:
GROU,WFISH Aim SHRH1P ~1AI~AGEr"IEfH:
f4arine Resource Surveys
of the Pi nk Sh ri mp (PandaZus jordani)
ANiWAl REPORT
October 1,
1978 to September 30, 1979
James T. Golden Jack G. Robi nson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
r,larch
1980
,
Contents
Page 1',10.
1979 Pink Shrimp Survey 1
Introduction 1
i,lethods • • • . . • • Sampling Design. Gear • • • • . • .
$iffiPling Procedure
Analys
is. • . . .!
Results . • • • • • l
iter~ture
Ci ted .
. . . . . . . . · ·· ·· ·· ·· · · ·
···· ····
.·· · ···
Appendi ces Table
1
·· ·· ·· ··
· · · ·
1
1
4
5
5
6
9
10
li s t of Tables
Number of regular and exploratory survey tows and area (nm2 ) sampled
. during the 1979 pink shrimp (PandaZus jordani). The area sampled out­
side the traditional survey boundaries was determined by the sampling
coverage wi thin the boundaries 1/. Approximate depth ranges of survey
. ••••••• , 4
areas indicated in fathoms (fmT. . • • • • .•
2
Trawl design specifications for trawls used on the 1979 shrimp survey. 5
3
1979 biomass estimates of pink shrimp (PandaZus jordani) based on regular
tows within traditional survey boundaries and based on regular tows
pl us exploratory tows outsi de the survey boundaries. 1979 annual
shrimp landings for the areas surveyed are listed also. Biomass and
95% confidence intervals and landings are expressed in 1000's of 'Ibs. 6
4
Average catch per unit effort (CPUE) in lb/nm and 95% confidence
intervals (CI) of survey tows within survey boundaries and of explor­
atory tows made outside these boundaries. • • • . • • • . • . • • .
7
5
Count per pound and age composition (by number of shrimp) based on
regular survey tows and on regular survey tows plus exploratory tows. 8
6
Count per pound and age composition (by number of shrimp) of commercial
landings of shrimp harvested in f'lay from areas that correspond to
areas surveyed during the 1979 shrimp survey. • • • • . . . • • • • 8
Li s t of Fi gures
Figure
1979 Pink Shrimp (PandaZus jordani) North and North Central survey areas.
1
Depth contours in fathoms. Tow number adjacent to symbol. See Appendix
Tables 1 and 2 for details. . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • 2
2
1979 Pink Shrimp (PandaZus jordani) Coos Bay and Bandon survey areas.
Depth contours in fathoms. TO~I number adjacent to symbol. See Appendix
Table 3 for details. • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • •• 3
1979 Pink Shrimp Survey
Introduction
,
Surveys
for the pink shrimp (PandaZus jordani) have been conducted by the Oregon
r.
Departnient of Fish and l'Jildlife (OOFU) formerly Fish Commission of Oregon (FCO) since
1951 wilen the FCO began exploratory fishing for shrimp (Pruter and Harry, 1952).
i'Jork
\,/~S
continued by the rlational Ilarine Fisheries Service (then Bureau of Commercial
Fisher,ies) into the early 1960 l s {Alverson, et al, 1960; Ronholt and (·1agi,11, 1961).
These studies identified major fishable concentrations of shrimp off Oregon before
and
du~ing
were
b~gun
a period of slow growth and development of the fishery.
Systematic surveY$
by OOHI in 1966 to estimate standing crop biomass and to determine
distriputional characteristics seasonally and geographically.
In addition, the age
and sex composition, fecundity and time of spa\\fning and the degree of association
of shrimp with bottom type were determined (Robinson, 1971).
Since 1971, surveys
have been conducted by the OOHJ on an annual basis to estimate standing crop biomass
I
in attempts to index the abundance and availability of shrimp at the beginning of each season. ,/
The purpose of the 1979 survey \\fas to obtain standing stock biomass estimates
1
of shr;jmp off Oregon in the area between 35-145 fm from Cape [Hanco (lat 42°54 N)
t ,. _
to the·Columbia River (Lat 46°15 1 N) and to determine age and sex composition and
average si ze (count per pound) of shrimp.
In add; ti on t exploratory tows were made
outside
traditional boundary areas to determine if there were any shifts in concen­
.
"~
tration of shrimp and to determine the effects of these potential shifts on the
".
biomass
estimates •
.
/
r·1ethods Same1i n~ Des i gn A,ystematic sampling scheme using a 4x4 n.m. grid was used to place station
locations within the four survey strata from the Columbia River to Cape Blanco
(Figures 1-2).
The number of tows and sampling coverage (nm2 /tow) for North, North
-2­
,
I
I
\
"­
,
\, ...
""\
I
(
-
\
Ii 11 aroook Head
North
Area
·
·
\
•·
Tillaroook Bay
~
\
·
,
·
Cape Lookout
),
··•·
North Central
Area
o
Regul ar Tow Si te
~
Exploratory Tow
..
•
)
..
,
i,
,
.' I
124°00'
Figure 1. 1979 Pink Shrimp (PandaZus jordani) North and North Central survey
areas. Depth contours in fathoms. Tow number adjacent to symbol.
See Appendix Tables 1 and 2 for details.
-3­
I
I'
I
I
\
Heceta Head
\
\
I
t
)
05 0
o
I
I
I
"-
'-- ' ..... _"'" ..,' .,
5
­
58
...06 09
"71
\
I
0
8
,56
o
Umpqua River
Coos Bay
Area
~~
Regular Tow Site .......'-' ,>"
~o~
iA Exploratory Tow
Bandon
Area
"­
,
l
I
\
Cape Blanco
\
\
Figure 2. 1979 Pink Shrimp (PandaJus jOr'ciani) Coos Bay and Bandon survey
areas. Depth contours in fathoms. Tow number adjacent to synbol.
See Appendix Table 3 for details.
-4­
Central', Coos Bay and Bandon areas (strata) are listed in Table 1.
the
r~gular
In addition to
survey tows, additional towing stations were located outside the survey
boundaries (Table 1).
A tow was made outsi de if there was a catch of 10 lb/net or
more at the inside station adjacent to the area boundary (see Figures 1 and 2).
survey "las conducted from
1~ Table
~1ay
The
21-30, 1979.
Number of regular and exploratory survey tows and area (nm2) sampled during
the 1979 pink shrimp (Pandatu8 jopdani). The area sampled outside the
traditional survey boundaries was determined by the sampling coverage within
the boundaries':;. Approximate depth ranges of survey areas indicated in '
fathoms (fm).
Sampling
Area
Regular Surve~ Tows
Area
No.
tows
(nm2 )
EX210ratorx Tows
No.
Area
(nm2 )
tows
Depth
(fm)
N. Lat.
45-105
45° 36 1 -46 °15 1
29
481
65-150
44°45 1 -45°36 1
22
372
4
68
Coos Bay
35-145
43°20 1 -44°09 1
33
488
8
118
Bandon:
35-145
42°56 1 -43°20 1
12
101
5
42
North I~orth
2J
Central
Exploratory Area (nm2 )
Th~
= No.
Regular Survey Area (nm2) X No.
Regular SUrvey Tows
Exploratory Survey Tows
OOF\lJ chartered two fibergl ass-hull double-ri g shrimp trawlers, the M/V Sea
Blazer and M/V Olympic, for the survey.
beams of 21 and 22 ft.
Both vessels were 75 ft long with respective
They were approximately 128 gross tons each and were out­
fitted with 365 h.p. diesel engines.
Each had a pair of 7x7 ft wood and steel flat
trawl dqors weighing approximately 1,000 lb each.
The i'l/V Sea Blazer was outfitted with square jib design box trawls having 75 ft
head and foot ropes.
The rvv Olympi c fi shed Pfis ter square-box style shrimp trawl s
with 90 ft head and foot ropes (Table 2).
The estimated effective combined width
swept by the two commercial trawls used on the fVV Sea Blazer was 83 ft and 100 ft
on the N/V OlXmpi c.
-5­
Table 2,
Trawl design specifications for trawls used on the 1979 shrimp survey.
tVV Olympi c
M/V Blazer
Type
Double Rig
Double Ri g
Square box trawl
Square box trawl
Headrope
75 feet
90 feet
Footrope
75 feet
90 feet
Headrope floats
Twenty-four a-inch + one 16-inch
float in center
Ten 12-inch
Footrope. chain
Eleven droppers of 5/16-inch
1B links per dropper
Ten droppers of 3lB-inch chain
each 18 inches long
t~ebbing
Forward section 1.5 inch No. 15
thread, intermediate 1.5 inch
I~o. 21 thread and 1. 5 ; nch r~o. 42
thread nylon IIl:!sh cod end
1.5 inch, thread unknown
Tickler chain
Ves, design unknown
Eighty-two ft of 3lB-inch
chain
j~et
desl.gn
chain~
Sampling Procedure
The catch from each net for a given tow was sorted and the shrimp were weighed
and recQrded to the nearest pound.
A 2-5 lb (907-2270 g.) sample was drawn randomly
from the shrimp catch to be used in estimating the age composition of the catch as
well as the average count per pound.
Total numbers of shrimp caught per tow were then
estimated.
AnalysiS
<.
Biomass estimates and associated variances for the four areas were based on the
area-swept method described by Gunderson and Sample (1978) and were calculated using
the FORTRAN program SHRH1P (Al
Kaiser~
1971; modified by
Golden~
1980).
Catch data
from optional tows which occurred within boundaries of pre-established sampling areas
were pooled with catch data from regular survey tows prior to calculating biomass.
Exploratpry tows in areas outsi de normal survey 1imits were combined wi th the regul ar
-6­
tows and a separate biomass estimate was calculated and compared with the first.
A
similar technique If/as used by Golden et al. (1979) in estimating the effect of optional
tows on the biomass estimates of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes aZutus) •
.:'
T~~
age cOlTlposition of catch within regular survey areas was compared to age
composition based on samples from exploratory plus regular survey tows.
Survey age
composition was also compared to estimates based on samples taken from commercial
landings (Bruneau, 1980).
Count per pound was compared in a similar fashion.
Results
Biomass estimates for the four traditional survey areas totalled 5,086,000 lbs
(2,307 m.t.).
Hhen the exploratory tows and areas were included, the total biomass
estimate increased 39% to 7,071,000 lbs (3,207 m.t.).
Table 3 contains the biomass
,
~c·
estimat~s and 95% confidence intervals based on regular survey tows as well as estimates
,~
,­
Table '3. 1979 biomass estimates of pink shrimp (PandaZus jordani) based on regul ar
tows within traditional survey boundaries and based on regular tows plus
exploratory tows outside the survey boundaries. 1979 annual shrimp
landings for the areas surveyed are listed also. Biomass and 95% con­
fidence intervals and landings are expressed in 1000's of lbs.
Total
Regul ar Survey Tm-/s
Regular plus exeloratory to~JS Commerci al
95% landing, 1979
95%
No. Area Blomass
No. Area Biomass
tows (nm2) x 1000 lb CI x 1000 lb
tows {nm2) x 1000 lb CI
Sampling
Area
-!J
±55% 29
481
785
No. Central
22
372
190
±129%
26
440
574
±99%
Coos Bay
33
488
2,640
±58%
41
606
3,446
±51%
6,132
Bandon.
12
101
1,471
±61%
17
143
2,266
±48%
8,514
i~orth
!J
Insufficient data to include exploratory tows
~
I~orth
}
3,7982 1
and Horth Central areas combined
that include exploratory tows.
Annual commercial landings from areas approximating
those covered in the survey are also contained in Table 4.
Shrimp were found to be
-7­
abunclat'tt in deeper waters outside of the traditional survey boundaries in the North
~ r~'o,
,tI~""
Central area.
Conversely shr"imp were found in higher concentrations in shallower "'/ater
or at qepths comparable to inside areas outside of the boundaries in the Coos Bay and
Bandon areas.
Average CPUE of exploratory tows made outside the boundaries was
high~r
than the CPUE within survey boundaries in all three areas where exploratory tows
made, but not significantly so (Table 4).
we~
Large variances associated with the estimqtes
of average CPUE are characteristic of animals having highly contageous distributions
(Grosslein, 1971). Although the large confidence intervals mask any real differences
that might exist beuveen average CPUE within traditional survey boundaries and average
CPUE ~stimates outside, the fact that shrimp are available outside would justify con­
sideration of expanding the survey areas.
Expanding the limits of the survey areas,
intensifying sampling effort and stratifying the areas sampled may lead to a less
biased~'and roore precise estimate of biomass (Ulltang, 1977).
Table 4.
Average catch per unit effort (CPUE) in lb/nm and 95%
confidence intervals (CI) of survey tows within survey
boundaries and of exploratory tows made outside these
boundaries.
Exploratorx tows
Regular survex tows
CPUE
95%Cl
±%
tows
lb/nm
I~O.
Area
•
"
N.,qrth
29
22
±56%
North Central
22
8
±136%
4
93
±176%
Coos Bay
33
89
±158%
8
112
±130%
B.~JldOn
12
240
±61%
5
311
±1l8%
Count per pound and the age composition was not appreciably affected by the
inclus i 9n of exploratory tows with the exception of the estimates from the North
Central. area (Table 5).
r·10re two- and three-year-ol d shrimp seemed to be avail able
in expleratory tows made outside of the survey boundaries in deeper water.
;
.:..
j
A better
-8­
grade Gf shrimp (lower count per pound) was seen in samples of commercial landings
~
.'
'.
of shrimp caught in areas covered by the survey \,/i th the exception of the Coos Bay
area (table 6).
This may have been due to the avoidance of smaller shrimp by commercial
fishermen to insure a better grade.
Table S. Count per pound and age composition (by number of shrimp)
based on regular survey tows and on regular survey tows plus
exploratory tows.
~egu' ar
tows
Age Compo sition
Shrimp
per lb
Regular
I
II
III+
Shrimp
~er lb
78
15
37
48
North Central
147
86
11
Co()s 8ay
105
31
B~don 148
66
Ar!a
North ~ercent
~'us
survex tows
Age Composi tion
percent
I
iI
III+
78
lS
37
48
3
103
52
29
19
56
13
110
38
51
11
29
5
150
70
24
6
Table 6. Count per pound and age composition (by number of shrimp) of
commercial landings of shrimp harvested in May from areas
that correspond to areas surveyed during the 1979 shrimp survey.
St9te area
28
;}
• 24,26 Survey area
Shrimp per pound
I
Y
III+
Sam p 1 e s
89
32
55
13
.j~
~
II
N0
North North Central
Age composition percent
21,22
Coos Bay 122
55
40
5
20Y
Bandon 124
50
45
5
April samples gi ven, no samples in Hay
-9­
Li terature Cited
:,'.
.'
Alverson, Dayton L., Richard L. I'lcNeeley, and Harold C. Johnson. 1960. Results of
e~ploratory shrimp fi shing off Hashington and Oregon (1958). USFWS. Comm.
Fish. Rev. 22(1): 1-11.
Brune~IJ'
C. 1980. The 1979 Oregon shrimp fishery.
processed, Ore. Dept. Fish and IJildl. 12 p.
Informational Report 80-1,
\.
Golden'l J.T., t·J.H. Barss, R.L. Demory. 1979. Groundfish assesslrent: Pacific ocean
perch (Seba8te8 alutu8) and tagging studies. Annual Report, processed. Ore.
O~pt. Fi sh and tli 1dl.
19 p.
Grosslein,
",to.
1971.
Some observations on the accuracy of abundance indices deriv~d
Int. Comm. N.H. Atl. Fish, Redbook, part III.
f~om research vessel surveys.
18 p.
Gunder~on,
D. and T. Sample. 1978. Distribution and abundance of rockfish off
Hashington, Oregon and California during 1977. Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cen.,
NI11FS. Unpublished report, 10 p.
Kai ser, A. 1971.
a~d Ui 1dl.
FORTRAil program SHRH1P.
Undoculrented card deck.
Ore. Dept. Fi sh
Pruter, A.T. and G.Y. Harry, Jr. 1952. Results of preliminary shrimp explorations
qff the Oregon coast. Fish Comm. Oreg., Res. Briefs, 4( 1): 12-24.
Robinson, J. G. 1978. The di stri bution and abundance of pink shri mp (Pandalus
jth'dani) off Oregon. Investigational rept. i~o. 8. Fish Comm. Oregon. 48 p.
Ronholt, L. L. and A. R. 1'1agill. 1961. Biological observations and results of the
1960 John U. Cobb exploratory shrimp cruise off the central Oregon coast. Fish
CQmm. Oreg., Res. Briefs, 8(1): 31-52.
Ulltal19, 0. 1977. r-1ethods of measuring stock abundance other than by the use of
commercial catch and effort data. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper No. 176, 23 p•
..
,,
c.
'
-10­
Appendi ces
Appendlx lable"l.', l09--Gf Oregoo,-Depart1l1efl't (}'f -fish
~lay 22-25, 1979; F/V Sea Blazer.
a~Hi1dHfe
Time
Tow
Date
Start
PDT
1
2
3
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/25
5/25
5/25
0651
0840
1015
1140
1322
1504
1644
1818
1958
0617
0035
1005
1130
1225
1349
1555
1716
1843
0707
0821
0935
1100
1220
1410
1541
1715
1347
2012
0630
0755
1037
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 1 /
1415 2 /
1G-
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 1 /
3031
"
.... ,~
~
\~
,
Y
:J
..... _ ,. • \'_
Tow duration
f1i n.
t1i 1es
47
41
49
46
48
34
39
42
42
40
37
37
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
35
41
41
36
37
33
31
35
33
38
36
37
40
40
40
38
35
38
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
Loran C {1I)
OO\'Jn
Haul
12117
12153
12143
12164
12176
12183
12218
12241
12267
12255
12292
12304
12325
12354
12382
12374
12366
12343
12313
12312
12304
12281
12284
12253
12224
12232
12214
12204
12213
12196
12118
12125
12161
12149
12171
12176
12196
12227
12247
12274
12262
12299
12311
12362
12389
12371
12359
12334
12315
12310
12298
12274
12287
12244
12216
12225
12206
12202
12204
12137
12112
Depth
(fms)
67-66
66-68
61-59
56
65-69
73-74
83-84
83-82
83
78
3~-85
88-90
94
97-100
106
80-76
66-62
72
83-81
79-76
64-58
65-66
79-01
67-65
67-68
77
78-76
71-67
53-47
55-56
60-54
I
Excluded from analysis ~ tow not completed due to bad bottom. Outside traditional survey boundary. Shrimp CrutS'e19i.o4, NorttJ Area,
Shrimp
catch
(lbs)
0
0
22
19
2
1
Shrlmp grade
(No/lb)
% Age (i:rs )/numbers 1
2
3+ 67
92
71
7.0
27.4
2.5
27.5
64.6
43.5
65.5
8.0
54.0
41
34
13
52
8
81
74
76
67
66
12.9
5.0
9.0
2.5
0.5
56.7
44.4
39.8
41.5
39.0
30.4
50.6
51.2
56.0
60.5
26
90
69
15.7
19.3
35.0
26.4
29.3
54.3
Trace
5
Trace
0
21
6
94
I
135
104
74
70.5
34.2
9.4
20.5
42.2
25.1
9.0
23.6
65.5
175
68
82
65
69
89
79
84.0
1.0
20.3
1.9
10.4
28.2
12.9
16.0
21.2
44.9
24.4
35.1
43.1
48.5
17.8
34.8
73.7
54.5
28.7
38.6
Trace
10
147
72
108
6
11
128
0
0
3
I
......
......
Appendix Table 2.
l1roo
Tow
11/
21/
34
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
*19
20
21
*22
23
24
*25
*26
27
28
!J
Date
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/28
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/29
5/30
5/30
5/30
5/30
5/30
5/30
5/30
5/30
Start
PDT
0645
0800
1015
1143
1252
1420
1653
1725
1830
1940
0600
0740
0845
1012
1202
1223
1430
1540
1730
1910
0620
0753
0916
1040
1225
1353
1515
1708
log of Oregon Department of Fish and
Area, r·1ay 27-30, 1979; F/V OllJl1)ic.
Tow duration
nin.
f.1i 1es
35
34
25
37
36
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
37
30
40
11
32
38
35
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.5
1.2
1.0
1.1
Excluded from analysis.
* Outside traditional survey
bounda~.
l~i1dHfe
loran C
{H~
Down
Haul
Depth
(fms)
12874
12843
12776
12762
12739
12701
12666
12635
12630
12592
12599
12555
12530
12510
12470
12438
12440
12418
12441
12468
12507
12496
12532
12568
12603
12642
12667
12696
12865
12835
12768
12754
12730
12693
12655
12628
12625
12584
12591
12547
12522
12500
12463
12435
12440
12418
12450
12468
12498
12504
12540
12575
12606
12635
12660
12704
110-112
112-115
98
81-80
78-76
79-82
85-87
91-94
75-67
70-67
99-101
83-84
85
84-83
85
74
89
104
130-138
100-97
95-96
106-110
105-103
102-106
140-160
151-155
107-105
103-101
ShrifT1J Cruise 79-5, North Central
SflrllYlJ
catch
(lbs}
Sri r1 Jl1)
grade
(No/lb}
86
81
81
27.5
12.0
52.5
72.4
20.0 15.6
73
4.9
4.3
76.7
66.7
18.4 29.0 147
1
Trace Trace 0
3
3
0
0
0
Trace Trace Trace
Trace
0
17
Trace 245
133
92
3
Trace
Trace
6
189
Trace
0
71
% Age (Xrs llnumbers
I
2
3+
I
.....
N
•
60
3.0
17.5
79.5 88
161
151
29.0
92.5
83.5
48.5
7.5
16.5
22.5
0.0
0.0
63
5.5
10.9
36.0
42.1
58.5
47.0
71
Appendix Table 3.
Log of Oregon Department of Fish and t'/ildlife Shrimp Cruise 79-3 t Heceta Head-Cape Blanco Area. t,1ay 21-25. 1979; F/V Olympic. Time
Tow
1:J
Date
Start Tow duration
f4in. tli 1es
PDT
Loran C (X)
Down
Haul
13141
13141
13174
13181
13187
13221
13251
13243
13210
13185
13141
13141
13182
13184
13196
13228
13252
13235
13201
13180
27830
27838
27840
27830
27816
27812
27807
27820
27824
27840
27833
27841
27839
27827
27814
27812
27810
27824
27825
27844
64
64
66
73
75
96
114
75
80
67
Trace 4.0
240.0
Depth
(fms)
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
5/21
0703
0804
0940
1110
1253
1407
1520
1630
1300
1930
33
35
33
38
35
35
35
36
35
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.2
18
19
20
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
5/22
0645
0837
1000
1145
1300
1415
1645
1705
1825
1930
37
38
35
33
38
65
37
35
35
37
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
13583
13637
13640
13666
13678
13708
13708
13728
13738
13735
13592
13646
13627
13671
13684
13716
13714
13735
13730
13727
27728
27716
27720
27714
27716
27710
27698
27683
27690
27700
27724
27714
27720
27714
27713
27708
27696
27686
27693
27704
105
98
81
83
68
57
74
83
68
50
*21
*22
*23
*24
25
26
27
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
5/23
0655
0810
1045
1220
1528
1700
1830
35
35
35
30
33
3G
35
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
13703
13714
13753
13744
13702
13673
13639
13710
13706
13756
13745
13694
13666
13G30
27716
27719
27680
27678
27697
27700
27712
27714
27721
27678
27672
27700
27703
27714
48
34
81
87
28
29
30
5/245/24
5/24
0650
0023
1015
33
30
30
1.0
0.9
1.0
13525
13518
13495
13517
13525
13487
27748
27762
27770
27750
27760
27773
2
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
*10
11
12
*13
14
*15
16
17
34
Shrlmp
catch
(1 bs)
Loran C (H)
Down
Haul
100.0
101.0
48.3
66.5
50.5
43.1
68.0
71.1
50.0 78.8
63.3
2.0
814.0
56.0
272.0
169.5
382.0
293.0
94.0
527.0
10.0
143.0
113.4
94.8
144.5
125.7
187.6
160.0
160.8
165.3
196.2
50.9
47.2
13.5
59.7
51.9
85.4
64.0
72.1
73.5
86.3
41. 7 7.4
44.8 8.0
75.1 11.4
33.7 6.6
43.3 4.8
13.6 1.0
30.0 6.0
23.9 4.0
23.0 3.5
12.2 1.5
105
129
729.0
6.0
315.0
449.0
289.0
22.0
63.0
175.4
137.9
124.7
150.7
164.3
138.5
97.1
81.5
71.0
60.0
77.7
78.2
57.1
16.0
11.5 7.0
25.0 4.0
23.7 16.3
16.1 6.2
18.4 3.4
40.5 2.4
65.0 15.0
90
63
G3
51.0
1.5
0.3
99.5
115.9
180.0
26.7 68.4
34.7 58.9
92.6 7.4
Trace
144.4
99.5
96.2
155.0
82.6
86.4
5.4 15.0 19.5 5.7 30.0 13.1 45.8
18.5
30.0
51.2
2.0
15.8
50.0
6.5
15.0
84
396.2
350.0
196.0
188.0
166.0
0.5
Shrimp % Age {lrs~umber grade
3+ 2
(Uoll b)
1
14.7 21.7
4.9 6.4 0.0 I
.......
wI
Appendi x Table 3.
Tm'l
Date
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
5/24
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
47
5/2~
413
*49
*50
*51
*52
*53
*54
*55
56
57
58
!J
Continued.
Start Tow duration
r~i n. f1i 1es
PDT
loran C (U)
Down
.Iaul
loran C {Xl
Do\>10
Haul
Depth
(fms)
1140
1246
1418
1515
1705
1830
1940
34
29
34
30
35
35
35
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.0
13495
13446
13432
13422
13394
13360
13358
13487
13437
13429
13413
13385
13354
13352
27758
27770
27772
27782
27786
27794
27780
27762
27773
27774
27784
27788
27794
27770
89
114
141
99
106
104
59
0630
35
32
22
35
30
32
35
42
39
33
35
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
13391
13420
13454
13490
13462
13433
13401
13399
13369
13358
13330
13400
13428
13459
13482
13455
13424
13394
13390
13360
13348
13322
27796
27796
27787
27781
27793
27805
27814
27807
27810
27822
27825
27794
27794
27785
27784
27796
27807
27816
27810
27812
27824
27822
81
67
5/25
0800
0910
1025
1135
1255
1410
1516
1646
1802
1925
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
0700
0825
0930
1025
1205
1315
1505
1628
1815
1930
35
36
35
36
35
33
35
37
41
35
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
13113
13147
13181
13184
13206
13215
13240
13270
13241
13230
13120
13136
13189
13189
13215
13215
13244
13279
13241
13222
27852
27842
27840
37844
27833
27840
27825
27810
27301
27315
27849
27840
27839
27846
27832
27843
27821
27804
27805
27815
5/24
65
54
56
54
64
61
62
57
57
52
61
65
62
68
63
71
100
116
90
Shrlmp
catch
(lbs)
Shrilll>
grade
(Nollb)
17.0 151.0
231.0
75.8
23.5
63.6
729.0
99.0
251.5
91. 7
93.8
0.1
0.0 47.5
1.8
0.0
31.7
12.5
17.9
15.0
237.0
0.8
Trace
14.5
75.0
39.0
64.5
40.5
1.5
2.5
24.5 67.2
51.6 43.9
61.5 33.3
195.8
118.6
130.0
190.5
120.7
94.9
77.8
78.3
85.3
76.9
79.0
0.0
8.0
95.7
99.0
88.2
Trace
558.0 147.1
67.5 100.0
Trace
0.0 32.0
73.5
6.0
75.1
Shrimp catch from tow 1 of 3 shrimp was lost before detailed analysis could be obtained.
* Outside traditional survey boundaries.
%Age {~rs/number
3+
2
1
52.9
19.7
6.5
5.4
4.9
1.4
3.6
46.1 6.4 53.0 45.2 12.3 87.7 62.9 5.4 76.0 11.5 71.4 10.7 43.6
53.2
54.5
54.3
68.5
70.0
68.7
3.3
4.5
5.2
3.5
27.1
39.0
40.3
26.6 28.6 27.7 29.3 63.2
11.0 73.6
7.5
15.4
80.5 19.5
30.0 65.0
0.0
5.0
1.5 54.5 44.0 6.4 69.8 23.8 I
I-'
~
•