Sometimes known as Redfish, Channel Bass, Spottail, Red Bass, and Reds

Transcription

1 RED DRUM Sciaenops ocellatus Sometimes known as Redfish, Channel Bass, Spottail, Red Bass, and Reds SUMMARY Red Drum is large fish, growing up to 1.5 m (5 ft) in length, found in the western Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico, from the central U.S. to northern Mexico. They are long-lived, but become sexually mature at a relatively early age. Commercial fishing for Red Drum is prohibited in federal and most state waters, with major fisheries only occurring in North Carolina and Mississippi state waters. Many Red Drum are taken by recreational fishermen throughout its range. Commercial and recreational fisheries primarily target juvenile Red Drum, so they are managed using size and catch limits to ensure enough juveniles escape the fishery and survive to reproduce. The abundance of juvenile Red Drum has increased from low levels in the 1980s/1990s, and is now at a medium level throughout much of its range. The abundance of adult Red Drum is unknown. Most commercially caught Red Drum are captured with bottom gillnets, which cause moderate habitat damage and frequently catch endangered sea turtles. Some Red Drum are also caught with hook and line, which results in minimal habitat damage and likely low bycatch. Criterion Points Final Score Color Life History Abundance Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts Management 1.75 Bycatch 0.75 Final Score 1.65 Color

2 LIFE HISTORY Core Points (only one selection allowed) If a value for intrinsic rate of increase ( r ) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years Intrinsic rate of increase = ; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = ; OR maximum age = years. Red Drum are one of several drum species (Family: Sciaenidae), so named for the characteristic drumming sounds they produce. They are found in coastal waters of the western Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Red Drum are long-lived, reaching a maximum age of 60 years in the Atlantic and 40 years in the Gulf of Mexico. They can also grow to a large size, reaching lengths of 1.5 m (5 ft) and weights of 40 kg (90 lbs) (Murphy and Taylor 1990, Ross et al. 1995, ASMFC 2009, TPWD 2012). Growth of Red Drum is rapid during the first 4-5 years, but slows considerably thereafter (Ross et al. 1995). Estimates of growth rate for this species are highly variable, ranging from k = 0.19 to 0.46 (Pearson 1929, Rohr 1980, Murphy and Taylor 1990, SEDAR 2009). Males become sexually mature at 1 to 3 years of age (50-70 cm), while females become sexually mature at 3 to 6 years of age (80-90 cm) (Murphy and Taylor 1990, Ross et al. 1995, Wenner 2000). Due to differences among life history characteristics for Red Drum, an overall score of 2 is awarded Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.). Red Drum display schooling and aggregating behaviors throughout their life. Juvenile Red Drum are generally found in groups in inshore areas, such as estuaries or seagrass beds (Pafford et al. 1990, Wenner 1992, SAFMC 1998), and tend to move little during this time (SEDAR 2009, Rooker et al. 2010). Once Red Drum begin to sexually mature, they move into near shore oceanic waters, but will move back inshore in the summer to

3 spawn or mate. Large spawning aggregations of adult Red Drum have been observed near inlets and occasionally inside estuaries (Ross and Stevens 1992, Murphy and Crabtree 1999, ASMFC 2002). Groups of adult Red Drum may also move seasonally along the coast (ASMFC 2002, SEDAR 2009). The aggregating behaviors by juvenile and spawning Red Drum in inshore areas make them particularly vulnerable to capture and therefore points are subtracted Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity) Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes). Red Drum are found in estuarine and near shore oceanic waters along the US Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to Florida, but are rare north of the Chesapeake Bay, and in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to northern Mexico (Lux and Mahoney 1969, SAFMC 1990, Ross et al. 1995). Young Red Drum (ages 0-4) are found in estuaries or bays with grassy or muddy bottoms, but as they sexually mature they move into near shore oceanic waters, where they spend much of their adult lives (Peters and McMichael 1987, SAFMC 1998, TPWD 2012). Red Drum in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic are thought to be separate populations (Seyoum et al. 2000). Further sub-populations of Red Drum may occur within the Atlantic and Gulf since Red Drum appear to move only short distances along the coast (Gold et al. 2001, Gold and Turner 2002, SEDAR 2009, Rooker et al. 2010). Relative to other species widely distributed throughout the world s ocean, Red Drum is considered to have a restricted range, so points are subtracted Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations) Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning) Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity). Red Drum spawn or mate from late summer through early fall (August-October) near inlets, which allows the eggs and larvae to be transported into protected estuarine waters (Murphy and Taylor 1990, Ross et al. 1995, SAFMC 1998, Lowerre-Barbieri et al. 2008, TPFD 2012). Females may spawn multiple times, potentially every 2-5 days, and may

4 release anywhere from 160,000 to 3 million eggs each time. The average number of eggs released per spawning is estimated to be 1.5 million (Wilson and Nieland 1994, FWRI 2010a). Therefore, annual egg production or fecundity may be as high as million eggs per female (Wilson and Neiland 1994). Thus, points are added Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish) Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations) Points for Life History ABUNDANCE Core Points (only one selection allowed) Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is: 1.00 Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio) Medium: Abundance or biomass is % of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available. Red Drum is an important commercial and recreational species in the U.S., fished along much of the Atlantic coast including the Gulf of Mexico. Historical commercial landings of Red Drum were high, but have been greatly reduced since the late 1980s, due to closure of federal waters (3-200 miles from shore) for Red Drum fishing and significant restrictions to fishing in state waters (SEDAR 2009, Powers and Burns 2010). Commercial fishing for Red Drum is prohibited in state waters of South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Since 1990, commercial catches on the US Atlantic coast have ranged from metric tons (50, ,000 lbs), averaging 85 mt (185,000 lbs) (NMFS 2012a), with most catches occurring in North Carolina waters (SEDAR 2009). On the Gulf coast, commercial fishing is only allowed in Mississippi state waters and a maximum of 16 mt (35,000 lbs) may be caught (Powers and Burns 2010). The recreational catch of Red Drum far exceeds the commercial catch, with catches ranging from 1-2 million lbs on the Atlantic and million lbs on the Gulf coast since 2000 (NMFS personal communication).

5 Both the commercial and recreational fisheries primarily target juvenile Red Drum (ages 1-4). As a result, abundance information for Red Drum is primarily limited to the juvenile proportion of the population and the populations are evaluated based on whether a sufficient number of juveniles are escaping the fishery and surviving to reproduce (SEDAR 2009, Powers and Burns 2010). In the Atlantic, sufficient numbers of juvenile Red Drum are considered to be surviving if the spawning or reproductive potential of the current fished population is at 40% of what the spawning potential would be if there was no fishery. Overfishing is considered to be occurring on the population if the spawning potential drops below 30% of the unfished level (SEDAR 2009). The Atlantic population is divided into north (New Jersey to North Carolina) and south (South Carolina to Florida) regions for assessment purposes. As of 2007, the 3-year average spawning potential in the north region was estimated to be between 40-50% of the unfished level, indicating the population was meeting the 40% target level. However, it should be noted that the spawning potential estimates show a declining trend from 2005 to 2007 (SEDAR 2009). In the southern region, the spawning potential level could not be determined, as estimates ranged anywhere from 20-90% of an unfished level. Overfishing was considered unlikely to be occurring (i.e. spawning potential likely above 30%), but it could not be determined whether the 40% target level was being met (SEDAR 2009). In both regions, abundance of Red Drum ages 1-3 increased in the early 1990s and has since remained relatively stable (SEDAR 2009). In the Gulf of Mexico, sufficient numbers of juvenile Red Drum are considered to be surviving to reproduce if the fisheries are achieving at least a 30% escapement rate, which is defined as the percentage of fish present at age 4 in the current population relative to the percentage of fish at age 4 that would be present if there were no fisheries (Powers and Burns 2010). In Alabama, escapement rates based on age-4 abundance levels in ranged from 33-49% (AMRD 2008). In Louisiana, escapement rates have ranged from 48 to 63% from 1995 to 2002 (Blanchet 2006). No estimates are available for more recent years. On the Florida Gulf-coast escapement rates have ranged 50-60% in the north region and from 30-50% in the south region from 2000 to 2008 (FWRI 2010b). In Mississippi, escapement rates have only been determined for the years and range from 14 to 35%, showing an increasing trend (MDMR 2010). Escapement rates for Red Drum have not been estimated in Texas, but abundance of Red Drum in Texas increased in the 1980s/early 1990s and has since remained stable (Martinez-Andrade 2005, TPWD personal communication). While escapement rates have generally been above the 30% target level in recent years for the states in which they have been estimated, escapement rates have been declining in several states (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana), after increasing in the 1990s (Blanchet 2006, AMRD 2008, FWRI 2010b). It should also be noted that how escapement rates are analyzed and calculated is not consistent among states (Pew Environment Group 2010). Although abundance levels are somewhat uncertain for some states and areas, overall, Red Drum abundance appears to be a moderate level. However, it should again be noted that this abundance information is only based on the juvenile proportion of the population and that total abundance levels of Red Drum are unknown.

6 3.00 High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). Since the Red Drum fisheries mainly target juveniles, abundance information is only available for the juvenile proportion of the population. Information on adult Red Drum (ages 4+) is extremely limited. On the Atlantic-coast, abundance of juvenile Red Drum (ages 1-3) increased in the early 1990s and has since remained relatively stable in the southern region and fluctuated without trend in the northern region (SEDAR 2009). Abundance of Red Drum in the Gulf of Mexico is evaluated by each state. Abundance of Red Drum ages 1-5 on Florida s Gulf coast increased in the 1980s, declined in the early 1990s, and has shown a slight increasing trend through The 2009 abundance estimate though was lower than previous years and recruitment (abundance of new born fish, < age 1) has been low from 2005 to 2009 (FWRI 2010b, 2011). In Texas, abundance of Red Drum, based on survey data, shows an increase in the 1980s/early 1990s, with stable levels since (Martinez-Andrade 2005, TPWD personal communication). In Alabama, recreational catch rates for Red Drum show a declining trend from 2003 to 2007, which could indicate abundance is declining (AMRD 2010). In Louisiana, recruitment of Red Drum was lower in compared to (Blanchet 2006). No information on abundance trends is available from Mississippi. Overall, Red Drum abundance has remained relatively stable on the Atlantic coast since the early 1990s, while abundance trends for the Gulf of Mexico vary among states. Therefore points will not be subtracted Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution). Since there is limited information available on the adult Red Drum population (ages 4+), it cannot be determined whether the age or size distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition. There is also no information available on the sex distribution. Therefore, no points are subtracted Species is listed as "overfished" OR species is listed as "depleted", "endangered", or "threatened" by recognized national or international bodies. After high fishing pressure on Red Drum during the 1980s, Red Drum were found to be overfished in both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico in the 1990s (ASMFC 2002, GMFMC 1999). Since then, fishing for Red Drum has, for the most part, been maintained at sustainable levels and populations appear to have increased throughout much of their range (SEDAR 2009, FWRI 2010b, Blanchet 2006). However, because abundance information is only available for the juvenile proportion of the population, total

7 abundance of Red Drum cannot be determined, making it difficult to determine whether the populations are overfished (SEDAR 2009). No points are subtracted Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE) Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal Species is close to virgin biomass Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web. Juvenile Red Drum eat small shrimp-like species or crabs, while adults eat shrimp, crabs, and small fish (TPWD 2012, FWRI 2011). Predators of Red Drum include larger fish, birds, and turtles (TPWD 2012). Since in most areas an adequate number of juvenile Red Drum are escaping the fisheries and surviving to reproduce, current abundance levels of Red Drum likely provide enough food for their predators. Thus points are added Points for Abundance HABITAT QUALITY AND FISHING GEAR IMPACTS Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects 1.00 The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging) The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines). Average commercial catches of Red Drum in the U.S. Atlantic from 2001 to 2010 were 74 metric tons (160,000 lbs), with over 90% of the catch being taken in North Carolina state waters with gillnets (NMFS 2012a, b). Other minor gears used by commercial fishermen to capture Red Drum in the Atlantic include pound nets, beach seines, pots,

8 and hook and line (NMFS 2012b). In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, commercial fishing for Red Drum is only permitted in Mississippi state waters (Powers and Burns 2010). Average catches for this fishery from 2001 to 2010 were 12 metric tons (25,000 lbs) (NMFS 2012a). In this fishery both gillnets and hook and line have previously been used, but only hook and line gear has been reported as being used since 2005 (NMFS 2012b). In the North Carolina gillnet fishery, Red Drum are not allowed to be directly targeted, but may be retained as a bycatch species (NCDMF 2008). They are most commonly taken in the southern flounder fishery using anchored set gillnets (85% of catch). A small portion of the catch is also taken with runaround gillnets (5%). The fisheries principally occur in estuaries in depths of 1-7 feet (Paramore 2009). Gillnets consist of a meshnetting wall that is held vertically in the water column, and captures fish by entangling them, most commonly by their gills. Anchored set gillnets are staked or anchored to the bottom to keep them in place (Daniel 2011). Runaround gillnets are used to target schools of fish, and are quickly set and then retrieved once the school has been surrounded (Daniel 2011). A mesh size of inches is typically used in these fisheries, and the set gillnets may soak in the water from anywhere from 8 to 48 hours before the catch is retrieved (Paramore 2009). Since the set gillnets contact the bottom of the seafloor, they may result in some habitat damage (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). Hook and line gear, which is used in the Mississippi Red Drum fishery, is not made to contact the bottom, and therefore results in minimal habitat damage. Since most Red Drum are caught with set gillnets, which can cause moderate habitat damage, a score of 2 is awarded The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines). Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development). Red Drum are found in estuarine and near shore oceanic waters along the US Atlantic coast from the Chesapeake Bay to Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to northern Mexico (Lux and Mahoney 1969, SAFMC 1990, Ross et al. 1995). Juvenile Red Drum are found in estuaries or bays with grassy or muddy bottoms, but as they mature, around age 3-4, they move into near shore oceanic waters, where they spend much of their adult lives (Peters and McMichael 1987, SAFMC 1998, TPWD 2012). Important habitat areas for Red Drum include inshore estuaries and bays, seagrass beds, oyster reefs and shell banks, soft bottom habitats, artificial reefs, and ocean surf zones (SAFMC 1998, ASMFC 2002, GMFMC 2004).

9 The inshore and nearshore habitats that are important for Red Drum are impacted by a variety of non-fishing activities including coastal development, pollution, dredging or filling, oil exploration, and environmental events such as hurricanes (ASMFC 2002, NCDMF 2008, GMFMC 2004). Many estuarine and wetland areas have been lost in the past, but protection measures for these areas have improved in recent years (ASMFC 2002, NCDMF 2008). Recently, the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may have impacted Gulf nearshore habitats. Although there are several threats to Red Drum habitats, there is no indication that their habitat has been compromised to the point where it no longer able to support the species. Therefore, no points will be subtracted Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. Inshore bays and estuaries are important nursery areas for Red Drum, and spawning typically occurs in late summer/early fall in near shore areas adjacent to channels or passes and occasionally inside estuaries (SAFMC 1998, ASMFC 2002, GMFMC 2004, NCDMF 2008). Protection of inshore nursery areas for fish species like Red Drum has increased in recent years (NCDMF 2008), but spawning Red Drum are not protected. Although the majority of commercial and recreational fishing for Red Drum occurs on the juvenile population, some recreational fishermen target spawning Red Drum aggregations. Spawning Red Drum have to be released due to maximum size limits, but the capturing and releasing of these fish could affect their spawning success (NCDMF 2008). Points are therefore subtracted No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries) If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms) Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal.

10 +0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal. The primary gear used to capture Red Drum in the commercial fisheries are set gillnets, which result in moderate habitat damage. Some Red Drum are also caught with hook and line, which only causes minimal habitat damage. Fishing for Red Drum is primarily aimed at juveniles, and occurs in inshore areas such as bays and estuaries (SEDAR 2009). Fishing may occur over soft bottoms and in vegetated areas (e.g., seagrass), which may be sensitive to habitat damage (SEDAR 2009). Since both gear effects and resilience of affected habitat are likely to be moderate, no points are added Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts MANAGEMENT Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect) Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species' range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals. Red Drum are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission under the Red Drum Interstate Fishery Management Plan in the US Atlantic and by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council under the Red Drum Management Plan in the US Gulf of Mexico, as well as by individual states within their respective state waters. High levels of fishing on Red Drum in the 1980s led to the closure of the Red Drum fishery in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico in 1987 and of the Atlantic in 1990 (GMFMC 1999, SEDAR 2009). Therefore, fishing for Red Drum is only allowed in state waters. Since fishing primarily occurs on juvenile (ages 0-4) Red Drum, Red Drum fisheries are managed to allow enough juveniles to escape the fishery and thereby survive to reproduce and contribute to the adult population (Powers and Burns 2010, SEDAR 2009). In the Atlantic, the goal is to allow enough juvenile Red Drum to escape the fishery in order to achieve a spawning or reproductive potential that is 40% of the spawning potential of an unfished population (ASMFC 2002). In the Gulf of Mexico, the

11 conservation target has been at a slightly lower level, with the goal being to achieve a 30% escapement rate, which is defined as the amount of Red Drum present at age 4 in the current population relative to the number of fish at age 4 that would be present if there were no fishery (Powers and Burns 2010). Management measures vary slightly by state, but each state has set minimum and maximum size limits for their Red Drum commercial and recreational fisheries, and recreational catch limits. In the Atlantic, minimum size limits range from in (36-51 cm) and maximum size limits from in (58-69 cm) and recreational catch limits from 1 to 5 fish per day per fishermen (SEDAR 2009). Additionally, commercial fishing for Red Drum has been prohibited in South Carolina and Florida, and in Georgia, Virginia, and Maryland commercial fishermen are restricted to catching the recreational limit (SEDAR 2009). In North Carolina, where the majority of commercial fishing for Red Drum in the Atlantic occurs, Red Drum are not allowed to be directly targeted and thus can only be taken as bycatch (they may not make up more than 50% of the catch). North Carolina commercial fishermen are also restricted to a 7 fish trip limit, and there is an annual commercial catch limit of 250,000 lbs, of which up to 150,000 lbs may be taken from Sept 1- April 30 and the remainder from May 1- August 31 (NCDMF 2008). There are also various gear restrictions in place to help limit the amount of Red Drum bycatch (NCDMF 2008). In the Gulf of Mexico, minimum size limits for Red Drum fisheries range from in (41-51 cm) and maximum size limits from in (66-76 cm), and recreational catches limits from 1 to 5 fish per fishermen per day (Powers and Burns 2010, FWC 2012). Commercial fishing for Red Drum is only allowed in Mississippi and there is an annual commercial catch limit of 35,000 lbs (MDMR 2011, Powers and Burns 2010). The latest population assessment of Red Drum in the Atlantic indicated that management goals for the Red Drum fisheries were being met in the northern region (North Carolina to New Jersey), but it could not be determined if conservation goals were also being met in the southern region (South Carolina to Florida), due to high uncertainties in the population estimates (SEDAR 2009). In the Gulf of Mexico, most states are meeting the 30% escapement goal, but escapement rates have not been estimated for the Texas fisheries and are not available for recent years in Louisiana (Blanchet 2006, FWRI 2010b, MDMR 2010, AMRD 2008). Additionally, there has not been a Gulf-wide assessment of Red Drum since 2000, and it is unclear if the conservation standard for Red Drum fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico has been set high enough. Since management measures are in place for Red Drum fisheries, but it remains uncertain whether conservation goals are being met for all fisheries, a score of 2 is awarded Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals.

12 Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort. Commercial and recreational catches of Red Drum are monitored in the both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In the Atlantic, Red Drum abundance information is available from recreational catch rate data and from various fishery-independent surveys. Further information on fishing mortality levels and ages of released fish by recreational anglers is available from North Carolina s tagging program (SEDAR 2009). The most recent assessment for Red Drum in the Atlantic was conducted in The assessment was sufficient to determine the abundance level of juvenile Red Drum in the northern region, but abundance of juvenile Red Drum is the southern region could not be reliably estimated (SEDAR 2009). In the Gulf of Mexico, abundance information based on recreational catch rates and/or fishery-independent surveys is available from various states, but current information on population status is lacking from some states and a Gulf-wide population assessment has not been conducted since 2000 (Powers and Burns 2010). Additionally, in both regions information on the adult Red Drum population is lacking, making it difficult to determine the status of the populations (SEDAR 2009, Powers and Burns 2010). While there is scientific monitoring of Red Drum populations, since information is not sufficient to determine the status of the populations, points are subtracted Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems. Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and the ecosystem, so points are subtracted This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed. Red Drum in both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were determined to be overfished in the late 1980s and 1990s. In both regions, management implemented

13 measures to rebuild the populations, which included prohibiting fishing for Red Drum in federal waters and setting management targets for state fisheries (ASMFC 2002, GMFMC 1988, 1999). In the South Atlantic, the last population assessment for Red Drum indicated that Red Drum in the northern region had significantly improved from the low population levels in the early 1990s and that conservation goals were being met (North Carolina to New Jersey). However, it could not be determined if conservation goals were being met in the southern region (SEDAR 2009). Additionally, because total abundance of the Red Drum population could not be determined due to a lack of information on the adult population, it could be determined if the populations were overfished or not (SEDAR 2009). In the Gulf of Mexico, population analyses by individual states have indicated that Red Drum populations have improved since the late 1980s, and it appears that conservation goals are being met by most state fisheries (Powers and Burns 2010). However, a Gulf-wide population assessment has not been done since 2000, and like in the South Atlantic, information on the adult population is lacking (Powers and Burns 2010). Although it remains uncertain whether Red Drum populations have fully recovered from an overfished state, since recovery plans for Red Drum in both regions have shown signs of success, points will be added Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized Points for Management BYCATCH Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species. The term, "bycatch" used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists. The terms, "endangered, threatened, or protected," used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a "threatened, endangered or protected species." Commercial fisheries for Red Drum are limited, with the majority of commercial catch in the US Atlantic being taken in North Carolina state waters and all of the catch in the US Gulf of Mexico occurring in Mississippi. In the North Carolina fishery, Red Drum are

14 only allowed to be taken as bycatch (must make up less than 50% of catch), and are primarily captured with large-mesh set gillnets in the southern flounder estuarine fishery (NCDMF 2008). In Mississippi, most Red Drum have been taken with hook and line gear in recent years, but in previous years have also been taken with gillnets (NMFS 2012b). Some bycatch information is available for the North Carolina large-mesh gillnet fishery. Although southern flounder is the primary target species, several other fish species are captured in this fishery that are marketable and therefore are kept and sold, including Red Drum, black drum, and spotted seatrout. A variety of fish and crab species though are known to be taken incidentally in this fishery and subsequently discarded back to sea (Evans 2001, Bianchi 2002). Marketable species may also be discarded back to sea in some cases due to size and catch limits. For instance, Red Drum discards in the gillnet fishery are fairly high, with estimated dead discards of Red Drum ranging from 15,000 to 60,000 lbs a year from 2004 to 2006 (Paramore 2009). Estimates of total bycatch or discard rates for this fishery are limited, but between 40-50% of the total catch may be discarded back to sea (Evans 2001). For the Mississippi hook and line fishery, bycatch information is not available, but bycatch is likely to be lower than in the gillnet fisheries and a larger proportion of the discarded species are likely to survive. For instance, in the recreational Red Drum hook and line fishery, 92% of discarded Red Drum are thought to survive (SEDAR 2009). In the North Carolina large-mesh gillnet fishery, catches of endangered and protected species are also a concern. In this fishery there are high catches of endangered/threatened sea turtles, including green, loggerhead, and Kemp s Ridley, and a portion of the fishery has been operating under an Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act since 2000, which allots the fishery a certain number of permitted takes or catches of sea turtles each year (Paramore 2009, Daniel 2011). Restrictions to limit sea turtle catches have included closed fishing areas, gillnet length limits, and limited fishing times (Daniel 2011). However, over the period 2000 to 2010, there have been an estimated 15,000 sea turtles caught in North Carolina s gillnet fisheries, and in both 2007 and 2009 the allowable sea turtle takes were exceeded, requiring the fishery to be closed early (Daniel 2011). The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has recently submitted a request for a new Incidental Take Permit for their gillnet fisheries, and has requested an allowance of up to 902 sea turtle catches for the fishing seasons (Daniel 2011). Their request is currently being reviewed. This fishery also occasionally catches bottlenose dolphins (NMFS 2012c). A number of seabirds have also been observed to be caught in this fishery (Bianchi 2002), but the extent of these interactions is uncertain. In the Mississippi Red Drum hook and line commercial fishery, there is no information on catches of endangered or protected species, but in general interactions with sea turtles or other endangered/protected species is less of a concern in hook and line fisheries compared to gillnet fisheries (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). Since most commercially caught Red Drum are taken in North Carolina s estuarine gillnet fishery, and catches of endangered/threatened sea turtles in this fishery appear to be frequent, a score of 1 is awarded.

15 2.00 Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species" OR level of bycatch is unknown Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species." Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it. Red Drum are only allowed to be captured as a bycatch species in the North Carolina fishery, which accounts for the majority of Red Drum commercial catch. They are captured as bycatch in both the large-mesh and small-mesh estuarine gillnet fisheries. Only Red Drum between in. may be retained, and only 7 Red Drum are allowed to be kept per trip (NCDMF 2008); therefore, large number of Red Drum are discarded back to sea. From 2004 to 2006, between 15,000 to 60,000 lbs of Red Drum were discarded dead per year in the large-mesh fishery and between 3,000 to lbs of Red Drum were discarded dead in the small-mesh gillnet fishery (Paramore 2009). These dead discards represent 45-50% of the North Carolina Red Drum commercial catch (SEDAR 2009). Some gears restrictions have been implemented to try to limit the incidental capture of Red Drum in these fisheries. For example, in the small-mesh fishery, nets are required to be attended (i.e. fishermen must stay near their net) at all times from May 1- November 30 in important Red Drum nursery areas, and in the large-mesh fishery if nets are left unattended, they must be placed at least 10 feet from shore from June through October (NCDMF 2008). It has been shown that setting gillnets well off the shore line is effective at reducing juvenile Red Drum catch (Paramore 2009). Between 2,000 to 9,000 lbs of Red Drum are also discarded dead per year in North Carolina s recreational gillnet fishery (Paramore 2009), and high number of Red Drum are released each year in recreational hook and line fisheries throughout the Atlantic (1-3 million fish) and Gulf of Mexico (5-7 million fish) (NMFS, personal communication). Although only around 8% of Red Drum released in the hook and line fisheries are estimated to suffer mortalities, due the high numbers of discards this accounts for a significant proportion of Red Drum mortalities (SEDAR 2009). North Carolina now requires circle hooks to be used in some areas where high recreational fishing is known to

16 occur to try to reduce discard mortalities (NCDMF 2008), but in other states no measures have been taken. Although some measures have been taken to limit Red Drum bycatch, given that discarded Red Drum account for a large proportion of total catch mortalities, points are subtracted The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the "protected" bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). Catches of endangered and threatened sea turtles are a concern in the North Carolina large-mesh estuarine gillnet fishery that captures Red Drum, with an estimated 15,000 catches occurring over 2000 to 2010 (Daniel 2011). Sea turtle catches were initially found to be a concern in the Pamlico Sound region, which led the closure of much of this area to gillnet fishing from September 15-December 31 each year, limits to the length of gillnet that could be used, and mandatory observer coverage was required for areas where gillnet fishing was allowed. However, despite these measures sea turtle catches continued to be high in this region in some years, and exceeded the allowable take limits in both 2007 and 2009 (Daniel 2011). In recent years, concerns of sea turtle catches in gillnet fisheries in other North Carolina regions were also being reported, which led to further gillnet gear restrictions in 2010, after the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Division was sued for failing to adequately protect sea turtles. Restrictions included various measures to limit net size and fishing times (Daniel 2011). It remains to be seen if these new regulations will be able to effectively limit sea turtle catches, and therefore no points are added There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). Bycatch information for North Carolina s gillnet fisheries that capture Red Drum is limited, but bycatch is likely moderate (Evans 2001). Bycatch levels are likely lower in the Red Drum hook and line fishery in Mississippi. Some gear restrictions are in place for North Carolina s gillnet fisheries, which may limit bycatch of other species, including limits on net length and requirements for gear to be set a certain distance from shore if it is left unattended (NCDMF 2008). However, it is unknown if these measures have reduced bycatch, and thus no points are added Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range.

17 +0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear) Points for Bycatch REFERENCES Alabama Marine Resource Division (AMRD) 2008 Red Drum Assessment. Provided to the Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting, May Tab L, No. 3d. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) (2002) Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Red Drum. ASMFC, Red Drum Plan Development Team. June Online at ASMFC (2009) ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Red Drum. ASMFC. December Online at Bianchi AJ (2002) Effects of fishing practices, gear parameters, and gear configurations on target and incidental catch in the southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) gillnet fishery of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Master s Thesis. North Carolina State University. Blanchet (2006) 2005 Louisiana s Red Drum Escapement Rate Update. Provided to the Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting, May Tab L, No. 3e. Daniel L (2011) Application for an Individual Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for Atlantic sea turtle populations. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. August 15, Evans WG III (2001) Fisheries Resource Grant Project 98-FEG-50. August Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (2012) Florida Saltwater Recreational Fishing Regulations Online at MyFWC.com/Fishing FWRI (2010a) Sea Stats: Red Drum. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, FWRI. June FWRI (2010b) Regional analysis of Florida s Gulf and Atlantic stocks of red drum. FWRI, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. August 2010.

18 FWRI (2011) Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, pp In: Florida s Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2010 Status and Trends Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, FWRI, St. Petersburg, FL. Online at: research/saltwater/status-trends/finfish/ Gold JR, Burridge CP, Turner TF (2001) A modified stepping-stone model of population structure in red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Sciaenidae), from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Genetica 111: Gold JR, Turner TF (2002) Population structure of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico, as inferred from variation in nuclear-encoded microsatellites. Marine Biology 140: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) (1988) Amendment Number 2 and Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Fishery Management Plan for the Red Drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. GMFMC. March GMFMC (1999) Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment (Includes Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment). GMFMC, February GMFMC (2004) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment. GMFMC, March Lowerre-Barbieri SK, Barbieri LR, Flanders JR, Woodward AG, Cotton CF, Knowlton MK (2008) Use of passive acoustics to determine red drum spawning in Georgia waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 137: Lux FE, Mahoney JV (1969) First records of the channel bass, Sciaenops ocellata (Linnaeus), in the Gulf of Maine. Copeia (3): Martinez-Andrade F, Campbell P, Fuls B (2005) Trends in relative abundance and size of selected finfishes and shellfishes along the Texas coast: November 1975-December Texas Parks and Wildlife, Coastal Fisheries Division, Management Data Series No Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) (2010) 2010 Mississippi estimates of red drum escapement rates. Provided to the Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting, May Tab L, No. 3a. MDMR (2011) Guide to Mississippi Saltwater Fishing: Rules and Regulations MDMR, June Online at Morgan LE, Chuenpagdee R (2003) Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. PEW Science Series.

19 Murphy MD, Taylor RG (1990) Reproduction, growth, and mortality of red drum Sciaenops ocellatus in Florida waters. Fishery Bulletin. 88: Murphy MD, Crabtree RE (1999) Age structure of offshore red drum populations in nearshore waters off west-central Florida. MARFIN Final Report. Florida Marine Research Institute, St.Petersburg, FL. 40p. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1986) Final Secretarial Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Red Drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). December Online at NMFS (2012a) Annual Commercial Landings Query: Red Drum ( , Atlantic & , Gulf of Mexico). NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science and Technology. Online at: Accessed April 4, NMFS (2012b) Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type Query: Red Drum ( , Atlantic & , Gulf of Mexico). NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science and Technology. Online at: noaa.gov/st1/ commercial/. Accessed April 4, NMFS (2012c) 2012 List of Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources. Online at interactions/lof/final2012.htm#table2_cat2 NMFS, Fisheries Statistics Division, Personal Communication. Marine Recreational Information Program Query: Red Drum Annual Harvest ( , Atlantic & , Gulf). Downloaded April 09, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) (2008) North Carolina Red Drum Fishery Management Plan Amendment 1. Prepared by the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan Advisory Committee and the NCDMF, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Morehead City, NC. November Pafford JM, Woodward AG, Nicholson N (1990) Mortality, movement and growth of red drum in Georgia. Final report. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, GA. 85p. Paramore L (2009) An Estimate of Red Drum Removals from the North Carolina Estuarine Gill Net Fishery Occurring from both Recreational Users of Gill Nets and from Regulatory and Unmarketable Discards. SEDAR-18-DW16 Working Paper. Pearson JC (1929) Natural history and conservation of the redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the Texas coast. Bull. U.S. Bureau of Fish. 44: Peters KM, McMichael RH (1987) Early life history of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Pisces:Sciaenidae), in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 10(2):

20 PEW Environment Group (2010) Comments to the Special Working Group on Red Drum allowable biological catch. Campaign to end overfishing in the southeast U.S., Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Environment Group. July 8, Powers SP, Burns K (2010) Summary Report of the Red Drum Special Working Grouper for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Online at Rohr BA (1980) Use of hard parts to age Gulf of Mexico red drum. (Abstract.) IN: Colloquium on the biology and management of red drum and seatrout. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 5:7-8. Rooker JR, Stunz GW, Holt SA, Minello TJ (2010) Population connectivity of red drum in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 407: Ross JL, Stevens TM (1992) Life history and population dynamics of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in North Carolina waters. Marine Fisheries Research. Completion Report, Project F- 29. North Carolina DMF, Morehead City, NC. Ross JL, Stevens TM, Vaughan DS (1995) Age, growth, mortality, and reproductive biology of red drum in North Carolina waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) (1990) The Atlantic coast red drum fishery management plan, including an environmental impact statement and regulatory impact review. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, South Carolina. SAFMC (1998). Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, South Carolina. Seyoum S, Tringali MD, Bert TM (2000) An analysis of genetic population structure in red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, based on mtdna control region sequences. Fishery Bulletin 98: Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) (2009) Stock Assessment Report Atlantic Red Drum. SEDAR 18, North Charleston, SC. October 16, Online at noaa.gov/sedar/sedar_workshops.jsp?workshopnum=18 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2012) Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Texas Parks and Wildlife Website TPWD, personal communication. Mean catch rates and total lengths of selected finfishes and shellfishes March 12, Wenner CA (1992) Red drum: natural history and fishing techniques in South Carolina. Educational Report No. 17. South Carolina DNR, Marine Resources Division, Charleston, SC.