[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Fisheries Management Report No. 5 of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION ME WH MA FISHERY MANAGEMENT M0 VA PLAN "C FOR sc RED DRUM October 1984 SH 351 .B29 F57 1984 FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RED DRUM (Sciaenops ocellatus) FISHERY Prepared by Linda P. Mercer, Project Leader North Carolina Departtment of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Marine Fisheries Morehead City, NC 28557 Special Scientific Report No. 44 This plan was prepared in cooperation with the Sciaenid Technical Committee and Sciaenid Board, as part of the Interstate Fishery Management Program administered by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Funds provided by Southeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Cooperative Agreement No. SF-13 and by Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Cooperative Agreement No. NA-80-FA-H-00017. 200 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $740.82 or $3.70 per copy. US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal. Services Center Library -4 2234 South Noboon Avenue Charleston, sc 29405-2413 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this fishery management plan is to manage the red drum fishery in the territorial sea of the Atlantic Ocean from Maryland to Florida. The goal of the plan is to perpetuate the red drum resource in fishable abundance throughout its range and generate the greatest possible economic and social benefits from its harvest and utilization over time. Plan objectives and management measures are directed toward alleviating the following problems: 1. Lack of biological, social, and economic data needed to define optimum yield. 2. Recreational-commercial conflicts. Management objectives designed to address the above problems are: 1. Attain over time optimum yield. 2. Maintain a spawning stock sufficient to minimize the possibility of recruitment failure. 3. Promote the cooperative interstate collection of economic, social, and biological data required to effectively monitor and assess management efforts relative to the overall goal. 4. Promote cooperative interstate research that improves under- standing of the biology and fisheries of red drum. 5. Promote harmonious use of the resource among various components of the fishery through the coordination of management efforts among the various political entities having jurisdiction over the red drum resource. 6. Promote determination and adoption of the highest possible standards of environmental quality and habitat protection necessary for the natural production of red drum. Management measures include a minimum size limit of 14 inches total length with comparable mesh size regulations in directed fisheries, a possession limit of two fish greater than 32 inches total length, prohibiting purse seining, and data collection for stock assessment and to monitor the status of the fisheries. High research priorities include stock identification, validation of age and growth techniques, determination of mortality, habitat preferences, and life history parameters, development of a pre-recruit index, and social and economic analyses. i 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Development of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Problems Addressed by the Plan . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Species Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 Abundance and Present Condition . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.3 Ecological Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.4 Estimate of Maximum Sustainable Yield . . . . . . 3 4.5 Probable Future Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1 Condition of the Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern . . . . . . . 4 5.3 Habitat Protection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.0 FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS, AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1 Management Institutions . . . . . . . 7 6.2 Treaties and International Agreements . . . . . . 7 6.3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.4 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies . . . . . . 8 6.5 Local and Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1 History of Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 iii Page 7.2 Domestic, Commercial, and Recreational Fishing Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.3 Foreign Fishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1 Domestic Harvesting Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2 Domestic Processing Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3 International Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESSES, MARKETS, AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FISHERY . . . . . 15 9.1 Relationship Among Harvesting and Processing Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2 Fishery Cooperatives or Associations . . o . . . 15 9.3 Labor Organizations . o o . . o . . o . . o . . . . 15 9.4 Foreign Investment in the Domestic Fishery o . 16 10.0 DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRA14EWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHERMEN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES . . . . . . 16 11.0 DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM YIELD . . o . . o o . . . . .. . 16 11.1 Specific Management Objectives. o . . . . . . 16 11.2 Specific Management Measures . o . o o . o o 17 12.0 A BIOLOGICAL AND FISHERIES PROFILE OF RED DRUM, Sciaenops ocellatus . . . . . . 0 . 19 12.1 Identity . . . o . . . . o . o 19 12.1.1 Nomenclature - o . . . . . . 19 12.1.2 Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1.3 Morphology . . . o . 19 12.2 Distribution . . . . . o . 21 12.2.1 General Distribution. 21 iv Page 12.2.2 Differential Distribution . . . . . . . . . 23 12.2.2.1 Spawn, Larvae, and Juveniles . . 23 12.2.2.2 Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12.2.3 Determinants of Distribution . . . . . . . . 26 12.3 Life History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.3.1 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.3.2 Pre-adult Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12.3.3 Adult Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12.3.4 Nutrition and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12.3.5 Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 12.3.6 Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 12.4 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12.4.1 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12.4.2 Abundance, Density, Mortality, and Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12.4.3 Community Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 12.5 Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 12.5.1 Commercial Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . 53 12.5.1.1 Fishing Equipment . . . . . . . . 53 12.5.1.2 Areas Fished . . . . . . . . . . . 54 12.5.1.3 Fishing Seasons . . . . . . . . . 54 12.5.1.4 Fishing Operations and Results . 54 12.5.1.5 Incidental Catches . . . . . . . 61 12.5.2 Recreational Exploitation . . . . . . . . . 61 12.5.2.1 Fishing Equipment . . . . . . . . 61 12.5.2.2 Areas Fished . . . . . . . . . . 62 v Page 12.5.2.3 Fishing Seasons . . . . . . . . . 62 12.5.2.4 Fishing Operations and Results. 64 12.6 Social and Economic Implications . . . . . . . . . 64 12.6.1 Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 12.6.2 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 12.6.3 Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 12.6.4 Processors and Product Forms . . . . . . . 67 12.6.5 Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 12.6.6 Gear Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 12.6.7 Commercial-Recreational Conflicts . . . . . 69 12.7 Management and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12.7.1 Regulatory Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12.7.2 Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12.7.3 Stocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 12.8 Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 12.9 Identification of Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 13.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 14.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 15.0 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 15.1 Listing of members of Sciaenid Technical Committee, Sciaenid Board, and South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 vi 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.1 Development of the Plan This red drum management plan was prepared through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Interstate Fisheries Management Program under a contract between the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region. The first phase in the development of this plan was the preparation of a profile summarizing all available information on the biology of and fisheries for red drum (Mercer 1984, Section 12.0). This fishery management plan constitutes the second phase. The following six states participated in the development of the plan: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. General guidance and technical expertise for this program has come from the South Atlantic State-Federal Management Board, Sciaenid Board, and Sciaenid Technical Committee. 3.2 Problems Addressed by the Plan The status of red drum populations on the Atla ntic coast of the United States is unknown. Data are available from areas of the Gulf of Mexico that indicate that juvenile opulations are growth overfished in west central Florida and Texas Mingle et al. 1984). The growth and mortality data necessary for yield per recruit (YPR) analyses of Atlantic coast populations do not exist. Red drum is a highly sought food and game fish throughout its range. Conflicts between commercial and recreational fishermen over the red drum resource have occurred for years in Texas and Florida and more recently in other Gulf states. The red drum conflict in the Gulf of Mexico evolved from an initial gear conflict to the present common stock conflict. The Texas legislature resolved that conflict by creating game fish status for red drum in Texas. This action has stimulated the introduction of similar restrictive laws and regulations in other states. The primary purpose of this management plan is to help states control growth overfishing in the estuaries, prevent recruitment overfishing, and promote coordinated interstate research and monitoring to obtain the necessary biological, economic and social data to effectively manage the red drum fisheries. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK 4.1 Species Distribution Red drum have been reported from the Gulf of Maine off Massachusetts to Key West, Florida on the Atlantic coast, but are rare north of New Jersey (Smith 1898; Yokel 1966; Lux and Mahoney 1969). Commercial landings of red drum have generally declined along the Middle Atlantic coast and none have been reported north of Chesapeake Bay since 1950 (Yokel 1980). Red drum occur in the Gulf of Mexico from extreme 2 southwest Florida continuously along the Gulf coast to Zamora, Vera Cruz, Mexico (Yokel 1966; Castro Aguirre 1978). Immature red drum, less than four years of age, inhabit estuaries year-round where they are harvested commercially by a variety of gears and recreationally by hook and line and gigging. At the northern end of their range, immature red drum may migrate south to estuarine or oceanic waters during winter. Red drum apparently leave the estuaries at maturity and migrate seasonally along the coast, north in spring and south in fall. Large red drum have occasionally been caught offshore in winter at depths of 10-40 m in the winter trawl fishery and in various trawl surveys. Schools of large red drum have also been observed in Pamlico Sound, N.C. during summer. Large red drum ( > 18 kg) are the subject of a trophy fishery along the outer beaches of barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina. 4.2 Abundance and Present Condition There is no available information on relative abundance and present condition of the juvenile and adult populations of red drum on the Atlantic coast. Commercial landings of red drum have fluctuated widely over the years, peaking at 788 mt in 1945. Landings have ranged from 47 to 285 mt between 1950 and 1983. The causes of these fluctuations are not known, nor is the relationship, if any, between landings and abundance. 4.3 Ecological Relationships The following information is summarized from the profile (Section 12.0). Reproduction - Available data indicate that red drum spawn in late summer ana-fall in the ocean along beaches and in the vicinity of inlets and passes. Hatching and early larval development take place during transport to estuarine nursery areas. Within estuaries young red drum .are found in calm shallow waters with grassy or slightly muddy bottoms. Red drum growth is rapid, with juveniles attaining lengths of 300-330 mm TL (12-13 in) at age I. Red drum begin to mature at 470-530 mm FL (age I+) for males and 575-760 mm FL (age II-III) for females on the east coast of Florida. Fecundity estimates for red drum in the Gulf of Mexico vary from 2.1 x 106 to 1.6 x 107 eggs. Age and Growth - The age of pre-adult red drum has been determined from scales anU-o-Yo-liths. Estimates of length at first annulus, which forms at 14-17 months, range from 403 mm TL to 436 mm FL. Food and Feeding - Crustaceans (crabs and shrimp) and fishes are most 1-mportant in the diet of red drum. Red drum feed over sandy to muddy bottoms in both shallow and moderately deep water. Grassbeds and marsh fringes are important feeding areas for pre-adult red drum. 3 Competitors - Young-of-the-year red drum in North Carolina estuaries are frequently collected with bay anchovies, silversides, sheepshead minnows, striped mullet, menhaden, spot, croaker, mojarras, gobies, summer flounder, and southern flounder. In the Gulf of Mexico adult red drum occur offshore often under schools of blue runner and little tunny. When near shore, schools of red drum often occur with black drum, Atlantic tarpon, and pompano. Parasites, Diseases, Injuries, and Abnormalities - Overstreet (1983) presented a p rtial list of parasites of r-e-d--drum and reviewed the literature on diseases, mortalities, and abnormal conditions found in red drum. 4.4 Estimate of Maximum Sustainable Yield There are no published estimates of MSY or yield per recruit (YPR) for red drum on the Atlantic coast. YPR analysis requires estimates of natural and fishing mortality rates which generally are not known. Preliminary YPR estimates have been made for red drum in Texas (Matlock 1984a) and Florida.' 4.5 Probable Future Condition The future condition of red drum populations along the Atlantic coast is dependent on recruitment of larvae spawned by adult populations, adequate estuarine habitat, and trends in fishing effort. Fishing effort is likely.to increase with the increasing coastal population and number of fishermen. Increased fishing effort in the estuaries may increase mortality of immature red drum and reduce the number of recruits to the adult population. Increased fishing effort on adult red drum may lead to recruitment overfishing. Degradation of estuaries and loss of suitable habitat may also lead to declines in juvenile populations. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT 5.1 Condition of Habitat Climatic and hydrographic differences separate the ocean region north and south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The Middle Atlantic region is relatively uniform physically and is influenced by large estuarine areas including Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, Delaware Bay and the nearly continuous band of estuaries behind the barrier beaches from New Jersey to Virginia. The southern edge of the region includes the estuarine complex of Currituck, Albemarle, and Pamlico sounds, a 2500-square-mile system of large interconnecting sounds behind the Outer Banks of North Carolina (Freeman and Walford 1974; 1976a,b). lFlorida Department of Natural Resources, Red Drum and Spotted Seatrout Stock Assessment Workshop, Nov. 16 and 17, 1984. St. Petersburg, Florida. 4 The South Atlantic region is characterized by three long, crescent-shaped embayments, demarcated by four prominent points of land: Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, and Cape Fear in North Carolina, and Cape Romain in South Carolina. Low barrier islands skirt most of the coast south of Cape Hatteras although the sounds behind them are at most only a mile or two wide. Along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina, the barriers become a series of rather large, irregularly shaped sea islands, separated from the mainland by one of the largest coastal salt-water marsh areas in the world, through which cuts a system of anastomosing waterways. The east coast of Florida is bordered by a series of islands, separated in the north by broad estuaries which are usually deep and continuous with large coastal rivers, and in the south by narrow, shallow lagoons (Freeman and Walford 1976b,c,d). At Cape Hatteras the continental shelf (characterized by water <198 m in depth) extends seaward approximately 32 km (20 mi) and widens gradually to 113 km (70 mi) off New Jersey. The substrate of the shelf in this region is predominantly sand interspersed with large pockets of sand-gravel and sand-shell. South of Cape Hatteras the shelf widens to 132 km (80 mi) near the Georgia-Florida border and narrows to 56 km (35 mi) off Cape Canaveral, Florida and 16 km (10 mi) or less off the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys (Freeman and Walford b,c,d). The movements of the oceanic waters along the South Atlantic coast are not well defined. Portions of the Gulf Stream, which flows northward following the edge of the Continental Shelf, break off and become incorporated into the coastal water. masses. Features of these gyres change seasonally; the inshore flow is northward along the coast to Cape Hatteras in winter and spring and southward in summer and fall. North of Cape Hatteras portions of the Gulf Stream break off and are incorporated into coastal water masses. Features of the gyres vary seasonally but the inshore flow south of New York is predominantly southwesterly (Freeman and Walford 1976b,c,d). 5.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Estuaries and inshore oceanic waters are critically important to the life cycle of red drum. Because these areas are utilized for feeding grounds by the adults and for nursery grounds by juveniles, any major alteration of these habitats could disrupt the life cycle of red drum. Juvenile red drum spend the first three to four years of their life within estuaries throughout most of their range. At the northern extreme around Chesapeake Bay, red drum apparently move out of the estuaries into coastal waters during winter. Early juvenile stages of red drum have only been collected in estuaries suggesting that the young fish are estuarine dependent. Estuarine habitats have deteriorated rapidly since approximately 1940, mostly as a result of industrial and human population growth. The National Estuary Study, completed in 1970, indicated that 73% of the Nation's estuaries had been moderately or severely degraded (Gusey 1978, 1981). Damage and/or destruction of estuaries has largely been by dredging and filling for waterfront property, dredging of navigation 5 channels, construction of causeways and bridges, installation of ports and marinas, alteration of freshwater flow, and pollution. Unfortunately the effects of habitat alterations have rarely been quantified. Davis (1980) suggested that changes in the red drum fishery in Everglades National Park 1972-1977, which included a shift in age structure toward larger, mature fish and increased catch rates, resulted from increased salinities from drainage control. The Texas Department of Water Resources has investigated the effects of freshwater inflow upon Texas bays and estuaries. A comparison of annual harvest rates of red drum with seasonal freshwater inflow revealed a positive response between harvest and increased inflow in spring (April-June), fall (September -October), and late fall (November-December). High inflow in winter (January-March) and summer (July-August) was negatively correlated with catch rate (Anonymous 1982b). 5.3 Habitat Protection Pro2rams State Coastal Zone Management In recent years the coastal states have enacted laws to regulate shoreline development and protect the coastal zone. State habitat protection regulations are summarized in Table 12-23. Federal Coastal Zone Management The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC 1451 The Act establishes a national policy and initiates a national program to encourage state planning for the management, beneficial use, protection and development of the Nation's coastal zones (generally, the submerged lands and waters of the territorial sea and the adjacent shorelands having a direct and significant impact on such waters). Other Federal Programs, Laws and Policies Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956, USC 742(a)-754 Established a comprehensive national policy on fish and wildlife resources; authorized programs and investigations that may be required for the development, advancement, management, conservation and protection of the fisheries resources of the United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321-4347 Requires detailed environmental impact statements of proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Prior to making the detailed statement, the responsible Federal official is required to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Also requires that documents must be available to the public and their comments must be considered. 6 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, 33 USC 1221-1227 This Act deals with transportation and pollution problems resulting from operation and casualties of vessels carrying oil and other hazardous substances. It is designed to protect coastal waters, living resources, recreational resources and scenic values. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and Amendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251-1376 This Act initiated major changes in the enforcement mechanism of the Federal water pollution control program from water quality standards to effluent limits. Among other things, it requires that permits be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency or the states for discharge of effluents into waters of the United States. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (The Ocean @It) , 33 usc-707-1-M This Act regulates the transportation from the United States of material for dumping into the oceans, coastal and other waters, and the dumping of material from any source into waters over which the United States has jurisdiction. The Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to issue permits for transportation or dumping where it will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems or economic potentialities. Section 106 of the Act provides for the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to apply. Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972, 16 USC 1361-1407 This Act, with certain exceptions, places a moratorium on the taking and importation of all marine mammals and marine mammal products. It makes the Secretary of Commerce responsible for protecting whales, porpoises, seals, sea lions; and the Secretary of the Interior responsible for all other marine mammals, specifically sea otters, walruses, polar bears and manatees. Also protects the habitat of marine mammals, including food sources. Endangered Species Act of 1974, PL 93-205 This Act gives the Departments of Commerce and Interior regulatory and statutory authority on endangered and threatened fauna and flora not included in previous acts. The purpose of the Act is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 33 USC 1501-1524 Establishes procedures for the location, construction and operation of deepwater ports off the coasts of the United States. 7 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 Establishes a fishery conservation and management regime to be implemented by the Secretary of Commerce. Establishes a fishery conservation zone extending from the limits of the territorial sea to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. The Act defines fishery resource to include " . . . any habitat of fish", and enjoins the Secretary to carry out a research program which must include " . . . the impact of pollution on fish, the impact of wetland and estuarine degradation, and other matters . . . 11 National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of-W8, PL 95-2731 Designates NOAA as the lead agency in the development of a comprehensive five-year plan for a Federal program relating to ocean pollution research, development and monitoring. This plan is to provide for the coordination of existing Federal programs relating to the oceans and for the dissemination of information emerging from these programs to interested parties. In addition, the plan shall provide for the development of a base of information necessary to the utilization, development and conservation of ocean and coastal resources in a rational, efficient and equitable manner. NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy of 1983 This Policy will ensure that habitat is fully considered in all NMFS programs and activities, focus NMFS habitat conservation activities on species for which the agency has management or protection responsibilities under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act, lay the foundation for management and research cooperation on habitat issues, and strengthen NMFS partnerships with the states and the Regional Fishery Management Councils on habitat issues. 6.0 FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS, AND POLICIES 6.1 Management Institutions The U.S. Department of Commerce, acting through the Fishery Management Councils, pursuant to P.L. 94-265 (Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act), has authority to manage the stocks throughout their range that are harvested predominantly in the FCZ. 6.2 Treaties and International Agreements Foreign fishing is regulated by P. L. 94-265 pursuant to which Governing International Fishery Agreements are negotiated with foreign nations for fishing within the FCZ. Red drum has never been allocated to any foreign country. 6.3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies The only known Federal law that can regulate the management of the red drum fishery is PL 94-265. 8 6.4 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies All states have the power to regulate or enact laws pertaining to the taking of red drum. Those that have regulatory powers are North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Maryland has legislative powers and Virginia has the power to regulate size limits but must enact laws pertaining to area closures. State laws and regulations are summarized in Table 12-22. Attempts to regulate the red drum fishery on the Atlantic coast date back to the first annual meeting of ASMFC in 1942 when a Delaware commissioner urged that red drum be made a sport fish, or be protected by adequate size limits and daily catch limits, and that its use as fertilizer be prohibited. In 1943 a red drum committee, appointed by the Commission, developed regulations to protect red drum, but they were not adopted by any state at that tine. In 1956 the North Carolina Board of Conservation and Development, at the urging of anglers, adopted the present regulations pertaining to red drum (Anonymous 1957). The following states have specific regulations relating to red drum: Virginia Illegal to possess more than two red drum greater than 32 inches total length. North Carolina Illegal to possess red drum less than 14 inches in length or to possess more than two red drum exceeding 32 inches in length in any one day. Illegal to retain red drum weighing 20 pounds or more in New Hanover County. Illegal to remove red drum from any type of net with the aid of any boat hook, gaff, spear, gig, or similar device. Florida Illegal to possess red drum less than 12 inches FL. 6.5 Local and Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies No local or other laws, regulations, or policies are known to exist relative to the red drum fishery. 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES 7.1 History of Exploitation Atlantic coast commercial landings of red drum have varied widely, from a high of 788 mt in 1945 to 46 mt in 1972. Landings of red drum at the northern extreme of the range have declined since the 1930s. No red drum landings have been reported for New York since 1942. A total of 93 mt of red drum were landed in New Jersey from 1926 through 1935, while only 21 mt were caught in the decade ending in 1945. Since 1945 there has been only one commercial landing of red drum in New Jersey, less than one metric ton, in 1951. 9 Similar declines in landings have apparently taken place along the coast to the south of New Jersey with the exception of the east coast of Florida. Delaware annual landings have never exceeded 1 mt and were recorded for only six years between 1926 and 1978. Maryland red drum landings have never exceeded 7 mt and only sporadic landings (<l mt) have been recorded since 1959. Virginia landings were highest in 1950 (83 mt) and did not exceed 9 mt over the past 20 years, except in 1965 (42 mt) and 1983 (22 mt) . Red drum landings in South Carolina and Georgia have fluctuated widely and parallel each other. Highest landings in South Carolina were from 1887 to 1908 (23-50 mt), 1936 to 1940 (38-54 mt), and 1950 to 1956 (5-52 mt). South Carolina landings of red drum ranged from <1-6 mt from 1969 to 1982. Georgia landings ranged from 9-69 mt between 1887 and 1908, 5-23 mt from 1936 to 1940, 1-9 mt from 1950 to 1956, and <1-5 rat from 1966 to 1982. Florida and North Carolina contribute the most to east coast landings of red drum. North Carolina landings were highest in 1938 (241 mt) and have fluctuated between 2 and 129 mt since 1950. Florida landings peaked at 642 mt in 1945 and have not fluctuated greatly since 1950, ranging from 37-118 mt through 1983. Results of the 1960-1970 marine recreational fishery statistics surveys indicate a decline in the red drum catch from over 17,000 mt to about 6,000 mt. These results are assumed to be less accurate than the results of the recent annual surveys due to the longer fishermen recall period used in the earlier surveys. The 1979-82 surveys indicated that the Atlantic coast recreational catch of red drum ranged from 338 to 545 mt. The estimated recreational red drum catch in the Middle Atlantic region (New York to Virginia) declined drastically from 5,176 mt in 1960 to 582 mt in 1965 and 38 mt in 1970 (Clark 1962; Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973) (Table 7-2). Red drum were not reported for the Middle Atlantic subregion in the 1980 survey; however, the category "drums" (8.5 mt) may include red drum. Preliminary results of the 1981 and 1982 surveys indicate that 92,000 red drum (223 mt) were caught in 1981 and 52,000 (no weight reported) in 1982 in the Middle Atlantic region (Table 7-3). South Atlantic (North Carolina to Florida) catches declined from 1960 (12,331 mt) to 1970 (6,065 mt). In 1980 the estimated recreational catch was 545 mt. Preliminary results of the 1981 and 1982 recreational surveys indicated that 115 mt were caught in 1981 and 438 mt in 1982 in the South Atlantic. 7.2 Domestic Commercial and Recreational Fishing_Activity Commercial Fishery Red Drum are harvested by a variety of gears in mixed species fisheries directed at pre-adult fish (Tables 12-13 - 12-17). Pound nets and fish trawls have accounted for the major portion of Virginia red drum landings since 1977. Haul seines and gill nets contributed significantly prior to 1977 and again in 1983. Gill nets have accounted for 31-57% of red drum landings since 1979 in North Carolina. Catches by common and long haul seines, pound nets, and fish trawls have fluctuated. The incidental catch by shrimp tra0s ranged from 0.5-15.2% of North 10 Carolina red drum landings from 1978 to 1983. Red drum are mainly caught by shrimp trawls, hand lines, and gill nets in South Carolina. Hand lines have accounted for all of Georgia landings since 1978. Runaround gill nets are the predominant gear in Florida, accounting for 65.5-83.6% of the red drum catch. Red drum are also caught by hand lines, haul seine, and trammel nets. Recreational Fishery Red drum are caught by anglers in both inland (estuarine) waters and in the ocean, usually less than 3 miles from shore (Table 7-4). The recreational fishery for trophy red drum ( >18 kg) in the South Atlantic subregion is primarily a surf fishery along the outer beaches of barrier islands, while small red drum (< 8 kg) are caught in estuarine waters. The salt-water angling surveys indicate that red drum are mainly caught from private/rental boats, followed by man-made structures (bridges, piers, jetties) and beach/bank (Table 7-4). The best surf fishing for large red drum occurs in spring and autumn, while small red drum are caught inshore mainly in summer and autumn. 7.3 Foreign Fishing Activities There is no foreign fishing for red drum. 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY 8.1 Domestic Harvesting Sector Commercial Fishery Cato (1981) reviewed the economic values and uses of the sciaenid fisheries in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. A comparison of dockside value of commercial landings of important sciaenids revealed that red drum ranks behind weakfish, croaker, spotted seatrout, and spot. Red drum prices increased steadily in the Gulf of Mexico and have been consistently higher there except in 1969, 1980 and 1982 (Figure 12-4). Atlantic coast prices increased steadily from 1960 but dropped sharply in 1983. Current prices have increased while deflated prices have remained fairly stable. Red drum exvessel prices vary from state to state. In 1982 prices varied from 23-79 cents per pound in North Carolina and the east coast of Florida, respectively (Table 12-20). Recreational Fishery The recreational surveys estimated that 1,798,000, 1,112-,000 and 1,315,000 coastal state residents participated in marine recreational fishing from 1980 to 1982 in the South Atlantic. The surveys do not include data on angler participation categorized by species, but do report species sought by fishermen interviewed in the intercept phase of the survey. In the South Atlantic approximately 1.12% in 1980 and 1.97% in 1981 and 1982 of those interviewed reported they were fishing for red drum. Table 7-1. Commercial landings of red drum by state, 1950-1983, (metric tons). Florida New North South East Year Jersey Delaware Maryland Virginia Carolina Carolina Georgia Coast Total f-950 1 83 _@ _1 15 9 86 285 1951 2 34 83 52 9 60 240 1952 - - 21 101 31 6 52 212 1953 - 9 129 25 6 58 227 1954 - 2 18 121 5 6 63 215 1955 - - 17 61 30 3 44 155 1956 - 9 14 26 1 48 98 1957 - - 11 63 - 49 123 1958 - 1 16 8 46 71 1959 - 15 2 59 76 1960 - 13 36 59 108 1961 - - 5 41 52 99 1962 - - 3 28 - 68 99 1963 - - 1 32 - - 61 94 1964 - - 2 46 5 - 54 107 1965 - - 42 32 - - 66 140 1966 - 1 16 1 69 88 1967 - 6 73 80 1968 - 5 2 75 82 1969 - 2 1 54 58 1970 - 3 67 71 1971 - 8 1 1 37 47 1972 - 3 20 1 1 58 83 1973 - 3 32 1 76 112 1974 - 7 64 1 1 62 105 1975 - 9 97 6 5 38 155 1976 8 76 1 3 48 136 1977 - 9 2 47 59 1978 - 1 10 2 48 61 1979 - 1 58 1 43 102 1980 - 110 2 1 87 200 1981 - 42 118 161 1982 - 1 24 1 63 89 1983 - 22 100 1 45 168 -Not reported *Less than I mt Table 7-2. Red drum recreational catch and effort statistics from National Marine Fisheries Service Salt-Water Angling Surveys, 1960 - 1970. Catch Number of Average Catch per angTe-r Survey Weight Successful Weight We* ht Year Number lb kg Anglers lb kg Number lb ------------ THOUSANDS ------------- 19601 Middle Atlantic 456 11,400 5,171 35 25.0 11.4 13.0 325.7 147.9 South Atlantic 4,527 27,160 12,320 157 6.0 2.7 28.8 173.0 78.5 Gulf of Mexico 10,294 32,940 14,941 447 3.2 1.5 23.0 73.7 33.5 TOTAL 15,277 71,500 32,432 639 4.7 2.1 23.9 111.9 50.8 19652 Middle Atlantic 196 1,281 581 68 6.5 2.9 2.9 18.8 8.6 South Atlantic 4,099 15,171 6,881 151 3.7 1.7 27.1 100.5 45.6 Gulf of Mexico 6,900 28,288 12,831 558 4.1 1.9 12.4 50.7 23.0 TOTAL 11,195 44,740 20,294 777 4.0 1.8 14.4 57.6 26.1 1970 3 Middle Atlantic 97 83 38 8 0.9 0.4 12.1 10.4 4.8 South Atlantic 4,883 13,358 6,059 164 2.7 1.2 29.9 81.5 37.0 Gulf of Mexico 13,184 53,045 24,061 692 4.0 1.8 19.1 76.7 34.8 TOTAL 18,164 66,486 30,157 864 3.7 1.7 21.0 77.0 34.9 IClark 1962 2Deuel and Clark 1968 3Deuel 1973 13 Table 7-3. Estimated number and weight of red drum caught by marine recreational fishermen by state, 1979-1982. 1979 1980 1981 1982 number weight number weight number we State igYt num er weight (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) T H 0 U S A N D S - - - - - - - - - - - New Jersey Maryland - Virginia - 90 216 51 + North Carolina 28 30 56 74 18 14 South Carolina 66 71 207 269 47 33 128 102 Georgia 62 67 30 39 32 26 Florida, E. 720 774 124 165 91 64 338 270 Coast TOTAL 876 942 419 545 258 337 567 + 30,000 none reported + not estimated Table 7-4. Number of red drum caught on the Atlantic coast by anglers, 1965-1982, by principal area and mode of fishing. Principal area of fishing Principal mode of fishing Survey Private/ Party/ Man- Beach/ year Region Ocean Inland rental charter made Bank - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THOUSANDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1965-1 Middle Atlantic 24 172 7 35 126 28 South Atlantic 2,436 1,663 1,497 235 1,965 402 1970 Middle Atlantic 51 46 46 51 South Stlantic 1,032 3,851 3,839 276 287 481 1979 3 South Atlantic 58 796 747 98 32 --1980-3 South Atlantic 26 313 318 43 56 1981 4 Middle Atlantic 62 - 91 1 South Atlantic 35 124 90 62 14 1982 4 Middle Atlantic 51 51 South Atlantic 232 159 405 54 57 None reported 1Deuel and Clark 1968 3Anonymous 1984 <30,000 2Deuel 1973 4Preliminary data 15 8.2 Domestic Processing Sector Red drum is almost strictly a fresh fish product. In South Carolina red drum are sold to either local wholesale or retail markets. Gill nets and hook and line were the principal gears used to take coastal finfish for market. A survey of licensed persons engaged in selling finfish indicated that red drum, spotted seatrout, and flounder comprised only 7.2% of the total reported weight of finfish sold (Snith and Moore 1979). Commercial landings of red drum on the Gulf Coast are mostly sold in local markets as fresh in-the-round or gutted, with a small percentage sold as frozen and gutted, or as fresh or frozen fillets (Perret et al. 1980). 8.3 International Trade Imports of juvenile red drum from Mexico are substantial and have an impact on Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and perhaps other markets supplied from Texas and Louisiana landings. Imports increased from 1964 (45.1 mt) to 1969 (396.2 mt) and have since decreased (Table 12-21). The decline in imports from the 1970s to the present is due to the development of seafood markets in Mexico, new fishing regulations in Mexico, and until recently, a declining U.S. dollar. At their peak, imports accounted for 25% of the total U.S. supply of red drum. Most imports are in-the-round and gutted. Frozen fillets were imported between 1978 and 1981, and comprised from 12 (1981) to 29% of imports (1978) (Perret et al. 1980; Swingle et al. 1984). Exports of red drum from the U.S. have occurred but statistical information is unavailable before 1981 when the National Marine Fisheries Service began inspecting drum exports (red drum and black drum). Drum are exported to Nigeria, Turkey, and probably Egypt, the Mideast, Venezuela, and Taiwan. The red drum exported are usually adult fish because of a market preference for large fish in the above countries and because it can be marketed at relatively low prices. The product is shipped frozen in-the-round or is gutted (Swingle et al. 1984). 9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESSES, MARKETS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FISKRY - 9.1 Relationship Among Harvesting and Processing Sectors Since red drum is generally sold fresh, there is no major processing. 9.2 Fishery Cooperatives or Associations Data on Fishery cooperatives are not available. 9.3 Labor Organizations Data on labor organizations are not available. 16 9.4 Foreign Investment in the Domestic Fishery Data on foreign investment in the fishery are not known to exist. 10.0 DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHERMEN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES--- Uniform socio-economic data on fishing communities are not available. 11.0 DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM YIELD The goal of this management plan is to perpetuate the red drum resource in fishable abundance throughout its range and generate the greatest possible economic and social benefits from its harvest and utilization over time. 11.1 Specific Management Objectives The following objectives have been adopted to achieve the above goal: 1. Attain over time optimum yield. 2. Maintain a spawning stock sufficient to minimize the possibility of recruitment failure. The red drum does not reach sexual maturity until three to four years of age at which time it emigrates from the estuarine environment. While in the estuary, juvenile red drum may be subject to high fishing mortality, thereby reducing the number of individuals that reach sexual maturity. Large red drum are generally unmarketable in this country due to lower palatibility; however, red drum have been exported to foreign countries. A purse seine fishery in the Gulf of Mexico FCZ has recently begun to harvest large quantities of large red drum primarily for export. The potential exists for the development of such a fishery along the Atlantic coast which could lead to recruitment overfishing. 3. Promote the cooperative interstate collection of economic, social, 'itor and assess and biological data required to effectively mon management efforts relative to the overall goal. Effective management of the red drum resource is hindered by the lack of reliable and consistent coastwide catch and effort data from the commercial and recreational fisheries. There is a lack of information on population dynamics, including stock size, age, and size composition, natural and fishing mortality rates, and the parameters required for the development of yield models. Very little is known about the economics of the commercial fishery or the economic benefits from recreational fishing. There is a lack of sociological information on recreational and commercial fishermen. Cooperative interstate data collection procedures must be developed to obtain the necessary data for fishery management. 17 4. Promote cooperative interstate research that improves understanding of the biology and fisheries of red drum. Life history data throughout the range are required to provide a basis for conservation regulations. Ageing techniques have not been validated for fish older than three years. Other life history gaps include age at sexual maturity and fecundity, information on migratory patterns, identification of spawning and nursery areas, and identification of subpopulations and their distribution. 5. Promote harmonious use of the resource among various components of the fishery through the coordination of management efforts among the various political entities having jurisdiction over the red drum resource. Red drum are harvested in commercial mixed species fisheries and in the recreational fishery. After leaving the estuary adult red drum may become migratory. Cooperative interstate management is needed throughout the migratory range. 6. Promote determination and adoption of the highest possible standards of environmental quality and habitat protection necessary for the natural production of red drum. Habitat requirements for larval and juvenile red drum have not been defined. The effects of extensive losses of estuarine habitat and pesticides and pollutants entering estuarine systems need to be determined. Advancing offshore technology and energy demands might conceivably cause deterioration of large areas to the extent that successful reproduction cannot occur. Both short and long term environmental changes, such as alterations in freshwater flow, can adversely impact the red drum population. 11.2 Specific Management Measures The following management strategy is recommended to obtain the above objectives: 1. A minimum size limit of 14 in TL with comparable mesh size regulations in directed fisheries (defined as containing at least 60% red drum by weight) for red drum. The purpose of a minimum size limit is to protect the spawning stock and increase yield. A minimum size limit cannot be used to protect the red drum spawning stock because of the large size at which maturity is reached and the socio-economic pattern of the traditional fishery. Large red drum are unmarketable and unavailable to the estuarine fishery. A minimum size limit should be a compromise between increasing yield and maintaining acceptability and availability to the user. Present minimum size limits for red drum are 14 inch TL in North Carolina and 12 inch FL in Florida. The minimum size limit should be set between the 12 inch FL existing minimum and the length at which 50% of the females become mature. A minimum length of 14 inch TL is recommended, to be modified when a yield model becomes available. 2. A daily possession limit of two fish exceeding 32 in TL. The purpose of a maximum size limit is to promote increased recruitment through protection of older fish. Data are not available to support a maximum size limit. However, on a local basis, a maximum size limit could be used to control potential overexploitation by developing fisheries. 3. Prohibit purse seining for red drum. 4. Collection of improved catch and effort data from the commercial and recreational fisheries, including size composition of the catch and social and economic data. 5. Additional measures not specifically recommended in this plan, such as creel limits, catch quotas, area closures, limited entry, and gear restrictions, may be implemented in the future. 6. The following monitoring and research activities are recommended: a. stock identification b. validation of age and growth techniques, c. mortality estimates and yield modeling, d. determination of habitat preferences, e. determination of life history parameters including fecundity, f. development of a prerecruit index, g. social and economic analyses. 19 12.0 A BIOLOGICAL AND FISHERIES PROFILE OF RED DRUM, Sciaenops ocellatus 12.1 Identity 12.1.1 Nomenclature The valid name for red drum is Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus) 1766 (Figure 12-1). The following synonymy is after Jordan and Evermann (1896): Perca ocellata Linnaeus, 1766 @riangulum Lacepede, 1802 Sciaena imberbis Mitchill, 1815 Corvina ocellit-a Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1830 JoTin-ius -o-c-eT-latus Girard, 1859 Sciaena ocellata Gunther, 1860 12.1.2 Taxonomy Classification follows Greenwood et al. (1966). Taxa higher than superorder are not included. Superorder: Acanthopterygii Order: Perciformes Suborder: Percoidei Family: Sciaenidae Genus: Sciaenops Species: Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum is one of 22 members of the family Sciaenidae found along the Atlantic and/or Gulf coasts of the United States (Robins et al. 1980). This family is commonly known as the drums since many of its members, including red drum, produce drumming sounds by vibrating their swim bladders with special muscles (Jordan and Evermann 1896; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Fish and Mowbray 1970; Guest and Lasswell 1978). Chao (1978) assessed the phylogenetic relationships of all western Atlantic genera of Sciaenidae on the basis of swim bladder, otoliths (sagitta and lapillus), and external morphology, and presented a tested key to species and genera. The genus Sciaen ps is monotypic. Red drum is the common name given Sciaenops ocellatus by the American Fisheries Society (Robins et al. 1980). Other common names include channel bass, puppy drum, redfish, bull redfish, bass, red bass, sea bass, spotted bass, spottail, rat red, pescado colorado, drum, and branded drum (Smith 1907; Jordan et al. 1930; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; Shiino 1976). 12.1.3 Morphology The following description is that of Johnson (1978), summarized from Jordan and Evermann (1896), Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928), Topp and Cole (1968), Simmons (1969), Miller and Jorgenson (1973), and Chao (1976). -'Vag Figure 12-1. Red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus), 1766 (illustration by H. L. Todd from: Goode 1884). 21 D. X-I, 23-25; A. 11, 7-8; C. 9+8, procurrent rays 8-10+7-10; V. 1, 5; scales 40-45 in a lateral series; vertebrae 10+15, pleural ribs 8, epipleural ribs 7; gill rakers 4-5+7-9; branchiostegals 7; teeth small conical in jaws, set in bands, outer row teeth of upper jaw slightly enlarged; lower jaw teeth subequal; no teeth on vomer, palatines, or tongue. Head 2.8-3.3, depth 3.3-3.9 in SL;' snout 3.3-3.8, eye 3.1-4.7, maxillary 2.5, interorbital 3.7-4.6, pectoral fin 1.5-1.8 in head. Body elongate, rather robust, not much compressed; back moderately arched; ventral outline nearly straight; head rather long and low; snout conical; mouth horizontal, lower jaw included; lower jaw with five pores, without barbels; maxillary almost reaching below posterior margin of eye. Scales rather large, strongly ctenoid; no scales on soft dorsal fin; scales of breast embedded, cycloid. Dorsal fin continuous, with a deep notch between the spinous and soft portions; dorsal spines rather stiff, pungent; second anal spine thick, much shorter than longest soft rays; posterior margin of caudal fin straight to slightly concave; pectoral fin as long as pelvic fin. Preopercular margin serrate in smaller specimens, becoming entire in specimens of about 9-13 kg. Pigmentation: May be silvery, grayish, bronze, coppery, yellow, and sometimes almost black; often silvery or copperish in Gulf, darker in muddy bays; each scale with a dark center, forming rather obscure, irregular, undulating brown stripes along scale rows; one to several (most frequently 1) jet black spots at base of caudal and below the soft dorsal fin above lateral line; dorsal and caudal fins dusky; anal and pelvic fins white; outer part of pectoral fin bright rusty. Topp and Cole (1968) described the osteology of SciaenoDs based on a study of 21 specimens (30 mm SL-195 mm skull lengthr.- Powles and Stender (1978) described morphometric and meristic development of nine larval red drum (4.1-7.9 mm SL) from South Carolina estuaries and the Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina. Standard length-total length relationships were determined for red drum in Georgia (Jorgenson and Miller 1968), Texas (Harrington et al. 1979), Louisiana (Hein et al. 1980), and Mississippi (Overstreet 1983) (Table 12-1). 12.2 Distribution 12.2.1 General Distribution Red drum have been reported from the Gulf of Maine off Massachusetts to Key West, Florida, on the Atlantic coast but are rare north of New Jersey (Smith 1898; Yokel 1966; Lux and Mahoney 1969). Commercial landings of red drum have generally declined along the Middle Atlantic coast and none have been reported north of Chesapeake Bay since 1950 (Yokel 1980). Red drum occur in the Gulf of Mexico from extreme southwest Florida continuously along the Gulf coast to Zamora, Vera Cruz, Mexico (Yokel 1966; Castro Aguirre 1978). Table 12-1. Standard length-total length relationships for red drum as reported in the literature. Size range Location Reference (mm TL) N Relationship r Georgia Jorgenson and 16-40 5 TL = 0.469 + 1.247 SL Miller (1968) SL = -0.290 + 0.799 TL Texas Harrington et al. 92-937 8982 TL = 12.870 + 1.177 SL 0.995 (1979) Louisiana Hein et al. (1980) 14-1135 302 SL = -2.0520 + 0.8369 TL 0.9996 Mississippi Overstreet (1983) 175-1138 861 TL = 7.3032 + 1.1712 SL 0.9975 SL = -3.4416 + 0.8495 TL 0.9975 23 12.2.2 Differential Distribution 12.2.2.1 Spawn, Larvae, and Juveniles Observations of gravid and spent adults and collections of larvae indicate that red drum spawn in the ocean along beaches and in the vicinity of inlets and passes (Pearson 1929; Miles 1950; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Yokel 1966; Hein and Shepard in press). Red drum eggs were observed being carried into seagrass beds by tidal currents in Redfish Bay, Texas (S. Holt and Arnold 1982). Collections of red drum larvae (2.0 mm NL-5.2 mm SL) from eelgrass beds on the eastern shore side of Chesapeake Bay, approximately 37 km from the bay entrance, 2 and observations of gravid adults in Tampa Bay, Florida 3suggest that some spawning may occur within estuaries. In the Gulf of Mexico red drum larvae (<7 mm TQ and postlarvae (7-42 mm TO have been collected in nearshore oceanic waters, passes and inlets to estuarine waters, and within estuaries (Pearson 1929; Miles 1950; Yokel 1966; Jannke 1971; King 1971; Sabins and Truesdale 1974; Richardson and Laroche 1982; Robison in press). Within estuaries young red drum are generally found in quiet shallow waters with grassy or slightly muddy bottoms that are not greatly affected by tides (Perret et al. 1980). A study of the distribution of young red drum (6-27 mm SQ among different shoal-grass (Halodule wrightii) beds in Texas found that the ecotone between seagrass an-d-n-onvegetated bottom had significantly more red drum than did homogeneously vegetated sites. No red drum were found on large (>5 m across) nonvegetated sites (Holt, Kitting, and Arnold 1983). In Tampa Bay young red drum (8-20 mm SL) were collected along the shoreline over soft mud to sandy bottom, often with submerged grasses or shore grasses and little current. Larger individuals (20-40 mm SQ were collected in bayous and backwaters with low salinity, muddy bottom, little or no submerged vegetation and usually some detritus. Juveniles (40-90 mm SL) were found in semiexposed areas such as river mouths with mud to moderately sandy bottoms, little or no cover, and moderately low salinities and currents. Larger fish (160-250 mm SL) were found in exposed areas of embayments and rivers with moderate 4 currents, sand/mud or rubble bottoms, and moderate salinities. Most juvenile or immature red drum (<700-750 mm TL) remain in Gulf of Mexico estuaries throughout the year, but move into deeper waters of bays during winter (Pearson 1929; Miles 1950; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Breuer 1973; Loman 1978; Osburn et al. 1982). Young-of-the-year moved out of the seagrass beds in Redfish Bay, Texas in late November with the 2Unpublished data on file at the Vir ginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 3M. Murphy and R. Taylor, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. 4K. Peters and B. McMichael, Florida Department of Natural Resources, personal communication. I 24 onset of cold (<160C) water temperatures (S. Holt and Arnold 1982). Tagging studies have shown that there is very little inter-bay movement of immature red drum in Texas (Simmons and Breuer 1962; Osburn et al. 1982) or Florida (Ingle et al. 1962; Topp 1963). Immature red drum (100 mm-460 mm TO have also been collected in the Gulf surf zone in summer (Gunter 1958; Simmons and Hoese 1959; McFarland 1963; Heffernan 1973), and Gulf-to-bay movement of red drum (203-254 mm TL) in Texas was noted by Simmons (1951). Information on the distribution of juvenile red drum on the Atlantic coast is limited. Postlarval red drum are found over sand and6 mudbottom in North Carolina, around oyster bars in South Carolina, and over muddy bottoms in Florida! In the Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina postlarval red drum accumulated in greater numbers in the upper reaches of creeks, gradually decreasing in densities downstream (Weinstein 1979). Setzler (1977) demonstrated the transport of red drum larvae from 10.5 km offshore to the lower salinity waters at the head of Doboy Sound, Georgia. In that study significantly higher densities of red drum were caught on flood tides than on ebb tides and larvae collected at inshore stations were significantly larger than those from offshore. Mansueti (1960) speculated that red drum larvae are carried passively into Chesapeake Bay by deep sub-surface high density water currents, and at about 5-mm TL move into shallow water (4.5 m). Yokel (1966) stated that juvenile red drum have a more pronounced seasonal pattern of distribution in Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina than in the Gulf of Mexico, moving into deeper areas of estuaries or the sea in the fall and winter. Juveniles (20-90 mm TO were collected throughout Chesapeake Bay from September to November (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; Mansueti 1960). Two juveniles (58 and 66 mm) were collected in November and December in the thermal plume of the Indian River Power Plant, Indian River Bay, Delaware (Wang and Kernehan 1979). Juvenile red drum 15-391 mm TL were collected through December, with young-of-the-year first appearing in September, 1972-1983 in nursery area surveys of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina (Spitsbergen and Wolff 1974; Wolff 1976).8 Schwartz et al. (1981) listed red drum as occurring year-round in the Cape Fear River estuary. Large numbers of young red drum (<8 kg) are occasionally gigged in North Carolina sounds in the winter (Angler gigs 352 puppy drum. 1984). In South Carolina red drum (37-100 mm) have been collected in shallow waters of marsh tidal creeks and in tidal impoundments during September through November (Bearden 5Unpublished data on file at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. 6G. Ulrich, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, South Carolina, personal communication. 7K. Peters, Florida Department of Natural Resources, personal communication. 8Unpublished data on file at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. 25 1967; Smith and Moore 1979). In Georgia red drum were collected by seines in a variety of habitats, including beach, high marsh, tidal canals, and I ow- and high-salinity tidal pools (Dahlberg 1972). Juveniles were usually collected in the shallow shore zones of the Indian River lagoon, Florida (Snelson 1983). 12.2.2.2 Adults Information on the distribution of adult red drum has been obtained from biologists, recreational and commercial fishermen, and menhaden spotter pilots (Yokel 1966; Overstreet 1983). Along the Gulf coast red drum move from the estuaries to the Gulf of Mexico at maturity (>700 mm FL) (Yokel 1966). After spawning some of the adults nay move back into bays for a short time (Miles 1951), but on the whole less time is spent in the estuary after maturity (Pearson 1929; Simmons and Hoese 1959). Large schools of red drum have been observed as far as 19 km offshore (Simmons and Breuer 1962). Overstreet (1983) reported that commercial fishermen have observed schools of 150-250 thousand fish (2-30 million kg) in the Gulf. Schools of red drum (5-15 kg) have been observed feeding along the shoreline of islands or the mainland at depths<1.2 m from low tide through flood tide. The school,s often occur near black drum, Atlantic tarpon, and pompano and are sometimes caught under schools of blue runner at a depth of 37 m (Anonymous 1982a). Ross et al. (1983) captured 16 adult fish (808-1,050 mm TO during late autumn, winter and early spring off Freeport, Texas, 88% of which were captured in March and April at depths of 13-22 m. Schools of red drum have been monitored commonly at depths of approximately 40-70 m (Overstreet 1983). During summer schools of red drum are more spread out than during spring and autumn, occurring all over Mississippi Sound and adjacent regions (Overstreet 1983). Adult red drum migrate seasonally along the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia, moving inshore and north in spring and offshore and south in fall. In Chesapeake Bay red drum are taken from May until October and are most abundant during spring and fall (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). Largest catches of citation red drum (>18 kg) along the Outer Banks of North Carolina are made from late March through May and in October-November.9 Large schools of red drum have been observed in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina during summer."In winter they have been caught off the coast of North Carolina in the trawl fishery (Pearson 1932; Ross et al. 1983) and in trawl surveys at depths of 10-40 mil 9Unpublished North Carolina Saltwater Fishing Tournament data on file at the North Carolina Office of Travel and Tourism, Raleigh, North Carolina. 10 J. Brown, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina, personal communication. llUnpublished data on file at the North Carolina Divison of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. 26 Red drum have been reported off South Carolina in 13-26 m in winter-early spring@' In Georgia red drum > 4 yr are generally found along the beaches and in offshore waters (Music and Pafford 1984). In the Indian River lagoon area of Florida, red drum were reported as common in the benthic-open shelf habitat and frequent in the surf zone, inlets, and lagoon (Gilmore et al. 1981; Snelson 1983). 12.2.3 Determinants of Distribution Red drum are euryhaline, having been reported from fresh water to salinities of 50 ppt on the Gulf coast (Gunter 1942, 1945, 1956, 1959; Kilby 1955; Simmons 1957; Briggs 1958; Springer 1960; Springer and Woodburn 1960; Tabb and Manning 1961; Gunter and Hall 1962; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Perret 1971). Simmons and Breuer (1962) reported that the optimum salinity range for red drum was 20-40 ppt. Red drum were collected on the east coast of Florida at salinities from 0-29.9 ppt (Springer 1960; Tagatz 1967). In North Carolina estuaries red drum (10-391 mm TO were collected over a salinity range of 0-22.3 ppt (Tagatz and Dudley 1961). Yokel (1966) suggested a direct relationship between size and salinity, with juveniles more common at low salinities and large fish preferring higher salinities. This is typical of many species that utilize estuaries as nursery areas (Gunter 1938, 1945). Crocker et al. (1981) evaluated survival and growth of juvenile red drum in fresh and salt water and found that tolerance to fresh water was size dependent. They found 5% survival in larvae (23-day-old, 6.2 mm SL), 70% for postlarvae (34- and 47-day-old, 16.2-19.7 mm SL), and 95% for juveniles (57-day-old, 56.9 mm SL) subjected to dechlorinated fresh water for 96 hours. Survival in control salinities of 10 ppt was 90% or greater. Wakeman and Wohlschlag (1983) studied osmotic adaptation with respect to blood serum osmolality and oxygen uptake in hatchery-reared (1.3-3.8 g) and wild juvenile red drum. The rapid stabilization of both serum osmolalities and standard metabolic rates indicated that red drum are well adapted to natural rapid salinity changes. Red drum have been collected over a temperature range of 2-331C, although they usually move into deeper water at the extremes (Simmons and Breuer 1962). Springer (1960) collected red drum from 2-291C in the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers, Florida. Red drum (10-415 mm FL) were collected in a North Carolina estuary from 7.5-26.80C (Tagatz and Dudley 1961). Gunter (1947) reported that larger juveniles and adults were more susceptible to the effects of winter cold waves than were smaller fish. High red drum mortality in Texas during freezes was documented by Gunter (1941) and Gunter and Hildebrand (1951). Red drum were killed in three out of nine severe cold spells at Sanibel Island, Florida, but the kills were never severe (Storey and Gudger 1936). Red drum were found dead or 12C. Wenner, South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute, Charleston, S.C., personal communication. 27 dying in the power plant intake canal and on-shoals that had iced over in the lower Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina during the severe winters of 1976 and 1977 (Schwartz et al. 1981). 12.3 Life History 12.3.1 Reproduction Size and age of red drum at sexual maturity are not well known and apparently vary in different areas of the range (Pearson 1929; Gunter 1950; Miles 1951; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Yokel 1966; Hein and Shepard in press) (Table 12-2). On the Atlantic coast age and size at maturity was determined for the Mosquito Lagoon area of Florida." Males began maturing at age I+ between 470-530 mm FL, and females first matured between ages II and III when 575-760 mm FL. Music and Pafford (1984) collected a single ripening male (755 mm TL, age 11) in a Georgia study. Fecundity of red drum has been estimated from both laboratory-reared and wild caught fish (Table 12-3). Multiple spawning was reported in laboratory-induced spawning experiments in which three females (9-15 kg) in Texas produced an estimated 6.0 x 107 fertilized eggs in 52 spawns during 76 days (Arnold et al. 1977). In Florida experiments four females (1.68-7.95 kg) produced 8.43 x 10' 6eggs during 90 days and eight females (1.68-7.95 kg) produced 4.41 x 10 e?gs over 100 days (Roberts, Harpster, and Henderson 1978). Overstreet 1983) presented a standard length-fecundity relationship for 22 red drum (294-800 mm SQ in Mississippi as: Log F = 3.6976 + 0.0050 SL (r = 0.9539), where F is the number of oocytes 16-300P m. The maximum estimated numbers of oocytes (16-30p m) for a 785 mm SL (894 mm TQ red drum in March in that study was 6.20 x 10 7 (volumetric displacement method) and 9.45 X 107 (gravimetric method). These may be overestimates because red drum are firesting" in March and reserve oocytes cannot be distinguished from recruit oocytes. Furthermore, Overstreet (1983) stated that vitellogenesis occurred in oocytes as small as 70p m but was typically more apparent in those 100 pm. In the Gulf of Mexico red drum spawn from August to mid-November with a peak in September or October (Pearson 1929; Miles 1951 ; Springer and Woodburn 1960; Yokel 1966; Christmas and Waller 1973; Sabins and Truesdale 1974; Stuck and Perry 1982; Hein and Shepard in press). Jannke (1971) reported that spawning in southwestern Florida occurred from mid-September through mid-February, peaking in October. Collections of larvae and juveniles indicate that spawning along the Atlantic coast may begin in July or possibly earlier,"and continue through December with a peak in late September or October (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; Mansueti 1960; Tagatz and Dudley 1961; Yokel 1966; 13 M. Murphy and R. Taylor. Paper presented to the Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Brooksville, Florida, February 8-9, 1983. 14 Unpublished data, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C. M co Table 12-2. Reported size and/or age at maturity for red drum. Location Reference Size Age Texas Pearson (1929) 750-810 mm TL 4 or 5 South Texas Gunter (1950) 406-432 mm TL Texas Miles (1951) 750 mm 4 Texas Simmons and Breuer (1962) 700-800 mm SL 3 or 4 Louisiana Hein and Shepard (in press) 851 mm TL (females) 780 mm TL (males) Mississippi Overstreet (1983) 550-699 mm SL Southwest Florida Gunter (1950) 380 mm TL Southwest Florida Yokel (1966) 630 mm FL Tampa Bay, Florida (1) 430-490 mm FL (males) 1+ 610-670 mm FL (females) 2-3 Mosquito Lagoon area, (1) 470-530 mm FL (males) 1+ Florida 575-760 mm FL (females) 2-3 1M. Murphy and R. Taylor. Paper presented to Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Brooksville, Florida. Febuary 8-9, 1983. Table 12-3. Published fecundity estimates for red drum. Number Reference State Environment Size of eggs Comments Pearson (1929) Texas wild 90 cm TL 3.4 x 10 6 Determined by volume and weight methods. Miles (1950) Texas wild 750-825 mm 2.5 x 10 6 "Granular stage" of (age 5) development. Colura (1974) Texas laboratory 26 lb 2.9 x 10 6 Second natural spawn; estimate was probably high because of investigator's inability to get an even distribution of eggs in aliquot samples. Arnold et al. Texas laboratory 3 fish 6.0 x 10 7 Fish were subjected to (1977) (9-15 kg) photoperiod and temperature regimes; produced in 52 spawns during 76 days. Roberts, Harpster, Florida laboratory 2.1 x 10 6 Natural spawn after con- and Henderson ditioning; 4 females@ (1978) produced 8.4 x 106 embryos during a 90-day period. Overstreet Mississippi wild 9,776.7 g 15.8 x 10 6 Based on number of eggs (1983) >16P m by volumetric dis- placement method. N) ko 30 Williams and Deubler 1968; Mahood et al. 1974; Spitsbergen and Wolff 1974; Wolff 1976; Weinstein 1979) (Table 12-4). Yokel (1966) suggested that spawning may also-occur in spring on the Florida east coast, based on reports from anglers, commercial fishermen, and juvenile collections. However, a study of the annual cycle of oocyte development and gonadosomatic indices for red drum from east-central Florida found a discrete sgwning season during September and October.15 Collections of juveniles 35-55 mm FL) in western Pamlico Sound, North Carolina in July (Spitsbergen and Wolff 1974) (Table 12-4) suggest a late winter or spring spawning in North Carolina. Red drum spawning has been induced in culture systems by manipulating temperature and photoperiod combinations to simulate optimal conditions or seasonal variations. Spawning occurred under full-winter conditions (9 hr light and 15 hr dark, 22-23'C) after a 7 month recycling through the four seasons (Arnold et al. 1977). Roberts, Harpster, and Henderson (1978) obtained successful spawning at 10 hr 15 min light and 22-26'C after three differing regimes of photoperiod and temperature. Holt, Godbout, and Arnold 1981) reported that red drum stopped spawning in the laboratory when the temperature dropped below 20'C. Spawning in the laboratory occurred around dusk and was preceded by color changes in the males, drumming, and nudging. Males became dark red to bluish-gray on the dorsum above the lateral line and pale white on the ventrum, while females retained their characteristic reddish color. Drumming began around dusk and males swam near females and began nudging them near their urogenital opening. Nudging and drumming reached a peak and were followed by the release of eggs and milt. Sound production resumed but decreased after spawning (Chapman 1967; Arnold et al. 1977; Guest and Lasswell 1978; Roberts, Harpster, and Henderson 1978; Holt, Holt, and Arnold 1983). Smith (1907) reported that only males drum. Red drum eggs were described from laboratory spawnings by Johnson et al. (1977) and Holt, Godbout, and Arnold (1981). Vetter et al. (1983) investigated energy metabolism in red drum eggs. Holt, Godbout, and Arnold (1981) reported that laboratory-reared red drum eggs developed successfully to feeding larvae at salinities of 10-40 ppt at 25'C, and best conditions for hatching were 30 ppt salinity and 250C. 12.3.2 Pre-adult Phase Red drum larvae were described by Pearson (1929), Jannke (1971), Lippson and Moran (1974), Johnson et al. (1977), Powles and Stender (1978), and Holt, Johnson et al. (1981). Hatching in the laboratory occurred in 19-20 hr after fertilization at 24% (Arnold et al. 1977) and about 28-29 hr at 22-230C (Holt, Johnson et al. 1981). Length at hatching was 1.71-1.79 mm SL (Holt, Johnson et 15 R. Taylor, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. Table 12-4. Size distribution (mm TO of young-of-the-year red drum by month from Atlantic coast estuaries. Author Mansueti Hildebrand and Tagatz and Spitsbergen and Wolff Weinstein (1979) Mahood et al. (1960) Schroeder (1928) Dudley (1961) (1974), Wolff (1976)1 (1974) Locality Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Neuse River, Pamlico Sound and Cape Fear River, Georgia Bay N.C. tributaries, N.C. N.C. Period 1953-1960 1921 1957-1960 1972-1975 1970-1973 1979-1983 January - - - - February - - - - - - March - - 47 45-88 - 92 April - - 57-76 75-145 - 105 May - - - 80-165 - 164 June - - 95-225 July - 165-225 - 35-245 - August - - 80-85 230-330 13-15 September 20-60 20-52 27-62 12-390 5-30 - October 20-75 25-53 10-85 15-335 12-40 34 November 30-84 39-90 25-71 15-75 23-47 57 December - - 34-37 55-95 23-48 - lUnpublished data, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C. 32 al. 1981). The best conditions for 24-hr larval survival were 30 ppt salinity and 25'C and the survival rate of 2-wk-old larvae was reduced at 20% (Holt, Godbout and Arnold 1981). Survival rates were greatly increased when larvae were maintained at 25% through the yolk-sac stage and first feeding (3 days) before being exposed to 20*C (J. Holt and Arnold 1982). Length of the yolk-sac stage varied from 40 hr at 30% to 84 hr at 200C (Holt, Johnson et al. 1981). Johnson et al. (1977) reported that red drum larvae began feeding at 60 hr post-hatch (23-25'C). Survival was greater for those larvae offered food on day 3 (14.0%) as compared to day 2 (3.5%) or day 4 (4.0%) (Roberts, Morey et al. 1978). 12.3.3 Adult Phase Maximum age for red drum has not been determined because of problems with age determination techniques. A maximum age estimate of 33 years for red drum on the east coast of Florida was based on interpretation of banding patterns on otolith sections.16 However, only the first three bands were adequately validated as annual marks. The maximum known time at liberty shown by ta?ging is 12 years for a fish tagged at 300 mm and recovered at 18 kg Simmons and Breuer 1976). The IGFA record is a 40.8 kg fish (Anonymous 1983a) which indicates that red drum longevity is probably greater than 12 years. Parasites, diseases, mortalities, and abnormal conditions of red drum were reviewed by Yokel (1966), Perret et al. (1980), and Overstreet (1983). 12.3.4 Nutrition and Growth Crustaceans (crabs and shrimp) and fishes are most important in the diet of red drum in the Gulf of Mexico (Pearson 1929; Gunter 1945; Kemp 1949; Miles 1950, 1951; Knapp 1950; Reid 1955; Darnell 1958, 1961; Inglis 1959; Springer and Woodburn 1960; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Yokel 1966; Fontenot and Rogillio 1970; Boothby and Avault 1971; Bass and Avault 1975; Odum and Heald 1975; Rogillio 1975; Overstreet and Heard 1978; Matlock and Garcia 1983) and, on the Atlantic Coast (Linton 1905; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; Overstreet and Heard 1978). Large red drum (430-1,020 mm SL) collected off the beach at Sapelo Island, Georgia, fed heavily during summer on echinoderms (five-lunuled sand dollars and sea cucumbers), in addition to crabs and fishes (Overstreet and Heard 1978). A preliminary study of red drum ( 3.6-4.5 kg) feeding habits in the Hatteras -Ocracoke area of North Carolina indicated that primary food items were blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) and various fishes including striped mullet (Muqil cepha]Fus-T-,spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), pinfish (Lagodo rhomboid-e@ and pigfish (Orthopristis- cTr-ysoptera). 17 16 M. Murphy, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. 17 W. Foster. 1970. Life history aspects of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Progress Report to Sport Fishery Research Foundation. 33 Changes in food habits with size have been noted. Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) examined the stomach contents of 15 red drum from Chesapeake Bay (30-1,075 mm) and reported that the small fish fed principally on Gammarus and Mysis and the larger ones on shrimp. Bass and Avault (19-M reported that fish <15 mm SL fed primarily on zooplankton, fish 15-75 mm SL fed mostly..on small bottom invertebrates and young of other fish, and fish >75 mm SL ate decapods (crabs and shrimp) and fishes. Inglis (1959) examined fish 30-100 mm and found that about 80% contained fish and 10% contained amphipods. Overstreet and Heard (1978) found that penaeid and palaemonid shrimps occurred in a higher percentage of fish <500 mm SL, whereas blue crabs, the stomatopod Squilla emDUsa, and fishes were most important in larger fish. Yokel (f966) als8 found that red drum ate proportionately more crabs as they grew larger, with fish diminishing in importance as food for the largest red drum. Dietary items indicate that red drum feed over sandy to muddy bottoms from both shallow and moderately deep water. Grassbeds are also an important feeding area for preadult red drum. Most feeding takes place in the early morning or evening. Red drum have been observed "tailing" in shallow marsh areas, rooting about with heads lowered and tails occasionally out of water (Yokel 1966; Overstreet and Heard 1978). Growth rates have been reported for red drum in the laboratory (Arnold et al. 1977; Roberts, Morey et al. 1978; Holt, Godbout and Arnold 1981; Lee et al. 1984), in ponds and raceways (Luebke and Strawn 1973; Colura et al. 1976; Trimble 1979; Hein and Shepard 1980; McKee 1980; Crocker et al. 1981; Hysmith et al. 1982), and in the wild (Matlock and Weaver 1979; Perret et al. 1980; Goodrich and Matlock 1983) and were summarized in Swingle et al. (1984) (Table 12-5). Growth rate estimates for larvae and juveniles range from 0.04-1.7 mm1day. However, the reliability and precision of some estimates are questionable due to small sample sizes, inadequate procedural detail, and absent, incomplete, or inappropriate statistical analyses. The general growth pattern indicated by the reliable estimates is sigmoidal (Swingle et al. 1984). Egg diameter is I mm at spawning, and larvae are 2 mm at hatching and grow 0.5 mm before yolk-sac depletion (Johnson et al. 1977). Larvae grow 0.2-0.5 mm/day, juveniles 0.7-1.7 mm/day, and adults 0.5 mm1day (Swingle et al. 1984). 12.3.5 Behavior Red drum migrate seasonally along the Atlantic coast (Yokel 1966). Reports from fishermen and menhaden spotter pilots indicate that red drum typically arrive at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina between March and April, some entering Pamlico Sound and others proceeding up the coast. Red drum are expected about a week later at Oregon Inlet (40 miles north of Cape Hatteras) and three weeks to a month later in Virginia, some entering Chesapeake Bay. Apparently in times of high abundance and proper environmental conditions, red drum averaging 13-14 kg were present along the New Jersey coast in summer (May to October) (Welsh and Breder 1923). Red drum leave Virginia in most years by October and fall fishing alon the North Carolina coast starts in August and usually ends in November ?Yokel 1966). A preliminary tagging study in Pamlico Sound Table 12-5. Published red drum growth rates (where necessary, standard lengths, converted to total lengths using Harrington et al. (1979); blanks indicate no estimates given) [from Swingle et al. 1983]. State Length of Initial and Growing growing size Temperature Salinity Growth rate Environment reference period (days) or age (0/0 /00) (mm TL/day) Comments Laboratory Florida Not given 15+ Embryo 23 30 0.36 Found no significant Roberts, Morey, influence of stocking et al. (1978) density (2, 10, and 20 embryos/liter) and food density (1,5, and 10 rotifers/ml) on larval growth using two-way analysis of variance. Laboratory Texas Not given 14 Embryo 20 15-30 0.24 Found no significant Holt, Godbout, 25 15-30 0.34 influence of temperature but and Arnold 30 15-30 0.46 did find significant influ- (1981) ence of salinity on larval growth using two-way analysis of variance. Laboratory Texas Not given 570 44 mm TL 0.70- Growth was 1.14 mm/day in Arnold et al. 1.14 first 180 days and 0.70 (1977) mm/day in last 390 days; no other details given. Laboratory Texas Not given 15 Larvae 24 30 17.74pg/day Two growth periods; one Lee et al. 28 30 30.25pg/day extending from hatching (1984) through depletion of yolk sac, and other beginning at onset of active feeding. Growth in length and weight was significantly greater at 280C than at 240C. Table 12-5. (continued) State Length of Initial and Growing growing size Tem erature Salinity Growth rate Comments Environment reference period (days) or age 0/0 /00) (mm TL/day) Raceways Texas July-August 30 72 mm TL 35�2 1.7 Analysis of covariance used Crocker et al. 1979 0 1.3 to test for differences in (1981) growth between salinities, but variance homogeneity assumption apparently vio- lated; conclusion of sig- nificant difference is questionable but growth rate exceeded 1.0 mm/day regard- less; 93% survival in both treatments. Ponds Alabama Oct. 1976- 136-946 2 days Not given, Disease problems rampant; Trimble (1979) May 1979 presented data not statistically weight analyzed; incomplete detail data only on procedures used to esti- mate size at stocking, sampling techniques, and growth in weight estimates. Ponds Louisiana Oct. 1978- 79 17-42 mm TL 19 0.92 Based on 86 fish; a total Hein and Jan. 1979 (avg) die off occurred due to cold Shepard temperature and low water (1980) level. Ponds Texas Aug.-Nov., 27-37 2-6 days 1.02-1.66 No adjustments for stocking Colura et al. 1975 rate variations (156,000 - (1976) 880,000 larvae/ha); stocking rate estimating procedures not given; estimating proce- dures for mean size at stocking or harvest not given; survival in ponds very low (<10%); few details given. W Ln Table 12-5. (continued) State Length of Initial and Growing rowing size Tem erature Sa@inity Growth rate Environment reference period ?days) or age O/C) /00) (mm TL/day) Comments Ponds Texas 8 June - 151 272-295 mm TL 0.76-0.85 Estimating procedure not (received Luebke and 6 Nov., 1972 clearly defined; only 13% heated power Strawn (1973) mortality. plant effluent) Ponds Texas 7 Nov., 108-173 41 mm TL 0.66�0.04 No significant influence Hysmith et al. 1975 - (Fed) of stocking density on (1982) 28 April, 0.35�0 06 growth; significantly higher (Unfedi growth in fish fed artificial diet than in those not fed; no indication of reduced growth in winter; few details on sampling techniques. Power plant Texas Nov. 1975- Not given 366-837 0.49�0.05 Based on 27 recaptured cooling lake McKee (1980) Nov. 1977 mm TL tagged fish; growth rate (Y) decreased significantly with increased size at tagging, according to Y = 0.75925 - 0.00246 X (X = SL mm at tagging). Wild Florida 1961-1965 Not 282-655 mm 0.04-0.66 Data from 12 recaptured Perret et al. applicable tagged fish published by (1980) TL Ingle et al. (1962), Topp (1962), Beaumariage (1964). and Beaumariage and Wittich (1966). Table 12-5. (continued) State Length of Initial and Growing rowing size Tem erature Salinity Growth rate Environment reference period ?days) or age @O/C) (0/oo) (mm TL/day) Comments Wild Texas Nov. 1975- Not 275-815 mm 0.43�0.08 Based on 110 recaptured Matlock and Sep, 1976 applicable tagged fish from Texas bays; Weaver (1979) TL no significant difference in growth among bays; no apparent change in growth with increased size at tagging but no statistical analyses conducted; data obtained from fishermen. Wild Texas June 1979 350 41 mm TL 1.03�0.05 Based on 48 recaptured Goodrich and May 1980 stocked fish from St. Matlock (1983) Charles Bay; artificiallly reared juveniles stocked out of phase with wild fish so identifiable by size; fish grew through two summers in first year so growth rate should be greater than wild fish. 38 and along the Outer Banks, North Carolina indicated movement of some red drum (337-447 mm TL) out of the sounds and south along the beaches@' In a tagging study of red drum (251-600 mm TL) in Georgia, 88.6% (70 fish) of the recoveries were within 25 km of the tagging sites. Five percent (4 fish) exhibited an average northward movement of 112.5 km and 5% (5 fish) exhibited an average southward movement of 112.2 km (Pafford 1981; Music and Pafford 1984). Beaumariage (1969)reported that 91.2% of the red drum recovered during five Schlitz tagging programs in Florida did not move significantly from their release locations. Tagging studies in Gulf of Mexico estuaries have indicated little movement of subadult red drum. More than 85% of the recaptured red drum from tagging studies in Florida bays moved 10 km from the tagging site (Ingle et al. 1962; Topp 1963; Beaumariage and Wittich 1966; Beaumariage 1969). Simmons and Breuer (1962) reported little intrabay movement of red drum from Aransas Bay, Texas southward. Other Texas tagging studies have indicated broad random movements within bays (Heffernan 1973) with little movement out of bays in which tagged (Osburn et al. 1982). Some movement from the bays to the Gulf along the Texas coast has been noted in fall, with a return in spring (Pearson 1929; Gunter 1945; Miles 1950). Immature red drum have been caught in the Gulf surf zone (Simmons and Hoese 1959; Heffernan 1973) which indicates that not all juveniles enter, or remain in, the bay nursery grounds. Red drum tagged in inshore waters of Louisiana and Mississippi were recaptured inshore (Adkins et al. 1979; Overstreet 1983). A Mississippi tagging study (Overstreet 1983) and observations by commercial fishermen and menhaden spotter pilots suggest that after leaving the estuaries large red drum undertake extensive migrations in the Gulf of Mexico. There appears to be a general migration along the Gulf coast from off Alabama in April toward the Breton Island and Cameron areas of Louisiana, and by September or October the schools disappear offshore, presumably to spawn. A few spent fish appear along the beaches in October and November. An individual 810 mm SL long, migrated 778 km westward after 752 days and 769 mm SL long fish moved eastward at least 316 km within 399 days (Overstreet 1983). The longest reported migration in the Gulf of Mexico was from Texas to Tampa Bay (Simmons and Breuer 1976). Carr and Chaney (1976) traced movements of a red drum with an ultrasonic transmitter attached to its caudal peduncle, in the Intracoastal Waterway in Florida. All movement, both north and south, was against the tidal flow, and the fish entered numerous side creeks and moved into a deep hole in a creek at nightfall. 12.3.6 Contaminants Red drum were included in a survey of trace elements in fishery resources (Hall et al. 1978). Muscle and. liver tissue from red drum 18 J. Ross, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Manteo, N.C., personal communication. 39 from the North and South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were analyzed for the occurrence of 15 elements. No interpretative comments were provided. Trace metal poisoning was indicated as the possible cause of death of a group of approximately 100 large (7-18 kg) red drum in the Indian River System, Florida between June 14 and July 2, 1980. High levels of copper, zinc, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, and mercury were found in the liver and/or gills, and lesions in the gills resembled those from fish subjected to experimental copper poisoning (Cardeilnac et al. 1981). Commercial fishermen report that large kills of red drum have occurred several times in this area.19 A survey of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in selected finfish species determined that the mean level of PCBs in five red drum from Texas was 0.03 ppm (range: 0.02-0.04 ppm). This level is far below existing (5 ppm) or proposed (2 ppm) maximum permissible levels in foodfish (Gadbois and Maney 1983). Rabalais et al. (1981) investigated the effects of oil on red drum eggs and larvae from an oil spill in the Bay of Campeche which reached the south Texas coast. High larval mortality resulted when larvae were placed in mixtures of oil and water. When eggs were placed in oil -contaminated water from Port Aransas jetties, over half of the hatched larvae had skeletal anomalies. 12.4 Population 12.4.1 Structure The age/size structure of red drum populations is largely unknown. Length-at-age estimates for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast vary considerably (Tables 12-6 and 12-7) and some are probably overestimates because of failure to consider time of annulus formation, gear selection bias, recaptured tagged fish size data reliability, small sample sizes, and unverified age determination techniques (Swingle et al. 1984). Length frequency, scale, and otolith techniques have been used to age red drum (Pearson 1929; Gunter 1945; Miles 1950, 1951; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Theiling and Loyacano 1976; Rohr 1980; Wakefield and Colura 1983; Music and Pafford 1984). The length frequency method is generally only useful for the first few years of life. Problems with using scales and otoliths to age red drum include circuli disconformities, closely spaced annuli, and intermittent summer and winter annuli on scales, and spawning checks on otoliths, particularly for fish older than age III or IV (Rohr 1980; Music and Pafford 1984). Mean empirical lengths and back-calculated lengths for red drum from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida ageing studies are presented in Table 12-7. The sizes shown are sizes at the annulus, not at the birthdate. A Florida study validated the first three rings on otoliths 19 R. Williams. Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. 4@" Table 12-6. Published total length-at-age estimates for red drum. (Where necessary, standard lengths converted to CD total lengths using TL = 12.870 + 1.177 SL (Harrington, et al. 1979); blanks indicate no estimates given) [modified from Swingle et al. (1983)]. Age AGE - YEARS determination Location Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 method Fernandina, Fla. Welsh and 390- Breder (1923) 590 Scales Chandeleur Rohr (1980) 363 545 670 757 816 858 886 906 Otoliths and Mississippi Sounds, La. Central coast, Tex. Pearson (1929) 300 530 630 750 840 Length frequency Central coast, Tex. Pearson (1929) 420 520 720 780 830 Scales Laguna Madre, Tex. Pearson (1929) 350 540 640 740 Length frequency Aransas Bay, Tex. Miles (1950) 395 Length frequency Aransas Bay, Tex. Miles (1951) 390- 601 660- 875 925 975- 435 710 1,000 Otoliths Upper Laguna Simmons and 325 Length frequency Madre, Tex. Breuer (1962) Central coast, Tex. Simons and 540 760 Tag recapture Breuer (1962) Galveston Bay, Tex Wakefield and 274 453 571 650 Scales Colura (1983) Matagorda Bay, Tex. Wakefield and 252 409 548 634 694 Scales Colura (1983) Lower Laguna Wakefield and 290 462 565 Scales Madre, Tex. Colura (1983) Table 12-7. Empirical and back calculated total lengths for red drum collected in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Annuli Location Reference Method Sex 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Theiling and otoliths Combined Carolina Loyacano (1976) *Mea--n7ength at capture 585 731 825 849 891 849 Number 15 11 3 3 26 1 Georgia Music and Pafford scales Combined (1984) Mean-length at capture 474 718 776 Back calculated length 403 653 746 Number 24 8 1 Males Mean length at capture 475 711 776 Back calculated lenqth 435 656 746 Number 9 5 1 Females Mean Te-ngth at capture 541 731 Back calculated length 412 645 Number 12 3 Florida 1 otoliths Combined East Coast +UacV caTculated length 436 606 695 746 Number 328 153 34 8 *SL converted to TL by TL 12.870 + 1.177 SL (Harrington et al. 1979) +Fork length 1M. Murphy, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. 42 as annual rings. The first annulus forms at 14-17 months, and then annually for at least the next two years. The regression of fork length on otolith radius was not linear when all age groups were included, but was linear for fish with four or fewer annuli. For older fish the rate of increase in fork length per unit increase in otolith radius declined. The fork length (FL) - otolith radius (OR) relation 2for fish with four or fewer annuli was: FL = 26.54 + 311.65 OR (mm) (r = 0.8475W Back-calculated lengths for red drum in Florida were similar to Georgia fish at first annulus, but smaller at successive annuli. The sample size in the Georgia study was small (33 fish) and the method of age determination was not validated. Lengths presented by Theiling and Loyacano (1976) for 62 red drum confined to a saltwater marsh impoundment in South Carolina were mean lengths at capture and therefore were greater than back-calculated lengths. The ageing method was not validated in that study. Bearden (1967) reported that red drum impounded in a brackish water pond in South Carolina averaged 368 mm at age 1, 521 mm at age II, and 660 mm at age III, but the method of age determination was not reported. A major research need for red drum is the development of a uniform method of age determination throughout the range. Von Bertalanffy growth equation parameters were estimated for red drum in South Carolina (Swingle et al. 1984), Florida,21 Louisiana (Rohr 1980), and Texas (Swingle et al. 1984; Wakefield and Colura 1983) (Table 12-8). Swingle et al. (1984) based their estimates for South Carolina and Texas on data from Theiling and Loyacano (1976) and Pearson (1929), respectively, using Rafail's (1973) technique. Numerous equations for the red drum length-weight relationship have been published for the Gulf (Boothby and Avault 1971; Luebke and Strawn 1973; Bass and Avault 1975; Harrington et al. 1979; Hein et al. 1980; McKee 1980; Overstreet 1983) and Atlantic coasts (Theiling and Loyacano 1976; Music and Pafford 1984) (Table 12-9). Differences in the regression coefficients may be due to sample sizes, length ranges, maturity, and time of sampling. Perret et al. (1980) concluded that the length-weight relationships of Boothby and Avault (1971), Luebke and Strawn (1973), Theiling and Loyacano (1976), Harrington et al. (1979) were similar although no statistical analysis was conducted. 12.4.2 Abundance, Density, Mortality, and Dynamics Commercial landings data have been collected from fish dealers in each state since 1880; from 1880 to 1927, the survey was conducted at approximately five year intervals; from 1927 to 1956, annual surveys were conducted; and since 1956, data has been collected on a monthly basis. It should be noted that commercial statistics, when biased, tend to be underestimated, due to failures in reporting which are inherent in 20, 21 M. Murphy, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, personal communication. Table 12-8. Estimates of von Bertalanffy growth parameters for red drum. Area Source L. (mm TQ K t0 South Carolina Swingle et al. 945 0.449 -0.324 (impounded marsh) (1984)1 Florida (2) 1,043 0.42 -0.149 (Mosquito Lagoon/ Upper Indian River) Florida (2) 993 0.46 0.029 (Tampa Bay area) Louisiana Rohr (1980) 950 0.37 -0.33 (Chandeleur and Mississippi Sounds) Texas Swingle et al. 1,068 0.295 0.144 (1984 3 Texas Wakefield and Colura 717 0.52 -0.01 (Lower Laguna Madre) (1983) (Matagorda Bay) 835 0.35 -0.02 (Galveston Bay) 804 0.41 -0.01 1Based on data from Theiling and Loyacano (1976). 2M. Murphy and R. Taylor, Florida Department of Natural Resources, personal communication. 3Based on data from Pearson (1929). Table 12-9. Published standard length-weight relationships for red drum [Music and Pafford (1984) and Harrington et al. (1979) are total length-weight relationships]. Weight is in g and length in mm, except cm for Theiling and Loyancano (1976). [from Swingle et al. (1983)]. Calculated weight (g) Length of 200 mm State Area Reference N range Log a b SL fish South Carolina Marsh Impoundment Theiling and Loyacano 54 Not given -1.29596 2.7403 186 (1976) Georgia Estuaries Music and Pafford (1984) 103 32-1099 -4.220 2.722 ill Mississippi Mississippi Sound Overstreet (1983) 480 143-965 -4.7358 3.0053 151 Louisiana Coastal marsh Boothby and Avault 286 240-940 -4.42161 2.83284 125, near Hopedale (1971) Louisiana Salt marsh near Bass and Avault 568 8-183 -7.2052 4.1913 275 Caminada Pass (1975) Louisiana Southeastern Hein et al. (1980) 308 14-1135 -5.1197 3.0523 80 coast Louisiana Bays and gulf McKee (1980) 23 483-921 -3.435 2.54 257 Texas Heated ponds in Luebke and 47 283-411 -4.69 2.97 139 Galveston Bay Strawn (1973) system Texas Cooling lake near McKee (1980) 30 319-720 -3.939 2.71 198 Corpus Christi; at tagging Texas Bays and gulf McKee (1980) 45 312-885 -4.058 2.75 186 Texas Nine bays Harrington et al. 8319 49-814 -5.085 3.041 158 (1979) 45 their collection. Landings data may -reflect changes in effort and market preferences and are not necessarily indicative of trends in stock abundance. Atlantic coast landings of red drum have always been lower than Gulf of Mexico landings (Figure 12-2). The highest recorded landings for the Atlantic coast were 788 mt in 1945, compared with 1,594 mt in the Gulf of Mexico for the same year. The highest reported landings in the Gulf were 2,410 mt in 1976. Highest landings on the Atlantic coast in recent years occurred in 1980 (200 mt). Landings of red drum at the northern extreme of the range have declined since the 1930s (Table 12-10). No red drum landings have been reported for New York since 1942. A total of 93 mt of red drum were landed in New Jersey from 1926 through 1935, while only 21 mt were caught in the decade ending in 1945. Since 1945 there has been only one commercial landing of red drum (<l mt) in New Jersey in 1951. Similar declines in landings have apparently taken place along the coast to the south of New Jersey with the exception of the east coast of Florida (Table 12-10) (Figure 12-3). Delaware annual landings have never exceeded I rat and were recorded for only six years between 1926 and 1978. Maryland red drum landings have never exceeded 7 mt and only sporadic landings (<l mt) have been recorded since 1959. Virginia landings were highest in 1950 (83 mt) and did not exceed 9 mt over the past 20 years, except in 1965 (42 mt) and 1983 (22 mt). Red drum landings in South Carolina and Georgia have fluctuated widely and parallel each other. Highest landings in South Carolina viere from 1887 to 1908 (23-50 mt), 1936 to 1940 (38-54 mt), and 1950 to 1956 (5-52 mt). South Carolina landings of red drum ranged from < 1-6 mt from 1969 to 1982. Georgia landings ranged from 9-69 mt between 1887 and 1908, 5-23 mt from 1936 to 1940, 1-9 mt from 1950 to 1956, and <1-5 mt from 1966 to 1982. Florida and North Carolina contribute the most to east coast landings'of red drum. North Carolina landings were highest in 1938 (241 mt) and have fluctuated between 2 and 129 mt since 1950. Florida landings peaked at 642 mt in 1945 and have not fluctuated greatly since 1950, ranging from 37-118 mt through 1983. Recreational fishery statistics are available from National Marine Fisheries Service salt-water angling surveys conducted at five-year intervals from 1960-1970 (Clark 1962; Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973), regional surveys in 1974 and 1975, and annual surveys since 1979 (Anonymous 1980; Anonymous 1984). Caution should be exercised in interpreting or comparing the results of these surveys (Anonymous 1980). First, estimated catches in the 1960-1970 national surveys and 1974-1975 regional surveys are subject to considerable statistical variability. Second, although the sampling procedures were similar for the 1960-1970 surveys, they were considerably different from the 1974-1975 sampling procedures. In addition, all of these surveys relied on the fisherman's ability to identify the species caught and to recall the numbers and average weight of each species caught, resulting in overestimates of the catch. The magnitude of the overestimation is not known. The sampling design of the 1979-present surveys is significantly different from previous surveys, including both a household survey and creel census. 46 Table 12-10. Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico landings of red drum (metric tons) from Fisheries Statistics of the U. S., Various Issues, NMFS. Flor-iTa - New New North North East Year York Jersey Delaware Maryland Virginia Carolina Carolina Georgia Coast Total 1887 - - - - - 59 25 9 93 1888 - - - - - 64 23 10 - 97 1889 - - - - - 234 41 15 78 368 1890 - - - - - 99 40 18 78 235 1897 - - - - - 81 50 11 107 249 1902 - - - - - 65 46 16 52 179 1908 - - - - - 156 49 69 371 645 1918 - - - - - 45 1 168 214 1923 - - - - - ill 14 55 181 1925 - - - 2 57 - - 59 1926 6 1 - - - - - 8 1927 - - - 45 3 74 123 1928 - - - - - 108 2 3 92 205 1929 - 12 1 1 4 89 5 2 98 212 1930 - 29 1 7 16 66 4 2 39 163 1931 - 2 - 5 10 39 1 2 52 ill 1932 - 22 6 11 39 1 1 21 101 1933 - 4 3 23 - - - - 31 1934 - - 3 24 60 2 1 65 155 1935 - 18 2 16 - - - - 36 1936 - - - 2 15 114 47 23 106 307 1937 5 - 1 20 200 54 17 37 334 1938 2 - 1 61 241 47 12 50 414 1939 2 - 2 33 172 38 9 79 335 1940 1 - 1 30 61 39 5 84 221 1941 - - 1 18 - - - - 19 1942 7 - 1 7 - - is 1943 - 2 - - - - - 2 1944 - - 1 15 - - - - 16 1945 - 1 - 16 102 22 5 642 788 1946 - - - 11 - - - - 11 1947 - - - 38 - - - - 38 1948 - - - 16 - - - - 16 1949 - - - 35 - - - - 35 1950 - - - 1 83 91 15 9 86 285 1951 - - 2 34 83 52 9 60 240 1952 - - 1 - 21 101 31 6 52 212 1953 - - - 9 129 25 6 58 227 1954 - - - 2 18 121 5 6 63 215 1955 - - - - 17 61 30 4 44 155 1956 - - - 9 14 26 1 48 98 1957 - - - - 11' 63 - 49 123 1958 - - - 1 16 8 - 46 71 1959 - - - 15 2 - 59 76 1960 - - - 13 36 59 108 1961 - - - - 5 41 52 99 1962 - - - - 3 28 - 68 99 1963 - - - - 1 32 - - 61 94 1964 - - - - 2 46 5 - 54 107 1965 - - - - 42 32 - - 66 140 1966 - - - 1 16 1 69 88 1967 - - - 6 73 80 1968 - - - 5 2 75 82 1969 - - - 2 1 54 58 1970 - - - - 3 67 71 1971 - - - - 8 1 1 37 47 1972 - - - - 3 20 1 1 58 83 1973 - - - - 3 32 1 76 112 1974 - - - - 7 64 1 1 62 105 1975 - - - 9 97 6 5 38 155 1976 - - - 8 76 1 3 48 136 1977 - - 9 2 47 59 1978 - - 1 10 2 48 61 1979 - - - 1 58 1 43 102 1980 - - - 110 2 1 87 200 1981 - - - 42 118 161 1982 - - - 1 24 1 63 89 1983 - - - 22 100 1 45 168 -Not reported *Less than 1 metric ton +Includes black drum 47 Table 12-10. (Continued) Florida West Year Coast Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total 1887 - 64 131 456 657 1888 25 - 75 131 429 660 1889 178 29 84 143 483 916 1890 208 25 91 154 503 981 1897 107 97 90 211 519 1,025 1902 501 32 42 201 408 1,184 1908 276 69 ill 325 594 .1,375 1918 452 10 .53 257 607 1,379 1923 635 7 80 302 399 1,422 1925 - - - 1926 - - - - 1927 352 25 108 252 567 1,304 1928 404 22 94 197 468 1,185 1929 450 48 59 202 424 1,183 1930 425 47 55 152 396 1,076 1931 424 28 45 168 392 1,057 1932 326 20 34 128 375 883 1933 - - - - 1934 396 30 33 223 7171 1,399 1935 - - - - 1936 421 is 40 158 434 1,068 1937 430 30 56 204 433 1,154 1938 459 is 48 237 390 1,150 1939 412 14 75 315 213 1,030 1940 294 12 25 83 120 534 1941 - - - - 1942 - - - - 1943 - - - - 1944 - - - - 1945 587 118 30 270 589 1,594 1946 - - - - - 1947 - - - - 1948 71 25 115 282 493 1949 758 51 35 218 236 1,298 1950 428 7 24 207 257 923 1951 417 20 14 174 108 733 1952 293 25 19 149 114 600 1953 239 21 28 124 232 644 1954 341 9 28 123 327 828 1955 342 9 26 156 224 757 1956 346 22 32 185 291 877 1957 303 5 25 160 229 721 1958 285 9 30 222 272 816 1959 314 8 32 222 437 1,013 1960 371 4 18 194 320 907 1961 385 11 24 302 280 1,002 1962 593 6 35 257 317 1,209 1963 439 9 27 212 311 998 1964 317 9 23 142 203 693 1965 364 2 15 214 242 836 1966 293 3 17 242 362 916 1967 225 4 44 297 349 918 1968 321 7 98 336 420 1,182 1969 266 23 45 355 493 1,181 1970 303 16 32 358 720 1,429 1971 321 15 27 329 904 1,595 1972 383 35 25 404 666 1,513 1973 433 78 39 538 762 1,850 1974 541 54 40 652 872 2,159 1975 345 34 33 618 962 1,992 1976 411 30 43 1,004 921 2,410 1977 383 30 74 651 432 1,570 1978 408 39 299 553 391 1,690 1979 338 39 88 480 313 1,258 1980 371 24 9 329 506 1,239 1981 513 17 30 408 278 1,248 1982 361 31 18 661 - 1,071 1983 350 27 11 872 1,260 -Not reported *Less than 1 metric ton +Includes black drum 48 8. ATLANTIC OCEAN 6- 4- 2- 0 cn 26- .Z 0 24- 22- (-> 20- GULF OF MEXICO 18- 16- 14- 12- 10- 8- 6- 4 2- 0. 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 YEAR Figure 12-2. U.S. commercial landings of red drum for the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, 1930-1983. 49 20 DELAWARE 0 117-7--r-7--r7@1 1. '' i 111,11 1 20 MARYLAND 0, -I 80- 60" VIRGINIA 40- 20- 0.... 120 NORTH CAROLINA 100 80- 60- z 0 40- F- 20- UJ 60- 40- SOUTH CAROLINA 20- 0 T-------- r--r--F- . . . . . . . 201 GEORGIA 0 T-- 120 FLORIDA EAST COAST 100 80- 60- 40- 20- 01j,''') ................... 50 55 60 65 70 7@ 80 YEAR Figure 12-3. U.S. commercial landings of red drum on the Atlantic coast by state, 1950-1983. @,NORTH CARO L I N @A@@ 50 Although the 1979 survey results were published (Anonymous 1980), they are presently being corrected to correspond with 1980 census figures. The 1960-1970 and 1980-1982 survey results are presented here (Tables 12-11 and 12-12); however, 1981 and 1982 data are preliminary. 22 The estimated recreational catch of red drum exceeds commercial red drum landings. The total estimated Atlantic coast recreational catches of red drum exceeded commercial landings by factors of 162 in 1960, 53.3 in 1965, 85.9 in 1970, 2.7 in 1980, 2.1 in 1981, and 4.9 in 1982. Although the 1960-1970 Salt-Water Anglinq Surveys resulted in overestimates of the catch, the results of the recent annual surveys are generally underestimates (Anonymous 1980). The estimated weight of the recreational catch of red drum on the Atlantic coast (17,491 mt) exceeded the Gulf coast catch (14,941 mt) in 1960, although twice as many fish were caught in the Gulf. Both the number and weicht of red drum caught in the Gulf exceeded the Atlantic coast catch in all other survey years. Total Atlantic coast landings declined from 1960 to 1970, whereas Gulf coast landings increased over the same period. Although results of the 1980 survey are not directly comparable with previous surveys, they are lower by factors of 11.2 and 4.5 on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, respectively, raising the question of data set reliability. Preliminary results of the 1981 and 1982 surveys indicate a decline in recreational catch in 1981 and 1982 -on both coasts. Results of the salt-water angling surveys indicate that recreational red drum landings in the Middle Atlantic region (New York to Virginia)' declined drastically from 5,176 mt in 1960 to 582 mt in 1965 and 38 mt in 1970 (Clark 1962; Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973) (Table 12-11). Red drum were not reported for the Middle Atlantic subregion in the 1980 survey; however, the category "drums" (8.5 mt) may include red drum. Preliminary results of the 1981 and 1982 surveys indicate that 92,000 red drum (223 mt) were caught in 1981 and 52,000 (no weight reported) in 1982 in the Middle Atlantic region (Table 12-12). South Atlantic (North Carolina to Florida) catches declined from 1960 (12,331 mt) to 1970 (6,065 mt). In 1980 the estimated recreational catch was 545 mt. Preliminary results of the 1981 and 1982 recreational surveys indicated that 115 mt were caught in 1981 and 41.8 mt in 1982 in the South Atlantic. Although the results of the 1983 recreational survey are not yet available there is some indication that red drum abundance is increasing. In 1983 recreational fishermen reported that small red drum (0.7-1.1 kg) returned in unprecedented numbers to Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, and the surf from Assateague Island to Portsmouth Island. These fish were apparently the result of an excellent spawn during the fall of 1981. Commercial mullet netters 22 M. Holliday, National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource Statistics Division, Washington, D.C., personal communication. Table 12-11. Red drum recreational catch and effort statistics from National Marine Fisheries Service Salt-Water Angling Surveys, 1960 - 1970. Catch Number of Average Catch per angler Survey Weight Successful Wei ht W ht Year Number lb kg Anglers lb 2pig- Number lb ------------ THOUSANDS ------------- 1960 Middl-eTt-lantic 456 11,400 5,171 35 25.0 11.4 13.0 325.7 147.9 South Atlantic 4,527 27,160 12,320 157 6.0 2.7 28.8 173.0 78.5 Gulf of Mexico 10,294 32,940 14,941 447 3.2 1.5 23.0 73.7 33.5 TOTAL 15,277 71,500 32,432 639 4.7 2.1 23.9 111.9 50.8 1965 Mi ddl-e-7Ftl antic 196 1,281 581 68 6.5 2.9 2.9 18.8 8.6 South Atlantic 4,099 15,171 6,881 151 3.7 1.7 27.1 100.5 45.6 Gulf of Mexico 6,900 .28,288 12,831 558 4.1 1.9 12.4 50.7 23.0 TOTAL 11,195 44,740 20,294 777 4.0 1.8 14.4 57.6 26.1 1970 Middl-e-Vtlantic 97 83 38 8 0.9 0.4 12.1 10.4 4.8 South Atlantic 4,883 13,358 6,059 164 2.7 1.2 29.8 81.5 37.0 Gulf of Mexico 13,184 53,045 24,061 692 4.0 1.8 19.1 76.7 34.8 TOTAL 18,164 66,486 30,157 864 3.7 1.7 21.0 77.0 34.9 1Clark 1962 2Deuel and Clark 1968 3Deuel 1973 Ln 52 Table 12-12. Red drum recreational catch statistics from National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Surveys, 1980-1982. Catch Average Survey We Weiqht Year Number lb kg lb kg -------------- THOUSANDS -------------- 19801 South Atlantic 419 1,202 545 2.9 1.3 Gulf of Mexico 4,893 11,865 5,382 2.4 1.1 19-12 Middle Atlantic 92 491 223 5.3 '2.4 South Atlantic 166 254 115 1.5 0.7 Gulf of Mexico 4,194 8,631 3,915 2.0 0.9 19822 Middle Atlantic 51 - - - - South Atlantic 516 964 438 1.8 0.8 Gulf of Mexico 7,304 16,169 7,334 2.2 1.0 IAnonymous 1984 2Preliminary data, M. Holliday, National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource Statistics Division, Washington, D.C., personal communication. -Not reported. 53 in Pamlico Sound reported large numbers of small red drum (10-13 cm) in their nets in May and June, 1983, indicating that perhaps the fall spawn in 1982 was also a good one (The Year of the Puppy Drum 1983). There are no mortality estimates for Atlantic coast populations of red drum. Instantaneous natural (M), total (Z), and fishing (F) mortality rates have been calculated for various estuarine populations in the Gulf of Mexico (Matlock and Weaver 1979; Swingle et al. 1984; Green et al. in prep.). Fishing mortality in most Gulf estuarine areas is high relative to natural mortality (Swingle et al. 1984). There are no estimates of maximum yield per recruit for Atlantic coast populations of red drum. Juvenile populations are growth overfished in Texas and possibly severely growth overfished along the west central coast of Florida, based on estimates of instantaneous fishing mortality (F) from tagging studies (Swingle et al. 1984). 12.4.3 Community Ecology Juveniles may spend the first four or five years within estuaries (Pearson 1929) where they compete with other estuarine species for food. Food habits and distributions of red drum were reviewed in earlier sections of this report. Young-of-the-year red drum (15-245 mm TQ in North Carolina estuaries were frequently collected with the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), Atlantic ), sheepsh siTv-ersid-e--(`M.menidia ead minnow @Cypri-n-do-nvariegatus striped mull@-t (- ce halus), menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus) spot (Micropogonlas (Leiostomus xanthurus), croaker undula s), moiarras (-Ge-r-r-e-i-d-ae7, 'go-Fies (Gobiidae), summer flounder TPa-r-aTi-c-Ft--Fys dentatus), 21 and southern flounder (P. lethostigma). Adult red drum occur offshore, often under schools of blue runner (Caranx chrysos) and little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) in the Gulf of Mexico. When near shore, schools of red drum often occur near black drum, Atlantic tarpon, and pompano (Overstreet 1983). 12.5 Exploitation Matlock (1980) reviewed the history and management of the red drum fishery. 12.5.1 Commercial Exploitation 12.5.1.1 Fishing Equipment Red drum are harvested in a mixed species fishery by a variety of gear types, including haul seines (common and long), fish trawls, pound nets, gill nets (drift, anchor, set or stake, and runaround), hand lines, trammel nets, and shrimp trawls (Matlock 1980). Purse seine catches of red drum have been reported in the Gulf of Mexico since 1977. 23Unpublished data, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C. 54 The percentage of Virginia landings of red drum taken by gear type is presented in Table 12-13. Pound nets and fish trawls have accounted for the major portion of the landings since 1977. Haul seines and gill nets contributed significantly prior to 1977 and again in 1983. Gill nets have accounted for 31-57% of red drum landings since 1979 in North Carolina (Table 12-14). Common and long haul seine catches have declined since 1977 and fish trawl and pound net catches have fluctuated. The incidental catch by shrimp trawls ranged from 0.5-15.2% of North Carolina red drum landings from 1978 to 1983. Red drum are mainly caught by shrimp trawls, hand lines, and gill nets in South Carolina (Table 12-15). Hand lines have accounted for 100% of Georgia landings since 1978 (Table 12-16). Runaround gill nets are the predominant gear in Florida, accounting for 65.5-83.6% of the red drum catch (Table 12-17). Red drum are also caught by hand lines, haul seine, and trammel nets. 12.5.1.2 Areas Fished Red drum are caught in both estuaries and oceanic waters along the Atlantic coast, but the majority of the commercial catch is made in estuaries (Table 12-18). Juvenile red drum, which remain in or near estuaries for the greater part of their early years, are the basis for the commercial fishery. Estuarine areas generally receive a high level of effort with gear which catch red drum, such as trammel nets, gill nets, haul seines, pound nets, and trot lines (Yokel 1966). Although Florida landings by area of capture were not available, most red drum are caught in the estuaries. 24 12.5.1.3 Seasons In Virginia red drum are harvested from May until October and are most abundant during spring and fall (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). Red drum are taken year-round from North Carolina to Florida. Largest catches in North Carolina are made in fall (October-November). In South Carolina more red drum are landed in late spring and summer and in Georgi a i n 1 ate summer and f al 1 .Highest landings in Florida occur in fall and early winter. 12.5.1.4 Fishing Operations and Results There are no data on fishing effort, selectivity, or yield for the Atlantic coast. Matlo6k et al. (1977) reported on trends in red drum abundance in Texas bays influenced by commercial netting activities. Catch rates for red drum in areas closed to commercial netting were about twice as high as those from areas open to netting. The effect of 24 E. Snell, National Marine Fisheries Service Resource Statistics Office, Miami, Florida, personal communication. 55 Table 12-13. Percentage of Virginia red drum landings by gear type, 1970-1983. Common Sea Fyke & Total Haul Fish Pound Gill Hand Scallop Hoop Landings Year Seines Trawls Nets Nets Lines Dredges Nets (kg) 1970 100.0 45 1971 100.0 318 1972 54.2 1.7 30.5 13.6 2,676 1973 17.7 25.8 56.5 2,812 1974 5.7 1.3 79.0 14.0 7,121 1975 19.9 3.1 49.5 27.5 8,890 1976 35.3 5.8 22.6 34.2 8,618 1977 33.3 33.3 33.3 136 1978 14.3 61.9 23.8 953 1979 73.7 26.3 862 1980 25.0 50.0 25.0 181 1981 50.0 50.0 91 1982 56.5 36.9 1.8 2.3 2.4 854 1983 17.8 2.0 42.1 37.9 0.2 18,516 Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1970-1977; NMFS Landings Data, 1978-1983. 56 Table 12-14. Percentage of North Carolina red drum landings by gear type, 1970-1983. Common Long Total Haul Haul Fish Pound Gill Shrimp Hand Landings Year Seines Seines Trawls Nets Nets Trawl Lines (kg) 1970 9.3 32.0 9.3 8.0 41.3 3,402 1971 28.5 18.0 8.1 21.5 23.8 7,802 1972 30.5 12.8 2.8 45.2 8.6 19,459 1973 25.9 30.0 11.1 14.2 18.8 31,888 1974 21.0 45.9 0.8 17.9 14.2 T 64,455 1975 17.3 31.3 30.8 11.4 9.2 96,434 1976 8.4 45.6 4.6 13.3 28.1 76,294 1977 17.3 59.9 2.5 T 19.3 8,936 1978 0.9 19.4 65.3 13.9 0.5 9,798 1979 34.0 2.0 7.3 49.5 7.2 57,561 1980 6.9 30.3 17.6 1.3 32.2 3.7 T 106,745 1981 0.5 11.9 15.1 38.8 31.0 2.7 42,375 1982 2.0 13.2 26.4 6.4 46.2 5.7 T 23,841 1983 4.1 9.5 5.5 8.7 57.0 15.2 0.1 99,732 T - Less than 0.1 percent. Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1970-1977; NMFS Landings Data, 1978-1983. 57 Table 12-15. Percentage of South Carolina red drum landings by gear type, 1970-1983. Fyke & Total Shrimp Hand Haul Gill Hoop Landings Year Trawls Lines Seines Nets Spears Nets (kg) 1970 100.0 181 1971 53.8 7.7 38.5 590 1972 100.0 544 1973 100.0 272 1974 60.9 39.1 1,043 1975 36.4 52.3 6.8 4.5 1,996 1976 8.3 91.7 544 1977 7.7 53.8 38.5 590 1978 100.0 1,939 1979 7.5 92.5 801 1980 48.9 51.1 1,863 1981 18.8 81.2 367 1982 0.7 11.9 86.7 0.7 1,011 1983 2.1 5.2 8.8 83.8 1,031 Source: Fishery Stati stics of the United States, 1970-1977; NMFS Landings Data 1978-1983. 58 Table 12-16. Percentage of Georgia red drum landings by gear type, 1970-1983. Total Hand Shrimp Gill Landings Year Lines Trawls Nets (kg) 1970 100.0 227 1971 33.3 66.7 544 1972 100.0 1,406 1973 42.4 58.6 1,497 1974 41.9 58.1 1,406 1975 16.0 84.0 4,536 1976 54.8 43.8 1.4 3,311 1977 78.0 12.0 10.0 2,268 1978 100.0 149 1979 100.0 424 1980 100.0 677 1981 100.0 118 1982 100.0 114 1983 100.0 511 Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1970-1977; NMFS Landings Data, 1978-1983. 59 Table 12-17. Percentage of Florida East Coast red drum landings by gear type, 1970-1977. Common Runaround Total Haul Gill Hand Trammel Cast Landings Year Seines Nets Lines Nets Nets (kg) 1970 6.5 76.2 16.6 0.7 66,587 1971 83.6 13.7 2.7 36,696 1972 3.0 74.5 22.4 0.1 58,241 1973 3.7 79.9 15.6 0.9 75,523 1974 8.5 65.5 24.1 1.9 62,278 1975 7.1 68.5 23.3 1.1 37,784 1976 6.3 72.1 21.0 0.6 48,081 1977 8.4 70.1 19.6 1.8 46,947 Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1970-1977. Table 12-18. Annual commercial catch of red drum (kg) by state and water area for the Atlantic coast, 1968-1983 and percent caught in the estuaries. Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia % caught % caught % caught % caught in in in in Year Ocean Estuary Estuary Ocean Estuary Estuary Ocean Estuary Estuary Ocean Estuary Estuary 1972 590 2,087 78 7,864 11,641 60 412 109 21 242 1,297 84 1973 499 2,313 82 14,881 16,871 53 0 281 100 508 1,191 77 1974 408 6,713 94 16,070 48,538 75 140 844 86 730 611 45 1975 1,225 7,666 91 49,533 47,643 49 632 4,980 89 272 4,232 94 1976 635 7,802 92 12,639 63,682 83 0 1,160 100 689 2,595 79 1977 45 91 67 2,858 6,078 68 58 296 84 253 1,964 89 1978 363 590 62 6,985 2,812 29 431 1,531 78 0 149 100 1979 635 227 26 12,084 45,303 79 60 741 93 0 424 100 1980 45 136 75 32,275 78,049 71 874 989 53 78 599 88 1981 45 45 50 12,648 29,727 70 23 344 94 0 118 100 1982 483 371 43 13,964 9,877 41 235 775 77 0 75 100 1983 1,836 39,814 96 31,451 64,766 67 15 293 95 0 511 100 Source: NMFS Landings Data, 1972-1983. 61 commercial netting was local; netting removed red drum from restricted areas but did not appreciably affect adjacent non-netted areas. In 1984 the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission banned the use of plastic baits on trotlines because these baits were thought to be selective for small (<500 mm) red drum. Matlock et al. (1979) compared the size of red drum landed by commercial fishermen before (1972-1974) and after (1974-1978) the ban with the size of fish collected during Texas Parks and Wildlife Department trammel net surveys to determine the effect of the ban on either the commercial, catch or fish availability. Red drum landed by commercial fishermen were significantly larger after the ban than before. It appears that plastic baits are selective for small red drum and that the ban did affect the size of red drum caught. 12.5.1.5 Incidental Catches Red drum were not reported in several studies of fish caught incidental to shrimp trawling (Anderson 1968; Knowlton 1972; Wolff 1972; Keiser 1976). Commercial landings statistics indicate that the percentage of North Carolina landings from shrimp trawls ranged from 0.1% in 1974 to 15.2% in 1983 (Table 12-14). In South Carolina_shrimp trawl landi'ngs ranged from 0.7-100.0% of the total (Table 12 15). Prior to 1978, 12.0-100.0% of Georgia red drum landings were caught by shrimp trawls (Table 12-16). Red drum have been reported as a bycatch from shrimp and fish trawls in the Gulf of Mexico (Swingle et al. 1983). Red drum landings in Alabama were predominantly by shrimp trawling, accounting for 48-95% of the landings. In Mississippi red drum were taken as incidental bycatch in the industrial groundfish fishery and the shrimp trawl fishery. The percentage of red drum landings taken by fish and shrimp trawls averaged 8% and 15%, respectively, from 1968 through 1976. Shrimp trawls accounted for a very minor portion of red drum landings in Louisiana and Texas; generally <1% of annual red drum landings. In the Gulf of Mexico large red drum have been caught by purse seiners fishing for blue runner. Red drum school below blue runner and when the net is set red drum are harvested as a bycatch (Overstreet 1983). From July 1, 1983 to April 16, 1984, 225.4 mt (497,000 lb) of red drum were landed in observed purse seine catches from the northern Gulf of Mexico (off the Mississippi River delta). The catches generally consisted of large red drum (7-8 kg) and were caught 18-22 km offshore at depths of 18-24 m.21 12.5.2 RecreationalExploitation 12.5.2.1 Fishing Equipwicnt Red drum are caught by bottom fishing, jigging, and casting from shore, as well as bottom fishing, casting, live-lining and trolling from boats ^5 W. Fable, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Panama City Laboratory, Panama City, Florida, personal communication. 62 (Freeman and Walford 1'974, 1976a, b, c, d). Baits include soft or shedder crabs, shrimp, clams, squid, and cut mullet, spot, herring or menhaden, as well as artificial lures such as spoons, jigs, weighted bucktails, feathers, plugs, and streamer flies. Red drum are also harvested by gill netting and gigging for home consumption. In South Carolina 94% of the gill-net fishermen who fished in 1978 fished recreationally (Moore 1980). 12.5.2.2 Areas Fished The recreational fishery for trophy red drum (>18 kg) which exists in the South Atlantic has been primarily a surf fishery along the outer beaches of barrier islands (Freeman and Walford 1974, 1976a, b, c, d; Osborne 1981; Wongrey 1981; Ogle 1982; Arrington 1983; Music and Pafford 1984). Small red drum (<8 kg) are caught in the estuaries from Chesapeake Bay to Florida (Freeman and Walford 1976a, b, c, d; Smith and Moore 1979; Osborne 1981; Music and Pafford 1984). The numbers of red drum caught by principal area of fishing in each region in 1965, 1970, and 1980 are presented in Table 12-19. The salt-water angling surveys indicated that 88% of the red drum caught in the Middle Atlantic region in 1965 were caught in sounds, rivers, and bays, whereas in 1970 only 47% were caught in estuarine waters. More red drum (59%) were caught in the ocean in the South Atlantic in 1965, but in 1970 and 1980 79% and 92%, respectively, were caught in sounds, rivers, and bays. In the Gulf of Mexico more red drum were caught in sounds, rivers, and bays than in the ocean in all survey years. 12.5.2.3 Fishing Seasons The fishing season for red drum is all year from Georgia to southern Florida (Freeman and Walford 1976c, d). From Altamaha Sound to Fort Pierce Inlet, best fishing for small fish is August to October inshore, and for large fish, March to May and November to January offshore. Best fishing for small red drum from St. Lucie Inlet to southern Florida is from April to August and from August to November for large ones. Adult red drum generally remain in coastal waters through the coldest months and during late summer move offshore, presumably to spawn. Most red drum are caught from mid-March or early April to early December between False Cape, Virginia and Georgia. The best fishing for large fish runs from late March to early June and for small fish from late September to November (Freeman and Walford 1976b). Good surf fishing along the North Carolina coast is from March to June and October to November (LaMonte 1951; Osborne 1981; Ogle 1982). The fishing season in Chesapeake Bay is from late April or May to November. The best fishing for large fish is from mid-May to mid-June and from August to October for small fish (Freeman and Walford 1976a). The red drum fishing season from False Cape, Virginia to Delaware Bay extends from April or May to November and the best fishing is from May-June and September-October (Freeman and Walford 1974). Table 12-19. Number of red drum caught by U.S. anglers in each region in 1965, 1970, and 1980 by principal area and method of fishing. Principal area of fishing Principal method of fishing S;unds, Private Party Br7i-ge, rivers, or or pier, Beach Survey and rented charter or or year Region Ocean bays boat boat jetty bank --------------------------------------- THOUSANDS -------------------------------- 19651 Middle Atlantic 24 172 7 35 126 28 South Atlantic 2,436 1,663 1,497 235 1,965 402 Gulf of Mexico 1,332 5,568 4,841 769 890 400 19702 Middle Atlantic 51 46 46 - - 51 South Atlantic 1,032 3,851 3,839 276 287 481 Gulf of Mexico 5,060 8,124 7,655 1,586 1,694 2,249 19803 South Atlantic 26 313 318 - 43 58 Gulf of Mexico 467 3,005 4,513 51 388 431 IDeuel and Clark 1968 2Deuel 1973 3Anonymous 1984 64 12.5.2.4 Fishing Operations and Results Red drum catch data by month and year on the Eastern Shore of Virginia were reported for 1955 to 1965. Catch rates were never high but relative highs occurred during 1957 and 1962 at 0.14 fish per man-hour. More fish were landed during May and September, but catch rates were highest for April, June, and September. A low of 0.01 fish per man-hour occurred in 1959 (Richards 1965). A 1963 sport fishery survey in the Cape Canaveral area of Florida found that catch per unit effort was highest in October and April north of Cape Canaveral, and highest in April to the south (Anderson and Gehringer 1965). Catch per unit effort data (number and weight) for red drum caught in the Gulf of Mexico was summarized by Perret et al. (1980). The National Marine Fisheries Service salt-water angling surveys, 1960-1970, indicated that the number of red drum per angler declined in all regions from 1965 to 1970 (Table 12-11). The average reported weight of fish decreased in both the Middle and South Atlantic regions from 1960 to 1970, but increased in the Gulf of Mexico from 1960 to 1965 and decreased slightly from 1965 to 1970. Davis (1980) reported that recreational fishermen caught 96% of the red drum landed in Everglades National Park from 1972 through 1977. The mean annual yield of red drum from park waters was 0.17 kg per acre, producing mean annual harvests of 105,370 kg from 1972 through 1977. In the past 20 years, there has been a shift in age structure toward larger, mature fish, with upward trends in catch rates and a marked reduction in the year-to-year variability of catch rates, possibly due to changes in environmental conditions (Davis 1980). 12.6 Social and Economic Implications 12.6.1 Values Cato (1981) reviewed the economic values and uses of the sciaenid fisheries in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. A comparison of dockside value of commercial landings of important sciaenids revealed that red drum ranks behind weakfish, croaker, spotted seatrout, and spot. Red drum prices increased steadily in the Gulf of Mexico and have been consistently higher there except in 1969, 1980 and 1982 (Figure 12-4). Atlantic coast prices increased steadily from 1960 but dropped sharply in 1983. Current prices have increased while deflated prices have remained fairly stable. Red drum exvessel prices vary from state to state. In 1982 prices varied from 23-79 cents per pound in North Carolina and the east coast of Florida, respectively (Table 12-20). 12.6.2 Employment There is little available information on employment in the fisheries for red drum which are mixed-species fisheries. The commercial fishery for coastal finfish in South Carolina is primarily a part-time activity with 0.70- Gulf of Mexico o---o Atlantic coast 0.60- 0.50- 0 a- 0.40- 1 0 LLI P 0 U.j 0.30- a. 0 8 0.201 V o- -0.0001, \ I V 0,0..0% 0.10 "0" 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 YEAR Figure 12-4. Dockside price of red drum for the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, 1960-1983. 66 Table 12-20. Unadjusted exvessel price of commercially-caught red drum on the Atlantic coast by state, 1960-1982. North South Florida Year Virginia Carolina Carolina Georgia East Coast ------------------------- (DOLLARS/POUND) ------------------------- 1960 .046 .081 - .150 .147 1961 .092 .081 .250 .150 .137 1962 .084 .081 - - .145 1963 .084 .068 - - .147 1964 .086 .089 .141 - .183 1965 .105 .119 - - .177 1966 .083 .103 .100 .123 .187 1967 .085 .097 - .135 .184 1968 .110 .069 - .222 .152 1969 .060 .085 .157 .190 .193 1970 .060 .085 .157 .190 .193 1971 .037 .100 .181 .209 .208 1972 .079 .122 .268 .202 .228 1973 .113 .111 .258 .210 .271 1974 .150 .111 .258 .210 .271 1975 .100 .101 .286 .299 .322 1976 .083 .128 .283 .329 .340 1977 .110 .136 .335 .414 .372 1978 .063 .114 .345 .649 .448 1979 .084 .172 .264 .553 .532 1980 .150 .194 .262 .643 .555 1981 .240 .201 .418 .709 .541 1982 .139 .234 .602 .669 .791 -None caught Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1960-1977; NMFS Landings Data, 1978-1982. 67 few, if any, full-time employees, primarily due to major commercial interest in the shrimp, blue crab, and oyster fisheries (Smith and Moore 1979). 12.6.3 Participation There is little specific information on participation in the fisheries for red drum. Participation in South Carolina's gig and gill net fisheries, both of which harvest red drum, has increased greatly in the last decade. Gig licenses increased 225% from 1971-1972 (590) to 1977-1978 (1,910) and gill net licenses increased 306% over the same time period (705 to 2,861) (Smith and Moore 1979). Davis (1980) examined changes in the Everglades National Park red drum and spotted seatrout fisheries 1958-1978. The number of commercial fishermen fluctuated between 125 and 276 from 1963 to 1978. Recreational fishing activity increased steadily from 58,000 angler-days in 1959 to 174,000 in 1965, fell slightly in the late 1960s, reached another peak of about 160,000 angler-days in 1973 and 1974, and fell again to less than 100,000 angler-days in 1977. The 1960-1970 salt-water angling surveys indicate significant growth of marine sport fisheries in the South Atlantic region. The estimated number of anqlers increased from 1.0 x 106 in 1960 to 1.7 x 106 in 1965 and 1.8 x 10 in 1970 (Clark 1962; Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973). Bearden (1969) estimated that there were 240,500 resident anglers in South Carolina in 1968. The number of resident South Carolina participants in a 1974 survey was estimated at 347,000 people (Mabrey et al. 1977). OUt-Of-Stdte participation appears to be an important segment of South Carolina's sport fisheries. An estimated 261,000 people from North Carolina and 56,000 from Georgia fished in South Carolina in 1974 (Mabrey et al. 1977). 12.6.4 Processors and Product Forms In South Carolina red drum are sold to either local wholesale or retail markets. Gill nets and hook and line were the principal gears used to take coastal finfish for market. A survey of licensed persons engaged in selling finfish indicated that red drum, spotted seatrout, and flounder comprised only 7.2% of the total reported weight of finfish sold (Smith and Moore 1979). Commercial landings of red drum on the Gulf Coast are mostly sold in local markets as fresh in-the-round or gutted, with a small percentage sold as frozen and gutted, or as fresh or frozen fillets (Perret et al. 1980). 12.6.5 Import/Export Imports of juvenile red drum from Mexico are substantial and have an impact on Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and perhaps other markets sup lied from Texas and Louisiana landings. Imports increased from 1964 @45.1 mt) to 1969 (396.2 mt) and have since decreased (Table 12-21). The decline in imports from the 1970s to the present is due to the development of seafood markets in Mexico, new fishing regulations in 68 Table 12-21. U.S. imports and exportsof red drum, 1964-1983 (from Swingle et al. 1984). Imports Exportsa Year Total In-the-round Frozen F'17e-ts ---------------------------- Metric Tons ---------------------------- 1983 110.8 79.8 30.9 1982 128.5 115.9 12.6 1981 65.5 57.5 8.1 997.9 1980 162.3 135.2 27.1 N.A. 1979 164.1 133.2 30.8 N.A. 1978 235.6 167.6 67.9 N.A. 1977 254.3 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1976 178.6 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1975 182.9 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1974 217.3 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1973 335.6 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1972 282.8 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1971 272.0 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1970 381.6 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1969 396.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1968 101.7 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1967 4.0 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1966 14.4 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1965 49.4 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1964 45.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. a - includes red drum and black drum - - none exported N.A. - not available Source: E. Barry, National Marine Fisheries Service, New Orleans, personal communication; J. Dougherty, NMFS, St. Petersburg, personal communication. 69 Mexico, and until recently, a declining U.S. dollar. At their peak, imports accounted for 25% of the total U.S. supply of red drum. Most imports are in-the-round and gutted. Frozen fillets were imported between 1978 and 1981, and comprised from 12% (1981) to 29% (1978) of imports (Perret et al. 1980; Swingle et al. 1984). Exports of red drum from the U.S. have occurred but statistical information is unavailable before 1981 when the National Marine Fisheries Service began inspecting drum exports (include red drum and black drum). Drum are exported to Nigeria, Turkey, and probably Egypt, the Mideast, Venezuela, and Taiwan. The red drum exported are usually adult fish because of a market preference for large fish in the above countries and because it can be marketed at relatively low prices. The product is shipped frozen, in-the-round or gutted (Swingle et al. 1984). 12.6.6 Gear Conflicts In North Carolina gear conflicts may occur between the long haul seine fishermen and the pound net, crab and eel pot fishermen. Abandoned, broken-off pound net stakes and pound net stakes left in place from season to season exclude long haulers from large areas, especially in Core Sound. A very large increase in the number of crab and eel pot fishermen has resulted in ever increasing friction with haul seiners, who cannot haul in areas filled with pots. Potters are mainly interested in shoal waters, which long haulers need only to bunt or harden up their seine (DeVries 1981). 12.6.7 Commercial-Recreational Conflicts Heffernan and Kemp (1980, 1982) reviewed the conflicts in the red drum fishery, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. Conservationists and recreational fishermen complained of overharvest of fish by commercial interest prior to 1900, continuing to the present. State legislatures enacted various regulations which closed portions of estuarine areas to the use of nets and seines during seasonal periods with the intent to protect spawning fish. From the 1930s to the 1970s, legislation was directed toward reducing commercial fishing pressure on bay stocks by imposing size limits, opening and closing various bay and Gulf waters, and establishing gear restrictions in relation to mesh sizes, length of nets, and their seasonal use. Growing netting pressure and reported declines in available stocks led to the prohibition of the use of monofilament nets in Louisiana in 1977 and Texas in 1980. The Texas legislature passed a bill in 1981 prohibiting the commercial sale of Texas-caught red drum for two years. Davis (1982) discussed management conflicts in Everglades National Park and Matlock (1982) discussed conflicts between user groups of red drum in Texas. At the urging of recreational fishermen in Florida regulations and legislation have been introduced to ban gill netting for red drum; however, none of it has passed. 70 12.7 Management and Protection 12.7.1 Regulatory Measures The fisheries for red drum have been conducted almost entirely within the internal waters of the states and in the territorial sea which extends 5.6 km (3 n mi) offshore on the Atlantic coast. Therefore, management has been by individual state regulation. The State of Maryland passed a saltwater angling license bill, May 22, 1984, for fishing in Maryland tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and is the only state on the Atlantic coast that requires saltwater anglers to be licensed. The monies collected by the license will be dedicated for recreational fishing enhancement and anglers will be given the opportunity to have input concerning the content of the fisheries management program adopted by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The State of Virginia is also considering a saltwater angling license. Regulations and methods of promulgating them vary among states and are summarized in Table 12-22. The only regulations specifically dealing with red drum are size limits in North Carolina and Florida, and daily possession limits in Virginia and North Carolina. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) administers a cooperative agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) entitled the Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP). This program provides funding to the Atlantic coastal states to coordinate interjurisdictional fisheries management and develop fishery management plans (FMPs) for species occurring in the territorial sea. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) provides for the conservation and exclusive management by the Federal government of all fishery resources within the United States Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ). The FCZ extends from the territorial sea to 370 km (200 n mi) from shore. Fishery management in the FCZ is based on fishery management plans developed by regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC). The National Park Service retains the authority to manage fish primarily through the establishment of coastal and nearshore national parks and national monuments such as Everglades National Park in Florida. 12.7.2 Habitat Protection Red drum are dependent on estuaries for at least the first few years of life. Larvae and juveniles are generally found in shallow waters, in areas not greatly affected by tides, with grassy or muddy bottoms and moderate salinities. Yokel (1966) concluded that red drum abundance varied directly with estuarine size. States which have relatively high annual landings also have large estuaries. North Carolina and the east coast of Flordia are the leading producers of red drum on the Atlantic Coast and they also have the largest estuaries of the states from North Carolina south. There is considerable variation in this relationship, but the general trend supports the supposition of the importance of estuaries and shallow marine areas to the production of red drum (Yokel 1966). 71 Table 12-22. Synoptic overview of present state management systems. Rhode Island Connecticut Administrative Rhode Island Connecticut organization Department of Department of Environmental Environmental Management Protection Legislative Rhode Island Connecticut organization Marine Fisheries Commissioner Council Environmental Protection Licenses Commercial Commercial Size None None restrictions Limits None None Gear None None restrictions Conservation None None regulations 72 Table 12-22. (continued) New York Administrative New York State Department of Environmental organization Conservation Legislative New York Fish and Game Laws, Article 13 organization Marine and Coastal Resources Licenses Commercial non-resident beam and otter trawl Size None restrictions Limits None Gear Trawl prohibited from Great South Bay, restrictions Moriches Bay, Shinnecock Bay; seasonally in Peconic Bays. Gill nets restricted from Peconic Bays; haul seines limited in lengths in these same bays and cannot be fished from midnight Thursday to 6:00 p.m. Sunday. Nets and trawls may not be set in western Long Island Sound Apr. 1 - Nov. 1. Gill nets prohibited in central and western Long Island Sound. Conservation None regulations 73 ,Table 12-22. (continued) New Jersey Delaware Administrative New,Jersey Department Division of Fish and organization of Environmental Wildlife Protection, Division Department of Natural of Fish, Game and Resources and Environ- Wildlife, Marine mental Control Fisheries Adminis- tration, Bureau of Marine Fisheries Legislative New Jersey Statutes, Delaware State organization Title 23, Chapter 28 Legislature Licenses Fyke nets - $1, $4, $30 None Haul seines - $25 Bait seines - $3 (50' - 150') Gill nets - anchored - $13 drift - $20 run around - $20 Pound nets $ 25 $ 50 $100 Otter trawl $100 Beam trawl $100 Purse seine $100 Size None None restrictions Limits None Gear Trawls and purse Trawls prohibited in restrictions seines restricted from Delaware Bay. Gill nets, within 2 miles of coast- fyke nets and seines line. Seasons for gill allowed. Purse seines nets, fyke nets, haul prohibited within 3 miles seines. of coast. Conservation None None regulations 74 Table 12-22. (continued) Maryland Virginia Administrative Maryland Department Virginia Marine organization of Natural Resources Resources Commission Legislative Natural Resources Marine Resources of organization Article, Annotated the Commonwealth Code Code of Maryland of Virginia of 1950, Title 4, Subtitle 1, Title 28.1 Title 08, Subtitle 02, Chapter 05 Fish Licenses Otter trawl - $100 Commercial Beam trawl - $100 Fyke or hoop nets - $50 Gill nets- '1@200 yds $100 >200 yds $200 Rec reational - $5 in Chesapeake Bay Size None None restrictions Limits None No more than two >3211 TL Gear Trawling prohibited Trawling prohibited in restrictions within I mile of Chesapeake Bay. Pound Maryland shoreline in net mesh <2" (s.m.1 and Atlantic Ocean. haul seine mesh <3" Numerous gear and area mesh (s.m.) prohibited. restrictions. Trawling prohibited within 3-mi. limit from Cape Charles north to Maryland line in Sep. and Oct. Conservation Secretary of Natural None regulations Resources has authority to adopt rules and regulations relating to taking, possession, transportation, exporting, processing, sale or ship- ment necessary to conser- vation. 75 Table 12-22. (continued) North Carolina Administrative North Carolina Department of Natural organization Resources and Community Development, Division of Marine Fisheries; Marine Fisheries Commission Legislative North Carolina Administrative Code, organization Title 15, Chapter 3. Licenses Vessels without motors, any length, when used with other licensed vessel - no license Vessels, not over 18' - $1/foot Vessels, over 18' to 38' - $1.50/foot Vessels, over 38' - $3/foot Non-resident vessels - $200 in addition to above fee requirement Finfish processor - $100 Unprocessed finfish dealer - $50 Size 14" TL minimum restrictions Limits No more than two >32" TL; in New Hanover County, none >20 lbs. Gear Trawling for finfish prohibited in internal restrictions coastal waters. No purse seine for food fish. Many specific net regulations for areas and seasons. Conservation Secretary, acting upon advise of Director regulations of Marine Fisheries, may close area to trawling if in coastal.fishing waters, samples become composed primarily of juvenile finfish of major economic important. No person shall remove red drum from any boat hook, gaff, spear, gig, or similar device. 76 Table 12-22. (continued) South Carolina Georgia Administrative South Carolina Wildlife Georgia Department of organization and Marine Resources Natural Resources Legislative Section 50-5-20 Georgia Code 27-4-110 organization Licenses Land and sell $25 Commercial fishing Commercial boat license license (personal) - <18' - $20 $10.25 for any sales of >18' - $25 catch Gill nets Nontrawler license haul seines <18' - $5 $10/100 yds >18' - $5 + $.50/foot Trawler license - $50 for 18' + $3/additional foot No license for seines <300' unless catch is sold. Size None None restriction Limits None None Gear Seine mesh less than Gill netting prohibited restrictions 21" prohibited in Georgia waters. Seine Purse seining for food mesh restrictions: fish permitted in minimum of 114-" for seines ocean greater than less than 100'; minimum 300 yds from beach. mesh size of 21" (stretched mesh) for 100' - 300' maximum length. Conservation None None regulations 77 Table 12-22. (continued) Florida Administrative Marine Fisheries Commission organization Legislative Chapter 370, Florida Statutes; additional organization 220 state laws that apply on a local level; all local laws will become Rules of the Marine Fisheries Commission by July 1, 1985. Licenses License to sell: Resident - $25 annually Non-resident - $100 annually Alien - $150 annually Wholesale seafood dealer Resident - $300 annually Non-resident - $500 annually Alien - $750 annually Retail seafood dealer Resident - $25 annually Non-resident - $200 annually Alien - $250 annually Size 12" FL minimum restrictions Limits None Gear Purse seining and stop netting prohibited. restrictions Numerous local gear and area restrictions. Conservation None regulations 78 Davis (1980) suggested that changes in the red drum fishery in Everglades National Park 1972-1977, which included a shift in age structure toward larger, mature fish and increased catch rates, resulted from increased salinities from drainage control. The Texas Department of Water Resources has investigated the effects of freshwater inflow upon Texas bays and estuaries. A comparison of annual harvest rates of red drum with seasonal freshwater inflows revealed a positive response between harvest and increased inflow in spring (April-June), fall (September-October), and late fall (November-December). High inflow in winter (January-March) and summer (July-August) was negatively correlated with catch rate (Anonymous 1982b). Estuarine habitats have deteriorated rapidly since approximately 1940, mostly as a result of industrial and human population growth. The National Estuary Study, completed in 1970, indicated that 73% of the Nation's estuaries had been moderately or severely degraded (Gusey 1978, 1981). Damage and/or destruction of estuaries has largely been by dredging and filling for waterfront property, dredging of navigation channels, construction of causeways and bridges@' installation of ports and marinas, alteration of freshwater flow, and pollution. Unfortunately the effects of habitat alterations have rarely been quantified. In recent years the coastal states have enacted coastal zone management laws to regulate dredge and fill activities and shoreline development (Table 12-23). The Federal government also has some jurisdiction over the estuarine-marine habitat. The Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) has authority through National Marine Sanctuaries, pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The OCZM Estuarine Sanctuary program has designated Rookery Bay in Collier County, Florida, and the Apalachicola River and Bay in Franklin County, Florida, as estuarine sanctuaries. The OCZM also sets standards for approving and funding state coastal zone management programs. The Environmental Protection Agency may provide protection to fish communities through the granting of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants into ocean waters, and the conditioning of those permits so as to protect valuable resources. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the disposal of dredged material, pursuant to both the Clean Water Act and the MPRSA. The Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, reviews and comments on proposals for work and activities in or affecting navigable waters that are sanctioned, permitted, assisted, or conducted by Federal agencies. The review focuses mainly on potential damage to fish and wildlife, and their habitat. The Environmental Assessment Branch of the NMFS is required to assess potential impacts on fishery resources of projects submitted to the Corps of Engineers for permits, and to recommend whether a project should be approved, denied, or modified. Fiscal year 1981 (October 1980 - September 1981) was the first year NMFS quantified the cumulative acreage of habitat involved in the Corps of Engineers permit program in the Southeast Region of the United States. NMFS made recommendations on 1,380 permit applications involving 7,272 ha (17,969 acres); 18% were Table 12-23. Summary of state habitat protection regulations, Rhode Island to Florida. Administrative Legislative State organization authorization Regulations Rhode Island Rhode Island Chapter 279, Public Permits required for Department of Environmental Laws of 1971, Sect. 1, coastal zone development, Management and Coastal Title 46, General Laws aquaculture, dredge and Resources Management of Water and Navigation. fill operations. Council Chapter 23 Coastal Resources Management Council. Connecticut Connecticut Department "The Coastal Management Permits required to dredge of Environmental Act" Section 22-a-90 fill or construct Protection to 22a-96 structures in both fresh and salt water. Permit required to work in regulated wetland areas. New York Department of Environmental Environmental Conservation Regulates activities in and Conservation, Bureau of Law Article 25, Tidal adjacent to tidal wetlands Tidal Wetlands Wetlands Act, Part 661. and requires permits for Land use regulations of such activities. tidal wetlands. New Jersey Department of Environmental Wetlands Act of 1970 Regulates activities in the Protection, Division of NJSA 13:9A-1 et lse_q_,, coastal zone and requires Coastal Resources Coastal Area Fa-c iTi ies permits for such activities. Review Act NJSA 13:19-1 et seq., Waterfront Development Law, NJSA 12:5-3, Beaches and Harbors Bond Act of 1977 PL 77-208, Shore Protection Legislation NJSA 12:6A-1 00 CD Table 12-23. (continued) Administrative Legislative State organization ' authorization Regulations Delaware Delaware Department Sect. 1, Title 7, Regulates use of wetlands of Natural Resources Delaware Code, and their upland border and Environmental Control, Chapter 66. Wetlands. and provide penalties for Division of Environmental violations. Control, Wetlands Section Maryland Maryland Department of Natural Resources Article, Regulates activities in Natural Resources, Tidewater Code of Maryland tidal wetlands areas. Administration; Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs Virginia Virginia Marine Resources The Wetlands Act Regulates alterations to Commission; County Section 62.1-13.20, tidal marshes, sand and wetlands boards Code of Virginia mud flats, subaqueous bottoms, and sand dunes. North Carolina North Carolina Department NC Dredge and Fill Law Requires permits to dredge of Natural Resources and (GS 113-229), Coastal or fill in or about Community Development, Area Management Act estuarine waters. Office of Coastal (CAMA) (GS 113A100) Establishes areas of Management; Coastal Resources environmental concern. Commission; Coastal Resources Permits required for Advisory Council coastal zone development. Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Administra- Prohibits the use of bottom- tive Code, Chapter 3, disturbing gears and severely Section .1400 restricts or prohibits excavation and/or filling activities in nursery areas for young finfish and crustaceans. South Carolina South Carolina Coastal Zone Coastal Zone Management Directs permit activities Managment Council and Planning Act in areas of wetlands, Table 12-23. (continued) Administrative Legislative State organization authorization Regulations Georgia Georgia Department of Coastal Marshlands Requires permits to dredge, Natural Resources, Protection Act of 1970 fill, remove drain, or other- Coastal Resources Division, (Gs. L. 1970, p. 939, 1.) wise alter any marshlands. Coastal Protection Section Shore Assistance Act of Requires permits for a 1979 (Gs. L. 1979, 1.) structure, shoreline engineering activity, or land alteration in beaches, sand bars, and sand dunes in Georgia. Florida Florida Department Chapter 253, Florida Regulates dredge, fill, and of Natural Resources Statutes structures on state sub- merged lands (below mean high water). Provides for acquisition of conservation lands and tidally influenced areas. Chapter 258, F.S. Establishes aquatic pre- serves and regulates activities within preserves. Florida Department of Chapter 403, F.S. Permitting of activities Environmental Regulation (including dredge and fill) which affect water quality. Florida Department of Chapter 380, F.S. Administer and set standards Community Affairs for "Development of Regional Impact". Protects regional or statewide resources from poorly conceived development activities. CO 82 proposed for dredging, 36% for filling, and 46% for impounding. NMFS did not object to alteration of 1,861 ha (4,598 acres), recommended against altering 5,411 ha (13,371 -acres), and recommended that 1,345 ha (3,324 acres) either be restored or modified from upland habitat to mitigate the losses that were permitted. Thus, the NMFS efforts conserved 6,756 ha (16,695 acres) of habitat (Lindall and Thayer 1982). NMFS is also involved in the review of Congressionally authorized Federal projects. NMFS has adopted a new habitat conservation policy which will enhance its overall role in habitat conservation from a previously advisory role based primarily on the policies developed in response to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Actil The new policy will: (1) ensure that habitat is fully considered in all of NMFS' programs and activities; (2) focus NMFS' habitat conservation activities on species for which the agency has management or protection responsibilities under the MFCMA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act; (3) lay the foundation for management and research cooperation on habitat issues; and (4) strengthen NMFS' partnerships with the states and the regional FMCs on habitat issues. 12.7.3 Stockinq Red drum, a highly sought game and food fish, has been the target of numerous mariculture experiments. Investigations on grow out of red drum were initiated in 1947 and continued intermittently for 20 years in South Carolina ponds tidally stocked with wild fish (Lunz 1951, 1956; Bearden 1967). The red drum portion of the harvested crops was only 15 kg/ha/yr at maximum, but Bearden (1967) noted that the impounded red drum averaged 860 g when 1 year old. In a more recent study, South Carolina ponds yielded 52 kg/ha/yr of red drum with year-old drum averaging 950 g and ranging from 800-1,070 g (Theiling and Loyacano 1976). Red drum, fed commercial feed or killed forage fish in Texas ponds, exhibited potential for higher yield and survival during grow out. Luebke and Strawn (1973) reported that yield for red drum reached 308 kg/ha with 96% survival and increase in mean weight from 186 g to 641 g. Red drum averaging 0.5 g were produced in Texas by rearing 2- to 6-day-old larvae in ten 0.1-ha ponds for 27 to 60 days with 20% survival and 29.7 kg/ha yield. Red drum stocked at a larger size (638-1,484 g) and given supplemental feed did not grow (Colura et al. 1976). Lasswell et al. (1977) reported excellent growth (2 kg/yr) of juveniles stocked in Texas reservoirs. Juvenile red drum were reared to marketable size (454 g) in 0.08 ha brackish-water ponds in Alabama. The yield when harvested from 394-715 days old ranged from 787-2,292 kg/ha with 1-33% of the drum marketable at harvest. The cost of feed approached the dock value of whole red drum, posing an economic barrier in Alabama for mariculture of red drum (Trimble 1979). 26 Federal Register 48(228):53142-53148, November 25, 1983. 83 The development of spawning techniques (Colura 1974;Arnold et al. 1977; Roberts, Harpster, and Henderson 1978) enhanced the mariculture potential for red drum. Roberts, Morey, et al. (1978) investigated the effects of delayed feeding, stocking density, and food density on survival, growth and production of larval red drum in Florida. The tolerances of eggs, larvae, and postlarvae of red drum to ammonia and nitrite were investigated by Holt and Arnold (1983). Crocker et al. (1981) evaluated survival and growth of juveniles in fresh and salt water. The use of stocking as a potential management tool in Texas resulted from the declining trend in red drum abundance in Texas and the development of techniques to spawn and rear red drum in captivity (Matlock 1984b). During 1975-1982 Texas bays were stocked with over 56 million red drum eggs (15%), fry (80%), and fingerlings (5%). To assess the success of fingerling stockings, 49,194 were tagged. The success of these stockings has not yet been evaluated. With the completion of the John Wilson Hatchery at Corpus Christi, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is involved in a comprehensive red drum restoration project (Sasser 1983). The impact of the stocking on the coastal fishery resource will be evaluated in on-going monitoring programs. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has recently produced a hybrid cross between the red drum and black drum which may have potential as a freshwater sport fish (Anonymous 1983b). Historically, stocking of hatchery fish into coastal waters to improve catch has generally been a failure. The value of artificially propogated sciaenids in 'the management of sciaenid stocks can best be realized through: (1) descriptions of previously undescribed early life stages, (2) bioassay, and (3) introduction of tagged, known-age stocks to determine growth, migratory patterns, and exploitation rate. Stocking of large numbers of sciaenid larvae, fry, or fingerlings into the coastal area is not advocated unless they are stocked in water where they: (1) previously did not exist and an opportunity exists for filling an underutilized niche, (2) had existed but populations had reached such low levels that inadequate spawning stocks remain, (3) habitat alterations had eliminated spawning, growing or fishing grounds, or (4) water quality persistently prevented successful spawning or year-class survival (Tatum 1981). 12.8 Current Research There is little ongoing research on red drum on the Atlantic coast. The Maryland Tidewater Administration, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) conduct juvenile fish surveys in the estuaries to monitor finfish stocks. The NCDMF also samples the commercial fisheries in order to monitor adult finfish stocks and will begin an adult estuarine fish survey in 1984. A tagging study and population assessment of red drum in Georgia estuaries is being conducted by the Georgia Coastal Resources Division. The Florida Department of Natural Resources is completing a study on life history, age and growth, mortality, and yield per recruit of red drum, is examining habitat loss in three Florida estuaries and changes in the fisheries of those estuaries, and is tagging red drum 84 (ages I-IV). The National Park Service monitors juvenile finfish stocks and conducts a creel survey of the recreational fishery in Everglades National Park. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a two-year resource assessment study of the commercial fishery, which includes red drum, in Everglades National Park. NMFS conducts annual marine recreational fishery statistics surveys and commercial fishery statistics are collected by state and Federal port agents. 12.9 Identification of Problems The Interstate Fisheries Management Program Sciaenid Technical Committee has identified the following immediate red drum research needs: (1) stock 'identification; (2) validation of unifbrm ageing techniques throughout the range; and (3) tagging studies to estimate fishing and total mortality. Improved catch and effort statistics for both the commercial and recreational fisheries are needed to measure stock density. Long-term monitoring needs include: (1) determination of habitat preferences, growth rates, and food habits of larval and juvenile red drum; (2) assessment of the effects of environmental factors on stock density; and (3) yield modeling. The effectiveness of controlling fishing mortality and minimum size in managing the fisheries needs to be examined. 85 13.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank members of the Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) Sciaenid Technical Committee for their major contributions to the format and contents of this report. The members of the ISFMP Sciaenid Board and the South Atlantic State Federal Fisheries Management Board provided guidance in the development of the plan's goal and objectives. Membership rosters are included as an appendix to this report (Section 15.0). 1 thank Michael Street, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, for his advice and review of the manuscript. Funding for the preparation of this report was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Regional Office, NOAA, under State/Federal Cooperative Agreement No. SF-13. Funds for printing were provided by NMFS - Northeast Regional Offices, NOAA, to the ISFMP under Cooperative Agreement No. NA-80-FA-H-00017. I thank Diana Willis for typing this report. 87 14.0 REFERENCES Adkins G., J. Tarver, P. Bowman, and B. Savoie. 1979. A study of the commercial fish in coastal Louisiana. La. Dep. Wildl. Fish., Tech. Bull. 29, 87 p. Anderson, W. W. 1968. Fishes taken during shrimp trawling along the South Atlantic coast of the United States, 1931-1935. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 570, 60 p. Anderson, W. W. and J. W. Gehringer. 1965. Biological-statistical census of the species entering fisheries in the Cape Canaveral area. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 514, 79 p. Angler gigs 352 puppy drum. 1984. The Carteret News-Times, Jan. 30, 1984:8. Anonymous. 1957. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Mount Vernon, N. Y., 94 p. Anonymous. 1980. Marine recreational fishery statistics, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. No. 8063, 139 p. Anonymous. 1982a. Red drumanel sparks fishery profile need. Gulf Fish. News 2( :1,3. 1982b. The influence of freshwater inflows upon the major bays and estuaries of the Texas Gulf coast. Executive Summary. Tex. Dep. Water Resour. LP-115, 53 p. Anonymous. 1983a. 1983 record game fishes. Freshwater, saltwater, and flyfishing. International Game Fish Assoc., Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 1983b. Texas biologists cross redfish and black drum. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Mar. Fish. Rev. 45 (10-12):72. Anonymous. 1984. Marine recreational fishery statistics, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979 (Revised)-1980. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. No. 8322, 239 p. Arnold, C. R., T. D. Williams, A. Johnson, W. H. Bailey, and J. L. Lasswell. 1977. Laboratory spawning and larval rearing of red drum and southern flounder. 31st Annu. Conf., Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm., 10 p. 88 Arrington, J. 1983. Those Outer Banks Drum. Salt Water Sportsman. Sept.:34-37. Bass, R. J. and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1975. Food habits, length-weight relationship, condition factor, and growth of juvenile red drum S i s ocellata, in . ciaenop Louisiana. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104:35-45. Bearden, C. M. 1967. Salt-water impoundments for @ame fish in South Carolina. Prog. Fish Cult. 29(3 :123-128. 1969. A report and recommendations on the saltwater sport fisheries of South Carolina. S. C. Wildl. Resourc. Dep., unpub. ms, 96 p. Beaumariage, D. S. 1969. Returns from the 1965 Schlitz tagging program including a cumulative analysis of previous results. Fla. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. No. 59, 38 p. Beaumariage, D. S. and A. C. Wittich. 1966. Returns from the 1964 Schlitz tagging program. Fla. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Tech. Ser. No. 47, 50 p. Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 53, 577 p. Boothby, R. N. and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1971. Food habits, length-weight relationshi@ and condition factor of the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatal in southeastern Louisiana. Tran!,7,_.Tm_.Fis_F_.Soc. 100(2):290-295. Breuer, J. P. 1973. A survey of the juvenile and adult food and game fish of the Laguna Madre. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Coast. Fish. Proj. Rep. 1973:173-202. Briggs, J. C. 1958. A list of Florida fishes and their distribution. Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 2(8):223-318. Cardeilnac, P. T., C. F. Simpson, F. H. White, N.P. Thompson, and W. E. Carr. 1981. Evidence for metal poisoning in acute deaths of large red drum (Sciaenops ocellata). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 27(5):639-644. Carr, W. E. S. and T. B. Chaney. 1976. Harness for attachment of an ultrasonic transmitter to the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 74(4):998. 89 Castro Aguirre, J. L. 1978. Catalogo sistematico peces marinos pentran a los advas contenentals de Mexico con aspectos geograficas etologicos. Direccion General Instituto National Pesca. Mexico. Cientifica No. 19, 298 p. Cato, J. C. 1981. Economic values and uses of the sciaenid fisheries. In Marine Recreational Fisheries 6. Proc. 6th Annu. Mar. R-ec. Fish. Sym., p. 59-68, Sport Fishing Institute, Wash., D.C., 212 p. Chao, L. N. 1976. Aspects of systematics, morphology, life history and feeding of western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Pisces:Perciformes). Ph. D. Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 342 p. 1978. A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei:Perciformes). NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ. 415, 64 p. Chapman, D. E. 1967. Behavior observations of captive redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus). Underwater Nat. 4:38. Christmas, J. Y. and R. S. Waller. 1973. Estuarine vertebrates, Mississippi. In J. Y. Christmas (ed.) Coop. Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inve@_tory and Study, Mississippi, p. 320-434, Gulf Res. Lab. Clark, J. R. 1962. The 1960 salt-water angling survey. U. S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Circ. 153, 36 p. Colura, R. L. 1974. Fish propagation. In Saltwater pond research, study No. 2. Completion Report, P. L. 88-309 Project 2-169-R, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 32 p. Colura, R. L., B. T. Hysmith, and R. E. Stevens. 1976. Fingerling production of striped bass (Morone saxatilis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebO_osus), and red drijm (Sciaenops ocellatus), in saltwater ponds. Proc. Annu. Meet. World MaricUl. -Soc. 7:79-92. Crocker, P. A., C. R. Arnold, J. A. DeBoer, and J. D. Holt. 1981. Preliminary evaluation of survival and growth of juvenile red drum (Sciaenops ocellata) in fresh and salt water. J. World Maricul. Soc. 12-(-IT-122-134. Dahlberg, M. D. 1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal fishes. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 70(2):323-353. 90 Darnell, R. M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Pub. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Texas 5:353-416. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Ecology 42(3):553-568. Davis, G. E. 1980. Changes in the Everglades National Park red drum and spotted seatrout fisheries 1958-1978: fishing pressure, environmental stress, or natural cycles? In Proc. Red Drum and Seatrout Colloq., Oct. 19-20, 197T,- p. 81-87, Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 5, 118 p. 1982. Fishery management conflicts in Everglades National Park. Marine Recreational Fisheries 7. Proc. 7th Annu. Mar. Rec. Fish. Sym., p. 65-75, Sport Fishing Institute. Wash., D. C., 183 p. Deuel, D. G. 1973. The 1970 salt-water angling survey. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 6200, 54 p. Deuel, D. G. and J. R. Clark. 1968. The 1965 salt-water angling survey. U. S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resour. Publ. 67, 51 p. DeVries, D. A. 1981. Description and catch composition of North Carolina's long haul seine fishery. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 34:234-274. Fish, M. P. and W. H. Mowbray. 1970. Sounds of western North Atlantic fishes. A reference file of biological underwater sounds. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London. Fontenot, F. J. and H. E. Rogillio. 1970. A study of estuarine sportfishes in the Biloxi marsh complex, Louisiana. La. Dept. Wildl. Fish., Fish. Bull. No. 8, 172 p. Freeman, B. L. and L. A. Walford. 1974. Angler's guide to the United States Atlantic coast. Section IV. Delaware Bay to False Cape, Virginia. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D. C. 1976a. Angler's guide to the United States Atlantic coast. Section V, Chesapeake Bay. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D. C. 91 1976b. Angler's guide to the United States Atlantic coast. Section VI, False Cape, Virginia to Altamaha Sound, Georgia. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D. C. 1976c. Angler's guide to the United States Atlantic coast. Section VII, Altamaha Sound, Georgia to Fort Pierce Inlet, Florida. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D.C. 1976d. Angler's guide to the United States Atlantic coast. Section VIII, St. Lucie Inlet, Florida to the Dry Tortugas. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D. C. Gadbois, D. F. and R. S. Maney. 1983. Survey of polychlorinated biphenyls in selected finfish species from United States coastal waters. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 81(2):389-396. Gilmore, R. G., Jr., C. J. Donohoe, D. W. Cooke, and D. J. Herrema. 1981. Fishes of the Indian River lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc., Tech. Rep. No. 41, 36 p. Goode, G. B. 1884. The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States. Section 1. Plates. Natural history of useful aquatic animals. U. S. Govt. Print. Off., Wash., D. C. Goodrich, H. and G. C. Matlock. 1983. Survival, growth, and movement of red drum stocked into Texas bays. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. (In prep.). Green, A. W., H. R. Osburn, G. C. Matlock, and H. E. Hegen. in prep. Estimation of red drum survival rates in Texas Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Greenwood, P., D. Rosen, W. Weitzman, and G. Myers. 1966. Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131:341-455. Guest, W. C. and J. L. Lasswell. 1978. A note on courtship behavior and sound production of red drum. Copeia (2):337-338., Gunter, G. 1938. Seasonal variations in abundance of certain estuarine and marine fishes in Louisiana, with particul'ar reference to life histories. Ecol. Monogr. 8:313-346. 1941. Death of fishes due to cold on the Texas coast, January 1940. Ecology 22:203-208. 1942. A list of the fishes of the mainland of North and Middle America recorded from both freshwater and seawater. Am. Midl. Nat. 28(2):305-326. 92 1945. Studies on the marine fishes of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Tex. l(l):1-190. 1947. Differential rate of death for large and small fishes . caused by hard cold waves. Science 106(2759):472-473. 1950. Correlation between temperature of water and size of marine fishes on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Copeia 1950(4):298-303. 1956. A revised list of euryhaline fishes of North and Middle America. Am. Midl. Nat. 56(2):345-354. 1958. Population studies of the shallow water fishes of an outer beach in south Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Tex. 5:186-193. 1959. Biological investigations of St. Lucie estuary in connection with Lake Okeechobee discharge through St. Lucie Canal. Rep. to Dist. Eng. Jacksonville Dist. Corps Eng. 75 p. (mimeo report). Gunter, G. and G. E. Hall. 1962. Biological investigations of Caloosahatchee estuary in connection with Lake Okeechobee discharges through Caloosahatchee River. Rep. to Dist. Eng. Jacksonville Dist. Corps Eng., 59 p. Gunter, G. and H. H. Hildebrand. 1951. Destruction of the fishes and other organisms on the south Texas coast by the cold wave of Janaury 28- February 3, 1951. Ecology 32:731-735. Gusey, W. F. 1978. The fish and wildlife resources of the Middle Atlantic Bight. Shell Oil Co., Houston, Tex. 1981. The fish and wildlife resources of the South Atlantic coast. Shell Oil Co., Houston, Tex. Hall, R. A., E. G. Zook, and G. M. Meaburn. 1978. National Marine Fisheries Service survey of trace elements in the fishery resource. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-721, 313 p. Harrington, R. A., G. C. Matlock and J. E. Weaver. 1979. Standard-total length, total length-whole, weight and dressed-whole weight relationships for selected species from Texas Bays. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Tech. Ser. No. 26, 6 p. 93 Heffernan, T. L. 1973. Survey of adult red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), C_ 1973 - Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep ., oastal ri-s-h.Proi. Rep. 1973:37-66. Heffernan, T. L. and R. J. Kemp. 1980. Management of the red drum resource in Texas. In Red Drum and Seatrout Colloq., Oct. 19-29, 1978, p. 71-80. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 5, 118 p. 1982. The conflicts and controversies surrounding red drum and spotted seatrout. In Marine Recreational Fisheries 7. Proc. 7th Annu. Mar. Rec. Fish. Sym., p. 57-64. Sport Fishing Institute, Wash., D.C., 183 p. Hein, S. H. and J. A. Shepard. 1980. Growth of juvenile red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, in a quarter-acre pond. La. Dep. WildT. -Fish., Contrib. Mar. Res. Lab.-1978. Tech. Bull. No. 31:85. (in press). Peak spawning of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, in southeast Louisiana. La. De_p_.__WiTdT_. Fish., Contrib. Mar. Lab., Tech. Bull. Hein, S., C. Dugas, and J. Shepard. 1980. Total length-standard and length-weight regressions for spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus; red drum, Sciaenops ocellata; and blacT -drum, PFogonias cromis, in '@6-uth-cent_ra-r -Louisiana. La. Dep. WiTdT.FisF. Contrib. Mar. Res. Lab., Tech. Bull. 31:41-48. Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 43(l):276-278. Holt, G. J., S. A. Holt, and C. R. Arnold. 1983. Spawning synchrony in sciaenid fishes. (Abstract). Estuaries 6(3):261. Holt, J., A. G. Johnson, C. R. Arnold, W. A. Fable, Jr., and T. D. Williams. 1981. Description of eggs and larvae of laboratory reared red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Copeia (4):751-756. Holt, J. and C. Arnold. 1982. Effects of temperature on early development of red drum (Sciaenops ocellata). 5th Annu. Larval Fish Conf. La. Coop. Fish.7e_s.Unit:83. 1983. Effects of ammonia and nitrite on growth and survival of red drum eggs and larvae. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 112:314-318. 94 Holt, J., R. Godbout, and C. R. Arnold. 1981. Effects of temperature and salinity on egg hatching and larval survival of red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 79(3):569-573. Holt, S. and C. Arnold. 1982. Distribution and abundance of eggs, larvae and juveniles of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in seagrass beds in a south Texas estuary. 5fh -Annu. Larval Fish Conf., La. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit: 86. Holt, S. A., C. L. Kitting, and C. R. Arnold. 1983. Distribution of young red drums among different sea-grass meadows. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 112:267-271. Hysmith, B. T., R. L. Colura, and G. C. Matlock. 1982. Effects of stocking rate and food type on growth and survival of fingerling red drum. Presented at Warmwater Fish Culture Workshop, Annu. Meet. World Maricul. Soc. March 1-4, 1982. Charleston, S. C. Ingle, R* M., R. F. Hutton and R. W. Topp. 1962. Results of tagging of salt water fishes in Florida. Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Tech. Ser. No. 38, 55 p. Inglis, A. 1959. Predation on shrimp. U. S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Circ. 62:50-53. Jannke, T. E. 1971. Abundance of young sciaenid fishes in Everglades National Park, Florida, in relation to season and other variables., Univ. Miami Sea Grant Tech. Bull. 11, 28 p. Johnson, A. G., W. A. Fable, Jr., T. D. Williams, and C. R. Arnold. 1977. Description of reared eggs and young larvae of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Fed, Aid Proj. F-31-R:118-140. Johnson, G. D. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Vol. IV. Carangidae through Ephippidae. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS-78/12, 314 p. Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 47, 1240 p. Jordan, D. S., B. W. Evermann, and H. W. Clark. 1930. Check list of the fishes and fish-like vertebrates of North and Middle America north of the northern boundary of Venezuela and Columbia. Rep. U. S. Comm. Fish. 1928, 2:1-670. 95 Jorgenson, S. C. and G. L. Miller. 1968. Length relations of some marine fishes from coastal Georgia. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 575, 16 p. Keiser, R. K. , Jr. 1976. Species composition, magnitude and utilization of the incidental catch of the South Carolina shrimp fishery. S. C. Mar. Resour. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 16, 55 p. Kemp, R. J. 1949. Report on stomach analysis on June 1, 1949 through August 31, 1949. Tex. Game, Fish Oyster Comm., Mar. Lab. Annu. Rep. (1948-1949):101-127. Kilby, J. D. 1955. The fishes of two Gulf coastal marsh areas of Florida. Tulane Stud. Zool. 2:176-247. King, B. D., III. 1971. Study of migratory patterns of fish and shellfish through a natural pass. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Tech. Ser. 9, 54 p. Knapp, F. T. 1950. Menhaden utilization in relation to the conservation of food and game fishes of the Texas Gulf coast. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 79:137-144. Knowlton, C. J. 1972. Fishes taken during commercial shrimp fishing in Georgia's close inshore ocean waters. Ga. Game Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Off., Contrib. Ser. No. 21, 42 p. LaMonte, F. 1951. A preliminary survey of marine angling in North Carolina. In Taylor, H. F., Survey of Marine Fisheries of North Carolina. p. 251486. Univ. N. C. Press, 555 p. Lasswell, J. L., G.-Garza, and W. H. Bailey. 1977. Status of marine fish introductions into fresh waters of Texas. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 31:399-403. Lee, W. Y., G. J. Holt, and C. R. Arnold. 1984. Growth of red drum larvae in the laboratory. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:243-246. Lindall, W. N., Jr. and G. W. Thayer. 1982. Quantification of National Marine Fisheries Service habitat conservation efforts in the Southeast Region of the United States. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(12):18-22. 96 Linton, E. 1905. Parasites of fishes of Beaufort, North Carolina. Bull. Bur. Fish (1904) 24:321-428. Lippson, A. J. and R. L. Moran. 1974. Manual for identification of early development stages of fishes of the Potomac River estuary. Md. Dep. Nat. Res. PPSP-MP-13, 282 p. Loman, M. 1978. Other finfish. In Christmas, J. Y. (ed.). Fisheries assessment and monitTring- Mississippi. P.L. 88-309, 2-215-R, Completion Report, p. 143-147. Gulf Coast Res. Lab. Luebke, R. W. and K. Strawn. 1973. The growth, survival, and feeding behavior of redfish (Sciaenops ocellata) in ponds receiving heated discharge water from a power plant. In Proc. 4th Annu. Workshop World Mariculture Soc., p. 743-154. Monterrey, Mexico. Lunz, G. R. 1951. A salt water fish pond. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Wadmalaw Island, S. C. No. 12, 12 p. 1956. Harvest from an experimental one-acre saltwater pond at Bears Bluff Laboratories, South Carolina. Prog. Fish-Cult. 18:92-94. Lux, F. E. and J. V. Mahoney. 1969. First records of the channel bass, Sciaenops ocellata (Linnaeus), in the Gulf of Maine. Copeia (3):b32-b33. McFarland, W. N. 1963. Seasonal change in the number and the biomass of fishes from the surf at Mustang Island, Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Texas, 9:91-105. McKee, D. A. 1980. A comparison of the growth rate, standard length-weight relationship and condition factor of red drum, Sciaenops ocellata (Linnaeus), from an electric generating station's cooling lake and the natural environment. M.S. Thesis, Corpus Christi State Univ., 53 p. Mabrey, E. L., D. G. Deuel, and A. D. Kirsch. 1977. Participation in marine recreational fish.ing, southeastern United States, 1974. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. .Serv. Curr. Fish. Stat. No. 7333, 13 p. Mahood, R. K.9 C. D. Harris, J. L. Music, Jr., and B. A. Palmer. 1974. Survey of the fisheries resources in Georgia's estuarine and inshore ocean waters. Part IV. Coastal Georgia-Southern, Central and Northern Section. Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour. Contrib. Ser. No. 25, 201 p. 97 Mansueti, R. J. 1960. Restriction of very young red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, to shallow estuarine waters of Chesapeake Bay during Me autumn. Chesapeake Sci. 1(3-4):207-210. Matlock, G. C. 1980. History and management of the red drum fishery. In Proc. Red Drum and Seatrout Colloq., Oct. 19-20, 1978, P. 37-53. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 5, 118 p. 1982. The conflict between user groups of red drum and spotted seatrout in Texas. In Marine Recreational Fisheries 7. Proc. 7th Annu. Mar. Rec. Fish. Sym., p. 101-108. Sport Fishing Institute, Wash., D. C., 183 p. 1984b. A summary of 7 years of stocking Texas Bays with red drum. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Coast. Fish. Branch, Manage. Data Serv. No. 60, 14 p. 1984a. A basis for the development of a management plan for red drum in Texas. Ph.D. Diss., Texas A & M Univ. Matlock, G. C. and J. E. Weaver. 1979. Fish tagging in Texas bays during November 1975 - September 1976. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Coast. Fish. Branch, Data Ser. No. 1, 136 p. Matlock, G. C., J. E. Weaver, and A. W. Green. 1977. Trends in spotted seatrout and red drum abundance in Texas coastal waters influenced by commercial netting activities. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 31-477-483. Matlock, G. C. and M. A. Garcia. 1983. Stomach contents of selected fishes from Texas Bays. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26:95-110. Matlock, G. C., P. L. Johansen, and J' P. Breuer. 1979. Management of red drum in a Texas estuary - a case study. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 33:442-450. Mercer, L. P. 1984. A biological and fisheries profile of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. N.C. Dep. Nat. Resour. Commun. Dev., Div. Mar. Fish., Spec. Sci. Rep. 41, 89p. Miles, D. W. 1950. The life histories of spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus, and the redfish, Sciaenops oceliatus. Tex. game-Fish Comm. Mar. Lab. Annu. Rep., 1949-1950. 98 1951. The life histories of the seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and the redfish, Sciaenops ocellatus: sexual d 7- eve opment. Tex. Game Fish Comm. Mar. Lab. Annu. Rep. 1950-1951, 11 p. Miller, G. L. and S. C. Jorgenson. 1973. Meristic characters of some marine fishes of the western Atlantic Ocean. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish Bull. 71:301-312. Moore, C. J. 1980. South Carolina's non-commercial gill-net fishery. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109:577-580. Music, J. L., Jr. and J. M. Pafford. 1984. Population dynamics and life history aspects of major marine sportfishes in Georgia's coastal waters. Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour., Coastal Resour. Div., Coastal Fish. Sect., Final Rep. Study VI Fed. Aid Proj. F-31. Odum, W. E. and E. J. Heald. 1975. Trophic analyses of an estuarine mangrove community. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22(3):671-738. Ogle, T. F. 1982. Autumn on the point. Salt Water Sportsman, October 1982:58-60. Osborne, K. 1981. Saltwater sport fishing and boating in North Carolina. Alexandria Drafting Co., Alexandria, Va., 52 p. Osburn, H. R., G. C. Matlock, and A. W. Green. 1982. Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) movement in Texas bays. Contrib. Mar.Sci. 25:85-97. Overstreet, R. M. 1983. Aspects of the biology of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in Mississippi. Gulf Res. Rep., Supp. 1, 1-43. Overstreet, R. M. and R. W. Heard. 1978. Food of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, from Mississippi Sound. Gulf Res. Rep. 6:131-135. Pafford, M. 1981. Seasonal movement and migration of red dr'um (Sciaenops ocellata) in Georgia's coastal waters.,,,(AbstractT-. Estuaries 4(3):279-280. Pearson, J. C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the Texas coast. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 44:129-214. 99 1932. Winter trawl fishery off the Virginia and North Carolina coasts. U. S. Bur. Fish. Invest'. Rep. 10, 31 p. Perret, William S. 1971. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and study, Louisiana. Phase IV, Biology. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm. Project 2-22-R:41-105. Perret,'W. S., J. E. Weaver, R. 0. Williams, P. L. Johansen, T. D. McIlwain, R. C. Raulerson, and W. M. Tatum. 1980. Fishery profiles of red drum and spotted seatrout. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 6, 60 p. Powles, H. and B. W. Stender. 1978. Taxonomic data on the early life history stages of Sciaenidae of the South Atlantic Bight of the United States. S. C. Mar. Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 31, 64 p. Rabalais, S. C., C. R. Arnold, and N. S. Wohlschlag. 1981. The effects of Ixtoc I oil on the eggs and larvae of red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), Tex. J. Sci. 33:33-38. Rafail, S. Z. 1973. A simple and precise method for fitting a von Bertalanffy growth curve. Mar. Biol. 19:354-358. Reid, G. K., Jr. 1955. A summer study of the biology and ecology of East Bay, .Texas. Part I. Tex. J. Sci. 7:316-343. Richards, C. E. 1965. Availability patterns of marine fishes caught by charter boats operating off Vir inia's Eastern Shore, 1955-1962. Chesapeake Sci. 6(2M6-108. Richardson, S. L. and J. Laroche. 1982. The role of Mississ.ippi Sound in recruitment of sport and commercial fish stocks. Quart. Prog. Rep., Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consort., R/ER-5. Roberts, D. E., Jr., B. V. Harpster, and G. E. Henderson. 1978. Conditioning and induced spawning of the red drum (Sciaenops ocellata) under varied conditions of photoperiod and temperature. Proc. Annu. Meet. World Maricult. Soc. 1978:311-332. Roberts, D. E., Jr., L. A. Morey, G. E. Henderson, and K. R. Halscott. 19.78. The effects of delayed feeding, stocking density and food density on survival, growth, and production of larval red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Proc. 9th Annu. Meet. World Maricult. Soc.:@_33-343. 100 Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Sci. Publ. No. 12, 174 p. Robison, D. E. (in press). Variability in the vertical distri 'bution of ichthyoplankton in lower Tampa Bay. Proc. Bay Area Sci. Inform Sym., Tampa Bay, Fla. Rogillio, H. E. 1975. An estuarine sportfish study in southeastern Louisiana. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm. Fish. Bull. No. 14, 71 p. Rohr, B. A. 1980. Use of hard parts to age Gulf of Mexico Red Drum (Abstract). In Proc. Red Drum and Seatrout Colloq., Oct 19-20, 1978, p. 15. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 5, 118 p. Ross, J. L., J. S. Pavela, and M. E. Chittenden, Jr. 1983. Seasonal occurrence of black drum, Pogonias cromis, and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, off Texas. Northi5stGulf Sci. 6(l):-67-70. Sabins, D. S. and F. M. Truesdale. 1974. Diel and seasonal occurrence of immature fishes in a Louisiana tidal pass. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 28:161-171. Sasser, R. 1983. Redfish revival. Salt Water Sportsman, August 1983:37-39. Schwartz, F. J., W. T. Hogarth, and M. P. Weinstein. 1981. Marine and freshwater fishes of the Cape Fear estuary, North Carolina, and their distribution in relation to envionmental factors. Brimleyana 7:17-37. Setzler, E. M. 1977. A quantitative study of the movement of larval and juvenile Sciaenidae and Engraulidae into the estuarine nursery grounds of Doboy Sound, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Georgia, 121 p. Shiino, S. M. 1976. List of common names of fishes of the world, those prevailing among English-speaking nations. Shima Marineland, Kashikojima, Shima, Mie, Japan, 262 p. Simmons, E. G. 1951. The Cedar Bayou fish trap. Tex. Game Fish Comm., Coast. Fish. Proj. Rep. 1950-1951:1-26 (mimeo). 101 1957. An ecological survey of the Upper Laguna Madre of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Texas 4(2):156-200. 1969. Big Red. Tex. Parks Wildl. Mag. 27(l):25-31. Simmons, E. G. and J. P. Breuer. 1962. A study of redfish, Sciaenops ocellata, and black drum, Pogonias cromis. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 8.18T--211. 1976. Fish tagging on the Texas coast. In Coastal Fisheries Project Report. 1976. p. 66-107. H. B. Burkett (Dir.) Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Simmons, E. G. and H. D. Hoese. 1959. Studies on the hydrography and fish migrations of Cedar Bayou, a natural tidal inlet on the central Texas coast. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas 6:56-80. Smith, H. M. 1898. The fishes found in the vicinity of-Woods Hole. Fish. Bull. U. S., 17:85-111. 1907. The Fishes of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Econ. Surv. 11, 423 p. Smith, J. W. and C. J. Moore. 1979. Coastal fish management planning profile. S. C. Wildl. Mar. Resour. Dep., Off. Conserv., Manag., Marketing. unpubl. rep., 137 p. Snelson, F. F., Jr. 1983. Ichthyofauna of the northern part of the Indian River lagoon system, Florida. Fla. Sci. 46(3/4):187-206. Spitsbergen, D. L. and M. Wolff. 1974. Survey of nursery areas in western Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Complet. Rep. Proj. No. 2-175-R, 80 p. Springer, V. G. 1960. Ichthyological survey of the lower St. Lucie and Indian Rivers, Florida east coast. Fla. St. Bd. Conserv., Mar. Lab., Mimeo, Rep. No. 60-19, 22 p. Springer, V. G. and K. D. Woodburn. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Fla. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Ser. No. 1. 104 p. Storey, M. and E. W. Gudger. 1936. Mortality of fishes due to cold at Sanibel Island, Florida, 1886-1936. Ecology 17(4):640-648. 102 Stuck, K. C. and H. M. Perry. 1982. Chapt. VI, Sect. I. Ichthyoplankton community structure in Mississippi coastal waters. Gulf Coast Res. Lab. Proj. No. 2-296-R. Swingle, W., T. Leary, C. Davis, V. Blomo, W. Tatum, M. Murphy, R. Taylor, G. Adkins, T. McIlwain, and G. Matlock. 1984. Fishery profile of red drum. Gulf of Mexico Fish. Manag. Council and Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm., 164 p. Tabb, D. C. and R. B. Manning. 1961. A checklist of the flora and fauna of northern Florida Bay and adjacent brackish waters of the Florida mainland collected during the period July 1957-September 1960. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 11(4):552-649. Tagatz, M. E. 1967. Fishes of the St. Johns River, Florida. Quart. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 30(l):25-50. Tagatz, M. E. and D. L. Dudley. 1961. Seasonal occurrence of marine fishes in four shore' habitats near Beaufort, N. C., 1957-1960. U. S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 390:1-19. Tatum, W. M. 1981. Utilizing artificially propagated sciaenids as a management tool. In Marine Recreational Fisheries 6, Proc. 6th Annu. Ma@_. Rec. Fish. Sym., p. 197-203. Sport Fishing Institute, Wash., D.C., 212 p. The year of the puppy drum. 1983. The Virginia-North Carolina Fishing Report 7(14), October 1983:1, 5. Theiling, D. L. and H. A. Loyacano, Jr. 1976. Age and growth of red drum (Sciaenops ocellata) from a saltwater marsh impoundment in South Wolina. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105(l):41-44. Topp, R. 1963. The tagging of fishes in Florida, 1962 program. Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. No. 5, 76 p. Topp, R. W. and C. F. Cole. 1968. An osteological study of the sciaenid genus, Sciaenops Gill (Teleostei, Sciaenidae). Bull. Mar. Sci. 18:902-945. Trimble, W. C. 1979. Yield trials for red drum in brackish-water ponds, 1976-1976. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 33:432-441. 103 Vetter, R. D., R. E. Hodson, and C. Arnold. 1983. Energy metabolism in a rapidly developing marine fish egg, the red drum (Sciaenops ocellata). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40(5):627-634. Wakefield, C. A. and R. L. Colura. 1983. Age and growth of red drum in three Texas bay systems. Proc. Annu. Meet. Tex. Chap. Am. Fish. Soc. Vol. 5. Wakeman, J. M. and D. E. Wohlschlag. 1983. Time course of osmotic adaptation with respect to blood serum osmolality and oxygen u take in the euryhaline teleost, Sciaenops ocellatus @red drum). Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26:165-177. Wang, J. C. S. and R. J. Kernehan. 1979. Chapter 34. Sciaenidae - Drums. In Fishes of the Delaware estuaries, a guide to the ear-1-y life histories, p. 231-250. EA Communications. A division of Ecological Analysts Inc. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear, N. C. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 77(2):339-357. Welsh, W. W. and C. M. Breder, Jr. 1923. Contributions to the life histories of Sciaenidae of the eastern United States coast. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. 39:141-201. Williams, A. B. and E. E. Deubler, Jr. 1968. Studies on macroplankton of the Pamlico Sound complex. N. C. Dep. Conserv. Dev., Div. Comm. Sports Fish. Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 13. 103 p. Wolff, M. 1972. A study of the North Carolina scrap fishery. N. C. Div. Commer. Sport Fish., Spec. Sci. Rep. 20, 29 p. 1976. Nursery area survey of the Outer Banks region. N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Complet. Rep. Proj. No. 2-222-R, 47 p. Wongrey, J. 1980. Early S. C. drum. Spring at Bulls Island. Salt Water Sportsman, April 1980:62-64. Yokel, B. 1966. A contribution to the biology and distribution of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Miami, 166 p. 1980. A contribution to the biology and distribution of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. (Abstract). In Proc. Red Drum and Seatrout Colloq. Oct. 19-20, 19787. p. 5. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. No. 5, 118 p. 105 15.0 APPENDIX 15.1. Listing of members of Sciaenid Technical Committee, Sciaenid Board, and South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board. Sciaenid Technical Committee Chris Ordzie Edward Houde James Music RI Dept. Env. Manage. Univ. Maryland GA Dept. Nat. Resources Coastal Fish. Lab. Chesapeake Biological Coastal Resources Div. Succotash, RI Lab 1200 Glynn Avenue Wakefield, RI 02879 P.O. Box 38 Brunswick, GA 31523 (401) 783-2304 Solomons, MD 20688 (912) 264-7221 (301) 326-4281 Roy Williams George Maltezos Charles Frisbie FL Dept. Nat. Resources CT Dep. Env. Prot. MD Dept. Nat. Resources 100 8th Ave., S.E. Marine Fish. Office Tidewater Administration St. Petersburg, FL 33701 P.O. Box 248 580 Taylor Avenue (813) 896-8626 Waterford, CT 06385 Annapolis, MD 21401 (203) 443-0166 (301) 269-3786 John Merriner NMFS-Southeast Robert Sampson Herbert Austin Fisheries Center CT Dep. Env. Prot. VA Institute of Marine Beaufort Lab. Marine Fish. Office Science Beaufort, NC 28516 P.O. Box 248 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 (919) 728-4595 Waterford, CT 06385 (804) 642-7000 (203)443-0166 Stuart Wilk Mark Chittenden, Jr. NMFS-Northeast John Poole VA Institute of Marine Fisheries Center NYS Dep. Env. Cons. Science Sandy Hook Lab. Bldg. 40, SUNY Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Highlands, NJ 07732 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (804) 642-7000 (201) 872-0200 (516) 751-7900 Dennis Spitsbergen Glen Mahoney Alice Weber NC Div. Mar. Fish. NMFS NYS Dep. Env. Cons. P.O. Box 769 State Fish Pier Bldg. 40, SUNY Morehead City, NC 28557 Gloucester, MA 01930 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (919) 726-7021 (617) 281-3600 (516) 751-7900 Douglas DeVries Paul Perra Paul Hamer NC Div. Mar. Fish. Atlantic States Marine NJ Div. Fish, Game P.O. Box 769 Fisheries Commission & Wildlife Morehead City, NC 28557 1717 Massachusetts Ave. Mar. Fish. Lab. (919) 726-7021 N. W. Nacote Creek Washington, D.C. Absecon, NJ 08201 Glenn Ulrich (202) 387-5330 (609) 441-3292 SC Wildl. & Mar. Res. Dept. P.O. Box 12559 Richard Seagraves Charleston, SC 29412 DE Div. Fish. & (803) 795-6350 Wildlife Edward Tatnal Bldg. P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19901 (301) 736-4782 106 Sciaenid Board John M. Cronan; Chief William A. Pruitt RI Div. of Fish & Wildlife VA Marine Resources Commission Wash. County Govt. Center Box 756 Tower Hill Road Newport News. VA 23607 Wakefield, RI 02879 (401) 789-3094 Robert K. Mahood, Director NC Div. of Marine Fisheries Eric M. Smith and Community Development Assistant Diretor PO Box 769 CT Marine Fisheries Office Morehead City, NC 28557 PO-Box 248 (919) 726-7021 Waterford, CT 06385 (203) 442-0166 Edwin B. Joseph, Director SC Div. of Marine Resources Gordon Colvin, Director Dept. NY Div. of Marine & Coastal PO Box 12559 Dept. of Environ. Conservation Charleston, SC 29412 Bldg. 40, SUNY (803) 795-6350 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 Duane Harris, Director Chairman GA Coastal Resources Division Dept. Natl. Resources Bruce Freemen 1200 Glynn Avenue Marine Fish. Administrator Brunswick, GA 31520 NJ Div. Fish, Game (912) 264-7218 and Wildlife CN 400 James T. Barrett, Jr. Trenton, NJ 08625 Sports Fishing Adm. (609) 292-2083 Bur. of Marine Resources FL Dept. of Natl. Res. L. E. Zeni, Administrator 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MD Tidewater Adm. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Tawes State Office Building *(904) 488-1554 Annaposlis, MD 21401 (301) 269-3733 John Cookson NMFS William C. Wagner II, Director State Fish Pier DE Div. of Fish Wildlife I Gloucester, MA Dept. of Natural Res. & Env. Control (6117) 281-2600 Edward Tatnall Bldg. Dover, DE 19901 Irwin Alperin, (302) 736-5295 Executive Director Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Massachusetts, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 387-5330 107 South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board Robert K. Mahood, Director NC Div. of Marine Fisheries Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development PO Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 (919) 726-7021 Edwin B. Joseph, Director SC Div. of Marine Resource Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept. PO Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 (803) 795-6350 Duane Harris, Director GA Coastal Resources Div. Dept. Natural Resources 1200 Glynn Avenue Brunswick, GA 31520 (912) 264-7218 James T. Barrett, Jr. Sports Fishing Administrator Bur. of Marine Resources FL Dept. of Natual Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32303 (904) 488-1554 I. B. Byrd National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (813) 893-3161 Irwin Alperin Executive Director Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 387-5330 1111111110111111111 -3 6668 1410-0- 1638 -