"*£X1CO *
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
Gulf Of Mexico Program
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
EPA 800-B-94-007
July 1994
Living Aquati
Action Agenda
For The Gulf Of
First Q©n©ration=Man«
lommittee Report
(merit
Ifmrn
bgJ!-i*'..rai,). j.-!jl
j'6<»»-i!
Living
Aquatic
Resources
life
£jj
-------
Living Aquatic Resources
Action Agenda
for the
Gulf of Mexico
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
atleast 50% recycled fiber
-------
Preface
PREFACE
One of the initial goals for the first five years of the Gulf of Mexico
Program was to establish a "framework-for-action" for implementing
management options for pollution controls, determining research
direction and environmental monitoring protocols, and implementing
remedial and restoration measures for environmental losses. As a means
of developing this framework-for-action, the Gulf Program established
eight committees, composed of experts, to deal with the following
environmental issue areas:
a Habitat Degradation
Q Marine Debris
a Freshwater Inflow
a Nutrient Enrichment
a Toxic Substances & Pesticides
Q Public Health
a Coastal & Shoreline Erosion
Q Living Aquatic Resources
Each committee was charged with: 1) characterizing the status of the issue,
2) developing goals and objectives for remedial and restoration activities,
and 3) developing descriptions of the projects and tasks to be implemented
in order to achieve the stated objectives. This information was
incorporated into an "Action Agenda" for each environmental issue area.
This document is the first generation of one of these Action Agendas.
Representing the consensus of a large number of subject specialists, this
document is considered to be a draft working paper for the Gulf of Mexico
Program Management Committee. Since this first generation Action
Agenda has not been reviewed and approved by all agencies, it is being
made available for informational purposes only.
Gulf off Mexico Program Action Agenda
-------
-------
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Gulf of Mexico contains ecological and commercial resources matched by few
other bodies of water. Yet its blue-green waters disguise the increasing
environmental threats that endanger these resources. In recognition of the growing
threats, Regions 4 and 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
which share jurisdiction over the five Gulf Coast States (Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), initiated the Gulf of Mexico Program in August
1988. The goal of the Gulf of Mexico Program is to protect, restore, and enhance the
coastal and marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its coastal natural habitats, to
sustain living resources, to protect human health and the food supply, and to
ensure the recreational use of Gulf shores, beaches, and waters-in ways consistent
with the economic well being of the region.
The Gulf of Mexico Program is a cooperative partnership among federal, state, and
local government agencies, as well as .with people and groups who use the Gulf of
Mexico. During the early stages of Program development, eight priority
environmental problems were identified and the following Issue Committees have
been established to address each of these problems: Marine Debris, Public Health,
Habitat Degradation, Coastal & Shoreline Erosion, Nutrient Enrichment, Toxic
Substances & Pesticides, Freshwater Inflow, and Living Aquatic Resources. There
are important linkages among these various Issue Committees and the Gulf of
Mexico Program works to coordinate and integrate activities among them.
The Living Aquatic Resources Committee was charged with characterizing the
status of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico and determining ways to
conserve and restore those resources. The Living Aquatic Resources Committee has
been meeting for almost two years—to review information and data collected by
citizens and scientists, identify problem areas, discuss actions that can resolve the
problems, and evaluate methods for achieving and monitoring results. The
culmination of Issue Committee efforts is this Living Aquatic Resources Action
Agenda which specifies an initial set of activities needed to conserve and restore the
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico. This Action Agenda is the first
generation of an evolving series of Action Agendas that will be developed to meet
the future needs of the Gulf of Mexico.
Chapter 1 of the Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda provides an overview of
Gulf of Mexico resources and the threats now facing those resources. In addition,
Chapter 1 describes the structure of the Gulf of Mexico Program, including the
Action Agenda development process.
Chapter 2 is a brief overview of the living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Chapter 3 describes the legal and institutional framework currently in place in the
Gulf of Mexico to address living aquatic resources.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Executive Summary
Chapter 4, The Unfinished Agenda, contains the goal, objectives, and specific
activities established by the Gulf of Mexico Program to address living aquatic
resources in the Gulf. The long-term goal established by the Issue Committee is to:
Q Conserve and restore species diversity and health of aquatic
resources while allowing sustainable development.
Seventy-five action items have been developed to support the goal, and these are
grouped under five types of activities and nineteen objectives (see index of Living
Aquatic Resources Objectives). The action items included in Chapter 4 have been
screened by the Gulf of Mexico Program and represent those activities that are
currently the most significant and most achievable. This is a fairly comprehensive,
but not exhaustive, list. This document begins an evolving process of Action
Agendas in which action items are designated, implemented, and then reassessed as
progress in the Gulf is made. In the future, new action items will be developed to
meet the changing needs in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action items contained in Chapter 4 are not listed in priority order. Each action
item is supported by one or more project descriptions. Some of the projects are
already underway but not yet completed. Others are included because they will
guide federal, state, and local government agencies and private sector organizations
in allocating resources where they are most needed and in justifying future
management strategies. This Action Agenda should prompt specific agencies and
groups to become involved.
The Gulf of Mexico Program recently developed ten short-term environmental
challenges to restore and maintain the environmental and economic health of the
Gulf. Within the next five years, through an integrated effort that complements
existing local, state, and federal programs, the Program has pledged efforts to obtain
the knowledge and resources to:
Q Significantly reduce the rate of loss of coastal wetlands.
D Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass beds.
Q Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreational fisheries.
Q Protect the human health and food supply by reducing input of nutrients, toxic substances, and
pathogens to the Gulf.
Q Increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe harvesting by ten percent.
Q Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for swimming and recreational uses.
Q Reduce by at least ten percent the amount of trash on beaches.
Q Improve and expand coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living
resources.
Q Expand public education/outreach tailored for each Gulf Coast county or parish.
Q Reduce critical coastal and shoreline erosion.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatlo Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Executive Summary
This Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda supports these five-year
environmental challenges.
For the public, this Gulf of Mexico Action Agenda should serve three purposes.
First, it should reflect the public will regarding the living aquatic resources of the
Gulf of Mexico. Second, it should communicate what actions are needed for
conserving and restoring those resources and provide the momentum for initiating
these actions. Third, it should provide baseline information from which success can
be measured.
This Action Agenda is a living document; therefore, the Gulf of Mexico Living
Aquatic Resources Committee intends to periodically revise and update this
document.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
in
-------
Executive Summary
Index of Living Aquatic Resources Objectives
Monitoring & Assessment
Objective: Characterize the current status of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico and
continue to monitor the status and trends of these resources.
Objective: Survey and monitor impacts to the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico
caused by human access and physical use.
Objective: Assess and monitor the effects of fishing mortality on the health and abundance of
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Identify, inventory, and monitor impacts to the Gulf of Mexico and its living aquatic
resources resulting from human-caused contaminants (i.e., sewage, petroleum
products, chemicals, toxic pesticides, marine debris, viruses, and bacteria).
Objective: Survey the potential impacts of aquaculture on living aquatic resources of the Gulf of
Mexico.
Objective: Inventory the occurrence and evaluate the reoccurrence potential of unusual
mortality events of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Research
Objective: Conduct research to identify, characterize, and enhance the sustainability of living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Determine the impacts and effects of human activities on the living aquatic resources
in the Gulf of Mexico, including habitat availability, structure, and function.
Objective: Assess and address the potential effects of aquaculture on the living aquatic resources
of the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Determine the cause/effect relationships of unusual mortality events and their
potential ecological effects in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
Iv
-------
Executive Summary
Index off Living Aquatic Resources Objectives (continued)
Planning & Standards
Objective: Develop a future quantified "vision" of the status of living aquatic resources in the
Gulf of Mexico that supports the concept of a "healthy" Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Develop consistent criteria, seek uniform management, develop specific strategies,
and coordinate Gulfwide activities for the protection of living aquatic resources and
ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Restore anadromous fish populations that have been impacted by dam construction,
channelization, dredging, and other habitat modifications and protect the habitats,
rivers, and critical areas important to the life histories of these species in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Objective: Develop and implement a response strategy for unusual mortality events in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Compliance & Enforcement
Objective: Enhance enforcement capabilities to protect living aquatic resources throughout the
Gulf of Mexico.
Objective:
Objective:
Objective:
Objective:
Public Education & Outreach
Promote the coordination and advancement of all relevant Gulfwide education
programs that address any aspect of living aquatic resources.
Develop a public education and awareness program for the general public and
specific user groups regarding human impacts on the living aquatic resources of the
Gulf of Mexico, and promote a conservation ethic.
Develop a Gulfwide public education and awareness program for other key issues
concerning living aquatic resources that are not being effectively addressed.
Involve an informed public constituency in the support and maintenance of "healthy"
Gulf of Mexico ecosystems.
Gulf ef Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables vi i i
List of Figures.. I*
1 OVERVIEW OF THE GULF OF MEXICO 1
The Cuff of Mexico - A Vast & Valuable Resource.............................. 1
The Gulf of Mexico - A Resource at Risk........................................... 3
The Gulf of Mexico Program - Goals & structure............................ 4
The Living Aquatic Resources Committee. 9
2 LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 11
Blotic Condition of the Gulf of Mexico 11
Coastal Resources[[[ 11
Offshore Resources................... 12
Terrestrial & Marine Mammals.................................................. 18
Marine Turtles....... 21
Coastal & Marine Birds... —•• 23
Fishery Resources[[[ 26
Unusual Mortality Events.. 33
Marine Mammals[[[•••....••..•.»> 33
Fish Kills..................................... 34
Impacts of Fishing on the Ecosystem....................................... 4O
Commercial Fishing[[[ 4O
Recreational Fishing[[[ 47
Aquaculture.. . SO
Human Impacts/Interactions......................... SI
Recreational Resources & Activities SI
Impacts on Coral Reef Systems................................................. SI
Impacts on Seagrass Beds[[[ S4
Human Interaction with Wild Populations of Marine Mammals....... BS
-------
Table of Contents
4 THE UNFINISHED AGENDA 62
Goal... , ...... 62
Action Agenda Framework... 62
Monitoring & Assessment[[[ 71
Research...... 82
Planning & Standards[[[ 92
Compliance & Enforcement[[[ 104
Public Education & Outreach[[[ 1O6
In Closing[[[i.......... 113
-------
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Tablo 2.1 Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico....................... 18
Table 2.2 1989 FInfish Bycateh Estimates
for Offshore Gulf Shrimp Trawlers.
46
Table 2.3 Status of Recreational Fish Species
In the Southeast U.S. for 1991
49
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
viii
-------
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure "i .1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per
Shoreline Mile...................
Figure 1.2 Gulf Program Structured Partnership 6
Figure 2.1 Reported Fish Kill Events by County, 198O-1989........ 35
Figure 2.2 Number of Events & Fish Killed
by Month, 198Q-1989 .,
35
Figure 2.3 Number of Fish Kill Events by Type
of Incident.....................................
36
Figure 2.4 Number of Fish Kill Events by Direct Cause 37
Figure 2.5 Number of Fish Kill Even ts
by Land Use Cause
37
Figure 2.6 Examples of Potential Impacts
of Habitat Alterations on Se*a 1
Habitat Alterations on Sea Turtles 56
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
ix
-------
-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
OVERVIEW OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
The Gulf off Mexleo - A Vast & Valuable Resource
Bounded by a shoreline that reaches northwest from Florida along the shores of
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and then southwest along Texas and Mexico,
the Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world. The Gulf's U.S.
coastline measures approximately 2,609 km (1,631 miles)~longer than the Pacific
coastline of California, Oregon, and Washington. The Gulf region covers more than
1.6 million km2 (617,600 mi2) and contains one of the nation's most extensive
barrier-island systems, outlets from 33 major river systems, and 207 estuaries (Buff
and Turner, 1987). In addition, the Gulf receives the drainage of the Mississippi
River, the largest river in North America and one of the major rivers of the world.
A cornerstone of the nation's economy, the Gulf's diverse and productive
ecosystem provides a variety of valuable resources and services, including
transportation, recreation, fish and shellfish, and petroleum and minerals.
Encompassing over two million hectares (five million acres) (about half of the
national total), Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands serve as essential habitat for a large
percentage of the U.S.'s migrating waterfowl (USEPA, 1991). Mudflats, salt marshes,
mangrove swamps, and barrier island beaches of the Gulf also provide year-round
nesting and feeding grounds for abundant numbers of gulls, terns, and other
shorebirds. Five species of endangered whales, including four baleen whales and
one toothed whale, are found in Gulf waters. These waters also harbor the
endangered American crocodile and five species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles (loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley). The
endangered West Indian (or Florida) manatee inhabits waterways and bays along the
Florida peninsula.
In addition, a complex network of channels and wetlands within the Gulf shoreline
provides habitat for estuarine-dependent commercial and recreational fisheries.
The rich waters yielded approximately 771 million kg (1.7 billion pounds) of fish and
shellfish in 1991. Worth more than $641 million at dockside, this harvest
represented 19 percent of the total annual domestic harvest of commercial fish
(USDOC, 1992c). The Gulf boasts the largest and most valuable shrimp fishery in the
U.S. and also contributed 41 percent of the U.S. total oyster production in 1991
(USDOC, 1992c). Other Gulf fisheries include diverse shellfisheries for crabs and
spiny lobsters and finfisheries for menhaden, herring, mackerel, tuna, grouper,
snapper, drum, and flounder. The entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico fishery yields more
finfish, shrimp, and shellfish annually than the South and Mid-Atlantic,
Chesapeake, and Great Lakes regions combined.
The Gulf's bountiful waters draw millions of sport fishermen and beach users each
year. It is estimated that the Gulf supports more than one-third of the nation's
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Overview of tho Guff of Mexico
Chapter 1
marine recreational fishing, hosting four million fishermen in 1985 who caught an
estimated 42 million fish (USDOC, 1992c). Popular nearshore catches include sea
trout (weak fish), cobia, redfish, flounder, grouper, red snapper, mackerel, and
tarpon; offshore catches include blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, swordfish,
dolphin, and wahoo. Tourism-related dollars in the Gulf Coast States contribute an
estimated $20 billion to the economy each year (USEPA, 1991).
Gulf oil and gas production are equally valuable to the region's economy and are a
critical part of the nation's total energy supply. In 1990, more man 1,600 Outer
Continental Shelf (DCS) leases were in production, yielding approximately 90
percent of U.S. offshore production. These OCS royalties annually contribute about
$3 billion to the Federal Treasury. Thirty-eight percent of all petroleum and 48
percent of all natural gas reserves in the U.S. are estimated to be in the Gulf of
Mexico. The industry employs some 30,000 people in the Gulf of Mexico.
Approximately 45 percent of U.S. shipping tonnage passes through Gulf ports,
including four of tine nation's busiest: Corpus Christi, Houston/Galveston, Tampa,
and New Orleans. The second largest marine transport industry in the world is
located in the Gulf of Mexico. According to USEPA, vessel trips in and out of
American Gulf ports and harbors exceeded an estimated 600,000 trips in 1986. The
U.S. Navy is also implementing its Gulf Coast Homeporting Plan, designed to dock
at least 25 vessels in Ingelside, TX, Pascagoula, MS, and Mobile, AL.
Millions of people depend on the Gulf of Mexico to earn a living and flock to its
shores and waters for entertainment and relaxation. The temperate climate and
abundant resources are attracting more and more people. The region currently
ranks fourth in total population among the five U.S. coastal regions, accounting for
13 percent of the nation's total coastal population. Although the Gulf region is not
as densely settled as others, it is experiencing the second fastest rate of growth;
between 1970 and 1980, the population grew by more than 30 percent (USDOC,
1990a). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Gulf's total coastal
population is projected to increase by 144 percent between 1960 and 2010, to almost
18 million people. Figure 1.1 shows the Gulf of Mexico coastal population density
or population per shoreline mile projected to the year 2010. Florida's population
alone is expected to have skyrocketed by more than 300 percent by the year 2010. The
increasing population growth in coastal areas places development pressure on
critical fisheries habitat and contributes to water quality problems.
The Gulfs resources and environmental quality are affected not only by the
millions living and working in the region, but also by activities occurring
throughout much of the nation. Two-thirds of the land area of the contiguous U.S.
drains into the Gulf, bringing with it potential impacts on living aquatic resources
due to pesticides, fertilizer, toxic substances, and trash.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
2
-------
Overview of the Guff of Mexico
Figure 1.1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per Shoreline Mile
(Source: USDOC, 199Oa)
The Gulf of Mexico - A Resource At Risk
Increasing population pressures mean increased use and demands on Gulf of
Mexico resources. Until recently, the Gulf was considered too vast to be affected by
pollution and overuse. Recent trends indicate, however, serious long-term
environmental damage unless action is initiated today. Potential problems or
causes of degradation throughout the Gulf system include the following (USEPA,
1991):
a
Fish kills and toxic "red tides," and "brown tides" were an increasing
phenomenon in Gulf waters during the 1980s.
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are among those states that
discharge the greatest amount of toxic chemicals into coastal waters.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Ovorvlow of tho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Q Diversions and consumptive use for human activities have resulted in
significant changes in the quantity and timing of freshwater inflows to
the Gulf of Mexico.
Q More than half of the shellfish-producing areas along the Gulf Coast
are permanently or conditionally closed. These closure areas are
growing as a result of increasing human and domestic animal
populations along the Gulf Coast (USDOC, 1991b).
Q Louisiana is losing valuable coastal wetlands at the rate of
approximately 14-66 km2/year (5-25 mi2 /year) (Dunbar, et al, 1992).
D Almost 1,800 kg/mi (2 tons/mi) of marine trash covered Texas beaches
in 1988.
Q Up to 9,500 km2 (4,000 mi2) of oxygen deficient (hypoxia) bottom waters,
known as the "dead zone," have been documented off the Louisiana
and Texas coasts (Rabalais, et al., 1991).
Q Gulf shorelines are eroding up to 30 m/year (100 ft/year). Few coastal
reaches in the Gulf can be characterized as "stable" or "accreting."
The Gulf of Mexico Program - Goals & Structure
Problems plaguing the Gulf cannot be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. These
problems and the resources needed to address them are too great. The Gulf of
Mexico Program (GMP) was formed to pioneer a broad, geographic focus in order to
address major environmental issues in,the Gulf before the damage is irreversible or
too costly to correct.
The program is part of a cooperative effort with other agencies and organizations in
the five Gulf States, as well as with people and groups who use the Gulf. In addition
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), other participating federal
government agencies include: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), U.S. Department of Defense
(USDOD), U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDOI), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (USFDA), and Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
(ATSDR).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Overview of 1 he Guff of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico Program also works in coordination and cooperation with five
National Estuary Programs (NEPs) within the Gulf: Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,
Galveston Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex. The Gulf of Mexico Program supports and builds on certain activities of
these programs, bringing a Gulfwide focus and providing a forum for addressing
issues of Gulfwide concern.
By building on and enhancing programs already underway, as well as by
coordinating new activities, the Gulf of Mexico Program will serve as a catalyst for
change. The program's overall goals are to provide:
a
A mechanism for addressing complex problems that cross federal, state,
and international jurisdictional lines;
Better coordination among federal, state, and local programs, thus
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the long-term effort to
manage and protect Gulf resources;
A regional perspective to address research needs, which will result in
improved transfer of information and methods for supporting
effective management decisions; and
A forum for affected groups using the Gulf, for public and private
educational institutions, and for the general public to participate in the
solution process.
The Gulf of Mexico Program is supported by four committees: Policy Review Board
(PRB), Management Committee (MC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (see Figure 1.2). Composed of 20 senior level
representatives of state and federal agencies and representatives of the technical and
citizens committees, the Policy Review Board guides and reviews overall program
activities. The Management Committee guides and manages Gulf of Mexico
Program operations and directs the Action Agenda activities of the Issue
Committees. The Citizens Advisory Committee is composed of five governor-
appointed citizens who represent environmental, fisheries, agricultural,
business/industrial, and development/tourism interests in each of the five Gulf
Coast States. This committee provides public input and assistance in publicizing the
Gulf of Mexico Program's goals and results. Representatives of state and federal
agencies, the academic community, and the private and public sectors are members
of the Technical Advisory Committee and provide technical support to the
Management Committee.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Ovorvlow of th* Gulf of Moxlco
Chapter 1
FIguN»1.2
|
1
Gulf Program Structured Partnership
Policy Rvvlow Board
| Cltlx*MArfvU«ry 1
I CvmmUtM I
Fragrant Op«»il*iw Support
Gulf of Mmclco
Program Offlc*
Public Education &
Outreach Operations
Data & Information
Transfer Operations
t C*mmll<««
j
| T*chnlo«l Advteory 1
I C«mmlU** I
C^Chntr R.vl.w
C«unaH
|
I
mmit!•••
Habilal Degradation
Public Health
FreshwaterInlkw
Marine Debris
Coastal & Shoreline Erosion
Nutrient Enrichment
Toxic Substances &
Pesticides
Living Aquatic Resources
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Overview of ffie Gulf of Mexico
Chapter i
The Gulf of Mexico Program has established the following eight Issue Committees,
each co-chaired by one federal and one state representative, to address priority
environmental problems:
Q
a
a
a
a
a
a
Habitat Degradation of such areas as coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,
and sand dunes;
Freshwater Inflow changes resulting from reservoir construction,
diversions for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and
modifications to watersheds with concomitant alteration of runoff
patterns;
Nutrient Enrichment resulting from such sources as municipal waste
water treatment plants, storm water, industries, and agriculture;
Toxic Substances & Pesticides contamination originating from
industrial and agriculturally based sources;
Coastal & Shoreline Erosion caused by natural and human-related
activities;
Public Health threats from swimming in and eating seafood products
coming from contaminated water;
Marine Debris from land-based and marine recreational and
commercial sources; and
Living Aquatic Resources.
Two cross-cutting technical operating committees support the public education and
information and resource management functions of the eight environmental Issue
Committees. These are:
Q Public Education & Outreach Operations
Q Data & Information Transfer Operations
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter i
The action planning process used by each Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committee
includes the following key activities:
Q Definition of environmental issues;
Q Characterization of identified problems, including sources, resources,
and impacts;
D Establishment of goals and objectives;
Q Evaluation/ assessment of corrective actions and control measures,
including cost/benefit analysis;
Q Selection of priority action items;
D Establishment of measures of success;
Q Implementation of actions; and
Q Evaluation of success and revision of the Action Agenda.
As the Issue Committees progress through each of these activities, ample
opportunities are provided for public review and Policy Review Board endorsement
is requested at appropriate points. The Gulf of Mexico Program will continuously
work to integrate related activities of the eight Issue Committees. Through the
consensus of Program participants, a coordinated response will be directed to the
successful maintenance and enhancement of resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Overview of the Guff of Mexico
ghapter f
The Living Aquatle Resources Committee
The Co-Chairs and membership of the Living Aquatic Resources Committee are as
follows:
Co-Chairs:
Dr. Herb Kumpf
Dr. Karen Steidinger
Members:
Mr. Philip Bohr
Ms. Nora Deyaun Boudreaux
Dr. Thomas Bright
Dr. Bradford Brown
Ms. Gail Carmody
Dr. James Cato
Dr. George Crozier
Dr. Quenton Dokken
Dr. William Evans
Dr. Bill Fisher
Mr. Douglas Fruge'
Mr. Joe Gill
Dr. Al Green
Dr. Gary Hendrix
Mr. Joe Herring
Dr. Rex Herron
Dr. Richard Hoogland
Mr. Robert Jones
Mr. H.D. Kelly
Dr. Frederick Kopfler
Mr. John Lambeth
Ms. Heidi Lovett
Mr. Ronald Lukens
Dr. Kumar Mahadevan
Mr. Bill Mason
Dr. Thomas McHwain
Mr. R. Vernon Minton
Dr. John Ogden
Dr. Steven Plakas
Mr. Jim Ratterree
Mr. Ralph Rayburn
Dr. Susan Rees
Dr. Bruce Rosendahl
Dr. Andrew Sansom
National Marine Fisheries Service
Florida Marine Research Institute
National Marine Fisheries Service
Texas Shrimp Association
Texas A&M University
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Florida Sea Grant College
Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
Gulf of Mexico Foundation—CAC
Texas A&M University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Coast Fisheries Coordination Office
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
National Park Service
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Southeast Fisheries Association
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biloxi Sun Herald
Center for Marine Conservation
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Mote Marine Laboratory
U:S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Alabama Department of Conservation
Florida Institute of Oceanography
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
9
-------
Ovorvlow of ih* Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Dr. Richard Shaw
Dr. Robert Shipp
Mr. Larry Simpson
Dr. Robert Stewart, Jr.
Mr. Wayne Swingel
Dr. Jack Van Lopik
Mr. Frederick Werner
Dr. Pace Wilber
Dr. Jonathan Wilson
Dr. Alejandro Yanez-Arancibia
Dr. Bernard Yokel
Louisiana State University
University of South Alabama
Gulf States Marine, Fisheries Commission
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council
Louisiana State University
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jackson State University
Programa Epomex
Florida Audubon Society
The Living Aquatic Resources Committee developed the following long-term goal
for addressing living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico:
Q Conserve and restore species diversity and health of aquatic
resources while allowing sustainable development.
In developing this Action Agenda, the Living Aquatic Resources Committee has
sought input and advice from other technical Issue Committees, as well as from
experts from the Gulf of Mexico region. (See Appendix D: Participants in the
Action Agenda Development Process.)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
2 LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO"
*NOTE: The Living Aquatic Resources Committee is the most recently formed
issue Committee of the Gulf of Mexico Program, in the short time since they
were established, the Living Aquatic Resources Committee has focused their
efforts primarily on the development of specific actions needed to conserve and
restore the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico (see Chapter 4).
However, it is the intent of the Committee to do extensive characterization work
which will eventually be summarized in Chapter 2 of a future generation of this
Action Agenda. The Committee recognizes that the information currently
presented In Chapter 2 needs to be expanded and updated, and during the next
year a process will be developed to accomplish this task. The existing Chapter 2
is meant to be a very brief overview of the living aquatic resources in the Gulf of
Mexico, as well as a summary of issues and concerns.
Blotlc Condition of the Gulf of Mexico
Coastal Resources
Wetlands. Wetland habitat types occurring along the Gulf Coast include fresh,
brackish, and saline marshes; forested wetlands; and mangroves. Marshes and
mangroves form an interface between marine and terrestrial habitats, while forested
wetlands occur inland from marsh areas. Wetland habitats may occupy narrow
bands or vast expanses and can consist of sharply delineated zones of different
species, monotypic stands of a single species, or mixed plant species communities.
The importance of coastal wetlands to the coastal environment has been well
documented. Coastal wetlands are characterized by high organic productivity, high
detritus production, and efficient nutrient recycling. Wetlands provide habitat for a
great number and wide diversity of invertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Wetlands are particularly important as nursery grounds for juvenile forms of many
important fish species. (See the Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat Degradation Action
Agenda for additional information on wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico.)
Seagrasses. Submergent seagrasses occupy over 323,760 hectares (800,000 acres)
within the estuaries and shallow near-coastal waters of the Gulf (Iverson and
Bittaker, 1986). Approximately 95 percent of this acreage is in Florida and Texas,
where seagrasses occupy about 20 percent of the bay bottoms (Thayer and Ustach,
1981). Although often considered continuous around the Gulf's entire periphery, a
combination of low salinity and high turbidity results in only scattered patches of
seagrass communities, mostly in bays, from Alabama to Laguna Madre, TX. In fact,
the distribution and species composition of seagrasses in the lower Laguna Madre
has changed in recent years because of human impacts; these changes are a major
cause for concern. . ,
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
11
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Seagrasses have many ecological functions and are an important component of the
coastal ecosystem. Seagrass beds provide substrate stabilization by causing sediments
to drop out of suspension. They provide nursery habitat and shelter for
commercially and recreationally important species of fish and shellfish, and attract a
diverse and prolific epiphytic biota, serving as sites of attachment for many
mollusks and often providing unique habitats for certain species. Seagrasses
contribute oxygen and nutrients to the water column and serve as both direct and
indirect food sources for many marine species. Seagrass meadows provide a region
of high production and growth that offers sustenance, high detrital input to the
coastal ecosystem, habitat diversity and stability, and refuge for the associated
organisms. Seagrasses also function mechanically by dampening wave energy arid
increasing sedimentation rates and contributing to the maintenance of good water
quality. (See the Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat Degradation Action Agenda for
additional information on seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico.)
.Offshore Resources
Continental Shelf. The benthos has both floral and faunal components, the floral
representatives are algae and seagrasses. The abundance of benthic algae is limited
by the scarcity of suitable substrates and light penetration. Rezak et al. (1983)
recorded algae from the submarine banks off Louisiana and Texas. In exceptionally
dear waters, benthic algae, especially coralline red algae, are known to grow in water
depths to at least 183 m (600 ft).
Benthic fauna include the infauna (animals that live in the substrate, such as
burrowing worms and mollusks) and epifauna (animals that live on the.substrate,
such as mollusks, crustaceans, hydroids, sponges, and echinoderms). Shrimp, crabs,
and demersal fish are closely associated with the benthic community. Substrate is
the single most important factor in the distribution of benthic fauna (Defenbaugh,
1976), although temperature and salinity are also important in determining the
extent of faunal distribution. Other less important factors include illumination,
exposure to air, nutrient availability, currents, tides, and wave shock. Defenbaugh
(1976) states that depth and/or distance from shore should also be considered as
major influences on the benthic faunal distribution. In general, the vast majority of
the benthos of the central and western Gulf consists of soft, muddy bottoms
dominated by polychaetes. The dominant bottom conditions in the eastern Gulf
consist of scattered, patchy, low-relief live bottoms, as well as seagrass beds.
Coral reef communities are exceedingly complex. In general, hermatypic corals
require temperatures of 18°-30°C, with the optimum at about 26°C; salinities from
36-40 ppt, with the optimum at 36 ppt; little pollution and nutrient loads; and
adequate light (i.e., little turbidity). In the Caribbean they may grow as deep as 80 m
(262 ft), while in the Gulf they seem to be limited to a depth of about 50 m (164 ft)
(Bright and Jaap, 1976; Rezak et al, 1983). Off the west coast of Florida, tropical reef
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
12
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf off Mexico
Ghagat&r 2
development is nonexistent. Ledges and outcropping occur and are a special rocky
habitat which support an association of hardy corals and other biota; however, they
do not construct three-dimensional reefs (Jaap, 1984).
The Florida Middle Ground is one of the most biologically developed of the Eastern
Gulf live bottoms and represents the northernmost extent of coral reefs and their
associated assemblages in the Eastern Gulf (Bright and Jaap, 1976; Rezak and Bright,
1981). Probably for this reason, the Middle Ground communities are limited in
terms of the number of species present. The Middle Ground outcrops rise
essentially from a depth of 35 m (115 ft), with the shallowest portions about 25 m
(82 ft) deep. Significantly productive areas comprise about 12,126 hectares (29,963
acres). They are inhabited by hermatypic (reef building) corals and related
communities that grow on these ancient limestone outcrops. This area is 140 km
(87 nautical miles) west-northwest of Tampa and has been designated as a Habitat
Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council. Within the HAPC, bottom longlines, traps and pots, and bottom trawl are
prohibited. The taking of any coral is prohibited except as authorized by permit
from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Florida Middle Ground supports numerous Caribbean fish, corals, and
invertebrates. This is probably due to the intrusion of the Loop Current, short
periods of low temperatures, and high organic productivity. A total of 197 species of
fish, with largely tropical West Indian affinity, have been reported at the Middle
Ground (Rezak and Bright, 1981). The benthos of the Florida Middle Ground is
composed of hard and soft corals, sponges, and algae. The hard corals include
Madracis decactis, Porites divaricata, Dichocoenia stellaris, and Dichocoenia stokesii.
Octocorals, relatively minor components of other Gulf reefs, are prominent at the
Middle Ground. Dominant octocorals include Muricea elongata,M. laxa, Eunicea
calyculata, and Plexaura flexuosa. The biota of the Middle Ground is sensitive to
environmental change, as documented by Rezak and Bright (1981).
The Florida Keys comprise an important shallow water, tropical, coral reef
ecosystem that is unique on the continental shelf of North America and have been
designated as a National Marine Sanctuary. Coral reefs are closely interrelated and
interdependent with other marine and terrestrial communities that compose the
coastal ecosystem. Energy, chemical constituents, and mobile species move between
the reefs and other communities, including mangrove, seagrass, benthic, and hard
ground communities. In addition, the coral reefs of the Keys are important to the
economy of Florida. Commercial and recreational fishing, as well other uses, such
as boating, scuba diving, snorkeling, and educational and natural history activities
are large businesses (Jaap and Hallock, 1990).
Continental Slope and Deep Slope. Much less is understood about the deep sea area
of the northern Gulf of Mexico than the shelf. Pequegnat (1983) reported
observations based on 264 oceanographic stations, between 150 and 3,850 m (492-
12,632 ft), in an area including the DeSoto and Alminos Canyons, the Mississippi
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1}
13
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Trough and Fan, and the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain. There are some remarkable biotic
differences in the deep ecosystem of the Gulf. In fact, the biotic differences have led
some scientists to refer to the western Gulf as the "true" Gulf and the eastern Gulf as
a. divergence of the Atlantic Ocean via the Caribbean Sea (Pequegnat, 1983; LGL
Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University, 1986).
The highest values of surface primary production are found in the upwelling area
north of the Yucatan Channel and in the region around the DeSoto Canyon. In the
oceanic region, the western Gulf is, in general, more productive than the eastern
Gulf. It is generally assumed that, perhaps except for brief periods during major
plankton blooms, the zooplankton consume all the phytoplankton produced. In
turn, they excrete a high percentage of their food intake as feces that sink to the
bottom. Most of the herbivorous zooplankters are copepods, with calanoids the
dominant group (Pequegnat, 1983). The topographic and physical oceanographic
conditions present at East Breaks in the western Gulf are such that a nutrient-rich
upwelling could be expected in the vicinity (USDOI, 1992).
Beneath the euphotic zone and extending to approximately a meter off the bottom is
a huge mass of water that, beyond the shelf, is largely devoid of sunlight. This is the
aphotic zone where photosynthesis cannot occur and where the processes of food
consumption, biological decomposition, and nutrient regeneration take place. The
benthic zone is considered to be the bottom sediments and one meter of water
contiguous with the bottom. Particulate matter is deposited in the benthic zone,
where nutrient storage and regeneration take place in association with the solid and
semisolid substrate (Pequegnat, 1983).
The slope is a transitional environment influenced by processes on the shelf and the
abyssal Gulf. This transition applies both to the pelagic and the benthic realm. The
general conclusions that may be reached are as follows: 1) the shelf phyto- and
zooplankton are more abundant, more productive, and seasonally more variable
than the deep Gulf plankton; 2) slope-associated plankton are intermediate in
nature but more closely correspond to the deep Gulf zone than the shelf zone; and
3) the three areas (shelf, slope, and deep Gulf) are each characterized by some specific
planktonic species. Some east-west differences have been noted, especially among
the diatom species. These species have been used to indicate areas of the Gulf of
Mexico that are influenced by the Mississippi River outflow and those that are not
(Pequegnat, 1983). The 450 m (1,476 ft) isobath defines the area where the truly deep
sea fauna are found. These benthic fauna are generally restricted to these depths and
are not found elsewhere.
Llv« Bottoms. live bottoms are regions of high productivity characterized by a firm
substrate with high diversity or density of epibenthic biota. These communities are
scattered across the west Florida shelf in the shallow waters and within restricted
regions of the central Gulf. Depth zonation is apparent in the dominant
communities. The density of the epibenthic biotic communities varies from diffuse
to 100 percent coverage of the bottom, largely depending on bottom type, current
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
14
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapf or a
regimes, suspended sediments, habitat availability, as well as anthropogenic and
meteorological perturbations. Sessile epibenthic biota include seagrasses, algae,
sponges, anemones, encrusting bryozoans, and associated communities. Live
bottoms also include biological assemblages consisting of sea fans, sea whips,
hydroids, ascidians, or corals living upon and attached to naturally occurring hard
or rocky formations with rough, broken, or smooth topography; as well as areas
whose surface attracts and provides habitat for turtles, fishes, seagrasses, algae, and
other fauna. The faunal assemblages of the eastern Gulf are markedly different
from those of the central Gulf. The difference is partially attributed to the calcareous
sediments found east of DeSoto Canyon as opposed to the terrigenous muds and
sands of the central and western Gulf and the influence of the upwelling associated
with the Loop Current.
In the northeastern portion of the central Gulf of Mexico, between 67 and 110 m (220
and 361 ft) of depth, there is a region of topographic relief known as the "pinnacle
trend." The pinnacles appear to be carbonate reef structures in an intermediate stage
between growth and fossilization (Ludwick and Walton, 1957). The region contains
a variety of features from low to major pinnacles, as well as ridges, scarps, and relict
patch reefs. The pinnacles provide a surprising amount of surface area for the
growth of sessile invertebrates and attract large numbers of fish.
Human impact in these environments appears to be minimal at present (Brooks et
al, 1989). Discarded debris is present at many sites, but is not abundant. Fishing
pressure on these features may reduce the population of the larger, commercially
and recreationally important species, and may explain the abundance of smaller
individuals of unprofitable species (Brooks et al, 1989).
With the exception of the region defined as the pinnacle trend, the substrate in
waters shallower than 67 m (220 ft) of the central Gulf is a mixture of mud and/or
sand. These areas are not conducive to "live bottom" community growth since a
hard substrate is needed for epifaunal attachment. As the substrate grades to
carbonate sand in the eastern Gulf, the potential for "live bottoms" increases. The
southwest Florida shelf, in water depths between 10 m (33 ft) and 200 m (656 ft),
supports several biological assemblages that are associated with particular substrates
and have strong depth affinities. The sediments and underlying rock are almost
entirely carbonate, reflecting the fact that the west Florida shelf has been cut off from
the terrigenous sediment load of the Mississippi River for over 150 million years
(Ginsburg and James, 1974). The sand veneer over bedrock is thin, particularly near
shore (where many patch reefs are seen) and over ancient, partially buried reef
features on the middle shelf (Pulley Ridge) and outer shelf (Howell Hook). The
climate is favorable for tropical species, with near-bottom temperatures at or above
18° C most of the time (although occasional winter cold fronts have been known to
kill reef fishes and invertebrates in shallow water). The availability of hard
substrate, the favorable climate, and the proximity to sources of colonizing reef biota
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
15
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
help to explain the presence of a diverse sessile epifauna, including many species of
corals and sponges commonly found on reefs in the Florida Keys and the Caribbean
ft~*QA IQQfft
\\*&f\f issvj*
Deep Water Benthlc Communities. Chemosynthetic clams, mussels, and tube
worms have been discovered in the deep waters of the Gulf (Corliss et al., 1979).
These cold water communities are associated with seismic wipe-out zones and
hydrocarbon seep areas between water depths of 400 m (1,312 ft) and 1,000 m (3,281 ft)
(Kennicutt and Gallaway, 1985; Brooks et al, 1986). The seep communities are
characterized by white bacterial mats; large dense beds of tube worms, clams, and
mussels; numerous small gastropods; and galatheid crabs (Kennicutt and Gallaway,
1985; LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University, 1986).
Topographic Feature*. The shelf and shelf edge of the central and western Gulf are
characterized by a variety of topographic features. The habitat created by the
topographic features is important in several respects: 1) they support hard bottom
communities of high biomass and high diversity and an abundance of plant and
animal species; 2) they support, either through shelter, food, or both, large numbers
of commercially and recreationally important fishes; 3) they are unique to the extent
that they are small, isolated areas of such communities in vast areas of much lower
diversity; 4) they provide a relatively pristine area suitable for scientific research
(especially in the East and West Flower Garden Banks); and 5) they have an
aesthetically attractive intrinsic value (USDOI, 1992).
The benthic organisms inhabiting these topographic features are temperature and
light limited. The 16°C isotherm is stressful for most coral and is considered the
lower limit for coral growth (Rezak et al., 1983). Elevated temperatures can also
cause thermal stress. Where light is limited, coral growth is inhibited. Therefore,
coral growth is limited by water depth. Because the coral communities must be
dose enough to the surface of the water for adequate light penetration and yet
removed from the seafloor to escape the effects of the nepheloid layer, the
topographic features (or banks), in some cases, present the proper conditions for
coral growth.
see
Terrestrial and Marine Mammals
Marine Mammals. Twenty-nine species of cetaceans, one sirenian, and one exotic
pinniped (California sea lion) have been sighted in the northern Gulf of Mexico (i
Table 2.1). Cetaceans are divided into two major suborders: Mysticeti (baleen
whales) and Odontoceti (toothed whales and dolphins). The only member of the
Order Sirenia found in the northern Gulf is the Florida manatee, which is common
throughout coastal and inshore waters south of the Suwannee River in Florida.
California sea lions exist in the northern Gulf of Mexico as feral individuals that
were probably released or escaped from aquaria, animal shows, and marine parks
(USDOI, 1992).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
16
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Seven species of baleen whales have been reported in the Gulf of Mexico. These
include the northern right whale and six species of balaenopterid whales (blue, fin,
sei, Bryde's, minke, and humpback). Sightings and strandings of these species in
this area are uncommon, though historical sightings and stranding census data
suggest that they more often frequent the north-central Gulf region in comparison
to other areas of the Gulf (USDOI, 1992).
Twenty-two species of toothed whales and dolphins have been reported in the Gulf
of Mexico. These include the great sperm whale; pygmy and dwarf sperm whales;
four species of beaked whales (North Sea, Blainville's, Antillian, and goose); killer
whale; false and pygmy killer whale; short-finned pilot whale; grampus (Risso's
dolphin); melon-headed whale; and nine other species of delphinid dolphins
(Atlantic bottlenose, saddleback, rough toothed, striped, pantropical spotted, short-
snouted spinner, Atlantic spotted, long-snouted spinner, and Eraser's). Many of
these species are distributed in warm temperate to tropical waters throughout the
world (Mullin et al., 1991).
' Nonendanaered and Nonthreatened Species -Baleen whales from the Gulf of Mexico
that are not listed as endangered are the Bryde's whale and the minke whale. The
Bryde's whale is the second smallest of the balaenopterid whales commonly called
rorquals, a Norse term meaning "red whale," which refers to the pinkish tint of its
characteristic throat pleats that expand during feeding. Bryde's whales are not noted
for lengthy migrations and tend to remain within tropical to temperate waters. This
species feeds on small pelagic fishes (such as herring, mackerel, and pilchard) and
cephalopods (Cummings, 1985). It is believed that a small, resident population of
Bryde's whales may occur in the Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico (Schmidly, 1981).
The minke whale is the smallest of the rorquals and is cosmopolitan in distribution.
It is widespread and seasonally abundant in the North Atlantic Ocean, migrating
southward during the winter months to the Florida Keys, the Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean Sea. Minke whales feed on zooplarikton and fish (Stewart and
Leatherwood, 1985).
With one exception (sperm whale), none of the toothed whales and dolphins from
the Gulf are listed as endangered or threatened. Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are
typically found in deeper waters (continental shelf edge and beyond) and congregate
in small average herd sizes (2-10 individuals). Temporal distribution within the
Gulf has been variable (Mullin et al., 1991). Their diet includes squid, benthic fish,
and crabs (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1989). Beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) from the
Gulf include Cuvier's beaked whale and three members of the genus Mesoplodon
(North Sea beaked whale, Blainville's beaked whale, and Antillian beaked whale).
Taxonomy and life history data on these species are extremely limited. Observations
of beaked whales are in most cases small (1-2 individuals), and the typical
behavioral response to survey aircraft and ships is evasion (Mullin et al., 1991). An
analysis of stomach contents from captured and stranded individuals suggest that
they are deep-diving animals, feeding predominately on mesopelagic fish and squid
or deep water benthic invertebrates (Heynig, 1989; Mead, 1989).
Gulf of Mexlee Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
17
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Tafal. 2.1
Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico
Order Cctacca , ||
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae
Eubdluena tfaculis
Fimily Balacnopteridae
Balatnoptcra musculus
Baleenoptera physalus
Balegtoptera bonalis
Belatnaptera edeni
Balaenoptera oattonstrata
Megaptcra novoeangliae
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
Family Physeteridae
PhyseJermBcrocephislus
Koftiasansus
Family Ziphiidae
Mesoptodon Kdens
Uesoplodmdaisrrostns
Mc$op1odon europoeus
Family Ddphinidae
Orcinusorca
Pseudorca crassidfns
Feresa ollaiuata
ddbictphda maavrln/ndius
Grampus piseus
Pcptmcxfplialaelectra
Tursiopstnmcatus
Dtlph'musddphis
Staiobredanensa
Slenetta axrulaxilba
Stemlla attenuate
StateJle di/mene
Stotdla fimttala
SteneHa Um&rostns
Leetttoddphis hosei
northern right whale
blue whale
fin whale
sci whale
Bryde's whale
minke whale
humpback whale
g^eat sperm whale
pygmy sperm whale
dwarf sperm whale
North Sea beaked whale
Blainville's beaked whale
Antillian beaked whale
goose beaked whale
killer whale
false killer whale
pygmy killer whale
short-finned pilot whale
grampus/Kissel's dolphin
melon-headed whale
Atlantic bottlenose dolphin
saddleback dolphin
rough toothed dolphin
striped dolphin
pantropical spotted dolphin
short-snouted spinner dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphin
long-snouted spinner dolphin
Eraser's dolphin
R*
R»
R»
R*
R
R
R*
C*
C
U
E
R
U
U
R
U
U
C
U
R
C
• R
R
C
R
U
C
U
R
| Order Camivora |
Suborder Finnipedia (seals, sea lions)
Family Otariidae
Zalophus colifomianus
Family Phoddae
Jrfoitttchus tropicolis
California sea lion
Caribbean (West Indian) monk seal
WR
Ex
Family Trichechidae
Trickt&usmonatus
C - common,U « uncommon, R=rare, E = extralimital record, I = introduced, Ex = extinct, *=endangered
(Source: USDOI, 1992)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
18
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The family Delphinidae is taxonomically broad and includes all remaining species
of nonendangered whales and dolphins found in the Gulf. Most of the constituents
of the family inhabit deeper waters of the Gulf, except the bottlenose dolphins, and
their specific distributions appear to be a function of preferred depth range.
Bottlenose dolphins are the most common delphinid on the continental shelf and
nearshore waters of the Gulf. Atlantic spotted dolphins frequent mid-shelf to outer-
shelf waters with some degree of overlap with bottlenose dolphins. Grampus are
also frequently sighted along the shelf edge. All other delphinids appear to prefer
deeper slope waters and feed on fish and/or squid, depending upon the species
(Mullin et al,, 1991). Recent surveys have led to the discovery of at least one rather
large herd (approximately 200 individuals) of Fraser's dolphins (previously only
known to the Gulf via a single stranding on the Florida Keys) (USDOI, 1992).
• Endangered & Threatened Species — Six species of baleen whales (northern right, blue,
fin, sei, minke, and humpback), one species of toothed whales (sperm), and the
West Indian manatee, all found within the Gulf of Mexico, are currently listed as
endangered species under the provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act; all are
uncommon to rare in the Gulf except for the sperm whale.
The northern right whale is a robust, medium-sized whale. As a result of extensive
hunting pressure, it remains the rarest of the world's large whales; current
populations within the North Atlantic seasonally migrate around five discrete areas
along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. Historical records of northern right whales in
the Gulf of Mexico consist of a single stranding record in Texas in 1974 and a
sighting of two individuals off the western coast of Florida (1963) (Moore and Clark,
1963; Schmidly, 1981). Right whales feed by systematically skimming through
surface and subsurface concentrations of zooplankton (Watkins and Schevill, 1976).
The blue whale is the largest of the whales and is cosmopolitan in distribution,
migrating poleward to feeding grounds in spring and summer after wintering in
subtropical and tropical waters (Yochem and Leatherwood, 1985). Records of the
blue whale in the Gulf consist of two strandings on the Texas coast (1924 and 1940),
and it is believed that the entire surviving population in the North Atlantic consists
of only a few hundred individuals (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). The blue whale
feeds almost exclusively on zooplankton via a combination of gulping and lunge-
feeding in areas of heavy prey concentration (Yochem and Leatherwood, 1985).
The fin whale is the second largest rorqual in size and is also cosmopolitan in
distribution. It is thought that fin whales segregate into independent stocks in each
hemisphere and that there may be a small population which inhabits the Gulf of
Mexico or Caribbean Sea (Schmidly, 1981). Fin whales feed on zooplankton,
cephalopods, and fish, generally via surface and subsurface lunge-feeding (Gambell,
1985a). Sightings in the Gulf have typically been in deeper waters, more commonly
in the north-central area (Mullin et al, 1991).
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
19
-------
Living Aquatic Rosourcos In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Sei whales are medium-sized rorquals that are widely distributed in all oceans.
They migrate between temperate waters and higher latitudes, though they do not go
so far towards polar waters as do some other rorquals. Sei whales feed primarily on
plankton via skimming, though they do consume small schooling fish in some
areas via lunge-feeding (Gambell, 1985b). Two sei whales were sighted off the
Mississippi River Delta in 1956, and off Gulfport, MS, in 1973 (Mullin et al, 1991).
No sei whales were observed in the northern Gulf during 1980-1981 aerial surveys
(Fritts et al., 1983). However, valid sighting and stranding records from the Gulf of
Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and off eastern Florida suggest that there may be a resident
population in the Gulf (Mead, 1977).
The humpback whale, though a member of the family Balaenopteridae, is
distinctively different in appearance from the true rorquals. Humpbacks inhabit all
oceans and seasonally migrate from summer feeding grounds in higher latitudes to
winter ranges over shallow tropical banks where they calve and do not feed.
Humpbacks feed on fish and zooplankton, which typically aggregate into dense or
large patches. They capture prey using a diverse and oftentimes elaborate array of
feeding techniques, either singly or within groups (Winn and Reichley, 1985).
Sightings in the Gulf of Mexico have been sporadic and include the central Gulf, the
eastern Gulf off the coast of Florida, and most recently Galveston Bay, TX (Schmidly,
1981).
Sperm whales are the only toothed whales listed as an endangered species. They
have a cosmopolitan distribution within deep-sea areas and form social aggregations
consisting of mature females, juveniles, and calves. Male sperm whales form
separate bachelor herds of varying size or, in the case of large males, remain solitary.
As a group they seem to prefer certain areas within each major ocean basin, which
historically have been termed "grounds" (Rice, 1989). Large mesopelagic squid are
the primary diet of sperm whales, though other cephalopods, demersal fishes, and
occasionally benthic invertebrates are consumed (Rice 1989). Sperm whales are the
most abundant large whale in the Gulf and have been sighted on most surveys
conducted in deeper waters (Fritts et al, 1983; USDOC, 1988; Mullin et al, 1991).
Congregations of sperm whales are commonly seen off the shelf edge in the vicinity
of the Mississippi River Delta (Mullin et al, 1991). There are, as yet, no data
available that suggest seasonal movements of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico
(Schmidly, 1981).
The West Indian manatee is an aquatic herbivore and one of four living species of
the order Sirenia. It inhabits low-energy coastal areas throughout the northern Gulf
of Mexico; however, it is uncommon west of the Suwannee River, FL. The cool
water of the northern Gulf and the swift currents in the Straits of Florida have acted
as a geographic barrier, resulting in Antillean and Florida subspecies. The Antillean
population occurs infrequently in the central and western Gulf due to the species'
physiological requirements for warm water. Only 11 manatees were sighted in the
western and central Gulf between 1975 and 1990 (USDOI, 1990). In two of the
strandings, the animals were found dead of starvation and cold stress. The two
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
2O
-------
Living Aquatie Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter a
sightings in Texas are thought to be of the Antillean population coming from
Mexico. The others, seven in Louisiana and two in Mississippi, are thought to be
from the Florida population (Beeler and O'Shea, 1988). The Florida population is
estimated to be greater than 1800 individuals (Ackerman, pers. comm., 1992). For
most of the year, they are dispersed throughout south and central Florida, often
correlated with the distribution of seagrasses and vascular freshwater aquatic
vegetation. During the winter, typically between November and March, manatees
seek warm water by southern migration or by congregating in warm springs and
industrial outfalls (USDOI, 1990).
Alabama, Choetawhatehee & Perdido Key Beach Mice. The Alabama,
Choctawhatchee, and Perdido Key beach mice, subspecies of the field mouse, occupy
restricted habitats in the mature coastal dunes of Florida and Alabama. Their
population has declined as a result of tropical storms and the loss of habitat from
coastal development. The Perdido Key beach mouse currently is found on the
western portion of Perdido Key, including Gulf State Park, and on the eastern
portion of the Key at Gulf Islands National Seashore. The Choctawhatchee beach
mouse is found on two limited areas consisting of approximately 7.9 km (4.9 mi) of
beach at Topsail Hill, Walton County, FL, and Shell Island, FL. The Choctawhatchee
beach mouse has also been re-established on the Grayton Beach State Recreation
Area. The Alabama beach mouse is restricted to only 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of beach habitat
at the western end of Perdido Key within the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge.
Portions of these areas have been designated critical habitat. The beach mice feed
nocturnally on^he lee side of the dunes and remain in burrows during the day.
Seeds are the major item of their diet (USDOI, 1987).
Marine Turtles
The green turtle (Chelonia mydas) population in the Gulf once supported a
commercial harvest in Texas and Florida, but the population has not completely
recovered since the collapse of the fishery around the turn of the century. Reports
of nesting in the northern Gulf are isolated and infrequent, with the exception of
documented nesting on Santa Rosa Island, Okaloosa County, FL, since 1988. The
closest nesting aggregations are on the east coast of Florida and the Yucatan
Peninsula. Green turtles prefer depths of less than 20 m (66 ft), where seagrasses and
algae are plentiful (NRC, 1990).
Leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea), the most oceanic of the marine turtles,
occasionally enter shallow waters. Their nesting is concentrated on coarse-grain
beaches in tropical latitudes (Ogren et al, 1989), but there are rare occurrences in the
Panhandle. The nearest location with regular nesting by this species is central
eastern Florida, where 100-200 nests are deposited annually (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Statewide Nesting Survey Data Base).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
21
-------
Living Aquatic Resource* In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricato) is the least commonly reported marine
turtle in the Gulf. Texas is the only Gulf State where stranded turtles are regularly
reported (Ogren et a/., 1989) and these tend to be either hatchlings or yearlings.
Northerly currents may carry them from Mexico, or their nesting range may be
expanding northward into Texas. They are more frequent in the tropical Atlantic,
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Hawksbills prefer reefs and waters where marine
invertebrates are abundant. .
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) is the most imperiled of the
world's marine turtles. The population of nesting females has dwindled from an
estimated 47,000 in 1947, to less than 1,000 today (NRC, 1990). There are an
estimated 800 nests per year (NRC, 1990), primarily on a 17 km (10.6 mi) stretch of
beach in Rancho Nuevo, Vera Cruz, Mexico (Thompson, 1988). Nesting occurs
infrequently in the U.S. (Thompson, 1988). Natural nesting is supplemented by a
NMFS headstart rearing program at the Galveston Laboratory in Texas. Hatchlings
appear to disperse offshore to seek refuge in sargassum mats (Collard and Ogren,
1989). Female Kemp's ridleys appear to inhabit nearshore areas, and congregations
of Kemp's have been recorded off the mouth of the Mississippi River (Byles, 1989).
Although most Kemp's ridleys inhabit the Gulf, they range along the Atlantic Coast
to Massachusetts. However, there is speculation that young turtles swept out of the
Gulf of Mexico are lost to the population (NRC, 1990),
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) occurs worldwide in depths ranging from
estuaries to the continental shelf. It has been reported throughout the Atlantic from
Newfoundland to Argentina (NRC, 1990). Nesting also occurs worldwide. The
largest nesting concentration in the U.S. is on the southeast Florida coast from
Volusia to Broward counties (Conley and Hoffman, 1987). In the Gulf of Mexico,
recent surveys indicate that the Florida Panhandle accounts for approximately one-
third of the nesting on the Florida Gulf Coast. In the central Gulf, loggerhead
nesting has been reported on Gulf Shores and Dauphin Island, AL; Ship Island, MS;
and the Chandeleur Islands, LA. Nesting in Texas occurs primarily on North and
South Padre Islands, although occurrences are recorded throughout coastal Texas.
Hildebrand (1982) noted that banks off the central Louisiana coast and near the
Mississippi Delta are also important marine turtle feeding areas. Hatchlings appear
to have a pelagic phase followed by a movement inshore and associated benthic,
omnivorous feeding (Nelson, 1988). Adults are frequently found in association
with concentrations of portunid crabs. The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in
Brevard and Indian River counties, FL, on the east coast of Florida, hosts the largest
concentration of nesting loggerheads and green sea turtles in the U.S. and is the
second most important nesting beach for loggerheads in the world.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
22
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Coastal & Marine Birds
Nonendangered and Monthroatened Species. Migrant and non-migrant coastal and
marine birds populate the beaches and wetlands of the northern Gulf of Mexico.
This broad category consists of three main groups: waterfowl, wading birds, and
marine birds. Feeding habitats include the waters and coastal shores of the open
Gulf, bays and estuaries, brackish and freshwater wetlands, as well as coastal
farmlands and landfills.
Waterfowl consist mainly of ducks and geese. The majority of waterfowl found in
the northern Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands are over-wintering migrants. The
major waterfowl habitats are brackish and freshwater marshes, but species of
resident Waterfowl inhabit swamp forests and marshes in all central and western
Gulf States (Portnoy, 1977; Chapp et a/., 1982a and b). Some species feed and
congregate in open waters, often clustered in dense rafts. These most commonly
include members of the Pochards (canvasback, redhead, and scaups), sea ducks
(bufflehead, goldeneyes, and mergansers), and the ruddy duck (Madge and Burn,
1988). Waterfowl journey to Gulf feeding grounds using specific flight corridors that
run the length of the continental U.S. and terminate in distinct localities along the
Gulf Coast. Some waterfowl exhibit a limited degree of coastal movement within
their terminal locality (Bellrose, 1968).
Wading birds of the coastal Gulf of Mexico consist of herons, egrets and bitterns,
storks and cranes, and ibis and spoonbills. They occupy a very diverse array of
feeding habitats, and thus demonstrate similarly diverse feeding strategies based on
species morphology and physiological adaptation in relation to the availability of
prey (Kushlan, 1978).. The most abundant species are tricolored herons, snowy
egrets, and cattle egrets (Fritts et al, 1983). Texas reported approximately 200,000
wading birds (12 species) at 287 colony sites in its 1988 colonial waterbird census
(Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, 1989). Resident wading bird populations are
augmented during the winter by migrants from as far away as Canada. The
Mississippi Delta divides migrating birds into distinct east-west groups in the Gulf.
Migrating adults of each group terminate and remain in distinct localities along the
Gulf Coast, while juveniles usually continue migration outside the country.
Migration by eastern Gulf juveniles begins in southern Florida and terminates in
the Caribbean or on the Yucatan Peninsula. Juvenile migration in the western Gulf
begins and continues southwestward along the Gulf coast, terminating in Mexico
and Central America (Byrd, 1978; Ogden, 1978; Ryder, 1978). Although their range
extends to barrier islands, very few wading birds are seen offshore in the Gulf.
Marine birds include both seabirds and shorebirds. Seabirds are defined as those
species whose normal habitat and food source are the sea, whether they be coastal,
offshore, or pelagic. Within the Gulf of Mexico, this group is composed primarily of
gulls and terns, yet also includes some petrels and shearwaters, storm-petrels,
tropicbirds, pelicans, gannets and boobies, cormorants, frigatebirds, phalaropes,
skuas (jaegers), skimmers, loons, and grebes (Harrison, 1983). Some of these species
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
23
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
are entirely pelagic, (i.e.r both feed and roost offshore, though the majority of
seabirds return to shore to roost). Seabirds exploit a wide variety of feeding habitat,
and their distribution within marine and coastal ecosystems relates to the
distribution of productivity and biomass within these ecosystems (Hunt and
Schneider, 1987). Shorebirds are closely associated with coastal and nearshore
habitats. Many species are highly migratory and seasonally congregate along select
coastal areas, often in great numbers. Within the Gulf of Mexico, this group consists
of some oystercatchers; stilts and avocets; plovers; and sandpipers, snipes, and allies
(Hayman et al, 1986).
In its 1988 colonial water bird census, Texas reported approximately 300,000 marine
birds, of which approximately 115,000 were terns and 137,000 were gulls (Texas Parks
& Wildlife Department, 1989). Migrants from as far away as the North American
Arctic Circle augment resident seabird and shorebird populations during the winter.
Some species over-winter in discrete localities within a single planning area of the
Gulf of Mexico region, while other species are split into distinct groups east or west
of the Mississippi Delta. Some species of marine birds may continue migration.
Those few species in the central Gulf that do, migrate nonstop at high altitudes from
the Mississippi Delta to the Yucatan Peninsula and/or northern Central America.
Those in the western Gulf continue southwestward along the Gulf Coast to Mexico
and Central America, and those in the eastern Gulf to the Caribbean. Those that
remain on the Gulf Coast exhibit a limited degree of coastal movement within their
terminal locality (Clapp, 1982a and b; Fritts et al, 1983).
Those birds most susceptible to oiling either raft at sea, such as gulls and terns, or
dive when disturbed, such as cormorants and boobies. The death of coastal area
birds caused by OCS-related oil and gas activities makes a strong visual impact that
heightens publicity (Chapp et al, 1982a; NRC, 1985).
Endangered and Threatened Species. The piping plover is endangered in the Great
Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere. Market hunting decimated its historic
populations, which have remained depressed because of losses to beach and nesting
habitat. Habitat loss is primarily the result of damming, channelization, beach
armoring, and shoreline development (USDOI, 1988a). The plover has three
distinct breeding populations: Atlantic Coast, Great Plains, and Great Lakes. Only
the Great Lakes and Great Plains populations migrate south in the fall to winter on
the Gulf Coast, in Mexico, and in the Caribbean. The Great Lakes population,
consisting of 17 pairs, is the most depleted; the Great Plains population has 1,258-
1,326 pairs (Nicholls, 1990). On the Gulf Coast, Texas and Louisiana have the largest
numbers and highest wintering densities. There, the plover prefers intertidal flats
and beaches for its habitat. The birds are thought to roost on secluded beaches just
above the wrack line. Piping plovers are susceptible to contact with spilled oil
because of their preference for feeding in intertidal areas; a susceptibility
documented in Texas.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
24
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The whooping crane population (130 individuals) winters along the Texas coast
from November to April, occupying the coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun, and
Matagorda counties. Portions of these counties and all of the Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge have been designated as critical habitat for the whooping crane.
The birds feed on blue crabs and clams in tidal flats (USDOI, 1986). The conversion
of wetlands and prairie to agriculture, and other encroachments by man, have the
greatest impact on the whooping crane. A rapid recovery of the population is
unlikely because of delayed sexual maturity and small clutch sizes. Mortality from
inclement weather, predation, fire, and collisions with powerlines and aircraft also
inhibits the birds' recovery.
The Arctic peregrine falcon is a subspecies of the peregrine falcon, which breeds in
the North American tundra. A portion of the population migrates along the
Central, Mississippi, and Eastern flyways to winter on the U.S. and Mexican Gulf
coasts. The birds concentrate along beaches and barrier islands. Their population
decline has been attributed to reproductive failure resulting from the ingestion of
prey containing chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Bald eagles are found throughout the Gulf States. Bald eagles actively nest in
upland and wetland areas 48-80 km (30-50 mi) from the coast throughout the Gulf.
Bald eagles inhabit areas near water although they rarely nest on the coast. They
prey on birds, fish, and small mammals. Nesting occurs in September followed by
e§g laying from October to December. Their population decline is primarily the
result of habitat alteration and reproductive failure from the ingestion of prey
containing chlorinated hydrocarbons. Historically, two nestings have occurred
along the Mississippi coast. In Florida, coastal nesting occurs at St. Vincent, St.
Marks, and Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuges, and south to Hondo Bay.
Brown pelicans have been removed from the federal endangered species list in
Alabama and Florida but remain listed as endangered in Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas. Their decline is primarily the result of hatching failure caused by ingestion of
fish containing pesticides. Nesting occurs in colonies on coastal islands. Six brown
pelican rookeries have been documented in Louisiana: on Queen Bess, North, Last,
Calumet-Timbalier, and Grand Cosier Islands, and at South Pass (Martin, 1990).
There is also a small rookery on Pelican Island in Nueces County, Texas.
Unsuccessful nesting has occurred on Sunset Island in Matagorda Bay, and 40
hatchlings have been reintroduced to San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI, 1989). Brown pelicans inhabit the coast, rarely venturing into freshwater or
flying more than 32 km (20 mi) offshore. They feed by plunge-diving to catch fish
near the surface.
The endangered Eskimo curlew is one of the rarest native North American birds in
the wild. Only 18 birds were reported between 1983-1987. Most sightings occur in
coastal Texas, the largest being 23 birds by Atkinson Island, Galveston Bay, in 1981
(USDOI, 1990). This is the largest number reported in over 80 years. The birds
migrate through and concentrate in the Gulf Coast marshes during the spring on
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
25
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
their way from southern South America to Canada. Eskimo curlews feed on
invertebrates and crowberries in their northern range and are assumed to have
similar habits along the Gulf Coast. The drastic population decline, which was first
reported in the late 1800s, appears due to overharvest, habitat loss, and short-term
climatic changes (USDOI, 1990).
Fishery Resources
Nonondangered & Nonthroatoned Species. The Gulf of Mexico supports a great
diversity of fish resources that are dependent on various ecological factors, such as
salinity, primary productivity, bottom type, etc. These factors differ widely across the
Gulf of Mexico and between the inshore and offshore waters. Specific fish species
are associated with the various environments and are not randomly distributed.
High densities of fish resources are associated with particular habitat types (e.g., east
Mississippi Delta, Florida Big Bend seagrass beds, Florida Middle Ground, mid-outer
shelf, and DeSoto Canyon). Approximately 46 percent of the southeastern U.S.
wetlands and estuaries important to fish resources are located within the Gulf of
Mexico (Mager and Ruebsamen, 1988). Consequently, estuarine-dependent species,
both finfish and shellfish, dominate the fisheries.
The life history of many of the recreationally and commercially important
estuarine-dependent species involves spawning on the continental shelf;
transporting eggs, larvae, or juveniles to the estuarine nursery grounds; growing
and maturing in the estuary; and migrating back to the shelf for spawning. After
spawning, the adult individuals generally remain on the continental shelf.
Movement of adult estuary-dependent species is essentially onshore-offshore with
no extensive east-west or west-east migration. Estuary-related species of importance
include menhaden, shrimp, oyster, crab, black drum, spot, Atlantic croaker, red
drum, spotted seatrout, other sciaenids, southern flounder, Gulf flounder, striped
mullet, and white mullet. Major eetuarine communities are found from east Texas
through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and northwestern Florida. Estuaries of
the Gulf of Mexico export considerable quantities of organic material, thereby
enriching the adjacent continental shelf areas (Darnell and Soniat, 1979).
Darnell et al (1983) and Darnell and Kleypas (1987) found that the density
distribution of fish resources in the Gulf was highest nearshore off the central coast.
For all seasons the greatest abundance occurred between Galveston Bay and the
Mississippi River. Fish resources are generally less abundant in the far western and
eastern Gulf of Mexico, though areas of relatively high abundance may be found.
The high salinity bays of the western Gulf contain no distinctive species, only a
greatly reduced component of the general estuary community found in lower
salinities (Darnell et al., 1983). Fligh salinity bays and sounds in the eastern Gulf
contain invertebrate species which prefer shell, coral sand, and coral silt bottoms;
these include pink shrimp, rock shrimp, and stone crab (Darnell and Kleypas, 1987).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
26
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Populations in the inshore shelf zone [7-14 m (23-46 ft)] are dominated seasonally by
Atlantic croaker, spot, drum, silver seatrout, southern kingfish, and Atlantic
threadfin (USDOC, 1992a). Populations in the middle shelf zone [27-46 m (89-151 ft)]
include sciaenids, but are dominated by longspine porgies (USDOC, 1992a). The
blackfin searobin, Mexico searobin, and shoal flounder are dominant on the outer
shelf zone [64-110 m (210-361 ft)] (USDOC, 1992a).
Natural reefs and banks, located mainly between the middle and outer shelf zones,
support large numbers of grouper, snapper, gag, scamp, and seabass. Reef fish occur
on the continental shelf wherever hard/live bottoms with rocks, holes, or crevices
are available (USDOC, 1986). In the western and central Gulf, natural reefs are
scattered along the 200 m (656 ft) isobath. Numerous offshore petroleum platforms,
believed to act as artificial reefs, augment the hard substrate of natural reefs in this
area (Linton, 1988). In the eastern Gulf, prominent reef complexes such as the
Florida Middle Ground provide reef fish habitat (USDOC, 1986).
Hard substrates with some vertical relief act as important landmarks for pelagic
species. Coastal pelagics such as mackerels, cobia, bluefish, amberjack, and dolphin
move seasonally within the Gulf of Mexico. Prime nursery areas are probably the
shallow portion of the continental shelf at high nutrient areas near river plumes
(Grimes, 1988).
Oceanic species such as yellowfin and bluefin tuna are mainly found beyond the
continental shelf during winter and spring, but after spawning they move through
the Florida Straits into the Atlantic Ocean. Billfishes (black marlin, white marlin,
sailfish, and swordfish) spawn in the northeastern Gulf, mostly in areas beyond the
continental shelf (State of Florida, Marine Fisheries Commission, 1988).
Fishing operations, as well as phenomena, such as weather, hypoxia, and red tides,
contribute to reduced standing populations. Fishing techniques, such as trawling,
gill netting, purse seining, or hook and line, when practiced non-selectively, may
reduce the stocks of the desired target species, as well as substantially affect fish
resources other than the target species. In addition, hurricanes may affect fish
resources by destroying oyster reefs, damaging gear and shore facilities, and changing
physical characteristics of inshore and offshore ecosystems.
The degradation of inshore water quality and loss of Gulf wetlands as nursery areas
are considered significant threats to fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico (Christmas
et al, 1988). Loss of wetland nursery areas in the north-central Gulf is believed to be
primarily the result of channelization, river control, coastal development, and
subsidence of wetlands (Turner and Cahoon, 1987). Loss of wetland nursery areas in
the far western and eastern Gulf is believed to result primarily from urbanization
and poor water management practices (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 1989; USEPA,
1989).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
27
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
• Finfish ~ Finfish resources are linked both directly and indirectly to the vast
estuaries that ring the Gulf of Mexico. A species is directly dependent on estuaries
when it relies on low salinity brackish wetlands for most of its life history, such as
during the maturation and development of larvae and juveniles. Even the offshore
demersal species are indirectly related to the estuaries because the estuaries
influence the productivity and food availability on the continental shelf (Darnell
and Soruat, 1979; Darnell, 1988).
Gulf menhaden spawn near the water surface in a localized area of the middle
continental shelf proximate to the Mississippi River Delta from fall to spring (mid-
October through March). Planktonic larvae are transported via currents to estuary
nursery areas. Larvae enter estuaries when 3-5 weeks old. After the larvae grow
and transform into juveniles in the shallow portions of the estuary, they move to
open and deeper estuarine waters. Juvenile and adult Gulf menhaden inhabit
estuaries throughout the year (Christmas et al., 1982). Some first year juveniles may
over-winter in estuaries; however, most Gulf menhaden move from estuaries into
offshore marine waters during the late fall and winter. There is evidence that older
fish move toward the Mississippi River Delta (Shaw et al, 1985; Vaughan et al,
1988). Sexual maturation is completed after two growing seasons.
Schooling is apparently an inborn behavioral characteristic of menhaden, beginning
at the late larval stage and continuing throughout the remainder of life. Their
occurrence in dense schools, generally by individuals of fairly uniform size, is an
outstanding characteristic that facilitates mass harvesting. The seasonal appearance
of large schools of menhaden in the inshore Gulf waters from April to November
dictates menhaden fishery operations (Nelson and Ahrenholz, 1986).
Larval menhaden feed on pelagic zooplankton in marine and estuarine waters.
Within the estuary, the mouthparts of the larvae transform, and juvenile and adult
Gulf menhaden become filter-feeding omnivores that primarily consume
phytoplankton, but also ingest zooplankton, detritus, and bacteria. As filter-feeders,
menhaden form a basal link in estuarine and marine food webs and, in turn, are
prey for many species of larger fish (Vaughan et al, 1988).
Throughout the Gulf, sciaenids have a protracted spawning season over the spring
and summer or fall and winter. The inception of spawning is variable and
dependent on rising or falling water temperatures. Preferred spawning habitat
varies according to species. Large schools of spawning red drum congregate around
major passes in relatively shallow water during late summer and fall. Croaker
prefer deeper, high salinity waters for spawning. Planktonic larvae develop in
nearshore areas, and, with the help of prevailing currents, actively seek protected
areas of estuaries arid inshore bays with slightly muddy bottoms (USDOI, 1992).
Sciaenids move to deeper waters of bays during their first year. After the first year,
there is gradual movement of sciaenids into the Gulf during cold weather and a
pronounced movement back into bays and estuaries during the warmer months.
Sexual maturation in croaker occurs after five years and continues for up to 15 years.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
28
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in tfie Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Sciaenids are opportunistic carnivores whose food habits change with size (USDOI,
1992). Larval sciaenids feed selectively on pelagic zooplankton, especially copepods.
Juveniles feed upon invertebrates, changing to a more piscivorous diet as they
mature (Ferret et al, 1980; Sutter and Mcflwain, 1987; USDOC, 1986).
Approximately 90 percent of finfish in the Gulf of Mexico are directly dependent on
estuaries during some stage of their life history. Demersal species are associated
with live bottoms, reef complexes, hard bottom banks, patch reefs, shell banks, flat
mud bottoms, and flat sand bottoms. Pelagic species are associated with high salinity
open water beyond the direct influence of coastal systems. "
Most snappers are non-estuarine-dependent demersal fish associated with natural
reefs, hard bottoms, and artificial reefs of the mid-outer continental shelf. Called
reef fish, snappers remain close to underwater structures. Snappers spawn offshore
in groups over unobstructed bottoms adjacent to reef areas. Juvenile snapper form
loose aggregations, while adults form schools during the day and disperse at night.
There is a tendency for larger, older snappers to occur in deeper water than
juveniles. Seasonal spawning patterns vary among snapper species, but generally,
once they attain sexual maturity, they have a protracted spawning period with
seasonal peaks. There is a decline in spawning activity among snappers during the
winter. Snappers feed along the bottom on fishes and benthic organisms such as
tunicates, crustaceans, and mollusks. Juveniles feed on zooplankton, small fish,
crustaceans, and mollusks (Bortone and Williams, 1986; USDOC, 1986).
Coastal pelagics are open water fish widely distributed throughout the Gulf of
Mexico. Pelagic species such as king and Spanish mackerel move seasonally in
response to water temperature and oceanographic conditions. Mackerel are found
from the shore to 200 m (656 ft) depths. Spanish mackerel frequent the coastal areas
while king mackerel stay farther offshore. King mackerel move from the eastern to
the north-central and western Gulf in the spring. During cooler fall seasons, they
move back into the warmer waters of the southeastern Gulf. A contingent of large,
solitary adult king mackerel can be found in a localized area of the north-central
Gulf during part of the winter. Spanish mackerel are spread over the northern Gulf
during the summer and are mainly found.in southeastern coastal areas in the fall
and winter. Mackerel spawn offshore over the continental shelf during the spring
and summer. Spawning may occur more than once per season. Juvenile mackerel
utilize nearshore areas as nurseries. Mackerel feed throughout the water column
on other fishes, especially herrings, and on shrimp and squid. Mainly a schooling
fish at smaller sizes, larger king mackerel occur in small groups or singly
(Godcharles and Murphy, 1986; USDOC, 1986).
Anadromous fishes are species that spend a portion of their life in marine waters,
but ascend rivers for spawning. Fish species in the Gulf of Mexico considered
anadromous include the following: striped bass, Morone saxatilis; Gulf of Mexico
sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; and Alabama shad, Alosa alabamae
(GSMFC, 1991; Hoese and Moore, 1977). Striped bass, Gulf sturgeon, and Alabama
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
29
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
shad are currently considered to be in various stages of population decline resulting
from various factors: overfishing; habitat alterations, including channelization and
damming of rivers; water quality deterioration; and contaminants (GSMFC, 1991).
Striped bass were harvested both commercially and recreationally prior to their
decline, and a limited sport fishery still exists (Nicholson, 1986). Striped bass
populations have been augmented by annual stocking of fry and juveniles in
selected Gulf rivers since the late 1960s, and such stocking is believed to be a major
factor in preventing the complete elimination of the species from most of these
river systems (Nicholson, 1986). Commercial fisheries existed for Gulf sturgeon in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but all five Gulf States now prohibit take of
this species, and it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in
1991.
* Shellfish — To a great degree, conditions in estuaries determine the status of shellfish
resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Life history strategies are influenced by tides, lunar
cycles, maturation state, and estuarine temperature changes. Very few individuals
live more than a year, and the majority are less than six months old when they
enter the extensive inshore and nearshore fisheries. Year-to-year variations in
shellfish populations are frequently as high as 100 percent and are most often a
result of extremes in salinity and temperature during the period of larval
development. Shellfish resources in the Gulf range from those located only in
brackish wetlands to those found mainly in saltmarsh and inshore coastal areas.
Life history strategies reflect estuary relationships, ranging from total dependence on
primary productivity to opportunistic dependence on benthic organisms. Gulf
shellfish resources are an important link in the estuary food chain between benthic
and pelagic organisms (Darnell et al., 1983; Darnell and Kleypas, 1987; Turner and
Brody, 1983).
A total of nine species of penaeid shrimp utilize the coastal and estuarine areas in
the Gulf of Mexico. Brown, white, and pink shrimp are the most economically
important species. Pink shrimp have an almost continuous distribution
throughout the Gulf but are most numerous on the shell, coral sand, and coral silt
bottoms off southern Florida. Brown and white shrimp occur in both marine and
estuarine habitats and have similar reproductive strategies. Adult shrimp spawn
offshore in high salinity waters. After several molts, the larvae enter estuarine
waters. Wetlands within the estuary offer both a concentrated food source and a
refuge from predators. After growing into juveniles, the shrimp larvae leave the
saltmarsh to move offshore where they grow to adulthood. Life history factors, such
as the timing of immigration and emigration, spatial use of a food rich habitat, and
physiological and evolutionary adaptations to tides, temperature, and salinity differ
between the two species (Muncy, 1984; Turner and Brody, 1983; USDOC, 1986).
Pink shrimp occur throughout the Gulf. On the northwestern Gulf shelf, they are
widespread but generally of very low density; however, in the eastern Gulf, densities
may be quite high. Here the primary nursery is the lower Everglades and mangrove
swamps, although seagrass meadows are also used to some extent. Young adults
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
3O
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Guff of Mexico
Chapter 2
abandon nursery areas in summer, fall, and early winter, and take up residence on
the middle or outer continental shelf. The life history of the pink shrimp indicates
the importance of specific nursery areas and the use of multiple habitats by a species
(Darnell, 1992).
Although the brown shrimp is an estuary-dependent species, the young prefer
higher salinity areas of estuaries. This species is more abundant off Texas than off
Louisiana. Among estuary-dependent species, the brown shrimp is somewhat
unusual in that adults over-winter in warmer waters of the middle and outer shelf
rather than the inner shelf. Although the species is abundant all along the
northwestern Gulf Coast, in the spring at least, its areas of greatest density appear to
be concentrated off the mouths of individual estuaries (Darnell, 1992).
White shrimp spawn from spring to fall. Spawning activity is probably correlated
with a rapid change in bottom temperature. Recruitment of postlarval white
shrimp occurs from early summer to fall. Some young white shrimp move from
estuaries to nearshore marine waters during late fall to over-winter and then move
back to estuaries in early spring when the water temperatures rise. In nursery
grounds, juvenile white shrimp move further up water courses than brown
shrimp. White shrimp leave Gulf embayments as waters cool from fall through
early winter (Muncy, 1984).
Both brown and white shrimp are omnivorous. Larvae feed in the water column
on both phyto- and zooplankton. After moving into estuarine nursery areas,
postlarvae become demersal and feed at the vegetation-water interface. Developing
larvae ingest the top layer of sediment, which contains primarily marsh plant
detritus, algae, and microorganisms. When shrimp move to deeper embayments,
they become more predaceous (USDOC, 1986).
One species of portunid crab (blue crab) utilizes the coastal and estuarine areas in the
Gulf of Mexico and comprises a substantial fishery. Blue crabs occur on a variety of
bottom types in fresh, estuarine, and shallow offshore waters. Spawning occurs
from March to November in the northern Gulf and year-round in the warmer
waters of the southern Gulf. Larval blue crabs occur throughout the water column.
Movement during the larval stages is governed by tidal action and coastal currents.
Female blue crabs move into areas of lower salinity to mate, then to higher salinities
to spawn. Mature crabs usually remain in the same estuary until, after mating,
males move into lower salinities and females move into the Gulf. During cold
periods, blue crabs move into deeper water or burrow into bottom sediments. A
benthic omnivore with a high degree of variability in food habits, the blue crab feeds
on annelids, mollusks, crustaceans, other benthic invertebrates, fishes, carrion, and
some detritus (Steele and Perry, 1990).
Vast intertidal reefs constructed by sedentary oysters are prominent biologically and
physically in estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. Finfishes, crabs, and shrimp are among
the animals that use the submerged intertidal reefs for refuge and also as a food
Gulf of Mexlee Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
31
-------
Living Aquatlo Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
source, foraging on the many reef-dwelling species. Reefs, as they become
established, modify tidal currents and this, in turn, affects sedimentary patterns.
Further, the reefs contribute to the stability of bordering marsh (Kilgen and Dugas,
1989).
Oysters spawn from late spring through summer and fall in the Gulf of Mexico. A
rapid change in water temperature triggers mass spawning over localized areas of
reefs. Oysters may spawn several times during a season. Oyster larvae are
transported throughout estuarine systems by tidal action. After several weeks, free-
swimming larvae attach in clusters to shell reefs, firm mud/shell bottoms, and
other hard substrates. Oysters filter-feed principally on small unicellular algae and
incidentally on suspended detrital particles (Burrell, 1986).
Threatened Species. The Gulf sturgeon was listed as a threatened species for
protection under the Endangered Species Act on September 30,1991. The Gulf
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is a subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon.
Historically, the Gulf sturgeon occurred in most major river systems, from the
Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, and in marine waters of the central and
eastern Gulf of Mexico south to Florida Bay (Wooley and Crateau, 1985). Food-habit
studies suggest that the Gulf sturgeon feeds on benthic invertebrates over sand, hard
bottom, and seagrass substrates in the marine environment. Fish up to three years
of age inhabit their river of origin or estuary year-round. Older fish move offshore
in the cooler months and return to rivers during the warmer months. While in the
rivers, the adults cease feeding and spend most of their time in deep holes or deeper
areas within the rivers (Wooley and Crateau, 1985; Odenkirk et ol. 1985). Spawning
occurs in freshwater and is thought to occur in swift water over rocky or coarse
substrates. Although adults migrate to freshwater every year, they do not always
spawn (Wooley et al 1982; Foster et al 1988; USDOI, 1988b; and Huff, 1975). The
decline of the Gulf sturgeon is due to overfishing and habitat destruction, primarily
the damming of coastal rivers and the degradation of water quality (McDowall,
1988).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
32
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Unusual Mortality Events
Throughout the Gulf of Mexico, single species of plants and animals are known to
die in unusually large numbers within a relatively short period of time. Reported
mass mortalities have occurred with fish, dolphins, turtles, bivalves (such as
oysters, clams, and scallops), seagrasses, and other submerged aquatic vegetation.
Large scale losses of less visible organisms, such as zooplankton, phytoplankton, and
benthic invertebrates, may also occur but the events are rarely recorded. Mass
mortalities are extremely important ecological indicators because they can reflect the
acute impacts of pollutants or natural stressors, the cumulative effects of multiple
stressors, increased susceptibility to disease, or any other change in habitat resulting
in ecological imbalance. Moreover, the loss of these organisms may further
imbalance the ecosystem by affecting other species in the community, such as their
predators and prey. The loss of large numbers of individuals from a single species
may significantly reduce reproduction and recruitment, ultimately creating
population impacts far beyond the countable mortalities.
Marine Mammals
During the decade from 1977 to 1987, the Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding
Network (SEUS) logged 2,381 stranding and sighting records (Prunier, 1992). These
events included strandings of five species of baleen whales and at least 23 species of
odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises). The two most commonly
reported species stranded were the bottlenose dolphin and the pygmy sperm whales,
with 1,472 and 224 records, respectively. Twenty-one mass strandings were reported.
They included the short-finned pilot whale (four stranding events); short-snouted
spinner dolphin (three); Risso's dolphin (three); pygmy killer whale (three); false
killer whale (two); rough toothed dolphin (two); spotted dolphin (one); striped
dolphin (one); sperm whale (one); and Eraser's dolphin (three). Of the 21 mass
strandings, 17 occurred in Florida, two in Louisiana, and one in Texas.
A pod of at least 33 short-finned pilot whales stranded on Marco Island on the
southwest coast of Florida on July 23,1986. On August 9,1986, the apparent
remnants of the pod were found stranded near Key West. All of the individuals
sampled from the incidents showed physical, clinical, pathological, or histological
evidence of illness.
An unusual stranding of 26 bottlenose dolphins occurred along the Texas Gulf Coast
in January 1990 (Miller, 1992). There are no previous reports of this number of
strandings in a relatively small area in a single day (Miller, 1992). The major
contributing factor to the dolphin mortality was the December 1989 freeze, in which
temperatures stayed near freezing for about four days, and which resulted in the
devastation of the dolphins' most likely major food source, the striped mullet
(Miller, 1992).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
33
-------
Living Aquatic Resources fn the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
An increase in the normal bottlenose dolphin stranding rate occurred in a localized
portion of the central Texas coast in March and April, 1992, which was 4-10 times the
historical mean stranding rate (NMFS Miami & Charleston Laboratories, 1993). This
followed the earlier Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphin stranding in 1990, which was
2-3 times the 1986-89 rate for those months. In contrast to the 1990 stranding event,
however, the 1992 strandings were localized and concentrated in a few bay areas
inside the barrier islands (not along the Gulf coast). All size classes were
represented.
The NMFS Miami Laboratory initiated an extensive investigation into the 1992
Texas bottlenose dolphin strandings. Although a causal relationship between
contaminant levels and dolphin mortalities has not been established, the detection
of a pesticide and a herbicide in some of the water samples has focused attention on
the potential role of nonpoint source agricultural pesticide runoff into Texas bays
(NMFS Miami & Charleston Laboratories, 1993).
The reported strandings have significantly increased along the Texas coast (Parrish,
1990). In the first three months of 1990,131 strandings were confirmed in Texas,
compared to a total of 114 strandings for the previous 12 months of 1989. Texas
appears to be the hardest hit by dolphin loss, but Alabama and Florida are also
reporting increased or unusual stranding events (Parrish, 1990).
=i.
Fish Kills
The NOAA report, "Fish Kills in Coastal Waters, 1980-1989," (Lowe et a/., 1991)
summarizes results of efforts across the U.S. to identify, report, and assess the causes
of fish kills in coastal rivers, streams, and estuarine waters between 1980 and 1989.
The location, extent, severity, timing, and cause of over 3,600 nationwide fish kill
events were documented.
Fish kill events were reported in 99 of the 160 counties within the Gulf of Mexico
coastal region (See Figure 2.1). The Gulf of Mexico coastal region had the third
highest number of reported events (828) and the highest number of fish killed
(188,161,000) (compared to the North Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and
Pacific coastal regions). Texas accounted for over half of the fish kill events reported
in the region (355), followed by Florida (250); Louisiana (172); Alabama (44); and
Mississippi (seven).
Texas also had the highest number of fish killed in the region, with approximately
159 million or 85 percent of all reported fish killed between 1980 and 1989. Twenty-
one events in Texas, each involved the death of over one million fish. Eight of
these occurred in Galveston County and five in Chambers County.
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
34
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1
Reported Fish Kill Events by County, 198O-1989
Mississippi I Alabama
Number of Events
• 51 to 80
21 to 50
11 to 20
1 to 10
D No events reported
(Source: Lowe of a/., 1991)
Trends. The number of events reported from 1980 to 1989 does not show any trend.
However, an apparent seasonal pattern exists in the region. Most events were
reported during May, August, and September (see Figure 2.2). However, the greatest
numbers of fish killed were reported in June, August, and September (see Figure
2.2). This seasonal pattern exists across the U.S., with the majority of kills occurring
during the summer months.
Figure 2.2
Number of Events & Fish Killed by Month, 1 $80-1983
140
£
111
120 •
100 -
so -
60 -
40 -
20
J FMAMJJ ASONO
Month
1.000
o
I 100 H
o
Q>
j= SO
0-1
t.
..III
907
1
382
r-320 '
\
J
J FM A M J J ASONO
Month
(Source: Lowe o* al., 1991)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
35
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Sources & Causes. A number of factors may account for the relatively high
number of events and fish killed in the Gulf of Mexico. This region has the highest
percentage of agricultural land, application of fertilizers and pesticides, industrial
point sources, and municipal wastewater treatment plants among regions (USDOC,
1990b). Estuaries in this region have an average depth of eight feet, the shallowest
among regions, which restricts their ability to assimilate the loadings of pollutants
mentioned above (USDOC, 1990b). These factors, in addition to the hot/humid
climate, contribute to waterbodies that are frequently nutrient-enriched and
thermally stressed. The result is frequent low dissolved oxygen levels, particularly
in the summer, that can lead to fish kills.
Naturally occurring events dominate the region, with the top two direct causes
reported as low dissolved oxygen levels and wastewater (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4). In
addition, a significant impact is caused by runoff from storm events in urban areas
and/or by routine and accidental releases from industrial land uses (see Figure 2.5).
These events reflect kills related to impacts from human activities.
Figure 2.3
Number of Fish Kill Events by Type of Incident"
Accidental
release
(12%)
Routine
release
(14%)
All others
(18%)
Natural
(37%)
Runoff
(19%)
"Does not Include Information from unspecified events.
(Source: Lowe ef a/., 1991)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
36
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of M&xleo
Figure 2.4 Number of Fish Kill Events by Direct Cause*
Storm
Temperature
(6%)
event Low-dissolved
(7%)
Waste-
water
(10%)
All others
(31%)
oxygen
(46%)
"Does not Include Information from unspecified events.
(Source: Lowe of a/., 1991)
Figure 2.5 Number of Fish Kill Events by Land Use Cause*
All others
(7%)
Impoundment
(15%)
Urban
(33%)
Industrial
(22%)
Water-
related
(23%)
"Does not Include Information from unspecified events.
(Source: Lowe ef al., 1991)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
37
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Alabama. In Alabama, 40 of the 44 reported events indicated the direct cause of the
kill. Low dissolved oxygen was the direct cause in 23 of the 40 events. Sixteen of the
44 reported events indicated a land use cause of the kill. Urban land use was the
land use cause in ten of the 16 events. In only 16 of the 44 reported events was a
direct cause linked with a specific land use cause.
Florida. In Florida, 219 of the 250 reported events indicated the direct cause of the
kill. Low dissolved oxygen was the direct cause reported in 116 of the 219 events. Of
the 250 reported events, 109 indicated a land use cause of the kill. Urban land use
was the land use cause in 56 of the 109 events. In only 106 of the 250 events was a
land use cause reported along with a direct cause.
Louisiana. In Louisiana, 146 of the 172 reported events indicated the direct cause of
the kill. Low dissolved oxygen was the direct cause in 63 of the 146 events. Of the
172 reported events, 108 indicated a land use cause of the kill. Impoundments were
the land use cause in 36 of the 108 events. A direct cause was associated with a
specific land use cause in 107 of the 172 reported events.
Mississippi. In Mississippi, six of the seven reported events indicated the direct
cause of the kill. A change in salinity was the direct cause in three of the six events.
Five of the seven reported events indicated a land use cause of the kill. Water-
related land use was the land use cause identified in all five of the events. In five of
the seven events was a land use cause reported along with a direct cause.
Texas. In Texas, 291 of the 355 reported events indicated the direct cause of the kill.
Low dissolved oxygen was the direct cause reported in 119 of the 291 events. Of the
355 reported events, 208 indicated a land use cause of the kill. Water-related land
use was the land use cause in 67 of the 208 events. A direct cause was associated
with a specific land use cause in 201 of the 355 reported events.
Hotspots & Recurring Kills. Two counties in Texas reported the highest number of
fish kill events for the Gulf of Mexico region: Galveston County (72) and Harris
County (66). Galveston County had the highest number of fish killed (almost 106
million) of all of the counties in the entire study area. Half of these kills were
attributed to low dissolved oxygen levels that were not associated with a land use
cause.
Galveston Bay was the waterbody for which the most events (28) were reported in
the region. Large portions of Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, and Liberty
counties are in the Galveston Bay estuarine drainage area. Taken together, these
counties contain the highest concentration of point sources in the U.S.'s coastal area.
Fifteen percent of all industrial point sources and municipal wastewater treatment
plants in the study area are located in the Galveston Bay watershed. Seventeen of
the 28 kills in the Galveston Bay area were related to low dissolved oxygen and
temperature. Five of the 17 events were caused by releases of cooling water from
power plants.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
38
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The only other area in the. region where a large number of kills was reported was
Collier County in Florida, with 49 events between 1980 and 1989. Most of these kills
were due to low dissolved oxygen and/or excessive nutrient loadings.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Impacts of Fishing on the Ecosystem
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service report, "Status of Fishery
Resources off the Southeastern United States for 1991," marine fisheries in the
southeastern U.S. continue a downward slide (USDOC, 1992b). This report
documents a decline in the yield of both recreational and commercial fisheries from
1989 to 1990 in the region. In the Gulf of Mexico, commercial yield dropped by 9.2
percent, from 811,600 metric tons (894,600 tons) to 737,000 metric tons (812,174 tons)
between 1989 and 1990. Recreational yield declined by 51 percent from 104.3 million
fish to 50.3 million fish. Within the recreational fisheries where estimates were
presented, declines were noted for groupers (-81 percent), snappers (-35 percent),
sharks (-68 percent), and tuna (-41 percent). Increases were reported for king
mackerel (31 percent and Spanish mackerel (two percent). It should be noted that
decreased landings may also be influenced by increased regulations and catch limits
imposed on fisheries or a reduction in fishing effort.
In the southeastern region most of the species important to both commercial
fishermen and recreational anglers have been under management plans for several
years. However, in many cases, these plans have not significantly reversed the
downward slide of those fish stocks. In fact, since the plans have been enacted, the
rate of decline has accelerated for some species (e.g., snapper, grouper). Other spqcies
are being maintained at fractional levels of their historic averages. Issues such as:
bycatch in the commercial shrimp fishery; a need to drastically reduce the harvest in
all overexploited fisheries; and rebuild depleted stocks have yet to be dealt with on a
broad scale.
There have been a few successes in turning heavily overexploited fisheries around.
In the red drum, Spanish mackerel, and king mackerel fisheries, severe harvest, bag,
and season limits have stopped any sharp decline of spawning stocks in these
species. These fisheries have responded well to management measures and are
examples of the fact that heavily exploited species can be maintained at harvestable
levels under strict management measures.
Commercial Fisheries
During 1991, commercial landings of all fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico totaled
approximately 771 million kg (1.7 billion pounds), valued at about $641 million
(USDOC, 1992c). Menhaden, with landings of 499 million kg (1.1 billion pounds),
valued at $54.4 million, was the most important Gulf species in quantity landed
during 1990. Shrimp, with landings of 113 million kg (249.5 million pounds),
valued at $391 million, was the most important Gulf species in value landed during
1990 (USDOC, 1991a). The 1990 Gulf oyster fishery accounted for 36 percent of the
national total with landings of 10.6 million pounds of meats, valued at about $34
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
4O
-------
Living Aquatic Resourc&s In the Gulf of Mexico
Ghapttor 2
million. The Gulf blue crab fishery accounted for 18 percent of the national total,
with landings of 20.6 million kg (45.5 million pounds), valued at $17 million
(USDOC, 1991a).
Louisiana ranked first among central and western Gulf States in total commercial
fishery landings for 1990, with nearly 499 million kg (1.1 billion pounds) landed,
valued at $263 million. Menhaden landings totaled 866 millions pounds, valued at
$41.7 million. Shrimp was the highest value fishery, with 54.2 million kg (119.5
million pounds) landed, valued at $153 million. In addition, during 1990, the
following nine species each accounted for landings valued at over $1 million: black
drum; striped mullet; shark; red snapper; vermilion snapper; bluefin tuna;
yellowfin tuna; blue crab; and the American oyster (USDOC, 1991a). In 1990,
Louisiana had about 24,000 licensed commercial saltwater fishermen (Sharkev
1990). • "
Mississippi ranked second among central and western Gulf States in total
commercial fishery landings for 1990, with 144.9 million kg (319.5 million pounds)
landed, valued at $42 million. Shrimp was the most important fishery, with 6.9
million kg (15.2 million pounds) landed, valued at about $25.7 million. Menhaden
landings were significant during 1990, with 124.7 million kg (275 million pounds)
landed, valued at $11.7 million. In addition, during 1989, the following four species
each accounted for landings valued at over $200,000: red snapper; Vermilion
snapper; American oyster; and striped mullet (USDOC, 1991a). In 1990, Mississippi
had about 3,500 licensed commercial saltwater fishermen (Quinn, 1990).
Texas ranked third among central and western Gulf States in total commercial
fishery landings for 1990, with nearly 44.9 million kg (99 million pounds) landed,
valued at $182 million. In quantity and value, shrimp ranked first, with about 41.7
million kg (92 million pounds). In addition, during 1990, the following three
species each accounted for landings valued at over $1 million: yellowfin tuna, blue
crab, and American oyster (USDOC, 1991a). In 1989, Texas had about 24,000 licensed
commercial saltwater fishermen (Clagett, 1990).
Alabama had the lowest total commercial landings for 1990 of the central and
western Gulf States, with 10.4 million kg (23 million pounds) landed, valued at $36
million. Shrimp was the most important fishery landed with 6.8 million kg (14.9
million pounds), valued at $30.9 million. In addition, during 1990, the following six
species each accounted for landings valued at over $125,000: blue crab, shark, striped
mullet, red snapper, flounder, and the American oyster (USDOC, 1991a). Alabama
had about 4,000 licensed commercial saltwater fishermen during 1990 (Lazauski
1990). ° '
Florida's west coast ranked fourth among the five Gulf States in total commercial
landings for 1988 with 64.9 million kg (143 million pounds) landed, valued at $131.4
million. Shrimp was the most important fishery species landed, with 7.1 million kg
(15.7 million pounds) valued at $40 million. In addition, the following eight species
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
41
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
each accounted for landings valued at over $1 million: stone crab; spiny lobster;
grouper and scamp; black mullet; American oyster; yellowtail snapper; red snapper;
and yellowfin tuna (USDOC, 1989).
The Gulf of Mexico yielded the nation's largest regional commercial fishery by
weight in 1990, and represented 57 percent of the national total by weight and 20
percent by value. Most commercial species harvested from federal waters of the
Gulf are considered to be stressed or in need of significant management attention.
Continued fishing at the present levels may result in rapid declines in commercial
landings and eventual failure of certain fisheries. Commercial landings of
traditional fisheries, such as red snapper and spiny lobster, have declined over the
past decade despite substantial increases in fishing effort. Commercial landings of
fisheries, such as shark and tuna, have increased exponentially over the past five
years, and those fisheries are thought to be in danger of collapse (Angelovic, 1989;
USDOC, 1991b).
Nearly all species significantly contributing to the Gulf of Mexico commercial
catches are estuarine-dependent. The degradation of inshore water quality and loss
of Gulf wetlands as nursery areas are considered significant threats to commercial
fishing (Angelovic, 1989; Christmas et al, 1988; Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 1988) (See Wetlands and Soagrassos for discussion of importance as
habitat and nursery areas). In addition to habitat concerns, conflicts between
fishermen using fixed gear (traps) and mobile gear (trawls) continue to be a problem
in parts of the Gulf (Federal Fisheries News Bulletin, 1989a and b).
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) are developed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (GMFMC) to assess and manage commercial species of fish
that are harvested from federal waters and in need of conservation. Since 1981,
FMPs have been implemented for spiny lobster, stone crab, shrimp, coastal pelagics,
coral, reef fish, red drum, swordfish, and sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) develops FMPs for
interjurisdictional species of fish that are predominantly harvested in state
jurisdictional waters. To date GSMFC has developed FMPs for Gulf menhaden, blue
crab, Spanish mackerel, striped bass, oyster, and black drum. A FMP for striped
mullet is well underway, while efforts are just beginning for a FMP for spotted
seatrout.
The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery is the most valuable in the U.S., accounting for
72 percent of the total domestic production (USDOC, 1991a). Three species of
shrimp-brown, white, and pink-dominate the landings. The shrimp fishery is
facing a number of additional problems: an excessive number of vessels
participating in the fishery; imports of less expensive shrimp from foreign countries
accounting for 77.5 percent of domestic consumption; a ten percent decline in ex-
vessel price of domestic shrimp over the past five years; increases in interest rates to
finance acquisition of equipment, vessels, and other related fishing needs; increases
in fuel prices; excessive costs of marine casualty insurance; regulations regarding the
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
42
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter a
use of turtle excluder devices; excessive bycatch of finfish; and conflicts with other
targeted fisheries (Angelovic, 1989; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1988).
In an attempt to lessen anticipated conflicts between commercial fishing for shrimp,
spiny lobster, and stone crab, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(GMFMC) has closed areas in the eastern Gulf to shrimp trawling during the
traditional trap fishing seasons for lobster and stone crab.
The red drum fishery was closed to all harvest in federal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico on January 1,1988. Stock assessments concluded that red drum were heavily
fished prior to moving offshore to spawn and that those fish less than 12 years of age
were poorly represented in the offshore spawning population (USDOC, 1989). In
addition to the federal closure, states enacted stringent measures to reduce red drum
mortality in their inshore areas. Red drum populations appear to be responding to
these management measures, with increasing numbers of young fish appearing in
coastal waters in recent years. With continued fishery management and recruitment
of fish to the spawning stock, offshore stocks have the potential to increase.
Following the federal closure and state regulatory actions on red drum, black drum
were accepted as a substitute within the commercial market. The intensive fishing
effort for red drum was switched to black drum without the need to radically change
fishing techniques or gear. Adding to the already existing pressure on black drum,
this "new" fishery caused a great deal of concern for the status and sustainability of
Gulf black drum stocks. In response to this concern, Gulf States established interim
regulatory measures, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission developed
an interstate FMP for the species. In response to new regulatory measures and,
primarily, market changes, landings of black drum declined from 1989-1990 levels to
historical levels prior to the 1987 increase. As a result, present harvest levels are
well below that which would negatively affect recruitment and the spawning stock
(Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission).
Red snapper resources in the Gulf of Mexico are believed to be severely overfished
and bycatch is believed to contribute significantly to the decreased recruitment into
the fishery. In terms of value and historical landings, red snapper is the most
important species in the reef fish complex managed under a federal Fishery
Management Plan.
For a number of fisheries, including the stone crab fishery, the major concern is
whether harvest has reached or exceeded maximum sustainable yield. Until
recently, the stone crab fishery has been expanding in terms of increasing catch
within traditional fishing areas and previously unfished or underfished regions.
However, the total harvest has declined steadily over the past several years.
GMFMC is considering limitations on the number of fishermen and traps in this
fishery.
Spiny lobster fishing is practiced predominantly in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It is
believed that the stock is showing signs of overfishing. Large numbers of
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
43
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
undersized lobsters are used to bait lobster fishing traps, and the number of traps in
the fishery far exceeds the number required to harvest the present yield. Fishermen
contend that the present fishery practices are the most optimal for their objectives.
GMFMC is considering limitations on the number of fishermen and traps in the
spiny lobster fishery.
The coastal pelagic FMP addresses a number of species. Two of the more important
species are king and Spanish mackerel. Bom species have been extensively
overfished and are now under a managed rebuilding program. Since the early
1980s, there has been a marked absence of a strong year class of king mackerel.
Spawning stock biomass has exhibited some gains and recruitment is stable at low
levels. There is concern over the possible need for two management units for king
mackerel within the Gulf and the impact of the increasing Mexican fishery.. Spanish
mackerel stocks are showing positive signs of recovery. Spawning stock biomass
and recruitment appear to be increasing. Most of the Spanish mackerel catch is
taken off Florida. Capture of 50-80 percent of the yearly commercial allocation
within a period of three weeks by southeast Florida fishermen has raised questions
of conflict with recreational fishermen who believe their allocation should be
increased.
GSMFC has developed an interstate FMP for Spanish mackerel in response to the
fact that the predominance of the harvest is from state jurisdictional waters. The
Gulf States, especially Florida and Texas, have enacted strict regulatory measures,
designed to be consistent with the GSMFC FMP, which are largely responsible for
the increase in Spanish mackerel stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Commercial landings of swordfish have increased steadily over the past several
years with serious implications for the future. The percentage of older fish and
spawning biomass has declined significantly. Swordfish are now being managed as
a highly migratory species under the authority of NMFS.
Blue marlin and white marlin are believed to be at or near the point of full
exploitation. There is concern about the increasing mortality of marlin as bycatch
associated with the escalating yellowfin tuna longline fishery. The tuna fishing
industry has expanded at an alarming rate in the Gulf of Mexico over the past five
years. Tuna are now included under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, and GMFMC can now manage the tuna fishing industry
and address the marlin bycatch issue.
The taking of stony corals or gorgonian sea fans is prohibited. Fishing for soft
octocorals is presently below the limits of maximum yield. There are significant
concerns that butterfish trawlers may destroy coral reef habitat and take a large
number of snappers and groupers as bycatch. In addition, a newly formed fishery for
"live rock" for the ornamental trade is receiving attention due to the allegation that
live rock fishing may purposefully or inadvertently include the harvest of stony
coral. "Live rock" refers to rocks or biologically cemented gravel clusters that harbor
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
44
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
colonies of algae, anemones, hydroids, and other sessile invertebrates. A major use
of live rock is to help maintain marine reef aquaria; apparently the live rock
provides bacteria necessary for proper nitrogen cycling in the aquaria.
A strong market for shark has resulted in soaring catches over the past several years.
Shark stocks are unable to sustain the present heavy fishing pressure and the fishery
is in danger of collapse. A new FMP was released for public comment in 1992
(USDOC, 1992a) and is currently being implemented.
9mpacts of Trawling. The commercial shrimp industry is the most important
fishery in the southeastern U.S. In 1990, over 125.6 million kg (277 million pounds)
of shrimp valued at $454 million were landed in the Gulf and South Atlantic
regions (USDOC, 1991a). With the exception of localized harvesting techniques,
most wild-caught shrimp are produced using trawls-nets towed along the sea floor.
Shrimp trawls are inherently nonselective harvesting gear, that is nontarget species
are caught along with the species being sought. Shrimp fishermen must sort
through what comes on board in order to separate shrimp and other marketable
species from the catch. The component of the catch which remains is typically
shoveled back overboard and comprises what is known as bycatch. While red
snapper bycatch in the shrimping industry was a major focus during 1990, bycatch of
other species has become a significant issue (Seidel and Watson, 1990) (see Table
2.2). The magnitude of this bycatch, the fact that most of it is dead when returned to
the water, and the fact that some species in the bycatch are experiencing severe
population declines, make this an important issue in the Gulf of Mexico.
In addition to the nonselective nature of trawls, research indicates that they can be
potentially damaging to the bottom community (Gaston, 1990). Recent studies on
the effects of trawling emphasized the impacts on communities of bottom dwelling
invertebrates. The seafloor is covered by thousands of organisms, including shrimp
that live on the sediment surface and sometimes burrow beneath it. Crustaceans
and worms build tubes that protrude above the bottom, stabilizing the sediments/
and allowing the organisms access to oxygenated water. Shrimp graze the bottom,
scavenging among the tube dwelling species. Trawls pulled over the bottom disrupt
this community, destroying tubes, eliminating organisms on the sediment surface,
and increasing the turbidity of the water. Videos taken of a bottom community off
the coast of Florida showed trawling scars along the seafloor, damage to sponge
communities and reefs, and disruption of other bottom fauna (Gaston, 1990).
Adverse changes to fish communities of the Gulf of Mexico have also been
attributed to shrimp trawling (Gaston, 1990). Recent studies by NMFS showed a
long-term decline in average biomass (weight) of fish caught by trawling, suggesting
that younger fish have increasingly dominated the bycatch over time and that the
shrimp fishery may be responsible for long-term changes in fish populations
(Gaston, 1990). Furthermore, over the past 20 years, there were declines of specific
near bottom fish populations, such as Atlantic croaker, spot, catfish, sand seatrout,
and silver seatrout (Gaston, 1990).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.2
1989 FInflsh Byeatch Estimates for Offshore Gulf
Shrimp Trawlers
Atlantic Croaker
Sea Trouts
Long-Spine Porgy
Spot
Gulf Butterflsh
Atlantic Cutlassf ish
Hardhead Catfish
Atlantic bumper
Red Snapper
Spanish Mackerel
King Mackerel
Vermilion Snapper
Red Drum
Shark
5.6
1.3
1.3
68O
4OO
130
112
110
2O
3.2
1.3
O.9
O.2
5.6
billion fish
billion fish
billion fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million fish
million pounds
(Source: NMFS, shrimp byeatch data for 1989)
Incidental capture of sea turtles in shrimp trawls is believed to be the most
important human cause of sea turtle mortality (Magnuspn et al., 1990). However, it
should be noted that quantification of sea turtle mortality in shrimp nets has been
the only major effort to quantify turtle mortality and is also the only area over
which there is strong regulatory control. (See Human impacts/interaction for
additional information on effects of human activities on sea turtles.) The incidence
of sea turtle capture in shrimp trawls has been well documented (Murphy and
Hopkins-Murphy, 1989; Magnuson et al, 1990). The incidence of capture is
compounded by the fact that sea turtles may congregate in shrimping areas to feed
on discarded byeatch (Ruckdeschel and Shoop, 1988). In 1987, NMFS estimated that
47,973 turtles were captured annually in commercial shrimp trawls, of which 11,179
drowned (Kenwood and Stuntz, 1987). That same year NMFS used its authority
under the Endangered Species Act to issue regulations requiring seasonal use of
Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on shrimp trawls in offshore waters from North
Carolina to Texas. There were federal and state delays, however, TEDs, as of
September 1989, are now required in all southeast waters.
In May 1990, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that as many as
55,000 sea turtles annually drown in American shrimp nets not equipped with
TEDs. NAS concluded that incidental drowning in shrimp trawls kills more sea
turtles than all other human activities combined (Grouse et al., 1992).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
46
-------
Living Aquaifc Resources /ji the Gulf of Mexico
Sea turtle strandings along coastal shorelines of the southeastern U.S. have been
used as one index of mortality due to shrimping (Magnuson et al., 1990). Increases
in sea turtle strandings during commercial shrimp fishing seasons and decreases
with the closing of these seasons have been observed (Schroeder and Maley, 1989).
However, it should be noted that the occurrence of turtles is highest during the
same time of year that the shrimp season is open.
Recreational Fishing
Marine recreational fishing participation grew through the 1970s and 1980s in spite
of declining abundance of many target species and increasing competition with the
commercial fishing sector (Schmied, 1993). The NMFS Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey for the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts (USDOC, 1990a) and a
special report by Schmied and Burgess (1987) indicate there are about four million
resident participants in marine recreational fishing and over two million tourists
who angle for Gulf marine species. According to NMFS, over 40 percent of the
nation's marine recreational fishing comes from the Gulf of Mexico, and marine
anglers in the Gulf made over 13 million fishing trips in 1989, exclusive of Texas
(USDOC, 1990a). Texas marine anglers using private boats expended over seven
million man-hours to land almost three million saltwater fish during the 1986-1987
fishing years (Osburn et al., 1988). High recreational fishing participation is partially
explained by strong regional population growth, the tourism-based economies of
many of the coastal communities, and the region's abundant sport fishing
infrastructure (e.g., boat ramps, marinas, piers, charter boats, head boats, and tackle
shops) (Schmied, 1993).
Marine recreational fishing in the Gulf region is a major industry important to
these states' economies. The marine recreational fishing industry accounts for an
estimated $769 million in sales (equipment, transportation, food, lodging, insurance,
and services) and employment for over 15,000 people, earning more than $158
million annually in the central and western Gulf of Mexico region (USDOI, 1992).
Significant changes in recent years that affect recreational fishing include an increase
in the average expendable income and a decrease in the price of electronic
technology which allows recreational fishermen to fish farther offshore.
Technological advances, including boat construction, boat motors, fishing tackle,
fishing techniques, fishing information, and electronics, have enhanced anglers'
ability to seek and catch targeted species (Schmied, 1993).
Together, population increases, environmental degradation, and the increasing
demand for fish have led to population declines in many marine species.
Consequently, over the past ten years, there has been a rapid increase in state and
federal fishing regulations to reduce fishing pressure, rebuild fish stocks, and
minimize conflicts between resource users (Schmied, 1993).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
47
-------
Living Aquatic Rosourcos In tho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
A summary of the status of recreationally important species in the southeast U.S.,
including the Gulf of Mexico, is presented in Table 2.3. Of the 28 species or stocks of
minor to major recreational importance, 50 percent were listed as overexploited.
Another 25 percent were listed as fully exploited. Only seven percent were listed as
underexploited. Of the 15 major recreational species, 11 were listed as overexploited.
Speckled trout are the most highly sought sport fish in coastal marine waters,
whereas snapper and mackerel are some of the more popular offshore sport fish.
Gulf snapper landings have shown a precipitous downward trend over the last
several years, and proposals have been made to severely limit the catch by
recreational fishermen (GMFMC, 1990). However, it should be noted that landings
data may also be influenced by the increased regulations and catch limits imposed
on some fisheries.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
48
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Ofmpter 2
TubU 2.3
Status of Recreational Fish Species In the
Southeast U.S. for 1991
STATUS OF RECREATIONAL FISH SPECIES IN THE SOUTHEAST U.S. FOR 1991
Species
(Stocks)
Swordfish
Bluefin Tuna
YellowfinTuna
Blue Marlin
White Marlin
Sailfish
Bigeye Tuna
Albacore
Skipjack
King Mackerel (Atlantic)
King Mackerel (Gulf)
Spanish Mackerel (Atlantic)
Spanish Mackerel (Gulf)
Red Snapper (Gulf)
Vermillion Snapper (Gulf)
Black Sea Bass
Gag Grouper
Red Porgy
Scamp
Yellowtail Snapper
Grey Snapper
Red Drum (Atlantic)
Red Drum (Gulf)
Weakfish
Atlantic Croaker
Sharks (Large Coastal)
Sharks (Small Coastal)
Sharks (Pelagic)
NA = Not Applicable
UK = Unknown
Importance
to Rec. Plan
Fishing Date
Minor 1985
Moderate NA
Moderate NA
Moderate 1988
Moderate 1988
Moderate 1988
Minor NA
Minor NA
Minor NA
Major 1983
Major 1983
Major 1983
Major 1983
Major 1984
Major 1984
Major 1984
Moderate 1984
Major 1984
Moderate 1984
Major 1984
Major 1984
Major 1990
Major 1986
Major 1985
Major NA
Moderate NA
Moderate NA
Major NA
Exploitation
Status
Over
Over
UK
Fully
Fully
Moderately
Under
Moderately
Fully
Under
Over
Over
Over
Over
UK
Fully
Fully
Over
Over
Fully
Fully
Over
Over
Over
Over
Over
Under
UK (Probably over)
Source: Status of Fishery Resources off the Southeastern U.S. for 1991
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-306
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
49
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Aquaculturo
Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic life. Aquaculture takes many forms and
includes hundreds of different species of aquatic animals and plants. In the Gulf of
Mexico region, aquaculture is a large enterprise that is continuing to grow. In the
U.S., over ten percent of the fish and shellfish eaten are grown domestically
(Lampton, 1991). From 1986 to 1988, U.S. aquaculture sales increased by more than
55 percent (Lampton, 1991).
The State of Mississippi is marketing approximately 159 million kg (350 million
pounds) of catfish each year, and the demand for additional supplies is steadily
rising (Lampton, 1991). Farm-grown catfish is Mississippi's largest cash crop. While
catfish are the most important aquacultural foodfish at present, many other
seafoods, including rainbow trout, salmon, tilapia, crawfish, mussels, alligator,
shrimp, oysters, dams, redfish, spotted seatrout, grouper, and snapper are also farm-
raised.
In 1991, aquaculture had stateside sales of $54 million in Florida, an increase of 55
percent from 1987 to 1991 (AP, 1993). Although Florida's aquaculture mainstay is
tropical fish, some of the industry's other products include aquatic plants, alligators,
bass, eels, tilapia, crawfish, game fish, oysters, clams, and other shellfish.
Aquaculture sales in Florida, in 1991, included $33 million in tropical fish revenues,
$10 million in plants, $4.5 million in alligators, $2 million each in catfish and
shellfish, and about $3 million in other sales (AP, 1993).
High density pond, impoundment, or in-water culture of marine fish, crustaceans,
and mollusks in monoculture or polyculture .can result in high nutrient effluent
and high nutrient loads and turbidity in receiving waters. Treatment chemicals for
preventive control of disease or treatment of acute episodes can also be part of the
effluent.
Non-indigenous species (e.g., Pacific species) are being cultured in the Gulf of
Mexico region; accidental escape and survival of these species in Gulf of Mexico and
contiguous waters has occurred. Introduction of non-indigenous or indigenous
species (such as California white sturgeon and Asian tiger shrimp) to Gulf of Mexico
waters has the potential to displace feral stocks, alter predator/prey interactions, and
introduce pathogens and parasites.
Genetic diversity and fitness of natural stocks of indigenous species can be, and have
been, impacted by stocking animals without regard to broodstock origin and
compatibility of stocks.
Coastal culture of animals and location of aquaculture facilities can impact natural
species diversity and availability of habitat by reducing an area to monoculture or
limited polyculture. Impoundment of coastal wetlands can reduce accessibility to
needed nursery areas and change wetlands value.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1}
50
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Human Impacts/Interactions
Recreational Resources & Activities
The northern Gulf of Mexico coastal zone is one of the major recreational regions of
the U.S., particularly for marine fishing and beach activities. Gulf Coast shorelines
offer a diversity of natural and developed landscapes and seascapes. Major
recreational resources include coastal beaches, barrier islands, coral reefs, estuarine
bays and sounds, river deltas, and tidal marshes. Other resources include publicly
owned and administered areas, such as national seashores, parks, beaches, and
wildlife lands, as well as designated preservation areas, such as historic and natural
sites and landmarks, wilderness areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and scenic rivers. Gulf
Coast residents and tourists from throughout the nation, as well as from foreign
countries, use these resources extensively and intensively for recreational activity.
Commercial and private recreational facilities and establishments, such as resorts,
marinas, amusement parks, and ornamental gardens also serve as primary interest
areas.
The coastal shorelines of the Gulf contain extensive public park and recreation
areas, private resorts, and commercial lodging. Most of the outdoor recreational
activity focused on the Gulf shorefront is associated with accessible beach areas.
Beaches are a major inducement for coastal tourism, as well as a primary resource
for resident recreational activity. However, recreational resources, activities, and
expenditures are not constant along the Gulf of Mexico shorefront, but are focused
where public beaches are close to major urban centers. Beach use is a major
economic factor for many Gulf coastal communities, especially during peak-use
seasons in spring and summer.
The major recreational activity occurring on the outer continental shelf is offshore
marine recreational fishing and diving. Also, a substantial recreational fishery,
including scuba diving, is directly associated with oil and gas production platforms
(USDOI, 1992).
Impacts on Coral Reef Systems
Coral reefs are multi-user resources, experiencing increased exploitation that results
in some negative human impact on the resource (USDOI, 1984). Although natural
events are far more severe than man's individual acts, human impacts on the reefs
must be multiplied by the number and the frequency of occurrence, which in total
may not allow the reef resources sufficient time for recovery.
Anchors, boat groundings, dredging, touching by divers, spearfishing, and oil
drilling are a few commonly cited threats to corals. In terms of severity, dredging is
the most damaging human activity in and around coral reefs (USDOI, 1984). Poorly
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
51
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
planned and managed dredging operations have caused the demise of many reefs.
The physical impact of dredge gear (anchors, cables, chain, pipes, suction, and cutting
heads) dislodge corals or cause lesions or scars that lead to infection and mortality.
Reef organisms increase respiration to remove silt resulting in reduced dissolved
oxygen levels. Coupled with increased respiration is reduced photosynthesis and
oxygen production due to lowered light levels. High turbidity generated by
dredging reduces light penetration throughout the water column (Johannes, 1975).
Sediments excavated by dredging are often anaerobic and bind up available
dissolved oxygen.
Anchor damage is a significant negative human impact on coral reefs at Dry
Tortugas (Davis, 1977). Carelessly deployed anchors break fragile corals, dislodge reef
framework, and scar corals, opening lesions for infection. Increased visits increase
the number of anchorings and the potential for impact. Anchor ground tackle,
lines, and chains also are documented as destructive agents (Davis, 1977). Anchor
buoys, designated anchorages, and better public education are the best ways to
mitigate this problem.
Groundings of commercial and recreational craft occur as a result of poor
navigational skills, accidents, drug-related incidents, and in some cases, purposeful
grounding to avoid sinking. Sailboats and powerboats cut swaths through live
branching coral thickets and larger ships cause widespread destruction (Shinn, 1989).
In the worst grounding of the decade, the Wellwood scarred 11,891 m2 (128,000 ft2) of
coral on the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary's Molasses Reef in 1984, and, in
1989, the damage was still readily apparent (Wilson, 1989). Groundings result in
physical damage to the coral and in many cases toxic antifouling paint from ship
hulls is driven into the corallites. Other negative effects of ship wrecks and
grounding include fuel leakage and lost cargo. Salvage operations also pose a threat
when they occur around a coral reef. Techniques used to free grounded or sunken
vessels are often counter to reef conservation.
Coral reefs concentrate marine protein in a localized area, attracting both
commercial and sport fishing interests that use various techniques to harvest fish
and invertebrate stocks. Negative impacts occur as a result of gear deployment and
harvesting. Lobster fishing methods, hook-and-line fishing methods, fish traps, and
spearfishing have the potential to damage coral reefs.
Diving as a sport and hobby has increased and developed into a major industry in
Florida. Examination of any popular reef shows the effects of divers, such as white
coral skeletons showing through bruised or broken tissue on massive coral heads.
Effects of humans are especially noticeable where branching corals, such as fragile
staghorn coral or elkhorn coral, have been broken and pieces scattered about.
There is a cause for concern about Florida coastal waters as the population continues
to grow and municipal sanitary sewage systems use ocean outfalls as an expedient
means of disposal of sewage effluent disposal. The cities of Key West and Miami
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
52
-------
LMng Aguatfo R&sources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
pump their nutrient-rich sewage offshore, and waste from the vast majority of the
exploding Florida Keys population is pumped into septic tanks. Septic tanks may
not pollute bacteriologically, but they release nitrates and phosphates into the
porous and permeable limestone, where they mix with the tidally fluctuating water
table. At low tide, this clear but nitrate-rich ground water dribbles into the seawater
along the shore, especially in finger channels where the permeable limestone is
exposed. This kind of fertilization may be beneficial to seagrasses and mangroves,
but it is deadly to corals unadapted to nutrient-rich waters (Shinn, 1989).
Manker (1975) reported on heavy metal accumulations in the sediments and corals
off southeast Florida and noted higher concentrations of mercury, zinc, lead, and
cobalt adjacent to population centers. Disposal of wastes from existing lighthouse
navigational aids may be a problem (USDOI, 1984).
Southeastern Florida is a major truck farm area for vegetables and fruit. Use of
agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides) is intense. Porous soils,
canal systems leading to the bays, and rapid runoff of surface materials following
rains and irrigation are causes for concern (USDOI, 1984).
Evidence indicates that chronic petroleum hydrocarbon pollution is harmful to
coral reef communities. Life history aspects, such as reproduction, development,
larval recruitment, settlement, and juvenile growth appear to be affected by
petroleum hydrocarbon pollution (USDOI, 1984). Potential oil pollution sources
include tanker cleaning and cargo discharge, vessel sinkings and accidents, and
accidental discharges from petroleum production and transportation activities.
The mechanical action of anchors, boat groundings, divers, etc. has an obvious,
detrimental effect on coral growth and health, especially in localized areas.
However, there are other serious and less publicized causes of coral death. Coral
diseases, major causes of coral death, are possibly related to the worldwide rise in sea
level and an over-abundance of nutrients (Shinn, 1989).
The worldwide phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, may be contributing
to sea level rise (Shinn, 1989). Many researchers have concluded that combinations
of temperature extremes, sedimentation, salinity fluctuations, and excess nutrients,
all consequences of rising sea level, have been the major cause of reef demise,
especially in Florida (Shinn, 1989). Humans may be exacerbating the situation both
locally and on a global scale.
Over-fertilized, rapidly growing blue-green algae, fungi, and bacteria can out-
compete and kill corals. The first signs of runaway growth are algal tufts on coral
scars, which then may spread, leading to blackband disease. Death of an entire coral
colony has been shown to occur during a single summer, when the disease spreads
most quickly (Shinn, 1989). In branching corals, which suffer from whiteband
disease, death occurs even more quickly. This disease affects both staghorn and
elkhorn coral. In the summer of 1987, one of the warmest, calmest, and most
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
53
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
hurricane-free summers in Caribbean history, corals expelled their symbiotic algae
and became snow white. The consensus among coral-reef scientists is that the
unusually warm, still water broke the essential bond between the algae and their
coral hosts (Shinn, 1989). With each bleaching, the coral animals slow their
construction of the reefs framework. Growing only millimeters per year, the corals
are already racing against the persistent natural forces of erosion that tear them
down. Severe episodes of bleaching may tip the balance in favor of erosion. The
1987 bleaching event serves as a warning to what may occur as worldwide
temperatures rise. Coral reefs, which have been able to adapt to gradually changing
conditions in the geologic past, may not be able to cope with more rapid climatic
changes (Bunkley-Williams and Williams, 1990).
impacts on Seacirass Beds
The relative stability of seagrass beds, coupled with their complex physical structure
and high rate of primary production, enable them to form the basis of an abundant
and diverse animal community. No other marine plants are uniquely adapted for
the position which seagrasses occupy in the shallow marine environment (Fonseca
et al., 1992). Recently, documented declines in seagrass beds have been implicated in
reductions of fishery resources (Fonseca et al., 1992).
Many human activities potentially affect the health of seagrass communities in
estuarine and coastal ecosystems. In general, dredging and other disturbances of the
bottom sediments or de-sedimentation rates can destroy several seagrass species.
Dredging not only increases suspended material and accelerates sediment
deposition, but also causes changes in the cycling potential of the sediment. Under
these conditions seagrass density may be reduced considerably (Thayer et al., 1975).
Dredging and filling activities can destroy existing seagrass beds; dredged channels
are typically too deep and provide insufficient light for seagrass growth (Fonseca et
al.f 1992). Cumulative damage by propeller scarring and increased boat-wake wave
energy have been demonstrated to have significant negative impacts on seagrass
habitat, sometimes eclipsing the better-documented dredging impacts (Fonseca et al,
1992).
Oil and chemical pollution can have significant negative impacts on seagrasses, as
well as to the seagrass-associated fauna (Fonseca et al.,. 1992). Many of the
chemically-related impacts have been difficult to discern because they often occur in
concert with other impacts, such as increased turbidity, which in and of itself can
reduce or kill seagrasses. As water quality continues to deteriorate, linear losses of
seagrasses and their associated animals will result, with limited opportunities for
recovery (Fonseca et al., 1992). Water transparency must be maintained and
improved.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
54
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The activities of commercial fishermen using bottom trawls in the bays, sounds, and
estuaries frequently damage seagrasses. Commercial harvesting of seagrasses is
obviously an important negative influence.
Human Interaction With Wild Populations ef Marine Mammals
Increasing interest by the public in observing, feeding, and approaching marine
mammals in the wild has been accompanied by concerns that these activities could
cause biological problems for the marine mammals and may be a violation of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has concluded that if an activity alters or disrupts normal behavior, it is
considered a "take" and, therefore, is prohibited under the MMPA unless an
exception has been made.
Since early 1988, NMFS has been aware that organized cruises were being conducted
to allow paying patrons to feed wild populations of dolphins. Wild dolphin feeding
programs could adversely affect the dolphins because they become attracted to
fishing boats and other vessels not engaged in feeding programs and increase the
likelihood that they will be entangled in fishing gear, shot by fishermen, or fed
foreign objects. If dolphins depend on food provided by people, they may become
less able to find and catch natural prey when feeding is discontinued. Artificial
feeding programs may cause migratory dolphins to remain in areas after their
primary prey species have left or otherwise reached their seasonal low, and the
dolphins could then be subject to food shortages and inhospitable conditions.
Dolphin, having become habituated to being fed when boats are around and people
are in the water, could become aggressive in their efforts to get food and swimmers
could be injured. Development and advertising of commercial feed-the-dolphin
programs may increase the opportunity and encourage recreational and other
boaters to feed and harass dolphins. Although it might be possible to regulate the
.types and quality of fish fed to dolphins during commercial programs, it would not
be possible to regulate the types and quality of food provided by others or to prevent
unnatural foods or foreign objects from being thrown to dolphins. Feeding
dolphins could cause them to be attracted to vessels and increase the probability of
their being struck. Feeding programs may expose dolphins to disease or make them
more susceptible to diseases.
impacts on Sea Turtle*?
All of the life history stages of sea turtles may be seriously impacted by human
activities (see Figure 2.6). Urban and industrial development, petroleum
exploitation, mineral sands mining, dredging, and commercial fishing appear to
pose the greatest threats to turtle habitat (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). These
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In iho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
activities may affect the well-being and survival of sea turtles in a variety of ways,
from the direct physical destruction of nests to the more subtle effects of chemical
pollutants on longevity and reproductive capacity.
Figure 2.6
Examples of Potential Impacts of Habitat Alterations
on Sea Turtles
GENERAL LIFE HISTORY
ACTIVITY
IMPACT
BEACH HABITAT
UJ
z
OCEANIC AND ESTUAR
A.dult, _. Development, Domestic
Female | and Industrial Loss or Modification
*
j
i
/
\
\ Females
I .•-•
....!. nrnrintnn A Minlnn Of Nesttafl Habitat
Nest Jetties
*
Eggs Power Plants Temperature Changes
]•
Hatchlings Domestic Discharge
i rawuiiu Destroy tjoitom naoiiai,
Hatchlings Reef Habitat
| Discharge & Spills Increased Pollutant Levels
Juveniles Mining & Dredging Destroy Bottom Habitat
0
i Energy Development ?±SffiJS cSS
Immature Recreational Activities Damage Reef Habitat
\l Males?! \
(Source: Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983)
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
56
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Destruction or modification of beaches where turtles nest probably has the greatest
impact on the ability of turtle populations to reproduce (Coston-Clements and Hoss,
1983). Threats on the nesting beaches include the destruction of nesting habitat
from natural or human-accelerated beach erosion and the construction of sea walls,
riprap, or other devices to. protect oceanside development. Artificial lighting in
developed areas disorients hatchlings when they emerge at night. Significant
hatchling mortality can result as the young turtles crawl toward the lights. The
same lights may deter some females from nesting, particularly green turtles, which
appear to be more sensitive to this factor. Beach nourishment projects can disrupt
nesting turtles, destroy nests, and leave beach sand too compact for subsequent
nesting. Increased recreational use may destroy nests and eggs; deep tire tracks may
prevent hatchlings from reaching the surf.
Clearing vegetation from the beach may reduce shade and increase nest
temperatures, whereas large buildings may lower nest temperatures by increasing
the time an area is shaded. Since temperature is an important factor in hatching
success and sex determination, even small changes could cause increased mortality,
delays in hatching, or sex ratio imbalance (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983).
In addition, predators, such as raccoons, fox, feral dogs, ghost crabs, and in some
cases humans, take a significant amount of eggs from many nesting beaches.
In the intervals between depositing clutches of eggs, females remain close to shore,
where they are particularly vulnerable to being killed or injured by accidents or
being caught in fishing or trawl nets. Boat strikes also take a toll; in Florida, for
example, between 1980 and 1985, 23 percent of stranded turtles had evidence of
propeller wounds or cracked carapaces from boat collisions. It is unknown,
however, what percentage of these wounds occurred pre- or post-mortem.
Oil spills, as well as cleanup operations, can also have harmful effects on sea turtles,
especially if they occur during the nesting season. These harmful effects include the
following: 1) directly fouling the turtles with oil and chemicals, 2) frightening
females away from an area, 3) destroying nests, 4) creating physical obstructions
(including booms) that would prevent hatchlings from reaching the ocean, and
5) creating light disorientation preventing females from nesting or hatchlings from
reaching the water. Eggs, embryos, and hatchlings are more vulnerable than adults
since volatile and water-soluble contaminants can be absorbed into the egg (Coston-
Clements and Hoss, 1983).
Any activity that reduces or contaminates the food supply or destroys habitat will
reduce the ability of turtles to survive. For example, damage to sea grasses by
dredging, anchoring, or siltation will affect green turtles, which depend on grasses
for food. Reef habitat destroyed by pollution or over-use by humans constitutes not
only a loss of foraging areas, but also a loss of resting places for adult and immature
hawksbills and loggerheads. Many filter feeding organisms that concentrate
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
S7
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In ffie Cuff of Mexico
Chapter 2
pollutants are an important food source for turties. Large areas of hypoxia in the
northwest Gulf of Mexico might influence the feeding of ridley and loggerhead
turtles (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983).
Throughout their life in the sea, turtles are subject to a host of human activities that
threaten their survival. Probably the most serious threat to sea turtles in the South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is shrimp trawling (See Impacts of Fishing for a more
detailed discussion). NMFS has estimated that nets from shrimp vessels drown
over 11,000 sea turtles annually (Possardt, 1988). Other commercial fisheries in these
waters cause additional deaths but to an unknown degree.
Marine pollution from oil and human refuse is another documented threat. Sea
turtles readily eat plastic bags or plastic sheeting, which they mistake for a favorite
food-jellyfish. This is a particular concern because all sea turtle species found in
Gulf waters are listed as either threatened or endangered under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. National Marine Fisheries Service and University of Texas
scientists have examined the stomach contents of stranded (dead) sea turtles. Their
findings indicate that one-third to one-half of the endangered and threatened
species are ingesting plastic products or by-products, such as bottles, milk cartons,
and water jugs (USEPA, 1990). Dead turtles also have been found in "ghost nets"
and entangled in fishing lines and gear.
Non-plastic products also harm sea turtles. For example, scientists who studied the
stomach contents of 111 stranded loggerhead turtles in the Gulf of Mexico found
that more than half contained man-made debris. Of the turtles that could be
identified as having died as a direct result of eating the debris, half had consumed
non-plastic debris. In 1988, other sea turtles were found that had been killed by glass
and metal. Three percent of Florida's sea turtle strandings, between 1980 and 1985,
were linked to the ingestion of tar balls or were otherwise related to petroleum
(Possardt, 1988).
Data collected from sea turtle strandings along the south Texas coast, from 1986 to
1988, showed that the animals were significantly affected by having eaten marine
debris or~to a lesser extent-having become entangled in marine debris. The most
common item found to cause entanglement was fishing line, followed by trawl nets,
vegetable sacks, and other types of nets and rope (Center for Environmental
Education, 1987). All five sea turtle species inhabiting Gulf waters have been found
to consume or to become ensnared by marine debris.
Pollutants from industrial and residential development are perhaps the most
pervasive and subtle threats to the survival of species of turtles. The effects are
difficult to detect and evaluate and may not show up until the turtles have been
exposed for many years. Chemicals, including oil, may mask olfactory cues or
interfere with turtle perception and may cause chronic and insidious problems in
reproduction. The decline of Kemp's ridley, a species characteristically found in
waters where organic content and turbidity are high and prawns are abundant, may
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquaile Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
58
-------
Living Aquatic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter
be related to high levels of pollutants in discharges from the Mississippi River
(Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). Thermal pollution, as heated effluents from
power plants or desalination plants, may affect turtles indirectly by being
detrimental to their food supply, or more directly by causing hatchlings to become
disoriented and reduce their swimming speed.
Marine Debris
Marine debris kills and maims marine mammals, fish, shellfish, sea turtles, and
birds. According to USEPA, an estimated two million seabirds and 100,000 marine
mammals die on U.S. coasts each year from becoming entangled in marine debris or
from ingesting plastic mistaken for food. During the National Beach Cleanup Day
in September 1990, there were 142 reports nationwide of wildlife affected by debris
either through apparent entanglement or ingestion.
Animals can mistake plastic pellets from resin spills and other physically degraded
plastic products for fish eggs or other food sources. Such plastics are indigestible--
debris can choke animals, block their digestive tracts, and cause intestinal ulcers.
Some creatures accidentally feeding on plastic may feel a false sense of fullness and,
as a result, slowly starve to death. Animals entangled by six-pack rings or discarded
rope may strangle, suffocate, or exhaust themselves while trying to escape.
Entanglement can also hamper the ability to catch food, and infections caused by
cuts often lead to loss of limbs. Lost or discarded fishing nets (ghost nets) ensnare
fish, crabs, diving seabirds, and other forms of marine life for several years after the
nets are released. Economic losses are also important. While there have been no
similar studies in the Gulf, New England studies show that lobster valued at $250
million is lost each year to "ghost traps" (Karter et al., 1973).
Scientists have documented an increasing number of injuries and deaths among
fish, marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and turtles that have eaten or become
entangled in marine debris. The most common source of entanglement was
monofilament fishing line. Plastic bags, sheets, tar balls, and plastic particles were
among the most common items ingested. These items are commonly found on
Gulf beaches. Evidence of the continuing problem of entanglement occurred on
March 11,1991, when a female pygmy sperm whale died after becoming stranded on
Matagorda Island, just off the Texas coast. The whale died from an infection caused
by a plastic bag that she expelled from her mouth.
On New Year's Day, 1984, an infant pygmy sperm whale died, despite all efforts to
save him, after becoming stranded on a Galveston beach in Texas. A postmortem
examination (necropsy) revealed that he had eaten numerous large plastic bags,
including a large trash bag, a bread wrapper, and a corn chip bag which created a false
sense of fullness resulting in a slow death by starvation. In Florida, injuries and
deaths caused by plastic debris-plastic jugs, disposable surgeons' gloves, plastic bags,
and monofilament line—have been documented for four species of marine
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
59
-------
Living Aquatic Resources In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
mammals stranded along the state's coast: bottlenose dolphin, false killer whale,
pygmy sperm whale, and West Indian (Florida) manatee (Barros et al., 1989). Debris
on beaches is also known to entangle terrestrial species, such as foxes and rabbits,
who have been observed entangled in nets and other plastic items.
Of the world's 280 seabird species, 80, to date, are known to have ingested plastic
debris items ranging from small plastic pellets to polystyrene pieces to cigarette
lighters and toys. Seabirds are also prone to entanglement, especially in
monofilament fishing lines. For example, the Japanese salmon-gill net fishery, in
which more than 2,575 km (1,600 mi) of net is set each night, is reported to drown
over 250,000 seabirds each year during a two-month fishing season (King, 1984). An
early 1970s study in Florida reported that 80 percent of brown pelicans showed signs
of injury from entanglement in fishing gear (Heneman, 1988).
Marine debris also has more subtle, ecological effects on the Gulf of Mexico. For
instance many materials sink soon after being dropped into the water or after they
collect heavy biological growth. According to USEPA (1990), it is likely that pockets
of accumulated debris exist on the Gulf floor. Non-biodegradable material could
disrupt biological communities and adversely affect fisheries. Meanwhile,
biodegradable materials-such as food waste—create an oxygen demand, which in
some areas may significantly decrease the oxygen available for marine life.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
6O
-------
& State Framework
Chapter 3
3 FEDERAL & STATE FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING
LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES
Many federal agencies are mandated by legislative statutes to protect living aquatic
resources and prevent adverse human impacts. These agencies include: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
U.S. Department of Transportation. Each of the five Gulf of Mexico states also has a
regulatory framework for addressing living aquatic resources. In addition, the Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission is authorized by federal and state statutes to
protect fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico. (For a description, see Appendix A.)
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
61
-------
77i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
4 THE UNFINISHED AGENDA -
Both Current Commitments & Uncommitted Activities
Goal
This Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda for the Gulf of Mexico sets forth a
framework for conserving, protecting, and restoring the living aquatic resources in
the Gulf; thereby allowing the use and enjoyment of its resources. The Gulf of
Mexico Program has established the following long-term goal:
Q Conserve and restore species diversity and health of aquatic
resources while allowing sustainable development.
Action Agenda Framework
This chapter of the Action Agenda provides objectives, action items, and specific
project descriptions for conserving and restoring living aquatic resources in the Gulf
of Mexico and for meeting the long-term goal as stated above. Objectives and action
items are grouped under five types of activity: 1) Monitoring & Assessment, 2)
Research, 3) Planning & Standards, 4) Compliance & Enforcement, and 5) Public
Education & Outreach (see Index of Objectives and Action items). The seventy-
five action items represent the Committee's best judgment today, based on existing
data and information, as to what must be done initially to conserve and protect
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico. As current action items are
completed and future generations of this document are developed, it is anticipated
that additional actions will emerge.
Lead. The Living Aquatic Resources Committee has identified a lead agency for
each project-the agency with the most authority or jurisdiction over the particular
issue. A proposed action item or project may involve the execution of legislative or
regulatory authorities or programmatic initiatives which derive from these
authorities. In other cases, a proposed action item or project may involve the
facilitation or coordination of activities among several agencies or organizations. In
these cases, and where there is no clear legislative authority involved, the "lead"
could be the agency or organization who expresses an interest in taking on the task
during Gulf of Mexico Program Committee deliberations, the action planning
workshop or public comment period, or, in the Issue Committee's judgment, is best
able to guide multiple parties in carrying out the activity. This does not necessarily
mean that the agency has agreed to carry out the activity or that the agency has the
necessary funding. The Living Aquatic Resources Committee understands these
action items will require commitments by agencies and organizations that are
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
62
-------
The Unfinished Ag&nda
Chapter 4
dependent on budget decisions. However, the Committee members hope this
document provides the rationale and support for such commitments and that
future iterations of this document will include additional specific commitments.
Initiation Date. The date indicated represents a determination by the Committee of
the most realistic initiation date for the action item. As lead agencies begin
implementation planning for specific action items, these target dates may change
due to resource availability and prioritization within the individual agencies.
Some action items are cross referenced to other action items and are designated with
a "->" sign in the left hand column. This signals a close relationship among those
actions and a need for coordination.
The Gulf of Mexico Program recognizes the need to identify indicators of
environmental progress relative to this Action Agenda for living aquatic resources.
Many of the action items specified in Chapter 4 of this document will aid the
Program in developing a baseline for measuring success in the future. For the time
being, however, acceptance and completion of action items specified in this Action
Agenda will be considered a measure of success. As future iterations of this
document are written, and current action items and projects are completed, new
action items and projects will be developed to better measure environmental
progress.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
63
-------
77i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Indox of Living Aquatic Rosourcos Objoetlvos ft Action Items
Monitoring & Assessment
Objective: Characterize the current status of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico and
ontinue to monitor the status and trends of these resources.
Action Item 1: Develop and describe ecosystem boundaries for the Gulf of Mexico to be used in
monitoring living aquatic resources.
Action Item 2: Identify existing data sets and ongoing monitoring programs for living aquatic
resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 3: Develop recommendations for indicator species and sampling strategies for monitoring
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 4: Assess existing monitoring programs for living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico-
Action Item S: Develop standardized data collection and analysis systems for Gulf of Mexico programs
to ensure data compatibility and interchange across organizational boundaries.
Action Item 6: Compile a periodic living aquatic resources status and trends report for the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 7: Maintain a Gulf of Mexico living aquatic resources data set directory to provide
accessibility and standardization of data.
Objective: Survey and monitor impacts to the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico caused
i>y human access and physical use.
Action Item 8: Inventory illegal or unauthorized human activities in the Gulf of Mexico that impact
living aquatic resources.
Action Item 9: Inventory direct and indirect human interactions with living aquatic resources in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 10: Evaluate the impacts live-aboard vessels have on living aquatic resources in coastal
areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 11: Characterize and rank problems associated with human access to and impacts on living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Assess and monitor the effects of fishing mortality on the health and abundance of living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 12: Synthesize and evaluate the existing data on fishing mortality and impacts on species in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 13: Implement monitoring programs in the Gulf of Mexico for fisheries by-catch.
Action Item 14: Determine stock assessment information needs by species within the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 16: Evaluate the status of fishery stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
64
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index of Living Aquatic Resources Objectives & Action Items
(continued)
Monitoring & Assessment fcontinued)
Objective: Identify, inventory, and monitor impacts to the Gulf of Mexico and its living aquatic
resources resulting from human-caused contaminants (i.e., sewage, petroleum products, chemicals,
toxic pesticides, marine debris, viruses, and bacteria).
Action Item 16: Survey human-caused contaminant inputs to the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 17: Identify the current use of antifouling paints on vessels throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 18: Identify the availability and use of marine sanitation devices and pumpout facilities in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 19: Inventory and monitor dredged material disposal sites within the Gulf of Mexico
region.
Action Item 2O: Survey and monitor the impacts of pollutants and non-indigenous species carried in
ship ballast waters on the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Survey the potential impacts of aquaculture on living aquatic resources of the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 21: Inventory existing aquaculture facilities, and determine the extent of aquaculture
production in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Action Item 22: Develop an historical data base and monitoring programs for aquaculture in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 23: Assess the potential for aquaculture to reduce the mortality of overfished stocks or
• enhance existing stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Inventory the occurrence and evaluate the reoccurrence potential of unusual mortality
events of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 24: Inventory historical occurrences of unusual mortality events of living aquatic resources
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 25: Establish a Gulfwide network for unusual mortality events.
Action Item 26: Establish and maintain specimen and information archives for unusual mortality events
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
65
-------
77i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Indox of Living Aquatle Resources Objectives It Action Itoms
(continued)
Research
Objective: Conduct research to identify, characterize, and enhance the sustainability of living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 27: Identify potential endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, and determine research
needs for these species.
Action Horn 28: Conduct workshops to identify the research needs for unique Gulf of Mexico
ecosystems that provide important habitat for living aquatic resources.
Action Item 29: Promote research programs that support the restoration of living aquatic resources in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 30: Evaluate the effectiveness of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Horn 31: Develop a predictive capability for changes in living aquatic resources in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Objective: Determine the impacts and effects of human activities on the living aquatic resources in
the Gulf of Mexico, including habitat availability, structure, and function.
Action Item 32: Assess biotic and abiotic interactions affecting the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 33: Assess the behavioral changes of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico caused
by human interaction.
Action Item 34: Assess the impact of introduced species on the endemic living aquatic resources of the
Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 3S: Determine the effects of fishing activities on different habitats in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 36: Determine the effects of fishing activities on biological community relationships in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Assess and address the potential effects of aquaculture on the living aquatic resources of
the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 37: Characterize aquaculture effluents and determine their impacts on receiving systems
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 38: Identify the effects of unintentional and controlled releases of aquaculture organisms in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 39: Conduct research to reduce the negative impacts of aquaculture facilities on living
aquatic resources and their habitat in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
66
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index of Living Aquatle Resources Objectives & Action Items
(continued)
Research fcontinued)
Objective: Determine the cause/effect relationships of unusual mortality events and their potential
ecological effects in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 4O: Determine and isolate new indicators of causes of unusual mortalities in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 41: Improve forensic pathology techniques to determine causation of unusual mortality
events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 42: Determine the effect of toxicants in unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 43: Determine and assess the presence of multiple and cumulative stresses in unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 44: Develop methods to assess the ecological impact of unusual mortality events in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
67
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Indox of Living Aquatic Resources Objectives ft Action Items
(continued)
Planning & Standards
Objective: Develop a future quantified "vision" of the status of living aquatic resources in the Gulf
f Mexico that supports the concept of a "healthy" Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 45: Convene workshops to establish measurable standards for determination of ecosystem
"health" in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Develop consistent criteria, seek uniform management, develop specific strategies, and
coordinate Gulfwide activities for the protection of living aquatic resources and ecosystems in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 46: Determine the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework for protecting the living
aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 47: Recommend appropriate new legislation which authorizes regulatory action,
enforcement authority, and funding for living aquatic resources where inadequacies
exist.
Action Item 48: Evaluate existing Gulf of Mexico management strategies, techniques, and
methodologies to reduce negative human impacts on living aquatic resources.
Action Item 40: Facilitate the coordination and integration of Gulf of Mexico living aquatic resource
issues and programs across jurisdictional and organizational lines.
Action Item SO: Conduct a comparative analysis of the specific provisions of the coastal zone
management plans of the five Gulf States that support the protection of living aquatic
resources.
Action Item SI: Develop standardized criteria across the Gulf States for land acquisition and land
management to reduce negative human impacts on living aquatic resources.
Action Item 62: Promote consistent regulations across the five Gulf States to provide protection from
poaching and incidental take of living aquatic resources.
Action Item S3: Establish Gulfwide boater education requirements on the impacts of boating on living
aquatic resources.
Action Item S4: Develop a Gulfwide aquaculture plan.
Action Item SS: Develop fishery management plans for exploited fishery populations in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item S6: Investigate, develop, and implement alternative fishing gear, techniques, and
methodologies to reduce incidental fishing mortality in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item S7: Investigate methods to control the introduction of non-indigenous species from ship
ballast waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Objective: Restore anadromous fish populations that have been impacted by dam construction,
channelization, dredging, and other habitat modifications and protect the habitats, rivers, and critical
areas important to the life histories of these species in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item SS: Implement the anadromous fish strategic plan for the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item S9: Develop and implement the "Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan."
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
68
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter*
Index of Living Aquatic Resources Objectives & Action Items
(continued)
Planning & Standards (continued)
Objective: Develop and implement a response strategy for unusual mortality events in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 6O: Develop preventive strategies for unusual mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 61: Establish appropriate guidelines for responding to unusual mortality events in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Action Item 62: Establish response protocols for unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 63: Develop and conduct response team training for unusual mortality events in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 64: Evaluate mechanisms and secure contingency funding for implementation of scientific
response teams for unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Compliance & Enforcement
Objective: Enhance enforcement capabilities to protect living aquatic resources throughout the Gulf
of Mexico.
Action Item 65: Assess the current status of state and federal compliance and enforcement programs
throughout the Gulf of Mexico to protect living aquatic resources.
Action Item 66: Develop specific mechanisms to enhance enforcement capabilities throughout the five
Gulf of Mexico States.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
69
-------
Thtt Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Indox of Living Aquatic Resources Objoctlv
(continued)
•• It Action Itoms
Public Education & Outreach
Objective: Promote the coordination and advancement of all relevant Gulfwide education programs
that address any aspect of living aquatic resources.
Action Item 67: Develop an inventory of all Gulf of Mexico education programs that cover living aquatic
resources.
Identify, resources to implement public education/outreach strategies and actions for
the protection of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 68:
Objective: Develop a public education and awareness program for the general public and specific
user groups regarding human impacts on the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico, and
promote a conservation ethic.
Action Item 69: Develop an effective educational methodology and strategy for the general public
regarding human impacts on the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 7O: Develop Gulfwide general and targeted informational materials about human
interactions with living aquatic resources.
Objective: Develop a Gulfwide public education and awareness program for other key issues
concerning living aquatic resources that are not being effectively addressed.
Action Item 71: Develop a Gulfwide program to increase public awareness and understanding
of the implications of unusual mortality events and the need for research.
Objective: Involve an informed public constituency in the support and,maintenance of "healthy"
Gulf of Mexico ecosystems.
Action Item 72: Facilitate a Gulfwide understanding of the relatioitship of a "healthy" functioning
ecosystem to a "healthy" economy.
Action Item 73: Build a corps of informed citizens throughout the Gulf of Mexico to aid in the
dissemination of information on the importance of living aquatic resources.
Action Item 74: Develop a Gulfwide program to increase public reporting of unusual mortality events.
Action Item 76: Develop a program to involve the public and private industry in promoting safe
aquaculture practices in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
70
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Monitoring & Assessment
Monitoring is necessary to determine baseline conditions and the status of living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Many state, federal, and private monitoring
efforts are presently underway but most of these efforts are designed to meet specific
goals and do not necessarily address Gulfwide regulatory and environmental
resource concerns. Although additional monitoring to address Gulfwide concerns
may be necessary, enhanced coordination among existing programs will increase the
likelihood that reliable, compatible data sets will be generated without duplicative
effort. The Gulf of Mexico program hopes to provide this coordination through the
work of its Issue Committees and will further strive to integrate monitoring
programs across issue areas such as Living Aquatic Resources, Habitat Degradation,
Toxic Substances & Pesticides, and Public Health.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Characterize the current status of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of
Mexico and continue to monitor the status and trends of these resources.
Action Item i: Develop and describe ecosystem boundaries for the Gulf of
Mexico to be used in monitoring living aquatic resources.
Project Description: Develop, describe, and define a conceptual
model of "nested ecosystems" for the Gulf of Mexico to be used
in monitoring living aquatic resources. This model will include
biotic and abiotic components on a spatial and temporal scale.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in coordination with
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, coastal states, and Programa
Epomex.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 31 A, 31B
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
71
-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 2: Identify existing data sets and ongoing monitoring programs for
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Inventory, evaluate, and synthesize
historical living aquatic resource data sets in the Gulf of Mexico.
Identify ongoing monitoring programs. Using this inventory,
identify data gaps for characterization of the status of living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, coastal states, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and Programa Epomex.
Initiation Date: 1994
~» 22, 37A \
Action Item 3: Develop recommendations for indicator species and sampling
strategies for monitoring living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Convene a living aquatic resources
monitoring workshop to define indicator species/assemblages
and recommend sampling strategies for living aquatic resources
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with National Marine Fisheries Service
and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 4: Assess existing monitoring programs for living aquatic resources
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Determine if existing monitoring programs
are adequate to address workshop recommended strategies.
Recommend measures to improve, enhance, or initiate needed
living aquatic resources monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Gulf State resource agencies.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 3, 16 ______
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
72
-------
The
Unfinlsh&tl Agenda
Ohapfer 4
Action Item 5: Develop standardized data collection and analysis systems for
Gulf of Mexico programs to ensure data compatibility and interchange across
organizational boundaries.
Project Description: Conduct a workshop to evaluate the
compatibility of data collection procedures and formats for
recreational and commercial fisheries.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with i
National Marine Fisheries Service and Gulf States.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 6: Compile a periodic living aquatic resources status and trends
report for the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Convene a workshop every three years to
assess the status and trends of living aquatic resources utilizing
the selected indicator species/assemblages. Produce workshop
proceedings to document, re-evaluate, and refine the ongoing
monitoring programs.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with Gulf of Mexico Program-Technical
Advisory Committee, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 7: Maintain a Gulf of Mexico living aquatic resources data set directory to
provide accessibility and standardization of data.
Project Description: Create and maintain a directory of
available data sets on Gulf of Mexico living aquatic resources and
encourage compatibility of data collection.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
73
-------
T7i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Survey and monitor impacts to the living aquatic resources of the Gulf
of Mexico caused by human access and physical use.
Action 'item 8: Inventory illegal or unauthorized human activities in the Gulf
of Mexico that impact living aquatic resources.
Project Description: Identify and inventory the type and level
of illegal or unauthorized activities (poaching, harassment,
recreational and commercial infractions, boating infractions, etc.)
that impact the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, state enforcement agencies, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Coast
Guard.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action item 9: Inventory direct and indirect human interactions with living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Identify and inventory the type, location
(temporal and spatial), and level of direct and indirect human
contact and its effects on living marine resources (e.g. dolphin
feedings, boating impacts on manatees, interaction with sea
turtles and fisheries, human access to coastal bird breeding and
nesting areas).
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in
concert with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and state wildlife
agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994 •
Action item 1O: Evaluate the impacts live-aboard vessels have on living aquatic
resources in coastal areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Identify where groups of live-aboards are
located and inventory related research on impacts to living
aquatic resources. Assess the need for a monitoring program.
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in
concert with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
appropriate state agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
74
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter
Action item 11: Characterize and rank problems associated with human access
to and impacts on living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
|Project Description: Develop the criteria to define, characterize,
and rank problems associated with human access to and impacts
on the living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Park Service (based on experience for defining
and assessing human impacts for federal lands) in cooperation
with National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Objective: Assess and monitor the effects of fishing mortality on the health and
abundance of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 12: Synthesize and evaluate the existing data on fishing mortality
and impacts on species in the Gulf of Mexico.
I Project Description: Conduct a literature review of target and
I non-target fishing mortality in the Gulf of Mexico and assess the
impact on the health and abundance of critical species.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in coordination with National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
75
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action item 13: Implement monitoring programs in the Gulf of Mexico for
fisheries by-catch.
Project Description A: Assess uses of fishery-dependent and
fishery-independent data and the correlation between fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent data and appropriate
applications.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with states.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
-» 15
Project Description B: Develop and implement monitoring
programs incorporating fishery-dependent and fishery-
independent data collection to assess the magnitude of fisheries
by-catch.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service, in conjunction with
Gulf fishing industry, Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
coastal states.
initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 14: Determine stock assessment information needs by species
within the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Review existing information to determine
which species require stock assessments and conduct an
inventory of the data collected or needed for performing stock
assessments for those species.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission, in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: Ongoing .
Action Item 15: Evaluate the status of fishery stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Conduct periodic stock assessments for
Gulf of Mexico fisheries, that are key prey species or harvested
either commercially or recreationally, using available fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent data.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and states.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
-» 13A .. ____™
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
76
-------
Tfie Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Identify, inventory, and monitor impacts to the Gulf of Mexico and its
living aquatic resources resulting from human-caused contaminants (i.e., sewage,
petroleum products, chemicals, toxic pesticides, marine debris, viruses, and bacteria).
NOTE: Crosswalk to other GMP Action Agendas.
Action Item 16: Survey human-caused contaminant inputs to the Gulf of
Mexico.
Project Description: Identify, inventory, and survey sources and
levels of authorized and unauthorized contaminants in the Gulf
of Mexico that could affect living aquatic resources. Develop a
large map of types and locations of such inputs (baseline) to
assist in the establishment of a monitoring program.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Coast Guard, National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and appropriate state agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
4, 24B
Action Item 17: Identify the current use of antifouling paints on vessels
throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Identify the current extent and use of toxic
antifouling boat paints on recreational and commercial vessels
throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 18: Identify the availability and use of marine sanitation devices
and pumpout facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
! Project Description: Survey the availability and usage of
| marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and pumpout stations at ports
and marinas throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and appropriate
state agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
77
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 19: Inventory and monitor dredged material disposal sites within
the Gulf of Mexico region.
Project Description A: Identify, inventory, and map (with
information on any pollutants found in the materials) disposal
sites in the Gulf of Mexico, its estuaries, or other water/wetlands |
areas in the region.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Develop a plan to assess and monitor the
long-term effects of dredged material disposal sites and their
impacts on surrounding bottom and water column areas, as well
as living aquatic resources.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 2O: Survey and monitor the impacts of pollutants and non-
indigenous species carried in ship ballast waters on the living aquatic resources
of the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Identify, inventory, and map the
occurrence of pollutants and introduction of non-indigenous
species from the release of ship ballast waters into the Gulf of
Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-National Biological Survey
in concert with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration.
Initiation Date: 1994
;-» 34, 57
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
78
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Survey the potential impacts of aquaculture on living aquatic resources
of the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 21: Inventory existing aquaculture facilities, and determine the
extent of aquaculture production in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Project Description: Collect, summarize, and publish actual and
potential aquaculture production by species, state, and nation in
relation to native stocks. Develop and maintain a Gulfwide
inventory and characterization of aquaculture facilities.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Gulf of Mexico Program—Living Aquatic Resources
(Aquaculture Working Group).
Initiation Date: 1994
-> 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 54A, 54B
Action Item 22: Develop an historical data base and monitoring programs for
aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Review and characterize known and
potential impacts of aquaculture on coastal and open areas of the
Gulf of Mexico in order to establish monitoring programs.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 2, 37A
Action Item 23: Assess the potential for aquaculture to reduce the mortality of
overfished stocks or enhance existing stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
| Project Description: Evaluate the ability of aquaculture
I production to reduce pressure on overfished stocks or to
! augment natural production of those stocks.
Lead: U.S. Department of Agriculture, in concert with U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico-Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
79
-------
T/io Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Inventory the occurrence and evaluate the reoccurrence potential of
unusual mortality events of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 24: Inventory historical occurrences of unusual mortality events of
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Prepare a comprehensive inventory of
unusual mortalities of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of
Mexico, including plants, mollusks, crustaceans, corals, fish,
birds, turtles, and mammals.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in cooperation with National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Develop a graphic display of unusual
mortalities of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Incorporate known historical unusual mortalities into a
geographical information system (GIS).
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Data & Information Transfer
Operations in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries
Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 16
Action Item 25: Establish a Gulfwide network for unusual mortality events.
Project Description: Establish a Gulfwide network of unusual
mortality event response scientists.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research (Mammals), National
Marine Fisheries Service—Office of Protected Resources
(Mammals), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Regional Offices (Sea
Turtles), and states.
Initiation Date: 1993
-» 64
Quit of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
SO
-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Qhapter 4
Action Item 26: Establish and maintain specimen and information archives for
unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Expand and maintain bands of fixed, frozen
and/or prepared tissues from specimens of unusual mortality
events in the Gulf of Mexico. Provide centralized locations for
study and future reference (tissue banks and archival).
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service, Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Smithsonian Institution, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 62B
"Sjmvil Gsixs..
•— Hrtiic-
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
81
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Research
The Gulf of Mexico is a productive resource, but is susceptible to impacts of natural
phenomena and human activities. Human activities may cause adverse effects on
the Gulfs ecosystem. To protect the marine ecosystem from these threats, more
complete knowledge is needed to understand some of the important biological and
environmental forces that structure and control the system. Findings from
monitoring efforts should be analyzed to understand and establish the underlying
processes and relationships that result in particular observations.
Most research funds are administered by federal agencies or state program offices in
support of specific missions, with only limited funding going to research that
examines the cumulative effects of decisions on the ecosystem as a whole. This
action planning process provides the necessary mechanism to enable producers,
consumers, and funders of research to agree on the priorities. A closer connection
should be established between the research agenda of the scientific community and
the information needs of managers, regulators, and those involved in management
decisions for the Gulf of Mexico. Once a research agenda is developed and
implemented, the research results should be used to understand the underlying
processes and relationships and make appropriate decisions regarding the
conservation and management of Gulf of Mexico living aquatic resources.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Conduct research to identify, characterize, and enhance the
sustainability of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 27: Identify potential endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, and
determine research needs for these species.
Project Description: Identify Gulf of Mexico living aquatic
resource populations by relative numbers or distribution to
determine those in chronic decline and those that may be
endangered or threatened. Recommend needed research to
support the protection and restoration of these species.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service and coastal state resource agencies.
Initiation Date: 1995
Cuff of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
82
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Hem 28: Conduct workshops to identify the research needs for unique
Gulf of Mexico ecosystems that provide important habitat for living aquatic
resources.
Project Description: Conduct workshops to identify research
! needs on the following sub-ecosystems that provide important
habitat for living aquatic resources: pelagic sargassum, Big Bend
seagrass, Florida Bay nursery area, Mississippi River plume,
Texas barrier islands, Texas Flower Gardens, and Campeche
Banks. NOTE: Crosswalk with Habitat Degradation Action
Agenda.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Regional Marine Research Program, in
concert with Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee, Habitat Degradation Committee, and Gulf Coast
State natural resource agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 29: Promote research programs that support the restoration of
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
I Project Description: Promote research programs to identify
[restoration or population augmentation alternatives for the Gulf
! of Mexico.
| Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action item 3O: Evaluate the effectiveness of artificial reefs in the Gulf of
Mexico.
i Project Description: Determine the impact of artificial reefs on
living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with coastal
states, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, and
Minerals Management Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
83
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 31: Develop a predictive capability for changes in living aquatic
resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Develop a predictive capability for
changes in living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Develop layered, interactive data bases utilizing
bioindicators/assemblages to develop models which will predict
changes in populations abundance, recruitment, and responses
to aquatic perturbations.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service, in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and coastal state natural resource
agencies.
Initiation Date: 1996
-» 1
Project DescriptioniB: Develop(layered,"irtteractivedata'bases""""
utilizing bioindicators/assemblages to develop models which
will predict changes in population abundance, recruitment and
responses to climate change.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and coastal state natural resource
agencies.
Initiation Date:
-»• 1
1996
Objective: Determine the impacts and effects of human activities on the living
aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico, including habitat availability, structure, and
function.
Action Item 32: Assess biotic and abiotic interactions affecting the living aquatic
resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Evaluate and report on the effects of
selected biotic and abiotic factors on the survival, temporal and
spatial distribution, and health of living aquatic resources.
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in
concert with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and Gulf States.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
84
-------
The Unfinished Ag&nda
Action Item 33: Assess the behavioral changes of living aquatic resources in the
Gulf of Mexico caused by human interaction.
Project Description: Evaluate and report on behavioral impacts
or changes on living aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico
caused by human interaction.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with coastal
states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 34: Assess the impact of introduced species on the endemic living
aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
I Project Description: Determine and report on the impact of
I introduced species on endemic living aquatic resources of the
! Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and coastal states.
Initiation Date: 1994
-> 20
Action Item 35: Determine the effects of fishing activities on different habitats
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Conduct case study research comparing
fished and non-fished areas in the Gulf of Mexico to determine
impacts on habitat from trawling, oyster dredging, and
recreational boat traffic. NOTE: Crosswalk with Habitat
Degradation Committee.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with coastal
states and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
85
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 36: Determine the effects of fishing activities on biological
community relationships in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Conduct studies to determine effects of
fishing activities on the relative abundance of other living
aquatic resources and predator/prey, host/parasite relationships
in the Gulf of Mexico. Compare species abundance and diversity
in coastal communities from similar habitats under exploited
and unexploited (sanctuaries) conditions.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
and coastal states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description B: Conduct studies to determine impacts of
changing fishing behavior and technology. Compare species
abundance in Gulf of Mexico marine communities in similar
habitats before and after changes in fishing behavior and
technology.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with coastal
states.
Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatle Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
86
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Assess and address the potential effects of aquaculture on the living
aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 37: Characterize aquaculture effluents and determine their impacts
on receiving systems in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Identify and quantify the biological,
chemical, and physical components of effluents from
aquaculture operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission, and private industry.
Initiation Date: 1995
-> 2,21,22
i Project Description B: Develop and/or refine methods to
qualitatively and quantitatively assess the impact of aquaculture
effluents in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
National Institute for Environmental Health & Science and U.S.
Food & Drug Administration.
Initiation Date: 1996
-» 21
Project Description C: Identify the potential effects of biotoxins,
chemical contaminants, and pathogens in aquaculture systems
in the Gulf of Mexico and determine if there are human health
risks associated with consumptive use of aquaculture products.
Lead: U.S. Food & Drug Administration in concert with U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Health Committee.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 21
Project Description D: Develop and/or refine methods to detect
the presence of contaminants within aquaculture systems in the
Gulf of Mexico and evaluate potential risks to aquaculture
organisms and consumers.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 21
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
87
-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 38: Identify the effects of unintentional and controlled releases of
aquaculture organisms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Develop methods for aquaculture
product identification, such as a long-term marking and
detection technique for aquaculture, organisms in commerce and
in the wild (i.e., tags, genetic markers, visible markers,
mor phometries).
Lead: U.S. Department of Agriculture in concert with U;S. Food
& Drug Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
industry.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description B: Identify potential risks to native living
resources in the Gulf of Mexico from releases of aquaculture
organisms and their associated parasites and pathogens.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Food & Drug Administration, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description C: Assess the risk of drug-resistant strains of
human and animal pathogens associated with the use of drugs
and other chemicals in aquaculture systems.
Lead: U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description D: Determine how genetic engineering and
hybridization affect the fitness of introduced and wild stocks and
their potential impact on the indigenous species in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with U.S; Food &
Drug Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
88
-------
Unfinished Agoncfa
Chapter 4t
Action Item 39: Conduct research to reduce the negative impacts of aquaculture
facilities on living aquatic resources and their habitat in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Determine the functions and values
(ecological, monetary, aesthetic) of natural wetlands and shelf
systems and assess the impacts of aquaculture facilities on these
habitats. NOTE: Crosswalk with Habitat Degradation Action
Agenda.
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1995
I Project Description B: Determine the feasibility and costs of
| using non-wetland (upland, lowland containment areas) sites
for marine aquaculture production in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Department of Agriculture in concert with Soil
Conservation Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description C: Develop new or more effective best
management practices for aquaculture practices that increase
efficiency of land and water usage in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Utilize practices that increase the efficiency and yield of
aquaculture operations and reduce negative impacts on living
aquatic resources.
Lead: U.S. Department of Agriculture in concert with National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Soil Conservation Service, and private industry.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Determine the cause/effect relationships of unusual mortality events
and their potential ecological effects in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 4O: Determine and isolate new indicators of causes of unusual
mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop new biological indicators for use
with living specimens from the same site as an unusual
mortality event to help determine the causes of unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with states,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
Initiation Date: 1994 . '
Action Item 41: Improve forensic pathology techniques to determine causation
of unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop new methods in forensic
pathology to determine causation of unusual mortality events in;
the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert wi'th National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1994 _,
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
90
-------
Tfte Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 42: Determine the effect of toxicants in unusual mortality events
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Conduct laboratory studies to confirm the
cause/effect relationships hypothesized from investigations of
unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico. Evaluate the
effects of suspected toxicants identified from tissues, water, or
sediments and to confirm diagnosis of microbial pathogens
(Koch's postulates).
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 43: Determine and assess the presence of multiple and cumulative
stresses in unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
| Project Description: Develop data bases and establish a model to
evaluate the impact of multiple and cumulative stresses on
specific organisms and populations in relation to unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1995 \
Action Item 44: Develop methods to assess the ecological impact of unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
[Project Description: Develop methods to estimate the direct
impact of unusual mortality events on population dynamics of
affected species and the indirect effects on predator and prey
species in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
91
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Planning & Standards
The most effective way to protect and conserve living aquatic resources is to control
those activities and actions that threaten them. It will cost far more to restore
depleted species populations than to control actions before their status becomes
critical. This should be a shared responsibility among all in the Gulf region-federal,
state, and local governments, the private sector, and citizens. In addition,
cooperation and consistency among various management plans, regulations, and
policies is essential.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Develop a future quantified "vision" of the status of living aquatic
resources in the Gulf of Mexico that supports the concept of a "healthy" Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 45: Convene workshops to establish measurable standards for
determination of ecosystem "health" in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Convene workshops of federal, state, and
academic program partners to identify measurable standards of
Gulf of Mexico "health" and standards for habitat values,
ecological values, and economic and social values. Publish and
distribute workshop materials widely to build a consensus on
the "vision."
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program in concert with National Oceanic
& Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries
Service and National Ocean Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and state
natural resource agencies.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
92
-------
The
Unfinished Agenda
Ohagafer
Objective: Develop consistent criteria, seek uniform management, develop specific
strategies, and coordinate Gulfwide activities for the protection of living aquatic
resources and ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. (The intent is to avoid duplication
of effort and ensure maximum efficiency in use of public funds.)
Action item 46: Determine the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework
for protecting the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Convene a workshop of Gulf of Mexico
Program federal and state agencies to identify existing legislation,
regulations, compliance and enforcement programs, and
funding to protect living aquatic resources, evaluate the
adequacy of these programs, and achieve management
uniformity. Encourage the incorporation of workshop results
into strategic plans of appropriate agencies, as well as Gulf of
Mexico Program Action Agendas.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with Gulf of Mexico Program partners,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, I
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gulf of Mexico '!
Fishery Management Council, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, |
and state resource agencies. I
initiation Date: 1995 !
Project Description B: Evaluate and compare the different state
and federal legislation or regulatory actions concerned with
restoration or rehabilitation of living aquatic resources damaged
by spills or contaminants, and establish responsible agencies for
the restoration and rehabilitation of living aquatic resources
affected by human-caused contaminant exposure
(oil/petroleum, sewage, foreign species, chemicals, pesticides).
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in concert with
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast
Guard, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
-------
77i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description C: Work with the states to prevent the loss
of beaches and nesting habitats used by living aquatic resources.
Develop recommendations on coastal construction and
development activities in beach areas, and dredging activities in
nearshore waters, that could impact the nesting habitats of birds
and turtles.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Army.
Initiation Date: 1994 v_™__™_™_.
Action Item 47: Recommend appropriate new legislation which authorizes
regulatory action, enforcement authority, and funding for living aquatic
resources where inadequacies exist.
Project Description A: Support legislation in each state and at
the federal level that restricts "feeding" of wild populations of
protected marine animals (manatees, dolphins, birds, etc.).
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service in concert with state game and freshwater fish
or marine resource agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994 __™
Project Description B: Survey and examine existing legislation,
regulations, and agency policies for relevance in reducing
unusual mortality events and identify areas of existing
legislation that could be improved.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with states and federal agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994 ,___
Project Description C: Apply knowledge gained from scientific
response efforts to recommend new legislation (where
applicable) relating to unusual mortality events.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with expert panel/workshop results.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
94
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter
Action Item 48: Evaluate existing Gulf of Mexico management strategies,
techniques, and methodologies to reduce negative human impacts on living
aquatic resources.
Project Description: Review the research record on significant
human impacts identified by models, and evaluate the adequacy
of existing management strategies in the Gulf of Mexico to
reduce negative human impacts on living aquatic resources.
Lead: National Park Service in concert with U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action item 4»: Facilitate the coordination and integration of Gulf of Mexico
living aquatic resource issues and programs across jurisdictional and
organizational lines.
| Project Description A: Encourage the use of existing venues
! (Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission or Gulf of Mexico
I Fishery Management Council) for holding workshops and
reviews on specific Gulfwide activities related to living aquatic
resources.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council and coastal state resource agencies.
initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Integrate actions across Gulf of Mexico
Program Action Agendas to address factors affecting living
aquatic resources. At Co-Chair meetings, Living Aquatic
Resources (LARS) Committee representatives shall make
presentations regarding updates and areas/topics of concern.
LARS Committee will review all Action Agendas and LARS
Steering Committee will hold semi-annual review panel
meetings.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Living Aquatic Resources
Committee.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
95
-------
Th* Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description C: Incorporate Living Aquatic Resources
Committee objectives into an effective large marine ecosystem
(LME) research protocol to include Mexico and the wider
Caribbean. Identify pertinent joint international programs of
fishery research and management and conduct LME symposia
(Gulf and Caribbean) to highlight physical and biological
ecosystem modifiers.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of State,
and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 5O: Conduct a comparative analysis of the specific provisions of the
coastal zone management plans of the five Gulf States that support the
protection of living aquatic resources.
Project Description: Review and conduct a comparative
analysis of the provisions of the five Gulf States' coastal zone
management plans and other coastal land management
initiatives that reduce human impacts on living aquatic
resources. Produce a report to transfer the results to all states for
incorporation as appropriate.
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration(coastal
zone management) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 51: Develop standardized criteria across the Gulf States for land
acquisition and land management to reduce negative human impacts on living
aquatic resources.
Project Description: Conduct a workshop with the five Gulf
States and appropriate federal agencies to develop
recommendations for standardized minimum criteria for land
acquisition and land management plans for reducing human
impacts on living aquatic resources.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
Initiation Date: 1994 _........
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
96
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 52: Promote consistent regulations across the five Gulf States to
provide protection from poaching and incidental take of living aquatic resources.
Project Description: Evaluate current regulations at the state
and federal levels that provide protection from poaching and
incidental take of living aquatic resources. Make
recommendations on a Gulfwide approach to this issue.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 53: Establish Gulfwide boater education requirements on the
impacts of boating on living aquatic resources.
Project Description: Establish boater education requirements in
all Gulf States that include the environmental impacts of
boating and the environmental laws that boaters have to obey.
Lead: States in concert with U.S. Coast Guard.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» TOE
Action Item 54: Develop a Gulfwide aquaculture plan.
Project Description A: Review and evaluate baseline data on the
types of activities and locations of facilities for aquaculture in the
Gulf of Mexico region.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Initiation Date: 1995
-*• 21, 37
Project Description B: Identify and evaluate existing plans,
standards, and permitting for aquaculture within the five Gulf
States in order to establish a Gulfwide aquaculture plan.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 21, 37
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
97
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description C: Using the information generated by
Action Item 54 (Projects A &B), establish a task force to produce a
Gulfwide aquaculture plan to address commercial production
and stock enhancement. This plan should include
implementation measures, as well as minimum uniform
standards for aquaculture facilities in the Gulf of Mexico
(territorial and federal) and model legislation to assure the
orderly development of aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, states, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, and National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Initiation Date: 1995
-* 37
Project Description D: Establish Gulfwide aquaculture product
labeling and safety standards. (NOTE: Crosswalk with Public
Health Action Agenda.)
Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, in
concert with U.S. Food & Drug Administration, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, industry, and states.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 37
Action Item SS: Develop fishery management plans for exploited fishery
populations in the Gulf of Mexico-
Project Description A: Develop comprehensive
interjurisdictional fishery management plans (FMP) for
populations affected by fishing activities in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). Plans already completed include: billfish,
coral, mackerel, reef fish, red drum, sharks, shrimp, spiny
lobster, stone crab, and swordfish.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in concert
with National Marine Fisheries Service and Gulf Coast States.
Initiation Date; Ongoing
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
9B
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description B: Develop comprehensive
interjurisdictional fishery management plans (FMP) for
populations affected by fishing activities in Gulf .State territorial
waters. Plans already completed include: blue crab, Spanish
mackerel, menhaden, striped bass, black drum, and oysters.
Lead: Gulf State Marine Fishery Commission in concert with
Gulf Coast States.
initiation Date; Ongoing
Project Description C: Inform Gulf of Mexico user and citizens
groups of the pending need for state and federal regulations to
facilitate the implementation of fishery management plans, and
encourage them to participate in a process of adopting
comparable rules in their respective states.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
Gulf State natural resources agencies.
Initiation pate; Ongoing
Action Item 56: Investigate, develop, and implement alternative fishing gear,
techniques, and methodologies to reduce incidental fishing mortality in the Gulf
of Mexico.
| Project Description A: Investigate and develop alternate fishing
| methodologies, including by-catch reduction devices, to increase
effectiveness and reduce negative impacts on living aquatic
resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with Gulf &
South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, industry,
and Sea Grant.
Initiation Date: 1994
| Project Description B: Implement and expand a "new
technology" transition program for "fishing activities (new gear
technology and other technical advances). Utilizing the present
SeaGrant Cooperative Extension and Advisory Program: 1)
expand coordination with the federal/state lab system and
industrial interests; 2) produce a listing of activities and potential
technology transfer from each institution; and 3) establish
incentives for adoption of new technologies.
Lead: Sea Grant Advisory Programs in concert with
federal/state/academic institutions and industry.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
99
-------
Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 57: Investigate methods to control the introduction of non-
indigenous species from ship ballast waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop alternatives and best management
practices for reducing or ending the introduction of non-
indigenous species from ship ballast waters in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in
concert with Port Authorities, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 2O
Objective: Restore anadromous fish populations that have been impacted by dam
construction, channelization, dredging, and other habitat modifications and protect
the habitats, rivers, and critical areas important to the life histories of these species
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item SB: Implement the anadromous fish strategic plan for the Gulf of
Mexico.
Project Description A: Implement title "Strategic Plan for
Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in the Gulf
of Mexico," with particular emphasis on restoring striped bass in
appropriate Gulf rivers.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Distribute the anadromous fish strategic
plan for the Gulf of Mexico to local state and regional planning
agencies, and hold workshops to promote an understanding and
implementation of the plan.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1OO
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Action Item 59: Develop and implement the "Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan,"
Project Description: Complete and implement the "Gulf
Sturgeon Recovery Plan." Encourage activities that will
contribute to the recovery of the species.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in concert with Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission and National Marine Fisheries
Service.
initiation Date; Ongoing '
Objective: Develop and implement a response strategy for unusual mortality
events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action item 6O: Develop preventive strategies for unusual mortalities in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Evaluate and analyze data to develop
preventive strategies and reoccurrence potential for unusual
mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with National Marine Fisheries Service--
Office of Protected Resources (Mammals), U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service-Regional Offices (Sea Turtles), and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-Center for Marine & Estuarine Disease
Research (Mammals).
Initiation Date: 1994
| Project Description B: Evaluate approaches to assigning
economic cost to past and new unusual mortality events, and
determine the economic loss incurred from unusual mortality
events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Environmental Statistics in concert with National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration-National Ocean Service and
states.
Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1}
1O1
-------
Th» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 61: Establish appropriate guidelines for responding to unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Establish guidelines for the type and level
of response to unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico
(i.e., who responds, appropriate level of response, and timeline
for response).
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 62: Establish response protocols for unusual mortality events in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Establish minimum standards for field
and laboratory procedures in responding to unusual mortality
events in the Gulf of Mexico: sample collection, gross necropsy
and pathology, tissue fixation, histological techniques, and tissue
analyses. Include recommendations for quality assurance (QA)
and chain of custody.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description B: Develop a rapid/sensible response
authorization protocol to qualified cooperators for necropsy,
transport, and disposal of biological samples from unusual
mortality events.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 26 -
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O2
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 63: Develop and conduct response team training for unusual
mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop a training program and response
protocols for scientific personnel who would be responding to
unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico. Conduct a pilot
training session and make recommendations on changes and
the frequency of training classes.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Center for
Marine & Estuarine Disease Research in concert with National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and
states.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 64: Evaluate mechanisms and secure contingency funding for
implementation of scientific response teams for unusual mortality events in the
Gulf of Mexico.
| Project Description: Evaluate mechanisms and secure
I contingency funding for implementation of scientific response
teams for unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program in concert with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Center for Marine &
Estuarine Disease Research, National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» 25
Gtilf of Mexico Living Aquaile Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
103
-------
T/i» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Compliance & Enforcement
The effectiveness of regulatory programs is greatly enhanced by active compliance
monitoring and enforcement programs. Strong permit conditions are only effective
if met by permittees. Enforcement surveillance and resolution of violations are
essential to an effective regulatory program.
Currently many federal and state regulatory programs do not have the number of
field level personnel which are required to achieve effective compliance and
enforcement. Other incentives for compliance should be explored.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Enhance enforcement capabilities to protect living aquatic resources
throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 65: Assess the current status of state and federal compliance and
enforcement programs throughout the Gulf of Mexico to protect living aquatic
resources.
Project Description A: Assess current status of state and federal
compliance and enforcement programs in the Gulf of Mexico for |
fishing.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1994 ,,,,„„
Project Description B: Convene a workshop of federal, state,
and international enforcement officers to identify the adequacy
of enforcement. Review enforcement laws and statutes relevant
to unusual mortality events and determine which are not being
fully enforced. Identify obstacles to enforcement and
recommend possible solutions to ensure that prevention of
unusual mortality events is emphasized in the enforcement of
existing and newly proposed legislation.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Living Aquatic Resources
Committee in concert with U.S. Coast Guard and appropriate
representatives of enforcement components of state and other
federal agencies.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Moxlco Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
104
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter
Project Description C: Coordinate enforcement of fishery
regulations through meetings of the standing law enforcement
committees of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council law enforcement
committees in concert with National Marine Fisheries Service.
initiation Date; Ongoing
Action Item 66: Develop specific mechanisms to enhance enforcement
capabilities throughout the five Gulf of Mexico States.
Project Description A: Enhance the capability to enforce
aquaculture and fisheries regulations in the Gulf of Mexico
States. Develop methodologies to differentiate between
aquaculture and wild-caught products to facilitate enforcement
of pertinent regulations.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission with all
appropriate agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Ensure all regulatory and enforcing
agents throughout the Gulf of Mexico are cross deputized in all
states, to ensure maximum enforcement capabilities.
Lead: National Marine Fisheries Service in concert with states,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard.
initiation Date: 1994
I Project Description C: Standardize data collection and reporting
procedures throughout the Gulf of Mexico for environmental
violations related to living aquatic resources.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Data & Information Transfer
Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Oulf of Mexleo Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O5
-------
Th0 Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Public Education & Outreach
People living in two-thirds of the U.S. ultimately affect the environmental quality
and living aquatic resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, effective conservation
and protection of living aquatic resources requires an ongoing commitment from.an
informed citizenry. Public outreach nurtures such a commitment.
Public information, education, and involvement are three components of an
effective outreach strategy, which can reap significant benefits both for the Gulf of
Mexico and for citizens utilizing its resources. An effective strategy can foster
recognition of me Gulf as a regional and national resource; stimulate civic,
governmental, and private sector support for changing lifestyles; develop the
financial commitments necessary to preserve the resource; and enable all
individuals, whether living on the coast or along the upper stretches of the
Mississippi, to see themselves as caretakers of a vital, shared resource.
Public information needs include the following:
Q Knowledge about impacts of human activities on living aquatic
resources;
Q Risk assessments and communication;
Q Information briefs on priority items/issues;
Q How to use and apply information; and ,y
Q How the governmental process works in relation to "getting things
accomplished."
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O6
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Objective: Promote the coordination and advancement of all relevant Gulfwide
education programs that address any aspect of living aquatic resources.
Action Item 67: Develop an inventory of all Gulf of Mexico education programs
that cover living aquatic resources.
| Project Description: Develop an inventory of Gulf of Mexico
I education programs that concern living aquatic resources,
including the following five areas: 1) ecosystem status and
trends; 2) impacts of fishing; 3) human impacts/interaction; 4)
unusual mortality events; and 5) aquaculture. Publish a listing
of all state, federal, and Gulfwide education programs for
resource agencies and groups to determine gaps in coverage.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations in concert with Gulf Coast State SeaGrant programs,
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 68: Identify resources to implement public education/outreach
strategies and actions for the protection of living aquatic resources in the Gulf of
Mexico.
I Project Description: Identify all potential funding sources,
including government, contract and grant opportunities,
foundations and corporations, and resource sharing that could
fund Gulfwide public education and outreach on the effects of
human interactions on living aquatic resources. Share this
information with all potential implementors.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program in concert with state and federal
funding agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf off Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O7
-------
T/i» Unfinished Agonda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop a public education and awareness program for the general
public and specific user groups regarding human impacts on the living aquatic
resources of the Gulf of Mexico, and promote a conservation ethic.
Action Item 69: Develop an effective educational methodology and strategy for
title general public regarding human impacts on the living aquatic resources of
the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Review existing methodologies and
strategies for reaching the general public, and make
recommendations for educating key groups within the Gulf of
Mexico region regarding human impacts on the living aquatic
resources of the Gulf.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations in concert with state education departments.
Initiation Date: 1994
-+ 70A
Action Item 7O: Develop Gulfwide general and targeted informational
materials about human interactions with living aquatic resources.
Project Description A: Develop and distribute materials and
curricula for Gulf of Mexico educators on the impacts of human
interaction with living aquatic resources (based on the strategy
developed in Action Item 69).
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description B: Develop and distribute materials for
policy-makers in the Gulf of Mexico on the impacts of human
interaction with living aquatic resources.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O8
-------
The Unfinished Agondfa
pf mr
Project Description C: Develop and distribute materials to
speakers bureaus, and develop public service announcements
(PSAs) on the impacts of human interaction with living aquatic
resources.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Project Description D: Develop educational information
directed at tourists and the tourism industry about the
importance of conserving and managing a healthy Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem and the effects of human impacts on living
aquatic resources.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations in concert with National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and states.
Initiation Date: 1995
I Project Description E: Develop and distribute educational
I materials for boaters in the Gulf of Mexico that review the
I impacts boats have on living aquatic resources, including the use
of toxic boat paints and cleaners; the discharge of sewage, oily
water, and trash; propeller-scarring, erosion of shorelines from
boat wakes; anchor damage; etc.
Lead: U.S. Coast Guard in concert with Center for Marine
Conservation, states, and Gulf of Mexico Program-Public
Education & Outreach Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
-» S3
I Project Description F: Develop and distribute materials to
developers, builders, and planners in the Gulf of Mexico on the
importance of barrier islands, protected areas, and beaches to
nesting birds, sea turtles, and other animals, their fluid nature,
and the importance of building inland from these zones to
eliminate the need for coastal armoring.
Lead: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in concert with U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O9
-------
r/t» Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description G: Produce a Gulfwide compendium of
fishing regulations. Support the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission in publishing an annual compendium of fishing
regulations and establish mechanisms to provide current
regulations to citizens in.an effective and timely manner.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and state resource
agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Objective: Develop a Gulfwide public education and awareness program for other
key issues concerning living aquatic resources that are not being effectively
addressed.
Action Item 71: Develop a Gulfwide program to increase public awareness and
understanding of the implications of unusual mortality events and the need for
research.
Project Description: Establish a Gulfwide public awareness
program that: 1) provides education on the ecological
implications of unusual mortality events for all species; 2)
publicizes the potential of unusual mortality events to serve as
an indicator of environmental conditions; 3) publicizes the
economic impact of unusual mortality events; and 4) informs
the public of research needs to address the
occurrence/prevention of unusual mortality events.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
1O
-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter
Objective: Involve an informed public constituency in the support and
maintenance of "healthy" Gulf of Mexico ecosystems.
Action Item 72: Facilitate a Gulfwide understanding of the relationship of a
"healthy" functioning ecosystem to a "healthy" economy.
I Project Description: Develop materials and programs to educate
I the Gulfwide public, industry, and government about the
relationship of a "healthy" ecosystem to a "healthy" economy.
Promote the concept that a healthy Gulf ecosystem is an
international, national, and regional asset.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations in concert with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. !
Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife I
Service. j
Initiation Date: 1995 !
Action item 73: Build a corps of informed citizens throughout the Gulf of
Mexico to aid in the dissemination of information on the importance of living
aquatic resources. .
Project Description: Establish Gulfwide networks for educators,
students, conservation and environmental groups, or other
organizations to assist in educating the public. Convene periodic
workshops for public media workers (outdoor writers,
environmental reporters, travel writers).
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education & Outreach
Operations in concert with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration-Sea Grant and National Marine Fisheries
Service,. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Center for Marine !
Conservation. I
Initiation Date: 1994 !
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
111
-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 74: Develop a Gulfwide program to increase public reporting of
unusual mortality events.
Project Description: Evaluate reporting mechanisms for
unusual mortality events in the Gulf of Mexico. Implement the
most efficient and appropriate programs that: 1) contain broad
distribution of reporting procedures and forms and 2) involve
follow-up, with status reports back to citizens.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Gulf of Mexico
Program in concert with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and coastal states.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action Item 75: Develop a program to involve the public and private industry
in promoting safe aquaculture practices in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop and disseminate informational
and instructional materials on safe aquaculture practices to
aquaculturists, students and the public in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission in concert with
state Sea Grant agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
112
-------
In Closing
In Closing...
We intend this document to be a beginning, not an end.
Our hope is that this Action Agenda will serve as an
inspiration and a call to action for the millions who live
and work in the Gulf of Mexico region. Together, our
coordinated actions can make a difference in conserving
and restoring the living aquatic resources of the Gulf of
Mexico.
The Gulf of Mexico Program
Living Aquatic Resources Committee
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
113
-------
Bibliography
Ackerman, B.B. 1992. Personal communication. February 1992 manatee count.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Institute. St.
Petersburg, FL.
Angelovic, J.W. 1989. Written communication. Condition of the fisheries. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Center. Internal Memorandum. St. Petersburg, FL.
Associated Press. 1993. "Aquaculture making big splash in Florida." The News
Herald. Tuesday, February 23,1993.
Barros, N.B., D.K. Odell and G.W. Patton. 1989. "Ingestion of Plastic Debris by
Stranded Marine Mammals from Florida." In: Proceedings From The Second
International Congress on Marine Debris. Honolulu, HE. April 1989.
Beeler, E.E. and T.J. O'Shea. 1988. Distribution and Mortality of the West Indian
Manatee (Trichechus manatus) in the Southeastern United States: A
Compilation and Review of Recent Information. Volume 2: The Gulf of
Mexico Coast. National Geology Research Center Report No. 88-09.
Bellrose, F.C. 1968. Waterfowl Migration Corridors East of the Rocky Mountains in
the United States. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes No. 61.
State of Illinois Department of Registration and Education Natural History
Survey Division.
Bortone, S.A. and J.L. Williams. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South
Florida)~Gray, Lane, Mutton, and Yellowtail Snappers. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(11.52). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-
4.
Bright, T.J. and E.G. Jaap. 1976. Ecology and Management of Coral Reefs and Organic
Banks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Institute of
Biological Sciences in New Orleans, LA, June 1,1976.
Brooks, J.M., H.B. Cox, W.R. Bryant, M.C. Kennicutt H, R.G. Mann and T.J.
McDonald. 1986. "Association of Gas Hydrates and Oil Seepage in the Gulf of
Mexico." Organic Geochemistry.
Brooks, J.M., M.C. Kennicutt H, I.R. MacDonald, D.L. Wilkinson, N.L. Guinasso Jr.
and R.R. Bidigare. 1989. Gulf of Mexico Hydrocarbon Seep Communities:
Part IV—Descriptions of Known Chemosynthetic Communities. Offshore
Technology Conference, May 1-4,1989, Houston, TX.
Buff, V. and S. Turner. "The Gulf Initiative." Coastal Zone. 1987.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
114
-------
Bibliography
Bunkley-Williams, L. and E.H. Williams, Jr. 1990. "Global Assault on Coral Reefs "
Natural History. April 1990. Published by the American Museum of Natural
History. New York, NY.
Burrell, V.G., Jr. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic-American
Oyster. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(11.57). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
Byles, R.A. 1989. "Satellite Telemetry of Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys
tempi, in the Gulf of Mexico." In: Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert and T.H.
Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea
Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SERC-232.
Byrd, M.A. 1978. "Dispersal and Movements of Six North American Ciconiiforms "
In: Sprunt A., IV, J.C. Ogden and S. Winckler (eds). Wading Birds. National
Audubon Society. New York, NY.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1989. "Pygmy Sperm Whale - Kogia breviceps"
(de Blainville, 1838): "Dwarf Sperm Whale - Kogia simus" (Owen, 1866). In:
Ridgway, S.H. and R, Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3:
The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Center for Environmental Education. 1987. COASTWEEKS. The Entanglement
Network Newsletter. No. 2, November 1987.
Christmas, J.Y., J.T. McBee, R.S. Waller and F.C. Sutter HI. 1982. Habitat Suitability
Index Models: Gulf Menhaden. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish &
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.23.
Christmas, J.Y., D.J. Etzold, L.B. Simpson and S. Meyers. 1988. The Menhaden
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States: A Regional Management Plan.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Ocean Springs, MS.
Clagett, J. 1990. Written communication. 1989 fishing license computer data. Texas
Parks & Wildife, Coastal Fisheries Division.
Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs and W.A. Hoffman. 1982a. Marine Birds
of the Southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Volume I.
Gaviiformes. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services
FWS/OBS-82/01. ....'-'
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
115
-------
Bibliography
Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs and W.A. Hoffman. 1982b. Marine Birds
of the Southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Volume II.
Gaviiformes. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services.
FWS/OBS-82/01.
Collard, S.B. and L.H. Ogren. 1989. "Dispersal Scenarios for Pelagic Post-Hatchling
Sea Turtles." Bulletin of Marine Science.
Conley, W.J. and B. Hoffman. 1987. "Nesting Activity of Sea Turtles in Florida,
1979-1985." Florida Sci. 50(4).
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1990. Synthesis of Available Biological,
Geological, Chemical, Socioeconomic, and Cultural Resource Information for
the South Florida Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region. DCS Study/MMS 90-0019.
Corliss, J.B., J. Dymond, L.L Gordon, J.M. Edmond, R.P. von Herzen, R.K. Ballard, K.
Green, D. Williams, A. Baingridge, K. Crane and T.H. van Andel. 1979.
"Submarine Thermal Springs on the Galapagos Rift." Science.
Coston-Clements, L. and D.E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsis of Data on the Impact of Habitat
Alteration on Sea Turtles Around the Southeastern United States. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFA-SEFC 117. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Grouse, D.T., M. Donnelly, M.J. Bean, A. Clark, W.R. Irvin and C.E. Williams. 1992.
The TED Experience: Claims and Reality. A report by Center for Marine
Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, and National Wildlife
Federation. April 1992.
Cummings, W.C. 1985. "Bryde's Whale - Balaenoptera edeni." In: Ridgway, S.H.
and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians
and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Darnell, R.M. 1988. "Marine Biology." In: Phillips, N.W. and B.M. James (eds)
Offshore Texas and Louisiana Marine Ecosystems Data Synthesis. Volume H.
Draft final report to the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30380.
Darnell, R.M. 1992. "Biology of the Estuaries and Inner Continental Shelf of the
Northern Gulf of Mexico." In: The Environmental and Economic Status of
the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings from the Gulf of Mexico Symposium,
December 2-5,1990, New Orleans, LA.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
116
-------
Bibliography
Darnell, R.M. and J.A. Kleypas. 1987. Eastern Gulf Shelf Bio-Atlas: A Study of the
Distribution of Demersal Fishes and Penaeid Shrimp of Soft Bottoms of the
Continental Shelf From the Mississippi River Delta to the Florida Devs OCS
Study MMS 86-0041. y '
Darnell, R.M. and T.M. Soniat. 1979. "The Estuary /Continental Shelf as an
Interactive System." In: Livingston, R.J. (ed). Ecological Processes in Coastal
and Marine Systems. Plenum Press.
Darnell, R.M., R.E. Defenbaugh and D. Moore. 1983. Atlas of Biological Resources of
the Continental Shelf, NW Gulf of Mexico. BLM Open File Report No. 82-04.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. New Orleans^
Davis, G.E. 1977. "Anchor Damage to a Coral Reef on the Coast of Florida." Biol.
Conserv. Vol. 11.
Defenbaugh, R.E. 1976. A Study of the Benthic Macroinvertebrates of the
Continental Shelf of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Texas A&M University. College Station, TX.
Dunbar, J.B., L.D. Britsch and E.B. Kemp HI. 1992. Land Loss Rate: Report 3,
Louisiana Coastal Plain. UASCE Technical Report. GL-90-2. Department of
the Army-WES-CE. Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Fisheries News Bulletin. 1989a. Reduction of Open Area of Tortugas
Shrimp Sanctuary. National Marine Fisheries Service. St. Petersburg FL
August 89-25.
Federal Fisheries News Bulletin. 1989b. Sharks to Come Under Management in
U.S. Atlantic Ocean Waters. National Marine Fisheries Service. St.
Petersburg, FL. August 89-32.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1992. "Seagrass Beds: Nursery
For Coastal Species." In: R.H. Stroud (ed). Stemming The Tide of Coastal
Fish Habitat Loss. Proceedings of A Symposium on Conservation of Coastal
Fish Habitat, Baltimore, MD, March 7-9, 1991. Published by the National
Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. Savannah, GA.
Foster, A.M., L.A. Patrick and J.M. Barkuloo. 1988. Striped Bass and Sturgeon Egg
and Larva Studies on the Apalachicola River. 1987 Progress Report. U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service. Panama City, FL.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
117
-------
Bibliography
Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman and M.S.
McGehee. 1983. Turtles, Birds and Mammals in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
and Nearby Atlantic Waters. FWS/OBS-82/65. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Office of Biological Services. Washington, DC.
Gambell, R. 1985a. "Fin Whale - Balaenoptera physalus." In: Ridgway, S.H. and R.
Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians and
Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Gambell, R. 1985b. "Sei Whale - Balaenoptera borealis." In: Ridgway, S.H. and R.
Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians and
Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Gaston, G.R. 1990. "Shrimping and Bycatch-The Problem is in the Trawl." Water
Log. Mississippi-Alabama SeaGrant Legal Program. Vol. 10, No. 4.
Ginsburg, R.N. and N.P. James. 1974. "Holocene Carbonate Sediments of
Continental Shelves." In: Geology of Continental Margins. C.A. Burk and
C.L. Drake (eds.). Springer-Verlag. New York, NY.
Godcharles, M.F. and M.D. Murphy. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South
Florida)-King Mackerel and Spanish Mackerel. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(11.58). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
Grimes, C. 1988. "Aggregation of Icthyoplankton About the Mississippi River
Plume Front: Potential Importance of the Plume to Recruitment." In:
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer
Meeting. Sponsored by Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region. October 25-27,1988. OCS Study MMS 89-0060. New Orleans, LA.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1990. Public Hearing Comments on
the Proposed Amendment to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Management Plan.
New Orleans, LA.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 1988. Thirty-Eighth Annual
Report (1986-1987) to the Congress of the United States and to the Governors
and Legislators of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Ocean
Springs, MS.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 1991. A Strategic Plan for
Restoration and Management of Gulf of Mexico Anadromous Fisheries.
Ocean Stprings, MS.
Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds: An Identification Guide. Houghton Mifflin Co.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
118
-------
Bibliography
Hayman, P., J. Marchant and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: An Identification Guide to
the Waders of the World. Houghton Mifflin Co.
Heneman, B. 1988. Persistent Marine Debris in the North Sea, Northwest Atlantic
Ocean, Wider Caribbean Area, and the West Coast of Baja California. Center
for Environmental Education. Washington, DC.
Henwood, T.A. and W.E. Stunz. 1987. "Analysis of Sea Turtle Capture and
Mortalities During Commercial Shrimp Trawling," Fish Bulletin. Vol. 85,
No. 4.
Heynig, J.E. 1989. "Cuvier's Beaked Whale - Ziphius cavirostris" (G. Cuvier, 1823).
In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals.
Vol 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. "A Historical Review of the Status of Sea Turtle
Populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico." In: Bjorndal, K.A. (ed). Biology
and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proceedings of the World Conference on
Sea Turtle Conservation. Novermber 26-30, 1979. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, DC.
Hoese, H.D. .and R.H. Moore. 1977. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana,
and Adjacent Waters. Texas A&M University Press. College Stations, TX.
Huff, J.A. 1975. "Life History of the Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrhynchus desotoi, in Suwannee River, Florida." Marine Resources.
Publication No. 16.
Hunt, G.L., Jr. and D.C. Schneider. 1987. "Scale-Dependent Processes in the Physical
and Biological Environment of Marine Birds." In: Croxall, J.P. (ed). Seabirds:
Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press.
Iverson, R.L. and H.F. Bittaker. 1986. "Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in
Eastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal Waters." Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci 22-577-
602. '
Jaap, B.C. 1984. The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs: A Community
Profile. FWS/OBS-82/08. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services. Washington, DC.
Jaap, E.G. and P. Hallock. 1990. "Reef Ecosystems." In: Meyers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel
(eds). Ecosystems in Florida. University Central Florida Press. Orlando, FL.
Johannes, R.E. 1975. "Pollution and Degradation of Coral Reef Communities." In:
R.E. Johannes and E.J. Ferguson Wood (eds). Tropical Marine Pollution.
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
119
-------
Bibliography
Karter. S., R.A. Milne, and M. Sainsbury. 1973. "Polystyrene Waste in the Severn
Estuary." Marine Pollution Bulletin IV.
Kennicutt, M.C. H and B. Gallaway. 1985. Recent Discoveries of Deep Water
Communities in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Abstract of presentation
of contract No. 30212 at Minerals Management Service's Information
Transfer Meeting in New Orleans, LA, October 22-24,1985.
Kilgen, R.H. and R.J. Dugas. 1989. The Ecology of Oyster Reefs of the Northern Gulf
of Mexico: An Open File Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National
Wetlands Research Center. NWRC-open file report 89-02. Slidell, LA.
King, W.B. 1984. "Incidental Mortality of Seabirds in Gillnets in the North Pacific."
In: J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans and R.W. Schreiber (eds). Status and
Conservation of the World's Seabirds. International Council for Bird
Preservation. ICBP Technical Publication No. 2.
Kushlan, J.A. 1978. "Feeding Ecology of Wading Birds." In: Sprunt, A., J.C. Odgen
and S. Winckler (eds). Wading Birds. Research Report No. 7 of the National
Audubon Society.
Lampton, B. 1991. "Farming for Fishes." Florida Sportsman. Vol. 23, No. 4. April
1991.
Lazauski, H.G. 1990. Written communication. 1989 fishing license computer data.
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resource, Marine
Resources Division.
Leatherwood, S. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and
Dolphins. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco, CA.
LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University. 1986. Gulf of
Mexico Continental Slope Study, Annual Report: Year 2. Prepared for the
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS
Study/MMS 86-0089,86-0090, and 86-0091.
Lintin, T.L. 1988. "Socioeconomics." In: Phillips, N.W. and B.M. James (eds).
Offshore Texas and Louisiana Marine Ecosystems Data Synthesis. Final report
to the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Contract
No. 14-12-0001-30380. Vol. H and m.
Lowe, J.A., D.R.G. Farrow, A.S. Pait, S.J. Arenstam and E.F. Lavan. 1991. Fish Kills
in Coastal Waters, 1980-1989. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Strategic
Environmental Assessments Division. September 1991.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
12O
-------
Bibliography
Ludwick, J.C. and W.R. Walton. 1957. "Shelf-Edge, Calcareous Prominences in the
Northwestern Gulf of Mexico." In: Bulletin of the Amercian Association of
Petroleum Geologists. September 1957.
Madge, S. and H. Burn. 1988. Waterfowl: An Identification Guide to the Ducks,
Geese, and Swans of the World. Houghton Mifflin Co.
Mager, A. and R. Ruebsamen. 1988. "National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat
Conservation Efforts in the Coastal Southeastern United States." Marine
Fisheries Review. 50(3).
Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Granham, D.W. Owens, C.H.
Peterson, P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul and C.W. West. 1990.
Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Research
Council. National Academy of Sciences Press. Washington, DC.
Manker, J.P. 1975. Distribution and Concentration of Mercury, Lead, Cobalt, Zinc,
and Chromium in Suspended Particles and Bottom Sediments - Upper
Florida Keys, Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay. Ph.D. Thesis. Rice University.
Houston, TX.
Martin, RP. 1990. Written communication. 1990 survey of brown pelican
rookeries along coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Heritage. Unpublished
data.
McDowell, R.M. 1988. Diadromy in Fishes Migrations Between Freshwater and
Marine Environments. Truder Press and Croom Helm.
Mead, J.G. 1977. "Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales From the Atlantic Coast of the
United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean." In: Report of the
Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Sei and Bryde's Whales.
Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special Issue I), Internatinal Whaling Commission.
Cambridge, UK.
Mead, J.G. 1989. "Beaked Whales of the Genus - Mesoplodon." In: Ridgway, S.H.
and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians
and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Miller, W.G. 1992. "An Investigation of Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus
Deaths in East Matagorda Bay, Texas, January 1990." Fishery Bulletin. 90(4).
Moore, J.C. and E. Clark. 1963. "Discovery of Right Whales in the Gulf of Mexico."
Science 141:269.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
121
-------
Bibliography
Mullin, K, W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers and B. Taggart. 1991.
Cetaceans on the Upper Continental Slope in the North-Central Gulf of
Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region. New Orleans, LA.
Muncy, RJ. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements
of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic)~White Shrimp. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlfie Service (FWS/OBS-82/11.27) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Ecology Group, Waterways Experiment
Station (TR EL-82-4).
Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins-Murphy. 1989. Sea Turtle and Shrimp Fishing
Interactions: A Summary and Critique of Relevant Information. Center for
Marine Conservation. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1985. Oil in the Sea: Input, Fates, and Effects. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1990. The Decline of Sea Turtles: Causes and
Prevention. Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. National Academy
Press. Washington, DC.
Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life History and Environmental Requirements of Loggerhead
Turtles. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88(23) TREL-86-2
(rev).
Nelson, D.A. and D.W. Ahrenholz. 1986. "Population and Fishery Characteristics of
Gulf Menhaden, Brevoortia patronus." Fishery Bulletin. 84(2).
Nicholls, J. 1990. Personal communication. Meeting regarding threatened and
endangered species on the Chandeleur and Breton Islands, LA. August 30,
1990. Slidell,LA.
Nicholson, L. (ed). 1986. Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan (Gulf of Mexico).
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Ocean Springs, MS.
NMFS Miami & Charleston Laboratories. 1993. "The 1992 Texas Mortality Event
and NMFS Investigation." Strandings. Newsletter of the Southeast Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. Vol. 1, No. 2. Winter 1993.
Odenkirk, J., F.M. Parauka and P.A. Moon. 1985. "Radio Tracking and Spawning
Observations of the Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon." U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Panama City, FL. Unpublished manuscript.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
122
-------
Bibliography
Ogden, J.C. 1978. "Recent Population Trends of Colonial Wading Brids on the
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains." In: Sprunt Av TV, J.C. Ogden and S.
Winckler (eds). Wading Birds. National Audubon Society. New York, NY.
Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart and R.
Witham (compilers), 1989. Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic
Turtle Symposium, October 12-16, 1987, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SEFC-226. Panama City, FL.
Osburn, H.R., M.F. Osborn, and H.R. Maddux. 1988. Trends in Finfish Landings by
Sport-Boat Fishermen in Texas Marine Waters, May 1974-May 1987. Texas
Parks & Wildlife Department. Austin, TX.
Parrish, G. 1990. "Stranded Dolphins Puzzle Scientists." Texas Shores. Vol. 23, No.
1. Spring 1990.
Pequegnat, W.E. 1983. The Ecological Communities of the Continental Slope and
Adjacent Regimes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Final .report to MMS.
Ferret, W.S., J.E. Weaver, R.O. Williams, P.L. Johansen, T.D. McHwain, R.C.
Raulerson, and W.M. Tatum. 1980. Fishery Profiles of Red Drum and
Spotted Seatrout. April 1980, No. 6. Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
Portnoy, J.W. 1977. Nesting Colonies of Seabirds and Wading Birds, Coastal
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. FWS/OBS-77/07. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services. Washington, DC.
Possardt, E. 1988. "Sea Turtle Conservation in the Southeastern Continental United
States." Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. Vol. 13, No. 8. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
Prunier, K.T. .1992. "A Brief History of the SE Marine Mammal Stranding
Network." Strandings. Newsletter of the Southeast Marine Mammal
Stranding Network. Vol. 1, No. 1. Spring 1992.
Quinn, T. 1990. Written communication. 1989 fishing license computer data.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, Bureau of Marine
Resources.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, W.J. Wiseman, Jr. and D.F. Boesch. 1991. "A Brief
Summary of Hypoxia on the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf:
1985-1988." Pages 35-47 In R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson (eds.), Modern and
Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia. Geological Society Special Publication No.
58. The Geological Society. London.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
123
-------
Bibliography
Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1981. Northern Gulf of Mexico Topographic Features
Study. Final report to the BLM, contract No. AA551-CT8-35. Texas A&M
Research Foundation and Texas A&M University, Department of
Oceanography. College Station, TX.
Rezak, R., T.J. Bright and D.W. McGrail. 1983. Reefs and Banks of the Northwestern
Gulf of Mexico: Their Geological, Biological, and Physical Dynamics. Final
Technical Report No. 83-1-T.
Rice, D.W. 1989. "Sperm Whale - Physeter macrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758)." In:
Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol 4:
River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Ruckdeschel, C. and C.R. Shoop. 1988. "Gut Contents of Loggerheads: Findings,
Problems and New Questions." In: B.A. Schroeder (compiler). Proceedings,
Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. Southeast Fisheries Science
Center. Miami, FL.
Ryder, R.R. 1978. "Breeding Distribution, Movements, and Mortality of Snowy
Egrets in North America." M: Sprunt A., IV, J.C. Ogden and S. Winckler
(eds). Wading Birds. National Audubon Society. New York, NY.
Schmidly, D.J. 1981. Marine Mammals of the Southeastern United States Coast and
the Gulf of Mexico. FWS/OBS-80/41. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services. Washington, DC.
Schmied, R.L. 1993. "The Use of Angler Ethics Education to Support Marine
Fisheries Management." Trends. Vol. 30, No. 2. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, National Recreation & Park Association.
Washington, DC.
Schmied, R.L. and E.D. Burgess. 1987. "Marine Recreational Fisheries in the
Southeastern United States: An Overview." Marine Fisheries Review.
49(2).
Schroeder, B.A. and C.A. Maley. 1989. "1988 Fall/Winter Strandings of Marine
Turtles Along the Northeast Florida and Geogia Coasts." In: S.A. Eckert, K.L.
Eckert and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings, Eighth Annual
Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Miami,
FL.
Seidel, W.R. and J.W. Watson. 1990. "Shrimp Trawl Bycatch Reduction." In:
Proceedings of the Third Annual MARFIN Conference. October 31-
November 1,1990. Orlando, FL.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
124
-------
Bibliography
Sharkey, J. 1990. Written communication. 1989 fishing license computer data.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Seafood Division.
Shaw, R.R, J.H. Cowan, Jr. and T.L. Tillman. 1985. "Distribution and Density of
Brevoortia patronus (Gulf Menhaden) Eggs and Larvae in the Continental
Shelf Waters of Western Louisiana." Bulletin of Marine Science. (36(1).
Shinn, E.A. 1989. "What is Really Killing the Corals?" Sea Frontiers. Publication
of the Internatinal Oceanographic Foundation/University of Miami. Vol. 35,
No. 2. March-April 1989.
State of Florida Marine Fisheries Commission. 1988. Written communications.
Various biological reports prepared for the commission meetings as
information background.
Steele, P. and H.M. Perry (eds). 1990. The Blue Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
United States: A Regional Management Plan. Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Ocean Springs, MS.
Stewart, B.S. and S. Leatherwood. 1985. "Minke Whale - Balaenoptera
acutorostrata." In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine
Mammals, Vol 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Sutter, F.C. and T.D. Mcllwain. 1987. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of
Mexico)—Sand Seatrout and Silver Seatrout. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(11.72). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. 1989. Written communication. Texas Colonial
Waterbird Census Summary - 1988. Nongame and Endangered Species
Program Wildlife Division, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. 7-N-570-
02/13/89.
Thayer, G.W. and J.F. Ustach. 1981. "Gulf of Mexico Wetlands: Value, State of
Knowledge and Research Needs." In: Proceedings of a Symposium on
Environmental Research Needs in the Gulf of Mexico. Key Biscayne, FL.
May, 1981. NOAA. Washington, D.C.
Thayer, G.W., D.A. Wolfe and R.B. Williams. 1975. "The Impact of Man on
Seagrass Systems." American Scientist. Vol. 63.
Thompson, N.B. 1988. "The Status of Loggerhead, Caretta caretta; Kemp's Ridley,
Lepidochelys kempi; and Green, Chelonia mydas Sea Turtles in U.S. Waters."
Marine Fisheries Review. 50(3).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
125
-------
Bibliography
Turner, R.E. and M.S. Brody. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Northern Gulf
of Mexico Brown Shrimp and White Shrimp. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/10.54. Washington, DC.
Turner, R.E. and D.R. Cahoon. 1987. Causes of Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central
Gulf of Mexico. Prepared under MMS Contract 14-12-0001-30252. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 87-0119,87-0120, and 87-0121. New Orleans,
LA.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1986. Marine Environmental Assessment:
Mexico 1985 Annual Summary. National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration. Washington, DC.
Gulf of
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1988. Fisheries of the United States, 1987. Current
Fisheries Statistics No. 8700. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989. Fisheries of the United States, 1988. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 8800. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. National Ocean Service. A Special Earthweek Report: 50
Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960-2010. April 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990b. National Oceanic- and Atmospheric
Administration. National Ocean Service. Estuaries of the United States:
Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. October 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991 a. Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 9000. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991b. Fishing Trends & Conditions in the
Southeast Region, 1990. Newlin, K. (ed). National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center. Miami, FL.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992a. Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of
U.S. Living Marine Resources, 1992. National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS-F/SPO-2.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992b. Status of Fishery Resources off the
Southestern United States for 1991. NO A A Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFSC-306.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
126
-------
Bibliography
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992c. Fisheries of the United States. National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Current Fishery Statistics No. 9100. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs:
A Community Profile. Fish & Wildlife Service/Minerals Management
Service. FWS/OBS-82/08. MMS 84-0038.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Choctawhatchee,
Perdido Key and Alabama Beach Mouse. Fish & Wildlife Service. Atlanta,
GA.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988a. Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains
Piping Plover Recovery Plan. Fish & Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, MN.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988b. Fisheries Activities, Fish & Wildlife Service
Field Office, Panama City, Florida. Unpublished Annual Report for 1987.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. Annual narrative report. Fish & Wildlife
Service. San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge. Angelton, TX.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Gulf of Mexico Sales 131,135, and 137:
Central, Western, and Eastern Planning Areas—Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Volumes I and H Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region. New Orleans, LA.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Gulf of Mexico Sales 142.and 143: Central
and Western Planning Areas-Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Volumes I and H. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region, in cooperation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New
Orleans, LA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Our National Gulf Treasure: Fact
Sheet. GMP-FS-001. Gulf of Mexico Program Office. John C. Stennis Space
Center, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Report to Congress on Plastics.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Gulf Facts. Gulf of Mexico Program.
John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
127
-------
Bibliography
Vaughan, D.S., J.V. Merriner and J.W. Smith. 1988. "The U.S. Menhaden Fishery:
Current Status and Utilization." In: N. Davis (ed). Fatty Fish Utilization:
Upgrading From Feed to Food. University of North Carolina, Sea Grant
Publication. Raleigh, NC.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1976. "Right Whale Feeding and Baleen Rattle."
Jour. Mammalogy 57(1).
Wilson, C. 1989. (Associated Press). "Groundings, boater, disease attack coral." The
News Herald. Sunday, Nov. 12,1989. Panama City, FL.
Winn, H.E. and N.E. Reichley. 1985. "Humpback Whale - Megaptera
novaeangliae." In: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of
Marine Mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians and Baloen Whales. Academic
Press, Inc.
Wooley, CM., P.A. Moon and E.J. Crateau. 1982. "A Larval Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) from the Apalachicola River, Florida."
Northeast Gulf Science. 5(2).
Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. "Movement, Microhabitat, Exploitation and
Management of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida."
North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
Yochem, P.K and S. Leatherwood. 1985. "Blue Whale - Balaenoptera musculus."
In; Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison (eds). Handbook of Marine Mammals.
Vol 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, Inc.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
128
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appondllx A
FEDERAL LEVEL
U.S. Dopartmant of Commerce (USDOC)
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division. NOAA's Strategic
Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division develops comprehensive
information about environmental quality as it relates to estuarine and oceanic
resources. These data are used for national and regional assessments to develop
practical strategies to balance conservation requirements and use demands.
• Coastal oeean Program (COP). The Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is a cross-
cutting NOAA effort to provide the highest quality science delivered in time for
important coastal policy decisions. COP activities are organized around four
goals. These address the major coastal ocean issues of Environmental Quality,
Fisheries Productivity, and Coastal Hazards; the fourth, Information Delivery,
operates at the science-policy interface.
• Habitat Strategic Plan. NOAA has recently developed the Habitat Strategic Plan,
the agency's long-range strategy for coordinated and concerted action to address
the deterioration of the nation's coastal, estuarine, and riverine habitats and
populations of living marine resources dependent upon such habitats. NOAA's
legislative responsibilities and capabilities in habitat protection, wetlands
ecology, resource conservation, toxicology, ocean system dynamics, fishery
management, biological processes, and coastal habitat management provide a
solid foundation for addressing these issues through an inter-disciplinary
approach. NOAA has invested over $100 million per year in programs and
activities that focus on habitat-related problems and issues along the nation's
coasts and throughout its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including its
protectorates and trust territories in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.
The NOAA Habitat Strategic Plan provides detailed, agency-wide guidance for
addressing the priority issues affecting habitat important to living marine
resources throughout the nation's coastal waters. This document complements
"NOAA's Investment in Coastal Environmental Quality," which is being
published separately, but focuses specifically on living marine resources' habitats.
NOAA's role in this effort is: 1) to develop the scientific understanding of how
human activities affect natural ecosystem functioning, and 2) assess and predict
the effects of specific land and water development proposals on coastal
environments and their living marine resources. NOAA's goal for habitat
protection is to "protect, conserve, and restore the quantity and quality of habitats
of living marine resources to maintain populations of commercial, recreational,
and ecologically important species at optimal sustainable levels."
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
129
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
National Ocean Service (NOS). The National Marine Sanctuary and National
Estuarine Research Reserve programs are administered by the Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, National Ocean Service, NOAA. Marine sanctuaries and
estuarine research reserves are designed and managed to meet the following
goals: 1) enhance resource protection through the implementation of a
comprehensive, long-term management plan tailored to specific resources;
2) promote and coordinate research to expand scientific knowledge of significant
marine resources and improve management decision-making; 3) enhance public
awareness, understanding, and wise use of the marine environment through
public interpretive and recreational programs; and 4) provide for optimum
compatible public and private use of special marine areas.
National Estuarine Reseamh Reserve Program. The National Estuarine Research
Reserve Program was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
and is administered by the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, National Ocean
Service, NOAA. Three estuarine research reserves have been established in the
Gulf of Mexico: Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and
Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve in Florida, and Weeks Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve in Alabama.
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, at more than 3,440 hectares (8,500
acres), preserves a large mangrove-filled bay and two creeks, along with their
drainage corridors. Management of the sanctuary is performed by the Florida
Department of Natural Resources, The Conservancy, and the National Audubon
Society. This unique management structure was created when the two private
organizations granted a dollar-per-year, 99 year lease of the land to the State of
Florida. Federal and state funds will add additional key acreage to the existing
core area. The diversity of the area's fauna can be recognized by the porpoises
that feed there and the bald eagles and whitetail deer that make Rookery Bay
their permanent residence.
At more than 76,890 hectares (190,000 acres), the Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve is one of the largest remaining naturally functioning ecosystems
in the nation, and it is also the first sanctuary on the mouth of a major navigable
river. The major business activity of Apalachicola, which is adjacent to the
sanctuary, centers around the oyster industry, and it is expected that the
sanctuary will benefit this and other fishing industries by protecting the
environment and by providing research information that will help assure the
continued productivity of the bay/river ecosystem. A USFWS refuge and a state
park, which represent a unique cooperative effort at ecosystem protection, exist
within the boundaries of the reserve.
Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve constitutes a small estuary of
approximately 1,225 hectares (3,028 acres), comprising open shallow waters with
an average depth of less than 1.5 m (5 ft) and extensive vegetated wetland areas.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
13O
-------
Federal & State Fram&work
Appendix A
It receives waters from the spring-fed Fish and Magnolia Rivers and connects
through a narrow opening with Mobile Bay, the principal element of coastal
Alabama.
Marine Protection. Research & Sanctuaries Act
of
xhe National Marine
Sanctuary Program was established by the Marine Protection, Research &
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (Title HI), and is administered by the
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, National Ocean Service, NOAA. MPRSA
provides for the establishment of marine sanctuaries and may include the
regulation of the fishery resource within them. Only sites with special national
. significance are selected for marine sanctuary status. Sites selected for
consideration are evaluated on the merits of resource and human-use values
and on the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status.
The Flower Garden Banks were designated a marine sanctuary in December 1991.
This site, located 177 km (110 mi) offshore, represents the northern-most coral
reef community in the western Gulf of Mexico. The borders of the sanctuary
encompass a total of 114 km2 (44 mi2). The area is a valuable representation of a
tropical coral reef community dominated by hermatypic coral and associated reef
fishes and invertebrates. The U.S. Department of the Interior has protected the
biological resources of the Banks from possible damage due to oil and gas
exploration and development activities by the establishment of a "No Activity
Zone" and by operational restrictions. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, in its proposed FMP for corals, has designated the area'within the 50
fathom [91.4 m (300 ft)] isobath at the Banks as a Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC).
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are: "spectacular, unique, and nationally
significant marine environments, including seagrass meadows, mangrove
islands, and extensive living coral reef...These marine environments support
rich biological communities possessing extensive conservation, recreational,
commercial, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values
which give this area special national significance... These environments-support
high levels of biological diversity, are fragile and easily susceptible to damage
from human activities and possess high value to human beings if properly
conserved...(and) are subject to damage and loss of their ecological integrity from
a variety of sources of disturbance—Action is necessary... requiring promulgation
of a management plan and regulations to protect sanctuary resources" (H.R.
5909). The area of the Sanctuary includes essentially all submerged lands and
waters, including living marine and other resources, from the mean high-water
mark of the Keys out to the 91.4 m (300 ft) isobath, excluding Fort Jefferson
National Monument.
National Staf us & Trends Program (NS&T). This program documents the
current status and long-term trends in the quality of estuaries and coastal waters.
It provides data on concentrations of pollutants in finfish, shellfish, and
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
131
-------
Federal & Stato Framework
Appendix A
sediments and measures the effects of environmental degradation by toxic
chemicals in finfish, shellfish, and sediments. It also measures biological
parameters that reflect stress associated with human-induced perturbations,
assesses marine environmental quality, and recommends federal responses.
Under this program, NOAA conducts sampling throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program (NSTMWP). TheMussel
Watch Program has consisted of sampling and analyzing bivalves from U.S.
coastal areas since 1986. Sampling sites include coverage of the Gulf Coast from
southernmost Texas to southernmost Florida.
Benthlo Surveillance Program (BSP). The Benthic Surveillance Program collects
samples of sediment, bottom-dwelling mollusks, and bottom-feeding fish from
numerous sites throughout the country. Samples are analyzed for substances
such as toxic metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated organic
chemicals.
National Shellfish Register (NSR). NSR contains information on shellfish
contamination incidents and provides important indicators of the extent to
which shellfish in U.S. waters are contaminated. NSR uses a classification
system based on concentrations of coliform bacteria and natural marine
biotoxins. Productive shellfish waters can be classified as approved, prohibited,
conditionally approved, or restricted. NSR provides limited information on the
current status of shellfishing areas and still less on past trends, in part because
the classification scheme is not used consistently by the states. NSR has been
issued periodically since 1966 and was last published in 1985.
Coastal Zone Act Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The Coastal Zone
Management Act was enacted by Congress in 1972 to improve the nation's
management of coastal resources, which were being irretrievably damaged or lost
due to poorly planned development. Specific concerns were the loss of living
marine resources and wildlife habitat, decreasing open space for public use, and
shoreline erosion. Congress also recognized the need to resolve the conflicts
between various uses that were competing for coastal lands and waters. The
basic goal of the CZMA is to encourage and assist coastal states to voluntarily
develop comprehensive management programs. CZMA establishes a state-
federal partnership in which the states take the lead in managing their coastal
resources, while the federal government provides financial and technical
assistance and agrees to act in a manner consistent with the federally-approved
state management programs.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 encourages coastal and Great Lakes
states to develop and implement management programs to achieve wise use of
land and water resources in the coastal zone and authorizes the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to issue grants for state coastal
management programs.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
132
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Reauthorl7atlon Amendments of 1990 fczARAi Section 6217 requires states to establish
coastal nonpoint programs, which must be approved by both NOAA and USEPA.
The central purpose of Section 6217 is to strengthen the links between federal
and state coastal zone management and water quality programs in order to
enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal
waters and coastal habitats. This is to be accomplished primarily through the
implementation of 1) management measures in conformity with guidance
published by USEPA under Section 6217(g) of the CZARA and 2) additional state-
developed management measures as necessary to achieve and maintain
applicable water quality standards.
National Marine Fisheries Service
NMFS implements approved Fishery Management Plans under the Magnuson Act
The Southeast Fisheries Center directly supports federal programs for the
conservation and wise use of living marine resources in the southeastern U.S. The
Center conducts research and provides scientific and technical information on
fishery resources, marine habitats, and the harvest and use of seafood products.
Center scientists also conduct research on marine species protected under federal
laws and work with international scientific organizations to achieve conservation
goals.
• Magnuson Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976. The
Magnuson Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA)
established a fisheries conservation zone for the U.S. and its possessions and
delineated an area from the individual states' seaward boundary out 322 km (200
nautical miles). MFCMA created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
(FMCs) and mandated a continuing planning program for marine fisheries
management by the Councils. MFCMA, as amended, requires that a Fishery
Management Plan (FMP), based upon the best available scientific and economic
data, be prepared for each commercial species (or related group of species) of fish
that is in need of conservation and management within each respective region.
Based on Congressional direction, the MFCMA must be reauthorized every few
years. At the time of reauthorization, Congress also considers amendments to
the Act that will update and improve the fishery management system. The
individual FMCs also take part in the process by recommending changes to the
Act that they believe are necessary to improve the fishery management system.
In 1990, Congress reauthorized the MFCMA with some changes. Tuna,
swordfish, sharks, and billfish are now included for protection under the Act.
Responsibility for their management and conservation has been given to the
appropriate FMCs.
To date, the following FMPs have been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico:
shrimp, in 1981; stone crab, in 1982; spiny lobster, in 1982; coastal pelagic fish, in
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
133
-------
Federal A Staff Framework
Appendix A
1983; coral, in 1984; reef fish, in 1984; swordfish, in 1985; red drum, in 1987; and
sharks, in 1993. The FMPs are amended and updated as new information from
studies and public input is received and assessed.
• Marino Mammal Protection Act of 1972. The Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) of 1972, as amended, establishes a national policy designed to protect
and conserve marine mammals and their habitats. This policy is established so
as not to diminish such species or population stocks beyond the point at which
they cease to be a significant, functioning element in the ecosystem, nor to
diminish such species below their optimum sustainable population. The
Secretaries of Commerce and Interior have delegated authority for administering
the Act to NMFS, which is responsible for all cetacean and pinnipeds (except
walruses), and to USFWS, which is responsible for walruses, sea otters,
manatees, and dugongs.
The Marine Mammal Commission and its delegated administrators are
responsible for reviewing and advising federal agencies on the protection and
conservation of marine mammals because activities under the authority of
federal agencies may constitute a "take" as defined under the MMPA. If it is
ascertained that taking may occur, an exemption to or waiver of the Act's
moratorium of taking would be required for the responsible parties. The Act
provides particular exemptions to the taking of marine mammals by Alaskan
Natives under certain conditions. The Act authorizes the Commission to make
recommendations on the prohibition of the taking and importation of marine
mammals and marine mammal products, except as expressly provided for by an
international treaty, convention, or agreement to which the U.S. is a party.
A provision of the Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow an exception,
on request, for those engaged in oil and gas activities, from the "taking"
prohibitions stated within the Act when the taking is unintentional, involves
small numbers of individuals, and has negligible effects, provided that
satisfactory provisions have been made to monitor and report the taking.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
USFWS becomes involved in management of Gulf of Mexico living aquatic
resources through a variety of legislative avenues, including the Endangered
Species Act, Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, Anadromous Fish Conservation Act,
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.
The Service assists in coastal and marine habitat protection through the review of
federal projects and permit actions and by providing comments to regulatory
agencies. USFWS is the primary federal agency responsible for the protection and
recovery of threatened and endangered populations of coastal birds, manatees, and
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
134
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Gulf sturgeon, and provides a supporting role in the recovery of sea turtles. USFWS
operates a system of national wildlife refuges that encompasses a substantial
amount of coastal estuarine habitat important to fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
USFWS law enforcement officers assist other agencies in enforcing fisheries and
wildlife laws affecting coastal resources. USFWS Fisheries Resource Offices
participate in the management of interjurisdictional fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico
and its rivers through various interagency committees, commissions and councils.
Through the Federal Aid program, the Service distributes millions of dollars
annually to coastal state agencies for fisheries and habitat improvement projects.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service focuses attention on nonpoint source pollution
problems in a number of areas. USFWS has conducted research to define the scope
and effect of pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff, mining, silviculture,
and hydromodification on fish and wildlife species and their habitats. USFWS has
also conducted special information and education efforts to encourage farm owners
to participate in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program and worked with the
Agricultural Extension Service to develop a pamphlet emphasizing the benefits of
riparian vegetation in reducing nonpoint source pollution.
USFWS routinely provides recommendations on BMPs to control nonpoint source
pollution when reviewing permit/license applications, federal project construction
and operation plans, resource management plans, conservation easements, and
other types of land management activities. Measures to mitigate damage to fish and
wildlife resources or their habitats are included in these recommendations.
• Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. This Act is commonly referred to as
the Dingell-Johnson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Amendment. The Act
authorizes the federal government to collect taxes on the sale of recreational
fishing and boating equipment and the Secretary of the Interior to apportion
these revenues to state fish and wildlife agencies for sport fish restoration and
management purposes in fresh and marine waters.
• Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act. Under this Act, USFWS and NMFS review
and comment on aspects of proposals for work and activities sanctioned,
permitted, assisted, or conducted by federal agencies that take place in or affect
navigable waters. The review focuses on potential damage to fish and wildlife
and their habitat, particularly in near shore waters, and may, therefore, serve to
provide protection to fishery resources from federal activities. Federal agencies
must consider the recommendations of the two agencies.
• Fish Restoration & Management Projects Act. Under this Act, the Department
of Interior apportions funds to state fish and game agencies for fish restoration
and management projects. Funds for protection of threatened fish communities
located within state waters, including marine areas, could be made available
under this Act.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
135
-------
Fmdoral & State Framework
Appendix A
• Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve
threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The Act is administered by USFWS and NMFS. The Act provides for the listing
of threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Once listed as a
threatened or endangered species, taking (including harassment) is prohibited.
The process ensures that projects authorized, funded, or carried out by federal
agencies do not jeopardize the species existence or result in habitat destruction or
modification critical to species existence.
* National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. Tide II of Public Law 98-623, also
known as the Artificial Reef Act, establishes broad artificial-reef development
standards and a national policy of the U.S. to encourage the development of
artificial reefs that will enhance fishery resources and commercial and
recreational fishing. The Secretary of Commerce provided leadership in
developing a National Artificial Reef Plan that identifies design, construction,
siting, and maintenance criteria for artificial reefs and that provides a synopsis of
existing information and future research needs. The Secretary of the Army
issues permits to responsible applicants for reef development projects in
accordance with the National Plan, as well as regional, state, arid local criteria
and plans. The law also limits the liability of reef developers complying with
permit requirements and amends the Reefs for Marine Life Conservation Law to
include the availability of all surplus federal ships for consideration as reef
development materials. Although the Act mentions no specific materials other
than ships for use in reef development projects, the Secretary of the Interior
cooperated with the Secretary of Commerce in developing the National Plan,
which identifies oil and gas structures as acceptable materials of opportunity for
artificial-reef development.
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
MMS supports and administers a large, multidisciplinary studies program to
develop information needed for assessment and mitigation of impacts to human,
marine, and coastal environments that may be affected by Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) oil and gas activities. MMS's Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies
Program has recently (1991) funded a series of studies through Texas A&M
University on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the north-
central and western Gulf of Mexico designed to produce a first-step estimate of the
potential effects of deep-water exploration and production on these species. The
Studies include systematic aerial and shipboard surveys, behavioral observations,
and the tagging and subsequent tracking of a limited number of sperm whales using
satellite telemetry. Data acquired from both shipboard surveys and remote sensing
will be used to characterize preferred habitats of cetaceans in the study area, whereas
data acquired from behavioral observations will be used to determine preferred
geographic areas and temporal patterns of critical activities such as feeding, breeding,
and mating.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
136
-------
Federal & .State Framework
Appendix A
MMS adopted a Rigs-to-Reefs policy in 1985 in response to the Artificial Reef Act
and to broaden interest in the use of petroleum platforms as artificial reefs.
National Park Service (NPS)
National parks and monuments are under the jurisdiction of NFS. NFS manages
fish in the coastal and near shore parks. Management, enforcement, and research
activities are conducted by NFS.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
USGS has conducted considerable coral reef research and assisted or cooperated with
other institutions and agencies to facilitate logistics and support of coral reef
research.
U.S. Environmental Protection Ageney (USEPA)
• Clean Water Act (CWA). In general, USEPA strives to achieve the objectives of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA directs USEPA to develop criteria for water
quality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge about the effects of
pollutants on aquatic life and human health. In developing criteria to protect
water quality, USEPA examines the effects of specific pollutants on plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, aesthetics, and recreation in any body of waters.
This includes specific information on the concentration and dispersal of
pollutants through biological, physical, and chemical processes as well as the
effects of pollutants on biological communities as a whole.
USEPA periodically publishes the results of these examinations to help states
determine the levels of pollutants that can exist in the water column and the
sediment while still maintaining designated uses. These levels are called "water
quality criteria." Criteria can also describe the biological and physical
characteristics that a lake, river, or estuary must have to support a healthy
environment for fish and wildlife. States then use these criteria to help set water
quality standards that protect the uses of their waters.
USEPA is responsible for establishing all water quality criteria and for developing
the framework for the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits for municipal and industrial discharges. USEPA
establishes standards for oil and hazardous substances discharges from boats into
federal waters and promulgates performance standards for marine sanitation
devices.
USEPA has published a guidance document for developing water quality
standards for wetlands. This document provides guidance to states which must
include wetlands in their definitions of state waters and thus protect the quality
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
137
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
of those waters. As a part of that process, states will have to identify "beneficial
uses/' adopt criteria, and apply antidegradation policies to their wetlands.
National Estuary Pronram fNEPV In 1987, the National Estuary Program was
established in the Water Quality Act, an* amendment to the Clean Water Act.
The purpose of the Program is to identify nationally significant estuaries, to
protect and improve their water quality, and to enhance their living resources.
Under the Program, which is administered by USEPA, comprehensive
management plans are developed to protect and enhance environmental
resources. The governor of a state may nominate an estuary for the Program and
request that a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) be
developed for that estuary. Representatives from federal, state, and interstate
agencies, academic and scientific institutions, and industry and citizen groups
work during a five-year period to define objectives for protecting .the estuary, to
select the chief problems to be addressed in the Plan, and to ratify a pollution
control and resource management strategy to meet each objective. At present,
there are twenty-one estuaries in the Program; five in the Gulf of Mexico
(Galveston Bay, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex, and recently, Corpus Christi Bay).
The Galveston Bay National Estuary is the seventh largest estuary in the U.S. and the
largest in Texas. The bay system provides 1,554 km2 (600 mi2) of very shallow
water, averaging less than 3 m (10 ft) in depth. On the average, precipitation in
the bay area watershed equals or exceeds what is lost through evaporation, and
nearly ten million acre-feet of freshwater enter the bay annually. The resulting
low salinity in the bay is the key to its productivity, providing ideal conditions
for the growth of fish, crabs, shrimp, and oysters. In addition, the bay is
surrounded by 526 km2 (203 mi2) of estuarine marsh, 36 km2 (14 mi2) of forested
wetlands, and 158 km2 (61 mi2) of freshwater ponds and lakes. These ecological
resources filter runoff to the bay system and provide a rich source of nutrients
that enhances biological productivity, as well as provide valuable habitat for
many economically important species.
The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex consists of an extensive array of
estuarine wetlands and bodies of water containing more coastal wetlands than
any other estuarine system in the U.S. At least 19 percent of the nation's estuary-
dependent commercial fisheries is sustained by the Complex. It is also used for
recreation by boaters, fishermen, and hunters, supporting important elements of
the local economy and culture. As much as half of the national loss of coastal
wetlands may have occurred in the Complex.
Sarasota Bay National Estuary is a small estuary on the southwest coast of Florida.
Although generally regarded as a "clean" bay, it is threatened by overuse and
growth pressure. Storm water runoff and habitat loss have been identified as
primary issues of concern in the restoration and enhancement of the estuary.
Seven goals have been identified as targets upon which to focus the attention of
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
138
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
all interested parties. Demonstration projects to begin the restoration of native,
productive habitat to the bay system have been started, and these and others will
be an integral part of the final comprehensive plan for the bay.
Tampa Bay National Estuary is the largest open-water estuary in Florida and supports
a myriad of uses, such as commercial and recreational fishing, shipping, sanitary
and electrical services, waterfront development, tourism, and recreation. The
water quality is good to excellent in much of the lower and middle bay, declining
in old Tampa Bay, and undesirable in the Hillsborough area.
National Environmental Policy Act of 197O (NEPA). NEPA requires that all
federal agencies recognize and give appropriate consideration to environmental
amenities and values in the course of their decision-making. In an effort to
create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to undertaking major federal
actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Within
these statements, alternatives to the proposed action that may better safeguard
environmental values are to be carefully assessed.
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP is a long-
term, interagency monitoring activity designed to evaluate the status and trends
of U.S. ecological resources and the effectiveness of pollution control. EMAP
conducts annual surveys to assess the health of plants and animals, the quality of
their surroundings, and the presence of pollutants by examining key indicators at
designated sites. The indicators are representative of the general condition of a
site's estuarine resources. The indicators address three areas of concern:
1) estuarine biotic integrity; 2) aesthetic appeal for public use of the estuarine
resources; 3) and exposure of biota to pollutants.
EMAP is structured on a regional scale by dividing all of the nation's coastal
waters, bays, and estuaries into regions for study; the Louisianian Province
corresponds to the Gulf of Mexico area. The information collected is used to
address large areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, rather than smaller systems like
Galveston Bay. An intense study of every bay and estuary would be too costly.
Within each region, scientific measurements will be made every year at
randomly selected stations. From July-August 1991, EMAP sampled 183 sites
between Anclote Anchorage, FL, and the Rio Grande, TX. All sampling is
conducted during the summer months because summer is when plants and
animals generally are most active and when the effects of pollution are most
severe.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
139
-------
Fee/eraf & State Framework
Appendix A
U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
USAGE contracts and regulates coastal engineering projects particularly harbor
dredging and beach renourishment projects. USAGE also reviews and is the
permitting agency for coastal development projects and artificial reefs.
• Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. USAGE has the responsibility for the
permit program and federal projects under §404 of the CWA for the discharge of
dredged and fill material. The USAGE evaluation of a §404 permit application is
a two part test which involves determining whether the project complies with
the §404(b)(l) guidelines and conducting a public interest review. Federal
projects are reviewed in the same manner.
Applicants must demonstrate that a discharge, which may be released to the
aquatic environment during dredging and disposal operations, will not have an
unacceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, applicants
must discuss possible alternatives, the extent and permanence of beneficial
and/or detrimental aspects, and the probable cumulative impacts of the proposed
activity. Discharges can be permitted only if all appropriate steps are taken to
mitigate the adverse impacts of the discharge on the ecosystem, including
compensating for unavoidable impacts.
The public interest review is a balancing test in which the public and private
need for and benefits of a project are weighed against that project's adverse
impact to the environment, as measured by criteria developed by USEPA in
conjunction with the USAGE. These criteria generally consider aesthetics,
recreation, historic values, economics, water supply, water quality, energy needs,
and flood damage prevention. In addition, the USAGE conducts an
environmental assessment under NEPA to determine whether the project has
significant environmental impacts.
USAGE can deny permits to those applicants whose projects it determines are not
in the public interest. Generally, USAGE permits will not be issued where the
necessary state or local authorizations have been denied. Under CZMA,
objection by Gulf States to a project may also preclude the USAGE from issuing
permits. . (
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
The 1978 Waterways Safety Act charges USCG with marine environmental
protection. USCG is the general enforcement agency for all marine activity in the
federal zone. Among its responsibilities are enforcement of sanctuary and fishery
management regulations, management of vessel salvage, coordination of oil spill
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
14O
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appongftx A
cleanup operations and sea and search and rescue operations, interdiction of illegal
alien and drug traffic, and maintenance of navigational aids such as buoys and
lighthouses.
U.S. Department ef Agriculture (USDA)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
primary technical agency in the areas of soil and water conservation and in water
quality. SCS focuses its assistance on non-federal land. It works primarily with
private landowners in planning and applying measures to reduce soil erosion,
conserve water, protect and improve water quality, and protect other renewable
natural resources such as plants, animals, and air. The guiding principle is the use
and conservation treatment of the land and water in harmony with its capabilities
and needs. SCS works with private landowners and others to preserve, protect, and
restore wetlands and to develop wildlife and fisheries habitat.
U.S. Forest Service (USES)
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers large units of land called "National
Forests" in most of the fifty states, as well as "National Grasslands" in some states'.
USFS is directly responsible for management of natural resources in the National
Forests and Grasslands. Federal/state cooperative programs are aimed at protecting
and enhancing the quality of all forest resources including watershed, timber, and
wildlife values.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
141
-------
Fee/era/ & State Framework
Appendix A
STATE LEVEL
Alabama
• Department of Conservation & Natural Resources. The Marine Resources
Division of the Department of Conservation & Natural Resources is responsible
for management of Alabama's marine fisheries resources. The Enforcement
Section patrols Alabama's coastal waters, enforcing both state and federal rules
on conservation and protection of marine resources. The Biological Section
investigates fish kills and prepares pollution reports. Currently, the most
stressed marine resource in Alabama is the oyster resource.
sportfish Restoration Act. Under the Sportfish Restoration Act, federal excise tax
monies support the management of marine recreational fisheries. A tagging and
monitoring program will monitor growth, movement, and harvest. A project is
underway to gather data to characterize the by-catch of recreational finfish by the
trawl fishery and to develop indices of the relationships between post larval and
juvenile finfish abundance and adult recreational finfish capture. Ten new
artificial reefs have been constructed from bridge rubble and railroad boxcars. A
public information pamphlet lists all public fishing reefs off shore of Alabama.
Federal anadromous fish funds are being utilized to fund field work to
document the occurrence of natural striped bass reproduction and characterize
the genetic makeup of the adult population.
Biological functions not covered by federal aid, such as fish kill investigations
and all facets of oyster management, are supported by commercial and
recreational fishing license sales. During 1989,14 fish kills were investigated by
the fisheries staff on kills ranging in severity from 200 to 1,900,000 fish killed.
Florida
• Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) is responsible for management of all marine fisheries and resources in
state waters. This includes lobster, snook, snapper, grouper, other commercial
and sport species, mangrove, seagrass, and coral reef communities. DNR has
specific police powers through the Florida Marine Patrol to enforce state and
some federal statutes.
DNR works to promote the recovery of the five endangered species of sea turtles
through biological and ecological research, population census, assessment of
mortality factors, and habitat protection, utilizing permit reviews and
coordination of research and management efforts in the state permit system.
DNR is pursuing various strategies to ensure the future of Florida's sea turtle
population. These include promoting the use of turtle excluder devices to
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
142
-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
reduce incidental mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawls, increasing the
protection of nesting beaches and foraging habitats, assisting with
implementation of lighting ordinances, providing standardized guidelines and
training to sea turtle conservationists, and developing improved turtle nest
protection programs on beaches. The manatee research effort includes a salvage
and necropsy program and aerial censuses to assess abundance and distribution.
The Commercial Fisheries Statistics Cooperative effort with the National Marine
Fisheries Service provides catch and effort data on all state fisheries and the
effects of management decisions. DNR also conducts a Stock Enhancement
Research Program.
The Florida Marine Research Institute, Division of Marine Resources, within
DNR, conducts studies to determine the age, growth, reproduction, and stock
structure of various marine finfish and shellfish species.
The primary responsibilities of Florida's Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation
& Development are the classification and monitoring of shellfish growing
waters, the inspection of shellfish and blue crab processing plants, resource
assessment, and resource rehabilitation and development. DNR has a mandate
to "improve, enlarge, and protect the oyster and clam resources of the state" and
is actively engaged in collecting oyster shell from processing plants and
constructing and restoring oyster reefs on public bottoms. The Division of
Marine Resources promotes depuration as a practical method for cleaning
potentially contaminated shellfish, to ensure product quality, and to protect
public health. In 1990, the Division issued 17 relay permits to leaseholders and
depuration facilities.
Florida's Bureau of Marketing and Extension Services spearheads the state's
seafood marketing activities. Florida's Bureau of Sanctuaries and Research
Services administers the National Estuarine Research Reserve and National
Marine Sanctuary Programs through cooperative agreements with NOAA.
These programs are designed to provide resource protection in estuarine and
marine systems through environmental education, scientific research, and on-
site management (including enforcement). There are two designated reserves in
Florida at Apalachicola and Rookery Bay.
The major objectives of the Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance
Services are to 1) act as DNR liaison to the Marine Fisheries Commission; 2) act
as DNR liaison to Florida's rapidly growing aquaculture industry; 3) establish a
marine biological emergency response team to handle short-term marine life
disasters; 4) improve and expand Florida's artificial fishing reef development
program; 5) establish an informational outreach program for distributing DNR
and Marine Fisheries Commission rules, regulations, and information regarding
marine resources to sports and commercial fishermen; 6) establish a fisheries
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
143
-------
Fodoral & Slate Framework
Appendix A
dependent data collection program for recreational and commercial fisheries;
and 7) act as technical liaison for DNR to Florida's local mosquito control
program.
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). Within state waters, the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has management powers over
environmental change caused by human activity. All major engineering
projects must be reviewed prior to permitting. Both environmental monitoring
and research are conducted. In the area of permitting, DER reviews permits for
any human activity that affects the marine environment. Coastal dredging and
marine pollution are both managed through state statutes.
Under special powers, the Department of Administration (DOA) can enact "State
Areas of Critical Concern" and decree special regulations for indefinite periods if
growth or other activities overload the capacity of local government to
adequately manage the resources.
Louisiana
The Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (DWF) executes laws and implements
policies enacted for the protection, conservation, and replenishment of wildlife and
aquatic species within Louisiana. The Department is charged with the responsibility
for management of all renewable resources on all wildlife management areas,
refuges and preserves that it may own or lease, which would include some
regulatory powers over water quality for those water bodies within its jurisdiction.
The Marine Fisheries Division has developed bioprofiles for a range of marine
species .and conducted stock assessments for largemouth bass, mullet, sheepshead,
catfish, crappie, red drum, shrimp, spotted seatrout, bowfin, blue crab, oyster,
pompano, and sand seatrout to provide analyses for fisheries management decision-
making. The Division is participating in a tagging program for red drum and
conducts monthly environmental monitoring of Louisiana Offshpre Oil Port
(LOOP) operations. In 1986, the Louisiana Artificial Reef Program was established to
offset the loss of recreational and commercial fishing opportunities associated with
the removal of offshore oil and gas platforms.
The Marine Fisheries Division also sets season frameworks for shrimp and is
supporting industry task forces for both shrimp and crab to better manage the
resources. It also conducts a comprehensive monitoring program to provide
information about the status of finfish stocks.
Louisiana's fish kill program is conducted by three agencies: Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ); DWF; and Department of Agriculture. DWF
investigates kills caused by naturally occurring fish diseases, while DEQ responds to
and investigates all kills.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
144
-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
Mississippi
The responsibilities of the Bureau of Marine Resources, Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries & Parks, include saltwater fisheries management, coastal wetlands
management, and the enforcement of state and federal laws that pertain to the
regulation of the use and harvest of coastal, estuarine, and marine resources. The
Bureau's fisheries management program is geared towards providing for the
continued wise utilization of fishery resources while at the same time ensuring the
health and vitality of the state's valuable renewable marine resources. Biologists
continually monitor shellfish and finfish stocks in state waters and both sports and
commercial harvest levels in order to provide the Mississippi Commission of
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks with the best available scientific information on
which to base its management decisions. Staff biologists work in cooperation with
USFDA to provide a shellfish management program that is in full compliance with
all applicable federal guidelines.
Fisheries landings data are collected to indicate potential problem areas and as a
gauge of the success of existing fisheries regulations and practices. Biological data for
selected commercially important finfish species are collected to support the
development of fishery management plans. Information for selected pelagic and
reef fishes is submitted to NMFS to support the proper management of these
resources. A shrimp monitoring and assessment program is conducted for
commercial, recreational, and live bait shrimping.
Management of molluscan shellfish resources includes harvest management,
assessment and monitoring of population dynamics and reef characteristics, and reef
rehabilitation and cultivation. Compliance with recommended National Shellfish
Sanitation Program guidelines includes classification of shellfish growing waters
using sanitary surveys and sanitary control of the harvesting, processing, and
distribution of shellfish. Regulation of oyster, shrimp, and other shellfish
processing plants is accomplished through inspections of plants for compliance with
established safe, sanitary processing guidelines.
The Bureau of Marine Resources and the Bureau of Pollution Control (within the
Department of Environmental Quality) investigate fish kills. The Bureau of
Pollution Control is responsible for all state waters, while the Bureau of Marine
Resources may investigate some coastal kills.
The Bureau of Marine Resources provides aquaculture regulatory information to
active and potential aquaculturists, conducts cultivation/marketing permit
discussions and site inspections, provides recommendations on site specific
specifications and issuance of associated permits, and monitors aquaculture
permitted facilities for compliance with permit conditions.
Mississippi is participating in a joint project with Alabama to restore striped bass
population to coastal waters of the two states. The state is also procuring and
deploying concrete structures on permitted reef sites to expand reef fish habitat.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
14S
-------
F»d*ral & State Framework
Appendix A
For the 1989/1990 fiscal year, marine enforcement officials made 178 seafood-related
arrests. Over $45,000 in fines were collected in each of the three coastal counties.
T«xas
The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) operates the state parks system and
wildlife refuges. TPWD is responsible for reviewing and commenting on state and
federal permits affecting Texas wildlife resources.
The Coastal Fisheries Branch is responsible for making management
recommendations regarding the state's saltwater fishery resources within Texas bays
and estuaries and out to nine nautical miles in the Gulf of Mexico. The goal of the
Coastal Fisheries Program is to develop management plans for selected fisheries
utilizing the concept of optimum yield. Management plans include harvest
regulations, resource stock enhancements, or habitat enhancements based on
monitoring programs and the best scientific information available. The Branch
determines sizes and changes in sizes of finfish and shellfish populations caused by
environmental conditions and fishing, determines landings of marine species and
the associated social and economic characteristics of the fisheries, develops
mariculture techniques for selected species, and educates the consumer regarding
high quality, wholesale seafood products.
TPWD and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) are the
two agencies that respond and document fish kills. TNRCC has the lead on water
quality problems relating to discharges, while TPWD responds to, investigates, and
is responsible for recovering damages to fish and wildlife for all kills.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
146
-------
Fecfera/ & State Framework
Appendix A
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC)
The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) was established through
the enactment of enabling legislation by the five states of the Gulf of Mexico region
and the consent of the U.S. Congress in 1949, through Public Law 81-66. GSMFC's
principal objective is the conservation, development, and full utilization of the
fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico, to provide food, employment, income and
recreation to the people of the U.S. GSMFC is composed of three members from
each of the five Gulf States: the head of the fishery resource agency of the state, a
member of the state legislature, and a governor-appointed citizen who has a
knowledge of and interest in marine fisheries.
In executing the Gulf State Marine Fisheries Compact, GSMFC recommends actions
to the five state governors and legislatures on programs helpful to the management
of fisheries; consults with and advises the five states on fishery conservation
problems; and advises and testifies before the U.S. Congress on legislation and
marine policies that affect the Gulf States. One of the most important functions of
GSMFC is to serve as a forum for: 1) the discussion of various problems and
programs associated with marine management, industry, and research, and 2) the
development of a coordinated Gulf of Mexico policy to address these issues for the
betterment of the resource and all who are concerned. Member states relinquish
none of their rights or responsibilities to regulate their own fisheries.
Since the 1970s, GSMFC has had the responsibility for administrative support and
coordination of the Gulf State-Federal Fisheries Management Program. This
program was designed to develop management plans for transboundary stocks that
migrate freely through state and federal boundaries. In 1986, this program was
replaced with the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management Program (Title HI,
Public Law 99-659). GSMFC has completed fishery management plans (FMPs)'for
shrimp, menhaden, Spanish mackerel, blue crab, oyster, and black drum, as well as
amendments to these plans. Another important function of GSMFC is to
coordinate state-federal cooperative research and data collection programs.
Examples include the cooperative red drum research program, the Southeast Area
Monitoring & Assessement Program (SEAMAP), and the Southeast Recreational
Fisheries Information Network [RecFin (SE)].
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
147
-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix B
AL Alabama
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
BSP Benthic Surveillance Program
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan
COP Coastal Ocean Program
CSA Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.
CWA Clean Water Act
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality-Louisiana
DOA Department of Administration—Florida
DWF Department of Wildlife & Fisheries-Louisiana
EMAP-E Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program-Estuaries
EFT; Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
DER Department of Environmental Regulation—Florida
DNR Department of Natural Resources-Florida
FL Florida
FMC Fishery Management Council
FMP Fishery Management Plan
GIS Geographic Information System
GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
GMP Gulf of Mexico Program
GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern
LA Louisiana
LARS Living Aquatic Resources
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
MC Management Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
MFCMA Magnuson Fishery Conservation & Management Act
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMS U.S. Minerals Management Service
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act
MS Mississippi
MSD Marine Sanitation Device
NAS National Academy of Science
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
148
-------
Acronym Guide
Approncffx B
NFS
NRC
NS&T
NSTMWP
DCS
PRB
SCS
SEA
SEAMAP
SEUS
TAG
TED
TNRCC
TPWD
TX
USAGE
USCG
USDA
USDOC
USDOD
USDOE
USDOI
USEPA
USFDA
USFS
USFWS
USGS
National Park Service
National Research Council
National Status & Trends
National Status & Trends Mussel Watch Program
Outer Continental Shelf
Policy Review Board-Gulf of Mexico Program
Soil Conservation Service
Strategic Environmental Assessments
Southeast Area Monitoring & Assessment Program
Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding Network
Technical Advisory Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
Turtle Excluder Device
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Texas
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
149
-------
Glossary
Appendix C
acute Sudden, severe, critical, intense, but usually of short duration.
aphotic zone Zone where the levels of light entering through the surface are not sufficient for
photosynthesis or for animal response.
areas of high Areas such as open bays, estuaries, and sounds that are used by finfish and
marine shellfish as nursery and/or spawning grounds and may contain oyster reefs;
productivity nearshore Gulf areas that are important harvest grounds for menhaden and
industrial bottom fish and/or finfish and shellfish spawning grounds; coral areas in
the vicinity of the Florida Keys.
basin A depression of the earth in which sedimentary materials accumulate or have
accumulated, usually characterized by continuous deposition over a long period of
time; a broad area of earth beneath which the strata dip, usually from the sides
toward the center.
cetacean A marine mammal such as a whale, dolphin, or porpoise.
coelobite Organisms that live in the cavities of reefs-cryptic organisms. They are normally
small and encrusting and include foraminifera.
continental margin The ocean floor that lies between the shoreline and the abyssal ocean floor. It
includes the provinces of the continental shelf, continental slope, and continental
rise.
continental shelf
continental slope
critical habitat
designated
environmental
preservation
areas
detritivores
detritus
The continental margin province that lies between the shoreline and the abrupt
change in slope called the shelf edge, which generally occurs around a water depth
of 200m. The shelf is characterized by a gentle slope (ca. O.I1).
The continental margin province that lies between the continental shelf and
continental rise, characterized by a steep slope (ca. 3a -6Q) and located around
depths of 3,000-4,000m.
Specific areas essential to the conservation of a protected species and that may
require special management considerations or protection.
Gulf of Mexico shorefront areas that have been established for the quality and
significance of their natural environments. They have been legislatively,
administratively, or privately protected from the developmental influences of
humans and are managed solely for the preservation, understanding, and
appreciation of their natural attributes. Included are National Parks and
Preserves, National and State Wilderness Areas, National Marine and Estuarine
Sanctuaries, National Landmarks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Florida Aquatic
Preserves, and Environmentally Endangered Lands.
Animals whose diet consists of detritus and the microbial fauna attached to
detrital particles.
Particulate organic matter originating primarily from the physical breakdown of
dead animal and plant tissue (may also include the breakdown of inorganic
material).
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
15O
-------
Glossary
Appendix C
essential habitat
Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ)
geochemical
geomorphology
geophysical
habitat
herbivores
incidental take
major shorefront
recreational
beaches
marshes
nearshore waters
nepheloid
offshore marine
recreational
fishing
Specific areas crucial to the conservation of a species and that may necessitate
special considerations.
The maritime region adjacent to the territorial sea; extending 200 nautical miles
from the baseline of the territorial sea, in which the U.S. has exclusive rights and
jurisdiction over living and nonliving natural resources.
Of or relating to the science dealing with the chemical composition of and the
actual or possible chemical changes in the crust of the earth.
The science of surface land forms and their interpretation on the basis of geoloev
and climate.
Of or relating to the physics of the earth, especially the measurement and
interpretation of geophysical properties of the rocks in an area.
A specific type of place that is occupied by an organism, a population, or a
community.
Animals whose diet consists of plant material.
Takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise
lawful activity conducted by a federal agency or applicant.
Those frequently visited sandy areas along the shorefront exposed to the Gulf of
Mexico that support a multiplicity of recreational activity, most of which is
focused at the land-water interface. Included are National Seashores and other
selected areas in the National Parks System, State Park and Recreational Areas,
county and local parks, urban beach fronts, and private resort areas.
Persistent, emergent non-forested wetlands characterized by vegetation consisting
predominantly of cOrdgrasses, rushes, and cattails.
Offshore, open waters that extend from the shoreline out to the limit of the
territorial seas (12 nautical miles).
A layer of water near the bottom that contains significant amounts of suspended
sediment causing an increase of turbidity.
Hook-and-line sport fishing, from a boat seaward of the beach, for fun, food, and
occasional incidental profit, inclusive of speaffishing.
organic matter Material derived from living plant or animal organisms.
Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS)
penaeids
plankton
primary
production
All submerged lands that comprise the continental margin adjacent to the U.S. and
seaward of state offshore lands.
Chiefly warm water and tropical prawns belonging to the family Penaeidae.
Passively floating or weakly motile aquatic plants and animals.
Organic material produced by photosynthetic or chemosynthetic autotroph
organisms. „
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
151
-------
Glossary
Appendix C
rookery
saltwater
intrusion
sciaenids
seagrass beds
sediment
sensitive coastal
habitats
sensitive
offshore area
spit
subsidence
taking
turbidity
vascular plants
The nesting or breeding grounds of gregarious (i.e., social) birds or mammals; also a
colony of such birds or mammals.
Phenomenon occurring when a body of saltwater, because of its greater density,
invades a body of freshwater; occurs in either surface or ground water sources.
Fishes belonging to the croaker family (Sciaenidae).
More or less continuous mats of submerged, rooted, marine, flowering vascular plants
occurring in shallow tropical and temperate waters. Seagrass beds provide
habitat, including breeding and feeding grounds, for adults and/or juveniles of many
of the economically important shellfish and finfish.
Material deposited (as by water, wind, or glacier) or a mass of deposited material.
Coastal habitats susceptible to damage from human-related activities.
An area containing species, populations, communities, or assemblages of living
resources, to which human-related activities may cause irreparable damage,
including interference with established ecological relationships.
Small point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body of water from the shore.
A sinking of a part of the earth's crust.
To harass, harm, hunt, kill, capture, or attempt to engage in any such conduct
(including, actions that induce stress, adversely impact critical habitat, or result in
adverse secondary or cumulative impacts).
Reduced water clarity resulting from the presence of suspended matter.
Plants containing food- and water-conducting structures; higher plants that
reproduce by seeds.
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
152
-------
Participants In the Action Aganda Development Pro&ess
The Living Aquatic
Co-Chairs:
Herb Kumpf
Karen Steidinger
Members:
Philip Bohr
Nora Deyaun Boudreaux
Thomas Bright
Bradford Brown
Gail Carmody*
James Cato
George Crozier*
Quenton Dokken
William Evans
Bill Fisher-
Douglas Fruge'*
Joe Gill
Al Green*
Gary Hendrix
Joe Herring
Rex Herron*
Richard Hoogland*
Robert Jones
H.D. Kelly
Frederick Kopfler*
John Lambeth
Heidi Lovett*
Ronald Lukens*
Kumar Mahadevan
Bill Mason
Thomas Mcllwain
R. Vernon Minton
John Ogden
Steven Plakas
Jim Ratterree
Ralph Rayburn
Susan Rees
Bruce Rosendahl
Andrew Sansom
Richard Shaw
Robert Shipp
National Marine Fisheries Service
Florida Marine Research Institute
National Marine Fisheries Service
Texas Shrimp Association
Texas A&M University
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Florida Sea Grant College
Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
Gulf of Mexico Foundation~CAC
Texas A&M University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Coast Fisheries Coordination Office
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
National Park Service
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Southeast Fisheries Association
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biloxi Sun Herald
Center for Marine Conservation
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Mote Marine Laboratory
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Alabama Department of Conservation
Florida Institute of Oceanography
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Louisiana State University
University of South Alabama
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
153
-------
Participants In tho Action Agenda Development Process
Appr^ndlx P
Larry Simpson
Robert Stewart, Jr.
Wayne Swingel
Jack Van Lopik
Frederick Werner
Pace Wilber
Jonathan Wilson
Alejandro Yanez-Arancibia
Bernard Yokel*
*St**ring Commltt** Member
Gulf States Marine Fisheries
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council
Louisiana State University
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jackson State University
Programa Epomex
Florida Audubon Society
Written
Bruce Ackerman
Harry Blanchet
Steve Bortone
Steve Branstetter
Tom Bright
Brad Brown
Gail Carmody
George Crozier
Doug Fruge'
Joe Herring
Herbert Kale
Herb Kumpf
Ronald Lukens
Anne Meylan
Lorna Patrick
Steven Plakas
Jim Ratterree
Ron Schmied
Karen Steidinger
Bernard Yokel
on Strawmar. (1.O. 1.1. 1.2 & 1.31 Received From the Following;
Florida Marine Research Institute
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
University of West Florida
Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc.
Texas A&M University
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
Gulf Coast Fisheries Coordination Office
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Florida Audubon Society
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Florida Marine Research Institute
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
National Marine Fisheries Service
Florida Marine Research Institute
Florida Audubon Society
Gulf of Mexico Living Aquatic Resources Action Agenda (2.1)
154
------- |