Deepwater Program

Bluewater Fishing and OCS Activity:

Interactions between the Fishing and

Petroleum Industries in Deepwaters

of the Gulf of Mexico

Final Report

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS Study

MMS 2002-078

MMS
U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 2002-078 

Deepwater Program 

Bluewater Fishing and OCS Activity, 

Interactions between the Fishing and 

Petroleum Industries in Deepwaters 

of the Gulf of Mexico 

Final Report 

Authors 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-01-99-CT-31011 

by 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

759 Parkway Street 

Jupiter, Florida 33477-9596 

Published by 

New Orleans

August 2003 
iii 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. This draft report has not been technically reviewed by 

the MMS, and has not been approved for publication. Approval, when given, does not 

signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the MMS, nor does 

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation 

for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with the MMS editorial 

standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Extra copies of this report may be obtained from the Public Information Office at the 

following address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, LA 70123-2394 

Telephone: (504) 736-2519 or 

1-800-200-GULF 

SUGGESTED CITATION 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002. Deepwater Program: Bluewater Fishing and OCS 

Activity, Interactions Between the Fishing and Petroleum Industries in Deepwaters of 

the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-078. 

193 pp. + apps. 
v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report was prepared by a team of authors including Peter Arnold, George Burgess, Ray 

DeWit, Luis Lagera, and David Snyder. Mr. Arnold (Independent Consultant) authored 

Section 4.0 and contributed to Section 6.0. Mr. Burgess (Florida Museum of Natural 

History, University of Florida) co-authored Section 3.0 and contributed to Section 6.0 and 

Appendix C. Mr. DeWit (Independent Consultant) co-authored Section 5.0 and contributed 

to Section 6.0. Dr. Lagera (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) contributed to Section 2.0 

and performed all Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses for the project. Mr. 

Snyder (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.), with input from all authors, prepared 

Sections 1.0 and 2.0; co-authored Sections 3.0 and 5.0; and contributed to Section 6.0 and 

Appendix C. Dr. Alan Hart (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) provided technical review of 

the entire document, and Mr. Henry Norris of the Florida Marine Research Institute reviewed 

the GIS components of the report. 
vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................. xi 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................. xv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xix 

1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................1 

2.0 METHODS ...............................................3 

 2.1 DATA SOURCES AND ACQUISITION .......................3 

 2.1.1 OCS Energy Industry................................3 

 2.1.2 Bluewater Fishing..................................5 

 2.1.2.1 Commerical Fishing ..........................5 

 2.1.2.2 Recreational Fishing ..........................7 

 2.1.3 Conflict Information ................................8 

 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ....................9 

3.0 BLUEWATER FISHING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO ............... 11 

 3.1 HISTORY OF BLUEWATER FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF 

MEXICO ........................................... 11 

 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF BLUEWATER FISHING IN THE 

GULF OF MEXICO .................................... 12 

 3.2.1 Commercial Fishing ............................... 12 

 3.2.1.1 Gear and Methods .......................... 12 

 3.2.1.2 Catch and Effort............................ 19 

 3.2.2 Recreational Fishery ............................... 32 

 3.2.2.1 Gear and Methods .......................... 32 

 3.2.2.2 Factors Affecting Fishing Locations............... 33 

 3.2.2.3 Key Fishing Ports and Tournaments............... 34 

 3.2.2.4 Primary Fishing Areas........................ 37 

 3.2.2.5 Catch and Effort............................ 39 

 3.3 LIFE HISTORY SYNOPSES OF KEY BLUEWATER 

FISHERIES SPECIES ................................... 46 

 Shortfin Mako Shark ............................... 46 

 Silky Shark ..................................... 48 

 Dusky Shark .................................... 50 

 Sandbar Shark ................................... 51 

 Dolphin........................................ 54 

 Yellowfin Tuna .................................. 57 

 Bluefin Tuna .................................... 59 

 Skipjack Tuna ................................... 61 

 Wahoo ........................................ 63 

 Swordfish ...................................... 64 

 Atlantic White Marlin .............................. 66 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Page 

viii 

 Blue Marlin ..................................... 68 

 Atlantic Sailfish .................................. 69 

 Yellowedge Grouper ............................... 70 

 Snowy Grouper .................................. 71 

 Warsaw Grouper.................................. 72 

 Tilefish ........................................ 73 

 Royal Red Shrimp................................. 74 

 Golden Crab .................................... 75 

 Red Crab....................................... 76 

4.0 DEEPWATER OCS ENERGY INDUSTRY IN THE GULF OF 

MEXICO ................................................ 79 

 4.1 OVERVIEW ......................................... 79 

 4.1.1 Exploration Stage ................................. 79 

 4.1.2 Development Stage ................................ 80 

 4.1.3 Production Stage.................................. 81 

 4.1.4 Abandonment Stage ............................... 81 

 4.2 OBSTRUCTION TEMPLATES ............................ 81 

 4.3 LEASING ACTIVITY................................... 82 

 4.4 GEOPHYSICAL (SEISMIC) SURVEYS ...................... 84 

 4.4.1 Two Dimensional (2D) Surveys........................ 84 

 4.4.2 3D Surveys ..................................... 85 

 4.4.3 High-Resolution Site Surveys ......................... 86 

 4.4.4 Ocean Bottom Cable Surveys ......................... 86 

 4.4.5 Time-Lapse (4D) Surveys............................ 87 

 4.4.6 Vertical Cable Surveys.............................. 88 

 4.4.7 Multi-ship Surveys ................................ 89 

 4.4.8 Deep Tow Side-scan Sonar Surveys ..................... 89 

 4.5 EXPLORATION ...................................... 90 

 4.6 DEVELOPMENT...................................... 93 

 4.6.1 Deepwater Systems ................................ 93 

 4.6.2 Platforms....................................... 93 

 4.6.3 Satellites ...................................... 101 

 4.6.4 Risers and Pipelines .............................. 101 

 4.6.5 Construction Activities ............................ 106 

 4.7 PRODUCING OPERATIONS ............................ 109 

 4.8 ABANDONMENT .................................... 112 

 4.8.1 Abandonment Strategy............................. 112 

 4.8.2 Abandonment Activities............................ 113 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Page 

ix 

 4.9 FUTURE OCS ACTIVITIES ............................. 113 

 4.9.1 Background .................................... 113 

 4.9.2 Lease Bonus ................................... 113 

 4.9.3 POE/DOCD Planning ............................. 115 

 4.9.4 MMS Deepwater Scenario .......................... 121 

 4.9.5 Floating Drilling................................. 121 

 4.9.6 New Developments ............................... 121 

 4.9.7 Validity....................................... 122 

5.0 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONFLICTS ........................ 123 

 5.1 CURRENT CONFLICTS................................ 123 

 5.1.1 Domestic Conflicts ............................... 123 

 5.1.1.1 Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin, California... 123 

 5.1.1.2 Gulf of Mexico ............................ 132 

 5.1.2 International Conflicts ............................. 136 

 5.1.2.1 Nova Scotia/Newfoundland .................... 136 

 5.1.2.2 United Kingdom/North Sea .................... 144 

 5.1.2.3 Australia and Papua New Guinea ................ 156 

 5.2 CONFLICT PREDICTION............................... 161 

 5.2.1 Epipelagic Fishery ............................... 164 

 5.2.2 Deep Reef Fishery................................ 167 

 5.2.3 Royal Red Shrimp Fisheries ......................... 171 

 5.2.4 Recreational Fisheries ............................. 176 

 5.3 FUTURE OF BLUEWATER FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF 

MEXICO .......................................... 176 

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROACTIVE MITIGATION BY 

MMS AND THE FISHING AND OCS ENERGY INDUSTRIES ........ 177 

7.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................... 181 

APPENDICES ................................................ 193 

 APPENDIX A: GULF OF MEXICO RECREATIONAL BILLFISH 

CATCH AND EFFORT DATA ................... A-1 

APPENDIX B: NOAA FEDERAL CONTINGENCY FUND 

CLAIM FORMS ............................. B-1 

APPENDIX C: CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF 

PETROLEUM PRODUCERS LOSS CLAIM 

FORMS AND INFORMATION................... C-1 
xi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

 2.1 Gulf of Mexico study area showing the planning area 

boundaries, the 200-m isobath, and the Exclusive Economic 

Zone boundary .........................................4 

 2.2 National Marine Fisheries Service statistical grid system for the 

Gulf of Mexico.........................................6 

 3.1 A typical pelagic longline used in the Gulf of Mexico 

epipelagic fishery ...................................... 14 

 3.2 A high-flyer buoy and staff used on pelagic longlines in the 

Gulf of Mexico........................................ 15 

 3.3 A typical bottom longline used in the Gulf of Mexico deep reef 

fishery ............................................. 17 

 3.4 The average number of pelagic longline trips made per month 

from 1994 to 1998 in the Gulf of Mexico (Source: National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1999a) ............................ 21 

 3.5 The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of 

Mexico for winter 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999a).................................. 22 

 3.6 The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of 

Mexico for spring 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999a).................................. 23 

 3.7 The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of 

Mexico for summer 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999a).................................. 24 

 3.8 The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of 

Mexico for fall 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999a).................................. 25 

 3.9 Average monthly catch for yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin, 

and wahoo per pelagic longline set in the Gulf of Mexico from 

1984 to 1988 (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 

1999a) ............................................. 26 
LIST OF FIGURES 

(continued) 

Figure Page 

xii 

 3.10 Areas closed to longline fishing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico......... 27 

 3.11 Average catch/trip from 1994 to 1998 made using either bandit 

reels or bottom longline for snowy grouper, tilefish, and 

yellowedge grouper arranged by statistical grid (Source: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 1999b) ...................... 29 

 3.12 Average number of trips/year from 1994 to 1998 made using 

either bandit reels or bottom longline for snowy grouper, 

tilefish, and yellowedge grouper arranged by statistical grid 

(Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999b) ................ 30 

 3.13 Locations of key ports and fishing locations for bluewater 

recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico ...................... 38 

 3.14 Time series trend in billfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) for 

the western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Source: Ortiz and 

Farber 2000) ......................................... 45 

 4.1 Active lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m in the 

Gulf of Mexico........................................ 83 

 4.2 Exploratory wells drilled in water depths greater than 200 m in 

the Gulf of Mexico ..................................... 91 

 4.3 Floating exploration drilling rigs used in the Gulf of Mexico .......... 92 

 4.4 Deepwater development systems used in the Gulf of Mexico.......... 94 

 4.5 Deepwater platform and subsea locations in water depths 

greater than 200 m in the Gulf of Mexico...................... 104 

 4.6 Riser alternatives ..................................... 105 

 4.7 Floating production, storage, and offloading installation 

example ........................................... 108 

 4.8 Floating production, storage, and offloading installation 

sequence ........................................... 110 
LIST OF FIGURES 

(continued) 

Figure Page 

xiii 

 4.9 Equipment durations during floating production, storage, 

offloading installation .................................. 111 

 4.10 Lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m with high 

lease bonus bids ...................................... 116 

 4.11 Lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m with filed 

Plans of Exploration or Development Operations Coordination 

Documents (Source: Minerals Management Service 2000a) ......... 118 

 5.1 Southern California offshore oil and gas development ............. 124 

 5.2 Location of claims filed to the Federal Contingency Fund in 

federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico......................... 134 

 5.3 Nova Scotia and western Newfoundland study area ............... 137 

 5.4 Nova Scotia and western Newfoundland oil and gas 

development ........................................ 139 

 5.5 Important fishing areas for demersal fish species in British 

North Sea waters...................................... 146 

 5.6 Important fishing areas for pelagic fish species in British North 

Sea waters .......................................... 147 

 5.7 Important fishing areas for shrimp trawlers in British North Sea 

waters............................................. 148 

 5.8 Distribution of fisheries based on relative value for all species 

targeted in British North Sea waters ......................... 149 

 5.9 Important fishing areas for static gear in British North Sea 

waters............................................. 150 

 5.10 United Kingdom oil and gas locations........................ 152 

 5.11 Australia Bass Strait and Gippsland Shelf offshore oil and gas 

operations .......................................... 157 

 5.12 Australia northwestern shelf oil and gas activity ................. 158 
LIST OF FIGURES 

(continued) 

Figure Page 

xiv 

 5.13 Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and existing structures 

(Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999a; Minerals 

Management Service 2000a) .............................. 165 

 5.14 Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and lease blocks with 

high lease bonus bids (Sources: National Marine Fisheries 

Service 1999a; Minerals Management Service 2000a) ............. 166 

 5.15 Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and lease blocks with 

filed Plans of Exploration and Development Operations 

Coordination Documents (Sources: National Marine Fisheries 

Service 1999a; Minerals Management Service 2000a) ............. 168 

 5.16 Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and 

existing structures (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 

1999b; Minerals Management Service 2000a) .................. 169 

 5.17 Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and lease 

blocks with high lease bonus bids (Sources: National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999b; Minerals Management Service 2000a)....... 170 

 5.18 Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and lease 

blocks with filed Plans of Exploration and Development 

Operations Coordination Documents (Sources: National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1999b; Minerals Management 

Service 2000a) ....................................... 172 

 5.19 Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort (number of trips) and 

existing structures (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 

1999c; Minerals Management Service 2000a)................... 173 

 5.20 Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort (number of trips) and 

lease blocks with high lease bonus bids (Sources: National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1999c; Minerals Management Service 

2000a) ............................................ 174 

 5.21 Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort and lease blocks with 

filed Plans of Exploration and Development Operations 

Coordination Documents (Sources: National Marine Fisheries 

Service 1999c; Minerals Management Service 2000a) ...............175
xv 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

 2.1 Deep reef species from the National Marine Fisheries Service reef 

fish logbook data set .....................................7 

 3.1 Summary data from the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) longline logbook program for the Gulf of Mexico, 1994 to 

1998 (Source: NMFS 1999a)............................... 13 

 3.2 Relative catches (kg) reported in the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) longline logbook data set, 1994 to 1998 (Source: 

NMFS 1999a) ........................................ 20 

 3.3 Average catch (kg) per trip for deep reef fishes presented by state 

in the northern Gulf of Mexico for 1994 to 1998 (Source: National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1999b) ............................ 28 

 3.4 Average number of trips for deep reef fish trips by state from 1994 

to 1998 (Source National Marine Fisheries Service 2000) ............ 31 

 3.5 Gulf of Mexico ports monitored by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Billfish Survey with the highest recreational 

bluewater fishing effort (Source: NMFS 2001a) .................. 35 

3.6 Fishing pressure (man-hour x 1,000) by port and year for Texas 

(Source: Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 2001)................ 36 

 3.7 Major billfish tournaments sampled by National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) in the Gulf of Mexico from 1994 to 1998 ranked 

by level of fishing effort (boat-hours) (Source: NMFS 2001a) ......... 37 

 3.8 Total number of individuals caught by species and state 

(1994-1998) (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 2001b) ....... 41 

 3.9 Ports monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Billfish Survey producing the highest total catches and catches per 

unit effort (CPUEs) of billfishes and tunas during 1994 to 1998 

(ranked by total catch) (Source: NMFS 2001a) ................... 42 

 3.10 Tournaments monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Billfish Survey producing the highest total catches of 

billfishes and tunas during 1994 to 1998 (ranked by total catch) 

(Source: NMFS 2001a) .................................. 43 
LIST OF TABLES 

(continued) 

Table Page 

xvi 

 3.11 Tournaments monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Billfish Survey producing the highest catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) for billfishes and tunas during 1994 to 1998 (ranked by 

CPUE) (Source: NMFS 2001a) ............................. 43 

 4.1 Obstruction templates – outer continental shelf activities ............ 82 

 4.2 Obstruction templates – outer continental shelf development 

systems............................................. 95 

 4.3 Deepwater platforms .................................... 96 

 4.4 Dimensions of existing deepwater platforms relevant to obstruction 

templates............................................ 98 

 4.5 Subsea systems....................................... 102 

 4.6 Deepwater systems abandonment strategies .................... 112 

 4.7 Deepwater lease bonuses ................................ 114 

 4.8 Deepwater lease bonus ranges ............................. 115 

 4.9 Exploration and development activity – 2000/2001 ............... 120 

 4.10 Anticipated drilling efforts based on Plans of Exploration (POEs) 

and Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCDs) ..... 120 

 4.11 Projected deepwater exploration drilling (2001-2007) ............. 121 

 4.12 Projected deepwater development startups (2001-2007) ............ 122 

 5.1 Annual average number of commercial fishing licenses in the six 

Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin harbors, 1990-1999 

(Source: California Department of Fish & Game 2000) ............ 126 

 5.2 Details on commercial fishing claims (1989-January 2000) from 

the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin study area (Source: 

Santa Barbara County 2000) .............................. 128 
LIST OF TABLES 

(continued) 

Table Page 

xvii 

 5.3 Number of fisheries claims through the Santa Barbara County 

Local Contingency Fund (Source: Santa Barbara County 2000) ....... 129 

 5.4 Commercial fishing claims (1989-January 2000) from the Santa 

Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin study area (Source: Santa 

Barbara County 2000) .................................. 130 

 5.5 Number of claims filed to the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Federal Contingency Fund (FCF), 1989 to 1999 (Source: FCF 

2000) ............................................. 132 

 5.6 Details on commercial fishing claims (1989 to 1999) from the Gulf 

of Mexico .......................................... 133 

 5.7 Deepwater (≥200 m) commercial fishing resources of Nova Scotia 

and Newfoundland (Source: LGL Limited 1999)................. 141 

 5.8 Conflicts between fishing and seismic exploration offshore 

Newfoundland, Canada (1991-1999) (Source: Burley, pers. comm. 

2000) ............................................. 143 

 5.9 Commercial fishing utilization by gear type (1989-2000) (Source: 

D. Rudd, pers. comm. 2000) .............................. 151 

 5.10 Percent of claims by cause (debris type) of all reported North Sea 

conflicts, 1989-2000 (Source: UKOOA 2000) .................. 154 

 5.11 Cause (debris type) of North Sea conflicts for bottom trawl and 

seines, 1989-2000 ..................................... 154 

 5.12 Number of reported North Sea claims by year (all gear types) 

(Source: UKOOA 2000)................................. 155 

 5.13 Water column utlization, mobility, and duration for bluewater 

fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico ............................ 162 

 5.14 Summary of bluewater fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico............. 163 
xix 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AFS American Fisheries Society 

BCF Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 

C/COG California/Coastal Operators Group 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CNOPB Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board 

CNSOPB Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board 

CPUE catch per unit effort 

DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAD fish attracting device 

FCF Federal Contingency Fund 

FLO Fisheries Liaison Officer 

FLS Fishing Liaison Skipper 

FOOCG Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group 

FPS floating production system 

FPSO floating production system with storage and offloading 

GI gas injector 

GIS geographic information system 

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

IDWG Interagency Decommissioning Working Group 

IGFA International Game Fish Association 

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

LCF Local Contingency Fund 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MODU mobile offshore drilling unit 

MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 

NFFO National Federation of Fishermen’s Organizations 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NTL Notice to Lessees 

OCS outer continental shelf 

PA plugged and abandoned 

POE Plan of Exploration 

ROV remotely operated vehicle 

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

SBC Santa Barbara County 

SFF Scottish Fishing Federation 

TA temporarily abandoned 

TLP tension leg platform 

TOR Terms of Reference 

TPWD Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 

UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association 
1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The fishing and offshore energy industries have coexisted for decades in shelf waters of 

the northern Gulf of Mexico. This coexistence has been amicable and apparently not 

detrimental, as productivities of both industries have ranked highly in their respective 

global arenas since the 1950's. Some are of the opinion that the offshore oil and gas 

industry has actually improved or even created fisheries due to the artificial reef effect 

that more than 4,000 offshore platforms and structures have had on the regional fish 

fauna. As a result of the artificial reef effect of structures, recreational and commercial 

fishers regularly use offshore platforms as fishing sites (e.g., Stanley and Wilson 1990). 

This interaction between oil and gas and fisheries endeavors is considered beneficial. 

However, other fisheries, particularly bottom trawling for shrimp, have had to yield 

ground to the platforms, pipelines, and vessels that comprise the offshore oil and gas 

industry. These types of interactions are usually termed space-use conflicts. Space-use 

conflicts can arise when more than one interested party competes for a finite, spatially 

bound resource. Such interactions have occurred offshore of California (Cormick and 

Knaster 1986) and in the North Sea, where fisheries and oil and gas activities overlap 

within a much smaller area than the Gulf of Mexico shelf. 

The offshore energy industry in the Gulf of Mexico is shifting its interest beyond the 

shelf and into deeper waters (>200 m). This is evidenced by almost 3,800 active leases 

and about 36 development/production facilities in water depths greater than 200 m. 

Economic feasibility of development in deeper waters has been facilitated by the passage 

of the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, which provides tax incentives to the energy 

companies, and the development of new technology for exploration and recovery of 

hydrocarbon reserves. Existing and future structures represent new and evolving 

technology that could interact with existing deepwater (bluewater) fisheries in ways that 

differ from the experience in shelf waters. In fact, all phases of the offshore energy 

industry--geophysical surveys, exploratory drilling, development/production, and 

abandonment--could interact with current deepwater fishing practices. In the northern 

Gulf of Mexico, these practices include trapping for golden crab, trawling for royal red 

shrimp, bottom longlining for groupers, snapper, and tilefishes, and surface longlining for 

sharks, swordfish, and tunas. At the same time, the energy industry is leasing tracts of 

seafloor from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) for the purpose of hydrocarbon 

development. The process is very costly and interruptions to normal operations due to 

entanglement with fishing gear could be very costly and even pose risks to human safety. 

Therefore, despite the fact that the fisheries and energy industries have coexisted for so 

long in shelf waters, the differing methods and technologies employed in deep waters of 

the Gulf could present potential problems for each industry. 

The potential for interactions between bluewater fishing and deepwater energy industry 

was raised as a major concern by a fisheries subcommittee convened during a recent 

deepwater workshop (Carney 1998) sponsored by the MMS. This concern provided the 

impetus for the present study to gather and analyze available information to ascertain the 
2 

potential for interactions in the near future of current deepwater activity in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

In this report, actual and potential interactions between the two industries are assessed 

through the following objectives: 

# Determine bluewater fishing endeavors and practices and deepwater outer 

continental shelf (OCS) energy development activities; 

# Describe and map bluewater fishing and deepwater OCS energy 

development activities; 

# Describe current Gulf of Mexico and relevant worldwide interactions and 

predict future situations that may occur in the Gulf of Mexico between 

bluewater fishing and deepwater OCS energy development activities; and 

# Recommend proactive mitigation measures for MMS and for the fishing 

and OCS energy industries. 

The report is arranged into six sections. This section (Section 1.0) provides the 

introduction and statement of the problem. Section 2.0 contains a description of the 

methods, rationale, and data sources used. Section 3.0 contains a discussion of 

commercial and recreational bluewater fishing industries in the Gulf of Mexico, 

beginning with a brief history of bluewater fishing in the Gulf followed by a series of 

biological accounts of the primary species sought by bluewater fishers. Commercial 

fisheries are characterized by gear type and catch and effort, and recreational/charter 

fisheries are characterized using similar information. Geographic Information System 

(GIS) mapping is used to support descriptions of spatial patterns in the fisheries. 

Section 4.0 is a profile of the deepwater energy industry with descriptions of facilities 

and activities currently in use in the Gulf. Present and future leasing activity is assessed 

to project where future interactions could occur. Section 5.0 is an examination of the 

current information on conflicts between fishing and oil and gas industries in domestic 

and international waters; a subsection (Section 5.2) presents the use of GIS analyses of 

spatially explicit data gathered in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 to project future areas of possible 

interactions in deep waters of the Gulf. A synthesis of the information is provided in 

Section 6.0 and a list of recommendations is presented. The final section (Section 7.0) is 

the literature cited. The Appendices contain extensive tables and other information 

supporting various discussions in Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0. 
3 

2.0 METHODS 

The study area for the project includes the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Gulf 

of Mexico in water depths greater than 200 m (Figure 2.1). 

2.1 DATA SOURCES AND ACQUISITION 

2.1.1 OCS Energy Industry 

The first two objectives were addressed by gathering descriptive information and 

"mappable" data from a variety of sources for the fishing and OCS energy industries. 

Much of the data on leases, wells, and exploration and development planning, upon 

which the description of OCS activities (Section 4.0) is based, was downloaded from 

publicly available databases maintained by the MMS on their Gulf of Mexico website 

(www.gomr.mms.gov/). Information on deepwater platforms was obtained from MMS 

platform verification records and operators. 

Past and current information gathered from the MMS data sets contained the following: 

# Active leases; 

# Sale 181 lease blocks; 

# Filed Plans of Exploration (POEs); 

# Existing development facilities; and 

# Existing pipelines. 

Existing facility descriptions were obtained from filed Development Operations 

Coordination Documents (DOCDs) or POEs, U.S. Coast Guard files, and industry 

operators. Future OCS activity was projected from the MMS data sets that included 

active leases with filed POEs or DOCDs, announced discoveries with filed POEs or 

DOCDs, and future pipelines. In addition, an analysis of lease bonuses paid on existing 

leases was made to identify lease blocks that received high bids. The MMS lease 

database from July 2000 was used as the source for examining information on lease 

bonuses paid. All exploration drilling and development activities in deepwater Gulf of 

Mexico require written plans to be submitted by the operator and approved by the MMS. 

Operators’ POEs and DOCDs are perhaps the most direct indicator of future activities. 

This evaluation is based on plans approved by the MMS between December 1997 and 

July 2000 – the rationale for this is that older plans are likely either completed or 

changed. During that period, unique plans covering over 400 deepwater lease blocks 

were approved. 
#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

 Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

Exclusive

Economic

Zone

°

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 2.1. Gulf of Mexico study area showing the planning area boundaries, the 200-m isobath, and the Exclusive Economic 

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundaries and limits shown above,as well as the divisions between planning areas,are for initial planning purposes only and do notprejudice or affect United States jurisdiction in any way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

Planning area boundary

Study area

4
5 

2.1.2 Bluewater Fishing 

2.1.2.1 Commerical Fishing 

The bluewater commercial fishing industry was described from data obtained from 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Several relevant data sets (with contact 

persons and their affiliations) were available, including the following: 

# Pelagic Longline Logbook (Josh Bennett and Gerry Scott, NMFS, Miami, 

Florida); 

# Reef Fish Logbook (Mike Judge, NMFS, Miami, Florida); 

# Shrimp Landings and Trips (Grid, Water Depth) (Josh Bennett, NMFS, 

Miami, Florida); and 

# Fishery Permits (Robert Sadler, NMFS, Miami, Florida). 

Mandatory logbook programs provide detailed data for certain fisheries, including fishing 

area, times, and gear types. The two logbook data sets are derived from a self-reporting 

system required of the permit holders. There is concern that these reports may lack 

objectivity and therefore accuracy (Larkin et al. 1998). However, we assumed, as others 

have (Larkin et al. 1998), that the data were reported accurately and are valid for relative 

observations about the fisheries. For the longline logbook data, two subsets were 

extracted. One longline set data file that included length of set, number of hooks, latitude 

and longitude of the set by month and year for years 1994 to 1998. Another was a subset 

of data with the catch information for each longline set matched to the latitude and 

longitude (minutes and seconds) of the set data. Only sets with 100 or more hooks were 

included to ensure that only true longline sets were being analyzed. The number of 

vessels involved in each year’s data set also was provided by NMFS. The data were 

scanned and obviously erronous records were discarded prior to analyses. 

The spatial resolution of the pelagic longline logbook data was very good; however, the 

reef fish and shrimp data sets were recorded at the much coarser scale of the NMFS 

statisical grids. The statistical grid system was developed to track the shrimp fisheries, 

but it is now used to monitor the spatial distribution for many finfisheries (Figure 2.2). 

There are 21 contiguous grids around the northern Gulf extending from the Florida Keys 

to the Texas-Mexico border. Although many of the individual grids shown in Figure 2.2

have seaward edges inside the 200-m isobath, permit holders recording catches from 

deeper waters assume that the closest grid extends across the depth contours. The reef 

fish data set included state, gear type, grid, numbers, and weights of fish caught by trip 

for the years 1994 to 1998. However, there is no explicit way to ascertain the actual 

water depth of the catch from the data set. Therefore, to map information from the reef 

fish data sets, we used the known depth ranges for species reported within individual 

grids. There are 55 species on the logbook form filled out by permit holding fishers. For 

the purposes of describing the fishery in water depths exceeding 200 m, we extracted 

11 species known to be caught primarily in deeper waters from that list and designated 

them as “deep reef” fishes. These species, referrred to as “deep reef” fishes in the rest of 

the report, are listed in Table 2.1. We sought species that would normally sustain a 

fishery in these water depths. 
#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

3

6

5

4

2

7

8

17

9

18 16 15

11

19

20

14

12

21

10

22

13

Gulf of Mexico Region

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

1 December 2000

Geographic North American Datum 1927

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

FISHING STATISTICS GRID

Planning area boundary

LEGEND

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

TX LA MS AL GA

Figure 2.2. National Marine Fisheries Service statistical grid system for the Gulf of Mexico.

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Planning area boundary

1 Fishing statistics grid

6
7 

Table 2.1. Deep reef species from the National Marine Fisheries Service reef fish 

logbook data set. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yellowedge grouper Epinephelus flavolimbatus

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus

Snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus

Misty grouper Epinephelus mystacinus

Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi

Tilefish Lohpolatilus chamaeleonticeps

Blueline tilefish Caulolatilus microps

Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens

Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus

Blackfin snapper Lutjanus bucanella

Queen snapper Etilus oculatus

The shrimp data set used to characterize royal red shrimp catches and effort included 

depth ranges, month, and grid for each year from 1994 to 1998. 

2.1.2.2 Recreational Fishing 

Marine recreational fishery catch and effort data for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Florida (NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division 2001) were obtained 

from the NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) website at 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. Recreational fishery data 

from Texas were obtained through the cooperation of Page Campbell and Rocky Strong 

of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD 2001). The MRFSS data set lacks 

measures of fishing effort, while the TPWD provides this information. 

Gulf of Mexico billfish catch and effort data were obtained from Eric Prince and Arietta 

Venizelos of the NMFS, Miami, Florida (NMFS 2001a). These data are summarized in 

Appendix A, Table A-1. Most of the data are from tournaments, with only a small bit of 

non-tournament dock coverage from five ports (St. Petersburg, Destin, Galveston, Port 

Aransas, Padre Island). State and port data must be compared with caution, however, 

because levels of monitoring effort at each port differ. In addition, the species catch and 

release data are confined to billfishes (blue marlin, Makaira nigricans; white marlin, 

Tetrapterus albidus; sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus; swordfish, Xiphias gladius; and 

spearfishes, Tetrapterus spp.) and two large species of tuna, the bluefin (Thunnus 

thynnus) and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares). In recent years, other species, notably 

wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus and C. equisetis), 

have been monitored as well (Venizelos, pers. comm.), but such data are not available for 

our time period. The billfish and large tuna data likely are representative of the entire 

offshore pelagic recreational fishery. 
8 

The NMFS permit office provided the number of charter vessel permits issued for each 

state bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Because Florida data were not electronically 

separated into east (Atlantic coast) and west (Gulf of Mexico) coast categories, hand 

counts were made from the master list to determine the number of permit holders listing 

home ports along the Florida Gulf coast (not including the Florida Keys). 

Recreationally caught billfish catch-per-unit-effort statistics from the Gulf of Mexico for 

the period 1973 through 1999 was gathered from International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Working Document SCARS/00/58 entitled 

"Standardized Catch Rates for Blue (and White) Marlin” by Mauricio Ortiz and Mark I. 

Farber [available on-line at www.iccat.org]. The NMFS billfish program supplied the 

data for this region to ICCAT. 

Walt Jennings of Venice, Florida kindly supplied a manuscript containing information on 

Gulf of Mexico billfish fishing techniques, popular fishing locations, and overall trends 

of abundance. His forthcoming article, “Coming Of Age – A Guide to the Northern Gulf 

of Mexico’s Burgeoning Billfish Action,” is scheduled to appear in a future issue of Sport 

Fishing magazine. This manuscript proved to be an invaluable source of historical and 

current information on the fishery. 

Mitch Roffer of Roff's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc. in Miami, Florida 

provided valuable information on where and when bluewater fishers are active in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. His forecasting service supplies locations of mesoscale 

oceanographic features gathered from real-time interpretation of satellite imagery to 

fishers venturing offshore in search of epipelagic species. 

2.1.3 Conflict Information 

Information on current domestic conflicts was gathered from the NMFS Fishermen's 

Contingency Fund (Gulf of Mexico and California) and California Fisheries Liaison 

Office, Santa Barbara County, California. Information on international interactions was 

compiled from a variety of sources. Oil and gas groups that proved to be important 

sources of information included the following: 

# The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; 

# Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board; 

# Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board; 

# Minerals Resources, Tasmania; and 

# Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration. 
9 

2.2 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

ArcView 3.2® GIS was used to conduct the spatial overlap analysis. GIS techniques were 

used to determine the relative potential of future interactions between deepwater 

development and bluewater fishing activity. The types of bluewater fishing considered in 

the analysis were pelagic longline fishing, deep reef fishing, and royal red shrimp 

trawling. Trapping for deepwater crabs was not used because of limited activity in that 

fishery. The deepwater development factors considered in the spatial overlap analysis 

included existing deepwater structures, i.e., platforms and lease blocks with high lease 

bonus bids, filed POEs, and filed DOCDs. 

Pelagic longline fishing effort was depicted in ArcView 3.2® by plotting locations 

(geographic coordinates) of longline sets from a database provided by NMFS. Spatial 

overlap analysis for pelagic longline fishing was constrained by the fact that it occurred 

in practically all of the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The deep reef and royal 

red shrimp data were more amenable to spatial overlap analyses. Separate shapefiles (the 

native ArcView 3.2® file format) of the NMFS statistical grid were created to depict 

fishing effort (number of trips) for deep reef species and royal red shrimp using data 

provided by NMFS. Using bathymetry data (isobaths) for the Gulf of Mexico provided 

by the MMS, depth distributions for two key deep reef species, i.e., tilefish and 

yellowedge grouper (Table 2.1), and royal red shrimp reported in the literature were used 

to create depth range polygons spanning the entire Gulf of Mexico. Because the 

available isobaths in the MMS bathymetry did not correspond to the actual depth 

distributions, the closest isobath shoreward of the depth distribution and the closest 

deeper isobath was used for the depth range. The depth distributions of tilefish and 

yellowedge grouper were combined to create a single deep reef species depth range 

polygon. The seaward limits of the NMFS statistical grids do not reach the deep reef 

species and royal red shrimp depth ranges, although efforts and landings are reported still 

on the basis of the NMFS statistical grids. Therefore, the depth range polygon for each 

species was subdivided into smaller cells (subpolygons) corresponding to the nearest 

NMFS statistical grid inshore of the depth range. The area of each resulting depth range 

cell was then calculated. 

Polygons of lease blocks with high lease bonus bids were created as ArcView 3.2®

shapefiles along with lease blocks with filed POEs and DOCDs. Using a polygon 

demarcating the deepwater areas (200 m and deeper) of the Gulf of Mexico located 

within MMS planning areas, deepwater platforms were extracted from the original 

shapefile of offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico provided by the MMS. The total 

number of deepwater platforms was counted. Excel® databases listing lease blocks with 

high lease bonus bids and filed POEs and DOCDs were used to extract corresponding 

lease blocks from the original lease block shapefile provided by the MMS and create 

separate shapefiles for each. The total number of lease blocks in each of the resulting 

shapefiles was counted. 

The spatial overlap analysis was conducted using geoprocessing techniques in 

ArcView 3.2®. Spatial analyses considering deep reef species and royal red shrimp were 

possible because of the discrete areas (depth ranges) that could be identified. Similarly, 
10 

spatial overlaps between lease blocks with high lease bonus bids, filed POEs, and filed 

DOCDs and deep reef species and royal red shrimp were more amenable to analysis 

because more discrete areas of lease blocks could be identified compared with platforms. 

Overlap of platforms with fishing activity was examined by creating a 500-m radius area 

centered on the platform. The 500-m radius is the maximum mandated safety zone 

around deepwater platforms that vessels must avoid under current U.S. Coast Guard 

regulations (33 CFR 147). This safety zone must be applied for through set policies and 

announcement procedures (see Section 5.1.1.2) 

When all the required shapefiles were ready, the analysis continued with an examination 

of the spatial overlap between deepwater development features and bluewater fishing 

areas. The deep reef species and royal red shrimp depth range shapefiles were overlain 

on the deepwater platform, lease bid, POE, and DOCD shapefiles successively. The 

results of the successive overlays then were converted into separate shapefiles that 

depicted deepwater development features that were found within the bluewater fishing 

areas, i.e., deep reef and royal red shrimp depth zones. The number of deepwater 

development features and combined areas of each then were counted and calculated, 

respectively. The results were plotted and tabulated to depict and summarize the results 

of the overlap analysis. 
11 

3.0 BLUEWATER FISHING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

3.1 HISTORY OF BLUEWATER FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

Bluewater fishing in the Gulf of Mexico originated during 1950 with federally-funded 

exploratory fishing programs administered by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

(BCF). These programs began by investigating deepwater shrimp resources and 

graduated to tuna fishing in the waters of the open Gulf (Bullis 1955a; Iwamoto 1965). 

BCF experimented with tuna fishing techniques that had been used successfully in the 

Pacific: live bait fishing with hook and line, purse netting, and longlining. After several 

attempts at live baiting and purse netting essentially failed, the BCF’s exploratory efforts 

shifted to longlining in 1952 (Bullis 1955a,b,c). The gear deployed during trials 

consisted of 12 to 18 km of mainline with up to 600 total hooks. Initial exploratory 

longline efforts yielded blackfin, yellowfin, bluefin, and skipjack tunas in various areas 

of the northern Gulf. Although the findings failed to generate any interest from domestic 

fishers, by the mid-1950's Japanese fishers began setting longlines for tunas in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Iwamoto 1965; Lopez et al. 1979; Thompson 1982). This fishery continued for 

the next 30 years from 1952 until 1982, when the longlining ceased under an 

international agreement (Honma et al. 1985; Prager and Browder 1992). In the early 

1970’s, a domestic swordfish fishery became established in the Gulf (South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council [SAFMC] 1985). This was a seasonal (mostly fall and 

winter) fishery. By about 1983, an increasing demand for tuna caused many swordfish 

longliners to switch methods to target tunas (Taniguchi 1987). The Gulf tuna longlining 

fleet reached 350 to 400 vessels in 1988 to 1989 (Russell 1993) and continues today with 

a similar number of permitted vessels (Cramer and Adams 1999), but only about a fourth 

of these permitted vessels actually fish. In the southern Gulf, Mexican fishers have been 

longlining for yellowfin tuna since about 1980, following the departure of the Japanese 

fleet (Prager and Browder 1992). 

As the pelagic longline fishery was developing, exploratory fishing with bottom trawls 

proved productive when in the early 1950’s, exploitable quantities of royal red shrimp 

(Pleoticus robustus) were found around the Gulf of Mexico in 500 to 900 m water depths 

(Bullis 1956). Commerical fishers did not begin targeting royal red shrimp until the 

1960’s (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council [GMFMC] 1996). Exploratory 

efforts by the BCF were also the first to attempt bottom longline fishing in deepwaters of 

the Gulf of Mexico (Nelson and Carpenter 1968). The primary species caught by bottom 

longlining during that cruise was the tilefish, which was of no commercial importance at 

that time. Few fishers were regularly using bottom longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico 

until the late 1970's (Prytherch 1983). Since that time, bottom longlining has become the 

most important means of harvesting tilefishes and deepwater groupers in the Gulf. 

In the 1980’s NMFS conducted another exploratory fishery program to examine the 

efficacy of trawling for gulf butterfish (Peprilus burti). Commercial butterfish vessels 

and captains from the northeastern U.S. were hired to fish in various areas of the eastern 

Gulf (Vecchione 1987). Although the results were promising (Vecchione 1987), no 

extensive butterfish fishery has developed (but see McIlwain 1999). 
12 

The early BCF explorations for royal red shrimp also yielded catches of red and golden 

crab; however, there was little commerical interest in these species for years to come. In 

the late 1970’s, another exploratory fishing program sought to develop a fishery for 

golden crab in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (Otwell et al. 1984). Despite these 

efforts, most golden crab fishing has been restricted to the southeastern Gulf offshore of 

western Florida (Lindberg and Wenner 1990). The GMFMC recently formed a 

deepwater crab advisory committee to gather information needed to develop a fishery 

management plan for the Gulf of Mexico. 

3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF BLUEWATER FISHING IN THE GULF OF 

MEXICO 

The major commercial bluewater fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico target epipelagic 

species, deep reef species, and invertebrates. Although recreational bluewater fishers 

concentrate on members of the epipelagic group, we have described this fishery 

separately from the commercial fisheries. The following sections describe general gear 

types and fishing methods as well as catch and effort for these fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Other fishery activities that may eventually be important in deepwaters of the Gulf of 

Mexico include cage aquaculture (Bennetti et al. 1999) and spearfishing. Because of 

limited information on these endeavors and the fact that neither was currently established 

in deepwater areas, they were not covered in this report. 

3.2.1 Commercial Fishing 

3.2.1.1 Gear and Methods 

The major gear types used by the bluewater commercial fishery in the Gulf of Mexico are 

pelagic longline for epipelagic species and bottom longline for deep reef species. Other 

gear used to a lesser extent includes bottom trawl, traps, hook and line, and mid-water 

trawl. An additional commercial enterprise that could interact with deepwater energy 

development in the future is cage aquaculture. Because there are no cage aquaculture 

projects currently operating in the deepwater Gulf, this topic is not discussed further in 

this report. 

General gear types and fishing methods used for target species groups (epipelagic fishes, 

deep reef fishes, and invertebrates) are described in detail in the following discussion. 

All information given in the following discussion is derived from existing literature, data, 

and conversations with knowledgeable persons. Every detail will not be captured by this 

approach because individual fishers likely vary their methods continuously based upon 

past successes, personal preference, or logistical factors. We cannot incorporate these 

nuances into the descriptions without personal interviews. The following descriptions are 

generic, and accurate to the extent that they will describe aspects of fishing methods and 

gear that could potentially interact with oil and gas activities. 
13 

Epipelagic Fishery 

Today most longliners working in the Gulf of Mexico employ variations of what 

Berkeley et al. (1981) called the "Florida" style of fishing for swordfish. Longlines 

consist of a monofilament main line suspended in the water column by regularly spaced 

buoys (Figure 3.1). Some of these buoys, referred to as high-flyers (Figure 3.2), have 

staffs with metal radar reflectors and strobe lights attached to allow the fishing vessel to 

keep track of the position of the drifiting longline. The buoy lines are used to adjust the 

fishing depth of the mainline. Monofilament leaders or gangions with baited hooks 

ranging from 15 to 70 m in length are attached at regular intervals along the length of the 

mainline. Longlines set in the Gulf of Mexico between 1994 and 1998 averaged 69 km 

and ranged from 51 to 76 km long (Table 3.1). The number of hooks per kilometer 

ranged from 10 to 14. Hooks used vary with individuals, but usually are Japanese style 

circle hooks (size range: 7/0 to 11/0). Leaders are tied on 300 to 600-lb test 

monofilament line; the length of the leaders varies and can range from 10 to 40 m. 

Length of leaders and mainline can vary if particular species are targeted. For example, 

when targeting dolphin, leaders and mainline are usually much shorter than those used for 

tunas. 

Table 3.1. Summary data from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) longline 

logbook program for the Gulf of Mexico, 1994 to 1998 (Source: NMFS 1999a). 

Year Number of 

Vessels 

Total Number 

of Sets 

Average 

Length of Set 

(km) 

Average 

Number of 

Hooks per km 

1994 146 4,159 76 9.8 

1995 156 4,181 74 10.4 

1996 141 5,173 51 14.3 

1997 135 4,934 72 10.2 

1998 106 3,696 70 10.8 

In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic longlines are mainly used to catch yellowfin tuna. 

Because tuna are targeted, there are some differences in fishing techniques as compared 

to swordfish fishing techniques. Sets targeting tunas are made during daylight hours, 

whereas swordfish sets are made in the afternoon to fish during the night. Sets made for 

swordfish are made shallower and baits are supplemented with chemical light sticks 

(Cyalume® sticks) to increase attractiveness to swordfish. After the longline is deployed, 

it is allowed to drift for 4 to 5 h. 

Longline gear is deployed from a moving vessel. As the mainline is put out, usually over 

the stern of the vessel, baited leaders are clipped in place at regular intervals. Leader 

spacing varies. Buoys, including the high-flyers, are also attached at regular intervals. 

Some of the buoys are equipped with coded radio direction beacons and radar reflectors 

that allow the vessel to track the movement of different sections of the drifting line. 
Surface Long Line

Figure 3.1. A typical pelagic longline used in the Gulf of Mexico epipelagic fishery.

14




Figure 3.2. A high-flyer buoy and staff used on pelagic longlines in the Gulf of Mexico.





Radar

Reflector

Strobe

Light

Flag

Center Hole

Polyethylene

Inflatable Float

Lead Weight

15
16 

Bait used is usually squid or fish, in particular scads (carangids) or mackerels 

(scombrids). Many fishers seeking yellowfin tuna preferred using live bait (Russell 

1993); however, recent legislation now prohibits the use of live bait, because it tends to 

catch more non-commerical (and protected) billfishes. It takes 8 to 10 h to deploy a 

70 km longline and about the same to to retrieve it. Longlines are often set near 

oceanographic features such as fronts or downwellings, often with the aid of 

sophisticated on-board temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. 

Vessels used in the western Atlantic longline fleet (including the Gulf of Mexico) range 

in length from 10 to 30 m and average 19 m (Larkin et al. 1998). Most vessels in the 

Atlantic fleet characterized by Larkin et al. (1998) were between 12 and 16 m long. Very 

few vessels were longer than 30 m. The size of the vessel determined the duration and 

frequency of trips. Large vessels (21 to 27 m) average about eight trips per year that 

lasted an average of 17.3 days at sea, whereas smaller vessels (15 to 26 m) averaged 

about 11 trips per year averaging 6.6 days at sea. For the 1994 to 1998 period, permitted 

Gulf of Mexico vessels averaged 4,429 sets per year. The number of permitted vessels 

contributing to the logbook data set ranged from 156 in 1995 to 106 in 1998 (Table 3.1). 

The primary homeports for longline vessels are Dulac and Venice, Louisiana; and Destin, 

Madiera Beach, and Panama City, Florida (Tanaguchi 1987). 

Reef Fish Fishery 

Deepwater reef fishes are caught with bottom longlines, traps, powered reels, and 

handlines. In the Gulf of Mexico, most of the landings of deep reef fishes are made by 

bottom longlines, followed by powered reels. Bottom longlines are most effective for 

reef species that are widely distributed over the available habitat rather than congregated 

around discrete high-relief bottom structures. Yellowedge grouper and tilefish are two 

widely distributed species that are effectively caught by bottom longline. These longlines 

are configured similarly to pelagic longlines described previously except that the 

mainline is anchored or weighted to the bottom rather than drifting passively 

(Figure 3.3). Bottom longlines are much shorter than surface longlines, usually 3 km or 

less, but can reach 40 km (GMFMC 1981; Prytherch 1983). Bottom longlines are 

deployed from a moving vessel (3 to 7 kn) in the same fashion described above for 

pelagic longlining. Buoys equipped with radar reflectors and flag staffs are usually 

placed only at the ends of the mainline. Leaders with hooks are clipped on regularly 

about 3 to 5 m apart as the line is paying out. The ends of the mainline, called 

groundlines, are weighted as needed to compensate for current and water depth. The line 

is allowed to fish (soak) for between 1.5 to 3 h during daylight hours and between 9 and 

14 h overnight in the eastern and western Gulf. In some areas, fishes that are left in the 

water longer than 2 to 3 h become infested with parasitic isopods (Prytherch 1983). 

Prytherch (1983) reported that vessels operating in the bottom longline fishery ranged 

from 8 to 20 m in length, but most were greater than 10 m. Most vessels during this 

survey were converted shrimp trawlers. There is no way to accurately estimate the 

number of vessels involved in the Gulf of Mexico deep reef longline fishery from the 

available data . There are 1,208 reef fish permits held by fishers residing in Florida 

(928; including east coast), Lousisiana (106), Texas (78), Alabama (28), and 
Bottom Long Line

Sea

Figure 3.3. A typical bottom longline used in the Gulf of Mexico deep reef fishery.

17
18 

Mississippi (14). Probably no more than 10 percent of these permit holders fish for deep 

reef fishes in the Gulf. 

In the reef fish fishery, deepwater snappers, groupers, and tilefishes are also caught using 

electric or hydraulic powered reels. These reels are configured with short (1 m) 

fiberglass or metal arms that act as the "fishing rod" and have a large handle protruding 

laterally from the spool, and are often called "one-armed bandits" or simply "bandit 

reels." Stainless wire line is threaded through a small block mounted at the end of the 

arm and attached to terminal tackle that is tailored for the target species. The terminal 

tackle consists basically of a monofilament leader with a series of up to 10 hooks 

arranged vertically with a large lead weight attached at the bottom of the rig. These rigs 

are fished from drifting or anchored vessels for deep reef species such as snowy grouper 

(Epinephelus niveatus), warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), and silk snapper 

(Lutjanus vivanus) that tend to congregate around high-relief structures. 

Invertebrate Fishery 

Shrimp trawling is one of the most important commercial enterprises in the Gulf of 

Mexico. However, most of the current shrimp grounds lie well inshore of 200-m isobath. 

Most of the commercial trawling in water depths >200 m in the Gulf is targeting royal red 

shrimp. This effort is concentrated in water depths of 400 to 500 m in the northern Gulf 

(GMFMC 1996). Gear used for royal red shrimp is very similar to shallow water shrimp 

trawling gear, but to accommodate the greater depths involved, all components, including 

winches, bridles, trawl doors, and wire, must be stronger and more durable. Obviously, 

the total amount of wire used is greatly increased to accommodate the water depth. Large 

otter trawls are used with doors measuring 3 m x 1 m and nets with headropes of 10 to 

12 m. Trawls may be towed in single or double configurations (Watson et al. 1984; 

Harrington et al. 1988). 

Traps are used to catch deepwater crabs offshore of southwestern and southeastern 

Florida. These traps have a rectangular (1.2 m x 1.8 m x 0.8 m) frame of 0.9 cm 

reinforcing bar (Nielson, in Lindberg and Wenner 1990). The bottom of the trap is lined 

with plastic-coated wire (3.8 cm mesh), while the top and sides are covered with nylon 

webbing (12.5 cm stretch mesh). These traps usually have a double entrance, with each 

entrance about 61 cm diameter. Individual traps are attached in a series about 275 m 

apart along a polypropylene mainline. Most deepwater crabbers working offshore of 

Florida do not use surface buoys to mark the position of their trap string. Instead, they 

use a global positioning system (GPS) or Loran C coordinates to locate the general 

location of the string (or trawl as it is called by the trappers) and then grapple for the 

mainline using a weighted grapple hook while drifting perpendicular to the string. Once 

the mainline is grappled, traps are hauled aboard using a standard hydraulic powered 

pot-hauling winch. The mainline is faked into plastic tubs as it comes aboard. Traps are 

baited with fish remains, then returned to the desired fishing area. 
19 

3.2.1.2 Catch and Effort 

Epipelagic Fishery 

Catch composition of the pelagic longline logbook data set included 38 taxa from 

10 families. The tuna and shark families were well represented by 10 and 20 taxa, 

respectively (Table 3.2). The top 10 species collectively represented 90 percent of the 

total catch for the 5-year period. Yellowfin tuna contributed 40 percent of the total 

weight caught over the 1994 to 1998 period, and averaged 30,000 kg annually during the 

period. Swordfish were second, accounting for 16 percent of the catch and averaging 

12,000 kg per year. Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) and dolphin contributed 

6 and 4 percent of the weight, respectively. As a group, sharks contributed about 

12 percent of the total weight and averaged about 10,000 kg per year. 

The yearly number of longline sets made during the 1994 to 1998 period ranged from 

5,173 in 1996 to 3,696 in 1998 (Table 3.1). Figure 3.4 shows the average number of sets 

made per month for the logbook data set. There is moderate increase in fishing effort 

over the year, with more sets being made on average during the summer months. This 

may reflect periods of good weather. 

Spatial distributions of the longline sets for 1994 to 1995 are given in Figures 3.5 to 3.8. 

Sets are distributed throughout the open Gulf, with most effort in the Central and Western 

Planing Areas. Average monthly catches of key species (yellowfin tuna, swordfish, 

dolphin, and wahoo) are shown in Figure 3.9. The common trend for yellowfin tuna, 

dolphin, and wahoo is for a peak in summer months. Swordfish catches peaked during 

winter months, a trend indicative of their migratory patterns. 

Because longline fishing has been identified as contributing to the bycatch mortality of 

billfishes and undersized swordfish, several management measures were recently 

enacted. The Highly Migratory Species Act, Pelagic Longline Management, Final Rule 

50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 635 established several new regulations for 

longline fishing in the region. In the Gulf of Mexico, two adjacent areas in the De Soto 

Canyon region were closed to longline fishing in August 2000 (Figure 3.10). At the 

same time, the use of live bait on longlines in the south Atlantic (including the Gulf of 

Mexico) was prohibited. Live bait tends to catch more billfishes and thus contributes to 

their bycatch by this gear. Other claims against longline fishing that may ultimately 

affect fishing effort include bycatch of seabirds and sea turtles (50 CFR 635). 

Deep Reef Fishery 

To evaluate catch and effort in the deep reef fishery we examined data from the NMFS 

reef fish logbook data for the years 1994 to 1998 (NMFS 1999b). As mentioned in 

Section 2.1, the reef fish logbook data do not include water depth data. Therefore, we 

extracted a suite of species that normally inhabit water depths of 200 m or greater from 

the total management unit. 
20 

Table 3.2. Relative catches (kg) reported in the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) longline logbook data set, 1994 to 1998 (Source: NMFS 1999a.). 

Species Name 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Yellowfin tuna 28 735 22 947 33 059 35 451 29 803 149 995

Swordfish 12,146 11,735 14,595 12,868 8,876 60,218

Dolphin 4,351 11,624 10,932 12,279 3,488 42,674

Escolar 3,381 3,504 5,011 5,051 5,382 22,329

Wahoo 2,359 3,575 3,107 3,358 3,863 16,262

Blacktip shark 4,478 5,929 2,926 1,660 507 15,500

Sandbar shark 249 5,473 2,959 1,087 820 10,587

Blackfin tuna 1,566 1,286 1,130 1,633 1,151 6,765

Finfishes (unclassified) 18 3,125 2,708 1,412 91 7,354

Silky shark 1,424 561 1,904 1,222 398 5,509

Shark (unclassified) 1,528 1,558 499 826 217 4,629

Dusky shark 912 651 910 514 309 3,297

White marlin 514 668 734 628 333 2,877

Blue marlin 583 542 620 606 414 2,766

Sailfish 798 417 471 520 321 2,527

Hammerhead shark 217 1,076 1,374 39 17 2,722

Shortfin mako 453 545 801 505 152 2,457

Bigeye tuna 297 787 314 385 292 2,074

Spinner shark 393 630 351 69 326 1,768

Shark, tiger 540 616 266 196 180 1,798

Tuna, skipjack 393 288 284 276 319 1,561

Shark, scalloped hammerhead 94 45 703 41 8 892

Bonito, atlantic 257 82 339 56 27 762

Tuna, unc 389 224 58 77 17 766

Tuna, albacore 128 137 112 277 67 721

Tuna, bluefin (unclassified) 129 108 94 102 136 569

Shark, longfin mako 119 104 200 113 61 598

Shark, night 36 36 291 62 93 519

Shark, smooth hammerhead 77 27 429 21 7 561

Shark, bigeye thresher 55 96 178 119 55 503

Shark, oceanic whitetip 81 50 195 76 33 435

Mackerel, king 53 103 55 8 66 285

Greater amberjack 50 248 6 4 3 312

Shark, blue 45 53 74 78 40 290

Shark, thresher 48 77 95 52 16 288

Shark, bignose 100 103 21 14 6 245

Shark, white 55 41 59 26 21 203

Banded rudderfish 0 146 5 1 0 152

Spearfishes 18 11 8 28 8 73

Shark, porbeagle 3 9 26 4 2 44

Grand Total 67,072 79,241 87,903 81,746 57,925 373,887

Total Sets 4,159 4,181 5,173 4,934 3,696 
Month

J FMAMJ J ASOND

Number of Sets

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Figure 3.4. The average number of pelagic longline trips made per month from 1994 to 1998 in the

Gulf of Mexico (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999a).

21
22° 

24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

## # # 

# # # #

# #

#

# # # # # #

# 

# # # 

# # # 

# # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # # # # # #

## # # # # # ### #

#

# # 

# #

# #

#

# #

# # # # #

# # 

# 

##

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

#

# # #

# # 

# # # #

#

# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# ##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

#

#

# # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # ## # # # # # # # #

# # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # 

# # # # # ##

#

# 

# 

# #

## # # # # 

# # #

#

# 

#

# 

# 

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # 

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # # ##

## ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # #

## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #

# ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ##

# # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # #

#

# # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # 

#

# 

#

# #

% % 

% 

%

%

% %

%

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %

% %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %

% % % % % % %%%%% %% % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%%% %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % %% %%% %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %% %% % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % %%% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % %% % %% %% % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

%

%

%

% % 

%

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %

% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

%% % % % % %%%%% % % % % %

% % %%

%

% 

%

% 

% %

%

%

% %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% %

% % % % % % % %% % 

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %%% %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %%

% %% % % % % % % % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % %%

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% %%

% %

S#

S# S# S#

S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S#

S#S# S# S#

S# 

S# 

S# 

S#

S#S#S# S# S# S#

S#S#

S# S# S#

S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S#S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# 

S# 

S# S# 

S# 

S# 

S#

S#

S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS##S#

SS##

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S

S

#

# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S#

S#

S# S

S#

# S# SSS

###

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# SS##

S#

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U%U %U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U%U %U %U 

%U %U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U

%U

%U %U %U%U

%U

%U

%U %U %U %U 

%U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U 

%U 

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U

%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U

%U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U

%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U %U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U%U %U

%U %U 

%U 

%U %U %U %U %U%U%U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U%U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U

$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$$$

$

$ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 3.5. The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico for winter 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Ma 1999a).

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

Longline Sets 1994-1998

# 1994 % 1995

S# 1996

U% 1997

$ 1998

Planning Area Boundary

WINTER LONGLINE SETS

May 2001

22
22° 

24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

# 

# # # 

# # # # #

## # #

# # # # #

# #

# #

# # #

# ## #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # #

# # ## # # # # 

# # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ###

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# 

# # # # # # 

# # # # 

# ##

# 

# 

#

#

#

#

# ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # ## # # # # # # # ## #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # ## ## # #

# # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # 

# #

# #

# # # #

# ## # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ### # # #

## # # # # # # # # # ### # # # #

# # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # #

# ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

% 

% 

% 

% %

% % % %

% % %

% % % % % % % %% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % % %

% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %

% %

%

%

% % % % % %

% %%% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % %

% %%% % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %

% %

% % %

% % %

%

%

%

% % %

%%% %%%%%%%% % % % %

% %% % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % %%% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %%%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

% % % 

% % % % %% % % % % %%

%

% %

% % % % % %% %% % % %

%

% %

% %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

%% % %% % % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % %% %% % % % % % %% %

% %% %%% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %%

%%% % % % % % % %% % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% %% % %% %% % % % % %% % % % % % %%% %% % % % %% % %%%

%

% % % % % %%% % %

% %

%

%

S# S# 

S# 

S# 

S#S# 

S# S#S#

S#

S#

S# S# S# 

S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S

S#

#

S

S#

# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#

S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#

S#

S#

S# S# S# S#

S# 

S# 

S# S# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S#

S#S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S

S#

# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S#S# S

S#

# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#SSS### S

S#

# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#

S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#S#S# S# S# 

S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#S#

S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S# 

S#S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S#S#

S# S#S# SS##

S# S#

S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S

S

#

#

S#

S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#

S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S

S#

#

SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SSS###

SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S#S# S# S#

S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S#S# S#S# S# S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S#S#

S#S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#S# S#

S#

%U %U 

%U 

%U %U 

%U 

%U %U

%U

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U

%U %U

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U %U %U %U

%U

%U

%U%U

%U %U

%U

%U

%U %U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U%U

%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U%U%U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U%U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U

%U

%U

%U %U 

%U 

%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U

%U%U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U %U %U

%U

%U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U %U

%U

%U %U

%U

$ $ $ 

$

$

$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ 

$ $ $ 

$$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $

$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$

$$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 3.6. The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico for spring 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Ma 1999a).

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

SPRING LONGLINE SETS

May 2001

Longline Sets 1994-1998

# 1994 % 1995

S# 1996

U% 1997

$ 1998

Planning Area Boundary

23
# 

#

#

# # # #

# # # # # # # 

## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

### # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #

# # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # ## ### # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #

# ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# 

# # # # # #

# #

#

# # #

# #

# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ### ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #####

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # #### # # #

# # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # 

# # # #

# # # ## ## # # #

#

#

##

#

#

#

# # # # # #

#

#

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # ## # # ### # # # # ## # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # #

#

# # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # #

##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

% %

%

% %

%

% % % %%

%

%

%

% % % % % % %

% %

% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % %% % %% % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % %%% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% %

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %

% %

% % % % % %

% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% %

%

%

%

%

% % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %

%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % %% %% % % %% % % %%% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

% %

% %

% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %

%% % % %

%

% % %% % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % %

%

% %% % % % % %

% % % % % %% % %

% % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% %

%

% % % % % % % %% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %%%% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

% % % % %% % % % % % %% % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % % %%%%% % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % %

%%% % % % % % % %

% % % %% % % % %

% % % %

%

% %

%% %%%% % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % %

S# S# S# S# S#

S# 

S# S# 

S# S# S# S# S#

S#S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

SS## S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S#S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S

S

#

# SS##S#S#S#

S# S# S# S

S#

# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S#S#S#S# SS##S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S#S#

S#S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S

S#

#

S#

S#S# S#

S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S# S#S# S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S

S#

# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S

S#

#S# S# S# S# S# S#S

SS

#

## S# S#S# S# S#SS## S# S# SS##S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S

S

#

# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S

S#

# S# S#S# S# S# S#S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S

S#

#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S

S

#

# S#S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S#

S#

S# 

S# S# S#

S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S#S# S

S#

# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## SS## S# S# S# S#S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S#

S# S# S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U 

%U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U %U%U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U%U %U%U

%U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U%U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U

%U%U

%U%U%U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U

%U %U%U %U%U%U

%U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U 

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U

%U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U%U%U

%U%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U%U%U%U %U

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U %U %U

%U %U%U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U%U%U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U%U%U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U

%U

%U

%U%U

%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U %U

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $

$$

$$$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 3.7. The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico for summer 1994 to 1998 (Source: National M 1999a).

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

SUMMER LONGLINE SETS

May 2001

Longline Sets 1994-1998

# 1994 % 1995

S# 1996

U% 1997

$ 1998

Planning Area Boundary

24
## # # 

# # # #

# #

#

# # # # # #

# 

# # # 

# # # 

# # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # # # # # #

## # # # # # ### #

#

# # 

# #

# #

#

# #

# # # # #

# # 

# 

##

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

#

# # #

# # 

# # # #

#

# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# ##

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

#

#

# # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # ## # # # # # # # #

# # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # 

# # # # # ##

#

# 

# 

# #

## # # # # 

# # #

#

# 

#

# 

# 

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # 

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # # ##

## ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#

# # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # #

## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #

# ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ##

# # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # #

#

# # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # 

#

# 

#

# #

% % 

% 

%

%

% %

%

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %

% %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %

% % % % % % %%%%% %% % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%%% %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % %% %%% %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %% %% % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % %%% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % %% % %% %% % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

%

%

%

% % 

%

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %

% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

%% % % % % %%%%% % % % % %

% % %%

%

% 

%

% 

% %

%

%

% %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% %

% % % % % % % %% % 

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %%% %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %%

% %% % % % % % % % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % %%

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% %%

% %

S#

S# S# S#

S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS## S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#

S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S#

S#S# S# S#

S# 

S# 

S# 

S#

S#S#S# S# S# S#

S#S#

S# S# S#

S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S#S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# 

S# 

S# S# 

S# 

S# 

S#

S#

S#

S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# 

S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# SS##S#

SS##

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S

S

#

# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

SS## S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S# S# S#

S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S# S# S# S#

S# S# S# S#

S# S#

S# S#

S#

S# S

S#

# S# SSS

###

S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S#

S#

S# S# S#

S#

S# SS##

S#

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U%U %U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U %U %U%U %U %U 

%U %U

%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U

%U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U

%U

%U %U %U%U

%U

%U

%U %U %U %U 

%U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U 

%U 

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U

%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U

%U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U%U

%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U

%U %U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U 

%U %U 

%U%U %U

%U %U 

%U 

%U %U %U %U %U%U%U

%U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U%U%U

%U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U

%U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U

%U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U

%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U%U%U%U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U%U%U %U %U %U %U

%U

$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$$$

$

$ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 3.8. The spatial distribution of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico for fall 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine  1999a).

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

FALL LONGLINE SETS

May 2001

Longline Sets 1994-1998

# 1994 % 1995

S# 1996

U% 1997

$ 1998

Planning Area Boundary

25
Month

J FMAMJ J ASOND

Numbers

0

100200300400500600700800

J FMAMJ J ASO

Dolphin Wahoo

0

100200300400500600700800

Yellowfin tuna Swordfish

Figure 3.9.	 Average monthly catch for yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin, and wahoo per pelagic longline set in the Gulf 

1988 (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999a).

26
#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

May 2001

AREAS CLOSED TO LONGLINE FISHING

Planning Area Boundary

Gulf of Mexico Region

LEGEND

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

TX

LA MS AL GA

Figure 3.10. Areas closed to longline fishing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

N

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

Geographic North American Datum 1927

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Area Closed to Longline Fishing

27
28 

Table 3.3 provides average catches of deep reef species by state. The most consistently 

caught species were tilefish and yellowedge grouper. Snowy and warsaw groupers also 

were important, but contributed less to the catches than the two primary species. Queen, 

silk, and blackfin snappers were caught in appreciable numbers off Florida, Louisiana, 

and Texas. Snappers, snowy groupers, and warsaw groupers were caught mostly with 

bandit reels rather than bottom longline (Figure 3.11). This is not surprising, as snappers 

and some groupers such as snowy and warsaw will congregate around structures and are 

more efficiently caught by vertical tackle employed by bandit reel fishers. The tilefish 

and yellowedge grouper tend to be more dispersed over low relief bottom, making 

longline a better gear for covering the broad habitat used by these species. By examining 

catch and effort by the two principal gear types (bandit reel and bottom longline), we 

were able to determine which gear type was most important to the principal species in the 

deep reef fisheries. 

Table 3.3. Average catch (kg) per trip for deep reef fishes presented by state in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico for 1994 to 1998 (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 

1999b). 

Species AL FL LA MS TX 

Yellowedge grouper 436 424 385 62 438 

Snowy grouper 70 89 49 30 65 

Warsaw grouper 42 52 47 47 63 

Misty grouper 0 137 41 0 14 

Speckled hind 0 61 19 0 17 

Tilefish 1,124 435 482 0 881 

Blueline tilefish 7 102 11 11 64 

Silk snapper 37 75 76 42 112 

Queen snapper 254 41 81 21 121 

Blackfin snapper 293 50 66 7 51 

Effort by coastal state is presented in Table 3.4. The values in the table indicate the 

numbers of fishing trips per year during the 1994 to 1998 period. Most of the effort in 

terms of overall trips made for deep reef species was offshore of Florida, followed by 

Louisiana and Texas. Effort for the primary species in the deep reef fishery (tilefish, 

snowy grouper, and yellowedge grouper) follows the same trend, with most effort 

offshore Florida, followed by Louisiana and Texas (Table 3.4). Figure 3.12 depicts 

effort (number of trips) for these three species by longline vs. bandit reel averaged over 

1994 to 1998 for the NMFS statistical grids. Again, most trips catching snowy grouper 

were made using bandit reels, and those trips catching yellowedge grouper and tilefish 

were mostly using longline gear. 
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Catch (kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Bandit Reel

Longline

Grid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Yellowedge Grouper

Tilefish

Snowy Grouper

Figure 3.11. Average catch/trip from 1994 to 1998 made using either bandit reels or bottom longline

for snowy grouper, tilefish, and yellowedge grouper arranged by statistical grid (Source:

National Marine Fisheries Service 1999b).

29
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Trips

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Bandit Reel

Longline

Grid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yellowedge Grouper

Tilefish

Snowy Grouper

Figure 3.12. Average number of trips/year from 1994 to 1998 made using either bandit reels or bottom

longline for snowy grouper, tilefish, and yellowedge grouper arranged by statistical grid

(Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999b).

30
31 

Table 3.4. Average number of trips for deep reef fish trips by state from 1994 to 1998 

(Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 2000). 

Species AL FL LA MS TX 

Yellowedge grouper 14 599 304 15 161 

Snowy grouper 3 2,752 486 44 177 

Warsaw grouper 0 82 7 0 1 

Misty grouper 3 266 376 49 266 

Speckled hind 1 106 86 4 16 

Tilefish 2 346 87 4 15 

Blueline tilefish 0 99 57 0 3 

Silk snapper 66 2,338 1,025 129 610 

Queen snapper 24 281 107 0 48 

Blackfin snapper 1 395 123 5 8 

Totals 114 7,264 2,658 250 1,305 

Invertebrate Fishery 

The effort in this fishery is low and spatially concentrated. Effort has historically been 

very low for royal red shrimp in the Gulf (GMFMC 1996). The number of vessels 

contributing to the catch and effort is usually very low, ranging between 5 and 12 vessels 

(Rick Leard, GMFMC, pers. comm. 2000). During 1994 to 1998, a total of 392 trips was 

taken for royal red shrimp in the northern Gulf. During this period, 78 percent of the 

trips were made in Grid 10 offshore of Alabama/Florida and an additional 12 percent of 

the trips were made (mostly during 1994) in Grid 21 offshore of Texas. An average of 

60 trips per year was made in Grid 10 over the same period. Other grids with landings 

were Grids 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11. Grid 10 produced 86 percent of the weight of royal red 

shrimp caught. Catches of royal red shrimp declined over the period, and in Grid 10 

ranged from 118,344 kg in 1994 to 68,637 kg in 1998. 

The number of vessels involved in the royal red shrimp fishery has been very low, 

averaging less than 10 per year (GMFMC 1996). During the time series from 1962 to 

1994, there were no more than 25 vessels reporting catches of royal red shrimp (GMFMC 

1996). 

Most fishing for golden crab has been offshore of southern Florida. Presently very few 

fishers are involved in the golden crab fishery (GMFMC 2000, pers. comm.). In fact, 

there were so few fishers reporting that the individual data were subject to proprietary 

restrictions and could not be released by NMFS (Josh Bennett, NMFS 2000, pers. 

comm.). 
32 

3.2.2 Recreational Fishery 

3.2.2.1 Gear and Methods 

Billfish Fishery 

Gear types and fishing techniques have changed over the last quarter century, resulting in 

increased cruising ranges of fishing vessels, more effective presentation of terminal 

fishing tackle to target species, and perhaps an increased strike rate during a period of 

billfish population decline. Information on gear and methodology in this section is 

derived from Jennings’ (2001) interviews with northern Gulf fishers and his 

characterization of the fishery. Names of interviewed fishers are included because these 

individuals are respected members of their profession and thus may be considered 

definitive sources of information on the fishery. 

Buck Duncan, a captain operating out of Panama City, Florida, noted that when he first 

fished for billfish out of that port in 1977, the preferred method of fishing was trolling 

with dead bait such as mullet (Mugil spp.), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), and 

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) at speeds of 4 to 5 kn. The largest billfish 

captured were in the 135 to 180 kg range. In the early 1980’s, vessel captains in his area 

began trying artificial lures, and that within a couple of years everyone had switched to 

that technique. The change to artificial lures reportedly resulted in greater catches and 

larger individuals, with late-1980’s tournament winners averaging from 180 to 225 kg. 

Duncan indicated today’s anglers use better tackle, are more knowledgeable about their 

quarry, and cover a greater sea area while trolling at faster speeds with artificial baits. 

These sentiments were reiterated by Scott Burt, tournament director of Panama City, 

Florida’s annual 4th of July Bay Point Billfish Invitational Tournament, who pointed out 

that new high performance boats allow anglers to cruise several hundred kilometers to 

fish for billfishes. Captain Brandon Ballay (Venice, Louisiana), who fishes off the 

mouth of the Mississippi River, also felt that larger and faster boats allow fishers to 

readily get out to the many deepwater oil rigs that host prey species that attract billfishes. 

James Peters, another Venice, Louisiana captain, observed that most vessels fishing for 

marlin currently troll high speed plastic lures that don't require as much angler attention 

to performance as natural baits, thus allowing greater coverage of water. He noted that 

most of the larger fishing vessels now have air-conditioned cabins. Anglers often wait in 

air-conditioned upper steering stations for the mate to tell them they have a fish hooked. 

Even anglers in smaller center-console boats venture 80 km or more offshore, five times 

the distance from shore they fished only 15 years ago. 

Roger Dart targeted marlin for 10 years as a charterboat captain in the Panama City, 

Florida area. He routinely steamed to depths of 70 to 80 fathoms, then stopped to 

examine the water. If signs of good fishing (e.g., diving birds, schools of bait, weed 

lines, current rips, debris, or anything different on the surface) were present, he began 

trolling and continued out towards 100 fathoms. Lack of appropriate signs at these 

shallower depths resulted in a direct move to the 100 fathoms region. 
33 

Alternative methods of fishing were espoused by Ben Fairey, a captain fishing out of 

Perdido Pass, Florida. He prefers to drift around the offshore oil drilling rigs, using live 

bait and kite fish. He also trolls around the rigs, using dead bait such as ballyhoo 

(Hemiramphus spp.) and/or cedar plugs. 

Non-Billfish Fishery 

Most non-billfish fishing in offshore waters targets smaller pelagic species such as 

wahoo, yellowfin tuna, and dolphin. Anglers seeking these species frequently employ 

gear capable of hooking and landing larger billfishes as well. Thus the techniques 

described above, especially trolling with artificial lures and rigged dead fishes, are 

applicable to this fishery. Sizes of rods and reels may be downsized if some of these 

smaller species are specifically targeted. Vessel size also may be smaller in this fishery 

because logistic and safety considerations involved in billfishing can be ignored. 

One technique often used when targeting wahoo is deep trolling. Deep trolling involves 

the use of a weight or sled deployed off of a separate down-rigger to get the trolled bait 

below the surface, occasionally as far down as 20 m. Stainless wire line is preferred with 

this method, as it is less resistant to drag than monofilament line. The line is connected 

to the weight with a clip that releases when a fish strikes. Artificial and natural baits 

similar to those described above are used. Trolling speeds vary, but can be as much as 

15 kn when targeting wahoo. 

Bluefin tunas (Thunnus thynnus) were once more common in the offshore waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico than they are today, reflecting the general decline of stocks in the western 

North Atlantic and the world. Joe Yurt, weighmaster for the New Orleans Big Game 

Fishing Club, said "There was a time years ago when I weighed in more ‘giants’ 

[a bluefin tuna that weighs 225+ kg] each year than I did billfish." In 1970, he weighed 

in 17. Today, catches are infrequent (Appendix A, Table A-1). 

Bottom fishing around deepwater platforms is not as popular as surface trolling for 

billfishes, tunas, and wahoos. However, as Olander (2001) describes, recreational fishers 

bottom fishing around the deepwater platforms Cognac and Lena in the Mississippi 

Canyon area of the northern Gulf of Mexico are finding some success. He reported 

catching snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), barrelfish (Hyperoglyphe perciformis), 

and oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus) on electric-powered reels in water depths exceeding 

300 m. 

3.2.2.2 Factors Affecting Fishing Locations 

Three factors are repeatedly pointed to by fishing captains as major recent influences on 

their choices of fishing locations in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps the most 

important factor is trends in extra-territorial weather, which greatly affect the flow of the 

Mississippi River and profoundly influence local oceanographic conditions. An 

unusually rainy season anywhere in the Mississippi River drainage results in increased 

muddy water moving into the upper Gulf of Mexico, causing blue offshore water and its 

billfishes, wahoos, tunas, and dolphin to move further offshore. In the past 2 years, the 
34 

outflow of the Mississippi River was lower than normal and “bluewater” came to within 

8 to 32 km miles of the river mouth. In 2000, “bluewater” came into depths of 150 m off 

the northern mouth of the Mississippi River and a blue marlin was captured in just 55 m 

of water. During this time period, marlins were abundant along the floating weed-line 

where the “bluewater” met the muddy river water. 

Local oceanographic and weather conditions, such as hurricanes and cold air 

temperatures, also are highly influential. Annually, there usually are two periods of blue 

and white marlin movements in the upper Gulf of Mexico. The spring run occurs from 

April through June, when the Loop Current starts changing direction and yellowfin tuna 

start migrating into the Gulf. The fall run takes place from August through November. If 

air and water temperatures stay warm, the fall offshore fishing season for billfishes, 

wahoo, and yellowfin tuna is prolonged. 

Large bluefin tuna are said to arrive in the upper Gulf of Mexico in early April to 

mid-May and stay until the middle of June. Jim Franks, fisheries research biologist with 

the Gulf Coast Research Lab in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, has examined two bluefins 

caught in the Mississippi Gulf Coast Billfish Classic, a 379-kg male in 1999 and a 291-kg 

female in 2000, and both were in spawning condition. It is thought that offshore Gulf of 

Mexico waters are seasonally important spawning grounds for the highly overfished 

bluefin tuna (Nemerson et al. 2000). 

Another factor commonly cited as influencing the abundance and location of targeted 

pelagic fish species is the presence of recently built offshore oil rigs. Perdido Pass 

captain Ben Fairey believes that the establishment of the oil drilling rigs in the northcentral Gulf is the biggest factor that has contributed to improving billfishing in the area. 

These are said to “hold” baitfishes within the region, attracting billfishes, yellowfin tunas, 

wahoos, and large dolphins. Fairey said, "The fish we're after are going to be where the 

bait is, and these big rigs are giant FADs [fish attraction devices], and it's unbelievable 

how big some of them are and how much bait they hold.” Orange Beach captain Brent 

Shaver echoed Fairey's comment about the oil rigs, saying he fishes them almost daily, 

with catches sometimes reaching three or four billfishes a day. Fishers generally agree 

that such rigs have greatly increased the opportunity for catching billfishes and other 

pelagic fishes. 

3.2.2.3 Key Fishing Ports and Tournaments 

The number of charter vessel permits issued for each state bordering the Gulf of Mexico 

provides insight into fishing effort in the region. According to the NMFS, the Florida 

West Coast (not including the Florida Keys) currently has 758 permitted vessels, with 

Panama City (129) and Destin (114) the highest permitted ports. Other state totals 

include Texas (270), Alabama (131), Louisiana (110), and Mississippi (87). Since the 

number of vessel permits does not necessarily translate into bluewater fishing effort, it is 

imperative to review fishing effort data to gain a better feel for key fishing ports and 

regions. 
35 

The NMFS billfish monitoring program data detailing catches and releases of billfishes 

and large tunas during the period 1994 to 1998 are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-1 

to A-6. Ports monitored included St. Petersburg, Treasure Island, Panama City, Destin, 

and Pensacola, Florida; Orange Beach and Dauphin Island, Alabama; Mississippi (no 

specific locality given, but likely Biloxi and Gulfport); Grand Isle, South Pass, and 

Freeport, Louisiana; and Galveston, Port O’Connor, Port Aransas, Port Mansfield, Port 

Isabel, and Padre Island, Texas. The greatest fishing effort for the Gulf coastal states 

monitored was as follows: 

# Florida (106,812 boat-hours from 25 port-years of sampling); 

# Louisiana (104,872 boat-hours, 14 port-years); 

# Texas (79,684 boat-hours, 19 port-years); 

# Alabama (56,517 boat-hours, 6 port-years); and 

# Mississippi (7,146 boat-hours, 2 port-years). 

Ports with the highest fishing efforts are illustrated in Table 3.5. South Pass, Louisiana 

ranked first, followed by Orange Beach, Pensacola, Port Isabel, Panama City, and Port 

O’Connor. Grand Isle, Destin, St. Petersburg, Freeport, and Mississippi formed a second 

tier of fishing activity. Lesser effort ports not shown in Table 3.5 included Port 

Mansfield (5,358 boat-hours), Port Aransas (3,334 boat-hours), Dauphin Island 

(1,326 boat-hours), Clearwater (1,182 boat-hours), Treasure Island (632 boat-hours), 

Padre Island (135 boat-hours), and Galveston (36 boat-hours). 

Table 3.5. Gulf of Mexico ports monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Billfish Survey with the highest recreational bluewater fishing effort (Source: 

NMFS 2001a). 

Port Effort (boat-hours)

South Pass LA 83 116

Orange Beach, AL 55,191

Pensacola, FL 50,465

Port Isabel, TX 48,922

Panama City, FL 34,373

Port O’Connor, TX 21,935

Grand Isle, LA 13,487

Destin, FL 11,014

St. Petersburg, FL 9,146

Freeport, TX 8,269

Mississippi 7,146

The NMFS MRFSS data set does not differentiate individual ports, presenting data only 

by state. Thus, neither billfish nor non-billfish fishery port data are available. 

Considering that anglers seeking billfishes and other offshore pelagic fishes employ 

similar fishing gear and vessels as those seeking billfishes, it is highly likely that the 
36 

major ports previously listed above for billfish catches are equally important for those 

seeking these smaller pelagic species. 

The state of Texas produces its own recreational data, and catch and effort information is 

available for selected ports. Table 3.6 details fishing pressure, by Texas port, for the 

years 1993-94 to 1997-98. Galveston (650,600 man-hours) was the most active port, 

followed by Corpus Christi (286,000 man-hours), Matagorda (254,900 man-hours), 

Sabine Lake (199,200 man-hours), and the Lower Laguna Madre (77,600 man-hours). 

Most of the ports monitored in the NMFS billfish survey were not screened by TPWD 

(including such high use ports as Port Isabel and Port O’Connor) and vice versa, making 

comparisons between the two data sets extremely difficult. 

Table 3.6. Fishing pressure (man-hour x 1,000) by port and year for Texas (Source: 

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 2001).* 

Year Sabine 

Lake Galveston Matagorda Corpus Christi 

Lower Laguna 

Madre Coastwide

1993-94 18.1 45.2 30.7 34.8 3.6 132.3 

1994-95 27 156.3 35.3 48.6 22.3 289.5 

1995-96 36 119.7 60.7 39.8 16.1 272.3 

1996-97 68.9 165.1 71.8 64.5 19.9 390.1 

1997-98 49.2 164.3 56.4 98.3 15.7 383.8 

Total 199.2 650.6 254.9 286 77.6 1468 

*Does not include Prince data. 

The NMFS billfish data set provides information on 66 tournaments occurring from 

Florida to Texas. Based on level of fishing effort, the major tournaments during 1994 to 

1998 are given in Table 3.7. Year by year fishing effort for individual tournaments is 

presented in Appendix A, Table A-2. 

The Mississippi Gulf Coast Billfish Classic, hosted every June by the Isle of Capri casino 

in Biloxi, currently is the largest prize money tournament in the Gulf of Mexico 

(Jennings 2001). NMFS billfish program data for this tournament was listed only for the 

years 1997 and 1998, so fishing effort totals are not comparable to those tournaments 

detailed above (each based on 4 or 5 years of sampling). Nevertheless, an examination of 

the tournament’s mean yearly fishing effort during that 2-year period (Appendix A, 

Table A-3) placed it among the most heavily fished tournaments in the Gulf of Mexico. 
37 

Table 3.7. Major billfish tournaments sampled by National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) in the Gulf of Mexico from 1994 to 1998 ranked by level of fishing effort 

(boat-hours) (Source: NMFS 2001a). 

Port Tournament Effort (boat-hours) Number of 

Tournaments 

Panama City, FL Bay Point Invitational 29,071 5 

Pensacola, FL International Billfish 28,761 5 

Port Isabel, TX Texas International 27,377 5 

Port O'Connor, TX Poco Bueno 21,935 5 

South Pass, LA New Orleans Big 

Game Fishing Club 

Invitational 

19,326 5 

Orange Beach, AL Mobile Big Game 

Fishing Club 

Memorial Day 

18,343 5 

Orange Beach, AL Orange Beach 

Invitational 17,099 4 

Pensacola, FL Blue Marlin Classic 12,891 5 

Empire/South Pass, LA Fishing Rodeo 12,000 5 

Orange Beach, AL Mobile Big Game 

Fishing Club Ladies 10,938 5 

Ft. Walton/Destin, FL Annual Billfish 10,040 5 

3.2.2.4 Primary Fishing Areas 

Jennings (2001) and M. Roff (pers. comm. 2001) provided details on offshore locations 

fished by anglers leaving from several key ports, as summarized below. Many of these 

“hot-spots” are visited by fishers steaming from numerous ports of origin. Figure 3.13 

gives the locations of primary ports and fishing locations. For locations not plotted on 

this figure, the positions are given in the text. 

Panama City anglers targeting marlin, wahoo, and yellowfin tuna usually take a heading 

of 220° out of St. Andrews Pass and travel approximately 80 km to the 100 fathom curve 

at an area referred to as “The Squiggels” (29.30°N, 86.25°W). “The Squiggels” received 

its name from the bottom contour representing the 100-fathom curve as seen on 

navigation charts. Two other frequented fishing areas are the northwest end of “The 

Wings” (29.23°N, 86.07°W) and “Lloyds Ridge” or “The Bill of the Sailfish” (28.12°N, 

86.45°W). 

Bluewater fishers from Destin, Ft. Walton Beach, and Pensacola head to several offshore 

locations. An area known as “Rock Cliffs” (30.07°N, 86.53°W) is popular, as is the 

De Soto Canyon region (29.22°N, 86.60°W). Three other localities forming a triangle 

draw many anglers; these are “The Nipple,” “The Spur” (29.27°N, 86.56°W), and “The 

Elbow.” Another frequently visited spot is “The Steps” (29.18°N, 87.39°W). Most 
#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

# # #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

# # #

#

Pensacola

200 m

#

Big Southern 

(30 fathom)

#

Camel's Head

#

Colt 45

#

300 Fathom Hump

#

500 Fathom Hump

#

Big Fish Hole

#

Hilltops

#

100 Fathom RockCerveza Rig

#

Joe's Marlin Spot

#

Auger

#

Bullwinkle

#

Tequila Rig

#

East Breaks

#

Nipple

#

The Spur

#

Lloyds Ridge

#

The 

#

Lena

#

The Hole

#

Mars

#

Ursa

#

Cognac

#

Elbow

#

Ram-Powell

#

Marlin

#

Steps

#

Squiggels

#

Camel's Head

#

Colt 45

#

300 Fathom Hump

#

500 Fathom Hump

#

Big Fish Hole

#

Hilltops

#

100 Fathom RockCerveza Rig

#

Joe's Marlin Spot

#

Auger

#

Bullwinkle

#

Tequila Rig

#

East Breaks

#

Nipple

#

The Spur

#

Lloyds Ridge

#

The 

#

Lena

#

The Hole

#

Mars

#

Ursa

#

Cognac

#

Elbow

#

Ram-Powell

#

Marlin

#

Steps

#

Squiggels

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y #Y #Y #Y

Port Aransas

Port O'Conner

Freeport

Galveston Venice

Port 

Eads Biloxi

Orange 

Beach

Destin

Pana

Cit

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions beare for initial planning purpprejudice or affect United any way.

Figure 3.13. Locations of key ports and fishing locations for bluewater recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico.

AL N

LA

TX

MS

LEGEND

Recreational fishing spot

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

Geographic North American Datum 1927

Gulf of Mexico Region

98o98o

96o96o

94o94o

92o92o

90o90o

88o88o

86o86o

22o 24o 26o 28o 30o 32o 

MEXICO

GULF OF MEXICO

#

PRIMARY PORTS FOR BLUEWATERRECREATIONAL/CHARTER FISHING

38
39 

bluefin tuna caught in the northeastern Gulf are taken during May and June in depths of 

around 200 m from an area known as the “Double Nipple,” located 137 km south of 

Orange Beach. 

Orange Beach anglers leave out of Perdido Pass on their way offshore. They frequently 

head for the Ram-Powell floating oil production platform located 137 km SE of Perdido 

Pass (29.02°N, 88.04°W) in about 975 m of water. Completed in 1995, the Ram-Powell 

rig is a joint venture between Shell, BP/Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil. The Ram-Powell rig 

is also utilized by fishers traveling from Biloxi, Gulfport, and South Pass (it is located 

88 km SE of South Pass). 

Another deepwater oil platform located nearby also is frequented by bluewater fishers 

from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The "Beer Can" (29.09°N, 88.04°W) is a 

smaller deepwater oil platform located in 670 m of water about 10 km NE of the RamPowell rig. The Ram-Powell, “Beer Can,” and other large deepwater oil rigs have 

spawned the development of a fleet of 18-m plus long charterboats targeting bluewater 

anglers interested in overnight and 3-day fishing trips to these waters. 

The influx of casinos into southern Mississippi has resulted in increased interest in 

offshore fishing in the region. Charterboats from Biloxi and Gulfport usually move 

through South Pass near Venice, Louisiana as they run to the continental shelf, 161 km 

south of the Mississippi coastline. In addition to the Ram-Powell (143 km offshore of 

Biloxi) and “Beer Can” (121 km from Biloxi) rigs, destinations include the “Mars” 

(80 km from South Pass and Port Eads), and “Ursa” (225 to 241 km from Biloxi and 

97 km south of South Pass and Port Eads) oil rigs. 

Anglers leaving Venice and Grand Isle frequently head to Green Canyon or Mississippi 

Canyon areas. These areas contain a series of oil platforms that draw the attention of 

Louisiana fishers: the “Discovery,” “Cognac,” “Lena,” and the previously mentioned 

Mars and Ursa rigs, while others prefer the “Midnight Lumps.” Fishers leaving South or 

Tiger Pass generally travel 48 to 80 km to get to the preferred fishing grounds. 

In the western Gulf, bluewater fishers from Texas ports such as Port Aransas, Port 

O'Connor, and Port Isabel visit an array of offshore rigs and natural features. Natural 

features include the "Camel's Head," "300 Fathom Hump,""500 Fathom Hump," "East 

Breaks," "Hilltops," and "Joe Marlin Spot." Frequently fished offshore rigs in this area 

are "Tequila" and "Cerveza" in the west, and to the east, "Auger" and "Bullwinkle." 

3.2.2.5 Catch and Effort 

Catch and effort data derived from the NMFS billfish and the TPWD data sets, and catch 

data from the NMFS MRFSS data set, are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-1 to A-5. 

Both the TPWD and NMFS MRFSS data sets have imperfections. Most notably, 

offshore (greater than 200 m) catch data frequently include a variety of typically inshore 

species that surely were not captured at these depths or offshore habitats, making the data 

sets suspect. Obvious errors were eliminated by selectively removing data for species 
40 

that clearly could not have been captured in offshore waters (e.g., freshwater catfishes, 

estuarine species), but retained species or taxonomic groups that conceivably could 

occasionally occur there. In addition, the “other species” categories are nebulous and 

likely host similar species/groups clearly out of depth ranges or usual habitats. Certain 

fishes, such as billfishes, are noticeably missing from the data sets. Because these 

species/groups may have been “buried” in the “other species” listing, we retained that 

data category without modification. The extent and styles of port sampling also were 

dissimilar, making direct comparisons between the two data sets difficult. 

After the obviously incorrect species were removed, the remaining species were allocated 

into 12 major taxonomic groups (Table 3.8 and Appendix A, Table A-4). Those not 

allocated to one of those 12 major taxonomic groups were added to the existing “other 

species” category. The latter represented primarily non-targeted bycatch species not 

falling into the 12 major taxonomic groups plus the nebulous original assemblage, which 

likely includes billfishes. The major group categories include most of the key game 

fishes sought by anglers. These taxonomic groups are barracudas, dolphins, drums, 

grunts, jacks, porgies, sea basses/groupers, sharks, skates/rays, snappers, 

triggerfishes/filefishes, and tunas/mackerels. Most of the species in these groups (drums, 

grunts, jacks, porgies, sea basses/groupers, skates/rays, snappers, triggerfishes/filefishes) 

primarily are taken in the recreational bottom fishery in depths of less than 100 fathoms, 

but since some members of the group are potentially taken in deeper waters, they are 

presented here. The other groups (barracudas, dolphins, sharks, tunas/mackerels) can be 

found in both areas or are most common in deeper water. 

The NMFS 1994-1998 billfish data set is the most robust and reliable of the three data 

sets because the species identities are accurate and appropriate for the fishing region, and 

the port coverage seemingly is representative of the offshore recreational fishing user 

community. Its enumeration of billfish catches (Appendix A, Table A-1), missing from 

the other data sets, and of the large tuna catch is superior and offers a more precise view 

of offshore fishing. It also comes with effort data, allowing the calculation of catch per 

unit effort (CPUE) measures. 

The catch of billfishes and tunas was highest on vessels originating from Louisiana 

(1,288) and Texas (1,131) ports during the 1994-1998 period (Appendix A, Table A-1). 

Florida (750), Alabama (431), and Mississippi (52) vessels had significantly fewer 

catches. Mississippi (57.7 percent) and Florida (55.1 percent) anglers landed more of 

their billfish catches than those in other states; Texas and Louisiana fishers were the most 

conservation-conscious, releasing 65.7 percent and 61.3 percent of their catches, 

respectively. Calculated CPUE figures indicated that anglers in Texas (0.014 billfishes 

and tunas per boat-hour fished) and Louisiana (0.012) waters were roughly twice as likely 

to be successful as fishers in Alabama (0.008), Florida (0.007), and Mississippi (0.007). 

This suggests that the catch-and-release ethic may be paying dividends in those areas 

where it is in practice. 
Table 3.8. Total number of individuals caught by species and state (1994-1998) (Source: National Marine Fishe

1994-1998 West Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas* 

Barracudas 330,197 116 0 2,270 0 Dolphins 2,009,400 2,363 203 103,143 39,500 Drums 63,162 13,904 251,628 328,090 22,400 Grunts 968,670 151,000 2,589 352 0 Jacks 623,170 83,261 25,280 65,555 3,500 Porgies 513,088 71,978 116,425 48,260 0 Sea Basses 2,939,007 93,598 4,195 8,294 0 Sharks 53,980 959 40,269 50,262 7,600 Skates/Rays 4,942 0 137 212 800 Snappers 3,758,838 2,811,734 129,800 796,334 323,000 Triggerfishes/Filefishes 669,099 424,822 12,834 66,175 20,400 Tunas and Mackerels 2,149,560 74,420 186,188 39,491 92,100 Other Species 251,063 23,032 21338 52,855 50,600 Total 14,334,176 3,751,187 790,886 1,561,293 559,900 * Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 2001. 

41
42 

The NMFS billfish data set also is useful in identifying fishing ports and tournaments 

with the highest catches. Total catches (Table 3.9) during the monitored period were 

highest in South Pass (1,041 billfishes and tunas) and Port Isabel (737). Other important 

ports of origin included Orange Beach (425), Pensacola (411), Port O’Connor (255), 

Panama City (191), Grand Isle (134), and Freeport (113). Smaller catches were recorded 

by anglers from Destin (77), Port Mansfield (72), Port Aransas (63), St. Petersburg (60), 

and “Mississippi” (probably Biloxi-Gulfport) (52). Occasional catches were noted in 

Clearwater (9), Dauphin Island (6), Galveston (4), Padre Island (4), and Treasure Island 

(2). 

Based on CPUE calculations (Table 3.9), anglers fishing from Port Isabel (0.015 

billfishes and tunas per boat-hour fished), Freeport (0.014), Port Mansfield (0.013), South 

Pass (0.013), Port O’Connor (0.012), and Grand Isle (0.010) were most successful in 

capturing their quarry. Orange Beach (0.008 billfishes and tunas per boat-hour fished), 

Pensacola (0.008), Destin (0.007), and Panama City (0.006) yielded less fishes per 

fishing hour. 

Table 3.9. Ports monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Billfish 

Survey producing the highest total catches and catches per unit effort (CPUEs) of 

billfishes and tunas during 1994 to 1998 (ranked by total catch) (Source: NMFS 2001a). 

Port Total Catch CPUE (boat-hour) 

South Pass, LA 1,041 0.013 

Port Isabel, TX 737 0.015 

Orange Beach, AL 425 0.008 

Pensacola, FL 411 0.008 

Port O'Connor, TX 225 0.012 

Panama City, FL 191 0.006 

Grand Isle, LA 134 0.010 

Freeport, TX 113 0.014 

Destin, FL 77 0.007 

Port Mansfield, TX 72 0.013 

The 10 tournaments yielding the largest numbers of catches during the monitored time 

period are provided in Table 3.10. Tournaments following those shown in Appendix A, 

Table A-6 included: Grand Isle Tarpon Rodeo (114), [Orange Beach] Mobile Big Game 

Fishing Club Memorial Day (104), [South Pass] New Orleans Big Game Fishing Club 

September (100), and [South Pass] New Orleans Big Game Fishing Club Ladies Day 

(100). Year by year catch totals for individual tournaments are presented in Appendix A,

Table A-5. 
43 

Table 3.10. Tournaments monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Billfish Survey producing the highest total catch of billfishes and tunas during 1994 to 

1998 (ranked by total catch) (Source: NMFS 2001a). 

Tourney Location Total Catch 

Texas International Fishing Port Isabel, TX 336 

Poco Bueno Port O'Connor, TX 255 

New Orleans Big Game Fishing Club 

Invitational South Pass, LA 191 

Pensacola International Billfish Pensacola, FL 185 

Orange Beach Invitational Orange Beach, AL 166 

Blue Marlin Classic Pensacola, FL 146 

Bay Point Invitational Panama City, FL 136 

New Orleans Big Game Fishing Club 

Labor Day South Pass, LA 126 

Marlin International Lonestar Showdown Port Isabel, TX 122 

Empire-South Pass Fishing Rodeo South Pass, LA 122 

When only tournaments monitored for 3 to 5 years are considered, the highest CPUE 

calculations (Table 3.11) were from five Port Isabel tournaments. Five South Pass 

tournaments and one hosted in Pensacola produced high catch rates. 

Table 3.11. Tournaments monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Billfish Survey producing the highest catch per unit effort (CPUE) for billfishes and tunas 

during 1994 to 1998 (ranked by CPUE) (Source: NMFS 2001a). 

Tournament Location CPUE 

South Texas Big Game Fishing 

Club Second Port Isabel, TX 0.026 

South Texas Big Game Fishing 

Club Third Port Isabel, TX 0.024 

South Texas Big Game Fishing 

Club Finale Port Isabel, TX 0.023 

South Texas Big Game Fishing 

Club Fourth Port Isabel, TX 0.022 

Marlin International Showdown Port Isabel, TX 0.021 

New Orleans/Baton Rouge Big 

Game Fishing Club Labor Day South Pass, LA 0.020 

New Orleans/Baton Rouge Big 

Game Fishing Club September South Pass, LA 0.019 

Pratt Martin/New Orleans Big 

Game Fishing Club First South Pass, LA 0.018 

Monkey Boat Billfish Pensacola, FL 0.015 

Cypress Cove Invitational South Pass, LA 0.014 
44 

The least productive major tournaments were the Bay Point Invitational in Panama City, 

Florida (0.005); Old Salt in St. Petersburg, Florida (0.005); Mobile Big Game Fishing 

Club Memorial Day in Orange Beach, Alabama (0.006); Annual Ft. Walton-Destin, 

Florida Billfish (0.006), Outcast Small Boat Billfish in Pensacola, Florida (0.006); 

Pensacola Ladies [0.006], South Pass Memorial Day (0.006), and Pensacola International 

Billfish (0.006). 

Recreational angler billfish CPUE statistics for the western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

were extracted from Ortiz and Farber’s (2000) ICCAT working document (Figure 3.14). 

Although not tested statistically, the overall trend is for a reduced catch rate during this 

time period, a trend observed in bluefin tunas and other pelagic fishes as well many 

inshore species. 

Composition of the Gulf of Mexico billfish/tuna catch is given in Appendix A, 

Table A-1. From 1994-1998 there were 1,320 blue marlin (52.5 percent of Billfish Catch 

[BC], 36.1 percent of Total Catch [TC]), 744 white marlin (29.6 percent BC, 20.4 percent 

TC), 440 sailfish (17.5 percent BC, 12.0 percent TC), 10 spearfishes (0.4 percent BC, 

0.3 percent TC) and 1,138 yellowfin tunas (31.2 percent TC) captured. There were no 

recorded catches of bluefin tuna or swordfish. 

The offshore catch composition of the combined NMFS MRFSS and TPWD data sets is 

presented in Table 3.8 and Appendix A, Table A-4. We are reticent to discuss these 

data in detail because of previously described misgivings regarding quantity and quality 

of the data sets. However, it is obvious, regardless of data shortcomings, that the most 

numerically important taxonomic groups were the snappers (family Lutjanidae, mostly 

Lutjanus spp. and Rhomboplites aurorubens; 7,819,706) and sea basses/groupers (family 

Serranidae, mostly Epinephelus spp., Mycteroperca spp., and Centropristis spp.; 

3,045,094), the primary target species in the continental shelf (less than 100 fathoms) 

bottom fishery. Mackerels and tunas (Scombridae, primarily king and Spanish 

mackerels, Scomberomorus cavalla and S. maculatus, little tunny, Euthynnus alletteratus, 

and wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri; 2,541,759), dolphins (Coryphaenidae, mostly 

Coryphaena hippurus; 2,154,609), triggerfishes/filefishes (Balistidae and Monacanthidae, 

primarily the gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus; 1,193,330), and grunts (Haemulidae, 

mostly the white grunt, Haemulon plumieri, and tomtate, H. aurolineatum; 1,122,611) 

were the next most abundant groups represented in catches. Of these, the latter two 

groups are usually by catch in the snapper-grouper fishery (although they occasionally 

are targeted). Only the mackerels/tunas and dolphins are normally taken in depths greater 

than 200 m, but not all mackerel/tuna species are “bluewater” inhabitants. 
Year

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

CPUE

0

1

2

3

4

Figure 3.14. Time series trend in billfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the western Atlantic and Gulf

of Mexico (Source: Ortiz and Farber 2000).

45
46 

3.3 LIFE HISTORY SYNOPSES OF KEY BLUEWATER FISHERIES SPECIES 

This subsection provides brief life history synopses for the major species from the 

epipelagic, deep reef, and invertebrate bluewater fisheries. Each synopsis includes 

taxonomic status with currently used scientific names, geographical distribution, habitat, 

biology, fishery importance, and conservation. Information provided under each 

category is limited by the available literature. 

Shortfin Mako Shark

Order: Lamniformes 

Family: Lamnidae 

Genus: Isurus

Species: oxyrinchus 

Taxonomy 

Rafinesque first described this shark as Isurus oxyrinchus in 1810. Since then it also has 

appeared as Isurus spallanzani, Oxyrhina glauca, Isuropsis dekayi, Isurus mako, and 

Isurus africanus. 

Geographical Distribution 

The shortfin mako has a wide distribution. It is found in warm and warm-temperate 

waters throughout the world’s oceans. However, it also is found in cool, deep waters of 

tropical regions. In North America, it ranges from California to Chile in the Pacific and 

in the Atlantic from the Grand Banks to the hump of Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico 

and the Caribbean Sea. It is commonly seen in offshore waters from Cape Cod to Cape 

Hatteras. In the eastern Atlantic, shortfin makos range from Norway to South Africa, 

including the Mediterranean, and are found throughout the Indian Ocean from South 

Africa to Australia. In the western Pacific, the shortfin mako ranges from Japan to New 

Zealand, and in the central Pacific it occurs from the Aleutian Islands to the Society 

Islands. 

Habitat 

Although this species is most common north or south of equatorial or tropical regions, it 

also is found in the cooler, deeper waters of the tropical regions. In some tropical areas 

where the temperature of the surface water may be 27°C, at depths of between 30 and 

60 m, the water temperature may be as low as 15°C. With the ability to elevate body 

temperature, makos are able to maintain themselves in temperatures of 5°C to 11°C. In 

this sense the makos are somewhat “warm-blooded,” meaning that heat in their blood is 

conserved within the body and not lost through the gills. They have been recorded at 

depths of 740 m. However, shortfin makos prefer water temperatures between 17°C and 

20°C. It has been hypothesized that this species migrates seasonally to warmer waters, 

and this has been supported by some tag and release studies. 
47 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

Average adult size is 3 m and 60 to 135 kg. As with most shark species, females are 

larger than males and may reach 3.8 m and weigh 570 kg. The largest “mako” taken on 

hook and line worldwide was 506 kg, however no identification was made of the species 

(shortfin or longfin mako). The shortfin mako has a growth rate that exceeds other 

lamnids. Length analyses, as well as counts of growth rings on vertebral centra have 

been utilized in studies to estimate the age of this species. Most shortfin makos likely 

live approximately 20 years. 

Feeding 

The shortfin mako is an apex predator that feeds on other fast-moving pelagic fishes such 

as swordfish, tunas, squids and other sharks. Interestingly, the stomach contents of 

shortfin makos caught in gill nets off Natal, South Africa, showed a ratio of 60 percent 

shark and 40 percent fish, while a study off the northeastern U.S. found 77.5 percent of 

their diet was bluefish. Marine mammals and sea turtles are rarely ingested by shortfin 

makos. 

Reproduction 

Males mature at about 2.0 m, while females mature at 2.75 m. They reach sexual 

maturity between 4 to 6 years of age and have a reproductive cycle of 2 years. 

Development of young is ovoviviparous. Embryos in the female’s uterus hatch in uteri 

and are nourished by yolk stored in a yolk sac. There is no placental connection between 

mother and young. Once the young are hatched into the uterus, uterine cannibalism 

(known as oophagy) occurs. Oophagy is the ingestion of unfertilized or less developed 

eggs by a fetus that is more developed. Young are born upon completion of an 

approximate 15 to 18 month gestation. Litters range from 8 to 10 pups, and the pups are 

probably born at 68 to 70 cm. Upon capture, pregnant females usually abort embryos; 

therefore few specifics about reproduction are known. 

Fishery Importance 

The shortfin mako is considered to be one of the great game fishes in the world, owing to 

its beauty, power, aggressiveness, grace, and athletic jumping ability. Shortfin makos are 

recreationally caught with trolled baits and lures as well as with live or dead baits fished 

from anchored or drifting boats. 

Highest recreational catches occur off southern California, the northeastern U.S., 

Australia, and New Zealand. The shortfin mako was made famous in Ernest 

Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea. Hemingway also caught a 357 kg mako with a 

rod and reel off Bimini, the Bahamas, in 1963. It is a highly sought commercial species 

as well. Its flesh is flavorful and limited quantities may be found in the U.S. markets, 

including California where it sometimes is sold as swordfish. Commercial captures are 

made using longlines, stationary gill nets, and drift nets. The fins and liver oil are also 

marketed. Shortfin makos are a major bycatch component of the tuna and swordfish 

fisheries. Unfortunately, accurate bycatch numbers are not available.
48 

Conservation 

The world’s affinity for shark fin soup and the delectable flesh of the shortfin mako has 

lead to their decreased numbers. Worldwide, the shortfin mako is not only subject to 

overharvesting by direct hunting, they are often bycatch victims of the tuna and swordfish 

fishing industries. As a result, NMFS has included the shortfin mako on their list of 

managed pelagic sharks. The NMFS has reduced the number of commercial and 

recreational shortfin mako catches allowed per year by 50 percent in an attempt to 

counter act its declining numbers. However, the NMFS regulations apply only to U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf waters. Hastening the shortfin mako’s population decrease is their 

slow reproductive rate. They are incapable of replenishing their populations as quickly as 

they are being decimated. 

Sources: Allen 1999; Bass et al. 1975b; Compagno 1984a; Last and Stevens 1994; 

Moreno and Moron 1992; Oldewage and Smale 1993; Pratt and Casey 1983; Springer 

and Gold 1992. 

Silky Shark

Order: Carcharhiniformes

Family: Carcharhinidae

Genus: Carcharhinus 

Species: falciformis

Taxonomy 

The first specimen described was given the name Carcharias (Prionodon) falciformis by 

Müller and Henle in 1841. Other names appearing in the literature include Squalus or

Prionodon tiburo, Gymnorhinus or Gymnorrhinus pharaonis, Aprionodon sitankaiensis, 

Carcharhinus floridanus, Eulamia malpeloensis, and Carcharhinus atrodorsus. 

Geographical Distribution 

The silky shark is a common tropical-subtropical, epipelagic species that occurs in the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the western Atlantic, it ranges from 

Massachusetts to Brazil (including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) and from 

Spain to Angola in the eastern Atlantic. It is found in the western Indian Ocean and the 

Red Sea from Tanzania to Mozambique, including Madagascar and the Comores and in 

the mid- and eastern Indian Ocean from the Maldives and Sri Lanka to western Australia. 

It occurs from China to New Zealand in the western Pacific (including the Hawaiian 

Islands), and from Baja California to Peru in the eastern Pacific. 

Habitat 

Although essentially pelagic, the silky shark is not restricted to the open ocean and has 

been recorded from depths as shallow as 18 m. It is an active, swift shark that prefers 

warmer water (about 23°C). It is commonly found near the edges of continental shelves 

and over deepwater reefs where there is abundant food source. Typically, it ranges from 

the surface down to at least 500 m, but has been caught over water as deep as 4,000 m. 

Studies show no strong tendency for sexual segregation in the silky shark, however, they 

often travel with others of their own size indicating that size segregation is present within 
49 

the species. Typically, smaller sharks can be found in coastal nurseries and adults further 

offshore over deeper water. Small silky sharks are commonly associated with schools of 

tuna. 

Biology 

Size, Age, & Growth 

Maximum length for this species is 3.3 m. Males mature at 215 to 230 cm (9 to 10 years 

of age) and grow to a lesser size than females, which reach maturity at 230 to 245 cm 

(12 years of age), however, these numbers may vary by population. For example, 

populations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans generally have a smaller size at maturation. 

Size at birth is 70 to 85 cm. Maximum age is believed to be 22+ years. 

Feeding 

This species feeds primarily on a variety of bony fishes, cephalopods, and to a lesser 

extent, crustaceans. Tunas (little tunny and yellowfin), albacore, mullet, mackerel, 

porcupine fish, squid, nautiluses, and various crabs have all been found in the stomachs 

silky sharks. 

Reproduction 

Reproduction is viviparous (placental). In the western North Atlantic, females give birth 

in late spring (May to June) and mate around the same time in alternating years. The 

gestation period is about 12 months. Number of sharks per litter is 6 to 14 in the western 

Atlantic, 9 to 12 in the eastern Atlantic, 9 to 14 in the western Indian, and 2 to 11 in the 

central Indian. Neonates spend first the few months near reefs but move to the open 

ocean by the first winter. In the western North Atlantic, nursery areas are located along 

the Caribbean islands. 

Fishery Importance 

The silky shark is of considerable importance to longline and gillnet fisheries in many 

parts of the world. In the Gulf of Mexico it is often caught as bycatch in the tuna fishery, 

but also is harvested by the directed shark fishery. In the Caribbean it is sometimes 

fished, primarily by longline, but is not a common catch. It is used for its meat, oil, and 

fins. The silky shark is also taken by recreational fishermen. Other than its importance to 

various fisheries, the silky shark has been used in various scientific studies investigating 

the sensory biology of sharks. 

Conservation 

As with other sharks, the silky shark is vulnerable to overfishing due to its long gestation 

period, low number of offspring, and slow growth rate. Presently, the silky shark is listed 

by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) as 

LR/nt (lower risk/near threatened). 

Sources: Bass et al. 1975a; Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Bonfil et al. 1993; Branstetter 

1987; Castro 1983; Clark and von Schmidt 1965; Compagno 1984b; Garrick 1982; 

Garrick et al. 1964; Joseph 1999. 
50 

Dusky Shark

Order: Carcharhiniformes 

Family: Carcharhinidae 

Genus: Carcharhinus

Species: obscurus

Taxonomy 

Lessueur first described the dusky shark in 1818 and classified it as Squalus obscurus. 

Since then it has appeared in the literature under several different names, including 

Geleolamna greyi, Carcharias macrurus, Galeolamna (Galeolamnoides) eblis, 

Carcharhinus iranzae, and Carcharhinus obscurella. 

Geographical Distribution 

The dusky shark is a cosmopolitan species that occurs along continental coastlines in 

tropical and temperate waters. It ranges from Nova Scotia to Cuba (including the 

northern Gulf of Mexico) and from Nicaragua to southern Brazil in the western Atlantic 

and from southern California to the Gulf of California in the eastern Pacific. It is also 

found in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, and western Pacific, including 

Madagascar and Australia. 

Habitat 

C. obscurus occurs along continental shorelines where it ranges from shallow inshore 

waters to the outer reaches of the continental shelf and adjacent oceanic waters. 

Although generally a bottom feeder, it can be found from the surface to a depth of 400 m. 

Adults of this species tend to avoid areas of low salinity and rarely enter estuaries. The 

young congregate in very shallow coastal water (nurseries) in estuaries and bays from 

New Jersey to Cape Hattaras. 

This species is known to be highly migratory in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, 

moving north during the summer months and south in the winter. Males and females 

undertake these seasonal migrations separately. 

Biology 

Size, Age, Growth 

A large shark, C. obscurus can attain a length of about 400 cm. Average size and weight 

are 320 cm and 160 to 180 kg, respectively. Males mature at about 280 cm and females 

the same or slightly larger. Size at birth ranges from 70 to 100 cm. Dusky sharks are 

very slow growing, mature at about 20 years, and may live as long as 45 years. 

Feeding 

C. obscurus preys on a wide array of bony and cartilaginous fishes as well as a variety of 

invertebrates. Food items include herring, eels, mullet, groupers, grunts, croakers, 

bluefish, mackerel, tunas, various flatfish, a variety of sharks, skates and rays, crabs, 

octopuses, squid, starfishes, and sometimes human refuse.
51 

Reproduction 

In the western Atlantic, mating occurs in the spring. Due to the presence of two class 

sizes of young found in pregnant females off the coast of Florida, it is believed that 

females of this species only mate every second year. These different class sizes suggest 

alternating birth seasons every 2 years with a gestation period of about 8 months or a 

single season with a longer gestation period of about 16 months. 

As with other carcharhinids, developing embryos are nourished via a pseudo-placental 

sac, a reproductive strategy known as viviparity. In the western Atlantic, the number of 

young per liter ranges from 6 to 10 with an average of 8, whereas in the southeastern 

Atlantic, numbers are slightly higher (range 6 to 14, average 10). In both cases, both 

sexes are represented in a 1:1 ratio. 

Fishery Importance 

The dusky shark is commonly harvested in the western Atlantic where its fins are sold 

overseas for shark fin soup base. It is also regularly taken on commercial longlines as a 

bycatch in the swordfish/tuna fishery. Its flesh is marketed for human consumption, its 

skin is used for leather, and its rich liver oil yields important vitamins. In this region, 

catch rates of all sizes of dusky sharks are greatly reduced; large individuals are now a 

rarity in recreational catches and their occurrence on commercial gear has declined. 

Because of its large size and tenacity, the dusky shark is regularly sought after by anglers. 

Conservation 

On a global scale, dusky shark populations are considered at-risk, with the World 

Conservation Union (IUCN) assessing the species as LR/nt (lower risk, near threatened). 

However, an ongoing decline in numbers indicated by low catch rates in the western 

North Atlantic has prompted a ban on the harvesting of dusky sharks by U.S. commercial 

fishermen and has led to this regional population being placed on the 2000 IUCN's 

Redlist of threatened species. Presently, the dusky shark in the western North Atlantic is 

listed as VU A1abd (vulnerable, with a population reduction of 20 percent over the last 

10 years). In a recent assessment of fish stocks at risk of extinction by the American 

Fisheries Society (AFS) (Musick et al. 2000), populations of dusky sharks in the western 

Atlantic and eastern Pacific are both considered vulnerable (not endangered or 

threatened severely but at possible risk of falling into one of these categories in the near 

future). 

Sources: Bass et al. 1973a; Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Compagno 1984b; Castro 

1983; Garrick 1982; Last and Stevens 1994; Simpfendorfer 2000. 

Sandbar Shark

Order: Carcharhiniformes 

Family: Carcharhinidae 

Genus: Carcharhinus

Species: plumbeus
52 

Taxonomy 

The sandbar shark was described by Nardo in 1827 as Squalus plumbeus based on a 

specimen taken from the Adriatic Sea. In 1841, Muller and Henle assigned Eulamia 

milberti as the scientific name for the sandbar shark and since then, there have been 

various names used in its classification. Some of these include Carcharias ceruleus, 

Lamna caudata, Squalus caecchia, Carcharias japonicus, Carcharhinus platyodon, 

Carcharhinus bleekeri, Carcharias obtusirostris, Carcharias stevensi, Carcharias 

latistomus, and Galeolamna dorsalis. The species name milberti was used by some 

scientists until recently, based on the belief that the population of sandbar sharks in the 

Mediterranean Sea was made up of a distinct species. It is now known that these sharks 

are identical to those from the western Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. 

Geographical Distribution 

The sandbar shark is coastal-pelagic species that inhabits temperate and tropical waters. 

It is the most abundant species of large shark in the Western Atlantic. It has a global 

distribution, being found in the Western and Eastern Atlantic, including the 

Mediterranean. In the Indo-Pacific, it ranges from the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and South 

and East Africa to the Hawaiian Islands. It also inhabits the Revillagigedo and 

Galapagos Islands in the Eastern Pacific. 

Habitat 

C. plumbeus is essentially a bottom-dwelling, shallow coastal water species that is 

seldom seen at the water's surface. It tends to prefer waters on continental shelves, 

oceanic banks, and island terraces but is also commonly found in harbors, estuaries, at the 

mouths of bays and rivers, and shallow turbid water. Despite this, C. plumbeus is 

exclusively a marine species and does not venture into freshwater. It is believed that the 

sandbar shark favors a smooth substrate and will avoid coral reefs and other roughbottom areas. It spends most of the time in water from 20 to 65 m deep, but undoubtedly 

moves into deeper water to undergo migration and has also been reported in water so 

shallow it leaves the first dorsal fin exposed. 

Like many sharks of its genus, the sandbar shark undergoes seasonal migrations. These 

movements are influenced mainly by temperature although it is believed that ocean 

currents also play a significant role. In the western North Atlantic, adult sandbars move 

as far north as Cape Cod during the warmer summer months and return to the south at the 

onset of the cooler weather. The adults of this species do not migrate together. Instead, 

males migrate earlier and in deeper, cooler water than females. Male sandbar sharks also 

demonstrate congregated migrations and often travel in large schools, whereas females 

experience solitary migrations. 

Biology 

Distinctive Features 

The sandbar shark's most distinguishing characteristic is its taller than average first dorsal 

fin, which originates above or slightly anterior to the pectoral axil. It has a short, bluntly 

rounded snout that is shorter than the width of the mouth. An interdorsal ridge is present 

between the dorsal fins. Its widely spaced dermal denticles have no definite teeth and 

don't overlap, as is with most sharks of the family carcharhinidae. 
53 

Size, Age, and Growth 

C. plumbeus is a moderately large shark that can reach up to 2.4 m in length but more 

typically grows to 200 cm. Males reach maturity between 130 to 180 cm, while females 

mature at 145 to 180 cm. Size at birth ranges from 55 to 70 cm. The sandbar shark can 

weigh from 45 to 90 kg at maturity but averages 50 kg for males and 68 kg for females. 

Feeding 

The sandbar shark is an opportunistic bottom-feeder that preys on relatively small fishes, 

mollusks, and crustaceans. Common food items include various bony fishes, eels, skates, 

rays, dogfish, octopus, squid, bivalves, shrimps, and crabs. The sandbar shark feeds 

throughout the day but becomes more active at night. Because of the high percentage of 

sharks found with partially full stomachs and their relatively large liver, which contains 

high percentage of oil and vitamins, it is believed that these sharks have a very successful 

feeding strategy and receive a more regular supply of food than other carcharhinids. 

Reproduction 

In the Northern Hemisphere, mating occurs in the spring or early summer (May to June). 

In correlation with the warmer summer season, mating takes place in late October to 

January in the Southern Hemisphere. During this time, a mature male persistently 

follows a female, occasionally biting the area between her dorsal fins until she turns over 

allowing him to insert his claspers into each oviduct via the cloaca. This form of 

courtship behavior, which is present in most carcharhinids, often leaves the female with 

permanent scaring. 

Once fertilization occurs, the gestation period can range from 8 to 12 months, depending 

upon geographical location. In the western Atlantic, pups are born from June through 

August, while off southeastern Africa, pups are born from December to February. In the 

western North Atlantic, bays and estuaries from Delaware to North Carolina are the 

prime sand bar shark nursery areas. As with gestation period and mating times, litter size 

also varies by region. Young sandbar sharks resemble their adult parents, although the 

characteristically large first dorsal fin may not yet be as prominent at this early stage. 

Juvenile sandbar sharks remain in the shallows until late fall, at which time they form 

schools and move southward and further offshore only to return for the summer months. 

This movement between shallow coastal waters and warmer, deeper waters may continue 

for a period of up to 5 years but should not be confused with adult migrations that involve 

much greater distances. 

Fishery Importance 

The sandbar shark plays an important role in the commercial shark fishery along the 

eastern U.S. In fact, because of its numbers, moderate size, palatable meat, and high 

fin-to-carcass ratio, it is the primary targeted species in this area. It is also harvested in 

the eastern North Atlantic as well as the South China Sea for its fins, flesh, skin and liver. 

In addition to the significant impact the sandbar shark has on the commercial fishery, it is 

valuable to recreational fishermen as a game fish. 
54 

Conservation 

As is with other species of shark that demonstrate a reproductive strategy that includes a 

relatively long gestation period, a low number of offspring per litter, and a slow growth 

rate, the sandbar shark is vulnerable to over-exploitation by fishing. Increased 

recreational fishing and a heightened demand for shark fins as well as shark meat in the 

1980's had a profound adverse effect on the numbers of sandbar sharks in the 

southwestern Atlantic. It has been proposed that the population of sandbar sharks in this 

area dropped by two-thirds between the 1970's and early 1990's. However, there has 

been a slight rise in population numbers in recent years directly as a result of the 

imposition of fishery regulations. In addition, it is believed that there has been a decrease 

in the predation of juvenile sandbar sharks in nursery grounds by larger sharks. This is 

based on the observation that fishing pressure was also reducing the number of larger 

predatory sharks, most notably tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) and bull sharks. Currently, the 

sandbar shark is listed as "lower risk" by the IUCN. 

Sources: Bass et al. 1973; Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Castro 1983; Castro 1993; 

Compagno 1984b; Garrick 1982; Last and Stevens 1994; Radcliffe 1916. 

Dolphin

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Coryphaenidae 

Genus: Coryphaena

Species: hippurus 

Taxonomy 

The dolphin was first described by Linnaeus in 1758. Other names that have been used 

for this species include Scomber pelagicus, Coryphaena fasciolata, Coryphaena 

imperialis, Lemimphis hippuroides, Coryphaena immaculata, Coryphaena macgravii, 

Coryphaena suerii, Coryphaena dorado, Coryphaena dolfyn, Coryphaena virgata, 

Coryphaena argyrurus, Coryphaena vlamingii, Lampugus siculus, Corypheana 

scomberoides, Corypheana nortoniana, and Ecterias brunness. 

Common Name 

The common name for this fish is a source of much confusion. The fish known as the 

“dolphin” is not related to the marine mammal of the same common name (family 

Delphinidae). Additionally, two species of dolphin fish exist, the common dolphin 

(C. hippurus) and the pompano dolphin (C. equiselis). Both these species are commonly 

marketed by their Pacific name, mahi-mahi. 

Geographical Distribution 

The common dolphin is a common pelagic species worldwide. It is found throughout the 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, as well as the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas. 

The common dolphin is abundant in the Gulf of Mexico. 
55 

Habitat 

The common dolphin is pelagic, distributed worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. 

Unlike the pompano dolphin, it is sometimes caught in estuaries and coastal waters. It is 

usually caught in water temperatures over 21°C. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

Males and females are approximately equal in weight up to a length of 95 cm, at which 

point the males are heavier than the females. During the peak months of the summer 

fishing season, the mean weight of fish landed in Florida is 1.69 kg, in North Carolina is 

2.92 kg, and in Bermuda is 3.85 kg. These measurements reflect the growth of the young 

of the year as they migrate northward over a period of several months. Size at maturity in 

the western central Atlantic is 39 cm for males and 34 cm for females. The International 

Game Fish Association (IGFA) lists the all-tackle record as 39.91 kg. 

General Behavior 

Common dolphin apparently migrate towards the northern and southern extremes of their 

range during spring and summer. Dolphin school at all sizes. Small females are more 

likely to school along tide lines, while small males will swim in open water with larger 

males and females. Dolphins may separate into schools based upon size and/or sex. 

Common and pompano dolphins have been observed in the same school. Little is known 

of migratory patterns. It is not uncommon for dolphin schools to follow a drifting object 

or vessel for many days, indicating that similar chance encounters may dictate their 

movements. There are reports of young dolphin following a Sargassum line for 370 km, 

and of dolphin schooling under a raft as it was towed 48 km. It is recognized that 

dolphins generally migrate northward during the spring and summer. This may represent 

a response to movements of food items, the expansion of their range due to warmer 

weather, or prespawning activity. 

Feeding 

Many observations have been made on the feeding habits of dolphins. Dolphins are 

swift-moving, agile predators and are able to overcome most prey items. The common 

dolphin often associates with Sargassum in the Florida Current and Gulf Stream, where 

they prey primarily upon the smaller fishes and invertebrates associated with these tide 

lines. They are not selective in their feeding habits, although diet changes with growth. 

Larvae and juveniles feed primarily upon crustaceans, especially copepods. Adults feed 

mostly upon bony fishes, with flying fishes (Exocoetidae) constituting approximately 

25 percent of the food by weight. Other common food items include crabs, shrimps, and 

cephalopods. Sargassum is frequently found in the stomachs, but this is probably an 

incidental intake associated with foraging in the Sargassum communities. Dolphins feed 

primarily during the day, as they rely upon the vision (as well as their lateral line system) 

to detect prey. There is evidence that they may also feed at night when the moon 

provides ample light. Males are apparently more active feeders than females, evidenced 

by the larger amounts of food found in their stomachs. Males tend to be larger than 

females of the same age, and thus probably need more energy to support their 

metabolism. 
56 

Reproduction 

Unlike most pelagic species, common dolphin grow very rapidly. Additionally, their 

maximum lifespan is only about 4 years. Dolphins reach sexual maturity within 1 year of 

life, by 6 to 7 months in the western central Atlantic. In the Straits of Florida, female 

dolphins begin to mature before males. Female common dolphin begin to mature at 

approximately 350 mm fork length. They are completely mature at 550 mm fork length. 

Males may mature as early as 427 mm fork length, but generally are larger before 

maturity. The spawning season for dolphins is long, and multiple spawnings per year are 

common in both males and females. In the tropics, they spawn year-round; young 

dolphin have been found year-round in the Straits of Florida, supporting this assumption. 

In the northern and southern extremes of the range, they apparently spawn only in the 

warmer months. In laboratory conditions, dolphins have spawned both at day and night. 

Early Life History 

Larvae are found in tropical waters worldwide. Young dolphins are found in the Florida 

Current year-round, but the peak abundance occurs in the summer. Young common 

dolphins are found primarily off Florida from November to May and August, and off 

North Carolina from July to September. Larvae hatch at approximately 4 mm total 

length. Within 4 days, they reach a length of 5.7 mm. At 15 days, the larvae are 

approximately 15 mm long. Vague adult characteristics are visible at this size, and the 

eyes and mouth are fully developed. Juvenile common dolphins have a very distinct 

pattern of alternating light and dark bars. 

Fishery Importance 

Commercial Fisheries 

Dolphin represent the most important species of large pelagic in the southeastern 

Caribbean commercial fishery. Tuna longliners in the Gulf of Mexico will target dolphin 

and consider this fish a valuable incidental catch. This fishery is seasonal, in response to 

the movements of the dolphin. 

Recreational Fisheries 

Dolphin are a very popular game fish throughout their range. They are the most 

commonly taken species taken on charter boats in Florida and North Carolina. They are 

usually hooked by anglers who are trolling for another species and encounter a school of 

dolphin. Anglers who seek dolphin specifically scan the water for Sargassum lines. 

Dolphin fishing is especially popular off North Carolina, Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, the 

Bahamas, the Caribbean Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, Hawaii, and Japan. June 

through September are the primary months of the fishery, although most sport catches 

around Florida occur between March and August. Because they exhibit fast growth and a 

short lifespan, dolphin populations have not suffered as much as other pelagic species 

from recent increases in fishing pressure. 

Conservation Status 

Dolphins are not thought to be endangered at this time, although regionally stocks have 

been overfished. 
57 

Sources: Collette et al. 1969; Ditty et al. 1994; Gibbs and Collette 1959; Johnson 1978; 

Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945 ; La Monte 1952; McClane 1965; Oxenford and Hunt 

1983; Oxenford and Hunt 1986; Potthoff 1971; Richards et al. 1984; Uchiyama et al. 

1986. 

Yellowfin Tuna

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Scombridae 

Genus: Thunnus

Species: albacares 

Taxonomy 

The yellowfin tuna was first described by Bonnaterre in 1788, where it was named 

Scomber albacares. The species appeared under a variety of names before Ginsburg first 

used the combination Thunnus albacares in 1953. Some other names that have been used 

to refer this species include Scomber albacorus, Orcynus macropterus, Thunnus allisoni, 

Semathunnus itosibi, Neothunnus argentivittatus, Neothunnus brevipinna, Thunnus 

zacalles, and Thunnus catalinae. 

Distribution 

Yellowfin are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters, from latitudes of 

approximately 40°N to 35°S. They are not present in the Mediterranean. The yellowfin 

tuna is a highly migratory species. In the Pacific, however, there is little evidence for 

long-range north-south or east-west migration, suggesting relatively little genetic 

exchange between the eastern, central, and western Pacific. This suggests potential 

subspecies. 

Habitat 

The yellowfin tuna is an epipelagic, oceanic species, living above and below the 

thermocline, at temperatures of 18°C to 31°C. It is generally found in the upper 100 m of 

the water column. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth

The maximum length reported for yellowfin is 280 cm total length and the maximum 

weight is 200 kg. The all-tackle record recognized by IGFA is 176.4 kg. Yellowfin more 

commonly attain a length of 110 cm fork length and a weight of 55 kg. 

General Behavior 

Yellowfin are a schooling species. Their tendency to school with organisms of the same 

size is stronger than the tendency to school by species. They often swim in mixed 

schools of skipjack, bigeye, and other tunas. In the eastern Pacific, larger yellowfin 

frequently school in association with dolphins, particularly the spotted dolphin, spinner 

dolphin, and common dolphin. Such associations with dolphins have not been observed 

in the rest of the Pacific, the Indian, or the Atlantic Oceans. Yellowfin will commonly 
58 

school under drifting objects such as driftwood, patches of seagrass, boats, or dead 

marine mammals. 

Yellowfin swimming further from the surface are less likely to school and tend to scatter. 

There is perhaps less benefit to schooling in such cases, as there are fewer predators and 

little reason to attempt to obtain food at depth. 

Feeding 

Primary prey items include fish, cephalopods, and crustaceans. Yellowfin appear to 

forage rather indiscriminately for any of these items. One study found 37 families of 

fishes and eight orders of invertebrates in yellowfin stomachs (Wantanabe 1958). 

Yellowfin are apparently sight-oriented predators, as their feeding tends to occur in 

surface waters during daylight. Other large fishes and marine mammals compete with 

yellowfin for food. 

Reproduction 

Size at maturity varies by region, and may also be different between individuals found 

near shore and offshore. All yellowfin are reproductively mature by the time they reach a 

length of 120 cm fork length (correlating to an age of 2 to 3 years), however some are 

mature by 50 to 60 cm fork length (correlating to 12 to 15 months). In juvenile fishes 

and adults up to 140 cm, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. The proportion of females 

declines after this point, although the reason is not understood. 

Reproduction occurs year-round, but is most frequent during the summer months in each 

hemisphere. It is believed that 26 °C is the lower temperature limit for spawning. In the 

tropical waters of Mexico and Central America, it has been determined that yellowfin 

spawn at least twice a year. 

Early Life History 

Each female spawns several million eggs per year. Larval yellowfin can be identified by 

the presence of a single spot of black pigment under the chin and a lack of pigment on the 

tail. Also, in profile, the center of the eye is above the line of the body axis. Postlarval 

and small juveniles are very difficult to distinguish from related species because these 

diagnostic characters become obscured. The juveniles grow quickly, weighing 3.4 kg at 

18 months and 63.5 kg at 4 years. 

Fishery Importance 

Yellowfin are a popular target for commercial fisheries. In the U.S., yellowfin catchs 

have grown to nearly 45 percent of the U.S. North Atlantic catch. At the surface, they are 

primarily caught by purse-seine. A purse-seine vessel first encircles a school with a large 

net. The bottom of the net is closed off, and the net is pulled upwards and brought aboard 

the boat, where the catch can be released by reopening the bottom of the net. The 

purse-seine method is central to the “dolphin-safe” tuna fishing legislation. In the late 

1950’s, fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific began to exploit the tendency of 

yellowfin to school with dolphins. When dolphins were spotted on the surface, the 

fishermen would encircle them with their purse seines, hoping tuna would be schooling 

just below the surface. Originally, little effort was made to release the dolphins, which 
59 

were of no commercial value. The dolphins would become entangled in the nets and 

drown. Hundreds of thousands of dolphins were killed every year by this method. 

Current fisheries based out of the U.S. and other nations, in concert with conservationists 

and consumer interest, are now working to reduce or eliminate dolphin bycatch. 

Yellowfin are a sportfishing target in many areas. They are caught in southern 

California, Baja, Mexico, and Hawaii, as well as the southeastern U.S. Atlantic states and 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Sources: Collette and Nauen 1983; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; 

McClane 1965; Nakamura 1985; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Richards et al. 1984; 

Westin 1975. 

Bluefin Tuna

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Scombridae 

Genus: Thunnus

Species: thynnus

Taxonomy 

The bluefin tuna was first described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Scomber thynnus. A variety 

of names followed, including Thynnus thynnus, Thunnus vulgaris, and Albacora thynnus. 

In 1896, Jordan and Evermann first allocated the species into the genus Thunnus, now the 

accepted name. While scientists have debated whether the species actually represents 

multiple species or subspecies, evidence now suggests that Thunnus thynnus is a single 

species. 

Geographical Distribution 

The bluefin is distributed throughout the Atlantic and Pacific in tropical and temperate 

waters. In the eastern Atlantic, it is found from Labrador, Canada, to northern Brazil. In 

the eastern Atlantic, it is found from Norway to the Canary Islands. In the western 

Pacific, it is distributed from Japan to the Philippines. In the western Pacific, it is 

distributed from the southern coast of Alaska to Baja California, Mexico. 

Habitat 

The bluefin is epipelagic and oceanic, coming near shore seasonally. It can tolerate a 

considerable range of temperatures and has been observed both above and below the 

thermocline. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The maximum length reported is 458.0 cm total length and the maximum weight reported 

is 684 kg. Bluefin commonly attain a size of 200 cm. The IGFA all-tackle record is 

679 kg. 
60 

General Behavior 

Bluefin exhibit strong schooling behavior while they are young. While schooling is 

believed to be sight oriented, schools have been observed at night. Therefore, other 

senses (particularly the lateral line) appear to be involved. 

Bluefin tuna migrate northward from Baja California, Mexico, from June to September. 

Near Japan, they migrate northward during the summer. Tagged adult fish have also 

made trans-Pacific migrations: some eastward, and some westward. Other tagging 

studies have determined a bluefin can cross the Atlantic in less than 60 days. 

Feeding 

Bluefin exhibit different feeding techniques, resulting in different prey items. A quick, 

energetic pursuit of prey results in obtaining smaller schooling fishes, particularly 

anchovies, while “modified filter feeding” is used to catch small, slow moving 

organisms. Bluefin feeding near shore have been recorded to eat starfishes, kelp, and 

smaller shallow water fishes. 

Bluefin are less likely to feed during the spawning season, when the majority of their 

activity must be dedicated to spawning activities. Their major competitors for food are 

marine mammals and other large fishes, notably other scombrids and billfishes. 

Reproduction 

Bluefin are oviparous. In the Atlantic, spawning has been detected in only two areas: the 

Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico. This is a limited spawning area compared to other 

tropical tunas. Little is known about the spawning of bluefin, as it has not been observed. 

Spawning in the Gulf of Mexico occurs from April to June and Mediterranean spawning 

occurs from June to August. Differences in timing could be due to any of numerous 

factors. Among them are differing environmental cues and genetic variation. In the Gulf 

of Mexico, spawning occurs at temperatures of 24.9°C to 29.5°C while in the 

Mediterranean it occurs at 19°C to 21°C. 

In captivity, bluefin have reached sexual maturity at 3 years. Others have suggested that 

bluefin become sexually mature at an age 4 to 5 years, and are suggested to live for 

35 years. Average females produce up to 10 million eggs per year. Their eggs are 

buoyant and surface currents can distribute these a considerable distance. 

The young, up to a size of 40 to 80 kg, will separate into schools based upon size. These 

schools often consist of multiple species, possibly containing albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, 

skipjack, frigate tuna, bonito, and yellowtail. 

Fishery Importance 

The bluefin is highly valued as a food fish around the world. It is sold fresh or frozen. 

Quality fish are especially favored in Japan, where they can fetch a high price in the raw 

seafood market. The popularity of the species in commercial markets has led to severe 

exploitation in several areas, most notably in the North Atlantic Ocean. Because bluefin 

migrate long distances, and because much of the fishery occurs in international waters, 

international cooperation is necessary in management decisions. ICCAT was created in 
61 

1966 to specifically address the conservation issues facing the bluefin and other highly 

migratory species. Over 20 nations are now active in this organization, including the 

U.S., Canada, Japan, Spain, and France. ICCAT attempts to organize and coordinate 

international research, and proposes management regulations. Major issues facing the 

commission are reasonable definitions of management units and development of reliable 

abundance estimates. 

The bluefin tuna is also a popular game fish, especially in the U.S., where it is caught by 

hook and line. In some areas, it is reported that bluefin do not readily take bait. Instead, 

they will bite only when in mixed schools including albacore or yellowfin. Scientists 

speculate that the intense feeding activity of these other species stimulates a feeding 

response in bluefin. 

Sources: Collette and Nauen 1983; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; 

McClane 1965; Mooney-Seus and Stone 1996; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Richards et 

al. 1984; Walter 1997; Westin 1975. 

Skipjack Tuna

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Scombridae 

Genus: uthynnus

Species: pelamis

Taxonomy 

The skipjack tuna was first described in 1758 by Linnaeus, who named it Scomber 

pelamis. There is still much debate about the generic placement of the skipack, some 

preferring to group it with other members of the genus Euthynnus, while others 

recommending it be placed in its own genus, Katsuwonus. Other names which have been 

used to refer to this species include Scomber pelamides, Scomber pelamys, Thynnus 

pelamys, Thynnus vagran, Orcynus pelamy, and Gymnosarda pelamis. 

Geographical Distribution 

Skipjack are distributed circumtropically. Additionally, they are present along the 

oceanic coast of Europe and throughout the North Sea, but are absent from the 

Mediterranean and Black Seas. 

Habitat 

The skipjack tuna is an epipelagic species, living in the surface water of the deep ocean. 

It can be found in water ranging in temperature from 14.7°C to 30°C. While skipjack 

remain at the surface during the day, they may descend to depths of 260 m at night. 

Skipjack have a tendency to school, often under drifting objects or marine mammals. 

(For theories regarding this behavior, see Yellowfin Tuna.) 
62 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The record maximum length is 108 cm fork length and the maximum weight is 34.5 kg. 

Skipjack commonly grow to a length of 80 cm and a weight of 8 to 10 kg. 

General Behavior 

Skipjack exhibit many types of schooling behavior. Skipjack school with drifting 

objects, sharks, or whales. They may swim slowly and in circular paths, travel in a single 

direction, or jump. These schools may consist only of skipjack, or other tuna species may 

be present as well. Skipjack often divide into schools based upon their size. This may be 

because the smaller fish cannot maintain the same top speeds of larger fish. Small fish 

may school while feeding, while larger fish (greater than 20 cm) tend to feed alone. 

Feeding 

Skipjack feed primarily upon fishes, crustaceans, and mollusks. Cannibalism is common. 

Their diet appears to be very broad and suggests an opportunistic method of feeding. The 

peaks of foraging appear to occur around dawn and dusk. This may be in response to the 

diurnal, vertical migrations of other organisms, or it may suggest that skipjack satiate 

their food drive mid-day. Additionally, since skipjack appear to use vision when feeding, 

night may not offer enough light for visual recognition of prey. 

Schools of skipjack are commonly found near convergences and upwellings. In such 

sites, distinct bodies of water, often of varying temperature, collide with one another. 

These areas are generally very productive and food is abundant. Other organisms that 

may compete with adult skipjack for food include the whale shark, yellowfin tuna, 

albacore, frigate tuna, dolphin fish, rainbow runner, and seabirds. 

Reproduction 

Skipjack are oviparous. In warm equatorial waters, skipjack spawn year-round. As 

distance from the equator increases, the spawning season is limited to the warmer seasons 

or months. Sexual maturity may occur as early as 40 cm length, however most fish 

appear to mature at larger sizes. Larger females produce significantly more eggs than 

smaller females, and the average adult may produce 80,000 to 2 million eggs per year. 

The eggs are approximately 0.94 mm in diameter, with a clear shell. 

Early Life History 

The larvae hatch at a size of 3.0 mm notochord length (NL). They have large heads and 

large jaws, and lack pigment. They can be distinguished from closely related larvae by 

their pigmented forebrains. Like Thunnus species, they also lack pigment in the caudal 

region. 

Fishery Importance 

In recent decades, skipjack have come to dominate the world’s tuna market. Major 

fisheries are based out of Japan, the U.S., Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, 

France, Senegal, and Spain. Commercially, skipjack are usually taken at the surface, 

primarily with purse seines. In artisanal industries, hook and line is still a common 

method of capturing skipjack. Deeper captures are incidentally made by longline. Many 
63 

newer practices have made the fishery much more successful in recent years. Artificial 

flotsam or other manmade floating structures are often used to attract the fish to an area, 

and aerial spotter planes sometimes now accompany fishing vessels. Skipjack is popular 

in raw fish dishes, where it is marketed as katsuo. In Japan it is dried, and known as 

katsuobushi. Skipjack can also be marketed fresh, frozen, or canned. Skipjack are not a 

major target of recreational fisheries. 

Sources: Collette and Nauen 1983; Hester and Otsu 1973; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 

1945; La Monte 1952; McClane 1965; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Richards et al. 

1984; Tanabe and Niu 1998; Westin 1975; Yoshida 1971. 

Wahoo

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Scombridae 

Genus: Acanthocybium

Species: solandri

Taxonomy 

The wahoo was first described by Cuvier in 1831, who named it Cybium solandri. Other 

names that have been used to refer to this species include Cybium sara, Cybium petus, 

Cybium verany, and Acanthocybium petus. A common alternative spelling that occurs in 

recent literature is Acanthocybium solanderi. 

Geographical Distribution 

The wahoo is distributed worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. In the Atlantic, it 

is found from the North American coast to approximately 40°W longitude, and from 

about 35°N to 5°N latitude. It is distributed in the Gulf of Mexico and off the west coast 

of Central America. The wahoo is also present in the Mediterranean and in the Indian 

Ocean, from off the east coast of Africa to the waters off Sri Lanka. Additionally, it is 

found in the Indo-Pacific and in the central Pacific Ocean to approximately 150°W. 

Habitat 

The wahoo is found in the epipelagic zone of oceanic waters. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The maximum reported size for the wahoo is 250 cm total length, with a maximum 

weight of 83 kg. Typically, individuals attain a size of 100 to 170 cm. After reaching a 

length of 96 to105 cm, individuals grow at a rate of 3 to 4 cm per month. Latitude 

appears to influence size, with average weight increasing with distance from the equator, 

apparently correlated to cooler temperatures. According to IGFA, the all-tackle record is 

11.34 kg. 

Feeding 

Wahoo feed primarily upon other pelagic fishes, as well as squids. They have been 

recorded feeding on tunas, porcupinefishes, flyingfishes, herrings, pilchards, scads, 
64 

lanternfishes, as well as many other species. Their fusiform body and great endurance 

allow them to pursue and overcome prey, which can be readily captured with their strong 

jaws. 

Reproduction 

An average female may produce 60 million eggs per spawning. Spawning sites are 

known from Cuba, Straits of Yucatan, and Florida. Spawning appears to occur over an 

extended period of time. The simultaneous presence of wahoo at varying stages of 

maturity may indicate year-round spawning in some areas. 

Fishery Importance 

There have not traditionally been organized fisheries for wahoo, although it is favored for 

human consumption. This lack may perhaps be because wahoo do not school as many 

scombrids do. In the areas where it is caught commercially, it is marketed fresh, salted, 

spice-cured, or frozen. The wahoo is appreciated as a game fish, especially in the U.S. 

and Australia, where it is caught by hook and line. 

Sources: Collette and Nauen 1983; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; 

Manooch and Hogarth 1983; McClane 1965; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; 

Richards et al. 1984. 

Swordfish

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Xiphiidae 

Genus: Xiphias

Species: gladius

Taxonomy 

Linnaeus first described the swordfish in 1758, providing the name that is still in use 

today, Xiphias gladius. Other names that have been used for this species include Xiphias 

imperator, Xiphias rondeletti, Phaethonichthys tuberculatus, Xiphias estara, Tetrapterus 

imperator, and Xiphias thermaicus. 

Geographical Distribution 

The swordfish is found in oceanic regions worldwide, in all but the cool polar waters; its 

latitudinal range is approximately from 50°N to 45°S. 

Habitat 

Generally an oceanic species, primarily found in surface waters of 18°C to 22°C. 

Although mainly a warm-water species, the swordfish has the widest temperature 

tolerance of any billfish, and can be found in waters from 5°C to 27°C. The swordfish is 

most commonly observed in surface waters, although it is believed to swim to depths of 

650 m or greater, where the water temperature may be just above freezing. One 

adaptation that allows for swimming in such cold water is the presence of a “brain 

heater,” a large bundle of tissue associated with one of the eye muscles, which insulates 

and warms the brain. Blood is supplied to the tissue through a specialized vascular heat 
65 

exchanger, similar to the counter current exchange found in some tunas. This helps 

prevent rapid cooling and damage to the brain as a result of extreme vertical movements. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

Swordfish reach a maximum size of 450 cm total length and a maximum weight of 

650 kg, although the individuals commercially taken are usually 120 to 190 cm long in 

the Pacific. Females are larger than males of the same age, and nearly all specimens over 

140 kg are female. Pacific swordfish grow to be the largest, while western Atlantic 

adults grow to 320 kg and Mediterranean adults are rarely over 230 kg. The IGFA 

all tackle record is 536.15 kg. 

General Behavior 

The swordfish is a highly migratory species, generally moving to warmer waters in the 

winter and cooler waters in the summer. It is often present in frontal zones, areas where 

ocean currents collide and productivity is high. They generally do not form schools. 

Feeding 

Adults feed opportunistically. They have been observed feeding at the water surface, and 

stomach contents indicate they feed at the bottom of their depth range (>650 m) as well. 

They feed mostly upon pelagic fishes, and occasionally squids. At depth they feed upon 

demersal fishes. The sword apparently is used in obtaining prey, as squids and 

cuttlefishes commonly exhibit slashes to the body when taken from swordfish stomachs. 

A recent study found the majority of large fish prey had been slashed, while small prey 

items had been consumed whole. 

Reproduction 

Swordfish have been observed spawning in the Atlantic, in water less than 75 m deep. 

Estimates vary considerably, but females may carry from 1 million to 29 million eggs in 

their gonads. Solitary males and females appear to pair up during the spawning season. 

Spawning occurs year-round in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, the Florida coast and 

other warm equatorial waters, while it occurs in the spring and summer in cooler regions. 

Being the only member of its family, the swordfish has unique-looking larvae. The 

larvae are 4.2 mm long at hatching. At this stage, body is only lightly pigmented. The 

snout is relatively short and the body has many distinct, prickly scales. With growth, the 

body narrows. By the time the larvae reach 12 mm, the bill is notably elongate, but both 

the upper and lower portions are equal in length. The dorsal fin runs the length of the 

body. As growth continues, the upper portion of the bill grows proportionately faster 

than the lower bill, eventually producing the characteristic prolonged upper bill. 

Specimens up to approximately 23 cm in length have a convex dorsal fin which extends 

the entire length of the body. With further growth, the fin develops a single large lobe, 

followed by a short portion that still reaches to the caudal peduncle. By approximately 

52 cm, the second dorsal fin has developed, and at approximately 150 cm, only the large 

lobe remains of the first dorsal fin. 
66 

Fishery Importance 

Swordfish fisheries are active in tropical and temperate waters worldwide. The nations 

with the highest swordfish catches in the North Atlantic are Spain, the U.S., Canada, 

Portugal, and Japan. Brazil, Japan, Spain, Taiwan, and Uruguay are the nations that catch 

the most swordfish in the South Atlantic. In 1995, the Atlantic swordfish industry caught 

36,645 tons, or 41 percent of the world total catch of swordfish. 

Sources: Barrett et al. 1998; Carey 1982; Ehrhardt 1992; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 

1945; La Monte 1952; McClane 1965; Nakamura 1985; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; 

Richards et al. 1984. 

Atlantic White Marlin

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Istiophoridae 

Genus: Tetrapterus 

Species: albidus

Taxonomy 

The Atlantic white marlin was first described by Canestrini in 1861, under the name 

Tetrapterus lessonae. In 1926, Jordan and Evermann first used the name Maikara albida. 

Other names that have been used for this species include Maikara lessonae and 

Lamontella albida. 

Geographical Distribution 

The white marlin is an Atlantic species, distributed from approximately 45°N to 45°S in 

the western Atlantic and 35°S in the eastern Atlantic. As its distribution is limited by 

temperature, its boundaries vary throughout the year; it is found in the northern and 

southern extremes of its range only in the respective warm season. Specimens have been 

reported from the Mediterranean Sea and from the coast of France, but these are believed 

to be isolated occurrences of individuals who have strayed outside the regular 

distribution. While Atlantic white marlins do travel long distances, they apparently do 

not perform the transoceanic migrations of related species. 

Habitat 

The white marlin is pelagic and oceanic, usually found in water over 100 m deep. It 

generally swims above the thermocline, in water of surface temperatures above 22°C, and 

salinities between 35 and 37 ppt. Much of the white marlin’s habitat has a current of 0.5 

to 2.0 kn. The white marlin is often associated with upwellings and weed lines. It 

frequents regions with benthic geographic features such as drop-offs, canyons, and 

shoals. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The white marlin is smaller than many other billfishes. The maximum length for the 

white marlin is 280 cm total length and the maximum weight is over 82 kg. The fish 

taken by Atlantic longline vessels usually range from 130 to 210 cm body length. The 
67 

all-tackle record, as recognized by the IGFA, is 82.50 kg. Females tend to reach larger 

ages than do males. 

General Behavior 

Atlantic white marlins are not strong schoolers. They are usually observed swimming 

alone or in pairs. White marlins commonly display a swimming technique known as 

“tailing,” in which only the dorsal lobe of the caudal fin is visible above the surface of the 

water. Small schools may be observed around schools of bait fish. Limited schooling 

may also occur, by sex or size, during certain periods of the year, but little is known of 

this behavior. 

Feeding 

Atlantic white marlins appear to be sight-oriented, daytime feeders. They often 

accumulate near fronts, the edges between water bodies of differing temperatures or 

salinities. These confluences produce nutrient-rich upwellings, and thus are successful 

feeding areas for the white marlin and other predatory fishes. There is some evidence 

that white marlins can stun or kill their prey by spearing or slashing it with their bill. 

Unlike swordfish, which use the same technique, however, the majority of prey items in 

the stomachs of white marlins appear without slashes. This indicates that white marlins 

more often overtake the prey by speed, rather than injuring it first. A main prey item for 

white marlins is squid. Bony fishes, especially dolphins, blue runner, mackerels, flying 

fish, and bonito are also commonly eaten. Round herring, which are abundant along the 

central Atlantic coast, are commonly consumed in that region. Much of the white 

marlin’s distribution coincides with that of the yellowfin tuna and the blue marlin. As 

these fishes feed on many of the same prey items, there likely is considerable competition 

for food resources. 

Reproduction 

Little is known of reproduction in Atlantic white marlins. They appear to spawn once per 

year. They migrate to subtropical waters and spawn in early summer, over deep oceanic 

water. In the western North Atlantic, spawning grounds have been identified northeast of 

Little Bahama Bank, northwest of Grand Bahama Island, and southwest of Bemuda. 

They spawn in deep and blue oceanic water, generally of a high surface temperature. It is 

believed that they spawn in pairs, as opposed to communal or mass spawning. 

Fishery Importance 

The Atlantic white marlin is a popular game fish. The largest fishery for this species 

occurs in the summer, between Cape Cod, Massachussetts, and Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina. It is marketed fresh everywhere it is caught, and sold frozen in Japan. 

Sources: Gibbs 1957; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; Mather et al. 

1975; McClane 1965; Nakamura 1985; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Richards et al.

1984. 
68 

Blue Marlin

Order: Periformes 

Family: Istiophoridae 

Genus: Makaira

Species: nigricans

Taxonomy 

The taxonomic status of the blue marlin is a matter of some debate. Certain authors 

consider the blue marlin a species with a worldwide distribution in tropical and 

warm-temperate waters, while other authors consider the blue marlin of the Pacific and 

Indian Oceans a distinct species, Makaira mazara, a conclusion based largely on 

differences in lateral line structure. Other names which have previously been used for the 

blue marlin include Tetrapterus herschelii, Histiophorus herschelii, Tetrapterus amplus, 

Tetrapterus herschelii, Makaira bermudae, Makaira nigricans nigricans, Makaira 

nigricans ampla, Makaira ampla ampla, Makaira perezi, Orthocraeros bermudae, and 

Makaira herschelii. 

Geographical Distribution 

The blue marlin is found worldwide in warm to semi-temperate seas. 

Habitat 

Although occasional forays to deeper waters are made, the blue marlin prefers to stay in 

the warm waters above the thermocline. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The blue marlin is perhaps the largest billfish. The blue marlin can reach a length of 

4.3 m and a weight of 910 kg. Females are generally much larger than males. IGFA lists 

separate records for Atlantic and Pacific blue marlin. The all-tackle record for the 

Atlantic is 636 kg; the all-tackle record for the Pacific is 624 kg. 

Feeding 

Primarily near-surface pelagic fishes such as mackerels, tunas, and dolphin fishes are 

consumed by the blue marlin. Squids, and the occasional deepsea fish have been noted in 

the stomachs of blue marlin. Considerable disagreement among researchers exists over 

whether or not the bill is used during feeding. It is believed by some to be used to stun 

prey with a swift lateral strike or strikes. The blue marlin is capable of consuming prey 

of relatively large proportion. Blue marlin are not known to feed at night. 

Reproduction 

Spawning is known to occur near Cuba between May and November. Egg hatching is 

dependent upon temperature, but likely occurs well inside of a week. A single spawning 

produces millions of eggs each 1-mm in diameter, opaque white or yellow in color. 
69 

Fishery Importance 

The blue marlin is an important game fish. Blue marlin are greatly coveted by 

sportsfishers and the presence of this species in the waters offshore a number of 

developing countries imparts an important economic benefit to such areas. 

Sources: Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; McClane 1965; 

Nakamura 1985; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Richards et al. 1984; Rivas 1975; 

Witzell and Scott 1990. 

Atlantic Sailfish

Order: Perciformes 

Family: stiophoridae 

Genus: Istiophorus

Species: albicans

Taxonomy 

Latrelle first described the Atlantic sailfish in 1804 and assigned it the species name 

Makaira albicans. Some scientists believe that the Atlantic sailfish and the Pacific 

sailfish, I. platypterus, are a single species. Other names which have been used for this 

species include Histiophorus americanus, H. pulchellus, Makaira velifera, Skeponopodus 

guebucu, H. granulifer, Xiphias velifer, I. americanus, I. wrighti, I. maguirei, I. volador, 

and H. albicans. 

Geographical Distribution 

The Atlantic sailfish is distributed from approximately 40°N to 40°S in the western 

Atlantic and 32°S in the eastern Atlantic. It has been identified from the Mediterranean 

Sea, although few records exist for this region. In the western Atlantic, its highest 

abundance is in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast of Florida, and the Caribbean Sea. 

In this region, distribution is apparently influenced by wind conditions as well as water 

temperature. Above and below the equator, the extremes of the distribution are only 

inhabited during the respective warm seasons. This change in distribution may be linked 

to prey movement. In the eastern Atlantic, there is an aggregation off the coast of West 

Africa. 

Habitat 

The Atlantic sailfish swims in the surface waters of epipelagic and oceanic waters. It 

generally remains above the thermocline, in water temperatures between 21°C to 28°C. 

There is evidence that it also swims into deeper water as well. It is less oceanic than 

other billfishes common to the Atlantic, and will make forays into nearshore water. 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

The Atlantic sailfish is one of the smaller members of the family Istiophoridae. The 

maximum size for the Atlantic sailfish is 315 cm total length and around 58 kg. The 

all-tackle record listed by IGFA is 64 kg. In southern Florida, the fish tend to be smaller, 

generally between 173 and 229 cm total length. Commercial longline vessels in the 
70 

Atlantic generally catch fish between 125 and 210 cm. The largest fish are usually 

females. Cephalopods (squids and octopus) and bony fishes are the primary prey items. 

Mackerels, tunas, jacks, halfbeaks, and needlefishes are the most commonly taken fishes. 

These prey items indicate that some feeding occurs at the surface, while some occurs in 

midwater, along reef edges, or along the bottom. 

Spawning may begin as early as April, but occurs mainly in the summer months. In 

Florida in the summer months, females will swim slowly through shallow water, with 

their dorsal fin above the water’s surface. One or more males will accompany her and 

spawn near the surface. Spawning also may occur in deep waters along the coast of 

North America and over the continental shelf off the West African coast. Spawning has 

been observed year-round in the eastern Atlantic, with a peak in the summer months. A 

large female may release over 4,500,000 eggs in a spawning. 

Early Life History 

Atlantic sailfish are approximately 0.318 cm at hatching. Larval sailfish lack the jaw 

characteristic of the adults. The head contains many spines: one above the eye, on the 

lower operculum, and a smaller one located between these. At 0.64 cm, the jaws begin to 

elongate. At 20 cm, all larval characteristics have disappeared and the juvenile contains 

all the features of the adult. The young of the year can often be observed off the coast of 

Florida. At 6 months, a juvenile may weight 2.7 kg and be 1.4 m long. Upon reaching 

this size, growth rate decreases. 

Fishery Importance 

The Atlantic sailfish is highly sought after by recreational fishermen. Popular fishing 

locations include Bermuda, Puerto Rico, the Windward Islands, and the Gulf of Mexico. 

Atlantic sailfish are generally caught by angling. 

Sources: Beardsley et al. 1975; Kelley et al. 1993; La Monte 1945; La Monte 1952; 

McClane 1965; Nakamura 1985; Nishikawa and Rimmer 1987; Post et al. 1997; 

Richards et al. 1984; Tinsley 1964. 

Yellowedge Grouper

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Serranidae 

Genus: Epinephelus 

Species: flavolimbatus 

Taxonomy 

First described as Epinephelus flavolimbatus by Poey in 1865, no synonyms exist for the 

yellowedge grouper. 

Geographical Distribution 

The yellowedge grouper occurs along the outer continental shelf and upper continental 

slope in the western Atlantic from North Carolina to southern Brazil including the 

Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. 
71 

Habitat 

This species inhabits rocky and sand/clay bottoms in water depths ranging from 64 to 

275 m. Submersible observations revealed that yellowedge groupers occupy depressions 

or burrows (some constructed by tilefishes). 

Biology 

Size, Age, and Growth 

This species reaches a maximum length of 110 cm. Males are significantly larger than 

females. Yellowedge groupers have proven difficult to age by standard otolith methods. 

The maximum estimate ages may range between 15 and 20 years. 

Reproduction 

This species is a protogynous hermaphrodite. Females mature at 52 to 60 cm total length 

and are thought to change sex at about 75 cm. Ripe females have been observed in the 

Gulf of Mexico from January to October and peak spawning occurs from May to 

September. There is circumstantial evidence that the yellowedge grouper aggregates to 

spawn, possibly in water depths as shallow as 60 m. 

Feeding 

Yellowedge groupers feed on fishes and invertebrates including mollusks, brachyuran 

crabs, echinoderms, and urochordates. 

Fishery Importance 

This species is one of the most important deep reef species in the western Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico. Bottom longline is the most common commercial mode of fishing for 

the yellowedge grouper. 

Conservation 

The yellowedge grouper is listed by AFS as "at risk of extinction.” Fishing pressures 

have been high over the years and catches have declined. 

Sources: Bullock et al 1996; Bullock and Smith 1991; Heemstra and Randall 1993; 

Jones et al. 1989; Musick et al. 2000. 

Snowy Grouper

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Serranidae 

Genus: Epinephelus 

Species: niveatus 

Taxonomy 

Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes first described the snowy grouper as Serranus 

niveatus in 1828. It was later named Serranus margritifer by Gunther in 1859. Various 

synonyms have been used since, including Serranus conspersus (Poeyi 1860); 

Hyporthodus flavicauda (Gill 1862), and Alphestes scholanderi (Walters 1957). 
72 

Geographical Distribution 

The snowy grouper occurs in the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to southern Brazil, 

including the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and Bermuda. 

Habitat 

Adults of this species inhabit rocky hard bottom areas and artificial structures in water 

depths ranging from 30 to 525 m. Juveniles often occur in depths as shallow as 10 m. 

Biology

Size, Age, and Growth 

Snowy groupers reach a maximum total length of 120 cm and weight of 30 kg. 

Maximum estimate age is at least 27 years. 

Reproduction 

This species is a protogynous hermaphrodite; over 40 percent of all fish over 8 years of 

age are male. Females mature at 40 to 50 cm total length (4 or 5 years old). It is possible 

that this species aggregates to spawn during winter months in the South Atlantic Bight. 

Feeding 

Adults feed on fishes, gastropods, cephalopods, and brachyuran crabs. 

Fishery Importance 

One of the most important deepwater grouper species, taken by longlines and electric 

powered reels in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. Snowy grouper are attracted 

to artificial structures such as ship and airplane wrecks on the OCS and upper continental 

slope. This habitat makes snowy grouper a target for recreational fishers as well. 

Conservation 

This species is listed by AFS as "at risk of extinction." Fishing pressures have been high 

over the years and catches have declined. 

Sources: Bullock and Smith 1991; Coleman et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 2000; Heemstra 

and Randall 1993; Moore and Labisky 1984; Musick et al. 2000; Wyansky et al. 2000. 

Warsaw Grouper

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Serranidae 

Genus: Epinephelus 

Species: nigritus 

Taxonomy 

This species was originally described as Serannus nigritus by Holbrook in 1855, and later 

as Centropristis merus by Poey in 1868. No other synonyms are known to exist. 
73 

Geographical Distribution 

Warsaw groupers range from Massachusetts to Brazil including the Gulf of Mexico. This 

species is most common in continental waters. 

Habitat 

This species occurs over natural and artificial hard bottom in water depths ranging from 

50 to 400 m. Juveniles are also found in hard bottom areas and around artificial 

structures; occasionally at depths as shallow as 10 m. 

Biology 

Juveniles are dark brown with small irregularly spaced white spots on the flanks; pectoral 

and caudal fins are yellow. Adults are similarly colored except the fins lose the juvenile 

yellow coloration. This the largest of the deep dwelling groupers, reaching a weight of 

200 kg and length of 230 cm. Otolith data indicate that warsaw groupers reach 41 years 

of age. Back calculated lengths for the ages 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 were 292, 920, 

1,194, 1,559, 2,043, and 2,301 cm total length, respectively. Little is known about 

reproduction in this species. 

Fishery Importance 

The warsaw grouper is not part of a directed fishery, but is an incidental to fisheries 

targeting other grouper or snapper species. 

Conservation 

Warsaw grouper species is listed by AFS as "at risk of extinction." Fishing pressures 

have been high over the years and catches have declined. 

Sources: Coleman et al. 2000; Heemstra and Randall 1993; Manooch 1984; 

Musick et al. 2000; Smith 1971. 

Tilefish

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Malacanthidae 

Genus: Lopholatilus 

Species: chamaeleonticeps 

Taxonomy 

This species was named Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps by Goode and Bean in 1800, and 

there have been no nomenclatorial changes proposed since that time. 

Geographical Distribution 

The tilefish occurs along the outer shelf and upper slope from the Scotian shelf to along 

the entire coast of the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico to Campeche Bank, and off Venezeula, 

Guyana, and Surinam. 

Habitat 

Tilefish inhabit a narrow depth band ranging from 75 to 450 m along the upper slope; in 

the Gulf of Mexico it occurs in water depths ranging from 165 to 411 m. This species 
74 

prefers clayey bottoms where adults will construct burrows. The preferred temperature 

range is 9°C to 14oC. 

Biology 

Tilefish grow to 110 cm in length weighing 18 kg. Growth is slow, approximately 

0.2 cm per year. Male are usually larger than females and will sometimes delay 

spawning for 2 to 3 years. Adults of both sexes reach maturity at 50 cm at an age of 

5 years. Spawning extends from March to November with peak time between May and 

September. Fecundity for New England fish ranged from 188,000 to 1,000,000 eggs. 

Tilefish feed on a variety of benthic macrofauna, including fishes and decapod 

crustaceans. 

Fishery Importance 

Tilefish is an important component of the deep reef fish fishery in the mid-Atlantic, south 

Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. Tilefish are caught with bottom longlines and powered 

reels in the Gulf of Mexico. Some recreational anglers will occasionally fish for tilefish 

with special gear. 

Conservation 

Although tilefish is considered a candidate for overfishing, it has not been formally listed. 

Sources: Dooley 1978; Freeman and Turner 1977; Nelson and Carpenter 1968. 

Royal Red Shrimp

Order: Decapoda 

Family: Solenoceridae 

Genus: Pleoticus 

Species: robustus 

Taxonomy 

Originally described by Smith as Hymenopenaeus robustus in 1885, now known as 

Pleoticus robustus. 

Geographical Distribution 

Royal red shrimp occur from Massachusetts through the Gulf of Mexico, Central 

America, and northern South America to Guyana. 

Habitat 

Royal red shrimp prefer level bottom composed of sand, clay, or mud in water depths 

ranging from 70 to 915 m; the preferred depth range in the Gulf of Mexico is between 

250 to 550 m. Preferred water temperature range is from 8°C to 12.5°C. Primary 

grounds in the Gulf of Mexico occur off Dry Tortugas and the Mississippi delta. The Dry 

Tortugas grounds are characterized by calcareous mud, whereas the Mississippi Delta 

grounds have blue-black terrigenous silt and greenish mud. 
75 

Biology 

Royal red shrimp coloration is variable and ranges from milky white to pink, salmon, or 

orange. Spawning likely occurs year-round, with peaks between January and May. 

Females reach a maximum total length of 225 mm, whereas males reach 180 mm total 

length. Males reach sexual maturity at about 125 mm total length. Females mature at 

about 40 mm in total length. Estimated age at maturity is about 3 years and minimum life 

span is thought to be 5 years. Recruitment to the adult habitat begins with 1 year old 

individuals and takes about 2 years. 

Fishery Importance 

Royal red shrimp are caught by trawling in upper slope waters (400 m). The primary 

grounds are off the Mississippi Delta, Dry Tortugas, and off northeastern Florida. Very 

few fishers have been involved in the royal red shrimp fishery. The expense and trouble 

of trawling in deep water is not rewarded by the price of the product. 

Conservation 

Mangement of royal red shrimp populations in the Gulf of Mexico has been minimal 

because the limted fishery never reaches the Total Allowable Catch. Otherwise its status 

is unknown. 

Sources: Anderson and Lindner 1971; Bullis 1956; GMFMC 1996; Roe 1969. 

Golden Crab

Order: Decapoda 

Family: Geryonidae 

Genus: Chaceon 

Species: fenneri 

Taxonomy 

This species was originally named Geryon fenneri. The genus was later changed to 

Chaceon by Manning and Holthius in 1989. 

Geographical Distribution 

Upper continental slope from New England to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico. 

Habitat 

Golden crabs are found on and over silty sediments often associated with hard bottom. 

Their preferred depth range is from 200 to 800 m. There is bathymetric separation of 

sexes—females are more abundant in shallower water depths than males. Water 

temperatures averaged from 8°C to 12oC where golden crabs are usually found in the 

eastern Gulf. 
76 

Biology 

Golden crabs are slow growing and long-lived. Average carapace width for adults ranges 

from 90 to 143 mm. Males grow up to 50 percent larger than females. This species 

reproduces during during fall and winter in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Ovoposition 

occurs from mid-August and continues until early October. A single batch of eggs is 

produced annually and the number of eggs produced increases with increasing body size. 

Female golden crabs produce from 188,000 to 371,000 eggs per year in one brood per 

year. Ecologically this species is thought to be an important benthic predator on the 

slope. 

Fishery Importance 

Golden crabs have been the subject of exploratory fishing efforts of the eastern U.S. 

mostly from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the Florida Keys. Limited commercial 

fisheries are conducted from southeastern Florida, the Florida Keys, and offshore 

southwest Florida. The fishery potential for this species is considered viable but not 

capable of sustaining a large fishery. 

Sources: Lindberg and Wenner 1990; Lindberg and Lockhart 1993; Manning and 

Holthuis 1989; Perry et al. 1995. 

Red Crab

Order: Decapoda 

Family: Geryonidae 

Genus: Chaceon 

Species: quinquedens 

Taxonomy 

This species was originally named Geryon quinquedens. The genus was later changed to 

Chaceon by Manning and Holthius in 1989. 

Geographical Distribution 

Upper continental slope from New England to Brazil including the Gulf of Mexico. 

Habitat 

Red crabs are found in water depths ranging from 300 to 2,000 m. This species prefers 

temperatures ranging from 4.5°C to 10oC. 

Biology 

Red crabs are slow growing and long-lived. Average carapace width for adults range 

from 98 to 118 mm. This species reproduces during during fall and winter in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico. Ovoposition occurs from mid-August and continues until early October. 

A single batch of eggs is produced annually and the number of eggs produced increases 

with increasing body size. Female golden crabs produce from 132,000 to 226,000 eggs 

per year in one brood per year. 
77 

Fishery Importance 

Red crab is caught commercially in some areas such as the mid-Atlantic and Bermuda. 

No directed fishery exists in the Gulf of Mexico, but this could change in the future. 

Sources: Lindberg and Wenner 1990; Lindberg and Lockhart 1993; Manning and 

Holthuis 1989; Perry et al. 1995. 
79 

4.0 DEEPWATER OCS ENERGY INDUSTRY 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

4.1 OVERVIEW 

Many of the hardware systems and work processes used in the various activities 

associated with finding, developing, and transporting oil and gas in the deepwater areas 

of the Gulf of Mexico OCS have been developed specifically for deepwater. The 

underlying work process is, however, the same that drives energy related activities in 

shallower water. Broadly, four stages of activity, i.e., Exploration, Development, 

Production, and Abandonment, can be identified, but there are distinct activities within 

each of these stages. The nature and scope of these activities vary widely; in some cases 

involving large, contiguous zones of the OCS, involving only localized areas in others. 

The duration of involvement can also vary from transitory, to short term, to durations 

extending into decades. When compared to similar activities in shallow water, nearly all 

stages of activity in deepwater involve higher cost, larger and more complex systems and 

equipment, and take longer. One notable exception may be the duration of the 

Production stage as high capital costs and other economic factors, including the potential 

reuse of facilities, create an incentive to accelerate deepwater production. 

4.1.1 Exploration Stage 

There are two primary types of field activity during Exploration: geophysical surveying 

and exploration drilling. The overall objective of Exploration is to find oil and gas 

reservoirs that can be commercially developed. Understanding the geology of the 

subsurface is a critical element in this finding effort. The critical end point of this is 

identifying places in the subsurface where hydrocarbons might be trapped, but the overall 

picture starts with an understanding of when, where, and how hydrocarbons are formed 

and traces the path of migration from genesis to trap. The data from geophysical surveys 

are interpreted by geophysicists and geologists to create vertical cross-section maps, 

which depict subsurface stratification along the survey tracklines. Cross-sections are 

combined to create three-dimensional (3D) models of subsurface structure, which in turn 

provide indications of where oil and gas might be trapped. Geophysical survey activities 

are carried out mainly by contractors, but some energy companies may still collect their 

own field data. Geophysical survey field activities are described in more detail in 

Section 4.4. 

The initial pick of a potential hydrocarbon trap is often called a “lead.” Additional 

analysis, data processing, and even additional geophysical surveys will be required to 

mature the identified lead to the level of a “prospect” before the several million dollar 

cost of an exploration well will be approved. At any point in time, an operator will likely 

have a portfolio of leads and prospects, each of which is at a different level of evaluation 

and maturity. An operator might identify and study 5 or 10 leads for every exploration 

well it ultimately drills. 
80 

Leasing is an important activity that must take place before an operator can drill. Oil and 

gas leasing activities in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico are administered by the MMS. 

Leases are obtained through periodic closed bid, public sales, in which the MMS has the 

right to reject all bids as insufficient, but generally awards the lease to the bidder offering 

the highest cash bonus. Lease terms and dimensions vary, but most give the leaseholder 

the exclusive right to explore for oil and gas in the lease area for a period of 10 years. 

Leases generally cover an area 3 miles square, and the term of the lease can be extended 

as long as either production or development/drilling activities are progressing. The 

amount an operator is willing to bid as a cash bonus for a lease is a direct reflection of the 

expected profitability of the leads/prospects the operator believes lie within the 

boundaries of that lease. 

Exploration drilling activities are conducted by drilling contractors operating under 

contract with a leaseholder/operator. At a particular site, exploration drilling activities 

may last from several weeks to several months in duration. These activities are described 

in more detail in Section 4.5. 

While the operator generally hopes each exploration well will find a hydrocarbon 

reservoir that can be developed commercially, the outcome is more often both surprising 

and disappointing. The likelihood that an exploration well will find an oil or gas field 

that is ultimately developed varies, depending mostly on factors that relate to the maturity 

of the particular geologic play model and the quality of the geophysical data that are 

available, but generally is well less than 50 percent. Generally the data collected during 

the process of drilling the well provide both indirect and direct information on the 

subsurface structure, the reservoir characteristics of the rock, and even the nature of the 

liquid or gas that fills the pore space. 

Data obtained from exploration drilling provide key calibration points for the crosssections and maps derived from geophysical survey data. Whether the outcome is 

encouraging or disappointing, these data will generally trigger a significant effort to 

reevaluate and update the geophysical cross-sections and geologic models upon which 

the decision to drill was based. A positive result will likely lead to further “appraisal” 

drilling and possibly additional geophysical survey activity in order to both confirm and 

define the extent of the reservoir enough to support a decision to initiate development. 

Even if the outcome is disappointing, the reevaluation will often lead to sidetracking the 

initial well or drilling another exploration well to test a different section or zone. 

Ultimately, most of the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico may be covered by at least 

one geophysical survey and dozens of exploration wells may be drilled each year. In 

most instances, however, interest in (and therefore activity at) a particular OCS site will 

terminate in the Exploration stage. 

4.1.2 Development Stage 

Results from a fraction (generally well less than 50 percent) of the sites drilled will 

justify development. Development represents a transitional stage between Exploration 

and Production. Broadly speaking, deepwater developments can generally be 
81 

characterized as being either a central processing platform or a host platform (sometimes 

called a “hub” or a “tieback”). Developments are generally connected to existing 

infrastructure by at least one export pipeline. Additional geophysical surveys may be 

carried out to support detailed planning of development drilling and the location and 

installation of production facilities and pipelines. Boat-based activities or the deployment 

of moored or unmoored data buoys may be required to collect meteorological and 

oceanographic data to support design. The time delay needed to design, construct, and 

install may be as little as a year or less for a simple “tieback” to several years for a major 

new platform. The duration of installation, which is the only part of Development that 

involves offshore activities, may range from a few weeks to several months. The nature 

of the installation activities for deepwater developments in the Gulf of Mexico is 

described in Section 4.6. 

4.1.3 Production Stage 

Once the facility is installed, it will enter its production stage. This stage may last from a 

few years to several decades. In the case of a central processing platform development, 

essentially all the activities associated with this stage will be confined to the platform, 

however there may be a standby vessel stationed in the area and supply boats will make 

periodic visits to provide logistical support. Drilling, completion, and workover activities 

associated with subsea well tiebacks will be carried out from floating drilling rigs, which 

are either moored on location or are dynamically positioned and may stay on location for 

periods ranging from a few days to several months. The number, location, and 

characteristics of the various development systems installed in the deepwater area of the 

Gulf of Mexico are described in Section 4.7. 

4.1.4 Abandonment Stage 

Once the facility has ceased to serve a useful purpose, the site will be abandoned and the 

lease will be returned to the MMS. The nature of the activities and the equipment 

involved in abandonment will generally be similar to those involved in installation, but 

some components of the development system may be abandoned in place. A specific 

plan for abandonment of each facility will be submitted and approved by the MMS. To 

date, only one deepwater facility installed in the Gulf of Mexico has been abandoned – a 

floating production system and its associated mooring equipment was removed from 

Green Canyon Area Block 29 in 1989. 

4.2 OBSTRUCTION TEMPLATES 

The primary objective of the description of OCS activities is to provide a basis for 

evaluating interactions with fishery activities in the deepwater OCS (i.e., at least 200 m 

of water). The physical dimensions of the water column that are involved in the activity 

will be a key parameter in this evaluation, but the duration of the activity and whether the 

activity is stationary or involves movement will also be important. The obstruction 

template shown in Table 4.1 was developed to facilitate this evaluation. 
82 

Table 4.1. Obstruction templates – outer continental shelf activities. 

Water Column Interference 

Type Description 

Shallow Mid-Depth Bottom 

Mobility Duration 

A Seismic Data 

Collection 

Narrow, but 

long 

Generally 

none 

Generally 

none 

Moving, but 

set pattern 

and not 

maneuverable 

Days to 

weeks 

B 

Exploration Drilling 

# Moored 

# Dynamically 

Positioned 

# Narrow 

to Broad 

# Narrow

# Narrow 

to Broad 

# Narrow

# Broad 

# Narrow Stationary Several months 

C Construction/ 

Installation Variable Variable Variable 

Moving within 

area, but 

setting 

permanent 

objects 

Days to 

months 

D 

Logistics 

# Boats 

# Barges 

Generally 

small None None 

Moving and 

generally 

maneuverable 

In transit 

E Abandonment Variable Variable Variable 

Moving within 

area, but 

removing 

permanent 

objects 

Days to 

months 

4.3 LEASING ACTIVITY 

For the purposes of this study, deepwater is defined to include all leases encompassing 

water depths of at least 200 m. More than 6,000 deepwater leases have been issued, but 

many of these have expired or been otherwise terminated. As of mid-2000, there were 

approximately 3,754 deepwater leases that were considered “active” (i.e., either held by 

production, part of a unit, or within primary term). The location of these leases is shown 

in Figure 4.1. More than 90 companies hold deepwater leases, but approximately 

75 percent are held by 8 companies. 
#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

 Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

200 m

Gulf of Mexico Region

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

May 2001

Geographic North American Datum 1927

ACTIVE LEASE BLOCKS

Planning area boundary

LEGEND

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

TX LA MS AL GA

Figure 4.1. Active lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m in the Gulf of Mexico.

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Active lease block

83
84 

4.4 GEOPHYSICAL (SEISMIC) SURVEYS 

Geophysical or seismic surveys are one of the primary means of locating potentially 

productive reserves of oil and gas trapped within or between geological layers beneath 

the present-day seafloor. As described earlier, data from seismic surveys are processed, 

evaluated, and combined with geologic play models to create cross-section maps and 3D 

models of subsurface structure. During a seismic survey, a strong acoustic pulse is sent 

from a signal source towed behind the survey vessel. This pulse is reflected by 

boundaries between geological layers of the earth's crust with varying chemical and 

physical properties. The reflected signals are recorded by strings of hydrophones towed 

in a cable up to 12 km long. Thus, the basic marine seismic survey consists of a sound 

source, a receiving system, and a survey vessel. 

The equipment used to both obtain and interpret geophysical survey data has undergone 

dramatic changes over the past two decades. Deepwater surveys are conducted using 

technology that provides not only high-resolution images of geological strata, but also 

information on various shallow geohazards (e.g., bottom topography, shallow gas pockets 

etc.), which can be crucial for safe installation of pipelines, platforms, and bottom 

facilities in the event that commercial hydrocarbons are discovered. 

There are several variations of reflection surveys including high resolution site surveys, 

two dimensional (2D) surveys, 3D surveys, time lapse (4D) surveys, ocean cable surveys, 

vertical cable surveys, multi-ship surveys, and deep tow side-scan arrays. Each of these 

methods employs slightly different equipment, configurations, and operations. The speed 

and cost of acquisition and variations in the nature and quality of the data make these 

alternatives most suitable to a particular stage of the exploration-production cycle. 

The following description of seismic surveying was taken from Greve (2000), Davis et al. 

(1998), and Gordon et al. (1998). This overview focuses on the aspects of seismic 

surveys that would be most likely to interact with deepwater fisheries. Characteristics 

such as vessel size, length of towed arrays, depth of towed arrays, survey track line 

spacing, duration of surveys, and spatial extent of surveys conducted in the Gulf of 

Mexico are emphasized. 

4.4.1 Two Dimensional (2D) Surveys 

Two dimensional surveys resolve geophysical information of large spatial scales at fairly 

low resolution. These surveys provide the coarse description of subsurface hydrocarbon 

reserves over large areas. Although the number of 2D surveys is small compared to 3D 

surveys, they are important as the survey can cover a larger area in less detail resulting in 

a lower cost per area covered. 

The ships conducting 2D surveys range from 60 to 90 m long and tow a single source (air 

gun) array from 100 to 200 m behind the ship. Each sound source array is about 20 m 

long and 24 m wide. Following another 100 to 200 m behind the source array is a single 

hydrophone cable (or streamer) ranging from 4.5 to 12 km long. Attached to the end of 

the streamer cables are tail buoys with radar reflectors. The average vessel used for 2D 
85 

seismic streamer work is 70 m long and 18 m wide, weighing 1,573 tons. While 

surveying, vessels operate at 4 to 5 kn (typically 4.5 kn). Cruising speeds between 

projects are considerably higher, about 12 to 14 kn. 

To complete a survey, the vessel will traverse a trackline for 12 to 20 h (100 to 166 km), 

depending upon the size of the survey area. Reaching the end of the track, the ship will 

take 2 to 3 h to turn around and start down another (parallel) track. The spacing between 

tracks is usually about 2 km. This procedure takes place day and night and may continue 

for days, weeks, or months depending upon the size of the survey area. Most 2D surveys 

cover large areas encompassing multiple lease blocks. 

4.4.2 3D Surveys 

Vessels conducting 3D surveys are generally larger than those used in 2D surveys since 

they are towing more equipment. Vessels range from 80 to 90 m long with 10 to 20 m 

beams and weigh 4,000 to 9,000 tons. These vessels tow two sound source arrays 100 to 

200 m behind the ship. The two source arrays are identical to those used in the 2D 

surveys described above. Following another 100 to 200 m behind the dual source arrays 

are anywhere from 6 to 12 streamer cables 3 to 8 km long, spread out over a breadth of 

600 to 1,000 m. 

The survey vessel tows the above apparatus at a speed of 4.5 kn (8.3 km/hr). About 

every 16 s (37.5 m), one of the dual airgun arrays is fired. Sixteen seconds later, the 

other array is fired. The timing between shots is governed by the desired spacing 

between firings, so the firings vary depending upon the actual speed of the ship. 

Keeping track of where the air guns are fired, the position of the streamer cables, and the 

depth of the streamer cables is controlled by an integrated navigational system. Streamer 

depth is regulated by automated depth controllers called “birds.” The streamer cable 

lateral position is calculated by accelerometers placed in the cable feeding their signals 

into the navigational computer. The tail buoys at the ends of the streamer cable are 

tracked by radar using the tail buoy radar reflectors. 

To complete a survey, the ship will follow a trackline from 12 to 20 hours (100 to 

166 km), depending upon the size of the survey. Reaching the end on the track, the ship 

will take 2 to 3 h to turn around and start down another track. This procedure takes place 

day and night and may continue for days, weeks, or months depending upon the size of 

the survey. A primary difference in survey operation is that 3D surveys follow a grid 

with fairly tight trackline spacing, whereas 2D surveys utilize parallel tracklines only. 

The number of streamer cables, their separation, and their length cover an area 

immediately below the sea surface known as the footprint. For example, a ship towing 

five streamers, 8 km long with each streamer separated from the other by 100 m leaves a 

footprint of 3.2 square kilometers. Footprints can be as large as 8 square kilometers and 

as small as 2 square kilometers. 
86 

4.4.3 High-Resolution Site Surveys 

High-resolution site surveys are essentially 2D surveys conducted at a much smaller 

spatial scale, usually individual lease blocks (4.8 km on a side). These surveys investigate 

the shallow subsurface strata for geohazards and sedimentary conditions at much smaller 

spatial scale than the average 2D survey. A typical operation consists of a ship towing an 

air gun (about 25 m behind the ship) and a 600 m streamer cable with a tail buoy (about 

700 m behind the ship). The ship travels at 3 to 3.5 kn (5.6 to 6.5 km/hour) and the air 

gun is fired every 12.5 m (or about every 7 to 8 s). Typically, the vessel steams in one 

direction for about an hour, then turns around (about 20 to 30 minutes) and surveys the 

next track. MMS regulations require information be gathered on a 300 m by 900 m grid, 

which amounts to about 129 line km of data per lease block. Including line turns, the 

time to survey one block is about 36 h; however, before surveying the block the streamer 

cable has to be balanced to enable it to stream at the proper depth, and the streamer and 

air gun must be deployed. These ancillary operations add to the total survey time. 

Recently, 3D high-resolution site surveys using ships towing multiple streamer cables 

have become available. Since multiple streamers are towed, the ships tend to be slightly 

larger (47 vs. 37 m). Up to six streamers 100 to 200 m long are used with a tri-cluster of 

8 to 10 cubic inch gas injector (GI) airguns. With this system, 66 track lines are 

necessary per block, which takes about 5 days to collect. The final bin size after 

processing is 6.25 by 12.5 m. 

Ships used in high-resolution operations are generally smaller vessels, as the equipment 

used is less complex than that used in the normal seismic 2D and 3D surveys. That is not 

to say that high-resolution work is not done. Ships are generally 37 to 47 m long with the 

longer ships used for the 3D high-resolution work. The ships are designed to be 

ultra-quiet as the higher frequencies used in high-resolution work are easily lost in the 

noise if special attention is not paid to keeping the ships quiet. 

4.4.4 Ocean Bottom Cable Surveys 

Ocean bottom cable surveys were originally designed to enable seismic surveys in 

congested areas such as producing fields with their many platforms and producing 

facilities. Recently, these surveys have been found to be useful for obtaining multicomponent (seismic pressure, vertical, and the two horizontal motions of the water 

bottom) information. This multi-component information allows more information to be 

extracted from the seismic data and hence greater information about the fluids and rock 

characteristics in the subsurface. In addition, if gas effects resulting from leaky reservoir 

seals obscure the seismic information, these multi-component surveys can result in better 

structural definition of the hydrocarbon trap. Hydrophone detectors limit the water depth 

of these surveys to about 50 m. However, if only water bottom motions are recorded 

using seismometers, the water depth at which seismic data can be collected is extended to 

depths of 2,500 m. 

Ocean bottom cable surveys require the use of multiple vessels (usually two cable layout/ 

pickup, one recording, one shooting, and two utility boats). These vessels are generally 
87 

smaller than those used in streamer operations and the utility boats can be very small. 

Operations are conducted “around the clock” and begin by dropping the cables off the 

back of the layout boat. Length of the cable depends upon the survey demands; it is 

typically 4,200 m but can be up to 12 km. Groups of seismic detectors, usually 

hydrophones and vertical motion geophones, are attached to the cable in intervals of 25 to 

50 m. Multiple cables are laid parallel to each other using this layout method with a 50 m 

interval between cables. Dual air gun arrays are used. When the cable is in place, a ship 

towing an air gun array (which is the same air gun array used for streamer work) passes 

between the cables, firing every 25 m. Sometimes a faster source ship speed of 6 kn 

instead of the normal 4.5 kn speed is used with a decrease in time between gun firings. 

After a source line is shot, the source ship take about 10 to 15 minutes to turn around and 

pass down between the next two cables. This shooting and recording system results in a 

survey with subsurface information collected in bins 25 by 25 m. Some surveys modify 

the shooting and cable geometry to result in a bin size of 12.5 by 25 m, but the same 

approach to collecting the data is used. When a cable is no longer needed to record 

seismic data, it is picked up by the cable pickup ship and is moved over to the next 

position where it is needed. A particular cable can lay on the bottom anywhere from 2 h 

to several days, depending upon operation conditions. Normally a cable will be left in 

place about 24 h. 

Ships used for ocean bottom cable work are even smaller, with lengths of 67 m, 14 m 

beam, and a gross tonnage of 1,771 tons. Although streamer work can be done with one 

vessel, ocean bottom cable work requires the use of up to six ships (one shooting, one 

recording, two cable layout/pickup, two all purpose boats for trouble shooting, survey, 

etc.). 

Location of the cables on the bottom is done by acoustic pingers located at the detector 

groups and by using the time of first arrival of the seismic pulse at the detector group. To 

obtain more accurate first arrival times, the seismic data are recorded with less electronic 

filtering than is normally used. This detailed location is combined with normal GPS 

navigational data collected on the source ship. 

4.4.5 Time-Lapse (4D) Surveys 

The purpose of time-lapse surveys is to detect residual or undetected hydrocarbons in an 

already discovered oil or gas field. Not all fields are candidates for time-lapse surveys 

and careful analysis must be done on each field to determine its feasibility for a timelapse survey. A time-lapse survey requires repeat surveys with highly accurate 

navigation to ensure the same subsurface points are measured on each repeat survey. 

Time-lapse surveys are usually repeated every 6 months to a year, but occasionally the 

repeat interval can be as short as 4 months. 

Time-lapse surveys can use either seismic streamer cables or ocean bottom cables to 

house the seismic detectors, depending on which system was used to discover the field. 

This results in cheaper acquisition costs. Although a field could be discovered with a 

system using streamer cables and the subsequent time-lapse surveys done with ocean 

bottom cables, this would increase the cost. Whether the time-lapse surveys use streamer 
88 

cables or water bottom cables to record the seismic signals, the procedure closely 

resembles the ones described previously for 3D seismic surveys or ocean bottom cable 

surveys. The main difference is in the size of the survey. Since the oil or gas field has 

already been located, the survey is much smaller and the time spent conducting the 

survey much shorter than an exploration survey. An average survey takes 2 to 4 weeks 

and can cover 20 square kilometers. 

Although the technique began using streamer cables, the difficulty in locating the sensors 

with suitable precision led to the use of bottom cables, then to fixed bottom cables. 

When fixed bottom cables are used, the survey time, after the first survey, is much shorter 

since all that has to be done is connect the fixed bottom cable to the recording 

instruments and start shooting. The fixed cable is easily located by attaching an acoustic 

transponder that responds when activated to the fixed cable. 

4.4.6 Vertical Cable Surveys 

Vertical cable surveys are similar to ocean bottom surveys in that the receivers are 

deployed and then shot into by a source boat. However, they are substantially different 

from ocean bottom surveys in that the receivers are located in vertical cables anchored to 

the ocean bottom. Two identically configured boats are used during the survey. At the 

beginning of the survey, both boats are used to place the vertical cables. During the 

survey, one boat is used as a source boat and the other to recover and re-deploy the 

vertical cables. 

The vertical cables are deployed on two overlapping grids. On each grid, vertical cables 

are deployed every 2 km. One grid is staggered 1 km from the other such that any one 

vertical cable is no more than 1.4 km from its closest neighbor. Normally 28 or 

32 vertical cables are deployed at any one time. Placing the cables in a known fixed 

position is a very critical part of the placement process. To aid in the positioning, an 

acoustic transponder is attached to the bottom of each vertical cable. Each vertical cable 

consists of an active section and lead in section. At the bottom of the active section is not 

only the transponder, but also an anchor composed of 680 kg of steel. In the active 

section are 16 specially constructed hydrophones spaced 25 m apart, which makes the 

active section 375 m long. At the top of the active section are placed buoyant floats to 

keep the cable as vertical as possible. Also attached to the top of the active section is the 

lead, which leads to the surface where buoyant floats and a 16 channel 24-bit recorder are 

located. 

Once the cables are in place, the source boat begins shooting in such a way that each 

vertical cable receives shots at a distance of 5 km in all directions. This is accomplished 

by sailing down lines parallel to the grid of vertical cables. (Turn around from line to line 

is only 15 minutes as only the source boat with its attached array has to make the turn.) 

This forms a shooting box around the grid of vertical cables that extends 5 km outside the 

vertical cable grid. This makes the operational grid 14 by 20 km. However, once the 

shooting boat shoots a line 1 km beyond the first row of vertical cables, the first row of 

vertical cables is recovered and re-deployed. Cables may be left in place for hours or 

days, depending upon the size of the survey and operating conditions. Shots are taken 
89 

every 50 m, and the shot lines are 80 m apart. The source boat uses the same source 

array as is normally used in 3D streamer surveys. This array is composed of three 

six-gun sub-arrays with a total volume of 3,090 cubic inches. The largest air gun in the 

array is a Bolt Long Life 250 cubic inch air gun. Vessel speed is normally 4.5 kn and 

operations are conducted “around the clock.” 

Surveys are normally conducted at water depths up to 1,700 m; however, since specially 

constructed hydrophones are used, surveys can be conducted in water depths up to 

2,500 m. 

4.4.7 Multi-ship Surveys 

Of course, multi-ship surveys are an integral part of ocean bottom surveys and vertical 

cable surveys. However, in the quest for seismic data recorded at greater distances from 

the source, multi-ship surveys are becoming more prevalent. Generally, this technique is 

used to either obtain converted wave data (shear wave) or to penetrate hard water bottom 

layers. Two sorts of operations are in use—one 2D and the other 3D. 

The 2D operation places two ships, one behind the other, towing single streamer cables at 

a distance apart and a streamer length sufficient to record seismic data at distances of 8 to 

12 km. The 3D operation places two ships, one behind the other, towing multiple (up to 

12) streamers 2,500 m long a sufficient distance apart to record seismic data at distances 

of 9 km. 

4.4.8 Deep Tow Side-scan Sonar Surveys 

Deep tow side-scan sonar surveys are conducted in the Gulf of Mexico primarily for 

engineering studies involving the placement of production facilities and pipeline routing. 

These surveys provide information on the presence of sand flows, hydrates, and seeps, as 

well as bottom topography. 

Operations are conducted from vessels towing cables up to 7,000 m long that enable 

operations in water depths up to 3,000 m deep. Close to the end of the cable is a 30 to 

45 m long section of chain to keep the sensor package (tow-fish) tracking at 

approximately 25 to 30 m above the bottom. To do this requires the chain to drag along 

the water bottom, causing an approximately 10-cm wide by 15-cm deep trench to be cut 

in the water bottom. In situations where the chain can become entangled in shipwrecks, 

wellheads, or other obstructions or natural hard bottom areas, the chain is removed and 

the tow-fish's position in the water column is maintained by adjusting the length of the 

tow cable. Maintaining a constant elevation above the seafloor by adjusting the cable 

length is very difficult, and the elevation above the seafloor is kept somewhat greater in 

this case. The average tow-fish is about 3.6 to 4.3 m long and 1 m in diameter. 

During operations, the vessel pulls the cable, chain, and tow-fish along a track, then 

circles and sails along a parallel track 300 m from the first. This gives about a 100 m 

overlap in coverage at the far ranges that compensates for tow-fish position errors. From 

the perspective of the obstruction template, most survey activities involve boating 
90 

operations with towed cables and equipment that may extend several thousand feet 

behind the vessel. Except for special vertical cable and deeptow surveys, the zone of 

involvement does not generally extend very deep. A particular survey may involve field 

operations lasting from a few days to a few weeks, and although the survey boat is 

generally moving, it is not able to maneuver quickly. Many side-scan surveys are now 

being conducted with autonomous underwater vehicles. 

4.5 EXPLORATION 

More than 1,200 exploration wells have been drilled in water depths of at least 200 m in 

the Gulf of Mexico. This number includes wells temporarily and permanently 

abandoned, sidetracked, and wells subsequently completed and placed in production. 

The location of these wellsites is shown in Figure 4.2. While exploration wells have 

been drilled over a wide range of deepwater locations, most have been drilled in the areas 

known as Garden Banks, Green Canyon, Mississippi Canyon, and Viosca Knoll. 

Some exploration wells are drilled from existing platforms, but most of these wells were 

drilled from floating drilling rigs. Basic configurations include the so-called 

semi-submersible and the drillship. These rigs are held on location either by a spread 

mooring system or by dynamic positioning thrusters. These configurations are illustrated 

in Figure 4.3. 

The site of an exploration well may be occupied for a duration of several weeks to several 

months for each well and more than one well may be drilled at a single surface location. 

The lateral dimensions of the floating drilling rigs themselves may vary from a hundred 

meters roughly square for most deepwater semi-submersibles to nearly 250 m in length 

for modern drillships. While these modern drillships are able to store large quantities of 

equipment and materials, periodic logistical support is provided to all field operations by 

supply boats. Helicopters are the main method of transporting personnel to and from 

deepwater locations. 

Most of the current deepwater drilling fleet is of the semi-submersible design. These rigs 

generally require seagoing tugs for towing between drillsites and for location during 

mooring and unmooring operations. While many semi-submersibles have on-board 

thrusters to assist, most rely on a spread mooring system for maintaining position during 

drilling operations. Large anchor-handling vessels are employed to place and retrieve the 

anchors and mooring lines. Anchors typically weigh between 10 and 20 tons each and 

each of the 8 to 12 mooring lines, which are made up of a combination of chain and wire 

rope, may extend 1.6 to 3.2 km from the rig’s location. In the shallower regions of the 

study area, each anchor may be deployed and retrieved using a pendant line and buoy, 

which stays in position above the anchor during drilling operations. 

From the perspective of the obstruction template, exploration drilling activities are mostly 

stationary and may last for up to several months. The portion of the water column that is 

involved depends mostly on the nature of the station keeping system. For dynamically 

positioned rigs, lateral dimensions of only a hundred meters are involved throughout the 

full depth. Floating drilling rigs moored in deep water will involve a roughly circular 

area of the bottom that ranges from a 1,000 m in diameter in the shallower water depths 

to 3 to 5 km in diameter as water depth increases. At the surface, only approximately a 

100 m are involved unless pendant lines and buoys are used to install and retrieve 

anchors.
Figure 4.2. Exploratory wells drilled in water depths greater than 200 m in the Gulf of Mexico.

GULF OF MEXICO

Western Planning Area

Central Planning Area

200 m

Eastern 

 Plannin

 Are

Planning area boundary

LEGEND

TX

N AL

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Exploratory well drilled

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

Gulf of Mexico Region

MS

LA 

96o96o

94o94o

92o92o

90o90o

88o88o

24o 26o 28o 30o 

91
Figure 4.3. Floating exploration drilling rigs used in the Gulf of Mexico.

92
93 

4.6 DEVELOPMENT 

4.6.1 Deepwater Systems 

The main field activity associated with the Development stage involves installation of the 

development system components. A description of these construction activities is given 

later in this section, but discussion will focus first on the characteristics of various 

development system alternatives and a description of those deepwater systems that have 

been installed to date. 

As described earlier, a deepwater field is generally developed either as a central 

processing or host platform or as a satellite field that is tied back to a host platform. Most 

of the alternative types systems that are in use or being seriously considered for use in 

deepwater are depicted in Figure 4.4. 

From the perspective of interaction with fisheries activities, all these systems are fixed in 

place and for all practical purposes are permanent. The obstruction template introduced 

in Section 4.3 (see Table 4.2) is extended here in Table 4.2 to include development 

systems. These alternative systems are described and referenced extensively in (MMS 

2000-015 and Ward 2000 Deepwater Technology), but a brief summary is offered here 

for continuity. 

4.6.2 Platforms 

Platforms that have been installed in at least 200 m of water are listed in Table 4.3. 

The systems grouped in Figure 4.4 as “bottom supported and vertically moored 

structures” all have horizontal dimensions of approximately a hundred meters and are 

generally not more than twice that at the sea bottom. In the obstruction template, they are 

characterized as Type I – Cylindrical. The fixed platform consists of a jacket (a tall 

vertical section made of tubular steel members supported by piles driven into the seabed) 

with a deck placed on top, providing space for crew quarters, a drilling rig, and 

production facilities. The fixed platform is economically feasible for installation in water 

depths up to 450 m. All platforms in between 200 and 425 m, except the Lena Compliant 

Tower, are fixed platforms. Bullwinkle and Alabaster are the two deepest, standing in 

over 400 m of water. 

A compliant tower is a narrow, flexible tower and a piled foundation that can support a 

conventional deck for drilling and production operations. Unlike the fixed platform, the 

compliant tower withstands large lateral forces by sustaining significant lateral 

deflections at the surface, while remaining fixed at its base. Compliant towers are best 

suited for water depths between 450 and 750 m. In addition to Lena in 300 m of water, 

the Baldpate and Petronius towers stand in approximately 520 m of water. A tension leg 

platform (TLP) consists of a floating structure held in place by vertical, tensioned tendons 

connected to the seafloor by piles. Like the compliant tower, storm waves and currents 

may cause the TLP to deflect laterally at the surface. In larger storms, offsets may 
Figure 4.4. Deepwater development systems used in the Gulf of Mexico.

94
Table 4.2. Obstruction templates – outer continental shelf development systems. 

Water Column Interference 

Type Description 

Shallow Mid-Depth Bottom 

Mobility 

I 

Cylindrical 

# Fixed Platforms # TLP’s # Compliant Towers 

Narrow Narrow Narrow Fixed 

II Cylindrical -Shallow 

Spread

# Guyed Tower # Auger TLP # SPAR/DDVC 

Narrow 

# Narrow # Broad # Narrow 

# Broad # Very Broad # Broad 

Fixed 

III Subsea 

# Satellite Tieback None None Variable Fixed 

IV 

FPS/FPSO 

# FPS # FPSO 

# Narrow # Long Narrow Very Broad Fixed 

V 

Pipeline/Flowline Bottom Only 

# Connects Subsea 

to Host 

None None Long/Narrow Fixed 

95 
96 

Table 4.3. Deepwater platforms. 

Block Field Name Platform 

Type Code Operator Name Year 

Installed 

Removal 

Date 

Water Depth 

(m) 

EB 110 TEQUILA FP PANACO, INC. 1984 201 

GC 89 CINAMMON FP Apache Corporation 1998 204 

VK 817 PHARLAP FP Flextrend 1995 205 

GB 236 PIMENTO FP Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1980 209 

GB 172 SALSA FP Shell Companies 1998 211 

GB 128 ENCHILADA FP Shell Companies 1997 215 

GB 189 TICK FP Texaco 1991 219 

GB 191 PIMENTO FP Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1993 220 

VK 780 SPIRIT FP Shell Companies 1998 220 

GC 18 FP Exxon Mobil Corporation 1986 229 

GC 19 BOXER FP Shell Companies 1988 229 

EW 873 LOBSTER FP Marathon Oil Company 1994 236 

EB 165 SNAPPER FP PANACO, INC. 1985 263 

EB 159 CERVASA FP Union of CaL 1982 282 

EB 160 LIGERA FP Union of CaL 1981 285 

MC 280 LENA FP Exxon Mobil Corporation 1983 305 

MC 194 COGNAC FP Shell Companies 1978 312 

MC 109 AMBERJACK FP BP Amoco Corporation 1991 335 

VK 823 VIRGO FP Elf Exploration, Inc. 1999 344 

VK 989 POMPANO FP BP Exploration & Oil Inc. 1994 393 

GC 65 BULLWINKLE FP Shell Companies 1988 412 

GC 29 FPS FPS Placid Oil Company 1988 12/31/89 469 

GB 260 BALDPATE CT Amerada Hess Corporation 1998 502 

EW 921 MORPETH EAST Mini-TLP British-Borneo USA, Inc. 1998 518 

VK 786 PETRONIUS CT Texaco 2000 535 

GC 184 JOLLIET TLP Conoco Inc. 1989 536 

VK 826 NEPTUNE SP Kerr-McGee 1996 588 
Table 4.3. (Continued). 

97 

Block Field Name Platform 

Type Code Operator Name Year Installed 

Removal 

Date 

Water Depth 

(m) 

GB 388 COOPER FPS EEX Corporation 1995 639 

GC 205 GENESIS SP Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1998 789 

GB 426 AUGER TLP Shell Companies 1994 872 

MC 807 MARS TLP Shell Companies 1996 894 

VK 956 RAM-POWELL TLP Shell Companies 1997 980 

VK 915 MARLIN TLP Amoco 1999 986 

GC 254 ALLEGHENY Mini-TLP British-Borneo USA, Inc. 1999 1,004 

MC 809 URSA TLP Shell Companies 1998 1,158 

AC 25 HOOVER SP Exxon Mobil Corporation 2000 1,471 

CT = Compliant tower. SP = SPAR platform. 

FP = Fixed platform. TLP = Tension leg platform. 

FPS = Floating production systems. 
98 

exceed 30 m. Tensioned tendons provide for the use of a TLP in a broad water depth 

range with limited vertical motion. The larger TLPs have been successfully deployed in 

water depths approaching 1,200 m. Several TLPs have been installed at sites in between 

850 and 1,150 m of water. Smaller TLPs (e.g., the Mini-TLP) have been designed and 

built as a lower cost alternative for production of smaller deepwater reserves that would 

be uneconomic to produce using more conventional deepwater production systems. The 

Morpeth and Allegheny platforms sit in 500 m and nearly 1,000 m of water, respectively. 

Future applications of the mini-TLP may include use as a utility, satellite, or early 

production platform for larger deepwater discoveries. 

The buoyant column (SPAR) system is one of several floating system alternatives that 

employ taut or spread mooring systems (Auger is the only TLP that employs a lateral 

mooring system). All these floating systems, except the FPSO, are relatively narrow at 

the surface and down to mid-depth in the water column, but spread out to involve a 

broader extent nearer the bottom. The SPAR configuration involves a large diameter 

single vertical cylinder supporting a deck. It has a typical fixed platform topside (surface 

deck with drilling and production equipment), threetypes of risers (production, drilling, 

and export), and a hull that is moored using a taut catenary system of 6 to 20 lines 

anchored into the seafloor. The range of application for the SPAR type of system will 

likely extend beyond that of the TLP – Hoover stands in nearly 1,500 m of water. 

To date, Cooper is the only floating production system (FPS) configuration operating in 

the Gulf of Mexico and there are presently no floating production, storage, and offloading 

systems (FPSOs) in use. Dimensions of existing deepwater platforms that are relevant to 

the obstruction template classifications are given in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Dimensions of existing deepwater platforms relevant to obstruction 

templates. 

Water Column Dimensions (m) Area/ 

Block 

Field Name 

Operator 

Water 

Depth (m) 

Platform 

Type* Location Obstruction 

Type** 

Shallow MidDepth Bottom 

Comments

EB 110 Tequila 

PANACO 201 FP 82°55’S 

22°85’W I 14 x 41 

est - 56 x 61 

VK 817 Pharlap 

BP 203 FP 68°89’S 

37°48’W I 14 x 18 - 62 x 70 

GC 089 Cinnamon 

Shell 205 FP 42°01’N 

72°28’E I 14 x 15 - 72x 65 

GB 236 Pimento 

Marathon/Chev? 209 FP 24°8’N 

39°45’E I 14 x 15 - 56 x 98 

GB 172 Salsa 

Shell 211 FP 17°60’N 

32°80’W I 15 x 24 - 70 x 70 
Table 4.4. (Continued). 

99 

Water Column Dimensions (m) Area/ 

Block 

Field Name 

Operator 

Water 

Depth (m) 

Platform 

Type* Location Obstruction 

Type** 

Shallow MidDepth Bottom 

Comments

GB 128 Enchilada 

Shell 215 FP 48°60’N 

36°06’W I 15 x 26 - 62 x 66 

GB 189 Tick 

Texaco 219 FP 62°50’S 

39°00’W I 14 x 24 - 67 x 67 

GB 191 Pimento 

Marathon/Chev? 220 FP 62°90’N 

43°35’E I 14 x 46 

est 

61 x 91 

est 

VK 780 Spirit 

Shell 220 FP 59°6’N 

39°87’W I 24 x 35 - 72 x 70 

GC 019 Boxer 

Shell 229 FP 70°14’N 

60°06’W I 17 x 27 - 79 x 77 

GC 018 Mobil 232 FP 79°38’S 

43°80’E I 14 x 43 - 70 x 67 

EW 873 Lobster 

Marathon 234 FP 70°01’S 

79°50’W I 14 x 34 - 76 x 78 

EB 165 Snapper 

PANACO 262 FP 87°15’N 

66°74’E I 28 x 52 - 76 x 94 

EB 159 Cervaza 

Union 282 FP 43°55’N 

62°10’W I 18 x 27 

est 

91 x 91 

est 

EB 160 Cervaza Lite 

Union 287 FP 25°99’N 

11°10’E I 18 x 27 

est 

91 x 91 

est 

MC 280 Lena 

Exxon 310 FP 10°57’S 

17°47’E II 37 x 37 - ~1,524' Dia 20-5" wire 

lines 

MC 194 Cognac 

Shell 312 FP 45°0’N 20°0’E I 25 x 50 - 116 x 122 

Standby 

boat buoys 

@ ~460 m 

NE and 

SW 

MC 109 Amberjack 

BP 344 FP 59°30’N 

70°38’E I 14 x 34 - 98 x 85 

VK 823 Virgo 344 FP 46°88’N 

70°2’W I 14 x 46 - 94 x 102 

VK 989 Pompano 

BP 393 FP 31°1’S 

39°83’E I 27 x 44 - 122 x 122 

GC 065 Bullwinkle 

Shell 412 FP 23°70’S 

55°38’W I 41 x 48 - 122 x 146 

GB 260 Baldpate 

Amerada 502 CT 68°81’S 

17°07’W I 27 x 27 27 x 27 27 x 27 

EW 921 Morpeth 

Br. Borneo 509 mini-TLP 10°3’S 

29°90’Wmm II 70 m Dia - 70 m Dia 2 Cat 

Risers 

GC 184 Jolliet 

Conoco 525 TLP 49°50’S 24°00’E I 55 x 55 est 

55 x 55 

est 
Table 4.4. (Continued). 

100 

Water Column Dimensions (m) Area/ 

Block 

Field Name 

Operator 

Water 

Depth (m) 

Platform 

Type* Location Obstruction 

Type** 

Shallow MidDepth Bottom 

Comments

VK 786 Petronius 

Texaco 532 CT 44°25’N 

25°21’E I 18 x 34 - 43 x 43 

est. 

VK 826 Neptune 

Kerr McGee 589 SP 39°06’S 

53°25’E II 22 m Dia ~1,000 m Dia 

6 leg 'taut 

catenary' 

lines 

GB 388 Cooper 

Eex 698 FPS 15°56’N 

19°17’W II 73 x 73 1,524 m + Dia

est. 

GC 205 Genesis 

Chevron 792 SP 13°52’N 

31°20’W II 37 m Dia - 

GB 426 Auger 

Shell 872 TLP 12°00’S 

85°0’E II 88 x 118 ~ 10000' 

Dia 5,500 m Dia 

4 x 3 

anchor 

lines w/ 

sub buoys 

& Cat 

Export 

Risers 

MC 807 Mars 

Shell 894 TLP 36°55’N 

56°19’W I/II 76 x 76 86 x 86 

Standby 

buoy @ 

488 m SE 

and 

several 

Cat risers 

VK 915 Marlin 

Amoco 977 TLP 65°5’N 

72°22’E I 67 x 67 

est 

76 x 76 

est 

VK 956 RamPowell 

Shell 980 TLP 14°14’N 

71°39’E I/II 76 x 76 - 85 x 85 

Cat. 

Export 

Risers & 2 

Standby 

Buoys @ 

457 m NE 

and SE 

GC 254 Allegheny 983 Mini-TLP 26°05’S 

17°60’W I 70 dia 

est 

70 dia 

est 

MC 809 Ursa 

Shell 1,158 TLP 58°95’S 

35°49’E I/II 99 x 99 99 x 99 2(+) Cat 

Risers 

AC 25 Hoover 

Exxon 1,463 Deep Draft 

Caisson 

56°94’S 

25°90’E II 37 m Dia 3,109 m Dia 

4 groups 

of 3 

anchor 

lines 

*CT = Compliant tower; FP = Fixed platform; FPS = Floating production systems; SP = SPAR platform; 

TLP = Tension leg platform. 

**I = Cylindrical; II = Cylindrical - Shallow Spread. 
101 

4.6.3 Satellites 

With the exception of the Jolliet field, in which a small TLP supports wellheads and is 

tied back to a fixed processing platform in shallow water, all tieback, or satellite, fields 

employ subsea systems. Configurations vary widely and may consist of single wells, 

multiple wells, manifolds and other support structures, but all subsea systems share two 

characteristics: 

# components project only a few tens of feet above the bottom; and 

# they are connected to a host platform by (generally small diameter) 

flowlines and umbilicals. Clusters of subsea wells and manifolds are 

typically spread over an area of as much as several hundred feet on a side, 

but some fields cover much larger areas. Details of subsea components 

and layouts are described and referenced extensively in MMS (2000b).

Technology exists to provide subsea pumping and separation, but it has not been applied 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, oil, gas, water and other produced materials must flow 

naturally from the reservoir, through the well tubulars, wellhead, manifold, flowline, and 

riser to the host platform. Chemicals can be injected from the host platform to inhibit the 

formation of waxes, hydrates, and other contaminants that add to the resistance along the 

flow path and can even cause the lines to plug. Because of these and other problems, 

subsea oil satellites are typically no more than 24 km or so from the host platform. 

Pressure losses have less impact on gas flow and, if hydrate formation can be avoided, 

longer offsets are possible. The Mensa gas field in Mississippi Canyon Area Block 687 

lies more than 80 km from the host platform in West Delta Area Block 143. A total of 

52 subsea fields in water depths ranging from just over 200 m to more than 1,524 m of 

water are listed in Table 4.5. 

The locations of the platforms and subsea installations listed in Tables 4.3 and 4.5 are 

shown in Figure 4.5. 

4.6.4 Risers and Pipelines 

The term “Riser” is used to refer to the component of a pipeline, flowline, or umbilical 

that connects it to a host platform. These may include large diameter import or export 

lines for oil or gas or smaller diameter production risers or flowlines from single or 

clustered subsea wells, or subsea control umbillicals or powerlines. Fixed and pulltube or 

J-tube risers are used on fixed platforms, whereas top-tension or catenary risers are most 

common on floating systems. These alternatives are illustrated in Figure 4.6. With the 

exception of the catenary riser, these systems do not extend beyond the footprint of the 

platform until the riser reaches the seabottom. The catenary riser may extend a 

considerable distance laterally as water depth increases, but most of this extension is well 

below the surface of the water. 
102 

Table 4.5. Subsea systems. 

Block Field Name Tieback to Operator Name Year 

Installed 

Removal 

Date 

Water 

Depth 

(m) 

EB 157 EB 110 AGIP 1996 287 

EB 158 CERVAZA EB 159? UNION 1997 282 

EB 945 DAINA B AC 25 Exxon Mobil 1999 1,414 

EB 946 DIANA A AC 25 Exxon Mobil 1999 1,420 

EW 917 LOBSTER EW 873 MARATHON 1998 364 

EW 963 ARNOLD EW 873 MARATHON 1998 533 

EW 991 EW 947 WALTER 1996 233 

EW 1006 EW 873 WALTER 1997 574 

GB 70 SEASTAR VER 386 NEWFIELD 1997 229 

GB 73 GB 72 Mariner Energy 2000 227 

GB 117 GB 72 FLEXTREND 1997 281 

GB 161 SPEND A BUCK GB 72 PENNZENERGY 1999 296 

GB 179 HI A 384 WALTER 1997 217 

GB 216 PENN STATE GB 260 AMERADA 

HESS 1999 444 

GB 224 SANTA FE HI A384 Kerr McGee 1991 226 

GB 235 PIMENTO GB 236 LL & E 1994 239 

GB 240 MUSTIQUE GB 236 Mariner Energy 1996 254 

GB 367 DULCIMER GB 236 Mariner Energy 1999 342 

GB 387 SB GB 388 EEX Corporation 2000 732 

GB 602 MACARONI GB 426 Shell Companies 1999 1,128 

GC 20 GYRFALCON GC 19 Reading & Bates 1999 270 

GC 60 YUKON GC 18 Exxon Mobil 1996 265 

GC 110 ROCKY GC 65 Shell Companies 1996 527 

GC 113 ANGUS GC 65 Shell Companies 1999 609 

GC 116 POPEYE ST 300 Shell Companies 1998 624 

GC 136 SHASTA GC 6 Texaco 1995 262 

GC 136 SHASTA GC 6 Texaco 1995 317 

GC 200 TROICA GC 65 BP 1997 814 

GC 298 GC 254 BR. BORNEO 2000 1,009 
Table 4.5. (Continued). 

103 

Block Field Name Tieback to Operator Name Year 

Installed 

Removal 

Date 

Water 

Depth 

(m) 

MC 28 POMPANO II VK 989 BP 1995 554 

MC 292 GEMINI WELLS ?? Texaco 1999 1,036 

MC 355 ZINC MC 397 Exxon Mobil 1993 445 

MC 401 DIAMOND WD 152 Mariner Energy 1993 417 

MC 401 DIAMOND WD 152 Mariner Energy 1993 518 

MC 441 ALABASTER EW 482 ENSEARCH 1993 438 

MC 442 ALABASTER EW 482 ENSEARCH 1993 467 

MC 445 DIAMOND WD 152 Mariner Energy 1994 639 

MC 445 DIAMOND WD 152 Mariner Energy 1994 639 

MC 674 BLOOD, SWEAT & 

TEARS MC 807 Mariner Energy 1999 826 

MC 685 MENSA 

TEMPLATE WD 143 Shell Companies 1997 1,615 

MC 687 MENSA WELLS MC 685 Shell Companies 1997 1,614 

MC 807 MARS MC 807 Shell Companies 1996 899 

MC 934 EUROPA MC 807 Shell Companies 1999 1,213 

MC 764 KING MC 807 Shell Companies 1998 1,000 

VK 783 TAHOE MP 252 Shell Companies 1991 454 

VK 783 TAHOE MP 252 Shell Companies 1997 442 

VK 825 NEPTUNE VK 826 Mariner Energy 1999 523 

VK 826 NEPTUNE WELLS VK 826 Kerr McGee 1997 588 

VK 828 SE TAHOE MP 252 Shell Companies 1996 533 

VK 862 VK 817 WALTER 1995 325 

VK 944 OSIRIS SP 62 Elf 1998 226 

VK 986 VK 900 WALTER 1995 272 
22° 

24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

Y#

Y# Y#

Y#

Y#

Y#

Y#

%

% % %% %

%

%

%

%% % % %

% % %

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

 Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

200 m

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

N

Figure 4.5. Deepwater platform and subsea locations in water depths greater than 200 m in the Gulf of Mexico.

LA MS AL GA

TX

Note:The maritime boundaras well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

LEGEND

Gulf of Mexico Region

Planning Area Boundary

DEEPWATER PLATFORMS AND PIPELINES

May 2001

Deepwater Pipelines

% Deepwater Platforms

104
Figure 4.6. Riser alternatives.

Riser Alternatives

Catenary

Top

Tension

Pulltube

or

 J-Tube

Fixed

105
106 

A potentially important variation of the catenary riser involves placing buoyancy support 

at one or more points along the length of the riser. This has the effect of creating a 

reverse curvature in the riser and it takes on an S-wave, or “lazy wave,” form. These 

“lazy wave” risers allow the surface platform to move through larger displacements, 

without overstressing the riser. For this reason, “lazy wave” risers may become a more 

attractive alternative, if FPS or FPSO systems are used in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The flowlines and umbilicals that run between subsea wells and manifolds and their host 

platform are typically 15 cm or less in diameter and generally sink at least a small 

distance into soft seafloor. Export or gathering pipelines for oil and gas are more 

typically 30 to 46 cm in diameter, but are sometimes larger. These lines are often weight 

coated to ensure they stay on the bottom in their lightest condition. Though they 

generally sink into the soft seabottom, like flowlines and umbilicals, they too will lie on 

top of harder bottoms and may even bridge across narrow depressions. Wherever 

possible, lines will be routed to avoid areas with hard, uneven bottom or unstable 

sediments 

4.6.5 Construction Activities 

The term construction is used here to encompass the full range of fabrication, 

transportation, commissioning, and installation activities associated with creating and 

installing a deepwater development system. Fabrication of the various components of 

deepwater systems may take place at a wide range of onshore or coastal locations along 

the Gulf Coast or anywhere around the world. Commissioning activities might include 

mating together major platform components (e.g., setting major facilities modules on the 

hull of a TLP). Although they may take place in open water areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

(e.g., Auger TLP hull and deck were mated at a location offshore Texas), these 

commissioning and mating activities will occur at a sheltered, nearshore location. Major 

components or completed platforms may be transported as a wet tow or as deck cargo to 

the final installation site from a Gulf Coast fabrication or commissioning site or directly 

from a location outside the Gulf of Mexico. It is this transportation and the actual 

installation activities that are most likely to interact with deepwater fishery activities. 

The details of transportation and installation activities will vary widely for the different 

platform and tieback configurations, but many will share important similarities. 

Installation of a hypothetical FPS with several subsea tiebacks is described here to 

illustrate nature of the equipment and the activities and the sequence and duration of 

events. A more detailed description of installing an FPSO is contained in the recently 

issued Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (MMS 2001).

There are several separate activities at the field installation site that must be completed 

before the FPS hull is mobilized. These relate both to the drilling and hookup of the 

subsea wells and to the preparation of the FPS mooring spread, and include the 

following: 

# Drilling of subsea wells; 

# Setting subsea manifolds; 
107 

# Laying subsea flowlines, umbilicals and jumpers; 

# Laying gas and oil export lines; and 

# Setting anchors/piles and bottom chain/wire mooring line segments.

Following completion of these activities, the FPS hull will be towed to site and connected 

to the mooring spread. Several additional activities remain to be completed before 

startup: 

# Installation of flowline risers; 

# Installation of umbilical risers; 

# Installation of export pipeline riser; 

# Proofloading moorings; and 

# Subsea well completions.

The spatial relationships between system components and construction equipment 

selection will influence the timing and sequence of these activities. The geometry 

represented in Figure 4.7 will be used for discussing installation activities. The FPS is 

centered at least 3,660 m from the nearest subsea well cluster and each well cluster is 

separated by about the same distance. It is assumed here that all wells will be drilled and 

completed by a floating drilling rig moored on location by 8 to 12 drag anchors. It is also 

assumed that the rig will install wellheads and flowline/umbilical jumpers upon 

completion of each well. The geometry is such that one anchor setting will be sufficient 

for drilling all three wells for each of three manifold center locations and another setup 

for completion and hookup of each three-well group. The activities associated with 

drilling, completion, and hookup of subsea wells are essentially the same as those 

associated with exploration drilling, as described in Section 4.5. 

The following activity breakdown and associated construction equipment requirements 

may be considered representative for installation of an FPS or other moored deepwater 

system: 

# FPS transportation – 3 to 5 tow vessels; 

# Mooring anchors and lines – 1 or 2 anchor handling vessels; 

# Flowlines and export pipeline – DP pipelaying vessel; 

# Umbilicals – DP cable/umbilical vessel; and 

# Install manifolds, hook up FPS, install risers, and hook up pipeline 

DP construction vessel.

Most activities that are carried out below the water surface will rely on electrically 

powered remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to provide visual perspective and to perform 

certain limited work functions. 
Figure 4.7. Floating production, storage, and offloading installation example.

FPS Installation -

Layout

FPS Installation -

Layout

108
109 

A representative schedule of activities is illustrated in Figure 4.8. Details of actual FPS 

installation schedules will vary, especially when the same construction equipment is 

selected for different activities (which may be shown here as overlapping in time), but the 

overall effort will likely by very similar. For most deepwater systems, installation 

activities at the offshore site will likely extend over a period of 2 or 3 months or more, 

and if the development wells are subsea, drilling and completion activities may extend 

over 2 or 3 years. 

Details of the logistical support for installation of a deepwater platform will vary widely, 

depending on the equipment, procedures, and sequencing of field operations. For 

example, material storage capacities for alternate equipment capable of installing the 

flowlines and pipeline, and therefore the resupply requirements, are considerably 

different. The following equipment spreads, timing, and durations offshore are thought 

to be conservative:

# Two round trip helicopter per week for an 8- to 10-week period; 

# One round trip crewboat per week for the same period; 

# One cargo barge and attendant 1,200 HP tug on site for same period; and 

# One cargo barge and attendant 1,200 HP tug in transit between site and 

shorebase once per week for same period (24-h tow each way).

The resulting durations of activity, both at the installation site and in transit to and from 

the shore base, for the various pieces of equipment involved in this hypothetical 

deepwater installation are summarized in Figure 4.9 and are considered representative. 

4.7 PRODUCING OPERATIONS 

After installation of a development platform or tieback satellite is completed, the stage 

that might be broadly termed “producing operations” begins. This stage may include the 

following activities and will typically go on for a period that extends into decades: 

# completion of pre-drilled wells; 

# startup of facilities and pipelines; 

# drilling and maintenance of additional wells; 

# maintenance of structures and equipment; and 

# normal producing operations.

Activities that take place on a platform will have little or no impact on fishery activities 

beyond the existence of the platform, as described in Section 4.6, and periodic visits of 

supply boats. The frequency of the comings and goings of supply boats will vary widely, 

but once per week during normal operations is typical. More frequent visits may be 

expected during initial startup and drilling activities. Typically the supply boat will 

approach the platform on the side with an outboard crane, preferring the down wind side 

if there is an option. The boat will back to within a few tens of feet from the side of the 

platform and stand by while new supplies and materials going to shore are exchanged. 

The supply boat may be tied off to the platform during this process, which may take 

several hours. 
Figure 4.8. Floating production, storage, and offloading installation sequence.

Complete

Tow

Hook up

FPS

Hook up

Pipeline

Install Risers

Install Anchors

Lay Flowlines, Umbilicals, and Pipeline

STA

Install Manifolds

Drill Nine Wells

Complete Precommissioning

Installation Sequence

Complete Wells....

110
W eek of Installation

Equipment Primary Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Installation site Anchor

Vessels Transit to/from

shorebase

Installation site Construction

Vessel Transit to/from

shorebase

Installation site Pipe/Flowline

Vessel Transit to/from

shorebase

Installation site Umbilical

Vessel Transit to/from

shorebase

Installation site

Tow Boats Transit to/from

shorebase

Installation site Logistical

Support Transit to/from

shorebase

Helicopters Transit to/from shorebase

Equipment Durations During FPS Installation

Figure 4.9. Equipment durations during floating production, storage, offloading installation.

111
112 

Normal producing operations of tieback satellites cause no changes on the water surface, 

but subsea drilling or maintenance work on wellheads or other subsea components will 

require mobilization of a drilling rig or other construction vessel. The duration of these 

activities will vary widely, but the equipment and the general nature of the involvement 

of the water column will be similar to exploration drilling and installation activities, 

which are described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. 

4.8 ABANDONMENT 

4.8.1 Abandonment Strategy 

The abandonment strategy for a deepwater installation is subject to approval by MMS. 

To date, only the Placid FPS, which was installed in 1988 at Green Canyon Area Block 

29, has been abandoned. Current decommissioning rules require the lessee to remove all 

structures and related underwater obstructions within 1 year after termination of their 

lease. Complete removal of system components on and below the surface of the bottom 

sediments will increase dramatically as water depth increases, may require the use of 

explosives, and may even challenge physical limits of (de)construction capabilities. 

Further, and perhaps more importantly, activities associated with complete removal of 

manifolds, anchors, flowlines, and umbilicals would likely increase the risk of human 

injury and may even produce greater disturbance to the environment than would 

abandonment in place. The strategy presented in Table 4.6 is believed to be 

representative of what will be proposed for future abandonment of deepwater systems 

(MMS 2000-115). 

Table 4.6. Deepwater systems abandonment strategies. 

System Component Abandonment Strategy 

Compliant Tower or Platform Jacket 

and SPAR Hull 

Topple/abandon in place (removal for 

salvage, or move to “rigs to reef” 

location possible) 

TLP, FPS, FPSO Hull Remove from field for salvage or 

reuse 

Mooring Lines Abandon in place 

Tendon Piles, Anchor Piles, and 

Anchors Abandon in place 

Subsea Wells Plug in accordance with 30 CFR 250, 

Subpart G 

Subsea Production Trees Retrieve 

Production, Umbilical, and Export Risers Remove for salvage 

Pipeline Decommission (cleaned and capped), 

leave on seafloor 

Flowlines and Umbilicals Decommission (cleaned and capped), 

leave on seafloor 

Well and Umbilical Jumpers Retrieve 

Seafloor Structures 

(manifold, transponder supports) 

Abandon in place or retrieve 
113 

4.8.2 Abandonment Activities 

Subsea wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with 30 CFR 250, Subpart G 

and wellheads and manifold jumpers will be removed by a floating drilling rig, which 

will anchor temporarily and be dynamically positioned over each well cluster. Similarly, 

risers, flowlines, pipelines, umbilicals, manifolds, and jumpers will be flushed as required 

by regulation prior to the start of any retrieval or abandonment operations. Selection of 

equipment and procedures to be employed in decommissioning and abandonment 

activities will depend on many of the same factors that influence selections for 

installation, including availability and cost of equipment and the nature and sequence of 

operations. The sequence of decommissioning operations will proceed essentially in 

reverse of the installation sequence (see Section 4.6), but the overall duration of work 

will be shorter – perhaps as little as 3 or 4 weeks total. As in the case of installation, 

certain decommissioning activities can be carried out simultaneously. The recently 

published EIS (MMS 2001) describes the abandonment activities anticipated for an FPSO 

system in some detail.

4.9 FUTURE OCS ACTIVITIES 

4.9.1 Background 

Three primary sources are examined as bases for developing indicators of the magnitude 

and location of future drilling and development activities in the deepwater area of the 

OCS: 

# Historical lease bonus; 

# POE/DOCD plan approvals; and 

# MMS deepwater development reference document. 

Each of these sources of information varies in its value as a predictor of future activities 

in terms of confidence of the prediction, how specific the predictor is relative to where 

the activity might occur, as well as how far out into the future the forecast applies. 

4.9.2 Lease Bonus 

Leases are awarded to the company submitting the highest acceptable lease bonus bid for 

a particular lease in public sales conducted by the MMS. There are several factors that 

impact the lease bonus that a company will offer. Some of these, including anticipated 

future oil and gas prices and the cost of development, will vary from company to 

company and over time, however at a particular point in time, lease bonus is generally 

proportional to the expected size of the hydrocarbon volume in the event of successful 

exploration. Thus the locations of both individual and clusters of leases that receive 

relatively high bonus bids are expected to be an indicator of where companies will focus 

future drilling and development activities. Because of the time value of money and 

changing views of exploration potential, high lease bonuses paid some years ago for 

properties that have not yet been developed are not considered as strong an indicator of 

future activity as are more recent bids. 
114 

The MMS lease database from July 2000 was used as the source for examining 

information on lease bonuses paid. For the Gulf of Mexico, this database contains more 

than 19,000 entries. Of these, approximately 6,300 represent leases involving water 

depths of at least 200 m. Many of these entries represent leases that are not “active” (i.e., 

rejected, terminated, expired, relinquished, etc.). As of July 2000 there were 

approximately 3,800 leases considered “active” (i.e., primary, unit, production, SOP, 

DSO, or OPER status). Individual lease bonuses of $174, $500, and $5,000 per acre, 

which correspond to approximately to $1 million, $2.8 million, and $28 million for the 

standard 5,760 acre Federal lease, were used to screen historical lease bonus information 

(see Table 4.7). 

Table 4.7. Deepwater lease bonuses. 

Number of Leases 

Area 

Total 

Leased 

Blocks Range 2 Range 3 Range 4 

AC 377 27 21 1 

AT 415 38 10 0 

CC 3 0 0 0 

DC 54 12 1 0 

DD 7 2 2 0 

EB 250 30 12 1 

EL 17 0 0 0 

EW 37 15 8 0 

FM 2 0 0 0 

GB 487 72 40 0 

GC 562 87 32 0 

KC 417 44 17 0 

LL 12 1 0 0 

LU 32 0 0 0 

MC 503 79 54 0 

PA 28 4 0 0 

PI 52 5 0 0 

VK 50 8 5 0 

WR 449 49 11 0 
115 

Of the approximately 3,800 active deepwater leases, over 600 (about 18 percent) received 

bonus bids exceeding $1 million. With the exception of Corpus Christi and Port Isabel, 

where there has been little, if any drilling success to date, all the OCS areas with less than 

60 leased blocks are either relatively small in overall extent in the deepwater study area 

or have experienced legal constraints on leasing. The remaining eight areas have 

hundreds of leased blocks each. In most of these areas, between approximately 3 and 

6 percent of leased blocks received bonus bids in excess of $500 per acre. Interestingly, 

these include both the relatively nearshore area of East Breaks and Green Canyon Areas, 

as well as the more distant and deeper water areas of Alaminos Canyon, Atwater Valley, 

Keathley Canyon, and Walker Ridge Areas. In fact, the two deepwater blocks that 

received bonus bids in excess of $5,000 per acre are of recent vintage (1998) and are in 

water depths of approximately 1,500 and 2,900 m. In the Garden Banks Area, which saw 

the first development in over 610 m and Mississippi Canyon, which boasts several 

developments beyond 900 m twice the percentage of leases received bonus bids in excess 

of $500 per acre. The map in Figure 4.10 better illustrates the aerial spread of bonus bid 

hotspots. Clearly there are several clusters of relatively high bonuses, but at least 

moderately high bids are spread across most areas. The exceptions are the very 

deepwater areas of Atwater Valley, Lund and Walker Ridge. 

4.9.3 POE/DOCD Planning 

All exploration drilling and development activities in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico 

require written plans to be submitted by the operator and approved by the MMS. 

Operators’ POEs and DOCDs are perhaps the most direct indicator of future activities. 

This evaluation is based on plans approved by the MMS between December 1997 and 

July 2000 – the rationale for this is that older plans are likely either completed or 

changed. During that period unique plans covering over 400 deepwater lease blocks were 

approved. The distribution of approved plans by type and OCS area is given in 

Table 4.8. 

Table 4.8. Deepwater lease bonus ranges. 

Area Exploration Plans Development Plans 

AC 13 1 

AT 27 0 

DC 0 2 

EB 21 2 

EW 19 3 

GB 66 12 

GC 75 8 

KC 12 0 

MC 98 15 

PI 1 0 

VK 13 6 

WR 18 0 

Totals 363 49 
#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

200 m

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

February 2001

HIGH LEASE BONUS BIDS

Planning Area Boundary

Gulf of Mexico Region

LEGEND

Note:The maritime boundarias well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

TX

LA MS AL GA

Figure 4.10. Lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m with high lease bonus bids.

N

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

Geographic North American Datum 1927

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

>$28M$2.8 M to $28M

$1M to $2.8M

Lease Bids

116
117 

The following observations are based on these data: 

# Nearly 90 percent of these lease block plans were for exploratory drilling; 

# Of the 49 blocks with development plans, 7 of them involved additional 

development drilling from existing platforms (i.e., no new platforms or 

tiebacks) and only 18 are likely to involve field drilling or construction 

activities beyond mid-2001. Of those, 4 are subsea fields that will be tied 

back to a single new platform and 12 are subsea tiebacks to existing 

platforms (see Figure 4.11); and 

# Of the 363 blocks with approved exploration plans, more than 85 percent 

contain water at least 450 m deep and 60 percent are at least 900 m deep 

(see Figure 4.11). 

Over the two and one-half year period reviewed, by far most of the drilling and 

construction activities planned for deepwater lease blocks involve temporarily moored or 

dynamically positioned floating drilling rigs, and the majority of those involve activities 

in water depths at and beyond 900 m. Finally, a large majority of the planned new 

development activities during this period involve subsea developments having no surface 

facilities in the immediate vicinity of the wells, once they are installed. 

Since much of the work planned during this period will have been completed by the end 

of 2000, the information on exploration and development plans described so far serves 

only as a backdrop to forecasting future activities. The time delay between permit 

approval and the start of activities at the offshore site may vary widely – from essentially 

no delay for a POE in which the operator has a drilling rig under contract and available, 

to a several year delay for the construction and installation of a major development 

platform. Also, from the time these plans are developed, submitted, and approved, early 

drilling results, changes in business conditions, new geologic models, and other factors 

can lead to changes. For these reasons, the following considerations were used in 

screening approved POEs and DOCDs for indications of future activities in deepwater 

lease blocks in 2001 and beyond: 

# Recognize that operators with few deepwater activities may require 6 to 

12 months to obtain a drilling rig contract slot before a planned well can 

be drilled; 

# Treat temporarily abandoned (TA) wells as optimistic results, but 

recognize that 6 months or more may be required to evaluate early drilling 

results; 

# All permitted exploration wells may not be drilled if early results are 

disappointing – early wells that are plugged and abandoned (PA) are 

considered discouraging; 
24° 

25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

0 50 100 150 Kilometers May 20010 50 100 Statute Miles

Geographic North American Datum 1927

Lease Block With Filed Plan of Exploration

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

N

LA TX

LEGEND

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

MS

Planning Area Boundary

Figure 4.11. Lease blocks in water depths greater than 200 m with filed Plans of Exploration or Development Operations Co (Source: Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Lease Block With Filed Development Operations Coordination Document

118
119 

# Plans for either exploration or development wells that are to be drilled 

from existing platforms are assumed to result in no significant increased 

activity. Forecast no future activity (NA) in 2001 and beyond for a DOCD 

approved before June 1999 if fewer than three subsea wells are required 

for the planned development; and 

# Forecast no exploration activity in 2001 if POE was approved in 1998, but 

no drilling through early 2000 (i.e., assume plans changed). 

With these considerations and the record of drilling activities from the MMS’s well 

database through July 2000, the POE/DOCD plan was reviewed, with the following 

observations: 

# Of the 49 total blocks involved in approved development plans, 18 are 

expected to experience mobil offshore drilling unit (MODU) drilling 

activities in 2001 and potentially longer (the remaining 32 block activities 

planned are expected to either be completed or involve drilling activity 

from existing permanent platforms); 

# Of the total of 363 blocks involved in POEs approved between December 

1997 and July 2000, plans involving 95 were approved in 2000 – 

135 blocks are identified as likely locations of exploration drilling in 

2001/2002; and 

# Because of encouraging early exploration results (thru July 2000), future 

development activities may be expected on as many as 22 blocks – most 

of these are in Mississippi Canyon Area. 

Table 4.9 summarizes the number and location of blocks expected to experience 

exploration drilling (EA) and construction/development drilling (AD) activities in 2001 

and beyond (Note: those indicated under “AD?” represent blocks with approved POEs in 

which early drilling results appears encouraging; development plans have not been either 

submitted or approved through July 2000). 

This distribution suggests that Mississippi Canyon Area remains the most active area, but 

that the advance to deeper water is spread over a wide area in the Gulf of Mexico. For 

plans approved between December 1997 and July 2000, a total of 47 operators are 

involved in these activities, but more than 20 operators are responsible for exploration 

and development on at least five blocks. The list of operators and the range of their 

involvement is summarized in Table 4.10. 
120 

Table 4.9. Exploration and development activity – 2000/2001. 

Area EA AD? AD 

Alaminos Canyon 8 - - 

Atwater Valley 10 - - 

De Soto Canyon - - 2 

East Breaks 11 - - 

Ewing Bank 3 1 2 

Garden Banks 19 - 3 

Green Canyon 24 4 1 

Keathley Canyon 9 - - 

Mississippi Canyon 32 14 7 

Port Isabel 1 - - 

Viosca Knoll 6 2 2 

Walker Ridge 12 1 - 

Totals 117 22 17 

EA = Blocks with exploration drilling. 

AD? = Blocks with approved Plans of Exploration in which early drilling results appears 

encouraging; development plans have not been either submitted or approved through July 

2000. 

AD = Blocks with construction/development drilling. 

Table 4.10. Anticipated drilling efforts based on Plans of Exploration (POEs) and 

Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCDs). 

Operator POE Blocks DOCD Blocks 

Amerada Hess 20 1 

BHP 6 - 

BP/Amoco 32 9 

British Borneo 13 2 

Chevron 30 - 

Conoco 15 1 

Ensearch 8 4 

Elf 16 2 

Ker McGee 10 2 

Marathon 16 1 

Mariner 10 4 

Murphy 8 - 

Oryx 17 1 

Phillips 8 - 

Shell 49 7 

Texaco 12 1 

Union 22 - 

Vastar 14 1 

Walter 6 2 

XOM 10 2 

27 Others >4 
121 

4.9.4 MMS Deepwater Scenario 

MMS has recently published an Environmental Assessment (EA) of deepwater operations 

in the Gulf of Mexico (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-001). In preparation of this deepwater 

EA, the MMS compiled a reference document (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-015), which 

includes a development scenario for the years 1998 through 2007. The projections of 

activities contained in this scenario are based on a combination of historical data, 

published information, and interpretations from industry and internal experts. The reader 

should note that 300 m represents the shallow end of the range of water depths covered 

by the Deepwater EA scenario, compared with the 200 m limit used in the current study. 

While it cannot be said with complete confidence that this difference is unimportant in 

terms of forecasting future OCS activity, it can be said that the zone between 200 and 

300 m of water represents only a small portion of the deepwater area and this zone has 

been extensively explored in the past. 

4.9.5 Floating Drilling 

Approximately 100 exploration wells have been drilled annually from 1997 through 

1999. It is estimated that 60 to 100 exploration (and appraisal) wells will be drilled each 

year during the period 2001 to 2007 (see Table 4.11). This level of drilling activity 

might be expected to result in 10 to 15 discoveries per year. Perhaps half to two-thirds of 

those discoveries will lead to developments and some of those will involve subsea 

development wells. In total, 75 to 120 wells per year are expected to be drilled from 

floating rigs. As many as 50 floating rigs annually may be active in the Gulf of Mexico 

during this period. 

Table 4.11. Projected deepwater exploration drilling (2001-2007). 

Year Exploration Wells 

2001 60-80 

2002 60-80 

2003 70-100 

2004 70-100 

2005 70-100 

2006 60-80 

2007 60-80 

4.9.6 New Developments 

The MMS scenario projects that 8 to 10 new developments will start up annually through 

2007 (see Table 4.12). Most of these will be subsea satellite tiebacks, but 20 to 30 will 

be platform developments involving a range of system configurations. The historical 

trend of relying on fixed platform, TLP and SPAR systems, that employ platform-based 

drilling, is expected to continue through the early years of the scenario. Later in the 
122 

period, as development activities extend to deeper water, floating systems that rely on 

subsea wells are expected to be employed more often. 

Table 4.12. Projected deepwater development startups (2001-2007). 

Year Subsea TLP SPAR Fixed FPS FPSO Total 

2001 6 2 2 1 11 

2002 6 1 1 1 1 1 11 

2003 6 1 1 1 9 

2004 6 1 1 1 9 

2005 6 1 1 8 

2006 6 1 1 8 

2007 6 1 1 8 

4.9.7 Validity 

The MMS scenario described above is believed to be a realistic projection of the overall 

level of future deepwater OCS activity. It covers a relatively long period into the future, 

but it doesn’t provide a very clear picture as to where activity will occur. Overall, POEs 

and DOCDs are expected to be very good indicators of activities in the near term future 

in terms of both confidence and specificity of location. DOCDs may forecast activity at a 

specific site several years in the future, while POEs are probably only useful in 

forecasting activities for a period ranging from a few months to as much as a year or two 

following approval.
123 

5.0 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONFLICTS 

5.1 CURRENT CONFLICTS 

5.1.1 Domestic Conflicts 

The following discussion focuses on interactions between commercial fishing and oil and 

gas operations within the primary areas in U.S waters where fishing and oil and gas 

activity overlap: Santa Barbara Channel and southern Santa Maria Basin, and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Because the Gulf of Mexico fisheries and oil industries have been described 

extensively in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this report, the reader is referred to those sections 

for background information. For California, brief descriptions of fishery and oil and gas 

activities are given along with the analyses of past and current interactions. 

The relatively narrow continental shelf and limited productive fishing areas in the Santa 

Barbara Channel overlap with the oil and gas activities there and compress both activities 

into a relatively small zone between the shoreline and offshore waters. Although the 

narrow shelf continues in the Santa Maria Basin, offshore banks and the lack of islands 

allow commercial fishing, particularly trawling and trolling, to occur further offshore and 

in deeper water than within the Channel. The emphasis of this report is on interactions in 

water depths of 200 m or greater, however, in many cases the only interactions reported 

are from shallower depths. 

5.1.1.1 Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin, California 

The area discussed in this section includes the state and federal ocean waters offshore 

Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties, extending from approximately 

48 km offshore Pt. Sal south to a point approximately 45 km southwest of Pt. Conception 

and then east to a point approximately 16 km of Port Hueneme near the eastern edge of 

Hueneme Canyon. This area encompasses most bottom-founded commercial fishing 

activities and all of the existing oil and gas platforms and pipelines within the region. 

Surface fishing efforts (i.e., albacore trolling) do occur further offshore, however, to date, 

oil and gas production has been limited to water depths of approximately 366 m 

(Figure 5.1). Additional oil and gas operations to the south off Huntington Beach are all 

in water depths of less than 200 m. 

The water depths of the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin area range up to 

1,829 m; the seafloor is predominantly sedimentary, although several deepwater rocky 

seamounts are present. Nearshore areas support kelp beds, founded on both solid and 

sedimentary habitats, particularly where upwelling occurs around the Channel Islands 

and along the western, rocky shoreline near Pt. Conception. The maximum water depth 

within the area of study is 732 m off Pt. Conception. 


  Federal Ecological Preserve

Figure 5.1. Southern California offshore oil and gas development.

   Buffer Zone

Santa Maria

Santa Barbara

Carpi

Loin Rock

Unit

AERA

Point Sal

Unit

AERA

Purisinia

Point Unit

AERA

Point

Pedernales

Unit

Torch

Bonito Unit

Torch

Point Arguello

Unit

Arguello Inc.

Rocky Point Unit

Whiting

Sword Unit

Conoco

Santa

Maria Unit

AERA

Santa Barbara Channel

PacificOcean

Santa Ynez Unit

Exxon/Mobil

Gato Unit

Samedan

Pitus Point

Unit

Sant

U

Cavern Point

Unit

0 5 10 15 Ki

124
125 

Fishery Resources 

Through 1985, the California commercial fisheries comprised a mixture of pelagic and 

demersal fishes and invertebrates (Centaur Associates, Inc. 1981; MBC Applied 

Environmental Sciences 1989). Historically, northern anchovies, mackerels, squids, and 

urchins have contributed the majority of the kilograms landed within the state. In 

southern California, important commercial trawl fisheries through 1985 included 

shrimps, halibut, flatfishes, rockfishes, and sea cucumbers. Important set gear-target 

species included halibut, angel sharks, crabs, and lobsters, while divers targeted on 

abalone and urchins. Drift netting for swordfish and thresher sharks was conducted in 

mid-Channel and south of the Channel Islands. Since 1985, the Santa Barbara 

commercial landings for many of those species have decreased and the commercial 

abalone and urchin fisheries have been closed or substantially reduced. Squid now 

contributes the largest percentage of the total kilograms caught within the area and landed 

at the four main Channel ports. 

Since 1985, some spot-market fisheries have developed in the area, including hagfish 

trapping (1990 to 1993). Live trap fishing for shrimp and fish is now more common than 

in the past. Improvements in on board refrigeration techniques allowed a market for 

deepwater flatfish, including rex, petrale, English, and dover sole, to develop, particularly 

in the Santa Maria Basin. Most of these species are trawled in water depths of from 

200 to over 610 m in the Santa Maria Basin and on the Santa Lucia Bank, north and west 

of Pt. Conception. Deepwater rockfish, including two species of Sebastolobus

(euphemistically named thornyheads) are trawled in similar depths within the same areas. 

Other deepwater rockfish species are caught with set nets and trawls within and along the 

submarine canyons west of the area between Pt. Conception and Pt. Arguello in the 

western Santa Barbara Channel. Commercial trawling in the Santa Barbara Channel is 

limited to approximately 200 m. 

Types of Fishing 

Five primary commercial gear types are used in southern California: trawl, set net, drift 

net, traps/pots, and hook and line; commercial harpooning for swordfish and, historically, 

diving for urchins and abalone are also utilized. Centaur Associates, Inc. (1984) 

completed a study that included a series of maps depicting commercial fishing areas 

within the southern California marine waters. Although some changes in target species 

have occurred since that time, principal fishing areas have remained relatively constant. 

Specifically, trawling operations targeting flatfishes, rockfishes, shrimps, and sea 

cucumbers occur in water depths of up to 914 m; halibut, shrimps, and sea cucumbers are 

most common in water depths of 200 m or less. Dover, rex, petrale, English sole, and 

most species of rockfish are caught in deeper water. Most of the central portion of the 

Channel is not trawled due to a paucity of marketable resources, possibly due to a 

well-documented oxygen-poor conditions within the deeper waters there. The study area 

also includes one of the few areas within California where commercial trawling is 

allowed inshore of the 3-mile limit. The “California Halibut Trawl Grounds” extend 
126 

from Pt. Dume (between Los Angeles and Ventura) in the south to Pt. Arguello in the 

north. 

Set gear, including nets (halibut and others) and traps (crab, lobster, and live fish), are 

most commonly utilized in water depths of from 6 to 76 m, although spot prawn trapping, 

a relatively recent fishery in the Channel, occurs in water depths in excess of 92 m in 

rocky areas avoided by trawlers. Seining for baitfish and mackerel, and drift netting for 

shark and swordfish occur throughout the Channel, while seining for squid commonly 

occurs closer to shore around the Channel Islands and along most of coastline within the 

southern Santa Maria Basin. Swordfish driftnetting also occurs in the western Santa 

Barbara Channel and south of the Channel Islands over the relatively shallow banks off 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands. 

Data provided by the California Department of Fish & Game indicate that in 1999 a total 

of 1,419 commercial fishing licenses were registered in the six main harbors in the area 

(950 in Port Hueneme, Oxnard, Santa Barbara, and Ventura in the Santa Barbara Channel 

and 469 in Avila and Morro Bay in the Santa Maria Basin area). For the period 1990 

through 1999, the annual average licenses for the four Santa Barbara Channel port’s 

vessels was 1,086, while Avila and Morro Bay combined averaged 705. These numbers 

are probably an overestimate of the actual number of vessels within the harbors, as many 

retain licenses for more than one gear type or species. Table 5.1 lists the average number 

of commercial licenses, by gear type, for the area’s harbors. 

Table 5.1. Annual average number of commercial fishing licenses in the six Santa 

Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin harbors, 1990-1999 (Source: California 

Department of Fish & Game 2000). 

Gear Type 

Port Line 

Gear 

Other 

Gear 

Gill Net or 

Purse Seine

Pot or 

Trap Troll Trawl (all types) 

Combined 

Average 

Santa Barbara 

Channel Ports 203 433 150 180 28 92 1,086 

Santa Maria 

Basin Ports 361 65 58 60 96 65 705 

Total 564 498 208 240 124 157 1,791 

Percent of 

Combined Average 31 28 12 13 7 9 100 

These data indicate that Line Gear-licensed vessels make up the largest average 

percentage, with Other Gear being the second most common type of commercial license. 

Annual variations in the number of vessels licensed for each gear type are common (i.e., 

troll licenses for Santa Maria Basin harbors ranged from 2 in 1992 to 225 in 1997, and in 

Santa Barbara Harbor from 0 in 1992 to 56 in 1995). 
127 

Bottom-founded deepwater commercial fishing activities would most likely be by trawl 

or set net (included in the Gill Net or Purse Seine category above), although some line 

gear could focus on deepwater rockfish species in the aforementioned canyons in the 

western Santa Barbara Channel. 

Exploration/Production Activities 

According to the Interagency Decommissioning Working Group (IDWG), there are 33 oil 

facilities offshore California; 10 are in state waters (inshore of the 3-mile limit). Within 

the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin, 11 platforms and one production island 

are present. Six of these facilities are in water depths of 200 m or more. Four of the 

deepwater platforms, Gail, Hondo, Harmony, and Heritage, are in the Santa Barbara 

Channel, and two, Hidalgo and Harvest, are due west of Pt. Conception in the western 

Santa Barbara Channel/southern Santa Maria Basin (see Figure 5.1). 

Data Sources and Fisheries Organizations 

Santa Barbara County Contingency Fund. To augment the Federal Contingency Fund 

(FCF), Santa Barbara County (SBC) established the Local Contingency Fund (LCF) to 

assist fishers in compensation for gear damage or loss within the 3-mile limit. Claims 

forwarded to the SBC under this program provide much of the database for assessing 

historical conflicts between commercial fishing and offshore oil and gas operations in this 

area discussed below. 

Assisted by the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office (Santa Barbara) and funded through 

payments by the offshore developers, the LCF provides interest-free grants for claims 

within state waters and/or loans for replacement of gear lost or damaged in federal 

waters. The “federal water loan” is to be paid back to the LCF when the fisher is 

reimbursed through the FCF. Thus, the LCF compliments the FCF by providing funds 

that allow the fisher to replace lost or damaged gear relatively expeditiously. SBC 

utilizes a subcontracted insurance/claims adjuster company to facilitate payment and to 

track claims. The LCF initially established a $200,000 account (based on the estimated 

40 claims per year and a maximum payment of $5,000 per claim), renewable each year. 

The County LCF provides assistance for claims in the marine waters within the SBC 

boundaries, which extend from the Santa Maria River on the north to the City of 

Carpinteria on the south, including the northern Channel Islands. To date, neither 

Ventura County to the south nor San Luis Obispo County to the north have an LCF. 

SBC records each claim and then forwards each to a claims adjuster contractor who 

maintains a log of claims and pursues payment through the LCF. The claims that reach 

the SBC are those in which the fisher could either not identify or could not obtain 

compensation from the identified responsible party. While the SBC maintains a list of 

submitted claims, details on each claim are only available through the contracted claims 

adjuster. 
128 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Data from the NMFS Vessel and Gear Damage 

Compensation Fund included the listing of location, vessel type, and type of conflict. 

Records from 1989 through 1999 with locations within the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa 

Maria Basin were reviewed and are summarized in Table 5.2. 

Table 5.2. Details on commercial fishing claims (1989-January 2000) from the Santa 

Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin study area (Source: Santa Barbara County 2000). 

Year Gear Type1

/ 

Number of Claims Cause2 

Water Depth in 

Meters/Number of 

Claims 

2000 (January only) NR/1 MSC/1 >200/1 

1999 TW/2 BUO/1, PIP/1 <200/2 

1998 TW/6, TP/2 

MSC/4, CAB/1, 

UNV/2, UNK/1, 

PIP/1 

<200/8 

1997 TW/9, TP/5, NR/1 UNK/4, PIP/2, 

MSC/3, UNV/4 

<200/11 

>200/4 

1996 TW/3, PT/1 NR/4 <200/4 

1995 TW/3, PT/1 MSC/1, NR/3 <200/2 

>200/2 

1994 TW/2, GN/1 MSC/2, UNK/1 <200/3 

1993 TW/1 UNK/1 >200/1 

1992 TW/6, GN/1 MSC/2, PIP/1, 

UNK/4 <200/7 

1991 TW/4 NR/2, UNK/1, 

PLA/1 <200/4 

1990 LL/1, TP/1 NR/1, PLA/1 <200/2 

1989 TW/9, GN/2 UNK/9, FIX/2 <200/5 

>200/6 

Total NR/2, TW/45, GN/4, 

TP/10 

MSC/13, BUO/1, 

CAB/1, PIP/5, 

PLA/1, UNK/21, 

UNV/6 

<200/48 

>200/14 

1 Gear: TW (Trawl), GN (Gill Net), PT/TP (Pot/Trap), and LL (Long-line), NR (Not 

Recorded). 

2 Cause: UNK (Unknown), FIX (Fixed Object), MSC (Miscellaneous), PLA (Platform), 

PIP (Pipeline), CAB (Cables), UNV (Unidentified Vessel), BUO (Buoy), NR (Not 

Recorded).
129 

Historical Conflicts 

From 1988, when the LCF was instituted, through July 1999 a total of 83 claims have 

been submitted to the SBC; from July 1999 through January 2000, two additional claims 

have been received (Pfiffer, pers. comm.) Table 5.3 lists the number of claims by year. 

Table 5.3. Number of fisheries claims through the Santa Barbara County Local 

Contingency Fund (Source: Santa Barbara County 2000). 

Year1 Number of Claims 

1999-January 2000 2 

1998-1999 7 

1997-1998 14 

1996-1997 2 

1995-1996 4 

1994-1995 6 

1993-1994 14 

1992-1993 10 

1991-1992 8 

1990-1991 12 

1989-1990 6 

1

Year is from July through July. 

SBC logs each entry, but does not maintain information on location for each claim; 

individual claims are forwarded to the aforementioned claims adjuster contractor. Due to 

a flood at that contractor’s offices, many of the earlier detailed claim records were 

destroyed. Twenty-two detailed records, 1 in 1994 and 21 from 1997 through January 

2000, were reviewed, and information in those records were used to characterize the 

recent conflicts within the Santa Barbara Channel/Santa Maria Basin. 

Table 5.4 lists all claims recorded from 1989 through January 2000; this list combines 

entries from the SBC claims contractor and the NMFS Contingency Fund (six claims 

were submitted to both sources). 

In many cases, the number of claims for each year in Table 5.4 are lower than those 

listed in Table 5.3. Since location information was not available from the LCF list and 

with the loss of much of the data from the claims contractor, the numbers in Table 5.4

are most likely an underestimate of annual entries, except from 1997 through 1999 where 

both sources provided location data. Raw data from the two sources are provided in 

Appendix A. 

Table 5.2 lists the 62 claims that have information on location, gear type, water depth, 

and, where available, the cause for the claim. 
130 

Table 5.4. Commercial fishing claims (1989-January 2000) from the Santa Barbara 

Channel/Santa Maria Basin study area (Source: Santa Barbara County 2000). 

Year Number of Claims 

January 2000 1 

1999 2 

1998 8 

1997 15 

1996 4 

1995 4 

1994 3 

1993 1 

1992 7 

1991 4 

1990 2 

1989 11 

Total 62 

Discussion 

Typical of the fishing areas within the study area, 80 percent (48 of 62) of the claims 

were in water depths of less than 200 m, where most of the commercial fishing, 

particularly in the Santa Barbara Channel, occurs. The distribution of the claims by gear 

type, however, is not consistent with the number of commercially licensed fishing vessels 

in the area. Trawlers, which from 1990 through 1999 comprise an average of 9 percent 

of the registered vessels at the five major area ports (see Table 5.1), accounted for almost 

73 percent (45 of 62) of the claims. Conversely, Line Gear, comprising hook and line, 

and long-line, comprises an annual average of 31 percent of commercial fishing vessels, 

but had no claims during the period. 

As shown in Table 5.2, unknown (UNK) causes accounted for almost 34 percent (21 of 

62) of the claims, followed by miscellaneous (MSC), which including damage from 

seafloor debris and “mudding” of trawl nets, with 21 percent (13 of 62). Losses or 

damage to gear from oil field vessels accounted for 6 of the 62 claims (approximately 

10 percent), but were the cause of most of the claims for trap and pot gear. 

Existing Mitigation Measures 

In addition to the SBC compensation fund, the presence of the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison 

Office (Joint Office), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that requires 

mitigations for potentially significant impacts for offshore operations, several other 

mitigations are in place. The Joint Office has developed several mitigations that are 

applied to all aspects of offshore oil activities. The SBC has adopted a consolidation 

concept that is designed to reduce the number of coastal and onshore oil facilities, 
131 

including refineries, loading facilities, and supply piers. That consolidation has also 

resulted in the establishment of vessel traffic corridors that are specified zones that oilrelated supply and crew vessels are expected to remain within while in transit from shore 

to platform or vice versa. While “voluntary” in nature, the corridors were developed 

through cooperative agreement between the fishing and oil/gas industries. Compensation 

is usually not available for gear damage that occurs within those corridors if the vessel 

was within the prescribed corridor when the conflict occurred. In addition to these 

measures, Coast Guard safety zones have been established around several platforms off 

southern California. 

In the 1980’s, the Joint Fisheries/Oil Liaison Office was established by the 

California/Coastal Operators Group (C/COG), an oil industry committee comprising 

representatives from the offshore operators. Joint Committee members comprise 

representatives of the fishing and oil industries, and the committee is directed by the 

Fisheries Liaison Officer. Located in Santa Barbara, the Joint Committee is a forum for 

dissemination of relevant information, a source of funding for research studies on issues 

of mutual interest, and it provides claims assistance to fishers. It has been instrumental in 

developing mitigations to reduce offshore impacts to the fishing industry and also 

performs lobbying for fishing interests throughout the state. 

The following is a list of some additional mitigation measures that are utilized within the 

offshore waters of SBC, some of which were developed through the Joint Committee. 

# Seismic Operations: A Notice to Fishers is posted in Harbor Master’s 

office of the four major fishing ports of SBC specifying the location and 

duration of the proposed survey, and the vessel name and call sign. The 

format of the notice is similar to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Local Notice to 

Mariners. Postings are required to be in place 2 weeks prior to scheduled 

operations. (Note: Other non-permanent offshore activities also require 

noticing at the specified ports). 

# Exploration Activities: a) A fisheries monitor is contracted to be onsite 

during drilling and to warn drift net fishers and trawlers of location of rig 

anchors. b) Compensation is available for areal preclusion during drilling 

if the fisher can prove he has utilized the area within a specified period of 

time and can provide “fish tickets” to show the value of his catch. c) Rig 

anchors are placed in accordance with an approved anchoring plan and 

anchors are lifted vertically to reduce the chance of seafloor disturbance 

(i.e., anchor scars or trenches). d) A side-scan sonar survey, designed to 

identify and locate seafloor debris and anchor scars, is conducted 

following removal of the exploration drilling rig. Debris is removed and 

anchor scars are smoothed. A trawl test may be completed to assure site 

clearance. 

# Production Activities: Exploration-related mitigations c) and d) are 

completed for production activities. In addition, production-related 
132 

mitigations include: a) Compensation is provided for the “permanent” loss 

to those fishers who can provide proof of use of the area. 

# Abandonment: a) Similar to Exploration and Production mitigations, sidescan sonar surveys and test trawls around the abandoned structure 

following removal. b) The recently-completed removal of four platforms 

in the Santa Barbara Channel resulted in debris mounds (shell mounds) 

located directly below the platforms being left in place. To reduce the 

chance of trawlers snagging on these features, the responsible oil company 

provided some trawlers with state-of-the-art differential GPS systems that 

included the locations of the shell mounds. Ongoing negotiations could 

result in those trawlers also being provided a “net locator system” 

designed to locate the trawl net offset from the fishing vessel and to 

further reduce chances of gear damage due to snagging. No “net locators” 

have been provided to date. c) All abandonment personnel are to attend 

fisheries training that utilizes the Western States Petroleum Association 

Fisheries Training Program. d) Removal shall include the cutting of 

platform legs and conductors to the specified depth below the natural 

seafloor to reduce the chances of snagging trawl nets. 

5.1.1.2 Gulf of Mexico 

The recent history of interactions between the oil and gas and fisheries industries in the 

Gulf of Mexico was also evaluated by examining the FCF files. The FCF processes gear 

loss claims made in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The number of claims made 

from 1989 to 1999 is given in Table 5.5. There is a decreasing trend in the number of 

claims logged over the 11-year period, ranging from a high of 214 in 1989 to a low of 58 

in 1999. 

Table 5.5. Number of claims filed to the National Marine Fisheries Service Federal 

Contingency Fund (FCF), 1989 to 1999 (Source: FCF 2000). 

Year Number of Claims 

1989 214 

1990 204 

1991 110 

1992 103 

1993 126 

1994 114 

1995 79 

1996 71 

1997 86 

1998 68 

1999 58 
133 

During this period of record, Gulf of Mexico fishers filed an average of 112 claims per 

year. A total of 1,233 claims was logged, and the locations of 884 of these for which 

positions were available were plotted (Figure 5.2). Only 10 of these claims (<1 percent) 

were in water depths greater than 200 m. The gear types responsible for these claims are 

provided in Table 5.6. Bottom trawl was by far the most common gear type involved, 

accounting for 93 percent of the claims. Gill net and longline accounted for the next 

highest number of claims, but these were small (1.2 and 0.9 percent, respectively) 

compared to bottom trawling. This is consistent with the number of vessels trawling as 

opposed to other kinds of fishing in shelf waters. Also, bottom trawling is most 

susceptible to hanging on bottom founded structures, hence most of the claims were for 

pipelines, cables, and other debris. There were seven claims during the period involving 

longline gear (Figure 5.2). 

Table 5.6. Details on commercial fishing claims (1989 to 1999) from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Year Gear Type1 Cause2 

1989 GN/10, LL/3, TP/1, 

TW/196, 

BUO/5, CAB/2, FIX/2, MSC/2, PIP/6, 

PLA/1, PPP/2, SHP/1, SSV/1, UNK/182, 

UNV/1, WEL/3 

1990 GN/2, LL/3, TP/2, TR/1, 

TW/190 

BUO/10, CAB/4, DOV/1, FIX/1, MSC/7, 

PID/5, PIP/26, PLA/8, PLS/1, PPP/2, 

UNK/129, WEL/4 

1991 LL/1, TW/108, BUO/1, CAB/1, CAP/1, PIP/12, PLA/3, 

PPP/1, UNK/74, WEL/1 

1992 GN/1, TW/101 

BUO/1, BUY/1, CAB/2, CAP/1, DOV/1, 

MSC/6, PIP/12, PLA/2, PPP/1, ROP/1, 

RPE/1, UNK/70, WEL/2 

1993 LL/1, TW/121 BUO/3, CAB/3, MSC/9, PIP/1, UNK/87, 

WEL/3 

1994 GN/1, LL/1, TW/107 BUO/1, CAB/5, MSC/3, PIP/12, PLA/2, 

PPP/1, UNK/87, WEL/1 

1995 LL/1, PS/1, TW/76 CAB/1, MSC/2, PIP/7, PLA/1, PPP/1, 

UNK/29 

1996 PT/1, TW/68 

1997 LL/1, TW/76 BUO/1, CAB/1, MSC/4, PIP/7, PLA/1, 

UNK/37, UNV/1, WEL/1 

1998 GN/1, PT/1, TW/65 BUO/1, CAB/1, FOV/1, MSC/3, PIP/12, 

PLA/1, PPF/1, UNV/2, UNK/44 

1999 PS/2, TW/52 BAR/1, BUO/1, CAB/2, DOV/1, FIX/2, 

MSC/6, PIP/9, PLA/2, PPF/1, UNK/33 

1 Gear: GN (Gill Net), LL (Long-line), PT/TP (Pot/Trap), and TW (Trawl). 

2 Cause: BUO (Buoy)m, CAB (Cables), FIX (Fixed Object), MSC (Miscellaneous), NR (Not 

Recorded), PIP (Pipeline), PLA (Platform), UNV (Unidentified Vessel), and UNK (Unknown). 
Y# Y# Y#

Y#

Y#

Y#

Y#

Y#

ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ ÊÚ GULF OF MEXICO HOUSTON CORPUS CHRISTI 

PENSACOLA

MOBILE

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area

PANAMA CITY

MEXICO

 Eastern 

 Planning 

 Area

200 m

Note:The maritime boundaras well as the divisions are for initial planning prejudice or affect Unitany way.

TX LA MS AL GA

Figure 5.2. Location of claims filed to the Federal Contingency Fund in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

22° 24° 26° 28° 30° 32° 

98°98°

96°96°

94°94°

92°92°

90°90°

88°88°

86°86°

84°84°

1 December 2000

Gulf of Mexico Region

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

Geographic North American Datum 1927

Planning area boundary

LEGEND

Claim Site ÊÚ

134
135 

Additional information on interactions in the Gulf of Mexico came from anecdotal and 

observational accounts. Sources included fishers, vessel owners, tuna buyers, 

independent researchers, and NMFS employees. These observers indicated that there 

have been interactions between bluewater fishers and deepwater oil and gas operations. 

The primary fishing gear type involved in these accounts has been pelagic longline set for 

tuna. The most common industry activity involved was geophysical surveying. 

Geophysical vessels tow long streamers (see Section 4.4), require considerable right-ofway before making turns, and are reluctant to yield ground while surveying. 

Unfortunately, few incidents have been formally documented. One incident involving a 

longline vessel and a geophysical boat with Dr. Barbara Block of Stanford University 

(pers. comm. 2000) who had chartered a commercial longline vessel to tag tunas for a 

migratory research project. Steve Loga (pers. comm. 2000), a seafood dealer with Tuna 

Fresh in Dulac, Louisiana, indicated that at least 1 in 10 boats that he deals with loses 

gear to a geophysical vessel during every 2-week fishing trip they make. He did not have 

any documented incidents to relay. Vessel owners began complaining about this over 

10 years ago, according to vessel owner Fred Johnson (pers. comm. 2000) of 

Bayou LaBatre, Alabama. Many of the boat owners are Vietnamese-American, thus 

radio communication between survey vessels has been a problem. From the geophysical 

industry (see Section 4.4), the marine operations manager for the International 

Association of Geophysical Contractors, David Crockett (pers. comm. 2000), confirmed 

that interactions with drifting longlines was a problem during deepwater geophysical 

surveys. He mentioned that longliners had adapted to the presence of geophysical survey 

vessels. Some had been observed cutting floats to the mainline, allowing it to sink below 

the underwater gear of the vessel to avoid loss of gear. Others fishers were observed 

cutting the mainline portion of the longline that was in the path of survey vessel, to allow 

the vessel to pass without snagging the line. Once the survey vessel was by the line, they 

rejoined the cut portion. Not all interactions involving longlines have been with 

geophysical vessels. In January 1999 a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the 

acoustic Doppler current profiler of a dynamically positioned drill ship working in the 

eastern Gulf. The line was removed without incident. 

Existing Mitigation 

In the Gulf of Mexico, mitigation measures in place include the NMFS contingency fund 

and the State of Louisiana's contingency fund. The NMFS contingency fund 

compensates fishers for gear loss in federal waters. When gear is lost due to a seafloor 

obstruction, fishers file a claim that includes the coordinates of the obstruction. These 

coordinates are then entered into a database that compiles all such obstructions. This 

obstruction database is made available to fishers and future claims made for an existing 

obstruction are not accepted. An example of the standard claim form used for the NMFS 

contingency fund is provided in Appendix B. 

U.S. Coast Guard safety zones established in accordance with the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act also stand as existing mitigation between fishing and offshore oil and gas 

structures in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard (33 CFR 165.20) defines a safety 

zone as "a water area, shore area, or water and shore area to which, for safety or 

environmental purposes, access is limited to authorized persons, vehicles, or vessels. It 
136 

may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a 

vessel in motion." 

The U.S. Coast Guard has established safety zones for the protection of vessels and 

structures inside of 12 nmi from shore as determined in accordance with international 

law. These laws include 33 CFR 160.5 and 33 CFR 165 subpart C. More recently a law 

known as the OCS Activities Law (33 CFR 147) was formulated when Shell Offshore 

requested that the U.S. Coast Guard establish safety zones around seven of its platforms 

due to heavy ship traffic in the vicinity of these platforms and safety concerns for the 

personnel on board the platforms as well as the surrounding environment. Six of the 

seven platforms (Auger, Boxer, Bullwinkle, Mars, Ram-Powell, and Ursa) are in 

deepwater; details such as location, water depth, and structure types are given in 

Table 4.4. The seventh platform, West Delta 143, does not meet the deepwater 

requirements, but its exposed location adjacent to a safety fairway and volume of 

throughput necessitated its inclusion. The definition of deepwaters in the Gulf of Mexico 

encompasses the area from 305-m water depths to the limits of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone. Navigation in the area of the safety zones includes commerical and recreational 

fishing vessels. The area also includes the system of traffic separation schemes 

developed to maintain safe shipping routes. The law 33 CFR 147 states that each 

platform has a safety zone of 500 m from each point on the structure's outer edge. 

Vessels less than 33.3 m long are exempt unless they are under tow, or in the case of the 

Auger platform, fishing. Safety zones (500-m) are also established around two mooring 

buoys associated with the Mars platform. Vessels exceeding 33.3 m other than tankers or 

support vessels should not enter the safety zone without clearance from the Vessel Traffic 

Supervisor. Additional safety zones have been requested by operators of the following 

platforms: Allegheny, Brutus, Enchilada, Exxon Mobile Hoover, Genesis, and Sir 

Douglas Morpeth. 

5.1.2 International Conflicts 

International experience with interactions between fisheries and oil and gas operations 

was sought from a variety of locales. Initial contacts were made to Maylasia, Indonesia, 

Australia, Western Africa, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Of these, Canada, Nova 

Scotia, Australia, and New Guinea responded with information. In many areas it appears 

that interactions may be occurring but individual fishers deal directly with the operators 

to resolve claims, therefore there is no official agency to record and archive these claims. 

5.1.2.1 Nova Scotia/Newfoundland 

Introduction 

The Scotian Shelf includes the ocean area south of the island of Nova Scotia that 

comprises a series of banks from Brown’s Bank to the west to St. Pierre Bank to the east. 

The southern edge of the shelf drops precipitously and the deeper-water Laurentian 

Channel bisects the shelf in a north-south direction near the eastern boundary of the 

region. “The Gully,” a deep-water area near the middle of the study area, bounds the 

eastern side of Sable Island Bank (see Figure 5.3). Most of the offshore exploration and 
Figure 5.3. Nova Scotia and western Newfoundland study area.

0 125 

Study Area

Kilometers

Bay of Fundy

NOVA SCOTIA

PRINCE EDWARD

 ISLAND

CAPE

BRETON

 ISLAND

SABLE

 ISLAND

Northumberland Strait

Roseway Bank

Bacaro

Bank

Le Have

Bank

Le Have Basin Western Bank

Sable Island

Bank

Middle

Bank

Banqereau

Bank

Laurentian Channel St. Pierre Bank

Guily

Gre

Ba

Emerald

Bank

Brown's

Bank 100 m

100 m

100 m

100 m

200 m

100 m

200 m

100 m

100 m 200 m

10 200 m 0 m

100 m

100 m

200 m 200 m

100 m

100 m 1000 m

2000 m

3000 m

4000 m

200 m

2000 m

400 m 600 m800 m

100 200 m 0 m

600 m 80 40 0 m 1000 m 0 m

200 m 200 m 100 m 200 m 200 m

100 m

100 m

100 m

20 20 0 m 0 m

100 m

100 m

200 m

300 m 400 m

400 m

200 m

200 m

1000 m

1000 m400 m 600 m

200 m

800 m

2000 m

3000 m

3000 m

4000 m

200 m

2000 m

1000 m

100 m

10

200 m 200 m

200 m

100 m

200 m100 m

ST. PIERRE

100 m

100 m

137
138 

production activities in this area have occurred along the southernmost edge of the 

Scotian Shelf, while the commercial fishing activities occur throughout the area. 

Seasonal variations in commercial fishing activities are apparent, with deeper areas 

generally targeted during the summer months (LGL Limited 1999). The major oil 

production activity is centered in the Sable Island Area, approximately 193 km southeast 

of the coastal town of Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Figure 5.4 shows the onshore and 

offshore oil and gas fields within the area. 

The area of the Newfoundland offshore included in this analysis comprises a 

386 km-wide shelf upon which is located the single oil-producing platform, Hibernia

(approximately 290 km east-southeast of the city of St. Johns). 

Location 

The area discussed in this section includes ocean waters offshore Nova Scotia and 

southwestern Newfoundland, extending from the western tip of Nova Scotia and the 

ocean waters south of Newfoundland to offshore approximately 593 km (see Figure 5.3). 

The area supports demersal and water-column commercial fishing activities; descriptions 

of the fishing activities are taken from LGL Limited (1999). 

Water Depths 

Water depths of the Scotian Shelf range up to 3,962 m; a variety of seafloor habitats exist 

within the study area. Rocky habitats are most common in the nearshore area, replaced 

by a mixture of sand around the Sable Island and Middle Banks, finer grain sediments on 

the slopes of most of the banks, and silt and clay in the basins south of Cape Breton 

Island (the easternmost portion of Nova Scotia). Gravel, pebble, and cobble habitats have 

been reported on parts of Canso Bank and in the shallower waters of the Scotian Shelf 

(LGL Limited 1999). 

Water depths on the Newfoundland shelf range up to approximately 1,981 m. The 

seafloor habitats include rock and sand around St. Pierre and Green Banks to silty-sand in 

the water depths in excess of 91 m (LGL Limited 1999). 

Types of Resources 

LGL Limited (1999) provides an overview of the commercial fisheries of the Scotian and 

western Newfoundland shelves and provides catch data for the region from 1993 through 

1997. The following is a summary of that discussion, characterizing the major 

invertebrate and fish resources of commercial interest. 

At least 11 invertebrate and 31 fish taxa are listed by LGL Limited (1999) as 

commercially important in its summary of the catch statistics for the aforementioned 

five-year period for the Scotian Shelf and Laurentian Channel areas. LGL Limited 

(1999) compiled a list of the most abundant taxa by calculating the catch for those taxa 

that contributed at least 1 percent of the total value for the period 1993 through 1997. 

The 10 taxa with the greatest annual average catch for that period were herring 
Figure 5.4. Nova Scotia and western Newfoundland oil and gas development.

139
140 

(annual mean = 14,700 tons), redfish (genus Sebastes spp., 11,100 tons), scallops 

(9,500 tons), lobster (7,500 tons), Atlantic cod (6,700 tons), pollock (5,700 tons), 

mackerel (5,600 tons), surf clams (4,400 tons), haddock (3,600 tons), and northern 

shrimp (2,800 tons). Target depths for most of these taxa range from approximately 91 to 

914 m, with shallower areas usually fished in the summer. 

LGL Limited (1999), citing Mahon’s 1997 cluster analyses, also lists six demersal fish 

groups and locates prime fishing areas for each within the Scotian Shelf/Laurentian 

Channel area. That analysis indicates that deepwater groups include spiny dogfish, 

pollock, grenadier, and redfish. Pollock are caught in water depths of from 91 to 914 m 

with trawls, gill nets, and long lines, while redfish are targeted from 91 to 1,829 m with 

both bottom and mid-water trawls. Primary fishing areas for pollock and redfish are 

around Roseway, Le Have, and Bacaro Banks, along the southern (deepwater) edge of the 

Scotian Shelf, in the “Gully,” and along the eastern portion of the Laurentian Channel. 

The commercial catch off Newfoundland differs somewhat from that on the Scotian 

Shelf, comprising fewer taxa and lower annual average catch. The nine most abundant 

commercial taxa on the Newfoundland study area from 1993 through 1997 were: Atlantic 

cod (annual mean = 8,000 tons), redfish (7,400 tons), snow crab (5,100 tons), lumpfish 

roe (2,100 tons), lobster (1,600 tons), sole and scallops (each = 900 tons), skate 

(600 tons), and Greenland halibut (400 tons). 

Types of Fishing 

LGL Limited (1999) lists 16 “deepwater” commercial taxa, including two invertebrates 

and 14 finfish that are targeted within the area described above. Table 5.7 lists those 

taxa, the water depths in which they are caught, and the predominant gear type for each. 

D’Entremont (pers. comm. 1999) stated that deepwater fishing off Nova Scotia targets 

tuna, silver hake, swordfish, and to a lesser degree halibut and crab. 

Exploration/Production Activities 

Burley (pers. comm. 1999-2000), indicated that approximately 160 offshore wells had 

been drilled in the Nova Scotia/Newfoundland area since the 1960’s. Of those, only six 

were in water depths of 183 m or more. Seismic surveys continue throughout the area, 

particularly in the deepwater portions of the Scotian Shelf. The area supports two 

production platforms, one within the Hibernia Field off Newfoundland and the other 

within the Sable Field off Nova Scotia (S. Canning, pers. comm. 2001). The Hibernia 

area, located in approximately 94 m of water, includes several fields, some of which 

either have exploration platforms or have reported significant finds. Future developments 

in the White Rose, Hebron/Ben Nevis, and Terra Nova Fields are planned. 
141 

Table 5.7. Deepwater (≥200 m) commercial fishing resources of Nova Scotia and 

Newfoundland (Source: LGL Limited 1999). 

Scientific Name Common Name Depth Range 

Caught (m) Gear Type(s) 

Homarus americanus Atlantic lobster 100-1,000 Trap, trawl 

Pandalus borealis Northern 

shrimp 150-200 Trap, trawl 

Brosme brosme Cusk <100-1,000 Longline 

Gadus morhue Atlantic cod 100-1,000 Trawl 

Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus Sole <100-1,000 Trawl 

Hippoglossoides 

platessoides Plaice 100-1,000 Trawl 

Hippoglossus 

hippoblosus Halibut 100-1,500 (most 

200-500) Linguine, trawl 

Lamna nasus Porbeagle shark 100-3,000 (pelagic) Linguine 

Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus Haddock 100-1,000 Trawl 

Pollachius virens Pollock 100-1,000 Trawl, gillnet, longline 

Raja spp. Skate <100-1,100 Trawl 

Sebastes spp. Redfish 100-2,000 Trawl (bottom and 

mid-water) 

Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna 100->4,000 (pelagic) Longline 

T. obesus Bigeye tuna 200->4,000 (pelagic) Longline 

Urophycis tenuis White hake 100-1,500 Longline, trawl 

(shallow only) 

Xiphias gladius Swordfish 200->4,000 (pelagic) Harpoon 

Data Sources and Fisheries Organizations 

Sources of data on the existing commercial fishing activities and conflicts included three 

government/industry agencies that fund various programs to identify fishing areas, assist 

fishers by noticing upcoming offshore oil industry activities, and compensate gear losses 

that are not attributable to an offshore operator. A summary of the programs and 

compensation application forms is provided in the Canadian Association of Petroleum 

Producers’ (CAPP) brochure (see Appendix C). 
142 

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)

CAPP maintains a gear and vessel compensation program designed to receive, process, 

and pay claims submitted by commercial fishers who are unable to identify a responsible 

party. Known as the Non-Attributable Gear and Vessel Damage Fund, CAPP has 

developed this program as an alternative to making a claim through the Canadian Court 

System, thus expediting the claim and reducing costs to the fisher. Under this program, 

claims up to $1 million can be made for loss or damage to gear, including vessels, that 

are a direct result of oil and gas-related activities (seismic, development, production, and 

decommissioning). If an offshore operator does not have an established claim program, 

the CAPP Non-Attributable Fund can be used to process an attributable claim. 

Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB)

The CNSOPB established a Fisheries and Environmental Committee in 1995 to respond 

to fisheries-related problems associated with an increase in offshore activity and to effect 

the mandate of the 1986 Canadian-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord. 

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this committee were developed in 1999. Those TORs 

focused on the provision of a forum through which oil and gas and fisheries industries 

could exchange ideas and facilitate better communication between the two industries.

The CNSOPB has developed technical documents that describe a “screening approach” 

to the assessment of fisheries-related impacts from seismic exploration and that suggest 

mitigations and operating conditions. The Screening Document for Seismic Exploration 

identified potential impact areas and resources, set up procedures for the screening 

process, and established “standard” mitigations for offshore seismic operations. Those 

mitigations, including closure periods and the prohibition of certain vessel discharges, 

were designed to augment those identified in project-specific environmental assessments 

that can be completed prior to larger-scale offshore operations. In addition, that agency 

has begun a similar approach to exploration drilling. While not maintaining specific 

records of conflicts, the CNSOPB does track conflicts between the two industries and has 

provided this study with a listing of recently-reported incidents offshore Nova Scotia 

decscribed below. 

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (CNOPB)

Similar to the CNSOPB, this agency focuses on offshore environmental issues off 

Newfoundland. Like its Nova Scotia counterpart, it does not maintain a detailed list of 

fishing/oil and gas conflicts, but did provide this study with a summary of incidents that 

have occurred within the Newfoundland area over the past 10 years. 

Historical Conflicts 

Burley (pers. comm. 1999-2000) indicated that there have been no reported conflicts 

between commercial fishing and drilling or production platforms off Newfoundland. 

Since 1991, however, 20 incidents related to seismic operations have been recorded. 

Table 5.8 lists those conflicts. 
143 

Table 5.8 Conflicts between fishing and seismic exploration offshore Newfoundland, 

Canada (1991-1999) (Source: Burley, pers. comm. 2000). 

Year Number of Incidents Type of Incidents 

1991 5 All between nearshore trawlers 

and fixed gear 

1992 12 All between nearshore trawlers 

and fixed gear 

1998 1 Fixed gear 

1999 2 Reduced catch reported by trawler 

and one fixed gear incident 

Murphy (pers. comm. 2001) indicated that most of the conflicts offshore Nova Scotia 

have been between seismic operations; six incidents have occurred over the past 3 years 

within that area. Those conflicts included interaction between seismic operations and 

swordfishers (Scotian Shelf, Laurentian Channel, and Grand Banks). A trawler working 

the Grand Banks area in 1999 reported reduced catch on the day following a seismic 

survey (Murphy, pers. comm. 2001). 

Discussion 

Canning (pers. comm. 2001), who has worked as a consultant to the CAPP in developing 

the non-attributable compensation plan and with several offshore operators to develop 

fisheries compensation programs for attributable conflicts, indicates that most of the 

fisheries-oil and gas conflicts have occurred within the exploration areas of the Grand 

Banks and Scotian Shelf. Because only three projects currently exist within the 

800 square mile area, all reported fisheries conflicts have been attributable to one of the 

operators. According to Canning, to date, no claims have been submitted to CAPP under 

the non-attributable program. 

In addition to the Canadian environmental requirements and project-specific mitigations 

attached to permits issued for each operation, offshore operators have compensation 

programs and have established various measures to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts 

with fishers. Canning stated that “...90 to 95 percent of the conflicts occur between 

floating gear and seismic operations...”. The gear types included in those conflicts 

included nets and longlines, targeting swordfish and tuna. Fixed gear, including lobster 

and crab pots, usually fish in water depths less than 200 m, although some trapping does 

occur in deeper water. Conflicts with fixed gear usually are caused when seismic vessels 

survey areas where traps are “dense” and no notification of the proposed survey was 

communicated to the fishers. 
144 

Existing Mitigation Measures 

All sources contacted during this study indicated that the key mitigation measure in 

reducing conflicts is good communication. The offshore operators and their contractors 

have adopted several methods of communicating future operations, either through the 

aforementioned committees or through CAPP. 

Other mitigation measures that are currently in place within the Nova 

Scotia/Newfoundland areas are as follows: 

# Planning seismic surveys in a leapfrog pattern by allowing gear to be 

moved into areas following completion of the survey and avoiding areas 

of fixed gear use; 

# An onboard fisheries observer is present on seismic vessels (required in 

Nova Scotia); 

# Provision of a toll-free phone number for fishers to use to obtain 

information on future offshore operations; 

# Establishing a safety zone around all offshore operations. The size of the 

safety zones vary with the type of operation (e.g., the Hibernia platform 

has a 2.5 to 3.0 mile safety area, while exploration operations have a 

488 m safety area); 

# Seismic operations are pre-notified to the fishers at least 6 weeks in 

advance of the commencement of the survey; and 

# Individual operator (attributable) compensation funds as well as the CAPP 

non-attributable compensation fund for repair and/or replacement of 

damaged gear and lost revenues. 

5.1.2.2 United Kingdom/North Sea 

Introduction 

The North Sea has long been an important commercial fishing area, and in the 1970’s 

became a major site for offshore oil and gas production. The area supports a variety of 

fisheries and has been the site of several conflicts between commercial fishing and oil 

and gas operations. In response to the increasing oil and gas exploration activities, the 

Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group (FOOCG) was created in 1974. Since that 

time, several other fishing/oil industry committees have been created, each with the 

primary purposes of 1) improving communications between the two industries and 

2) providing both the oil and fishing industries with a forum through which they can 

resolve any interaction problems. FOOCG also provides fishers a source of 

compensation for damaged gear and lost resources, and for recommending mitigations to 

reduce the potential impacts of continuing oil and gas exploration and production. 

The following discussion provides an overview of the existing resources within the area, 

a summary of historical conflicts between the two industries, and a listing of existing 

mitigation measures. 
145 

Location 

For this study, the North Sea study area is defined as the marine waters bounded on the 

west by the eastern shoreline of England and Scotland, on the east by the western 

shorelines of Norway (to the city of Florö at approximately 610

 40’ N) and Denmark, 

including the northerly Tampen oil and gas fields. Because some gas field development 

has occurred in the Irish Sea, that water body has also been included in the discussions. 

Water Depths 

Deepwater areas 200 m exist immediately south of the southern tip of Norway, however 

the majority of the study area is within water depths of from 30 to 107 m; 

shallower-water banks (i.e., Dogger Bank and Indefatigable Banks) are present in the 

southwestern portion of the North Sea. The North and Irish Seas’ continental shelves are 

very narrow, dropping to water depths of approximately 46 m within 1.6 to 3.2 km from 

shore. 

Fisheries Resources 

Based on the information provided by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators 

Association (UKOOA), the North Sea area supports both pelagic and demersal 

commercial fisheries. Principal resources sought by commercial fishers include pelagic 

taxa (mackerel and herring) and demersal species (cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, 

lemon sole, sole, Norway pout, blue whiting, sand eel, sprat, scallops, and nephrops 

[shrimp]). Lobster, crab, and whelks are also caught with commercial traps. 

The distribution of these taxa is provided in a series of maps developed by the UK 

government, fishing organizations, and UKOOA (see Figures 5.5 through 5.8). These 

figures indicate that primary fishing and spawning grounds for commercially important 

taxa are found throughout the study area; particularly important (sensitive) demersal 

areas include a zone west of the Orkney Islands and north of the Shetland Islands, as well 

as nearshore areas along the central and at the southwest of the UK (Figure 5.5). 

Important fishing areas for pelagic taxa are also in the shallow waters within the English 

Channel (Figure 5.6). Shrimp trawling is concentrated in the nearshore waters of the 

northern Irish Sea and in the Sea of the Hebrides, along the northwest coastline of the UK 

(Figure 5.7). Combining all taxa, the areas north and west of the Orkney Islands and 

south and east of the Shetland Islands appear to be most heavily utilized for commercial 

fishing (Figure 5.8). 

Types of Fishing 

Rudd (pers. comm. 2000) provided a listing of fisheries conflicts within the study area 

and a key to the gear types involved. Based on that information, principal demersal 

fishing methods include bottom trawl, gill and trammel nets, and pots/traps. Mid-water 

and pelagic gear includes purse seine nets and mid-water trawls (which have all but 

superceded purse seine netting). Figure 5.9 shows the static gear (pots and traps) use 
Figure 5.5. Important fishing areas for demersal fish species in British North Sea waters.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 68

146
Figure 5.6. Important fishing areas for pelagic fish species in British North Sea waters.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

147
Figure 5.7. Important fishing areas for shrimp trawlers in British North Sea waters.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

148
Figure 5.8. Distribution of fisheries based on relative value for all species targeted in British North Sea

waters.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

149
Figure 5.9. Important fishing areas for static gear in British North Sea waters.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

150
151 

within the study area. That figure indicates that static gear use is concentrated in the 

nearshore areas (water depths of approximately 91 m of less) around the UK. 

Assuming the aforementioned conflict data as indicative of the relative usage of each 

gear type, Table 5.9 shows the percentage of effort by gear type within the study area. 

Table 5.9. Commercial fishing utilization by gear type1 (1989-2000) (Source: D. Rudd, 

pers. comm. 2000). 

Gear Type Percentage of Claims 

Bottom Trawl 38% 

Seine 8% 

Pelagic Trawl <1% 

Fixed Nets <1% 

Pots 1% 

Scallop Dredge <1% 

Unknown2 53% 

1 Percentage based on number of reported conflicts for the period and may not reflect the 

actual percentage of use within the study area. 

2

 No gear type recorded in claim. 

Even without eliminating the number of incidents where no gear type was recorded 

(“Unknown” in Table 5.9), it is obvious that bottom trawling accounts for the largest 

percentage of the activities that have had recorded incidents and, by extrapolation, the 

most common gear used in the study area. Eliminating the number of claims that were 

“Unknown” gear types, bottom trawling increases to 78 percent, with seining accounting 

for 17 percent of the total. 

Exploration/Production Activities 

The North Sea is divided into several “country zones” (i.e., United Kingdom, Norway, 

Denmark, etc.). The respective country administers exploration and production activities 

within those designated zones. The Norwegian and United Kingdom zones are the two 

largest, designated by a north-south line that generally divides the North Sea in half. 

Surface platforms, subsea completions, and pipelines occur within relatively distinct 

concentrations, most located totally or partially within the UK zone (Figure 5.10). 

Data Sources and Fisheries Organizations 

At the initiation of the research and data collection phase of the project, electronic and 

telephone queries were made to several petroleum and fisheries organizations in the 

countries that have zones within the North Sea. Those contacts are shown as “personal 

communications” in the References section at the end of this report. Two of the UK 

contacts, UKOOA and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organizations (NFFO) 
Figure 5.10. United Kingdom oil and gas locations.

62N

61N

60N

59N

58N

57N

56N

55N

54N

53N

52N

51N

50N

49N

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 68

UK Zone

Norway and Other

Countries Zone

Legend:

= Major Production Fields

152
153 

provided several data sources and summary information on the existing fisheries and 

conflicts between oil and gas and commercial fishing within the North Sea. Contacts in 

Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway indicated that they kept no records of historical 

conflicts or that no oil and gas leases existed within their zones. Water depths and 

information on the location of production fields, pipelines, and country zones were 

obtained from 1999 editions of British Admiralty Charts of the North Sea and British 

Isles. 

Historical Conflicts 

Summary information from Toole, (pers. comm. 2000) indicated that while some 

“indirect casualties” have occurred between trawlers and pipelines, the Oil and Gas 

Division of the British Department of Trade and Industry routinely considers spawning 

grounds and important commercial fishing areas in issuing leases. Information provided 

by UKOOA and Rudd (pers. comm. 2000) suggest that seismic operations have been the 

most problematic to fishers. Although platforms and subsea completions preclude a 

specific area, and pipelines do present the potential for snagging of trawl nets, the 

wide-ranging geophysical surveys appear to have the greatest potential for conflicts 

between the survey vessel and fishers within the seismic area. Rudd (pers. comm. 2000) 

has indicated however, that over recent years this potential conflict has been greatly 

reduced by utilizing the services of a Fishing Liaison Skipper on board the seismic vessel 

to liaise with fishermen in the area. 

For the 11-year period 1989-2000, UKOOA recorded 1,143 claims within the North Sea 

area, an average of 95 per year. Rudd (pers. comm. 2000) indicated that record keeping 

accuracy and completeness has increased since 1995 and over the past 6 years, by 

recording the geographical location of the incidents. 

As shown in Table 5.9, no gear type was specified for 53 percent (601 of 1,143) of the 

UKOOA claims from 1989 through 2000. Of the 542 claims that did identify gear type, 

bottom trawling accounted for 79 percent (429 of 542) and seining accounted for 17 

percent (91 of 542) during that same period. 

Of the 1,143 claims recorded over that period, 1,130 identified the actual or potential 

cause (labeled as “debris categories” in the UKOOA database) of the claim. “No Debris” 

was noted for 494 claims, the remaining 636 identified the debris type. Table 5.10 lists 

the cause of the claims where a debris type was mentioned. 

Since claims for bottom trawling and seining accounted for the largest percentage over 

the period, it is of interest to know what were the principal causes of claims for those gear 

types. Table 5.11 lists the cause (debris) listed for two dominant gear types, bottom 

trawl and seines. 
154 

Table 5.10. Percent of claims by cause (debris type) of all reported North Sea conflicts, 

1989-2000 (Source: UKOOA 2000). 

Debris Number and Percentage of Claims 

No Debris 494 (44%)

Wire, Rope 163 (14%)

Misc. 151 (13%)

Development Related Items (includes 

pipelines, suspended wells, templates, 

manifolds, etc.) 

116 (10%) 

Vessels 71 (6%)

Buoys 48 (4%)

Anchors, Chains 33 (3%)

Scaffolding/Pipes 27 (2%)

Fabrications 23 (2%)

Containers 4 (<1%)

Table 5.11. Cause (debris type) of North Sea conflicts for bottom trawl and seines, 

1989-2000. 

Number and Percentage of Claims Debris 

Bottom Trawl Seine 

No Debris 184 (42%) 42 (46%) 

Wire, Rope 67 (16%) 14 (15%) 

Misc. 70 (16%) 8 (9%) 

Vessels 37 (9%) 7 (8%) 

Development Related Items (includes 

pipelines, suspended wells, templates, 

manifolds, etc.) 

35 (8%) 7 (8%) 

Buoys 15 (4%) 6 (7%) 

Anchors, Chains 10 (2%) 2 (2%) 

Fabrications 10 (2%) 2 (2%) 

Scaffolding/Pipes 5 (1%) 2 (2%) 

Containers 6 (1%) 1 (1%) 

Total 429 91 
155 

Discussion 

The UKOOA data indicate that trawling conflicts comprise the greatest percentage of 

reports for the 11-year period and, when the debris type was recorded, Wire and Ropes, 

and Miscellaneous Debris were the most common cause. Incidents with seining 

operations were the second most abundant reported conflicts and, like trawling, were 

most commonly caused by Wire and Ropes. Table 5.12 lists the number of claims per 

year. Those data indicate a general decrease in the annual number of claims from 1989 

through 2000. 

Table 5.12. Number of reported North Sea claims by year (all gear types) (Source: 

UKOOA 2000). 

Year Number of Claims 

1989 108 

1990 141 

1991 128 

1992 123 

1993 91 

1994 97 

1995 89 

1996 77 

1997 84 

1998 79 

1999 56 

2000 71 

The incorporation of various mitigations by UKOOA, particularly since 1995, including 

the use of UKOOA-provided positional data (see below), and in record keeping (Rudd 

pers. comm. 2000) may have contributed to the decreasing number of reported conflicts. 

A listing of the mitigations that are currently in place for North Sea oil and gas operations 

is provided below. 

Existing Mitigations 

# In accordance with Petroleum Operations Notice No. 14, a minimum 

notice 28 days in advance of most proposed seismic activities is required. 

Seismic operations in sensitive areas require a longer noticing period. 

Operations must also be noticed to other media, including the Kingfisher 

Bulletin. 

# Quarterly meetings between UKOOA and the NFFO and the Scottish 

Fishing Federation (SFF) to discuss conflicts and research opportunities. 
156 

# A Seabed Information System (SeaFish), comprising a digitized database, 

is input directly to a fishing vessel’s navigation system. That system 

includes maps of all offshore platforms, pipelines, moorings, safety zones, 

and other oil-related obstructions. The system was developed by UKOOA 

and is used by many commercial fishing vessels. Updated computer 

flashcards are provided to the fishers every few months. 

# Installation of the FishSafe system, an extension of the SeaFish system 

described above, that incorporates a warning/alarm to warn fishers when 

they are approaching a subsea obstruction. Through the year 2000, 

UKOOA has installed approximately 300 of the SeaFish and FishSafe 

systems on commercial fishing vessels. 

# A 500-m “exclusion zone” is established around each subsea facility (i.e., 

manifolds). Locations of all such features are included in the SeaFish 

system. 

# A Fishermen’s Compensation Fund, funded by UKOOA and administered 

by the fishers, is available for lost or damaged gear and loss of fishing 

time or vessel damage caused by oil-related debris that cannot be 

attributed to a particular operator. 

# A Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO) is required for each oil company 

operating in the North Sea. The FLO is the focal point for fishing claims 

against that company and provides the company with relevant fisheries 

information within each lease. 

# A requirement for a Fishing Liaison Skipper (FLS) to be on board all 

seismic vessels, and/or the employment of a “picket” or “chase” boat to 

protect the towed seismic array is in-place. The picket/chase boat can act 

as the FLS. 

# A requirement for all seismic vessel operators to review the Seismic 

Operations Handbook. 

5.1.2.3 Australia and Papua New Guinea 

There are two principal offshore oil and gas exploration/production areas in Australia: the 

Bass Straits/Gippsland Shelf and the Northwest Shelf (see Figures 5.11 and 5.12). This 

Bass Strait area, which includes the Gippsland Shelf, is a shallow coastal sea located in 

the southeastern portion of Australia, southeast of Melbourne and bordered to the south 

by Tasmania. Lavering (1994) indicates the seafloor in this area is “largely sand, but silt 

and clay dominate the central part of Bass Strait and the deeper waters of the Gippsland 

Shelf.” Currents in the area are classified as “strong” and tidal (Jones 1980 cited in 

Lavering 1994) and temperature and salinities are relatively uniform for most of the year. 

Current directions are generally southwest-northeast, but can vary with the passing of 

storm fronts and associated strong winds. Maximum water depths in most of the Bass 

Strait area range from 40 to approximately 61 m, except in the central portion where 

water depths of up to 90 m occur. Most of the Gippsland Shelf production facilities are 

in water depths of 92 m or less, although the Kingfish Platform is in slightly deeper 

water. 
Figure 5.11. Australia Bass Strait and Gippsland Shelf offshore oil and gas operations.

0 

T

Gipps

Sh

Kingfish Platform

Hogan Group

Corner

Inlet

Wilsons

Promontary

Wilsons Port

Melbourne

VICTORIA

Cape

Otway

BASS STRAIT

Port

Phillip

King

Island

TASMANIA

Hunter

Group

100 m

Banks Strait 100 m

Furneau

Group

Kent

Group

Funders

Island

Lakes

Entrance

143o 144o 145o 146o 147o 148o 149o 

Biological

Sample

Petroleum

Exploration

Well

Production

Facility

Seabed

Pipeline

157
Figure 5.12. Australia northwestern shelf oil and gas activity.

158
159 

The northern portion of the Northwest Shelf comprises a relatively wide continental 

shelf, where most of the oil production is occurring, that has water depths of over 200 m 

in excess of 290 km offshore. The shelf is substantially narrower to the south, where the 

200 m isobath is less than 50 km offshore. The prevailing currents in the Northwest shelf 

are from the east and west; warm tropical waters provide conditions conducive to coral 

reef development in the nearshore waters. 

Types of Fishing 

Lavering (1994) characterizes the commercial fisheries of this area as “significant,” 

comprising hard substrate-associated (i.e., abalone), sand-associated (scallops), and fine 

sediment-associated (shrimp) species, the latter usually trawled for within the estuaries 

and offshore in water depths up to 40 m. Deeper-water fisheries include squid from 59 to 

90 m and trapping for lobster and crab in sandy sedimentary habitats in water depths of 

from 30 to 79 m. Traps are also used for “giant” and “swimmer” crabs in water depths of 

up to 421 m. 

Within the nearshore marine waters of the North West Shelf (Western Australia), trap, 

hook and line, and trawling fishing are the most common gear types. Lyne (pers. comm. 

2000) indicates that hook and line fishing is relatively unrestricted, but is not currently 

used as extensively as in the past. Targeting five primary fish species, the trap fishery 

concentrates in water depths of from 30 to 200 m, while trawlers target shark and the 

same species as the trap fishers. The depth range for trawling along the North West Shelf 

is 50 to 200 m. 

Exploration/Production Activities 

From the early 1970’s through 1993, over 150 geophysical surveys and an equal number 

of exploration wells had been drilled in the Gippsland Shelf that, through 1992, had 

supplied Australia with over 68 percent of its crude oil (AIP 1993 cited in Lavering 

1994). Up to 1994, 16 man-made structures were present on the Gippsland Shelf, the 

most intensively explored and prolific petroleum-producing area of Australia. Petroleum 

products are sent to onshore facilities through a series of subsea pipelines (see 

Figure 5.11). Through 1993, 67 geophysical surveys and 30 exploration wells had been 

completed in the Bass Shelf area, southwest of Gippsland Shelf. As of 1994, no 

production structures were present on the Bass Shelf (Lavering 1994). 

Moore (2000) stated that in the year 2000, 40 new field wildcats were drilled, slightly 

less than the 44 to 45 per year during 1997 through 1999. Recent deepwater (1,200 m) 

gas finds at the Gorgon Field and oil finds in the Barrow Sub-basin are some of the 

deepest in Western Australia and the North West Shelf. Figure 5.12 shows the existing 

oil and gas finds, platforms, pipelines, and offshore production facilities on the North 

West Shelf. While there have been several oil and gas discoveries in relatively deep 

water, most of the existing subsea completions, platforms, and submarine pipelines are 

concentrated in water depths of less than 200 m around Montebello, Barrow, and 

Thevenard Islands. At least three production areas, Griffin (subsea completion, floating 

production, and pipeline), “East Spare,” and the northernmost North Rankin, Goodwyn, 
160 

and Wanaea Fields (platforms, offshore production, and pipelines) are in water depths 

exceeding 200 m. 

According to Kepsey (pers. comm. 2000) there are no major petroleum activities in the 

Papua New Guinea marine waters. There is, however, a 2,500 km-long gas pipeline, of 

which approximately 500 km will be subsea, planned between Queensland to PNG that 

will pass through some traditional fishing grounds. 

Historical Conflicts 

In general, fishing and offshore petroleum operations have had few reported conflicts 

(Mc Donald, pers. comm. 2001) although Lavering (pers. comm. 1999) indicated that two 

independent research groups are currently studying the effects of seismic operations on 

fish catch. Initial results of that study suggest that catch levels may be elevated in areas 

adjacent to the locations of seismic operations offshore southeast Australia, however, 

final results are not yet available. 

McDonald (pers. comm. 2001) researched fisheries conflicts on the North West Shelf 

between 1990 and 2000 and reported that only three incidents that required formal 

discussions between fishing and petroleum industries had been reported to various 

government agencies during that period. Lyne, pers. comm., suggests that most of the 

information on fishing conflicts is “undocumented” and thus not readily available. The 

three conflicts that were reported occurred in less than 200 m of water. In 1997, a trawler 

damaged a wellhead in approximately 122 m of water in the Rankin Field; the other two 

incidents (1998 and 1999) involved trap fishing within the Rankin Field in 110 m and 

within the Griffin Field in 125 m of water. All three incidents occurred within the 500 m 

radius exclusion zone of the surface or subsea installations (McDonald pers. comm. 

2001). 

Bacon (pers. comm. 1999) indicated that shark fishing interests were concerned over the 

potential impacts of proposed seismic operations on their fishery. A government-funded 

study on the potential effects of those operations on the shark fishery is ongoing. 

No “major conflicts” between the petroleum sector and the fisheries industry have 

occurred in PNG (Kepsey, pers. comm. 2000). That source also stated that existing 

regulations governing the use PNG’s marine waters by the two industries are sufficient to 

reduce or eliminate potential conflicts. Although requested through the Pacific-AustraliaNew Zealand Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs, copies of relevant regulations 

were not provided. 

Discussion 

The Western Australian Department of Minerals and Energy has established a process 

through which potential impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration and development are 

assessed. In addition, that agency has developed two guidance documents (Guidelines on 

Minimizing Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Fauna and Seismic Surveys in Western 

Australian Rock Lobster Fishing Grounds) to assist petroleum companies in reducing 
161 

impacts from those activities. Early communication and in-place agreements between the 

fishing and petroleum industries appear to have resulted in minimizing conflicts over the 

last 10 years. 

Existing Mitigations 

# Consultation between exploration companies and fishing industry 

representatives prior to initiation offshore activities; 

# A 500-m safety zone, precluding fishing within that area, is established 

around all production facilities; 

# A “Marine Notice” is posted prior to initiation of offshore exploration 

activities; and 

# Trawling is precluded within a 5-nmi radius of all production platforms 

and within 500-m of petroleum pipelines. 

5.2 CONFLICT PREDICTION 

The potential for future conflicts between the fishing and energy industries in the Gulf of 

Mexico was predicted using information presented in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Conflicts can 

impact fisheries by preclusion of fishers from traditional fishing grounds, causing lost 

fishing time, and damage or loss of gear. Similarly, the offshore energy industry may 

also experience loss of time, space, and damage to equipment as a result of conflicts with 

fishers. The basic characteristics of space use by the fisheries discussed in Section 3.0

are summarized in Table 5.13. 

Table 5.14 summarizes the fishing activities, primary species sought, fishing season, 

fishing area, and estimated number of vessels in the fisheries covered in Section 3.0. Of 

the commercial fisheries, the epipelagic fishery using longlines is the most prevalent. 

This fishery has the most participants (average of 137 vessels) and for this reason alone is 

most likely to interact with oil and gas activities. Pelagic longlines can occupy 

considerable portions of sea surface while drifting. The mainline can become entangled 

on any surface structure it encounters. Bottom longining may be done by as many 

vessels as surface longlining, but it is likely that most of this fishery takes place in water 

depths less than or equal to 200 m. The royal red shrimp fishery involves very few 

fishers (usually less than 10 vessels per year), but the gear used includes large trawl doors 

and a tickler chain that are in contact with the seafloor while the trawl is operating 

(Harrington et al. 1988). These trawl components will easily foul or snag pipelines, 

anchors, manifolds, wellheads, and other debris protruding above the seafloor. In 

addition, because trawl doors will penetrate the substrate as deep as 2 to 6 cm, even 

partially buried objects may be snagged. In most situations the trenches created by 

pipeline laying will cause more damage than the exposed structures. Thus, total bottom 

area rendered untrawlable by the placement of subsea structures would encompass 

moorings, anchor spread, drag anchors, flowlines, manifolds, and wellheads. 
Table 5.13. Water column utilization, mobility, and duration for bluewater fisheries in the Gulf of M

Water Column Utilization 

Fishery 

Shallow Mid-depth Bottom 

Mobility 

PELAGIC 

Longline Upper 100 m; Very wide swath None None Low, Passively drifting 12 t

daynigh

DEEP REEF 

• Bottom 

longline 

• Bandit reel 

• Minimum; 

only buoy line 

• Minimum 

• Minimum; 

only buoy line 

• Minimum 

• Stationary across 

large area 

• Stationary or 

drifting over small area 

• Low anchored • Highly mobile 

• • 

INVERTEBRATE 

• Bottom 

trawling 

• Trapping 

• Minimum; 

tow wire only 

• Minimum; 

no buoy line 

• Minimum; 

tow wire only 

• Minimum; 

no buoy line 

• Width of trawl 

net (10 to 20 m) 

• Length of trap 

string (6,000 m) 

• Low mobility 

while trawling 

• Low grapple 

hook could snag subsea structures 

• • 

RECREATIONAL 

• Surface 

trolling 

• Surface 

drifting 

Minimum Minimum None High 

162 
Table 5.14. Summary of bluewater fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Fishery Gear Primary Species Season Fishing Area Num

Epipelagic Pelagic longline • Yellowfin tuna, 

• Swordfish • Dolphin • Sharks 

Year-round, with peak activity in summer 

Open Gulf Aver

Deep Reef • Bottom longline 

• Bandit reels 

• Yellowedge 

grouper 

• Tilefish • Snowy grouper • Warsaw grouper 

Year-round, weather permitting 

Hard bottom, or clayey bottom between 100 and 250 m off Florida, Louisiana, and Texas 

Unkn100 

Invertebrates • Bottom trawl 

• Trap 

• Royal red shrimp• Golden or red 

crab 

Year-round • Concentrated 

area off Florida, Alabama and Louisiana between 400 and 500 m 

• Off southern 

Florida 

• < • 3 

Recreational • Surface trolling 

• Surface drifting 

• Tunas • Billfishes • Dolphins • Wahoo 

May to September 

Oil and gas structures and natural features from in water depth > 200 m 

Appr500 g

163 
164 

Recreational fisheries target essentially the same epipelagic species group sought by the 

pelagic longliners and have the most vessels, about 500 across the Gulf coast states. We 

did not attempt an overlap analysis for the recreational fleet; however, a discussion of 

potential conflicts is provided below. 

The estimates of future conflicts actually employed future and current activities and were 

based on two types of objects: existing structures and lease blocks where future structures 

or activities might be located (methods are detailed in Section 2.2). Future blocks were 

identified by examining high lease bonus bids and filed POEs and DOCDs (Section 4.0). 

The resulting three data sets were compared to the epipelagic, deep reef, and royal red 

shrimp fisheries from 1998. We assumed that fishing effort and locations of effort will 

remain the same in the near future. With the epipelagic fishery we simply inspected the 

mapped overlaps and judged whether there would be problems based upon the patterns 

that emerged. With deep reef fish and royal red shrimp fisheries, we examined overlaps 

and calculated percentage overlaps (the number of lease blocks or existing structures that 

overlapped a fishing area [depth range band] that could be expected based on broadly 

defined depth bands and statistical grids). Because most of the activity, both fishing and 

energy industry, was concentrated in the western and central planning areas, we restricted 

the map presentations to these planning areas, which allowed for better visual resolution 

of the GIS figures. The results of the overlap analyses for epipelagic, deep reef, and 

royal red shrimp fisheries are presented below. 

5.2.1 Epipelagic Fishery 

Figure 5.13 depicts the overlap between the pelagic longline sets and existing structures. 

Clearly, there is considerable potential for conflicts, however the practitioners of this 

fishery use radar and surely must be aware of surface piercing structures. In fact, many 

of the sets have been made with these structures in place. It is likely that some of these 

fishers will try to set gear near structures to take advantage of the FAD effect that 

structures provide. Such efforts would probably involve gear modifications such as 

shortening the mainline or even using multiple vertical lines. In short, the large fixed 

structures should be little problem for this fishery as long as they are using radar or have 

updated information on new platform locations. 

In Figure 5.14, areas with high lease bonus bids were plotted relative to the pelagic 

longline sets. Here there is a great potential for interaction given the current fishing 

practices. The important point about this figure is not that there will be structures erected 

on these sites, but that it is likely that geophysical surveys will be conducted before and 

after various exploratory and development activities. Geophysical surveying probably 

poses the greatest problem for longliners, and will continue to pose problems in the 

future. 
$ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$$$$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $$$ $

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ 

$

$ $$

$

$ $$ $ $

$ $ 

$ $

$

$ $$

$$ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$ $$

$$ 

$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $

$ $

$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ 

$ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ $ $ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$$

$

$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ 

$ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ 

$$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ $

$$ 

$ $ $ 

$ 

$

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$$ 

$ 

$

$$ 

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ 

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $$$ 

$ $ 

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ 

$ 

$ $ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$$$$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ 

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $$$ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ 

$

$$$$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ 

$

$ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ 

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$$ $ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

%

% % %% %

%

%

%

%% % % %

% % %

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Platform

Figure 5.13. Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and existing structures (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999 Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Longline Set

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

May 2001

24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

$

165
$ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$$$$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $$$ $

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ 

$

$ $$

$

$ $$ $ $

$ $ 

$ $

$

$ $$

$$ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$ $$

$$ 

$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $

$ $

$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ 

$ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ $ $ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$$

$

$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ 

$ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ 

$$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ $

$$ 

$ $ $ 

$ 

$

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$$ 

$ 

$

$$ 

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ 

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $$$ 

$ $ 

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ 

$ 

$ $ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$$$$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ 

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $$$ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ 

$

$$$$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ 

$

$ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ 

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$$ $ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Lease Block with High Lease Bonus Bids

Figure 5.14. Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and lease blocks with high lease bonus bids (Sources: National Marine F Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers

24° 0 50 100 Statute Miles 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

$ Longline Set

May 2001

166
167 

The pattern of filed POEs and DOCDs indicates that as with areas of high bonus bids 

there will be some areas in the future that will overlap with pelagic longline fisheries as 

they are currently practiced (Figure 5.15). As with the high lease bonus areas, these 

blocks with filed POEs and DOCDs also will be most important with respect to the 

geophysical surveys that will accompany any exploration or development. This analysis 

indicates that there will be potential for conflicts in the future.

It is important to note that while the longline sets depicted in the figure appear as small 

dots, the actual area covered by a drifting 40-km longline can be considerable. To 

determine the area precluded to surface drifting longline by a single surface piercing 

structure, the influence of the winds and surface currents as well as set and retrieval time 

for the gear must be considered. Centaur Associates, Inc. (1981) proposed an approach 

that estimates a triangular area upcurrent from a surface structure that would be closed to 

fishing with surface-drifting gear. The apex of the triangle lies at the surface structure; 

the height of the triangle is estimated as average current velocity times the average 

duration of gear deployment (and retrieval); and the base of the triangle equals the 

expected uncertainty in drift orthogonal to the current direction (Centaur Associates, Inc. 

1981). 

Longline fishers must take into account surface currents when setting their gear in the 

vicinity of known structures. Surface currents and wind greatly influence the movement 

of pelagic longlines. A longline deployed upstream of a structure or geophysical survey 

grid could drift into the structure or survey vessel's path if careful attention is not paid to 

the current pattern. Surface current speeds in the Gulf of Mexico vary considerably and 

can range from 0.5 to 3 kn. Surface longlines are allowed to drift for 4 to 5 h before a 

10 to 12 h retrieval period (Lopez et al. 1979; Sakagawa et al. 1987). Thus, for a 

worst-case 3 kn current with 17 h set time, the gear should be 51 nmi upstream of the 

survey area to prevent a conflict. Given a 0.5 kn current with a 14 h set/retrieval time, 

the gear should be set at least 7 nmi upstream of the structure of geophysical survey area. 

Surface longlining occurs throughout the central and Western Planning Areas seaward of 

the 200-m isobath to the EEZ. This area was estimated to be 70,800 nmi2

. The range of 

estimate areas precluded by surface piercing structures (51 to 7 nmi2

) relative to the area 

of the Central and Western Planning Areas is very small. 

5.2.2 Deep Reef Fishery 

In Figure 5.16, the overlap between deep reef fish (tilefish and yellowedge grouper) 

fishing depth band and existing structures is shown. The most frequented fishing areas 

were identified by extending the NMFS grids offshore into the depth band. Less than 

1 percent of the area in the depth band was occupied by 21 structures (with an assumed 

500-m radius around each structure). 

Figure 5.17 shows the overlap of lease blocks with high lease bonus bids and the depth 

band for the key deep reef species, yellowedge grouper and tilefish. The area of all lease 

blocks (n=121) falling within the fishing depth band accounted for about 14 percent 

overlap of the area within that depth band. There are nearly 800 lease blocks with high 
$ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$$$$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $$$ $

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ 

$

$ $$

$

$ $$ $ $

$ $ 

$ $

$

$ $$

$$ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$ $$

$$ 

$

$ $

$

$ 

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ 

$$ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ $ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ $

$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$$ 

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ 

$ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ $ $ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$$

$

$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ 

$$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ 

$ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$

$ $

$$ 

$ $ $ 

$ 

$

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$$ 

$ 

$

$$ 

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ 

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ 

$ 

$ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$

$

$$$$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ 

$

$

$ 

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $$$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ 

$

$$$$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$

$ 

$ 

$

$ 

$ 

$

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ 

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ 

$ $ $

$ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ 

$

$

$

$ $ 

$ 

$ $$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ $ 

$ $ 

$ 

$$ $ $

$

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ 

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ 

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ 

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

Y# 

Y#

Y#

Y#

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BILO

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Lease Block With Filed Development Operations Coordination Document

Figure 5.15. Spatial overlap of pelagic longline sets and lease blocks with filed Plans of Exploration and Development Opera Documents (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999a; Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions beare for initial planning purpprejudice or affect United any way.

Lease Block With Filed Plan of Exploration

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

May 2001

24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

$ Longline Set

168
#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

%

% % % % %

%

%

%

%% % % %

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Figure 5.16. Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and existing structures (Sources: National Marine Fisheries S Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers

24° 0 50 100 Statute Miles 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

Platform

105 - 147

67 - 1049 - 66

Deep Reef Species Trips

169
Y# 

Y#

Y#

Y#

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BILO

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Figure 5.17. Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and lease blocks with high lease bonus bids (Sources: Nat Fisheries Service 1999b; Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries aas well as the divisions betare for initial planning purpprejudice or affect United Sany way.

Lease Block With High Lease Bonus Bid

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

May 2001

24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

89°89°

105 - 147

67 - 1049 - 66

Deep Reef Species Trips

170
171 

lease bonus bids, so about 15 percent of those fell within the depth band for tilefish and 

yellowedge grouper. 

The distribution of lease blocks with filed POEs and DOCDs relative to the deep reef fish 

depth band is shown Figure 5.18. The overlap identified from this analysis with was 

about 12 percent for those lease blocks (n=71) with filed POEs and 4 percent for those 

lease blocks (n=21) with filed DOCDs. There were 363 POEs filed resulting in 

20 percent of these falling within the fishing depth band for deep reef species. A total of 

49 DOCDs was filed and 43 percent of these were for lease blocks falling within the deep 

reef depth band. 

These analyses show that the deep reef fishery could interact with future oil and gas 

activities in deepwaters of the Gulf. Deep reef fishers primarily use bottom longlines 

and bandit reels. Fishers employing these two methods will react differently to fixed 

structures. Bottom longlines will be set to avoid surface piercing structures (and 

subsurface portions as well), whereas bandit reel fishers actively seek subsea structures to 

fish for deepwater species such as snowy and warsaw groupers. Nevertheless, these 

fisheries will not be active beyond the depth range band used here. 

5.2.3 Royal Red Shrimp Fisheries 

Royal red shrimp were mostly sought in two areas of the western Gulf, Statistical Grid 10 

off Alabama and Grid 21 off Texas (Figure 5.19). There were no existing platforms in 

these two grids, but there were 24 platforms scattered within the entire royal red shrimp 

depth band that extends continuously from Alabama to the Texas/Mexico border. 

Existing platforms occupied less than 1 percent of the total area where royal red shrimp 

were sought.

Lease blocks with high lease bonus bids covered 14 percent of the royal red shrimp depth 

band Figure 5.20. One hundred twenty-one lease blocks (approximately 15 percent of 

the total) that fell within the fishing depth band represented this area of overlap. 

Lease blocks with filed POEs and DOCDs that fell within the royal red shrimp depth 

band are shown in Figure 5.21. The number of blocks with filed POEs that fell within 

the royal red shrimp depth band was 75. These blocks accounted for 13 percent of the 

royal red shrimp depth band. There were 23 lease blocks with filed DOCDs in the depth 

band, which represent 47 percent of all such blocks. 

The overlap analyses for the royal red shrimp fisheries indicate that some future conflicts 

are likely. These analyses are very conservative because all blocks with high lease bonus 

bids or filed POEs and DOCDs will not be developed at the same time. It is important to 

remember that the fishing depth bands represent areas that could potentially be used by 

fishers, but as Table 5.13 shows, the number of fishers involved in the royal red shrimp 

fishery is very low annually. 
#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Lease Block With Filed Development Operations Coordination Document

Figure 5.18. Spatial overlap of deep reef effort (number of trips) and lease blocks with filed Plans of Exploration and Develop Coordination Documents (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999b; Minerals Management Service 200

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Lease Block With Filed Plan of Exploration

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

May 2001

24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

105 - 147

67 - 1049 - 66

Deep Reef Species Trips

172
#Y 

#Y

#Y

#Y

%

% % % % %

%

%

%

%% % % %

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BIL

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Platform

Figure 5.19. Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort (number of trips) and existing structures (Sources: National Marine Fish Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries as well as the divisions bare for initial planning puprejudice or affect United any way.

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers

24° 0 50 100 Statute Miles 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

May 2001

 0 6

58

Royal Red Shrimp Trips

173
Y# 

Y#

Y#

Y#

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BILOXI

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

200 

Lease Block With High Lease Bonus Bid

Figure 5.20. Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort (number of trips) and lease blocks with high lease bonus bids (Sources Fisheries Service 1999c; Minerals Management Service 2000a).

Planning Area Boundary

MS

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

TX LA

N

Note:The maritime boundaries and lias well as the divisions betweeare for initial planning purposes prejudice or affect United Stateany way.

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers

24° 0 50 100 Statute Miles 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

89°89°

May 2001

 0

 6

58

Royal Red Shrimp Trips

174
Y# 

Y#

Y#

Y#

GULF OF MEXICO

HOUSTON

CORPUS CHRISTI

NEW ORLEANS

BILO

Western Planning Area

MEXICO Central Planning Area

Planning Area Boundary

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico

LEGEND

Geographic North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 Kilometers0 50 100 Statute Miles

May 2001

Lease Block With Filed Plan of Exploration

Lease Block With Filed Development Operations Coordination Document

 0

 6

58

Royal Red Shrimp Trips

Figure 5.21. Spatial overlap of royal red shrimp effort and lease blocks with filed Plans of Exploration and Development Opera Documents (Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999c; Minerals Management Service 2000a).

MS

TX

LA N

Note:The maritime boundaries aas well as the divisions beare for initial planning purpprejudice or affect United Sany way.

24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 

99°99°

98°98°

97°97°

96°96°

95°95°

94°94°

93°93°

92°92°

91°91°

90°90°

8989

175
176 

5.2.4 Recreational Fisheries 

No formal spatial analyses were performed on the recreational fisheries because the 

presence of structures will be viewed as a positive impact for this sector. As new, surface 

piercing structures are erected, recreational fishers will gravitate to them to take 

advantage of the FAD effect that will certainly happen. Because U.S. Coast 

Guard-imposed 500-m safety zones around all deepwater subsea or surface-piercing 

structures apply only to vessels >33.3 m, recreational fishers will likely fish closer to 

structures, and problems could ensue if the operators are serious about enforcing the 

regulation. 

5.3 FUTURE OF BLUEWATER FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

Deepwater fisheries in some areas of the world have been very productive-orange roughy 

off new Zealand and Tasmania, scabbard fish off Portugal, and flatfish off Washington 

and Oregon (Merret and Haedrich 1997) are notable examples. But in the Gulf of 

Mexico where shallow water fisheries are so productive, there has never been an 

economically feasible deepwater enterprise except tuna fishing. Development of 

deepwater fisheries has been favored by funding agencies because they presumably 

relieve the pressure on shallow water stocks or provide an alternative during seasons 

when favored species are closed. 

Many deepwater species are long-lived, slow growing, and late maturing. These life 

history characteristics, called life in the slow lane by Musick (1999), limit the sustainable 

exploitation of deepwater species. In the Gulf of Mexico, there have been some attempts 

to develop deepwater fisheries for butterfish, royal red shrimp, deepwater crab, and 

hagfish. None of these has become economically feasible for more than a few vessels. 

Fishing in deep water is onerous, requiring orders of magnitude more gear (more cable, 

heavier doors, etc.), greater tolerance of safety risks and rougher weather, longer running 

time to the fishing grounds, and larger vessels. All of these constraints suggest that 

deepwater fishing beyond the shelf break is not likely to expand greatly in the Gulf of 

Mexico in the near future. However, as Moore (2000) has pointed out, deepwater 

fisheries can start up very quickly, often before management measures can be enacted to 

prevent stock depletion. The two major fisheries (commercial and recreational) that do 

occur on bluewater are focused on the same species group, the epipelagic fishes. 

Commercial longlining is the most active fishery in the deep waters of the Gulf and 

despite recent regulation (NMFS 1999d), it appears that at least 100 vessels will continue 

to operate. 
177 

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROACTIVE MITIGATION BY MMS 

AND THE FISHING AND OCS ENERGY INDUSTRIES 

The goal in developing recommendations was to provide measures, that if implemented, 

should lessen the relative frequency and severity of interactions between the fishing and 

energy industries working in deepwater. Although the expectation of achieving zero 

interaction is not realistic, great savings of time and money (on both sides) may be 

possible if these recommendations are considered. The following bulleted summaries 

from the preceding report sections reveal some facts and issues that were helpful in 

generating the recommendations. 

BLUEWATER FISHING: 

# Most of the bluewater commercial fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico is 

by pelagic longline. 

# Secondary fisheries are bottom-founded: bottom longlining, trawling, and 

trapping. 

# Although precise water depths used by the deep reef fishery are unknown, 

it appears that most bottom longlining occurs in water depths of less than 

200 m. 

# Trawling for royal red shrimp is conducted by less than 10 fishers per 

year, and effort is concentrated off the eastern portion of Mississippi 

Delta. 

# Currently, no deepwater crab trappers work north of Tampa in the eastern 

Gulf. 

# As many as 500 recreational fishers per year will travel into water depths 

of 200 m or greater to fish for epipelagic species in the northern Gulf. 

# Recreational fishers will seek out above-surface structures as they are 

installed. 

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY: 

# As many as 50 rigs per year will be employed for exploratory drilling, and 

80 to 100 sites will be developed within the bluewater study area. 

# Geophysical survey activity will often precede and sometimes follow 

drilling. 

# The total number of permanent structures will be low (40 to 50) compared 

with the number existing on the shelf. 

# In the future, fewer fields will be developed with an above-surface 

platform; most fields will utilize subsea wells. 

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: 

# The majority of documented conflicts in non-Gulf of Mexico domestic and 

international waters have been with bottom-oriented gear such as trawls. 
178 

# In all areas investigated, documented interactions in deeper waters 

(>200 m) are less common than shallow-water incidents. 

# Anecdotal information indicates that there have been conflicts between 

pelagic longliners and geophysical survey vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. 

# The very nature of longline fishing, which involves deploying long sets of 

lines, sometimes 30 to 40 km long, floating at or near the surface to drift 

in the current and be retrieved sometime later, makes it nearly impossible 

for any other use of the surface area to avoid interference. 

# Both sides in reported incidents cited lack of communication as 

contributing to the conflict. 

# The U.S. Coast Guard has instituted “safe zones” of up to 500 m around 

all deepwater platforms – this would ostensibly preclude these platforms 

from use by both recreational and commercial fishing activities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROACTIVE MITIGATION BY THE MMS AND THE 

FISHING AND OCS ENERGY INDUSTRIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Produce a Guidebook - A generic guidebook detailing the methods of 

both the offshore energy and fisheries industries would be helpful for the 

people in the field. The guidebook should make liberal use of figures and 

graphics to depict different structures, vessels, and equipment types. The 

International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) recently 

produced an Environmental Manual of Worldwide Geophysical 

Operations (IAGC 2001). This manual did not cover fisheries issues in 

any detail. This suggests that some additional information on the fisheries 

and energy industry equipment and practices is required. 

2. Improve Contingency Fund - The NMFS federal contingency fund is 

well known to shrimpers, but apparently not to the longline fleet. If the 

frequency of alleged interactions between longliners and geophysical 

vessels is as high as some have claimed, then the number of claims filed 

has been very low. The existing fund needs to be better understood by the 

bluewater fishers. Information on filing and documenting a claim should 

be covered in a generic guidebook (see Recommendation 1 above). 

3. Appoint a Fisheries Liaison Committee - Liaison committees have 

worked in other areas such as California and the North Sea. The liaison 

committee should be composed of representatives of both industries as 

well as independent parties. Primary functions of the committee would be 

to facilitate communication and mediate disputes between fishing and the 

energy industries. Because of the relatively large area encompassed by 

Gulf of Mexico, a separate liaison person may be needed for each 

planning area (with one Gulfwide committee). This could also be 

coordinated through the GMFMC. It is suggested that at least one 

Vietnamese-American representative be on this committee. 
179 

4. Regulate Geophysical Surveys - Require notification of future 

geophysical surveys 3 to 9 weeks prior to the survey. This requirement 

could be incorporated into the stipulations in the official notice to lessees 

(NTLs). The notification should be no later than 3 weeks prior to a 

survey, because 3 weeks is about the longest time any fishing vessel will 

be at sea. The date, time, vessel contact information, a nautical chart 

section with the survey area depicted, and location (latitude/longitude and 

LORAN C) should be given in the notification. In some cases it may be 

necessary to “leap frog” geophysical surveys in alternating lanes that have 

been previously cleared of all fixed gear. The lanes would be wide 

enough to allow meaningful geophysical surveys and provide fishing areas 

in adjacent lanes. 

5. Improve communication - This is the simplest but most important 

recommendation we can offer. Poor communication occurs at several 

levels. At sea, the standard form of vessel to vessel communication is the 

Very High Frequency (VHF) radio. The utility of this communication 

mode is dependent upon the cooperation of the captains involved in the 

transmission. In the Gulf, there can be significant language barriers as 

many of the pelagic longliners are non-English speaking. Improving 

vessel to vessel communications will depend upon the success of broader 

scale communications. 

At a Gulfwide level, communication problems can be improved. Advance notice of 

offshore activities needs to be distributed to interested parties. A simple and effective 

network should be established through existing channels. Because of the current 

regulatory structure of offshore fisheries, there are several vehicles in place: 

logbook/permit programs, fishery management councils, and independent fisheries 

organizations. For example, notification of activities could be mailed to holders of 

pelagic longline and reef fish permits. NMFS already sends newsletters and other 

information to permit holders on a regular basis. Independent organizations of fishers 

such as the Bluewater Fisheries Association (pelagic longliners) also could be points of 

dissemination. All notices should be at least 3 weeks prior to an activity (see 

Recommendation 4 above). Positions in latitude/longitude and LORAN C should be 

given, and a section of a nautical chart with the survey area depicted should be provided 

in the notices. In addition, updated summaries of information from the MMS web page 

could be mailed out through the network. This could provide long-term indications of 

where activities and structures will be located. 
181 

7.0 REFERENCES CITED 

Allen, T.B. 1999. The Shark Almanac. Lyons Press, New York. 

Anderson, W.W. and M.J. Lindner. 1971. Contributions to the biology of the royal red 

shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus Smith. Fish. Bull. 69(2):313-336. 

Bacon, Carol (personal communication). 1999. Mineral Resources, Tasmania. E-mail: 

cbacon@mrt.tas.gov.au. 

Barrett, I., O. Sosa-Nishizaki, and N. Bartoo (eds.). 1998. Biology and fisheries of 

swordfish, Xiphias gladius. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

Technical Report, NMFS 142. 276 pp. 

Bass, A.J., J.D. D'Aubrey, and N. Kistnasamy. 1973. Sharks of the east coast of 

southern Africa. I. The genus Carcharhinus (Carcharhinidae). Invest. Rep. 

Oceanogr. Res. Inst. 33:1-168. 

Bass, A.J., J.D. D'Aubrey, and N. Kistnasamy. 1975a. Sharks of the east coast of 

southern Africa. III. The families Carcharhinidae (excluding Mustelus and 

Carcharhinus) and Sphyrnidae. Invest. Rep. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. 38:1-100. 

Bass, A.J., J.D. D'Aubrey, and N. Kistnasamy. 1975b. Sharks of the east coast of 

southern Africa. IV. The families Odontaspididae, Scapanorhynchidae, Isuridae, 

Cetorhinidae, Alopiidae, Orectolobidae and Rhiniodontidae. Invest. Rep. 

Oceanogr. Res. Inst. 39:1-102. 

Beardsley, G.L., N.R. Merrett, and W.J. Richards. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the 

sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus. In: R.S. Shomura and F. Williams (eds.), 

Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium. Part 3. Species Synopses. 

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. 

Benetti, D.D., A.M. Clark, and M.W. Freeley. 1999. Feasibility of selected candidate 

species of marine fish for cage aquaculture development in the Gulf of Mexico 

with novel remote sensing techniques for improved offshore system monitoring, 

pp. 103-119. In: Stickney, R.R. (comp.). Joining forces with industry open ocean 

aquaculture 1998. Texas Sea Grant College. 

Berkely, S.A., E.W. Irby, Jr., and J.W. Jolley, Jr. 1981. Florida's commercial swordfish 

fishery: Longline gear and methods. Marine Advisory Bulletin MAP-14, Florida 

Sea Grant College. 23 pp. 

Bevan, David (personal communication). 1999. National Federation of Fishermen’s 

Organizations, UK. E-mail: dbevan@nffo.or.uk. 

Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1948. Sharks, pp. 59-546. In: J.Tee-Van, C.M. 

Breder, S.F. Hildebrand, A.E. Parr, and W.C. Schroeder (eds.), Fishes of the 

Western North Atlantic, Part One. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. I, New Haven, 

CT. 
182 

Bonfil, R., R. Mena, and D. de Anda. 1993. Biological parameters of commercially 

exploited silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, from Campeche Bank, Mexico. 

U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS. 115:73-86. 

Branstetter, S. 1987. Age, growth, and reproductive biology of the silky shark, 

Carcharhinus falciformis, and the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, from 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Env. Biol. Fishes. 19(3):161-173. 

Bullis, H.R., Jr. 1955a. Preliminary report on exploratory long-line fishing for tuna in 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Part 1 - Exploratory tuna fishing by 

the Oregon. Comm. Fish. Rev. 17(10):1-15. 

Bullis, H.R., Jr. 1955b. Recent explorations for yellowfin in the Gulf of Mexico. Proc. 

7th Ann. Gulf and Caribb. Fish Inst. 64-67. 

Bullis, H.R., Jr. 1955c. Preliminary report on exploratory long-line fishing for tuna in 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Part II – Longline gear used in 

yellowfin tuna exploration. Comm. Fish. Rev. 17(10):16-20. 

Bullis, H.R., Jr. 1956. Preliminary results of deep-water exploration for shrimp in the 

Gulf of Mexico by the M/V OREGON (1950-1956). Comm. Fish. Rev. 

18(12):1-12. 

Bullock, L.H. and G.B. Smith. 1991. Sea basses (Pisces: Serranidae). Mem. Hourglass 

Cruises VIII (II). 243 pp. 

Bullock, L.H., M.F. Godcharles, and R.E. Crabtree. 1996. Reproduction of yellowedge 

grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, from the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

59(1):216-244. 

Burley, David (personal communication). 1999-2000. Canadian-Nova Scotia Offshore 

Petroleum Board. E-mail: Dburley@CNOPB.nf.ca. 

California Department of Fish & Game. 2000. PACfin report (commercial fishing 

license listing). Acquired from the Sacramento, California Office, June 2000. 

Canning, Strat (personal communication). 2001. Principal, Canning-Pitt Consultants, 

Newfoundland. E-mail: scanning@canpitt.nf.ca. 

Carey, F.G. 1982. A brain heater in the swordfish. Science 216(4,552):1,327-1,329. 

Carney, R.S. 1998. Workshop on environmental issues surrounding deepwater oil and 

gas development: Final report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 98-0022. 163 pp. 

Castro, J.I. 1983. The Sharks of North American Waters. Texas A&M University Press, 

College Station, TX. 180 pp. 

Castro, J.I. 1993. The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the 

shark nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Env. Biol. Fishes. 

38:37-48. 
183 

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1981. Assessment of space and use conflicts between the 

fishing and oil and gas industries. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Contract AA551-CT9-26. 3 volumes. 

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1984. Mitigation of sea floor conflicts between oil and gas 

pipelines and commercial trawl fisheries on the California outer continental shelf. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Office. 

Contract No. 14-12-001-30050. 426 pp. + maps. 

Clark, E. and K. von Schmidt. 1965. Sharks of the central Gulf coast of Florida. Bull. 

Mar. Sci. 15(1):13-83. 

Coleman, F.C., C.C. Koenig, A.M. Eklund, and C.B. Grimes. 1999. Management and 

conservation of temperate reef fishes in the snapper grouper complex of the 

southeastern United States, pp. 233-242. In: J.A. Musick, (ed.), Life in the slow 

lane: Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. Am. Fish. Soc. 

Symp. 23. 

Coleman, F.C., C.C. Koenig, G.R. Huntsman, J.A. Musick, A.M. Eklund, J.C. 

McGovern, R.W. Chapman, G.R. Sedberry, and C.B. Grimes. 2000. Long-lived 

reef fishes: the snapper-grouper complex. Fisheries 25(3):14-21. 

Collette, B.B. and C.E. Nauen. 1983. Scombrids of the World. An Illustrated 

Catalogue of Tunas, Mackerels, Bonitos and Related Species Known to Date. 

FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, Rome. 137 pp. 

Collette, B.B., R.H. Gibbs, and G.E. Clipper. 1969. Vertebral numbers and 

identification of the two species of dolphin (Coryphaena). Copeia 

1969(3):630-631. 

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984a. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue 

of shark species known to date. Part 1 - Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO 

Fisheries Synopsis No. 125(4, pt. 1), Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, Rome. 249 pp. 

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984b. Carcharhiniformes, pp. 251-655. In: Sharks of the world. An 

annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO 

Fisheries Synopsis No. 125(4, pt. 2), Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, Rome. 

Cormick, G.W. and A. Knaster. 1986. Oil and fishing industries negotiate, mediation 

and scientific issues. Environment 28(10):6-16. 

Cramer, J. and H. Adams. 1999. Large pelagic logbook newsletter - 1997. NOAA Tech 

Mem. NMFS SEFSC-420. 26 pp. 

Davis, R.A., D.H. Thompson, and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of 

seismic exploration on the Scotian Shelf. Prepared by LGL Limited 

Environmental Research Associates, King City, Ontario for Canada/Nova Scotia 

Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 181 pp. + app. 
184 

D’Entremont, Andre (personal communication). 1999. Advisor, Environmental Affairs 

Section, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. E-mail: 

adentremont@cnsopb.ns.ca

Ditty, J.G., R.F. Shaw, C.B. Grimes, and J.S. Cope. 1994. Larval development, 

distribution, and abundance of common dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, and 

pompano dolphin, C. equiselis (family: Coryphaenidae), in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Fish. Bull. 92(2):275-292. 

Dooley, J.K. 1978. Systematics and biology of the tilefishes (Perciformes: 

Barnchiostegide and Malacanthidae), with description of two new species. 

NOAA Tech Rep. NMFS Circ 411. 78 pp. 

Ehrhardt, N.M. 1992. Age and growth of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in the 

northwestern Atlantic. Bull. Mar. Sci. 50(2):292-301. 

Freeman, B.L. and S.C. Turner. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on tilefish 

(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Goode and Bean. Sandy Hook Laboratory, 

NEFC, NMFS, NOAA Tech. Ser. Rep. 5. 39 pp. 

Fusaro, Craig (personal communication). 1999-2001. Fisheries Liaison Officer, Joint 

Oil/Fisheries Committee, Santa Barbara. E-mail: cfusaro@fsn.net. 

Fox, David. (personal communication). 1999. CSIRO, Australia, Environmental 

Projects Office. E-mail: David.Fox@epo.csiro.au. 

Garrick, J.A.F. 1982. Sharks of the genus Carcharhinus. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 

Circ 445. 194 pp. 

Garrick, J.A.F., R.H. Backus, and R.H. Gibbs. 1964. Carcharhinus floridanus, the silky 

shark, a synonym of Carcharhinus falciformis. Copeia. 1964(2):369-375. 

Gibbs, R.H. 1957. Preliminary analysis of the distribution of white marlin, Makaira 

albida (Poey), in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and 

Caribbean 7(4):360-368. 

Gibbs, R.H. and B.B. Collette. 1959. On the identification, distribution, and biology of 

the dolphins, Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 

9(2):117-152. 

Gordon, J.C.D., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. Simmonds, and R. Swift. 1998. 

The effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. In: Seismic and Marine 

Mammals Workshop, 23-25 June 1998, London. Workshop Documentation. 

Greve, G. 2000. Characterization of Geological and Geophysical Activities and 

Equipment, Appendix A. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2000. A 

programmatic environmental assessment on geological and geophysical 

exploration for mineral resources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. 

Draft report for Minerals Management Service.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981. Environmental impact statement 

and fishery management plan for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida. 
185 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1996. Amendment 8 to the shrimp 

fishery of the Gulf of Mexico U.S. Waters. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council, Tampa, FL. 24 pp. 

Harrington, D.L., J.W. Watson, L.G. Parker, J. B. Rivers, and C.W. Taylor. 1988. 

Shrimp trawl design and performance. Georgia Sea Grant College Program, 

Marine Extension Bulletin No. 12. 41 pp. 

Heemstra, P.C. and J.E. Randall. 1993. Groupers of the world (Family Serranidae, 

Subfamily Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, 

rockcod, hind, coral grouper and lyretail species known to date. FAO Fisheries 

Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome. 382 pp. 

Hester, F.J. and T. Otsu. 1973. A review of the literature on the development of skipjack 

tuna fisheries in the central and western Pacific Ocean. U. S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Report, NMFS SSRF-661. 13 pp. 

Honma, M., T. Matsumoto, and H. Kono. 1985. Comparison of two abundance indices 

based upon Japanese catch and effort data by one-degree and five-degree squares 

for the Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. ICCAT Coll. Vol. Sci. Pap. 

22:254-264. 

International Association of Geophysical Contractors. 2001. Environmental Manual for 

Worldwide Geophysical Operations. 2001 Edition. IAGC Headquarters, 

Houston, TX. CD-ROM. 

Iwamoto, T. 1965. Summary of tuna observations in the Gulf of Mexico on cruises of 

the exploratory fishing vessel Oregon, 1950-63. Comm. Fish. Rev. 27(1):7-14. 

Jennings, W. 2001. Coming of Age - A guide to the northern Gulf of Mexico's 

burgeoning billfish action. Unpublished manuscript, Sport Fishing Magazine. 

Johnson, G.D. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-78/12. 314 pp. 

Jones, R.S., E.J. Gutherz, W.R. Nelson, and G.C. Matlock. 1989. Burrow utilization by 

yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. Env. Biol. Fish. 26:277-284. 

Joseph, L. 1999. Management of shark fisheries in Sri Lanka. In: R. Shotton (ed.), Case 

studies in the management of elasmobranch fisheries. United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization, Rome. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 378/1:339-366. 

Kearns, Allen (personal communication). 1999. CSIRO, Australia. E-mail: 

Allen.Kearns@dwe.csiro.au. 

Kelley, S.J., V. Gartner, W.J. Richards, and L. Ejsymont. 1993. SEAMAP 1984 & 

1985—Ichthyoplankton. Larval Distribution and Abundance of Carangidae, 

Clupeidae, Coryphaenidae, Engraulidae, Gobiidae, Istiophoridae, Lutjanidae, 

Scombridae, Serranidae, and Xiphiidae in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-317. 
186 

Kelstrup, Niels (personal communication). 1999. Gues University. E-mail: 

nk@gues.DK. 

Kepsy, Puiye (personal communication). 2000. Papua New Guinea Dept. of Petroleum 

and Energy. E-mail: kepsey_puiye@petroleum.gov.pg. 

Kyranis, Nick (personal communication). 2000. Australian office of the Joint Authority 

for the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. E-mail: Nick.Kyranis@timorgap.org.au. 

La Monte, F. 1945. North American Game Fishes. Doubleday, Doran and Company, 

Inc. Garden City, New York. 202 pp. 

La Monte, F. 1952. Marine Game Fishes of the World. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 

Garden City, New York. 190 pp. 

Larkin, S.L., D.J. Lee, and C.M. Adams. 1998. Costs, earnings, and returns to the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet in 1996. University of Florida, Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource Economics Department, Staff 

Paper Series, SP-98-9. 44 pp. 

Last, P.R. and J.D. Stevens. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia. CSIRO Australia, East 

Melbourne, Australia. 513 pp. + 84 pl. 

Lavering, I. 1994. Marine environments of southeast Australia (Gippsland Shelf and 

Bass Strait) and the impact of offshore petroleum exploration and production 

activity. Marine Geosciences and Geotechnology (12):210-225. 

Lavering, Ian (personal communication). 1999. Australian AGSO. E-mail: 

Ian.Lavering@agso.gov.au. 

LGL Limited. 1999. Environmental assessment of exploration drilling off Nova Scotia. 

LGL Draft Report No. TA 2281, prepared for the Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore 

Petroleum Board and Others. November. 280 pp. + apps. 

Lindberg, W.J. and F.D. Lockhart. 1993. Depth-stratified population structure of 

geryonid crabs in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J. Crust. Res. 13(4):713-722. 

Lindberg, W.J. and E.L. Wenner (eds). 1990. Geryonid crabs and associated continental 

slope fauna: A research workshop report. Florida Sea Grant, Tech. Pap. No. 58. 

61 pp. 

Livingston, Peter (personal communication). 1999. Australian Department of Industry, 

Science and Resources, Research, Petroleum and Exploration Branch. E-mail: 

Peter.Livingston@isr.gov.au. 

Lopez, A.M., D.B. McClellan, A.R. Bertolino, and M.D. Lange. 1979. The Japanese 

longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, 1978. Mar. Fish. Rev. 23-28. 

Lyne, Vincent (personal communication). 1999-2000. CSIRO, Marine Division. 

Lynehem, Australia. E-mail: Vincent.Lyne@marine.csiro.au. 

Manning, R.B. and L.B. Holthuis. 1989. Two new genera and nine new species of 

geryonid crabs (Crustaceam Decapoda, Geryonidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 

102:50-77. 
187 

Manooch, C.S. 1984. Fishermen's guide. Fishes of the southeastern United States. 

North Carolina State Museum of Natural History Raleigh, NC. 

Manooch, C.S. and W.T. Hogarth. 1983. Stomach contents and giant trematodes from 

wahoo, Acanthocybium solanderi, collected along the South Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts of the United States. Bull. Mar. Sci. 33:227-238. 

Mather, F.J., H.L. Clark, and J.M. Mason. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the white 

marlin, Tetrapterus albidus Poey (1861). In: R.S. Shomura and F. Williams 

(eds.), Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium. Part 3. Species 

Synopses. Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. 

McClane, A.J. (ed.). 1965. McClane’s New Standard Fishing Encyclopedia. Holst, 

Rinehart and Winston, New York. 1,156 pp. 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1989. An historical perspective of the 

commercial and sport fisheries offshore California through 1985. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Office. 

Contract MMS 14-12-0001-30294. 43 pp. + apps. 

McDonald, David (personal communication). 2001. Listing of fishing conflicts within 

Australian waters. Letter report provided to L.A. de Wit, Consultant via e-mail, 

8 March 2001. 

McIlwain, T.D. 1999. Fisheries and fishing practices in the De Soto Canyon Area, 

pp. 284-285. In: Proceedings: Seventeenth annual Gulf of Mexico information 

transfer meeting, December 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 99-0042. 710 pp. 

Merrett, N.R. and R.L. Haedrich. 1997. Deep-sea demersal fish and fisheries. Chapman 

& Hall, London. 282 pp. 

Minerals Management Service. 2000a. Gulf of Mexico, World Wide Web Site: 

www.gomr@mms.gov.

Minerals Management Service. 2000b. Deepwater development: A reference document 

for the Deepwater Environmental Assessment Gulf of Mexico OCS (1998 through 

2007). U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 

Minerals Management Service. 2001. Proposed use of floating, production, storage, and 

offloading systems on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, Western and 

Central Planning Areas. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-090. 

Moore, N.M. 2000. Western Australia Oil and Gas, the Year in Review, p. 3. Petroleum 

in Western Australia. KNJ Publishers, October 2000. 

Moore, C.M. and R.F. Labisky. 1984. Population parameters of a relatively unexploited 

stock of snowy grouper in the lower Florida Keys. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 

113:322-329. 
188 

Mooney-Seus, M.L. and G.S. Stone. 1996. The forgotten giants: Giant ocean fishes of 

the Atlantic and Pacific. Report, Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, D.C. 

64 pp. 

Moreno, J.A. and J. Morón. 1992. Comparative study of the genus Isurus (Rafinesque, 

1810), and description of a form ('Marrajo Criollo') apparently endemic to the 

Azores. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43:109-122. 

Murphy, Dena (personal communication). 2000-2001. Canadian Association of 

Petroleum Producers. E-mail: murphy@ns.capp.ca 

Musick, J.A. (ed.). 1999. Life in the slow lane: Ecology and conservation of long-lived 

marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Musick, J.A., M.M. Harbin, S.A. Berkeley, G.H. Burgess, A.M. Eklund, L. Findley, R.G. 

Gilmore, J.T. Golden, D.S. Ha, G.R. Huntsman, J.C. McGovern, S.J. Parker, S.G. 

Poss, E. Sala, T.W. Schmidt, G.R. Sedberry, H. Weeks, and S.G. Wright. 2000. 

Marine, estuarine, and diadromous stocks at risk of extinction in North America 

(exclusive of Pacific salmons). Fisheries 25(11): 6-30. 

Nakamura, I. (ed.). 1985. Billfishes of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue 

of marlins, sailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. FAO Fisheries 

Synopsis 125, Vol. 5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome. 65 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999a. Pelagic longline logbook data. Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999b. Reef fish logbook data. Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Miami, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999c. Shrimp data. Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Miami, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999d. Final fishery management plan for Atlantic 

tuna, swordfish, and sharks. 3 Vols. NMFS, Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Reef fish log book data set. NMFS SEFC, 

Miami, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001a. Billfish catch and effort data. NMFS SEFC, 

Miami, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001b. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics 

Survey. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. World Wide Web site: 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html

Nelson, W.R. and J.S. Carpenter. 1968. Bottom longline explorations in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Comm. Fish. Rev. 30(10):57-62. 
189 

Nemerson, D., S. Berkeley, and C. Safina. 2000. Spawning site fidelity in Atlantic 

bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus: The use of size-frequency analysis to test for the 

presence of migrant east Atlantic bluefin tuna on Gulf of Mexico spawning 

grounds. Fish. Bull. 98:118-126. 

Nishikawa, Y. and D.W. Rimmer. 1987. Identification of larval tunas, billfishes and 

other scombroid fishes (suborder Scombroidei): An illustrated guide. CSIRO 

Marine Laboratories, Report 186. 20 pp. 

Olander, D. 2001. Down the tubes: deep-dropping Gulf oil rigs. Sport Fishing 

16(6):48-55. 

Oldewage, W.H. and M.J. Smale. 1993. Occurrence of piscine parasitic copepods 

(Crustacea) on sharks taken mainly off Cape Recife, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Mar. 

Sci. 13:309-312. 

Olsen, Steffen (personal communication). 1999. Danish Energy Agency. E-mail: 

SBO@ENS.dk. 

O’Reilly, Trisha (personal communication). 1999. Media Relations Department, 

UKOOA. E-mail: toreilly@ukooa.co.uk. 

Ortiz, M. and M.I. Farber. 2000. Standardized catch rates for blue (and white) marlin. 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

Working Document SCARS/00/58. 

Otwell, S.W., J. Bellairs, and D. Sweat. 1984. Initial development of a deep-sea crab 

fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 61. 29 pp. 

Oxenford, H.A. and W. Hunt. 1983. Age and growth of dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, 

as determined by growth rings in otoliths. Fish. Bull. 81(4):909-909. 

Oxenford, H.A. and W. Hunt. 1986. A preliminary investigation of the stock structure of 

the dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, in the western central Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 

84(2):451-460. 

Perry, H.R. Waller, C. Trigg, J. McBee, R. Erdman, and N. Blake. 1995. A note on 

bycatch associated with deepwater trapping of Chaceon in the northcentral Gulf 

of Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep. 9(2):139-142. 

Pfiffer, Kathy (personal communication). 1999. Telephone conversation with L.A. de 

Wit and provision of data. Santa Barbara County Energy Division, Santa 

Barbara, California. December. 

Post, J.T., J.E. Serafy, J.S. Ault, T.R. Capo, and D.P. de Sylva. 1997. Field and 

laboratory observations on larval Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) and 

swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Bull. Mar. Sci. 60(3):1,026-1,034. 

Potthoff, T. 1971. Observations on two species of dolphin (Coryphaena) from the 

tropical mid-Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 69(4):877-879. 

Prager, M.H. and J.A. Browder. 1992. An exploratory dynamic surplus-production 

analysis of the Japanese, Mexican, and U.S. longline fisheries for yellowfin tuna 

in the Gulf of Mexico. ICCAT, Coll.Vol. Sci. Pap. 39 (1):18-87. 
190 

Pratt, H.L. and J.G. Casey. 1983. Age and growth of the shortfin mako, Isurus 

oxyrinchus. In: E.D. Prince and L.M. Pulos (eds.), Proceedings of the 

international workshop on age determination of oceanic pelagic fishes: Tunas, 

billfishes, and sharks. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 8:175-177. 

Prytherch, H.F. 1983. A descriptive survey of the bottom longline fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-122. 33 pp. 

Radcliffe, L. 1916. The sharks and rays of Beaufort, North Carolina. Bull. U.S. Bur. 

Fish. 34(822):239-284 +12 pl. + 26 figs. 

Richards, W.J., T. Potthoff, S. Kelley, M.F. McGowan, L. Ejsymont, J.H. Power, and 

R.M. Olvera L. 1984. SEAMAP 1982—Ichthyoplankton. Larval Distribution 

and Abundance of Engraulidae, Carangidae, Clupeidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, 

Coryphaenidae, Istiophoridae, Xiphiidae, and Scombridae in the Gulf of Mexico. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-144, U. S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Rivas, L.R. 1975. Synopsis of biological data on blue marlin, Makaira nigricans 

Lacépède, 1802. In: R.S. Shomura and F. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 

International Billfish Symposium. Part 3. Species Synopses. Kailua-Kona, 

Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. 

Roe, R.B. 1969. Distribution of royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus, on three 

potential commercial grounds off the southeastern United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 

161-172. 

Rudd, Denis (personal communication). 1999-2001. Fisheries Claims Coordinator, 

UKOOA. E-mail: imm@zetnet.co.uk. 

Russell, S.J. 1993. Shark bycatch in the northern Gulf of Mexico tuna longline fishery, 

1989-91, with observations on the nearshore directed shark fishery, pp. 19-29. In: 

S. Bransetter (ed.), Conservation Biology of Elasmobranchs, NOAA Tech. Rep. 

NMFS 115. 

Sakagawa, G.T., A.L. Coan, and N.W. Bartoo. 1987. Patterns in longline fishery data 

and catches of bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus. Mar. Fish. Rev. 49(4):57-66. 

Santa Barbara County. 2000. Status Report. Interagency Decommissioning Working 

Group Newsletter, published by the Santa Barbara County Department of 

Planning and Development (Energy Division), page 2. June issue. 

Schuurman, Jan (personal communication). 1999. Netherlands Energy Research 

Foundation. E-mail: j.schuurman@ecn.nl. 

Shulkin, Carolyn (personal communication). 1999. Australian Petroleum Production and 

Exploration Association. E-mail: cshulkin@appea.comau. 

Simpfendorfer, C.A. 2000. Growth rates of juvenile dusky sharks, Carcharhinus 

obscurus (Lesuer, 1818), from southwestern Australia estimated from 

tag-recapture data. Fish. Bull. 98(4):811-822. 
191 

Stanley, D.R. and C.A. Wilson. 1990. A fishery dependent based study of fish species 

composition and associated catch rates around oil and gas structures off 

Louisiana. Fish. Bull. 88(2):719-730. 

Smith, C.L. 1971. A revision of the American groupers: Epinephelus and allied genera. 

Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 146(2):67-242. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1985. Source document for the swordfish 

management plan. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 

Springer, V.G. and J.P. Gold. 1992. Sharks in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book. 

Heibonsha Ltd., Publishers. 

Stephens, Dawn (personal communication). 1999. Australian Institute of Petroleum. 

E-mail: dstephens@aip.com.au. 

Stickney, R.R. (comp.). 1998. Joining Forces with Industry Open Ocean Aquaculture. 

Texas Sea Grant College. 

Tanabe, T. and K. Niu. 1998. Sampling juvenile skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, 

and other tunas, Thunnus spp., using midwater trawls in the tropical western 

Pacific. Fish. Bull. 96(3):641-646. 

Tanaguchi, A.K. 1987. A survey of the domestic tuna longline fishery along the U.S. 

east coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. Technical Report Number 4. 50 pp. 

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. 2001. Fisheries Statistics, Austin, TX. 

Thompson, P.A., Jr. 1982. Japanese longline fishing: Comparisons between observer 

data and Japanese quarterly reports for 1979 in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-64. 38 pp. 

Thomsen, Henrik (personal communication). 1999. Hav-Okologish Institute. E-mail: 

hoek@dfu.min.dk. 

Tinsley, J.B. 1964. The Sailfish, Swashbuckler of the Open Sea. University of Florida 

Press, Gainesville, Florida. 216 pp. 

Toole, Simon (personal communication). 1999-2000. Oil and Gas Division, British 

Department of Transportation and Industry. E-mail: 

Simon.Toole@OGAD.dti.gov.uk. 

United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA). 1999-2001. UKOOA 

Website, www.ukooa.co.uk. 

Uchiyama, J.H., R.K. Burch, and S.A. Kraul. 1986. Growth of dolphins, Coryphaena 

hippurus and C. equiselis, in Hawaiian waters as determined by daily increments 

of otoliths. Fish. Bull. 84(1):186-191. 

Vecchione, M. 1987. Commercial fishing for Gulf butterfish, Peprilus burti, in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev. 49(4):14-22. 

Walter, S.C. (ed.). 1997. Tunas in the western Atlantic. Virginia Marine Research 

Bulletin 29 (1-2):20-22. 
192 

Watanabe, H. 1958. On the difference of the stomach contents of the yellowfin and 

bigeye tunas from the western equatorial Pacific. Rep. Nankai Fish. Res. Lab. 

7:72-81. [In Japanese with English summary.] 

Watson, J.W., Jr., I.K. Workman, C.W. Taylor, and A.F. Serra. 1984. Configurations and 

relative efficiencies of shrimp trawls deployed in the southeastern United States 

waters. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS 3. 12 pp. 

Westin, D.T. 1975. A review of the geographical distribution of five tuna species in the 

world’s oceans. University of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report 45. 128 pp. 

Witzell, W.N. and E.L. Scott. 1990. Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans, movements in the 

western North Atlantic Ocean: Results of a cooperative game fish tagging 

program, 1954-1988. Marine Fisheries Review 52(2):12-17. 

Wyanski, D.M., D.B. White, and C.A. Barans. 2000. Growth and population age 

structure, and aspects of the reproductive biology of snowy grouper, Epinephelus 

niveatus, off North Carolina and South Carolina. Fish. Bull. 98:199-218. 

Yoshida, H.O. 1971. The early life history of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonis pelamis, in the 

Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. 69(3):545-554. 

Zabrowarny, Joe (personal communication). 1999. Southern Australian Government. 

E-mail: Zabrowarny.Joe@saugov.sa.gov.au. 
193 

APPENDICES 

































































The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.