of the state with respect to stone crab trap specifications. To some extent, this would help in the enforcement of fish trap rules in both state and federal waters. Insofar as finfish catches in stone crab traps are minimized, occurrences of finfish exhibiting trap rash may be reduced. This condition would help in avoiding potential violations of the recent rule proposed under Reef Fish Amendment 16A regarding finfish exhibiting trap rash. 27 Environmental Consequences: Human Environment: The proposed action would likely have adverse impacts on persons fishing stone crab traps that have been modified to catch more finfish by reducing their income from that source. It will probably not impact persons targeting stone crab. Fishery Resources: The proposed action likely will have no adverse impact on the stone crab resource. Other Fishery Resources: The Proposed Alternative will reduce bycatch; however, data are not available to assess the impact on stocks of grunts, sea basses, or other fishes, all of which can be legally harvested. 7.3.3 Finfish Regulatory Discards In the preliminary draft of this amendment, the Council included sections with alternatives for reducing regulatory discards of red grouper and red snapper. The regulatory discards of finfish are high for some stocks, e.g., more than 80 percent for gag and red grouper (Tables 5 and 6). The Council felt that actions addressing reduction in regulatory discard mortality (see Table 12) are more appropriate when taken under the framework measure for specifying TAC at the time the stock assessment is available. The Council took such action in November 1998 for red snapper through a regulatory amendment proposing the size limit be reduced and will consider such action for red grouper in 1999 when the assessment for that stock is available. Therefore, these sections were deleted from this document. The alternatives were to reduce the minimum size limit for red snapper taken by the commercial sector to 13 or 14 inches TL and to reduce the minimum size limit for red grouper to 18 inches TL for the commercial sector, or for both the commercial and recreational sectors. The alternatives were based on data in the preliminary draft amendment which indicated that release mortality was likely much higher than the levels assumed for stock assessment purposes, and the size limits were likely adversely affecting the stocks. Approval by NMFS of the regulatory amendment proposing a 14 inch TL minimum size limit for the red snapper commercial sector is currently pending. The Council will submit a regulatory amendment specifying TAC and other measures for red grouper in December 1999. The Council will take final action on a regulatory amendment for gag in March 1999. 28 8.0 OVERFISHING CRITERIA AND REBUILDING PERIODS FOR STOCKS This section addresses Section 303(a)(10) that was added to the M-MSFCMA by the SFA. Section 303(a)(10) reads as follows: (10) specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery; These overfishing criteria and rebuilding periods are to be based on the final National Standard Guidelines promulgated under 50 CFR 600.310 for National Standard 1, which addresses OY and overfishing. The proposed criteria specified in this amendment will, after public hearings and Council approval, be subject to review, approval/disapproval, and implementation by NMFS and the Department of Commerce (DOC). After approval and implementation, they will become the basis for actions under Section 304(e), Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries, as well as the basis for attaining OY and preventing overfishing through specification of TAC and other management measures. Under Section 304(e), the Secretary will use the criteria approved in this amendment as the basis for determining the status of each fishery within the FMPs as to whether the stocks are overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished within two years. The Secretary will report annually to the Congress and to the Councils on the status of the fisheries. The Secretary will also immediately notify the appropriate Council at any time he/she determines a fishery is overfished. Upon such notice, annually or in the interim, the Council must, within one year, prepare an amendment to end or prevent overfishing within a rebuilding period acceptable to the Secretary. If the Council does not submit the amendment to the Secretary within a one-year period, the Secretary will prepare the amendment. Further, the Secretary will review the progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding affected stocks as established under the amendment, at intervals not to exceed two years. If progress is inadequate, the Secretary will notify the Council and recommend changes to the management measures to achieve adequate progress. In addition to being the vehicle for implementing new criteria based on the revision to the National Standard Guidelines, this amendment will also specify management measures and rebuilding periods for arresting overfishing based on current criteria in the FMPs for some stocks classified as overfished by NMFS (1997 and 1998) in its reports to Congress (see Table 13). Use of Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) as Overfishing Criteria: 29 The SPRs used in the document are based on the methodology used in computations from the most recent stock assessment. (See the sections on current status of stocks.) As pointed out by Mace et al. (1996), SPR has been used as a standard for assessing whether stocks were overfished and whether overfishing was occurring for many years. SPR has also been used to express management targets such as OY since the SPR levels can be readily computed. The National Standard Guidelines suggest SPR could be used as a proxy for MSY. Spawning potential ratio is an index of a population's health as measured by the biological ability of the adult fish to produce spawn or eggs. A particular estimated level of SPR is directly dependent on the estimated number of living adult fish (or females), and their longevity or number at age, which is controlled by the prevailing fishing mortality exerted on the population. This biological spawning ability can be measured in terms of total adult fish biomass (number alive x average weight), gonad biomass (number alive x average gonad weight), or eggs produced (number alive x average number of eggs spawned) for each age class of fish. A generation of fish in a population must on average produce the same number of adult fish in the next generation for a population to persist without decline or, in other words, be in equilibrium. All populations of animals attempt to attain levels of equilibrium, however environmental fluctuations prevent this from happening in most cases. Fishing reduces the number of adults surviving from a given number of recruits by reducing their life expectancy. To prevent population collapse the egg to recruit survival probability and/or the fecundities of the survivors must rise in response to the fishing induced lowered abundance of adults (Goodyear 1989). Clearly, the above population mechanisms allow a population to be harvested without damaging its biological potential. However, as harvest pressure grows (fishing mortality increases), a point is reached where the population loses more fish through harvesting than it can replenish, and overfishing occurs. A population can also exist at an equilibrium level below its optimum level and can increase in size if fishing mortality is reduced. Various measures of optimal fishing have been defined whereby fishing greater than the optimal level results in overfishing. The concepts of MSY and maximum yield per recruit (YPR) are the two most common measures of optimal fishing. For reasons set forth in Amendment 1, the measure of optimal fishing for reef fish was chosen to be 20 percent SPR, which in a YPR context results in management advice similar to that needed to achieve maximum YPR. Calculation of SPR is similar to calculation of YPR, except, instead of attempting to maximize yield from a year class of fish, achieving a certain level of spawning potential is attempted. This spawning potential is estimated as the fraction or ratio of spawning ability of the species when being fished divided by the spawning ability of the species under 30 conditions of no fishing mortality; i.e., only natural mortality occurs. The SPR of a population is then controlled by the fishing mortality exerted on each age class of fish. The SPR estimate can be calculated as either a transitional or static SPR: Transitional SPR is used to determine if a stock is currently in an overfished status. It provides information about the status of the stock at a point in time, but it does not provide any indication of whether a stock is declining, recovering, or remaining stable. Static SPR is used to determine if a stock is being fished at a rate that will eventually lead to an overfished status. When a stock is in the process of declining or recovering, this is the level at which a stock will eventually stabilize if the fishing rate remains at its current level. Under Section 8.0, the following sub-sections are included for each fishery: C Current Status of Stocks C Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) C Optimum Yield (OY) C Overfishing Criteria C Rebuilding Period (if applicable to stocks) The language of the SFA and the National Standard Guidelines relating to the above parameters is stated below. In the draft amendment, this language had been repeated in the sections for each fishery and has been subsequently deleted from those sections. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY serves as a maximum limit on harvest which cannot be exceeded. The final guidelines for National Standard 1, which serve as interpretive rule for the SFA, state that each stock should have a MSY. However, where this is not possible in a mixed stock fishery, then MSY could be specified on the basis of one or more species as an indicator for the mixed stocks as a whole. The guidelines indicate that when data are insufficient to estimate MSY directly the Councils can use other measures of productive capacity as proxies for MSY, such as relative spawning per recruit. Such proxies might be based on levels of SPR or SSBR, etc. NMFS suggested that a range of spawning per recruit of 30 to 40 percent of the long-term average that would exist in the absence of fishing would be a reasonable proxy for the MSY fishing mortality rate. The SAFMC (1998) suggested that 30 percent SPR may be reasonable for short-lived stocks and 40 percent for long-lived stocks. The reef fish complex also includes fish (e.g., gag) that change sex as they age or get larger, or possibly even based on social behavior factors, e.g., too few males in the spawning aggregations or groups. This may affect the level of SPR that should be selected for MSY, OY, and overfishing thresholds. The SAFMC (1998) considered whether for such 31 species SPR or SSBR ratios should be based on the biomass of both male and female fish, as suggested by Huntsman and Schaaf (1994). The final guidelines define MSY as the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions. The “MSY control rule” means a harvest strategy which if implemented would be expected to result in a long-term average catch approximating MSY. The “MSY stock size” means the long-term average size of the stock or stock complex, measured in terms of spawning biomass or other appropriate units that would be achieved under a MSY control rule in which the fishing mortality rate (F) is constant. Examples of MSY control rules are (1) allowing a constant catch each year; (2) removing a constant fraction of the biomass each year; and (3) allowing a constant escapement each year, where these are chosen to maximize the resulting long-term average yield. In any MSY control rule, a given stock size is associated with a given level of fishing mortality and a given level potential harvest, where the long-term average of these potential harvests provides an estimate of MSY. Optimum Yield (OY) OY serves as the management target limiting harvest to a level less than MSY. The SFA modified the definition of OY to provide that it be prescribed on the basis of MSY as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. Previously OY could be set to result in a production level higher than MSY if there was adequate supporting rationale based on the relevant economic, social, or ecological factors. Under the amended language, OY, if expressed as numbers or weight of fish (or some proxy thereof), can be set only equal to or less than MSY. The final guidelines for National Standard 1 provide OY could be specified as a range or a single value, but specification of a numerical fixed value does not preclude the use of annual target harvest levels (TAC) that vary with stock size. OY should be translatable into an annual numerical estimate. Under a precautionary approach, the fishing mortality rate at OY would be set at a level less than the fishing mortality rate for MSY. That means if SPR levels are used as proxies for MSY and OY, the SPR for OY would be higher than that for MSY. OY control rules may be specified similar to the MSY control rules, but they are designed to achieve OY rather than MSY. All fishing mortality must be counted against OY, including that from bycatch and fishery research. OY does not constitute an absolute ceiling, but rather a desired result. Exceeding OY does not necessarily constitute overfishing, but exceeding OY on a continual basis would violate National Standard 1. The FMP must specify how OY was determined. 32 Overfishing Criteria The SFA and final guidelines for National Standard 1 define overfish to mean fishing at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. To avoid confusion, the guidelines use overfished only in the sense of describing a stock or stock complex whose size is sufficiently small that a change in management practices is required in order to achieve an appropriate level and rate of rebuilding. The guidelines provide that each FMP must specify, to the extent possible, objective and measurable status determination criteria for each stock or stock complex and provide an analysis of how the criteria were chosen and how they relate to reproductive potential. The guidelines provide the status determination criteria must have both a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) or reasonable proxy thereof, and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) or reasonable proxy thereof. The maximum fishing mortality threshold may be expressed as a number or function of spawning biomass or other measure of productive capacity, but must not exceed the mortality rate associated with the relevant MSY control rule. Exceeding the fishing mortality rate for one year constitutes overfishing. The minimum stock size threshold should be expressed in terms of spawning biomass or other productive capacity. To the extent possible the stock size threshold should equal whichever of the following is greater: one-half MSY stock size or minimum stock size at which rebuilding to MSY would be expected to occur within 10 years if the stock were exploited at the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Exceeding this threshold is considered overfishing. If NMFS determines that either of the thresholds will be reached within 2 years, it will notify the Council to take action to arrest overfishing. Both of the status determination criteria can be expressed as a function of spawning biomass; therefore, it would appear that both could be expressed as SPR or SSBR levels. Rebuilding Periods The SFA added Section 304(e) on rebuilding of overfished stocks. The National Standard Guidelines addressing this section provide that the Secretary will immediately notify a Council to take remedial action when the Secretary determines that: (1) overfishing is occurring; (2) a stock or stock complex is overfished; 33 (3) the rate of fishing mortality for a stock is approaching the maximum fishing mortality threshold; (4) a stock or stock complex is approaching its minimum stock size threshold; or, (5) existing remedial action taken for ending overfishing or rebuilding a stock has not resulted in adequate progress. After notification, the Council must submit to the Secretary within one year remedial action via amendment or rule (regulatory amendment) that will: (1) end overfishing; (2) rebuild the stock to a MSY level within an appropriate time frame; (3) prevent the maximum fishing mortality threshold from being reached; or, (4) prevent the minimum stock size threshold from being reached. Where a stock is overfished, the Council action must specify a time period for rebuilding the stock that satisfies the requirements of SFA Section 304(e)(4)(A) which provides that the period shall: (1) be as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates, and the interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem; and (2) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise. The guidelines provide that the time period for rebuilding be specified as follows: (1) the lower limit is determined by the status and biology of the stock and its interaction with the ecosystem, and is defined as the amount of time required for rebuilding if fishering mortality were eliminated entirely; (2) if the lower limit is less than 10 years then the rebuilding period may be adjusted upward to the extent warranted to address the needs of fishing communities, except no upward adjustment can exceed 10 years; (3) if the lower limit is 10 years or greater then the rebuilding period can be adjusted upward to address the needs of fishing communities, but cannot exceed the period calculated in the absence of fishing mortality (i.e., lower limit) plus one mean generation time or equivalent period based on the species life history characteristics. 34 The guidelines provide that a rebuilding program undertaken after May 1, 1998 commences when measures to rebuild the stock are implemented. Rebuilding plans in place before that date will be reviewed to determine if they are in compliance. 8.1 REEF FISH The Reef Fish FMP, implemented in 1984, includes 14 species of snappers, 15 species of groupers, 4 species of amberjacks, as well as tilefishes, triggerfish, and hogfish. Red snapper and greater amberjack are managed as separate stocks. Groupers are managed as separate shallow-water and deep-water species-complexes. Aggregate bag limits, and in some instances size limits, apply to most of the other stocks. Many of the species are incidental (not targeted) catch in the directed fisheries for red snapper, groupers, and greater amberjack. Fish managed under the FMP include the following species: Snappers - Lutjanidae Family Queen snapper Etelis oculatus Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanella Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus Gray [mangrove] snapper Lutjanus griseus Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu Mahogany snapper Lutjanus mahogoni Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus Yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus Wenchman Pristipomoides aquilonaris Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Groupers - Serranidae Family Rock hind Epinephelus adscensionis Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Yellowedge grouper Epinephelus flavolimbatus Red hind Epinephelus guttatus Jewfish Epinephelus itajara Red grouper Epinephelus morio Misty grouper Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus Snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus 35 Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca interstitialis Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Yellowfin grouper Mycteroperca venenosa Tilefishes - Malacanthidae (Branchiostegidae) Family Goldface tilefish Caulolatilus chrysops Blackline tilefish Caulolatilus cyanops Anchor tilefish Caulolatilus intermedius Blueline tilefish Caulolatilus microps Tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Jacks - Carangidae Family Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana Banded rudderfish Seriola zonata Triggerfishes - Balistidae Family Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Wrasses - Labridae Family Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Sand Perches - Serranidae Family Dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum Sand perch Diplectrum formosam 8.1.1 Current Status of Stocks Table 13 summarizes the current status of the stocks based on the current criteria for overfishing in the FMP, as amended. Red snapper are seriously overfished with the most current estimate of transitional SPR at 0.5 percent (as compared to the overfishing threshold of 20 percent SPR). When the RFSAP used a value of M = 0.2 for natural mortality, the SPR value was about 4 percent. Based on additional information, the RFSAP (October 1995) 36 concluded that the best estimate of M was 0.1, which caused the numerical value of SPR to decline to 0.4 percent, and the rebuilding period to extend to 2019 (from 2010), based on the Goodyear (1995) analysis. Based on the NMFS stock assessment by Goodyear (1988), the Council concluded that the red snapper stock was seriously overfished and that shrimp trawl bycatch mortality was contributing to that condition. Amendment 1 (GMFMC 1989) placed severe harvest restrictions on the directed fishery, that continued as TAC was specified annually. Shrimp Amendment 9 (GMFMC 1997) required the use of BRDs in trawls, effective May 14, 1998, to reduce mortality of juvenile red snapper. Based on these actions and the assumption of a 60 percent reduction in bycatch by the year 2001, the Council concluded that the 20 percent transitional SPR level would be achieved by 2019 (GMFMC 1998). In 1997, based on Schirripa (1996), NMFS concluded that the vermilion snapper stock would approach an overfished state within the next two years without additional regulations (Table 13). Based on a new stock assessment (Schirripa 1998) that incorporated previously unavailable recruitment data, and the recommendations of the RFSAP (August 1998), the Council concluded that the vermilion snapper stocks are stable or improving under current harvest levels, and that harvest levels will be in the range of 2.2 to 2.5 MP in 1999, which is consistent with a fishing mortality rate corresponding to a static SPR of 30 percent. The RFSAP noted that the two previous stock assessments (Schirripa 1992 and 1996) ascribed the increase in landings in 1990-1993 to increased effort, whereas the current assessment (Schirripa 1998) ascribed the increase in landings to a strong 1991 year class. The RFSAP (August 1998) noted that as this year class grew out of the fishery the stock size and landings will return to historic levels. Based on the assessment by McClellan and Cummings (1996), the RFSAP concluded that the transitional SPR was 34 to 36 percent for greater amberjack. The Council, by amendment, had reduced the recreational bag limit to one fish (GMFMC 1995) and closed the commercial season for three months: March, April, and May (GMFMC 1997). These actions are anticipated to stabilize the greater amberjack stocks (Table 13). The Council also asked NMFS to prepare a new stock assessment for greater amberjack by October 1998, if the personnel resources were available to do so. (Note: NMFS was not able to comply with this request; however, a new assessment is expected in the near future.) Based on the assessment by Schirripa and Goodyear (1994), the RFSAP concluded that for gag the SPR level was about 30 percent. Stock assessment results indicated that the highest fishing mortality for 1992 was 0.21 for age 5 fish (assuming M = 0.20). With available information on growth and natural mortality, the biological reference point, F0.1 was estimated to be 0.17. The static SPR, assuming a 30 percent release mortality among undersized fish, was estimated to be 30 percent in 1992. 37 These results, coupled with CPUE trends which were characterized as stable, indicated that the fishery was probably not overfishing gag stocks. [The median fishing mortality rate based on the existing stock-recruitment estimates suggested that fishing mortality rates much lower than either F30% or F20% were needed for stock replacement (Mace et al. 1996); however, there were too few data to draw useful conclusions.] A more recent assessment by Schirripa and Legault (1997) suggested that the SPR for the stock is well below 30 percent, depending on the rate of release mortality assumed for discarded fish (see Section 7.3.3.1). The RFSAP (August 1998) determined that the static SPR ranged between 18 and 23 percent depending on which model was used. They also expressed concern over the practice of fishing on the spawning aggregation and that the minimum size was below the size at maturity. Some members of the RFSAP expressed concern about a reduction in the proportion of males in the population in recent years and possible implications for future spawning success for this hermaphroditic species, which begins life as a female, and then transitions to a male. The Council will be holding public hearings on a regulatory amendment that proposes spawning season closures, areal closures of aggregation sites, and an increase in minimum size to 24 inches TL. Based on the assessment by Goodyear and Schirripa (1993) and subsequent analyses by Goodyear (1994a), the RFSAP concluded that current SPR levels for red grouper could not be calculated due to the discovery of bias in the growth data resulting from the combination of length-stratified sampling and the introduction of a minimum size limit in 1990. However, such bias could be corrected in the data collected prior to the minimum size limit regulation. Using pooled data from 1986 - 1989, Goodyear (1994a) found that the average transitional SPR during those years was between 20 percent and 52 percent. Goodyear and Schirripa (1993) concluded that the maximum yield-per-recruit could be obtained with a minimum size limit of 17 inches TL (Goodyear and Schirripa, 1993, also calculated that a 14-inch TL size limit would produce maximum yield-per-recruit when the most recent data and growth models were used, but that result was invalidated by the discovery of bias in the post-1990 growth data). The RFSAP felt that the SPR level since 1990 should be higher since the 20-inch TL minimum size limit is above the minimum size producing maximum yield-per-recruit, and those extra fish are probably remaining in the population and reproducing (Table 13). However, Goodyear and Schirripa (1993) noted that if release mortality exceeds 33 percent, then the conservation effect on the spawning stock could be enhanced by lowering the minimum size. Section 7.3.3.1 raises questions whether the release mortality may have prohibited the stock from recovering since the 20-inch TL minimum size limit was implemented. Mace et al. (1996) concluded that a 20 percent SPR threshold for red grouper seems reasonable based on: (1) the life history of red grouper (protogynous hermaphrodites) which probably increases their resilience; (2) the steady historical landings of red grouper; and (3) the estimates of transitional SPR prior to the change in minimum size. It should be noted, however, that the 38 question of whether hermaphroditic species are more or less resilient is heavily disputed in the scientific community, and no consensus currently exists. Based on largely anecdotal information on the status of the jewfish stock, the Council prohibited harvest or possession of jewfish (GMFMC 1990). For consistency with the SAFMC and Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC), the Council prohibited the harvest or possession of Nassau grouper in 1997 (GMFMC 1996). Both of these stocks were considered for designation as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by NMFS (1997, 62 FR 37560). Rebuilding periods for these stocks cannot be specified in this amendment. 8.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The MSY in the Reef Fish FMP (1981) was computed for the entire reef fish complex using a Graham-Schaefer stock production model that yielded an estimate of 51 million pounds. No attempt was made to compute MSYs for individual stocks because the effort data could not be separated by stock. At best, this was a crude estimate to satisfy the requirement for a MSY and was based on many unsubstantiated assumptions. The recreational landings data used in computing MSY were based on the 1965 and 1970 NMFS saltwater angling surveys, which were conducted as part of the national census and which surveyed approximately 1,500 households nationally. In the survey respondents asked to recall all the fish by species that they landed during the past year. These studies have been judged to have a recall bias that significantly inflated the landings values (GMFMC & GSMFC 1984). The effort data used in the computation with the expanded recreational landings were all assumed based on trends in commercial data. Needless to say, the MSY has served no purpose. 8.1.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative 1: MSY is equivalent to 50 percent static SPR for the following stocks: Nassau grouper and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 2: MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for all the reef fish stocks under Section 8.1 , except for red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 3: MSY is equivalent to 26 percent static SPR for red snapper. 39 Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: MSY is initially set equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for gag, but reverts to 30 percent SPR upon implementation of any of the following: 1) a minimum size limit of 24 inches TL or greater; or 2) a spawning season closure that includes at least the two month period of February and March. Alternative 2: MSY is equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for gag if no increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 3: MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for gag if an increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 4: MSY is equivalent to 5 to 20 percent static SPR for the stocks for which those levels are supported by scientific documentation. Alternative 5: MSY is equivalent to 45 percent static SPR for the following stocks or stock complexes: Alternative 6: MSY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for the following stocks or stock complexes: Alternative 7: Status quo - retain current MSY estimate of 51 million pounds for the entire reef fish complex. Discussion: The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MSY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MSY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. The MSY fishing mortality rate (FMSY) will be set at these levels. The use of SPR levels to specify proxies for MSY, OY, and overfishing definitions seem appropriate for the stocks of the reef fish complex (Mace et al. 1996). The first Finfish Stock Assessment Panel (FSAP) noted the following: The Council asked the first FSAP to consider whether SSBR or spawning stock biomass is more appropriate than the use of SPR to gage stock status. The FSAP (July 1998) assumed that the Council was requesting guidance as to the most appropriate measure of a stocks 40 ability to replenish itself over time. First, the FSAP clarified that SPR is simply a general term that refers to the proportion of a spawning stock remaining under fished conditions to that of an unfished stock. Ideally annual egg production should be used in the calculation of SPR. However, egg production is not always available and biomass of mature females is used as a proxy. The use of biomass in the calculation of SPR was historically referred to as SSBR. Currently, either the use of eggs or biomass is referred to as SPR. At this time, the first FSAP did not recommend one method over another. They felt it should be the purview of the stock assessment panels to decide the best method used based upon the available data. However, they suggested that if the Council wishes to adopt a method that best reflects management measures imposed, the use of SPR is the appropriate measure to use. The first FSAP (July 1998) suggested that for species with natural mortality rate/von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (M/K) <1.0, e.g., red drum, red snapper, greater amberjack, the SPR at F30%SPR probably is a good proxy for SPR at FMSY. However, for species with M/K ratios >1.0, e.g., vermilion snapper, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red grouper; fishing mortality rates corresponding to F30%SPR may exceed FMSY and, thus, the SPR proxies should be increased to values corresponding to SPR at F35%SPR. For those species where M/K >1.5, e.g., gag and white grunt, SPRs corresponding to F40%SPR (or higher) may be the best proxies of SPR at FMSY (see Table 14). The second FSAP (August 1998), as well as many members of the first FSAP, did not agree that the M/K ratio was useful as a scalar for determining resilience because of variability observed in estimates of M and K. They indicated that in general longer-lived species that mature at an early age relative to their life-span are perceived to be relatively more resistant to overfishing than shorter-lived species with few spawning year classes. That is because species with numerous year-classes can still maintain themselves if several of those year-classes are lost or reduced. Whereas the panel defined resilience as the ability of a stock to recover from an overfished condition. Long-lived species although resistant to overfishing are slow to recover once they have become overfished because 41 of the large numbers of age-classes that must be rebuilt and thus generally have a lower resiliency. Conversely, short-lived species with very high fecundity may be able to recover quickly from an overfished condition. The panel cautioned that the above are generalizations and may not be applicable in all situations. The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended the Council establish a MSY proxy of 40 to 60 percent static SPR for jewfish and Nassau grouper for the following reasons: Jewfish and Nassau grouper species have been fully protected by the Gulf Council with ABCs at zero harvest. These fisheries were closed due to concerns that they were especially susceptible to overfishing because their populations were small in size and at depressed levels as the result of fishermen being able to easily find and target large sedentary individuals, as well as, spawning aggregations. These species are, therefore, generally believed to be neither very resistant nor resilient to overfishing. The second FSAP had the following recommendations for gag: Stock assessments for gag have been available since 1994. It is currently estimated the gag population is at a transitional SPR level of 21 percent being prosecuted at a fishing mortality rate between 18 to 23 percent SPR (FSAP July 1998). The panel noted that concern existed about the lack of resistance of gag to overfishing because it forms large spawning aggregations that are easily targeted by fishermen. Some biologists fear that the decreasing percentage of males in the population during the past two decades may be negatively impacting reproductive productivity. The data are not available to estimate MSY or BMSY directly and the only available recruitment index represents too short a time series for use in estimating MSY or BMSY. Therefore, the best available MSY proxy is SPR. The panel recommends that the MSY SPR proxy should be 35 to 40 percent if no action is taken by the Gulf Council to further protect mature fish through an increased size limit and/or a spawning season closure when they are aggregated. However, if protection of spawning fish is implemented, then the panel believes a MSY SPR proxy of 30 percent is appropriate for the gag population because specific protection of the mature stock improves the population’s resistance to overfishing. Although two scenarios for MSY proxies are presented, the panel feels that the preferred scenario should be the one that protects mature fish and spawning aggregations through an increased size limit and spawning season closure. 42 The Council will take a regulatory amendment for specifying TAC for gag to public hearings with proposals for seasonal closures, spawning aggregation areal closures, and increasing the minimum size limit up to 24 inches TL. Final action will be taken on the regulatory amendment when final action is taken on this amendment. The panel recommended that the MSY proxy for red snapper be set at 30 percent static SPR. Scientists employed by Texas Shrimp Association presented analyses for red snapper that used the relationships in Mace and Sissenwine (1993), and suggested that the SPR levels should be less than 20 percent. Those analyses were reviewed by the RFSAP and independent scientists. The RFSAP (1998) found that the analyses by Gazey and Gallaway (1998) calculated maximum excess recruits (MER) rather than MSY. At low stock levels, a higher survival rate of recruits per spawner may occur due to a lack of density-dependent mortality. While this is beneficial to recovery of the stock, it does not correspond to the MSY level. Nevertheless, the RFSAP felt that attaining the MER level over a five year time period could be an appropriate intermediate step en route to the ultimate target of MSY. The RFSAP (1998a) recommended that the MSY proxy be set at 26 to 30 percent static SPR. Mace (Personal Communication to Dr. Kemmerer, 11/9/98) indicated the 26 percent static SPR level was an appropriate level for red snapper. The Council, therefore, set the MSY proxy at 26 percent SPR for red snapper. The second FSAP also recommended the following default MSY proxy for other species: Based on the finding by Mace (1994) that, when the age of 50 percent maturity is less than the age of 50 percent recruitment to the fishery, F35%SPR will generally exceed F0.1, the panel recommends that the other Gulf finfish species under the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council be managed with an MSY and BMSY SPR proxy level of 30 percent, provided there is a minimum size limit of at least the size at 50 percent maturity, unless certain life history characteristics or management strategies warrant a more precautionary approach. There are currently 11 reef fish species with minimum size limits. Amendment 16B, which is pending implementation by NMFS, will include minimum size limits for 9 additional reef fish species. For some of the species usually caught 43 from deeper waters a minimum size limit would serve no purpose as the fish are usually killed by embolism. These include the five species of tilefish, speckled hind, misty grouper, warsaw grouper, snowy grouper, and scamp in some geographical areas. From the available literature on fraction of females mature by size, which is limited, it appears all the snappers with minimum size limits, except Cubera snapper, reach the 50 percent maturity level. Red snapper, which has a minimum size limit of 15 inches TL, are 50 percent mature at 11.8 inches and 100 percent mature at 13.2 inches (Goodyear 1995, Figure 19). The other snappers with 12-inch limits are shorter-lived and faster growing. Eighty percent of vermilion snapper (size limit 10 inches TL) are mature at 8.3 inches (Hood and Johnson, 1999). The size limits for red grouper and yellowfin grouper, and the proposed size limit for gag are at the 50 percent maturity [Amendment (GMFMC 1989), Amendment 16B (GMFMC 1999), Gag Regulatory Amendment (GMFMC 1999)]. The proposed size limit for black grouper is below the size at 50 percent maturity, but is set at the same level as for gag because many fishermen cannot distinguish between the 2 species (GMFMC, 1999 Gag Regulatory Amendment). The commercial size limit for greater amberjack of 36 inches should be near or above the 50 percent maturity level, while the recreational size limit of 28 inches is below the size at first maturity (32 inches). The proposed minimum size limit of 14 inches for lesser amberjack and banded rudderfish should be near or above the 50 percent maturity level as they live to reach only maximum sizes of 29 and 27 inches, respectively (GMFMC, Amendment 16B, 1999). Gray triggerfish (size limit 12 inches) reach 91 percent maturity at about 10 inches (Harper and McClellan, 1997; Hood and Johnson, 1997). Biological Impacts: The current prohibition on harvest and possession and the higher standard for MSY (50 percent SPR) should have a beneficial effect on the stocks of jewfish and Nassau grouper by allowing them to be restored to a much higher biomass in the Gulf area. The MSY proxy and FMSY of 30 percent static SPR basically results in raising the overfishing threshold from 20 to 30 percent for the other reef fish stocks which should have a long-term beneficial effect. The MSY proxy of 26 percent static SPR for red snapper represents a precautionary level for that stock. The higher default alternative for gag of 35 percent SPR would be implemented only if the Council does not take action to increase the minimum size limit or reduce fishing pressure on the spawning aggregations as expected. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an MSY level, it is only instructive to note some of the general economic implications of specifying MSY in terms of SPR. 44 First, all alternatives (except Alternative 7) specify MSY in terms of a single SPR level or a range of SPR levels. This specification of MSY has strong biological rationale, as discussed elsewhere, but its economic significance is somewhat indeterminate. The important economic specification of MSY is in terms of poundage of harvestable stock. Understandably, this particular specification is not possible for most of the reef fish stocks due mainly to the absence of a reasonably estimated stock-recruit curve. In the case of red snapper for example, all the known data points of recruitment are scattered over a narrow range of stock levels in a heavily exploited stock. Unless a yield level is specified corresponding to the chosen SPR proxy for MSY, economic values associated with any chosen MSY cannot be determined. It goes without saying that any yield level also has to be translated into economic terms via some estimated functions that describe the underlying economic relationships within and between the commercial and recreational sectors of the subject fisheries, including the bycatch fisheries. Second, while there is good biological basis to assume that the higher the SPR level is specified to correspond to MSY, the more likely it would represent the long-term sustainability of the stock. However, a higher SPR level does not always correspond to higher level of poundage that would be available for harvest. Goodyear (1994) has shown that a narrow range of SPR levels could correspond to a very wide range of harvest yields, depending on fishing selectivities. This condition only complicates the determination of net economic benefits over a long period of time. Consider the following scenario. At a higher the SPR level specified to correspond to MSY, more restrictive short term measures would be imposed. A necessary condition for such measures to be economically justified is a larger harvest yield in the future. Without assurance that a higher SPR level corresponds to higher harvest yield in the future, the possibility exists that net economic results could be negative despite achieving a high SPR level. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The elevation of the overfishing criteria to a higher level based on the new proxies for MSY may, in the short-term, result in some additional stocks being classified as overfished and the necessity to reduce harvest levels. However, these restrictions should be of rather short duration and, in the long-term, the harvest levels should be enhanced resulting in a positive benefit. For the stocks of jewfish and Nassau grouper the prohibition of harvest would be extended many additional years by the new standards. However, that has no immediate impact, in that harvest is currently prohibited. Fishery Resources: The higher standards should benefit the reef fish stocks by maintaining the stock biomass at or above MSY. 45 Other Fishery Resources: The proposed actions likely will have a beneficial effect on other stocks. 8.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) The current statement of OY for the reef fish complex is as follows: The primary objective and definition of OY for the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan is to stabilize long-term population levels of all reef fish species by establishing a certain survival rate of biomass into the stock of spawning age to achieve at least 20 percent spawning potential ratio (SPR). OY can be achieved with annual TAC specifications for each species or species group. The Council has established a framework procedure to attain the management goal of OY where, on an annual basis, a scientific stock assessment panel will establish an acceptable biological catch (ABC) range and the Council will set a TAC and prescribe fishing restrictions (to attain the management goal of OY) for implementation by the Regional Director of NMFS prior to the beginning of a fishing year. This statement makes OY any level of SPR greater than that describing overfishing. The Council recognized that for restoration of stocks and preventing overfishing, OY should be specified at a more conservative level. Through Amendment 11 (GMFMC 1995), the Council proposed the following definition: Set OY for each stock based on a SPR level corresponding to F0.1 until an alternative operational definition that optimizes ecological, economic, and social benefits to the Nation has been developed by RFSAP, Socioeconomic Panel (SEP), Statistical and Scientific Committee (SSC), and AP and approved by the Council. 46 The discussion in the amendment provided the following information: For the reef fish species for which stock assessments have been prepared, under current management conditions, SPR at F0.1 is approximately 34 percent for red snapper, 46 percent for red grouper, and 48 percent for gag. The RFSAP has recommended using F0.1 as a reference point for OY for fisheries that are not overfished (RFSAP 1993). The NMFS disapproved the proposed OY definition and recommended that OY be defined as a fixed SPR above the overfished level of 20 percent. The Council resubmitted Amendment 11 (GMFMC 1997) with a proposed definition that OY be set at a yield level that would result in at least a 30 percent SPR for that stock, with authority for the RFSAP to set the level higher than 30 percent SPR depending on the characteristics of the stock. The RFSAP had recommended a level of 35 percent SPR for reef fish. The recommendations of the RFSAP from their report (1995) are as follows: Optimum Yield should be based on MSY as reduced by economic and social considerations. When OY, or the biological target of MSY, cannot be calculated reliably, as is generally the case, the Panel recommends that the Council also adopt the findings of the SPR Report which states that: It is suggested that equilibrium (static) SPR levels in the range of 30-40 percent be used as surrogates for FMSY. In general, the low end of the range should be used for resilient species and the high end for species that have low fecundity and/or are slow growing, late maturing, or long-lived. This range is based on values in the scientific literature that suggest F35% as a reasonable surrogate for FMSY over a wide range of life history characteristics. The RFSAP considers this to be sound advice based on the best available information. In addition, because it is likely that a stock will experience near maximum production at F35% the Panel recommends that F35% be adopted by the Council to be a good surrogate for FMSY and/or FOY until the Council has explicitly determined OY for a stock." 47 The NMFS disapproved the proposed definition based on a determination that those species that change sex may be less resilient to overfishing. The NMFS recommended that the OY definition should correspond with a 40 percent SPR. 8.1.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative 1: OY is equivalent to 50 percent static SPR for the following stocks: Nassau grouper and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 2: OY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for all of the reef fish stocks under Section 8.1, except red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 3: OY is equivalent to 36 percent static SPR (i.e., SPR at F0.1) for red snapper. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: OY is initially set equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for gag, but reverts to 30 percent SPR upon implementation of any of the following: 1) a minimum size limit of 24 inches TL or greater; or 2) a spawning season closure that includes at least the two month period of February and March. Alternative 2: OY is equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for gag if no increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 3: OY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for gag if an increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 4: OY is equivalent to 5 to 20 percent static SPR for stocks for which these levels are supported by scientific documentation. Alternative 5: OY is equivalent to 45 percent (or higher) static SPR for the following stocks or stock complexes: Alternative 6: OY is equivalent to 40 percent (or higher) static SPR for the following stocks or stock complexes: Alternative 7: OY is set equivalent to MSY (in pounds) for the following stocks or stock complexes: 48 Alternative 8: Status quo - retain current statement of OY. Discussion: OY must be set lower than or equal to MSY if specified as a harvest level or fishing mortality rate. In terms of SPR levels, OY would equate to a SPR higher than or equal to the SPR for MSY. It is not at all unusual for OY to be set at MSY since that is the largest long-term average yield that can be obtained from the stock. Under a precautionary or risk-adverse approach OY would be set lower (higher SPR) than MSY. OY becomes the target used for stocks for which a TAC is set to specify the ABC range and its probabilities of achieving OY. NOAA (1998), in its “Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the M SFMCA,” recommend using this risk averse approach to specifying OY and other parameters and thresholds. This is consistent with the United Nations FAO agreement on managing international stocks. The intended effect of such a precautionary approach is to err on the side of conservation in management of marine resources. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate OY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate OY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: The Council opted to set OY at a much higher SPR level as a precautionary approach. For red snapper, the effect would be that as soon as the stock had been restored to the MSY level, the management target would shift to a harvest strategy at OY (i.e., a harvest level less than that at FMSY). In as much as the OY levels for the stocks were set higher than the MSY levels for those stocks, the biological impacts should be beneficial to the stocks. Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an OY level, it is only instructive to note some of the economic implications of the alternatives for specifying OY. First, the general discussions made regarding the specification of MSY in terms of SPR also apply here, since all alternatives specify an SPR level as OY Second, the obvious feature of an OY that is absent in any of the alternatives above is the consideration of economic and social factors. Understandably, the biological component needs to be specified since the SFA currently defines OY relative to a biological MSY. However, a simple specification of OY in 49 biological terms is totally deficient, especially when management measures are developed to achieve an OY level. Given this consideration, it is assumed that the specification of OY would be revised to incorporate economic and social factors as they become available. Third, it is understood that both in the initial stage when only the biological component of OY is specified and later when other factors are considered by the Council, OY itself corresponds to a certain level of allowable harvest. In this manner, the harvest level corresponding to OY may change as other factors are considered or as more information on the fishery become available. Measures designed to achieve such level of harvest are the ones that have direct effects on fishing participants. Fourth, the presence of an overfishing definition (specified below) invariably implies that the biological component of OY must be one that maintains the fish stocks above the overfishing threshold. In the meantime, while the economic and social factors are not considered, measures adopted to achieve OY would then be governed by the need to achieve the biological target. There is a strong possibility that the level of harvest allowed under such condition may not be coincident with the level demanded by economic or social factors. In such a situation, the alternatives considered in this section could force the fishing participants to forgo economic or social benefits. That is, if the measures later adopted are very restrictive, short-run benefits may be forgone although the long-term status of the fish stock may be preserved. Measures less restrictive than those that may be required for social and economic reasons are very unlikely. Fifth, the process of incorporating social and economic factors in the determination of OY may involve more than a determination of a fixed or variable harvest level. The process could involve adoption of a management regime that would enable achievement of OY at some harvest levels. In determining OY, the economic process involves, among others, the translation of sustainable harvests into consumer and producer surpluses. One way of doing this is to perform a constrained optimization exercise whereby consumer and producer surpluses are maximized over time subject to a minimum level of SPR or an attribute of the minimum SPR level. For example, if the stock is not overfished, the binding constraint could be a specific level of SPR, say the overfishing threshold. If the stock is overfished, the binding constraint could be an attribute of the chosen level of SPR, such as the direction, absolute magnitude, or rate of change of the SPR. A similar exercise of constrained optimization may be performed incorporating social factors. As the process continues, OY that incorporates social and economic factors would be measurable. It may be noted, however, that while the process discussed may determine the level of harvest corresponding to OY, achieving that level of harvest with the highest possible economic and social benefits may require certain type of management regimes, such as ITQ or some other effort limitation programs. In the absence of this management regime, constraining the harvest 50 level and more importantly the SPR to one that was determined to correspond to OY may not achieve OY itself when this latter is defined to incorporate economic or social factors. Sixth, there is a very high likelihood that a satisfactory incorporation of economic and social factors in the determination of OY would take several years. In the meantime, the biological component may be the overriding concern, but as long as the Council through its various advisory groups, including the general public, is able to infuse social and economic factors in designing measures to achieve OY, significant adverse consequences to the fishing participants in the short run may be minimized. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The setting of OY at a higher level of SPR than MSY will in the long-term benefit the participants in the fishery by assuring the stocks will be maintained at a biomass level at or above MSY. However, in the short-term, it may adversely affect fishermen for some stocks because a more restrictive management regime may be necessary. Fishery Resources: The setting of OY at a higher level of SPR than MSY will benefit the condition of the stock by maintaining the biomass at or above MSY. This should stabilize to some extent the effect of natural fluctuations in recruitment. Other Fishery Resources: The effects on other fishery resources are expected to be beneficial to other stocks that are targeted by fishermen. 8.1.4 Overfishing Criteria The following are the definitions of overfishing and overfished contained in the Reef Fish Fishery FMP: 1. A reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished when it is below the level of 20 percent [transitional] SPR. 2. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is overfished, overfishing is defined as harvesting at a rate that is not consistent with a program that has been established to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the 20 percent [static] SPR level. 3. When a reef fish stock or stock complex is not overfished, overfishing is defined as a harvesting rate that if continued would lead to a state of the stock or stock 51 complex that would not at least allow a harvest of optimum yield on a continuing basis. 8.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives (MFMT) Proposed Alternative 1: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 50 percent static SPR (F50%SPR) for the following stocks: Nassau grouper and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 2: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR (F30%SPR) for all of the reef fish stocks under Section 8.1, except red snapper, Nassau grouper, and jewfish. Proposed Alternative 3: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 26 percent static SPR (F26%SPR) for red snapper. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: The overfishing threshold is initially set equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for gag, but reverts to 30 percent SPR upon implementation of any of the following: 1) a minimum size limit of 24 inches TL or greater; or 2) a spawning season closure that includes at least the two month period of February and March. Alternative 2: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR (F30%SPR) for gag, if an increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 3: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 35 percent static SPR (F35%SPR) for gag, if no increased size limit and/or spawning season closure is implemented for the stock. Alternative 4: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 5 to 20 percent static SPR (F5-20%SPR) for stocks for which those levels are supported by scientific documentation. Alternative 5: Status Quo - no action, retain the current definitions. Alternative 6: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 25 percent static SPR (F25%SPR) for the following stocks or stock complexes: 52 Alternative 7: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 40 percent SPR (F40%SPR) for the following stocks or stock complexes: Discussion: The final guidelines suggest that long-term average fishing mortality rate equivalent to a 30-40 percent level of spawning per recruit may be a reasonable proxy for the MSY fishing mortality rate. The analyses by the first and second FSAP (1998) support those levels (Appendices C and D). (See discussion under MSY.) The overfishing alternatives represent the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and should be specified at the SPR levels set for MSY in Section 8.1.2.1. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MFMT and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MFMT and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: The current prohibition on harvest and possession and the higher standard for the overfishing threshold (50 percent SPR) should have a beneficial effect on the stocks of jewfish and Nassau grouper by allowing them to be restored to a much higher biomass in the Gulf area. The MSY proxy and FMSY of 30 percent SPR basically results in raising the overfishing threshold from 20 to 30 percent for the other reef fish stocks, which should have a long term beneficial effect. The FMSY of 26 percent SPR for red snapper is considered a precautionary approach. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The elevation of the overfishing criteria to a higher level based on the new proxies for MSY may, in the short-term, result in some additional stocks being classified as overfished and the necessity to reduce harvest levels. However, these restrictions should be of rather a short duration and, in the long-term, the harvest levels should be enhanced, resulting in a 53 positive benefit. For the stocks of jewfish and Nassau grouper, the prohibition on harvest would be extended many additional years by the new standards. However, that has no immediate impact, in that harvest is currently prohibited. Fishery Resources: The higher standards should benefit the reef fish stocks by maintaining the stock biomass at or above MSY. Other Fishery Resources: The proposed actions likely will have a beneficial effect on other stocks. 8.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives The national standard guidelines provide that the overfished threshold be a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) which should be expressed in terms of spawning biomass or other measure of productive capacity. The guidelines also provide that this threshold should equal whichever of the following is greater: (1) one-half of MSY or (2) the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to the MSY level is expected to occur within 10 years. The first FSAP (July 1998) provided the following discussion and suggestion on computing the MSST: The ideal value of MSST depends on the resiliency of the stock, which in the case of the stocks examined in this report, is not well established. The FSAP believes that the most appropriate strategy to address this issue would be through analyses by the respective stock assessment panels for each FMP. In the interim, the FSAP recommends that MSST be set equal to the stock size associated with the maximum fishing mortality threshold multiplied by the greater of 1 minus the natural mortality rate (M) or 0.5. Such a rule of thumb for MSST is intuitively appealing because one would expect stocks with a higher M to recover faster, on average, than stocks with a lower M. The intent of the first FSAP in using the multiplier of 1.0-M was that it should be related to restoration of the stock that becomes overfished within the 10-year period. That is because longer-lived fish tend to have lower rates of M and restoration of such a stock takes longer. It also creates a relatively narrow range between the overfishing threshold and overfished threshold. For example, for red snapper, with M=0.1 and the overfishing threshold at 30 percent SPR, the overfished threshold would be 27 percent, i.e., 90 percent of the overfishing threshold. 54 The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that proxies for BMSY for reef fish stocks be set at levels of 30 to 50 percent transitional SPR. Subsequent to that time the NMFS SERO hosted a workshop to discuss technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementing national standard 1 (NOAA 1998). The consensus reached at that meeting was that transitional SPRs were not appropriate as a proxy for BMSY and that BMSY and especially MSST (overfished threshold) must be expressed in terms of biomass. The conclusion of the Councils and NMFS was as follows: Evaluation of stock status for southeastern FMP species have generally relied on per recruit estimates of spawning potential (transitional SPR), thus estimates of biomass at MSY (BMSY or proxies thereof) and of current biomass are generally not available. Where the information for calculating (BMSY) is available in the Stock Assessment Panel reports, as they are for red snapper and mackerel, BMSY can be estimated. For many other stocks, an estimate of BMSY (or proxy thereof) can be obtained as the product of the amount of expected spawning biomass per recruit at the MSY fishing mortality (FMSY) and an estimate of expected recruitment levels at BMSY and estimates of current biomass require further evaluation of the available data. These evaluations will take place within the year. Therefore, the Council’s Proposed Alternative is that the overfished threshold (or MSST) will be implemented for each stock by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the RFSAP, and Council. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 50 to 70 percent of the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Alternative 2: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 1.0-M times the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Alternative 3: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Discussion: While NMFS has suggested the MSST be stated only in terms of biomass, the fact remains that that type of estimate is not currently available for most Gulf stocks. For example, the NMFS stock assessment personnel (Schirripa, Personal Communication) indicated for red snapper it will require at least 10 years of additional data on the recovering fishery in order for a reliable estimate of BMSY to be computed with the stock/recruit relationship. The use of the transitional SPRs 55 as an interim statement for the MSST would seem beneficial, especially as the status of the stock in relation to this standard can be readily determined. However, SEFSC (Brown, Personal Communication, 1/8/99) pointed out that the levels of transitional SPR in the rejected alternatives are improperly used as the percentages were intended for setting levels of MSSTs in terms of biomass. Therefore, if the intent was to set the MSST at 50 percent of MSY (in biomass), the SPR proxy representing that level would not be 50 percent of the SPR MSY proxy, but likely would be much higher. This means that Rejected Alternative 3 would be the more appropriate level. 8.1.5 Rebuilding Periods 8.1.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives Reef fish stocks that have been identified as overfished by NMFS (1997) in its report to Congress include red snapper, jewfish, and Nassau grouper (Table 13). The determination that these stocks are overfished is based on the current definition of overfished in the FMP, i.e., 20 percent SPR. Section 304(e) of the SFA requires that the rebuilding period and proposed management measure for rebuilding the stock be based on the overfishing criteria in the FMP. While this amendment could serve as a vehicle for expressing rebuilding periods for all of these stocks based on the overfishing criteria of 20 percent SPR (current criteria of the FMP), it could also serve to express the rebuilding periods for the stocks based on the new overfishing criteria specified in Section 8.1.4. In that instance, the rebuilding period would start the date of implementation, probably 1999. NMFS (1998) in its report to Congress indicated while gag were not overfished, the stock was approaching an overfished state. Red Snapper - the current rebuilding period, based on the current criteria of 20 percent SPR and 1.5 times the generation time (19.6 years) and a starting date of 1990, extends through 2019. A restoration scenario proposed by the Council in the Regulatory Amendment for 1998 Red Snapper TAC for a constant TAC of 9.12 MP and 45 percent bycatch reduction beginning in 1998 (which increases by 5 percent per year to 60 percent in 2001) would have resulted in achieving 20 percent SPR by 2019 (GMFMC 1998). Considering that the 30 mesh fisheye BRD was reported to reduce bycatch of age-0 and age-1 red snapper by 58 percent (Shrimp Amendment 9, GMFMC, 1997) this probably was not an unreasonable assumption by the Council. NMFS is assessing the assumption through an observer program. Using the stock restoration scenario for red snapper by Schirripa (1998) in the Appendix 2 Table on page 81 of his report for no directed red snapper fishery (TAC=0) and 100 percent reduction in shrimp trawl mortality on red snapper (i.e., no fishing mortality at all), the red snapper stock would be restored to the 26 percent SPR level (FMSY) by year 2013. Adding the generation time of 19.6 56 years, the rebuilding period would be completed by 2033 if this amendment is implemented in 1999 or 34 years. Jewfish and Nassau Grouper - Rebuilding periods for jewfish and Nassau grouper began in 1990 and 1997, respectively, with rules preventing harvest or possession in the EEZ. The affected states implemented compatible rules. Nassau grouper are a Pan-Caribbean species that are occasionally caught off South Florida and appear to be overfished throughout their range. Legault and Eklund (1998) provided analyses of the generation times for Nassau grouper and jewfish. They provided a range of estimates of natural mortality rate (M) for the two species based on the expected percentage that would be surviving at the maximum age. The percent remaining at maximum age ranged from 0.05 percent to 5.0 percent. The maximum ages in an unfished population were assumed as 40 years and 80 years for Nassau grouper and jewfish respectively. Using both fecundity and weight at age analyses Legault and Eklund (1998) computed the relationship for generation time as a function of M for both species. Using these relationships of Legault and Eklund (1998) (Figures 4 and 5 of their report) and the midpoints of the range of M of 0.1675 and 0.1135 for Nassau grouper and jewfish, respectively, resulted in the generation times of about 17 and 24 years for each species, respectively. If the estimate of Ault et. al. (1997) of M=0.18 and M=0.08 are used for Nassau grouper and jewfish, respectively, the generation time estimates are about 12 and 28 years, respectively. Because there are no estimates for the time required to restore these stocks in the absence of a directed fishery, it is not possible to compute a rebuilding period at this time. Because of the Pan-Caribbean distribution of Nassau grouper, data on the stock for the Gulf of Mexico will probably always be inadequate for this computation, and the current prohibition on harvest will likely have a very limited effect on restoration of that stock, i.e., only about 9,000 pounds were landed annually by Gulf commercial fishermen. 8.1.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC The following is the framework procedure for specification of TAC, as established in Amendment 1 and modified in Amendments 11 and 14, and as modified in 1997 by regulatory amendment to comply with the requirement that the recreational red snapper fishery be managed as a quota. The specified recovery date for red snapper reflects the current recovery criteria that overfished stocks be recovered to 20 percent SPR within 1.5 generation times. Based on the SFA and National Standard Guidelines, the procedure is modified as follows (deletions are bolded in brackets; new language is underlined and bolded): Procedure for Specification of TAC: 57 1. Prior to October 1 each year, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and RA, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and Economics and Trade Division (ETD), Southeast Regional Office (SERO) will: a) update or complete biological and economic assessments and analysis of the present and future condition of the stocks and fisheries for red snapper and other reef fish stocks or stock complexes; b) assess to the extent possible the current SPR levels for each stock; c) estimate fishing mortality (F) in relation to FMSY (MFMT) [F20% SPR] and FOY; d) [estimate annual surplus production, Fmax or] other population parameters deemed appropriate; e) summarize statistics on the fishery for each stock or stock complex; f) specify the geographical variations in stock abundance, mortality, recruitment, and age of entry into the fishery for each stock or stock complex; [and] g) provide information for analyzing social and economic impacts of any specification demanding adjustments of allocations, quotas, bag limits or other fishing restrictions, and h) develop estimates of BMSY and MSST. 2. The Council will convene a Scientific Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel (RFSAP), and a Socioeconomic Assessment Panel (SEP) appointed by the Council, that will, as working groups, review the SEFSC and ETD assessments, current harvest statistics, economic, social, and other relevant data. The RFSAP will prepare a written report to the Council specifying a range of ABC for each stock or stock complex which is in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. The ABCs are catch ranges that will be calculated for those species in the management unit that have been identified by the Council, NMFS, or the working panels as in need of catch restrictions for attaining or maintaining OY. For overfished stocks, the range of ABCs shall be calculated so as to achieve reef fish population levels at or above FMSY at BMSY within the rebuilding periods specified by the Council and approved by NMFS. The RFSAP will recommend rebuilding periods based on the provisions of the National Standard Guidelines, including generation times for the affected stocks. [the 20 percent SPR goal by January 1, 2000, for all reef fish except red snapper which has a January 2019 target date, or by a time period (target date), or set of time periods (target dates) specified by the RFSAP. Any time period specified by the stock assessment panel for consideration by the Council under this framework procedure cannot exceed a period equal to 1.5 times the potential generation time of the stock or such other time period as specified by plan amendment.] Generation times are to be specified by the stock assessment panel based on the biological characteristics of the individual stocks. The RFSAP will review the SEFSC recommendations for BMSY and will recommend to the Council a BMSY level and minimum stock size threshold (MSST) from BMSY. The RFSAP may also recommend a more appropriate estimate of FMSY for any stock. The RSAP may also recommend more appropriate levels for the MSY proxy, OY, the overfishing threshold (MFMT), and overfished threshold (MSST). 58 For stock or stock complexes where data in the SEFSC reports are inadequate to compute an ABC based on the spawning stock biomass per recruit or SPR models, the RFSAP will use other available information as a guide in providing their best estimate of an ABC range that should result in achieving the MFMT [at least a 20 percent SPR level]. The ABC ranges will be established to prevent an overfished stock from further decline. To the extent possible, a risk analysis should be conducted indicating the probabilities of attaining or exceeding the MFMT and [stock goal of 20 percent SPR], the annual transitional yields (i.e., catch streams) calculated for each level of fishing mortality within the ABC range. The SEP will examine the economic and social impacts associated with fishing restrictions required to attain those levels. The working groups reports may include recommendations on bag limits, size limits, specific gear limits, season closures, and other restrictions required to attain management goals, along with the economic and social impacts of such restrictions, and the research and data collection necessary to improve the assessments. The RFSAP may also recommend additional species for future analysis. 3. The Council will conduct a public hearing on the RFSAP and SEP reports at, or prior, to the time it is considered by the Council for action. Other public hearings may be held also. The Council will request review of the reports by its Reef Fish Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committees and may convene these groups before taking action. 4. The Council in selecting a TAC level, and a stock restoration time period (target date), if necessary, for each stock or stock complex for which an ABC range has been identified will, in addition to taking into consideration the recommendations and information provided for in (1), (2), and (3), utilize the following criteria: a. Set TAC within or below the first ABC range or set a series of annual TACs to obtain the ABC level within the first three years or less. b. Subdivide the TACs into commercial and recreational allocations which maximize the net benefits of the fishery to the nation. The allocations will be based on historical percentages harvested by each user group during the base period of 1979-1987. However, if for an overfished stock the harvest in any year exceeds the TAC due to either the recreational or commercial user group exceeding its allocation, subsequent allocations pertaining to the respective user group will be adjusted to assure meeting the specified target date for achieving the MFMT [the spawning potential ratio (SPR) goal]. 5. The Council will provide its recommendations to the NMFS Regional Administrator for any specifications in TACs and stock restoration target dates 59 for each stock or stock complex, estimates of BMSY and MSST, estimates of MFMT, and the quotas, bag limits, trip limits, size limits, closed seasons, and gear restrictions necessary to attain the TAC, along with the reports, a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment of impacts, and the proposed regulations before October 15, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and Regional Administrator. The Council may also recommend new levels or statements for MSY (or proxy) and OY. 6. Prior to each fishing year, or other such time as agreed upon by the NMFS Regional Administrator and Council, the Regional Administrator will review the Council's recommendations and supporting information; and, if he concurs that the recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards, and other applicable law, he shall forward for publication notice of proposed rules for TACs and associated harvest restrictions by November 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and Regional Administrator (providing up to 30 days for additional public comment). The Regional Administrator will take into consideration all public comment and information received and will forward for publication in the Federal Register the notice of final rule by December 1, or such other time as agreed upon by the Council and Regional Administrator. 7. The commercial allocations of reef fish TACs, and the recreational allocation of red snapper TAC, shall be considered to be quotas. Appropriate regulatory changes that may be implemented by proposed rule in the Federal Register include: a. The TACs for each stock or stock complex that are designed to achieve a specific level of ABC within the first year, or annual levels of TAC designed to achieve the ABC level within three years. b. Bag limits, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, and quotas designed to achieve the TAC level. c. The time period (target date) specified for rebuilding an overfished stock, estimates of BMSY and MSST for overfished stocks and MFMT. [with the restriction that a time period specified under this framework procedure cannot exceed a period equal to 1.5 times the generation time of the stock under consideration.] d. New levels or statements of MSY (or proxy) and OY for any stock. 8. The NMFS Regional Administrator is authorized, through notice action, to conduct the following activities: 60 a. Close the commercial fishery of a reef fish species or species group that has a commercial quota or sub-quota at such time as projected to be necessary to prevent the commercial sector from exceeding its allocation for the remainder of the fishing year or sub-quota season. b. Close the recreational red snapper fishery in the EEZ, i.e., reduce the red snapper bag limit to zero, at such time as projected to be necessary to prevent the recreational sector from exceeding its allocation for the remainder of the fishing year. c. Reopen a commercial or recreational season that had been prematurely closed if needed to assure that an allocation can be reached. 9. If the NMFS decides not to publish the proposed rule of the recommended management measures, or to otherwise hold the measures in abeyance, then the Regional Administrator must notify the Council of his intended action within 30 days of receipt of the Council's proposal and the reasons for NMFS concern along with suggested changes to the proposed management measures that would alleviate the concerns. Such notice shall specify: 1) the applicable law with which the amendment is inconsistent, 2) the nature of such inconsistencies, and 3) recommendations concerning the actions that could be taken by the Council to conform the amendment to the requirements of applicable law. 8.2 COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS (MACKERELS) Species in the Fishery for Coastal Migratory Pelagics: King mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla Spanish mackerel S. maculatus Cobia Rachycentron canadum Cero S. regalis Little tunny Euthynnus alleteratus Dolphin Coryphaena hippurus Bluefish (Gulf of Mexico only) Pomatomus saltatrix The Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), approved in 1982 and implemented by regulations effective in February of 1983, treated king and Spanish mackerel each as one U.S. stock. Allocations were established for recreational and commercial fisheries, and the commercial allocation was divided between net and hook-and-line fishermen. Amendment 1 and its EIS, implemented in September of 1985, provided a framework procedure for pre-season adjustment of total allowable catch (TAC), revised king 61 mackerel maximum sustainable yield (MSY) downward, recognized separate Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel, and established fishing permits and bag limits for king mackerel. Commercial allocations among gear users were eliminated. The Gulf commercial allocation for king mackerel was divided into eastern and western zones for the purpose of regional allocation. Amendment 2 with Environmental Assessment (EA), implemented in July of 1987, revised Spanish mackerel MSY downward, recognized two migratory groups, and set commercial quotas and bag limits. The present management regime for king mackerel recognizes two migratory groups, the Gulf migratory group and the Atlantic Migratory Group. These groups seasonally mix on the east coast of Florida. For management and assessment purposes, a boundary between groups was specified as the Volusia/Flagler County border on the Florida east coast in the winter (November 1-March 31) and the Monroe/Collier County border on the Florida southwest coast in the summer (April 1-October 31). The commercial allocation for the Gulf group is currently divided at the Florida/Alabama boundary into eastern zone (Florida) and western zone (Texas through Alabama) quotas. 8.2.1 Current Status of Stocks Table 13 summarizes the current status of Gulf stocks of mackerels and cobia based on current criteria for overfishing and overfished in the FMP. The status of the stocks of cero, little tunny, and Gulf bluefish is unknown. Gulf Migratory Group King Mackerel Based on the current criteria for overfishing and overfished of 30 percent SPR, Gulf group king mackerel are considered overfished with a 23 percent transitional SPR and are being fished at a rate (F) that constitutes overfishing, i.e., 21 percent static SPR (MSAP 1998). Previously, Mace et al. (1996) suggested using a level of 20 percent transitional and static SPR for the overfished and overfishing thresholds respectively; however, rebuilding should be continued until the 30 percent SPR level is achieved. The MSAP (1998) report provided the following information on the status of these stocks: Landings and History of Management Catches since 1981/82 have ranged from a high of 12.3 million pounds in 1982/83 to a low of 3.0 million pounds in 1987/88 (Figure GK-1). Since 1986/87, landings have generally increased and have exceeded TAC in most years. Preliminary estimates of 1997/98 landings are: 62 1997/98 Commercial 3,390,000 Recreational 8,393,226 (779,319 fish) Total 11,783,266 Estimates of Fishing Mortality Rates Pooled F’s on age 4+ adults generally declined from 1981/82 to their lowest point in 1987/88. The last peak in F was during the 1994/95 fishing year with lower, relatively stable levels since 1995 (Figure GK 2). The median pooled F on ages 4+ for 1997/98 was 0.19 per year within the 10th percentile to 90th percentile range of 0.15 to 0.23. Trends in Recruitment Estimates of recruitment for ages 1-3 declined from 1981/82 to a low in 1984/85, then steadily increased to a high in 1996/97 (Figure GK-3). The 1997/98 estimate is somewhat lower, as is the 1998 projection; however, recruitment is still higher than levels that existed prior to 1994. Trends in Biomass Biomass estimates of ages 4+ showed a steady decline from 1981/82 to 1987/88 but have since increased to the current levels that are the highest in the time series (Figure GK-4). Total biomass increased from 1981/82 to about 1988/89 and remained relatively stable thereafter (Figure GK-5). The expected biomass at the beginning of the 1998-99 season is the highest in the time series. A note of caution is that biomass has consistently lagged recruitment with an offset of about 3 years. Since recruitment has remained level or may be declining, continued increases in biomass may not occur in the short-term. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) For the 1998/99 fishing year, given the Gulf Council's objective not to exceed F 30 percent SPR, the Panel recommends the best estimate of TAC to be 8.7 million pounds. There is a 50 percent chance that a TAC of 8.7 million pounds will achieve a F30% SPR level, a 16 percent chance that a 10.8 million pound TAC would reach a F30% SPR level, and an 84 percent that a TAC of 7.1 million pounds would provide a F30% SPR level. Discussion of Stock Status 63 Landings of Gulf group king mackerel in the last five years have been the highest in the series since 1982/83, and total landings have exceeded TAC in every year since 1986 (Table 15). Since the 1986/87 fishing year, transitional SPR has varied between 20 and 25 percent with a slightly increasing trend since 1995 (Figure GK-6). Transitional SPR for the 1998/99 fishing year is estimated at 23 percent, which is below the Council’s objective. Overfishing/Overfished Static SPR was estimated at 21 percent based on the F multiplier for 1996-97 of 1.00. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Gulf group king mackerel fishery was overfishing the available stock because the fishing mortality rate was greater than F at 30 percent static SPR in 1996/97. If fishing mortality continues at this rate, the fishery will remain overfished and will not be able to recover above the 30 percent transitional SPR level. The Panel concludes that the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel is overfished because the transitional SPR is below 30 percent. Gulf Migratory Group Spanish Mackerel The MSAP (1998) concluded that this stock was not overfished (35 percent transitional SPR) nor was overfishing of the stock occurring (47 percent static SPR). The Florida net ban eliminated most of the Gulf commercial fishery. Cobia The MSAP (1996) evaluated the cobia stock and recommended no management changes since yield for South Atlantic and Gulf was relatively stable at MSY, i.e., 2.2 MP. They did express concern over the magnitude of shrimp trawl bycatch for the Gulf. Their report follows: Catches of cobia from 1984 through 1995 for the Gulf were updated from Thompson (1995). As a result of the 1992 assessment, the MSY combined for the commercial and recreational sectors and the Gulf and Atlantic "groups", was increased from 1 million pounds to 2.2 million pounds. This represented the average total catch over the time series 1984-1991 for the Gulf and Atlantic, commercial and recreational combined. Although VPA analysis of cobia stocks in southeast U.S. waters now is available (Thompson 1996), the preliminary nature of the assessment due to uncertainty about several important biological 64 parameters preclude revision of the current MSY level of 2.2 million pounds for the Gulf and Atlantic combined. The recreational sector remains the primary source of landings and these estimates were revised over the time series 1988-1995 using MRFSS catch estimates derived from the "new" method. There is little difference between these new estimates and the "old" estimates. Total catch in weight for both sectors and the Gulf and Atlantic combined in 1991 was estimated to be well above MSY at about 3.1 million pounds; total combined landings (in millions of pounds) were about 2.6 in 1992, 1.8 in 1993, 2.5 1994, and 1.8 in 1995. While catches in the Gulf remain high and stable, the Atlantic catches demonstrate more variability and except for 1991 are low compared to Gulf catches. Age-based assessments were completed for the Gulf and Atlantic respectively in the same way as in 1995. Age-length results from Franks and McBee (1991) and Franks (1992) were applied to develop catch at age for Gulf catches from 1984-1994. It was noted that undersized fish were included in Franks sample which came primarily from recreational anglers. Undersized age 1 fish were also in the catch at age tables. An age-length key developed using data from Mr. Joseph Smith (NMFS Beaufort Laboratory, pers. comm. 1995, accepted for publication) was applied to estimate catch-at-age for the Atlantic catches. Smith's data also included undersized fish and these were also represented in the catches-at-age. How representative samples were of the fishery is not known. Results of ageing fish in the Gulf and Atlantic suggested that fish grow slower and live longer in the Atlantic relative to the Gulf. This result provides some biological evidence for separation of cobia into two groups, Atlantic and Gulf. However, recent but preliminary tagging studies (Franks and McBee 1994, Franks and Moxey 1996) indicate that movement between the Gulf and Atlantic is typical and seasonal; the authors caution that it is too early to determine if Gulf and Atlantic groups represent two distinct breeding sub-populations. Included in the Gulf catches-at-age were updated estimates of bycatch of fish aged 0 (70 percent) and 1 (30 percent). Bycatch in the past two years is relatively high compared to previous years; recruitment also was high in 1993 and 1994, but declined in 1995. 65 Shrimp trawl bycatch probably occurs in the Atlantic but there are no quantitative data available at this time for their inclusion into the stock assessment. While there is likely bycatch, the directed catches remain low relative to Gulf catches and as indicated in the 1993 assessment, Atlantic catches probably result in very small F; with high SPR. An assessment combining the Gulf and Atlantic catches would essentially be a Gulf assessment given the difference in magnitude of catches. Thus, an age based analysis as described by Powers and Restrepo (1992) was completed for the Gulf "group." Detailed results of the VPA are not presented because of considerable uncertainty about several of the biological parameters, especially length-at-age, fecundity-at-age, and natural mortality rate. Briefly, using results from previous assessments, selectivities for ages 0 and 1 averaged for the period 1988-1933, with M=0.2 and M=0.4, and the catch-age-data including bycatch from Frank and colleagues, the VPA was completed. CPUE indices based on the MRFSS and headboat data were used to tune the VPA results. At M=0.2, the values of F for the fully recruited age classes (2-8+) were estimated to be 0.63 and 0.46 for 1993 and 1994, respectively, compared to current F0.1=0.198 and Fmax=0.289. These most recent levels of F result in an SPRM=0.2 of about 13 percent. At M=0.4, the values of F for the fully recruited age classes (2-8+) were estimated to be 0.42 and 0.32 for 1993 and 1994, respectively, compared to current F0.1=0.275 and Fmax=0.432. These most recent levels of F results in an SPRM=0.4 of about 25 percent. Because of the uncertainty of the VPA results, the dependency of those results on the level of M, and the appearance that current yield for both areas seems to be relatively stable at MSY, the Panel recommended that no management changes be considered at this time. However, the Panel expressed concern because these preliminary results suggest that F may be at or near Fmax, owing in large part to the magnitude of the shrimp bycatch in the Gulf, which is approximately five times the harvest of the directed fishery. It is suggested that cobia assessments continue to be done separately for the Gulf and Atlantic. 8.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) 66 MSY for king mackerel was set within the range of 21.0 to 35.2 MP with the best point estimate of 26.2 MP. The best point estimate for Gulf group king mackerel was 14.2 MP and for Atlantic group king mackerel was 11.8 MP (Amendment 1, GMFMC/SAFMC 1985). MSY for Spanish mackerel was respecified in Amendment 2 (GMFMC/SAFMC 1987) from within the range of 15.7 to 19.7 MP with the best point estimate of 18.0 MP. Separate estimates for Gulf and Atlantic groups were not computed. MSY for cobia was respecified as 2.2 MP (MSAP 1992). Estimates of MSY for other stocks are not available. 8.2.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Gulf-group king mackerel Gulf-group Spanish mackerel Cobia Cero Dolphin (Gulf of Mexico only) Bluefish (Gulf of Mexico only) Little tunny (Gulf of Mexico only) Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: MSY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 2: MSY is equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 3: MSY is equivalent to 25 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 4: Retain the current estimates of MSY for the mackerels and cobia. Alternative 5: Status quo - no action Discussion: The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MSY and result in more 67 restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MSY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Although there is an estimate of MSY in terms of pounds for Gulf group king mackerel and for cobia, there is no estimate for Gulf group Spanish mackerel or the other species. The reliability of these estimates, which were required by the MSFCMA, and never used for any purpose, has not been determined. The original MSY estimate for king mackerel (throughout their range) in the FMP (GMFMC/SAFMC 1983) was computed by discounting the recreational landing information from the 1970 NMFS saltwater angling survey to 38 percent of that value and using commercial landings information. A time series of recreational landings was assumed based on the 1970 discounted figure. In subsequent discussions with Gerry Scott (NMFS, personal communication, 1/99), he felt that an estimate of biomass at MSY should be determined from the spawner-recruit relationship when the data allows that to be computed, i.e., data on the recovering stock over a longer period would yield a more reliable estimate. Therefore, this amendment considers proxies for MSY in terms of SPR as interim estimates. NMFS considers 30 to 40 percent as a reasonable range for MSY and Mace et al. (1996) suggested 30 percent SPR as an appropriate MSY or OY target for the mackerels. The first FSAP noted the following: The Council asked the first FSAP to consider whether SSBR or spawning stock biomass is more appropriate than the use of SPR to gage stock status. The FSAP (July 1998) assumed that the Council was requesting guidance as to the most appropriate measure of a stocks ability to replenish itself over time. First, the FSAP clarified that SPR is simply a general term that refers to the proportion of a spawning stock remaining under fished conditions to that of an unfished stock. Ideally annual egg production should be used in the calculation of SPR. However, egg production is not always available and biomass of mature females is used as a proxy. The use of biomass in the calculation of SPR was historically referred to as SSBR. Currently, either the use of eggs or biomass is referred to as SPR. At this time, the first FSAP did not recommend one method over another. They felt it should be the purview of the stock assessment panels to decide the best method used based upon the available data. However, if the Council wishes to adopt a method that best reflects management measures imposed, the use of SPR is the appropriate measure to use. 68 The first FSAP (July 1998) suggested that for species with M/K <1.0, e.g., red drum, red snapper, greater amberjack, the SPR at F30%SPR probably is a good proxy for SPR at FMSY. However, for species with M/K ratios >1.0, e.g., vermilion snapper, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red grouper; fishing mortality rates corresponding to F30%SPR may exceed FMSY and, thus, the SPR proxies should be increased to values corresponding to SPR at F35%SPR. For those species where M/K >1.5, e.g., gag and white grunt, SPRs corresponding to F40%SPR (or higher) may be the best proxies of SPR at FMSY. (See Table 14.) The second FSAP (August 1998), as well as many members of the first FSAP, did not agree that the M/K ratio was useful as a scalar for determining resilience because variability observed in estimates of M and K. They indicated that in general longer lived species that mature at an early age relative to their life-span are perceived to be relatively more resistant to overfishing than shorter-lived species with few spawning year-classes. That is because species with numerous year-classes can still maintain themselves if several of those year-classes are lost or reduced. Whereas the panel defined resilience as the ability of a stock to recover from an overfished condition. Long-lived species although resistant to overfishing are slow to recover once they have become overfished because of the large numbers of age-classes that must be rebuilt and thus generally have a lower resiliency. Conversely, short-lived species with very high fecundity may be able to recover quickly from an overfished condition. The panel cautioned that the above are generalizations and may not be applicable in all situations. The second FSAP (August 1998) offered the following recommendations for Gulf group king and Spanish mackerel: Stock assessments for king and Spanish mackerel have been available since 1983. Restrictive management measures were enacted in the early 1980's to correct overfishing conditions and to rebuild the stocks. As the result of these management actions, the king and Spanish mackerel populations have exhibited a high resiliency to the resulting lower fishing mortality rates; during the past decade increased spawning stock biomass (king and Spanish) and increased recruitment (king) trends have been evident. It is currently estimated the Gulf king and Spanish mackerel populations are at transitional SPR levels of 23 percent and 35 percent, respectively and being prosecuted at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 21 percent and 47 percent static SPR, respectively. 69 The data are not available to estimate MSY or BMSY directly and the recruitment indices from the SEAMAP and fall groundfish surveys are too imprecise and incomplete to use for estimating MSY or BMSY. The Panel determined the best available proxy for MSY is SPR and recommends the Gulf Council establish a MSY SPR proxy of 30 percent for king and Spanish mackerel because the empirical evidence suggests these species are resilient to overfishing. The recommendations of the second FSAP (August 1998) of a MSY proxy at 30 percent static SPR is consistent with the recommendations of Mace et al. (1996) and the MSAP (1997) for MSY and OY for mackerels and cobia. The second FSAP recommended that the MSY proxy for other Gulf finfish species be set at 30 percent static SPR. It should also be noted that the framework procedure for specifying TAC (Section 8.2.6) currently provides for the MSAP to recommend MSY (or proxies therefor) for the stocks as better data become available. Biological Impacts: The use of a SPR proxy for MSY appears to have a beneficial biological impact as it provides a more reliable measure of stock status than the estimate of MSY under status quo for the mackerels and cobia. It also provides a measurable standard for the other coastal migratory pelagic stocks for which there is inadequate information to compute a biomass estimate of MSY. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MSY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MSY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an MSY level, the earlier discussion of MSY alternatives for reef fish is included herein by reference. 70 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: In as much as the Proposed Alternative provides for a more reliable measure of the status of the stocks relative to MSY, it appears to have a beneficial effect, as would Alternatives 1 and 2. Because the coastal pelagic stocks are relatively short-lived with high resiliency, the Proposed Alternative seems more beneficial to the harvesters than the other alternatives, which may either overestimate or underestimate MSY. Fishery Resources: The use of a more measurable standard for MSY through the use of this proxy for FMSY should have a beneficial effect on the coastal migratory pelagic stocks because it provides a better way of monitoring the stocks in order to tailor management measures to the needs of the resource. Other Fishery Resources: The Proposed Alternative is likely to have a beneficial effect on other stocks of fish. 8.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) The current statement of OY for the coastal migratory pelagics is as follows: The SAFMC’s target level or OY for mackerels is 40 percent static SPR. The GMFMC’s target level or OY for mackerels is 30 percent static SPR. ABC is calculated on the target level or OY. OY for cobia is MSY. 8.2.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: OY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Gulf-group king mackerel Gulf-group Spanish mackerel Cobia Cero Dolphin (Gulf of Mexico only) Bluefish (Gulf of Mexico only) Little tunny (Gulf of Mexico only) Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: OY is equivalent to 45 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: 71 Alternative 2: OY is equivalent to 35 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 3: OY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 4: OY is set equivalent to MSY (in pounds) for the following stocks or stock complexes: Alternative 5: Status quo - retain current OY statement. Discussion: OY must be set lower than or equal to MSY if specified as a harvest level or fishing mortality rate. In terms of SPR levels that would equate to a SPR higher than or equal to the SPR for MSY. It is not at all unusual for OY to be set at MSY since that is the largest long-term average yield that can be obtained from the stock. Under a precautionary or risk-averse approach OY would be set lower than MSY (higher SPR). The Proposed Alternative takes a precautionary approach by setting OY at a higher SPR level (40 percent) than MSY. This assures, when all the stocks are restored to MSY, that harvest allowed under ABC and TAC will less than that a MSY. This provides a safe-guard that MSY will not be exceeded as a result of fluctuations in recruitment. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate OY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate OY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: The Proposed Alternative will provide a beneficial impact to the stocks by limiting harvest to a level which should assure that the stock is maintained at a level above or at MSY. Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to OY, the discussions regarding OY alternatives for reef fish are included herein by reference. 72 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: Maintaining an OY equivalent to MSY should benefit the harvesters by allowing the maximum permissible harvest consistent with maintaining the stock at the MSY level. A higher SPR for OY likely would result in the necessity of reducing TAC and particularly the bag limit for Gulf-group king mackerel to less than two fish until OY is achieved. This would adversely impact the charter vessel industry during that period and also the commercial fishery. Fishery Resources: The Proposed Alternative seems to be a reasonable level for OY for the stocks (Mace et al. 1996). (See Section 8.2.1.) Other Fishery Resources: Other fishery stocks are anticipated to benefit by the proposed actions. 8.2.4 Overfishing Criteria The following are the definitions of overfishing and overfished contained in the Mackerel FMP: 1. A mackerel stock or migratory group and cobia are considered to be overfished when the transitional SPR is below 30 percent. 2. When a mackerel stock or migratory group is not overfished (transitional SPR equal to or greater than 30 percent), overfishing is defined as a harvesting rate that exceeds a static SPR of 30 percent. 8.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives (MFMT) Proposed Alternative: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR (F30%SPR) for the following stocks or management groups: Gulf-group king mackerel Gulf-group Spanish mackerel Cobia Cero Dolphin (Gulf of Mexico only) Bluefish (Gulf of Mexico only) Little tunny (Gulf of Mexico only) 73 Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Status Quo - no action, retain the current definitions. Alternative 2: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 25 percent static SPR (F25%SPR) for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 3: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 35 percent static SPR (F35%SPR) for the following stocks or management groups: Alternative 4: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 40 percent static SPR (F40%SPR) for the following stocks or management groups: Discussion: The final guidelines suggest that long-term average fishing mortality rate equivalent to a 30-40 percent level of spawning per recruit may be a reasonable proxy for the MSY fishing mortality rate. The overfishing alternatives represent the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and should be specified at the SPR levels set for MSY in Section 8.1.2.1. The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that the MSY proxy for mackerels and coastal migratory pelagic stocks be a 30 percent static SPR, which is the Proposed Alternative. Under the Status Quo Alternative that was the level set for king and Spanish mackerel only. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MFMT and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MFMT and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: Because the coastal pelagic stocks are relatively short-lived and resilient to overfishing, the 30 percent static SPR proxy for MSY provided by the Proposed Alternative seems appropriate (see discussion under Section 8.2.2.1). Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. 74 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The Proposed Alternative should benefit harvesters by assuring that the stocks are restored to or maintained at a level of biomass equivalent to MSY. Also, since it represents the current goal of management for the most important species (mackerels), there should be minimal changes that would disrupt fishing activities. Fishery Resources: The coastal migratory pelagic stocks should be maintained at or above MSY by the Proposed Alternative. Other Fishery Resources: Some of the other fishery resources will likely benefit from maintaining the coastal pelagic stocks at MSY by reduced fishing pressure on those stocks. 8.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives The guidelines provide that the overfished threshold be a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) which should be expressed in terms of spawning biomass or other measure of productive capacity. The guidelines provide that this threshold should equal whichever of the following is greater: one-half of MSY or the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to the MSY level is expected to occur within 10 years. The first FSAP (July 1998) provided the following discussion and suggestion on computing the MSST: The ideal value of MSST depends on the resiliency of the stock, which in the case of the stocks examined in this report, is not well established. The FSAP believes that the most appropriate strategy to address this issue would be through analyses by the respective stock assessment panels for each FMP. In the interim, the FSAP recommends that MSST be set equal to the stock size associated with the maximum fishing mortality threshold multiplied by the greater of 1 minus the natural mortality rate (M) or 0.5. Such a rule of thumb for MSST is intuitively appealing because one would expect stocks with a higher M to recover faster, on average, than stocks with a lower M. The intent of the first FSAP in using the multiples of 1.0-M was that this should be somewhat related to restoration of the stock, that becomes overfished, within the 10 year period. That is because longer-lived fish tend to have lower rates of M and restoration of such a stock takes longer. It also creates a relatively narrow range 75 between the overfishing threshold and overfished threshold. For example, for king mackerel, with M=0.2 and the overfishing threshold at 35 percent SPR, the overfished threshold would be 28 percent, i.e., 80 percent of the overfishing threshold. The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that proxies for BMSY for coastal migratory pelagic stocks be set at 30 percent transitional SPR. Subsequent to that time, the NMFS SERO hosted a workshop to discuss technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementing National Standard 1 (NOAA 1998). The consensus reached at that meeting was that transitional SPRs were not appropriate as a proxy for BMSY, and that BMSY and especially MSST (overfished threshold) must be expressed in terms of biomass. The conclusion of the Councils and NMFS SEFSC was as follows: Evaluation of stock status for southeastern FMP species have generally relied on per recruit estimates of spawning potential (transitional SPR), thus estimates of biomass at MSY (BMSY or proxies thereof) and of current biomass are generally not available. Where the information for calculating (BMSY) are available in the Stock Assessment Panel reports, as they are for red snapper and mackerel, BMSY can be estimated. For many other stocks, an estimate of BMSY (or proxy thereof) can be obtained as the product of the amount of expected spawning biomass per recruit at the MSY fishing mortality (FMSY) and an estimate of expected recruitment levels at BMSY and estimates of current biomass require further evaluation of the available data. These evaluations will take place within the year. Therefore, the Council has selected as its Proposed Alternative that the overfished threshold (or MSST) will be implemented for each stock by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the MSAP, and Council. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 50 to 70 percent of the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Alternative 2: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 1.0-M times the SPR level for the MSY proxy. 76 Alternative 3: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Discussion: While NMFS has suggested the MSST be stated only in terms of biomass, the fact remains that that type of estimate is not currently available for most, if not all, Gulf stocks. However, SEFSC will attempt to compute BMSY for each stock when completing an assessment for that stock. The use of the transitional SPRs as an interim statement for the MSST would seem beneficial, especially as the status of the stock in relation to this standard can be readily determined. See Section 8.1.4.2 for additional discussion for rejecting the alternatives. 8.2.5 Rebuilding Periods 8.2.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives Currently the only migratory coastal pelagic stock classified as overfished is Gulf group king mackerel. The NMFS prepared an analyses examining SPR levels by relating 3 scenarios for recruitment (low, medium, or high) and 4 scenarios of bycatch reduction (0, 20, 40, and 60 percent) as contrasted against several levels of F for the directed fishery, including F=0 (Appendix B, MSAP 1998). In all of the scenarios for no directed fishery, including low recruitment and status quo for bycatch, a SPR level equal to or exceeding 30 percent transitional SPR was reached within 3 years. This 3-year period would be the lower limit for rebuilding as defined in the guidelines. As specified in the guidelines, a rebuilding period of up to 10 years could be used to restore the stock above the overfishing threshold. Assuming that this rebuilding period is implemented in 1999 through this amendment, the rebuilding period would extend through 2009. The use of the entire 10-year rebuilding period is contingent on addressing the needs of the fishing communities. Proposed Alternative: The rebuilding period for Gulf-group king mackerel to MSY (30 percent static SPR) will be for 10 years, 1999 2009. Discussion: NMFS, in review of this section, requested that quantitative estimates of the time to complete the rebuilding period be provided. The most current assessment (MSAP 1998) indicates only that under the current TAC (10.6 MP) there is a 16 percent probability that F30%SPR would be achieved within one year (See Section 8.2.1). Although there are projections that allow the determination of the time required to achieve a 30 percent SPR with F=0 (no fishing), there are not projections in the MSAP (1998) report or the other assessment documents on the time 77 required to reach 30 percent SPR under the TAC. Therefore, there is no information currently available to make an estimate of the time required to rebuild the stock. In the absence of that estimate, it seems prudent to set the period at 10 years. However, at the next stock assessment (April 1999) the projection will be computed. It should also be noted that other estimates indicate the stock is being rebuilt, i.e., recruitment indices, biomass, and changes in biomass (Figures GK-3, GK-4, and GK-5, respectively). As indicated in Section 8.2.1, the stock in 1996 - 1997 had static SPR of 21 percent; therefore, it is proposed that a 10-year period be utilized to restore the stock to the 30 percent static SPR level. This appears to be necessary to avoid irreparable harm to fishing communities. The recreational community receives 68 percent of the TAC, and the charter vessel sector harvests the majority of those landings. In the Gulf, there are about 2,400 recreational for-hire vessels that are clustered to a great extent in communities where the revenue generated by the vessels makes up a significant portion of the community’s economy. (See Appendix G on Gulf fishing communities.) A reduction of the current bag limit of 2-fish is anticipated to greatly reduce the charter trips targeting king mackerel that are booked by fishermen creating the adverse impact. Currently, the recreational bag limit is two fish per angler, and if a more rapid restoration period is selected, the bag limit would need to be reduced. The charter vessel industry has indicated that if the bag limit is reduced below two fish, a large portion of their customers will cease paying to target king mackerel, which will create serious adverse impacts on the charter sector and the coastal communities where they contribute significantly to the economy (e.g., Florida Keys with 646 recreational for hire vessels). A reduction in TAC to restore the stock more rapidly would also adversely affect commercial fishermen in communities dependent on fishing, such as the Florida Keys; Panama City, Florida; and, Grand Isle, Louisiana. Another factor supporting the need for the 10-year period is that landings have exceeded TAC in each year since restoration was begun in 1984. While the commercial fishery has been closed without that annual allocation being significantly exceeded, it is more difficult to estimate recreational catches. Although recreational catches have exceeded the allocation in recent years, and these constitute over two-thirds of the total catch of king mackerel, the stock has continued to rebuild. Continued rebuilding is expected in the future, albeit at a slower rate under the proposed period; but without the likelihood of adverse effects to the commercial and recreational industries. 78 Rejected Alternative: The rebuilding period for Gulf-group king mackerel will be 5 years, 1999 - 2004. Discussion: Considering the above discussion of restoration scenarios that the stock could be restored in the absence of any directed fishery (TAC=0) in 3 years, it is completely unrealistic to attempt to rebuild the stock in 5 years with the current restricted fishery (TAC=10.6 MP). A more restricted fishery would have significant adverse economic effects on the recreational and commercial fishery sectors and on fishing communities. 8.2.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC Based on the SFA and National Standard Guidelines, the procedure is modified as follows (Deletions are bolded in brackets; new language is underlined and bolded.): Section 6.1.1: Mechanism for Determination of Framework Adjustments, as modified by this and previous amendments is as follows: Section 12.6.1.1 A. An assessment panel (Panel) appointed by the Councils will normally reassess the condition of each stock or migratory group of king and Spanish mackerel and cobia in alternate (even numbered) years and other stocks when data allows for the purpose of providing for any needed preseason adjustment of TAC and other framework measures. However, in the event of changes in the stocks or fisheries, the Councils may request additional assessments as may be needed. The Councils, however, may make annual seasonal adjustments based on the most recent assessment. The Panel shall be composed of NMFS scientists, Council staff, Scientific and Statistical Committee members, and other state, university, and private scientists as deemed appropriate by the Councils. The Panel will address the following items for each stock: 1. Stock identity and distribution. This should include situations where there are groups of fish within a stock which are sufficiently different that they should be managed as separate units. If several possible stock divisions exist, the Panel should describe the likely alternatives. 2. MSY and/or BMSY (or appropriate proxies) for each identified stock. If more than one possible stock division exists, MSY and/or BMSY for each possible combination should be estimated. 79 3. Condition of the stock(s) or groups of fish within each stock which could be managed separately. For each stock, this should include but not be limited to: a. Fishing mortality rate relative to FMSY and F0.1 as well as [F20%SPR], F30%SPR, and F40%SPR. b. Spawning potential ratio (SPR). c. Abundance relative to an adequate spawning biomass. d. Trends in recruitment. e. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) which will result in long-term yield as near MSY as possible. f. Calculation of catch ratios based on catch statistics using procedures defined in the FMP as modified. g. Estimate of current mix of Atlantic and Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the mixing zone for use in tracking quotas. 4. Overfishing: a. A mackerel stock or migratory group is considered to be overfished when [the transitional spawning potential ratio (SPR) is below 30 percent.] the biomass is reduced below the MSST. b. The South Atlantic Council's target level or optimum yield (OY) is 40 percent static SPR. The Gulf Council's target level or optimum yield (OY) is 30 percent static SPR. ABC is calculated based on the target level or optimum yield (SAFMC = 40 percent static SPR and GMFMC = 30 percent static SPR). c. When a stock or migratory group is overfished (biomass is below MSST) [(transitional SPR less than 30 percent)], a rebuilding program that makes consistent progress towards restoring stock condition must be implemented and continued until the stock is restored to MSY [beyond the overfished condition]. The rebuilding program must be designed to achieve recovery within an acceptable time frame consistent with the National Standard Guidelines, and as specified by the Councils. The Councils will continue to rebuild the stock above MSY until the stock is restored to the management 80 target (OY) if different from MSY [within an unspecified time frame]. d. When a stock or migratory group is not overfished [(transitional SPR equal to or greater than 30 percent)], the act of overfishing is defined as a static SPR that exceeds the threshold of 30 percent (i.e., F30 % or MFMT). If fishing mortality rates that exceed the level associated with the static SPR threshold are maintained, the stock may become overfished. Therefore, if overfishing is occurring, a program to reduce fishing mortality rates toward management target levels (OY) will be implemented, even if the stock or migratory group is not in an overfished condition. e. The Councils have requested the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) provide a range of possibilities and options for specifying [an absolute biomass level which could be used to represent a depleted condition or state. In a future amendment, the Councils will describe a process whereby if the biomass is below such a level, the Councils would take appropriate action, including but not limited to, eliminating directed fishing mortality and evaluating measures to eliminate any bycatch mortality in a timely manner through the framework procedure.] BMSY and the MSST. f. For species [like cobia,] when there is insufficient information to determine whether the stock or migratory group is overfished [(transitional SPR)], overfishing is defined as a fishing mortality rate in excess of the fishing mortality rate corresponding to a default threshold static SPR of 30 percent, which is the MFMT. If overfishing is occurring, a program to reduce fishing mortality rates to at least the level corresponding to management target levels will be implemented. 5. Management options. If recreational or commercial fishermen have achieved or are expected to achieve their allocations, the Panel may delineate possible options for non-quota restrictions on harvest, including effective levels for such actions as: 81 a. Bag limits. b. Size limits. c. Gear restrictions. d. Vessel trip limits. e. Closed season or areas, and f. Other options as requested by the Councils. 6. The Panels may also recommend more appropriate levels or statements for the MSY (or proxy), OY, MFMT, and MSST for any stock, including their rationale for the proposed change. 7. Other biological questions as appropriate. B. The Panel will prepare a written report with its recommendations for submission to the Councils each year (even years - full assessment, odd years - mini assessments) by such date as may be specified by the Councils. The report will contain the scientific basis for their recommendations and indicate the degree of reliability which the Council should place on the recommended stock divisions, levels of catch, and options for non-quota controls of the catch. C. The Councils may take action based on the panel report or may take action based on issues/information that surface separate from the assessment group. The steps are as follows: 1. Assessment panel report: The Councils will consider the report and recommendations of the Panel and such public comments as are relevant to the Panel's report. Public hearings will be held at the time and place where the Councils consider the Panel's report. The Councils will consult their Advisory Panels and scientific and Statistical Committees to review the report and provide advice prior to taking final action. After receiving public input, the Councils will make findings on the need for changes. 2. Information separate from assessment panel reports: The Councils will consider information that surfaces separate from the assessment group. Council staff will compile the information and analyze the impacts of likely alternatives to address the particular situation. The Council staff report will be presented to the Council. A public hearing will be held at the time and place where Councils consider the Council staff report. The Councils consult their Advisory Panels and Scientific and Statistical Committees to review the report and provide advice prior to taking final action. After receiving public input, the Councils will make findings on the need for changes. D. If changes are needed in the following, the Councils will advise the Regional Administrator (RA) of the Southeast Region of the National Marine Fisheries 82 Service in writing of their recommendations, accompanied by the assessment panel's report, relevant background material, and public comment: a. MSYs or BMSY (or proxies), b. overfishing levels (MFMT) and overfished levels (MSST), c. TACs and OY statements, d. quotas (including zero quotas), e. trip limits, f. bag limits (including zero bag limits), g. minimum sizes, h. reallocation of Atlantic group Spanish mackerel, i. gear restriction (ranging from modifying current regulations to a complete prohibition), j. permit requirements, or k. season/area closure and reopening (including spawning closure). Recommendations with respect to the Atlantic migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel will be the responsibility of the South Atlantic Council, and those for the Gulf migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel will be the responsibility of the Gulf Council. Except that the SAFMC will have responsibility to set vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, or gear restrictions for the northern area of the Eastern Zone (Dade through Volusia Counties, Florida) for the commercial fishery for Gulf group king mackerel. This report shall be submitted by such data as may be specified by the Councils. For stocks, such as cobia, where scientific information indicates it is a common stock that migrates through the Gulf and South Atlantic jurisdictions, both Councils must concur on the recommendations. For other stocks, such as bluefish, cero, little tunny, and dolphin, there is no scientific information that shows they are common stocks, and each Council will separately make management recommendations for these stocks in their jurisdictions. E. The RA will review the Councils' recommendation, supporting rationale, public comments and other relevant information, and if the RA concurs with the recommendation, the RA will draft regulations in accordance with the recommendation. The RA may also reject the recommendation, providing written reasons for rejection. In the event the RA rejects the recommendation, existing regulations shall remain in effect until resolved. However, if the RA finds that a proposed recreational bag limit for Gulf migratory group or groups of king mackerels is likely to exceed the allocation and rejects the Councils' recommendation, the bag limit reverts to one fish per person per day. 83 F. If the RA concurs that the Councils' recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan, the National Standards, and other applicable law, the RA shall implement the regulations by proposed and final rules in the Federal Register prior to the appropriate fishing year or such dates as may be agreed upon with the Councils. A reasonable period for public comment shall be afforded, consistent with the urgency, if any, of the need to implement the management measure. Appropriate regulatory changes that may be implemented by the RA by proposed and final rules in the Federal Register are: 1. [Adjustment of the point estimates of MSY for cobia, for Spanish mackerel within a range of 15.7 million pounds to 19.7 million pounds, and for king mackerel within a range of 21.9 million pounds to 35.2 million pounds.] Adjustment of the overfishing level (MFMT) for king and Spanish mackerels and other stocks. Specification of BMSY and the MSST for the stocks. Respecification of levels or statements of OY and MSY (proxy). 2. Setting total allowable catches (TACs) for each stock or migratory group of fish which should be managed separately, as identified in the FMP provided: a. No TAC may exceed the best point estimate of MSY by more than 10 percent for more than one year. b. No TAC may exceed the upper range of ABC if it results in overfishing [as defined in Section 12.6.1.1(A)(4)]. c. Downward adjustments of TAC of any amount are allowed in order to protect the stock and prevent overfishing. d. Reductions or increases in allocations as a result of changes in the TAC are to be as equitable as may be practical utilizing similar percentage changes to allocations for participants in a fishery. 3. Adjusting user group allocations in response to changes in TACs according to the formula specified in the FMP. 4. The reallocation of Atlantic Spanish mackerel between recreational and commercial fishermen may be made through the framework after consideration of changes in the social and/or economic characteristics of the fishery. Such allocation adjustments shall not be greater than a ten percent change in one year to either sector’s allocation. Changes may be implemented over several years to reach a desired goal, but must be assessed 84 each year relative to changes in TAC and social and/or economic impacts to either sector of the fishery. 5. Modifying (or implementing for a particular species): a. quotas (including zero quotas) b. trip limits c. bag limits (including zero bag limits) d. minimum sizes e. re-allocation of Atlantic group Spanish mackerel by no more than 10 percent per year to either the commercial or recreational sector. f. gear restriction (ranging from modifying current regulations to a complete prohibition) g. permit requirements, or h. season/area closures and re-openings (including spawning closure) Authority is also granted to the RA to close any fishery, i.e., revert any bag limit to zero, and close and reopen any commercial fishery, once a quota has been established through the procedure described above; and such quota has been filled. When such action is necessary, the RA will recommend that the Secretary publish a notice in the Federal Register as soon as possible. 8.3 RED DRUM The Red Drum FMP was developed by NMFS as a result of Congressional concern over an escalating EEZ fishery targeting the adult stock with purse seines. The FMP was implemented on December 19, 1986 and prohibited a directed commercial fishery in the EEZ, but allowed an incidental catch allowance of 300,000 pounds annually by the commercial sector and an EEZ bag limit of 1 fish by the recreational sector. The Council developed Amendment 1 that was implemented in October 1987. The amendment continued to allow the incidental catch allowance for the commercial sector and a 1-fish bag limit for the recreational sector for the EEZ off Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (Primary area), but prohibited harvest or possession in the EEZ off Texas and Florida (secondary areas). Amendment 2 implemented in 1988 prohibited retention and possession of red drum from the EEZ. This action was based on a Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) stock assessment (Goodyear 1987), that concluded the annual F for 1986 on the juvenile population was on the order of 2.0; consequently, escapement rates to the SSB were likely less than 2.0 percent. This escapement rate would not maintain the SSB at a 20 percent SSBR relative to the unfished stock. In addition, F on the offshore stock was estimated to be about 0.25 (22 percent annually). The 1987 Red Drum Stock Assessment Panel (RDSAP) report recommended that acceptable ABC be set at zero 85 for the EEZ and that the states increase the escapement rate from the estuaries to 20 percent. The SEFSC Stock Assessment report (Goodyear 1989) indicated that the SSBR would likely decline to 13 percent. The 1989 RDSAP recommended ABC for the EEZ be maintained at zero, and that the states increase escapement to 30 percent. The status of the stock has been monitored approximately biennially, and the prohibition on harvest and possession of red drum from the EEZ has continued through the present. The states, independently and cooperatively, have implemented the rules for rebuilding the stock by regulating the inshore fishery to try to achieve an escapement rate to the spawning stocks of 30 percent or greater for each cohort. Table 17 illustrates the current state restrictions as compared to the restrictions in 1986 regulating the fishery. Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus is the only species managed under the FMP. 8.3.1 Current Status of the Stock The RDSAP (1996) reviewed the Goodyear (1996) stock assessment, the results of state stock assessments (Murphy 1996; Shepard 1996), and the data analyses provided by other states. The RDSAP (1996) report included the following assessments and recommendations: Virtual population analysis (VPA) techniques were used to evaluate historic fishing mortality rates. Preliminary results were consistent with previous findings that juveniles experienced high fishing mortality rates prior to the implementation of conservation actions after about 1986. Estimates of escapement rates (the probability of surviving fishing through age 4) declined from an average of about 10 percent in the early 1980s to below 1 percent in 1986 and 1987. If fishing mortality patterns existing in 1994 and 1995 (Figure 18 in Goodyear 1996) persist in the fishery, the Gulf-wide average escapement rate is expected to exceed 50 percent by 1999. If the VPA estimates are assumed to be correct and the pre-1979 fishing mortality rates were equal to those in 1979, then the unweighted transitional spawning potential ratio (SPR) would have been 13 percent in 1979. Under the same assumptions SPR declined to a low of about 6 percent in 1992. If fishing mortality remains constant at the estimated rates in 1995 then SPR will reach about 20 percent in 2001(from Figure 19 in Goodyear 1996). Based on the best available data, the Panel concludes that the spawning stock is currently below 20 percent SPR, but SPR is increasing. The SPR increase is directly related to the conservation measures implemented by the states. The projected estimate of 86 Gulf-wide escapement rate may be more pessimistic than expected based on the 1993 assessment (Goodyear 1993). However, if the fishing mortality rates estimated for 1995 are held constant in the future, then the Council's SPR goal will be met in the year 2001. Given that the conservation measures are producing the desired results and that the current estimate of SPR is below the Council's definition of overfishing at 20 percent SPR, the Panel recommends that the ABC be set at zero. We wish to point out to the states and the Council that the attainment of 20 percent SPR will result in increased inshore and offshore abundances. This is expected. The states and the Council must be prepared to maintain these high levels of abundance and to resist relaxation of regulations until the Council's goal of 20 percent SPR has been met. The assessment determination by the RDSAP (1996) is more pessimistic than that by the RDSAP in 1993. This is largely because data from state surveys compiled by Goodyear (1996) indicated that escapement rates of juveniles to the spawning stock were not as high as previously estimated, i.e., F on the juveniles was higher. The RDSAP (1993) analysis was as follows: Estimates of escapement through age 3 averaged about 10 percent in the early 1980s to about 1 percent in 1986/1987, increasing to above 40 percent in 1991. The transitional SPR was estimated to be about 10 percent in 1992, but it is projected to reach 20 percent by 1997 under existing regulations. The 1992 estimate of static SPR for red drum was about 44 percent. The median fishing mortality rate based on stock-recruitment estimates is higher than either F30% or F20%, suggesting that the stock will increase in size if fishing mortality can be reduced below F20%. The RDSAP (1996) also recommended that the next stock assessment be delayed until NMFS completed a tag/recapture study of the size of the offshore spawning population. That study will be useful in tuning the VPA model and should be available in 1999. 87 8.3.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY for red drum was calculated considering three growth rates, three levels of inshore loss rates (Z), three levels of inshore natural mortality (M), three levels of offshore natural mortality, and three levels of migration rates from inshore to offshore groups (NMFS 1986). From this array of 243 alternatives, the best point estimate of MSY was determined to be 17.4 MP. There was an 80 percent probability that the MSY was greater than 10 MP, and 65 percent probability that MSY was between 10 and 25 MP. The reliability of the MSY figure should be reassessed by the RDSAP. As pointed out by Mace et al. (1996), since the fishing mortality is on the subadults, MSY is lower than otherwise might be the case. 8.3.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: MSY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: MSY is equivalent to 40 percent (or higher) static SPR. Alternative 2: MSY is equivalent to 35 percent (or higher) static SPR. Alternative 3: MSY is equivalent to 25 percent static SPR. Alternative 4: MSY is equivalent to 20 percent static SPR. Alternative 5: Retain the current estimate of MSY (in pounds) for red drum. Alternative 6: Status quo - no action Discussion: Mace et al. (1996) listed red drum with the mackerels and reef fish as stocks that appear to be resilient to overfishing; therefore, a 30 to 40 percent level of SSBR or SPR may be an appropriate proxy for MSY. Red drum are longlived (40+ years) like red snapper. Since the MSY computed by NMFS of 17.4 MP was based on data related to the fishery on subadult fish, it may be a more appropriate estimate of MSY for the fishery than a SPR or SSBR proxy. Figure 8 (from Goodyear 1996) shows that combined recreational and commercial landings for the period of 1979 1995 have been below that MSY estimate, except during the years of the offshore purse seine fishery. A tag and recapture study completed in 1987 estimated the size of the offshore population biomass at 123 MP. However, escapement to spawning biomass was estimated at 1 percent for 1986/87 (Mace et al. 1996). 88 The first FSAP (July 1998) recommended that the MSY proxy for red drum be set at 30 percent SPR level. (See SFA discussion under Sections 8.1.2.1, for reef fish, and 8.2.2.1, for mackerels.) The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that the MSY proxy be 20 percent SPR. Part of the rationale for this recommendation was that existing fishing is concentrated on a few year-classes, while spawning is provided by a large number of year-classes. The level of 20 percent was contingent on a 30 percent escapement level from the juvenile fishery to the spawning stock, with the escapement rate set at a higher value recognizing that some harvest of mature fish occurs in state waters. The most recent estimates by the states (Murphy 1996) (Shepard 1996) indicate escapement levels are much higher than 30 percent. The recommendation was also contingent on continuation of the moratorium on harvest of adult red drum in federal waters, which will occur under the Proposed Alternative. The Council elected to take a more precautionary approach by selecting as their Proposed Alternative a MSY proxy of 30 percent static SPR. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MSY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MSY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: The level selected by the Council should, over time, result in enhancement of the spawning stock and stock abundance. It should also allow the stock to rebuild to its MSY level; however, there are insufficient data to determine a timeframe for rebuilding at this time. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an MSY level, the general discussions undertaken with respect to MSY alternatives for reef fish are included herein by reference. The harvest or possession red drum fishery in the EEZ has been closed to both commercial and recreational fishing since 1988, so that adoption of any of alternatives for MSY would entail no immediate adverse effects on fishing participants. However, the higher the SPR level chosen, as is the case with the Proposed Alternative, the longer the fishery will be closed. Benefits in the remote future would be highly discounted, and it would have to very large in order to economically justify longer fishery closure. 89 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The time required to restore the stock to levels above the overfishing threshold will be extended by the proposed action which will delay the harvest opportunity in federal waters, adversely affecting the commercial sector which is denied a harvest opportunity in most state waters. However, the proposed action will, over the long-term, result in higher abundance available for harvest in the federal waters when MSY is reached. Fishery Resources: The red drum stock will benefit from the proposed action to restore the stock to a higher level of SPR. Other Fishery Resources: Increased abundance of red drum may reduce fishing pressure on some other stocks, while other stocks of prey species may be reduced by increased predation by red drum. 8.3.3 Optimum Yield (OY) The current statement of OY from the FMP is as follows: 1. All red drum recreationally and commercially harvested from state waters landed consistent with state laws and regulations under a goal of allowing 30 percent escapement of the juvenile population. 2. All red drum commercially or recreationally harvested from the Primary Area of the EEZ under the TAC level and allocations specified under the provisions of the FMP, and a zero retention level from the Secondary Areas of the EEZ. (Note: TAC for the EEZ has been set at zero since 1988.) Overfishing is defined as a fishing mortality that prohibits attaining the spawning stock goal or threshold which is currently set at a 20 percent SSBR ratio. 8.3.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: OY is equivalent to 30 percent static SPR. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: OY is equivalent to 45 percent static SPR. Alternative 2: OY is equivalent to 40 percent static SPR. Alternative 3: OY is equivalent to 35 percent static SPR. 90 Alternative 4: OY is equivalent to 20 percent static SPR. Alternative 5: Maintain an escapement rate of subadults to the spawning stock of 30 (or 40) percent. Alternative 6: OY is set equivalent to MSY in pounds. Alternative 7: Status quo - retain the current OY statement. Discussion: OY must be set lower than or equal to MSY if specified as a harvest level or fishing mortality rate. In terms of SPR levels OY would equate to a SPR higher than or equal to the SPR for MSY. It is not at all unusual for OY to be set at MSY since that is the largest long-term average yield that can be obtained from the stock. Under a precautionary or risk-averse approach OY would be set lower (higher SPR) than MSY. Mace et al. (1996) and Goodyear (personal communication on Draft National Standard Guidelines 1997) pointed out that if the fishery continues to target the juveniles or subadults (as it always has historically), then the MSY yield at an equilibrium level will be much less than if the adults were targeted. The MSY control rules (Section 8.3.2) allow a harvest strategy that would be expected to result in a long-term catch approximating MSY. One of the examples of such a rule is to allow a constant escapement each year chosen to maximize the resulting long-term average yield. That management strategy is typically used for salmon management where adequate escapement of spawners is allowed upstream before harvest of the remaining stock is allowed. As long as the spawning stock of red drum is protected by slot limits and an EEZ prohibition on harvest, that strategy may be applicable to red drum. The guidelines provide that OY control rules similar to the MSY control rules may be specified; therefore, an alternative similar to the current OY statement may be appropriate under these circumstances, i.e., allowing 30 percent (or higher) escapement to the spawning stock. If the overfishing threshold for red drum is set higher than 20 percent SSBR (or SPR) then the escapement level likely would need to be set higher than 30 percent. The second FSAP (August 1998) suggested the Council might consider a level higher than 20 percent SPR (their recommendation for the MSY proxy) as a precautionary approach for OY. The Council instead chose to set the MSY proxy higher at 30 percent SPR as a precautionary approach and OY equal to the MSY proxy. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate OY and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate OY and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. 91 Biological Impacts: In as much as the ABC range is based on achieving OY, the proposed action should have a beneficial effect on the stock, provided that catch does not continue at or above the upper estimate of the ABC range. Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an OY level, the general discussions on OY alternatives for reef fish are included herein by reference. One point earlier discussed for reef fish and needs reiterating here is the absence of economic and social factors in the specification of OY. This condition assumes greater importance for the red drum fishery considering that this fishery in the EEZ has been closed for about 10 years now. A higher SPR proxy for OY entails a longer recovery period so that benefits to be derived in the remote future would have to be very large to outweigh the effects of heavy discounting. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The effect would be as indicated under the MSY section. Fishery Resources: The red drum stock will benefit from the proposed action and from having an OY statement that is measurable in terms of stock condition. Other Fishery Resources: The effect would be as indicated under the MSY section. 8.3.4 Overfishing Criteria The following is the definition of overfishing contained in the Red Drum FMP: Overfishing is defined as a fishing mortality rate that prohibits attaining the spawning stock goal or threshold which is currently set at a 20 percent SSBR ratio. 8.3.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 30 percent static SPR (F30%SPR). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Status Quo - no action, retain the current definitions. 92 Alternative 2: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 20 percent static SPR (F20%SPR). Alternative 3: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 25 percent static SPR (F25%SPR). Alternative 4: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 35 percent static SPR (F35%SPR). Alternative 5: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 40 percent static SPR (F40%SPR). Alternative 6: Set the overfishing threshold at a fishing mortality rate on subadults that would reduce the escapement rate to the SSB below 30 (or 40) percent. Discussion: The final guidelines suggest that long-term average fishing mortality rate equivalent to a 30-40 percent level of spawning per recruit may be a reasonable proxy for the MSY fishing mortality rate. The Overfishing Alternatives represent the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and should be specified at the SPR levels set for MSY in Section 8.1.2.1. The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that FMSY (MFMT) be set at a 20 percent static SPR (see discussion under MSY in Section 8.3.2.1). The Council elected to take a more precautionary approach and set FMSY (MFMT) at 30 percent static SPR. The Council feels, based on the information available to it and on the recommendations of the SAPs, that SPR has been set at the appropriate level for each stock. The use of higher SPR levels would overestimate MFMT and result in more restrictive management measures than are necessary. The use of lower SPR levels would underestimate MFMT and not maintain the condition of the stock at the optimum level. Biological Impacts: The proposed action should, over time, result in enhancement of the spawning stock and increased stock abundance. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. Given the fact that the red drum fishery in the EEZ has been closed to fishing, no immediate more restrictive measures would be imposed. Under this condition, attention should be 93 shifted to the length of time the fishery would remain closed. An SPR level that is high, as is the case with the Proposed Alternative, implies that the fishery would most likely remain close for a good period of time. Future benefits have to be substantially large to outweigh the effects of discounting. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The effect would be as indicated under the MSY section. Fishery Resources: The condition of the stock should improve by the proposed action, and be maintained at or above MSY. Other Fishery Resources: The effect would be as indicated under the MSY section. 8.3.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives The guidelines provide that the overfished threshold be a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) which should be expressed in terms of spawning biomass or other measure of productive capacity. The guidelines provide that this threshold should equal whichever of the following is greater: (1) one-half of MSY or (2) the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to the MSY level is expected to occur within 10 years. The first FSAP (July 1998) provided the following discussion and suggestion on computing the MSST: The ideal value of MSST depends on the resiliency of the stock, which in the case of the stocks examined in this report, is not well established. The FSAP believes that the most appropriate strategy to address this issue would be through analyses by the respective stock assessment panels for each FMP. In the interim, the FSAP recommends that MSST be set equal to the stock size associated with the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) multiplied by the greater of 1 minus the natural mortality rate (M) or 0.5. Such a rule of thumb for MSST is intuitively appealing because one would expect stocks with a higher M to recover faster, on average, than stocks with a lower M. The intent of the first FSAP in using the multiples of 1.0-M was that this should be somewhat related to restoration of the stock, that becomes overfished, within the 10 year period. That is because longer-lived fish tend to have lower rates of M and restoration of such a stock takes longer. It also creates a relatively narrow range between the overfishing threshold and overfished threshold. 94 The second FSAP (August 1998) recommended that the proxy for BMSY for red drum pelagic stocks be set at 20 percent transitional SPR. Subsequent to that time, the NMFS SERO hosted a workshop to discuss technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementing national standard 1 (NOAA 1998). The consensus reached at that meeting was that transitional SPRs were not appropriate as a proxy for BMSY, and that BMSY and especially MSST (overfished threshold) must be expressed in terms of biomass. The conclusion of the Councils and NMFS was as follows: Evaluation of stock status for southeastern FMP species have generally relied on per recruit estimates of spawning potential (transitional SPR), thus estimates of biomass at MSY (BMSY or proxies thereof) and of current biomass are generally not available. Where the information for calculating (BMSY) are available in the Stock Assessment Panel reports, as they are for red snapper and mackerel, BMSY can be estimated. For many other stocks, an estimate of BMSY (or proxy thereof) can be obtained as the product of the amount of expected spawning biomass per recruit at the MSY fishing mortality (FMSY) and an estimate of expected recruitment levels at BMSY and estimates of current biomass require further evaluation of the available data. These evaluations will take place within the year. Therefore, the Council’s Proposed Alternative is that the overfished threshold (or MSST) will be implemented for the stock by framework measure as estimates of BMSY and MSST are developed by NMFS, the RDSAP, and Council. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 50 to 70 percent of the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Alternative 2: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to 1.0-M times the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Alternative 3: Set the overfished threshold (MSST) at a transitional SPR level equivalent to the SPR level for the MSY proxy. Discussion: While NMFS has suggested the MSST be stated only in terms of biomass, the fact remains that that type of estimate is not available for most, if not all, Gulf stocks. The use of the transitional SPRs as an interim statement for the MSST would seem beneficial, especially as the status of the stock in relation to this standard can be readily determined. See Section 8.1.4.2 for additional rationale for rejecting the alternatives. 95 8.3.5 Rebuilding Periods 8.3.5.1 Rebuilding Period Alternatives There are insufficient data to determine the rebuilding period for red drum. No estimate of the time to rebuild the stock to the 30 percent SPR level in the absence of a directed fishery is available nor is an estimate of the generation time available. When this information becomes available, the Council will specify the rebuilding period through the framework measure which has been modified for that purpose. 8.3.6 Procedure for Specifying TAC Based on the SFA and National Standard Guidelines, the procedure is modified as follows (Deletions are bolded in brackets; new language is underlined and bolded.): 1. Prior to October 1 every other year, or at such time as agreed upon by the Council and Regional Director, the SEFSC will: a) update the stock assessment for red drum; b) reassess the MSY and/or BMSY levels; c) specify the best estimate of the standing stock and its age composition; d) re-examine the spawning stock requirements and specify escapement levels (ranging from 20 to 50 percent) that are needed to achieve these requirements; e) specify the geographical variations in stock abundance, mortality, juvenile escapement and recruitment, and summarize current and historical information on migratory movements of the stock; and f) analyze social and economic data available for the fishery. 2. The Council will convene a scientific stock assessment group, appointed by the Council, that will review the SEFSC report(s), current harvest statistics, economic, social and other relevant data and who will prepare a written assessment report to the Council specifying a range of acceptable biological catch (ABC) [for the Primary Area]. The report will set forth a risk analysis showing the probabilities of adversely impacting the spawning stock biomass (SSB) through fishing at each level of ABC and the economic and social impacts of those levels. Such a report shall include consideration of the fishing mortality rate(s) for FMSY, F0.1, F20%SPR, and F30%SPR [abundance relative to the spawning stock goal or threshold]; trends in recruitment; and, whether overfishing is occurring for the stock as a whole or upon a portion of the stock for any geographical area. [The specification of ABC shall separately identify that quantity of the offshore population in excess of the spawning stock goal or threshold and in excess of annual surplus production that may be harvested.] The Panel will review the SEFSC recommendations for BMSY and recommend to the Council the derivation of the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) from BMSY. The Panel will also recommend escapement rates for juvenile fish to the spawning stock. The Panel may also specify more appropriate levels or statements for MSY (or proxy), OY, and the MFMT. This report will, when requested by the Council, include information on the levels of bag 96 limits, size limits, specific gear harvest limits, and other restrictions required to [attain the escapement goal or] prevent a user group from exceeding their allocation or quota under a TAC specified by the Council [for the Primary Area], along with the economic and social impacts of such restrictions. 3. The Council will consider the report and recommendations of the assessment group and such public comment as may be relevant. A public hearing will be held at the time and place where the Council takes action on the report. Other public hearings may be held. The Council may convene its Red Drum Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committee to provide advice prior to taking action. 4. In selecting a TAC level, the Council will, in addition to consideration of the recommendations, comments, and advice provided for in (1), (2), and (3) above and the objectives of the FMP, utilize the following criteria: a. Set TAC from within or below the ABC range, and [b. Given a total specified quantity of offshore population (above annual surplus production) which is greater than a SSB necessary to optimize recruitment, the percentage of this quantity which may be included in the TAC shall be set by the Council periodically or annually.] 5. Changes in user group allocations [for the Primary Area], if any, will be by subsequent plan amendment, except that estimates of BMSY and MSST may be implemented by framework measure. 8.4 SHRIMP Shrimp managed under the FMP consist of the following species: Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus White shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum Royal Red shrimp Hymenopenaeus robustus The 3 species of penaeid shrimp provide more than 99 percent of landings which are estimated to exceed 200 MP (tails) in years with favorable environmental conditions in the estuarine nursery grounds (Section 8.4.1.2). Maximum annual production of royal red shrimp has been on the order of 0.35 MP (tails). Royal red shrimp are a deep-water shrimp occurring primarily in depths of 140 to 300 fathoms. Brown shrimp provide the largest portion of annual landings, and in the northern Gulf, are commonly distributed from the Mexican border through Apalachicola Bay, Florida (GMFMC 1981). Brown shrimp are caught out to at least 50 fathoms, though most come from less than 30 fathoms. White shrimp are distributed from the Mexican border through Apalachee Bay 97 (Figure 11, GMFMC 1998). Typically, white shrimp are caught inshore of 15 fathoms. Pink shrimp are distributed across the northern Gulf (Figure 13, GMFMC 1998); but they are most common off southwest Florida, where they make-up most of the shrimp landings. 8.4.1 Penaeid Stocks This section addresses the respecification of MSY, OY, and overfishing criteria for brown, white, and pink shrimp. A subsequent section addresses these parameters for royal red shrimp. 8.4.1.1 Current Status of the Stocks Since 1991, NMFS has monitored the status of the shrimp stocks using the methodology of Nance et al. (1989), and Klima et al. (1990), as modified by the Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel (SSAP 1993) for white shrimp. Based on these monitoring reports, the Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel (CSAP 1998) reached the following conclusion: Parent stocks for all 3 species have remained well above the MSY parent stock minimum for about 30 years. Even during the recent reduction of pink shrimp recruitment in south Florida, the stock maintained adequate spawning potential. Overfishing does not appear imminent for any of the three species of Penaeus. 8.4.1.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) MSY values were computed in the Shrimp FMP (GMFMC 1981) and presented with the following explanation: The biological characteristics that affect sustainable yields for penaeid shrimp are unusual. They are an annual crop. Very few individuals live a year and the majority are harvested at less than six months of age. There is no demonstrable stock recruitment relationship and recruitment overfishing, given present technology, is essentially impossible. That is, it is not economially or technically feasible to take so many shrimp that there are too few survivors to provide an adequate supply for the following year. Because of these characteristics, fishing mortality and yield in one year do not affect yield in the following year. The maximum yield in number for a given year is essentially all the shrimp available to harvest, using current technology. Growth overfishing is caused by taking the available recruits at too small a size. If growth overfishing is occurring, allowing additional time for growth will result in a greater total yield in weight, although the total number of individuals will be less. The rapid growth rate of penaeid shrimp makes them resistant to growth overfishing until 98 high levels of effort are reached. Effort in the fishery has been increasing rapidly (i.e., 1960 through 1978), and it is probable that the total yield of penaeid shrimp could be increased if the average size taken was larger. However, the poor quality and small amount of available data make it difficult to precisely estimate the magnitude of any increase or its effect on price. The abundance (number of recruits) and resulting yield and CPUE, vary greatly from year to year depending on the temperature and salinity in the estuarine nursery areas. This is evident when regression coefficients for the different models are compared. For example, linear regressions of catch on effort showed that effort alone explained only 38 percent of the variation in catch of Louisiana white shrimp and 57 percent of the variation in Gulf brown shrimp catch. Multiple regressions including environmental parameters explained 89 percent and 88 percent respectively. For brown shrimp, the environmental model predicts that at a fishing effort of 100,000 units (essentially the record until 1976), annual catch would vary from 57 to 88 million pounds provided that temperature and salinity ranged within 1963-1975 levels. If environmental conditions were more favorable, a greater yield would be expected. Given environmental conditions slightly better than previously observed and high levels of effort, the maximum probable catch of brown shrimp is estimated at 116.4 million pounds tails, 37.6 percent greater than the point estimate of MSY from a Schaefer surplus production model. Surplus production models utilize trends in catch and fishing effort over a series of years. They were designed for, and are usually applied to, species with multiple year classes, (i.e., individual animals live longer than one year). They do not consider fluctuations in recruitment controlled by the environment, but assume that environmental effects are constant. The predictive ability of these models, particularly in the range of fishing effort that might produce overfishing, is at its best for long-lived species and/or those that are not subject to large, environmentally produced fluctuations in recruitment. Because penaeid shrimp meet neither of these criteria, application of surplus production models must be made with caution and with an understanding of what is being predicted by the model. Estimates of MSY produced should be considered as long-term averages that are greatly affected by environmental conditions. They should not be considered a maximum allowable catch for a given year. The Schaefer version of the surplus production model was chosen to estimate MSY in all three species because: (1) sufficient data were available; (2) it fit the data as well as other models which gave similar estimates of MSY; and (3) was mathematically easier to use. The estimate was calculated using only reported catch and effort from the commercial fishery. Estimates of the recreational catch, bait catch, and discarded undersized shrimp are added, for a total MSY of 165 million pounds of tails annually for the three species. 1 All weights are in millions of pounds, tail weight 99 Schaefer Commercial1 Recreational Bait Discard Total Brown shrimp 85 8 2 5 100 White shrimp 38 8 1 3 50 Pink shrimp 14 1 - 15 Total 137 16 4 8 165 For the three penaeid species, surplus production models indicate only a long term average yield, and not an allowable maximum. The catch in any given year can only be estimated using environmental factors and expected effort for that particular year. A reasonable estimate of the maximum probable catch of white and pink shrimp can be estimated by applying the percentage by which the maximum probable catch of brown shrimp exceeds the Schaefer MSY estimate to all species (i.e, by 37.6 percent). Estimates of bait catch, recreational catch, and discards are then added to give a total maximum probable catch of 216 million pounds of tails. Maximum Commercial Schaefer Yield Considering Commercial Environmental Recrea Estimate Factors (137.6%) tional Bait Discard Total Brown shrimp 85 117 8 2 5 132 White shrimp 38 52 8 1 3 64 Pink shrimp 14 19 - 1 - 20 Total 137 188 16 4 8 216 The CSAP (1998) reviewed the MSY section of the FMP and offered the following comments and recommendations: The definition of MSY with respect to the status of the existing fishery was a contentious issue during the original development of the shrimp FMP because the annual harvest levels upon which any point estimate of MSY was based varied by up to 30 percent, due to environmental factors affecting survival in the nursery grounds. The authors of the plan wanted to stress the dependence of harvest on the environment, but objections were raised because the plan would allow yields above any stated MSY. The plan authors, therefore, presented point estimates of MSY, the maximum probable catch under optimum environmental conditions, and an estimate of maximum effort for a sustainable fishery. With the increased experience with FMPs, it should now be recognized that shrimp harvests can exceed a long-term 100 average MSY for perhaps several years without damage to stock productivity, and conversely, that harvests below MSY might be excessive during periods of low recruitment. The CSAP believes that maintaining sufficient spawning stock is much more appropriate for shrimp management than comparing catches to MSY values. 8.4.1.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: The CSAP recommends that the proxy for the MSY spawning stock size be defined as the parent stock numbers (as indexed from current VPA procedures) for the three penaeid species of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico at or above the following levels: Brown Shrimp - 125 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 330 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 100 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Specify MSY in terms of SPR or SSBR. Alternative 2: Status Quo - Specify MSY in terms of numerical values computed in the original FMP using the Schaefer surplus population model set forth in Section 8.4.1.2 above. Discussion: The CSAP (1998) recommended the Proposed Alternative as the appropriate proxy for MSY use as a status determination criteria for determining when overfishing is occurring, i.e., as the MSY control rule harvest strategy which would be expected to result in a long-term average catch approximating MSY. Allowing a constant escapement each year chosen to maximize the long-term average yield is an acceptable control rule under the guidelines. The CSAP and the drafters of the FMP cautioned against the use of the point estimates of MSY from the Schaefer surplus production models as a method of monitoring the status of the stock, i.e., the Status Quo Alternative. Discussion of these concerns is set forth in Section 8.4.1.2 above. The CSAP did not feel that SPR or SSBR levels were appropriate for shrimp since they are an annual crop, and no stock recruitment relationship based on immigration of shrimp larvae into estuaries 101 has ever been demonstrated (GMFMC 1981). Annual production is largely dependent on survival of the post-larvae in the estuaries. Biological Impacts: Because the overfishing threshold (Section 8.4.1.4) is based on a maximum fishing mortality rate associated maximizing the long-term average yield at or near MSY, the Proposed Alternative appears to be the best alternative for a proxy for MSY. This is supported because analyses for the penaeid shrimp stocks over the past 30 years have indicated that stocks maintained at a parent stock level above the minimums specified in the Proposed Alternative have always been able to produce MSY. NMFS assesses the condition of the penaeid shrimp stocks annually based on the proposed standards. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. At this time, it is only instructive to note that the higher the shrimp parent stock level specified to correspond to MSY, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further below the current status of any stock is to the specified MSY level. To date none of the shrimp species under consideration has fallen below the MSY levels specified under the Proposed Alternative, so that adoption of this alternative would not require a change in regulatory measures affecting the shrimp fishery, thus precluding any adverse impacts on fishing participants, at least over the short run. Whereas for finfish, an argument could be made to specify MSY in yield terms, the case for the three shrimp species under consideration using parent stock size appears to be sufficient. The main reason for this is that these species are basically annual crops and that there is good reason to fish as much of the standing stock as possible provided an escapement level specified as MSY is maintained. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed action would not alter the effects on the human resources in that it retains the harvest strategy used for the past 10 years to assure that the stocks are not overfished. Fishery Resources: The proposed action essentially maintains the status quo and does not alter the effects on penaeid shrimp resources. Other Fishery Resources: Other fishery resources that prey upon shrimp are benefitted by retaining the harvest strategy that assures the stocks are not overfished. 8.4.1.3 Optimum Yield (OY) 102 The current statement of OY for penaeid shrimp is as follows: OY is determined to be: All the shrimp that can be taken during open seasons in permissible areas in a given fishing year with existing gear and technology without resulting in recruitment overfishing. The Council has determined that, because of the annual nature of the resources, a numerical value for OY cannot be calculated for any given year until the environmental factors can be determined and evaluated. However, under optimum environmental conditions and maximum effort the maximum probable catch for brown, white, and pink shrimp is estimated to be 216 million pounds of tails. 8.4.1.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Set OY equal to MSY (or proxy for MSY). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set OY at some level lower than MSY (or proxy for MSY). Alternative 2: Status Quo - Retain the current statement of OY. Discussion: The CSAP (1998) offered no comment on the economic or social factors that could be considered in specifying OY. They provided the following recommendations: There are no known biological considerations that would require the setting of OYs at levels below those attaining the MSY proxies. Under current management practices, OY is actually a consequence, not a target, of the varied strategies to obtain shrimp at different desired sizes in different regions of the Gulf. Using spawning population to define overfishing has the advantage of separating the essentially economic decisions about utilization of a given recruitment from more serious biological concerns about compromising possible future recruitments. The CSAP position supports adoption of the Proposed Alternative. Under the guidelines, Alternative 2 would be inappropriate since OY is not translatable into a numerical estimate. The Proposed Alternative would make OY control rule essentially the same as the MSY control rule. Biological Impacts: As indicated in the CSAP (1998) position stated above, there is no beneficial biological reason to set OY at a level different from MSY; consequently, there should be no negative biological impact from the Proposed Alternative. 103 Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. At this time, it is only instructive to mention two points. First, while the specification of MSY in terms of parent stocks (under the Proposed Alternative for MSY) was considered appropriate, there appears to be no reason why OY cannot be specified in yield terms. The status quo alternative, provided recruitment overfishing is considered to occur at or below the MSY level as defined under the Proposed Alternative for MSY, appears to be closer to a more appropriate alternative for OY. As noted earlier in connection with the definition of MSY, the three species of shrimp under consideration are annual crops. As such, there exists good reason to fish as much of the standing stock as possible provided an escapement level specified as MSY is maintained. A more appropriate statement of OY would thus be any harvest level, constrained by the requirement to maintain parent stock levels specified as MSY, that maximizes net economic (and social) benefits. Second, given the fact that all three shrimp species has not experienced any condition wherein the parent stocks fell below the specified OY (equated to MSY under the Proposed Alternative), these species must now be harvested at their OY levels. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The users of the penaeid shrimp resources are benefitted by selection of an OY equal to MSY (see below). Fishery Resources: The proposed actions essentially retain the status quo harvest strategy; therefore, the penaeid stocks are not effected. There is no biological benefit for selection of an OY less than MSY. Other Fishery Resources: Other fishery resources are not effected by the proposed action. 8.4.1.4 Overfishing Criteria The following are the definitions of overfishing contained in the Shrimp FMP, as amended: A parent stock level of 125 million shrimp is proposed to be the lower limit used to define recruitment overfishing for brown shrimp. Parent stock for brown shrimp is defined as the number of age 7+ (months) shrimp during the period of November through February (GMFMC 1991). 104 White shrimp recruitment overfishing is indicated when the parent stock is reduced below 330 million shrimp. Parent stock for white shrimp is defined as the number of age 7+ (months) shrimp during the period of May through August (GMFMC 1994). A parent stock level of 100 million shrimp is proposed to be the lower limit used to define recruitment overfishing for pink shrimp. Parent stock for pink shrimp is defined as the number of age 5+ (months) shrimp during the period of July through June (GMFMC 1991). Implement a recovery program if the parent stock for the species remains below the index for a second consecutive year. 8.4.1.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: The overfishing threshold is defined as a rate of fishing that results in the parent stock number for any of the penaeid species being reduced below the MSY minimum levels listed below: Brown Shrimp - 125 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 330 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 100 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. Response to Possible Overfishing: If overfishing persists for 2 consecutive years, the CSAP recommended that the appropriate committees and/or panels (e.g. stock assessment panels, Advisory Panels, or Scientific and Statistical Committee) be convened to review changes in the parent stock size, changes in fishing effort, potential alterations in habitat or other environmental conditions, fishing mortality, and other factors that may have contributed to the decline. If excessive fishing is determined to be the source of, or a contributor to the reduced parent stock sizes, reduction in fishing pressure should be recommended. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set the overfishing threshold at another level of parent stock number. 105 Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain same definitions. Discussion: The CSAP (1998) agreed with the findings of Nance et al. (1989), Klima et al. 1990, and the Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel (1993) that the best way to define overfishing for the three species of Penaeus is in terms of spawning population size. Empirical comparisons of 30 years of landings data with the indices of spawning population size determined by VPA stock assessment were used by Nance et al. (1989), Klima et al. (1990), and the Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel (1993) to define minimum levels of spawning stock believed to be compatible with maximum productivity under current conditions. The CSAP recommended these values as the most meaningful proxy for MSY. Maintaining parent stock numbers above these levels should be sufficient to prevent overfishing. The CSAP proposed retention of the scientific review scenarios proposed by Nance et al. (1989), Klima et al. (1990), and the Shrimp Stock Assessment Panel (1993) as the proper response to reduction of parent stocks below the MSY proxies. The Status Quo Alternative is essentially the same as the Proposed Alternative. No scientific information is available to suggest another level of parent stock number as suggested as in Rejected Alternative 1. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the parent stock level specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further below the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. Given the fact that the parent stocks of the three shrimp species have never fallen below the threshold level, the adoption of the preferred overfishing threshold may be expected to have no adverse impacts on fishing participants. 106 8.4.1.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: An overfished condition would result when a parent stock number falls below one-half of overfishing definition, i.e.: Brown Shrimp - 63 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 165 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 50 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set the minimum parent stock size (in number of parents) at 75 (or other) percent of the MSY proxy, rather than at 50 percent as in Alternative 1. Alternative 2: An overfished condition would result if the parent stock level falls below 75 percent of their MSY values or falls below their MSY levels for 2 consecutive years. Discussion: The Proposed Alternative defines overfished at a level of one-half (50 percent) of the MSY, and thus represents a MSST as proposed in the guidelines. The CSAP (1998) expressed some concern with setting values at 50 percent of the MSY target spawning population size; however, the CSAP noted that white shrimp populations in the early 1960s recovered rapidly from below one-half the MSY minimum (within 4 years, Klima et. al. 1990). Because this recovery occurred in much less than the 10-year period specified in the guidelines, the Council felt that for shrimp it was not necessary to specify an overfished threshold above the one-half MSY level as a precautionary approach. Biological Impacts: As indicated in the discussion of the MSY alternatives (Section 8.4.1.2.1) the Proposed Alternative for the overfishing threshold will have a beneficial biological impact by setting as the MSY and OY control rules, a constant escapement level of parent stock chosen to maximize the long-term average yield. The proposed response of the Proposed Alternative to overfishing seems very appropriate in that NMFS monitors the status of each stock annually, and the guidelines provide that NMFS would notify the Council to take remedial action if overfishing has occurred for two years or the stock will reach an overfished condition in that period. Most likely the Proposed Alternative for the overfished threshold will have no biological effect because it is unlikely that the escaping parent 107 stock numbers will drop to those levels, since that has not happened in the past 30 years. However, as intended, the overfished threshold serves as a safeguard assuring remedial action is taken should the stock biomass drop to that level. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfished threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the level specified to correspond to an overfished threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. The current status of the three shrimp stocks is such that none is currently overfished so that any restrictive measures based on overfished threshold levels are unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed action would not alter the effects on the human resources in that it retains the harvest strategy used for the past 10 years to assure that the stocks are not overfished. Fishery Resources: The proposed action essentially maintains the status quo and does not alter the effects on penaeid shrimp resources. Other Fishery Resources: Other fishery resources that prey upon shrimp are benefitted by retaining the harvest strategy that assures the stocks are not overfished. 8.4.1.5 Rebuilding Periods None of the shrimp stocks are overfished; therefore, no rebuilding periods are proposed. 8.4.2 Royal Red Shrimp Stock In January 1996, NMFS implemented Shrimp Amendment 8 (GMFMC 1995) that modified the statement of OY and overfishing threshold as follows: Proposed Alternative: The Council, through a framework adaptive management procedure, may recommend that the Regional Director set a TAC (OY) for royal red shrimp no higher than MSY plus up to 30 percent for up to two consecutive years to test the resilience of the stock to fishing. NMFS will monitor catch, effort, area by capture, and other data relating to the fishery on an annual 108 basis for presentation to the Council. These data will be reviewed at least biennially by the Council's stock assessment panel (SAP) which will prepare a report with recommendations for ABC and MSY. Fishing for the season will close when TAC (OY) is reached. Overfishing is defined as fishing in excess of OY. Following recommendation of the SEP, SSC, and public comment, the Council may recommend OY, TAC, and MSY to the Regional Director who may implement the changes by regulatory amendment which will contain a regulatory impact review and an environmental assessment. The SFA modified the definition of OY to provide that it be based on MSY as reduced by relevant economic, social, and ecological factors. The NMFS, in reviewing the compliance of FMPs with the SFA, notified the Council that this measure violated the SFA because it provided for OY to exceed MSY (Georgia Cranmore, NMFS, personal communication, January 1997). This section, therefore, rescinds the above measure and readdresses statements of MSY, OY, and overfishing. 8.4.2.1 Current Status of the Stocks There are no data to assess the status of the stock. Landings information by statistical grid (or area) (Table 18) indicate that the stock exists in the deep waters (140 to 300 fathoms) across the northern Gulf (~ 1,600 miles). The fishery has been sporadic in terms of landing levels and areas fished. Fishing for royal red shrimp primarily occurs when fishing success for penaeid shrimp is relatively poor. Recognizing these constraints and the inadequacy of the current point estimate of MSY, the CSAP (1998) offered the following comment: No annual harvests have exceeded the lower limit of MSY (at 392,000 pounds). The stock is not believed to be overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The current fishery may be exploiting only a small part of the stock’s spatial distribution. 109 8.4.2.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The CSAP (1998) had the following comments and recommendations: The fishery for royal red shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico could be characterized as experimental. Fishing effort has varied greatly from year-to-year, and because of the lack of meaningful estimates of effort, the current estimate of MSY (392,000 pounds) has not been considered to be a truly realistic one. To obtain additional data upon which to calculate a more precise estimate of MSY, the Council has, in the past, proposed allowing the MSY level to be exceeded by up to 30 percent for up to two consecutive years to test the resilience of the stock to increased fishing effort (Amendment 8). Because of the current legal definitions of MSY, OY, and overfishing, a harvest level above MSY is not allowed. Additionally, although the harvest of royal red shrimp approached the MSY level in 1993 and 1994, catches have since declined, presumably with a decline in effort. Condrey (1995) re-examined the modeling decisions with regard to calculating the current MSY. He concluded that had he used a generalized surplus production model (GSPM) with a natural mortality value (M) of 0.5, which he felt was more appropriate, the estimated value of MSY for royal red shrimp would be about 650,000 pounds. He concluded, however, that based on the current data and statistical reasons there was no defensible basis to select one model over the other. MSY for royal red shrimp is best considered undetermined. The current MSY point estimate is 392,000 pounds. However, recent analyses have shown that an MSY estimate of 650,000 pounds is as scientifically defensible as 392,000 pounds (Condrey 1995). The CSAP therefore recommends that MSY be reported as a range from 392,000 to 650,000 pounds. The CSAP notes that, as discussed in Amendment 8 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, a more adequate accounting of the biology and distribution of this species is needed before improvement in the quality of MSY estimates can be expected. Simply allowing catches to rise to the upper end of the MSY range may not provide sufficient information to specify MSY more accurately. 110 8.4.2.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Set MSY as a range of 392,000 to 650,000 pounds. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set MSY at 650,000 pounds. Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain a MSY of 392,000 pounds. Alternative 3: Remove royal red shrimp from management under the FMP. Discussion: The Council proposed exceeding the point estimate of MSY for up to 2 consecutive years as a management measure in Shrimp Amendment 8 because it recognized from the spatial distribution of the stock that MSY was probably grossly underestimated. The MSY level was serving as the overfishing threshold; and landings at that time were approaching the level at which time annual harvest would cease. Since it was a developing fishery, the annual closure seemed unfair to the industry. The management measure included in Amendment 8 (GMFMC 1995) was intended to allow additional harvest to collect data so that a more reliable MSY could periodically be calculated. Since the time of the proposal in Amendment 8, landings have dropped without additional regulations. Presumably, this drop in landings was the result of economic factors related to the high cost of fishing operations. The Proposed Alternative or Rejected Alternative 1 would allow additional harvest so MSY could be revised over time based on new landings and effort values. Rejected Alternative 3 would remove the royal red shrimp from such management constraints and allow the fishery to fully develop unrestricted over the range of the stock providing better information on sustainable yield. Royal red shrimp contribute only about 0.2 percent of annual Gulf shrimp landings. Considering the much higher cost of fishing at depths exceeding 100 fathoms and the fact that penaeid shrimp are usually more valuable in terms of ex-vessel price than royal red shrimp, it is unlikely that the stock would ever be overfished. Landings data for royal red shrimp would continue to be collected if they are removed from the FMP, so that NMFS and the Council could assess changes in the fishery and take action if necessary. Biological Impacts: None of the alternatives is likely to have any positive or negative biological impact because the actual MSY for the stock is probably much greater and the difficulty and cost of fishing between 140 and 300 fathoms are sufficiently prohibitive that effort will increase slowly, if at all. Economic Impacts: In general, the specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. In the particular case of royal red shrimp, however, 111 some immediate effects may be forthcoming. The management experience in the royal red shrimp fishery has been to set TAC equal to MSY, or as per current rule, equal to MSY plus up to 30 percent for up to two consecutive years. The entire TAC is now allocated to the domestic fishery, which is practically a commercial fishery. Once this TAC is reached, the fishery closes. If the same management rule is maintained in the fishery, the setting of MSY in terms of yield could have direct impacts on fishing participants. While historically the fishery has never reached the TAC of 392,000 pounds, harvests in the early 1990s reached peak levels and were very close to the TAC. Before 1993, the highest landings occurred in 1969 when there were about 15 vessels in the fishery. Landings were also relatively high in 1973 and 1974 when there were more than 15 vessels. The early 1990s appear to be different. About 10 vessels operated in the fishery, but landings reached levels higher than in the 1960s and 1970s. In the last three years, landings again dropped although not as significantly as in the 1980s. While there are other factors that may affect the level of landings, the experience in the 1990s indicates that a slight increase in either the number of vessels or effort expended by existing vessels may lead to substantial increases in landings. The decision to enter or re-enter the royal red shrimp fishery depends on a host of factors. But the bottom line for that decision is whether the fishery offers better profit prospects than other fishing undertakings. The fishery is a deepwater fishery, and so requires larger costs than shallow water shrimp fisheries. Fishing for royal red requires larger vessels, longer distances to travel, heavier gear, and specific fishing skills. Royal red shrimp also need better handling, cooking, and overall processing procedures than penaeid shrimp. In addition to being a relatively more costly operation, royal red shrimp fishing has not been attractive on the revenue side. This species of shrimp commands lower prices than penaeid shrimp at corresponding market levels. Given such cost and revenue conditions, profitability of the fishery appears to be low. But there are compensating factors. The relatively high direct cost of operation may be mitigated by relatively low indirect costs, such as the presence of fewer rivals, absence of managed closed and open seasons, and exemption from TEDs and BRDs requirements. In addition, prices of royal red shrimp in recent years appear to be relatively higher than those in the past. It is also possible that over the last 30 years or so, some techniques in handling and cooking preparation have been developed by some buyers (restaurants and retail outlets) that they could increase their demand for royal red without sacrificing profitability. Given the foregoing, an increase in the number of participants in the fishery is not a remote possibility. Jones et al. (1994) noted that fluctuations in landings for royal red shrimp are more likely due to market than resource availability. Given such claim, it is possible that the high landings in the more recent years reflect a relatively strong market for the 112 species. If this relatively strong demand persists, the ten or so vessels now involved in the fishery may increase their effort to take advantage of the market demand. Given then the possibility of an increase in the number of participants in the royal red shrimp fishery and of an increase in effort of current participants, there is a good chance that landings may be expected to increase in the near future. Such likelihood increases if there is also an increase in abundance of shrimp in known fishing areas or if new fishing areas are developed. Under this condition, closure of the fishery may eventually be required if an MSY specified under Rejected Alternative 2 is adopted. The Proposed Alternative, on the other hand, would provide enough cushion against potential fishery closure. Closure of the fishery has both short- and long-term implications. There is no doubt that the direction of short-term effects is negative for the harvesters and for dealers and retailers, since business plans would have to be dropped or revised at some additional costs. The market for this species is not well defined yet, unlike that for the shallow-water shrimp species. If, as mentioned earlier, the record landings in the most recent years indicate a market that is still developing, any closure would stunt further development of such market. Harvesters and dealers would be forgoing profits that could increase with the expansion of the market. The long-term benefits that can accrue from closure of the royal red shrimp fishery crucially hinge on the MSY estimate. Assuming that the estimate of MSY is accurate, restricting harvest to MSY and closing the fishery when harvest exceeds MSY would be beneficial to the fishery since the stock will be prevented from deteriorating. If overfishing continues a stock may eventually reach a level when fishing operation becomes unprofitable. Under this situation, of course, fishing would be reduced to negligible level. The stock may not recover; or if it does, it may take a long while. In the meantime, producer and consumer surpluses that could have been generated out of the fishery would be forgone. Thus restricting fishing before the stock becomes severely overfished would enable the fishery to generate long-term benefits. If in addition to having a relatively accurate estimate of MSY, the management system adopted for the fishery is conducive to the development of an efficient fishery, the most likely harvest level would be even below MSY. In this case, closure of the fishery would be a remote possibility. Hence, if the MSY estimate is such that closure prevents overfishing of the resource, future economic benefits can be expected. Otherwise, short-term economic losses would only be compounded by long-term economic losses. 113 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed action has the potential to be beneficial to the harvesters by increasing the value of MSY. That benefit would occur only if their landings exceeded 392,000 pounds, which historically it has not. Previously under status quo the fishery would have been closed when 392,000 pounds were landed. Fishery Resources: There is no effect on the royal red shrimp resource by the alternatives as the actual MSY value for this stock is probably many times higher than stated in the alternatives. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect on other fishery resources by the alternatives. 8.4.2.3 Optimum Yield (OY) Prior to the implementation of Amendment 8, OY was set equivalent to MSY and also served as the overfishing threshold (Shrimp Amendment 5, GMFMC 1991). 8.4.2.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Set OY at a biomass level equal to MSY. Rejected Alternative: Set OY at a biomass level less than MSY. Discussion: The Council felt that it was unnecessary to take a precautionary approach to management of this stock, considering the broad spatial distribution of the stock and the limited and sporadic distribution of the fishing effort. Biological Impacts: Neither of the alternatives is likely to have a positive or negative biological impact. Economic Impacts: The economic implications of these OY alternatives are similar to those of the MSY alternatives. The discussion therein is included here by reference. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: By setting OY equal to MSY the effects discussed under MSY would occur. Fishery Resources: There is no effect on the royal red shrimp resource by the alternatives. 114 Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect on other fishery resources by the alternatives. 8.4.2.4 Overfishing Criteria Historically, the overfishing threshold has been set at OY (GMFMC 1991). 8.4.2.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: The overfishing threshold is defined as a rate of fishing that results in landings exceeding OY. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: The overfishing threshold is defined as a rate of fishing that results in landings exceeding MSY (if different from OY). Alternative 2: The overfishing threshold would be a rate of fishing that results in landings exceeding OY for two consecutive years. Discussion: Under Amendment 8 (GMFMC 1995), overfishing occurred when OY had been exceeded for two consecutive years. This definition was not permissible under the SFA because OY exceeded MSY by 10 percent. If the OY target is set at a value less than MSY, either Alternative 1 or 2 could be used. The CSAP (1998) recommended the Proposed Alternative, recognizing that OY may be set at some value within the range of MSY, i.e., 392,000 to 650,000 pounds. Biological Impacts: As indicated in the MSY discussion (Section 8.4.2.2.1), there should be no biological impacts from any of the alternatives presented. Economic Impacts: The economic implications of the alternatives for overfishing threshold are similar to those of the MSY alternatives. The discussion therein is included here by reference. 8.4.2.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives No alternatives for an overfished threshold are specified. Discussion: The CSAP (1998) indicated that there was insufficient data to specify an overfished threshold. A minimum stock size threshold seems inappropriate since there is no reliable information on the stock size. Biological Impacts: There should be no additional biological effects (positive or negative) as a result of not specifying an overfished threshold. 2The FMP also prohibits landing or possession of female slipper lobster, Scyllarides nodifer, with eggs attached. There are no data to determine any of the parameters, MSY, OY, overfishing, and overfished criteria, for this stock. 115 Economic Impacts: There is expected to be no impacts on fishing participants. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: By setting the overfishing threshold to be OY=MSY, the effects discussed under MSY would occur. Not specifying an overfished threshold should have no effect on users or other human resources. Fishery Resources: There is no effect on the royal red shrimp resources by the alternatives because the actual MSY for the resource is probably much higher than the value cited under the MSY section. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect on other fishery resources by the alternatives. 8.4.2.5 Rebuilding Period Since the stock is not overfished, no rebuilding period is proposed. 8.5 SPINY LOBSTER2 The FMP for spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, was implemented in 1982 as a joint plan regulating that stock in the jurisdiction of the GMFMC and the SAFMC. The domestic commercial fishery is principally located in the waters surrounding Monroe County, Florida, associated with the Florida Keys reef tract. Historically, in the 1960s and 1970s, large poundages of spiny lobster were landed at Florida east coast ports from the Bahamian waters. The Bahamian government prohibited U.S. vessels from participating in that fishery, beginning in the mid-1970s. Less than 10 percent of commercial harvest is taken off the east coast of Florida. Annual landings for Florida, exclusive of the Bahamian catch, have fluctuated between 4.3 and 7.9 MP. Similarly, recreational landings are predominantly from the Florida Keys area. The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) has monitored this fishery since 1991. Since 1991, the number of licenses for this fishery has remained fairly stable at about 110,000; and landings have been stable at about 1.7 million lobsters (FMRI 1997). Spiny lobster are also found across the northern Gulf and waters off the eastern seaboard through the Carolina’s, but in these areas their reduced abundance typically does not support directed fisheries. The source of primary recruitment has not been 116 determined since the larvae are planktonic for about six to nine months. The origin of the larvae could be from the Caribbean Sea, Cuba, Mexico, the northern Gulf, the Florida Keys, or a combination of these potential sources. The Florida commercial fishery has been characterized by the excessive number of traps deployed. After the closure of the Bahamian fishery, the number of traps essentially doubled to approximately 500,000 and continued to increase, reaching a peak of approximately 939,000 in 1991 (Muller et al. 1997). A trap reduction program was implemented by the state of Florida in 1993; and, by the beginning of the 1995 season, the number of traps was reduced to approximately 568,000. 8.5.1 Current Status of Stocks Muller et al. (1997) conducted an age-structured analyses of the status of the Florida fishery and examined the effects of the trap reduction program. The number harvested, population size, fishing mortality rates, and transitional SPRs were computed by age for the seasons 1987-88 through 1995-96. These parameters were computed for females and males (excluding SPR for males) from the upper and the lower Florida Keys. The upper Keys was defined as Key Largo to Big Pine Key, and lower Keys from Big Pine Key to Dry Tortugas. The analyses included both commercial and recreational fishery statistics, and indicated that lobsters landed are primarily from 2 to 7 years of age. The estimated abundance of age-1 and older lobsters in the Keys prior to 1993 was approximately 30 million individuals, but the number increased to 33 million lobsters in subsequent years. Recruitment estimated by age-2 lobsters varied from 7.8 million to 10.7 million lobsters, and was more variable in the upper Keys. Fishing mortality rates on the fully recruited ages (age-3 in females and age-2 in males) varied two-fold. Average fishing mortality rate (F=0.59 per year) was higher in the upper Keys than the lower Keys (F=0.33 per year). Fishing mortality rates before the 1993-94 season (average F=0.47 per year) were higher than for subsequent seasons (average F=0.39 per year) for the entire Florida Keys. Transitional SPRs based on biomass varied by season between 7 and 19 percent in the upper Keys and between 20 and 31 percent in the lower Keys. SPRs were approximately 2 to 4 percent higher when based on fecundity rather than biomass, i.e., 23 to 34 percent for the lower Keys. The assessment by Muller et al. (1997) above indicates that the condition of the stock is much better than when Powers and Sutherland (1989) assessed the condition. However, part of the difference is due to the different growth models employed in the analyses. Powers and Sutherland (1989) did not separate sexes, and they used a composite von Bertalanffy growth curve (first year after 50 mm CL L4 = 155, K = 0.2 and thereafter L4 = 190, and K between 0.2 and 0.3) that estimated an average fishing mortality of approximately F=2.0 per year , i.e. spiny lobsters were mostly caught within a year of recruiting. The stochastic growth model (Muller et al. 1997) that 117 considered sexes, time of the year, location in the Keys, and carapace length produced slower growth and lower estimated fishing mortality rates. Muller et al. (1997) also noted that landings in the upper Keys fishery were more variable because the fishery operated mostly on recruits with fluctuations in recruitment not buffered by multiple year classes in the fishery; whereas, the landings from the lower Keys fishery were more stable, and that fishery operated on more year classes. Muller et al. (1997) indicated that since 1993 the fishing mortality rate decreased by 16 percent, even as landings increased; but, they cautioned that this may be due to natural fluctuations rather than the reduction in traps. 8.5.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The MSY for the FMP (GMFMC/SAFMC 1981) was derived by using the Fox surplus yield model and the effort and landings data for the Monroe County fishery, which resulted in an estimate of 5.9 MP. That was adjusted by adding the average Florida east coast landings, estimated unreported recreational and commercial landings, and estimated mortality of sublegal lobsters, which resulted in an estimate of 12.0 MP. That was adjusted by the YPR relationship for an estimate of 12.7 MP at a carapace length (CL) of 3.5 inches. The minimum size of 3.0 inches CL was estimated to provide between 85 and 91 percent of the maximum YPR. Beginning in 1975 after the closure of Bahamian waters to Florida fishermen, annual commercial landings of spiny lobster by Florida fishermen have been very consistent at an average of 6.4 MP with coefficient of variation of only 15%. The highest landings (7.9 MP) during this period occurred in 1996. In addition to the commercial fishery, annual surveys indicate that recreational fishermen harvest about 1.7 million lobsters with an equivalent weight of 2.0 million pounds for a combined yield of 9.9 MP. Using the methods presented in Muller et al. (1997), the associated transitional SPR in that year was 32%. A possible explanation for the stability of the landings accompanying a near doubling of traps in the fishery is that the stocks in Florida receive an influx of settling lobsters from throughout the Caribbean basin, and recruitment may not depend solely upon local production. 118 8.5.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: MSY is defined as a harvest strategy that results in at least a 20 percent transitional SPR (SSBR). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: MSY is defined as a harvest strategy that results in at least a 30 percent transitional SPR (SSBR). Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain the original MSY estimate of 12.7 million pounds based on a 3.5 inch carapace length. Alternative 3: Recompute a MSY point estimate based on more recent data. Discussion: Table 19, computed by Muller for the CSAP, summarizes the transitional SPRs expressed in terms of biomass (SSBR) and fecundity (SPR) for the Florida Keys population. The SSBR levels for the fishing seasons from 1987-88 through 1996-97 ranged between 24 and 36 percent. The CSAP (1998) concluded that the use of SSBR was a more appropriate measure of spawning potential than the fecundity-based estimates of SPR. That is because the larvae produced are planktonic and drift with ocean currents for six to nine months. There is no apparent correlation between numbers of larvae produced and subsequent production of adults. The SSBR levels in Table 19 indicate that the stock is in much better condition than when measured by Powers and Sutherland (1989) in their assessment. The first issue addressed by the CSAP (1998) was the difference in fishing mortality rates between Powers and Sutherland (1989) and Muller et al. (1997). The first was that substantially different growth models were used to age the catch. Powers and Sutherland (1989) mentioned the Hunt and Lyons (1986) model of growth but used a composite von Bertalanffy growth curve for both sexes starting at 50 mm at year one and used a L4 of 155 and a K of 0.2 the next year followed by a L4 of 190 and a K of 0.2 to 0.3 for the following years. Their growth pattern had lobsters recruiting at 2.5 years and persisting in the fishery for only a year. The Muller et al. (1997) growth model calculated the probability of molting given a lobster of a certain sex, time of the year, carapace length, and location in the Keys from tagging data. If the lobster molted, then the size increment was calculated from the same parameters. The resulting growth curve had male lobsters entering the fishery at an average of 21 months and females about a year later. The lobsters spent from two to three years in the fishery, thus lowering the fishing mortality rates. Another difference between the fishing mortality rates comes from the Trap Reduction Program that began in the 1993-94 fishing season which reduced the number of traps in the fishery from 939,000 traps to 582,000 traps. Since the traps are baited with sub-legal lobsters, the 119 elimination of over 300,000 traps spares many sub-legal lobsters that subsequently enter the fishery, which is reflected by the lower fishing mortality rates. The question the CSAP addressed was if the fishery is as overfished as suggested in Our Living Oceans (NOAA 1995), “How can landings be so consistent?” Plots of historical commercial landings by coast from 1950 showed the development of the fishery, the expansion into Florida Bay and the Bahamas after the change of minimum size to 3.0 inches carapace length (CL) (76.2 mm) in 1968, and the closure of Bahamian waters to Florida fishermen in 1974. From 1975 to date, the fishery and its regulations have not changed, and the annual landings have varied from 4.3 MP to 7.9 MP, with an average of 6.4 MP. The highest annual landings (7.9 MP) occurred in 1996. Most of the variation in landings occurred with the middle Keys fishery that operates on the lobsters from the Florida Bay nursery. The CSAP did not expect to find a significant spawning-recruit relationship because of Panulirus argus’s extensive plankton stage (6 to 9 months) prior to settlement at 6-7 mm. However, there is evidence linking the number of settling pueruli to numbers of recruits that subsequently enter the fishery. Dr. Mark Butler suggested that a better index of recruitment would be juvenile lobsters between 35 mm CL and 50 mm CL because his work with Dr. Richard Herrnkind on lobster recruitment processes showed that habitat influences the number of animals that survive from settlement to becoming juveniles. Also, the sexes of juveniles can be identified providing sex specific indices which is important since males recruit sooner than females (Muller et al. 1997). The CSAP considered that the concept of MSY was going to be difficult to define in this fishery because the Trap Reduction Program is reducing effort and the population is increasing in response, due to the reduction in the mortality of sub-legal lobsters. The historical landings do not provide information on the level of MSY after the fishery has had time to re-equilibrate. If that were not enough, the source of Florida’s recruitment is unknown at this time. A precautionary approach is to assume that recruitment depends on local spawning even though genetic analysis has been unable to detect differences between lobsters from different sites in the Caribbean region. The Proposed Alternative is consistent with CSAP recommendations on overfishing in that, although recent SSBR levels have been 30 percent or higher, the levels have been less than that for 4 of the previous 10 seasons. If the MSY proxy was set at 30 percent SSBR, SSBR levels would have been lower in 4 of the 10 years causing unnecessary concern over the status of the stock. Historically, the SPR level has been near 5 percent without the stock collapsing; therefore, the 20 percent SSBR level seems consistent with the precautionary approach. Biological Impacts: The Proposed Alternative and Rejected Alternative 1 both would have a beneficial biological impact by providing a proxy for MSY that results 120 in a higher overfishing threshold than is currently utilized (see Section 8.5.4). Thus, it provides a mechanism for remedial action to arrest overfishing sooner than the present strategy. As indicated under Section 8.5.1, the condition of the stock has been, and is, improving as the number of traps are reduced, and as the result of other management measures (e.g., requirement for live wells). As indicated in the MSY discussion above it is probably inappropriate to specify a MSY proxy at 30 percent SBBR, but it could be a good target for OY. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to MSY, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified MSY level. Both the Proposed Alternative and Rejected Alternative 1 would tend to raise the likelihood of imposing restrictive management measures, but the current status of the stock as shown in Table 19 appears to be in good condition that no severely restrictive management measures for the fishery would be forthcoming. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed action and alternatives for MSY will have little to no effect on the human resources. Fishery Resources: In as much as the MSY level will become the standard for the overfishing threshold, the proposed action will have a beneficial effect on the spiny lobster resource, as would Rejected Alternative 1. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect to a beneficial effect on other fishery resources by the Proposed Alternative. 8.5.3 Optimum Yield (OY) The statement of OY in the FMP is as follows: OY is specified to be all lobster more than 3.0 inches carapace length or not less than 5.5 inches tail length that can be harvested by commercial and recreational fishermen given existing technology and prevailing economic conditions. This amount is estimated to be 9.5 MP in 1981 (see Section 12.2 for analysis of the proposed optimum yield and 4 alternatives 121 which were not accepted). With improvement of enforcement capability and possible development of alternative baits, the amount of OY may increase to approach a maximum of 12.0 million pounds. 8.5.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative OY is defined as a harvest strategy that results in achieving a 30 percent transitional SPR (SSBR). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set OY equal to the MSY proxy based on SSBR. Alternative 2: Set OY higher than the MSY proxy based on SSBR. Alternative 3: Set OY lower than the numerical MSY (12.0 or 12.7 MP) based on pounds landed. Alternative 4: Set OY equal to the numerical MSY based on pounds landed. Alternative 5: Status Quo - retain the current statement of OY. Discussion: The CSAP had no comments on OY. The Proposed Alternative and Rejected Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for a precautionary approach by setting the OY target below the MSY (i. e. at a SPR level higher than MSY). Rejected Alternatives 1 and 4 would make OY equal to MSY. The Status Quo Alternative would likely be unacceptable because OY could be higher than MSY. Biological Impacts: By setting OY at a SPR level higher than MSY it provides a target to be achieved that will have a beneficial biological effect over the long term. Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to OY, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified MSY level. Long-term benefits may be expected to be higher, but only on condition that the management system adopted would tend to preserve the economic rent generated in the fishery. The obvious feature of an OY that is absent in any of the ones specified above is the consideration of economic and social factors. Understandably, the biological 122 component needs to be specified since the SFA currently defines OY relative to a biological MSY. However, a simple specification of OY in biological terms is totally deficient, especially when management measures are developed to achieve an OY level. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: Over the long-term the higher standard for the OY target will have a beneficial effect. Fishery Resources: Similarly, the spiny lobster resource will benefit over the long term as the OY target is achieved. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect to a beneficial effect on other fishery resources by the Proposed Alternative. 8.5.4 Overfishing Criteria Overfishing was defined by Amendment 4 (GMFMC/SAFMC 1990) as follows: Definition of Overfishing: "Overfishing exists when the eggs per recruit ratio of the exploited population to the unexploited population is reduced below five percent and recruitment of small lobsters into the fishery has declined for three consecutive fishing years. Overfishing will be avoided when the eggs per recruit ratio of exploited to unexploited populations is maintained above five percent.” Management Measures to Prevent Overfishing: Should overfishing occur, the Councils and the state of Florida will take one or more of the following actions by regulatory amendment as authorized under this measure: C modify season length C increase minimum carapace length C limits on use of shorts C require escape gaps C reduce number of traps Discussion (In Amendment 4): The eggs per recruit ratio should be empirically determined by sampling populations in exploited areas and the Tortugas/Fort Jefferson sanctuary following the methods of Gregory et. al. (1982), rather than being calculated as by Powers and Sutherland (1989). The average number of eggs produced over its lifetime by a lobster recruited to the fishery is defined as eggs per 123 recruit. The ratio of the number of eggs per recruit at the present exploitation rate relative to the number with no fishing is the eggs per recruit ratio. Recruitment of small lobsters into the fishery should be monitored annually through catch statistics. 8.5.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Overfishing exists when the fishing rate results in the transitional SPR being reduced below 20 percent SSBR. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Overfishing exists when the transitional SPR is reduced below 20 percent SSBR and the recruitment of small lobsters into the fishery has declined for 3 consecutive fishing years. Overfishing is avoided when the fishing mortality rates will not drive the stock to transitional SPR levels below 20 percent SSBR (CSAP). Alternative 2: Set the SSBR level higher, i.e., between 20 and 30 percent. Alternative 3: Status Quo: Retain the overfishing definition of Amendment 4 (see previous section). Management Measures to Prevent Overfishing: Should overfishing occur, the Councils and state of Florida will take one or more of the following actions by regulatory amendment as authorized under this measure: C modify season length C increase minimum carapace length C limits on use of shorts C require escape gaps C reduce number of traps Discussion: The CSAP (1998) recommended Rejected Alternative 1. If the Council had set MSY above 20 percent SSBR under Section 8.5.2.1, then Rejected Alternative 2 would be more appropriate. Following the precautionary approach, the Council decided on an overfishing definition of 20 percent transitional SPR instead of the present 5 percent eggs per recruit. The value of 20 percent was chosen because the lowest transitional SPR (SSBR) for the Florida Keys in the past 10 years was 24 percent in the 1991-92 season. There were no data to determine the SPR value for the season with lowest landings (1983-84), but the CSAP assumed that it was lower than 24 percent and chose 20 percent. The CSAP recommended including a juvenile or pre-recruit index because, although the number of recruits cannot be predicted accurately from the number of spawners, the number of recruits entering the fishery can be predicted from the number of juveniles or pre-recruits. Thus the 124 index would allow the Council to prepare the fishery for any downturns if necessary. The Council selected the Proposed Alternative without including the pre-recruit index provision. Although there was discussion within the CSAP as to whether recruitment overfishing was possible in spiny lobster, they agreed with using SPRs as a measure of the status of the fishery but did not see any utility to using egg production over spawning biomass because the CSAP group doubted whether a meaningful spawner recruit relationship could be demonstrated given the extensive planktonic stage (lasting between six and nine months) before lobsters settle as pueruli. Furthermore, the group thought that an index based on juveniles would be measurable and would provide information on recruitment a year in advance. Recruitment into the fishery of small lobsters should be monitored annually through on-board observers. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the SPR level specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. The current status of the spiny lobster stock appears to suggest a low likelihood that severely restrictive management measures would be imposed in the near future. 8.5.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: The minimum stock size threshold proxy is an SSBR level of 15 percent. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: The minimum stock size threshold proxy is an SSBR level of 10 percent. Alternative 2: The minimum stock size threshold is set at one-half the numerical level of MSY in pounds. Discussion: Rejected Alternative 1 would be consistent with an MSY set at 20 percent SSBR, and is a precautionary approach in itself, since the fishery operated at an egg per recruit level near 5 percent previously without any long-term adverse effect (GMFMC/SAFMC 1990). Because the condition of the stock has improved, the SSBR and SPR levels have increased (Table 19), and the Council felt it was 125 possible to increase the SSBR proxy to 15 percent, as a precautionary approach. If MSY was set in pounds, Rejected Alternative 2 would be more appropriate. Biological Impacts: The Proposed Alternative for both the overfishing threshold and overfished threshold are precautionary approaches; therefore, they should have a beneficial biological effect. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfished threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the level specified to correspond to an overfished threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. The current status of the spiny lobster stock appears to suggest a low likelihood that severely restrictive management measures would be imposed in the near future. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: In the long-term, the higher standard of the proposed action over status quo will be beneficial to the harvesters. It raises the overfishing threshold from a 5 percent eggs per recruit ratio to 20 percent SSBR. Fishery Resources: The spiny lobster resource should benefit form the higher standard of the proposed action, in that the standard can be periodically raised as the effects from the trap reduction program are realized. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect to a beneficial effect on other fishery resources by the alternatives. 8.5.5 Rebuilding Period Since the stock is not overfished, no rebuilding period is proposed. 8.6 STONE CRAB The stone crab FMP was implemented in 1979 and provided for management of that stock in the EEZ off the west Florida shelf. The FMP was implemented principally to resolve a gear conflict between shrimp fishermen and stone crab fishermen off southwest Florida, and provided management only for the commercial fishery. Menippe mercenaria is the principal species taken in the fishery. Bert (1986) indicated that in the northwest area of Florida another species occurred which was named Menippe adina. Subsequent work by Bert and Harrison (1988) described a hybrid zone 126 from about Cedar Key, Florida, through Wakulla County, Florida, in which the hybrid of the two species was dominant. That area represented the northern terminus of the commercial fishery. The range of Menippe adina extends across the northern and western Gulf. 8.6.1 Current Status of Stock (from Muller and Bert 1997) Landings in terms of claw weight have been increasing for more than 30 years, and annual landings fluctuate around a linear trend line. Landings for the 1981-82 and 1982-83 seasons were above the trend line; however, landings in 1983-84 and 1984-85 were below it. More recently, landings from 1990-91 through 1994-95 were above the trend line, but landings for 1995-96 and preliminarily 1996-97 were below it. Effort, in terms of the number of traps, has increased from about 14,000 in 1962-63 to about 798,000 in 1995-96. The number of trips has also increased since 1985-86 (the first year for which trip data are available) from about 19,000 to approximately 34,000 in 1995-96. Landings have not increased commensurate with either of these measurements of effort. As the number of traps being fished increased, catch per trap per year declined considerably, dropping from more than 20 pounds per trap in the early 1960s to less than 10 pounds in the mid-1970s and less than 5 pounds by the mid-1980s. Since the mid-1980's, catch per trap per year has remained low, and both this index and the more recently available index of standardized catch per trip per year are presently (1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively) at their lowest historical levels. Because landings have not increased with effort (in terms of catch per trap or catch per trip), the fishery appears to be operating at its maximum or slightly past the maximum. In 1989-90, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) implemented a fishery-independent, juvenile monitoring project in Tampa Bay. The juvenile indices were used to predict commercial catch rates approximately 3 years later when crabs enter the fishery. Although the first year’s prediction (1992-93 commercial season) did not fit the juvenile index well, juvenile catch rates from 1990 through 1993 have correlated well with catch per trap in 1993-94 to 1996-97. The study also showed that some juveniles enter the fishery at approximately 27 months after settlement (presumably males) while others do not enter the fishery until 38 months later (principally females). The 1996-97 juvenile catch rates for the samples from the Tampa Bay area were not significantly different from zero. If this index is indicative of the future adult population, there could be a serious shortage of stone crabs in the Tampa Bay area in 1999-2000. The utility of these comparisons in predicting catch rates over extended periods of time and in other areas remains to be evaluated; if valid, they could serve as an early indicator of potential problems for the fishery. 127 The stone crab fishery is one that harvests only the claws; the crabs are returned to the water. Claws regenerate over time, and it has been observed that approximately 10 percent of the claws sampled in fish houses have been regenerated. Male crabs grow faster than females, and the majority of the claws taken are from males. In the opinion of the CSAP (1998), the stone crab fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is at or near full exploitation. Landings have increased since the 1960s, to a 1990-1997 average level of about 3.0-3.5 million pounds (claw weight). Effort (in number of traps) has also increased considerably, resulting in currently low catch per unit effort (CPUE) values; however, the stock does not show indications of overfishing and appears to be able to sustain the current levels of production. 8.6.2 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The MSY computed in the FMP (GMFMC 1979), which was based on landings and effort data for the period 1962-1978 and on a generalized stock production model, yielded an estimate of 1.8 MP of claws. This estimate of MSY was done at a time when the fishery was expanding into new fishing grounds, and consequently it underestimated MSY. Currently, average landings are on the order of 3 MP of claws (Muller and Bert 1997). The CSAP (1998) believed that an egg production per recruit ratio is a definable, quantitative measure that is appropriate for measuring stock condition, MSY values, and overfishing/overfished definitions for stone crabs. The minimum claw size regulation (70 mm propodus length [PL]), probably originally set as a market requirement, assures that female crabs spawn at least once before they are subject to harvest and results in a relatively high (~80 percent) egg production per recruit ratio. The CSAP (1998) also believed that the current claw size regulation that produces this egg production per recruit ratio can both produce an MSY harvest and provide a high level of protection against overfishing. Therefore, MSY was defined by the CSAP (1998) as the harvest that results from a realized egg production per recruit at or above 70 percent of potential production. This harvest capacity is currently estimated at between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws (minimum 70 mm PL). The CSAP reviewed the analyses for stone crabs from the NMFS SEFSC Overfishing Workshop, held February 12-14, 1990, and concluded that at the current minimum claw length of 70 mm PL recruitment overfishing is unlikely. This conclusion was based on the fact that, on average, males and females mature at age 2 (50 percent maturity), the male crusher and pincer claws reach legal length between age 2 and age 3, and female claws reach legal lengths one to two years later. Therefore, females spawn for at least one or more years before entering the fishery. Restrepo (1989) suggested that the egg production potential is largely independent of the male/female 128 ratio in the population since a single copulation fertilizes a female for the season and males can copulate with several females. The fact that males enter the fishery at earlier ages and their numbers may be reduced relative to the number of females does not appear to impact the egg production potential. Females are capable of producing up to 13 batches of eggs after a single copulation (four to five batches on the average) during the reproductive season. Fecundity is linearly related to size, and large females produce upwards of 350,000 eggs per batch. At the present minimum claw length of 70 mm PL, more than 70 percent of potential egg production will be maintained over a wide range of fishing mortality rates, both higher and lower than the present mortality rate. The current fishing mortality rates produce between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws annually, and this range is considered to be the best estimate for MSY. 8.6.2.1 MSY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: MSY is defined as the harvest that results from a realized egg production per recruit at or above 70 percent of potential production. This harvest capacity is currently estimated at between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws (minimum 70 mm propodus length). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: MSY will be based on another computation from the generalized stock production model utilizing more recent landings and effort data. Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain the FMP’s MSY estimate. Discussion: The CSAP (1998) recommended the Proposed Alternative. Their rationale for this recommendation is cited above. Rejected Alternative 1 would update the stock production model estimate, which likely would result in a numerical value similar to that in the Proposed Alternative. If MSY was set at 100 percent of potential egg production, then yield would be zero. Biological Impacts: The use of 70 percent of potential egg production as a proxy for MSY and for the overfishing threshold is a very conservative precautionary approach, in that at 100 percent there is no directed fishery. Economic Impacts: The specification of MSY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. 129 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed action and alternatives for MSY are anticipated to have no effect. Fishery Resources: In as much as the MSY level is used as the basis for the overfishing threshold; the proposed action has beneficial effect by perpetuating a threshold that assures that overfishing will not occur. Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect on other fishery resources by the alternatives. 8.6.3 Optimum Yield (OY) The current statement of OY from the FMP is as follows: Optimum yield from a fishery is the amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities, and which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from that fishery, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor (PL 94-265). The CSAP (1998) recommendations on OY were as follows: There are no known biological considerations that would require the setting of OY at a level below MSY, and the stock is adequately protected at this level. Although overfishing should not occur under the existing minimum claw size regulation, Ehrhardt and Restrepo (1989) and Restrepo (1989) concluded that YPR in terms of weight could be increased by reducing the existing minimum claw size. Bert et al. (1986) suggested that stone crabs live to be about 6 years old. Also, females do not fully enter the fishery until age 5. Consequently, there is a potential for reducing the minimum claw size to obtain a greater YPR. On the other hand, Restrepo (1989) indicated that such a reduction may affect the reproductive capacity of the stone crab population. Another consideration of reducing the minimum claw size is the economic impacts on the fishery. Although there would probably be an increase in pounds landed, such an increase could result in losses with regard to total ex-vessel value because there is a significant price differential between claw sizes. For example, during the 1988-89 season, the percentage of claws landed were classified as follows: 5% - jumbo, 48% large, 25% - medium, 9% - small, and 13% - unclassified (Sutherland 1989). Ex 130 vessel prices per pound for the 1989-90 season were as follows: $6.55 - jumbo, $6.13 large, and $5.49 - small. Since the small classification includes claws only slightly larger that the current minimum size limit (70 mm PL), a reduced size limit would probably create a new market classification below this size, and it would probably have a lower ex-vessel value that would have to be contrasted against the gains in poundage. On the other hand, Restrepo (1989) indicated that such a reduction may affect the reproductive capacity of the stone crab population, which could decrease long-term yields and increase the risk of recruitment overfishing. 8.6.3.1 OY Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Set OY equal to MSY. Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Set OY less than MSY. Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain the FMP statement of OY. Discussion: Under the National Standard Guidelines, the Status Quo Alternative would be unacceptable. The Proposed Alternative makes the OY statement equivalent to that for the MSY control rule, i.e., an egg production per recruit at or above 70 percent of potential production, which is a precautionary approach. Biological Impacts: As indicated in the discussion above, the Proposed Alternative is a very conservative precautionary approach, and there is no biological benefit to setting OY less than MSY (i.e., at a higher percent of potential egg production). Economic Impacts: The specification of OY has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. Pending more concrete measures designed to achieve or maintain an OY level, it is only instructive to point out the deficiency attendant to alternatives for OY. The obvious feature of an OY that is absent in any of the ones specified above is the consideration of economic and social factors. While OY is defined in relation to MSY, this latter term is proxied by some biological parameter. Understandably, the biological component needs to be specified since the SFA currently defines OY relative to a biological MSY. However, a specification of OY should include economic and social, in addition to biological factors. 131 Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The harvesters are benefitted by setting OY equal to MSY as there is no biological reason to harvest less than MSY. Fishery Resources: It is beneficial in the management of the stone crab resource to provide for an OY standard that is measurable. Other Fishery Resources: The effect on other fishery resources by the Proposed Alternative should be beneficial. 8.6.4 Overfishing Criteria The following definition of overfishing was implemented by Amendment 4 (GMFMC 1990): Definition of Overfishing:: "Overfishing exists when the realized egg production per recruit is reduced below 70 percent of potential production. Overfishing will be avoided when there is a minimum claw length (length of propodus that assures survival of the crabs to achieve the 70 percent egg production per recruit potential." Management Measure to Arrest Overfishing: Should overfishing occur, the Council and State of Florida will adjust the minimum claw length or fishing mortality rate (F) by regulatory amendment as authorized under this measure to increase the egg production potential to at least 70 percent. The CSAP (1998) provided the following comments and recommendations: Overfishing for the stone crab fishery is defined as a realized egg production per recruit of below 70 percent of potential production. A minimum claw length of 70 mm PL equates to an egg production per recruit ratio >70%. Catch statistics show that the stock has supported the MSY catch levels of 3.0 to 3.5 million pounds under this management rule. Minimum claw lengths below 70 mm PL would reduce egg production per recruit and would define an overfishing situation. Although overfishing will probably be avoided when there is a minimum claw length that assures survival of crabs to achieve the 70 percent egg production per recruit potential, there is an unlikely possibility that the 70 percent ratio might not be achieved due to incidental mortality of sublegal size crabs. Although the CSAP recommends a strategy 132 that will probably produce an egg production per recruit ratio of 70 percent or more, it is noted that this level is probably much larger than what is needed to maintain the stock. It is likely that a strategy that would produce a 40 percent level would be adequate. 8.6.4.1 Overfishing Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: Overfishing is defined as a harvest level (or fishing mortality rate) that would result in a realized egg production per recruit of below 70 percent of potential production (see Figure 9). Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Same as Alternative 1, except the realized egg production per recruit is set between 70 to 80 percent of potential production. Alternative 2: Status Quo - retain current definition Discussion: The Proposed Alternative and Rejected Alternative 2 are essentially the same. Rejected Alternative 1 would be more conservative, which probably is not necessary (see the CSAP’s rationale cited above). Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfishing threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the overfishing threshold specified to correspond to an overfishing threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. Long-term economic benefits can arise from short-term restrictive measures if the long-term viability of the fishery is preserved and, more importantly, if the management system adopted is such that economic rent is not dissipated. The current move in the fishery for limited access may be seen as an initial step toward preserving the economic rent that would be generated from short-term restrictive measures. 8.6.4.2 Overfished Threshold Alternatives Proposed Alternative: The overfished condition would occur when the realized egg production per recruit is reduced below 40 percent of potential production. 133 Alternatives Considered and Rejected: Alternative 1: Same as above, except the egg production per recruit level would be set between 40 to 70 percent of potential production. Alternative 2: The overfished condition would occur when the realized egg production per recruit is reduced below 35 percent of potential production. Discussion: The Proposed Alternative was recommended by the CSAP (1998), who pointed out that as 40 percent may also serve as the overfishing threshold, i.e., that level could exist at all the fishing mortality rates observed in the fishery (0.7 to 4.0) (see Figure 9). The CSAP also indicated that the Council may want to specify an overfished threshold above the one-half of MSY level (Rejected Alternative 2) as a precautionary approach, as in the Proposed Alternative. Rejected Alternative 1 would provide greater conservatism in management than is presently supported by available information. Biological Impacts: The use of 70 percent of potential egg production as a proxy for MSY and for the overfishing threshold standard is a very conservative precautionary approach, in that at 100 percent there is no directed fishery. The Proposed Alternative of 40 percent of potential egg production for the overfished threshold is also a very conservative approach, in that as indicated in the discussion above that level could be used for an overfishing threshold, but only if the size limit was reduced. Economic Impacts: The specification of an overfished threshold has no immediate impacts on fishing participants, but the measures designed to achieve that level could have impacts on these participants. Once those measures are specified, an economic impact analysis will be conducted. It is only instructive to note that the higher the level specified to correspond to an overfished threshold, the more restrictive would be the short-term measures adopted. These measures would be more restrictive the further the current status of any stock is to the specified threshold level. Environmental Consequences: Human Resources: The proposed actions maintain the standard that has provided a very high level of assurance that the stock would not be overfished. This high standard has benefitted the harvesters not only from the basis of having a stable fishery, but also in terms of higher revenue, i.e., a lower standard would likely result in smaller legal size claws of less value. Fishery Resources: Maintenance of the overfishing threshold and a conservative overfished standard are beneficial to the stone crab stock. 134 Other Fishery Resources: There is no effect on other fishery resources from the alternatives. 8.6.5 Rebuilding Period Since the stock is not overfished, no rebuilding period is proposed. 8.7 CORAL AND CORAL REEF RESOURCES The Coral FMP was developed as a joint FMP for the coral complexes in the jurisdiction of the GMFMC and the SAFMC, with the GMFMC as administrative lead. The Secretary provided authority in December 1994 for separate Coral FMPs for each Council’s jurisdiction, and since that time each Council has independently amended the plans. The FMP included several hundred species, some of which were described by including all species within a family or order. MSY was described for only 3 species and 6 genera in terms of kg/m2/year dry weight for very small and discrete areas where the number of colonies had been monitored (GMFMC/SAFMC 1982). The FMP prohibits any harvest or possession of stony coral and seafans, except under scientific permit. The FMP, as amended, also prohibits harvest or possession of live rock, except from sites permitted for aquaculture of live rock organisms by the Corps of Engineers and NMFS. Such aquaculture is carried out by placing identifiable substrate (principally imported from the Bahamas) on the approved sites and harvesting it two to three years later when the colonizing organisms have matured. The FMP, as amended, allows an annual harvest of 50,000 colonies of gorgonians from areas estimated to have more than 4.7 billion colonies. With the exception of the gorgonians for which harvest is significantly restricted, OY is set at zero. Therefore, this amendment does not address overfishing or overfished thresholds for these stocks. 9.0 FISHING COMMUNITIES 9.1 Introduction The SFA amended the M-MSFCMA to provide a new national standard addressing fishing communities as follows: Standard 8. Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to: 135 (1) Provide for the sustained participation of such communities; and (2) To the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. The SFA also amended Section 303(a)(9) of the M-MSFCMA. This provision provides that the fishery impact statement shall assess, specify and describe the likely effects, if any, of management measures on participants in the fishery. The amendment added “and on fishing communities affected.” The National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR 600.345) provide interpretative rule for Standard 8, as follows: General. (1) This standard requires that an FMP take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities. This consideration, however, is within the context of the conservation requirements. Deliberations regarding the importance of fishery resources to affected fishing communities, therefore, must not compromise the achievement of conservation requirements and goals of the FMP. Where the proposed alternative negatively affects the sustained participation of fishing communities, the FMP should discuss the rationale for selecting this alternative over another with a lesser impact on fishing communities. All other things being equal, where two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the alternative that provides the greater potential for sustained participation of such communities and minimizes the adverse economic impacts on such communities would be the proposed alternative. (2) This standard does not constitute a basis for allocating resources to a specific fishing community nor for providing preferential treatment based on residence in a fishing community. (3) The term “fishing community” means a community that is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew, and fish processors that are based in such communities. A fishing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops). (4) The term “sustained participation” means continued access to the fishery within the constraints of the condition of the resource. Analysis. (1) FMPs must examine the social and economic importance of fisheries to communities potentially affected by management measures. For example, severe reduction of harvests for conservation purposes may decrease employment 136 opportunities for fishermen and processing plant workers, thereby adversely affecting their families and communities. Similarly, a management measure that results in the allocation of fishery resources among competing sectors of a fishery may benefit some communities at the expense of others. (2) An appropriate vehicle for the analyses under this standard is the fishery impact statement required by section 303(a)(9). Qualitative and quantitative data may be used, including information provided by fishermen, dealers, processors, and fisheries organizations and associations. In cases where data are severely limited, effort should be directed to identifying and gathering needed data. (3) To address the sustained participation of fishing communities that will be affected by management measures, the analysis should first identify affected fishing communities and then assess their differing levels of dependence on and engagement in the fishery being regulated. The analysis should also specify how that assessment was made. The best available data on the history, extent, and type of participation of these fishing communities in the fishery should be incorporated into the social and economic information presented in the FMP. The analysis does not have to contain an exhaustive listing of all communities that might fit the definition; a judgement can be made as to which are primarily affected. The analysis should discuss each alternative’s likely effect on the sustained participation of these fishing communities in the fishery. (4) The analysis should assess the likely positive and negative social and economic impacts of the alternative management measures, over both the short and the long term, on fishing communities. Any particular management measure may economically benefit some communities while adversely affecting others. Economic impacts should be considered both for individual communities and for the group of all affected communities identified in the FMP. Impacts of both consumptive and non consumptive uses of fishery resources should be considered. (5) A discussion of social and economic impacts should identify those alternative that would minimize adverse impacts on these fishing communities within the constraints of conservation and management goals of the FMP, other national standards, and other applicable law. 9.2 Gulf Fishing Communities This section uses existing information to attempt to identify communities in the Gulf region that appear to be dependent or partially dependent on fisheries and fishing. The Gulf of Mexico has relatively large commercial fisheries with annual landings higher than any other region of the U.S., other than the Alaskan region. Commercial landings for 1995 and 1996 averaged about 1.5 billion pounds annually. This is below landings for the 1983-84 period (highest years) of about 2.5 billion pounds annually. 137 The decline reflects largely a reduction in Gulf menhaden landings, which averaged about 2.1 billion pounds in 1983 and 1984 and currently (1995 and 1996) averages about 1.0 billion pounds. This reduction in menhaden landings appears to be related to market-induced reduction in industry capacity. The number of production plants has declined from about 11 to 5, and the number of vessels dropped from about 80 to about 50 (GSMFC 1995). During 1995 and 1996, the value of Gulf commercial landings averaged about $700 million ex-vessel annually. This represents the value at the dock, and the value to the local and national economies is much higher. For example, Kearney/Centaur (1989) estimated the Gulf shrimp industry alone contributed $2.95 billion to the Gross National Product (GNP) when the value-added was estimated to the retail level, including restaurant sales. During 1995 and 1996, an average of about 7,100 vessels (5 net tons or greater) and 22,000 boats participated in Gulf region commercial fisheries (NMFS 1997). In 1995, there were 390 seafood processing plants in the Gulf region that seasonally employed 10,127 persons and permanently employed 9,549 persons. There were 810 wholesale seafood plants employing an average of 6,555 persons on an annual basis. The recreational fisheries in the Gulf region are larger than other east coast regions in terms of landings and participants. During 1995 and 1996, an average of about 4.0 million persons participated in marine recreational fishing in the Gulf states (NMFS 1997) (Page Campbell, TPWD, pers. comm). They made approximately 26.7 million trips annually and landed approximately 205 million pounds of fish. Marine recreational fishermen in the Gulf states spent $3.5 billion and created an overall economic impact of $7.0 billion (ASFA, 1997). In the Gulf region there are about 2,460 recreational for-hire boats. This includes headboats, charter boats, and smaller guide boats. The headboats and most of the charter boats typically fish offshore. Many of the guide boats fish the estuaries and tidal coastal flats. Dive boats, whose clientele harvest fish, would be required to have a charter vessel permit, while dive boats that never harvest fish would not. Therefore, there are some dive boats, particularly in the Florida Keys, that are not included in the above total number, but which are dependent on fishery resources, including coral, for their revenue. The recreational for-hire boats contribute significantly to the economies of many fishing communities. Data are not currently available to assess and describe the effects of management measures on fishing communities as provided for under Section 303(a)(9) of the M MSFCMA and the guidelines as set forth in the introductory discussion above. A MARFIN project completed by Dr. Charles Tolbert and associates (1998), Louisiana State University (LSU), provides a data source from the national censuses of 1970, 1980, and 1990 for coastal communities (counties and communities) in the Gulf and 138 south Atlantic regions that provides very general social, economic, and demographic information and can be used for the purpose of describing fishing and other occupations in coastal counties of the Gulf states. In as much as the census data from Tolbert et al. (1998) and data from other sources are inadequate for assessing the impacts of fishery management on individual communities, the data has been placed in Appendix G and serves only as an initial source for identifying fishing communities. The deficiencies of the census data for use in communities assessments is that in collection of data on employment in industry, the census form combines employment for agriculture, fishing, and mining industries. For the census of self-employed persons, the occupations for farming, fishing, and forestry are combined. The combining of these estimates makes the data virtually useless for fishery assessments, because most Gulf coastal areas have occupation opportunities in one or more of these industries, in addition to fishing. For example, the oil and gas industry and agriculture is common in the coastal areas from Louisiana through Texas. Forestry is common in the coastal counties from Mississippi through Florida in other than metropolitan areas. Therefore, in most areas these employment figures cannot be attributed to fisheries alone, nor is there any basis to prorate them between occupations or industries. Similar problems affect the use of data from other sources, i.e., the data is compiled on the state or county level and cannot be disaggregated to community level. The recreational fishing landings, effort, and modes of fishing are compiled on the state level. Commercial landings and processing information are compiled on state and county levels. Most of the fisheries economic studies are done on the county level. Therefore, if the social and economic impacts on communities are to be determined, community-specific studies will be required to gather the appropriate data. A MARFIN project by researchers at the University of Florida was approved in 1998 to assess and describe fishing communities in the state of Florida. 10.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The SFA amended Section 303(a)(5) of the M-MSFCMA to provide the Councils require the collection of information with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter fishing for each fishery. The Council feels it is already in compliance with this provision. The Council did, however, with a few exceptions, allow the SEFSC of NMFS to determine what data would be required to be submitted, and who would be sampled for collection of those data. This allowed the SEFSC the option of standardizing reporting requirements for persons in multiple fisheries. All of the FMPs provided for mandatory reporting by dealers and vessels in the commercial sector if the Center Director selected those persons to report. These requirements were amended for the Stone Crab and Spiny Lobster FMPs to provide such reporting would be 139 through the Florida trip ticket program. Data on harvest of gorgonians under the Coral FMP are also collected by Florida. None of these FMPs, or the Shrimp FMP had recreational or charter/head boat sectors operating in the EEZ and no provision was made for reporting. The Reef Fish and Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) FMPs provided for mandatory reporting by charter/headboat and private recreational boat sectors. NMFS reserved the rules applying to the private recreational (not-for-hire) boats and elected to use instead the MRFSS and headboat surveys for collection of data. The Council has also required the use of logbooks by commercial reef fish and mackerel vessels. Under the Red Drum FMP all reporting was either deferred to the states or reserved until an EEZ fishery was allowed. 11.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING SECTORS The SFA amended the M-MSFCMA to add a Section 303(a)(13) requiring FMPs to provide a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter sectors and to quantify trends in landings for those sectors. With the exception of the charter sector, the Council concluded this information is current for all the FMPs, except Stone Crab and Spiny Lobster. Currently the information for the charter sector is being collected for the Gulf and South Atlantic areas under MARFIN. A description of Florida’s west coast stone crab fishery (Vondruska 1998) is included as Appendix E. A description of Florida’s spiny lobster fishery (Vondruska 1998a) is included as Appendix F. 12.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 12.1 Introduction The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does three things: 1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a proposed or final regulatory action, 2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problem, and 3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether any proposed regulations are a "significant regulatory action" under certain criteria provided in Executive Order 12866 and whether the proposed regulations will have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities" in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA). This RIR analyzes the probable impacts on fishery participants of the proposed generic plan amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Gulf Coral and Coral Reef 140 Resources, Coastal Migratory Pelagics, Red Drum, Reef Fish Resources, Shrimp, Spiny Lobster, and Stone Crab. 12.2 Problems and Objectives The general problems and objectives are found in the respective FMPs, as amended, and in Section 4.0 of this document. The purpose and need for the present plan amendment are found in Section 3.0 of this document. The current plan amendment addresses the following issues: 1) bycatch provisions for FMPs, 2) overfishing criteria and rebuilding periods for stocks, 3) description of fishing communities, 4) reporting requirements, and 5) description of fishing sectors. 12.3 Methodology and Framework for Analysis This RIR assesses management measures from the standpoint of determining the resulting changes in costs and benefits to society. To the extent practicable, the net effects are stated in terms of producer surplus to the harvest sector, net profits to the intermediate sector, and consumer surplus to the final users of the resource. In addition to changes in the surpluses mentioned above, there are public and private costs associated with the process of changing and enforcing regulations on the various FMPs affected by this amendment. Ideally, all these changes in costs and benefits need to be accounted for and quantified in assessing the net economic benefit from changes in management of various fisheries in the Gulf. The RIR attempts to determine these changes to the extent possible. 12.4 Impacts of Proposed Alternatives The economic impacts of the individual alternatives are discussed in the main section (Sections 7.0-8.0) of this amendment under each of the alternatives. The subsections titled "Economic Impacts" comprise the major part of this RIR and are included herein by reference. 12.5 Private and Public Costs of Regulation The preparation, implementation, enforcement and monitoring of this or any federal action involves the expenditure of public and private resources which can be expressed as costs associated with the regulations. Costs associated with this amendment include: 141 Council costs of document preparation, meetings, public hearings, and information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35,000 NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,000 Law enforcement costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no new cost Public burden associated with licenses and reporting requirements . . . . . . . . . none NMFS costs associated with licenses and reporting requirements . . . . . . . . . . . none TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $57,000 The identified costs, all of which are one-time expenses, pertain solely to the development of this amendment. There are no expected recurring costs from the implementation of this amendment. 12.6 Summary of Expected Effects All the proposed measures in this amendment are not expected to have immediate impacts on fishing participants. These measures mainly provide the general parameters with respect to the type of regulations that may be enacted. Once specific measures are considered, an economic analysis will be conducted to assess their impacts on fishing participants. 12.7 Determination of a Significant Regulatory Action Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, a regulation is considered a "significant regulatory action" if it is likely to result in a rule that may: 1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. The analyses of economic impacts contained in appropriate sections of this amendment have shown that there are no immediate impacts on fishing participants that may be expected of the various measures proposed in this amendment. Item 1, thus, is not satisfied by the proposed regulation. 142 The proposed regulation is determined not to interfere or create inconsistency with an action of another agency, including state fishing agencies or to affect any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. However, it is deemed that the proposed alternatives pertaining to specifications of MSY, OY, overfishing threshold, and overfished threshold present novel policy issues. A good amount of controversy arose especially with the definitions of overfishing. On this basis, the regulation proposed in this amendment is considered to be a significant regulatory action. 12.8 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires a determination as to whether or not a proposed rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the rule does have this impact then an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has to be completed for public comment. The IRFA becomes final after the public comments have been addressed. If the proposed rule does not meet the criteria for "substantial number" and "significant impact," then a certification to this effect must be prepared. All of the commercial harvesting business entities affected by the rule will qualify as small business entities because their gross revenues are less than $3 million annually. In addition, for-hire vessels in the Gulf affected by the proposed rule generally earn less than $5 million in annual revenues and are thus considered to be small business entities. Hence, it is clear that the criterion of a substantial number of the small business entities comprising the commercial harvesting industry and the for-hire sector being affected by the proposed rule will be met. The outcome of "significant impact" is less clear but can be triggered by any of the five conditions or criteria discussed below. The regulations are likely to result in a change in annual gross revenues by more than 5 percent. The discussions under the Economic Impacts section have determined that no immediate impacts on fishing participants are forthcoming from any of the measures proposed in this amendment, except the MSY, OY, overfishing, and overfished definitions relating to the royal red shrimp. The potential impacts, however, of the Proposed Alternative would be positive and equivalent to an approximately 65 percent increased in gross vessel revenues. But considering the recent decline in landings, the potential increase in landings and revenues would not materialize, at least in the near future. Annual compliance costs (annualized capital, operating, reporting, etc.) increase total costs of production for small entities by more than 5 percent. The only measure that has potential impacts on the vessel production costs is the requirement to collect bycatch information, particularly the use of observers. At this stage, the proposed measures are couched in very general terms so that, in and by themselves, they are expected to have no immediate impacts on fishing vessels. 143 Compliance costs as a percent of sales for small entities are at least 10 percent higher than compliance costs as a percent of sales for large entities. All the firms expected to be impacted by the rule are small entities and hence there is no differential impact. Capital costs of compliance represent a significant portion of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow and external financing capabilities. General information available as to the ability of small business fishing firms to finance items such as a switch to new gear indicate that this would be a problem for at least some of the firms. The evidence is that the banking community is becoming increasingly reluctant to finance changes of this type, especially if the firm has a history of cash flow problems. Available information is not sufficient to estimate the number of small business entities that would be affected in this fashion, although it may be noted that the measures that would have the likely effects of the nature described pertain to the collection of bycatch information. At the moment, these measures are specific enough for impact assessment. The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in a number of the small entities affected being forced to cease business operations. This number is not precisely defined by SBA but a "rule of thumb" to trigger this criterion would be two percent of the small entities affected. The discussion of economic impacts of the sets of measures contained in this amendment has not determined that any business entity would cease operation as a result of adopting the proposed measures of this amendment. Considering all the criteria discussed above, the conclusion is that small businesses will not be significantly affected by the proposed rule. Hence, the determination is made that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities, and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is not required. The full details of the economic analyses conducted for the proposed rule are contained in the Economic Impacts sections of this document. Some of the relevant results are summarized below. Description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered: The need and purpose of this action are set forth in Section 3 of this document. Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule: The specific objectives of this action are enumerated in Section 4 of this document. The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended through October 11, 1996, provides the legal basis for the rule. Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply: The proposed rule will apply to all commercial and recreational for-hire firms that currently participate in the various fisheries considered in this amendment. 144 Description of the projected reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of the report or records: The reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule are not materially different from the current practice, with the possible exception of the use of an observer program in collecting bycatch information. The public burden associated with this latter activity cannot be estimated at this time, primarily because of the specifics related to the use of observers aboard fishing vessels. Identification of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule: No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. Description of significant alternatives to the proposed rule and discussion of how the alternatives attempt to minimize economic impacts on small entities: Several types alternatives have been considered as ways to meet the FMP objectives. They are all discussed under the appropriate sections of this document. 13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The purpose and need for action for this amendment are contained in Section 3.0, with additional discussion in Section 4.0. The list of proposed actions is contained in Section 5.0. The full list of alternatives considered, including rejected alternatives, is listed for each issue in the appropriate issue section (sections 7.0 and 8.0). The description of the affected environment of the fisheries are discussed in the Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in the following FMPs of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources, Stone Crab, Spiny Lobster, and Coral and Coral Reefs (GMFMC 1998). 13.1 Effects on Physical, Human, Fishery, and Wetlands Environments The alternatives in the amendment are anticipated to have no effects on the physical environment, flood plains, wetlands or rivers. Discussion of the environmental consequences of the alternatives on the Human and Fishery Environments accompanies each section containing the alternatives (sections 7.0 and 8.0) and constitutes the bulk of the environmental assessment with respect to the specific alternatives. Additional information concerning human impacts is contained in the RIR (section 12.0), and in the Economic Impacts subsection under each of the sets of alternatives. 13.2 Effect on Endangered Species and Marine Mammals 145 A Section 7 consultation will be requested from NMFS regarding the impact of the proposed Amendment. It is not anticipated that populations of threatened/endangered species would be adversely affected by the proposed actions. 13.3 Conclusion Mitigation measures related to the proposed action and fishery: No significant adverse environmental impacts are expected; therefore, no mitigating actions are proposed. Unavoidable adverse effects with implementation of the proposed actions and any negative net economic benefits are discussed in the Regulatory Impact Review. The only irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources involved are the government costs related to implementation of the amendment and reporting burdens on the public associated with providing bycatch information. 13.4 Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact In view of the analysis presented in this document, I have determined that the fishery and the proposed action in this amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment with specific reference to the criteria contained in NDM 02 10 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed action is not necessary. Approved: Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Date 146 14.0 OTHER APPLICABLE LAW 14.1 Habitat Concerns Fish habitats and related concerns were described in the Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in the following FMPs of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources, Stone Crab, Spiny Lobster, and Coral and Coral Reefs (GMFMC 1998). The actions in this amendment do not directly affect the habitat. 14.2 Vessel Safety Considerations A determination of vessel safety with regard to compliance with 50 CFR 600.355(d) will be requested from the U.S. Coast Guard. Actions in this amendment are not expected to adversely affect vessel safety. 14.3 Coastal Zone Consistency Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that all federal activities which directly affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed changes in federal regulations of this amendment will make no changes in federal regulations that are inconsistent with either existing or proposed state regulations. This amendment has been judged to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management programs of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to the maximum extent practical. This determination will be submitted for review to the responsible state agencies under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act administering approved Coastal Zone Management programs of these states. 14.4 Paperwork Reduction Act The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to control paperwork requirements imposed on the public by the Federal Government. The authority to manage information collection and record keeping requirements is vested with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This authority encompasses establishment of guidelines and policies, approval of information collection requests, and reduction of paperwork burdens and duplications. The proposal to require those vessels selected to submit reports on bycatch harvested by the vessel would impose additional but relatively minimal public reporting burden. This requirement has been determined to be necessary under the SFA to improve the information available to assess the impacts of bycatch. 147 14.5 Federalism No federalism issues have been identified relative to the actions proposed in this amendment. Therefore, preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 is not necessary. 15.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The following agencies and entities were consulted on the provisions of this amendment: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council: Standing Scientific and Statistical Committee Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries Advisory Panel Law Enforcement Advisory Panel Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel Coastal Zone Management Programs: Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida National Marine Fisheries Service: Southeast Regional Office Southeast Fisheries Science Center 16.0 PUBLIC HEARING LOCATIONS AND DATES Public hearings for the daft Amendment were held in the following dates and locations from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday, December 7, 1998 Holiday Inn - Fort Brown 1900 East Elizabeth Street Brownsville, Texas 78520 Tuesday, December 8, 1998 Port Aransas Civic Center Auditorium 710 West Avenue A Port Aransas, Texas 78373 Pier House One Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 148 Wednesday, December 9, 1998 Texas A&M Auditorium 200 Seawolf Parkway Galveston, Texas 77553 Thursday, December 10, 1998 New Orleans Airport Hilton & Conference Center 901 Airline Highway Kenner, Louisiana 70063 Ramada Airport Hotel 5303 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Monday December 14, 1998 National Marine Fisheries Service Panama City Laboratory 3500 Delwood Beach Road Panama City, Florida 32408 Tuesday, December 15, 1998 Orange Beach Community Center 27235 Canal Road County Road 180 Orange Beach, Alabama 36561 Wednesday, December 16, 1998 J.L. Scott Marine Education Center & Aquarium 115 East Beach Boulevard U.S. Highway 90 Biloxi, Mississippi 39530 Thursday, December 17, 1998 Larose Regional Park 2001 East 5th Street Larose, Louisiana 70373 17.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director Antonio Lamberte, Economist Richard Leard, Biologist 149 18.0 REFERENCES Alabama Gulf Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau. 1994. The economic impact of charter fishing in Orange Beach, Alabama. Memo. Rpt. 7 pp. American Sports Fishing Assoc. 1997. The economic importance of sport fishing. Memo. Rpt. 11 pp. Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G.A. Meester. 1997. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fisheries Bulletin 96(3):395-414. Bell, F.W. 1997. Socioeconomic conditions. Chapter 6, Characteristics and trends of recreational and commercial fishing from the Florida Panhandle. US Dept. of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR--1997 0001 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 97-0020. 77 p. + appendices. Bell, F.W. 1991. An analysis of the economic base of Monroe County, Florida with implications for oil and gas exploration, 1969-1988. Department of Economics, Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida. Bell, F.W. and P.E. Sorensen. 1993. A socioeconomic impact assessment of selected management strategies. Department of Economics. Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida Bert, T.M., J. Tilmant, J. Dodrill, and G.E. Davis. 1996. Aspects of the population dynamics and biology of the stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) in Everglades and Biscayne National Parks as determined by trapping. National Park Service, Report SFRC-86/04. 77 pp. Bertelson, R., J. Hunt. 1996. Spiny lobster spawning potential and population assessment: a monitoring program for the south Florida area. Final completion rpt: first year. MARFIN Grant 0518. FDEP. Marathon, Florida. 22 pp. Bertelson, R., J. Hunt. 1997. Spiny lobster spawning potential and population assessment: a monitoring program for the south Florida area. Final completion rpt: second year. MARFIN Grant 0518. FDEP. Marathon, Florida. 25 pp. Bohnsack, J.A., D.L. Sutherland, D.E. Harper, D.B. McClellan, Lt (jg) M.W. Hulsbeck, and C.M. Holt. 1989. The effects of fish trap mesh size on reef fish catch. NOAA/NMFS SEFC CRD Contribution number 87/88-30. 150 Center for Economic and Management Research. 1995. Economic impact of commercial fisheries in the Florida Keys: Case study—Florida Keys national marine sanctuary draft management plan. Prepared by the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida for the Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc. Condrey, R., 1995. Personal communication to Terry Leary on royal red shrimp MSY computations. Memo. rpt. 9 pp. CSAP. 1998. Report of the ad hoc crustacean stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 15 pp. Dokken, Q.R., H.B. Lovett, T. Ozuna, B.J. Ponwith, E. Ozuna, and L. Centeno. 1998. Texas fisheries economic development report. Center for Coastal Studies, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412. TAMU-CC-9807-CCS. Edwards, R.E. 1994. Development and evaluation of methods and protocols for determining acute mortality of released red drum, snook, Spanish mackerel and king mackerel. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 380. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Edwards, R.E. 1996. King mackerel hooking mortality assessment (S-K NA37FD0087-01). Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. English, D.B.K., Kriesel, W.A., Leeworthy, V.R., and Wiley, P.C. 1996. Economic contribution of recreating visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, Georgia; Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia; Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland. FMRI. 1997. Status of the spiny lobster, 1997. Rpt. to FMFC. FDEP. FMRI. St. Petersburg, Florida. 10 pp. FSAP. July 1998. Report of the first ad hoc finfish stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 15 pp. FSAP. August 1998. Report of the second ad hoc finfish stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 21 pp. Gazey, W.J. and B.J. Gallaway. 1998 (unpublished manuscript). An alternative view regarding appropriate SPR threshold and targets for Gulf of Mexico red snapper. 36 p + app. GMFMC. 1979. FMP/EIS for the Gulf of Mexico stone crab fishery. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 138 pp. (MSY section). 151 GMFMC. 1981. FMP for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery (Revised). GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 236 pp. (MSY section). GMFMC. 1981. FMP/EIS for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 138 pp. Appendix. GMFMC. 1989. Amendment 1 to FMP for reef fish. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 479 pp. GMFMC. 1990. Amendment 4 to the stone crab FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 23 pp. GMFMC. 1990. Amendment 2 to Reef Fish FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 28 pp. GMFMC. 1991. Amendment 5 to the Shrimp FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 32 pp. GMFMC. 1994. Amendment 7 to the Shrimp FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 30 pp. GMFMC. 1995. Amendment 8 to the Shrimp FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 31 pp. GMFMC. 1995. Amendment 11 to Reef Fish FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 81 pp. GMFMC. 1995. Amendment 12 to Reef Fish FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 37 pp. GMFMC. 1997. Amendment 9 to the Shrimp FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 153 pp with appendices. GMFMC. 1997. Amendment 11 to Reef Fish FMP: resubmission document specifying OY. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 18 pp. GMFMC. 1997. Amendment 15 to Reef Fish FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 114 pp. GMFMC. 1998. Amendment 16A to Reef Fish FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 46 pp. GMFMC. 1998. Public hearing draft of generic amendment for addressing essential fish habitat requirement of the Gulf of Mexico FMPs. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 214 pp. with appendices. GMFMC. 1998. Regulatory amendment to the reef fish fishery management plan for the 1998 red snapper TAC and recreational bag limit. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. Memo. Rpt. 53 pp. GMFMC. 1999. Amendment 16B to the reef fish fishery management plan. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 53 pp. 152 GMFMC. 1999. Regulatory amendment to the reef fish fishery management plan to set 1999 gag/black grouper management measures. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 61 pp. GMFMC and GSMFC. 1984. Fishery profile of red drum. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 161 pp. GMFMC/SAFMC. 1981. FMP/EIS for the Gulf of Mexico spiny lobster fishery. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 187 pp. (MSY section). GMFMC/SAFMC. 1982. FMP/EIS for coral and coral reefs. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 202 pp. Appendices. GMFMC/SAFMC. 1983. FMP/EIS for coastal migratory pelagics. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 220 pp. GMFMC/SAFMC. 1985. Amendment 1 to the FMP/EIS for the coastal migratory pelagic resources. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 198 pp. GMFMC/SAFMC. 1986. Amendment 2 to the coastal migratory pelagics FMP. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 38 pp. with appendices. GMFMC/SAFMC. 1990. Amendment 3 to the FMP for spiny lobster. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 16 pp. Gregory, D.R., R.F. Labisky and C.L. Combs. 1982. Reproductive dynamics of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in south Florida. Trans. Amer. Fish. Society. 111:575-584. Goodyear, C.P., 1988. Recent trends in the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: CRP 87/88-16. 121 pp. Goodyear, C.P., 1989. Status of the red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: CRD 88/89-14. 64 pp. Goodyear, C.P., 1993. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA 92/93-76. 125 pp. Goodyear, C.P., 1994. Biological reference points for red grouper: effects of uncertainty about growth. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-93/94-60. 26 pp. Goodyear, C.P. 1995. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-95/96-05. 171 pp. Goodyear, C.P. 1996. Status of the red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-95/96-47. 51 pp. with appendices A-R. 153 Goodyear, C.P., and M.J. Schirripa. 1993. The red grouper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-92/93-75. 122 pp. GSMFC. 1998. A cooperative data program for recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to Congress. GSMFC. Ocean Springs, MS. 39 pp. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 1995. The Menhaden fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional management plan. (No. 32) GSMFC, Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Harper, D.E. and D.B. McClellan. 1997. A review of the biology and fishery for gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. Miami, FL. Contribution MIA-96/97-52. 27 pp. Holiman, S.G. 1995. Supplement to the report 1995 Gulf of Mexico recreational red grouper catch projections under a minimum size reduction to 18 inches. NMFS. St. Petersburg, FL. Memo. Rpt. 7 pp. Hood, P.B. and A.K. Johnson. 1997. A study of the age structure, growth, maturity schedules, and fecundity of gray triggerfish, red porgy, and vermilion snapper from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. MARFIN final report. NMFS. St. Petersburg, FL. 103 pp. Hood, P.B. and A.K. Johnson. 1999. Age growth, mortality, and reporduction of vermilion snapper in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (accepted for publication in the Fishery Bulletin, vol. 4) Huntsman, G.R., and W.E. Schaaf. 1994. Simulations of the impact of fishing on reproduction of protogynous grouper, the graysby. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 14:41-52. Jones, A.C., J.M. Nance, and W.O. Antozzi, Jr. 1994. A review of the royal red shrimp resource and fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. NMFS-SEFSC. 28p. Kearney-Centaur. 1989. Economic activity associated with fishery products in the United States. Final report. National Fisheries Education and Research Foundation, Inc., July 1989. Klima E., J. Nance, E. Martinez and T. Leary. 1990. Workshop on the definition of shrimp recruitment overfishing. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-264. NMFS. Galveston, Texas. 18 pp. Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationship between common biological reference points used as thresholds or targets of fishing management strategies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:110 112. 154 Mace, P.M., D. Gregory, N. Ehrhardt, M. Fisher, P. Goodyear, R. Muller, J. Powers, A. Rosenberg, J. Shepard, and D. Vaughan. 1996. An evaluation of the use of SPR levels as the basis for overfishing definitions in the Gulf of Mexico finfish fishery management plans. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 46 pp. Mace, P.M., and M. P. Sissenwine. 1993. How much spawning per recruit is enough? Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 120:101-118. Mathews, T.R., C. Cox, and D. Eaken. 1985. By-catch in Florida’s spiny lobster trap fishery. FMRI. Manuscript submitted to Gulf & Caribbean Fish. Institute. 10 pp. McClellen, D.B., and N.J. Cummings. 1996. Stock assessment of Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack through 1995. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-96/97-03. 46 pp. MSAP. 1992. Report of the mackerel stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 34 pp. MSAP. 1996. Report of the mackerel stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 32 pp. MSAP. 1998. Report of the mackerel stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 31 pp. with appendix. Muller, R., and T. Bert. 1997. 1997 update on Florida’s stone crab fishery. Rpt. to FMFC. FDEP. FMRI. St. Petersburg, Florida. 23 pp. Muller, R., J. Hunt, T. Matthews and W. Sharp. 1997. Evaluation of effort reduction in the Florida Keys spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, fishery using age-structured population analysis. CSIRO Australia Mar. Freshwater Res. 1997. 48, 1045-1058. Nance, J., 1995. Shrimp recruitment overfishing analysis for 1995. memo. rpt. prepared for GMFMC. NMFS. Galveston, Texas. 6 pp. Nance, J., E. Klima and T. Czapla. 1989. Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo SEFC-NMFS-239. NMFS. Galveston, Texas. 43 pp. NMFS. 1986. FMP/EIS for the red drum fishery for the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. St. Petersburg, FL. 156 pp. NMFS. 1995. Characterization of the reef fish fishery of the eastern U.S. Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. Memo. Rpt. prepared for GMFMC. 42 pp. NMFS. 1997. Fisheries of the United States, 1996. NMFS. Silver Spring, MD. 169 pp. 155 NMFS. 1997. Report to Congress: Status of fisheries of the United States. NMFS. Silver Spring, MD. 75 pp. NMFS. 1998. Report to Congress: Status of fisheries of the United States. NMFS. Silver Spring, MD. 88 pp. NOAA. 1995. Our living oceans: report on the status of U.S. living marine resources. NOAA. Silver Spring, MD. 159 pp. NOAA. 1998. Technical Guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementation of National Standard 1 of M-SFCMA.. NOAA. Silver Spring, MD. Tech Memo NMFS-F/SFO. Powers, J.E., and D.L. Sutherland. 1989. Spiny lobster assessment, cpue, size frequency, yield per recruit and escape gap analyses. NMFS. SEFSC. Contribution CRD-88/89 24. 79 pp. RDSAP. 1987. Report of the first red drum stock assessment group meeting. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 8 pp. RDSAP. 1989. Report of the second red drum scientific assessment group meeting. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 8 pp. RDSAP. 1993. Report of the fourth red drum stock assessment panel meeting. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 14 pp. RDSAP. 1996. Report of the fifth red drum stock assessment panel meeting. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 7 pp. Render J.H., and C.A. Wilson. 1993. Mortality rate and movement of hook-and-line caught and released red snapper (MARFIN NA90AAHMF762 Final Report) Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Render, J.H., and C.A. Wilson. 1994. Hook-and-line mortality of caught and released red snapper around oil and gas platform structural habitat. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(2 3): 1106-1111. Restrepo, V.R., 1989. Population dynamics and yield-per-recruit assessment of southwest Florida stone crabs, Menippe mercenaria. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 224 pp. RFSAP. 1995. Report of the reef fish stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 20 pp. 156 RFSAP. October 1997. Report of the reef fish stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. Memo. Rpt. 58 pp. RFSAP. August 1998. Report of the reef fish stock assessment panel. GMFMC. Tampa, FL. 19 pp. RFSAP. 1998. October 1998 report of the reef fish stock assessment panel. GMFMC, Tampa, FL. xx pages. Rosenberg, A., P. Mace, G. Thompson, G. Darcy, W. Clark, J. Collie, W. Gabriel, A. MacCall, R. Methot, J. Powers, V. Restrepo, T. Wainwright, L. Botsford, J. Hoening and K. Stokes. 1994. Scientific review of definitions of overfishing in U.S. fishery management plans. NMFS, Washington, DC. 205 pp. SAFMC. 1998. Comprehensive amendment addressing the SFA provisions (public hearing draft). (Section 4.3.4). memo. file rpt. p.69-95. Schirripa, M.J. 1996. Status of the vermilion snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-96/97-19. 11 pp. Schirripa, M.J. 1998. Status of the vermilion snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: SFD-97/98-0A9. 78 pp. Schirripa, M.J., and C.M. Legault. 1997. Status of the gag stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. 111 pp. with Appendices. Schirripa, M.J. 1998. Status of red snapper in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution SFD 97/98 - 30. 85 pp. Schirripa, M.J., and C.M. Legault. 1997. Status of the red snapper fishery in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico: Updated through 1996. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA 97/98-05. 37 pp. Schirripa, M.J., and C.P. Goodyear. 1994. Status of the gag stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-93/94-61. 155 pp. Southwick Associates. 1997. The economic benefits of fisheries, wildlife and boating resources in the state of Louisiana. Prepared for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. SSAP. 1993. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery recruitment overfishing definition workshop 2. GMFMC. Tampa, Florida. 12 pp. 157 Taylor, R.G., and R.H. McMichael, Jr. 1983. The wire fish trap fisheries in Monroe and Collier Counties, Florida. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 39, 19 pp. Thompson, N.B. 1996. An assessment of cobia in the southeast U.S. waters. NMFS. SEFSC. Miami, FL. Contribution: MIA-95/96-28. 11 pp. Tolbert C. M., F.A. Deseran, and J. Singelmann. 1998. MARFIN Socio-Demographic Database. Louisiana Population Data Center, Louisiana State University, for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN). Award No. NA57FF0064. Waters, J. R. 1996. An economic survey of commercial reef fish vessels in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702. 63 p + attachments. Wilson, R.R. Jr., and K.M. Burns. 1996. Potential survival of released groupers caught deeper than 40 m based on shipboard and in-situ observations, and tag-recapture data. Bulletin of Marine Science. 58(1):234-247. Vondruska, J. 1998. Florida’s west coast stone crab fishery. NMFS. SERO. St. Petersburg, FL. SERO-ECON-98-22. 23 pp. Vondruska, J. 1998a. Florida’s spiny lobster fishery. NMFS. SERO. St. Petersburg, FL. SERO-ECON-98-23. 51 pp. H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 158 Table 1. By-catch observed in 21,309 lobster traps during the 1993-1994 lobster season. Species are listed in order of abundance. For those species regulated by size restrictions, the number of legal and sub-legal sized individuals are presented separately. [Table only available with printed copy.] 159 Table 2. Number and fate of fish caught on longline gear from April 1994 through February 1995. [Table only available with printed copy.] 160 Table 3. Number and fate of fish sampled in fish traps from December 1993 through November 1994. [Table only available with printed copy.] 161 Table 4. Estimates of fractions of red snapper caught and released by recreational fishermen by fishing mode and year for the period 1979-1994, based on the NMRFSS data. Note: charter boat data are included with head boats before 1986. Head Boats Charter Private/Rental Combined Year Kept Rel % Rel Kept Rel % Rel Kept Rel % Rel Kept Rel % Rel 1979 2892 0 0.0 2490 114 4.4 5382 114 2.1 1980 2044 40 1.9 2021 40 2.0 4065 81 1.9 1981 323 6 2.0 1792 55 3.0 2115 61 2.8 1982 708 12 1.6 726 11 1.4 1433 22 1.5 1983 1053 2 0.1 1554 0 0.0 2607 2 0.1 1984 422 1 0.3 232 21 8.3 654 22 3.3 1985 621 2 0.4 503 177 26.0 1124 179 13.7 1986 580 30 4.9 247 15 5.7 827 45 5.1 1987 556 31 5.2 224 37 14.2 780 68 8.0 1988 368 27 6.8 344 166 32.5 712 193 21.3 1989 284 81 22.1 370 202 35.3 654 282 30.1 1990 137 141 50.6 203 361 64.1 340 502 59.6 1991 357 286 44.4 273 531 66.0 630 816 56.4 1992 309 259 45.6 663 663 50.0 972 923 48.7 1993 567 189 25.0 704 654 48.2 1270 843 39.9 1994 328 311 48.6 496 494 49.9 824 805 49.4 Source: Goodyear (1995a) reef\table-4-498 162 Table 5. Number (Thousands) of Fish Released by Anglers in the Gulf of Mexico and Percentage of Total Catch Released for Reef Fish Species. Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gag Grouper Red Grouper Greater Amberjack Year Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996* 539 58 870 58 936 49 963 39 906 47 768 50 1006 59 44 7 155 15 159 20 344 31 101 14 286 28 81 22 414 71 875 77 754 74 1296 78 1815 87 2016 83 1150 80 1690 89 3013 91 2740 86 1708 82 1708 86 1713 84 1048 89 78 56 279 54 329 57 225 59 114 49 73 57 69 49 *Preliminary Data Source: Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey Data only. H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 163 Table 6. Number (Thousands) of Fish Released by Anglers in the Gulf of Mexico and Percentage of Total Catch Released for Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species. King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Cobia Dolphin (fish) Year Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch Number Percent Released of Catch 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996* 229 24 308 21 271 28 106 11 288 21 258 21 332 22 4281 58 2462 42 3301 41 2028 40 1295 32 1113 35 1274 36 171 68 456 79 218 69 131 57 232 65 153 61 235 56 46 4 695 31 101 13 205 15 254 19 474 25 27 3 *Preliminary Data Source: Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey Data only. H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 164 Table 7. Annual average of Total Shrimp Effort by Statistical Zones for 1990 - 1993 and 1994 1995 Periods (In Thousands of 24-hour Fishing Days) Date/Location Nearshore1 Offshore2 Total (%) 1990 - 1993 Stat. Areas 1 - 7 Stat. Areas 8 - 21 1994 - 1995 Stat. Areas 1 - 7 Stat. Areas 8 - 21 3.1 105.4 6.3 85.2 14.4 93.5 16.3 78.2 17.5 (8%) 200.0 (92%) 22.6 (12%) 163.4 (88%) Source: Data provided by National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston Laboratory. 1Inshore of 10 Fathoms 2Offshore of 10 Fathoms H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 165 Table 8. Ratio of Finfish Poundage to each Pound of Shrimp Caught in Shrimp Trawls from the Gulf of Mexico, 1992 - 1994. By Area By Season Gulf-wide 4.2 Florida Nearshore1 2.9 Offshore2 3.1 Alabama/Mississippi Nearshore 3.2 Offshore 3.6 Louisiana Nearshore 3.3 Offshore 6.9 Texas Nearshore 3.5 Offshore 3.3 Gulf-wide: January/April 4.9 May/August 3.3 September/December 5.1 Source: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1997, Shrimp Amendment 9 (Data provided by National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston Laboratory.) 1Inshore of 10 Fathoms 2Offshore of 10 Fathoms H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 166 Table 9. Ratio of Finfish Poundage for each Pound of Shrimp Caught in Trawls from Statistical Areas 1 - 8 off Florida, 1993 - 1996. Water Depths (Fathoms) Statistical Areas Sampled (See Figure 2) 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 8 <5 5 - 10 10 - 15 >15 7.8 4.7 1.1 4.1 4.1 1.0 1.3 2.7 1.0 2.0 4.8 N1 330 298 374 Source: Data provided by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation. 1N=Number of Tows Sampled H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 167 Table 10. Most Common Species Groups in Shrimp Trawl Samples for Statistical Areas 1 - 8, 1993 1996, in Numbers of Fish Per Hour Trawled. Statistical Areas: 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 8 Depths (fathoms): 10 - 15 >15 10 - 15 >15 10 - 15 >15 Sea Basses1 Searobins Pinfish Porgy, Longspine Spot Mojarras Lane Snapper 3.0 0.4 1.6 3.2 3.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 2.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 3.3 4.5 2.2 1.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 3.1 1.0 4.6 5.3 2.9 2.0 0.4 0.2 29.1 64.5 11.2 6.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Flounders by genera: Citharichthys Syacium Etropus Paralichthys Grunts/Porgies2 2.3 0.1 13.9 15.5 0.2 <0.1 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.5 1.0 15.6 18.5 5.2 23.1 0.2 <0.1 0.7 4.1 0.6 0.3 12.5 14.2 1.9 52.2 0.3 <0.1 4.7 5.1 Source: Data provided by Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation. 1Fish of the following genera: Centropristis, Diplectrum, and Serranus 2Fish of the following genera: Orthoprista, Haemulon, Calamus, and Arohoaorgus H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 168 Table 11. Number of Fish Caught Per Hour for Less Common Species or Species Groups in Bycatch Characterization and BRD Control Net Evaluations by Water Depth for Statistical Areas 1 - 5, 1993 - 1996. Species/ Species Group Statistical Area 1 - 2 Statistical Areas 3 - 5 Depth (Fathoms) 5 - 10 10 - 15 >15 Depth (Fathoms) 0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 >15 Atlantic Croaker Bumper Butterfish Catfish Cobia Cutlassfish Silver Perch Sharks Flounder Porgy King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Other Snapper Spot Star Drum Seatrout Whiting Jacks Groupers 0.46 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.27 0.22 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.08 0.19 0.22 0.28 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.41 0.70 5.4 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.89 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.02 N1 21 181 127 10 66 122 100 Source: Data provided by G&SAFDF. 1N=Number of Tows H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 169 Table 12 - insert Qpro table 170 Table 13. Updated Assessment of Overfishing Status for Gulf Stocks Based on Current Criteria in FMPs1. Species Stocks Council’s Overfished SPR % Assessment Year Data Through Year Latest Estimated SPR % Projected SPR % with Regulation Overfished Determination Approaching Overfished ConditionNMFS Council A. Reef Fish Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Greater Amberjack Gag Red Grouper Shallow-water Grouper Jewfish & Nassau Grouper B. Migratory Coastal Pelagics Gulf-group King Mackerel Gulf-group Spanish Mackerel Cobia C. Red Drum D. Shrimp Brown Shrimp White Shrimp Pink Shrimp Royal Red Shrimp E. Spiny Lobster F. Stone Crab 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 20 20 n/a6 n/a6 n/a6 n/a6 57 708 1997 1996 1996 19943 1993 19914 none 1998 1998 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1990 1989 1996 1995 1995 1992 1992 1990 1997 1997 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1982 1988 0.4 20-25 34-36 30 30 30-36 23 35 13-25 10 n/a6 n/a6 n/a6 n/a6 n/a7 >70 >202 <20 >40 <30 >30 >36 >23 >35 unknown >205 >5 >70 yes no no unknown unknown n/a yes yes no no yes no no no no no no yes no no no no no yes yes no no yes no no no no no no n/a yes no unknown9 unknown n/a n/a n/a no no n/a no no no no no no 1Status of other species or stocks is unknown 2By year 2019 3More recent assessment (1997) exists but has not been analyzed by RFSAP. It suggests SPR is lower. 4Red Grouper assessment was used as proxy for shallow-water grouper 5By year 2001 6Surviving parent stock levels, rather than SPR, are used for Penaeid shrimp and MSY for royal red shrimp 7Eggs per recruit ratio measured from exploited stock as compared to stock in sanctuary 8Eggs per recruit ratio 9The 1998 NMFS report indicated gag were approaching an overfished state H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 171 TABLE 14 Summary of M/K Ratios for Gulf Finfish Stocks Group One: M/K Ratio < 1.0 Species M K M/K Black Grouper 0.15 0.160 0.94 Red Hind 0.18 0.207 0.87 Cubera Snapper 0.15 0.160 0.93 Red Snapper* 0.10 0.160 0.63 Yellowtail Snapper* 0.20 0.250 0.80 Greater Amberjack* 0.20 0.250 0.80 Red Drum* 0.20 0.367 0.55 Cobia* 0.35 0.350 1.00 Red Grouper* 0.20 0.210 0.95 Jewfish** 0.92 Nassau Grouper** 0.94 Group Two: M/K Ratio > 1.0 < 1.5 Species M K M/K Coney 0.18 0.145 1.24 Rock Hind 0.25 0.191 1.31 Scamp 0.14 0.126 1.13 Snowy Grouper 0.13 0.113 1.15 Warsaw Grouper 0.08 0.054 1.48 Yellowedge Grouper 0.18 0.170 1.05 Yellowfin Grouper 0.18 0.170 1.05 Schoolmaster 0.25 0.180 1.38 Vermilion Snapper* 0.20 0.198 1.01 Mutton Snapper* 0.21 0.153 1.36 Hogfish 0.25 0.190 1.32 King mackerel* 0.20 0.170 1.18 Spanish mackerel* 0.30 0.270 1.11 Group Three: M/K Ratio > 1.5 Species M K M/K Gag* 0.20 0.150 1.63 Graysby 0.20 0.130 1.54 Speckled Hind 0.20 0.130 1.54 Yellowmouth Grouper 0.18 0.063 2.86 Black Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Blackfin Snapper 0.23 0.084 2.74 Dog Snapper 0.33 0.100 3.30 Gray Snapper 0.30 0.136 2.21 Lane Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Mahogany Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Silk Snapper 0.23 0.092 2.50 Source: Ault, et al. (1997 (Except for species marked by *). **from Legault and Eklund (1998) H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 172 Table 15. Comparison of Gulf group king mackerel TAC and landings by fishing year (million pounds); percent of total landings and percent over allocation for recreational and commercial sectors. [Table only available with printed copy.] 173 Table 16. Cobia U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Catch Summary in Number and by Weight in Pounds. Year denotes calendar year. The 1995 estimates are preliminary. Atlantic- thousands of fish Atlantic- thousands of pounds Year Commercial Recreational Total Commercial Recreational Total 1984 1479 40750 42229 33.4 951.4 984.8 1985 1328 44204 45532 30.0 1313.6 1343.6 1986 3099 33012 36111 70.0 573.7 648.7 1987 5401 29809 35210 122.8 617.3 740.1 1988 4684 27132 31816 105.6 553.9 659.5 1989 5799 46498 52297 131.1 1339.7 1470.8 1990 5482 29085 34567 123.3 619.7 743.0 1991 5297 31554 36851 125.0 914.8 1039.8 1992 5604 54883 60487 137.3 1204.5 1341.8 1993 5627 31756 37383 123.8 684.8 808.6 1994 5410 30273 35683 126.6 671.6 798.2 1995 3739 18541 22280 97.2 521.1 618.3 US Gulf - thousands of fish US Gulf - thousands of pounds Year Commercial Recreational Total Commercial Recreational Total 1984 10161 54160 64321 174.4 1066.9 1241.3 1985 9404 48580 57984 161.4 1115.8 1277.2 1986 10301 71875 82176 176.8 1373.4 1550.2 1987 11764 54928 66692 201.9 919.9 1121.8 1988 10488 74480 84968 180.0 1348.7 1528.7 1989 3535 44913 58448 232.3 939.9 1172.2 1990 10143 41903 52046 174.1 811.6 985.7 1991 7225 60854 68079 176.3 1218.2 1294.5 1992 8615 52142 60757 232.6 950.5 1183.1 1993 9147 57988 67135 260.7 1034.2 1294.9 1994 9276 66394 75670 262.5 1392.5 1655.0 1995 5053 52720 57773 151.6 1050.0 1201.6 Source: MSAP Report 1996. 174 Table 17. Gulf Red Drum Rules. GULF RED DRUM RULES As of April 1986 Alabama (No sale of fish from state waters) Bag: 15/day Size: 14 inches - 36 inches TL (two fish over 36 inches) Florida Bag: None 16 inches - 32 inches TL1 Size: 18 inches - 32 inches TL 2 (one fish over 32 inches) Commercial quota: No Limit Mississippi Bag: 10/day - (with 5 undersize) Size: 14 inches - 30 inches TL (two fish over 30 inches allowed) Commercial quota: 200,000 Pounds Closed season: No Fishing 9/15 - 11/15 Louisiana Bag: 50/day (red drum/spotted seatrout combined) Size: 16 inches - 36 inches TL (commercial) no limit (recreational) two fish over 36 inches Commercial quota: No limit Texas (No sale of fish from state waters) Bag: 5/day Size: 18 inches - 30 inches TL (no fish over 30 inches) 1 Alabama To Dixie County 2 Rest of State TL = Total Length As of March 1996 Alabama (Gamefish Status) Bag: 3/day Size: 16 inches - 26 inches TL (one fish over 26 inches allowed) Florida (Sale Prohibited) Bag: 1/day Size: 18 inches - 27 inches TL Mississippi Bag: 3/day Size: 18 inches - 30 inches TL (One fish over 30 inches allowed) Commercial quota: 35,000 pounds Louisiana (Game Fish Status) Bag: 5/day Size: 16 inches - 27 inches TL (One fish over 27 inches allowed) Texas (Gamefish Status) Bag: 3/day Size: 20 inches - 28 inches TL (Up to two tagged fish over 28 inches annually) Note: Off water possession limit generally twice bag limit for most states H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd 175 Table 18. Landings (pounds) of Royal Red Shrimp by Year and Statistical Grid. [Table only available with printed copy.] 176 Table 18 (cont.). Landings (pounds) of Royal Red Shrimp by Year and Statistical Grid. [Table only available with printed copy.] 177 Table 19. Number of spiny lobster harvested, estimated population size, fishing mortality rates, weighted fishing mortality for ages 2 - 7 by year, and transitional spawning potential ratios. The fishing mortality rates in bold represent the rate for the fully available lobsters (selectivity = 1.00). Natural mortality rate: 0.34 per year. [Table only available with printed copy.] 178 APPENDIX A. Chapter 46-13 Florida Code of Law. Stone Crabs. [Appendix only available with printed copy.] 179 Appendix B. Report of the Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel. Prepared by the Ad Hoc Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel at the Panel Meeting held June 1-3, 1998. CRUSTACEAN STOCK ASSESSMENT PANEL REPORT I. INTRODUCTION The charge of the Crustacean Stock Assessment Panel (CSAP) was to address the new provisions of the SFA that apply to National Standard 1 which provides that management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. These changes require the SAP to reassess statements in the fishery management plans (FMPs) for MSY, OY, and threshold defining overfishing and overfished for each stock or stock complex. In carrying out this task, the CSAP was guided by the provisions of the National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 1 which is set forth in 50 CFR 600.310 and include the alternatives for specifying these parameters. The CSAP utilized the best available scientific information in formulating its recommendations which included, but was not limited to, those documents discussed in Section II of this report. In the case of the Spiny Lobster FMP, the CSAP deferred making recommendations until a subpanel could be convened to analyze more recent information and develop a separate report for that fishery. II. REVIEW OF STOCK ASSESSMENT INFORMATION The Panel reviewed the documents presented in Section IV (Review of the Literature). To fulfill its charge, the Panel paid particular attention to the existing definitions for MSY, OY, and overfishing for the 3 Penaeus species discussed in Amendments 5 and 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters and for royal red shrimp discussed in Amendment 8. The Panel also considered the findings from a series of workshops on overfishing of shrimp from 1989 through 1993, the recent overfishing reports by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and conclusions regarding estimates of MSY for royal red shrimp. With regard to stone crabs, the Panel particularly reviewed the current definitions for overfishing (contained in Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and current definitions of MSY. In addition to the catch, effort, and other stock assessment information available in these documents, a 1997 update of stock parameters regarding this species prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was most helpful to the Panel’s review and conclusions. As noted below, there was insufficient participation by Panel members with particular experience assessments of spiny lobster stocks for the Panel to fully address its charge with regard to this species. Additionally, a recent paper (Muller et al. 1997) was presented at the Panel meeting, and members felt that there was sufficient time to fully review the document and determine the most appropriate application of the data to the Panel’s charge. 180 III. CRUSTACEAN STOCK ASSESSMENT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Genus - Penaeus The three species of Penaeus comprising the bulk of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries are essentially annual crops. Annual harvests vary considerably due to fluctuations in environmental conditions experienced by pre-recruits. MSY estimates have been reported, based on analytical models of catch and landings. Such MSY values are near observed maximum catches. However, the Panel stresses that due to the environmental fluctuations seen to date, catches above MSY, even if persisting over several years, must not of themselves be taken as evidence of overfishing. The Panel agrees with the findings of <<overfishing workshops>>, that the best way to define overfishing for the 3 Penaeus species is in terms of spawning population size. Empirical comparisons of 30 years of landings data with the indicies of spawning population size determined by VPA stock assessment were used by the <<workshops>> to define minimum levels of spawning stock believed to be compatible with maximum productivity under current conditions. The Panel recommends these values as the most meaningful proxy for MSY. Maintaining parent stock numbers above these levels should be sufficient to prevent overfishing. The Panel proposes retention of the scientific review scenarios proposed by the <<workshops>> (‘response to potential overfishing,’ below) as the proper response to reduction of parent stocks below the MSY proxy targets. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The definition of MSY with respect to the status of the existing fishery was a contentious issue during the original development of the shrimp FMP, because the annual harvest levels upon which any point estimate of MSY was based varied by up to 30%, due to environmental factors affecting survival in the nursery grounds. The authors of the plan wanted to stress the dependence of harvest on the environment, but objections were raised because the plan would allow yields above any stated MSY. The plan authors, therefore, presented point estimates of MSY, the maximum probable catch under optimum environmental conditions, and an estimate of maximum effort for a sustainable fishery. With the increased experience with FMPs, it should now be recognized that shrimp harvests can exceed a long-term average MSY for perhaps several years, without damage to stock productivity, and conversely, that harvests below MSY might be excessive during periods of low recruitment. The Panel believes that maintaining sufficient spawning stock is much more appropriate for shrimp management than comparing catches to MSY values. The Panel recommends that the minimum MSY spawning stock size be defined as the parent stock numbers (as indexed from current VPA procedures) for the 3 penaeid species of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico at or above the following levels: Brown Shrimp - 125 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 330 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. 181 Pink Shrimp - 100 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. Optimum Yield (OY): There are no known biological considerations that would require the setting of OYs at levels below those attaining the MSY proxies. Under current management practices, OY is actually a consequence, not a target, of the varied strategies to obtain shrimp at different desired sizes in different regions of the Gulf. Using spawning population to define overfishing has the advantage of separating the essentially economic decisions about utilization of a given recruitment from more serious biological concerns about compromising possible future recruitments. Overfishing Threshold: Overfishing is defined as a level of fishing that results in the parent stock number for any of the penaeid species being reduced below the MSY minimum levels listed above. Response to Possible Overfishing:: If overfishing persists for 2 consecutive years, the Crustacean SAP recommends that the appropriate panels (e.g. SAP, AP, SSC) be convened to review changes in the parent stock size, changes in fishing effort, potential alterations in habitat or other environmental conditions, fishing mortality, and other factors that may have contributed to the decline. If excessive fishing is determined to be the source of, or a contributer to the reduced parent stock sizes, reduction in fishing pressure should be recommended. Overfished Threshold: An overfished condition would be at a parent stock level below the overfishing definition. The guidelines provide that a value as low as one-half the MSY target spawning population size could be used, i.e.: Brown Shrimp - 63 million individuals, age 7+ months during the November through February period. White Shrimp - 165 million individuals, age 7+ months during the May through August period. Pink Shrimp - 50 million individuals, age 5+ months during the July through June year. Some concern was expressed about setting values this low, but the Panel did note that white shrimp in the early 1960s recovered rapidly from below one-half the MSY minimum. The Council may want to specify an overfished threshold above the one-half MSY level as a precautionary approach. Current Status: Parent stocks for all three species have remained well above the MSY parent stock minimum for about 30 years. Even during the recent reduction of pink shrimp recruitment in south Florida, the stock maintained adequate spawning potential. Overfishing does not appear imminent for any of the three Penaeus species. 182 Research Recommendations For purposes of stock assessment, and for assessing condition relative to overfishing, current information is considered adequate. The most serious omission in data collection for assessment could be the lack of annual estimates of recreational, bait, and commercial harvest not marketed through traditional dealers. There are several contentious issues involving impacts of management actions on the shrimp fisheries that do call for further data collection and analysis, but these are not directly related to the basic stock assessments. The most important, active area for biological research on shrimp at present is in defining habitat requirements for shrimp. Royal Red Shrimp - Pleoticus robustus Maximum Sustainable Yield MSY: MSY for royal red shrimp is best considered undetermined. The current FMP point estimate is 392,000 pounds. However, recent analyses have shown that an MSY estimate of 650,000 pounds is as scientifically defensible as 392,000. The Panel therefore recommends that MSY be reported as a range from 392,000 to 650,000 pounds. The Panel notes that, as discussed in Amendment 8 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, a more adequate accounting of the biology and distribution of this species is needed before improvement in the quality of MSY estimates can be expected. Simply allowing catches to rise to the upper end of the MSY range may not provide sufficient information to specify MSY more accurately. Optimum Yield (OY): The Panel had no recommendations for specifying OY. Overfishing Threshold: Overfishing is defined as a harvest level that exceeds the Council’s established level of OY, expected to be within the MSY range. Overfished Threshold: The Panel noted that there was insufficient data to specify an overfished level. Current Status: No annual harvests have exceeded the lower range limit of MSY. The stock is not believed to be overfished. The current fishery may be exploiting only a small part of the stock’s spatial distribution. Stone Crab Fishery Management Plan In the opinion of the Panel, the stone crab fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is at or near full exploitation. Landings have increased since the 1960s, to a 1990-1997 level of 3.0-3.5 million pounds (claw weight). Effort (in number of traps) has also increased considerably, resulting in currently low 183 catch per unit of effort (CPUE) values. However, the stock does not show indications of overfishing and appears to be able to sustain the current levels of production. The Panel believes that the egg production per recruit ratio is a definable, quantitative measure that is appropriate for measuring stock condition, MSY values, and overfishing/overfished definitions for stone crabs. The minimum claw size regulation (70 mm), probably originally set as a market requirement, assures that female crabs spawn at least once before they are subject to harvest. This results in a relatively high (~80%) egg production per recruit ratio. The Panel believes that this level, which can produce an MSY harvest, provides a high level of protection against overfishing. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): MSY is defined as the harvest that results from a realized egg production per recruit at or above 70% of potential production. This harvest capacity is currently estimated at between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws (70 mm minimum propodus length). Rationale: The Panel reviewed the analyses for stone crabs from the NMFS SEFSC Overfishing Workshop and concluded that at the current minimum claw length of 70 mm recruitment overfishing is unlikely. That is because on average males and females mature at age 2 (50% maturity), the male crusher and pincher claws reach legal length between age 2 and age 3, and female claws reach legal lengths one to two years later. Therefore, females spawn for at least one or more years before entering the fishery. Restrepo (1989) suggested the egg production potential is largely independent of the male/female ratio in the population since a single copulation fertilizes a female for the season and males can copulate with several females. Therefore, the fact that males enter the fishery at earlier ages and may be reduced relative to the number of females does not appear to impact egg production potential. Females are capable of producing up to 13 batches of eggs after a single copulation (four to five batches on the average) during the reproductive season. Fecundity is linearly related to size and large females produce upwards of 350,000 eggs per batch. Therefore, at the present minimum claw length of 70 mm, more than 70% of potential egg production will be maintained over a wide range of fishing mortality rates, both higher and lower than the present mortality rate. The current fishing mortality rates produce between 3.0 and 3.5 million pounds of claws annually, and this range is considered to be the best estimate for MSY. Optimum Yield (OY): There are no known biological considerations that would require the setting of OY at a level below MSY, and the stock is adequately protected at this level. [Add last 2 lines on p. 5 and the first 12 lines on p.6 from the Stone Crab Amendment 4]. Overfishing: Overfishing for the stone crab fishery is defined as a realized egg production per recruit of below 70% of potential production. Rationale: A minimum claw length of 70 mm equates to an egg production per recruit ratio of 70% or over. Catch statistics show that the stock has supported the MSY catch levels of 3.0 to 3.5 million pounds under this management rule. Minimum claw lengths below 70 mm would reduce egg production per recruit and would define an overfishing situation. Although overfishing shouldl be avoided when there is a minimum claw length (length of propodus) that assures survival of crabs to 184 achieve the 70% egg production per recruit potential, there is an unlikely possibility that the 70% ratio might not be achieved due to incidental mortality of sublegal size crabs, in which case overfishing could occur at somewhat higher egg production per recruit ratios. Although the Panel recommends a strategy that will probably produce an egg production per recruit percentage of 70% or more, it is noted that this level is probably much larger than what is needed to maintain the stock. It is likely that a strategy that would produce a 40% level would be adequate . Overfished: The overfished condition exists when the realized egg production per recruit is reduced below 40% of potential production. As noted above, this level might also be an overfishing threshold. Rationale: An egg production per recruit level of 40% was chosen to represent the overfished threshold, because this represents the value of egg production per recruit that is approximately one half the value of that at MSY. The Council may want to specify an overfished theshold above the one-half MSY level as a precautionary approach. Current Status of the Stock: (Executive Summary of Muller report) (Tab 20) Research and Data Needs: 1.Expand juvenile monitoring program currently being conducted in Tampa Bay by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to other areas of the fishery (e.g., Monroe-Collier and Citrus-Pasco Counties). 2. Monitor claw size composition in the commercial catch. 3.Monitor CPUE in the fishery (catch per trip, catch per trap). 4. Evaluate impact of incidental mortality of sublegal size crabs by the fishery. 5. Annual estimation of recreational catch. Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan Preface: The CSAP examined recently available data (including the paper by Muller et al. 1997). The Panel believes that some form of stock potential value (eggs per recruit, SPR, SSBR, etc.) Is the best proxy for MSY. The Panel also believes that sufficient data exists to calculate these various levels. Once this analysis is performed, a Subgroup of the Panel should be convened to evaluate the results and recommend MSY levels, overfishing definitions, overfished criteria, and current status of the stock. 185 The analysis should include review of egg per recruit values from Restrepo (1979), recent SPR and SSBR values in Muller et al. 1997, and investigation of the differences in the fishing mortality rates used by Powers and Sutherland (1989) and Muller et al. (1997). 186 APPENDIX C. 9/1/98 REPORT OF THE FIRST AD HOC FINFISH STOCK ASSESSMENT PANEL Dr. James H. Cowan, Jr. - Chairman Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council The Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619 813-228-2815 gulf.council@noaa.gov June 22-25, 1998 Panel Meeting NMFS/SEFSC, Miami, Florida This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA87FC0003. 187 Abbreviations Used in This Document F Refers to an instantaneous rate of fishing mortality. This is often written with a subscript to indicate the fishing mortality rate at a given biological reference point, e.g.; F0.1 The fishing mortality rate where the slope of the yield curve has theoretically dropped to 10% of the slope at the origin. Fmsy The fishing mortality rate that theoretically produces maximum sustainable yield. Fmax The fishing mortality rate that theoretically produces maximum yield-per-recruit. Note: this is NOT the same point as Fmsy. F=M The fishing mortality rate is theoretically equal to natural mortality. FMP Fishery Management Plan MFMT Maximum fishing mortality threshold (an MSY control law component) MSST Minimum stock size threshold (an MSY control law component) MSY Maximum sustainable yield OY Optimum yield SPR Spawning Potential per Recruit - the average reproductive capacity of a female recruit under exploitation as a proportion of the reproductive capacity in the absence of fishing. OR Spawning Potential Ratio - the average reproductive capacity or spawning stock biomass of a stock under exploitation relative to the reproductive capacity of spawning stock biomass in the absence of fishing. There are two basic types of SPR values: Transitional SPR This is the SPR value at a given point in time, and may be suitable for use as a proxy for biomass levels in MSY control laws. Static SPR This is the SPR that will eventually be reached if fishing mortality and all other parameters that affect SPR are held constant. This may be suitable for use as a proxy for fishing mortality rates in MSY control laws. (Also called Equilibrium SPR) SSB Spawning stock biomass SSBR Spawning stock biomass per recruit, or spawning stock biomass ratio, as a proportion of the SSB in the absence of fishing (see SPR, second definition) Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 1 Panel Members Present Dr. James Cowan, Jr. (Chair) University of South Alabama Mr. Joseph Shepard (Vice-Chair) Louisiana Dept. Of Wildlife and Fisheries Dr. Jerald Ault Univeristy of Miami/RSMAS Mr. Douglas Gregory University of Florida/Monroe County Mr. Mike Murphy Florida Marine Research Institute Dr. Clay Porch NMFS/SEFSC Others present Vernon Minton - Gulf Council Member Bob Shipp - Gulf Council Member Wayne Swingle - Gulf Council staff Rick Leard - Gulf Council staff Steven Atran - Gulf Council Staff Pete Eldridge - NMFS/SERO Chris Legault - NMFS/SEFSC Victor Restrepo - NMFS/SEFSC Stephen Turner - NMFS/SEFSC INTRODUCTION At the direction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council), the Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel (Panel) met in Miami, Florida on June 22-25, 1998 to review available information and provide guidance to the Council for defining appropriate maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels or MSY proxies for finfish that could be used in setting definitions for overfished and overfishing thresholds. The Panel Also discussed control law strategies for recovery when a stock falls below defined thresholds of overfished or overfishing. Under the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, the Regional Management Councils and NMFS are required to develop new definitions of what constitutes overfishing and overfished exploited stocks, and optimum yield targets. These new definitions are to be submitted to NMFS for review and approval by October 1998. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act contains several points relevant to developing these new definitions: S The terms “overfishing” and “overfished” mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the MSY on a continuing basis. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 2 S National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. S The term “optimum”, with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which : (A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; (B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and (C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery. On May 1, 1998, NMFS published revised guidelines for several of the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards, including Standard 1. These guidelines called for overfishing and overfished thresholds to be defined in terms of a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST), or reasonable proxies thereof. They also require the establishment of a MSY control rule that would be expected to result in a long-term average catch approximating MSY. The MFMT would be the level of fishing mortality associated with the specific MSY control rule for that stock. A fishing mortality rate in excess of the MFMT threshold for a period of 1 year or more would constitute overfishing. The MSST would be the stock size (biomass) threshold that is the greater of: 1) one half the MSY stock size, or 2) the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to the MSY level would be expected to occur within 10 years. Additional guidelines are being prepared by NMFS to assist the Councils with development of MSY control rules. These additional guidelines were not finalized in time for the Panel meeting; however, NMFS staff involved in development of these guidelines (Victor Restrepo and Clay Porch) were present at the meeting to assist the Panel in interpreting the requirements. RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF SPR PROXY FOR MSY Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 3 The Panel reviewed SPRs corresponding to a fish stock’s life history, population dynamics, and fishing mortality rates corresponding to various biological reference points that potentially could serve as proxies for FMSY. Mace (1994) reported that Fmax always exceeds Fmsy for a Beverton Holt stock/recruitment function, and generally when using other functions (e.g., a Ricker function). She concluded that Fmax was usually too high to serve as a reliable proxy for FMSY, although it may be useful as a MFMT overfishing threshold. Consequently, the Panel rejected SPR corresponding to Fmax as an FMSY proxy, and discussed SPR at F0.1 as a potentially better proxy for FMSY. Although it was noted that F0.1 was originally derived as an indicator of optimum economic yield with little attention to its biological function, the SPRs associated with F0.1 are generally much more conservative than those for Fmax. Additionally, Mace (1994) stated that F0.1 often corresponded with F35%SPR. The third scenario for an MSY proxy reviewed by the Panel was the SPR associated with F=M. The Panel noted that at F=M, fishing rates usually correspond to static SPR levels above 40%. Since Mace (1994) recommended F40% SPR as a surrogate for Fmsy, the Panel concluded that this level was probably most conservative and, perhaps, could be the best estimate of FOY. Consequently, the Panel determined that static SPRs associated with either F0.1 or F=M were acceptable proxies for FMSY. At the Panel’s disposal were the necessary life history and population dynamics information to estimate these values for a number of the species in the region. These were examined during the exploratory simulations described below. Ideally, a stock-recruitment function linked to information on stock age and size structure could be used to directly estimate MSY; however, adequate data for this type of analysis are not available for the majority of the stocks examined by the Panel. The proxies chosen by the Panel have a firm basis in the scientific literature. Deriso (1987) showed that an F equal to F0.1, as estimated from equilibrium yield-per-recruit analyses, provided a catch that was close to MSY. There is also compelling evidence that MSY is attained for most stocks when fishing mortality equals natural mortality (F=M) (Gulland 1970). Consequently, the Panel concluded that the most likely SPR corresponding with FMSY would be somewhere between a SPR at Fmax and a SPR at F=M, but perhaps closer to SPR at F0.1. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 4 Figure 1. Theoretical argument and SPR equivalent estimates of Fmax, F=M, and Fmsy based upon our exploratory simulations. The Panel used data generated in the stock simulation exercise described above to provide advice to the Council in two ways. Given that previous literature reviews on stock dynamics have led several others (e.g., Clark 1993, Mace et al.1996) to conclude that fishing mortality (F) rates consistent with static SPR values of 30-40% are good proxies for Fmsy, The Panel first focused on learning whether or not data for several Gulf of Mexico stocks produced results consistent with these findings. While SPR estimates are highly dependent on the specific set of selectivities used to generate Table 1, the Panel could find no compelling argument to recommend a F value resulting in an SPR < 30% as a good proxy for Fmsy for any species. The argument is summarized in Figure 1. Theory and experience from previous analyses (e.g., Deriso 1987) suggest that Fmsy should fall between Fmax and F=M which, based upon this simple analysis for several Gulf of Mexico stocks, corresponds to static SPR values of approximately 22% to 45% SPR, respectively (Table 1). Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 5 Table 1. Selected population characteristics used to determine the range of possible SPR values that approximate MSY. The F values and corresponding SPRs were calculated using the analytical yield model described in Ault et al. 1998. Species F0.1 Fmax F = M M K t-lambda M/K Red Drum 30% 11% 30% 0.2 0.367 40 0.55 Red Snapper 37% 20% 37% 0.10 0.16 50 0.63 King Mackerel 36% 22% 42% 0.20 0.17 17 1.18 Spanish Mackerel 43% 30% 39% 0.30 0.27 12 1.11 Red Grouper 42% 25% 47% 0.18 0.153 17 1.18 Gag 30% 16% 35% 0.20 0.15 13 1.34 White Grunt 43% 26% 43% 0.375 0.186 8 2.01 Vermilion Snapper 35% 18% 36% 0.23 0.206 10 1.11 Nassau Grouper 45% 19% 60% 0.18 0.145 17 1.24 Greater Amberjack 0.20 0.250 0.80 Bay Anchovy 2.53 0.22 11.5 Northern Anchovy 0.43 0.32 7 1.43 Data for white grunt and Nassau grouper is from Ault et al. 1998, for bay anchovy from Wang 1998, for northern anchovy from Ault and Olsen 1996, and for the remaining species from the appropriate stock assessments. The fishing mortality rate, Fmax, has been demonstrated for many stocks to exceed Fmsy, and it is considered by the Panel to be risk prone, implying that the SPR corresponding to Fmsy should exceed 21% (the average Fmax SPR for those species summarized) by a significant margin. In addition, there is strong support in the literature (Deriso 1987, Clark 1993, Mace et al. 1996) for choosing either F0.1 or F=M as acceptable proxies for Fmsy. The Panel was divided as to which proxy was the most appropriate. Some members argued that F=M was a more conservative approach, providing a greater buffer for the stock against environmental variability. Other Panel members suggested that F0.1 was nearly as conservative, but allowed for some additional harvest that would not be realized at F=M. For the stocks considered in Table 1, the lowest value of SPR expected at F0.1 is 30%, and the mean SPR is approximately 38%, implying that, while 30% to 40% SPR may be an appropriate range for MSY proxies: 1) SPR at F30%SPR (FMFMT; see Control Rule section below) may be a reasonable proxy for SPR at Fmsy for some species; 2) fishing mortality rates in excess of F30%SPR most likely will exceed Fmsy; and, 3) fishing mortality rates resulting in SPRs much higher than 30%, i.e., at F=M, may be appropriate for some species. It should be noted that these findings for the Gulf of Mexico are entirely consistent with those of Clark (1993), Mace et al. (1996) and others mentioned above. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 6 Nevertheless, while the Panel recommends that SPR at F30%SPR is a good minimum proxy for SPR at Fmsy for some species, it may be risk prone for those species with less compensatory reserve and a lower potential for producing population biomass. Consequently, to scale this potential for the species in Table 1, the Panel calculated the index M/K (natural mortality rate/von Bertalanffy growth coefficient). Species with low values of M/K (high growth with respect to natural mortality) are expected, and have been shown, to be able to sustain higher yields as a fraction of spawning stock biomass than those with high M/K (high natural mortality with respect to growth) (Deriso 1987). This is largely due to the presence of multiple age classes from which spawning potential can be realized for those long-lived species with low natural mortality rates. This index is easy to calculate, and can be done so with relative confidence given knowledge of age, growth, and longevity estimates based upon otoliths, and knowledge of the relationship between natural mortality rates and longevity. MSY PROXY RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel suggests that for species with M/K < 1.0, e.g., red drum, red snapper, greater amberjack, the SPR at F30%SPR probably is a good proxy for SPR at Fmsy. However, for species with M/K ratios >1.0, e.g., vermilion snapper, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red grouper, fishing mortality rates corresponding to F30%SPR may exceed Fmsy and thus the SPR proxies should be increased to values corresponding to SPR at F35%SPR. For those species where M/K>1.5, e.g., gag and white grunt, SPRs corresponding to F40%SPR (or higher) may be the best proxies of SPR at Fmsy. To further clarify this approach, the Panel added M/K ratios for Chesapeake Bay bay anchovy and southern California Bight northern anchovy to Table 1. While high yields have been obtained, or can be expected, from each of these stocks, high M/K ratios imply that there is risk in reducing the SPR level below 40% given the relatively few age classes available to produce eggs (only 1 or 2 for bay anchovy). Historically, the northern anchovy stock has been able to sustain only modest fishing pressure (~F=0.1 to 0.3) before dropping to stock levels at which recruitment success became highly susceptible to adverse environmental fluctuations, leading to recruitment failures and collapse of the fishery. Simulations of fishing on bay anchovy produced similar results (Wang 1998). It should be noted, however, that estimates of M and K Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 7 are not without error (in fact estimates vary widely for many species, especially with regard to M). Some Panel members noted that, in general, stocks with high M values are usually more resilient than those with low M values. The Panel noted that the M/K ratios should be used in conjunction with all other information about life history characteristics that may help to define a stocks compensatory reserve. CONTROL RULE FOR STOCK REBUILDING Each fishery management plan (FMP) is mandated to specify overfishing criteria that include: (1) a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) that may not exceed the level associated with the proxy for FMSY and (2) a minimum stock size threshold (MSST). The MSST is defined in the National Standard guidelines as the greater of "one-half the MSY stock size or the minimum biomass at which rebuilding to the MSY level would be expected to occur within 10 years if the stock were exploited at the maximum fishing mortality threshold ...". The ideal value of MSST depends on the resiliency of the stock, which in the case of the stocks examined in this report is not well established. The Panel believes that the most appropriate strategy to address this issue would be through analyses by the respective stock assessment panels for each FMP. In the interim, the Panel recommends that MSST be set equal to the stock size associated with the maximum fishing mortality threshold (BMFMT) multiplied by the greater of 1 minus the natural mortality rate (M) or 0.5. With this definition the overfishing criteria (MFMT and MSST) appear as illustrated in Figure 2. Such a rule of thumb for MSST is intuitively appealing because one would expect stocks with a higher M to recover faster, on average, than stocks with a lower M. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 8 Figure 2. Hypothetical example showing the relationship between Maximum Stock Size Threshold (solid vertical line) and the Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (solid horizontal line) using the 1-M rule of thumb. Overfishing occurs whenever the fishing mortality rate (F) or stock size (B) is above or to the left of the solid lines. The dotted vertical line corresponds to the long-term average stock size that would be achieved by fishing at the MFMT (BMFMT). Note that both F (vertical) and B (horizontal) axes are scaled by the values at F=MFMT. Given these overfishing criteria, each FMP must also specify a rebuilding plan should the stock size fall below the MSST. This rebuilding plan will also depend on the resiliency of the stock in question. A default limit control rule that has been suggested in the past is to reduce the fishing mortality rate in proportion to the amount that the current stock size is below the MSST. Mathematically this can be expressed as: F = C*MFMT (1) where C= B/MSST if B < MSST © = 1 otherwise) and MSST = (1-M)BMFMT. This idea is illustrated in Figure 3. To the extent that a stock fished at F = MFMT is expected to fluctuate about BMFMT on a scale related to M, this control rule would generally accommodate the timetables required under the guidelines for implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson Stevens Act. Ideally, of course, the control rule should be tailored to the unique life history characteristics and level of depletion of the stock. Such detailed analyses were not possible within the time frame available to the Panel, but are strongly recommended for the future. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 9 Figure 3. An example of a default limit control rule, based on the formula in Equation 1. In practice, the fishing mortality rate will tend to occasionally deviate above the MFMT even when the MFMT control law is prosecuted effectively, owing to the randomness of the fishing process itself. Likewise, stock size will tend to occasionally deviate below BMFMT about half of the time, owing to natural fluctuations in recruitment and natural mortality. (Results of computer simulations often show that constant Fmsy policies can cause the stock to fall well below MSY (Jerry Ault. personal communication). A more conservative "precautionary" control law that has been recommended is to set a target F at 75 percent of MFMT and reduce F in proportion to the extent the current stock size is below MSST: F = C*0.75*MFMT (2) where C= B/MSST if B < MSST © = 1 otherwise) and MSST = (1-M)BMFMT. If the stock is severely overfished (B << MSST), a more drastic reduction in F may be necessary to meet the rebuilding time requirements. This "precautionary" control law is contrasted with the earlier "limit" control law (equation 1) in Figure 4. Interestingly, simulation studies by Mace (1994) and others suggest that 75% Fmsy generally would result in long-term yields of 94% MSY or higher while the long-term biomass levels would exceed 125% of the biomass at MSY. Thus, the use of the more precautionary control rule trades a small sacrifice in yield for a large gain in biomass. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 10 Figure 4. The recommended default "precautionary" control rule (solid lines) contrasted with the default "limit" control rule defined earlier (dashed lines). The vertical dotted line is the default MSST. The value of X is the fraction below BMFMT at which no fishing will be allowed, which may or may not be below 0.5 at the Councils discretion. The default limit control rule could be submitted to satisfy the legal requirements for the overfishing criteria, whereas the precautionary control law could be used to avoid frequent excursions outside the limit control rule (which would necessitate equally frequent regulatory actions by the Council). The Panel suggests that the default limit control law (equation 1) with MFMT = Fmsy be used to satisfy the legal requirements of the FMP and the "precautionary” control rule (equation 2) be applied operationally (Figure 4). APPROPRIATE MSY PROXIES (SPR, SSB, SSBR) The Council asked the Panel to consider whether spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR) or spawning stock biomass (SSB) is more appropriate than the use of SPR to gauge stock status. The Panel assumed that the Council was requesting guidance as to the most appropriate measure of a stocks ability to replenish itself over time. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 11 First, the Panel wishes to clarify that SPR is simply a general term that refers to the proportion of a spawning stock remaining under fished conditions to that of an unfished stock. Ideally annual egg production should be used in the calculation of SPR. However, egg production is not always available, and thus biomass of mature females is often used as a proxy. The use of biomass in the calculation of SPR was historically referred to as SSBR. Currently, either the use of eggs or biomass is referred to as SPR. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) measures the magnitude in weight of the mature component of the stock. Trends in SSB are driven by recruitment, fluctuations in natural mortality and growth rates, and fishing mortality rates, and do not necessarily reflect regulatory actions. A SSB management criterion would seek to maintain spawning biomass above some estimated level that would insure the population’s ability to sustain itself. If a stock undergoes a period of low recruitment, then management measures to reduce fishing mortality must be implemented to maintain SSB at or above the specified critical level. In contrast, the simplest interpretation that SPR is driven by fishing mortality rates alone suggests that it directly reflects measures taken to manage a stock. Under this scenario, fluctuations in recruitment are not a factor; only the proportion of the population remaining after fishing that resulted from those recruitment levels is considered. At this time, the Panel cannot recommend one method over another. It should be the purview of the stock assessment panels to decide the best method used based upon the available data. However, if the Council wishes to adopt a method that best reflects management measures imposed, we feel that the use of SPR is the appropriate measure to use. The Panel also was asked to consider whether recruitment indices were appropriate for setting total allowable catch (TAC) of red snapper. There was consensus among Panel members that estimates of the magnitude of recruitment (and recruitment indices), while apparently somewhat easy to obtain, are fraught with estimation error and provide little or no information with respect to stock dynamics and fishing mortality rate. Thus, the Panel concluded that they are not appropriate for setting TACs, especially given the inherent observed variability in stock recruitment relationships. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 12 REFERENCES Ault, J.S. and D.B. Olsen. 1996. A multicohort stock production model. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125(3):343-363. Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96(3):395-414. Clark, W.G. 1993. The effect of recruitment variability on the choice of a target level of spawning biomass per recruit. p. 233-246 In Proceedings of the international symposium on management of exploited fish populations. Alaska Sea Grant Rep. 93-02. Deriso, R.B. 1987. Optimal F0.1 criteria and their relationship to maximum sustainable yield. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 44:339-348. Gulland, J.A.. 1970. The fish resources of the ocean. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 97. 425 p. Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management strategies. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 51:110-122. Mace, P.M., D. Gregory, N. Ehrhardt, M. Fisher, C.P. Goodyear, R. Muller, J. Powers, A. Rosenberg, J. Shepard, D. Vaughan, and . Atran. 1996. An evaluation of the use of SPR levels as the basis for overfishing definitions in Gulf of Mexico finfish fishery management plans. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 46 p. Wang, S.-B. 1998. Comparisons of life history characteristics, recruitment and production potential of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli and northern anchovy Engraulis mordax: an individual-based modeling approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uinversity of South Alabama, Mobile. h:\a\ad hoc sustainable fisheries\AdHocFinfishSAP Report.wpd Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 13 APPENDIX D. 9/1/98 REPORT OF THE SECOND AD HOC FINFISH STOCK ASSESSMENT PANEL Douglas Gregory, Jr. - Acting Chairman Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council The Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619 813-228-2815 gulf.council@noaa.gov August 24-26, 1998 Panel Meeting Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Ocean Springs, Mississippi This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA87FC0003. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 14 Abbreviations Used in This Document B Biomass F Refers to an instantaneous rate of fishing mortality. This is often written with a subscript to indicate the fishing mortality rate at a given biological reference point, e.g.; F0.1 The fishing mortality rate where the slope of the yield curve has dropped to 10% of the slope at the origin. F30% SPR The fishing mortality rate corresponding to a 30 percent static spawning potential ratio Fmsy The fishing mortality rate that theoretically produces maximum sustainable yield. Fmax The fishing mortality rate that produces maximum yield-per-recruit. Note: this is NOT the same point as Fmsy. F=M The fishing mortality rate is equal to natural mortality. FMP Fishery Management Plan MFMT Maximum fishing mortality threshold (an MSY control law component) MSST Minimum stock size threshold (an MSY control law component) MSY Maximum sustainable yield OY Optimum yield SPR Spawning Potential Ratio - the average reproductive capacity of a female recruit as a proportion of the reproductive capacity in the absence of fishing. There are two basic types of SPR values: Transitional SPR This is the SPR value at a given point in time, and may be suitable for use as a proxy for biomass levels in MSY control laws. Static SPR This is the SPR that will eventually be reached if fishing mortality and all other parameters that affect SPR are held constant. This may be suitable for use as a proxy for fishing mortality rates in MSY control laws. SSB Spawning stock biomass SSBR (1) Spawning stock biomass per recruit (2) Spawning stock biomass ratio, as a proportion of the SSB in the absence of fishing Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 1 Panel Members Present Mr. Douglas Gregory, Jr. (Acting Chair) University of Florida/Monroe County Dr. James Cowan, Jr. University of South Alabama Mr. Harry Blanchet La. Dept. Of Wildlife and Fisheries Dr. Mark Fisher Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Dr. Terry Henwood NMFS/SEFSC - Pascagoula, MS Dr. Joanne Lyczkowski-Shultz NMFS/SEFSC - Pascagoula, MS Mr. Mike Murphy Florida Marine Research Institute Dr. Clay Porch NMFS/SEFSC - Miami, FL Others present Vernon Minton - Gulf Council Member Bob Shipp - Gulf Council Member Roy Williams - Gulf Council Member Rick Leard - Gulf Council staff Steven Atran - Gulf Council Staff Tom McIlwain - NMFS/SERO SUMMARY OF PANEL MSY RECOMMENDATIONS Species MSY Proxies FMSY BMSY Red Snapper 30% static SPR 30% transitional SPR Red Drum 20% static SPR 20% transitional SPR (minimum stock size threshold = 16% transitional SPR) King and Spanish Mackerel 30% static SPR 30% transitional SPR Gag 35-40% static SPR if no increased size limit or spawning season closure. 30% static SPR with increased size limit and/or spawning season closure. 35-40% transitional SPR if no increased size limit or spawning season closure. 30% transitional SPR with increased size limit and/or spawning season closure. Jewfish and Nassau grouper 40-60% static SPR 40-60% transitional SPR Other Gulf Finfish Species 30% static SPR 30% transitional SPR Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 2 INTRODUCTION The previous Ad Hoc Finfish Panel report (GMFMC 1998a) recommended that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council establish maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxies for Gulf fisheries based on levels of spawning potential ratios (SPR) between 30 and 40 percent, with specific levels based on a species relative ranking of the ratio of natural mortality rate to Brody growth coefficient (M/K). Subsequent to the report the use of the M/K ratio was questioned by some members of the Panel and of the Council. The Council, upon review of the report, expressed interest in evaluating the potential use of alternative MSY proxies in addition to SPR. The primary charge of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to the Second Ad Hoc Finfish Panel (see attached Memorandum from W. E. Swingle to the panel) was to: "...develop potential proxies for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for at least red snapper, king mackerel, and red drum based on the empirical fishery- independent data collected in the summer SEAMAP and fall groundfish surveys, or other appropriate data sources, for juvenile fish recruitment. These proxies should be modified, as appropriate, by changes in other relevant population parameters such as fishing mortality, biomass of fishable ages, and/or biomass of all ages for a specific period of time." Secondary charges to the panel were 1) to re-evaluate the M/K ratios as scaling factors for assigning SPR proxy levels for MSY, and 2) provide advice on alternative methods of assigning MSY SPR proxy levels for the Gulf finfish species listed in Table 14(attached). Resilience vs Resistance The NMFS technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches for selection of MSY proxies (Restrepo 1998) recommend scaling the appropriate proxy for Fmsy based on resilience of the stock to overfishing. However, the technical guidance document does not define resilience. The Panel discussed the meaning of resilience, and suggests that there are actually two related characteristics, “resistance” and “resiliency” which should be considered. Resistance, as defined by the Panel, is the ability of a stock to withstand high levels of removals without recruitment failures occurring as a result. In general, longer-lived species that mature at an early age relative to their life-span are perceived to be relatively more resistant to overfishing than shorter-lived species with fewer spawning years. This is because species with numerous year-classes contributing to the spawning stock can still maintain themselves if several of those year-classes are lost, whether by recruitment failure or selective fishing mortality. It has been hypothesized that a large number of year classes in a spawning population could be an adaptation that ensures an adequate spawning population, even in the face of fluctuating recruitment (Murphy 1968; Leaman and Beamish 1984) Resilience, as defined by the Panel, refers to the ability of a stock to recover from an overfished condition. Long-lived species, although resistant to overfishing, are slow to recover once they become Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 3 overfished because of the large number of age-classes that must be rebuilt, and thus have generally low resiliency. Conversely, Short-lived species with very high fecundity levels may be able to compensate for high fishing mortalities by producing more offspring allowing them to recover quickly from an overfished condition. The above definitions are generalizations, and may not be applicable in all situations. Factors other than lifespan, growth and fecundity also need to be considered. It is easy to cite counter examples such as pink shrimp, which are very resistant to overfishing despite having very few year classes, and jewfish, which are easily overfished despite having very many spawning year classes. Species with a strong aggregating behavior may be especially vulnerable to fishing and thus less resistant than nonaggregating species. Similarly, a species with a short spawning season may be more dependent on having favorable environmental conditions during a specific time period than one with a protracted spawning season. Therefore, a recovery from low stock levels within a given time period is more uncertain, perhaps making that species less resilient than one with a protracted spawning season. M/K and Other Population Scalars The M/K ratio has been criticized because the variability observed in available estimates of M and K estimates among species are more likely due to sampling or estimation errors than to actual interspecific differences. The difficulties in estimating M are well known. In fact, M is probably the most difficult parameter of a population to determine. The most common method of estimating M, based on maximum age observed in a fished population, may be biased by variations in harvest rates. Several Panel members noted that the estimates of M for some of the species were based on empirical regressions of K and perhaps other parameters (e.g. Pauly 1979). Therefore, the M/K ratio would tend to reflect the slope of the empirical regression equation rather than a fundamental property of the stock in question. Only M values estimated by methods independent of K would be free of this problem. The estimation of K is difficult because growth studies may derive data from a variety of sources, and from stocks under different harvest regimes. Biases can occur from the use of fish from areas or gears that are not representative to the whole population. Variation in harvest regimes may also influence growth rates for a population, resulting in variable K. Legault and Eklund (1998) have shown that the M and K estimates for Nassau grouper and jewfish are highly uncertain and produce M/K ratios with 80 percent confidence intervals of 0.39 to 1.27 (Nassau) and 0.30 to 1.28 (jewfish). The conventional M/K paradigm cited in the previous panel report (GMFMC 1998a) would therefore classify both species as moderately to highly resilient. Legault and Eklund (1998) pointed out that this goes against all current knowledge of these two stocks and questioned the utility of the M/K paradigm in general. Thus, while M/K ratios may provide some information on the relative resilience of a population, caution should be taken so that too much reliance is not placed on a given value of the index for any species without careful examination of all aspects of the stock and its fisheries. The Panel discussed the potential use of other life history parameters/ratios, such as length-at-maturity to maximum length (Lmat/L4), age-at-maturity to maximum age (tmat/tmax), and other compensation ratios Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 4 that may be useful in providing a scaling factors for ranking the relative vulnerability of populations to overfishing, however, no scientific studies or data were available to evaluate the validity of such scaling factors. Estimation of these parameters is also subject to error/uncertainty, and may be affected by fishing on the population, as noted for M/K ratios. Therefore, at the present time, no life history scaling factor, including M/K, can be recommended for ranking populations relative to their vulnerability to overfishing. A general characteristic of populations that seems to be emerging from population studies is that if the age or size of recruitment to the fishery is greater than the age or size at which all or most of the females have begun spawning, then yields very close to MSY are obtained for a wide range of fishing mortalities (Myers, memo, 1998). Thus, a spawn-at-least-once policy will help protect against a stock collapse if fishing mortality targets are exceeded (Myers and Mertz, 1998). However, although a population protected by a size limit that is larger than the size of reproduction would be more resistant to overfishing than a similar population with fishing mortality exerted on both juvenile and adult fish, a post-maturity size limit or a size limit that allows spawning to occur only once before entering the fishery may not be sufficient. This relatively simple concept is also not applicable in stocks where undersize discard mortality is a significant factor or where management may prefer goals that in some instances specify harvest of juveniles over adults (e.g., red drum). In the latter case, management must be especially prudent in controlling fishing mortality rates to ensure adequate spawning stock size. The spawn-at-least-once policy must not be allowed to degenerate to a spawn-only-once policy, which would likely cause any population to collapse. As in most situations, much of the information for this general concept is derived from temperate or boreal species, where relatively late maturity and other life history characteristics may mean that this same policy may provide more protection than in the subtropical/temperate species being considered by this Panel. It should be noted that high fishing mortality rates on spawning adults seems to be a significant issue in groupers, for instance. Very high fishing mortality rates on a long-lived, early-maturing spawning population could result in SPRs much lower than presently accepted as appropriate for most stocks. The note that a wide range of fishing mortality rates provide similar yields near MSY has long been noted as one of the dangers of management near MSY, since a production model of the stock may not indicate the true status of the fishing pressure, and its impact on spawning potential. Direct Estimation of MSY and BMSY The necessary analyses for calculating MSY and stock biomass levels at MSY (BMSY) from stock-recruit and stock production models with reasonable confidence do not exist for Gulf species. Therefore, MSY proxies are needed to fulfill the Sustainable Fisheries Act requirements, as specified in the National Standard Guidelines. Use of Fishery Independent Data to Estimate MSY and BMSY Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 5 The available fishery independent survey data for Gulf of Mexico finfish stocks are described below. Among the existing recruitment, larval, and adult surveys, the recruitment indices based on the northern Gulf groundfish trawl and SEAMAP trawl surveys are the most useful because of their longer time series, but they do not provide sufficient information on all species of interest. Recruitment Indices Part of the charge to the Panel was to review the potential use of juvenile fish recruitment indices that have been collected under fishery-independent data collection programs, with regard to their appropriateness for use in assessing proxies for MSY or overfishing/overfished thresholds. The Panel discussed the availability, utility, and time sequence of various databases. The Panel noted that various fishery-independent databases of recruitment are available, e.g. Summer SEAMAP and Fall Groundfish Surveys, as well as individual state surveys. However, the groundfish surveys are conducted in the central and western Gulf while many of the species of interest occur primarily in the eastern Gulf (e.g., jewfish, gag, etc.) Where they would not be sampled by the existing surveys. Furthermore, trawling gear isn't very effective in catching mackerel and other pelagic species. The SEAMAP surveys were investigated and are discussed under the individual species sections of this report. Although not totally fishery-independent, recruitment from bycatch was also reviewed, especially with regard to the king mackerel fishery. State juvenile bag seine surveys have provided an index of red drum young-of-the-year abundance in some Gulf states for variable time periods. These indices have been incorportated into stock assessments at both the state and Gulf-wide levels. In general, the Panel felt that estimates of recruitment either were too variable or at present could not be fully evaluated as a proxy for MSY and BMSY. Larval Indices Estimates of annual mean larval abundance or frequency of occurrence derived from fishery independent larval surveys can be used to index trends in adult stocks in the Gulf of Mexico for those species in which the larvae have been adequately described. Ichthyoplankton collections taken during SEAMAP surveys conducted in Summer and Fall, 1982 to 1995, have provided just such a data set for king mackerel (Lyczkowski-Shultz 1996; Gledhill and Lyczkowski-Shultz ms). Larval frequency of occurrence has been used as a tuning variable in the king mackerel VPA stock assessment since 1996 (GMFMC 1996a). A larval index for red snapper has only recently been feasible because of the difficulty in distinguishing snapper larvae (Drass et al. ms). Results of an examination of snapper larvae from Gulfwide SEAMAP collections in 1992 and 1993 indicated that 53% of snapper larvae captured are larger than 3 mm and can be identified to species and/or genus levels. Use of a red snapper larval index to follow trends in population size can now be attempted based on the identifiable size fraction of lutjanid larvae in SEAMAP collections. The examination and identification of lutjanid larvae from the remaining 14 years of SEAMAP collections will be a labor intensive process. Additional manpower is required for timely completion of this work. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 6 With respect to red drum, there are no difficulties in identifying the larvae and SEAMAP collections could provide information on relative spawning stock levels since 1986 when a Gulfwide plankton survey during the month of September was established. A first-order approximation of red drum spawner biomass in the area between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay underestimated stock size by an order of magnitude when compared to the Nichols (1988) mark and recapture estimate (Comyns et al. 1991). Variability associated with larval catch data was the primary cause for the underestimate. Sampling effort in subsequent surveys has been tripled (from 19 to 60 stations) and the resultant annual mean estimates of red drum abundance since 1989 may provide a valid fishery independent index for red drum off east Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (Bruce H. Comyns, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory/University of Southern Mississippi, unpublished data). Additional information is available from the annual estimates of the abundance of red drum larvae from east Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama coastal waters that have been monitored by Bruce Comyns of the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory/University of Southern Mississippi since 1989. The available larval indices are valuable as an independent estimate of spawning stock size and as an abundance index to tune VPAs, but the lack of a sufficient time series over a range of stock sizes precludes their use for estimating MSY or BMSY. Use of annual abundance and occurrence of the early life stages of fishes in stock assessments is dependent on our ability to identify those early stages which for many species remain undescribed. Adult Stock Indices Fishery independent survey data on adults are valuable for tuning VPAs and calculating other population parameters such as MSY and BMSY. The NMFS/SEAMAP groundfish and larval surveys were not designed, nor could they be, to assess populations of all species of fishes inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico. The NMFS currently conducts a Gulfwide reef fish video/acoustic survey which may prove useful in future stock assessments, but unfortunately, this time series began in 1992 and is of too short a duration to be useful in estimating MSY or BMSY. Potential proxies for MSY with Fishery-Independent Data The Panel examined several fishery-independent indices of abundance that might be used to develop proxies for MSY. The major difficulty the Panel found was that there was no way to confidently relate fishery-independent abundance indices to the yield or biomass that would be produced by the directed fishery at any given abundance level in the index. For instance, the catchability of sizes from within the directed harvest was most often different from the catchability in the fishery-independent survey. This might be due to movement to different habitats with growth, or to differences in gear efficiency. Many of the datasets considered are used in VPA analyses of the stocks. Any comparison of recruitment from an index to the estimated harvestable stock size would need to be aware of possible autocorrelation between these parameters. Some larval and juvenile indices have been considered as fishery-independent indices of spawning stock size. While these indices may also be valuable sources of information on actual stock size and changes in stock size, the time series on most of these indices is relatively short, and the sampling 3 The original Reef Fish FMP estimated MSY for snapper and grouper combined to be approximately 51 million pounds, based on a Graham-Schaefer yield model (GMFMC 1981). Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 7 program may only cover a portion of the species range. Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of these estimates must be carried out before they provide this type of information. Species Specific Recommendations Red Snapper Stock assessments have been available for red snapper since at least 1988. Estimates of MSY have been made in the past but they do not appear to be reliable3. Current estimates of SPR show that red snapper are severely overfished. However, recent regulatory actions have reduced juvenile red snapper bycatch in shrimp trawls and these actions have coincided with increases in fishery-independent measures of recruitment. Data are not available to directly estimate BMSY. However, a likely range of estimates for the stock biomass at MSY could be calculated using the VPA-estimated abundance and a range of likely spawner-recruit relations. The Panel requests that a stock assessment analyst responsible for red snapper perform these analyses. The Panel investigated the use of fishery-independent data to estimate proxies for BMSY. Recruitment indices are available for red snapper from the fall groundfish surveys (since 1972) and summer SEAMAP surveys (since 1984) conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A BMSY proxy can be approximated as the relative biomass that the average survey recruitment index would produce over the long term if the stock were fished at FMSY (or a proxy thereof such as F0.1 or Fmax), provided of course recruitment is largely independent of stock size. For red snapper, the age-1 recruit abundance index in terms of standardized catch-per-hour from the summer SEAMAP and Fall groundfish surveys (Table 4; Schirripa and Legault 1997) ranged from 0.82 to 14.87 during 1972-96, with a median of 5.94. Red snapper yield per recruit at Fmax (or F0.1) is about 1.0 kg per recruit (Goodyear 1995; Fig. 86). Therefore, it would be expected that the median recruitment of 5.94 juvenile fish per tow-hour would result in 5.94 kilograms per tow-hour of post-recruit red snapper in the survey tows when the population biomass reached the biomass associated with Fmax or F0.1 (FMSY). The actual catch observed in the survey could then be compared to this target survey catch to determine the yield relative to the expected yield at BMSY. Unfortunately, this assumes that the survey gear is just as effective at catching post-recruit red snapper as it is at catching recruits and that a relationship can be defined between the juvenile survey and the resulting harvestable biomass. The differences in catchability and availability between these size groups would need to be determined if this method is to be used effectively. The Panel decided that a better proxy for BMSY is the equilibrium biomass of the stock size at F30% SPR.This can be expressed in terms of an SPR proxy as a 30 percent transitional SPR at MSY. This biomass accrues when the stock comes into equilibrium with an F approximating F0.1. Mace (1994) stated that when the age of 50 percent maturity is less than the age of 50 percent recruitment to the fishery, F35% SPR will generally exceed F0.1. Red snapper have 50 percent maturity at about 12 inches (Goodyear 1995, figure 19) and have a 15 inch size limit, so this scenario holds true for the directed Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 8 fishery. Therefore, F0.1 for red snapper occurs at an SPR lower than 35 percent. On this basis, the Panel recommends that the fishing mortality MSY proxy for red snapper be set at 30 percent static SPR. Summer SEAMAP age-1 recruitment indices are used to tune the red snapper VPA with very good results (Figure 13, Schrippa and Legault 1997). Estimates of age-1 snapper from the stock assessment are highly correlated with results from the fishery-independent survey, demonstrating the effect of tuning on the VPA. Estimates of F needed to compare to the BMSY threshold can be made from the current stock assessment. Red Drum Historically, the bulk of the red drum harvest throughout the Gulf of Mexico was taken from state waters. Harvest from Federal waters was a small component of total harvest for most years of record (Goodyear 1996, Table 3). Present state regulations attempt to regulate harvest rates through minimum and maximum size limits, creel limits, and commercial quota, where allowed, and effectively establish nearly the entire harvest as recreational allocation, through gamefish status or prohibition on commercial harvest in Gulf states, except Mississippi. Therefore, the concept of maximum sustainable harvest for this species should consider recreational harvest opportunity along with yield in weight. This differs from the yield-per-recruit component that dominates commercial species analysis. Allowable numbers harvested, as well as the sizes allowed, may not be those that would be expected from a generalized yield-per-recruit estimation based on a constant F after initial recruitment to the fishery. Red drum grow rapidly as juveniles, and mature relatively early in their expected lifetime. Maturity may be as early as 3 years, and Wilson and Nieland (1994) estimated 50% maturity as 4 years of age. At least 25 year-classes are represented in the spawning stock in significant numbers (Wilson and Nieland 1994, Goodyear 1996).. This life history, combined with the F profile of the existing fishery, provide a spawning stock biomass that should be relatively stable over time, and relatively resistant to overfishing. This is because existing fishing is concentrated on a few year-classes, while spawning is provided by a large number of year-classes. Yield from the fishery may be relatively variable due to the small number of year-classes exposed to the fishery, and the variability noted in recruitment indices from fishery-independent samples. However, if the stock becomes overfished, then these same life history parameters mean that stock recovery will require longer periods of rebuilding. This is because the relative contribution of a given year-class to the spawning biomass is small relative to the total. Virtual population analyses have been used to estimate the status of the stock since 1987. Consistent findings include high fishing mortality rates on juveniles prior to implementation of conservation actions after about 1986. Estimates of escapement rates (probability of surviving fishing through age 4) declined from about 10% in the early 1980's to below 1% in 1986 and 1987. Spawning potential ratios declined from 13% in 1979 to a low of 6% in 1992 (Goodyear, 1996, GMFMC 1996b). In 1996, the Red Drum Stock Assessment Panel found that the spawning stock was below 20% SPR, but was increasing in response to conservation measures implemented by Gulf states. The projected estimate of escapement was less than expected based on the 1993 assessment, but the Red Drum Stock Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 9 Assessment Panel reported that if fishing mortality rates estimated for 1995 were held steady, then the Council's SPR goal (20%) would be met in the year 2001. The existing overfishing definition of red drum is 20% SPR, with a management goal of 30% escapement from the juvenile fishery estimated to provide that SPR level at equilibrium. This escapement rate includes some allowance for harvest of mature fish that occurs within state waters, so that the escapement rate to the spawning stock is a higher value than the SPR produced by that escapement rate. The actual yield corresponding to MSY is defined as: All red drum recreationally and commercially harvested from state waters landed consistent with state laws and regulations under a goal of allowing 30 percent of the escapement of the juvenile population that would have occurred under unfished conditions. The MSY proxy for maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) ( the fishing mortality rate equal to FMSY when biomass is at the MSY levels), is recommended to be a fishing mortality rate corresponding to 20 percent static SPR. The MSY biomass proxy relative to SPR is therefore 20 percent transitional SPR. Lacking a stock-recruitment relationship, the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) of adult red drum required to maintain current recruitment to the inshore nursery areas is estimated to be the minimum spawning stock biomass over the 1979-92 time period. However, in order to meet the requirement that a stock be capable of being rebuilt within 10 years from the MSST, it is recommended that the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) be set as the stock size that would result at equilibrium fishing of F16%SPR (i.e., 16 percent transitional SPR) based on the NMFS formula in the technical guidance document (M–0.2, c=(1-0.2), F(B)=FMSY*B/c*BMSY). This measure will require examination and refinement by the red drum stock assessment panel in order to define any trajectory in fishing mortality rates that would be required in order to achieve the rebuilding schedule from the MSST. The minimum biomass of spawning stock over the 1979-92 period may be appropriate as a short-term measure of a lower limit on spawning stock size, below which much more stringent limits on fishing rates must be applied (severely overfished, B<<MSST in the first Ad Hoc SAP report). However, consideration of habitat issues (see below) may mean that this measure may need revision in the future, The other stock size measures, being relative to fishing mortality rates, would not need revision over time. Goodyear was unable to reconcile estimates of adult stock size with those from the NMFS tag-recapture study of Nichols (1988), so this report will not specify a specific value for MSST (or BMSY) , but rather recommend that any evaluation of present condition use available comparable information from the 1979-92 time period. It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on maximizing the benefits of a (mainly) recreational fishery that is conducted primarily on juveniles. Therefore, the recommendations are contingent upon a continuation of the moratorium of adult red drum in federal waters. Optimum Yield for Red Drum Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 10 More precautionary SPRs might be considered for optimum yield (OY) targets, potentially with yield per-recruit benefits. These may require substantial reductions in fishing mortality rates. The Panel noted that fishing mortality rates may be the best surrogate presently available for "recreational opportunities" in the OY definition, while yield-per-recruit may be the best surrogate for yield in terms of food production. Establishing OY targets at SPR levels higher than those required to maintain MSY allows managers to enhance some aspects of the fishery, without compromising possible recruitment.. Ecosystem Effects The Panel notes that the nursery areas for red drum are being substantially reduced through coastal wetlands losses, especially in Louisiana. As Louisiana coastal waters provide a substantial portion of current and historic red drum harvest, it is reasonable to assume that losses of these nursery areas may eventually impact the ability of the red drum stock to maintain itself, independent of fishing mortality issues. For some estuarine-marine species, the loss of these habitats may already be impacting the ability of the stocks to maintain themselves at levels seen in recent history. These aspects of essential fishery habitat may eventually lead to re-establishment of any absolute stock size benchmarks that would more accurately reflect the ability of those habitats to sustain stocks. The result of such habitats would most directly impact the indices of recruitment to the fishery, which would be expected to decline from current levels. This would produce lower harvests with no change in the F profile. The resulting long-term adult biomass would also be expected to decline. King and Spanish Mackerel Stock assessments for king and Spanish mackerel have been available since 1983. Restrictive management measures were enacted in the early 1980's to correct overfishing conditions and to rebuild the stocks. As the result of these management actions the king and Spanish mackerel populations have exhibited a high resiliency to the resulting lower fishing mortality rates; during the past decade increased spawning stock biomass (king and Spanish) and increased recruitment (king) trends have been evident. It is currently estimated the Gulf king and Spanish mackerel populations are at transitional SPR levels of 23 percent and 35 percent, respectively and being prosecuted at a fishing mortality rate equivalent to 21 percent and 47 percent static SPR, respectively. The data are not available to estimate MSY or BMSY directly and the recruitment indices from the SEAMAP and fall groundfish surveys are too imprecise and incomplete to use for estimating MSY or BMSY. The Panel determined the best available proxy for MSY is SPR and recommends the Gulf Council establish a MSY SPR proxy of 30% for king and Spanish mackerel because the empirical evidence suggests these species are resilient to overfishing. Gag Stock assessments for gag have been available since 1994. It is currently estimated the gag population is at a transitional SPR level of 21% and being prosecuted at a fishing mortality rate between 18 to 23% SPR (GMFMC 1998a). The Panel noted that concern existed about the lack of resistance of gag to overfishing because it forms large spawning aggregations that are easily targeted by fishermen. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 11 Some biologists fear that the decreasing percentage of males in the population during the past two decades may be negatively impacting reproductive productivity. The data are not available to estimate MSY or BMSY directly and the only available recruitment index represents too short a time series for use in estimating MSY or BMSY. Therefore the best available MSY proxy is SPR. The panel recommends that the MSY SPR proxy should be 35-40% if no action is taken by the Gulf Council to further protect mature fish through an increased size limit and/or a spawning season closure when they are aggregated. However, if protection of spawning fish is implemented, then the panel believes a MSY SPR proxy of 30% is appropriate for the gag population because specific protection of the mature stock improves the population's resistance to overfishing. Although two scenarios for MSY proxies are presented, the Panel feels that the preferred scenario should be the one that protects mature fish and spawning aggregations through an increased size limit and spawning season closure. Jewfish and Nassau Grouper Jewfish and Nassau grouper species have been fully protected by the Gulf Council with ABCs of zero harvest. These fisheries were closed due to concerns that they were especially susceptible to overfishing because their populations were small in size and at depressed levels as the result of fishermen being able to easily find and target large sedentary individuals, as well as, spawning aggregations. These species are, therefore, generally believed to be neither very resistant not resilientto overfishing. Therefore, the Panel recommends that the Gulf Council establish a MSY SPR proxy of 40-60 percent for jewfish and Nassau grouper. Other Gulf Finfish Species Based on the finding by Mace (1994) that, when the age of 50 percent maturity is less than the age of 50 percent recruitment to the fishery, F35% SPR will generally exceed F0.1, the Panel recommends that the other Gulf finfish species under the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council be managed with an MSY and BMSY SPR proxy level of 30%, provided there is a minimum size limit of at least the size at 50 percent maturity, unless certain life history characteristics or management strategies warrant a more precautionary approach. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Future stock assessments should evaluate the utility and uncertainty of estimating MSY and BMSY directly from the available stock production models and ancillary data. 2. Fishery independent surveys of larval, juvenile, and adult components of the Gulf fishery stocks need to be expanded and designed specifically to assist in stock assessments. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 12 3. Future stock assessments should use a consistent reporting format for the following parameters to assist in the type of cross-fishery analyses needed to evaluate the relative resiliency or resistance of the Gulf populations: F, SPR, and yield levels associated with all of the commonly used biological reference points life history traits such as age and length at recruitment to the fishery, age and length of maturity, maximum age and L4, M, K, etc.. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 13 REFERENCES Comyns, Bruce H. , J. Lyczkowski-Shultz, D.L. Nieland and C.A. Wilson. 1991. Reproduction of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico: seasonality and spawner biomass. pp. 17-26. In: Larval fish recruitment and research in the Americas:proceedings of the thirteenth annual fish conference; 21-26 May 1989, Merida, Mexico (Robert D. Hoyt, ed.) NOAA Technical Report NMFS 95 (1991). Drass, D.M. K. Bootes, J. Lyczkowski-Shultz, B. Comyns, C. Riley, J. Jolt, and R. Phelps. (unpublished manuscript). Larval development of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) with comparisons to other snapper species. GMFMC. 1981. Environmental impact statement and fishery management plan for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 32 p. + 18 p. supplement. p. var. GMFMC. 1996a. 1996 report of the mackerel stock assessment panel. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 32 p. + 18 p. supplement. GMFMC. 1996b. Report of the fifth red drum stock assessment panel meeting. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 6 p. + 1 fig.. GMFMC. 1998a. Report of the ad hoc finfish stock assessment panel. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 12 p. GMFMC. 1998b. August 1998 report of the reef fish stock assessment panel (revised). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 19 p. Goodyear, C.P. 1996. Status of red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS/SEFSC, Miami Laboratory Contribution MIA-95/86-47. pages unnumbered. Goodyear, C.P. 1995. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS/SEFSC, Miami Laboratory Contribution MIA-95/86-05. 171 p. Gledhill, C. and J. Lyczkowski-Shultz, J. (unpublished manuscript). The use of indices of larval king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla, abundance in the Gulf of Mexico to calibrate a VPA. Leaman, B.M., and R.J. Beamish. 1984. Ecological and management implications of longevity in some northeast Pacific ground fishes. Int. North Pac. Fish Comm. Bull. 42:85-97. Legault, C. M. and A. Eklund. 1998. Generation times for Nassau grouper and jewfish with comments on M/K ratios (revised). NMFS/SEFSC, Miami Laboratory, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-97/98-10A. 5 p. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 14 Lyczkowski-Shultz, J. 1996. Abundance data for Scomberomorus cavalla (king mackerel) larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, 1982 to 1993. NMFS/SEFSC, Pascagoula, Mississippi. MSAP 96/1. 7 p. Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management strategies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:110-122. Murphy, G.I. 1968. Patterns in life history and the environment. Am. Nat. 102(927):391-403 Myers, R.A. 1998 (memo). Comments for the ad hoc finfish stock assessment panel; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 9 p. Myers, R.A., G. Mertz and S. Fowlow. 1997. Maximum population growth rates and recovery times for Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. Fishery Bulletin 95:762-772. Nichols, S. 1988. An estimate of the size of the red drum spawning stock using mark/recapture. NMFS/SEFSC, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula. 24 p. Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management of tropical multispecies stocks: a review with emphasis on the southeast Asian demersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. And Rev. 1. 35 p. Restrepo, V.R., G.G. Thompson, P.M. Mace, W.L. Gabriel, L.L. Low, A.D. MacCall, R.D. Methot, J.E. Powers, B.L. Taylor, P.R. Wade, and J.F. Witzig. 1998 (preprint). Technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementing national standard 1 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-##. 54 p. Schrippa, M.J. and C.M. Legault. 1997. Status of the gag stocks of the Gulf of Mexico; assessment 2.0. NMFS/SEFSC, Miami Laboratory. 113 p. + app. Wilson, C.A.. and D.L.. Nieland. 1994. Reproductive biology of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, from the neritic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 92:841-850. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 15 TABLE 14 (from Generic SFA Amendment) Summary of M/K Ratios for Gulf Finfish Stocks Group One: M/K Ratio < 1.0 Species M K M/K Black Grouper 0.15 0.160 0.94 Red Hind 0.18 0.207 0.87 Cubera Snapper 0.15 0.160 0.93 Red Snapper* 0.10 0.160 0.63 Yellowtail Snapper* 0.20 0.250 0.80 Greater Amberjack* 0.20 0.250 0.80 Red Drum* 0.20 0.367 0.55 Cobia* 0.35 0.350 1.00 Red Grouper* 0.20 0.210 0.95 Jewfish** 0.92 Nassau Grouper** 0.94 Group Two: M/K Ratio > 1.0 < 1.5 Species M K M/K Coney 0.18 0.145 1.24 Rock Hind 0.25 0.191 1.31 Scamp 0.14 0.126 1.13 Snowy Grouper 0.13 0.113 1.15 Warsaw Grouper 0.08 0.054 1.48 Yellowedge Grouper 0.18 0.170 1.05 Yellowfin Grouper 0.18 0.170 1.05 Schoolmaster 0.25 0.180 1.38 Vermilion Snapper* 0.20 0.198 1.01 Mutton Snapper* 0.21 0.153 1.36 Hogfish 0.25 0.190 1.32 King mackerel* 0.20 0.170 1.18 Spanish mackerel* 0.30 0.270 1.11 Group Three: M/K Ratio > 1.5 Species M K M/K Gag* 0.20 0.150 1.63 Graysby 0.20 0.130 1.54 Speckled Hind 0.20 0.130 1.54 Yellowmouth Grouper 0.18 0.063 2.86 Black Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Blackfin Snapper 0.23 0.084 2.74 Dog Snapper 0.33 0.100 3.30 Gray Snapper 0.30 0.136 2.21 Lane Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Mahogany Snapper 0.30 0.097 3.09 Silk Snapper 0.23 0.092 2.50 Source: Ault, et al. (1997 (Except for species marked by *). **from Legault and Eklund (1998) h:\a\ad hoc sustainable fisheries\AFSAP2b.wpd Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 16 APPENDIX E. Florida’s West Coast Stone Crab Fishery. [Appendix only available with printed copy.] Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 17 Appendix F. Florida’s Spiny Lobster Fisheries. [Appendix only available with printed copy.] Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 18 APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DATA RELATED TO FISHING COMMUNITIES BY STATE AND COUNTY Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 18 Introduction Appendix G summarizes data by county or parish for each state that provide some information useful in identifying fishing communities. The authors, with guidance from state fishery personnel and advisory panel members, have identified some communities as fishing communities and have identified other that appear to be fishing communities, possibly meeting some of the criteria under Section 9.1 of the Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Amendment. Appendix G serves as a state by state continuation of Section 9.2 of the Generic SFA Amendment. As discussed in more detail in Section 9.2, the data contained in this appendix are not suitable for assessing the impacts of management measures on individual fishing communities. In order to obtain these data, economic and social studies of each community would be necessary, and it likely would be necessary to update these studies periodically. Tables are presented under each coastal county around the Gulf of Mexico to highlight some socioeconomic characteristics pertinent to sub-areas within each county. The source of information is Tolbert et al. (1998). While some of the areas within each county are clearly non-fishing areas, they are retained in the tables for the purpose of determining at a later time some general differences between non-fishing and fishing communities. In addition, certain areas believed to be fishing communities may not appear on the table. The data set used simply does not provide specific statistics for those communities. Each table presents four characteristics of each sub-area for three census years (1970, 1980, and 1990). The characteristics are Total Persons, Employment in Agriculture, Fishing, and Mining Industry, Employment in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupation, and Average Wage/Salary. Total Persons refers to individuals who indicated the area as their primary place of residence. The employment variables refer to the number of persons employed in agriculture, fishing, or mining industries or to the number of persons indicating their occupation in farming, fishing, or forestry. Fishing-related employment is not separated from that in agriculture and mining industries or from that in farming and forestry occupations. Comparison of employment, then, over time would have to include all three industries or three occupations. There are areas that can be considered predominantly fishing areas so that the employment characteristics would most likely be reflective of employment in fishing. Average wage/salary refers to household income from labor employment. It may be noted that some areas do not have information for the three census years, partly because of changes in area designations for census purposes. In addition to the tabled demographic information from the censuses (Tolbert et al. 1998) referenced above, much of the other data are available only on a county or multi-city basis, rather than for specific fishing communities. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 19 9.2.1 Florida Fishing Communities In 1996, Florida west coast (including the Keys) commercial landings were about 94 million pounds, valued at about $151 million (NMFS 1997). About 2.25 million persons participated in marine recreational fishing in 1996. For the entire state of Florida, saltwater angler expenditures in 1996 were estimated at $2.21 billion, generating a total output of $4.11 billion, total income of $1.17 billion, and total employment of 56,278 (ASFA, 1997). Monroe County Both the population and economy of Monroe County grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. Monroe County includes the Florida Keys. Population increased from about 63,000 in 1980 to about 81,000 in 1995. Gross sales in the county grew from $0.72 billion in 1980 to $1.75 billion in 1992. The county’s economy is supported by three major sectors: recreation and tourism, commercial fishing, and retirement communities. Bell (1991) estimated these three sectors to account for over 80 percent of the local economy’s export base. English et al. (1996) estimated that between June 1995 and May 1996, visitors to the county spent $1.19 billion. This spending generated total output of $1.33 billion, total income of $506 million, and total employment of 21,848 jobs. It may be noted that these numbers apply to all visitors’s activities, not only those related to fishing, boating, or diving. In 1994, the commercial fishery in Monroe County produced total output and income estimated at $160 million and $101 million, respectively, and generated full time employments of 2,941 (CEMR, 1995). Bell and Sorensen (1993) estimated that in 1988, total income by place of work in the county was about $803 million, whereas total personal income by place of residence was about $1.4 billion, with the difference accounted for by transfer payments, dividends, interests, and rents. These latter income were most likely accounted for by retired people living in the county but receiving social security, pensions, and returns from investments outside the county. In 1996, Key West was the fourth leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of commercial seafood products landed ($63 million) and 37th leading port in terms of pounds landed (24 MP). The high value products landed included shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab claws. Marathon is also a major landing port for spiny lobster and stone crab. There are 646 recreational for-hire boats based in the Florida Keys that include headboats, charter boats, and guide boats. There is also a very large industry catering to divers in the Keys, whose clientele participate in recreational fishing with spear guns or in observing the coral reef fauna and fishery resources. Most of the large tourist industry is based on persons who visit the Keys for water-related activities, including fishing and non-consumptive enjoyment of the fishery resources. Therefore, the entire Keys could be considered a fishing community. Principal cities for recreational fishing and diving include Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, Tavenier, and Key Largo. Monroe County is one of the few areas where the following demographic data from the censuses on employment likely includes principally fishery-related employment. There are no agriculture or mineral extraction industries based in the Florida Keys, nor is there any forestry industries. However, there is a major agricultural area just north of the Keys in the Homestead, Florida, area, so some of the residents in the upper Keys, e.g. Key Largo area, may have commuted and worked in that area. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 20 Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Monroe County 1,970 1980 1990 Big Coppitt Key Total Persons 1,905 2,441 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 33 60 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 61 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,876 31,303 Big Pine Key Total Persons 2,321 4,124 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 74 195 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 93 177 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,176 29,417 Cudjoe Key Total Persons 1,796 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 28 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,887 Islamorada Total Persons 1,482 1,293 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 134 57 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 162 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,848 35,040 Key Colony Beach City Total Persons 1,006 958 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 29 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 18 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,649 48,268 Key Largo Total Persons 2,866 7,447 11,350 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 60 199 175 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 195 174 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,860 14,893 38,137 Key West City Total Persons 37,323 24,382 24,832 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 352 589 296 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 67 505 265 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,949 15,039 32,032 Layton City Total Persons 75 190 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 5 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,593 31,858 Marathon Total Persons 4,461 7,568 8,857 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 217 319 379 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 328 365 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,745 15,495 28,608 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 21 Monroe County continued North Key Largo Total Persons 18,479 1,476 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 96 5 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 114 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,018 98,845 Plantation Key Total Persons 2,838 4,406 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 81 110 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 61 89 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,759 43,427 Stock Island Total Persons 4,482 3,560 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 162 147 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 141 152 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,145 22,402 Tavernier Total Persons 1,770 2,359 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 67 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 56 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,446 26,970 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 22 Collier County In 1996, 3.7 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 162 recreational for-hire boats based in Collier County, of which a majority are probably guide boats associated with trips to the Everglades National Park. Principal cities for recreational fishing activity include Naples, Marco Island, Everglades City/Chokoloskee area, and Flamingo. Principal commercial landings ports include Naples and Everglades City. Everglades City, Chokoloskee, and Flamingo appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Collier County 1970 1980 1990 East Naples Total Persons 6,152 12,127 22,951 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 127 170 367 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 160 359 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,971 15,647 30,550 Everglades City Total Persons 514 317 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 33 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 27 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,862 41,682 Golden Gate Total Persons 4,327 14,148 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 68 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 81 130 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,497 33,213 Immokalee Total Persons 3,764 11,038 14,120 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 699 1,719 2,617 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 646 1,414 2,300 Average Wage/Salary ($) 3,961 10,531 19,233 Lely Total Persons 1,364 3,057 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 35 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,483 33,315 Marco Total Persons 4,679 9,493 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 103 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 57 108 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,353 45,382 Naples City Total Persons 12,042 17,581 19,505 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 248 194 178 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 101 168 131 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,475 23,269 56,515 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 23 Collier County continued Naples Park Total Persons 5,438 8,002 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 72 134 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 64 117 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,357 31,716 North Naples Total Persons 3,192 7,950 13,422 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 100 204 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 110 175 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,290 20,475 37,646 Palm River Total Persons 3,471 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 51 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 Average Wage/Salary ($) 45,421 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 24 Lee County In 1996, 11.7 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 180 recreational for-hire vessels based in Lee County. Principal cities for recreational fishing activity include Boca Grande, Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Captiva, and St. James City. Sanibel and Captiva are major shell gathering areas and attract large numbers of shell collectors annually. Principal commercial landings ports include Fort Myers Beach, Fort Myers, St. James City, Bokeelia, and Boca Grande. Boca Grande, Sanibel, Captiva, St. James City, and Bokeelia appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Lee County 1970 1980 1990 Alva Total Persons 949 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,087 Bonita Springs Total Persons 5,363 13,600 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 172 161 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 169 240 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,572 28,536 Cape Coral City Total Persons 10,214 32,103 74,991 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 100 201 605 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 188 465 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,501 17,420 32,244 Cypress Lake Total Persons 8,721 10,491 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 60 94 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 52 127 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,273 31,877 Estero Total Persons 3,261 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 35,086 Forest Island Park Total Persons 6,819 5,904 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 149 53 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 48 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,578 39,979 Fort Myers City Total Persons 27,351 36,638 45,206 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 879 609 678 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 585 544 677 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,729 16,072 28,508 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 25 Lee County continued Fort Myers Shores Total Persons 4,426 5,460 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 48 136 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 31 74 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,681 30,823 Iona Total Persons 9,511 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 126 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 64 Average Wage/Salary ($) 32,833 Lehigh Acres Total Persons 4,394 9,604 13,611 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 118 174 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 99 124 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,467 14,659 25,017 Lochmoor Waterway Estates Total Persons 4,091 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 39,442 McGregor Total Persons 6,504 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 38 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 54,592 Morse Shores Total Persons 3,771 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 83 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 61 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,452 North Fort Myers Total Persons 8,798 22,808 30,027 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 90 242 254 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 32 224 265 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,066 16,730 24,733 Page Park-Pine Manor Total Persons 4,996 5,116 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 39 112 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 129 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,539 22,403 Punta Rassa Total Persons 1,547 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,942 St. James City Total Persons 1,259 1,943 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 7 39 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,900 26,861 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 26 Lee County continued Sanibel City Total Persons 3,363 5,468 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 72 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 43 105 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,970 55,990 Suncoast Estates Total Persons 4,399 4,483 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 79 43 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 82 63 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,071 24,492 Tice Total Persons 7,254 6,645 3,971 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 77 97 43 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 61 48 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,029 14,680 24,083 Villas Total Persons 2,524 2,098 9,898 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 3 81 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 3 102 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,816 20,899 35,357 Whiskey Creek Total Persons 5,061 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 29 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 51,346 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 27 Charlotte County In 1996, 2.4 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 54 recreational for-hire boats based in Charlotte County, most of which probably fish in the Charlotte Harbor estuary. Principal coastal cities are Placida, Charlotte Harbor, and Punta Gorda. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Charlotte County 1970 1980 1990 Charlotte Harbor Total Persons 2,079 3,339 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 21 35 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,821 25,314 Charlotte Park Total Persons 1,671 2,142 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,138 27,041 Cleveland Total Persons 2,422 2,922 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 48 34 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 50 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,083 24,548 Grove City Total Persons 1,903 2,415 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,693 21,303 Harbour Heights Total Persons 2,511 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 37 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 35,103 Manasota Key Total Persons 1,145 1,326 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,727 45,972 Port Charlotte Total Persons 10,802 23,770 41,535 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 69 103 343 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 45 126 291 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,456 15,444 27,659 Punta Gorda City Total Persons 3,749 6,797 10,878 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 64 110 40 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 89 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,357 16,702 39,223 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 28 Charlotte County continued Rotonda Total Persons 1,473 3,535 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,594 29,249 Solana Total Persons 1,342 1,080 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 21 50 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 72 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,496 20,620 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 29 Sarasota County In 1996, 308,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are 79 recreational for-hire vessels based in Sarasota County. Principal coastal cities are Sarasota, Venice, Nokomis, and Englewood. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Sarasota County 1970 1980 1990 Bee Ridge Total Persons 3,313 6,406 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 51 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 50 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,221 40,923 Desoto Lakes Total Persons 2,085 2,912 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 48 41 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 47 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,171 39,005 Englewood Total Persons 5,011 10,227 15,094 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 32 90 86 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 100 100 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,988 14,423 23,713 Fruitville Total Persons 3,070 9,808 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 57 124 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 55 97 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,656 42,265 Gulf GateEstates Total Persons 5,739 9,248 11,622 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 42 49 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 40 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,063 14,420 29,480 Kensington Park Total Persons 3,123 2,783 2,921 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 27 74 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 24 82 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,050 15,741 32,507 Lake Sarasota Total Persons 4,117 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 53 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 38,030 Laurel Total Persons 6,368 8,245 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 59 136 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 63 98 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,990 31,600 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 30 Sarasota County continued Longboat Key Town Total Persons 2,828 4,811 5,904 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 6 91 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 6 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,853 24,735 69,911 Nokomis Total Persons 3,108 3,448 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 51 93 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 62 82 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,840 24,810 North Port City Total Persons 6,205 11,973 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 31 161 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 49 152 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,765 25,652 North Sarasota Total Persons 5,020 6,702 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 74 85 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,602 29,005 Osprey Total Persons 1,651 2,618 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 24 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,409 36,315 Plantation Total Persons 1,795 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,189 Ridge Wood Heights Total Persons 2,583 3,951 4,851 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 56 48 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 64 79 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,429 16,732 30,409 Sarasota City Total Persons 40,237 48,876 50,978 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 331 389 558 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 91 337 615 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,065 15,261 28,000 Siesta Key Total Persons 7,015 7,772 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 41 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 27 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,645 50,182 Southgate Total Persons 7,322 7,324 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 38 28 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 63 60 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,628 29,184 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 31 Sarasota County continued South Sarasota Total Persons 4,267 5,298 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 51 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 49 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,234 49,966 South Venice Total Persons 8,075 11,951 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 68 78 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 97 83 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,690 28,103 The Meadows Total Persons 3,437 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 38,072 Vamo Total Persons 2,574 3,304 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 51 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 59 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,113 30,820 Venice City Total Persons 6,648 12,153 16,922 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 67 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 68 35 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,316 14,318 27,900 Warm Mineral Springs Total Persons 4,041 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,233 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 32 Manatee County In 1996, 3.2 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 41 recreational for-hire vessels based in Manatee County. Principal coastal cities are Bradenton, Bradenton Beach, Longboat Key, and Holmes Beach. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Manatee County 1970 1980 1990 Anna Maria City Total Persons 1,537 1,744 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 22 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,602 37,464 Bayshore Gardens Total Persons 14,894 17,062 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 113 138 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 174 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,792 24,567 Bradenton City Total Persons 21,040 30,170 43,779 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 326 479 775 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 193 397 713 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,422 14,300 27,946 Cortez Total Persons 4,509 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 58 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 54 Average Wage/Salary ($) 28,548 Ellenton Total Persons 1,608 2,573 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 59 52 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 57 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,504 28,280 Holmes Beach City Total Persons 2,699 4,023 4,810 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 32 98 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 34 91 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,891 17,107 35,640 Memphis Total Persons 3,229 5,501 6,760 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 223 344 256 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 183 196 215 Average Wage/Salary ($) 5,374 14,367 27,450 Palmetto City Total Persons 7,370 8,637 9,268 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 242 326 415 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 175 330 391 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,234 13,736 25,946 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 33 Manatee County continued Samoset Total Persons 4,104 5,747 3,119 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 89 116 69 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 51 74 62 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,039 14,066 25,540 South Bradenton Total Persons 14,285 20,398 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 156 207 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 141 167 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,464 23,659 West Bradenton Total Persons 4,065 4,528 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 48 29 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 41 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,133 44,794 West Samoset Total Persons 3,819 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 90 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 53 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,330 Whitfield Total Persons 4,328 3,112 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 38 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,765 37,788 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 34 Pinellas County In 1996, 12.8 MP of seafood was landed in the county, and the Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg area was the 36th leading port area in the U.S. in terms of the value of commercial landings ($20 million). There are 152 recreational for-hire boats based in Pinellas County. Principal recreational fishing ports include St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg Beach, Treasure Island, Madeira Beach, Seminole, Clearwater, Clearwater Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, and Tarpon Springs. Historically, Tarpon Springs was a fishing community dependent on the sponge fishery. Principal commercial landings ports are St. Petersburg, Madeira Beach, and Tarpon Springs. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Pinellas County 1970 1980 1990 Baskin Total Persons 126 3,834 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 5 40 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,503 22,116 Bay Pines Total Persons 5,757 4,171 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 44 26 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 31 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,247 30,068 Belleair Town Total Persons 3,048 3,673 3,968 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 15 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 14 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,443 24,256 76,260 Belleair Bluffs City Total Persons 2,470 2,128 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,155 32,518 Belleair Shore Town Total Persons 73 71 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,762 84,825 Clearwater City Total Persons 51,624 85,528 98,773 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 474 511 549 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 125 496 572 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,931 17,061 33,675 Dunedin City Total Persons 17,744 30,203 34,012 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 80 161 234 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 197 194 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,963 15,981 31,331 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 35 Pinellas County continued Feather Sound Total Persons 2,886 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 58,134 Gandy Total Persons 2,968 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 27,652 Gulfport City Total Persons 9,730 11,180 11,727 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 25 59 147 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 60 145 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,240 12,109 24,591 Harbor Bluffs Total Persons 2,643 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 32 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 32 Average Wage/Salary ($) 60,517 Highpoint Total Persons 2,787 2,485 13,818 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 74 53 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 47 53 129 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,377 16,684 28,626 Indian Rocks Beach City Total Persons 2,750 3,717 3,963 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 25 7 55 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 12 59 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,681 17,172 36,710 Indian Shores Town Total Persons 977 1,405 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 3 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,106 38,746 Kenneth City Town Total Persons 4,462 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 64 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 40 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,047 Largo City Total Persons 21,956 58,977 65,690 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 153 495 412 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 55 531 428 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,206 15,652 28,383 Lealman Total Persons 19,873 21,748 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 234 217 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 198 194 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,008 24,618 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 36 Pinellas County continued Madeira Beach City Total Persons 4,179 4,520 4,225 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 40 31 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 67 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,737 15,366 29,035 North Redington Beach Town Total Persons 1,156 1,135 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,547 38,435 Oldsmar City Total Persons 2,608 8,361 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 22 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 56 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,261 32,939 Palm Harbor Total Persons 5,215 50,256 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 104 368 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 67 341 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,370 38,976 Pinellas Park City Total Persons 22,235 32,811 43,426 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 138 184 363 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 190 342 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,547 15,102 29,173 Redington Beach Town Total Persons 1,708 1,626 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 4 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,853 48,986 Redington Shores Town Total Persons 2,149 2,366 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 9 41 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,943 35,317 Safety Harbor City Total Persons 3,173 6,461 15,124 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 43 61 95 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 34 82 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,277 17,322 40,295 St. Petersburg City Total Persons 216,067 238,647 238,629 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,163 1,206 1,708 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 407 1,289 1,408 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,578 15,435 30,727 Seminole City Total Persons 4,586 9,251 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 83 60 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 91 51 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,081 22,792 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 37 Pinellas County continued South Pasadena City Total Persons 4,188 5,644 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 18 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,606 26,922 Tarpon Springs City Total Persons 7,081 13,251 17,906 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 128 81 231 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 51 94 221 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,172 18,400 31,452 Treasure Island City Total Persons 6,100 6,316 7,266 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 5 18 69 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 5 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,718 22,037 44,986 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 38 Hillsborough County In 1996, 3.5 MP of seafood was landed in the county. The Port of Tampa serves as a major landing and docking facility for Gulf shrimp vessels. Tampa/Hillsborough County is a major shrimp processing area. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Hillsborough County 1970 1980 1990 Apollo Beach Total Persons 4,014 6,025 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 94 60 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 66 35 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,124 41,114 Bloomingdale Total Persons 13,912 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 108 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 93 Average Wage/Salary ($) 53,446 Brandon Total Persons 12,830 41,826 57,985 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 170 416 626 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 78 169 307 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,877 22,476 40,786 Carrollwood Total Persons 7,195 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 56 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 50,962 Carrollwood Village Total Persons 5,515 15,051 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 170 97 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 62 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,801 55,673 Del Rio Total Persons 7,409 8,248 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 104 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 90 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,627 29,432 Dover Total Persons 2,399 2,552 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 156 314 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 123 292 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,706 23,571 East Lake-Orient Park Total Persons 5,701 5,612 6,171 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 25 76 80 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 26 55 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,422 16,737 27,115 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 39 Hillsborough County continued Egypt Lake Total Persons 7,558 11,932 14,580 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 97 98 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 63 74 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,592 17,604 31,832 Gibsonton Total Persons 7,706 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 380 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 356 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,724 Greater Northdale Total Persons 16,318 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 92 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 95 Average Wage/Salary ($) 45,326 Lake Magdalene Total Persons 9,260 13,331 15,973 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 43 64 106 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 63 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,490 20,248 37,382 Lutz Total Persons 5,555 10,552 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 158 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 43 100 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,403 47,731 Mango Total Persons 8,700 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 101 Average Wage/Salary ($) 28,514 Palm River-Clair Mel Total Persons 8,524 14,447 13,691 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 137 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 84 53 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,191 16,211 28,774 Plant City Total Persons 15,451 19,270 22,754 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 745 495 610 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 364 304 442 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,243 15,775 31,956 Riverview Total Persons 6,478 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 131 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 77 Average Wage/Salary ($) 38,663 Ruskin Total Persons 5,117 6,046 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 516 567 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 427 452 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,939 23,329 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 40 Hillsborough County continued Seffner Total Persons 5,371 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 Average Wage/Salary ($) 32,955 Sun City Center Total Persons 5,605 8,326 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,288 16,374 Tampa City Total Persons 277,736 271,523 280,015 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,456 2,076 2,274 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 718 1,799 2,252 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,722 16,113 31,221 Temple Terrace City Total Persons 7,377 11,097 16,444 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 21 37 103 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 54 107 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,559 22,961 44,436 Town n’Country Total Persons 37,834 60,946 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 266 353 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 187 331 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,756 36,292 University West Total Persons 10,009 24,514 23,760 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 63 124 201 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 43 173 231 Average Wage/Salary ($) 5,832 11,782 20,211 West Park Total Persons 10,347 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 90 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 88 Average Wage/Salary ($) 28,514 Wimauma Total Persons 1,553 2,968 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 156 600 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 136 548 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,141 19,936 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 41 Pasco County In 1996, 1.4 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 31 recreational for-hire boats based in Pasco County. Principal coastal cities are Hudson and New Port Richey. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Pasco County 1970 1980 1990 Bayonet Point Total Persons 16,455 21,860 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 81 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 40 86 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,658 21,088 Beacon Square Total Persons 6,513 6,265 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 33 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,187 22,707 Dade City Total Persons 4,241 4,923 5,633 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 194 376 177 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 132 239 114 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,739 15,724 27,159 Elfers Total Persons 11,396 12,356 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 76 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 89 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,560 22,782 Holiday Total Persons 18,392 19,360 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 41 194 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 65 269 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,446 21,375 Hudson Total Persons 5,799 7,248 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 54 25 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 45 43 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,993 23,243 Jasmine Estates Total Persons 17,136 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,692 Lacoochee Total Persons 1,719 1,985 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 105 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 109 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,387 24,020 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 42 Pasco County continued Land O’Lakes Total Persons 4,515 7,892 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 71 134 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 54 108 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,750 37,396 New Port Richey City Total Persons 6,098 11,196 14,044 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 50 59 99 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 69 107 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,636 12,509 23,841 Port Richey City Total Persons 2,165 2,619 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 28 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 43 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,687 28,019 St. Leo Town Total Persons 883 1,021 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 16 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,965 37,659 Zephyrhills City Total Persons 3,369 5,742 8,126 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 54 23 81 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 20 25 30 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,910 12,413 22,058 Zephyrhills South Total Persons 1,995 2,608 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 21 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,462 18,133 Zephyrhills West Total Persons 3,698 4,249 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 65 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,244 17,133 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 43 Hernando County There are no deep channels into ports in Hernando County, and therefore, little fishing activity (e.g., no recreational for-hire boats). In 1996, 988,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. Coastal cities include Springhill and Bay Port. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Hernando County 1970 1980 1990 Brookridge Total Persons 1,250 2,773 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 7 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,940 12,719 Brooksville City Total Persons 4,060 5,582 7,427 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 242 178 137 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 80 59 78 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,934 13,850 22,428 Hernando Beach Total Persons 1,749 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 Average Wage/Salary ($) 37,818 High Point Total Persons 1,707 2,846 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,323 13,341 North Brooksville Total Persons 1,041 1,421 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 21 59 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,166 23,178 Ridge Manor Total Persons 1,052 1,935 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,418 25,469 South Brooksville Total Persons 1,231 1,637 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 108 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 63 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,218 20,029 Spring Hill Total Persons 6,468 31,159 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 43 248 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 190 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,764 23,880 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 44 Hernando County continued Timber Pines Total Persons 3,140 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,923 Weeki Wachee City Total Persons 9 69 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,301 Weeki Wachee Gardens Total Persons 1,181 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 32,649 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 45 Citrus County In 1993, commercial landings of fish in the county was valued at $6.4 million while spending for recreational fishing was estimated at $11.2 million (Bell, 1997). Since the county is mainly covered by wetlands and there is no major beach, tourism expenditures (except for recreational fishing) are negligible. In 1996, 4.1 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 58 recreational for-hire boats based in Citrus County, some of which fish offshore in the Middle Grounds. Crystal River is the principal port for both commercial and recreational fishing. Homosassa Springs caters to the private recreational fisherman with lodging and launching facilities. Both appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Citrus County 1970 1980 1990 Beverly Hills Total Persons 5,024 6,163 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 46 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,895 14,958 Citrus Springs Total Persons 1,283 2,135 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 27 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,131 23,130 Crystal River City Total Persons 2,878 4,044 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 53 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,222 30,841 Floral City Total Persons 1,197 2,698 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 31 28 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,968 18,583 Hernando Total Persons 1,630 2,066 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 40 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,391 27,906 Homosassa Total Persons 2,170 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 76 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 58 Average Wage/Salary ($) 34,017 Homosassa Springs Total Persons 1,410 6,271 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 43 115 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,113 20,731 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 46 Citrus County continued Inverness City Total Persons 4,095 5,797 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 39 57 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,323 22,959 Lecanto Total Persons 1,309 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 Average Wage/Salary ($) 37,026 Sugarmill Woods Total Persons 4,016 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 69 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,245 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 47 Levy County In 1993, commercial landings of fish in the county were valued at $3.1 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $8.1 million (Bell, 1997). The absence of major beaches in the county, tourism expenditures related to beach activities are negligible. In 1996, 2.2 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 15 recreational for-hire boats based in Levy County, most of which probably operate out of Cedar Key. Commercial landings ports are Cedar Key and Yankeetown. Both appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Levy County 1970 1980 1990 Bronson Town Total Persons 882 878 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 23 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,564 20,968 Cedar Key City Total Persons 671 682 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 37 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 36 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,410 22,232 Chiefland City Total Persons 1,986 1,917 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 41 41 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 46 59 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,357 19,339 Fanning Springs City Total Persons 296 475 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 2 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,808 18,748 Inglis Town Total Persons 1,173 1,256 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 29 30 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,551 22,083 Otter Creek Town Total Persons 164 128 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 5 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,768 17,979 Williston City Total Persons 2,240 2,090 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 53 56 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 44 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,350 23,619 Yankeetown Town Total Persons 3,168 620 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,030 22,608 Dixie County In 1993, the exvessel value of fish commercially landed was estimated at $2.1 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $5.2 million (Bell, 1997). Very much like Citrus and Levy counties, Dixie County is covered mainly by wetlands so that beach related tourist expenditures Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 48 are negligible. In 1996, 1.3 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 20 recreational for-hire boats based in Dixie County. Ports at Steinhatchee, Suwannee, and Horseshoe Beach serve both commercial and recreational fishermen. All three ports appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Dixie County 1970 1980 1990 Cross City Town Total Persons 2,154 2,004 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 18 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 51 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,226 23,632 Horseshoe Beach Town Total Persons 344 289 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 42 39 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,219 24,689 Taylor County In 1993, commercial fishing landings were valued at $1.3 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $7.3 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist expenditures are also negligible due to the absence of major beaches. In 1996, 900,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are 18 recreational for-hire boats based in Taylor County. The ports of Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach serve both recreational and commercial fishermen. Both appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Taylor County 1970 1980 1990 Perry City Total Persons 7,701 8,254 7,151 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 49 48 65 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 79 69 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,922 17,160 27,344 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 49 Wakulla County In 1993, the exvessel value of commercial fish landings was estimated at $2.8 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $5.9 million (Bell, 1997). The absence of major beaches constrains tourist spending on beach related activities to a negligible level. In 1996, 2.7 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 11 recreational for-hire boats based in Wakulla County. Principal ports are Panacea and St. Marks. Both appear to be fishing communities, serving both the commercial and recreational sectors. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Wakulla County 1970 1980 1990 St. Marks City Total Persons 294 309 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 12 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,526 26,879 Sopchoppy City Total Persons 463 391 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 12 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 19 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,522 24,213 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 50 Franklin County In 1993, commercial fish landings were valued at $12.3 million while recreational fishing spending amounted to $6.5 million (Bell, 1997). This county accounted for the largest value of commercial landings among the 13 counties from Citrus to Escambia. Beach-related tourist spending amounted to $0.7 million. Apalachicola Bay is the major oyster producing area in the state of Florida. In 1996, 6.8 MP of seafood was landed, and Apalachicola was the 47th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of commercial seafood products landed ($14 million), with shrimp accounting for most of the value. Other commercial ports are East Point and Carrabelle. There are 34 recreational for-hire boats based in Franklin County, which operate principally out of Apalachicola. All three ports appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Franklin County 1970 1980 1990 Apalachicola City Total Persons 3,151 2,620 2,707 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 219 219 48 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 208 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 4,523 10,931 20,780 Carrabelle City Total Persons 1,304 1,200 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 79 64 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 54 62 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,070 19,422 Eastpoint Total Persons 1,267 1,650 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 158 127 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 185 141 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,913 17,601 Gulf County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $3.8 million, while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $3.7 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist spending was estimated at $2.5 million. In 1996, 3.8 MP of seafood was landed in the county. The principal coastal city is Port St. Joe, the economy of which was previously based on the manufacture of paper. However, the paper mill has closed, and Port St. Joe serves as a major landing port for commercial fish and should be considered a fishing community. There are 7 recreational for-hire vessels based in Gulf County. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Gulf County 1970 1980 1990 Port St. Joe Total Persons 4,401 4,039 4,044 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 43 18 42 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 17 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,995 16,527 26,979 Wewahitchka City Total Persons 1,742 1,779 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 40 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,289 23,612 Bay County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $6.7 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $11.0 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist spending was estimated Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 51 at $59.6 million, the highest among counties in Northwest Florida. In 1996, 4.1 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 121 recreational for-hire boats based in Bay County. Most are based in the Panama City/Panama City Beach area and some in Mexico Beach. Panama City has historically been a major port for headboats and charter boats. Commercial fish and shrimp are principally landed in Panama City. Both Panama City and Mexico Beach appear to be a fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Bay County 1970 1980 1990 Callaway Total Persons 3,240 7,154 12,253 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 33 77 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 38 58 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,547 16,255 27,004 Cedar Grove Town Total Persons 1,104 1,479 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,878 21,349 Hiland Park Total Persons 3,677 4,763 3,865 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 24 35 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 21 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,656 13,662 21,510 Laguna Beach Total Persons 1,700 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 24 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,577 Lower Grand Lagoon Total Persons 1,616 3,388 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 7 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 32 27 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,170 28,556 Lynn Haven City Total Persons 4,044 6,239 9,298 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 28 74 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 45 68 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,565 16,253 31,338 Mexico Beach City Total Persons 573 992 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 2 13 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,718 24,477 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 52 Bay County continued Panama City Total Persons 32,125 33,346 34,378 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 182 286 230 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 265 218 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,236 13,995 27,506 Parker City Total Persons 4,212 4,298 4,598 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 13 20 13 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 28 27 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,972 14,719 24,691 Pretty Bayou Total Persons 3,340 3,839 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 22 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,871 38,524 Springfield City Total Persons 7,220 8,715 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 43 91 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 133 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,221 22,295 Tyndall AFB Total Persons 4,338 4,601 4,318 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 0 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 5 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,388 13,720 25,075 Upper Grand Lagoon Total Persons 3,317 7,796 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 48 74 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,978 37,351 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 53 Walton County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $0.1 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $1.5 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist spending was estimated at $5.6 million. In 1996, 123,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There is one recreational for-hire vessel based in Walton County. Santa Rosa Beach and Grayton Beach are very small communities that appear to principally cater to persons engaging in swimming and other water sports. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Walton County 1970 1980 1990 De Funiak Springs City Total Persons 4,966 5,563 5,120 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 51 68 165 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 74 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,317 11,594 21,026 Freeport City Total Persons 683 848 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 5 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,930 20,670 Miramar Beach Total Persons 1,639 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 39,289 Paxton Town Total Persons 645 585 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 15 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,584 19,556 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 54 Okaloosa County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $6.0 million, while 1998 recreational fishing and beach-related spendings were, respectively, estimated at $10.2 million and $21.3 million (Bell, 1998). In 1996, 206 MP of seafood were landed in the county. There are 120 recreational for-hire vessels based in Okaloosa County that fish out of Destin. Destin has historically been a major port for headboats and charter boats fishing offshore. The Destin area continues its reliance on the fishing industry as a key element in the county’s growing focus on the tourism segment. A 1998 study was conducted to estimate the economic impacts of Destin Harbor to Okaloosa and Walton Counties using aggregated and annualized inputs from the business activities of charterboats and commercial fishing boats, real estate, tourism, and tournament visitors, salaries and wages, and private boats (Kastro 1998). These business activities were estimated to generate an annual economic impact of $125 million to Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Okaloosa County 1970 1980 1990 Cinco Bayou Town Total Persons 205 325 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 5 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,843 21,518 Crestview City Total Persons 7,952 7,617 9,886 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 25 99 137 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 20 77 48 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,895 14,115 22,498 Destin City Total Persons 3,689 8,080 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 101 178 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 83 194 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,768 37,279 Eglin AFB Total Persons 7,769 7,574 8,347 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 5 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 5 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,793 12,774 24,142 Fort Walton Beach City Total Persons 19,994 20,871 21,468 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 97 106 108 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 111 128 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,450 16,999 29,028 Lake Lorraine Total Persons 5,418 6,777 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 23 37 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,398 31,451 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 55 Okaloosa County continued Laurel Hill City Total Persons 681 569 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 13 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 15 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,262 18,048 Mary Esther City Total Persons 3,137 3,530 4,139 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 29 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 7 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,040 15,815 34,821 Niceville City Total Persons 8,543 10,507 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 73 48 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 35 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,539 32,107 Ocean City Total Persons 5,267 5,582 5,422 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 24 44 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 7 46 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,278 15,255 29,354 Shalimar Town Total Persons 399 343 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 7 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,169 40,193 Valparaiso City Total Persons 6,504 6,142 4,672 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 3 46 13 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 39 14 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,035 17,885 28,864 Wright Total Persons 13,011 18,945 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 39 115 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 49 110 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,559 27,826 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 56 Santa Rosa County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $1.2 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $5.1 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist spending was estimated at $22.4 million. In 1996, 350,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are six recreational for-hire vessels based in Santa Rosa County. The coastal communities are Navarre and Navarre Beach. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Santa Rosa County 1970 1980 1990 Baghdad Total Persons 1,489 1,416 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 5 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,847 24,076 Gulf Breeze City Total Persons 4,190 5,478 5,530 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 28 75 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 27 34 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,950 22,829 46,724 Jay Town Total Persons 636 667 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,920 24,580 Milton City Total Persons 5,360 7,206 7,216 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 67 63 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 6 42 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,015 15,259 22,654 Pace Total Persons 6,318 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,396 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 57 Escambia County In 1993, commercial landings in the county were valued at $2.5 million while recreational fishing spending was estimated at $8.1 million (Bell, 1997). Beach-related tourist spending was estimated at $22.4 million. In 1996, 1.5 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 45 recreational for-hire boats based in Escambia County, most of which fish out of Pensacola. Pensacola Beach appears to cater principally to persons using the beaches. Pensacola is also a commercial landings port for shrimp and finfish. The economy was previously largely based on the U.S. Naval Air Station, but appears more diversified in recent years. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Escambia County 1970 1980 1990 Bellview Total Persons 15,439 19,386 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 138 67 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 47 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,495 28,851 Brent Total Persons 21,872 21,624 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 92 169 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 62 204 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,406 24,190 Century Town Total Persons 520 2,202 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 44 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,696 18,629 Ensley Total Persons 14,422 16,362 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 95 80 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 80 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,735 26,099 Ferry Pass Total Persons 16,910 26,301 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 60 123 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 53 111 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,368 31,555 Gonzalez Total Persons 6,084 7,669 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 73 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 40 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,237 37,084 Goulding Total Persons 5,352 4,159 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,145 15,591 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 58 Escambia County continued Molino Total Persons 1,456 1,173 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,749 27,940 Myrtle Grove Total Persons 16,261 14,238 17,402 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 37 11 147 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 27 25 83 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,697 17,768 25,412 Pensacola City Total Persons 59,571 57,619 58,165 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 270 311 241 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 130 231 220 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,102 17,353 33,464 Warrington Total Persons 15,824 15,792 16,040 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 56 74 165 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 77 115 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,402 14,962 24,420 West Pensacola Total Persons 24,371 22,107 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 141 127 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 124 133 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,938 21,267 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 59 9.2.2 Alabama Fishing Communities In 1996, Alabama commercial landings were about 27 million pounds, valued at about $38 million ex vessel. About 260,000 persons participated in marine recreational fishing (NMFS 1997). Saltwater angler expenditures in 1996 were estimated at $0.12 billion, generating a total output of $0.24 billion, total income of $0.07 billion, and total employment of 4,084 (ASFA, 1997). Baldwin County In 1996, 3.8 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 115 recreational for-hire vessels based in Baldwin County that principally operate out of Orange Beach. The Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau (1998) estimates the boats carry about 84,000 passengers each year and contribute about $60 million to the local economy through expenditures related to these trips. Principal cities for recreational fishing activity include Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Fairhope, and Daphne. Principal commercial landings ports include Bon Secour and Gulf Shores. Orange Beach and Bon Secour appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Baldwin County 1970 1980 1990 Bay Minette City Total Persons 6,727 74,455 7,168 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 68 46 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 51 39 35 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,393 15,235 24,640 Daphne City Total Persons 3,406 11,290 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 33 116 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 25 107 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,136 40,821 Elberta Town Total Persons 490 490 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 26 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,611 23,003 Fairhope City Total Persons 5,720 7,299 8,555 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 49 99 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 45 85 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,719 16,988 32,870 Foley City Total Persons 3,368 4,003 4,937 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 76 75 61 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 41 65 95 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,969 15,497 22,439 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 60 Baldwin County continued Gulf Shores City Total Persons 1,349 3,029 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 23 43 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 18 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,893 34,149 Loxley Town Total Persons 804 1,167 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 16 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,746 25,322 Orange Beach Town Total Persons 2,253 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 31 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 40 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,243 Point Clear Total Persons 1,799 2,055 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 19 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 20 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,073 26,397 Robertsdale City Total Persons 2,306 2,404 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 44 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 30 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,270 24,200 Silverhill Town Total Persons 612 553 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,651 26,046 Spanish Fort Total Persons 3,415 3,732 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,368 37,917 Summerdale Town Total Persons 558 553 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 20 3 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,433 22,564 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 61 Mobile County There are seven recreational for-hire vessels based in Mobile County which operate out of Dauphin Island. Dauphin Island is also a major launching site for private recreational fishing boats from Mobile County and the city of Mobile. In 1996, Bayou La Batre was the 20th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of commercial seafood products landed ($29 million) and the 45th leading port in terms of pounds landed (20 MP). Bayou La Batre and Coden are major processing centers for shellfish (shrimp, crabs, and oysters). Bayou La Batre, Coden, and Dauphin Island appear to be fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Mobile County 1970 1980 1990 Bayou La Batre City Total Persons 2,664 1,990 2,456 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 248 125 115 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 64 72 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,217 15,763 21,757 Chickasaw City Total Emplmnt 8,296 7,402 6,649 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 62 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 34 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,461 17,763 27,887 Citronelle City Total Persons 2,841 3,671 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 71 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,557 29,974 Creola City Total Persons 1,708 1,896 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,166 27,820 Dauphin Island Town Total Persons 824 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,751 Grand Bay Total Persons 3,185 3,383 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 54 21 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,008 31,692 Mobile City Total Persons 189,986 200,396 196,278 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 698 1,126 825 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 312 17,704 30,902 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,162 17,704 30,902 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 62 Mobile County continued Mount Vernon Town Total Persons 1,038 911 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,325 30,951 Prichard City Total Persons 41,644 39,518 34,311 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 231 223 162 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 170 206 210 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,414 12,298 20,067 Saraland City Total Persons 7,788 9,833 11,751 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 73 60 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 47 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,584 20,640 32,210 Satsuma City Total Persons 3,822 5,194 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 10 47 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,754 37,191 Theodore Total Persons 6,392 6,509 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 115 167 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 110 96 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,188 25,774 Tillmans Corner Total Persons 15,941 17,988 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 140 145 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 97 126 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,782 31,860 Wilmer Town Total Persons 604 494 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,791 32,837 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 63 9.2.3 Mississippi Fishing Communities In 1996, Mississippi commercial landings were about 177 million pounds, valued at about $33 million ex-vessel. About 230,000 persons participated in marine recreational fishing (NMFS 1997). Saltwater angler expenditures in 1996 were estimated at $0.16 billion, generating a total output of $0.29 billion, total income of $0.07 billion, and total employment of 3,988 (ASFA, 1997). Jackson County In 1996, Pascagoula-Moss Point was the 9th leading port in the U.S. in terms of commercial landings (148 MP). Coastal cities include Pascagoula, Moss Point, Gautier, and Ocean Springs. There are six recreational for-hire boats based in Jackson County. Moss Point, with its menhaden processing, is a fishing community. The economy of Pascagoula is primarily based on shipbuilding and also is a home port for the U.S. Navy. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Jackson County 1970 1980 1990 Escatawpa Total Persons 5,367 3,902 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 33 79 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,694 39,710 Gautier Total Persons 8,917 10,088 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 83 83 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 63 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,475 33,564 Gulf Hills Total Persons 4,512 5,004 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 39 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 28 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,427 33,534 Gulf Park Estates Total Persons 2,390 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,750 Latimer Total Persons 3,243 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 54 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,391 Matin Bluff Total Persons 1,852 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 28,051 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 64 Jackson County continued Moss Point City Total Persons 19,308 18,998 17,837 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 122 107 104 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 161 101 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,568 17,595 26,910 Ocean Springs City Total Persons 9,631 14,504 14,643 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 46 84 148 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 32 126 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,983 18,680 33,609 Pascagoula City Total Persons 27,471 29,318 25,899 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 85 217 167 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 118 103 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,348 18,424 32,186 St. Martin Total Persons 6,328 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 51 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,019 Vancleave Total Persons 1,356 3,229 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,169 27,523 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 65 Harrison County Gulfport is the 40th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of commercial seafood products landed ($18 million). There are 57 recreational for-hire boats based in Harrison County, most of which operate out of Biloxi. Coastal cities include Biloxi, Biloxi Beach, Gulfport, Long Beach, and Pass Christian. Biloxi remains a fishing community with a number of plants processing seafood harvested locally and trucked in from other states. However, gambling casinos are now the major contributors to the economy. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Harrison County 1970 1980 1990 Biloxi City Total Persons 48,486 49,311 46,319 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 205 305 341 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 137 356 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,434 14,424 24,427 D’Iberville City Total Persons 7,549 13,369 6,566 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 24 152 56 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 73 63 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,481 15,801 25,456 Gulfport City Total Persons 40,787 39,676 40,775 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 208 284 170 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 179 121 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,467 15,590 26,661 Long Beach City Total Persons 6,170 7,967 15,804 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 20 64 95 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 44 53 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,715 16,866 33,156 Lyman Total Persons 1,034 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,092 North Gulfport Total Persons 6,660 4,966 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 30 5 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 54 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,688 19,376 Orange Grove Total Persons 13,476 15,676 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 141 113 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 32 63 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,636 28,873 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 66 Harrison County continued Pass Christian City Total Persons 2,979 5,153 5,557 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 47 59 66 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 51 85 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,560 17,009 27,944 Wool Market Total Persons 1,230 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,475 Hancock County There are five recreational for-hire boats based in Hancock County. Coastal cities include Bay St. Louis, Waveland, and Lakeshore. Oyster shucking is the primary seafood processing conducted in the county; additionally crabs and shrimp are harvested and sold locally. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Hancock County 1970 1980 1990 Bay St. Louis City Total Persons 6,752 7,891 8,063 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 73 51 57 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 36 60 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,940 15,756 27,584 Diamondhead Total Persons 982 2,761 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 13 26 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,815 43,846 Kiln Total Persons 1,446 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,996 Pearlington Total Persons 1,503 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 33,923 Shoreline Park Total Persons 2,591 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,242 Waveland City Total Persons 3,289 4,186 5,369 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 19 35 113 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 27 51 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,473 16,044 25,329 9.2.4 Louisiana Fishing Communities In 1996, Louisiana commercial landings were about 1.1 billion pounds valued at $293 million. About 74 percent of the Gulf commercial landings were in Louisiana ports. In 1996, commercial fishing (including marine finfish harvests, freshwater harvests, and marine shellfish harvests) generated sales Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 67 of $2.1 billion, total output of $2.8 billion, and employment of 31,400 (Southwick Associates, 1997). About 493,000 persons participated in marine recreational fishing (NMFS 1997). Saltwater angler expenditures in 1996 were estimated at $0.21 billion, generating a total output of $0.40 billion, total income of $0.10 billion, and total employment of 5,627 (ASFA, 1997). St. Tammany Parish There are 19 recreational for-hire boats based in St. Tammany Parish. Cities with access to the estuarine water include Mandeville, Lacombe, and Slidell, all of which appear to be largely populated by persons employed in New Orleans. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in St. Tammany Parish 1970 1980 1990 Abita Springs Town Total Persons 1,072 1,296 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 30 22 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,132 31,702 Covington City Total Persons 7,170 7,892 7,691 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 87 111 149 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 37 67 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,730 17,299 35,259 Eden Isle Total Persons 444 3,768 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 58 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,795 43,599 Folsom Village Total Persons 351 516 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,831 19,409 Lacombe Total Persons 5,146 6,523 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 113 80 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 48 24 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,050 28,335 Madisonville Town Total Persons 6,076 7,083 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 145 239 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 28 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,630 39,669 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 68 St. Tammany Parish continued Mandeville City Total Persons 6,076 7,083 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 145 239 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 28 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,630 39,669 Pearl River Town Total Persons 1,693 1,467 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 11 21 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,056 22,772 Slidell City Total Persons 16,292 26,718 24,124 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 163 678 468 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 97 125 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,437 24,544 37,719 Sun Village Total Persons 414 410 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 24 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,507 24,823 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 69 Orleans Parish There are 14 recreational for-hire boat based in Orleans Parish. Cities with access to riverine or estuarine waters include New Orleans. New Orleans is a major seafood processing and distribution center. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Orleans Parish 1970 1980 1990 Total Persons 593,471 557,515 496,938 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 4,940 6,719 4,505 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 559 1,586 1,910 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,906 17,374 29,734 St. Bernard Parish There are 12 recreational for-hire boats based in St. Bernard Parish. Cities with access to riverine or estuarine waters include Shell Beach, Ysclaskey, Reggio, Hopeville, and Chalmette. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in St. Bernard Parish 1970 1980 1990 Arabi Total Persons 10,248 8,787 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 71 33 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,855 28,906 Chalmette Total Persons 433 31,860 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 293 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 97 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,410 30,839 Meraux Total Persons 8,849 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 74 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 Average Wage/Salary ($) 33,792 Poydras Total Persons 5,722 4,029 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 129 44 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 56 54 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,901 24,359 Violet Total Persons 11,678 8,574 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 113 142 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 39 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,250 26,642 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 70 St. Charles Parish There are eight recreational for-hire boats based in St. Charles Parish. Des Allemands straddles the Lafourche/St. Charles Parish line. Most of it is in St. Charles Parish. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in St. Charles Parish 1970 1980 1990 Boutte Total Persons 2724 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 28,148 Destrehan Total Persons 2,414 8,031 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 49 117 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 27,458 50,292 Hahnville Total Persons 3,052 2,577 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 56 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,656 28,329 Lone Star Total Persons 1,541 1,383 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,497 36,802 Luling Total Persons 3,151 4,006 2,787 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 18 5 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 0 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,399 21,854 31,436 Mimosa Total Persons 4,507 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 46,467 New Sarpy Total Persons 2,217 2,946 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 41 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,333 34,457 Norco Total Persons 4,789 4,416 3,385 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 87 34 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 5 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,303 23,081 32,144 St. Rose Total Persons 6,259 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 39 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,362 Plaquemines Parish In 1996, Empire-Venice was the 2nd leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (317 MP) and the 8th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($45 million). There are 29 recreational for-hire boats based in Plaquemines Parish. The Empire-Venice-Buras area is a major Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 71 launching and dockage area for recreational fishermen from New Orleans. All three ports appear to be fishing communities, although they are also major staging areas for support vessels and services for the oil and gas industry. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Plaquemines Parish 1970 1980 1990 Belle Chase Total Persons 5,412 8,512 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 223 233 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 41 95 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,175 34,477 Boothville-Venice Total Persons 2,699 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 194 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 104 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,826 Buras-Triumph Total Persons 4,258 4,137 3,746 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 459 461 382 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 95 174 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,971 21,576 27,980 Empire Total Persons 3,715 2,681 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 224 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 127 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,337 23,618 Port Sulphur Total Persons 3,022 3,318 3,496 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 322 357 190 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 57 102 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,609 19,051 27,167 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 72 Jefferson Parish In 1996, Grand Isle was the 41st leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($18 million) and the 54th leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (14 MP). Lafitte/Barataria is a very significant shrimp port. Westwego and Bucktown are small but significant centers of recreational and commercial fishing activity. There are 71 recreational for-hire boats based in Jefferson Parish. Grand Isle and Lafitte/Barataria are major launching areas for recreational boats and are fishing communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Jefferson Parish 1970 1980 1990 Avondale Total Persons 6,699 5,813 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 114 76 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 20 67 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,306 29,605 Barataria Total Persons 1,092 1,152 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 112 119 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 97 107 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,302 19,787 Bridge City Total Persons 8,327 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 95 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 47 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,794 Estelle Total Persons 12,724 14,091 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 319 195 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,019 32,681 Grand Isle Town Total Persons 1,982 1,472 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 166 82 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 32 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,410 23,624 Gretna City Total Persons 25,012 20,615 17,208 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 508 540 195 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 158 77 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,329 16,882 22,943 Harahan City Total Persons 13,078 11,384 9,927 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 187 153 114 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 0 36 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,315 23,967 36,037 Harvey Total Persons 6,200 22,709 21,222 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 135 611 304 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 37 60 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,812 19,299 28,988 Jean Lafitte Town Total Persons 955 1,469 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 57 59 Jefferson Parish continued Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 31 32 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,655 25,504 Jefferson Total Persons 15,550 14,521 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 73 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 254 177 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 51 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,664 28,491 Kenner City Total Persons 29,910 66,382 72,033 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 274 953 906 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 20 178 373 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,203 22,057 35,666 Laffite Total Persons 1,324 1,498 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 96 88 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 72 49 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,117 21,838 Marrero Total Persons 29,015 36,548 36,671 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 612 685 450 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 50 77 166 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,721 19,634 28,239 Metairie Total Persons 134,796 164,160 149,428 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 2,060 3,309 1,790 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 112 303 460 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,067 22,569 35,753 River Ridge Total Persons 17,146 14,800 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 208 167 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 56 48 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,034 41,303 Terrytown Total Persons 13,823 23,548 23,787 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 449 893 546 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 38 64 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,443 22,083 32,323 Timberlane Total Persons 11,579 12,614 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 419 318 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 74 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,752 39,959 Waggaman Total Persons 9,004 9,405 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 55 128 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 103 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,001 28,784 Westwego City Total Persons 11,386 12,663 11,218 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 142 200 110 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 87 71 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,787 16,175 22,588 Lafourche Parish In 1996, Golden Meadow-Leeville (including Port Forchon) was the 31st leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($22 million) and the 52nd leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (14 MP). Both are fishing communities. Other cities on Bayou Lafourche include Galliano and Larose. There are 47 recreational for-hire boats based in Lafourche Parish. Most of these are likely guide boats. Des Allemands straddles the Lafourche/St. Charles Parish line. Most of it is in St. Charles Parish. Golden Meadow, Galliano, and Leeville are major centers of recreational fishing with a lot of launching, docking, and storage facilities. Leeville is becoming especially important. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 74 Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Lafourche Parish 1970 1980 1990 Chackbay Total Persons 33,847 2,250 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 361 83 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 78 40 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,928 25,090 Cut Off Total Persons 5,049 5,325 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 369 324 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 66 88 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,422 26,185 Des Allemands Total Persons 2,803 2,399 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 131 85 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,410 26,491 Galiano Total Persons 5,159 4,294 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 430 185 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 214 68 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,003 22,480 Golden Meadow Town Total Persons 2,681 2,282 2,049 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 149 189 106 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 59 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,887 17,213 27,806 Larose Total Persons 4,399 5,234 5,772 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 340 339 364 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 89 103 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,023 21,226 24,951 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 75 Lafourche Parish continued Lockport Town Total Persons 2,493 2,392 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 101 50 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,959 23,782 Mathews Total Persons 2,930 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 32,113 Raceland Total Persons 4,882 6,233 5,675 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 207 187 237 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 41 29 63 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,393 18,969 29,492 Thibodaux Total Persons 14,922 15,810 14,035 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 320 391 259 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 62 87 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,609 16,956 26,679 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 76 Terrebonne Parish In 1996, Dulac-Chauvin was the 9th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($45 million) and the 27th leading port in terms of pounds landed (38 MP). There are 42 recreational for-hire boats based in Terrebonne Parish, most of which are probably guide boats. Both cities are primarily fishing communities, but also serve as oil and gas industry terminals. Both cities also serve as major launching and docking sites for recreational fishermen. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Terrebonne Parish 1970 1980 1990 Bayou Cane Total Persons 9,144 15,723 15,876 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 782 1,366 892 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 41 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,284 23,670 30,145 Chauvin Total Persons 3,338 3,375 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 293 220 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,970 26,995 Dulac Total Persons 1,253 3,273 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 58 195 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 142 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,843 16,423 Gray Total Persons 4,260 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 185 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,536 Houma City Total Persons 30,893 32,608 30,495 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,898 2,123 1,418 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 27 157 130 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,347 20,947 28,472 Montegut Total Persons 1,777 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 110 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,944 Schriever Total Persons 22,557 15,113 4,958 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 424 88 193 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 148 54 49 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,131 16,246 28,012 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 77 St. Mary Parish In 1996, Morgan City-Berwick was the 7th leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (163 MP) and the 46th leading port in terms of value of seafood landed ($14 million). Three recreational for-hire vessels are registered in the parish. There are no real fishing communities in the parish; fishermen are scattered throughout all the cities and towns. Morgan City’s economy appears to largely be based on oil and gas industry support services, although the city was a major fishing center. Offshore shrimp fishing originally developed from Morgan City. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in St. Mary Parish 1970 1980 1990 Amelia Total Persons 3,565 2,385 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 209 66 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 15 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,581 23,394 Baldwin Town Total Persons 2,696 2,363 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 129 79 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 21 38 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,863 26,566 Bayou Vista Total Persons 5,078 5,805 4,733 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 369 328 205 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 14 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,348 22,474 23,500 Berwick Town Total Persons 4,168 4,466 4,437 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 238 302 275 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 40 69 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,477 21,429 27,693 Charenton Total Persons 1,446 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 96 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,178 Franklin City Total Persons 9,325 9,584 9,142 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 322 357 239 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 14 75 62 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,459 16,710 25,778 Morgan City Total Persons 16,665 16,114 14,531 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 767 786 441 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 63 122 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,671 22,804 28,448 Patterson City Total Persons 4,409 4,693 4,736 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 294 273 227 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 28 31 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,963 20,248 23,949 Iberia Parish In 1996, Delcambre was the 44th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($16 million). There are three recreational for-hire boats based in Iberia Parish. Delcambre is a fishing community. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 78 Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Iberia Parish 1970 1980 1990 Delcambre Town Total Persons 2,220 1,984 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 180 126 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 35 30 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,397 22,728 Jeanerette City Total Persons 6,286 6,511 6,205 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 256 251 269 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 39 87 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,527 19,237 23,870 Loreauville Village Total Persons 864 860 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 67 31 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 14 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,410 26,829 Lydia Total Persons 1,236 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 71 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,685 New Iberia City Total Persons 30,147 32,766 31,828 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,563 1,894 1,331 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 172 268 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,477 18,777 25,417 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 79 Vermilion Parish In 1996, Intercoastal City was the 6th leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (200 MP) and 59th in terms of value of seafood landed ($11 million). Intercoastal City appears to be a fishing community. There are two recreational for-hire vessels in the parish. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Vermilion Parish 1970 1980 1990 Abbeville City Total Persons 10,996 12,391 11,187 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 371 734 371 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 62 111 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,490 15,810 21,645 Erath Town Total Persons 2,133 2,428 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 107 137 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,501 21,082 Gueydan Town Total Persons 1,695 1,611 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 148 131 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,247 19,318 Kaplan City Total Persons 5,540 5,016 4,535 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 281 180 161 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 51 25 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,216 11,525 19,851 Maurice Village Total Persons 470 430 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 24 19 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,942 21,567 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 80 Cameron Parish In 1996, Cameron was the 3rd leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (316 MP) and the 19th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($31 million). There are 26 recreational for-hire boats based in Cameron Parish. Cameron, Hackberry, and Grand Chenier appear to be fishing and farming communities. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Cameron Parish 1970 1980 1990 Cameron Total Persons 1,732 2,003 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 192 174 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 110 89 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,071 25,201 Hackberry Total Persons 1,702 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 82 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,738 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 81 Calcasieu Parish There are 25 recreational for-hire boats in Calcasieu Parish, most of which are probably guide boats. The principal city with access to water is Lake Charles. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Calcasieu Parish 1970 1980 1990 Carlyss Total Persons 1,829 3,305 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 92 30 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,733 30,957 De Quincy City Total Persons 3,448 3,966 3,474 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 72 103 52 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 15 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,124 19,179 24,889 Iowa Town Total Persons 2,437 2,708 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 98 82 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 18 38 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,101 27,851 Lake Charles City Total Persons 77,998 75,226 70,580 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,095 2,019 788 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 112 245 311 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,316 19,361 29,427 Moss Bluff Total Persons 7,004 8,039 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 222 225 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,165 38,582 Prien Total Persons 6,224 6,448 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 178 120 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,422 39,517 Sulphur Total Persons 13,551 19,709 20,125 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 223 479 261 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 101 98 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,076 23,348 33,001 Vinton Town Total Persons 3,286 3,631 3,154 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 153 191 74 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 28 58 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,535 18,966 27,017 Westlake City Total Persons 4,082 5,246 5,007 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 31 134 57 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 8 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,130 21,668 27,999 9.2.5 Texas Fishing Communities In 1996, Texas commercial landings were about 88.5 million pounds with an exvessel value of $181.6 million (Dokken et al., 1998). Shrimp contributed 75 percent of landings and 85 percent of value. In 4Shift share analysis is a technique used to measure the change in a region’s performance relative to that of a benchmark region. In present case, employment prospects are the focus of analysis. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 82 1996, about 860,000 persons participated in marine recreational fishing, made 10 million trips, and landed 10.9 MP of fish (Page Campbell, TPWD, pers. comm). Saltwater angler expenditures in 1996 were estimated at $0.89 billion, generating a total output of $1.99 billion, total income of $0.50 billion, and total employment of 24,802 (ASFA, 1997). In 1996, the coastal counties in Texas, excluding Harris, Orange, and Victoria counties, had an estimated population of 1,547,007, representing 8.2 percent of the total population in Texas. In 1995, personal income for the region was about $26.1 million, representing 6.6 percent of total personal income in Texas (Dokken et al., 1998). Jefferson County In 1996, Port Arthur/Sabine Pass was the 23rd leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($27 million) and the 58th leading port in terms of pounds landed (12 MP). Coastal cities include Sabine and Port Arthur. There are 10 recreational for-hire boats based in Jefferson County. Sabine Pass and Port Acres appear to be fishing communities. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Jefferson county grew from 239,397 in 1990 to 245,056 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration. Domestic migration was negative and largest among coastal counties. Per capita income in the county rose from $17,039 in 1990 to $20,459 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 2,430 in 1990 to 2,234 in 1995, with the decrease occurring only in the commercial fishing industry. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis4 of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery related and and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 83 Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Jefferson County 1970 1980 1990 Beaumont City Total Persons 115,965 118,102 114,323 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,432 1,017 715 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 189 385 430 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,519 20,390 32,744 Bevil Oaks Town Total Persons 1,303 1,350 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 29,932 46,366 Central Gardens Total Persons 14,692 4,026 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 926 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 68 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 42,949 42,917 China City Total Persons 1,351 1,153 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 72 41 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 52 25 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,140 26,883 Groves City Total Persons 18,076 17,090 16,513 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 80 158 197 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 51 67 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,397 23,831 34,421 Nederland City Total Persons 16,812 16,855 16,192 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 107 73 99 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 23 12 34 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,573 24,080 36,554 Nome City Total Persons 553 439 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 41 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 16 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,339 28,111 Port Arthur City Total Persons 57,380 61,251 58,724 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 441 590 587 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 35 318 432 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,927 18,713 26,424 Port Neches City Total Persons 10,874 13,944 12,974 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 59 77 49 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 15 27 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,864 25,534 40,452 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 84 Orange County In 1996, 368,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are 10 recreational for-hire boats based in Orange County. The coastal cities include Orange and Beaumont. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Orange County 1970 1980 1990 Bridge City Total Persons 8,194 7,667 8,034 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 88 69 57 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 13 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,006 24,386 33,582 Mauriceville Total Persons 2,082 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,460 Orange City Total Persons 24,457 23,628 19,340 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 140 107 107 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 47 34 80 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,760 20,560 30,171 Pine Forest City Total Persons 662 692 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,354 29,675 Pinehurst City Total Persons 3,055 2,723 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 22 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,357 26,124 Rose City Total Persons 737 573 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 12 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,851 24,383 Vidor City Total Persons 9,741 12,043 10,934 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 44 120 88 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 17 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,971 20,558 30,612 West Orange City Total Persons 4,858 4,610 4,187 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 38 24 42 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 0 18 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,798 21,012 28,792 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 85 Chambers County In 1996, 3.3 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There is one recreational for-hire boat based in Chambers County. Anahuac is the principal coastal city. South Port, Oak Island, and Crystal Beach are fishing communities. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Chambers county grew from 20,088 in 1990 to 22,131 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $15,234 in 1990 to $19,170 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 520 in 1990 to 429 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing and wholesaling industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in fishery related industries and positive net relative shift in non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly in fishery related industries and more rapidly in non-fishery related industries than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Chambers County 1970 1980 1990 Anahuac City Total Persons 1,840 1,993 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 85 58 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,431 29,501 Beach City Total Persons 964 850 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,376 45,738 Cove Town Total Persons 658 416 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 10 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,186 36,436 Old River-Winfree Town Total Persons 1,034 1,233 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 24 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 27,728 43,573 Stowell Total Persons 1,509 1,406 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 111 46 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 63 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,217 27,603 Winnie Total Persons 2,485 2,251 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 172 112 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 51 46 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,405 25,090 Harris County Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 86 In 1996, 4.1 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 79 recreational for-hire boats based in Harris County, most of which are probably guide boats fishing Galveston Bay. The Houston metropolitan area is located in Harris County. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Harris County 1970 1980 1990 Aldine Total Persons 12,623 11,133 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 241 205 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 101 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,913 29,197 Barrett Total Persons 2,667 3,183 2,991 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 30 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 31 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,091 17,723 32,457 Baytown Total Persons 43,980 56,923 63,838 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 417 869 815 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 173 149 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,277 23,323 35,885 Bellaire City Total Persons 19,069 14,950 13,842 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 382 654 416 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 50 42 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,353 24,978 53,331 Bunker Hill Village Total Persons 3,977 3,750 3,391 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 119 154 134 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 7 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,059 64,576 147,476 Channelview Total Persons 17,471 25,560 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 171 460 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 45 135 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,033 37,385 Cloverleaf Total Persons 17,317 18,230 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 230 228 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 60 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,140 64,906 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 87 Harris County continued Crosby Total Persons 1,626 1,578 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 32 48 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 20 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,307 34,654 Deer Park City Total Persons 12,773 22,648 27,652 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 66 193 267 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 38 36 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,877 27,855 47,121 El Lago City Total Persons 3,129 3,255 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 52 42 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 30,647 58,342 Friendswood City Total Persons 5,675 10,719 22,851 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 202 393 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 35 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,027 32,967 55,194 Galena Park City Total Persons 10,519 9,879 10,033 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 47 120 80 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 35 25 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,758 21,497 28,686 Hedwig Village City Total Persons 3,255 2,490 2,558 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 135 141 55 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 12 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,175 32,951 71,442 Highlands Total Persons 3,402 6,467 6,632 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 24 72 97 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 11 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,450 23,708 37,554 Hilshire Village Total Persons 617 667 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 39,268 83,967 Houston City Total Persons 1,232,407 1,595,167 1,630,672 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 19,225 43,090 32,281 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 1,259 4,715 8,552 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,721 34,745 Humble City Total Persons 3,106 6,729 12,060 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 117 175 174 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 39 60 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,723 20,741 32,238 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 88 Harris County continued Hunters Creek Village Total Persons 3,947 4,215 3,954 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 106 102 111 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 0 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,267 74,961 146,136 Jacinto City Total Persons 9,563 8,953 9,343 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 80 65 79 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 25 37 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,103 20,815 25,157 Jersey Village Total Persons 4,084 4,826 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 129 204 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 37,765 68,696 Katy City Total Persons 3,083 5,656 8,130 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 153 226 340 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 81 44 106 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,124 24,173 40,192 Kingwood Total Persons 16,267 37,404 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 885 1,491 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 19 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 39,648 66,569 La Porte City Total Persons 7,041 14,062 27,896 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 204 268 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 56 103 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,146 24,673 42,396 League City Total Persons 10,534 16,575 30,122 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 112 304 388 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 48 64 155 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,895 25,436 47,764 Mission Bend Total Persons 24,945 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 938 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 Average Wage/Salary ($) 48,704 Missouri City Total Persons 4,079 24,533 36,176 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 82 1,072 1,171 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 28 74 85 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,222 35,232 53,432 Morgan’s Point City Total Persons 417 355 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 3 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 3 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,075 53,413 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 89 Harris County continued Nassau Bay City Total Persons 4,583 4,320 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 131 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 35 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,573 64,965 Pasadena City Total Persons 89,316 112,560 119,363 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 659 1,167 1,065 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 59 215 402 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,538 22,649 33,582 Pearland City Total Persons 6,444 13,219 18,716 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 131 360 459 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 22 86 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,995 27,742 44,742 Piney Point Village Total Persons 2,546 2,958 3,197 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 76 132 96 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 8 30 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,088 70,584 169,605 Seabrook City Total Persons 3,811 4,670 6,699 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 73 186 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 30 81 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,361 24,549 38,456 Sheldon Total Persons 2,055 1,657 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 14 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,806 30,361 Shoreacres City Total Persons 1,260 1,316 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,633 53,436 South Houston City Total Persons 11,568 13,293 14,207 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 59 136 92 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 44 49 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,140 19,576 27,039 Southside Place City Total Persons 1,366 1,392 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,205 62,336 Spring Total Persons 33,111 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 531 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 38 Average Wage/Salary ($) 40,862 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 90 Harris County continued Spring Valley Total Persons 3,145 3,357 3,390 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 99 159 125 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 8 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,221 37,165 69,688 Stafford Town Total Persons 2,833 4,772 8,328 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 50 228 213 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 26 105 55 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,459 22,495 39,732 Taylor Lake Village Total Persons 3,669 3,394 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 57 73 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 12 42 Average Wage/Salary ($) 43,632 73,196 Tomball City Total Persons 2,734 3,996 6,370 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 95 55 177 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 25 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,426 22,708 33,598 Waller City Total Persons 2,348 4,678 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 28 69 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 40 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,505 33,988 West University Place City Total Persons 13,328 12,010 12,920 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 288 477 379 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 28 15 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,496 29,140 87,895 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 91 Galveston County In 1996, Galveston was the 11th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($37 million) and the 44th leading port in the U.S. in terms of pounds landed (21 MP). There are 38 recreational for-hire boats based in Galveston County, which includes large headboats. Coastal cities include Galveston, Texas City, and Port Bolivar. Port Bolivar appears to be a fishing community. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Galveston county grew from 217,399 in 1990 to 237,775 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $17,552 in 1990 to $21,300 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 3,135 in 1990 to 2,872 in 1995, with the decrease occurring only in the commercial fishing industry. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Galveston County 1970 1980 1990 Bacliff Total Persons 4,762 5,549 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 55 117 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 41 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,133 31,095 Bayou Vista Village Total Persons 1,323 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 45,281 Clear Lake Shores City Total Persons 758 1,096 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 19 11 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,591 41,653 Dickinson City Total Persons 10,776 7,505 9,497 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 101 78 135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 33 54 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,620 24,272 38,324 Galveston City Total Persons 61,813 61,902 59,072 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 498 792 651 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 79 335 475 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,710 17,955 29,301 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 92 Galveston County continued Hitchcock City Total Persons 5,644 6,655 5,868 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 36 92 78 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 19 26 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,426 21,260 31,598 Jamaica Beach Village Total Persons 364 622 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,366 44,634 Kemah City Total Persons 1,304 1,094 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,659 30,942 La Marque City Total Persons 16,131 15,361 14,120 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 93 109 133 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 51 57 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,064 21,615 33,351 San Leon Total Persons 1,834 3,328 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 116 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 44 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,080 28,865 Santa Fe City Total Persons 6,172 8,429 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 61 141 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 50 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,976 36,217 Texas City Total Persons 38,825 41,403 40,822 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 220 297 400 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 46 106 157 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,545 21,895 31,585 Tiki Island Village Total Persons 534 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 56,504 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 93 Brazoria County In 1996, 6.1 MP of seafood was landed in the county. In 1996, Freeport was the 59th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($14 million). There are 13 recreational for-hire boats based in Brazoria County. Freeport and Brazoria appear to be fishing communities. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Brazoria county grew from 191,707 in 1990 to 216,402 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $17,028 in 1990 to $19,595 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 1,216 in 1990 to 995 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing, seafood processing, and wholesaling industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Brazoria County 1970 1980 1990 Alvin City Total Persons 10,798 16,514 19,220 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 252 500 507 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 87 128 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,320 22,064 32,370 Angleton City Total Persons 9,664 13,881 17,140 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 76 216 147 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 36 85 65 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,570 23,651 35,984 Bailey’s Prairie Village Total Persons 401 650 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 4 13 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 35,616 64,875 Bonney Village Total Persons 87 295 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 9 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 7 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,929 35,342 Brazoria City Total Persons 3,025 2,764 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 56 19 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 30 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,044 35,441 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 94 Brazoria County continued Brookside Village City Total Persons 1,453 1,470 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 32 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 14 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,539 37,045 Clute City Total Persons 6,023 9,577 8,907 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 54 164 91 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 5 78 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,437 20,223 30,714 Danbury City Total Persons 1,357 1,447 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 40 43 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 33 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,691 41,902 Freeport City Total Persons 12,070 13,442 11,375 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 262 225 175 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 105 105 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,841 19,785 27,101 Hillcrest Village Total Persons 772 677 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 13 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 31,531 55,637 Holiday Lakes Town Total Persons 1,023 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 12 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,548 Iowa Colony Village Total Persons 575 631 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 37 20 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 10 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,276 36,182 Jones Creek Village Total Persons 2,634 2,160 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 26 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 18 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,664 38,549 Lake Jackson City Total Persons 13,340 19,102 22,749 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 69 98 119 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 27 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,259 28,705 48,646 Liverpool Village Total Persons 612 440 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 14 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 10 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,030 35,168 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 95 Brazoria County continued Manvel City Total Persons 3,549 3,733 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 172 84 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 44 39 Average Wage/Salary ($) 25,482 38,551 Oyster Creek Village Total Persons 1,473 939 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 25 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,276 31,574 Quintana Total Persons 27 73 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 0 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,906 33,324 Richwood City Total Persons 2,591 2,735 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 47 24 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 40 13 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,611 42,216 Surfside Beach City Total Persons 582 603 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 6 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 3 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,845 31,325 Sweeny Town Total Persons 3,191 3,538 3,236 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 94 53 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 21 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,150 22,918 32,526 West Columbia City Total Persons 3,335 4,109 4,372 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 84 96 107 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 34 28 70 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,455 20,247 32,972 Wild Peach Village Total Persons 2,390 2,393 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 63 36 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 37 37 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,061 36,190 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 96 Matagorda County In 1996, 9.2 MP of seafood was landed in the county. In 1996, Palacios was the 25th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($25 million). There are 17 recreational for-hire boats based in Matagorda County. Palacios and Matagorda are the principal coastal cities. Palacios and Sargent appear to be fishing communities. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Matagorda county grew from 36,928 in 1990 to 38,352 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration. Net domestic migration was negative. Per capita income in the county rose from $14,688 in 1990 to $17,160 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 1,915 in 1990 to 1,494 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing and wholesaling industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Matagorda County 1970 1980 1990 Bay City Total Persons 11,843 17,837 18,264 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 574 753 308 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 152 239 157 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,081 20,186 31,874 Markham Total Persons 1,532 1,112 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 100 32 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 23 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,037 23,333 Palacios Town Total Persons 3,642 4,667 4,418 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 242 190 156 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 66 140 137 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,356 16,342 26,423 Van Vleck Total Persons 1,083 1,481 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 88 51 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 19 Average Wage/Salary ($) 20,291 30,065 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 97 Victoria County There are 15 recreational for-hire boats based in Victoria County, all of which are probably guide boats. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Victoria County 1970 1980 1990 Bloomington Total Persons 1,904 1,881 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 69 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 27 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,086 27,230 Inez Total Persons 3,661 5,436 1,447 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 232 255 126 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 96 31 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,995 19,410 42,189 Victoria City Total Persons 41,349 50,695 55,000 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 878 1,935 1,496 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 149 189 430 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,956 19,718 32,247 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 98 Calhoun County In 1996, 5.1 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 17 recreational for-hire boats based in Calhoun County. Coastal cities include Seadrift, Port O’Connor, and Port Lavaca. All three appear to be fishing communities. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Calhoun county grew from 19,052 in 1990 to 20,569 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration. Net domestic migration was negative. Per capita income in the county rose from $14,004 in 1990 to $17,025 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 1,386 in 1990 to 1,023 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing and wholesaling industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in fishery related industry and positive net relative shift in non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly in fishery related industries but more rapidly in non-fishery related industries than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Calhoun County 1970 1980 1990 Point Comfort City Total Persons 1,124 956 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 22 18 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 9 6 Average Wage/Salary ($) 23,342 32,392 Port Lavaca City Total Persons 10,440 10,911 10,886 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 161 341 195 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 60 148 138 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,244 20,341 27,719 Seadrift City Total Persons 1,272 1,277 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 88 86 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 69 76 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,591 22,844 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 99 Refugio County There are four recreational for-hire boats based in Refugio County. The only coastal city is Bayside. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Refugio county decreased from 7,976 in 1990 to 7,784 in 1996. The decrease was accounted for a significant reduction in net domestic migration although natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration were positive. Per capita income in the county rose from $15,789 in 1990 to $22,829 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 73 in 1990 to 57 in 1995, with the decrease accounted for by the commercial fishing and retailing industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Refugio County 1970 1980 1990 Austwell City Total Persons 290 156 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 17 6 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,775 27,825 Bayside Town Total Persons 396 413 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 23 15 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 5 Average Wage/Salary ($) 15,420 22,814 Refugio Town Total Persons 4,572 3,898 3,158 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 362 361 234 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 48 44 62 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,568 16,058 25,278 Woodsboro Town Total Persons 1,974 1,718 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 222 123 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 74 58 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,443 22,471 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 100 Aransas County In 1996, 8.6 MP of seafood was landed in the county. In 1996, Rockport-Port Aransas was the 28th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($24 million). There are 94 recreational for-hire boats based in Aransas County. Rockport appears to be a fishing community. Aransas Pass is a fishing community located at the juncture of San Patrico, Aransas, and Nueces Counties and serves as a regional docking port for Gulf shrimp vessels. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Aransas county grew from 17,892 in 1990 to 21,105 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $14,943 in 1990 to $17,630 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 1,391 in 1990 to 1020 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in all industries, except retailing. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in fishery related industries and positive net relative shift in non fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly in fishery related industries but more rapidly in non-fishery related industries than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Aransas County 1970 1980 1990 Fulton Town Total Persons 696 685 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 9 25 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,727 15,333 Rockport City Total Persons 3,738 3,686 4,831 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 114 143 221 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 45 105 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,213 16,301 27,494 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 101 San Patricio County In 1996, 8.6 million pounds of seafood was landed in Aransas Pass. In 1996 Port Aransas-Rockport was the 28th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($24 million).There are 54 recreational for-hire boats based in San Patrico County, many of which are likely guide boats. Coastal cities include Aransas Pass, Portland, and Gregory. Aransas Pass is a fishing community located at the juncture of San Patrico, Aransas, and Nueces counties, and serves as regional docking port for Gulf shrimp vessels. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in San Patricio county grew from 58,749 in 1990 to 66,885 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $11,980 in 1990 to $14,617 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 1,325 in 1990 to 993 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing and wholesaling industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in San Patricio County 1970 1980 1990 Gregory City Total Persons 2,739 2,540 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 75 89 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 15 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,649 22,993 Ingleside City Total Persons 5,696 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 112 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 85 Average Wage/Salary ($) 26,074 Lake City Total Persons 401 472 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 22 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 0 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,049 25,911 Lakeside Town Total Persons 277 307 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 5 7 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 0 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,118 26,277 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 102 San Patricio County continued Mathis City Total Persons 5,728 5,667 5,423 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 365 243 155 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 260 143 93 Average Wage/Salary ($) 4,448 11,823 17,133 Odem City Total Persons 2,379 2,382 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 109 92 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 65 45 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,274 27,918 San Patricio City Total Persons 254 347 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 4 14 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 6 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,115 27,637 Sinton City Total Persons 5,563 6,044 5,533 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 167 217 214 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 65 111 134 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,732 16,283 23,413 Taft City Total Persons 3,274 3,768 3,247 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 108 139 113 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 64 85 84 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,457 17,089 23,865 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 103 Nueces County In 1996, 2.4 MP of seafood was landed in the county. There are 112 recreational for-hire boats based in Nueces County, with most at Port Aransas. Coastal cities include Corpus Christi and Port Aransas. Port Aransas is a recreational fishing community. Aransas Pass is a fishing community located at the juncture of San Patrico, Aransas, and Nueces counties, and serves as regional docking port for Gulf shrimp vessels. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Nueces county grew from 291,145 in 1990 to 313,049 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $15,407 in 1990 to $18,703 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) increased from 1,222 in 1990 to 1,459 in 1995, with only the commercial fishing industry experiencing a decrease. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had positive net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing more rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Nueces County 1970 1980 1990 Agua Dulce City Total Persons 934 809 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 91 46 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 7 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 19,988 29,174 Aransas Pass City Total Persons 5,846 7,205 7,080 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 278 469 193 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 14 278 154 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,597 16,819 24,946 Bishop City Total Persons 3,445 3,706 3,337 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 138 182 82 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 52 77 34 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,601 19,186 28,692 Corpus Christi City Total Persons 204,590 231,999 257,453 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 3,713 5,302 4,135 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 456 1,137 1,302 Average Wage/Salary ($) 8,330 18,646 31,067 Driscoll City Total Persons 690 693 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 34 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,157 19,445 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 104 Nueces County continued North San Pedro Total Persons 2,541 845 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 33 17 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 19 9 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,224 18,331 Petronila City Total Persons 135 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 16 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 11 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,416 Port Aransas City Total Persons 1,965 2,241 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 82 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 71 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,743 28,100 Portland City Total Persons 7,204 12,023 12,142 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 425 552 440 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 49 23 73 Average Wage/Salary ($) 10,525 26,036 38,206 Robstown City Total Persons 11,217 12,100 12,957 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 246 193 151 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 126 70 112 Average Wage/Salary ($) 7,514 16,047 21,376 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 105 Kleberg County In 1996, 820,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are eight recreational for-hire boats based in Kleberg County. Coastal cities depending on recreational fishing include Riviera, Loyola Beach, and Valtman. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Kleberg county slightly grew from 30,274 in 1990 to 30,294 in 1996. Significant negative net domestic migration was outweighed by positive natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration. Net domestic migration was negative. Per capita income in the county rose from $11,904 in 1990 to $15,034 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 397 in 1990 to 308 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing industry. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in both fishery and non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Kleberg County 1970 1980 1990 Kingsville City Total Persons 28,605 28,808 25,276 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 541 1,140 640 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 136 257 259 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,974 16,495 26,868 Kenedy County There is one recreational for-hire boat based in the county. Communities with access to water include Sarita and Olmas. Baffin Bay is a recreational fishing community. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Kenedy county fell from 460 in 1990 to 436 in 1996. The decrease was accounted for negative net domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $20,262 in 1990 to $21,773 in 1995. No fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) information was reported, and a shift-share analysis was not conducted. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Kenedy County 1970 1980 1990 Total Persons 752 543 460 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 179 142 89 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 143 114 80 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,023 12,825 24,393 Willacy County In 1996, 130,000 pounds of seafood was landed in the county. There are 26 recreational for-hire vessels based in the county. Port Mansfield and San Benito both appear to be fishing communities. Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 106 In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Willacy county grew from 17,705 in 1990 to 19,300 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths) and international migration. Net domestic migration was negative. Per capita income in the county rose from $7,638 in 1990 to $10,029 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) fell from 87 in 1990 to 75 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in the commercial fishing industry. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in fishery related industries and positive relative shift in non-fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly in fishery related industries but more rapidly in non fishery related industries than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Willacy County 1970 1980 1990 Lyford City Total Persons 1,635 1,654 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 121 69 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 94 64 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,610 19,881 Raymondville City Total Persons 8,167 9,493 8,921 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 505 468 293 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 421 368 200 Average Wage/Salary ($) 5,223 13,631 16,925 San Perlita City Total Persons 458 532 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 50 54 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 42 43 Average Wage/Salary ($) 11,578 16,113 Sebastian Total Persons 1,557 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 70 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 82 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,262 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 107 Cameron County In 1996, Brownsville-Port Isabel was the 5th leading port in the U.S. in terms of value of seafood landed ($60 million) and the 40th leading port in pounds landed (22 MP). There are 78 recreational for-hire boats based in the county, with most in the South Padre Island-Port Isabel area. Other coastal communities include Port Brownville and Port Harlingen. South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and Port Brownsville appear to be fishing communities. Communities dependent on aquaculture of shrimp include Rio Hondo and Arroyo City. In their socioeconomic study of Texas coastal counties, Dokken et al. (1998) reported that total population in Cameron county grew from 260,120 in 1990 to 307,869 in 1996. The increase was accounted for by natural increases (births minus deaths), international migration, and domestic migration. Per capita income in the county rose from $9,770 in 1990 to $11,960 in 1995. Fishery related employment (commercial fishing, seafood processing, wholesaling, retailing) decreased from 3,760 in 1990 to 2,798 in 1995, with the decrease occurring in all, but seafood processing, industries. The authors also conducted a shift-share analysis of employment for 1990 and 1995 using the Gulf of Mexico region, comprising the five coastal states, as the benchmark region. They found that this county had negative net relative shift in fishery related industries and positive net relative shift in non fishery related industries, indicating that the county was growing less rapidly in fishery related industries and more rapidly in non-fishery related industries than the benchmark region. Key Characteristics of Census-Defined Areas in Cameron County 1970 1980 1990 Bayview Town Total Persons 295 243 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 30 2 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,632 31,309 Brownsville City Total Persons 52,522 84,997 97,962 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 1,019 1,009 771 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 392 706 743 Average Wage/Salary ($) 5,897 14,399 22,343 Cameron Park Total Persons 3,802 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 55 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 52 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,992 Combes Town Total Persons 1,488 2,042 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 26 33 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 22 35 Average Wage/Salary ($) 12,501 21,927 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 108 Cameron County continued Encantada-Ranchito El Calaboz Total Persons 1,204 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 35 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 29 Average Wage/Salary ($) 21,193 Harlingen City Total Persons 33,515 43,243 48,735 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 633 561 529 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 519 398 461 Average Wage/Salary ($) 6,727 15,132 27,916 Indian Lake Town Total Persons 350 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 3 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 2 Average Wage/Salary ($) 24,416 La Feria City Total Persons 2,964 3,495 4,360 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 65 61 78 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 71 64 72 Average Wage/Salary ($) 5,555 11,438 18,962 Laguna Heights Total Persons 1,671 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 45 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 46 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,687 Laguna Vista Village Total Persons 692 1,154 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 29 27 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 17 20 Average Wage/Salary ($) 22,941 29,097 Los Fresnos City Total Persons 2,173 2,473 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 77 30 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 71 22 Average Wage/Salary ($) 16,883 27,464 Palm Valley Town Total Persons 721 1,199 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 27 21 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 24 12 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,437 57,000 Port Isabel City Total Persons 2,745 3,769 4,467 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 196 111 86 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 16 60 86 Average Wage/Salary ($) 4,796 12,776 16,411 Primera Town Total Persons 1,380 2,030 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 49 46 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 47 37 Average Wage/Salary ($) 13,372 21,358 Ad Hoc Finfish Stock Assessment Panel - Page 109 Cameron County continued Rancho Viejo Town Total Persons 824 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 4 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 4 Average Wage/Salary ($) 52,931 Rangerville Village Total Persons 255 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 8 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 Average Wage/Salary ($) 18,426 Rio Hondo City Total Persons 1,673 1,793 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 70 43 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 33 37 Average Wage/Salary ($) 14,464 20,826 San Benito City Total Persons 15,180 17,988 20,125 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 468 279 142 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 399 226 114 Average Wage/Salary ($) 4,925 12,507 22,959 Santa Rosa Town Total Persons 1,889 2,223 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 88 94 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 72 90 Average Wage/Salary ($) 9,646 18,487 South Padre Island Town Total Persons 727 1,677 Emplmnt in Agri., Fishing, Min. Industry 15 23 Emplmnt in Farm, Fishing, Forestry Occupation 8 21 Average Wage/Salary ($) 17,147 35,325 H:\A\Ad Hoc Sustainable Fisheries\1999 Generic SFA Amendment\generic amendment with tables.wpd