OUR LIVING OCEANS REPORT ON THE STATUS OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES, 1992 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPORT ON THE STATUS OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES, 1992 OUR LIVING OCEANS 113 1GCTC December 199Z NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Barbara Hackman Franklin Secretary JUNlSraw J c. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION John A. Knauss Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere %rs c2>* NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE William W. Fox, Jr. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Errata Our Living Oceans, 1992 P. 4 (column 1, line 6) "Fishery Management Council's" should read "Fish- ery Management Councils." P. 12 (Figure 5) should show the following percentages: 8 60 ■ Utilization "Dstock level 17% 15% ■: Under/Above Fully/Near P. 17 (column 1, First paragraph under heading "Man- agement Concerns") "30% of all stocks and 45% of the stocks where status is known" should read "28% of all stocks and 43% of the stocks where status is known." P. 20 (column 1, first sentence under heading "Scientific Information and Adequacy of Assessments") "33%" should read "34%." P. 39 (column 1, first paragraph under heading "By- catch and Multispecies Interactions") "range of resources" should read "diversity of re- sources." P. 41 (Table 2-1, footnote 4) "47%" should read "42%" of the RAY. P. 42 (column 1, lines 2-5) should read "Present commercial landings are well below CPY*s. For the complex of stocks, CPY's exceed RAY's by 284% (473,500 t)." P. 47 (column 1, 5 lines from bottom) "fishing rates resulting in maximum cohort yields" should read "fishing rates that provide for maximum cohort yields." P. 49 (column 2, last four lines) should read "regulations control the length of the harvesting season (December to May) and harvest gear." P. 57 (column 2, 9 lines from the bottom) "53%" should read "58%." P. 58 (column 1, line 1) "25%" should read "27%." P. 64 (column 1, line 9) "A classic example it the popularity of 'blackened redfish'" should read "A classic example is the popular- ity of 'blackened redfish.'" P. 64 (column 2, second paragraph, line 5) "adult population increases in size" should read "adult population increases in population abun- dance." P. 66 (column 2, line 6) "briefly during the spring of 1988" should read "briefly during the spring of 1989." P. 85 (column 2, lines 5-8) "Its ex-vessel value was $95 million" should read "Its ex-vessel value was $101 million." "The important species harvested were Pacific whiting (290,600 t valued at $94.5 million)" should read "The important species harvested were Pacific whiting (210,400 t valued at $32.1 million)." P. 118 (column 1, paragraph under heading "Harbor Porpoise") should begin "The northwestern Atlantic harbor porpoise is found from Newfoundland to Florida." P. 146 (column 1, lines 8-9) "Chionecetes bairdi, Chionecetes opilio" should read "Chionoecetes bairdi, Chionoecetes opilio." o CONTENTS v Preface 1 Part l: Overview 3 Introduction 2\ Progress 5 Scientific Principles and Terms 23 Strategy for the Future 9 National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources ■j 7 Issues of National Concern 24 Spotlight 1:The 1991-92 El Nino 29 Spotlight 2: By catch Problems and Fishery Management 33 Part 2: Unit Synopses 35 Unit 1: Northeast Demersal Fisheries 54 Unit 9: Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries 4Q Unit 2: Northeast Pelagic Fisheries 55 Unit 10: Southeast Menhaden and Butterfish Fisheries 43 Unit 3: Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries 59 Unit 11: Southeast/Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries 47 Unit 4: Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries 74 Unit 12: Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries 51 Unit 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 7g Unit 13: Alaska Salmon Fisheries 54 Unit 6: Atlantic Shark Fisheries 80 Unit 14: Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries 57 Unit 7: Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 85 Unit 15: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries 50 Unit 8: Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Reef Fish Fisheries continued . . . Contents IV 89 Unit 16: Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries ■J -J -J Unit 21: Nearshore Fisheries 92 Unit 17: Western Pacific "" Bottomfish and Armorhead Fisheries 95 Unit 18: Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries -\ \ £ Unit 22: Atlantic Marine Mammals 122 Un ' t 23: Pac 'f' c Marine Mammals \Q\ Unit 19: Alaska Groundfish Fisheries ■J 30 Unit 24: Sea Turtles ■j07 Unit 20: Alaska Shellfish Fisheries 133 Part 3: Appendices 135 Appendix 1: Acknowledgments 136 Appendix 2: Fishery Management Councils and Fishery Management Plans ■|40 Appendix 3: Common and Scientific Names of Species Covered in This Report 148 Appendix 4: Regional Allocation of Long-Term Yield PREFACE This second annual status review of U.S. living marine resources updates and aug- ments the 1991 edition. It provides a scien- tific overview of the health of the nation's marine fisheries as well as protected ma- rine mammals and sea turtles. These na- tional resources are under the stewardship of the G.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This report draws together, for the public, results from the extensive scientific programs of NMFS aimed at evaluating and monitoring our living marine resources. The management of these resources is described and out- standing issues and recent progress are highlighted. Over 60 NMFS scientists and staff (Appendix 1) assisted in the prepara- tion of this edition of "Our Living Oceans." Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/ourlivingoceansrOOhoba 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 1991, G.S. commercial fisheries produced $3.9 billion in revenue to fishermen at (J.S. ports, with a total (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced) impact on the GNP of more than $50 billion. In addition, 17 million American anglers enjoy saltwater fishing each year and catch more than 230 million fish. 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 and recovery of depleted stocks of marine mammals, sea turtles, and other threatened and endangered species. The responsibilities of the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service are primarily set out in three major pieces of legislation: 1 ) The Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) for the fisher- ies resources in the 200-mile G.S. Exclu- sive Economic Zone (EEZ), 2) the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for moni- toring, protection, and management of ma- rine mammal stocks in G.S. waters, and 3) the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for monitoring and protection of marine life considered to be at risk of extinction. Each of these laws has a primary requirement that the best scientific information be used as the basis for management actions. NMFS takes a leading role in the collection and analysis of scientific data on living marine resources. The Agency prepares hundreds of specialized scientific reports each year along with numerous presenta- tions by scientific staff to managers, indus- try groups, and the public. This report provides a broad overview of this large body of technical work. It consid- ers most living marine resources of interest to the G.S. (either harvested partially or totally by the G.S. or present in the G.S. EEZ for a portion of their life). As in last year's edition, the status of each resource is evaluated and current and potential har- vest levels are given, along with informa- tion on current management controls. The MFCMA contains seven national standards for the development of Fishery Management Plans (FMP's). In brief, con- servation and management measures shall 1) prevent overfishing while achiev- ing, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery, 2) be based on the best scientific information, 3) manage stocks of fish as a unit and coordinate management of interrelated stocks, 4) not discriminate between residents of different Spinner dolphin . . . Introduction . . . OUR LIVING MARINE RESOURCES states and allocate fishing privileges fairly, 5) promote efficiency in resource utiliza- tion, 6) allow for variations between fisher- ies, and 7) minimize costs and unnecessary duplication. In addition, the MFCMA established eight regional Fishery Management Council's (Councils) which are partners with NMFS in the preparation of FMP's. The Councils and their FMP's are listed in Appendix 2. This report is organized in three major sections which contain some new features. The first section contains a national over- view of the status of our living marine resources. It includes this Introduction, a brief discussion of scientific principles and terms, region by region resource summa- ries, an overview of issues of national con- cern effecting all regions, and a discussion of progress made during the last year in scientific information and resource man- agement. Section one also includes two "spotlight articles"; essays on important topics affecting fisheries and the marine environment. This year, these spotlights examine the EI Nino climatic/oceano- graphic phenomenon and the incidental capture of animals not specifically targeted by fishermen. The second section reviews in greater detail the status of our living marine re- sources in 24 separate units. These unit synopses describe species or groups linked geographically, ecologically, and by characteristics of their harvesting opera- tions. Appendices, the third section, list contributing authors and editors, the Coun- cils, FMP's, recent FMP amendments, 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. Much of the information in this report comes from the scientific analysis of fish- eries data to develop stock assessments. In general terms, a stock assessment is an estimation of the amount or abundance of the resource, the rate at which it is being removed due to harvesting and other causes, and one or more reference levels of harvesting rate and/or abundance at which the stock can maintain itself in the long-term. Such assessments often also contain short-term ( 1 to 5 years, typically) projections or prognoses for the stock under a number of different management scenarios. This information on resource status is used by policy makers and man- agers to determine what actions are needed to promote the best use of marine resources. Stock assessment analyses rely on vari- ous sources of information to estimate resource abundance and population trends. The principal information comes from the commercial and recreational har- vests themselves. The amount of fish re- moved from the stock, the individual sizes of the fish caught and their biological char- acteristics (e.g., age, maturity, sex), and how much fish was caught per unit of time spent fishing, for example, are the basic data for stock assessments. In addition, NMFS conducts dozens of resource sur- veys with specialized research vessels or chartered fishing vessels every year. These surveys, which are sometimes done in co- operation with state marine resource agen- cies, universities, international scientific organizations or even with the fisheries agencies of other nations, produce an index of the resource abundance. Re- search surveys are very different from commercial fishing operations. While com- mercial operations seek out the greatest concentrations of fish and focus on them to obtain the largest or most valuable catch, research surveys fish in a uniform way over a wide range of stations within the waters inhabited by the stock to provide a consistent population abundance and dis- tribution index year after year. The survey data is then used in conjunction with com- mercial and recreational catch data to as- sess the resource. The final critical type of data used in the assessments comes from studies on the basic biology of the animals of the sea. Understanding the natural his- tory of the harvested species and other species with which they interact is crucial to understanding resource status. Fish abundance or population size can be expressed as either the number of fish or the total fish weight (or "biomass"). Increases in the amount of fish are determined by body growth of the individual fish in the stock and the addition or recruitment of new generations of young fish (i.e., "recruits") to the popu- lation. Those gains must then be balanced against removals from the population by harvesting (called fishing mortality) and other removals due to predation, star- vation, disease, habitat loss, and pollution (called natural mortality). In stock assessment work, fish removals are commonly expressed in terms of rates within a time period. The fishing mortality Skipjack tuna >-l '^SS . . . Scientific Principles and Terms . . . INTRODUCTION 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 individuals in a population, plus the addi- tion of biomass from new recruits, minus the biomass of animals lost to natural mor- tality. 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 decreases at low and high popula- tion sizes. Thus, surplus production tends to be low at the extremes of population size (i.e., where biomass or production rate is low). It is more likely to be high at some intermediate level of population biomass. But, on average, biomass decreases as the amount of fishing effort increases. This means there is a relationship between av- erage 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 two important terms used in this report: Long-term Potential Yield (LTPY) and Current Potential Yield (CPY). In addition, Recent Average Yield (RAY) and Stock Level are mea- sures of the current status of the resource. 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 production and recruitment declines precipitously. Average production o LTPY /" ^ Underutilized Fully FiShln g effort LONG-TERM POTENTIAL YIELD (LTPY) 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 over the long- term. LTPY is difficult to estimate. Never- theless, NMFS scientists have used their best professional judgment to provide esti- mates whenever possible. CURRENT POTENTIAL YIELD (CPY) The yield or catch that can be taken at present depends on the current abundance of fish and the current production rate. This yield may be either greater than or less than LTPY, and this report uses the term "current potential yield." CPY is the yield that will maintain the current population level (biomass) or, for overutilized stocks, stimulate a trend toward the recovery of a population that will produce the LTPY. For underutilized stocks at high biomass lev- els, the CPY may be larger than the LTPY. . . . CURRENT POTENTIAL YIELD (CPY) This large catch would not be sustainable in the long run, but would bring the stock down to the level supporting LTPY. CPY is usually estimated by applying the fishing mortality rate associated with LTPY to the current population size. CPY is also difficult to estimate, but NMFS scientists have used their best professional judgment here as well. RECENT AVERAGE YIELD (RAY) To document the actual fish catches, this report employs the term "recent average yield." This is the reported fishery landings averaged for the 3-year period, 1989-91. STOCK LEVEL Production can be expressed in terms of fishing effort or biomass as noted above. To further clarify resource status, the stock level (i.e., abundance) in 1991 is compared with the long-term average level (the level of abundance which would support the LTPY). This is expressed as near, below, or above average. In some cases, heavy fish- ing in the past reduced a stock to a low level, and even if it is currently only lightly harvested, it may take many years for the stock to rebuild. EVALUATING FISHERY RESOURCE LEVELS PPM - c^^ IZX^c^ 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 and stock level with both. In this report, a fishery resource is de- fined as fully utilized when the amount of fishing effort used 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 variabil- ity. Stock level should be near the long- term average level for the CPY to approach the LPTY (e.g., most Bering Sea groundfish stocks, in Unit 19). 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. If stock level is near the long-term average, RAY may be greater than LTPY for an overutilized stock, implying that recent landings levels can not be sustained (e.g., Atlantic cod in (Jnit 1). If stock level is below average, RAY will likely be less than LTPY (e.g., Gulf red snapper in Unit 8). Additionally, it is possible for RAY, CPY, and LTPY to be about equal while the fish- ery resource is overutilized (e.g., Gulf shrimp in Unit 11). This occurs when re- ducing fishing effort would have little effect on 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 while stock level is high (e.g., Atlantic mackerel in Unit 2). But there may be exceptions. For example, RAY may be held below CPY and LTPY by management to compensate for uncer- tainty in population estimates. These are the major factors NMFS con- siders in determining the degree of utiliza- tion of a resource, but they do not give a complete picture. In cases where knowl- edge about the stock is incomplete or when comparing LTPY, CPY, RAY, and stock level gives ambiguous results, the classifi- cation of a fishery's status is based on the best scientific judgment of NMFS staff who conduct research on the stock in question. This report serves as only one informa- tion source on the status of LMR's. Another source is the assessments made with re- spect to the guidelines set under the Mag- nuson Act that require FMP's to define "overfishing" in a measurable way. MFCMA guidelines allow considerable flex- ibility in the formulation of FMP overfishing definitions. Annual evaluations will deter- mine if fishery resources are overfished according to these definitions. Determina- tions of the degree of utilization reported in . . . Scientific Principles and Terms . . . EVALUATING FISHERY RESOURCE LEVELS this document are an attempt to standard- ize the classification across regions and fisheries. 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- 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). This is often referred to as their "optimum sustainable population level" (in the MMPA this is defined as a population size between the largest sup- portable within the ecosystem and the level where productivity is at a maximum, i.e., to the right of the maximum on Fig. 1). Protected marine mammals and turtles may also be classified as "threatened" or "endangered" under the ESA. A species is considered threatened if it is likely to be- come an endangered species in the fore- seeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. In addition to marine mammals and turtles, several Pacific salmon stocks are now listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (e.g., Sacramento River winter run chinook are threatened and Snake River sockeye are endangered: Unit 12). NATIONAL OVERVIEW: STATUS AND POTENTIAL OF U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The LTPY of all fishery resources fished by the G.S. (Table 1) is estimated at 9.5 mil- lion metric tons (t). This is a slight increase over the 1991 estimated LTPY due to re- vised 1992 estimates and corrections from the previous report. The Food and Agricul- ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates the limit of the world's annually sustainable yield of marine and freshwater fish is about 100 million t. Therefore, the long-term potential marine fish harvest from fisheries involving the G.S. is about 9.5% of the total world poten- tial. Note, however, that some of this poten- tial yield is shared with neighboring countries and high-seas fishing nations, and would not accrue solely to the G.S. LTPY cannot simply be divided between G.S. and foreign fisheries because as abun- dance changes, the G.S. share may change disproportionately. However, if the LTPY was prorated between the G.S. and foreign countries based on recent shares of the yield, the "prorated G.S. LTPY" would be about 7.7 million t, or 81% of the total LTPY. Most of the difference is in Pacific and Atlantic highly migratory pelagics (Gnits5and 18). The geographical distribution of the potential yield (Appendix 4) shows that the Alaska region dominates in terms of the tonnage that could be obtained in the long term (Fig. 2). The picture is somewhat different in terms of the total potential value of the fisheries (both foreign and domestic) due to the difference in prices among different species. Figure 2 indicates the long-term potential value, assuming that the current commercial price at first sale would be maintained if yields were adjusted to their LTPY's. The total value across all regions is $6.5 billion. Note again, however, that several important stocks are transboundary and this value is shared with other fishing nations. The Northeast region has the highest valued resources in Table 1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields of U.S. LMR's in metric tons (t). LTPY and CPY are reported for the entire stock inside and outside U.S. waters. RAY is given for the entire stock. For several units that have a particularly significant non-U.S. harvest, the U.S. share of the RAY is given in parentheses. Unit and fishery I IPY CPY RAY (U.S. share) 1. Northeast demersal 1 533,500 408,000 225,421 (170,221) 2. Northeast pelagic 1 470,000 640,000 166,600 (130,500) 3. Atlantic anadromous 3,773 3,773 3,773 4. Northeast invertebrate 1 100,200 104,700 105,300 (100,000) 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 1 271,939 252,625 226,980 (16,512) 6. Atlantic sharks 9,730 7,630 9,530 7. Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic 27,374 18,837 15,838 8. Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean reef fish 41.404 2 28.065 3 35,186 9. Southeast drum and croaker 75,934 2 25,808 3 25,808 10. Southeast menhaden and butterfish 1,166,500 946,500 939,586 1 1. Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate 126,632 120,025 126,960 1 2. Pacific coast salmon 51.493 4 51,493" 43.360 4 13. Alaska salmon 278,226 278,226 318,104 14. Pacific coast and Alaska pelagic 543,100 231,100 120,400 1 5. Pacific coast groundfish' 361,638 386,938 381,538 (288,538) 16. Western Pacific invertebrate 560 407 395 17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 2,812 819 558 18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 1 1,649,928 1,569,261 1,601,261 (430,061) 19. Alaska groundfish (total) 3,432,098 3,463,459 1,903,324 Eastern Bering Sea 2,998,685 2,773,355 1,661,766 Gulf of Alaska 413,413 656,604 202,308 Pacific halibut (less Canada) 20,000 33,500 39,250 20. Alaska shellfish 111,638 123,821 123,821 21. Nearshore 225,185 225,185 225,185 Total 9,483,664 8,886,672 6,598,928 (5,027,660) Percent of LTPY 93.7% 69.6% 'includes some transboundary stocks so LTPY may not accrue solely to the U.S. RAY reported for US. landings only in parentheses. ■"Underestimate 'Overestimate. ^Approximate yield in weight, using average fish weight in commencal catch. Catch reported in numbers. See Unit report. . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 10 Figure 2— Long-term potential yield and value by region. Figures at the top of each bar are the percent of the total yield or value. Information is provided for entire fishery units, along with the prorated U.S. shares. 40% Million t Billion $ n Prorated U.S. CD Prorated U.S. CD Other mi Other 27% 22% 1.5 0.5 Alaska Coastal Pacific Oceanic Pacific Southeast Northeast INTRODUCTION terms of average price times the LTPY, but the Alaska region has the highest prorated G.S. value (Fig. 2). Note that this analysis of the value of fisheries does not include the value of recreational uses of marine resources or their importance in the local economy. The prorated G.S. LTPY and prorated long-term potential value are also shown in Figure 2. The transboundary nature of the valuable highly migratory pelagic species in the Atlantic and Pacific are indicated by the large shares taken outside G.S. waters by other nations. Bottom dwelling "groundfish" make up 48% of the total LTPY, while highly migra- tory and coastal pelagic species constitute 43%. The remaining 9% is almost equally divided between anadromous and nearshore finfishes and the invertebrate fishery resources. Three fishery units- Alaska groundfish (Gnit 19), Pacific tunas and billfish (Gnit 18), and Southeast men- haden and butterfish (Gnit 10)— account for 66%, or 6.2 million t of the LTPY. The estimate of the total current poten- tial yield for the fishery resources from fisheries involving the G.S. is 94% of the LTPY. There are, however, important dif- ferences among regions, units, and individ- ual stocks. For example, LTPY exceeds CPY by 30% or more for New England groundfish (Gnit 1), Atlantic coastal pelag- ics (Gnit 7), southeast drums and reef fish (Gnits 8 and 9), and Pacific coast pelagics (Gnit 14). This indicates that some of the stocks in these units are at low levels and will need to be rebuilt before their potential can be realized. CPY exceeds LTPY by substantial amounts for northeast pelagics (Gnit 2) and some Gulf of Alaska ground- fish (Gnit 19), indicating that those stocks are currently above the level which would result in LTPY. For the other units, CPY and LTPY are similar. The total RAY, including recreationally caught fish and those from transboundary stocks landed by other nations, is 6.6 mil- lion t. The G.S. RAY is about 5.0 million t. This is higher than the catch reported in the NMFS publication "Fisheries of the Gnited States." Some landings information col- lected by scientists and included here may be unreported in "Fisheries of the Gnited States." RAY (combined commercial and recreational fisheries) for the fisheries in- volving the G.S. is a little more than 6% of the recent world catch. In recent years, the Gnited States has ranked about fifth or sixth among major fishing nations, follow- ing the former GSSR, China, Japan, and Peru and/or Chile. The recreational finfish catch on the Atlantic 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 13,000 t, for 1989 (the last year for which data are available). This catch total is exclusive of Pacific salmon, 11 . . . INTRODUCTION which historically has composed about 2% of the entire west coast recreational catch. Total RAY for all units is 70% of the total LTPY (Table 1). The total G.S. share of the RAY (5 million t) is about 65% of the "prorated G.S. LTPY." The primary requirement for increasing the yield to the LTPY is to rebuild stocks that have been overutilized. Figure 3 summarizes the status of utilization and stock level for all stocks by region. Figure 4 shows, by region, the stock levels relative to the level needed to support LTPY. Across all regions combined, for those stocks where the status is known, 45% are overutilized and 43% are below the stock level necessary to support LTPY (Fig. 5). Rebuilding these stocks would bring the RAY substantially closer to the LTPY. There are also many cases of fully uti- lized stocks (37% where status is known) where stock abundance is near the level that produces LTPY (41% where the level is known; Fig. 5). These stocks need to be maintained in healthy condition. The un- derutilized stocks currently at a high stock level (18% underutilized, 16% above level needed for LTPY where known; Fig. 5), need to be fished harder to produce their long term potential. But, several factors should be considered when increasing fish- ing pressure on these underutilized stocks: 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, Gnit 19). 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). Brief regional summaries of potential yields and the status of fisheries resources, as well as marine mammals and sea tur- tles, are given below. Figure 3— Utilization of U.S. living marine resources by region. Numbers at the top of each bar indicate the number of stocks in that category. 50 40 o 30 E 20 10 ■I Status unknown □ Underutilized □ Fully utilized E3 Overutilized 27 12 13 12 12 I- II Alaska Pacific Coast Oceanic Pacific Southeast Northeast NORTHEAST U.S. LMR'S The fisheries of the northeast region annually contribute about 25% of the value and 13% of the volume of the Nation's commercial fisheries. In 1991, the total northeast landings were 753,000 t, valued at $857 million. The "mixed groundfish" category is the most valuable component of the commercial fishery ($178 million), followed by American lobster ($151 million) and Atlantic sea scallop ($147 million). Marine sport angling is extremely important and contributes an estimated . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 12 Figure 4— Stock levels relative to the level needed to support LTPY. The numbers at the top of each bar are the number of stocks in that category. Alaska Pacific Coast Oceanic Pacific Southeast Northeast Figure 5.— Status of U.S. living marine resources for all regions combined. Utilization and stock level relative to the level needed to support LTPY are given for all stocks including nearshore resources. The bars represent the number of stocks, and the figures given at the top of each bar are the percent of the stocks for which the status is known in that category of utilization or stock level. 100 I Utilization □ Stock level 41% 45% 43% 18% 16% Unknown Under/Above Fully/Near Over/Below . . . NORTHEAST U.S. LMR'S $1.5 billion per year to the region's economy. Northeast finfish and invertebrate fisher- ies have an estimated LTPY of over 1.68 million t or 18% of the total LTPY. Recent annual landings in this region have totaled only 500,000 t-about 30% of their long- term potential yield. The large discrepancy between recent landings and potential yield results from overutilization of 25 re- gional stocks (including most groundfish and flounders) and 8 underutilized stocks (including Atlantic mackerel, squids, and butterfish) (Fig. 3). Several important Mew England stocks are shared with Canada and therefore some of the benefits of re- building can be expected to be shared. SOUTHEAST U.S. LMR'S The combined LTPY for southeast Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean LMR's is estimated at about 1 .3 million t ( 1 4% of the total LTPY); recent catches have run about 80% of CPY and 77% of LTPY. Atlantic swordfish and bluefin tuna, many south- Shortbelly rockfish . . . SOUTHEAST U.S. LMR'S east 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. Individually, these stocks are minor portions of the catch, but, in aggregate, they have supported import- ant recreational and commercial fisheries. The recreationally and commercially im- portant coastal pelagic species (e.g., mackerels, dolphin fish, and cobia) yield only about 58% of their estimated aggre- gate LTPY as a result of overutilization. Certain individual stocks are severely de- pressed (e.g., Gulf of Mexico king mack- erel). The impact of Mexican fisheries on these stocks is not well known, but may affect stock rebuilding efforts. Currently, all commercially important shrimp species are being harvested at the LTPY level, but because these fisheries are overcapitalized, 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 national shrimp catch. In 1991, those three species produced a total catch of 104,361 t, valued in excess of $400 million. WEST COAST AND WESTERN PACIFIC LMR'S West coast, Pacific-wide, and Pacific island fisheries (Units 12 and 14-18) account for more than 2.6 million t and 28% of the total LTPY. These include salmon, groundfish, and northern anchovy (west coast), tuna and billfish (Pacific-wide), and reef and sea- mount finfish and lobster (Pacific islands). On the Pacific coast most of the stocks are fully utilized or overutilized, with only 3 of 40 stocks classified as underutilized (Fig. 3). In the oceanic Pacific, 7 of the 25 stocks are underutilized. Insufficient data exist to assess 24 stocks (37% of the total) in these regions, and as a result they are assigned an "unknown" status. The large biomasses that once existed for most of the long-lived species (sablefish, Dover sole, rockfish) have been fished down to the point where these species are fully utilized and the CPY is very close to the LTPY. Several rockfish stocks need to be rebuilt following overutilization and a period of poor recruitment. Other species, like jack mackerel and shortbelly rockfish, are pres- ently underutilized for lack of markets. The status 12 of the other 18 highly migratory stocks (Unit 18) is unknown. The total economic value of these resources is conservatively set at $2.0 billion. Of this, Pacific salmon produce commercial landings worth about $140 million to west coast fishermen. Conservatively valuing each recreationally caught salmon at $20.00 gives an . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 14 . . . WEST COAST AND WESTERN PACIFIC LMR'S estimated recreational catch value of over $24 million. The Pacific tuna fisheries are valued at more than $1.3 billion (a large share is non-0. S.), and although no estimate is available for billfishes (owing to the variety of species in this category and a large recreational fishery component), the three principal species (swordfish and blue and striped marlins) are all valued in excess of $2,000/t for both recreational and commercial fisheries. Pacific groundfish commercial landings are valued at about $100 million. ALASKA LMR'S The Alaska fisheries have historically fo- cused on salmon, halibut, and crab (Gnits 13, 19, and 20). With the displacement of foreign distant-water fleets by G.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 40% of the total LTPY. Twenty-seven fisheries (77% of the regional total) are fully utilized; none are considered overutilized (Fig. 3). The 1989-91 RAY is steady at about 2.4 million t, or 61% of the long-term regional potential yield, and is valued at more than $1.1 billion. The CPY of 3.9 million t is very near the LTPY estimate of 3.8 million t, owing in large measure to the current high abun- dance and above-average recruitment that have occurred in individual fisheries (prin- cipally certain Alaska salmon stocks, Pa- cific halibut, Pacific cod, and most Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska flatfish). Owing to the favorable biological health of the re- sources, the current yield from 6 of the stocks could be increased. This reflects, in part, the North Pacific Fishery Manage- ment Council's annual cap on groundfish harvests at 2 million t and bycatch restric- tions for nontarget species. The cap pro- vides a margin of safety for eastern Bering Sea groundfish to allow for uncertainty in biological fluctuations. Alaska salmon stocks have rebounded to record high levels. Catches since 1980 have steadily increased to an all-time re- cord of 189 million salmon landed in 1991. Pacific halibut stocks are in good condi- tion, with CPY and RAY at 168% and 196%, respectively, of the species' long-term yield. Both king and tanner crab have ex- perienced wide recruitment swings and are slowly recovering following population de- clines during the early 1980's. U.S. NEARSHORE LMR'S It is difficult to assess the status of all nearshore species (Gnit 21) around the entire G.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 36 stocks included in this unit cannot be de- termined from the existing data. The latest RAY is conservatively set at 225,181 t. The commercial value of all nearshore re- sources is about $376 million, which does not include the substantial recreational component. 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 allows only 21 of some 82 pop- ulations or stocks to be assigned abun- dance trend estimates (Table 2). The rest are of unknown status (particularly the Atlantic and Pacific dolphin and porpoise stocks). 15 Marine Mammals At least thirty-six species of marine mam- mals (Unit 22) range the western North Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, including 33 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, two seal species (harbor and gray seals; a third, the Caribbean monk seal is believed to be extinct), and the West Indian manatee. This report con- siders 29 stocks, but even simple abun- dance estimates are known for 18 stocks. Of these, 7 species found off the east coast and Gulf of Mexico are listed as endan- gered under ESA (i.e., West Indian mana- tee and sperm, blue, fin, humpback, sei and North Atlantic right whales). Also, fol- lowing a 1987-1988 mass die-off, there is serious concern about the status of Mid-At- lantic coastal and offshore bottlenose dol- phins. There are far too few data on other stocks to evaluate their status. Abundance trends are known for only 3 Atlantic stocks (Table 2). At least forty-two marine mammal spe- cies (Unit 23) occur in U.S. waters of the eastern North Pacific Ocean and eastern tropical Pacific, including 28 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, 1 1 spe- cies of seals and sea lions, walrus, polar bear, and sea otter. Simple abundance es- timates are known for 3 1 species. Of these, 13 species are listed as endangered or threatened under ESA guidelines. Al- though 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 is believed to have recov- ered to 21 ,000 animals, near to or surpass- ing its historical abundance level. Moreover, south of Alaska some marine mammals have also recovered or are re- covering to near historical abundance lev- els (i.e., California sea lion and the northern elephant seal). As with the Atlantic species, data are insufficient to assess the status of most Pacific whales, dolphins, and por- poises, and abundance trends are known for only 13 stocks (Table 2). Table 2.— Status and trends of marine mammals and sea turtles. Unit and ESA/MMPA stocks Unknown Increasing Decreasi ng Stable status 1 22. Atlantic marine mammals 26 2 1 7E 23. Pacific marine mammals 29 8 2 3 10E/2T/1D 24. Sea turtles 6 2 2 1 8E/3T Total 61 12 4 5 25E/5T/1D Percent of total 74% 15% 5% 6% 'E = Endangered, T = Threatened, D = Depleted. sea Turtles Six species of sea turtles (Unit 24) regularly spend all or part of their lives off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in U.S. territorial waters of the Caribbean and west- ern Pacific Ocean: The Kemp's ridley, olive ridley (Pacific only), loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback. Limited stock assessment data exist for about half of the turtle species in U.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 in the northern portion of their range (e.g., Georgia and South Carolina). On the Atlantic beaches of south Florida, how- ever, loggerheads have not shown a de- cline, and might even be increasing. Green turtle nestings on Florida beaches are low, but they increased between 1971 and 1 989. Leatherbacks nest on beaches of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Although . . . National Overview: Status and Potential of U.S. Living Marine Resources 16 . . . Sea Turtles nesting records are too few to detect trends, their numbers do not appear 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). Hawksbill Turtle ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN 1/ INTRODUCTION The management of living marine re- sources is a complex problem involving many biological, economic, social, and po- litical factors. Each region and each fishery discussed in this report, even those that are currently well managed and yielding near their long-term potential for the benefit of the nation, must continually adjust and adapt to a number of factors which can undermine management. Increasing the long term benefits of overutilized and de- pleted resources requires confronting the issues and management practices which have resulted in overutilization and resource depletion. In each of the fishery unit reports, major issues affecting the resource and its man- agement are discussed. Although each fishery unit has unique features, there are common issues that are important to many, if not all, units. These issues can be summarized under seven headings: Man- agement Concerns, Bycatch and Multi- species Interactions, Resource Allocation, Jurisdiction and Transboundary Issues, Habitat Concerns, Underutilized Species, Recovery of Protected Species, and Scien- tific Information and the Adequacy of As- sessments. These headings are briefly described below, along with recent prog- ress in addressing these issues. MANAGEMENT CONCERNS Ultimately, management must be a con- cern when a large number of stocks are overutilized or at a level of abundance too low to produce the LTPY. Management is also a concern when the economic perfor- mance of fisheries is poor because there are more vessels than required to harvest the available amount of fishery resources (i.e., overcapitalization). Table 3 summa- rizes the status of utilization for each fishery unit. Some stocks are overutilized in most units (30% of all stocks and 45% of the stocks where status is known; Figure 5). The situation is about the same for stock levels. The list of overutilized and/or stocks below the level required to produce LTPY includes some of the Nations's most valu- able fishery resources, such as Mew En- gland groundfish, Atlantic sea scallops, Gulf shrimp, several pelagic highly migra- tory stocks (including Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish), some Pacific salmon stocks, many nearshore stocks (including some oyster populations, bay scallops, ab- alones, Pacific striped bass), some rockfish stocks off Alaska, and Alaska king crab. Many of our fisheries, including both overutilized and fully utilized stocks, are overcapitalized. As generally understood, this means that there are more fishing vessels and gear trying to catch fish than are necessary to harvest the resource effi- ciently. In effect, this means that the nation may be losing more production of other valuable goods and services than it gains from the fish being harvested by excess capital. Such overcapitalization is a major factor contributing to overutilization of a resource. Where fisheries are overcapital- ized and performing poorly economically, short-term economic concerns tend to be given undue weight relative to the steps necessary to achieve the long-term biolog- ical and economic potential. The excess capital may maintain pressure to increase catch limits beyond potential yield levels, depleting the resource, and once depleted, preventing its recovery. Many of the other issues discussed in this report are aggra- vated by overcapitalization. For example, when there is an excess number of boats, fish allocation problems are exacerbated. Economic theory and experience in most G.S. fisheries and worldwide, indi- cates that overcapitalization is an inevita- ble consequence of fisheries management that allows anyone that wants to partici- pate in the fishery to do so. Only recently has G.S. fisheries management begun to control access to fisheries. Although only discussed as a major problem in a few of the units, economic issues are important in all the fisheries described in this report. Data for evaluating the economic performance of most of our fisheries are scarce. More economic infor- mation will be needed to improve manage- ment of LMR's. As noted above, the economic performance of fisheries is also a management concern, in addition to con- cerns about stock level and yield. . . . issues 18 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 1 5 6 3. Atlantic anadromous 3 1 1 5 4. Northeast invertebrate 2 3 5 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 4 2 3 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 2 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 4 2 6 1 5. Pacific coast groundfish 7 2 7 2 18 16. Western Pacific invertebrate 2 2 17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 2 4 6 18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 12 2 1 3 18 19. Alaska groundfish 1 17 5 23 20. Alaska shellfish 1 2 1 4 21. Nearshore resources 20 10 6 36 Total 80 67 61 28 236 Percent of total 34% 28% 26% 12% 100% BYCATCH AND MULTISPECIES INTERACTIONS The issue of incidental capture of nontar- get species and the interactions between species affects most of the units in this report (Table 3). Spotlight article two in this report discusses the general nature of the bycatch problem. The management of many stocks, including the recovery of protected species of marine mammals and sea turtles, can potentially be undermined by bycatch in other fisheries. For example, the recovery of depleted reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico (Unit 8) may be slowed or prevented by bycatch of young fish by shrimpers. Bycatch issues affect manage- ment decisions on the allocation of re- sources to user groups as well. Groundfish fisheries in Alaska (Unit 19) are now re- stricted to reduce the bycatch harvest of halibut and crabs incidentally captured in their trawls. Bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles by commercial fisheries may need to be reduced to promote recov- ery of these stocks. Many fisheries, such as the Pacific groundfishery (Unit 15), catch a large num- ber of species on a single fishing trip. Man- agement is complicated because different species are able to withstand different fish- ing mortality rates. Finding a management scheme which allows full utilization of highly productive species, while protecting low productivity species when they are har- vested together, is a major challenge in all parts of the country. Ecological interactions may also impact management of LMR's. Harvesting one component of an ecosystem may shift the balance towards other, less valuable, spe- cies. In the northeast, commercially im- portant groundfish used to dominate the fish biomass but now skates and dogfish make up a much larger share than pre- viously (Unit 1). RESOURCE ALLOCATION Allocation of fish between user groups is a difficult socio-economic problem for many fisheries. Conflicts often arise between dif- ferent sectors of the commercial industry (e.g., inshore and offshore fishermen in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, Unit 19; longliners and trawlers on the Pacific coast, Unit 15), between commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen (e.g., fisheries for coastal migratory pelagics, Unit 7) and between conservation groups and "ecotourists" and fishermen (e.g., reef fish 19 . . . RESOURCE ALLOCATION resources in the southeast). In many cases, economic analysis is needed to guide and justify allocation decisions; in others, social factors may predominate. At present, it is up to Fishery Manage- ment Councils and the Federal govern- ment to resolve allocation problems. Often, this amounts to deciding who are the "winners and losers" without objective criteria and/or adequate information. It may be possible to reduce the role of gov- ernment in allocation decisions by allowing shares in a fishery to be traded (i.e., bought and sold) between participants. This way, participants can assess the value they place on participation (based on monetary and/or non-monetary factors). Market forces will tend to allocate shares in the Fishery to those who place the greatest value on participation. This approach requires that access to the fishery be controlled (see section on management concerns); otherwise the value of everyone's shares will be dissi- pated by overcapitalization. Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) management combines controlled access (i.e., must own quota to participate) and trading of shares (i.e., transferability). This method is gaining popularity worldwide, in part, be- cause it reduces overcapitalization and re- duces or eliminates the need for the government to make allocation decisions, once initial shares are determined. JURISDICTION AND TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES Many living marine resources are shared with other nations, including our immedi- ate neighbors Canada and Mexico. Other stocks of concern to the (Jnited States, like Atlantic salmon, migrate through the wa- ters of other nations such as Greenland (Gnit 3). In addition, many stocks straddle the boundaries between state and Federal waters and between state jurisdictions. This means that several management au- thorities may have responsibilities for man- agement of the same resource including data collection, scientific analysis, and management controls. State, Federal, and international agencies may be involved in management of some resources such as Pacific halibut (Gnit 19) or Atlantic highly migratory pelagics (Gnit 5). The search for agreement among competing interests and various agencies can slow the man- agement process or undermine it alto- gether and requires careful coordination and agreement on actions to promote re- sponsible resource use. HABITAT CONCERNS The productivity of a living marine resource is a function of the environmental conditions in which the animals live as well as their biological characteristics. If, for example, the quality and/or amount of habitat available to support young fish is reduced, the overall productivity of the stock will decrease and fewer will be available for harvesting. These concerns are particularly important for anadromous species such as salmon (Gnits 3, 12, 13) and for many of the nearshore species, since our rivers and coastal areas tend to be more affected by pollution and habitat alteration than areas further offshore. For example, shrimp resources (Gnit 1 1) in the southeast are also critically dependent on nearshore habitat during their life cycle. Loss of estuaries and marshes could have major consequences for shrimp fisheries, one of our most valuable marine resources. UNDERUTILIZED SPECIES A few large resources, such as pelagic stocks in the Northeast (Gnit 2) are cur- rently underutilized. A much larger yield could potentially be obtained from these stocks, but market conditions or the avail- ability of more valuable or accessible alter- natives has kept the harvest low. However, underutilized fish stocks may live in the same areas as overutilized stocks. Shifting fishing pressure from one to the other could relieve some pressure from stressed stocks and aid in rebuilding of depleted resources while reducing the adverse im- pact of a rebuilding period on the industry. . . . issues 20 RECOVERY OF PROTECTED SPECIES A substantial number of our protected ma- rine mammal and turtle stocks are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and/or depleted under the MMPA. Devel- strategies to minimize the adverse impact of human activities on these animals and to encourage their recovery, while not un- necessarily restricting commercial and re- oping and implementing management creational fisheries, is a major challenge. SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND ADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENTS The status of utilization is unknown for 33% (Fig. 5, Table 3) of the fish species or species groups considered in this report. The stock level relative to the stock level that would produce LTPY is unknown for 30% (Fig. 5). The trend in abundance is unknown for 74% (Table 2) of the marine mammal and sea turtle stocks. The per- centage is higher than was reported last year because this year's report considers more stocks. Even for the stocks included in the table where status or the trend in abundance is knov/n, the information is often imprecise. There are also large gaps in fundamental understanding of the struc- ture and dynamics of LMR populations and 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 harvest them conservatively to guard against accidental depletion. The Gulf of Alaska pollock fishery (Gnit 19) is an example of such a cautious strategy. On the other hand, lack of precision in assess- ments of fishery resources has unfortu- nately been used in other cases to argue that the evidence of overutilization was not strong enough to justify restricting a fish- ery. This argument has led to the depletion of many stocks (e.g., most traditional New England groundfish and flounders in Gnit 1). Uncertainty about the relationship be- tween marine mammals and fisheries now threatens both. For example, because they compete for the same resources, it is pos- sible that interactions with Bering Sea fish- eries are adversely affecting Steller sea lion populations (Gnit 23), but the scientific basis to test this question is inadequate to determine if a cause and effect relationship exists. The outcome of making manage- ment decisions without sufficient informa- tion could be that, in the case of Stelier sea lions, a valuable fishery is unnecessarily restricted to protect the population or, al- ternatively, that the fishery unknowingly contributes to the depletion of the popula- tion. PROGRESS 21 This is the second annual report on the status of U.S. living marine resources. One purpose of issuing annual reports is to allow comparisons so that progress toward achieving long-term potential benefits can be evaluated. However, since this is a long- term goal, it is not realistic to expect this second annual report to indicate signifi- cant quantitative progress relative to last year's report. In fact, most quantitative differences are a result of refinement of estimates and inclusion of additional infor- mation. Nevertheless, there were new re- search and management initiatives during the time period covered by this report that should help improve conservation and wise use of living marine resources. Some of these are discussed below. Over the last year, some progress has been made with regard to each of the issues described above. A number of changes in management have been en- acted, including some 20 amendments to existing fishery management plans (see Appendix 2 for details). New management controls have been developed or are in an advanced stage of discussion for reef fishes in the Southeast (Gnit 8), Pacific coastal pelagic stocks (Gnit 14), Pacific and Alaska groundfish (Gnits 15 and 19), western Pacific groundfish and inverte- brates (Gnits 16 and 17) and Northeast ground-fish (Gnit 1). Many of these changes are moving towards controlled access systems of management: Restrict- ing the number of participants in the fish- ery to control fishing mortality and improve economic efficiency. In many cases, moratoria on new entrants into a given fishery are being discussed or have been implemented as a first step in control- ling access. In two cases (Gnits 4 and 8), a system of property rights, through the de- velopment of individual transferable quo- tas (ITQ's) have been implemented and are being monitored for their effectiveness. Gnder these systems, historical partici- pants in the fishery are granted rights to fish for a portion of each year's set catch limit. They may use this right to harvest, or they may lease or sell it to another fisher- man. The fishermen then have a vested interest in conserving the resource for long- term benefit. NMFS commissioned feasibil- ity studies for ITQ systems for Atlantic sea scallops, South Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and North Pacific groundfish fisheries. These studies were completed in the autumn and are intended to provide NMFS and the Councils with detailed information on one possible management option for our ma- rine resources. New efforts to address the problem of bycatch have been underway in several regions. Programs of observers on fishing vessels who can collect data on bycatch species have been expanded in the North- east and Alaska. Regulations to control bycatch of halibut (Gnit 19) have been implemented in Alaska and international agreements have been made to reduce the bycatch of Pacific salmon on the high seas. In the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS and the fishing industry have been working together to develop a research plan for addressing the problem of finfish bycatch by shrimpers. The fishing industry, in cooperation with NMFS, has held a bycatch workshop and established a National Bycatch Committee to address the bycatch problem. In Alaska and in Hawaii, the difficult prob- lem of allocation between sectors of the commercial industry has been addressed in new FMP amendments (see Appendix 2). In both areas, new regulations for the recovery of protected species have been implemented as well. The protection of endangered Pacific salmon stocks has come to the fore through the invocation of the ESA. NMFS evaluated several petitions to list popula- tions as either threatened or endangered. Recovery plans are being prepared for im- plementation. Real progress will have been made when these populations have recov- ered to the point where they are "delisted," but protection under the ESA is a neces- sary step. Gray whale stocks in the Pacific, which have been protected under the ESA and MMPA, have substantially recovered to the population level estimated for the mid- 1800's. NMFS has proposed their removal from the list of endangered and threatened species. Recovery plans for endangered northern right and humpback whales and for threatened Steller sea lions are being drafted. Progress has also been made on main- Progress 22 taining productive Alaska fisheries through two new international agreements. These agreements, enacting a two-year morato- rium of fishing for pollock in international waters of the Bering Sea and banning high seas driftnet fishing in the North Pacific for vessels which catch salmon, should bolster management for these valuable fisheries. There have been no major changes in the status of any of the resources described in this report since it was first published in 1991. While progress has been made, the fisheries resources themselves respond slowly. Over the next several years, im- proved management controls based on improved scientific information should allow the nation to obtain even greater benefits from our living marine resources. STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE 23 MMFS has developed a "Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Wise Use of America's Living Marine Resources." 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., decisions erring on the side of conservation, not resource deple- tion); 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. SPOTLIGHT 1: THE 1991-92 EL NINO 24 INTRODUCTION In 1992, effects of the ocean warming phe- nomenon known as El Nino, which had been developing in the equatorial Pacific during the previous year, strengthened and spread to U.S. waters. The phenomenon produces major changes in the ocean en- vironment every 2-10 years and affects fish and fishing, as well as producing abnor- mally high water temperatures in the cen- tral and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The name El Nino (Spanish for "the child") is thought to refer to the Christ child, since the phenomenon usually develops off the South American coast around Christmas time. El Nino episodes off South America have been documented as far back as the 16th century, and there is evidence that climatic effects linked with them stem back to the time before Christ. Although the effects are most pronounced along the coasts of Ecuador and Peru, during strong El Nino years, fisheries are also affected in the Northern Hemisphere, and weather patterns are affected over much of the globe. Although every El Nino is different, each also has certain similarities. ENSO Climatologists and oceanographers refer to the phenomenon as the EI Nino South- ern Oscillation (ENSO). It begins in the Pacific along the equator when atmo- spheric pressures at the opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean change to create a shift in wind patterns. This shift allows a large pool of warm water that usually remains in the western Pacific to extend eastward as far as the South American coast. During most "normal" years, a large low-pressure system of warm, wet air dominates over Australia and Indonesia, while a high-pres- sure system of relatively cool, dry air rests on the eastern side of the equatorial Pacific off South America. These air pressure sys- tems cause strong trade winds to blow westward, sweeping warm surface waters toward the western Pacific and causing the sea level there to rise about 0.5 m higher than that in the eastern Pacific. To initiate an El Nino event, the east-west air pressure gradient relaxes and often re- verses, causing the trade winds to slacken and sometimes even blow in the opposite direction. With no constant winds to retain and accumulate ocean water in the west- ern Pacific, water begins flowing in the other direction. This slumping effect cre- ates a wave of warm water within the ocean that travels eastward along the equator toward Central and South America at the rate of about 200 miles a day. As the wave reaches the South American continent, sea level rises, the thermocline (depth of water where temperature changes rapidly form- ing a barrier between the warm surface water and cold, nutrient rich, deep water) deepens, and surface water temperatures may rise by as much as 6°C (10°F). The continental shelf deflects the wave north and south, bringing warmer water to coastal North and South America. SOUTH AMERICAN EFFECTS A strong El Nino has a profound effect on the Peruvian and Ecuadorian coasts, bring- ing torrential rains to normally dry, arid areas and causing a decline in fish popula- tions and sea bird breeding activity. In general, the intrusion and buildup of warm water interrupts nutrient-enrichment pro- cesses that normally replenish the marine food chain. Also, some of the warm water flows south along the South American coast, rising over and blocking cool, rich Humboldt Current waters that normally flow north along the coast. This process has the overall effect of replacing nutrient- rich water with warm, nutrient-poor water. Primary production of marine plants, at the base of the oceanic food chain, is impeded by the lack of nutrients in the waters near the surface, and in turn, secondary produc- tion further up the chain, of zooplankton, invertebrates, and fish, is inhibited. Marine species most often affected by El Nino are the Peruvian anchovy and fish-eating sea- birds that produce valuable guano used for fertilizer. EI Nino conditions may also cause extensive red tides, blooms of micro- Y:> SOUTH AMERICAN EFFECTS scopic algae which can make shellfish toxic to humans. This year, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in La Jolla, Calif., was designated the headquarters for the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration's (NOAA's) El Nino Watch project. The project is under NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program and interlinked with its nationwide Coastwatch network for monitoring anomalous environmental events in G.S. coastal waters. Since Janu- ary 1992, the EI Nino Watch staff has issued monthly El Nino Watch Advisories- charts that document abnormal sea sur- face temperature patterns off the west coast and provide the latest information on the 1991-92 phenomenon. The informa- tion, gathered in cooperation with NOAA's National Weather Service and National En- vironmental Satellite, Data, and Informa- tion Service, is based on satellite weather information plus shipboard and buoy data collected from the equatorial Pacific to Alaska. EL NINO NORTH The El Nino phenomenon can set in mo- tion complex climate and oceanographic changes far from the equator. The heat accumulated by the warm water promotes increased moisture and latent heat within the atmosphere, which in turn fuel and alter large-scale air circulation patterns, includ- ing surface winds. Although it can also happen in other years, a large atmospheric low-pressure cell over the Bering Sea (the Aleutian Low) intensifies during El Nino years, causing strong winds that pile up warm surface water along the mainland coast while creating an unusually large cold water mass across the central North Pacific. Changes in the jet stream also occur that tend to intensify storms and rainfall along the west coast and in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In general, oceanographic patterns that develop off the G.S. west coast in late January and February in a given EI Nino year usually provide the key as to whether the early warm-water conditions will develop into an "El Nino North" that particular year. Strong El Nino years have affected the large-scale distribution of marine life along the G.S. west coast. Tropical and temper- ate species shift northward beyond their normal ranges and, in some cases, changes occur in their growth, survival, and production. During the 1982-83 El Nino, considered the strongest of this cen- tury, there was a drastic drop in numbers of salmon caught in all three lower Pacific coast states, and fish returning to spawn- ing rivers were lank and emaciated. Sea- birds disappeared from their breeding sites on the Farallon Islands off San Francisco, and warmwater species such as striped marlin, bonito, barracuda, dolphin fish, and pelagic red crab occurred much farther north of their usual ranges. In contrast, the ocean warming may be favorable for some subtropical stocks that spawn at the north- ern end of their range, such as chub (Pa- cific) mackerel and sardine off California, which may have high production rates. Tropical gamefishes such as dolphin fish and the bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas have also extended their ranges northward into southern California waters during strong El Nino years, much to the delight of southern California anglers. The range of several southern California pelagic fish stocks was altered in response to the 1983 El Nino. For example, chub mackerel became abundant in regions north of their usual range, some schools were even reported along the west coast of Vancouver Island and around the Queen Charlotte Islands. Likewise, California land- ings of jack mackerel declined during the 1983 and 1984 El Nino years, probably owing to the species' northward shift. Spawning concentrations of northern an- chovy and Pacific sardine also expanded northward during the 1983 El Nino. The impact of El Nino events on commer- cially important temperate or subarctic groundfish stocks that range along the west coast of North America has been mixed. For example, a strong El Nino began in 1957 and continued through 1958. Most of the groundfish stocks had poor reproduction in 1958. In contrast, the majority of groundfish stocks had good reproduction in the year following the 1 969 (weak), 1976 (moderate), and 1983 (strong) El Nino events. There was little evidence of surface ocean warming in the northeast Pacific during the moderate ...The 1991-92 EI Nino 26 ... EL NINO NORTH 1965 and strong 1972 El Nino episodes, and a consistent pattern of strong or weak reproduction of groundfish stocks was not observed. The mixed response of northeast Pacific groundfish stocks to El Nino events results from differences in how the events influence sea surface temperature, the depth of the mixed layer, geostrophic current patterns (currents driven by the force of gravity and the spin of the earth), and atmospheric pressure patterns. Reproduction of northeast Pacific groundfish stocks appears to be associated with winters having warm ocean surface temperatures, low upwelling, high sea level, and an intense Aleutian low-pressure cell located farther east than usual. These physical conditions are often associated with El Nino conditions in the northeastern Pacific. El Nino episodes may also influence long-term environmental conditions in the North Pacific. Fishery biologists at the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle have discovered that every 6-12 years, winter conditions tend to switch from a succession of warm winters to a series of cold winters, and vice versa. Evi- dence is accumulating that suggests pro- duction of several marine fish stocks is influenced by longer term decadal-scale changes in ocean conditions. The impact of these decadal-scale changes in ocean conditions on northeast Pacific groundfish stocks is currently under investigation. Marine mammals in certain areas may benefit from El Nino conditions while oth- ers may suffer, and there is concern about increased interactions with fisheries due to lowered food supplies. In past El Nino years, northern fur seals born in the Gulf of Alaska had a higher survival rate, while those in southern California had a 60% decrease in pup production, almost no pup survival, and a drop in numbers of adults. In the strong El Nino of 1982-83, forage fishes for California sea lions became scarce, and there was a dramatic increase in the number of encounters between fish- ermen and sea lions in southern California. As the sea lion population is now 30% larger than it was in 1982, this is a serious problem if a strong El Nino develops off California in 1992. In the central and western Pacific, the cooling associated with El Nino can bring increased catches of yellowfin tuna but also lower survival of young spiny lobsters in Hawaii. El Nino conditions have been associated with below-average production of larval spiny lobster at certain banks in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Yellowfin tuna, on the other hand, may be more available to surface fishing gears in the western Pacific if the tbermocline, which influences its swimming depth, rises near the surface as in past El Ninos. The effects of El Nino on yellowfin tuna around the main Hawaiian Islands are less predict- able because the central location of the islands in the Pacific Ocean makes them susceptible to either eastern (warming) or western (cooling) Pacific effects, depend- ing on the peculiarities of each El Nino episode. THE 1991-92 EL NINO The current El Nino evolved in the tropics early in 1991, but its progression was somewhat checked in midyear. By Decem- ber 1991, however, it was evident that an equatorial El Nino was in progress— sea surface temperatures had risen 1°-2°C above normal throughout the equatorial eastern Pacific, sea level had risen several centimeters off the coast of Peru, and the thermocline had descended 40 m deeper than normal along the equator east to long. 1 1 5° W. By the last week of February 1 992, severe rains and flooding had begun in northern Peru, sea surface temperatures had risen as much as 4°C above normal off Callao, guano birds had begun migrating in great numbers from their usual nesting areas in search of food, and sea lions had also begun moving south in search of for- age. By April, a severe red tide had devel- oped off Chile. While El Nino was developing along the equator, sea surface temperatures along much of the U.S. west coast remained below normal for most of 1991. This situa- tion changed in January 1992 when ocean 27 ...THE 1991-92 EL NINO and weather patterns shifted, sea surface temperatures rose 1.0°C above normal, and storms strengthened by tropical warm- ing brought heavy rainfall to drought- parched California. In January, sea level at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) pier near San Diego, Calif., was the highest seen in that month since the El Nino year of 1983; and February 1992 saw the highest sea height on record for that month. In February, a mussel sample taken from the SIO pier had unusually high concentrations of red-tide associated tox- ins, rare for that time of year and for the San Diego area. From February through April 1992, El Nino conditions intensified, and reports were received of unusual catches of south- ern species in more northerly waters. Trop- ical pelagic red crab appeared off southern California in March and off northern Cali- fornia in April. Anglers fishing off San Fran- cisco and Santa Cruz, Calif., began catching barracuda and bonito— fish usu- ally found south of Point Conception. Dur- ing April, SWFSC divers monitoring conditions in southern California also noted that giant kelp plants at Catalina Island had begun to decompose in the upper 2-3 m of water where water temper- atures from the surface to depths below 17 m were above 18°C— the warmest for that time since the El Nino of 1982-83. Early reports from the fishery for Pacific whiting, which in 1992 began on 15 April, indicated that it had moved from the normal, early season fishing grounds off northern Cali- fornia and Oregon northward to northern Oregon and Washington. While conducting research cruises off California during March and April 1992, SWFSC scientists also noted the following El Nino features— above normal water tem- peratures, a depressed nearshore thermo- cline, and very low concentrations of zooplankton and chlorophyll (an indicator of phytoplankton production). They also found a strong northerly flowing California Countercurrent with little or no active coastal upwelling, and a lack of mesoscale (1-100 k) features such as eddies and jets. Aboard one of these cruises, a joint effort with Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Center for Ocean Analysis and Prediction, the scientists completed a com- prehensive survey of circulation patterns in the California Countercurrent between Point Conception and Point Arena, which will provide an excellent and much-needed direct measure of ocean properties associ- ated with El Nino. By May 1992, although unusually high sea surface temperatures still remained throughout the entire eastern and central Pacific, it appeared that the equatorial El Nino had peaked and the warming episode was showing definite signs of abating. Though El Nino had weakened at its source along the equator, as evidenced by changes in the configuration of sea level pressure patterns, subsurface ocean tem- peratures, and wind patterns, NMFS scien- tists still expected residual effects of El Nino to continue off the G.S. West Coast into the second half of 1992. Reports con- tinued of unusual fish distributions off the G.S. West Coast, such as four white seabass taken in Monterey Bay. By spring and early summer 1992 it became apparent that California sea lions in central and southern California were feel- ing the effects of El Nino. Reports of both dead and live strandings of California sea lions increased dramatically from San Diego to at least San Francisco. Most of the pinniped rehabilitation facilities in Califor- nia were filled to capacity. Also, a striking increase was noted in the number of year- lings and females using haul-outs in central California, indicating a net movement northward from their usual feeding grounds in southern California. Many of the animals that hauled out at the Monterey breakwater in central California were de- scribed as emaciated. Commercial sport fishing boats reported an increase in the incidence of sea lions stealing fish from lines. When NMFS biologists from the Southwest Fisheries Science Center sur- veyed southern California island rookeries in September and October 1992, many young sea lions seen were thin and emaci- ated. Data on pup weights had not yet been analyzed as of press time but were being processed to determine whether pup growth had been retarded this year, as was observed in the 1982-83 El Nino. On the positive side, as predicted, fishing for tunas and other tropical game fishes provided a boon to San Diego and other ...The 1991-92 El Nino 28 ...THE 1991-92 EL NINO southern California sport fishermen during the summer, who experienced the best tuna fishing in years. Also, anglers to the north continued to catch expatriate spe- cies from the south, including sehorita, blacksmith, opaleye and halfmoon. Catches of yellowfin tuna and dolphin fish exceeded all-time annual sport catch re- cords in California for these species; catches of bluefin tuna and yellowtail were also very high. In addition, for the first time on record, catches of tropical tunas and dolphin fish were higher in waters north of the Mexican border than in waters to the south. Angling success was unusually high in waters inshore of the Channel Islands off southern California, with catches of yellowfin tuna reported as close as 5 miles off the coast at several locations in the Los Angeles area. Sea lions continued to be a significant problem for sportfishing boat operators. Above normal ocean tempera- ture conditions prevailed along the entire West Coast, even as the equatorial El Nino was abating in the tropics. In July, anoma- lous warm water intensified to more than 5°F above normal in coastal waters extend- ing about 300 miles off southern California. This increase was likely the result of resid- ual warm waters from EI Nino being en- hanced by air-sea interaction processes, in part related to a series of tropical storms that moved northward from lower Baja Cal- ifornia during July. Sea surface tempera- tures were 3°-4°F above normal off central and northern California and 1°-2°F above normal in coastal waters off Oregon and Washington. By August and September, tempera- tures appeared to return to near normal conditions off the western coast of the G.S. except for some warm water off southern California. Where sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies as great as 5°F above normal had existed off southern California in July, temperatures had dropped to 2° and 3°F above normal in September, and the plus 5 ° F water had receded to the south off Baja California. This cooling trend off North America seemed to reflect the decay of the tropical El Nino in equatorial regions, where SST's had returned to normal or below normal conditions. During October, however, scientists with NOAA's El Nino Watch project noted a slight resurgence in warm water conditions with SST's returning to 2° and 3°F above normal off central California, and from 3 and 4° above normal off southern Califor- nia. At the time of this writing the reason for this renewed warming was unclear, and residual effects from El Nino in temperate waters off the G.S. West Coast were still expected to diminish during the remainder of 1992. Large-scale oceanographic events such as El Nino can have profound effects on the marine environment and on G.S. living marine resources. They are one important source of the interannual variability that characterizes fish stocks and fisheries. Increased understanding of events such as El Nino can give early warning of short-term changes in distribution and abundance of fish and allow industry and management to adjust to this natural variability. SPOTLIGHT 2: BYCATCH PROBLEMS AND FISHERY MANAGEMENT 29 INTRODUCTION When fishermen go fishing, they usually target a particular species or group: Salmon fishermen go after salmon, halibut fishermen halibut, shrimp fishermen target shrimp, etc. Unfortunately, they often catch other fish that are either unwanted or unusable owing to poor market value or regulatory restrictions, such as seasonal closures or size limits. These unwanted, untargeted, accidentally caught fish are called the "bycatch" or the "incidental" catch. Depending on the number of incidentally caught fish, this bycatch may not be a big problem. But, sometimes the number taken is so great, or the species is so rare, that the productivity of that species may be undermined. In other cases, it is simply a matter of wasting valuable resources to harvest fish when they are too small or otherwise unusable, rather than to let them grow, mature, and so gain value. To prevent bycatch of certain species, management may impose gear, season, area, or other restrictions on fishermen. For example, in the tuna fishery of the eastern Tropical Pacific (Gnit 18), Ameri- can tuna fishermen dramatically changed fishing methods and reduced their bycatch of marine mammals to comply with the requirements of the Marine Mammal Pro- tection Act (MMPA). Concern about the bycatch in many other domestic and foreign fisheries has grown dramatically in recent years. Resolv- ing these problems in a number of fisheries will require general agreement on defini- tions of the different types of bycatch and their impacts. Furthermore, the potential solutions to bycatch problems depend on current national policy as embodied in such key legislation, as the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the MMPA. As policy evolves, research must continue in such areas as the magnitude and impact of by- catch in individual fisheries, and gear and management measures that may reduce or end the problems. Defining bycatch problems is crucial to identifying information needs and possible solutions, and to constructive discussion about this complex and volatile issue. In this article two basic bycatch problems are discussed: Allocation and conservation. TYPES OF BYCATCH PROBLEMS Allocation Problems Capture of nontarget (unwanted) species in one fishery may have economic effects on other fisheries result in fishing restric- tions. For instance, Bering Sea trawlers targeting walleye pollock and yellowfin sole (Gnit 19) capture other species such as Pacific halibut, sablefish, salmon, and king and tanner crabs that are sought by other fishermen. Regulations aimed at re- ducing those bycatch effects on the other fisheries require the pollock/sole trawlers to discard large quantities of the other valu- able finfish and shellfish. Limits on the catch of nontarget species by Bering Sea trawlers also reduce harvest levels of the targeted pollock and sole below their po- tential yield. Similar new allocation prob- lems can arise as new markets and fisheries develop for previously undesired fish that are incidentally captured in non- target fisheries. Conservation Problems Bycatch may cause excessive fishing mor- tality on nontarget species. This occurs in two different circumstances: When target species are overexploited or when different species have a life history mismatch. Target Species Overexploited: When there is a high level of fishing activity in an area, even species that are not directly targeted may suffer a high mortality. Fish- ing effort for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico (Gnit 1 1 ) is much higher than necessary to harvest the resource. As a consequence, shrimp trawl bycatch has had very dra- matic effects on some finfish stocks. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, for instance, croaker were once very abundant, but they have declined since the 1950's (Gnit 9); in 1991, the average croaker catch consisted of a single year class of very small fish, whereas croaker catches in the 1 950's con- tained several year classes of much larger fish. If shrimp fishing effort were reduced, the finfish bycatch could be substantially reduced with no reduction in overall shrimp yield. Life History Mismatch: Some fisheries . . . Bycatch Problems and Fishery Management 30 . . . Conservation Problems generate excessive fishing mortality on nontarget species even though the target species is not overutilized. This occurs when the bycatch species is slower grow- ing and longer lived than the target species and is therefore less tolerant of a high rate of fishing. For example, the optimal level of shrimp fishing in the Gulf of Mexico might still be excessive for the incidentally captured finfishes that mature more slowly. Reducing the take of a bycatch species through gear restrictions or modi- fications or area and season closures, for instance, can help solve this type of by- catch problem. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND Congress has addressed bycatch prob- lems in commercial fisheries by amending several laws, most recently through the 1990 amendments to the MFCMA. The MFCMA encourages measures to avoid unnecessary waste of fish, the develop- ment of research programs that address bycatch and methods for its reduction, and the establishment of an observer program in the North Pacific to monitor existing bycatch measures. The 1990 amendments to the Act also mandated a research pro- gram on the impact of incidental harvest in the southeastern U.S. shrimp trawl fishery and prohibited any measures to mitigate this bycatch until 1 January 1994. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 imposed a moratorium on the kill of marine mammals, including their inciden- tal capture in fisheries. The 1988 amend- ments to the MMPA provided most commercial fisheries with a 5-year exemp- tion from the prohibition on capture of mammals, while information on the levels and impacts of these kills is collected and analyzed. A permanent legislative ap- proach to the capture of marine mammals in commercial fisheries is being developed for congressional consideration in the reauthorization of the MMPA in 1993. Finally, the ESA prohibits the incidental killing of species listed as endangered and allows such prohibitions or other condi- tions to be placed on the kill of threatened species. The ESA does allow the incidental capture of endangered species under lim- ited circumstances, provided that the by- catch neither violates the incidental take provisions of the Act nor jeopardizes the continued existence of the species. The 1988 amendments to the ESA also re- quired some South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishermen to use Turtle Ex- cluder Devices (TED's) during certain times of the year to avoid incidental cap- ture of endangered and threatened sea turtles. INFORMATION NEEDS Effective bycatch management requires data on the magnitude, distribution, and species composition of the bycatch in a fishery. Such information generally re- quires observers on fishing vessels. Multi- year observer programs are needed to reflect interannual variation in the abun- dance of target and nontarget species to determine the magnitude of bycatch and its effects. However, observer programs have several drawbacks. Placing observers on fishing vessels can be expensive for both vessel owners (because valuable bunk and working space is lost) and for fishery management agencies. The number of observations made may be small because of budget constraints and may not give an accurate picture of the incidental catch. The presence of an observer can also influence the fishing methods employed by a fisherman, either to avoid or to seek bycatch species. In addition, it may take several years before data from observer programs become useful in assessing the status of fish resources and the magnitude of bycatch effects, while pressure to address the problems increases and calls for more immediate action. Where one fishery incidentally captures fish that are of economic value to other fisheries, calculating the foregone present 31 INFORMATION NEEDS and future value of discarded catch is an important element in assessing the import- ance of the bycatch problem. These calcu- lations require both biological and economic data. Information on the geographical and temporal distribution of bycatch species is a key to evaluating whether area-time re- strictions offer a means of reducing by- catch and its impacts. Understanding the behavior of nontarget species can also as- sist in the development of alternative fish- ing gear, as has been demonstrated in recent research on methods of excluding some finfish species from shrimp trawls. Determining the impact of bycatch also requires better estimates of the abundance of nontarget species. This would help in fashioning measures that minimize the im- pact of restrictions on fishing operations. For example, with improved precision in estimates of abundance for protected spe- cies, fewer restrictions and prohibitions on fishing operations might be required to protect and restore endangered and threat- ened species. The lack of such information on protected species abundance and the impact of bycatch compels a more conser- vative approach and greater restriction of fishing activities. MITIGATING BYCATCH There are three principal approaches to reducing bycatch: 1) reducing the coinci- dence of target species, nontarget species, and gear through such techniques as time- area closures or alternative fishing prac- tices; 2) reducing the capture and retention of bycatch species through gear modifica- tions; and 3) reducing excess fishing pres- sure on target species. In many instances, target and nontarget species inhabit the same general area only during limited times of the year. Directing fishing effort for the target species to times and areas where nontarget species of con- cern are few or absent can significantly reduce bycatch. Closing areas during times when fish of certain ages are present, as during spawning seasons, can also re- duce the impact of bycatch on nontarget species. Similarly, deploying fishing gear, such as longlines, at greater or lesser depths may reduce bycatch of nontarget species. On experimental longline cruises, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center has found that hooking rates vary for tunas and billfish by depth and ocean- ographic factors, pointing to a possible means of reducing billfish bycatch. Innovations in fishing gear can also re- duce the capture and retention of bycatch species. The Medina panel (a gear modifi- cation to prevent the retention of dolphins) in the tuna fishery of the eastern Tropical Pacific and the Turtle Excluder Device in the shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico have significantly reduced the capture and retention of porpoises and sea turtles, respectively. Preliminary trials indicate that a finfish excluder device may reduce the bycatch of cod, haddock, and flounder in the New England shrimp fish- ery. Nonregulatory, market-oriented mea- sures may help address the economically wasteful discard of commercially valuable species resulting from regulations directed at resolving conflict between users in multi- species fisheries. For instance, if the quo- tas for those species taken directly and indirectly in different fisheries were divided into tradable shares, fishermen who chose to fish in a manner that would lead to bycatch of a species could acquire quota shares from other fishermen through pur- chase or lease. Such a program would reduce economic waste by allowing the landing and sale of bycatch of species under a quota share. Economic waste may also be reduced through increased utiliza- tion of bycatch. As an example, yellowtail flounder was discarded by New England groundfish fishermen for many years until new methods of filleting made them mar- ketable in the 1930's. Finally, reduction of fishing effort on overutilized target species will also reduce effort and capture of bycatch species, with- out reducing the catch of the target spe- cies. For example, bycatch in the southeast shrimp fishery could be reduced by reducing fishing pressure, without re- ducing total shrimp catch. The average size and value of shrimp would also be increased. . . . Bycatch Problems and Fishery Management 32 . . . MITIGATING BYCATCH As consumer demand for fish grows, so will the pressure to reduce the wasteful discard of bycatch. Research on the magnitude, species composition, and distribution of bycatch and on methods for avoiding it can contribute to solving this problem. Table 4.-Summary of bycatch documented in volume 2 (1992) of "Our Living Oceans." Unit and fishery 1. Northeast demersal 2. Northeast pelagic 4. Northeast invertebrate 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic Longlines Principal Affected species' Principal gear species affected status Trawl Goosefish Gillnets Cusk Wolffish Atlantic halibut Ocean pout Overutilized Weakfish Overutilized Scup Overutilized Black sea bass Overutilized Spot Overutilized Tilefish Overutilized Searobin Overutilized Kemp's ridley sea turtle Endangered Harbor porpoise Unknown Trawl Pilot whales Common dolphins Shrimp trawls Atlantic cod Overutilized Haddock Overutilized Longlines Blue marlin Fully utilized Gillnets White marlin Unknown Sailfish Fully utilized Pelagic sharks Unknown 7. Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic Gillnets 11. Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate Shrimp trawl Cobia Red snapper Atlantic croaker Spot Seatrouts Sea turtles Small coastal sharks Unknown Overutilized Overutilized Unknown Unknown Endangered/ threatened Underutilized 15. Pacific coast groundfish Trawl Pacific salmon, principally chinook Jack mackerel Overutilized Underutilized 19. Alaska groundfish Trawl Gillnets Alaska salmon, principally chinook Fully utilized Pacific halibut Fully utilized King crabs Fully utilized Tanner crab Fully utilized Pacific herring Fully utilized Pacific herring Fully utilized Pacific halibut (less Canada) Marine mammals O Part 2: UNIT SYNOPSES UNIT1 NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES 35 INTRODUCTION Northeastern U.S. demersal (groundfish) fisheries include about 35 species or stocks, primarily in New England waters, but also off the Mid-Atlantic states. In New England, the groundfish group is domi- nated by members of the cod family (cod, haddock, hakes, pollock), flounders, dog- fish sharks, and skates. Mid-Atlantic groundfish fisheries land primarily sum- mer 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 predominant fishing method for ground- fish throughout the region (there were 1,072 otter trawl vessels in the fleet in 1990); gill nets contribute a substantial proportion of the landings in the Gulf of Maine (242 vessels fished with gill nets in 1990). Many of the groundfish fishing ves- sels switch gears seasonally. Total G.S. landings of mixed groundfish in the north- east region were 157,000 t in 1991. If Ca- nadian and recreational landings of these stocks are included, 1991 groundfish land- ings were still less than half of their esti- mated long-term potential yield (LPTY: Table 1-1). Groundfishes off the northeast coast occur in mixed species aggregations, re- sulting in significant bycatch interactions Table 1-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels 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 (LTPY) = 533,500 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 408,000 t Recent average yield (RAY)' 225,421 t (170,221 t, U.S. only) Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Groundfish/flounders Atlantic cod 2 ' 3 58,600 60,000 45,000 Over Near Pollock 2 ' 3 ' "■ 5 48,200 40,000 54,000 Over Below Silver hake 18,200 20,000 100.000 7 Full Below Summer flounder 3 7,500 6,000 20.000 7 Over Below Winter flounder 3 9,100 9,000 16.000 7 Over Below Yellowtail flounder 9,200 6,000 39,000 Over Below Haddock 2 ' 6 5,900 6,000 52,000 Over Below American plaice 3,400 2,400 10.000 7 Over Below Witch flounder 1,900 1,500 3,500 7 Over Below Windowpane flounder 2,700 2,000 5.000 7 Full Near Red hake 1,600 Unknown 40.000 7 Under Near Redfish 600 600 14,000 Over Below Skates/dogfish Skates 9,700 25,000 25,000 Under Above Spiny dogfish 10,600 200,000 50,000 Under Above Other finfish Goosefish 11,700 10,000 10.000 7 Over Below Scup 3 7,400 6,700 12,500 7 Over Below White hake 2 5,800 5,000 5,000 7 Full Near Weakfish 3 5,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Black sea bass 3 3,000 Unknown Unknown Full Below Cusk 2 1,200 1,200 1,500 7 Over Below Ocean pout 1,300 1,300 12.500 7 Full Near Spot 3 1,500 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Tilefish 800 900 Unknown Over Below Wolffish 500 400 700 7 Over Below Atlantic halibut 21 Unknown Unknown Over Below '1989-91 average. includes more than 100 t of foreign landings (primarily Canadian) includes more than 100 t of recreational landings. "For pollock, U.S. landings are only 9,300 t (19%) 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 2,000 (34%) of the RAY. 'Provisional LTPY's, based on historical landings patterns. . . . Northeast Demersal Fisheries 36 . . . INTRODUCTION among fisheries directed to particular tar- get species or species groups. Manage- ment is very complex because of these interactions. This complexity is reflected, for example, in the use of differing mesh sizes, gears, minimum fish size rules, and seasonal closure regulations, set by such groups as the Mew England and Mid-Atlan- tic Fishery Management Councils (MEFMC and MAFMC, respectively), state fishery agencies, the Atlantic States Marine Fish- eries Commission (ASMFC), and by the Canadian government, because some fish stocks often cross state and national boundaries. Mew England groundfish (13 species) are managed primarily under the northeast multispecies Fishery Manage- ment Plan (FMP) , as well as peripherally under provisions of the ASMFC northern shrimp FMP. Mid-Atlantic groundfish are managed under the summer flounder FMP. Management of the demersal fisheries of the region is by such indirect methods as mesh sizes, minimum fish length regula- tions, and some area closures. There are currently no direct controls on the Mew England groundfish harvest through catch quota or fishing effort regulations. The summer flounder FMP includes provisions for catch quota targets aimed at restoring this depleted stock. Extensive historical data for the north- east demersal fisheries have been derived from both fishery-dependent (i.e. catch and effort monitoring), and fishery-inde- pendent (MOAA research vessel) sam- pling programs. Since 1989, a sea sampling program conducted aboard commercial vessels has been conducted in the region, to document discard rates and to collect sound data on catch by area and effort by gear type. Some of the northeast demersal stocks (cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock, and American plaice) are among the best understood and assessed Fishery resources in the country. SPECIES AND STATUS Principal Groundfish and Flounders The principal groundfish and flounders group includes important cod-family spe- cies (Atlantic cod, haddock, silver and red hake, and pollock), flounders (yellowtail, summer, winter, witch, windowpane, and American plaice) and redfish (Fig. 1-1). Recent annual landings of these 12 species ( 1 9 stocks) by commercial fishermen have averaged 167,000 t, as compared with their combined LTPY of nearly 400,000 t (Table 1-1). Total value of principal groundfish and flounder commercial landings in 1991 was $165 million. The northeast groundfish group supports important recreational fish- eries for species including summer floun- der, winter flounder, and Atlantic cod. In 1991, recreational landings of principal groundfish and flounder species were 7,200 t. The estimated recreational fishing Figure 1-1— Total commercial landings and abundance indices for principal groundfish and flounders off the New England coast, 1960-91. 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, the silver, red, and white hakes, American plaice, and the yellowtail, winter, windowpane, witch, and summer flounders. 800 100 700 Abundance - ™ Landings 60 600 Landings (1,000 t) 03 *■ CI o o o o o o 60 40 o ^. O) S 0) a c ro T3 c 3 < 200 20 100 1960 1965 1970 1976 1980 1986 1990 37 . . . Principal Groundfish and Flounders value of summer and winter flounder fish- eries (the two most important of the princi- pal groundfish and flounders) was $196 million. The abundance index for this group de- clined by almost 70% between 1963 and 1974, reflecting substantial increases in exploitation associated with the advent of distant-water fleets (Fig. 1-1). Many stocks declined sharply, notably Georges Bank haddock, most silver and red hake stocks, and most flatfish stocks. By 1974, abun- dance levels of many of these species had dropped to the lowest ever recorded. Groundfish stocks partially recovered during the mid-to-late 1970's because of reduced fishing effort associated with in- creasingly restrictive management under the International Commission for the Gadus morhua Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) dur- ing the early 1970's, and implementation of theMagnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) in 1977. Cod and haddock increased markedly; pollock stock levels increased more-or-less contin- ually, and recruitment and abundance also increased for several flatfish stocks. The aggregate index peaked in 1978. Subse- quently, the combined index again de- clined; 1987 and 1988 values were again low. The 1989 and 1990 abundance values were slightly higher than the previous two years, primarily due to recruitment of mod- erate 1 987 year classes of Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder. However, the abun- dance index in 1991 again declined owing largely to the rapid depletion of the 1987 yellowtail flounder year class, and declin- ing cod numbers. G.S. fishing for northeast demersal spe- cies increased rapidly after the im- plementation of the MFCMA and more than doubled in the first 10 years. Fishing effort has remained at near-peak levels, despite large declines in total catch and catch rate per unit of effort. Skates and Dogfish sharks Figure 1-2— U.S. commercial landings and abundance indices for skates and dogfish off the northeastern U.S. coast, 1960-91. 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 dogfish. 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, including little, winter, thorny, barndoor, brier, leopard, and smooth-tailed, occur on the northeast shelf, but the first three pro- duce most of the landings. Skate and spiny dogfish landings have generally increased in recent years, al- though spiny dogfish landings in 1991 35 1960 Abundance Landings 160 120 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Northeast Demersal Fisheries 38 . . . Skates and Dogfish Sharks were 12,500 1, down from 14,300 1 in 1990. Skate landings (all species) were 1 1,200 t in 1991, and 11,300 t in 1990. These are well below the long-term potential landings for these stocks and their current potential yields. The stocks of skates and dogfish increased throughout the 1970's and 1980's (Fig. 1-2). Survey catches of both dogfish and skates since 1986 have been the highest observed in the time series. Increases in dogfish and skate abundance, in conjunction with declining abundance of groundfish and flounders, have resulted in the proportion of dogfish and skates in Georges Bank survey catches increasing from roughly 25% by weight in 1963 to nearly 75% in recent years. other Finf ish Other groundfish species taken primarily as bycatch in the Gulf of Maine include goosefish, white hake, cusk, wolffish, and Atlantic halibut. In southern Mew England, goosefish and ocean pout are important groundfish stocks, and in the Middle Atlan- tic, scup, weakfish, black sea bass, spot, tilefish, sea robins, and several others are landed either in directed fisheries or as bycatch. As a group, they are generally characterized as overutilized, with current landings generally well below long-term maxima (Table 1-1). Most of these stocks are managed implicitly with other species included in various FMP's. For example, white hake, goosefish, cusk, wolffish, and halibut are taken in various groundfish fish- eries regulated under the northeast multi- species FMP. Similarly, scup and black sea bass represent major components of the summer flounder directed fishery, and these stocks are likely to be included in future amendments to the summer floun- der FMP. The ASMFC has developed a weakfish FMP, and several of the other stocks are slated for inclusion in future FMP's. The advent of directed fishing for goosefish at the edge of the continental shelf in the Middle Atlantic and in southern New England has prompted interest in de- veloping regulations for the fishery, primar- ily because very small animals are currently landed from that fishery and are also taken as bycatch from sea scallop dredging. ISSUES Management concerns New England groundfish resources are currently regulated by indirect controls on fishing mortality, including mesh and min- imum fish size restrictions, and some area closures. In the face of persistent overfish- ing of the resource, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed litigation to reduce fishing pressure to allow the stocks to re- build. A consent decree was entered into between NMFS and CLF, stipulating that a northeast multispecies FMP amendment (#5) would be developed before the end of 1992 that will reduce the rate of fishing to rebuild the resource base over a 5-year period. Currently there is considerable dis- cussion on the form of regulations to achieve this goal. Likely mechanisms to be included in amendment #5 of the FMP are effort control regulations combined with increased mesh sizes. Meeting the catch goals to prevent over- fishing, as defined under the multispecies and summer flounder FMP's, will require significant effort reductions. These fisher- ies are now severely over- capitalized, re- sulting in continued pressures on already overutilized stocks and the loss of eco- nomic benefit to the nation. Rebuilt stocks will eventually provide increased net bene- fits to pro ducers and consumers, but, in the short-term, effort reductions will de- crease revenues to fishermen. Decreased reve nues, even for a few years, may result in some business failures since many ves- sel operations are marginal producers under current conditions of depressed stocks. However, continued declines in the resource base will result in even grimmer prospects. To improve the picture for these fisheries will require stock rebuilding and addressing the problem of overcapitalization. 39 Transboundary Stocks and jurisdiction Significant quantities of Atlantic cod, haddock, and pollock are landed in Canadian waters from stocks that move between U.S. and Canadian waters. In 1991, 25% of Atlantic cod, 75% of haddock, and 83% of pollock landings of these transboundary stocks were taken by Canada. Management regulations used by the two countries are fundamentally different: Canada seeks to achieve target harvest rates through catch quota regulation. Although there is assessment coordination between the countries, there is no formal mechanism for joint management. The lack of coordinated management efforts has contributed to overutilization of these shared resources. Bycatch and Multispecies interactions Groundfish fisheries in the northeast im- pact a number of species with different life histories and, therefore, differing capacities to withstand exploitation. Developing a management system which can rebuild and then maintain this range of resources is a major challenge. In addition, some groundfishing gear, particularly gillnets, in- cidentally kills marine mammals such as harbor porpoise. This bycatch needs to be mitigated to meet the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The current high abundances of skates and dogfish has the potential of impeding the complete recovery of other stocks of groundfish. These elasmobranch species may compete for similar food resources or prey upon young groundfish. Increased utilization of dogfish and skates may benefit the fisheries for cods and other important species. Nevertheless, reduced fishing mortality on groundfish stocks should translate into improved groundfish catches. Progress Considerable progress in the assessment and management of the northeast de- mersal resources was made during 1991 and 1 992. The incorporation of data on fish discarded at sea into stock assessments for yellowtail flounder and American plaice lends an important new dimension to the interpretation of stock status and the effec- tiveness of mesh regulations. A winter trawl survey instituted during 1992 specifically to index summer and yellowtail flounder stocks along the shelf proved successful and will be continued. A monthly sampling program was begun in the Gulf of Maine to collect biological data on the onset of sex- ual maturity for several demersal stocks. The development of amendment #5 to the northeast multispecies FMP has been ex- pedited by the formation of a Plan Devel- opment Team to coordinate the evaluation of alternative proposed management mea- sures. The FMP for summer flounder in- cludes state-by-state catch quota regulations intended to reduce fishing mor- tality on the stock. UNIT 2 NORTHEAST PELAGIC FISHERIES 40 INTRODUCTION Northeast G.S. pelagic or midwater fisher- ies are highly seasonal, reflecting the mi- gratory patterns of such schooling fishes as Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, but- terfish, bluefish, and two species of squids. All of these species winter on the Middle Atlantic shelf and undergo northward and inshore migrations in the spring and sum- mer. These resources are harvested with a variety of gears including off-bottom and bottom trawls, gill nets, and seines. Com- mercial landings of pelagic fishes off the G.S. northeast coast have averaged 144,000 t since 1989, while recreational landings (primarily bluefish and mackerel) have been about 23,000 t. In 1991, the commercial landings produced about $49 million in dockside revenue, of which the squids accounted for the greatest propor- tion ($30 million). Bluefish and mackerel are important recreational fisheries for the region; approximately $345 million is spent annually to angle for bluefish. All of the northeast pelagic resources were heavily exploited by foreign fleets during the 1970's, in most cases resulting in rapid declines in stock sizes and yields. Subsequently, however, there has been lit- tle G.S. interest in stocks such as mackerel, resulting in increased abundance. The pe- lagic stocks are managed under two Fed- eral FMP's, one for bluefish and the other for squid, mackerel, and butterfish, devel- oped by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Manage- ment Council (MAFMC). Atlantic herring are managed under the auspices of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis- sion (ASMFC). SPECIES AND STATUS Figure 2-1.— U.S. commercial landings and abundance indices for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel off the northeastern U.S. coast, 1960-91. Abundance indices are mean weight (kg) per tow taken in Northeast Fisheries Science Center (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. The G.S. northeast midwater fisheries are dominated by six species: Atlantic mack- erel, Atlantic herring, butterfish, bluefish, and two squids: long-finned (Loligo) and short-finned (///ex). Five of the stocks are considered underutilized (mackerel, the two squids, butterfish, and herring). 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-1970's, reflecting pronounced de- clines for both species (as well as the col- lapse of the Georges Bank herring resource). Both species have been increas- ing in recent years. Atlantic mackerel re- covered during the 1980's, and stock assessments indicate a total stock in ex- cess of 2.5 million t. Mackerel landings in 1991 were very low— only 62,700 1. 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. 800 600 - 400 200 Oh- L 1960 + 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 41 . . . SPECIES AND STATUS The total Atlantic herring resource of the northeast U.S. is considered underutilized. Total landings from the Gulf of Maine stock in 1991 were 46,800 t, representing a sub- stantial increase from the 1983 level. The Georges Bank herring stock was virtually extirpated, following landings in excess of 370,000 1 in 1 967 and later nonsustainable landings levels. This herring stock has now recovered, based on G.S. and Canadian bottom trawl surveys and larval fish studies in the region, and the most recent assess- ment. Herring is now reclassified as under- utilized in this report. Of the two squids, the long-finned squid is the most important, due to the significant international export market (primarily to Italy and Spain). Nevertheless, both squid stocks are considered underutilized. Sur- veys of both species indicate that their numbers are above average levels, while landings are below historical levels. Sea- sonal changes affect the availability of both species to fishermen, especially the short- finned squid. Butterfish are likewise considered under- utilized, based on current research survey results and historic landings patterns. Landings of butterfish have declined signif- icantly in recent years, primarily due to reduced export demand. The stock is cur- rently being fished well below its LTPY (Table 2-1). Bluefish landings peaked in 1980 at 72,600 t, and have declined to an average of 25,100 t in recent years (Table 2-1). Most landings (over 80%) are by recrea- tional fishermen. The recent downward trends in recreational and commercial catches and the continuing decline in the index of abundance based on recreational catch per bluefish trip, suggests that blue- fish abundance decreased during the 1980's, and that the stock is fully utilized. Table 2-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels 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) = Current potential yield (CPY) = Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 470,000 t 640,000 t 1 66,600 t (130,500 t, U.S. only) Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Atlantic mackerel 2 ' 3 ' 4 62,700 400,000 200,000 Under Above Atlantic herring 46,800 120,000 120,000 Under Above Bluefish 3 25,100 30,000 60,000 5 Full Near Squids Long-finned 19,300 44,000 44,000 Under Near Short-finned 10,100 30,000 30,000 Under Above Butterfish 2,500 16,000 16,000 Under Above 1 1 989-9 1 average (including foreign and recreational catches), includes more than 100 t of foreign landings (primarily Canadian) includes more than 100 t of recreational landings. "For mackerel, U.S. landings are only 26,600 t (47%) of the RAY. Provisional LTPY's, based on historical landings patterns. ISSUES Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Although historical data on catches and fishing effort are adequate for assessment purposes, stock assessments for northeast pelagic resources are still relatively impre- cise, owing to the highly variable trawl survey indices, the short life span of some stocks (squids and butterfish), and low exploitation rates of some species. More precise assessments will require the devel- opment of hydroacoustic sampling of pe- lagic biomass, combined with trawling sur- veys to separate species components of the pelagic resource. More precise assess- ments for short-lived stocks will depend on the availability of more appropriate survey and commercial performance data. . . . Northeast Pelagic Fisheries 42 Underutilized Species All the pelagic stocks except bluefish are considered underutilized. Present commer- cial landings are well below CPY's, for the complex of stocks CPY's exceed RAY's by these underutilized stocks are somewhat uncertain (see above), but nevertheless yield potentials substantially exceed cur- rent landings, even if conservative stock 284% (473,400 t). Current stock sizes of size calculations are assumed. Bycatch and Multispecies interactions Concentrations of schooling fish such as the northeast pelagics are utilized by an array of predatory fishes, marine mam- mals, and birds. In winter months, fisheries directed for Atlantic mackerel, herring, and squids take some marine mammals in- cluding pilot whales and common dol- Scomber scombrus phins. Intensification of these pelagic fish- eries to take advantage of these underuti- lized resources may result in greater marine mammal kills. Current large stock sizes of these pelagic resources may be resulting in increased predation on larval fishes, particularly due to mackerel predation on Georges Bank and in southern Mew England in late winter and spring when larvae of many ground- fish species are present. The potential im- pacts of current high stock sizes of pelagic resources on recovery prospects for groundfish are unknown. UNIT 3 ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES 43 INTRODUCTION The anadromous species of the Atlantic seaboard are a diverse group, including river herrings (alewife, blueback herring, and hickory shad), American shad, striped bass, Atlantic salmon, sturgeons (Atlantic and shortnosed), and rainbow smelt. Reg- ulation of these stocks is likewise diverse: ASMFC has implemented an FMP for river herrings and American shad, while shortnosed sturgeon is managed under a recovery plan prepared under the Endan- gered Species Act. Atlantic salmon are regulated by a New England Council FMP and under the auspices of the North Atlan- tic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO). Striped bass are regulated under an ASMFC FMP and special con- gressional authority under the Striped Bass Conservation Act (implemented by NMFS and GSFWS). Current commercial land- ings of Atlantic anadromous species (Table 3-1; Fig. 3-1, 3-2) are only about 3,800 t, far below historical levels. Several of the species are or were of major recrea- tional importance to the region (including American shad, striped bass, and Atlantic salmon). Landings of Atlantic anadromous spe- cies have declined greatly in recent years. River herring catches peaked in the 1960's at about 27,000 1 coastwide, but have since declined to less than 2,000 1 annually. Like- wise, commercial landings of American shad had a recent peak of 3,000 t in 1970, but are only about 1,000 t now. Striped bass commercial landings were over 6,000 t in 1973, but decreased to less than 1,000 t by 1985, where they have remained. Re- cent trends in catches of Atlantic salmon are down (to about 6,000 fish), following catches of over 10,000 fish in the 1980's. Table 3-1.— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels 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) = 3,773 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 3,773 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 3,773 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Alewife 1,200 Unknown Unknown Variable by river Variable American shad 1,100 Unknown Unknown Variable by river Variable Striped bass 2 1,400 Unknown Unknown Full Near Sturgeons 73 Unknown Unknown Variable by river Below Atlantic salmon (5,000) 3 500 4 Unknown Over Below 1 1989-91 average (including foreign and recreational catches) 'includes significant recreational landings. 3 Atlantic salmon RAY in numbers of fish, primarily intercepted in distant-water commercial fisheries. 4 Atlantic salmon CPY in numbers for U.S. waters only SPECIES AND STATUS Unlike most of the northeast's offshore fishes, Atlantic anadromous stocks have been heavily influenced by nonfishing human activities in the coastal zone. Dam- Alosa sapidissima ming of rivers preventing occupation of former spawning grounds was a major fac- tor in the decline of Atlantic salmon, stur- geons, river herrings, and shad. Environmental contamination is im- plicated in the declines of several species. Today, not only are these species threat- ened by coastal pollution and develop- ment, but interception fisheries (sometimes far from the spawning grounds) by foreign fishermen hinder the recovery of some species. . . . Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries 44 Atlantic Salmon Atlantic salmon historically spawned in large river systems throughout New En- gland. As a consequence of industrial and agricultural development, most of the runs native to New England have been extir- pated. Today, the only self-supporting G.S. salmon runs are in Maine. Restoration ef- forts, in the form of stocking and fish pas- sage construction, are underway in the Connecticut, Pawcatuck, Merrimack, and Penobscot rivers. Atlantic salmon migrate to sea after 2 or 3 years in G.S. rivers. While at sea they generally undergo extensive migrations to Canadian, Greenland, and international waters. The sizes of Atlantic salmon spawning runs in Maine rivers are given with the estimated G.S. and distant-water catches, in Figure 3-1. Fisheries in G.S. waters are limited to angling in Maine. Salmon kept by anglers have averaged 380 fish in recent years, which represents approximately 10% exploitation of the run to Maine rivers. Distant-water fisheries (the commercial gillnet fisheries in Canada and Greenland) have been evaluated by extensive tagging of G.S. origin fish. Harvest estimates from tagging studies put exploitation rates of G.S. fish at between 60 and 80% in these oceanic fisheries. These commercial oce- anic fisheries are regulated under the aus- pices of NASCO. Canadian interception fisheries have been regulated by time-area restrictions and quotas; beginning in 1992, the fishery in Newfoundland was closed for a 5-year period. The Greenland fishery is quota controlled. 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 of fish from those rivers, 1967-91. The foreign salmon catch is estimated from data on tagged and recaptured salmon. 16 7 Run size if 14 Total catch 11} 6 ~ 12 - CO I \ A" 5 2 ■•- i / / CO O 10 - 1 / / *£ o l / / o o I / / 4 o 1 / \ / ' o L /A v \ 1 8 - c 03 3 9 _l 6 — Commercial landings Recreational landings —\— Red snapper Index 1975 1 1980 1985 1990 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 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, 1979-91. 1 15 ~— Commercial landings r Recreational landings o o o in a c T3 C CO _l 12 9 6 \ —\— Gag grouper index 0.8 0.6 0.4 X a> TJ c £ '5 a> O) (S CD 3 / \ / \ II >\ 3 ^ " 0.2 1975 1980 1985 1990 63 Figure 8-3— U.S. reef fish landings from Caribbean waters, 1978-91. 3 2.5 CM (1 000 \v C Landings ->. in - 0.5 I I 1 I I 1 1 1975 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES By catch and Multispecies interactions Reef fish form a complex, diverse multi- species system. The long-term harvesting effects on reefs are not well understood, requiring cautious management controls of targeted fisheries as well as bycatch (see Spotlight 2). Major bycatch issues cur- rently occur with the capture and discard- ing of red snapper by vessels fishing for shrimp with small-mesh nets. This bycatch problem means that, in order to meet the rebuilding goals for the stock, targeted har- vests must be even more tightly restricted. Bycatch of other species may pose similar difficulties as will the capture of undersized fish, even if they are released. The mortal- ity rate of released fish is poorly known. Scientific information and Adequacy of Assessments Several stocks of reef fish are currently depleted and need to be rebuilt (e.g., jew- fish, Nassau grouper). A variety of man- agement measures need to be explored, including the use of artificial reefs and the effectiveness of marine parks and reserves to protect spawning areas. There are a number of important out- standing scientific issues which need to be addressed to improve the advice for man- agement. The long-term potential yield for many of the reef fish species in not known. Data on catch and the identifica- tion of species is inadequate for many stocks and needs to be obtained on a routine basis to prepare stock assessment advice. Additional life history and biologi- cal data is needed to better understand this complex of species. Allocation Reef fish resources are utilized by a wide range of groups. Commercial and recrea- tional fishermen may come into conflict with one another as well as with other users such as ecotourists. Balancing the inter- ests of these groups is an important man- agement issue. Progress An individual transferable quota system was implemented for wreckfish in April 1992. Of the original 49 shareholders, 37 remained by August with shares holding their value and fish prices improved. UNIT 9 SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES 64 INTRODUCTION Important species in this unit are the Atlan- tic croaker, spot, red drum, black drum, kingfishes (whiting), spotted seatrout, and other seatrouts. The drum family includes several commercially and recreationally important fishes that have been harvested since at least the late 1800's when com- mercial landings were first estimated. Other fisheries are much more recent. A classic example it the popularity of "black- ened redfish" in the 1980's which stimu- lated a significant demand for red drum so that in a few years the stock was seriously depleted. Most drum and croaker are harvested in state waters and are therefore under state management. In recent years, several states have set regulations favoring recre- ational use of some species, such as the red drum. Pogonlas cromis Commercial adult red drum purse sein- ing in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico developed rapidly in the middle 1980's as demand grew for "blackened redfish." Be- fore that, nearly all red drum were har- vested in nearshore state waters as juveniles. But as the offshore fishery devel- oped, it became clear that the schooling adult redfish were extremely vulnerable to heavy harvests. Analyses showed that long-term potential yields for this fishery required limiting the harvest of the larger adult fish. In addition, greater inshore red- fish catches by recreational and commer- cial fishermen, complicated by other factors, had cut the number of young fish that could have replenished offshore adult stocks. Eventually a Red Drum Fishery Manage- ment Plan was developed for Gulf and, later, Atlantic waters. Both plans ban red drum fishing in Federal waters until the adult population increases in size. This ef- fectively bars a significant adult red drum fishery in Federal waters as long as state rules favor substantial inshore fishing for young red drum. State actions so far have preserved inshore harvests and allocated most or all of the catch to sport fishermen. SPECIES AND STATUS Commercial drum landings peaked in 1956 at over 32,000 t, more than 20,000 t above the 1953 level. That great increase was stimulated by development of the pet food industry in the northern Gulf of Mex- ico. Atlantic croaker was sought for pet food as well, and about 76% of the associ- ated landings were croaker and sand and silver seatrout. This pet food catch was reported with the "industrial fishery" data after 1956, and estimates of its size and value have since been unavailable. Status and potential yields for these species are given in Table 9-1. The catch value of this group for human consumption was about $10 million in 1978. This increased to about $22 million in 1986, largely as a result of an increase in the price of the fish. The overall sport catch of these species has been about equal to the commercial harvest for human consumption (Fig. 9-1). ISSUES Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions Efficient and economical means of reduc- ing the bycatch of finfish in the shrimp fishery must be developed. Large numbers of Atlantic croaker, spot, and sand and silver seatrout are caught and killed in shrimp trawls. Estimates of the 1972-89 bycatch in the Gulf's offshore shrimp fish- ery 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. 60 Figure 9-1— U.S. drum and groundfish landings from southeastern U.S. coastal waters and the red drum recruitment index for the Gulf of Mexico, 1970-91. 40 1.2 35 - ~ ~ Commercial landings Recreational landings 1 30 -\— Red drum index o o o CO o> c T3 C CO _l 25 20 15 0.8 0.6 0.4 X ID ■a c c a> E '5 o CD 10 \ N.V 5 0.2 »j — ' I I I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Table 9-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels of drum, croaker, and related 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' CFY is substituted in the sum. If the species' CPY is unknown, the species' RAY is substituted. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) 1 Current potential yield (CPY) 1 = Recent average yield (RAY) 2 = 75,934 t 25,808 t 25,808 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species and area RAY 2 CPY 1 LTPY 1 stock level Black drum 6,128 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic croaker 4,946 Unknown 50,000 Over Below Spot 3,336 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Red drum Gulf of Mexico 2,828 2,828 7,900 Over Below Atlantic 626 Unknown Unknown Over Below Seatrouts 6,250 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Kingfishes (whiting) 1,694 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 'LTPY is probably underestimated and CPY overestimated, although potential production estimates are not available for some species groups, it is expected that they may be overutilized. 7 1 988-90 average. UNIT 10 SOUTHEAST MENHADEN AND BUTTER FISH FISHERIES 66 INTRODUCTION Menhaden are a herring-like species found in coastal and estuarine waters of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They form large schools at the surface which are lo- cated and fished for the production of fish meal, oil, and soluble proteins. The fishery is vertically integrated, generally with com- pany-owned vessels, spotter aircraft, and processing plants. An active baitfish fish- ery along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts har- vests 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). Menha- den are food for many other fishes and sea birds. In the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf butterfish have been a component of the catch in the industrial bottomfish and shrimp fisheries, and were either discarded or processed for pet food or fish meal. In 1986, a directed bottom trawl fishery for Gulf butterfish started with the arrival of New England freezer trawlers. The New England vessels fished in the Gulf during the springs of 1 986 and 1987, the spring and summer of 1988, and briefly during the spring of 1988. In 1987, several vessels experimented with fishing for Gulf butterfish. These early trips led to major refits of a number of shrimp trawlers and one purse seiner in 1988. At one point in 1988, 15 vessels were en- gaged in the directed fishery for butterfish. The market for Gulf butterfish was satu- rated early during the summer of 1988. As a result, the New England vessels returned north, and most of the Gulf vessels switched back to shrimping. The directed fishery for Gulf butterfish continued in 1 989, 1 990, and 1 99 1 , with one or two Gulf vessels targeting butterfish. Gulf butterfish are assessed as a single stock, and the fishery is not under management rules. SPECIES AND STATUS Menhaden are specific to the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In the G.S. Atlantic, the resource is overutilized with a long-term potential yield of 480,000 t per year and a recent average yield of 345,000 t per year. In the Gulf of Mexico, the menhaden resource is fully utilized with a long-term potential yield of 660,000 t and a recent average yield of 575,000 t. Gulf butterfish is underutilized with a long-term potential yield of 26,500 1 and a recent average yield of 19,700 t. Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic menhaden are found from Nova Scotia, Can., 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 southward mi- gration begins in early fall with surface schools disappearing in late December or early January off the Carolinas. Atlantic menhaden may live 1 years, but most fish caught are 3 years of age or younger. Menhaden landings rose during the Brevoortia tyrannus 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 1986-90 averaged $32.8 million per year. In 1990, just a few menhaden reduction or processing plants were in operation, located in Beaufort, N.C.; Reedville, Va.; coastal Maine (one Russian factory ship as part of an internal-waters processing agree- ment); 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 67 . . . Atlantic Menhaden 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 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 1990, active Gulf menhaden reduction plants were located in Moss Point, Miss., and in Empire, Dulac, Morgan City, Intracoastal City, and Cam- eron, La. Figure 10-1— U.S. menhaden landings and spawning biomass from the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern Atlantic coast, 1951-91. 1,200 700 Atlantic landings 1,000 _ - ~ Quit ot Mexico landings — " \— Atlantic biomass 600 -B- Gulf biomass T\ i \ \y\ 500 o *■ 800 o o tf> o_ V II \ 400 % ■ — ■ E in 600 (^ \ / \ A / l #^7T XX- o O) n T3 □ 300 c C CO _l 400 200 « 200 - 100 19 ....,.,..,, ,HfH-H-K}^Vi-+-fKi ^^r^V^ 91 51 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 19 Gulf Menhaden Historically, landings rose from the begin- ning 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 declined steeply from 894,200 t to 528,300 t between 1987 and 1990. The commercial value of Gulf men- haden for 1986-90 averaged $63.6 million per year. Because this species is short lived and has a high natural mortality, "growth over- fishing" has not been a major concern. Management coordinated through the GSMFC consists of a 6-month fishing sea- son (mid-April through mid-October) and closure of inside waters across the north- ern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Butterfish Total catch of Gulf butterfish in 1991 was 19,490 t (Fig. 10-2), about the average annual catch for the 1986-91 period of 19,700 t. Incidentally captured butterfish by the offshore Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet has comprised from 80% to 97% of the total annual catch since 1986. Length composi- tion data indicate that annual catch is dom- inated by age 1 fish, with few age and age 2+ fish. The current and long-term potential yields are estimated at 26,500 t for Gulf butterfish. The recent average annual yield is 19,586 t (Table 10-1). . . . Southeast Menhaden and Butterfish Fisheries 68 Figure 10-2.— U.S. butterfish landings and index for the Gulf of Mexico, 1980-1991. 25 30 Landings 20 Index 25 Yield (1,000 t) O Ol /\ " 20 15 * CD ■o c 10 5 i i i I i 5 I i I 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Table 10-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels of southeastern menhaden and butterfish. 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 = 1,166,500 t 946,500 t 939,586 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Menhaden Gulf of Mexico Atlantic Gulf butterfish 550,000 370,000 19,586 550,000 370,000 26,500 660,000 480,000 26,500 Full Over Full Near Below Near '1989-91 average. ISSUES Management Concerns The ASMFC FMP for Atlantic menhaden needs to be implemented to manage this resource. There is a demand to harvest menhaden as soon as they become avail- able to the fishery. This practice, known as growth overfishing, reduces the opportu- nity for greater weight production. Transboundary stocks and jurisdiction Because this resource migrates long dis- tances along the coast, interstate coordina- tion of menhaden management is required for Atlantic menhaden along the G.S. At- lantic coast and Gulf menhaden along the northern Gulf of Mexico through the marine fisheries commissions. Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions The importance of menhaden as prey for other species needs consideration with respect to multispecies resource management. The most important issue for Gulf butter- fish is the volume of bycatch taken in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery. UNIT 1 1 SOUTHEAST/CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES 69 INTRODUCTION Important recreational and commercial marine invertebrates in the southeastern United States include shrimp, spiny lob- ster, stone crab, conch, and coral (Table 11-1). Some fisheries, as for coral, are almost nonexistent. Others, like the pen- aeid shrimp fishery, are both extensive and extremely valuable: Shrimp are one of the most valuable CIS. fisheries based on ex- vessel value. Some fisheries, such as those for spiny lobster and stone crab, have only moderate value on a national basis, but are very important regionally. Because of the diversity in species, fisheries, geographic locations, yields, values, etc., each species group in the marine invertebrates must be examined separately for proper perspec- tive. Penaeid shrimp have been fished com- mercially since the late 1800's. The first fishery used long seines in shallow water, until 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 two-trawl arrangement (each about 40-75 feet wide at the mouth) was found more effective. Some shrimpers began using a twin-trawl system which towed four trawls of about 40 feet wide at the mouth. The twin-trawl system is now the most common gear on commercial offshore shrimpers. Regulations in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp FMP restrict shrimping by closing two shrimping grounds. There is a closure of fishing grounds off Texas for brown shrimp and a closure off Florida for pink shrimp. Also, there are size limits on white shrimp caught in Federal waters and landed in Louisiana. These regulations strive to im- prove the monetary value of the shrimp fishery. In the South Atlantic, white shrimp stocks are centered off the Georgia and South Carolina coasts. Brown shrimp are Table 11-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels of southeast and Caribbean 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) = 126,632 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 1 20,025 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 1 26,960 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Shrimp Brown Gulf of Mexico 69,444 Unknown 63,001 2 Over Near Atlantic 4,329 Unknown 3,974 Over Near White Gulf of Mexico 29,463 Unknown 34.403 2 Over Near Atlantic 6,714 Unknown 5,188 Over Near Pink Gulf of Mexico 5,454 Unknown 7,877 2 Over Below Atlantic 1,172 Unknown 1,052 Over Near Royal red 143 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Seabob 2,269 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Rock 3,419 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Spiny lobster Southeast U.S. 3 3,099 2,400 3,565 Over Below Caribbean 135 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Stone crab 4 1,264 1,121 976 Full Near Queen conch 5 55 55 Unknown Over Below Coral 6 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1 1989-91 average. 2 Long-term potential of brown, white, and pink shrimp based upon last observed 10-year average annual yield (1982-91). 3 Yields based upon commercial catches; recreational catch is unknown but may be significant. 4 Yields are in tons of claws; declawed crabs regenerate new claws. landings from Puerto Rico. Fishing prohibited in Florida and U.S. Virgin Islands. 6 Coral harvests prohibited except for a small take allowed for use in aquarium and pharmaceutical industries. Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate Fisheries 70 . . . INTRODUCTION centered off the North and South Carolina coasts. The Atlantic fishery is much smaller than in the Gulf and currently is not managed under a federal FMP. Spiny lobster are managed under a joint FMP, coordinated with regulations by the State of Florida. Current regulations specify a 3-inch minimum carapace length, a closed season from 1 April to 5 August, protection of egg-bearing females, closure of some nursery areas, recreational 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 Fishery Management Council's (CFMC) spiny lobster FMP in- cludes the Federal waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Federal plan is based on a 3.5-inch minimum car- apace length and protection of young egg- bearing lobsters. The conch fishery targets the queen conch but also uses other species. Most conch are taken by divers, and the resource can be easily depleted. Conch are currently protected in state and Federal waters off Florida and in the territorial wa- ters of the U.S. Virgin Islands. An FMP is being developed for the Federal waters off Puerto Rico and the G.S. Virgin Islands by the CFMC. Corals are managed as two groups, hard and soft. Because they are generally slow growing and provide critical habitat for many Fishes, hard corals are protected ex- cept for very small collections taken by permit for research and educational pur- poses. The regulations are based on the fact that their value as habitat is far more important than their commercial use. 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 for research and educational use by permit. Stone crabs are caught mainly in south- ern Florida, though some are landed far- ther 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. SPECIES AND STATUS Shrimp Brown, white, and pink shrimps account for 89% of the total Gulf of Mexico shrimp catch. In 1991 alone, these three important species produced 100,872 1 valued at over $417 million (Fig. 11-1). They are found in all U.S. Gulf waters inside 60 fathoms (fm). Most of the offshore brown shrimp catch is taken at 1 1-20 fm depths, white shrimp are caught in 5 fm or less, and pink shrimp in 11-15 fm. Brown shrimp are most abun- dant off the Texas/Louisiana coast, and the greatest concentration of pink shrimp is off southwestern Florida. In the South Atlan- tic, white and pink shrimp landings are about 20% of their Gulf counterparts, while brown shrimp are less than 1 0% of the Gulf yield. Current, recent, and long-term poten- tial yields for these species are given in Table 11-1. Gulf brown and white shrimp catches have increased significantly over the past 30 years. Pink shrimp catches were stable until about 1985, then they declined in recent seasons and are now at an all-time low. Numbers of young shrimp for each species entering the fisheries have gener- ally reflected the level of catch. The com- mercial 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). Reducing the bycatch of the shrimp industry, however, would help protect finfish resources. The number of young brown shrimp produced per parent has increased significantly, but not for white and pink shrimp (Fig. 11-1). The brown shrimp increase appears related to marsh alterations. Coastal sinking and a sea-level rise in the northwestern Gulf inundates intertidal marshes longer, allowing 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 provided more 71 Figure 11-1.— U.S. shrimp landings from the Gulf of Mexico, 1980-91, and the parent stock abundance indices for brown, white, and pink shrimp. 200 150 Quit shrimp landings White shrimp index Brown shrimp Index ~B- Pink shrimp index f 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 . . . shrimp 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 fishery yields may not be indefinitely sustainable. 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 "seed" traps, but owing to a high mortality rate for these baits, about 30-50% of the potential yield is lost. The recreational fish- ery is large at the beginning of the season, but its total harvest is unknown. Spiny lobster larvae may drift at sea for 9 months, and thus identification of their source or parent stock is almost impossi- ble; however, we need to know far more about their origins and movements to im- prove our management of them. Annual spiny lobster landings for Puerto Rico have averaged 144 t over the past 23 years, varying from 108 t in 1972 to a high of 233 t in 1979, then declining to a low of 65 t in 1988. No precise data are available on fishing effort, but the Puerto Rican stock appears to be overutilized. G.S. Virgin Is- lands landings for 1980-88 were fairly sta- ble, averaging 19 t. stone crab Annual catches of stone crab (claw weight) varied from 1,200 to 1,400 t in the Gulf of Mexico through the 1980's. Recent annual values 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 length of the fishing season. It is unlikely, however, that recent maximum production figures can be sus- tained on a long-term basis. . . . Southeast/Caribbean invertebrate Fisheries 72 Figure 11-2— Landings from the southeastern U.S. coastal waters of spiny lobster, 1961-91, and stone crab, 1965-91. ~ 4 o o o Spiny lobster Stone crab 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES Habitat concerns Estuarine and marsh loss remove critical habitat for young shrimp. Additional stud- ies are needed to further assess the im- pacts of man-induced changes in quantities of habitat, environmental condi- tions, predator abundance, and pollution in the nursery areas. Florida spiny lobsters depend on reef habitat and shallow-water algal flats for feeding and reproduction. These habitat needs may conflict with ex- panding coastal developments. The pro- ductivity of stone crabs in Florida Bay is related to water quality and flow through the Everglades. Specific water require- ments need to be identified and maintained through Everglades water management. A unified program to integrate and study the effects of environmental alterations, fish- ing technology, regulations, and economic factors on shrimp, lobster, and crab pro- duction and restoration is needed, particu- larly in the reef habitats of south Florida. Steps need to be taken to mitigate or re- store lost estuarine habitats. Transboundary stocks and Jurisdiction Spiny lobster stocks in Florida could be of The actual sources of all Florida and Car- Caribbean origin and swept into the region by currents of the Gulf Stream. Another hypothesis is that they could be comprised of a number of different spawning stocks. ibbean lobster stocks (both CI.S. and for- eign) need to be identified and international management established to prevent overharvesting. Management concerns 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 by weight. Modification of the traps to allow more of the small lobsters to escape and implementation of a mini- mum size rule need to be investigated. Small lobsters are sometimes used to bait traps in the lobster fishery. This practice is wasteful and hinders rebuilding the stock. 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 fishing areas and seasonal closure areas. This approach needs continued monitor- ing to gauge its success and prevent re- newal of conflicts. The shrimp fisheries are currently over- capitalized, with more fishing effort being expended than needed to harvest the resource. In addition, harvesting of small shrimp inshore is sacrificing yield and value of the catch by cutting short growth. 73 Bycatch and Shrimp fisheries are small mesh nets and prevent recovery if not mitigated. Mllltispecies interactions can harvest non-target species such as red The turtles are all listed as endangered snappers, croakers, sea trouts, and sea or threatened under the ESA. Shrimp ves- turtles. For the fish, this harvest is often of sels have been required to use turtle ex- juveniles and may be a major source of cluder devices in their nets during certain mortality on these young fish. Some fish times of the year since 1988 to avoid cap- caught by shrimpers are currently at low turing sea turtles and thus protect the stock levels. This bycatch may slow or stocks. Progress NMFS and the fishing industry have been bycatch by shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of working together to prepare a research Mexico and South Atlantic, plan to address the problems of finfish UNIT 12 PACIFIC COAST SALMON FISHERIES 74 INTRODUCTION Pacific salmon support important tradi- tional commercial and recreational fisher- ies in Washington, Oregon, and California. They are an integral part of the culture and heritage of the Pacific Northwest and have been harvested since time immemorial by Indian tribes. Pacific salmon are anadro- mous, spawning in streams or lakes and migrating to the ocean, often travelling hundreds of miles offshore. Gpon reaching maturity, they return to their home stream to spawn, completing their life cycle. Recent yearly commercial salmon land- ings have been valued at about $140 mil- lion at dockside. If recreationally caught fish are valued at $20.00 each, the average annual recreational catch for 1987-90 was worth over $24 million. Some economists think a substantially higher unit value for recreationally caught fish would be more realistic. Salmon management is complex, involving many stocks from various rivers and several management jurisdictions: The G.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), state fishery agencies, Indian management entities, and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). Two species (chinook and coho) are managed by the PMFC's fishery management plan (FMP). The other three species (sockeye, pink, and chum) are managed primarily by the PSC and state and tribal fishery agencies. SPECIES AND STATUS There are five species of Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum. Salmon runs are highly variable in abun- dance. Catches during 1960-91 fluctuated widely (Fig. 12-1, 12-2, 12-3) owing to vary- ing survival rates of the fish at sea. For example, El Nino, an unusual warm ocean condition (see Spotlight 1), devastated chinook and coho salmon stocks in 1983- 85, and both species have recently had poor ocean survival. Though pink, chum, and sockeye salmon catches probably will not change much from recent yearly aver- ages, better coho survival could help them approach their long-term average produc- tion. After excellent survival rates and re- turns in 1988, chinook production has dropped dramatically, and reduced returns and catches are expected. Several agencies hope to double produc- tion of certain Columbia River chinook stocks. Still, for all five species of salmon, there is more fishing gear than needed to harvest them, and strict limitations are re- quired to protect the stocks. Thus, all spe- cies are considered overutilized. Figure 12-1— Recreational and commercial chinook salmon landings (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-91. 3,000 — Commercial landings - - Recreational landings 2,500 I f 2,000 _ /! *- o o o i 1,500 0) c § 1,000 _4 500 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1990 75 Figure 12-2.— Recreational and commercial coho salmon landings (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-91. Recreational landings Commercial landings o 1 — L 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 12-3.— Combined commercial and recreational landings of pink, sockeye, and chum salmon (thousands of fish) in Oregon, Washington, and California, 1960-91. 1975 1980 1985 1990 Table 12-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields (in numbers of salmon), and status of utilization and stock levels of salmon in the Pacific coast fishery. 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 = 1,806,000 1,806,000 0,533,000 Yield (no. of salmon) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY LTPY 2 stock level Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum 1,579,000 2,693,000 3,165,000 2,089,000 1,007,000 2,274,000 3,231,000 3,496,000 1,788,000 1,017,000 2,274,000 2 3,231,000 3,496,000 1,788,000 1,017,000 Over Over Over Over Over Below Near Above Near Near 'Average is for 1989-91 except for pink, which is a 1987-89-91 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 76 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 Judge George Boldt's Federal court ruling in the early 1970's that Washington treaty Indi- ans 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 1991, 3,791 vessels took part in the ocean troll fishery. This was 17% less than in 1990 and 29% less than 1989. Total ex-vessel revenue also declined dramatically in 1991 when compared to 1976-90 real dollar val- ues: 59% lower in California, 79% lower in Oregon, and 83% lower in Washington. For the sport fishery, the number of recrea- tional trips declined 24% from 658,000 in 1990 to 499,000 in 1991. Sockeye, Pink, and chum salmon Sockeye and pink salmon catches in Washington are composed largely of fish migrating to Canada's Fraser River. Although recent Fraser River salmon runs have been extremely large, their G.S. catch is limited under the G.S.-Canada Salmon Treaty of 1985. G.S. stocks of pink, sockeye, and chum salmon, although limited in range and size, appear to be fairly stable. Oncorhynchus gorbuscna ISSUES Habitat concerns Worsening freshwater spawning habitat has been a major cause of the salmon decline. This includes siltation problems and, particularly, the lack of water for spawning and fish passage. For example, Columbia River hydroelectric dams have caused serious fish passage problems, and conflicts have thus grown between fish needs for water, farm irrigation demands, and hydropower needs. Owing to habitat losses, the Sacramento winter-run chinook was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1990. In 1991, the Snake River sockeye stock was listed as endangered under the ESA. The drought conditions in California for the past several years have severely im- pacted chinook stocks in that area. The 1992 run to the Klamath River was expected to be at an all time low level of abundance and caused the PFMC to consider very severe ocean fishery regulations in 1992. 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 supplement natural production, they also compete with or even replace wild salmon. This potential problem must be addressed when trying to increase depressed wild salmon runs. 77 Transboundary stocks and jurisdiction Salmon migrate over great distances where they can be intercepted by many different fishermen from different nations. The problem of allocation and interception is compounded by dwindling stocks. The problems are resolved as they arise by the affected jurisdictions set up to resolve the issues. For example, the U.S.-Canada Salmon Commission has been set up to address the allocation of catch between the United States and Canada. Conflicts be- tween treaty Indian and non-Indian fisher- men do arise and have often been ad- dressed by the Courts. The Boldt decision has set the foundation for catch sharing between the user groups. However, lack of agreement over Indian catch allowances make the setting of 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. Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions Some salmon, mainly chinook, are inci- dentally caught at sea in the Pacific whiting fishery. Though the numbei taken is small compared with catches in other fisheries, this catch becomes a politically sensitive issue when ocean salmon fisheries are se- verely restricted, as in 1991 when toll fish- ing was prohibited in certain coastal areas. Progress Two stocks of chinook salmon in the Snake River have been listed as threatened under the ESA. Recovery plans are being drafted by NMFS in cooperation with vari- ous management and user groups for these chinook stocks as well as endan- gered Snake River sockeye salmon and threatened Sacramento chinook. Draft plans should be available in early 1993. In addition, the Pacific Northwest Power Council has developed a strategic plan for salmon restoration and management in northwest rivers. The plan incorporates the interests of a wide range of groups within the region and may go a long way towards improving the status of salmon resources. UNIT 13 ALASKA SALMON FISHERIES 78 INTRODUCTION Pacific salmon have long been harvested off Alaska. Today, salmon fisheries pro- vide the state's largest nongovernmental source of employment. They also provide important recreational opportunities and are an integral part of Alaska's Native cul- ture and heritage. Alaska salmon catches have been highly variable (Fig. 13-1). The all-time peak catch of 1 89 million fish was taken in 1991. Sport harvest of salmon totaled about 909,000 fish in all waters in 1990. The value of the 1991 statewide catch (329,207 t) has been estimated at $310 million, considerably less than the $540 million ex-vessel value of the 1990 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. Figure 13-1— Alaska salmon landings, 1970-91. 350 — Number landed Weight landed 300 "c 250 _c ■D c CO _l 250 200 150 100 j|w^ 2.5 o o o o 2 o o 0) 1-5 « CO E o 1 m 50 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0.5 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>^^^^^^ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Pacific whiting Pacific whiting stocks are well studied, with accurate ageing, hydroacoustic stock sur- Mer/ucc/us productus veys, and an assessment model that ana- lyzes all fishery and survey data while tak- ing into account environmental effects on the stock. However, additional work is needed to improve 3-5 year ahead fore- casts. The greatest management problems for this species are bycatch of salmon, allocation of catch between the United States and Canada, and allocation be- tween onshore and offshore fisheries. Sablefish Dover sole Sablefish stock assessment is hampered by lack of data. The size and age compo- sition of the commercial catch has only been monitored since 1986, and trawl sur- veys at 100-700 fm have only been con- ducted in a small part of the species' wide range. Imprecise age and stock determina- tions must be clarified by further research. Other problems" are catch allocations be- tween trap and longline fishermen and in- cidental catches of sablefish by trawlers fishing for other species. Dover sole stock assessment suffers from the same lack of extensive, quantitative trawl survey data and similar stock mixing problems as sablefish. Although fishery catch and fishing effort data have been collected for several years, interpretation has been confounded by changing market conditions. . . . Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries 88 Other Flatfish Important flatfish, other than Dover sole, are English and petrale soles and arrowtooth flounder. English and petrale soles have long histories of stable harvests, but they were last assessed in the mid- 1980's. The arrowtooth flounder fishery has recently expanded in part of its range, and more research on them is needed. Thornyhead Thornyheads are harvested in deep water with sablefish and Dover sole. Their catch nearly tripled from 1987 to 1990 owing to increased demand. Data are not yet avail- able for a full stock assessment, but the extremely long life of shortspine thornyheads indicates that their harvest rate must remain lower than sablefish and Dover sole. Rockfish Rockfish are also hard to assess. The age of the six major species caught has been well monitored, but more and better data are needed for accurate stock assessment. Better survey methods must be developed. Assessment of the 50+ lesser rockfish spe- cies will be an even bigger, but necessary, task. ISSUES Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Assessment of the status of these ground- fish stocks requires improved data on catches, extensive research surveys, and information on species interactions. Cur- rently, only landed catch is monitored, but the fraction discarded at sea is poorly known. Information on discarding prac- tices, obtained through observer programs for example (see Spotlight 2), would im- prove the monitoring of these stocks. Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions West Coast groundfish fisheries are charac- terized by a large number of species caught during a fishing trip. This complicates man- agement because any action taken with respect to one species may adversely af- fect several others, either because of changes in fishing practices or due to bio- logical interactions. Since all species can not withstand the same harvesting pres- sure, management controls need to be developed which adequately protect low productivity species while allowing full ex- ploitation of high productivity species. Allocation Allocation of "available catch" to different groups is a difficult and controversial man- agement problem. The Pacific Fishery Management Council must cope with a CJ.S.-Canada whiting allocation, onshore- offshore whiting allocation, fixed gear-trawl allocation of sablefish, and recreational- commercial competition for some rockfishes. Technical assessment of these issues generally rests on an economic analysis that rarely has adequate informa- tion on all sectors of the fishing industry. For some of these problems, individual transferable shares have been identified as a potential long-term solution which the Council has been exploring. Management concerns Perhaps the most difficult problem is man- aging the excess harvesting capacity: There are simply too many boats and gear for the fish available. Today, more and more severe trip limits frustrate fishermen, managers, enforcement agents, and biolo- gists alike, and are economically ineffi- cient. Some alleviation of discard and en- forcement problems has been achieved in 1992 by replacing some trip limits with biweekly cumulative vessel limits. A fishing license limitation program is being consid- ered by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. UNIT 16 WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES 89 INTRODUCTION Important invertebrate fisheries in the Western Pacific have included spiny and slipper lobsters and the gold, bamboo, and pink corals. The fisheries are relatively re- cent and range from the Hawaiian Islands EEZ (Fig. 16-1) to Guam, American Samoa, and various U.S. Pacific islands. The lobster fishery began in 1977, and a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was im- plemented in 1983. The Northwestern Ha- waiian Islands (NWHI) are uninhabited, and there is no recreational fishery— all har- vests are commercial. Commercial lobster vessels are all relatively large and carry about 800 traps which are used on 2- month-long fishing trips. Fishing effort from 1985 to 1990 was close to 1 million trap-hauls per year, about the level which achieves LPTY (Table 16-1). Eighty per- cent of the recent landings have been spiny lobster (Fig. 16-2). The fishery is managed by the Western Pacific Fishery Manage- ment Council (WPFMC). A short-lived (1974-79) fishery for sev- eral 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 exception of one aborted attempt at Han- cock Seamount in the Hawaiian EEZ in 1988, legal domestic harvesting of pre- cious coral within the EEZ has been non- existent for 12 years (Fig. 16-3). There are no recreational coral fisheries. Precious corals within the EEZ are managed under the Precious Coral FMP, set up in Septem- ber 1983 by the WPFMC. Table 16-1. — Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock level of Western Pacific invertebrate fisheries. Species group RAY 1 Yield (t) CPY LTPY Status of utilization Status of stock level Spiny and slipper lobsters 395 407 560 lull Below 1 1989-91 average. Figure16-1.— The main (MM) and Northwestern (NWHI) Hawaiian islands. . . . Western Pacific invertebrate Fisheries 90 SPECIES AND STATUS Lobster Spiny and slipper lobsters are Fished in the Western Pacific, primarily in the NWHI area (Fig. 16-1). They are not abundant outside this region. The NWHI lobster landings and catch- per-unit-effort (CPGE) have dropped sub- stantially since 1989 (Fig. 16-2). Concern that the NWHI lobsters were overexploited during 1990-91 prompted the WPFMC to close the fishery during May-November 1991. Fishing effort in 1991 was 296,000 trap-hauls. The revenue of the fishery in 1991 was $1 million, down from a high of $6 million in 1989. The lower landings and CPGE during 1990-91 were attributed to poor recruitment due to environmental events. coral Fishing for coral is by regular or "experi- mental" fishing permit only. The FMP reg- ulates precious coral fisheries within the EEZ management unit seaward of the MH1 and NWHI, Guam, American Samoa, and the G.S. Pacific island possessions of John- ston Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra, Wake, Jarvis, Howland, and Baker Islands. Figure 16-2— Spiny and slipper lobster landings and fishing effort in Hawaii, 1977-91. 1,200 3 ~— " Landi ngs Effort \ #v 1,000 2.5 3 CO c o 800 - l\ \ 2 a. o ra o ^. 0) co 600 - 1.5 (0 c .O O ■D CO HI -i 400 1 => o 200 - / \ 1 V 0.5 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 16-3— Landings of precious corals from Hawaiian waters, 1966-91. 91 ISSUES scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments 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 17 92 WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND ARMORHEAD FISHERIES INTRODUCTION The bottomfish fishery geographically en- compasses the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), the Territory of Guam, the Com- monwealth of the Northern Marianas Is- lands (CNMI), and the Territory of American Samoa (Table 17-1). In contrast, the pelagic armorhead is fished on several undersea peaks called "seamounts." 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. The bottom- fish fisheries are managed jointly by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), Territories, Common- wealth, and State. The armorhead was fished by the Jap- anese and, until some 15 years ago, by Soviet 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 sea- mounts collapsed to about 0.5% of the 1972 level by the early 1980's (Fig. 17-1). Table 17-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels 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) = 2,81 2 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 819 t Recent average yield (RAY)' = 558 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Bottomfish MHI 404 404 274 Over Below NWHI 98 335 335 Under Near American Samoa 21 31 31 Under Near Guam 20 25 25 Under Near CNMI 15 24 24 Under Near Pelagic armorhead 2,123 Over Below 1989-91 average. Figure 17-1.— Annual catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of pelagic armorhead taken by the commercial Japanese trawl fishery from central North Pacific seamounts, 1970-90. 60 50 j\ ■^ 40 o JS *** in I I 30 3 & 2 10 ' — "- 1970 _i 1 1 1 C 1975 1980 1985 19 30 93 . . . INTRODUCTION The catch was regulated on Hancock sea- mounts in 1977 under a Preliminary Man- agement Plan, but catches still declined and fishing was stopped in 1984. In 1986, under the bottomfish and seamount groundfish FMP, a 6-year fishing morato- rium was imposed on the Hancock sea- mounts. This moratorium has recently (1992) been extended for an additional 6-year period. 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. 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. 17-2). Stock assessments, though somewhat Figure 17-2— U.S. landings and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of bottomfish from fisheries off the a) main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and b) Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), 1948-90. suu ■ ~ ~ Landings Effort . 500 2 400 / N / 1 to O) c 73 C 300 A/ \/ \ A / I 5 200 ^\ t\J \r^-~^ 100 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 800 700 600 500 400 w 300 => Q. O 200 100 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 3UU Landings Effort 250 I 2 200 . . A\ A andings Ol o l\ r^/\ i Z 100 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | i i i ' | ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 2,000 1,500 _ >. n 1,000 o Q o o 500 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 94 . . . Bottomfish 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, overutilization is a concern, and the WPFMC has recommended 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 northern Hawaiian Ridge and southern Emperor seamount chains, though only a small area, the Hancock seamounts, is within the U.S. EEZ. The long-term poten- tial yield (Table 1 7- 1 ) is 2, 1 23 t, 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 CJ.S.-EEZ portion of the armorhead's distribution may not be sufficient to allow population recovery but it is the only portion of the habitat currently under management. Figure 17-3.— Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for pelagic armorhead taken on bottom longlines during research cruises to Southeast (SE) Hancock Seamount, 1985-91. ISSUES Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments 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. Transboundary stocks and jurisdiction 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. Management Concerns The spawning stocks of at least four im- portant 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 WPFMC. UNIT 18 PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 95 INTRODUCTION The fishes in this group range the high seas and often are outside G.S. fisheries man- agement jurisdiction. The status of several is either precarious or unknown. Some species are sought vigorously by both commercial and sport fishermen. During 1970-80, the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) tuna fishery was expanding and was dominated by the Gnited States. Fishing became less profitable in the 1980's, and many U.S. fishermen quit or moved to the Central Western Pacific (CWP) leaving Mexico, with over 50 purse seiners, the dominant fleet in the ETP. G.S. vessels decreased to about 10 in 1990-91 in response to dolphin mortality concerns. Purse seiners (all countries) in the ETP in 1991 numbered over 125. Currently, there is no international tuna management in the ETP; each coastal na- tion regulates fishing within its own EEZ. Gntil 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 a Com- mission member. Also, there is no overall resource man- agement program in the CWP, though the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), which rep- resents the concerned South Pacific island nations, has instituted a licensing program for foreign (distant-water) fishing fleets through access agreements. The G.S. fleet is currently limited to 50 purse seiners in the FFA region under an access agree- ment (South Pacific Regional Tuna Treaty). Presently, there are no management re- gimes for the North or South Pacific alba- core fisheries. In the South Pacific, multilateral discussions between Pacific is- land nations and distant-water fishing na- tions, including the Gnited States, were held to explore various management schemes. Following the demise of drift gillnet fishing in the South Pacific, these negotiations were suspended in 1992 due to lack of further interest. U.S. billfish fisheries (except for sword- fish) are generally dwarfed by foreign fish- eries (mostly longline and drift gillnet). There is no international authority manag- ing these species in the Pacific. G.S. man- agement authority rests with the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council for Hawaiian and Western Pacific waters, and with the Pacific Fishery Man- agement Council for North American wa- ters (although the latter has delegated management to the State of California for swordfish, striped marlin, and some sharks). SPECIES AND STATUS "Highly migratory" pelagic species include tropical tunas (yellowfin, bigeye, and skip- jack), 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 Longline gear is used to catch yellowfin and bigeye tunas across the Pacific, whereas the purse seine is the primary gear in the ETP and the CWP regions for capture of yellowfin and skipjack tunas. Fishing in both the ETP and CWP is conducted generally between lat. 20° N and 20°S. Mexico is the primary fishing nation in the ETP. Others include the Gnited States, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and some other coastal nations. Major fishing nations in the CWP are the Gnited States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan. Cur- rent, recent, and long-term potential yields for the various species are given in Table 18-1. Gears used in the CWP fishery include purse seine, ring net, handline, pole-and- line, and longline. Purse seiners, domi- nated by Gnited States and Japanese fleets, but currently challenged by the fleets of Korea and Taiwan, take 30-50% of the yellowfin tuna catch. In 1 989 the total num- ber of purse seiners in the CWP was more 96 . . . Tropical Tunas than 120. In 1990-91 about 50 CIS. seiners operated in the CWP. 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. Most of the bigeye tuna catch is taken by longline gear. More skipjack tuna are caught than any other tunas. Recent average yield (RAY) of Pacific skipjack tuna by U.S. and foreign fleets is 767,000 1 from the CWP (Fig. 18-1 ) and 87,000 t from the ETP; angler catches are small. The species is believed underuti- lized, 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 well in excess of $450 million. These figures are based on a conservative dock- side 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 resource fully uti- lized. The LTPY for the CWP is unknown because a comprehensive analysis of po- tential yield has not been performed. How- ever, catch rates are fairly steady, and preliminary analyses of stock condition suggest that the fishery may be nearing full production. Table 18-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels 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 yiel i (LTPY) = 1,649,928 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 1,569,261 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1, 2 = 1,601,261 t (430,061 t U.S. landings) Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species and area RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Yellowfin tuna (CWP 3 ) 280,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Yellowfin tuna (ETP 4 ) 282,000 250,000 250,000 Full Near Skipjack tuna (CWP) 767,000 Unknown Unknown Under Near Skipjack tuna (ETP) 87,000 Unknown Unknown Under Near Albacore (North Pacific) 46,000 Unknown 120,000 Over Below Albacore (South Pacific) 43,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Blue marlin 18,742 Unknown 23,500 Over Below Black marlin 1,765 Unknown 1,765 Unknown Near Striped marlin 14,951 Unknown 16,000 Under Near Sailfish and shortbill spearfish 4,392 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Swordfish 24,140 Unknown 25,000 Unknown Near Wahoo 101 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Mahimahi 23,539 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Pompano Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Requiem sharks 8,137 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Thresher sharks 268 Unknown Unknown Unknown Below Hammerhead sharks Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Mackerel sharks 226 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1 988-90 average, 1 987-89 for yellowfin and skipjack tunas, includes U.S. and foreign landings. 3 CWP=Central-Western Pacific Ocean. 4 ETP=Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. 9/ Figure 18-1.— U.S. and foreign skipjack tuna landings from the Pacific Ocean, the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), and the central-western Pacific (CWP), 1970-90. Figure 18-2.— U.S. and foreign 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 North Pacific Transi- tion Zone (NPTZ) 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 Subtropical Con- vergence Zone (STCZ) and from South America to Australia. In the North Pacific, albacore is fished primarily by longline, pole-and-line, drift gillnet, and trolling. Longline gear is used in the lower latitudes, and accounts for about 20-25% of the current catches. The surface fisheries (pole-and-line, drift gillnet, troll) operate in the higher latitudes of the NPTZ 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 is fished primarily . . . Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 98 . . . Albacore by longline and trolling. As in the north, longliners operate nearer the equator. Surface gear is fished in the Tasman Sea and in the STCZ at about long. 160°W. In 1990, about 60 U.S. trollers fished the South Pacific. 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 due to the rapid expansion of the troll fishery and termina- tion of the driftnet fishery in 1991. In the North Pacific, the total catch, catch rates, and fishing effort in the G.S. troll fishery and the Japanese pole-and-line fish- ery have all been declining (Fig. 18-3). Previous assessments estimated LTPY near 120,000 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. Figure 18-3— U.S. and foreign albacore landings from the Pacific Ocean, the North Pacific, and the South Pacific, 1970-90. 1970 j i i l_ 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 generally more abundant near islands, continental slopes, seamounts, and oce- anic fronts, and many are important to local economies; they are caught by for- eign and U.S. fishermen, both sport and commercial. G.S. commercial fishing gears include drift gillnets, handlines, harpoons, longline, 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 gillnet off North America. Because of the many species in this billfishes and sharks category, no precise value can be calculated for the annual catch. However, the catch of swordfish and blue and striped marlins alone are each valued in excess of $2,000/t, with sword- fish fetching $6-8,000/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 99 . . . Billfish and Other Species Figure 18-4— Total U.S. 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. species dominate the "other" catches: Blue and striped marlins, swordfish, and mahimahi. The status of most species' stocks is unknown or uncertain. Assessments using data through 1985 indicated that swordfish and striped marlin were utilized slightly below LTPY, and blue marlin was fished above LTPY; however, new data are needed to confirm or dispute these findings. 120 100 a 80 — Total U.S. & foreign Eastern Pacific O ^ - CWP Landings (1, - X 2 ^■••" i i 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES Management concerns The primary issue for the management of Pacific tropical tunas is the lack of consen- sus on a comprehensive plan for gathering and reporting statistics and for setting up a conservation and management group to represent all interests. The lack of data is critical and prevents conducting an accu- rate tuna assessment, developing in- formed management options, and preparing pragmatic advice for rational ex- ploitation of the resource. Within the U.S. EEZ of the central and western Pacific, including Hawaii, Ameri- can Samoa, Guam, and the Common- wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Manage- ment Council has developed, and the Sec- retary has approved, a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for pelagic spe- cies. The FMP specifically addresses con- cerns about the expanded Hawaii longline fleet and the potential for interactions be- tween longliners, trollers, and handliners by placing a cap on the number of permits issued to longliners and establishing nearshore zones closed to longlining. At the Council's behest, NMFS implemented a mandatory logbook and reporting sys- tem in the region's domestic longline fleet to collect statistics for fishery monitoring. Research is underway to analyze the fish- ery statistics and evaluate the effectiveness of the longline fleet limits. High-seas drift gillnet fisheries have taken a dominant share of the North Pacific albacore catch in recent years. The full impact of the driftnet gear on the stock is not yet clear; however, data from the fish- eries are being collected. In the South Pa- cific, the interaction between the established longline fishery and a rapidly growing surface fishery (predominantly G.S.) needs attention, particularly if alloca- tion of available yield between the fisheries becomes an issue. The scope, structure, and organization of a multilateral manage- ment regime is another issue which needs attention. The North Pacific albacore stock appears to be overutilized, possibly due to heavy catches by drift gillnets. Further data collection and an evaluation of the effects of the drift gillnet fishery and other factors, including environmental changes, are . . . Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries 100 . . . Management concerns urgently needed. Creation of an inter- national forum to manage the stock is an- other issue that needs attention, parti- cularly if the fishing nations want to reap the benefits of a recovered stock. Our scientists recognize that at least one biilfish species, the Indo-Pacific blue marlin is, and has been, depleted over its range and no management mechanism exists to rebuild the stock. Similarly, thresher sharks taken in the west coast drift gillnet fishery may need protection from overexploitation. scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Population levels of the billfishes and other species are either unknown or out of date: There is no international mechanism to collect fishery data on the Pacific-wide stocks, including those portions of the stocks that range in the U.S. EEZ. Basic biological data (beyond catches) are also lacking or grossly inadequate for most of these species. This limits determination of the current condition of the stocks. By- catch of these species by drift gillnets and in other fisheries is another issue. Often these catches go unreported. The impacts of the increased G.S. longline fleet in the Hawaiian EEZ and the Central Pacific high seas on swordfish and other resources are unknown, but the catches are being monitored and research is underway to better assess the stocks. The incidental take of endangered Hawaiian monk seals by Hawaiian longline vessels was also a concern. This problem has been addressed by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council through a strict prohibition of longlining within a 50-mile area surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. UNIT 19 ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES 101 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 1950'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 1 983 (and were important through 1986), joint ventures between U.S. fisher- men and foreign companies eventually re- placed them as experience was gained. Later, even the joint ventures were super- seded by domestic fishermen and proces- sors. Alaska's groundfish fisheries are man- aged by two fishery management plans, one for the Bering Sea/Aleutians and the other for the Gulf of Alaska. Thus they are under constant watch by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). Pacific halibut has been fished commercially since the late 1800's; it is now targeted only with longline gear, though other gear types incidentally catch some halibut. There is an active recreational fishery as well, and about 3,700 t are landed by anglers. 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 Com- mission (IPHC). Figure 19-1— The North Pacific Ocean. 140° 150' 160" 170"E 180° 1 70" VV 160" 150' 140" 130' 120° ' 10 " <,=.„, I /M WBM 9 ' - 60' dM ut 7i 1 Mk *•»' astern ' j| Bering Sea 3r w Go Ale Hot ska t* ft / / / ' v s 0^ bf -"V ^^^t^L. ] l A .' ■ Pacific ^H Coast JM t * P A C 1 F 1 c c E A N w * H^j i Pf H ' W A "*N 1 S '^y^ i- SPECIES AND STATUS Pacific Halibut In 1991, nearly 34,381 t of Pacific halibut were landed commercially (30,057 t in the United States and 4,324 t in Canada) (Fig. 19-2) valued at $110.5 million. About 2,000 1 were wasted owing to fishing by lost gear and discard, and 10,000 t were lost to incidental catches by fishermen targeting other species (regulations do not permit halibut bycatch to be landed). Over 6,100 U.S. vessels were licensed for the commer- cial halibut fishery, as were 435 Canadian vessels. Halibut stocks are assessed annually, and the fishable population apparently peaked at 200,000 t in 1986-88 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 102 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, 1980-91. 50 250 [\1 U.S. commercial landings /7???>^ 40 ITm U.S. recreational landings /^^^^%%^^>^ 200 — Abundance ^s^ /OyyyA^ Ulr\\v^l[ \w\\m^^/// ^^ «-* ** o o o o no 150 o o Y-T ■**" w 0) o> o at c c (0 e ra _l 20 100 "g < 10 50 vNavavaxw 1980 1985 1990 Table 19-1— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock levels for Pacific halibut. 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) 1 Current potential yield (CPY) 1 = Recent average yield (RAY) 2 = 20,000 t 33,500 t 39,250 t Region RAY 2 Yield (t) CPY 1 LTPY 1 Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands 3,200 2,800 1,700 Gulf of Alaska 29,900 25,900 15,400 Off Pacific coast 3 250 300 200 Off Canadian Pacific coast 5,900 4,500 2,700 Status of Status of utilization stock level Full Near Full Near Full Near Full Near 'Does not include 16,000 t for sport catch, bycatch, and waste. 2 1988-91 average. California, Oregon, and Washington. Bering Sea-Aleutian islands Groundfish The average eastern Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands groundfish catch during 1989-91 was about 1.7 million t (Table 19-2; Fig. 19-3). The total catch in 1991 was 1.5 million t, valued at $389 million (ex-ves- sel). The dominant species harvested in 1991 were walleye pollock (1.2 million t valued at $233 million); Pacific cod (177,300 t valued at $90 million), and yellowfin sole (84,000 t valued at $31.5 million). Groundfish populations have been main- tained at high levels under the MFCMA. Their long-term potential yield (LTPY) is about 3.0 million t. The current potential yield (CPY) of 2.77 million t for 1991 is slightly below LTPY. This potential has not been fully utilized because catch quotas cannot exceed the optimum yield (OY). The OY has been conservatively set below CPY, at 2.0 million t out of consideration for both socioeconomic factors and biolog- ical yield potential. Walleye Pollock: Pollock produce the largest catch of any single species inhabit- ing the U.S. EEZ. The three main stocks, in decreasing order of abundance, are: Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) stock, Aleutian Basin (AB) stock, and the Aleutian Islands (Al) stock. The EBS stock is moderately high (above the level that produces LTPY) and is now fully utilized. Another large pollock fishery lies outside the (J.S. and Russian EEZ's in the "donut 103 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, 1976-91. 2,600 2,000 o 1,500 o 1,000 500 - \y\ U.S. landings |i||| Joint-venture landings [x^j Foreign landings — Abundance 1975 1980 1985 20 1990 Table 19-2— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock level 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) = 2,998,685 t Current potential yield (CPY) = 2,773,355 t Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 1 ,661 ,766 t Yield (t) Species RAY' CPY LTPY Pollock Pacific cod Yellowfin sole Greenland turbot Arrowtooth flounder Rock sole Other flatfish Sablefish Pacific ocean perch Other rockfish Atka mackerel Other fish 1,277,200 172,200 106,100 6,400 5,600 31,600 18,400 4,100 12,400 800 21,100 4,200 1,566,600 182,000 372,000 7,000 82,300 260,800 199,600 4,400 23,530 1,325 43,000 30,800 2,020,000 Unknown 268,000 25,200 59,000 1 64,000 144,000 12,200 17,060 Unknown Unknown 72,900 Status of Status of utilization stock level Full Near Full Near Full Near Full Below Under Above Under Above Under Above Full Near Full Near Full Near Full Above Under Above 1989-91 average. . . . Bering Sea-Aleutian islands Groundfish hole" of the central Bering Sea (Fig. 19-1). This fishery is dominated by Japan, Rus- sia, Poland, China, and the Republic of Korea. The fishery targets the AB pollock stock during its migration through the Theragra chalcogramma donut hole area. Catches from this stock appear far too high. Although the status of the AB 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 and 1991 sur- veys showed a combined 45% drop in bio- mass relative to 1989. This decline and poor recruitment over the past 3 years may be due to changing environmental condi- tions or ecological relationships. The cod stock is fully utilized. . . . Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 104 . . . Bering Sea-Aleutian islands Groundfish Flatfishes: Yellowfin sole is the most abundant of the flatfishes. During the 1950's, yellowfin sole was the major trawl- ing target, but it now ranks behind both pollock and Pacific cod. Yellowfin sole is fully utilized. Greenland turbot, the only depressed flatfish stock, is expected to de- cline 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 some other flatfishes. Trawl catches are restricted to prevent excessive inciden- tal 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 low to average, and recruitment has been relatively weak. The sablefish is fully uti- lized. Rockfishes: 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: The Atka mackerel stock occurs mainly in the Aleutian region. Pre- viously, CPY for this species had been set conservatively because of uncertainty re- garding the abundance estimate provided by the 1986 Aleutian trawl survey. How- ever, the 1991 survey confirmed the 1986 estimate, and CPY for 1992 was raised accordingly. The stock 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 level. Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Gulf of Alaska groundfish catches have ranged from a low of 135,400 t in 1978 to a high of 352,800 tin 1984 (Fig. 19-4), with pollock dominant, followed by Pacific cod and sablefish. The 1991 groundfish catches were valued at $133 million (ex- vessel value). Sablefish comprised about 40% ($53.2 million) of the total Gulf value. Other major revenue-producing species that year were Pacific cod ($41.8 million), pollock ($21.4 million), and rockfish $15.9 million). Groundfish abundance in the Gulf of Alaska has been relatively stable, rising slowly from 1984. Arrowtooth flounder is most abundant, followed by pollock and Pacific cod. In 1991, arrowtooth flounder comprised 1 .8 million t of the Gulf ground- fish biomass (4.5 million t); pollock, 0.8 million t; and Pacific cod, 0.4 million t. The estimated LTPY for Gulf of Alaska ground- fish is 413,413 t (Table 19-3). The CPY is 656,604 t, which contrasts with the RAY of 202,309 t. The wide disparity between the CPY and the RAY is because groundfish fishing is restricted to reduce incidental catches of Pacific halibut. Pollock and Pacific Cod: Pollock ap- pears to be at a moderate population level and is considered fully utilized. Pacific cod are abundant and fully utilized, but are expected to decline. Reproduction has not kept pace with natural and fishing losses. 105 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, 1976-91. Table 19-3— Recent average, current potential, and long-term potential yields in metric tons (t), and status of utilization and stock level for Gulf of Alaska groundfish. 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 = 413,413 t 656,604 t 202,308 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY i rPY stock level Pollock 77,425 99,400 151,000 Full Below Pacific cod 65,849 63,500 377,800 Full Above Flatfish 13,548 441,920 168,557 Under Above Sablefish 21,741 20,800 23,500 Full Above Slope rockfish 1 5,087 21,750 21,350 Full Below Thornyhead roc :kfish 1,981 1,798 3,750 Unknown Below Pelagic shelf rockf sh 1,179 6,886 6,886 Full Unknown Demersal shelf roc kfish 498 550 550 Full Unknown 1 1989-91 average . . . Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Flatfish, Sablefish, 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 abundant and are in good condition, though they are projected to decline due to low recruitment. They are fully utilized. "Slope" rockfish, those inhabiting the outer edge of the continental shelf down to the abyssal plain, are at low levels. They grow slowly and are long-lived, and may be showing signs of improved recruitment. They are considered fully utilized. The prin- cipal species in this group, Pacific ocean perch, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish, are highly valued and are in a separate management category. Thornyhead rockfishes are also believed to be at a low level and decreasing. The pop- ulation of pelagic shelf rockfishes is un- known and needs further research. Demersal shelf rockfish abundance is con- sidered to be at a low level. . . . Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 106 ISSUES Transboundary stocks and Jurisdiction The large unregulated foreign pollock fish- ery in the "donut hole" of the Bering Sea (Fig. 19-1) is a major concern as it targets G.S. and Russian stocks as they migrate through international waters. Another major concern is the lack of data to deter- mine the status of the stocks outside the U.S. EEZ. Several international meetings have been organized to develop coopera- tive research and management of the fish- ery. The nations involved have begun to cooperate on research and slowly cut back on the number of fishing vessels. Bycatch and Multispecies 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 groundfish fisheries have been modified to reduce the impact on them. Pollock provide food for sea lions, and some fishing has occurred near rookeries; however, there is a lack of data to show a direct cause-and-effect rela- tionship between the pollock fishery and the decline of the sea lions. The incidental catch of Pacific halibut and king and tanner crabs off Alaska now curtails expansion of the groundfish fisher- ies. When halibut and crab bycatch limits are reached, the groundfish fisheries are closed, usually before harvesting the entire groundfish quotas. Various incentive pro- grams are being tested to control by- catches while improving the groundfish harvest. Allocation As the domestic groundfish fisheries are now fully developed and probably over- capitalized, allocation disputes between user groups have been exacerbated. These problems include inshore vs. offshore fish- eries, longliner vs. trawler, and conflicts with respect to bycatch of halibut. The NPFMC has been developing FMP amend- ment proposals to mitigate the problems. Recent FMP amendments have made ex- plicit allocations to inshore and offshore sectors of the industry, but further work is needed on all of these issues. Progress The need for additional data on bycatch and discarding practices as well as a num- ber of other aspects of fishing operations has led to the development of an extensive observer program on domestic groundfish vessels off Alaska. The industry has ac- cepted and supported observer coverage, although observer costs and operational difficulties occasionally cause problems. These additional data should improve the scientific advice for the development of better management. Recently a two-year moratorium on fish- ing in the unregulated "donut hole" was agreed to by the United States and the nations involved in this fishery (Poland, Russia, Korea, Japan, and China). The agreement, which takes affect in January 1993, allows fishing by monitoring vessels only to keep track of the status of the resource. This moratorium should help prevent further declines in this portion of the stock. UNIT 20 ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES 107 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 1960'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. The king, tanner crab, and shrimp fisher- ies are managed primarily by the State of Alaska with input from a Federal FMP for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island stocks of crabs. The snails are covered by a Fed- eral Preliminary Fishery Management Plan (PFMP). 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 in 1991 was $343 million. All-time high tanner crab landings made up 76%, or $260 million of the total value. Almost all (98%) of the tanner crab value production came from the Bering Sea, where the snow crab (opilio) comprised 77% of the value. Virtually all king crab landings came from the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands (BSAI) in 1991. Total ex-vessel value of this produc- tion was $83 million, compared to the 1 978-9 1 average of $ 1 1 5 million. Red king crab made up 66% and brown king crab contributed 23% of the landed value. About 250 vessels, mostly large and modern and each fishing an average of 250-300 pots, make up the BSAI crab fleet. Over 400 vessels harvest crabs in the Gulf of Alaska, although there is consider- able vessel overlap between the areas. Catches are restricted 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 man- agement areas they may fish in any given year. Vessels which both catch and pro- cess 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 1960-91 (Fig. 20- 1). After a 1964-66 peak, declines were evident. Gntil 1967, Japanese and Soviet 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 Figure 20-1.— King crab landings and abundance for the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, 1960-91. 80 Landings (Bering Sea) Landings (Gulf of Alaska) Abundance (Bering Sea) 500 400 ~ 300 200 100 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . Alaska Shellfish Fisheries 108 Crab 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 1983. Almost all Gulf of Alaska king crab fisheries have been closed since 1983. In the Bering Sea, catches dropped precip- itously in 1 98 1 , 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 167,000 t in 1991. 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. Information on CPY and LTPY (Table 20-1) is lacking for king and tanner crabs; thus the values in that table were derived from historical average catches. 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 reproductive stocks. Figure 20-2— Tanner crab landings and abundance from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, 1960-91, and abundance of two species of tanner crab, 1976-91. 200 12 [ ] Landings (Bering Sea) 5 / Landings (Gulf of Alaska) In 10 « (0 150 -+- Abundance (bairdi) A u \ / \ o o -B- Abundance (opilio) \i M 8 g o o o o o IB 100 - 6 g O) o 73 *-^ C 0) (0 4 g (0 ■a 60 c 3 a 2 < I — u 19 60 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 and stock level 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 potent Current potential Recent average yi al yield (LTPY) = yield (CPY) = eld (RAY) 1 = 11 1,638 t 123,821 t 123,821 t Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species group RAY 1 CPY LTPY stock level Tanner crabs King crabs Shrimp Snails 2 109,910 11,740 340 1,831 109,910 11,740 340 1,831 53,060 31,230 22,582 4,766 Full Full Unknown Under Above Below Below Unknown 1 1989-91 average. 2 RAY and CPY data = 1985-87 average catch, LTPY data = 1971-87 average. 109 Shrimp and sea snail The G.S. shrimp fishery in Alaska waters is at a low level. The western Gulf of Alaska has been the main area of operation. Dur- ing 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 contrib- ute to Alaskan landings, of which the north- ern 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 (J.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 snail fishery, conducted from about 1971 until ending in 1987, reached a peak of some 13,000 t in 1974. Catches averaged about 4,800 t during 1971-87. The snail stocks of the Bering Sea are not currently 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, 1960-88, and snail landings from the Bering Sea, 1972-87. 80 70 60 ^ o o o 50 1- c C (0 40 30 20 10 Shrimp landings (Bering Sea) Shrimp landings (Gulf of Alaska) Snail landings 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 ISSUES Bycatch and Multispecies interactions The bycatch of crabs in trawl and pot fish- such bycatch mortalities, coupled with di- eries is a major issue. Not only is bycatch an allocation problem, the unknown mor- tality of crabs discarded from trawl and pot gear could have a biological impact on crab stocks. When crab numbers are low, rected fishing mortality, could impose un- acceptable risks to stock recovery. Bycatch limits for king and tanner crabs have been placed on groundfish fisheries by the NPFMC. 110 scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments 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. More surveys are needed to improve the information base. These shellfisheries have been marked by major ups and downs in production (Fig. 20-1, 20-2, 20-3) and major perturba- tions in the shellfish industry. A manage- ment 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 ex- ploitation rates are used to stabilize the annual catch by reserving portions of strong incoming year classes of young crabs for future fishing seasons. This strat- egy has met with limited success. More effort should be placed on the problems of long-term prediction of population changes, of the effect of harvesting female crabs on population fluctuation, and of the effects of discard mortality in pot and trawl fisheries. More study is also required re- garding the underlying reasons for shellfish population fluctuations, including relation- ships between predator (cod and pollock) and prey (shrimp) abundance. Other eco- logical conditions that lead to strong or weak year classes, such as those influenc- ing larval survival, are also poorly under- stood. UNIT 21 NEARSHORE FISHERIES 111 INTRODUCTION Many U.S. coastal and estuarine species provide important recreational and com- mercial fisheries that are not Federally managed. This diverse Unit includes highly prized gamefishes like tarpon, bonefish, permit, and snook, as well as tautog, 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, and oysters are also in this group. For 1989-91, 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 and stock levels 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. Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = Unknown Current potential yield (CPY) = Unknown Recent average yield (RAY) 1 = 225,185 t Recent value of commercial landings 1 = $375.6 million Recent recreational participation = Unknown Yield (t) Status of utilization Status of Species RAY 1 CPY L ! PY storJ Ir.'vol Blue crab 95,350 2 Unknown Unknown Full Near Pacific shrimp 27,887 2 Unknown Unknown Full Unknown Sea urchins (Pacific) 23,755 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Mullets 14.372 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Dungeness crab 14.320 2 Unknown Unknown Full Near Oyster (Atlantic) 9,435 2 Unknown Unknown Over Below Sea urchins (Atlantic) 6,563 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Oyster (Pacific) 4.321 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic hard clams 4.308 2 Unknown Unknown Over Below Atlantic thread herring 3,784 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Blue mussel 3,667 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Near Tautog 3,515 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Softshell clam 2,509 2 Unknown Unknown Full Below Ladyfish 2,067 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other shads, herrings 1,876 Unknown Unknown Over Below Eulachon 1,325 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Below Calico scallop 1.210 2 Unknown Unknown Full Unknown Spanish sardine 996 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Jonah crab 660 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown American eel 545 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Ballyhoo 525 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Pacific hard clams 443 2 Unknown Unknown Full Below Surfperches 392 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Rock crab 372 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Florida pompano 357 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Bay scallop 189 2 Unknown Unknown Over Below Snook 139 3 Unknown Unknown Over Below Abalones 133 2 Unknown Unknown Over Below Surf smelt 95 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Permit 66 3 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown California corbina 10 3 Unknown Unknown Over Below Tarpon Unknown 4 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Bonefish Unknown 4 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Striped bass (Pacific) Unknown 4 Unknown Unknown Over Below Pacific razor clam Unknown 5 Unknown Unknown Over Below Pismo clam Unknown 5 Unknown Unknown Over Below 'Based on 1989-1991 average landings or most recent 3-year average. Commercial landings only. Recreational landings only. ■"Not available or not meaningful due to catch-and-release nature of fishery or relatively infrequent landings. 5 Not available. . . . Nearshore Fisheries 112 SPECIES AND STATUS 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 widely distributed. Bay scallops, hard and softshell clams, and rock and Jonah crabs are among the im- portant fishery resources of the northeast- ern United States. Shads, herrings, sardines, mullets, Florida pompano, and calico scallops are fished primarily along the middle and southern CI.S. Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Many of the gamefishes are particularly valuable to the Florida economy, while invertebrates, like the blue crab and Atlantic oyster, sup- port major fisheries from the Gulf to Ches- apeake 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. 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 from the beach or small boats. The small baitfishes and food fishes are har- vested by both recreational and commer- cial fishermen using cast nets, gill nets, seines, dip nets, and pound nets; the south- ern Florida ballyhoo fishery supplies 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 1980'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 employed, particularly for shellfish. Interstate Fishery Management Commission plans have been developed for such Chesapeake Bay species as the oyster and blue crab to try to achieve consistent management between states. Some states, notably Florida and California, have prohibited all commercial 13 Figure 21-1. — Commercial landings of hard and softshell clams and bay scallops from the southeastern U.S. coast, 1950-91. 10 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Figure 21-2— Commercial abalone landings from the U.S. Pacific coast, 1950-91. 600 500 400 (\ s O) c 300 •o c ca -i \ Aj I n 200 \j '\ I ' 100 I i I 1 1 i i i i t i i i i i V I I 1 I 1 l o — 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 . . . SPECIES AND STATUS harvest of certain species by designating them as gamefishes. It is difficult to assess the status of these stocks throughout their ranges because they are under varied management and data collection systems; though individual states may collect data and assess stocks of several of these species, comprehensive assessments are scarce. Many of the spe- cies in Table 21-1 are probably over- exploited, at least in part of their ranges, as with the Chesapeake Bay oyster. Others, like many of the herrings, are difficult to assess because the data on abundance and stock structure are sparse, dispersed, or nonexistent. Stock levels of many of these species are below their historical av- erages. Whereas relatively good biological data exist for species such as oysters and blue crabs, they are incomplete for many species in this unit. The recent annual yield of the species in this unit is conservatively estimated at more than 225,000 t. Table 21-1 presents the best data available, though the yields are probably low for many species because . . . Nearshore Fisheries 114 Figure 21-3.— Commercial blue crab and oyster landings from the southeastern U.S. coast, 1950-91. 120 — Blue crab landings — Oyster landings j i i i i i_ J I I I I I I I I I l I I L J I I I I i_ _l 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, 1950-91. 100 — Dungeness crab landings — Pacific shrimp landings 80 ** o o q 60 in c s c « 40 20 o — 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 SPECIES AND STATUS 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 19,000 1 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. 115 ISSUES Habitat concerns 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 due to pollution, waterflow changes and habitat degradation; and Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico oyster and hard clam harvests have been severely reduced by pollution, disease, salinity changes, and habitat losses. More than half of the Nation's orig- inal acreage of coastal wetland marshes have disappeared and dramatic declines in seagrass beds have occurred. 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. Mosquito control spraying near populated areas, such as in southern Florida, may result in death of juveniles in important nursery areas. Environmental stresses also make fish more susceptible to diseases and parasites, either killing them outright or making them difficult or impossible to market. The diseases MSX and "dermo" have destroyed millions of bushels of oys- ters in Delaware and Chesapeake Bays since 1958, spreading in the late 1980's to coastal North Carolina where similar dev- astation has occurred. Management Concerns Overharvesting 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 in parts of California. UNIT 22 ATLANTIC MARINE MAMMALS 16 INTRODUCTION Marine mammals have been important in the northeastern Gnited States historically both as targets for commercial harvests and in ecological interactions with com- mercial fisheries. Some scientific attention was given to east coast marine mammals as early as 1851 when Matthew Maury of the G.S. Navy's Depot of Charts and Instru- ments published his whale charts based upon whalers logs and records of sightings. The G.S. Fish Commission gave more at- tention to marine mammals after its cre- ation in 1871, commissioning, for example, Starbuck's 1878 "History of the American Whale Fishery." The omnibus series titled "The Fisheries and Fishing In- dustries of the Gnited States" by Q. B. Goode in 1884 describes fisheries for the great whales as well as smaller whales (e.g. pilot whales, bottlenose dolphins, and bot- tlenose whale) in the North Atlantic. In addition to these direct fisheries, there was also interest in the indirect effects of marine mammals on other fisheries. Goode also described the destructiveness of marine mammals to fisheries, a theme that the G.S. Commissioner of Fisheries used in 1889 in supporting a fish meal factory to be built in Woods Hole. The commissioner speculated that the 20 tons of predatory fishes such as porpoises, skates, and dogfish that the proposed fac- tory would process annually "should pres- ent a marked influence upon the supply of edible fishes." The interest of the G.S. Fish Commission was primarily in terms of fish- eries, and little biological study appears to have been done of marine mammals in this region beyond the taxonomic studies of Frederick True starting in the 1880's. For example, he provided written instructions to the lighthouse keepers on "the best means of collecting and preserving speci- mens of whales and porpoises." With the declining importance of the G.S. harvests of east coast species of marine mammals in the late 1800's and early 1900's the incentive for systematic scien- tific study of the species inhabiting the northeastern G.S. declined. In the 1930's and 1940's, Remington Kellogg at the Smithsonian and William Schevill at Har- vard undertook taxonomic studies, but it wasn't until the late 1940's that cetacean biology began to be investigated more sys- tematically. Then Schevill began a series of investigations at the Woods Hole Ocean- ographic Institution of cetacean acoustics that are still continuing. In the early 1970's, several other researchers began studying marine mammals in this region. The re- sults of this earlier work was addressed in 1979 when the G.S. Marine Mammal Com- mission sponsored a workshop to help define research needed for the study of marine mammals on the G.S. east and Gulf coasts. That workshop set a research agenda that was immediately addressed by agen- cies such as the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). During the 1980's, several institutions in the northeast developed active research programs which have resulted in a body of knowledge that is being drawn upon in developing man- agement approaches for several critical marine mammal issues in the region. SPECIES AND STATUS Thirty-six species of marine mammals range the G.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters (33 whales, dolphins, and por- poises, two seal species, and one mana- tee). Their status is poorly known, but some, like the northern right whale, Mid-At- lantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, and har- bor porpoise, are under stresses that may affect their survival. Table 22-1 summarizes what is known about the status and trends of several At- lantic marine mammals. Brief summaries below for selected species give additional data on distribution, current and historical abundance, and population trends. 117 Table 22-1.— Stock assessments of selected marine mammals in U.S. waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. Species Status in U.S. and area Abundance Status Trends waters Fin whale (Eastern U.S.) 5,200 Unknown Unknown I 1 Humpback whale (N.W. Atlantic) 5,500 (2,888-8,1 12) 2 Possibly 65% of its popu- lation size in about 1850. Unknown 1 Northern right whale (N.W. Atlantic) 350 Probably <5% of its size before 1600. Unknown 1 Pilot whale (N.W. Atlantic) 11,200 (3,249-1 9,1 51 f Unknown Unknown Bottlenose dolphin (Northeast U.S.) 600? (1 0,000-1 3.000) 3 Coastal type possibly declined by 50% in 1987-88. Unknown (U.S. Gulf of Mexico) (35,00045,000) 3 Offshore and coastal types Stable 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) 45,000 (19,000-80,000) 2 Unknown Unknown ,,.-, Harbor seal 12,900 Unknown Increasing? Beaked whales Unknown Unknown Unknown E = tisted as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 2 95% confidence interval. 3 Rough range. 4 P = Proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 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 estimated at 14,000 in waters of 100 fm or less. Aerial surveys between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979-82 suggest a northeast G.S. population of 10,000- 13,000 individuals. However, a large die-off of bottlenose dolphins in 1987-88 may have resulted in a 50% or greater decline in the nearshore or coastal types. A survey of that type from New Jersey to Cape Hat- teras in 1987 found about 1,050-7,500. Pilot Whale Two species of pilot whales occur in the North Atlantic, the short-finned pilot whale in the south and the long-finned in the north. The two species overlap seasonally in the Mid-Atlantic region of the western North Atlantic. The long-finned pilot whale occurs northward into Canadian and Greenland waters, and eastward to Europe; it is subject to an ongoing harvest around the Faroe Islands and incidental capture in several fisheries in G.S. and Canadian wa- ters. The short-finned pilot whale may be subject to a low level of bycatch in several G.S. fisheries. Population structure and general life history of both species is very poorly known. Abundance has been esti- mated for the long-finned pilot whale in the eastern North Atlantic (750,000) and for the continental shelf region of the western North Atlantic (roughly 11,000). . . . Atlantic Marine Mammals Fin whale Fin whales, listed as endangered under the ESA, are probably the most numerous large cetacean in temperate waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean. They range widely throughout the continental shelf in all seasons, but most sightings occur be- tween Cape Cod and the southwest Gulf of Maine. Stock structure and total abun- dance are unknown. An estimate of abun- dance off the northeast coast in 1979-82 was 5,200 in spring and 1,500 in winter. Important research and management questions are whether separate stocks exist, the location of calving grounds and annual calf production, and the location of the wintering grounds for the northwest Atlantic population. Humpback whale The humpback whale is listed as endan- gered, and summers in the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the waters of Newfoundland-Labrador, west Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. Along the northeast coast, humpbacks frequent the Great Megoptero novaeangliae South Channel, Georges Bank, Stellwagen Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge during summer. The estimated total population is about 5,500 whales. A minimum estimate of the population prior to commercial whaling (about 1865) was 4,400-4,700 hump- backs. Entanglement with fishing gear and spo- radic toxin-induced die-offs are prob-lems for the species. A yet unexplained develop- ment in recent years has been in-creased summer sightings of young humpbacks in the Mid-Atlantic region— generally in the areas of the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Right Whale Northern right whales occur on the conti- nental shelf from Florida to Nova Sco- tia. The endangered western North Atlantic stock is the only northern hemi- sphere right whale population with a signif- icant number of individuals (300-350)— the other stocks being virtually extinct. The pre-eighteenth century population may have been as high as 10,000, and, if so, the current population is more than 95% de- pleted. Individual identification, satellite tagging, genetic analysis, and the use of airships (blimps) and video cameras to document behavior are new research methods which have been applied in recent years. Many questions, however, remain. Among them are the location of a summering grounds for 30% of the population and wintering grounds for 80% of the population. Human impacts (net entanglement and ship strikes) are affecting some 60% of the pop- ulation and may be inhibiting recovery. The northwestern Atlantic harbor porpoise Harbor Porpoise is found from Newfoundland to Florida. It is hypothesized that there are three popu- lations: Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Law- rence, and Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy. However, there is not enough evidence to test this hypothesis against the alternative of a single population. Little is known about the seasonal movements of this species, except for the presence of summer aggre- gations in the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the east coast of Newfound- land. The 1991 population estimate of the Gulf of Maine population is 45,000 (95% CI: 19,000-80,000). No useful estimates of abundance for the other populations exist. The best estimates of bycatch by the U.S. Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery in 1990 and 1991 are 2,400 (95% CI: 1,600-3,500) and 1,700 (95% CI: 1,100-2,500). These estimates do not include bycatch from fish- eries south of Cape Cod or north of the U.S. border. The estimated bycatch of the other two populations is largely unknown, though some data does exist. . . . Atlantic Marine Mammals 119 Harbor seal Beaked Whales Harbor seals are year-round residents of Maine and eastern Canada, and some of them overwinter in southern New England (SNE). Harbor seal numbers have appar- ently increased in recent years for un- known reasons, and a 1986 count found 12,900 in Maine. Also, in 1986 approxi- mately 4,000 animals overwintered in SNE waters. Bycatch levels are relatively low, and major concerns are competition with fisheries and periodic disease outbreaks. There are four species of beaked whales in the northwest Atlantic, however little is known on their distribution, biology, and population structures. Based on cetacean surveys conducted during the early 1980's and 1990's, these species are distributed along the shelf edge (2,000 m), principally along the southern edge of Georges Bank. In addition, beaked whale sightings were associated with oceanographic fronts and Gulf Stream meanders. Population esti- mates for these species are not available. Determination of minimum abundance es- timates will require substantial survey ef- fort in shelf-edge waters and waters seaward to at least the Gulf Stream off the northeast G.S. and eastern Canada coasts. ISSUES Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions The bycatch of harbor porpoise in sink gillnet fisheries in G.S. and Canadian wa- ters appears to be large relative to likely levels of natural production for this spe- cies. The magnitude of this bycatch and the abundance of this species were re- viewed in an international scientific work- shop in May 1992, and it was recommended that the bycatch should be reduced. Three methods for accomplish- ing this have been identified: Setting max- imum catch limits annually, setting time and area closures, and modification of the sink gillnet fishing gear. Evaluation of these options and research necessary to actually implement one or more of them are of high priority. Bycatch of other spe- cies in this region is lower than that for harbor porpoise, but its significance is not known because of uncertainties about abundance of those species. Of especial concern is the bycatch of several species of beaked whales in the G.S. drift gillnet fishery for swordfish. Marine mammal populations have gen- erally been increasing in recent years, and their increasing populations must be con- suming more food than previously. In ad- dition, increasing marine mammal predation combined with increasing fish- ing activity may have long-term impacts on declining northeastern G.S. demersal fishery resources. On the other hand, stocks of some pelagic species such as Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, and squid have been increasing in abundance in recent years, and certain marine mam- mals appear to depend on these stocks. The net effect of these changing fishery resource levels and the increasing abun- dance of marine mammals is an area of increasing concern. For example, fin whales comprise be- tween 31% and 47% of the cetacean stand- ing stock over the eastern G.S. continental shelf. For the total fin whale population, the annual prey consumption is estimated at 646,000 tons. Of the cetaceans off the northeastern Gnited States, the fin whale has the largest standing stock and the largest food requirements, and is therefore assumed to have the largest impact on the ecosystem. Recent data suggests that changes in both abundance, distribution, and prey species of fin whales are likely. Periodic updates of this information is therefore important. Similarly, the increasing abundance and more southerly distribution of harbor seals, as well as other pinnipeds such as gray seals which have large populations in Canadian waters, have been identified as possibly having a negative impact on commercial fishery resources such as American lobsters and Atlantic salmon. The role of commercial fisheries on the recovery of northern right whales is presently uncertain. For example, more than 60% of living North Atlantic right whales have scars and wounds resulting from entanglement with fishing gear or propeller strikes. Fishing activities have also been implicated in a number of right whale mortalities. . . . Atlantic Marine Mammals 120 Recovery of Protected species Over the past year Endangered Species Recovery Plans have been completed for the humpback and the right whales in this region. These plans outline comprehens- ive management and research agendas that would take initial steps toward ensur- ing the recovery of these species. Critical issues for both species are bycatch and entanglement in fishing gear. For the humpback whale, bycatch occurs espe- cially in Canadian waters, making it im- portant to determine the genetic relationship between animals in G.S. and Canadian waters to assess the affects of this bycatch. As described, in addition to entangle- ment, the right whale appears to be prone to collisions with ships, which may kill or seriously injure individuals. The mitigation of these human impacts on right whales is listed as the main Priority One Item in the Implementation Schedule of the national Right Whale Recovery Plan. This topic was also seen as a top priority by participants in the Right Whale Workshop convened by NOAA/NMFS in Silver Spring, Maryland, in April 1992. During the past decade, mass strandings of harbor seals, pilot whales, bottlenose dolphins, and humpback whales have oc- curred along the G.S. east coast. The har- bor seal population is subject to influenza outbreaks; some 350 animals died in New England waters from this virus in 1980. In recent years, 100-300 pinnipeds, mostly harbor seals, have stranded annually in the northeast region. From 13 to 97 pilot whales per year have stranded off Cape Cod since 1981. Northeast stranding re- sponse groups have been successful in assisting some of these beached animals back into open water. Fourteen humpback whales apparently died of a "red tide" toxin near Cape Cod in late 1987, and seven other young animals stranded and died for unknown reasons. It is unlikely that these strandings have had a significant impact on these species, based on current popu- lation estimates. Stranding of bottlenose dolphins along the G.S. southeast to Mid- Atlantic coast during the late 1980's may have resulted in a 50% or greater decline in the Mid-Atlantic nearshore population. Strandings of North Atlantic right whales are infrequent. But because of the endan- gered status of the species and the criti- cally low population levels, data from the strandings that do occur is vital. It is there- fore unfortunate that more than half of the stranded right whales since 1988 were not necropsied. The stranding network and the protocols are presently being upgraded so that future right whale strandings will not go unstudied. Progress The research program on marine mam- mals in the northeast G.S. which was begun by NMFS in 1980, and expanded substantially in 1987, has resulted in signif- icant improvements in our knowledge of these species. Most recent progress has focused on three areas: Estimates of distri- bution and abundance, estimates of total bycatch, and estimation of vital rates. Surveys conducted since 1990 have es- tablished the relationship of the distribution of several species of toothed whales to the Gulf Stream wall and warm core rings and have confirmed the strong relationship to the continental shelf break. Revised esti- mates of abundance for these species are being developed. Surveys of harbor por- poise conducted since 1987 have mapped their summer distribution pattern, and have allowed development and testing of sighting survey methods for estimates of absolute abundance. A coordinated international multi-investi- gator study, Years of the North Atlantic Humpback Whale (YONAH), is underway for 1 992-95. At the conclusion of the proj- ect, the geographic distribution, abun- dance, behavior, and genetic structure of North Atlantic humpback whales will be known more precisely and reliably than has ever been possible for any pelagic whale species in an entire ocean basin. The project will be a model for the foundation studies required for comprehensive under- standing, conservation, and management o f a cetacean species. A multi-agency, multi-investigator effort to study right whales on their wintering and calving grounds off the southeastern G.S. and to develop a program to mitigate the 121 Progress impact of human interference with right whales has been underway since 1988. The results are expected to provide a model for efforts aimed at assisting the recovery of endangered species. A program of placing observers aboard commercial fishing vessels has resulted in new estimates of bycatch rates of harbor porpoise and other species. By combining these with estimates of total fishing effort in several fisheries based on a previously existing port sampling program, estimates of total bycatch have been made. These have been completed for harbor porpoise and are being developed for other species. These data collection programs are also enabling development of an understanding of seasonal bycatch patterns which may provide a basis for seasonal and area con- trols on fisheries to reduce the bycatch. Biological sampling of the marine mam- mals killed in commercial fishing opera- tions has been conducted with a very high degree of cooperation from fishermen. These samples are being analyzed in con- junction with samples from other regions to determine population structure and net reproductive rates. For example, recent results suggest that harbor porpoise from across the North Atlantic are more closely related than those in other regions and that the natural mortality rates of pilot whales are high for young and older animals but very low for middle-aged animals. UNIT 23 PACIFIC MARINE MAMMALS 122 INTRODUCTION Before passage of the Marine Mammal Pro- tection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and the En- dangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 the only protective measures for marine mam- mals were through the International Whal- ing Commission (IWC) for certain depleted large whales. In 1791, New England whalers first rounded Cape Horn, and by 1820 they had pressed on to Hawaii where they began to take on provisions and recruit men for their northern summers in bowhead whale rich Alaskan waters. An average bowhead yielded 100 barrels of oil, making the area attractive to whalers, even though over 100 whaling ships were lost between 1826 and 1900 due to crude charts and icy Alaskan waters. California's whaling industry is docu- mented back to the mid 1 850's when shore whaling stations were set up, ranging from the state's northernmost border at Cres- cent City south to San Diego. With a hunt- ing range of about 10 miles, they harvested only whales frequenting the nearshore wa- ters. The northern stations hunted hump- back whales at first, but included gray whales in short order; southern stations took advantage of the regular southward migration patterns of the gray whales. Sea lions, reported to be abundant along the California coast and offshore islands before 1860, were also exploited for food, oil, and clothing. From 1860 to 1870, thou- sands were harvested for oil. In 1915 and 1916, a bounty of $2.00 each was paid on 4,074 sea lions. From the late 1920's until passage of the MMPA in 1972, commercial and sport fishermen were allowed to kill sea lions that interfered with their fishing operations. The Hawaiian monk seal is thought to have been abundant when Europeans dis- covered the Hawaiian Islands. However, overexploitation made this seal the endan- gered species it is today. All marine mammals are now protected by the MMPA and by the ESA. Other man- agement responsibilities are addressed in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976, which extends the jurisdiction of the MMPA throughout the G.S. exclusive economic zone, and the Whale Conservation Act of 1976, which was intended to further aid the recovery of whales. SPECIES AND STATUS At least forty-two species of marine mam- mals occur in G.S. Pacific waters (31 whales, dolphins, and porpoises, and 1 1 species of seals and sea lions). Fourteen are commonly seen along the coast (gray whale, bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, and others), whereas the 28 others frequent offshore 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, North Pacific right whale, Guada- lupe fur seal, for example). Table 23-1 summarizes what is known about the status and trends of several Pacific marine mammals. Brief discussions below for selected species give additional data on distribution, current and historical abundance, and population trends. 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 25,000 were killed in 1991). Because those four species also occur in G.S. waters, and because the Gnited States is the major market for the fishery, NMFS has assessed the dolphin populations. The northern stock of spotted dolphins is estimated at 1,51 5,500 and the southern stock at 268,000 (1985-89) based on anal- ysis of research vessel data. Dolphin sight- ings, based on tuna vessel observer data, suggest that both stocks declined in the 1970's, but have been relatively stable in the 1980's. Eastern spinner dolphins num- ber 589,000, while whitebelly spinner dol- phin stocks number about 994,000. Stock specific estimates of common dolphin abundance were based on too few sight- ings and are considered unreliable. Both spinner dolphin stocks have been stable since 1976. Striped dolphin abundance is estimated to be 1,485,940. 123 Table 23-1— Stock assessments of selected marine mammals in U.S. North Pacific Ocean waters. Species Status in U.S. and area Abundance Status Trends waters Bowhead whale 7,500 Current population size Increasing at 3.1% E 2 (W. Arctic) (6,400-9,200)' is 40.9% (38.0-42.0%) of the 1848 population size. (0.1-6.2%)/year, 1 978-88 Gray whale 21,113 Fully recovered and now Increasing at 3.2% E 3 (N.E. Pacific) [19,737-22,489)' equal or more abundant than known since 1846. (2.3-4.2%)/year 1968-88 Humpback whale 1,398-2,040 Probably less than 1 5% of Unknown I (E. Pacific) abundance prior to 1850. Harbor porpoise Unknown Unknown (Alaska) Unknown (California) 4,924 (Inland Washington) 975 (Oregon/Washington) 4,000 Hawaiian monk seal <1,500 Unknown. Small remnant, monotypic species. Unknown. Pup counts declining. E Northern fur seal <87 1,000 Current level is <40% No significant trend D 4 (Pribilof Islands) of the population in the mid-1 950's. since 1983 on St. Paul (San Miguel) 4,000 Increasing Steller sea lion 42,000 Currently 22% of size Declining at T 5 (N. Pacific) in the late 1950's. 4.2%/year, 1960-91. California sea lion 110,000 Unknown, but believed to Increasing at (California-Washington] be at or above 33% of K 4.7%/year, 1975-90. Harbor seal Unknown Increasing? (Alaska) 63,000 Declining (California) 20,000 Increasing (Oregon-Washington) 20,275 Increasing (Puget Sound) 10,000 Increasing ETP Dolphins N. offshore spotted 1,515,000 Unknown Stable (1985-90) (732,280-2,297,400)' S. offshore spotted 268,000 (32,120-502,760)' E. spinner Whitebelly spinner N. common Cent, common S. common 589,000 (379,870-797,170)' 994,000 (446,400-1,541,000)' 468,000 594,000 2,118,000 Common (pooled) 3,178,080 (747,190-5,610,970)' N. striped 172,000 (40,970-303,830)' S. striped 1,314,000 (693,530-1,933,510)' Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown based on analysis of tuna vessel observer data (TVOD) Possible increase (1985-1990) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1985-90) based on analysis of TVOD Stable (1986-90) based on analysis of research vessel observer data (RVOD) Stable (1986-90) based on analysis of RVOD 95% confidence interval. 2 E = Listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered. 3 The California stock of gray whales are proposed to be removed from the list of endangered species. 4 D = Listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as depleted. *T = Listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 124 . . . Harbor Porpoise Harbor porpoise range throughout North American coastal waters. Surveys to determine abundance have been conducted off California since 1984, and periodically off Oregon and Washington. Harbor porpoise tend to concentrate at the mouth of the Columbia River and at many other bays. Estimates of abundance are 11,100 in California (3,274 in central California alone which is 30-97% of the carrying capacity). About 700-1,000 range Washington's north coast. The species was once abundant in Wash- ington's inland waters but is rare there now. The kill of harbor porpoise due to fisheries in California in the 1990-91 fishing season was 62 animals. All animals were taken by the setnet fishery for halibut and rockfish in central California. Bowhead Whale The endangered bowhead whale has ranged as far as the polar ice fields of the Northern Hemisphere. Total pre-whaling abundance is believed to be 12,000- 18,000, but by 1900 it was probably in the low thousands. In the U.S. western Arctic, 18,650 bowheads were killed by Yankee whalers between 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 grown by 3.1%/year since 1978 (Fig. 23-1). Figure 23-1— Actual count of bowhead whales, 1978-88. 6 o o 5 - (0 CO .c 4 CO CD £ S o CD 3 2 I I I I I I I I I 1975 1980 1985 1990 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 19th century. The present stock size, 21,113, 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). In light of this recovery, the Secre- tary of Commerce has recommended the stock's removal from the ESA's list of en- dangered and threatened wildlife. 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. Pre-whaling 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. 125 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 it 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 Alas- kan waters between Kenai and Kiska, where sea lion counts declined from 105,289 in 1959 to 20,000 in 1991 (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 pos- sibly other unidentified factors. 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. Figure 23-3— Estimated population trends of northern sea lions in Alaska for the region Kenai to Kiska. . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 126 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 G.S. waters. The major G.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 G.S. breeding populations are also found on Alaska's Bogoslof Island (1,500), and California's San Miguel Island (4,000). Figure 23-4.— Northern fur seal pup counts on St. Paul and St. George islands, Alaska, 1970-90. o o o 400 300 200 100 — St. Paul Island — St. George Island 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 California Sea Lion The California sea lion has three subspe- cies living on the G.S. west coast and Brit- ish Columbia, in the Galapagos Islands, and in Japan. Between Mexico and British Columbia the population is likely to exceed 175,000 animals at this time. Annual pup production in 1990 exceeded 25,000. The G.S. population is currently increasing at about 5% per year. The documented fish- ery-caused mortality in the 1990-91 fishing season was 2,487 animals in the setnet fishery and 92 animals in the driftnet fish- ery (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. Harbor seal The Pacific harbor seal ranges from Mexico to Japan, and populations south of Alaska are thought to be increasing. California's minimum population of 20,000 is probably below optimum. The population in Wash- ington and Oregon is about 23,500. There are no reliable estimates for Alaska, but on Tugidak Island the population has declined by more than 60% since the early 1970's. If this is typical, then the Alaska population is depleted and below optimum levels. 127 Figure 23-5.— California sea lion pup counts on the Channel Islands, 1975-90. 30 25 - o o o 20 T— CO Q. a 15 _ ^r c o aj CD CO 10 5 l i i i l i i l l i i i i i 1975 1980 1985 1990 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. In 1988, the total population was about 1,500 animals, a 60% decline since 1958. In addition, the monk seals at French Frigate Shoals have decreased by at least 25-40% since 1989. Average counts (including pups) at the five major breeding sites increased from 468 to 639 during 1983-87 but dropped to 480 in 1991. Pup production increased during 1983-88 but dropped 35% in 1990 and recovered only slightly in 1991 (Fig. 23-6). Figure 23-6— Hawaiian monk seal live births, 1983-91. . . . Pacific Marine Mammals 128 ISSUES Studies of marine mammal populations have focused on four primary questions: 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; 3) What actions are necessary to minimize potential conflicts between the ESA, MMPA, MFCMA, and other Federal laws on marine resources and Fisheries manage- ment; and 4) How can marine mammal populations be monitored in the face of environmental variability? Specific concerns in light of these re- search issues are discussed below. Bycatch and Multispecies interactions El Nino events in California (see Spotlight 1) are often associated with increased in- teractions between California sea lions and fisheries. This seems to be related to a change in forage conditions for sea lions during El Nino events, where sea lions tend to feed more heavily on fish caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. Given the increased number of California sea lions at this time, this El Nino could result in major problems for west coast fishermen unless methods for minimizing this interaction are developed in the near future. Another 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 decades. Some fish populations, however, have collapsed and are no longer commercially viable, such as the California sardine. The impact of removing millions of fish and shellfish from the marine eco- system each year on the marine mammals that also eat them is unknown. Incidental killing of marine mammals is another important issue. In recent years, the fishery-caused mortality of spotted, spinner, and common dolphins has been reduced dramatically relative to mortality levels in 1986. In 1991, the kill of dolphins in the ETP, expressed as a percentage of population size, was less than 2% for all the stocks. This level of mortality is considered sustainable. Still, incidental mortality in 1991 likely exceeded 20,000 animals. An international regime is currently being de- veloped by nations that purse seine for tunas in the ETP with the goal of eliminat- ing dolphin mortality entirely over the next few years. 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 the fishing effort was reduced. 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. Observed marine mammal kiils in the foreign high-seas squid fishery in 1989 (only 4% of the fishery was monitored) 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. One fur seal was reported killed in U.S. fisheries in 1990. Zalophus californlanus 129 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. Gray whales have recovered to near levels estimated for the mid-1 800's. California sea lions, northern elephant seals, and harbor seal popu- lations along the west coast are also in- creasing. Some human activities may, however, be affecting the recovery of some species. For example, adult female hump- back whales with calves have apparently been abandoning traditional nearshore calving and calf rearing habitat near Maui, Hawaii, owing to repeated human interfer- ence or contact. Recovery plan action will provide a way to gauge progress in the restoration of endangered and threatened resources. Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Some northern pinniped populations, such as Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, and harbor seal, have declined in the last 20 years. During the same period, other pinni- ped populations farther south along the west coast have increased, such as harbor seal, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. Growing ma- rine mammal populations will raise differ- ent fishery management concerns. The biological information needed to assess and manage these problems is generally lacking. Marine mammal populations need to be monitored on a regular basis. However, annual changes in environmental condi- tions make monitoring more difficult. For example, large-scale oceanographic changes associated with El Nino condi- tions affect the distributions of whales. Be- cause of the expense involved, many of the marine mammal populations are moni- tored only once every 2-5 years. Generally, precision of marine mammal population estimates are such that changes in popu- lation size must be on the order of 20-50% to be detectable, but management advice is often needed before such large changes occur. UNIT 24 SEA TURTLES 130 INTRODUCTION Sea turtles are highly migratory and ply the world's oceans. Gnder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, all marine turtles are listed either 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 maintains 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 G.S. ranges, as is the green turtle, except the Florida nesting population which is listed as endangered. Table 24-1.— Annual number of Number of nesting females female sea turtles nesting on Historic Current Current Status U.S. beaches. Area and species level level trend in U.S. Atlantic Loggerhead Unknown 18,000-21,000 Stable T 1 Green Unknown 600-800 Increasing T,E 2 Kemp's ridley 40,000 700 3 Declining 4 E Leatherback Unknown Unknown Unknown E Hawksbill Unknown Unknown Declining E Pacific Loggerhead Unknown Unknown Unknown T Green 10,000 s 2,200 s Increasing 6 T Olive ridley Unknown Unknown Unknown T Leatherback Unknown Unknown Unknown E Hawksbill Unknown 75 7 Unknown E 'T = Listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened. 2 Listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered in Florida, threatened in the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific. 3 Using 1 .5 nests/female. ''Declining at an average rate of 3%/year since 1978. ^Historical level for Hawaii only; current level is 2,000 in Hawaii and 1 00-300 in American Samoa; current level in Guam is unknown. ^rend in Hawaii only, monitored at French Frigate Shoals, however, great concern exists over increasing frequency of fibropapilloma disease in all Hawaiian green turtles. 'Current abundance in Hawaii; current abundance in Guam and American Samoa is unknown. SPECIES AND STATUS The Pacific species are loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and olive ridley tur- tles. All are also found in the Atlantic Cbelonia mydas Ocean, but the olive ridley does not enter G.S. waters. In Hawaiian waters, the green and hawksbill are most abundant. Off the G.S. west coast, the loggerhead, leather- back, and olive ridley turtles are most com- monly 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 18,000-21,000 (Table 24-1). Most nest along Florida's east coast where nest num- bers have been stable for 5 years. Only about 700 female Kemp's ridley turtles nest along a limited portion of Mexico's 31 SPECIES AND STATUS 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 similar population trends for other sea tur- tles, 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 G.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 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 G.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 G.S. waters is unknown. Since 1973, 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 affected 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. Figure 24-1— Number of nesting females of Kemp's ridley sea turtles, 1945 and 1978-89. ISSUES Bycatch and Multispecies interactions 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 G.S., Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese scientific observers. The effect of these driftnet fisheries on G.S. sea turtle populations is unknown, but the Gnited Nations has agreed to end high-seas driftnet fishing. 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 . . . Sea Turtles 132 . . . Bycatch and Multispecies interactions use is mandated for most shrimp fishing areas. Studies indicate that the use of TED's has reduced shrimp catches only about 5-15%. Shrimpers are concerned about even these small losses, which, in part, reflect poor economic conditions in the shrimp fishery. Habitat concerns Coastal development is reducing nesting, egg incubation, 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 135 The following National Marine Fisheries Service scientists and staff, listed alphabetically, assisted in writing this report: Frank Almeida, Vaughn Anthony, George Balazs, Jay Barlow, Norman Bartoo, Connie Blair, 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, Dave Hamm, 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, Sam Pooley, Joseph Powers, Eric Prince, Jerry Reeves, Anne Richards, Andrew Rosenberg, 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, and Susan Wigley. Pat Sullivan of the International Pacific Halibut Commission contributed to the section on Pacific halibut. Spotlight articles were written by Michael Laurs, Rick Methot, Susan Smith, and Michael Weber. The following National Marine Fisheries Service personnel produced this report: Editors were W. L. Hobart and Andrew Rosenberg, assisted by Sharyn Matriotti and Nancy Peacock. Shelley Arenas com- pleted the desktop publishing with assis- tance from Jacki Geiger. Design, layout, and the front cover art was by Harold Spiess. APPENDIX 2 136 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 Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the G.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 137 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 LIST OF FMP AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTED 1 OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH 30 SEPTEMBER 1992 FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Amendment 3. Final rule published 10/18/91; 56 FR 52214. Prohibited longline fishing within 50 nauti- cal miles of certain Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and corridors between them to pro- vide a protected species zone around the centers of activity of the endangered Ha- waiian monk seal and established a pro- cess for adjusting the size of the protected species zone and/or changing the conser- vation and management measures to con- serve Hawaiian monk seals and other protected species in the area. FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Amendment 4. Final rule published 10/16/91; 56 FR 51849. Extended until April 1994, a moratorium on the issuance of new permits to partici- pate in the Hawaii-based longline fishery to provide a period of stability for the fishery so that the Western Pacific Fishery Man- agement Council and NMFS can complete a comprehensive, long-term management regime. FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Amendment 5. Final rule published 3/4/92; 57 FR 7661. Prohibited longline fishing within 75 n.mi. of the islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, and Kaula; within 50 n.mi. of the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molo- kai; and around Guam and its offshore banks to prevent gear conflicts between longline vessels and troll/handline vessels engaged in the pelagic fisheries. FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Amendment 4. Final rule published 10/31/91; 56 FR 56016. Made extensive revisions to the regulations to prevent overfishing of the snapper-grou- per resource, rebuild species that are over- fished, collect necessary data for management, provide for a flexible man- agement system that minimizes regulatory delays and rapidly adapts to changes in resource abundance, new information, and changes in fishing patterns; reduce user conflicts, minimize habitat damage, and promote public comprehension of, volun- tary compliance with, and enforcement of snapper-grouper management measures. FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Amendment 5. Final rule published 3/5/92; 57 FR 7886. Implemented a limited entry program for the wreckfish sector of the snapper-grou- per fishery, consisting of transferable per- centage shares of the annual total allowable catch of wreckfish and annual individual transferable quotas (ITQ's), and made other regulatory changes to manage the wreckfish sector of the snapper-grou- per fishery so that its long-term economic viability will be preserved. FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 22 and FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Amend- ment 17. Final rule published 3/26/92; 57 FR 10430. Fishery Management Councils and Fishery Management Plans 138 . . . LIST OF FMP AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTED 1 OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH 30 SEPTEMBER 1992 Established a new management subarea and area closures around walrus haulout sites in the BSAI, removed Statistical Area 68 in the QOA, and authorized the Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, to issue experimen- tal fishing permits in the GOA and/or BSAI. FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 23 and FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Amend- ment 18. Final rule published 6/3/92; 57 FR 23321 (partial approval). Allocated Pacific cod and pollock between inshore and offshore components of the groundfish fishery in the GOA, and tempo- rarily allocated pollock between inshore and offshore components in the BSAI. Temporarily established a catcher vessel operational area in the BSAI within which the offshore component is prohibited from conducting fishing operations for pollock during the second seasonal allowance (i.e., the "B" season). A Western Alaska Com- munity Development Quota (CDQ) pro- gram was approved to help develop commercial fisheries in communities on the Bering Sea coast. FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 24 and FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Amend- ment 19. Final rule expected September 1992; pro- posed rule published 5/29/92; 57 FR 22695. Establishes 1992 halibut bycatch limits for trawl and nontrawl gear in the BSAI and authorizes amendments to regulations that would provide for inseason time/area clo- sures to further reduce prohibited species bycatch rates. Authorizes revisions to mea- sures applicable to the management and monitoring of prohibited species bycatch amounts and the vessel incentive program to reduce prohibited species bycatch rates. FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 25 and FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Amend- ment 20. Final rule published 1/23/92; 57 FR 2683. Authorizes regulations to protect marine mammal populations; prohibited trawling year-round within 10 n.mi. of 37 Steller sea lion rookeries in the GOA and BSAI; ex- panded the prohibited zone to 20 n.mi. for five rookeries from 1 January through 15 April each year; established new GOA pol- lock management districts; and imposed a limit on the amount of an excess pollock seasonal harvest that may be taken in a quarter in each district. FMP for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Amend- ment 7. Final rule published 3/26/92; 57 FR 10437. Established a limited access program for the lobster fishery of the Northwestern Ha- waiian Islands, with vessel permit eligibility based on historical participation in the fish- ery; permits are transferable. Trap limits were established to further control effort. Established an annual closed season and an annual quota based on the condition of stocks and additional reporting require- ments to ensure adequate data to monitor and carry out the limited access and con- servation measures. FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 4. Final rule published 4/8/92; 57 FR 1 1914. Added almaco jack and banded rudderfish to the management unit; specified that scamp are counted against the shallow- water grouper quota until that quota is reached, after which scamp are counted against the deep-water grouper quota; es- tablished a 3-year moratorium on addi- tional commercial permits in the fishery, with allowances for permit transfers and 139 . . . LIST OF FMP AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTED 1 OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH 30 SEPTEMBER 1992 sales of permitted vessels, while a more comprehensive limited access system is developed; commencing with commercial permits for 1993, allows the earned income requirement to be met in either of the 2 years preceding the permit application; and made other regulatory changes. FMP for the Summer Flounder Fishery; Amendment 2. Final rule expected September, 1992; pro- posed rule published 6/10/92; 57 FR 24577. Contains measures to reduce the fishing mortality rate enough to rebuild the se- verely depleted stock of summer flounder. Includes annual quotas for the commercial fishery allocated on a state-by-state basis, minimum mesh size for trawl gear, sea- sonal restriction for the recreational fish- ery, bag limits on a trip basis for the recreational fishery, minimum fish size re- quirements for the commercial and recre- ational fisheries, a 5-year moratorium on entry into the commercial fishery, dealer permits, mandatory logbook reporting by permitted dealers (weekly), prohibition on sale of summer flounder caught by the recreational fishery, and authorization to collect application fees for charter, party, and commercial vessel permits and dealer permits. Contains measures designed to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles, especially to reduce the likelihood of incidental catch or injury to sea turtles in the winter trawl fishery for summer flounder. FMP for the Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 3. Final rule expected September 1992; pro- posed rule published 6/16/92; 57 FR 26814. Simplifies the regulations by removing ad- ministrative procedures not applicable to the conduct of the red drum fishery, to comply with a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and to ease an unnecessarily burdensome re- quirement for stock assessments, panel re- ports, and findings regarding ABC and TAC. FMP for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 6. Final rule expected September 1992; pro- posed rule published 7/22/92; 57 FR 32499. Establishes a license limitation limited entry program for the commercial groundfish fishery based on the issuance of gear-specific Federal permits to promote conservation and improve stability and economic viability of the fishery industry, by limiting or reducing harvesting capacity. FMP for American Lobster; Amend- ment 4. Final rule published 1/3/92; 57 FR 214. Reduced the minimum carapace size for American lobster to 3/4 inches (8.26 cm), delayed further increases in the minimum size until 2 years after the implementation of the amendment, and modified the mini- mum dimensions of the escape vent to be consistent with the minimum carapace size to restore uniformity among the Fed- eral and state size limits. FMP for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries of the North- west Atlantic Ocean; Amendment 4. Final rule published 1/7/92; 57 FR 2683. Allows annual catch specifications to be established for up to 3 years, eliminated the existing foreign Fishing "windows" and allows the Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, to limit times and areas in which foreign directed fishing may occur, and allows the Assistant Administrator for Fish- eries, NOAA, to impose special conditions on joint ventures and directed foreign fish- ing, including the requirement that owners and operators of foreign vessels purchase domestic-harvested and processed fish in relation to the allocation of the total allow- able level of foreign fishing to the Nation of the flag vessel. Revised the definition of overfishing for Atlantic mackerel. APPENDIX 3 140 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES COVERED IN THIS REPORT 1 UNIT 1: NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES Principal Qroundfish and Flounders Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus Pollock, Pollachius uirens 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, GlypLocephalus cynoglossus American plaice, Hippoglossoides plalessoides Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus Skates and Spiny Dogfish Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias Skates, Raja spp. Other Finfish White hake, Urophycis 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 Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix Long-finned squid, Loligo pealei Short-finned squid, lllex illecebrosus UNIT 3: ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar American shad, Alosa sapidissima River herring (alewife), Alosa pseudo harengus Striped bass, Morone saxaiilis 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, Pandalus boreaiis 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 plalypterus Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans White marlin, Tetrapturus albidus Longbill spearfish, Tetrapturus pfiuegeri Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus Other Tunas Albacore, Thunnus alalunga Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus Blackfin tuna, Thunnus atlanticus Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares Little tunny, Euihynnus alletteratus Skipjack tuna, Euthynnus pelamis Bullet tuna, Auxis rochei Frigate tuna, Auxis thazard 14; UNIT 6: ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES Pelagic Sharks Thresher shark, Alopias uulpinus Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus Oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus Sevengill shark, Heplrachias perlo Sixgill shark, Hexanchus griseus Bigeye sixgill shark, Hexanchus ultulus 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 breuipinna Silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis Bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas Bignose shark, Carcharhinus altimus Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus galapagensis Night shark, Carcharhinus signatus White shark, Carcharodon carcharias Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuuieri Nurse shark, Ginglymosloma 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 Liburo 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 regal is Dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus UNIT 8: ATLANTIC/GULF OF MEXICO/CARIBBEAN REEF FISH FISHERIES Black snapper, Apsilus dentalus 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, Prislipomoides aquilonaris Voraz, Prislipomoides macrophlhalmus Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Dwarf sand perch, Diplectrum bivittatum Sand perch, Diplectrum formosum Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flauolimbatus Coney, Epinephelus fuluus Red hind, Epinephelus gutlatus Jewfish, Epinephelus itajara Red grouper, Epinephelus morio Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus . . . Common and Scientific Names 142 . . . ATLANTIC/GULF OF MEXICO/CARIBBEAN REEF FISH FISHERIES Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interslitialis Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax Tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca uenenosa 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 rhomboldes Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus Scup, Stenotomus chrysops Black margate, Anisotremus surinamensis Porkfish, Anisotremus ulrginlcus Margate, Haemulon album Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum Smallmouth grunt, Haemulon chrysargyreum French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum Spanish grunt, Haemulon macrostomum Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum Sailors choice, Haemulon parrai White grunt, Haemulon plumieri Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus Pigfish, Orlhoprislls chrysoptera Goldface tilefish, Caulolatilus chrysops Blackline tilefish, Caulolatilus cyanops Anchor tilefish, Caulolatilus intermedius Blueline (grey) tilefish, Caulolatilus microps Tilefish (golden), Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Sand tilefish, Malacanlhus plumieri Gray triggerfish, Balisles capriscus Queen triggerfish, Balistes uetula 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 nouacula Yellow jack, Caranx bartholomaei Blue runner, Caranx crysos Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos Horse-eye jack, Caranx latus Black jack, Caranx lugubris Bar jack, Caranx ruber Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata Almaco jack, Seriola riuoliana Squirrelfish, Holocentrus adscensionis Longspine squirrelfish, Holocentrus rufus Yellow goatfish, Mulloidichthys martinicus Spotted goatfish, Pseudopeneus maculatus Foureye butterflyfish, Chaetodon capistratus Spotfin butterflyfish, Chaetodon ocellalus Banded butterflyfish, Chaetodon slriatus Queen angelfish, Holacanthus ciliaris Rock beauty, Holacanthus tricolor Gray angelfish, Pomacanihus arcuatus French angelfish, Pomacanihus paru Midnight parrotfish, Scarus coelestinus Blue parrotfish, Scarus coeruleus Striped parrotfish, Scarus croicensis Rainbow parrotfish, Scarus quacamaia Princess parrotfish, Scarus taeniopterus Queen parrotfish, Scarus uetula 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 143 UNIT 9: SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES Red drum, Sciaenops ocellalus Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus Silver seatrout, Cynoscion nolhus Sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius Spot, Leioslomus xanlhurus Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus Black drum, Pogonias cromis Southern kingfish, MenLicirrhus americanus Gulf kingfish, MenLicirrhus litloraiis Northern kingfish, MenLicirrhus saxalilis UNIT 10: SOUTHEAST MENHADEN AND BUTTERFISH FISHERIES Atlantic menhaden, Breuoorlia Lyrannus Gulf menhaden, BreuoorLia paLronus Gulf butterfish, Peprilus burli 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 azLecus White shrimp, Penaeus seLiferus Pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robuslus Seabobs, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri Rock shrimp, Sicyonia breuirosLris Others Queen conch, SLrombus gigas Corals UNIT 12: PACIFIC COAST SALMON FISHERIES Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus LshawyLscha Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisuLch Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus kela UNIT 1 3: ALASKA SALMON FISHERIES Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus LshawyLscha Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisulch Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus kela 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 symmelricus UNIT 15: PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES Pacific hake (whiting), Merluccius produclus Sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria Dover sole, Microslomus pacificus Thornyheads Shortspine thornyhead, SebasLolobus alascanus Longspine thornyhead, SebasLolobus alliuelis Rockfish Aurora rockfish, Sebasles aurora Bank rockfish, Sebasles rufus Black-and-yellow rockfish, Sebasles chrysomelas . . . Common and Scientific Names 144 . . . 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 cramer i Dusty rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus Flag rockfish, Sebastes rubriuinctus Gopher rockfish, Sebastes carnalus 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 atrouirens 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 zacenlrus Shortbelly rockfish, Sebastes jordani Silvergray rockfish, Sebastes breuispinis Speckled rockfish, Sebastes oualis Splitnose rockfish, Sebastes diploproa Squarespot rockfish, Sebastes hopkinsi Stripetail rockfish, Sebastes saxicota 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, Atheresthes stomias Butter sole, Pleuronectes isolepis English sole, Pleuronectes uetulus Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus Petrale sole, Eopsetla jordani Rex sole, Errex zachirus Rock sole, Pleuronectes bilineata Sand sole, Psettichthys melanosticlus 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 colliei 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 145 UNIT 17: WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND ARMORHEAD FISHERIES Reef Fishes Silverjaw jobfish, Aphareus rulilans Gray jobfish, Aprion uirescens Squirrelfish snapper, Elelis carbunculus Longtail snapper, ELelis coruscans Bluestripe snapper, LuLjanus kasmira Yellowtail snapper, Pristipomoides auricilla Pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus Yelloweye snapper, Pristipomoides flauipinnus Snapper, Pristipomoides sieboldii, Pristipomoides zonatus Giant trevally, Caranx ignoblis Black jack, Caranx lugubris Thick lipped trevally, Pseudocaranx denlex Amberjack, Seriola dumerili Blacktip grouper, Epinephelus fasciatus Seabass, Epinephelus quernus Lunartail grouper, Variola louti Ambon emperor, Lelhrinus ambolnensls Redgill emperor, Lethrinus rubrioperculalus Seamount Fishes Armorhead, Penlaceros richardsonl Alfonsin, Beryx splendens Raftfish, Hyperoglyphejaponica UNIT 18: PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES Swordfish, Xiphias gladlus Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans Striped marlin, Telrapturus audax Albacore (North & South), Thunnus alalunga Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares Other Pelagics Sailfish, Istlophorus platyplerus Black marlin, Makaira indica Shortbill spearfish, Tetrapturus angustirostrls Dolphin (mahimahi), Coryphaena hip pur us Pompano dolphin, Coryphaena equisetis Oceanic sharks, Families — Carcharhinidae, Alopiidae, Sphyrnidae, and Lamnidae Wahoo, Acanthocyblum solanderl UNIT 19: ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES Walleye (Alaska) pollock, Theragra chalcogramma Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus Sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria Yellowfin sole, Pleuronecles asper Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepls Other Flatfishes Arrowtooth flounder, Athereslhes stomias Greenland halibut, Reinhardtlus hippoglossoides Rock sole, Pleuronecles bilineata Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon Alaska plaice, Pleuronecles quadrltuberculatus Rex sole, Errex zachlrus Butter sole, Pleuronectes isolepls Longhead dab, Pleuronectes proboscidens Dover sole, Mlcroslomus paclficus Starry flounder, Platlchlhys slellatus Rockfishes Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus Thornyhead rockfish, Sebaslolobus spp. Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutlanus Dusky rockfish, Sebastes cillatus Northern rockfish, Sebastes polyspinis Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastes alascanus Shortraker rockfish, Sebastes borealls Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes cramer I Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrlmus Blue rockfish, Sebastes mysllnus Others Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygtus Rattail, Coryphaenoides sp. Skates, Raja spp. Squids, Sepioid and Teuthoid Octopus, Octopoda . . . Common and Scientific Names 146 UNIT 20: ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES King crabs Red king crab, Paralithodes camtschatica Blue king crab, Paralithodes platypus Golden (brown) king crab, Lithodes aequispina Tanner crabs, Chionecetes bairdi, Chionecetes opilio Sea Snails, Neptunea pribiloffensis, Neptunea heros, Neptunea lyrata, Neptunea uentricosa, Neplunea oregonensis, Buccinum angulossum, Buccinum plectrum, Buccinum scalariforme, Buccinum polare, Volutopsius middindorffii, Volutopsius fragilis, Plicifusus kroyeri, Pyrulofusus deformis UNIT 21: NEARSHORE FISHERIES Tarpon, Megalops atlanticus Ladyfish, Elops saurus Bonefish, Albula oulpes 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, Opisthonema oglinum Spanish sardine, Sardinella aurita Surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus Eulachon, Thalelchlhys pacificus Ballyhoo, Hemiramphus brasiliensis Common snook, Centropomus undecimalis Striped bass (Pacific), Morone saxalilis Florida pompano, Trachinolus carolinus Permit, Trachinotus falcalus California corbina, Menticirrhus undulatus Surfperches, Family Embiotocidae Mullets, Family Mugilidae Tautog, Tautoga onitis Abalone, Haliotis 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 slultorum Pacific hard clams, Family Veneridae Atlantic hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria Softshell clam, Mya arenaria Bay scallop, Argopeclen irradians Calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus Oyster (Atlantic), Crassostrea oirginica 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 aculus 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 attenuala Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticelus 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 147 . , . PACIFIC MARINE MAMMALS Other Marine Mammals (cont.) Northern right-whale dolphin, Lissodelphls borealis Whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Harbor seal, Phoca uiiulina UNIT 24: SEA TURTLES Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepid.och.elys kempi Olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys oliuacea Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea Green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas Loggerhead sea turtle, CareLta careLLa Hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata APPENDIX 4 REGIONAL ALLOCATION OF LONG-TERM YIELD 148 Appendix Table 1.- Percentage Unit Northeast Southeast Coastal Pacific Oceanic Pacific Alaska of LTPY from each unit attributed to each region. This apportionment is used to calculate region yield and value for Figure 2. The percentages are calculated based on landings data from 1989 to 1991. 1 2 3 4 5 6 / 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 100% 100 100 100 SO 33 50% 100 100 100 100 67 100 100% 100 100 100% 100 100 100% 100 100 21 25 50 25 Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes