Profile of the Penaeid shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PROFILE OF THE
PENAE'11)- SHRIMP FISHERY

IN THE

SOUTH ATLANTIC

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

SOUTHPARK BUILLDING, SUITE 306
ONE SOUTHPARK CIRCLE

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29407

SH380.62@
U6P75 @01VEMBER 1981
1981

PROFILE

OF THE

PENAEID SHRIMP FISHERY

IN THE

SOUTH ATLANTIC

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Southpark Building-, Suite 306
One Southpark Circle
Charleston, South Carolina 29407

Financial assistance for producing,, this profile was provided by grant funds
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under Public Law 914-265, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.

LIBRARy
NOAA/CCEH
1990 HOBSON AVE.
CHAS. SC 29408-2623

NOVEMBER 1981

PRITACE

In 1973 the South Atlantic Technical Committee for -Shrimp Management was
formally established to exandne the fE?aSibility and desirability of managing
the.shrinyp fishery on a regional level. and within the concept of a state-fed-
eral partnership. The need for a management planning-profile of the region's
shrimp fishery was identified as a'logical starting point. This work, which
summa.rized existing knowledge of the South Atlantic shrimp, fishery, was can-
pleted and published in 1974 by the Division of Marine Resources (South Caro-
lina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department) in cooperation with Technical*
Committee members and staff from the four State fisheries agencies in the
region.

Development of the management planning profile identified key information
gaps concerning shrimp population dynamics, lack of socio-economic. data and
movement of fishermen between states. It also identified inadequate catch
and effort statistics and limited jurisdiction outside the states' territorial
waters. The profile subsequently identified the need for a policy plan which
would serve as a guide for implementation of a regiona.1 shrimp management pro-
gram. This work was completed and published in 1975 by the same group. It was
a strategic plan to show what inputs and methodology might be used by a region-
al management group in arriving at shrimp, management policies. The two most
important reccmi-andations: in this plan dealt with the, formation of a State-
Federal Regional Fisheries Management Board and use of a regional catch and
effort statistics system.

Since completion of the 1974 document, a number of profound changes in
the economic structure of the fishery '.have taken place. The numbers and sizes
of shrimp vessels have increased dramtically during this period. As pointed
out in 1974, the shrinp resource was already.being fished toits full;-,biological
potential. Thus, with the recent rise in numbers of vessels and gross tonnage,
there has been a sharp decrease in average vessel productivity. This decrease
in vessel productivity coupled with general depressed economic conditions has
accentuated economic hardships.in.the shrimp fleet.

In February 1981, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council initiated
a work plan for development of a fishery management plan (FMP) for penaeid
shrimp in the region. A FMP would appear to be a logical and necessary step
in addressing biological, ecologica.1, economic and social factors that interact
in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery.

Members of the Shrimp FMP Steering Committee agreed that an update of the
1974 management planning profile was needed to reflect recent changes in the
fishery. A plan development team, composed of individuals from the four State
agencies and Council staff with coordination through the South Carolina Divi-
sion of Marine Resources, was organized to update the profile.

OCKrRIBETIORS

This profile was prepared by a team of scientist s composed of individuals

from the four state agencies and Council staff with coordination and major

writing responsibilities through the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources

Department, Division of Marine Resources.

SOEUH CAROLINA DIVISICN OF MARM FESOURCES, CHARL]=N, S. C.

Michael D.. McKenzie Editor, Project Coordinator

J. David Whitaker Biology of the Species and Habitat
Descriptions (Chapters"'5".0 and 6. 0)

Charles M. Bearden Fishery Management Jurisdiction,
Laws and Policies (Chaper 7.0)

Dale L. Theiling Description of Fishing Activities,
Gear Types and Landings (Chapter 8.0)

David S. Liao Economic Characteristics and Social/
Cultural Framework (Chapters 9.0 and 11.0)

Raymond J. Rhodes Economics and Description of Businesses
and Markets (Chapters 9.0.and 10.0)

Emily S. Schroeder Typing and Editorial Support

Karen Swanson Graphics

PRCIJEC`r OFFICER

Gregg T. Waugh
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Charleston, South Carolina

TECHNICAL CCMMI7 M

Susan Shipman
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
Brunswick, Georgia

Frank S. Kennedy
Florida Depaxtment of Natural Resources
Maxine Resources Laboratory
St. Petersburg, Florida

Dennis Spitsbergen
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Morehead City, North Caxolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENIS

in ion to those people specifically mentioned as contributors, we grate-

fully aclmowledge John. Maiolo and Mark Fisch, Department of Sociology and Anthropo-

logy, East. Carolina Universit for their assistance in Providing timely informa-

tion on socio-cultural aspects of the fishery. Their research in this particular

area was heavily relied. _Upon in preparation of Chapter 11.0. They also Provided

technical advice throughout the project.

Special acknowledgement is due Peter J. Eldridge of the Southeast Fisheries.

Center in Charleston, National Marine Fisheries Service, for his assistancein data

identification and collect'
ion. He was instrumental in obtaining important fisher-

ies statistics from the Technical.and Information Management Services of the

Nat i on a I Marine Fisheries Service...

We also wish to thank Robert J. Reimold and his staff of the Coastal Resour-

ces Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, Georgia. Particu-

lar thanks axe due to Virginia Baisden, Fred C. Marland, John Bozeman, F. P. Pariani,

Jr., James L. Music, John M. Pafford, Ronald J. Essig and H. Jolaine Hall for cri-

tically reviewing sections of this report and adding significantly to its content.

Edward G. McCoy, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community

Development, Division of Marine Fisheries,. Morehead, City, North Carolina and his

staff-we are.helpful in reviewing.the manuscript and. assisting with technical matters.

We especially -acknowledge the assistance and effort of Katy West.

Cover design courtesy of Jack C. Thames, Charleston, South Carolina

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK COMPRISING THE MANAGEMENr UNIT 5-1

5.1 Description of the Species and their Distribution 5-1

5.1.1 Identity 5-1
5.1.2 Morphology 5-2
5.1.3 Incidental Species 5-2
5.1.4 Distribution 5-3
5.1.5 Biological Characteristics 5-6

5.1.5.1 Reproduction 5-6
5,.5.2 Larval and. Postlarval Phases 5-6
5'.1.5.3 Juvenile and Adult Phases 5-18
5.1-5.4 Growth Patterns 5-22
5.1.5.5 Population Size Distribution and Movement Patterns 5-28
5.175.6 Length-Weight Relationships 5-36
5.1.-5.7 Mortality Rates 5-36

Abundance and Present Condition 5-40
5.2

5.2.1 Abundance 5-40
5.2.2 Present Condition 5-43

53 Ecological Relationships 5-45

5.3.1 Food 5-45
5.3.2 Substrate 5-47
5.3.3 Predation 5-47

5.4 Estimate of Maximum Sustainable Yield 5-48

5.4.1 Yield-Per-Recruit (YPR) 5-51

5.5 Probable Future Condition 5-52

6.0 DESCRIPTICN OF THE HABITAT 6-1

6.1 Description of the Habitat 6-1

6.2 Condition of the Habitat 6-4

6.3 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 6-7

6.4 Habitat Protection Program 6-9

6.4.1 North Carolina 6-9
6.4.2 South Carolina 6-10
6.4.3 Georgia 6-10
6.4.4 Florida 6-11
7.0 FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICrION, LAWS AND POLICIES 7-1

7.1 Management Institutions 7-1

7.1.1 North Carolina 7-4
7.1.2 South Carolina 7-5
7.1.3 Georgia 7-6

page
7.1.4 Florida (east coast) 7-6
7.2 Summary of State and Local Laws, Regulations and Poli 7
2.1 North-Carolina cies 7_

7.2. 1. aLicenses and Taxes 7-7
7.2.1.b Reciprocal Agreements 7-8
.7.2.1.c Regulations 7-8
7.2.1.d Scientific Permits 7-9
7.2.1.e Imited Entry 7-9

7.2.2 South-Carolina 7-9

7.2.2 'a Licenses and Taxes 7-9
7 .2.2 Reciprocal Agreements 7-10
Regulations 7-10
7.2.2- Scientific Collection Permits 7-12
7.2.2.e Limited Entry 7-12

7.2.3 Georgia 7-12

7.2.3.a Licenses and Taxes 7-12
7.2.3.b Reciprocal Agreements 7-13
7.2.3. Regulations 7-13
7.2.3-d Scientific Collection Permits 7-14
7.2.3.e Limited Entry 7-14
7.2.4 Florida 7
7.2.4.a Licenses and Taxes 7-14
7.2.4.b Reciprocal Agreements 7-15
7.2.4. Regulations 7-15
7.2.4.d Scientific Collection Permits 7-17
7.2.4.e Limited Entry 7-17

7.3 International Treaties and Agreements 7-17

Federal Laws, Regulations and Policies 7-17

8.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE STOCK COMPRISING THE
MANAGEMENT UNIT 8-1

8.1 History of Exploitation 8-1

8.2 Damestic, Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities 8-14

8.2.1 Participating User Groups 8-14

8.2.1.1 Commercial 8-16
8.2.1.2 Recreational 8-17

8.2.2 Catches and Landings 8-18

8.2.2.1 Seasons 81
8.2.2.2 Commercial Catches and Landings 8-9

page
8.2.2.-3 Discards and Landings of Commerially Caught In-
cidental. Species 8-27
8.2.24 Recreational Catches 8-30

8.2.3 'Fishing and Tandi ngs, Areas 8-30

8.2.3.-l Commercial Fishing Areas 8-30
8.2.3.2 Commercial Landing Areas 8-38
8.2.3. 3 Recreational Fishing. and TLanding Areas 8-40

8.2.4 Craft and Gear 8-41

8.2. Trawling Craft 8-41
8.2.4.2 Fishing Gear and Operation 8-53
8.2.4.3 Participation in other Fisheries 8-67

8.2.5 Bait Fishing 8-71

8.2.5.1- North Carolina Bait Shrimp Fishery 8-72
8.2.5.2 South Carolina Bait Shrimp Fishery 8-73
8.2.5.3 Georgia Bait Shrimp Fishery 8-74
8.2.5.4 Florida Bait Shrimp Fishery 8-76

8.2.6 Competition and Conflict 8-78

8.2.6 1 Among Shrimpers 8-78
.2.6.2 With Other Fishermen 8-80
.8.2.6.3 Related to Conservation and the Environment 8-81

8.2.7 Assessment and Specifications of Domestic Annual Harvesting
Capacity (DAHC) 8-89

8.2.8 Assessment and Specifications of the Extent to Which U.S.
Fishermen will Harvest Optimum Yield 8-90

8.2.9 Assessment and Specification of Domstic Annual Processing
Capacity 8-96q0

8.2.10 Historical and Projected Transfers fran U.S. Harvesters to
Foreign Vessels 8-9

8.3 Foreign Fishing Activity 8-90

8.4 Interactions between Foreign and Domstic Participants 8-9

9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONCMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY 9-

9.1 Domestic Ex-Vessel- and: Wholesale Market trends 9-1

9. 1. 1Ex-vessel market 9-1

9.1.1.1 Demand Characterisitics of Ex-Vessel Prices 9-1
9.1.1.2 Domestic Ex-vessel Value Trends 9-4
9.1.1.3 Current Ex-vessel Price Trends (1980-81) 9-7

9.1.2 Domestic Wholesale Market 91

qV1

page

9.1.2.1. Wholesale-Value of Shrimp Products 9_ 9.1.2.2 imported Products 9
9.2 Export Market 9

9.3 Domestic Harvesting Sector 9-18

9.3.4qJ.Organization and Economic Characteristics 9-18
9.3.2 Income Trends in the Fleet 9-23

9.3.2.1 Historical Gross Income Trends 9-23
9.3.2.2 Net Income Trends 9-25
9.3.2.3Current Indicators of Fleet Economic Performance, 1980-81 9-29

9.3.3 Capitalization 9-31

9.4 Domestic Processing Sector 9-33

10.0 DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS, MARKEIS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
FISHERY 10-1

10.1 Relationships Among Harvesting, Brokering and Processing Sectors 10-1

10.1.1 industry Structure 10-1

10.1.1.1 Shrimp Dealers 10-1
10.1.1.2 Processors 10-5
10.1.1.3 Brokers and other Wholesalers 10
10.1.2 Domestic Marketing Channels and Pricing 106

10.1.2.1 Domestic Marketing Channels 10-6
10.1.2.2 Pricing of Shrimp lo-7

10.2 Fishery Cooperatives or Associations 10-10

10.3 Service and Supply Industries 10-11

10.3.1 Vessel Construction 10-11
10.3.2 Financial Institutions 10-15
10.3.3 Seafood Carriers 10-21

10.4 Labor Organizations 10-21

10.5 Foreign Investment 10-21

10.6 Econaqnic Impact Analysis 10-21

11.0 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHERMEN 11-1

11.1 Ethnic Character, Family Structure, and Community Organization 11-1

11.1.1 Ethnic Character 11-1
11.1.2 Family Structure 1192q0
11.1.3 Commmity Organization
. 2 Age, Education, and Experience of ' Comcial Fishermen 11-4

vii

page

Employment Opportunities. and Unemployment Rates 11-5

11.4 Recreational Fishing 11-17

11.5 Economic Dependence on-Fishing and Related Activities 11-19

11.6 Distribution of Income within Fishing Commities 11-23

12.0 Appendix 12-1

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page

5-1 Trawl results for P. setiferus from the continental shelf of the
Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States. 5-5

5-2 Gross descriptions offresh ovaries of P. setiferus, P. a. aztecus
and P. d. duorarum for the five basic ovarian developmental -stages., 5-11

5-3 Size ranges of Penaeus: setiferus and P. duorarum larval stages. 5-15

5-4 A, summary of monthly growth rates for P. setiferus. 5-24

5-5 South Carolina late summer and fall P. setiferus landings by weight,
number of individuals and average count (tails per pound). 5-25

5-6 Summary of P. a. aztecus growth rate results for various studies.. 5-27

5-7 Results ofP. setiferus tagging experiments in South Carolina. 5-33

5-8 Length-weight equations for P. setiferus P. a. aztecus and P. d.
duorarum. 5-37

5-9 Comparison of instantaneous rate of mortality (in weekly values) for
P. setiferus. P. a. aztecus, and P. d.duorarum. 5-39

5-10 Variability of annual commercial landings of shrimp by species and
by state for 1957-1980. 5-41
5-11 Fish.identified by Knapp (1949), Darnell (1958), and CostAlo and
Allen (.1970), as feeding on penaeid shrimp. 5-49
6-1 Summary of 'coastal wetlands acreage for the South Atlantic states. 6-5

7-1 Summary of shrimp managment laws and regulations, Southeastern
Atlantic states. 7-2

8-l Recorded commercial production of shrimp thousands -.of pounds, heads-
on) landed in each South Atlantic State, during 1880 through 1980. 8-2

8-2 Types and amunts of shrimp products produced in the Southeastern
States during 1931, with original whole weights shown as pounds and
as percentages of the regions landings. 8-8

8-3 Percentages of shrimp landings of each southern Atlantic state made
during each mnth averaged from designated seasons. 8-12

8-4 Number of commercial fishernen employing shrimp otter trawls in each
South Atlantic state during each year, 1950 through 1976, with totals
exclusive of duplication. 8-15
8-5 South Atlantic shrimp landings (X 1000), of Penaeus species, 1957-
1980. 8-22

8-6 Penaeus shrimp landings (heads-off) by state and species, 1957-1980. 8-23

Table No. Page

8-7 Range of shrimp landings (in millions of pounds, heads-on) of each
species in each South Atlantic State during 1957 through 1980. 8-26

8-8 Estimated totals of catches of penaeid shrimp made in inshore areas
of North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia during 1980. 8-33

8-9 Estimated totals of catches of penaeid shrimp made in offshore areas
of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, during 1980. 8-33

8-10 Percent of the South Atlantic shrimp catch (heads-on) by state from
the FCZ versus territorial seas) 1980. 8-36

8-11 Percentage of the South Atlantic shrimp catch from the FCZ versus
territorial seas, 1973-1980. 8-37

8-12 Numbersof -vessels and boats utilized in the South- Atlantic shrimp
otter trawl fishery each year, 1957 through 1978, with related
tonnage and gear data. 8-42

8-13 Numbers of vessels and boats utilized in the North Carolina shrimp
otter trawl fishery each year, 1950-1978, with related tonnage and
gear data. 8-43

8-14 Numbers of vessels and boats utilized in the South Carolina shrimp
otter trawl fishery each year, 1950-1978, with related tonnage and
gear-data.

8-15 Numbers of vessels and boats utilized in the Georgia shrimp otter
trawl fishery each year, 1950-1978, with related tonnage and gear
data. 8-45

8-16 Numbers of vessels and boats utilized in the Florida, east coast
shrimp otter trawl fishery each year, 1957-1978, with related
tonnage and geax data. 8-46

8-17 Numbers of vessels and boats employed in the commercial shrimp otter
trawl fishery in each South Atlantic tate during 1979 and 1980. 8-47

8-18 Specifications of 1980 licensed shrimp trawlers whose owners resided
in either Georgia or South Carolina. -48

8-19 Landings of rock shrimp and royal red shrimp in each South Atlantic
state during 1971 through-1980 in thousands of pounds, heads-off. 8-70

8-20 Florida wholesale bait shrimp landings and value for 1972 through
1980. 8-77

8-21 Available data concerning the numbers of recorded sea turtle carcass
strandings in the South Atlantic states during each month 1979, 1980,
and 1981. 8-87

Supply and utilization of all shrimp(heads-off weight) in-the U.S.,
9-2q1
annual-, -1960-1980, with emphasis on imports. 9-2

Table No. Page.

9-2 Ex-vessel value of penaeid shrimp landings by state (in thousands
of dollars). 9-5

9-3 Real (Deflated) aggregate ex-vessel value of Penaeid shrimp landings
by state in the South Atlantic states, 1967-1980. 9-6

9-4 Ex-vessel shrimp prices by-state in the South (dollars per pound.
heads-off) 9-8

9-5 Shrimp ex-vessel prices for selected. count size, monthly, 1975-1981. 9-8

9-6 U.S. imports of shrimp, by type of product, 1980. 9-13

9-7 U.S. imports -of shrimp, by region of- origin, 9-14

9-8 Exports of domestic and foreign shrimp products, 1980. 9-16

9-9 Exports of domestic fresh and frozen shrimp, by country of destina-
tion, 1980. 9-17

9-10 Exports of domestic canned shrimp, by country of destination, 1980. 9-19

Number of shrimp trawlers in the.four mobility classes in 1976. 9-20

9-12 Average characteristics of trawlers by mobility classes, 1976. 9-21

Average annual costs and returns among three mobility classes of
trawlers in the South Atlantic states, 1976. 9-22

9-14 Number of vessels and boats, gross tonnage per vessel, landings of
shrimp, landings per craft and 'Landings per gross ton, South Atlantic
states, 1960-1975. 9-24

9-15 Cost and revenue index for South Carolina shrimp trawlers as calcu-
lated from Jones et al.,(_1979). 9-27

9-16 Typical quarterly and shrimp season No. 2 diesel fuel prices paid in
IMP
South-Carolina, 1971 to 1980. 9-28

9-17 Nominal annual catch (heads-off lb)and dollars per vessel-day for
South Carolina, 1974 to 1981. 9-30
9-18 Shrimp processor: plants and employment, 1976-1980. 9-4

10-2q1, Facility characteristics of South Carolina seafood dealers in 1975. 2q1-6q2

10-2 Licensed shrimp dealers or wholesalers for North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and east coast of Florida in 1980 or 1981. 10-4

10-3 Buyers of raw shrimp sold or handled by seafood dealers-in the South
Atlantic. 10-8

10-4 Regional or State Fishery Associations in the South Atlantic states
which include membership fran the shrimp industry. 10-12

Table No. Page
10-5 New shrimp trmvler deliveries or construction for the South Atlantic 0
states fran the major vessel construction firms in the Southeast,
1977-W. 10-13

10-6 Cost of new wood U.S. shrimp vessels by various sizes. 10-14

10-7 Number aAd total outstanding value of Production Credit Associations;
aquatic loans-from 1973 to June 1981 in the Carolinas and Georgia. 10-17

10-8 Annual number, aggregate value and average value of new aquatic loam
by Production Credit Association in the Carolinas and Georgia, 1973-:-.
1980. 10-18

10-9 Active Fishing Vessel Mligation Guarantee (FVOG) cases and Current
Fishing Vessel Capital Construction Fund (FVCCF) accounts for South
Atlantic states in July, 1981. 10-19

10-10 Number and initial outstanding amount of Economic Injury Natural Dis-
aster Loans approved by the Small Business Administration in 1977 and
1978 for Georgia and South Carolina commercial shrimpers suffering
economic losses as a result of winter-induced white shrimp stock
damage. 10-22

10-11 Estimated aggregate economic impact of the South Atlantic states'
shrimp harvesting sector in 1980 based upon Jones et al. (1974)
results for the Texas-econcmy.

11-1 Number and race distribution of commercial shrimp fishermen, South
Carolina, 1980. 11-2

11-2 Number and age distribution of commercial fishermen, North Carolina,
1980. 11-6

11-3 Years of education of commercial fishermen, North Carolina, 1980. 11-7

11-4 Number and age distribution of commercial shrimp fishermen, South
Carolina, 1980. ' 11-8

11-5 Number and age distribution of commercial shrimp fishermen, Georgia,
1980. 11-9

11-6 Characteristics of trawler captaim.by mobility class in south
Atlantic states, 1976. 11-10

11-7 Population trends in coastal counties of North Carolina. 11-12

11-8 Population trends in coastal counties of South Carolina. 11-13

11-9 Population trends in coastal counties of Georgia. 11-14

11-10 Population trends in coastal. counties in Florida. 1
11-11 Unemployment rates for coastal counties of South Atlantic states. 11V-6

Table No. Page

11-12 Summarized data from a 1974 survey of the recreational shrimp
fishe in South Carolina (Cupka and McKenzie, 1974). 11-18

11-13 Occupational distribution.and 'length of captain's non-fishery
employment, 1976. 11-21

11-14 Distribution of primary occupation of commercial fishermen, North
Carolina 1980. 11-22

13-1 Summary of shrimp production for the South Atlantic states, 1950-
13-2
1980. (White, brown, pink shrimp).
13-2 Summary of shrimp production for North Carolina, 1950-1980.
(White, brown, pink shrimp)
13-3 Summary of shrimp production for South Carolina, 1950-1980.
(White, brown, pink shrimp) 13-4

Summary of shrimp production for Georgia, 1950-1980. (White,
brown, pink shrimp) 13-5

13-5 Summary of shrimp production for the east coast of Florida, 1950-
1980. (White-, brown, pink shrimp) 13-6

13-6 Summary of shrimp production for the South Atlantic, 1957-1980.
(White shrimp) 13-7

13-7 Summary of shrimp production for the South Atlantic states, 1957-
1980. (Brown shrimp) 13-8

-8 Summary of shrimp production for the South Atlantic states, 1957-
1980. (Pink shrimp) 13'-9

Summary of shrimp production for North Carolina, 1957-1980. (White
shrimp) 13-10

Summary of shrimp production for South Carolina, 1957-1980. (White
shrimp) 13 -11
13-11 Summary of shrimp production for Georgia, 1957-1980. (White shrimp) 13-12

'13-12 Summary of shrimp production for east coast of Florida, 1957-1980.
(White shrimp)

13-13 Summary of shrimp production for North Carolina, 1957-1980. (Brown
shrimp)

13-14 Summary of shrimp production for South Carolina, 1957-1980. (Brown
shrimp) 13-15

13-15 Summary of shrimp production for Georgia, 1957-1980. (Brown shrimp)

Summary of shrimp production for east coast of Florida, 1957-1980.
(Brown shrimp) 13-17

xiii

Table No Page

13-17 Summary of shrimp production for North Carolina, 1957-1980.
(Pink shrimp) 13
Summary of shrimp production for South Carolina, 1957-1980.
(Pink shrimp) i3 -19

13-19 Summary of shrimp production for Georgia, 1957-1980. (Pink shrimp) 13-20

13-20 Summary of shrimp production for the east coast of Florida, 1957-1980. -
(Pink shrimp) 13-21

xiv

LIsr aF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

5-1 Mean number per sample of Penaeus taken by trawl between Cape Fear,
North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida as related to distance
from shore. 5-7

5-2 Mean number per sample of Penaeus taken by trawl between Cape Fear,
North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida by-state as related to
distance. from shore. 5-8

5-3 Average landings per year of white, brown, and pink shrimp for the
years 1976-1980. 5-44

5- 4 South Atlantic shrimp'landings, 1957-1980. 5-53

8-1 Geographic range of shrimp activities. 8-11

8-2 A diagrammatic representation of double-rig shrimp trawling. 8-50

8-3 Rigging arrangements for double-rig Shrimp trawling. 8-52
8-4 Diagrammatic representation of a 20, m (64q0 ft) flat. trawl 8-54

8-5 Diagranmtic representation of a 18-m (.60,ft)--semi balloon trawl 8-55

trawl.
8-6 Diagrammatic representation of a 12 m (40 ft) two-seam balloon, 8-56

8-7 Two methods of attaching chains tic) conventional wooden trawl doors. 8-59

8-8 The twin-trawl design as reported by Bullis and Floyd (1973) 8-61

8-9 The "Mongoose" trawl designed by 'Billy Burbank,III. 8-62

9-1 Shrimp products of the South Atlantic states, 1979. 9-11

10-1 Major marketing channels for shrimp productions. 10-9

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK COMPRISING THE MANAGEMENT UNIT

5.1 Description of the Species and their-Distribution

5.1.1 Identity@.'-.

Shrimp represent the principal fishery resources of the Atlantic Coast of

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The shrimp industry of

these states is based almost entirely on three shallaw-water species of the fam-

ily Penaeidae, the white shrimp (Pen setiferus Unnaeus), the brown shrimp

(P. aztecus aztecus Ives) and the pink shri '(P. duorarum duorarum Burkenroad).

An incidental species of considerable importance to the Florida fishery is the

rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris Stimpson).

Penaeus setiferus has a host of cammon names-other than the often used

white sh rimp, including grey shrimp, lake shrimp, green shrimp, green-tailed

shrimp, blue-tailed shrimp, rainbow shrimp, Daytona shrimp, common shrimp and

;tazt most often referred to as the brown shrimp on
southern shrimp. P.Et, ecus

the Atlantic Coast, is also known as brownie, green lake-shrinp, red shrimp,

redtail shrimp, golden shrimp, native shrimp and also the summer shrlup in North

Carolina. The pink shrimp, P. d. duoraxum, is also known as the spotted shrimp,

hopper, pink spotted shrimp, brown spotted shrimp, grooved shrimp, green shrimp,

pink night shrimp, red shri skipper and pushed shrinp (Perez Farfante, 1969).
Imp

The three species can be divided into the non-grooved shrimp (P. seti-

ferus) and the grooved shrimp'(P. a aztecus and P. d. duorarum). The grooves

occur on the dorsal surface of the carapace of either side of the postrostral

carina. P. setiferus can also be distingui@dfran the other species by its

much. longer antenna (2.5 to 3 times longer than body length), light grey body

color and the yellow band on the uropods. Loxger grooved shrimp can usually be

easily distinguished by body pigmentationwhen fresh. P..d. duoraxun typically

has a dark-colored spot on each side between the third and fourth abdominal
scmites. The uropods'of pink shrimp usually have a dark blue band while the

5-2

brawn shrimp's coloration on the saw band is usually more variable, ranging fran

purple to reddish purple. Sow green and/or yellow pigmentation is also common

on brawn shrimp tails. Perez Farfante (1969) provides a key to species identifi-

cation and thorough descriptions of each species.

Juveniles of the grooved shrimp caneasilybe distinguished from the juve-

niles of the non-grooved species. Separation of juvenile grooved shrimp, however,

can be very difficult. Williams (1953) and Perez Farfante (1969) addressed this

problem and found characters that would identify.juveniles with careful scrutiny.

Identification of the.postlarvae is even more tenuous. Several investigators have

examined postlarvae (Pearson, 1939; Williams,* 1959; Chuensri, 1968; Ringo and
Zamora, 1968) but due to overlap of meristic and morphormetric.-ahaxici6r@ @.-pink

ry, icult
post-11
brown, ve dift' _`-to: -reliably distinguish-

5.1.2 Morphology

The three penaeid species addressed here have basically very similar mor-

phology. The adult shrimp are somewhat laterally compressed with a cephalothorax

(head) that-.makes up roughly 1/3 of the body length. The caxapace has a mid-dor_'

sal rostrmn which has dorsal and ventral teeth. There axe ten periopods (walking

legs) that are slender and relatively long. Five pair of pleopods; (swinming legs)

are located on the ventral surface of the abdomen. The tail fan is nmde up of the

centrally located telson and the adjoining uropods.. This structure facilitates

rapid backward moverent when the large abdominal muscles quickly flex the abdcmn.

William (1965) and Perez Farfante (1969) give descriptions of all three species

and Young (.1959) provides a detailed description of the white shrimp's morphology.

5.1.3 Incidental Species

A fourth canmrcially valuable shrimp species is caught occasionally along

with the shrimp addressed here. That species, the rock shrimp*(Sicyonia breviros-

is usually found in waters deeper (36.6-M.9 m; 20-30 fm) than those where

.Penaeus is traditionally fished.

5-3

Rock shrimp have athick exoskeletonwhich is pinkish to mottled brown.

The rostrum is much shorter and the body bulkier than that of Penaeus. Rock

shrimp is a high quality seafood product that is steadily growing in popular-

ity.

A considerable rock shrimp fishery has developed off the east Florida

coast, growing from about 200,000 lb landed in 1972 to over 2.6 million lb,in

Rock shrimp occur in commercial quantities as far north as South Caro-

lina but state landings have been highly variable ranging from 16,000 lb in

1980 to 463,000 lb in 1,979. Aspects of the biology of Sicyonia brevirostris

off:Florida have been reported by Cobb et a.1. (1973) and Kennedy et al. (1972)
and by Davis (1981) for stocks off the South-Carolina coast.

5.1.4 Distribution

Much of the information in this subsection is summarized fran Perez Far-

fante (1969), who reviewed in detail. the! geographic occurrence of white

brown and pink shrimp. With.the exception of P. d. duorarum, which is also

found off Bermuda, the three species are restricted to the Atlantic Coast of

..the United States and the Gulf of Mexico.

P. setiferus ranges fran Fire Island, New York to Saint Lucie Inlet on

the Atlantic Coast of Florida, and from the Ochlockonee River on the Gulf Coast
of-Florida to Ciudad Campeche, Mexico'. Atlantic and Gulf populations have pre-

sumably been separated since elevation of the Florida peninsula and closure of

Suwannee Straits at the end of the Pleistocene. In addition to the disjunct

distribution around the Florida peninsula, other gaps occur in the range of the

white shrimp within restricted areas. These interruptions have not been ade-

quately explained, although salinity, temperature, substrate, food, and cover

have been suggested as possible limiting
factors.

Along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the white shrimp has cen-

ters of abundance in South Carolina, Georgia and northeast Florida. Anderson

and Lunz (1965) and Lindner and Cook (1970) noted.that it is most abundant in

regions where extensive brackish marshes are in contact, through passes,with)a

shallow offshore area. 'White shrimp generally ax\-, concentrated in waters of 27 m

(89 ft) or less, although Lindner and Cook (1970) noted that specimens have been

obtained from depths of 82 m (269 ft). Anderson (1956) conducted 428 trawls with

a 10-foot try net in the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States. The
30-minute trawls, made between 3,90 131 to-27' 301 N during January through April,

produced 270 white shrimp. Of these) 99.6 percent were taken inside 16.5 m (9 fin)

(Table 5-1). The highest percentage of samples (33 percent) by depth stratawhere

shrimp were present was at locations in 7.:ft@C4ft) or less as was the highest mean

number of shrimp per tow (3.6 shrimp/taw).

P. a. aztecus.is known from Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, to the Flori-

da Keys and northward into the Gulf to the Sanibel grounds. It reappears near

Apalachicola Bay and occurs around the Gulf toast to northwestern Yucatan. 'While

it may occur seasonally along the middle Atlantic states, breeding populations

appitrently do not range north of North Carolina.

While brawn shrimp reach maximum abundance in the Gulf of Mexico, the spe-

cies is moderately abundant along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, paxti-

cularly in North and South Carolina (Cook and Lindner, 1970). Although brown

shrimp occur in commercially@,exploitable quantities to 110 m.(361 ft), the species

is most abundant in waters of less than 55 m (180--ft). Specimens have been taken

in depths of 165 m (541 ft).

P. d. duorarum occurs from southern Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys,

and around the coast of the Gulf of Mexico to Yucatan south of Cabo Catoche. Max-

imum abundance is reached off southwestern Florida and the southeastern Golfo de

Cwpeche. Along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, it occurs in sufficient

abundance to be of major comaercial significance only in North Carolina. Costello

and Allen (1970) cbserved that the largest numbers of pink shrinp occur in regions

where shallow bays and estuaries of the coastline border on a broad and shallow

Table 5-1. Trawl -results for P. setiferus' fran the continental shelf of the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern
United States (Source:. Anderson, 1956; Note: 1 fni 6 ft).

Depth (fin) Total Samples Total Shrimp % Samples with Shrimp Mean Number Shrimp-
'per Sample

4 15 54 33.3 3.6

5. 18 7 0.4

6 27 18.2

7 24 13 16.7 0.5

8 45@ 109 26.7

9 32 13 12.5 0.4

10 38 39 10.5 1.0

32 7 3.1 0.2

12 19 0 0

13 11 1 0.1

172 0 0 0.0

WrAL 428 270 8.6 0.6
............. ................

5-6

shelf area.. Pink shrimp are most abundant in waters of 11-37 m (36-121 ft)

although in some areas they may be abundant as deep as 65 m (213 ft). Speci-

mans have beenrecorded down to depths of 329 m (1,079 ft).

Penaeu abundance in the south Atlantic appears to be directly related

to distance*from shore. In 1980, a nearshore survey (4.9-18.3 m, 16-60 ft)

with bottom trawl was conducted from Cape Fear, North Carolina to Cape Canaveral,

Florida. by personnel of the South Carolina Wildlife and Maxine Resources Depart-

ment as part of the Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction

(MARMAP) program. Preliminary analysis of the data indicates that Penaeus is

most abundant within five miles of the coastline (Figure 5-1). Generally, shrimp

abundance decreases with distance frcm-shore in the South-Atlantic but a second

peak.occurs at 4-5 na.mi. Examination of the same data separated by state (Yi-

gure 5-2) shows that this second peak.at 4-5 na.mi. is made.up almost totally of

shrimp taken off the Georgia coast. The greater distance from shore for Penaeus

Off Georgia appears to be related to.depth.. Shallow water extends further off-

shore on the Georgia coast relative to the other areas examined in the MARMAP

survey. The man distance frcm shore of the 3-fathom (5.5 m) curve (computed

fran distances for every minute of latitude) for Georgia was 3.2 na.mi. as
opposed to 2.1 na.mi. for South.Carolina, and 0.4 na.mi. for Florida. Althougii

shrimp appa-rently occur further offshore along the Georgia coast, few shrimp

were collected beyond 5 na.mi..

5.1.5 Biological Characteristics

5.1.5.1 Reproduction

7he commercially important penaeids of the southeastern United States are

dioecious and sexually dimorphic (Lindner and Cook, 1970; Cook and Lindner, 1970;

Costello and Allen, 1970). Beyond a total length of 100 am (.3.9 in), females

are larger than nxLles of the same age (Williams, 1955; Joyce, 1965; Perez Far-

fante, 1969).

q10
0-

9
qC8qn
14
8qUqi
6q7

5
13

4
qL4qL q10q8

6q3
14
6qW
q2

2qz

0-0.5 0.6-1.0 1.1-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0 3.1-6q3.5 6q3.6-4.0 4.1-4.5 4.6-5.0
DISTANCE FROM, SHORE (no. mi.)

Figure 5-1. Mean number per sample of Penaeus taken by trawl between Cape Fear, North Carolina and Cape
Canaveral, Florida as related to distance from shore. Numbers above bars are sample numbers (n).

NORTH CAROLINA

0 0 1 0 0 3

''X 3
-SOUTH CAROLINA

COL

GEORGJA

4 6

0 0---' 0 0 14

ZI 3-
FLOR I DA

8
5 2 0 1 0 1 5
0-0.5 0.66- 1.0 1.1-1.5 1.6-2-0 2.1-12.5 2-65@3-0 3.1-45 3.6-4.0 4.1-4.5 4.6-5.0 >@
DISTANCE FROM SHORE (no. mi.)

Figure 5-2. Mean number per sample of Penaeus taken by trawl between Cape Fear,
North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Floil@by@state as related to distance from
shore. Numbers above bars are sample numbers (n).

5-9

..The sex ratio is 1:1 for the three species; however, occasionally there

appears to be some segregation by sex (Weymouth et al., 1933; Perez Farfante,

1969). Joyce (1965) found that female P. setiferus made up 55.5 percent of the

catch in offshore munples from Florida's east coast. In two different studies

along the Georgia coast, Frisbie (1967) and Harris (1974) found-67.6 percent and

70.2 percent females in June samples axLd 67.6 percent and 64.7 percent in July

samples. Bishop and Shealy (1977) found 57 percent of 11,680 P.' setiferus in

South Carolina to be females. Farmer et al., (1978), also working in South Caro-

lina, found females outnumbered males in 15 of 16 samples in which sample number

was 200 or more. Although females appear to be dominant during some seasons,

Whitaker (S.C. Wildl, Mar. Res. Dept.,Charleston, SIC; unpubl. data) found male

to female ratios [email protected]:.l to 1.9:1 in three areas along the South Carolina coast

in May 1980.

P. a. aztecus sex ratios appear -to be about 1: 1 in of f shore samples (R en-

fro and Brusher,: 1963; Joyce, 1965). However, inshore samples taken in Florida

by Joyce (1965) found females to nmke -qp 55.2 percent of 1,648 shrimp examined.

Estuarine investigations in South Carolina also found 60 percent of 3,184

shrimp to be female (Bishop and Shealy, 1977).

Bkoa&,(1965), interpreting from Undner and Anderson's (1956) data, deter-
mined that sexual maturity of female,P. setiferm is attained at 140 mml (5.5 in).

Farmer et al. (1978) judged some females to be ripe (by ovarian coloration) in

the 121-130 mm (4.8-5.1 in) size class. However, ripe females were much more

common at lengths greater than 130 am (115.1 in). By converting Burkenroad's (1934)

findings from carapace length to tatal length, Perez Phrfante (1969) reported that

females. first mature at 135 mm (5.3 in) and that males have fully developed sperm-

atophores at 155 mm (6.1 in) but ripe sperm first appear at 118 mm (4.61n)., In

M references to shrimp size (length) are total length (M) unless otherwise noted.

5-10

female-P. aztecus, maturity is reached at about 140 ran (5.5 in) (Renfro, 1964;

Cook and Lindner, 19M). Burkenroad (1939) reported that female brown shrimp

attain gonadal ripeness at about 145 mm (5.7 in) (as converted by Perez Far-

fante, 1969). In P. d. duoraran, maturation apparently occurs at a consider-

ably smaller size. Eldred et al. (1961) found mature females at 85 mm (.3.3 in)

mature males at 74 am (,2.9 in). Kennedy and Barber (in press), in examining

specimens frot Floridats; east -coast
found that the first sign of"ibminent SPOMM

ing (near ripe or ripe ovaries) was at 35 mm CL (137 rim TL).

All three shrimp addressed here have ovaries that extend from the anteri-

or end of the cephalothorax to the posterior end of the abdomen. Each ovary con-.

sists of one anterior lobe and six to eight lateral lobes in the cephalothorax:

and one long lobe in the abdomen (Perez Farfante, 1969). All available informa-

tion places Penaeus fecundity at 500,000-l',-000,000 ova (Burkenroad, 1934; Ander-

son, 1955; Lunz,-1967). Anderson et al. (1949a) determined that a 172 mm (6.8 in)
P. setiferus had about 860,000 eggs and Hudinaga (1942) reported a 200 mm (.7.'9 in)

japonicus with approximately 700,000 eggs. Eggs of the three species are de-
mersal, measuring 0.28 am (9.01 in), 0.26 mm (0.01 in) and 0.31-0.33 m (,O.Of' In--)

in diameter for P.,setiferus, P. a.- aztecus, and P..d. duorarm, respectively

(Pearson, 1939; Dobkin, 1961; Cook and Lindner, 1970; Lindner and Cook, 19M).

Gross descriptions of the developmental stages of the ovaries are similar for

all three species and are shown in Table 5-2.

Relatively little is known about mating in Penaeid shrimp. Burkenroad

C1939) suggested that copulation in P.' setiferus takes place between haxd-shelled

individuals. During copulation, the male anchors the spennatophore to the fe-

male's tbelycum by various attachment structures and a glutinous material. Ap-

parently, the spermatophore can be easily dislodged since females with attached

spermatophores are rarely found in trawl sanples. P. aztecus and P. duorarm

apparently have copulation between hard-shelled males and soft-shelled females

(Burkenroad, 1939; Perez Farfante, 1969). Impregnated females can be easily

Table 5-2. Gross descriptions of fresh ovaries of P. setiferus, P. a. w2tecus and P d. 'dubtatum for the five.
basic ovarian developmental stages. (Bources: Perez Farfante (1969)a, Cummings (lgUj)tF, 1M @g(1948)cp Cook and
Murphy (1969)d, Brown and patlan (1974)e.

Undeveloped Developing. Near Ripe Ripe Spent
........... .

a,c,d,e
P. setiferus small and larger, opaque larger, yellow occupiop:, .:flaccid Ittiddy"
translucent and yellowish to yellowish all avail-. green becomes
with melano- orange, visi- able space, yellow or milky'
phores seat--T ble through drap olive with regression
tered over sur- exoskeleton, brown
face dark green
melanophores
-a A e
P, a,,-@Aztecus slender, opaque, large, yellow-' gc)lden mu& smaller,
f I nnni d T]"MI 1 @IA --h @A +h -i 6T% V%@tm T@@ il@a An"&@ *1 -^-4 A 14 -U+
dle%'@`, - A@9-1%1%IJAAIL.Ls" %,
translucent numerous heavy =ning darker gTeen brown to yellow-
brOWnL 3h
granular ova red to'
pi dic melano-
phores
a,b,c
P. d. duorarLml very slender, flaccid but larger, light' &Xk f laccid color
translucent larger, opaque, bluish gTeen bluish fades, becoming
very flaccid, white.to olive- (glaucous), green olive milky with re-.
invisible bluff somewhat tur- ipreen 6grepsion
through exo- gid and visi-
skeleton ble through
exoskeleton

detected macroscopically by the bulging of the lateral plates. Eldred et al.

(1961) suggested that mating behavior of young shrimp is possibly related to

migratory behavior. Perez Farfante (1969) noted that copulation of pink shrimp

was apparently not directly related to maturation and spawning. It is general-

ly agreed that fertilization takes place as ova and spermatozoa, are simultane-

ously explused. (Perez Farfante, 1969; Lindner and Cook, 1970).

In Georgia and northern Florida, scme spawning by P. setiferus my occur

inshore, although most spawning occurs mc)re than 1.9 km (1.2 miles) frcm the
coastIl- (Lindner and Anderson, 1956). Harris (1974) and Music (1979) found

scme femaleswith ripe ovaries in Georgia creeks and sounds but females with

attached spermatophores were found in outside waters only. The highest percent-

ages of ripe shri mp, came from offshore samples. Farmer et al. (1978) found

ripe females in Charleston Harbor and just offshore but the only spent shrimp

were taken at offshore locations. Joyce and Eldred (1966,) noted that spawaing

off.Flor ida occasionally takes place inshore, at or near inlets, but most oc-

curs offshore at depths of 6.1-24.4 m (20-80 ft).

Spawning is correlated with bottom water temperatures (Lindner and Ander-

son, 1956; Cmmdngs, 1961; Barrett and Gillespie, 1973). Subrahmanyam (1971)

found spawning of Penaeid shrimp to occur with a bottom temperature range of
between .170 and 290C (6@0 - 840F). Lindner and Anderson.(1956) observed that

the'beginning of spring spawning of P. setiferus coincides closely with the ra-

pid rise in water temperature. Spawning in the fall, however, appears to end

v&en there is a decline in temperature even though that temperature is consider-

ably higher than the range which evidently induced spawning in the spring. Ac-

cording to Lindner and Anderson (1956), spawning of P. setiferus: cannences dur-

ing April (Florida and Georgia) or May (South Carolina) and continues into Sep-

ten-ber (.Sauth Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida) or October (central

Florida). It is uncertain whether individual shrimp spawn once or several times

5-13

per year, althoughrepeated spawning is probable (Perez Farfante, 1969). Lind-

ner and Anderson (1956) believed that a given shrimp my spawn up to four ti

a season, and that some fema-1 es my survive to spawn a second season.

Most evidence indicates the P. a. aztecus spawns in relatively deep wa-

ter. In a study in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, it was concluded that spawn-

ing did not take place at depths of.,14 m"(45 ft) or less and the greatest percent-

ages of ripe females were at 46 m (151 it) (Cook and UndnerP 1970). Anderson

(1970) reported a laxge concentration of P. a., aztecus at a depth of 55 to 59 m

(180-L94 ft) southof Cape Canaveral in.January 1965. He speculated that these

shrimp were recruited not only frcm M.orida but South Carolina and Georgia as

well. Joyce (1965) proposed that P.' EL.'aztecus spawns during February and March

and Hoese (.1973) speculated that it s;pawns during spring. The rationale for

these decisions was the large influx of postlarvae into the estuaries in February

-hat spawning occurred
and Ma_rcb..-.:_Bearden (1961) suggested I., during fall and win-

ter. Anderson (1970) found that during September; 23.7 percent of the brown

shrimp off Georgia were ripe and 6.4 percent off Florida were ripe. Frisbie

(1967) collected two ripe shrimp one mile off Sapelo Sound in October 1966 which

contained spermatophores. C. M. Beardeen (S.C. Wildl. Max. Re6. Dept., (harles-

ton., SC; pers. comm.) found mature males and females three to four miles off

Stono Inlet, South Carolina.,during October and November 1965 and 1966.

P. d. duorarum apparently [email protected] m (2-26 fm). Eldred et al.

(1965) reported that the depth of intensive spawning activity off Tampa Bay,

Florida varied fran one year to the nEWt. Williams (1955) repo rted large pink

shrimp in water up to 32.9 m (19 fin) offshore of North Carolina during winter.

P..d. duorarm on the Tortugas grounds apparently spawn to some extent through-

out the year and considerable activity occurs during spring, summer and fall

(Cummings, 1961; Eldred et al., 1961; Allen et al., 1980). Kennedy and Ba:rber

(in press) examined pink shrimp ovarian maturation and abundance off eastern

5,14

Florida. They found that offshore migration of mature pink shrimp continues to

at least 40 m (131 ft) and that peak spawning activity occurs durin g summer.

Williams (1955) reports that ro e-bearing femles in North Carolina are first

collected in May along with maturing males and by June most shrimp are sexual-

ly mature. He states that the first-arrival of mature shrimp in'the ocean im-

'mediately precedes the appearance of postlarvae. P. d. duoranmn is probably

capable of spawn more than once,_:(perez Farfante, 1969).

5.1.5.2 Larval and Postlaxval Phases

The shrimp species addressed here all have eleven-larval stages (5 nau-

pliar, 3 protozoean, and 3 mysid) before developing into postlarvae (Perez Far-

fante, 1969; Cook and Lindner, 1970). Sizes of the various stages of P. seti-

ferus and P. d.,duorarLun axe shown in Table 5.3., Cook (.1966) reports that the

larval stages of P.,a. aztecus are very similar to those of P. d..duorarum.

Duration of larval life is apparently dependent upon temperature, food and habi-

tat. Records suggest 10-12 days for P. setiferus (Johnson and Fielding, 1956),

11-17 days for P. a. aztecus (Cook.and Murphy, 1969), and 15-25 days for P. d.

duorarum (Ewald, 1965).

Postlarval size (total length) ranges from about 2.9 to 12 mn (0.12

0.47 in). 'White and pink shrimp postlarval sizes overlap while brown shrimp

postlarvae are usua.1ly larger.. Anderson et al. (1949a) and Bearden (1961)

give white shrimp postlarval lengths of 5-6 mm (0.20 - 0.24 in) and 6-9 mm

(0.24 - 0.35 in), respectively. Baxter and Renfro (1967) report a mean size

of 7.0 mm, (.0.28 in) and a range of 5.0-9.5 mm. (0.20 - 0.37 in) for postlarval

white shrimp from Texas.

Established size ranges of first pink shrimp postlarvae are 3.8 - 4.8

mm (0.15 - 0.19 in) (Dobkin, 1961) and 2.9 - 4.6 m (0.11 - 0.18'.in) (Ewald

1965). Dobkin gave a size range of 4.7 - 6.6 irm (0.19 - 0.26 in) for second

postlarvae pink shrimp. Baxter and Renfro (1967) found brown shrimp postlar-

a
Table 5-3. gize ranges of Penaeus setiferus and P. d. duoranim larval stages.' (Sources: Pearson, 1939
.Dobkin, 1961 Ewald, 1965c).

Nauplii Protozoeaie- mysts First Postlarvae

P. setiferusa 0. 35 0.61 m 0.86-- 2.7 m 2.9 4.4 m 3.8.- 4.8 mi@

b
.2.0 -4.6 mn
b, c
P. d. duorm" 0. 30 0.56 um 0.80 2.6
m 3.2 4.4 m 4.0 5.0 m

5-16

vae fra Galveston Bay to range fran 8.5-12.0 mm (0.33-0.47 in) and have a

mean of 11.5 am (.0.45 in). Bearden (1961) reported,a size range of 9-12 am

.(0.35-0.47 in) for brown shrimp postlarvae collected in South Carolina. Bax-

ter and Renfro (1967) noted that by late June the length,distributions of white

and brawn, shrimp postlarvae begin to overlap. Me modes of the length distri-

bution of brown shrimp postlarvae decreased while scme white shriap p'ostlarvae

as large as 10.5 mm (0.41 in) entered the estuary.

The effects of light on larval and postlarval shrimp have been recorded

by several investigators. Pearson (1939) noted a "positive, though probably

.complicated" phototrophism of nauplii and protozoea, of P. setiferus. Bearden

(1961) cbserved that postlarvae were equally abundant near the bottom in day-

light and near the surface at night. He found no postlarvae at the surface dur-

ing daylight and bottom samples at night yielded fewer than night surface sam-

ples. Ewald (1965) reported that larval pink shrinp.stages are ."strongly posi-

.tively phototrophicit. Williams and Deubler C1968) suggested that abundance of

.pink shrimp postlarvae in surface waters is influenced by nmnlight. Jones et

al. (1970) working in Florida Bay, found postlarval abundance to be higher at

'night in surface-and midlevel water than during daylight.

The mechanism by which postlarvae, are brought fra distant spawning areas

to estuarine waters is not known. Sick (1970) found naupliar stages only in

shallow waters off North Carolina and postlarvae were concentrated 80.4 ]on

(50 mi.) seaward of the Outer Banks. He reasoned that there mist be a seaward

transport of larvae to the offshore areas. TWo major cells of counterclockwise

circulating surface water prcbably account for the seaward transport of larvae

and the eventual return of postlarvae to the estuaries. Shoreward countercur-

rents north of Cape Canaveral have also been suggested as the mechanism for

transport of P d., ddorArum. larvae from spawning areas to nursery areas along

5-17

northeast Florida (Kennedy and Barber, in press). Movement of white shrimp post-

larvae into the estuary is done by nearshore tidal currents as white shrimp

spawn relatively close to shore. Investigations using seabed drifters have

shown that bottom currents along the Georgia coast move north thus facilitating

the movement of postlarvae into the Georgia sounds (R. J. Reimold, Ga. Dept.

Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA, pers. com.).

Research conducted in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico suggested that lar-

vae, postlarvae or both may overwinter in offshore waters and migrate into estua-

ries the following spring (Temple and Fischer, 1967). Laboratory work by Aldrich

et al. (1968) determined that postlarval P. a. aztecus bury in response to low
temperatures (120 170 C; 540 63F) and emerge as' temperature increases (18 0
21.50 C; 640 - 710F) Baxter and Renfro showed that postlarval specimens

Of P.a. aztecus were larger in springthan those collected during all other sea-

sons. Aldrich et al. (1968) reasoned that the laxger postlarvae found daring
the' spring were the result of a fall spawn that had overwintered offshore and in-.

creased in size during an extended period of slow growth.. Postlarvae on the

South Carolina coast taken in late winter and spring are also large (Bearden,

1961), indicating the possibility of overwintering brawn shrimp postlarvae on

the South Atlantic coast.

Brawn shrimp postlarvae apparently enter the estuaxies just after water

temperature begins to rise in late winter and early spring, Christmas et al.
(1966) found no postlarva at temperatures less than 120C (540F). Bearden

(1961) first collected brown shrimp postlarvae in South Carolina during 1960
when water temperatures were 11 -120C (52 - 540F). Postlarval abundance, bow-
ever, decreased when water temperature subsequently dropped below 120C. Williams

and Deubler (1968) collected postlarvae in Bogue Sound. North Carolina on a regu-

lar basis from 1957 to 1967. They reported that 90 percent of the postlarval
P. a. aztecus were collected when water temperature was 110C (52F) or above.

A-1 8

Temperature, per se, probably has little effect on the movements of

white or pink shrimp postlarvae into the estuaries since this occurs during

the warm season, late spring and summer (Bearden, 1961; Eldred et al., 1961;

Christmas et al., 1966; Williams and Deubler, 1968).

5.1.5.3. Juvenile and Adult Phases

After entering the estuaries, postlaxval shrimp occupy nursery areas

which offer abundant food, suitable substrate, and shelter frm predators.
In the South Atlantic, these areas are for the most partA*natedby Sparti-

na alterniflora (Juncus in Pamlico Sound) (See Section 6.1 for a more complete

review of habitat). There is some temporal and/or spatial segregation of the

juvenile phases of the three species. P. a. aztecus juveniles usually occupy

the estuarine nursery grounds from March through'July before enagrating off-

shore although some individuals my emgrate in June. Growth rates are appa-

rently dependent to a great extent on water temperature, salinity, and salin-

ity-temperature interaction. Cooler than norml temperatures during spring

will result in lower growth rates and can delay-time of emigration and, con-

sequently, the carmercial shrimp season.

P. setiferus and P..d. duorarum enter the estuaries at about the same

time, usually beginning in,April and early May in the southern South Atlantic

and in June and July in North Carolina. There is little competition for nur-

sery habitat between the species because pink shrimp only occur in abundance

in the North Carolina'sounds where white shrimp are uncommon. The large white

shrimp begin emgrating to the commercial fishing areas in August and continue

through December. The smaller white and pink shrimp remaining in the estuaries

during the winter are termed the overwintering-stocks.

Severe winterweather causes mass mortalities of overwintering shrimp

or premature emigration whichresults in a reduction of commercial catches.
The severe winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78.caused North Carolina pink shrimp

5-19

landings to decrease to 42.4 percent and 31.6 percent, respectively, of the

1967-1980 mean (N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. Comm. Dev., 1981). Mean water tempera-
tures in North Carolina were 3.70C (390F) in January 1977 and 4.70C (400F)

in February 1978 (N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. Comm. Dev., 1978). William (1955)
collected pink shrimp in North Carolina from 60C (420F) water but noted that
the shrimp became almost campletely narcotized at temperatures belaw 100C
(500F).

The deleterious effects of cold weather on white shrimp populations

have been observed by several investigators. Gunter (1941) recorded the occur-

rence of dead white shrimp washing ashore- on Texas beaches after the passage

of a severe cold weather front that resulted in a rapid drop in water temper-

atures. Lindner and Anderson (1956) reported the effects of the 1939-40 win-

ter on P. setiferus of. the South Atlantic states. This usually cold winter

preceded a very poor commercial white shrimp season in the spring of 1940. In
1958, passage of a severe cold front in South-Carolina, resulted in the appear-

ance of dead shrimp in commerdial trawl nets several days afterward (Lunz,

1959). Winter weather again caused water temperatures in South Carolina to
drop to 4.40C (400F) in January 1966 resulting in severe damage to the over-

wintering stocks. Joyce (1965) reported that 20 percent of the white shrimp
caught in a bottom trawl in December 1962 were dead after a rapid 4.50C drop
in bottom water temperature to 8.00C (460F) in the St. Johns River, Florida,

More recently, Farmer et al, (1978) in South- Carolina and Music (1979)

in Georgia have examined the effect of severe winter weather on overwintering

white shrimp. The winter of 1976-1977 severely damaged white shrimp stocks

and resulted in much reduced commercial landings in the South Atlantic (only

37 percent of the 1957-1980 average). Water temperature in Charleston Harbor,

South Carolina reached 5.6C (42F) during the third week in January 1977,

Dead shrimp were collected in bottm trawls at this.time and were reported

5-20

washing ashore at local beaches. Prior to this, shrimp appeared to congregate

in the deeper areas of Charleston Harbor and vacate surrounding shallower waters
as water temperature approached about 90C (480F)., Similar conditions occurred
in Georgia when surface water temperatures in estuarine areas fell to 3.O0C
(370F) during the third week in January 1977. Coastwide sampling completed on

January 26 found live shrimp only in Cumberland Sound.

'White shrimp are apparently very susceptable to water temperatures of 4
to 5 C(39-410F) or less (Music, 1979). The lethal temperature is probably

variable, however, depending on salinity acclimation, rate of temperature change,

season, and probably other variables. It is known that law temperature mortali-

ty of some decapod crustaceans is inversely related to salinity (Broekema, 1941;

McLease, 1956; Kinne, 1964). Panikkar (1951) observed that several marine Crus-

tacea of colder waters were represented in tropical areas by blackish water or

fresh water species and concluded that osmoregulation in law salinity was easi-
er" in warmer climates. Dehnel (1960) examined the effects of temperature and

salinity on the respiratory metabolism of the intertidal crabs, Hemigrapsus

oregonensis and H. nudus. He found that weight-specific oxygen consumption was

highest at low temperature - low salinity combinations. This was not attributed

to increased miscular activity, but to increased work to maintain osmotic balance.

Williams (1960) examined -the effect of temperature on osmotic regulation in P. a.

aztecus and P. d. duoranrum. He determined that survival of both species in lab-

oratory tests was better in higher salinities at law temperatures. Joyce (1965)

observed that all three shrimp species (white, brown and pink.) were relatively

abundant in law salinity areas during the waxm seasons but apparently vacated
these areas as water temperature.% reached 120C (540F).

In the South Atlantic, juvenile and adult brown shrimp arqe rarely affect-

ed by severe winter weather because most have been captured by fishermen or pre-

dators: and others have moved offshore prior to onset of cold weather. In the

Gulf of Mexico, however, mortalities resultant from cold weather have been noted.

5-21.1

Gunter (1941) collected a dead brown shrimp by trawl along with dead white shrimp

following passage of a severe cold front in 1940 which lowered water temperature

to 3.90C (390F). Another cold wave hit; the Texas coast in 1951 and dropped water

temperature to 3.30C (380F) (Gunter and Hildebrand, .1951). Dead brown shrimp

were again cbserved and reports wererec.eived of windrows of brown shrimp on the

islands of lower Aransas Bay.* Williams (1960) found in laboratory tests that the
ability of P.a. aztecus to osmoregulate was impaired at 8.80C (48C'F).

Eldred et (1961) reportedthat they knew of no known mortalities of

P.-d. duorarun due to cold waves. They did cbserve, however, mortalities in bait
tanks as water temperature approached 129C (54OF)'.@ William (1955) reported tak-

ing pink shrimp in North Carolina during winter when minimn water temperature
was 4oC (39O'F). He also noted that pink shrimp bury deeply (to 15 cm, 6 in.)

with the onset of cold temperatures. McCoy (1972) reported that pink shrimp in

North Carolina buried andwere unavailable after water temperature dropped to

about 10 to 120C (50-540F) and sampling,by trawl did not produce shrimp in winter
and spring until temperatures increasedto about 120C (540F). He was, however,

successful in collecting shrimp fran the substrate with a pump and suction hose.

William (1960) reported that pink shrimp psmoregulate better than brown shrimp

at lowered salinities and temperatures. Pink shrimp can be adversely affected

by low temperatures, however, as evidenced by the mass mortalities in North Caxo-

lina during the winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78 (N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. CCM. Dev.,

1978).

Pink and white shrimp that survived the winter grow rapidly in'late-

winter and early spring before migrating to the ocean. The migratingwhite

shrimp, so called "roe shrimp", make up the valuable spring fishery. When a

majority of white shrimp do not survive the winter conditions, the North Caro-

lina, South-Carolina, and Georgia fisheries are dependent on a northward spring

migration of white shrimp to form the s;pawning stocks (See Section 5.1.5.5).

5-22

Joyce (1965) concluded that he agreed with Lindner and Anderson Is (1956) mark-

release work. He suggested that there is a major southward migration and that

the northward migration, is relatively minor being "prinrLrily a movement out of

,the Cape.Canaveral region." Some sources, however, indicate that fishing pres-

sure is responsible for the reduced spring northward migration. Tain (1944)

attributed, in part, South-Caxolinals poor rank in shrimp production to 11deple-

tion of migratory shrimp due to the intensity of trawling off Florida when

shrimp are wintering there." He apparently based this observation on a letter

(s ee IA=., 1944) f W. W. Anderson. Anderson's letter, in part, follows*

ITrior to about 1935, which was before the fishery became so in-
tense, the migratory shrimp that wintered in Florida would return
north for spawning with the warming of the waters in the spring.
ImIthe past several years, however, the fishing during the fall,
winter, and spring has been so intense that the migratory group is
practically annihilated. This group can no longer be depended upon
for spawning. For the past several years the annual crop of shrimp
has been the result of the spawning of the shrimp of the local win-
tering groups."

Lunz (1944) followed this by stating that cooperation among the South At-

lantic states in passing laws for protection of migratory shrimp inportant
if the stocks were to be "materially increased.",','- T!here is little doubt that

white shri mp abundance is greatly influenced by climatic conditions, but there

existsthe possibility that stocks could be benefited if migratory shrinrp off

Florida were protected during winter and early spring. Mis would allow a larger

northward migration of spawners in the spring and stocks could possibly recover

more quickly following a severe winter.

5.1.5.4 Growth. Patterns

Rates of growth in Penaeid shrimp are highly variable, and depend on far-tors
sitch_'as@-season water, . teaperature Ahr dens;fty and sex- of---- the
imp ___JEAi:ty7
organism. Adolescent shrimp grow rapidly with. estimat.es'ranging frcin 1..0 -

2.3 mm (.0.04 - 0.09 in) per day C28 64 mm; 1.1 - 2.5 in per month) in P,

setiferus, 0.5 2.5 mm (Q.02 0.10 in) per day C14 - 70 m; 0,55 2.76 in per

5-23
month) in P. a. aztecus, and 0. 25 - 1.7 mn (0.01 - 0.07 in) per day (7 - 47.6

mm; 0.28 - 1.87 in per month) in P. d. duorarum (Lindner and Cook, 1970;

Cook and Lindner, 1970; Costello and Allen, 1970; Knudsen et al., 1977).

Lindner and Anderson (.1956) estimated that 100-mm (3.9 in) P. setiferus

grow to 141 mm (5.6 in)in 2 months foqr a growth rate of 20.5 am (0.8 in) per

month. Klima (1964, 1974) concluded that 120-mm (4.7 in) white shrimp grow at

21 mm (0.8 in) per month in'late summer and fall and 177-mm shrimp grow at 29 mm

per month in August. The difference in growth rates was attributed to

lower water temperatures in late summer and fall. Lindner and Anderson (1956)

noted an almost total cessation of growth near the end of October when water

temperature dropped below 20 C (680F). Harris (1974) actually recorded a de-

crease in average shrimp size in Georgia during winter months which he attribut-

ed to southern migration of larger anima1s. He found white shrimp to overwinter

at 118 m.(4.6 in) modal length and Farmer et al. (1978) found overwintering

inshore shrimp in South Carolina to average 98 mm (3.9 in) by the third week in

February. (A summary of established growth rates for white shrimp is shown in

Table 5-4).

Salinity has also been implicated as affecting white shrimp growth. Zein-

Eldin and Griffith (1970) found high salinities to be detrimental to postlarval

growth. Twice as much body tissue was produced at intermediate salinities

than at salinities of 25 and 35 ppt. Hysmith and Colura (1976) reared white

shrimp from postlarvae in ponds and found mach better growth rates at 7 and 15

ppt than at 21 ppt.

Density of Iindividuals may affect growth rates of white shrimp. Analysis

of 1971-1980 South Carolina P. setiferus landings indicates that during years

when densities are low (as indicated by low landings) overall shrimp size is

greater (Table 5-5). This may reflect reduced intraspecific competition in the

5-24

Table 5-4. A sLmmiary of monthly growth rates for P. setiferus. (Taken in part
from IDe*,1965). Note: 1 in.. 25.4 mn.

Investigator Average a-owth Method
Per Month

Lindner and Anderson (1956) 30 mm Tagging 100 mm shrimp

Pearson (1939) .20 mm Aquarium growth of juveniles

Gunter (1950) 30 am Length-frequency studies of
field samples, juveniles

Williams (1955) 36 mm Length-frequency studies of
field samples, juveniles

Johnson and Fielding (1956) 57 mm. Pond growth, juveniles

Loesch (1965) 13- 27 mm Length-frequency studies of
winter field samples, juve-
niles

18,- 31 mm Length-frequency studies of
summer field samples, juve
niles

65 mm Length-frequency studies of
spring field samples, juve-
niles

Joyce (1965) 33 mm Carparison of sizes of lar-
gest animals, juveniles

Harris (1974) 30 mm Length-frequency studies in
July-August f ield samples,
78 mm ..

22 mm Length-frequency studies of
August-8eptember field sam.-
ples, 10&-mm

Gaidry (1974) 14- 15 mm, Length-frequency studies of
winter field samples, 60-W
EM

Elima (1974) 29 mm Tagging 117 mm shrimp

Bishop and Shealy (1977) 25 m length-frequency studies of
field samples, juveniles

Faxner, et al (1978) 20 mm Length-frequency studies of
March and April field sample,
95 mm

_,7057-25'

Table 5-5. South Carolina late. summer and fall P. setiferus landings by weight,
number of individuals and average count (tails p& pound). Count was ccimputed
by dividing total number of shrimp (carputed fran South Carolina landings count
data) by total pounds for shrimp -of 40 count and greater in August and all shrimp
frcm September through January. (Weight, and number X. 1,000).

pounds. Number Year
count

1977
427. '10'.191

46 132 1978
28-.2 18713
36.7 3,448 IX,783 1979
43.2 2 "M 106,164 1980
45.5 .2,709 123 216 1974
45.5 3,651 165,974 1975
46.2 5,010 -2311222 1971
46.6. 3,656 1973
49.1 2,738 134,4.68 1972
49.5 2)995 148,355 1976

5,26

nursery habitat or perhaps simply a longer residence time in the nursery area

allowing a longer growth period before moving to cam-ercial fishing grounds

.as was suggested by Parker (1970). Whichever the case, shrimp apparently

reach the Sautb.Caxol:Lna fishing grounds at a larger size when density is re-

latively law.

Working with P. a. aztecus in the northern Gulf of Mexico, Parrack (1979)

determined that males apparently grow to approximately only three-fifths the

weight and five-sixths the length of females. He noted that growth rate tends

to decrease at an earlier age for males than for females and that these ages

generally confoxm with the ages of sexual maturity.

Temperature is important in determing growth rates for P.,a. aztecus

as it is with other Penaeus. In two years of fieldwork, Loesch (1965), work-

ing in Mobile Bay, Alabama, found growth rates of 12-35 m (0.5-1.4 in) per
month in winter, 50 mn'(2.0 in) per mnth in spring-and 24-43 nn (0.9-1.7 in)
per month in summer.' St. Amant et al. (.1966) found Ptilittle or no r6easuiable
growth ... at cumulative average water temperatures below 160C (61'F)." Growth
was less than 1.0 nm (0.04 in) per day when water temperature was below 2&C
and less than 1.5 mm (0.06 in) per day when temperature was below 250C
(770E). Ringo (1965) found brown shrimp juveniles in East Galveston Bay, Texas

to grow at less.-than 0.1 mm (0.004 in) per day when daily maximum water temper-
atures were well below 200C C680F). As water temperature increased to 250C
(770F), the average growthrate increased to 1.7 m (0.07 in) per day and to
3.3 mn (0.13',in) per day as temperatures exceeded 250C. (Results of other

growthrate studies for brawn shrimp are shown in Table 5-6).

Salinity has also been shown to affect,P.' a.' aztecus. St. Amant et al.

(1966) concluded that growth-was enhanced if salinities were in excess of 10

ppt. 'White (1975) reported that low salinities in Louisiana, coupled with

low temperatures resulted in reduced growth rates for brown shrimp. Hysmith

5-27.

Table 5-6. Sumnxry.:.of@P. a. aztecus.9rcwth rate results for various studies. Growth
.rates were converted to m/day if originally reported in other units. (Source:
Knudsen et al., '1977).

Investigator Average Growth Method
Per -Day
(Total length,)

Williams (1955) 0.8-1.54 mm length-frequency studies of field
samples, 2@-@= mm
St. Amant et al. (1966) 0 7-1. 7 m Length-frequency studies.([email protected]
gest and modal) of field'samples,
23-125 mn

Loesch (1965) 1.0-1.2 mm length-frequency studies of field
samples, juveniles-subadults

McCoy (1968) 1.0 m Mark-recapture, 115+M

Jacob (1971)
1.32 m length-frequency studies (largest)
of field samples, 12-145
Knudse@ et, al. (1977) 0. 53-4).87 nin Mak-recapture; 45-84 mm

.5-28

and Colura (1976) found that brown shrimp grew at 0.19 g/day (0.07 oz) in a

15 ppt culture pond and 0.15 g/day (0.05 oz) in a 21 ppt pond. They could

not attribute the growth rate difference to salinity alone, however, since

survival in the 15 ppt pond was extremely low. Hunt et al. (1980) reported

a salinity threshold value of 10 ppt below which shrimp harvests were poor.

Several authors have examined growth in juvenile and sub-adult P. d.

duorarm. Using tagging procedures, Costello and Allen (1960) found that

Florida Bay shrimp grew frcn 240 to 180 heads-off count during winter (3.5

am CL per month; 0.14 in) and 138 to 96 heads-off count during early spring

(1.9 mm CL per month; 0.08 in). Williams (1955), working in North Carolina,

found winter grawth-rates of 5 to 8 mm (0.20 - 0.31 in) per month and summer

rates of 44 m (1.7 in) per month in summer 1952 and 60 am (2.4 in) per month

in summer 1953. Lindner (1966) estimated that Tortugas shrimp grow-from 100

mm (.3.9 in) to about 138 mm C5.4 in) in about 9 weeks (16.9 am per month; 0.

7 in). Kutkuhn (1966), alsoworking on the Tortugas grounds using mark and
recapture techniques, found a weekly g@6wth rate of 3.4 mm (0.13 in) for pink

shrinp sub-adults.

5.1.5.5 Population Size Distribution and Movement Patterns

Being an annual sto&.having a relatively high growth rate, shrimp of

the genus Penaeus have an ever-changing size distribution. Size at any parti-

cular time depends on time since spawning, water temperature and any number of

factors related to growth. Gunter C1950) stated that.the seasonal and local

P.
changes in P.* a.* aztecus and setiferus abundance are, 'best discussed in

relation to size frequencies." Gunter found a distinct size difference of

brown and white shrimp which-be related to salinity. He found the largest

shrimp in the highest salinity waters and, in general, the smallest animals

were in the less saline waters. It is not clear whether this size distribution

is related exclusively to growth or adgration. Once out of the nursery habitat,

5-29

there is little doubt that shrimp migrate seaward with increasing size. Size

at time of emigration is almost always greater than 100 rim, under normal condi-

tions. Once at sea, growth apparently continues until the shrimp dies as evi

denced by the occasional capture of some very large shrimp.

It is well known that Penaeu shrimps use, the estuary as a nursery area.

After entering the estuary (or inshore marsh lakes and bays) as postlarvae,

growth is rapid as shrimp become juveniles and subsequently, subadults. It is

usually at this sub-adult stage that shrimp begin moving from the inshore habi-

tat to the higher salinity oceanic waters. Bishop et al. (1980) hypothesized

that as: shrimp increase in size, they seek higher, stable salinities because

of a decrease in osmoregulatory ability. They conclude, "...varying salinities

(may) be more expensive energetically for larger shrimp and partially respon-

sible for their offshore movement prior to maturity."

..Weymouth et al. (1933) published one of the first complete life histor-

ies for P. setiferus. They reported that 20 - 50 mm (0.8 -2.0 in) shrimp

moved seaward through the summer and fall with a gradient of decreasing size

from waters of greater salinity toward fresh water. The shrimp first entered

the carmercial catches in high salinity waters at about 90 m (3.5 in).

William (1955) found that young white shrimp first entered the North Carolina

commercial fishery in July and continued to enter it -until October. More re-

cently, white shrimp have been caught in the commercial fishery through December

(D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. and Cairn. Dev., Morehead City, NC, pers.

cairn.). Joyce (1965) determined that white shrimp left Florida's inshore

waters at about 120 mm (4.7 in). Baisden (1979), working in Georgia, reported

mean lengths of 84 mm (3.3 in) for shrimp from creek headwaters and 109 rim.

(4.3 in) for shrimp taken in areas adjacent to open ocean.

Joyce (1965) noted that the movernent of white shrimp to offshore waters

could be caused by cold, storms, high tides, and/or large influxes of fresh

-6-30

water but that size alone appears to be mainly responsible. Sh

'Dept. Nitt. Res.; Brunswick., GA; unpubl. data) concluded from mark-recapture

data that fall vihite shrimp emigration along-the Georgia coast in 1980 was

apparently related to rainfall, northeast winds, decreases in water tempera-

ture or a combination of these variables. Lindner and Anderson C1956) found

that shrimp leave inshore areas as they approach adulthood and that a drop in

water temperature merely hastens the normal movement. Pullen and Trent C1970)

showed that peaks of emigration were associated with drops in water temperature.

Farmer et al. (1978) monitored white shrimp during the severe winter of 1976-

and observed shrimp movement to deeper, warmer waters in Charleston Harbor,

South. Carolina before moving offshore and/or succumbing to the cold temperatures.

During fall 1980,eudgration of white shrimp along the south Atlantic coast was

apparently delayed and commercial landings were reduced CD. 'Whitaker, S.C. Wildl.

Mar. Res. Dept., Charleston,SC- Wpubl. data; S. Shipman,.

Brunswick GA, pers.-comi.). Me prolonged residence in "inside" waters was pro-

@bably attributable to the above normal salinity of these waters resultant from

a severe drought. Shrimp tagging experiments made along the Georgia coast in

1980 indicated that a relatively larger percentage of the fall white shrimp mi-
grated to Florida CS. Shipman, (@[email protected].*,.,.O:t,.N6,t,.:Res..@,,@','Bi-Luisvllck,.IGA.; unpubl.

data). Total fall and winter recaptures off the Florida east coast were 13.per-

cent of all recaptures-in 1979 and 27 percent in 1980. The apparent increased

southward migration was attributed to the shrimp remaining in the above normal

salinity waters of the sounds until the major offshore movement and southward

migration was triggered by the onset of low water temperature.

P. a. aztecus first enters the commercial fishery in North Carolina in

June at a size of about 100 am (3.9 in) (estimated from a graph, Williams, 1955).

Size at emigration appears to be vaxiable (Perez Farfante, 1969). Sam move to

sea at lengths of only 70 80 mm (2.8 3.1 in) CCopeland, .1965). Joyce (.1965)

found brown shrimp to move offshore at 100 - 105 mm (3.9 - 4.1 in) and Trent

(1967) reported a size range of 60 - 130 mm (2.4 - 5.1 in)for emigrating shrimp.

Blackmon (1974) used a wing net to sample brown shrimp emigrating from a Louisi-

ana bay. He found a size range of 32 - 132 mn (1.3 - 5.3 in) and a range of

mean lengths: (estimated from a graph) from just less than 80 mm to about 100 mm

(3.1 - 3.9 in). Parker (1970) indicated that size at emigration may be depen-

dent on inshore shrimp density. The first shrimp to move gulfward in 1964 were

86 - 100 mm (3.4 - 3.9 in), whereas 41 - 55 mm (1.6 - 2.2 in) shrimp were found

in the Gulf of Mexico, in 1963, a year when inshore densities were much higher.

ST. Amant et al. (1966), also suggested that offshore movement may be related

to density.

Movement of brown shrimp appears to take place primarily at night with.

peak movement at dusk and just after (De la Bretonne and Avault, 1971; King,

1971). However, Joyce (1965) reported high catches during daylight hours. In

a more recent study, Clark and Caillouet (1975) found diurnal activity of brown

shrimp and suggested that brown shrimp may have a circadian rhythm in phase with

the light-dark cycle which is subject to modification under turbid or cloudy

conditions.

After entering Florida estuaries as postlarvae, P. d. duorarum leave

after two to six months, mostly on ebb tides (Perez Farfante, 1969). Hughes

(1969, 1972) has found evidence of offshore movement being under edogenous

control. Juvenile pink shrimp held in the laboratory were found to become

active at time of ebbtide. In North Carolina, young pink shrimp enter the

commercial catches in August. Shrimp that overwinter in the estuaries migrate

to sea in May and June,-at which time spawning takes place (Williams, 1955).

Perez Farfante (1969) reviewed the results of several Florida studies. 0ne

study (Tabb et al., 1962) found that many pink shrimp move into Florida Bay

at about 82 - 92 (3.2 - 36 in) and practically all before reaching 105 mm

(4.1 in). Another study (Idyll et al.@ 1965), determined that the average length

of emigrating shrimp was about 65 ran (2.6 in). Greatest numbers of shrilip move

to Florida Bay in late summer and-early fall with a peak in September. A second

peak occurs.from. January to April. Eldred et al. (1961) found shrimp moving out

of Tampa Bay at 85 am (3.3 in) in April through July but did not move in large

quantities during the fall and winter. Kennedy and Barber (in press) reported

that recruitment to the offshore Cape Canaveral area begins in April and May and

occurs again during October and November.

Along the Atlantic Coast of the southeastern United States, considerable

research has been conducted towards the elucidation of Penaeus migratory be-

havior. Most of this work has dealt with P.'setiferus. Idndner and Anderson

(1956) marked 46,532 shrimp in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In their

analysis of the 7,055 returns, they concluded that as white shrimp move offshore,

they do not move into very deep water but do execute seasonal migrations parallel

to the coast. 'White shrimp apparently migrate south during fall and early winter

and north during late winter and early spring. Little migration, north or south,

occurs between April and August. They found that in February about 37 percent

and-in March about 78 percent of those shrimp captured outside their respective

release areas were taken in areas north of where they had been released. North-

ward migration was found to begin as early as January in the Cape Canaveral area,

but not until February in the areas between Darien, Georgia and New Smyrna,

Florida. The greatest northward migration was from a specimenreleased at Cape

Canaveral in January and recaptured off South Carolina 168 days later after tra-

veling about 260 miles. Of the shrimp examined, those greater than 130 am (5.1

in) showed much more movement than those less than 130 am. Because the north-

ward migration is probably linked to temperature, timing of movement my vary

fran year to year.

.Additional white shrimp tagging studies in South Carolina have supported

the findings of Lindner and Anderson (Table 5-7). Bearden Ind McKenzie (1972)

Table 5.7. Results of P. setiferus tagging experiments in South Carolim.(Swrices: Lindner and Andemon
(1956)a, Bearden and McKen-z:-Le--T-j972)b, Fa r.:@@44@j to@@'@a'080)c,
and, rmq hi

.......... ......

r1btal Number r1bta,1 Returns Returns
Tagging Period ReleasRF- No.. South., Georgia Fl-orida
Carolina

Fall 1936 and 1937a 30067. 171s. -5.6 110. 41 20
Fall 1970b
1,871 304 16..2 290 7 7

Fa.11 1978 262 13.8 251 10 1

Fall 1979C 1P985 388 19.5 7 ll:

352...
Spring 1976C 2,400 352.1 14.7 0 0

5-34

tagged 1,871 shrimp during fall 1970. Of the 304 returns, 14 came frcm Georgia

and Florida. Additional taggingwork in South Carolina by Faximr and Whitaker

(1980) has shown that white shrimp not taken in the local fishery are likely to

migrate south during fall. Joyce (1965) in studying white shrimp in the Cape

Canaveral area concluded that the scarcity of shrimp in this area during most

of -the year, except winter, together-with the larger size of these individuals

indicated that these shrimp mist have rcagrated from another area. Shrimpers also

reported to Joyce that during late fall and early winter, it is possible to lo-

cate and fish upon southward migrating schools of white shrimp. These schools,

reportedly, travel about 6 to 12 miles per day.

White shrimp tagging studies in Cape Fear River, North Carolina indicated

that shrimp moved out of the estuary as water temperature dropped in the fall

(Schwartz, 1977). Ctie individual was recaptured just south of Jekyll Island,

Georgia in January, scme 575 km (357 mi) from the release point. McCoy and

Brown (1967) also tagged white shrimp in Cape Fear Riverand had two white

shrimp recaptured off St. Augustine, Florida.

Shipman (@1980) has recently investigated white shrimp ndgrations along

the South-Atlantic coast. Tagging 15,810 white shrimp in Georgia, she found

udgration patterns similar to those of previous investigators. Shrimp of 90 mm

length and greater, tagged during the third.project year (Octcber 1979-September

1980),were released in Wassaw Sound, Sapelo Sound and St. Andrew Sound which

represented northern, central and southern areas, respectively, of the Georgia

coast. Roughly equal nunbers of shrinp were tagged and released in each sound.

The predcminant year-round movement, as indicated by recaptures,was southward

parallel to the coast with.87.7 percent (791 shrimp) being recaptured.south of

the release points. During spring, however, 24.3 percent of the offshore recap-

tures were nmde :@north*,"-,@' of the respective release areas as compared to 7.5,

3.7, and 15.2 percent during fall, winte-t and summr, respectively. Of the 111

shrimp that moved north in offshore waters, m3st of these (66 percent) cam

5,-35
from St., Andrew'-,'.' Sound and 33 percent came frcm Sapelo Sound. Only 0.9 percent

cam frcm Wassaw Sound. This information suggests that shrimp migratory activi-

ty may be a function of latitude with -the greatest activity coming from the most

southern shrimp. This agrees with Joyce's (1965) conclusion that the northward

migration in winter along the east Florida coast is not as large as the fall

southward migration and that most, northward movement of white shrimp occurs

along the southern coastal area near Cape Canaveral.

'Tagging-efforts on the Atlantic coast with P. a. aztecus and P.'d..duora-

rum have taken place primarily in North Carolina. McCoy (1968) tagged 6,163 brown

shrimp in Swan Quarter Bay, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. A total of 1,030

shrimp (16.7 percent) were returned with an average time free of 13 days and

average distance traveled of 4.8 km (3 mi). Only one shrimp was recovered from

the Atlantic Ocean, which led*the researcher to conclude that ... relatively

few brawn shrinp from the northern and western areas of Pamlico Sound reach the

ocean." In another study, brawn shrimp tagged in the lower half of the New Riv-

er, North Carolina moved an average distance of only 10.1 In (6.3 mi) before re-

capture (McCoy, 1972). Further tagging of brown shrimp during the summers of

1971 and 1972 in Pamlico Sound indicated that brown shrimp only moved toward

the inlets after attaining maximum size, thus making the sound fishery I'self-

contained" (Purvis and McCoy, 1974). Once out of the sound, North Carolina

brown shrimp apparently move to the south and perhaps to deeper, non-trawlable

waters. Ship= (1980) tagged 3,252 brawn shrimp in three Georgia sounds. Only

122 (3.8 percent) were recaptured and returned. Southward movement was ob-

served in 67, 92 and 76 percent of the returns which were tagged in Wassaw,

Sapelo and St. Andrew 'Sounds, respectively. The only significant northward

movement was by 21 percent of the returned shrimp which were tagged in the St.

Andrew--,.area, the southernmost of the three tagging areas. Return rates of

brown shrimp tagged in Georgia were roughly half those of white shrimp. Be-

cause white shrimp are known to migrate parallel to the coast the lower return

5-36

rates may indicate that brown shrimp may move offshore, out of the nearshore

trawling grounds.

Little is known about P. d.-duora rum movements along the South Atlantic

coast. McCoy (1968, 1972) examined pink shrimp movements in North Carolina's

sounds. Tagged shrimp released in Pamlico Sound in 1967 were at large for an

average of 14 days and traveled an average of 9.7 Im (6 mi) before recapture.

Shrimp tagged in May to July, 1968 in Core and Bogue Soundsvere at large for

an average of 17.4 days and traveled 11.9 kn (7.4 mi). McCoy'(1968) concluded

that most pu& shrimp in Panlico and Core Sounds apparently moved south and en@

-%,03*41-the Atlantic through Beaufort and Barden Inlets. Pink shrimp.1ram Bogue

Sound appear to move through Beaufort and Bogue Inlets. Upon entering the

ocean, the pink shrimp seem to move in a southerly direction along the coast,

although some shrimp are believed to move offshore to rugged areas deeper than

15.2 m (50 ft). Pink shrimp from Flcrida's northeast coast migrate south and

offshore to an area off Cape Canaveral in 18 to 50 m. (59-164 ft) (Kennedy and

Barber, in press).

5.1.5.6 Length-WeipLt Relationships

The length-weight.relationships of P. setifenis, P. a. aztecus, P. d.

duorarum are shown in Table 5-8. Anderson and Lindner (1958) noted that mature

P. setiferus were heavier than immature individuals of the same length. This

could result in seasonal changes in length-vmight relationships. Kutl@@ (1966)

noted some seasonal differences in relationships but concluded that it was not

of practical significance.

5.1.5.7 Mortality Rates

The death of shrimp in a natural population is due either to natural

causes (predation, disease, senility, etc.) or to man-made causes (fishing,

pollution, etc.). Coefficients of fishing mortality (F), natural mortality (M)

and total mortality (Z) rates are presented as instantaneous rates. Mortality

Table 5.8. Length-weight equations for P., sotiferus, P P.,d 'dU6iATJ,-,
'gztecus and
W weight (g), TL Tbtal length (am), UL = Carapace Length (M)

..................... ...... ...................

Species Sex Equation - No. Source
Measured
.. ......... . .....

P. setiferus male W-2.02 x 10 -46M3.261 910 Fontaine and Neal (1971)
-6,IL3.234
female W--2.32 x 10 Fontaine and Neal (1971),
carbined vu=2.16 x 10-6TL3.247 21090 Fontaine and Neal (1971).
P. a. aztecus'J carbined W- 8.12 x 10-45IL3.02 2 104 McCoy (1968)
male W--11. 61 x 10-&IL2.911 1,396 Fontaine and Neal (1971)
female W-- 9.53 x --OM 966 16 Fontaine and Neal 1971)....,;-
10 2- 2@0
-10. 52 x 10-BTL2.938
combined W- 3,412 Fontaine and Neal (1971),-"
W-- 8.19 x 10-4CL2
male .94 259 McCoy (1972)
female W-- 1.13 x 10-ICI?. 84
243@ McCoy (1972)
P . d. duoraruni'J io-5,L2.98
cornbined W-- 1.03 x 2,641 McCoy (1968)
male W--10. 02 x 10-6M2.967 IP173 Fontaine and Neal (1971

3.092
female W= 5.93 x 10-6TL 2,125 Fontaine and Neal (1971)
cotybined W-- 7.71 x 10-,&M3 029 3,298 Fontaine and Neal (1971)
male W-- 1.48 x 10-3CL2.77 297 McCoy (1972)
female W-- 2.09 x 10-3M2.66 503 McCoy (1972)

Conversions of CL to rIL obtained from North Carolina shrimp (McCoy, 1972) are: P. a. aztecus male TL--3.50 + 4.16CL,
ft-ymlii@- rm=in-rin + P d r1linrA-MIM OP rPT,19-.q7 + q-RI CT. IT
MA fpimi.- qT;:=2

5@30

rates frca several studies are shown in Table 5-9. In most cases, researchers

involved in estimating these mortality rates cautioned that several assumptions

were made which may not be valid.
2
Some of the assumptions and requirements necessary in providing reliable

estimates axe: (1) Natural mortality rate is constant. This is probably not

true since a predator-Is preference of prey may largely be based on size, thus

changing with growth of the prey. Behavi oral and environmental factors my also

influence-natural mortality rates.. (2) Fishing mortality is constant. Fishing

mortality is a function of fishing effort which can be very variable. (3) Re-

cruitment to the experimental stock is minimal. There are probably few cases

when this is reliably known., (4) Fishing effort is known accurately. Number

of boats and fishing days may be obtainable but actual fishing hours are proba-

bly rarely known with precision. (5) Emigration is minimal or accurately known.

Ibis is unknown in most cases. (6) All tagged shrimp (or a constant ratio) that

are recaptured are detected and reported. There is evidence that at least a

small percentage of tagged shrimp are routinely overlooked and many are detected

and never reported unless@amonetary rewaxd is offered. (7) All tagged shrimp are

available to the fishery. This is probably not true in most cases since shrimp

my reside in non-trawlable areas Ce.g. rough bottom, around "hangs", shallow

water, etc.). (8) The tag (or tagging procedure) does not cause mortalities.

Some tags may in fact act as fish lures or impair an individual's ability to

escape. (9) The tagged shrimp's behavior is not altered making it more or less

vulnerable to the fishing gear. This probably cannot be determined. (10) The

tagged shrimp do not lose their mark. Maxks other than dyes are probably lost

when a shrimp sheds its.exoskeleton. The rate of tag loss to moulting or other

causes is very difficult to determine 197-2;- Kilpa-,

1974--
,.Ricker,r 1975).

27hese requirements apply primarily to mark-recapture methods which are often
used in estimating mortality rates.

Table 5-9. Compaxison of instantaneous rate of mortality (in weekly values) for P.-Botiferus, P. a. aztecus.,
and P. d. duorarLon.

Species Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality 71otal Mortality Source
........... ..

P. setiferus 0.08 0.06 0.19 0.14 - 0.27 IClima and Benigq@--,;, (1965)

0.04 0. 12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.22 (1974)

0.21 -0.56 @0.02 0.25 0.24 -.0.80 Phares (1980)

P. a. aztecus 0.21 0.06 0.27 Klima (1964)

--'@O . 99 1-.24 McCoy (1968)

n 91 0 -57
McCov. (1972)

0.22, 0.33 0.05, 0.11 0.27.9 0.43. Purvis and McCoy (1974)

P. d. du6rarui 0.55 0.96 0.71 1.51-. Kutkuhn. (1966).

0.08 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.25 Lindner,(1966)

0.02 0.06* 0.16 0.23".) 0.22 0.274' Berry (1967)
0.08 0. ll* 0.03 0. 07*@,,,, 0.11 0. l8*:,'I Costello and Allen (1968)

0.01 0.03 0.02'- 0.16 0.07 0.16 Berry (1970)

0.32 -.0.35 Purvis and McCoy (1972)

0.28 0.34 0.61 McCoy (1972)

*Adjusted byBerry (1970)

5,40.

Mviously, these assumptions cannot always be made with certainty. This

results in a range of mortality estimates which make it difficult to construct

useful yield-per-recruit (YPR) models. -Some ranges of estimated weekly total

mortality rates as percentages CcOmPuted from Table 5-9) for Penaeus are:

White Shrimp 13.1 - 55.1 percent
Brown Shrimp 23.7 - 71.1 percent
Pink Shrimp 6.8 - 77.9 percent,

The wide -range of mortality rates can result in a wide range of recommend-

ed harvest strategies. The lower rates are probably nearest to reality for juve-

.niles and adults. Managers will have difficulty calculating optimal harvest size

of shrimp until mortality rates are more reliably known.

5.2 Abundance and'Present Conditions

5.2.1 Abundance

Assuming that the exploitation rate of shrimp in the South Atlantic has

remained reasonably constant from 1957 to 1980 (1,095 vessels in 1957 and 1,212

vessels in-1978), one can conclude that annual landings of shrimp truly reflect

actual levels of abundance. Furthermore total annual catch.in the South Atlan-

tic has shown relatively small variance (mean = 15,ZI7,000 lb. Stand. Dev.

3,087,000 1b) since at least 1950.which indicates the stocks are being exploited

at near maximum.

Annual landings of Penaeus vary considerably; table 5-10 shows the varia-

bility-of catches by state and species. Although the range (shown by maxinun

and minimn) illustrates variability of catches, the coefficient of variation

(CV) is a better index of variability. The CV is the standard deviation expressed@

as a percentage of the mean. Ibis value is useful when ccimparIng populations which

have relatively large differencesin their mans and standard deviations (Sokal and
@ohlf, 1969).

A CV of 19 percent for total shrimp catch in the South Atlantic shows less

variability than any of the species considered a.1one. Ibis my indicate a limit-

Table 5-10.. Variability of annual comercial landings of shrimp by species and
by state for 1957-1980 (landings in thousands of pounds, heads-off); CV (coeffi-
cient of, variation) S.D. x'100 mean (Sd@al and Rohlf,-1969).

State White. Brown Pink Total.

North Carolina
Max Catch 1 166 4,894. lA03 6,103
...'Min Catch 0 601 264 1,501
Mean Catch.
3,4M:
262. 2,322 895
Cv .40%. 32%
114%,
South r
Mm Cat ch 5,193 2,244 6,904
]fin Catr :184
_h 527 1,375
Mean Catch 2,5W, 1,4M
CV 29% 34%

Georgia
MaX Catch 5,143 2,111 6,192
Min Catch. 1,943 348 2JI938
Mean Catch 3,774 999 4,7W
Cv 25% 42% 1870

East, COast Florida,
Max Cat ch. 3,699 909 4-,043
Min Catch 838 74 10390
Mean Catch 2,244 465 2,766
Cv, 32% 45% 29%

TqtaJL Comrercial ShrIpM Landings for Southeast Atlantic Fishery

Max Catch J2,214 8,306 1P404 19,610
Min Catch 3,222 1,550 332 9,815
Wan Catch 81785 5,233 14,938
Cv 2W6 W% 3K6 19%

5-42

ed carrying capacity of the ecosystem but probably reflects the stability of
Georgia's landings (.CV=18 percen@) which contribute,the largest share (mean-
percentP 1950-1980) of the total South Atlantic landings.

Of the four states Georgia and Florida have the m)st stable total land-

ings (CV=18 percent and 29 pereent,.respectively). 'White shrimp dominate the

catches in these states (Figure 5-3) and because the effects of severe winters
are rmn-lmal,.relative to the Carolinas, the total catch shows less variance.

The CV values forwhite shrimp decrease fra North Carolina to Georgia indicat-

ing the major inf luence of climate; however, Florida's CV is higher than Geor-

gia's. Florida's higher CV is apparently rela�OC to the decline in the State's

white shrimp fishery during 1971-78 (excluding 1972) when landings ranged-from

37-73 percent of the 1957-1980 mean (See Table 13-12). The reason(s.)-for the de-

cline is unknown, but it nay be related to increased regional fishing pressure

resulting in a reduction'of the southward migration of whi-L- shrimp in the late

fall and early winter.

Brown shrimp landings appear most stable in South Carolina, although

North Carolina contributes the most (mean--44 percent, 1957-W) toward the re-

gion's total brown shrimp landings. The relatively low CV for total South At-..

lantic bpown shrimp may reflect a single stock rather than several small stocks.

This may man that commercial production is dependent on recruitment from a

single source which generally produces the same quantity of progeny- from year

to year. Furthermore, a state's production of brawn shrimp may be linked to

recruitment success of postlarvae, hence ocean-- currents. North Carolina biol6-

gists, however, believe that brawn shrimp production in,that state is primarily

related to water temperature and salinity in the nursery areas (D. Spitsbergen,

NC Dept. of Nat. Res. and Ccam. Dev.; Morehead City, NC; pers. cam.).

The CV for total South Atlantic pink shrimp is greatly influenced by

North Carolina's pink shrimp landings which annually make up 96 percent (1957-

@5-43

1980 mean) of the region's landings. A recent increase in Florida (east coast)

pink shrimp landings (frcm 0 in 1972 to 125,000 in 1979) does not represent an

increase in stock but is a by-product of the rock shrimp fishery which began in

the eaxly 19MIs (Kennedy and Barber, iii press).

5.5.2 Present Condition

Mean shrimp catch by state and species for 1976-1980 is shown in-Figure

5-3. Mean catch (three species) for the last five years is 14.29 million pounds

(heads-off) which is 96 percent of the IL957-1980 mean. White shrimp landings,

however, have averaged only 7.65 million pounds (heads-off) which is 13 percent

below the 1957-1980 mean. The decrease in white shrimp abundance in recent

years is directly related to the severe winters of 1976-1977 and 1977-1978.

Other than those years, white shrimp landings have been neax or above the long

texm man (See Table 13-6).

Brown shrimp landings from 1976 to 1980 have been unaffected by the unus-
Ually-c-old weather with the 5-year mean exceeding the 1957-1980 mean by 11 per-

cent. In fact, landings following the very severe 1976-1977 winter were 26 per-

cent above the 1957-1980 mean.

Pink shrimp landings in recent years have fluctuated with climatic:condi-

tions. Like white shrimp landings, the 1977 and 1978 pink shrimp landings were

below normal because of the mass mortalities of overwintering pink shrimp caused

by the severe winters in North Carolina (N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. Cam. Dev., 1981).

Shrimp stocks in the South.Atlantic at present are near normal levels.

Annual variations in white and pink shrimp stocks caused by severe winter weather

continue to occur. Similar conditions existed periodically during the 1960's

followed by several unusually wann years in the early 19701s. These warm years

'were marked by high shrimp production until the severe winter of 1976-1977. Fu-

white and pink shrimp abundance will continue to fluctuate with--,cl-

ditions.

4-
WHITE

BROWN
PINK 3.41

U-
0 3-
Cl) 2.86

W
2.47

z
M, 2-
.0

LL 1.63 1.63
0

z
0
-J 0.96

0.38

0.16
2
.01 0.01
- I ------- @O08-
NORTH SOUTH GEORGIA FLORIDA
CAROLINA CAROLINA (EAST COAST)

Figure 5-3. Average landings per year of white, brown, and pink shrimp for the
years 1976-198o. (Note: Averages were computed fran prelindnary data for 1979
and 1980.
VVIM.

0 0

5-45

Brown shrimp stocks appear to be stable with no anticipated mjor change

in abundance. Annual production appears to be most influenced by late winter

and early spring environmental conditions as has been observed for the Gulf of

Mexico (Barrett and Gillespie, 1973).

5.3 Ecological Relationships

5.3. 1 Food

Penaeus setiferus nauplii subsist M yolk granules until the Protozoea, I
stajee when feeding ccnimnees. In the 'laboratory the first protozoea were fed

successfully with microscopic green algae and diatoms and considerable mat-

ter of unknown idenity ... 11 (Pearson, '1939). Feeding experiments with P. a. az-

tecus protozoeae in the laboratory showed that the algae Thalassiosira was the

best of four algae tested and mysis fed well on brine shrimp, Artemia, (Cook and

huphy, 1969).

Juvenile and adult penaeids, are conivorous bottom feeders with-food inges-

tim occurring largelyat night', although-, in turbid waters daytime feeding may
occur (Eldred et al., 1961; Costello and Allen, 19701, Jones C1973) found a
shift in th6 diet and habitat of juvenile,bi-own shrimp in a Louisiana marsh-as

they increased in size, The smallest shrimp examined, 25-44 mm C1.0-1.7 in),

rimina-eely ingested thetop sediment layer. At 45-64 mm, C1.8-2,5 in),

they selected the organic fraction.of the sediment, and at 65-104 mm (2.6-4.1 in)

the shrimp moved to the deeper marsh waters where they became active predators

@feeding on polychaetes, amphipods, nematodes, and chironoudd larvae.

Eldred et al. (1961) examined pink shrimp stomachs and found polychaetes,

nematodes, caridean shrimps, mysids, copepods, isopods, amphipods, ostracods,
mollusks, and foraminiferans. They also found unidentified body structures,

caridean eggs, fish.scales, sand and debris. William (1955) found that stomachs

of shrimp taken in North Carolina estuaries were usually full in swamr, full or

half-full in autumn, and empty in winter. He suggested that any available or-

5-46

ganic material may be ingested. Specific food items utilized are often diffi-

cult to ass ess because.stcmach contents are finely triturated. Williams (1955)

observed that material in the stcmach of shrimp consisted primarily of unrecog"

nizable debris believed to be semi-digested tissue and organic bottcm deposits,

fragments of chitin from crustaceans, setae, annelid jaws, plant fragments, and

sand. Other items included foraminiferans, small gastropod and pelecypod shells,

squid suckers, entire small fishes and.fish scales, muscle fibers, ribs, eggs

and plant seed pods.

Weymouth et al. (1933) observed that white shrimp in aquaria successfully

attacked and consumed fish and other shrimp. Cannibalism of penaeid shrimp may

be related to density. Edwards (1977) held P. vannamei in cages and found con-

tinuous mortalities attributed to cannibalism which occurredwhen food became a

limiting factor.

Moriax-ty (1976) determined that the shrimp Metgenaeusbennettae is capa-

ble of digestion and assimilation of bacteria. It is apparently capable of di-

gesting the-cell walls as well as the cell contents. Moriarty (1976) proposed

that bacteria "... axe probably the main living ccaponent in the food of Meta-

penaeus bennettae."

While shrimp are able to ingest a wide variety of potential food items,

much of the actual material digested is believed to consist of soft parts be-

cause large, hard fragments cannot be passed through. the straining apparatus of

the pyloric stomach. Williams (1955) was uncertain whether hard parts, which

my accumulate in the stcmach, were ffirther broken dawn or regurgitated.

Condrey et al. (1972),found that assimilation efficiency in juvenile

white and brown shrimp was high (80-85 percent) for a variety of plant and ani-

mal materials. Rates of food intake and assimilation were found to vary in re-

lation to the lengthof time necessary for occurrence of trituration and filter-

ing into the digestive gland. They also noted that lipases and proteinases

were more active than caxbohydrases.

5-47

.5.3.2 Substrate

Perez Farfante (1969) reviewed the commercial shrimp and their substrate

preferences.. P. setiferus, when inshore, lives on muddy or peaty bottoms that

are rich in decaying organic matter or vegetation for protection. Offshore,
whiia.shrimp are most abundant on soft; muddy bottoms. P. a. aztecus appears to

prefer a substrate similar to that of the white shrimp. Young shrimp are us-

ually found in =ddy.or peaty bottoms but also live on sand, silt or clay mixed

with shell and rock fragments. Adult brown shrimp are abundant on md or silt

bottoms and, occasionally where the bottom consists of nud, sand, and shell.

P. d..duorann does not prefer a bottomi type similar to that of brawn and white

shrimp but appears to prefer hard_'zandand calcareous shell substrates (Kennedy

and Barber, in press). Hildebrand (1954, 1955) explain the limited distribu-

tion of pink shrimp in the northern Gulf of Mexico to the absence of large areas

of shell sand. Kennedy and [email protected] press) proposed that pink shrimp abun-

dance off the South Atlantic coast is also g overned-by substrate type.

Williams (1958) performed laboratory experiments'designed to deterffdne

substrate preferences of the three shrimp spe'cies. Both brown and pink shrimp

were active at night. Pink shrimp were observed to bury during daylight and

were attracted to the coarse, shell-sand substrate. Brawn shrimp also remained

buried during daylight but preferred muddier substrates. White shrimp, like

brown, preferred the muddier substrate but did not bury with the regularity of

pink or brown shrimp.

5.3.3 'Predation

Shrimp of the genus I)enaeus are! important to the diets of x=y, marine

species (@Gunter, 1945; Knapp, 1949.! Darnell, 1958). Rose bt al. (-1975),observed

that sheepshead ndnnaws, water boatmen, and saw insect larvae are important pre-

dators of shrimp postlarvae. They also noted that grass shrimp'(?ggembnetes

spp-)@:'Y;' killifishes, and blue crabs prey upon young penaeid shrimp. Knapp (1949)

examined stomach contents of 34 finfish species and found a 50 percent or greater

frequency of occurrence of juvenile and adult shrimp in the following game and

food fishes: Elops saurus (ladyfish), Arius felis; (sea catfish), Bagre maxinus

(gafftopsail catfish), Pcmtcnms saltatrix (bluefish), Rachycentron canadum. (co-

bia), Coryphaena hippurus (dolphin), Cynoscion nebulosus (speckled trout), Menti-

cirrhus sp. (whiting), Scianops ocellatus; (red drum, channel bass), and Paralich-

thys lethostigma (southern flounder). C. M. Bearden (S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept.,

Charleston, S.C., pers. comm.) examined numerous spiny dogfish, �gM21us acanthias,

during winter 1963-1964 which had been preying heavily upon white shrimp in the

Charleston Haxbor ship channel. Other fish species known to prey upon Penaeus

are listed in Table 5-11. The list of predators here is undoubtably a small per-

centage of the fishes whichrely on Penaeus for food.

The importance of predators on a shrimp population was examined by Rose

et al. (19 75) in shrimp culture experiments in Louisiana salt marsh impoundments.

In an impoundmentwhere an effort was made to exclude predators and competitors,

the brown and white shrimp harvesi was about three-times that of another impound-

ment in which predators and competitors were not removed. Lack of predator con-

trol resulted in about a four-fold decrease in survival of maxked P. setiferus.

Edwards (1977) found natural mortality rates of 41 percent per week for P..van-

namei in a Mexican lagoon where he attributed most of the mortalities to preda-

tion by'Arius,(=Galeichthys), Cynoscion and, possibly, Callinectes.

5.4 Estimate of Maximmn Sustainable Yield

The concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) has been a valuable and

useful tool of fishery management for many years. In more recent yeaxs it has

been recognized that while MSY remains a valuable parameter it is not necessari-

ly a desirable goal to be sought by management. Under the Magnuson Fishery Con-

servation and Management Act of 1976, optimum yield (OY) has replaced MSY,:_'@'_"_J-

5-49
Table 5-11. Fish identified by Knapp (1949), Darnell (1958), and Costello
and Allen (1970), as feeding on penaeid shrimp.

Species Common Name

Carcharhinus: leucas Bull shark

Dasyatis sabina Stingaree

Lepisosteus spatula Alligator gar

Megalops atlantica Tarpon

Ictalurus fureatus Blue catfish

Opsanus beta Gulf toadfish

Centropomus undecimalis Snook

Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass

Epinephelus morio Red grouper

Mycteroperca bonaci Black grouper

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass

Caranx hippos Crevalle jack

Lutjanus analis Mutton snapper

Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper

Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead

Bairdiella batabana Blue croaker

Bairdiella chrysura Silver perch

Cynoscion arenarius Sand seatrout

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot

Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker

Pogonias cromis Black drum

Scomberomorus cavalla King mackerel

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel

Makaira nigricans Blue marlin

.5-50
for arriving at OY.

One of the many assumptions 'underlying MSY is that fishing effort in one

year affects the biomass available for harvest the following year or several

years into the future. Ibis assumption is clearly not met with short-lived

species such as penaeid shrimpwhich axe a] t entirely an annual crop.

Penaeid stocks can and frequently do fluctuate dramatically from year to year

for.reasons totally unrelated to the activities of man, including fishing. Fish-

ing effort does reduce the standing crop in a given year, but not to the extent

that recruitment the following year is affected.

Even if the MSY concept were appropriate in the case of shrimp, ccaputa-

tion of a precise MSY would be difficult by traditional means. One of the more

frequently used methods, the Schadfierlogistic model, requires a long tim-aseries

of both catch and effort data. Although catch data are relatively good, effort

data are quite inadequate in the southeast shrimp fishery. Still, an approxima-

tion of MSY is obtainable. As has been described in Section 8.0 the harvest of

shrimp in the region has fluctuated around a relatively flat plateau of, approxi-

mtely 26 million pounds (heads-on) over the past 30 years. Ibis covers a period

during which the harvest potential of the fleet has increased tremendously (see

Section 8.0). The lack of a corresponding increase in landings suggests strong-

ly that the resource has been fully harvested for many years. If an estimate of

the recreational catch is added to the mean commercial harvest, then this coubi-

nation should provide a suitable estimate of MSY.

For management purposes, MSY equals all available conmrcially valuable

shrimp that can be harvested in a given year. This value in heads-off pounds

for the South Atlantic from 1957 to 1980 has ranged from 9,815,000 to 19,610,000

lb-, The mean value with an estimated 10 percent added as recreational catch is

16,432,000 lb (25,962,000 lb, heads-on). 7his value can be used as an MSY for

the region although it will probably be exceeded in saw years. During the

5-51

period 1957-1980 the mean was exceeded 10 times by commercial landings alone,

neglecting recreational catch. A possible maximum annual catch for the South

Atlantic would be the snyn of the maximum annual catches by species for each

state. Ibis SUM is 26,934,000 lb (42,556,000 1b, heads-on) which is 180.per-

cent of. the 1957-1980 man of commercial landings. The probability of achiev-

...ing this maxin= level, however, is probably very low.

Yield-Per-Recruit (YPR)

Ideally, shrimp managers would prefer to make shrimp management decisions,

particulaxly those involving season opening@'@.-dates, with the aid of a reliable

'YPR curve. Economic yield is considered over biological yield (weight) because

ma.,cunm economic yield usually occurswhen shrimp reach a size larger than where

maximum biological yield occurs. Lindner (1966) demonstrated this in an analysis

Pf Tortugas shrimp fishery management. A primaxy requirement in developing an

accurate YPR curve is a reliable estimate of natural mortality (M). Reliable

estimates of M, however, are difficult to obtain (See Section 5.1.5.7). Shrimp

management decisions can vary considerably with different values of M. A lower

M dictates postponement of the shrimpharvest until shrimp reach a larger size,

whereas, an extremely higb-M indicates that fishing should proceed as soon as

shrimp reach a marketable size.

Several researchers have suggested management strategies forTerigiaius.,

Kutlalhn (1966) obtained relatively high-values for M (See Table 5-9) and recan-

mended that shrimp in the Tortugas fishery be haxvested as soon as they reached

marketable size Cabout 70 count, heads-off). Other studies by Lindner (1966)

and Berry C1967) indicated that these relatively higb-values of M lead to the

conclusion that there is.merit to management procedures designed to protect

small shrimp.

.In the South Atlantic, published management strategies related to YPR

exist only for North Carolina. Pink shrimp in Core and Bogue Sounds and brown

5-52

shrimp in the New River apparently have relatively low natural mortality rates

and migrate offshore at a relatively small size (McCoy, 1972). For maximum

yield, both in weight and value, these shrimp should be caught as soon as

they attain an acceptable size. Purvis and McCoy (1972) examined overwinter-

ing pink shrimp in Core and Pamlico Sounds and recomended that these pink

shrimp should also be fished on as soon as they attained a marketable size

in.the spring. Brown shrimp, however, remain in Pamlico Sound until they reach

a-relatively large size. Because of the longer period of residency for brown

shrimp and the relatively low mortality rates observed, Purvis and McCoy (1974)

recommended that shrimping in Pamlico Sound be prohibited until the shrimp

reach a 46-50 count (heads-off).

5.5 Probable Future Condition

E5mmination of 1957-1980 landings data (Figure 5-4) shows a considerable

range in annual landings of P. setiferus. However, P. a. aztecus and P. d.

duoraxun landings have remained relatively stable. It is doubtful that there

will be any long4temincrease or decrease in shrimp abundance (landings) which

cannot be attributed to natural conditions. Because of high fecundity and miigra@-

tory behavior, the species are capable of rebounding from a very law quantity in

one year, to a large quantity in the next year provided environmental conditions

are favorable. There is also no prospect that overfisbing employing present

methods will haxm the stock.. Iandings over the last 30 years have remained sta-

ble while fishing pressure has increased dramatically. Fluctuations in shrimp

abundance will continue to occur and will be dictated by environmental conditions

(e.g. severe winters, heavy rainfall, drought, etc.). Perhaps the most serious

potential threat to the stocks is loss of habitat to pollution or physical alter-

ation.

During years-when inshore white shrimp overwintering stocks are greatly

reduced because of severe winter weather, thereexisbs the possibility that man-

18-

U- ro -
U-

CI)
0.14

D 101
IF
CL
Cn
CA
LL 8

%
6- %

57 59 61 63 65 67 69 T 1 73. T5 77 79
Y E A R S

Figure 5-4. South Atlantic shrimp landings, 1957-1980..

5-54

agement action could accelerate the recovery..ofthe stocks. Elimination of win-

ter and spring fishing mortality off Florida may facilitate northward migration

of a greater quantity of potential spavvners and could possibly result in larger

regional white shrimp stocks in the following summer and fall.

6.0 '-DESCRIPTION OF THE HABITAT

6.1 Desdripti6h of 'the Habitat

--,The three ccumercially important penaeid shrimp of the southeastern United

States occupy similar habitats with the greatest differences being in optimal sub-

strate and salinity. (See Section 5.1 and 5.3). Apparently all three species

can.tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions; however,. there appear-' to be op-

timl conditionswhich result in the highest growth rates and greatest survival.

which
-Zhrimp have a life cycle requires a variety of habitats. Me habi-

tats can basically be divided into offshore and inshore (see Section 5.1.5). Me

high salinity, oceanic waters serve as habitat for the large mature shrimp which

will spawn offshore. Brown and pink shrimp apparently move to relatively deep

continental shelf water andwhite shrijmp appear to remain nearshore in shallower

water (see Section 5.1.4).

The relative abundance of the three shrimp species in the South Atlantic

may be related to offshore bottm sediment composition. Kennedy and Baxber (in

press) suggest that spanning pink shrijmp may be most abundant off Cape Canaveral

and Cape Lookout because that species has an affinity for hard, coarse, and parti-

cularly calcareous bottom sediments which occur in those areas. They also note

that the nearshore soft sediments correlate well with white and brown shrimp dis-

tributions fran northern Florida to Pmnlico Sound, North Carolina.

0ffshore water also serves as habitat for larval and postlarval. shrimp.

These shrimp are planktonic and feed on zooplankton and phytoplankton in the

water column. . There is saw evidence 'that postlarval brown shrimp may overwinter

in nearshore bottom sediments (Temple and Fischer, 1967). Aldrich et al. (1968)

demonstrated that brown shrimp postlarvae burted in laboratory experiments when
water temperature was reduced to 120-113.50C (540-620F). For their experiments,

they'used substrate material taken from Palveston BaywhidilwaS', 75 percent clay,

22 percent silt, and 3 percent sand,

6-2

The inshore phase of the life cycle is perhaps the most critical because

most of the rapid growth occurs here. Ibis critical habitat is dominated on the

Atlantic coast by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora and Juncus (in North

Carolina's Pamlico Sound) which produce- most of the primary production.

Schelske and OdLun (1961) stated that up to 10 tons of Spartina plant tissues are

produced per acre per year. Turner (1977) found a direct relationship between

commercial shrimp landings to absolute area and type of estuarine-intertidal

vegetation. He suggested that the Mee-M) of intertidal areas are re-

lative indicies-of the amount of "edge" in an area and are thus indirect measure-

ments of the habitat.

Shrimp enter the inshore habitat as postlarvae and maintain a benthic

existence. The areaswhere juveniles appear most abundant have a mud-silt sub-

strate and intermediate salinities. Gunter et al. (1964) found that juvenile

white shr* were most abundant in waters of salinities less than 10 ppt in
Imp
@Alabama and Texas bays'. Truesdale (1970) presented somewhat contradictory in-

formation. He concluded that salinity, per se, had no effect on postlarval dis-

.tribution and abundance in Trinity Bay, Texas except during periods of high

river discharge. Zein-Eldin and Aldrich (1965) and Zein-Eldin and Griffith (1970)

found that salinity, per se, did not affect the growth rate of postlarval shrimp.

Apparently white shrimp have a greater tolerance to law salinity than

brown shrimp. Gunter (1961) attributes the predominance ofwhite shrimp in

Louisiana to the lower estuarine salinities. Conversely, brawn shrimp dominate

in the waters around the much drier Texas. Gunter points out that the connec,-'

tion between rainfall and Texas white shrimp production was dramatically illus-

trated in 1957 when a long drought was broken and landings jumped from 2,229,000

pounds in 1957 to 7,370,000 pounds in 1958. Parker (1970) reported brawn shrimp

in areas where bottom salinity ranged from 0.9 to 36.5 ppt. Gaidry and White

(1973) reported that commercial catches of brown shrimp were poor in those yeaxs

6@-3

when salinities where less than 15. ppt at the time postlarvae were present in

the estuaries. They also stated that years of.law commercial landings of brawn
shrimpwere associated with prolonged estuarine temperatures of less than 200C
(680F) at the time of postlarval imangration into the estuary. Laboratory stu-

dies with juvenile and adult brown and-white shrimp indicate that white shrimp

are better adapted to tolerate low salinity,whereas, brown shrimp are better

adapted to higher@salinities.(McFarlamtd.and Lee., 1963).. Gunter et al. (1964),

..found that juvenilewhite, shrimp were more abundant in axeas with waters of sa-

il 6:; brawn@" rimp -J es@-wexi@',--more
linities less* than 10 abundant

in salinities between 10.0 and 19.9

Juvenile shrimp appear to be most abundant at the Spartina grass water

interface. This "estuarine edge" is the most productive zone in many estuaries.

Because there is a minimn of wind-. turbulence and stabilization of sedi-

ments, rich bands are found along the.edges of marshes (Odan, 1970). Further-

-more, Odun C19701 found that the percentages of organic detritus in se diments

along the shore in the Everglades estuary are several times greater than a few

meters offshore. Mock (1967) examined two estuarine habitats, one natural and

one altered by bulk-heading. He found a 0.6 im C2 ft) band of rich-organic

material along the natural shore and very little organic material along the bulk-

headed shore. 'White shrimp were 12.5 tin-es and brown shrimp 2.5 times more num-

erous in the natural area as in the altered area. Loesch (1965) found that juve-

,nile white shrimp in Mobile Bay were most abundant neaxshore in water less than

0.6 m (2 ft) deep contain 9 laxge amounts of organic detritus. Brown shrimp

were congregated in water 0.6 to 0.9@v m (2-3 ft) deepwhere there was attached

vegetation.
As shrimp increase in size, they been migrating toward high salinity,

oceanic waters. Paxker (1970) observed that size of brown shrimp at the time

6-4

of emigration is apparently related to density of individuals but smaller indi-

vi(:bia-I tended to concentrate in the shallow peripheral zones. St. Amant et al.
(1966) cbserved that as juveniles increased in size they move;OAAi-ft-b deeper, lar-

ger bays, through the lower bays and to offshore waters. Lindner and Anderson

(1956) stated that shrimp size increased from inside to outside waters. The

largest shrimp were in the outside waters where salinity values were highest.

.6.2 Condition of the'Rabitat

There.is little published information available concerning the present

status of estuarine shrimp habitat in the South Atlantic relative to the past.

Linda-11 and Salanan (1977) reviewed and summarized the known alteration and

destruction of estuarine habitat affecting fishery resources of the Gulf of

Mexico. They estimated that over 138,000 acres of marsh had been filled through

1977. Ccaparable data axe not readily available for the South Atlantic but

Spinner (1969) estimated wetland ar-r'es destroyed from 1954-1968 in the Atlantic
coastal st.ates. The South Atlantic lost an estimated'44,900 acres or 3.2 per-

cent of coastal wetlands from 1954 to 1968 CTable 6-1).

Spinner's data indicate that 62.6 percent of all east coast United States-'

wetlands in 1968 were found frcm North Carolina to Florida with South Caxolina

having the most, 23.5 percent. Reimold (1977) found the South.Atlantic to make-

up 81.6 percent of the east coast's salt marshes and mangrove swamps. He found

33 percent of the marsh area in Georgia and 30 percent in South Carolina. Tiner

(1977) examined South Carolina's coastal marsblands and estimated that less

than 2 percent have been lost as diked.dredge-spoil disposal areas. Many coastal

marshlands, however,were altered by European settlers and their descendants for

culture of crops, primarily rice. If the assumption is made that all these areas

were once natural marshlands, then Soutb-Carolina has lost at least 15.8 percent

of its original, natural marsh.. State and federal legislation has significantly

.s
Table 6-1. SIMMry of coastalwetlands acreage forthe South Atlantic itates. (Sources., w=Spiner, 1969
b--Wilson, 1975; c--@Tiner, 1977, cl-OR6imold, 1977).

Total Percent of Estimated Wetlands
Coastal South Atlan@ic 'sDestroyed 1954-196e@
Wetlands' Wetlands

Ob
North Carolina 197,25 14,700

c
South Carolina 504,445 39.0
2$000-
Georgia 475,687d 36.7 2 700
d
Florida (East coast) 117,696 9.1

Total 10295,078
-_100 .441

slowed the destruction of coastal wetlands but physical alterations to subtidal

and intertidal axeas continue.; .@ under pressure from an increasing population's de-

mand for waterfront properties.

Pesticides pose a more insidious threat to shrimp as well as all aquatic

and marine species. Freshwater runoff laden with pesticides and other chemicals

from agriculture and other sources are removed and concentrated by filter feed-

ing estuarine animals. Cysters, for example, are able to concentrate Wr from

.the water and incorporate it into their pseudofeces, making it available in a
more concentrated form to deposit feeders COdLun, 1970). Odum et al. (lj69) de-

termined that detritus particles"in estuarine sedimnts can concentrate EDT

at levels 100,000 times higher than in estuarine waters.

The use of DDT has been outlawed in the United States but other pesticides

are used domestically that can affect marine life. The pesticide'nalathion,

used in conbating mosquitoes along-the South Atlantic coast, has been shown to

cause mortalities of brown and white shrimp after aerial application (Conte and

Parker, 1975). Conte and Paximr C1975) recommended that the application of

,malathion be made on adult nmquitoes and-marine waters should not be sprayed.

A study done in Texas by Chin and Men (.1957) examined the effects of another

insecticide used in mosquito control. This insecticide (active ingredient;

benzene hexachloride) was determined to be extremly toxic to P.-setiferus and

P. a.''62tecus in laboratory experiments. Haxder et al. C1980) examined the

rainfall input of the pesticidetoxaphene into a South Carolina estuary. They
reported.ioxaphene washout into the estuary at concentrations greater than

those reported to produce harmful effects in several species of fish-and crus-

,taceans in laboratory studies. Courtenay and Roberts (1973) have shown that

toxaphene is toxic to P.- d,.-dWrar= larvae in laboratory tests. They found a
"significant interaction" at the nauplius, protozoea, and mysis stages in tem-

.:.perature - toxaphene tests. A significant synergism of salinity and toxaphene

was cbserved in the mysid stage. Bioassay work with mallet (Mugil cephalus)

and spot (leiostaws xanthurus) indicates that an envAronmentally-altered form

of toxaphene is apparently just as taKic as the parent compound (H. W. Harder,

-mb"

:Aore dramatic effects of.pesticide poisoning have been observed in some

South Carolina tidal creeks., Several largewhite shrimp kills occurred during

,,the.1970's as a result of application of methyl, parathion and toxaphene to ad-

jacent soybean fields (C. M. Bearden, S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept.; Charleston,

-S.C., pers.'comm). More recently, several localized fish kills have occurred

presumably as a result of pesticide-laden rainfall runoff from adjacent tomato

fields (C. R. Richter, S.C. Wildl.'Mar. Res. Dept., Charleston, S. C.; pers.

comm.). At present, one can only speculate as to the ultimate impact of pesti-

cides on shrimp stocks and other marine.organisms, but it is obvious that these

chemicals should be closely.monitored and controlled.

6.3 Habitat Areas of Particulax Concern

Of-,Ahe many habitats occupied by penaeid shrimp, the estuarine tidal

creeks and salt marshes are perhaps the most important. These areas provide

abundant food and shelter during a major growth phase of the shrimp's life cy-

cle. As discussed in Section 5.1.5, size of shrimp upon reaching the canrier-

cial shrimping grounds appears to be dependent on density of individuals. It

is likely then, that a major limiting factor in shri growth is the availabi-
imp

lity of nursery habitit. 14f,.*'this assuq?tion is true,-then during yeaxs of high.

shrimp abundance there is already not enough habitat for maximum shrimp pro-

duction (biomass). Tbi ma.
intain present production levels and maxirmn future

production, the remaining saltwater max-sh habitat must be protected.

It is well known that shrimp aire capable of occupying and flourishing

in estuaries with-a wide range of salinites. Optimal salinities for juvenile

.6-8

brown and white shrimp, however, seem to be from about 5 ppt to 20 ppt and

and slightly higher for pink shrimp. Withregard. to these optimal conditions.,

man-made alterations in river discharge can have significant effects on shrimp

production. Increases or decreases in fresbwater flow into estuarine waters

can.result in changes in shrimp species ccaposition and potentially retard

growth rates. During the drought of 1980 along the eastern coast of the

United States, salinities in coastal rivers and creekswere n*nlcb higher than

normal. As a result shrimp were found further inland than usual (J, D. Whitaker,`

S. C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept.-' Charleston, S.C.'4,, unjpUbl. data; S. Shipman, Ga.
Dept. Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA.; pers. com.; D. Spitzbergen, N.C. Dept. Nat.

Res. and Conm. Dev., Morehead City, Y."!C,ipers. comm.). With higher than normal

salinities in "inside" waters, shrimp residency times my be lengthened and in-

creased natural mortality may result in fewer shrimp moving to commercial trawl-

ing grounds. On the other hand, a large increase in freshwater flaw into an es-

tuarine system can reduce salinities to less than optimal levels resulting in

less available nursery habitat and perhaps forcing shrimp offshore prematurely.

An example of man 's altering'of freshwater flow into an estuary is the

Santee-Cooper rediversion project in South Caxolina. Shealy and Bishop (1979)

examined this project and speculated on the possible effects on shrimp. Water

will be diverted from the Cooper River to the Santee River and salinity of

Charleston Harbor water, which is fed in part by the Cooper River, may increase

causing displaciament of low-salinity nursery grounds. There may be a decrease

in white shrimp production per unit area and an increase in brawn shrinp,produc-

tion. Opposite trends in the Santee River estuaries may occur.

Trawling grounds where shrimp are seasonally-abundant must also be pro-

tected. Open-ocean dumping of dredge spoil can result in shrimp gill erosion

and should not be done in shrimp trawling grounds when shrimp are abundant.

Dumping should also be avoided during the spawning season because the demersal

eggs could be smoothered and destroyed by dredge spoil. Another consideration

is the alteration of bottom contours and substrate composition by dredge spoil

so as to make trawling hazardous or impossible.

Dredging of nearshore bottoms to provide deepwater port capabilities

may also have a negative impact on shrimp. Channels dredged to 10.7-16.8 m

(35-55 ft) or more from estuaries to equally deep ocean bottom can require

channels extending more than 16.9 In (10 mi) from shore. These deep channels

could direct shrimp further offshore than normal. A biological consequence,

could be the displacement of white shrimp spawners with a resultant decrease

in recruitment of postlarvae to the estuary. Impacts on the fishery may be

higher fuel expenditures to reach trawling grounds and crowding of fishing

trawlers and other commercial vessels in the ship channel

6.4 Habitat Protection Program

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have all adopted

programs through legislation to protect the coastal marshes. Generally, all

alterations of land or water at or below the man high tide mark must be re-

viewed and approved before work can begin. Because the protection programs

vary fran state to state, each state is presented separately.

6.4.1 North Carolina

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development regulation

defines and protects nursery areas in North Carolina. "Nursery areas are de-

fined as those areas, in which for reasons such as food, cover, bottan types,

salinity, temperature and other factors, young finfish and crustaceans spend

the major portions of their initial growing season." Bottan disturbing fish-

ing gears, trawls and dredges are prohibited in nursery areas and excavation

and/or filling activities are "severely restricted or prohibited."

The North Carolina, Coastal Area Management Act charges the Coastal Re-

sources Commission (CRC) with the responsibility for-identifying types of areas

in which uncontrolled or incompatible development result in irreversible da-

mage to the water or land. The Act also directs the CRC to operate a permit pro-

6-10

.gram to control inappropriate or damaging development activities within areas

of environmental concern. Individuals proposing 1@dmor development" in an area

of environmental concern are required to obtain a permit from a local permit

officer, while individuals proposing lbajor development" activities mist cbt

a permit directly from the CRC. Use standards provide guidance for development

in sucha way as to avoid damaging sensitive areas such as primaxy nurseries.

6.4.2 South Carolina
@3_Act 123 of 1977 was enacted by the General'Asseably of South Carolina

to provide for the protection and enchancement of the State's coastal resour@.

ces (South Carolina Coastal Council, 1981). The Act created the South Carolina

Coastal Council which has the duty of "encouraging the protection and sound

development of coastal resources." 7he"Act gives the Council the direct state

authority to deny or issue permits in the critical ameas defined in the Act.

The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department as well as all

other state agencies submits comments and recommendations to t he South Carolina

Coastal Council which makes the State's official ruling.

6.4.3 Georgia

The Coastal Maxshlands Protection Act of 1970 requires that anyone who

seeks to remove, fill, dredge or drain or otherwise alter any maxshlands with-

in an estuarine area must cbtain a permit frcm, the Coastal Marshlands Protee-

tion Committee. The Coastal Management Act of 1978 created the Georgia Coast-

al Management Board which administers public and private funding to carry out

pro.visions of #*Act and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, administer

and enforce the provision of the Act, coordinate public participation in de-

velopment of policies to be administered pursuant to the Act and perform any

act necessary to carry out the provisiorsof the Act. The Act gives the CMB

the duty of recommending, to local governments, standards and guidelines for

wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zone. Also, the statels

6-11

Shore Assistance Act of 1979 is desigmated to conserve the dynamic dune fields,

beaches, and.offshore bars. These vital areas are subject to a state permit

process for any alteration of the.topography or vegetation.

The Coastal Fisheries, Coastal protection and Coastal Management Sections

.0f.Georgials Department ofINatura.1 Resources have several goals pursuant to con-

servation of Georgia's coastal zone. These goals include monitoring of coastal

resourcesP,perfbimiing research projects relative to the coastal zone, regulation

of marshland and shoreland alteration and public education.

6.4.4 Florida

Me Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has primaxy re-

sponsibility for protecting Florida's coastal zone. A permit frcm DER must be

cbtained before any non-exeppt alterations can be made in coastal marshlands..

Dredging and filling activities in lbays, bayous, sounds, estuaries, and natural

tributaries thereto" require a IER permit. Before issuance of a permit, a bio-

logical survey, ecolo,
.gical survey, and hydrographic survey.(if deemed necessary

by DER) must be made with reference to the effects of the activity upon fish,

wildlife and other natural resources. Less extensive surveys may be prepared

in evaluating "minor" projects.

Each state in the South Atlantic has.guidelines for evaluating proposed

.wetland alterations. These guidelines are similar for each state and scm al-

teration activities addressed include docks and piers; bulkheads and seawalls;

jetties and groins; cables, pipelines and transmission lines; m ina location

and design; transportation; dredging and filling; navigation channels and'access

channels; deposition of dredged materials; sewage lagoons and impoundmnts;

maxsh impoundments for recreational and/or canwrcial activities; development

activities on barrier islands and coastal dunes and non-water dependent struc-

tures.

6-12-

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act of 1977 give federal permitting responsibility to the

United States Army Corps of Engineers. A permit from the Corps of Engineers

is required for any type of construction or other alteration in navigable

waters of the United States, including all coastal waters and contiguous or ad-

'Jacent wetlands of the United States (Baxa et al., 1977). Ihe National Marine

Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service also review

and camient on wetland alterations that may affectresources for which they

have responsibility. Ihe Environmental Protection Agency regulates discharge

of effluents and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments of 1972

(33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) require states and regions to plan for land use to control

location of new sources of pollution.

The National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring

.Planning Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-273) designates NOAA as lead agency in developing

@a plan for a program relating to ocean pollution research, development, and moni-

toting.

7. 0 FISHERY MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION, LAWS AND POLICIES

7.1 Management Institutions

Management of the shrimp fishery in the four Southeastern Atlantic States

has traditionally been based on State and local laws and regulations. These

laws and regulations are generally designed to control seasons, fishing areas,

and the size of shrimp that can be caught. These regulations are based upon

biological (protection of juveniles, nursery areas, spawners, etc.), economic

(maximum returns to fishermen) and socio-political considerations. Specific

regulations concerning seasons, areas, gear, methods, licenses and taxes,

reciprocal agreements, and reporting requirements exhibit variation from state

state, as do law enforcement systems and penalties for violations (Table 7-1).

Although all four states have provisions for adoption of rules and regula-

tions pertaining to the shrimp fishery, in many instances existing statues

or legislative and administrative procedures impede short term decision-making

in critical situations. Of the four states included in this study, North Caro-

lina currently has perhaps the most flexible administrative and regulatory sys-

tem pertaining to shrimp management. The states of South Carolina, Georgia, and

Florida all have limited flexibility in various aspects of shrimp management due

to existing state and local statutes. At present, only South Carolina does not

have legislative authority to enter reciprocal shrimp management agreement with

the other States.

Enforcement and monitoring programs related to shrimp regulations also

differ significantly amont the four states. In some cases, specific law enforce-

ment units exist under the direct control of the coastal management unit or divi-

sion, while in others law enforcement sections are responsible for enforcing

game and freshwater fisheries as well as coastal fisheries laws. Manpower, equip-

ment, and other coastal law enforcement capabilities and needs also vary widely

among the four states.

Table 7-1 Summry of shrimp unnagement I=s and kegulations, Southeastern Atlantic states -

LAWS OR RBOULATCRY MEASW(S) NCRW CUKLM SO= CARMDU
GEM= FLORIDA

I. Restrictions on Gear or
Method
A. General Stop netting illegal. Stop nattingAllegal. Stop netting illegal. Stop netting illegal.

B. Mesh Size, Minimum Shrimp trawls - 1 1/211 Seines - r, stretched Seines under 121 P No statewide provisions.
stretched mash. Channel Channel Note - 1 1/21- Stretched; up to 100 County laws vary.
nets and seines 1 1/411 stretched. ft. 1 1/4-1 stretched.
stretched mesh.

C. Net Restrictions

(1) Channel Nets Legal most areas (1201 legal, by permIt (801 No provisions - - ille- No provision, illegal in
max. width). max. width), gal, inside waters. moot inside waters.
(2) Seines Legal, all waters (no Legal,, all waters Legal,' inside waters; Legal only in certain
,,(*121)1 ocean beaches
max. size, cowmercial). year round (401 am. areas with size restrictions.
length). (up to 1001)..
(3) Cast Nets Legal, all waters year legal, all waters year legal, all waters year le@d In ?Met inside waters;
round round. round. size restrictions in sane
counties.

(4) Dip or drop nets, legal, all waters. legal all waters year No provisions. legal in most areas.
bridge nets. round.

(5) Butterfly, float Permit required. legal only in permitted No provisions. No provisions.
nets. axleas.

(6) Shrimp Trawl a legal in open areas legal in open areas legal in open areas legal in open areas-(no
(no restrictions, ex- (no size restrictions). (size limit on bait. size limits generally)
oept mesh size). trawls).

D. Catch Limits None. None. Bait shrimp trawling, Varies by County.
personal use.

Table 7-1 (Continued)

LAWS OR RBOMAIMY MEASURE(S) NOM WaMA SOUM CAROLINA
aE=IA FURMA

11. Trawling Season(s) Sat by Department, and Offshore - May 15 - Dec. Offshore June 1 Set. by Marine Resources
based on shrimp size. 31, Sounds - Aug. 15 Dec. 31, provided Division based on shrimp
Dec. 15 (Commission my count is 45 or abDve_@ count sampling.
open or close any area Also may open in Jan
by discretion). Feb.sif c4ount is below
50.

III. Trawling Areas, Legal Specified by regulation Six major souhds and Offshore waters only Specific area designated
(legal in off-shore wa- bays, offshore waters in recent years. as sanctuaries closed per-
ters, most inside wa- only.
manently to trawling.
ters).

IV. Shrimp Count Law.
(Minimum) No provisions. No provisions. 45/lb. heads-on .70/lb..heads-off.
(50/lb.,Jan., Feb.)

V. Bait Shrimp Trawling No specific provisions No specific provisions; Tegal in most waters. legal in most waters,
for bait shrinping. trawling illegal in PaCreational _ 10. under restrictions and
tra-W-1 %,fnmax. %J.
restricted .4
cial 201 trawl (Mx. nets legal in some arms.

VI. Other Trawling prohibited Night trawling illegal Night trawling ille- Night shrimping unlawful
between one hour after 1/2 hr. after.sunset to 8 P.M. to 5 A.M. eXCept during June - August.
sunset Sat. to one 1/2 hour before sunrise. EST. (9 P.M. and 6"P.M.,
hour before sunset Sun.

. ..... ....

7-4

All four States have coastal zone units concerned with the

protection of estuarine andwetland habitat (shrimp nursery areas). In North

Carolina.. Georgia and Florida, the sam natural resource agencies.that have shrimp

fishery management responsibilities also have coastal zone management (includ-

ing permitting) authority.

The following is a summarization of existing shrimp management systems

in each state.

7.1.1 North Carol*=

The organizational unit responsible for management and regulation of

lFrCirin and estuarine resources in North Carolina is the Department of Natural
I

Resources and Cammity Development. The Depaxtment's Division of Marine

Fisheries is the organizational unit charged with coastal fisheries management

functions. This Division is governed by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Ccamission, which is responsible for the pronulgation.of rules and regulations.

A Ccamercial and Sports Fisheries Advisory Cbmmittee functions in an advisory

capacity to the Ccmmission and the Division. The staff prepares suggested

regulations and submits them to the Ccmnission. The specific authority of the

Division with respect to regulation of coastal fisheries is provided under

Title 15, Chapter 3 of the North Carolina Administrative Code.

The North Carolina coastal shrimp management system is quite flexible,

and most of the regulatory authority is under the Division, its Director, and

the Cmrdssion. General statutes themselves deal primarily with. licenses,

taxes record keeping, enforcement, and leasing procedures. All other matters,

including opening or closing of seasons and areas to shrimping geax and equip-

ment restrictions, and other aspects of shrimp management are controlled

throughregulations prcmulgated by the Division. North Caxolina G.S. 113-133

abolished local coastal fishing laws, although there are sarie regulations pro-

mulgated which deal with the restriction of.shrimping in specific areas of

coastal waters.,

The Iaw Enforcement Section of the North Carolina Marine Fisheriei.

..Division has f isheries inspectors in he.coastad area who axe primarily con-

cerned with the enforcemmt'of fisheries, dredge and fill, and state health

7'..I-.2lSouth-:Caroliiia.'-'@-'.,.,

Insouth Carolina,,the'Wildlif.e and Marine Resources Department is the

agency having coastal fisheries managimient,responsibility. The Department is

gowrned by a nine-man board, the South Carolina Wildlife and-Marine Resources

Coffbislion.. The Department's Division of Marine Resources has jurisdiction

over all saltwater fish., fishing and fisheries.

Coastal fisheries laws for South Carolina are contained in Chapter 17,

Title 50, South Carolina,Code of laws, 1976 as amended. The Division is author-

ized to pramilgate rules and regulations for the control of fisheries consistent

with existing state policies and statutes.

Most of the regulatory authority of the Division is specified by statute,

including provisions for legal trawling ax\--as., gear restrictions, licenses and

taxes, etc. The Division'does have considerable flexibility in shrimp manage-

ment insofar as control,of the season in coastal waters is concerned, and any

area where legal trawling is permitted may be opened or closed at any time to

any type of,ccmercial fishing activity.

The law enforcement unit of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resour-

ces Department is the Division of law Enforcement and Boating. The duties of

this Division include the enforcement of statutes and regulations relative to

game and freshwater fisheries, boating, and marine resources. The Division has

nine districts throughout the state with one, the Coastal Environmental Enforce-

ment District, being primarily responsible for marine resources law enforcement.

7-6

7.1.3;Georgia

The Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

is the organizational unit primarily responsible.for coastal fisheries manage-

ment and enforcement.. The.Department.is headed by a Commissioner and a 15 per-

son Board of Natural Resources. As in South Carolinat much of the regulatory
authorization.of the Division related to shrimp management i's specified by

ft
te
a: legislation..

Georgia.statutes; pertainin to shrimp allow sane flexibility in the open-

ing and'elosing of seasons, based on eleven criteria of wildlife research and

management established under State lov. Other aspects relating to vessel

licenses, gear restrictions, etc. axe specified by statute. The Board has the

authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to coastal fisheries not con-

irary to existing statutes.

The Law Enforcement Section of the Department has enforcement powers per-

taining to all game, freshwater fishing, coastal'fishing, dredge and fill,

boating, and water quality lms in the state.

7.1.4,,Florida (East Coast)

In FloridaP the Department of Natural Resources is charged with the admin-

istration, supervision, development, and conservation of all natural resources.

The Marine Resources Division of the Department is specifically responsible for

the management of coastal fisheries resourcest including shrimp.

Legislation pertaining to the shrimp fishery is contained in Chapters 370

of the Florida Statutes Annotated., and in Chapter 16B of the Florida Administra-

tive Code (Regulations). General statutes include provision for licenses and

taxes, enforcement, gear restrictions, and the regulation of fisheries for vari-

ous species such as shrimp. Administrative regulations may be promulgated by

the Department to implement, interpret, or make specific the statutory require-

ments concerning various species. These regulations require review by a legis-

7-4

lative camiittee. Generally, the shrimp management system in Florida, as set

forth in the statutes, is relatively inflexible, and allows for limited regu-

latory authority through administrative discretion. The Florida Legislature

has also adopted numerous local law which regulate shrimping in various coun-

ties.

r1be Department Is Bureau. of ]Law Ehforcement, the Marine Patrol, is the

organizational unit responsible for the enforcement.of saltwater fisheries

.laws and regulations. The Marine Patrol is also responsible-for the enforce-

ment of boating, dredge and fill, water quality, and shellfish-'saAitatioh....

laws and regulations.

7.2 Sumury of State and Local'Laws, Regulations and Policies

7.2.1 North Carolina

-a. Licenses and Taxes

Conmrcial Rshing Vessels

Without motors - $1.00

With motors, less than.18 ft length - $3.00

With motors, 18-26 ft length. - $0.50/ft

With mDtors, 26 ft + in length. - $0.75/ft

Non-resident, any length - $2W.00

Shrimp Dealer and Individual Licenses $10.00/year (shrimp dealer)

Bait dealers my operate under this license, or a finfish dealers

license.

Taxes on Shrimp Caught Green, heads off $0.15/100 lb or

0.10/100 lb, heads on

Shrimp Gear Licenses - None
Annual Licensing Period - J=uary@ 1 - Decanber 1

Record Keeping Requirements - G.S. 113-157 (e), 113-163 (applies

primarily to seafood dealei-s).

7-8.'

b. Reciprocal Agreements.

Sections 113-223 and 113-181 (N.C.G.S.) contain general provisions

whereby the State of North Carolina.may enter into reciprocal agreement concern-

ing coastal fisheries matters. Under these statutes, the state has reciprocal

agreement authority which would include practically any aspect of shrimp manage-

ment in territorial waters. Section 113-161 also provided that such states ac-

cord similar privileges to North Caxolina license holders. (Refer to North

Carolina Maxine Fisheries Regulation.15 NCAC 38-204 for additional information).

C. Regulations

Restrictions on Gear and Fishing Methods

Non-commercial shrimp gear is defined as seines less than 12 ft in

length and dip nets.

Channel or stationary nets may not be used in any location where

they might constitute a hazard to navigation; and cannot block more than two-

thirds of any natural or man-made waterway. Channel nets used in coastal fish-

ing waters for taking shrimp may not exceed 40 yards in length and must be pro-

perly buoyed and marked.

Mesh Size of Shrimp Nets

MinimUm mesh size for shrimp nets is 1 1/2 in stretched mesh. Hand

seines and fixed (channel) nets, float nets, and butterfly nets may have a mini-

rman mesh size of: 1.1/4 in stretch (such nets may not have an inner or outer liner

of any mesh size). There are no miniran mesh size restrictions on cast nets.

Seasons, Areas, Etc.

No person shall take, attempt to take or possess aboard a vessel,

shrimp taken by any method other than by a cast or fixed net, from the coastal

waters of North. Carolina:

(1) Between one hour after sunset on any Saturday and one hour be-

fore sunset on the following Sunday, except in the Atlantic Ocean.

7-9

(2). Between.January 1 and th6 date upon- which the season shall be

opened by the Secretary..
(3) In -specified closed sanctuary areas. Primaxy nursery areas

are defined by'regulation and clo at all times. Secondary

nursery areas are open only after they have ceased to be or

:.ceased to'serve as such.

and Closing Season

'Me Secretary, acting upon the advice of -the Director may open or

close the shrimp season in various waters based upon reasonable and prudent

management of marine and estuarine resiources. The season may be closed at any

time upon 48 hour notice for the protection of undersized shrimp (this regula-

tion does not apply to channel.or fixed nets)

BaLit Shrimping

North Carolina has no specific regulations on bait shrimping. License

requirements and general provisions for shrinping apply, however. There is a

100 shrimp per person limit for a cast, net used in closed shrimping areas, which

tends to limit such activity to catching bait.

Miscellaneous

Other general regulations apply to the restrictions of nets and seasons

in specific areas of North Carolina coastal waters.

Scientific Permits
d.

Section 113-261, N.C.G.S.

e. Limited Entry

No privisions for limited-entry are contained in N.C. fisheries laws or

regulations.

7.2.2 South Carolina

a. Licenses and Taoxes

Cbmmarcial'Fishing'Vessels

7-10

Resident shrimp trawler - $75.00

Non-resident shrimp trawler - $200.00

Commercial vessels under 18 ft - $2.50 (except for trawlers)

Commercial vessels in excess of 18 ft $10.00 (except for trawlers)

Shrimp Dealers and Individual Licenses

Individual Camercial Shrimp License (Required of trawler captain)

$5.00

SUIJIP Dealer!@s License- $20.00

Shrimp Processor's License - $100.00

Bait Dealer's License 7 $5'..00

Taxes on Shrimp caught in South Caxolim

None

Shrimp Gear Licenses

Channel Net $5. 00

Annual Licensing Period

July 1 - June 30

Record Keeping Requirements Sections 50-5-120, 50-17-530, 50-17-1310,

50-17-2310

b. Reciprocal Agreewnt

There is currently no authorization in the South Carolina Code of Laws

for the Department or Division to enter into reciprocal agreement with other states

pertaining to shrimp management or licensing.

c.. Regulations

It is unlawful to place or set any net, seineok,,,other device to extend

more than one-half the width of any tidal stream or waterway at any stage of the

tide.

Shrimp Seines (Section 50-17-1020)

Such seines may be used for commercial or personal use and cannot ex-

ceed 40 ft 'in. length. A-miniraim mesh requirement of 1/2 in (nylon) or 9/16 in

(cotton), square mesh, is provided. No restrictions exist on cast nets, drop

nets, or dip nets for personal shrimping.

Channel Nets (Section 50-17--1020)

Maxinin mouth width allowable for channel nets is 80 ft, and a mesh

size no smaller than 3/4.in square Mesh, may be used..

-Seasons, Areas, Etc.

..,,Trawling Seasons and Areas* (Section 50-17-1510, 50-17-1520)

Shoreline to three-mile limi.t-:., May 15 - Decenber 21. Sounds and Bays:

August 15 - December 15, except for Calibogue Sound (September 1 -.November 1).

Trawling is restricted within one-quarter or one-half mile of the shore-

Jine along most.inhabited beaches during May 15 September 15. It is also unlaw-

-ful to trawl within one-half mile ofany fishing pier in Horry County. All inter-

nal estuarine, areas... except six sounds and bays axe considered nursery areas and

are off-limits to shriap trawling-

Trawling is unlawful from one-half hour after official sunset until

one-half hour before official sunrise in any legal state waters.

Bait Shrimp Regulations

.South Carolina has no provisions for bait shrimp operations, other than

the requirements for bait dealer's licenses. Cast nets., seines, drop nets and dip

nets my be used to take bait shrimp in, tidal creeks, rivers, or stream.

Miscellaneous Provisions

Any vessel operating in areas where trawling is closed is required to

have trawl nets on board at all times. This makes it obvious to law enforcement

that nets axe not in the water. Legal trawling boundaries are specified in Arti-

cle 11, South Carolina Code of laws, 1962 as awnded. Requirements for

*Section 50-17-1590 provides that the Cannission may open or close any of the
listed areas at any time, if it believes.such action should be taken in the best
interest of.the State:.".

7-12

shrimp channel net permits are specified by rule and regulation. Persons using

a channel or set net for shrimp in coastal waters mist obtain a permit from the

Division, which specifies the area(s) where said net may be used.

d. Scientific Collection Permits (Section 50-17-70)

'South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended.

e. Limited Entry

A limit of 100 channel 1 net licenses was imposed by 1980 legislation.

7.2.3 Georgia

a. Licenses and Taxes

Commercial Vessels

Trawlers 18ft and under - $50.00

Trawlers over 18ft - $50.00 + $3.00/ft over 18 ft

Non-residents are charged at the above rates plus $25.00 per vessel.

If non-residents home State charges a fee in excess of this amount, the non-resi-

dent must pay the same amount which his State would charge a Georgia resident.

A $5,000.00 cash or forfeiture bond must be filed by each shrimp boat

license applicant.

Individual and Dealer Licenses

Personal Commercial License (Resident) - $10.25

Personal Commercial License (Non-resident) - $100.25

Wholesale Fish Dealer - $50.00 (Dept. of Agriculture)

Sport Bait Shrimp Trawling - $5.00 resident, $75.00 non-resident

Commercial Bait Shrimp Trawling - $2.00 resident, $5.00 non-resident

Taxes on Shrimp Caught - None

Annual Licensing Period - April 1 - March 31

Shrimp Gear Licenses - None

Record Keeping Requirements - Sections 45-217; 45-218.1

1@13

-114 (9) provides that the Board
b.@ Reciprocal Agreements Section 45

of Natural Resources my enter into cooperative agreements with educationaLinsti@_

tutions and federal, state and other agencies to promote wildlife management and

conservation. Ibis section appaxently provides broad authority to enter into re-

ciprocal agreement..

c. Regulations

Restrictions on Gear and Fishing Methods

Cast.nets and bait shrimp tramrls of less than 201 may be used for taking

shrimp in tidal creeks, stream-and rivers. Seines of twelve feet or less and a

maxiran mesh of 1-inch.stretched may be used in any saltwaters. Seines up to 100

feet in length with a mesh of no less than 1 1/4 inches may be used on certain

ocean beaches. No restrictions or catch limits on cast nets, but shrimping areas

cannot be baited.

Seasons, Areas, Etc.

Trawling Season (Secti on 45405)

The shrimp trmvling season in Geor *a may be opened by ICNR f=m, June 1
gi

through Decenber 31 provided the shrinyi meet the eleven criteria of wildlife re-

search and management which must be considered in making a decision to open or

close the season. During January and February offshore waters my be opened

based on the same criteria as above. Provision is also made that adequate sampl-

ing mist be conducted to determine shrimp count sizes. Actions must be taken in

accordance with current sound wildlife research and management principles, and

24 hour notice is required.

Tra:wling Hours

..-Commrcial food shrimping legal only between 5 A.M. EST (6 A.M. EDr)

and 8 P.M. EST (9 P.M. EDr).
Bait Shrimp Regulations (.Section 45-935, 45-935.1)

7-14

Any person may at any time,and in axeas specified for such purpose

use a power-drawn net not exceeding 10 ft across the muth, for the purpose of

taking shrimp to be used for live bait for personal use. Catch is limited to

two quarts of shrimp per person, or four quarts per boat at any time (4 quarts

per person'and 8 quarts per any 24 hour period).,

Any person engaged in commercial bait shrimping m3st own or be em-

ployed by an established bait dealership in Georgia, and must post a $1,000 bond

and cbtain the necessary licenses required by law. --Qualified persons so licensed

may use trawl nets not laxger.than 20 ft across the mouth for taking live bait for

sale in state waters.

Miscellaneous (45-903(3))

The Department has the power to close any area in the tidal or salt-

I
water areas of the state to commercial shrimping in the event of disaster or

emergency situations.

d. Scientific Collection Permits (Georgia Statute 45.208)

e. Limited Entry

Sections 45-114(3) and 45-101.1 in the absence of any constitutional

impediments, would apparently Ide for the establishment of a system of limited
prov:L

entry.

7.2.4 Florida

a. Licenses and Taxes

Motor Boats (Includes shrimp vessels)

Class A-1 - (less than 12 ft) $2.50

Class A-2 - 12-16 ft - $6.50

Class 1 - 16-26 ft - $11.50

Class 2 - 26-40 ft - $31.50

7-15

Class 3 - 40-65ft - $51.50

Class 4 - 65-110ft - $61.50

Class 5- 110' + - $76.00

(Non resident fee $50. 00 in addition to above).

Individual and Dealer Licenses

Resident Wholesale - $100.00

Non-resident Wholesale - $150.00

Alien Wholesale - $500.00

Resident Retail - $10.00

Non-resident Retail $25.00

Alien Retail - $50.00

Alien-and Non-resident Commercial Fisherman's Licenses - $25.00

Shrimp fishery permits are required by the Director which specify the

type of gear to be used in different sections of open areas.

Taxes on Shrimp Caught - None

Annual Licensing Period - July 1 - June 30

Shrimp Gear License - None

Record Keeping Requirements Section 370.061(5)

b. Reciprocal Agreements

Section 370.18 pertains to access to fishery resources, specifically

shrimp and prawn. Provision is made whereby the citizens of Florida may be per-

mitted to catch shrimp or prawn from the waters under the jurisdiction of other

states-upon similar agreements to allow non-residents to fish or catch seafood

in Florida.

C. Regulations

Restrictions on Gear and Fishing Methods

Florida has numerous county (local) laws pertaining to area and type

of gear which can be used for taking shrimp. Statewide, it is unlawful to ob-

struct any tidalwaterway with a seine, net, or other device except gill nets, to

prevent the free passage of fish (370.08). Shrimp traps axe restricted as to

size and construction (370.08(2)).

Seasons, Areas, Etc.,

Trawling Season and Areas

Generally, the shrimping season.is controlled by the Department under

the provisions of Sections 370.15, 370.151, 370.153, and 370.156. No specific

dates are set-for statewide seasons, with areas being opened or closed according

to shrimp count size, as determined by sampling by the Marine Resources Division.

Certain areas axe closed to commercial trawling at all times.

Night Shzimping

It is unlawful to catch or attempt to catch shrimp or prawn in any

county bordering on the Atlantic Ocean of Florida at night by trawling, except

during the months of June, July and August.

Bait Shz-hWing.

Live bait shrimping, including trawling, is legal in most of the

territorial waters of Florida's east coast. Permits axe required for bait

shrimping from the Divisionwhich may specify the type of equipment necessary

to catch and maintain shrimp alive after capture, as well as requirements for

handling, transporting and marketing. In some counties, a license fee is re-

quired and size of trawls, restricted areas, etc. are defined. Bait shrimp

permits for pleasure fishermen are specified by regulation. on a county basis.

Specific areas in coastal waters are designated as sanctuaries or

nursery areas-and are closed permanently to shrimp trawling. In most inland

waters (tidal creeks, estuaries), only cast nets or bait shrimping is allowed.

Shrimp Catch-Regulations

it is illegal to have in possession on board any vessel or in any

place of business small shrimp in excess of 5 percent of the total poundage.

Small shrimp or prawn are defined as those requiring more than 47 heads-on

(M count Pheads-off) to make one pound. Random sampling is done to determine
the percentage.of small shrimp in the; ciich, ion. 380'.15(2)).

d. Scientific Collection Permits (G.S. 380.10)

e. Idmited Entry

No precedents for,limited entry have been established and there are

no@specific legislative provisioripfor same in Florida saltwater fisheries lavis.

7.3 international Treaties and @aents@

Currently-there is no foreign fishery for shrimp in.State waters or in the

U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone of the Southeastern Atlantic' region. In the future,

any shrimp ffWagement plan developed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Couh-

cil would probably consider access to foreign fishing only if an available surplus

of shrimp in excess of U.S. harvesting capacity existed and a GIFA were in effect

with the respective country involved.

7.-4 Federal Laws, Regulations anid Policies

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-265) as

amend d, defines specif ic procedures for the management of fisheries witbin the

FCZ. Prior to the enactment of this law, there was no legal mechanism for the

management of shrimp stocks in waters beyond the States' territorial seas.

The XF= provides for exclusive United States management authority over the

fishery resources within a Fishery Conservation Zone extending from the seaward

boundary of the States' territorial sea (three nautical.miles) to a point 200 miles

from shore. Responsibility for developing fishery management plans for the South
Atlantic is vested in the South Atlantic Fishery Managment Coun@&l; implementation

and enforcement of any regulations pertinent to the management of fisheries within

the Fisheries Conservation Zone are the responsibility of the Secretary of Ccunerce

and Secretary of the Departmentwherein the U.S. Coast Guard is located.

Successful implementation of any future shrimp management plan will require

unity of purpose between Federal regulations and those of the four Southeastern

Atlantic states.

7;18-

In.addition to the.-FCMA, the following Federal legislation would be appli-

cable to.a shrimp management plan for the Southeastern Atlantic:

1) The Coastal Zone Act of 1972, as amended, provides for-

planning and management of coastal areas.

.2) National Wildlife Refuges and.National Seashores are regulated by the

National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
:-3) The Marine Protection, [email protected] Sanctuaries Act of 1972 provides

authority to regulate dumping of all types of materials into oceanwaters.

4) The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act COCS Lands Act) allows the ex-

ploration and development of mineral resources located on the shelf. Shrimp-

ing under a FMP could be affected due to the loss of trawlable areas resulting

from structures necessary for petroleum development.

5). Amendments to the OCS lands Act created an offshore Oil Spill Pollution

Fund. Owners and operators of offshore facilities and of vessels transporting oil
from such.facilities' will be required to ccoply withand maintain evidence of fi-

nancial responsibility and to pay for damages caused by them up-to certain limits.

6) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean Water

Act of.1977 represents a significant increase in the Federal regulatory effort

to prevent discharges of pollutants into the nation's waters. The Corps of Engi-

neers is authorized to issue general permits for dredge and fill discharges which

will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment. The Envi-

ronriental Protection Agency has supervisory.authority over states' dredge and

fill permit programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina 1 System.

7) The, Mammal Protection Act of 1972 provides for the conservation

and protection of marine

8) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides for the conservation of

endangered and threatened species, including sea turtles,which-may be caught

in shrimp otter trawls.

-8.0. DESCRIPTION OF@YISHING ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE STOCK COMPRISING

THE MANAGEMENT UNIT

8.1 History of Exploitation

Although extensive commercial use of the shrimp resource was not made until

after the first quarter of this century, it.had been exploited to lesser degrees

coastal Indians caught shrimp as-part of
for many'years prior. Unquestionably.,

their food. Such subsistence shrimping.activities wereappaxently learned through

observation and-experience and continued by European settlers. Records indicate

the use of baw nets in the estuaries of.North Carolina as early as 1709 (Maiolo

and Still, 1981). During Colonial yeaxs,,through the first half of the nineteenth

century,'and up through the War for Southern Independence, coastal residents were

familiar with the fine.taste of shrimp;: however, due-to limited transportation and

jittle practical means of preservation, distribution.of shrimp was restricted to

local markets during limited seasons.

-:Although shrimp first becam important commercially in -the Uhited States in

_California during 1869 (Maiolo and Still, 1981), it was not long thereafter that

.,'-,'-the fishery in the South Atlantic states reached commercial proportions. When the

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries began.coapilingshrinp landings data in 1880, the four

South Atlantic-:states produced 821,000 lb for market (Table 8-1). South Carolina

was the leading producer in 1880., landing 630,000 1b.* From its early beginning,

the South Atlantic fishery has grown, as part of the most valuable fishery in the

United States, to be valued at over 50 million dollars to fishermen annually and

employing several thousand:,people.

Me primary method of capture by the commercial industry, beginning in,1872

and lasting through the first decade of the twentieth century, was use of haul

seines. Reaching up to 549 M UP800 ft) in length and 4.3 fii.(14 ft) in depth with
.1.2.7 f@ CJZ:..11.5 in) mesh, haul seines were labor intensive and inefficient and

were limited as to the areas inwhich they could be worked. Cast nets up to 4.3 m

.8-2

Table 8-1.1 Recorded ccumercial production of shrinp (thousandsof pounds, heads@
on) landed in each South Atlantic State, during 1880 through 1980. (Sources: 1880-
1976 - Fishery Statistics of the U.S.) 1965-1976; 1977 ,1978 Shrimp Iandings, An-
nual SumiLry 1977,1978; 1979-19Ri-Six-th'Aflantic State/Federal Statistics Program.

Florida
North South Georgia Total
Carolina Carolina (East Coast)

1880 63 630 .56 72. 821
1887 120
185
359:
1888 124
1889' 135 380 743
1890 144 744
M.' 162 66
1897 146 374 68 39 627
1902 84 370, 344 31013 3,811.
1908 371 452 41346 5,69'!
1918 940 55 5,793 8,868 15,656
1923 1,658 355 10:668 11,024 23,705
1927 1,276 1,657 12:280 14,779 29,992
1928 845 431 9,526 22,507 33,309
1929 897 288 12,378 17,266 30,829
1930 1,2b9 793 8,W@3,- 15,2W 26,205
1.931 2,635 5,,471 17,050 25 ACLA
1932 292 3,602 17,068 22:4'63
1934 2@564 1,801. 6,843 14,753 25 961
1936 3,815 1,101 9,715 18,946 @3:567
1937 4P184 1,201 99504 121547 27)436
1938 4,569 3,723 10,426 8,847 27,565
1939 419811 4,090 10"@ 7.982 27,685
1940 41156 1,784 9P336 7,426 22,702
1945 10,614 4,696 16,392 11,879 43,581
1950 8,311 7,746 11,157 9)267 36,481
1951 81200 3,730 7,608 8,233 27,771
1952 8,713. 4,072 5,991 6@895 25,671
1953 14,645 5,086 7,535 5,667 32,933
1954 9,182 6,644 7,742 5.078 28,646
1955 10.4324 6,918 7,161 4:136'' 28,539
1956 6,243 5,589 7'.991 5,695 25,518
1957 7,M3 6,690 8,788 5,179 28,590
1958 2,519 5,815 8,746 5,504 22,584
1959 6,378 7 515 7,602 4,511 26,006
1960 5,988 8 030 10,403 60793 31,214
1961 3PO16 3,907 6,810 6,016 19,749
6V474 8,610 5,189 26,078
1963 31374 2,201 5,448 4,506 15,529
1964 4.9279 2,632 5,939 4,491 17,341
1965 5,416 6,795 8,585 5P395 26,191
L966 5,697 4,263 6,476 5,039 21,475
1967 4V919 4,088 6,657 4,933 20,597
1968* 4,616 6,333 8,536 41800(4,793) 24,285(.24,
1969 7,854 5,817 8P447 5,188 27,306
1970 5 ''054 4,951 5.,996 4,606 20,607
1971 71615 10,753 8,862 3,970 31,200
1972 5,563 8,085 7J258 4,341 25,247
1973 5,003 8,256 @8,248 3,061 24,568

8-@

Table. &-l (.Continued)

North South Elorida,
Carolina Carolina Peorgia, @East Coast) Total

IW4 7429 3.,992 27,091
7,230
24,926
1975 53,164 8,8W 81090 2,806
1976 6,643 @8,653 -:@-7,772 3P040 26,108
'283) 4,595
1977* 5,iM, @4$338(4,, 3,546 18 079(18,024)
1978* 2-3961- 5,083 Z,517(5,671) 4,206 17:767(17,921)
19M,I .4,941 8,240 Sf-; 713 6,724 29,618
7,211 8',394 .7,638- 33,069.
-l'980 - 9,823

Note Rock shrimp and royal red shr! poundages are included
*Disparity exists in Mu-iM landings data.

(14. ft) in diameter supplied a small portion of the commercial catch during that

period.

In the 18901s, the otter trawl which had been developed from the beam trawl

in England was introduced@@ im New England. Along With newly developed power boats

of the time it was a very effective fishing gear. While in-use at Beaufort, North

Carolina around 1912 to 1914 by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, the otter trawl's

effectiveness was recognized by fishermen of the area. In 1913, apparently inde-

pendently of the activities at Beaufort, PortugLum immigrants in Fernandina.,

Florida began using otter trawls to catch shriM. By 1917, trawl nets revolution-

ized the shrimping industry and replaced haul seines as the standard shrimping gear

for a number of reasons. Trawls required a lower initial cost and required fewer

operators which increased catches and profits. Trawls could be utilized in a

.greater variety of areas, and time was not lost due to sets on low concentrat'

of shrimp. By 1940, seines were-no longer of commercial significance, but were

used in smaller versions to catch bait. Modified otter trawls known as set or

channel nets were developed in North Carolina in the late 1930 Is.

Shrimp catches in the Gulf and South Atlantic States increased dramatically

after introduction of the trawl. Production steadily rose from 18 million lb in

1908 to 48 million lb in 1918 of which the South Atlantic region produced over 15

million 1b. The South Atlantic catch was 33 million lb in 1928 and during the

period of 1923 to 1928, production probably reached a level which approximated

maximum sustained yield of the resource. Economic conditions may have contributed

to decreased landings through-the early 1930's (Johnson and Lindner, 1934) but

there were no subsequent periods of large increases in land ings. Neither the geo-

graphic range of the fishery nor the efficiency of vessels and gear had reached

their maximum by 1928, yet production has not substantially increased since. It

would appear that the fishery's potential was reached by the late 19201s.

8-5

In 1931, the-shrimp fishery was geographically continuous from Cape Canaveral,

Florida to Charleston, South Carolina. Wilmington,. North Carolina was the northern-

most extent of commercial activity in 1880, and the fishery had reached Pamlico

Sound by the 1920's, Nevertheless, North Carolina was considered the extreme ex-

tent of commercial abundance in 193l and not of great importance (Johnson and Lind-

ner, 1934). In South Carolina, the grounds were from Bulls Island to

and included the State's a southern sounds. Fishing activity was fairly uniform

along the entire coast of Georgia and was scattered between Fernandina and Cape

Canaveral, Florida. It was estimated that the fishery in 1931 was composed of 95

precent common shrimp, later to be known as white shrimp, and 2.5 percent grooved

(brown and pink) shrimp which-were not distinguished as two species at the time.

Employing 14,000 people, the Gulf and South Atlantic states shrimp fishery was the

most important fishery in volume and value in the region and was sixth in volume

and sevent in value nationally.

Most commercial shrimpers on the Atlantic coast in the early 1930's were

natives of or recent emigrants from European maritime countries. From Cape Cana-

veral to Charleston many Portuguese and sane Scandinavians and Italians traveled

the coast following shrimp concentrations. From Georgetown, South Carolina north-

ward local fishermen were dominant (Johnson and Linder, 1934).

The 1931 fleet in the four Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of Florida

consisted of 647 craft,. most of which. were less than five net tons (boats) and

carried two-man crews. Those over five net tons (vessels) were known as the

Florida-type, with decked over cabins forward and holds aft. Most were 12.1 to

18.3 m (40-60 ft) in length with bow Peaks higher than the remaining deck which

was a wide, flat work area aft of the cabin. All were rigged with. a single trawl

and either a mast and boom or an "A" frame and boom. Trawls were from 6.7-30.5 m

(22-100 ft) wide at the mouth. Winches for net retrieval were powered by deck

engines and were relatively common during the 1920's. Most were powered by gaso-

8-6

line;.however,, some operators had switched to diesel to cut fuel costs, but die-

selswere not common until after World War II. The trawlers carried ice unless

they fished very close to port. 7he inshore fishery was executed for the most

part by open skiffs pulling a single net retrieved either by hand or winch.

Shrimp trawlers in-the South Atlantic states were owned by individual or by

packing plants...-.

Monthly landings data in 1931 reveal that the peak shrimping season in

North Carlina was August and Septenber,.when 88 percent of the catch was made..

South Carolina's-season was September through November with 85 percent taken,

while shrimpers in Georgia took 61 percent during those months. No monthly

data were recorded in.Florida. Summer and fall catches consisted of immature

shrimp spawned the preceding spring. Preparation of shrimp products for maxket

employed about 2,755 people in the four states including the west coast of

Florida. Of those, 89 were proprietors, 38 were.salaried, and 2,628 received

wages (Johnson and Lindner, 1934). The largest portion of the shrimp catch

reached canneries during the 1920's and early 19301s. Me number of shrimp

canneries on the Atlantic coast reached a maximum of 27 in 1925 when 5.7 million

lb (whole weight) were processed. Maximn-canning production, however, was

reached in 1930 by only 20 canneries processing 12.9 million 1b. In 1930, there

were one, faiw.,,six and nine canneries in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia

and Florida (whole state)', respectively. Cannery operators required large and

steady supplies of shrimp and were, therefore, forced to move operations to

areas of greatest abundance (Johnson and Undner, 1934).

Trawler operators working for canneries supplied iced shrimp daily in

baskets at the docks. In many cases.heading (or de-heading) of shrimp was per-

formed on board, thus resulting in the use of less ice and a higher price paid

per pound. Shrimp were washed, weighed and if necessaxy headed upon reaching

the dock. Dock headers received one-half to one cent per pound. At times of

in,

8-7

high abundance excess shrimp were retained overnight on ice,.and it was leaxned

that such shrimp were mre easily peeled for the canning process. Only one

dealer in 1931 had electric refrigeration (Johnson and IAndner, 1934).

The market for fresh headless shrimp was second to canning during the

@canneriesl heyday. By procedures very similar.to those followed today, fresh

shrimp were headed, washed, chilled and packed into barrels with ice. Packers

received 10 to:,15. cents per hour, 'while more-skilled laborers were paid 10-25

cents per,hour. Hand grading by size'was performed, but uncoarmnly. A portion

of'the catch was packaged in either fresh or frozen convenience packs. Fresh-

cooked shrimpwere prepared as for canning-, hermtically sealed but not cooked

further, and kept on ice. Use of sbrjrp waste products was minimal; relatively

_@;small amountswere utilized as fertilizer, fish bait, and shrimp meal. About

2.6 million lb of meal were sold in 19:31, tly to Germany as a feed mixture.

During the early 19301s, shrimp canning disappeared from North Carolina

,which-had seen its.first-cannery in 1915. Virtually all of the State's landings

.reached the fresh shrimp market. During that time, South Carolina produced

canned and fresh shrimp. Portions of "Landings made in Georgia and Florida were

canned, sold fresh, pickeled, and packaged as fresh-cooked (Table 8-2). Lack of

efficient transportation and preservation-techniques were apparently responsible

for the slow carmercial growth of-the s1nImp fishery. One record reveals that

shrimp were shipped out of North Caxolina in 1878 (Maiolo and Still, 1981).
About that time icej being'used for packing seafood but was scarce. Ice
, 7W_
was at times shi ped to southernItates fran frozen streams and stored for later

use. During the early 1930%,compal'able amounts of processed shrimp were shipped

by rail and by water. Where available, railroads were utilized to transport fresh

headless shrimp to northern markets and considerable qu antities left Jacksonville,

Florida by steamer., Refrigeration was not in use on board trawlers, transport

vessels, railroads or trucks at that time. Refrigeration of shrimp holds on trawl-

T@able 8-2. Types and amounts of sbrimp products produced in the Southeastern
States during 1931, with original whole weights shovm as pounds and as percent-
.ages of the regioni: s landings (,weights are in thousanft @'c@f(PXT. ,@(,o Johnson
and Lindner, 1934).

Type Product 'Whole Weight Per@@nt Product Weight

Canned 47,400 49 12,324

Fresh Headless .32-,'90.0 34, 20,000

Sundj .jed 'U" j2'. 1,344

Fresh/Frozen Rickaged 5. 2.,085

Fresh Cooked 1,500 2 379

. ............

ers were introduced in the late 19401s'ifi the Gulf'.. However, this has never

been ccmmn on South Atlantic trawlers'since they usually return to port each

day..

on two types of* primuT processing remained: canning and pack-
By 1949 ly

retail trade or further processing.
,:ing.of'fresh-headless shrimp for the fresh

centertC-tbe canning operations was Georgia' and northeastern.Florida then;

ing intermittently for.several years. Producers of fresh-
CAM" 6_ operat
headless shrimp known as rmv shrimp houses, received.the major part of fishery

produ@ction., A. typical rmv shrimp house of the day was a larger, unpartitioned

structure over or near water with heading tables,,-washing vats, scales, ice

cx usher, and space for gear.storage. 7heae houses ranged from New Smyrna,

....Korida to Atlantic, North Caiolina.

During the depression, low prices caused a,general decrease in landings

of.shrimp, but otherwise there had been a general increase of landings fran

1913 to 1928 and a leveling off thereafter (Johnson and Lindner, 1934). World

Wax II had negative effects on fisheries in general because fishermen and ves-

sels were removed fran productive operation; personnel and material which other-

wise would have been utilized in seafood processing industrieswere diverted

to the wax effort,(Maiolo and Still, 1981). Conversely, the war had positive

effects on the industry;, the demand for seafood increased as it was one of the

few food types which was not tationed. In 1943, a ceiling price was placed.tem-

porarily on shrimp by the Office of Price Administration (Maiold,-and.'Still';

1981).. Therewere downward fluctuations in shrimp landings during the war,

though they are not well documented in the landings statistics. The shrimp

fishery emerged fran World War II over five times as valuable as it was at the

War's beginning. The value to fishermen in the South Atlantic States increased

from $754,000 in 1940 to nearly $4 million in 1945. After the war, interstate

8-10

s of shrimp and shrimp,products.increased greatly. The use of frozen

and other convenience products increased. As a result, shrimp and shrimp pro-

ducts became more available, and the markets became more stable and expansive.

The fresh.0, raw,.headless shrimp market, which supplied-retailers and processors,

continued to be a major primary outlet for shrimp. The, ex-vessel value of the

South Atlantic States' shrimp fishery continued to rise shaxply; value increased
'from nearly $4 million in 1945 to over $10 million--'-in IL950 (Anderson et al, 1946&@,.

The combined fishery of.the SouthAtlantic and Gulf of Mexico became the most

valuable domestic U.S. fishery in 1952.
The fishery in the late 1940's as described by Andersm et al.(194*yshaws

many.similarities to the fishery of the early 1930's (Johnson and Lindner, 1934)

but also reveals how little change:.has occurred in certain aspects of the fishery.

In.1949, there were still no shrimp species composition data being collected.

Many data for the east and.the west coasts of Florida were not being reported

separately, and no double rigged trawlers had been utilized.by that time. Gen-

erally speaking, the operations of otter trawls, vessel types, and unloading and

packing procedures at shrimp houses have changed little since 1949.

The geographic range of shrimping activities (Figure 8-1) increased during

the years prior to 1949, particularly in North Carolina where expansion of the

brown and pink shrimp fisheries had occurred. The northern-most extent of the

fishery was at Beaufort/Morehead City with effort concentrated near the mouths

of the Neuse and Newport Rivers, in Core and Pamlico Sounds, and disjunctly in

coastal waters from Beaufort Inlet to Southport. In 1945 North Carolina unsuc-

cessfully attempted to locate offshore shrimping grounds. A significant.commer-

cial shrimp fishery was developed in Pamlico Sound in 1948. North Carolina's

peak season was August to November when 84 percent of the year's catch was made

(Table 8-3).' Fishing areas in South Carolina changed very little over the years.

The coastal axea fran Little River to Cape Romain was generally not productive

except for a small fleet from Georgetown working the Winyah Bay Entrance. Prin-

8--

790 -770'
0 800.. 78' 760

PE
FSRA@S
350

LOOKOUT
ML

-340
Z40
ZQZ-@ 'k.FEAR
@C
Rpl t7c

:QEORGETOW

330- 330
ARLESTON

U 0 T

S
NNAH s 3V

@.0
w
RUNSW
CD 310

JACKSONVU-L E
300
30*-

At@
290

CAP
0. E. CANAVERAL
46
LL -280
280-

FORT PIERCE
0;

810 800 790 780 770 760
N

R C

Figure 8-1. Geographic range of shrimp activities.

Table. 8-3. Percentages of shrimp landi s of each. southern Atlantic state made
during each month averaged fram designated seasons. (Source: Frcm Anderson, et.
al.@@ 1949,1@)

. ........... ........ ..... ..... ....

North South
Carolina Carolina Georgia Florida*
Month. (1941-1945) (,1941-1944) (1931-1935) (1933-1934)

&& .00 P.2 18.8

February 0.0 "0.0 '2.5 U.2

2.8,
March 10.4

April. 0.5 3.6' 8.2

may 1.2. 1.9 6.1 4.7

June 0.7 2.9 8.0 6.2

July 7-9 9.5 5.5 2.5

August 19.2 16.8 16.8 5.8
1@ 7-5
Septanber 24.9 19.7 5.9@-'

JJ
October 29.5 28.5 17.2 5.0

November 15.8 14.1 12.2 6.7

Decenber 1.7 1.3 3.4 14.6-

*Both Coasts, of Florida ccmbined.

8-13

Ciphi areas:,were from Bulls Bay. to Tybee Roads at the Georgia State.line. The

imost productive area was from Stono Inlet.to Tybee Roads.. Theistate's southern

sounds were closed to shrimp trawling by/State regulation. Eighty-four percent

of the annual catch was made.during August through November. The fishery in

a was more uniform geographicallythan-in the other three states. Georgia's
Georgi

peak season also was August throtjoh November.. when 66, percent of the catch was
:made.. There was.additional shrimping effoit.in:the,spring for adult spawners

which did-not occur in:North-or-South Carolina. In Florida, trawling areas were

continuous from Georgia to the St. Johns River and.scattered to Ft. Pierce. South

...of that point, cora1bottom prevented trawling. On the northeast coast of Florida,

August through November is most productive for shrimp, whereas the peak season

between St. Augustine and Cape Canaveral was December through March.

No species data were collected until 1957-.:and as a result no significant

statement regarding the composition of prior catches can be made. Anderson et al,
(194@)stated that catches made in the Gulf and South Atlantic states probably

were 96 percent common or white shrimp. The remainder were grooved shrimp, taken

in late sjpring and early summer on the inside grounds. Burkenroad (1939) showed

that grooved shrimp were actually three species, two of which (brown and pink)

existed in conraercial.quantities along the southern coasts of North America (see

Collection of shrimp species data, be 1957, revealed
. ginning in
that white shrimp did not..dcadnate the catch to such a great extent. The lack of

species.data priorto 1957 and paucity of landings data during the 1940's leave

unanswered questions concerning the apparent significant decreases ofwhite shrimp

and concurrent increases of b rown and pink shrimp, particularly in North Carolina

waters. Partial explanation my be that brown and pink shrimp were not accepted

by the market prior to 1946 when, with.a der-line in abundance ofwhite shrimp, a

market was developed (W. [email protected]. Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA; pers. cam.,

in Calder,.-,@et al., 1974). During the first five years of such detailed data.col-

lection, the speciest average percentage of the catch in the South Atlantic states
were as follows: white - 61 percent,b - 32 percent, pink - 7 percent. White 0
shrimp predominated until 1962 but were equaled by brown shrimp in 1962 through

1964. These variations in abundance can probably be attributed to the severe win-

ters. of thmeyy@..

Trawling vessels in.the late 1940's were of two types. There were the small

9.1 to 13.7 m (3D-45 ft) long vessels in nearshore coastal use. They were for the

most part gasoline poweredwith a.power winch and rope towline from an outrigger,

an "All frame, or:a boom. The larger vessels were of the Morida-type", 15.2 to

19.8 m (50-65 ft) long, and diesel powered. They had steel cables, drum hoists

and single nets up to 36.6 m (120 ft) across the moruthwhich was pulled from an

outrigger. Power-take-offs in the 1940's had largely replaced the separate deck

engines used to retrieve trawl gear. The operation of the gear was nearly identi-

cal in offshore and inshore waters. The incorporation of try nets to locate con-

centrations of shrimp was made by offshore fishermen, but they were seldom used

inshore. Today's fleet consists of trawlers which are quite mobile and distinc-

#vely designed relative to the various types of fishing (see Section 8.2.4).

8.2 Domestic Cannearcial and Recreational Fishing Activities,

8.2.1. Participat User Groups

People participate in the shrimp,fishery for subsistance, recreation, and

income production. Portions of catches made by virtually any participant could

be consumed by him or his family, but few fisherman shrimp solely for subsistance.

The recreational shrimper my have consumption and income as well as sport for

motivation) but motivation of the true commercial shrimper is income production.

Disregarding motivation, management agencies generally categorize partici-

pants as licensed commercial or non-licensed recreational depending upon the type

gear used. This is with the e)@ception of licensed sport bait trawl shrimpers in

Georgia (Section 8.2.5.3) and the St. Johns:River in Florida (Section 8.2.1.2).

Table 8-4 shows the numbers ofconnercial fishermen in each southeastern Atlantic

Tthlei 8-4@.',' Number of canwreial. fishermen. eaploying shrimp otter trawls in each
@,South Atlantic State during each year, 1950:through 1978* with totals exclusive
of.duplication. (Source,: 1950-1976 Fishery Statistics oi the United States and
:1977) 1978 - ME, Wash., D.C.).

Florida
Ncwth South South.Atlantic
Year Camlina Carolina; GROrg'JA -(east coast)

516 NP
2,201. 613
418 NP
977 660
1952 6N 563 573 NIP
502 744 NP
2-136
1953 NP
506 M7
1954 1, W3
...1955 1,7W -730 587 508 NP
.1956 19 824 826 783 NP
'@l 817 989 793 907 3,807
1957 1 -1,096 1,080 3,723
1958 1,380. .951
3,821
1959 1,509 812 1,106 1,034
1,575 819 953 982 3,667
.1961 .1,407 702 ..1,092 3,534
@1962 1,410 740 1,177 889 3,569
..'-1963 1,349 665 1,156 813 3,368
1,361 503 1,104 676 3,119
1965 1,314 489 661 3,075
1 , 313 ,442. I,(Y79 697 3,099
2,904-
1-967 :1,241, 476 1,076 633
@.'1968 .633 lV139 612 2,957
'1969 718 1,219 543 3,048
1,171
lp326 642 1,003 527 3,004
1971 1,500 874. .1,277 559 3j 731
1,638 938 1,231 491 2,988
1973 1,856 993 1,218 465 3,811
1974 -1,878 1,164 1,4066 392 3,283
1975. 20032 1,218 1,530 349 A, 340
1976 2,011 .1,162 1,562 429 4,456
1977 1,649 921 896 454 3,549
1978 11345 1,221 1'.$005 549* 3Y389*

*Florida and therefore South Atlantic'figures are estimated

NP not published

8-16

state for each year (1950-1978) employing otter trawls which were the only signi-

ficant commercial gear. These figures are minimum since recreational and commer-

cial1 harvestors, who did not sell to established dealers, are not included.

8.2.1.1 Commercial

In North-Carolina, vessels are licensed as commercial because of the fish-

erman's intention to utilize a commercial gear regardless of his motivation. In

1978, 15,888 fishing craft were licensed to catch shrimp. Of those, 5,574 fish-

ermen identified-themselves as part-time commercial and 2,941 as full-time commer-

cial.

Maiolo (1981) found that full-time and part-time commercial shrimp captains

in North Carolina ranged from 18 to 80 years old with a mean age of 49. Fifty-

four percent had 12 or more years of education, but the average was just under 11

years. Nearly 90 percent were married. Eighty-one percent were born and raised

in coastal North Carolina, and 65 percent had fathers with fishing experience.

Eighty-nine percent are sole owners of their primary craft. M2io1o (1981) com-

piled additional detailed data on both full-time and part-time shrimpers. In

his sampling of crew members in North Caxolina -he observed that 83 percent of

crew members considered themselves full-time. Their average age was 27, and

their average education was 11 years. Fifty-two percent were married, and 90 per-

pent were native North Carolinians. Fifty-three percent had fathers who were or

had been involved in fishing; ninety-five percent owned a boat.

Theiling (1977) found that of the 833 licensed resident trawler owners

during 1976 in South Carolina, 63 (8 percent) were bath commercial and recreation-

al shrimpers and that 366 (44 percent) were strictly commercial. Ninety (11 per-

cent) did not shrimp (although they were licensed) and 64 (8 percent) license

holders did not respond to the survey. Six hundred and twenty-two (75 percent)

resident trawlers were owner-operated and 211 (25 percent) were non-owner

operated. Twenty-six South Carolina counties were represented by trawler owners.

Of 1,263 licensed, resident captains that year, 178 were Negro, 1,068 were Cauca-

sian and 16 were of other or-undetermined race. Overall average age was 36 years.

In the 1979-80 season, 1,240 licenses to trawl for shrimp for food were

listed in Georgia to residents and non-residents, while 1,360 were issued in 1980-

81. It was not-determined how.many of those were actually recreational shrimpers.

Also, an undetermined number of shrimpers, who fish outside territorial waters,

did not purchase licenses of 426 resident captains on Coast Guard documented

trawlers, 343:(80.5 percent) were full time and 83 (19.5 percent) were part time.

There are no data on the number of cast netters and seiners who sell their

.-catches (S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res., Coastal Res. Div., Brunswick, CA;

pers. comm). The designation of commercial bait shrimper was used by the

Georgia Department of Natural Resources to identify-74 shrimpers allowed to trawl

inshore for bait shrimp for sale during the 1980 season.

8.2.1.2 Recreational

Because recreational shrimpers are not licensed unless they utilize commer-

cial gear it is very difficult to determine how many people are involved. The

states have attempted a variety of methods to estimate their numbers. Cupka and

McKenzie (1974) determined that 43.7 percent (16,780) of boat owners registered

in eleven eastern counties of South Carolina had shrimped for recreational pur-

poses during 1973 with non-licensed gear. Roughly two-thirds utilized cast nets

primarily, and one-third used seines or drop nets. The sample cosisted only of

non-licensed shrimpers. Recreational trawlers, which required a license, were not

considered. Theiling (1977) estimated that 250 (30 percent) of South Carolina's

833 licensed resident trawler owners in 1976 considered themselves to be strictly

recreational and 63 (8 percent) were both commercial and recreational shrimpers.

Recreational use of trawls and non-licensed gear has increased considerably since

those surveys (D. Theiling, S.C. Mar. Res. Center., Chas., SC; pers. obsery.).

'When given the choice of designating themselves as pleasure, part-time com-

mercial or full-time commercial fishermen 7,373 (46 percent) of the 15,888

8-18

shrisping craft owners licensed in North Caxolina during 1978 chose the pleasure

category. It is assumed that virtually all utilized trawls (D. Spitsbergen, N.C.

Div. of Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl. , Div. of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC;

pers. comm.

The 1,455 non-cammercia-1 recreational bait shriapers licensed in Georgia

during 1980 season were considered recreational (See Section 8.2.5). There are

no estimates of the number of shrimpers Utilimn either non-licensed recreational

gear or licensed trawls in offshore waters (S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. Nat. Res...

Coastal Res. Div.., Brunswick, GA; pers. CxME1;,-)

The only quantitative data for the north east coast of Florida on recrea-

tional participants is the number of non-cammerr-ial licenses allowed for trawl-

ers in the St. ichns's River, 127 in 1980-81. it tas expected that some of these

licenses were being used illegally for commercial Purposes (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept.

Nat. Res., Marine Res. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL; pers. comm.). In the six

county area of northeast Florida, recreational trawl fishermen are allowed to

trawl in offshore waters on the week-ends and take up to 50 lb Per day. There

are no available estimates of the number of weekend trawl fishermen or the num-

ber of recreational gear users which include cast netterS, Pushnetters and

seiners.

8.2.2 Catches and Landings

8.2.2.1 Seasons

Availability of sbriirp and effort to catch them is seasonal in the four

state area Seasonality is governed by the inherent life cycles of the species

and by environmental influences on repxoducticn, growth, and migration. Fishing

effort is also dependent on economics, weather, and conservation laws. In con-

formity with biological patterns, the shrimping season generally begins in spring

and ends in December. May is usually the first month shrinp begin to appear off-

shore in commercial sizes and/or quantities. The peak shrinping season occurs

8-19

through October after which activity and catch sizes drop off until the sea-

son ends. The various states have enacted statutes establishing or authorizing

seasonal regulations to protect spawning stocks and small shrimp. Many times

restraints are enacted which prevent, postpone or halt shrimping effort while

commercial quantities or sizes are available..

Commercial quantities of shrimp appear in early spring in North Carolina

when the overwintering populations (mostly pink shrimp begin a seaward migration).

Pink Shrimp constitute the first catches of the year and are usually available

in late March or early April, although peak catches do not occur until mid-May.

Opening dates for the shrimp seasons in North Caolina have varied, but since

1974, the season has been opened on January 1 to take advantage of the overwin-

tering pink shrimp in Pamlico and Core Sounds. Purvis and McCoy (1972) indicated

that late openings restrict utilization in North Carolina of the oveerwintering

pink shrimp populations which migrate during early spring when water temperatures

exceed 130C (550F). If these shrimp are not harvested before reaching the ocean

they are possibly lost to the fishery.

The intensity of trawler activity in North Carolina during spring is large-

ly dependent on size of the shrimp population. By mid-July, the season for brown

shrimp is at a peak and continues until. late fall, when the shrimp leave coastal

waters. White shrimp occur in the fall. harvest in the Southport/Cape Fear area

but have not recently been significant elsewhere in North Carolina. During

spring and summer, brown and pink shrimp are caught mostly at night; whites are

taken during daylight in autumn. Core Sound is an exception in that all three

species are caught only at night.

Commercial size shrimp usually first appear during April or May off the

South Carolina coast. These are primarily averwintered white "roe" shrimp, con-

gregating along the central coast and southward. The season usually opens in

late spring on these adult shrimp, with the trawler fleet fishing them through

June or early July. During mid-June, br own shrimp begin to occur in offshore

8-20

waters, and support the fishery into early autumn.. During the latter part of

July or early August, the major sounds and bays have occasionally been opened

to allow sbrimping on large brown-sbrinip unless excessive numbers of small

'White shrimp are present. The white shrimp population begins to appear in off-

shore waters-during late August and constitutes the bulk of the fishery through

December. The greatest part of South Carolina's recreational effort (78 percent)

and catch (86 percent) o== during July through October (Cupka, and McKenzie,,
19t4). Sounds and bays are normlly opened in September through mid-December to

allow harvest ofwhite shrimp. Overall the annual statewide harvest ofwhite

shrimp exceeds that of brown shrimp. Pink shrimp occur in the catches but ccm-

prise a relatively insignificant part of the commercial catch.

The Georgia fishery also gets underway in the spring, usually late May

or early June, when overwintering white shrimp, move towaxd offshore waters. A

relatively small b shrimp population appears in July and August which
trawlers harvest near the beaches. During late August a new crop of vhite

shrimp enters the fishery and provides a major portion of Georgia's shrimp.

Georgia's sounds have not been opened since 1977, but prior to that year they

were opened during the fall white shrimp period.

In effect., the brawn shrimp season in east Florida begins with the open-

ing of legal night sbrimping on June 1. As in Georgia and South Carolina, browns

emigrated into the estuaries during the early spring.. During late August, brown

shrimp catches are much reduced, andwhite shrimp, v&ich account for the majority

of east Florida landings, enter the fishery. They axe available through December

in northern Florida and as late as March in central Florida.

8.2.2.2 Commercial Catches and Landings

Although the term catch and landings axe often used interchangeably, there

are specific differences. Catches are measurements of fishery production which

may be related to qualitative data such as effort, fishing location, gear, price,

8--21-

species composition, and fishing capabilities-information. Landings refer to

measurements of fishery production associated with areas such as ports, coun-

ties, states,or regions and periods of time suchas months, seasons, or years..
Landings may be assigned values but normally are not assigned prices i 1iinless- re-

lated.to gear-or effort information. Catches can be thought of as fishery pro-

ducts leaving the resource and landings as fishery products entering the market.

jP al landings statistics.-apparently-were not collected and published
for the shrimpifishery until 1880 and then only sporadically until 1950. Species

composition data were not collected until 1957 (Table 8-5). Detai-led regional

catch data, Were not collected until 1978 (Iheilingl*. 1981).

North Carolina did not contribute greatly to.the landings until 1934,

(Table 8-1). Landings increased until 1940 and in 1945 over 10 million lb were

taken. Unfortunately, the lack of. landings data for the rest of the 1940's makes

it impossible to document production for that period. This.is particularly un-..:,

fortunate because the abundance of white.shiimp in North Carolina prior to 1940

appeaxs to have been much.greater than that reported for the period since 1957

(Table 8-6).

The apparent change in abundance of white shrimp in North-Carolina is in-

teresting because it suggests that competition may exist between brown and white

shrimp in this area (W. Anderson, Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA; pers. ccm.,

in Calder et al., 1974). Anderson's hypothesis is supported by the fact that al-

though a severe cold spell in the 1939-40 winter decimated white shrimp in North.

Carolina.. landings of shrimp in North C@,lina, during 1940 were almost normal.

However, the catch consisted of lbro%miesll instead of white shrimp (Lindner and

Anderson, 1956).

SnnhM catches peaked in North Carolina between 1950 and 1955. Apparently

most landings during this period were brown and pink shrimp*I,.,althobgh.- this is not

known with certainty. Since 1956, landings have fluctuated about a man level of

roughly 4.8 million lb, wi th brown and pink shrimp predominating. With exception

8-22

Table &-6- South Atlantic shrimp landings, (X.1000),.of Penaem species, 1957-1980.
1957 through 1978,- Shrinp Landings NM, NDAA; 1979 - South Atlantic State
Federal Statistics Program and TIM NMFa*; 1980 South Atlantic State/Federal Sta-
tistics Program).

Heads-Of.f (Headp--Off (Heads--Off (Heads-Off Heads-On
Total. Brown 'White Totals

i96@ 16,.9.W 6,M' 9,554 26,611
.1958, 13"M 515.. 7JI203 21,107
89 327 24,321
1959, 15.,476 54@m 1,28R
11960 18.58l.---,- 5.,614 767 12,200 29,054
11,755 -9,113 18 277
1,550 1
-.L962 16,446- -.7,163 q 1"@@ 7 .1879 25,912
9,816, 4,749 346 15,469
1964 10,893 4,403 1 J1218 5.9272 17,155
1965 16 J1689. 5,047 1,055 10,587 26,118
L966 13,489 7,208 332 5,949 21,297
1967 13,023 4,956 987 7,079 20,460
1968 15,517 3.9677 836 11V004 24,204
1969 17,368 5,323 12061 .10,984 27,183
1970 13,079 4.9431 538 8,111 20,486
1971* 19,610(19,476) 6,065 1,197 12,348(12,214) 30,696(30,490
1972 16,093 41798 493 10,802 25,149
1973 15 591' @.2,797 .949 11,845 24,262
1974 161'897 6,887 8,685 26,581
1975 15 767 4,170 1,265 10,332 24,649
1976 16,460 5,995 IJ'134- 9,331 25,836
1977 10,309 6,587 501 3,222 16,369
1978 10.1127 4,101 340 51686 15,903
1979 16,769 4J38 1,112 11,519 26,180
1980 18,548 -8,306 984 92258 29,204

Visparity'exists,in 1971 Shrimp landings data

843@,

Table 8-6. Penaeid'shriap landings (hesuJs-off), by state and species, 1957-1980.
_(Source'-: 1957 through 1978 Fish Statistics of the U. S. and &Ti@p Landings
@'NBES, NOAA; 1979, Florida -- TiDRMM; 1-979 S.C. _NX_., =ScUM Atlan ic State/
Federal StatisticsProgram; 1980 - South AtLmtic. State/Federal Statistics Program)

-North. Southc., Florida
C
Ca=lina Carol J na 3ecyrgia, (Fast coast)

2- M M, 1443" 133'@ -912'.9094 717,936
5j4 1 2 895
:pird A'324,201
.11wLte'.1. 421 -!W- z'.533- 074

2, 000-466 Z 1.10: 880 654,623.
IM8 brown .9911 &
6-496.-
-M 8 l'n 0
2,621,,%8
white
31,032-:1 3,OM,618

1 813'631 1,133,204
19W brown 477,947
pink 1, 2M, 110 01- 475. 0
white. 72,962 216159-11317 - 3,387,159 2,207,3W

19601- brown 2,564)394. 11430,..690. 1,274,330. 344,397
0
pink 766,560 .0 0
white, 233601-- 3.1 M, W3.t.
.4 4,917pM 3,699,046

347.816 73,967
.19@1 brown _@_60 S26' 869
Pink 1,092 389'. 0.
0 0
white 101, 525 3.705,799
1 1798',603 3,506,656

@1962 brown 2,180,044 2,ZI3,892 1,837,501 901,727
pink 1,402,714 0 0 1,355
white 32,743 1, 8583097 2,401,789

1963 brown 1 751,336. 1, IL91,204 1,175,602 631,107
pink 0 0
183',675: 2,269 '9W 2,266,457
....white- 0

1964 b lp444,942 1,139,318 1,221,485 597,743
JL,210,430
.0-
pink 7, 100 0 .
''white, 10,ml@., 516,011 2,541,272 2,204,688

b@ .1965 brown .:.1,774 880 1,5154,428 514,732
.,1,203,379
:pink- 1-054 523'
0 0
white. 2,7137- 023 4,315,722 2,918,427

1966 brown 2,955,446 2,151,235 .1,377,787 723,265
pink 330,8M 0 1,149 0
white 265,997 519,423 @2,763,460 2,400,217

1967 brown 1,951,916 1,44333,377 414,125
pink. 986,974 - 0 0 525
white 127.9977 1,E24,753 3,132,982 2,693,576

1968 brown 1,963,982 96
33,093 453,064 296,575
pink .827,905 3,800 0 4,501
white 5,0682825 2,749,187

c ont inued".
Table 8-6.

North Soutli. Florida
Carolina Carolina Georgia (East Coast)

1969.@- brawn 3,656,663 --,,765,226 341.1743
pink .1,060,627 0 0 636
-white 175,-,316 2,97710273 4,900,279 2,.-930;7M

brown .2,379,976 .1,160,420 633,802 256,314
235 -.775) 2,855
pink
23&844
white", 3,230,167. 2,640,380

-1971 brown-. 3,175,038 1,710,094 716,047 463,702
pink -.1,196,660 0. 0 0
white.- 381,994' 5,194,397 5,006,227: 1,631,865

.1972 brown 1,989#967 11395P522 1,058,507 354,403
pink 492.1673. 0 0
white 3,790,630 3,606,302 2,385,160

1973 brown 1,053,826 1,067,868 377,737 297,401
944,574 0 0 4,423
pink
white 166,497 4'244JI722 4,960,773 1,473,138

IL974 brown 3,809,124 1,290,669 878,823 908,748
pink 1,320'@070 0- 0 .3,843
uhite 126,890 30-474,689 3,774P285 1,309,425

1975 brown 1,601,266 1,478,843 804,964 284,709
pink 1,223,385 7,161 5,520 29,375
white 407,900 42203,717 4P380,028 1,340,167

1976 brown 2,788,670 is-7163-151 1,169,670 320,187
pink 1,105,887 19J742 0 8,776
white 2490669 3p8O4,334 3,823,681 1)454,290

1977 brown 3,105,088 2,037,451 991$171 453,413
pink 370,170 29,621 4J-196 96,780
white 5,759 434,472 1,942P718 838X4.

.1978 brown 1,540,574 .1,503,314 771P167 285,742
pink 264J-360 7,327 15,936 52,167
white 370,316 1,650,258 21730,674 1,267.-819

1979 brown 1)952,612 1,169,234 718,673 297,730
pink 975,859 2,774 8,335 124,682
white 153,351 3)622$783 5,1432307 2)599P270

IL980 brawn 4JP894,312' 1P72811844 1,126,303 556,790
pink 857,075 6,219 11,384 109,171
white 3681499 2,854,057 41041P371 li,993,677

.............. .........

8-25

of the 1972 and 1973 seasons, white shrimp have been particularly scarce. Maxi-

mum and minimum production levels of each species in North Carolina since 1957

are shown in Table 8-7. Total production of 9.8 million lb in North Carolina

during 1980 was the highest since 1955 (Table 8-l).

Production in South Carolina increased with fluctuations until sometime

during the 1940's (Table 8-1). Again the lack of landings data during that de-

cade preclude comments other then general statements. Since 1950, landings have

fluctuated around a mean of 5.6 million lb and have ranged from 2.2 to 10.8 mil-

lion. Species composition data (Table 8-6) show the importance of white shrimp,

the insignificande of pink shrimp, and fluctuations of white and brown shrimp.

No salient peak in total production canbe identified for South Carolina. A

moderate peak of possible importance occurred in 1971-1973, but because shrimp

produce annual crops such peaks are due more to climate and effort, to a lesser

extent, than to progressive increases in population size as in perennial species.

Extremes of annual brown and white shrimp landings, in South Carolina since 1957

are large.

Several very high levels of landings have been recorded for Georgia (Table

8-1). The 10 million lb level (heads-off) was attained in 1923 and during at

least seven years since, but landings have not surpassed 8.9 million lb since 1960.

Significant peaks occurred during the 1920's and late 1930's. Missing data during

the 1940's confuse the importance of record production in 1945. Although produc-

tion has not regained the levels of earlier years it has f1uctuated around a mean

of-7.1 million lb since 1950 (range=2.9-11.1 million 1b). Since species data were

first collected in 1957, white shrimp have been the most important species by far

(Table 8-6). The years 1968 through 1971 were especially productive white shrimp

years as compared to apparent declines-in brown shrimp.

The most striking aspect of Florida's east coast landings is the drastic

decline in production between the years just after the otter trawl's introduction

Table 84T.- Range of shrin4) landings (in millions of pounds - heads-on) of each
species in each South, Atlantic State during 1957 through 19@0. (Source: Fish-
ery Statistics of the U.S. 'and South Atlantic State/Federal Statistics Program).

State White Brown Pink
..........

North Carolina 0-1.8 1.0-7.9 .4-2.2

South. Carolina .3-8.0 .8-3.6

Georgia a-0-7.9 .6-3.4

Morida, 'East coast 1.3w-5.7- 0-.2

*Never over 50 thousand pounds recorded.

-,847

.'(1913).- at Yernandina, and 1950 (Table 8-1). During-that period there was a steady

increase in the combined productim of'the three states to the north. This sug-

gests.that.as effort increased smaller percentages of southward migrating,popula-

tions reached Florida waters untilin e-arly.1950's.when some degree of equilibrium

,.was-.reacbed.-.Since 1950,.the mean annua1catch on Florida's east coast has been

4.6-million 1b, but there appears-to.havebeena slight decline since then. Land-

ings of'penaeid.shrimp,have not.'reached%6'.million-lb since 1961, but surpassed

that level 5 times between 1950 and. 196l..

8.2.2.3 Discards and.landings of Commercially Caught Incidental Species

In:addition to catching.shrimp, otter trawls-are-very effective in capturing
other marine and estuarine species. Some-portions of the incidental cat ch.'or* by-

catch are of value, while the bulk is considered trash. Marketable fish are kept

for the market place, while trash is swept overboard. Several researchers have

investigate d these incidental catches quantitatively and qualitatively in the south-

eastern Atlantic states (Cornell, 1948; Baughman,, 1950; Roelfs, 1950; latham, 1951;

Lunz et al., 1951; Tiller, 1951; Siebenaler, 1952; lamz,'1955, 1960; Jones, 1960;

Fahy, 1965a,b; 1966; Anderson, 1968; BeaumariageP 1968; Brown and McCoy, 1969;

Knowlton, 1972; Wolff, 1972; Keiser, 1976, 1977). Keiser (1977) recorded that the

fish-shrimp ratio ranged from a low of 1.2:1 during part of South Carolina's sea-

son to a high of 4.0:1,in North Carolina. .,He estimated that an annual average of

69.5 million lb of fish-*as@ caught during 1973 through 1975 by trawlers working

in the four state area. That figure equaled 24 times the average annual reported

fish landings made by trawlers during that period. Beaumariage (1968) estimated

that 1.3 million lb of fish were discarded annually along the northeast coast of

Florida.

Uses exist for fishery bym9roducts as can be seen by the presence of U.S.

industrial fisheries in California, New England, the Gulf States, and North

Carol a. In general, the production from those fisheries is utilized for canned

pet food orfrozen for mink food and crab trap bait. Altbougb North Carolina

has facilitiesto process industrial fish (menhaden in this care) incidental

catches of shrimp trawlers axe not normally utilized. The incidental fish

catch of shrimp trawlers is of a quality high enough to be processed as fish-

meal or minced fish, but there are several suggested reasonswhy it is not used.

Shrimpers state the following as reasons: (1) few dealers are prepared to handle
and sb*, incidentally caught fish, (2) the expected price would not be worth
the additional effort,'J3) additional ice which increased operating costs would

be required, (4) addi ional space below deck. for boxes on deck would be needed,

and (5) culling for fish may-delay icJng of perishable shl-imp (D. Theiling, S.C.

Mar. Res. Center, Chas., SC; pers. ccr=.).

Keiser (1977) noted that trawls made during the off-season for shrimp,

which is basically mid-winter to early spring in several areas of the South-

eastern statesdid not yield volumes of fish comparable to those taken during

the shrimping seasons. Consequent ly, a year-round supply,of fish probably would

not be available for processing. Pointing out that many shrimp trawling areas

overlap with nursery areas of many important fish species, Keiser (1977) sug-_--

gested that development of an industrial fishery would not be wise at present

effort. He also stated that there is no evidence that shrimp trawling activi-

ties are depleting sto cks of commercial fish.

Upon being discarded, refuse of dead fish, crabs and other marine forms

is at times a prcblem when washed up on beaches. Their appearance and smell as

well as the perceived threat of feeding sharks axe often disquieting to users

of beach and surf.

During the spring of some seasons, large catches of jellyfish (Stcmolcphis

meleagris) known by the fishermen as jellyballs, become serious impediments to

normal shrimp@'.trawling. By quickly filling net bags, jellyballs reduce drag time

8-29
drastically aswell as damagi@ shrimp.by mashing.: No commercial use for them

has been found. Slits or deflectors called "shooters" in nets have proven help-
fulin reducing jellyball catches as'has use-of the turtle Excluder Device-(TED)
'bept
81
N7

-Incidentally taken fish not,discarded,,.@axe used for human consumption.

.....Depending on'the quantity of,marketable fish.-and other factors,.fish may reach

@the consumer througb-any of several channels.-, They may be sold to the shrimp

packina house I,::!.@arried by: the trawler. crew as part. share or,gratis,. or given to

family or-. friends of the Captain.

Fish of edible size and quality generally represent.only a small portion

of*a trawlers incidental catch, but total catches among all trawlers are signi-

ficant. Their magnitude is not known fully because many catches go unreported.

Important species in the four states arewhiting,. flounder, croaker and spot.

Also landed in considerable quantities axe weakfish. and bluefish.in North Caro-

lina, sharks in-South Carolina,and spotted sea,trout in Georgia.

Other incidental catches of commercial value include blue crabs, whelks,

horseshoe crabs, and at times items of esthetic interest such as mollusc shells

and sand dollars. Although blue crabs comprise a major portion of incidental

catches, they axe seldom retained. Reasons given for not retaining crabs in-

elude: (1) crabs mist be kept --alive which is difficult during warm weather, (2)

the value of blue crabs during the shrimp trawling seasont which corresponds to

that of the crab trap fishery, is low particularly for female crabs which are

most abundant in trawl catches, (3) many crabs are dead or adulte rated with

sand after a period in the net, and (4) the lack of deck and hold space, the

costs of additional ice, and the bother associated with any incidental catch

axe drawbacks. Another deterrant to handling large numbers of blue crabs is

their ability to inflict painful pinches (D. lbeiling, S.C. Mar. Res. Center,

Cba SC; pers. cbserv.).

8-30

Incidental catches of very small penaeid shrimp and of marine turtles are

discussed in Section 8.2.6.2.

8.2.2.4 Recreational Catches

Magnitude of the recreational shrimp harvest has not been determined in

the South Atlantic region. Therefore data are scarce concerning this most im-

portant aspect of the fishery.

In questioning a segment of coastal county boat owners in South Carolina,

Cupka and McKenzie (1974) found that the average non-trawl recreational catch

during 1973 was 5.26 lb per trip and that a projected 155,000 trips were mad

The resulting estimate of 816,000 lb (heads-on) equaled 9.9 percent of the re-

corded 1973 commercial production for South Carolina. No estimate of the sport

trawl-caught portion of total landings is available. Pate (1977) estimated non-

reported catches made by recreational and part-time shrimpers in North Carolina

during 1973 to be 524,000 1b, which equalled 10.9 percent of that year's recorded

commercial production. However, a more recent survey by Maiolo and Faison (1980).

indicates that recreational shrimpers sold 12,200 lb and caught but did not sell

78,620 lb. This amounts to less than 3 percent of the total reported commercial catch.

No estimates of the recreational shrimp catch-of Florida and Georgia are

available (F. Kennedy., Fl. Dept. Nat. Res., Marine Res. lab., St. Petersburg, FL.;

pers. comm.) S. Shipman, GA Dept. Nat. Res., Coastal Res. Dev., Brunswick, GA;

pers. comm.), but those catches co nstitute significant portions of the State's

production.

8.2.3 Fishing and Landing Areas

8.2.3.1 Commercial Fishing Areas

The known geographic range on the Atlantic coast of the three commercially

important species combined is from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to the Atlantic's

interface with the Gulf of Mexico off southern Florida. In commercial quantities

and over bottom suitable for trawling that range is smaller, yetstill quite wide

S-31

(Figure 8-1 )[email protected] at.least a portion of the year,-the commercially important

area stretcbes fra2 Fort Pierce,@Florida to.Pamlico Sound and.0cracoke Inlet,

North Carolina.

Data collected by the South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management

@-Program reveal catch totals by shriaping area during 1980 as shown on Tables

&-8 and Tht-,se data represent catches made in the listed sub-areas and are

different --the landings which may have been ma at ports in those sub-areas.

1amdings1made in Florida are not incluied.. although catches made off Florida and

landed elsewhere axe tallied. There are virtually no offshore areas where sbrhp

werenot taken during 1980. Even,those areas on the coasts of North Carolina and

northern South Caxolinawhich were not shripped in earlier days of the fishery,

...are exploited, though not as heavily as is the 'coast from-Winyah Bay entrance,

-South Camlina to Cumberland Island,.Georgia. Florida's important fishing area

is off Fernandina to Melbourne where effortis concentrated around inlets.

Portions of*the*faur state's annual shrimp production are taken within

internal waters, fran territorial seas, and from the Fishery Conservation Zone

(FCZ). The life cycles of the three penheid species are such that postlarval

and juvenile shrimp rely on marshes and tidal creeks as nursery areas (See See-

tion 6.0). They are, therefore, first available to fishermen in internal waters

when they reach commercial sizes. During 1980, each state allowed ccmnercial

activity in a-portion or portions of-its internal waters during at least part

of the season. Management actions of opening, closing, and keeping closed

internal waters have been based on protection of pre-coamercial size shrimp,,

protection of potential or actual overwintering stocks, and on maximizing econo-

mic yields. Those internal areas identified as nursery areas are never opened

to commercial activity.

The general management policy of the North Caxolina Division of Marine

Fisheries concerning intemal waters is to leave shrimp nagration routes open

8-32

Table 8-8. Estimated totals of catches of penaeid shrimp made in inshore areas of
North Carolina and South Carolina during 1980. A dash denotes an axea with no de-
fined sub-axeaB. (Source: Data collected under the South Atlantic State/Federal
Fisheries Statistics Program).

State Area Sub-Area
Pounds
Heads-Off
(X1000)

North Carolina Croatan, Sound - 1
Pamlico Sound Undesignated 2,230
East of Bluff Shoal 7
West of Bluff Shoal 150
Bay River 40
Pamlico River Goose Creek 3
Neuse River Below U.S. 17 204
Adams Creek 91
Lower Broad Creek 1
Core Sound Undesignated 986
Black Sound 9
North River (Carteret) - 133
Newport River - 258
Bogue Sound (East) - 27
Bogue Sound (West) - 222
White Oak River - 50
New River Undesignated 288
Stump Sound 8
Topsail Sound 131
Masonboro Sound 73
Cape Fear River Below Wilmington 98
AICWW (White Oak-C.Fear) Undesignated 92
AICWW` (South Port-Little R.) - 15
Shallotte River - 2
Lockwood Folly - 1
South Carolina Winyah Bay - 51
Santee Bay - 9
Bulls Bay - 54
St. Helena Sound - 224
Port Royal Sound - 186
Calibogue Sound - 116

Note- No Georgia inshore areas were opened to power drawn commercial shrimping dur-
ing 1980.

8-33

Table 8-9. Estimated totals of catches of penaeid shrimp made in offshore areas
of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia during 1980. A dash denotes an
area with no defined sub-areas. (Source: Data collected under the South Atlantic
State/Federal Fisheries Statistics Program).

State Area Sub-Area Pounds
Heads-Off
(Xl000)

North Carolina, Bogue Inlet to Ocracoka - 208 8
Kure Beach to Bogue Inlet - 317
Cape Fear R. to Kure Beach- 50
N.C./S.C. Garden City to Cape Fear - Undesignated 12
North Carolina - S.C. line to C. Fear R. 375
South Crolina - Grand Station 17
Cape Romain to Garden City- Undesignated 2
- Debidue to Garden City 32
- North Island 398
- Cape Romain to Winyah Bay 291
Folly Is. to Cape Romain - Bulls Is. to Cape Romain 376
- N. Jetty to Capers Is. 215
- Morris Is. to S. Jetty 731
- Folly Isalnd 119
S.C./Ga. Tybee Is. to Kiawah Is. - Undesignated 3
South Carolina - Botany Is. to Kiawah Is. 374
- Hunting is. to Edisto Is. 726
- Bay Point to Fripp Inlet 325
- Hilton Head Beach 340
- Savannah River 248
St. Andrews So. to Tybee - Undesignated 30
- Tybee 551
- Wassaw 457
St. Andrews So. to Wassaw - Undesignated 5
- Ossabaw and St. Catherine 425
- Sapelo 1,662
- Altamaha 225
- St. Simons 993
St. Augustine to St.
Andrews So. - Undesignated 65
- Cumberland 206
Florida (Caught in Florida but
landed out of state) - 223

to shrimping activity all year. -Those routes include the large sounds, major

rivers, smaller sounds adjacent to the inlets, and a major portion of the Intra-

coastal Waterway (ICWW). Designated primary nursery areas are kept closed, and

tributaries adjacent to migration routes can be closedwhen small brown shrimp

appear in them.

South Car6linals internal legal trawling areas are Winyah Bay, North San-

tee Bay, and,Bulls Bay in the northern,coastal area and St. Helena Sound, Port

Royal Sound., and Calibogue Sound in. the southern area. They are opened, September

through December, generally., The bays are small and except on opening day are

worked mostly by trmvlers.of less than 10.7 m (35 ft). The sounds are quite

large and are utilized by a major portion of the southern fleet when opened. Al-

though vessels of 19.8 m (65 ft) and over are able to shrimp there, they tend to

work offshore except during the first several days after the sounds are opened.

Georgia last allowed conmercial shrimp trawling in-internal waters in 1976

when Wassaw., Ossabaw, Sapelo, St. Simons, St. Andrews and Cuaberland Sounds were

opened during the fall. State managers have determined that significant economic

benefit has resulted, either directly or indirectly, during the seasons that the

sounds were held closed (R.. Reimold, Q_- Dept. Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA; pers. ccmm.

Trawler activity in the sounds,when they were opened was similar to that in South

Carolina. Designated areas above or upstream of the sounds have been opened for

sport bait and commercial bait trawling activity during designated.periods since

1978 (Ga,. _-Dept. Nat. Res., 1981). These areas account for less than 30 percent

of all inshorewaters; thus, 70 percent of all inshore areas am closed to power

drawn nets.

Florida's only internal area open to shrimping has been the deeper portions

of the St. John's River and Nassau River estuary. There is no detailed information

on catches from internal and offshore territorial waters (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. Nat.

.Res., Marine Res. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL; pers. ccmm.).

8-35

The proportion of total catch made in internal waters, the territorial

sea and the FCZ varies spatially and temporally. Tables 8-8 and 8-9 which re-

veal totals of catches made by trawlers unloading in Georgia, South Caroloina,

and North Carolina during 1980, delineate cataches made in internal waters and

those made in ocean waters. Detailed date concerning distance from shore of

catches are not available but generalizations concerning each state can be made

(Tables 8-10 and 8-11). All but 0.8 percent of North Carolina's catches were

made in internal waters. For practical purposes it can be assumed that all of

the catches made in ocean waters of North Carolina were made within the three-

mile boundary (D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Div. Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl., Div. of

Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC; pers. comm.). The portion of catch taken

in the FCZ is estimated to be about 5 to 10 percent annualy off South Carolina

where trawling effort beyond three-miles occurs in limited areas and during

limited times (D. Theiling, S.C. Div. of Marine Res., Charleston, SC; pers. ob-

serv.). Man-made jetties at Charleston Harbor and schols at North Edisto Inlet

apparently force shrimp and therefore trawlers beyond the three mile boundary. The

estimated percentage for Georgia in 1980 was 59 percent (R. Essig, Ga. Dept. of

Nat. Res., Brunswick, GA; pers. comm). Significant trawling effort is expended

in the FCZ out as far as seven miles from shore due to extensive shoaling in

nearshore waters. Approximately 12-15 percent of Florida's non-rock shrimp

catches are made in the FCZ (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. of Nat. Res., Marine Res. Lab.,

St. Petersburg, FL; pers. comm.). Although coastal shoaling is not as extensive

in Florida as in Georgia, effort is expended as far offshore as eight miles.

Bottom type and depth in nearshore ocean waters are apparently major deter-

minants of shrimp occurrence and accessibility and of shrimping effort. The

breadth of the area within the six fathom curve is greatest in northern and cen-

tral Georgia waters. It is greatly reduced in northeast Florida and centra North

Carolina waters but not so greatly in South Carolina waters. In the broad shallow

Table 8-10. Percent of the South Atlantic shrimp catch'(heads-on) by State from
the R2 versus territorialseas, 1980. (Source:- McCoy,. pers. comm).

0 to 3 miles of 3 miles %:-,of Total
(1b) Years Catch Seaward Years Catch Landings

Florida(E.-'Coast) 3,4WjOOO 47.0 4,009,000* 53.0 7,503,000

41.0 4,998,13M
Georgia 3',476,128 591W!-&_2,@@ -;'474,932

367** _10
'South Carolina 6,,999 992 97,0 194' "31 7 194,359

North Carolina 9*1741,322 99.2 82,168' 0'.8 9j823,490

*Figures, include Rock Shrimp; Florida officials estimate that 12-15% of the non-rock
shrimp catch was made in the FCZ'(P.. Kennedy

*wIbese figures are believed to underestimate the actual percent of the catch which
originated in the HM for S. C. according to Theiling (S., C. Marine Res. Center.,
Chas. SC), about. 5 to 10% of the catch- in 1980 - occurred. -in the PM.

Table 8-3.1.- @Percentage of the South- Atlantic shrimp catch from the FCZ versus
territorial seas, 1973-1980* (Source:,U'gh= Statistics of the'UA.L, NOAA/NM,
various years; Fisheries of.tbe U.S.,'-'IK=/NME`S, various yeaxs)..

les oil 31 Miles of.
0-to-3 Mi
CAt& Seiwmrd -
(lb) Yeaxs.Catch

138. 2 921
Im, 141'060 1-2.0

.1974' -23 d256'000 87.0-. 3 628' 13.0

'72 11.0
='1000
89:.0 Z, A,WO
7-'
11.0
23,125;000 89'. CY .2,996,000

L977
15,092, 000 84.0 .2,905,000 16.0
1978 13,675,000 66.6 6,46@,000 32.0

1979 .1.5,640,000 48.0 16,655,000 52.0

1980 23,712,000, 72. G.: --9,284,000 28.0

*Managemmt persoonel frcm state Agencies- in the Region question the accuracy
of these figures-due to differences in collection techniques and the inclu-
sion of tk)& shrimp data.

areas, particularly off southern Georgia, trawlers are unable to work,over wide

areas near shore. Beyond the narrow shallow areas, trawling is confounded by

rough bottom and sparse concentrations of shrin3p. Hazards to trawling including

stumps, wrecks, rocks and dumpsites are numerous throughout the shrimping areas

of the four states. A Hang Log (McGee et al., 1975) shows 1,100 known hangs in

the region. 7heoretically, all catches made dur3mg closed seasons axe made

outside of the three-mile boundary.

State enforcement efforts,-particularly in the FM have historically

been hampered by inadequate man-pmer and pbysical resources, insufficient penal-

ties, conflicting provisions of the law, and the uncertainty of the authority

to enforce theirlaws in the R2. 7he extent of a state's jurisdiction beyond

its territorial waters in terms of jurisdiction over citizens of its own state

and citizens of other states was discussed at the June 30, 1981 South Atlantic

Fishery Managment Ommell meeting in Charleston, South Carolina. It was con-,

eluded that the states have very limited jurisdiction beyond their territorial

waters. A vessel registered in one state (e.g. Georgia) engaged exclusively in

fishing in the FCZ off another state (e.g. Florida) could not be regulated by

that state (e.g. Florida). Based on this information, state management in the
FCZ wouldf@not appear to be adequate under present circumstances.

8.2.3.2 Comtercial landing Areas

7he vast majority of commercially landed shrimp are unloaded at waterfront

shrimp packing houses which provide docking, unloading, heading, packing., refri-

geration and shipping facilities necessary for fisherman's catches to reach secon-

dary markets. In many cases, operators of packing houses own singularly or in

partnership one or more vessels at their docks. They also contract verbally with

other shrimpers for use of the docks' facilities in exchange for,having those

shrimpers' catches unloaded at their docks. Some packing houses are run basical-

ly for and by family groups while others have no ownership ties to trawlers or

family ties with trawler owners. Some docks operate solely to handle shrimp, but

the trend in the past half decade has been to.diversify-into other activities.

Other fishery activities, including crab,processing, oyster shucking and the

handling or processing of finfish to one extent or.another, are important ones

at many shrimp dealers. Fishery-related services such as fuel and ice sales,

net. and gear repair and storage, and railways axe either directly or indirectly

related to many docks and concentrations of docks. 'Public sales of seafood,

"tackle,..'and ice,occur at-scme docks. There is no shrimp
tra

docks of landing other than.heading (head removal) and, in

limited quantities, freezing for later, retail sale.

In North Carolina, during 1980, about 262 dealers in 19 counties were

licensed to handle shrimp. About 48 of tbds& license holders were not licensed

t6,handle other fishery landings. Theiling (1977) foimd that in 1976, 62 deal-

ers were licensed in shrimp buying andshipping inSouth Carolina but that only

37 in five counties were considered to be major commercial establishments. 7he

remainder were either smll, low-'volume license.holders: or did not utilize their

licenses at all.' 7hough ownership of some houses has changed, the number of

dealers has not changed significantly in South Carolina since 1976. Most are

located in Beaufort (14) and Charleston (16) counties. In 1976, about 22 deal-

ers handled shrimp only, but that nu&er has decreased to about five in 1981

due to diversification into other fisheries (D. Theiling, S.C. Marine Res. Center,

Charleston, SC;-pers. cbserv.). Nix et al. (1975) located 32 active shrimp park-

ing houses in six Georgia counties during 1974. That number has risen to 34 in

.1981, and most are located in Glynn (8), McIntosh (13) and Chatham (7) counties

(S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res., Cbastal Res. Dev., Brunswick, GA; pers. commi.).

Twenty dealers were active on the east; coast of Florida during 1980. Theywere

located in Cape Canaveral (2), New Snymna. (3), St-. August3i (2), Mayport (7),
ne

and Fernandina (6) (J. E. Snell, NNOKS, Mia,mi@

In recent years there has been an important movement in the United States

and other major marine fishery nations toward concentrating fishery-related facil-

ities; into seafood industrial parks. The major purpose is to increase the effi-

ciency of operations related to harvesting, processing and marketing of fishery

resources. Several anbitious endeavors of this type have been proposed and/or

planned in the South Atlantic Region (McKenzie et al.,1976). At present, the

Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park on Roanoke Island, North Carolina is the only

such facility constructed and in operation.

8.2.3.3 Recreational M@Q. and Landing Areas

In general the tidal creeks and riv ers which are so extensive in the four

state area are quite accessible and productive for recreational shrimpers using

a wide variety of gear types. 'When in internal waters, shrimp can be located

over nearly any bottom type and in any depth of water, but tend to concentrate

in the more favorable habitats (See Section 5.0). Cast netters are able to take

shrimp in areas as small as a few feet wide and only inches deep. Seiners shrimp

in moderately to very broad creeks, up to-1.8-2..4 m (6-8.ft) deep, and push net-

ters can work in creeks or open waters up to 1.2 m (4 ft) deep. Drop nets are

effective in waters over about 0.6 m (2 ft) deep.

Major geographic areas of recreational shrimping activity in North au-olina

are in Carteret County south to the state line and to a lesser extent the tribu-

taries of'Pamlico Sound (D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Div. of Nat. Res.,and Comm. Devi.,

Div. of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC; peri@. cammV,). In South Carolina
recreational effort is coast-wide with cast netting predominani in the southern

area. Cupka and McKenzie (1974) reported that non-trawl sport shrimpers worked

frcm. boats (66.5 percent), shore (20.8 percent), piers (10.6 percent), and bridg-

es (2.1 percent). Georgia's designated sport bait trawling zones occur through-

out.. the coastal area as does non-commercial gear usage (Georgia DNR. J 1978).

Recreational beach-seining is concentrated on Tybee, Sapelo, St. Simons, Jekyll

and Curnberland Islands. Florida's major sport shriaping areas are the'St. John's

River area and the area around Ponce De Leon Inlet (,F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. of Nat.

8-41

Res., Marine Res. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL: pers. comm.) Recreational catches

of shrimp are landed at aide variety of places including public and private

boat landings, personal and commercial docks, marinas and onshore at the shrimp-

ingsite

8.2.4 Craft and Gear

8.2.4.1 Trawling Craft

The historical documentation of the numbers of boats an vessels involved

in the shrimp fishery of the our states is shown in Tables 8-12 through 8-16.

Also shown are the gross tonnages of vessels and measurements of nets in the

fishery. Generally speaking there have been steady increases in all states in

all categories through 1978. Published data are not available after that time

but state management data for 1979 and 1980 are shown in Table 8-17.

Today's shrimp trawling fleet consists of trawlers which are quite mobile

and distinctively designed relative to the various types of fishing.' Offshore

trawlers have undergone significant design changes making them larger and more

versatile (Captiva, 1966). Most newer offshore vessels, the so-called Florida

trawlers, axe 22.9-24.4 m (75-80 ft) or more in length and are double-rigged

for towing two nets simultaneously. Double-rig fishing has been estimated to

increase the catch by 15 to 30 percent as well as reduce fuel costs and repair

and labor time (Klima and Ford) 1970). Details of Georgia and South-Carolina

trawlers in 1980 axe shown in Table 8-18.

Juhl (1961) demonstrated a fairly close relationship between the-gross

and net tonnage and the lengths of vessels in the shrimp fleet. Such correla-

tion is probably due to the unifom bull design of the "Florida-type" vessels

which have a round bottom, flare bow and a broad, square transan stern. The

deckhouse is forward with the clear fishing decks aft. Double-rig nets are

towed from outriggers (Figure 8-2). The engine roan is below the deckhouse with

P., -f j.;t

Table 8-12.-. Numbers of vessels- and boats utilized in the South Atlantic shrimp
otter trawl fishery each year, 1957 through 1978,.,with related tonnage and gear
data. (Sourcesl 1957-76 Fishery-Statistics of the U. S.;- 1977-1978 NM Data Man-
agenient, Wash., D.C.).

A-11 Craft
Vessels Boats
Year Number- Tonnage Number Number Gear
(maters)

1957 15#329 N 835- IL930 34,041'
1958.. .:,'1065 N 833 1898 32,785
888
1098,.: 15,978 N 1986 34,815,
1090 30.,103 G 814. L904 34,576
1961 1071 29,,449 G 747 1818 33,388
1W1 28,770 G @863* 1884 .34,269
1962',
G 736'' 1759
1M 28,501 34,785
'1964 954 26,277 G 641 1595 31,834
L965 958 27,273 G .691 1649 33,576
1966 903 28,132 G 910 1813 34,700
1967 28,880 G 755 1644 32,543
1968 911 32,652 G 746 1657 34,647
1969 919 35,,644 G 806 1725 35,115
1970 949 35.,959 G 727 1676 35,315
1971 39,624 G 8M 1849 NP
1972 1040 40IA18 G 980 2020 NP
1973 .1088 44,174 G 1087 2175 NP
...1974 1157 48,965 G - .1172 2329 NP
IM 1200' 51,703 G 1259 2459 NP
1976 1170 49,359 G LW4 2544 NP
1977 1160 50,670 G 1365 2525 49,479
1978 1212 55J738 G 1013 2225 50,347

.......................... ........ ............ ........

N - net tonnage
G - gross tonnage
NP- not published
Note ---duplication of craft among States has been excluded.

Table 8-]13.. Numbers:of vessels.:and boats utilized-in the North Carolina shriM
otteir'irawl fishery each year,. 1950-197B., with 'related tonnage and gear data.
(Sources: 1950-1976 Fishery Staitistics,of the U.S.; 1977-1978 NM Data Manage-
ment, WAsh.,',D.C.)..,:-

Vessels
@-w @Is s All Craft
Number'. onnage... r Gear
T -Number
(meters)

.1,.079 3.9,646
462 -1&
19W:-
@'1951 A011, 945 17,835
9wi
lm --,@352 573,.,, , .
.3 16,508
8,320
1953, 655, N 1,061: 1
11954 3966"N 9,72-'-
16,865
521 910
-389'@, 4,M, N 16,034
1956- :,m 4 556 945 15,777
669 N
948 N :561
1957@-,--, .399 960- 15,843
12 078
:1958: 325 4 184 N 405 730
1959. 362' 4)898 N 426' 788 13,893
1960 389 8,533-..G. 427 816 14P347
1961 407 G 321 728 13,183
L962, 371 P343 G 379 750 13$311
IM3 M 8,181 G 3IR 702 12,683
1964 371. -7,832, G '349' @720. 12,828
-1965. 81112 G 356
726 13,208
'1966 @,301@-,::' 7, 136. -GI -564-,,-,
.865 13,237
.1967 .305 -*7'549 G 460 765 12$295
.1968. 2W 7 67.9, 11,439
1313 G 402
1969 266 It876 G 462 -7-28- 236
13 777
'1970 360 .10, 794 G ...430 790
12,701 G 477 884
.1971 AW7 15,671
.1972 425 13,578 G 538 .1-9.63 17,113
1973. 472 16,433 G 638 1, rio -19,764
1974 447- 15,373 G, 719 1,166 20,098-
1975 488 17,7,0 G, 791- 1,27.9- 21,964
1976. 451, 16.,175. G - 841: 1,292 21,611
05 1&, 237 G 858 1, 353 22,879
1977
1978 542 20,109 G 586 lfl28 22,087

N-- net.tonnage-.
G.'- gross@tonnage-

'Table 8-14. Nundbers, of vessels an& boats. ut3lized Ina the South CarOllna skn-iM
otter trawl fishery each - year', 1950-1978, ' with' related tonnage and gear data.
(Source: 1950-L976 'Fishery Statistics of 'the U.. S.; L977-1978 NM Data Manage-
ment, Wash., D.C.).

is Boats Total Craft
ribinnage
Year ,Number Nunber Number -Gear
'kmters)

61 225 4,089
164- lp'M
'1951. 364 3,937 N. 481 9,002
117
1952 '251. 2,525 N 94 345 6,390
.1953 253 @1,695.N. .104 357 6,488
L954 - 148 1,,LM N -am 282 5,166
1955 295 311648 N 68 363 -6,621
310 4,159- N .-90.. 400 7,107
IL957 380 5,445 N 97' 477 8,860
1958 316 4,406 N -1-149 465 9,068
1959 264 3,433 N 167 431 8,502
1960 @273 7,368 G 167 440 9,037
1961 224 5,972 G li'm 357 71919
1962 242 6,229 G 141 383 8,825
1963 221 5,762 G 106 327 8,510
1964 183 4,677 G 63 246 6,654
i965 203 5,318 G 36 7,046
1966 187L .5 018 G 29 216 7-064
1967 217 6:218 G 16 233 7:331
1968 280 8,514 G 23 303 9,361
1969 316 10,967 G 30 346 10',455
1970 288 .10,697 G 26 314 9@)688
1971 372 15,133 G 54 426 12 508
1972 370 15,223 G 153 523 13-108
1973 386 16,183 G 152 538 ILK727
1974 447 19,437 G 144 591 16-3132
16 ., rA I;
1975 450 19,725 G 162 612 I,VJ=%A
1976 410 17,091 G 199 609 15@- Qr,
$4.
1977 315 13,790 G 253 568 13,254
459 22,034 G 170 629 17,947

................ ......... ............. ....... ..........

N z.,tet
G -7

Table 8-15. vessels,and boats utilized in the Georgia shrimp otter
trawl fishery each year, 1950-1978, witbL related tomage and gear data. (Source-
1957-1976 Fishery Statistics of the U.�..;:1977-1978 NWS Data ManagemEnt, Wash.,

Z
RRI V" Boats Total Craft
MR)5v;-,,@ esgsels
Year Number Tonnage,: -Number, Number -Gear
rasters)

304 5,595
2,392: N 84
1950.' 220,.:-.@"-,
268
.1951 31151, N: W': 323 6,003
7 N:
:1952 229 2,79 277' 5.,157
-.249
'45 4
1953, .204. .2',469 N. 1493
pm
1954" .204 A1006 N 49 4,365
1955 216 21748 N' M 2W 4,805
1956 290 4 129 N 77 367 6,573
1957' 284 3,5M N 143- 427 6,928
..1958 '346' 4,575 N 234- 580 9.1225
1959 328 4,618 N' 266 594 9,213
1960 307 81433 G 195 502 8,154
1961 312 9,027 G 2M 582 8,715
324 .19,421 G 308 632 9,132
1963.. 363 10-, 523 G 264 627 11,221
1961 333 10, 343 G 213 546 10,044
1965 325 10, 5M G 282, 607 11,290
1966 314 10J430 G 296 610 11,224
1967 .332 11t812 G 270 602 11,840
-1968 347 141,286 G 303 650 13,243
.388 17,196 G 300
688 14,724
1970 307 12,744 G 267., 11,958
19'71 416 18,840 G 283 699 :15,805
1972 387 17,370 G 2M 657 14,882
1973 363 16,884 G 291 654 :14,844
1974 426 21,@521 G 296 722 .17)115
1975 471 23,763 G 295 766 :18,674
IL976 468 23,162 G 302 770 18,553
1977 338 15,976 G 223 561 13,115
1978 347 17,394 G 519 13,585

N. - net tomage
G - gross tomage
_nrli n'

Table 8-16. Nud3ers of vessels and boats utilized in the Florida, east coast
-shrimp otter trawl fishery each year, 1957 through 1978, with related tonnage'
and gear data. (Sources: 1957-1976 Fishery Statistics of the U.S.; IL977-1978
NOS Data Wash. D.C.

-ek, --is Boats Tbrtal Craft
Number Tonnage Number Number Gear
. ...... .......... (meters)

1950 158 2,232 N 25 183 3,671
1951, 121 1,622 N 33. 154 2,967
1952 178. 2,952 N 23 201. 49141
1953 233 3,512 N ''.22 255 5,454
221, 3,600 N 3(' 224 4,910
1955 -@228' 3$753 N 16 244 5,245
1956 332 5,733 N 35 @67 8,037
1957 375 6,469 N 34 409 9,025
1958 428 73,942 N 45 473 10,641
1959 431 7,802 N 29 460 10,699
1960 431 16,020 G 25 456 11,055
1961 442 16,623 G 23 465 11,420
1962 393 141975 G 35 428 10,364
1963 350 130811 G 47 397 9,347
1964 307 12,004 G 16 323 8,353
1965' 293 11, 864 G 17 310 7,951
1966 305 .13,399 G 21 326 8,453
1967. 290 13,201 G 9 299 7,960
1968 275 14,504 G 18 293 7,974
1969 241 13,525 G 14 255 6,995
19M 238 13,380 G 4 242 6,998
1971 248 14,200 G 11 259 7' '655
1972 212 12,204 G 19 231 6;' 880
1973 207 12,539 G 6 213 6 449
1974 173 10 -'672 G 13 186 5:378
1975 148 9:513 G 11 159 4,641
1976 156 91988 G 32 188 4j743
1977 177 11,658 G 31 196 5,526
1978 201 13,480 G NA NA 7,257

R- net tonnage
G - gross tonnage

201

Table@ 8-17., Numbers ofmessels and boats employed in the ccavercial shrimp
otter trawl'fishery in each South Atlantic state-during 1979 and 1980. Non-
.resident draft axe included. (Sources.: N.C. - estimates based on 1968-1978
period;, S.C. and.Ga. StateLvessel files; Florida - NMFS/TnIS).

North Carolina South Caroli Georgia Florida(E.Coast)
Lna
Vessels- Boats. Vessels@ Boats Vessels Boats Vessels Boats

64T.,. 824 326 75
(M) :@@595 105
.1979'@.
1980' (901)'. 619: 883 652 708
(585) 440 75

Table 8-18,Specifications of 1980 licensed shrimp trawlers wImse owners resided
in either Georgia or South Carolina. (Source: Georgia EM vessel file'and South
Caxolina MM vessel file).

Georgia South Carolina
0'

Thtal number 1,128 12088

Length Frequency 10-19 feet 452 498
20-29 feet 215 192
30-39 feet .52 59.
40-49 feet 68 75.
50-W feet 86 98
60-69 feet 135 97--
70-79 feet 77 51
80 + feet 6 13
Unknown 37 5,

Length each net Unknown and.less than 101 195 7.
10-19 feet 24 21.
20-29 feet 121 106
30-39 feet 267 353.
40-49 feet 196 284
50-59 feet 118 127
60-69 feet 80 75
70-79 feet 84 55
80-89,feet 24 39
90-99 feet 19 12'
100 + feet 0 9

Gear Type Single rig 610 732
Double rig 358 349
Twin Trawl 44 3
Unknown 116 4

Number in crew 1 142 128
2 567 553
3 296 315
4 49 23
5+ 14 5
Unknown 60 64

Horsepower 9-49 27 65
50-99 205 306
100-149 266 241
150-199 168 168
200-249 112 113
250-299 42 49
300-349 50 64
350-399 106 60
400-449 12 5
450-499 10 4
500-549 8 2
550+ and unknown 122 11

--!A 04@

Table 8-1: Cmt- inued).

South Carolina
IGWI

Tonnage LT 1- 9 .1351. 129
10-19 @.71 73
20-29 67 67
.30-39 69 40
-49
'40 52
50-M W.- 36
60-69@ 26, 23
10
@'8
8D o89 3
90+
14 6
Unknown and boats 629 649

Year Built 1900-1949 30 49
.1950-1959
72 85
1960-1969 234
1970-1979 587 512
1980 60 54
Unknown IL53 154

Hull Material Wood :-352 434
Aluminum :15 31
18
21
Steel
Fiberglass 697 579
Other 2' 4
Unknown 41 22

Fish other
than Shrimp . Yes 202 192
No 871
Unknown 73 25

25 FATHOMS

''HALF WIDTH OF NET UNDER TOW
RYNET
APPROXIMATELY, 20 FEET.
...CLEARANCE. SPACE BETWEEN NE'

Figure 8-2. A diagrammtic representation of double-rig shrimp trawling (Adapted from Krietjonsson, 1968).

8-51

the fisholds aft. Typically the vessels are diesel powered with pronounced

variations of length and horsepower between single and double-rigged vessels.

Generally, the vessels in the 15.2-21.3 m(50-70 ft) class are powered by 100-

200 hP diesels. Cable rigs with drum hoists are powered from the main engine.

A large portion of the vessels are equipped with electronic navigational aids

.,and have the capacity for wide-ranging fishing operations.

The double-rigged shrimp trawler has two outrigger booms mounted one

each on the port and starboard sides of the mast some distance above the deck

(Figure 8-3). The booms are stayed fore, aft, and vertically., Stabilizer

planes, suspended from the outriggers during moderate and rough seas when fish-

ing and while at anchor are utilized by many trawlers to dampen the roll. The

use of permanently attached tag lines on trawl doors to facilitate handling has

been a popular development.

The vessels used in inshore shrimping are generally smaller than those

which work strictly offshore. There are, in addition, many smaller gas powered

boats of 5 net tons or less, displaying quite a variety of designs and indivi-

dual styles of construction working the inshore waters. These boats are usually

equipped with power winches and rope towlines and rigged for towing a single

trawl from the stern. The use of cpmmercial skiff-type vessels operated by one

man on the inshore grounds has become a operation in certain local bays

and sounds in North Carolina and South Carolina.

Expansion of the present day shrimp fishery is due to acceptance and

use of diesel engine power. All.offshore vessels in the South Atlantic states

are equipped with diesel engines with, reduction gears. Main engines are

equipped with power takeoffs to run the winch through a system of chains, shafts,

and sprockets. Main engine installation for most vessels is accomplished conven-

iently with maintenance kept as simple as possible. Most experienced boat cap-

tains and crew members can make minor repairs at dockside.

8-52.

K K.

D
C

E E
A

U-3
0 Ltj
D-I
v N D
D-I
T
m v

G
U-2 S-31

U-1

/H
S-C
S-I"

Figure 8-3. Rigging arrangements for double-rig Shrimp Trawling
A-Towing boom or outrigger; B-tawing boom topping stay; C-topping lift tackles; D or D-1
towing boom outrigger:back stay; E-towing boom outrigger baw stay; F-modified boan; G-boan
back stays - ratline structure; H-boom back stay plate on transan; J-boan topping lift stay;
K-single block tackle; L-single block tackle; M-trawl winch; N-heads, two on trawl winch-,
O-center drm for try-net warp; Q-warp; R-leading block for trynet; S-1, S-2, S-3-trynet
lead block; T-main fish tackle tail block; U-1, U-2, U-3 - trynet lead block; any one may
be'used to accord with selection of S-1, S-2 or S-3; V-boan shrouds; W--chain stoppers for
outriggers (Adapted fran Kristjonsson, 1968).., 0

13-53

Electronic instruments aboard shrimp trawlers serve both as navigational

and.fishing.aids. They guide the fisherman to and from shrimping grounds and

also. provide information about the bottom. Principal items of equipmentfound..-_

on shrimp vessels axe automatic pilots, depth recorders, radar, and VHF radios.

Liao (1979) documented the use of electronic gear by Atlantic shrimpers. All

vesselstj(6@_ "'la., coapassfor basic navigation and many are equipped with LORAN.

Automatic pilots were. introduced into the shrimp fleets to reliCave the

chores.of dteering,.,whichonlong runs presents a considerable fatigue problem.

Since a course steered electronically is more accurate than one steered by hand,

both running time and fuel consumption axe reduced by the use of automatic pilots.

Depth recording equipment is. used for navigation and fishing. When used

for navigation, depth of water and bottom contours are determined to obtain ves-

Position- When used for fishing, good bottom (smDoth and muddy) is distin-

guished,-from-bad-bottan (rock or coral) by'appearance of the graph or recording

paper A depth sounder with a cathode ray tube,. designed to function as a fish

finder, is commmly found aboard the large vessels, but its practical value as

applied to locating shrimp is questionable.

Radar equipment, quite common aboard large and intermediate vessels to-

day, affords protection for the fishermen especially during fishing operations

at night or in fog. LORAN equipment has enabled fishermen to accurately fix

their locations and return to the same area repeatedly for successful catches.

However, it is probably insignificant when dragging close to the beach.

8.2.4.2. Fishing GeELr and Operation

There are three basic trawl designs employed in the South Atlantic shrimp

fishery.: flat,-semi-ballocn, and balloon,(Figures 8-4 through 8-6). A survey

of double-rigged trawlers in South Carolina revealed that the balloon and semi-

balloon nets axe generally preferred by vessel operators (Fbodes' 197@4:).- These

basic designs have been described by Bullis (1951), Fuss (1963), Marinovich and

Whiteleather (1968), and Kristjonsson (1968).

8-54

I
/Pnlb
12

/in2b
10Z
300,

2"
ISO
2101 'x/8

100
- - - - - - I10/3XIS
Headlines 66 ft. (66+5+5) -- - - - - -
1/2 in. comb. rope

Footrope: TO ft. (70+ 5+5)
1/2in. comb. rope
Otter 130
boards: 9ft. x 3ft. x 41n.

0 5 10feet
nlb
12

ru - - - - - - - -

Figure 8-4. Diagrammatic representation of a 20 m (6e ft) flat trawl.

110

32.
31AI
J/0/3 X/S

211

51 51
-/60
Headlinw, 601t. (60+5+5)
10 0
1/2n:comb.. rope
210 5XII
/&0
Tootrops: 74 ft. (74+ 5+ 5)
qd
1/2"comb. rope

Otter- boards: 9f t. x 31t. 4 in.'

/36
0' 5 10 feet
1)6/ X31.

Figure 8-5- Diagrm m-tic representation of a 18 m (60 ft) serrd-balloon trawl.

8-56

too
14
12 54

Ise

JIM

174 Y2-
210 )CIS

Sa ISO
106 - azyTi
Headl ins - 40 f t. (40 + 4 + 4)
3/8 in. comb.. ropw.

Footrops: 49 ft.(49+ 4+4)
3/8 in. comb. rope 664

128
Otter boards: 7ft..x3 ft. 1/0 3X27
00
Sfnm A-is.

0 5 10 feet

Figure 8-6. Diagrammatic representation of a 12 m (40 ft) two-seam balloon trawl.

The otter consists of: (1) a cone-shaped bag in which the

shrimp catch is gathered into the tail or cod end; (2) wings-on each side of the

bag for herding the sbrimp into the bag; (3) trawl doors at the extreme end of

each wing for holding the wings apart and holding the mouth of the net open; and

(4) two lines attached to the trawl doors and fastened to the vessel. A lead,

bottom, foot or ground line extends, from door to door on the bottom of the wings

and mouth of the net while a head, float or cork line is similarly extended at

the top of the wings and mouth of the net. The size of the net is measured by

the width of the mouth. Floats of hollow plastic and styrofoam are employed;

the number of floats varies considerably. Generally, only about half as many

floats are used on sandy bottoms as on muddy bottom.. With flat nets, the mouths

of shrimp trawls are rectangular, the lead or bottom line and float or cork line

being more or less straight horizontally. However, with the balloon net, the

float, line forms a pronounced are when the trawl is being towed. The type of

net design used by shrimpers appears to vary with species sought. Generally,

it has been found that brown shrimp burrow into the bottom to escape the trawl

and white shrimp try to escape by jumping off the bottqm. Therefore, when fish-

ing for brown shrimp, a flat net with two or three floats is often used since

this design gives a wider horizontal spread than the other designs and supposedly

facilitatesthe ctching of burrowing shrimp. In contrast, faur-seam, semi-

balloon or two-seam balloon nets are fished forwhite shrimp since these nets

have more vertical webbing than a flat net. Additinal floats are used to in-

crease the height of the trawl when needed.

Juhl (1961) reported that foot rcpes differ only in the amount of weight

attached to them. loop chain is commonly attached to the foot rope at about 0.3 m

(1 ft) intervals to add weight to the net. A chain may also be attached to the

trawl doors, resulting in a "tickler" chain, which tows ahead of and separate from

the net to frighten shrimp off the bottom into the oncoming trwl. Another common

foot rope arrangement known as the "Texas drop down" is the attachment of the

tickler chain to the foot rope chain (not looped) at about 0.9 m (3 ft) intervals

using a short chain extension. It is generally believed by commercial fishermen

.that the Texas chain lifts the foot rope further off the bottom, resulting in

catches with less
mud and debris, and fewer unde

loop chain arrangement my not be effe etive in reducing "trash" caught by the net,

but the effectiveness of the Texas chain can be reduced by a small change in its""-+

aligoment.,

Most-.larger nets are-constructed of'sypthetic webbing including various

.synthetic blends, i.e., nylon, nycot,. marlon,. and nylon rayon combination. The
most coamon mesh size (stretch) in the nets ranges from 2.5-3.8 cm (1 1/2-4'..in) -

Fbr protection, the tail-bag is covered by a hula skirt or chafing gear of poly-

ethylene strands tied into the bag or by a false bag of large mesh webbing.

The length of the dragging warp or taw line carried by shrimp vessels de-

pends on the depth of water being fished; within the South Atlantic states this

cable may vary from 137 to 1,372 m (75-750 fm).. Single-rig vessels my ca�ry

from 137 to 366 m (75-200 �m) of warp while double-rig vessels carry from 137 to

1,372 m (75-750 :Em). The cable used varies from 0.6 to 1.6 am (1/4-5/8 in) dia-

mater in nxdtiples of 0.2 am (1/16,in). The towlines axe secured to the trawl

doors using bridles (consisting of four chain ) fastened to the doors. The front

cba.in and the top! chains axe longer than the bottom chains (Figure 8-7). Thus,

.the doors have an outward, downward thrust while being towed. The shearing power

necessary to offset the drag of the trawl and create the desired wing spread is

directly related to the area of the doors and the speed of the vessel. Ideally,

the door-net relationship should be such as to cbtain the greatest possible wing

spread without deforming the net opening or causing excessive drag. Trawl doors

of"'E.2, length are used ontrawl nets up to 15.2 m (50 ft.) in width,

1.8-2.4 m (6-8 ft) doors on 24.4 m (80 ft) nets and 2.7-4.3 m (9-14 ft) doors

on nets up to 36.6 m (120 ft) wide. The doors are constructed so that the

length is slig1itly more than twice as long as the height. There appeaxs to be

3f 3
3

A- TOP AFT. CHAIN ONE LINK LONGER THAN 130TTOM AFT CHAIN.
0. TOP FWD CHAIN ONE LINK LONGER THAN BOTTOM I" CHAIN.
C. BOTTOM AFT CHAIN TO 'WITHIN 2t 4' OF' TOP FWD HOLE.
BOTTOM FWO CHAIN TO CENTER OF TOP FWO HOLE.

Part I

-100

r
POINT OF PUL
(mitered ovw 1poW

POINT

40%

RMULA:
AFT TOP AND BOTTOM CHAINS ARE EXTENDED TO POINT I W14CH IS
40% OF DOOR HEIGHT FROM SHOE AND ON A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN
OF FWD CHAIN HOLES.@ FWD CHAIN' LENGTH IS DETERMINED BY RAISING
BRIDLE SO THAT POINT OF PULL IS DIRECTLY OVER VERTICAL LINE.

Figure 8-7. Two rmthods of attaching chains to conventional wooden trawl
doors (wdified frm and Ford, 19,M).
cen

8-60

a lark of uniformity in the angle of trawl-door set but there is a tendency

for setting lower chain from one to two links shorter than the upper chains.

The dragging warp ratio commonly used for determining the required length of

cable is five or six fathoms of line to each fathom of water. Occasioally,

this ratio varies when fishing in deeper water.

During the mid-1970's twin trawls were introduced into the South Atlan-

tic region. An investigation and demonstration of twin trawling in South

Carolina was performed by the Clemson Marine Extension Program (Roberts and

Rhodes, 1976). The twin trawl is used more in North Carolina but also has

significance elsewhere in the region (D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Dept. of Nat. Res.

and Comm. Dev1., Div. of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC; pers. comm.).

An estimated 20 percent of Georgia's commercial trawlers used twin trawls dur-

ing at least part of the 1980 season (D. Harrington, UGA Extension Service,

Brunswick, GA; pers. comm.). The principle of twin trawling involves towing

two trawls on a single pair of doors or otter boards. Both trawls are joined

together at the head rope and foot rope to a "neutral door" connected to a

third bridle leg. (]Figure 8-8). The reported advantages of this rig over the

conventional double rig include: (1) the increase in fishing efficiency (25

percent increase in some cases); (2) the lightweight and ease of handling two

10.7 m (35 ft) trawls as opposed to a single 21.3 m (70 ft) trawl; and (3) the

nets can be towed slawer and the vessel can make sharper turns with fewer inci-

dents of tangling.

New net designs are continually being developed. At present, a modified

tongue trawl or "three-winger" (also called the Mongoose trawl) qis gaining accep-

tance in the region. This trawl has a triangular tongue or wing attached along

the midsection of the corkline and connected to a center towing cable (Figure 8-

9). The Mongoose spreads an average of 80-83, percent while conventional trawls

spread from 50-65 percent. The height obtained is 40-50 percent greater than

other trawls (B. Burbank, Burbank Trawl Makers, Inc.; pers. comm.). The increase

:,Z5 TWIN-TRAWL CONFIGURATION

":.'PORT SIDE

'EXTENSIONS.
CHAI N' LM. LINE
W outSICIS
7 x 34
3' inside
TRAWL DOORS

oo LAZY-LINE
LANYARD

TICKLER CHAIN TIED
TO FOOT ROPE
SNAP HOOK
AND RIN.G_

POLY ROPE
LAZY-LINE
T BAR STOPPER
RI NG

igure 8-8. The.Twin-trawl design as reported by Bullis and Floyd (1973).

-&-62

BRIDLE

j,,qENTER
BRIDLE

CHAIN ADJUST
LONG LINE
FLOAT

'Figure 8-9. The IVIongoosell trawl designed by Billy Burbank, III (Courtesy of
Burbank Trawl Makers, Inc.).

in -Vertical height results In.., greater catches of. high moving white shrimp. Also,

there appears to be energy saving capabilities associated.with.the use of smaller

doors and decreased engine- speed.

Trawling vessels are stocked for nearshore trips of short duration, general-
ly not exceeding 24 hours.. .,Weekly, thievy, are fueled:,. at the, dock '463@-_-Vh6ie',
are

berthed it a nearby, fuel dock for sU or seveni P

L]pon arrival. at the fishing,grotnds..,doors are; swung. out to hang f= out

@'riggers by towing -cables and nets.are.l.owered,to the' bottan. The length of the

drag varies with fishing conditions, most frequently ranging from one-to over

five hours.. Usually, long hauls. are made when shrimp are scarce, and when the

possibilities of catching large quantities of trash fish are small. During

night-time fishing operations, two or three drags are usually made by the larger

vessels. Smaller boats fishing inside gr-cnmds make much shorter drags. Those in-

shore shrinjoers catching shrimp for live bait may haul in their nets as often as

every five minutes..

During the drag on larger vessels, frequent tries are made with the try-net.'

a miniature of the larger otter trawl. Fiequently, one or two try-net drags are

made before the large nets are set to deetermine the bottom type and to estimate

the abundance of shrimp in .a particular area., The 3.7 to 4.9 m (12-16 ft) try

net is pulled in-frequently@: 1hex e shrimp appear in sufficient abundance to indi-

cate grounds worth exploiting, the large nets am put over. By consistently

checking the try-net ahead of the big nets, fishermen can tell whether or not they

are still trawling through the concentration. In cases where the shrimper passes

the concentrations, he changes course and resumes trawling through the area where

the try-net showed good signs.

To retrieve, the speed of the vessel is decreased and the doors are cleared

for hauling. The cables are brought in. by winch until the two doors are blocked

at the outrigger. Once the doors are up, the lazy line, attached around the mouth

of the bag, is led through the block of' the running whip which is then hoisted

to the bocm' s end, (Figure Me lazy line is led to the winch and heaved

in until the neck of the bag is above the bulwark rail. The block and fall At

the end of the boom is secured- around the neck of the bag with a sling. IUe

bitter end of this tackle is led to the winch and the bag of the net is raised

out of, the 'water and brought aboard and held suspended over the deck for empty-

ing.through its distal or cod end.. Me catch is then culled and iced down.

Shrimp trawl.gear is operated essentially the same by borth Offshore and
inshore'fle'ets.. Homever, there are differences in methods of locating shrimp

and use of the-try-net for such p x)ses is not. as widespread among inshore ves-

sels as among the offshore fleet.

The.seine or haul seine utilized to catch shrimp is rectangular in shape

and constructed of nylon mebbing having a stretched mesh of 1.3-3.8 am (1/2 to
1',A/2 in). This net varies
in length and depth, with a lead line running along

the bottom and a cork or float line along the top. Many seines have bags or
pockets intowhich the shrimp are-directed. Most seinin'g operations are carried

out in waters of less than 1.8 m (6 ft) in depth near the shore where the net is

pulled by hand and hauled out to a bank where the catch is culled. Ihough pre-

viously a major commercial gear, seines are now used by ba it and sport shrinrpers.

To a small extent seine-caught shrimp reach various types of markets. Lms deal-

ing with mininnim mesh sizes and maximum lengths of seines vary among the southern

AtY ic.states-(Section 7.2). A v -iety of boat.types are used in seine shrimp-

ing, but mots axe small or of shallow draft and are left *at anchor or on a bank

during shrimping operations. Many seiners, rather than using boats, take advant-,

age of bridge and road access to tidal creeks.

Cast nets vary considerably in size, and their use is fairly widespread

throughout the South Atlantic region, particularly in South Carolina, Georgia,

and Florida. Cast nets axe circular, usually having a spread of 1.8-6.2 m (.6 to

20 ft) with a lead line running around the outside edge. A cord line extends

through a ring or horn in the center of the net, and from this end there radiates

8-65

numerous smaller cords: (tuck lines) fastened at regular intervals to the lead

lines. Mesh sizes vary from 0.6 cm (1/4 in) square mesh to 1.9 am (3/4 in)

square mesh. Most modern cast nets are constructed of nylon webbing. The net

is thrown or cast in such a manner that; it falls flat on the water when fully

open. After the weighted rim, of the net has settled to the bottom, the cord

is drawn, pulling the tuck liner into the center forming a bag to hold the

shrimp.

Cast nets-are used primarily sportsmen casting for baitshrimp and for

how consumption and by commercial fishermen fishing for live bait shrimp. Sales

of Cast net caught shrimp are widespread but-small in volume. These nets are

particularly effective in tidal creeks on ebb tides where "creek shrimp" congre-

gate at the mouths of small tributaries and sloughs and along shorelines adja-

cent to channels. Since most cast netting is done in shallow water, small,

shallow draft boats are used. Cast nets may also be used from docks, bridges

or banks. Recent activity of-casting over bait in Georgia has been blocked by

legislation in March 1981 (S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Coastal Res. Div.,

Brunswick, GA; pers. comm.).

Though the present day channel qnet is essentially a shrimp trawl, the his-

tory of its development is not directly related to that of the trawl. Maiolo and

still (1981) trace the development of the channel net in North Carolina where it

is used most. The commercial use of channel nets in South Carolina has increased

during recent years. Channel nets are anchored shrimp trawls which fish at or

near the surface being held open by currents which transport shrimp into the bag.

Instead of otter boards to spread the net, a pole is secured to the lead line and

the float line at each outer end of the net's wings. An anchor line is run up-

current from each pole to prevent movement of the net. The catch is emptied by

opening the tail bag into a boat. Channel nets are fished mostly in North and

South Carolina in bays and sounds on ebb tides at night. The mesh sizes and

widths of channel nets vary in the different states.

Employment of channel nets in North Carolina is most prodactive for
pink,, brown and vihite shrimp and in South Carolina for brown and white dn-in@

as they move seaward high in the- water column. Most use of chan 1 nets is

lercial P Production as related to South Carolina's annual production is

quite small but in North Carolina channel net catches reached six percent of

that state's recorded shrimp production in 1980 (D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Dept.

Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl. ,.Div. of Marine Fisheries,. Morebead City, NC; pers.

Oom:L Boats associated. with the fishery range from about 4.6 to 7.6 mi (15

25 ft).

Butterfly nets are hung on rectangular pipe frames and attached to the

sides of boats. Similar to trawls, these nets vary considerably in size and

are used only in areas where strong tidal currents exist. When in operation,

the boat is anchored heading against the tidal flaw and the nets lowered at

right angles from the sides of.the boat so that the current sweeps into the
mouth of t' he net. - The nets are lifted from thewater, without lifting the

frame, through the use of a tail bag line which facilitates emptying the catch.

The very luAted use in the South Atlantic States of these nets is largely a

commercial operation, although bait shrimpers and sportary-n do employ this

type of gear infrequently in bays and sounds. North Carolina allows the use

of butterfly nets in designated areas by permit.

Drop nets consist of a large hoop up to 0. 9 to 1. 2 m (3-4 ft) in dia-

meter towhich a cane-shaped net is attached. The hoop or frame is attached

to the main line by a bridle. The main line is tied to a bridge, boat, or

pier and the net is dropped into the water. The nets are baited with smoked

herring, cut fish, canned dog food or other local varieties of bait which

attract shrimp. This method is strictly recreational, used for catching bait

shrmp or shrunp for home ccnsumption. Baited drop nets for shruqp were made

illegal in Georgia in March 1981 (S. Shiprmn, Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Coastal Res.

Div., Brunswick, GA; pers. comm.).

8-67

Push nets are usually rectangular frames varying from 0.9 to 3.0 m,

(3-10 ft) in width and from 0.6 to 1.2. m(2-4 ft) in height. A bag of small

mesh (l.3 cm; 1/2 in) nylon webbing is hung to the frame. A handle, 1.8 to

2.4 m (6-8 ft)long, is attached to the frame at the midpoint of the long side.

A cross piece 1.8 to 3.0 m (6-10 ft.) length is fstened perpendicular to the

handle so that the fisherman can push against the handle with his chest. This

gear is operated mostly in Florida. Fishemen push the net, in shallow water

areas; the length of push time depends on the quantities of shrimp in the area.

The catch is usually emptied into the bow of the skiff which the fisherman drags

behind and is sorted by someone in the boat. This gear is most productive on

grassy and muddy bottom.

South of Daytona, Florida brown and pink shrimp are taken at night under

lights on ebb tides by dip nets, but commercial use of dip nets is negligible.

8.2.4.3 Participation in other Fisheries

Fishermen and craft of the shrimp fishery are involved in a wide variety

of other fisheries; some are secondary and supplemental, and some are equal in

importance to shrimping. For portions of the fleet, particularly in North

Carolina, switching gear is an historic fact of fisheries life (D. Spitzbergen,

N.C. Dept. of Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl., Div. of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City,

NC; pers. comm.). For other segments, such as the medium size trawlers Of

South Carolina and Georgia, the need -to supplement income by entering other

fisheries is a recent economic fact of life. Although shrimping is the major

fishery in which the vast majority of "shrimper" participate, many of North

Carolina's larger commercial vessels have taken the multi-fishery approach and

are engaged in other activities of equal or greater importance. Those trawlers

are engaged year round in trawl fisheries from Texas to Canada for flounder,

other fish, sea scallops, and calico scallops. Some shrimp in only the good

seasons. Small and medium sized trawlers and their captains in North Carolina

are easily converted to any of several inshore activities including crab trawl-

ing, sink net fishing, clammJn operations and channel. netting (D. Spitzbergen,

N. C*. Nat. Res. and C=n. Devl., Div.. of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City,

NC; pers. ccam

Small boats in South Carolina historically have been used with a variety

of'gears, the otter trawl being only me.. Others are gill nets for sturgeon

and shad, crab%traps, shellfish gears, and stop nets.* The Florida-type trawlers,

vhxUe of ".limited, use in inshore areas fcr purposes other than trawling for

shrinp or crabs, are quite versatile in the application of near-shore and off-

shore gear types. South Carolina vessels have become involved in the following

activities: trawling forwhelks, rock shrimp, calico scallops and reef fishes;

book and line fishing fcr bottom reef fishes and pelagic fishes; sea bass trapp-

ing and swordfish longlining.

As in the other states, sma-11 boats in Georgia axe quite versatile and

are utilized in fisheries other than sbrimping. In-shore uses include gather-

ing shellfish, trawling for crabs, setting shad gill nets, and setting crab

traps. Larger trawlers are used off-shore in the harvesting of rock shrinp,

calico scallops, and bottom reef fish by trawl gear. An estimated eight trmvl-

ers trawled for scallops and an estimated 25 percent of the Georgia fleet

trawled for rock shrimp during the 1980 season (D. Harrington, UGS Marine Ext.

Program, Brunswick) GA; pers. comm.). Offshore fishing activity other than

trawling is limited to a fe.w vessels fishing hook and line on reels for bottcm,

fishes.

Commercial use of shrimp- trawlers on the east coast of Florida is limited

to only a few other fisheries. TTawling for rock shrimp and calioo scallops is

important to many large trawler fishermen, and the use of crab traps and, to a

lesser extent, shad nets is made on smaller inshore trawlers. Table 8-18 shaws

that at least 80 percent of South Carolina, and 78 percent of Georgia resident

trawlers did not function in a second fishery in 1980. (R. Essig, Ga Dept. Nat.

Res., Coastal Res. Div., Brunswick, GA; pers. ccmm.). The trend is however,

8-69

that shrimp trawlers are engaging in other fisheries. An important undeter-

mined fact is the extent to qwhich other fiseries can withstand increasing

participation.

It is important to note that many trawlers, while not active in other

fisheries, are quite mobile within the penaeid shrimp fishery. This mobility

includes movement between the southern Atlantic shrimp states as well as south-

ward to the southeastern and northern Gulf of Mexico fisheries (Liao, 1979).

Such mobility is, in effect, the same as participation in additional fisheries.

The fishing effort mentioned above for rock shrimp and for royal red

shrimp while sporadic may suggest significant future fisheries. The trawl

fishery for rock shrimp became commercially important during the 1970's.

Table 8-19 reveals haw landings have increased sharply and that it is most

important on the northeast coast of Florida where the fishery a primary

one during late winter and fall. The activity in Georgia and South Carolina

is secondary and is executed during periods of low catches or closed seasons

in the penaeid fishery. The tremendous increase in fuel costs has reduced

the profit margin in rock shrimp; the same is true for the even smaller royal

red fishery. Though commercial landings have been small (Table 8-19) the

potential does exist for expanded harvesting of royal reds, particularly

between Cape Canaveral and St. Augustine, Florida (Cummins and Rivers., 1962).

The shrimp industry has been slaw to utilize the royal red resource due to

several factors which are true for rock shrimp as well (Klima and Ford, 1970):

(1) increased outfitting costs for deepwater trawling; (2) initial problem

Of fishing trawls in deep water; (3) reduced yield compared to penaeid shrimp;

(4) no price advantage over penaeid shrimp; (5) lack of adequate market and

(6) reluctance on the part of processors to handle products due to processing

problems.

CG
Table 8-19. landings of rock,shrimp and royal red shriap -in each South Atlantic
state during 1971 through 1980 in thousands of pounds, heads-off.
(Sources: 1971-1978 Sbrimp-Landings. 1979-1980 NMFS and State files.)

Rock Royal Red Shrimp
N.C. SX. GA. FLA. N.C.' S.C. GA. FLA.

1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 87

1972' 0. 0 -0 0 0 0 15

.1973, (Y.1- .0- 177, .0 0 0 6

lW4 -.---0, 0 303. 0.@ '0 0 1

1975 0-- ...0 0 135 0 20 6

1976 01 0 0 1511 0 0 0. 11

19177 0@ 204 0 0 0 0 20
799

.1978 0 66 27 1 024 0 0 0 <a

1979 0 463 372' 2,981 0 0 0 0

1M 16. 2M. 2,094 -0. 8 6

8
-.2.5 Bait Shrimp 'Fishing

The utilization of shrimpil*th, alive and dead, as a hook and line fish

bait occurs througbout the- South'Atlantic states. A large number of carnivorous

fish species eat shrimp and are therefore attracted to baited hooks. Important

marine and estuarine species taken by anglers on* shrimp include spotted sea

weakfish, iflounders, red drm, black druin, croakers, whiting, striped

bass spot,,* and mackerels- Shrimp arelutilized extensively in both flat and

bottom: fishing inshore, but.marine,. use- is. limited to pier and surf angling.

Because shrimp are recognized as an. awellent. fish bait, the live and dead bait

busimss is widespread and plays an important service role in the saltwater re-

creaticnal fishing ind:ustry. As part of the ccmnercial shrimp fishery, the

bait business, ew*pt in Florida, is 'less important.

The bait.-shrimp fishery consists of all:threeTenaeus species, the pre-

dominant one being detennined by season and locality. Mie fishery depends upon

pink and brown shrimp on the northern..and central coasts of North Carolina and

on white shrimp in the southern area. The South Carolina fishery is for pre-

dominantly white shrimp,. but b shrimp are taken in the late spring and

early summer. In South Carolina andlGeorgia the fall sport angling season peaks

coincident with the peak availability of white,shrimp in inshore waters. North

of New Smyrna on the Florida coast white shrimp make up the bait fisherywhile

it consists of brown and predominantly pink shrimp southward to Fort Pierce.

Penaeus brasiliensis, a grooved shrimp closely related to pink shrimp, finds

Sam importance as a bait species in Biscayne Bay, Florida during the sumer.

Pink and brown shrimp are more viable in captivity than arewhite shrimp

and are therefore more useful in the live bait business. In Florida white

shrimp are less.desirable also because they reach a size in the nurser y areas

too large for most live bait usage.

With increasing dmiand for shrimp in recent years, competition between

bait and commercial shrimping has presented some problems. Commercial shrimp-

ers are generally against most shrimping activities involving laxge catches of

small creek shrimp; their feelings are based on the proposition that such in-

sideshrimping is deleterious to their welfare from the standpoint of lost fu-

ture incom and habitat destruction.

North Carolina Bait -8h:titp -Fishery

&wimp is the most important natural bait in North Carolina and is

i@shore waters. Its use is mainly in the summer tourist season but stretches

from spring through fall. Most bait shrimp in North Carolina are caught in the

smaller sounds and in the tributaries of Pamlico Somd. All three species are

utilized. Seines and cast nets are the.major gears for taking shrimp for per-

smal bait use.

There is very littlelcammercial effort toward shrinping specifically for

bait in the State. The primary source of dead shrimp for bait is the commercial

catch for food by trawl and channel net. Fishermn utilizing those gears and

packers who buy from those fishermen sell much of their small shrimp to bait

dealers. Most bait shop and pier owners buy in bulk and repackage in small

amomts as either fresh or frozen for resale. The few live;-bait shrimp retail-

ers supply some commercial fishermen with holding tanks to transport live

shrimp. Problems which have limited the live-bait industry include a limited

number of areas opened specifically for bait shrin4)ing, difficulties in keep-

ing and holding live shrimp, and angler resistance to high live bait prices.

No gear laws or regulations apply specifically to bait shrimp activity

in North Carolina. The minimum trawl mesh measurement,,@ is 2.0 am (3/4 in)

(bar) and that for channel nets and seines is 1.6 am (5/8 in). Cast nets and

seines of less than 5.91 m (20 ft) with snaller mesh have been pexrdtted in

8-73

both open and closed shrimping areas by administrative policy for bait shrimp-

ing. Effective October 1, 1981 there is no restriction on cast net mesh size,

and bait shrimpers may harvest 100 shrimp per person per day from otherwise

closed areas. Use of cast nets is allowed in open shrimping areas anytime in-

cluding during the period of one hour after sundown Saturday night to one

hour sundown Sunday night, which is when other shrimping activities are

prohibited: (D. Spitsbergen,. N.C. Dept. Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl., Div. of Marine

Fisheries, Morehead City., NC; pers. comm.).

8.2.5.2 South Carolina Bait Shrimp Fishery

Live shrimp is one of the most popular inshore recreational baits in

South Carolina, but few bait dealers carry them due to the difficulties of hold-

ing them for sale. Of 72 bait dealers interviewed in 1981, only seven maintained

live shrimp for sale during a portion of the year (C. Moore, S.C. Marine Res.

Center, Charleston, SC; pers. comm.). Most anglers catch their awn live bait as

needed by baited drop nets, seines, and cast nets. Most live shrimp sold in

South Carolina are caught there, but a portion is trucked in from Florida. The

same recreational gears utilized by individuals for personal use are used by

those catching shrimp for sale. A bait shrimp law allowing dealers to catch up

to 100 pounds of live shrimp per trip in otherwise closed areas and periods in

Beaufort County was in effect from 1974 through 1879. At present no regulations

are specific to bait shrimping in South Carolina (C. Bearden, S.C. Mar. Res.

Center, Charleston, SC; pers. comm).

Fresh and frozen dead shrimp is the most popular and available natural

marine bait utilized for inshore fishing in South Carolina. It is available

at any marine bait shop or retail seafood market virtually year around. Most

of those shrimp are taken from local waters by commercial shrimp trawlers and

packaged by dealers for resale. Of 92 dealers contacted in South Carolina

during 1981, 66 sold fresh or frozen bait shrimp. Three reported annual sales

8-74

exceeding 10,000 1b, and another nine reported selling over 5,000 lb. In addi-

tion, 21 had sold over 1,000 lb each and the remaining 33 dealers sold less than

1,000 lb annually. Ten indicated they had obtained shrimp from another state,

eight from Florida and one each from Georgia and North Carolina (C. Moore, S.C.

Marine Res. Center, Charleston, SC; pers. comm.).

8.2.5.3. Georgia Bait Shrimp Fishery

During 1956 through 1976, sport bait shrimpers in Georgia were allowed to

employ up to a 3 m (10 ft) wide otter trawl with no license required and no re-

strictions as to trawling areas. Each fisherman was limited to two quarts per

trip. Commercial bait shrimpers were limited to 6.1 m (20 ft) nets but could

fish anywhere and were not limited as to the amount of catch allowed per day.

With the full-year closure of inshore shrimping areas beginning in 1977, such

bait shrimping activity halted. Subsequently, restrictions and allowances were

placed on those fishing in the internal waters of the State, and currently the

Department of Natural Resources recognizes two types of licensed bait shrimpers.

The most numerous (1,455 in 1980-81) axe the sport bait shrimpers, who are

allowed to trawl year round in designated inshore zones with nets of 3 m (10 ft)

or less during daylight hours.. It is unlawful for shrimp taken udder a sport

bait shrimping license to be sold or consumed by humans, and there are limits

on how much shrimp may be caught and how much dead shrimp may be held. The

second group is the commercial bait shrimpers are licensed to sell their

live shrimp after posting a $1,000 forfeiture bond. The 74 licensed during

1980-81 were allowed to trawl at any time of day tram May 15 to August 31 in

the same areas as sport bait shrimpers but with nets of up to 6.1 m (20 ft) in

width. They could possess on board no more than 50 quarts of shrimp, no more

than 10 percent of which could be dead. There were also regulations concerning

identification boards, record keeping, and the sale of shrimp between dealers.

8-75

There was a two boat limit on the number- of trawlers working for one dealer.

Regulations concerning holding facilities stated that they must be non-toxic

and either floating bait containers or tanks with circulation or recircula-

ting saltwater (Georgia DNR, 1981).

Of Marinas in Gecrgia in 1980, 25 carried live shrimp which are

sold in quart,. pint, and infrequently, dozen measurements. The retail price

of live, locally caught shrimp during summer andfall hab been $4.50 per quart.

Shrimp brought into Georgia from Florida and sold by wholesalers to dealers in

Georgia during the spring of 1981 costs an average of $52 per thousand shrimp.

Retail prices ranged between $7 and $9 per quart which contained an average of

about 125 shrimp (S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, 1981).

A Georgia bait dealer my own and operate his awn boats, awn a boat and

hire an operaor buy bait from a local or out-of-state source. His shrimp

are-held in holding tanks ranging from simple float-supported pontoons to ela-

borate aeration and water exchange systems capable of holding tens of thousands

of live shrimp. Dead shrimp are removed daily and packaged as dead bait.

Dead bait shrimp are retailed in frozen containers up to one quart in

size and marked "Sold for Bait Only".. Spoiled shrimp remaining from food shrimp

activities are often sold as frozen bait. Dead, fresh frozen shrimp with heads-

on retail for $3 to $4 per quart, and spoiled, heads-off shrimp bring $2 to

$2.25 per frozen half-pound box.

During 1980, the 74 live shrimp dealers operating in Georgia were supplied

by 47 commercial bait boats. Those dealers consisted of marinas, private docks,

houseboats, food stores, and bait shops. Most dealers who carried live shrimp

did so mainly to attract customers to other commodities (S.C. Sea Grant Consor-

tium, 1981).

The use of live shrimp as bait in Georgia is directed at primarily spatted

sea trout and secondarily at red drum, flounder, black drum, croaker and whiting.

Live sbrixrp are available from late spring through fall and dead shrimp are

used year round, particularlywhen live shrimp are not available. Dead shrimp

as a bottom-bait are attractive to a host ofgam a nd non-game species. Fresh

and frozen shrimp heads are used as bait in commercial traps for eels and cat-

fish in coastal areas. No rmally the transfer of shrimp. heads fran shrimpers

and dealers to

8.2.5.4 Florida Bilt Mirimp Fishery

In- Florida vaters, a variety of gears are utilized in capturing shrimp

for bait with a major portico of the catch made by trawls. Also used are

roller frame trawls, known as beam trawls, in commercial and recreational

fisheries, and cast nets, dip nets and push nets in the sport bait fishery.

The commercial bait shrimp fishery of Florida is much larger.and econo-

mically :more important than those of the three other South Atlantic states.

Table 8-20 presents the recorded landings of live shrimp (mubers) and of dead
shrimp (1b) made on the east coast.of Florida including DadeCounty each year

since 1972. The average annual number of live shrimp taken during that period

was 22.3 million. The 1980 production of dead shrimp was unusually high and

may be an indication of unlawful use (human consumpticn) of shrimp taken under-

bait permits (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. Nat. Res., Marine Res. Iab., St. Peters-

burg, I@L; pers. comm.). Excluding 1980, the average dead shrimp Produc-

tim was 108 thousand lb beads-on. The numbers of bait shrimp production licen-

ses issued for the six county area around the St. John's River (Clay, Duval,

Nassau,,Putnaim, Flagler, and St. John's) have been 96 in 1976-77, 52 in 1977-78,

58 in 1978-79, 90 in 1979-80, and 110 in 1980-81 (Fl. Dept. Nat. Res., unpubl.

data). Considerable competition exists between bait, cmmrcial, and recrea-

tional shrimpers in the St. John's River estuary particularly near Jacksonville.

Each claims a-right to the shrimp resource often to the point of preferring ex-

elusion of other groups. Apparently abuse of sbrimping regulations in that area

exists, in that licensed bait and recreational fishermen axe exceeding catch

rMle@ S-W. -Flori(Ja wholesale bait sla-imp-landings and value for 1972 through
(;kurce: J..- Snell,: NMFS', Miami,. Florida; liers- &M
198O..@ -E

Live Slb@-. Valde Dead- E@ Value
Year Iftiber Lbs., (heads-on) $

:
72 -25,788,26 152,WU@'
.19 87800

1973, 24'.000 626, 673 6W. ','132. 636

2 016 6W 76p-'289 U&-, 976 71,795

79 357
-25292 145'. 154,
073 76,029
i976, 23 371, W5,' 762,501 50!,408 54,570

1977 @22,9351328. 862,334, 65.4781 69,909

1978 17.1743,032 604,606 .56,656. 56,864

1979 16,734,629 51 68,755
JP389

-"T
1980 19,602,806 709,241 . 9(Y.), 993 1,324,429

limi s and/or selling their catches for humn consurption. Actual or, at least,
perceived c6Vetiticn results on the fishing grounds aswell as in the market

place (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. Nat.' Res., Marine Res.. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL;

pers. cam.

Live bait businesses are mostly crml I family operations employing 2 to

5,persons. Holding systems are usually rectangular wood or concrete tanks with

15.2 to 30.5 cm (6-12 in), of water, and an open saltwater pumping system. Aera-

tion. is by spraying incoming saltwater. an the surface in the tank (F. Kennedy,
R., Dept. IW@, Res., Marine Res. Lab., St. Petersburg, FL; pers. cornm@). Simi-
lar set-ups but with closed, or recirculating, water system are utilized for

transporting live shrimp. Regrigeration of sea water to transport shrimp has

recently been effected in the northernrGulf of Mexico bait business and may be

attempted in Florida (F. Kennedy, Fl. Dept. Nat. Res., Marine Res. lab., St,
Petersburg, FL; pers. Comm.). Detailed descriptiom@kfFloridals bait shrimp
industry are in de Sylva (1954) 'and Woodburn et al. (1957).

8..2.6 Czmpetiticn and Conflict

8.2.6.1 Amohg.Shrimpers

As long as two or more people are attempting independently to obtain the

greatest portion possible of a1imited resource, there will be competition. When

the activities of one person affect negatively the ability of another to harvest

the resource, other than by affecting the amount available for him to harvest,

there is conflict. In the shrimp fishery a good example of caqoetition is the

relationship between an inshore commercial channel netter and an offshore trawler

operator; they affect only the amount of shrimp the other can catch. A conflict

exists between a channel-net operator and a trawler operator who attempt siml-

taneously to fish in the same river channel. They affect not only how much the

other catches but also the ability to catch shrimp in the future by negatively

affecting gear. Though competition is very great among shrimpers, conflicts

8-79

generally less cammm and isolated. This is the case due to management of

shrimping methods, gears, areas,. and times by regulatory state agencies with

the prevention of conflict as a major objective. Without such management con-

trols, conflicts would be inevitable.

Several specific forms of competition among shrimpers involve wastes,

or perceived wastes, of portions of the shared resource. The problem of dis-

cards of pre-commercial size shrimp taken along with commercial size shrimp

exists primarily in the inshore North Carolina waters but occurs occasionally in

South Carolina as well. In North Carolina's sounds during fall of same years

major migration of brown shrimp enter sandy bottom, high salinity pink shrimp

nursery grounds near inlets. To continue working on the brown shrimp, a shrimp-

er is actuauy competing with himself as he is destroying a portion of the

source of his future earnings, the spring pink shrimp stock. A similar situa-

tion occurs infrequently in South Carolina when small whites enter fishing

areas in large numbers. Management actions differ in these situations depend-

ing on a variety of factors. Me results of a North Carolina study (Waters. et a].,

1979) state that the potential for increasing income in the fishery through

reduced discards exists only at very high discard rates due primarily to high

mortality in succeeding months and the law probability of catching those pink

shrimp that are saved fram discard. It also states the problem is not severe

enough to warrent adoption of a management policy to protect juvenile pinks
during normal seasons.

Another form of competition involving possible waste is that between

seiners and cast netters who harvest and retain or discard pre-commercial size

shrimp which could possibly be a more valuable future catch. Operators of

large trawlers maintain that netters in nursery areas destroy potentially val-

uable shrimp to little or no benefit, and they often suggest that the minimum

recreational gear mesh size be made equal to that imposed on commercial trawl-

ers. In South Carolina, where the minimum mesh size (bar) allowedir-

areas is 1.3 cm (1/2 in), McKenzie andWhitaker (1981) determined that any

increase in mesh size probably would eliminate capture of creek shrimp ex-

cept just before they move into deeper water during later stages of develop.-

ment. action mould reduce substantially the recreational shrimp catch.

Scme general statements can be madeconcerning the desires of various

user groups on the subject of competition. Recreational and bajt@'shrimpers

want-to-utilize moderate size.mesb in a wide geographic area for as long a..

season as possible. Operators of sma.11 and medium size trawlers want inshore

trawling areas opened as early and as long as is reasonable. Some want re-

strictions put on activity in the nursery areas, and same want limits put on

the maximum size of trawlers and nets allowed in-shore. Opex-ators of large

trawlers, in many cases, want in-shore areas Impt permanently closed, broad

restrictions on nursery area activity, and long off-shore seasons. Many

trawler operators want cut-of-state entry lindted but want no limi tatiOn's

which would prevent them from obtaining larger or addi icna.1 boats, or their

sons from entering the fishery.

8.2.6.2 With Other'Fishermen

Competition to a lesser degree than mentioned above and conflicts to a

greater degree exist between shrimpers and other fishermen. Shrimpers compete

with other fishermen simply by removing such incidental catches as blue crabs

and juveniles of commercially and recreationally important finfish, often to

the benefit of no-one. Conflict for gear space may exist in areas where moving

and stationary gear are utilized, a good example being shrimp trawlers and

stationary crab traps. It bias become of major importance in North Carolina where

the number of traps has increased from about 56,000 in 1977 to an estimated 120,'

000 to 130, 000 in 1981 (D. Spitsbergen, N.C. Dept.- Nat'..Res. and Cami.Devl., Div.

Marine Fisheries., Morehead City, NC; pers. comm.). The excess effort is pro-

bably nor harmful, to the crab resource since it is basically a single-year

crop. But, the number of traps has made a considerable amount of legal trawling

area untrawlable because of props and trawls snagging them. Currently the

North Carolina, Division of Marine Fisheries designates trap areas and the sea-

son as being between May 1 - November 1, but those actions are becoming insuf-

ficient.

8.2.6.3. Related to Conservation and the Environment

land modifications such as dredging, draining, filling, and impounding

of wetlands and timbering mining, and development of highlands adjacent to

wetlands are major sources of detrimental effects on shrimp survival, and there-

fore conflict with shrimpers' success. Such modifications axe widespread in

the South Atlantic states, and major steps have been made in alleviating the

conflicts related directly to wetlands (Section. 6.4). But protection of up-

land areas which affect adjacent wetlands is not so secure. An example is the

critical increased runoff of freshwater in North Carolina coastal areas result-

ing from agriculture, silviculture, peat mining land development, and channel-

ization activities. Those activities have reduced storage capacity and reten-

tion time for freshwater. The resulting large slugs of runoff have reduced

salinity levels in shrimp nursery areas primarily in the tributaries of Pamlico

Sound. The effects of hyposalinity have been documented by the North Carolina

Division of Marine Fisheries. Shrimp abundance in the nursery areas and subse-

quent commerical harvest is directly related to salinity regimes in the nursery

area. (D. Spitsbergen, N. C. Dept. Nat. Res. and Comm. Devl., Div. of Marine Fish- Fish

eries, Morehead,City, NC; pers. comm.).

Other existing and potential sources of conflict which could impact

shrimp or shrimping include artificial reef and trolling alleys, and offshore

oil rigs, pipelines, ports and spills.

8-82

One major and well known conflict which shrimpers have faced in recent

seasons is the protection of marine turtles. Commerical shrimping activities

have been highly implicated as a cause of mortality of several marine turtle

species (Hillestad et al., 1978; Ulrich, 1978). "Ulrich in Sandifer et al.

(1980) summarized the available data concerning occurrence, habits and inci-

dental capture of marine turtles in the Sea Island Coastal Region of South

Carolina and Georgia.. A summary of that treatment follows with emphasis on

the effects of shrimping activity on marine turtles.

The Atlantic leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea Kemp's ridley

(Lepidochelys Kempi), and Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata

impricata.) turtles are considered transient species in the Sea Island

Coastal Region (hereafter termed Region) which stretches from Pawleys

Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina to Cumberland Island, Cam-

den County, Georgia. They and the Florida population of the Atlantic

green sea turtle (Chelon mydas) another transient species in South

Carolina and Georgia waters, are listed as endangered under the 1973

U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta

caretta caretta) is considered threatened (U.S. Dept. of Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979) and is the only seasonally resident

marine turtle species in the Region. Marine turtles are associated

with coastal waters at times of mating and nesting, hatching, and

feeding during warm months. Considerable data concerning nesting

are available, but a paucity of data concerning other aspects exist.

Most occurrence records in the Region are the result of incidental

capture by fishery vessels or strandings of carcasses on beaches

(Hillestad et al., 1978; Ulrich, 1978).

The Atlantic loggerhead turtle is the only marine turtle nest-

ing on South Carolina and Georgia beaches and it utilizes most

barrier islands to some degree, many extensively. The barrier

island beaches of South Carolina and Georgia provide some of the

most important loggerhead nesting sites in the United States. Fe-

male loggerhead turtles may nest.as many as five times during a

nesting season (Davis and Whiting, 1977) which 1S from mid-May

through mid-August with peak activity in late June and early July.

In South Carolina the most significant.nesting area is in the Cape

RcmELin National Wildlife- Refuge, especially Cape Island. In

Georgia,, Little, CLr@berland, and Jekyll Islands provide

that State's most important loggerhead nesting beaches. The Pro-
bability of indivjduai-.@Xemales returning to the same nestl
beaches appears high (Bell and Richardson, 19178; Richardson et al.

1978). Major problems include the depredation of nests by humans,

raccoonst and ghost crabs; human development of nesting beaches;

erosion; overexploitation; and incidental catch. Despite these
difficulties loggerhead popiulatibns appear to be in somewhat'

better shape than those of other.,,nm=etvrtl6s in the Region.

7here is evidence that-sane'turtles overwinter in offshore

'waters of the Region. Loggerheads have been found in a "dormant"

state partially buried. in mud in Florida's Canaveral ship channel

during winter (L.. Cgren, 1977P. NM Panama City,T,71a.;' pers. cann.).

It is possible that such wintering behavior may occur also in
suitable areas of Georgia and 'South &i4@,howeverno evidence

was found dm-ing recent NMFS surveys.

After entering the sea, hatchling marine turtles are preyed
upon by sea birds and predatory fishes. Ac@'Iof young turtles
being devoured include a loggerhead taken frcm'the stomach of a

black sea bass captuivd in 26 ineters off-shore of Charleston

(Charleston Museum files); two loggerhead hatchlings taken from

8-84

a deep water shark (Brongersma, 1972); one Atlantic green and

eight Atlantic loggerhead turtles from the stomach of a dolphin

east of St. Lucie Inlet, Florida (Whitham, 1974).

Man's greatest impact on marine turtles in the sub-tidal

marine system is the incidental capture and associated mortality

caused by commerical f ishing. Bullis and Drummond (1978 noted

that research vessels captured incidentally six Atlantic logger-

heads and one Atlantic hawksbill in the offshore area south of

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Brunswick, Georgia from 1950

to 1976.

In South Carolina inshore waters Atlantic loggerheads axe

taken incidentally by shrimp trawlers from mid-May (normal open-

ing Of shrimp season) until at least the end of October (Ulrich,

1978). Hillestad et al. (1978) reported incidental captures from

June through early October in Georgia. Sitings and catches of

other species are much less common in the Region. Juvenile Atlan-

tic green turtles have been taken by shrimp trawlers and have been

seen stranded in South Carolina (G. Ulrich.. 1978, S.C. Marine Res.

Div., Charleston, SC; pers. comm.). Not over three such speci-

mens have been reported in any one season. Hillestad et al.

(1978) has reported similarly small figures in Georgia. Recent

catches by shrimp trawlers are documented for Kemp's ridley

(Hillestad et al., 1978) and Atlantic leatherback (Ulrich, 1978

and Hillestad et al., 1978) turtles in the Sea Island Region.

Incidental capture of Atlantic loggerhead turtles by shrimp-

ers is often thought to pose the most serious threat to breeding

females. Yet, the majority (88 percent) of the incidentally cap-

tured turtles in Georgia were juveniles (Hillestad et al., 1978).

8-85

Similarly, Ulrich (1978), reported that adult females made up only

18 percent and 10 percent of turtles observed during sampling on-

board shrimp vessels in 1976 and 1977, respectively, in South

Carolina. Thus, available data indicate that contact by shrimp-

ers with the adult segment of the Atlantic loggerhead turtle popu-

lations is quite small. Likewise, hatchling turtles also appear

to be excluded from the, incidental catch (Hillestad et al. 1978).

A gill net fishery for Atlantic sturgeon in the Winyah Bay area

of South Carolina also results in a, relatively small number of

turtles drownings related to incidental capture (Ulrich, 1978).

Nevertheless, the impact of incidental catch mortality on the con-

tinued survival of marine turtles in the Southeastern United States

is not currently known because of our lack of information on tur-

tle population sizes, natural survival rates,, and annual recruit-

ment.

Research on techniques to reduce the incidental capture and mortality of

marine turtles in shrimp trawls has been conducted by the National Marine Fish-

eries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center. The research has resulted in the

development of the turtle excluder device (TED). The TED was tested aboard com-

merical trawlers on shrimp grounds on the South Atlantic and reduced turtle cap-

tures 89 percent while maintaining shrimp catches equal to those of standard

shrimp trawls. The TED also has the potential capability to significantly re-

duce by-catch associated with shrimp trawling other than turtles. It consists

of a 4 x 3 x 3 ft frame of galvanized pipe with bars slanting at approximately

45 degrees spaced 3 to 6 inches apart and a 3 ft square door in the bottom or

top. The TED is placed inside the trawl at the intersection of the trawl body

and the bag. A turtle or other large object entering the bag strikes the

slanted bars and is forced toward the trap door. The door opens when preset ten-

sion is oweeded, the turtle is ejeated,,and-the door closes (NMES, 1981). A

recent variety of the TED has a top opening door which is beld closed by gravity

instead of by elastic cords which are used to bold closed the bottom opening

variety.

During 1980 washups of sea turtles were recorded along the

coasts of the four South Atlantic states by the Southeast Sea Turtle Stranding

and. Salvage Network.. I'able 8-21 sham. the number recorded during each month

in each state during 1980 with other available data. 7he-nunber of recorded

1980 strandings is high when compared to that of other-sea-mm 1980 was the

first year of operation of the full Networkwhich was initiated by the South-

east Region Sea Tuutle Rer@y Team and managed by NMF`S. T13is is a cooperative

effort involving federal, state, and private entities (S;.!.'.Hopkins, S.C. Wildl.

Marine Res. Dept., Chas. , SC-- pers. c(m. ). Me increased attention directed

to turtle strandings probably has been the most important factor increasing

the total nuaiber-of strandings recorded, but considerable increases'were noted

in 1980 on beaches which had been surveyed during earlier years (J. Richardson,

Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., and S. Hopkins, S.C. Wildl. Marine Res., Chas. , SC; pers.

comm.

Increased mortalities may be results of larger populations of sea turtles

entering trawling areas due to success in stork protection efforts such as hatch-

ery and headstart programs, and conservation measures protecting nesting females

and hatchlings.

The results of a meeting of conservationists, shrimp industry representa-

tives and state and NMFS officials in Charleston, South Carolina on September 18,

1980 to examine ways to reduce sea turtle mor ality from commercial shrimping

activities were as follows:

(1) Shrimp industry representatives were to ask shrimp fishermen to volun-

tarily reduce trawl time to 90 minutes at all times in critical areas of high

- 7 :'., - _ _ ....- .,@@" 1:..".. .'@ I :,,. ,- ,.I . . _..,

Tab P, Available data concerning th numbers-'of recorded sea turtle carcass
strandings.3n the'South.Atlantic'ftates during eachmonth 1979, 1980, and 1981.
(Sources: North Carolina
Carolina - Sally lfcvld n C.. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept.; Georgia, Jim
[email protected] Ga. Institute of @Ecology. Florida -,Ross Witham, Fla. Dept. of Nat
ResoUrCeS),.

'South'Carolina Georgi a'
Florida (E.Coast)
1979 19 1981 .1980-
1981 1980 1981: 80 19811".

-@z .7
J" : ': .
0.,
01
DO @'2- O@ 4 2'
anuary- -

M- @`2:. 2 0: 0-- 0.11, _'@`O. 01. 3 22,'

ND 1
3 0":'-1, 0- O@ 0 0 17 21

April ND 2! .39 30 21 4@ 2 13 15.'-

May 13 33, 12, 150 102 5:1': 23 17'

27 68 152
Jbne- :,10. .16 88 16 7 85 28,

July .-4- 40 18 282 152, 54 324 112,!.: 63 1&

August 17- 30 11 :99 68 34 101 40 21

Septsibeer 33' 84, 86 23
10- @8--@ 16 41-

3@ 17@ .23 17
Octcber 0 9

November 0 39 0 13 4 14

December 0 2' 0 2 0 29

7btals 41. 158 (130). 585 C311) 449 790 C116) 304 (130)@

ND No date.
Totals in:parentheses are-partial year totals..

-8

sea turtle abundance or mort ality. 1hose critical areas were identified as

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and the upper Atlantic coast of

Florida.

(2) NMFS was to prcmulgate emergency regulations under the Endangered

SPecies Act to provide for an additicnal method of sea turtle resuscitation on

board trawlers and for relocation of turtles to non-shripping areas (NM memo-

randum, C. Oravetz, September 24, 1980).

Mle- effectiveness of actions talmn-by shrinp fishermen to reduce the

incidental capture and mortality of turtles has not been documented. Sea Tur-

tle Emergency Regulations modifying resuscitation procedures for threatened sea

turtleswere issued effective October 1. 1980 for 240 days (NMFS randum, C.

Qravetz, October 6, 1980) and were reissued permanently on September 2, 1981
(U.S.. Dept. of Camnerce, NMFS, 1981). ',,'jM3eir effectiveness has not been document-

ed, either. Reduction in trawl time had earlier been demonstrated to reduce tur-

tle mortality significantly. Trawl time of 60 minutes showed a 2 percent turtle

mortality. Trawling for 90 minutes showed a mortality rate of 6 percent while

trawling for 270 minutes resulted in mortal-ities of 26 percent (NMFS memorandum,

C.' Oravetz, September 24, 1980).

Data needs associated with the incidental catch and mortality of sea tur-

tles include:

(1) Identification and quantification of causes of mortality other than

incidental catch by shrimp trawlers. Occasionally sea turtles are caught in
other fisheries including.tbose for m6", shad, and sturgeon. Parasiti

and high water temperatures have been suggested as natural causes.

(2) Expansion of carcass stranding survey efforts. All coastal areas

have not been surveyed in the pas#", therefore-,,,.available data are underestimates

of total strandings. Additionally, there is evidence that a significant portion

of turtle carcasses do not reach beaches. (S. Hopkins, S.C. Wildl. Maxine Res.

Dept., Charleston, SC; pers. comm.).

3).: Quantitative asurement of' the effect of mo rtalities on turtle@

stocks. It is widely assumed that considerable negative effects result on

turtle stocks by such mortalities-1. but data concerning the proportions of ju-

venile and adult mDrtalities are incomplete. If a biologically acceptable

of: mortality exists, it is not. known.
(4), Nesting and feeding: habits-,, anal qualitative habitat descriptions.

Data:concerning nesting frequency, age,-at.first nesting,, nesting success and

otheraspects@of nesting are geographically spotty. The reasons why selected

beaches are utilized heavily by nesting@and feeding turtles are not well known.

The extent to vd2ich turtles axe attracted to trmvler discards is unknown. De-

scription and identification of critical onshore and neambore habitat are

needed.

(5)*.,Impacts on shrimping industry.. Efforts to protect turtles includ-

ing use of excluder devices., restrictions on shrimping times, areas, and taw

duration, and resuscitation efforts will eiiact some costs on shrimpers. The ex-

tent of those costs.and their effects on an economically burdened industry is,:.-

not known.'

(6) Information excha. nge. An understanding.of the importance of sea

turtles as components of complex coastal marine ecosystem is not held by most

fishermen. Education toward@ such an end would facilitate the recovery of sea

turtle stocks.. Also, researchers and managers could gain insight from shrimpers

concerning turtle habits,, gear modifications, and other aspects of turtle/shrinp-

er interactions.

.8.;2.7' Assessment and Specifications of Domestic Annual Harvesting Capacity (DAHC)

The average landings of shrimp in the.South Atlantic states.have.7not-,in-

creased over several decades, even though the number and efficiency of harvesting

units has increased significantly. For that reason thecaparcity of the domestic
fleet to harvest shrimp i's believed to be consi .derably greater than the maximum.

-available resource in any year.

8.2.8 Assessment and Specifications of tbe-Extent to-1hich-U.S.- Fishermen will
Harvest Optimn-Yield

Historically United States fishermen have been the sole producers of the

sbrin3p harvest in the South Atlantic states. Assuming optimum yield to be

equal to the average yield of the past 2.5 decades (25 million lb), or equal to

the ave.rage of only recent high yield seasons (26.9 million lb), or equal to a

considerably higher level, the South Atlantic fleet is capable of sustained har-

vest of optimum yield.

8..2.*9 Assessment and Specification'of Domestic'Annual Processing
Based on data presented in Section 9.4.,--@@q, capacity of domestic shrimp

processors far exceeds the availability of domestic shrimp.

8.2.10 Historical and Projected Transfers from U.S.'HarVesters'tb'Foreign*V6i�sels

There is no evidence of historical or projected transfers of shrimp or

shrimp products fram, U.S. harvesters to foreign vessels.

8.3 .1hreign Fishing Activity

Exploitation of.the shrimp resource of the southeastern Atlantic coast by

fishermen or vessels of other nations 18.' non-existent.

8.4 Interactions between Foreign and Domestic Participants

As there are no foreign participants in the shrimp fishery of the south-

eastern Atlantic coast, there are no interactions between foreign and domestic

participants. Neither are there interactions between domestic shrimp fishermen

and foreign fishermen of other fisheries.

9.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FISHERY

Since 1976, there has been a steady increase in the number and size of

trawlers in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery (Tables 8-12 to 8-16). This

growth in fleet size is indicative of private capital which has been invested

in the shrimp fishery. Unfortunately during 1980 and 1981 the fishery has been

under a serious cost-price squeeze. This condition has resulted from a number

of interacting factors such as: (1) shrimp landings cannot be increased signifi-

cantly to improve individual vessel revenues and fleet efficiency; (2) there has

been a dramatic increase in operating expenses such as fuel, ice, maintenance,

etc.; (3) downturns in the economy have resulted in faltering consumer demand;

(4) supply competition from the Gulf of Mexico and foreign imports have had nega-

tive effects on South Atlantic ex-vessel prices. The net effect has been the in-

ability of individual vessels to generate enough revenue to satisfy fixed costs

and, in some cases, operating expenses. All of the above factors are symptomatic

of the severe economic crisis of the South Atlantic fishery.

9.1 Domestic ExVessel and Wholesale Market Trends

9.1.1 Ex-Vessel Market

9. 1. 1. 1 Demand Chacteristic of Ex-Vessel Prices

Shrimp consumption in the U.S. has increased steadily during the period

1960-1977 (Table 9-1). The estimated aggregate consumption in 1977 was 482 mil-

lion lb, an increase of 92 percent from 1960. Per capita consumption has fol-

lowed the same trend as aggregate consumption during the last two decades. Per

capita consumption of shrimp in the U.S. has increased 5.1 percent annually, on

the average, from 1960 through 1977. However, consumption of shrimp has de-

clined 1977.

Doll (1972) estimated ex-vessel price and income elasticities of demand

using annual data from 1950 to 1968 The ex-vessel price elasticity of demand

Table 9.1 Supply and utilization of all slikup (heads-off meight) in the U.S., annually 1960-1986, with
emphasis on imports. (Source:.Shellfish Market Review, September, 1981. last three colimme calcualted.

TI.tilization Relation of IWrts To
Beginning U.S. axung Apparent Omomption U.S. Apparent Oulf of Mwdoo
Year. Stocks landbW... IhTportay. .7btai ..... stmim. &13cirts .7btal. Per Capita, TMnijin ConamPtion Iandinge
--million,pow q -pounds- t-
1960 46.0 148.5 119.1 313.6 51.0 11.9 251.2 1.396
40 '47 97
1961 51.0 103.9 134.6 289.6 26.2 15.5 247.7 1.354 130 54 169
1962 26.2 119.2 152.5 297.9 37.9 10.6. 249.4 1.342 128 61 171
1963 37.9 150.7 167.3 355.9' 5.5.8L 21.8 278.4 1.477 ill 60 130
1964 55.8 133.1 169.5 358.4 45.5 24.1 288.8 1.511 127 58 150
1965 45.5 152.3 .179.0 376.8 38.2 25.3 313.4 1.619 ns 57 147
1966 38.2 148.3 194.9 381.4 42.5 26.3 .312.5 1.598 132 M 173
1967 42.5 190.0 202.1 434.6 57.6 36.1 MO.9 1. 7W 106 59. 143
1968 57.6 184.1 210.1 451.7 55.8 .31.7- 364.2 1.827 114 57 164 1P
1969 55.8 195.0 220.7 480.9 62.5 51.8 356.6 1.771 112 61 173
1970 62.5 224.3 247.1 534.3 72.2 62.2 399.5 1.960 110 61 169
1971 72.2 238.1 215.1 525.4 69.9 62.7 392.8 LW5 90 54 149
1972 69.9 235.9 254 5 560.2 92.7 57.4 410.1 1.970 107 61 176
1973 92.7 228.6 230:8 552.1 79.0 74.8(.- 398.5 1.899 100 57 200
1974 79.0 225.5 267.5 572.0 76.0 53.1 442.7 2.094 jig 60 228
1975 76.2 209.2 231.0 .516.3 47.4 52.3 416.6 1.9m ill 55 215
1976 47.4 245.6 270.7 563.7 61.0 52.5 450.2 2.097 ill 60 205
1977 61.0 288.4 270.4 619.9 80.1 W -9* 481.9 2.227 94 56 163
1978 81.1 256.9 239.0 576.0 56.2 66:6 453.2 2.077 941 52 154
1979 56.2 205.6 267.1 528.9 78.3 51.1 399.6 1.816 129 65 208
1980 78.3 207.9 258.0 542.1 62.1 41A 438.9 1.974 i23 58 190
.... ..... .. .. ... ...... ..... ............... ..... .. ......

Y Almost all is fresh and frmen.

9-3

was -1. 27, indicating that shrimp are price elastic. This implies that increased

landings mean a decrease in price but an increase in total revenue to fishermen.

The positive income elasticity of demand for shrimp (1.12) indicates that a one

percent increase in income nationally, increases the demand for shrimp by 1.12

percent (Doll, 1972). The study also concluded that domestic landings remain

as the largest single source of price variation.

Ex-vessel or dockside prices per pound vary in direct proportion to size

of the shrimp. Historically price differentials for species have been used in

purchasing shrimp (see U.S. Bureau of Commerical Fisheries,, 1958), but this prac-

tice has apparently become insignificant in recent years. In general, size-

oriented price differentials can influence the substitution of certain counts

(sizes) for others into different products like processed product vs. fresh-

frozen uses. In the Gulf of Mexico fishery Chui (1980) found demand higher for

the larger shrimp sizes with the exception of small, although the larger

the size, the greater the price response to fluctuations in supply. Chui's

(1980) study also indicated that demand structure by shrimp size can signifi-

cantly influence the aggregate ex-vessel value of domestic landings in the Gulf.

This study showed that the Gulf total monthly value could be maximized when

total monthly regional supplies (12.6 million 1b) were allocated to only "large"

and "medium" categories. Population dynamics of penaeid stocks would actually

preclude such an allocation since it is beyond the feasibility of the resource

due to growth and mortality characteristics.

In the 1975-1979 period, South Atlantic landings averaged about 10 per-

cent of total domestic shrimp landings and only 4 percent of total U.S. annual

shrimp supplies. Consequently, the average ex-vessel prices received from South

Atlantic states, generally follow Gulf prices (Carley and Frisbie, 1968). For

example, Waters et al. (1980) concluded from their preliminary price analysis

of different North Carolina shrimp counts that "... North Carolina prices

9-4

follow those established in the larger Gulf or national market," In the case of

North Carolina, there was some evidence for assuming shrimp demand to be perfect-

ly elastic (waters et al., 1980).

Since South Atlantic shrimp stocks tend to be isolated from critical en-

vironmental factors directly influencing Gulf stocks, the assumed high demand

elasticity of South Atlantic shrimp prices can apparently amplify profitability

or losses for South Atlantic shrimpers compared to their Gulf counterparts. Car-

ley and Frisbie (1968) described this dilemma for Georgia shrimpers:

"However, an above average catch for Georgia and a poor
catch in the Gulf results in an exceptionally good year
for Georgia due to the lower total catch and higher
prices. The direct opposite of this condition results
in a poor year for Georgia."

9.1. 1. 2 Domestic Ex-vessel Value Trends

The value of the South Atlantic shrimp fishery increased steadily from

1960 through 1980 (Table 9-2). Most of the increase in aggregate ex-vessel value

was due to increases in prices. In the 1961-70 period, about 33 percent of the

value of all landings in the region were contributed by Georgia, 25 percent from

Florida and the remaining 42 percent from the Carolinas. Again in 1971-80, 33

percent of the region's ex-vessel value was derived from Georgia, about 29 per-

cent from South Carolina and 38 percent from North Carolina and Florida. In

1979 the South Atlantic shrimp fishery experienced a record setting year for

its total ex-vessel value ($67 million).

Since the increases in total ex-vessel value include inflationary Price

trends, the 1967 Consumer Price Index of 100 is often used to deflate aggregate

ex-vessel value and price series (Maiolo et al., 1981). With the CPI deflation

of total ex-vessel value (Table 9-3) the aggregate real ex-vessel value of the

region's landings has still generally increased compared to 1967. The 1974 re-

cession and related national shrimp market conditions generally contributed to

the 1974 decline in ex-vessel prices (Table 9-4) not landings (Table 8-1). In

Table 9-2. Ex-vessel value of penaeid shrimp landings by,state (in thousands of- Aollar@)
Sources: 1961 through 1978 - Shrinip Landimrs. NMFS, NOAA;.1979 - South Atlantic State/Federal Statistics
Program and TIMS, NOS; 1980 ---9iiu--tih Atlantic State/Federal Statistics Program.

Year North Carolina South Carolina - Georgia. Florida(East. T6fal

1961 830 1,301 2 371 p437,@, -
.6,939
3 880
1962 2,239, 2,613 @:2@54@,:, 11,275
1963 10065 .643 .1,802 @JM- 5 p 246
1964 @: 1,@ . I . . q
1,,%3 '861 2,298. 1 97 6,633,
3,418
1965 1,719 2p635 2p388:,. .10,160
1966 2,566 :2 10,
2,1�1 3 'Ml 7M 81.4
W9
9.010'::
1967 11 11679 3 022 21500
13 997
1968 2P357 3,687 4:929 .-:3PO24-
@16,187'
1969 41476, 3,429 4.984
@11,388
2 645
1970 2 493 2 879 3,371.
-2
20,616
4,766 61388 61
1.971 466
18,516
3,742
1972 30549 SOM7 50678.
8 907 9) 3VW7.
4,738 11 343 26,555
120 18,166 .
1974 4,6W 40853 50587 311.
1975 5,054 30 183.'@
10,8 io,4W 3,841':..,
P3
1976 8 171 10,879 4 M,- 34,7W
11PO44
3 701
.23 395
1977 7P239 5,(316 6,839
30 368
1978 31884 6,576 U1829 5:076
1979 9)729 19P578 .241775 12)949 67,031
1980 170184 9,385, 57 185
,130486 17,130 p

Table 9Lr3. Real (Deflated):/ aggregate ex-vessel value of Penaeid shrimp landings -by *ate in thesouth Atlantic
",-states, 1967-80.
(Source: NWS Fishery Statistics of the United States, shrimp landings, and unpublished data.)

Year North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florio* (F
,Ast Coast) Regional
(Dollars in Thousands) Total

1967 1,809 1,679
2,500 9 OW,
13-433i','@`@
1968 2,262 3,538 4,730 2,W2 9 -11j ' ' .
1969 4,077 3$123 4 539. 742
3,004 149
1970 2,144 20476 2,899 274. 9JI792
1971 3,929 5,266 5,331 _2,470
1972 2,832 41427 4,532 2 0 986.
1973 3,560 6,692 .",-.7,020 2 680 19P951
1974 3,119 3,286 ''34783 .2,112 12,299
1975 3,135 6,702 61504 9.9383 18,724'
1976 4,792 63,477 6,381 2,737 20 387
1977 3,988 3,094 3 768 2 Ow a 1890
1978 2,598 15 541
1,988 4,903 6,054
1979 4,469 8JI993 11,380 5,948 .303,791
1980 .6,960 5 462 6,938 31801 23 161

Ex-Vessel value data are deflated by using the.tbnsumer Price Index bf@ -,;PLll consumer items at-,-.the national
level (Maiolo et al., 1981).
2
Preliminary Data.

9-7

contrast, the 1980 total real ex-vessel value was the second highest in the years

1967-80 despite a decrease in the 1980 regional ex-vessel price (Table 9-4).

This was attributed to the above average landings in the region (see Table

8-1, pg. 8-3).

9.1.1.3, Current Ex-vessel Price Trends (1980-81)

Compared to previous years, ex-vessel prices advanced substantially in

1978-and 1979 (Table 9-5) and then generally declined in the first half of 1980.

This decline was associated with faltering consumer demand in the second half

of 1979 and the decline in real disposable income during the 1980 recession.

In the fall of 1979, restaurant purveyors were reporting the "slow movement"

of shrimp and associated build-up of shrimp inventories (National Restaurant

News, 1979).

The 1979 ending inventory, 78.3-million lb, was about 22 percent higher

than the 1975-79 period average (Table 9-1). Due to relatively low supplies

i.e. imports and landings) and efforts to reduce inventory carrying costs,

U.S. shrimp inventories dropped rapidly in the first half of 1980 (Gulf of

Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1981) and consequently ex-vessel prices in-

creased from June through August (Table 9-5) They declined again as fall Gulf

landings and imports increased inventories in the second half of 1980. The

1980 ending fresh and frozen inventory, 62 million 1b, was 21 percent below

the 1979 ending inventory (Table 9-1).

in 1981, ex-vessel price displayed usual seasonal increases then began

to decline (Table 9-5) as above average Gulf landings and imports increased

U.S. inventories. During the first ha1f of 1981, total South Atlantic and

Gulf landings, 56.4 million lb (heads-off) was 43 percent higher than the 1980

first half and nine percent above the 1975-79 average (Vondruska, 1981) and

July landings, 25.1 million lb, were up 40 percent compared to 1980. In July

and August, ex-vessel prices decreased 29 percent and 32 percent respectively,

Table 9-4. M@@vessbl jarices byj heads-of
@tate in the Sopth (dollars per paund
(Source: Derived fran annual landings and value of landings.

..........

Year North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Flortdit(East'Coast) 11!@@o6al
Total

J961 .46 .56 .59 .68
1962 .62 .64 .72
.77, ..69
1963 .51 .47 .52
.60,
.53
1964 w .52 .61 ..70
.61
1965 .51 .61 .62 w.
70
.61
1966 .72 .82
.81 .87. .80
1967 .60 .65
.71 .69
1968 .82 .91
.89
.90.
1969 .91 .91 .91 1.01 .68
1970 .79 91 .87 .91L. .87
1971 1.00 :93 1.13 1.43,
11.05
1972 -1.01 1.07
22 1.37 1.15
1973 .1.75 2.01
A.46 -1.68
1.70
1974 ..88 1.02 1.20. 1.41 1.08 .00
1.56
1975 .1.90 2.02 2.32 1.91
1976 1.97 1.99 2.18 2.62'_ 2.11
2.27
1977 2.08 2.25 2.33 2.67
1978 2.11 3.03 3.36 3.16 3.03
1979 3.16 4.10 4.22 4,28 4.00
1980 2.82 3.43 3.75 3.53

9-@5- 3=i=p' qc-yessel. prices for. selected count size.. monthly,. 1975-1981.
Spec ce to March
(Source: Weighted. average F all lies.,,South.Atlantic and Gulfpri
Shellfish all species,
Market.: Review,. 1!378-1980; (2).Weighted Average
1979.1 NMES.I. -
western: Gulf, price. frcm April 1979 to present,. NES Shellfish Market Review.P
September 198lj

1 7
@1979
Month 1975. 96 1978@. 1980 1981
SiZe

21-

4.'M.
'159,
31 1" 31, M 4.18
2
4.59
3, U,:- 83
Lary@-
Febn' ..I . . I_- . 3. 1 4.62
4. 85
3 96' 4-78. 4.47
'3 3.67 - 3 05: ..06..
ri, 4.09 4.98
AP 2' n 5'
F 5 4.04
jfi@ 5.06
C99
3.2& .65 4.29
2. -5-.3Z 4.35
56 3 42 3.32-
159-- 4.46
.93-
2, 4.39 3.32
2.67 - 3.01. .3.62
August
September 2'.85 2-.61,', -3.95 5.17: 4.08
October 9-.90 2.75. 3.18- 5.03 31.67
November--,. 2-.96 3.53 2.82 C.03 4.79 3.54
December - @3'.04 3.65 2.66 4.02. 4.80 3.79
A, 2-@51',:@ 3.47 3.32. 3.62 5-.01 4.18
d 1'.

31@40,.

anuary -
W 2.57'. 2.8f- 2.08 3.66 3.99 3.*31
Febl'tla:ry, 2.8C@ 2.88, 2 .07 3.91- 3.81 3.53
.:.l. 63.1 Z. 82 :.3.04 2.19:, 4. U 3.69
March 3.63
2.69-- 2.31 @.4.33
April' -1.841'@':@ 2%.99, 3.51 3.62
May 2.08 3.17 2'.56.' 2.36. CM 3.47
June- 1.95 2.74 2.25 2.42 4.76 3.53 3.07
July 1.95 2.26 2.09 2.48 4.26 3.53 2.50
August 2.08- 2.17 2.16 2.72 3.90 3.50 2.39
September 2.23 2.37 2"10 .2.98 3.88 3.16
October 2.31, 2.05 2,96 4.11 3.03
November 2.39 2.58 2'.08 a, '22 4.00 2.90
December 2.48 2.6& 2.01. 3.21 3.97 3.08
Average- 2.03 2.62, 2-39, 2-73 4.13. 3.43

51@-67.
0.84 1-.43' 1.2& 2.31 2.54 2.31
..january 1.53@
Tebruary .98 1.60 1.30 2.62 2.28 2.63
March 1. 13- 1.60 '1-75 1.42 2.80 2.53 2.51
April 1.28- 1.75. 1.48 1.62 2.93 2.39 2.93
Alay 1.37 .1.79 1.35 1.46 3.06 2.30 2.77
June 1.23 1.33, 1.19 1.37 2.23 2.31
July 1.26 1.42 1.30 1.57 2.44 2.31 2.09
1.35 1.55 1.34 1.69 2.49 2.50 1.97
SepterTber 1.36 1.56 1.27. 1.84 2.69 2.41
October 1.34- 1.35 1.25 1.73 2.32
Novenber 1.40. 1.45 1.22 1.88 2.67 2.22
Deceftxer 1.41 1.45 1.20 1.93 2.61 2.19
Average 1.25 1.52 :1-.59 -2.68 '2.35

9-10

for 31-40 counts compared to the same months in 1980. These low prices were

generally attributed to above average summer landings in the Gulf and uncer-

tainty regarding consumer demand. This market instability was apparently in-

creased by high inventory carrying costs due to current interest rates (Vondru-

ska, 1981). As. previously discussed (Section 9.1.1.1) the combination of rela-

tively low prices partially induced by high Gulf landings and the apparent be-

low average landings in the Carolinas and Georgia in the 1981 shrimp season will

decrease the aggregate ex-vessel value of the 1981 South Atlantic harvest. The

1981 season may be another example where the environmental isolation of Carolina

and Georgia shrimp stocks from the Gulf of Mexico has amplified the losses of

the South Atlantic fishermen.

9.1.2 Domestic Wholesale Market

9.1.2.1 Wholesale Value of Shrimp Products

The wholesale value of processed shrimp products from South Atlantic

plants was 62.4 million in 1979. Raw breaded shrimp generated the most gross

sales, 42 percent, for South Atlantic processors (Figure 9-1). Cooked breaded

shrimp represented 30 percent of the total and peeled and deveined shrimp 15

percent (Figure 9-1).

Although the nominal aggregate wholesale value of shrimp produced by

South Atlantic plants has increased since 1971, the real wholesale value during

the 1970's has not increased (J. R. Duggan, shrimp processor; pers. comm.).

Consequently, an increase in the total nominal wholesale value of processed

shrimp products since 1971 is not indicative of expanded market shares or rip-

ing profits for these plants.

9.1.2.2 Imported Products

The volume of imported shrimp increased from 119.1 million lb in 1960

to 256.0 million lb in 1980 (Table 9-1) with record imports of 270.4 million

lb in 1977. During the last two decades, imports have generally increased

with the 1970-79 annual average imports, 248.9 million 1b, exceeding the pre-

BREADED,:
COOKED,
:m6 ve,@.
:BREADED:-
RAW

PEELED.
DEVEINED
15.4 %

RAW` OTHE
HEADLESS
5.3

Figure 9-1. Shrimplroducts of the South Atlantic* States, 1979. (Source: National
Marine Fisheries. Service, Processed Fishery Products, Annual Sumary, 1979. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce.)
Note: Some of the products have b Ieen processed from raw products imported fran other
states or fxxx@ foreign countries..

9-12

vious decade (174.8 million lbY)by 42 percent. In the last 20 years, (1960-

1980) domestic shrimp landings have only exceeded imports during five years

and shrimp imports averaged about 58 percent of the U.S. annual apparent con-

sumption (Table 9-1)

The major type of1mported.shrimp product, raw headless.shrimp,consti-
tuted 63.3 percent by product.weight of all product types in 1980 (Table 9-6).

In the same year, the North American Continent continued to absorb more than

50 percent of all. shrimp imports (Table 9-7) with about 35 percent of all U.S.

imports provided by Mexico OMM, 1981).

Penaeid shrinp raised by Ecuadorian. mariculture firm supplied an esti-

mated 10 million lb to U.S. markets in 1980 (Fish Boat., 1981). These maricul-

ture firms apparently have lower total production costs per pound produced

compared to conventional shrimp trmyling technology (International Proteins

Corporations, 1980). Although these penaeid mariculture firms provide only a

small percent of the U.S. total shrimp supply, their capability to provide

large shrimp (less than 40 count) could have a significant seasonal price ef-

fect on these counts in the future.

Due to depressed ex-vessel prices in 1974, the National Shrimp Congress

filed a petition with-the U.S.- International Trade-Connission to seek import

relief pursuant to Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (USITC, 1976). The

final determination of the commission's investigation was that imported shrimp

was increasing in such quantities as to be the substantial cause of serious

economic injury to the domestic harvesting industry (TJSITC, 1976). Adjustment

assistance for the shrimp harvesters was recommended.

The economic impact of shrimp imports and the related issue of govern-

ment intervention to control imports has been reviewed by others (Miller and
Marasco, 1976; Wlt@ 1981). In summry, inports have -a detectable negative

impact upon domestic ex-vessel price. For example, Miller (1975) concluded

'.o'-t. s:"of
Table 9-6.. -01 _.L Ahrim (Source: NWS,
.- * - , , p @g'type of product, 1980.
Fisheries of the,United States, 1980.)

Type of Product Quantity Percent of Total
Thousand lb Thousand $ lb

'Shell-on: (beacls-off .13$)750.- 519,217 63.3% 72.2%

Peeled::

Camed. 4 M.15, 8-063

Not breaded-

RELw 66,270: IM,,M 30.2% 23.7%

Other 21,129 .4.5% 2.9%

172 395@
1% .1%

Thtal 219M8 100.0% 100.0%
31

9-14

(Source: WS, Fish-
Wt
M
Table 9-7..- Mjbyt-'@- inl-
eries of the United States, 1980.)-,' 7-

Region Quantity Percent of Tbtal
Mmand Ib Thousand $ Ib $

North America 117,135 446,595 53.4% 62.1%

South America :48,074 156,914 21.9% 21.8%

Asia 46,058 89R646 21.0% 12.5%

Eux-ope. .4-%617 1-4,717 .2.1% 2.0%
Australia and Oceanic 3:0630, 6,692 0.7% 0.9%

Aftica 1,894 4P699 0.9% 0.7%

Total 219,308 7190263 100.0% 100.0%
.......... ..............

9-15

that ex-vessel prices could be increasef by 30 percent if total supplies, which

includes imkports were reduced by 18 percent. This would have required a 36 per-

cent import reduction in 1975 assuming no change in the domestic landings.

In contrast shrimp imports have a positive impact on the processing in-

dustry which depends on imports for up to 50 to 70 percent of its raw product

needs (Prochask and Cato, 1981). A reduction of imports would lower U.S. pro-

duction of processed shrimp products. Significant reductions in shrimp imports

would likely, cause processing equipment and labor to be idle at times of the

year when domestic landings are low. This would increase costs, therefore in-

creasing the total difference or makeup between ex-vessel prices and consumer

prices. This increase in the marketing margin would be partly passed on to

consumers in the form of higher prices and possibly to fishermen in the form

of lower ex-vessel prices (Prochaska and Cato, 1981).

In essence shrimp imports have a positive effect on supplies and do not

produce tremendous pressures on domestic prices. In addition, government inter-

ference could decrease the market stabilizing effects of imports consequently,

import restrictions might be counterproductive (GMFMC, 1981). Hutchinson (1978)

suggested that adequate information on foreign market, not import quotas, might

reduce the apparent volatility of the U.S. shrimp market.

9.2 Export Market

U.S. exports of shrimp in 1980 consisted of 25.5 million lb of fresh and

frozen products valued at $82.9 million and 6.2 million lb of canned products

valued at $17.9 million (Table 9-8). About 34 percent of shrimp products ex-

ported in 1980 were imported from foreign countries. Data on exports by South

Atlantic shrimp processors are not available.

Canada, Japan, and Mexico were the major markets for U.S. domestic fresh

and frozen shrimp (Table 9-9). Small amounts of fresh and frozen shrimp were

exported to Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. Exports of domestic canned

9@16
Table 9-8: Exports -of ic. and,,,, -reigti,;iiil37:iJW'.'Vlroducts, 1980. (Source:
NWS, Fisheries of ted Statei, 1980"I"Y

-rcent of Total
(946 PL
Thousand Thousand pounds dollars
pounds dollars

andIrozen:
.15Y.913 483M 62. 59.0%
9-5m 33 997.
Foreign 37.4% 41.0%

..25%1479. 82,925 .100.0% 100.0%
Can@ed:
DomBstic. 5,832 17,207 94.0% 96.2%
Foreign 371 679.. 6. 01% 5.8%

TWAL 6.1203 171886 100.0% 100. 0%

71otal:
Dcmestic 21,745 66.1135 68.6% 65.6%
Foreign 9.937 32,676 31.4% .34.4%

TOM, 31.1682 100.0811 100.0% 100.0%

EI-17

Table 9-9. Exports of dcmestic fresh and frozen shrimp, by country of destina-
tion, 1980. (Source: NWS, Fisheries of the United States,. 1980*1)

ODuntry Quantity Percent of Total
lbousand lb lbousand $ lb $

Canada, .8,016 23,403 .-50.4% 47.8%

11 670,, 17.K
Japan.
21 841'' 23.9%

Mexico
3's 723, 10!,416 23A% 21.3%

-Saudi Arabia. IM 4Wr .7% .9%

Netherlands@ 180 346 1. 1% .7%

.New Zealand 62 262. .4% .5%

Sweden 32 135 .2% .3%

-Hong Kong 62 60 .4% .1%

Other 891 2,186 5.5% 4.5%

Total 15,913, 48,928 100.0% 1W.()%

were 5.8 million lb in 1980 (Table 9-8 and 9-10). Exports to Canada
accounted for 73.4L?percent of the total.

9.3 Domestic Harvesting Sector'.

9.3.1 Organization and Economic (hax-Acteristics

The most recent (1976) and comprehensive survey of the South Atlantic

shriap-trawler fleet was performed by Liao (1979). The study examined 301 cam-

marcial trawlers that exceeded. ft@ in length. 7hese trawlers were classi-

fied into four mobility classes based on the number.of states within which

they fished,,,for shrimp (Table 9w:11). A,total of 78 percentwere categorized

as-mobility class I trawlers; the majority of trawlers in the region fished

only in their home state. North Carolina and Florida (east coast) had the high-

est percent of mobility class I trmvlers,(Table 9-11). In general, results in-

dicated that mos t trawlers that fir-hed in other states did so during peak

shrimping season in the out-of-state fishery. Based upon the characteristics
of'the trawlers (Table 9-12), a number of.facto'rs appeared to be closely asso-

ciated with mobility of trawlers. The more mobile trawlers 1) were larger,

(2) had captains with.no outside fishery employment; and (3) had greater pro-

ductivity per day in out-of-state shrimping.
1i -profitability of trawler operation is measured by the net returns

(income) received from its operation after all costs of production have been

deducted from gross returns. The average gross returns of three types of trawl-

ers varied considerably. Mobility classes III trawlers had the highest annual

gross returns ($122,000) of three mobility classes (Table 9-13).

Production costs are broken down into two categories, variable and fixed.

Variable costs comprise all costs item that vary with fishing effort. Fixed

cost (depreciation, insurance, etc.) represent those costs that are incurred

regardless of whether the vessel is operated..

94-
19

Table 9@-10,., Exp@s of, dcmestic camed shrimp, by country of'destination, 1980..
(Source: NMES,,Fisheries of the United States, 1980).'1

Percent of Total
Thousand Thousand
pounds, dollars., mds dollars
Potm-

771. 7
@3"4%
Camda'., .1
M, 74.2%
@d
.,-'United nnkd@'. 6.8% 6.3%
an 2 5.5%
M-Itzierl d 88''_ 942 .4.9%
T@ 3.4% 2.3%
358.- 2.1%
New Zealand `105-,
2.0%, 1.9%
.9%
Japan, 51 -116 .7%
Federal. Republic of@-@. .3% .2%
Genmny
380 1,281.,111 6.5% 6.8%
Other

17,207 100.0% 100.

Table- 9-11. Number of "lers in the tbur- i'qobility blasses in 1976.
(Source: Liao, 1979).

State or Region Mobility Estimated Number Percent Of
Mass of Shrimp Trawlers Total Trawlers

South. Carolina - - - - J 264 69
11 103, 27
111 3.1 3
IV,
.383 100

North Carolina i_ 1 938 87
130 12
6 1
IV 0 0
1,074 100

Georgia 1 176 53
11 106 33
111 28 8
IV 20 6
330 100

Florida 144 80
15
1 1
8 4
IV
180 100

All South, 1 11-522 78
Atlantic States 11 366 19
111 46 2
IV 33 1
1,967 100

91,21

-dobility't-lasses, 1976.
Table 9@-12. Average --pmracteristics of %trawlers by
(Bource: Liao, 1979).@

Chararateristics Mobility Class
III IV
W176.. N=91
W29 W5

Age.,(years) 14 13 7

Cz
d':
65
Length, (f6et):@ .40-.

13
17 19 19
Beam
f 6et

13brselpomr, IL80 237 .279 261

Gross Tonage 59 62

Net Size (feet) .39 66 69

Maket Value of
the trawler 23,157 60,700. 72,190 80,000

Equity of.the
tra .16,429 43,610-., 44,813 31,000
wler

Percent of Trawlers
with- the following,
equipment:
Radar 18 62 59 60
Loran .17 55 100
Recorder 56 80 79 100
VHF 45 85 86 100
C.B. 90 97 .100 100

9-22

Table 9-13: Average "Annual costs and returns among three mobility classes of

trawlers in the South Atlantic states, 1976. (Source: Liao, 1979)

item Mobility Class3

N=158 1 N=69 N=23

Gross returns:
Shrimp fishery $26,512 $65,760 $117,498
Other fisheries 840 821 4,502
TOTAL 27,352 66,581 122,000

Variable costs:
Vessel, repair and maintenance 2,378 4,405 8,443

Gear repair and maintenance 1,234 2,250 4,243
Ice 649 1,898 2,398
Fuel 3,205 6,709 10,908
Heading and packing 1,264 4,090 4,940
Crew shares 9,968 26,144 44,190
Captain shares 6,938 12,707 17,369
Other variable costs 1 198 3,169 4 216
TOTAL variable costs 26,835 61,373 96,707

Fixed costs:
Dep reciation 1,138 2,522 6,357
License Fee 55 231 295
Interest 382 1,044 1,781
Insurance 433 1,314 2,781
Other fixed costs 156 375 413
Total fixed costs 2,164 5,486 11,564

TOTAL Costs
(Variable and Fixed costs) $28,999 66,859 $108,271

Net Returns.
(Gross returns- Total costs) -1,647 -278 13,729

Income above variable costs
(Gross return - variable costs) 517 5,208 25,293

N=Number of vessels
Return to owner's labor, management, and investment
Mobility Class I Trawler - Those who fished only one state
Average length of vessel =12m (40 ft)
Mobility Class II Trawler - Those who fished in two states
Average length of vessel =17m 57 ft)
Mobility Class III Trawler Those who fished in three states
Average length of vessel 20 m (65 ft)

Variable, costs represent'the largest proportion of total costs for all

three groups of vessels (Table 9-13). The mobility class III vessel's vari-

able costs ($96,707) were about 4,times higher than that of mobility class I

trawlers. Variable costs tended to increase as the size of vessel increased.
'Annual 4-ixed costi, for the average mobility class III trawler were about

$11$564, compared to:$2,164 for the mobility class I trawler. Cbviously,

mob* -and"' UI trawlers due to
-fixed Cos items were much higher for ility.-.II

higher capital-investments assodiated with these larger vessels.

A-wide dispersion in profitability was observed for the South Atlantic

shrimp fleet. Net returns for the average mobility class III trawler were

$13,1729 which was the highest with respect to allmobility classes (Table 9-

13). However, not all travlers in the mobility class III experienced posi-

tive net returns; 48 percent of the trawlers in this group had losses. The

average mobility class I and-II trawlers had total costs greater than gross

returns (Table 9-13).- Of the 158 mobility claw I trawlers, 108 trawlers (68

percent) sustained losses in conmercial fishing. Among the mobility class II

trawlers, 62 pei7ceant had unprofitable operations and only 39 percent could

show a profit.

Productivity analysis of trawlers indicated that the more mobile, larger

trawlers had a higher catch per day received higher average prices, and yield-

.ed higher gross returns per year than less mobile, smaller trawlers. The num-
ber of shrimping days was the most important variable in determining annual

shrimp production for trawlers in the region.

9.3.,2.'Income Trends in the Fleet

9.3.2.1 Historical Gross Income Trends

The number of vessels in the South Atlantic states has increased from

1,090 in 1960 to 1,212 in 1979 (Table 9-14). In addition, there were 814 small

boats shrimping in 1960 and by 1975 -the number has increased to about 1,259 with

a decline in 1978. The average gross tons per vessel has also increased by about

Table 9-14. Wmiber of vessels and boats", gross tonnage per vessel, landings of
shrimp,_.Jandings per-craft and.landings_per@grow-ton, South Atlantic sitates,
L960-1975. (Source: 1960-75 datsi 11shety 'StAti.,�rtids -of 'the 'U. S.,. Various annual
issues of Statistiqal.,,Rjgest series--1978 data Richard L. Schween, Resource Sta-
cqx
tistia.-Division, NMC`,&' '- " @ - " * *` @"

................................

Item. 1960 1965 19-70 1975 197@1-/
. ........... ....................

%.,.(if, Vessels .1,090 958 949 -1,200 1 212

No. of Boats 814 691 727 1,259 1,013

Total Crafts
1" 9w 1;w 1;676( 2$459 2,225

Gross Tons Per Vessel 27.6 2875F 37.9 43.1 46.0
r1lot al Landings (13-000 lb.')?J 18,581 16.,689 13,080 15,767 10$126

landings Per Craft (1b) 9,759 10,121 7,804 6,412 4,551

Landings Per Gross ton @lb) 617 612 364 .305 182
Real Ex-vessel Dollars per Gross Ton 3/ N/A NIA 272 362 279

................

Preliminary -Data

landings reported in heads-off units.,

Data calculated by dividing deflated, aggregate ex-vessel dollars (Table 9-3)

by aggregate gross tonnage.(See Table 8-12) for a given year.

9-25

67 percent from 27.6 in 1969 to 46.0 in 1978. However, additional crafts and

substantial increases in gross tons pervessel have not resulted in increases

in total catch. Landings per year per craft have declined by about 31 per-

cent and landings per gross ton have declined by 61 percent from 1960 to 1978.

This indicates that the total of available shripm has been divided among an in-

creasing number and size of crafts.

_In contrast to the apparent decline in average catches in the 1970's,

earl ex-vessel dollars per gross ton have not declined (Table 9-14). The in-

crease in ex-vessel shrimp prices has evidently offset the decline in catches;

consequently, this index (real ex-vessel dollars per gross ton) of gross in-

come per vessel does not display an obvious decline in recent years. Net in-

Come trends will be discussed in Section 9.3.2.2.

9.3.2.2 Net Income Trends

Jones et al. (1979) reported average annual costs and returns for South

Carolina shrimp trawlers from 1971 thru 1975. There has been no similar tempo-

ral surveys published for any of the South Atlantic States since the 1975 sea-

son. A crude estimate of average net; income for trawlers during the 1976 to

1980 South Carolina shrimp season was prepared in May, 1980 for the South Atlan-

tic Fishery Management Council (Rhodes, 1980). Both studies indicated that

the average South Carolina shrimp vessel over 17 m (55 ft) during the 1971-80

season has probably experienced negative net revenues in five of the last ten

years. Since South Carolina and Georgia have similar fleet characteristics

and associated vessel mobility classes (Liao, 1979), the South Carolina experi-

ence my also be applicable to Georgia.

In contrast, the North Carolina and Florida (east coast) resident fleets

differ in average gross tonnage (Rhodes, 1980) and shrimp species catch

composition compared to South Carolina. Consequently, the analysis of cost

trends in South Carolina my not be applicable to North Carolina and Florida.

@1&26

-Inaddi ion, annual trends and impacts of income derived from other fisheries

by South Atlantic shrimp trawlers Liao (1979) has shown that re-

venues generated from other-fisheries by vessels in Mobility Class III (aver-

age LOA of 19 M1 65 ft) constituted about four percent of total gross revenues

in 1976.

Assuming that the 1971 to 1975 South Carolina time serieq is generally

applicable to the South Atlantic f leet, an indexing of-costs and.revenues for

-trends ccmpare(
this period has been prepared (Table 9-15). Fuel cost i to the

CPI constitutes the most obvious variable cost increase for,the 1971-75 period.

Liaols,(1979) budgets indicated that the 1976 fuel costs constituted approxi-

mately 11 percent of total operating costs for Mobility class II vessels.

Ebodes (1980) estimated fuel costs to be about 18 percent of annual operating

costs for'. Brown and Lugo (1981) concluded that

Southeastern shrimp trawlers had the hi&est fossil fuel energy input to fish

protein energy.output of any U.S. ccranercial fishery. Much of this is due to

the distance frcm fishing grounds, time spent searching for shrimp and by-

catches which- result in fewer shrimp caught per tow.

Althoug1ithe rate of increase for fuel prices decreased in 1980 (Table

9-16),,fuel costs are still expected to constitute over 15 percent of operating

costs. In addition, a simple linear projection of the latest U.S. Department,

of Energy (August, 1981) wholesale heating oil prices indicates that fuel

prices will continue to increase during L%2 .(Table 9-16).
a'sedpetrolean costs.
Also, there are indirect effects resulting frcm Incre'

Such items as nets, plastic buckets, and other gear which are made frcm petro-

leum distillates, have increased tremendously. The preparation and distribu-

tion of ice, which is relatively energy intensive, has also constituted a:signi-

ficant increase in operating costs. In 1972, .a 300 lb block of ice cost South

Carolina vessels about $2.50; by 1980 the vessel price had increased 240 percent

9-27

Tab16-9-15.' Cosi and.revenue index, for South Caxolina shrimp trawlers as calcu--,_.
lated from Jones L-t al 1979)@. (l97l=-100)I--.-,,,,

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

..-VarLable Costs
Not Proportional to catch--'
124, 146 200
90. 71 72
Proportional to catch@,:' 100 12A. 157 Ill. 163
100 :106. .100 104 114
Fixed. Cost@
1:00 108 U7 107'
Total cost-,... 124
'T 100:. 130 87
otal Revenue: .97 141
152
Consumer. Price Index. _100, 109 137 140

Consumer Price Index (1967=100),for meat, poultry and fish indexed to 1971 for
this table.

9@-28

Table 9-16.. Typical quarterly and shrimp season No. 2 diesel fuel prices paid
..in South Carolina, 1971 to 1980.(Source: S*.C. Marine Resources Center, Charles-
ton, S.C.)

.Year Seasonl./Mean Standard Deviation

1971'. $0,..14 0
1972 0
0 . A
'0.18 .07
M4 0.33
.03
1975 0.35, .03
..1976. D.38. .02
0.437- 0
J978' 0.45 02
1979 0.76 :57
1980 0.97 N/C
1981 (May-Sept)
1. N/C
4uarterly Means

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

1 $0.43 $0.51 $0.94 $1.12 $1.16*
11 0.43- 0.61 0.96 1.11 1. 17*
111 '0'.44. 0.78 0.96 1. 16* 1. 19*
IV 0.47, 0.99 1. 16* 1.22*

Mea n price for eightmonths, -May to December'.

Forecasted price based upon "Case 21' price path of wholesale heating oil
k 11hi
N6.2 (Short-term Energy-*Outlod , Aug., 1981, U.S. Dept. of Energy). ' s
case is reflective of current.market conditions with assumed tightening
of markets in 1982.11 Marine fuel.prices calculated f th, following re-
gression: Marina Prices .0275 + 1.122 (Wholesale Pricel .970, (T
15.782).

9-29

to about $6. 00 (S.C. Div. of Marine Resources unpubl. data).

Rising wages also have affected the harvesting sector in the form of

increasing vessel maintenance expenses and packing costs. In 1972, South

Carolina shrimp packing and heading costs were approximately 12 per heads-

off 1b, and by 1978, packing costs over $0.20 per lb were not uncommon (Rhodes.,

1980). In 1980, the average packing cost was $0.27 per lb for South Carolina

trawlers (S.C. Div of Marine Resosurces, unpubl. data).

A similar indexing of costs far Gulf of Mexico shrimp, trawlers from

1971 to 1977 demonstrated that fixed costs (e.g. insurance, interest payments,

depreciation) increased 249 percent (1971 =100 percent) second only to the in-

crease in fuel costs. As discussed in Section 10.3.1 the cost of shrimp ves-

sels has risen substantially during the 1970's, consequently, fixed costs es-

pecially for new vessels are assumed to have had a greater share of total an-

nual fishing costs in recent years.

9.3.2.3. Current Indicators of Fleet Economic Performance, 1980-81

As noted by others (e.g. GMFMC, 1981) the U.S. Department of Commerce

announcement of a $12.2 million aid program for Southeastern shrimpers exem-

plified the financial crisis faced by the harvesting sector in 1980. In South

Carolina for example, the 1981 season is appraently characterized by below

average catches coupled with a decline in deflated revenues per nominal vessel

days (Table 9-17).

The financial situation of South Atlantic shrimpers is reflected by

the difficulties of vessel owners to make mortgage payments or to generate cash

flows for future expenditures (e.g. capital construction fund accounts). In

the 1979 period, the 3rd Farm Credit District which includes the Carolinas,

Georgia, and Florida classified 19 aquatic loans (mainly trawlers) as "pro-

blem" loans (C. Richard Crawford, Federal Land Bank of Columbia, S.C.; pers.

comm.). In 1980, 33 loans ($2.8 million) were classified as "problem" loans

9-30
Table 9-17. 'Nominal annual.catch (heads-off,lb),.and dollars per vessel-day
for South Carolina, 1974 to 1981. (Source: Fisheries Statistics Section, S.C.
Marine Resources Divisioe@-,u4publ. data)..

Year Reported Aggregate Per Vessel-DapV Real Dollars
Vessel-Oi:yg/ Catch Dollars
Ib.. $

1974: 11,7,67 2W 2M. 127

1975 17.9 .185 '365 199

1076 16,648. 183. 367 205
BM 6 31961 181 405 227

1978 13,653 161 494 238

1979 22,533 166 680 2&5

1980 W,930 165 494 1@%
5/
19811Y 76 230 93

Catch and dollars per vessel-day has not been standardized for fishing gear.,
location and other factors.

These aggregate vessel days have not been adjusted for changes in participa-
tion of shrimp vessel in the reporting system.

Doilaxs.deflated with the U.S. Department of-Labor's Consumer Price Index
(1967t--100) for meats... poultry.and fish.

The 1981 data*@@frcm June thru. Augist.

Dollars deflated with the 1980 CPI for meats, poultry and fish.

9-31

and the District's PCA's incurred $91,000 in bad debt loss. In Georgia, the

Small Business Administration's 1977-78 diaster loan program (See Section 10)

has 156 (57 percent) borrrowers past due and legal action has been initiated

to foreclose on 43 borrowers (S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res., Coastal Res.

Devl., Brunswick, GA; pers. comm.). The NMFS's Financial Service Division has

reported that deposits in Capital Construction Fund accounts decreased signifi-

cantly in the South Atlantic States during the 1980 and the current 1981 sea-

sons.

Besides seeking non-fishing income, commercial shrimpers in the Carolinas

and Georgia in recent years have basically pursued a combination of two atypical

fishing strategies: (1) migrating to the Gulf of Mexico grounds for several

months and/or (2) fishing for non-shrimp species off the Atlantic coast during

the summer and fall months (see Section 8.2.4.3).

9.3.3 Capitalization

The following section was adapted from the revised Fishery Management

Plan for Shrimp, Gulf of Mexico, 1981;

During periods of economic prosperity when shrimp prices are rapidly

rising, profits to the owners of shrimp vessels have exceeded the returns their

capital could have earned in other alternatives. In economic terms, "excess

profits" have been generated; consequently, both new entrants and existing

owners in the fishery have been motivated to make capital investments in the

fishery. When prices declined, vessels continued to shrimp in the short run

even at a loss as long as current gross revenues equals variable operating

(trip) costs. When revenues are less than variable costs, vessels ceased fishing

for periods of time. The expected decision of the owner would be to sell the

vessel and use the capital elsewhere. However, as is the case with much agri-

cultural equipment, shrimp vessels represent a classic case of asset fixity

9-32

'(prices rising more rapidly than costs). (Johnson, 1958). No entrepreneur wants

to invest capital in equipment (i.e. vessel) that will currently yield a nega-

tive return; consequently, the vessel: owner(s) finds selling his vessel(s) diffi-

cult during "poor" years. Therefore, vessel owners sometime fare economic hard-

ships because of investment decisions madeduring timas of rapidly rising prices

and relatively good.catches.

Based upon the@preceding infonation, especially the.fleet's declining

capacity utilization in both engineering and economic terms and the apparent

volatility of-vessel profits, it is suggested that the South Atlantic shrimp

fishery may be overcapitalized for an open access fishery. Mom (1981) has con-

eluded that the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery also displays,the symptams of over-

capitalization in an open access fishery as induced by 11... high product prices."

Then given an open access fishery and asset fixity, overcapitalization

from an economic standpoint seem inevitable and may become worse as product
prices continue`_'to rapidly rise. In addition, this situation will usually
place vess@l owners in negative.return situations.during tinies of falling demand

for shrimp and/or significantly low annual shrimp stocks.

Usually the economic impact of free access focuses on the quantities hax-

vested and the effort and capital expended. Much debate normally occurs when
proponents of Maxinm Econcuic Yieldgmagement argue that no .t only less effort

but also lower harvests will be beneficial to fisbennm, processors, and society

at large. As Gulland (1972) indicates, penaeid shrimp fisheries exhibit flat-

topped yield curves. At high levels of effort, the implication is that reduc-

tion in fishing effort is likely to result'in proportionally a smaller decrease

in shrimp landings. Thus, management of fishing effort at some point below

MSY must be concerned with the benefits and costs of reducing fishing effort.

Consequently, with overfishing and lower sustained yield, previou sly cited as

not being a valid concept in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery, the benefits,

Maximn Economic Yield (MEY) is the level'of harvest from the common property
resource
that maximizes the stream of generated net incomes. ove- Ume-

9-33

to society from any benefit-cost measurement must mainly come from reductions

in harvest costs. Reducing the total harvest costs would involve reducing

the number of firms (fishing effort) in the industry. Unfortunately, Ander-

son (1977) indicates that regulation of harvesting cost is more complicated

in penaeid fisheries because the usual concept of both dynamic static MEY

are not applicable. Regardless, uncontrollable external economic variables

such: as rapidly rising fuel prices, and the normal consumer demand related

price movements, make the overcapitalizatoin issue apparent during the less

satisfactory economic periods. Given the fisheies economic "Environment"

and the independence of penaeid stocks from fishing effort (i.e. costs), do

the positive net economic benefits gained during times of rapidly increasing

prices exceed the apparent negative benefits which become evident during times

of low prices and to what degree could limited access mitigate these negative

benefits?

9.4 Domestic Processing Sector

In the South Atlantic states, most shrimp processing plants axe owned

by single facility corporations. They engage in peeling deveining, cooking,

freezing, breading, and preparing specialty products.. There were 19 shrimp

processing plants in 1980 (Table 9-18). Thirteen were located in Georgia and

Florida.

Cato and Prochaska (1981) reported that 51 percent of the shrimp pro-

cessed in, Georgia in 1979 were imported fran another country, about 37 percent

cam from the Gulf of Mexico, and the remaining 12 percent of shrimp came from

Georgia sources.

Prochaska and Andrews (1974) found that in 1973, Florida processors in-

ported 40 percent of the shrimp entering their plants. The shrimp processing

industry in Florida is expanding in total volume, but the rate of withdrawal

Table, 9-18. --Shrlmn. processor: plants and employment, 1976-1980. (Source: Soutb.
.,unpubl. data, 1981)
j3t Fisheries Oenter,... National Marine Fisheries Service,

State- Processing Plant
.1976 1977 L978 1979 19BU W76 19W W78 W79 WW

Northr Carolina. @(D), (D) (D) (D (D) (D) 15

0, -.'O@- 0 (D) (D)
.Sotrth Carolina 0'.. ;:(D)",I (D)

4.. 4t. -5- '1027, 1064 1,154 885 901

5W
6'
PIC)ri(*,,- 10.- 57 . -200
470'
coast
.(eaft:"

7MAL 17 19
is 15, 17 1638- 1751 1714 1359 1116

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information

9-35

of individual firms exceeds the rate of new entrants. A shortage of shrimp

supplies appears to put a severe constraint on the entrance of new firms and

the expansion of existing ones.

Total employment for the South Atlantic shrimp processing industry is

shown in Table 9-18. Because of the small number of shrimp processing plants

in South and North Carolina, detail, in presentation of their employment is

restricted. The reduction in employment was noticeable during the last three

years. This reduction probably reflected declining profitability of shrimp

processors in the United States.

10.0 DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESSES, MARKETS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE FISHERY

There are few data available on business relationships (e.g. bilateral

arrangements, bargaining behavior., etc.) within the various fisheries markets.

Maiolo et al. (1980) surveyed the marketing of shrimp in North Carolina but very

little has been done elsewhere in the region. Therefore, much of this chapter

is based on personal observations of the author and other participants in this

study.

10.1 Relationships Among Harvesting, Brokering and Processing Sectors

10.1.1 Industry Structure

10.1.1.1 Shrimp Dealers

The first middleman in the marketing of shrimp is generally the dealer.

Seafood dealers or shrimp packers are usually merchant wholesalers commonly found

in agricultural markets who buy in small quantities from many producers and as-

semble, large quantities for the market (Marcus et al., 1975) Dealers assemble

shrimp for the market by removing the heads with hand labor, packing shrimp in

100 lb boxes containing ice and storing them in coolers until shipping. Some

shrimp are usually kept for direct retail sales at the dock. These headless,

shells-on shrimp are often called "green" shrimp by various wholesalers.

The average number of trawlers selling to South Carolina and Georgia deal-

ers is about 10 (Nix et al, 1975, McKenzie et al. 1976) although this number might

vary according to the catch, dealer restrictions, physical space and other fac-

tors (e.g. interpersonal relationships, dealer services., etc.). During peak

ishing periods, some dealers may have facilities to serve more than 25 vessels

during a 24 hour period. An inventory of seafood dealer facilities in coastal

South Carolina in 1975 (McKenzie et al., 1976) probably typifies the majority of

shrimp dealer facilities in the South Atlantic States (Table 10-1). In South

Carolina, only 45 percent of the dealers had freezers in 1975 with an average

size of 381 square feet (McKenzie et al., 1976).

10-2

Table 10-1. Facility characteristics of South Carolina seafood dealers in 1975.
(Source: McKenzie et al. 1976).

Number of dealers sampled 22

Mean

Linear Footage of Dock (feet) 387

Number of resident vessels
regularly unloading 10

Packing house Size (square feet) 2,290

Cooler size (square feet) 362

Number of dealers with freezers 10 (45%)

10,3

In@ comparison to large seafood ports there higly specialized services

have developed, South- Atlantic otates� seafood dealers also are purveyors of

ice, fuel, and-other supplies. Other services may be provided including in-

formal and formal creditarrangement and locating needed equipment for vessel

1. repairs.. The usual-informal'agreement in this relationship is an understand-

ing that the shrimper IS catch will Ix),, handled by the dealer providing these

other services.. Frcmthe dealer's standpoint, other motives my include non-

.price competition to:keep the fishermen at,.his facilities and to reduce lost

shrimPing time due to repairs (Maiolo et. al.., 1980).

There were over 360 seafood dealers in the South Atlantic in 1980 (Table

10-2). In North Carolina, Maiolo et al. (1980) classified general chaxacteris-

tics of dealers based on typical gross sales volume. 11arger dealers" with

over one million dollars in sales per year purchased shrimp from large vessels

(larger than 15.,m; 50 ft) which fished in deeper water areas of Pamlico Sound

and, oceanic waters. 'Medium sized dealers1%. handling about one hundred thou-

sand to one million dollars in annual gross sales, apparently purchased from

locally based smaller vessels (15,m; 50 ft'2and under) which axe oriented toward

fishing in protected waters (e.g., sounds). L'Small dealers" with annual sales

less-than-$50,000 may purchase Ah 1 11 ... from small boats, skiffs and wholesale

from larger operators.11 These dealers include truck wholesalers ("peddlers"),

who my only derive a portion of their shrimp income from retail sales. Maiolo

et AL(1980) chara cterize the shrimp peddler as a marketer without permanent

facilities and selling shrimp as ... part-time activity undertaken to provide
L

an income supplement'.

Shrimp dealers handle "green" headless shrimp and most dealers have limit-

ed capacity for their perishable product. These "green" shrimp thus constitute

a perishable food coamodity sold and purchased at other levels in the market' g

channel.

10-4

Table 10-2. Licensed shrimp dealers or wholesalers. for North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, Georgia, and jdast coast of FloridELlj in IL980 or 1981. (Source: N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries, S.C. Division of Marine Resources and Georgia Coastal Resour-
ces Division.

2
State Nud3er of Dealers or Wholesalers-/

North, Carolina. 264

South Carolina 49

Georgia.
34
Florida, East coast 16

Total -363

YFlorida wholesaler licenses do not differentiate species to be sold or purchased.
(J. Ernest Snell, NMFS, cbhw,.,j%- The number of east coast Flori-
...'AiAbalers reporting shrimp landings to.the NMFS.1s Reso 'urce'Statistics Office in
Miami,Florida was-used, consequently the Florida.data axe Rot comparable to the.
other.
NExcelyt for Florida, these dat .a include,.-'@small volume dealers and minor wholesal-
ers which may have purchased less thaii 1,000 pounds of shrimp in a given license
year.

10.1. 1. 2 Processors.

Shrimp processors are usually corporate, business firms which prepare vari-

ous processed shrimp products like frozen, canned, breaded, and specialty pro-

ducts (dried, sauces, pastes and convenience dishes) or directly wholesale head-

less shrimp. In the Southeast region, about half of the processors axe family

owned and six-percent are organized as partnerships (GOW, 1980).

Due to@expansion of existing processing facilities and the shortage of do-

mestic landings,. the, rate. of w:Lthdrmvl of. individual firms exceeds the rate of

new entrants (CHM, 1980). Florida processors.surveyed in 1972 (AlvareZ @et al.

1976) indicated half-of the firni�. were characterized by me or more types of ver-

tical integration-with six of the seven largest processors displaying backward

integration (i.e.,.ownership of control of ramr supplies). Although backward inte-

gration is apparently cba eri tic of shrimp processors, purchases frcin indepen-

dent shrimp dealers and other wholesalers still constitute the major source of

dcoestic. shrimp for South Atlantic processors.

10. 1. 1.3 Brokers and other 'Wholesalers

'Wholesalers other@than dealers serve as middlemen between various buyers

and sellers like dealers, processors, restaurant purveyors, etc. They take

legal possession of shrimp products and provide transportation, storage and

other functions at various levels in the market.

In contrast to the shrimp wholesalers, the broker does not take physical

possession or control over the shrimp he sells. The broker acts as an interme-

diary at various marketing levels with the biggest use of brokers in interstate

and international sales, establishment of new business contlcts,@.", and promotion
of new products. In addition, brokers offer an alternative to.@the-'@!sniall-bu@dness

firm. which find it uneconomical to maintain its awn selling agent. For example,

Alvarez et al. (1976) noted that mediumi and amll-size Florida shrimp processors

generally use brokers to market their products.

10.1-.2 -DtxrtE@@p -1@e@ -and'Pricing
10. 1. 2. i -Domestic -marketing channels

In the South Atlantic region, marketing of shrimp from the trawler to the

,final consumer may involve a variety of channels but is-usually limited to shrimp-

ers, wholesalers, processors, carriers and various retailers (e.g. restaurants,

seafood stores, etc.). 'As a food ccmmodity,. size has a strong influence on the

.,wholesaling of headless shrimp (tails). In.general,. ex-vessel andwholesale

prices for "p-een." shrimp are inversely related to the number of tails per pound

Shrimp size also-influences final consumer preference and associated

marketing channels. Shrimp less than about 40 count generally are sold to rest--@'-

and those over 40 count go principally to different processors (e.g.

breaders and canners) and fresh. seafood retailers.

Besides, raw shrimp sizes and associated prices, there are many other factors

*hich-influence marketing channels; (1) informal and contractual marketing channel
relationships (2)' degree of. industry concentration,, (3) da,m).stic raw shiimp
sources, (4) foreign market production of raw and processed shrimp,products.and

(.5) product form and product differentiation activities (e.g. exclusive recipes).

Product differentiation activities are usually associated wi-th firm having larger

shares of the market compared to firms without product different iation activities
(Alvarez etal., 1976). Below normal ex-vesse 1 prices in the Carolinas and Georgia

ly
'may teWorarily
offer higher prices than processor dcminated channels. For example, in 1974 de-

pressed ex-vessel prices apparently placed Georgia fishermen and dealers in the

position of selling their catches 11. . . directly to customers and retail outlets."

(Georgia Coastal Area Planning et al., 1976). During 1981, South Carolina dealers

increased their shipments to New York Is Fulton Fish. Market due to depressed ex-

vessel prices in other channels. The Fulton Fish Market is generally considered

a temporary shrimp market because it is extremely volume sensitive and usually pays

competitive prices for large shrimp (A.e'.,less than 40 count) only.

10-7

A summary of raw shrimp marketing from the dealer level (Table. 10-3) indi-

cates local retail purchases usually constitute a small percent Of shrimp sold

by dealers. Although a North Carolina survey (Summey, 1977) indicated that

shrimp processors directly purchased 24 percent of the dealer's product, the

survey probably understimates the actual percentage pruchased by shrimp pro-

cessors indirectly from other intermediaries (i.e., Brokers and wholesalers). The

shrimp processors of Georgia and Florida, with their inventory capacity and other

econommics (e.g., large raw shripm purchases) serve as "buyers" for the very sea-

sonal raw supplies provided by South Atlantic shrimpers via the seafood dealers

and other intermediaries.

The general marketing channels for the South Atlantic (Figure 10-1) are pro-

bably similar to that reported for the Gulf with processors as the key channel

members. Retail stores constitute 35 Percent of Florida processed shrimp products

sales and institutional outlets accounted for 62 percent of 1972 (Alvarez et al.,

1976). In South Carolina, about 74 percent of the headless shrimp sold in restau-

rants were purchased from distributors not directly purchasing South Carolina

shrimp (Laurent et al., 1975). Summey (1977) reported" that 20 percent of the

North Carolina shrimp was exported to Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and other

Atlantic States for direct retail and restaurant use. Cato and Prochaska (1981)

reported Georgia secondary wholesalers ("retail-wholesale dealers")sold only 28

percent of their product t o various Georgia buyers and 69 Percent was sold to

buyers in other Southeastern states. In summary, marketing channels for raw

shrimp and processed shrimp products constitute an elaborate matrix of marketing

channels weakly, influenced by the landing location and historically dependent upon

processor purchases.

10. 1. 2.2 Pricing of Shrimp

Considering the quantities purchased by processors in the South Atlantic

States, processor price quotations obviously constitute critical price information

.10-8

Table 10-3. Buyers of raw shrimp sold or handled'by seafood. deal inj the. South
Atlantic.

Annual Percent of Shells-On Headless Shrimp Sold
lina2/
4/
Buyers North Carolina-Y South Caro Georgi Florida

5% 55% 73%
Processors 24%

Othek
.-X/A
Interimedii@ie&5j 70% 36% W%

Toca-I Retail
N/A

&x=-rized frm &=my (1977) for 1974.
?J Summarized frcm Rhodes (1974) for L971

Sh @.G!eorgia Coastal Area Planning and Development Coamission

@j Summarized from Alvarez"et al.., (1976) for 1972.'- Marketing information in-
eludes both West and East coast Florida processors purchases and,,consequent-
ly, may overestimate quantities sold by dealers to processors.

This category includes restaurants, wholesalers and brokers. The brokers and
wholesalers may sell a significant portion to the processors.

Quantities sold directly-to consumers except for Georgia. Georgia sales in-
clude'..wholesaling to local retailers.

-1. -Major - nintetijig- cha=61s, for sh#M pro@ioa.. (.Source: GMFMC@ 1980)-
ngure.. 107

FOREIGN SHRIMP
SHRIMP 'FISHERMEN
U.S.
FISHERMEN,

DOCKSIDE
bEALERS,.,@.,

!MPORTIN6@*:,: DOMESTIC
ROKERS OR dR
BROKERS
WHOLESALERS

PROCESSORS:
Breader, Canners,
JOBBERS
-Driers Freezers
Peelers, Speciaity Producers,

INDEPENDENT
BROKERS
WHOLESALERS.

Retailers, Restaurants, Food. Chain Warehouses,
Co-ops, Institutions, and Importing Countries.

ULTIMATE CONSUMERS

BOLD LINES INDICATE MOST HEAVILY USED
@R I I I

CHANNELS.

10-10

for at least, -short-term raw shrimp pricing strategies by various market interme-

diaries. Due to the coupetitiveness of existing market channels, wholesalers

usually work.on narrow margins to cover overhead and profits. During 1981, see-

ondary wholesalers reported losses when purchasing shrimp from dealers. In some

situations, "green" shrimp wholesalers,wi1l purchase shrimp from dealers at

prices which -will not yield. a net profit- to the wholesaler. The wholesaler en-
p
ters into this.breakeven.tran ion in order to maintain buying relation-

ships with the dealer..,

Al'though-processed shrimp products generally constitute a major market for

South Atlantic shrimp catches, margin percents between ex-vessel and wholesale

processed shrimp product prices are difficult to conpaxe because.: (1) weight

losses and gains-through processing vary by product line and individual firm,

(2) processor prices paid individual dealers due to bilateral

agreements, and (3) adjustme.nts.in the wholesale processed product price per
pound associated with regional *consumer demand. '"Even if annual average ex-vessel

prices are used,'raw product price equivalents would be over-estimated. because

smaller than average shrimp are usually purchased by shrimp processors.

Although the National Marine Fisheries Service publishes information on

shrimp retail prices, it IS* only based upon six outlets in Baltimore, Maryland

for shells-on raw shrimp. Those greenY headless retail sales constitute a small

portion of the U.S. shrimp market; consequently, a cca4maison of these retail

prices to ex-vessel andwholesale prices is not indicative of retail margins in

major shrimp markets. In addition, retailers sell green shrimp in broad size

categories (e.g., "large!', lk...bedium!l and "small") which make ex-vessel, count com-

parison to retail sizes difficult.

10.2. Fishery Cooperatives or Associations

All fishery cooperatives were authorized under the Federal Fishery Coopera-

tive Marketing Act of 1934. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified

three fishery cooperatives for the South Atlantic states in the 1980-81 period

10-11

(Wojnowski, 1981) with shrimp as one of their target species. Except for North

Carolina, there was one cooperative listed per state; the Florida, Georgia and

South Carolina cooperatives had 70, 33 and 10 boats, respectively.

There were several non-profit fishery organizations which are oriented

toward various interests in the South Atlantic's shrimp fisheries (Table 10-4)

The Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Development Foundation, as a research and

development organization, has been active in funding projects to improve harvest-

ing and marketing of shrimp and developing fishing technology f or non-shrimp

species, for commercial shrimp, trawlers. In 1981 the Shrimp Harvesters Coalition

of the Gulf and South Atlantic States was formed to influence federal legislation

on shrimp imports and federally subsidized loans.

10.3 Service and Supply Industries

10.3.1 Vessel Construction

In 1980, there were 458 fishing vessels built by 42 vessel construction

firms in Southeastern United States, 118 vessels (26 percent) were shrimp trawl-

ers delivered to the Carolinas Georgia, or Florida locations (Table 10-5).

Since 1977, 102 trawlers have been delivered to the Carolinas and Georgia shrimp-

ers or about nine percent of shrimp trawlers reported for these states in 1977.

Not only have vessel construction firms attempted to meet the demand for new

vessels (i.e., hulls) but important hardware including propellers, winches and

diesel engines are usually included in the marketing of shrimp vessels.

The cost of new vessels has increased substantially since 1971 (Table 10-

6) due to material, labor costs and perhaps optimistic views of future profit-

ability by prospective investors or current industry members (Rhodes, 1980). Un-

fortunately, new vessel buyers my not realize that their fixed costs can differ

significantly from the typical vessel in the fleet. Consequently, the purchase

of larger and more expensive vessels can constitute higher fixed costs in the

form of loan payments, hull insurance, property taxes, etc., compared to smaller,

older vessels which may not have hull insurance or loan payments.

Table 10-4. Regional or State. Fishery Associations in the South Atlantic States
which. include :11rship from the shrimp industry @R..., Fhxles S. C.. Marine Res. Deyt_)_.@'-

Nam Headquarters State

Florida Shrimp Association-Y Florida

Georgia Fisherman's Association Georgia

Gulf and South- -Atlantic -Fishery
Developmeni - Foundation
Florida

National Shrimp Breaders: and
Proceswrs Association Georgia

National Shrimp Congress Washington, D. C.

North Carolina Fishery Association North Carolina

Organized Fishermen of Florida Florida

South Carolina Shrinper's Association South Carolina

Southeastern Fisheries Association Florida

Sea Island Fisbermants Association Georgia

This association is a subsidiary of the Southeastern Fisheries Association.

1043

1
-5' trmvler deliveries @or construction- for the. South Atlantic states
0- ..' New shrisp
from-the:maJor vessel construction firms in,the Southeast,-.1977-W. (Source.:- Fish:
Bo4 Magazine,,,Various Decenber issues,

.State of.Doliver7
Year.. N637th Ca@b ba South Carolina Georgia Florida

2 7 89

42-
6

-6, 150
3. '13
1M
.I_q8Ol/. 17 20 79

@'Tbtal. four year
construction 14
62 WO

In 1980, four trawlers mere deliveredLtO the South Atlantic States by vessel
construction firms in Virginia and bbrth Carolina. These data are not in-.
eluded in the 1980 data or previous years.

10-14

Table 10-6. -Cost of new wood U.S. shrimp vessels by various sizes.

Yeaxy - Vessel Length,Feet -@_Cbst Cost-Per Foot Percent IncmmL@3
IDA

1971 53-65 wood & steel
P71000 'A'000,
66-72 wood & steel 76,000 1,000

rb.
1973. 63-M 93,000 -1,400

19W 121,000 1..fw 28.6%

1977 68 147,000 2P200 22.2%

73 164,000 2;200
19792/ 73 215,000 2$900 31.8%
1981@1/ 73 230,000 3,100 6.9%

Y1971 -to 1977 data as reported by Warren *and Griffin (1978).'
@/Uweigkted means for woodien trawlers built by St. Augustine, Flori da yardsJor,
South Carolina buyers.
NPercent increase in cost per foot cwpared to the previously reported year.

10-15
10; 3.,@," " Institutions
Financial

The marketing of shrimp, especially by the dealer, depends upon informal

agreements between buyer and seller. Short-term and,. in some cases, long-term

debt-financing of commercial shrimpers by dealers.is also indicative of informal

services provided by dealers. Maiolo, et al. (11980) identified three kinds of
debt servicing,typically.provided by South AtLaotic'-dealers for fishermen: (1)
simple weekly trade credii:,for routine operating services and supplies., (2)

@sbort-term.loans which may or may not be secured and.(3) in some cases consign-

ing for various loans. During the last: tw6decades, Maiolo et al. (1980) indi-

cate that the shrimper's historical dependency on dealer financing has decreased

with the proliferation of institutional. funding sources available from both the

public and private sectors..

Fbr- the commerraial shrimper, funding of a vessel purchase usually consti-

-tirtes.tbe largest fixed cost- There are currently three general institutional

sources,of intermediate (i.e., one to-10 years) and long-term debt funding: (1)

local Production Credit Associations, (2) commercial banks and.(3) finance com-

panies. The Production Credit Associations (PCA)-.are non-profit financing copper-

atives authorized to service the fishing industry following the Farm Credit Act.
of 1971 (Olson, 1972).. They make intermediate and'long-term loans (seven years

or more to maturity) at interest rates'significantly lower than bank comaiercial

loan rates. Coamercial bank may provide conventional loans for 65 to 75 perc4ant

of a vessel's value.. Financing.ccmpanies like General Electric Credit Czrpora-

tion have become a new source of intermediate vessel financing. In recent years,

commercial banks and financing companies have used "balloon!' payment schedules

to buffer the initial cost of high interest rates on new vessel operations (Wiese,

1980).
In a 1975 survey of Ships PreferTed Mortgage Records, Jones (1977) reported

private lenders accounted for 15 percent of all loans for South Carolina shrimp

trawlers. Institutional lenders in South Carolina held most mortgages (85 per-

10-16

-of the new vessel loans - Jones
cent) with the local'PCA providing 60 percent

(1977) concluded that South Carolina private lenders extended short-term credit

on a personal basis while the major lending institutions made loans on newer

larger vessels (generally greater than l&m, 60 ft., LOA) as strictly business

ventures.

PCA funding of new fishing vessels has grown substantially since 1974 in

theLSouth Atlantic States (Table 10-7). E7bluding Florida PCA loans which in-

clude significant low4s for other fisheries, the aggregate mmiber of outstanding

PCA aquatic loanii.An these states has increased from 79 in 1974 to 351 loans in

Jime, 1981, more than four times the 1974 loans. The average new loan value in

the Carolinas and Georgia more than tripled between 1976 and 1977 due to local

PCA's becoming more knawledgeable and active in making loans to the shrucping in-

dustry (Table 10-8).

The National Marine Fisheries Service has adninistered two programs to sub-

sidize development of the U.S. shrimp fishery: (1) the Fishing Vessel Capital Con-

struction Fund (FVOCF), and (2) the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee (FVOG)

program. In 1981, there were 90 South Atlantic (excluding Florida) fishing vessels

enrolled in the P40CF program, a tax deferral agreemmt with the Internal Revenue

Service (Table 10-9). In contrast, only 44 fishing vessels were covered under

FVOG program for the Carolinas and.Georgia (Table 10-9). The PCAIS of these states

had 14 aquatic loans,: guaranteed with the FVOG program (Table 10-9). `1he 1981 Mari-

time Authorization Bill reduced the amount of NMFS obligation authority from $1.2

billion to $850 million (National Fisheries Institute, 1981). At present, the

National Marine Fisheries Service has about $350 million worth of fishing vessel

loans guaranteed in the U.S.; hence, $500 million remains for new loan guarante

on,vessels and sboreside facilities (National Fisheries Institute, 1981).

When the FVOG program was legislatively authorized'under the Federal Ship

Financing Act of 1972, a conditional fisheries concept was established to restrict

the use of the FVOG program for fisheries which the NMFS determines have too many

10-7,.". Number and total outstanding.@value of Production Credit Associations;
aquatic loans frm 1973 to June lMl ilL the Carolinas. and Georgia. (Source: Feder-
W, -Int.e Credit Bank of Columbia, South Carolina).

Year North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Ibree State 7btal
r loans -Dollars loan Dollars loans Dollars loan Dollars

20', .40
lW3. 12, 104 5653 194 951

1974 301". 1,082, 7M 79 2,169

1M 27-, 434 Iy=l 29,- 936 105 2,591

1976.- 26- 5.10 58 1,412 W 972 114 2,894

1977 43 1,6,W. 80 36 .2,144 159 6,628

1978 56*@ 3V424 105 .4,763 38 2,891 199 11,078

76 7,895 137- 7,202 51 4,781 264 19P878

1980 93 10,485 166 11,020 84 10,342 343, 31P847
100 10,.411 -166 111821 85, 10,655 351 32,887

-18.

Table 10-8. Annual number, aggregate value- and average value of new aquatic lows@11/
by Production Credit Association in the Carolinas and Georgia, 1973-1980. .(Source-L
Federal Intermediate Credit Bank-of Columbia, South.Camlina).

Year -Ntmber Aggregate Value-2/ Average Ioan VOme 2/

3
1973 .40- 95.1 24
3/
.1,218 31
1974 :39

1975
Jlv@ 31
1976 AA 1@448 33

1977 51- .:5,499 108
1978 7,3131 118

1979 13,099 123

.1980 105. 18,649 178

-:1 ,'"may include -loans for fisheries other than commercial shrimping.-
Aquatic oa,@%,.
?J In thousands

Calculated from accumulative balances.

10-19

Table. 10-9. -Aeti@e Fishing Vessel Cbligation.Guarantee (F,70G) cases and Current
Fishing Vessel'Capital Construction Fund MOM accounts for South Atlantic
states in Ju"'
(Source: MS Financial Services Division and Federal
Intermediate, Credit Bank of Columbial'South Carolina).

2 3/
State: FVOGY
FVCCF

North Carolina, (8) 12

South Carolina (.2) 15

Georgi4 9

Florida A12) 6
(entire State)

Total (26) 42

Ylbese data r ommers.

tM
Wpc@ vessel loans'guaranteed under the! FVOG in 1980,M'i'@Aot @bia- shri=.@,. wiet�

Since the monies in these,accounts axe often used for current existing
qualified payments, the'above accounts may not be indicative of fisher-
men sfutureplans to purchase another vessel.

10-201

vessels (Fed. Reg. 38(204), 1973). Although the conditional fisheries concept

is not in the FVCCF program's authorizing legislation, the NM has administra-

tively extended the-concept to apply to the FVCCF program aswell (Fed. Reg. 45

(8): 2636, 1980). If the NMFS determines a fishery is conditional, neither pro-

gram can be used to fund the construction of a vessel for that fishery unless

the newly financed vessel will replace an-existing vessel which has been re-

tired from the conditional fishery. At present., the NMFS is considering the

elimination of. the conditional fishery concept altogether and permitting the

NMFS program to finance any,vesselswhich qualify under program standards

, '", @
Fb ie@AJ` Explicit to this view is the I Wise use
PA 701@zz,-17@7
clause of the Federal Ship Financing Act of 1972. More recently, this has been

,superceded by enactment of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act

of-1976 (P.L. 94-265) and resulting measures to regulate fishing effort (Fed.

Reg. 45 (8):2636,. 1980).

Blomo (1981) concluded that the Gulf of Mexico fishery could qualify as

a conditional fishery but recognized that assigning conditional status would

j, not rectify current problem (i.e., increasing factor costs and depressed shrimp

prices). Conditional fishery status could stop the future allocation of public

resources to the shrimp fishery but specific impacts on the current fleet would

take several years (Blam, 1981). Based upon other conditional fisheries, Blomo

.(1981) felt that declaring the Gulf fishery conditional may not have a signifi-

cant negative impact on the availability of credit from private sources.

As discussed in Section 5.1, the winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78 severely

reduced white shrimp stocks and resulted in below normal commercial catches in

the South Atlantic states. With assistance f the Small Business Administration

(SBA), Georgia and South Carolina commercial shrimpers became eligible for

-I -ter loans-. Me lo=s were gran a
njury. Natural'Djsas@ ted at 3 percent

interest rate on the first $25,000 and 6.63 percent rate for loan over $25,000.

10.41

During 1977* and 1978, the SRA field offices in'Georgia and South Carolina

approved $12.5 million of disaster loans (Table-10-10).

10.3.3 Seafood Carriers

Seafood carriers or shippers have been critical factors in growth and

development of the U.S. fishing,industry (Abrahamson and Hoffman, 1961). In

the shrimp fishery, carriers my also ;serve as.wholesalers by.actually taking

possession of.the-shriirp and selling it to other wholesalers-or processors.

Maiolo et al. (1980) reported carriers serving aswholesalers still derive

their profits from freighting services and not shrimp sales. In a seafood

transportation.directory prepared by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine

Department 25 fresh seafood carriers were listed with headquarters in the

Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. Points of destination of carriers originating

in the South Atlantic States include every state in the continental U.S. and

Washington, D. C.

10.4 Labor Organizations

Based upon available information, only one seafood processor in the South

Atlantic region has union plant workers; they belong to the National Maritime

Union of America.

10.5 Foreign Investment

Based upon available information, there is currently no foreign investment

in the South Atlantic shx-hT fishery; however, business firms in the industry

could be subsidiaries of corporations which include foreign investors.

10.6 Economic Impact Analysis

The shrimp industry utilizes services and goods purchased f other indus-

try as input to produce shrimp products. Ibis in turn, is used in other sectors

(e.g., seafood retailers). If an increase in shrimp demand occurs, an increase

in shrimp production is triggered. Many times this rmv supply my not be derived

from domestic stocks, but rather from imports. Regardless, the increased produc-

tion will increase demand.for inputs from other sectors, and the resulting effects

Table 10-10. Number and initial outstanding amoRmt of FAxmcmic Injury Natural Dis-
aster Ioans approved by the Small Business Administration in LM and 1978 for
Georgia and South Carolina commercial shrimpers suffering economic, losses as a re-
sult of winterr-induced. .,white@ shrimp stock damage. (Source: Small Business Admin-
istration, Atlanta, Georgia and Columbia, South Carolina)

Georgia South Carolina

Number of IDans- 359 170
Outstanding Am=ty .$,9,355. 3,191
ggregate, Mean-'/ -
.,A 26. 19

YIn thousands

10-23

Will ripple through the economy. Using various input-output analysis methods,

the interaction between sectors and associated potential economic impact can

be predicted with multipliers.

In the coastal areas of the Gulf States, income, sales and employment

multipliers associated with fisheries have been calculated using input-output

analysis methods (see, Jones et al., 1974, Morris and Prochaska, 1979 Nissan

et al. 1978). The Jones et al. (1974) analysis specifically addressed the

impact of economic activity generated through harvesting by the domestic shrimp

fleet for three coastal regions in Texas and the entire state. Explicitly, as-

suming their multipliers can be extrapolated to the South Atlantic States,

economic impacts can be calculated (Table 10-11). A recent example of the

shrimp industry's impact on employment is the vessel building firms in St.

Augustine, Florida, which specialize in shrimp trawlers and other fishing ves-

sels. During the first ha lf of 1981, employment at a major trawler building

yard dropped to about 150 employees compared to more than 300 employees in

1980.

10-24

Table 10-11. Estimated aggregate econcmic impar-t of the South Atlantic states,
shrimp harvesting sector in 1980 based upon Jones et al. (1974) results for the
Texas econcay.

Output(Sales) Income
(Dollar in lbousands)

.Aft1tiplier 3.w 2.37

f
Direct Impact (D)
57@,. 1

Total FA=cmic Iftwt (T) 50,144

Indirect Impact (T-D) '119,517 28,986

Ylbe-preliminary total ex-vessel value of the 1980 South Atlantic states'
landings was $57,185,000 (Table 9-2).
@J`Ihere is an estimated 370 direct payment to workers in the shrimp indus-
try for each dollar of output (see Jones.et"al.,.1974). ($'.37 x 571,185
$21,158).

11.0 SOC1AL AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC FISHERMEN

11.1 Ethnic Character, Family Structure, and Community Organization

11.1.1 Ethnic Character

Ethnic minorities, among trawler, captains are relatively small. In South

Carolina, for example, blacks represented only about 9 percent of total trawler

captains in 1980 (Table 11-1). White captains predominated, particularly for

the owner-captains (94 percent). In North Carolina 5.2 percent of full-time cap-

tains are black while only 1.3 percent of the part-time captains are black. A

total of 3.4 percent of all full and part-time captains are black in North Caro-

lina (Maiolo, 1981). In Georgia, approximately 12 percent of trawler captains

in 1980 were black (S. Shipman, Ga. Dept. Nat. Res. , Coastal Res. Div. , Bruns-

wick, GA; pers. comm.). A study of two counties (McIntosh and Glynn) by Nix

and Kim (1981) shows that 24.1 percent of the captains are black and 33.7 per-

cent of the strikers, are also black. Approximately 28.9 percent of all cap-

tains and strikers are black.

In the South Atlantic shrimp fleet, many black captains living on the

outer islands of South Carolina and Georgia still speak Gullah - a patois of

Elizabethan English mixed with African words. The Gullah or Negro culture is

maintained at least in part by the fact that the black fishermen live in back-

woods and rural island areas. White fishermen have more capital invested in

boats and equipment. Most of the black fishermen feel their lack of capital

equipment is not due to lark of ability or experience, but is due to the fact

that they have few ties to capital lending institutions (Acheson, 1975).

11.1.2 Family Structure

Nearly 90 percent of captains in North Carolina are married (Maiolo and

Still., 1981). Average family size is 2.5 children per married couple which is

higher than the national average fertility rate of 1.8. The captain's occupa-

tional life is affected by ties of family and kinship. About two-thirds of cap-

tains (65 percent) indicated that the influence of the father was responsible

11A

Table 11-1. Nwiber andc,-*,'ace%,Istribution of dam-arcial Shrimp 'gishermen,
South Carolina, 1980. (Source: South Caxolina, trawler license file, 1980-
1981, unpublished data.)

Owner-Captain Non-Owner Captain Total
Item No. % No, % No.
0

White 929 93.7''
84.6; 1;324 90.8

Negro
..57- 5A.. 68 14.6 125 8.6

Others 5 5, 4 .8 9 .6

Total 991 100.0 -.,WT 1M.0 Ij@M 100.0

11-3-

for their entry into fishing as an occupation. About half (49 percent) of the

fulltime captains had fathers whose principal occupation was fishing as com-

pared to only 23 percent of part-mtime captain These extensive generational

ties are consistent with findings of a. study,onthe role of family and kinship

ties- amon Southport fishermen in Nortli Carolina (Sabella et al., 1979). Approx-

@imately 86 percent.of Southport fishermen had fathers who alsowere fishermen.

Wives.play an important role@in the@family occupational structure for 48 percent

of the-captains.. Their income contributes more than one-third of the total fami-

ly income@.

About, 52 No
percent of crewmen in' rth Carolina are married while 38 percent

are single and 10 percent are separated'.. Average household size for married crew-

am is 4. About 53 percent of those crewmen grew up in a family where their

fathers were engaged in fishing. A majority of crews reported that their fathers.

influenced them to thevoccupation. Forty percent of crews' spouses have a regular

job outside

Data on family structure of commercial shrimpers in South Carolina, Georgia-

and Florida are not available.

11.1.3 Community Organization

Studies by Maiolo (1981) and SWa--lla--et-AL. (1979) do'not offer any informa-

tion about commmity-organizations. 5:Ywever, Nix and Kim (1981) found that social

participation and ccm=lty involvement along the Georgia coast is quite limited

among shrimp fishe They suggest, an apparent "community disinvolvement" which

is associated with very few social ties, including social organizations and occu-

pational associations. Political participation among shrimp fishermen in the above

survey was also limited. Almost 32 percent of the fishermen in the study did not

vote. Many of these same fishermen did not even register to vote (Nix and Kim,
1981). According to 'White (1977) there is a correlation between distance from

shore (in term of time spent away fran home-and family) and community disinvolve-

11-4

ment. With increasing distance and time. spent mmy from shore, therel' is-.a weak-

ening of participation in activities of the land-based community.

In conmxmities where non-maritime work predominates, such community dis-

involvement has important social and political overtones. Ibis-is especially

true-where prestige and respect-are measured by the degree towhich one partici-

pates in community affairs and decision-making. (Nix and Kim, 1981). The more in-

volved one becomes, the more influence that individual can exert and hence the

more prestige and respect. Conversely, shrimp fisherman - because of their lack

of involvement feel a sense of-commuaity powerlessness and alienation according

to 'White (1977).@ Thus, emphasis.is placed on increased social relationships with-

in the occupational-' group itself or what White (1977) refers to as "occupational

closure.11 In consideration of this, Nix and Kim (1981) indicate there should be

a strong tendency for fishermen to organize themselves into fishermen cooperatives

and occupational associations. However, they discuss mitigating factors (i.e., in-

tensified competition for the resource) which discourage such ar, tions. Also, these

authors suggest there is a polarization of sex roles in an essentially closed social

interaction system. The wife takes on a dominant role in land-based family activi-

ties and the corresponding decrease in husband participation alters family and com-

munity behavioral patterns (Nix and Kim, 1981).

U.2 Age, Education, and Experience of Commercial Fishermen

There is some evidence to indicate that the life styles of participants in

the South Atlantic shrimp fishery are changing (Fisch.and Maiolo, 1981). New en-

trants into the fishery are more educated and a greater portion of them come from

families without-.-.the father being a fishermen. Such newcomers are born outside

their current community of residence and tend to average slightly more income.

These new fishermen axe more likely to take advantage of financial assistance

programs (i.e. Small Business Administration loans, etc.) to enhance and maintaJim

the fishery (Fisch and Maiolo, 1981).

in age fram.18 to 80. Most are in their
Captains in North. Carolina range

forties. or younger, with the average:age slightly under 47 years-(Table 11-2).

About 20 percent are 61 years or older. Part-time captains:are' on the average,

-time count s.
older than their full erpart The average level of education (10.5

years) corresponds to less. than: a..high school dip1cma, (Table 11-3). However,.21

percent of: the _-captains, have more than w high, school education. There is no signi-

ficant difference between full-time and.part-time captains in,educational level.

The majority of captains in'South.Carolina.axe middle-aged;.the averageage
is 39'yeaxs (Table,11-4).. About'5 percent are-61 years or older. Owner-captains

are slightly older than hired captains.

The captains of shrimp vessels in Georgia tend to be middle-aged (Table 11-

5). More than one-half of the captains (58 percent) fall into the category of 26

,-to 45 years-of age and about 4 percent are 61 years or older.

The average age of'trawler captains in the South.:Atlantic states is 43
years,-(Table 11-6)-.. Only slight differences-are apparent among the captains of

the various types of vessels.,, The categories of captains are similar in term

of years of formal education. The average experience in commercial fishing is

21 years, of which 10 years are worked as a captain and 11 years served as a crew

on the trawler.

A survey of 29 crew members ofNbrth Carolina shrimp vessels conducted by

Maiolo (1980) indicates that the average age of crews is 27 years and education-

ally, crew members have an average of'11 years of schooling, somewhat less than

a high school education. This.reveals that crew members are somewhat younger

and slightly better educated than their captains. About 83 percent of crews in

the survey identify themselves as full-time fishermen and have been engaged in

fishing for 8 years.

11.3 Employment Opportunities and Unemployment Rates

One of the indicators of employment opportunities in a fishing ccmmmity

is the change in population. The decline in population indicates a lack of eVloy-

11-6

Table-11-2. Number and age distribution of commercial. fishermen, North Carolina,
1980., (Source: Surveys of Fishermen, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
F-qst.Carolina University, Spring, 1980).

FU11-Tuie Captain. Part-Time Captain Total
No. % No. % No.

--'2 2.1 0 0.0 2
21-25 4.1 2 2.6 6 3.4
26-30 Z@ 13 13.4 .3 && 16 9.1
31-35 --.10, 1G.3 6.4 15 8.6
.36-40, '--@-17 .17.5 6 7.7 23 13.1
i@41-45 13 13.4, 9 .11.5- 22 12.6
14.4 81 10.3 22 12.6
4r -50. .14
10
51-55 .10.3 9 1-1.5 19 10.9
56-60 3 3.1 11 14.1 14 8.0
61-65 6.2 10 12.8 16 9.1
66 & over 5 5.2 15 19.3 20 11.5

Total 97 100.0 78- :100.0 175 100.0

Average (yrs) 42.6 52.3 46.9

of P.L North Carolina, 1980.
Table U-3. -Years -Joumtion -of *wercialigis-mb
(Source:. 'Surveys of f isbeiTnen,: Departuent of Sociology and Anthropology, East
Carolina.University, ftrril, 1980)

D6@i�
on L@@e O@Pta`=@:
Educati 'Total
(years) No.-
No.

@-8'2 :'7' '15
9@j,
8.6

16'.9, '38, 21.81
13-
2@5

31
48.3
9@-32

13-16 @._12, 12.4 18. '23.4, 30 17.2

16@19 2 2.1 6.4' 7' 4.1

Total 97. 1W.01' 77 100.0 174 100.0

10.. jr
Average. (yrs) 10.5

Oc South
Table 3.1-4. Number and*gO@,,distribution of cial,isbrimpgl
Carolina, 1980. (Source:' South Carolina Trawler license fileV 198D-1981, un-
published data)

Owner-Captain Non-4)wner -Captain Tcytai
No,.- No,. No.

4.7
- 1 33 2'2
11: 22

n-W:, &.6 82 17.4 148 10.0

1-.3,.4:,,:' 218 14.8

31-M. 163 .16.3 67' 14.2 230 15.6

36-40 172 17.2 55, 11.7 227 15.4

41-45 143 14.2 52 11.0 195 13.2

134 13.4 33 7.0 167 11.3

51-W 83 8.3 36 7.6 119 8.1

56-60 49'. 4.9 23 4.9 72 4.9

61-65 28 2.8 11 2.3 39 [email protected]

66 and over 18 1.8 6 1.3 24 1.9

r1bt.1 1001 100.0 471 100.0 1472 100.0

Average "s) 40.2 36.3 39.0

649

Jgble .11-5. Number and-age distribtrtion of, rcial sbrimp ifishermen.,
Georgia 1980 '(Source: Georgia documented% trmler. license file, 1980-1981,
unpublished data).

Age N6*1.

Rt , 12 2.9

-:41,
1'25
9.9

'26-M M3:

32.6
3.1 q

-36-40 84 W.3-

n-45- -54, 13.0

46-W. 36 8.7

51-55 40 9.7

56-M w 6.2

-2
61-65:: 2
9'

66 and over., 9-
2.2

100.0
T14'

Average Cyrs)'.
39.1

Table 11-6. Characteristics of ler A*6t Abil birth
by ity @dlass in S
'Atlantic states, 1976@ -(Source: Idao, 1979)

Mobility Class
Characteristics 1 7 AU,4Class
m4176 n;=91 n---29 nr-5 n7-301

Age. 43, 42 40 a w 42

Yeam of Forma-L Edicatiom 10.
:n 32 10

CanwrdzX 1g.; 14
Y, Of' 21
id2ing- bperiened-'

lit
W 13 21 0 35

11-11

ment opportunities for its residents. Thus emigration from the community has

occurred. Two coastal counties in North Carolina have had population declines

and one county has remained unchanged during 1970 to 1977 (Table 11-7). The

population of Charleston and Beaufort counties in South Carolina increased very

little compared to Dorchester and Berkeley counties, which showed increases of

62.3 percent and 34.5 percent respectively during 1970 to 1978 (Table 11-8).

These two counties hae emerged as possibly the most influential employment cen-

ter in the South Carolina coastal region, accounting for the population increases.

On the Georgia coast, the major population concentrations occur in Chatham, Glynn

and Liberty counties. The population in Liberty, Effingham, and Bryan counties

experienced large increases from 1969 to 1978. The county which experienced a

population decline over the same period was Glynn County (Table 11-9). The rate

of annual population increase for the Florida coastal counties was 3.6 percent as

compared to 2.2 percent for South Carolina, 1.6 percent for North Carolina, and

1.0 percent for Georgia (Table 11.10).

Coastal counties in the region have an unemployment rate that is higher

than the state's rate except that of Florida's east coast (Table 11-11). In

South Carolina, the unemployment rate for the coastal counties as a whole was

6.2 percent and for the state in 1979 was 5.0 percent. In 1974, Georgia's un-

employment rate of 5.1 percent was less than that of coastal counties as a

whole, 5.9 percent.

Data are not available to indicate the extent of unemployment among com-

mercial fishermen. However, since 1980, commercial fishermen have been facing

a critical economic situation caused by rising fuel costs and declining shrimp

prices. This tends to increase the unemployment rate for commerical fishermen.

The employment opportunities for commercial fishermen in non-fishery sectors

depends upon the individual fisherman's skill either from currently held part-

time jobs or alternative jobs held in the past, level of education, age, and

capacity to learn new skills.

11-12

'Table 11-7. Population trends.in'@qbastal ies of North Carolim. (Source:
Calculated f North Camlina, State GOVernment Statistical Abstract, Division
of State Budget and, Management, N.C. State Government, 1979)'

Population.'(thousRadLS) Change 1970-1977
Counties
1970-- ..1977 Expressed as %

Currituck 7.0 .10.0 42.9
Camden 5.5 5-.7 3.6
Pasqwrtank 26.8 28.B 7.5
Perquimans 8.4 8-.7. 3.6
Chowan .10.81 11.7- 8.3
:B&tie 2D.5: 21.9- 4.3
Washington
14.0 15.0 7.1
Tyrrell @-3.8 3.8 0.0
Dare 7.0 10. 3@ 47.1
Hyde. 5.6 5.7 1.8
Beaufort 36-0 39.5 9.7
Pamlico 9:5 9.8 3.2
Craven 62.6 68.7 9.7
Carteret 31.6 37.1 17.4
Onslow 103.1 1.15.7 12.2
Pender 18.1 21.6 19.4
New Hanover '83-* 0 97 * 4 17.3
Brunswick 24.2 33.0 36.4
Gates 8.5' 8.3. -2.4
Hertford 24.4 24.2 -0.8

Total.Coastal Counties 510.4 576.3 12.9

Annual Population Growth 1.8

-8 @`bunties of South Carolina. (Source:
lable 11 Population @6ends in 'doastal 4,
Caluclated from South Carolina Statistical Abstract, 1980, the S.C. Division of
Research and Statistical Services, S.C. State Government, 198O)C.,-

Counties Population (Thousands) Change 1970-1978
197o. 7 UZY78 as %

.7
Bea;&art. 51.1 57 12.9
Berkeley. ..'56.2 @75.6- 34.5
Charleston '247-7'@ 259.9' 5.0
Colleton.- 27.1,- 291 9 7.9
DaL 62-.3
32.3, 5Z.4
@Georgetawn 33.5'. 39-.8.1 18.8
Harry 91.6 30-.8
Jasper 11.9- 14.6 22.7

-,Total Coastal Counties 530'.3 621.5 17.2

...-Annual Population Growth 2.2

11-14

Table 11-9. Population ,ttvend6 in. doastal ies*of'Georgia. (Source: Cal-
culated from'1980 Georgia Statistical Abstract,'

Clowties im. Change 1969-1978
l9w. -1978 Expressed as %

..Bryan --76A 8.4 31.2
Camden 3. 12.0 6.2
Chatham. 186.5 192.2. 3.1
Effingham.
17.9-, 35.6
Glynn 50.-2 49.6. -1.2
L -y 79.8
R)e3:7t 16.8 30.2
McIntosh .7,"..3' 8..'9 21.9

7btal.Coastal,Cotmties 291.7 319.2 9.4

Annual Population Growth 1.0

.11,15

Table'll-10' tal .4ounties in Florida. (Source: Cal-
Population,t_Tends'in
culated from Florida.Statistical Abstrazt-, Bureau of Econcmic.& Business Re-
@se4rch, Univers of Florida, 1980).

Counties gqe@@tim'CMOUSands) Change 1970-1979
1970 1979 Expressed as %

20.6 31'8.. 54.4
528.9, W&A, 7.1
St Jobns -_31-.0-......' 0.-T 47.4
RWler,' 5, 9".0 100.0
240.4
@.:Volusia. 169.5.. 41.8
230'.0'.. W&:. 8 19.9
0 .8 58.3
"Indim River
St. Lucie 50.a 82.41.@.. 62.2
Martin :@.O '','757.4 197.2
Palm BeEte 349.0 564.5 61.7
Broward 620.1, 966.1 55.8
.1,267.8 1,519.4 19.8

7btal CbastAl..Counties 3,336.2. 4-P315.7 32.4

-Annual Population Growth 3.6

Table 11-11. Unemployment rates for coastal counties in South Atlantic states.
(Source.. Calculated from (1) North Carolina Statistical Abstract, Division of
State Budget and Management, N.C. State Government, 1979; (2) South Carolina
Statistical Abstract, 1980, the S.C. Division of Research and Statistical Ser-
vices. S.C. State Government, 1980; (3) 1980 Georgia Statistical Abstract Col-
lege of Business Administration, University of Georgia; and (4) 1980 Florida
Statistical Abstract,, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Florida, 1980).

Florida
North Carolina South Carolina Georgia (East coast).
'Item- 1977 L979 1974 1979

Coastal Cc;unties: 7.% 6.2% 5.9% 5.8%

State Total 5.9% 5.0% 5.1% 6.0%

11-17

11.4 Recreational Fishing

In North Carolina, a typical recreational fisherman is a native North

Carolinian (Maiolo and Faison, 1980). His average age is 45 (range 16 to 76).

Average years of education is just under 12, indicating that he is slightly

better educated (in terms of formal education) than his full and part-time

fisherman counterparts. Further, 29 percent of the recreational fishermen

experienced some schooling beyond high school, with 16 percent completing

four years or more beyond high school. More than a third, 36 percent are em-

ployed in white collar occupations, and 52 percent in blue collar jobs most of

which are semiiskilled and skilled work roles. Six percent of them were unem-

ployed and 17 percent retired. Forty-five percent of the respondents' spouses

work; half are in professional or semi-professional positions (teachers, sales-

women, etc.). About 90 percent of recreational fishermen are married and have

two or three children.

The average private boat fisherman with boats measuring 4.8 m (16 ft) or

more in South Carolina has been engaged in offshore sport fishing for thirteen

years (Liao and Cupka, 1979). Private boat fishermen tended to have a high

family income, with an estimated average family income of $29,500. Slightly

less than one-third (29 percent) were classified as professionals. Twenty-three

percent were self-employed. About one-fifth (21 percent) were managers or

supervisors. Retired people accounted for thirteen percent of offshore private

boat fishermen. About 8 percent were blue collar workers, and about six per-

cent "white" collar workers (i.e. salesperson, clerical, and service occupa-

tions). The majority of private boat fishermen are weekend or holiday fisher-

men. About 66.5 percent of total recreational shrimp fishermen were private

boat fishermen. The remaining 33.5 percent engaged shrimping operations on

shore, pier, dock, or bridge (Table 11.12). The demographic profile of these

fishermen and private boat fishermen utilizing boats less than 4.8 m (16 ft) is

not available.

11-18

Table 11-12. Summarized data from a 1974 survey of the recreational shrimp fishery
in South Carolina (Cupka and McKenzie, 1974).

Major gear types used to shrimp recreationally, and percent usage reported:
cast net (66.7%), seine (16.4%), drop net (15.6%), otter trawl (1.3%),

Average annual catch per respondent:
48.6 lb (22. 0 kg) (heads on)

Principal county In which respondent shrimped, by percent:
Charleston (52.6q), Beaufort (25.4% Georgetown (9. 4%), Jasper (7.2%),
Harry (3.6%) and Colleton (1.8%)
Area or platform from which shrimping occurred, by percent:
boat (66.5%), shore (20.8%), pier or dock (10.6%), bridge (2.1%).

Principal months during which fishing occurred by percent:
March (0. 1%), April (0. 4%), May (2. 0%), June (91.8%) July (16.9%),
August (23.0%), September (24.8%), October (13.7%), November (7.4%),
December (1.9%)

Average number of trips annually per respondent:
9.2

Average catch per trip:
5.3 lb (2.4 kg) (heads-on)

Projected total number of trips annually:
155,117

Projected total annual catch:
815, 717 lb (370,001 kg) (heads on)

In Geoi@ia, no survey.eidsts concerning socio-economic characteristics

of.recreational shrimpers.

In Florida, sport fishing for'shrimp is primarily a castnetting and

seining operation.. In the St. John's Riverarea, there is'a@ significant amaunt

Ot recreationa3 shrimping. There were 127 recreational.shrimping license holders

in:the area during the 1980-8l.season (S. Kennedy, FL Dept. of Nat. Res.,-Maxine

Res. lab@') St. Petersburg,,.FL;,pers@. comm.). -However, demographic data of recrea-

tional. shrimpers in- Florida are. not available.

Recreational shrimping is a,pcpulat activity along the coast of t1fe- S6uth

Atlanticstates.@ Hdwever,,no historical data arIe available on the recreational

catch of shrimp for the.South Atlantic region. A recent study has provided an

estimate of the magnitude of this fishery for South Carolina (Cupka and McKenzie,

1974). Totalannual catch was 815,717 lb of shrimp (heads-on) by South Carolina

recreational shrimpers during 1973.' The average catch per trip was 5.3 lb (Table

An obvious need is a more comprehensive catch and effort sampling scheme

for South Atlantic states so that recreational impact on the total shrimp fishery

can be determined on an annual basis. In order to formulate a meaningful manage-

ment. program, it is also necessary to know the magnitude of the social benefits

ass6eiated.directly with recreational shriaping in the South Atlantic region.

Unfortunately, no such data are currently available.

11.5 Economic Dependence on Fishing and Related Activities

In 1974, 48 percent of Florida commercial fishermen surveyed fished full-

time; the reminder reported that some-of their income was earned from employ-

ment outside of fishing. Owners of shrimp fishing firm eaxned 21 percent of

their income from sources outside of fishing. Many fishermen are not fully depen-

dent on fishing for employment and instead rely on fishing income to supplement

that from other industries. A recent survey of Florida fishermen (all ty pes of

fishing) showed that those with income! from non-fishing activities had widely

11-20

varied employment. Based on those who specifically reported type of employment,

eight percent were in residential or ccm wreial construction; seventeen percent

were employed in marine related jcbs such as tug boat.@captains, maxina operators,

and boat builders; ten percent were involved in agriculture; nine percent'were

employed in security type jobs; seven percent held jobs as mechanics and repair-

men; twenty-two percent had other occupations such as teachers, chemists,' optome-

trists..,broadcastem- and flight instructors. Only 21 percent of the respondents

said that their nonfishing employment was seasonal (Prochaska, and Cato, 1977).

in 1976,.65 percent of.trawler captains in the South Atlantic states were

full-time commercial fishermen. ApprW[imately 50 percent of all captains in

mobility Class I trmvlers in the region had non-fishery employment. Only 13 and

21 percent of captains for mobility classes II and III, respectively, had non-

fishery employment. No captain in mobility class IV traxvlers worked outside

the fishery; thus., every captain in this category was a full-time comercial

fisherman. Eighty-eight of 175 captains in mobility class I had spent, on

the average, about 8 months in non-fishery jcbs (Table 11-13). Thus, these axe

persons v&o are in occupations other than fishing, but take time off from regu7.-

.lar employment, or use their holidays or,spare time.after working hours, to

shrimp commercially. Shrimping is usually done to supplement income from employ-

ment outside the coamercial shrimping industry for class I captains. Most of

these.captains held blue collar jobs. About 12 sample captains in mobility class

II had non-fishery jobs in 1976 (Liao, 1979)

In 1980J. 81 percent of trmvler captains in Georgia were full-timers and

the remaining 19 percent had employment outside of shrinping (S. Shipman, GA

Dept. of Nat. Res., Coastal Res. Div., Brunswick, GA; pers. comm.). Only 55 per-

cent of captains in North Carolina shrimp fishery were found to be full-time fish-

ermen. About 27 percent of the part-timers were in maritime related jobs., i.e.

seafood processing, boat repair, etc. (Table 11-14). The remainder reported

that they had widely varied non-marit3l.Me employment.

,Irl,
Table U-13., Occupatimal istribution andlength aptain *n-l'i
of Is @flp OY-
1976. iao, 19791 shery
men (Source: L

item
Mobility Class
IV

Nunber of captains, in sample 176`1
29
5

6 0
Numberbf: cap with': non-ro - 12
88@@
emplowaent
fishery..

@tecbnicai vjarker:,@! 4@.
...and*
0 0
Managers and Administrators .0 0 0
Blue collazL-craftsmen,*skilled
mrkers., etc. 51, 4
5 0
Sales and Clerical mrker 7. 0 0 0
-Self-employed 11, 4. 0 0

La1mrers: and others
10 3 0
Average length. of non-fisbery
eWlOYment for those-working
outsidethe fishery (months), 8,. 6.
4 0

Table 11-14. Distribution of primaxy occupation of commercial fishermen, North Carplina, 1980-.-
.(Source: Survey.
of fishermen, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fast Carolina University Spring,'1980).

Primary Occupation. Fu.11-Time Captain Part-4TUnk% Total
Noo. % No. No. %

92 94.9 14.9 103 59.9-
Fishing
Boat Building & Repair 2 2.1 1.3 3
Marine Transport at ion 4 '5*.4 4 2.3.
4 5.4 4 2.3
Other Maritime related
.3 .4.1 3, 1. 7
Farmers
3 1`7
Teachers, except college and 3 4.1
University
3 4.1 3 .1.7
Former member of the
Armed Forces
Managers and Administrators 2 --2 7 2 1.2
2 1.2
2 2.7
Real Estate brokers & agents
2 1.2
2 2,7
Machinists
Sheetmetal workers & tinsmith 2 2.7- 2 1.2
2, 1.2
Current member of Armed Forces 2 2.7
All Others 3 3.0 .36. 49.5 39 22.7.

Total 97 100.0 75 100.0 172 .100.0

1.1-23

U.6 Distribution of Income within Fishing'Ccam=ities

The distribution of personal 3mccme in coastal counties of North Carolina

is shown in Table 11-15., -The-table provides an economic picture withinwhich the

relative importance of fishing to the.local economy can be viewed. Shrimping is
included in agricultural services., forestry, fisheries@, and other sectors. In

Pamlico County, for example, the fish forestry, and agriculture service
sector accounts for, About'1IM`,,(J- percent of the personal income. The private in-

dustry sectors that@contribute the most to total personal income are manufactur-

ing and services sectors in Pamlico-County.- In most coastal counties, the in-

come from fisheries, forestry, and agricultural services.is not a major contri-

butor to total local economy.

In-coastal South Carolina, on.a. county basis, income generated by fish-

eries, forestry, and agricultural services is,of more relative importance in

Georgetown County (Table 11-16). Manufacturing, retail tradel, transportation,

and public utilities are* ant priv ate sectors contributing to personal in-
import

come 3n Charleston and Beaufort counties.

On a ccaparative basis, the personal income generated by fishery, fores-

try, and agricultural services is minor in relation to all industry income data

in all coastal counties of Georgia except for McIntosh County (17 percent),

However, on a total basis, they are-of' minor importance (Table 11-17).

In Florida, the fisheries, forestry, and agricultural services sector

accounts for-only 2.0 percent of the personal income in Monroe County, about

1.4.1percent-in St.,Johnts county and about 1 percent in Nassau County, and about

'0.3 percent in Duval County (Table 11-18). Thus, the seafood industry is not a

very important element of the local economy of the counties on Florida's east

coast.

Table 11-15. Personal incam by moor sources for coastal counties in North CLielina, L979. (Source: TOW Are& personal In0mg, 1974-79.
U.S. Deparbnent of Ommerce, Bureau of Economic- Analysis).

(Thouaands of dollars)

Beaufort sortie Brunswick Camden Carteret Chowan Craven Curr ck
ITEM itu. Dare Cates Hartford

BY.Type:
Wage ard salary disbursements @159,963 50,930 117,894 6,756 107,687 43,281 372,389 13.750 .41,146 11,788 82.695
Other labor income 16,918 4,940 13,333 9,257 3,675 21,476 972 2,886 786 8,654@
Proprietors' Income 25,194 23.207 25,851 .934' 17,992 7,449 29,895 925 .9,589 10.904 16,276
Farm 8,952 16,796 11.691 -943 502 3,225 9,380 -2,448 .. 0 8,863 7,942
Nonfarm 16,242 .6,411 14,160 1@677 17,490 4,224 26.5t5 3,373, 91,589 2,041 8,334

By Industry:
Farm 13,253 20@822 12,695 207 1,26C 4,445 12,379' rl,176 0 9.822 9,890
Nonfarm 188,822 58.255 144,383 7,891 133,672 51 960 4114381 16,823 53@621- 13,656 97,735
Private 165,193 46,850 124,117 5,291 108,156 42:650 184,774 10,515 40,671 8,751 80,983
Agricultural Serviceso forestry., 2,491 944 (D) (D). 3,829 2.170 (D) (D) 932 77 309
fisheries, & other
Mining (D) (D) 0 0 0 (D)* 0 0 01 0
Construction 7.056 2.188 (D) l,083 7.515 2 677 15,038 2,054'. 6.007 428 5.342
Manufacturing 58,671 28,411 67.458 554 29,273 13:930 57 209 1,553 1,782 1,795 '31,327
Nondurablo goods- 23,414- 12,475 (D) (L) 10,754 7,706 2@585 660 - 65' (D@ 11,688
Durable goods 35,257' 15.936 (D) 523 18,519 8,224 30,824 884 1,347 (D) 19.639
Transportation & public utilities 8.290 (D) 18,978 (DY 7,784 1.944 16,709: 618 1,625 689 3,663
Wholesale trade 11.658 4.313 2.261 384 8,901 5.283 14,156 915 2,371 5,028
20,368 4,906 11,258 1,127 21,742 5,230 34,305 ;.44? 14,130 1,864 12,351
Retail trade 5,163 886 9,570. (D) 3, '46 1,918
Finance. insurance. real estate 4,576 882 4,289 50 098 1,5
Services (D) 4,684 10,703 1.104 23,949 8,330 35.5 .76 2,025 1,766 21,045
Government 6 government enterprises 2& 629 11,405 20,266 2,600 25,516 9,310- 226,607 6,,308 12,950 4,905. 16,752@
Federal. @ivilian 2.326 1,380 5.921 270 3,781 789 62,80 - 784 4,167 571 1,485
Federal, military 410 197 1,003 .175 1,963 127 110,258 36i 2.616 .111 246
State & Local 20,893 9,828 13,342 9,155 19,772 8.394 33,530 5,162 6,167 4,i23 15,021

TOTAL 202,075 79,077 157,078 8,098 134,936 56,405 423,760 15.647 53,627 @3,478 107,625

-44
(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information
(L) Less than $50,000..

4/
Table 11-15 (Cant.). Personal inowe'by major sources for coastal counties in North Carolina, 1979. (Source: local Arm popeonal jac=e. 197@@'M ,
u.s. Department of ommrce, Bureau of Economic Analysis).
(Mwusands of Dollars)

ITEM Hyde New Hanover Onslow, Pamlico. Pasquotank Ponder P be T
prquims. yrrell Washington

By:Type,.
33,460 1%912 5,461: 31,466
Wage and salary disbursements 111,986 .485,231 578,861 16,347 105,227
Other labor Income 1.032 46,370 16,361 1,336 8,391 2,508 191h- 376. 2 086
Proprietors' Income 259 60,075 32,058 3,684 11,396 13,147 7*432 2,449. 11,366
Farm -1,965 -427 10,769 786 83 6.140 30808 377 7.233
Nonfarm 2.224 60,502 21,289 2,898 11,313 71007 :7- 3,624 2,072 4,133,

By Industry:
Farm -605 120 13,703 li668 1,060 9,104 4 623 043, 8
- U3,954 40,011 19 952 '7 ' .,985
Nonfarm 13,882 591;556 613,577 19,699 303 35,933
Private _,.q@PV 10,583 503,111 149,440 14,063 85,504 28,223 --:,15,835 5,.319 '26,549
Agricultural Services. forestry. 831 (D) (D) 2,907 (D) .985 @74. .@3,509
fisheries, other
Mining 0 (D) (D) - 0 (D) - 0. - .0 0@.
Construction 1,891 16,874 1,105 5,020 2,461 2 967 '324
Manufacturing 161,892 29,844 .2,929 9,562 @7,712 @,l V.76@ 6,793
Nondurable goods 1,017 (D) 13,707 2,364 4,839- 3.980 2 78 2'
79 6 '968
4,723 3,732 '16-0 3,825
.Durable goods 97" (D) 16,137 565
@244
n public utilities -1,540
Transportatio, 129 64,233 14,827 478 9,329 2,677 211
Wholesale trade 2,199 36,690 6,081 1*,816 6,412 2,788 A0534 414 (D) t6
Retail trade 79,572 41,005 1,972 27,847 7,399 2,7W @@-19787 5,426
Finance, insurance, real est&tS 1,365 23,154 11,345 379 7,499 838 828' 65 1,224
Services 1,588 99,819 28,120 2,477 18,690 3,998 2,339 550
4,132-
Government government enterprises 3,299 88,445 464,137 5,636 38,450 11,788 4,117 1,984.. 9,384
.231,
Federal, civilian 1,009 14,689 70,498 508 11,202 @1,045 .397 770''
Federal, military 141 6,374 358.740 145 20345 25i 110 (L) 207
State Local 2,149 67,382 34,899 4.M 24,903 10,491 @L,715
00407

TOTAL 13,277 591,676 627,280 21,36
7 125,014 49i,115 24,575 8,286 44,918

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential-information
(L) Less than $50.000.
'h

Table 11-16, Personal income by major sources for cowtga counties In South Carolina, 1979. (pource: Lwal Area Raund- Inome. 1974-79. U.S..
Department of Ommeroe, Bureau of Economic Analysis)

(Thousands of dollars)
ITEM Beaufort Berkeley Charleston Colleton Dorchester Georgetown Horry Jasper

BY-Type* I
Wage and salary disbursements 359,276 224,536 1,638.462 83,845 116,200 158.685 374,772 24,333
other labor income 13.778 17,840 110.520 7,675 10,630 17,736 .30,171 1,921
Proprietors' Income 22,214 13,613 96.469 11,386 17,196 13,163 71,812 71051.
Farm 2,375 2,838 251 1,576 4 259 2,900 .24,743 1,790
Nonfarm 19,839 12,775 96,218 9,810 12:937 10,263 47,069; 5,345

By Industry:
Farm 4,551 3.696 2,228 2,784 5,0W 3.820 31,504 2,488
:185,764 445.251 30,901
Nonfarm 390,717 254.293 1,843,223 100,12i 138,933
Private 167,365 190.666 1,050,868 81,982 -112i5;7 164,078 347,147 23,430
Agricultural Services, forestr7" 4,598 (D) (D) (D) 3,8.45 7 0 2160 - 29934 (D)
fisheries, & other jLJ (D) (L) (D) '(D) (D) (L) (D)
Mining
Construction 25.559 (D) (D) 5,337 13,213 8,754 29,879 4,550
Manufacturing 13.409 82,662 .188,471 33,979 4.0,536 94,277. 76,050 2,231
Nondurable.gqods- 8,863 51,544 89,723 23,312 11;582 51,615 21,i5O 1,178
.Durable goods 4.546 31,118 98,7.48 10,667 34,954 .43,262 54,700 1,053
10.263 (D) 136i382 7,058 (0) 19,469
Transportation & public utilities 5,209 4,124.
Wholesale trade 5,108 (D) 99,416 (D) (D) (D) 17,il4 886
33,029 14.067 178,083 10,733 17,713 18.112 80,152@ 4,821
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, real estate 2.171 80,527 4,852 3,943 4,962 23,561 626
51.144 23.734 254.243 11,470 14.9i7 21.40 08.038 5.390
Services
Government & government enterprises 223,352 63,627 792,355 18,140 16,466 21,686 98.104 7,471
Federal, civilian 26,208 25.909 311,048 1,824 '1,957 1,448 14,316 635
Federal, military 171,232 949 271,024 409 662 643 39.1658 '258
State & Local -25,j912 36,769 210,283 15.907 23,787 19,595 44,130 6,578

TOTAL
395,268 257,989 1,845,451 102,906 144,026 189,584 476,755 33,389

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential Information
(L) Less than $50,000.

Table 11-17. Personal income by major source a for c4astal counties In Georgia, 1M. (Source: Local Area Person" Ino.om@ P74,179. U.S.'.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.)
IN i
(Thousands of dollars)
ITEM Bryan Camden Chatham Effingham G @ypu Liberty McIntosh

By,Typa: 6
Wage and salary disbursements 12,254 71,216 1,064,257 17,159 2117,350 231,670 -43,182
Other labor income 982 6,768 @105,613 1.266 27,110' 5;594 1,131
2,088
Proprietors' Income 4,365 3,320'. 82,490 10,378 41,198 .'3p'652
.Farm 751 874 7,129 207 Y. .177 5V
Nonfarm 2i474 2,569 81,616 . 3,249 ..'2 I'M .3,475 2,030--

By industry.
324@
Farm 2,023 868 1,635' 7.571 267 96
219231 315,534 240,649 16,305
Nonfarm 15,578 80,436 .1,250,725
36 620 12
11,517 60.147 1,036,822 14'415 268
Private
i.47
1; 751 2o847
(D) 770 (D) (DY
Agricultural Services, forestry,
fisheries, &'other
(D)
0 0 0
Mining 0 (D) -(L)
1,907 4,77 1 87,0 15@ 2,962.
Construction Aw,-%AZ
Manufacturing 2,450 42,958 116 446' 3,156 107 781 '11, 1088 2,959
1 002
Nondurablb.goods- (L) 40,654 206:224 @3:661 9'838 '0)
2,154 (D)
2,418 2,304 110,222 34, 100'- 19250
Durable goods
(D) 2.433 .157,724 (D) 18,406 4,752. (D)
Transportation & public utilities
Wholesale trade 331 320 71,799 606 ..11,350 553 (D),
Retail trade 2,933 3,963 134,901 3,192 -,,.:.36,020 8,030 2,242.
583 1,071 57,489 559 15-078-, 1,845 334
Finance, insurance, & real estate .9 1
Services 2,655 3,861 '204,335 2,710 54,491 5,511 .1,356
Government government enterprises 4,061 20,289 1_213,903 6,817 501 2049029 4,037
Federal, civilian 461 2,105 51,236 @56 249 44,401 408
Federal, military 242 12,455 29,010 .343 948 151,048 120
State & Local 3,358 5,729 133,657 5,918 37,304 8-580 @,509

TOTAL 17,601 81,304 1,252i360 28.803 315,856 240,916 16,401

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information
(L Less than $50,000.

Table 11-18. Personal income by major sources for cowtal countle13 in Florida, 1979. (Source: Locia Area Ogpo@ Inoomp, 197". U.S.
Departuent of Ownerce, Bureau of Rooncade Analysis.

(Thousanda of, 0-4.AF!A,*
ITEM' Z@ @a4 Brevard Broward Dade Duval Indian Rive .r.

By:Typez
Wage and salary disbursements 1,326,334 3,979,307 9,328,908 3,446.,910 29,587' 227,410
Other labor income 124,903 312,959 $86,000 323 241
Proprietorp' Income 76,885 2 681 22,930
5,231
422-9882 784,171 2i6l;ns
Farm 17.243
15,464 13,409 52,359 ?601 2.307 @9,859
Nonfarm 61,421 409,473 731,812 214,63
2,924 17,384

By Industry:
Farm 20*,536 26,830 86,374
3i855
Nonfarm 8 039 31,630
Private 1,507,586 4,748,318 10,912,705 .3,970 347 '33,644 255,953
1'193,299 -570- 219,038
Agricultural Services, forestry, 4,173.485 9;422 3,122:802 .28,949
5,492 18,061- 10.43l (D)
fisheries. & other
Mining
268 3,792 (D) 2 257.-.- 0 135
Construction
(D)
Manufacturing 108,377 486,573 608,401 ;35:555., 2&346 24.049 1-0
Nondurable goods 386,942 608.694 1,291,420 -489,997, 56,851, 1-4.
Durable goods 15,833 @3@,074 688,363 250,501 88 A
(D)
371,109 473,620 603,057 .239,496 2 258 (D)
Transportation,& public utilities 97,718 336,897. 1,604,035 07,339 3:089 10,424
Wholesale trade 35.642- 306,941.. 1,044,625 385,675 431 7 143
Retail trade @42@,060 3,966
154,907 785,343 1,316,132 38:168
56,474
Finance, insurance, & real estate
services 431,642 847,725 430,485 (D) 17,915
347.479 1,193,542 2.657,902 685,203 - 49,651
Government & government enterprises 314,287 574,833 1,490,135 85 5.545 4.695 36 915
Federal, civilian 132,848 62,849 294,879 . 249 3 742
Federal, military 235,242 :
State & Local 53,224 10,148 100,596 240.j55 272 357
128,215 .501,236 1,094,660 379,948 4,174 32,816
TOTAL 1, .528,12.2 4,775,148 10,999,079 3,986,386 37,499 287,583

M-Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information
(L) Less than $50,000.

Table 11-18. (Cont.). Personal inoqme by thajor cources for coastal counties In Florida, 1079. (Souroe: Tocal Area'Personal Income. 1074-79. U.S.
Department of Comnerce, Bureau of Econadc Amaysis.
(Thousands of dollars)

ITEM Monroe Martin Nassau Palm Beach St.1johns st@ Luc Lei Volusia

B :Type:
.y
Wage and salary disbursements 238 219 218.410 123,544 ;,548,856 137.201 277,640 739,685
.25 846
9921'. 70,763'
Other labor Income 16:493 22088 11,765 237.347 13
Proprietorpo Income 21,498 35,335 8,004 270,192 19,703 5-49240
105,243
Farm 0 11,855 -391" '45,184 3,543 320451. 14,490
Nonfarm 21.498 23,400 8,395 225,00a 16,160
90,753

By Industry:
-49.679
.8
299943 1,719 155,375
.Farm 65 209
276.145 245. 990 141,594 '2,901,020 368 047 27,339
Nonf am J 162,616 256 887 888,352
Private 180,555 223,MO 101,390 2,558,308 @34,214-:-
755,018-
Agricultural Services, forestry@'- 6,522 10.349 1,710 38,204 -2.496 6,179
fisheries. other
(D) -AL)
0
Mining (D) - 839 1,703
Construction 59 -37,858 (D) 321 750 7 344 30,994-@.
18,241.,
74,364
28 ng 23 663
59,570 in I I , ,
Manufacturing 33'650. 549,121 . . -,F-% - , . 120,725
SIM 7?-:.
Nondurable goods 7,019 55,829 113,758 W. 28,693-
1:446 - - I
26.640 3.741 (D) 4,986 ..:: - I @ - i @0'1-:
Durable goods 832 @435,363 1.-31 7 .92,032'
8,723
exI6,203 '61.284
Transportation & pt6lic utilitt 22,248, (D) 165,706 778
Wholesale trade (D) 1,844 .127,143 9,489 17:047
7,306 , :- - . .33 492
26,167 49 128 - , - @;
Retail trade 49,801 38,Z92 12,710 420 75 163:683
4
7,658 27:185
Finance, insurance, real 08MG15,241 18,563 2,517 49 222 60,416
2
684'
lervices 57,858 57,368 13,342 43.754, 67
- 705
234,8
Government & government enterprises 95,590 22,29 0 40,204 342,712 28,402 511-160 133.3341:-
Federal, civilian 17,069 2,460, 21,237 40,HO 4,090 3 808.
13,672
Federal, military 963 421 5,492 476
38,542 856
@,039
State'& Local 39.979 18,867 18,546 296.940 23,836 461,502 116.623
TOTAL 275,933
276,210 143,313 3,056,395 170,825 357,726 913,691

(D) Not ohown to avoid disclosure of confidential information
(L) Less,than $50.000.

12-0

LITERATURE CITED

Abrahamson, J. D. and C. P. Hoffman
1961 Exempt trucking of fresh and frozen fish and, shellfish in inter-
state commerce. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Circ. 133, 14 pp.

Acheson J M
Social and cultural aspect of the South Atlantic shrimp industry -
a pilot study. Unpubl. rep. Univ. of Maine, Orono,Maine.

Akioka, L M (ed)
1980 Georgia statistical abstract. Div of Research, College of
Bus, Adm., Iniv. of Georgia. Athens, GA.

Aldrich, D. V., C. E. Wood, and K. N. Baster
1968 An ecological interpretation of low temperature responses in
Penaeus aztecus and P. setiferus postlarvae. Bull. Mar. Sci.
18(1):61-71.

Allen, D. M. , J. H. Hudson, and T. J Costello
1980 Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida Keys: species, size,
and seasonal abundance. Bull, Mar. Sci. 30(1):21-33.

Alvarez, J C. 0. Andrews and F. Prochaska
1976 Economic structure of the Florida shrimp processing industry.
Univ. of Fla., Rep. No. 9, Sea Grant Program. 46 pp.

Anderson., L G
1977 Ihe economics of fisheries management. John Hopkins Univ. Press.
Baltimore, Maryland. 214: PP.

Anderson, W. W
1955 Observations upon the biology, ecology, and life history of the
common shrimp Penaeus setiferus (Linn.) along the South Atlantic
and Gulf Coast of the UnIted States. Proc. Indo-Pacific Fish.
Council, 1955, 5, pp

Anderson , W. W.
1956 January to April distribution of the common shrimp on the South
Atlantic continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of Interior.. Fish and
Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep., Fish. No., 171. 14 pp.

Anderson, W. W.
1968 Fishes taken during shrimp trawling along the South Atlantic coast
of the United States, 1931-35. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Sci. Rep.,
Fish. No. 570. 60 pp.
Anderson, W. W.
1970 Contributions to the li fe histories of several penaeid shrimps
(Penaeidae) along the South Atlantic coast of the United States.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep., Fish. No. 605. 24 pp.

12-1

Anderson., W. W, J. E. King and M J Lindner
1949a Early stages in the life history of the common marine shrimp,
Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus) Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole): 96(2):
168-172.

Anderson , W.W Lindner, and J.E. King
1949b The shrimp fishery of the southern United States. Come Fish. Rev.
11(2):1-17

Anderson W W and M J. Lindner
1958 Length-weight relations in the common or white shrimp, Penaeus
setiferus U.S., Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep., Fish. No.
256, 13 pp.

Anderson W, W and G. R Lunz
1965 Southern shrimp ...a valuable regional resource. Atlantic States
Mar, Fish. Comm leaf. No. 4. 6 pp..

Baisden, V. W
1979 Juvenile nursery area study on the Georgia coast. Georgia Dept.
Nat Res Coast. Fish, Div . Proj. Rep. to NMFS, NOAA. 28 pp.

Bara, M 0.R W Tiner and D. C. Newkirk
1977 Guidelines for evaluating proposed wetland alterations in South
Carolina, South Carolina.Wildl. Mare. Res. Dept. publ. 36 pp.

Barrett, B.B. and Gillespie
1973 Primary factors which influence commercial shrimp production in
coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Wildl. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull.
No. 9. 28 pp.

Baughman J L
1950 Utilizing waste fish resulting from the shrimping industry. Fish
Meal and Oil Industry 2(l2):9-10, 16-17.

Baxter, K. N. and W C, Renfro
1967 Seasonal occurence and size distribution of postlarval brown
and white shrimp near Galveston, Texas, with notes on species
identification. Fish. Bull., U.S., 66(1):149-158

Bearden, C. M
1961 Notes on postlarvae of commercial shrimp(Penaeus) in South
Carolina. Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab.,No. 33. 8 pp.

Bearden, C. M and M D. McKenzie
1972 Results of a pilot shrimp tagging project using internal anchor tags.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101(2): 358-362.

Beaumariage, D. S.
1968 Manufacture of fish meal from Florida's fishery waste and under-
exploited fishes. Fla. State Bd. Cons. Tech. Serv. No. 54. 56 pp.

12-2

Bell, R. and J I. Richardson
1978 An analysis of tag recoveries from loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta) nesting on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, p. 20-24
In G.E. Henderson, ed. Proceedings of the Florida and inter-
regional conference on sea turtles,24-35 July 1976, Jensen beach,
Florida. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 33.

Berry R. J.
1967 Dynamics of the tortugas. (Florida) pink shrimp population. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 177 pp.

Berry R. J.
Shrimp mortality rates derived from fishery statistics. Proc. Gulf
Caribb Fish.. Inst. 22:66-78.

Bishop J. M. J G. Gosselink and J. H. Stone
1980 Oxygen consumption and hemolymph osmality of brown shrimp, Penaeus
aztecus, Fish. Bull., U.S., 78(3):741-757.

Bishop, J. M. and M. H. Shealy
1977 Biological observations on commerical Penaeid shrimps caught by
bottom trawl in South Carolina estuaries - February 1973 - January
1975 South Carolina Mar. Res. Center, Tech. Rep. No. 25. 97 pp.

Blackmon J. H
1974 Observations on the emigration of the brown shrimp, Penaeus aeus

aztecus through a tidal pass in the Caminada, Bay, Louisiana area.
Masters Thesis, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 58 pp.

Blomo V
1981 Conditional fishery status as a solution to overcapitalization
in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Mar Fish. Rev. 43(7):20-24.

Broad A. C.
1965 Environmental requirements of shrimp. In C. M. Tarzwell (editor)
Biological problems in water pollution, pp., 86-91. U.S. Div. Water
Supply Pollution Control, 3rd Seminar 1962.

Broekema M. M.
1941 Seasonal movements and the osmotic behavior of the shrimp Crangon
crangon L. Arch., Neerl. Zool. 6: 1-100.

Brongersma, L. D.
1972 European Atlantic turtles. Zool. Verh.(Leiden)121:245-247.

Brown, A. and D. Patlan
1974 Color changes in the ovaries of penaeid shrimp as a determinant of
their maturity. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(7)23-26.

Brown, J. and E. McCoy
1969 A review of the North Carolina scrap fishery. North Carolina
Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Commerical
and Sports Fisheries, Information Ser. No. 1. 12 pp.

12-3

Brown, S. and A. Lugo
1981 Management and Status of U.S.Marine Fisheries. Council on
Environmental Quality.,Washington, D.C. 104 pp.

Bullis, H. R.
1951 Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl designs. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish.
Leaf. 394. 16 pp.

Bullis H. R. Jr. and S. B. Drummond
1978 Sea turtle captures off the southeastern United States by
exploratory fishing. vessels 1950-1976, pp. 45-50. In: G E
Henderson, ed. Proceedings of the Florida and interregional
conference on sea turtles. Jensen Beach, Fla., July 1976. Fla.
Mar, Res. Publ, 33

Bullis, H.R. and H. Floyd
1973 Double-rig twin shrimp trawling gear used in Gulf of Mexico.
Mar. Fish.. Rev. 34(11-12):26-31.

Burkenroad, M. D.
1934 The penaeidae of Louisiana with a discussion of their world
relationships. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.68:61-143.

Burkenroad, M. D.
1939 Further observations on Penaeidae of the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect.,Yale Univ., Vol. 6, Art. 6, 62 pp.

Calder, D. R.P. J. Eldridge, and E. B. Joseph
1974 The shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States: a management
planning profile. B.C. Mar. Res. Center Tech. Rep. No. 5. 229 pp.

Captiva, F. J,
1966 Trends in shrimp trawler design and construction over the past
five decades. Proc, Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 19:23-30.

Carley, D. H. and C. M. Frisbie
1968 The shrimp fishery of Georgia - an economic evaluation. Ga. Game
Fish Com. Contrib. Ser. No. 13. 14 pp.

Cato J C. and F. J. Prochaska
1981 An economic assessment of the production, marketing and expansion
potential of the Georgia Seafood Industry. Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res.,
229 pp.

Chin, E. and D M. Allen
1957 Toxicity of an insecticide to two species of shrimp Penaeus
aztecus and Penaeus setiferus. Texas J. Sci. 9:270-278.

Christmas J Y G Gunter, and P. Musgrove
1966 Studies of annual abundance of postlarval penaeid shrimp in the
estuarine waters of Mississippi, as related to subsequent commerical
catches. Gulf Res. Rep. 2(2):177-212.

12-4

Chuensir C A.
1968 A morphometic and meristic study of postlarval brown shrimp,
Penaeus aztecus Ives, pink shrimp, P. duorarum Burkenroad, and
white shrimp P setiferus (Linnaeus). Masters Thesis, Univ.
of Miami, Coral Gables, FLorida. 108 pp.

Chui M K
1980 Ex-vessel demand by size for the gulf shrimp. Masters Thesis.
Texas A&M Univ. College Sta, Texas. 74 pp.

Clark,, S. H, and C W Caillouet
1975 Diel fluctuations in catches of juvenile brown and white shrimp
in a Texas, estuarine canal Contrib. Mar. Sci. 19:119-124

Cobbs S P C R Futch and D. K. Camp
1973 Memoirs of the hourglass cruises: the rock shrimp, Sicyonia breviros-
tris Stimpson, 1871 (Decapoda, Penaeidae). Fla. Dept. Nat. Res.,
Mar. Res. Lab. Vol. II, Pt 1, 38 pp.

Condrey, R E. , J. G. Gosselink and H J Bennett
1972 Comparison of the assimilation of different diets by Penaeus
setiferus and P aztecus. Fish. Bull. U.S., 70:1281-1292.

Conte, F S. and J. C. Parker
1975 Effects of aerially-applied malathion on juvenile brown and white
shrimp, Penaeus aztecus and P setiferus. Trans, Am. Fish. Soc.,
104: 793-799.

Cook H L
1966 A generic key to the protozoean, mysis and postlarval stages of
the littoral Penaeidae of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Fish.
Bull., U.S., 65:437-447.

Cook H L. and M J. Li ndner
1970 Synopsis of biological data on the brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus
aztecus Ives, 1891.FAD Fish. Rep. 57:1471-1497.

Cook H L. and M A. Murphy.
1969 The culture of larval penaeid shrimp, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98:
751-754.

Copeland, B J.
1965 Fauna of the Aransas Pass; Inlet, Texas. I. Emigration as shown
by tide trap collections. Publ, Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex.
10:9-21.

Cornell, J. H
1948 Potential by-products of the South Carolina fisheries industry.
Contrib. Bears Bluff Lab.,No. 5.

Costello, T. J. and D. M Allen
1960 Notes on the migraticn and growth of pink shrimp(Penaeus duorarum).
Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst., 12:5-9.

12-5

Costello, T. J. and D. M Allen
1968 Mortality rates in populations of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum
on the Sanibel and Tortugas grounds, Florida. Fish Bull. US
66(3):491-501

Costello T J D M Allen
1970 Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum
duorarum Burkenroad, 1939. FAO Fish Rep. 57:1499-1537.

Courtenay W. R. and M H. Roberts
1973 Environmental effects on toxaphene toxicity to selected fishes
and crustaceans. EPA REpt. No. EPA-R3-73-035, April 1973. 73 pp.

Cummings W. C.
1961 Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum
Burkenroad, Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 90:462-468.

Cummins, R. and J. B. Rivers
1962 New deep water shrimp fishery developed off Florida's east coast.
Fish, Boat 7(12):19-23; 33-34.

Cupka D. M and M D. McKenzie.
A report on the marine recreastional fisheries of South Carolina.
S.C. Marine Res. Center., Charleston, S.C. (unpubl.).

Darnell R. M
1958 Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Ponchartrain,
Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ.
Tex. 5:353-416

Davis B J
1981 Contributions to the biology of Sicyonia Brevirostris (Decapoda:
Penaeidae off South Carolina. Masters Thesis, College of
Charleston, Charleston, S. C. 68 pp.

Davis, G. E. and M. C. Whiting
1977 Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National Park,
Florida US.A. Herpetologica 33(l):18-28.

Dehnel P.A.
1960 Effect of temperature and salinity on the oxygen consumption of
two intertidal crabs. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole)118:215-249.

de la Bretonne, L. and J, W Avault
1971 Movements of brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus, and white shrimp
Penaeus setiferus over weirs in marshes of South Louisiana.
25th Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners, Charleston, S. C. 5 pp.

de Sylva, D. P.
1954 The live bait shrimp fishery of the northeast coast of Florida
Florida Bd. Conserve Tech. Sere 11. 35 pp.

12-6

Dobkin, S.
1961 Early developmental stages of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarun, from
Florida waters. Fish. Bull. U.S. 61(190):321-349.

Doll J.P
1972 an econometric analysis of shrimp ex-vessel prices. 1950-68.
Amer. J Agr. Econ. 54:431-440.

Edwards, R. R. C.
1977 Field experiments on growth and mortality of Penaeus vannamei in a
Mexican coastal lagoon complex. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 5:
107-121.

Eldred, B.R., M. Ingle K. D. Woodburn R F. Hutton and H. Jones
1961 Biological observations on commerical shrimp, Penaeus duorarum
Burkenroad in Florida waters. Florida St. Board Conserv., Prof.
Paper Ser. 3:1-139.

Eldred., B. J. Williams, G T. Martin and E. A. Joyce
1965 Seasonal distribution of Penaeid larvae and postlarvae of the Tampa
Bay area, Florida. Florida Bd. Conserv. Tech. Ser. No. 44:1-47.

Ewald, J. J.
1965 The laboratory rearing of pink: shrimp Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 15(2):436-449.

Fahy W. E.
1965a. Report of trash fish study in North Carolina in 1962. N.C. Dept,
of Conservation and Development, Div. of Commerical Fisheries,
Raleigh, N.C., March 1965. SP. Sci. Rep. No. 5.

Fahy, W. E.
1965b Report of trash fish study in North Carolina in 1964. N.C. Dept.
of Conservation and Development, Div. of Commercial Fisheries,
Raleigh, N.C., Sp, Sci. Rep. No. 7.

Fahy, W E
1966 Species compostition of the North Carolina industrial fish fishery.
Com. Fish. Rev. 28(7:1-8.

Farmer,C.H. and J. D. Whitaker
1978 Results of the overwintering white shrimp study "A report to the

Fishermen. South Carolina Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept. Mar. REs. Div.
publ 22 pp.

Farmer, C. H., J. D. Whitaker and Nan L. Chipley
1978 Pilot study to determine the overwintering patterns of white
shrimp. Final Report for NMFS Contract 03-6042-35105. 93 pp.

Farmer, C. H. and J. D. Whitaker
1980 A review of the 1980 spring white shrimp season in South Carolina.
South Carolina Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept. Publ. 16 pp.

12-7

Fisch, M and J. Maiolo
1981 Inter and intra generational status transmission among shrimp
boat captains: a case study from North Carolina. A paper given
at annual meeting of the Mid-South Sociological Association,
Shreveport, La., Oct. 1981.

Fish Boat
1981 Ecuador: Bringing them in with no trawler in sight. Fish Boat.
Aug. 1981 :44-45 67, 69.

Fontaine, C. T. and R. A.. Neal
1971 Length-weight relations for three commercially important penaeid
shrimp of the Gulf of Mexico. Trans Am., Fish Soc. 100:584-586.

Frisbie C. M.
1967 Preliminary studies of the seasonal abundance and biological stability
of the commerical shrimp of Georgia. Georgia Game and Fish. Cam.,
Mar. Fish. Div. Contrib, Ser, No. 4.1-19 pp.

Fuss C. M., Jr.
1963 Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawls. Parts. 1;2. Fish Gaz. p. 80.

Gaidry, W. J.
1974 Correlaations between inshore spring white shrimp population densities
and offshore overwintering populations. Louisiana Wildl. Fish.
Comm. Tech. Bull. No; 12. 18 pp.

Gaidry W. J. and C. J. White
1973 Investigations of commercially important penaeid shrimp in
Louisiana estuaries, Louisiana Wildl. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull.
No. 8, 154 pp.

Georgia Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission
1976 Feasibility study of a seafood industrial harbor for coastal Georgia.
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 207 pp.

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
1978 Commercial and sport bait shrimp zones, coastal Georgia.
Tabloid, 8 pp.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
1980 Shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico plan approval and proposed
regulations. Fed. Reg. Vol. 45. No. 218:74178-74308 (Nov. 7, 1980)

Gulf of Mexico Fishery council
1981 Draft update of fishery management plan for shrimp, Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Fish. Mgt. Council, Tampa, Fla. July, 1981.

Gulland, J. T.
1972 Same introductory guidelines to management of shrimp fisheries.
FAO Romeo J. Cons. Perm, Int, Explor. Mer, 33:471-477.

Gunter, G.
1941 Death of fishes due to cold on the Texas coast, January 1940.
Ecology 22:203-208,

12-8

Gunter, G.
1945 Studies on marine fishes of Texas, Publ, Inst. Mar, Sci. Univ.
Tex. 1:1-190

Gunter G.
1950, Seasonal, population changes: and distributions as related to
salinity, of certain invertebrates of the Texas coast, including
the commercial shrimp. Pub. Inst. Mar Sci. Univ, Tex, 1(2):7-5l.

Gunter ,G
1961 Habitat of juvenile shrimp (Family Penaeidae). Ecology, 42:598-600.

Gunter, G., J. Y. Christmas and R. Killebrew
1964 Some relations of sanlinity to population distributions of motile
extuarine organisms, with special reference to PEnaeid shrimp
Ecology 45:181-185

Gunter G. and H. H. Hildebrand
1951 Destruction of fishes and other organisms on the south Texas
coast by the cold wave of January 28-February 3, 1951. Ecology
32(4):731-736.

Harder, H. W. E. C Christensen, J. R Mathews and T, F. Bidleman
1980 Rainfall input of toxaphene to a South Carolina estuary.
Estuaries 3(2):142-147.

Harris, C. Duane

1974 Observation on the white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) in Georgia
Georgia, Dept. Nat. Res Contrib. Ser. No. 27. 54 pp.

Hildebrand, H. H.
1954 A study of the fauna of the brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives)
grounds in the western Gulf of Mexico. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci.
Univ, Tex. 3:231-366.

Hildebrand H. H
A study of the fauna of the pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum
Burkenroad) grounds in the Gulf of Campeche. Publ. Inst. Mar.
Sci. Univ Tex. 4:169-232.

Hillestad, H.0., J. I. Richardson and, G K. Williamson.
1978 Incidental capture of sea turtles by shrimp trawlermen in Georgia.
Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 32:167-178.

Hoese, H. D
1973 A trawl study of nearshore fishes and invertebrates of the Georgia
coast, Contrib. Mar. Sci. 17:63-98.

Hudinaga M.
1942 Reproduction development and rearing of Penaeus japonicus Bate.
Japanese J. Biol. 10(2):305-393.

Hughes D A.
1969 Evidence for the endogenous control of swimming in pink shrimp,
Penaeus duorarum Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 136:398-404

12-9

Hughes, D. A
1972 On the endogenous control of tide-associated displacements of
pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarun Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole)
142:271-280.

Hunt J H. R J. Carroll V. Chinchilli, and D. Frankenberg
1980 Relationship between enviromental actors and brown shrimp produc-
tion in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. North Carolina Dept. Nat.
Res. Comm. Dev., Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 33. 29 pp.

Hutchinson, R. W.
1978 Status and problems of the American shrimp industry. Industry
and Consumer Services Div. NMFS, Washington , D.C. Mar. Fish. Rev.
40(9):29-31.

Hysmith, B. T. and R. L. Colura
1976 Effect of salinity on growth and survival of penaeid shrimp in
ponds. Proc. World Mariculture Soc. 1976. p. 289-303.

Idyll C. P E. S Iverson, and B. Yokel
1965 Abundance of juvenile pink shrimp on the Everglades National Park
nursery grounds. In Biological Laboratory, Galveston, Texas
fishery research for the year ending June 30, 1964, U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv., Circ. 230. p. 19-20.

International Proteins Corporation
1980 International Proteins Corporation Annual Report. 1980. Fair-
field, N.J. 17 pp.

Jacob, J. W.
1971 Observations on the Distrubution, growth, survival and biomass of
juvenile and subadult Penaeus Aztecus in Southern Louisiana. Master's
Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 68 pp.

Johnson, D, G,
1958 Supply Function - Some facts and notiion In:Agricultural adjust-
ment problems in a growing economy. Iowa State College Press.
AMES Iowa.

Johnson, F. F. and M. J. Lindner
1934 Shrimp industry of the South Atlantic and Gulf states. U.S. Bur.
Fish. Invest. Rep. 21 83 pp.

Johnson. M. C. and J. R. Fielding
1956 Propagation of the white shrimp, Penaeus setiferus (Linn.), in
captivity. Tulane Stud. Zool. 4:175-190.

Jones A. C., D E. Dimitriou J. J. Ewald, and J. H. Tweedy
1970 Distribution of early developmental stages of pink shrimp, Penaeus
duorarum, in Florida waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. 20:634-4561.

12-10

Jones, L. L., J. W. Adam; W. L. Griffin and J. Allen
1974 Impact of commerical shrimp landings on the economy of Texas and
coastal regions. Texas A&M Univ. Sea Grant Publ. TAMU.SG-75-204.
18 pp.

Jones, R. R.
1973 Utilization of Louisiana estuarine sediments as a source of
nutrition for the brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus. Ph.D. Dissertation.
louisiana State Univ, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 125 pp.

Jones T. M.
1973 A productivity and profitability analysis of the South Carolina
double-rig shrimp fishery: A case study of a specialized one year
class fishery. Ph D Dissertation Clemson Univ. Clemson S. C.
121 pp.

Jones, T. M. J. W. Hubbard and K. J. Roberts
1979 Productivity and profitability of South Carolina shrimp vessels,
1971-75. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41(4):8-14.

Jones, W. G.
1960 Fish for Petfoods - South Atlantic Coast. In: Fishery resources
for animal food. 1969. p. 16-17. U.S. FITE Wildl. Serv. Fish.
Leaf . No. 501. 22 pp.

Joyce,. E. A.
1965 The commercial shrimps of the northeast coast of Florida. Florida
Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Ser., No. 6. 224 pp.

Joyce, E. A. and B. Eldred
1966 The Florida shrimping industry. Florida Bd. Conserv., Educ. Ser.
No. 15. 47 pp.

Juhl R.
1961 A study of vessel and gear usage in the shrimp fishery of the
southeastern U.S. Com. Fish. Rev. 23(8):1-9.

Juhl R,
1966 Trends in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawling fleet. Com. Fish.
Rev. 28(12): 43-46.

Keiser, R. K.
1976 Species composition, magnitude and utilization of the incidental
catch of the South Carolina shrimp fishery. S.C. Mar. Res.
Center, Tech. Rep. No. 16. 94 pp.

Keiser, R. K.
1977 The incidental catch from commercial shrimp trawlers of the South
Atlantic States. S.C. Mar. Res. Center Tech Rep. No. 26. 38 pp.

Kennedy, F. S. and D. G. Barber
(in press)Spawning and recruitment of pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum, off
eastern Florida. Jour. Crust. Biol.

12-11

Kennedy, F. S., J. J. Crane, R A Schlieder, and D G Barber
1977 Studies of the rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris, a new fishery
resource on Florida's Atlantic shelf. Florida Dept. Nat. Res.,
Mar. Res. Lab., Florida Mar., Res. PubL; No. 27. 69 pp.

King B. D.
1971 Study of migratory patterns of fish and shellfish through a
natural pass. Tex. Parks Wildl. Tech. Ser. No. 9. 54 pp.

King J. E. 1948
Study of the reproductive organs of thecommon marine shrimp
Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus). Biol. Bull, (Woods Hole) 94:244-262.

Kinne, O.
1964 The effects of tempature and salinity on marine and brackish
water animals II. Salinity and temperature salinity combinations.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol Annu. Rev. 2:281-339.

Klima, E. F.
1964 Mark-recapture experiments with brown and white shrimp in the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 16:52-64.

Llima, E. F.
1974 A white shrimp mark-recapture study. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103:
107-113.

Klima E. F. and J. A. Benigo
1965 Mark-recapture experiments. In Biological Laboratory, Galveston,
Texas fishery research for the year ending June 30, 1964, U. S
Fish. Wildl. Serv, Circ, 230, 38-40 pp

Klima, E. F. and R. S Ford
1970 Gear and techniques employed in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.
Can. Fish.. Rep.. 17:59-76.

Knapp, F. T
1949 Menhaden utilization in relation to the conservation of food and
game fishes of the Texas Gulf Coast; Trans., Am. Fish. Soc. 79:
137-144

Knowlton, C. J
1972 Fishes taken during commercial shrimp fishing in Georgia's close
inshore ocean waters. Ga. Game and Fish. Comm., Coastal Fish.
Office. Contrib. Ser. No. 21, 42 pp.

Knudsen E. E. , W. H. Herke and J. M Mackler
1977 The growth rate of marked juvenile brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus,
in a semi-impounded Louisiana coastal marsh. Proc. Gulf Caribb.
Fish. Inst. 29:144-159.

12-12

Kristjonsson, H.
1968 Techniques of finding and catching shrimp in commercial fishing.
FAD Fish. Rep. 57(2):l25-192.

Kutkuhn, J. H.
1966 Dynamics of a penaeid shrimp population and management implications.
Fish. Bull., U.S., 65(2):313-338.

Latham, F. F.
1951 Evidence of fish loss due to shrimping in Pamlico Sound. Commit-
tee Report to Atlantic States Marine. Fisheries Commission,
November 1 1951. Appendix B: 4. pp.

Laurent, A. J. Hite, L. Cartee and T. Jones
1975 Economic organization of the South Carolina marine in fisheries
industry. Clemson Univ. and Div. of Mar. Res. at Clemson, Clemson,
S. C. 85 pp.

Liao, D. S.
1979 An economic analysis of mobility of shrimp vessels in the South
Atlantic states. South Carolina Mar. Res. Center Tech. Rep.
No. 27. 35 pp.

Liao, D. S. and D. M. Cupka
1979 Socio-economic profile of South Carolina's offshore sport fishermen.
S.C. Mar. Res. Center Tech. Rep. No. 34. 11 pp.

Lindner, M. J., and W. W. Anderson
1956 Growth, migrations, spawning and size distribution of shrimp,
Penaeus setiferus. Fish. Bull., U.S., 56(106):555-645.

Lindner, M. J.
1966 What we know about shrimp size and the Tortugas fishery. Proc.
Gulf Caxibb. Fish. Inst. 18:18-26.

Lindner, M. J. and H. L. Cook
1970 Synopsis of biological data on the white shrimp Penaeus setiferus
(Linnaeus) 1767. FAD Fish. Rep. 57:1439-1467.

Lindall, W. N. and C. H. Saloman
1977 Alteration and destruction of estuaries affecting fishery resources of
the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39:1-7.
Loesch J.
1965 Distribution and growth of penaeid shrimp in Mobile Bay, Alabama.
Publ. Inst. Max. Sci. Univ. Tex. 10:41-58.

Lunz G. R.
1944 Special study of the marine fishery resources of South Carolina.
S. C. State Planning Bd. Bull. No. 14. 66 pp.

12-13

Lunz G R.
1955 Trawling vs. Sport Fishing. Bears Bluff Lab. Mimeo. 3 pp.

Lunz G. R.
1959 Annual report, 1957-1958. Bears Bluff Contrib. No. 30. 15 pp.

Lunz, G. R.
1960 Industrial possibilities, South Carolina fishery industry. Mimeo
written for State Development Bd., Bears Bluff Lab., Not 23, 1960.

Lunz G. R
1967 Farming the salt water marshes. Proceedings of the marsh and
estuary management symposium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1967.
Pages 172-177.

Lunz, G. R. J. L. McHugh, E. W. Roelfs R E Tiller., C. E. Atkinson
1951 The destruction of small fish by the shrimip trawlers in Pamlico
Sound, North Carolina. Unpubl. Rep. to the Chesapeake and South
Atlantic Sections, Atlantic States. Marine Fisheries Com, 13 pp.
with 5 appendices.

Mailo J.
1980 The sociocultural context and occupation and marketing structures
of the North Carolina shrimp fishery. Second Year Report Vol. III.
Surveys of Fishermen. Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Inst.
for Coastal and Marine Resource, East Carolina Univ. 41 pp.

Maiolo J.
1981 Profiles of fishing activities among N.C shrimp fishermen.
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, East Carolina Univ. 31 pp,

Maiolo, J., John Bort, Wm. Still, M. Fisch and R. Faisan
1980 The sociocultural contest and occupational and maxketing structure
of the North Carolina shrimp fishery. Fast Carolina Univ.
Greenville, N. C.

Maiolo, J. and W. Still
1981 Historical development of the shrimp fishery (N.C.). Dept. of
Sociology and Anthropology, Fast Carolina University. 84 pp.

Maiolo, J. and R. Faison
1980 Surveys of fishermen. Volume III,. Second year report of the
East Carolina Shrimp Research. Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology,
East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

Marcus, B. , D. Aaker, D. Cohen, Wm. , R. Kantle, B. Mallen K.
Monroe, L. Schiffman, T. Spratlen, D. Twedt, K. Uhl and T. Wotruba.
1975 Modern marketing. Random House, Inc., N.Y. 722 pp.

12-14

Marinovicy S. and R. T. Whiteleather
1968 Gult of MExico shrimp trawls. Current trends in design and pros-
pective developments. p. 176-181 In DeWitt Gilbert ed. The future
of the fishing industry of the United States., Univ of Washington
Pub. Fish., NEw Ser., No 4.,

McCoy E. G.
1968 Migration, growth and mortality of North Carolina pink and brown
penaeid shrimps. North Carolina, Dept. Cons. Dev. Spec. Sci. Rep.
No. 15. 26 pp.

McCoy, E. G.
1972 Dynamics of North Carolina commerical shrimp populations. North
Carolina Dept. Nat. Econ. Res., Spec., Sci. Rep. No. 21. 53 pp.

McCoy, E. G. and J. T. Brown
1967 Migration and growth of commerical penaeid shrimps in North Carolina.
North Carolina Dept. Cons. Dev., Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 11. 29 pp.
McFarland, W N. and B. D. Lee
1963 Osmotic and ionic concentrations of penaeidean shrimps of the
Texas coast. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf. Caribb. 13:391-417.

McGee J. A., S K Midgett and R.H. Tillett
1975 Hangs and obstructions to trawl fishing: North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia. East Carolina University Sea Grant Publication UNC SG-75-17.

McKenzie M. D., D. S. Liao and E. B. Joseph
1976 Feasibility study of seafood industrial park for S. C. South
Carolina Mar Res. Center Tech. Rep. No., 14. 95 pp.

McKenzie M D and J D. Whitaker
1981 A comparative study of shrimp seines and selectivity of various mesh
sizes. S. C. Mar. Res. Center unpublished report.

McLeese D. W.
1956 Effects of temperature, salinity and oxygen on the survival of the
American lobster, J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 13(2): 247-272.

Miller. M. M.
1975 The role of shrimp imports in a declining seafoods maxket - a
background paper. Division of Econcmic and Marketing Research.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA NMFS mimeo. 50 pp.

Miller, M. and R. Marasco,
1976 Statement on applying import controls on shrimp products entering
the United States. Unpublished Nat. Max. Fish. Service Draft Report.
Washington, D. C.

Mock, C. R.
1967 Natural and altered estuarine habitats of penaeid shrimp. Proc.
Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst 19:86-98.

Moriarty, D. J W
1976 Quantitative studies on bacteria and algae in the food of the mallet
Mugil cephalus L. and the prawn Metapenaeus bennettae (Racek and Dall).
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 22:131-143.

12-15

Morris, R. A and F Prochaska
1979 Economic impact of the processing and marketing of commerical
Florida marine landings. Fla. Sea Grant Rep. No. 26, 56 pp.

Music, J. L.
1979 Assessment of Georgia's shrimp and crab resources. Georgia Dept.
Nat. Res. Coastal Res. Div., Contrib. Ser. No. 30. 75 pp.

National Fisheries Institute
1981 Flashes (Newsletter), August 1981.

National Restaurant News
1979 Shrimp, lobster prices falling. National Restaurant. News. 13(24):
Dec. 17, 1979.

Nicholls, J. P. and W. L. Griffin
1974 Recent trends in catch and fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico
shrimp industry and economic implications. Departmental Information
Rept. 74-5. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Texas A&M Univ. College
Station, Texas

Nissan, E. , D. C. Williams, Jr. , T. Green, W E. Hardy, and R. G. Nelson
1978 An econcmic input-output analysis for Mississippi-Alabama Coastal
Counties. Mississippi-Alabama Sea. Grant Consortium publ. 50 pp.

Nix, H, and M. Kim
1981 Shrimp fishing off the Georgia coast: a sociological analysis.
The Institute of Community and Area Development. Univ. of
Georgia, Athens, GA (:unpubl ms)

Nix, H ,S Glenn and J N Whitted
1975 Licational inventory of docks and shrimp trawlers on the coast of
Georgia. Univ. of Georgia. Tech., Rept. Ser. No. 75-8. 24 pp.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
1978 North carolina shrimp prediction for 1978. Unpublished manuscript-
Div. Mar. Fish., Morehead City, No C. 6 pp.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
1981 North Carolina shrimp prediction for 1981. Unpublished manuscript.
Div. Mar. Fish., Morehead City, N. C. 6 pp.

North Caxolina State Government
1979 North Carolina statistical abstract. Div. of state Budget and
Management Raleigh, N.C.

Odum, W. E.
1970 Insidious alteration of the estuarine environment. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 99:836-847

Odum, W. E. , G. M. Woodwell and C. F. Wurster
1969 MT residue absorbed from organic detritus by fiddler crabs.
Science. 164:576-577

Olson, Fred. L.
1972 Farm credit act of 1971: How it affects fishery industry marine
Fish. Rev. 34(9-10):3-5.

12-16

Panikkar, N. K.
1951 Physiological aspects of adaptation to estuarine conditions.
Proc. Indo-Pacific Fish. Council. 2(3):168-175.

Parker,. J. C.,
1970 Distribution of juvenile brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus Ives) in
Galveston Bay, Texas as related to certain hydrographic features.
and salinity. Contrib. Mar, Sci. 15:1-12.

Parrack,. M. L.
1979 Aspects of brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus growth in the northern
Gulf of Mexico Fish. Bull. U S. 76(4):827-836

Pate, P P.
1977 Estimation of North Carolina shrimp harvest and gear utilization
by recreational and commercial fishermen. Compl. Rept. NMFS pro-
ject No. 2-275-R, 30 pp.

Pearson, J C.
1939 The early life histories of same American Penaeidae, chiefly the
commercial shrimp, Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus). U.S. Bur. Fish.
Bull. Vol. 49:1-73 pp.

Perez, Farfante, I.
1969 Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. Fish. Bull.,
U.S. 67:461-591.

Phaees, P. L.
1980 Estimates of natural mortality and fishing mortality for white shrimp
in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-58. 22 pp.

Prochaska, F. J. and C. 0. Andrews
1974 Shrimp processing in the Southeast: supply problems and structure
change. Southern J. Agricultural Econ. July. p. 247-252.

Prochaska, F. J. and J. Cato
1977 An economic profile of Florida commercial fishing firms: fishermen,
commercial activities and financial considerations. Rept. No. 19,
State University System of Florida. Sea Grant Program.

Prochaska, F. J. and J. C. Cato
1981 Economic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp industry: 1960-1981.
Staff Paper. Food and Resource Economics Dept., Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida. Staff paper 180:19 pp.

Pullen, E. J. and W. L. Trent
1970 White shrimp emigration in relation to size, sex, temperature and
salinity. FAD Fish, Rep. 57:1001-1014.

Purvis, E. E. and E. G. McCoy
1972 Overwintering pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, in Core and Pamlico
sounds, N. C. North Carilina Dept. Nat. Econ. Res., Spec. Sci.
Rep. No. 22. 29 pp.

12-17

Purvis C.E. and E. G. McCoy
1974 Population dynamics of brown shrimp in Pamlico Sound. North
Carolina Dept. Nat., and Econ. Res., Special Sci. Rep. No. 25. 26 pp.

Reimold R. J.
1977 Mangals and salt marshes of eastern. United States. In Wet Coastal
Ecosystem, ed. V. J. Chapman Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co:.
Amsterdam 428 pp

Renfro W. C.
1964 Life history stages of Gulf of Mexico brown shrimp. In Biological
Laboratory, Galveston, Tex. fisher research for the year ending
June 30 1963. p., 94-98 US. Fish,. Wildl. Serv. Circ. 183.

Renfro W. C. and H. R. Brusher
1963 Spawning populations. In Biological Laboratory, Galveston, Tex.,
fishery research for the year ending June 30, 1962 p. 13-17.
U S Fish Wildl. Serv. Circ. 16l.

Rhodes R. J.
1974 Development of an expanded commercial fisheries statistics program
for South Carolina. Final Completion report on Prof. 2-137-D incorp.
with the Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. 149 pp.

Rhodes R.
1980 Preliminary economic analysis of the South Atlantic States shrimp
fishery: current trends and outlook. Office of Conservation, Mgt.
and Marketing. S C. Wildl. and Mar. Res. Dept., Charleston, S. C.
May, 1980. 23 pp. (unpubl.)

Richardson, T. H., J. I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M. W. Dix
1978 Remigration patterns of loggerhead seaturtles (Caretta caretta)
nesting on Little Cumberland and Cumberland islands, Georgia.
p. 39-44. In: G. E. Henderson, ed. Proceedings Florida and inter-
regional conference on sea turtles. Jensen Beach, Fla., July 1976.
Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 33.

Ricker, W. E.
1975 Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish
populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Boaxd Canada 191:382 pp.

Ringo, R. D..
1965 Growth In Biological laboratory, Galveston, Texas, fishery research
for the year ending June 30, 1964, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Circ.
230, pp. 69-70.

Ringo, R. D. and G. Zamora
1968 A penaeid postlarval character of taxonomic value. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 18(2): 472-476.

Rivers, J. B.
1966 Gear and techniques of the sea bass trap fishery in the Carolinas.
Comm. Fish. Rev. 28(4):15-20.

12-18

Roberts, K. J. and R. J Rhodes
1976 Gear and economic efficiency results of a Sea Grant twin-trawl demon-
stration in South Carolina. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 28:65-72.

Roelfs, E. W.
1950 Observations on the capture of small fish by the shrimp trawls. Re-
printed from the 1950 Annual Report of the Institute of Fisheries
Research of the University of North Carolina. In: Committee Report
to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Nov. 1, 1951. App.
A:4 pp.

Rose C. D., A. H. Harris, B. Wilson
1975 Extensive culture of penaeid shrimp in Louisiana salt-marsh inpound-
ments. Trans Am. Fish. Soc. 104:296-307.

Sabella, J. C. R D Dixon and M. J. Hepburn
1979 Aspects of family and kinship in a North Carolina coastal community.
A comparative study. Marit. Pol. Mgmt. 6(2):93-99,

Sandifer, P. A., J.V. Miglarese, D. R. Calder, et al.
1980 Ecological characterization of the Sea Island coastal region of South
Carolina and Georgia. Vol. III. Biological features of the characteri-
zaticn area. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/42. 620 pp.

Schelske, C. L. and E. P. Odum
1961 Mechanisms maintaining high productivity in Georgia estuaries. Proc.
Gulf Caribb Fish. Inst. 14:75-80.

Schwartz, F. J.
1977 Evaluations of colored Floy anchor tags on white shrimp, Peneaus
setiferus, tagged in Cape Fear River, North Carolina 1973-1975.
Fla. Scient. 40:22-27.

Shealy, M. H. and J. M. Bishop
1979 Hydrographic and biological studies in relation to Cooper River,
South Carolina low-flow conditions prior to river rediversion. In
Cooper River controlled low-flow study. South Carolina Water Res.
Comm. , Rep. No. 131. 352 pp.

Shipman, S.
1980 Penaeid shrimp migration and growth along the Georgia coast. Annual
report October 1979-September 1980. Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Coast, Res.
Div. 46 pp.

Sick, L. V.
1970 Larval distribution of commercially important Penaeidae in North
Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 86:118-127.

Siebenaler, J. B.
1952 Studies of "trash" caught by shrimp trawlers in Florida. Proc. Guld
Caribb. Fish. Inst. 4:94-99.

Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf
1969 Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California. 776 pp,

.12-19

South Carolina Coastal Council
1981 Rules and regulations for permitting in critical areas of the
coastal zone. S. C.-Coastal Council Publ. 49 pp._

South Carolina Marine Resources Division
1981 South Carolina trawler license file. S. C. Mar. Res. Center.,
Charleston, S.. C.

South Carolina St ate Government
1980 South Carolina statistical abstract. The S. C. Division of
Research and Statistical Serv. Columbia, S.. Ce

South Carolina,Sea Grant Consort
ium
.1,981 of themarine natural bait workshop, August 24-25, 1981
.@at Charleston, S. C. (In preparatim).

Spinner, G. P.
1969 A plan for the marine resources of the Atlantic coastal zone.
American Geographical Society, Washington, D. C.

St. Amant, L. S., J. G. Brom and T. B. Fbrd,
1966 Studies of the brown shrimp,'Ponaeus aztecus, in Barataria Bay,
Louisiana. , M2-1965.. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 18:1-17.

Subrahmanyam, C. B.
The relative abundance and distribution of penaeid shrimp larvae
off the Mississippi.coast. Gulf Res. Rep. 3:291-345.

Summey, J. H.
1977 Out-of-state marketing channels for North Carolina fresh seafood
during 1974. East Carolina Univ. Sea Grant Publ. UK-SG-76-11,
Dec. 1977: 141 pp.

Tabb, D. C. D. L. Dubraw, and A. E. Jones
1962 Studies on the biology of the pink shrimp., Penaeus duorarun
Burkenroad, in Everglades National Park, Florida. Fla. St. Bd.
Conserv. Tech. Ser. No. 37:1-32.

Temple, R. F. and C. C. Fischer
1967 Seasonal distribution and relative abundance of planktonic-stage
shri '(Penaeus spp.) in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1961.
Fish. Bull., U.S., 66:323-334.

Theiling, D. L.
1977 South Carolina's 1976 shrimp trawler season. S. C. Mar. Res.
Center Tech. Rept. No. 24. 19 pp.

7heiling,- D. L.
1981 Accon4plishment of a pilot study relative to implementation of a
cooperative State-Federal regional statistical program along the
south Atlantic coast of the United States. S. C. Mar. Res. Center
Ompl. Rept., NM contract no. 03-7-042-35144. 22 pp.

12-20

Tiller, R. E.
1951 Observations made on composition of shrimp trawl catches, Committee
report to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, November 1,
1951. Appendix C:. 2 pp.

Tiner, R. E.
1977 An inventory of South Carolina's coastal marshes. South Carolina
Mar. Res., Center Tech. Rept. No. 23. 33 pp.

Trent. L
1967 Size of brown shrimp and time of emigration from the Galveston Bay
system, Texas. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 19:7-16.

Truesdale, F. M.
1970 Some ecological aspects of commercially important decapod crusta-
ceans in low salinity marshes. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M
Univ. College Station, Texas. 164 pp.

Turner, R. E.
1977 Intertidal vegetation and commerical yields of penaeid shrimp.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:411-416.

Ulrich, G. F.
1978 Incidental catch of loggerhead turtles by South Carolina commercial
fisheries. S.C. Mar.. Res. Center Compl Rept. NMFS Contract No.
03-7-042-35121. 36 pp.

U.S. Bureau of Commerical Fisheries
1958 Survey of the United States shrimp industry, prepared in Branch of
Economic, Bureauof Comn. Fish., Washington, D. C.

U. S. Department of Commerce
1980 NMFS NEW Commerce Secretary Klutznick announces $12.2 million in
aid to shrimp industry. Press release Oct. 18, 1980.

U. S. Department of Commerce
Fisheries of the United States. Current fishery Statistical.
NMFS. Washington, D.C. Various issues.

U. S. Department of Commerce
Fishery Statistics of the United States. NMFS. Washington, D.C.
Various issues.

U.S. Department of Commerce
Local area personal income 1974-79. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Washington D.C. Southeast Region. Vol. 6.

U.S. Department of Commerce
Processed fishery products. Annual Summary. NMFS. Washington,
D.C. Various issues.

U.S. Department of Commerce
Shellfish market review and outlook. NMFS. Various issues.

12-21

S. Department of Comnerce
Shz*imp landings. MFS. Washington,. D.C. Various issues.

X.S. Department of Conraerce
Shrimp Statistics. NMFS.' Washington, D.C. Various issues.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
1981 Construction, installation, and handling procedures for the NMFS's
sea turtle excluder device. NOAA Technical rirandun NMFS-SEFO-71.
U pp.

U.S.-Department of Ccamerce. National Marine Fisheries Service
1981 Regulations mxUfying threatened sea,turtle resuscitation proce-
dures. Federal -register 46 (170L):43976-43977.

.-M S Department. of Coamerce. National Marine Fisheries ServiceQ
Fishery statistics of the U.S. Several years, NOAA-NMFS Statisti-
cal Digests.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service,,
Fisheries of the United States. Various issues. NOAA-NM
Current Fishery Statistics Series.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service,-
Shrimp landings.

Department of COO=2'0
N=
Conditional fisheries wncept; proposed amendment. Federal Regis-
ter, Vol. 45, No. 8. -2635-2638.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
IL979 Lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Federal
Register 44(12):3636-3654.

U.S. International Trade Oonnission Report to the President
1976 Shrimp. U. S. I. T. C. Publicat ion No. 773. Washington, D. C.

University of Florida
1980 1980 Florida statistical abstract. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research. Univ. of Florida. Gainesville, Fla.

Vondruska, J.
1981. Drop in shrimp prices and shrimp. business survival. Natl. Mar. Fish.
Serv. Memo., Fish Develop. Div. August 18, 1981. 11 pp.

Warren, J. P. and W. L. Griffin
1978 Costs and return trends in the 1970's for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp
vessels. Texas AM Ag.Eco.Dept., College Station, Texas. 20 pp,

Waters, J. R., L. E. Danielson and J. E. Easley
1979 An economic analysis of the shrimp discard problem in Pamlico Sound.
Economics Research Report No. 40. N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, N.C.
47 pp.

Waters. J. R. , J. E. Easley, Jr. and L. E. Danielson
1980 Economic trade-offs and the N.C. shrimp fishery. NMFS, Beaufort,
N.O. Amer. J. Agri, Econ. 62(l):124-129.

12-22

Weymourm, F. W., M. J. Lindner and W. W. Anderson
1933 Preliminary report on the life history of the common shrimp Penaeus

setiferus (Lina). Bull. Bur.. Fish. 48(14):1-26.

White, C. J.
1975 Effects, of 1973 river flood waters on brown shrimp in Louisiana
estuaries. Louisiana Wildl. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull. No. 16. 24 pp.

White, D. R. M.
1977 Environment technology and time-use patterns in the Gulf coast coast
shrimp fishery. The American Ethnological Soc. Monograph 62.
Those Who Live By The Sea R. F. Spencer ed. 195-214,

Whitham, P. R.
1974 Neonate sea turtles from the stomach of a Pelagic fish. Copeia
1974(2):548.

Wiese, C. S.
1980 Commercial fishing financing. Univ. of Alaska, Mar. Adv. Bull.
No. ll. 26 pp.

Williams, A. B
1953 Identification of juvenile shrimp (Penaeidae) in North Carolina.
J. Elisha Mitchell. Sci. Soc. 69(2):156-160.

Williams A. B
1965 A Contribution to the life histories of commercial shrimps (Penaeidae)
in North. Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 5(2):116-147.

Williams, A. B.
1958 Substrates as a factor in shrimp distribution. Limnol. Oceanogr.
3:283-290.

William, A. B.
1959 Spotted and brown shrimp postlarvae (Penaeus) in North Carolina.
Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb, 9(3):281-290.

William, A. B
1960 The influence of temperature on osmotic regulation in two species
of estuarine shrimps (Peneaeus). Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 119(3):
560-571

Williams, A. B.
1965 Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas. Fish. Bull., U. S.,
65:1-298

Williams, A. B. and E. E. Deubler
1968 A ten-year study of meroplankton in North Carolina estuaries:
assessment of environmental factors and sampling success among
bothid flounders and penaeid shrimps. Chesapeake Sci. 9(l):27-4l.

Wilson K. A.
1975 North Carolina wetlands - their distribution and management.

12-23

Wojnowski, M.
1981 List of fishery cooperatives in the United States 1980-81 U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NMFS, Washington, D.C. 11 pp.

Wolff M.
1972 A Study of North Carolina scrap fishery. N C. Dept. of Nat. and
Eco. Resour., Div. of Commercial and Sport Fisheries, Spec. Sci.
Rept. No. 20. 29 pp.

Woodburn, K, D, B. Eldred, E. Clark, R. F. Hutton and R. M. Ingle.
1957 The live bait shrimp industry of the west coast of Florida (Cedar
Key to Naples) Fla. Bd. of Cons. Tech. Ser. No. 21.

Young, J., H.
1959 Morphology of the white shrimp; Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus 1758).
Fish.. Bull U.S. 59(145):1-168

Zein-Eldin, Z.P. and D V. Aldrich
1965 Growth and survival of postlarval Penaeus aztecus under controlled
conditions of temperature and salinity. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole)
129:199-216.

Zein-Eldin, Z.P. and G W. Griffith
1970 An appraisal of the effects of salinity and temperature on growth
and survival of postlarval penaeids. FAO Fish. Rept. 57:1015-1026.

13.0 Appendix

Primary data sources for tables in this section were Shrimp Landings

(Various years) and Fishery Statistics of the United States (various years).

These publications were produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

Landing for 1979 and 1980 came from a number of sources including state

agencies and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These data are prelimi-

nary, but are probably close to final totals.

Table 13-1. ammuV of shrim ion jor the &with Atlantic states, lp5q-198D. (Wite, b,
p produc@ abrb.W)
pink

Annual Landings Percent of'*Gulf Gulf and South
Total Landings as percent of Year's and South Atlan-, Percent of, .-Atlantic as pair-
Year Heads-Off Pounds 1950-19$0 Mean Bank tic U.S' TotA@_ dent of.U.S. TotaA

19.50 22,858,083 145 1 19 10 98
1951 11,400,501 111 13 .10 99
1952 16,084,774 102 17 Ii 99
1953 20,634,712 131 2 13
14 @99
1954 17 9481622 114 6 11 .11 99
1955 17:881,579 114 7 12 99
1956 15.906,642 101 12 98
1957 16,951,614 108 10 14 96
1958 13,425,672 85 24 .10 92
iq@q 15,475,481 98 @2 12 n 90
1960 18,580,291 118 5 13 i2 94
1961 11,755,043 75 27 13
87
1962 16,446,350 105 15 16 .14 92
1963
9,815,793 62 31 7 7 95- ba
1964 10,893,237 69 9 9' 97
1965 16,688,958 106 13 19 -95
1966 13,488,849 86 23 11 88
1967 11@,022,587 83 26 100
1968 15,516,743 99 21 so
1969 9 12 75
1970 13,079.498 83 25 71
1971 19,476,024 124 3 12 69
1972 16,093,384 102 16 10 68
1973 15,590,959 99 20 12 7 57
1974 16,896,566 108 11 13 7 60
1975 15,767,035 100 19 13 59
1976 16,460,457 105 14 11 61
1977 10,@06,393 66 29 6 .4 62
1978 10,126,654 64 30 6 63
1979 16,735,610 106 12 -
1980 19.547,702 4

Mean 15,716,992 11.4 9.7 84.2
SD 3,086,092
2.8 3.2 15.5
Range 9,815,793 .62-145 .6-19 4-19 57-100
22,85.8,083

Table Sumary of shrinp pr!odwtion for bbrth Carolina.' 1950-1W.

Total Land- Annual Likiad- Statels'Rank.- Year!s State % SttL .of St4
a los Per:7
inis Heads- ings as of in South Rjknk of South cont " Of
Gulf and
Year off Pounds 1950-80 Mean Atlantic., 1950-1980 Atlantic South Atla *c.-.Total U.S.

1950 5,206,749 130 3 7 22.8 4.
4 3
1951 5,136,772 128 8 29.5 3
07
33.9 3.8
IL952 5P458,216 136 -5 3
1953 9,174,709 229, 1 1 - 44
@3-4
1954 5,752,909 143 4 32:
4 3 4.2
1955 6.467,116 161 2 36.2
24
3 13 6
1956 3 911,076 97
2.8
3
1957 4 721,987 Ila 2 11 27 0 -3.8 .7
1958 1:500.989 3 31
7 2
24 5. 2.9,-
1959 3,796,422 2.6
14
1960 _3,564,555 89 4-:". 16 19.2 @.4
15.3
'1'795,333 45
30 .0 1- 7,@
4
15 22 0 1. 4
1962 1 615,501 90 3, 3.4
2:097,798 52 3 1.4
1963 21:4. i?5
-2
1964 2,665,620 -66 3. 27,. 24.5 2.
2.
1965 @,395.247 85 4 20 20.3 3'.
1966 3.552,313 89 2 2 5
17,
2 0
1967 3,0656.867 76 3 25 23.6 2. 6
1968 2,875'
9696 .72 4 26 18.5 0 :-1.6 -
1969 4,892'606 122 .2 9 - 28.2 3 2 5
3 23
1970 3,153:055 79 24 0 1.4
-4,753,692 119
'2.0
1971 10 2.9
24.4
1 5
3 509,860 87 3 1 2 2
1972 2i.8
1973 3:164,897 7b 3
22 20.3 2 4
0, 2.3
1974 5;256,084 131 1 6 31A -_:3
3,2@2,551
1975 .81 3 21 20.5 @:6 1.5
1976 4,143,626 103 3 12 25.2 2
1977 1,481,017 87
1 19 33.8 2'0 1.2
842,250
1978 is 46 3 29 18.4 0.7
1979 3,081,822 77 3 18.4
1980 6,119,886 153 1 3 33.0

Mean 4,012,284 2.6 25.1 2.8 2.4

SD 1,595,827 1.0 6.9 1.0 1.1
Range 1,500,989- 37 229 1-4 11.2 44.5 1.1 5.7 0.7 5.6
9,174,709

Table 13-3. Su=LZ7 of shriap prodwtion for South -Carolina, 1950-1980.. (Whitq'A?;@wn

Tot al Land- Annual Land- Statels.Rank Year 1 d State's % St &te p qf State's Per-w,
Rank on 0
ings Heads- Ings as.,% of in South of South Gulf AP4 c
IYear off Pounds 1650-80 Mean Atlantic 1950@1980 Atlantic a
ou@trh 4@Xim ic Total U.S.

1050 4.8 120 4
.52,.017 7 21.2 -4.0
1951 2 337,061 58 4 28 13.4, 1.7 1.7
551,189 63 4 i5,9 1 1.8
1952
3,186,246 79 4 2i 15.4 21.0
1953 2 0
IL954 4,162,M 103, 3 15 23.2 2.5 2.5
3 2 2.8
1955 4,333,946 107 14 25.2
0,921,362 6.5
220 1 56A 0.4
1956
1957 3,981,907 98 3
is 22.8
2.6
1958 3,461,468 so "1 2 20 25.8 2.8
12* 28.0 3 3.1
1959 4,472,948 110 2
3.2
1960 4,780,083 118 2 a 25'@ 8:4.-
1961 2,325,472 57 3 29 19:8@- :4.2
1962 4,101,989 101 2 le 24.9 3.9 3.6
0.9
1963 1,374,879 34 31 14.0 1.0
1964 1,655,329 41 4 30 15.2 1.3 1.3
3,1 3.0
1965. 4,341,451 107. 2 13 26.0
68
24 19.8 2.2
1966 2,670.658 4 1.0
.64 4
1967 2,588,130 25 19.9 1.7 1.7
1968 4,068,895 101 2 17'. 26.2 2.6
2.3
3,742,499 92 3 19 21.5 2'0 1@9
1969
1970 3,162,150 78 2 22 24.2 --2,0 1.4
1911 0.604,491 171 1 3 35.5 4.@ 2i9
1972 5,186,152 128 1 0 32.2 3.2 2.2
1973 5.312,596 131 a 3461 2.3
1974 4,765 358 118 2 10 28.2 3.5
1975 0,689:721 141 1 3 36.1 4.6' 2.1
1976 5 540,227 137 1 33.7 3.7 2.3
1977 2:501.544 62 3 27 @4.3 1.4 0.9
1978 3,160j899 78 2 23 31.5 .9 1.2
1979 4,794.791 118 2 9 -28.7
1980 4,589,120 113 3 11 24.7

Mean
4,048,961 2.5 25.6 2.Q

SD 1,557,997 1.1 8.4 1.2

Range 1,374,879- 34-220 1 4 13.4 56.1 1.0 6.5 0.9 6.4
8,921,362

Table 13-4, Sumnaxy of shriap jeorgilk,. 1950-198D. (White
?dLction for C

Annual,pand- Statels'Rank,- Year State's S At's, 'i@
Total nd@ Ot ate a':
.Cent of
ings.Heads- ings as of in South.. 'Rank. of South Gulf
Y
r off p
ea ounds 1950_86`@Vaan Atlantic` 1950-1980 Atlantic So h AVIOntic Total U.8

1950 6 989,381 145 30.6 5.8
27.4
1951 ',41766,213 99 3 4 3.4
1952 3,753,245 78 3 28 23A, 2.,7,':
2 18 -22.9 2 2.9
1953 @4,720,480 98
27.0 2.9
1954 4,849,534 -.101 2 16 2
25. 1 0-.,. 2.9
1955 4,486,179 10 3 22
3.
3 6
@1956 5'006,153 104 2 14, 31 5 3
4 2,
1957 16 2 . :.,,,
5:198,264 10.8 1: 6@8
1958 5,186,994 108
12. 38!6 4 2 9
2 3!1
1959 4,520,838 94 21 9.2 3 5 3
w
1960 6,192,210 129 2 33.3 - `4 4- - 4.1
1961 4,053,615 84 34 4 3.8
25
4.7
5
1962 5,423.989 M a M:0
5 2.4
lid 30 35.1
-3 0 2 9
1964. 3,769,857 78 l -27 34.6
33
5,519,1 1
1965 01 15 1 6 .1 3:8
N66' 4 i42 396 86
24, 3 .7
0 -2 9
.1 23.' 32. 7 2 2 8
1967 .4,259,364 89
1968 5 52i,889 @3.1
115 5 35.6
5?459,733 113 S.8
1966 1 7 31.4 2.8
1970 3,864,744 .80 26 2.4 1. 7
:29.5
1971 5,722,274 119 2 .4 29.4 @2.4
1972 4,664,809 97 2 18 :2
29.0 2.0
.-5,338,510 ill 1. 9 34.2' 4 1 2.3
1973
1974 4,653,108 97 3 20 27.5 .1 6. 2.1
1975 5,190,512 108 2 32.9 4i 9 2.5
2.0
1976 -4,993,351 104 2 16 W.3 .3 4
1977 2,938,085 -61 2 31@ 28.5 1:61- 1.0
1978 3,517,177 73 1 26 35.1 2. 1.3
1979- 5,870,315 122 1 3 35.1
1980 5,179,058 108 2 13 27.9

Mean 4,812,824 1.5 '30.0 3.5 3.0

SD 876,450 0.7 3.7 0.9 1.0

Range @2,938,085 61 146 1-3 22.9 38.6 1.6 5.9 1.0 5.8
-6,989,381

Table 13-5.' Summary of shrimp wixWetion for the east coast of Florida 1950-IM - (White in@ a

Total Landings Annual,.,Landings State's Bank Year's Otatels,fer- State's Per- State gi Per
Year Heads-off'. as percent of In South Rank cent of' cent of Gulf cont,of'..
Pounds 1950-1980 Mean Atlantic @1950-1980 South Atlapt*q.'-& 0. Atlantic Total U. S. -
1950 5,803,658 2 1 25.,j 4.9 C-8
92
1951 5.157,885 171 1 2 29 .6 3.7 .3.7
1952. 4,319,788 143 2, 3 3.0 3.1
1653 3,650,227 118 3 7 17.2 2.2
1954 3,181,234 1.65 4 12 M7 1.9 1.9
1955 2,591,096 4 24 14,4 1.7 1.7,
1956 3,567,769 1.18 4 6 22.4@@, 2.0 2.5
1951 3,049,456 4. 16 17.5 2.5 2.6
1958 3,276,191 08 3. 11 24.4 2.6 2.8
1959 2,685,273 '69 22 17.4 - 2.1 i.9
4
'0'
1960 4,043,443 .134 3 4 21, 2.7
1961 3,580,623 1.19 12 5 30.5 @.q 3.4
1962 3,304,871 .109 4 9 3.1 2.9.
1963 2,897,564 :66 19 2.0
.29.5 2.1
1964 2,802,431 ':,03 2. 20 25.7 2.3 .2 2
1965 3,433,159 li4 3' 8 2.5 2 3
1966 3,123,482 163 13 23.2 2.@
1967 31106,226 AQ3 2 14 23.9 2.0 2.0
10j a 15
1968 3,050,263 19.7- .2.1
1969 3,2?3,113 108 4 10 18.8 @,3 i.7
:1.9 - I . 1.8
1970 9,899,549 6 4 18- 22.2 1.3
2,695,567 @69 4 26 1.3 0.9
-1971 1O.S
1972 2-739,563 4 21 17.0 1.7
1973 1:774 962 -to 4 28 11 1.4 0.8
1974 2,222:016 '@4 4 13:2 1. .7 1.0
1975 1,654,251 .65 4 29 io.6 1.3 0.8
1976 -1,783,253 '69 4 @7 10'.8 1.2 0,7
1977 1,388,747 .46 4 31 11.5 0.8 0.5
1978 1,605,728 -:63 4 30 16.0 1.0 0.0
1979 3,021'682 100 4 17 18.1
1980 2,659:638 88 4' 23 14.'3

Mean 3,049,894 3.3 19.5' 2.2 2.0

SD 1,011,499 0.9 5.8 0.9 1.0

Range 1,389,747- 46-@ 192 1.4. 10.5 30.5 0.8 4.9 0.6 4.8
5,805,658

Table 13-6. Sumary Of Shrimp production for the South Atlantic, 1957-19M. Uri

Year. a Percent of Total'
Heads off Annu al Landings as Rank- ic.Landings'
Pounds- @80 Mean'@- @,Atlant
Year:. % of 1957 1057-80
y:

1957 9,553,546 109 lo 56.4
1658 7,202i,177' 82 is -53.7,
1959 .8,326,764 .95 7 i5 53.8
65.7
1960- : @"" -:- 12
4, 139
12,199,920
1961 9,112,583 104
-47.9
1962 7,879 117 90 17
48.1@
1963 4,720 082
54
48.4
22
1964 5,272,219 60
1965 10,587,916 121 4
20 44.1
1066 5,949,097
54.C
1967) 76079,288, 81
19'
5 70 9
125
1968 11'003 923
1969 10,963 602@ 125 16
:92 62.0
1970@ 8,111:121
I . @v
I n17I In nIA ADO
JL Ua. I
J.U A a I a A-3 DO L@pv
123
1972 10,802 312 7
76 0
"i30
11,845, 135 3,__'.
1973
99,
8,685,289 51.4':!
1974
1975 ',-10,331,812 118
1976 9 331,374 106
1977 3,221,503 .24
37 .31.2
21 56.1
1978 5,686,067 65
68.6
1979 .11,4851711 .131 4
1980 9,257,604
105, 2 49.6

Mean 8,785 110 58. 1

SD 2,512,017' 10.7

Range 3,221,503- 37-139 31.2-77.5

Table 13-7. &mary of sh@ production for the South Atlantic states, 1957-IM. (R@Um ahriW)

Total'Land- Annual Land- Year's Percent ofTotal
ings Heads77 ings as,% of Rank ..South Atlantic Land-
Year Off Pounds., 1957-80 Mean 1957-1980'
*n (All Species)

1957 6,049,791:7 116 7
1958 5 707,828- 109 10 -42.5
1959 5:860,131f" 112 9 37.9
1960 5 613 811, 107. 11 30.2
1961 1:550:071-: 30 241. 1341
1962 7,163,lQ4.,., 137 3 .43.6
1963 4 749,249. 91 16 48.4
1964 403,488'.4.@ 84 is
40.4
1965 5,047,419,-, 96 13 30.2
1966 7,207,733 138 2 53.4
1967 4,955,800-. 95 14
1968
@,676,714, 70 22 23.7
1969. 5,323,086''- 102 12 30.6
1970 85 33.9
4,430,512
.17
1971 6,064,881'@-- 116'
30.9
1972 4,798,399": 92 15
29.8
1973 2 796 832,- 63 23 17.9
1974 6: 887: 364". 132 4
1975 4,169 782 80 19 26.4
1976 5,994:678' 115 8
36.4
1977 6,587'123-;' 126 5 63.9
1978 4.100:797-::. 78 21 .40.9
1979 4,138,249.', 79 20
24.7
1980 8,306,249'-.. 159 1
.44.8-

Mean 5,232,631. 35.7
SD 1, 499 996!i,:,

Range 1,550,071 30 159 13.2 6.3.9
8,306,249"

Table 13-8,: Sm=7 of shrimp production for the South At4mtic states W
57-:W shrimp)

Landings Annual Landings Year's Percent of-Total
Year Heads-off as % of 1957- Rank South Atlantic
Pounds 1980 Mean 1057-1980 Landings (All-Species)

1957 1,348,277 147., 2
8io.
1958 514,667 56 19 3.8
1,288,585
1959, 140@ 4 8.3
1960 .766,560 83 17 4. 1
1961 1,092,389 119 .10 9..3
1962 1,404,069 i53 1 4.5.
1963 346,462 38 22' 35
1964 1,217,530 132 6 11'2
1965 1,054,523 115 12 @6.
1966 332,019
36 24 . 2.5
1967, 986,974 107 113 -.7.6
1968 836,206 91 16
5.4
1969 1,061,263 11 6.2
115
4.
537,865 58 .18,
1971 1,196,660 130 7 6.1
1672 492,673 54 21 3.1
1973 948,997 103 .15 6
1,323,913
1974 144 7.8
1975 1,265.441 138 5w 8.0
69
1976 1,134,405 123 8
500,767 54 20 4.9
1978 339,790 37 23 4
1979 1,111,650 121 9 6. 6'
1980 983,849 107 .14 6A

Mean 920,231

353,343 2.2

Range 332 .019- 36 2.5 11.2
1,404,069

Table 13-9.* Sumary of shrim production for North Carolina, 1957-1980. (Uxite I"i

Landings Annual Land- State's Yea P t
r go erc@n.. of Percent of .
Hoads-Off ings as % of Rank in Rank Totail-State W., Atl,antto
Year Pounds 1957-1980 Mean S.Atlantic 1957-80 Landings White Shrimp

1957 421,158 160 4 4 8 .0, 5.8
50,959 19 4 19 3.4
1959 72,962 28 4 18 1.9 O.D.
1960 233,601 89 4 11 1.9
5 7 1.1
1961 101,525 16 0
0.9 0.4
1962 32,743 12 21
.0
1963 0 0 24 0
1964 10,248 4 4 22 0? 0.2
1965 565,844 5.3
216 3
1966. 265,997 101 4 4.5
1967 49 4 14 4. 1.8
O.A
1968 83'809 32 4 17 9
1969 7 4 12 1$
1970 238,844 9i 4 10 7.6, 2.9
1971 381,994 146 4 6
@1,020,220 4 2 29 1. 9.4@
1972 389
1973 1,166,497 444 4 1 36.9 9.8
126,890 48 .4 15 13.6
1974
5 3.,
1975 407,906 155 4 9
1976 249,069 95 4: 9 60 2 '7
2 23
0 2 0.2
1977 5,759 4
1978 14
37,316 20 2.0 0 1
1979 153,351 59 4 13 5 .'0 .1.3
1980 368,499 140 .4 7 6.0., .4.0

Mean 262,437 4.0 7.4 3.2
0.
SD 298,784 8.0- 3.4

Range 0 -
1,166,497 0 44 0 -.36.0 0 13.0

S
Table !:@710- unaary of shrimp proq@ctiop for So@o. Quolina, 1957-P80. (WbAto sh#W

Landings Annual Land, StateestRank ',YqAros Pqrcen r -:Percept.'9f
t
@'Atl i
ant c
Heads Off ings as % of, in South t:"* Rank -Total
P undo Afli ti' Landi
Year. an c 1954@1980 PIP.
to Shri
1957-80 Mea

35 '1
1957 :2,533,074 101 63.6
'20@
19-58 .1,461.032 58 19 42.2 3
1959 2,659,317@ 106 2 13 31.9-
59.5
960 3 349,393 134 5-
1 3 70.1 47!
77.3,*,
1961. 1:798J603 72 17 119.
3
1962- 1,858,097 74@ 45.3,- 2 3 6
196@ 183,675 '7 3_ 24 13 4 .9
21
'516 Oll
22-
1964 3 3i. 2..
3 --26- 3.
64
1965 2 787:023 ..Ill 12
7
21
1966@ 519,423 -21 3 19.4
15.9
-1,124,753 45 -20 '43 5
1968 3,102,002.., 124 2 9 28 2.@
79
1969.% 2,977,273 119 10
2 2
1970- 2,001,730@ 80
207 42.5
1971 194 397 75 2
1972 3 790 630 '151 73 35. 1
7 35 8
1973 -4:244' 2 2 . ,.I
722 169 9@6
7 40 0'
i974 .3'474'689 139 2 72.9
'203,717 '168
1975 4 2 40 7
3 73.9-.z-,-'I -
8
4
6 7
19176 :.3,804,334 152
7.4 -13.5
1977.. 434 472 17 3 23.
1,650:058 66 2 .18 52 29 .0,
2
.145
1979 3,622,783 6 76. 31 '5
1980 2,854,057 114 11 02.2- 30.0

26.0
Mean 2,506.061 W.31

SD 1,361,982 .20
0.6@
7 0.7

Range 183,675
5.194,397 7 207 1-3 13.4 79.0: 3.9 42.5

Table 13-11, S=Ury of shriap productim for Coorgig, M7-IM. (White

Annual Land- Otate's Year a Percent of percent of
Landings
-off Ings as %.of Rank in Rank 'TPtal State S. Atlantic
Heads
Year Pounds .1957-80 Mean .6. Atiantic 1957@80, Landipga White Shrimp

1957 4,270,689 113 1 9 62.2 59.1
1958 3,069,618 81 1, 19 56. 2 42.6
1959 3,387,159 90 1 17 74.9 40.7
1960 4,917,880 130 1 5
79A .40.3
1961 3,705.799 98 13 01.4 40.7
1 962 3,586,488 95 14 66.1 45.5
65
1963 2,269,950 60 2@ 48.1
6
1964 2,541,272 67 22 7:4 48.2
1965 4.315,722 114 78.2 40.8
1966 2,763,460 73 1 20 66.7 46.5.
1967 3,132,982 83 is 73t6 44.3
1968 5,068,825 134 1 2 91 8 46.1
1969 4,900,279 130 1 6 :44.6
1970 3,230,167 86 16 39.8
1971 5,006,227 133 3
1972
3,606,302 96 2 15 77 3 33.4
4 6@ 41.9
1973, 4,960,773 131 1
1974 3,774,285 100 1 12. 61.1 43.5
1975 4 380.028 lie 1 7 84 4- 42.4
1976 3:823,681 101 1 11 76:6,
1977 1,942,718 51 1 24 60.3
1978 2,730,674 72 1 21 77:6 48.0
1979 5,143,307 136 1 44.8
1 67.6
1980
4,041,371 107 10 43.7
.78.0

Mean 3,773,736- 44,5
BD 948,734 0.3 Q.,5 5.7
Range 1,942,718- 51- 136 1.2 49.2-Q2.9 43.4-60.3
5,143,307

12.
ary 0
Table,13m- Summ east wast of rorida, @19@7 lWt.@ (Wte. mhowi
fihri@ PrOdUcti(W ;OT.,

earts @Percent
and-, State Is Y
Landings. Annual L
At a C:..
Heads-Off ings as % of, Rank - in -Rank @_Tqtai_s 1 nii
Pounds 1957-80 Mean;- .1957-80 Lan ingi
6'.Atlan'tic d IEi:- ftite"'Shrimp
Year

2,328,625 104 13 76A,. ,32.2
1957' 3
9 so 01
1958 2 621 5 2 36
68 -.117
.3- 15 26 5
1E159 @'207,326 82.2;,''
165 :30
66
19 3,699,0461!
3,506,656 '156 .2
1961 97 "9 ' 38 5
1962 2,401,789 :107 1.1;.. 72.1.__ 30.,5:
.1963 2 14
2 266,457 @-101 78
2-
'7
16 78.
:204.688 41
.1964 2 98
2,918f -130- 21
19 5 427 85 0'-@- 27 6
6
76 8 40
2 12
1966 20400,217 107 .3"
1967 2 120 2 7 86
693,576
3
2,749 187 .6
.1968 25.0
N2 go, i
96.7'
3 4 aq's"
1969 2.930.734 13i
-118 6
2,640,380 ',2 91 J!,
1970.".,
1 631 865 -73 '3,' '18
1971 '77. 13 4
19 21 106 2
72 ,385,160 MA
'12
1973 1,473 138 66 3 20 83 0 4
22
i974 1"309'425 58
1 340 167 60 '81
1975 1 3 21
i'454,290 65 81 6..-".
1976 J -3 19
6
_60A". 26 0-
37 24
1977 838 554
79 0
1978, 1,267:814 56 3 23 2:i
1979 116 3 2@.'6
2,599,270 lo 86.5"'.
1980 1 993,677 89 3 17 2
74.5' 1.5

Mean 2,244,252 2-,.5 i@,,'27.4
v
SD 718,535 0.5 9.0; 9.8

Range 838,554 -
3,699,056 37 165 2-3 58.'9 91.p 13.0 48.0

Table 1343. Sumutry. of shrjnp
production for North Carolina, 1957-im.
(Brown

Tot al'Land- AnnuhJ Land-
State's Rank Year a Percent. of Percent of
ings Heads- ingal. as % of in''South: Rank Total SWe .1a
South At ntic
-80-Mean Atlanilc@ 195 -1980- La O*ng Br
Year Off Pounds 1957 7 P
own Shrimp'
1957 2 976,628 :129 a- '63 .49.2
1958 941 859 41 3 23 62.7.. 16,5
1959 2A35:350 .105 1, 10 41.6
1960 2,564,394 111 1 9
45.7
1961 601,419 26 .1. 24 33.5' 38 8
1962 2,180,044 914 2 12 60*. 3
1963 1,751,336 76
18 03.5' 36.9.
32.9
1964 1,444,942 62 21 54.@
1965 1,774,880 77 17 :52 3 35 2
41.0
1966- 2,955,446 .,.'128 1 ..7
1967 1,951-916 84 1 16 63. -39.4
1968 1,963,982 85 1 14 69 53.4
1969 .3,656,663 @'158 3 74 7.:. f)8.7
1970 2,379,976 103 11 75.5 53
1971 3,175.038 137 4 06. 52,4
1972 1,989,967 86 13 41 0
37:7
1973 1,053,826 46 2 .22
1974 3,809,124 -465 1
2 55.3
1975 1.601,266 69 1 19 5 38.4
1976 2,788,670 .'.121
I A @67 0. 46.5
1977 3J05,088 134 5 47.1
37.6.
1978 l,540,574 67 26
1979 1,952,612 84 1- 15 A3.4 47.2
1980 4,894,312 .-212
_1 1. .8.0'.0 58.9
Mean 2,312,055 1.2 65.6
43.6
SD 991,936 0.5 .14.4 10.7
Range 601,419 26 '212 1.-3 33.3-- 89,2. 16.5 68.7
4,894,312

Ttble I StMIFALry 01
3-14 shrim South Carolina 195-
p prodiwtion for 7 lij[3@0. (Brown Shrjjmp)
q.,

Tot al Land-.-:,' Annual Landm- State Is Rank ar a Percent -oi ercent.of
ings Heads- ings as % of in South Rank Totai-11'Statoe.@ .,:,South Atlantic
LAO. ipgs -1 brimp
-80 Mean -'Atlantic 1957-1980, Brow
Year Off Pounds,

1 57 ,1,443,133 99 2 13 W.2- 23.9
2 000,466 137 2 @4 '57@8 35 0
1958
1959 1 M,631 125 2 5 30.9
1
60 98 2 14 26.9 -25.5
9. 1,430,690
-36 -7 34.0
1961 526,869 24.. 22@
1962 2.243,892 ''',1 r -7
54 31.3
.82 !.6
1963 1,191,204 '86, 25A,
2 17
-139,318 3 2
68 8, 5 9
1964 78 .20,,
2
-1:i54 3 8
D615 #428 107 35" 8@_ 0
'go
1966 .':@2,151,235 2 2 29.8
1967 12 66. 6 9
.1'463,377 101
AA
MR (19.q 9.9. qq
.2:
1969 765,226 53 2 23 4 :.14.4
1970 1, 160,420 2- 19
80
26.2
1971 #710,094 117 9 8 24.8'- 28.2
-:96
1972 1 395 522 2
15 29'1
@1.067,868 20,1:
1973 73 36: 2
V 21
89
7.
2 18'7
1974 l1290,669 2 16
'26 @O 35 5
19715 1-478,843. X02 2
1976 1,716,,151 .118 2 7
31 0 28 6'
1977 2,037 2 1:4 @0.9
1451 140 3
1978 1,503,314 i03 2 10 47.6 36.7
1979 1,169,234 80 6
.2 18
1980 1,728,844 119 7
6

Mean 1,456,042 2.0 41 6 '28'5,
SD
426,900
20.6 5.6
Range 526,869
2,243,892 36 154 1-3* 20.1-86.6 14 4-38.2

BD
-15. Suin@ of sho
Table 13 w production for Georgia, 1957 (prom

Total Land- Annual Land- State's Rank Year's Porqout of. Percent of
ings Heads- Ingo as % of in South Rank Total Statv@ .@S.'Atlantic
Year Off Pounds 1957-80 Mean Atlantic 1958-1980 LapdIn' Birown Shrimp
94

..........

1957 912,094 17.. 5 15.1
91 3 14
1956' 2,110,880 211 1 1 [email protected].@ :@7.0
1959 1,133 204 113 9 9 06.1 19.3
1960 1,274:330 '128 .3 4 .'20'6 22.7
1961 347,816 35
.3 44 8.6 22.4
1962 1,837,501 184 3 2 '[email protected]. 25.7
1963 1,175,602 Ila 3 7
34, 1 24.8
1964 .1,221,485 122 2 5 32A, 27.7
1965 120 3 6 21.8 23.8
1966 1,377,787 138 3 '3 33.3 19. 1
1967 1,126.382 113 3 10 22.7
1968 453,064 45 3 22 8.2
1969 559,454 56 .3 21 '10.2
.10.5
1970 633#802 6j 3 20 d 14.3
1971 716,047 72 3' 19 i2.5
1972 1,058,507
106 3 12 22.7- 22.1
1973 377,737 38 3 23' 13.5
1974. 878,823 88 3.
15 12.8
1975 804.964 81 3 is 19.3
1976 1,169,670 117 3 8 .23.4 19.5
1977 991,171 99 3 13 15.0
33.7
1978 771,167 77 3 17 21.0 18.8
1979 718,673 72' 3 is i2,2 17.4
1980 .1,126,303 113 .3 11 21.7 13.6

Mean 999,160 Z. 9 21.6 19.2

SD 420,616 OA 9.5 6.2

Range 347,816 - 35 211 1 3 7.1 - 40.7 10.5 - 37.0
:@,110,880

Table 13-16. Sumnary of sh
.,riap pMduction for, east coast of'Florida lf@57-198D

@j
Percent of
Total Land- 'Annual Land-, 'State!s Rank -Yearls'' PfirCeU t 'of
ings-Heads- Inge as'% of... in.souih.: Rank-
ye Totil State
ar Ojf pou V. S.Atla6tic
nda :1950-Bo Me' -Atlantic .. .: @ jI "I .. . -1"
an 1957-1980 -Brown Sh I
r. mp,.
.1957 11 9
717 936 154 4: 4
1958
654:623.. .14i 4 5 .2
1959 477,947'' .0.0
103 4 10:- 17. 8 812
1960 344 397 74 15 -
1961 7@ 967 '116 4 6.
4
.24 .2 1,
4 2
196@ 901.727,,, 194 27*3 12 6
1963 631,107
136 4 .21 8
13.3
597,743 128 .7 21 :-3
4
1965 514,732 13.6
4
1966 .723,265., 5.0., 10.2
155
4 3- 23 2 - 10.6
1967. 414,125 89'". 4-
J-13.3 8.4
@1968 296.575
1969 341,743 73
10 4 6 4
4 16 ., - .' ! -
-_: @ @ @ 8 a
1970 -256,314 55 2@
5. 8:,
1971 463,702 100
"6
4,403 7.
4
1972 35 76 :4 14 7.4
1973 297.461 64
4
19 6.8, ..10 6
1974 908,748 195 4
1975 .40.9 13.2
284,709
61 4 A7.2
1976 'U0,187 69 22 6.8
4 @17, 18.0
5.3
1977 453,413 97 4 S.
12 9
1978 285,742 61 4
21
7.0
1979 297,730 64 4 18
1980 556,790 7.2
120 4
.;Zo. 9 6.7

Mean 465,376
4.0 is.0 -
8.7
SD 210,769 0.0
SA 2'.7
..Range 73,967 16 195
908,748 40.9 4.8 13.6

Table 13-17, Summary of shripp production, for North Cawlina, 1957-1980@ (1413k

Landings Annual Land- State"s Rank Year's Percent. of Percent of
Heads-Off ings as % of In Soutb Rank Totai,�taie 'S.'';Atlantic 1j
Year Pounds 1957-80 Mean Atlantic -1957@80 Lan4i PInk-8hr!mp..
J_

1957 1,324,201 '.148 2 24.0. 98.2
1950 "508 171 57 .1 19 33.9, 98.7
1959 1,288:110 144 1 4 33 9,.
766,560 86 1 17 100.0
1961 1,092,389 .122 9 60.0 100.0
1962 1,402,714 157 1 69.9
1963 346,462 - 39 16.5
22 100.0
1964_ 10210,430 :135 1 6 45.4 99.4
'118 1 11
1965 1,054,523 31@ 100.0
1966 330,876 37 .1 23 9:3 99,6
1967 986,974 .110 1 32. 100.6
1968 827,905 92 1 16 28,Q 99,0
1969 1,060,627 lie 10 2j.1 99 .9+
99 .3
IL470 534,235 60 1 18 .16 a
1971 1,196,660 J34 1 7 25:A .100.0
1972 492.673 .55 1 20 14.1- 100.0
1973 944,514 :406 14 29.8 99.5
1974 1,320,070 .14Z 1 3 25 99.7
1975 1,223,385 137 5 37:8 96.7
1976 1,105,887 124 1 8 26.7 97.5
1977 370,170 41 1 21 10.6 73.9
1978 264,360 .30 24 14.3-. 77.8
1979 975,859 109 1 13 31,7'@ go 0
i980 957,025 :@96 1. 15 14-.0 87: 1

96.5
mean 095,204 27.0

SD 360,295 11.9 7.2

Range 264,360- 36-157 9.3 60-8 73.9 100.0
1,402,714

shrimp
-19M (p,
of shrim
production toi South Carolina 1957,
Table 13-18 SWWXY

of-
P reent of
_'Yearls
@jandings Annual Laad-@ State! 0 Rank . - . ''Y - ..
8te Atlant Id
a k Total. ta
of An Sout6 Ran Sh L
Heads-Off i gs as@ % ., I - r:mP.
me "': La ding
57-4
93 -80 an. Atlantic
Pound 1957
Year

0.4
0. 1,:@
3
0
19571;
0,700
0
1958, 0_-
01
1959" 0
0 0
-.1960 0
0
@196i.
0
0
0 0
1962:
0 0
1963: 0 0
O@
0
@O
1964
.0
.0
1965,,:,. 1
:. 0,.
0 7
1966
0 0;
-3
1967 7. 5
3,800' 0 0
.1968
1969 0 0 0
0
:0
1970 0-
.0
1971:: 0@
0
0
O.q
1972 -
0.
0 '0
'0"
1973
0
1974
4
- '' -'*- I.. . 1 0 6
3
1975 7,161 209 4 1,7.,
575 5-.91
106 19,742
863 2.2
1977 29 621
4 -'3 0 .
1978 7:327, 214 0.1
0 3
1979 81 -4 '0 1
2,774 6
4
6,219
1986 181

Mean 3,431

SD 7,171
0 0 5.9
Range 0 0 863
29,621

7*1# 13-19. Swun-ary. Of 861W PrOdUetion for Georgia, W57-1980., (Pink Gib"

Landings. Land- Statefs Rank Year's P4rc, t
'Pere at of
Heads-off Inge as % of., in' S.
Rank @Total Sta@e Atlantic
YeaT' Pounds 1957-1980 Mean Atigintic
1951-19SO:
Pink Shrimp

1957 15.481
483 2 2
6,496 203
2
1950 .475 6. 1 .3
@2
1960 0
0
1961 '.0 0
0
1962 .0 0
_(y
1963 0 0 @Ab
0.
1974 7,100 222
2
5
1965' 0
0 0.
36
1966. .1?149
J967. 0.3.,
0
''0
1969 0 ..0
0 0
0
24
1970 775 0,
3 1
1971 o
0
.0
1972 .0
0
1973 0 0
.1974 0 0-
0
i975 50520 172
1976 0 0
'2. 7 0 1
''A 0
@1977 4.196 131
4 0 1'
0 a
15,936 498 95
3 4:7
8,335
J979 266 3, 4 0 1
1080 11,384 .356 3
3 2'. 1.2

Mean 3.202

5.062

Range 0-15,936
0-0.5 0-4.7

*Less than 0.1

Table 13-2D. Sunmr hrinp production'for the east coast of a-hrimp

Landings Annual Landings.--- Year Percent of. 9
as % of 1 77. Hank. in Rank in Tot al - St ate @-@.,Atlantic.
Heads-Off 95
W ag Pink Shrimp
S. At S. a
Year.. Pounds 1980 Mean c Atlafttlo-.,@
PI,

2
1957 2,895 4 10 1
0
IL659 -0- 0 @0.
0
0
1959 -0- 0
0
-0
1960 @0 0
0
0
1,35.
.1962 5
7
i963 -0-.: 0
-0- @0 0
0,
1965 0 0
-0-
0
1966 -0- OL
0
1967 625
3 2
0 1
I L If (3 t I S
DUI
1969 636 0
..3 13
2
1970 2855 15
0
-0-
1971
0
0-
1972: 0
-5
24 2: 0.
1973 4,423
2:9
.1974 3,843 21 2 9 2
1075 2. 3
29,375 159
3
1976 770 48 6
0.5 0.8
:3
1977 916:780 527 7.6
19.3
1978 52,167 283 2% 15 4
@2
1979 124,682 675 ;4 li: 4
1980 109.171 591 2 2
.4.1

18,374
Mean-

SD 37,565
Range 0 124,682 0 675 ..0 0 19.5

*less than 0. 1

c 7)
co@

OD
CA) ...... 0