fr
,/ From the Desk of
JOHN SlRACOSA House of Representatives
Sent copies of this material to the following
1. ,The HonorabPe John ~.~unun$ Chief of Staff
2. Mr.W.Henson Moore DepQtiy Secretary of Energy
3. Ms.Debra L.Louison U. S. Department of Energy
b 4. The Honorable J.Bennett Johnston
5. The Honorable John B.Breawc
6. The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin
7. The Honorable Richard H. Baker
8. The Honorable Robert L.LivingSton
9.The Honorable Mrs. Lindy Boggs
10. The Honorable James H.McCrery ; / .! 11.The Honorable T.Jerry Huckaby
12.The Honorable James A.Hayes
13.The Honorable Clyde C.Holloway
STATE OF LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATfVES
ST. RT. 5. BOX 737 MORGAN CIN, LOUISIANA 70380 (-1 -3 Linc 56B-7560 AiNC4KTURE. VICE-CHAIRMAN
August 2,1990
The Honorable Joha Y. Slinunu Chief of StcrfT
Dear Mr. Sununu:
Listed below are some of my thoughts on thwattempt by the Gulf of biexico Fishery Management Council to -&ut down the shrinaping industry on the Gulf Coast from May 1st to July 31st.
1. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ~$11meet on Sept.17, . in New Orleans to consider additional regulations. They are attempting to breath life into the red snapper'fishery by severly restricting the shrimp industy.
The shzimp industry at the dock has sales of about $400 million in the Gulf. R+d snapper commercial sales are SlO'millicnr; The recreeional catch of red snapper is conq~rativelymall. In spite of this the Cuuncil and possibly the Secretary 09 Commerce is considerirzg closing the shrimp season ior 90 days during the peak nronths of May through July. This in the name of praducing more red 6aawrl l Ie& Snapper are not an endangered spcied like the turtles now Mihg ?proteckedN by shrimpers using TED'S. These Ted's make shrimpers less efficient. Now the government may be/&ing them less efficient again. With importe skimp havintf75% of our market this measSue will only accelerate tlre trend.
3. About 60% of ae small red snapper caught in shrimp trawls are caught off Texas. There is already a closure off Texas to let shrimp grow. larger. Why not let the closure off Texas which ended in aidJuly *is yes simply be extended until July 31st3 Why make the dole Gulf &imp induetry be closed from May 1st to July 31st each year when anc&hez approach will protect the red snapper?
4. Can you inzaghe the negative *act ol being without incoaas for 90 days Wing Bgnk of the season1 Skimpars have boat awrtgage payments, bwt paywnts,etc. pre-set with lenders to match a receipt o@ kwg from @kh#psales. BOW w Ch8 d.&t be re~aid?!Pbse so-called Uyds0s the Courrcil c6mpletely ignores the faebrs of &imption to &ria@ bazvwting businesses. This is very poor scSRnce Md begcusbble gmezhment policy formulation.
August 2,1990 Page -2-
/' 5. In additionfais proposed plan completely ignores 'the impact of ,SF the policy on the shore based support industries. There is no /' attempt to gdentify the significant impacts on shrimp processing comparii~s~ice-makingcompanies,shipyards,etc. It is again poor r ' science .and inexcusable policy formulation to ignore obvious negative impacts. Businesses can not maintain employment levels, foster anployee loyalty,make mortgage payments,etc.whey they are forced to close for 90 days. Why L.are these very real negative impacts being ignored?
6. This is.;already a seasonal business that will be forced into operating during a shorter season. This is nothing more. than force regulatory inefficiency. Imported shimppill gain a larger foothold further worsening the balance o trade.
$1 It is my sincere wish that you find this information -helplful. If possible can you please advise of your opinion on the above.
1 Thanking youpin advance, for your cooperation in this, I remain,
Sincerely,
John Siracusa LA.STATE REPRESEWATIVE District 51
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 7, 1990
-7 Dear Rep. Siracusa: Governor SUXIUnu has asked me to respond to your letter concerning the potential actions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Managemant Council. The Governor appreciates your sharing your views with the Administration regarding this issue.
-1 As you know, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council held public hearings on this issue from August 20 through August 30, and will met later this month to consider cheir options. The Gulf Council is required to take socioeconomic~*impactsunder consideration before recommending any new regulation. Any decisions must be reviewed by NOAA (Department of commerce) before becoming final . I pave taken the liberty of referring your comments directly to the Fishery Management Council and to NOAA. 1 Please don't hesitate to call my office if we may be of further assistance in the future.
, Sincerely,
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
/ .j The Honorable John Siracusa House of Representatives st. 3%.5, Box 733 Morgan city, LA 70380
First,I want to thank you for the opportunity of visiting with all of you,today, &are all here with one puruose in mind-- '. .4 'to-hal.t/st.op the proposed closure (by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council) of the Gulf to shrimping from May 1st to July 31st, And their ?roposhl to require either additional closurers or gear modifications beginning in 1993, MY first comment is really a question, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED?? The ent i re Gulf or the Federal waters, Under the Magnuson Act,I thought a state had management authority over its territorial waters, Is the Gulf Counci1,in this proposa1,planning to prempt a state's rights, This is unheard of and I definitely believe illegal,
. .., I have read everything I could get mv .hands on about'! this issue and have talked to many people that a're knowledgeable about the red snapper and the shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico,to try to understand this proposed measure, From this,I have concluded that this proposed measure should definitely be defeated, It is not necessary,
May & June are the best monlhs for shrihing in Louisiana,
If closed from May to June,Texa,s wi 11 reap the benefits.I- If proposed , closure from May to July,the ~exicancoast wili reap the benefits, May to June dollars lost will be $300 million. May to July will actually lose 1/2 of the total shrim~season for one year. Why should we sacrificea $300 million industry for a $1-2 million one,
many structures have been removed from the Gulf in the ...... < 'How, last 10,vears? Everytime a structure is removed .ibc habitat for red snapper is destroyed, This,I feel has contributed to the depletion of a segment of the red snaoper,
Let's talk about red snapper first, Tables in the Gulf .. .. . Counci 1's Economic Analysis of Management !Obt ions for Ed snapper
.show that commercial landings since 1978 have ranged from a low of ;) 2,6 million pounds in 1987 to a high of 5,.9 rnil.lion pounds in 1983, 1988 landing were 3,7 million pounds,l,l million pounds more ,than in 1987 , LOUISIANA LANDINGS ranged from a low of 30 thousand pounds in,1978 to a record high 1.8 mil1 ion pounds in 1988;Texas landing in 1988 of 733 thousand pounds was it's second highest yea'r ever. The lower landings I are in Florida,Alabama and Mississippi. IF there is a problem in those I it, I areas,address Don't propose a measure that does not directly affect I the problem and proposes to create economic and social chaos in other areas and in other fisheries, ' .. . -a .... .' . - '
I Another major problem with your proposal t. to close the 6ulf to shrimping is that much of this-closure is foi'an area where few if any snapper are taken, For example,from statistics I get from the NMFS office,Louisiana has not had a red snapper landed commerciallv .from it's territorial sea since 1984, Zero in four years,yet commerciall~ Louisiana landings from Federal waters in 1988 was a record 1,8 million pounds,
These statistics hold true in the recreational fishery for red snapper also,NMFS 1985 recreational survey (table 20)shows that Gulf wide( 52,000 red snapper were taken within 3 miles of the Coast and I'm sure most of these were off Florida,whereas 1,806,000 red snapper were'taken beyond 3 miles, I ask again,why close an area where there are very few if any red snaoner and cause a total disruption of the United States most valuable commercial fishery-- the Gulf Shrimp fishery,
Another major inconsistency with your proposed May 1-July 31
trawl closure,is that it does not address the time of year addressedI in your own plan as the major time red snapper are taken, I quote from page 59 of your Draft Amendment # 1 of the Reef Fish Plan. A$ I quote, "THROUGHOUT THE GULFJMOST PRERECRUIT RED SNAPPER BY CATCH IS TAKEN
FROM ' SEPTEMBER THROUGH" NOVEMBER ' AND AT DEPTHS'FROM 11 TO 20 FATHOMS, From more of your data,gage 24 of same plan,reports that from 1972-1986, the percent of catch of red snapper by shrimp trawls was 4%,hand s power i lines took 84% during this time, Again who and why is the shrimp fishery being attacked? Why not address, the real p;robIe~,hnnd s, power 1ines and I the eastern Gulf area?
, 74 ' . This quote is from page 3-110 of the shrimp olan,I quote, "FISH TO SHRIMP RATIOS VARY WIDELY BY SEASON, LQCALITY,YEAR AND FISHING STRATEGY. Our fishermen know this and have been trying to tell you this 1 for years. Where do you get your data? Since your actual commercial by catch sampl ins stopped in 1982. Yes, in 1982 NMFS stopped the by catch sam~ling~yetthis closure is being orooosed with no data since 1982. I UNBELI EVABLE ! !
AS we've stated before the shrimpins industry will be adversly affected8by- . this closure. The tines of May 1st through July 31st are peak pe'kibds for brown shrimp product ion. Louisiana alone issued 31,204 commercial shrimp gear 1 icenses and 4,370 recreational t raw1 1 icenses during 1989. This measure,as proposed,would cause social and economic chaos and could lead to a problem with recruitment of brown shrirng to the offshore waters,since pressure would be so high in our inland lakes and bays that fewer shrimp would escape to offshore waters. Your proposal has not even taken into account these factors, Rather than prolonging my statement, I would 1 ike .to. give you my recommendation. Since your data shows that red snapper. recruitment '?.I.: has been increasing ,in the last 2 years and since management measures
I were implemented onlv some 4 months ago which place a 7 fish red snapper I I 1 bag limit and a commercial quota of 3.1 million pounds and since off- i I I shore trawlers must use TEDS in their net,which the government experts claim will reduce by catch,then lets give these measures a chance to work I feel that the calculations made were attained by very inempt scientific
measures and the closing of the ... Gulf is inexcusable government go1 icv formulat ion.
Rescind this proposal at your ~ou'nci1. meeting and snend time accumulating data and studying options that will help the red snaoper ! resources in those areas that need assistance. Leave the Louisiana ! I Gulf Shrimp fishery alone.
. * ...4 .
.*-.GulfCounci 1 biologists have . . known the red snapper has been overf ished for yeors.they say. How did it suddenly become the shrimpers' fault?
- . .-I ' Florida has one of the largest red snagper landings. More recreational than commercial. Texas also has large landings
I I of red snapper; but,mostly by recreational fishermen. Because of the decline of red snapper in these two . states the Council wants to shut down the entire shrimping indb,strv on the Gulf Coast in the hopes of recovering the red snapper ~obulation. I : Why should this be,at the cost of the shrimpins industry for the I I I' I' I' entire Gulf Coast.
OM CORRESPONDENCE-
I have a1 ready put into *motion the "pr@erbial squeeky 1 wheel". On the 9th of this month a letter was hand carried to I White Ho,ase Chief of Staff John Sununu, 1ist ins the negative impacts .. -.. . of the proposed closure. I also forwarded a copy of same correspondence
I-) Henson Moore ,Deputy Secretary of E~ergy 2-1 Debra Louison (Aid to Henson Moore) 3-1 Senator Johnston & Breaux 4-) Congressman Tauzin.Baker, Livingston.McCrearY Huckaby,Hayes jHol10wa~-and Mrs. Lind~Boggs
I am not going to read the entire conteiits of 'thit,
corresponden~e~but,I would like to touch on a few of thk key 1ssuesr! : F 1. DOCK PRICES . .
I S I A.Shrimping industry 400 million B. Red sna~~er 9 lomillion 2, PERCENTAGE OF CATCH As 60 2 of red snapper are caught off of Texas coast
3 NEGATIVE IMPACT---SHR,,., . IMPERS , A. NO mortgage payments on boats,possible, . . B. Insurance O~emiums--nomoney tod'.pay this C. No income for 90 days--du.r inj their most. important t .. ,
4 I ' NEGATIVE' IMPACT--SHORE~ASED ' INDUSTRIES A. Shrimp processing companies-no shrimp to process B. Ice plants--no sales I I C. Shipyards--no production I D . Support personnel --unemplo~ment
OFFICE OF DOUGLASH. GREENBURG DISTRICT ATTORNEY THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARISH OF TERREBONNE STATE OF LOUISIANA
400 EAST MAIN STREET PHONE 2ND FLOOR. COURTHOUSE ANNEX 504-873-6500 HOUMA. LOUISIANA 70360 August 27, 1990
ATTENTION: Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council
RE: Proposed closure in the Gulf of Mexico
Dear Sirs:
As District Attorney and as a private citizen and resident of Terrebonne Parish, I wish to express my extreme concern about the proposed closure of the 1991 shrimping season in the Gulf of Mexico. I wish to stress the follow- ing information which I sincerely,hope you will take into consideration in evaluating this most important matter. I am hopeful that after you give careful consideration to all of the related consequences of such a closure you will find a different solution to the problem at hand.
It is my understanding that the scientific information is anything but clearly one-sided on the subject. From what I have read and heard, it appears that a problem may exist; but, there is not overwhelming evidence that the only answer to the problem is to close the Gulf of Mexico to shrimping. I am told that there are other alternatives such as closure of certain zones in the Gulf where greater concentrations of snapper may exist or that snapper can be bred in controlled environments as has been done with our red fish.
I have not been provided with any data, scientific or otherwise, which has indicated that a..closure of the type proposed would make any great change in the red snapper population in Terrebonne Parish waters. On the other hand, closure of the Gulf to shrimping for the three months projected for 1991 would cause a great crisis in Terrebonne Parish.
Having served as District Attorney in Terrebonne for the last 5% years, I am probably most familiar with every sort of crisis and crime related to the downturn in the state's economy. Few places experienced a worse economic crisis than did the State of Louisiana and, in particular, the Parish of Terrebonne. We have assuredly been reeling for the last five years under continuing economic pressure which has effected the Parish's entire socio- economic base.
Our criminal justice system is in crisis at present. We cannot presently, and have not for years, been able to incarcerate those criminal defendants in this Parish who wreak havoc on the populace through serious criminal activity.
Page 2
Our law enforcement is maxed-out just trying to keep up with the day-today pressures concerning crime and deterrence in this community. We maintain a felony case load of 650 to 700 felony cases at all times with approximately 40 new felonies per week and 100 new misdemeanors per week excludinq Wildlife and Fisheries matters.
Our commercial fishing industry is already very competitive and relied upon by thousands of Terrebonne Parish residents for their annual income base. Our fishing fleets are comprised oi both inside water fishermen and those that fish in the open Gulf. To close the Gulf itself will likely result in a most disastrous consequence. The Gulf fleet will move, out of necessity, to inside waters and the aftermath will be unimaginable. The huge number of vessels attempting to operate in such a small area will cause absolute chaos.
Given the economic pressures which many of our local fisherman are regularly burdened with, I think it very unrealistic to presume that a mandated closure of the Gulf will be heeded by the local fishermen. From my personal understanding of the industry and the problems inherent in regular enforcement and prosecution matters, it is incomprehensible to me that a closure, as has been proposed, will be adhered to by our fishermen. When it comes to feedinq their families or worrying about a red snapper fish, I think it very predictable that the family will come first. This then places the obligation on enforcement to attempt to control the situation.
The State of Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Agency itself has never prioritized enforcement efforts in the coastal regions since I have been in office. To expect that Wildlife & Fisheries will be able to work in conjunction with a mandated closure of the Gulf of Mexico to me is not very realistic. Also, our other enforcement authorities are already overwhelmed with other, much more serious, criminal violations.
We in Terrebonne Parish law enforcement are operating on a survival basis at this time. We are unable to handle any largef number of Wildlife and Fisheries cases than we now handle. The pressures of violent crime and narcotics trafficking is of a much more vital concern to this community than is the present red snapper population in the Gulf of Mexico. Accord- ingly, I think I speak for all in local law enforcement when I say that we will not be able to participate in any realistic way in any effort to close the Gulf of Mexico to shrimping.
We are here to protect the people of this Parish and to improve the quality of their lives whenever possible. A closure of the type proposed will cause an unbearable burden which this community will not likely be willing to shoulder. These are not backward, unintelligent people but very
Page 3
proud and hardworking people who will likely do what they have to to make a living. To place them in a position where they have to become criminals to effectively have a chance to pay their bills is outrageous. And the moreso, if there are other reasonable alternatives which I am advised there very well may be.
If you should need any further information or if we may be of any further service to you., please contact me directly at your convenience. With the hope that this will provide you &th a little better understanding of our precarious situation, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Doug47 as H Greenburg District Attorney* cc: Senator John B. Breaux Senator J. Bennett Johnston Congressman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin Senator Leonard J. Chabert Senator M.J. Foster Representative Huntington B. Downer Representative Johnny Glover Honorable T.L. Duhe', Terrebonne Parish President Mr. Robert "Bobby" Bergeron, Terrebonne Parish Council Chairman
Testimony on the Regulatory Amendment to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
September 19,1990
Dear Councilmember, My name is Kirk Cheramie and I am an employee of the Lafourche Parish Council. I am here to comment on the regulatory amendment to the Reef Fish Fishery Manage- ment Plan. I have read the report which is being used to develop the proposed amendment and regulations to be instituted in 1991. I have serious reservations as to the validity and reliability of both the data and the methodology used to propose the preferred alternative listed in the plan. This is one time when more study needs to be accomplished before such a drastic step be taken. I do not feel that the management alternative for using the socio-economic impacts in formulating the plan of action proposed played an important enough role in deciding which way this Council should go,in acheiving its goal of restoring red snapper stocks. I believe that other alternatives should be developed and implemented which do not impact the lives and liveli- hoods of trawlers to the extent that the preferred al- ternative does. This alternative wil destroy an indus- try which has a total economic impact of over one bil- lion dollars along the Gulf coast. Given the fact that coastal communities have already been decimated by the collapse of the oil and gas industry, to stop the shrimping industry at its seasonal height would deliver a death blow to coastal Louisiana. One possible alter- native could be to fund red snapper breeding farms as a method of replenishing offshore stocks. The same should be done for all varieties of sea turtle. It seems to me that these would be positive steps in the right direction. I would like to see a statistical analysis done which shows the effects on red snapper stocks when shrimp trawling is controlled for in the study. In the Conclusions listed on Page 10 of the Plan it is stated that if, and I quote,
"If the trawl fishery was the only source o$ fishing mortality impacting red snapper and no reductions in bycatch occurred---assuming approximately 12 million fish are killed as bycatch annually---it would take about 19 years for the red snapper population to re- build to 20 percent SPR."
Ladies and gentlemen, this ought to tell you that it is not the shrimping industry which is the cause of the declining stock. It must be due to some other cause. What this is saying, is that the snapper stock would reach its replacement level regardless of the trawling industry. Look elsewhere for your cause and solution. The shrimping industry has been around a lot longer than the snapper industry and has a much larger econ- omic impact. Just do the right thing by killing this preferred alternative, and go back to the drawing board.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-64
RESOLUTION BY THE PORT ISABEL CITY COMMISSION OPPOSING ACTIONS OF NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES, REEF FISHING COMMITTEE AND OTHER RELATED AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH THE SHRIMP AND FISHING INDUSTRY
WHEREAS, the Laguna Madre area of the Rio Grande Valley is primarily and economically based upon the tourism, fishing and shrimping industries; and
WHEREAS, the shrimping and fishing industries employ hundreds of families and residents of the Laguna Madre area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed "BY-CATCH ACT" could endanger the econcomic welfare of the entire area and its residents; and
WHEREAS, no thorough in-depth study has been made to determine the shrimping industry is responsible for the demise of red snapper; and
WHEREAS, no other studies have been made to examine the effects of oil exploration or other possible pol lutions and or contiiminations of the waters surrounding the Laguna Madre area; and
WHEREAS, input and assistance has not been asked from the shrimpers and or fishermen of the Laguna Madre area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE THE CITY OF PORT ISABEL, that:
1. The National Marine Fisheries and Reef Fishing Committee be required to conduct a thorough socio-economic study into the red snapper issue; and
2. The resident shrimpers and fishermen of the Laguna Madre Area be asked to assist and or participate in the study.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this the 11th day of September, 1990.
CITY OF PART ISABEL n
I ATTEST Cal v inWyrd, Maydr i
RESOLUTION NO. 90-151 .
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CERTAIN CONCERNS TO THE GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City of Aransas Pass is a community where approximately fifty (50%) percent of the commercial business is related to the shrimping industry; and WHEREAS, the City of Aransas Pass operates the ninth most valuable seafood port in the nation and the most valuable seafood port in the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the gross revenue directly generated by seafood product passing through our port exceeded 190 million dollars for the most recent four year period; and WHEREAS, the City of Aransas Pass supports fair and equal environmental rules and regulations to protect this important industry but opposes the implementation of arbitrary and capricious rules and regulations based upon unsubstantiated and unscientific data and/or opinion; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARANSAS PASS, TEXAS:
. The City Council hereby requests the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to withhold implementation of proposed rules and regulations decreasing the commercial catch limitation and closing the Gulf of Mexico to shrimp trawling*. from Ma" I=+ +n -11~1w 711+ I-.--'--'-- 2- *fin* '
DON MARINE PRODUCTS, INC.
CONN BROWN HARBOR
ARANSA.S PASS, 'TEXAS 78336
GULF KlNG SHRIMP DlVlSlON GULF KlNG TRAWLER DlVlSlON GULF KlNG MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY DIV GULF KlNG MARINE WAYS DIVISION GULF KlNG ICE & FUEL DlVlSlON GULF COAST DIESEL-SALES & SERVICE COASTAL FREEZING DIVISION
Mr. Chairman - Ladies & Gentleman,
My name is Sydney Herndon. I am Chairman of the Board of Direc- tors of Herndon Marine Products, Inc., the largest family owned and operated shrimp producing company in the U.S. In our cor- poration we have seven divisions and some 600 families employed. All of these division are interrelated and dependent on the production of shrimp. Our Company owns and operates 47 gulf trawlers and buys from about 250 more. We are located in Aransas Pass, Texas and are the largest employer and largest taxpayer in that city. There are other shrimp businesses in Aransas Pass and many more families dependent on the production of shrimp. The changes proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council would have a very negative impact on this community. There are others here who will comment on this. There are many other small communities along the Gulf Coast who are supported entirely by this industry. That includes the police, fire departments, schools, city government and the churches.
For you to say that red snappers are in a state of collapse just because the landings are down is certainly an unscientific statement, especially when you point to shrimp boat by catch as the only problem. To penalize the shrimp industry on insuffi- cient data would be a grave injustice. July and August are the two most important months in Texas for the survival of our Texas shrimp industry.
These proposed actions by the Council are very radical with almost certain devastating consequences to the leading segment of the commercial fishing industry in the Gulf and most valuable in the U.S. A three month closure in the first year, coupled with already overly restrictive TED regulations and recently sky- rocketing fuel prices will in concert inflict irreparable damage on this traditional and important fishery.
We also believe these plans that the council proposes are illegal and would certainly prevent the optimum harvest of shrimp as is authorized by the Gulf of.Mexico Shrimp Management Plan. We believe the Magnuson Act calls for separate management plans for each fishery. There is a different amount of by-catch in differ- ent depths of water, in different moon phases, and in different localities.
170 HUFF STREET P.O. BOX 1270 FAX (512) 758-1159 (512) 758-5373 (512) 883-1751 (800) 627-5464
To take a sample in one place, use extrapolations, etc. and decide on some future plan for the entire gulf is ludicrous and unscientific.
The by-catch per boat has remained the same for many years. According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the agency responsible for issuing commercial fishing licenses, 4,663 Gulf shrimp boats licenses were issued in 1984. By 1989, Texas Parks and Wildlife issued only 2,228 Gulf shrimp boat licenses. Thus in 5 years, the Texas shrimp fleet experienced a 52 percent reduction in the number of vessels.
This is a significant reduction in effort, but a stronger case could be made if license data were available from other states. With mid size shrimp prices declining since 1983, it follows that marginal operators have probably left the fishery. Assuming that the Gulf shrimp fleet is 52% smaller today than when much of the data on effort, juvenile catches, etc. was collected, generally between '72 and '83, wouldn't the number of juvenile snappers .. caught also have to decrease?
Fifty-nine percent of landings and 58 percent of ex-vessel value is generated between July and the end of October. One argument which is supported by the council is a shifting of Summer effort from May, June and July to August. The rationale seems to be that harvesting a larger shrimp will increase total landed value. 4 Beginning in 1986, comparisons were made of percentage changes in landings, ex-vessel value, and price between July and August. Landings in August were always less than July (presumably because a.) shrimp migrate out in the Gulf and b.) effort is less concen- trated off Texas after the initial opening weeks). On average August landings were 18.6 percent less than those in July. Likewise, the August price per pound (a gross measure computed by dividing value by landings) was consistently greater. However, the percentage change in value of landings from July to August was always positive. This suggests that landing less pounds of large shrimp will not always provide more total value, because price increases are not always great enough to offset reduced production. Price increases which would offset production shortfalls are more likely to occur in an environment where domes- tic production is the dominant source of supply, but today domestic shrimp comprises about only 28% of the total U.S. market. At this time last year large black tiger shrimp came in from foreign countries in such large quantities that the market dropped on various sizes from $1.50 to $2.00 per pound.
By eliminating the production of small and medium size shrimp, you would be depriving the majority of the consumers the oppor- tunity to purchase these smaller shrimp at a price that they can
afford. You would also be depriving the recreational fisherman his source of bait.
Another unanswered question is whether existing processing capability is sufficient to handle a greater quantity of catch produced in a shorter period of time. Currently, Texas brown shrimp i's priced lower than most other varieties. Some suggest that the manner in which it is packed has created the perception of low value. Additional bottlenecks in the processing of shrimp can only reduce further the quality of the pack, and therefore the pric.e. Shifting the opening of the production window into late Summer also increases the risk of reduced access (i.e. down time) because of tropical depression, tropical storms and hurri- canes.
During the July and August time under discussion there is very little by-catch in the deeper waters fishing during the Texas Season. We think it would be the biggest miscarriage of justice, to base highly restrictive regulations on information that all of us know to be inaccurate.
Red snapper landings were at a high in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Many shrimpers had turned to longlining for red snappers and groupers to subsidize their income because of excessively high fuel costs. Also, there were many commercial red snapper i fleets operating in the gulf particularly near the coast of Mexico. When Mexico followed the U.S. move on establishing a 200 mile limit, these commercial snapper boats gradually went out of business. This along with shrimpers discontinuing their long- lining for snapper reduced the reported landings tremendously. You notice that I said reported landings. The millions of recreational fishermen continued to fish for snapper using Loran C to locate the rocks and fish. All of these numbers continue to go unreported.
According to a paper on Discussion of the Shrimp Trawl - Fish Problem, Dr. Milton Lindner who was in charge of Shrimp Investiga- tions, U.S. Bureau of fisheries in 1936, brings out and I quote "Along the South Atlantic coast by far the most number of fishes taken in the trawl can be classified as "trash" fishes, that is, fish which are of no or of little direct commercial or sport value. In Louisiana, with the exception of the croaker which fish is the most abundant representative in the trawl catches, the majority of fishes taken by trawl are trash species. It is quite possible that these fishes together with unmarketable economic species when dumped overboard, either dead or moribund, from the shrimp trawls furnish an easily available food supply for the remaining economic fishes thereby increasing their numbers and growth rate.
At the present time the shrimp is much more important than any of the commercial fishes of the South, consequently it is advisable that the most efficient.means for capturing shrimp, the trawl, should be given preference." End of quote.
Americans are consuming shrimp in record quantities. As evidence of this unprecedented growth, demand has increased by a a whop- ping 81% over the past 10 years. Shrimp is the biggest seafood business in Texas. Cumulatively, shrimp's direct economic impact for Texas alone is about $651 million. Texas production accounts for about 60% of Gulf-wide ex-vessel shrimp value. These shrimp are caught in clean gulf waters and packed under strict govern- ment inspection. This government now has an enormous deficit that is creating considerable static in the media. While there are many suggestions for solving this problem, the real and lasting solution is to get industry moving again so that there are real earnings. We cannot do that with a trade deficit running into the billions of dollars. Seafood is second only to oil in contributing to this imbalance of trade.
I believe the Magnuson Act states clearly that each fishery should be managed separately. I believe that to manage red snapper under the Reef Fish Plan and destroy the shrimp fishery is illegal. If this council continues in this direction, I believe the courts will have the final say.
Ten years ago the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico was approved. Recently I found in my files a news release from the National Marine Fisheries Service dated May 29, 1980. In announcing the approval of the plan, Terry L. Leitzell, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Assistant Adminis- trator for Fisheries stated and I quote "I have asked the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management council to monitor this fishery closely to assure that no undue burden is placed on any segment of the shrimp industry. " End of quote.
You have been furnished a very thorough and comprehensive report by Mr. Chevis Swetman, president of the People's Bank of Biloxi , Mississippi. I urge you to read and study it carefully.
While the sheer numbers of by-catch from the offshore shrimp fleet seem impressive when quoted, these numbers are compiled for the entire Gulf of Mexico, and are somewhat misleading. The incidence of by-catch is dependent upon physical location from shore, time of the year, time of day and geographic location in Gulf of Mexico.
By implication in the article, the offshore shrimp fleet is "wasting" a natural resource. Waste of juvenile (forage) fishes equates more to removing them from the ecosystem, and placing them in a land fill. On the other hand, by-catch is more of a redistribution process. That is, products are moved from the seabed and distributed into the water column. This redistributed product becomes a food source for the migratory pelagic (sail- fish, blue and white marlin, king mackerel, etc.) which, with the exception of the snappers and groupers, are the targeted species for the offshore recreational sportsman. In fact, snappers and groupers are the only major recreational fishes that do not feed in the top most region of the water column.
The offshore recreational fisherman typically targets these migratory pelagics which are considered predators within the food chain. As such, these predators require a forage crop.
The following excerpts were found in two reports which have studied Gulf of Mexico by-catch generated by the offshore shrimp fleet.
1. Pellegrin, G.J., S.B. Drummond, and R. S. Ford. The incidental Catch of Fish bs the Northern Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fleet. NMFS
From page 22: "Although large numbers of Atlantic croaker are removed by the shrimp fleet, it does not appear to be over harvesting the dominant demersal fishes (Chittenden and McEachran , 1976). Atlantic croaker has a high estimated average total mortality rate indicating they withstand very high fishing mortalities without danger of over harvesting. This agrees with the Draft Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Analysis for groundfish in the Gulf of Mexico (1981) which lists the optimum yield for the north central gulf (approximately area two) as 427,680 mt. Thus, the current yield of by-catch in area two (234,775 mt.) is considerably below the optimum level."
2. Bryan, C.E., T. J. Cody, and G.C. Matlock. Organisms Captured BY the Commercial Shrimp Fleet. TPWD.
From page 10: "The current discarding of other inverte- - brates and fish may have unquantified benefits beyond the market potentials utilization in the food chain may enhance the popu- lations affected by shrimp operations. No work has been con- ducted on the bioenergetics of the harvested populations. Many species sought by recreational fishermen are attracted to and concentrated around shrimp boats culling the catch (Dutch 1977). Increased availability to fishermen may enhance the opportunity of successful fishing trips. Since most of the recreational fishing occurs during the summer when most of the discarding
occurs, shrimp boats help provide fishing opportunity for a recreational fishery worth about $6 million in just one eight county area around Galveston, Texas (Ditton and Graefe 1978)."
In summary, I would like to point out that the recruitment trend of the red snapper has continued to increase since 1987 up until the present time. I would like to offer two suggestions which I think would help.
1.) Investigate the possibility of a "head start" program for juvenile red snapper in that through existing aquaculture techni- ques, several hundred million juvenile red snapper could be grown to a length of 4 to 6 inches and then released at strategic locations around the Gulf of Mexico. Under this type of program, everybody wins and no great economic regulations, which are based on poor data, would be forced upon the domestic shrimp industry.
2.) Develop a Gulf-wide artificial reef program in conjunction , with the 'other fisheries so that we could eventually have an artificial reef stretching from Brownsville, Texas to Key West, Florida. Again, everybody wins on this kind of program in that under a well planned and coordinated program, the exact reef areas could be designated, marked and managed by ten mile grids.
The Gulf is a large water body and a great source of abundance. ! It is an exceptionally productive sea; it annually yields over 2.5 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, representing approxi- F mately 40% of the domestic commercial fishery landings. Four of the top five commercial fishery ports in the Nation by weight and six of the top 10 ports by value are located on the Gulf. Thus, Gulf fishing and shrimping furnishes millions of jobs for people as well as supplying the consumers of this great nation a fresh food that is so necessary to our health. Many of our tourists come to the Gulf Coast in order to eat fresh seafood. Imported seafood just doesn't taste as good.
If managed properly the Gulf of Mexico is large enough for both commercial recreational fisheries.
I want this time to ask the council to do what Terry Lietzell- asked the council ten years ago when the Shrimp Fishery Manage- ment Plan was approved. Please manage this fishery closely to assure that no undue burden is placed on any segment of the shrimp industry.
Reef Fish Public Hearing Before National Marine Fisheries Service Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
New Orleans, LA Wednesday, September 19, 1990
My name is Everett Sagnes. I am a member of Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church and also a member of Valley Interfaith.
M wife and I have been in the Shrimping Industry for years. At present, we own 2 shrimp boats. We have worked 4ombutts off to get and keep these boats. We did not inherit these from our grandparents or from anyone else. And now you are here trying to take away everything we have worked so hard for.
Here we go again, one more thing that you are attempting to shove down our throats. We are getting tired of these untruths, half-truths, and outright lies that are being told about us in the shrimping business. Why are you letting this happen?
First of all, you took away owfishing in Mexico. Then came the Lacey Act, the high cost of fuel, double digit inflation, the T.E.D.S., the foreign imports that have saturated our markets and drove down our prices to an all time ten year low, and now comes this by-catch issue.
We have wondered, and it has baffled the hell out of US, how the National Marine Fisheries and these environmental groups can pick these figures out of the air. It seems that whatever figure they like, they use it in their reports.
Since the T.E.D.S. issue has come up, we have been accused of killing 45,000 turtles in our shrimp trawlers. Yet no turtles were caught on the Texas Coast and only 3 or 4 were caught on the Louisiana Coast according to the National Marine Fisheries reports. Where does this figure of 45,000 come from? These are the kind of reports we in this room wonder about.
Now comes the by-catch issue of where we are supposed to be catching as much as 95% by catch to 5% shrimp, which we know is not true. Where you people get this idea that we are totally to blame for killing all these red snapper is unacceptable.
The proposals before us are to completely close down the shrimping industry or to shut us down for three months out of the year, or by adding more excluder devices to our nets. We cannot afford to lose anymore shrimp! Right now we are losing 30%-40% of our shrimp because of the T.E.D.S.
I know that the National Marine Fisheries said that we
I should loose only 3%-5%, but that is a joke! I have called and asked for ANYONE from the National Marine Fisheries to come and show us what we are doing wrong-- but to no avail!!
Now you want us to put another excluder device on our trawlers!? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!? It has gotten to the point now, where we can't believe anything that has been published, because it has been full of half-truths and outright lies against us. WHO CAN WE BELIEVE!?
Here we live in a highly depressed area, where we have almost
+ 20% unemployment. We provide jobs and income for thousands of families. If you take away or curtail our shrimping in the Gulf, all you are going to do is add to the welfare and food stamp lines. Who is going to re-educate these people for new jobs? What are we going to do with these shrimp boats? If you think the Savings and Loan issue is bad, it will be just a drop-in-the-bucket to what this will be.
As you know, the people in Texas have always been known as conservationists. We have had our closed shrimping seasons ranging from 45-60 days. We have tried to protect our small shrimp, so in turn we are helping other sea life. So don't put all this blame on us for the decline of the red snapper.
We would like for you to go back to the National Marine Fisheries and recommend to them a further and more detailed study to be done on this matter. We feel that we are being made to be the scapegoat^^^ on this matter. We feel that a study needs to be done on the effects of pollution &n the Gulf waters. Two-thirds of all the run-off in the United States drains into the Gulf of Mexico and one-half of the run-off from Mexico drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is getting to be one big natural sewage duillp. Also, let's check into what oil exploration and what- ]>lasting used to dislodge oil rigs does to the red snapper. As you know, red snapper are quite abundant around these oil rigs.
Also, I would like to see you come down and talk to these fishermen who go out and make a living in the Gulf. Talk to them and ask them wha.5 is going on in the Gulf waters because things are changing all the time. And finally, I would like to set, a fair and just socio-economic study done on this area, to see what would happen if shrimping is stopped or curtailed in the Gulf of Mexico.
We cannot accept what you have done to us with the T.E.D.S. What real studies have been done on the turtles off the Texas and Louisiana coast. Nothing is said about pollution, toxic waste, _red tide, oil spills, oil explorations, and other unforeseen disasters which happen in the Gulf. We may have to live with it, but we will not accept it until these questions are answered. No longer will we accept the blame for someone of something else's wrongdoing. We cannot accept these proposals that are before us today on this by-catch issue. We cannot accept these proposals because no study has been done about pollution, toxic waste, red tide, oil spills, oil explorations, and numerous other things need to be addressed.
I want to thank you for letting us come and speak before you today. I want to leave you with one final thought-- to you, Dr. Fox, we are going to be looking over your shoulder every minute of the day, to make sure you do your job, which is to promote our industry, NOT to destroy us. We are going to read, check out and thoroughly investigate everything that is written and said about us in the shrimping industry. To you people who appoint people to these boards, committee, and councils that make decisions over us, please appoint people we can trust!! Also, with so much public outcry on this matter, I would please ask this council to have a roll call vote.
P.O. Box 852 Port Isabel, TX 78578 (512) 943-1026
403 Vaughn Building ~usth,Texas 78701 Tel. (512) 476-8446, 476-8447 FAX (512) 477-3234
TESTIMONY OF THE TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION TO THE GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR RED SNAPPER PRESENTED BY HARRIS LASSEIGNE, JR., PRESIDENT SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
Mr. Chairman and members of the Council, I am Harris Lasseigne,
President of the Texas Shrimp Association. I wish to make the following
comments on the proposed management measures for red snapper:
CURRENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES
TSA feels that current management measures will significantly assist
in the recovery of red snapper stocks. The Texas Closure is a 60 day
closure of waters off Texas from the beach out to 200 miles. NMFS scien-
tists admit a 6% reduction in bycatch from this industry-initiated manage- ment measure. In addition, the fleet is now using TED's 9 months out of
the year which computes to a 13"/b reduction in bycatch. There is documented
evidence that TED's do exclude both adult and sub-adul t red snapper.
It is in the best interest of the industry to avoid large amounts of
bycatch -- it makes the job of separating the catch and storing the shrimp much easier. It is known that large concentrations of finfish and very -few
d, shrimp are found around reefs. A wide variety of electronic gear including
fathometers, LORAN C, radar-and sonar enable shrimpers to locate reefs and areas with large concentrations of finfish and avoid them.
Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Plan was enacted in 1989 and contains
the following regulations: /
Branch Office: 1110 Vermont Ave. N.W.. Suite 1160. Washington. D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 293-5513
1) in order to obtain a commercial snapper permit an individual has to
prove that he derives 50% of his income from snapper fishing. This regu-
lation has definitely cut down on the number of commercial red snapper
fishermen, eliminated "part-timersuin the fishery, prohibited recrea-
tional fishermen from sel 1ing red snapper, and is estimated by NMFS
scientists to create a 25% reduction in fishing mortality.
2) a 7 fish bag 1imit and deletion of the 5 undersize fish a1 lowance.
This has reduced the number of party boats in business as we1 1 as the number of private charters, and wil 1 reduce fishing mortality -by -19%. 3) longlining is prohibited within 50 fathoms of shore. This regulation
protects fertile sow snappers, greatly increases the number of juvenile
fish born and will reduce- --fishing mortalitl- b-y 50%.
TSA be1 ieves that these measures should be given a chance to work
\before increasingly stringent regulations are implemented. In addition,
Page 15, figure 21 of Dr. Goodyear's report indicates that recruitment of
juveni le red snapper has increased slight ly for both 1988 and 1989. The
stock seems to be on the rebound already and current management measures
wil1 enable that recovery to continue.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The shrimp industry in Texas and Gulf-wide is extremely important to
the economy of the region and the U.S. In 1988 Gulf shrimp landings were
226 mi 11ioh pounds with a total economic value of $1.2 bi11 ion. Texas
landings equal led $7 12 mi 11 ion. Gul f-wide the industry provides employment
to approximately 137,000 individuals. The Texas industry emp 1oys approx-
imately 56,000 individuals.
It is the feeling of this association that restrictive regulations ; should not be imposed on an industry before a study of the social and
'economic impacts of the proposed regu 1ations is compl eted. Some cons i dera-
' tions that should be addressed in such a study include: costs of maintain-
ing and retraining displaced workers, the cost to small businesses and
communities completely dependent upon shrimping, the effect on school-age,
college-age workers and teachers who depend on shrimping or industry-
dependent jobs during the summer months, and the social consequences of
family disruptions caused by economic upheaval.
TSA is extremely concerned about the economic effects of a 3 month
closure. The following are specific examples:
1) following a 3 month closure tremendous pressure will be put on unload-
ing and processing facilities. Three or four months of intensive activity
wi11 then be fo1 lowed by 8 or 9 months of s1 ow or no activity. Opening and
closing processing plants and freezers is very costly and many smal 1
businesses and ports will be unable to function or experience serious cash
flow problems. In addition, this tremendous influx of product will result
in a deterioration in the quality of unloaded shrimp and further depress
the price.
2) Vessel owners wi 11 be unable to keep re1iable crews if they are forced
to remain idle for 3 months.
3) A May - July closure wil 1 eliminate 2 peak shrimping months (June and
July) and severely disrupt cash flow. This would fol low a January -.May
period of yer,y slow or no activity for the industry. This combination
would result in 7 months of negative cash flow, a difficult situation for
4 a1 1 segments of the industry and particularly devastating for the larger,
more expensive Gulf vessels.
4) Keeping the Gulf closed until July 31 will allow a significant
percentage of the shrimp crop to escape into Mexican waters where U.S.
shrimpers cannot catch them.
5) A 3 month closure wi11 a1 low the shrimp to grow to a 1arger size but it wil 1 eliminate some of the rnediurn and smal ler sizes. Shrimpers need to be able to catch a variety of sizes in order to satisfy market demand and prevent a dramatic drop in the price of larger shrimp.
6) If the season does not start until August 1, this is prime hurricane season and there is an increased risk that fishing days will be lost because of weather related phenomena.
Area shrimpers are discovering that since publication of the proposed option calling for a 3 month closure, lending institutions are very reluctant to commit to financing for shrimp related activities. Banks are apparently quite apprehensive about the future of the industry if it is forced to shut down for 90 days. There could be legal consequences if it is determined that irresponsible actions on the part of NMFS and the Gulf
Council have led to economic distress within the shrimp industry.
INADEQUACIES IN THE DATA
TSA feels that there are some definite deficiencies in the data sets being utilized to justify these management measures. First, there is no scientific justification for the use of the year 2000 as a benchmark. This date was arbitrarily chosen. The year 2010 could. just as easily have been picked and a greater variety of much less restrictive measures could then be implemented to obtain the 20% SPR objective for red snapper. -
' I There are also some specific examples of da-ta deficiencies as follows:
1) The Report of the Workshop to Evaluate Potential Management A1 terna- tives for Red Snapper held in Pascagoula, Mississippi on May 15-17, 1990 stated as a highest priority: "Because actual commercial bycatch sampling stopped in 1982, projections may not reflect possible changes in the dynam- ics of shrimp fishery bycatch. A statistically sound bycatch study is
necessary. Such a study should evaluate annual changes in bycatch, provide
for modifications of management elan~already in place, and involve a1 1 -- P --- interested parties."
2) SEAMAP data is used extensively in reports on red snapper bycatch.
Where were these samples taken? If any sampling areas were adjacent to or
on shell ridges (the preferred snapper habitat) these figures would
dramatical ly increase the number of juveni 1e red snapper a1 1egedly caught
in shrimp trawls.
3) Data collected from the Eastern and Western Gulf of Mexico are not
considered separately. These two areas are very different and management
techniques should reflect this difference (Parrack and McClel lan 1986).
4) There are several reasons for the apparent dramatic decrease in red
snapper catch rates. In the early 1980's an enormous amount of snapper
)were caught in Mexican waters. After Mexico closed its EEZ, catch rates
for snapper did drop but not because of a depletion -in the resource. In
addition, it appears that commercial landings have decl ined as a direct
resu 1t of the imp1 ementation of impacting regu 1ations.
5) the statistics on red snapper mortal ity in shrimp trawls do not take
into account the high rate of natural mortality of a1 1 fish in the first
few years of 1ife. In addition, pol lution, late freezes and natural
phenomena such as the Red Tide and areas of anoxia in the Gulf contribute
to fish mortality. a, 6) Finally, Gilrnore Pellegrin, co-author with Elmer Gutherz of a 1988 study entitled "Estimate of*the Catch of Red Snapper by Shrimp Trawlers in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico", has been quoted as saying, "Effort data sets and collection programs were never intended for use in drafting ;FMP1s or any
:management measures".
BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The spawning stock ratio for red snapper has probably been below 20%
since the mid 1970's. The stock is no closer to collapse now than it was
then so there doesn't seem to be any pressing need for enactment of
restrictive regulations before existing regulations are given a chance to
work.
Red snapper stocks are severely depleted in Florida because of the
hook and line fishery. This data dramatically skews the severity of the
problem in the other Gulf states.
Finally, it is felt,that fecundity estimates for red snapper are being
underestimated. The model assumes a linear relationship of fecundity to
age, whereas preliminary data from the Alabama Marine Resources Division
,shows an exponential increase in -fecundity as fish exceed 3 pounds. This 1 would seem to indicate that protection of adult female snappers is by far
the most pressing management need. The Workshop held in Pascagoula also
1 isted further research into reproductive biology of red snapper stocks as
a highest priority area.
GENERAL COMMENTS
TSA wishes to present the following general statements on the status
of the red snapper fishery:
-- Other factors impacting mortality of both adult and juvenile red I. snapper are the use of explosives to remove oil rigs, the illegal dyna- miting of snapper reefs, and the use of fish traps.
-- The number of Texas Gulf shrimp 1 icenses issued since 1984 has dropped by 52%. In 1984 4,663 licenses were issued compared to 2,228 licenses in
1989. A decrease in the number of boats autornatical ly decreases the amount of pressure on red snapper stocks.
-- Commercial fishermen operate under mandatory reporting requirements
while there is no such requirement for recreational fishermen. At last
count there were 10 million anglers in the U.S. In addition, recreational
(or commercial) catches of snapper by crews on manned oil platforms have
not been counted in any statistics. In a similar vein, questions are
being raised over whether artificial reefs, whose placement in the Gulf is
heralded by recreational fishermen and divers, contribute more to overfish-
ing of a resource than to rebuilding that stock.
-- No thought seems to have been given to the right of the U.S. consumer
to purchase domestically produced wholesome seafood. If the U.S. shrimp
industry is subjected to a 3 month closure, a greater percentage of the
market will be taken over by imported product causing economic distress and
a further imbalance in the trade deficit.
\ This association also feels strongly that the Gulf Counci 1 and NMFS
are violating their mandate as stated by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. The stated purposes of the FCMA are as follows:
1) "to promote domestic commercial and recreationa 1 fishing under sound
conservation and management principles,
2) to provide for the preparation and implementation, in accordance with
national standards, of fishery management plans which will achieve and
maintain on a continuing basis, the optimum yield--- -from -each fishery,-
3) to establish Regional Fishery Management Councils which take into account the social and economic. - needs of the States. The stated goal of the FCMA generated Shrimp Management Plan is "to
manage the shrimp fishery of the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico in order
to attain the greatest-- overall- benefit--- to the nation with particular
- ''reference to food produc-tion and recreational opportunities on the basis of
the --maximum sustainable yield-- as modified by relevant economic, s'ocial or
ecological factors."
Members of NMFS and the Gulf Council sliould remember their responsi-
bility to the shrimp fishery and its participants when promulgating regula-
tions dealing with red snapper stocks.
Finally, there seems to be some confusion at NMFS over whether or not
one fishery can be regulated under the fishery management plan of another
fishery. It would be prudent at this point to amend the Shrimp Management
Plan instead of .attempting to regulate shrimp trawl bycatch under the Reef
Fish Plan. Amendment of the Shrimp Management Plan would take approxi- mately 6-9 months and provide more time for members of the Gulf Counci 1 to
ascertain how we1 1 management measures currently in place are working.
PREFERRED COUNCIL OPTION
The preferred management measure proposed by the Gulf Counci 1 is as
follows:
1) closure of the entire Gulf from May 1 - July 31 in 1991
2) gear modification to reach 64% reduction overall in bycatch by 1993
3) a 1 million pound quota for the commercial fishery
4) a 2 fish bag limit for the recreational fishery.
The Texas Shrimp Association is on record in support of a Gulf-wide closure as a management measure for shrimp. We support a May 1 - July 1 or even July 15 (depending upon sampl ing indices) closure but feel that the industry c'annot survive a closure for the entire month of July. The Texas
Closure for 1990 was incrgased from 45 to 60 days from the beach out to 200 miles. An additional 15 days can be added to that total by beginning the closure on May 1. It is a fact that enforcement efforts during the c1osure are not sufficient to prevent violations. It is also a fact that viola- tions increase during the latter part of the closure because economically
8 profitable shrimp are beginning to appear in quantity. This association fears that extending the closure through July 31 would severely tax enforcement agencies and create a situation wherein the segment of the industry that would suffer the most from this management measure would be the legitimate fisherman.
The TSA aff i 1iated Gulf Shrimp Research and Development Foundat ion has been awarded a MARFIN grant entitled "Feasibi 1ity Study: Finfish Excluding
Gear in Shrimp Trawls in the Western Gulf of Mexico". This association wishes to be a part of the solution to the bycatch issue and feels that the industry is making a good faith effort in that direction. We feel, how- ever, that setting a requirement for 64% overall bycatch reduction by gear modification in 1993 may be unrealistic. As was seen with the advent of
TED technology, it takes time for the gear to be fine-tuned to operate at an optirnum level and for members of the industry to adapt to its usage. We recommend this portion of the preferred option be re-worded to state that the Gulf Counci 1 wi 11 evaluate progress on gear innovation to reduce by- catch on an annual basis.
TSA supports a 1 mi 11ion pound quota for the commercial and a 2 fish bag 1 irnit for the recreational fishery and suggests in addition a closure of both fisheries to coincide with a closure for the shrimp fishery for maximum protection of the resource.
TSA also recommends the following actions:
1) The Council should take steps to extend the SPR requirement of 20% for red snapper beyond the year 2000 in order that less stringent measures can be implemented and current management measures evaluated.
2) evaluate a1 ternative closed seasons for the commercial red snapper harvest
3) evaluate the Eastern and Western Gulf separately for areas and times
of year that produce "hot spots" of juvenile snapper concentration.
Management proposals could then be tailored for those areas and times of
year instead of blanket restrictions as was done with TED regulations.
Scientifically sound regulations will result in greater compliance and more
protection for the affected resource.
4) evaluate current groundfish data relative to the presence or absence
of hard bottom she1 1 ridge habitat and how that impacts red snapper
statistics
5) encourage collection of timely data on shrimp trawl bycatch
6) continue to study the feasibi 1 i ty of a 1 imi ted entry program for the
Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery
7) mandate a socio-economic study on the effects of proposed management
measures on the affected industries.
' 8) set as a priority i~nplernentationof a study to quantify the number,
type and primary fishing location of shrimp vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.
Currently the exact number of vessels in the shrimp fishery of the Gu 1F of
Mexico is unknown, It is, therefore, very difficult to scientifically
manage the fishery.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations.
Police Jury St. Bernard Parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 (584) 277-6371 Fa(504) 271-7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson President John A. Metzler. Jr. As an elected official representing St. Vice-President Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Ed.D. Chief Administrative Officer/ Bernard Parish, and predominantly its fishing Parish Manager R. John Despeaux. Jr. SecretaryITreasurer community, I am strongly opposed to the proposed MEMBERS: Randolph T. Odinet closure of the shrimp fisheries for the Gulf of Ward A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 Mexico from May through July. Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B #58 Carolyn Court The proposed closure, as a potential solution Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski, Jr. Ward C to the decline in the red snapper population, does 13 Queens Coun Chalrnette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi not adequately address the needs of this species Ward D 391 5 Juno Drive Chalrnette 70043 nor the needs of the fishing community. John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E 'i 3805 Marietta Drive Some of the conclusions which can be drawn Chalrnette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F from the "Status of Red Snapper Stocks of the Gulf 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalrnette 70043 Louis P. Munster of Mexico Report for 1990" are as follows: Ward G 3004 Palrnisano Blvd. Chalrnette 70043- 1) According to data on Page 8, Figure James J. Licciardi, Jr Ward H 31 00 Jacob Drive 11- Shrimp trawl discards have shown Chalmette 70043 Floyd J. Landry Ward l no significant upward or downward 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 Ashley Henderson trends from 1976 to 1985. This leads Ward J P 0. Box 193 Violet 70092 the reader to believe that there has Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr. Ward K Box 316 been no significant effects St. Bernard P. 0. 70085 (decrease in numbers) in the juvenile red snapper population in Louisiana waters during this time period.
Police Jury St. Bernard Parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 (584) 277-6371 Fax (504) 271-7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson President John A. Metzler. Jr. 2) While the proposed closure is for the Vice-President Elizabeth A. Zimmerrnann, Ed.D. Chief Administrative Officer/ entire Gulf of Mexico, the report Par~shManager R. John Despeaux. Jr. SecretaryITreasurer finds that 60% of the discarded MEMBERS: Randolph T. Odinet snapper bycatch is caught in Texas Ward A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 waters. This raises the question It Why Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B # 58 Carolyn Court impose a gulf-wide closure?" Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski. Jr. Ward C 13 Queens Coun Chalrnette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi The proposed closure spans from May Ward D 391 5 Juno Drive Chalrnette 70043 through July, yet shrimp trawl discard John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E 3805 Marietta Drive estimates as included in the I Chalrnette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F report on Page 9, Figure 13 show that 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalmette 70043 Louis P. Munster the vast majority of the red snapper Ward G 3004 Palmisano Blvd. Chalmette 70043. bycatch occurs during July through James J. Licciardi. Jr. Ward H 3100 Jacob Drive December. This brings question to the Chalmette 70043 Floyd J. Landry Ward I proposed closure for the months of May 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 Ashley Henderson and June, which are also two of the Ward J P. 0. Box 193 Violet 70092 most productive months of the Henry J. Rodriguez. Jr Ward K Box 31 6 shrimp season. St. Bernard P. 0. 70085 8
Police Jury St. Bernard parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalrnette, Louisiana 70043 (504) 277-6371 Fax (504) 271-7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson Pres~dent John A. Metzler, Jr. There are many other aspects of this report V~ce-Pres~dent El~zabethA Z~mmermann.Ed.D. Ch~efAdrn~n~strat~ve off~cerl that indicate that a gulf-wide closure is not a Par~shManager R. John Despeaux. Jr SecretaryITreasurer viable solution to this problem. The problem is a MEMBERS: Randolph T. Odinet complex one which will undoubtedly require a Ward A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 comprehensive solution. But there some facts which Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B #58 Carolyn Court should not be ignored prior to making this most Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski. Jr. Ward C important decision. For example: 13 Queens Court Chalrnette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi Ward D 391 5 Juno Drive Chalrnette 70043 A) The proposed closure is for the entire Gulf John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E 3805 Marietta Drive of ~exicowhereas the majority of the bycatch is I Chalrnette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F derived from specific areas, at specific depths and 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalrnette 70043 Louis P. Munster at specific times. All of these factors are least Ward G 3004 Palrnisano Blvd. Chalrnette 70043- impacted off of the Louisiana coast. James J. Licciardi. Jr. Ward H 3100 Jacob Drive Chalrnette 70043 Flovd J. Landrv ward I B) In determining a comprehensive solution, 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 economic and social factors should be considered, Ashley Henderson Ward J P. 0. Box 193 Violet 70092 yet the aforementioned report does not include Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr. Ward K Box 31 6 these factors. St. Bernard P. 0. 70085
Police Jury St. Bernard Parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 (584) 277-6371 Fax (504) 271-7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson President John A. Metzler. Jr C) Of the five statistical areas which National Vice-President Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Ed.D. Ch~efAdministrative Officer/ Marine uses divide Louisiana ' s Parish Manage1 R. John Despeaux. Jr. Secretan//Treasurer offshore waters, only Area 13 shows significant red MEMBERS: Randolph T. Odinet snapper bycatch. This finding demonstrates that a Ward A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 total closure of an extremely valuable fishery is Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B #58 Carolyn Court not warranted as proposed in the State of Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski. Jr. Ward C Louisiana. 13 Queens Coun Chalmette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi Ward D 391 5 Juno Drive Chalrnette 70043 I would like to offer an alternative for the John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E 3805 Mar~ettaDrive Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council to 1 Chalmette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F consider based on the data included in the Stock 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalmette 70043 Louis P. Munster Assessment Report. Ward G 3004 Palrn~sanoBlvd. Chalmette 70043 James J. Licciardi. Jr. Ward H 3100 Jacob Drive I) In light of the localized nature of Chalmette 70043 Floyd J. Landry Ward I the red snapper bycatch (ie. the amount of bycatch 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 Ashley Henderson estimated in specific areas and times), the Council Ward J P. 0 Box 193 V~olet70092 should consider an area closure to target a Henry J. Rodriguez. Jr Ward K Box 316 specific reduction in red snapper bycatch. This St. Bernard P. 0. 70085 would allow off shore fishing vessels, which are currently operating in Federal and state Territorial waters, to continue operating in identified areas which will minimally effect the red snapper population and the inshore shrimp
Police Jury St. Bernard Parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalrnette, Louisiana 70043 (504) 277-6371 Fax (504) 271 -7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson ~res'ident John A. Metzler. Jr. fisheries. This would provide adequate protection Vice-President Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Ed.D. Chief Adm~nistrativeOfficer1 to increase the Spawning Potential Ratio thus Parish Manager R. John Despeaux. Jr. SecretadTreasurer preserving both the red snapper fishery and the MEMBERS: Randolph T. Odinet livelihoods of already economically distressed Ward A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 shrimp fishermen. Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B #5B Carolyn Court Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski, Jr. Ward C This serious problem is one which demands 13 Queens Courl Chalrnette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi wisdom and thoughtful deliberation prior to Ward D 3915 Juno Drive Chalmelte 70043 determining the proper solution. You must rely John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E , 3805 Marietta Drive heavily upon the statistical data generated by the 1 Chalmette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F scientists contributing to this report. With this 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalmette 70043 Louis P. Munster in mind, I would like to quote Mr. Gilmore Ward G 3004 Palm~sanoBlvd Chalmette 70043- Pellegrin co-author of one of the biological James J. Licciardi. Jr. Ward H 3100 Jacob Drive studies used by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Chalmette 70043 Floyd J. Landry Ward I Management Councills Statistical Committee to 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 Ashley Henderson determine the status of the red snapper stocks in Ward J P. 0 Box 193 Violet 70092 the Gulf of Mexico: Henry J. Rodriguez. Jr. Ward K Box 31 6 "The effort data set and collection program ~ St. Bernard P. 0. 70085 were never intended for use in drafting Fishery Management Plans or anv management measures."
Police Jury St. Bernard Parish 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 (504) 277-6371 Fax (504) 271-7343
OFFICERS Ashley Henderson President John A. Metzler, Jr. In conclusion, we would all like to do what is Vice-President Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Ed. D. Chief Administrative Officer/ best for the fishing industry and all renewable Parish Manager R. John Despeaux. Jr. Before we make a Secretav/Treasurer natural resources it relies upon. MEMBERS: Randol~hT. Odinet decision based on incomplete and questionable data, Ward 'A 734 Angela Avenue Arabi 70032 let us first obtain more information and input Ronald J. Haggerty Ward B #5a Carolyn Court allowing the Council to more adequately assess the Arabi 70032 Louis P. Wineski, Jr. Ward c nature of the problem prior to implementing 13 Queens Coun Chalmette 70043 Robert J. Crifasi corrective measures. Ward D 391 5 Juno Drive Chalmette 70043 John A. Metzler. Jr. Ward E 3805 Marietta Drive Chalmette 70043 Gus L. Riess Ward F 2321 Rosetta Drive Chalmette 70043 Henry J Rodriguez, Jr Louis P. Munster . . Ward G St. Bernard Parish Police Jury 3004 Palmisano Blvd. Chalmette 70043. Ward K James J. Licciardi. Jr Ward H 31 00 Jacob Dr~ve Chalmette 70043 Flovd J. Landrv ward I 2028 Margaret Lane Meraux 70075 Ashley Henderson Ward J P. 0. Box 193 Violet 70092 Henry J. Rodriguez. Jr. Ward K Box 31 6 St. Bernard P. 0. 70085
TO: GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MY NAME IS CHICKIE DARDAR. I HAVE BEEN A BUYER OF REEF FISH FOR
OVER 10 YEARS. I AM A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF LOUISIANA
FISHERMEN.
I THINK YOU ARE DOING THE BEST YOU CAN WITH THE DATA SUPPLIED TO
YOU BUT, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE FIGURES WE
HAVE SHOWN USING THE N.M.F.S. DATA COLLECTING SYSTEM THAT IS NOW
IN FORCE. NOR WILL YOU BE ABLE TO BREAK DOWN THE SNAPPER ACCORDING
TO SIZE AS FAXED TO YOU SEPT. 7TH AND 10TH. THE SYSTEM DEFINITELY
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT AND T.I.P. REPORTING IS NOT OUR ANSWER. THE
T.I.P. REPORTS WERE DONE HAPHAZARDLY AND THEREFORE NOT RELIABLE.
THEY WERE STARTED UNTIMELY. IT WAS NOT LONG AFTER THEY STARTED
THAT AMENDMENT #1 WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE COUNCIL AND MANY
FISHERMEN AND DEALERS FELT THEY WERE USED TO COLLECT DATA AND
ASKED QUESTIONS THAT ULTIMATELY WERE MISUSED. LIVELIHOODS CAN
NOT BE BASED ON THIS TYPE OF REPORTING. AS AN EXAMPLE, OUR LA.
MONTHLY REPORTS PUT DEEP AND SHALLOW WATER GROUPER UNDER MISC.
GROUPER CATEGORY. THEREFORE WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND:
1. A FORM BE DESIGNED BY N.M.F.S. TO BE FILLEO OUT BY EACH
REPORTING HOUSE THAT SUPPLY N.M.F.S. WITH----- CATCH BY SPECIES,
SIZES AND GEAR TYPES ON RED SNAPPER.
I 1 2. FILLING OUT OF THIS FORM SHOULD BE MANDATORY BY ALL REPORTING HOUSES.
3. THE 3.1 MILLION QUOTA SHOULD CONTINUE FOR I 9 9 1 BECAUSE
I AMENDMENT #I IS WORKING. IF WE HAVE NOT REACHED 3.1 QUOTA BY
1 DECEMBER 31, WE FEEL SOME ON THE GULF COAST IS UNDER REPORTING
IN HOPES OF KEEPING THEIR FISHERY OPEN AND NOT REALIZING THE
NEGATIVE IMPACT.
WE HAVE SOME INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE DATA.
SINCE IT IS MUCH BETTER TO USE ACCURATE DATA WHEN AVAILABLE.
OUR DATA IS TAKEN FROM ACTUAL TRIP SHEETS DATING BACK TO 1987.
WE BELIEVE OUR DATA WILL SHOW PROJECTED IMPROVEMENT IN RECRUITMENT
AND A PRODUCTIVE REDUCTION OF HARVEST.
IF AMENDMENT #1 WERE IN PLACE SINCE 1987 WE WOULD HAVE HAD A 21 -5%
REDUCTION OF CATCH IN 1987 AND ANOTHER 11 -8%REDUCTION IN 1988.
TAKING THE 11.8% REDUCTION IN 1988, OUR LOUISIANA LAWS REQUIRED
SELLERS TO SHOW A LA. COMMERCIAL FISHERMANS LICENSE WITH EACH
UNLOADING OR SELL OFF WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY NOT REQUIRED, HENCE
THE 10% DIFFERENCE IN THE 2 YEARS.
THE FIGURES IN 198.7 ARE BASED ON 10.6% OF ALL REPORTED RED SNAPPER
LANDINGS AND 1988 ON 10.9% OF ALL REPORTED LANDINGS ACCORDING TO
N.M.F.S.
LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR THESE FISH CAUGHT AND SOLD REPRESENT NON-
QUALIFING POUNDS UNDER AMENDMENT #I. THESE INCLUDE: LONGLINE
FISHING INSIDE 50 FATHOMS, NON-QUALIFIERS OF REEF PERMITS, BY-CATCH
OF TRAWLERS, PLUS THE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWABLE 5 UNDERSIZE FISH PER- -
MAN, PER-TRIP.
WITH AMENDMENT #1 AND BASED ON THESE FIGURES, WHAT WILL BE THE
IMPROVEMENT ON THE RED SNAPPER FISHERY? I BELIEVE'THIS NEEDS
TO BE CALCULATED BEFORE DECISIONS ARE MADE.
Red Snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 1 '1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 1.
1987 Landings (242 trips) I Pound Class ...... ------Monthl...... Totall 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12-18 18+ ----- I lbs I lbs % lbs X lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs X ____------Jan 7026 NA NA NA N A NA NA Feb 10610 NA N A NA NA N A NA Mar 28635 12144 42.4% 5554 19.4% 2899 10.1% 1945 6.8% 2295 8.0% 3798 13.3% Apr 33368 8829 26.5% 1819 5.5% 2310 6.9% 2172 6.5% 6309 18.9% 11929 35.7% May 25430 3117 12.3% 1179 4.6% 2235 8.8% 2350 .9.2% 5894 23.2% 10655 41.9% ! Jun 11744 4159 35.4% 1661 14.1% 985 8.4% 850 7.2% 1061 9.0% 3028 25.8% Jul 7662 430656.2% 179123.4% 591 7.7% 377 4.9% 367 4.8% 230 3.0% Aug 14192 8913 62.8% 3022 21.3% 916 6.5% 314 2.2% 639 4.5% 388 2.7% Sep 10989 6569 59.8% 2996 27.3% 803 7.3% 284 2.6% 200 1.8% 137 1.2% Oct 16538 3970 24.0% 4761 28.8% 2065 12.5% 1474 8.9% 3293 19.9% 975 5.9% Nov 11083 3938 35.5% 3321 30.0% 1805 16.3% 1081 9.8% 541 4.9% 397 3.6% Dec 14823 4718 31.8% 4734 31.9% 2245 15.1% 977 6.6% 996 6.7% 1153 7.8%
Total 174464 60663 34.8% 30838 17.7% 16854 9.7% 11824 6.8% 21595 12.4% 32690 18.7%
Note: Jan & Fed data not available.
Source: C & L Research, 1990.
Red snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 2 1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 2.
1988 Landings (270 trips11 Pound Class ------__------Monthl Totall 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12-18 18+ -___------I lbsl lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % ...... Jan 7687 3201 41.6% 2167 28.2% 446 5.8% 274 3.6% 1139 14.8% 460 6.0% Feb 11634 6486 55.8% 2850 24.5% 1237 10.6% 396 3.4% 375 3.2% 290 2.5% Mar 12915 4789 37.1% 2326 18.0% 1272 9.8% 795 6.2% 1109. 8.6% 2624 20.3% Apr 21914 7543 34.4% 3104 14.2% 1787 8.2% 1152 5.3% 2386 10.9% 5942 27.1% May 20196 7138 35.3% 1890 9.4% '1139 5.6% 1025 5.1% 2525 12.5% 6479 32.1% Jun 27406 13725 50.1% 3768 13.7% 1579 5.8% 972 3.5% 2477 9.0% 4885 17.8%
' Jul 37964 26574 70.0% 6987 18.4% 2194 5.8% 636 1.7% 836 2.2% 737 1.9% Aug 21244 10900 51.3% 4550 21.477 2123 10.0% 1573 7.4% 1574 7.4% 524 2.5% Sep 55556 28530 51.4% 17700 31.9% 5674 10.2% 1412 2.5% 1453 2.6% 787 1.4% Oct 44837 19772 44.1% 13479 30.1% 4603 10.3% 2213 4.9% 3181 7.1% 1589 3.5% Nov 27913 12391 44.4% 8855 31.7% 2745 9.8% 1387 5.0% 1690 6.1% 845 3.0% Dec 27127 13253 48.9% 8398 31.0% 2046 7.5% 947 3.5% 1243 4.6% 1240 4.6%
Total 316393 154302 48.8% 76074 24.0% 26845 8.5% 12782 4.0% 19988 6.3% 26402 8.3%
Notes : 1. Fishermen were discouraged from targeting large snapper by price reduct-ion forcasts . 2. Sept and Oct reflect hurricane Gilbert fish.
Source: C & L Research, 1990.
Red 'snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 3 1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 3.
1989 Landings (211 trips) I Pound Class ...... ------Month1 Total1 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12-18 18+ ------I lbsl lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % ------Jan 25549 12714 49.8% 7357 28.8% 2717 10.6% 1086 4.3% 1105 4.3% 570 2.2% Feb Mar AP~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov 9044 1472 16.3% 3757 41.5% 2058 22.8% 631 7.0% 998 11.0% 128 1.4% Dec 7115 1973 27.7% 1756 24.7% 1199 16.9% 610 8.6% 919 12.9% 658 9.2% ------
Total 175825 84736 48.2% 46083 26.2% 17261 9.8% 7256 4.1% 9894 5.6% 10595 6.0%
Notes : 1. Bad weather, frequent winds, rough seas. 2. Four hurricanes/depressions kept boats in port (Chantal, Gabreial, Hugo, and Jerry).
Source: C & L Research, 1990.
Red Snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 4 1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 4.
1990 Landings ( 81 trips1 l Pound Class -_-___------_------Monthl Total l 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12-18 18+ ...... ----- I lbsl lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % lbs % ...... Jan 9486 3744 39.5% 2554 26.9% 1196 12.6% 642 6.8% 955 10.1% 395 4.2% Feb 4859 2056 42.3% 1467 30.2% 740 15.2% 197 4.1% 251 5.2% 148 3.0% Mar 3572 1264 35.4% 1105 30.9% 616 17.2% 133 3.7% 314 8.8% 140 3.9%
May - 2891 1504 52.0% 811 28.X 275 9.5% 64 2.2% 169 5.8% 68 2.4% Jun 4892 3144 64.3% 1015 20.7% 339 6.9% 178 3.6% 216 4.4% -- 0.0% Jul 10747 6572 61.2% 2356 21.9% 876 8.2% 436 4.1% 400 3.7% 107 1.0%
Oct N A Nov N A Dec N A
Total 48843 24631 50.4% 12447 25.5% 5196 10.6% 2121 4.3% 3127 6.4% 1321 2.7%
Notes: 1. Bad weather, steady winds, rough seas. 2. Amendment #1 Regs effective. .. - 13" red snapper minimum length - 50 fathom curve - 50% income to qualify for permit 3. Boats in port waiting on Federal Reef Fish Permits. 4. Only 81 targeted trips were made this year so far. - Fewer boats in directed red snapper fishery ... - Some retiring, some sunk, some going west, windy spring, etc,
Source: C & L Research, 1990.
Red Snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 5 1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 5.
1987-90 Landings I Pound Class ...... Year I Total1 1-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 12-18 18+ ...... ----- I lbs I % % % % % % ...... 1987 174464 35 18 10 7 12 19
Table 6.
Red/Lane Snapper Landings Commercial Directed Harvest vs. Undirected Harvest (Sold under commercial license or confiscated illegal catch)
Percent Harvested...... Year Directed Undirected ...... 1987 62.5% 37.477 1988 81.9% 18.1% 1989 80.8% 19.2% 1990 72.9% 27 -1%
Red Snapper Commercial Landings, Fourchon Area, La. Page 6 1987 - Aug. 1990 (Excludes trips with less than 15% Red Snapper)
Table 7.
OFFSHORE FINFISH LANDINGS, FOURCHON, LA: 1987 - 1989
1987 1988 1989 ...... Species lbs % lbs % . lbs % ...... Red Snapper (& Lane) 278958 21.09% 385882 25.14% 217467 26.12% Black Snapper 3255 0.25% 4305 0.28% 6670 0.80% Vermillion Snapper (Beeliner) 95472 7.22% 119032 7.75% 89936 10.80%
Pinks . 6919 0.52% 21192 1.38% 12295 1.48% Yellowedge & Yellowfin Grouper 195099 14.75% 269419 17.55% 93135 11.18% Warsaw Grouper 6 Jewfish 30375 2.30% 60816 3.96% 24031 2.89% Snowy & Brown Gouper 21931 1.66% 21864 1.42% 8290 1.00% Black Grouper 20647 1.56% 15924 1.04% 6245 0.75% Barrel Gouper 10754 0.81% 5840 0.38% 1802 0.22% Greysby, Calico, Snyd, Marble, Red 865 0.07% 981 0.06% 935 0.11% Scamp 14520 1.10% 33999 2.21% 19275 2.31% Strawberry & Kitty Mitchell 820 0.06% 1096 0.07% 794 0.10% Silky & Queen 25970 1.96% 27955 1.82% 5113 0.61% Amberj ack 103295 7.81% 192059 12.51% 114894 13.80% Trigger Cobia Cusk Shark (includes Mako) Grey Tile Golden Tile Swordfish Blackfin Tuna Yellowfin, Bigeye, Bluefin Tuna 76043 5.75% 34067 2.22% 1772 0.21% Miscellaneous (1) 142745 10.79% 116822 7.61% 88299 10.60%
TOTAL 1322689 100.0% 1535118 100.0% 832707 100.0% (1) Includes Flounder, King Mackerel, Trout, Croaker, Drum, Bluefish, Scorpion, Wahoo, Dolphin, Pompano, Sheepshead, & Eel.
Source: C & L Research, 1990.
Thousands of Pounds
Thousands of Pounds
Ill
Thousand Pounds
or-
Year
Year
Russell G. Underwood F/P" Norman B. & Malcom B. To the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, a Staff and members;
I, Russell Underwood, a snapper fisherman of 10 years and owner of two top producing hook and line snapper boats would like to illustrate to the council that Amendment 1 should remain status quo. I feel the snap- per fishery is not on the verge of collapse(as council so states) because; 1) As of 9/6/90 I have caught (in 8 months),on the Norman B. a total of 64,39 lbs of fish, 54,065 of which was snapper. As of 9/6/90 my other boat, the Malcom B. has caught a total of 52,224 lbs of fish, 40,827 which was snapper. 2) We continually see an abundance of juvenile snapper (under 13 inches) at various depths of water where we are landing the snapper 3) Other bandit fishermen report that they too are having a fair to good year also. I feel if Amendment 1 is left as status quo we will see an improve- ment in everyone's production in ample time. We are continuing to catch - fish even though the 13 inch size limit was imposed, longlining was mov- ed outside 50 fathoms, and buoy fishing too. However, I have seen a decline in the snapper fisherman. I think its due primarily to the stressful regulations, retiring fishermen, and fish- ermen who have gone outside of the U.S. to fish. If the council will look at the snapper industry as a whole, they will see that the fishing will get better if all the above is taken into consideration. I have shown the council proof of what I have caught, not an estimated guess. I feel the council has jumped the gun on publicizing that the snapper population is on the verge ogi collapse. Mr. Goodyear says the isnapper fishery is on the verge of collapse and that 80% of the juvenile snapper are killed by the shrimpers, if that is the case then where are all these fish coming from that we have all already caught this year? I believe certain regulations are in order to protect the resource, however not to the extreme of going from 3.1 million lbs to 1 million lbs without giving this plan every opportunity to work. I feel like we s-c-.- should be getting fair and equal consideration as hook and line fish- ermen. If there are problems affecting the snapper industry, we should not be singled out to bear all the burden. I feel a 1 million lb quota would only last a few months and could not maintain the fisherman, as he could not live off of 3-4 months of wages,could you? The council told us 3 years ago that if we wanted to survive then we would have to be versatile. However, because of re- strictions on other species(such as the amberjack 36 inches, 20 lb fish) the other alternatives are becoming less of an available option. As you can see there is very little bycatch in our industry, which leaves us very little to catch with our bandits. In 1989 I grossed 393,000 and in 1988 421,651. Giving us 1 million lbs, between 1500 reef fishermen is not going to provide a living for anyone. This will cause a severe collapse in the fishing industry and financial hardships in other related businesses. Such as fuel docks, ice plants, hardware stores, tackle shops, grocery stores, and other places of business that we patronize in our communities.
'I also feel that the 1 million lb quota would not provide financial - support for my 10 crew members and kB&trfamilies, on my share of the quo- ta. This would put many fishermen out of a work, which would add to the unemployment problem in our states. The snapper industry is a very valuable resource in Louisianna and 3 the Gulf Coastal states. The state of Louisianna doesnut need our to disappear, as we all know the U.S.A. is in bad enough financial I paid $39,147.00 in income tax in 1989 and 1 don't believe Uncle $am will Bemhappg ith ha$(? 3eps ~~~rny,&ax~$&~~~$pcg~~~~.,,LL_ . I think further studies shouldbe made or a pusltlve side of helping the industry improve the fishery in a positive manner, such as fish hat- cheries, reef building, gear modifications, and data collecting from e- very participant in the fishery. I as a fisherman want to improve the fishery but can't provide aid and information if I have been put out of business because of too strict regulations. I feel you the council are morally and legally bound to examine the facts that I have presented and reconsider your options, before you hurt alot of good honest hardworking taxpayers. In conclusion I wouldjust like to ask you to please listen to my -few honest words. Your decision Thursday will not only affect the present fisherman and his children, but the future generations of our children; because let's face it,that is the reason we are out there fishing, to support our families and give them a decent life. Which I am sure $~uflAt agree is not too much to ask.
Sincerely yours
Russell G. Underwood
39 s 19aa \--a Yso a-y t~ay-2 3 8-la
Y5 \A-y c- -- XI? 8 tot~+/PPJ 5n~yper
&\y\8 t~a\red snfip\pper S"5 9s- 40~7r-a, gsb a-u k3 U-io 60 10- ,f 5~y7 rd ~pfipptf
-4 I
, >I August 30, 1990 - , I . ' Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council I , , . Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609
RE: Regulatory Amendment to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan dated . I August, 1990
.t ., Gentlemen: 3, , I / The following is a resolution adopted by the Mississippi Gulf Coast Economic Development Council which we would like made part of the public record concerning the above referenced regulatory amendment. , ' < - I "WHEREAS, the Mississippi Gulf Coast Economic Development Council feels I that there is a problek-with the overharvesting of red snapper in the \ I ,I t. Gulf of Mexico, - I 8' , ,I I 7 I I I I. i, . I I , . AND, WHEREAS, the regulatory amendment proposed for August 1990, is an .. attempt to correct this situation, - ,V . - AND, WHEREAS after,attending the public hearing on August 29, 1990 at the J.L. Scott Marine 'Education Center in Biloxi, MS and listening to the information provided it is therefore resolved that it is the opinion . j of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Economic Development Commission that our organization go on record in opposition to the adoption of this amend- < * ment as proposed for the following reasons:
1) The overharvesting of red snapper is being done primarily by the red snapper fishmen.
2) The advent of LORAN has been a major cause of the decline of the red snapper stock. Anyone with a LORAN can catch red snapper because it is easily identifiable with LORAN and other fish finding equipment since red snapper are not migratory in nature and show a specific reef residency based on their seasonal returns to summer forage areas and distinct congregation at reefs in deeper waters.
3) Due to the nature of the industry, the shrimpers do not try and fish the same area as the snapper fishermen because they have a tremendous investment in trawls and boats and do not want to run the risk of of snagging or destroying a trawl on a sunken vessel or reef. --
,'
4) The data employed by the National Marines Fishery was flawed because the category snapper included all species and sizes (page 8-9 of Regulatory Amendment).
5) The closing of the seafood season on the Mississippi Gulf Coast from May lst, through July 31st, would destroy an industry that contributes over $100 million to our state's economy and this disruption would be adversely felt on the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast and along the northern Gulf of Mexico.
6) The economic model employed does not use any allowance for falling ' prices after the opening of a delayed shrimp season in August and such a delay would have an adverse affect on prices in all large species of shrimp caught.
7) The economic model employed does not include costs associated with the cash flow disruptions of individual boats, nor does it include downtime costs for support facilities which are real costs and not captured by the model.
8) The closure will deny domestic industry access to the peeled meat and small shrimp market. This will become almost entirely an import supplied segment of the market and will reduce profitability of an already marginally profit segment of the industry.
9) The shrimp industry in the Gulf generates $374,000,000.00 per year as compared to $10,000,000.00 per year for the snapper industry, (source U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service). The closing of the shrimp season for the months of May, June and July could only have an adverse economic affect in our community.
10) There is no limitation placed upon the menhadden industry which accounted for 277,102,620 lbs. of the 73,068 lbs. of all fish landings in the state of Mississippic egulations have been addressed to correct this inequity.
11) The proposed actions by the Council are very radical with almost certain devastating consequences to the leading segment of the commercial fishing industrul* the GuEand most valuable in the U. S. A three month closure in the first year, coupled with already overly restrictive TED regulations and recently skyrocketing fuel prices will in concert inflict irreparable damage on this traditional and fishery- . Our organization realizes there is a problem with the red snapper industry, but penalizing the shrimp industry is not the answer. GLIG 0457 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the Mississippi~EconomicDevelopment Council is opposed to the amendment as proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we would like to offer the following long term solutions to this problem. ,
1) Establish a domestic observer program for the Gulf of Mexico in conjunction with the shrimping industry to allow for gathering of scientific data concerning shrimp trawl bycatch of red snapper over the next three years.
2) Establish a hatcheries program for impacted finfish species (primarily red snapper).
3) Establish an artificial reef and sanctuary program for red snapper where no harvesting would be allowed of any species of shrimp or fish."
Sincerely yours,
Chevis C. Swetman Secretary - Mississippi Economic Development Council
, . . puxw .L5 . . . .~ . . c .. .- ...... - .- fly, ..@dyne i~j.cierv;cy- ~pw~~-/~y-der f 4L - ...... kc. !!.4 -. plr_c&I--.-.cjy_- .... i-- .- ...... -. .-....L .. i-- -'F.-- - . i -- M.5- f~&-he.r~-,. -.. - -
- ...... lLly . .!ay e~t ~~cwu??. . '3 k- " &sf A- a ud J~b/e- &&-...
~&24!j by t~c~id/~''Skh4~ ~f.~.&'"4")&?~~h&...... df,. / / p,C ~cc,tGF &?2)~~&, &pry gr jq40 , f6//O~~ :. ~b+i/<,PC- :-0 +A i"io& fiLS2~-cfi4PL+
/I
. . >L&. k~~r'g!...... '/PSA~~~;C ikd z~Ah~hl~7.- a;* &pL;( . I li ...... l 7.Q .. ..* -8d. - WOL~J.. ..xi S& me,
-. -...... -... ..~tr;ed- ..- -...... /b ..h;rned...~ ...... -- ...... % %e 1 ALLA/-AL~;/-- ...--.-.- - . &b/+d-- --.. dm< ....--.. Blk-hh~~~~,.: ...... ?/7~ . . Iwod'/esAhrn#o or e~h;hzff .. - I I ...... I:-:J'. .-($.Au-.+e) 4i.- L A.-J. 'Led .. -9- me&+- ... or o-6 no .. . ah&- .------... habd ...... m~c/l,hc~d.mq~~,~.. i " - -- _h~u-~~-d-- "b Aj: %e ~d~%,-5j.GLS ~_wllj/ 1) .- .- 'yeondXkfl 06 e4pepecch//vA~rclcl&9h--~ay-.. i C,. 430 mke-& o~,h/Im~~,.i&rnmt reqm- i------e-5 j -. &51~dlh+~-% e //./cev~ ~UA"C&CL~L$~-~~. i I1 i -. j rualf 12 4azL like+ W2?~f+:r!3:yhr-f,-. 4 I/ ! ...... -_ - B._LLL~--.R~~m..e--~r\ ea.5 .C$ ~ccr$e)- L .- -y I
-- " +o hke--- SOP g m.n+ed m'%h~da e-ha/p~mf'.- pa-. ' " ~ZAp-fl-I ose-7- p&~~~rne.- "tc hke ~p-73rn7€~~/------. / /--- ; 1, de-hAr LW ~%'LCor ' . I- 1uodd //'ke A -#% 50- o Gk;e 1 - ah0 f
.... . -- . -.-
...... 7...... - . ~h~f - - ...... ? i ;ke A - fell- ym ,a s.-.a _fishe.r~.n~, I
...... --.- - --- .. .- --- I see in Q !
-- -- -I_.. -. -- -- .-. Qh Pme 5/. .-%him . - .-. - "&w~J? Gd5"1. ~&b~t/'m ------! J...... I I I "~md5...... i n hrcrvgf le&Gys ~$.&_i_iooel-;. - ..------...... , . ~~~eipcp~darrr.5i-c /m&kP4 ... i /.r:d - yfi /5 fSZ~ 615 &re ... 5) , ....)ci/&i-r.~ J: 50 ~>~'cA.QoY-~~d ... C i f 3 5-/'/7 -l~~~~~.C .., ...... -- ...... - . ~.- . . .. , -- ~k~i,hrd-- + . . . .- -...... ...... _ ....-. - - 1 . - ...... - .- ... _ ...... - !- ---.- - I - -- - . - --- -. .. fie- -- 13 -in& &z--/-,m..!-.f--m ~;d984' I I ! J d.& + shchA3-~-.h&~p-brec&;Lme7+, -- .- - -- . .. : me-. . . /490 50 -.~~ho~/~~~/;he~.~~~c,~~i//he~-&....-.. .. J! . . -~... .~e/e/I. . ! . ~p'mkq,%4 e /..m /i/l!~c.pde~d.-g~ fa .. -. .. - , -- Q f Iffh$h - u..dl~Z...~.~'N,&n~t-t-~-~~~ . . -.. .- ...... &bd~Jd .hl.e b2, &+.-&.. -.- - -... , ... //;u .c?...70uL .e4 .. - - - .. - .-. / m ; d_ gu.0kia;s-jcc~.. kg&_.. kr .- -- .. -- . . -- ,- - -. -. .-./'I es:iL~m~*'w~m a:f c f p daia-~me- . b.gi,.ff . e .... qej. .H.wI m ....&...... ~.'n.>. GNmerica'sSea at Risk" First Progress Report on the Gulf of Mexico Program JULY 1990 "-'s "-'s Sea at Riskw Ltstedbelararethelogos hth.varinrSagencieswith~hipo1 th~ofEIeXLEO~~~Ravi&*Boardor~areeNvely mipthg the h?ogram -a 8-. US Army Corps of Engineers ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF WVlROHUEHTAL LUNAGEUENT In &tian, tb Gulf Ejmgmm also gratefully aclumwledges the inprbnt contribution and support fraa tk following agencies and organizations: U. S. -t of Agriculture - Forest Service, AlabmM Geological Survey, Florida Department of Na- &soumest IPuisiana Department of Natural mes, Mississippi Bureau of Geology, Mississippi Bureau of mine Resources, Texas Dqarimmt of Parks ard Wildlife, Northest Florida Water Bbnaga'imt District, Miana Litter Control adRecycling Cmdssion, rouisiana Geological Survey, Soil and Water -tion Districts (Gulfwide) , Lartsiana -t of Wildlife and Fiskries, Mississippi Forestry Carmission, ~epartnwtof Health, Louisiana Office of PubU Health, Florida -t of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Alabaw Dqarlmmt of Public Hsdlth, Mississippi DqmAmnt of Health, University of Sauth Alabama, University of New Orleans, Inrisia~Stam University, Gulf Coast EZlesearch Uhratory, University of Port of Carprs Christi, Gulf Ports Association, !lbms A&M University, Sea Grant (Gulfwide), Gulf of l&xim Fiskies Manayt Council, Auchrb3n Society, Siena Club, Imisima University Marim wrtium, 3bta Marine Iaboratory, -usel & Associates, Inz. , mican FQtmleum Institute, mil Oil, Inc., Amco Oil, Inc., Cen= far cine Cmsemntian, University of South Mississippi, University, Alabam Dauphin 1s- Sea Lab, Mane University, Nichols State University, University of AZabanra, University of Florida, and the Ihiversity of msissippi. .This report covers activities mducted within the Gulf of WcoProgram fran its initiation in August of 1988 through Decgnber, 1989. The plrpose of this 'progress report is to present the status of various activities within the Pmgramupt;othattimanddDesmtincl~~viti~~ingafter January, 1990. Future pmgress of the Mfof Mexico program will be presented in subsequent d adperm status reports. Prepared for &lf of Wco Pmgram Office U.S. Emdmmmtal Protecrtion Agency . Building 1103, Rmn 202 John C. SWSpace Center Stennis Space Center, Mississippi 39529 !mxma W. Duke, Ph.D. Tbhical Rescnmes, m. Ehmnitoring Services Iaboratory 6601 East Say mewrd Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 and Eulalie E. mivan ~hnical~,m. 3202 lber Oaks Boulemxd IbckvUe, -lard 20852 Fkeentation of subcamit- ...... *...... 9 FRAMEWORK m AcrlCRI ..*...... 010 HabitatlXgradation ...... 10 Marinemxis ...... 12 Nutrient michmnt ...... 14 Tbxic Substamxs ard Pesticides ...... 16 -terInflow ...... 18 Data adInf-tion TKmsfer ...... 20 mu w~~ationard rnms3~h...... 22 Pub* Ikalth ...... -23 Coastal Task ForcB (Subcamittee) ...... 25 m- ...... 26 In 1988, Regions 4 and 6 of the U.S. Envimmmtal initiated the develaplwt of a Gulf of l&xico Pmgrw. The mjor plrpose fortheprogrmnistodevelapacarrprehensivestra+ewtopratectard enharY=etheenvirorrmentdlquaUtyoftheGulfofmdco. This -tal initiative is a geogr-al approach to resolving mjor emkmmntdl issues. aLe -am advocates: o cksmlw of interjuridictiondl solutions for resolving emimmmntal prabl-; 0 wdcing to address emrbmnmntal issues befare the dmnage is too costly to repair; and o serves as a model for plblic policy developrwt through greater public hl-t in the decision- process. It muld be difficult for the United States or th five-state Wf region to assess the social and ecomnic value of the a;llf of l&dco unless it ms lost to the effects of pollution. In tbpast, the mm mters of the Gulf have prwided an impressive wealth of resources for the taking. )3clkRver, recent trerds and infomation have indicated that ve risk serious long-tenr~envimmental dam* to this vast and unique marine systan if m do mt begin ccmprehensively planning today. TheWf of MxkoProgramwas createdas aninterpmmm+;ll respanse to signs of increasing ewimmental degradation, that are now pervasive thmughmt th~Gulf systaa. These problans include: o Up to 3,000 square miles of oxygen deficient (mxia)bottaa waters kwwn as tb "dead zomNhave been mtedoff the IaPrisiana~~coast. o FishkCllsarYltoxic "redti&s"wemaninCreasing~in - the Gulf durhg the 1980's. o Fourof thetopfivestatesinthenatbnintotalsurf~ewater dh&aqes of toxic release -ry chaaicals are found in the Gulf regian (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, adm). o 3.4 million (57%) of the shellfish-grerwing areas along the Qilf Coast are- pmmmntly or coniitionally closed. Such closures will irrcrease unless envim~p[wtalc~tions are imprwed, e.g., increased toxic chaaicdls adgruwth of waste comtrations. o Imisiana contimes to lose valuable coastal nrarsh habitat at the rate of 50-60 square miles per year. Such losses could threaten the natural pmductive cycles of carmezlcial shrinp and fishery resources inthemlf. The Chlf of Mexico Program haa identified kq issues which are penmsive in tbWf arrd which -ten the future long-term viability of the aulf of Ekxko systen. Ths trerrenQus wealth of ecodc and social values contributed by the Gulf benefit the Wted States and Gulf Coast region. In order to protect this vdluable resource there is a need to make the future ma~gemntard of the long-term envirorp~wtdl quality of tb Gulf a national prioriw. A recent editorial in the New (3rleans TW-Picayune stated, "Ths Wf coastal wtlands are a cammt asset wenust wor=k incamnon to pmtect...Tb advccaq of aunited Gulf South can be a pcmrful asset to to Washington, wbse finarw=ialhelp will be decisive in a wetlamis defense operation of the requimd scope. repart has been developed far the prpse of reporting on the progress achieved during the first year of the -am and raising Ationsto imIpove future pzngram developmt. Thoughtbeffortsnrada~ingthefitstyearof-Gulf of ~CO Program, consensus is XXJW beginning to energe on the priority issues which sadbe esedto protect th long-tern health ard pmktivity of the Gulf. Tbse issues deaaed mst penrasive at this point in the program effort are: 1) Habitat loss -toirrcludecuastal~,sedgrassbeds, anddunes. 2) mxic mhtames ard pesticides contamhmtian - kin industrial aTd agriculturally-based -, both point and mnpoint . 3) Nutrient enricbmt - frcm hiustrial and agriculturally-based sources, bath pint ard xlonpoint. I 4) wine debris - frPa both --based sources and shippinghting activity in the U. 5) hshwater diversions may frcm coastal estuaries for puposes of flood control, navigation, recreation and support to growing coastal --* --* 6) Public health threats - frcm water or conwted seafood In &tion, tb-am a Qdfwide camittee -rk and hfrastrwture to initiate mummication and infomtion exchange amng multiple levels of -t, the plblic, mltiple Gulf user grcr~ps. This strucft;lre aunntly consists of three min cannittees and nineter:hnical mkaunitmes. otkr pmgram activities and acccmplishmnts during the first caledar par klude: o Pmgmm Office established and opened - August 22, 1988. o Pmgmm Office staffed through a canbination of EPA, SCS, CaE ard NQAA staff. o Established a fimyear frammrk to gui& tb planning and devehpmt. of a ailf of canprehensive plan. o . A technical baclqmud paper sqprting special area designation of theailfof-urderMARPQLAnnexVwdraftedand releasedforplbliccarment. This~willserveastechni~al justification ard qrtfor applying the spcial area criteria ~ftheM?SKlLtreatytotheGulf&AnnexV. o A CoastdL and SbmUm mion Subcamittee was created for the plrpose of evaluating axi highlighting this issue as pervasive in the ailf. o A federdl/state -am amdination mrkshop was convened in July, 1989 to improve inf-tion exchange and planning of xesemzh ard ma~gmentinformtion needs. Plans are already being IMde to xmke this wdcsbp an aMual event. o Procurenentswereinitiatedbyall&lf of~Pmgram subcamiw in an effort to gather and assess existing infmnation on kq Gulf issues ard begin the process for Moping emimmmntal chamckrization studies. o Wtiple cammication efforts initiated to pmmte the S~E-1- *luck -publishing a bhnthly newsletter program. called "Mfwatch," pmbcthn of a fact sheet, distrilmtion of video tapes on the pmgrara, wrting the "Take Pride Gulfwide" beach clemplp effort with 100,000 -hues and 20,000 hpr stickers, and suppow the convening of a Gulf conf-e in Gdlveston, Texas (- 1988). mfuturedhctionoftheprogramwillbedeterminedMrou* cansensusof pmgramparticipants. Farthe hdiate future, hmevez, the progrw will focus on ccmpletion of the steps idantif ied in the f ive-year planning Ftegyr 1) prepare embmmmtal characterization reports, 2) emmmmtdl assessumts, 3) develop an intsractive &m manamt systan, 4) prepare gzediaive assessmnts, 5) developlwt of an envmtdl nra~ga~entplan, ard 6) mopan emimmmtal monitoring In January 1811, Dr. Flood, a duly designated repreentative of President Jarrres Madison, -, "1 am greatly impressed with the beauty and valua of this coast. Ths high saniy lands, heavily timbered with pine, and the lovely bays ard rivers, frcm Pearl River to Wile, will shNew Orleans with a rich carmerce and with a delightful Sumner resort*" Since tbse early years, hmmr, -ling emrimmental trends have beenabservedintheatlf of~wfiichcon=enrmanypeuplethruu~t the Gulf Coast -. Ebr exwple, the of up to 3,000 square miles of hypoxic battan waters )acxJn as the- "&ad zorrew have been -ted off tha IaPlisia~and Texas coasts; of the five states leading the rmticrn in total SUffac8 water discharges of toxic release -tory chaaicdls, four are found in the Wf region (Alabama, Mississippi, Ilrovisiana &Texas); and dlmost tons per mile of mine trash cavered tb shares of Tbms heaches in 1988 alone. In atkiitian, at any given a,3.4 millian (57%)of the shellfish-gmwing areas along the Wf coast are -tly - or conditionally closed. Such clo- areas are growing as a result of hadequate sewage treabrent adgriming populations in coastal areas. Ttm critical rvjed for the nulti-agency Gulf of Mexico Pmgram is fdin a quota frnm Ue 'IlmMs, fomMministrator of the U.S. -tal Pmtectbn Agency (EPA) : "The Gulf is a large water bocty ada great source of abundance. But it is mt witbut limit in its capacity to abo& the increasing pressures to which it is being subjec&d. Clearly, the ecological integrity of the Qilf of Mexico is at risk. " Sqprt frm the EPA Administr ator ard Regions A7 and VI 2duustmtors. . Tidwell and lbbrt Laytcm, enabled the -am to begin of fiicially in August 1988. Since then, considerable progress has been nd~toward implementing the -am. Althqh tb EPA has pnxi.&d seed- ard lehipto initiate the Qllf Pmgram, the long-tenn goals will mt be achieved without active participation of the mmy State and Federal agemies imrolved in the Program. Becauseofoverallhdgetcomtdnts,thisapprwchisa logical way of IMximizing Uted to maintain the mironmntal integrity of the Gulf before the age-is irreversible or too costly to repair. This ~EIa -ve planning effort arrd is in step with the Pqen=y8s phFlosaphy of pollution prwention. This report has been develupedfartbplrposeof Ilepartingontheprogress achievedduringtb first year of the pmgram and raising ~~to inpmve future progrmn-lOP-* Aprimaq~oftheGulfof~Pmgramistoprwidea bmad-based forum for defining and adhssing mvirorplwtal problem that face the Gulf of m. T?m Gulf Progrma is designed to coordinate the collaborative efforts of the mny different organizations that carry out prograntrs af fecthg the aulf of *. The Gulf Program is mt intended to be layer of bureav. A camittee infras- has W developed which includes all Federdl agencies, the Gulf States, aca&nia, and user groups to widethe mz&anbm for dealing with the nm-y cmplex e~~iroxnmntal issues that affect the Wf. Over tirtre, a -k for action will be chelaped to mitigate pollution ard restore the QiLf's fonaer ernrirarrment. Tb Qalf Fmgrm will direct its available resources tawani issues meting the following genaral criteria% o Tk-1- are cmss-jurisdictional and pervasive. o W-. -1- msult in a threat to beneficial uses of the Gulf's o A masonable pmspect exists for a solution to the prablen. TbWfis~hedfmnabroadgeqr~al~vebecause it prwides -ial ard recreational activities to many pe@e as well as supplies seafood to tluuugbut the Nation. In short, tb Gulf ofl&xkooffers auealthof resources toth~WtedStatesandthus conf- great responsibilities on the Nation. Therefore, the contimed health ard mvityof the Gulf wt hecam a natianal pl:iority. Tbevaluatha of hpcts on living resaurces in the Chlf have been appmacbd by the Wf Rqrm in a holistic or systarwide manner a& it is anticipated that the Gulf -, with time, will have in-tioml dimensians. Becausethe~tdl~lsofthe~fof~~ the result of miltistate and -tiandl evities, effective solutions ,I Willrequireailfwide~tionami~tion.Overthepastthree years, ~IEZUUS experts hmidentified ard developed a consasus on major -1- facing the Gulf that fall into the follwing cateqries - the presence of toxic mb&ames and pesticides, habitat &gradation, mtrient enricmt, plblic health, mrim debris, hhwater diversion, and coastdl -ion. while the effects of such -tal tlmats to the Gulf may be seen locdUy, overdll tbse -1- result fran sources and activities that amregional in ~ture. are nrrmarrxls Federal, State, ard local amies aon their own legislative -ves that are generally irdependent of each other, !rhese aqencies, -ing the need for ammibation, s\rpport deve1-t ~fthe~f~f~Programto~tfurthat~tion~ftheailf.~ The GLilf Program will imprPve ammication ammg affected c;nilf users, builddtion~,andwarktowacdcansensus ontechnicdL solutions to achieve nrrre effective pmted&m of these valuable coastal -. l2-m long-tenn strategies of the Gulf Emgram -% 1) to pmtect, restore, and maintain the integrity of Gulf waters; 2) to protect human health ami sustain living resaurces; 3) to talaa actions to furthrtr control pollution of these mters; and 4) to ensure that uses and ecananic gmwth ~mmagedinanenvim~tallysaurd~,-effortswillbe gllmd by the following principles t o Tbailf of Program will be oriented towards protecting and -ring uses. o Ttm &lf of IWdco will be treated as a systan, taking into acoount -& comerns and curdative effects. o Si-specific problem and issues will be vimed within the context of Gulmpriorities. Early in this first year tb&lf of -am published its Five-Year Strategy far 1988 to 1992, in which five-year pmgramatic goals ard abjeetives mted. aut tw primipal godls afd tkir abjeves - ail follows: GodL I. Mlishan effective infrastructure for resolving ccnplex emrFrorrmental prablarrs associated with mn's use of the Mf of Mexico. Objective 1: MUshand pmvide SURprt to a Gulf of EIexico Program Office. Objective 2: Establish ard in@-t a Galf of WCOProgram camittee stxucmre. Cbjective 3 : Establish a plblic education newrk that includes infomation transfer, educational outreach, anl participation activities. Coal 11: Establish a mrk-for- for -1-ting mgarwt aptions for pollution controls, for ranedidl ard restoration msswxs for envimmmtdL losses, and for research dkecthn and -tal nunitoring protocols. Objeve 1: Prepare emhmmtdl c-izations to &temi~~actual system problem and develop hbtoric status ard trends. mjective 2 t Prepare embmmmtal assessIIwts to determine the extent of envimmmtal damge and nreasurable hseum information. Objective 3: Develop an interactive data nmawt systaa for useinpmvLdmg. . a range of possible technical solutions and improve infoxration maxqemnt ard application to envhmmntal problem solving. Objective 4: Develop p-dktive~asses-ts to &temine the cmme and effect of proposed solutions. mjective 5: Moparri implenmt plans for a Gulf of l%xko -toring Plan to assure the long-tena ~talhealthand~tyoftheGulfand the impacts of changes made. During this first year of the Gulf Program, a significant effort was focused on establishing an effective infrastmcture by holding coordination mtings and infoming participants abut their potential mleg and J=pnsibiuties in the ailf of Mexico Program. Tfia Gulf of Mmdm Program Off ice was officially established August 22, 1988, and the t2me vmkhg camittees n&ing up the prirY=ipal pmgram infrastrulcrture all canvened by -, 1988. Pdditionally, a plblic education wxk- plan is being developed ard infomation transfer, educational outreach, ami participation activities have been initiated. The organhatian of the Qdf Program and the roles and Momof the varhEPA off ices are sumarized in Figure 1. highlights of acanplisats made during tb first year of opration are sham in Table 1 ard will be discussed in more detail in this report. Mimy vies (Federal, State, and local) mmmtly have technical ad -t respmsibilitiea in mrine and estuarine waters and adjacent ooastal areas araurd tk Gulf of Mexico. The establisat of interaw relations thmugh mmrada of adagreemnts will Mp imprwe -ation, minimize duplication of effort, and provide consistemyindataacquisitionamianalysisprocedures. This- mt in the mxhm applicatian of limited resources to the mst significant ~~tal~l~.Ihe @s&blishtof thesg fa& qre€mnts of nutual cooperation is the standard procedure! for fostering interaw -tion. Because these agencies have various ard occasionally divergent interests and responsibilities, it is essential that they be kept apprised of the Mf PrograDa Office activities and be all- to prwide input to pmgram planning as early as possible. To facilitate this close coo*tion and collaboration between Federal and State pqram ahinistering the and regulation of Gulf of l&xico resources, collocation of agemy personnel at the -am Office will be establism wknpossible. To date, an wgerqAgreeamt has been established beftrJsen EPA aml the Soil -tion Service (SCS) and discussions have been held with the U.S. Amy Corps of Engheers (U. S. Amy m) ard the National Oceanic and -ic Mmhistration (m). It is antkipatad that more pe~nanentand fodarrangmmts will be finalized with NOAA and XoE in tha ccming year. During the fixst year of the Gulf Pmgram, a significant effort waa mde to staff the Qilf of Bhxica Program Office, establish its camittee stmchm (Policy Board, Ibchnical Steering camittee, ard citizens Advisory cumittee), Eetings, and eslA3Lish a& direct subcamittee activities.- This-- institutional strwtue is intended to provide a regional focus to propose solutions that are on the sam scale as the identified problera. €PA HEADQUARTERS I Polky guldance Program review Resource allocation i b J €PA REOION IV EPA REGIONAL OFFICES L €PA REGION W Adrnlnktrathre support Approve functional statement Overvlew ot lnteractlon with Executive dkeaion Approve 6elealon of Texas and Louisiana Overview ot lnteactlon with Program Olrector Lead lor lntematlonal MksWwl, Alabama, Florida Approve long-range plan coordlnatlon of pmgrammatx: Congressional Liaison Approve annual workplan actfvRles Y I POLlCY REGION IV 7 REVIEW TECHNlCAL SUPPORT BOARD Wson with reglonal - Prograrru Technical support for regional work- GULP OF MEXlCO D shops, mtgs., etc. PROGRAM OFFICE I - Program development TECHNICAL- Program implementallon STEERING Progam comrnunicatlon COMMITTEE REGION VI lntengeney cootdination TECHNICAL SUPPORT Oatabase development and management Ll Uakon with reglonal - Technical suppod to regional PIog- Tech, support for P0-n regional workshops, > meetings, etc. CITIZENS b - ADVISORY COMMITTEE + Ffgure i. Gulf of Mexico Program Elements Roles and Functions 1988/89 GULF PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS Program Office Established - August '88 Program Office Staffed - EPA/SCS/NOAA/COE . Committee Structure Established and Functional Identified Major/Pervasive Gulf Environmental Issues Through Technical Consensus / Five Year Program Strategy Completed Multiple lnformation/Communication Efforts Special Area Designation Paper Drafted Coastal Erosion Task Force Initiated Environmental Characterization Studies Initiated .FederaVState Program Coordination Workshop Table 1 Taskfarcearsubcadttee~arxisc~eswillbedevelapedto address specific priorities identified by the* ZeqeCtivle cannit-. mch submunittee will be guidad axxi directed by the parent dtteeand tha Chlf of lkxim PrPgram Office. The first step far each mbmnittee was to gather existing infoxmition on Gulf problerrs far the ewironumtal chamcterization. T'be ailf of Mexico Program Office was established in August 1988, ard uverall responsibility for the Prqram was assigned to the Program D ' , Dr. Douglas A. Lipka. The -am Directm mtespqmm within the authrity granted by th &&mrandmof -z-- Pdministrators of EPA kgbm IV and VI, anl is sugprted by a staff of both EPA personnel (Mr. William R. Whitson, Assistant Dixector, and Dr. Fre&rick C. Kopfler, Chief Scientist) a& other Federal persoruvel collocated at the Program Office at tbe Stemis space Center in Mississippi. Wing the past ywr, the Gulf of Mexico Pmgram Office was staffed to reflect the interagexy nature of t'b Pro-; the wies -ted in the staff include =Af SCS, NOAA, and the COE. Recent additions to the &.If of Mco Program Office include Blan (SCS), I3r. I&& mf(NOAA), ard llcm R. -11 (a). Lloyd Wise and Russell Putt serve as liaisons from EPA Region N and , Region VI mVe1y. Policy Wiew Board ?Ihe Policy Review Board for the Gdf -am consists of senior-level repesentativea from State arvl Federdl agencies, including the two EPA Reg- Mmhistratars, and mpresentatives frnn the technical and citizens cunuittees. This Board is chaired by the Regional Mmhbtrator of EPA, Tidwell (Region 4) and co-chaired by Robert Layton, EPA RBgiOndl JuMnhtmtor (won 6). he overall hmtion of the Board is to guide and review activities of the Wfof l&xim Pmgram. The Board agpmves gmgrm goals ami objectives, and establishes program priorities adcUe&hms. Ihe BaanAWiU ma)Q -tiom, weighing the rwlities of tinre and constraints with emrironmntal berefits ad @lit opinion. The Pow W Board -ides bmad-based sqprt for theprograminallpolicymatters. Diff--wam remmsdaticma that arise in the WchnkaJ. Steering Camittee, Citizens Prtvisory~ttee,orotbrcanuitteeswillbea&bssedbythepolicy Revia;t Board. Altfu4lgh the Board guides, rwiews, and evaluam the it leaves the operational duties to the ather wrking ardthePmgnmOffice. ItisarrticipatedthatthFolicyRevFewBoard will meet at leaat annually. At the first Policy MewBoard meeting held in DecarS3er: 1988, the Board concurred with Ationsof the Technical Steering CXmnittee to designate suhamdttees to evaluate in mre detail tb highest priority pmblems designated by the Tkchnical Steering Camdttee. Tk -ttees are co-chaized by a Federal and a State ~tative. Also, the FY89 resaurce allocation for the Gulf -am was approved at this nEeting. Tbseco&m&ng of tb Board was held in JUy 1989. A chrter for theBoardwasformdlly~urdartheFederalAdvisory~ttee~ (Fm)and a cuttoittee designated to pepam bylam, ThBoard also tb a&ption of the Citizens misery camittee's bylaws. After renewmg the FY90 hdget far the Gulf of Madm Progrmn, tb Program Office staff -izedthattb $lmillianbAgetedfortbPmgramwas "seedmmoneyardthattheProgramisdepm%ntuponmpportfronothec Fsard State avies. The Board appmed the of forming a CoastalErosim~~iftkTechnicdLSteering~tteemquests such action. Citizens l!dVhorY (Xlmli- The PrPvisory Camittee consists of -tatives of five secrtors (enrvirpnment, agricul-, bus~s/indllstry,devel~t/taurisnt ard fbkries) from each of tb five WfCoast States. BE Citizens ~ry~ttee~areappointedbytheGavenw>rof their respctive states. This wmi- usually elects its own chainnan and prwides amechanismfor -citizen inplt into the Mf Pmgrm frm each of the WfCoast States, atxi for dissmination of infomation relevanttothegodlsard~tsofthepmgram.~cacmitteeisactive in plblic outreach, consensus buLlding aPd implenentation of ~rrogram strategies. The Citizens Advisory Mttmensures mpresentation of pmcpm strategies and plblic wmems while cptims are fluid, rather than after data have been collected, analyses have been c~npleted,and decisions have been Itiade. Public supprt for tha iqlemntation of programstrategiesisIlKmWcelyiftheP3,lichasbesninvo1ved ---* ---* - Ihs Citizens Mvisoq CXmaittee held its fixst meting in Decmber 1988. At this each State delegation -- Fl~rida,Alabma, MississQpi, Miana, ard Texas -- elected a State delegation cw. The chainm foxxmd the mmbrship of a Citizens afhr* ca&tm Executive Mttee. !Ik Executive Cud- mt and el- Joseph Dial (m)as ckbmn, Walter Chardler (Alabama) as *hainnan, axi Michael Evans (Lariskma) as of the -&ens Advisory Mttee. A second elm held at the Advisory Mttee's secoIld maeting in Kay 1989. -of the Bcecutive Mtteewxe reelected ard additbm ma& to vt~iness/~try and to lqm8mttheernrirmment.- TheCitizensAdviSxy~ttee~ard appsovedbylawsthat~~tly~bythePo~Rwiew Board. -1es of acthm taken by the CitLzens PIfvisary Mtteeare as follows t o Establishmnt of an Agriculturd FmIthe purposes of inclu& exmrag~~~~~tof agricultural organizations to focus on the bqact of selected legislation on tbeir rrrmrbers ard to initiate mhanisms for improved Ccmrplnication and moperation between agriculturaJ. organizations arvl Feckal and State vies; OzQanizatiQns pmsent -ted mximately 100,000 agricultural pducers in Texas. o Mmtings with senior state officials, CAC IllerS3ers, ard the D- D- of the &lf of Msxico Prolpram in four of the five Gulf states. o rn involvaaent of the Gulf of mxim Program in designing a curriculum for tb Palacios mirre Pmductbn Vocational in-. o Oqadzed a msethg with ard distributed a questionnabS to wtatives of the major avimnmmtal groups in Florida. o Grassmots efforts have been organized to irnrolve people in the Citizens.&Ms~ryMttee in five Tkxas counties. During tb first year of the Progcam, Mr. Dial, Chaimwn of the Citizen8 Mvisory Cannittee, IMde fxun 30 to 40 presentations on the Qdf Program ard reportad that the plblic respnse was positive and enthusiastic. &coding to Mr. Dial, pblic opinion is in favor of the Gulf Progrma; tbcitizens of the Gulf Coast States are very qrtiv8 ardwanttolaow~tthey~~ciotOmdkstheprogramwork. TkTechnical Steering Cumittee consists of repmsentatives of State adFe&ral agerrcies, acxkda, and private adpblic sectors as a~pohtedbyState~rsorapprwedbythePolicyReviewBoard.The Dimctorof IhQilf of ~ProgramischaimanoftheTechnica1 Steering mttee. Tb'Pechnical Steering Camittee's principal responsibility is to mdetechnical supprt to the Policy Review Board in the farm of develqment and evaluation of envirormntal issues and regulatory strategies, ard developllent of program options. The camittee pmvides advice and related to research, data mnawt, m&lingI and sampling ard monitoring efforts that affect the scientific adeqacyof the pugram. Tbcamittee conkcts peer reviewof studies, reports on tbstatus ard trerds in the Gulf, ard alerts tRe Policy Review Boardto~ingemimmentalprablerns. 'hecamitteehas respnsibility for scientific riwr ard qualityI including oversight of issue-specific subcadttees. Dm Tkchnical SmingCad- held its first meeting in &toher 1988. The Camittee acca@bhed thzee IMin tasks: ( 1) identified priority issues by . . tha major physical ad biological processes that contribute to the deteriorating envizormatdl quality of tb Gulf of Mexico; (2) ranked the piorities that dteenwlbers placed an the issues; arri (3) fat.nred eight subcamittees to mre explicitly address the issues and assigmd tasks to these sukamlit-. Dm discussion leaders at tha cannit- meting presented infomation on five priority pmblems (habitat &gradation, nutrient enrichmnt, toxic subs- ard pesticides, fresbater diversion, and plblic health) previously identified by exprts thmugbut the Gulf States. Subissues~li8tedundereachcategoryaKi~~by '\ participants as either pervasive (Cklfwids) or lccal in th area affect&; and as nnjor, mkate, or mimr in intensity of thait impact. The additional issues of inpmvEd collaboration, marine dehds ard ptblic ducation dl- -pmsented ard discussed. Habitat Dxzadatian Habitat dqradaticm was considered to be the central thEme of the prablen issues mtedby the discussion leaders. Unless habitat degradation is halted, fh. ew- quali* and living resources of the Wf of will continue to &cline. Th interrelationship of the prioritygmblep areas (issues) are sbm in Figure 2. Each of the otkr pnblen areas can affecrt habitats and the dscltring trend in pncbctive habitats such as wetlads is pmbably due to the resulting impaEts to a variety of -ts alcmg the coast. Subissues discussed by participants included the physical loss of wetlards due to nudifications sll;ch as dredge ard fill, sea-level rise, ard other human and natural causes. Th loss of suhmrged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and otkr benthic habitats also was discussed. For eammple, Tanpa Bey has lost up to 80% of original (SAV) habitat ami mastdl lpuLsiana is currently exprieing losses of vital coastal lliarsh habitat at a rate of up to 60 square miles pet year* Nutrient Enrichnmt I, The large nrrmber of agriculture activities in the Gulf Coast States and the =ing ppulaticm along the Gulf Coast have caused nitrogen and pbsplmms nuroff that could lead to increased problem in the Wf of m. TbirYzrease in nutrients leads to more algal bloarrs, which can cause dissolved omproblem, possible inc- in toxins (L8d tide), andarfverseimpactstoSAV. Tbwdeadzme~whichd~frnal~ dissolved oqgen -trations is pmbably related to high nutrient loadings frem tbAtchafalaya ard Mississi~piRiver Basin. The Mttee identified possible sources for the increase in nutrients to the Gulf awi rated agricultural and riverine sources as mjor adpervasive. Other smrces discussed ixluded u&an, fmt, camercial, am-ic, and mine sedhnts. mxic Sbtaxea and Pestfcides Immmes in pqulatfan and agricul- or industrial activi- can haveanadverse impactontheMf byincreasingtheamxlntof toxic substarrs andlor pesticide mmff info the Gulf. Gmwing poprlations will -tly hcxease the quantities of mstewater effluents, and pest contml activities (damstic and agricultural) can increase the inflow of toxic ckdcah into tb Wf. mtly, h3ustria.l activity in the coastdl areas and tributaz9.e~of the W.f is significant. EPA infonnatian recorded in tb toxic release inventory sbfour of the tap five states intbe~~intotalSUff~~~disc~arefaurdin~Gulf (Ahbaua, Mississii, Lcuisiana, adZBwas). Subissues discussed.by participants ineluded tbe impact of taxics and pesticides on coastal and marh sys-, toxic -ts, mmitoring activities, and the need to hpmm risk assessnrent Interrelationship of the Gulf of Mexico's Priority Problem Areas NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND -)HABITAT DEGRADATION+-L FRESHWATER DIVERSION PUBLIC HEALTH Figure 2. m ailf of ME!xica pmsently rwzeives -thinh of tbcontimntal United States' draLMge and om-hdlf of the zumff. IrY=reases in the U.S. pplatbndlangtbGulf Coastwillixreasethedatiardforfxeshter for humn use and, ccmsqmtly, decrease the auuunt of freshter flw to the Gulf. In addition, flood cantrol maswes almg the Mississippi River have dtedin a lack of water to freshmter marshes. rn ather instances, freshwater diversion has led to less flushing in the Wf * s mw, in salinity ard seawater emmachmsnt, and habitat loss. Issues coneenzFrag freshwater diversion that identified included mdwthm of the volum of freshwater inflow into estuaries, modification of seasanal flaw regim33, mdlltxion of water quality, and inpcts to fish and wildlife. mTechnicdlSteeringcamitteereachdcansearsusthattheprablerrs associated with freshwater diversion are Gulfwide; bwver, in devising a plan to solve tbse pmblesra, the munittea believes the Gulf should first be sepmtedbyhydmlogicdl units, not by States. Eacchunit shcddtbn be -bed by regi0m.l inflaw prablens. Public Health Reduced flushing of estuaries, increased -tion, increased toxic chemicdls ard waste comentration translate into greater risks for plblic -11-being. m,57 percent of the Gulf 's classified shellf ishqmwing amas have been closed. It is believed that these cl- will itY=rease unless tbse emimmental c€mIitions are improved. Th issues discussed bxludsd pathagen cantamination, biologicd tox.ins, mnua& toxins, and risk assessllent. The consensus of the caunittee was that the pzblic Wth issues associated with the coastdL envirorazwt of the Gulf of I&xico are major and pervasive; however, the camittea did not feel qualified to ackiress the magnitude and extent of specific public health issues in the Guli of Msxico. Several public health experts mninated to sit on the Technical Steering rrmnittee. - Collaboration and Public Education The goal of the collaboration and public education discussion ms to reduce ciuplicatbn of effarts and to nraximize the appLScation of limited -. ~TkhkalSteerixq~tteeisin~indata nmqenmt and -patibiUty, plblic education, identification and effective use of exbthg Gulf ~rksembmmntal education sqprt : materials, citizens &taring nebmdc, ard msnitoring ard -tation schaoesfortheaulf. The Ter:hnical s-ing camittee agreed to fom sukxmittees to further address the priority issues that were discussed, as well as a Data and Inf-thn Tkamfer -tee to assist in the organization and transfer of resource data and other infomation. A Coastal Erosion Task FarcedlsowasformjdduringtbseCond~~fthe~~Steering Camittee (M1989). The sukndt-tees and their chairs listed below ~recarmerdedbyth~Steering~tteeattheirfirst =ting~~bythemliCymia~Boazrd. o Habitat -tion: Federal Co-Chair - Dr. William IWucynski, EPA Region IV; State Co-Qlair -- Dr. Danald Boesch, IauisiaM thivefsity camrtimn. o Wine Ihhris: Federdl- -- Vill- Reggio, MMS/DOI; State Co-QlaFr - Daniel W,?lexas (;eneral Iard Office. o Freshwater Inflour Federdl -- Dr. Susan &es, CQE/lbbile District; State Co-Chair -- J~llesKcwis, Texas Water Crmnission. Q Nulxiient Wichmnt: Federal Co-Chair - Jams Mitchell, SCS/I3QA; State Co-Chah -- Mark Chatq, Lauisiana Departnrrrt of Wildlife and Fisheries. 0 Iloxic Substarrces and Pesticides: Federal cct.chair - Dr. Foster Mayer, EPWORD; State Co-Chah -- Mxam Dow, Florida mt of Ernrimmental Fkgulation. o Data and Infomtion Transfer: Federal CbChak -- Daniel Basta, MAA; State Co-ChaFr -- George Collins (interim) o Public Education and Outreach: Federal -- William Whitson, EPWWf of lexica Fmqam; State co4mir - Michael Coff, Mississippi Gxenmrls Office. o Public Health: Federal Co-Chair -- Frederick ~opfler,EPA/Gulf of W Program; State Co-Chair -- Richard -n, Texas Deparhaent of mth. T% !&chicdl Steering Camittee rnet again twice, in Whand 1989; at these metiqs a repesentative fraa each of the subcmnittees reported on progress tamd godLs and objectives. Because the subcudttes efforts are primarily merned with the mrkfor action godl, thir activities wiLl be discussed uncbar that heading. AvtatianoftheprogressIMdebytheprogramQringthefirst year ada 5-par schechle for ccmpleting Wks is -ted in Figure 3. ~FaRACPIOP3 T% -ttees fond by the Whnical Steering Mt- are an - integral part of tki framaork-for-actian partion of the Wf Program's strategy. It is through tbse rather highly specialized wrk group that tkacthnitenrs~bythe~hnicalSteerhgCannitteeare ilqlanented. Highliw of the sllkamitlxes' goals ard objectives, issues, ard action itenrs are sumarized here. HABW DEXZAQMXCN The Sukaunittee on Habitat Dsgradation considers habitat degradation to be the central thane of tki pmblen issues identified by the Technical Steering -ttee. Unless this degradation of habitat is halted, the and living resources of the Gulf of Mexico will contime to &line. The subcamittee has severdl areas of mjor coxern, ixluding physical loss and modificatian of we- frem human-induced -Morn awl natural phenarrrron, loss of SAV, ard Wication or loss of biogenic and ather consolidated habitats. In order to nuve fmwith a mre camplkte -tal chareization of Wf issues, pmblerns, and courses, ttre --tam godls of this -tteel are to: o Identify existing imentories of Gulf habitats. o Identify and prioritize habitat &gradation issues. 0 Iderrtify'additimal survey wxk IEcessary to delineate resources. o Prepare an assessmmt of the status of Gulf habitats. Tim sllkamit~'slong-tena godls are to: o Develop a m~wtplan for the Gulf of lkxico to control future inpacts on priority habitats. o what mitigatian ard restoration is needed. o mopa m?ans to assess effectiveness of mitigation and resizxation of deqa&d habitats. 0 Assess a&quacy of h,wtions, and programs to pmtect piority resources. o Propose legislation necessary to prutect priority resawces. --will focus on twomajar activities during ~~90.W first is an analysis of existing mnamt and protection pqrams in farce in the Mf Coast area to detemh the successes, failures, arxi possible almtive ways to imprwe tbse -am. (This will be done througham-r.) Secardly, thembcannitteewill serveas a focal point for assaabling technical infomation on dardcreation, restoration, ard enhancaarrt techniques. This will be accaqlished initially thratgh a workshp. Cumntly, the subcamittee is pepring a report on the status awi tmnb of habitats along the Gulf Coast. This report is to be -ted at the Stiltus of the &lf Sypsirmr in Decaber 1990; it will include histaric &a on habitat types, infomation on nahwal and anthqgenic causes of habitat loss or &gradation including infonmtion on dredging axxi spoil disposal, and a presenttation of critical habitats of erdangm or thredmmd species. The~tteeon~hDebrishasset~goalswithobjectives. Several of the pmjm now urderway or canpleted ate in sqprt of these goals. The fkst goal is to eliminate the illegal disposal and careless loss of mama& solid wiste in the marine aKf coastal -ts -ts of the aulf of m. Beobjectives to reach this godl are the following: o Rmuage qI.iame with Federdl, State, and local laws and regulations the prevention of pollution by solid waste in the mr&ZZELt, espci.lly th3Be at mine vessel operators in the Gulf of Mexico region. o Sugport efforts to designate tbGulf of Mmrica as a Special Area urderMN4KlLAnnexVandtherebyreducethethreatofmrine debris frna shipping sources. MARWL is an international tmay which mguhtes the discharge of five categories of pollution froP ship. MARH& V dedls specifically with ga&age and atlphasizes plastics. o Emourage and develop imentives for waste reduction and recycling w pLactkal. o -ge the voluntary use of reusable, recyclable, or rrmpersbtent =term as a substitute for disposable stymfoam drinking containers on offshore vessels and platfornrs. o Rmuage wider acceptarree of among the countries of the wider Caribbean Basin. 0 suppart pollution -tian thraugfr education (nnlltilingual), was- =ktion, recycling, and spacial mamfachxing processes. In flexaa, tha Tkxas Shr- Association, the -a1 Iiud Office, and Sea Qant have developed a pilot project geared tckmrd camercia.1 fishernren. With a grant fIcrm thailf and Sauth Atlantic Fisheries mopmt Fourdatian and the cwperation of the port authorities, three ports have been funded to Mdtrash receptacle facilities to be used by the fishermen for thdisposal of debris that is caught in their nets. lbo of the facilities have already been Ut in Palacios and Aransas Pass adam bing used on a daily basis. An education canpaign including bmchims, posters, ardsticlcersisMngdeve1opedbytfie~Land Office for the fishemen to learn abut the faciLities ard the MARPQL regulations ard -fits of the project. Several voluntary efforts hmre been-by user gmqs to ban styrofoam cups on of fsboil riga. The capnies that have successfully done this are (bmm, Amco, and Iauisiana Iani and Exploration canpry. Othargrarpstobemtedare-ialfis-andcarmercidl shipping and cruise lines. Education is themxqt hportant cQnpanentof solvingthemarine *is pmblan. Public -s and educatiQnal Gmpiigns have prwen to beveryeffective andshildbeqmxkd. The subca&mfs secondgoal istof~prideandstewardshipandincrease~~fthe mine ard mastdl resources of the Gdf of l&xh (bxluding hanaful effects of mine *is) amng user groups of the Gulf region. The objdves to reach this goal are the following: o Facilitate the planning, organization, pantion, and coordimtion of a volunteer Gulfwide Coastal Cleaxnsp and Marine *is Bbnitoring Program each fall chrring National Public Iands Cleanup mth and National Coast m. o Emaxage tbestablishsnt and subscription of beach adoptirag prcqram in the five Gulf States. o Emourage the designation of a National Coastal Cleanup ard AppreciationDayonthenexttothelastSaturdayinSeptember. o Design ad implarwt a stadanbed, fiwstate marine debris &toring program for the beacks and barrier islards of the Wf of Hsxico, using trained abservers and takifig mnthly samples. The subcamittee has &cumnted miles, tons, and pounds/mile of &his that w collected as part of the Tale pride Gulfwide Beach Cleanup held on Saturrlay, 23, 1989. The paunds coll~per mile a fruu 1,800 inTews to 240 inAhbam. As a result of tb subcamitteefs actions and mmmmdations, the Technicdl Steering mmittee voted to erdorse the Adopt-A-Beach program; designation of NaMmtal Cleanup and Appreciation Day; a -sed Boater's Pledge; and pmmtion of --a-Eeach in the Wider Car- -* -* The mkamittee has designated two projects for its first year. Tk first project is an hmntory in the form of an anmtated bibliography, presenting all projects, pmgram, reparts, data, legislation, educational materials, and infoxnation (ongoing or gmposed) on mine debris in the Qalf of Mexico. This will also hlude ary informtion on recycling, especially the recycling of plastics. The suhcadttee will analyze this - report and pinpoint any gape or needs and use it as a guide to future proj-• seeord pject is a video public service announcarrent (PSA) to be used by all five States. The PSA will use hum^ to enpjlasize the negative effects of mrina *is on the "hm"of the mine wildlife in the Qdf of lkxim. The stat of the 30-seco~xiPSA will be a dolphin. Suecia1 Area Desianation The Special Area Designation for the Gulf of WCOunder the MARWa AnnexVRsportwas~ttedtothemembersofthesubcamittee for technicalrwiew. Ihecaunents~~idaredandused~ -idtee Tbrepart was released for public cammt on Decenber 1, 1989. It is anticipated that tbfinal report will be ready for transmission to the U.S. delegation mtim in January 1990. 'Ihe Subcandttea on Nutrient Enric-t has defined its long- and short-tenn goals and abjectiw as follows: Umu-Tenn Goal and a-tectives sukamittea's long-te~~~godl is to manage nutrients entering the Qilf of l4xico (including its bays and estuaries) for the long-- benefit of society. Its objectives to acccmplish this goal are the follwing: o Gemlop an overall plan to m~genutrient Fnplt into the Gulf of lkxko (including its bays and estuaries) in order to protect (a) the pmductivity and biological diversity of living resources; (b) ae&htic ard rexeatiorlal values of tbQllf; (c) the public health; and (d) other uses of the Gulf of Mexico that my be valued by society (by 1995). o Protsct ths waters of the Gulf and -age sustained pmductivity ard biological diversity of the aquatic organism through education, research, and other avenues (aping irdef initely) . o the public abut the relationship be- hucllan activith andthehadlthof themlf of Mexico (ongoing). o 1- the major sources by specific areas of nutrient enrichmxt, the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichmmt on tb Wf, and determine options for managarwt (there are existing - mntmcts on "SaurcesWard "Impacts" but an "Cgions"wrlc sta~nsedsto bedeveloped). o Identify existing program that address nutrient enrichrrwt. o 1denti.Q agencies involved in water quality activities. 0 Identify and &temim tbrelationship of sources of nutrient to loadings ard inpacts (a- statemt will ke needed after "Soumes ard QuantitiesIwarri Tmpctsl* wdc are fhdized. ) o Identify effects of other pqram policies on nutrient enrichmnt. o 1- and chumtnte success stories; solicit Public Education and atreach Subcamittee participation. 0 Develop tkamstmw projects such as the following: -m@pba ~verwater wty npxmnmt (Mississisi and Wima); &y agricultural system and idustrial discharge -t; -t; Emluation sf (Xmstructed Wetland Animdl Waste Disposal Sys- in Newton Caunty, Mississippi; ard --Bottcdand~fF1ter strips (Mississippi Delta). The Nutrient EnricuSubcamittee has W major efforts underway. One project is in* to mizeexisting literature and data bases to identi.Q the sources ad quantities of nutrients entering the Gulf of b%xico and its trihtaries. -is is on nitrogen adphosphorus fmn United States sources but data on a totdl of several other water @ty -wFllbehclu&d. ThotkrpjectisinMtoassess~ inpcts and effects of nutrients on the living ! plblic health, and recreational and aesthetic values of the Gulf of Mwuco. Emphasis is on noxious algae bloamg , nitrogen (including nitrification/denitrificatim within the Gulf, low oxygen corditions, chlorophyll, stratification, organic c-, phqhrus, adsilicon. Subcamit- efforts to date have been ten- arourd nitrogen, phosphons, and silicon. aiologicdl oxygendenurd(B0D) andorganiccaxbnhave~been~edas nutrients that will be ackiressed by the subcamittee. Wtional actions planned include an assessmnt that can tie the "mad Quantitiesn study ad the "Impacts and Effects" study togethr. Because mt all areaa of the Wf are equally affected by nutrient enricat, it is necessary to identify those sources that are affecting specific bays, estuaries, or areas of the Gulf. ArY3ther planmd contract will be &sigr& to explore optiondl ways of accatqlishing nutrient irrcluding evaluations of hclw to get the mst benefit for the least cost. Tbsutcamittee has discussed the possibility of selecting a chmstraticm project that would center on on- on- application of nutrient control pmctkes, have high public visibility, and have a high pmbability of success within a reasamble time. One small pmject that will be pmued is to pmvide assism in long-term evaluation of the effecti-s of a newly constructed wietland at ths Sou- Coastal Plains Agricultural Experinrent Station in Newton County, Mississippi. T9m efficiervly of the wthd in mingnitrogen, phospherus, colifom bacteria, BOD, and organic c-n will be detedned. 'Ihe~teeon'lbaie~esMdPesticidsshas~sed Sevaral goals for the s-, Me,and long -. Them goals are the following: o Carpile existirKJ data on selected biotic contaninants and evaluate or analyze thaa for mnmts, locations, ard trends. o Identify data gaps ami fo-ate plans to fill then. o Canpile frequency and Qqes of water quality violations. o Differentiate betmen fate of toxics/pstici&s on shelf aTd inner Gulf. o Qmntify toxics/pesticiciea inplts to Gulf and calculated wasteload allocatims. 0 melop hLman balth assay. o Sugqest control mdmnbms far mitigating pollutants. o Quanq significance of Gulf pollution to global oceanic envimrHmnt. Zheaegoah~establishedbythe~tteein~ll~eto~ charg3 it was given fmn tbTdmkal Steering Ccmoittee to define ard rank toxics/pesticide issues, &tendm mnitoring needs, and impruve risk assessment tschniques. Tlu, the suhcamdttee will sponsor a worksbp to address one part of a &scciptive Qalfwide risk assessaFnt technique and mnitorbq appech. Ihe subcamit- is atFll considering its primary 1ong-m goal amt the folkwing goal is under discussion: eliminate - adveeaa8e01~anihmankalthimpst~tcairsardpesricidesin the Wfof system. Rxsible objectives include: o Data gatbring, analysis far data gap, ard evaluation of data (risk assessnwt) by 1992. o Water quality-basd cantrols on all pint sauce dbdmqes 1995 by o Water quality* controls on all qintsavces by 2000. o -tion of in-place pollutants resulting in human health or ecological inpact by 2010. Th Tbxic ad Pesticide Submnittee has defined toxic substames (including pesticides) as materials synthesized by hums ar present in the Wf that are capable of pducing an adverse effect on a biological systaa. Majm issues discussed by this subamnit- imlude the sources of toxic materials in the Gulf, as veil as the fate ard effects of these materials. AknaJledgeof c~tionandflowpa~intheGulfis requFred to assess pollutant sources. The data pmbbly exist, but my require assimilation and analysis. Linkages between freshwater systems ard estuaries/Gulf need to be mck with wetldshelf coupling of processes (e.g:, detritus,' sedinrent, contaminants) . Care is to clearly -h elemnts in a nrodel which predkts the ultimate accumlation of toxFcs fmn true pint/mnpoint source discharges. There are specific regulatory definitions for these tenm in tk Clean Water &zt, the Ocean wing Act, and the Canprehensive EmrFrorplwtal Respnse -tion and Liability Act as amerded. The sources of toxic mbhxes in the Gulf are: o Drainage basins of rivers ard streams that serve as an interface as they flw into the Gulf ard wetlands o Iandrumff fran forests, agricultural areas, andukein areas o c3utfalls fran smmge treatnwt plants, Wtries, ad ~c~ storm drains o Almqheric deposition o -tion of mterials (bilges, spills, etc .) o Oil and gas exploration and pmduction o mter(hazardous waste sites and lardfills), ad Fate adEffects of mxic Materials Tbdxcnmittea held a general discussion on the fate of toxic substames and pestlc5des. A toxicant entering the mrine ~~t can nuve into lh water, sediment, biota, or a-. of the subcamit- stated that several fate dlsare in existence that assist in pdktbg the ultimate destinatian and accumdation of sam toxicants lntotbcanpartnrentsmntidabve. Tbsemtblsneedtobeimproved. Instead of develaping new m&ls, the existing ones should be refined and nnre infomation moped for coefficients of exchange between and among -ts. The xm&ls also vdlidation. The subcamittee also discussed the effects of toxic subtances ard pesticides. Toxicants entering the Gdf can a&ersely affect tha biota - fras single species to populations, canmnities, and en- ecasystans. lhfort~~tely,-Is for predictFng the effects are rrot as available as those for pmdkthg the fate of toxic xmterials. For this reason, nu& effects resead~is ax&ted as toxicity studies on single or dtiple species, ard thresults are extrapolated to other species ard locations. Current mivities The subcamittee spmoreci a mrkshop in Nmmber 1989, to begin an evaluation of risk assesat techniques related to each State*s mxic Asses- Program. Because evaluation of mmitnring data is a part of risk asses-, and this evaluation is important to each State, it vas deeidedthat them forthewrkshapddbetoprwidea form- participants share expertise on to quantitatively evaluate mnitorhg data an levels of toxic- substances ard pesticides in water, sediment, axxi biota in relation to State standards, praposed stardards, -, action levels, etc. This evaluatian will videa cohesion ~flllethodsandapprwchesthatis~~protectandmanagetheliving ~esof the Gdf of Mexico. The objectives am to foster stamf-tk-art quantitative approaches for analyzing/interpreting toxic and pesticide mnitoring data; to develop matrices that iden* almtive quantitative methods for *sing mgulatory/~talquestions about water, set,ard biota; ard to @&I data for impact assessment. Matrices pnepared by participants at the mrkshap relating the -hea that- each State tabs in evaluating toxics and pesticide &toring data in warn, biota, and sediment in relation to mqulalmry actions. A prPduct of the wWbhOp will be a "consensuswnatrix the most useful qpmaches for each question will be c~n~iledand mnalities among State aggmaches noted. !I!km was sam discussion of applying the appmaches selected by the partisipants to a specific envimmtal duation (e.g., evaluatirm of a bay or estuary thruugh water quality-based toxic catml). This could be cons- a dmmstraticm PjF* The -tar Inflow Subcamittee's goal is to protect, 7, and wfiare feasible enharY=e the quantity of freshtar inflw to the Gulf of kbxim and the associated bays ard estuaries for the Wseof main- tfie ecological health ard integrity of those -tans. The objeves that the subcamittee has i&ntified in support of this godl are as follows t o Inven- all available data relating to water quantity and salinity in the five Gulf States. o Assess trexrb of freshwater inflow to the Qdf of bkxim. o Iden* q possible causes of cuin -hater inflcx~s relative to velum and timing. o Evaluate causes affecting freshmter inflow ard relate tkn to aq changes. o Draft a eiveplan to include recarmendations for mintainhq freshwater inflavs to the Wfof Wco. o Draft a xmnitoring pmgram that will assess the effectiveness of the cqmbnsive plan. o Ihpmw cammication betwen Gulf States on both a State ard Feckal level. mkamdttee has been wodcing with a contractor of the U.S. -logical Survey to develop a questhmahe for obtamng. . information mmembg the nature ard availability of data on the quantity and salinity of freshwater inflcm to the Gulf. In addition, the -nnaire is designed to obtain infomation on the rules and regulations in mlatian to freshwater inflow into the bays and estuaries of the Wf. The idcamittee solicited iq+t on the design of the questionnaire frcm several of the major groups or agencies that they expect to obtain bath data and infomation. This was done to ensure a greater pmbability of return fraa these gmqe adto ensure that the infonuation xeqwsted wuld be of greater value to the subcartnittee and the Gulf of l&xim Program. The cover letter that will be sent with the questirxlnaFre will explain the plrpose of the Gulf of Mexico Program. Tha decision was ma& to Limit this first rourd of questions to informtion on fmshwater inflow only fIcm within the five Gulf states. The four =jar ca-ies of infarmtian requested through the questionmim are: o stmam flow and diversion data, and 0 Rules arvlmguh-. TbU.S. -logical Survey rqmsentative will coordinate the miling of the to Federdl awies and service organizations. The State repmsentatiives will pmvide assistance in soliciting the infomation frPa the State avies, research institutions and f-, and universities. a're subcamittee plans to corxhst a wrkshp in FY90 to evaluate the infonuation ga- fraa the questiondm and to plan activities to cktemim data gaps, begin tb assessmnt of trends in freshter inflm, ard bpfully to identi& the causes of change in freshwater inflows relative to volum and timing. Qle of the major objectives of tha subcamittee is the developrent of a close mrking zelatiomhip among the MfStates an both a State and Fedetdl level, The are due back by tbend of Novanber 1989. A draft: data inventory ddbe available in January 1990. The proposed wrkshop is to be -ed for late s~merand will focus on the result of the data arrd adzess State policies on freshwater inflow ard other issue8raisedbytheqm3thMh. ~suhwnnitteealsorrrrmatoa~thatitshouldbein=reased by the addition of five nen menS3ers. ll?Ul AND It@OlU43WI(3N TfUNSER The Sukacdttee on Data ard Infoxnation Transfer proposed the follcwing three projects far FY89: o Develup an el- bulletin board as an integrating tool. o Develop an infomatian systaa catalog of data suurces. o Develop andma daarnstration project. 'ihe fixst two itena have been merged into one project ard a contract award lMde to develop an integrated infomation system. lh electronic bulletin board will pibe a platfann for didlogus and facilitate the of tinrtly and accurate infomation ammg interested public, Federal, State, axl local coastal resaurce nmnagers of tbMf of The info~~~ationtransfer dof the Gulf of Mexiro Program dtethe establisbmt of a machanism such as an electronic hlletin board that rapidly captwles and disseninates information on program activities and initiatives to a variety of in- parties. This could also provide a useful dialogue bemeen Federal, State, and local ~llanagers. It is estbated that 300 to 500 hiividuals frcla State and . local -ts, Feclerdl agencies, the reseamh.camdty, incfustry, -tal interest groups, andthegemralpublicwillusethis -service. !Cb~databasemana~tsystmwillfocusona specific coastal resoufie mamqemnt pmblen for a limited area of the ailf of Mexico. lhving various arrd disparate coastal msoum data and infomntion needed for regulatory and nmagemnt dscisions ccmpiled into a single infomition systaa will imprave a manager's ability to apply the informtion problem solving in a mre systemtic, consistent, and useful wsy. A pEPtotype axld later be qmcW to include hmader issues. !tk users of this data base could include Feberdl, State, ard local mmwce mmagau=nt agexi-, on -1- focus. -ttee dacided ta tbcumulative effects of Sctbl 404 pennits on mtlads in Wile Bay, Alabama, as the initial &mmstration project. principal agencies Wiedtere the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (EWS), U.S. Amy CQE, Alabama Department of Ecomnic ad camunity Affairs, with m, SCS, awl mmmus other State ard local -ies prwiding data and oversight to tk effort. Tkcbjdve of this effort is to dsvdop and bmstrate a mtland regulatoryandresourcemnagenentsystanforthe~ileBayareathat utilizes autcmated wthd and permit hentaries, enhances detemimtion of cumdative losses, and aids in identifying agqmpriate needs for mitigation, -tion, ard ex4mm-t. Ths project has thme major tasks r (1) establish a Wile Bay WB~digital &ta base, (2) develop a mgulatary (Section 404 Wts) data base for the pav, ard (3) develop a user-fr-y geqqhk infomatian systaa (GIs) that will durn these W data bases to be overlaid along with other data so that the mudative impact of both mn's activitiesand~tural~sesonthewetbrdsinthisareacanbe better assessed. Features of the project include thdevelopclent of a wivedigital data base on wetlads for 1956, 1979, atxi 1988-89, ard section 404 +ts for use by Federal and State agencies. Thepr~GIStobeusedwillbethe~/INFOsystan.- Frrm the data bases, agencies will be able to detemim wetlard losses cccmring betmen the mid-1950s and late 1980s, locations and types of losses, ad assist iq deterrrrmYlg. . the causes and changes of loss as a result of various man-hduced activities and natural loss. Lastly, because the cost to mps frrm aerial photqra&y and digitization of tbse maps into a GIS is costly ard timwmnsuning, this effort will explore the validity and costeffectiveness of wethd wrefmeddata frcm -tic mgpx (Dl) imagery. Recently aquired ?M data will be classified adcaqaxd with 1989 wetland maps to detennim their mlidity in use for regulatory decisions. For tb first year of the project, the -is will be on developing an operational GIs to bmmtmte the usefulness of the systan to aid in nranaging the wetland resames of Wile Bay, such as reviewing Section 404 pennits. Tb area selected is the mrthem portion of the bay, which inclucks a wide variety of wetlard types and a high rnmrber of @t actions. Inmb6eqmkyearsf theeffortwillfocusoncanpletingthe~and and -tory digital data bases for tb bay, analyzing tbeffectiveness of 'IM data far wsthxi mapping, ard establishing the GIs user system for Federal, State, ard local agencies. Sam of the ideas that the subcamittee has for FY90 are tb following: o Pdditbnal Oenonstration Projects -- IQntify specific prdcls that can be develuped fram each of the Wnstration projects. !h subcamittee qprts this idea as an excellent way to get results to the Gulfwi.de user cammity. o Establish c0ns-t aiLfwide digital files ard fomts for all 'S infonnation mtedand ampiled through the Gulf of i initiative -- This effort Udensure transferability arross all gmupe ard States, but mire importantly, ddestablish a single, consistent -rk that the Gulf of bbxia Progrma can implaent to begin to assess ail- -, rather than only dmrmtrats specific aspects in specific places. o Irmxprate the WLf into the plans that EPA and MAA are Moping this year for tk initiation of the Wiromtal mnitorhg ard Assessment Progrw (EMAP) -- The sl&ccmittee feeh that the gulf might be added to this year's budget and get started on the same track as the effort being made in the Mid-Atlantic States. Th? suhcamittee will be looking at the question of taw and what it will take to establish a unifom digital fr-rk for lh (Silf of Mexico. Beyrrmd FY90, there are mm opportunities to relate mre dkectly with a rnrmber of NUM infomation systarrs axi data transfer activities that are in various stages of develaprwt in tb Gulf. There amplans to begin vimmtdl projects in Texas ad probably in scuthwst Florida that &al with b to transfer infomation to pqle and axowage than to use it. If these efforts are successful, the Gulf of WCO-am might ~~~awiderarea. , The Public Ehcation ard Outnzach subcamittee is responsible for fodtinga Qaf Public Infomation Plan. Infomation included in the plan focuses on ths Qdf Rqram and its objectives, envhmtal issues andmsxmevaluea intheQdf, prioritytargetaudim andways to -h each dexs, as w3I.l as saurcea and availability of existing plblic infomation mterials. Gkilf Prograsn Off ice staff ard Citizens p1.hrisary Wttee nt&ers will discuss the Camplnications goals for the Gulf Programin~arxiworlcs~andreceiveinprtonthe inplanentation of this plan in the caning year. A mjor symposium entitled "=icafs Sea: A National Resouce at Riskw will be convened as a nationdl biennial event irmlvfng scientists, managers, citizens, Wf u~ar group^, ard vtative~in December 1990. This everrt willpewicban~tyforgmplewith~invariaus-of scierrrSeand~tan3llndtheGulfandtheNatianto~teand- centralize tbir bl-. The program, urder this objective, will also support specific partkipatim activities, such as the fostering and Mopant of Citizens -toring -. It is anticipated that the Citizens mry-m will play a large role in nmting this objective in the future. With respect to the Qilfwide Public Infop~tionPlan, the subcamittee has zqwsted that the laajor elanents of the plan include: *tificatim of major adhmes, I~IESIWard nressages, available ammication mtbds, summy of activities (ongoing ard planned), ard coordLMtbn and implamtation. The follawing are highlights of tm subcamit- activities: o FactSheets- for chelaping Gulf of wcoProgram f& sbets was developed by the Public Echu=atiun and Outreach Sukamitteeands&nittedtoeachof theother seven mkamdttees. This guidame explained what issues were to be asedineach mhmmittee's fact shet. It was eqhasized thattheecomuicore~~~~talimpactscausedbyeachissue shauld be given, along with trends. Infomtion on what actions are being taken by the Gulf of Mexico Program Office and names of contacts sMdbe given. Procfuction of consistent Gulf of Mexico Pmgran fact sheets for each major issue area will be caqleted using the guidary=e just described. o Vider, -- $50,000 for a ailf Program vi&o ms given by EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine- Protection. This video should imlude an explanation of Gulf problem, what the Gulf -am is all abut, adwhat ogprtunities exist far the plblic to get involved. Next year's pl.anning efforts irclude ideas such as plblic service -ts -ts for television (a mialor -t), and the developmt of a Speakers Bureau. The hmdiate goals of the subcamittee include canpletion of the mrk initiated on the Fact Sheets adthe Gulfwide cummication Plan. E'uture plans *luck beginning mrk on Gulf Vm11, planning a Spdhrs Bureau in FY90-91, closely coordinating with the Marine Dehris Sukaunittee, a nrar33ersh.i~review, and convening a meting in Tallahassee, Florida in Dech 1989. PUBLIC HEALTH The Public Health Subcamittee addresses the nature and extent of -tal risks to the health of the residents of the Gulf Coast ard -10- approaches to reducing tbse risks. In its initial year the sukamittee reviewed tb kmwn and perceived risks and reached consensus on tbir relative importaxe. In reachhg this consensus the subcanni~ took into consideration: 1) mutes of eqomm to tb emironmntally ckivfd agents, e.g., airtx>lme, dirsct eqnsure thrcugh contact with contamimted water or by of contminatedseaf00d9,2) the - origin of pa- -T nawycccuring pa-, e. g., the Vihrio and hum derived, e.g., the No- virus, 3) the nature of taxic substances, i.e., organic and imryanic, 4) different types of marine biotoxins that can exist in the Gulf, e.g., mumtoxic shellfish poison and ciguatera fish poison. After constructbg a matrix which irY=luded all CQabinatians of the abcnre agents and expsure mutes, th sukudttee developed tb fo1lad.q ranking of emimmmntally related plblic health pmblans that it would investigate. Ranking of Rwbmlaltally Related Public Health Prablems in the Gulf of Mm,h Pathogenic micr#>rganlsns CansmaSng raw mlluscan shellfish Marine Biatoxins CansurmngcontaminatedSBafoods flmricmbtames hmmhgcontaminated seafoods Pathogenic micmoqanigm~ By direct recreational and occupa- tional expsure to contaminated water 5. Risk Assessment and Carmunica- tion The mkamittsemanbers agreedthattheGulf of HasicoProgram sudensure that the Public Health Pqenciea in the five Wf states be kept infdof the latest infomtion on risk analysis and risk cammication adthat the sukamittee should make that one of its goals. mahamittee sponsored a w01:kshap on Novebr 13-15, 1989, at the laxha& mtel in New Orleans, Miana. v&rkgmqs convened to consider the following tapics. 1) patbgen expmre via mlluscan shellfish, 2) ~LEMII exposure to pa- in mter and 3) marim biotoxina and associated public health risks in the Gdf of MCO. frna state, fe&ral adaca&mic agencies were charged with Wing with these issues and given the follcrwihg tasks: * !Lbidentifyandrankthesignificarceof~pa~and marine biotoxins as thy relate to pblic health. * !Lb assess possible avenues of collaboration among the Gulf states in order to mrk harmnization of goals and activities. * 'Ibidehifyareaswher8thEPAGd.f of~Pmgrwcouldseme to help with th hammization efforts as well as assist with risk assessmnt and risk cammication wrk througbut the Gulf area. * ~reccmnerd~~~llpolicieaand~rp~~thatcanbeusedby the aulf states in &ding with plblic health problew and to - identify tbpolitical or econanic constraints preventing ~tionof~usedbythestatesandtorewmnerd- ~~egearchto~thesecanstraints. Sam of the -tiom of the three wrkgraups wre: * TbEPA sUdtake into cansideration the proximity of shellfish harvesting areas wilen writing discharge pwmits and in addition to ~tsthatptecttheernrhmt~thatthe effluents & mt cause closure of these waters to the taking of shellf fsh for public health reasons. * ~~fof~Programshouldcoadinateandspomr htra-state workshops with public health, shellfish, resource, wildlife and water agencies and ary other appmpriate state agerrcies to facilitate inter-state and interagency coordination of policies and related to public health and shellfish. * Tb Ufof lkxim Program should initiate and coodinate a rqiawide field evaluation of the present indicator organism for ambient raarim water quality ard the Water organisns recarmerded in the 1986 EPA propsed criteria. The Pmgram Office shaild explore Reseanh adDevelopnent funds to be used by the ailf states for this project. * TbWfoflkxim~shauld~~tofdevel~tsin the National Indicator Study for Shellfish which is being designed to diffmtiate ths risk to human health frna consunp.rtion of raw shallf ish fraa mters containing microorganism frcm mn-point sources as caopared to tbse taken fran mters in which the ~~are fron mgetrea-t plant effluents orothethumnsOWCes. * Tlva Ufof l&xim -am sMdsupport increased field studies ard milkme imluding -ta of rarote sensing techmlogies for &tectiq algal bloam adred tides at early stagas of -1-t, the use of comentional field simrpLing ad nmritoring by sea-ing vessels, ard inpwemnts and -tim of nmtlds for the detection ani characterization of motile @ations and cyst beds. In tb future the subunmim intends to plrsua the following: * Obtain infomation on the cusrent levels of residues of toxic mblxmes and pesticides in Gulf Coast seafood. * the existeru=e of histarical data bases of infomation relevant to public mth and haJ tky may be accessed. * Evalute the report row being dsveloped by the Shellfish t3nlzdmtion Report of National Acahy of Sci-. * Attmpt to cktembm the level of risk to human health posed by thereportedresidueainSeafOOd~fraa~~fofMexico. In~toanirYFtiryraisedbytheCitizensAdviso~yCamittee, an ad kroc Coastdl -ion Task Ebrca was folnred by the Technical Steering Camittee in mh1989 to evaluate the d to establish a subcamittee for addressing coastal erosion -1- in the Gulf of lhcico area, to evaluate the appmpriaws of mingGulf coashl erosion in the Habitat -tion Sukadttee, and to ndke a -tion for resolution of this issue. 'Iluetaskforce~ampmttotb%bhicalStering~ttee in which 'it pointed out that sam overlap of activities may be unavoidable ht this is appmpriate to ensure that areas of amem are ad#nlntely addressed, arrd that cam should be taloen to pmperly cooniinate mkumdtm activities. If a Coastal Erosion Sukamittee was fonaed, it s~d~teon~physicalproeessesandnaturalarrihrPMn impacts to coastlb, and shnild perfom -tea and analyses of tb costs to the envimmmt ard social well-be- that may result as the shorelines cantirrua to em%. All efforts s-d imlude the shorelines of bays, estuaries, and saurds. Tim limits for consideration rtlay hl~& contour line, -tFon, or dune lines, and in sam instarrces, eitrary lines may d to be agreed upan and drawn. Wetlanl ard otkr habitat loss as W as freshwater inflow are critical factors in the loss of s-; s-; theselossesandtheir~Willbeassessedbyother sukaldttees. Itwas the findLrsgof ttretaskforcethatthismes ardproblersof coastal and sbrelirra erosion are of such 1~gnitude,swerity, and canplexiq that special and seprate tmamis eiate. Therefore, the task fozce xecammM establishing a Coastal Erosion -ttee. . This remmmxhtian was based on tk qrtof vtatives of the . five ailf States and the Federal agencies participating on the task force. 'Ih -tion was IMde with the hxw1- that the Habitat wadation Subcamit- WAC plan includes cowrage of coastal erosion and shoreline enxion issues anl problem; the task force mluded that the~~tteeisnecessarytogivesho~erosicnrthenecessary analysis and visibility. A &scription of the coastal and sbreline problem for each of tbMf States has been prepared by the task force. This infomation zeflects the significant losses that are occurring arxi suggests that the losses are accelerating. ThTkhnkalSteeringCaanitteeagreedwiththefindingsofthetask farce, and pxbg apErrPML of the Pol.i.cy WewBoard, established a coastal ion skaanittee. Thfutureof theuf of MdcoProgrammupnmfoU- three -=jar itena t 0 ~supportandirrvolvwentfraathemanytalentedand hledpblepeople fmu ~a~ Federal, State, ard local ~ies,aca&mh, private irdutq, and Gulf user groups; and -support andmfrrmtheprogramls citizen -tivee. 0 -tive adfiscal wrtfmm EPA lkgions IV andvIandEF'A-. o Sqprt frrm caprating ageru=ies th~~~ghcontributions of in-kind 1 msxcea or funding of cooprative pmjects developed fmn ,J' prbrity issues identified by the Technical Steering Carnittee. Thmugh tb efforts of individuals from cooperating agencies and institutes, significant progress has been made toward attaining tb long-tena goal of the Gulf ~rogram: to pmtect, -, and maintain the Gulf warn; to pmtect hman health and sustain living resources; to tab actions to further control pollution of these waters; and to ensure that alternative uses and ecormzic grawth are managed in an -tally sourd mmer. It is fitting that dtsobUimd during the first year of operation are due to the cooperative efforts of many people. This is ~ttrephil~oftbprograrm-toobtainprogramgodLsand objectives thruugh ccqemtive efforts with others involved in Gulf of emrbxmum1ta.1 is- and challenges. This approach ensures that program activities & not result in aru3ther layer of bureaucracy, ht actually plranots a mre efficient use of gwenrment resowlces. The Gulf of EIexico Program is in a unique position to address mqof the envmtalchall- that cauld affect the Gulf in future. !Ckse challenges vary fran those of a local nature such as marine debris on local beaches, tO tbse of regional dimensFons such as the of valuable wetlanJs and other coastdl habitats (ad ttva mitigation of this -on), to the ptential impacts of global trerds such as \mmiq, tfie dlestmctbn of upper-layer ozorre, sea-level rise, ard others. T~Bpmgram's micp position results fran its capacity to tab a blisticviewof *Gulf becauseitsdtteesard~tteesare capsedoftechnicalexpertsardcitizens~tingvarbuspqraphk regians thmgbst the Gulf. They are )amwledgeable of ongoing and planned projects that pertain to the challenging issues. These camittees and s&camitmes represent a gmat pool of exprthe and adnhistrative ability. 'Ihe program is also unique because of the high level of citizen in- ard cancern about envbmmm~talissues of tb Gulf. It is the citizen members wh, to a great extent, are responsible for inf0nni-q the plbLirc of the program's goals and activities and for generating special suppart for the program. P&qe mst important of all, the citizens act as catalysts for the cievel-t and hpIenwtation of new prp jects . ~~tteesrepresentthecuttingedgeofthe~fofMeXic0 Program, and their activities will bec- even nare important in the m. In mny instan=es, 1arag-v manag=ent goals have been -aped by tb subcamitteesf ard milestones for reaching them established. ~l-tives for solving the problem issues nust be Moped as d as the critical pa- for imp1arwtatFon of these alternatives. Thus, the subcad- will be inthe w~-for~wxcde, which irrcludes the definition ad identification of specific emimnmntal issues, characterization of these issues, assessmnt of -ve actions, develaprrent of mve nreasures, and hqlementatianardmnitoringof Wveactions. It is thmugh the thoughtful planning and decisive action of the mkamittees that tbGulf of Program will beam anticipatory as apposed to dve,and will be able to identify pollution pmblens before they becana financially and ecologically prohibitive. !llm follcwing mxmmdatians, based on -iences gained during the first year of operation of the Mf of l4xim Program, are IIW% to assist I thepmgramasitagetsthechUenge8of thefutums 1. Planning must begin on in-tal stmcmm rneeded for inplemntation of the frrrmeklark far action. 2. !I!b&lf of Ek.xi#,Pmgramshouldbegivenamechanismtoallaw interagemy -t planning. This would mt only elevate ths status of the program, but wmld pmvick for receiving the transfer of funds frrra other Federal agencies. Also, it would allow the hdget process to recognize ard address the critical of the cooperative -am. 3. -ting wiesshould highlight the Qdf of &xko Pngmn in their FY91 and 92 budget as it relates to priority issues. 4. Collocation of Fedrxal and Stata pemomd at the Gulf of W Progrerm Office should be emouraged ard continued. 5. Pdditimal fun% sbuld be identified to mibe travel furls for Certain State persannel and private citizens associated with the -to atterd specific pmgramnmthgs. This travel is critical for the operation of the camittees and sukwmlittees, and thus is critical for the success of the -am. 6. ThGcilf of~~shouldsponsorthaatic~kslmpeon specific tapics in to foster focused efforts of planning and infolmation~~~gersardtheresearch~ty. 7. ThPrPgramsbuldpmvide a linkbebeenthose wing infomtion for regulatory plrposea and researchers ard athers wb prwide tb informtian. 8. Unes of -tim smdbe established with mious -responseteamintheQ.df of MJ&o, aswell aswith NOAAfsCoastalWatchProgrma, sotheGulf of WcoPmgramcanbe awam of anargwcy emimmmtal situations as they develop. Mlishing tbse lines of cammication and eea-ts - could fostat hpmed coodination of high tech equi-t a& infoswation in the event of a future erxv~tdlprablen in the- Wf of -. 9. p&iitional demmtration projects should be carefully selected that are crossatting in nature, such as pjects on mte sensing for mnitoring purposes and on data and infozmtion transfer. 10. Additkmal mghasis sWdbe put on the citiz~volunteer mmitoring efforts, including guidame to C;ulf States for better Unks athe volunteers' efforts and States matory needs and and informtion excu. 11. Corrtirnrsd develapaent of grassmts netmrks sbuld occur at tb -/parish level to imrease the invol-t of local users of tk Gulf resources in the identification and carmunication of prcgm goals arxl -tiom at the locdl level. 12. hrrther -1-t ard clarification shcoild be set forth regarding the unique relationship a& long-tena oppomties WhiChexistbemeentheGulf~f~Programardthe~t NEP8s in the Gulf of Mmdm. In sumrrary, the Gulf of Mexico Program has progressed significantly during its first. year of operation taad establishing a hmtioning -adshort-adlong-temactbngoals. Indeed, theprogram alrearfy has ama~Lishedtk njority of its sbrt-term groals and ma& an hpact on amtmctive manavt of pollution activities in the Gulf of Msxim. Tbxe is an evident technical need ard a grassroots desire for theprqramtobepartof thefuturedevelopwztofthe&lf of Wco. STME OF MlSSISSlPPl RAY MABUS GOMRNOR September 17, 1990 Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director Gulf of ~exicoFishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33509 Dear Mr. Swingle: I am writing in regard to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's proposed amendment to the Reef Fish Management Plan and to express my grave concerns on the preferred management option that would promote a May 1 - July 31 closure of the gulf shrimp fishery. ', While I do agree that there is a significant problem with the over-harvesting of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes in the current management scheme will have adverse impact upon the seafood industry as a whole rather than positive impact upon the red snapper population. The closing of the seafood season could potentially destroy an industry that contributes over $100 million to our State's economy and have a devastating impact upon the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast. In addition, the resulting increased fishing pressure upon our State's intercoastal waters would almost certainly destroy our already dwindling fisheries population and negate any positive effects upon the remainder of the Gulf. I certainly appreciate the Council's concerns in this matter and applaud your efforts to deal with our Gulf of Mexico fisheries problems. However, the proposal at hand is, I believe, too radical in scope and will unnecessarily penalize the associated fisheries and industries. I respectfully ask that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council reconsider this amendment and develop a strategy that will more fairly address this issue and more fully incorporate the concerns of all parties involved. POST OFFICE BOX 139. IACKSON. MISSISSIPPI 39205.601-359-3 150 FAX 60 1-359-291 7 -2- I Mr. Wayne Swingle September 18, 1990 Thank you for your assistance in this extremely important matter. If I or my staff may be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to contact us. cc: Joe Gill Sherman Muth Phillip Horne September 17, 1990 Mr. Walter Fondren, Chair Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609-2486 Dear Sir: Members of the Council As a resident of the Laguna Madre Texas area, I am writing today as a friend of.the fisheries both commercial and recreational. I chair a sub-panel of the Council and am a former director of a major South Texas fishing tournament. As one vitally interested in the environment holding membership in a number of organizations such as Sierra Club, Audubon, National Wildlife Federation; I have followed with interest the proposed finfish by-catch act that would set red snapper limits and shrimp trawling closure. he proposed management measure for the following do not believe the proposed measure attains the Council's the least negative impacts. indepth study has been made to determine that the g industry is responsible for the demise of the fishery. udies have been made and development. ion and contamination of the Gul exico have not been,'$aken into consideration. 4. " ' zH&bf4at "loss and diversion o inflow have not been taken, into P bi.1R-t- YQ.'dP hJ,,r,,."~~ p YI bk 44 1- 4h e Co 0 PC3 DOUBLETREE9-10-90 HOTEL ON AUGUST 30JI DID APPEAR BEFORE THE GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEPENT COUNCIL TO TESTIFY TO THE EXTRErlE HARDSHIPSJDEVASTATION AND F INAMCIAL DISASTER THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED OM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IF THE GULF OF MEXICO IS CLOSED T$ SHRIRING BETWEEN THEMONTHS OF MAY 1st--JULY 31st. THE HAVOC AND HASSLE THAT WOULD BE CREATED ON THE FISHERPIAN, THE PROCESSORSJTHE ICE PLANTSJTHE SHIPYARDS AND THE REST OF THE SUPPORT PERSONNEL D IRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE SHRIMPING INDUSTRY IS UNBELIEVABLE a THE MISERIES THAT MOULD FOLLOW THIS CLOSURE CANNOT FULLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ANYONE, i SOJNOT ONLY WILL YOU BE ADVERSLY AFFECTING THE SHRIMPERS, THE DOMINO EFFECT WILL BE FELT STATEWIDE, WHY SHOULD WE SHUT DOM A $400 MILLION INDUSTRY IN OUR STATE? OUR OVERALL ECONOMY COULD NOT TOLERATE THISJNOR COULD THE ECONOMY OF THE ENTIRE GULF COAST AREA, 4 $4&~fulW 3i7~4b@~jiMM THIS IS wRONG!!! !IS1NCEREi.Y URGE YOU TO CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATIVES. THERE HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY OF DOING THIS!! ! .::(:+z~:sir: -. ?-... r;.-:. . .. ,~-,-~:iiatl;i;ct? ~t'it-1~f 2-jp ~hrj;:.i-.:>~_.r~ sfid !;fip~ t:i,a t t:;e Gg1.f .: .: ?i-.7.:.-r i;l'c, I I ];EL hi-?.21 csed ';;csilrl-..;- . . I,. .,,pi~-~qfcr 7.'-I i-riC- , -2I,. j-m;-,2:g2 .. , ,... , , ;- :- , ...)<.IS A 7, ,. , , ; ;i --F--- 3 " , . ., ;....." . _-..;3L.i.i 3tr 5'19 IIT..--I~ICTLLS salt ' ', -- ?.(.. ?., . ., , . : ... :! . . -;-;:,.::I c.l.-~;atto the 4-,- :>;I! I-?. p! ~2. p J RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT ISABEL SAN BENITO NAVIGATION DISTRICT OF CAMERON COUNTY URGING THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES COMMITTEE NOT TO CLOSE SHRIMPING ', IN THE GULF OF MEXICO FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. WHEREAS, the Laguna Aadre Area relies on shrimping as the core industry. AND WHEREAS, closing the shrimping season during the months . . of May , June and July 1991, will devastate an already depressed industry and, WHEREAS, closing the season will jeopardize 350 jobs >: on Navigation District property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT ISABEL SAN BENITO NAVIGATION DISTRICT OF CAMERON COUNTY to wit: The Commissioners do hereby wholeheartedly support the local shrimping industry and request that the National Marine Fisheries Committee heed the wishes of this community and delay any action on the closure ruling. PASSED, ADOPTED, APPROVED , at the regular meeting held September 12, 1990. APPROVED ; ATTEST; ------F-h A. M. Hervey jr. I 'd William B. Barrera RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT ISABEL SAN BENITO NAVIGATION DISTRICT OF CAMERON COUNTY URGING THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES COMMITTEE NOT TO CLOSE SHRIMPING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. WHEREAS, the Laguna Madre Area relies on shrimping as the core industry. AND WHEREAS, closing the shrimping season during the months of May , June and July 1991, will devastate an already depressed industry and, WHEREAS, closing the season will jeopardize 350 jobs on Navigation District property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT ISABEL SAN BENITO NAVIGATION DISTRICT OF CAMERON COUNTY to wit: The Commissioners do hereby wholeheartedly support the local shrimping industry and request that the National karine Fisheries Committee heed the wishes of this community - and delay any action on the closure ruling. PASSED, ADOPTED, APPROVED , at the regular meeting held September 12, 1990. APPROVED ; ATTEST ; A. M. Hervey jr. William B. Barrera CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY September 11, 1990 National Marine Fisheries Attention: Chairman William Fox Dear Sir: Enclosed please find copy of a Resolution opposing the proposed "By-Catch Act", executed by this Board of Directors at their regular meeting on September 10, 1990. I The Members of the Board, as I, feel very strongly about the potential effects this type legislative action could have on the entire economic basis of the Laguna Madre area. If, we may be of any further assistance to you and your Committee, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SXPLY DISTRICA NUMBER ONE Eddie M. ~erez, V Chairman Board of Directors Enclosure RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE ACTIONS OF NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES, REEF FISHING COMMITTEE AND OTHER RELATED AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH THE SHRIMP AND FISHING INDUSTRY BECAUSE, the Laguna Madre area of the Rio Grande Valley is primarily and economically based upon the tourism, fishing and shrimping industries; and BECAUSE, the shrimpinq and fishing industries employ hundreds of families and residents of the Laguna Madre area; and BECAUSE, the proposed "BY-CATCH ACT" could endanger the economic welfare of the entire area and its residents; and BECAUSE, no thorough in-depth study has been made to determine the shrimping industry is responsible for the demise of red snapper; and BECAUSE, no other studies have been made to examine the effects of oil exploration or other possible pollutions and or contaminations of the waters surrounding the Laguna Madre area; and BECAUSE, input and assistance has not been asked from the shrimpers and or fishermen of the Laguna Madre area. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, PORT ISABEL, TEXAS: That the National Marine Fisheries and Reef Fishing Com- CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY September 11, 1990 Reef Fishing Committee Attention: Chairman Walter Fondruin Dear Sir: Enclosed please find copy of a Resolution opposing the proposed "By-Catch Act", executed by this Board of Directors at their regular meeting on September 10, 1990. The Members of the Board, as I, feel very strongly about the potential effects this type legislative action could have on the entire economic basis of the Laguna Madre area. If, we may be of any further assistance to you and your Committee, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER NUMBER ONE Eddie M. Perez, Chairman Board of Directors Enclosure RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE ACTIONS OF NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES, REEF FISHING COMMITTEE AND OTHER RELATED AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH THE SHRIMP AND FISHING INDUSTRY BECAUSE, the Laguna Madre area of the Rio Grande Valley is primarily and economically based upon the tourism, fishing and shrimping industries; and BECAUSE, the shrimping and fishing industries employ hundreds of families and residents of the Laguna Madre area; and BECAUSE, the proposed " BY-CATCH ACT" could endanger the economic welfare of the entire area and its residents; and BECAUSE, no thorough in-depth study has been made to determine the shrimping industry is responsible for the demise of red snapper; and BECAUSE, no other studies have been made to examine the effects of oil exploration or other possible pollutions and or contaminations of the waters surrounding the Laguna Madre area; and BECAUSE, input and assistance has not been asked from the shrimpers and or fishermen of the Laguna Madre area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, PORT ISABEL, TEXAS: That the National Marine Fisheries and Reef Fishing Corn- TO: GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL THE ORGANIZATION OF LOUISIANA FISHERMEN WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REGULATORY AMENDMENT. THESE COMMENTS ARE THE EFFORTS OF THE O.L.F. JOINT SHRIMP/REEF FISH COMMITTEE. WE WANT A DELAY IN VOTING ON THIS PREFERED AMENDMENT. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION TODAY. ALL FACETS OF THE FISHERY ARE ASKING FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THE DATA. LAST MINUTE INFORMATION YOU HAVE RECEIVED NEEDS TIME TO BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED PLUS STUDIES OF NEW INFORMATION AS IT IS RECEIVED. FISILE YOU ARE UP-DATING YOU LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN REFEXENCE TO TRAWL BY-CATCH OF RED SNAPPER, ETC. WE NEED TO LET AMENDMENT #I AND THE T.E.D. REGULATION CONTINUE THEIR PRODUCTIVE TREND, -NOT HASTILY JUMP INTO POSSIBLE DESTRUCTIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, FURTHER COMPLICATING THE RESOURCE, THE LIVELIHOODS AND THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY. THE SHRIMP FISHERY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THIS COASTAL AREA. WE HAVE FOUND NO TECHNICAL OR BIOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR ANY CLOSURE OF LOUISIANA STATE WATERS. WE ARE OPPOSED TO FEDERAL OR STATE WATER MAY, JUNE AND JULY CLOSURE TO SHRIMPING. SOME O.L.F. SHRIMPERS HAVE STATED THAT FOR MANY YEARS, CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR AND IN CERTAIN AREAS A FISH EXCLUDER DEVICE CALLED A TRIANGULAR SHOOT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED. WE REQUEST N.M.F.S. DO A STUDY ON THE TRIANGULAR SHOOT. SEASONAL AREA CLOSURES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AD BY-CATCH HOT-SPOTS ARE BETTER THAN A GULF-WIDE CLOSURE, ONLY IF FOUND NECESSARY TO DO SO. -IF A FISH EXCLUDER DEVICE IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE, WE BELIEVE AREA AND SEASONAL USE WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE THAN YEAR ROUND USE, GULF WIDE. WE BELIEVE NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DYNAMITING OF OIL RIGS, THE FISHING FROM OIL RIGS OR THE FISHING FROM THE VARIOUS WORK BOATS. THE DIRECTED REEF FISHERMEN STARTED THE GRADUAL MIGRATION WESTWARD FROM THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE 40 YEARS AGO, AFTER WORLD WAR 11. MANY OF THE FISHERMAN THAT DID NOT MAKE THE MIGRATION WEST BECA E INVOLVED IN THE CHARTER OR HEAD BOAT FISHERY. . A TYPICAL FISHING TRIP WILL BEGIN NEAR THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER AND WORK WEST AS FAR AS CAMERON, GALVESTON, PORT BOLIVAR AREA. IF A BOAT IS BASED OUT OF GALVESTON/PORT BOLIVAR AREA THEY MAY WORK AS FAR EAST AS MORGAN CITY OR SOUTHWEST AS FAR AS THE MEXICAN BOARDER. BECAUSE O.L.F. IS CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE GULF COAST WE HAVE REPRESENTS GALVE~TON/PORTBOLIVAR BASED FISHERMEN. O.L.F. IS IN THE PROSCESS TO ENCOMPASS THIS AREA AND THESE FISHERMEN IN REPRESENTATION, IN ADDITION TO OUR CONTINUED REPRESENTATION OF SHRIMP TRAWLERS, BUTTERFLY SHRIMPERS, IN SHORE GILL NETTERS AND KING MACKEREL TROLLERS AND REEF FISHERMEN. OUR SHRIMPERS AND OUR REEF FISHERMEN HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TOGETHER AND O.L.F. CAN NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT A .SACRIFICE OF ONE FISHERY FOR THE OTHER. TO US ONE FAMILIES' LIVELIHOOD IS NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHERS. WE BELIEVE EVERY SECTOR OF THE FISHERIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAY IN THE WATER AND RECEIVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. AS STATED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN AUGUST, CONSERVATION REGULATIONS ADOPTED UNDER AMENDMENT #1 HAVE NOT YET ACHIEVED THEIR BENEFITS. A SNAPPER SPAWN IN 1990 WILL NOT BE RECRUITED INTO THE DIRECTED FISHERY UNTIL 1992. BENEFITS REALIZED WILL NOT BE CALCULATED UNTIL 1993 DUE TO DELAY IN N.M.F.S. DATA COLLECTIONS. IN ADDITION, WE RECOMMEND THERE BE A EXPERIENCED TWAWLER AS AN OBSERVER SELECTED BY THE JOINT SHTIMP AND REEF FISH ADVISORY PANEL TO THIS COUNCIL ON-BOARD THE OREGON I1 DURING FUTURE N.M.F.S. SAMPLING. AS A LEAD ORGANIZATION WE ARE PREPARED TO LOWER THE RED SNAPPER QUOTA FROM THE 3.1 MILLION POUND TO 2.5 MILLION POUND COMMERCIALLY, : WITH APPROPIATE BAG LIMIT REDUCTIONS. WE ARE PREPARED TO WORK WITH YOU, AT THE SAME TIME WE ASK THAT YOU WORK WITH US. pi 4;;;;:; ,I:::?; 'EFd; ,,.:;:"' il ?::;,::' 4""..' ...... - ... 88,. s,. a .... 18 .:::::I; I::...II % ...... " ; ,, , ' :": "" "' 1,- 11 i:::;" ...... ,,...... 'r,l ...... ,,:"""',,,,,. fi:::--"...... , :!;-;;;; 11::::::;; 'I::::::" ,il"...:: %.- I.. fi ,,. , ,...... I, 1..... 1, ...... I..ii!!:::!~~ ""l"" 1U.i B:L::ii H"s.U &::I!ll l-k,,.i ]l::-;b L ""[I"' ...... ,,':% ,,':% 8""''l E;;.ii_ t:::;: ::[: 1:;;:: :: , H 1 i;;;;;: 5; #::::::u Z , rk,,,1 fi:!b I:::-:= 11y.z;: I::::"" I::~,VU::::', &%.f"") f.3 li::::::li T:::;;...... 1;;:::" 'r !I I-:::;:1"-. 9 il If:;!?:: ...... "::::-" 1, +I:- .-; t.-.... i.-::u.- '"I"" li;;;:: #""l :#f;X;eIE;;;: i::::;t ;!,,q:;j;b ....., .....- . ':I1 ::1,, 8t;jb :I::;> f;j!]i flh'-x- '"'f-' &.".I Eix'; ..... 'I::::::" 'I' 1:::::; ~...... ~1;": FZ""'4 0" ~3[ .... t~ IF::::: 11:- F:::::" I]‘"'A I:-"' .-y ., .-+ B'.-- ~"'1 -- 8...G ...... - %. 'It II E;::"" I::L: :" '...I,.W- li' d:_;: p"! 6% 11'55.0 ll":a 1#=; ll'."i 11;;:: pk.A""li'-' tl::::: g::_j 4 111"',,.11 (:-: ::I:: 1 'd' .--- .- .....- ,, i ::L: FLU I%,,,J E:;: aAA.~ ; : IF"---- #:?+ n.,~;;;;;jl ?P 1...... ~:::::II li .... j~ ::K 53 ::#: err:!,, ~,.IIc:-I~ r.jy j-iar~p is Jairle~ij l:$\-\~;c;p],J,, 1 \ ::I . , 1 j . ; ./: iy) :i, 11. y ..... i:::,w ~1 p !::I s. an tj c-~l;:,"y "'k e i::t!,,\,.f :L (:,>i::,.k.- .- (;,.f: 5p.v p-j i;jf.i r;-- :!, ,nl::, ... , !::!.,. I:., 1.1. . ,..: 1.-. .:!. I 1 I::! .f I... w !s y i 1 1e "!" p. ,%., , ,..\::: 5 8, I a j . 1:::- -.. ,b- r,-. .$ .k h e (1: <::!1-j r:; e y li (;!(::I "1 i::i '., : c!. '.' ::: SJ-jr-iml~~j,-r2c2.f A,rii?y'1, c a .I: r- (2m .t. e E 1- (7.- 141. i..j ri;. : :i, :L :L p ..... 1:::' e (:jwn.;v j. :I, :I, p .....I ,'I: 5;ah p j, , '.j"p;.;iij ci; a 1:- pa :i, 5;; p !.:imp i;,.f: .k, :i, !;;; nat ion 's 1ar-ge:;i-. :;I.- IF .- L' mpirig 4: I eet . "!"I.-,@ B own :i 1 11...... I .[: ]:sabel,l"e;.;a% area 15; a],!:;(:, i;, >qer\. ec:(::,r.iciril:i,(:::a:[:!,.; (:lp1:jj~:~{::;<::;(!~i'.J., , -...... ,. , . .. - . area. T1-f~sl-.iri,np.ing j.!:; ,i:l.ie i:>.r.ij..;,i r;;;al.qa.i::j.i:ji..i .f:i:jl:- mai'.iy i::j.f: the people j,ri .th:i$i; i!\,l-.i?a,, -l'l-ie i2 c: (::I I,.\ ti)m :i. i::: i:::i::i 1) t l.. :i. 1:) I..! .k :i. i::! I-I !:I .f .k I") W si-,rimping i!-,i:jc\!i;'kt-k., .ti:- ~I.-\F- ifil-@a is i:lyr:.:- .[.: py .t 1.1 a lj in r2 .;; .t I: j .f .+.- h v:- ,t1, e r i n d c,( t j, c.; .r:; .I:1". I k l'.' E i::: c:i IT) L:! 3. 11fi! L:I,, j . I.; : I ::f t:j..) ~i $5h r- i m l:3 in iJ i1-1 cl L.\ !:j 'k p,l i:jc.\ 1c.1 I:, p a p i(1-1 .. I... 1 c: i::: !:j 1.') (1, n-1 :i. i: Iyj 1 i:>\,,J 'h. i:j (2 \..\ K c:.u\-\.thl-e;.;aF; all'.ea a!:; bc\lfi],1 .tll(;? ~i;,ta.[:,(s,, blp .f::iv.. .- , - ,. , I i.1 :i. .l- t.i a v 11 .tCI believe .(rl.-la.[:~\.la.l--~jna], plar.:inp F::':ic;hpr-lp<, S@y\/j.(:::e and .l;.[.jp fi!,,~:!..; I %, 1 C::! (1:) c:: p C:.ounc: i l au..e i g n i:jran .t e 1-1 c:) 1-1. g 1-1 t a 1.i e :I. :i e v e t i- -1 4: .I- 1'.. .- r:) ,,- r,-, .. ., .,. i-1-, radical r-@q\,,\:La.tii:,~lr:.- ,-:,];-I...- -. rle(zcjecju k,l(s ;..II.-, p p.. e (A (:j @ .tI.-! @ i.'. Q e:.: i2; .t arl y hard data tha.'c. c.i n f :i t- rn C; .t h (i? e C:.., .i...... i in c~.,. + .. F2::; an <:I o~..!.tr :i. g 11.t: CJLI~S!~~~the NPII-'S r5tcii:jj.es liave made. BEWRT OF THE SHRIMP MANAG-T KIMHITTEE The Con:nit~tce reviewed .the 13.-aft of Shrimp Amendment. 5 which W~S approved conceptua 1ly at the July meeting ( Tsb H-3 . 01'1- ShrImp Assessment. Pane! r~~zommendedthat the MSYE for r-pcI: shr-imp and sea hoke be re-evaluated, and we made th~srequest of Lhe Center. -We have 'been advised that, because the fishery for these two specias is indirected, and they are +aksn largely as bycekch, the Center is unable to provide better est,irnatras a.t LFlia time. nus, we firrd it. difficult to develop definition for overfishing fur seabohs and rock shrimp. We have nu mznageruent measures fur either species. On behalf of the Cammittee, I -move that we remove rock shrimp and seabobs from the :nanagemwit unit, in the FMF buL ret.aj.n f-.hem in Lhe fishery for data collection pvrposes. We alsu considered the duration of the Te:.:as closvre - now proposed tco be the May 15 to Jv1.y 15 to coincide with khe sLate closvu-e - with f1~:tihiliLy tco be extended to no longer than YO days or reduced t.o no less than 45 days. The Cornrnittae a1so t-ecorrxnends t3he holding uf four- put 1ic hearings to be held this fa11 at Tanps, Mobile, Thihodeaux, and Corpus Christi , and I so move. HABITAT PROTECTION COMMITTEE RECO~ATICINS' 1. The Gulf Council adapt a pclicy supparting coastal wetland management plans t>hst provide t>he faliowing c.ondit.i.ons: JI a. ??-upused pr-ojectss do not impair t*he i~t~eyrityand produ~t~ivityof the nat-ura1 ecasystem. b. Maintain the natural diversity of Fish and wildlife species deperident, upon ~~et~laridswit.hin the pr-apcrsed area . C. Pravide adequate ingrgss and egress fc:r marine species Lo and from managed areas to the e:.:t2ant that 1ong-terrn wetland conser~3t~OT-i goals are not jeoparJizeb. 2 d- Help to preserve natural prodvctivity or to restore productivity of a 1bered or degraded wet 1and 3. 2. The Gvlf Council formulate a puliey opposing msricvlbure projects in coastal wet*lands that do not include the followi,r~gconditions: a. Project configuration will not reduce vegetative productivity, i~pedeingress and egress of wi ld msr-ine organ1sms, and lo:" impede navigation or diminish tidswater circulation in nsLureL ur ~ublic water- co~>r-sesat- nn,t,vra!. 1y prcd~r.t,iv%f 1shex-y habitat.. b. NatZr level rf~anagemenkpragrzms wil l be designed to avoid negative impacC to marsh vegetat,ion . c. Will not culture exotic species. 9. Mill not, antr-ap wi ld finfish crr cr-v~t~aceans. e. !.li 11 &ock onlbr hatchery rpered finfish or cr-ustaceans . f. Nil l include s, rr,onito~-ins Frogram designed to dete!zt tr-ansfer of disease and genetic alterat Y. bli ll include pr-ovisiona for retriedla1 act,ions if a monitoring exercise reveals problems. 3. Write tso t.he (3overnor supporting the Loui s iana Department of Envirc~r~rrrental*alit 4. Urge the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and the Corps of Er:gineers t,o take necessary step~,as req1-7ired by t.he per-u:it:, kc ensvre t,hat. a11 environmcnkal. ruonitoring of cvrrent! y artthori zed, and future marsh management. pt-c!ject.s ak-c accompl i shed, ~rcpeu-1y docu~ented, and in farmat.ion is d i ~tribl~t~ed. '~ulfSt,ates Marine Fisheries Camrfiission's policy is abtached. nfi,dditianal infor-.x:ation on attached page. 1 - C4. Notify the Corps of Engineers of Covnci 1 pcil icy regarding entra~mentof and/or harvesting shrimp witshin, or migrating Frorrt, irnpoundmr-ribs assc!ciat%edwith wetland management activities involving levees and water cont,rol st..ructur-es and request, ther! Lo define t.heir- pol icy or! the: issue, 5. Counci l query the LaFourche Pari sh commerc ia1 fisherman ' s organization concerning their impend iny meeting on maricvltur-e in ~et~lands. If appropriate, send s participant who vil 1 report proceedirrgs at a subsequent Counc i 1 meeti ng . ?. ?listi fy appropriate Corps Districts and state arid federa 1 re"OIJrCE: sgenc ies of' nekr Counci 1 pol icies . 8. Dick Hoogland attend the EPA Gulf of Mexico program (Gvlf Initiative ! syrs!posivrn, TJle Envil-onment.a! 9nd Economic St>stvsof the Gui f of Mexico, ir, New 01-leans, December 2-5, 19'30, and report to the Coa~~litteehow and i f the Counci l can participat,e in t.he program. Footnote Numher Two - Recomrheridation 1, c - Additianal Information - NEFS is very cornforqt.able with thiE: condition. - tong-term ~ontent~iousi ssue tztween F&WS snd NMFS . - Msst mar-sh manayement project involve levees and water- contrcl strvctures de% igned La redvce sslt water intr~~sionand the dc~t~ructian cif fresh 91- int.ermed labe mar-sh veget~ction. - NMFS feels the abstructions reduce or eliminat~ access to shrimp and otker- fisheries nursery areas. - NMFS also feel: that many management ip-oject are for water fowl and fur animal management under t.he PI-etensc of zar-sh rehabi l italion . - NICS would like ta see Recommendation 1, c, written essentially the same as the Svl f Statles Merine Fisheries Comni ssion resolution number- two. - Fish and Hiidlife Service agrees that insuring ingress and egress means status qsro vhich t:-a~slat~esint%o c~nt~intled marsh loss. P.O. Bgx 726 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Larry 8. Simpson (601) 875-5912 Executive Director (FAX) 875-6604 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Habitat Subcommittee of the Technical Coordinating Committee of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission recognizes that marsh management plans have been developed to address numerous fish and wi ldlife resource issues in the coastal zone, WHEREAS, the TCC Habitat - Subcommittee further recognizes that action on these management plans by member states has been somewhat limited, and there is growing concern regarding extensive marsh management proposals, WHEREAS, in view of the importance of our wetlands resources to the fisheries resources of interest to the Commission, the TCC Habitat Subcommittee recommends that the Commission adopt the following position relative to marsh management activities, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission supports marsh management plans that: (1) maintain the integrity of the wetlands ecosystem and its diversity of fish and wildlife species that utilize these wetlands areas, (2) insure ingress and egress of marine species into marsh areas affected by marsh management proposal s,, (3) enhance altered or degraded wetlands to more naturally productive conditions, and (4) maintain or improve the natural productivity of fish and wild1 ife resources which u-ti 1i ze the wet1 ands. Given this the 16th day of March in the year of Our Lord, One Thousand, Nine Hundred, Ninety. Thomas A.3011 ott, Chai rman fi - Member States - Louisiana Mississippr Alabama Florida t SPINY LOBSTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT The Cammi t.t-ee reviewed the South At.lant ic Caunci I s ' s comments snd suggested revisions (Tab E, Number 41. The South Atlantic Council approved the draft amendment to establish an overfishing definition, vith only minor suggested editorial changes. NMFS suggested we delete the reference to creating additional sanctuaries an page faur, under Section 2. The Committee accepted both the Sauth Atlantic Cauncil's and NMFS' suggested revisions and approved Lhs modified draft amendment far presentation at the public hearing. And an bohaIf of tha Cammittzee, I move to adapt the draft amendment far presentation at the puhlic hearing. Also the Committee approved halding a single public hearing on the amendment in Marathon, Florida, to be held sometime in October in conjunction with the stone crab overfishing amendment puhlic hearing. And on behalf of the Committee, I so move. REPORT OF THE BILLFISH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE The Committee reviewed the definition of overfishing as provided by the Sauth Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Tab C, number 3 1. This definition proposes that a fishing mortality rate exceeding FO.l or one that if maintained would reduce the spawning stock biomass per recruit below 30 percent of the SPR at F=O would be considered overfishing. CPUE is used as a proxy in the model for SPR. We do not believe we are in an overfished condition. The Miami Center will give us an assessment within the next year. If overfishing, as defined, accurs far three ye.ars, the Councils will be required to take some action to reduce f'ishing mortality. The reduction could be in the farm of increased size limits or hag limits or a combination for the recreational fishery. In cammsrcial fisheries where significant bycatch accurs, gear restriction or area closures could be implemented. The Committee recommends and I nave that the Council advise the South Atlantic Council that we concur with their definition. Vx. Pedrick has suggested that we might also suggest that the SAC consider including the three year period within the actual definition of averfishing, and on behalf of the Committee I move that staff include this in our response. The Sauth Atlantic Cauncil has requested that we hold a public hearing en.this issue after we receive the draft amendment. The Committee recommends and I so move that we hold a public hearing in Tampa in conjunction with our November Council meeting. That would be the earliest time that this Council can act an the draft. JOINT BEEF FISHlSHBIMP COMMITTEE REPORT ~JR)WSW, SEP~ER18, asso Two motions were passed : 1 j To propose a plan amendment to extend the Framework procedure target date be:fond t.he year- 200 0. 2) To maintain status quo fur 1991. The Comrnitst-ee discvzsed at 1cngt.h t.he legal constraints created in Amendment I and t..he tiological constraints ari rebuilding red snapper to 20 percent SFR the year 2000. The Committee also heard reports from Dr. Scott Nichols on the updated Lycatck analyses and from Dr. Frank WcsLer-. of Living Mar-in= Eesovr-ces on an independent analysis af the NMFS stock assessments, bycst,ch analyses and available economic analyses. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL SOUTHEAST AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORT It has been an extremely busy summer as evidenced by the number of cases that have been documented between 7/7 and 9/7/90. Certainly TEDs have been the greatest enforcement concern and have occupied most of our time and resources. Highlights of significant actions follow the statistics. Between 7/7/90 and 9/7/90 enforcement cases in the Southeast Region totaled 224 as follows: Magnuson Act Atlantic Billfish ...... 2 Atlantic Sea Scallops ...... 3 Coral ...... 2 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources . . 2 Reef Fish ...... 34 Shrimp ...... 9 Snapper/Grouper ...... 4 Spiny Lobster (Gulf) ...... 58 Swordfish ...... 1 Endanqered Species ...... 100 Lacey Act ...... 7 Marine Mammal ...... 2 MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION and MANAGEMENT ACT: Spiny Lobster: During June, in the vicinity of Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, four cases of unlawfully deployed lobster traps were documented and 27 traps were seized and destroyed. Due to the TED situation, NMFS Law Enforcement cut back their commitment to recreational lobster weekend from eight special agents to two resident agents. Coast Guard District Seven went forward with the Florida Marine Patrol, and did an absolutely remarkable job. Fielding 53 boarding officers from Miami through Key West, Coast Guard teams boarded 1047 vessels in 48 hours and documented 53 federal and state violations. The Summary Settlement System proved to be very user-friendly for the Coast Guard boarding teams and contributed to their success. Most violations documented possession of undersize lobster or bag limit violations. Penalties ranged from $150 to $600 per ticket. Reef Fish: A very significant violation of the prohibition against bottom longlining on the west coast of Florida was documented in August when a NMFS Special Agent and NOAA Corp Officers, using a 40' go-fast boat, caught the F/V GULF STAR with its gear deployed four miles inside the closed area. Four thousand pounds of unlawfully taken grouper and snapper were seized at a value of $6,023.65. The alleged violator, Ken Drachak, was completely surprised by the approach of the unmarked vessel. One local fisheries organization asked if it was legal for a NOAA boat with a Special Agent aboard to enforce the Magnuson Act since they have only seen Coast Guard units to date. ENDANGERED SPECIES: TEDs : On 6/14/90, NOAA Administrative Law Judge, Hugh Dolan, ruled in favor of the government on eight TED cases. These cases were the first that have been heard in the civil administrative system, The respondents were all assessed jointly and severally for $8,000. During July 1990, a significant number of TED cases were made off Georgia and Texas which revealed a trend in sewing or closing in some other way the opening in the TED to render it inoperative. U.S. Coast Guard units from the Seventh and Eighth Districts responded by committing additional resources to increase patrols. On 6/16/90, NMFS announced during a press conference in Houston, Texas that due to low compliance and the increased number of TEDs that were being rendered inoperative, the agency would begin referring cases for criminal prosecution and vessel captains would be arrested. To date, 27 individuals have been indicted by Grand Juries and two cases are pending review-by U.S. Attorneys in the South Atlantic and Gulf Areas. On 8/21/90, Edward Currie, F/V "MR. SIMMONS" plead guilty to one count of violating the Endangered Species Act. His vessel was boarded by NMFS and the Coast Guard on 8/20/90 and in the course of pursuit, a crew member cut the cables and the nets were lost at sea. Sentencing is in 30 days. In total, 37 criminal cases have been documented since the change in policy. We are pleased to report that we currently have very good compliance with TED regulations. For the last month, compliance has been between 80% and 90% in the Gulf of Mexico area. In other areas, agents report that shrimpers have resigned themselves to using TEDs when and where required. Most of the criminal cases should be resolved within the next 30 days as they are all misdemeanor offenses . LACEY ACT: A two day operation at the end of June by the Southeast, Southwest and Northeast law enforcement offices focused on airport inspections for unmarked or improperly marked shellfish being shipped into various states. Although all cases did not involve shellfish, there were 30 violations of the Lacey Act marking regulations documented at four airports in the southeast. A Federal Grand Jury in Miami returned a true bill on August 17, 1990, charging eight Lacey Act violations against Chris Gaklis. The case involved unlawful importation of lobster tails from the Bahamas and the Florida Marine Patrol Officers who initiated the case also seized the defendant's aircraft which was allegedly being used to transport the product. Two recreational fishermen were cited for possession of lobster tails and sea fans when intercepted by the Coast Guard boarding officers from Lake Worth, Florida. The two recreational fishermen were returning from the Bahamian waters. 7- CltIMlNAL CASE STATUS SUMMARY T HI<*. ?-1?-10- Vessel Name CCN# STATUS 1 TX 4666 ZT SE 900555 Indicted 2 Lil Vicki SE 900561 Indicted 3 St. Mart-in SL' 900553 Indicted 4 Gulf Star S1.I 900558 Indicted 5 Iron Eagle SE 900542 Il~dicted 6 Master Francis SE 9005-44 indicted Tar1 Tien Capt Hoang Lady 120se bliss Jennie Star Iiristi Re1.m liristi Hc-na Gulf Shrinip I1.1!1ic-ted \;hi te Sl)l.ia~l, Indie-Led 111.. ~:LIT.O~~: Irldicted 1. i s 1.1 ia~III:~ 1A I _'; ltidicted SL. !licllai.l I Inclicted Pursuer Indicted Fir. P,i-ady Indicted Capt. Kent Indicted Cape Fairwell Indicted 22 God's Will SE 900647 Indicted 23 Moonglow SE 900648 Indicted 24 El Tahur SE 900600 Indicted I I 25 Erin & Amy SE 900601 Prosecution Decl ined zd Do4 ib L ~C~OOS?I‘~TNIS~LT~~ NOAA, SOUTHEAST REGION PENALTIES FINAL: RESPONDENT VIOLATION ...... ------ASSESSED------AMOUNT Endangered Species Act: CONNOLLY, SANG DEROUVEN, LARRY J. Lacey Act: DIAMOND BLUES TUNA, INC. ROBY, VICTOR Marine Sanctuaries Act: CAMEJO, LUIS A. LOPEZ, ALAN K. MCCARTHY, WILLIAM PEREZ, MARIO BOYKIN, ARTHUR D. Magnuson Act: DEEP SEA TRAWLERS, INC. GONZALES, INC. HENLEY, CHRISTOPHER D. PENALTIES PAID: ...... RESPONDENT ------AMOUNT PAID Magnuson Act: FULLER FORD CO., INC. FULLER, HUGH D. WESTBROOK, JAMES T. GRAY, DWIGHT M. BARNETT, JOHN U. HANCOCK, MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, MANUEL A. KESSLER, DAVID L. LENSGRAF, ERIC L. MYERS, JERRY U. PEREZ, FRANK PERKINS, JAMS Y. REEVES, JOHN T, WALTER, CARLTW D. WISE, MARK K. LE, CAI T. PADILLA, ANGEL MARTINEZ TRAN, PHUONG THANH WASHINGTON, MELVIN WILLIAMS, HELEN F. GONULEZ, REINADO GONULEZ, SERGIO DUNG, TRAN VAN NGO, CHAU A. PHAM, TAN M. SHEENA CORP. THOMAS, ANTHONY L., I11 VO, HUNG THANH ARNSDORFF, LOUIS Endangered Species Act: BILLINGS, GALE JOHNSON, RICKY JOINT ADVENTURE, INC. NGHIEM, BILLY VU, TU VIET WILLIAMS, HELEN F. Lacey Act: AARO SEAFOODS NEW ZEALAND SEAFOOD MARKETING, INC. RALBORAY, INC. SAUNDERS, GARY #. RUBINA & LISA, INC../RUBEN BARRERA, INC. Marine Sanctuaries Act: ALLEN, BUTCH R. BARELLA, JOSEPH S. BARKER, FRANK W. BARRY, JOHN K. BOUEN, BRYAN BOULING, BILLY J. CARDENAS, JORGE CASAS, JOSE L. CASTRO, CARLOS CONUAY, JOHN J. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. DAVIS, MICHAEL DELACRUZ, ALBERT0 E. DIFRANZA, GREGORY G. ELEY, MICHAEL A. ENRIPUEZ, ALAN FRANKO, JOSE A. GARCIA, GUALBERTO HENDERSON, THOMAS A. HERNANDEZ, VICTORIA M. HOLLENBECK, STEVE HUNSBERGER, MARK D. KELLEY, R. L. KUCHLER, FREDERICK L. LIVINGSTW, CRAIG S. MADDEN, CHARLES II. MADDICK, KIM MAGL IAR 1SI , SALVAOaRE MAKSYMIAK, STM MIRO, CLAUD10 L. OLMEDO, JOSE R. PAVEY, ROBERT A. PRENDIVILLE, STEPHEN RADILLO, OSCAR REDDICK, GAYLEN L. REYES, SANTIAGO I. RICH, DONALD L. SANCHE7 "'IROZ, JULIO WARD U. SCURTO, PAUL SEAMAN, WADE SEWARES, JAMES SHELLEY, ROBERT THIBODEAU, JOSEPH A. URBAN, CLARENCE R. VENTIMIGLIA, RICHARD K. ZAYAS-BAZAN. MIGUEL A. FORFEITURES: Magnuson Act: SANG, PHAM RAMIREZ, JUAN VAN, TRON CHE/LE, TRUNG HOANG