The hploitation status of the Atlantic Amberjack Fisheries Through 1991

Mancle Oinings-Parrack

41 March 1"3

Department of CORIUCO National Oceanic ' ad ktmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries service southeast Fisheries science enter 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, Florida 33149 Contribution: Nlk-92/93-30

0 Table of Contents

Page Introduction 1

Background 1

Fisheries 2

Assessment History and Management • 3 Gulf of Mexico . 3 Atlantic 4

Objectives 4 stock Groups 5

Fishery statistics and Biometric Samples 6

Analytical Methods ••••• 8

Results - Greater Amberjack 9

Atlantic Group •••••• 9 Commercial Landings 9 Recreational Harvest Estimates 10 Fishery Biostatistical Samples 11 Recreational Catch Per Unit of Effort 12 Recreational Bag Limit Analyses 13 Fishing Effort •••• 13 stock Size Estimates 14

Gulf Group •••••• 16 Commercial Landings 16 Recreational Harvest Estimates 16 Fishery Biostatistical Samples 17 Recreational Catch Per Unit of Effort 17 Recreational Bag Limit Analyses • 18 Fishing Effort •.••••.••••• 18 stock Size Estimates ...••.•••• 19

Supplementary Seriola Fishery Information - Other Species 21

Commercial Landings and Biometric Samples 21

Recreational Harvest and Biostatistical Samples 22

Atlantic ••••. 22 Lesser Amberjack • 22 Almaco jack 22 Banded Rudderfish 23

i Gulf of Nelioo ...... 23 jAmr AllberjaCk ...... 23 klzaco jack ...... 23 Barded Rudderfish ...... 23

Recreational Catch Per Unit of Iffort - Other &JiRk Species ...... 24

Racreationi Bag Lialts - other &LjQl& Species ...... 24

References ...... 25

ii introduction

Investigations were begun In 1990 to address the status of amharjack resources off the southeastern United States. Four members of the addl gems frequently encountered in the recreational and commercial Carangidae fisheries (i.e., greater amberjack, &XidA duserili; lesser amberjack, &ZIQU fasciata; handed rudderfish, &Xi9" Loadd, and the almoo jack, &ZiWA rivoli ) were studied. Although, other members of the Caregidae family are encountered in the local fisheries and infect may be mixed in the landings on ocassion, the specific focus of this research was directed to the greater amberjack and to species that Right be most easily confused in the landings. Thus, only species of the amberjack genera found off the southeastern U.S. were of interest. These species are distributed In tropical and temperate waters througbout the Pacific, Indian am the Atlantic Ooew. This group occurs in the western Itlantic fro* Nova Scotia to Brazil, including the Gulf of Nexioo and the Caribbean Sea. The group is epibentbic to pelagic occurring in depths to 200 fathoms (366 a). All are predacious, fast swimmers and most are thought to occur both in schools and as solitary individuals (Berry and larch 1978; Fischer 1978; Naftocb 1984). fty are known to ooncentzate around reds, rock outcroppirgs and wrecks. commercial landings of &Ligb W, rose explosively during the early to aid 1980's. Prior to this time, amberjack were largely ignored by fisheries because large portions of the flesh contained infestations of larval tapeworms requiring fro* 30-35 1 of the flesh to be wanted in cleming. Extensive concern about possible cigutera 1D large individuals from Caribbean waters exists also. 11504, SOME Potential for scombrold poisoning in amberjack exists, It has ben found to be tore associated with improper processing resulting 'a immediate flesh spoilage. The recent increase in commercial amberjack landings my be attributable to 1) greater consuer acceptance of amberjack as an edible fish and as a viable replacement for red drua in the blackened fish market and 2) effort displacement of king vackeral fishermen in 1986 by the drift net fleet off Ft. Pierce, Florida and reeffish vessels from the snapper/grouper fisheries by fish trappers working off the Florida Keys. Two major concerns among anglers have focused attention on research weft for the &1hk group as to the status the resource(s) and to reasonable management measures aimed at maintaining a viable resource. First, reported landings are believed to be a minor proportion of the total removals. Landings of un-reported catches are believed to have ben substantial and loDringff (i.e., leading and selling of only the edible flesh) is believed to be significant (see Berry and Burch 1979). in addition, a perception exists among many in the recreational fishery of a rapid drop in the average size of individuals in the population occurring about the am time as landings increased.

The recreational fisheries for greater nberjack were first described in detail by Berry and Burch (1978) and Burch (1979). They also documented the Importance of the &XiWA group as a commercial species as early as 1957 and made the first attempt to quantify total aelerjack landings in the U.S. Very brief accounts of the recreational importance of greater amberjack we given by Ellis (1957), Rather (1958), Gentle (1977), and Browder at al. (1978). Then studies were specific and were limited temporally or spatially. Gentle (1977) considered only a single year and the study of Ellis (1957) focused on the Florida charterboat fishery. Rather (1958) and Browder et al. (1978) summarized information on specific geographical regions. substantial landings of askerjack do mot appear In the commercial fisheries statistics until the old 1980's. It is believed that the reported landings were grossly underestimated In those reports. IltbDugh this species complex is important both recreationally and commercially, very little research ban been conducted on it and the status of the stock and production level is virtually unknown.

Early Investigations dealt mainly with taxonomic larval development, larval and juvenile distribution, predator-prey research, and the tiedag and periodicity of spawn*. Berry and Batch (1978), Bu:rch (1979), and Nakamura (1980) provide details on these studies. Tbese studies suggested that spawning o=aTW year-round in the eastern Gulf of Nexico and Florida Straits. Recent studies focused on typical applied fisheries research (e.g., age slid growth, reproduction, systematics) and were mostly conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. Kanowh (unpublished data) investigated the use of whole otoliths for age determination for greater amb8rjack collected from the Gulf of Mexico headboat fishery. Namoch's preliminary results describe -growth without regard to differences between sexes. Findings from Thompson at al. (1"2) supports that sexual dimorphism in the growth stanzas of greater wberjad. Evidence of sexual dimorphism in maxim longevity is also evident (Thompson at al. 1"2). Additional agelag studies my be required to completely define growth. The used for sectioned otollths, to determine accurate ages for the greater amberjack species is currently being investigated by Thompson at al. (Louisiana State University (LSU)). Neither ageing study ban readied completion. Reproductive studies are under way to evaluate the timing and periodicity of maturation in Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack (LSU). Studies to allow separation of lesser amberjack from grater amberjack directly in the field are also ongoing at LSU with efforts to further identify movement patterns being carried out by )lots Marine Laboratory (MNL) and the National Marine fisheries Service (IMPS).

fisheries

Florida wberjack landings account for am 60-98 1 of the total annual landings in the Gulf of Mexico and the western Atlantic each year while landings from other states us small in comparison because amberjack is not usually targeted in other states. Historically, only the commercial landings of anterjack were included in the reported statistics and litle information van available for recreational catches. Peak commercial production occurs from Marcb-June off the east coast of Florida between Cape Canaveral (4-5 boats) and Ft. Pierce, Florida (6-10 boats) and off the Florida Keys (about 20-25 boats) in depths from 150-400 feet. landings from other states are small in comparison to those of Florida because wberjack are rarely targeted. Historically off of the east coast of Florida, fish raging from about 10 pounds to 100 pounds and averaging from 25-50 lbs was caught (Barry and Burch 1978) although in recent years the average size is believed to have declined. Most vessels are fished by a single fisberman and are the typical 23-30 ft fiberglass boat employed in the king aackmel and reeffish fisheries. The primary gear used by commercial boats is usually two electric book and line (bandit) reels fitted with a 5-10 lb lead weight, a 10-20 foot / 150-400 pound test sonofilament leader, and a single 12/0 - 16/0 circle book directly attached to this leader. A few fishermen employ hydraulic retrieval gear. Live bait, including goggle-eyes (cigar vinnows) and blue runners, have traditionally ban favored altbDUgh, white mullet, towtate, and beeliners (vermilion snapper) are also used. Around 1989 fisberiisn began making longer trips and reportedly bad to use lighter leaders and smaller books to sustain similar catching success as in previous years.

Incidental commercial spear fid fisheries operate out of Ft. Plum, Sebastian, and Ft. Meyers, Florida; 5-6 boats operate In this fishery with diva catches accounting for a very minor part of the total landings. Landings from this fishery are not only related to total availability but also are dependent on the Gulf Strew being located in 135 ft or less. Incidental commercial catches come fro% pelagic longline vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico for yellowfin tuna and in the directed snapper/grouper fisheries in the Carolinas, off Georgia, and in the Gulf of Mexico. Landings from longline vessels are also insignificant and infrequent as compared to total amberjack landings. For many years in Louisiana, amberjack were considered a trash fish and wee not landed (Hermes Hague, WS Port Agent, personal communication).

Recreational charterboat, private boat, and headboat fisheries al" operate In the vesten Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico with cbarterboats Wag most of the catch. Although some shore based fishermen catch ambeirjacks, such catches are relatively minor in comparison to those from other groups. Florida recreational fisherman tab the largest portion of nberjack catch in the western Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thin analysis defines the existsoce of three fisheries in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the open western ttlantic: a commercial book and line fishery, a recreational beadboat, and a small vessel recreational fishery operating from charter vessels or from private boats. k commercial directed fishery composed of small page 2 boats using book and lines and spears and powerheads exists in both areas and byeatch from other commercial fisheries is also landed in both areas from snapper1grouper boats in each area and from tuna longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. A recreational headboat fishery characterized by vessels operating for hire and carrying eight or tore anglers and frequently from 50 to 100 also exists is both areas. A third separate distinct recreational fishery characterited by trips of single fisbermen or small groups, of less than eight, operating from either charter vesselsor from private boats also own in both areas.

Assessment mistory ad Management

Gulf of Mexico

Fisheries statistics summaries presented first by Berry and Burch (1978) for the entire U.S. through 1977 and later by Coodyear (1999), for the Gulf of Mexico through 1986 indicated 1) commercial landings of amberjack have historically been Voter than recreational landings, 2) significant increases in the reported commercial landings occurred beginning about 1983, 3) commercial landings of oberjack from Florida ports are larger than all other ports, 4) substantial commercial landings of amberjack from the central Q& of Mexico do not appear in the historical records before 1985 (non-reporting my have effected this observation), 5) the primary capture gm W been book and line gear and remains so, 6) Gulf of Mexico catches primarily come from statistical grids 5-14 (west Florida through Louisiana) while Atlantic catches mainly come from the east coast of Florida between Cape Canaveral and the Florida Keys, 7) the quantity of aderjack landed in the Gulf of Mexico caught in foreign waters (i.e., outside grids 1-21 in the ailf of Mexico) is very minor ad the major portion of the landings labeled as other in Coodyear (1988) were actually taken from areas on Florida's east coast, 8) Recreational cbarterboat and private fisherman catches from offshore Florida waters account for the majority of the recreational &Xi2lA catch, and 9) the bodboat fishery accounts for usually no tore than gout 10 1 or less by number, of the total annual catch. Amendment One to the Gulf of Mexico fishery Management Reeffish Plan (August 1989) added the four JaidA W^ to the management unit and included life history aspects of greater amberjacL Mortality estimates from the commercial and recreational (private, charter and the beadboat) fisheries and results from 2Wlibrium yield per recruit analyses, assuming 33% release mortality suggested yield mad be maximized at a minimum size of 32 inches (81 cm) fork length for greater amberjack (WNC Reeffish FNP Plan Amendment one, 1989). Similar calculations, assuming zero release mortality, indicated yield would be maximized at a size of about 45 inches (113 ci) fork length. The Voter amberjack growth parameter estimates derived by Burch (1979) from scales for sexes combined were wed in these calculations (Asymptotic site = 1643 ma fork length, k - 0.174, and t M - 0.653). Mooch's parameter estimates (unpublished as) for asymptotic size (1625 mm fork length) ;a% growth rate constant (0.157) for sexes combined determined from whole otoliths are not dissimilar to Burch (1979) who used scales in his analyses. The x-intercept parameter (t. = -0.067) however differs, but this is not a major concern since this is only used in scaling results. Rafiffil mortality was assumed to be 0.2 and age of first recruitment to the fishery was assumed to be 2. Because of uncertainties in accurate age determinations for the greater amberjack, the exact age of maturity is not known. Thompson et al. et al. (1"2) found spawning fish at sizes frow 80 cm (32 !wJm) and 95 cm (38 inches) or about 2-3 years old and also documented serial (batch) spawning. Bach (1979) observed spawning in individuals as small as 32 inches (81 ca) fork length. calculation of spawning stock biomass per recruit (SM) ratios were evaluated over various minimum size and presumed fishing mortality scenarios. Based upon these analyses, minimum sizes of 28 and 36 inches fork length (71 cR, 91 ca) were recommended as protective measures for the recreational and the commercial greater amberjack beries respectively beginning in 1990. 1 recreational daily bag limit of three fish, six in possession was also adopted for greater amberjack In federal waters.

Page 3 Atlantic Statistics similar to those presented for the Gulf Of Mexico, documenting the greater amberjack fisheries from North Carolina through the Florida Keys have also been summarized. Commercial landings for 1972-1989 and the am weight of fish caught in that fishery have been reported by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Snapper-Grouper Plan Development Ten (M. 1990, Report of the PDT 1990). Recreational heaudboat catches through 1998 were reported and an weights were presented. That report emphasized the opinion that catch statistics and blometric samples for beadboats operating in South Florida best reflected the condition of the amberjack resources in the South Atlantic. it is worthy of mention that the portion of the catch taken by the headboat fishery Is not substantial, usually less than 10 t by muiber of the total annual catch. The report of the PD? stated that strong trends in the resource status were not evident from the commercial or recreational catch histories or from the observed average size profiles. Udlibrium (steady state, constant parameter) yield per recruit analyses, incorporating various minimum sizes, were presented for the greater amberjack and those results, along with spawaing stock biomass per recruit ratios (S21s) were given in the report of the PDT (W 1990). Those analyses were updated and presented employing data for only 1990 (M 1992). The authors stated that by aggregating samples over several years, as done In the Im analyses, a less than "Current couditionO was presented and further noted Ismaller samples of lengths were available from which to assess the resource statusw (An 1"2). These analyses also assumed the combined sexes growth parameter estimates of Birch (1979) for the 1990 and 1"2 analyses with the exception of the turo parameter in the 1"2 analyses which was changed to t = - 0.49 (from t = - 0.653 for the 1988 analyses) without explanation, In addition, the natural vortalPy rate was assumed i'yhOff (1990, 1992) equal to 0.30 for the Atlantic analyses as compared to 0.20 for the Gulf of Mexico analyses. Similar federal recreational bag limit and minimum size regulations as adopted for the Gulf of Mexico recreational grader amberjack fisheuries of 28 inch (71 cm) fork length recreational size limit, 3 fish recreational baglivit, 6 fish in possession, and 36 Inch (91 cm) fork length commercial size limit also exist for the Atlantic recreational fisheries in federal waters, most states have adopted similar regulations. in 1"2, a spawning season closure was adopted in federal waters for the Atlantic coast during the month of April. The sale of greater amberjack was limited to the daily recreational bag limit (3 fish per day, six in possession) during the moth of April. Beginning in 1"3, the spawning season closure for greater amberjack was extended to include April and My in federal waters off the east coast of Florida. Tba commercial limit during that period reverted to the recreational bag limit (3 fish per day, six in possession). Some believe the commercial size limit of 36 inch (91 ca) fork length has little effect on increasing yield per recruit in the commercial fishery during the peak harvest months (March-Jume) as most of the catch historically was larger than this size (taken from: the recorded minutes of fishermen's comments at South Atlantic Fishery Management Council public hearings on proposed minimum size regulations for greater amberjack held January I"l in Key wast, West Palik Beach aid Jacksonville, Florida).

Objectives

This reports provides caurrent information on the U.S. amberjack fisherles of the Gulf of Mexico and the open western Atlantic through l"l. The information presented in birch ad Berry (1979), Goodyear (1988), AW (1990, 1"2), and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Ranagesent Council bdfisb Plan Amendment One (ANK 1999) is reviewed and updated. Presented are 1) reported commercial landings of amberjack by U.S. fishermen from 1962- 1991, 2) estimates of the U.S. recreational catch and the variance for four species included In the &jig& group (greater amberjack, Iona amberjadt al"m jack, and banded rudderdish), 3) observed average lengths and weights and sampling frequencies from recreational &W commercial fisheries for the above four &xiQk species, 4) summary catch per unit of effort information from recreational fisher= trip for the four JU121A species included in this study, 5) updated recreational bag limit analyses for greater amberjack, alum jack and the banded rudderflob, and 6) indices of fishing time directed towards the greater amberjack In the Atlantic aid in the Gulf of Mexico. Istimates of current (1"2) stock size and trends since 1986 are presented for the first tin to date for the U.S. greater amberjack resource. Information not included in this study or not yet available will be incorporated into future updates (i.e., commercial catch intercept observations, growth

pap 4 measures, saturation schedules, and tagging data updates) as sad becomes available. Some mixing of the U.S. resource with that in the Caribbean and further south likely occurs however, this study addresses only the status of the U.S. amberjack stock(s) found in the Gulf of Mexico and the open western Atlantic.

stock Grow

Starch gel electropboretic analyses conducted on greater amberjack collected to date A Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico stock 9= (Johnson 1990, unpublished as, D=225 fish). fish collected from January 1988 to July 1990 from the southeastern United States were exasined for the existence of any poly2orphic systems. Samples included fish of both sexes ranging frog 24 cm to 122 cm, froa Georgia (azfl, Jupiter, Florida (n--51), Panama City, Florida (n=84), Galveston, Texas (rr-18), and Port kransas, Tan (R-63). Of 72 presumed loci examined, from tissues of skeltal muscle, beat, liver, and eyes, only one polymorphic system was identified in a single fish from Jupiter, Florida. Johnson noted the uncommonness of this finding since many other predatory marine fish are characteristically represented by usually son nine to twelve polymorphic systems. The low sample size of that electropboretic dataset should be considered.

Rvidence exists suggesting that stoNA tools (i.e., restriction fragment length polyorphism (RFD) analyses) are more powerful tban electropburetic analyses as methods for use in stock differentiation (Richardson and Cold in press). Ritocbondrlal DRA (N=) analyses of greater amberjack (rr-59) produced nineteen polyaorphic systems yielding tventy-three distinct vtDNA baplotypes (Richardson and Cold in press). Samples included 59 fish collected from off Port Aransas, Texas (n-1), Port Fourcbm, Louisiana (a-I), Pensacola, Florida (a=24), Sarasota, Florida (n-32), and the Dry Tortugas off the Florida Keys (a-l). The probes developed in these lavestigatious indicated the level of genetic diversity in greater amberjack was high, much higher than observed In red snapper and red grouper, and suggested "little geographic cohesion' between the three pbenotypeic groupings of the ainteeen baplotypes that were identified.

Tagging data do not RMide strong evidence of mixing of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico nberud stocks (Sutherland and Scott 1989); however these authors point out that tag/recapture experiments have riot been conducted to specifically address this question. Ad hoc tagging studies conducted by WS, the American Littoral Society (US), W, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Departseut (SM), and Fish Trackers (Corpus Christi, Texas) did not document moveseat between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic except for one fish (unpublished data provided to this author). of all releases from these studies combined, only one individual released in the Florida Keys was later recaptured in the Gulf of Nexico. Marks put out by the 11S, SOM and VKH do support a pattern of northerly migration along the Atlantic coast. The IDL and Fish Trackers releases also suggest eastward and westward alongshore movements in the northern Gulf of Mexico. These releases further support the theory of fish to be recaptured from 25 to 50 am of their release am (Sutherland and Scott, 1989, K unpublished data, fish Trackers unpublished data). WHYS releases (rP7000) indicate extended movements along the Atlantic east coast southward along Caribbean, Caban, ad Honduran coasts (Sutherland &nd Scott 1989). The majority of returns from small scale releases me& by the Florida Department of Natural Resources QW) in the 1960's (Schlitz tagging study) wen recaptured in the vicinity near the tagging am (Noe 1%6), supporting similar findings of the 1K, Fish Trac:kers, and the WS larger scale releases.

The stock structure of the amberjack resources off the southeastern United States cannot be definitely concluded from these observations. This particular research area should receive high priority in the fature to ascertain relative mixing. This study presumed two groups for the analyses presented herein, the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico groups.

Page 5 Fishery statistics and Bioaetric Salples

Reportedcouerciallandings of aJberjack for 1962-1991wereobtained frol the statistics division of the HMFS,SOUtheastFisheries Science Center (SEFSC),ResearchManaqeleDtDivision (RMD).Sole landings data were available for 1992, howeverthese statistics were incolplete laking 1991 the last colplete year of data available. Tbe1992catcb statistics weresufficient however,to provide a prelilinary projection of 1992total fishery yield. Landingsof fisb in Florida prior to 1986are beHeved to bave been reported in gutted weight units so these were converted to wholeweight using the IDIFS,iasbiJlC}ton,D.C. conversion factor of 1.04 for aaberjack (IMFS,SEFSC,RIII»).Burch (1979) reported a gutted to wboleconversion value for greater aJberjack of 1.07. Landingsof cored fish were assUled converted to wboleweight already by either the dealer at the point of sale or by the port agent responsible for subaitting such statistics. Florida landings for 1986and thereafter were available frOi the Florida Departlent of latural Resources (FDIIR)and are received tbrougb periodic updates at the IMFS,SEFSC,RMD. Infonation cononly available for the COIIeIcial landings data available tbrougb the HMFS,SEFSC,RHDincludes suuarized landings by year, IOnth, dealer, and county by species. For the lajority of states and years, the statistical area of capture (MMFSsbrilp grid zone) andgear etployed in the capture were reported on the file. As with laDYof the early reeffish fisheries, uberjack catches laY not always bave been sorted out in the catch at the point of sale so an extesi ve history of relOvals laY not be practical for the resource. In fact, altbougb reported landings of uberjack appear in the FAOstatistics as early as 1950's frOi both coasts of Florida, in 1968 and the early to lid 1970's in the Carolinas, landings for Alabala, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texasdo not appear in the records until the lid 1980's (Berry and Burch1978, this study). Further, the catch of uberjacks wasnot apportioned as to species, but rather exists in the records siaply as Wuberjackw• Altbouqbspecies COIpOSitionsaapling of the couercial landings exists in recent records, the supling level and frequencybas beenlucb too lowto use in apportioning the total landings out by species for an extended nUlbar of years. 10 attetpts to segregate the landings into species groups were ude by this author. Reportedcouerciallandings wereclassified by IIMFS,RIIDpersonnel using the IMFSstatistical Sbrilp Grid classifications to assign landings to probable catch area. That agency further lakes use of infonation on location of fishing activity telporally and by gear collected on a IODtblybasis by individual port agents since about 1977 to assign gear and water body to landiDCJSlade in Florida. Catches reported as taken frol statistical grids 001.0 and 001.1, whiebincludes the well knownalberjack fishing grounds (the wbulpsft), were assigned to the Atlantic I8Dagetent group. Prior to 1977area of catch is unavailable for landings fIOI the east coast of Florida. statistical area of catch for landings frOilorth Carolina, SouthCarolina, andGeorqia was not recorded: these landings were classified into the Atlantic group. Capture grid was not recorded for the 1990or 1991landings trOi Mississippi or for Louisianaby RMFSport agents in those states. TheserelOvals were assigned to the Gulf lanageaent area as supported by the previous landings histories of the capture location for those states. Estiutes of recreational uberjack harvest wereobtained frol the National MarineRecreational Fisheries Survey (MRFSS),the IIMFSBeaufort Laboratory, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departlent (TPWD).Species specific breakdownsof the recreational harvest wereavailable froI these datasets. For SOleyears and for SOle fisheries (I.e., beadboat, private angler, charterboat) IUltiple estilates existed. TbeMRFSSestiutes were always used whenIUltiple sources existed because variance estiutes alwayswere included. TheIIMFSbeadboat catch and yield estiutes werealwaysused in the Gulf: these wereavailable since the inception of the progral in the Gulf (1986) and neither MRFSSnor TPWDsurveyed gulf headboats after that tile. liMFSbeadboat catches were available trOi the ms beadboat survey since 1981in the Atlantic but estiutes of the variance of the catch do not exist frol the beadboatdata (DixonandBuntSIanunpublishedIS). TbeMRFSScolbined cbarterboat - partyboat estilates frol 1979-1985were used in the Atlantic as estiutes of the cbarterjbeadboat catches. Separate headboatand cbarterboat estilates wereavailable frOi MRFSSfor the Atlantic for 1986and afterwards. Catches available frol the TPWDreceived sili1ar treatlent. MRFSScatches were always used where overlap occurred because they included variances of the catch estiutes. The dataset of recreational catches was considered incolplete because estiutes of the total recreational catches for SOle tile periods and fisheries

Page 6 (mostly before 1986) did not exist. Not all fisheries or arm were always sampled by these sources so a catch estimate did not always exist for all catch partitions (i.e., year-area-two month period-fishery) since 1979. No attempt was as& to estimate the catch from these calls at this point because the itissing data were limited to early years (prior to 1986) of the time series and there were years for which very limited biostatistical sampling existed. Istimates of recreational catch from the NRM were used in this study as reported by that data source. Recreational catch estimates are provided separately for Florida out and west coasts; estimates are apportioned into the Gulf or into the Atlantic groups, at the Dade/Norm County line. Beadboat catches and yields, length frequency and weight samples, and catch per effort abunduce observations obtained from the WS, Beaufort Laboratory dataf iles were divided at the Florida Keys with observations from Atlantic based vessels fishing in the Tortuga being assigned to the Atlantic group. Some quantity of amberjack removals from shrimp trawl fisberies is almost certain to exist for these groups however, this source of mortality was not considered at this tin. Future updates of catches should consider this component of additional mortality on stock levels as well as investigating the existence of discard mortality from pelagic longline fisheries operating In the GO of Mexico and in the western Atlantic. Intercepts of catch per trip, catch per angler, catch per boat, and/or catch per time fished from recreational and commercial trips were available fro& the sources above (i.e., MM, WS Readboat Survey, and TPVD). In addition such samples also existed from the Biscayne National Park (W), the WS, SRPSC, Trip interview Program, and the WS, Parma City Laboratory charterboat datafiles. These observations were summarized to provide information on relative abundance of amberjacks over the study period.

In am years and some areas, samples of individual sizes from recreational fishing trips were collected by port samplers. For some recreational trips the weight of individual fish van also collected. Those samples were used to compute sample average weight (and its variance) for the recreational and the headboat fisheries. For a few commercial trips, port agents or dealers recorded the total weight and the number of Individuals In containers (usually boxes) of fish or in a entire trip. These data provide sample average weight and the variance of sample average weight for the coammial fishery.

Measures of the time expended fishing (i.e., days, hours, number of angler trips) for asberjacim were not directly available for the recreational, the beadboat, or the commercial fisheries so indirect methods were used to index time fished for amlerjack. Trip specific data were available from 1985-l"l for the Florida commercial fidwy from the FD1R. Trip specif Ic data existed from the WS, Beaufort Laboratory for the Atlantic beadboat fisheries from 1981-1991 (North Caroliam-Florida Keys) and the Calf headboat fishery from 1986-1"1 (Tortugas- Texas). RM recorded interviews of recreational charterboat, private boat, and shore fishermen daring 1979- 1991 and included target species group on the records. Istivates of the total awaiber of fishing trips by all recreational anglers existed for beadboat fLshersea for the Atlantic (North Caroliwflorlda Keys) from 1981- 1"1 and for the Gulf (Tortuga-Texas) from 1986-1"l (Dixon and flantsim unpublished as). Total fishing effort existed for the recreational private, charter and sbore fisheries for 1979-l"I for both regions from the NRFSS. The number of vessels fishing commercially in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Nexico and the Identity of the kind of fishing gear (e.g., book and line, traps, longlines, gillots) actively used in a particular year were available from the WS, SM, RND. Tbese included both vessels Water than five not tons and "documented' with the U.S. coast Guard as well as smaller "undoctumted" boats (i.e., vessels not required to register with the U.S. Coast Guard). Whetha or not each boat targeted amberjack was not recorded. Available also since 1990 for vessels lending reeffisb in the Gulf of Mexico was logbook records of the trip laDdiags. The reporting rate was 25t in 1990 for all states and 100 % in 1991 for all states except Florida for which a 25% reporting rate was effective. Oonercial trip records of the landed weight by species from the FM and the Gulf of Mexico reeffish logbook datafiles were examined to identify directed amberjack trips. Many trips occurred that caught only minor quantities of amberjack and most amberjack catches were low relative to the total landed weight across all species for the trip. Usually these were snapper/grouper trips that landed just a few hundred pounds of Pap 7 amberjack and usually few species other than snappers or groupers made up the catch. There was a distinct separation In almost all trips that landed large quantities of amberjack; almost always amberjack made up 75 % or more by weight of the total weight inded. This was determined by visual inspection of the plotted frequency distributions of the proportion that amberjack made up of the catch. Thus, commercial fishing trips landing 75 % or sore amberjack (by weight) were defined as targeting amberjack; these were suned to index fishing time in the commercial fishery for the calendar year.

A similar strategy was used to identify directed amberjack effort in the beadboat fishery however, a clear picture of a targeted trip was not easily identified. Amberjacks rarely made up a very ma^or part of the total catch so a proportional cutoff by weight or by numbers by which to identify a trip as an amberjack catch as not easily Identifable. Instead, total headboat effort was multiplied by the parentage of the total trips that caught nberjacks of any kind with each trip being weighted by the total catch of that trip. Directed fishing tin expanded for amberjack in other recreational fisheries was similarly estimated. Total recreational fishing time was multiplied by the percentage of the trip catching my of the four amberjack species in any recreational trip Intercepted without regard to target species.

Analytical *theds Results of previous modeling (equilibrium, steady state, yield per recruit and SSW analyses) have ban thoroughly completed and reported on previously by "ear (1988) and M (1989, 1990, 1"2). The life history parameters those results are based upon have not been updated so the results and conclusions of Goodyear and of AM still stand today. This study addresses other aspects of amberjack exploitation and stock production germane to assessing current stock ooondition of U.S. resources.

The typical fisheries stock assessment analytical models often applied such as Cohort or virtual Population Analyses (VPA's) (fty 1949, Nurphy 1965) and stock production models were not applied bare for two min reasons. First, a limited time series of blostatistical and effort data existed from which to describe annual catches. Secondly, the age composition of catcbes was unknown. Both of these kinds of data are critical to the application of such methodologies. of Interest is the history of catch magnitude, the lawlifigs, the size composition of catches (i.e., age or length), and previous yam exploitation levels. Than basic fishery statistics allow calculation of put production levels and future management options. Thirdly, adequate blostatistics were not available nor was adequate growth information or comprehensive site composition data available to support construction of historical population and exploitation levels for the U.S. amberjack fisheries. The usual age-structured assessment methods were simply not options for assessing the status of the U.S. amberjack resources. Calculation of total mortality rates for distinct fisheries (e.g., beadboat, commercial book and line) was done for the Atlantic asherjack fisheries In the work of Am. (1990, M and for the Gulf (MV, Amendment one 1989) assuming constant survival across various strata; such my or say not be applicable to the asberjack fisheries. Stock growth and stock production levels are also of interest however, mat Individuals familiar with the amberjack fisheries share the opinion that the resource is not In a equilibrium state. Landings have risen dramatically since the mid 1980's and a decline in the average site of individuals Is believed to have occurred. Therefore, the usual equilibrium based production models were inappropriate. Von-equilibrius production models were considered but not used because the data series of complete statistics is extremely short (six yam). Total yield of catch Is not known and an index of total effort was nort available. Although commercial and beadboat fishery yields are recorded, it is well known that reported landings are substantially under-reported. In addition, only the numbers caught by the recreational fisheries and not the weight caught were available. Riostatistical sampling of the recreational fisheries was not sufficiently comprehensive temporally or geographically to derive estimates of the catch in weight for these recreational fisheries supportable quantitatively. in some years, numbers of fish sampled for site vere extremely low (one or two fish) in certain areas and seasons.

Page a A simple likelihood method (SLN) described by Parrack (1990a, W 1"2) that was applied to the Atlantic coastal shark fisheries was used in this study to estimate greater axberjack stock abundance. The method ages use of four kinds of simple observations frequently available even in sparsely- sampled fisberies, for equal- length time periods and for distinct fisheries. These are 1) the total yield (weight landed), Y(t,k) of each fishery during each time period; 2) a name of the amount of fishing, f(t,k) stratif ied by fishery and time period; 3) the sample average weight of the fishery specific catch, w(t,k) stratified by time; and 4) the variance of the sample average weight of the landed flab, w(t,k) for that fishery. The method requires either (a) a catch estimate with its estimated variance and an index of time fished or (b) sample average weight with its variance, an index of time fished, and the yield from each fishery each period (i.e., calendar year). ft method assumes all phenomena effecting stock abundam (e.g., recruitment, predation, disease, immigration, emigration, discards, and landings are random Poisson processm. ft method accounts for all of these events (except the lauded catch) with a single statistic called the replacement rate. The method yields Narimum Likelihood Estimates of the most current abundanoe (1), a replacement rate for each year (s), and efficiency coefficients (q's) for each fishery as veil as various other statistics of interest (time period specific fishing mortalities (r1s), stock sizes (11s), production levels(Pls), and growth levels (GIs). The assumptions, formulae, and derivation of the parameters are explicitly set forth in Parrack (1990) and in the Report of the Atlantic CmUl Mark Fishery Analysis Review of September 30, l"2 (Parrack 1992). The pertinent formulae are presented in this report as Appendix 1. The performance characteristics of the method are given in Attachment I of Parrack (1992). ?be Atlantic Coastal Shark Review committee concluded that 2 ...the method efficiently subtracted all relevant information contained within the available data... I and that I ...estimates were accurate, usefully precise, and seemed robust to coma data deficiencies'. Naximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) is superior to common ordinary least squares "fitting' methods (01S). In the cue of weighted lust squares (VIS) if, the weights used in the fitting are HLE's of the variances then WLS is equivalent to Kaximum Likelihood Estimation. However, this only occurs who the parameters are from a log normal (Gaussian) distribution. in this special case, WLS becomes a special case of NLE. NU based estimates have known statistical characteristics. The results from the model fit are accompanied by diagnostic criteria useful in judging the softl's fit to a particular analysis at. These are: the chi-square statistic for the resulting vector of paraveW estimates, the probability of the calculated log-likelibood value of the parameter estimates, and the variation around the parameter estimates. This method also provides for the calculation of other variables of interest in assessing stock status (i.e., stock sizes (11s), fishing mortality rates (F's), stock production (PIs), stock growth (GIs)) during each time period. These terms are derived from the HLE's however, since they are not truly HLE's, their statistical properties are unknown. in this study the time period was considered to be a calendar year.

mammt Results - Greater Ambarlack Atlantic Commercial fields

Annual commercial amberjack landings of the Atlantic group ranged from 6,344 The (1962) to 1,9%,924 us (M) (Tables I & 2). From 1962 through 1965 reported landings were stable at under 10,000 lbs. Between 1965 and 1981 reported landings remained under lOOjOqO lbs. By M Atlantic catches were approaching 200,000 lbs annually however, amberjack landings varied greatly from 1991-1995. By 1996 reported commercial landings readied 446,774 lbs and since that year amberjack landings have continued to increase reaching 1,994,907 lbs in M - Prelivinary estimates of the M Atlantic group commercial ambarjack landings is 2.1 million Be even though the sale of greater amberjack was restricted to the recreational bag limit of 3 fish per day, six in possession regulation during April of 1992. The regulation does not appear to have impacted M landings; landings continue to increase in the Atlantic group despite recent measures to reduce fishing mortality.

Page 9 Several fishermen and port samplers have advised this investigator of substantial rim-reporting in the commercial landings. in the opinion of some who are familiar with the fisbery, the non-reported landings are probably greater than the reported portion, particularly in years before 1"0. bz* (1978) was the first to suggest caution when using the reported commercial statistics to document total amberjack landings. The particular years of suspect noted bare (1981-1"5) we not years In which king mackerel fisherman bad moved into the Atlantic amberjack fishery because of closures to that fishery or to displaced effort from the drift gill met fishery. Nor was this a tin when the blackened fish food product was gaining popularity. Landings would be expected to be wore stable than observed from theme reported statistics. other considerations when viewing the reported statistics include the condition of lauded fish known as "oores' or 'logs'. This practice has ben noted by may Individuals familiar with the fishery and way not always ben taken into account by dealers and fishery reporting individuals Wom documenting the weight lauded. it is believed that coring has occurred in this fishery end that the degree of coring has not been constat between fisbermen, areas, or am= (Nemorandums from C. Schaeffar and R. Beaver to the author). in other words, not all fishermen landed cDred fish bemuse the market or dealer sometimes commanded a whole product and the rate and timing us not constant. Frequently fisb were lauded in oored condition since my fisberven utiWed small vessels that would only bold 1500 lbs or so of whole fish. The statistical records show that the majority of the Atlantic group aberjack catch is landed in Florida (Tables 1 & 2) and until about the early 1980's most of the catch of this group was landed on the east coast. After 1991 bower, landings significantly increased on the west coast of Florida in Nonroa county. Eandiags of amberjack In other states are for the most part a minor contribution to the total annual Atlantic group catch as amberjack are not considered a target species to vessels lawling in those states.

After 1977 the statistics contain sufficient information to identify the capture area for catches lauded in Florida (Table 3). Catches landed in the Carolina and in Georgia are unclassif ied as to statistical tore but are assumed to come from U.S. waters of the western Atlantic. Traditionally, catches landed in Florida have ben mainly taken from waters between Cape Canaveral and Kini. Since the early 1980's however, significant quantities of uberjack have also been take from theupper Florida 4ys gram w4ly in the area known as thl 'humps" of; Isluorada Florida located in the area from long]. tude 8U0 15 V to 90 37 N and latitude 240 37 N to 240 50 ; often these catches are landed in Norm county, Florida. Statistics indicate that the majority of the Atlantic group landings occur between January and Jun in all years (Tables 4a, 4b) and that most catches are taken by book and line gear (Table 5). Kinor catches from divers and lor4lim occur in the records.

ReMatIORal EMeSt Estimates

Total estimated recreational harvest of greater syberjack in the Atlantic group, as estimated from the NRFSS ad the WS headmt survey, ranged from about 44,558 fish (1979) to 116,000 fish (1"0) (Table 6). This estimate includes catches by private anglers, shore fisherven, charterboats, and beadboats. Recreational catches by fishery (charter, private, Madboat, shore, etc.,), calendar year, ad state of catch are given in Table 7. These statistics Indicate that recreational fisheries Including the private boat avid charterboat catch greater amberjack tore often than do the beadboat fisheries. Greater &Mwjack beadboat catches ran* from 7,822 fish (1990) to 25,300 fish (1982) (Table 6, kppandix 2). 1 general decline in numbers moght as well as total yield was observed over the 11 - year time series (1981-1"1). Beadboat yield varied sore so than catch bemuse this variable is effected by observed average site in the year used in the expansions of reported yield to total yield. Headboat yield varied from 97,3^3 (1999) lbs to 261,455lbs (1992) over the eleven year period (Appendix 2). Estimated numbers caught from other recreational fisheries (charter, private, shore) ranged from 15,589 fish (1982) to 115,813 fish (1990); in general a decline in the catch by these fisherman also occurred over the 13 year time series (Table 6).

Page 10 risbary Riostatistical samples

Length and weight samples were available since 1979 for greater amberjack. Bowever, there wee not suff iciat samples to adequately estimate catch at size by fishery, area, and season. The population estimator employed in this study (StX) utilizes average weight samples, thus the umber and quality of ad coverage of the weight samples collected was critical to the study. The number of length and/or weight samples available for greater amberjack is given for each source and calendar year of collection in Table 8. overall, the commercial Wn were very poorly and inadequately sampled for length and for weight over the entire thirteerr year history. Ova the study period there never existed sore than so commercial average weight samples per year for greater nberjack. Since 1998, only two to four hundred fish were sampled for weight each year by port samplers with the total across the 197 samples (from 1984-19n) being 1197 fish producing a sampling rate of 0.22. Kany my more greater aberjack were sampled for length than weight from the commercial fisheries, and during the entire study period there were never sore than 350 fish sampled (for length) in any year. Only one source of commercial weight and/or length samples was available; this was the 11WS Trip Interview Progra. These samples, taken by port agents at the dockside, included om or more occassions when the sampler obtained the total weight of one or more boxes of fish (or the total catch) and also recorded the number of fish in the container (or trip). Recreational catches were sampled rid more heavily than commercial gem. The WS headbut and the NRFSS data files were the largest contributors of length samples although some length measurements were also recorded by WS-TrP samplers, IRS, Panama City Laboratory samplers, the FM, and the W.

The weight samples collected from the Atlantic commercial fishery during 1970-1991 indicate that the average weight of greater ambarjack varied from 8.1 (1987) lbs to 20.9 lbs (1989) since 1984 the first year In which weight samples occur in the commercial records (Table 9). These statistics reflect a slight decline in average weight in the commercial fishery ova the time period (1994-1991). The number of separate samples ranged from 3 take in 1984 (6 fish) to 49 in 1991 (with 420 fish measured). 1% M value is particularly suspect became only 12 samples including 45 fish in total were incorporated into that calculation. In addition, the valance of this sample was particularly low (14.5 lbs) in comparison to other years suggesting, Mat perhaps several angles were taken of a single market category or that perhaps those fish sampled were actually from recreational angler catches who frequently land similar sized individuals in their creels.

Amberjack commercial catches were sampled sore frequently for length them for weight and these samples reflect less variation in size over the time series of available samples (1984-1991) than did the average weight samples. in all of the years in which length samples we taken only 892 greater &Aaj&ck length measurements won obtained. Sim 1986 a estimated 565,108 fish were harvested In the commercial fishery for an overall sampling fraction of 0.16 1 for the commercial fishery for length. The commercial length records reflect a trend of increasing size from about 25 inches fork length (64 ca) to 34 inches fork length (85 ca) since 1984 (Table 9). this suggests that the minimum size regulation placed on the commercial fishery in 1990 my have bad an son impact on the size of fish lauded. if the 1987 average size value, 68.02 cm, is used to estimate average weight, this yields a value of about five pounds. Although this gives am support for the observed average weight of 8.1 lbs in 1997 the observed length value still appears somewhat small. Suple variance estimates associated with the average weight and average size data are given in Table 9.

Sample average weight from the Atlantic greater amberjack recreational fisheries ranged from 12.0 IM (1979) to 20.0 lbs (1999) across all fisheries (Appendix 3). Average length varied from 16 inches (41 ca, 1981) to 39 inches (100 cm, 1990). While the trend In overall recreational average lmxjtb was slightly upward since about 1983 (Appendix 3), recreational average weight varied without a strong trend throughout the 13 - year time series. Never were there more than one thousand fish sampled for length in any year nor were there more than 300 fish sampled for weight in a you. We reinforces the med for enhanced biostatistical sampling in the recreational as well as the commercial Atlantic greater amberjack fisheries.

pap 11 Recreational Catch Per VAIt of wort (CM)

observations of catch pax angler (CPA) and of catch per hour (cPff) fished wem recorded from the RM since 1979 and the WS headboat survey since 1973 in the Atlantic. Average CPA recorded in WSS interviews collected for greater aW*xj&d group varied from 0.9 fish (1987-1989) to 2.6 fish (1980) (Table 10). Although the umber of Intercepts is admittedly quite small the trend in the RM CPA is downward since 1981. Three results show a significant decline in CPA in 1987 to about half the 1980 level. Although average CPA increased slightly in 1990 current CPA has not returned to the 1980's level of about 2.6 fish per angler. Average CPS fished varied only slightly over the period (1979-l"l) ranging from 0.3 fish to 0.6 fish without trend.

Average CPA from beidboat trips aim varied very little over the period (1973-1"1) and without a strong trend. Generally CPA us about 0.2 fish over the entire time period (1973-1991). only one or two years in the tin series suggested CPA rates higher than 0.2 fish (1980-1"1). This suggests a stable trend In CPUE as measured by the beadboat fishery or indicates that changes in CM are not measured by fishing sucess by beadboat anglen. The M beadboat survey coverage was extended to include the east coast of Florida about 1976 so this survey my not reflect ahmdance of flab from south Florida and the Florida Keys until the late 1970's. bereational Bag Limit Analyses

observation of fishing success from the WS beadboat and from the MRFSS surveys were used to re-exarine effects of bag limits on future recreational catches for Atlantic greater nberjack. observations from 19% and l"l we used to best reflect recent fishery conditions and the results are presented in Table 11. These results suggest that reductions in total recreational catch can result from strict adherence to creel limits of 1 - 2 fish per angler per trip. The Current lialt is 3 fish per angler per day and 6 in possession; multiple trips per day are quite rare for most recreational anglers. Substantial reductions to total catches were estimated as possible In the shore (52 t), private (32 1) and charter (26 1) greater ambarjack fisheries (32 %). Very xinival reductions were estimated for the budboat fishery. Although effects on shore fisheries might be significant, the impact on total recreational catches in terms of overall reductions would not be expected to be large since the shore fisheries do not acomt, for a major portion of total recreational catches (Table 7). Fishing fffort The exact mount of directed time spent fishing for aW*rjacb by commercial or by recreational fishermen was not available. This study developed an index of fishing tire directed towards greater amberjack in the beadboat, commercial, and other recreational fisheries in the Atlantic (Table 12). sufficient commercial fish* trip specific information existed for Florida landings of all commercially important reeffish species since 1986 however, a comprehensive history did not exist for any other state for an extended number of years, Similar statistics exist for South Carolina though records account for only about 60-75 % of the vessels larding in that state so those data we not med. The number of directed amberjack trips from vessels larding In Florida ranged from 859 (M) to 1409 (1987) while the total avow of trips ranged from 16,525 trips (M) to 42,053 trips (1989). There Maas suggest that total effort varied without trend over the six year period tile directed effort increased from 1986 to 199Q and declined by almost half In 1991. Theme Indices of directed amberjack effort are based on trips of which greater amberjack made up 75% or sore by weight of the total trip weight. Son perception of the reliability of this value can be obtained by considering a likely value for the maximum number of boat (vessel) days available for the greater amberjack fishery. Assuming a maximum of 40 commercial vessels currently target Atlantic greater arberjack group, the peak fishery occurs from about January through June (without closures), and only one landing per day per boat, than a maximum of 7,200 commercial vessel trips might exist (180 days per seam * 40 commercial boats). Theme indices do not am wrealistic values for directed commercial effort. Taking into consideration the l"2 seasonal closure in April reduces Pap 12 the total to about 60M vessel trips (days). Some additional fishing time is known to be expended In the Atlantic fishery from boats landing in the Carolinas ad Georgia however, the exact amount of additional effort expended by these vessels was not determinable free the fishery statistics available for this study. it is probably minor in comparison to the magnitude of effort from vessels landing amberjad in Florida since greater aaberjack is not usually a target species in those states.

Time expended by recreational fisherman for Atlantic amberjacits, estimated for 1986-1991, was apportioned into two categories, that due to 1) headboat operations measured in angler clays and 2) from other recreational anglers (charter, private) and enumerated as angler trips. Total fishing time across all species was available for both fisheries and species specific catches from intercept files existed. The WSS provided the variance of total fishiDg. Total fishing time expended in the Atlantic beadboat fishery was assumed bown without error because that survey is considered to can= total beadboat catch and effort (Dixon and flantsman 1990 mpblished as). In index of directed time spent fishing for greater amberjack was calculated by multiplying total effort by the proportion of trip that caught greater amberjack. The total catch of each trip was used as a weighting factor in calculating the index for the beadboat fishery.

The index of directed fishing greater amberjad fishing time expended by Atlantic beadboat fisbermen ranged from 5,122 angler days (1990) to 35,387 angler days (1987) (Table 12). Greater amberjack directed beadbDat effort declined in the Atlantic over the tin period by 58 % (from 22,560 angler days in 1986 to 9,451 days in l"l). Directed budboat effort declined dramatically by 75 t in 1990 from the 1989 level. This year (1990) coincides with the year in which size (length) and bag limit regulations were placed on greater nberjack in federal waters and adopted by most states. The total number of angler days fisW in the Atlantic beadboat fishery ranged from 341,093 (1985) to 443,448 angler days (1987). Although, the index of directed beadboat effort in the Atlantic fell precipitously In 1990, total beadboat effort across all species remained stable from 1986-1991 suggesting that fishing activity of the entire fleet may have ban re-directed to other locations or to species other than the &jlgk group (Table 12). The index of directed amberjack effort expended in other Atlantic recreational fisheries (dwter and private) as daterained using the WSS data files ran* from 48,028 trips (1986) to 148,124 trips (1984) (Table 12). The total mad= of angler trips in the Atlantic ranged from 11,345,000 (1981) to 19,840,000 (1985). Neither the index of directed amberjad effort (from other than beadboat anglers) nor total recreational effort expanded over all species in the Atlantic changed vastly over the 13-year period. The notable exceptions were in 1984 and 1985 when directed effort from other recreational fisheries doubled and in 1990 when directed effort of other recreational began declining. Directed effort of other recreational fisheries also dwlined the following year (M) while total effort increased. These recreational effort indices suggest that about 50,000-0,000 recreational trips were directed at greater amber^ack froa-charter, private, and shore anglers in addition, to about 20,000 angler days from the Atlantic beadboat fisbery until 1990. Since 1990 indexed budboat effort has been about 10,WO angler days in the Atlantic fishery. The indexed values of directed amberjad fishing time suggest that time spent fishing for amberjaclm across all fisheries (commercial, beadboat, otber recreational) remained fairly stable since 1986. The exceptions to this observation were 1) 1990 when indexed effort for the ba&oat fishery declined as did reported headboat catch and 2) 1991 when directed commercial effort declined by almost balf. The observed trend in landings from the Atlantic commercial fishery was upward everi year in the dataseries while the trend in estimated catch of Atlantic recreational fisheries was stable, The exception was in the M preliminary catch value from other Atlantic recreational fisheries and the 1991 values is preliminary. The reason for the decline in bea&oat indexed directed effort and concomitant decline in beadboat catch of amberjack in 1990 is not )mown. This decline could be due to a Change in the availability of fish from traditional areas, a change in fishing location of the beadboat fleet, or from an impact of the minimum size and bag limit restriction placed on the recreational fisheries in 1M. Bowever, the regulations did not appear to impact directed amberjack effort Page 13 in other recreational fisheries (i.e., charter, private) in 1990 but may have had a impact in the 1991 fiWwies - In addition, became beadboat catches are assumed a near consus of the beadboat catches a decline in catches would be more noticeable than from other recreational catches which am not measured as precisely.

Stock Site Estimates

Yields from the commercial fisheries won recorded since l%2 and yields from beadboat fisheries Sims 1981. Landed estimates of recreational catches an available since 1979. Recreational yields are not available. Indices of fishing time and size maples for these fisheries were sufficient for analysis only since 1986. Site samples of the commercial fisberles are too spume before 1986 ad indices of time fished did not exist for all fisheries before 1986. Weight samples are extremely limited. Only the be&doat fishery was adequately sampled. The remaining recreational fisheries were also poorly sampled, yet those fisheries (data, private anglers, shore) took significant amounts, on average about of 1.2 million pounds, of greater amberjack each year. Analysis were restricted to complete data years, 1986-1991. insufficient samples resulted in unreliable stock size estimates of 9rea ter amberjack in the Atlantic. The results reflect large variation in stock site and resulting uncertainty and a large coefficient of variation (CV) of the 1992 estimated beginning year stock site (353 %) (Table 13). Although, the estimated CV on the l"2 stock size is very large, actually the data fit the model quite well (Pr(log likelibood)-o.86). The recorded data are extremely 'noisy' (variable). Results indicate that the Atlantic nberjack stock changed several fold over the time series investigated. The most germane findings of the analysis of the Atlantic greater aWW3&d stock condition from 1986-l"I are presented below. Status of stock results based on analysis of the three separate fisheries (i.e., commercial book and line and dive, beadboat, and other recreational fisheries (charter, private, shore) follow.

Atlantic : 1) Total esti Catches ranged from about 114,000 fish (1996) to 223,000 fish (1997) (Table 13, Appendix 2). Estimated yield of the three fisheries (commercial, headboat, recreational other ranged from 1201 Ut (1986) to 1837 st (1990). Sample average weight ranged from 13.98 Do (1987) to 28.27 lbs (1989) across all fisheries (Table 13). The trend in sample average weight (across all three fisheries) reflects a aligh increase since 1987 across all fisheries. Kinimum size regulations were implemented during the 1990 fishing season for all fisheries and even so, sample average weight decreased in both the commercial and the beadboat fisheries during IM (Table 9, Appendix 3).

2) The trend in stock size numbers estimated from this study suggest large variation in stock sites (Table 13).

3) The variame of stock site estimates is on the order of 100 % annually, except for 1989 in which the CV of stock size was 216 % (Table 13). The degree of uncertainty is too large for the estimates to be useful in measuring changes in abundance between years, only relative trends should be considered. 4) Large unoartainty in the estimates Is a result of insufficient monitoring of the basic statistics required for analysis (reported yields, estimated catches, directed fishing tin, and biontric (size/weight) samples) (Tables 8, 9).

5) The Atlantic greater amberjack stock is driven by recruitment which appears to be highly erratic in magnitude. Although stock size levels d=* greatly over the six-year study period (1986-1"1) the overall trend in stock site is up from the initial year of study (1986) (Table 13).

Page 14 6) The dynamics are recruitment drive (new recruits compose the majority of numerical abundance) therefore, estimates will not be useful unless they are site specific. It present, the analysis method employed has indirectly estimates recruitment and doe not separate recruitment into various components (i.e., new bons, juveniles, immigration of adults, etc.J. such analysis must be based on size data and these data are not currently being collected. The we of size-based procedures mist ensue this investigation in-order to comment definitively on the exact magnitude of recruitment.

7) Total catches exceeded stock production and stock growth in 1986, 1998, and and in Ml (Table 13). Because stock production was low In these years most likely fro* low year classes, it seems likely that the 1985, 1997, ad the 1990 year classes were low. Good recruitment apparently occurred in 1997 and IM. Of particular concern is the low recruitment of 1986, 1989, and 1991 concomitant with stable or increasing fishing effort (Tables 12, 13).

9) Fishing mortality approximately doubled from 0.12 in 1986 to 0.22 in 19r, and declined by 23 t In 1988 (Table 13). Fishing mortality averaged 0.18 from 1988 through 1990 and declined to 0.13 in 1991. This also conincide with the year of significant declines in directed effort in the commercial and the beadboat fisheries. This rate of mortality represents the percentage of the stock, averaged over the year, that was removed from fishing alone. 9) It seem likely that the decline in stock size was due to low year classes (i.e., a reduction in recruitment) combined with persistent fishing. The index of fishing time ("effort') is generally stable over the six-year period but catches increased every year. Catches increased steadily and indexed fishing time was stable while average weight declined in the last year.

10) Based on preliminary data from the WS, SIM, M and froa the MM, projected yield in 1992 is 2.1 million pounds (commercial) and 1.2 million pounds (recreational) for about 3.3 zillion pounds for the M calendar year. Neither average weight samples nor indices of tin fished are yet available for any of these fisheries at this time and the estimates of projected yield are uncertain so reliable indices of M stock sizes are not possible.

11) Ourrently, the IM and earlier year classes are being fished given the probable site when recruits become available to the different gears of the recreational and commercial fisheries. Given that good to moderate recruitment occurred in 1987 and in IM and If the M projected yield is about 3.2 million pounds or less, them the stock can be expected to not decline in IM

12) Over the last six years the Atlantic greater amberjack stock size trend was characterized by two high years (1987, 1990), 1 year of sodium (1989) and 3 years of low (1996, 1988, M) abundance. These results show a trend in the fisbary of decreasing average weight since 1990 (Table 9, Appendix 3) and that of increasing yield (and catch) (Tables 1, Appendix 3) in a stable or declining effort situation (Table 12, Appendix 3). Projected stock sizes for M suggest a year of low to moderate stock site and with a yield of about the 1991 mount or larger if the current observed trend in effort remains stable.

13) If the 1992 observed yield remains about the am or lower than that observed in 1991, estimated production of the M stock my be p*tive became two 'good' years of recruitment occurred in the six-year period and two moderate sized year class.

is) The basic fisheries data will have to be dramatically improved in scope and quality before accurate assessment of stock condition and sound management advice Is possible for the Atlantic greater &Wwjack stock.

Page 15 Gulf Grow Commercial Landings

Since 1962 commercial landings of asberjack ranged from 5,824 lbs (1965) to 2,429,505 lbs (1988); in general landings of the Gulf group have Shows much more variability than those of the Atlantic group (Tables 14, 15). until about 1976 landings remained below 100,000 lbs, afterwards landings steadily increased to 866,965 lbs (1985) with only one year (1982), shoving a decline from the previous one. Since 1985, landings increased to over two zillion lbs reaching a peak In 1988 of 2,429,505 IbS, declining in 1989 by about seven percent to 2.3 million lbs and, Subsequently dropping sharply by 49 % to 972,090 lbs in 1990. This drop was oncomitant with implementation of shim si:e regulations of 36 inches fork length (onancial) and 29 inches fork length (recreational) with a 3 fish daily, six fish in possession recreational bag limit In federal waters and in most states. Preliminary estimates from the MUS, SUSC, M for l"2 (Josh Bennett, personal communication) indicate about one million lbs again will likely be landed by the commercial fishery. The drop in the 1990 and 1991 landings of amberjack in Texas my be partially explained as a result of a decrease in fishing effort and not of availability. Information obtained from WS port agents in that area indicate that vessels normally lending amberjack as byeatch in the yellow-fin tan& fisheries left the am in l"l ("t Rightower, personal communication). 11tMO landings of amberjack from these states certainly impact total landings, the effect alone is not am* to explain the 49% reduction in total landings in IM. overall, the statistics reflect an increase of about 40 % in the amount of aaberjack landed in the Gulf of Nexico since 1985 but also indicate a decline in landings began In 1990 and has continued. Apparently, the M commercial yield will be close to that attained in 1"I.

Nost of the Gulf group amberjack production is landed by vessels on the west coast of Florida. Although less than 3,000 The are generally Landed annually, some Gulf group catches have actually boa landed on Atlantic east coast in earlier years (Tables 15, 16). Amberjack catches from the Gulf group cove mainly from areas off the vest coast of Florida through the northern Gulf and around the Nississippi river (Table 16). Small catches of only a few thousand lbs total wen reported for areas west of the Rississippi River (approximately statistical grids 14 and vest) from the late 1960's - the early 1990's. Around 19v however, landings from these westward areas increased substantially; this increase coincides with the startup of the tuna longline fisheries, targeting yellovf in, that began in the Gulf of Nexim In the mid 1990's (Lee Usie, personal communication). As for the Atlantic group, catches mainly come from book and line gear and are taken mostly frov the months from January through June (Tables 17, 10). About 1985, substantial catches from bottom longlines appeared in the statistical records. Fisheries statistics for the Gulf group are included In this report Since l%2 however, it Is important to recall that amberjack my not have always ban Warated out of the catch at the point of sale. Landings from Alabama, Nississippi, and Texas do not appear In the records until around 1994. It is of interest that historical accounts of amberjack being caught off Texas waters by bottom lougliners exist since 1982 from length samples obtained from these vessels (Bab Prytberch, opublished data). Bemuse the historical records are probably incomplete as to when exactly this group began being marketed in the Gulf of Nexico, it my be realistic to consider the catch statistics records reasonably accurate only since sometine in the aid to late 19801S.

Recreational know Barvefft

Total estimated harvest of Gulf greater aderjack by recreating anglers ranged from about llIjODD (1984, VariaDW79,000 fish) to 1.21 million fish (1982, Variance-60.8 million fish). This estimate includes catches by private anglers, shore fishermen, darter boats, and beadboats. Greater amberink catches by M&dbmts ranged from 9,952 fish (M) to 86,024 fish (1986) (Tables 19, 2D, Appendix 2). Generally speaking recreational catches of the Gulf group of greater amberjack showed greater fluctuation than in the Atlantic. Page 16 Headboat yields showed a decreasing trend ova the six year tin series from 750,000 lbs in 1986 to 105,ODD lbs in 1991. Recreational catches from other fisheries (RFss- charter, private, shore anglers) varied from 82,363 fish (19") to 569,490 fish (1989). The M EM estivate is particularly troubling for several rose=. The variance of the estimate was 60.8 million fish and this is the only yea of such magnitude In the time series. this estivate is bud to accept as being accurate and no doubt son of the uncertainty my be due to vis-identif Wation of other jacks as greater amberjack compounded by a low frequency of encountering greater nberjack in sampled trips multiplied by a large nude of fishing trips for am particular strata (i.e., a two month time interval for son particular state and gear). This suggests that the individual strata catch estimates should be re-evaluated for the recreational catches to identify sucb problems. The possibility of re-estimating historical recreational catch of greater amberjack with a high level of certainty is however very unlikely. Even if catch per trip intercept outliers were identified and excluded from the expansions It is highly unlikely that actual fishing time for greater asberjack can be estimated with accuracy.

Fishery siostaustical samples

Gulf greater amberjack commercial catches were rarely sampled for average weight over the 1979-1991 tin series (Table 21). Average weight samples obtained for this study for the commercial fishery first appeared in 1987 (n-l sample of nine fish) and this was the year prior to the peak landings year in the commercial fishery. In l"l, 71 average weight samples were available from 704 fish. The estimated sapling fraction of the commercial fishery of since 1987 was about 0.3 % which obviously would be such lover if extended back to the 1979 sampling year. Became the sampling rate was dammed grossly inadequate for use, sample average weights for the calendar year were estimated from the year's length samples. This provided 3201 observations sine 1986 from which to estimate average weight. The length samples suggest average size in the commercial fishery fluctuated over a fairly broad range of 55 ck in 1988 to 104 ca in l"l or froa 6.7 lbs to 43 lbs if converted to weight using the weight-length equation parameters of Thompson at al. (1992) (Table 22). Recreational catchm were much sore heavily sampled than von the commercial gears over the time series and also show a large degree of noise (variation) over the time series. Samples from the headboat fishery indicate average weight ranged from 5.6 lbs (1989) to 12.3 lbs (1991) and from all other recreational fisheries from 6.5 lbs (1991) to about 26.2 (1980). These sampling averages suggest that average weight increased over the tin series in the commercial and beadboat fisheries. Average weight in other recreational fisheries showed 1" flueutions since 1979 declining to 6.89 Us in 1997 and thereafter increasing until 1989, and declining since 1989 (Table 22).

Recreational WA per Unit Of Effort M"

observations of catch per angler and catch per hour fished for Gulf greater amberjack were available from the TPWD since 1983 (n-167 interviews), the WS headboat survey since 1996 (a-6,567 trips), and from the KRYSS since 1979 (r.-1071 intercepts) (Table 23). Average CPA of Gulf greater amberjack recorded from the WSS interview varied without trend from 0.9 fish (1990) to 3.7 fish (1986) since 1979. Gulf greater avWjack M rates were on average twice that ohm-M for the Atlantic group (0.9 fish to 2.6 fish). Average CPR measured from the NRFSS was more variable than us CPA ranging from 0.6 fish to 2.8 over the tin period. Two distinct trade in CPS were evident in the WSS CPUZ observations for Gulf amberjack. Through 1983, CPR aver&* about 0.8 fish and ranged from 0.6 to 1 fish per hour fished. From 1984 through 1909 and CPH averaged about 2.2 fish with one exception (1985). in 1990 CPR fell to,tbe pre 1984 level of about 0.6 and subsequently increased in 1991 to an intermediate level (1.6).

Average CPA of Gulf amberjack from WS headboat interviews ranged from 0.4 (1991) to 0.9 (1986) Meeting a slow declining trend in recreational catch rate over the tin period (1986-1991) of about 50% of the 1986 level (Table 23). The number of beadboat trips on which greater amberjack was caught increased significantly from 1281 trips (1986) reached a peak of 1550 trips in 1999 and declined by 55 1 (699 trips) the following year (1990). Page 17 Very few boat trips were recorded by the TM with positive catches of the greater oberjack since 1983 (n-iv). The number of interviews steadily declined fro 36 in 1996 by 50 1 to 16 in 1986 and was only 9 in 1991. Average CPA varied from 0.5 to 1.4 fish since 1983 generally fluctuating witbouta strong trend. Average CPH however ranged from 0.2 fish (19WI"l) to 2.2 fish (1993) and abowed a strong declining trend In catching success for Gulf greater amberjack beginning about 1985. Catch per effort from the TPWD data series showed a much stronger trod in declining 00 than observed for the WS headboat dataseries. This is not surprising however, because of the general tendency of creel sharing common to beadboat anglers charges in catch rate would be expected to be less variable than from smaller party's. In-fact, bemuse of the sharing behavior among beadboat anglers measures of CPUE from beedboat fishermen my not be a good indicator of true catching success. bcreational Bag Limit Analyses Catch per trip data from the NKFS beadboat survey and from the RM van used to re-assess effects Of bag limits on the recreational catches of greater anbarjack. be observations from 1990 and l"l Vero selected Inorder to best reflect current ogler fishing sucoesss. Those results (Table 24) suggest that strict adhinrocs to a 3 fish per trip bag limit would produce major reductions to the charter fishery. Bag limits of 2 fish would brio significant reductions in total catch of the private fishery in Texas as well as the charter fishery throughout the Gulf. Very aim reductions in total catch would probably result in the beadboat fishery under a bag limit option of two fish. Fisb* fffort

As for the Atlantic amberjack fisheries, mama of directed effort or indices of effort did Dot exist for Gulf amberjack. indices of directed effort were developed for Gulf amberjack using the procedures described earlier for Atlantic oberjack. Briefy, this entailed using recreational and commercial fishing trip specific catch and landings data and information on total effort where such existed (e.g., beadboat & NEW). Indexed effort (number of vessel trips) was calculated for the commercial fishery by emeterating the number of trips on which amberjack ude up at least 75 1 of the trip landings from the FM commercial trip records. Total fishing effort existed for the recreational headboat and other recreational fisherles (charter, private, shore) in the Gulf of Holm however, total commercial effort was not known. Headboat effort was assured a come; of total effort as in the Atlantic (Dixon and Huntoo 1990) while varlance estimates wen available for other recreational fisheries (charter, private, shore) froa the NM. Indexed recreational effort was computed by apportioning total effort (ogler trips or days fished) by the proportion of all trips catching my of the four arldi species of Interest.

Total directed greater amberjack fishing time in the Gulf commercial fishery ranged from about 61 vessel trips (1991) to 1084 trips (1988) (Table 25). The data series included trip specific landings from vessels who sold amberjack at Florida ports between 1986 and I"l. Total Gulf effort from vessels larding in Florida alone ranged from 7,183 trips (1991) to 25,697 trips (1999). It is difficult to comment as to the whether these indices are representative of the avount of directed greater amberjack fishing time in the Gulf for several reasons. First, the number of vessels that carry out directed amberjack fishing in the Gulf is uncertain so a ceiling on the total number of days or trips fished is difficult to estimate. Also, Information available from WS port agents throughout the Gulf of PA4co Indicates that fewer than ten boats fish greater amberjack full tin. Nuch of the catch that is sold in my Gulf areas Is actually taken by small boats operating as charter boats (W8 port agents, personal communication) or Is taken as by-catch in the directed snapper/grouper fishery which is very extensive in total fleet site. Vessel operating units datafiles indicates that son five hundred or more vessels based in Florida Gulf ports alone fish hand and pow assisted gem annually. In the entire Gulf as may as four thousand vessels operate book and line gear annually. Amberjack are also too as byeatch from the Gulf of Maxico pelagic tuna longline fleet so an additional amount of unknown, but probably undirected, effort exists from this fishery. page 18 The commercial effort indices presented serve mainly as the preliminary indices of fishing time for greater asberjack by vessels landing at Florida ports. The largest portion of Gulf group emberjack are from vessels landing at Florida ports Florida landings account for the majority of the total catch of Gulf group habarjack by veibgt, so total directed effort for the entire commercial fishery should be reasombly reflected from thus vessels. Indexed commercial effort increased from 1986 (521 trips) to a maximum in 1990 (1094 trips) and afterwar& declined each year to the lowest in 1991 (61 trips) (Table 25). The 1991 value is suspect however sine the possibility exists of late reporting of am trips by Florida vessels in that year. Some potential also exists of ma-reportiag of undersized amberjack is 1"I bemuse of the ablaus site regulation (36 Inches fork length) adopted in 1990 in both the Mastic and in Wf area.

Some additional Information on the number of vessels and probable number of total reeffigh trips and total asberjack trips (not necessarily directed trips) for 1990 ad 1991 is available from the Gulf of Nexico reaffish logbook records. In 1M, 349 (179 in Florida) reeffish vessels reported landings, of these 149 (110 In florida) landed nberjack. These vessels me& at least 2,985 trip of which 2,592 were landed in Florida. From thus 2,985 trips 524 (365 in Florida) landed greater amberjack in 19%. ETanding these values to 100% reporting indicates a saxisum of 1460 directed nberjack trip for 1990. in l"l, during which time all reaffish vessels from klabams - Texas reported under the logbook program a total of 2,101 vessel trips we made in those trip by 373 vessels. Loadings reported by 836 vessels in Florida (4,223 trips total) yielded asberjack fro 622 trips (165 vessels); reporting in Florida was assumed to be 251 of all reeffish vessels. Similar expansion suggests 2,488 trips for 1"I. The I"I logbook records suggest that the the 1991 indexed commercial effort value my be low.

The amount of fishing time directed towards amberjack from anglers fishing fro beadboats operating in the Gulf of Nexico ranged from 11,769 angler days (1991) to 92,995 angler days while total headboat effort ranged from 240,654 moor days (M) to 302,536 angler days (1996) (Table 25). Directed amberjack beadboat effort declined by nearly eight fold since 1996. Nfort from other recreational noes varied frot U4,588 trips (1979) trips to 578,157 trips (1997) with a moderate increasing trend evident. Directed effort increased between 1979 and 1983 fro 114,588 trips to 419,960 trips, declined thereafter to 292,922 trips in 1984, and over the next five to six yam remained stable with one exception in 1987 An the peak was reached. Since that year directed effort has continued to fluctuate without trend from 201,497 trips to 484,050 trips. Total recreational effort ranged from 12,527,000 (1990) to 24,471,000 angler trips (1980) over the 13-year history (1979-1"1, Table 25). Stock Site Estimates SuffIcient sample statistics existed from the recreational fishery since 1936. Although lap catches we taken, the recreational greater amberjack fisheries was poorly sampled prior to 1986 and even then only the recreational headboat fisheries were moderately sampled. The headboat fishery alone took from 80,00D The to 751,000 The annually since 1996 averaging 255,209 N annually (4veldix 2). sampling for weight$ of individuals caught by the commercial fishery however was too poor to use in assessment. The number of samples was too low to be useful and in some yens (1996 and 1999) no samples were available. Therefore, weight frequencies were estimated by converting length samples according to valght-length conversion formulae derived by Thompson at al. (M). The mat pertinent results fro the examinations of the Gulf greater aWmiack status of stock analyses an included as follows and in Table 26.:

00 of MKION 1) The abundance trend In also Is variable since 1996 (Table 26).

2) The coefficient of variation of stock size ranged from 711 to 126 1 (Table 26), thus estimates of the absolute magnitude are uncertain. %last (variation) in the basic data (estimated suple average weight, the variance Is recreational catches, and uncertainity in the indices of fishing time) undoubtly contributed to this uncertainty. page 19 3) stock sizes are extremely variable. Clear indication of recruitment driven dynamics yield is evident. Size based analyses must be employed to yield useful results. The analysis indicates that exceptionally good recruitment occurred in 1986 and again in 19U as is indicated in Table 26 by large estimates for production (P) in those two years and MM values for the estimated total change rate (S). Apparently only moderate recruitment has bass occurring since 1989. The CV of l"2 beginning year stocksite is 74 % thus the estimate is too uncertain to be useful.

4) Fishing wtality was very variable over the six year time period, averaging 0.34 (Table 26). Fishing mortality declined declined by about half during 1990, the year when minimum size and bag limit regulations were implemented, but, increased the following year (M) by 35 1. Hstimated total catch also declined significantly in 19M and more than doubled the following year (1991).

5) Commercial yields declined in 1990 by about 49 % (from 2.25 million The to 1.15 million lbs (Table 14, Appendix 4). The M yield declined by 15 1 from the 1990 landings and the projected M commercial yield is expected to be of similar magnitude to that reported for 1991. Indexed commercial fishing time declined since 1996 (Table 25, Appendix 4) however, the 1991 value my not accurately reflect the true amount of fishing tine since it is probable that the catch per trip data series analyzed to provide indices of fishing time for Mi may not be complete. Sample commercial average weight (estimated) declined from 1"6-1988 and increased each year thereafter (Tables 22, 25, Appendices 2, 4). The accuracy of the 1991 estimated comiercial average weight value (42.7 lbs, a = 7% fish) is unknown.

6) Readboat yields declined Since 1986 from 750,000 N to about 105,000 Be as did directed fishing effort (Tables 19, 20; Appendices 2, 4). over the six year tin series bead[boat average weight showed a slight decline from 8.50 lbs to 6.86 lbs (1990) and showed a significant increase in average weight beginning In 1991 (12.24 lbs) (Table 22, Appendix 3). Kinimum size regulations were implemented in 1990 for greater anberjack.

7) Estimated recreational catches of greater amberjack from other gem ranged from 205,000 fish (1989) to 378,000 fish (1987) (Tables 19, 20). slim 1989 recreational catches have varied erratically from 82,ODO fish to 570,000 fish. Directed fishing effort from other recreational gears increased from 334,000 angler trips to 484,000 angler trips (Table 25). only one year in the six year period (1990) showed a decline in directed effort from the preceding year. Although effort declined in 1990 to 210,000 angler trips, well below the 1996 level of 334,OOD trips, directed effort increased in 1"1 by 23 1 suggesting that at least son of the additional fishing time expended by recreational anglers was diverted from species other than amberjacks. Sample average weight from other recreational fisheries declined from 1986 to 1987, increased for 1987 - 1989 and has been declining each year since 1990 (Tables 22, Appendix 4).

8) Stock production was exceeded during two years of the analysis, in 1987 and again in 1989, and was very low in 1990 (Table 26). Fishing mortality averaged 0.44 in these years; this rate represents the proportion of fish that died due to fishing averaged over the entire year. These are years in which a particular fishery (commercial and recreational (other) -1987, recreational-1989) showed substantial increases in yield (Tables 14, Appendix 4). In 1987 the commercial fishery showed a 500,000-pound increase in landed yield and in 1989 the recreational charterboat, private boat, and shore fisberies showed huge doubling increases from previous years catches. Readboat yields Increased only moderately (18 1) from 1988 to 1989. The overall trend in beadboat yield has ben a significant decline (86 from the 1986 level. Subsequent years yielded declines in all fisheries. 9) These results suggest that if the declining trend in yield from the heWboat and commercial fisheries continue or if the yield remains stable for theme fisheries and If current level of exploitation in other recreational fisheries don not increase by a large amount in IM, that stock Page 20 sizes may increase. Since 19B6, two years of very good recruitment and two of moderate level have owned. These observations imply that concomitant increases in fishing activities do not occur in all fisheries as well.

Seriola Fishery reformation - Other Seriola Swiss

Commercial Landings ad Riostatistical Samples

it is not possible to quantify the &mount of amberjack landings by species because the U.S. commercial amberjack landings are not partitioned into species-specific categories. in 1991 landings of loom amberjack, alum jack, and handed rudderfish be" appearing in the fisheries statistical records in Florida and in Louisiana. in addition, beginning in 1990 a mandatory logbook reporting program was implemented by the AMPS, Southeast Regional office for commercial fishermen targeting redfisb in the Gulf of Mexico. The logbook reporting program van mandatory for all fishermen in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas since 1991 and implemented a reporting rate of 25 % for Florida vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico in 1991. Since 1"2 all registered redf lsb vessels must report to the NW, SEPSC, RMD. A mandatory reporting fisheries statistics program was implemented in 1992 for commercial reeffish flaborm fishing Atlantic waters. Commercial landings of these species are available from the Mn, SEFSC, RND and me given in this report (Table 27). The reliability of these statistics in measuring the total amount being landed of these species is unknown became the majority of the time the species are not partitioned at the time of sale. The information does indicate species other than the greater amberjack an landed in the commercial catch and provides support for the need of continued biostatistical sampling of the actual vessel landings either at sea or dockside to provide reliable estimates of species composition by scientifically trained samplers.

Measures of individual length and/or weight (or average weight samples) of Carangid species other than the greater aW)erjack were recorded for the commercial fisheries howevrer, the number of measurements was Rot extensive and the coverage as not consistent across species or yam or areas (Table 28). Because the sampling was so sparse the degree to which theme samples accurately reflect trends in size for the commercial fishery ova the tin period is uncertain. Since 1979, only 532 individual length and 291 weight measurements for the Atlantic commercial fishery were taken. During that same tin, in the Gulf of Mexico only 632 lengths and 37 individual weights were recorded for species other than the greater amberjack from the commercial fishery.

The lesser amberjack was recorded the lent of the three SffiWA species and was wore often measured in the Atlantic (n--35) than in the Gulf of Mexico (salo) from the commercial fishery (Table 28). The sparcIty of blostatistical data for lesser aiberjack from the commercial fishery does not allov any summary regarding trends in size of lesser amberjack in the commercial fishery ova the sample period (1985-1991) for either area.

The most frequently recorded Seriola species from the commercial catch, other than the greater amberjack, was the alum jack (Table 28). Length samples were recorded about as often in the Atlantic as in the Gulf of Mexico (n*409 Atlantic, a-455 Gulf) for the alvaco jack. Average size from commercial catches ranged from 66ca to 79 ca fork length since 1984 in the Atlantic generally varying without a strong trend. Average length from almoD jack collected from the Gulf commercial fishery varied more than in the Atlantic but also did not indicate a strong trend over the time period (1983-1"1). Average length of the aluco jack from commercial fisheries ranged from 30 ca to 77 cB fork lengthsince 1983. individual weights of alwaoo jack were taken tore often in the Atlantic than in the &U of Mexico (a^- 216 Atlantic, WO Q&). Almaco jack commercial average weights in the Gulf of Mexico ranged from about 11.1 lbs (1986) to 15.2 lbs (1"l).

Individual measures of length and weight of handed rudderfish fro& commercial catches were recorded from both am and this species was more frequently recorded in the samples in the Gulf of Mexico than in the Atlantic (Table 28). Apparently, sampling of handed rudderf ish for length began in the Gulf of Mexico in 1991. Length measurements we more often taken in both areas. Average length ran* from 45 cm to 61 co in the Page 21 Itlantic and suggest a slight decline in length over the time period of the samples (1995-1991) however, sample sizes are too low to be reliable (a < So fish). Samples of length were recorded for commercial catches in the Gulf only in 1991 so trends in size are not discenable. hautional varvefft ad Riostatistical Sampling Recreational fisherman also catch species of jacks other than the greater amberjack. Caution should be exercised when reviewing these numbers for several reasons. First, the recognized difficulty of identifying these less frequent species by fisherman and also by samplers is imminent. Catches of lamberises, appear in the recreational catch records and although the identity of this category is unoertain, the most probable identify is likely of beaded ruiderfish. Scientific identification of a number of individuals referred to as amberines and collected by fishmm and WS port Mats for the author (from different geographical areas) have all been handed radderfish. Furthermore, large quantities of unidentified jacks occur in the records, especially in the Gulf of Nexica in am years. in some years, the estimated numbers of unknown jacks caught approached near 200,000 and although the identity of this category is a concern, an accurate breakdown is not possible. Although these individuals are coded in the dataffies as all being of the &1191A group, the possibility exists that other genera of the Carangid family are actually included in the estimates (because of misidentification and other) and such must be considered before accurate assignment can be made. The magnitude of the estimated variance of the catch is anotber reason to view the estimated recreational catches with caution. Variance estimates are provided by the IRM survey and a large value is not to be unexpected, because of the low probability of encountering angler trips catching these less frequent species and then the compounding affect of expansions from a large number of trips for some particular call. fimver, it is a valid and real concern when using these estimates to quantify the amount of recreational catch. The beadboat survey is as close to a c ens us of the tree catch as possible thus the reliability of the catch estimates from this fishery say be quite high.

Itlantic Recreational Harvest and Nometric Samples

Lesser aoberjack

Total estimated harvest of lesser nbarjack by recreational anglers from the Atlantic ran* from lea than 10 fish (M) to about 15,000 fish (1984, V(CatCh)-14,638) in the Itlastic (Table 29, 30). This estimate includes catches by private anglers, shore fisherman, charter boats, and beadboats. Readboat catches are very minor of this species. over the thirteen year period only 154 lesser amberjack were measured for length and/or weight and in son years no samples of either lengths or of weights were obtained (Table 31). During the period 79 fish were measured for size and 75 individual weights were taken from Itlantic recreational lesser amberjack catches with the majority of the measurements collected from the headoat fishery. Because so few samples were recorded it is impossible to determine trends in either length or weight for the recreational catches for lesser amberjack. Ilawo jack

Total estimated harvest of alum jack by recreational anglers from the Itlantic ranged from about 800 fish (M) to 22,00D fish (1982, V(catch)-40,767) (Table 29, 30). This estimate Includes catches by private anglers, shore fisherman, charter boats, and headboats. Readboat catches gemally do not make up a large portion of the overall catch. Individual length (11-470 ) and/or weight (P457) measurements were collected from all years of the time period (1979-1991) for alum recreational catches and mostly were from beadboat catches. Additional samples were from the NRHS. Sample average length varied from 40 a to 61 cm fork length (a-470) over the time period (Table 31). Suple average weight varied from 7.0 lbs to 14.0 lbs (n=457).

Page 22 Banded rudderfish Total estimated harvest of banded rudderfish by recreational anglers from the Atlantic was very variable over the period, ranging from 25 fisb (1W) to 194,000 fish (1988, V(catch)=634,183 fish) (Table 29, 30). This estimate Includes catches by private anglers, shore fishermen, charter boats, and headboats. Readboat catches are very minor for this species. in all but three years (1%6-1988), the estimated total recreational catch from the RUSS was zero for the Atlantic while in other years (i.e., 1988) the estimate (and variance) was quite large. In most years in which zero WSS catch estimates exist for the Atlantic region it is interesting to note that positive RM catch estimates (and often sometimes quite lap also) exist for recreational catches of banded raddedish in the Kid-Atlantic region. Biometric samples of recreating catches were erratically taken for banded radderf isb with only 186 length samples and 191 weight samples being collected over the 13 year period (Table 31). In some yam no sapling occurred at all (1981, 1982) and weights were rarely taken. Interestingly, over the time period sampling of individual weights regressed to zero fish being measured since 1989. As with the lesser and with the alum asbpxjad the majority of length and weight samples recorded were from the WS beadboat survey. OW of Mexico Recreational invest and samples Lesser amberjack Recreating harvest of lesser amberjack ranged from from 299 fish (I"l) to 101,000 fish (1999, V(Catcb)z755,345) in the Gulf of Nexico and as in the Atlantic very few fIsh are caught in the headboat fisbery (Table 32, 33). Samples of length and of weight was very sporadic however, some measurements were recorded for all years since 1979 with the exception of 1993 for which no length samples were recorded (Table 34). Is in the AtlantAc the majority of the measurements were from recreational he&dboat catches however, move were from the RM too. The number of length and/or weight samples taken in the Gulf was about three times the number obtained for the Atlantic recreational catches. The majority of the measurements were collected since 1986; rarely were samples taken before 1996. Semple average length varied from 32 ca to 45 ca fork length over the time period. Alum Jack Recreating catches of alum jack ran* fro* 978 fish (1987) to 35,856 fish (IM) and as in the Atlantic headboat catches, usually do not make up a majority of the total recreational catch (Table 32, 33). Allaco jack length measurements were recorded from Gulf of Mexico recreational catches for all years since 1980 (n-W). Most measurements were from beadboat catches however, a few were also were taken by the MUSS and from the TPO. klmaco length samples ranged from 19 ca to 46 ca over the time period and average weight ranged from 3.6 lbs to 7.9 Do (a--216) (Table 34). In general, length sampling was extremely sparse in all years except 1999 and 1991 while individual weight measures were rarely taken except in the beadboat fishery in 1989. Blostatistical samples were much more often taken in the Atlantic than in the W of Mexico for the aluco jack ad in contrast recreational catches were always higher in the Gulf of Mexico than in the Atlantic with the exception of two years (1991, 1984) (Tables 29, 32). Banded nxiderfish

Recreational catches of banded rudderf ish in the Gulf of Mexico were generally luW than for the Atlantic. Estimated catches varied from 23 fish (1997) to 21,000 fish (1990, V(catch)4353) (Table 32, 33). As in the Atlantic catches were quite variable and perhaps zero (or at lent the estimate was) in some years. Bionetric samples of individual length and/or weight measures were taken since 1983 although, generally sampling was light and nearly all samples we from the WS beadboat. over the entire time period only 407 length samples and 393 weight samples were recorded for banded rudderfish and only in one year (1999) was there sore than 100 Pap 23 measurements were recorded (Table 34). Since that year (1989) the number of length arid weight recordings have declined by about 200 1 annually. velther lesser alberjack nor banded rudderfish were reported frequently in beadboat catches in either region, however alum jack was (Tables 29, 30, 32, 33). Geoerally speaking lesser amberjack was not a commonly caught species in the Atlantic recreational fisheries while alum was frequently can*. the exception was in 1990 when about 11,000 banded rudderfish were reportedly caught in the Gulf of Nexico headboat fishery. Banded rudderfleb is common in both regions.

Recreational Catch Per Unit Of Effort

A few observations of catch per angler (CPA) and of catch per boa (CPR) fished for alum jack, lesser anberjack, and the banded rAerfish were recorded from the MUSS since 1979, the MUS budboat survey since 1973 in the Atlantic and since im in the Gulf of Nexioo, and from the TPWD since 1993 (Table 35, 36). ObservAtions from the RM and the TM van insufficient to pWide reliable infOrlition on trends in CM for any of the gissoeJUM QMid gMies duriN the time period il979-19911. The number of observations available were sparsely distributed across years and geographical coverage was extremely limited. The WS beadboat survey included observation of CPUR for an extended number of years for banded rudder fish from the Atlantic and for almaco jack in the Gulf of Nexim and in the Atlantic. These data suggest that average M of beadboat fisherman remained very stable for both species over the tin period. Strong trends of changing CPUH were not evident from the data.

secreational an Lilit bdym

Although individual observations of CRE were sometimes recorded from the RM, the TM, and the WS headboat fishery only the headboat CPUZ from the WS survey Included sufficient observations to address effects of recreational bag limits on a large scale. The data wen not sufficient to examine the impact of differential bag limits geographically (by state) or by fishery (private, charter, b6adboat) or temporally (year). In addition, in the Gulf of Nexica adequate data existed only for alsam jack (r-381 (1990), 302 (1991). In the Atlantic suff icient CM samples existed for banded rudder fish (rF--355 (1990), 169 (1991) and for the alum jack (0=147 (1990), 210. The most recent two data years (19W, 1991) were considered most germane for study bemuse of the quantity of data available and bemuse the meat time period should better reflect the currreat condition regarding angler catching success and angler behavior.

If the 1991 beadboat CM is assumed to accurately reflect angler success in catching banded rudder fish in the Atlantic then individual Ilats of 1 to 3 fish my produce total recreational catch reductions of between 2 % and 17% for the Atlantic (Table 37). Reductions of recreational alum jack catches, estimated using the 1991 beadboat data, suggest savings from 6 % to 14 t (Atlantic) and 0 t to 16 1 (Gulf of Nexico) for bag limits of 3 and I respectively. It is likely that some awot of the unidentified jack catch is probably banded ndWkb and also alum jack thus, recreational bag limits of 1-3 fish per angler will likely produce reductions to the amount of unkeDwo *:ks caught and lauded as well.

The CPUE observations recorded by the NRFS9 and the TM were not adequate to address bag limits of any of the the misscalasem Carangid species in either the alf of Nuico or in the Atlantic. In addition too few data were available from any dataset to address bag limits for the I nberjack.

Page 24 References cited knonyaous 1"2. Snapper Grouper Issamt. WS, Beaufort laboratory Unpublished K==!Pt. [KW=iPt presented to South Atlantic Fishery Mapagemt Council, June 1"2, 102 p. 1.

--- 1990. South Atlantic Reeffish, Plan Developmat Tm Report. DOC, MA, WS, 11Nd0rtL8bm*zy Unpublished Report, August 1990, 5V p.

- 1989. beadmat Kwd*r 1 To the Red fish Fishery Rugment Plan. (Includes bVirOMeRtal Assesewt, Regulatory j2pact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). August 1989. W Of Mexico Fishery Nanagesent Council, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard, suite ssi, Taqa, Florida 33609.

Berry, P.R., and R.K. Bach. 1978. Aspects of the amberjad fisheries. Proceed. Gulf Caribb- Fish- Inst-, 31st Am. Sen. pp. 179-194.

Browder, J.A., J.C. Davis, and C.B. Austin. 1978. Study of the structure and ecoDolics of the rwMtioul paying passenger fisheries of the Florida Gulf coast and Keys froz Pensacola to Key West. Final report to AMPS, SEFC, Kini, Fla. Contract I BDU/03/7/042/35142. Burch, R.K. 1979. The greater Alberjad, seriola duarili Its Biology and Fishery off Southeastern Florida. N.S. Thesis. University of Mini, Coral Gables, Florida. 194 p. Ellis, R.N. 1957. Catches of fish by cbarterboats on Florida's east coast. Spec. savice Bull. NO. 14, Univ. of Kini Karim Lab. 6 P.

Fischer, V. (ed.) 1978. FAD species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Westen Central Atlantic Fishing Area 3). F.I.O. Rom. (editor).

fry, F.E. 1949. Statistics of a lake trod fishery. BiONtrics 5:27-67- Gentle, E.C. 1977. The charterboat sport fishexy of Da& County, Florida. March 1976 to February 1977. N.S. UnIv. of Mini. 162 p. Goodyear, C.P. 19U. The Gulf of Mexico fishery for Reef Fish Species - A Descriptive Profile. Mr. Lab. W Contribdion: CRD 87188-19.

Dixon, R.L. ad G.R. Buntsm, 1M. Entinting catches and fishing effort of the southeast United States beafflmt fleet, 1972-1990. USDoc, NDu, WS, SM, Beaufort Laboratory unpublisbed unuscript, 99p.

Johnson, A.G. 1990. Ilectropboretic: exazination of greater aaber*k, (seriola dimerill). Progress Report to DOC,1W,NNPS, SEFC, August 1990, 12 p.

Nanooch, C.S. 1984. Fishernan's guide to the fieben of the southeastern United States. North Carolina state Nusum of Natural listory, Raleigh, W. 362 p. , I Nether, F.J. 1958. Three species of fishes gem seriola, In the waters of capet Cod and vicinity. Cupola (1): 2D9-210.

Noe, N. A. 1%6. Tagging fishes in florid& offshore waters. n. Bd. of Conserv. Nar. Lab. Tech. series MD. 49: 1-40.

Pap 25 Knrphy, G.I. 1965. 1 solution of the catch equation. J. fish. Res. Board Can. 22: 191-202. Nakazura, I.L. l9go. C&rangids of the Urtbern Gulf of Nexico. ticarpted from: wproceedingsw of a Workshop for Potential Fishery Resources of the morthern Gulf of Mexico. NW-80-012. -nandDrfer, N. and L. Skupien, ads. 1980. Held Narch4-5, 1980, New Orleans, Louisiana. sponsored by: Nississippi- Ilabasa Sea Grant comortiua, Gulf and south Mantic risberies Development Foundation, Inc., and Louisiana State University Sea Grant College Progras.

Parrack, N.L. l"Oa. I at* of shark exploitation in U.S. Itlantic coastal waters during 1986-1989. DOC, MM, WS, SEM, Rapt., NIL CUtribution: 90/91-03, 14 p.

1990b. Shark Assessment results. DOC, HOU, WS, MW, Unnumbered Report, 10 P.

1"2. Report of the Atlantic coastal shark fishery analysis review. Final Rapt., September 30, 1"2. Doc, nk, ms, ssm, Kim! Laboratory Rapt., Hk Contribution: 91/92-xx, 17 p.

Sutherland, D.L. ad E.L. Scott, 1989. Ixamiflati(m Of aWMiack tagging data for the s0utb8asterD United States. Me, MM, WS, SEM, Kjazi Laboratory Rpt. , M no. 88/89-18, 34 pp.

Thompson, B.I.j C.A. Wilson, J.H. Reeder, N.Bealey, and C.Cautbron. M2. )AP, growth, and reproductive biology of greater maberjack and oobia from Louisiana waters. [Final Report to U.S. DDC, VDAA, WS, Cooperative kgreaut Nk9olk-R-WM, MM Prog., July 1992], 77 P.

Pap 26 7able 1. Pounds landed (*Ale **) of the Itlatic abu* qM in the xdiustm United Stites, 1%2-1991-t.

sm LM YM m sc a 12 n 11 RM IL x Lk u K In- w ML

1%2 0 0 0 fim 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 6344 0 6344 1963 0 0 0 6032 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 6032 M OU2 IM a 0 0 76% 0 624 0 9 0 0 0 7696 624 6320 lus a 1 0 V36 0 621 a 0 0 0 0 orm 624 9360 1%6 0 0 0 21736 0 1248 0 0 0 0 0 21736 U48 22994 1%7 0 0 0 23192 0 729 0 0 0 0 0 23M 728 M 1961 0 0 300 26624 0 1352 0 0 0 0 0 26924 1352 M M9 0 0 0 15M 0 2496 0 0 0 0 0 IM 2496 18304 1970 0 a 0 40248 0 5406 0 0 0 0 0 40248 50 45656 1971 0 0 0 22776 0 3W 0 0 0 0 0 2W6 WS X624 1972 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M28 0 M28 1973 0 0 0 350 0 V42 0 0 0 0 0 33M $632 44512 1974 0 0 0 34216 0 13416 0 0 0 2 0 34216 13416 47632 1975 0 100 0 5NO 0 76% 0 0 0 0 0 53140 7696 60836 1976 0 531 0 68016 0 3328 0 0 0 0 0 QM7 3328 71M 1977 0 10 27V 64%4 a 2704 0 0 0 0 0 67533 VM 70237 1978 0 128 2 39104 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 39U2 5408 4490 1979 3982 1%8 0 33072 0 2W6 0 0 0 0 0 39M 25M 643N 19BO 6764 20933 au 3n7B 0 13696 0 0 0 0 0 036 DO 76632 1981 14737 33617 6277 36717 0 13HO 0 0 0 0 0 91341 Ulu 165W 1M 5HO 48971 IM 4W 0 9" 0 0 0 0 0 IM 93fiH L93735 1983 6364 18674 828 38669 0 63473 0 0 a 0 0 64735 63466 IMS 1984 3477 9312 895 9M 0 low 0 0 0 0 0 107364 IOM 208M 1965 11403 4330 4564 "301 0 50762 0 0 0 0 0 H9Ql 50762 170381 1996 40676 5M 6914 235367 2701 IOW 0 0 0 0 0 3M 106965 U%75 19V 33661 57867 938 W%9 6201 307786 0 0 0 0 0 9S6462 3066 1770449 19BI 56977 48M 14802 62M 0 4281H 0 0 0 0 0 74%09 42M U7378 1919 63498 11M2 13175 7OU03 7252 35760 0 0 0 0 0 994718 357680 1H%5Q 1990 SM64 121756 25910 6=5 U79 92M 0 0 0 0 0 923165 929M 1853147 1"1 124820 ISIISS 464V 772353 2017 OM 0 0 a a 0 1096815 $98092 19%924

FL IN as Ladings made in W41 bleed mods - lot included in catam ILL I a Sam denote m vprted landings.

Pap 27 ftqwdm ct luditqs (PomdB) of the Atlantic bbc* pq in the mdbmtn United States, 1962-19911.

State LOW Tar r w Q Ya ni a z u u n-a ttai poands

M LM O.M 0-M LM LOU 0.0000 CAN 0-M 0.00 LOUD 6W 1%3 0.0000 O.M 0.0000 0.74% QJW 0.0000 O.M 0.0000 LONO OACO 8112 1964 MONO LOND 0.0000 0.92% 0.0750 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8324 1%5 LM LOOM O-M 0.9333 0.0667 O.M O.M O.W O.M Q.M 9360 1966 G.M 0.0000 O-ODDO 0.9457 0.0513 Q.M O.M O.M O.M 0.0000 22984 1967 0-000 0.0000 0.0000 Q.%% 0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 O.WOO O.M 0.0000 23920 MO O.OM 0.0000 0.0106 0.9416 O.WB C.M 0.0000 0.0000 G.M O.M 28276 IM 0.0000 0.0000 0-M 0.8636 0.1364 LOOOD 0.0800 O.M 0.0000 0.0000 im 1970 OJOH G.M 0.0000 LWS 0.1185 0.00M O.M 0.00 O.M LOUD 4%% 1971 O-OHO LODDO LOOM O.M 0.1445 Q.M O.M OAM LOOM 0.0000 2" 1M LOOM Q.M O.M I.M O.M LM O.M O.M O.M 0.0000 1973 O.M 0.0000 Q.M LIM 0.1939 0.0000 0.0000 DAM 0.0000 0.0000 44512 1974 O.M 0.0000 LOW 0.7193 0.2617 O.M O.M LM S.M O.M 47632 1975 O.M 0.0016 0.00M 0.8719 OJM 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 O.m 60936 1976 0.0000 0.0074 0.0000 0.9463 0.0463 0.0000 O.M O.M Lm 0.0000 71875 1977 O.M 0.0023 0.0397 0.9195 0.0385 0.00 0.000 O.M 0.0000 0.0000 70237 1978 O.M 0.00 0.0000 O.Vo LIM 0.000 0.0000 Q.M O.M 0.0000 44640 1579 0.0618 0.0306 0.0000 0.5136 0.3%0 Q.M 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 64398 M 0.0883 O.M9 0.0282 0.1330 OAM 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000 LOWD 0.0000 76632 1981 0.1401 0.3195 0.0597 0.34" O.lU8 0.0000 O.M O.M 0.00 O.M 10SU7 19U 0.029 0. rM O-CM 0.2315 OAM 0.0000 0.0000 LOOD 0.0000 0.0000 193735 1983 0.0496 0.1457 0.00 OA32 0.49H 0.0000 LOW LOU 0.0000 0.0000 129M 1914 0.0167 0.0447 0.0043 OAM 0.4847 O.M C.M 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 208344 1985 0.0669 0.0254 O-M 0.5W 0.2979 OM O.M O.M 0.000 0.000 17M 1986 O.OMS 0.1176 DAN 0.5325 0.2390 O.M O.M 0.0000 0.4000 0.0060 449475 1997 0.0265 0.0455 0.0074 0.6734 0.2423 0.0000 O.M 0.0000 0.0000 0.0042 12M49 1988 OXIS 0.0412 LUX 0.50 0.3648 0.0000 LODOO O.M D.M 0.0000 U7370 1999 0.05U O.M4 0.0105 O.M 0.2140 0.0000 0.0000 O.M CAN 0.0058 1259650 1990 0.0460 OA657 0.0140 0.3723 0.5014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Q.M 0.0006 103H7 1"1 0.0625 0.0757 0.0243 OJM8 0.4497 LOW 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 1996924 n-H - Landiage lade is flarift idand mnaties. I - M= denote m rqww landings.

hp 28 Table 3. Mods IwM (vWle weight) by cours grid of tke ftlantic Imbod pW in the southeasten Thited #Am, 1977-199L calemdar Year Grid 1977 1978 1979 IM 1981 1983 I9B3 1964 1985 1986 1967 IM 1989 1990 1991

722 0 1661 0 1256 U073 NO 3351 11128 813Z 170H 3407 284 0 280 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344 1371 U93 3849 552H 53846 75967 IV751 W 0 0 0 166 26 0 U6 364 98 84 35M 0 0 0 0 728 0 313 1172 2M 1960 8944 1044 U97 13828 51615 M03 2390 183531 03361 172851 732 0 748 786 6055 8461 15118 15599 17098 U225 16789 385H 17473 79280 95M 79365 733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 104 736 9464 17264 UND 5604 9441 M 108 1010 18419 2361 17837 11350 17176 17045 35535 740 4 12375 1172 16031 539 Q35 9240 5233 0526 23 0 54133 0 0 S130 741 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U39Q 4131% 23%51 14MI 281698 151821 741 0 0 22 IM 366 930 31 1477 6043 17383 117293 71325 IV290 16749 63HO 74# 0 0 0 0 DUB 93629 666 100980 44710 9689 1093 369705 IU329 77893 968059 Umclassitiod 2069 IS 6366 29750 51631 55247 26512 136H X317 VU43 107094 120101 1%567 23410 30ED FM* 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All Grid, 70237 400 64398 76532 105217 1937H INA$ 208A 170381 OH75 1271449 1173789 115MO 1853647 10924 Table 4a. hands landed (vbole veigkt) by ym I wth for Imberjack in the scutleasterm United Ott* 1%2-1991. (Im WM my dif for from c*m am) Am landed: Ithatic ocent states pWtb ordina - Florida east coast) 5mtk Year U*m 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u 12 111 ?Aft

1962 6344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6344 1963 6032 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6032 1%4 706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 76% 1965 1736 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1716 1%6 U736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21735 1%7 2392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23192 1968 26924 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 1969 15105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15806 1970 40249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4024 1971 22776 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22776 1972 U856, 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11856 1973 38064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38064 1974 36504 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 3650( 195 56056 0 so 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54% 1976 69744 0 1 0 0 531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0275 1977 4 4947 0643 U93 953 IU69 5316 837 2125 U64 306 2545 141 69279 1978 0 101 ION 025 1520 7518 1005 M06 1615 16S 523 16M 1332 39IR 1979 0 2W 3037 VA 4242 MIA 3097 ON 20 833 724 U65 1910 38913 IN 0 6M 99" 14216 U066 73H 2104 U44 3255 24U 106 ISH 1263 62936 1961 0 8842 U459 10753 15317 92M 5937 YA 255 1766 INI 10005 907 9134 1992 0 165B V515 20275 467) 947 4168 99 3556 367 6415 6361 3704 100106 19U 0 70% 9750 9210 609 640 5659 35N 1845 029 W4 4175 3337 6035 1904 0 4465 8525 023 086 153V URI 290 095 2531 2461 2629 4051 107364 1985 4 6443 8346 5315 3307 12H2 5959 902 3288 5329 7073 7014 12579 119618 116 0 1610 16979 12416 73631 32970 32151 11OU 24260 M12 20610 4378 ZOO 339109 1987 0 In* 16474 26379 167157 327476 65371 17732 37615 71451 3469 69235 54793 956484 Iwo 0 3039 11514 SIHI 113360 7010 13947 60M S307 4073 59576 62319 54NO 757951 1999 0 GHZI 43308 8449 153818 IQOW 108419 45219 37630 39950 0502 90469 8252 85574 I"D 0 57200 X953 68241 109603 14220 19651 45077 76847 91370 47VO 01383 67421 923165 1991 0 6W 81567 6063 194592 ISH69 75936 5%11 8003 89742 U319 63OU 9163 109015 AIL lam 390716 U951 30196 4312H 941"S 97513 585506 RIM 319216 384139 334033 448178 363110 60554647 IMS09 ION I 0110*0 (9901 KHOO LENT HSOI L9601 61911 MOO LUOI 6OSQ'O MOOD 0901 lawl 711

S1896ot UFAI MOOG solo WOOD WOOD MOO U9000 6"110 W140 MOO MOO OE9010 =10 1661 SUCH OCLOID 108011 MOO 181010 WOOD MOO 116010 THII MOO 996000 ol"60 OVOID 000060 0661 Ussm ELL010 01011 a9Q'O 900*0 0110*0 SOSOOO MOO OZ111 HLVO 0601 NVOI MOO MOO 6961 ISIM WOOD MOO 98LOOP TMOI 61M'O EOROI UKI MOI 9011 LLNI RMI 1001 ODOD'O out "no Uw$O WOOD )KO'S 0103 E6EQ'4 600*0 C68000 KHOO 01140 9aO'O UNI 91101 0000 *0 1061 608HE 999010 H911 60901 CMD'O WOOD OMO'O MOOD 0160*0 OTEI SKOI OOSOI 900*4 00001 9961 119611 Malo 91601 169*0 MOO MOO MOO 86MI 9LOlOO UZVO MOO 66901 MCI 00001 S961 NCLU KEOI stin azooo kin mm,o wan KHOO KHOO MOO WOOD KLOI 9bO'O OOOD'O 1161 U09 Rol WOOD MOO MOO SHQ'O 0601 U8Q'O 96601 SOVO (011 WSVO 960100 DOOD'O C061 901001 WOOD MOO 99010 MOO VAIO 96010 911040 MOO SNIO 0110 QSLVO Z9114 000010 Z661 Stui 00100 9011 MOO CAOI LIEDI IMI %90'0 HOTI UKI Ult'O 16111 8%0'0 WOOD 1961 N699 101410 WOOD 091010 WOOD ItSOOD LIZOOD KEDOO 991110 OLTOO 6stre 919110 footlo 000000 ONE CZ61E U1060 MOOD 9BU90 MOOD MOOD 1COV 0 96LO'O 191VO 06111 9011 00101 MOO ODOQ'O 631 1616C 0040 Ol"I EElO'O 11VOI UNI 690*0 LLLVO 1161'0 WOOD M1'O ROXI WOOD 00001 OL61 U169 IOZOI LKQI WSQ'O lill'O 010*0 tODl'O 19000 MOO 990*0 69HOG MOO BLOOD MOO 151 M69 000010 OOOD'D 00001 QODOI 000040 0000*0 00801 LLOrO 00001 OODOI OOOD'O WOOD C166'O 9161 %us DOODIO WOOD 000000 MOO OOODI 4WO'O WOOD OCOO'D WOOD 0000*0 11001 WOOD Z1661 SL61 ME woo 000000 000010 0000*0 000010 000010 ODOQOO 0000*0 0000*0 MOO MOO WOOD 000011 OL61 "ME 000060 000010 000010 000010 MOO MOO 000010 000010 WOOD 000010 000060 00010 000011 EL61 9611t 000014 MOO 0000*0 DORI 00060 moo 000010 000000 000010 000040 woolo 000014 0000.1 ME Kill 000014 000010 000010 000010 WOOD 000048 000010 000010 000010 000010 090010 WOOD 000111 ME Mot ONDOO DOW10 MOO 401040 004040 000010 O"o*O 006010 000010 ONOIC oloolo 000010 Moll 0161 QQOSI 000000 MOO 000010 MOO 000010 ecoolo 000000 000010 00010 000010 000040 000010 MOE 6961 M69 000010 000000 000040 000010 QMoI 000010 000040 Morc MOO WOOD 000000 000000 W41 8961 muz 0000*0 000010 MOO 000010 000*0 000010 0040 00010 000010 moo 000010 000040 000011 196t Kilt 000010 000040 00010 000040 Woolf MOO MOO 000010 000010 000010 0000*0 000010 moll 9961 Nil MOO 001010 000010 000010 MOO DOODOO 000010 000010 000010 000014 000004 000040 Dow 11 S961 569L 000010 000010 000010 000010 000000 000010 00010 000010 ONDOO 400010 000010 000010 oloolt t961 IC09 00010 000090 WOOD 000010 moo oooro dooo'd 0*010 00001 wro MOOD WOOD Dool'T M M9 00001 0000*0 0000*0 000010 000010 000010 0000*0 000010 000010 000010 000040 000010 000001 E961 gll-- SPON 1144 11 ll 01 6 0 1 9 6 t t I I WMA T4" (ww ;m qm) mne vm :qmw *.I*m "a

'16614961 'MM MR 914"r4m M U1 'Am" 34 'PON I ad 14 (591abM) P*&t Wq ." W[qel Table 5. Pcaods loided (1hole w4bt) gm tor the Atlantic Mu*k groq in M smotboadern Umited States, 1962-1991. Year Gear 1962 1953 1964 1%5 1966 1967 B68 1969 1970 1971 B72 1973 1974 1975 .1976 w i Lirm 6344 7904 8330 9360 22914 2392D 2OV6 18301 45656 26624 7384 370M 44824 6o836 nP5 Surtice Lmolm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottm imqlim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dive Gear 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Top 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7MVIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3744 748 108 0 0 Seim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a otbor Gm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

In cow 6XI Blu e32c 936D 22984 1392o 2o276 ism am 266m nut 445u 47631 6os36 nom

Table 5. (cmumd) calmodir Im Gear 1977 1976 1979 1980 19U 1982 083 1984 1965 IM6 1967 IWO 1999 IWO DR

led & Lima 7co75 4460 62391 48125 6D586 15025 IU993 M0784 162645 395570 129645 IH32U UIN5 1788075 1933557 sortace U*ipm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 Bdto tmqlim 0 0 0 0 a 464 765 U73 2016 29110 6364 U51 6616 21155 15956 Dive Geer 0 0 104 0 6 0 636 0 0 15768 36308 18657 78059 38307 3909 Mute 0 0 0 a 0 495 20 0 53 386 633 1551 13" 412 333 ft* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade 162 0 191 27607 44631 35851 14794 459 5656 8619 2342 44C 2952 117 118 seim 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 1800 0 0 0 97 0 0 9 other Gmm 0 0 IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 156 953 0 5701 7453

All GM 70237 44640 64398 76632 105217 193735 1338 38344 170391 449(75 1270449 117378 U59650 1853847 1996924 Toble 6. bUsted remeatimal mtdn of the Itlastic qmft ubc* pq, 19794W.

S" graies pq year mtch(m) vu(catck)(10,M) yidd(lbs)

,Kfss pj ati 19" 445% 17629 0 Kfas Pi stl IND mw 150963 0 fffs Fj tu l"l am 175070 0 zw pj ad lqu 15589 W9 0 irfss pj atl 1983 3604 16587 0 WE pj ati m lum 72494 0 Irfos pj ad 1985 107066 9w 0 atos q&j stl 1996 75273 75no 0 fffs pj atl M 49102 138S 0 Zfes qtj Atl 1988 65631 194H 0 irf5s gal ad 1989 662D 51751 0 rfss pj atl 1990 76389 35M 0 fffss pj atl M 3070 6111 0

bbt gaj ou 1986 Iml 0 uma bbt pj ad 1987 17260 0 209397 tht pj atl 190 105" 0 IrA495 bbt pi ad 1989 11636 0 9M3 bbt pi ad 1990 78U 0 105363 hbt pj atl l"l 8709 0 IM zfss+b* pj ati m 44558 17629 0 fff94bbmt pj ad 1980 lim IWA 0 irfss+k* gaj au 1961 um 175070 0 Uftowat pj ati IM2 mg 20 0 IrfU+b* pj atl 1983 36084 1087 0 fffss4blnt Fj ad Im 1014" 72484 0 z1aftoat Pi ati 1955 10700 96M 0 KfU4120t pj di 1986 gem 75210 0 zbs+ftd Pi AU 19V 66362 13895 0 fffspaut pj an 1"s 76195 194U 0 IrfsMacat pj atl 1989 77W SIM 0 xls+bbmt pj ad 19" 84M 350 0 Zftmftt pj - Au ml 45679 6111 0

qIj = velter aboriad atl a Itluttic 1 - total Yield Wt estislUd fa the BM

Page 33 Toble 7. fiscreatimal catdies d the klastic grater &bK* pq by fidiery and state, 1979-1"1.

State Year fiswy lie GA Sc le lu States 1979 dare 2683. 0. 0. 0. 2m. private 23341. 863. 3232. 4H3. U679. dAbt 8M. 1202. 0. 179. 10196. All soft 340. 2065. 3232. 4422. 44FA.

Im lbn 2959. 0. 0. 0. 2959. private 29867. 0. 0. 69UL "98S. dx UM. 0. 0. 0. M. au Eck 46695. 0. 0. 69118. M13.

1981 abore 6511. 0. Q. 0. all. Prints 3U70. 0. 0. 0. 33170. dx 49559. 0. 32M. 21056. 73920. all mks 89240. 0. 325. 21056. U3501.

1982 Irivate U401. 692. 0. 712. MO. Wft V92. 0. 0. 0. 2m. all Was 14185. 02. 0. 712. 1599.

1983 1rivate 84". 0. 0. 0. Ms. *W Wn. 0. 0. 1908. M36. All lodes 341%. 0. 0. 1908. 36084.

1984 Private 22190. M. 7509. 0. 30469. dVW 4047. im. 2H26. 5M3. n021. 1110106 66537. 1995. ZM5. 5m. 101490.

1985 private 2M35. 512. 14179. 021. 43747. *M 5967L 3647. 0. 0. 63319. Au soft 79807. 419. 14179. 1921. 107066. 1986 shon 0. 0. 3794. 0. 37%. bbut 9952. 0. 906. 933. IV91. dortar 33853. 302. 157. 7999. 42311. Private 12766. 82. IM2. 3368. 29168. oil lodes Smi. 384. IM. 12300. OW.

387 shore 0. 0. 0. 2H2. 2912. blicat 12M. 0. 3744. U49. 1720. dmft ZrA9. 1893. 1655. 1720. 27957. private 1203L 350. 0. 5151. 18333. all mods 473N. 2m. SM. 10832. 6m.

P* 34 Wa 7. (Cmtimed).

state Year ham lie ca so k III stato

1989 Most 7475. 0. 2093. 996. 10%4. dmft 15618. 0. 4742. 1919. 22279. Private 317R. 282. 3323. S117. 43352. all man 5054. 201. lols. 8332. 76195.

1989 shore 0. 0. 0. 1980. IM. ftt W2. 0. 17U. 1340. 11636- dzft 30106. 0. 1686. 1676. 34268. Irinu 21W. 0. 14?9. 3s36. 29972. all mdes 6445. 0. 4869. 8532. 77M. 19% sbore 5451. 0. 0. 970. 021. ftd 4069. 0. 2543. 1210. 7W. dmft 32485. 0. im. 1621. 35191. Frivote 24651. 1377. SM. 3759. MM. all Was 666%. 1377. Vie. 7460. 94211. 1991 sbure 0. 0. 0. 3709. 3709. Hut 3077. 0. 300. M2. SM. dwW 16MG. 122. 29. 1146. ism. private 10356. 0. USL 1704. 15217. all Mile 2"73. 122. 7193. R391. 45679.

Page 35 Table S. Bimtric samples fa tba Itlantic Veda amberjack groq by &U swau.

Sample size S"m Year lem4th vai(jbt roe lrffs 79 15 9 rec uffs 80 23 n reC arffs U 37 8 rec orffs u u 9 rec ffffS 93 24 2D rec Kffs 94 75 57 roe llrffs 85 53 27 rec lirffs 86 5D 43 rec lirffs 97 80 62 rGC IrffS 89 57 43 rec Irffs 89 79 rec vrffs 90 74 30 rec ! It 1 91 74 36 rec bboat 79 229 218 rec bbDat go 109 82 rec hboat 91 217 190 rec bboat 82 97 92 rec hboat 83 278 179 rec bboat 84 228 176 rec hbut 85 237 159 rec bboat 96 238 146 rec bboat 87 263 233 rec bboat U 139 U9 rec hboat 09 184 104 rec hboat go m 96 reC bboat 91 74 67 rec tip len 95 1 0 rec tip in g6 1 0 reC tip lea 87 4 0 rec tip lea 90 4 0 rec tip IN 91 1 0 rec baP 79 4 0 rec bnp go 4 0 rec bap 81 30 0 rec bq 82 U 0 rec bap 83 9 0 rec bap 85 5 0 rec bop 86 7 0 rec boo 97 15 0 roe b* 98 1 0

hp m CP 0

^ga."Sga C.'D C;, C, CN, CD OVR^="R " W9 xvaQSMS^^ Xaa%acv^m @movies@ fffffff*

HERE INKNIN 16111111 goggling Table S. (cwtinued). swle size swce year Iwo vaicpt ma all 84 1 3 on all 85 24 u Can all 96 64 4 on all 87 61 12 cov all -88 112 35 cm all 89 so 35 Coo all 90 230 48 on all 91 32D 49

pop 38 Table 9. 9ammary bioutric information for sample average night and length of the itlautic greater amberjack grow. Sample Ungth (cm) Sample Wght (lbs) fishery you NOR Variance Men Variance Muercial M 64.00 0.00 12.61 19.56 1995 69.27 U.86 19.33 101.29 1986 62.56 8.98 14.86 66.38 19P 68.02 10-41 8.09 14.47 1998 71.57 4.94 14.91 135.84 1969 71.82 6.21 20.76 218.25 1990 94.64 3.48 16.97 347.40 l"I 84.04 1.75 15.47 92.75

Readmt 1979 66.99 1.01 12.07 0.39 1980 74.49 7.36 17.75 4.12 1981 64.38 0.95 U.19 0.13 1982 62.57 4.67 13.70 2.00 W SLU 1.34 10.04 0.55 1984 62.77 3.V 17.03 1.59 1995 55.35 2.14 12.62 1.05 1996 54.09 2.47 14.02 1.24 1987 64.39 1.94 12.79 0.46 1988 76.V 5.49 18.98 1.66 1989 59.57 5.21 43.11 119.94 1990 74.04 7.19 17.76 Lu l"l 76.77 5.06 16.% 1.35

Reereational 1979 77.34 70.15 28.47 21.11 (other) 1980 65.29 1.23 19.22 0.58 1991 40.77 2.21 19.14 2.97 1992 94.61 59.71 40.08 7.23 1983 74.59 24.50 22.40 U.08 1984 %.78 81.59 31.74 14.92 M 91.81 8.33 30.04 3.89 1996 90.80 9.15 29.40 4.26 M 100.34 5.59 33.22 2.67 1988 67.46 4.15 19.90 1.13 1989 91.78 3.55 34.65 1.24 1990 91.74 1.15 27.38 0.52 l"I $6.80 11.76 29.97 3.09

Pap 39 !able 10. SUIIary CPlJI infonatian far the Atlantic greater uberjllCk pip.

Data Scmce/Pishery IRPSS lIPS Beadboat1 Year CPR CPA I CPA I 1973 0.2 187 1974 0.5 24 1975 0.2 151 1976 0.2 339 1977 0.2 348 1978 0.1 569 1979 0.3 1.1 20 0.1 695 1980 0.6 2.6 33 0.1 687 1981 0.5 1.7 23 0.3 1838 1982 0.3 1.4 19 0.4 1992 1983 0.4 1.1 38 0.5 1412 1984 0.3 1.2 83 0.2 986 1985 0.4 1.1 42 0.2 838 1986 0.3 1.1 75 0.2 843 1987 0.5 0.9 91 0.2 1281 1988 0.4 0.9 80 0.2 1172 1989 0.3 0.9 112 0.2 1138 1990 0.5 1.1 92 0.2 1550 1991 0.4 1.2 82 0.1 699 790 14428

CPR = Catcl1 per _ CPA = Catch per ~ler • = I1IIber oI:IemtiC118

1NMFSheadboat survey began in 1973 in the Carolinas, 1976 in the Florida Keys. Table 11. EstiJated percent reducticm in recreaticmal catm far tile lUantic greater alberjack pip far several baq lint optillDS (I = mDr of lilsemtiOJlS).

Data Source/lishery Bag Lilit IRISS DFS ~on amer Private Slme Beadboat 1 26.0 32.0 51.7 3.4 2 5.3 0.0 25.9 1.2 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 66 10 6 843

Page 41 Table 12. Effort statistics wW in the Itlantic greater aderjad 9W USMML

Year Dirww low Effort Effort Fishery Effort Units

1%6 n7 33053 Commill WMd t* 1917 1409 39221 Comercial 199 1032 16862 Comercial 10 1373 4202 calmidal 1"0 1355 36092 callercial 1991 359 14525 Cossercial

1979 67434 15947900 IFUM1 10C. FilhffM TriPs 1980 51733 1MM 18tioW Roe. 1911 6038 1134M National. ROC. 1982 67292 ISMOM MHORAI PAC. 1983 69124 15928000 WMAI PC. 1914 148124 17MOIN fttiMI ft. 1985 83311 198M ktiW W. 1986 48021 1478M INUO211 RSC- 1987 U061 170M Wood RE. 1988 SM 1959M latimal lec. 1989 67676 15469000 WMAI EX. 1990 62992 14145000 RdW RM. 1991 53205 161620 lational Rm.

1981 377287 ftd 114* Dw 1992 3876U lint 1983 36749 Molt 1984 385173 Int 1985 341093 BlUt 1986 22560 415472 Mwt 1987 353P 443448 Mint 1989 245B 42004 mut Igo 20295 412505 wt 1990 5122 423286 Ibmt 1991 9451 3WO Mot National be.= In out z Ills beamott sormy

Page 42 Table 13. ISSUlts Of EX Edd for the MIMUC gre3tOr aguiack PR- Calendar TW 1986 W 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

1 1545742 MW 2166616 137252 431317 6956668 160226. .8 Cl t 2166896 Q66" 2870341 379462 109903 95M 72MB. 191 1692898 419609 2242454 296455 M5 7439966 S619. 1.10 1.66 1.04 2.16 L"' 1.07 3.53

.22 9.15 .08 3.14 19.47 .03 5.46 .8 Cl i 266.56 9.32 42.79 4.13 211-35 36-93 isl 20.25 7.28 33.43 3.23 165-12 28.85 CY 9".31 .80 444.26 .84 8.40 1100.55

S .19 7.33 .06 3.14 16.13 .02 .8 CI t 216.79 7.58 31.79 3.57 49.93 29-51 482 169.37 5.92 24.84 2.79 39.01 23.06 cv 885.50 .11 392.99 .89 2.42 1001.10

1 .12 .22 .17 .20 .19 .12 .8 ci t .13 .25 .19 .23 .22 .15 46, U .20 .15 .18 .17 .12 cv .88 .88 .09 .89 .90 .19

F(rep) -1.53 2.21 -2.59 1.35 2.97 -3.64 .8 cl t LV 1.41 1.66 1.03 1.39 LU is, 1.31 1.10 1.29 .80 1.0 1.16 cy -.85 .50 -.50 .60 .37 -.32

r -.09 .09 -.00 .33 .02 -.03 .8 ci t .42 .45 .33 7.26 .02 .02 483 .33 .35 .26 5.68 .01 .02 ev -3.46 3.92 -3.36 17.12 .56 -.75

P -1212612 2410619 -2003600 385767 79M -6774U4 715M .8 Cl t 2148M 28M425 286BO98 1237783 9453814 9552397. is' 16782U 2247207 U40701 %7W 7UM2 7462110. ev -1.30 .93 -1.12 2.48 .93 -1.10

G -13421 M -IS707 4997 76400 -5n97 6039. .8 ci t 23777 IVA2 22484 M70 W46 8M2. is, 1857S 142S1 1750 12398 70817 63010. cy -1.38 .93 -1.12 2.48 .93 -1.10

cm U3%9 2= I= 129184 191629 174514.

A (lbs) 24.40 13.98 17.28 n.27 U.14 18-61 18-61

Blosess (it) 17108 1975 16985 1760 U% 56736 1353.

field (it) 1261 1411 1201 16% 1817 1473.

15 Initial Ibmim. F(rep) *Wbrin I 8 N seplacament, VA. p Stuck prodectim (M*n) 9 a Total M* W. 9 1 Stod Growth (PrOdUctiOR is 10110) r a bwal Ratio (Cat*Productim) All statisUcs us par tin period (i.e., yw in tkis at*)

P* 43 We 14. Pou* 1=W (6de vd*) of the Gulf ktff* pq in the =beaten Mited Stgm, 1962.1991^.

MTS LMM wR r sc Q pu nu fa n is jA Tx im An Go Au

1%2 0 0 0 0 0 10816 0 0 0 0 0 0 10816 10816 1%3 0 0 0 0 0 1464 0 0 0 0 0 1664 7800 9464 1964 0 0 0 0 0 7072 0 0 0 0 0 208 6BU 7M 1965 0 0 0 0 0 SB24 0 0 0 0 0 2H 5616 5824 1966 0* 0 0 0 0 8216 0 0 0 0 0 728 7488 8216 1%7 0 a 0 0 0 32448 a 0 0 0 0 0 M48 32448 1%8 0 0 0 a 0 12792 0 0 0 0 0 0 12792 12792 1%9 0 0 0 0 0 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 81016 $1016 1970 a 0 0 0 0 15194 0 0 0 0 0 0 15114 ISM 1971 0 0 0 0 0 42744 0 a 0 0 0 0 42744 42744 1972 0 0 0 728 0 400 a 0 0 0 0 72B 462D 47008 1973 a 0 0 2194 0 U408 0 0 a 0 0 2184 11408 33592 1974 0 0 0 2288 0 46384 0 0 0 0 0 2288 46384 48672 1575 0 0 0 3016 0 86840 0 0 0 0 0 3016 WO 89W 1976 0 a 0 728 0 %096 0 0 0 0 0 728 960% 96B24 1977 0 a 0 1248 0 1M28 0 0 0 0 0 1248 133120 134576 1978 0 0 a 0 0 167544 0 0 0 0 0 0 167SU 167544 1979 0 0 0 0 0 18312 0 0 0 0 0 0 169000 169M 1980 0 0 0 0 0 199251 0 0 0 0 0 0 198251 198251 1981 0 0 0 0 0 262530 0 0 0 0 0 0 262530 262M 1982 a 0 0 0 0 246031 0 1950 0 0 0 0 mm bw 1983 0 0 0 0 0 U1083 2909 Soo 452 0 0 0 314936 314944 1984 0 0 0 0 0 50664 19279 9336 364 13901 0 0 5M 592544 1995 a 0 0 0 0 643031 42733 36759 %206 48237 0 0 BUM 866%5 1986 0 0 0 a 0 774M 6W 67403 314057 119796 0 0 1337254 13372% 1987 22 0 0 0 6566 1313365 3M 46293 380847 105420 0 22 1876601 1883189 1988 6 0 0 0 0 146V658 35951 40461 710752 161677 0 1 2429499 2429505 1989 0 0 0 W 4047 1421121 28849 5U20 606955 139279 0 856 2249124 2254227 1990 0 0 0 0 817 718975 M 22535 316229 7Ml 0 56994 1088462 1146273 1991 0 0 0 0 5291 702385 294 20204 21344 29472 0 17%19 797ON 572090

IL 3 WA* U& Is Thrida idW =Dtim lbt induw in catem ML I = Um dmote w rqated luAinp.

Page 44 We 15. Rvportim laW!* (P=*) by #jb for the Gdf Iterjad pq in the mftutem vAited suts, i962-iggil.

state LOW YW K sc a la no IL z Ll 9 FI-3 btal Poo&

1962 D.M O.M Q.QOM 0.0000 LOND O.M D.M O.M 0.0000 D.M M6 1963 Q.0000 C.M Q.M O.M LM O.M O.M C.M 0.0000 O.M 9M 1%4 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 LM O.M 0.0000 Q.M O.M DAN 70n 1965 0.0000 O.M Q.M O.M LOW O.M 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 5924 1966 0.0000 Q.DODQ LM LM LM D.M O.M LOOM DAN O.M M6 1967 0.0060 0.0000 C-M Q.M LM 0.0000 O.M OADO LHOD 0.0000 32448 Im Lm O.M Lm 0.0000 1.0000 Lm O.M O.M Lm Q.QM IM2 1969 0.0000 C.M Q.M 0.0000 1.0000 LHO O.M O.M O.M 0.0000 81016 in 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 1.0000 O.M 0.0000 O.M O.M 0.0000 15114 1971 0.0000 O.Oom 0.0000 Lmo Lm O.M 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Lm 42744 1972 0.0000 O.M 0.0000 0.0155 Q.9U5 O.M O-M O.M 0.000 C.M 470 1973 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.VA 0.9350 04000 O.M O.M 0.000 O.M 33592 1974 O.DDOD O.M 0.0000 0.0470 0.990 LOND 0.000 MOM Q.M O.M 4W2 1975 O-M D-M O-M 0.0336 0.9M O.M O.M G.M O.M O.M SM 1976 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0075 0.9925 O.M O.M Q.M O.M LHOO M4 1977 0-M 0.0000 0-0000 0.093 0."07 O.M O.M 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 IN576 1978 0.000 O.M D.M 0.0000 LM D.M O.M 0.0000 0.0000 D.M IM 1979 0.0000 Q.QQM 0.0000 O.M LM 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0400 O.M IOU2 1980 0.0000 Lm O.w Lm Lm Lm 0.000 D.M O.M G.M 198151 1981 0.0000 0.0000 LOW 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 26M 1932 0.0000 O.QMQ LPHO BAND 0.9903 Q.M 0.0197 LODDO 0.0040 0.000 29981 1983 O.M 0,0000 0.0000 O.M 0.9977 O.OM 0.0016 OX4 O.M O.M U4944 1984 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9276 0.6325 Q.U58 O.M 0.0235 O.m 5m 1985 0.0000 O.M 0.0000 O.M 0.7417 0.0493 0,0424 O.lUQ O-M Q.M IM 1986 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 0.00 0.5789 0.0463 O.W 0.2349 Q.M 6.0000 1337251 1987 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 0.000 0.6974 0.0161 0.0246 0.2022 O.W OA035 1IM89 19U O.M 0.0000 0.0000 O.M 0.6012 Q.MO 0.0167 0.2926 0.0748 DAM 24205 1989 Q.M 0.0000 O.OHO 0.0004 0.6304 0.0128 0.0236 OM 0.0618 0.0018 2254M 1990 0.0000 O.M LODDO D.M 0.6272 0.0133 0.0197 O.M9 0.0633 LOW 1146273 1991 O.M O.M 0.0000 O.M 0.7226 O.M23 0.02H O.U% O.OZ3 O.W55 972090

LNEW uh in ftift inind COOHOL term dmate w rqmW IW*.

hp 45 ?able 16. Founds landed (stole vejot) by capture grid for the (bit Merjad qM in the scuthenstern United States g 1977-1991 Calendar Test Crid 19" in un 190 Ml IM2 no IM4 195 1986 19V 1968 ISIS 1"1 1991

1 0 0 0 0 1232 1945 4751 4297 9669 6557 11MI 93176 32906 50% 179619 2 0 3536 932 002 731 320 4794 5121 3767 0 42594 43900 32972 2258 51274 3 1144 0 104 2317 o 7u im X16 4342 540 3138) 36779 3704 10010 8743 4 380 1664 2219 1456 399 0 342 400 2472 57677 42934 5380 7491 SION 33238 5 16536 26832 19760 197H 28720 2377 21473 21799 54H 9002 218617 19025 173122 15659 141527 6 21521 27144 22672 26541 30169 M60 26335 79445 6398 18303 205908 H950 192143 U37K 51577 7 im 83z 936 wo m5e 32m 6373 no Ml 44705 56744 63764 126634 10143 20663 8 22776 212H M 2034 0926 0213 0138 6H97 1NO16 OR 113223 126379 142755 70H 107529 9 26312 31M 23504 2017 32363 297U 3500 10021 lV9Zl 13442 1168H U2720 101600 32577 23323 10 9048 12584 1366 1005 23754 2079 42214 134223 IR517 U0314 143967 195641 194LIO 63894 0161 u 496 goo m un imp imn B376 47630 734% 90716 IS364 249998 13596 76(13 0116 11 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 936 INS 0 270 0 0 13 9256 IND 36608 395A 49910 SOW 57620 43162 IG989 239275 25282 44101 28450 M65 9229 14 694 SM U168 13033 17508 18455 23035 24744 35382 701U 15761 U395 254067 14613 321 is 150 6031 8528 9417 UMS 11071 15654 078 22167 57605 U961 41M 13952 IVO 3611 16 M8 460 82 9M 1664 20# 1768 37A 12209 3067 U599 3730) 74191 10533 4009 17 1872 NU 520 635 1352 138 M 6525 AM 44775 34630 7015 0789 ID77 39H is 1144 H56 416 521 936 159 624 4579 341 22204 360 30% R35 576 4704 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3114 9674 14663 22543 48067 32701 1008 6355 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1971 6V3 6015 34890 91118 #VS 19756 906 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9369 U763 22795 16105 15674 32393 3vn im) Uml=if ild Ing 0 416 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 65BI 6 4903 U6352 318835 F"9ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

III GridB 134576 167544 10R] 198251 262530 25881 314%4 592544 866%5 1337254 1883189 2419505 2254227 1146273 gnoge We 17a. ftmds laoled (*Is veigbt) by year & moth for Me* in tke w0eastem gaited a", i%2-IM (Am landed my differ fro capture areal Im Ism: QU of bdm states 111orids vest ont - Im) ram YOU am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 u 12 111 battle

1%] 10616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10916 1963 14664 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14664 1964 10193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10192 1%5 W1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8633 1%6 9464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 9464 1967 H%4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34944 1961 14144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14144 1%9 63512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83512 1970 2092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20592 1971 4692 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 1972 4630, a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4628D 1973 0041 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4000 1974 %me 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 59800 1975 9496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9036 1976 99424 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9%x 1977 0 3473 6919 9HO 15144 2Z3% 10642 17907 697 IN76 6043 153H 6944 139H 1971 0 4475 4894 15154 A101 16778 1791 1310 IMI 1868 11271 IBM 13532 172931 1979 0 090 4421 14137 1305 35135 IWO 13734 1501 12818 2H34 Nil 1012 19006 ISO 0 9495 14936 502 1503 2X39 18319 22570 21732 2675 =1 10021 23040 211947 1981 0 IN44 20108 19325 23070 34518 20037 ZM33 2492 3330 20206 2M V378 V63" INZ 0 9603 ZQUQ 35194 14759 45225 41M 26M 2550 17M 22808 23167 3330 M4610 IN3 0 MR 16325 26020 3407 44333 72069 31923 27802 16706 M754 31318 2838 178403 1964 0 4890 42948 52305 0952 62632 VXI 5H77 66534 503" 51760 51053 83802 63524 1985 0 53417 33074 57585 7901 U79S7 9WI 121469 90162 58563 ONO 651n $6099 917728 1961 0 0331 90HO 70170 151127 143571 136060 137390 181636 128181 97908 U54V 116833 1444219 IN7 0 131N 151070 198679 35MB 31531 14267 147050 16WO W21 162VI 07M 147411 21802 1918 0 146647 =9 M1833 30509 35M 327463 BM 3144 IWO 195030 13YA 183678 MH 1989 0 33079 227789 236745 20657 350141 20189 199266 10572 1677% 15299 14VA 122710 2607004 I"D 0 238M 13BUI 29N27 306105 330215 175464 11069 114705 104197 99201 79M 61162 207499 1991 0 76576 114"0 26UZB 422114 31n7l 153438 07079 107529 95990 73669 65"3 66068 154791

A Tom 59301 IU7329 1131013 1%3103 2101778 2189D93 157MI 120VU 13UBII 107016 102OV1 923499 1026V7 1595072 v WhOl 9D9D'O SKO'D MID MID Wil WOOD MID 16111 lln'O CHOI IL90*0 S"O'D WOOD awl v 0

16LV981 WOOD WSCO'D WOOD MID U9040 HUI MID 1011'0 "WO 9TWO WOOD TIHOO 000010 1661 WhOl WOOD ZKO*O 81101 MID WOOD HSO'D 910*0 MID SOWD STWO 090*0 1§1140 WOOD 0661 "OLO9Z UNID 99SOOO MID MOO CELOIC "/AID U6000 CK1*0 C96810 Woo ILHOO MID 004111 6861 611981 MID t9tolo Z99010 itsclo 911000 698010 911110 INTID REIT 99010 WOOD EISOIO 000000 096t Z0998TI WOOD lt9O'Q MID 6060*0 WOOD WOOD 11901 IEEI'D MID 6060'0 WOOD OKOOO DOOD'D L161 611ttll WOOD 0080*0 IL90*0 MOO 89"'0 16601 1160*0 1660*0 %KID 9M'O LZ9O'O CLWO'O 000*0 9861 WUU KNOD WOOD 9690'0 001 WOOD WZCt*D WOOD S9l*O 19101 LEWD 09EOI 1160'0 0000*0 5961 USIN MID 9UO'G WOOD lZLO'C 660*0 00*0 61WO C060*0 0601 MID 6190'0 MID 000000 WE EOHLE 010*0 MID K9O'O 1#010 WOOD RON S06140 Ull'i 09901 11901 TWO OUO'O 0000*0 TOR 019W 0601 WOOD 999O'D 1060*0 WO'D 6610'0 S6111 MID 66911 1901*0 WOOD WOOD MID ENT SERE 6190'0 ZEIVO U1040 L091*0 lOlO'O WOOD Still MID MOO 66H'O WO'0 Z8901 0000*0 ist LKIll MOO ELWO 90*0 C9911 RON S901*0 HOO60 01*0 ULO'O WOOD WOOD 81101 WOOD 0061 MR 069040 MOO NON MID 0000 WOOD 19911 60111 WOOD O?LO'O WOOD MID 0000*0 6L61 TERLI WOOD MID WOOD 1901*0 MID SLLD'O LIOTOO 01601 Z9111 9LID'O MOO WOOD 0000*0 OL61 9611 11901 LUVO WOOD EC60*0 IC901 OIEVO 08*0 MID HITOD lUO'O 60SO'D 9990*6 00001 L16t 9166 MOO 000010 000010 000000 000000 000010 010810 MID MID MID ODOO'D 000010 00011 U61 9ESW6 MID WOOD 0040*0 00040 ODOD'O 0000*0 WOOD 0000*0 0000*0 MID 0000*0 0000*0 000411 SL61 DOW 000010 MOO 00001 000010 000060 MID MID 000010 MID MID 000004 MID OCINOI WL61 OVOOt 000010 000010 000010 000010 000040 0001114 000010 000010 0010 0000*0 00000 MOO Mot EL61 Olz9t DOODID 000000 COODID 000060 OOODOQ 006010 000010 WOOD MOO MID 000010 000040 00001 ZL61 got 0000*0 000010 000000 000000 000010 OMID 000010 MID OWID MID MOO 000010 100041 1161 169K 000000 000010 MOO 000010 OOWIO 000010 000000 M60 000010 DOWD 000010 000010 =1 OL61 zlill 000040 000010 000010 000010 000040 000010 000010 000010 000010 000011 000010 000010 Occell 6961 Ifitl DOODID MID 000010 000010 060014 MID ODOOIC 000010 0000*0 000010 000010 000010 000001 0961 W 000010 000010 000010 000000 MOO 000040 ODCOIO 000010 000610 000010 000060 MID mot L961 "m 000010 000010 MOO QOCOIO ODCOID 000000 000010 000010 COODIO WOOD 00010 Mot 000041 9961 1(91 000010 000010 DOODOO 000060 We 000410 00010 000010 000000 QOOOIO 000010 00000 000011 6961 1601 000010 000010 000010 MOO 000010 000010 WOOD 000010 MOO 0000 0000*0 DOWD 000061 )%T Ml 060010 Omoo 0000*0 MID 000010 MID WOOD MOO 000040 mot 000010 MID 0006.1 M 91001 MID 000000 000010 0000's 000010 000010 000000 MOO 000010 000016 000910 000010 0001 t961

W" Tin% El IT Ol 6 0 L 9 6 t E z I MOM ml qpx (own - I= IBM winti) sqlw 001111 p im:Pm mv (an U00 W4 'aim ba ppm Vat) 1551-9%1 1661-M *149 P41% u4M%wg OP tq X*nW IGJ qWm I nd 14 (WPI*M) PPIT SPIN Al GIN hUo Is. hub JuM (*do jejot) 9w for the Gulf bberjack Faq h the smMmUM DIM Was, 1962-19%

calak ba 1962 1963 B64 1%5 1966 1%7 196B 1%9 370 1971 B72 1973 B74 1975 1976

ba i Lim 8526. 9464. 6864. 5821. 8216. 3XIO. U?92. 81011, 14664- 42744, VUL 33184. "4. 8960. 95HO. Suface EMU= 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B*ta lowlim 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Di" ow 1456. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ollinu 62. 0. 104. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 9M. 0. NO. 20, 936. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Trap 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Q, 0. L ?ads 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. sdm 0. 0. 104. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 520. 0. 0. 2s. 0. 0. 728. Otba cow 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 2. 0. 0.

AR Gem IM6. 9464. 7072. 59M. 8216. 32M, U792. 81016. DIN. W44, 47008. 33592. 4172. 89856. 96024.

ftb 18. (coltinw), caloohr IM Gw On 1978 B79 1980 1961 1982 1983 IS4 B85 1981 19V 1998 1909 1990 19K awk & Lim 125216. 165360. IQ3D4. 188374, 237295. 2066H. MA183. 523673. 70728. 1108014. 15M. 202n2l. 1882274. 92239. 62294, Sufam LMglim 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. IZ66. 4762. 1081. 90, adin lMqlim el 0. 1912. 5M. 24950. 43634. SD646. 6ML 124VI 2284M. 285775. 367336. 334537. 135791, 0957. Din Qu 0. 0. 104. 0. 0. 0. 7. 0. 0: 55. W2. 29272, 3739. 75284. Mi. GUMS 9360. 21M. 4680. 2373. 216. 721, 107. 8. 306. 129, 23. 1. 0. 0. 952. Top 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ?MIA a. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1750. 160. 564. 8477. 6059. 0. 288. Beim 0. 0. 0. 2220. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11757, 0. OUK ow 0. 0. 312. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 856. 0. 2807.

ku GM 131576. 167544. 16922. 198251. 262530, 2509U- 314944. 59250. 966%5. 1337254. 1883189. 2429505. 2254227. 1146273. 972090. We 19. bftW rwudmd efts of GO "ft am*ad hm 1979-19W. smm geties pq yor mtcknm) va(akh)(10,M) yidd(lbs)

Was 9IJ gm im 19M. livi3o. 0. rfss 9Bj 9M 1980 196172. 10015. 0. irfss 93i 92 1981 WIN. S192u. 0. fffss gaj ga 1912 I=. M547L 0. ufss qaj gm 1913 1%655. 3M56. 0. xrfss gai 9M 1984 102791. 78897. 0. fffss gli gm 1985 23M7. 326321. 0. fffss gai ga 19H MM. 262125. 0. Kfss gai 93 1987 374029. 13031. 0. fffss Pi P 1988 203546. 216633. 0. fffss gai gm 1989 567498. U95650. 0. Irfss 91i p 1990 8152B. SIU7. 0. zf6s Pi 9M 1991 2H387. 933093. 0.

tpw gai 9M 1993 2M. 0. 0. tpod gaj gm 19" 8ug. 0. 0. tpvd gai gm 1905 372. 0. 0. tpd glj 9M 1986 6414. 0. 0. tpld gli ga 1987 4434. 0. 0. tp9d gBj 9M 1988 1750. 0. 0. tpwd gaj ga 1999 19S2. 0. 0. W gaj ga u9i LIS. 0. 0. tpw Pi gm 1991 M6. 0. 0.

bbt 0 im on. 0. 750M bbt 9AJ ga 1987 52892. 0. 378884. hbt 93i 9M M8 29M. 0. 173610. bbt Fj gm 1989 SH21. 0. 2%215. bbt 99j 92 1990 24260. 0. 77669. bbt gaj ga 1991 9852. 0. 105511.

Ufs+tpd gaj gn 1979 192320. 1137130. 0. zfs+tpgd 91i 90 1980 196072. loms. 0. fff"W 9zi gm 1981 2H357. 51929L 0. zfs+tpvd Pj gm 1902 1215312. 0795472. 0. zb+tpvd Pi 9m 19M Im. 321156. 0. KfSAVA pj gm 1994 UQM. 79897. 0. als+tpd Pj ga 1985 230779. 326321, 0. Rfe+tpvd gaj gm 1996 21M. 26UB. 0. fff ow 9&j gm 1987 378463. 1342633. 0. zfs+#W gaj ga 1988 205296. n6m. 0. irfv4w Pj ga 1989 569480. 1395650, 0. KIB+tpgd A 9m 19% sm. 5M7. 0. Kfs+tpd Pj 92 1991 2%203. 93383. 0. zfo#O bbut gai gm 1979 192320. 3137130. 0. fff 5+0* bat gaj gm 190 19"72. 104015. 0. zu+tpk* wwt gaj 9M 19BI 22V57. 5192BL 0. page so we 11. (cmumed). smm gecies 9M yeff mtck(nm) vu(citA)(10,M) YW(lbs)

afB+t;k* bbott 9IJ p 1982 IUSM. 6o7mn. 0. zfs+V6 Nut pj ga 1983 M2. 3ZI%. 0. irfo+qvd+ hwd gaj ga m U09M. 78897. 0. KfM#* Wat Fj ga IM 230779. 3263Z. 0. alOtpk* hboat pj gm 1916 300N. 26u2s. 0. zb#4ml+ M* gaj gm 1997 MM. =33. 0. zfx+40d+ bbut pi 92 1988 234956. 216633. 4. xfo#vd+ ftd pj 9m 1969 alool. 13950. 0. irfs+40d+ Mad gaj 9a 1990 106M. SlU7. 0. irfo#* bbut pj gm 1991 306055. 933093. 0.

gaj gmter obalad I yidd Dot SaUnted for Nm.

P* 51 IS *I

.0 1stict 196M MCI Wu tm OR= Ill a6l am .0 .0 IM 4UTJd IJ61 'HEM 'OHM .0 m .%E"l *L%Ul 'ZILL *0 UTE L061 1696 *TTEEW .0 .0 lot 16LI6 IMW L161 .909 .&L9z .0 .0 .0 .0 82M L061

'00600t OUTHE IL690T .0 .0m fm MR 111 9861 .90 .0 .19t 4 U65 iquTid gNT OWET16 Im" m IOEBEII 11000T mot .0 4ZTTS x4m 9m TON *QML .0 .0 '6EL IM lvm 9861 .61K91 *6uoa .0 .0 olu" UE MM ITV OR 1999601 I= .0 .0 lu" .0 WP 9261 .0 .0 .0 .0 quig 06T :Imot 1910) 40 .0 .0 .0 ILE 'ILL APW SKI 'Lot" 06ETO gap 111 "61 *OE6011 vm .0 .0 INT9 :Elm lim .0 .0 .0 1" "6T OR .0 .0 .0 .9z" OGEII RWIJI M61 lm lut .0 .0 .0 .0 um ml

Hid :9061 1699T *0 .0 16ET sqm III EM l6fta .0 .0 OCK91 .0 AqAp E861 .0 .0 16LOt Wit W IZU19 [96T

Isulm lolt .0 '"V16 .0 op III Z961 'TESUOT 115=1 m .0 4TTOEL 40 WO U61 .0 ILSWI 09MOT IIEV .0 -ELKI IWTA Z861 Tra 1961 .0 .0 .0 mp 1961

:LM '0969n '6"" QE611 Im mm Tit 1861 .5m ICLM TO .0 -62UI .0 Avp 1861 0619SL *09S Stoc .0 41191 40SOT VWTA 1261

11MI INS601 *CHOI .0 Qu" MITI gap IP ml $K6L,a -6M .0m .0 '60% lqVP U61 .ENL9 '186L .0 .0 lom .0 quTA 0861 .691TT 469M .0 .0 .0 .0 OW 0861

*C?E?61 %SZLSI '666E .0 *6E9LI m Sq= Ull 661 IOZZ% 'SEOSS .0 .0 .0 sm 1%* 601 Ittetv '"62 'Mt .0 66EUT 4001 I%UTld 6L61 OIRE6 INZE6 .0 .0 .0 .0 =P UP

gnm TIT All IV 4 4 Lwu ml m -vMs p 1W.; 14 poW APt TO mg P NWO TmPwM 'Oz 9109 Es 9%

ITENZ :mm .1.0 .9 101 09tit 0" TTI 166T Im .0 .0 1ill RUTA 1661 MIT IML .0 :guuz Im K[C .9 ITE9 m4w 1661 IAT .0ttt VM t916 69CE9 .0 .0 1661 .90 .90 .0 .0 .0 .0 Um lul

:M"I ISENO ITICIE .0 IIEE me MM 119 ow .810 otgol .0 .0 *98 quj3d 06bi UIR .0 116 .0 1691tv .09LK 1110L 24M 0551 '09AR OMIT .0 .0 In Sur m 0661 .0 .0 .0 .0 OXF 0661 OSET 'IsIt

Ioom 66606 '91969 .0 'WEN INIT SM TTI 6961 *9651 16M .0 Vzt 069H aquIld 686T *006"T .0 199ow It"IR 1110% 4VESE IT8 APIP 589 Ittas Istat .0 ITZ .0%6 PM 6861 .9"T 1"Ittl 60 .0 .0 VDF 6061 .99ta osm ma .0 talc .9m w& no U61 160to OS16K .0 .0 Iltm 4LKT mTjd 061 'ECOITT INIES *tzea .0 .0 -EOZ MW 0861 .09M 'ELM .0 .0 w ICU m m 069in *69tit .0 .1 .0 .0 mp 1061

Wm TIT All IY a Iri 4 r4rS .(Pmn=) foz om Table n. Biometric samples for the QU greater amberjack group.

Sample size Source Year 100 velobt rec alls 79 n 12 rec mrffs 90 77 61 rec arffs 91 67 60 roe irffs 82 136 122 rec vrffs 83 146 114 rec affs 84 115 107 rec uft 95 54 55 rec Irffs 86 244 218 rec orffs V $03 726 rec KM 98 211 199 rec arffs 89 132 IV rec affs 90 37 39 rec 3rff3 91 247 202

rec tpW 83 288 0 rec tpW 84 164 0 rec tpvd 85 82 0 rec tpud 86 50 0 rec W 97 22 0 rec tpw U 14 0 rec tped 89 n 0 rec tpW 90 7 0 rec tpvd 91 20 0 rec bboat 86 606 516 rec bboat 87 545 523 rec bboat U 407 U3 rec bboat 89 1426 980 rec bboat 90 238 236 rec bboat 91 185 165 reC tip In 85 3 0 ree tip In 90 3 0 rec tip In 91 10 0 rec aldyt 91 ISM 0 rec In 88 21 21 rec In 89 363 331 rec lsu 90 290 288 rec In 91 L37 137 Table 21. (cotimed).

Sasple size mm Year imp vei(Pt rec tip vqt 90 0 1 roe all 79 U 12 rec all so so 64 roe all 91 67 60 rec all 92 136 122 rec all 83 434 314 rec all 84 279 107 roe all 95 141 57 rec all 86 90D 734 rec all V 1370 1249 rec all U 653 522 rec all 99 1932 1438 rec all 90 575 563 rec all 91 2404 504 cos tip lea 83 23 0 = tip lea 84 142 0 on tip lem 95 291 0 com tip lea 86 In 0 on tip Ion 87 40 0 Cox tip lea as 749 0 on tip lea 89 470 0 Cos tip lea 90 659 0 ma tip lea 91 796 0 oDs tip vqt 97 0 1 cm tip vqt a 0 4 on tip vqt 90 0 16 on tip vgt 91 0 71 on all 83 23 0 cm all 84 142 0 cm all 95 291 0 = all 86 129 0 on an 87 40 1 on all 88 749 4 CDR all 99 470 0 cm an 90 659 16 = All 91 796 71 Table 22. Summary blovetric information for sample average weight and length of the Gulf greater amberjack group. sample Length (cm) Sample Might Obs) Fisbary Year Ylean Variance Nan Variance

Commercial 1983 $7.54 3.32 22.37 34.23 1%4 80.32 2.79 20.39 191.64 1985 $4.92 1.22 22.83 151.31 1996 96.62 2.81 23.94 162.03 19V 80.40 11.94 21.71 150.65 1998 55.02 0.16 6.72 43.37 1989 66.91 0.69 12.63 112.66 1990 92.98 0.65 29.13 221.50 1991 103.99 0.76 43.73 312.28

Readboat 1986 53.43 0.84 8.50 0.2D 1997 57.43 0.68 8.32 0.12 1998 59.96 0.90 7.56 0.10 1989 49.96 0.43 5.55 0.07 1990 51.19 2.07 6.86 0.39 l"l 69.94 1.39 12.25 0.17

Recreational 1979 %-22 47.57 16.97 3.90 (other) 1990 70.77 22.16 26.21 15.17 1981 54.97 10.27 6.52 1.48 19U 60.24 4.20 9.85 0.70 1983 56.86 1.35 12.47 0.81 1984 58.92 2.36 14.64 2.83 1995 55.08 5.90 13.60 2.77 1986 62-39 2.61 12.64 0.76 1997 56.57 0.47 6.80 0.10 l"S 63.Q3 1.62 10.15 0.51 1969 70.62 1.80 17.56 0.65 1990 71.90 1.76 16.98 0.84 1991 73.60 0.10 15.95 0.43 rable 23. SoDary CPOEintonation for the QJ1fgreater aDrjac:k group.

Data Scmce/Fis!lery IRFSS BPS JIeadboat2 !PI)' Year CPR CPA I CPA I CPB CPA I 1979 0.9 3.0 15 . 1980 0.6 3.3 38 1981 0.7 1.9 20 1982 0.7 2.3 61 1983 1.1 2.4 89 2.23 0.55 36 1984 2.4 2.6 39 2.06 0.57 35 1985 0.6 1.8 B8 0.40 0.80 35 1986 2.1 3.7 207 O.B 1281 0.91 0.B1 16 1987 2.B 3.5 199 0.6 1172 0.40 1.20 14 1988 1.8 3.2 113 0.5 1138 0.19 0.56 11 1989 2.1 2.8 134 0.6 1550 0.19 0.59 10 1990 0.6 0.9 28 0.5 699 0.20 0.50 8 1991 1.6 2.3 40 0.4 727 0.30 1.40 9 !oW 1071 6567 167

CPR= Catch per hour CPA= Catch per ~ler H= RUIberlDemtions

~FS headboat survey began in Gulf of Mexico in 1986. 3TPWD intercept data available from 1983.

Page 57 Table 24. Lstimted percent reduction in recreational catch for the Gulf greater amberjack for meral bag lillit options (I = mber of obw-vatims).

Data SWM/Fishm Bag Lizit Wss m TM option Charter Private More RwAxat Private 1 77.8 8.2 0.0 26.0 44.7 2 59.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 26.9 3 54.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 16.1 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 5 727 9.0

pap 58 We 25. Effort statistics used in the Gulf greater amberjack assesumt.

Year Directed Total Effort Effort Fiswy Effort units

1986 521 16987 comercial Vend Icips 19V 87B 19627 ConerCiAl 1988 1084 23069 commial 1989 855 25696 comercial 1990 295 20009 R-1 2"1 61 7123 COllerCial

1979 114588 21273000 lational Pm. FiSlffm trip 1980 196719 24471DOO latiOUl ROC. 1981 229495 19089000 lational Rec, 1982 239363 20520000 latiOMI RM. 1983 419959 20500000 Rational Rec. 1984 292922 16197000 latimal Rao. 1985 338548 24227000 KatiOllal RW- IM 333803 17897000 W0031 PM. 1987 578157 15767M Wood RM. 1988 322959 19064000 latimal Rao. 1989 369558 13678000 WMII ROC. 1990 201498 12527000 National Rec. 1991 484050 15527000 latioul R9C.

1986 02895 302536 Bodboat Argler DayS 1987 42729 286774 Beacbet 1988 30089 274035 Headoat 1989 32620 274581 Headcat 1990 13919 VB948 Beadboat 1991 11768 240654 ludboat

National Rw.= NM mot = M headboat survey

Page 59 Table 26. Results frol SIX for the greater greater amberjad group. Calendar Year 1986 1997 1988 1989 1990 1991 M

1 497480 4010362 506544 2430776 1334935 U44852 120M. .8 ci t 595095 5979441 517272 3923940 1220934 2091644 1136065. is' 464918 4671438 404119 3065578 95385 163407 987551. CY .93 1.16 .80 1.26 .71 1.43 .74

s 11.18 .20 7.31 .81 1.01 1.33 3.61 .8 cl t 38.88 .15 26.10 .42 2.09 .73 is, 30.37 .12 20.39 .33 1.64 .57 ev 2.72 .56 2.79 .40 1.61 .43

5 8.10 .13 4.80 .55 A 1.05 .9 ci t 25.2B .09 15.24 .28 1.77 .59 is, 19.75 .07 11.91 .22 1.38 .46 cv 2.44 156 2.40 .39 1.61 .44

F .32 .49 .42 .39 .17 .23 .8 ci i .21 .33 .29 .26 .11 .15 is, .17 .26 .23 .20 .09 .12 CY .52 .52 .54 .53 .52 .51

F(rep) 2.41 -1.58 L" -.21 .01 .28 .8 ci t 1.08 .98 1.03 .75 .81 .84 is, .84 .77 .80 .59 .63 .66 CY .35 -.40 .40 -2.76 46.59 2.32

r .07 -.16 As -1.69 7.24 .87 .8 ci t .04 .13 .09 7.92 3.31 7.10 J61 .03 .11 .07 6.11 2.58 5.54 cv .40 -.66 .39 -3.63 .36 6.38

p 5064943 -1204262 3194618 -465694 18266 376633 3186769. .8 CI i 5891375 5851686 3910580 3456043 1811432 1961306. 49' 4602636 071630 3055141 270034 1415181 1454146. cv .91 -1.43 .96 -5.80 77.47 3.86

G 30719 -13761 11515 -3353 163 3026 25604. .8 ci t 35754 25130 14096 249B7 16211 14954- is, 27933 19633 11012 19443 12665 11593. CY .91 -1.43 .96 -5.80 77.47 3.86

catch 359126 510739 589787 784770 132197 327562.

it (IbS) 13.39 9.47 7.95 15,88 19.73 17.71 17.71

Biomass (it) 3019 17308 1816 17%4 11947 9190 9696.

Yield (it) 2189 2193 2126 5M 1183 2632,

I r Initial Abundance. F(rep) a Wlibrim F a Replament Rate. P a Rock mdaction (numbers) S Total On" Rate. G a Stod Growth (PIDdUctim in VBicjWt) r a Removal Ratio (catch/Production) k1l statistics are per tin period (i.e., year in this study)

page 60 Table 27. Reported oonercial landings of asberjacks otber than the greater amberjack.

Coded Year species State of Landing Lbs landed value (U.S. Dollars)

1990 Banded rudderfish FlW 4,950 1,483.0

1990 Alvaco jack LA 834 591.0

1991 kinco jad FIW 2,428 %9.0

LA 16,521 13,980.0

FIE 102 40.0

1991 Lesser amberjack FLN 8,363 2,496.0

FL 877 263.0

l"2 MMOD jack Lk 22,544 19,802.0

FIM - landed on vat coast of Florida, WS state code ll FL = landed in inland county in Florida, WS Ate code 12 FLE = landed on east coast of Florida, WS state code 10 LA = landed in Louisiana, WS state code 21

hP 61 Table 29, Biometric saxples of other %IiQh species from the omercial fisheries. Iverw kverage - - Region species Source Year Length (cm) a Weight(lbs) n Ad lesser amberjack om tip len 95 41.967 3 0.000 0 Ati lesser amberjack cm tip len 96 50.143 7 O.ODO 0 Ati lesser amberjack com tip len 87 54.667 3 0.000 0 Ati lesser amberjack cov tip lea 89 53.000 3 0.000 0 Ati lesser aaberjack cov tip lea 90 57.000 1 0.000 0 Ati lessex amberjack com tip vgt 85 0.000 0 10.490 2 Ati lesser amberjack cov tip vgt 86 0.000 0 8.598 1 Ad lesser aWwjack on tip wgt 87 0.000 0 7.775 2 Ati lesser wiberjack cov tip wgt 89 0.000 0 5.291 9 AU lesser amberjack on tip wgt 90 0.000 0 3.%8 1 Ati lesser ambarjack com all 85 41.967 3 10.490 2 Ati lesser amberjack coik all 86 50.143 7 8.598 1 AtI lesser amberjack con all 97 54.667 3 7.275 2 kti lesser amberjack cox all 89 53.000 3 5.291 9 Ad lesser amberjack cox all 90 57.ODO 1 3.969 1

Al almaco jack on tip lea 85 79.225 69 0.000 0 AU almaco jack cok tip len 86 66.000 31 0.000 0 Ati alvaco jack cox tip len 87 72.545 75 0.000 0 Itl alitaco jack cot tip len 88 67.875 24 0.000 0 Al. alvaoo jack cov tip len 89 66.700 55 0.000 0 Ati alvaco jack cot tip len 90 73.868 73 0.000 0 Ati alvaco jack com tip len 91 69.683 82 0.000 0

ktI almaco jack cov tip wgt 84 0.000 0 10.776 1 Ati aluco jack CON tip vgt 85 O.ODO 0 14.731 17 Ati alIaCD jack cok tip vqt 96 0.000 0 11.050 5 Atl alsaw jack cov tip vqt 87 0.000 0 15.194 17 AU almaco jack CON tip vqt 88 0.000 0 11.522 23 AU alum jack cov tip wgt. 89 0.000 0 12.615 47 AU alum jack CON tip wgt 90 0.000 0 13.345 48 Al. alum jack cox tip Wgt 91 0.000 0 12.064 42

Ati alzaco jack cog all 94 0.000 0 10.776 1 Ati alvaco jack cot all 85 79.225 69 14.731 17 Atl almaco jack coz all 86 66.000 31 11.050 5 Atl alzaco jack cm all 87 72.545 75 15.194 17 Ati alIACD jack coo all 88 67.875 24 U.522 23 AU alum jack coik all 99 66.700 55 12.615 47 AU alum jack COB all 90 73.869 73 13.345 48 Ati alum *k cot all 91 69.693 82 12.064 42

Pap 62 Table 29. (oontimied) -

Average Average - Region Species Source Year Length (cm) a WeIght(lbs) 0

Iti banded rudderf ish on tip lea 85 60.983 40 0.000 0 Iti banded ruddeffish com tip In 87 54.360 25 0.000 0 kti banded rudderf ish oca tip len 88 44.857 7 0.000 0 Ati banded rudderfish on tip len 89 52.444 9 0.000 0 Ati banded rudderfish com tip len 90 52.646 12 0.000 0 Ati banded rudderfisb con tip lea 91 47.500 13 0.000 0

AU banded rudderfish cox tip wqt 85 0.000 0 9.264 8 Ati banded rudderfish cot tip vqt 87 0.000 0 6.946 4 Ati banded radderfisb cos tip vqt 99 0.000 0 7.688 3 Ati banded rudderfish cot tip wgt 89 0.000 0 51618 7 Ati banded rudderfish con tip vgt 90 0.000 0 4.965 6 Ati banded rudderfisb con tip vgt 91 0.000 0 4.714 6

Itl banded rudderfisb cox all 85 60.983 40 9.264 S ku banded ruiderf ish cot all 87 54.360 25 6.946 4 Ati banded rudderfish con all 98 44.857 7 7.689 3 Ati banded rudderfisb cDa all 89 52.444 9 5.619 7 ki banded rudderfish cot all 90 52.646 12 4.965 6 ktl banded rudderfish cos all 91 47.500 13 4.714 6

cm lesser aWwjack cot tip lem, 90 66.667 3 0.000 0 GON lesser amberjack coa tip len 91 52.000 4 0.000 0

GCK lesser amberjack cot all 90 66.667 3 0.000 0 GON lesser amberjack coo all 91 52.WO 4 O.ODO 0

GON almaco Jack coz tip len 83 40.300 1 0.000 0 GON alum jack Cox tip len 84 30.000 4 0.000 0 GON alzaco jack cou tip len 95 77.283 54 0.000 0 GON alum jad cos tip lea 96 67,656 16 0.000 0 GON alum jack Ws tip lea 87 66.125 4 0.000 0 GON almaco jack com tip len 88 51.921 29 0.000 0 GOK aluco jack con tip lea 90 58.561 202 O.ODD 0 GOK alum jack oDs tip len 91 56.373 204 0.000 0

GON alum jad OD11 tip wqt 91 0.000 0 8.632 13

GON alsaco jack on all 83 40.300 1 0.000 0 GON alum jack ODs an 84 30.000 4 D.MD 0 GON almaco Jad con all as 77.283 54 0.000 0 GOK alum jack cas all 86 67.656 16 O.WO 0 GON aluco jad on all 87 66.125 4 0.000 0 Pap 63 Table 28. (continued).

Average Average - Region Species Source Year Imp (cm) n Welght(lbs) I

GON alum jad Coll all 98 51.921 29 0.000 0 GON alum ^ad col all 90 58.561 202 0.000 0 GON alum Jack cos all 91 56.373 204 9.632 13

GON banded rudderfish on tip len 91 56.564 170 0.000 0

OOK banded rudderfish con all 91 56.564 170 0.000 0 kTL - Atlantic GON - Gulf of Mexico

CON = comercial tip = WS Trip files ------

pap 64 Table 29. Istinted recreational catches of other &Zidl species from 1979-1"l in the westen ktlantic^. Lesser amberjack (laj) source species group year catch(nos) var(catch)(10,M) yield(lbs)

Kfss laj ati 1980 1026. 105. 0. 1rfsS laj atl 1982 2241. 502. 0. irfss laj atl 1984 14638. 21426. 0. Irfss laj ati 1985 W. 68. 0. arfss laj atl 1987 21. 0. 0. arfss laj atl 1989 525. 28. 0.

hbt lai ati 1988 28. 0. 66. hbt laj atl 1991 7. 0. 9.

arfss+hboat laj ati 1980 1026. 105. 0. arfss+bboat laj atl 1992 2241. 502. 0. ikrfss+bboat laj ati 1994 146M. 21426. 0. vrfss+hboat laj ati 1985 827. 68. 0. arfss+bboat laj atl 1987 21. 0. 0. irfss+bboat laj au 1988 553. 29. 0. ufss+bboat laj ati 1991 7. 0. 0.

11MOD jack Irfas aliaco atl 1979 3456. 848. 0. ufss alum atl 1980 3197. 510. 0. vrfss alum ati 1981 21924. 40767. 0. IrfsS alzaoo atl 1993 1991. 396. 0. srfss alMOO atl 1984 14082. 14750. 0. arfss alum atl 1985 7879. 2949. 0. arfss alum atl 1987 227. 5. 0.

hbt alwco ati 1986 1623. 0. 4899. hbt alum atl 1997 2101. 0. 10871. hbt almaco atl 1988 1197. 0. 13913. bbt alvaco atl 1989 1569. 0. 3912. hbt alum atl 1990 814. 0. 2760. bbt alum atl 1991 2132. 0. 17181.

orfss+bboat alneo atl 1979 3456. 848. 0. lirfss+wmt alvaco atl 1980 3197. 510. 0. irfsobboat alum atl 1991 21924. 40767. 0. orfss+bboat alum atl 1993 1991. 3%. 0. arfss+W)oat almaco atl 1984 14082. 14750, 0. ufss+bboat alvAco atl 1985 7878. 2949. 0. orfss+bboat alum atl 1986 1623. 0. 0. arfSs+bboat allam atl 1987 2329. 5. 0. irfss+hboat alum atl 1988 1197. 0. 0. arfsobboat alum atl 1989 1569. 0. 0. vrfss+bboat alum atl 1990 814. 0. 0. orfss+bboat abm atl 1991 2132. 0. 0. pap 65 Table 29. (Continued).

Banded rudderfish (brudder)

Source species goup year catch(nos) var(catcb)(10,000s) yield(lbs)

fffsS brGdft atl 1986 %454. 465718. 0. irfss brudder itl 1987 246. 6. 0. IxfsS brudder atl 1989 194118. 634183. 0.

bht briMer atl 1996 2. 0. 4. hbt brudder atl 1987 1. 0. 0. bbt brudder atl 1988 1. 0. 0. hbt brudder atl 1989 144. 0. 218. hbt broddar atl 1990 25. 0. 60. hbt brudder atl M 57. 0. 79.

afss+bboat brudder atl 1986 %456. 465718. 0. irfss+hboat bradder atl 1987 247. 6. 0. lirfss+hboat kluft atl M& 194319. 634183. 0. iirfss+hboat brtKkler atl 1989 144. 0. 0. afss+bboat brudder ati 1990 25. 0. 0. vrfss+bboat bruilder atl 1991 57. 0. 0.

yield not estizated for WSS

pap 66 Table 30. Recreational Catches of other &Xidg species in the Mantic by fishery aad state.

Lesser amberjack state Fishery Fle Gh Sc Vc Al. States ------1990 shore 1026. 0. 0. 0. 1026. 1980 all modes 1026. 0. 0. 0. 1026.

1982 private 2241. 0. 0. 0. 2241. 1982 all modes 2241. 0. 0. 0. 2241.

1984 ch/hbt 0. 0. 0. 14638. 14638. 1994 all modes 0. 0. 0. 14638. 14639.

1995 ch/bbt 0. 0. 0. 827. 927. 1985 all modes 0. 0. 0. 827. 827.

1987 charter 0. 0. 0. 21. 21. 19V all sodas 0. 0. 0. 21. 21.

1988 hboat 28. 0. 0. 0. 28. 1988 private 0. 0. 0. 525. 525. 1988 all Bodes 28. 0. 0. 525. 553.

M bboat, 1. 0. 0. 6. 7. 1991 all Bodes 1. 0. 0. 6. 7.

Page 67 Table 30. (continued).

Alum jack State year Fishery Fle Ga SC Nc All States

1979 private 2855. 0. 0. 0. 2855. 1979 ch/bbt 0. 601. 0. 0. 601. 1979 all Was 2855. 601. 0. 0. 3456. 1980 private 3197. 0. 0. 0. 3197. 1980 all Bodes 3197. 0. 0. 0. 3197.

1981 sbore 0. 11709. 0. 0. 11709. 1981 private 0. 8179. 0. 0. 8179. 1981 cb/hbt 2036. 0. 0. 0. 2036. 1991 all lodes 2036. 19889. 0. 0. 21924.

1983 private M. 0. 0. 0. 1991. 1983 all Bodes 1991. 0. 0. 0. 1991.

1984 private 14082. 0. 0. 0. 14092. 1984 all Bodes 14092. 0. 0. 0. 14082.

1995 sbore 5048. 0. 0. 0. 5048. 1985 ch/bbt 2830. 0. 0. 0. 2830. 1985 all Bodes 7878. 0. 0. 0. 7878.

1986 hboat 1549. 0. 13. 61. 1623. 1986 all Bodes 1549. 0. 13. 61. 1623.

1987 hboat 1403. 0. 584. 114. 2101. 1987 private 0. 0. 0. 227. 227. 1987 all lodes 1403. 0. 584. 341. 2328.

1988 hboat 442. 0. 713. 42. 1197. 1998 all Bodes 442. 0. 713. 42. 1197.

1999 bboat 1400. 0. 169. 0. 1569. 1989 all modes 1400. 0. 169. 0. 1569.

1"0 hboat 599. 0. 143. 73. 814. 1990 all Bodes 599. 0. 143. 73. 814.

1991 bboat 1546. 0. 353. 233. 2132. 1991 all Nodes 1546. 0. 353. 233. 2132.

pap 68 Table 30. (continued) . banded rudderfish state year Fishery Pie Ga SO Ic )11 States 1986 shore 0. 0. 0. 96454. %454. 1986 bboat 2. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1986 all'sodes 2. 0. 0. 96454. 96456.

1987 hboat 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1987 private 0. 0. 0. 246. 246. 1987 all *odes 1. 0. 0. 246. 247.

1988 shore 0. 0. 0. 194318. 194318. 1988 bboat 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1988 all Rodas 1. 0. 0. 194318. 194319.

1999 bboat 144. 0. 0. 0. 144. 1989 all odes 144. 0. 0. 0. 144. 1990 hboat 25. 0. 0. 0. 25. 1990 all aodes 25. 0. 0. 0. 25.

1991 hboat 57. 0, 0. 0. 57. 1991 all %odes 57. 0. 0. 0. 57.

PW 69 Table 30. (oontinued).

Amberine State year fishery Fle Ga Sc Ic klI States

1986 hboat 10001. 0. 0. 0. 10001. 1986 all Odes 10001. 0. 0. 0. 10001.

1987 hboat 16839. 0. 20. 0. 16859. 1987 all Rodeg 16839. 0. 2D. 0. 16859.

1988 bboat 32". 0. 0. 0. 3299. 1988 all bodes 3299. 0. 0. 0. 3299.

1999 hboat 5672. 0. 0. 0. 5672. 1989 all sodes 5672. 0. 0. 0. 5672.

1990 hboat 3620. 0. 0. 0. 3620. 1990 all zodes 3620. 0. 0. 0. 3620.

1991 hboat 2984. 0. 532. 0. 3516. 1991 all modes 2984. 0. 532, 0. 3516.

Page 70 Table 30. (continued). jacb =Iusified staba Year KAM Fle Go sc k Ill sutes 1979 shore 55929. 0. Q, 0. 555H. private 5095. 0. 0. 0. 5095. *bbt 0. 601, 0. 0. 601. all Mods 61024. 601, 0. D. 610.

1990 9we 42040. 0. 0. 0. 42M. private 14657. 209. 0. 0. 14866. all wdes 56697. 209. 0. 0. 56906,

1981 private 6279. 0. 0. 0. 6279. dVIbt 0. 0. 3205. 0. 3205. all soft 6279. 0. 3205. 0. 94".

1982 dWe 49222. 0. 0. 1098, 59890. private 10794. 0. 1442. 0. 12226. ch/bbt 0. 0. 0. 6254. 6254. all Dods 6m. 0. 1442. 16922. 78370.

1983 share 94222. 0. 0. 0. 94222. private 752. 0. 0. 0. 752. all Mies 94974. 0. 0. 0. 94974.

1984 Affe 4057. 782. 432. 4919. 10190. private 0. 0. 3433. 0. 3433. Whbt 0. 0. 11195. 0. 11195, all mdes 4057. 782. 15060. 4919. 24818.

1995 sbore 5091. 0. 0. 7321. 12412. an ales 5091. 9. 0. 7321. 12412.

1987 sbore a. 0. 0. 1762. 1762. dmft 0. 0. 869, 0. 869. privatp 1977. 0. 0. 0. 1977. all Edo 1977. 0. W. 1762. 4608.

1988 Share 4316. 0. 0. Q. 4316. all Wes 4316. 0, 0. 0. 4316.

1989 private 993. C. 0. 2646. 3639. all Wdes 993. 0. 0. 2646. 3639.

1990 Share 44980. 0. 0. 0. 44980. all ales 44980. 0. 0. 0. 44980.

1991 private 1163. 0. 0. 0. 1163. all Mies 1163. 0. 0. 0. 1163. Page 71 Table 31. Bicietric sasples, of other Seriola species frot the Jklantic recreational fisheries.

Avem AMP species Source Year Ingth (m) n Weight(lbs) a lesser amberjack roe uffs 80 59.0m 3 4.189 2 low aidwjad ree mrffs B4 54.700 1 0.000 0 low amberjack ree hboat 79 37.071 9 3.453 5 Jew amberjack rec hboat 82 79.042 4 12.201 3 lesser aaberjack rec hboat 84 48.800 1 4.619 1 lesser amberjack rec hboat 86 46.732 3 3.629 3 law uberjad ree bboat 97 36.371 8 4.839 3 Jew aterjack rec hboat 88 27.166 1 0.000 0 lesser amberjack m hboat 89 67.5% 7 14.129 6 low asberjack ree bbD&t 90 32.915 15 0.00 0 law aAerjack roe hboat. 91 35.265 27 5,015 1

law amberjack rec all 79 37.071 9 3.453 5 lesser nber*k m all 00 59.000 3 4.109 2 lesser amberjack m an 82 79.042 4 12.281 3 lesser aberjack ree all 84 51.750 2 4.619 1 lease amberjad rec all 9 46.732 3 3.U9 3 lesser amberjack roe all 87 16.371 8 4.839 3 law asberjack rec all 18 27.166 1 0.000 0 lesser amberjack roe all 89 67.5% 7 14.129 6 lesser amberjack rec all 90 32.915 15 0.000 0 lesser asberjack rec all 91 35.265 27 5.015 1

alum Jack rec uffs 79 46.000 2 5.732 2 alm jad rec irffs so 40.025 4 3.307 1 alum Jack rec vffs 81 19.3V 11 0.00 0 allaco jack rec mrffs 83 33.500 1 0.000 0 din jad m zffs 85 42.750 2 6.614 1 aim jad rec irffs 87 67.00 1 10.362 1

alum Jed roe bbwt 79 46.342 11 7.755 7 alm jack m hboat 80 55.707 15 11.037 u almam Jed rec Most 81 51.991 29 6.975 24 dw jad rec hboat 82 56.170 V 15.451 15 alam Jed roe bboat. 83 56.139 43 11.897 30 allaco jack rec Most 84 54.549 35 10.303 22 alum Jed rec: bboat 85 40.078 62 9.492 17 alW jack rec boat 86 40.012 49 10.539 13 alum jad rec Most 87 54.548 39 ID.211 28 alum * rec boat U 65.989 21 13.994 17 allaco jad rec hboat 89 44.384 37 10.312 16 alum jack roe hbut. 90 49.500 36 9.302 21 aWm jad rec bboat 91 56.622 27 10.404 19

Pap 72 We 31. (cmtimed).

Iverap Aver* Species km Year Loo ((m) a Veight(IbB^ a

alum Jed rec tip len 85 63.167 6 D.000 0 alum Joel rec tip len 86 43.60 1 0.000 0 alum Jed rec tip lea 87 61.500 2 0.000 0 alam Jack rec bnp 83 34.000 2 0.000 0 alum Jed rec bnp 88 26.667 3 0.000 0 allem jack rec bnp 89 31.500 4 0.000 0 gum Jed rec tip vgt 84 0.000 0 U.144 A aim Jed rec tip vqt 85 0.000 0 12.101 2 alum Jed m tip vqt 86 0.000 0 2.645 1 dow Jed roe tip vqt 87 0.000 0 8.169 1 almoo Jed rec tip vqt go 0.000 0 6.256 1

alum * rec all 79 46.289 13 7.306 9 alum Jed ric all 80 52.406 19 10.393 12 alum Jed rec all 81 43.009 40 6.975 24 alvam Jed roe all 02 56.170 27 15.451 15 &I= jad rec all 83 54,685 46 11.897 30 alum Jed roe all 84 54.549 35 10.432 26 alum Jed rec all 85 42.133 70 9.617 20 alum Jed roe all 86 40.064 50 9.975 14 alum Jed rec all 87 55.175 42 10.155 30 alum Jed rec all 88 61.074 24 13.994 17 alum Jed rec all 89 43.127 41 10.312 16 aluco jad rec all 90 49.500 36 9.164 22 alum Jack rec all 91 56.622 27 10.404 19

boded raftfish rec iwffs 87 26.500 1 LODD 0 banded rudderfish rec irffs SO 17.940 25 01000 0

boded radderfish rec bboat 79 50.310 9 7.601 7 boded rudderfish roe Wmat 80 64.390 11 8.370 10 boded rudderfish m bboat 83 36.575 8 3.373 3 boded rudderfish rec bboat 84 52,293 67 5.936 53 boded radderfish rec bbut 85 37.687 31 4.329 6 banded rudderfish rec bboat 86 40.482 9 5.169 2 boded rudderfisb rec Wit 87 30.694 0 , 6.159 1 boded rubdish rec hbDat 88 33.018 2 0.000 0 boded radderf ish rec bboat 89 25.000 1 0.000 0 boded rudderfish m bboat 90 34.100 2 0.000 0 boded raterf ish rec bboat 91 48.775 4 22.832 1

Pap 73 bble 31. (codimed).

AMP AMP spwies SDUM YOU LUP (M) D Odght(lbS) D

WN romerfish m tip len es 51.5m 1 0.000 0 bVA8d rubdish rec tip le 86 39.929 7 0.000 0

MW miklish roe tip vqt B5 D.000 0 5.071 1

buM rukafish m all 79 50.310 9 7.001 7 banN rafteish rec all 80 64.390 U 8.370 10 WnW ruMerfish roe all 83 36.575 8 3.373 3 bVM ruffierfid roe all 84 52.293 67 5.936 53 bffM raftlish roe all 85 38,119 32 4.435 7 buM rdderf ish rec all 86 40.240 16 5.169 2 bmW r*afiSh reG all 87 30.228 9 6.159 1 buM ruffimfish rec all 88 19.057 27 O.Wo 0 b=W rWderfish rw all 89 25.000 1 0.000 0 buded rdlerf ist roe all 90 34.100 2 0.000 0 bffM niWish rec all 91 48.775 4 22.832 1

Pap 74 SL dm

1 .69 0661 ISMS1 119001 6861 Rob fvj ;MW+PAdl+S;A .0 OEM 'Ects 061 Id ^VT lRowmahmn .0 191 1091t L061 Rob [IT .0 *199oz 19861 9861 Rob III powomi4om .0 *91E" ISO Sul m6 ^vl 19"WAMA .0 19hst ITOM "61 m6 ^il VORWA+Slz .0 Ictet IME E861 vD6 fvl vwwxb,+sjm .0 710TV 16M Z861 w6 fel vqod4+Sp .0 *90OZOT 109LES 0861 ub fvT ;uq+pKb,+sjn .0 1991 ISKTI 616t ab ^21 ;NW+VAI+I;x

"XE .0 SIT 0661 Rob [IT IMT .0 1191 6861 Rob ^21 ICR IOE .0 INT 9161 ab Im VE .0 191 9861 W6 ^vj A

.0 1 111 0661 =6 fRT S913 .0 ISM "OD686 6961 Rob Col WIR .0 Iml 10019 886T mb tvi 95111 .0 409T 10911 L161 Rob fol SBA .0 11990t IDLE 9961 Id fit ssm .0 19TE" 'Eloct S86T 06 CRT ss;x .0 19MV 1011t "61 mb tv^ SEA .0 Ictet *98st E861 Rob ^Rl SSA 40 1109 '960 ml mb fil WA 10 .08181 009LES ow Rob ^11 ss;x 10 199 ISOM U61 m6 fol SSIM (SU)PIDTA (SOODIOV04M)m (SM)PM salomb 0=0 (PO v4MIR Imal

'1661-6L61 'MM ;0 JM M U! SOrAh 110110S IOW JO 944M lVwMnW PRISPA IE OM 9L Ad Lai .0 606ZT 8861 id WKN 4"q +PA#+S;x .0 .0 4116 L861 W6 WNP um +*+sin 10 .6 15M 9861 R6 MORR VM qAf4+919 .0 4RIZ *6198 S96T mb mulf Inq +*+Bin .0 169 1166Z ME od wmp vm +PA4+siz .0 ItIt *oosz U61 mb wap Imm +pd;+Iin .0 *6111 19CE9 Teg ab WeRv MR +PAdj+9P .0 IESKE I%ut 0961 E6 =qe inq +p4+s;n

.0 ICU WE 1651 =6 map *+Sin .0 Til 1990 0661 sob MR *+s;n .0 *6011 IOET2T 6861 ob mvm Amu .0 186ET lotsw 886T W6 WK11 *+Bin .0 .0 IM L861 06 am" *+S;z .0 .6 I;m 9861 ub =P- PA4+SJB Vot 16199 6861 W5 om[p PFA+B;n 168 1169 to6l mb mwp PAd;+sln 'Ut .009 z8fil Ki map *+Six 16111 IRDE9 l"l W6 WNP pPA4+sjn *Estv WSE 096T 06 =Re *+S;z

%699 .0 'Estt 1661 mb map 4 ItsS6 .0 ILTR 066T mb MR A ISM .0 Mt 6861 Wfi =M iq ISM .0 119 8261 vok Come m Is6a .0 W L861 U6 =11 jqq to 16LZII .0 9851 mb mgqe VR

40 .0 ZZ 1661 ob welp .0 .0 4TET 0661 mfi m" .0 .0 'fact 686T id oomp .0 .0 181 "61 ob =to .0 .0 IUS gal mb wvm .0 .0 IL9 S861 gob map

.0 oil IOUE T661 Wb MIT ss;A .0 41til *91" 066T 1* mp $012 .0 16011 190091 6061 mb MR gs;n .0 496zl *90 ME mb amp ss;m .0 .0 tit L961 id MR ssjn .0 .6 IELE 9"T mb mp ss;z .0 16181 INS$ S861 mb MR NIB .0 161 IT66Z ml sh Wall ssm .0 *aE .0m Z261 mb map 9;2 .0 *61tt .000 T861 It WKP ssix .0 IESM m 0161 mb MR WIN (3019T' (NO0101)(44,O)m (sm)lmm nei dmS sprj* mnas vg(=m '(Pwrm) *tt am TaUe 32. (=thmad).

also jack (cmtiw) 9= S*fs pq ym catch(wo) varicatch)(10,M) yielow

irfs+4vd+ but aim gm 1989 2m. U409. 0. arfs+tpk* boat Alan gn 1990 %83. U27. 0. irfs+#vd+ hboat almom 92 1"1 6283. 170. 0.

buM ndWish wtss "ft 92 1990 Roos. 6353. 0. Arfoo UTMM gm 1991 677. 38. 0.

tpw kuddOr 901 1983 597. 0. 0.

bbt kuft 901 1987 23. 0. 46. bbt kdkr gm im 106. 0. 256. bbt k'udk gm 1989 1792. 0. 2987. bbt kVddC 901 19% 11347. 0. 19374. bbt kAw gm 1991 6208. Q. 19152.

irfg+tpvd brow gm 1903 597. 0. 0. Arfs+4w kAw gm 1990 M. 6351. 0. arfsApod kud* gm 1991 677. 3B. 0.

irfsftp* boat bmft got 1983 597. 0. 0. Kfg+tpk* kboat kwk gm 1987 23. 0. 0. zfg+4* Nut kuft got 1988 106. 0. 0. irfs+4& hboat huft got 1989 1792. 0. 0. Arfs+4* ftat kuft gm 1990 20155, 6353. 0. zfs+4vd+ Wmt bndk gm 1991 6185. 3B. 0.

Pap 77 Table 33. Recreational Catches of other kdgIA species in the Galf of lexico by fishery and state.

Imer nberjad state year Fis" TX La ]h Al FIV All states 1979 private 0. 4813. 0. 0. 0. 4813. 1979 cb/bbt 0. 0. 0. 0. 6392. 6392, 1979 all soft 0. 4813. 0. 0. 6392. 11205.

1980 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 44002. 44002. 1980 Ch/bbt 9758. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9758. 1980 all Iwo 9758. 0. 0. 0. 44002. 53760.

19B2 Sbore 0. 0. 0. 2630. 0. 2630. 1982 private 0. 0. 0. G59. 0. 6259. 1982 ch* 0. 31291. 0. 1215. 0. 32506. 1982 all lodes 0. 31291. 0. 10104. 0. 41395.

1983 private 0. 0. 0. 6920. 0. 6920. 1983 d/bbt 0. 0. 0. 31921. 0. 31921. 1983 all modles 0. 0. 0. 38MI. 0. 30841.

1984 private 0. 0. 0. 1711. 20819. 22530. 19U cb/bbt 0. 0. 0. 8571. 0. 8571. 1984 all lodes 0. 0. 0. 10282. 20819. 31101.

1985 private 0. 15330. . 0. 0. 0. 15338. 1985 chX 0. 0. 389. 27156. 0. 27745. 1985 all lodes 0. 15338. 389. 27356. 0. 43083.

1986 bboat 164. 0. 0. 9. 0. 164. 19B6 private 0. 0. a. 261. 19442. 19703. 1986 all lodes 164. 0. 0. 261. 19442. 19B67.

1987 charter 0. 0. 0. 52. 11%. 1208. 1987 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 1052. 1052. 1987 all Wdes 0. 0. 0. 52. 22DS. 2260,

1988 bboat 0. 0. 0. 0. 123. 123. 1988 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 5100. 5100. 1908 all lodes 0. 0. 0. 0. 5223. SM.

Page 78 Table 33. (cmtimed). lesser atu* (Mdmw) state

Year risb" TK 1A AS riv All states 1989 bbut 0. 0. 0. 0. 1614. 1614. 1989 dwta 0. 0. 0. 0. Ian. 10123. 1989 private 0. 612. 0. a, 88165. W77. 1989 all wdes 0. 612. 0. 0. 99902. 100514.

1990 ftt 0. 0. 0. 0. 125. 125. 1990 d1arter 0. 0. 0. IR. 0. 174. 1990 all low 0. 0. 0. 174. 125. 299.

I"l bbost 0. 0. 0. 0. 328. 329. 1991 all 1wes 0. 0. 0. 0. 328. 328. alum ^ad

1980 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 31974. 31974. 1980 ch/bbt 0. 701. 0. 0. 3181. 3BB2. 1980 all Wdes 0. 701. 0. 0. 35M. 3M.

1981 private 0. 0. 0. 582. 981. 1563. 1981 di/bbt 0. 0. 0. 0. 4745. 4745. 1901 all swes 0. 0. 0. 582. 5726. 6308.

1982 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 2500. 2M. 1982 all wdes 0. 0. 0. 0. 2500. 2500.

1984 Ch/bbt a. 0. 0. 0. 2991. 2"l. 1984 all mdes 0. 0. 0. 0. 2"l. 2"l.

1985 shore 0. 0. 0. 0. W. 2w. 1985 Charter 67. 0. 0. 0. 0. 67. 1985 Ch/bbt 0. 0. 0. 0. 6005. 6005, 1985 all mdes 67. 0. 0. 0. W2. 8629.

1986 bbDat 182. 10. 0. 0. 4492. 4684, 1986 diarter 0. 4. 0. 0. 373. 373. 1986 private 572. 0. 0. , 0. 0. 572. 1986 all lodes 754. le. 0. 0. 4965. 5629.

1987 bboat 362. 0. 0. 0. 402. 764. 19V dmft 0. 67. 0. 29. 118. 214. 1987 all Bodo 362. 67. 0. 29, 5m. 978.

hP 79 of ska

.w 10909 .0 .0 .0 .5 wm 111 1661 10 *119 .0 .0 .0 .0 aim 1661 1800 1019 .0 .0 .0 .9 PM 1661 .0 .0 .0 .0 SOPM Isslat ISSTOt 111 0661 18080 .9012 .0 .0 .0 DPW 0661 IMIT *LtEll .0 .0 .0 Inq 0661 'EUT OZ611 .0 .0 .0 Sp 111 6861 IMI IZ611 .0 .0 .0 .0 PM 6151

*901 0901 .0 .0 a" 111 9161 *901 1901 .0 .0 PM 8861 .0 .0 .0 .0 'Er Ite sapm III L861 'EZ It .0 .0 40 .0 Inq 1061

Ids .0 .0 .0 .0 *L65 qM 111 E061 *169 .0 .0 .0 .0 L6S 84UTA C261 PTJDW PWK

*tug ItE .0 *9011 ON Sam III 166T .a .0 .0 .0 u awlid 1661 IlUE Itt .0 'EDDI .0 RPM 1661 *Cott 'E"T .0 10 101 *116 pq 1661 rA 'E9% 19U 16ml .0 MCI Mm 111 0661 ITH .0 .0 .9 1 ITET aquTid 0661 .Sm 490ES 16M .0 .0 .0 num 0661 ILTR ILL61 .0 .0 16E .1% PM 0661

1 OV961 .0 SS ITS91 SOPOK 111 6861 10 *0 .0 M OwTid 6861 IET91 1U9 .0 .0 169 Ir4ap 6861 *90SE .0 .0 .9 'LZE um 686T *069 .0 .0 .0 'LM ILEt Mm T 926T Ivitc '699 .0 .0 .0 *Sol qujid 9061 198L .0 .0 .0 .0 '90L n4np 8861 IL89 ISES .0 .0 .0 1ST Imm 8861

AU IV sm 71 U Lvqru maI MIS 007m) P9 MKII

, (pWrpm) *tt am Table 33. (CmtiMed)

*to unidentified

state year fishm TZ IS is Al PIN Ali states 1979 share 6408. 0. 0. C. 41410. 47818. 1979 private 2047. 0. 0. 3421. 2970. 9438. 1979 811 Bodes 9455. 0. 0. 3421. 44380. %256.

1980 share 0. 1537. 0. 0. 92M. 10787. 1980 private 0. 812. C. 921. 7070. 3803. 1980 all modes 0. 2349. 0. 921. ifim. 19590.

1981 Shore 0. 0. 0. 0. 18396. 18396. 1981 private 3194. 0. 0. 0. 953. 1147. 1981 all vodes 3194. 0. 0. 0. 19349. 22543.

1982 share 0. 0. 0. 0. 29344, NA. 1982 private 0. 4205. 0. 0. 17008. 21213. 1992 all modes 0. 4205. 0. 0. 46352. 50557.

1983 Shore 0. 0. 0. 0. 52466. 52466. 1983 private 0. 23542. a, 0. 14216. 37758. 1983 chx 0. 14088. 0. 0. 0. 14088. 1983 all M* 0. 37630. 0. 0. 602. 104312.

19" Shore 0. 0. 0. 0. 40468. 4008. 1984 private 0. 4658. 0. 0. 144573. 149231. 1984 Cblhbt 0. 47. 0. 0. 5981. 6028. 1984 all sodes 0. 4705. 0. 0. 191022. 195727,

1985 Shore 0. 0. 0. 0. 11416. 11416. 1985 private 0. 0. 600. 0. 116134. 116734. 1985 Ch/hbt 44799. 562. 0. 0. 3364. 53814. 1985 all Rom 447". %51. 600. 0. 130914. 191964.

19B6 dmter 0. 11. 0. 0. 1778. 1789. 1986 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 27117. V117. 1986 911 lodes 0. 11. 0. 0. M. 28906.

1987 charter 0. 0. 0. 0. 903. 9403, 1987 private 0. 0. 2579. 0. 28691. 31270. 1987 all sodes 0. 0. 2579. 0. 38M. 40673.

1988 Shore 0. a. 0. 0. Imic. MID. 1988 charter 0. 0. 0. 0. 860. 860. 19BO private 0. 0. 0. 0. 33%5. 33585. 1988 all EWE 0. 0. 0. 0. 54055. 54055.

Page 81 Table 33. (Cootimed). locks unidentified (contimad) state year lifty TZ La Is Al FIV )II States 1989 shore 0. 0. 0. 0. 32519. 32519. 1989 Private 0. 0. 0. 0. 8261. 9261. 1989 all modes 0. 0. 0. 0. 40780. 407BO,

19% ohm 0. 0. 0. 0. 29492. 28492. 1990 dmter 0. 0. 66. 0. 0. 66. 1990 private 0. 0. 0. 0. 5964. 5964. l"o all OWN 0. 0. 66. 0. 34156, 34522.

1991 dwre a. 0. 0. 0. 206012. 206082. 1991 private a. 0. 0. 0. 5119. 5119. 1991 All Was 0. 0. 0. 0. 211201. 211201.

pap 82 Table 34. Biosetric =@Is of otbar Seriola spedes fras the Gulf of Wm recradmal fideries,

ROOM Aver* Am* SpecAes Swce Year 100 (M) 3 kiot(lbs) A lesser nberjad MI rec zffs 79 40.000 5 4.189 3 lesser amberjack CM m affs 80 41.000 1 0.000 0 lesser aberjad 0 m uffs 82 39.000 1 0.000 a lesser s9ff jad GM M Uffs 04 45-208 12 2.946 11 law abffjad GM rec affs 05 35.0 12 3.527 a low uWjad GM rec irffs 86 33.000 1 0.000 0 lesser abarjad GCK roe irffs 17 42.650 10 6.504 4 lesser Itajad 0 reC irffs 99 31.W 11 4.0 2 low amberjed GM rec affs 90 44.200 1 0.000 0 lesser amberjad GON rec wffs 91 49.500 1 3.307 1

Imer adajed Gal rec bbut 86 35.062 67 5.263 8 lesser adwjad GM rec bboat 87 41.643 37 3.952 19 lesser amberjad GM rec hbofft 88 36.0 13 3 A48 4 lesser aWw*k CM rec bboat 89 31.760 43 4.610 7 lesser ambwjad GM roe bboat 90 36.no 5 2.720 2

leW ateriad GOK M aM 91 44.026 27 0.000 0

leseer amberjad GE roe all 75 40.00 5 4.199 3 lesser amberied rec all Bo 41.000 1 0.000 0 lesser amberjack GOK roe all 62 39.M 1 O.M 0 lesser amWjad rec all 84 45.2% 12 2.946 11 lesser askajad GON m all 85 35.000 12 3.527 3 lesser uberjock GM rw all 86 35.032 68 5.20 a lesser Owed MR rec all V 41.957 47 4.396 23 lesser ad)erjack Ga roe all Be 36.015 13 3.448 4 lesser amberjad GM rec all 89 31.652 54 4.565 5 low asterjed GCK rec all 90 37.550 6 2.728 2 loom aderjad CM ree all 91 44.221 28 3.307 1

alum jack GZ rec affs 80 34.714 7 2.976 2 aim jad GZ roe irffe 81 17.833 3 3.5v 1 aim jad GZ rec wffs 82 18.750 2 0.000 0 dw * GZ m zffs 84 49.167 3 4.777 3 alum jack GM rec arffs 85 40.125 4 4.740 2 aim iad m orffs 86 38.000 2 3.968 1 alum jack GM rec vffs 87 46.417 6 4.740 6 dw jad rec affs 88 37.200, 2 1.748 1 alsam jad CZ rec irffs 09 46,840 15 5.211 11 alum GOR roe arffs 99 41.983 6 3.252 4 alum GM m rffs 91 35.039 18 3.275 7 aim JA roe tped 83 36.574 10 0.000 0 alum jed m tpd 84 36.381 1 0.000 0 alum Jed U rec tpid 85 34.828 13 01000 0 Page 03 We 34. (omtimed).

boon Aver* Aveme species $= yeff Ifinp (M) D bight(lbs) 11

alum * GON rec 4W 86 32.69 9 0.000 0 alum jad GON rec tpid 88 50.964 2 0.000 0 alum jack GON rec tpvd 89 25.517 19 0.000 0 aben * Gog rec tpod 90 20.921 2 LOW 0 elm jack GM rec tpod 91 31.002 2 0.000 0

aim Jed Gm rec bboat 80 45.628 5 12-645 2 alum jack SON rec hboat 86 44.093 46 4.905 31 alum Jed GON rec bboat V 41.858 40 4.790 22 alum jack GCK rec bboat 88 42.012 34 5.835 14 am jad GM rec bboat 89 19.919 185 4.068 48 almam jack GCK rec bbDat 90 43.147 38 4.763 21 aloam jad GON roe hbDat 91 36.989 56 3.933 16

alum jad GCK rec tip len 91 33.000 1 0.000 0

am *1 GM rec alebt 91 45.474 69 0.000 0

gum jack GON rec all 80 39.262 12 7.810 4 &I= jad GOK rec all 81 37.833 3 3.527 1 awm jad GCK roe all 82 18.750 2 0.00 0 ab= jack GM roe all 83 36.574 10 0.000 0 dum jad GON rec all 84 45.970 4 4.M 3 aim Jed GCK roe all 85 36.075 17 4.740 2 alum jad GM rec all 86 42.074 57 4376 32 alm jack GON rec all 97 42.452 46 4.779 28 alum jack MR rec all 88 42.230 38 5.696 15 alum * OX rec all 89 39.144 219 4.281 59 AIIAOD jack GM ree all 90 42.029 46 4.521 25 aim Jed a rec all 91 40.611 146 3.663 23

buM rudderfish GM rec mrffs 90 38.000 1 3.09 1

Wded ruddedish GI rec tpud 83 18.655 5 0.00 0

beaded nNeffish GON rec Wt 86 38.005 18 3.153 3 WW rWftfish GON rec boat 87 37.016 37 3.205 16 banded rmlWish 03 m Wt 98 40.737 38 3.617 16 bmw Mdkfish Gm rec Wt 89 35.96^ 156 3.808 39 Nuft rdlerfish GON rec bboat 90 36.64D 90 3.105 18 babW rudderfish Gai roe Wmat 91 42.902 so 3.503 39

bMW raftlish GON rec alcbt 91 48.150 2 0.000 0

Wdled rudderfish GON rec all 83 18.655 5 6.000 0 boW rudWish GCK m all 86 38.005 18 3.153 3 page 84 T&e 34. (cmtimed).

boon Iva* IMP sprAes scum Iffir Lebo (cm) D vaigbt(lbs) ]I banN rdWish GON rec all 87 37.016 37 3.205 16 baM rdlerfish MI rec an go 40.737 38 3.617 16 bMW rWderfisb = m all 89 35.961 158 3.808 39 bmW radderfish U m all 90 36.655 91 3.104 19 bmW ndWish GON rec all 91 43.077 60 3,503 39

P* 85 Table 35. SUDarf CPO!infonation for other ~ species in tile Atlantic.

Data ,SolIrce/lishery Lesser aJberjack IRFSS ms Beadboat1 Year CPR CPA I CPA • 1978 0 1.2 73

1979 0 1.5 125

1980 0.3 1.5 2

1982 0.2 4.0 1 1984 0.1 0.2 1

1985 0.1 1.0 1

1987 0.2 0.3 1

1988 0.2 1.0 1 Total 7 201 AlJaco jack

1978 0.1 0.8 2 0.09 8 1979 0 0.10 22

1980 0.3 1.0 2 0.10 33 1981 0.7 2.1 5 0.10 65 1982 0 0.20 60

1983 0.1 0.3 1 0.20 77 1984 0 0.20 46 1985 0.3 0.8 3 0.10 no 1986 0 0.10 364

1987 0.1 0.2 1 0.20 445

1988 0 0.10 258 , 1989 0 0.20 187

1990 0 0.10 147 1991 0 0.20 210 Total 14 2032

Page 86 Table 35. (Continued)

Data SOurce/Fishery Banded rudderfisb MRFSS ms Beadboat4 Year CPR CPA • CPA I 1984 0 0.4 156 1985 0 0.4 219 1986 0.8 4.0 3 0.4 656 1987 0.4 0.5 1 0.5 694 1988 2.4 6.7 5 0.4 197 1989 0 0.4 366 1990 0 0.3 355 1991 0 0.3 169 Total 9 2812

CPR= Catch per hour CPA= Catch per angler H = Hober observations

4NMFS headboat survey began in 1973 in the Carolinas and in 1976 in the Florida Keys. paqe 87 Table 36. SUUary CPOE intonation for other Seriola species in the Gulf of Mexico. Data SOurce/Fishery Lesser uberjack MRFSS IIIFSBeadboat1 mm2 Year CPR CPA 11 CPA R CPR CPA • 1979 0.5 0.6 3 1980 0.3 1.7 7 1982 1.4 6.2 10 1983 1.9 2.4 10 0.70 0.10 4 1984 0.4 1.6 19 0.30 0.09 1 1985 0.6 2.1 32 0.52 1.40 6 1986 0.5 4.3 3 0.3 7 0.30 0.70 4 1987 0.3 0.5 8 0.6 6 0 1988 0.7 2.0 1 1.1 15 0.10 0.40 2 1989 3.0 3.9 6 0.5 5 0.27 0.71 10 1990 0.3 0.3 1 0.6 17 0.10 0.70 1 1991 0.2 0.1 1 0.40 0.70 1 Total 101 50 29 Allaco 1980 0.2 1.1 9 1981 0.2 0.7 4 1982 0.3 0.7 1 1983 0 1984 0.7 1.0 1 1985 0.3 1.0 5 1986 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 56 1987 0.3 0.2 6 0.2 71 1988 0.5 0.7 4 0.2 87 1989 0.9 0.7 7 0.3 316 1990 0.4 0.6 6 0.3 381

1991 0.3 0.1 1 0.2 302 . Total 46 1213

Page 88 Table 36. (Continued) •

•• Data Source/Fishery

Banded rudderfish

MRFSS IIMFS Headboat5 TPWJ)6

Year CPR CPA H CPA H CPR CPA H 1983 0 0.5 2.5 1 1990 0.7 0.8 2 1991 0.6 0.4 2 Total 4 1

CPR = Catch per hour CPA = Catch per angler H = HUJber observations

5NMFS headboat survey began in Gulf of Mexico in 1986.

6TPWD intercept data available from 1983. Page 89 Table 37. EstiJated percent reduction in recreational catches for other Seriola species in the Atlantic in 1991 for several ba9 Hlit options.

Data Source/Fishery Bandedrudderfisb Ba9Lilit Option IMF8Headboat 1 16.3 2 4.2 3 1.9 4 0.0 5 0.0 II 169

Data Source/Fishery Lesser aaberjack Ba9Lilit Option lOO'8Headboat 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 5 0.0 II 2

Page 90 Table 37. (continued) • I Data SOurce/Fishery Aluco jack Bag LiJit Option IMFSBeadboat 1 13.6 2 11.7 3 6.1 4 1.6 5 0.0 I 210

Page 91 Table 38. EstiJated percent reduction in recreational catches for other seriola species in the Gulf of Mexicoin 1991 for several baq li.it options.

Data Source/Fishery Lesser 9berjack Bag Li.tt Option MRFSSCbarter RMFSBeadboat TPWDPrivate 1 0.0 23.8 0.0 2 0.0 9.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •• 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 1 17 1 Abaco jack 1 0.0 15.8 2 0.0 5.8 3 0.0 0.4 4 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 If 1 302 Bandedrudderf ish 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0

•• 0.0 5 0.0 N 2

Page 92 Appendix 1. Derivation of SIM formdae and performance information (described in Parrad, N. L. 1990a, b; 1992 unpublished u).

Equation:

(1) w(t,k) - I ( plv(t,k)), ol[v(t,k))

(2) C(t,k) - I ( g[C(t,k)], al[C(t,k)]

I -qtu(t,k)-p[u(t,k)])'/O'[U(t,k)I (3) Prfu(t,k)) = - a 1. 22w2o[u(t,k) 1

(4) L - Prfu(1,1)]-Pr[u(1,2)]...Pr[u(t,k)]...Pr[u(?,K)I t,k l(u(t,k)-p[u(t,k)j)I/o'[u(t,k)

(5) log[L] 2 2 (u(t,k)-tju(t,k)j)'/v[u(tk)j t kl I

2(t) -F(t) (6) K(t+l) = IM-e -e M(t)-s(t)-R(t) a N(t)-S(t)

(7) N(t) = N(t+l)/( S(t)-R(t) N(t+l)/S(t)

I(T-1) N(T)/(S(T-I)-R(T-1)) = I(T+1)/(S(T)-S(T-1))

1-t?T 6t T N(t) = N(T+I) / 1 77 SMI = N(T+l) so) R(j)] F(t,k) = q(k)-f(t,k) -(9)

Q (10) F(t) = 2 q(k)-f(t,k) k=l

(11) C(t,k) g(k)-f(t,k)-N(t)

(12) C(t,k) q(k)-f(t,k)-N(t) di = q(k)-f(t,k)- I(t) di = I I I(t)-l (13) N(t) I(t)-e

page 93 Appendix 1. (continued).

(14) C(t,k) - q(k)-f(t,k)-l l(t)

• q(k)-f(t,k).K(t).fe • q(k)-f(t,k).B(t)-(s(t)-R(t)-l]/(Log[s(t)]-F(t)) , g(k)-f(t,k)-N(T+1)-[s(t)-R(t)-II (15) f[C(t,k)) P-t [ 4 S(j).R(J)1.1Lo9[s(t)1-F(t)1

q(k).f(t,k).l(T+1)-js-R(t)-l) (16) f[C(t,k)] c j-trT s.R(j)1.1Lo9lsl-P(t)1 I =

(17) f[C(t,k)] J-t T LOOM]. -;^ So

(18) f[w(t,k)] = Y(t,k) I f[C(t,k)]

(19) d lf[C(t,k)ll vrt m(T+l) = f[C(t,k)] / N(T+l)

(20) d[fic(t,k)ll = f1c(t,k)] - a

(21) d MtAll Y(t,k) fIC(t,k)]. If = - a - -F(t) (22) e I a.- -F(t) s(t)-e -1 S(t) 19(t) -log[S(t) I-F(t)] (23) A - -1/s(i), i > t

(24) 0 = 0, 1 < t

pap 94 F(t) T f(t,j) f(t,j)-s(t)-e 0 if + k (25) 0 = Z f(i,j) + - I. r ixt log[s(t))-r(t) -F(t) if k S(t)-e -1 q(k)

-F(t) (26) e T-t+l I 0 = -F(t) s S-e -1 IS-10*14(t)]

T MID f(t,j)-s-8 _qik)0 if j + k (27) A = Z f(ij) + + 1 i--t logISI-F(t) -F(t) if j - k s-e -1

(28) 0 SM-1 S(t) SM-logts(t)] 1 A = - - SM a = 0 11 1/q(k) 11 0 for d1f[C(t,k) I] wrt q(j), j + k

#2 (29) C(t,k) = 2o2+1/C(t,k)l

:9 Z significance :A(CIN 91 f(p) dp, (30) level Iloilo:$[ ( I <0 -0

Z = (t - 0,9)/[s(c)/n and

significance 1-0 - f(p) dp, level

P(C-1-1)ASMA I. page 95 Ipppendix 2. Greater agw3ack hwxlmt catdies and yields, 1991-19911.

Group CatdIes (numbers) Year Atlantic Gulf of Mexico

91 18528.00 92 25300.00 83 17151.00 84 17951.00 85 1069%00 86 12791.00 86024.00 87 17260.00 52892.00 88 10564.00 29660.00 89 11636.00 52521.00 90 7822.000 24260.00 91 8709.000 9852.000

Yield (pounds) Year Atlantic Gulf Of Mexico

91 157920.3 92 261455.2 93 119519.7 84 249883.4 85 113314.9 86 118451.5 750638.9 87 209409.9 378891.4 98 16W3.2 173614.7 89 97351.46 204291.0 90 105377.8 77655.19 91 143495.6 105521.1

Source:M Beaufort Laboratory. WS beadboat survey began in the Atlantic in 1973 and in the Gulf of Mexico In 1986.

pap % IppendiX 3. Input data used in the SLN model for the Atlantic greater amberjack group. year [Y] SI[Y] If) Yield or w fisbery

1986 1 14.86 60.38 737 449475 Atlantic commercial 1997 1 8.09 14.47 1409 1270449 Atlantic commercial 1989 1 14.91 135.94 1032 1173789 Atlantic Commercial 1989 1 20.75 218.85 1373 125%50 Atlantic commercial 1990 1 16.96 347.40 1355 1853847 Atlantic Commercial 1"l 1 15.47 82.75 859 1"6924 Atlantic commercial

1986 2 75273 7521000000 48028 29.40 Atiandc vat. Rec. 1987 2 49101 1389500000 89061 33-22 Atlantic mat. Rec. 1988 2 65631 1941100000 93564 19.90 Atlantic Nat. sec. 1989 2 6622D 5175100000 67676 34.65 Atlantic Nat. Rec. 1990 2 76399 3562400000 62992 27.38 Atlantic Ist. Rec. M 2 36970 6MGM 53205 29.97 Atlantic Nat. sec.

1986 3 14.02 1.24 22560 118452 Atlantic findboat 1987 3 12.79 0.46 35397 209410 Atlantic snout 1998 3 19.98 1.66 24525 168503 Atlantic snout M 3 43.11 119.94 20295 97352 Atlantic Readbut 1990 3 17.76 1.88 5122 105378 Atlantic BBadboat l"I 3 16.% 1.34 9451 1434% Atlantic Readboat

1986 4 $8064 752100000 705U 12.07 Atlantic Combined Recreational 1987 4 66362 138950000 IM448 15.13 Atlantic Combined Recreational 1988 4 76195 194110000 10=9 19.95 Atlantic Cosbined Recreational 1989 4 77856 5175100DO 97971 17.64 Atlantic Combined hcreational 1990 4 84211 71249M 677% 16.04 Atlantic Combined Recreational 1991 4 45679 611100DO 62656 16.22 Atlantic Combined Recreational

Page 97 Appendix 4. Input data used in the SIM IOdel for Gulf- greater aJberjack year [Y] S2[y] [f] Yield or w fishery

1986 1 23.94 162.03 521 1337254 Gulf couercial 1987 1 21.71 1SO.65 878 1883189 Gulf CODercial 1988 1 6.72 43.37 1084 2429S05 Gulf Coaercial 1989 1 12.63 112.66 854 2254227 Gulf Couercial 1990 1 29.13 221.50 295 1146273 Gulf Couercial 1991 1 42.73 312.28 61 972090 Gulf Coaercial

1986 2 214964 2621250000 333803 12.64 Gulf lat. Ree. 1987 2 378463 13428330000 578157 6.80 Gulf lat. Ree. 1988 2 205296 2166330000 322959 10.15 Gulf Kat. Ree. 1989 2 569480 13956500000 369558 17.56 Gulf Kat. lee. 1990 2 81528 511170000 201498 16.98 Gulf lat. Ree. 1991 2 296203 9330830000 484050 15.95 Gulf lat. lee.

1986 3 8.50 0.20 82895 750577 Gulf Beadboat C = 86024 1987 3 8.32 0.12 42729 378838 Gulf Headboat C = 52892 1988 3 7.56 0.10 30089 173559 Gulf Headboat C = 29660 1989 3 5.55 0.07 32620 204285 Gulf Headboat C = 52521 1990 3 6.86 0.39 13919 77649 Gulf Headboat C = 24260 1991 3 12.25 0.17 11768 105463 Gulf Headboat C = 9852 ------~------

Page 98