Seafood Watch Seafood Report

Black Drum Pogonias cromis

U.S. Gulf of Mexico

June 29, 2011

Dr. Sara Adlerstein and Dr. Erika Zollett MRAG Americas, Inc. Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ...... 6 II. Introduction ...... 9 III. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species ...... 16 Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure ...... 31 Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks ...... 28 Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch ...... 52 Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems ...... 58 Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime ...... 65 IV. Overall Seafood Recommendation: ...... 80 V. References ...... 81

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Capture Fisheries Evaluation

Species: Black drum Region: U.S. Gulf of Mexico

Analyst: Sara Adlerstein and Erika Zollett Date: June 29th, 2011

Seafood Watch™ defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program. Species from sustainable capture fisheries: • have a low vulnerability to fishing pressure, and hence a low probability of being overfished, because of their inherent life history characteristics; • have stock structure and abundance sufficient to maintain or enhance long-term fishery productivity; • are captured using techniques that minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species; • are captured in ways that maintain natural functional relationships among species in the ecosystem, conserves the diversity and productivity of the surrounding ecosystem, and do not result in irreversible ecosystem state changes; and • have a management regime that implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and utilizes a precautionary approach to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem.

Seafood Watch has developed a set of five sustainability criteria, corresponding to these guiding principles, to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: 1. Inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure 2. Status of wild stocks 3. Nature and extent of discarded bycatch 4. Effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems 5. Effectiveness of the management regime

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other wild-caught invertebrates. 4

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Each criterion includes: • Primary factors to evaluate and rank • Secondary factors to evaluate and rank • Evaluation guidelines2 to synthesize these factors • A resulting rank for that criterion

Once a rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation for the species in question is developed based on additional evaluation guidelines. The ranks for each criterion, and the resulting overall seafood recommendation, are summarized in a table. Criterion ranks and the overall seafood recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories of the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Consumers are strongly encouraged to purchase seafood in this category. The wild-caught species is sustainable as defined by Seafood Watch.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Consumers are encouraged to purchase seafood in this category, as they are better choices than seafood in the Avoid category. However there are some concerns with how this species is fished and thus it does not demonstrate all of the qualities of a sustainable fishery as defined by Seafood Watch.

Avoid/Red: Consumers are encouraged to avoid seafood in this category, at least for now. Species in this category do not demonstrate enough qualities to be defined as sustainable by Seafood Watch.

2 Evaluation Guidelines throughout this document reflect common combinations of primary and secondary factors that result in a given level of conservation concern. Not all possible combinations are shown— other combinations should be matched as closely as possible to the existing guidelines. 5

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

I. Executive Summary

This report evaluates the ecological sustainability of the Gulf of Mexico black drum (Pogonias cromis) commercial fishery. The species is broadly distributed from New England to Argentina, and there are multiple stocks with restricted intermixing. In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the black drum distribution spans multiple jurisdictions in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, occurring in both state and federal waters. The report focuses on black drum trotline commercial harvest, and mostly in Louisiana and Texas, as commercial harvest in other states is insignificant.

Although the intrinsic rate of the black drum population growth is unknown, life history characteristics are well studied. The species is long lived, with findings of individuals of up to 60 years old. The species matures at ages between 2 to 6 (50% maturity at about 24 – 25 inches), and has moderate growth rates (with significant variation of the Von Bertalanffy growth coefficient reported among studies between 0.219 and 0.051). Although growth tends to slow down near maturity Von Bertalanffy growth curves do not fit the data well for younger ages. Black drum has a high reproductive potential with annual estimates up to 67 million ova, spawn in offshore areas near passes, inlets or bays and form large, offshore schools, which can make the adult part of the population susceptible to fishing. The quality of black drum estuarine habitat along the Gulf of Mexico is increasingly stressed by human demands. Overall, the biology of black drum along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico results in Seafood Watch ® deeming it to be moderately resilient to fishing pressure.

The fishery has experienced changes in the last decades. The age of recruitment to the recreational and commercial fishery in the Gulf of Mexico has varied among states and over time. Currently, the black drum commercial fishery is basically a trotline fishery that targets juveniles and adults within the territorial sea and internal waters of the Gulf States; and virtually all harvest occurs in state waters. Trotlines are specialized longlines used in shallow waters and estuaries usually containing about fifty hooks or less on a line. The black drum size limit among Gulf States ranges between 14 and 30 inches (14-24 inches in Florida, 16–27 inches in Louisiana, and 14–30 inches in Texas), and thus the fishery targets mostly juveniles, since 50% maturity is attained at 24–25 inches. There is also a quota for fish over 27 inches in Louisiana (“bull drum”). BMSY is unknown and stock assessments are unavailable to determine levels of current fishing mortality relative to FMSY. In Florida, trends in fishery dependent and independent population estimates suggest that the stock is at stable levels. In Louisiana and Texas, trends in harvest and fishery independent assessments suggest that stocks are in good shape with stable long term levels. The status of black drum stocks is thus considered a moderate conservation concern.

No information could be ascertained as to the extent of impact in black drum trotline bycatch in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, the trotline gear is fairly selective and release of non-target species probably results in low mortalities. In Texas waters, removing the gear over weekend days and the circle hook requirement are thought to reduce potential bycatch. In particular the use of

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

a circle hook reduces the possibility that turtles would swallow hooks and become endangered by trotline gear. Bycatch is considered a moderate conservation concern because the extent of bycatch is unknown, although it is expected to be low.

Very little information is available about the impact of the black drum trotline fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico on the ecosystem(s). Fishing effort and removals in Alabama and Mississippi are low. In Texas, trotlines cannot exceed 600 feet (200 yards) in length or 200 circle hooks, and in Louisiana the maximum length is 440 yards. In Florida, harvest with any multiple hooks in conjunction with live bait is prohibited. Further, the trotline has only a moderate impact on sea bottom habitats. Trotlines are set over mud and sand bottoms, thus the gear would not be set near coral or sponges or habitats with other organisms found on the bottom.

The black drum stock in Louisiana and Texas can be considered fully utilized. Informal stock assessments are conducted for the black drum stock in Louisiana, while assessments are not available for Texas, Alabama, Mississippi or Florida. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission assesses the status of the stocks in Florida and conducts young-of-the-year surveys. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries assesses the status of the stock from Louisiana waters; until 2010 assessments were carried out biennially and new legislation extended the period to every five years. The assessment compares the status of the stock against legislatively mandated conservation standard of 30% Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR). If the status of the stock is found to be below 30% SPR, the Department is required to close the fishery for a period of at least one year. Landings information is collected through a trip ticket reporting program. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department assesses status of black drum in Texas waters. Although no formal stock assessment has been conducted, the division conducts annual coast-wide fishery independent surveys to evaluate trends in population abundance. Commercial landings information is collected annually as part of the Trip Ticket Program. Fishery independent data are collected by both states to evaluate population trends. There are enforcement programs and there is no information to suspect non-compliance with fishery regulations. As a result, Seafood Watch considers the black drum fishery management moderately effective.

Due to the moderate conservation concern of five of the five criteria, the trotline black drum fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is ranked a Moderate choice by Seafood Watch ®.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Table of Sustainability Ranks Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ Nature of Bycatch √ Habitat & Ecosystem Effects √ Management Effectiveness √

About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: • A seafood product is ranked Best Choice if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked Good Alternative if the five criteria “average” to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the “Status of Stocks” and “Management Effectiveness” criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked Avoid if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above.

Overall Seafood Recommendation:

Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

II. Introduction

The black drum (Pogonias cromis) is a common sciaenid species and a member of the drum family but has been referred to as the croaker family at times. Black drum are the largest members of the Sciaenidae family and can reach over 120 pounds. The species is long-lived, growth is moderate, and maturity is reached between 2 to 6 years of age. They are found in nearshore waters of the western Atlantic from New England to Argentina and in various habitats throughout the Gulf of Mexico (George et al. 2008). Juveniles inhabit estuarine waters and occasionally move into near shelf waters as adults. Black drum distribution in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico spans multiple jurisdictions in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, occurring in both state and federal waters; though, are particularly abundant in Texas and Louisiana. Black drum can live in shallow waters where their backs are exposed or in waters more than 100 feet deep. They are attracted to freshwater runoff of creeks and rivers but can also live in the salty Gulf of Mexico waters, making them a versatile fish, more available to anglers than many other fish in the area (TPWD 2011b).

Black drum often inhabit shallow estuarine waters where their prey are most abundant. Young black drum feed on marine worms, small shrimp, crabs, and small fish (TPWD 2011b). Larger individuals feed mostly on mollusks, crabs and shrimps. Black drum are important predators of oysters (Leard et al. 1993, George et al. 2008). The Louisiana oyster industry is worth more than $32 million annually, and a recent study investigated ways to reduce depredation of oysters by black drum (George et al. 2008). As juveniles, black drum are prey to a wide range of estuarine piscivores (FWRI 2010). Adults can undergo migrations. Migrations are small when food is plentiful and water conditions are acceptable; long migrations in search of food have occasionally been recorded (TPWD 2011b). Black drum are known to feed in large aggregations (George et al. 2008).

The only comprehensive regional fishery management plan for the black drum fishery in the Gulf of Mexico was conducted by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) in 1993. The black drum was described as a complex species from a management perspective based on detailed information on the fishery (recreational and commercial) in different areas during the 1990s (Leard et al. 1993). Black drum recruited to the recreational fishery about age one and to some commercial fisheries shortly thereafter. After age two the catches by sport and commercial fishers declined rapidly to age four, and few fish over age six were caught. The species then gradually recruited to other commercial fisheries through age 10 or 12, and diminished over age 30 (Leard et al. 1993). The commercial fishery has changed in the last decades and regulations among states establish a size range between 16 and 30 inches (36 to 76 cm), which corresponds broadly to ages 0 to 15. In Louisiana, black drum enter the fishery at age 0 and are fully recruited by age 5 (Adriance 2011).

Total black drum landings for the Gulf reached over 10 million pounds between 1987 and 1989 and declined thereafter to remain at levels between 4 and 6 million pounds until 2009 (Figure 1). The fisheries target juveniles and adults within the territorial sea and

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

internal waters of the Gulf States; and virtually all harvest occurs in state waters. The majority of the black drum commercial harvest in the Gulf region can be attributed to Louisiana and Texas.

Gulf of Mexico Commercial Landings

8 Pounds 6 Million

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 1: Total commercial landings of black drum for the Gulf of Mexico, 1960-2009 (NMFS 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

In the Gulf States black drum were relatively undesirable until about 1979, and stocks were underutilized except in Texas. The fishery grew rapidly from 1979 to 1987, and commercial landings exceeded historical highs by more than five-fold (Figure 1). This increase occurred primarily as a result of the large demand for “blackened” fish in restaurants and the ability of black drum to substitute for red drum, the more desirable species. A perceived problem in the fishery originally centered on the concern that the rapidly escalating catches, from approximately 1979 to 1988 in the north central Gulf, were resulting in overfishing, particularly of the adult spawning stocks. However, a stock assessment conducted in 1993 concluded that the black drum population in the Gulf was healthy; yet states should continue to monitor their fisheries to maintain a conservation standard that is at least equivalent to 20% SSB/R ratio (Leard et al. 1993). Although the spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSB/R) ratio from stock assessment showed evidence of declines from 1986 to 1990, there was no determination that either growth or recruitment overfishing was occurring. The stock assessment, nevertheless, was limited by paucity of catch and effort data, age frequency and overall knowledge of the life history of the species (Leard et al. 1993). Since 1988 the demand for black drum diminished, and in 1991, Gulf landings returned to pre1979 levels and have increased slightly to stable levels since 1994. The low commercial value accounts for relative lack of utilization of black drum. No current federal fishery management plan exists for black drum, and management measures vary by state. Because black drum are found most often in territorial waters, individual states exercise most of the management authority (Leard et al. 1993).

Florida Florida ranks fourth in the Gulf total black drum production. Florida manages black drum through size limits, restricting the commercial takes to fish between 14 and 24 inches in total length (Leard et al. 1993). Purse seines and pound nets are prohibited in territorial waters, and harvest by any multiple hook gear in conjunction with live or dead natural bait is also prohibited (FLFWC 1989). Black drum are not important commercially in Florida, but are considered significant recreationally, with recreational landings reaching up to 98% of the total (Hill 2005). Between 1987 and 2001, the commercial harvest in Florida totaled 1.6 million pounds, and was valued at $679,928 (Hill 2005). Approximately 69.7% of black drum landings occurred on Florida's west coast where since 2001, landings have remained under 50,000 lbs (NMFS 2011).

Alabama Alabama ranks fifth in the Gulf total black drum landings. There is no size limit for black drum, but there are gear regulations: hook and line devices cannot contain more than five hooks in the state salt waters (Leard et al. 1993). Prior to 1986 landings predominantly came from trawl bycatch and trammel nets (Leard et al. 1993). Although there are no important landing areas in Alabama, small catches are sold to fish markets and other retail outlets throughout the coastal area. Increased effort and landings in the 1980s were significant, though represented only a 1% increase in the Gulf of Mexico landings (Leard et al. 1993). Since the 1990s landings have remained under 200,000 lbs (NMFS 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Mississippi Mississippi ranks third in the Gulf total black drum production but the species is rarely commercially targeted and landings are incidental catch of other species trotline fisheries (Devers 2011). There are no specific fishing regulations for black drum (size limits, catch quotas, bag limits, or possession limits) in Mississippi, but the use of longlines is prohibited. Landings were significant in the 1980s reaching up to 4 million pounds (NMFS 2011). The growth of the black drum fishery in Mississippi during this period was much more substantial than in Florida and Alabama, presumably due to an increase in marketability of black drum in the wake of greater fishery restrictions on red drum (Leard et al. 1993). Nevertheless, Blanchet (2011) challenges that view and argues that there were no restrictions on red drum fishing in the early 1980s in Mississippi. In the last two decades landings have remained insignificant (NMFS 2011).

Louisiana The black drum fishery in the Gulf is largest in Louisiana, where there are active commercial and recreational fisheries. Recreational regulations include minimum size limits (16–27 inches) and a daily bag limit of five fish per person. Commercial regulations couple quotas with size limits, for fish 16–27 inches the annual quota is 3.25 million pounds, for fish greater than 27 inches, harvest is limited to 300,000 heads (Blanchet 2010). Gear restrictions prohibit the use of "set" gill nets or trammel nets in saltwater areas, and restrict the use of "strike" nets to the period between the third Monday in October and March 1 of the following year. Trotlines are the primary commercial gear in use; other commercial gears include set lines, otter trawls, skimmer nets, and butterfly nets. Rod and reels are primarily used in the recreational fishery (Blanchet 2010); although small, there is an increasing catch and release recreational fly fishery (Adriance 2011). The fishing year begins September 1 and closes when the quota is met (Adriance 2011).

Commercial landings rose rapidly in the 1980s from 0.4 to 8.7 million pounds, though regulations implemented in 1989 decreased landings, which were maintained between 2–4 million pounds from 1989 to 1995 (Blanchet 2010). Lower landings in late 1990s resulted from implemented regulations. In the 2000s, landings increased until the fishery was impacted by the passage of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Recent landings are again on the rise (Blanchet 2010). The fishery for the largest fish (greater than 27”), the so-called "bull drum," targeting fish over about 15 lbs. gutted weight, has declined most substantially over this time period, which puts little pressure on the adult spawning stock.

Texas

Texas ranks second in the Gulf total black drum production. The commercial finfish fishery which includes mainly black drum and flounder is the state’s fourth most valuable inshore fishery. Regulations for the black drum fishery include size limits, gear restrictions and a limited entry program (TPWD 2003). The commercial size limit for the black drum fishery is between 14 and 30 inches in total length. A coast wide net ban occurred in 1988. Current regulations provide two primary legal commercial gears for finfish, trotlines

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

and fish gigs. Trotline gear was attributed for 99.2% of the black drum landings in Texas in 2010 (Morris 2011). Trotlines are legal up to 600 feet in length with as many as 200 circle-type hooks. The gear used in inland and bay waters has to be set 200 feet from the Gulf Intracoastal Waters, 50 feet apart, without the use of metallic stakes, baited with natural baits on circle-type hooks, and removed from the waters from 1:00 pm on Friday to 1:00 pm on Sunday of each week (Leard et al. 1993). Each licensed fisher can legally fish up to 20 trotlines. A limited entry program called the Finfish License Management Program was implemented for the fishery in 2000 which also provided authority to establish a voluntary license buyback program. Annual landings in Texas by the commercial fishery have fluctuated over the years with increases in the early 1990s reaching over 4 million pounds and with lower but stable values in the last ten years (NMFS 2011).

The organizations responsible for fisheries management in general along the Gulf States include Natural Resources, Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks departments as administrative bodies, while the administrative policy making and decision rule relays on wildlife and fisheries and wildlife commissions as shown in the following table, that was assembled in the 1990s but remains informative (Table 1).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Table 1: Organizations responsible for fisheries management in general along the Gulf States (Leard et al. 1993).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation: This report covers black drum harvest in the commercial fisheries of the states along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico using trotlines. Most of the harvest is from Louisiana and Texas.

Availability of Science

Primary literature on species basic biology, distribution, population and fishery trends for the black drum in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is available in peer reviewed literature. The life history of black drum in the Gulf of Mexico is in general adequately described, and estimates of growth and fecundity are available (Doerzbacher et al. 1988, Murphy and Taylor 1989, Beckman et al. 1990, Fitzhugh et al. 1993, Leard et al. 1993, Nieland and Wilson 1993, Murphy and Muller 1995, Gold and Richardson 1998, Jones and Wells 1998, Waggy et al. 2006, George et al. 2008).

Although black drum is distributed along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico States, harvest is mostly from Louisiana and Texas (Leard et al. 1993). Thus, information on population trends in those two states is more readily available (TPWD 2003, Hill 2005, FWRI 2009, Blanchet 2010). Studies on population dynamic processes, such as the intrinsic population growth rate, do not exist.

Current abundance indices are available from independent survey studies for black drum in Florida, Louisiana and Texas conducted by Parks, Wildlife and Fisheries divisions (TPWD 2003, Blanchet 2010, FWRI 2010). Harvest trends are available from a Gulf-wide management plan document by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries (Leard 1993), from assessments conducted and reported by Parks and Wildlife, and Wildlife and Fisheries division (TPWD 2003, Hill 2005, FWRI 2009, Blanchet 2010), and landings statistics from the National Atmospheric Oceanographic Organization (NMFS 2011). Additional data were provided by researchers from Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Martinez-Andrade 2011, Adriance 2011).

Other population dynamic data that are necessary for management are rather deficient. Catch per unit effort, for both the commercial and recreational fisheries are in many cases incomplete and there is a need for better estimates of natural mortality, annual age— length keys necessary to conduct age— based population assessments, and characterization of the age structure of the adult harvest. Louisiana, however, actively collects otoliths. The enforcement status is unknown but there are institutions and programs in place for monitoring control and surveillance activities.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Market Availability

Common and market names: Black drum, Texas Drum, Puppy Drum, Sea Drum, Saltwater Drum, Gray Drum, Drumfish, Striped Drum, Tambor. FDA market name = drum

Seasonal availability: These fish are caught throughout the year along the Gulf coast, including Texas and Louisiana where they are most common. Fish taken in cold weather before spawning tend to be fatter and in better condition than those caught in summer after spawning. The fishing season begins September 1 in Louisiana and remains open until the quota is met.

Product forms: Sold fresh, and frozen; gutted, head-on or off, and as fillet, skinless, or skin on (Skinner 2006). Many coastal seafood restaurants serve drum extensively. Drum weighing more than five pounds usually have coarse flesh: the larger the fish, the coarser the flesh. Rather than eating these larger drums, anglers are encouraged to release them to spawn and fight another day. "Spaghetti worms," common in spotted seatrout are present in larger drum and, while unappetizing, they are not harmful to humans (TPWD 2011b).

Import and export sources and statistics: There are no statistics on import and export of U.S. black drum from the Gulf of Mexico. This species is used for domestic consumption.

III. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species

Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure

Guiding Principle: Sustainable wild-caught species have a low vulnerability to fishing pressure, and hence a low probability of being overfished, because of their inherent life history characteristics.

Primary Factors3 to evaluate Intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’) ¾ High (> 0.16)

3 These primary factors and evaluation guidelines follow the recommendations of Musick et al. (2000). Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries 25:6-30. 16

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

¾ Medium (0.05–0.16) ¾ Low (< 0.05) ¾ Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information There are no population-level studies or estimates available for black drum intrinsic population rate of increase from any of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico states or other areas where the species is found.

Reference(s)

Other notes

Age at 1st maturity ¾ Low (< 5 years) ¾ Medium (5–10 years) ¾ High (>10 years) ¾ Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Black drum are reported to mature between 2 to 6 years of age in the Gulf and Atlantic waters. Males mature at a younger age than females, with estimates varying by area. In northeast Florida, males were found to mature between ages 4 and 5 and females between ages 5 and 6 (Murphy and Taylor 1989). In the northern Gulf of Mexico, less than 1% of age 4 female black drums were found to be mature, few females mature before age 5, while all females age 5 and older were considered to have achieved sexual maturity; for males, 7% were

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

mature at age 3, 55% at age 4, and all at age 5 (Nieland and Wilson 1993).

Reference(s) Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Northeast Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=89murphy%5F0628%2Epdf&objid=34541&dltype=pu blication. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. Other notes

Von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (‘k’) ¾ High (> 0.16) ¾ Medium (0.05–0.15) ¾ Low (< 0.05) ¾ Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Estimates of the vB length model growth coefficient for black drum vary among studies depending on the method used and ranging from high (0.219) to medium (0.051). The lowest estimate of 0.051 was by Beckman et at. (1990) from fish collected in northern Gulf of Mexico. The estimate was based on specimens mostly caught with different size gillnets, which could bias the result. A higher estimate of k = 0.124 (+/- 0.003) was obtained by Murphy and Taylor (1989) from otolith readings of individuals caught in northeast Florida.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Murphy and Muller (1995) from a study in west-central Florida obtained an estimate of k = 0.171. Richards (1973) estimated k at 0.158 from otolith analysis of individuals caught in Virginia. Based on otolith readings from a sample of fish ages 3 to 44 collected in Louisiana the estimate of k was 0.21 (George et al. 2008). Doerzbacher et al. (1988) estimates from tag return individuals caught in Texas were much higher with k reaching 0.219. Doerzbacher et al (1988) acknowledged that the source of tag return data affected the parameter estimation. All studies reported no significant growth differences between male and female fish. Thus, there is significant variation between estimates, irrespective of location, and given that the species is long lived lower estimates seem more plausible.

Reference(s) Beckman, D. W., A. L. Stanley, J. H. Render, and C. A. Wilson. 1990. Age and growth of black drum in Louisiana USA water of the Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:537-544. Doerzbacher, J., A. Green, and G. Matlock. 1988. A Temperature Compensated von Bertalanffy Growth Model for Tagged Red Drum and Black Drum in Texas Bays. Fisheries Research 6:135-152. George, G. J., K. M. Brown, G. W. Peterson, and B. A. Thompson. 2008. Removal of black drum on Louisiana reefs to increase survival of Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1802-1811. Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Northeast Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=89murphy%5F0628%2Epdf&objid=34541&dltype=pu blication. Murphy, M. D., and T. Muller. 1995. Stock Assessment of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Florida. FMRI, In-house Report Series IHR, 1995-2005. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=ihr1995%2D005%5F4939%2Epdf&objid=43041&dlty pe=publication.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Richards, C. E. 1973. Age, growth and distribution of the black drum (Pogonias cromis) in Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102:584-590. Other notes

Maximum age ¾ Low (< 11 years) ¾ Medium (11–30 years) ¾ High (> 30 years) ¾ Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Black drum are long-lived. Along the mid-Atlantic coast, they reach their largest sizes (60-70 Kg) and live 50–60 years (Jones and Wells 1998). Specimens up to 40 years old are known from Louisiana (LDWF 2010), and maximum age is estimated to be 43 years on Florida’s Gulf coast and 58 years in the Atlantic coast (Murphy and Muller 1995). Specimens from the northern Gulf of Mexico infrequently exceed 40 years (Nieland and Wilson 1993).

Reference(s) Jones, C. M., and B. K. Wells. 1998. Age, growth and mortality of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in the Chesapeake Bay region. U.S. National Marine Service Fishery Bulletin 99:328-337. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/963/jones.pdf. LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Murphy, M. D., and T. Muller. 1995. Stock Assessment of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Florida. FMRI, In-house Report Series IHR,

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

1995-2005. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=ihr1995%2D005%5F4939%2Epdf&objid=43041&dlty pe=publication. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. Other notes

Reproductive potential (fecundity) ¾ High (>100 inds./year) ¾ Moderate (10–100 inds./year) ¾ Low (<10 inds./year) ¾ Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Black drum are multiple spawners with continuous oocyte production throughout the spawning season and are capable of spawning approximately every 3 days (Fitzhugh et al. 1993). Males and females spawn over a protracted period of approximately 100 days from January to April (Nieland and Wilson 1993). The relative fecundity reported by Waggy et al. (2006) based on studies by several authors is from 67 to 793 (ova/g). Batch fecundity reported by Waggy et al. (2006) is between 510,000 and 3,800,000 ova. Fecundity of average sized females weighing 13.4 pounds was estimated at 32 million eggs annually among individuals collected in Louisiana (Fitzhugh et al. 1993), and at 13 to 67 million ova among females collected in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Nieland and Wilson 1993). There were no estimates of egg survival to calculate the reproductive potential along the Gulf states in individuals/year. Nevertheless, given the high fecundity it is likely that the reproductive potential is high (>100 inds/year);

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

with the exception of areas where black drum can be affected by unknown environmental factors or predation which can cause high mortality of eggs and larvae such as those reported for Chesapeake Bay causing negligible recruitment or episodic events (Waggy et al. 2006).

Reference(s) Fitzhugh, G. R., B. A. Thompson, and S. T. G. III. 1993. Ovarian development, fecundity, and spawning frequency of black drum Pogonias cromis in Louisiana. Fisheries Bulletin 91:244-253. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/912/fitzhugh.pdf. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. Waggy, G. L., N. J. Brown-Peterson, and M. S. Peterson. 2006. Evaluation of the Reproductive Life History of the Sciaenidae in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea: “Greater” versus “Lesser” Strategies? 57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute: 264- 281. http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/cv/peterson.mark/docs/263%20-%20282.pdf.

Other notes

Secondary Factors to evaluate

Species range ¾ Broad (e.g. species exists in multiple ocean basins, has multiple intermixing stocks or is highly migratory) ¾ Limited (e.g. species exists in one ocean basin) ¾ Narrow (e.g. endemism or numerous evolutionary significant units or restricted to one coastline) Key relevant information Black drum is an estuarine species found in nearshore waters of the western Atlantic from New England to Argentina. Its presence has been documented as far north as the Bay of Fundy but is more common south of Chesapeake Bay (Hill 2005). Black drum is

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

distributed in various habitats spanning state and federal waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and the species is most abundant in Texas and Louisiana waters (George et al. 2008).

Genetic studies indicate the presence of distinct subpopulations in the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic (Leard et al. 1993). Genetic studies also indicate varying degrees of mitochondrial DNA heterogeneity within the Gulf suggesting that actual dispersal beyond the natal estuary is limited, and one study showed that black drum in Texas were different from those elsewhere in the Gulf (Gold and Richardson 1998). Thus, although the species is widely distributed there are multiple stocks with restricted intermixing.

Reference(s) George, G. J., K. M. Brown, G. W. Peterson, and B. A. Thompson. 2008. Removal of black drum on Louisiana reefs to increase survival of Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1802-1811. Gold, J., and L. Richardson. 1998. Mitochondrial DNA diversification and population structure in fishes from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic. Journal of Heredity 89:404-414. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/5/404.full.pdf. Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327.

Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Special Behaviors or Requirements: Existence of special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture (e.g. migratory bottlenecks, spawning aggregations, site fidelity, unusual attraction to gear, sequential hermaphrodites, segregation by sex, etc., OR specific and limited habitat requirements within the species’ range).

¾ No known behaviors or requirements OR behaviors that decrease vulnerability (e.g. widely dispersed during spawning) ¾ Some (i.e. 1–2) behaviors or requirements ¾ Many (i.e. > 2) behaviors or requirements Key relevant information Black drum, as other sciaenids, spawn in offshore areas near passes, inlets, or bays where their pelagic eggs and larvae drift inshore to estuarine nursery grounds. For 4 to 5 years they remain as juveniles in estuaries with very low movement between bays or estuaries (Leard et al. 1993). At sexual maturity, they move offshore and form large schools that can migrate larger distances. No direct data exist on whether adults return to natal estuaries to spawn but, based on genetic studies, within the Gulf of Mexico dispersal beyond the natal estuary is limited (Gold and Richardson 1998). Murphy and Taylor (1989) indicate that the behavioral characteristics of black drum makes them highly susceptible to fishing as they congregate in spring into large aggregations often associated with spawning (off northeast Florida adult purse seine catches have been estimated as great as 120,000 lbs, although this fishery no longer exists). Currently, large individuals in these aggregations are not necessarily targeted by the commercial fishery. The schooling behavior of black drum and the accessibility of the waters they inhabit are also cited as a contribution to the commercial and recreational importance of the species in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Nieland and Wilson 1993).

Reference(s) Gold, J., and L. Richardson. 1998. Mitochondrial DNA diversification and population structure in fishes from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic. Journal of Heredity 89:404-414. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/5/404.full.pdf. Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Northeast Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=89murphy%5F0628%2Epdf&objid=34541&dltype=pu blication. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. Other notes

Quality of Habitat: Degradation from non-fishery impacts ¾ Habitat is robust ¾ Habitat has been moderately altered by non-fishery impacts ¾ Habitat has been substantially compromised from non-fishery impacts and thus has reduced capacity to support this species (e.g. from dams, pollution, or coastal development) Key relevant information Black drum larvae enter estuaries on tidal currents and utilize sea grasses as nursery areas. Post larvae prefer nutrient-rich and somewhat muddy waters of tidal creeks and channels. Juveniles are most often found over sand and sand-mud bottom types in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, especially in high runoff areas, oyster reefs and shell hash (Hill 2005). Adults are primarily estuarine-dwelling. The species is euryhaline and commonly found in waters where the salinity ranges from 9 to 26 ppt (McIlwain 1978). Black drum may reach maximum abundance in the neritic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Mississippi River delta (Nieland and Wilson 1993). A report by the Texas Parks and Recreation states that, based upon evaluations of the bay systems, the overall health of estuaries in the state is considered good (TPWD 2003). Nevertheless, the report notes that increasing human demands, especially in coastal regions, continue to place greater stresses on coastal habitat, and cites the reduced freshwater

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

inflows, wetland loss, decreases in water quality, and declining vegetation as some of the threats to potential habitat deterioration affecting estuarine habitats. The relationship between wetland losses or modifications and the continuation of fishery production within Texas has been discussed by many authors (TPWD 2003). Further, marine fishery habitat has changed all across the northern Gulf of Mexico. Filling, dredging, construction of levees and channels are examples of man-induced changes (Leard et al. 1993). Louisiana currently loses approximately 25 square miles of coastline per year (Blanchet 2010).

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters–2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. McIlwain, T. D. 1978. An analysis of recreational angling in Biloxi Bay, 1972–1974. PhD. Dissertation. University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327. Other notes

Synthesis

Although the intrinsic rate of population growth is unknown, life history characteristics of the black drum are well studied. The species is long lived, matures at a young age, has moderate growth rates and has a high reproductive potential. Black drum is an

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

estuarine species found from New England to Argentina with distinct subpopulations; spawning in offshore areas near passes, inlets or bays and forms large, offshore schools. The quality of black drum estuarine habitat along the Gulf of Mexico is increasingly stressed by human demands. Overall, the biology of this species results in a moderate inherent vulnerability according to Seafood Watch ®.

Evaluation Guidelines 1) Primary Factors a) If ‘r’ is known, use it as the basis for the rank of the Primary Factors. b) If ‘r’ is unknown, then the rank from the remaining Primary Factors (in order of importance, as listed) is the basis for the rank. 2) Secondary Factors a) If a majority (2 out of 3) of the Secondary Factors rank as Red, reclassify the species into the next lower rank (i.e. Green becomes Yellow, Yellow becomes Red). No other combination of Secondary Factors can modify the rank from the Primary Factors. b) No combination of primary and secondary factors can result in a Critical Conservation Concern for this criterion.

Conservation Concern: Inherent Vulnerability

¾ Low (Inherently Resilient) ¾ Moderate (Moderately Vulnerable) ¾ High (Highly Vulnerable)

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks

Guiding Principle: Sustainable wild-caught species have stock structure and abundance sufficient to maintain or enhance long-term fishery productivity.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Management classification status ¾ Underutilized OR close to virgin biomass Alabama, Mississippi, Florida ¾ Fully fished OR recovering from overfished OR unknown Louisiana, Texas ¾ Recruitment or growth overfished, overexploited, depleted or “threatened” Key relevant information Management classification status of black drum varies among the fraction of the population residing in the five Gulf of Mexico States.

Florida The species is of limited commercial and recreational value (Leard et al. 1993). Landings in the recreational fishery in Florida are significantly larger than commercial catch and the fishery targets fish less than 20 inches in length as larger fish are often infected with cestodes (Leard et al. 1993). Most of the catch is in the Atlantic coast (Hill 2005). Maximum commercial catch in the west coast reached near 800,000 pounds in 1981 with a decrease after 1995 to around 10,000 pounds (Figure 2) when gill-netting was banned (Hill 2005). Thus, black drum in Florida in the Gulf of Mexico can be considered underutilized.

Alabama Black drum is of limited commercial and recreational value (Leard et al. 1993). Landings reached a maximum near 400,000 pounds

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

in 1987 but rapidly declined to levels below 100,000 pounds (Figure 3). Landings increased to levels experienced in earlier years with more current estimates showing a moderate increase to nearly 150,000 pounds. The stock can also be considered underutilized.

Mississippi The stock is not targeted; landings are low and taken as bycatch of other species (Leard et al. 1993). Landings reached significant levels only between 1979 to 1988 with a one time high of 4 million pounds but decreased to levels mostly under 50,000 pounds after 1990 (Figure 4). The stock can be considered currently underutilized.

Louisiana

Black drum were lightly exploited by the commercial fisheries until the early 1980s when harvest began to increase dramatically (Leard et al. 1993). Landings reached close to 9 million pounds in 1988 but decreased thereafter to levels fluctuating around 2 to 4 million pounds and recreational catch has become increasingly important (Figure 5). High exploitation in the eighties probably resulted in harvest and population declines. Nevertheless, since the 1990s landings have stayed fairly stable despite reduction of effort (Blanchet 2010). The stock can be considered fully fished.

Texas Annual landings in Texas by the commercial fishery have fluctuated over the years with increases in the early 1990s (Figure 6). From the early 1970s to the 1990s landings varied around the million pounds. Landings increased starting in 1994 to peak levels over 4 million pounds in 1996. The increase in landings in the 1990s was likely due to an increase black drum abundance in Texas waters following the coast wide net ban that occurred in 1988 (TPWD 2003, Morris 2011). Landings have remained stable in the last decade and the stock can be considered fully fished.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters— 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. Morris, A., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin.

Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

800 West Coast Florida Commercial Landings

700

600

500 Pounds 400

Thousand 300

200

100

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 2: Black drum commercial landings for Florida (West Coast), 1960–2009 (NMFS 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

400 Alabama Commercial Landings

350

300

250 Pounds 200

Thousand 150

100

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 3: Black drum commercial landings for Alabama, 1960–2009 (NMFS 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

4500 Mississippi Commercial Landings

4000

3500

3000

2500 Pounds

2000 1000

1500

1000

500

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 4: Landings of black drum in Mississippi, 1960–2009 (NMFS 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Louisiana Commercial Landings HARVEST OF BLACK DRUM IN LOUISIANA

10000

9000 RECREATIONALCOMMERCIAL

8000

12 7000

10 6000

M illio n s 8 Pounds

5000 6 1000

HARVEST (LBS) HARVEST 4 4000 2

3000 0

2000 1981 1991 2001 1983 1985 1987 1989 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 2005 2007

YEAR 1000

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 5: Black drum commercial landings in Louisiana from 1960–2009 (NMFS 2011) and commercial and recreational landings from 1981–2008 (Blanchet 2010).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

4500 Texas Commercial Landings

4000

3500

3000

2500 Pounds

2000 1000

1500

1000

500

0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Figure 6: Annual commercial landings of black drum in Texas 1960–2009 (NMFS 2011)

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Current population abundance relative to BMSY ¾ At or above BMSY (>100%)

¾ Moderately Below BMSY (50–100%) OR unknown All states

¾ Substantially below BMSY (<50%) Key relevant information The only comprehensive assessment in the Gulf of Mexico was conducted in 1993 (Leard et al. 1993). Nevertheless the assessment did not provide estimates to compare black drum population levels against biological references points, specifically estimates of

BMSY. There are no further stock assessments that provide estimates of current population abundance relative to BMSY in any of the Gulf of Mexico States.

Complementary information include that landings are considered small in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida (Figure 2, Figure 3,

Figure 4), and thus, population levels are likely above BMSY, but B/BMSY remains unknown. The conservation standard for black drum in Louisiana is 30% of the Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR), established by Act 1316 of the 1995 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature for black drum and other species, and appears to be adequate to maintain the stock and prevent recruitment overfishing (Blanchet 2010). Even when the standard might maintain population levels at BMSY, the actual estimates remain unknown.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters– 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Other notes

Occurrence of overfishing (current level of fishing mortality relative to overfishing threshold)

¾ Overfishing not occurring (Fcurr/Fmsy < 1.0) All states ¾ Overfishing is likely/probable OR fishing effort is increasing with poor understanding of stock status OR Unknown

¾ Overfishing occurring (Fcurr/Fmsy >1.0) Key relevant information

There are no stock assessments to determine current levels of fishing mortality (Fcurr) relative to Fmsy for the black drum in any of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico States. Nevertheless there is information for all Gulf states that indicates that overfishing is not occurring. A Gulf wide assessment in 1993 produced SSB/ R (Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit) estimates indicating that as a result of the peak fishing years (1986–1988) the stock size fell from high values of nearly 50% of unfished stock size in 1988 to values slightly under 30% by 1990 (Leard et al. 1993). The assessment concluded that no overfishing occurred despite high increases in landings. Further, in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida landings after the 1993 assessment have been very low (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4).

For Louisiana, more recent yield per recruit analysis indicate that if the natural mortality rate (M)=0.1 (the value that provides the lowest allowable harvest within a range of estimates used for the analysis), the fishery (prior to existing regulations) (Act 1316 of

1995) was operating above F0.1 and below FMAX with yield of 92% of maximum, and spawning potential ratio (SPR) at 44%. An M of 0.15 or 0.2 would indicate a more lightly fished stock with yield being 66% to 45% of maximum and with SPR being 57% to 66% respectively (Blanchet 2010). Further, fishery independent surveys show stable long term trends (Figure 7, Figure 8).

For Texas, there are no formal stock assessments for black drum, but robust annual population abundance indices from fishery

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

independent surveys (Figure 9, Figure 10) suggest that the stock is at stable levels.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters–2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf.

Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Catch per Effort of Black Drum in Trammel Net Samples Marine Fisheries Division Monitoring Program

2.0

1.5

1.0 Catch/Set 0.5

0.0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1996 1998 2000 2002 2006 2008 1994 2004 Year

Figure 7: Catch per unit of effort of black drum in Louisiana from trammel net samples in the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries fishery-independent sampling program (Blanchet 2010).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Catch per Effort of Black Drum in Seine Samples

Marine Fisheries Division Monitoring Program

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

Catch/Set

0.05

0.00

2006 2008 1996 1998 2000 2002 1986 1988 1990 1992 2004 1994 Year

Figure 8: Catch per unit of effort of black drum from seine samples in the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries surveys (Blanchet 2010).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Figure 9: Catch rates of black drum in fishery independent Texas Parks & Wildlife Division bag seine surveys in Texas waters (TPWD 2003).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Figure 10: Texas coast wide annual catch rates of black drum (number by hour) from TPWD fishery independent gillnet sampling program from 1978 to 2000 (TPWD 2003) and updated estimates (Morris 2011).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Overall degree of uncertainty in status of stock ¾ Low (i.e. current stock assessment and other fishery-independent data are robust OR reliable long-term fishery-dependent data available) Louisiana and Texas ¾ Medium (i.e. only limited, fishery-dependent data on stock status are available) Alabama, Mississippi, Florida ¾ High (i.e. little or no current fishery-dependent or independent information on stock status OR models/estimates broadly disputed or otherwise out-of-date) Key relevant information For Alabama and Mississippi, although stock assessments and robust fishery independent data are not available, there are long-term fishery-dependent data (Figure 3, Figure 4); which indicate that the landings in those states are low.

For Florida there are no current stock assessments but there is a long-term fishery-dependent data series (Figure 2). There are also standardized catch rates from commercial fisheries ( Figure 11) and indices of young of the year abundance from surveys (Figure 12) but the surveys only go back for less than 20 years.

For Louisiana there are long-term fishery-dependent (Figure 5) and robust fishery independent data available (Figures 7, Figure 8). There is a stock assessment, although not robust (Blanchet 2010). Blanchet (2010) revealed several research needs to improve estimates of the status of the black drum stock in Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is actively collecting otoliths for developing an annual age– length key and conducting a project to determine the current age frequency of the adult population. This would provide insight into the impact of existing regulations, and assist in refining the estimate. The LDWF intends to conduct Virtual Population Analyses and to explore other statistical methods to evaluate the status of the stock (Blanchet 2010).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

For Texas, there is no current stock assessment but there are long-term fishery-dependent data (Figure 6) and robust fishery independent data available (Figure 9, Figure 10).

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters–2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf.

Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Figure 11. Standardized catch rates for black drum in Florida from commercial landings. Boxes represent mean, standard deviation and numbers are sample sizes per year (FWRI 2009).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Post YOY

Figure 12: Estimates of Young of the Year (YOY) and post YOY black drum abundance for Florida’s Gulf coast. Boxes represent mean, standard deviation and numbers are sample sizes (FWRI 2009).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Long-term trend (relative to species’ generation time) in population abundance as measured by either fishery-independent (stock assessment) or fishery-dependent (standardized CPUE) measures ¾ Trend is up ¾ Trend is flat or variable (among areas, over time or among methods) OR Unknown Florida, Louisiana and Texas (flat/variable); Alabama and Mississippi (unknown) ¾ Trend is down

Key relevant information There are no estimates of long-term population abundance from fishery-independent or fishery-dependent measures for black drum in Alabama, and Mississippi but the fishery in those states is small (Figure 3, Figure 4) and current population trends may not be influenced by the fishery.

In Florida, fishery-dependent standardized catch rates (Figure 11) and young–of-the-year estimates from surveys (Figure 12) indicate that the black drum stock is stable.

Population abundance estimates for Louisiana from two fishery-independent surveys showed similar fluctuating levels after 1996, but differences for 1986 to 1995 (Figure 7). Indices are based on catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDFW) using small mesh bag seine (50' length, 1/4" delta bar mesh) and trammel net (750' x 6' - 1 5/8" inner, 6" outer bar mesh wall). While estimates from seine surveys showed stable long-term levels, trammel net estimates were lower in early years. The CPUE fluctuated throughout the time period (1986–2009) in both the seine and trammel net samples with no indication of a long-term downward trend. Fishery dependent indices based on standardized CPUE in the recreational fisheries are declining after 1993 (Blanchet 2010). Blanchet (2010) indicated that some of the lack of similarity between indices may be due

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

among other factors to inclusion of sub-legal black drum in the trammel net CPUE index, lack of directed recreational effort toward black drum, and variation in availability of other species targeted by recreational harvesters.

Population abundance estimates for Texas from fishery independent surveys indicate that the population increased and stayed at relatively high levels since the early 1990s: bag seine indices fluctuated with no patterns while gillnet indices fluctuated similarly to the commercial catch in years for which both sources of information were available (Figure ).

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters– 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Other notes

Short-term trend in population abundance as measured by either fishery-independent (stock assessment) or fishery-dependent (standardized CPUE) measures ¾ Trend is up Louisiana and Texas ¾ Trend is flat or variable (among areas, over time or among methods) OR Unknown Florida, Alabama and Mississippi ¾ Trend is down

Key relevant information There are no estimates of short-term population abundance based on stock assessments or standardized CPUE for black drum in

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Alabama and Mississippi but fisheries in those states are insignificant and population short or long-term trends may not be influenced by the fishery.

On the Florida gulf coast, population abundance based on standardized CPUE has not shown short term trends (Figure 11), similarly to abundance of young-of-the-year (YOY) and post YOY that experienced increases in 1999–2000, 2005–2006, and in 2008 (Figure 12).

In Louisiana, the short term trend for population abundance based on estimates from fishery independent surveys slightly increased in 2008 and 2009 to values observed in 1996 to 2000 (Figure 7, Figure 8).

In Texas, the short term trend for population abundance, inferred from CPUE survey data, also increased in 2008 and 2009 to values observed in 2001 and 2002 (Figure 9, Figure 10).

Other notes

Current age, size or sex distribution of the stock relative to natural condition ¾ Distribution(s) is(are) functionally normal ¾ Distribution(s) unknown All states ¾ Distribution(s) is(are) skewed

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Key relevant information There are no data available to evaluate current age, size or sex distribution for black drum stock in the Gulf of Mexico with respect to natural conditions.

Data available on age and size distribution for black drum in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico reported by Leard et al. (1993) were from the fishery and indicated that young fish (age 1–2) were recruited to the recreational fishery, and by age 2 they began to recruit to commercial gill nets. By the third year they became decreasingly available to the recreational fishery, apparently moving offshore. Length frequency in the commercial catches showed that full recruitment of fish over 61cm to haul seines, run-around gill nets, purse seines and gill nets catching larger fish, increased gradually to about 75 cm (about 14 years of age) at which time they appeared to be fully recruited. Intermediate (ages 4–7) did not appear in the fishery. These age classes did occur in the offshore recreational fishery. The fishery has changed and current information is missing.

In Louisiana, commercial landings for larger drum have declined substantially since the peak of the fishery in 1988. This could be the result of a shift in population size structure and an indication of deviation relative to natural conditions, but also a change in the fishery. Blanchet (2010) noted data need to characterize the age composition of the population and the catch, and reported that the LDWF is actively collecting this kind of information for Louisiana. Nevertheless, current data are not necessarily representative of the stock, and comparison with data from the current fishery is irrelevant as regulations and dynamics have changed.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters–2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf.

Other notes

Synthesis Information to evaluate the status of black drum stock(s) along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico states varies among states. The fishery is insignificant in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida and the stock in those areas is most probably healthy, but is ranked as moderate because many factors are unknown. In Louisiana, harvest levels increased dramatically to potentially unsustainable levels but management was set in place and population levels have recovered to stable levels. Still, distribution parameters relative to natural

conditions and the relative levels of biomass relative to BMSY are unknown. Thus status can be considered moderate. In Texas, management has maintained landings and the population at sustainable levels, although distribution parameters relative to natural

conditions and the relative levels of biomass relative to BMSY are unknown. Thus status of the stock can be considered moderate.

Evaluation Guidelines A “Healthy” Stock: 1) Is underutilized (near virgin biomass) 2) Has a biomass at or above BMSY AND overfishing is not occurring AND distribution parameters are functionally normal AND stock uncertainty is not high A “Moderate” Stock: 1) Has a biomass at 50%–100% of BMSY AND overfishing is not occurring 2) Is recovering from overfishing AND short-term trend in abundance is up AND overfishing is not occurring AND stock uncertainty is low 3) Has an Unknown status because the majority of primary factors are unknown. A “Poor” Stock: 1) Is fully fished AND trend in abundance is down AND distribution parameters are skewed 2) Is overfished, overexploited or depleted AND trends in abundance and CPUE are up. 3) Overfishing is occurring AND stock is not currently overfished. A stock is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and the species is ranked “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria, if it is: 1) Overfished, overexploited or depleted AND trend in abundance is flat or down 2) Overfished AND overfishing is occurring 3) Listed as a “threatened species” or similar proxy by national or international bodies 51

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Conservation Concern: Status of Stocks ¾ Low (Stock Healthy) ¾ Moderate (Stock Moderate or Unknown) ¾ High (Stock Poor)

¾ Stock Critical

Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch

Seafood Watch® defines sustainable wild-caught seafood as marine life captured using fishing techniques that successfully minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species (i.e., bycatch). Bycatch is defined as species that are caught but subsequently discarded (injured or dead) for any reason. Bycatch does not include incidental catch (non-targeted catch) if it is utilized, accounted for and managed in some way.

Guiding Principle: A sustainable wild-caught species is captured using techniques that minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Quantity of bycatch, including any species of “special concern” (i.e. those identified as “endangered,” “threatened” or “protected” under state, federal or international law) ¾ Quantity of bycatch is low (<10% of targeted landings on a per number basis) AND does not regularly include species of special concern ¾ Quantity of bycatch is moderate (10% –100% of targeted landings on a per number basis) AND does not regularly include species of special concern OR Unknown All states

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

¾ Quantity of bycatch is high (>100% of targeted landings on a per number basis) OR bycatch regularly includes threatened, endangered or protected species

Key relevant information There is little information available for bycatch in Gulf of Mexico trotline fisheries. In a study by George et al. (2008), researchers tested gillnets and baited trotlines on their efficacy in removing black drum from an area in an effort to increase oyster survival on commercial oyster reefs. They found that trotlines caught only six fish species (47 individuals), and most of the fish were released alive and unharmed. This is the only documentation available related to bycatch in Louisiana trotlines, and it is not known if it is representative of the fishery. In Texas, a year-round fishing experiment was conducted to compare black drum bycatch of trotlines placed in the top of the water column and on the bottom, and also to investigate effects of bait (McEachron et al. 1988). Most abundant species in the bycatch were red drum and hardhead catfish. Catch rates of black drum were 0.049– 0.309 fish/line/hour on top and bottom settings respectively, while rates of hardhead catfish and red drum were 0.486– 0.207 and 0.209– 0.047 fish/line/hour. Thus, bycatch rates were drastically reduced when trotlines were set on the bottom, still bycatch of each species was 5.3 and 1.2 times the black drum catch. Rates of all species varied with areas but were independent of bait or season. These results were nevertheless from an experimental setting and not necessarily representative of the fishery. Circle hooks are used in the Texas trotline fishery (Morris 2011). The hook requirement and removal of trotlines from waters during weekend days (1 pm Friday to 1 pm on Sunday) were enacted to reduce bycatch in the Texas fishery (Morris 2011). Red drum and hardhead catfish are currently the most dominant bycatch species, though they have a low catch and release mortality (Morris 2011). However, the percentage of bycatch in these fisheries is unknown. Interactions with sea turtles are known to occur with hook and line gear and past research on longline gear has shown that circle hooks reduce the incidence of turtles becoming endangered by hook gear; however, interactions will vary depending on the depth and location of the gear. Although turtle bycatch occurs in longline fisheries in U.S. states of the Gulf of Mexico and fishers reportedly catch turtles on baited hooks in Texas (Heinly et al. 1988) no references were found relative to

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

bycatch of turtles in trotline fisheries. None of the studies found on black drum trotline catch (McEachron et al. 1987, George et al. 2008) mentions bycatch or potential threat of catching threatened, endangered or protected species.

Reference(s) George, G. J., K. M. Brown, G. W. Peterson, and B. A. Thompson. 2008. Removal of black drum on Louisiana reefs to increase survival of Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1802-1811. Heinly, R. W., E. K. Stabenau, A. M. Landry, and M. Duronslet. 1988. Mutilation of Stranded Sea Turtles Along the Texas Coast. in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-214. Fort Fisher, North Carolina. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/turtlesymposium1988.pdf. McEachron, L. W., J. F. Doerzbacher, G. C. Matlock, A. W. Green, and G. E. Saul. 1987. Reducing Bycatch in a Commercial Trotline Fishery. Fishery Bulletin 86:109-117. Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. Other notes

Population consequences of bycatch ¾ Low: Evidence indicates quantity of bycatch has little or no impact on population levels ¾ Moderate: Conflicting evidence of population consequences of bycatch OR Unknown All states ¾ Severe: Evidence indicates quantity of bycatch is a contributing factor in driving one or more bycatch species toward extinction OR is a contributing factor in limiting the recovery of a species of “special concern”

Key relevant information Neither the extent or quantity of bycatch is provided in available data from the Gulf of Mexico trotline fisheries nor is there information on interactions with threatened, endangered, or protected species. Therefore, it is not possible to know the population

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

consequences of bycatch in the gear or region. However, reports do suggest that bycaught animals can be released alive from trotline gear (George et al. 2008, Morris 2011). Red drum and hardhead catfish have been reportedly caught in the Texas fishery and demonstrate a low catch and release mortality (Morris 2011), which preliminarily suggests low population impacts of bycatch.

Trend in bycatch interaction rates (adjusting for changes in abundance of bycatch species) as a result of management measures (including fishing seasons, protected areas and gear innovations): ¾ Trend in bycatch interaction rates is down ¾ Trend in bycatch interaction rates is flat OR Unknown All states ¾ Trend in bycatch interaction rates is up ¾ Not applicable because quantity of bycatch is low Key relevant information Due to a lack of information on bycatch in Gulf of Mexico trotline fisheries, it is not possible to detect a trend in bycatch interaction rates.

Reference(s) Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Secondary Factor to evaluate

Evidence that the ecosystem has been or likely will be substantially altered (relative to natural variability) in response to the continued discard of the bycatch species ¾ Studies show no evidence of ecosystem impacts ¾ Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown All states ¾ Studies show evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts Key relevant information Since there is little information available for bycatch in Gulf of Mexico trotline fisheries, it is not possible to determine the ecosystem impacts of discards of bycaught species. Bycatch is addressed in Texas waters by weekend removal of fishing gear and a circle hook requirement (Morris 2011). Furthermore, it is likely that since bycaught animals were released alive by the George et al. (2008) study and in Texas (Morris 2011), that the impact of trotlines will be low; however, not enough information is available to make a definitive assessment.

Synthesis No information could be ascertained as to the extent or impact of bycatch in Gulf of Mexico black drum trotline fisheries. Nevertheless, trotline is a selective gear and imposes little mortality on bycatch when organisms are released alive. Further,

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

regulations such as removal of the fishing gear during weekends and the use of circle hooks are intended to further reduce bycatch. Red drum and hardhead catfish are species most abundant in the bycatch.

Evaluation Guidelines

Bycatch is “Minimal” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is <10% of targeted landings AND bycatch has little or no impact on population levels.

Bycatch is “Moderate” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is 10%–100% of targeted landings 2) Bycatch regularly includes species of “special concern” AND bycatch has little or no impact on the bycatch population levels AND the trend in bycatch interaction rates is not up.

Bycatch is “Severe” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is >100% of targeted landings 2) Bycatch regularly includes species of “special concern” AND evidence indicates bycatch rate is a contributing factor toward extinction or limiting recovery AND trend in bycatch is down.

Bycatch is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and the species is ranked “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria, if: 1) Bycatch regularly includes species of special concern AND evidence indicates bycatch rate is a factor contributing to extinction or limiting recovery AND trend in bycatch interaction rates is not down. 2) Quantity of bycatch is high AND studies show evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts.

Conservation Concern: Nature and Extent of Discarded Bycatch ¾ Low (Bycatch Minimal) ¾ Moderate (Bycatch Moderate) ¾ High (Bycatch Severe)

¾ Bycatch Critical

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

Guiding Principle: Capture of a sustainable wild-caught species maintains natural functional relationships among species in the ecosystem, conserves the diversity and productivity of the surrounding ecosystem, and does not result in irreversible ecosystem state changes.

Primary Habitat Factors to evaluate

Known (or inferred from other studies) effect of fishing gear on physical and biogenic habitats ¾ Minimal damage (i.e. pelagic longline, midwater gillnet, midwater trawl, purse seine, hook and line, or spear/harpoon) ¾ Moderate damage (i.e. bottom gillnet, bottom longline or some pots/ traps) In Louisiana, Texas, Florida and Alabama and Mississippi ¾ Great damage (i.e. bottom trawl or dredge) Key relevant information Trotlines usually contain about fifty hooks or less on a line that is placed on the bottom. In Louisiana, trotlines must be under 440 yards long (Adriance 2011), and in Texas, they must be under 600 feet in length or 200 circle-type hooks (Leard et al. 1993, TPWD 2003). In Florida, purse seines and pound nets are prohibited, while in Alabama, hook and line devices cannot contain more than five hooks. The use of longlines is prohibited in Mississippi, and landings are actually incidental catch of trotline fisheries currently conducted by about 5 fishers (Devers 2011). No research has been conducted to look at the impact of trotline gear in the black drum fishery in Gulf States on bottom habitat. Since it is a gear placed on the bottom, impact is expected to be slightly greater than pelagic gear. Little impact is expected from trotlines in the black drum fishery since they are set over mud and sand bottom, have no contact with coral or sponge habitats (Adriance 2011), and impact of longline gear set in those types of habitat is known to be low (Barnette 2001). Nevertheless, trotlines are a specialized long-line used in shallow estuaries to catch fish (McEachron et al. 1987) and are placed on the bottom, and longlines

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

are known to cause moderate physical damage to habitats

Reference(s) Adriance, J., Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Fisheries Division, Marine Fisheries Section. 2011. Personal communication. March 2011. Barnette, M. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-449. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office. Devers, W., Mississippi DMR,. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. McEachron, L. W., J. F. Doerzbacher, G. C. Matlock, A. W. Green, and G. E. Saul. 1987. Reducing Bycatch in a Commercial Trotline Fishery. Fishery Bulletin 86:109-117. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. Other notes

For specific fishery being evaluated, resilience of physical and biogenic habitats to disturbance by fishing method ¾ High (e.g. shallow water, sandy habitats) ¾ Moderate (e.g. shallow or deep water mud bottoms, or deep water sandy habitats) In Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi ¾ Low (e.g. shallow or deep water corals, shallow or deep water rocky bottoms) ¾ Not applicable because gear damage is minimal

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Key relevant information Little information is available about trotline use in state waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana, trotlines are set over mud and sand bottom; they are not set near coral or sponge habitats (Adriance 2011). This is presumably the case in Texas, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.

Reference(s) Adriance, J., Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Fisheries Division, Marine Fisheries Section. 2011. Personal communication. March 2011.

Other notes

If gear impacts are moderate or great, spatial scale of the impact ¾ Small scale (e.g. small, artisanal fishery or sensitive habitats are strongly protected) ¾ Moderate scale (e.g. modern fishery but of limited geographic scope) All states ¾ Large scale (e.g. industrialized fishery over large geographic areas) ¾ Not applicable because gear damage is minimal Key relevant information The black drum fishery is a modern fishery but fishing effort by trotlines is low, resulting in a moderate scale impact in state waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

In Florida, harvest of black drum is considered low at levels below 100,000 pounds since the late 1980s (Figure 2), and fishing effort is also presumably low, thus the fishery is moderate scale. Further, gear impact is reduced by the regulation that fishing by

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

any multiple hook in conjunction with live or dead natural bait is prohibited (FLFWC 1989).

Similarly, in Alabama waters harvest is low with levels below 200,000 pounds since the fishery started, except in 1986 and 1987 (Figure 3), and fishing is not allowed with a hook and line device with more than five hooks (Leard et al. 1993).

In Mississippi, black drum are rarely commercially targeted. Between 2000 and 2010, total landings for trotlines and longlines totaled 4,090 pounds (Devers 2011). Since longline use is prohibited, these landings were most likely caught by trotlines but incorrectly attributed to longlines. There are approximately five fishermen who use trotlines in Mississippi waters (Devers 2011).

The Louisiana black drum fishery is the most important among those in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana, commercial landings have exceeded 2 million pounds since the 1980s (Figure 5). According to Adriance (2011), trotlines have made up the majority of the fishery (as much as 80%) . There is a harvest quota of 300,000 heads for fish measuring over 27 inches and a harvest quota of 3.25 million heads for fish within the 16-27cm size limit.

In Texas, approximately 1.3 million pounds of black drum are landed annually by the commercial fishery (TPWD 2011a), with 99.2% of this being attributed to trotlines (Morris 2011). Each licensed fisherman can legally fish up to 20 trotlines and up to 200 circle-type hooks per line (TPWD 2003). In 2011, 242 individual licenses were eligible to be purchased.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters – 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. FLFWC. 1989. Chapter 68B-36 Black Drum. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=68B-36 Devers, W., Mississippi DMR. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. TPWD. 2011a. Wildlife Fact Sheets: Black Drum (Pogonias cromis). Texas Parks & Wildlife Division. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/blackdrum/. Other notes

Primary Ecosystem Factors to evaluate

Evidence that the removal of the targeted species or the removal/deployment of baitfish has or will likely substantially disrupt the food web ¾ The fishery and its ecosystem have been thoroughly studied, and studies show no evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts ¾ Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown All states ¾ Ecosystem impacts of targeted species removal demonstrated Key relevant information

Little information is available regarding bait used in the commercial trotline fishery for black drum. In Texas, only natural baits can be used with blue crab being the most often used bait species (TPWD Year unknown, TPWD 2011a). There are no studies demonstrating whether there are ecosystem impacts due to the use of bait or the removal of the target species.

Reference(s) TPWD. Year unknown. “Take me Fishing” A Basic Guide for the beginning angler. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division 62

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_k0700_0639d.pdf. TPWD. 2011a. Wildlife Fact Sheets: Black Drum (Pogonias cromis). Texas Parks & Wildlife Division. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/blackdrum/.

Other notes

Evidence that the fishing method has caused or is likely to cause substantial ecosystem state changes, including alternate stable states ¾ The fishery and its ecosystem have been thoroughly studied, and studies show no evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts. ¾ Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown All states ¾ Ecosystem impacts from fishing method demonstrated Key relevant information

Very little information is available about the impact of the trotline fishery for black drum on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. However, due to low fishing effort, moderate impact gear, and diverse bait usage, it is unlikely the fishery has a large ecosystem impact.

Reference(s) Other notes

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Synthesis Very little information is available about the impact of the black drum trotline fishery on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico ecosystem(s). However fishing effort is low and the trotline is a moderate impact gear on sea bottom habitats when they are set over mud and sand bottoms, and not near coral or sponge habitats, as is the case for the black drum fishery. Although there are information gaps, the habitat damage is likely low, and Seafood Watch ® considers the habitat and ecosystem impacts of the trotline black drum fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to be moderate.

Evaluation Guidelines

The effect of fishing practices is “Benign” if: 1) Damage from gear is minimal AND resilience to disturbance is high AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red.

The effect of fishing practices is “Moderate” if: 1) Gear effects are moderate AND resilience to disturbance is moderate or high AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red. 2) Gear results in great damage AND resilience to disturbance is high OR impacts are small scale AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red. 3) Damage from gear is minimal and one Ecosystem factor is red.

The effect of fishing practices is “Severe” if: 1) Gear results in great damage AND the resilience of physical and biogenic habitats to disturbance is moderate or low. 2) Both Ecosystem Factors are red.

Habitat effects are considered a Critical Conservation Concern and a species receives a recommendation of “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria if: ¾ Four or more of the Habitat and Ecosystem factors rank red.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Conservation Concern: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

¾ Low (Fishing Effects Benign) ¾ Moderate (Fishing Effects Moderate) ¾ High (Fishing Effects Severe)

¾ Critical Fishing Effects

Applicable to trotline black drum in all Gulf of Mexico States

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime

Guiding Principle: The management regime of a sustainable wild-caught species implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and utilizes a precautionary approach to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Stock Status: Management process utilizes an independent scientific stock assessment that seeks knowledge related to the status of the stock ¾ Stock assessment complete and robust ¾ Stock assessment is planned or underway but is incomplete OR stock assessment complete but out-of-date or otherwise uncertain Louisiana ¾ No stock assessment available now and none is planned in the near future Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Key relevant information There are no stock assessments for black drum in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

Mississippi landings are low as black drum are rarely targeted and most are incidental catch, so at this time the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources and the Office of Marine Fisheries have no plans for a stock assessment or species specific restrictions to the fisheries (Devers 2011).

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) assess the status of black drum in Texas waters through annual coast-wide fishery independent and fishery dependent surveys to evaluate population trends (TPWD 2003). There is, however, no formal stock assessment(Morris 2011).

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) assesses the status of the stock from Louisiana waters every five years, comparing the status of the stock against the legislatively mandated conservation standard of 30% Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) (LDWF 2010). If the status of the stock is found to be below 30% SPR, the LDWF is required to close the fishery for a period of at least one year (Blanchet 2010). Nevertheless, the stock assessment requires better estimates of natural mortality, annual age keys and characterization of the age structure of the harvest to be considered complete and robust.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters – 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Devers, W., Mississippi DMR. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin.

Other notes

Scientific Monitoring: Management process involves regular collection and analysis of data with respect to the short and long-term abundance of the stock ¾ Regular collection and assessment of both fishery-dependent and independent data Texas, Louisiana and Florida ¾ Regular collection of fishery-dependent data only Alabama, Mississippi

¾ No regular collection or analysis of data

Key relevant information In Alabama and Mississippi, current data collection to assess the fishery or the population are available from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2011) and consists only of landings (Figure 3, Figure 4). In Florida, fishery dependent data are collected for commercial landings (Figure 2) and recreational harvest; information includes catch and effort data (Figure 11) (FWRI 2009). Most landings are from the Atlantic coast and the recreational fishery constitutes 98% of the catch (Hill 2005). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission conducts young-of-the-year surveys in Florida Gulf coast (Figure 12) (FWRI 2009).

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

In Louisiana there are fishery dependent and fishery independent data available (Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 8). Information on landings and participation is monitored through the Louisiana Commercial Landings Monitoring Program (Trip Ticket system), designed to capture information on each fishing trip at the first point of sale. Since 1999, this program collects trip information on species, size, and gear used, area fished and trip time. Additional information on harvest comes from statewide sampling programs that monitor ages and sizes of fish harvested in the recreational and commercial fisheries through dockside surveys. In terms of fishery independent surveys, there is in an extensive coast-wide fishery-independent data set from a monitoring program started in 1986 which utilizes a variety of gear types designed to provide technical data on population dynamics and associated hydrological and environmental conditions. The Marine Fisheries Section develops management recommendations for Louisiana’s black drum resources based on data from this ongoing systematic sampling (LDWF 2010).

In Texas, there are fishery dependent and fishery independent data available (Figure 6, Figure 9, Figure 10). Landings information is reported by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (TPWD 2003). Commercial landings data are collected annually as part of the Texas Commercial Trip Ticket Program. Monitoring and data analysis is also conducted by TPWD staff since the mid- 1970s using fishery independent and fishery dependent surveys (TPWD 2003).

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters – 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. FWRI. 2009. Florida’s Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2008 Status and Trends Report. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 15pp. http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/status-trends/finfish/. Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec. LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. NMFS. 2011. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. Other notes

Scientific Advice: Management has a well-known track record of consistently setting or exceeding catch quotas beyond those recommended by its scientific advisors and other external scientists: ¾ No Florida, Louisiana, Texas ¾ Yes ¾ Not enough information available to evaluate OR not applicable because little or no scientific information is collected Alabama, Mississippi Key relevant information In Mississippi, there are no catch quotas as black drum are rarely commercially targeted, similar to the situation in Alabama, where there are no quotas or bag/possession limits for black drum (Leard et al. 1993). Thus, the criterion is not applicable for those states.

In Florida, there no catch quotas but there is commercial daily harvest limit of 500 pounds of black drum per vessel per day that is consistently applied (FLFWC 1989).

In Louisiana, there is commercial quota of 3.25 million pounds for the 16–27 inch drum and a quota of 300,000 head for the drum larger than 27 inches (George et al. 2008, LDWF 2010). Once the quota has been met, the purchase, barter, trade or sale is prohibited (LDWF 2000). Landings information indicate that the quota has not been exceeded (LDWF 2010).

In Texas, the fishery is managed through limited entry with fixed numbers of licenses to be purchased (from 549 in 2000 to 242 in

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

2011) and there are no quotas in place (Morris 2011).

Reference(s)

FLFWC. 1989. Chapter 68B-36 Black Drum. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=68B-36 George, G. J., K. M. Brown, G. W. Peterson, and B. A. Thompson. 2008. Removal of black drum on Louisiana reefs to increase survival of Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1802-1811. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. LDWF. 2000. Title 763310. Black drum size limits, daily take, possession limits, and quotas. Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 56: 6(10), R.S.56:6 (25), R.S. 56:326.1, R.S. 56:326.3. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.

Other notes

Bycatch: Management implements an effective bycatch reduction plan ¾ Bycatch plan in place and reaching its conservation goals (deemed effective) ¾ Bycatch plan in place but effectiveness is not yet demonstrated or is under debate Texas ¾ No bycatch plan implemented or bycatch plan implemented but not meeting its conservation goals (deemed ineffective) Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana ¾ Not applicable because bycatch is “low”

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Key relevant information While measures taken in Texas, including reducing overall effort through the limited entry program (in 2000), circle hook requirements and weekend gear removal, are believed to reduce bycatch in the trotline fishery (Morris 2011), there is no explicit bycatch plan in place throughout the Gulf region or by individual states. Similarly, there is no systematic method for collecting information on bycatch.

Reference(s) Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. Other notes

Fishing practices: Management addresses the effect of the fishing method(s) on habitats and ecosystems ¾ Mitigative measures in place and deemed effective ¾ Mitigative measures in place but effectiveness is not yet demonstrated or is under debate ¾ No mitigative measures in place or measures in place but deemed ineffective ¾ Not applicable because fishing method is moderate or benign All states Key relevant information Not applicable because the fishing method (i.e. trotline gear) in all states is only moderate.

Although no information has been collected on the impact of black drum trotlines on habitats and ecosystems in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas, there are some management measures for Louisiana and Texas, where fishing effort is higher, that address potential effects.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Several areas in Louisiana are closed to the commercial black drum harvest that presumably also protects certain habitats. Nevertheless this is usually not a habitat protection measure but a long-standing regulation to limit disturbance of waterfowl or wildlife from fishing activities. These areas include 625,000 coastal acres, including state and federal wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, and areas designated by state statute or by state rule (LDWF 2010).

Several regulations are in place for trotlines in inland and bay waters of Texas, including that metallic stakes are prohibited, gear must be 200 feet from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and 50 feet apart, and only natural baits may be used on circle hooks (Leard et al. 1993). Gear must be removed from the water from 1:00 pm on Friday until 1:00 pm on Sunday each week. The weekend removal of gear and a circle hook requirement is believed to be effective at reducing bycatch (Morris 2011). Reference(s) Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Enforcement: Management and appropriate government bodies enforce fishery regulations ¾ Regulations regularly enforced by independent bodies, including logbook reports, observer coverage, dockside monitoring and similar measures All states ¾ Regulations enforced by fishing industry or by voluntary/honor system ¾ Regulations not regularly and consistently enforced

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Key relevant information For all Gulf of Mexico states there is a Cooperative Enforcement Program between NMFS and state agencies where state enforcement officers are deputized to enforce federal fisheries laws and regulations (GSMFC 2011). At the federal level, the NOAA Southeast Division Office of Law enforcement has a broad range of enforcement responsibilities in recreational and commercial marine fisheries. Because black drum fisheries are primarily prosecuted in state waters, there are no federal regulations applicable to the species. Specific information on the effectiveness of enforcement for the black drum fisheries in federal and state waters is not obtainable. Nevertheless, there are agencies both at the federal and the state level in all Gulf of Mexico states that are responsible for enforcement of fishery regulations.

In Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) is the agency responsible for programs protecting Mississippi fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. They are also responsible for enforcement of Mississippi's fish and game law (Leard et al. 1993). The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) is the governing body for the state's natural salt-water resources and law enforcement; though there are no management regulations for this species other than the prohibition of longline usage.

In Alabama, the Marine Resources Division manages the estuaries and saltwater resources along Alabama’s Gulf Coast including enforcement programs, and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is responsible for regulation enforcement (Leard et al. 1993). There is little enforcement necessary as the regulations only include restricted fishing to trotlines and a limit on number of hooks used in Alabama saltwaters.

In Florida, The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the government agency charged with regulating Florida's fisheries and wildlife, and enforcing related laws through the Division of Law Enforcement. There are size limits, gear and

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

bait restrictions.

In Louisiana, The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) Enforcement Division is responsible for establishing and maintaining compliance through the execution and enforcement of laws, rules and regulations of the state relative to fisheries resources (Leard et al. 1993, LDWF 2011). The commercial fishery is monitored through the Louisiana Commercial Landings Monitoring program (Trip Ticket system), designed to get information on each fishing trip at the first point of sale (fishermen, seafood buyer, species, size, condition, amount, value, gear used, area fished and trip time) (LDWF 2011). The fishery is open access and operates primarily inside and outside state territorial waters (from the coastline seaward to 3 miles), and with some harvest from federal waters of the EEZ. Fish that are landed in Louisiana, with few exceptions, are assumed taken from Louisiana waters, and are therefore applicable to LA laws regulating harvest and possession. There are size and gear restrictions, quotas, and a fishing season.

In Texas, the Law Enforcement Division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) provides a comprehensive statewide law enforcement program to protect Texas' wildlife, other natural resources, and the environment (TPWD 2011a). Wardens fulfill these responsibilities through educating the public about various laws and regulations, preventing violations by conducting high visibility patrols, and apprehending and arresting violators. The Finfish License Management Program reports significant changes that have improved the ability to enforce new laws and regulations by adding a flagrant violation category within the current set of finfish fishing (which includes black drum) regulations (TPWD 2003). There are size and gear regulations, and a limited entry program.

Reference(s) GSMFC. 2011. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Website. Accessed April 2011. www.gsmfc.org. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. LDWF. 2011. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries website: Enforcement. Accessed April 2011. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/enforcement. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. TPWD. 2011a. Texas Parks and Wildlife Law Enforcement Division website. Texas Parks and Wildlife Division. Accessed April 2011. www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/about/divisions/law_enforcement/.

Other notes

Management Track Record: Conservation measures enacted by management have resulted in the long-term maintenance of stock abundance and ecosystem integrity. ¾ Management has maintained stock productivity over time OR has fully recovered the stock from an overfished condition ¾ Stock productivity has varied and management has responded quickly OR stock has not varied but management has not been in place long enough to evaluate its effectiveness OR Unknown All states ¾ Measures have not maintained stock productivity OR were implemented only after significant declines and stock has not yet fully recovered Key relevant information There is no federal fishery management for black drum. Measures enacted vary among the five U.S Gulf of Mexico states according to harvest levels, and range from gear restriction in Alabama, to annual harvest quotas in Louisiana, and a limited entry program in Texas. Thus, different harvest levels and measures might have resulted in different degrees of long-term maintenance of stock abundance and ecosystem integrity among states.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

In Mississippi and Alabama black drum are rarely targeted (Leard et al. 1993) and measures are limited to size and gear, thus fisheries and management have played an insignificant role in stock productivity. Abundance estimates are not available to evaluate population trends in productivity.

In Florida, harvest levels have been low and regulations are limited to size and gear. It is unknown if management has played a role in stock productivity although long-term condition of the black drum stock is stable; as shown by population estimates based on standardized catch rates from commercial and recreational fisheries (FWRI 2009). Standardized CPUE from commercial fisheries available since 1992 show a decrease in 1996 to stable levels until a recovery in 2007 to previous levels (Figure 7).

In Louisiana, harvest increased dramatically in the 1980s and remains at high levels but the stock has not been overfished. Estimates of abundance based on CPUE from fishery independent sources (trammel net and small mesh bag seine) indicate fairly stable trends with relatively low levels from the mid 1980s to the 1990s, followed by higher abundance that declined in the early 2000s and later years with values above the mean (Figures 7 and 8). Thus, reduction of fishing effort through the ban of gill and trammel nets and restricted fishing permits and the conservation target of 30% of spawning potential ratio probably maintained stock productivity (Blanchet 2010). Thus, stock productivity has varied and management has responded quickly.

In Texas, the historical black drum fishery has been relatively stable (Figure 6). From the early to the late 1980s landings decreased however the causes were not determined. As consequence Texas enacted more restrictive regulations in 1988 and landings increased after 1993, with a peak in 1996 (TPWD 2003). The increase was after a ban on gear establishing the use of trotlines and a limited entry program was established in 2000. Abundance estimates from fishery independent sampling using gillnets from 1978 to the early 2000s indicate an increasing trend starting in 1990 with a peak in 1994, although rates from bag seine surveys are more variable

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

(Figures 9,10 ). Thus, stock productivity has varied and management has responded quickly.

Reference(s) Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters – 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge. FWRI. 2009. Florida’s Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2008 Status and Trends Report. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 15pp. http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/status-trends/finfish/. Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The Black Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. May 1993. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20028.pdf. TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin.

Other notes

Synthesis

Informal stock assessments are conducted for black drum stock in Louisiana while assessments are not available for Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, where black drum are rarely commercially targeted, or for Texas, where only fishery-independent surveys are available. For Alabama and Mississippi, only landings data are collected by the NMFS. For Florida, there are landings data available from NMFS and fishing effort data; and fishery independent data are available from the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) assesses the status of the stock from Louisiana waters every five years and if the status of the stock is found to be below the legislatively mandated conservation standard of 30% SPR, the LDWF is required to close the fishery for a period of at least one year. Landings information is collected through a trip ticket reporting program. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) assesses the black drum status in Texas waters. Although no formal stock assessment has been conducted, TPWD conducts annual coast-wide fishery independent surveys to evaluate population trends. Landings information is collected annually as part of the Texas Commercial Trip Ticket Program. Fishery independent data are collected by both states to evaluate population trends. Texas has regulations in place to reduce bycatch, including circle hooks and the requirement to remove hooks from the water during the weekend, but it is uncertain how effective these measures are. Other states lack regulations

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

designed to decrease bycatch. There are enforcement programs and there is no information to suspect that regulations are not met. Management in Louisiana and Texas has responded quickly to changes in stock abundance in order to maintain productivity, while in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, the fishery is small and it is unknown whether the fishery or management actions have strongly influenced stock productivity. Overall, the management system is scored as moderately effective.

Evaluation Guidelines

Management is deemed to be “Highly Effective” if the majority of management factors are green AND the remaining factors are not red. Management is deemed to be “Moderately Effective” if: 1) Management factors “average” to yellow 2) Management factors include one or two red factors Management is deemed to be “Ineffective” if three individual management factors are red, including especially those for Stock Status and Bycatch. Management is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and a species receives a recommendation of “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria if: 1) There is no management in place 2) The majority of the management factors rank red.

Conservation Concern: Effectiveness of Management ¾ Low (Management Highly Effective) ¾ Moderate (Management Moderately Effective) Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida ¾ High (Management Ineffective) ¾ Critical (Management Critically Ineffective)

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

IV. Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation

Overall Guiding Principle: Sustainable wild-caught seafood originates from sources that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

Evaluation Guidelines

A species receives a recommendation of “Best Choice” if: 1) It has three or more green criteria and the remaining criteria are not red. A species receives a recommendation of “Good Alternative” if: 1) Criteria “average” to yellow 2) There are four green criteria and one red criteria 3) Stock Status and Management criteria are both ranked yellow and remaining criteria are not red. A species receives a recommendation of “Avoid” if: 1) It has a total of two or more red criteria 2) It has one or more Critical Conservation Concerns.

Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ Nature of Bycatch √ Habitat & Ecosystem Effects √ Management Effectiveness √

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

IV. Overall Seafood Recommendation:

Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank scientists from SERO, the GSFMC, Louisiana Department of wildlife and Fisheries, Alabama Marine Resources Division, Texas Parks & Wildlife Division, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for their support during the preparation of this document. In particular, we would like to thank Art Morris (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), Jason Adriance & Harry Blanchet (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries) for graciously reviewing this report.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

V. References

Adriance, J., Louisana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Fisheries Division, Marine Fisheries Section. 2011. Personal communication. March 2011.

Barnette, M. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-449. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office.

Beckman, D. W., A. L. Stanley, J. H. Render, and C. A. Wilson. 1990. Age and growth of black drum in Louisiana USA water of the Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:537-544.

Blanchet, H. 2010. Assessment of black drum in Louisiana waters – 2010 Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Devers, W., Mississippi DMR,. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.

Doerzbacher, J., A. Green, and G. Matlock. 1988. A Temperature Compensated von Bertalanffy Growth Model for Tagged Red Drum and Black Drum in Texas Bays. Fisheries Research 6:135-152.

Fitzhugh, G. R., B. A. Thompson, and S. T. G. III. 1993. Ovarian development, fecundity, and spawning frequency of black drum Pogonias cromis in Luisiana. Fisheries Bulletin 91:244-253. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/912/fitzhugh.pdf.

FLFWC. 1989. Chapter 68B-36 Black Drum. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=68B-36

FWRI. 2009. Florida’s Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2008 Status and Trends Report. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 15pp. http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/status-trends/finfish/.

George, G. J., K. M. Brown, G. W. Peterson, and B. A. Thompson. 2008. Removal of black drum on Louisiana reefs to increase survival of Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1802-1811.

Gold, J., and L. Richardson. 1998. Mitochondrial DNA diversitfication and population structure in fishes from the Golf of Mexico and western Atlantic. Journal of Heredity 89:404-414. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/5/404.full.pdf.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

GSMFC. 2011. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Website. Accessed April 2011. www.gsmfc.org.

Heinly, R. W., E. K. Stabenau, A. M. Landry, and M. Duronslet. 1988. Mutilation of Stranded Sea Turtles Along the Texas Coast. in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Worshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- SEFSC-214. Fort Fisher, North Carolina. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/turtlesymposium1988.pdf.

Hill, K. 2005. Smithsonian Marine Station - Pogonias cromis. www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec.

Jones, C. M., and B. K. Wells. 1998. Age, growth and mortality of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in the Chesapeake Bay region. U.S. National Marine Service Fishery Bulletin 99:328-337. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/963/jones.pdf.

LDWF. 2000. Title 763310. Black drum size limits, daily take, possession limits, and quotas. Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 56: 6(10), R.S.56:6 (25), R.S. 56:326.1, R.S. 56:326.3. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

LDWF. 2010. Louisiana Black Drum Fisheries Summary Sheet. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

LDWF. 2011. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries website: Enforcement. Accessed April 2011. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/enforcement.

Martinez-Andrade, F., Fisheries Data Analyst with the Coastal Fisheries Division of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. 2011. Personal communication.

McEachron, L. W., J. F. Doerzbacher, G. C. Matlock, A. W. Green, and G. E. Saul. 1987. Reducing Bycatch in a Commercial Trotline Fishery. Fishery Bulletin 86:109-117.

McIlwain, T. D. 1978. An analysis of recreational angling in Biloxi Bay, 1972-1974. PhD. Dissertation. University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.

Morris, A., Corpus Christi Field Station, Fishery Outreach Specialist. 2011. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.

Seafood Watch® Black Drum Report June 29, 2011

Murphy, M. D., and T. Muller. 1995. Stock Assessment of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Florida. FMRI, In-house Report Series IHR, 1995-2005. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=ihr1995%2D005%5F4939%2Epdf&objid=43041& dltype=publication.

Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Northeast Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137. http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=89murphy%5F0628%2Epdf&objid=34541&dltype =publication.

Nieland, D., and C. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327.

NMFS. 2011. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.

Skinner, L. 2006. Drum. A Culinary fad decimated redfish stocks, leaving black drum and imports to fill the gap. in Seafod Business. http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/articledetail.aspx?id=4294995914.

TPWD. 2003. Status of the Finfish License Management Program. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin.

TPWD. 2011a. Texas Parks and Wildlife Law Enforcement Division website. Texas Parks and Wildlife Division. Accessed April 2011. www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/about/divisions/law_enforcement/.

TPWD. 2011b. Wildlife Fact Sheets: Black Drum (Pogonias cromis). Texas Parks & Wildlife Division. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/blackdrum/.

TPWD. Year unknown. “Take me Fishing” A Basic Guide for the beginning angler. Texas Parks & Wildlife Division http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_k0700_0639d.pdf.

Waggy, G. L., N. J. Brown-Peterson, and M. S. Peterson. 2006. Evaluation of the Reproductive Life History of the Sciaenidae in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea: “Greater” versus “Lesser” Strategies? 57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute:264-281. http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/cv/peterson.mark/docs/263%20-%20282.pdf.