Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: An Assessment of the Fisheries

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: An Assessment of the Fisheries"

Elaine Lee
5 years ago
Views:

1 Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: An Assessment of the Fisheries Juan C. Levesque and Alec Richardson Geo-Marine, Incorporated, Marine Science Department 221 K Avenue, Suite A-2; Plano, Texas j.levesque@geo-marine.com

2 Background Purpose/Objectives Methods Results Conclusions Summary Future Perspective OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND National Marine Sanctuaries In the Unites States there is an array of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with varying degrees of sizes and types.

3 BACKGROUND National Marine Sanctuaries In the Unites States there is an array of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with varying degrees of sizes and types. To date, there are approximately 1,7 different MPAs that are managed by federal, state, tribal, and local authorities under various statutory mandates (NOAA, 29). One of the first designated types of MPA established in the United States was National Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs). Currently, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) has designated 13 NMSs and 1 National Monument since its inception (16 U.S.C et seq.).

BACKGROUND Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary On 17 January 1992, NOAA s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries officially designated the Flower Garden Banks as a NMS making it one of the

4 BACKGROUND Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary On 17 January 1992, NOAA s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries officially designated the Flower Garden Banks as a NMS making it one of the most remotely located sanctuaries in the U.S. (NOAA, 1991). To guarantee that managers overseeing Sanctuaries meet their management goals and continue to conserve, protect, and enhance these significant living and cultural resources, the NMSP is required to periodically review each Sanctuary Management Plan (SMP) every five years (16 U.S.C et seq). In September 26, the FGBNMS staff announced the initiation of its first Management Plan Review (MPR) since the Sanctuary s establishment and NOAA released a draft State of the Sanctuary Report on October 26 (NOAA, 26).

5 INTRODUCTION FGBNMS Management Plan Review Process As part of the public process, NOAA held scoping meetings on 17, 19, and 24 October 26 to discuss a range of alternatives for addressing FGBNMS concerns and issues. In general, most (66%) of the public comments received from 23 September to 23 November 26 emphasized concerns with the fish and fisheries associated with the FGBNMS (NOAA, 26). In February 27, NOAA hosted a special meeting of the FGBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) to organize the public comments and draft an Action Plan as part of the MPR. Among the various Action Plan outcomes, SAC established six working groups to address specific priority issues identified through the public scoping process (NOAA, 26). The fishing impacts working group developed the following statement: Fishing activities may negatively impact and threaten the natural living resources at the FGBNMS. Information on the influence of fishing activities on the resources of the FGBNMS are unavailable, but concerns are mounting about the impacts on the marine ecosystems in a variety of ways, both directly (reduced fish biomass) and indirectly (e.g., secondary impacts on species interactions, habitat alteration/damage, marine biodiversity impacts, economic impacts) (NOAA, 26).

INTRODUCTION Given the public scoping outcomes, various

strategy that emerged was to establish special areas under

(3) No activity, except permitted research to establish the

6 INTRODUCTION Given the public scoping outcomes, various workshops (NMS, 27), and the objectives of the NMSP, one strategy that emerged was to establish special areas under sanctuary management as: (1) No fishing; (2) No diving; or (3) No activity, except permitted research to establish the extent of potential impacts of fishing and other activities (NOAA, 26).

7 PURPOSE Goal and Objectives In the interest of determining the future need, location and size of any special areas, the main objective of this study was to provide an assessment of the recreational and commercial fisheries associated with the FGBNMS. A secondary objective was to determine the baseline: Which years should be used for determining the baseline?

8 METHODS Data 1. Commercial Fisheries A. NMFS General Canvass Landings Reporting System (GCLRS [196-27]) B. Trip Interview Program (TIP [23-27]) C. NMFS Historical Landings Program (HLP [195-26]) 2. Recreational Fisheries A. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD [May 23-May 28]) B. NMFS Head-Boat Survey (HBOAT) ( ) C. Galveston County The Daily News Reel Report (TDNRR) (August 26-September 28)

9 METHODS COMMERCIAL DATA 1. All the commercial datasets lacked spatially-explicit fishing locations so data were compiled by individual Gulf state (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) 2. NMFS statistical shrimp grid system (proxy for area of capture). Each sampling grid is km x km (6 x 6 nm) and encompasses an area 12,321 km 2 (3,6 nm 2 ). Although the larger reefs (East and West Flower Garden Banks) of the FGBNMS are located outside any designated NMFS statistical grid, the reefs are within the vicinity of and adjacent to four NMFS statistical grids: grid 15 (eastern boundary) through grid 18 (western boundary)

10 METHODS RECREATIONAL DATA 1. Data for each fishing mode (private and head-boat) were examined from five distinct areas where anglers indicated to TPWD staff that their fishing trip originated: (1) Sabine Lake (SL); (2) Galveston Bay (GB); (3) Matagorda and San Antonio Bays (MB-SAB); (4) Aransas and Corpus Christi Bays and upper Laguna Madre (AB-CCB-ULM); and (5) lower Laguna Madre (LLM) 2. HBOAT data were examined from the two fishing areas neighboring the FGBNMS: Area 25 (Northeast Texas [Sabine Pass-Freeport, TX] and Area 26 (Port Aransas, Texas [Port Aransas, TX]).

11 METHODS RECREATIONAL DATA 3. The TDNRR recreational fishing data consist of charter boat fishing effort, landings, species composition, and sizes reported by fishing captains to the Galveston County paper-the Daily News. These data were not collected through any standardized collection program, but do provide some additional information.

12 STUDY AREA

13 DATA ANALYSES First: For each dataset (commercial and recreational fishery catch data) were summarized, graphed, and various factors (i.e., landings, fishing gear, fish groups, and species composition) were statistically evaluated using non-parametric and parametric techniques (Kruskal-Wallis, ANOVA, Student s t-test, and regression analysis). Data was initially evaluated for normality and log-transformed when necessary. For the recreational dataset, seasonal catch, annual fishing effort, fishing rates (CPUE) were evaluated and compared; fishing effort data for commercial fisheries were unavailable. The HBOAT dataset was used to evaluate the average weight per fish by species ( and 2-26).

14 DATA ANALYSES Second: Generally, for most factors, commercial data were evaluated by using two separate time-series (historical [195-26] and recent [ ]). The recent 1-year time-series ( ) was selected for further detail analysis because data preliminarily showed that total landings appeared to be stable and catch composition relatively consistent during this time period. However, in some cases, a third, more recent timeseries (23-27) was evaluated instead of the second time-series ( ). This 5-year time-series (23-27) was selected because preliminary examination of the data showed that this time period better reflected current fishing trends. The overall goal of these time-series analyses was to reveal which period of time reflected the current fishing activities within the vicinity of the FGBNMS.

15 RESULTS COMMERCIAL DATA Excluding Florida (7%), most of the commercial landings (195-26) were off-loaded in LA (49%) and TX (21%). The overall mean was 4,66 metric tons. Significant differences in total landings were detected among states. 16,, 14,, 12,, 1,, 8,, 6,, 4,, 2,, Louisiana Texas Alabama Mississippi

16 RESULTS Louisiana Landings No significant differences were detected between historical (195-26) and recent landings (23-27) in LA. 9,, 8,, 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, Yellowfin Tuna Red Snapper Sharks Vermilion Snapper Texas Landings In contrast, significant differences were detected between historical (195-26) and recent landings (23-27) in TX. 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Red Snapper Yellowfin Tuna Groupers Vermilion Snapper

17 RESULTS Cumulative landings (top 1 species): Least (21%) reported landings were from NMFS grid 18 and greatest (3%) from grid 17. No statistical differences were detected among grids and time. Grid 15 Grid 17 14,, $4,, 25,, $8,, 12,, $35,, 2,, $7,, 1,, $3,, $6,, 8,, 6,, $25,, $2,, $15,, Value ($US) 15,, 1,, $5,, $4,, $3,, Value ($US) 4,, $1,, $2,, 2,, $5,, 5,, $1,, $ $ Landings Value Landings Value Grid 16 Grid 18 1,, 3,, 3,, $12,, 9,, 8,, 25,, 25,, $1,, 7,, 2,, 2,, $8,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 15,, 1,, Value ($US) 15,, 1,, $6,, $4,, Value ($US) 2,, 5,, 5,, $2,, 1,, $ Landings Value Landings Value

18 RESULTS GEAR: Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries were primarily landed by 11 fishing gears. Otter trawl (78%) and Combined (18%). Commercial Landings Otter Trawl Combined Hand Lines-Other Longlines-Drift Butterfly Longlines-Set Electric Reel Longlines-Reef Trawl-Unspecified Longlines-Shark Lines-Troll

19 RESULTS Cumulative landings (top 7 gears): Overall statistical differences were detected among gears, but not by grid or the interaction between grid and gear. However, there were specific significant differences within grids. Statistical differences were detected between and and among some gears. NMFS Grid 15 NMFS Grid Otter Trawl-Shrimp Combined Handlines-Other Longline-Reef Longline-Set Longline-Shark Trawls-Unspecified Otter Trawl-Shrimp Combined Handlines-Other Longline-Shark Longline-Set Longline-Reef Trawls-Unspecified NMFS Grid 17 NMFS Grid Otter Trawl-Shrimp Combined Handlines-Other Longline-Set Longline-Reef Trawls-Unspecified Longline-Shark Otter Trawl-Shrimp Combined Handlines-Other Longline-Set Longline-Reef Trawls-Unspecified Longline-Shark

20 RESULTS Scamp Catch composition: Commercial fisheries (195-26) primarily landed four major fish groups: snapper (19%), jacks (jacks, tuna, and mackerel [14%], shark (4%), and grouper (3%). Significant differences were detected among fish groups, but no differences were detected between time-series. ([195-26]; [23-26]), Snapper Jacks Tuna/Mackerel Shark Grouper Other Black Snapper Greater Amberjack Atlantic Bonito Blacktip Shark Gag Barracuda Blackfin Snapper Lesser Amberjack King Mackerel Bull Shark Graysby Bigeye Cubera Snapper Almaco Jack Cero Dusky Shark Black Grouper Creole-Fish Dog Snapper Bar Jack Spanish Mackerel Hammerhead Shark Goliath Grouper Jolthead Porgy Gray Snapper Black Jack Albacore Tuna Longfin Mako Shark Marbled Grouper Red Porgy Lane Snapper Jack Crevalle Bigeye Tuna Sandbar Shark Misty Grouper Scups or Porgies Mutton Snapper Horse-eye Jack Blackfin Tuna Shortfin Mako Shark Snowy Grouper Squirrelfish Queen Snapper Cobia Bluefin Tuna Spinner Shark Grouper Tilefish Red Snapper Blue Runner Little Tunny Silky Shark Yellowedge Grouper Blueline Silk Snapper Skipjack Tuna Thresher Shark Yellowfin Grouper Goldface Tilefish Vermilion Snapper Yellowfin Tuna Tiger Shark Yellowmouth Grouper Sand Tilefish Wahoo Red Hind Gray Triggerfish Cero Speckled Hind Ocean Triggerfish

21 RESULTS Gulf States (TX, LA, MS, AL) Cumulative landings (top 4 fish groups): Overall, statistical differences were detected among fish groups, but no significant differences were detected between the two time-series. 2,, 18,, 16,, 14,, 12,, 1,, 8,, 6,, 4,, 2,, Snapper Jacks Sharks Grouper Other Total Gulf States (TX, LA, MS, AL) 12,, 1,, 8,, 6,, 4,, 2,, Jacks Snapper Sharks Grouper Other Total

22 RESULTS Cumulative landings (top 4 fish groups): Statistical differences in landings were detected among fish groups, according to Gulf State. Jacks, Mackerel, and Tuna Groupers 5,, 6, 4,5, 4,, 5, 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 4, 3, 2, 1,, 5, 1, LA TX MS AL Total LA TX AL MS Total Snappers 4,5, 4,, 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, LA TX AL MS Total

23 RESULTS NMFS Statistical Grids: 17 and 18 (closest to the FGBNMS): Statistical differences were detected by grid and fish groups. Also, statistical differences were detected among fish group and years. Landings in NMFS grid 17 were dominated by white and brown shrimp. 24: NMFS Grid 17 23: NMFS Grid 17 6,, $3,, 5,, $25,, 4,5, 5,, $25,, 4,, $2,, 4,, 3,, 2,, Value ($) $2,, $15,, $1,, Value ($US) 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, Value ($) $15,, $1,, Value ($US) 1,, $5,, 1,, 5, $5,, White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Swordfish Rock Shrimp Sea Bobs Shrimp Eastern Oyster Black Drum $ White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Sea Bobs Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Jellyfish Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Rock Shrimp Black Drum Swordfish $ Species Species 25: NMFS Grid 17 26: NMFS Grid 17 27: NMFS Grid 17 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, Value ($) $35,, $3,, $25,, $2,, $15,, $1,, $5,, Value ($US) 12,, 1,, 8,, 6,, 4,, 2,, Value ($) $45,, $4,, $35,, $3,, $25,, $2,, $15,, $1,, $5,, Value ($US) 9,, 8,, 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, Value ($) $45,, $4,, $35,, $3,, $25,, $2,, $15,, $1,, $5,, Value ($US) White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Black Drum Vermilion Snapper Red Snapper Species Eastern Oyster Sea Bobs Shrimp Rock Shrimp Swordfish $ White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Sea Bobs Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Red Snapper Black Drum Species Eastern Oyster Swordfish Vermilion Snapper Flounder $ White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Sea Bobs Shrimp Black Drum Eastern Oyster Species Swordfish Vermilion Snapper Red Snapper Dolphinfish $

24 RESULTS NMFS Statistical Grid: 18: Dominated by white and brown shrimp. 23: NMFS Grid 18 24: NMFS Grid 18 4,5, $16,, 5,, $2,, 4,, 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Value ($) $14,, $12,, $1,, $8,, $6,, $4,, $2,, Value ($US) 4,5, 4,, 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Value $18,, $16,, $14,, $12,, $1,, $8,, $6,, $4,, $2,, Value ($US) Brown Shrimp White Shrimp Eastern Oyster Red Snapper Blue Crab Shrimp Vermilion Snapper Rock Shrimp Yellowfin Tuna Suckers $ White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Eastern Oyster Red Snapper Shrimp Blue Crab Vermilion Snapper Yellowfin Tuna Rock Shrimp Suckers $ Species Species 25: NMFS Grid 18 26: NMFS Grid 18 27: NMFS Grid 18 3,5, $14,, 4,, $12,, 3,5, $12,, 3,, $12,, 3,5, $1,, 3,, $1,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, Value ($) $1,, $8,, $6,, $4,, Value ($US) 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, Value ($) $8,, $6,, $4,, Value ($US) 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, Value ($) $8,, $6,, $4,, Value ($US) 5, $2,, 5, $2,, 5, $2,, White Shrimp Eastern Oyster Brown Shrimp Red Snapper Shrimp Blue Crab Vermilion Snapper Yellowfin Tuna Rock Shrimp Suckers $ Brown Shrimp White Shrimp Eastern Oyster Red Snapper Shrimp Blue Crab Vermilion Snapper Sea Bobs Shrimp Greater Amberjack Yellowfin Tuna $ White Shrimp Brown Shrimp Eastern Oyster Blue Crab Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Shrimp Blue Catfish Black Drum Mullet $ Species Species Species

25 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (Headboat and Galveston Charter Vessel): 15 (13%) headboats ( ) reported landings in Areas 25 and 26. Red snapper (49%) vermilion snapper (16%), and gray triggerfish (5%) were the primary species taken. Significant differences were detected among species. Landings (Numbers of Fish) 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Atlantic Sharponse Shark King Mackerel n = 8,995,3 Spadefish Species Area 25 Area 26 Similar findings for Charter Vessels. Anglers caught red snapper and vermilion snapper (55%), but also Atlantic spadefish (13%). Landings (Number of Fish) 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Red Snapper Vermillion Snapper Atlantic Spadefish Blackfin Tuna Lane Snapper Triggerfish King Mackerel Blue Runner Anglefish Mangrove Snapper Amberjack Bonito n = 3,839 Common Name

26 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA Area 26 Significant differences were detected in monthly cumulative landings and by individual species. Landings (Numbers of Fish) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, n = 1,983,273 Landings Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Number of Fish Jul Aug Month Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Number of Anglers Feb Mar Apr May Jun Effort Landings (Numbers of Fish) 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Area 25 n = 4,271,559 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish

27 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (Headboat) No significant differences were detected in cumulative landings by year, but differences were detected among species. Area 25 Area 26 16, 1, Landings (Number of Fish) 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Landings (Number of Fish) 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Total Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Total

28 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (Headboat) Area 25 Area 26 3, 6, Landings (Number of Fish) 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, y = x R 2 = , 4, 3, 2, 1, y = x R 2 = Landings (Number of Fish) Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Linear (Red Snapper) Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Linear (Red Snapper)

29 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (Headboat) Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Frequency n = % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Frequency n = % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Frequency Weight (kg) y = -.183x R 2 = y = -.642x R 2 =.7122 y = -.871x R 2 = n = % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Mean Weight (kg) Red Snapper Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Linear (Vermilion Snapper) Linear (Red Snapper) Linear (Gray Triggerfish)

30 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (Galveston Charter Vessels) Inverse relationship between CPUE and Fishing Effort; CPUE ranged from to fish/angler and the mean CPUE was 4.42 fish per angler CPUE (Fish/Angler) Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month Effort (Anglers/Trip) CPUE (#Fish/Angler) Anglers/Trip

31 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (TPWD-Private Vessel): The primary species taken were red snapper, king mackerel, vermilion snapper, gray triggerfish, cobia, and dolphinfish. Cobia had the lowest catch rates and red snapper the highest ( fish/hr). Lowest fishing effort (9,32 hrs) were from fishing trips originating from Lower Laguna Madre and highest (99,58 hrs) from Galveston Bay. Significant differences were detected among species and by area. Sabine Lake Galveston Bay CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour).15.1 CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Matagorda and San Antonio Bays Aransas Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and Upper Laguna Madre Aransas Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and Lower Laguna Madre CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour).15.1 CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish

32 RESULTS RECREATONAL DATA (TPWD-Party Boat): The primary species taken were red snapper, king mackerel, vermilion snapper, gray triggerfish, cobia, and dolphinfish. Cobia and Gray triggerfish had the lowest catch rates and red snapper the highest ( fish/hr). Lowest fishing effort (1,18 hrs) were from fishing trips originating from Lower Laguna Madre and highest (11,3 hrs) from Galveston Bay. Significant differences were detected among species and in some areas. Sabine Lake Galveston Bay CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Matagorda and San Antonio Bays Aransas Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and Upper Laguna Madre Aransas Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and Lower Laguna Madre CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) CPUE (Number of Fish/Hour) Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish Red Snapper King Mackerel Vermilion Snapper Gray Triggerfish Cobia Dolphinfish

33 CONCLUSIONS Specific fishing location data limited the outcomes of this study; however, general trends in landings, gears, and fishing effort for the areas nearest to the FGBNMS was evident; Given the data limitations, these results should be applied with caution; Total landings within NMFS grids (17 and 18) appear stable, but landings have shifted from one gear to another, which is a common practice for the industry;

34 CONCLUSIONS In both NMFS grids (17 and 18), landings with handline gear have decreased, which is probably a key commercial fishing gear employed near the sanctuary; Displacement of commercial fishing effort: It is likely that some gears (e.g., handline) will be used in other comparable locations (reefs and banks)-the issue is whether commercial fisheries can locate other fishing grounds. According to the data, the key species landed (yellowfin tuna) in NMFS grid 17 would unlikely be impacted, but in NMFS grid 18, red and vermilion snapper landings might be impacted by any future management decisions for the FGBNMS.

35 SUMMARY Based on the available commercial and recreational data, the five-year period (23-27) is sufficient for any future decision-making process in regards to baseline assessment Recreational data was difficult to assess, in terms of potential future impacts, but it should be noted that the FGBNMS are only accessible to larger vessels during suitable weather. It is highly probable that this recreational fishing vessel population is small (headboats, charter, and private vessels). Based on this notion, decision makers could either exempt certain types of fishing activities (surface trolling; catch and release) or implement a daily fishing permit. It depends on the goal. Maybe the permit would required fishermen to report their activity, which could act as form of enforcement.

36 FUTURE PERSPECTIVE Some data (MRFSS and PLL Logbook) were not included in these analyses; however, it is difficult to guess whether these data would benefit the decision-making process. Because of the location (FGBNMS), it is recommended that the PLL Logbook data (fishing location) be plotted; Fishing effort distribution might be able to be plotted, which would help with further defining potential impacts. Based on these data, some fisheries are likely to be impacted by any changes to the FGBNMS ; however, these are expected to be short-term assuming one of the decisions is to implement a sunset clause that requires the area to re-open for certain fishing activities once X amount of time passes. Regardless of the decisions, it is recommended that law enforcement issues be discussed throughout the MPR process.

37 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Staff: J. DeBose, E. Hickerson, J. Morgan, and G.P. Schmahl; State and Federal Representatives: J. Bennett, K. Brennan, G. Davenport, L. Green, B. Leeworthy, and M. Nuttall; Geo-Marine Staff: T. Conner, K. Deslarzes, C. Gomez J. Laliberté, and J. See.

38 QUESTIONS Juan C. Levesque Geo-Marine, Incorporated, Marine Science Department 221 K Avenue, Suite A-2; Plano, Texas j.levesque@geo-marine.com

Vision Blueprint Recreational Regulatory Amendment 26 for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region

Vision Blueprint Recreational Regulatory Amendment 26 for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region for the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel The Vision Blueprint Recreational Regulatory Amendment