OUR LIVING OCEANS THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES A/OM., m\ lOCUM! LIBRA! Woods Hole OcsaW InsJ'titioW 4TQ4 Commemorating JqS5 20 ° Years ° r Federal mwM 1 Fisheries Concern UNITE:; DtPAP I OF COMMIRCE UBHCO THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES I O OUR LIVING OCEANS m November 1991 NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-1 Second Printing, 3/92, 5M Woods jraphic I Institution J dSSSfa ^m W U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Robert Mosbacher Secretary John A. Knauss Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere William W. Fox, Jr. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries o CONTENTS v Preface vi Foreword 1 Part 1: Overview 3 Introduction ■j 5 Issues of National Concern 4 Scientific Principles and Terms -J9 Strategy for the Future 7 National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 2 1 Part 2: Unit Synopses 23 Unit 1: Northeast Demersal Fisheries 47 Unit 9: Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries 27 Unit 2: Northeast Pelagic Fisheries 49 Unit 10: Southeast Menhaden and Butterfish Fisheries 29 Unit 3: Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries 5 2 Unit 1 1 : Southeast/Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries 32 Unit 4: Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries 55 Unit 12: Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries 35 Unit 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 59 Unit 13: Alaska Salmon Fisheries 39 Unit 6: Atlantic Shark Fisheries 52 Ur) it 14: Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries 4 -J Unit 7: Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 57 Unit 1 5: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries 43 Unit 8: Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Reef Fish Fisheries continued . . Contents IV 72 Unit 16: Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries 93 Unit 21: Nearshore Fisheries 75 Unit 1 7: Western Pacific Bottomfish and Armorhead Fisheries 78 Unit 18: Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 98 Unit 22: Atlantic Marine Mammals "102 Unit 23: Pacific Marine Mammals 83 Unit 19: Alaska Groundfish Fisheries "109 Unit 24: Sea Turtles 89 Unit 20: Alaska Shellfish Fisheries 111 Part 3: Appendices 113 Appendix 1: Acknowledgments 114 Appendix 2: Fishery Management Councils and Fishery Management Plans 116 A PP end ' x 3: Common and Scientific Names of Species Covered in This Report PREFACE This report is the most comprehensive sta- tus review of (J.S. living marine resources ever made. It provides the available scien- tific information on the health and abun- dance of important marine populations based on the latest assessments available in mid- 1 99 1 . It addresses most marine and anadromous species having commercial, recreational, and ecological significance. Besides finfish and shellfish, it includes marine mammals, sea turtles, and corals under purview of the (J.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration (NOAA). Addi- tional information is provided in separate reports for five distinct regions: Northeast Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, and Alaska. A report of this magnitude would not be possible without the long-term commit- ment of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to resource assessment studies including resource surveys, collec- tion of recreational and commercial har- vest statistics, and population biology and ecological research. More than 60 NMFS scientists prepared sections of this report (Appendix 1), and many other NMFS per- sonnel contributed indirectly. FOREWORD ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S MESSAGE VI It is appropriate that NOAA's first report on the status of the Nation's living marine resources be released during the 200th anniversary year of Thomas Jefferson's 1791 communication to the First (J.S. Congress, transmitting ". . . the Report on the Subject of the Fisheries of the United States . . . ." Then, as now, the economic welfare of our fisheries and the biological health of the marine life and habitat on which these fisheries depend, remain a continuing and legitimate concern of the Federal government. Our vision is to restore the ocean's wealth of living marine resources through major strategic initiatives to: 1) Rebuild (J.S. fisheries by reducing overfishing and maintaining currently pro- ductive fisheries; 2) Protect and conserve marine mam- mals, sea turtles, and other endangered or threatened species; 3) Protect and restore coastal and estua- rine fishery habitats; and 4) Improve seafood safety. Through these initiatives, NMFS will set the standard for management of the ocean's renewable resources. To support these goals, we shall update and present a new national status report each fall to NOAA's many constituents. In this way the vital information on the health of the nation's marine resources will be available to all who share the common purpose of conserving and wisely using our living ocean heritage. William W. Fox, Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1991 O Part 1 : OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION OUR LIVING MARINE RESOURCES The living marine resources (LMR's) of the United States are an extremely valuable heritage. In recent years, the marine Fishing industries, both seafood and recreation, and allied enterprises have contributed over $24 billion annually to the U.S. economy. In addition, the opportunity to fish recreationally adds to the quality of life for about 17 million Americans. Also, there are economic benefits from subsistence fishing, aquaculture, and recreational viewing (e.g., whale watching) industries, as well as the intangible assets accruing from the protection of marine mammals and endangered species. OLDEST FEDERAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION Spencer F. Baird was named the Nation's first Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries in 1871. It has long been recognized that conserva- tion and wise use of LMR's require a sound scientific basis. In 1 87 1 , the U.S. Congress established the (J.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, predecessor of the NMFS, "... to investigate the reasons for the de- cline in coastal fish stocks off southern New England and to recommend correc- tive measures . . . ." From its inception, the Commission made broad scientific ad- vances in marine biology and oceanogra- phy, building on the vision of its first Commissioner, Spencer F. Baird, an emi- nent scientist and also Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Today, NMFS car- ries on a 120-year tradition of scientific service to the Nation; however, its mission is more complex than ever. In the last 20 years, NMFS' responsibili- ties have increased exponentially as a re- sult of more than 100 legislative acts and international conventions and treaties. NMFS now has management responsibil- ity for most (J.S. living marine resources. In particular, the Agency is responsible for: 1) Conservation and management of the fishery resources in the 200-mile (J.S. Ex- clusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) and 2) protection of marine mammals and threat- ened and endangered species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), respectively. The Magnuson Act estab- lished eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) which are partners with NMFS in the preparation of Fisheries Management Plans (FMP's). The Councils and FMP's are listed in Appendix 2. NMFS prepares many specialized scien- tific reports (about 800 in 1 990) to support Federal management responsibilities and its scientific mission. This national report has the broader purpose of disseminating current information on the status of U.S. LMR's to those interested in it. It can be viewed as a "report card" on how well the Nation is fulfilling its stewardship responsi- bility. In this sense, its intent is analogous to Thomas Jefferson's first report to Con- gress (see Foreword), written two centuries ago. This report is presented in three major sections, and the first, which includes this Introduction, provides an overview of the status of LMR's. Additionally, it discusses several issues of national concern (e.g., bycatch, overutilization, etc.) that apply to many (J.S. fisheries. It also provides some background on the scientific content of the remainder of the report. The second sec- tion reviews in greater detail the status of our living marine resources in 24 separate units. These Unit Synopses describe spe- cies that are linked geographically, ecolog- ically, and/or by characteristics of their harvesting operations. Appendices, the third section, list contributing authors and editors, Regional Fishery Management Councils and Fishery Management Plans, and the scientific and common names of the species covered in this report. SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND TERMS INTRODUCTION A POPULATION IS a group of animals that are genetically related owing to interbreeding. Ideally, populations should be considered distinct groups for fishery management purposes. But it is difficult to determine which individuals of a species form a population, and it may not be practical to manage them as a population. Thus, this report uses the term "population" to identify interbreeding biological groups. The term "stock" is used to identify groups of animals for management purposes. Fish abundance or population size can be expressed as either the number of fish or the total fish weight (or "biomass"). Pish abundance is determined by growth of the individual fish and the addition or recruit- ment of new generations of young fish (i.e., "recruits") to the population. Those gains must then be balanced against re- movals from the population by fishing (called Ashing mortality) and natural causes such as predation, starvation, and disease (called natural mortality). In stock assessment work, fish removals are commonly expressed in terms of rates within a time period. The fishing mortality rate is a function of fishing effort (the amount of fishing gear and the time spent fishing). Surplus production (or just "produc- tion") is the weight (biomass) of fish that can be removed by fishing without causing a change in population size. It is calculated as the sum of the growth in weight of indi- viduals in a population, plus the addition of biomass from new recruits, minus the bio- mass of animals lost to natural mortality. The production rate is expressed as a proportion of the population size or bio- mass. The production rate is highly vari- able owing to environmental fluctuations, predation, and other biological interactions with other populations. On average, pro- duction rate decreases at low and high population sizes. Thus, surplus production tends to be low at the extremes of popula- tion size (i.e., where biomass or production rate is low). It is more likely to be high at some intermediate level of population bio- mass. But, on average, biomass decreases as the amount of fishing effort increases. This means there is a relationship between average production and fishing effort. The relationship is known as the production function. A hypothetical production func- tion is shown in Figure 1 . Production func- tions are the basis for three important terms used in this report: Long-term Po- tential Yield (LTPY), Current Potential Yield (CPY), and Recent Average Yield (RAY). LONG-TERM POTENTIAL YIELD (LTPY) In the best professional judgment of NMFS scientists, LTPY is the maximum long-term average yield (catch) that can be achieved through conscientious stewardship, by controlling the fishing mortality rate to maintain the population at a size that would produce a high average yield or harvest. CURRENT POTENTIAL YIELD (CPY) The yield or catch that can be taken during any particular period depends on the exist- ing fish population size and current produc- tion rate. The yield may be either greater than or less than LTPY, and this report uses the term "current potential yield." In the best professional judgment of NMFS scien- tists, CPY is the yield that will maintain the current population level (biomass) or stim- ulate a trend toward a population that will produce the LTPY. CPY is frequently esti- mated by applying the fishing mortality associated with LTPY to the current popu- lation size. RECENT AVERAGE YIELD (RAY) To document the actual fish catches, this report employs the term "recent average yield" (RAY). This is the reported fishery landings averaged for the 3-year period, 1988-90. Figure 1— Hypothetical Production Function. In this case, the function has a flat region where average production is insensitive to the amount of fishing effort This occurs for many populations when the effect of growth and natural mortality on production are almost in balance. But eventually excess fishing effort reduces the size of the population to the point where recruitment fails, and production drops precipitously. Average production o LTPY /" ^ Fishing effort EVALUATING FISHERY RESOURCE LEVELS To evaluate the level of use of a fishery resource (i.e., underutilized, overutilized, or fully utilized) we must see how the existing fishing effort compares with the effort nec- essary to achieve LTPY. To do this, it is useful to compare CPY with LTPY and to compare RAY with both. In this report, a fishery resource is de- fined as fully utilized when the amount of fishing effort is about equal to the effort needed to achieve LTPY. For fully utilized fisheries, the RAY and CPY are usually about equal. In most cases, LTPY and CPY are also about equal, but they may differ as a result of production variability. A fishery resource is considered over- utilized when more fishing effort is used than is necessary to achieve LTPY. When RAY is greater than CPY, and CPY is less than LTPY, overutilization is indicated. Ad- ditionally, it is possible for RAY, CPY, and LTPY to be about equal while the fishery resource is overutilized. This occurs when adding more fishing effort adds very little to the catch. In such cases, overutilization may not have an apparent adverse effect on production, but it further reduces the size of the population, and it wastes effort and economic resources. A fishery resource is termed underuti- lized when more effort is required to achieve LTPY. This situation is generally indicated when RAY is less than CPY and CPY is greater than LTPY. But there may be exceptions. For example, RAY may be held below CPY and LTPY to compensate for uncertainty in population estimates. These are some of the factors NMFS considers in determining the degree of uti- lization of a resource, but they do not give a complete picture. Therefore, the NMFS has used its judgment to classify fishery resources as underutilized, fully utilized, or overutilized whenever there is sufficient in- formation. This report serves as only one informa- tion source on the status of LMR's. Another source is the guidelines set under the Mag- nuson Act that require FMP's define "over- fishing" in a measurable way. Magnuson Act guidelines allow considerable flexibility in the formulation of FMP overfishing defi- nitions. Annual evaluations will determine if fishery resources are overfished accord- ing to these definitions. Determinations of the degree of utilization reported in this document are more narrowly based on traditional principles of fisheries science. The terms "overutilization" as used in this document and "overfishing" as used to fulfill Magnuson Act requirements are not interchangeable. This document also reports on marine mammals and sea turtles that are pro- tected under the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act (MMPA) and/or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The same scientific principles apply to the population dynam- . . . Scientific Principles and Terms . . . EVALUATING FISHERY RESOURCE LEVELS ics of these protected species, but the ter- minology of underutilized, fully utilized, and overutilized does not apply. Instead, marine mammals are referred to as de- pleted when their population size is below the level of maximum net production (i.e., analogous to LTPY for a fishery resource), which is often referred to as the optimum population size. Protected species are also classified as "threatened" or "endangered" under the ESA. A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species in the fore- seeable future throughout a significant por- tion of its range. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. Marine fisheries research has long been necessary. Here (top photo) Spencer Baird, first U.S. Fish Commissioner, shoves off on a nearshore collecting trip off Woods Hole, Mass. His assistant, and later second U.S. Fish Commissioner, George Brown Goode, sits in the bow. Today marine fisheries research is conducted at sea with modern NOAA research vessels like the Miller Freeman (bottom, PMC/NOAA photo). NATIONAL OVERVIEW: STATUS AND POTENTIAL OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The LTPY of all U.S. fishery resources (Table 1 ) is conservatively estimated at 8.9 million metric tons (t). This does not in- clude the 1 1.8 million salmon on the west coast which have traditionally been re- ported in thousands of fish (Unit 12). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the (Jnited Nations (FAO) estimates the upper limit of the world's annually sustainable yield of marine and freshwater fish at about 100 million t. Therefore, the long-term po- tential (J.S. marine fish harvest is about 9% of the total world potential. Bottom dwelling "groundfish" make up 61% of the total U.S. LTPY, while highly migratory and coastal pelagic species con- stitute 30%. The remaining 9% is almost equally divided between anadromous and nearshore finfishes and the invertebrate fishery resources. Three fishery units- Alaska groundfish (Unit 19), Pacific tunas and billfish (Unit 18), and Southeast men- haden and butterfish (Unit 10)— account for 69%, or 6.1 million t, of the national LTPY. The estimate of the total current poten- tial yield for the Nation's fishery resources is virtually equal to the LTPY (both were 8.9 million t). But there are important differ- ences among regions, units, and individual stocks. For example, LTPY exceeds CPY by more than 125,000 t (31%) for New England groundfish, whereas CPY exceeds LTPY by 280,000 1 (57%) for Gulf of Alaska groundfish. In most cases where LTPY is greater than CPY, the long-term potential can only be achieved when the population is rebuilt. In those cases where CPY is greater than LTPY, harvesting at the CPY level cannot be sustained indefinitely. The total U.S. RAY is 6.4 million t, includ- ing recreationally caught fish. This value is higher than the catch reported in the NMFS publication, "Fisheries of the United States." The discrepancy is largely due to the exclusion of the high seas fisheries Table 1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields of U.S. LMR's in metric tons (t). Unit and fishery LTPY CPY RAY 1 . Northeast demersal 533,500 408,000 228,237 2. Northeast pelagic 470,000 571,000 176,700 3. Atlantic anadromous 3,979 3,979 3,979 4. Northeast invertebrate 67,700 104,700 95,300 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 271,063 222,569 226,065 6. Atlantic sharks 9,730 7,630 9,530 7. Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic 28,283 20,980 14,881 8. Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean reef fish 41.404 1 28.065 2 28,366 9. Southeast drum and croaker 75,934' 28.808 2 25,808 10. Southeast menhaden and butterfish 1,177,000 957,000 922,000 1 1 . Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate 126,632 120,025 120,585 12. Pacific coast salmon 11.806 3 11.806 3 11.268 3 13. Alaska salmon 270,258 270,258 284,847 14. Pacific coast and Alaska pelagic 264,100 211,100 102,000 1 5. Pacific coast groundfish 357,773 308,738 264,946 1 6. Western Pacific invertebrate 628 402 580 17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 2,800 801 571 18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 1,649,928 1,569,261 1,599,261 19. Alaska groundfish 3,295,700 3,728,700 2,002,100 Eastern Bering Sea (2,784,800) (2,926,100) (1,790,100) Gulf of Alaska (493,600) (773,600) (177,600) Pacific halibut (less Canada) (17,300) (29,000) (34,400) 20. Alaska shellfish 87,480 87,480 87,480 21. Nearshore 231,225 231,225 231,225 Total" 8,890,317 8,877,721 6,424,461 Percent of LTPY 99.9% 72.3% 'Underestimate 'Overestimate Thousands of fish. 4 Not including Unit 12. . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 8 The globally distributed yellowfin tuna supports fisheries in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. . . . INTRODUCTION catch landed outside the continental U.S. (e.g., Pacific tunas) from "Fisheries of the (Jnited States." RAY (combined commer- cial and recreational fisheries) for the U.S. represents a little more than 6% of the recent world catch. In recent years, the U.S. has ranked about sixth among major fish- ing nations, following the USSR, China, Japan, Peru, and Chile. The recreational finfish catch on the At- lantic and Gulf coasts was estimated at 234 million fish, or 65,000 t, in 1990; for the west coast it was estimated at 41 million fish, or 1 3,000 1, for 1 989 (the last year that data are available). This catch total is ex- clusive of Pacific salmon, which historically has composed about 2% of the entire west coast recreational catch. The RAY is 72% of the national CPY and LTPY. While this comparison indicates that there is potential for the U.S. to increase its fishery yields, the following factors need to be considered in interpreting these results: 1 ) Estimates of LTPY and CPY are some- times imprecise; therefore, harvest levels may be set conservatively to reduce the risk of depleting fishery resources (e.g., Alaska's walleye pollock). 2) Increasing the yield will result in a reduction in abundance, catch rates, and size of fish, which may adversely affect some users of the resource (e.g., anglers who desire a high catch rate and/or large fish). 3) There are limited markets for in- creased landings of several species for which RAY is less than CPY and LTPY (e.g., dogfish off New England and arrowtooth flounder off Alaska). 4) Comparison of aggregate value of LTPY, CPY, and RAY masks the fact that the recent yield for many species exceeds the current potential, and, as noted, the current potential is lower than the long- term potential as a result of overutilization and resource depletion (e.g., Georges Bank haddock). Brief regional summaries of potential yields and the status of fisheries resources, as well as marine mammals, and threat- ened and endangered sea turtles, are given below. NORTHEAST U.S. LMR'S The fisheries of the northeast region (Units 1, 2, 3, and 4) annually contribute about 25% of the value and 1 8% of the volume of the Nation's commercial fisheries. In 1990, the total northeast landings were 753,000 t, valued at $857 million. The category, mixed groundfish, is the most valuable component of the commercial fishery ($178 million), followed by American lob- ster ($151 million) and Atlantic sea scallop ($147 million). Marine angling is extremely important and contributes an estimated $1.5 billion per year to the region's econ- omy. Northeast finfish and invertebrate fisher- ies have an estimated LTPY of over 1.1 million t (exclusive of resources within state waters such as menhaden, blue crab, oyster, blue mussel, hard clam, etc.), or 12% of the national LTPY. Recent annual landings in this region have totaled only 500,000 t-less than half of their long-term potential yield. The large discrepancy be- tween recent landings and potential yield results from overutilization of 18 regional stocks (including most groundfish and flounders) and 7 underutilized stocks (in- cluding Atlantic mackerel, squids, and but- terfish); 1 1 species (stocks) are considered fully utilized. A summer flounder and associated species (butter fish, Loligo squid, and sand lance) taken in research vessel surveys off the New England coast SOUTHEAST U.S. LMR'S The combined LTPY for southeast Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean LMR's (Units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) is estimated at about 1.4 million t (16% of the national LTPY); recent catches have run about 80% of CPY and 77% of LTPY, and 17% of the U.S. total. Atlantic swordfish and bluefin tuna, many southeast Atlantic snappers and groupers, and Caribbean reef fish have been overutilized and some stocks are at historically low levels. The status of many other reef fish stocks is unknown, but they are likely to be overutilized as well. Individ- ually, these stocks are minor portions of the catch, but, in aggregate, they have supported important recreational and commercial fisheries. The recreationally and commercially important coastal pe- lagic species (e.g., mackerels, dolphin fish, and cobia) yield only about 53% of their estimated aggregate LTPY as a result of overutilization. Certain individual stocks are severely depressed, as are Gulf of Mex- ico king mackerel. . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 10 . . . SOUTHEAST U.S. LMR'S Currently, all commercially important shrimp species are being harvested at the LTPY level, but they could produce similar yields with considerably less effort if fishing mortality were reduced. The dominant catches are Gulf of Mexico brown, white, and pink shrimp, which represent 89% of the total shrimp catch, nationally. In 1990, those three species produced a total catch of 1 1 1 ,702 t, valued in excess of $405 This all-tackle, world record red drum, weighing 94 pounds 2 ounces, was caught off Cape Hatteras, N.C, in 1984. 11 WEST COAST AND WESTERN PACIFIC LMR"S West coast, Pacific-wide, and Pacific island fisheries (Units 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) account for more than 2.2 million t and 25% of the U.S. LTPY. These include groundfish and northern anchovy (west coast), tuna and billfish (Pacific-wide), and reef and seamount finfish and lobster (Pa- cific islands). Underutilized, fully utilized, and over- utilized stocks range between 18 and 24% of the total Pacific coast and western Pa- cific stocks. Insufficient assessment data exist for 1 9 stocks (36% of the total), which are assigned an "unknown" status. The large biomasses that existed for most of the long-lived species (sablefish, Dover sole, rockfish) prior to intense fishing have been fished down to the point where these species are fully utilized and the CPY is very close to the LTPY. Stocks of several spe- cies of rockfish need to be rebuilt after severe overutilization and poor recruit- ment. Other species, like jack mackerel and shortbelly rockfish, are presently un- derutilized for lack of markets. With the exception of yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific, virtually all the other 17 stocks in the highly migratory species unit are unassessed for LTPY and CPY. In- cluded are the large pelagic sharks, central western Pacific tunas, swordfish, and alba- core and skipjack tuna stocks, Pacific- wide. The total economic value of these re- sources is conservatively set at $1 .5 billion. Pacific salmon produce commercial land- ings worth about $ 1 40 million to west coast fishermen. Conservatively valuing each recreationally caught salmon at $20.00 would place the average annual 1988-90 recreational catch of 1 ,205,000 fish at over $24 million. The Pacific tuna fisheries are valued at more than $1.3 billion, and al- though no estimate is available for billfishes (owing to the variety of species in this category and a large recreational fish- ery component), the three principal spe- cies (swordfish and blue and striped marlins) are all valued in excess of $2,000/t, for both recreational and com- mercial fisheries. Groundfish commercial landings are valued at $88 million. A large catch of shortbelly rockfish on the Pacific coast. . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 12 STATUS AND POTENTIAL OF ALASKA LMR*S The Alaska fisheries have historically fo- cused on salmon, halibut, and crab (Units 13, 19, and 20). With the displacement of foreign distant-water fleets by U.S. vessels, groundfish stocks of the eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska have become the basis for the largest domestic fish catch by volume and one of the world's largest sin- gle-species fisheries (walleye pollock). Conservatively estimated, Alaska's com- bined LTPY represents more than 41% of the national total. Twenty-five fisheries (74% of the regional total) are fully utilized; none is considered overutilized. The 1988- 90 RAY has remained steady at 2.4 million t, or 67% of the long-term regional yield, and is valued at more than $1.1 billion. With only one exception, the groundfish stocks off Alaska are well managed and in good-to-excellent condition. The CPY of 3.7 million t is 13% above the LTPY estimate of 3.3 million t, owing in large measure to the current high abundance and above-av- erage recruitment that have occurred in individual fisheries (principally certain Alaska salmon stocks. Pacific halibut, Pa- cific cod, and most Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska flatfish). Owing to the favorable biological health of the resources, the cur- rent yield from 21% of the stocks could be increased (i.e., they are listed as underuti- lized). This reflects, in part, the North Pa- A large Pacific halibut is hauled in. A big bag of walleye pollock taken in Alaska waters. fcHUBH* 13 ALASKA LMR'S cific Fishery Management Council's an- nual cap on groundfish harvests at 2 mil- lion t and bycatch restrictions for nontarget species. The cap provides a margin of safety for eastern Bering Sea groundfish to allow for uncertainty in biological assess- ments. Alaska salmon stocks have rebounded to record high levels. Catches since 1980 have steadily increased to an all-time re- cord of 155 million salmon landed in 1989. Pacific halibut stocks are in good condi- tion, with CPY and RAY at 1 68% and 1 99%, respectively, of the species' long-term yield. Both king and tanner crab have ex- perienced wide recruitment swings and, having suffered severe population declines during the early 1 980's, are slowly rebuilding. U.S. NEARSHORE LMR'S It is difficult to assess the status of all nearshore species (Unit 21) around the entire U.S. coast because they come under varied management and data collection regimes. Mo realistic estimates exist for LTPY or CPY because of the diverse nature of these coastal and estuarine species and their fisheries. Management authority is usually a regional, state, and/or local re- sponsibility, because most fisheries occur within the 3-mile interior boundary to the Federally controlled EEZ. But, generally, Atlantic oysters, hard and softshell clams, bay scallops, and abalones are over- utilized, at least in part of their ranges. Fully utilized resources include Pacific shrimp and clams, Dungeness crab, blue crab, and calico scallop. The status of 20 of the 34 species included in this unit cannot be determined from the existing data. The latest RAY is conservatively set at 231 ,225 t. The commercial value of all nearshore resources is about $376 million, which does not include the substantial recrea- tional component. A commercial digger on the Maine coast harvests soft-shelled clams and marine worms, the latter for bait . . . National overview: status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 14 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES The MMPA and ESA require regular status updates for marine mammal and sea turtle populations. The current state of our knowledge only allows 18 stocks to be assigned abundance trend estimates (Table 2). The rest are of unknown status (particularly the Pacific dolphin stocks). Marine Mammals Thirty-six species of marine mammals (Unit 22) range the western North Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, including 34 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, and two seal species. Abundance esti- mates are known for 9 species (Table 2). Of these, 3 found off the east coast are listed as endangered under ESA; of these, the Atlantic right whales are critically de- pleted and their long-term survival is in doubt. There is also serious concern about Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoise. There are far too few data on other species, such as blue, fin, and pilot whales, to judge the current health of individual stocks. Forty-two marine mammal species (Unit 23) occur in U.S. waters of the eastern North Pacific Ocean and eastern tropical Pacific, including 31 species of whales, Table 2.— Status and trends of Unit and marine mammals and sea turtles. Species 22. Atlantic marine mammals 23. Pacific marine mammals 24. Sea turtles Total Percent of total Unknown Increasing Decreasing Stable status' 4 2 3 3E 10 5 19 4 2 8 3 2 8 1 1 2 4E/1T/1D 6E/5T 13E/6T/1D 51% 22% 22% 5% 'E ■ Endangered. T = Threatened, D = Depleted California sea lions at rest in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Wash. 15 Marine Mammals dolphins, and porpoises, and 1 1 species of seals and sea lions. Abundance estimates are known for 18 species (Table 2). Of these, 5 species are endangered or threat- ened under ESA guidelines. Although the data are incomplete, right whales in the eastern North Pacific are at critically low levels; only 5-7 sightings have been made in the past 25 years. The eastern North Pacific or "California" stock of gray whales has recovered to or surpassed its historical abundance level. Moreover, south of Alaska some mammals have also recov- ered or are recovering to near historical abundance levels (i.e., harbor seal, Califor- nia sea lion, northern fur seal, and the northern elephant seal). Sea Turtles Six species of sea turtles (Unit 24) regularly spend all or part of their lives off the C.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in G.S. territorial waters of the Caribbean and west- ern Pacific Ocean: The Kemp's ridley, olive ridley, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback. Very few stock assessment data exist for any turtle species in (J.S. waters. Studies of nesting densities, however, provide a partial picture of population trends. The Kemp's ridley population has experienced a major decline since 1947 from an estimated 40,000 nesting females to less than 800 nests per year between 1978 and 1988. Loggerhead nesting pop- ulations have declined over the last 20-30 years on more northern (J.S. beaches (e.g., Georgia and South Carolina). On the Atlan- tic beaches of south Florida, however, log- gerheads have not shown a decline, and might even be increasing. Green turtle nestings on Florida beaches are low, but they increased between 1971 and 1989. Hawksbill turtles are too few in (J.S. waters for a trend analysis. Leatherbacks nest on beaches of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Although nesting records are too few to detect trends, their numbers do not ap- pear to be declining. Kemp's ridleys, leatherbacks, and hawksbills are listed as endangered throughout their ranges; green turtles are endangered in Florida and threatened in all other locations; and loggerheads are listed as threatened throughout their range. Cur- rently all five species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (Table 2). A green sea turtle comes ashore at French Frigate Shoals in the Hawaiian archipelago. ' » ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN 16 As noted in the Introduction, one purpose of this document is to serve as a report card on the Nation's stewardship of its living marine resources. Although this report does not assign a qualitative "grade," there are several areas where performance needs to improve. OVERUTILIZATION, EXCESS FISHING EFFORT, AND RESOURCE DEPLETION This document reports on 232 species or fishery resource groups (Table 3). Of the 153 species or species groups for which status has been assessed, 65 or 42% are overutilized. The list includes many of the Nation's most valuable fishery resources (e.g., most traditional New England groundfish and flounders, Atlantic salmon, sea scallops, Atlantic bluefin tuna, sword- fish, large coastal pelagic sharks, Atlantic menhaden, spiny lobsters in the Southeast, Pacific ocean perch, blue marlin in the Pacific, albacore in the North Pacific, and nearshore oysters, hard clams, and abalo- nes). The status of many populations of marine mammals and sea turtles is also of concern. Of the 37 stocks considered in this document, 13 are classified as endan- gered, 6 as threatened and 1 as depleted (Table 2). Current trends in abundance are known for only 15 stocks, and about half of them are declining. For most overutilized resources, fishing effort is far in excess of what is needed to harvest the CPY or LTPY. Many resources are severely depleted as a result of excess fishing. As a result, the Nation is wasting large economic benefits and many recrea- tional opportunities. Still, the abundance of some fishery re- sources is high. In some cases, there is little economic demand for the resource (e.g., dogfish off the U.S. northeast coast and arrowtooth flounder in the North Pacific), but, in other cases where demand is great, a high biomass has been maintained by setting total allowable catches conserva- tively to reduce the risk of overharvesting the resource. There are also notable exam- ples to be found in the marine mammal populations that have recovered under protection afforded to them by the MMPA (e.g., the eastern North Pacific gray whale and California sea lion). Table 3.— Utilization of assessed stocks of U.S. living marine resources. Unit and fishery Unknown Over Full Under Total 1 . Northeast demersal 2 15 5 3 25 2. Northeast pelagic 2 4 6 3. Atlantic anadromous 3 1 1 5 4. Northeast invertebrate 2 3 5 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 3 2 4 1 10 6. Atlantic shark 1 1 1 3 7. Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic 3 3 1 7 8. Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean reef fish 17 10 1 28 9. Southeast drum and croaker 4 3 7 10. Southeast menhaden and butterfish 1 1 1 3 1 1 . Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate 5 8 1 14 12. Pacific coast salmon 5 5 13. Alaska salmon 5 5 14. Pacific coast and Alaska pelagic 2 2 4 15. Pacific coast groundfish 7 2 7 2 18 1 6. Western Pacific invertebrate 1 1 2 17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 2 4 6 18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 12 2 1 3 18 19. Alaska groundfish 1 15 7 23 20. Alaska shellfish 1 2 1 4 2 1 . Nearshore resources 20 8 6 34 Total 79 65 57 31 232 Percent of total 34% 28% 25% 13% 100% 17 BYCATCH Many, if not most, current fishing methods catch nontarget species or unmarketable sizes of marine life. This inadvertent or accidental catch is referred to as "by- catch." When the bycatch is used by the fishery without jeopardizing other more beneficial uses of the resource, it is not a concern. But bycatch is an increasing con- cern when it results in the following prob- lems: 1) Discarding of large quantities of fish that are of low value because of their spe- cies or small size. This is particularly true when the small fish are a valuable species in their own right. For example, the dis- carded bycatch of finfish in the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisher- ies is believed to be several times larger than the shrimp catch, including billions of juveniles of valuable commercial and re- creational species such as croaker, spot, and drum. 2) Discarding of economically valuable components of the catch to comply with regulations that are intended either to con- serve the nontarget species or to reduce user-group conflicts (discussed below). For example, Bering Sea trawl Fisheries for walleye pollock and yellowfin sole are not allowed to keep Pacific halibut, sablefish, salmon, and king and tanner crabs that are taken simultaneously with the targeted species. As a result, large quantities of valuable finfish and shellfish are wasted. To reduce discarding, it may also be neces- sary to limit the catch of target species below their potential yield. 3) Mortality to marine mammals and endangered species such as sea turtles. Seals and large and small cetaceans are taken as bycatch in many fisheries, includ- ing gillnet fisheries of New England, trawl fisheries for Atlantic mackerel, gillnet fish- eries off the west coast and Alaska, and trawl fisheries off Alaska. Sea turtles are primarily taken as bycatch in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisher- ies, but the amount of turtle bycatch has been greatly reduced by regulations that require shrimpers to use turtle excluder devices (TED's) in their nets. Another form of discarding (although it does not result from bycatch) that has raised some concern results from the prac- tice of disposing of low value portions of animals and only retaining select body parts of greater value. Examples of this practice are "shark finning" in the Atlantic and roe fisheries on spawning walleye pol- lock in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. USER CONFLICTS Many competing special interest groups want to share in the benefits from living marine resources. This results in conflicts between components of the commercial fishing industry, such as inshore and off- shore vessels off Alaska; between com- mercial and recreational fisheries, such as those in the southeast for Spanish and king mackerel; and between utilizing fisheries resources and ensuring total protection of marine mammals and endangered species. In many cases, the resolution of these conflicts is controversial and may result in inefficiencies in fishing operations, discard- ing, or the loss of opportunities to harvest part of the potential yield. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES The status of utilization is unknown for 34% (Table 3) of the fish species or species groups considered in this document. The trend in abundance is unknown for 57% (Table 2) of the marine mammal and sea turtle species. Even for the species where status or the trend in abundance is known, the information is often imprecise. There are also large gaps in fundamental under- standing of the LMR populations and of the ecosystems of which they are a part. Many potential benefits from LMR's may not be achievable because of insufficient information. When the status of LMR's is unknown or imprecisely known, it is nec- essary to use them conservatively to guard against accidental depletion. The Gulf of Alaska pollock fishery is an example of this situation. Lack of precision in assessments of fishery resources often has been used to argue that the evidence of overutilization was not strong enough to justify restricting a fishery. This argument has led to the depletion of many stocks (e.g., most tradi- tional New England groundfish and floun- ders). . . . Issues of National Concern 18 . . . INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES Uncertainty about the relationship be- tween marine mammals and fisheries now threatens both. For example, it is possible that trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea are adversely affecting Steller sea lion popula- tions, but there is little scientific basis for drawing a sound conclusion. The outcome of making management decisions without sufficient information could be that a valu- able fishery is unnecessarily restricted to protect Steller sea lions or that the fishery unknowingly contributes to the demise of the Steller sea lion. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Ultimately, the persistence of LMR popula- tions depends on the "quality" of their en- vironment. The effect of environmental quality on LMR's is most apparent for anadromous salmon stocks (both Atlantic and Pacific), many of which have been harmed by hydroelectric power develop- ment and other causes of habitat degrada- tion, such as massive water diversions for agriculture and urban development. As a result, some west coast salmon stocks are in danger of extinction (e.g., Snake River sockeye and Sacramento River winter chinook). Another apparent impact of environ- mental quality on fisheries is the wide- spread closure of inshore shellfish beds owing to contamination by pathogens and biotoxins (i.e., coliform bacteria and para- lytic shellfish poisoning). For example, 83% of the shellfish production acreage in Massachusetts has been closed (Table 4). The effects of environmental quality on other fishery resources is difficult to detect and quantify, but there are disturbing signs. For example, chemical contami- nants in Boston Harbor and Puget Sound are the most probable causes of tumors in winter flounder and English sole, respec- tively. Table 4. — Shellfish closures in the Gulf of Maine. Region Massachusetts New Hampshire Maine Nova Scotia New Brunswick Production Percent Year' acreage restricted 1984 8,170 83 1989 3.420 100 1988 49.000 25 1985 26,671 15 1985 9,702 32 l Year of closure STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE 19 NMFS has developed a "Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Wise (Jse of America's Living Marine Resource." It ad- dresses the concerns discussed above. The plan is a fundamental departure from the approaches of the past. In particular, it calls for: 1) Risk-averse decisions in the face of uncertainty (i.e., erring on the side of con- servation, not resource depletion); 2) Reduction of uncertainty by greatly expanding the scientific information base upon which decisions are based; 3) Controlled access to fisheries to re- duce the tendency toward excess fishing capacity, economic waste, conflicts be- tween user groups, and industry pressure to make "risk-prone" decisions; 4) Development of more selective fishing practices to reduce bycatch; and 5) Implementation of a cohesive strat- egy, built on all applicable legislative au- thorities, to protect and restore the quality of the environments supporting LMR's. For the plan to be successful, NMFS will need the cooperation of all those who use and benefit from the ocean's living marine resources. It will also need the support of all Americans concerned about the conser- vation and wise use of our common ocean heritage. O Part 2: UNIT SYNOPSES UNIT 1 NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES 23 INTRODUCTION The northeast (J.S. demersal (groundfish) fisheries include about 35 fish species or stocks, primarily in Mew England waters, but also off the Mid-Atlantic states. In New England, the groundfish group is domi- nated by members of the cod and flounder families, dogfish sharks, and small skates. Mid-Atlantic groundfish fisheries land pri- marily summer flounder, scup, goosefish, and black sea bass. Northeast groundfish fishermen use such fishing gears as otter trawls, gill nets, traps, and set lines. Otter trawling is the dominant fishing method throughout the region (1,104 vessels trawled in 1989, whereas 247 vessels fished with gill nets). Many of the vessels switch gears season- ally. Total (J.S. commercial landings of mixed groundfish in the northeast were 161,000 t in 1990. Even if the sport catch (12,000 t) and Canadian landings were included, the 1990 groundfish landings were still less than half (45%) of their esti- mated long-term potential yield (LTPY) (Table 1-1). If the depleted northeast groundfish resources were restored, they alone would contribute another $180 mil- lion annually to the region's economy and substantially boost recreational fisheries and their economic value. Northeast groundfish are often found in mixed aggregations, are often caught in Table 1-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of northeast groundfish. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY^s, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LI PY) = 533,500 1 Current potential yield (CPY) 408,000 t Recent average yield (RAY)' 228,037 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Groundfish/flounders Atlantic cod 2 - 3 56,100 60,000 45,000 Over Pollock 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 53,400 40,000 54,000 Over Silver hake 18,000 20,000 100.000 7 Full Summer flounder 3 12,400 6,000 20.000 7 Over Winter flounder 3 10,300 9,000 16.000 7 Over Yellowtail flounder 8,300 6,000 39,000 Over Haddock 2 - 6 6,800 6,000 52,000 Over American plaice 3,500 2,400 10.000 7 Over Witch flounder 2,300 1,500 3.500 7 Over Windowpane flounder 2,400 2,000 5.000 7 Full Red hake 1,600 Unknown 40.000 7 Under Redfish 800 600 14,000 Over Skates/dogfish Skates 7,900 25,000 25,000 Under Spiny dogfish 7,200 200,000 50,000 Under Other finfish Goosefish 10,000 10,000 10.000 7 Over Scup 3 7,100 6,700 12.500 7 Over White hake 2 5,800 5,000 5.000 7 Full Weakfish 3 5,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Black sea bass 3 3,200 Unknown Unknown Full Cusk 2 1,700 1,200 1.500 7 Over Ocean pout 1,500 1,300 12.500 7 Full Spot 3 1,300 Unknown Unknown Unknown Tilefish 900 900 Unknown Over Wolffish 500 400 700 7 Over Atlantic halibut 37 Unknown Unknown Over '198&90 average. Includes more than 1 00 t of foreign landings (primarily Canadian) Includes more than 100 t of recreational landings. "For pollock, U 5 landings are only 1 1,700 t (22%) of the RAY 5 Overutilized for U S portion of the stock, but not the Canadian portion 6 For haddock, U S landings are only 2,500 (37%) of the RAY. Provisional LTPY's, based on historical landings patterns . . . Northeast Demersal Fisheries 24 INTRODUCTION the same nets, and are often composed of different mixes by area and time of year. Such interactions greatly complicate man- agement. The complexity is reflected, for example, in the need for differing restric- tions on mesh sizes, gear types, minimum fish sizes, and seasonal closures set by such groups as the New England and Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, At- lantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), state fishery agencies, and Ca- nadian fishery management entities, be- cause fish stocks often cross state and international boundaries. New England groundfish are managed primarily under the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Man- agement Plan (FMP) (13 species), as well as peripherally under provisions of the ASMFC Northern Shrimp Management Plan. Mid-Atlantic groundfish are managed under the Summer Flounder FMP. The region's demersal fisheries are thus man- aged indirectly regarding mesh sizes, min- imum fish lengths, and some area closures. No direct U.S. controls on groundfish harvests (by catch quota, fish- ing effort, or fishing vessel numbers) now exist. Canada has established catch quotas and limited entry for fishing vessels for its portion of the transboundary fish stocks. SPECIES AND STATUS Principal Groundfish and Flounders The principal groundfish and flounders group includes important cod family mem- bers (Atlantic cod, haddock, silver and red hake, pollock), flounders (yellowtail, sum- mer, winter, witch, and windowpane floun- ders, and American plaice), and redfish (Fig. 1-1 ). Recent annual commercial land- ings of these 12 species have averaged 176,000 t, whereas their LTPY could be nearly 400,000 t (Table 1 -1 ). Total value of the principal groundfish and flounder com- mercial landings in 1990 was $164 million. The northeast groundfish group also sup- ports important recreational fisheries for summer and winter flounders, Atlantic cod, and other species. In 1990, recreational landings of principal groundfish and floun- der species were 1 1,700 t. The estimated recreational fishing value of summer and winter flounders (the two most important of the principal groundfish and flounders) was $196 million. The abundance index for this group de- clined almost 70% between 1963 and 1974, reflecting the huge catch increases by foreign fleets (Fig. 1-1). Many stocks declined sharply in this group, notably Georges Bank haddock, most silver and red hake stocks, and most flounder stocks. By 1974, abundance levels for many Figure 1-1— U.S. commercial landings and abundance indices for principal groundfish and flounders off the New England coast, 1960-90. Abundance indices are mean weight (kg) per tow taken in Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) autumn bottom trawl surveys. Species include: Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, redfish, silver, red, and white hakes, American plaice, and the yellowtail, winter, windowpane, witch, and summer flounders. Landings Abundance 100 1 ' ' I ' 1960 1966 80 60 40 < 20 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 25 . . . Principal Groundfish and Flounders stocks were the lowest ever recorded. Groundfish partly recovered during the late 1970's because overall fishing efforts were reduced by restrictive management under the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) and by the advent of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) in 1976. Cod and haddock num- bers increased markedly; pollock and sev- eral flounder stocks also grew. Overall, the groundfish stock index peaked in 1978, then began to decline again and fell in 1 987 and 1988 to extremely low values. The 1989 and 1990 index values were slightly higher than the previous two years, primar- ily owing to recruitment of moderate 1987 year classes of Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder. Domestic fishing for northeast demersal fishes increased rapidly after the MFCMA took effect in 1 977 and more than doubled during the first 10 years. Effort has re- mained at near-peak levels, despite large declines in overall catch. Skates and Dogfish Sharks Dogfish and skates are a significant and growing part of overall northeast ground- fish stocks (Fig. 1-2). Of the two dogfishes (spiny and smooth), the spiny dogfish is dominant by far. Seven species of skates (little, winter, barndoor, brier, thorny, leop- ard, and smooth-tailed) occur on the north- east shelf, but three (winter, little, and thorny skates) produce most of the land- ings. Skate and spiny dogfish landings have increased in recent years (spiny dogfish landings in 1990 were 14,300 t, up from 4,500 t in 1989; total skate landings were 11,300 tin 1990, up from 6,600 tin 1989). Nevertheless, these landings levels remain well below the long-term potential landings and the current potential yields for these fish. This is due to a steady increase in the stocks throughout the 1970's and 1980's (Fig. 1-2). Survey catches of both dogfish and skates since 1986 have been the high- est observed. These dogfish and skate in- creases, coupled with groundfish and flounder declines, indicate that the propor- tion of dogfish and skates in the Georges Bank surveys has risen from roughly 25% in 1963 to nearly 75% in recent years. Figure 1-2.— U.S. commercial landings and abundance indices for skates and dogfish off the northeastern U.S. coast, 1960-90. Abundance indices are mean weight (kg) per tow taken in NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys. Species include little, winter, barndoor, brier, thorny, leopard, and smooth-tailed skates, and spiny and smooth dogfish. 35 160 Landings Abundance 30 120 25 - O "* o o § 20 - ~~ / 60 » ■ u a .E 15 - c a ■D •o C c CO 3 -1 a 10 J? - < 40 5 i i i i i i * i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I i i t i I 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1965 1990 . . . Northeast Demersal Fisheries 26 other Finfish Other groundfish taken primarily as by- catch in the Gulf of Maine are goosefish, cusk, wolffish, and Atlantic halibut. Ocean pout is a bycatch in southern New En- gland, while Mid-Atlantic bycatch species are scup, weakfish, black sea bass, spot, tilefish, searobin, and others. As a group, these species are generally overutilized; current landings are generally well below long-term maxima (Table 1-1). Most of these stocks are managed incidentally under FMP's for primary groundfish spe- cies. For example, goosefish, cusk, wolf- fish, and halibut (all of which are overutilized) are taken in various groundf- ish fisheries that are regulated under the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Similarly, scup and black sea bass are major compo- nents of the summer flounder fishery. The ASMFC has developed a weakfish FMP, and several other stocks (tilefish, scup, and black sea bass) are slated for future FMP's. ISSUES Principal Groundfish and Flounder Overutilization and depletion of spawning stocks are primary concerns for northeast groundfish. Fishing regulations apply only indirect controls (e.g., via mesh size, mini- mum fish size, and/or area closures) on harvests. Other important issues are the bycatch of small groundfish in certain trawl fisheries and the incompatibility of mesh and fish size regulations which results in excessive groundfish discards. Many New England groundfishes (particularly on Georges Bank) cross the U.S. -Canada boundary, but ineffective bilateral accords have contributed to the depletion of these stocks. So far, the northeast groundfishes have not been seriously hurt by coastal pollution, although species such as winter flounder are at risk. Also, there is concern that certain shelf-water warming scenarios could alter fish distribution patterns and predator-prey interactions. Important ma- rine mammal-fishery interactions also need to be understood better. Skate and Dogfish The current high numbers of skates and dogfish make them a dominant part of the mixed groundfish catches, but because there is little market for them, many are discarded. In addition, the recovery of de- pleted groundfish may be inhibited by the great numbers of dogfish and skates that compete for the same food items or that may prey on young groundfish. UNIT 2 NORTHEAST PELAGIC FISHERIES 27 INTRODUCTION Commercial landings of pelagic or mid- water fishes off the U.S. northeast coast have averaged about 1 80,000 1 since 1 988, while recreational landings (primarily bluefish and mackerel) have been about 23,000 1. In 1 990, the commercial landings produced about $36 million in commercial dockside revenue, of which the long-finned squid accounted for the greatest portion ($14 million). Bluefish and mackerel angling is important to the region, and an estimated $345 million is spent annually by bluefish anglers. SPECIES AND STATUS The U.S. northeast midwater fisheries are dominated by six species: Atlantic mack- erel, Atlantic herring, butterfish, bluefish, and the long-finned and short-finned squids. Four are considered underutilized: Mackerel, butterfish, and the two squids. The long-term population trends for her- ring and mackerel, the principal pelagic species, have fluctuated considerably dur- ing the last 25 years (Fig. 2-1). The abun- dance index reached minimal levels in the mid-1 970's, reflecting pronounced de- clines for both species (as well as the col- lapse of the Georges Bank herring). Both species have been increasing in recent years. Atlantic mackerel recovered during the 1980's, and stock assessments indi- cate a total stock of about 2.5 million t. Mackerel landings in 1990 were very low- only 60,600 t. Clearly, large quantities of mackerel are unused (Table 2-1), though some uncertainty in assessments remain. Growth, maturity rates, and productivity declined as the stock has grown. The Gulf of Maine herring stock is con- sidered fully utilized, and total 1990 land- ings were 51,300 t, representing a 125% increase over the 1983 level. The Georges Bank herring was virtually wiped out, after landings of over 370,000 t in 1967 and subsequent excessive catches. There are indications now of a recovery of the Georges Bank herrings, based on U.S. and Canadian studies. Of the two squids, the long-finned squid is the more important, owing to strong international export markets (primarily Italy and Spain). Nevertheless, both spe- cies are considered underfished. Surveys indicate their numbers are above average and landings are well below top historical levels. Seasonal changes affect the avail- ability of both species to fishermen, espe- cially the short-finned squid. Figure 2-1.— U.S. commercial landings and abundance indices for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel off the northeastern U.S. coast, 1960-90. Abundance indices are mean weight (kg) per tow taken in NEFSC spring bottom trawl surveys. Landings data are for the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine herring stocks and for the coastwide Atlantic mackerel stock throughout its range. 800 600 o o o. — 400 200 0K- 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Northeast Pelagic Fisheries 28 . . . SPECIES AND STATUS Butterfish are likewise considered under- utilized, though landings have dropped considerably in recent years, owing mostly to poor foreign markets. The butterfish fishery is currently well below its LTPY (Table 2-1). 72,600 1 but declined to a 30,800 1 average in recent years (Table 2-1). Most bluefish (over 80%) are caught by sport fishermen. Recent catch declines and a drop in the species' abundance index suggest that bluefish decreased during the 1980's and Bluefish landings peaked in 1980 at that the stock is fully exploited. Table 2-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of northeast U.S. pelagic fisheries. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 470,000 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 57 1 .000 t Recent average yield (RAY)' = 1 76,700 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY' CPY LTPY utilization Atlantic mackerel 2 - 3 - 4 73,100 400.000 200,000 Under Atlantic herring 44,300 51.000 20,000 s Full Bluefish 3 30,800 30,000 60,000 s Full Squids Long-finned 19,200 44,000 44,000 Under Short-finned 6,800 30,000 30,000 Under Butterfish 2,500 16,000 16,000 Under 1 198890 average (including foreign and recreational catches) 'includes more than 100 t of foreign landings (primarily Canadian) includes more than 100 t of recreational landings. 4 For mackerel. U.S. landings are only 1 6. 1 00 t (22%) of the RAY provisional LTPY's, based on historical landings patterns ISSUES For mackerel, butterfish, and the squids, the recent average yields represent only about 30% of the LTPY's and, given the current high abundance of mackerel, only about 20% of the CPY. Biological interactions of all these stocks have a significant effect on their productiv- ity. Herring, mackerel, and the squids are primary diet items for many predatory fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals. Thus, development of more extensive fish- eries will entail some bycatch of marine mammals, primarily pilot whales and com- mon dolphins. Similarly, development of significant fisheries for the herring, mack- erel, and squids may affect species like cod, hakes, pollock, goosefish, and spiny dogfish which use them for food. On the other hand, these pelagic species are also predators of young fish of many species. Uncertainty in the identification of mack- erel, herring, and squid stocks is another problem for fishery managers. For exam- ple, two mackerel spawning stocks have been identified, but whether or how much either has increased is not known. Like- wise, lack of information on the stock struc- ture of both squid species adds uncertainty to production data and stock relationships. The bottom trawl surveys reflect stock biomass trends generally, but they are not very precise owing to strong effects of the environment on the distribution of the spe- cies. Increasing assessment precision of small pelagic stocks will require the devel- opment of new survey series, perhaps in- cluding midwater trawling combined with advanced hydroacoustic sampling. UNIT 3 ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES 29 INTRODUCTION The anadromous species of the Atlantic seaboard are a diverse group, including river herrings (alewife, blueback herring, hickory shad), American shad, striped bass, Atlantic salmon, sturgeons (Atlantic and shortnose), and rainbow smelt. Regu- lation of their stocks is likewise diverse: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com- mission (ASMFC) has implemented a Fish- ery Management Plan (FMP) for river herrings and American shad, while shortnose sturgeon is managed under an Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan. Atlantic salmon are regulated by a New England Council FMP and are also under North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) auspices. Striped bass are regulated under an ASMFC FMP and by special Federal authority under the Atlantic Striped Bass Act (implemented by NMFS and USFWS). Current commercial landings of Atlantic anadromous species (Table 3-1; Fig. 3-1, 3-2) are only about 4,000 t, far below historic levels. Several are or were of major recreational import- ance to the region (including American shad, striped bass, and Atlantic salmon). Table 3-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Atlantic anadromous fisheries. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 3.954 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 3.954 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 3,954 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Alewife 1,800 Unknown Unknown Variable by river American shad 1,200 Unknown Unknown Variable by river Striped bass 2 900 Unknown Unknown Full Sturgeons 54 Unknown Unknown Variable by river Atlantic salmon (5.000) 3 500" Unknown Over 1 1 988-90 average, including foreign and recreational catches includes significant recreational landings Atlantic salmon RAY in numbers of fish, primarily intercepted in distant water commercial fisheries d Atlantic salmon CPY in numbers for U.S. waters only SPECIES AND STATUS Atlantic salmon historically spawned in many large New England river systems, but dams, pollution, and industrial and agricultural development combined to eliminate most native runs long ago. Today, the only self-supporting U.S. salmon runs are in Maine. Restoration efforts, in the form of stocking and fish passage construction, are underway in the Connecticut, Pawcatuck, Merrimack, and Penobscot Rivers. After 2-3 years of river life, U.S. Atlantic salmon migrate to sea and through Canadian and Greenland waters. Atlantic salmon spawning-run sizes in Maine rivers, plus estimated U.S. and dis- tant-water catches, are listed in Figure 3-1 . U.S. angler harvests averaged 430 fish in Maine rivers in recent years, about 10% of the runs. Foreign distant-water catches (Canadian and Greenland high-seas com- mercial gill netting) of U.S. salmon are estimated at 60-80% of the run. Those salmon fisheries are regulated by NASCO. Three main striped bass stocks range along the Atlantic coast: Hudson River, Chesapeake Bay, and Roanoke River (N.C.). Historically, striped bass have sup- ported important commercial and sport fisheries, and recreational catches have often equaled or exceeded commercial landings (Fig. 3-2). Commercial fishermen use a variety of gears, including haul seines, trawls, pound and gill nets, and hook-and-line. Commercial landings peaked in 1973, and then began a precip- itous decline. The declining landings, cou- pled with consistently poor recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay, spurred restrictive regulations by the ASMFC in the mid- . . . Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries 30 SPECIES AND STATUS 1980's. Additionally, the U.S. Congress passed the Striped Bass Conservation Act which empowered the Departments of Commerce and Interior to bar striped bass fishing in any state which ASMFC found not in compliance with its FMP. In 1989, high recruitment in the Chesa- peake Bay (Fig. 3-2) triggered a slight relaxation of regulations and allowed in- creased fishing on all Atlantic striped bass stocks in 1990. The fisheries remain closely monitored and rigidly controlled. Modeling studies indicate that stocks should continue to recover if fishing annu- ally removes 22% or less of the legal-sized fish. Figure 3-1.— Estimated sizes of spawning runs of Atlantic salmon to Maine rivers (numbers of fish) and the total catch by U.S. anglers and foreign commercial fishermen offish from those rivers, 1967-90. The foreign salmon catch is estimated from data on tagged and recaptured salmon. 16 7 — Run size Total catch (^ — I 14 l\ 6 _ 12 SO 5 „ 00 o 10 »- o o / \ / ~ 4 o .*~. o j= 8 ^ o a ' 1 \ 0J 3 . N o 6 ,o _ tr K \y ■ 2 4 2 1 1966 1970 1976 1980 1985 1990 Figure 3-2.— Striped bass catches in commercial and recreational fisheries, and the recruitment index (Maryland "seine index") of young striped bass abundance in the Chesapeake Bay, 1954-90. The recruitment index is the average catch per seine haul. o o o Recruitment Index Recreational catch Commercial landings 40 30 20 10 1960 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1990 31 ISSUES Losses of Atlantic salmon of U.S. origin in commercial fisheries off Canada and West Greenland severely restrict the restoration of U.S. runs and fisheries. Currently, these catches are about 10 times the home-water catch of U.S. anglers. Problems with the downstream passage of young salmon and the upstream passage of adults around dams also hamper wild salmon restoration in many rivers. Additionally, the habitat in many former salmon streams is too de- graded now to produce salmon. Long-term climate change may also affect Atlantic salmon. Warmer average temperatures may allow wider foraging in West Green- land waters by U.S. salmon, but may change the timing of migrations from river to ocean waters. A particular concern for striped bass is the potential impact of catch-and-release fishing. Striped bass angling effort cur- rently far exceeds commercial fishing ef- fort, and during the late 1980's over 90% of the recreational catch was released alive. If survival rates of the released fish are low, then hooking mortality may seri- ously compromise any benefit of high min- imum sizes. Chesapeake Bay water quality is another concern. Fishing restrictions have helped rebuild the Bay's severely de- pleted spawning stocks. However, if poor water quality hampers or prohibits survival of young bass, striped bass restoration will remain threatened. UNIT 4 NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES 32 INTRODUCTION Several invertebrate species (i.e., lobsters, mollusks, and shrimps) have long sus- tained the region's most valuable Fisheries. Some of them are quite sensitive to oce- anic temperature changes, and popula- tions and catches have fluctuated accord- ingly. While squids are also invertebrates, they are covered in Unit 2 with other "pe- lagic" Fishes. SPECIES AND STATUS The region's major invertebrate fisheries target five species: American lobster, surf clam, ocean quahog, sea scallop, and northern shrimp (Table 4-1). In 1990 the total value of these five species was $359 million. Lobster ($154 million) and sea scallop ($148 million) were the most valu- able of all northeast Fisheries landings. To- gether, these five species are valued highest of all northeast commercial fisher- ies. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) ■- Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = Table 4-1— Average annual, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of northeast invertebrate fisheries. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. 67,700 t 104,700 t 95,300 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Surf clam 2 30,600 32,600 Unknown Full American lobster 24,600 27,600 Unknown Over Ocean quahog 2 21,800 22,700 22,700 Full Sea scallop 2 15,100 1 7,400 13,300 Over Northern shrimp 3,200 4,400 4.000 3 Full 198&90 average. 2 Data for bivalve species are in shucked meat weights. 3 Ptovisional LTPY, based on historical landings patterns American Lobster American lobsters are caught primarily with baited traps; only a small fraction of U.S. landings come from trawling. Lobsters are partially regulated under a Northeast Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Because most lobsters are caught within state wa- ters, state catch rules usually apply. Amer- ican lobsters are regulated primarily by a minimum carapace length of 3 9 /)2-inch (83 mm) in the EEZ and 3'/i-inch in most state waters. Fishing mortality rates for both in- shore and offshore populations far exceed the level which would maximize the weight of the catch. One management goal is to increase the size and age of lobsters caught. This would allow many more juve- niles to mature and thereby increase pro- duction of new lobsters. At the same time the larger juveniles caught would increase the landings (Fig. 4-1). surf clam and Ocean Quahog Surf clams and ocean quahogs are har- vested with hydraulic dredging vessels; the majority of EEZ landings occur off New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula. Small quantities of surf clams and ocean qua- hogs are landed from southern New En- gland and the Gulf of Maine waters. Fisher- ies for these species are still closed on Georges Bank because of paralytic shell- fish poisoning (PSP) contamination. Surf clams and ocean quahogs are managed under the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog 33 Figure 4-1.— U.S. American lobster landings, 1940-90, and the number of lobster traps fished in Maine coastal waters during that period. In 1990, Maine produced 46% of the U.S. landings of the species. 30 Landings Effort .■'■■■ 1,500 £ I ' ' ' ' I 2,600 2,000 o o o 1,000 - 500 1940 1945 1950 1965 1960 1966 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Manage- ment Council. The primary clam and qua- hog management measure is a system of individual transferable quotas (ITQ) allo- cated on the basis of historical participa- tion in the fisheries. The development of this system is the first such allocation of property rights for management of living marine resources in U.S. waters. Atlantic surf clam landings increased steadily from 1 1,400 t in 1960 to 43,600 t in 1974. Subsequent years of overutiliza- tion, combined with a large die-off along the New Jersey coast in 1976, led to very low stocks, and landings declined to 1 5,800 t in 1 979. Since 1 977, the FMP has regulated total annual EEZ surf clam land- ings (where most are caught) and has addressed the problem of overcapitaliza- tion (too many boats and gear) in the fishery. Clams from good spawning sea- sons in 1 976 and 1 977 off New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula now comprise the bulk of the harvestable stocks. Under cur- rent harvest rates in the EEZ, there are enough surf clams to support current EEZ landings of 24,000 t well into the 1990's. As surf clam populations collapsed in the mid-1 970's, ocean quahog landings in- creased rapidly to fill the need for pro- cessed clam products. Landings increased from 600 t in 1975 to the current level of 22,000 t. Ocean quahogs inhabit the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and the relatively deep waters of the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf. In the cooler waters of the Gulf of Maine, they are found relatively near shore. The species is extremely slow growing, and quahogs over 100 years old are common in the populations (particularly in the Mid- Atlantic region). Current annual landings have been maintained at less that 2% of the estimated stock in view of its limited annual productivity. Sea Scallop Historically, sea scallop landings have fluc- tuated greatly in response to changes in production and fishing effort, recruitment variability, and changing effort patterns by U.S. and Canadian fishermen (Fig. 4-2). Good production in recent years brought increased fishing effort and record U.S. landings in 1990. Because scallops are fished when young, yield is far below what it could be if scallops were allowed to grow more before harvest. This situation is called "growth overfishing." Sea scallops are harvested on the conti- nental shelf from the Virginia Capes to The Hague Line (between the U.S. and Cana- dian portions of Georges Bank), and in the Gulf of Maine. Sea scallops are primarily dredged, though small quantities are taken with otter trawls and by divers (in the Gulf of Maine). The Sea Scallop FMP of the NEFMC regulates the fishery primarily by maximum-meat-count regulations in- tended to protect small scallops. . . . Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries 34 Figure 4-2.— U.S. and Canadian landings of Atlantic sea scallops in the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canadian waters, 1940-90. 30 EZ3USA (XlCan.da 1940 1945 1950 1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Northern Shrimp The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com- mission (ASMFC) regulates the northern shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Maine; regula- tions control the season length (December to May) and the type of gear. Northern shrimp are harvested exclu- sively from the Gulf of Maine with small- mesh trawls. Northern shrimp are at the southern extent of their geographical range in U.S. waters, and high abundance of small shrimp is generally a result of low water temperatures. The Gulf of Maine fishery for northern shrimp has undergone a boom and bust cycle over the past 25 years. Landings peaked at 12,800 t in 1969 but rapidly declined during the 1 970's to a point where no fishing was allowed in 1978, under reg- ulations of ASMFC. The rapid decline in abundance has been attributed both to overfishing and to unusually high water temperatures in the 1970's. Populations have rebuilt somewhat from the very low levels of the late 1970's. Recent landings have stabilized at about 4,000 1, and fishing mortality rates are now relatively low. ISSUES The sea scallop fishing mortality rate is far higher than that which would produce the maximum yield (i.e., growth overfishing). Current meat-count regulations have little control over total fishing mortality rates, but do offer some protection for 3-year-old scallops. Recent strong year-classes have increased U.S. landings to record levels (Fig. 4-2), but production has varied widely because the fishery is highly dependent on the incoming year-class each year. American lobster management is com- plicated by the international trade in live lobsters between Canada and the United States. Conformity of imports with U.S. size limits is a major political issue. Despite growth in recent landings, the fishery is still almost completely supported by young lobsters just meeting the minimum size, and this is a source of serious concern for the long-term health and stability of the fishery. The relatively high lobster produc- tion in recent years provides an opportu- nity to increase the minimum legal lobster size with minimum short-term catch loss. This opportunity may not be available later, and future increases in legal size limits would be even more difficult to im- plement. Overall increases in lobster land- ings in most western Atlantic areas (a record of 27,000 t in 1 990) imply that they may be due more to favorable environmen- tal conditions for young lobster survival than to the effects of fishery regulation. 35 ISSUES An important continuing issue in the surf clam-ocean quahog Fishery will be the im- plementation of the ITQ system which re- moved the need for complex catch and effort restrictions. There has been a bene- ficial reduction in the size of the surf clam fleet (from about 1 15 to 68 vessels) in the first six months under the ITQ system. An important question complicating the long-term management of northern shrimp is the relative influence of fishing and envi- ronmental variability on populations. (Jnder cooler water temperature regimes, juvenile survival and subsequent recruit- ment appear to be enhanced. In times of warmer water temperatures, husbanding the adult stock will tend to stabilize year-to- year landings fluctuation and preserve spawning biomass for more favorable en- vironmental conditions. Northern shrimp undergo a sex reversal, beginning as males and changing to fe- males during their third year of life. Under- standing the effects of harvesting on a species with such a life history pattern, particularly in relation to the size (age) at capture and the overall fishing mortality rate, is an important issue for developing management strategies. Bycatch of undersized groundfish in the small-mesh trawl fishery targeting northern shrimp is an important and contentious management issue. The MEFSC Sea Sam- pling Program has documented the sea- sonal and temporal extent of bycatch of groundfish in the shrimp fishery. Potential bases for resolution of the bycatch prob- lem include the development and use of trawls designed to retain shrimp while re- leasing groundfish ("separator trawls"), and temporal and spatial closures to mini- mize groundfish bycatch. UNIT 5 ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 36 INTRODUCTION Migratory high-seas Fishes (called "oceanic pelagics") are caught for sport and/or commerce. In the Atlantic Ocean, sword- fish and bluefin tuna have long provided important fisheries, while in recent years, yellowfin tuna have become important to U.S. fishermen. SPECIES AND STATUS Important species include swordfish, blue- fin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, alba- core, skipjack tuna, blue and white marlin, sailfish, longbill spearfish, and other minor fishes. Many anglers catch billfish, blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish in U.S. waters and occasionally longbill spearfish. Commercial fishing for them in (J.S. waters is now banned, but the species may be accidentally caught on tuna and swordfish longlines. From the early 1960's through 1977, (J.S. fishermen averaged about 5,000 1 per year (2,000-12,000 t/year) of oceanic pe- lagics (Fig. 5-1). Since 1978, U.S. fisher- men have caught 8,000 t or more per year, and during 1987-89 they averaged 18,130 t/year. However, the estimated current po- tential yield of oceanic pelagics is 13,335 t/year, and the long-term potential yield to the U.S. fleet is estimated at 23,47 1 t (Table 5-1). Since 1960, the top species in the U.S. harvest has shifted from bluefin tuna to swordfish to yellowfin tuna (Fig. 5-1) as each species became increasingly over- fished. In 1961-73, bluefin tuna repre- sented 45-80% of the U.S. western Atlantic catch. But since 1977, the percentage has dropped to less than 10%, reflecting the crash in the bluefin tuna population (Fig. 5-1), catch restrictions, and the increasing harvests of alternate species. During 1961- 73, swordfish represented 5-20% of the U.S. catch, rose to 60% in 1982, but has since dropped to about 33% (Fig. 5-1). During 1961-83, the percentage of yellowfin tuna in the U.S. North Atlantic catch was usually less than 10%, but that has since risen to 45%. The U.S. dockside value of these fishes soared from about $20 million (early 1980's) to over $100 million in 1988. Dur- ing 1987-89, the average annual dockside value was $96.5 million. Angler harvests of large pelagic fishes are hard to tally because their catch is comparatively small. Also, tagging and re- leasing of some species have grown in recent years, so fewer are landed. The average annual catch by anglers for 1987- 89 is conservatively estimated at 1,900 t. Fishing tournament surveys indicate a sub- stantial increase in billfish fishing since Figure 5-1.— U.S. landings of tunas, swordfish, martins, sailfish, and spearfish from the western North Atlantic Ocean, and the percentage of the total landings made up of the primary species (bluefin and yellowfin tuna and swordfish), 1961-90. o c o 1960 200 150 100 ° 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 37 Table 5-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Atlantic highly migratory pelagic species. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY)' = 23,471 t Current potential yield (CPY) 1 = 1 3,335 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 ■ 2 = 1 8. 1 30 1 Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY 23 CPY 2 LTPY' utilization Bigeye tuna (Atlantic) 55,600 Unknown 70,800 Under Albacore (N.Atlantic) 34,566 Unknown 48,000 Full Yellowfin tuna (W. Atlantic) 28,267 Unknown 31,000 Unknown Skipjack tuna (W. Atlantic) 26,200 Unknown 33,000 Full Swordfish (N.Atlantic) 18,896 5,300 16,000 Over Bluefin tuna (W. Atlantic) 2,900 2,000 11,000 Over Billfishes Blue marlin (N. Atlantic) 773 Unknown 2,400 Full White marlin (N. Atlantic) 351 Unknown Unknown Unknown Sailfish (W. Atlantic 812 Unknown Unknown Full Other tunas (Atlantic) 57,700 Unknown Unknown Unknown 'Total LTPY. CPY, and RAY based only on the US portion of the yield under present fishing patterns 2 198&90 average. 'individual LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's based on entire stock, regardless of harvesting nation SPECIES AND STATUS 1972, though there are no precise data on these anglers. Billfish tournament growth in some southern states indicates a fivefold to tenfold increase in this fishery since 1972. More data are needed, however, to quantify the recreational fishery trends for these fishes in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf waters. At least two Atlantic pelagic species are far overutilized. Recent swordfish harvests have heightened the risk of a population collapse: Though international swordfish protection rules have been adopted, they may not prevent serious production losses. Bluefin tuna have been overharvested, se- verely reduced, and harvest cuts were im- plemented in 1982. However, there has been no apparent increase in adult num- bers, and, indeed, it appears that spawning stocks continue to decline. Atlantic oceanic pelagic fishes migrate widely, and they are harvested over broad oceanic areas by both U.S. and foreign commercial and recreational fishermen. Thus, both national and international man- agement are mandatory for their survival. In all cases, scientific stock assessments provide the bases for regulations. The U.S. fleets fish from the northwestern Atlantic Ocean through the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. When in U.S. jurisdiction, they may be regulated under the Magnu- son Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act (MFCMA) as well as international agreements through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlan- tic Tunas (ICCAT). U.S. fishery management plans have been developed for swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish under the MFCMA. International regulations are being adopted for swordfish for the high seas. Bluefin tuna fishing has been regu- lated for nearly a decade. ISSUES Management of such highly migratory spe- cies is difficult. Domestic regulation alone, without international agreements, has lim- itations. On the other hand, international agreements are difficult to achieve if the primary fishing nations cannot agree on fishing and conservation objectives. Some nations see such rules as too restrictive of short-term gains, while others see them as too lax for long-term conservation. Other oceanic pelagics, notably yellowfin tuna, blue marlin, white marlin, . . . Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 38 . . . ISSUES and sailfish, are subjects of U.S. concern. Marlin and sailfish bycatches in tuna and swordfish fisheries are a problem, espe- cially as commercial fisheries move into concentrations of billfishes important to anglers. Meanwhile, expansion of the U.S. longline fishery for Gulf yellowfin tuna and Spanish longline fishing in the tropical eastern Atlantic have heightened concern for distressed Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and the billfishes sought by anglers. UNIT 6 ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES 39 INTRODUCTION About 350 species of sharks are known worldwide, and 72 frequent U.S. waters along the Atlantic coast. Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Sharks have been fished in limited coastal areas for many years, but the large coastal sharks have been intensively fished only a few years. Sharks were first fished primar- ily for their livers (liver oil for vitamin A) and hides (for leather). Other minor pro- ducts were fresh and salted meat, dried fins (for Oriental sharkfin soup), and fish meal. The appearance of low cost, synthetic vita- min A ended some of the small shark fisheries in 1950. Very little shark was eaten in the United States before 1970. Since then, shark has become popular due to better handling, marketing and promo- tion, and an economy favoring low-cost shark over more expensive fish. Very re- cently, however, high levels of mercury have been found in some sharks which has destabilized the shark market (Fig. 6-1). Figure 6-1— U.S. commercial and recreational landings and abundance indices of large and small coastal Atlantic sharks, 1979-90. 10 5 — Recreational landings Small coastal sharks index — Commercial landings Large coastal sharks index 8 \ •'' " 4 I — o Landings (1,000 - o o" o o_ 2 4> o c a ■o c a 1 < 1975 1980 1985 1990 SPECIES AND STATUS Under the Magnuson Fisheries Conserva- tion and Management Act (MFCMA), U.S. Atlantic sharks have been divided into three management groups (Table 6-1 ): 1 ) Large coastal sharks (white, tiger, lemon, smooth and great hammerhead, basking, whale, blacktip, sandbar, reef, dusky, spin- ner, silky, bull, bignose, Galapagos, night, ragged tooth, nurse, and scalloped), 2) small coastal sharks (Atlantic and Carib- bean sharpnose, finetooth, blacknose, bonnethead, and Atlantic angel), and 3) pelagic sharks (longfin and shortfin mako, blue, porbeagle, thresher, bigeye thresher, oceanic whitetip, sevengill, sixgill, and big- eye sixgill). Both U.S. recreational and commercial shark fishermen seek coastal sharks along the Atlantic seaboard. Pelagic sharks are targeted by tournament anglers, particu- larly off the Mid-Atlantic states, and are incidentally caught by swordfish and tuna longliners. The dockside value of the com- mercial shark fisheries has averaged about $7 million annually in recent years. Anglers fish for sharks on both tourna- ment and nontournament trips, the latter being the more prevalent. Nontournament anglers usually catch small coastal sharks that are generally not targeted by commer- cial fisheries. However, commercial and recreational fishermen can affect the shark fishing of each other. The Gulf shrimp fish- ery catches and discards many small coastal sharks (mostly sharpnose). Also, headboat anglers depend on blacktip sharks, a species seasonally taken by longline and drift gillnet fishermen. Many southern shark tournament anglers also fish for the same large coastal species . . . Atlantic Shark Fisheries 40 Table 6-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Atlantic sharks. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY)' = 9,730 t 7,630 t 9,530 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY 23 CPY 2 LTPY 2 utilization Large coastal sharks 2 Small coastal sharks 3,4 Pelagic sharks 5 3,800 3,000 2,730 1,900 3,000 Unknown 3,400 3,600 Unknown Over Under Unknown ' 198&90 average. 'includes sandbar, reef, blacktip. dusky, spinner, silky, bull, bgnose, Galapagos, night, tiger, lemon, ragged tooth, nurse, scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead, whale, basking, and white sharks. includes Atlantic and Caribbean sharpnose. finetooth, blacknose, bonnethead, and Atlantic angel sharks. 4 Almost all of the small coastal shark yield is caught as bycatch In the Gulf shrimp fishery and discarded at sea includes longfin and shortfin mako, blue, porbeagle, thresher, bigeye thresher, oceanic whiteti p, sevengill, sixgill, and bigeye sixgill sharks SPECIES AND STATUS taken by commercial fishermen. Tourna- ment anglers further north (Mid-Atlantic states and southern Mew England) fish for shortfin mako and blue sharks that are caught incidentally by large pelagic long- line Fisheries. In another twist, sharks taken by anglers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are often sold to commercial fish buyers (in 1 986 about 9% of the "commer- cial" landings were taken by rod-and-reel fishermen). Meanwhile, a mobile longline fishery tar- gets large coastal sharks in both Atlantic and Gulf waters, taking several species important to anglers. Fish buyers prefer sharks of 15-50 pounds (dressed weight), but larger sharks may be killed just for their fins. Other boats use gill nets, including drift gill nets, for blacktip shark near shore in late summer and early autumn. Gulf snap- per-grouper boats, particularly bottom longliners, also land sharks. Many sharks caught by Gulf shrimp trawlers are dis- carded at sea (though fins may be saved), but large valuable sharks are kept and sold. Many sharks are also caught in the pe- lagic swordfish and tuna longline fishery. Worth little or nothing, most of these sharks are discarded at sea, though shortfin mako are regularly landed owing to their market value. ISSUES Recreational and commercial fishermen have both voiced concern about declining shark populations. Sharks live 30-40 years or more, they grow and reproduce slowly, and therefore they are very vulner- able to overutilization. Finning, a common commercial fishing practice of removing fins from sharks and discarding the rest of the shark overboard, has been criticized. Another problem is a critical lack of data on shark numbers, biology, distribution, life history, and harvest. Without this data, it is difficult to address shark problems. UNIT 7 ATLANTIC COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 41 INTRODUCTION "Coastal pelagic" fishes, which range from the shore to the outer edge of the U.S. continental shelf, include king, Spanish, and cero mackerel; dolphin fish, and cobia. They are found from the Gulf of Maine southward into Cuban, Central American, and Brazilian waters. In general, coastal pelagics swim fast, form schools, feed voraciously, grow rap- idly, mature rather early, and spawn for extended periods of time. They are sought by both sport and commercial fishermen who, respectively, caught 8,000-17,000 t and 5,000-10,000 t/year during 1979-89 (Fig. 7-1). U.S. and Mexican commercial fishermen have fished Spanish mackerel since the 1850's and king mackerel since the 1880's. The Spanish mackerel fishermen began fishing near Mew York and Mew Jersey with trolling gear, but the most com- monly used gear since the 1 950's has been the gill net, especially the runaround gill net. About 1900, the U.S. fishery shifted southward until most of the commercial harvest was taken in the southern and Gulf states, as it is today. In 1990, over 90% of the commercial catch was landed in Flor- ida. The Spanish mackerel recreational fishery is equally significant, and anglers now catch about half of all the Spanish mackerel taken. Commercial king mackerel fishermen have used gill nets, troll lines, handlines, purse seines, otter trawls, and pound nets. Runaround gill nets and troll lines were the primary gears used in Florida until the late 1970's, when purse seines began to boost harvests. Purse seines are now banned under the Coastal Pelagic Fishery Manage- ment Plan (CPFMP). King mackerel are commercially fished from Chesapeake Bay southward. Four major production areas are Morth Carolina; Port Salerno to Sebastian, Fla.; the Florida Keys; and Ma- ples, Fla. Grande Isle, La., a fifth area until the early 1980's, was believed to harbor older females and serve as a major spawn- ing ground for Gulf king mackerel. Catch was believed to be very high on these fish during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Few fish are now taken in this region and it no longer contributes much to the fish- ery. A large king mackerel sport fishery also exists off Panama City, Fla., and off other southeastern states. Sport landings are thought to have been hurt by the ex- panding commercial fisheries in the 1 970's that were mostly unregulated until the 1980's. Figure 7-1.— Atlantic coast migratory pelagic fish landings and abundance (biomass) indices for king and Spanish mackerels, 1979-90. o o o c ~ ~ Commercial landings — Recreational landings 25 King mackerel Index Spanish mackerel Index 20 15 / \ _.-' 10 / /"v \ 5 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I I | I I 1 l 1975 1980 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 | 0.4 0.2 1985 1990 . . . Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 42 SPECIES AND STATUS Atlantic dolphin and cobia sport fisheries produce more than 90% of the total annual yield of coastal pelagic species. Some cobia are incidentally caught by commer- cial mackerel fishermen. Cero mackerel are unimportant and are usually taken in other fisheries. Coastal pelagic fishes (mackerels, cobia, and dolphin) are managed under the joint CPFMP and regulations adopted by the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. Al- though Mexican catches are believed large, only (J.S. fishermen are now regulated. King and Spanish mackerel catches have been limited under increasingly restrictive Federal management since 1982, along with a similar tightening by the states. Dol- phin and cobia are managed through min- imum fish size and creel limits; cero mackerel fishing is minimal and unregu- lated. This group as a whole now yields only about 53% of its long-term potential (Table 7-1), and many species are fished near or over maximum production levels. Three of the four mackerel stocks are overutilized and have been under a rigid rebuilding schedule since 1983. The Gulf king mackerel stock, likely the one with the largest long-term potential, is also severely depressed and is producing the least. Recent average annual produc- tion is at 25% of its maximum level; stock reduction was due to excessive harvests from the late 1970's through the early 1980's. Liberal fishing rules and sparse data hampered conservation until 1986. The Atlantic king mackerel group is near maximum production. Spanish mackerel are below maximum production levels, but are recovering. The status of cobia and dolphin in the southeastern Atlantic is un- clear. They are mostly caught by anglers, but the data needed to assess long-term production do not exist. Table 7-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic fishes. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CRY'S, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 28,283 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 20,980 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 14,881 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Dolphin 4,170 Unknown Unknown Unknown King mackerel Gulf of Mexico 2,413 2,670 9,750 Over Atlantic 2,942 5,221 3,632 Under Spanish mackerel Gulf of Mexico 1,934 4,722 5,457 Over Atlantic 2,403 3,178 3.715 Over Cobia 997 Unknown Unknown Unknown Cero mackerel 22 Unknown Unknown Unknown '1988-90 average ISSUES Management of coastal pelagic species will require the coordination of Federal, state, and international regulatory actions to ac- commodate the migratory behavior of the mackerels. The allocation of the yield between recre- ational and commercial users remains an issue. This has become particularly critical because the mackerel population has de- clined. UNIT 8 INTRODUCTION ATLANTIC/GULF OF MEXICO/ CARIBBEAN REEF FISH FISHERIES 43 The term "reef fishes" includes species that prefer coral reefs, artificial structures or other hard bottom areas, and tilefishes that prefer sandy bottom areas. They range from the coast to about 150 m depth, depending on the species and area. Ecologically, reef fish fisheries are inte- grated with such other fisheries as spiny lobster, conch, stone crab, corals, "live" rock, and ornamental aquarium fishes. Nonconsumptive uses of reef resources (i.e., ecotourism, sport diving, education, and scientific research) are also economi- cally important and can conflict with com- mercial or recreational fisheries. SPECIES AND STATUS Reef fish fisheries vary greatly by location and species; they are extremely complex and have many users: Commercial, artisa- nal, recreational, and scientific. Anglers specialize in fishing for food, sport, and trophies, and operate from charterboats, headboats, private boats, and shore, using fish traps, hook and line, longlines, bandit rigs, spears, trammel nets, and barrier nets. Reef fish have been caught for centuries, but good statistical data for most areas began in the late 1970's when recreational fishery surveys were started. Fishery data collection remains difficult owing to diverse user groups, broad geographical areas, and the many ports where fish are landed. Fishing pressure has increased with grow- ing human populations, greater demands for fishery products, and technological im- provements, such as longlines, wire fish traps, electronic fish finders, and naviga- tional aids. Reef fisheries vary widely by area. In most cases, the current and long-term po- tential yields are unknown, though for many species they are probably higher than present average yields would indicate (Table 8-1). For example, the recent Puerto Rican 3-year average landings for most species were only a small fraction of the highest reported annual landings. In many cases, data are not available by spe- cies, fishery component, or area. Statistics are confounded because species are easily misidentified owing to similar appear- ances. More than 100 reef fishes are important to commercial or sport fishermen (Table 8-1). While landings and value for individ- ual species are not large, reef fishes overall produce significant landings and values (Fig. 8-1, 8-2). Recent average commer- cial catches for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf have been about 9,000 t with a dockside value of $48 million. Sport fishermen make Figure 8-1.— Recreational and commercial reef fish landings from the Gulf of Mexico and the index of abundance of young red snappers, 1979-90. 18 15 - 12 o o o c 5 6 Recreational landinga Commercial landinga Red snapper Index 01 — 1975 0.8 0.6 04 0.2 c 3 n 1980 1985 1990 . . . Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Reef Fish Fisheries 44 Table 8-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fishes. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) 41,404 t Current potential yield (CPY) 1 = 28.065 t Recent average yield (RAY) 2 = 28,366 t Yield (t) Status of Area and species RAY 2 CPY 1 LTPY 1 utilization Gulf of Mexico Red snapper 2.024 1,800 1 5,000 Over Red grouper 772 Unknown Unknown Unknown Nassau grouper and jewf ish 3 35 Unknown Over Shallow groupers (7 species) 1,125 Unknown Unknown Over Other groupers (5 species) 4,887 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other snappers (14 species) 2,957 Unknown Unknown Unknown Porgies (6 species) 2,080 Unknown Unknown Unknown Amberjacks (2 species) 2,015 Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (3 species) 683 Unknown Unknown Unknown Sea basses (3 species) 523 Unknown Unknown Unknown Others (16 species) 888 Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic Wreckfish 909 Unknown Unknown Full Vermilion snapper 837 Unknown Unknown Over Red snapper 271 Unknown Unknown Over Red porgy 388 Unknown 450 Over Nassau grouper and jewfish 3 42 Unknown Over Other groupers (16 species) 1,705 Unknown Unknown Over Sea basses (3 species) 1,484 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other snappers ( 1 2 species) 1,421 Unknown Unknown Over Amberjacks (2 species) 1,115 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other porgies (8 species) 700 Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (1 1 species) 416 Unknown Unknown Unknown Others (12 species) 609 Unknown Unknown Unknown Caribbean Nassau grouper and jewfish 3 Unknown Over Snappers ( 1 species) 225 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other groupers (6 species) 64 Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (5 species) 63 Unknown Unknown Unknown Others (50 species) 128 Unknown Unknown Unknown 'LTPY is probably greatly understimated and CPY overestimated, although potential production estimates are not available for most species groups, many are probably overutilized 2 1988-90 average. 3 A total fishing prohibition has been imposed or is being considered SPECIES AND STATUS more than 20 million angler-trips annually. The reef fish management unit includes about 1 00 species (excluding those for the marine aquarium trade). In the southeast- ern (J.S. region, the unit is managed by three councils for Federal waters, eight states, the (J.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Reef fishes are vulnerable to overfishing owing to their long lives, slow growth, ease of capture, large body size, delayed repro- duction, and other factors. Most are prob- ably fully- and overutilized (Table 8-1 ). Red snapper, traditionally the most important Gulf reef fish, is overutilized in part as a result of its incidental catch by the shrimp fishery. Eight of the ten major species in the Atlantic headboat fishery show signifi- cant size declines since 1972. In the Carib- bean, such traditional fishery mainstays as Nassau grouper have practically disap- peared, and total landings of species of more recent importance like the red hind have declined since the late 1970's (Fig. 8-3). Landings of amberjack, lane snapper, vermilion snapper, and similar species have increased as catches of traditional species have declined. 45 Figure 8-2.— Recreational and commercial reef fish landings from the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast and the index of abundance (average weight) of gag grouper, 1979-90. 1 15 — Recreational landings Commercial landings Gag grouper index - 08 12 - X * • o c (1.00 _ - 0.6 - CI n 01 / \ 1 • c _ a 6 0.4 " J ^^^^f 00 ^ / 04 o a -J 10 - 0.2 E 3 k. T3 T3 5 3 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES Efficient and economical means of reduc- ing the bycatch of finfish in the shrimp fishery need to be developed. Large num- bers of Atlantic croakers, spot, and sand and silver seatrout are also caught and killed in the shrimp fishery. Estimates of the 1972-89 bycatch in the Gulfs offshore shrimp fishery averaged about 500 million spot, 1 billion seatrout, and 7.5 billion croaker. These species constitute the bulk of the offshore bycatch of finfish which averaged about 175,000 t during the 1980's. UNIT 10 SOUTHEAST MENHADEN AND BUTTERFISH FISHERIES 49 INTRODUCTION Menhaden, important commercial fishes, are found in both coastal and estuarine Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters. Menha- den are food for many other fishes and sea birds. The butterfish fishery remains small and undeveloped. SPECIES AND STATUS The Atlantic and the Gulf menhaden form large surface schools that support a huge "industrial" fishery which produces fish meal, oil, and soluble proteins. The indus- try is vertically integrated, generally with company-owned vessels, spotter aircraft, and processing plants. An active baitfish fishery along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts harvests about 5% of the amount landed by the industrial fishery. These fisheries are managed by individual states through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis- sion (ASMFC) and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic menhaden are found from Nova Scotia, Canada, to West Palm Beach, Fla. As coastal waters warm in April and May, large surface schools form along the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and the Caroli- nas. The schools move slowly northward, stratifying by age and size during the sum- mer, with the older and larger fish generally moving farther north. The southern migra- tion begins in early fall with surface schools disappearing in late December or early January off the Carolinas. Atlantic menha- den may live 10 years, but most fish caught are 3 years of age or younger. Menhaden landings rose during the 1940's and early 1950's and peaked at 7 1 2, 1 00 1 in 1 956. Landings remained high during the late 1950's and early 1960's, dropped precipitously during the middle 1960's, and remained low, bottoming out at 161,600 t in 1969 (Fig. 10-1). Since 1970, landings have improved but not to the levels of the late 1950's. A recent peak of 4 1 8,600 1 occurred in 1 983, even though recruitment to age 1 is comparable with the 1950's. The commercial value of Atlantic menhaden for 1985-89 averaged $31.9 million/year. In 1990, just a few menhaden "reduc- tion," or processing, plants were in opera- tion, located in Beaufort, N.C.; Reedville, Va.; coastal Maine (one Russian factory Figure 10-1.— U.S. menhaden landings from the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern Atlantic coast, 1950-90, and stock biomass estimates. 1,200 2,500 — Gulf of Mexico menhaden landings Quit of Mexico biomass 1,000 - — Atlantic menhaden landings Atlantic biomass ; A 2,000 o 800 o o - o 1,500 ° S 600 c - y CD a ■ C a -J 400 / \ \ / VL _/^A 1,000 | CD 200 l/ v,x / \J vV 600 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Southeast Menhaden and Butterfish Fisheries 50 . . . Atlantic Menhaden ship as part of an internal-waters process- ing agreement); and New Brunswick, Can. The stock collapse in the 1960's drove fishing effort southward to North Carolina and Virginia where menhaden are gener- ally younger and smaller than those in the north. Overutilization owing to "growth overfishing" (catching too many fish be- fore they grow to full size) has been a prime management concern for this stock, but spawning stock size also has remained low since 1962. A management plan written in 1982 by the ASMFC was not adopted by all states, and the Commission is rewriting it. Gulf Menhaden Gulf menhaden are found from Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula to Tampa Bay, Fla. They form large surface schools that ap- pear in the nearshore Gulf waters from April to November. Although no extensive coastwide migrations are known, there is evidence that older fish move toward the Mississippi River Delta. Gulf menhaden may live to age 5, but most of those landed are ages 1 and 2. In 1 990, active Gulf menhaden reduction plants were located in Moss Point, Miss., and in Empire, Dulac, Morgan City, Intra- coastal City, and Cameron, La. Historically, landings rose from the be- ginning of the fishery, after World War II, to a peak of 982,800 t in 1984 (Fig. 10-1). Landings were generally high during the middle 1980's (greater than 800,000 t for 1982-87), but they have declined steeply from 894,200 t to 528,300 t between 1987 and 1990. The commercial value of Gulf menhaden for 1985-89 averaged $66.2 million/year. Because this species is short lived and has a high natural mortality, "growth over- fishing" has not been a major concern. Estimates of maximum spawning potential have generally been high (over 30%). Man- agement coordinated through the GSMFC consists of a 6-month fishing season (mid- April through mid-October) and closure of inside waters across the northern Gulf of Mexico. Butterfish A small purse-seine fishery for butterfish is developing in the Gulf of Mexico. The po- tential for this fishery is significant (over 30,000 t), but the annual yield peaked in 1988 at 4,800 t, and the average annual yield for 1986-90 (minus 1988) was just 570 t (Table 10-1). Table 10-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of southeastern menhaden and butterfish. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAYs. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 1,1 77,000 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 957,000 t Recent average yield (RAY)' = 922,000 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area ray' CPY LTPY utilization Menhaden Gulf of Mexico Atlantic Gulf butterfish 575,000 345,000 2,000 575,000 345,000 37,000 660,000 480,000 37,000 Full Over Under 1988-90 average 51_ ISSUES Growth overfishing is an important issue, den management is needed because of the The demand to harvest menhaden as soon migratory nature of the fish. The import- as they become available reduces the op- ance of menhaden as prey for other spe- portunity for greater weight production. In cies also needs to be considered, addition, interstate coordination of menha- UNIT 1 1 SOUTHEAST/CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES 52 INTRODUCTION Important U.S. southeast/Caribbean ma- rine invertebrates include various shrimps, spiny lobster, stone crab, conchs, and cor- als (Table 1 1-1). The fisheries range from almost nil for certain corals to extensive and valuable for the Gulf shrimps. Though many fisheries, such as spiny lobsters and stone crabs, have only moderate value nationally, they are important to local economies. Owing to the great differences in yield, value, management, harvest tech- niques, fishery area, etc., for these fisher- ies, each species group must be examined separately to gain a realistic perspective of their status. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY)' = Table 11-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of southeast and Caribbean invertebrate species. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY*s, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. 126.632 t 120.025 t 120,585 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Shrimp Brown Gulf of Mexico 67,906 Unknown 63,865 2 Over Atlantic 3,892 Unknown Unknown Over White Gulf of Mexico 29,319 Unknown 34,377 2 Over Atlantic 5,045 Unknown Unknown Over Pink Gulf of Mexico 6,049 Unknown 10.619 2 Over Atlantic 1,207 Unknown Unknown Over Royal red 320 Unknown Unknown Unknown Seabob 2,180 Unknown Unknown Unknown Rock 49 Unknown Unknown Unknown Spiny lobsters Southeast U.S. 3 2,960 2,400 3,565 Over Caribbean 91 Unknown Unknown Unknown Stone crab 4 1,121 1,121 976 Full Queen conch 5 Unknown Over Corals 6 Unknown Unknown 1988-90 average. Long-term potential of brown, white, and pink shrimp based upon largest observed 1f>year average annual yield fields based upon commercial catches, recreational catch is unknown but may be significant. Vields are in tons of claws, declawed crabs regenerate new claws Fishing prohibited in Florida and U S Virgin Islands. Coral harvests prohibited except for a small take allowed for use in aquarium and pharmaceutical industries SPECIES AND STATUS Shrimp Brown, white, and pink shrimps account for 89% of the total Gulf of Mexico shrimp catch. In 1990 alone, these three important species produced 1 1 1 ,702 1 valued at over $405 million (Fig. 11-1). They are found in all (J.S. Gulf waters inside 60 fathoms (fm). Most of the offshore brown shrimp catch is taken at 1 1-20 f m depths, white shrimp are caught in 5 f m or less, and pink shrimp in 1 1-15 fm. Brown shrimp is most abundant off the Texas/Louisiana coast; the greatest concentration of pink shrimp is found off southwest Florida. Current, recent, and long-term potential yields for these species are given in Table 1 1-1. These shrimps have been fished com- mercially since the late 1800's, at first with long seines in shallow water. However, the otter trawl, introduced in 1915, extended shrimping to deeper waters. At first, most vessels towed one large trawl, sometimes 120 feet wide at the mouth. Soon, a dou- ble-trawl arrangement (each about 40-75 feet wide at the mouth) was found more effective. Some shrimpers began using a twin trawl system, towing four trawls, each 53 Figure 11-1.— U.S. shrimp landings from the Gulf of Mexico, 1960-90, and the parent stock abundance indices for brown, white, and pink shrimp. 1960 1965 1975 1985 shrimp about 40 feet wide at the mouth, at one time. Widely accepted, this design is now the most common gear on commercial offshore shrimpers. Gulf brown and white shrimp catch levels have increased significantly over the past 30 years, while pink shrimp catches, stable until about 1985, have declined in recent seasons and are now at an all-time low. Numbers of young shrimp for each species entering the fisheries have generally re- flected catch levels. The commercial shrimp are harvested at maximum levels. The fishery is believed to have more boats and gear than needed, i.e., reducing Fishing effort would not significantly reduce the shrimp catch. But reducing bycatch would help protect finfish. The Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery Man- agement Plan regulations restrict shrimp- ing with closures on two shrimping grounds (the "Texas closure" for brown shrimp and a pink shrimp closure off Flor- ida) and with size limits on white shrimp caught in Federal offshore waters that are landed in Louisiana. These regulations strive to improve the monetary value of the fishery. The number of young brown shrimp pro- duced per parent has increased signifi- cantly, but not for white and pink shrimp. The brown shrimp increase appears re- lated to marsh alterations. Coastal sinking and a sea-level rise in the northwestern Gulf inundates intertidal marshes longer, allow- ing the shrimp to feed for longer periods within the marsh area. In the Gulf, both factors have also expanded estuarine areas, created more marsh edges, and pro- vided more protection from predators. As a result, the nursery function of those marshes has been greatly magnified and brown shrimp production has expanded. However, continued subsidence will lead to marsh deterioration and an ultimate loss of supporting wetlands, and current high fish- ery yields may not be indefinitely sustain- able. spiny Lobster Annual Florida spiny lobster landings were fairly stable during the 1980's, running about 2,700 t from the Gulf of Mexico, but yielding record landings in 1989 of 3,200 t, valued at about $20 million. On Florida's Atlantic coast, landings have averaged 230 t, valued at $2 million. The fishery is con- sidered "overcapitalized," with about 500,000 lobster traps in use. Half that num- ber of traps would provide the same catch. Fishermen use live undersized lobster to bait traps, but owing to a high mortality rate . . . Southeast/Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries 54 Spiny Lobster for these baits, about 30-50% of the poten- tial yield is lost. The recreational fishery is large at the beginning of the season, but its total harvest level is unknown. Spiny lobster larvae may drift at sea for nine months, and thus identification of their source or parent stock is almost im- possible; however we need to know far more about their origins and movements to improve our management of them. Cur- rently, the species is managed under a joint FMP, coordinated with Florida regulations which specify a 3-inch minimum carapace length, a closed season from 31 April to 5 August, protection of egg-bearing females, closure of some nursery areas, recrea- tional bag limits, and a controversial two- day "sport" season. Caribbean spiny lobsters are caught pri- marily by fish traps, lobster traps, and di- vers. The Caribbean Council's Spiny Lobster FMP includes the Federal waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and is based on a 3.5-inch minimum carapace length and protection of young egg-bear- ing lobsters. Annual spiny lobster landings for Puerto Rico have averaged 144 t over the past 23 years, varying from 1 08 t in 1 972 to a high of 233 t in 1979, then declining to a low of 65 t in 1 988. No precise data are available on fishing effort, but the Puerto Rican stock may be overutilized. U.S. Virgin Islands landings for 1980-88 were fairly stable, av- eraging 19 t. Stone Crab Stone crabs are caught mainly in southern Florida, though some are landed further north along Florida's west coast. The Gulf of Mexico Stone Crab FMP, approved in September 1979, generally extended Florida's regulations into the EEZ. These regulations are based on a minimum claw size of 2.75 inches, biodegradable trap panels, protection of egg-bearing females, and closed seasons. Minimum size regula- tions assure that crabs have reproduced at least once before being caught. Annual catches (claw weight) varied from 1 ,200 to 1 ,400 t in the Gulf of Mexico through the 1980's and recent annual val- ues average $12-15 million. Atlantic coast landings average around 34 t, worth $120,000. The number of crab traps set increased from 295,000 in 1979-80 to 567,000 in 1984-85 but have been rela- tively stable in recent years, though esti- mated seasonal trap hauls (fishing effort) increased from 3.6 million in 1985 to 4.8 million in 1987. Thus, more of the total landings were harvested earlier and this shortened the effective fishing season length. However, it is unlikely that recent maximum production Figures can be sus- tained on a long-term basis. Conch and Coral Conchs (primarily the queen conch but other species too) are mostly taken by divers and can be easily depleted. They are currently protected in state and Federal waters off Florida and in the territorial wa- ters of the U.S. Virgin Islands; meanwhile an FMP is being developed for the Federal waters off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corals are managed as two groups: Hard and soft corals. Hard corals are currently protected (except for very small collec- tions taken by permit for research and educational purposes) because they are generally slow growing and provide critical habitat for many fishes. In fact, their value as habitat is considered far more important than their commercial value. Soft corals include gorgonians and sea fans. Some gorgonians are taken (about 50,000 colonies per year) for the aquarium and pharmaceutical industries. Growth po- tential for most species is considered lim- ited. Sea fans are completely protected except via permit for research and educa- tional use. 55 ISSUES Habitat Estuarine habitat conditions affect all shrimp fisheries. Specifically, marsh losses remove critical habitat for young shrimp and thereby depress shrimp production. Studies are needed on losses of shrimp nursery habitats, environmental changes, predator abundance, and pollution. Florida spiny lobsters depend on good reef habitat and shallow-water algal flats for feeding and reproduction, but this need may con- flict with development. Habitat is very im- portant to stone crab survival, particularly management of water quality and water flow through the Everglades. Specific water requirements need to be identified and maintained. Also needed is a unified program to integrate and study the effects of environmental alterations, fishing tech- nology, regulations, and economic factors on shrimp, lobster, and crab production and restoration. Steps need to be taken to mitigate or restore lost habitat. Stock Origin Spiny lobster parent stock could be of pan-Caribbean origin, or it could be com- posed of a number of different spawning stocks. The sources of all Florida and Car- ibbean lobster stock production (both U.S. and foreign landings) need to be identified and international management established to prevent overutilization. Growth Overfishing Many small spiny lobsters are caught in the Puerto Rican fishery. If these lobsters were allowed to grow to a larger size before harvest, there would be a substantial in- crease in yield. Modification of the traps to allow more of the small lobsters to escape and implementation of a minimum size rule need to be investigated. Many small shrimps are caught in the Puerto Rican fishery. Models have shown that there would be a substantial increase in value to the fishery if these shrimps were allowed to grow to a larger size before harvesting and if the current price structure did not change to reflect the change in landings by size category. Modifications in shrimp management to reduce the capture of small shrimp, without causing a shift in price per pound, in certain size categories need to be investigated. Gear Conflict A continuing gear conflict between stone crab trappers and shrimp trawlers off southwestern Florida has been mostly re- solved in the EEZ with a line separating the fisheries areas and seasonal closure areas. This approach needs continued monitor- ing to gauge its success and prevent re- newal of the conflict. UNIT 12 PACIFIC COAST SALMON FISHERIES 56 INTRODUCTION Salmon are fished commercially and recreationally in Puget Sound, Oregon and Washington coastal rivers, the Columbia River, California's Klamath River, and in the ocean off the three states. These spe- cies have long been harvested— indeed since time immemorial by many Indian tribes. And today, west coast salmon man- agement is very complex, involving the (J.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), state fishery agencies, Indian tribes, and the Pacific Fishery Management Coun- cil (PFMC). SPECIES AND STATUS Five species of Pacific salmon are caught in the coastal fisheries of Washington, Or- egon, and California: Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum. Pacific salmon spend their adult life (1-7 years) at sea and return to freshwater streams to spawn. From their freshwater spawning grounds, the young salmon may migrate thousands of miles out to sea and into international waters beyond the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Some Pacific coast salmon catches dur- ing 1960-90 fluctuated widely (Fig. 12-1, 12-2, 12-3), largely due to varied survival rates. For example, El Nino, an unusual warm ocean condition, devastated chinook and coho salmon in 1983-85, and both species have had poor survival in recent years. Commercial salmon landings have lately been valued at about $140 million at dock- side. If sport-caught fish were valued at $20.00 each (a conservative figure to many economists), the average recrea- tional catch for 1987-90 would be worth over $24 million. Some economists think a substantially higher value per fish would be more realistic. Stocks and harvests of some salmon species can be improved (Table 12-1). Though pink, chum, and sockeye salmon catches probably will not change much from recent yearly averages, better coho survival could help them approach their long-term average production. After excel- lent survival rates and returns in 1988, chinook production has dropped dramati- cally, and reduced returns and catches are expected this year (1991). Several agencies hope to double produc- tion of certain chinook stocks. Still, for all five species of salmon, there is more fish- ing gear than needed to harvest them, and strict limitations are required to protect the stocks. Thus, all species are listed as over- utilized. Figure 12-1— Recreational and commercial chinook salmon landings (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-90. 3,000 —Commercial landings — Recreational landings 2,600 1 I 2.000 I *- o o C 1,500 m 01 c g 1,000 500 - 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1990 57 Figure 12-2.— Recreational and commercial coho salmon landings (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-90. — Commercial landings Recreational landings 1960 1966 1970 1975 1980 1986 1990 Figure 12-3-Combined commercial and recreational landings of pink, sockeye, and chum salmon landings (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-90. 7 — Pink ~ ~ Sockeye Chum 6 6 _ • o 4 o q ■ o a J c •D C _i 2 - I 1 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Table 12-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields of salmon in the Pacific coast fishery in numbers of salmon. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAYs. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 1 1 ,806,000 Current potential yield (CPY) = 1 1 ,806,000 Recent average yield (RAY)' = 1 1 ,268,000 Yield (no. of salmon) Species RAY' CPY LTPY Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum 2,274,000 2,693,000 3,496,000 1,788,000 1,017,000 2,274,000 3,231,000 3,496,000 1 ,788,000 1,017,000 2,274,000^ 3,231,000 3,496,000 1,788,000 1,017,000 Status of utilization Over Over Over Over Over 'Average is for 1988-90 except for pink, which is a 1985-87-89 average 2 Long-term goals for some stocks include doubling of production, primarily through large-scale improvements in freshwater habitat If successful, this would dramatically increase LTPY. . . . Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries 58 Chinook and Coho Salmon Ocean fisheries for these species are man- aged by the PFMC. The decline in the ocean coho catch during the past 20 years, particularly off Washington, is largely due to a shift in catch to "inside fisheries," like Puget Sound, in compliance with a Federal court ruling in the early 1970's that Wash- ington treaty Indians are entitled to up to 50% of the catch of salmon migrating through their usual and accustomed tribal fishing areas. Most ocean chinook are caught by the commercial troll fishery, whereas an in- creasing share of the ocean catch of coho is being allocated to sport fishermen. An- nual catch quotas now limit the entire coho catch off Washington, Oregon, and Califor- nia, and the chinook catch off Washington and Oregon (north of Cape Falcon). In 1990, there were 4,550 troll boats licensed to fish commercially off these three states. For the sport fishery, about 600 charter boats were licensed and 657,000 angler- trips or days were made. Sockeye, Pink, and chum Salmon Management of these three species rests primarily with the PSC and state and tribal fishery agencies. Washington catches of sockeye and pink salmon are composed largely offish migrating to Canada's Fraser River. Although recent Fraser River salmon runs have been extremely large, their U.S. catch is limited under the U.S. -Canada Salmon Treaty of 1 985. U.S. stocks of pink, sockeye, and chum salmon, although lim- ited in range and size, appear to be fairly stable. ISSUES Freshwater Habitat Worsening freshwater (spawning) habitat has been the main cause of the salmon decline. This includes siltation problems and, particularly, the lack of water for spawning and fish passage. For example, serious fish passage problems at Columbia River hydroelectric dams have been a major factor in salmon declines. In Califor- nia, the conflict is primarily between fish needs for water and farm irrigation de- mands. Owing to habitat losses, the Sacramento winter-run chinook was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1990. In April 1991, the NMFS recom- mended that a Snake River sockeye stock be listed as endangered under the ESA. Requests have also been received to list spring, summer, and fall chinook stocks from the Snake River owing to their poor condition. Wild coho stocks of the lower Columbia River were recently declared ex- tinct by the MMFS. Wild vs. Hatchery Stocks Increased production by salmon hatcher- ies, particularly of chinook and coho, has raised concerns about the relationship be- tween natural (wild) and hatchery-pro- duced fish. Though hatchery fish can supplement natural production, they also may compete with or even replace wild salmon. This potential problem must be addressed when trying to increase de- pressed wild salmon runs. Treaty Conflicts Conflicts between treaty Indian and non-In- dian fishermen sometimes arise. Lack of agreement over Indian catch allowances in California's Klamath River made the set- ting of 1991 ocean salmon fishing regula- tions by the PFMC a challenge. In Washing- ton, a Federal court ruling that salmon must be managed to protect the smallest or the weakest stock has curtailed ocean catches in recent years. incidental catch Some salmon, mainly chinook, are acci- dentally caught at sea in the Pacific whiting fishery. Though the number taken is small compared with catches in other fisheries, this incidental catch becomes a politically sensitive issue when ocean fisheries are severely restricted, as in 1991 when troll fishing was prohibited in certain coastal areas. UNIT 1 3 ALASKA SALMON FISHERIES 59 INTRODUCTION Alaska's Pacific salmon fisheries contrib- ute to the world's food supply, the econ- omy and health of the Nation, and rank as the state's largest nongovernmental em- ployer. They also provide recreational op- portunities and are an integral part of Alaska's native culture and heritage. Pacific salmon spend a portion of their life (1-7 years) at sea and return to fresh- water streams to spawn and die. From their freshwater spawning grounds, the young salmon may migrate thousands of miles out to sea and into international waters outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The U.S. Alaska salmon industry began with purchase of the territory from Russia in 1867. Catch levels have varied widely since then (Table 13-1). By 1896, the Alaska salmon catch reached 1 1.5 million fish and increased to 126 million by 1936. Catches declined after 1 94 1 to a low of 22 million in 1974. In the 1980's, catches increased, hitting an all-time high in 1989 of 155 million salmon (Table 13-1, Fig. 13-1). Sport catches of salmon in 1988 totaled about 908,000 fish in all waters. The value of the 1990 state-wide catch (305,123 t) has been estimated at $540 million. Though the 1990 catch was smaller than the 322,528 t taken in 1989, it was worth more because of its larger valuable sockeye harvest. Alaska's 34,000-mile coast is nearly two- thirds the length of the coastline of the "lower 48" states. Salmon management in such a vast area requires a complex mix- ture of domestic and international bodies, treaties, regulations, and agreements. Fed- eral and state agencies participate in the North Pacific Fisheries Management Coun- cil (NPFMC). Salmon management is also negotiated with Canada in the Pacific Salmon Commission, with Canada and Japan in the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC), and via bilateral and multilateral talks and negotia- tions with Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. Management in the EEZ (3-200 miles offshore) is the responsibility of the NMFS and the NPFMC. The Council leaves to the INPFC the management of foreign salmon fisheries in the EEZ west of long. 175°E. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages all fisheries in state waters. Table 13-1.— Average annual number of Alaska salmon caught by decade since 1880. Source: ADF&G data. Period Average annual catch 1880-89 1,582.000 1 890-99 9.461,000 190009 30,967,000 1910-19 63,946,000 1920-29 70,237,000 1930-39 90,064,000 Period Average annual catch 194049 77,884,000 1950-59 41,440,000 1960-69 50,894,000 1970-79 48,458,000 1980-89 121,950,000 1990 153,000,000 SPECIES AND STATUS Alaska's five salmon species (chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink) are fully utilized, and stocks generally have rebuilt to or beyond previous high levels (Table 13-2). Some stocks, like chinook and coho, may be harmed by foreign high-seas catches. High-seas catch data are incom- plete and more research is needed so salmon of American and Asian origin can be identified and protected. Some salmon may be regionally over- utilized. In Bristol Bay, chinook catches are far below recent averages— the 1990 catch was the second smallest of the 1950-90 period. In the lower Yukon area, chinook catches are about 21% below par. Mean- while pink salmon in Bristol Bay are far below 1970-89 harvests, and wild sockeye and chum salmon in Prince William Sound have declined. . . . Alaska Salmon Fisheries 60 Figure 13-1. — Alaska salmon landings, 1970-90. 350 — Number landed Weight landed 300 £ 260 - 3 o o o o o o 200 - o ~ o o = 150 » •D a C c a _i ■o 100 60 \ 1970 1975 1980 1965 1990 Table 13-2— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Alaska salmon. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPrs, CPY's, and RAY's. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY)' = 273,719 t 273,719 t 288,1333t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY' CPY LTPY utilization Pink Sockeye Chum Coho Chinook 118,232 114,481 36,547 14,162 4,711 109,972 103,661 38,900 15,372 5,814 109,972 103,661 38,900 15,372 5,814 Full Full Full Full Full ' 1988- 1990 aver age ISSUES Three important problems facing Alaska salmon are: 1) Interceptions by high-seas foreign driftnet fisheries; 2) accidental chinook catches by the U.S. groundflsh fishery; and 3) destruction of spawning and rearing habitats. Driftnet Fisheries High seas (pelagic) driftnet fishing has long been a contentious issue in the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. Japan still runs mothership salmon driftnet and land-based salmon driftnet fisheries. About 174,000 North American salmon were caught by the Japanese mothership fish- ery in 1990. The high-seas squid driftnet fisheries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are suspected of taking large numbers of North American salmon. Over 1 ,000 vessels fish an area of the North Pacific Ocean larger than our contiguous 48 states. Some of the vessels set 40 miles of gill net a night. Protecting salmon from these fisheries is hampered by a lack of information. 61 Chinook Bycatch Chinook catches by U.S. groundfish trawl- ers in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska are another problem. About 15,000 chinook were taken in the trawl fishery in each area in 1990. In addition, early data from the Bering Sea's "Donut Hole" area suggest that the bycatch might exceed 60,000 chinook. Concern grew in 1991 when, by early February, over 20,000 chinook were estimated to have been caught in the Bering-Aleutian area and about 2,200 chinook were taken in the Gulf of Alaska. Habitat Problems Logging and industrial and urban develop- ment can often degrade salmon habitat. Logging problems can include road con- struction and maintenance, use of chemi- cals, and timber harvest. Though large areas of Alaska's wetlands are presently undisturbed and pristine and provide criti- cal salmon habitat, logging activities have affected about 100,000 acres of stream- side habitat and 3,000 miles of streams. From 1981 to 1988, development was al- lowed on about 41,000 acres of wetlands. The State of Alaska has currently not ac- cepted the Environmental Protection Agency's policy on "no net loss" of wet- lands. Very little information is yet avail- able on the value of these vast wetlands as fish habitat. UNIT 14 PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES 62 INTRODUCTION Several pelagic species provide important fisheries for food, bait, and industrial fish- ery products. One, the Pacific sardine, was fished to the point of collapse and only now begins to show signs of improvement (Table 14-1). Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 61 4, 1 00 1 Current potential yield (CPY) = 23 1 , 1 00 1 Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 1 20,400 1 Table 14-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of Pacific coast and Alaska pelagic species. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY'S. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY' CPY LTPY utilization Northern anchovy 60.000 2 166,000 219,000 Under Pacific sardine 4.200 3 10,000 250,000 Recovering Jack mackerel 14,200" 10,000 1 00,000 Under Pacific herring Gulf of Alaska 18,200 28,200 Unknown Full Pacific herring Bering Sea 23,800 16,900 Unknown Full 1 1 988-90 average 2 U S. yield = 7,000 t, Mexican yield = 53,000 t. 3 1988-89 average. 4 198 1-89 average. SPECIES AND STATUS Northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific herring are import- ant fisheries off the Pacific coast and Alaska. The northern anchovy, Pacific sar- dine, and jack mackerel are harvested by purse seiners off southern California and Baja California, Mexico. U.S. anchovy fish- eries are managed under the Northern An- chovy Fishery Management Plan (FMP), while Pacific sardine and jack mackerel are managed by the State of California. All three species will be managed by the Coastal Pelagics FMP now being devel- oped. Pacific herrings are taken as bycatch in the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. Cinder ground- fish FMP's for those two areas, the Pacific herring is a prohibited species and cannot be landed by groundfish fishermen. Large commercial herring fisheries also exist in Alaska coastal areas, but they are man- aged by the State of Alaska. Northern Anchovy Northern anchovies are small, short-lived plankton eaters and typically school near the surface in waters of 54°-71°F (12°- 21.5°C).They rarely exceed 4 years of age and 7 inches total length. The species ranges from the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C., to Magdalena Bay, Baja Calif. The "central subpopulation," which supports U.S. fisheries, ranges from about San Fran- cisco, Calif, (lat. 38° N), to Punta Baja, Baja Calif, (lat. 30°N). The central subpopula- tion has been fished in both California and Mexico for "reduction" (conversion to fish meal, oil, and soluble protein), bait (live or frozen) for anglers, fresh or canned fish for human consumption, animal food, and an- chovy paste. Northern anchovy biomass (Fig. 1 4-1 ) in the central subpopulation averaged 400,000 t during 1964-70, increased rap- idly to 1,800,000 t in 1974, and then de- clined to 490,000 t in 1978. Although total anchovy harvests since 1983 have been less than the theoretical maximum sustain- able yield and the historical levels before 1983, abundance continues to decline 63 Northern Anchovy slowly. Annual harvests are expected to drop soon because the Mexican reduction fishery is unprofitable and will probably end. Anchovy landings (Fig. 14-1) in Califor- nia were less than 50,000 t during 1 945-65 and increased, with the advent of "reduc- tion" fishing, to an all-time high of about 150,000 t during 1975. During 1975-83, U.S. landings declined as the reduction fishery diminished. Since 1983, U.S. land- ings have been low (less than 10,000 t), mostly for live bait and other nonreduction uses. No numerical limits are placed on the live-bait catch, but there is a 7,000 t quota for other nonreduction uses. Regulations also specify an optimum yield for the re- duction fishery based on the biomass of spawning fish. The well-being of other species, espe- cially the endangered brown pelican which feeds on northern anchovies, is important in anchovy management. Thus, there is a threshold in the optimum-yield formula for reduction fishing to prevent anchovy de- pletion and provide adequate forage for marine fishes, mammals, and birds. As a final safeguard against depletion, the man- agement plan closes all fisheries in the second year if the spawning biomass falls below 50,000 t for two consecutive years; the closure continues in subsequent years until the spawning biomass equals or ex- ceeds 50,000 t. Figure 14-1.— Northern anchovy landings by U.S. and Mexican fleets during 1945-90, and biomass (age 1 and older) from 1964 to 1990. 2,000 o § 1,500 « E o 5 1,000 c 10 500 Y/\ U.S. landings f\| Mexican la — Blomaaa ^f^^f^- 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Pacific Sardine Pacific sardines once supported the largest fishery in the western hemisphere (25% of all fish landed in the U.S.) during the 1 930's and early 1940's. Their abundance then may have been 2.5 million t. Sardine catches declined after World War II, and the fishery finally collapsed in the early 1 960's (Fig. 14-2). A complete moratorium on sardine fishing was imposed in California during the 1967-68 season. Since 1986, small annual quotas of about 1 ,500 t have been allowed for commercial harvest. At their peak abundance, Pacific sar- dines were distributed from southeastern Alaska to the Gulf of California. Although primarily a coastal species, sardines have been seen 560 km (350 miles) offshore. California fisheries have been most import- ant in terms of total landings, but fisheries also existed off Oregon and Washington when sardines were abundant. Like the northern anchovy, Pacific sar- dines are found in surface schools. They live as long as 10 years and may reach a length of nearly 12 inches (30 cm). In the past, sardines were harvested for fish meal, . . . Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries 64 , . Pacific Sardine bait, and human consumption. Currently, there is no fish meal (reduction) fishery, but some sardines are still taken for human consumption and bait. Pacific sardine numbers off southern Cal- ifornia are now increasing. Since 1986, stock biomass has increased about 40%/year, and the current biomass is about 100,000 t. Commercial demand for sardines is strong, and as catch quotas grow, the fishery is expected to thrive. Figure 14-2.— U.S. Pacific sardine landings from the 1932-33 to the 1990-91 seasons and biomass (age 2 and older) from 1945 to 1965. 700 - 500 landings Blomaat 1 I ' ' " I ' " ' 800 700 600 o 500 o o 400 » a E 300 | 200 100 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 Jack Mackerel The jack mackerel is similar to several other species of "horse mackerels" found worldwide in temperate marine waters. This species spawns from central Baja Cal- ifornia to British Columbia during spring and summer. Juveniles spend several years in their nursery grounds in the South- ern California Bight, while older fish move northward, sometimes ranging hundreds of miles from shore, especially off the Pa- cific Northwest. Jack mackerel reach sex- ual maturity early in life. Most begin spawning as 1-year-olds, and individuals in offshore waters may live for 30 or more years. The southern California jack mackerel stock has been fished since the late 1 940's when it began to substitute for the failing sardine fishery. The purse seine fishery for it has continued at a low level. Jack mack- erel and Pacific (or chub) mackerel are not identified separately on landings receipts and are considered commercially equiva- lent. Jack mackerel is slightly less favored by purse seine fishermen, however, be- cause it ranges farther from port and fre- quents rocky bottom areas which can damage nets. There is currently no catch limit. The large adults found offshore are sometimes caught incidentally by trawlers, particularly those targeting Pacific whiting. During the 1970's, the foreign whiting trawlers may have caught 1,000-2,000 t annually, but the foreign and joint-venture catches in the 1980's dropped to 100 t or less. The foreign trawl fisheries of the 1970's resulted in jack mackerel manage- ment being placed in the Groundfish FMP. An incidental catch of 1 2,000 t/year (north of lat. 39°N) was set to account for the incidental take; restrictions on fishing for other groundfish species, like whiting, were thus avoided. In 1991, interest by foreign, joint-venture, and domestic industries in- creased, and the catch limit was raised to 52,000 t to allow a mackerel fishery to develop. While that fishery failed to mate- rialize, strong signs of commercial interest continue. Jack mackerel have a rather broad dis- tribution, and their stocks consist of a wide variety of ages and sizes. This makes their assessment and management difficult. 65 . Jack Mackerel Mackerel stocks are thought to be about 1 .5 million t, but their potential yield is little more than an educated guess. Develop- ment of more reliable estimates of stock size and potential yield awaits collection of more data on age structure and reproduc- tive biology which could allow interpreta- tion of existing egg and larval survey data. The Pacific Fishery Management Coun- cil has begun to transfer jack mackerel management from the Groundfish FMP to a new Coastal Pelagics FMP. This will allow both the southern California and the off- shore mackerels to be managed in the same plan. Pacific Herring Pacific herrings range throughout Alaska waters. Major concentrations in the Gulf of Alaska occur in southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak Island- Cook Inlet. Northern Bristol Bay and Nor- ton Sound are major centers of abundance in the Bering Sea. Fewer herrings are found in the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean; fish- able concentrations have only been found in Kotzebue Sound. Herrings are fished in state waters, and they are managed by the Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Since the early 1970's, fishermen have concen- trated on harvesting roe-herring, though a small amount is taken for bait. Herrings were harvested in the eastern Bering Sea EEZ by foreign fisheries from 1 959 to 1 980 when allocations ended, prohibiting her- ring harvests in Federal waters. The ADF&G regulates and monitors 20 separate herring fisheries, in which 40,700 t valued at $27 million were harvested in 1990. Most were roe-herring (34,500 t), and the rest went for food and bait (6,200 t) and roe-on-kelp (400 t). Gulf of Alaska harvests have averaged 1 8,000 1 since 1 977 (Fig. 1 4-3). Bering Sea catches rose from 14,000 1 in 1977 to peak at nearly 37,000 1 in 1 985. Since 1 985, that catch has been declining. Herrings taken in the Bering Sea groundfish fishery cannot be retained, but are counted as part of the catch. The herring bycatch averaged 2,000-4,000 t in the foreign and joint-ven- ture fisheries, but may have been higher in the domestic trawl fishery. Overall herring abundance in the Gulf of Alaska is at moderate to high levels, though some stocks are depressed or de- clining. A strong 1984 year-class is re- ported in most fisheries. Also, the very strong 1988 year-class reported in south- eastern Alaska and Prince William Sound waters is expected to further boost Gulf of Alaska herring abundance in 1992. Figure 14-3— Pacific herring landings in the Gulf of Alaska and eastern Bering Sea, 1977-90. 60 o o o Bering Sea landings Gulf of Alaska landings 1969 . . . Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries 66 . . . Pacific Herring Herrings have declined in the southeast- ern Bering Sea, but are stable-to-increasing in the northeastern Bering Sea. The 1977- 78 year-classes were very strong and have sustained the fisheries through the 1980's. Historically, a strong year-class has oc- curred at 5- to 6-year intervals, but none occurred in the 1980's. Unless recruitment improves soon, declines are expected to continue in spawning areas south of Nor- ton Sound. These declines would hurt Na- tive subsistence fisheries, inshore roe fisheries, and the Bering Sea groundfish fishery if the herring bycatch is high. ISSUES Special trawl, ichthyoplankton, or hydro- acoustic surveys for mackerel are too large in geographical scope and too expensive to conduct regularly. Much of the neces- sary management information will have to be derived from the fishery, such as distri- bution, catch rates, and samples of fish to analyze their ages, reproductive status, growth rates, etc. UNIT 1 5 PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES 67 INTRODUCTION The Pacific coast groundfish Fishery in- cludes 83 species managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) in the U.S. EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California. These groundfish, which in- clude 1 2 species of flatfishes and 55 differ- ent rockfishes, are harvested com- mercially by trawl, trap, and hook-and-line gear. Sport fishermen operate from shore, private boats, and charter or commercial passenger fishing vessels. The commercial catch of Pacific coast groundfishes by foreign and U.S. fisher- men has changed greatly in recent years (Fig. 15-1). Shoreside landings of all spe- cies increased from 43,000 t in 1975 to a peak of 116,000 t in 1982 and is well monitored through state and Federal coop- eration in the Pacific Fishery Information Network (PacFIN). Since 1982, shoreside landings have run 82,700-97,700 t; the lat- ter figure, landed in 1989, was valued at $67,500,000. A foreign fishery for Pacific whiting (for- merly called hake) began in the mid-1 960's and peaked at 240,000 t in 1976. That catch declined as quotas were imposed and a joint-venture ((J.S.-foreign) fishery began to develop. In 1989 the joint-venture fishery harvested 203,600 t (valued at $21,600,000) and completely displaced the foreign Pacific whiting fishery. The recreational groundfish catch in 1986 was 13,900 t (excluding fish landed dressed), including 42% rockfish and ling- cod. The recreational catch in 1986 was substantial only for lingcod (1,400 t) and rockfish (5,500 1). Anglers took 43% of the total lingcod catch and 13% of the total rockfish catch, but the recreational per- centage was much greater for some rock- fish species in certain areas. Determining the value of this recreational fishery is a priority research need of the PFMC. Most groundfish are caught by trawlers. In 1989, midwater trawlers delivered 203,600 t of Pacific whiting to foreign pro- cessors at sea, and shoreside deliveries of all species included 83,800 t from trawls, 2,000 t from traps, 5,800 t from longlines, and 6,100 t from other and unspecified gears. The recent average yield (RAY) of Pacific whiting is 177,000 t, ten times greater than the RAY of any other species (Table 15-1). Figure 15-1.— The 15-year trend in Pacific coast groundfish landings. Yield is partitioned into domestic shoreside landings of all species, foreign harvest of Pacific whiting, and joint venture harvest of Pacific whiting. . . . Pacific coast Groundfish Fisheries 68 SPECIES AND STATUS Most major west coast groundfishes are now fully harvested (Table 15-1), and re- cent catches have been controlled by an- nual quotas or trip limits. Many species can live a long time (50+ years if unfished), but they can support only low harvest rates. Sablefish is such a species whose overall population is coming into equilibrium— that is, its current potential yields are approach- ing its long-term potential yields (Fig. 15- 2). Recent data indicate that the statuses of Dover sole, yellowtail rockfish, canary rockfish, and widow rockfish are similar. Pacific whiting reached full utilization in 1989 (Fig. 15-3). Its CPY is very close to its LTPY, but this is changing. The CPY for whiting will likely vary because this species has greater short-term natural fluctuations than most other groundfish species. Shortbelly rockfish and jack mackerel are underutilized, but no market has yet devel- oped for them. Pacific ocean perch and bocaccio are below potential population levels. The long-lived perch was heavily fished by for- eign nations in the 1960's and 1970's. Its population is slowly growing, and its CPY is zero, though some harvest is allowed as bycatch. Bocaccio is a shorter-lived south- ern species that has had several years of poor reproduction and no stock assess- ment updates. The 1990 assessment showed that the harvest needed to be cut 50% to reduce the risk of further declines. Specific species assessments follow. Pacific Whiting Pacific whiting stocks are well studied, with accurate ageing, hydroacoustic stock sur- veys, and an assessment model that ana- lyzes all fishery and survey data while taking into account environmental effects on the stock. Still, this is not enough to help forecasts of 3-5 years owing to yet unpre- dictable values. The greatest manage- ment problems for this species are bycatch of salmon, allocation of catch between the (J.S. and Canada, and allocation between onshore and offshore fisheries. Table 15-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t) of Pacific coast groundfish. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY'S. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) - 357,773 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 308,738 1 Recent average yield (RAY) 1 - 264.946 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Pacific whiting 177,381 228,000 226,000 Full Sablefish 11,279 8,900 8,700 Full Dover sole 18.413 22,500 16,300 Full English sole 2,321 1.900 4,500 Full Petrale sole 2.157 3.200 3,200 Unknown Thornyheads 5,752 7,900 Unknown Unknown Widow rockfish 1 1 ,947 7.000 8,300 Full Bocaccio C-M-E 2 1,750 800 2,400 Over Canary rockfish 2.227 2.900 3,500 Full Pacific ocean perch 1,090 2,500 Over Shortbelly rockfish 13,000 29,000 Under Yellowtail V-C 2 4,903 4,300 4,200 Full Other rockfish C-M-E 8,273 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other rockfish V-C 5,671 4,500 Unknown Unknown Lingcod 2,887 7,000 7,000 Unknown Pacific cod 2.595 3,200 Unknown Unknown Jack mackerel 52,500 12,000 Under Other fish 6.300 Unknown Unknown Unknown '1988-90 average. 2 All values are coastwide except V C is Cape Blanco, Oreg , to northern Vancouver Island. B C .; C-M-E is US -Mexican border to Cape Blanco, Oreg- Where a rockfish spedes is harvested outside the specified aiea, it is included with "Other rockfish* 69 Figure 15-2.— The 20-year trend in total catch (domestic and foreign) of sablefish in the U.S. EEZ and the estimated trend in biiomass for ages 3 and older. 30 400 — Landings — Bloma88 25 300 o o o 20 - o o o ~ z^ CO at c 16 " 200 '-£\ Kg? PACIFIC 180" 175* 170* 165' -30' 160" 155* 73 Figure 16-2.— Spiny and slipper lobster landings and fishing effort in Hawaii, 1977-90. 1,200 3 ■■— Landings Effort \ 1,000 1 l 2.5 o 800 to hauls) Landings (1,00 o o o o - bi Effort (1,000,000 200 " 0.5 1975 1980 1965 1990 Coral A short-lived (1974-79) fishery for several gold and bamboo corals and for pink coral existed off Makapu'u Point, Oahu, Hawaii. Since then, the prohibitive cost of Fishing such difficult-to-harvest, deep-water corals has stifled U.S. exploitation. With the ex- ception of one aborted attempt at Hancock Seamount in the Hawaiian EEZ in 1988, legal domestic harvesting of precious coral within the EEZ has been nonexistent for 1 2 years (Fig. 16-3). There are no recreational coral fisheries. Precious corals within the EEZ are managed under the Precious Coral FMP, set in September 1983 by the WPFMC. Fishing is by regular or "experi- mental" fishing permit only. The FMP reg- ulates precious coral fisheries within the EEZ management unit seaward of the MHI and rHWHI, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Pacific Island possessions of John- ston Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra, Wake, Jarvis, Howland, and Baker Islands. Figure 16-3.— Landings of precious corals from Hawaiian waters, 1966-90. 3 2.5 J \ Landings (1,000 t) ui — en io I v \ A 19 ~\ /.,.. 65 1970 1975 1980 1985 19 90 . . . Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries 74 ISSUES Management of the spiny and slipper lobsters is difficult because the number of young lobsters entering the fishery each year varies widely. We need to know the cause of this variation so we can predict it. Preliminary research suggests that annual variation in current flow along the Hawaiian ridge may be the cause, but we need to pursue these studies to verify this hypothesis. UNIT 1 7 WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND ARMORHEAD FISHERIES 75 INTRODUCTION The bottomfish fishery geographically en- lands (CNMI), and the Territory of Ameri- compasses the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), the Territory of Guam, the Com- monwealth of the Northern Marianas Is- can Samoa (Table 17-1). In contrast, the pelagic armorhead is fished on several un- dersea peaks called "seamounts." Table 17-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization of bottomfish and pelagic armorheads. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY'S. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 2,800 t 801 t 571 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY' CPY LTPY utilization Bottomfish MHI 386 386 271 Over NWHI 129 335 335 Under American Samoa 21 31 31 Under Guam 20 25 25 Under CNMI 15 24 15 Under Pelagic armorhead 2,123 Over 198&90 average SPECIES AND STATUS Bottomfish In Hawaii, the bottomfish species fished include several snappers, jacks, and grou- pers, while in the more tropical waters of Guam, CNMI, and Samoa the fishes in- clude a more diverse assortment of species within the same families as well as several species of emperors. They are found on rock and coral bottoms at depths of 50-400 m. The Guam, CNMI, Samoa, and MHI fish- eries employ relatively small vessels on 1 -day trips close to port; much of the catch is taken by either part-time or sport fisher- men. In contrast, NWHI species are fished by full-time fishermen in relatively large vessels on trips of up to 10 days and far from port. Fishermen use the handlining technique in which a single weighted line with several baited hooks is raised and lowered with a powered reel. Catch weight, size data, and fishing effort are collected for each species in the five areas. However, the sampling programs vary in scope between the areas. About 90% of the total catch is taken in Hawaii, nearly equally divided between the MHI and the NWHI (Fig. 17-1). Stock assessments, though somewhat limited, indicate that the spawning stock of at least four major MHI species (opa- kapaka, ehu, onaga, and ulua) are at only 20-30% of original levels. Thus, overutiliza- tion is a concern, and, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has recom- mended some form of management. Pelagic Armorhead The seamount groundfish fishery targets just one species: The pelagic armorhead. It is fished on many of the undersea peaks of the Hawaiian Ridge and Emperor sea- mount chains, though only a small area, the Hancock seamount, is within the U.S. EEZ. The armorhead was fished by the Japanese and, until 10 years ago, by So- viet bottom trawlers. The catch peaked in 1972 with catch rates exceeding 60 t/hour but then dropped to very low levels. The combined population on all seamounts collapsed to about 0.5% of the 1972 level by the early 1980's (Fig. 17-2). The catch was regulated on Hancock seamounts in 1977 under a Preliminary Management Plan, but catches still declined and fishing was stopped in 1984. In 1986, under the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP, a 6-year fishing moratorium was im- . . . Western Pacific Bottomfish and Armorhead Fisheries 76 Figure 17-1.— U.S. landings and catch per unit of effort of bottomfish from fisheries off the a) main Hawaiian Islands (MHI and b) Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). i 2 bUU ^- Landings Effort 400 A / - 300 J 200 V \ A-* >s. / \ ^^vJaJ 1/v, 100 1 ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' I 11 "!""!""! 11 " 800 700 600 500 400 o a UJ 300 3 a. o 200 100 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 250 200 a> 150 c | 100 50 Effort 2,000 1,500 1,000 o 3 a. o 500 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Pelagic Armorhead posed on the Hancock seamounts. The long-term potential yield (Table 17- 1 ) is 2, 1 23 1, but further recovery is needed to achieve that level. Standardized stock assessments began in 1985. Research cruises focus on the S.E. Hancock seamount and sample the armorhead stock with bottom longlines. calibrated against Japanese trawling. Catch rates vary but have not shown the increases expected after the fishing mora- torium was implemented (Fig. 17-3). Clo- sure of only the small G.S.-EEZ portion of the armorhead's distribution probably was insufficient to allow population recovery. 77 Figure 17-2.— Catch per unit of effort of pelagic ai mot heads caught in the commercial Japanese trawl fishery on Pacific seamounts, 1970-84. Figure 17-3— Catch per unit of effort of pelagic armorheads taken on longlines during research cruises to Hancock Seamount, 1985-90. ISSUES Adequacy of the biological and catch data collected is a primary management con- cern for the Western Pacific bottomfish fishery. For example, the reproduction of many of the important species in Guam, CNMI, and Samoa is unknown, and spawn- ing numbers cannot be computed. The primary issue now for the pelagic armorhead and its seamount fishery is how to halt the armorhead harvest outside the U.S. EEZ via some form of international agreement so the stock can recover. The spawning stocks of at least four important MHI fishes (opakapaka, ehu, onaga, and ulua) appear to be at about 20-30% of original levels. Thus, overutiliza- tion is a concern and management has been recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. UNIT 18 PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 78 INTRODUCTION The Fishes in this group range the high seas is either precarious or unknown. Some and often are outside U.S. fisheries man- species are sought vigorously by both agement jurisdiction. The status of several commercial and sport fishermen. SPECIES AND STATUS Highly migratory species include tropical tunas (yellowfin and skipjack), albacore, billfishes, sharks, and other large pelagic fishes. Most are caught commercially, but some, especially certain billfishes, support important recreational Fisheries as well. Tropical Tunas The tropical tunas (yellowfin and skipjack) are Fished with longlines across the Pacific, whereas the purse seine is the primary gear in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) and the Central-Western Pacific (CWP) regions. Fishing in both the ETP and CWP is gener- ally between lat. 20°N and 20°S. Mexico is the primary fishing nation in the ETP. Oth- ers include the United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and some other coastal na- tions. Major fishing nations in the CWP are the United States, Japan, Korea, and Tai- wan. Current, recent, and long-term poten- tial yields for the various species are given in Table 18-1. About 90% of the Pacific yellowfin tuna catch is taken by purse seine, pole-and- line, longline, and handline. Purse seiners account for 30-50% of the catch. Virtually all skipjack tuna is taken by pole-and-line and purse seine. During 1970-80, the ETP fishery was expanding and dominated by the United States. Fishing became less profitable in Table 18-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Pacific highly migratory species. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 1 ,649,928 1 Current potential yield (CPY) = 1,569,261 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 1,599,261 t Yield (t) Status of Species and area RAY' CPY LTPY utilization Yellowfin tuna (CWP 2 ) 280,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Yellowfin tuna (ETP 3 ) 280,000 250,000 250,000 Full Skipjack tuna (CWP) 767,000 Unknown Unknown Under Skipjack tuna (ETP) 87,000 Unknown Unknown Under Albacore (North Pacific) 46,000 Unknown 1 20,000 Over Albacore (South Pacific) 43,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Blue marlin 18,742 Unknown 23,500 Over Black marlin 1,765 Unknown 1,765 Unknown Striped marlin 14,951 Unknown 16,000 Under Sailfish and shortbill spearfish 4,392 Unknown Unknown Unknown Swordfish 24,140 Unknown 25,000 Unknown Wahoo 101 Unknown Unknown Unknown Mahimahi 23,539 Unknown Unknown Unknown Pompano Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Requiem sharks 8,137 Unknown Unknown Unknown Thresher sharks 268 Unknown Unknown Unknown Hammerhead sharks Unknown Unknown Unknown Mackerel sharks 226 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1988 90 average 2 CWP=Centraf Western Pacific Ocean 3 ETP=Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 79 . . . Tropical Tunas the 1980's and many U.S. fishermen quit or moved to the CWP, leaving Mexico the dominant fleet in the ETP with over 50 purse seiners. U.S. vessels decreased to about 10 in 1990-91 in response to dolphin safety concerns. Purse seiners (all coun- tries) in the ETP in 1991 numbered over 125. Gears used in the CWP fishery include purse seine, ring net, handline, pole-and- line, and longline. Purse seiners, domi- nated by the (Jnited States and Japan, take 30-50% of the yellowfin tuna catch. In 1 989 the total number of purse seiners in the CWP was more than 120. In 1990-91 about 50 U.S. seiners operated in the CWP. Currently, there is no international tuna management in the ETP; each coastal na- tion regulates fishing within its own EEZ. Until 1980 the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) regulated the international fishery with catch quotas. Since then, IATTC regulations have been suspended because Mexico is not an IATTC member. Also, there is no overall resource man- agement program in the CWP, though the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), which rep- resents the affected South Pacific island nations, has instituted a licensing program for foreign (distant-water) fishing fleets through access agreements. The U.S. fleet is currently limited to 50 purse seiners in the FFA region under an access agree- ment (South Pacific Regional Tuna Treaty). More skipjack tuna are caught than any other tunas. Recent average yield (RAY) of Pacific skipjack tuna is 767,000 t from the CWP (Fig. 18-1) and 87,000 t from the ETP; angler catches are small. The species is believed underutilized, though the long- term potential yield (LTPY) is unknown. The annual dockside value of the Pacific skipjack tuna catch is about $680 million, and for yellowfin tuna it is $450 million, based on a conservative dockside price of $800/t for both species. The recent average yield of yellowfin tuna for the entire Pacific is about 560,000 t (Table 18-1), distributed about equally between the ETP and the CWP (Fig. 18-2). Recent assessments of yellowfin tuna indi- cate that the LTPY for the ETP is about 250,000 t, making this fish fully utilized. The LTPY for the CWP is unknown because a comprehensive analysis of potential yield has not been performed. However, catch rates are fairly steady, and preliminary analyses of stock condition suggest that the fishery may be nearing full production. Figure 18-1.— U.S. skipjack tuna landings from the Pacific Ocean, the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), and the central-western Pacific (CWP), 1970-90. o o o CO Ol c TJ C CO 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 80 Figure 18-2.— U.S. yellowfin tuna landings from the Pacific Ocean, the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), and the central-western Pacific (CWP), 1970-90. Albacore North Pacific albacore is fished from the northern limits of the Subtropical Conver- gence Zone (STCZ) to about lat. 15°N, and from Japan to North America. In the South Pacific, it is fished from about lat. 15°S to the southern limits of the STCZ and from South America to Australia. In the North Pacific, albacore are fished primarily by longline, pole-and-line, drift gill net, and trolling. Longline gear is used in the lower latitudes, and this gear accounts for about 20-25% of the current catches. The surface fisheries (pole-and-line, drift gill net, troll) operate in the more temper- ate regions and account for 75-80% of the catches. The U.S. fishery in the North Pa- cific extends from the middle of the North Pacific to North America and uses between 500 and 2,000 vessels. Based on a dock- side value of $2,200/t, the annual value of the Pacific albacore catch is about $195 million. South Pacific albacore are fished primar- ily by longline, drift gill net, and trolling. As in the north, longliners operate nearer the equator. Surface gear is set in the Tasman Sea and in the STCZ at about long. 160°W. In 1990, about 60 U.S. trollers Fished the South Pacific. Presently, there are no management re- gimes for the North or South Pacific alba- core fisheries. In the South Pacific, multina- tional discussions between Pacific island nations and distant-water fishing nations, including the United States, are being held to explore various management schemes. The Pacific albacore (both the north and south stocks) has a long history of exploi- tation (Fig. 18-3). Recent development of a large surface fishery in the South Pacific, in addition to the longline fishery, has changed the previous stock assessments from "fully exploited," under a longline only fishery, to "unknown." No LTPY has yet been estimated, but a comprehensive assessment is needed owing to the rapid expansion of the surface drift net and troll fisheries. In the North Pacific, the total catch, catch rates, and fishing effort in the U.S. troll fishery and the Japanese pole-and-line fish- ery have all been declining (Fig. 18-3). Previous assessments estimated LTPY near 1 20,000 t and stock production at or above LTPY in the 1970's. This high pro- duction, coupled with the recent addition of a drift gillnet fishery (for which statistics are incomplete), is probably overutilizing the stock. 81 Figure 18-3.— US. albacore landings from the Pacific Ocean, the North Pacific, and the South Pacific, 1970-90. — Total 140 - — North Pacific South Pacific ** 120- o o o 100- n a c ■6 c a _i 80- 60 - 40 - ■ 19 to 1975 1980 1985 1990 Billfish and other species Species included here are the blue, black, and striped marlins; swordfish, sailfish, shortbill spearfish, wahoo, mahimahi (dol- phin fish), pompano, and several oceanic sharks (requiem, thresher, hammerhead, and mackerel). They generally range from North America to Asia and between the North and South Pacific STCZ's. They are more abundant near islands, continental slopes, seamounts, and oceanic fronts, and many are important to local econo- mies; they are caught by foreign and U.S. fishermen, both sport and commercial. U.S. commercial fishing gears include drift gill nets, handlines, harpoons, long- line, trolling, and rod-and-reel. Anglers use only rod-and-reel. Swordfish and thresher sharks are taken by longline around the Hawaiian Islands and by harpoon and drift gill net off North America. (J.S. fisheries are generally dwarfed by foreign fisheries (mostly longline and drift gill net). There is no international authority managing these species in the Pacific. (J.S. management authority rests with the West- ern Pacific Fisheries Management Council for Hawaiian and Western Pacific waters, and with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council for North American waters (al- though the latter has delegated manage- ment to the State of California for swordfish, striped marlin, and some sharks). Owing to the many species in this category, no precise value can be calcu- lated for the annual catch. However, the catch of swordfish and blue and striped marlins are each valued in excess of $2,000/t. Catches of billfish and other species (Fig. 18-4) have been relatively constant, near 90,000 t per year, with a slight increase in the most recent years (Table 18-1). Four species dominate the "other" catches: Blue and striped marlins, swordfish, and mahimahi. The status of most species' stocks is unknown. Recent assessments with 10- year-old data indicate that swordfish and striped marlin were utilized slightly below LTPY and blue marlin was fished above LTPY; however, new data is needed to con- firm or dispute this finding. ISSUES Tunas The primary issue facing Pacific tropical tunas is the lack of consensus on a plan for gathering and reporting statistics and for setting up a conservation and manage- ment group to represent all interests. The lack of data is critical and prevents tuna assessment, management, and protection. Both North and South Pacific albacore are affected by high-seas drift gill nets. The impact of this fishery on the stocks is not clear; however, data from these fisheries are being collected. In the South Pacific, . . . Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 82 Figure l8-4.-Total US. and foreign landings of billfish and other pelagic migratory fish from the Pacific Ocean, 1979-88, and the U.S. landings from the eastern Pacific, 1979-89, and the central-western Pacific (CWP), 1979-90. 120 100 - - -Total U.S. & foreign o 80 Eastern Pacific Landings (1,00 -CWP 2 - ~ 1980 1986 1990 . . . Tunas the interaction between the established long-line fishery and a rapidly growing sur- face fishery (predominately CI.S.) needs attention, particularly if allocation of avail- able yield between the fisheries becomes an issue. The scope, structure, and organi- zation of a multilateral management re- gime is another issue which needs continued attention. The North Pacific stock appears to be overutilized, possibly owing to heavy catches by drift gill nets. Data collection and an evaluation of the effects of the drift gillnet fishery are urgently needed. Cre- ation of an international forum to manage the stock is another issue that needs atten- tion, particularly if the fishing nations want the stock to recover. Billfish and other species Population levels of the billfishes and other species is either unknown or out of date: There is no international mechanism to examine data collected on the Pacific-wide stocks. Hence, there is no up-to-date as- sessment of stock condition, including that portion of the stock that ranges in the U.S. EEZ. Basic biological data (beyond catches) are also lacking or grossly inade- quate for most of these species. This limits determination of the current condition of the stocks. Bycatch of these species by drift gill nets and in other fisheries is an- other issue. Often these catches go unre- ported. The increase in U.S. vessels (longliners) in the Hawaiian EEZ and the Central Pacific high seas and their impact on the swordfish stocks is another concern. In addition, in- cidental take of protected species (Hawai- ian monk seal and sea turtles) is a sensitive issue. Scientists recognize that at least one spe- cies, the Indo-Pacific blue marlin, is and has been depleted and no management mech- anism exists to correct the situation. Thresher sharks in the west coast sword- fish/shark drift gillnet fishery are heavily fished. UNIT 19 ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES 83 INTRODUCTION The North Pacific (Fig. 19-1) is one of the most productive oceans, supporting many of the world's largest populations of groundfish, salmon, crabs, marine mam- mals, and seabirds. Large-scale commer- cial fisheries for groundfish in Alaska waters were developed and dominated by foreign fleets from the early 1 950's until the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Man- agement Act (MFCMA) was passed in 1976. This act produced one of the great success stories for development of a U.S. groundfish industry. Though foreign fisheries dominated through 1983 (and were important through 1986) (see pages 85, 87), joint ventures between (J.S. fishermen and foreign com- panies eventually replaced them as expe- rience was gained. Later, even the joint ventures were superseded by domestic fishermen and processors. With the excep- tion of Greenland turbot, the groundfish off Alaska have generally been in good to excellent condition. Figure 19-1— The North Pacific Ocean. SPECIES AND STATUS Pacific Halibut Pacific halibut has been fished commer- cially since the late 1800's; it is now fished only with longline gear, though other gear types accidentally catch some halibut. There is an active recreational fishery as well, and about 3,700 t are landed by an- glers. Halibut is found from the Bering Sea to Oregon, though the center of abundance is in the Gulf of Alaska. The resource is con- sidered as one large interrelated stock but is regulated by subareas with catch quotas and time-area closures. The Pacific halibut is managed under treaty between the United States and Can- ada, and primary assessment and man- agement recommendations are provided by the International Pacific Halibut Corn- In 1 990, nearly 37,000 1 of Pacific halibut were landed commercially (31,900 t in the United States and 5,100 t in Canada) (Fig. 19-2) valued at $1 15 million. About 2,000 t were wasted owing to fishing by lost gear and discard, and 10,000 t were lost to accidental catches by fishermen targeting other species. Over 6,500 U.S. vessels were licensed for the commercial halibut fishery, as were 435 Canadian vessels. Halibut stocks are assessed annually, and the fishable population apparently peaked at 166,000 t in 1986-87 after a rebuilding period (Fig. 19-2). The popula- tion has since declined at about 5%/year. Some decline is still expected, but halibut numbers remain fairly high by historical standards. The species is fully utilized (Table 19-1). . . . Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 84 Figure 19-2.— Landings and abundance trends for Pacific halibut in the North Pacific Ocean for U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries and the Canadian fishery, 1980-90. 60 260 f\1 U.S. commercial landings | U.S. recreational landings ///, 40 " ^ Canadian landings /////////////j 200 Landings (1.000 t) o o — Abundance ^v^rtDlUliilllW o en o o Abundance (1,000 t) *^^^ ^^^^^sAVVV\VV\V\V 10 50 ^^^Pi^ 1980 1985 1990 Table 19-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Pacific halibut. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAYs. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) 1 = Current potential yield (CPY) 1 = Recent average yield (RAY) 2 = 20,000 t 33,500 t 40,800 t Yield (t) Status of Region RAY-' CPY 1 LTPY' utilization Bering Sea-Aleutians 3,000 Gulf of Alaska 31.100 Off Pacific coast 3 300 Off Canadian Pacific coast 6,400 2,800 25,900 300 4,500 1,700 1 5,400 200 2,700 Full Full Full Full 'Does not include 16,000 t for sport catch, bycatch, and waste 7 198&90 average California, Oregon, and Washington Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Groundfish The average eastern Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands groundfish catch during 1988-90 was about 1.8 million t (Table 19-2; Fig. 19-3), valued at about $352 million in 1990. The dominant groups harvested were walleye pollock, 75%; flatfishes, 15%; Pacific cod, 7%; Atka mackerel, 1.4%; rockfishes, 0.4%; and sablefish, 0.3%. Rev- enue from trawl landings increased from $129 million in 1988 to $318 million in 1990. The pollock fishery increased in value from $86 million in 1988 to $255 million in 1990. Longline vessel revenue also increased, largely due to increased Pacific cod catches, from $11 million in 1989 to $34 million in 1990. Groundfish populations have been main- tained at high levels under the MFCMA. Their long-term potential yield (LTPY) is about 2.71 million t. The current potential yield (CPY) of 2.93 million t for 1991 is above LTPY. This potential has not been fully utilized because catch quotas cannot exceed the optimum yield (OY). The OY is conservatively set below CPY, at 2.0 million t out of consideration for both socioeco- nomic factors and biological yield poten- tial. Walleye Pollock: Pollock produce the largest single-species catch for the United States. The three main stocks, in decreas- ing order of abundance, are: Eastern Be- 85 Table 19-2.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands groundfish. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY)' = 2,784,800 1 2,926,1 00 1 1, 790,1 00 1 Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Pollock 1,327,800 1,777.500 1,898,000 Full Pacific cod 178,800 229,000 192,000 Full Yellowf in sole 151,500 250,600 220,000 Full Greenland turbot 8,300 7,000 27,100 Full Arrowtooth flounder 2,200 116,400 59,000 Under Rock sole 43,900 246,500 160,000 Under Other flatfish 41,500 219,700 148,500 Under Sablefish 5,200 6,300 7,500 Full Pacific ocean perch 9,350 15,300 14,900 Full Other rockfish 850 1,300 1,300 Full Atka mackerel 12,400 24,000 24,000 Full Other fish 8,300 32,500 Unknown Under ' 1 988-90 average Figure 19-3.— Landings and abundance trends for groundfish resources in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region for the foreign, joint-venture, and U.S. fisheries, 1976-90. 2,500 2.000 § 1,500 o 1,000 500 Y/\ U.S. landings ] Joint-venture landings j Foreign landings — Abundance - 15 - 1975 20 1980 . . . Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Groundfish ring Sea (EBS) stock, Aleutian Basin (AB) stock, and the Aleutian Islands (Al) stock. The EBS and Al stocks are moderately high (above the levels that produce LTPY) and are now fully utilized. Another large pollock fishery lies outside the U.S. and Soviet EEZ's in the "donut hole" of the central Bering Sea (Fig. 19-1). This fishery is dominated by Japan, (J.S.S.R., Poland, China, and the Republic of Korea. The fishery targets the AB pol- lock stock during its migration through the donut hole area. Catches from this stock appear far too high. Although the status of the Aleutian Basin stock is not well known, it appears to be declining rapidly. Pacific Cod: Pacific cod abundance re- mained high and stable throughout the 1980's. However, the 1990 survey showed a 26% drop from 1989. This decline and poor production over the past 2 years may be due to changing environmental condi- tions or ecological relationships. The cod stock is fully utilized. Flatfishes: Yellowfin sole is the most abundant of the flatfishes. During the . . . Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 86 . . Bering Sea-Aleutian island Groundfish 1950's, the sole was the major trawling target, but it now ranks second to pollock. Yellowfin sole is fully utilized. Greenland turbot, the only depressed flatfish stock, is expected to decline further during the mid- 1990's owing to poor spawning success in the 1980's. It is considered fully utilized. All other flatfish species are in good-to- excellent condition. Populations continue to be high and increasing for arrowtooth flounder and high and stable for rock sole, flathead sole, Alaska plaice, and other flatfishes. The rock sole is now the second- most abundant of the flatfishes, increasing substantially from 1980. It is underutilized, as are other flatfishes. Trawl catches are restricted to prevent excessive incidental catches of Pacific halibut and king and tanner crabs. Sablefish: Sablefish or blackcod is a valu- able species caught mostly with longline and pot gear below the depths fished by trawlers. Sablefish is considered to be a single stock from the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands (BSAI) region to the Gulf of Alaska. The BSAI population declined substan- tially in 1990, partly due to migration into the Gulf of Alaska. Current abundance is relatively high, though recruitment has not been strong. The sablefish is fully utilized. Rockf ishes: Rockfishes are assessed and managed as two major groups: Pacific ocean perch (POP) and "other rockfish." The POP group consists of the true Pacific ocean perch and four other red rockfish species. POP abundance dropped sharply owing to intensive foreign fisheries in the 1960's and remained low into the early 1980's. In recent years, catch levels have been set well below CPY to help rebuild the stocks. The POP group is now recovering and is considered fully utilized. The "other rockfish" group includes two thornyhead species and about 30 other rockfish species not included in the POP group. Little is known about them, but they are considered fully utilized. Atka Mackerel: Atka mackerel stocks, mainly in the Aleutian region, are hard to assess because: 1 ) Survey estimates are highly variable, 2) surveys in the species' Aleutian range were last conducted in 1986, and 3) two of the last three surveys failed to sample shallow waters success- fully. Thus, population trends cannot be inferred from survey and catch data. Since Atka mackerel stocks cannot be fully as- sessed, the CPY is estimated as the aver- age catch levels and the resource is considered fully utilized. Other Species: In recent years, "other species" catches have represented 1% or less of the total groundfish catch. Sculpins and skates probably constitute most of this resource, but the abundance of pelagic squids, smelts, and sharks is largely un- known. Owing to insufficient data, the LTPY for "other species" is unknown. The CPY has been set at the average catch levels. Gulf Groundfish Gulf of Alaska groundfish catches have ranged from a low of 135,400 t in 1978 to a high of 352,800 1 in 1 984 (Fig. 19-4), with pollock dominant, followed by Pacific cod and sablefish. The 1990 groundfish catches were valued at $94.4 million (dockside value). Sablefish comprised about 45% of the total Gulf value. Other major revenue-producing species in the Gulf of Alaska during 1990 were Pacific cod at $26 million, followed by pollock and rockfish. Groundfish abundance has been rela- tively stable, rising slowly from 1984 to 1990. Arrowtooth flounder is most abun- dant, followed by pollock and Pacific cod. In 1990, arrowtooth flounder composed 2 million t of the Gulf groundfish biomass (5.3 million t); pollock, 1.4 million t; and Pacific cod, 0.5 million t. The estimated LTPY for Gulf of Alaska groundfish is 493,600 1 (Table 1 9-3). The CPY is 773,600 t, which contrasts with the RAY of 1 77,400 t. The wide disparity between the CPY and the RAY is because groundfish fishing is restricted owing to incidental catches of Pacific halibut. Pollock and Pacific Cod: Pollock appear to be at an average population level, but it is difficult to determine current biomass and an appropriate fishing mortality rate. The pollock is slightly underutilized. Pacific cod are abundant and fully utilized, but are expected to decline. Reproduction has not 87 Figure 19-4— Landings and abundance trends for groundfish resources in the Gulf of Alaska region for the foreign, joint-venture, and U.S. fisheries, 1976-90. 400 6 f\] Foreign landings ^*^ ~~~ . [TJ Joint Venture landings *"*7 £>v 5 300 E%} U.S. landings w\ - Landings (1,000 t) o o o o — Abundance A\\ o 4 ° o" o q 3 = ■ o c 10 T3 2 § n < 1 ^^^^^^^^^$^MM^^, 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Gulf Groundfish kept pace with natural and fishing losses. Flatfish, Sablef ish, and Rockfish: Flat fish are in general very abundant, largely owing to great increases in arrowtooth flounder. Flatfish are managed as deep- water and shallow-water groups, while flat- head sole and arrowtooth flounder are managed as separate categories. Sablefish are numerous and are in good condition, though they are projected to decline owing to low recruitment. They are fully utilized. "Slope" rockfish, those found on the con- tinental slope from the outer edge of the continental shelf down to the abyssal plain, are at low levels and are fully utilized. They grow slowly, are long-lived, have not re- bounded from the heavy foreign fishing in the 1960's, and are considered fully uti- lized. The principal species in this group, Pacific ocean perch, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish, are highly valued. They are in a separate management cate- gory. Thornyhead rockfishes are also be- lieved to be at a low level and decreasing. The population of continental shelf rockfishes (pelagic and demersal) is un- known and needs further research. Manag- ers try to set the fishing mortality rate equal to the natural mortality rate. Table 19-3— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Gulf of Alaska groundfish. The LTPY, CPY, and FLAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY'S. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 493,600 t Current potential yield (CPY; = 773,600 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 1 77,400 t Yield (t) Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Pollock 66.800 133,400 229,000 Under Pacific cod 50,700 77,900 39,100 Full Flatfish 10,300 514,900 168,600 Under Sablefish 29,000 22,500 26,600 Under Slope rockfish 16,300 17,900 21,350 Full Thornyhead rockfish 2,500 1,800 3,750 Unknown Pelagic shelf rockfish 1,300 4,800 4,800 Full Demersal shelf rockfish 500 400 400 Full 1988-90 average . . . Alaska Groundf ish Fisheries 88 ISSUES "Donut Hole" Pollock Fishery The large unregulated foreign pollock fish- ery in the "donut hole" of the Bering Sea (Fig. 1 9-1 ) is a major concern as it targets the migrating U.S. and (J.S.S.R. Aleutian Basin stocks. The fishery is expected to hurt U.S. EEZ pollock stocks. Another major concern is the lack of data to deter- mine the stock's status. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. have begun to cooperate on re- search and management of the donut hole pollock fisheries. Marine Mammal Interactions Marine mammal interactions with fish and fisheries are a growing concern. Steller sea lions are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and it must be shown that the groundfish fishery will not interfere with them. Pollock provide food for sea lions, and some fisheries have oc- curred near rookeries; however, we lack data to show a cause-and-effect relation- ship between the pollock fishery and the decline of the sea lions. Incidental Catch The incidental catch of Pacific halibut and king and tanner crabs off Alaska now cur- tails the groundfish fisheries. When halibut and crab bycatch limits are reached, the groundfish fisheries are closed— usually be- fore harvesting the entire groundfish quo- tas. Various incentive programs are being tested to control bycatches while improv- ing the groundfish harvest. Exxon Valdez oil Spill In March of 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling about 1 1 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound which spread into the Gulf of Alaska and lower Cook Inlet. Coastal areas were se- verely contaminated. Fortunately, no mas- sive die-offs of adult fish were found, but some coastal and offshore fishes have re- mained exposed to petroleum hydrocar- bons. Since injuries from chronic exposure to oil may not be seen for many years, studies must be continued. UNIT 20 ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES 89 INTRODUCTION Exploratory crab and shrimp fishing began off Alaska during the 1940's and 1950's. The first major domestic king crab fishery began in the 1 960's off Kodiak Island, later expanding to the Aleutian Islands and Be- ring Sea. Domestic tanner crab fisheries became important during the 1970's, as did the shrimp fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska. A Japanese snail fishery devel- oped in the Bering Sea during the 1970's but ended in 1987. Shellfish fisheries in Alaska waters have shown large fluctua- tions in landings, owing to extremely vari- able population size. SPECIES AND STATUS crab Three species of king crabs (red, blue, and golden or brown) and two species of tanner crabs (bairdi and opilio) are harvested commercially off Alaska. The annual dock- side value of Alaska king and tanner crab fisheries averaged about $195 million dur- ing the 1978-90 period (61% or $1 18 mil- lion for king crabs alone). Eighty-nine percent, or $ 1 05 million of the value of king crab fisheries, was derived from the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. About 75%, or $88 million of the value of king crab fisheries, came from red king crab landings. The average annual value of tan- ner crab landings during 1 978-90 was $77 million, with $58 million or 76% coming from the Bering Sea-Aleutian Island area. King crab value peaked at $295 million in 1980, and tanner crab value peaked at $158 million in 1990. About 250 vessels, mostly large and modern and each fishing an average of 300-350 pots, make up the Bering Sea- Aleutian Islands crab fleet. Over 400 ves- sels harvest crabs in the Gulf of Alaska, although there is considerable vessel over- lap between the areas. Catches are re- stricted by quotas, seasons, and size and sex limits. Fishing seasons are set at times which avoid molting, mating, and softshell periods, both to protect crab resources and to improve product quality. Limits on the number of pots per vessel are in effect in most areas of the Gulf. Vessels are also restricted by the number of management areas they may fish in any given year. Vessels which both catch and process crabs are required to have observers throughout the season to monitor the catch and compliance with regulations. Catch and abundance trends for king crabs fluctuated during 1960-90 (Fig. 20- 1). After a 1964-66 peak, declines were evident. Until 1967, Japanese and Soviet Figure 20-1.— King crab landings and abundance for the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, 1960-90. 80 o o o Landings (Bering Sea) Landings (Gulf of Alaska) Abundance (Bering Sea) 500 400 300 200 100 o o . . . Alaska Shellfish Fisheries 90 crab fisheries dominated Bering Sea landings, but those fisheries were phased out during bilateral negotiations until foreign fishing ceased in 1974. During the late 1970's, domestic catches built to record levels in the Bering Sea, peaking at 74,000 t in 1 980. Gulf catches varied at a relatively low level for a decade before dropping lower yet in 1 983. Almost all Gulf of Alaska king crab fisheries have been closed since 1983. In the Bering Sea, catches dropped precip- itously in 1 981 , followed by further declines to a low in 1983. Since then, there has been a gradual increase in the catch. Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands tanner crab catches are largest in the eastern Bering Sea (Fig. 20-2). The 1965-75 period was a developmental phase. During 1975-85, the catch peaked at about 49,000 1 in 1 979 and then declined. Since 1984, the catch has increased, reaching about 85,000 t in 1990. Abundance trends for the eastern Bering Sea stocks indicate that the bairdi stock declined from a relatively high level in the late 1970's to a low in 1985. Since then, the Bering Sea bairdi stock has recov- ered and is currently approaching its for- mer level. From a low in 1985, the opilio stock has rebounded sharply and is ap- proaching an all-time high level. The catch in the Gulf of Alaska, composed exclu- sively of bairdi, reached peak levels during the 1970's, following a developmental phase in the late 1960's. Since 1979, the Gulf of Alaska catch has declined. Values for RAY, CPY, and LTPY are pre- sented in Table 20-1. Information on CPY and LTPY is lacking for both king and tanner crabs. Thus, default values for these parameters were derived by equating CPY Figure 20-2.— Tanner crab landings from the Bering Sea and Gulf or Alaska, 1960-90, and abundance of two species of tanner crab, 1976-90. 100 o o o 12 10 • i SO 1 ' A CO / 8 u o o o o" / 6 o o 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Table 20-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for Alaska shellfish resources. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY'S. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 104,934 1 89,308 1 89,308 t Yield (t) Status of Species group RAY 1 CPY LTPY utilization Tanner crabs King crabs Shrimp Snails 2 76,256 10,881 340 1,831 76,256 10,881 340 1,831 45,436 32,150 22,582 4,766 Full Full Unknown Under '198&90 average. *RAY and CPY data = 1985-87 a .retage catd i. LTPY data = 1971-87 average 91 . . . Crab and LTPY with the 1971-90 average catch. Alaska crabs can be designated as fully utilized relative to yields of legal-sized males. Since female crabs are not landed it seems likely that most crab stocks could be designated as underutilized, in terms of existing fishing mortality on the reproduc- tive stocks. Shrimp and Sea Snail The U.S. fishery for shrimp in Alaska wa- ters is at a low level. The western Gulf of Alaska has been the main area of opera- tion. During the 1970's, when the fishery was more productive, 50-100 vessels trawled for shrimp at Kodiak and along the Alaska Peninsula. Five species of shrimp contribute substantially to Alaskan land- ings, of which the northern pink shrimp is most important. Shrimp landings in the Gulf of Alaska during 1960-90 (Fig. 20-3) show that catches rose steadily to about 58,000 t in 1976 and then declined precipitously. Since 1988, negligible amounts of shrimp have been landed from western Alaska waters. During 1960-90, the dockside value of western shrimp fisheries averaged $4 million annually and yielded a peak value of $14 million in 1977. Shrimp catches by the U.S.S.R. and Japan in the Bering Sea peaked at 32,000 1 in 1 963, and gradually declined thereafter, until the fish- ery ended in 1973. As with crabs, the potential yields of Alaska shrimp stocks are not well under- stood, and have been equated to recent catches. Shrimp are managed by regulat- ing the catch levels according to the level of the stocks. In addition, spring "egg hatch" closures are used to protect breed- ing stocks. The Japanese fishery for snails, con- ducted from about 1971 until ending in 1987, reached a peak of some 13,000 t in 1 974. Catches averaged about 4,800 t dur- ing 1971-87. The snail stocks of the Bering Sea are underutilized because they are cur- rently not fished. RAY and CPY equal the 1985-87 average catch and LTPY equals the 1971-87 average. Figure 20-3.— Shrimp landings from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, 1960-89, and snail landings from the Bering Sea, 1972-87. 80 — Shrimp landings (Bering Sea) 70 Shrimp landings (Gulf of Alaska) Snail landings (Bering Sea) 60 - ^ Landings (1,000 o o o - 20 / 10 1960 1966 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Alaska shellfish Fisheries 92 ISSUES High Variability These fisheries have been marked by major ups and downs in production (Fig. 20-1, 20-2, 20-3) and major perturbations in the shellfish industry. A management policy of maintaining catch stability has evolved, at least for crab stocks. Due to variable survival of young crabs, little can be done to stabilize fluctuations of the crab stocks themselves. Relatively low exploita- tion rates are used to stabilize the annual catch by holding over portions of strong incoming year classes to the next fishing season. This strategy has met with limited success. More effort should be placed on the problems of long-term prediction of population changes, of the effect of har- vesting female crabs on population fluctu- ation, and of the effects of discard mortality in pot and trawl fisheries. More study is also required regarding the underlying reasons for shellfish population fluctuations, includ- ing relationships between predator (cod and pollock) and prey (shrimp) abun- dance. Other ecological conditions that lead to strong or weak year classes, such as those influencing larval survival, are also poorly understood. Bycatch The bycatch of crabs in trawl and pot fish- eries is also a major issue. Mot only is bycatch an allocation problem, the un- known mortalities associated with trawl and pot gear discards of crabs could have a biological impact on crab stocks. When crab numbers are low, such bycatch mor- talities, coupled with directed fishing mor- tality, could impose unacceptable risks to stock recovery. Lack of Data Basic life history information, including growth rates, mortality rates, reproductive cycles, food habits, habitat requirements, and predator-prey relationships, is fre- quently lacking for Alaska shellfish stocks. This is particularly true of the underutilized resources such as mollusks, crangonid shrimps, octopuses, squids, sea urchins, and snails. For example, Bering Sea snail stocks represent a latent resource for which markets have existed in the past, but little is known of their numbers, productiv- ity, or potential yield. UNIT 21 NEARSHORE FISHERIES 93 INTRODUCTION Many (J.S. coastal and estuarine species provide important recreational and com- mercial fisheries, but they are not Federally managed. This diverse Unit includes highly prized gamefishes like tarpon, bonefish, tautog, permit, and snook, as well as surf- perches and Florida pompano. It also in- cludes small fishes used for bait, food, or processing into oil and meal, such as mul- let, smelts, eulachon, ballyhoo, sardines, and herrings. Valuable invertebrates like the Dungeness, blue, rock, and Jonah crabs; Pacific shrimps, abalones, hard and softshell clams, bay scallops, oysters, peri- winkles, and whelks (conchs) are also in this group. For 1988-90, the average annual value of the commercial components of the spe- cies in Table 21-1 was about $376 million. No separate values are available for the recreational fisheries but they are certainly significant, especially to many coastal economies. Table 21-1.— Recent average, current potential and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization for nearshore fisheries resources. The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the unit equals the sum of the species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. Where the species' LTPY is unknown, the species' CPY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = Unknown Unknown 231.225 t Species RAY 1 Blue crab 95.593 2 Pacific shrimp 32.180 2 Sea urchins (Pacific) 25.215 2 Dungeness crab 18,1 19 2 Mullets 14.342 2 Oyster (Atlantic) 9,875 2 Sea urchins (Atlantic) 4,392 2 Atlantic hard clams 4,283 2 Blue mussel 4.090 2 Oyster (Pacific) 4.026 2 Softshell clam 3.096 2 Atlantic thread herring 3,054 Calico scallop 2,961 2 Ladyfish 2,036 Other shads, herrings 1,960 Eulachon 1.312 2 Spanish sardine 1,296 American eel 551 Pacific hard clams 461 2 Ballyhoo 446 2 Tautog 411 Surfperches 392 Florida pompano 316 Surf smelt 239 Bay scallop 209 2 Abalones 202 2 Snook 140 3 Permit 18 3 California corvina 10 3 Tarpon Unknown 4 Bonefish Unknown 4 Striped bass (Pacific) Unknown 4 Pacific razor clam Unknown 5 Pismo clam Unknown 5 Yield (t) CPY Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown LTPY Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Status of utilization Full Full Unknown Full Unknown Over Unknown Over Unknown Unknown Full Unknown Full Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Full Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Over Over Over Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Over Over Over ' 1 98&90 average. 'Commercial landings only 3 Recreattonal landings only 4 Not available or meaningful owing to catch-and release nature of fishery or relatively infrequent landings 5 Not available . . . Nearshore Fisheries 94 SPECIES AND RANGE Most species in this group (Table 21-1) live near shore during much or all of their lives. Some, like the shads, herrings, smelts, and Pacific striped bass, are anadromous, as- cending fresh water to spawn but spending their adult lives in estuaries or at sea. In contrast, the American eel lives much of its life in fresh or brackish water but migrates far offshore to spawn in the Sargasso Sea (deep North Atlantic, beyond the Gulf Stream). These species are distributed widely. Bay scallops, hard and softshell clams, rock and Jonah crabs, periwinkles, and whelks are among the important fishery resources of the northeastern United States. Shads, herrings, sardines, mullets, Florida pom- pano, and calico scallops are fished pri- marily along the middle and southern U.S. Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Many of the game fishes are particularly valuable to the Florida economy, while invertebrates, like the blue crab and Atlan- tic oyster, support major fisheries from the Gulf to Chesapeake Bay. Corvina and striped bass are important sport fishes in California waters, while surf- perches are fished along much of the U.S. west coast. Other species like abalones, clams (hard, Pismo, razor), eulachon, and surf smelt support both recreational and commercial west coast fisheries. In the Pacific Northwest and southern Alaska, Dungeness crabs, Pacific oysters, and Pa- cific shrimps support valuable commercial fisheries. FISHERIES Bonefish, tarpon, snook, and permit are sought primarily by sport fishermen who often employ professional guides. Other popular recreational fishes, such as the surfperches and tautog, are caught primar- ily by anglers using bait from the beach or small boats. The small baitfishes and food fishes are harvested by both recreational and commercial fishermen using cast nets, gill nets, seines, dip nets, and pound nets; the southern Florida ballyhoo fishery sup- plies bait to the charterboat industry. Many methods are also used to harvest the invertebrate species. Commercial and sport divers gather abalones, particularly in southern and central California; fisher- men in small boats dive, dredge, and tong for oysters and rake hard clams; recrea- tional clammers dig Pismo clams on sandy beaches in central California and razor clams in the Pacific Northwest; trawlers and divers take sea urchins off the New England and northern Pacific coasts; and commercial and recreational crabbers fish with pots, traps, trotlines, dredges, and dip nets for blue, rock, and Jonah crabs on the Atlantic coast and for Dungeness crabs on the Pacific coast. Pacific shrimps are har- vested with pots and trawls. Other species, such as blue mussels, are both cultured and harvested from the wild. The number of participants in these nearshore fisheries is difficult to assess because of their diversity. There is no doubt, however, that millions of recrea- tional and commercial fishermen seek these resources; there are, for example, an estimated 600,000+ recreational razor clam diggers in Washington alone. In general, landings for many of these species have declined in recent years (Fig. 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 21-4). Atlantic hard clam, softshell clam, bay scallop, and abalone landings were substantially lower in the 1 980's than in the previous three decades. Atlantic oyster landings fell sharply in the late 1980's, and Chesapeake Bay stocks are considered severely depleted. After peaking in the 1970's, Pacific shrimp land- ings fell off in the 1 980's, primarily because of reduced Alaska landings. Dungeness and blue crab landings, though cyclical, appear to have withstood harvesting pres- sures well through the 40-year period ex- amined. Because these species frequent nearshore waters, they are not included in Federal fishery management plans; some are managed under regional, state, and/or local authority. Typically, size limits are used to protect molluscan and crustacean resources from overutilization, whereas gear restrictions are the most common management measures used for the finfishes in this group. Area closures, bag limits, and catch quotas are also em- ployed, particularly for shellfish. Interstate Fishery Management Commission plans 95 Figure 21-1.— Commercial landings of hard and softshell clams and bay scallops from the southeastern U.S. coast, 1950-90. 10 o o o c Hard clam landings Softshell clam landings Bay scallop landings 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 21-2.— Commercial abalone landings from the U.S. Pacific coast, 1950-90. . . . FISHERIES have been developed for such Chesapeake Bay species as the oyster and blue crab to try to achieve consistent management be- tween states. Some states, notably Florida and California, have prohibited all com- mercial harvest of certain species by des- ignating them as gamefishes. STATUS It is difficult to assess the status of these with the Chesapeake Bay oyster. Others, stocks throughout their ranges because they are under varied management and data collection systems. Many of the spe- cies in Table 21-1 are probably over- exploited, at least in part of their ranges, as like many of the herrings, are difficult to assess because the data on abundance and stock structure are sparse, dispersed, or nonexistent. . . . Nearshore Fisheries 96 Figure 21-3.— Commercial blue crab and oyster landings from the southeastern U.S. coast, 1950-90. 120 — Blue crab landings — Oyster landings _J I I I I L_ 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 21-4— Commercial Dungeness crab and Pacific shrimp landings from Oregon, California, and Washington, 1950-90. 100 — Dungeness crab landings — Pacific shrimp landings 80 ♦- o o o 60 a a c ■5 c a 40 20 - 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1976 1980 1985 1990 . . . STATUS The recent annual yield of the species in this unit is conservatively estimated at more than 231,000 t. Table 21-1 presents the best data available, though the yields are probably low for many species because separate landings data are not always re- ported (many of the baitfishes are lumped into other categories, for example). Fur- thermore, data on sport catches are not available for many of these species, partic- ularly the invertebrates. Recreational as- pects of some of these fisheries are very large; Chesapeake Bay sport crabbers alone caught an estimated 1 9,000 t of blue crabs in 1983 and 9,800 t in 1988, or 44% and 32.1% of the total harvests, respec- tively. Some species, such as tarpon and bonefish, are sought primarily for sport and usually released alive; consequently, few or no landings data for them are reported even though they provide significant local and regional economic benefits. 97 ISSUES Because of their reliance on nearshore hab- itats (i.e., estuaries, reefs, mangroves, etc.) species in this group are particularly sus- ceptible to habitat loss, pollution, changes in freshwater flows, siltation, and other en- vironmental problems. Pacific striped bass have been hurt by habitat degradation and salinity changes in the San Francisco Bay estuary; Chesapeake Bay species, such as river herrings and hickory shad, have de- clined drastically in recent years; and At- lantic coast and Gulf of Mexico oyster and hard clam harvests have been severely reduced by pollution, disease, salinity changes, and habitat losses. Louisiana alone loses an estimated 35,200 acres of coastal wetlands habitat each year. Because many shellfish fisheries are close to large population areas, the likeli- hood of pollution problems is high; Fishing closures due to shellfish bed contamina- tion cause large economic losses each year. In addition to direct pollution im- pacts, excessive nutrient loads may in- crease toxic plankton blooms that cause red tides and paralytic shellfish poisoning. Environmental stresses also make fish more susceptible to diseases and para- sites, either killing them outright or making them difficult or impossible to market. Overutilization has been at least partially responsible for depleting such species as Pacific razor clams, Pismo clams, abalo- nes, oysters, Pacific shrimp, and snook. Marine mammals also feed on some of these species and may compete with fish- ermen; for example, sea otters on the Pa- cific coast have depleted abalone and sea urchin stocks, particularly in California. UNIT 22 ATLANTIC MARINE MAMMALS 98 INTRODUCTION Marine mammals are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Other responsibilities are addressed in the Magnuson Fishery Con- servation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976, which extends the jurisdiction of the MMPA throughout the U.S. EEZ, and the Whale Conservation Act of 1 976, which was intended to further aid the recovery of whales. SPECIES AND STATUS Thirty-six species of marine mammals range the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters (34 whales, dolphins, and por- poises, and 2 seal species). Their status is poorly known, but some, like the right whale, Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dol- phin, and harbor porpoise, are under stresses that may affect their survival. Table 22-1 shows what is (and is not) known about the status and trends of sev- eral Atlantic marine mammals. Brief sum- maries below for selected species give additional data on distribution, current and historical abundance, and population trends. Table 22-1— Stock assessments of selected marine mammals in U.S. waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. Species and area Abundance Status Trends Status in U.S. waters Fin whale (N.W. Atlantic) 4,740 Unknown Unknown E 1 Humpback whale (N.W. Atlantic) 5,500 (2,888-8,1 12) 2 Possibly 65% of its population size in about 1850. Increasing? E Right whale (N.W. Atlantic) 350 Probably <5% of its size before 1 600 Declining 7 E Pilot whale (N.W.Atlantic) 1 1 ,200 (3.249-19.151) 2 Unknown Unknown Bottlenose dolphin 600? (Mid-Atl. coastal) (N.W. Atl. offshore) (1,050-7,500) (U.S. Gulf of Mexico) (35,000-45,000) Coastal type possibly declined by 50% in 1987-88. Offshore type possibly declined by 50% in 1987-88. Offshore and coastal types Declining? Declining? Unknown Whitesided dolphin (N.W. Atlantic) 27,600 (17.254-37.946) 2 Unknown Unknown Spotted dolphin (N. Carolina) 200 Unknown Unknown Harbor porpoise (N.W.Atlantic) 3.500 (2,055-4,945) 2 Unknown Declining 7 Harbor seal 10,500+ Unknown Increasing? 'E = Listed as endangered under the Endangered Speaes Act 2 95% confidence interval Bottlenose Dolphin The number of stocks of bottlenose dol- phins is unknown, although there appear to be offshore and coastal types, possibly forming two distinct populations. There are no comprehensive population estimates, but abundance in the Gulf of Mexico is 35,000-45,000 in waters of 100 fm or less. Mearshore aerial surveys between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979-81 sug- gest that summer abundance was 4,300- 12,900. However, a large die-off of bottlenose dolphins in 1987-88 may have resulted in a 50% or greater decline in the nearshore and offshore types. An offshore survey from New Jersey to Cape Hatteras in 1987 found about 1,050-7,500. 99 Pilot Whales There are two species of pilot whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean: Globi- cephala melas ranges from Iceland to North Carolina, and G. macrorhynchus ranges from Virginia to Venezuela. Pilot whales concentrate along the continental shelf edge of the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England during midwinter and early spring, then move onto the shelf in late spring where they are widely distributed until autumn. Stock structure and abun- dance are unknown. Aerial surveys off the U.S. northeast coast in 1979-81 resulted in a rough estimate of 1 1 ,200 pilot whales. Fin Whale Fin whales, listed as endangered under the ESA, range widely and are probably the most numerous large cetacean in temper- ate waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean. They range throughout the conti- nental shelf in all seasons, but most sight- ings are from off Cape Cod to the south- west Gulf of Maine. Stock structure and total abundance are unknown. An estimate of abundance off the northeast coast in 1979-81 was 4,740 whales. Humpback whale Also listed as endangered, the humpback whale has four or five stocks which sum- mer in the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Law- rence, and the waters of Newfound- land-Labrador, west Greenland, and possi- bly Iceland. Along the northeast coast, humpbacks frequent the Great South Channel, Georges Bank, Stellwagen Bank, and Jeffery's Ledge. The estimated total population is about 5,505 whales. A mini- mum estimate of the population prior to commercial whaling (about 1865) was 4,400-4,700 humpbacks. The Gulf of Maine hosted about 240 humpbacks in summer 1986, the only group that sum- mers exclusively in U.S. waters. Right Whale Endangered right whales also frequent the continental shelf from Florida to Nova Sco- tia from spring to autumn. Winter distribu- tion is not well known but may be offshore. The population is estimated at no more than 350 animals and may be declining. The pre-18th century population may have been as high as 10,000 and, if so, the current population is more than 95% de- pleted. Harbor Porpoise The harbor porpoise ranges from Maine to Maine, and by late autumn some animals North Carolina— occasionally to Florida— and may constitute a single population. Summer and early autumn distribution is in the Bay of Fundy and northern Gulf of move southwest to winter in southern New England and Mid-Atlantic waters. Spring abundance estimates for a portion of the range was 3,541. Harbor seal Harbor seals are year-round residents of Maine, and some of them winter in south- ern New England. Under MMPA protection, harbor seals have more than doubled, and a 1981 count found 10,500 in Maine. . . . Atlantic Marine Mammals 100 ISSUES Three issues of particular concern are: 1) Have fisheries interactions and other human-related activities significantly al- tered the carrying capacity of the marine ecosystem or directly affected marine mammal populations, 2) are the depleted marine mammal species recovering and have appropriate measures been taken to facilitate recovery, and 3) what is the sig- nificance of the recent mass strandings of marine mammals? Fisheries and Ecosystem Interactions Information on the incidental take of ma- rine mammals in commercial fisheries is incomplete; a fishery-wide observer pro- gram was started in 1989, however. Be- sides the potential impacts of incidental marine mammal take, an assessment of the effect of fisheries and other human activities on the ecosystem is a critical long-term concern that requires more re- search. Meeting the 1988 amendments to the MMPA is an important first step in that process. Bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico are captured alive for use at public dis- plays; additional animals are lost to com- mercial fishing operations and illegal shooting. The number of these losses is poorly known, though estimates run to more than 1% of the stock yearly. Pilot whales are sometimes killed in foreign and (J.S. mackerel and swordfish drift gillnet fisheries off New England. Some white- sided dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, striped dolphins, and beaked whales may also be killed in these fisheries. The impact of this loss is unknown, but much of it has recently included pregnant and nursing fe- males. The incidental take of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine groundfish gillnet fishery was estimated at 60-1,000 per year over the past decade; the larger takes probably have a significant impact on the popula- tion. Canadian studies found that inciden- tal takes caused a shift toward smaller and younger animals in the population. Direct interactions between fin whales and commercial fisheries are infrequent and usually not fatal. Recent studies sug- gest, however, that fin whales often feed on commercially valuable pelagic fishes. Humpback whales have been caught in a wide variety of fishing gear. From 1975 to 1990, 51 humpbacks were reported en- tangled (20-25% died, though most were released alive). Another 450 humpbacks became entangled in gear in Canadian waters during the same time period. Har- bor seals are incidentally taken in several Gulf of Maine fisheries, particularly in groundfish gill nets, but the impact of the take is not known. Current levels of such losses are probably small. Harbor seals also steal lobster pot bait and eat pen- raised salmon. Recovery of Protected Species Six U.S. Atlantic coast marine mammals are listed as endangered under the ESA. Although data are incomplete, only the right whale appears at such a critically low level that its long-term survival is in ques- tion. A significant number of stranded right whales (20%) show major injuries from large-vessel collisions. Young right whales seem particularly vulnerable. A loss of just 2-3 calves per year, for example, would equal about 10% or more of their annual production. Data needed for a com- prehensive recovery and conservation plan include population trends, life history, and habitat requirements. Far too little data for the blue whale and other species exist to judge whether they are recovering or what other management actions are war- ranted. Strandings Many bottlenose dolphins died along the U.S. southeast coast in 1987-88, raising questions about coastal pollution and whether other species— including hu- mans—could be at risk. However, about half of the Mid-Atlantic nearshore 101 Stranding* population of bottlenose dolphin may have died from causes related to a natural marine biotoxin. Increased strandings also occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 1989-90 for unknown reasons. Fourteen humpback whales also apparently died of a "red tide" toxin near Cape Cod in late 1987, and seven other young humpbacks stranded and died for unknown reasons. Some 350 harbor seals died from pho- cine influenza-A virus in 1980. Although the population has since recovered, these east coast harbor seals may be as vulner- able to viral disease as were the harbor seals that died by the thousands in north- ern European waters in recent years. UNIT 23 PACIFIC MARINE MAMMALS 102 INTRODUCTION Marine mammals are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Other responsibilities are addressed in the Magnuson Fishery Con- servation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976, which extends the jurisdiction of the MMPA throughout the U.S. EEZ, and the Whale Conservation Act of 1 976, which was intended to further aid the recovery of whales. SPECIES AND STATUS Forty-two species of marine mammals occur in U.S. Pacific waters (31 whales, dolphins, and porpoises, and 1 1 species of seals and sea lions). Fourteen are com- monly seen along the coast (gray whale, bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, and oth- ers), whereas the 28 others frequent off- shore or remote island waters (beaked whales, ribbon seal, Hawaiian monk seal, and others), or are severely reduced in numbers and thus seldom seen (blue whale, right whale, Guadalupe fur seal, for example). Table 23-1 shows what is (and is not) known about the status and trends of sev- eral Pacific marine mammals. Brief summaries below for selected species give additional data on distribution, current and historical abundance, and population trends. Table 23-1— Stock assessments of selected marine mammals in U.S. North Pacific Ocean waters. Species and area Abundance Status Trends Status in U.S. waters Bowhead whale (W. Arctic) Gray whale (N.E. Pacific) 7,500 (6,400-9.200)' 21,113 (19.737-22.489) 1 Humpback whale 1,398-2,040 (E. Pacific) Harbor porpoise 35,000' (Washington/Oregon) Hawaiian monk seal 1,500 Northern fur seal (Pribilof Islands) Steller sea lion (N. Pacific) 871,000 42,000 California sea lion 87,000 (California-Washington) Current population size is 40.9% (38.0-42.0%) of the 1848 population size. Fully recovered and now equal or more abundant than known since 1846. Probably less than 1 5% of abundance prior to 1850. Unknown Unknown. Small remnant, monotypic species. Current level is <40% of the population in the mid-1950's. Currently 22% of size in the late 1950's. Unknown, but believed to be at or above the level of maximum net production. Harbor seal 42,000 Unknown (California-Washington) ETP Dolphins N. offshore spotted 658,300 Unknown S. offshore spotted 87,700 Unknown E. spinner 391,200 Unknown Whitebelly spinner 363,300 Unknown N. common 177,700 Unknown Cent, common 568,000 Unknown S. common 1,657,500 Unknown N. striped 111,600 Unknown S. striped 1,115,600 Unknown Increasing at 3.1% (0.1-6.2%)/year, 1978-88 Increasing at 3.2% (2.3-4.2%)/year since 1 968 Unknown Unknown Unknown. Pup counts declining. No significant trend since 1983 on St. Paul; declining at 6%/year on St. George. Declining at 4.2%/year, 1960-90. Increasing at 6%/year, 1975-86 Increasing 7 Declining (1986-90) based on preliminary analyses of observer data. Unknown Stable (1986-90) based on analysis of observer data. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 95% confidence interval. ! E = listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered 3 D = listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as depleted "T = listed under the Endangered Species Art as threatened 103 Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) Dolphins At least four species (13 stocks) of dol- phins are incidentally taken in the interna- tional fishery for yellowfin tuna in the tropical Pacific waters off Mexico and Cen- tral America (about 57,000 were killed in 1990). Because those four species also occur in U.S. waters, and because the United States is the major market for the fishery, the NMFS has assessed the dol- phin populations. The northern stock of spotted dolphins is estimated at 658,300-2,205,500 and the southern stock at 85,800-451,900 (1986- 89). Dolphin sightings suggest that both stocks have declined. Eastern spinner dol- phins number 391,200-754,200, while whitebelly spinner dolphin stocks number about 363,300-1 ,398,400. The data are too variable to determine population trends. Common dolphin abundance for the north- ern, central, and southern stocks were about 177,700, 568,000, and 1,657,500, respectively. Differences in yearly esti- mates suggest that 1 ) variances are under- estimated, 2) immigration is extensive, or 3) annual calf production or mortality may vary greatly. Estimates of striped dolphin abundance is 652,000-2,251,300. Harbor Porpoise Harbor porpoises range throughout North American coastal waters. Surveys of them have been conducted off California since 1984, periodically off Oregon and Wash- ington, and not at all off Alaska. Harbor porpoises tend to concentrate at the mouth of the Columbia River and at many other bays. Estimates of abundance are 1 1,100 in California (3,274 in central California alone which is 30-97% of the carrying ca- pacity). About 700-1,000 range Wash- ington's north coast. The species was once abundant in Washington's inland waters but is rare there now. Bowhead Whale The endangered bowhead whale has ranged as far as the polar ice fields of the Northern Hemisphere. Total prewhaling abundance exceeded 120,000, but by 1900 it was probably in the low thousands. In the (J.S. western Arctic, 18,650 bow- heads were killed by Yankee whalers be- tween 1848 and 1914 from a population estimated at less than 20,000. The take by Alaska Eskimos has averaged 20-40 whales per year since 1914. The present population, 7,500, is about 40-60% of its 1848 carrying capacity. The stock has been increasing since commercial whaling ended and has increased 3.1%/year since 1978 (Fig. 23-1). Gray Whale Still listed under ESA as endangered are the two stocks of North Pacific gray whales. The eastern North Pacific or "California" stock was heavily exploited by Yankee whalers in the last half of the 1 9th century. The present stock size, 21,1 13, is equal to or larger than the size of the 1846 popula- tion of 15,000-20,000. Population growth rate is 3.2%/year despite a Soviet subsis- tence catch of 167 whales per year (Fig. 23-2). Humpback whale The endangered humpbacks in the eastern North Pacific Ocean migrate between the subtropical waters of Hawaii and coastal Mexico during the calving season and the temperate and subarctic waters of north- ern California and Alaska where they feed. The population is estimated at 1,300- 2,000. Prewhaling numbers (ca. 1850) were about 15,000, but this may have in- cluded humpbacks from the western North Pacific Ocean. No information exists on population trends. . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 104 Figure 23-1.— Actual count of bowhead whales, 1978-88. 6,000 o o o 4,000 i O 3,000 2,000 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 23-2— Estimated population of gray whales, 1965-90. Northern Sea Lion The northern or Steller sea lion, classified as threatened under the ESA, ranges coastal waters of the North Pacific Ocean from California to Japan. The species has declined sharply throughout its range in just the last 20 years, and is now well below its optimum level. The number of adults and juveniles in U.S. waters crashed from 154,000 in 1960 to 42,000 in 1990. Most of this 73% decline occurred in Alaska waters, where sea lion counts at three study sites were 105,289 in 1959; 89,364 in 1976; 55,824 in 1985; and 23,000 in 1990 (Fig. 23-3). The decline in Alaska is believed to be due to a combination of incidental kills in fisheries, illegal shooting, changes in the numbers and/or quality of prey, and possibly other unidentified fac- tors. (The Steller sea lion population off Washington and Oregon is low but stable at about 3,000, but in California they have slowly declined since the 1950's to about 2,000.) 105 Figure 23-3.-Estimated U.S. population of Steller sea lions and population trends in Alaska, 1960-90. 180 - Total 140 Alaska o o o 120 100 - 09 c o a • a 80 £ 2 55 60 40 20 - 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Northern Fur Seal The northern fur seal of the North Pacific Ocean, considered depleted under the MMPA, ranges across subarctic Pacific Rim waters from California to Japan. It num- bered 1.2 million in 1983 with 871,000 in U.S. waters. The major U.S. breeding pop- ulation is on Alaska's Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George. Production on the Pribilof Islands dropped more than 60% between 1955 and 1980, but has since been stable. On St. George Island, produc- tion has continued to decline about 6%/year since 1970 (Fig. 23-4). Small U.S. breeding populations are also found on Alaska's Bogoslof Island (1,500), and California's San Miguel Island (4,000). The Pribilof Islands' fur seal carrying capacity has changed little since the 1950's. Figure 23-4— Northern fur seal pup counts on St. Paul and St. George Islands, Alaska, 1970-90. o o o 09 03 400 300 200 100 St Paul Island — St. George Island Ol — 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 106 California Sea Lion The California sea lion has three subspe- cies living on the (J.S. west coast and Brit- ish Columbia, in the Galapagos Islands, and in Japan. Between Mexico and British Columbia the population, about 157,000 animals, has grown about 6%/year since the 1970's (Fig. 23-5). Annual production of 16,000-17,000 pups on the California Channel Islands in 1986 corresponds to a population size of about 87,000 animals. The California population in 1982 (prior to the 1982-83 El Nino warm water intrusion) was thought to be near or slightly below the lower end of its optimum population. Figure 23-5.— California sea lion pup counts on the Channel Islands, 1971-86. Harbor Seal The Pacific harbor seal ranges from Mexico There are no reliable estimates for Alaska, to Japan, and populations south of Alaska are thought to be increasing. California's minimum population of 20, 1 90 is probably below optimum. The population in Wash- ington and Oregon is about 10,000-15,000. but on Tugidak Island the population has declined more than 60% since the early 1970's. If this is typical, then the Alaska population is depleted and below optimum levels. Hawaiian Monk Seal Considered endangered under the ESA, the monk seal is limited to the small islands and atolls of the 1,100-mile Hawaiian Ar- chipelago. The total population is about 1,500 animals, a 60% decline since 1958. The monk seals at French Frigate Shoals have increased a bit recently. Average counts of the five major breeding sites increased from 468 to 639 during 1 983-87 but dropped to 546 in 1990. Production increased during 1983-88 but dropped 23% in 1990 from the 1983-88 average (Fig. 23-6). 107 Figure 23-6— Hawaiian monk seal live births, 1983-90. 250 200 a k. 1 150 •*- o E Z 100 60 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES Important management issues are: 1) Have fisheries interactions and other human-related activities directly harmed marine mammals or significantly altered the carrying capacity of the marine ecosys- tem for them; 2) are the depleted marine mammals recovering, and have the best steps been taken to speed their recovery; and 3) what actions are necessary to min- imize potential conflicts between the ESA, MMPA, MFCMA, and other Federal laws on marine resources and fisheries manage- ment? Fisheries Interactions One issue involves competition for food. U.S. and foreign commercial fisheries have been operating in the eastern North Pacific for more than 100 years and fish catches have been sustained there for many de- cades. Some fish populations, however, have collapsed and are no longer commer- cially viable. The impact of removing mil- lions of fish and shellfish from the marine ecosystem each year on the marine mam- mals that also eat them is, however, un- known. Accidental killing of marine mammals is another concern. Except for the northern spotted dolphin, the dolphin kill in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery has declined drastically since the 1960's. Mon- itoring must continue, to see if the dolphin populations increase. The current acciden- tal annual kill of northern spotted dolphin (36%) will have to decrease for the popula- tion to rebound. The harbor porpoise kill in California's fisheries declined from 200-300/year in the mid-1980's to less than 100/year after gillnet fishing ceased. The harbor porpoise kill by the Makah Indian tribal setnet salmon fishery off the north coast of Wash- ington declined from over 100 in 1987-88 to 13 in 1990 when fishing effort was re- duced. The known kill of Steller sea lions in Alaska fisheries has declined from over 1,400 in 1982 to 23 in 1990. The numbers killed in other fisheries is believed to be even smaller. Harbor seals are killed in low numbers, but data are incomplete. Observed marine mammal kills in the foreign high-seas squid fishery in 1989 numbered 455 northern right whale dol- phins, 254 white-sided dolphins, 208 fur seals, 141 Dall porpoises, 10 common dol- phins, and 52 unidentified dolphins (only 4% of the fishery was monitored). One fur seal was reported killed in U.S. fisheries in 1990. . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 108 Recovery of Protected Species Eleven U.S. west coast marine mammal species are listed as endangered or threat- ened under the ESA. Though the data are limited, right whales in the eastern North Pacific Ocean are at a critically low level: Only 5-7 sightings have been made in the past 25 years. There are far too few data on other species, such as blue and hump- back whales, to judge whether any recov- ery is taking place. Some human activities may, however, be affecting the recovery of some species. For example, adult female humpback whales with calves have appar- ently been abandoning traditional nearshore calving and calf rearing habitat near Maui, Hawaii, owing to repeated human interference or contact. Recovery plan action will provide a way to gauge progress in the restoration of endangered and threatened resources. Conservation and Fisheries Management Conflicts Some pinniped populations, such as Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, and har- bor seal, have declined in the last 20 years. During the same period, other pinniped populations farther south along the west coast have increased, such as harbor seal, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. Growing marine mammal populations will raise different fishery management concerns. For one, fisheries management actions and the MFCMA may be in conflict with protective requirements of the MMPA and ESA, as when marine mammals prey on depleted fish stocks, like Pacific salmon, or if they are in turn accidentally killed in fishing operations. The biological information needed to assess and manage these prob- lems is generally lacking. UNIT 24 SEA TURTLES 109 INTRODUCTION Sea turtles are highly migratory and ply the world's oceans. Cinder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, all marine turtles are listed as endangered or threatened (Table 24-1). The NMFS has authority to protect and conserve marine turtles in the seas and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service main- tains authority while turtles are on land. The Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, and leath- erback turtles are listed as endangered throughout their ranges. The loggerhead and olive ridley turtles are listed as threat- ened throughout their U.S. ranges, as is the green turtle, except the Florida nesting population which is listed as endangered. Table 24-1.— Annual number of Area and Number of nesting females female sea turtles nesting on Historic Current Current Status U.S. beaches. species level level trend in U.S. Atlantic Loggerhead Unknown 18,000-21,000 Stable T 1 Green Unknown 600-800 Increasing T, E" Kemp's ridley 40,000 700" Declining 5 E Leatherback Unknown Unknown Unknown E Hawksbill Unknown Unknown Declining E Pacific Loggerhead Unknown Unknown Unknown T Green 10.000 5 2.200 6 Increasing 7 T Olive ridley Unknown Unknown Unknown T Leatherback Unknown Unknown Unknown E Hawksbill Unknown 75 8 Unknown E T = Listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened 2 E ■ Listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered Endangered in Florida, threatened elsewhere in the US Atlantic. 4 Using t 5 nests/female . 5 Declining at an average rate of 3%/year since 1978 historical level for Hawaii only, current level is 2,000 in Hawaii and 100-300 in American Samoa; current level in Guam is unknown 'Trend in Hawaii only, monitored at French Frigate Shoals, however, great concern exists over increasing frequency of libropapilloma disease in all Hawaiian green turtles 8 Current abundance in Hawaii; current abundance in Guam and American Samoa is unknown SPECIES AND STATUS The six Pacific species are loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, hawks- bill, and olive ridley turtles. All six are also found in the Atlantic Ocean, but the olive ridley does not enter (J.S. waters. In Hawai- ian waters, the green and hawksbill are most abundant. Off the U.S. west coast, the loggerhead, leatherback, and olive ridley turtles are most commonly reported. Historical data on sea turtle numbers are limited. In addition, the length of time that data have been collected has been short when compared with the long life and low reproductive rate of all turtle species. It is difficult to assess the long-term status of sea turtles owing to the limited data. The 1982-84 number of loggerhead nest- ing females from North Carolina to Florida was 1 8,000-2 1 ,000 (Table 24-1 ) . Most nest along Florida's east coast where nest num- bers have been stable for five years. Only about 700 female Kemp's ridley turtles nest along a limited portion of Mexico's Atlantic coast. In 1947, on a single day, 40,000 females were seen nesting on one beach alone. The documented decline in the Kemp's ridley is probably indicative of dropoffs for other sea turtles, though the periods of their various declines may have differed (Fig. 24-1). Historically, the green sea turtle has sup- ported large fisheries along the Florida and Texas coasts, although its nesting on (J.S. beaches has probably always been limited. In the late 1800's, 2,000 females reportedly nested at Key West, Fla. Currently, per- haps 600-800 green turtles nest along the Florida coast. However, it appears that the . . . Sea Turtles 110 Figure 24-1.— Number of nesting females of Kemp's ridley sea turtles, 1945 and 1978-89. SPECIES AND STATUS number of juvenile and subadult turtles in Florida's inshore waters has recently re- turned to historic levels. There are no his- torical estimates for the numbers of hawksbill or leatherback turtles nesting on U.S. Caribbean beaches. The hawksbill has been heavily exploited, and continued trade of products from this species sug- gests that further declines are possible. The trend over time of the leatherback turtle in U.S. waters is unknown. Since 1 973, Hawaiian surveys of nesting green turtles indicate that the adult popu- lation may currently number about 2,000 and that it is gradually increasing. No ac- curate historical record of green turtle pop- ulations exists. Despite an apparent increase in the nesting population, there is growing concern that fibropapilloma dis- ease, which has infected green turtles of all ages in many inshore feeding and resting areas, may seriously curtail population re- covery. The Hawaiian hawksbill turtle pop- ulation is very small; only 12-15 nests are recorded each year. In Hawaii, little is known of the species' reproductive biology or population trends. ISSUES In the North Pacific there are concerns about sea turtle deaths in the high-seas driftnet fisheries. Turtle bycatch rates are being monitored on driftnet vessels by U.S., Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese scientific observers. The effect of these driftnet fisheries on U.S. sea turtle populations is unknown. Turtles are also killed when accidentally caught in other fisheries. As many as 10,000 sea turtles may be taken annually in shrimp trawls. Turtle excluder devices (TED's) have been developed and, when attached to shrimp trawls, enhance turtle safety by releasing them. TED's reduce the turtle kill by shrimp trawls by 97%, and their use is mandated for certain shrimp fishing areas. Studies indicate that the use of TED's has reduced shrimp catches only about 5-15%. Shrimpers are concerned about reduced income owing to lower shrimp catches. Sea turtles are fully protected in U.S. waters, but their habitats continue to be hurt. Coastal development is reducing nesting, nursery, and foraging habitats. Floating tar balls and plastics, if eaten, can harm or kill sea turtles. The magnitude of these problems is not fully known, but they occur worldwide, and international cooper- ation for marine turtle protection and re- covery is needed. O Part 3: APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 113 The following National Marine Fisheries Service scientists, listed alphabetically, assisted in writing this report: Frank Almeida, Vaughn Anthony, George Balazs, Jay Barlow, Norman Bartoo, Christofer Boggs, James Bohnsack, Howard Braham, John Brodziak, Joan Browder, Steven Clark, Darryl Christensen, George Darcy, Edward DeMartini, Douglas DeMaster, Steve Edwards, Kevin Friedland, Wendy Gabriel, William Gilmartin, Christopher Gledhill, Phillip Goodyear, Daniel Hayes, Larry Hansen, Douglas Harper, Ken Henry, Josef Iodine, Lawrence Jacobson, Robert Kope, Phil Logan, Loh-Lee Low, Sandra Lowe, Alec MacCall, Ralph Mayo, Margaret McBride, James Meehan, Rick Methot, Steven Murawski, James Nance, Jim Olsen, Bob Otto, William Overholtz, Joan Palmer, Michael Parrack, Nancie Parrack, Patricia Phares, Jeffrey Polovina, Joseph Powers, Eric Prince, Jerry Reeves, Anne Richards, Gerald Scott, Fredric Serchuk, Gary Shepherd, Allen Shimada, Michael Sissenwine, Joyce Sisson, Robert Skillman, David Somerton, Mark Terceiro, Nancy Thompson, Steven Turner, Douglas Vaughan, Gordon Waring, Vidar Wespestad, Jerry Wetherall, Susan Wigley. Pat Sullivan of the International Pacific Halibut Commission contributed to the section on Pacific halibut. The following personnel in the NMFS Scientific Publications Office (SPO) and Office of Research and Environmental In- formation (OREI) produced this report: Editors were W. L. Hobart (SPO) and James Meehan (OREI), assisted by Sharyn Matriotti and Nancy Peacock (SPO). Shel- ley Arenas (SPO) completed the desktop publishing with assistance from Jackie Greenawalt (OREI), Jacki Geiger (SPO), and Joni Packard (SPO). Design, layout, and the front cover art was by Harold Spiess (SPO). APPENDIX 2 114 FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS AND FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL American Lobster Fishery Management Plan Fishery Management Plan for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Scallops Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan for Summer Flounder SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery Management Plan GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral Reefs in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for the Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands Fishery Management Plan for the Shallow Water Reeffish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California WESTERN PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fishery of the Western Pacific Region Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 115 NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan for the High Seas Salmon Fishery off the Coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Management Plan SECRETARIAL PLANS Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfishes APPENDIX 3 116 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES COVERED IN THIS REPORT 1 UNIT 1: NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES Principal Groundfish and Flounders Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus Pollock, Pollachius virens Redfish, Sebastes marinus Silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis Red hake, Urophycis chuss Yellowtail flounder, Limanda ferruginea Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus Witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus Skates and Spiny Dogfish Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias Skates, Raja spp. Other Finfish White hake, (Jrophycis tenuis Goosefish, Lophius americanus Cusk, Brosme brosme Ocean pout, Macrozoarces americanus Sculpins, Family Cottidae Searobins, Family Triglidae Scup, Stenotomus chrysops Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Wolffishes, Anarhichas spp. Atlantic argentine, Argentina silus Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus Weakfish, Cynoscion regalis Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus UNIT 2: NORTHEAST PELAGIC FISHERIES Atlantic (sea) herring, Clupea harengus Atlantic mackerel. Scomber scombrus Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus Blueflsh, Pomatomus saltatrix Long-finned squid, Loligo pealei Short-finned squid, ///ex illecebrosus UNIT 3: ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar American shad, Alosa sapidissima River herring (alewife), Alosa pseudoharengus Striped bass, Morone saxatilis Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus UNIT 4: NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES Sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus American lobster, Homarus americanus Surf clam, Spisula solidissima Ocean quahog, Arctica islandica Northern shrimp, Pandalis borealis UNIT 5: ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 'Species are listed by the Unit in which they are found. Not all are mentioned in the text since many are grouped together for man- agement purposes under one category (i e, pelagic fishery, groundfish fishery). Atlantic swordfish, Xiphias gladius Billfishes Sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans White marlin, Tetrapturus albidus Longbill spearfish, Tetrapturus pfluegeri Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus Other Tunas Albacore, Thunnus alalunga Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus Blackfin tuna, Thunnus atlanticus Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares Little tunny, Euthynnus alletteratus Skipjack tuna, Euthynnus pelamis Bullet tuna, Auxis rochei Frigate tuna, Auxis thazard 117 UNIT 6: ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES Pelagic Sharks Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus Oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus Sevengill shark, Heptrachias perlo Sixgill shark, Hexanchus griseus Bigeye sixgill shark, Hexanchus vitulus Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Longfin mako, Isurus paucus Porbeagle, Lamna nasus Blue shark, Prionace glauca Large Coastal Sharks Sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus Reef shark, Carcharhinus perezi Blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus Dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus Spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna Silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis Bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas Bignose shark, Carcharhinus altimus Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus galapagensis Night shark, Carcharhinus signatus White shark, Carcharodon charcharias Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuuieri Nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum Lemon shark, Negaprion breuirostris Ragged-tooth shark, Odontaspis ferox Whale shark, Rhincodon typus Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini Great hammerhead, Sphyrna mokarran Smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zygaena Small Coastal Sharks Finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon Blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenouae Caribbean sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon porosus Bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo Atlantic angel shark, Squatina dumerili UNIT 7: ATLANTIC COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES King mackerel (Gulf/Atlantic), Scomberomorus caualla Spanish mackerel (Gulf/ Atlantic), Scomberomorus maculatus Cobia, Rachycentron canadum Cero (mackerel), Scomberomorus regalis Dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus UNIT 8: ATLANTIC/GULF OF MEXICO/CARIBBEAN REEF FISH FISHERIES Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogoni Dog snapper, Lutjanus jocu Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris Silk snapper, Lutjanus uiuanus Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens Wenchman, Pristipomoides aquilonaris Voraz, Pristipomoides macrophthalmus Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Dwarf sand perch, Diplectrum biuittatum Sand perch, Diplectrum formosum Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus Coney, Epinephelus fulvus Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus Jewfish, Epinephelus itajara Red grouper, Epinephelus morio Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus Snowy grouper, Epinephelus nivealus Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis . . . Common and Scientific Names 118 . . . ATLANTIC/GULF OF MEXICO/CARIBBEAN REEF FISH FISHERIES Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax Tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus Sea bream, Archosargus rhomboidalis Grass porgy, Calamus arctifrons Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus Sheepshead porgy, Calamus penna Pluma, Calamus pennatula Littlehead porgy, Calamus proridens Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus Scup, Stenotomus chrysops Black margate, Anisotremus surinamensis Porkfish, Anisotremus uirginicus Margate, Haemulon album Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum Smallmouth grunt, Haemulon chrysargyreum French grunt, Haemulon flauolineatum Spanish grunt, Haemulon macrostomum Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum Sailors choice, Haemulon parrai White grunt, Haemulon plumieri Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus Pigflsh, Orthopristis chrysoptera Goldface tilefish, Caulolatilus chrysops Blackline tilefish, Caulolatilus cyanops Anchor tilefish, Caulolatilus intermedius Blueline (grey) tilefish, Caulolatilus microps Tilefish (golden), Lopholatilus chamaeleonliceps Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen Black durgon, Melichthys niger Sargassum triggerfish, Xanthichthys ringens Spanish hogfish, Bodianus rufus Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus Puddingwife, Halichoeres radiatus Pearly razorfish, Hemipteronotus novacula Yellow jack, Caranx bartholomaei Blue runner, Caranx crysos Crevallejack, Caranx hippos Horse-eye jack, Caranx latus Black jack, Caranx lugubris Bar jack, Caranx ruber Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerill Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana Squirrelfish, Holocentrus adscensionis Longspine squirrelfish, Holocentrus rufus Yellow goatfish, Mulloidichthys martinicus Spotted goatfish, Pseudopeneus maculatus Foureye butterflyfish, Chaetodon capistratus Spotfin butterflyfish, Chaetodon ocellatus Banded butterflyfish, Chaetodon striatus Queen angelfish, Holacanthus ciliaris Rock beauty, Holacanthus tricolor Gray angelfish, Pomacanthus arcuatus French angelfish, Pomacanthus paru Midnight parrotfish, Scarus coelestinus Blue parrotfish, Scarus coeruleus Striped parrotfish, Scarus croicensis Rainbow parrotfish, Scarus quacamaia Princess parrotfish, Scarus taeniopterus Queen parrotfish, Scarus vetula Redband parrotfish, Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redtail parrotfish, Sparisoma chrysopterum Stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma uiride Ocean surgeonfish, Acanthurus chirurgus Doctorfish, Acanthurus bahianus Blue tang, Acanthurus coeruleus Spotted trunkfish, Lactophrys bicaudalis Honeycomb cowfish, Lactophrys polygonia Scrawled cowfish, Lactophrys quadricornis Trunkfish, Lactophrys trigonus Smooth trunkfish, Lactophrys triqueter 119 UNIT 9: SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES Red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus Silver seatrout, Cynoscion nothus Sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus Black drum, Pogonias cromis Southern kingfish, Menticirrhus americanus Gulf kingfish, Menticirrhus littoralis Northern kingfish, Menticirrhus saxatilis UNIT 10: SOUTHEAST MENHADEN AND BUTTERFISH FISHERIES Atlantic menhaden, Breuoortia tyrannus Gulf menhaden, Breuoortia patronus Gulf butterfish, Peprilus burti UNIT 11: SOUTHEAST/ CARIBBEAN INVER- TEBRATE FISHERIES Spiny Lobsters/Stone Crabs Spiny lobster (SE/Caribbean), Panulirus argus Slipper lobster, Scyllarides nodifer Stone crab, Menippe mercenaria Shrimp Brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus White shrimp, Penaeus setiferus Pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus Seabobs, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri Rock shrimp, Sicyonia breuirostris Others Queen conch, Strombus gigas Corals UNIT 1 2: PACIFIC COAST SALMON FISHERIES Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta UNIT 1 3: ALASKA SALMON FISHERIES Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta UNIT 14: PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES Northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax Pacific herring (Alaska), Clupea harengus pallasi Pacific (California) sardine, Sardinops sagax Jack mackerel, Trachurus symmetricus UNIT 1 5: PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES Pacific hake (whiting), Merluccius productus Sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria Dover sole, Microstomus pacificus Thomyheads Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus alascanus Longspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus altiuelis Rockfish Aurora rockfish, Sebastes aurora Bank rockfish, Sebastes rufus Black-and-yellow rockfish, Sebastes chrysomelas . . . Common and Scientific Names 120 . . . PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES Rockfish (cont.) Blackgill rockfish, Sebastes melanostomus Blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis Bronzespotted rockfish, Sebastes gilli Brown rockfish, Sebastes auriculatus Calico rockfish, Sebastes dalli Canary rockfish, Sebastes pinniger Chilipepper, Sebastes goodei China rockfish, Sebastes nebulosus Copper rockfish, Sebastes caurinus Cowcod, Sebastes leuis Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes crameri Dusty rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus Flag rockfish, Sebastes rubriuinctus Gopher rockfish, Sebastes carnatus Grass rockfish, Sebastes rastrelliger Greenblotched rockfish, Sebastes rosenblatti Greenspotted rockfish, Sebastes chlorostictus Greenstriped rockfish, Sebastes elongatus Harlequin rockfish, Sebastes variegatus Honeycomb rockfish, Sebastes umbrosus Kelp rockfish, Sebastes atrovirens Mexican rockfish, Sebastes macdonaldi Olive rockfish, Sebastes serranoides Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus Pink rockfish, Sebastes eos Quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger Redbanded rockfish, Sebastes babcocki Redstripe rockfish, Sebastes proriger Rosethorn rockfish, Sebastes heluomaculatus Rosy rockfish, Sebastes rosaceus Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutianus Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus Shortbelly rockfish, Sebastes jordani Silvergray rockfish, Sebastes breuispinis Speckled rockfish, Sebastes oualis Splitnose rockfish, Sebastes diploproa Squarespot rockfish, Sebastes hopkinsi Stripetail rockfish, Sebastes saxicola Tiger rockfish, Sebastes nigrocinctus Treefish, Sebastes serriceps Vermilion rockfish, Sebastes miniatus Widow rockfish, Sebastes entomelas Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus Yellowmouth rockfish, Sebastes reedi Yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flauidus Other Flatfishes Arrowtooth flounder, Atheresth.es stomias Butter sole, Pleuronectes isolepis English sole, Pleuronectes uetulus Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus Petrale sole, Eopsetta jordani Rex sole, Errex zachirus Rock sole, Pleuronectes bilineata Sand sole, Psettichthys melanostictus Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus Others Leopard shark, Triakis semifasciata Soupfin shark, Galeorhinus zyopterus Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias Big skate. Raja binoculata California skate, Raja inornata Longnose skate, Raja rhina Spotted ratfish, Hydrolagus colllei Finescale codling, Antlmora microlepis Pacific rattail, Coryphaenoides acrolepis Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Kelp greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus California scorpionfish, Scorpaena guttata UNIT 16: WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES Spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus Slipper lobster, Panulirus penicillatus Precious corals, Family Scyllaridae 121 UNIT 17: WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND ARMOR HE AD FISHERIES Reef Fishes Silverjaw jobfish, Aphareus rutilans Gray jobfish, Aprion virescens Squirrelfish snapper, Etelis carbunculus Longtail snapper, Etelis coruscans Bluestripe snapper, Lutjanus kasmira Yellowtail snapper, Pristipomoides auricilla Pink snapper, Pristipomoides rdamentosus Yelloweye snapper, Pristipomoides flauipinnus Snapper, Pristipomoides sieboldii, Pristipomoides zonatus Giant trevally, Caranx ignoblis Black jack, Caranx lugubris Thick lipped trevally, Pseudocaranx dentex Amberjack, Seriola dumerili Blacktip grouper, Epinephelus fasciatus Seabass, Epinephelus quernus Lunartail grouper. Variola louti Ambon emperor, Lethrinus amboinensis Redgill emperor, Lethrinus rubrioperculatus Seamount Fishes Armorhead, Pentaceros richardsoni Alfonsin, Beryx splendens Raftfish, Hyperoglyphejaponica UNIT 1 8: PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES Swordfish, Xiphias gladius Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans Striped marlin, Tetrapturus audax Albacore (North & South), Thunnus alalunga Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares Other Pelagics Sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus Black marlin, Makaira indica Shortbill spearfish, Tetrapturus angustirostris Dolphin (mahimahi), Coryphaena hippurus Pompano dolphin, Coryphaena equisetis Oceanic sharks. Families — Carcharhinidae, Alopiidae, Sphyrnidae, and Lamnidae Wahoo, Acanthocybium solanderi UNIT 19: ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES Walleye (Alaska) pollock, Theragra chalcogramma Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus Sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria Yellowfin sole, Pleuronectes asper Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis Other Flatfishes Arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias Greenland halibut, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Rock sole, Pleuronectes bilineata Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon Alaska plaice, Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus Rex sole, Errex zachirus Butter sole, Pleuronectes isolepis Longhead dab, Pleuronectes proboscidens Dover sole, Microstomus pacificus Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus Rockfishes Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus Thornyhead rockfish, Sebastolobus spp. Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutianus Dusky rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus Northern rockfish, Sebastes polyspinis Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastes alascanus Shortraker rockfish, Sebastes borealis Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes crameri Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus Blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus Others Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygius Rattail, Coryphaenoides sp. Skates, Raja spp. Squids, Sepioid and Teuthoid Octopus, Octopoda . . . Common and Scientific Names 122 UNIT 20. ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES King crabs Red king crab, Paralithodes camlschatica Blue king crab, Paralithodes platypus Golden (brown) king crab, Lithodes aequispina Tanner crabs, Chionecetes bairdi, Chionecetes opilio Sea Snails, Neptunea pribiloffensls. Neptunea heros, Neptunea lyrata, Neptunea uentricosa, Neptunea oregonensis, Buccinum angulossum, Buccinum plectrum, Buccinum scalariforme, Buccinum polare, Volutopsius middindorfrii, Volutopsius fragilis, Plicifusus kroyeri, Pyrulofusus deformis UNIT 21. NEARSHORE RESOURCES Tarpon, Megalops atlanticus Ladyfish, Elops saurus Bonefish, Albula uulpes American eel, Anguilla rostrata Other shads, herrings, Alosa aestivalis, Alosa alabamae, Alosa mediocris, Dorosoma cepedianum, Dorosoma petenense, Etrumeus teres, Harengula clupeola, Harengula humeralis, Harengula jaguana Atlantic thread herring, Opislhonema oglinum Spanish sardine, Sardinella aurita Ballyhoo, Hemiramphus brasiliensis Surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus Eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus Common snook, Centropomus undecimalis Florida pompano, Trachinotus carolinus Permit, Trachinotus falcatus California corvina, Menticirrhus undulatus Surfperches, Family Embiotocidae Mullets, Family Mugilidae Tautog, Tautoga onitis Striped bass (Pacific), Morone saxatilis Abalone, Haliotis spp. Whelk, Busycon spp. Periwinkle, Littorina spp. Pacific shrimps, Family Pandalidae Dungeness crab, Cancer magister Rock crab, Cancer irroratus Jonah crab. Cancer borealis Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis Pacific razor clam, Siliqua patula Pismo clam, Tiuela stultorum Pacific hard clams, Family Veneridae Atlantic hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria Softshell clam, Mya arenaria Bay scallop, Argopecten irradians Calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus Oyster (Atlantic), Crassostrea virginica Oyster (Pacific), Crassostrea gigas Sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus spp. UNIT 22. ATLANTIC MARINE MAMMALS Right whale, Eubalaena glacialis Humpback whale, Megaptera nouaeangliae Longfin pilot whale, Globicephala melas Shortfin pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina Other Marine Mammals Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus Whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba Spotted dolphin (Atlantic), Stenella plagiodon Beaked whales, Mesoplodon spp. UNIT 23. PACIFIC MARINE MAMMALS Eastern Tropical Pacific Porpoises Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris Spotted dolphin (Pacific), Stenella attenuata Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus Humpback whale, Megaptera nouaeangliae Northern (Steller) sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi California sea lion, Zalophus californianus Other Marine Mammals Dall's porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena 123 . . . PACIFIC MARINE MAMMALS Other Marine Mammals (cont.) Northern right-whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis Whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Harbor seal, Phoca uitulina UNIT 24. SEA TURTLES Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempi Olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys oliuacea Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys conacea Green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta carella Hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata ^ OF <°, * f 4TCS O* *