r /i/HOI JOCUMENT O.ECTION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service PB80-180 599 331 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER THE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT, THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT, AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT KATHERINE A. GREEN HAMMOND CONSULTANT, ECOSYSTEM MODELING HOUSTON, TEXAS MAY 1930 W H 0 I DOCUMENT COLLECTION y conservation anc rotection Act,... RETURNED nldTFeb 1988 01 5: ru un I r- ! -D : r- . m i o ; D i r=\ i CD i m p -? a r _ 1 i n c; c Report No. MMC-78/12 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER THE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT, THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT, AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Katherine A. Green Hammond, Ph.D. Consultant, Ecosystem Modeling 4102 Yupon Street Houston, Texas 77006 Published May 1980 Final Report to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission for Contract MM1300885-3 Availability Unlimited Prepared for U.S. Marine Mammal Commission 1625 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 REPRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I . Report No. MMC-78/12 3. Recipient's Accession No. PB80-1 80599 t* . Title -T.d Sohtttlt Fisheries Management under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act ," the Marine Mammal Protection Act , and the Endangered Species Act. 5. Report DJte May 1980 F. Author^) 8, Performing Organization Report No. Katherine A. Green HarmxDnd, Ph.D. J. Porforning Organization Name and Address 10. Projec t/Task/Work I'nit No. Consultant, Ecosystem Modeling 4102 Yupon Street Houston, Texas 77006 11. Contract or Grant No. MM1300885-3 13. Type of Report 12. Sponsoring Organization Na^ie and Address Marine Mammal Commission 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Final Report 15. Supplementary Notes See page ii. lo. Aostr.icc The purpose of this report is to determine what steps might be taken to ensure that fishery management plans (FMPs) developed under the Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act (FCMA) are ecologically sound and fully consistent with the FCMA and with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The relevant provisions of the three Acts were examined and four FMPs were reviewed in detail. Persons involved in developing, reviewing and implementing FMPs were inter- viewed. It appears that FMPs are based primarily on single species rather than eco- system oriented management concepts, so are not fully consistent with the FCMA, and that FMPs do not effectively incorporate potential impacts on non-target species into deterrriining optimum fishery yields, so are not fully consistent with the FCMA or the ESA. In many cases data are sufficient for developing ecosystem oriented management plans . This report recommends that experts on marine mammals , birds , etc . become in- volved in FMP drafting, that guidelines for FMP preparation be amended to emphasize impacts on nontarget ecosystem components, that FMPs should incorporate predator-prey and ecosystem modeling techniques into evaluations of risk to nontarget species asso- ciated with various harvest levels, and that a workshop be convened to identify re- quirements and procedures for developing FMPs more consistent with the FCMA, the ESA, and the MMPA. | ecosystem management; Endangered Species Act; fish- eries management; Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act; marine mammal management; Marine Mammal Protection Act; Maximum Sustainable Yield; Optimum Yield Unclassified 18. Avsil-.M'.it' scace-sac Availability Unlimited Unclassified Fig. A 1 - iilank Re ;x>rt Documentation Page The views and ideas expressed in this report are those of the author. They are not necessarily shared by the Marine Mammal Commission or its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals . 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures v List of Tables v ABSTRACT vi I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODS 2 III. RESULTS p 4 Concept of MSY 4 General Intents and Relevant Provisions of Legislation 6 Fishery Conservation and Management Act. . . 6 Marine Mammal Protection Act 12 Endangered Species Act 14 Implementation of the FCMA . • 16 Representative Fishery Management Plans .... 21 Northern Anchovy Final Plan, 1978 21 Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan, 1978 .... 23 Squid Draft Plan, 1978 24 Spiny Lobster Draft Plan, 1978 25 Characteristics Shared by the Plans .... 25 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 26 Critique of Single Species Management 26 Legislative Intent 30 Ecosystem Orientation 30 Activities of Concern 30 Compatibility of the FCMA, MMPA, and ESA . . 30 Evaluation of Representative FMPs 34 Northern Anchovy Final Plan 34 Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan 37 Squid Draft Plan 38 Spiny Lobster Draft Plan 39 Characteristics of Management Plans .... 40 in Alternative Approaches 42 Conceptual Food Chain Models 43 Whole Marine Ecosystem Models 43 Predator Prey Interactions 44 Risk Assessment 45 Future Developments in Fishery Management Theory 46 Ideal FMP Characteristics 47 V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 48 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 49 VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . 51 VIII. REFERENCES 52 APPENDIX A Individuals Contacted in the Course of This Study A-l APPENDIX B Council Structure B-l APPENDIX C Membership Lists for Councils and Scientific and Statistical Committees C-l APPENDIX D OY and $ Values for Fisheries Covered by Existing Management Plans as of November 1978 D-l APPENDIX E Status of Fishery Management Plans as of December 1979 E-l APPENDIX F Review of Representative FMPs F-l Draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan, 1978 . . . F-2 Final Northern Anchovy Plan, 1978 F-8 Draft Squid Plan, 1978 F-17 Draft Spiny Lobster Plan, 1978 F-20 References F-25 APPENDIX G Fishery Yield Concepts G-l APPENDIX H Marine Mammals in the U.S. FCZ H-l APPENDIX I Glossary of Terms 1-1 APPENDIX J Glossary of Acronyms and Symbols J-l APPENDIX K Suggested Revisions of NMFS Guidelines for Development of Fishery Management Plans . . K-l IV LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone, 1 March 1977 8 2 . Ideal fishery management plan approval and implementation process as of December 1979 20 LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of OY and estimated $ values for fisheries covered by implemented and drafted management plans as of November 1978 ... 18 2. Comparison of certain provisions of the FCMA, MMPA, and ESA 31 3. Comparison of certain aspects of representative FMPs . 35 F-l. Summary of MSY, EY, and OY estimates for major groundfish species, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands F-5 F-2. Calculations of total annual natural mortality for the central subpopulation of northern anchovies at various levels of spawning biomass and fishery mortality F-15 v ABSTRACT The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) established an exclusive U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone extending two hundred miles seaward from the U.S. coast, created eight regional fishery management councils and charged them with developing fishery management plans accord- ing to national standards set forth in the Act, and assigned authority and responsibility for implementing and administer- ing the Act to the Secretary of Commerce. Some of the first fishery management plans, developed pursuant to the Act, did not appear to be fully consistent with the intents and pro- visions of the Act or other related legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . Therefore, in September 1978, the Marine Mammal Commission contracted for a study to determine what setps might be taken to better ensure that fishery management plans are ecologically sound and fully consistent with the intents and provisions of the FCMA, the MMFA, and the ESA. This pa- per reports the results of that study. To provide the information needed to determine steps that might be taken to better ensure that fishery management plans fully consider and reflect the intents and provisions of the FCMA, the MMPA and the ESA, the relevant provisions of the three Acts were examined, a representative sample of persons involved in developing, reviewing and implementing fishery management plans was interviewed and/or contacted by mail, and four fishery management plans - the Final Northern Anchovy Plan by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan by the North Pacific Fishery Man- agement Council, the Draft Spiny Lobster Plan by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Draft Squid Plan by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council - were reviewed in detail with respect to treatment of nontarget species and selection of optimum yield levels in relation to maximum sus- tainable yield (MSY) estimates and relevant ecological consid- erations . From the information compiled and evaluated, it appears that : 1. fishery management plans are being based primarily upon traditional, single-species, MSY management concepts, rather than upon multi-species, ecosystem- oriented management concepts, and, consequently, are not fully consistent with the intents and pro- visions of the FCMA; vi 2. possible impacts on marine mammals and other non- target species, endangered or otherwise, are not being considered fully, or effectively incorporated into selection of optimum fishery yields, so that fishery management plans also are not fully con- sistent with the intents and provisions of the MMPA or the FCMA; and 3. while some scientists and administrators feel that the goals of the FCMA, the MMPA, and the ESA may be incompatible and/or that available data are in- sufficient to develop multi-species, ecosystem- oriented fishery management plans , the three Acts do appear to be compatible. For many areas, data are sufficient to develop multi-species , ecosystem oriented management plans, and at least to assess the risk of impacting target species , dependent species, associated species and the ecosystems of which they are a part. The scientific question of assessing risk levels and the policy question of the acceptability of those risk levels tend to be confused and should be considered separately. To overcome these deficiencies and perceptual problems , the following actions are recommended: 1. Persons with expert knowledge of marine mammals, birds, etc. , should be included on the scientific and statistical committees of the regional fishery management councils and should be involved in the preparation of draft fishery management plans ; 2. The guidelines for preparation of fishery manage- ment plans should be amended to ensure that plans take account of the potential impacts of a fishery on other components of the marine ecosystem, i.e., nontarget fish, marine mammals, birds, etc., in order to be consistent with the intents and provi- sions of the MMPA and the ESA as well as the FCMA; 3 . Fishery management plans should contain conceptual ecosystem models to illustrate the trophic and eco- logical interactions among target and nontarget species ; plans should incorporate techniques for modeling predator prey interactions and whole eco- systems into evaluation of impacts on nontarget species, and should include assessments of risk levels associated with alternative harvesting levels; and vn A workshop or series of workshops should be convened (a) to identify factors that must be considered in making ecologically sound man- agement decisions in the absence of sufficient data, theory, or models; (b) to determine the most appropriate methods and procedures for eval- uating and using available data and theory; and (c) based upon the findings and conclusions rel- evant to tasks (a) and (b) , to develop a fishery management plan for the Bering Sea or some sim- ilar area that can be used as a model for other areas and/or fisheries . VI 11 I . INTRODUCTION Fisheries management has traditionally been based upon the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) , which is single species in orientation, involving no consideration of the relationships between target species and the ecosystems of which they are a part, or of changes in the physical and biological environment of target species. However, it is now recognized that fishery yields and target species pop- ulation dynamics may both affect and be affected by other ecosystem components, e.g., through interactions such as predation or competition with other populations in the same ecosystem, which may themselves be the targets of fisheries. An awareness of the importance of ecological interactions involving living resources has motivated and been reflected in environmental legislation such as the Marine Mammal Pro- tection Act (MMPA) , the Endangered Species Act (ESA) , and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) . The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 es- tablished an exclusive U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) extending two hundred miles seaward from the U.S. coastline, created eight regional fishery management councils and charged them with developing fishery management plans (FMPs) in ac- cordance with national standards set forth in the Act, and assigned authority and responsibility for implementing the Act to the Secretary of Commerce. Several of the first fish- ery management plans, prepared by the regional fishery man- agement councils pursuant to the terms of the FCMA, did not appear to respond fully to the intents and provisions of the Act or of other relevant legislation, especially the MMPA and the ESA. Therefore, in September 1978, the Marine Mammal Commission contracted for a study to: 1. identify actions taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Federal agency to which the Secretary of Commerce delegated authority and responsibility for implementing the FCMA) and the regional fishery management councils to implement the Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act; 2. compile and evaluate a representative sample of proposed and final fishery management plans ; 3 . identify marine mammal species , populations , or habitats that might be affected by U.S. fisheries; and 4. identify actions which could be taken by the regional fishery management councils, the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the Marine Mammal Commission to better meet the intents of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Fish- ery Conservation and Management Act. This paper reports the results of that study. This report is organized around three aspects of fishery management in light of the FCMA, the MMPA, and the ESA, namely the nature of conservation and management required by the Acts, whether present fishery management plans and practices satisfy those requirements, and how existing management plans and practices can be modified to meet the intents of the Acts more completely. The intent of this re- port is to document that the ecological awareness reflected in the three Acts requires an ecosystem level perspective on fisheries management, and that the fishery management plans developed to date do not fully reflect that ecological aware- ness. Suggestions are made for broadening fisheries manage- ment perspectives to include ecological interactions and thus to better meet the intents of the FCMA, MMPA, and ESA. II. METHODS Work began on this study in October of 1978. The first major task was a review of the general intents and relevant provisions of the MMPA, FCMA and ESA to identify the general nature of conservation and management they required. The Acts were reviewed with respect to the conservation and management standards contained in each and the requirements for the de- velopment of fishery management plans in the FCMA. In addition to information on the legislative require- ments of the FCMA, insight into the day to day aspects of implementing the FCMA was required for this study. Thus, the second major task was acquisition of information on the es- tablishment and activities of the regional fishery management councils, the differences in their operating procedures, and the process for drafting, adopting, reviewing and im- plementing the fishery management plans required by the FCMA. To get this kind of information, representatives of the fishery management councils, their scientific and statistical committees and the National Marine Fisheries Service were contacted. All of the individuals interviewed during the fall of 1978 for the preparation of the first draft of this report are listed in Appendix A. ■ About half of them were contacted through telephone conversations supplemented with correspondence. Many of the individuals on the west coast, in Alaska and in Washington, D,C. were visited by the contractor in the course of several weeks of traveling, The contacted individuals were selected from council and scientific and statistical committee membership lists, from recommendations from the NMFS Office of Plan Review, and from individuals known to the contractor in other contexts. Contacts were selected to sample the viewpoints of each council, of both scientific and managerial aspects of the plans, and of academic, council and NMFS representatives. The third major task was a review of fishery manage- ment plans. All of the plans which were available to the public as of 1978, either in some draft stage or in final form, were collected and examined for content. Four man- agement plans, the final Northern Anchovy Plan of the Pacific Council, the draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan of the North Pacific Council, the draft Squid Plan of the Mid-Atlantic Council, and the draft Spiny Lobster Plan of the Western Pacific Council were selected for more detailed review be- cause they represented a range of management problems in- cluding marine mammal issues, endangered species issues, available data ranging from preliminary fisheries informa- tion to fairly extensive ecosystem wide information, man- agement of one or many species, varying dollar values, and east and west coast conditions. The main criteria used to evaluate these four plans were the procedures for selecting optimum yield (OY) and the relationship of the designated OY to MSY estimates, the treatments of possible impacts on nontarget species , particularly marine mammals and endangered species , and the treatment of ecological interactions both affecting and affected by target species and the incorpora- tion of such information in selection of OY levels . The last major task was consideration of possible mod- ifications of existing management plans and practices to meet the intents and requirements of the Acts more complete- ly. On the basis of the assessment of the requirements of the three Acts, the information provided by contacts, and reviews of fishery management plans in relation to meeting those requirements , consideration was given to actions which could be taken by the councils , the NMFS and the Marine Mam- mal Commission to better meet the intents and provisions of the three Acts. Alternative management approaches feasible with presently available data were considered. Some advances required for developing a broader ecosystem oriented theo- retical basis for fisheries management were determined. In addition, means of influencing the fishery management plan development process, and consequently plan contents, based on aspects of the day to day operations of the councils were evaluated . The first draft of the report was submitted in January of 1979 to the Marine Mammal Commission as well as to sev- eral of the individuals contacted in the fall of 1978. In August of 1979, following internal review, the Commission submitted the draft report for review to the Executive Di- rectors of the eight councils, to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) and to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the NMFS . Comments received from the councils, the FWS and many different units of the NMFS as of December 1979 were incorporated into a subsequent draft and the final report. III. RESULTS In order to place the information collected through this study in proper perspective, the concept of MSY is discussed first. The MSY concept is central to traditional fisheries management, related to the selection of optimum yield as re- quired by the FCMA, and part of each fishery management plan. The characteristics of MSY-oriented management are compared to those of a broader based ecosystem level perspective, and modi- fication of the underlying theory is recommended as a means for initiating an ecosystem approach to fishery conservation and management . CONCEPT OF MSY Traditional fisheries management has been based upon the concept of maximum sustainable yield, defined as "the greatest harvest that can be taken from a self -regenerating stock of animals year after year while maintaining constant average size of that stock" (Holt and Talbot, 1978). A different level of sustainable yield is associated with each level of popula- tion size for a particular stock, assuming a constant environ- ment. The highest of this set of possible sustainable yields is the maximum sustainable yield, associated with one particu- lar population level. MSY is also the greatest of the set of Equilibrium Yields (EYs) , which are harvest levels that allow the stock to remain at the same level of abundance. The concept of MSY depends on some highly simplified as- sumptions about the way in which the population under exploita- tion will behave. These assumptions include that the stock is more or less self-contained and is self -renewing , that the population level of an unexploited stock is at carrying capacity, i.e., at the greatest level which environmental conditions will support continuously, and that there are no significant changes in carrying capacity during the period of exploitation. The concept of MSY also assumes that the rates of reproduction, growth and/or natural mortality of a stock are density dependent, i.e., that the rates vary as the population size or density in a particular area varies. MSY further assumes that the kind of density dependence that these rates exhibit is not such as to cause large amplitude fluctuations in stock size and that the process of reducing the initial stock by exploitation is a reversible one (Holt and Talbot, 1978) . The MSY concept rests on the assumption that environ- mental conditions are constant, and does not consider the interactions between the target species and other species in the same ecosystem which are related to or dependent on it through predation, competition or other types of interactions. In particular, the assumptions underlying MSY are strained when more than one stock is fished in a given area (Gulland, 1978) . The MSY concept does not deal with the time scales of changes in population size and population interactions. Such time scales become particularly important when exploita- tion at more than one trophic level is taking place (May, e_t al. , 1979) . Even with MSY management as a goal, various fish stocks have been overexploited unintentionally. Such overexploita- tion has been attributed at times to inadequate data and consequent incorrect estimation of MSY. At other times the economic pressures brought to bear by an overcapitalized fishing industry unwilling or unable to restrict catches to MSY levels , or to reduce catch rates in order to allow stock rebuilding, may have contributed to overexploitation . In any case, single species management with MSY as an objective has frequently failed as a continuous management strategy, and has resulted in overexploitation and reduced rather than high sustained yields. As understanding of ecological processes increases, it has become apparent that there are significant factors af- fecting renewable resource population dynamics which are not taken into account in the theory underlying MSY and single species oriented resource management. GENERAL INTENTS AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION Fishery Conservation and Management Act In passing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265, 13 April 1976), the Congress recognized the importance to the nation of the renewable fisheries re- sources of the U.S. continental shelves. These resources contribute to the U.S. food supply, economy and health, and provide recreational opportunities (FCMA, Sec. 2). Before the passage of the FCMA, fishery conservation and management practices had not been adequate to deal with increasing fishing pressures. Some fish stocks upon which U.S. fishermen are dependent had been overfished substantial- ly. Heavy and frequently unregulated foreign fishing on the U.S. continental shelves has contributed to overfishing and sometimes interfered with domestic fishing efforts or caused destruction of fishing gear. International fishery agree- ments were not thought to be effective in preventing over- fishing or in providing for recovery of overfished stocks. In addition, because it has taken so long to establish effec- tive international agreements, there has been a danger that irreversible effects from overfishing could take place before such agreements could be implemented. A national program for conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources was considered necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild over- fished stocks, to ensure conservation and to realize the full potential of those resources (H.R. Report No. 94-948 (1976)). The purposes of the FCMA were to take immediate action to conserve and manage fishery resources of the U.S. conti- nental shelves , to encourage international fishery agreements for the conservation of highly migratory species , to provide sound conservation and management principles for domestic, commercial and recreational fishing, and to encourage the de- velopment of fisheries which are underutilized or not utilized by U.S. fishermen (FCMA, Sec. 2) The Act established a fishery conservation zone (FCZ) contiguous with the U.S. territorial sea and extending 200 nautical miles offshore from the coast (the same baseline from which the territorial sea is measured) of the U.S. and its territories (see Figure 1). The U.S. exercises exclusive fishery management authority over all fish resources in the FCZ except highly migratory species, such as tuna. Under the Act, the U.S. will regulate the activities of both for- eign and domestic fishing vessels in the U.S. FCZ. Management authority extends beyond the FCZ for anadromous species spawning in U.S. waters, for continental shelf resources, and for fishing activities of U.S. citizens. Conservation and management measures are defined in the Act to include measures designed to avoid irreversible or long term effects on the marine environment and measures used or useful in rebuilding, restoring or maintaining any fishery resource and the marine environment. The definition of fish- ery resource includes the habitat of any fish stock as well as the stock itself. The conservation program should respond to the needs and interests of affected citizens, promote ef- ficiency and draw on federal, state and academic capabilities in carrying out research. . The FCMA provides for the development, implementation, administration and enforcement of fishery management plans and regulations in accordance with national standards for fishery conservation and management. These national standards are : 1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing, while achieving optimum yield from each fishery on a continuing basis ; 2. Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best available scientific information; 3. Individual stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout their range, as far as possible, and interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination; 4. Conservation and management measures shall not dis- criminate between residents of different states; 5. Measures shall promote efficiency in using fishery resources ; 6. Measures shall allow for variations among and con- tingencies in fisheries , fishery resources and catches ; and 7. Measures, where practical, shall minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. These national standards are designed to ensure that a conservation and management program takes into account the best available scientific information, resource variability, industry efficiency, consumer needs, and the best interests Figure 1. U . S . Fishery Conservation Zone, 1 March 1977 (after map from Office of the Geographer, U.S. Department of State). Indicated FCZ is that claimed by the U.S.; some boundaries are disputed by other nations . 8 of present and future generations. The first standard re- quires that conservation and management measures be designed to prevent overfishing while achieving the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery on a continuing basis. "Optimum" with re- spect to fishery yield is defined in the Act as : "the amount of fish from a fishery which, if produced, will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation (especially in terms of food production and recreation- al opportunities) and which is prescribed for that fishery, on the basis of maximum sustainable yield as modified by any rele- vant economic, social or ecological factor." Fishery management plans. In order to carry out a na- tional policy for management and conservation of fishery re- sources in the U.S. FCZ , the Act requires that fishery manage- ment plans (FMPs) be developed in accordance with the national standards and any other applicable law. Each plan covers one or more stocks, establishes management and conservation objec- tives for those stocks, and provides for appropriate regula- tions to fulfill those objectives. As specified in the FCMA, FMPs must contain conserva- tion and management measures for both foreign and domestic fishing, and a complete description of the fishery including its history, commercial and recreational interests, stock distribution, gear, economics, and Indian treaty fishing rights MSY for the fishery must be calculated and documented with the data and formulas used. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), which is a seasonally determined catch that may differ from MSY for biological reasons, e.g., fluctuating recruitment or rebuilding of overfished stocks, is then identified. ABC may be greater or less than MSY. Optimum Yield (OY) , a further modification of MSY and ABC on the basis of social, economic or other relevant ecological considerations, must then be identified. (Definitions of MSY, ABC, OY and other terms and acronyms used in this report are given in the text and in- cluded in glossaries found in Appendices I and J.) The portion of OY that U.S. fisheries are capable of harvesting must be estimated. If OY exceeds U.S. harvesting capacity, then the difference is the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) . The Departments of State and Commerce allocate TALFF among nations. FMPs may also provide for permits and fees for domestic vessels, zones or times of limited, prohibited or special types of fishing, catch limitations, gear regulations, in- corporation of coastal state conservation and management measures, limited access or other appropriate provisions. The NMFS has issued Guidelines for Development of Fish- ery Management Plans (42 FR 34458, July 5, 1977) which in- clude interpretation of the national standards in the FCMA, requirements for plan contents and format, and procedures for the development, review, and amendment of plans, Regional fishery management councils. Anticipating that the development of fishery management plans would re- quire a large amount of work, the FCMA provided for new agencies, the regional fishery management councils, and charged them, among other things, with the responsibility for developing fishery management plans. Eight councils were established with responsibility for the U.S. FCZ , out- side of state waters, divided among them. The designated regions are New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, North Pacific, and Western Pacific. The states and territories which each council rep- resents are listed in Appendix B. The membership structure of the councils is described in detail in Appendix B. For each council there are three types of voting members : those appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three year terms, those designated by the governors of the respective states to serve as state marine fishery representatives, and the appropriate regional direc- tor of NMFS. The councils also have non-voting members who are representatives designated by the U.S. FWS , the Coast Guard, the Marine Fisheries Commission, and the State Depart- ment. Council members must be knowledgeable about management, conservation and harvesting of fishery resources . Council decisions are taken by a majority of voting members present and voting. The Act provides for each council to establish its own scientific and statistical committee (SSC) to provide rel- evant scientific information and advice. Each council may also establish advisory panels as it deems necessary to pro- vide information from sources outside of the government on issues related to consumer, industrial and environmental interests . 10 The fishery management councils have various respon- sibilities , including commenting on foreign fishing applica- tions , conducting public hearings on the development of fish- ery management plans and providing various reports to the Secretary of Commerce. The most important responsibility of the councils is the preparation of fishery management plans. Councils have the final responsibility for determining man- agement objectives, for selecting optimum yield levels and evaluating the relevant ecological, social and economic fac- tors which those OYs incorporate, for compiling and eval- uating information required for the determination of OY , and for identifying data gaps 'and recommending appropriate re- search if OY cannot be determined. Role of NMFS and the Secretary of Commerce. Under the FCMA the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for reviewing all fishery management plans with respect to the national standards established in the Act as well as other provisions of the Act and any other applicable laws. The Secretary also has the discretion to preempt state jurisdiction over waters from 0 to 3 nautical miles from the coast in cases where a state has taken, or omitted to take, action thereby substan- tially and adversely affecting a fishery management plan. Otherwise, the FCMA does not extend or diminish the juris- diction of the states which have traditionally managed fish- eries in territorial waters. The FCMA assigns various other responsibilities to the Secretary of Commerce, which have been delegated to the NMFS. Among these responsibilities is collection of information in- cluding statistics on fishery conservation and management, biological research on the interdependence of fisheries or stocks, the impacts of pollution, the impact of wetland and estuarine degradation, and matters bearing on the abundance and availability of fish. Collection of such information re- quires a comprehensive research program initiated and main- tained by the NMFS. Other responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Com- merce and delegated to NOAA and NMFS include the development of preliminary fishery management plans regulating only for- eign fishing activities in the U.S. FCZ , providing coordina- tion with other federal agencies, furnishing relevant informa- tion to councils, reviewing management plans and amendments (plans must have NMFS approval before they can be implemented) designating which council has the lead in developing an FMP in cases where a fish stock extends into more than one council region, and promulgating regulations to implement FMPs and cooperating with the Coast Guard for their enforcement. 11 The Washington, D.C. office of NMFS concerned with ac- tivities under the FCMA is the Office of Resource Conserva- tion and Management, which includes a Plan Review Division and plan coordinators. The Plan Review Division, Office of General Council, Regulations Division, and other appropriate sections of the NMFS review draft management plans and as- sociated draft regulations. The NMFS assists councils in complying with provisions of the National Environmental Pol- icy Act (NEPA) and implementing Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. The NMFS Office of Science and Environment has oversight responsibility for the EIS process. Marine Mammal Protection Act Prior to the passage of the MMPA in 1972, marine mammal protection and conservation were the responsibilities of coastal states, such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, etc., and/or international authorities, such as the Inter- national Whaling Commission (IWC) , the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, and the International Commission on North Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) . Management by some of these authorities, particularly the international ones, was not very effective. In the late 1960s this led to expressions of concern, by the American public and the Congress, that certain species and populations of marine mammals were in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities. The regulation of commercial whaling by the IWC, the incidental take of por- poise by the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet, and the clubbing of "baby" harp seals in the North Atlantic were of particular concern (see, e.g., H. R. Report No. 92-707 (1972), H. R. Re- port 92-1488 (1972), and S. Rep. No. 92-863 (1972) ). The Marine Mammal Protection Act (P. L. 92-522, 21 Octo- ber 1972) established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and/or the importation of marine mam- mals and marine mammal products into the U.S. The Act pro- vides a special exemption for the taking of marine mammals by certain natives for subsistence, handicrafts, and clothing. "Take" is defined in the Act as harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammals . The Act provides for waiver of the moratorium and return of management to the states. It also provides for issuing permits to take marine mammals for purposes of public display, scientific research, and incidentally during fishing opera- tions. Under the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible 12 for cetaceans and pinnipeds other than walrus, while the Secretary of Interior is responsible for all other marine mammals (i.e., walrus, manatees, dugongs , sea otters, and polar bears) . The Secretaries of Commerce and Interior have delegated responsibilities to the NMFS and the U.S. FWS , respectively. The Act created the Marine Mammal Commission and charged it with overviewing all U.S. activities bearing upon the con- servation and protection of marine mammals . The Commission consists of three individuals, knowledgeable in the fields of marine ecology and resource management , and is appointed by the President. The Commission has an Executive Director and staff, and a nine member Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals . The primary objective of the MMPA is to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem and, whenever consistent with this primary objective, to obtain and main- tain optimum sustainable populations of marine mammals. The Act defines "optimum sustainable population" (OSP) as: "the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the optimum carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element." "Optimum carrying capacity" is defined in the Act as : "the ability of a given habitat to support the optimum sustainable population of a species or population stock in a healthy state without diminishing the ability of the habitat to continue that function." The statutory definition of OSP has been interpreted in regulations of the NMFS which define it for application in the management context as follows : "Optimum sustainable population is a pop- ulation size which falls within a range from the population level of a given spe- cies or stock which is the largest support- able within the ecosystem to the population 13 level that results in maximum net productiv- ity. Maximum net productivity is the great- est net annual increment in population num- bers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality." (50 CFR 216.3) This operational definition of OSP has been used in the course of decisions concerning the status of porpoise stocks impacted by the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery (Smith, 1979) , and the waiver of the moratorium on taking marine mam- mals in Alaska (44 FR 2540-54, 11 January, 1979). In 1976, the MMPA was amended by Section 404 of the FCMA to include within the term "waters under the jurisdiction of the United States" the waters of the U.S. FCZ established by the FCMA. Endangered Species Act Prior to passage of the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205, 28 December 1973) the U.S. had become a party to several international agreements concerning various species of fish, wildlife or plants which were verging on extinction, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The ESA provided national recognition that species of fish, wildlife and plants which have aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recrea- tional and scientific value have become extinct or presently face extinction as a consequence of economic growth and de- velopment without adequate concern for and conservation of such species . The ESA recognized that endangered and threatened spe- cies depend for their existence upon the ecosystems of which they are a part. One of the purposes of the ESA was to pro- vide a means for conserving such ecosystems. Other purposes included provision for a program for the conservation of en- dangered and threatened species, and the taking of appropriate action to achieve the purposes of treaties and conventions concerning endangered species to which the U.S. is a party. It was congressional policy that all federal departments and agencies use their authority in furthering the purposes of the ESA and conservation of endangered and threatened species. 14 The term "conservation" is defined in the Act to mean: "to use, and the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened spe- cies to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activ- ities associated with scientific resource management, such, as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and main- tenance, propagation, live trapping and transportation and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise re- lieved, may include regulated taking." The term "endangered species" is defined in the Act as : "any species which is in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of its range, other than a species of the Class In- secta, determined by the Secretary to consti- tute a pest whose protection under the pro- visions of this Act would present an over- whelming and overriding risk to man." The term "threatened species" means "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the fore- seeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range". The definitions apply to the animal and plant king- doms . The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to de- velop a list of endangered and threatened species and to publish that list in the Federal Register. After consultation as appropriate with the relevant states, the Secretary may designate certain "critical habitats" for particular threat- ened or endangered species. The Act prohibits the taking, importing, possessing, delivering, carrying or selling of threatened and endangered species, including live animals, dead bodies or parts of bodies . 15 Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with the Department of Commerce (NMFS) or the Depart- ment of the Interior (FUS) to insure that any actions taken do not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or modification of any critical habitat. The Act as recently amended also requires that recovery plans be developed for all endangered or threatened species. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FCMA Councils . In order to put the FCMA into practice, re- gional fishery management councils have been established as required in the legislation. Fishery management councils are "quasi-federal" agencies. They operate under a cooperative agreement for administrative and contract work from the Department of Commerce. Most coun- cils have a staff of seven to nine individuals, including ex- perts in biology and economics . Councils meet approximately monthly. The regional councils are responsible separately or jointly for the development of FMPs for various fishery stocks. The choice of management objectives for an FMP is a critical one. Councils may hold public hearings on manage- ment objectives for particular FMPs. Committees : Each council has established its own sci- entific and statistical committee (SSC) and advisory panels. Membership lists for the councils and SSCs as of late 1979 are in Appendix C. Most SSCs have 10 to 20 members who are academic, federal or state employees, or private individuals, including economists, statisticians and biologists. The SSCs function to ensure the scientific validity of management plans, advise on the attainability of objectives, make sure that ex- pectations of the data are realistic, review objectives and test assumptions. Individual SSC members may work in plan drafting groups, but the SSC as a whole does not do any draft- ing. SSC members are aware of research in progress and avail- able data. They identify data gaps and suggest data require- ments. The SSCs may recommend members of plan development teams, review proposals and contract submissions, and provide technical review or data analysis for calculations of MSY, ABC, EY and OY . The councils also have established stock specific ad- visory panels of locally knowledgeable individuals represent- ing various interest groups, including commercial and recrea- tional fishermen, consumers and environmentalists. 16 Differences Among Councils : Although councils share common structure and objectives, their day to day workings differ. The North Pacific Council supports about $0.5 million of research annually, a large amount in comparison to other councils. Council sponsored research is largely aimed at data gaps in the FMPs and supports short term projects which are not funded elsewhere. Alaska has 33,000 miles of coast- line and a very large FCZ . Half of the dollar value of fish- eries covered by implemented or drafted FMPs as of November 1978 came from North Pacific FCZ fisheries (see Table 1) . The North Pacific Council works closely with Alaska's Board of Fisheries and Board of Game which have final authority over state regulations. For the crab and troll salmon management plans there has been cooperation to coordinate regulations from 0 to 3 miles and 3 to 200 miles. The North Pacific Council usually has draft management plans developed by con- tract . The Pacific Council usually uses plan development teams rather than contracts for drafting management plans. There appears to be excellent cooperation among the state and fed- eral agencies involved in fisheries management on the west coast. The SSCs of the Pacific and North Pacific Councils are considered by several NMFS personnel who have worked with them to be exemplary, because of the quality and diversity of expertise represented on those SSCs and the extent of SSC- Council interactions. Those SSCs are used extensively by the respective Councils so that work on the SSC is quite demanding The Western Pacific Council deals with the FCZ around Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the northern Marianas and seve- ral scattered uninhabited possessions . The total land area is 7,450 sq. mi. The total surrounding FCZ area is over 3 million sq. mi. On the east coast, councils deal with a larger number of states apiece and with state fish and game agencies which in some cases are not as active as those on the west coast. Consequently, operations differ. The Atlantic Groundfish Plan prepared by the New England Council, implemented on an emergency basis in March 1977, was the first FMP to be implemented under the FCMA. The draft plan was prepared by council staff and NMFS staff. A new long term management document for that fishery is being de- veloped by the council staff, with data collection and 17 Table 1. Summary of OY and estimated $ values for fisheries covered by implemented and drafted management plans as of November 1978. (Supporting calculations in Appendix D.) Council Total OY (mt) Total $ Value North Pacific - Gulf of Alaska 392,000 59,731,000 North Pacific - Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands 1,649,240 356,847,000 Pacific 650,200 100,500,000 Western Pacific 2,351 1,551,800 New England 202,900 62,245,000 New England and mid-Atlantic 385,200 70,002,500 New England, mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 15,484 7,568,000 Total 3,297,375 658,458,800 18 analysis done by contract. For other plans, the New England council anticipates descriptive biological and socio-economic information, and staff preparation of additional analysis and alternative management strategies. Draft plan development : The councils identify the need for plans and define the fishery stock. They may act on their own initiative or in response to requests for development of a plan. Councils adopt the management objectives for a plan by majority vote. Once objectives are established, the actual drafting of an FMP may be done by council staff, by a plan development team, or wholly or partially by contract. A council may contract for data collection if necessary. A lead agency may be designated to coordinate plan development. State and federal officials are usually involved to some extent in plan drafting. There is always liaison with council staff as well as input from SSCs and advisory panels during the draft- ing process. There may be public hearings on various aspects of the draft. A majority vote is required for adoption of a draft FMP by a Council. Plan adoption usually follows identi- fication of the need for the plan by a year or more . Plan approval and implementation process . After adop- tion by the council , a draft plan must undergo review re- quirements established by the FCMA, requirements for an en- vironmental impact statement (EIS) under the NEPA and sub- sequent CEQ regulations , and requirements for a regulatory analysis concerning its impact on the economy as required under Executive Order 12044 of 1979. The approval process under ideal conditions is diagrammed in Figure 2. A draft FMP must be accompanied by a draft EIS as well as a draft regulatory analysis. The draft EIS and draft regulatory analysis are usually prepared by the council, but may be prepared by the Plan Review Division of NMFS which oversees the implementation process . In response to comments from the various reviews , re- visions may be required in the draft plan. Allowing for time required to revise and transmit the draft plan to the various agencies, a plan without major revisions may take nine months from adoption of the draft by the Council to effective implementing regulations. With major revisions, the approval and implementation process could take up to two years , or more . After regulations are in force, a mangement plan may still undergo annual updating or major revisions as new in- formation becomes available , with regulations revised ac- cordingly . 19 Figure 2. Ideal fishery management plan approval and implementation process as of December 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Fishery Management Plan/ -> Regulatory Analysis adopted by Council i DEIS/FMP/Reg. Anal, cleared by Plan Review Division, NMFS NEPA requirement V DEIS to EPA; 60 day public review major v revisions FEIS to EPA ^y X draft FMP review by PI an . Rev . Div. draft Reg. Anal. to Chief Economist Dept. of Commerce for review Final EIS/FMP/Reg. Anal, adopted by Council y proposed regulations published by NMFS; 60 day public review V- FCMA requires 40 days; E0 12044 requires 60 days v/ final regulations published in Federal Register; effective after 30 days 20 Existing plans : As of late 1979, plans for Atlantic groundfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, surf clam and ocean quahog, Gulf of Mexico stone crab, Pacific commercial and sport salmon, northern anchovy, Alaska coast tanner crab, Gulf of Alaska groundfish, and high seas salmon have been implemented. Many other plans are in the drafting stage or close to completion, and are listed in Appendix E. REPRESENTATIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS The four fishery management plans chosen for detailed review in this report were selected to represent a range of the problems faced in fisheries management under the FCMA, MMPA and ESA. The draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan of the North Pacific Council involves many species in an area from which considerable fisheries data as well as information on other components of the ecosystem, such as marine mammals, are available. This plan involves fisheries of a very large magnitude in terms of both tons and dollars. The final Northern Anchovy Plan of the Pacific Council deals with only one species, but again in an area where there is considerable information available on the ecosystem, in this case, the California Current. This plan includes specific considera- tion of an endangered species. The draft Squid Plan of the Mid-Atlantic Council deals with only a few species, all squid, in a situation in which data are considerably more sparse. Because of potential interactions between squid and pilot whales , this plan also involves a marine mammal spe- cies. The fourth plan chosen for review, the draft Spiny Lobster Plan of the Western Pacific Council, has a very clear relationship to an endangered marine mammal, the Hawaiian monk seal. The plan concerns a fishery with little avail- able data, and with a presently small dollar value, but with considerable potential for growth. These plans illustrate the spectrum of ways in which the objectives of the FCMA have been incorporated into the development and implementation of fishery management plans. More detailed information on and evaluation of each of these four fishery management plans is found in Appendix F of this report. Northern Anchovy Final Plan, 1978 The Pacific Council's Northern Anchovy Management Plan includes as an objective the maintenance of a population suf- ficient to sustain adequate levels of predator fish, birds and mammals. While no definition is attempted for "adequate" 21 predator levels , benefit to the nation from leaving anchovies in the water is recognized. The California Current ecosystem, in which the northern anchovy plays a major role at the forage fish level, is characterized by large and visible populations of marine mam- mals and birds. The endangered brown pelican, which may re- quire high anchovy density for successful breeding, is noted in the plan. While no specific action was taken, the plan recommended monitoring brown pelican populations; funds for monitoring are not guaranteed. Predator prey relationships involving anchovies, other fish, mammals and birds received a very broad brush treatment, particularly in comparison with the detailed social and eco- nomic descriptive sections. The analysis of predator needs and interactions was confined to the observation that during 1951-61 when spawning biomass was below 2 million tons (as. opposed to the present 3-4 million tons) predators did not appear to decline. For marine mammals, population data are not available to support or refute this assumption. MSY for northern anchovies was estimated in the plan to be 484,000 tons at an average spawning biomass of 1.8 mil- lion tons. MSY was determined not to be a practical manage- ment goal for this fishery because variations in recruitment to the anchovy population are very large , and cause large annual variations in population size and consequently in sustainable yield. The plan concluded that to achieve MSY would require a fishery with no catch two years out of three, and extremely large catches in other years . Such variability would be disruptive to the fishing industry. Consequently, the OY formula designated in the plan was intended to allow for high sustainable yields, but with less variability in allowable catch from year to year than would be provided under MSY. The OY formula in the plan is as follows: 1. When the estimated spawning biomass is less than 100,000 tons, OY is 0; 2. When the estimated spawning biomass is between 100,000 and 1 million tons, OY is 18,000 tons for the non-reduction fishery catch (the reduction catch, distinct from commercial live bait and recreational catch, is processed for fish meal and oil) ; and 22 3. When the estimated spawning biomass is 1 million tons or greater, OY for the combined reduction and non-reduction fishery is 18,000 tons or 1/3 of the biomass in excess of 1 million tons , which- ever is greater. Under this formula, OY at a biomass of 1.8 million tons spawning biomass would be 267,000 tons, considerably less than the MSY figure of 484,000 tons of the same biomass. In contrast, OY for a spawning biomass of 3.6 million tons, the estimated population for 1976, would be 870,000 tons, much greater than the 1976 harvest of about 200,000 tons. The OY formula is expected to reduce the impact of ex- ploitation when anchovy biomass is low, and to protect the long-term productivity of the resource. The plan concludes that a long-term average anchovy biomass in excess of 2 mil- ion tons should not have a severe adverse impact on preda- tors. Under the OY formula determined in the plan, spawn- ing biomass is anticipated to fluctuate around an average of 2.5 million tons. Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan, 1978 The North Pacific Council's Draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan covers many species, including Alaska pollock, yellow- fin sole, turbot, other flatfish, Pacific cod, rockfish including Pacific ocean perch, sable fish, Atka mackerel, squid and others. The plan, in fact, covers all groundfish except herring and Pacific halibut. The plan includes as an objective designing fishing strategy to minimize effects on other fisheries and on the environment. The Bering Sea has some very productive waters and con- sequently high densities of fish, marine mammals and birds. Fish fauna are dominated by pollock. A computer simulation model, DYNUMES III (Dynamic Numerical Marine Ecosystem Model) has been developed for the fish of this region (Laevastu and Favorite, 1978). The DYNUMES model considers growth, re- cruitment or production, and mortality of individual fish species or groups of species. The model also considers pre- dation on groundfish by marine mammals, birds, and other fish. In the plan, fish consumption by predators is estimated to be 5:8 million metric tons on the basis of the DYNUMES model. However, no estimates were made of changes in the availa- bility of food to predators which might be associated with various proposed fishing levels in the plan, even though the DYNUMES model uses information on which such estimates could have been based. 23 MSY levels were estimated separately for species such as pollock, yellowfin sole, cod, sable fish, Atka mackerel and Pacific halibut, and for groups such as turbo t, other flatfish, rockfish and squid. Equilibrium yields (EYs) were also calculated and were similar to MSY except for rockfish, Pacific halibut, and sable fish in the Bering Sea, which are all depleted stocks. The sum of estimated MSY for all spe- cies combined was 1.7-2.3 million metric tons. The combined EYs were 1.414-1.451 million metric tons. OY levels were set at conservative estimates of MSY for most species, and at EY levels for the depleted stocks. The combined OYs in the draft plan were 1.444 million metric tons. Of that total, pollock alone account for 1 million metric tons. Bering Sea groundfish comprise an enormous fishery, rep- resenting about 27o of the entire world marine catch, and a third of the fisheries covered by existing final or draft management plans for the U.S. FCZ as of the end of 1978. OY in the plan was at the same level as recent unregulated fish catches in the region. Very little of the recent catch, about 400 metric tons, has been taken by domestic fisheries, and domestic use of the resource is expected to remain at this low level. Squid Draft Plan, 1978 One objective of the Mid-Atlantic Council Draft Squid Plan was maintenance of an adequate food supply for predators . The plan recognized that several years of intensive fishing on squid could affect food for pilot whales. However, no calculations were included on the predator prey relation- ships of squid or of the possible impacts of proposed fish- ing levels on food availability for predators. MSY estimates in the plan were 44,000 tons for long- finned squid (Loligo) and 40,000 tons for shortfinned squid (illex). The council considered these estimates of MSY to be conservative. For longfinned squid, the OY selected was the MSY esti- mate. For shortfinned squid, the OY was set at 75% of the MSY estimate, since the MSY estimate was considered unrelia- ble because of incomplete data. Squid are both predators and prey in the marine ecosystem. Some 54 species of fish have been identified as predators of adult squid. The pilot whale (Globicephala melanea) also 24 feeds. almost exclusively on shortfinned squid. The plan indicated that while overexploitation of squid might result in the decrease of other marine species which compete with fisheries to use squid as food, on the other hand substantial increases in squid might threaten species that are preyed upon during their early life stages by squid. Spiny Lobster Draft Plan, 1978 The Western Pacific Council's draft Spiny Lobster Plan involved a potential impact on the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monacus schaui nslandi) which feeds on lobsters, among other species. The relative importance of lobsters in the monk seal diet is not known. One objective of the plan was to minimize the environmental and ecological impacts of the lobster fishery, particularly on the monk seal. As required by the FCMA, MSY for lobsters was estimated in the plan at 552,000 to 690,000 lobsters. However, this estimate was based more on extrapolation from other lobster fishing regions than on the sparse data from Hawaii, and was not considered to be a reliable estimate. OY was not established for the fishery. Instead, man- agement measures were designated which consisted of regula- tions on the sex and size of the catch, and on areas for fishing. Prohibitions on landing females with eggs and on most fishing in waters shallower than 10 fathoms were in- tended to protect the lobster spawning stock and to mini- mize direct interaction between fishermen and seals. At the same time, these measures would allow a substantial, per- haps tenfold, increase in the lobster catch, which was about 60,000 lobsters a year before 1968. The stock is relatively unexploited so that the possibility of a very rapid increase in the fishery exists. It is not known whether prohibiting fishing in waters shallower than 10 fathoms will avoid im- pacting monk seals. Characteristics Shared by the Four Plans The four plans included varying amounts of information on the ecological role of target species. While the presence of natural predators on target species was mentioned in each of the plans, there were no calculations or attempts at even rough quantitative estimates of the potential impact of various levels of proposed fishing on the food available to predators, 25 or on other aspects of the population dynamics of nontarget species. There also was no consideration of the effect of nontarget species on the population dynamics of the target species, other than an estimated predation rate, assumed to be constant, which was part of the MSY calculations. The treatment of marine mammals as nontarget species in the plans was limited to the question of incidental take and the minimization of entrapment of marine mammals in fishing gear. There are both direct (ecological interactions) impacts of marine mammals on fisheries and of fisheries on marine mammals. Only the direct impacts were considered in the plans. The impacts of marine mammals eating fish which had already been trapped with some kind of fishing gear were mentioned, but the impacts of a fishery on marine mammal pop- ulation size and on food availability for marine mammals, as well as the impacts of large marine mammal populations as additional pressures on fishery populations undergoing in- creasing harvesting, were not considered. IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS CRITIQUE OF SINGLE SPECIES MANAGEMENT The conceptual and practical problems with single species, MSY-oriented fishery resource management are considered in this section of the report. Appendix G contains more detailed discussion of the theory underlying MSY calculations, data re- quirements, and the limitations inherent in the assumptions of the MSY concept. Fisheries management has traditionally been concerned with a single species, its population dynamics, and its maxi- mum sustainable yield. MSY has been treated as an inherent property of the population dynamics of a particular target stock. The development of methods for calculating MSY has focused on the target stock itself, the pattern of growth over time of its individuals, the birth rate and the rate of sur- vival to an age or size subject to being fished, and the rate of fishing mortality and its relationship to fishing effort. The physical and biological environment of a target stock have not been treated with a corresponding degree of detail. Instead, environmental conditions have been assumed to remain constant and the carrying capacity of the surrounding eco- system for the target stock has been assumed to remain un- changed throughout the duration of fishing on that stock. 26 . The constant environment assumption appears to be contra- dicted by fluctuations observed in unexploited fish popu- lations indicating that there are environmental factors which can change the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for a par- ticular species . Such changes may even occur over rela- tively short periods of time, particularly if they are due to factors such as increasing pollution levels. The syner- gistic effects on a resource population of the combination of fishing and other stresses due to a changing environ- ment should be taken into consideration in predicting the impacts of proposed fishing levels, but consideration of combined stresses is not possible in the MSY framework which assumes a constant environment. The applicability of the MSY concept is limited by the underlying assumption of a constant environment. Another limitation of the MSY concept is the lack of appropriate consideration of any of the ecological relationships affect- ing the target species , which results in incomplete consid- eration of the impacts of a fishery on both target and non- target populations . The only relationship between a target species and its ecosystem that has been considered directly in the MSY con- cept is the rate of natural mortality, i.e., mortality from all causes except fishing, primarily predation, but also disease, pollution, old age, etc. However, the treatment of natural mortality is incomplete and hence unrealistic. The rate of natural mortality is assumed to remain the same over time and with or without a fishery. That assumption does not allow for any feedback in interactions between the preda- tor and prey populations. Instead it implies that predation rate is independent of predator population size, and conse- quently that the amount of prey consumed annually depends only on the size of the prey population, whether predators are abundant or scarce. The MSY concept does not allow for any predator popula- tion responses to changes in the availability of target spe- cies prey populations . However, the response of the size of a predator popula- tion to changes in size of its prey population is a classic part of predator prey theory, which also recognizes that time is required for predator abundance to adjust to changing prey abundance. This adjustment time is called a time lag. Consideration of time lags such as the time required for preda- tor populations to adjust to changed prey abundance and the feedback of the predators on the prey during that adjustment 27 is essential to sound ecosystem level management (May, et al. , 1979) . The MSY concept does not incorporate any theory of predator prey interactions , and consequently fails to con- sider feedback known to occur within an ecosystem. Accounting for the impacts of harvesting on nontarget species is one of the objectives of ecosystem oriented man- agement. It has been argued that MSY management does not affect the biomass or quantity of prey (target) species available for consumption by predators, and consequently that no impacts on natural predators are anticipated, because an estimate of natural mortality is included in MSY calcula- tions. This inferred absence of impact can be contradicted from two perspectives. First, even if all the conditions of the MSY concept are fulfilled, and the rate of natural mortality remains the same with or without a fishery, the annual total biomass of prey taken by predators is still expected to be reduced. Under MSY management, a reduction in standing stock, from a carrying capacity level to a lower population size level at which MSY is theoretically produced, is a management goal. Thus with a reduced average standing stock of target or prey species, the total annual biomass of prey taken by predators can be expected to be similarly reduced, even if the rate of natural mortality remains con- stant, because total biomass consumed under MSY assumptions is a function of the prey standing stock as well as of the predation rate. The reduction in prey availability may af- fect predator population size, or may result in increased predation pressure on alternate prey species , some of which may also be harvested populations. Predators may respond to threshold densities of prey, and responses may be expressed through behavior, through change in age of first reproduction or fecundity, or in other ways. Second, the treatment of predator prey interactions in the MSY concept is too simpli- fied even to incorporate the interactions of classical preda- tor prey theory, so does not predict impacts of fishing on the predators of target species. It seems reasonable to conclude that single species, MSY oriented management does not account for either maintaining annual total food supply for predators or the potential responses of predators to changes in food availability. In addition to the conceptual problems with MSY, there have been practical difficulties with MSY application and, as a consequence, many fishery resources and marine mammal stocks have been overexploited . One difficulty with the ap- plication of MSY has been the collection of data on which the estimation of MSY is based. With incomplete data, esti- mates may be inaccurate and consequently management goals 28 inappropriate, leading to reduction in a stock rather than to sustained yields. Even where the MSY estimates are thought to be fairly accurate, overcapitalization of a particular fish- ery may result in economic pressures to exceed sustainable yields by a constant increase in fishery yields year after year, as opposed to a reduction or a leveling off at MSY levels. Insufficient data is not the only problem with the ap- plication of MSY concepts to fishery resource management. When several populations are harvested simultaneously in one eco- system, stock recruitment relationships are blurred, and the constant environment assumptions underlying MSY are particu- larly strained (Gulland, 1978). Consequently, it seems rea- sonable to infer that MSY has often been applied in situations that do not meet the requirements for its application, which may be partly responsible for some of the problems with MSY oriented management. If MSY is not applicable, then increas- ingly refined calculations of MSY estimates based on increas- ingly complete data will not solve the problem of finding an appropriate management strategy. Even if environmental con- ditions are sufficiently constant so that there is an MSY characteristic of a particular stock, and even if that MSY value can be estimated accurately, MSY still may not be an appropriate management goal because it does not take into ac- count relationships between the target species and other pop- ulations within the ecosystem. It is important to recognize that management for MSY for several stocks simultaneously does not constitute ecosystem level management. No matter how many stocks are to be managed, MSY is in essence a single species approach because it does not deal with interactions among the stocks that an ecosystem perspective would consider. Unfortunately, there probably is not a simple replace- ment for MSY (Gulland, 1978) . The development of a more broadly based management approach, which would take into ac- count environmental variations and ecological relationships between the target species and those associated with or de- pendent on it, appears to be necessary. .A starting point for ^ changing from single species MSY type management to a broader ecosystem perspective can be consideration of the impact of a fishery on predator prey relationships and food availability to natural predators in the ecosystem. Existing predator prey theory can be incorporated and then improved as more complete or more pertinent data are sought and become available. 29 Fisheries management should be more broadly based on an ecosystem perspective rather than focused on the target species alone. Fishery resource stocks have traditionally and properly been viewed as renewable resources. Because of the now recognized interactions between particular fish- ery resource populations and other populations which may also be harvested, or have aesthetic or other values not as- sociated with harvesting, or which may be threatened or en- dangered populations, it seems clear that a broader perspec- tive is also appropriate, namely that an ecosystem is a re- newable resource. LEGISLATIVE INTENT Ecosystem Orientation The FCMA, MMPA and ESA are examples of legislation con- cerned with the treatment of renewable resources and the en- vironment. A comparison of certain provisions of the three Acts (Table 2) indicates an ecosystem orientation in all of them: Conservation principles concern habitat and eco- systems as well as populations , while resource definitions include environment, habitat or ecosystems. OY as defined in the FCMA has a component of ecological considerations. The primary objective of the MMPA is to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. The purpose of the ESA is conservation of endangered or threatened species and their supporting ecosystems . Each of these Acts considers resource populations of particular concern, but also places these resources in an ecological context, thus taking a broad- er perspective on resource conservation and management. Activities of Concern The activities of concern clearly include fishery re- source harvesting for the FCMA. For the MMPA and ESA, activ- ities of concern are any affecting populations or habitat of marine mammals or of endangered or threatened species, including fishing. Consequently, it seems clear that fishery management plans should consider the marine environment and marine ecosystems, not only stocks, in developing conserva- tion and management measures for and in anticipating the en- vironmental impacts of fisheries . Compatibility of the FCMA, MI-IP A . and ESA From some of the reviewers' comments on the first draft of this report, it appears that some scientists and admin- istrators perceive that the FCMA and MMPA may be incompatible 30 CO w •a c CO ^~\ CO * 01 < CO P- CU | — 4-1 a ■> cu < I-l S C8 u c_ fe c CU •H X j-i CO u U-l cu o XI E CO 3 c C o •H c CO o •H •H > 4-1 O U u CU a. CO c 4-1 •H o CO < 4-1 M cu OJ > o •H 4J U-l o o cu a c CO o cu CO C£ •H n^ 1-1 a c = o u . CM CD — X CO Eh c CO o a) a •H d "0 CJ CU CU CO (-1 a. e -a cu CO cu c co 4-1 01 c •a en a. CO 0) >-, 01 -a 3 CO T3 c 0) 0 cu 4J cj >> CO 01 0) 01 cu X > |J 01 4-1 lH ~ JC CU u 4-1 X CO 0 c •a -a -h 0 C c X o CO CO 3 I 4-1 CO 0 H 01 3 4-1 O. O O u a. a. 0) C CO cu > u cu CO c o CJ cu CO x E J-i £ co -a E C CO 01 C to ■H C )-i O co i-l E *-> X cj •H ^ x cn 3 ^ 14-1 4J o u CO D. X E 0) cfl 4-1 CO cu >i u CO CO 00 c 1-4. •a CO I-l I-l 4-1 O -a -a •s. a co cu u cu 14-1 OO o c CO 00 T3 c 3 •H 01 (0 3 CT\ 4-1 ^ CJ 4-1 01 CO CO U-l 4-1 CU 14-1 -H •H Cfl XI CJ CO cu co x a cu CO 4-1 CO •H CJ > -H CU 4-1 -H 4J O U cfl cfl cj CU S-i >< 00 X c c 4-1 Cfl iH CO CU >-. -H C > Cfl -H "O O C CO CO c OO cfl C E ■H 3 4-1 X CO CU S-i > cu cu u x u-i CO 4J 14-| X O CO CO c o ^ •h en 4-1 » CO CN 3 a 4-i OO O cfl e p, 4J rl "H U H XI CJ Cfl Cfl E X! E CO M E O 1-4 o •a <-n 01 ro C "-o 01 4-1 CO Cfl CU 01 1-1 l-l CJ X 0) 4-1 — CO 14-1 o -a 0) >> V4 |j 0) oi. oo > c O cfl u -a oi c u cu X cfl C Ctj 3 CO X ►-> 4-1 CO CJ 3 - T3 CO Cfl O O C U 4J o a. c oo CO CN c 0)^ •h x sj -a c E 4-i £ 3 co 3 0£ E H E C ■H 3 i-l i-l 4J B. X ^ O- O CO Cfl o a E 4J B .0) 4-1 Cfl Cfl >% Cfl 4J O •h a CJ 0) Cfl 0. 0) cfl SZ CJ 4J CO 00 cu a •H •H CJ 4-1 CU u a. o CO E ex cu a -a 4-1 3 cu Cfl Cfl I-l ►, CU Cfl 4J oo o Cfl c o 4-1 cfl cu •H TJ X c 4-1 cfl 0) o X I-l c i-H o o CO H CJ *a 4J ■H CU eg 4-1 a > •H Hi I-l l-i 4-1 CU CJ CO Cfl aj 3 -a i-i /-n o a XI r- CJ « 4-1 -^ 1 1 Cfl 1 c 1 o cfl C 1 •H CO CJ o o CO 4-1 cu CU CO •H o E Cfl c 3 4-1 01 cu •H o O o T5 c I-l •H c U-l 4-1 c •H CO 4-1 3 o cfl I-l E CO 14-| l-l cfl — Cfl CO X e •a 3 4-1 4-1 r"s 0 4-1 c P. 3 3 CN 00 i-H 14-1 cfl o CO CU ^-^ CO o a CJ B i— 1 cu CO •H CU CO H X r>* E H VI— | i-H E cfl 4J 0) CO ■H cu cu '- c •H 4-1 i 3 4-1 CU •H i-H Cfl E SO 00 CO > cfl •H >> cfl '•H c ts o 4-1 X Cfl E CO •H Cfl CU iH CO •H •H oo A • * CO •H z^% c 1 60 Cfl CO CO 1 Cfl CJ CJ m 1-1 cfl • «l ■ #> O 3 3 CU 4-1 i-H cu CO •H o ^-^ U-l E 4-1 cu 4-1 r-l O Cfl CJ — Cfl rH oo u •H >> 00 CO 0) 3 o CO o •H E I-l - cu CO cu 3 I-l X O CO ■a o cu i-i 4-1 CJ 4-1 3 CO > l-i X •H 3 T3 — ■a 3 4-1 E U-l 3 •H cu cfl T3 O I-l 0) 4-1 Cfl 0 --H -a o 3 o 3 3 O O X I-l C CO Cfl ^-^ -a CO > 3 en CU 01 o Cfl •H o CO O Cfl CO Cfl CU cfl cu ^ CN c X 0 o cu •H -H CU 4-1 •H I-l l-i c 01 X cu T3 u CJ ' — ' cfl /~V 4J C i-i ^ U-l * Cfl 4-1 cu ■H o I-l •a •H cu o CJ CO 01 •H •H 4J CJ 1-4 CO U-l > •H CO 3 CO > >, 4-1 4-1 3 •H o N 4-1 >, E -a ■z •H CU > 01 C 4-1 >* cu H 3 l-i u CO CO oo 4-1 CO •H •H c u 3 0 Cfl e •o l-i I-l CU •H I-l — CJ o 01 cu 4-1 •H CO ^— ' E U-l 0 cu E E > o ■H 0) 3 CU 3 3 CJ Cfl X — •H CU 01 •H CU •H ~ •H cu c Cfl CO c cu •H .3 i— 1 1-4. 3 CO 4-1 X I-l = oo X 3 4J CO 4-1 >, 1— 1 0 c 3 o 3 U-l Cfl CJ H o •H o CO 0 o 3 cfl CU CO •H a. c/] cu o o 0 1-1 •H CU 1-1 C >4 cfl CJ <4-l X X U-l — •H E X C U-l o z i-i cu CJ u 4J I-l TJ U-l •H O CJ 1) en o a. M 3 0_ CO CU 4J 3 H I-l > cu H CJ 4-1 < o o c -H O Cfl iH CJ 4J •H Cfl 00 4-1 o c ^H CU O -H O l-i w o 31 The main concern appears to be whether it is in fact possible to harvest certain fishery resources at optimum yield levels while at the same time allowing the marine mammal popula- tions which are predators of harvested fish species, to be maintained at or above levels allowing maximum productivity. Similar concerns have been expressed about the impact of fish harvesting at OY levels on the rebuilding of stocks of threatened and endangered species which may depend on them for food. The perceived incompatibility in part appears to rest on an interpretation of the optimum yield concept de- fined in the FCMA as simply MSY . However, the definition of OY is not synonymous with MSY, and incorporates, among other things, a departure from MSY for ecological reasons. Such ecological considerations could and should include the health of the marine ecosystem, the maintenance of optimum sustain- able populations of marine mammals , and support of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species . If the eco- logical factors incorporated in OY are given serious consid- eration, then an interpretation of incompatibility of the FCMA and MMPA does not seem either warranted or possible. The concepts of OY in the FCMA and maximum productivity in the MMPA are like two sides of the same coin. The FCMA focuses on potential yield from a given resource population level, while the MMPA emphasizes the production required to support that yield as well as non-consumptive uses of the resource. A discussion of potential yield is not separa- ble from a discussion of the productivity of a resource. Con- sideration of productivity merely shifts emphasis from the amount of the resource that can be removed to what makes the yield possible in the first place. If a fishery is treated as the addition of a predator to a system which already has some natural predators for the target species, then the question of optimum yield for the fishery can be considered as an allocation of production among various predators , taking into account the relative importance of, or value placed upon, each predator and the requirements of each. It seems clear that with appropriate ecological con- siderations, OY for a fishery can be consistent with support of maximum net productivity of predator populations such as marine mammals. The question of whether MSY, in contrast to OY , is likewise compatible with optimum sustainable populations of marine mammals has not been answered, but will have to be addressed as part of the process of fish- eries management that is compatible with both the FCMA and MMPA. The resolution of that question will be based in part on better operational definitions of optimum sustainable 32 populations in order to provide some, ideally quantifiable, criteria for OSP . While the question of compatibility of MSY for fisheries and OSP for mammals is not resolved, that does not imply incompatibility of the MMPA and FCMA, because OY is not identical to MSY. It appears at present that none of the requirements of the MMPA or ESA are so restrictive as to indefinitely prohibit harvest as a use of either marine fish or mammals . The perceived incompatibility of the FCMA and MMPA may also be attributable in part to confusion of scientific and policy questions. The simultaneous optimization of both fishery yield and populations of marine mammals and other ecosystem components cannot be completely addressed by either scientific or policy considerations alone. The scientific aspects of the question include determination of the ranges of optimum sustainable population sizes for marine mammals and other ecosystem components and of the range of potential fishery yields which are consistent with both the FCMA and MMPA. These ranges may be determined from analysis of bio- logical data with appropriate statistical qualifications to allow for incompleteness of data and imprecision of esti- mates. Within the allowable ranges of population sizes and fishery yields which can be determined from scientific cri- teria, the selection of the set of optimum fishery yields and optimum sustainable populations that would constitute the maximum benefit to the nation is a policy question. The policy decisions will depend on a judgment of the relative importance of productive, aesthetic, recreational and other values of the various resources under consideration, and also on a judgment of what constitutes an acceptable level of risk of damage to any of those populations . The determ- ination of and balancing of relative values of various re- sources is a very important policy question which should be addressed explicitly rather than be resolved by default. From this examination of the intents and requirements of the FCMA, MMPA and ESA, it seems reasonable to conclude: 1. that the three Acts are compatible; and 2. that taken together they mandate an approach to the management and conservation of fishery re- sources a. that is ecosystem level rather than single species in perspective, and 33 that takes account of the impact of proposed harvesting strategies on nontarget species , including marine mammals and threatened or endangered species, and on the health and stability of the marine environment as well as on the harvested resource, itself. EVALUATION OF REPRESENTATIVE FMPs The FCMA, MMPA and ESA each and together reflect an awareness of the importance of the ecological relationships involving target species. Consequently they require an ecosystem as opposed to a single species perspective on the management of fisheries resources . In order to determine how this ecological awareness has been reflected in the de- velopment of fishery management plans, and to what extent management plans meet the intents of the MMPA and ESA as well as the FCMA, four representative plans have been re- viewed. The four plans encompass marine mammal and endan- gered species issues , different amounts of available data on target and nontarget species, and both single and multiple species considerations. The plans were evaluated with re- spect to the selection of OY levels and the relation of OY to MSY and to relevant ecological considerations, and with respect to the treatment of nontarget species in the plans , particularly marine mammals and endangered species . Some aspects of the four representative plans are compared in Table 3. The evaluations of the four plans that are sum- marized in this section of the report are presented in great- er detail in Appendix F. Northern Anchovy Final Plan The Northern Anchovy Plan dealt with only one species, but that species is very important as a forage fish, pro- viding food for a number of predator populations including marine mammals and at least one endangered species, the California brown pelican. The Northern Anchovy Plan includ- ed a description of the ecological role of anchovies, al- though with a fairly broad brush treatment in comparison with the detailed social and economic information found in the plan. The plan included the provision of food for pred- ators as one of its objectives, and the OY formula selected was intended to recognize the value of fish left in the wa- ter for predators and to assure that anchovy densities re- main sufficient to support predator populations in the Cali- fornia Current ecosystem. 34 o> > s 0) co cu S-l a CU CO u u 0) ft CD co e •H CO 4-1 S-i 0) O 4-1 o c o ■Si •H u CO a E o u 01 H XI CO H cj ■H 4-1 4-1 ■H % CO S-i S Hi ■a •H ft c iH C/l u •H Hi CJ 4-j C r-» CO 3 r^ 0) c a\ 2 u rH CO Su "3 3 CO CO p— on £ U rH X U CO H -H cfl 00 u-j ' -o a 3 o H O CO CD •H s-l rj CJ — •-4 - S-i ft H a) •H =2 rG O 4-1 a oo 1-4 3 r~ o O ON en Sj ai 4-1 CO X o o o o o X 4-J B O '-> O U u o < e « H N .h u Cfl o e CU o H 4-1 O o e CO 3 ■H E a o H ■H •> on 11) 4J CN sO S-l Cfl LO ft 4) in 1 CO ■a CU c en X CO cj ii 4-J >s 0) c CO X N o CJ ■H -a en 6 **v 01 C 4-1 4J S-l CO HI CO 0) •H CO !— 1 4-J •H 3 en CO 4-1 00 X! x 3 O cu o cu CO c S-l tH en sc B o o o O O 4-1 O - E O «4t X OJ m O o o o in 0 4-1 H E E O o o o o o O <• 0 On ■H M 0 5 00 X 00 X C = ■H c CJ r-t S-i >> CM C rH CO 4J O c 00 O c S-i 4J S-i C •H CU > •H cu >, •H O •H 00 c O •H CO 0 CU CO 0 CO U-J iH ~~ 0 M C X E rH 3 c c • •H O C • 14-1 c rH 14-1 CJ •H CO -J c LT1 3 " S-i M 3 -H -a A 3 rH •H •H 3 •H •H U C S-i u r~ CO O 4-1 M 0 0 4J 4J O CJ CO CU CU H 1— ) U-4 CO J3 IH CU O CU en c •H CO 4J c •H cfl -a E O 0 — y-i S-i CU O CO > 01 4-J S-l •H 4-1 O 4J Cfl >> 4-1 O 3 rH cfl 0) a" ft T3 •n eu ft OJ x -a 3 S-i O CO ca ft H OJ 1 01 N 3 T3 •H 0 0 E s-i S-< E ■H 0J ■H C X > •H 4-J 3 CO £ O cu •• c * 3J CU 0 CO Z > CU >4 •h en •H Q 4-1 4J S-i CJ 0 CU .> TJ CU 01 X 4-J CU ■n u-i CO C 4-1 XI 14-1 •H 01 -H O 0) 14-1 E cj 4-1 c CO C OJ S-i •H -H 0 CO CJ 4-1 4-1 -H CO C U-I ■a •H 14H CU CO 3 S-i E en ft •• C c OJ O •H > -H CO •H 4-1 4-1 4-J Cfl Cfl O rH 3 CU 3 en 1-) ft X O O O ft 4-1 >4 CO O Cfl CO S 3 5 -0 0 d ■a 0) TJ E •H -a = 01 S-i 01 OJ ^J 01 c 0) en c 4-J CJ 3 cu 0 00 cu 0 en Cfl O f-J •H c •H ■H >, S-i •H - 4-1 CO O 4-1 CO 01 4J S-i c -a cu 3 0 4-J = cfl 01 c CU 01 CJ 3 01 g E cu ca E OJ ■H e 35 Ecological interactions did play a role to some extent in the selection of OY levels. The rationale was qualitative in nature, however, and rested on the assumption that the average anchovy density expected in association with the pro- posed fishing regime has not in the past been associated with any observed decline in predator populations such as marine mammals. While that assumption cannot be discounted on the basis of available evidence for the 1950-1960 period, it can- not be supported by that evidence eitner. Some quantitative analysis of the impact of proposed fishing levels on the forage available to predators would have been possible based on the data provided in the plan. In the northern anchovy section of Appendix F, an example cal- culation of changes in forage availability is presented. The example is based on estimated rates for natural mortality, fishing mortality and somatic growth rate for the population presented in the plan, as well as on estimates of the expected median annual abundance for anchovies under the proposed OY regime. The example uses standard fishery calculations of natural mortality given the population growth rate assumptions , but interprets the calculations in a new way. The long term reduction in anchovy consumption by predators with the pro- posed OY catch of several hundred thousand tons per year is estimated in the example in Appendix F to be on the order of 1.2 million tons per year, half of the predation on ancho- vies in the absence of a fishery, or one quarter of total forage fish consumption. The impacts of such a large change in food availability on ecosystem carrying capacity and pre- dator populations, the availability of alternate prey re- sources, and the impacts on those alternate prey of increased predation were not discussed in the plan. While the per- formance of the calculations in Appendix F demonstrates that such a quantitative analysis would have been possible given information provided in the plan, no rough quantitative eval- uation of the impact of proposed harvest levels on anchovy predators was attempted in the plan. The Northern Anchovy Plan dealt with an endangered spe- cies, the California brown pelican. However, the recommenda- tion of monitoring of pelican populations appears to be equiv- alent to a "wait and see" attitude toward the pelican, par- ticularly since the council itself will not be responsible for monitoring the pelican populations. In effect, the treat- ment of pelican populations in the plan would seem to require that an adverse impact on pelican populations will have to be demonstrated before any action on OY would be taken to mitigate such an adverse impact. The ESA requires that fede- ral agencies ensure that actions authorized by them do not 36 jeopardize an endangered species or its habitat. There- fore, it might have been more appropriate for the council to demonstrate that a lack of adverse impact on the peli- can, or at least an acceptably low risk of adverse impact on pelican populations, would be associated with the se- lected OY formula. The Northern Anchovy Plan has dealt with the issues of ecological relationships of the target species, even if only in a qualitative manner. Therefore, the Northern Anchovy Plan does illustrate a beginning of ecosystem level as contrasted to single species fishery management. The OY formula selected in the plan would result in harvesting levels considerably lower than MSY levels , on the basis of ecological considerations including the role of. anchovies as forage fish. Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan In contrast to the Northern Anchovy Plan, the Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan covered many species . Like the Anchovy Plan, however, it dealt with an area in which there are abundant mammal and bird populations and on which con- siderable ecosystem level data are available. In the Bering Sea Groundfish Plan, the OY levels select- ed were essentially the same as MSY, except for depleted stocks where OYs were set at EY levels. For depleted stocks no recovery would be anticipated except through immigration. It seems apparent that the selected OY values represent very intense fishing on the stocks of the Bering Sea. Because the domestic fishery is such a small part of the total fishery in the Bering Sea, estimated at most on the order of \°L of the total harvest, there would have been room to reduce OY levels without adversely affecting the domestic fishing industry. One possible motivation for re- ducing OY levels from MSY levels could have been the ecolog- ical consideration of reducing the considerable risk of ad- verse impacts on the groundfish and the marine ecosystem from such intensive fishing. Another reasonable potential ecological consideration not even mentioned in the plan is the possible recent reduc- tion in northern fur seal populations which may have been associated with the intense groundfish harvesting of the 1970s in the Bering Sea (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979). 37 ■ Marine mammals were mentioned in the fishery management plan, but only with respect to the direct marine mammal impacts on fisheries, namely the consumption of fish already caught in some kind of fishing gear but not yet removed from the water, and the indirect impact of marine mammals on fisheries, namely the high estimated fish consumption of marine mammals in the Bering Sea. The corresponding po- tential reduction in food available to marine mammals asso- ciated with proposed OY levels was not considered in the plan. Maintenance of optimum sustainable populations or maximum net productivity of marine mammals were not addressed in the plan. The plan acknowledged the different kinds of biologi- cal data available for the Bering Sea with reference to the DYNUMES model and the kind of information it contains; however, no further use of that quantitative data was re- flected in the plan. It would have been possible, as il- lustrated with the northern anchovy example, to do rough quantitative estimates of the changes in average fish stand- ing stock anticipated with the selected OY levels, and a corresponding change in total food production available to predators. However, no such calculations were carried out, nor were similar qualitative evaluations made. The management strategy in the Bering Sea Groundfish Draft Plan seemed to be single species in essence even though many species of fish were considered. MSY was cal- culated separately for each species, with no allowance for the effects of the intense fishing on other species in the same ecosystem on the assumptions underlying the MSY cal- culations. The multispecies nature of the report appeared to be a matter of organizational convenience rather than conceptual approach to the management of the overall fish- ery . The intents of environmental legislation were recog- nized in this fishery management plan in the stated objec- tives. However, they were not reflected in the conservation and management measures , namely the selection of OY levels . Squid Draft Plan The Mid-Atlantic Draft Squid Management Plan provided an example of a plan dealing with only two species groups, longfinned and shortfinned squid. For this plan, data both 38 on the fishery and on other resource populations in the same area were not as abundant as for either the Bering Sea or the California Current. The sparse data problem was dealt with by setting OY levels for shortfinned squid to 757o of MSY , as opposed to 1007o, to allow for the incomplete data. In effect, the data problem was apparently treated in the plan as an attempt to manage for MSY without knowing MSY accurately, so that the management objective was still single species in essence. However, the setting of OY below MSY could have been inter- preted as minimizing the risk of adverse impacts in the face of limited knowledge of a resource, illustrating one aspect of an ecosystem level perspective on the fishery. In addition to inadequate data problems , the squid management plan illustrated the issue of consumptive vs. nonconsumptive values for a fishery resource. Because squid have a short life span, one to two years, individuals which are not taken by a fishery in a given year are lost to the fishery, even though they are still a part of the food cycle within the ecosystem. The plan indicated that squid which were not harvested were "wasted", reflecting a lack of con- sideration of the nonconsumptive values, or a rather low importance associated with those nonconsumptive values . While the plan recognized the potential adverse impact on pilot whales of several years of squid scarcity, it was assumed that, under the proposed OY levels, years of squid scarcity would not result. Marine mammals were not addressed further. It would have been useful for the plan to at least acknowledge the optimum sustainable population question, and even more useful to attempt a preliminary quantitative eval- uation of the impacts of proposed squid harvesting on pilot whale food supply. Spiny Lobster Draft Plan The Western Pacific Council's Spiny Lobster Plan con- cerns a fishery with a potential impact on an endangered species of marine mammal, the Hawaiian monk seal. The impact of an increased fishery on monk seals is un- known. The plan acknowledged that the MMPA and ESA completely protect the monk seal. The council has elected to encourage an increasing fishery, and recommended monitoring monk seal populations. The council will not be responsible for the 39 . monitoring, however. In effect, the plan assumed that the fishery will increase until an adverse impact on the monk seals can be documented and evidence brought to the councils ' attention. Because marine mammals are long-lived, a number of years may pass before impacts of fisheries will be expressed in terms of a detectable reduction in population size. The minimization of risk of reducing monk seal populations in the light of the conservation intents of the ESA and MMPA through more gradual fishery growth would have been a more appropriate council action. This plan illustrated differing assumptions about acceptable risk and about where the burden of proof lies for documenting risk or impact levels . Characteristics of Management Plans The ecosystem level management orientation of the ESA, MMPA and FCMA was recognized in each of the four fishery man- agement plans reviewed in detail. Unfortunately, that recog- nition was reflected in OY selection and conservation and management measures in only one plan, the Northern Anchovy Management Plan. In that plan OY was selected to be consid- erably less than MSY based on the ecological consideration of predator food requirements . The selection of OY to be 75% MSY in the Squid Plan, in order to provide a safety mar- gin in light of inadequate data, can serve as an example of one type of action which might characterize an ecosystem lev- el approach to fishery management. Consideration of the re- quirement for a safety margin should include the ecological role of the target species, and not simply reflect an impre- cise MSY estimate in an essentially single species manage- ment strategy. Endangered species and critical habitats are considered explicitly in two of the management plans, the Northern An- chovy Plan for the California pelican and the Spiny Lobster Plan for the Hawaiian monk seal. However, the respective councils have elected only to monitor the endangered species , for which the councils will not themselves be responsible, rather than to ensure that the proposed actions would not have an adverse impact on endangered species as required by the ESA. Thus the fishery management plans seem to fall short of meeting the intents of the ESA. Similarly, marine mammals are mentioned in each of the four plans reviewed. However, the question of optimum sus- tainable population and maximum net productivity for marine mammals was not addressed in any of the plans. The plans should have at least indicated whether present data were adequate for determining OSP levels. If the issue was con- sidered by the councils, it was not reflected in the text 40 of the management plans. The plans also appear to fall short of meeting the intents of the MMPA by not consider- ing the needs of marine mammal populations or the impacts of proposed catch levels on those populations. At least some preliminary treatment of the impacts on predator prey interactions could have been made with the data available in the plans. The broad brush treatment of ecological relationships in fishery management plans , in comparison to the detailed information included on economic and social aspects of a fishery, in part reflects the nature of the NMFS Guidelines for Development of Fishery Management Plans (42 FR 34458, July 5, 1977). In the sections on definitions and standards, the Guidelines make occasional references to habitat but no specific references to marine mammals, endangered species, or nontarget species. The section on plan contents con- siders interrelationships of species and habitat in very broad terms. Similarly, the section on plan format contains only one item for ecological relationships, but seventeen items for economic and social characteristics of the fish- ery. While data on ecological interrelationships are seldom as abundant or detailed as those on economic and social characteristics, ecological data can be organized around relevant considerations such as populations of marine mam- mals in relation to optimum carrying capacity and maximum productivity, or the status of endangered species and the respective required recovery plans. For other nontarget species, an eventual selection of management and conserva- tion measures that constitute maximum benefit to the nation will require information on the trophic and ecological re- lationships involving target and nontarget species, the com- mercial, recreational, and aesthetic values of nontarget species, and their role in maintaining the health of the marine ecosystem in terms of its diversity, stability and resilience . The failure to attempt an ecosystem level perspective in the management plans has been attributed in part to a lack of the data required for such an undertaking. However, even the available data have not been used to the fullest extent in order to estimate impacts on predator prey relation- ships , or risk of adverse impacts to marine mammals or en- dangered species, for example. It seems clear that more com- prehensive data analysis could have been undertaken in the plans. The data required to fill the gaps which prevented consideration of impacts on nontarget populations should have been identified. 41 Even when the best scientific information is fully used, however, there is still room for differing interpretations of that information with regard to the levels of risk to nontarget marine mammals and endangered species associated with various levels of harvesting. Where the data do not clearly demonstrate risk levels, a range of interpretations is possible, with the two extreme positions being: 1. that an adverse impact of a particular level of fishing cannot be demonstrated conclusively and, 2. that the safety or lack of adverse impact of a particular level of fishing cannot be demonstrated conclusively . Fishery management plans available as of late 1978 seem to indicate an underlying assumption that the councils do not need to take the responsibility for demonstrating that pro- posed OYs have acceptably low associated levels of risk to nontarget populations. Instead, the councils apparently in- tend to wait until adverse impacts of fishing levels on marine mammal or endangered species populations can be demonstrated to have occurred before modifying OY to mitigate those impacts ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES The analysis of the intents and requirements of the FCMA, MMPA and ESA in this report indicates that the three Acts together mandate an ecosystem level perspective for fisheries management as opposed to the traditional single species approach. The analysis of representative fishery management plans indicates that while the plans have recog- nized the requirement for a more broadly based perspective on fisheries management, in practice they have not fully reflected this recognition in the selection of optimum yields and related conservation and management measures . Consequently, the question emerges of how fishery manage- ment plans can be changed in order to more fully meet the intents of the legislation as well as the requirements of sound management. This section of the report deals with specific sug- gestions for changing fishery management plans to begin to achieve an ecosystem level perspective on fisheries manage- ment. With presently available data and theory from ecology and fishery management, steps toward an ecosystem perspec- tive which are feasible now include developing foodweb dia- grams or conceptual ecosystem models , incorporating infor- mation on predator prey interactions , assessing the risks 42 associated with various harvesting levels, and using tech- niques for describing whole ecosystems employed in existing ecosystem models. Future approaches to an ecosystem per- spective can be based on improved data and theory for ex- pansion of fisheries management concepts to replace MSY by considering more variables. Conceptual Food Chain Models A fairly easy first step in broadening fishery manage- ment perspective to a whole ecosystem basis is considering how a target species fits into the foodweb of the ecosystem of which it is a part. For each region and/or major marine ecosystem within the U.S. FCZ a conceptual model should be written down, just a box and arrow diagram, indicating trophic relationships for all fishery resources and other components of the ecosystem. Such conceptual models can provide a very useful framework for viewing the fishery in its ecosystem context. They are an aid to recalling complicated marine foodwebs , and also to recognizing where factors influencing a stock are unknown. Such conceptual models exist in the minds of scientists and managers, but they should be written down in order to be examined and used. Conceptual ecosystem diagrams should appear as a figure in the background material of each fishery management plan. These conceptual models will be of use to various interest groups, federal agencies, and persons not well grounded in fishery ecology, as well as to fishery scientists themselves, as a reminder of the inter- actions which should be considered in ecosystem level manage- ment . Explicit conceptual foodweb diagrams are the first step in an ecosystem perspective on management of any given tar- get species. They merely reflect current understanding of existing ecological relationships and can easily be modified as that understanding increases. The writing of conceptual models should not be confused with the achievement of an ecosystem level management. Conceptual models are merely the first step, a memory aid for ecosystem level management. Whole Marine Ecosystem Models While single species population dynamics models can be quite elaborate, dynamic models of whole ecosystems are in very preliminary stages. However, some models of marine eco- systems have already been developed. 43 . Annual biomass budgets have been estimated for producer and consumer components of ecosystems of the Ross Sea, the Southern Ocean, and the California Current (Green, 1977, 1978) . These models contain compartments representing every component of the marine ecosystems; frequently, many com- ponents are lumped into one compartment for simplicity. The models consider the nature of material flows between com- partments and some of the factors regulating flow rates. These models have the advantage of accounting for material flow and production in an entire ecosystem, and the limita- tion of highly simplified assumptions about the factors controlling consumption rates. A more realistic treatment of consumption rates, at least for fish stocks, in the North Pacific FCZis incorpora- ted in the DYNUMES models (Laevastu and Favorite, 1978). The DYNUMES models concentrate on interacting fish population dynamics , do not consider plankton production dynamics , and use forcing functions rather than population simulations for marine mammals and other predators of fish. The DYNUMES models are so complex that the underlying assumptions are very difficult to discover and evaluate. These ecosystem modeling attempts demonstrate that some degree of ecosystem level perspective, even for a complex marine ecosystem, is possible with presently available data. A review of existing ecosystem models with respect to their potential applicability to ecosystem level fisheries manage- ment would be a useful starting place for the incorporation of ecosystem models into fishery management plans. Predator Prey Interactions More detailed models and theoretical treatment are avail- able for predator prey relationships. For marine ecosystems, simple models of harvesting at different trophic levels in a multi-species foodweb have been considered recently (May, e_t al. , 1979) . Quantitative treatment of predator prey inter- actions as influenced by a fishery can and should be the next step in developing an ecosystem perspective for fisheries management. The example presented in Appendix F for estima- ting the long term effects of the proposed northern anchovy fishery OY on anchovy consumption by predators provides one possible method for estimating fishery impact on food avail- able to natural predators in an ecosystem. 44 Evaluating the significance of changes in available for- age for predators is another aspect of the impacts of a fish- ery on nontarget species. At the present state of the art of ecology, even if changes in food availability could be predicted with reasonable precision, it would still be diffi- cult to anticipate the exact responses of predator popula- tions to those changes. Predators respond to the size, den- sity and distribution of prey, as well as to the overall amount of prey available. Potential responses include be- havioral changes as well as changes in overall population size. In addition, the possibility of a shift of predators to alternative prey species should be considered. For the practical development of ecosystem oriented management, some careful consideration needs to be given to which parameters of predator prey relationships should in fact be measured, what kind of data are practical to collect, and what kind of indicator information needs to be observed to be able to pre diet overall population responses. Small scale perturbation experiments might be considered as one possible method for investigating how predators and prey respond to changing den sities . Treating a fishery as an additional predator in an eco- system may be a useful perspective for consideration of the impacts of a fishery on target and nontarget species. In the same context, a fishery can be viewed as a preda- tor that lacks the regulating feedback that controls natural predator populations in an ecosystem. OY formulations could be designed to mimic natural controls on a predator by using appropriate functions of measured ecosystem parameters such as threshold values for the density of the target species, its other predators, or some indicator species, by very strict limited entry formulations, or by compensating for increased capture efficiency with reduced effort. Risk Assessment One approach to evaluating the impact of proposed fish- ing levels on populations of marine mammals and of endangered species is to assess the probabilities that adverse impacts on those populations would result from various harvest levels Probabilities of adverse impacts, or lack of them, are the risk levels associated with particular activities. The de- tailed information on the fishing industry and on social and economic ramifications of proposed management measures found in almost all FMPs demonstrates that levels of economic risk can be evaluated. 45 * The existence of risks to stocks associated with fishing have been demonstrated repeatedly as fishery resources have been overexploited , or reduced through a combination of harvesting and weather stresses. Examples include the great whales, Peruvian anchovies, and California sardines. Exper- ience with these sometimes unanticipated population changes, along with advancing understanding of the ecological relation- ships that keep an ecosystem resilient or able to recover rapidly from disturbances, make at least preliminary evalua- tions of risk possible. Focusing only on a particular stock, without also considering associated species and environment, is too limited a perspective for evaluating the risk of ad- verse impacts on a fishery resource. Interactions between harvesting and other impacts such as pollution, climate change or available alternative habitats must also be considered. Determining acceptable levels of risk of short or long term adverse impacts on stocks, habitats, or marine ecosys- tems is a policy question. Environmental legislation dic- tates caution when impacts of an activity cannot be antici- pated, and the minimization of the risk of long term adverse impacts to both stocks and the marine environment. In cases where risk levels cannot be assessed, the data required to make those assessments should be indicated in the plans . In such cases , gradual as opposed to abrupt in- creases in fishing would seem in order to allow for time lags and a wide margin of safety with respect to possible adverse impacts on nontarget species. Future Developments in Fishery Management Theory The assumptions underlying single species management and MSY calculations are limiting and preclude ecosystem level considerations. The development of new theories for eco- system level fisheries management will have to begin with changing those assumptions. Ecosystem level management will be more complex than single species management because the problem is more complex. In particular, the number of vari- ables will increase. Aspects of the environment, particular- ly natural mortality, now assumed to be constant, will have to be treated as variables. Consequently, data requirements will also increase. Some serious consideration of which parameters will be most useful and practical in ecosystem level management should be undertaken by scientists and man- agers familiar with present ecological theory and fisheries management and with environmental legislation. 46 IDEAL FMP CHARACTERISTICS To meet the requirements of good management and the intents of the MMPA and ESA as well as the FCMA, fishery man- agement plans should include explicit consideration of the effects of fisheries on the marine environment, critical habitat for endangered species, important habitat for other species, carrying capacity for marine mammals, incidental take of marine mammals, and the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Marine mammal distribution in the U.S. FCZ and a provisional list of marine mammal species for each council region are listed in Appendix H. To begin to meet legislative intents more closely, more ecological descriptive information is in order. The trophic interactions, including competition, predation and prey, of an exploited fish stock at each stage of the species life cycle should be described. Where such information is not available, assumptions made on the basis of similar species elsewhere should be stated. To ensure that ecological inter- actions are kept in mind, conceptual foodweb diagrams for each marine ecosystem within an FCZ should be developed and included as part of the background information in all fishery management plans affecting that ecosystem. Estimates of the food requirements for populations which prey on fishery stocks, of the availability of potential alternate prey should be made. The time lags required for long lived predators to adjust to variations in the produc- tivity and density of short lived prey should also be among the ecological considerations involved in OY determination. Since continuing yield is usually a fishery management goal, and since capital investment in vessels and employment for fishermen exert economic pressures against reducing allowable catch levels, a fishery can be viewed as an additional preda- tor in an ecosystem, and a very long lived one. Where quan- titative predator prey considerations are impossible, a care- ful assessment of data required to achieve them should be included in the fishery management plan. An ecosystem perspective on impacts of a fishery does not imply avoidance of any impacts on the marine environment or ecosystem. Instead it means that those impacts should not go unmentioned, but should be stated in plans, accompanied by associated probability levels, so that the acceptability of the anticipated risk can be evaluated. 47 Reviewers ' comments indicate that precise impacts of different fishing levels on habitats or ecosystems are not usually predictable. If impacts are not considered to be predictable, that should be stated in the plan. The addi- tional data or theoretical developments necessary for im- proved prediction should be indicated. V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Although there are differences in the specific intents and provisions of the FCMA , the MMPA, and the ESA, the gene- ral intents of the Acts are similar, namely, to protect and conserve living marine resources and the ecosystems of which they are a part. Together, the FCMA, MMPA and ESA mandate an ecosystem level perspective on and approach to fisheries management . The fishery management plans that have been developed to date recognize, but do not fully reflect, the ecological concepts embodied in the FCMA, MMPA and ESA. While the fish- ery management plans have recognized that optimum yield must consider biological, ecological and socio-economic factors, in most cases OY has been selected without attempting to take account of the impacts of other species on target species , or of either direct or indirect impacts of fishing on species dependent on or associated with target species or on the eco- systems of which they are a part. The strict single species orientation of most of the management plans is contrary to the intents of the MMPA, ESA, and MMPA and to the require- ments of sound management . Traditional fisheries management has been single species oriented and has not taken into account interactions among species, or changes in environmental conditions. The incorp- oration of an estimate of natural mortality rate in MSY cal- culations is often considered to be sufficient consideration of the requirements of natural predators. However, long term changes in the abundance of a target species due to fishing can reasonably be expected to result in long term changes in food available to predators . Lack of data is generally cited as the reason why fish- ery management plans do not take account of interactions be- tween species, but in most if not all cases, data are suffi- cient at least to evaluate the risk or chances that a proposed or alternative management decision would have adverse biolog- ical, ecological, or socio-economic effects. The estimation 48 . of impacts or risks associated with various harvest levels or strategies is a scientific matter, but the determination of what risk levels are acceptable is a policy matter. The science and policy aspects of risk assessment need to be addressed separately. Some fishery managers, anong others, perceive the FCMA and MMPA to be incompatible, i.e., suspect that the objectives of both Acts cannot be attained simultaneously. However, this incompatibility appears to be more perceptual than real, and probably results from an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of optimum yield. The NMFS operational def- inition of optimum sustainable population appears to be that which will sustain optimum yield, as defined by the FCMA to take account of relevant biological, ecological, eco- nomic and social factors. The maintenance of optimum sus- tainable populations of marine mammals and endangered species is a reasonable ecological consideration in the selection of optimum yield levels. Levels of risk of adverse impact on marine ecosystems or fishery resources and the acceptability of those risks have not been considered explicitly in fishery management plans. Perceptions of responsibility for assessing risks associated with fish harvesting and for providing documenting data differ. These differences need to be discussed and resolved . Given that the objectives of the FCMA, the MMPA and the ESA are not mutually exclusive, and that available data, theory and models are sufficient to develop fishery manage- ment plans which are consistent with the intents and pro- visions of the three Acts , a multidisciplinary group of sci- entists and managers should be convened to discuss ecosys- tem level fishery management. If possible, the group should establish procedures for developing fishery management plans based upon consideration of impacts on nontarget as well as target species rather than traditional single species MSY concepts . VI. ^COMMENDATIONS The FCMA, the MMPA and the ESA along with other rele- vant environmental legislation should be reviewed from both scientific and policy perspectives. The scientific review should address ecosystem level management considera- tions feasible with existing data and theory, as well as 49 . desirable future developments. Consideration of changes in fishery management strategy should be addressed to meet- ing the requirements of the MMPA, ESA and FCMA for an eco- system level perspective on fisheries management. To as- sist in the development of management criteria, operational definitions or criteria for meeting the requirements of each of these Acts should be developed or improved. The policy review should address the questions of acceptable risk levels , interpretation of risk levels in the absence of relevant data, and responsibility for assessing and doc- umenting risk levels . A workshop should be convened to address the specific scientific and policy questions about fisheries management and to develop criteria for an idealized fishery management plan. The workshop should include representatives from the agencies responsible for implementing the FCMA, MMPA and ESA, as well as scientists knowledgeable about the marine environment, specific resource populations, fisheries manage- ment and ecological modeling. To accomplish the objectives of science and policy review, specific tasks undertaken at the workshop should include: 1. a review of the statutory responsibilities and management objectives under the FCMA, MMPA, ESA, and other relevant legislation; 2. a review of current theory and practices concern- ing population and ecosystem management with a view to incorporating existing techniques into fishery management plans ; 3. a review of selected population, community and ecosystem models with a view to better incorpora- tion of existing data and theory into management plans; 4. identification of general deficiencies in exist- ing population and ecosystem theory models and data ; 5. identification of factors that must be considered in making management decisions in the absence of sufficient data, theory or models; 6. identification of appropriate methods and proce- dures for making management decisions in the ab- sence of sufficient data, theory or models; and 50 7. development of an idealized fishery management plan. The results of this workshop should be used to: 1. review and revise as necessary fishery manage- ment plans which have been developed, approved and implemented; 2. develop as possible standard procedures for preparing and reviewing new fishery management plans ; and 3. design and undertake studies needed to fill critical data gaps. While the scientific and policy review of the FCMA, MMPA, and ESA and consideration of improved fishery manage- ment plan characteristics are underway, more attention to marine mammal issues can be encouraged in fishery management plans through the existing process for plan development and review. Marine mammal experts should be represented on the advisory panels and the scientific and statistical com- mittees of the councils. In addition they should partici- pate on plan development teams or in contracts for drafting management plans, both of which are possible without actual membership on SSCs or advisory panels . The NMFS Guidelines for Development of Fishery Manage- ment Plans (42 FR 34458, July 5, 1977) sections 602.2 and 602.3, should be revised to include more detail on ecological relationships involving target species , specific references to marine mammals and endangered species, and assessment of impacts on nontarget species and the health of the marine ecosystem. Suggested changes in the language of the Guide- lines are presented in Appendix K. VII. ACKNOWLEDGFMENTS The individuals listed in Appendix A have generously pro- vided information on FCMA implementation procedures and fish- ery management plan development. A. MacCall provided assistance with calculations in Table F-2. In addition, review comments from R. Eisenbud, R. Hofman, G. Mahoney and P. Major have been particularly helpful. Many NMFS personnel also contributed re- view comments. The Office of the Geographer, U. S. Department of State, provided the map of the U.S. FCZ on which Figure 2 is based. 51 VIII. REFERENCES Green, K.A. 1977 . Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling, revised Ross Sea model, general southern ocean budget, and seal model. NTIS PB 270 375. 1978. Ecosystem description of the California Current. Final report, Marine Mammal Commission Contract MM7AC-026. Gulland, J. 1978. Fishery management: new strategies for new conditions. Trans. Amer . Fish. Soc . 107:1-11. Holt, S.J. and L.M. Talbot 1978. New Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources. Wildlife Monographs #59, 33 p. Laevastu, T. and F. Favorite 1978. The Control of Pelagic Fishery Resources in the Eastern Bering Sea (A numerical ecosystem study of factors affecting fluctuations of pelagic fishery resources with emphasis on herring), March 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA/NMFS, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, Washington. 63 p. May, R.M. , J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, and "R.M. Laws 1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. Science 205: 267-277. Smith, T. (editor) 1979. Report of the Status of Porpoise Stocks Workshop. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA/NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California. November 1979. U.S. Department of Commerce 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Statement en the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS, July 1979. 52 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED IN THE COURSE OF THIS STUDY Harold Allen, Deputy Director Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Building 9450 Roger Blvd. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Dayton L. Alverson, Director Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, Washington 98112 George A. Antonelis, Jr. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 Spencer Apollonio, Executive Director New England Fishery Management Council Peabody Office Building One Newbury Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Curt Beiningen Oregon Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 97208 Gerhardt Benich Bureau of Land Management 800 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Howard Braham Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 Jim H. Branson, Executive Director North Pacific Fishery Management Council P.O. Box 3136 DT Anchorage, Alaska 99510 A-l J . Brawner Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Building 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Robert Brownell National Fish and Wildlife Lab National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institute Washington, D.C. 20560 John C. Bryson, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Federal Building, Room 2115 North and New Streets Dover, Delaware 19901 Eugene Buck Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 John Burns Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Don Calkins Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Anchorage, Alaska 99500 Joe Clem National Marine Fisheries Service 3300 Whitehaven Parkway Washington, D.C. 20235 Arthur E. Dammann , Chief Scientist Caribbean Fishery Management Council P.O. Box 1001 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 Charles Evans Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 A-2 Felix Favorite Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, Washington 98112 William W. Fox, Jr. Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla, California 92037 Frank Fukuhara Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, Washington 98112 James Gilbert School of Forest Resources University of Maine Orono , Maine 04473 Donald Hales U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 813 D Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Robert Hanks , Deputy Director Northeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Building 14 Elm Street Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 Henry Hanson Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 George Harry Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 Donald Hayne South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee Southpark Bldg., Suite 306 1 Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407 A- 3 Gary Hufford Bureau of Land Management 800 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mark Hutton North Pacific Fishery Management Council P.O. Box 3136 DT Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Ancel Johnson Fish and Wildlife Service 4454 Business Park Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Robert Kifer Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3300 Whitehaven Washington, D.C. 20235 Bert Larkins Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, Washington 98112 Taivo Laevastu Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, Washington 98112 Alec MacCall Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla, California 92037 Glen K. Mahoney Environmental Affairs Specialist Northeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service State Fish Pier Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 Ole Mathisen Fisheries Center University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 A-4 Donald L. McKernan , Director Institute for Marine Studies University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Alan Millikan Marine Fisheries Center University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Omar Munoz-Roure, Executive Director Caribbean Fishery Management Council P.O. Box 1001 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 L. M. Nakatsu, Executive Director Pacific Fishery Management Council 526 S.W. Mill Street Portland, Oregon 97201 Eugene Nitta National Marine Fisheries Service Terminal Island, California 90731 Daniel Odell Division of Biology School Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, Florida 33149 Charles A. Oravetz Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Bldg. 9450 Roger Blvd. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 William Perrin Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla, California 92037 Kenneth Pitcher Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Anchorage, Alaska 99500 A-5 Ernest D. Premetz, Executive Director South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Southpark Building, Suite 306 1 Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407 John Prescott, Director New England Aquarium Central Wharf Boston, Massachusetts 02110 William Reed Center for Natural Areas Box 98 South Gardiner, Maine 04359 Dick Roe Office of Marine Mammals National Marine Fisheries Service 3300 Whitehaven Washington, D.C. 20235 Brian J. Rothschild, Director Office of Policy Development and Long Range Planning U.S. Department of Commerce 14th and E Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 John Savage U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 97208 David Schmidly Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843 Tim Smith, Fishery Biologist Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla, California 92037 William Steiner Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 881 5401 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 A- 6 Michael Tillman Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 7 600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 Larry Underwood Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99510 W. G. Van Campen, Executive, Director Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Howard Winn Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 Mark Zilberberg National Marine Fisheries Service 3300 Whitehaven Parkway Washington, D.C. 20235 Milton Zahn National Marine Fisheries Service Juneau, Alaska 99801 A- 7 APPENDIX B COUNCIL STRUCTURE States Represented by Councils There are eight regional councils, each representing several coastal states : New England - Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut Mid-Atlantic - New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia South Atlantic - North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida (east coast) Gulf of Mexico - Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida (west coast) Caribbean - Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands Pacific - Oregon, California, Washington and Idaho North Pacific - Alaska, Washington, Oregon (Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea and Pacific seaward of Alaska) Western Pacific - Hawaii, Samoa and Guam B-l Council Membership Composition Voting members on the councils are: 1. the principal state official with marine fishing management responsibility and expertise in each state (desig- nated by the governor) ; 2. the regional director of the NMFS for the geographic area (if there are two NMFS regions, the Secretary designates which director shall vote) ; and 3. members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, taken from a list submitted by the governor (with at least 3 names for each vacancy) of individuals knowledgeable or experienced with regard to management, conservation, or recreational or commercial harvest of fishery resources. Number of voting members : Appointed NMFS by Designated State Regional Council Secretary Rep: resentatives Director Total New England 11 5 1 17 Mid-Atlantic 12 6 1 19 South Atlantic 8 4 1 13 Caribbean 4 2a 1 7 Gulf of Mexico 11 5 1 17 Pacific 8 4 1 13 North Pacific 7 3 1 11 Western Pacific 7 3b 1 11 a - 2 territorial representatives 23-1 state representative, 2 territorial representatives Non-voting members of the councils are: 1. The regional or area director of the USFWS for the geographic area; B-2 2, . Commander of the Coast Guard district for the geographic area which oversees that area, (When there are multiple districts in a Council area, the Commandant of the Coast Guard designates the representative , ); 3, Executive Director of the Marine Fisheries Commission (Atlantic, Gulf or Pacific states commissions) -, 4, A Department of State representative designated by the Secretary of State, and 5, The Pacific Council -has one extra non-voting member appointed by the governor of Alaska. B-3 APPENDIX C MEMBERSHIP LISTS FOR COUNCILS AND SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEES Council Page North Pacific G-2 Pacific C-4 Western Pacific C-7 New England C-10 Mid-Atlantic C-14 South Atlantic ■ C-18 Gulf of Mexico • • •. C-21 Caribbean . . C-34 C-l MARCH 1. 1979 NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS Clement V Tillion, Chairman Halibut Cove. Alaska 99603 (Pouch V. Juneau, 99811 during legislative session) Harold E Lokken. Vice Chairman Director, Pacific Fisheries Foundation Fisnermen's Terminal, Bldg C-3. Rm 230 Seattle, Washington 98119 Douglas B Eaton Fisherman Box 2871, Kodiak. Alaska 99615 Prot, Donald L McKernan. Director Institute of Marine Studies University of Washington. HA-35 3731 University Way. N E Seattle. Washington 98119 James 0 Camobell Businessman 840 K Suite 200, Anchorage. Alaska 99507 Charles H Meacham Director International Fisnenes & External Affairs Office of the Governor, Pouch A Juneau, Alaska 99801 Gordon Jensen Fisnerman P O. Box 264, Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Ron Skoog. Commissioner Alaska Deot of Fish & Game Subport Bldg , Juneau. Alaska 99801 Alternate Don Collinsworth Gordon Sandison, Director Washington Department of Fisheries Genl Admin Bldg , Room 115 Olympia, Washington 98510 Alternate Gene DiDonato John R Donaldson, Director Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department P O Box 3503 Portland Oregon, 97208 Alternate Robert Mace Harry L Rietze, Director Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service PO Box 1668 Juneau. Alaska 99802 Alternate Robert McVey John P Harville, Executive Director Pacific Marine Fisnenes Commission 528 S W Mill St Portland. Oregon 97201 Alternate Clarence Pautzke Rear Admiral Robert Duin. Commander Seventeenth Coast Guard District P O Box 3-5000 Juneau. Alaska 9981 1 Alternate CDR Busick Carl Price Department of State Washington, DC 20520 Alternate Ray Arnaudo Keith Schnener Area Director U S Fish & Wildlife Service 101 1 Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Alternate Donald Hales Indicates voting members SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE Steven Pennoyer Alaska Department of Fisn and Game Subport Bunding Juneau. Alaska 99801 Jack G Robinson Oregon Dept of Fish & Wildlife Marine Scence Drive. Bldg No. 3 Newport, Oregon 97365 Donald E Sevan Fisheries Center. Room 204 University of Washington WH-10 Seattle, Washington 98195 Edward L Miles Institute for Marine Studies University of Washington HA-35 Seattle, Washington 98195 George W Rogers 1790 Evergreen Avenue Juneau. Alaska 99801 Donald H Rosenperg Alaska Sea Grant Program University of Alaska Fairbanks. Alaska 99701 Frank Fukuhara Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle. Washington 98112 James A Crutchfield 301 Savery Hall DK-30 University of Washington Seattle. Washington 98195 Alan E. Millikan Washington Department of Fisheries M-1 Fisheries Center WH-10 University of Washington Seattle, Wasnmgton 98195 Jack Lechner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P O Box 686 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 C-2 NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Suite 32 333 Meat Fourth Avenue (Postal Address) P.O. Box 3136 DT Anchorage, Alaska 99510 (907) 274-4563 Chairman Clement Tillion Vice Chairman Harold E. Lokken Executive Director Jim H. Branson Deputy Execucive Director Mark Hutton Administrative Officer Judy Willoughby Writer H. M. Hershberger Executive Secretary Florence Mynarski Secretary Janet Murray Secretary Irtaagene Nelson C-3 PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL fall 1979 Dr. John R. Donaldson, Director Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P. 0. Box 3503 Portland, OR 97208 503/229-5406 Designee: Robert N. Thompson 503/229-5669 Mr. E. Charles Fullerton (Chairman) Director, California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445-3535 FTS 8/465-3535 Designee: Robert G. Kaneen 213/590-5117 ''Vice Admiral James S. Gracey Commander, Pacific Area U. S. Coast Guard 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94126 415/556-3860 Designee: Rear Admiral Charles E. Larkin 13th Coast Guard District Federal Bldg. , Room 3509 915 - 2nd Street Seattle, WA 98174 (Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Northern California) Rear Admiral Harold W. Parker, Jr. 11th Coast Guard District Union Bank Building 400 Oceangate Long Beach, CA 90822 (Southern California) Mr. Joseph C. Greenley, Director Idaho Fish and Game Department 600 South Walnut Boise, ID 83707 203/384-3771 FTS 8/554-3771 Designee: Robert Salter 203/384-3772 FTS 8/554-3772 Mr. Roy E. Gunnari Route 2, Box 692F Coos Bay, OR 97420 503/833-5339 *Dr. John P. Harville Executive Director, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 528 S.W. Mill Street Portland, OR 97201 503/229-5840 Designee: Russell G. Porter 503/229-5840 Mr. Donald R. Johnson Northwest Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service 1700 Westlake Avenue, North Seattle, WA 98109 206/442-7575 FTS 8/399-7575 Designee: Gerald V. Howard 213/548-2575 FTS 8/796-2575 (Vice Chairm Mr. Herman J. McDevitt P. 0. Box 4747 Pocatello, ID 83201 208/233-4121 Mr. John W. McKean 15525 S.E. Riverforest Drive Portland, OR 97222 503/654-8397 Mr. Guy McMinds Quinault Tribal Office P. 0. Box 67 Taholah, WA 98587 office: 206/276-42^1 home: 206/276-4335 Mr. John A. Martinis Room 229, House Office Building Olympia, WA 98504 206/753-7850 FTS 8/434-7850 *Non-voting member **After close of legislative session (approx. May 1), Rep. "artinis can be reached at home: address: 209 Bridgeway Everett, WA 98207 phone: 206/252-3907 C-4 *Mr. R. Kahler Martinson Regional Director U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lloyd 500 Bldg. - Suite 1692 Portland, OR 97232 503/231-6118 Designee: John L. Savage 503/231-6216 *Mr. Charles H. Meacham, Director International Fisheries and External Affairs Office of the Governor Juneau, AK 99801 907/465-3580 Designee: Reva Lafavour Mr. Charles F. Mechals Manager, New England Fish Company Box 159 Lapush, WA 98350 206/374-6248 *Mr. Carl Price Office of Depi for Oceans e Department of ty Assistant nd Fisheries State - Room Secretary Affairs 3214 Uashington, D. 202/632-2883 Designee: C. Ray 1 202/ \rnaudo 532-5690 Mr. John J. Royal Secretary-Treasurer Fisherman and Allied Workers Union ILWU, Local No. 33 806 S. Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 213/833-1391 Mr. Gordon Sandison, Director Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 206/753-6623 FTS 8/434-6623 Designee: Sam Wright 206/753-6629 FTS 8/434-6629 Mr. Vernon J. Smith 14690 Wyrick Avenue San Jose, CA 95124 (home) 408/377-2045 (office) 408/299-3911 STAFF OF THE PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL fall 1979 Council Address: 526 S.W. Mill Street Portland, OR 97201 503/221-6352 FTS 8/423-6352 Lorry M. Nakatsu, Executive Director Gerald L. Fisher, Administrative Officer Lawrence D. Six, Staff Officer (Biologist) Rodney R. Mclnnis, Staff Officer (Biologist) Jean C. Mandvill, Staff Officer Wanda Dierman, Secretary Carolyn Beach, Administrative Technician L. Edward Perry, Salmon Plan Coordinator Kathleen J. Scorgie, Clerk-Typist C-5 SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE Pacific Fishery Management Council fall 1979 Dr. Dayton L. Alverson (Chairman) Center Director Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Monti ake Boulevard East Seattle, WA 98112 206/442-4760 Designee: Mr. Loh Lee Low 206/442-0822 Mr. Izadore Barrett Director Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service P. 0. Box 271 La Jolla, CA 92038 714/453-2820 Designee: Dr. Daniel Huppert " 714/453-2820 Dr. Donald E. Bevan Associate Dean College of Fisheries, WH-10 University of Washington Seattle, WA 93195 206/543-4270 Mr. Gordon Broadhead Living Marine Resources, Inc. 7169 Construction Court San Diego, CA 92121 714/578-3810 Mr. Robert E. Loeffel Director Research Laboratory Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 503/867-4741 Mr. J. Carl Mundt 1230 Bank of California Seattle, WA 98164 206/624-5950 Mr. David W. Ortmann Idaho Fish and Game Department P. 0. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 208/38^-3791 FTS 8/554-3791 Mr. John Radovich (Vice Chairman) Chief, Operations Research Branch California Dept. of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445-5609 Dr. Bruce Rettig Associate Professor, Dept. of Agriculture & Resource Economics Oregon State University Con/all is, OR 97331 503/754-2942 Dr. Richard R. Whitney, Leader Washington Cooperative Fishery Unit College of Fisheries University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 206/543-6475 Dr. Charles E. Woelke Chief, Research and Development Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 206/753-6635 Designee (on salmon matters): Dr. Peter K. Bergman 206/753-6630 C-6 WESTERN PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL fall 1978 Room 1608 1164 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 523-1368 Chairman Wadsworth Y. H. Yee Vice Chairman Peter E. Reid - Paul J. Sordallo Executive Director Wilvan G. Van Campen Administrative Officer Edwin K. Lee Executive Secretary Rose B. Simonds Clerk -Typist Ellen Reformina VOTire MEMBERS Appointed Louis S. Agard, Jr. 5 3 South Kukui Street, Apt. D404 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (308) 538-6677 Paul J. Sordallo P.O. Box 1306 Agana, Guam 96910 477-8530 Paul Callaghan College of Business and Public Administration University of Guam P.O. Box EK Agana, Guam 96910 Peter S. Fithian Chairman, Hawaiian International 3illfish Association 2923 Makalei Place Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 (308) 923-7177 Frank K. Goto Manager, United Fishing Agency, Ltd. 218 Nimitz Highway Honolulu, Hawaii 96317 (808) 536-2148 Peter E. Reid , Jr. Manager, GHC Reid and Company, Inc. P.O. Box 1478 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 633-5169 Wadsworth Y. H. Yee President, Grand Pacific Life. Insurance Company 195 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 548-5101 Member Designated State Officials Designee Kenj i Ego Director, Division of Fish and Game Department of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96313 (308) 548-4000 Henry M. Sakuda Chief, Fisheries 3ranch Division of Fish and Game Department of Land and Matural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 548-5920 Rufo J. Lujan Director, Department of Agriculture Government of Guam Agana, Guam 96910 734-9966 Lourdes M. Perez Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture Government of Guam Agana, Guam 96910 734-9966 Henry S. Sesepasara Director, Office of Marine Resources Government of American Samoa Paso Paeo , American Samoa 96799 634-3356 Richard C. Wass Fishery 3iologist Government of American Samoa Paga Pago, American Samoa 96799 633-4456 C-7 WESTTRN PACIFIC (continued) fall 1978 VOTING MEMBERS NMFS Regional Office Member Designee Gerald V. Howard Director, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 90731 (213) 548-2575 FTS: 796-2575 Floyd S. Anders Deputy Director, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 90731 (213) 548-2575 FTS: 796-2575 NON- VOTING MEMBERS United Staces Fish and Wildlife Service Henry Hansen Hawaii Administrator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. 3ox 50167 Honolulu, Hawaii 96350 (308) 546-5608 United States Coast Guard RADM David F. Lauth Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District 6 77 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96313 (308) 546-5531 Capt. Swain L. Wilson Chief of Staff, OR Capt. John C. Guthrie Operations Officer Fourteenth Coast Guard District 677 Ala Moana 3oulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (308) 546-5531 Department of State J. Carlton Price Office of Fisheries Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 (202) 532-2833 C-S WESTERN PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE fall 1978 Izadore Barrett, Director NMFS, SW Fisheries Center P.O. Box 271 La Jolla, Calif. 92038 Lucius G. Eldredge University of Guam P.O. Box EK Agana, Guam 96910 Henry M. Sakuda, Chief Marine Sec. Div. Fish & Game 1151 Punchbowl St. Honolulu, Hi. 96813 Dr. John P. Craven, Dean Marine Programs University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hi. 96822 Richard S. Shomura, Director Honolulu Laboratory SW Fisheries Center P.O. Box 3830 Honolulu, Hi. 96812 Harry T. Kami, Acting Chief Div. of Fish & Wildlife Government of Guam Agana, Guam 96910 Dr. Philip Helfrich Associate Dean, Research University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hi. 96822 LCDR Mike Jacobs 14th Coast Guard District 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, Hi. 96850 Mr. Seichi Hirai Clerk of the Senate Room 028, State Capitol Honolulu, Hi. 96813 Dr. Richard W. Grigg Haw. Inst, of Marine Biology P.O. Box 1346 Kaneohe, Hi. 96744 Richard C. Wass Fishery Biologist Government of American Samoa P.O. Box 3730 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Dr. Hiroshi Yamauchi College of Tropical Agr. University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hi. 96822 Dr. John E. Byrne Office of Biological Serv. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. 500 N. E. Multnomah St. Portland, Oregon 97232 Jack Davidson, Director Sea Grant Programs University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hi. 96822 Dr. Tim D. Smith Southwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Serv. P.O. Box 271 La Jolla, California 92038 C-9 NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL fall 1979 VOTING MEMBERSHIP DESIGNATED STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER Spencer Apollonio, Commissioner Department of Marine Resources State House Augusta, ME 04330 Tel.: (207) 289-2291 Edward W. Spurr Supervisor of Fisheries Research N.H. Fish & Game Department Division of Inland & Marine Fisheries 34 Bridge Street Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 271-2501 Philip G. Coates, Director Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles Division of Marine Fisheries 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Tel: (617) 727-3193 John M. Cronan Division of Fish and Wildlife Washington County, Government Center Tower Hill Road Wakefield, RI Tel: (401) 789-3094 Robert A. Jones, Director Department of Environmental Protection Marine Region P.O. Box 248 Waterford, CT 06385 Tel: (203) 443-0166 Allen E. Peterson, Jr. Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Bldg., 14 Elm Street Gloucester, MA 01930 Tel.: (617) 281-3600 DESIGNEE Robert L. Dow, Research Director Department of Marine Resources State House Augusta, ME 04330 Tel.: (207) 289-2291 Leigh R. Welcome Assistant Administrator for Marine Fisheries N.H. Fish and Game Department 34 Bridge Street Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 271-2501 David E. Pierce, Senior Biologist Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles Division of Marine Fisheries 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Tel: (617) 727-3193 David Borden Division of Fish and Wildlife Washington County, Government Center Tower Hil 1 Road Wakefield, RI 02879 Tel: (401) 789-3094 Eric M. Smith, Staff Biologist Department of Environmental Protection Marine Region P.O. Box 248 Waterford, CT 06385' Tel: (203) 443-0166 Dr. Robert W. Hanks Deputy Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Bldg., 14 Elm Street Gloucester, MA 01930 Tel.: (617) 281-3600 C-10 NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL fall 1979 APPOINTED OBLIGATORY MEMBERS Harvey B. Mickelson (8/10/82) Seafood Dealers Association 26 Seventh Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Tel: 617-999-6414 Jacob J. Dykstra, President (8/10/82) Pt. Judith Fishermen's Cooperative Association P.O. Box 730 Pt. Judith, RI 02882 Tel: 401-783-3368 Patrick L. Carroll, II (8/10/82) 94 Henderson Road Fairfield, CT 06430 Tel: 203-259-5571 (H) 203-255-2400 (0) Robin Alden Peters (8/10/82) RFD, Blue Hill Falls Maine 04001 O4(o\5~ Tel: 207-374-2760 Herbert R. Drake (8/10/80) 130 Harbor Road Rye Harbor, NH 03870 Tel: 603-964-5345 APPOINTED AT LARGE MEMBERS Christopher M. Weld (8/10/82) c/o Sullivan & Worcester 100 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617-338-2909 Daniel A. Arnold (8/10/81) Executive Director Massachusetts Inshore Draggermen's Association 460 Main Street Marshfield, MA 02050 Tel: 617-837-5159 Francis J. 0'Hara (8/10/81) 15 Mountain Street Camden, ME 04843 Tel: 207-594-4444 Howard N. Larsen Regional Director U.S. Fish A Wildlife Service 1 Gateway Ctr, Suite 700 Newton Corner, MA 02158 Tel: 617-965-5100 Vice Adm. Robert I. Price (TS) Commander (Aol ) USCG Atlantic Area Governors Island New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-668-7876 Thomas A. Norris, V. President (8/10/80) Old Colony Trawling Corporation Boston Fisheries Association 253 Northern Ave. , Rm. 205 Boston, MA 02210 Tel: 617-542-2858 Robert H. Lowry (8/10/80) Richmond Townhouse Road Carolina, RI 02812 Tel: 401-364-9959 Norman Olsen, Jr. (8/10/81) RFD 1, Ocean House Road Cape Elizabeth, ME 04107 Tel: 207-767-3643 NON-VOTING MEMBERS Irwin M. Alperin Executive Director Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Mass. Ave. , NW Suite Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-387-5330 703 Donald Yellman, Fisheries Officer Department of State 0ES/0FA/FA, Room 3214 Washington, DC 20235 Tel: 202-632-1948 C-ll NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE fall 1979 Dr. Leah J. Smith, Chairperson (4/15/81) Economist and Research Associate Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Crowell House Woods Hole, MA 02543 (617) 548-1400, ext. 2746 Dr. James Wilson (4/15/81) Fishery Economist University of Maine Department of Economics Orono, ME 04473 (207) 581-7239 lv. message (207) 581-2242 Dr. Susan B. Peterson (4/15/81) Research Associate Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Redfield 120 Woods Hole, MA 02543 (617) 548-1400, ext. 300 Dr. Marvin Grosslein (4/15/81) Fishery Scientist Northeast Fisheries Center Woods Hole, MA 02543 (617) 548-5123 Dr. William Lund (4/15/81) Associate Professor of Biology University of Connecticut Marine Research Laboratory Noank, CT 06340 (203) 536-4233 Campus: (203) 486-4056 Dr. Joseph J. Graham (4/15/81) Fishery Scientist Fisheries Research Laboratory State of Maine West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 (207) 633-5572, ext. 57 Dr. Sarah W. Richards (4/15/81) Little Harbor Laboratory 69 Andrews Road Guilford, CT 06437 (203) 453-4794 Dr. Roderick M. Smith (4/15/81) Assistant Professor University of New Hampshire Department of Zoology Spaulding Life Science Building Durham, New Hampshire 03824 (603) 862-1234 Mr. W. Leigh Bridges (4/15/81) Assistant Director, Research Division of Marine Fisheries 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-3193 Note: Dates in parenthesis indicate the expiration date of appointment. 8/23/79 P C-12 NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL COUNCIL STAFF APRIL 13, 1979 Executive Director: Douglas Marshall Deputy Executive Director: G. Paul Draheim Executive Secretary: Patricia M. Pelczarski Secretary: Judy J. Ring Bookkeeper Sandy Ceurvels Senior Biologist: Guy D. Marchesseault Senior Economist: Biologist: Howard J. Russell, Jr. Economist: Der Hsiung Wang Statistician: Louis J. Goodreau Peabody Offiee Building One Newbury Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 (617) 535-5450 FTS: 223-3822 C-13 MOABUailG FISHZSJ MANAGZKEHT coctcil Federal 3ulldlag, Room 3115 :ionh and '.far Screats Dover, Delaware 13901 (302) 674-2331 cTS: 437-9154 fall 1979 Caaiman David 3 . Ear: 7ica Caalnan D Hoc J. Goldman Hxacaciva Dlrsccor Jooa C. 3ryson Fishery Maasgeaant 5paciali3t/3iology John M. Hason Fishery Management Sperl a U ara D. Seaveason Tonka, lac. Route 3, 3ox Jl-A Dagsboro, Delaware 199 39 (302) 539-9096 C-14 Reproduced from best available copy. MH>AILAMTTC ( continued) fall 1979 Maria er TOTCTC MEK3EBS Designated Seaea Officials Designee Ralph B. Abela Executive Director Pennsylvania Pish Commission P.O. 3ox 1673 aarrisburg, Pmnsvivania 17120 (7175 787-6593 Ruaaall A. Cookiagnam Director, Division of Plah, Gama and Shal 1 fisheries Department of Environmental Protection P.O. 3os 1309 Trenton, Hew Jersey 08625 (609) 292-94U !. Douglas, Jr. Conmisaionar, 'Mansa Resources Commission P.O. 3ox 756 Hewoors Hews, Virginia 23607 (304) 245-2811 Rob err Placke :«sar — wnc of Environmental Conservation 50 Voir Road Albany, Hew Torts 12233 (513) 457-3446 Robert J. ?.uow i -rrn Cancer for Eav. i Estuarina Studies Chi varsity of Maryland 3ox 775 - Dambridga, Maryland 21613 (201) 223-9250 Vllliam C. 'Jagnar, 12 Director, Division of Plan ind Viidlira Daparrsenc of Hacural Resources and Environmental Control Edward Tataall 3ulljiing Dover, Delaware 19901 (302) 673-4431 Edward R- Miliar Assistant Executive Director 3ureau of Pisherias and Engineering Pennsylvania Pish Commission Robinson Lane Belief onte, Pennsylvania 16323 (814) 359-2754 Paul Earner Pisherias Biologist Division of Fish, Game, and Shellfish eries Hacote Creek Research Station Scar Route Absecon, Hew Jersey 08201 (609) 652-9539 Russell Short Marina Resources Cotrnrf sslon ?.<3. 3ox 756 Hewnort Hews, Virginia 23607 (304) 245-23U Anthony S. Taonrlna Director, Marina and Coastal Res. Department of Environmental Conservation 3uilding 40, State University of Hew Tork Stony 3rooit, Hew Torts U794 (516) 751-7900 Pamela D. Luna ford Marine Plsherles liaison Officer Tawes State Office 3n1 Idlng 580 Taylor Avenue .Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 259-3558 Renal Smith Division of Pish and wildlife Department of Hacural Resources agd Environnantal Control Edward Tatnall 3uildiag Dover, Delaware 19901 (302) 673-4431 :TWTS Rational Office Allan E. Peterson, Jr. Director, Horrheaac Region National Marina fisheries Servica 14 Elm S treat Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 (517) 281-3600 PTS: 337-9200 Dr. Robert Hanks Depury Director, Horthaast Region National Marine fisheries Service 14 Elm Street Gloucester, Massachusetts 019 30 (617) 281-2600 FTS: 337-9200 C-15 JgD-aXmmC (continued) fall 1979 SKMTOOTISC '.-SSE35 Marine "isneriea Co""" ■= 3 ion gMbflg Designee Irvia a. Alperia Douglaa 3. Gordon ixecucive Director A33i3canc :o taa Director Atlantic Statea Marina itUad: States Marina rtsaariea Conmlaalon Fisheriaa Dcr-m sa-rq 1717 ftmchmta Avenua, ~-f.». 1717 Maaaachuaetta ivanut, S.W. tfaahingeon, O.C. 20036 tfaaalagcon, D.C. :C0j6 (202) 387-5330 (202) 387-5330 Juiced States -Tan and "JUdllia Service laaaa S. Shaw Ricaard St. Pierre Assistant Rational Director U.S. ~isd and Wildlife 5«r-rtco Federal Aaaiatanca Area Office U.S. "Ian and Wildlife Service 100 Chaatauc Street One Gaceway Center Earrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02153 (717) 732-3743 (517) 965-5100 "nl:ed States Coast Guard 71ca Adairal Robert I. Price Cape. Milton T. Susich U.S. Coaac Guard U.S. Coast Guard Goosander (A) 3rd Coaac Guard District Atlantic Area (AO) Governors Island Governors la land :Jaw Torfc, Hew 7orfc 10004 :tev Tork, Mew Tork. 10004 (212) 264-4994 (212) 254-4994 Debarment of State Donald J. Tellaan 0ES/0SAVSA Room 3214 Depamanc or Scare Vaaniaaton, O.C. 20520 (202) 632-1943 C-16 Dr. Emory Anderson National Marine Fisheries Service Woods Hole, MA 02543 Dr. Robert 897 Laurel Arnold, MD Forste Way 21012 Or. Harold Haskin P.O. Box 157 Piscataway, NJ 08854 Dr. Lee Anderson College of Marine Studies University of Delaware Newark, DE 19711 Mr. Paul Hamer Nacote Creek Res. Sta. Star Route Absecon, NJ 08201 Dr. Bonnie J. McCay Dept. of Human Ecology Cook College P.O. Box 23 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Dr. Herb Austin VIMS Gloucester Pt., VA 23062 Dr. J. L. McHugh Marine Sci . Research Ctr State University of N.Y. Stony Brook, NY 11794 Mr. Stuart Wilk NOAA/NMFS/NEFC Sandy Hook Lab Highlands, NJ 07732 Mr. Virgil Norton Dr. Susan Peterson Dept. of Agriculture & Res. Eco.WHOI Univ. of MD Woods Hole, MA 02543 College Park, MD 20740 Mid-Atlantic Council Scientific and Statistical Committee fall 1979 C-17 August 7, 1979 Rev. 11/15/79 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Members 1 Southpark Circle, Suite 306 Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Irwin M. Alperin, Executive Director Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 703 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202-387-5330) Gertrude W. Bernhard *2 Paddock Circle Jupiter-Tequesta, FL 33458 (Environmentalist) (1981) (305-746-7255) Kenneth E. Black, Regional Director Frank R. Richardson, Designee Assistant Regional Director-Fisheries U.S. Fish and" Wildlife Service Richard B. Russell Federal Bldg. 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404-221-3576) Allen F. Branch RFD 1, P.O. Box 212 Midway, GA 31320 (Recreational) (1982) (912-884-2723) Melvin R. Daniels, Jr. 1618 Rochelle Drive Elizabeth City, NC 27909 (919) 338-2141 Office (919) 338-6939 Home (Banking/Finance) (1982) J. Roy Duggan, President King Shrimp Co., Inc. P.O. Box 899 Brunswick, GA 31520 (Commercial) (1982) (912-265-5155) Edgar C. Glenn, Jr. Star Route 5, Apt. 5-B, Marsh Harbor Beaufort, S.C. 29902 (Recreational) (1980) (803-524-4508) David H. G. Gould Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Research Program 1200 Glynn Avenue Brunswick, G A 31520 (912-264-7218) Benjamin T. Hardesty Vice President, Public Relations Shakespeare Company P.O. Box 246 Columbia, S.C. 29202 (Recreational) (1981) (803-779-5800) Edwin B. Joseph, Director South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, S.C. 29412 (803-795-6350) *Elton J. Gissendaner, Director O.B. Lee, Designee Department of Natural Resources Crown Building, 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 (904-488-0796) Edward G. McCoy, Director Div. of Marine Fisheries N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, N.C. 28557 (919-726-7021) Jerry Sansom, Executive Director Organized Fishermen of Florida P.O. Box 740 Melbourne, FL 32901 (Commercial) (1982) (305-725-5212) RADM Benedict Stabile, USCG Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District Federal Building, Room 1031 51 SW First Avenue Miami, FL 33130 (305-350-5654) Margaret A. Stamev 6201 Arnold Road Raleigh, N.C. 27607 (Consumerist) (1980) (919-851-0495) William H. Stevenson. Director. Southeast Region National ?larine Fisheries Service Duval Building, 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (813-893-3141) Donald A. Yellman Office of Fisheries Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Department of State, Room 3214 Washington, D.C. 20520 (202-632-1948) C-18 February 9, 1979 Rev, 11/16/79 SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Mr. Dale Beau manage Department of Natural Resources 202 Blount Street Crown Building Tallahassee, FL 32304 (904) 487-1715 Dr. James C. Cato 1170 McCarty Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 (904) 392-4991 Dr. Albert F. Chestnut, (Chairman) Institute of Marine Sciences Morehead City, NC 28557 (919) 726-6841 Dr. Don W. Hayne North Carolina State University— Inst ./Stat. P.O. Box 5457 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 737-2531 Dr. Peter Eldridge Charleston Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 12607 Charleston, SC 29412 (803) 724-4693 Dr. Leon Abbas 105 1911 Building North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27650 (919) 737-2454 Mr. Richard H. Stroud Executive Vice-President Sport Fishing Institute 608 13th Street, N.W. Suite 801 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-0668 Dr. Thomas J. Schoenbaum Tulane University School of Law xNew Orleans, LA 70118 Dr. Paul Sandifer South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 (803)795-6350 Mr. David Cupka Marine Resources Division P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 (803) 795-6350 Dr. Arthur Weiner Route 2, Box 310 Summerland Kev, FL 33042 (305) 872-9072 " Mr. Robert Mahood Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources Coastal Research Program 1200 Glynn Avenue Brunswick, GA 31520 (912) 264-7218 Dr. William W. Fox, Director Southeast Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, FL 33149 (305) 361-5761 Dr. John Maiolo Sociology/ Anthropology Department East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27834 (919) 757-6883 Dr. Ed Chin Director, Marine Sciences Program Ecology Building University of Georgia Athens, Georgia (404) 542-7671 C-19 SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL STAFF Ernest D. Premetz Executive Director W. Jackson Davis Chief Scientist Gail E. Workman Administrative Assistant Deborah A. Canavan Writer/Editor Donna G. Galloway Bookkeeper/Administrative Clerk Loretta J. Glatfelter Secretary Linda S. Babb Secretary (vacant) Economist Southpark Building, Suite 306 1 Southpark Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407 (303) 571-4366 FTS: 571-4366 C-20 OO.SCP.79*000795 Revised: 9/14/79 GULF OF MEXICO FIS:'r'P.Y MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEHBLi'S.'iIP LIST VOTING MEMBERS: Business address: ROBERT P. JONES (CHAIRMAN) Executive Director Southeastern Fisheries Association 124 West Jefferson St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 224-0612 Home address: 1211 Lasswade Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 EDWARD H. SWINDELL (VICE-CHAIRMAN) Zapata Protein, Inc. Zapata Tower Post Office Box 4240 Houston, TX 77001 (713) 226-6609 3602 Shady Green Drive King wood, TX 77339 JAMES B. AN3ELLE Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 126 Wildlife & Fisheries Building 400 Royal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 568-5665 GEORGE A. BRUMFIELD Manager, Mississippi Operations Zapata Haynie Corp. Post Office Box 663 Moss Point, MS 39563 (601) 475-1252, 1253 RICHARD A.TORSTER Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources State Administrative Building 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36104 (205) 832-6361 2101 Dantzler Moss Point, MS (601) 475-7440 39563 C-21 Gulf of Mexico DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANER Executive Director Florida Department of Natural Resources Crown Building, 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 (904) 483-1555 DAYTON H. GRAHAM Deep Sea Foods, Inc. Post Office Box 714 Bayou La Batre, AL 36509 (205) 824-4127 President Miller-Vidor Land Co. Post Office Box 2095 Beaumont, TX 77704 (713) 832-8494 JOHN M. GREEN 2550 Long Avenue Beaumont, TX 77701 ROBERT J. KEMP Texas Parks 8 Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 (512) 475-4939 DR. RICHARD L. LEAP.D Bureau of Marine Resources Post Office Drawer 959 Long Beach, Mississippi 39560 (601) 854-4602 NICHOLAS A. fjAVAR, JR. Mavar Shrimp X Oyster Co. Post Office Box 203 Biloxi, MS 39533 (601) 374-1373 5113 Bi ssonet Drive Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 834-1220 or (504) 837-2554 1900 West Beach Biloxi, MS 39531 (601) 435-2310 BETHLYN McCLOSKEY C-22 Gulf of Mexico JOHN A. MEHOS Vice President 1306 Harbor View Liberty Fish & Oyster Company Galveston, TX 77550 Post Office Box 267 (713) 763-5023 Galveston, TX 77550 GUS S. MIJALIS Farmer's Seafood Co. Post Office Cox 1225 Shreveport, LA 71163 (313) 222-2356 O'Barr, Hulbert & O'Barr Post Office Box 541 Biloxi, MS 39533 (601) 435-5536 Half Hitch Tackle Shop 3116 Thomas Drive Panama City, FL 32407 (904) 234-2621 BOBBY G. O'BARR BILLY J. PUTNAM WILLIAM H. STEVENSON Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Bldq., 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (813) 893-3141 NON-VOTING MEMBERS: KENNETH E. BLACK Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard B. Russell Federal Building 75 Spring Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 221-3588 FTS-242-3583 C-23 Gulf of Mexico BRIAN HALL MAN Office of Deputy Asst. Secy, for Oceans & Fisheries Affairs Department of State Room 3214 Washington, DC 20520 (202) 632-1073 CHARLES H. LYLES Executive Director Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Post Office Cox 726 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 (601) 875-5912 REAR ADMIRAL PAUL YOST Eighth Coast Guard District Hale Boggs Federal Building 500 Camp Street Hew Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 539-6223 FTS-682-6223 DESIGNEE LIST DESIGflEES : FOR: DR . LYLE ST. AM-\NT/WILLIAM S. PERRET Louisiana Dept. of Hi Id I ife & Fisheries 126 Wildlife 8 Fisheries Building 400 Royal Street Mew Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 558-5670 J. BURTON AHGELLE FRANK R. RICHARDSON/ROBERT T. WEBB U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Richard B. Russell Building, Suite 1258 KENNETH E. BLACK 75 Spring Strc S.W. Atlanta, GA 30347 (404) 221-3576 FTS-242-3576 HUGH A. SWINGLE Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Marine Resources Post Office Box 183 Dauphin Island, AL 36523 (205) 351-2882 RICHARD A. FORSTER 0,-21*. Reproduced from best available copy. Gulf of Mexico 0. B. LEE Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Crown Din' 1 ding, 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 (904) 488-0796 GILLIAN MIL0VAN0VIC Office of Deputy Asst. Secy, for Oceans 3 Fisheries Affairs Department of State Room 3214 Washington, D.C. 20520 (202) 632-1073 DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANER BRIAN HALL MAN TOM tOORE Parks ROBERT J. KEMP Texas Parks & Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 73744 (512) 475-4835 FRED DEEGEN Dept. DR. RICHARD L. LEARD Bureau of Marine Resources Post Office Drawer 959 Long Beach, MS 39560 (601) 864-4602 or J. Y. CHRISTMAS Gulf Coast Research Laboratory East Beach Ocean Springs, MS 39564 (601) 875-2244, 875-5011 LARRY SIMPSON Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Post Office Box 726 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 (601) 875-5912 HAROLD ALLEN National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Bldg., 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (813) 893-3141 CDR CHARLES MORGAN Eighth Coast Guard District Hale Boggs Federal Building 500 Carnp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 589-6237 FTS: 632-6237 or ENS JOSEPH R. CASTELLO Eighth Coast Guard District Hale Boggs Federal Building 500 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 539-3671 FTS: 632-6237 CHARLES H. LYLES WILLIAM H. STEVENSON RADM PAUL YOST C-2S 0Q.MAY7S* 000635 Gulf of Mexico SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE 6/1/79 STANDING COMMITTEE H. Gary Knight - Chairman Law Certte, Room 332 Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70303 504/388-8701 504/337-6098 Dr. James C. Catc - Vice Chairman Universi ty of Florida Food 8 Resource Economics Dept. 1170 McCarty Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 904/392-4991 904/376-3647 Dale S. Beaumariage Florida Dept. of Natural Resources R42G Crown" Bldg., 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida 323G4 904/487-1715 904/S77-2354 Dr. Cordon Gunter Gulf Coast Research Laboratory East Beach Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 601/875-2244, Ext. 267 601/875-4032 Dr. Edward D. Houde Division of Biology 8 Living Resources Rosenstiel School cf Marine I Atmospheric Science 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, Florida 33149 305/350-7513 Dr. Albert C. Jones Southeast Fisheries Center 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami /Florida 33149 305/361-5761 F7S: 8-350-1111 305/667-7138 Dr. Richard L. Noble Dept. of Wildlife £ Fisheries Sciences Texas A8M University College Station, Texas 77843 713/845-6751 713/693-0478 Dr. Anthony Paredes Department of Anthropology Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 904/544-4281 904/385-4983 Dr. Sammy M. Ray Moody Col lege TAMU System Building 311, Ft. Galveston, Texas 713/744-7161, Ext Crockett 77550 20 713/744-2761 Dr. Kenneth J. Roberts Marine Resource Economics Louisiana Coop. Extension Service Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 504/388-2255 504/759-0799 Harry Schafer Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife 8 Fisl 129 Wildlife 8 Fisheries Building 400 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana' 70130 504/553-5576 504/737-5377 Dr. Mervin J. Yet ley Department of Rural Sociology Texas ASM University Col lone Station, Texas 77343 713/845-2826 713/693-9577 ones C-26 Tir- Reproduced from best available :opy. %;;i Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL BILLFISH/SWORPFISH COMMITTEE Dr. Grant Beards! ey Southeast Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, Florida 33149 305/361-5761, Ext. 291 305/238-3287 Dr. Donald de Sylva University of Miami Rosensteil School of Marine & Atmospheric Science 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, Florida 33149 305/350-7334 350-7351 305/238-5403 John W. Jo 1 ley, Jr. Bureau of Marine Science & Technology Hest Palm Beach Field Station 727 Belvedere Road Hest Palm Beach, Florida 33401 305/832-2906 305/965-4619 C. William Hade Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources Post Office Box 183 Dauphin Island, Alabama 35528 205/851-2882 205/553-0937 SPECIAL COASTAL HERRING COMMITTEE Dr. Roger D. Anderson Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. 5401 Hest Kennedy Boulevard, #571 Tampa, Florida 33609 813/S70-3390 813/932-2334 John A. Butler Post Office Box 3010 Arcadia, Louisiana 71001 318/263-8793 Mark E. Chittenden, Jr. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Texas ASM University College Station, Texas 77c43 713/845-6751 713/696-6534 Charles Roithmayr Southeast Fisheries Center Pascagoula Laboratory Post Office Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567 601/762-4591 601/475-8574 C-27 Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL CORAL COMMITTEE SPECIAL GROUMDFISH COMMITTEE Thomas J. Bright Texas ASM University Oceanography Department College Station, Texas 77843 713/345-7131 713/346-3561 l-.'al ter C. Jaap Marine Research Laboratory 100 Eighth Avenue, S.E. St. Petersburg Florida 33701 813/896-8526 Ext. 57 813/396-0521 Judith Lang Land Department of Marine Studies University of Texas Post Office Box 7909 Austin, Texas 73712 512/471-3534 512/471-4318 512/262-2045 Eugene Shinn U.S. Geological Survey Fisher Island Station Miami Beach, Florida 33149 305/672-1784 FTS: 350-4239 15/253- 3230 C. E. Bryan, III Texas Parks 8 Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 512/475-4835 512/443-0558 Shelby Drummond Southeast Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service Pascagoula Laboratory Post Office Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567 601/762-4591 FTS-499-4252 601/475-4234 Elmer J. Gutherz national Marine Fisheries Service Post Office Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567 601/752-0055 601/769-2989 Mrs. Harriet M. Perry Gulf Coast Research Laboratory East Beach Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 601/375-2244 601/875-2713 C-28 Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL MACKEREL COMMITTEE SPECIAL MOLI.USCAN COMMITTEE Dr. Connie Arnold University of Texas Marine Science Institute Port Aransas, Texas 73323 512/749-6796 512/758-3762 Dr. John D. McEachran Texas ASM University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Colleqe Station, Texas 77843 713/845-6751 713/693-4059 Eugene L. Nakamura National Marine Fisheries Service Panama City Laboratory 3500 Del wood Peach Road Panama City, Florida 32407 904/234-6541 FTS: 946-4232 904/234-6448 Donald M. Allen Southeast Fisheries Center/NMFS 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, Florida 33149 305/361-5761 FTS: 350-1111 305/261-4967 Thomas J. Costel lo Southeast Fisheries Center/NMFS 75 Virginia Reach Drive Miami, Florida 33149 305/351-5761 FTS: 350-1111 305/264-8210 Robert Cummins national Marine Fisheries Service Pest Office Cox 12607 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 803/795-8530 FTS-677-4773 Dr. Winston Menzel Florida State University Department of Oceanography Tallahassee, Florida 32306 904/644-6700 904/877-1934 C-29 Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL SHARK COMMITTEE Or. Carter Gilbert Florida State Museum University of Florida Room £276 Gainesville, Florida 32611 904/392-6752 904/392-1721 904/376-8152 Tom E. Mattis Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Parasitology Section East Beach Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 601/375-2244, Ext. 233 601/375-7354 Bennie A. Rohr Southeast Fisheries Center Post Office Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567 601/762-0055 FTS: 499-4258 601/762-6507 Stewart Springer 440 Coral Creek Drive Placida, Florida 33946 813/697-4771 SPECIAL SHRIMP COMMITTEE J. Y. Christmas Gulf Coast Research Laboratory East Beach Ocean Sorings, Mississippi 39564 601/875-2244 601/875-4633 Roy B. Johnson, Jr. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 105 San Jacinto La Porte, Texas 77571 713/471-3200 713/538-1309 Edwin A. Joyce, Jr. Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Crov/n Building, Room #427 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/433-6053 904/893-1970 Uil 1 iam S. Perret Seafooci Division Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 400 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504/563-5588 504/643-6935 C-30 Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL SNAPPER/GROUPER COMMITTEE SPECIAL SPINY LOBSTER COMMITTEE Gerard E. Bruger Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory 100 Eighth Avenue, S.E. St. Petersburq, Florida 33701 813/895-8626 813/357-6232 Eugene L. Nakaniura Panama City Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service 3500 Bel wood Beach Road Panama City, Florida 32407 934/234-5541 FTS: 946-4232 904/234-6448 Dr. Fred J. Prochaska University of Florida Food .9; Resource Economics Dept. 1170 KcCarty Hall Gainesville. Florida 32611 904/392-4991 904/373-2354 Christopher L. Combs Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science Texas ASM University College Station, Texas 77843 713/845-1352 713/846-7322 Gary E. Davis Everglades National Park Research Center, Box 279 Homestead, Florida 33030 305/245-5266 3C5/248-6906 William G. Lyons Florida Dept. of Natural ICO Eighth Avenue, S.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 813/396-8526 813/395-5202 Resources 33701 Dr. Robert L. Shi pp University of South Alabama Dept. of Biological Sciences :-bi la Alabama 36683 205/450-6351 205/344-1442 Reproduced from best available copy. C-31 Gulf of Mexico SSC SPECIAL ST0::E CRAP COMMITTEE Gary E. Davis U.S. national Park Service Everglades national Park South Florida Research Center Post Office Cox 279 Homestead, Florida 33030 305/245-5266 FTS 350-4653 305/243-6905 Frank S. Kennedy Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory 100 Eighth Avenue, S.E. St. Petersbtiro, Florida 33701 813/896-8626 813/595-7142 Thomas Savage Dent, of Environmental Regulations Twin Towers, 2500 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-1815 904/877-0640 Donald E. Sweat Post Office Cox 257 Largo, Florida 32540 813/443-37/1 813/595-8536 C-32 11/28/79 GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 881 Tarapa, Florida 33609 STAFF WAYNE E. SWINGLE Executive Director TERRANCE R. LEARY Fishery Biologist J. CONNOR DAVIS Fishery Biologist/Statistician VITO BLOMO Fishery Economist JOHN SILK Administrative Officer JO AN WHEAT Administrative Assistant SHARON SCHWAB Secretary FRANCHESCA LALA Secretary/ Stenographer DIANE HARRISON Secretary/ Stenographer MARY JANE L0MBARD0 Secretary (Temporary) LYNNE O'DONNELL Secretary (Temporary) C-33 CARI3BEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL fall 1978 Suite 1108 Banco de Ponce 3uilding Hato Rey, Puerto Rico Postal Address P.O. Box 1001 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 Long Distant Operator 472-6620 (809) 753-4926 Chairman Hector M. Vega-Morera Vice Chairman John A. Harms Executive Director Omar Munoz-Roure Administrative Officer Caltxto H. de Mier Chief Scientist... Arthur E. Dammann Fishery Economist Luis Fernando Castillo Execucive Secretary Hilda Ramirez Secretary-3ookkee?er Carmen Teresa Gonzalez Secretary-Receptionist Ines Vives-Garcia TOTING MEMBERS Appointed Anthony Chioromitaro General Manager St. Croix Fishermen's Cooperative 16 Prince Street Christians ted St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00802 (809) 773-2078 John A. Harms Lagoon Marina Red Hook St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (309) 775-0570 Jose Luis Campos Caribe Yatch Sales P.O. 3ox 507 San Juan, Puerto Rico (809) 724-2079 00902 Hector M. Vega-Morera, President Vega Associates 33 Union Street Salinas, Puerto Rico 00751 (309) 324-2730 Designated State Officials Designee Virdin C. 3rovn Commission, Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands P.O. 3ox 4340 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (809) 774-3320 Heriberto Martinez -Torres Secretary of Agriculture Commonwealth of Puerto Rico P.O. 3ox 10163 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908 (809) 722-2120 Susan -. Coleman Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs Government of che U.S. Virgin Islands P.O. 3ox 4340 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (809) 774-3320 Santiago Crespo-Ocasio Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Commonwealth of Puerto Rico P.O. 3ox 10163 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908 (309) 763-0788 C-34 CARIBBEAN (continued) VOTING MEMBERS NMFS Re ° tonal Office Member Designee William H. Stevenson Director, Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Building 9450 Roger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (813) 893-3141 FTS: 826-3141 Harold B. Allen, Deputy Director OR Charles A. Oravetz, Council Liaison Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Building 9450 Roger Boulevard SC. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (813) 893-3142 FTS: 826-3142 NON-VOTTNG MEMBERS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kenneth E. Black Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Executive Park Drive, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (404) 285-4671 Robert Vaughn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Executive Park Drive, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (404) 285-4671 United States Coast Guard RADM. R. W. Durfey, USCG Comnander, Seventh Coast Guard District Federal Building 51 SW First Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 350-5623 Capt. William L. King, USCG Commander, Greater Antilles. S U.S. Coast Guard Base P.O. Box S 2029 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903 (809) 725-5761 Department of State Brian Hallnan Office of Fisheries Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 (202) 632-1073 Larry Snead/Benoit 3rookens Office of Fisheries Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 (202) 632-1073 C-35 As of November 1978 CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP DONALD S. ERDMAN, CHAIRMAN Assistant Director Commercial Fisheries Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture Commonwealth of Puerto Rico P. 0. Box 3665 Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00708 Tel. C809) 833-2025; 833-2118 NORWELL E. HARRIGAN (DR.), VICE CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR Caribbean Research Institute College of the Virgin Islands St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00801 Tel. (809) 774-1252 Ext. 238 GILBERTO CINTRON Programa de Oceanografia Dept. de Recursos Naturales P. O. Box 5887, Puerta de Tierra San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906 Tel. ( 809) 724-8774 ALIDA ORTIZ-SOTOMAYOR (DR. ) Coordinadora Programa Biologia Marina Humacao Campus, UPR P.O. Box 428 Humacao, Puerto Rico 00661 Tel. (809) 852-2525 Ext. 272 DAVID W. NELLIS (DR.) Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs of the Virgin Islands 86 Estate Frydenhoj St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00801 Tel. (809) 775-0470 RICHARD W. MALPASS Aqua Engineers P.O. Box 4025, Christiansted Saint Croix, US Virgin Islands 00820 Tel. (809) 773-6660 C-36 Caribbean Scientific and Statistical Committee Membership Page 2 (As of November 1978) JOSE A. SUAREZ-CAABRO Director Commercial Fisheries Laboratory Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Agriculture P. 0. Box 1239 Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00708 Tels. (809) 833-2025; 833-2118 CARMEL0 FELICIAN0-G0NZALEZ P. 0. Box 2112 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903 Tel. RAUL TOUS P. 0. Box 672 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 Tel. JOHN C. OGDEN (DR.) Fairleigh Dickinson University West Indies Laboratory P. 0. Box 4010, Christiansted Saint Croix, US Virgin Islands 00820 Tel. C-37 APPENDIX D OY AND $ VALUES FOR FISHERIES COVERED BY EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS AS OF NOVEMBER 1978 Page North Pacific Council, Bering Sea and Aleutian Island areas D-2 North Pacific Council, Gulf of Alaska area D-3 Western Pacific Council D-4 Pacific Council D-5 New England Council D-6 New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils D-7 New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Councils D-8 Calculations for estimated $ values D-9 Reference codes and citations, FMPs D-12 Reference codes and citations, PMPs D-15 D-l X) C cO CO ^ CO X QJ u -o CO QJ U T3 CD c > cfl O .-I o cfl M co QJ c •H - U •1-1 QJ 4-1 X d co QJ CO |H m 000, 000, 00,0 87,0 o o 00 4-1 .. . NO On ON CO r*. u~i ■ * W i-H o cn cn on n U QJ X CO •H Cn i Pu Z i Cn o CN o CN o r-~ o fx r>. o -l -m -o - o i—i o UO O f-~ i— 1 CO o 00 i-H co cn H U oo Is* r~- on ON ON o> o> o> ON ON ON ON ON r~«. r^ cfl r^ i r~- 1 — r-- r» r-- r^ r~ r-- r~- r~~ 1 — r^ r-- i — QJ o> r~- o> on ON ON o> o> o> c^ o> ON ON ON ON ON >H iH r-» i— i 1—1 i—i iH 1—1 ^-i i—i i—i i—i 1—1 1— 1 I—I i—i i—l QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ !>, > > > > > > > 43 0J QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ 4-J i—l i—l i-H i—l i—l !-H i—l i-l CO >H >< >H &H JH fH (H T3 QJ CO cn CO CO CO CO CO QJ X S £ S S S s S W >, CO X. CO QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ 4-1 ^. > > > > > X) > > T3 U i-H o O O O O O QJ O O QJ a co O X X X X X 43 X X X QJ QJ 4-1 >^ CO CO CO cfl CO CO CO cfl CO 13 XI CO X ■H ■H 4-1 M U S-4 5-4 u 14-1 i-i i-i U-l QJ QJ 4-J i—l o O O O o u J-l O 0 )-i 6 B CO CO o QJ QJ o o o QJ 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-J 4-J o > 4-1 4-1 > w co e X Cfl cfl CO CO cO a O CO CO O o A u co QJ •H X QJ 0h*4-( 4-1 CO ^U X. M 3 •H O CO c CJ i—l X U-l CO ■H cfl O QJ •H -d x 14-1 -a QJ )H U i—l c cfl C 4-1 o U QJ CO 3 M -Q •H CO CJ O i-l X X X O CJ CO M-< H 0) CO CJ U S-i X. CO U-i CJ CJ X •H CO CJ 00 c )-i U CJ 5 4-1 •H •i-l 4-1 U— 1 E •H o QJ o O O M M-r •4-1 O QJ T3 14-1 i-l B C 50 ^H i— ( X QJ •H •i-l i—l cO •H •H QJ i—i c r^ i—l H S-i X a O TD X) y 3 0 X cfl cO •i-l O 0) d 4-1 co CO c CO 4J cr CO 4-1 CO 4-1 ^; a ^i 4-1 O Ph Ph cfl CO < co P- O r~- ON 1—1 QJ CJ C •H CO -O T3 QJ QJ CO 4-1 CO •H aj O i-i r— 1 Ph a. QJ X X) QJ Cfl C CO D-2 CO CD U < cO 4*i en ccj CD o u o an CM I Ph Ph E CM I Ph I Ph Pn CM I Oh I Ph s E i Ph I Ph s E Ph z I Ph E CM I Ph I Ph Ph CM I Ph I Ph i < I Ph S Ph I < I Ph S Ph CM I Ph I Ph X o U-H i—l 3) o o C o o 0) t— I CO > o o o I—l r~- co o o o o o o o o o o CO o o en LO UO LO I/O o o oo o o CM CJ ^E CO o^ D-l r- CO CO CO «* o o ^O Ph >-> o I—l CM CO 1—1 CO CO 1—1 m i—l 4= ■u u O S ^ co CO oo co CO oo CO r-» r~- oo CO r-- r- r>. r» r^ r-^ r-> r^. r-« r~- - CD o^ o> O^ o> CTi e^ ON c^ a> a> C/3 >-• i—i 1—1 r-t I—l i—l i—i I—l i—i i-i i—i c CO . | a t3 4J t3 0) c 01 43 0) en en B 3 •H CD U M-l 13 CD CD M cd 5-i CD i—l I—l i—i CO -a CD 4-J 43 43 43 CD T3 C c > c en CO CO > CD cO 3 O CO •H T3 C C CD c B 13 U-l CD ■H •H i—l •r-l - >, C 4^ CO cO i—l bD >> i—l 3 >, en 4-J 4-1 fH a C CO X CD 42 i—l •H 4-) 4-1 CO CD •H 3 4J u CO 4-J U-l CO cd S -a 4-1 4-J i—l CD 43 u CO CO CO > 4-J 60 CD JH >< CO en •H 4-1 CD CD O •H > C/j W •\ CO tt VI 43 en a i—l O S S 1—1 43 CD >, 43 43 CJ -a H CD CD 43 M Ph en C i—l M-q o cO CD T3 a CD CJ 5-1 CD T3 O 3 en O en s: X a O -^ CJ en CD ■r-l cO CJ 4-) oO 5-1 u u •H ■H T3 M-l B •H 3 Ch 0) cd o U-l U-l c CD M— 1 43 B 5-i £ 43 I—l ■H v: 3 i—l CO •H •H ■H CD CO en r-( CJ CJ O 43 4*! a i— 1 5-1 43 •H •H O CO O i—l CO 4-1 co CO r! 4-J Pn Pn to, Ph 5-4 y-4 en < Ph 4= en o D-3 i— i CN CN CN CN CM CN u co w o O o O o o o O o o o o o o o o en in M3 c^ m vO <* i— i r-« LO en c^ en LO iH r^ CN cs u •H 4-1 •H o CO PU c >u o ^o o v£> CTx CM 00 ^o m in ■st in r^ CN i— i en CO 00 oo CO r~ r^ r-- r«» r^ r^- r- cu o> On <_^ o> ON o> ON > ■— i r— 1 i— I pH r-i r— 1 I— < 4J c CU E cu oo CO d CO E 00 c •H 4-) CO ■H -3 CU M o o CQ CU ■H H CD -C en ■H fa CO 3 4-1 CO 4-1 00 >1 en •H fa -a CU xi >•, CO rr ■H U CM r— I S-I "3 "3 -3 -3 "3 CO CU 0 O O O O QJ > O O o O o r~ o 00 00 -c CO •r-l U-l -3 S-i o 00 oo 00 X CO •H •4-1 S-I C ? r-l cO H ■H CO CO CU cu r-l S-i c a. 4-J c S-i "3 o •r-l CO CO ■H CO cu CJ H XI r-l — r-l S-I - c S-i rM CO CO X 1 — 1 CO "3 •r-l 3 E CO a CD rQ o •H 5^ p . -3 •H y v U-l c CU •H CO 'J S-i CJ rM •l-l 3 S-i O QJ CO CO ■H a rH 4-1 S-i S-i r: i— 1 CO CO _2 CO JZ Q CQ XI CO D-4 r-l CN oo en d CO CO i— 1 o o o C/2 1 < Pm i < Pm 1 < Pm i a. < Pm < Pm | o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o 4-> o r-1 oo r-- 00 00 o> en CM r-« 0O CO W O cm i-i CM oo o o^ o ^o 00 o o CO CO CM o UO o> o LO CM o CO 00 1— 1 r-l CO CM r-l LO a cfl Pm co C cfl rJ 00 r~- c^ On (T« CXi r-~ Cfl r~- r*. r~- r-~ r~ r*~ r- Is- CD o> 0"v ON ON O^ o> o> a\ > r-i r-l i— i r-l i— 1 r-l r-l t—i qj £ CD bD cfl c cfl E X cd >, .a CD U QJ > O CJ CO CD •H S-l CD X CO 1/1 4-> Cfl 4-1 CO u CD mC CO X CJ Sm CD 4J ;-) Cl a Cm T3 QJ QJ C QJ o CJ cfl 4-1 X X QJ •H QJ QJ CJ O T3 O r-l T3 QJ - >*> - CX QJ 5m >. ^ QJ ^ a >^ >, X c CD X X U X -H x X QJ •H > 4-1 4-> QJ 4-1 M-4 4J 4-J n r-l O r-l r-l 4-> r-l -H r-l ■— 1 QJ o u Cfl Cfl c Cfl CJ CO cfl 13 QJ CD ai QJ O CD cfl CD QJ C TJ u X x s x Pm X X 3 >^ X > CO O •H X 4-1 r-l CJ 13 QJ c c 5m cfl 3 CD X x: O X C CO CO x: 4= 5m CJ 5m •H •r-l CO CO &0 cfl c CD U— 1 m •r-l •r-l E o r* T3 QJ <4M M-l 5m E 13 C r-l X 4-J QJ V* — i r4 3 rO CJ CO X o cfl o o Cfl o r-l 4-J cfl CO c l-l CO )M <4-l o • 1— cfl r-l | V4 O LM >"! o E o )-i MM -v CD 4-J Cfl <-< 3 CJ r-l Cfl a D-5 CM CM CM 4-J CO w o o o CO o o o oo o o o o o o m o o o o o o CM m ON ON ON i > i—i r-i i—i 1—1 .—I CO ON 4-J C CO B o> bO CO C ca 6 M C •H 4J CO •H X OJ >. 0) n 0) > o a CO QJ •H H 0) J= CO co 4-J CO 4-1 C/N. >1 (-1 0) X, CO S 5 £ O 0 0 1—1 1—1 1—1 ►, >> >* -a T3 T— 1 1—1 1—1 0) CU 1—1 1—1 i-4 l-l U CO CO CO 0) 0) O CJ 0 > > •H •H •r-4 o 0 4-) 4-1 4-J CJ 0 ■H ■H •1-4 S 0) QJ )-l 1-4 i-l 0 u u 01 O 0 O u a) C 3 0 1-4 U-4 1—1 00 -c •1-1 u u 0) ^ i—l ,G CO •H 0) x: CO 0 ^ # 4-1 •H cO u CJ 2 J-J r! 0J O O c > T3 i-4 CO -o 1—1 •a -a I—l 1—1 CJ •H CO 0 aj 4-J '1-4 CO -C CJ >> < D-6 en r-i u (3 d O O o •H ■u C CO rH 4J < ■H s -a c ca -a d cO t-i M C w CD c cO 0) u O CO d i— I cO > o u cd 0J CO en co CM O O O r- co O o o o o o O v£> O CT> o> o> oo 0> 00 r-. r-~ r-. r-~ p«« r-~ r-- o> o> o c^ o> CJ\ o^ 4-J c N d >^ •H i—l r-l M i—l fa 1—1 i—l U CJ a CD O 1—1 •H aj 0) •i-H > fa CO 4J T3 T3 0) c. •H o 3 i—i ■H 4-1 4J ■H 5-i qj aj X i— 1 CO r-l 4-J CU E E CO CJ i-H d ■rH -d 0 o 4-1 01 0) -o rH C CO CO CO T3 5-1 CO CJ d XI OJ > o a CO 0) •rH 5H 0) CO •H fa 0) CO bO X C CO •H •rH X i-l M-l CO V< c E •H qj •H ca U-l X. l+H i—i rJ CJ 0) u 5-1 ■d 4-1 0) QJ •H Ct-H 4J > X d 5-i d •H 4-1 cr d x M O CO CO 01 5-1 01 X CJ bD cd O E X CO CJ d •H D- 4-1 c C CO cfl 1—1 0) 4-1 a < o D-7 4-1 c co < 43 4-1 o en o >H 4-) (3 CO i—l 4-1 < I CD i i W i W i X i < o u en en en en 1 U Pu I P^ On Pm Pm 0 g 2 JS !£ 2 s en O, Pm Pn Ph U* E CD H cd > 4-) CO w o O o 00 vD en o O O o o CNI c CO i—l M C w 5 CD z co c CO i— i (X 4-1 c cu B en CD p-l 04>.H CO a c C CO - a o u M c (3 ■H cO 4-1 CU 01 ,421 •H ,Q X ■H CU 5-i CO >,cj rQ T3 T3 C CD CO n CD O > O o •t-l o X CD CO £ CU •h y-i u o cu 43 U-4 co i— t •H 3 Jxh O c 4-1 CO 4-1 en u CU 43 co •H en c^ o> t* rH i— I i—l i—i r-H >* en X > o J3 CO CO cfl CO CO a cj O CJ H ■H •H •H 5-i — i .—I i—l r—l O o CJ CJ CJ >^ >> >> ^ 4-) CJ CJ 43 CO •H '-W M cfl CJ ej CO « CU c ex co 43 u i— 1 - r* CO i— CO 1-4 4= CO S-i CO e CO CO •H CJ •rH 6 ■H U-l CO U— 1 CU M— 1 -^J \S CU 4-1 cu r—l 5-1 u rj M-l ■H 3 ■H O CO O CU 43 i—l CO 3 43 4-1 CU 3 42 CO CO CO CO 5-i D-8 Calculations for Estimated Dollar Values of Fisheries PMP-AL-6 The 1974 shrimp catch ran 10c a pound, extrapolated to the recent OY . PMP-SW-2: Current ex-vessel price of 60c a pound for billfish; assume that half the catch is offered for sale. PMP-NE-2 For silver hake, 1974 ex-vessel value was $186 per metric ton. That value is extrapolated to OY. For red hake, food fish run 6c a pound and industrial fish about lc a pound, with food fish making up roughly 5/8 of the 1974 catch. A weighted average of 4.125? per pound is extrapolated to the OY. For silver hake the fraction of industrial fish is such a low part of the catch that it doesn't affect the weighted average of price per pound. FMP-NP-2: Price per pound is derived from total value divided by total pounds for each species. Value in pounds are taken from tables for the 1976 catch. Sablefish are 40c per pound; cod are 20c per pound; pollock are lc a pound; flounders are 10c a pound; rockfish are 15c per pound; other groundfish are 22c a pound. FMP-NP-1: For tanner crab 1966, the ex-vessel value was roughly $448 per mt . FHP-NP-3 : For king, coho , and pink salmon in all Alaskan waters, total value divided by total production is $1.31 per pound. FMP-NP-4: Bering Sea groundfish. There is no cost information in the FMP so the information from the Gulf of Alaska groundfish price per pound will be used to estimate the dollar value of the fisheries . FMP -MA- 1: For Atlantic mackerel, national average ex-vessel price was 12.1c per pound in 1976, directly from table 4 on page 53. D-9 FMP-MA-2: From table 13 on page 38, 1976 total U.S. squid catch was 3708 mt, valued at $1,562,000 or $421.25 per mt . FMP-MA-3: From table 22 on page 62, New England and Mid-Atlantic butterfish landings were $865,000 ex-vessel value for 3.033 million pounds, or an average price of 28%C per pound. FMP-MA-4: Surf clam price is $10 per bushel, with 128 bushels per metric ton; ocean quahog price is $3 per bushel, with 214 bushels per metric ton (G, K. Mahoney, letter to K. Green, 2/26/79). FMP-GM-1: OY is specified at 2,4 million pounds or 1,091 mt and represents claw weight, For 1977-78 price was $1,82 per pound from page 56 , FMP-CA-1: For all species of reef fish lumped, the 1971-75 average was $1,743 million for a catch of 3.704 million pounds, or an average price of 47c a pound, from table 4, page 26, FMP-NE-1: From the 1-26-79 NMFS News release, 1978 catches and values were $16 x 10° for 65 x 10° lbs. cod, or 24 . 6c per lb.; $11 x 106 for 36 x 10° lbs, haddock, or 30.6c per pound.; and $13 x 10° for 21 x 106 lbs. yellowtail flounder, or 61 . 9c per lb. FMP-NE-2: For herring, from the 1-26-79 NMFS News release, 1978 catch was 35 x 106 lbs. valued at $2 x 106, or 5,7c per lb. FMP-PA-1: Salmon. From page 50, table 6, preliminary 1977 ex-vessel prices for Chinook and Coho net fishery vary from 71c to $2.40 a pound. The average of the values or $1.33 per pound is used to calculate salmon extimated value . D-10 FMP-PA-2: Northern anchovy, For the last several years, anchovy price has been $42.50 per ton (A. MacCall, letter to K. Green, 2/2/78). FMP-PA-3: From table 5 on page 24 and table 3 on page 19. For sablefish total value of the 1976 catch was $954,828 for a catch of 3.334 mt or an average price of $286.40 per rat. For rockfish in 1976, total value was $3,232 million for a total catch of 13,966 mt or an average value of $231.40 per ton. For other flatfish for 1976, total value is $952,810 for a total catch of 4,451 mt or an average price of $214.10 per mt . D-ll Reference Citations and Label Codes , Fishery Management Plans FMP-CA-1 Caribbean Fishery Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan for Shallow Water Reef Fish, Draft, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS 221 pgs . FMP-GM-1 Gulf of Mexico Council 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan for Stone Crabs. Gulf Council Task Team, 124 pgs. FMP-MA-1 Mid-Atlantic Council 1978. Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel Fishery of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Supplement number 1, Aug, 1978, 115 pages. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council . FMP-MA-2 Mid-Atlantic Council 1978. Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Fishery Management Plan for the Squid Fishery of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Supplement number 1, August, 1978, 112 pgs. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. FMP-MA-3 Mid-Atlantic Council 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Fishery Management Plan for the Butterfish Fishery of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (1979)' 89 pgs. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. FMP-MA-4 Mid-Atlantic Council 1977. Fishery Management Plan for Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Industries, Federal Register, 42, no. 227 - Friday, Nov. 25, 1977, pgs. 60438-60506. FMP-NE-1 New England Council 1977. Atlantic Fisheries: Atlantic Groundfish Plan, Notice of Approval, Implementation and Emergencv Regulation. Federal Register, Vol 42, no. 49, Monday, March 14, 1977 pgs. 13998-14080. 1978. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment to the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan: Cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock. U.S. Dept. of Commerce NMFS New England Regional Fishery Management Council, February, 1978, 60 pgs. D-12 FMP-NE-1- New England Council 1978. Final Supplement #2 to Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Groundfish Management Measures for Resource Conservation and Utilization. 85 pgs . New England Regional Fishery Management Council NOAA. FMP-NE-2 New England Council 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Herring Fishery of the Northwest Atlantic. August, 1978. New. England Fishery Management Council FMP-NP-1 North Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regula- tions for Commercial Tanner Crab Fishery off Coast of Alaska. Federal Register, Vol. 43, no. 95 - Tuesday, May 16, 1978, pgs. 21170- 21251. FMP-NP-2 North Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Federal Register Vol. 43, no. 78 - Friday, April 21, 1978 pgs. 17242- 17327. FMP-NP-3 North Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan and Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for the High Seas Salmon Fishery off the coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude. Vol I. July 27, 1978. North Pacific Fishery Management Council NOAA/NMFS, 152 pgs. 1978. Summary and Draft Environmental Impact State- ment for the Fishery Management Plan for the High Seas Salmon Fishery off the coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude July 27, 1978 DRAFT Vol. II. North Pacific Fishery Management Council NOAA/NMFS. FMP-NP-4 North Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan and Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for the Groundfish Fishery in the Bering/Sea Aleutian Island Area, July 27, 1978 DRAFT Vol I. North Pacific Fishery Management Council NOAA/NMFS. FMP-NP-5 North Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan for Halibut off the Coast of Alaska, August 24, 1978. DRAFT Vol. I. North Pacific Council NOAA/NMFS. D-13 FMP-PA-1 Pacific Council 1978. Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Federal Register, Vol. 43, no. 73, Friday, April 14, 1978, pgs . 15629-15718. 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California Commencing in 1978. March 1978 Pacific Fishery Management Council. FMP-PA-2 Pacific Council 1978. Implementation of Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan. Federal Register, Vol. 43, no. 141, Book 2 of 2, Friday, July 21, 1978, pgs. 31651-31879. 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fisherv Management Plan for Northern Anchovy Fishery March 1978; Pacific Fishery Manage- ment Council. FMP-PA-3 Pacific Council 1978. Draft - Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and Washington Groundfish Fishery. October 1978, Pacific Fishery Management Council . FMP-WP-1 Western Pacific Council 1977. Draft - Environmental Impact Statement for the implementation of a Fishery Management Plan for "Spiny Lobster Fisheries off the Coasts of Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa" U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS . FMP-WP-2 Western Pacific Council 1978. Fishery Management Plan for Pacific Bill- fishes and Associated Species. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (Revision 1), 127 pgs. FMP-WP-3 Western Pacific Council 1978. Status of Fisheries of the Western Central Pacific Island States in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. NMFS Honolulu Laboratory for MAFAC meeting Oct. 26-27, 1978. 90 pgs. D-14 Reference Citations and Label Codes, Preliminary Management Plans PMP-AL-1 Alaska Region 1977 . Preliminary Fishery Management Plan for Sablefish Fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea and Northeastern Pacific. Federal Register, Vol 42, no. 28 - Thursday, February 10, 1977, pgs. 8534-8566. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental/Pre- liminary Fishery Management Plan Sablefish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Northeastern Pacific Ocean. Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS November 1977. PMP-AL-2 Alaska Region 1977. Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Trawl Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 29 - Friday, Feb. 11, 1977 pgs. 8782-8803. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Manage- ment Plan Trawl Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska. November 1977 Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS Alaska Region. PMP-AL-3 Alaska Region 1977. Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Trawl Fisheries and Herring Gillnet Fishery of Eastern Bering Sea and Northeast Pacific. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 31. Tuesday February 15, 1977, pgs. 9298-9331. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Trawl Fisheries and Herring Gillnet Fishery of the Bering Sea and Northeast Pacific, September 1977 Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. PMP-AL-4 Alaska Region 1977. Preliminary Fishery Management Snail Fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea. Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 31 - Tuesday, February 15, 1977 pgs. 9334-9352. PMP-AL-5 Alaska Region 1977. Eastern Bering Sea King and Tanner Crab Fisheries. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 32 - Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1977, pes. 9520- 9550. D-15 PMP-AL-5 Alaska Region 1978. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Manage- ment Plan King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Eastern Bering Sea. U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS Alaska Regional Office. 10 pgs. PMP-AL-6 Alaska Region 1977. Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Deter- mination, Preparation, Issuance and Imple- mentation. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 42 - Thursday, March 3, 1977 pgs. 12386- 12410. PMP-NE-1 North Eastern Region 1977. Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Atlantic Herring Fishery of the Northwestern Atlantic Federal Register, Tuesday, February 22, 1977 Vol. 42, no. 35 pgs. 10496-10538. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Atlantic Herring Fishery of the North- western Atlantic, Sept. 1977. US Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Atlantic Herring Fishery of the North- western Atlantic, Nov. 1977. US Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. PMP-NE-2 North Eastern Region 1977. Hake Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 34 - Friday, February 18, 1977 pages 10146-10192. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Hake Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic, Nov. 1977. US Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. PMP-NE-3 North Eastern Region 1977 . Preliminary Management Plan for Incidental Catching of Finfish Foreign Trawl Fisheries of Northwestern Atlantic, Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 33 - Thursdav, Feb. 17, 1977, pgs. 9950-9986. D-16 PMP-NE-3 North Eastern Region 1977 . Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Foreign Trawl Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic, Nov 1977. US Dept of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. PMP-NE-4 North Eastern Region 1977. Mackerel Fishery of Northwestern Atlantic. Federal Register Vol. 42 no. 32 - Wed., February 16, 1977 pgs . 9552-9594. 1977. Supplement- to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Mackerel Fishery of the Northwestern Atlantic, Sept. 1977 US Dept of Commerce NOAA/NMFS and Northeast Region Office. PMP-NE-5 North Eastern Region 1977. Squid Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic Preliminary Fishery Management Plans . Federal Register Vol. 42 no. 32 - Wed., Feb. 16, 1977, pgs. 9596-9634. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Squid Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic, Nov 1977, US Dept of Commerce NOAA/NMFS. PMP-NW-1 North Western Region 1977. Preliminary Management Plan Trawl Fisheries of Washington, Oregon, and California. Federal Register, Vol. 42, no. 28, Feb. 10, 1977 pgs. 8578-8593. 1977. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan "Trawl Fisheries of Washington, Oregon, and California" Commencing in 1978. Dept. of Commerce NOAA/NMFS, Nov. 1977. PMP-SE-1 South Eastern Region 1978 . Preliminary Fishery Management Plan Atlantic Billfishes and Sharks. Federal Register, Vol. 43, no. 19 - Friday, Jan. 27, 1978 pgs. 3818-3835. 1978. Draft Supplement Environmental Impact State- ment/Preliminary Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfishes and Sharks. US Dept. of Commerce Fisheries Management Division, Southeast Regional Office NMFS , July, 1978. D-17 PMP-SW-1 South Western Region 1977 . Preliminary Management Plan Seamount Ground- fish Fishery of the Pacific; Federal Register Vol. 42, no. 28, Thursday, Feb. 10, 1977 pgs. 8568-8576. PMP-SW-2 South Western Region 1978 . Foreign Fishing for Billf ish and Oceanic Sharks in the Pacific Ocean ; Federal Register vol. 43, no. 141, Friday, July 21, 1978 pgs. 31374-31406. (Withdrawn) D-18 APPENDIX E STATUS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS AS OF DECEMBER 1979 Plan PACIFIC COUNCIL: commercial, sport salmon northern anchovy California, Oregon, Washington groundfish comprehensive salmon herring shrimp squid jack mackerel Status implemented implemented; 1980 amendment planned draft draft draft draft draft draft Target Implementation Date late 1980 May 1980 May 1981 September 1980 December 1980 late 1980 NORTH PACIFIC COUNCIL: Alaska coast tanner crab Gulf of Alaska groundfish high seas salmon Bering Sea groundfish Alaska coast halibut king crab Bering Sea clam herring implemented; being amended implemented; being amended implemented; being amended implemented late 1979 proposed draft draft public comment 1981 Council adoption, July 1980 Council adoption, February 1980 1980 WESTERN PACIFIC COUNCIL: coral spiny lobster billfish and oceanic sharks bottom fishes seamount resources Secretarial review final draft draft scoping, no draft yet July 1980 Council adoption, February 1980 January 1981 1981 scoping, no draft yet 1981 E-l Plan NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL: Atlantic groundfish interim Atlantic groundfish Atlantic demersal finfish Atlantic herring lobster true hake sea scallop Status implemented 1977; being revised draft proposed implemented draft proposed, not active draft Target Implementation Date DEIS Fall 1980 1981 or 1982 DEIS 1980 MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Atlantic mackerel squid butterf ish surf clam and ocean quahog shark scup flounders, except fluke and yellow tail sea bass summer flounder tile fish implemented implemented implemented implemented hearings on draft hearings on draft draft draft draft Spring 1980 July 1980 Fall 1980 July 1980 September 1981 October 1980 SOUTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL: snapper, grouper billfish calico scallop swordf ish rock shrimp draft draft early draft early draft waiting for date DEIS Summer 1980 hearings, Spring 1980 Fall 1980 E-2 Plan Status Target Implementation Date GULF OF MEXICO COUNCIL: stone crab reef fish shrimp ground fish king and Spanish mackerel coral spiny lobster shark squid tropical reef fish implemented, September 1979 revising draft draft draft draft review by NMFS proposed proposed public hearings, Spring 1980 public hearings, November 1980 Council adoption, April 1980 hearings, January 1980 Council adoption, May 1980 Council adoption, February 1980 Council adoption, April 1980 begin 1981 begin Spring 1980 CARIBBEAN COUNCIL: (information as of October 1978) shallow water reef fish draft spiny lobster mollusks deep water reef fish coral draft proposed proposed proposed Council adoption, January 1979 E-3 APPENDIX F REVIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE FMPs Page Draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan, 1978 F-2 Review F-6 Summary F-8 Final Northern Anchovy Plan, 1978 F-8 Review F-ll Ecosystem Perspective Example F-13 Summary F-17 Draft Squid Plan, 1978 F-17 Review F-19 Summary . F-20 Draft Spiny Lobster Plan, 1978 F-20 Review F-22 Summary F-24 References F-25 F-l APPENDIX F REVIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE FMPs Draft Bering Sea Groundfish Plan, 1978 The North Pacific Fishery Management Council developed a draft FMP for the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea- Aleutian Island Area. This review concerns the July 1978 version of the plan. Species : Alaska pollock, yellowfin sole, turbots (arrow toothed flounder, greenland turbot) , other flatfishes, Pacific cod, rockfishes (primarily Pacific ocean perch), sablefish, Atka mackerel, squid, and others. This plan covers all groundfish except herring and Pacific halibut. Because the potential of these fisheries to affect Pacific halibut is so great, descriptive information on hali- but was included in the plan. OY for halibut will be set by the Pacific Halibut Commission, but halibut must be taken into account in management of other groundfish. Area : The entire FCZ of the Bering Sea including Bristol Bay, Norton Sound, and that portion of the FCZ adjacent to the Aleutian Islands west of 170*W longitude. The Council de- termined that fish stocks in this area could be managed as a unit . Goals for the management plan: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted goals for all FMPs including the following : 1. Promote conservation while providing Optimum Yield in terms of overall benefit to the nation, particularly referring to food production and recreation; avoid irreversible or long term adverse effects on resources and the marine environment; ensure availability of a multiplicity of options with respect to future uses of these resources ; 2. As possible, promote efficient use of the fishery re- sources but not solely for economic purposes ; and 3. Promote fair and equitable allocation of identified available resources so that no particular group acquires an excessive share. F-2 Specific objectives for this management plan are: 1. Measures should take into account unpredictable characteristics of future resource availability and socio- economic factors including the industry; 2. Where possible, manage individual fish stocks as a unit throughout their range with due consideration of other impacted resources; 3. Where stocks are below MSY , promote rebuilding; con- sideration of the rate of rebuilding takes into account fac- tors other than biological considerations; 4. Management measures should attempt to avoid disrup- tion of existing social and economic structures where fish- eries are in reasonable conformance with the FCMA; 5. Allow a safety margin in recommending catches when recommendations are based on questionable data; provide for accessing biological and socioeconomic data where they are in- adequate; identify information and research required for fur- ther plan development; and 6. Design fishing strategies so as to have minimal impact on other fisheries and the environment. Ecological description: A pronounced biological charac- teristic of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island area is the presence of large numbers of marine mammals and birds. Another biological characteristic is the quantitative dominance of pollock. This degree of single species dominance of fish fauna is not found in any other ocean area. Pollock exhibit pro- nounced cannibalism, with the large older adults feeding on the younger stages, possibly causing long term fluctuations in the population in the absence of a fishery. In theory a fish- ery which removes these older individuals will stimulate pro- duction of the younger portion of the stock by removing one element of predation. This ecosystem also exhibits abundant benthos supporting flatfish and crab communities , and a very high basic organic productivity. A computer simulation model, DYNUMES III (Dynamic Numerical Marine Ecosystem Model) , has been developed for fish of this region (Laevastu and Favorite, 1978). The model accounts for growth, recruitment or production, and mortality of indi- vidual fish species or groups . The model also includes grazing on groundfish by marine mammals, birds and other fish. Such grazing is thought to be the main component of natural mortal- ity. Computations based on conservative mammal population estimates indicate that mammals consume about 2.5 million F-3 metric tons per year, about twice as much finfish as taken by the commercial catch. The inference was made in the plan that potential finfish yield is as much a function of mammal abundance as of fishing intensity. Status of stocks: Except for Pacific ocean perch, Pacific halibut, and sablefish, all other groundfish species in the region are believed to be at or above abundance levels producing MSY. In 1976 total catch of groundfish by foreign fisheries was about 1.4 million metric 'tons in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, mostly pollock. The domestic fishery in this region has been very small and is anticipated to remain small in the near future. The present domestic commercial bottom fishery is a small long line fishery for halibut by the U.S. and Canada. The combined U.S. and Canadian catch was around 300 metric tons in 1976 and 400 metric tons in 1977. Native subsistence fishing uses nondemersal fish such as her- ring and salmon. Marine mammal interactions : This section contained the only explicit discussion of the MMPA in the plan. Impacts of marine mammals on the fishery were mentioned, but impacts of fishing on marine mammals, such as harassment or incidental take of mammals, were not included. Restrictions on killing or harassing seals and sea lions result in an unknown but, according to the FMP , probably sig- nificant economic loss to setline fishermen, when those ani- mals mutilate or remove part of the catch. Mammals often congregate around trollers and attack hali- but, salmon and crabs which are returned to the sea as a con- servation measure. The plan concluded that the presence of large populations of marine mammals has a profound impact on the abundance of commercial fish species. The impact is di- rect through predation on commercial species and indirect through grazing on the same food resources used by commercial fish. Optimum Yield ; OY for all groups was set equal to ABC, as indicated in Table F-l. No social or economic reasons for reducing the yield below ABC were judged necessary, because of the small domestic involvement in this fishery. OYs for pollock, turbot, other flatfish, cod, squid and other species were set at essentially the same levels as MSY and EY . For yellowfin sole, OY was set at EY so no stock rebuilding would be expected, even though the stock is depleted. F-4 Table F-l. Summary of MSY, EY , and OY estimates for major Bering Sea groundfish species. Units are 10* metric tons. (from Table 1-1, page 1-2, of draft FMP) Species MSY EY ABC = OY pollock 1100 - 1600 1000 1000 yellowfin sole 169 - 260 117 117 turbots 100 90 - 95 90 other flatfish 44.3 - 76 .8 44.3 - 76.8 61 cod 58.7 58.7 58.7 rockfish - BSa 75 6.5 6.5 (Pacific ocean perch) rockfish - AL^ 32 15 15 sablefish - BSa 11.35 3.5 3.5 sablefish - AL 1.85 1.5 1.5 Atka mackerel 33 1 24.8 squid > 10 i 10 10 Pacific halibut 5 0.3 to be determined by Pacific halibut commission other Total 67 1707 -2331 67 1414 - 1451 55.5 1444 Bering Sea Aleutian Islands F-5 Pacific ocean perch stocks are at a low level of abun- dance and in poor condition. ABC for all rockfishes was es- tablished at EY for Pacific ocean perch alone, so that catches of perch would be less than EY for that one species and some rebuilding of the stock would be expected to occur. Sablefish stocks have been overfished and cannot now produce MSY. The source of recruitment to these stocks is unknown but may be spawning in the Gulf of Alaska. In that case rebuilding is a function of the Gulf spawning stocks rather than the Bering Sea-Aleutian stocks. ABC was set equiv- alent to EY. For Atka mackerel, ABC was set at 15% of estimated MSY. Review: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recognized the inadequacies of the traditional single species approach for present day fisheries management : "Changes in abundance and distribution of one species (e.g., caused by a fishery) affect the abundance and distribution of other species as well. Therefore wise management requires the quantitative knowledge of all these interactions ; single species population dynamics approaches are no longer fully adequate for modern fisheries management." (1978 draft plan, p. 139). However, the Council chose to adhere very strictly to single species management techniques in establishing OY for the ground- fish fishery. Even though this fishery management plan covered some 300 species, it was single species in approach. No account was taken of ecological interactions between species , nor of how such an intensive fishery on all of the species affected the assumptions underlying MSY calculations. Calculating all the MSYs separately, and then adding them together, was still single species type management. OYs were set at essentially the same levels as recent catches. These levels were not necessarily appropriate since catches have been declining from a peak of 2.25 million metric tons in 1972. This decline suggests a history of overfishing in the region, a trend which will not be corrected by continuing intensive fishing. OY was set essentially at MSY for all species considered except yellowfin sole, Pacific ocean perch and sablefish, which are depleted and presently at population levels well below those producing MSY. For those depleted species OY was set at EY , so that stock size is expected to remain the same without any re- building. Such intense fishing on all groundfish in the area is F-6 almost certainly overexploitation. The plan objective of allowing a safety margin was not fulfilled in establishing OYs. The domestic portion of this fishery is very small, on the order of 400 out of 1.4 million metric tons. The esti- mated physically possible maximum catch by domestic fisheries was about 160,000 metric tons, or slightly over 1% of total OY. There was ample room to reduce OYs, e.g., to half of MSY , to allow an ecological safety margin without restricting the domestic fishery. Such a reduction could have represented a reasonable ecological consideration for reducing OY from MSY, as provided by the definition of OY in the FCMA. There appears to have been no consideration of endangered species or critical habitat in this fishery management plan. Marine mammals were treated as a nuisance interfering with gear and competing with fishery for fish resources. No apparent at- tempt was made to evaluate the impact of proposed fishing levels on the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for marine mammals, even though there are indications that populations of North Pacific fur seals have decreased in the 1970' s, in con- junction with intense fishing on pollock (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979). The questions of optimum sustainable popula- tions of and optimum carrying capacity for marine mammals were not addressed as issues under the discussion of the MMPA. No estimate was made of reduction in food available to predators in conjunction with fishing intensity levels asso- ciated with indicated OYs , even though data for such calcula- tions are available and organized in conjunction with the DYNUMES model referenced in the plan. Comments by reviewers on the first draft of this report indicated the implicit assump- tion that the use of estimates of natural mortality rate in MSY calculations automatically accounts for predator needs . That assumption is not entirely valid, as discussed in Appendix G of this report. The rate of natural mortality, M, (largely preda- tion) may not remain constant when predators shift to alternate food sources, in this case also harvested groundfish, as the density of preferred prey decreases . Even if the rate M remains constant, variation in the standing stock to which the rate is applied (analogous to constant interest rates and varying prin- cipal in a bank account) results in variation in the annual to- tal biomass of prey available to predators (analogous to year- ly total interest paid) . Estimates cited in the plan indicate that marine mammals and birds consume more groundfish than the fishery removes. In most fisheries, total catch represents only a small part of the total annual production of the stock. It does not follow that the fishery has no impact on the stock or its predators. In the absence of a fishery, all of the production of a particular F-7 stock is accounted for by replacing deaths from that stock, most of those deaths due to predation. A fishery can affect predators in two ways. First, it removes fish resources which would otherwise be available for predators. Second, it can decrease the average standing stock of fish which may re- duce the density of the fish in the water, affecting predators that depend on concentrations of prey for efficiency in feed- ing. Summary : This FMP is an example of the single species approach to fisheries management. MSY was calculated for each species separately, with OY set at MSY for all species except depleted ones, for which OY was set at EY . Fishing at this intensity is almost certainly overexploitation. No safety mar- gin was included in the selection of OY levels , but would have been an appropriate ecological consideration. No evaluation was made of fishery impact on carrying ca- pacity for marine mammals or other predators , even though there are indications that fur seal numbers have declined recently. The implicit assumption that predator interactions are account- ed for through estimates of natural mortality in MSY calcula- tions is not valid. With the DYNUMES model information, at least rough calculations of impacts on predators would have been possible. Although the precise impacts of reduced food avail- ability on predators are not predictable, trends can be antici- pated . The Bering Sea groundfish draft FMP recognized the eco- system issues addressed by the FCMA and MMPA, but did not apply them to OY selection. Final Northern Anchovy Plan, 1978 The Pacific Fishery Management Council developed a plan for northern anchovy, implemented in 1978. OY was updated in 1979 and will continue to be revised annually in accordance with the OY formula adopted in the plan. These comments concern the final March 1978 version of the plan. Species : Northern Anchovy, Engraulis mordax Area : The central subpopulation of the northern anchovy extends from 38°N latitude off Central California to 30°N latitude off central Baja California and out to 200 miles. The entire central subpopulation exceeds U.S. FCZ boundaries and will eventually require cooperative management with Mexico. The U.S. FCZ contains 70% of the stock. F-8 Management objectives adopted in the plan were to : 1. Prevent overfishing of the central subpopulation within the U.S. FCZ and waters under Mexico's jurisdiction; 2. Allow a fishery for anchovies within the U.S. FCZ limited to achieve OY on a continuing basis; 3. Maintain an anchovy population in the U.S. FCZ suf- ficient to sustain adequate levels of predator fish, birds and mammals ; 4. Avoid conflicts between U.S. recreational and com- mercial fleets; and 5. Promote efficient utilization of the central subpop- ulation of anchovies within the U.S. FCZ. MSY was not considered meaningful for the anchovy fish- ery, since "maximum" and "sustainable" tend to be mutually ex- clusive in this case. Because of large variability in re- cruitment, the population level is usually under or over that producing MSY. An MSY of 484,000 tons was estimated in the plan for an average spawning biomass of 1.8 million tons. To maximize total yield over time, a policy of catch smaller than MSY when the population is below 1.8 million tons spawn- ing biomass, and greater than MSY when the population is above that figure, would be used. Unfortunately because of the variability in anchovy biomass , maximizing total yield over a long period of time would require a tremendous variability in the fishery, from no catch 2 years out of 3 , to extremely large catches in other years . Such variability would be disruptive to the fishing industry. Another problem with managing for MSY is the unusual sex ratio of the reduc- tion fishery catch. The disproportionate catch of females would lead to a greater impact than predicted. Ecological interactions: Northern anchovies are a large part of the forage consumed by predator fish and inverte- brates, some of which are fished recreationally and commer- cially and eaten by marine mammals and birds . Anchovies them- selves consume large quantities of fish eggs and larvae. No assessment of the impact of the removal of anchovies on the ecosystem was considered possible because of the complexity of the system and the superficial knowledge of it. Status : The central stock spawning biomass was estimated at 3 . 6 million tons in 1975. The 1974 year class was weak and the 1975 class was poor. The 1976 year class appears to have been considerably stronger. Overall abundance seems to I F-9 have been increasing and the stock probably recovered to more normal levels of abundance in 1978. Under existing California management council, the council saw little danger of depleting the stock. However, an independent and un- regulated fishery in Mexico was considered cause for concern by the council. History : The U.S. fishery developed in the 1950s as a substitute for the collapsed sardine fishery. Since 1965 permits have been issued for catch of anchovies to be pro- cessed for fish meal and oil. This is called the reduction fishery and has been the largest component of the commercial fishery. Catches for live bait have been a much smaller com- ponent of the commercial fishery. There has been some recrea- tional anchovy catch as well. Recent harvest quotas have ranged between 110,000 and 165,000 tons. In 1975 California anchovy landings were 158,511 tons. Present exploitation: Commercial fisheries in southern California for pelagic schooling fish use various round haul gear, typically purse seines and lampara nets. The major species in the fishery have been northern anchovy, jack mack- erel, bonito , blue fin tuna and market squid, and to a smaller degree, Pacific mackerel and other incidental species. An integrated set of management plans covering all of these species was identified in the plan as a long term goal. Ancho- vy harvest in 1977 was on the order of 200,000 tons by Mexican and U.S. fisheries combined. OY considerations: Economic and social considerations for determining OY included the economic contribution of the fisheries to the nation, the anti-reduction fishery sentiment among marine anglers, and the per ton value of the live bait catch. Biological considerations included support of abundant predator populations. Acceptable Biological Catch involved two considerations, the desirability of maintaining a large enough population to minimize the risks of natural fluctuations in recruitment, and the need to account for the sex ratio of the commercial catch which averaged 1.73:1 females to males. The plan commented that increased exploitation would re- duce available supply of anchovies as forage for predator spe- cies of fish, birds and mammals, with the greatest impact at the centers of the fishery. The OY formula was designed to reduce exploitation impact when the biomass is low and to pro- tect the long term productivity of the resource. F-10 For the central subpopulation of northern anchovies, the following formula was adopted for OY; 1. When the estimated spawning biomass is less than 100,000 tons, OY is 0; 2. When the estimated spawning biomass is between 100,000 and 1 million tons, OY is 18,000 tons for the non-reduction fishery catch; and 3. When estimated spawning biomass is 1 million tons or more, OY for the combined reduction and non-reduction fish- eries is 18,000 tons or 1/3 of the biomass above 1 million tons, whichever is greater. Because 10% of the central subpopulation is found, in the U.S. FCZ, optimum yield within the FCZ was set at 707o of the OY for the central subpopulation as a whole. Under this formula OY at a biomass of 1.8 million tons spawning biomass would be 267,000 tons, considerably less than the MSY figure of 484,000 tons at the same biomass. OY for a spawning biomass of 3 . 6 million tons, the estimated pop- ulation for 1976, would be 870,000 tons, much greater than the 1976 harvest of about 200,000 tons. The maximum carrying capacity of the area was estimated at 3.9 million tons spawning biomass of anchovies. The average spawning biomass 1951 to 1975 has been 1.95 million tons. Under the proposed harvest quota, the spawning biomass would average 2.55 million tons, a level greater than equilibrium biomass. Spawning biomass would fluctuate around this average and would be expected to fall below 1 million tons during 19% of the years. Pre-spawning anchovies of ages 0 and 1 will be protected for the most part by closure of the 3 mile inshore area by the state of California and by the 5 inch minimum size limit. These young fish contribute mostly to the recreational fishery as forage and live bait. Review: The OY formula provides for a fishery that is less intense than managing for MSY, but more intense than recent harvesting. Maintenance of an anchovy population sufficient to sustain adequate predator stocks was one of the management objectives of this plan. However, no apparent attempt was made to define quantitatively what "adequate" levels of predators would be. Determining a quantitative or operational definition of F-ll "adequate levels," or of OSP for mammals as defined conceptual- ly in the MMPA, would be a very difficult task. However, the question of OSP levels should have been raised, even if con- sidered not answerable at present. The dependence of predators on anchovies was discussed in the plan, but not the existence of potential impact on al- ternative prey. Anchovies have been estimated to make up 45% of the average biomass and 507o of the production of small schooling fish (Green, 1978). The plan concluded that benefit to the nation does exist when fish are left in the water because they support commercially and recreationally valuable fish and squid as well as "non-valued birds and mammals." OY levels as formulated, considerably less than MSY , would contrib- ute to leaving fish in the water and maintaining predator stocks . The question of whether predator populations would be sup- ported sufficiently was not addressed in detail in the plan. The analysis of predator needs and interactions in the plan was confined to the observation that during 1951-1961 when spawning biomass was below 2 million tons (as opposed to the present 3 to 4 million tons), predators did not appear to decline. How- ever, no information on marine mammal populations is available to support or refute that assumption. The plan concluded that long term average anchovy biomass in excess of 2 million tons should not have a severe adverse effect on predators. Under the OY formula, spawning biomass was anticipated to average 2.5 million tons. It was expected to fluctuate around this average and to fall below 1 million tons for one year in five. The relationship of natural populations of predators to fluctuations in their prey is a complex one and not well worked out theoretically at the present state of the art of ecology. Populations of long lived predators such as mammals may not respond quickly to changes in prey abundance. The crucial parameter of survival of young to sexual maturity may respond over one to several years to such changes in abundance. How- ever, because of the late age of sexual maturity, it would take a longer time for the impact of several years of low juvenile survival to become apparent in the overall population size (Green, 1977). The question of time lags in predator prey relationships is a classic one, and merits more consideration in multi-species fishery management (May, e_t al_. , 1979). For some predators, reproductive success may respond to a threshold value of prey availability, such as a minimum required prey density, so that the relationship of predator abundance to prey abundance is not simple. Even though relationships are not F-12 ' known precisely, it is still clear that a significant reduc- tion in food availability causes a reduction in the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for predators. Another important aspect of the effects of a fishery on ecosystem carrying capacity is the potential use of alternative prey species , in this case other forage or small schooling fish, by predators. Whether alternative prey are available depends in part on the specialized food requirements of a predator with respect to season, spatial distribution, density, and behavior (such as schooling) of prey. If alternate prey are available, then the impact on those populations of more intensive predation (increased natural mortality) should be considered, particularly if those populations are also harvest- ed. Compared to detailed social and economic considerations in the plan, predator prey relationships received a fairly broad brush treatment. With the information on anchovy pop- ulations in the plan, some analysis of the impact of the pro- posed catch levels on predators could have been made. Ecosystem perspective example: One way to look at the impact of a fishery on an ecosystem is to estimate the loss of forage to predators other than the fishery. Traditional fish- ery calculations include estimates for rates of fishing mortal- ity (F) and natural mortality (M) . Natural mortality results largely from predation in a healthy ecosystem, so can be used to estimate the amount that the predators are eating. On an annual total weight basis, fishing mortality displaces some of the natural mortality, although the combination of fishing and natural mortality exceeds natural mortality alone. The dif- ference in estimated total annual natural mortality of a fish stock with and without a fishery can provide some in- dication of the short term impact of a fishery on forage availability. To get a handle on longer term changes in availability of forage, the aspect of average spawning biomass or average standing stock must also be taken into consideration As an example, estimates of changes in natural mortality anticipated in association with the proposed northern anchovy fishery are presented here. The following analysis applies to a fishery in which both natural and fishing mortality occur concurrently (Ricker, 1975). The formulas used for estimating biomass consumed by predators in this example are standard ones for the assumptions used for gain and loss rates. It is the emphasis on predator forage and the use of the formulas to estimate changes in predator intake that are unusual. F is F-13 the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality; M is the instan- taneous rate of natural mortality; G is the somatic growth rate. Fish stock biomass is decreased by death and increased by growth, so the rate of biomass change (decrease) is F + M - G. The biomass of the fish stock at the beginning of the year is BQ or initial biomass, or spawning biomass for anchovies. That biomass decreases at_the rate F + M - G. The average biomass during the year, B, is: B = BQ x ( 1 - e -(F+M"G> ) / (F+M-G) (1) Then the estimated weight of fish that die naturally, or forage available to predators, is MB. Without a fishery there is no fishing mortality. In that case, the estimate of predation of natural mortality is de- rived in the same way as the previous case, except that there is no fishing mortality, so F = 0. Then estimated predation is MB where: B = B0 x (1 - e "(M_G) ) / (M-G) (2) The difference in the two estimates of MB, or total annual natural mortality, in the cases with and without a fishery, is the hypothetical loss of forage due to the fishery. Values for M and G are the same in both cases . The value for F is a variable, being greater than zero in the case with a fishery, and zero in the case without a fishery. Values for BQ are the same for considering short term changes in forage, and differ- ent for considering long term changes when variation in average spawning biomass becomes a factor. Calculations of total annual natural mortality with various levels of BQ and F for the northern anchovy fishery are summarized in Table F-2. The short term loss of forage avail- able to predators , under the proposed fishery level based on the 0Y formula, for years with a high spawning biomass (e.g. , 3.6 million tons in 1976) is estimated at 420,000 tons. Simi- larly, for years with a low spawning biomass, short term loss is estimated as 160,000 tons. Since there is considerable nat- ural variation in the anchovy population, and consequently in available forage from year to year, these values may not be significant. Of greater importance is the change in forage re- sulting from the long term decrease in anchovy density or average spawning stock that is expected to result from the proposed fishery, case C in Table F-2. On the basis of expect- ed median population values with and without the proposed F-14 ^O O ^D ^ ^o o i. 0 O o o o o o o /-s ^H 1 — 1 t— 1 1 — 1 rH pH en eg c X X X X X X X 2 0 4-1 o-i vo 0 4-1 D. -H J3 r-l en 4J o 1 — CN ON in r-l 0 1 r— H r^ r-» O" 2 oo 00 00 CN O o o CO E u + fa o o o i — i i — i . — i i—i 4J >. ' — ' en en C H C C a) cu o O en en a £ _ ^ 4-1 4-1 C e en OJ -H < pa II II o oo fa, i i m. z E C u u tural spawni ^ . — i i — ,_l CN < pa w o o o - r4 CU cu 1—1 ^D >o J3 x: co en 4_) o o en en 3 r-l CO X CU en a 4-1 BP •H •H c oi c > CO 0) r-l H X cu en en o en o en o en O rH 'I X X o 'l U-l H CO CU U-l r-l CO 3 co en 4-1 3 o o 4-1 1-1 S-l U-l CO 0 > en o- C 0 4-1 o o o ej 4-1 CO G X X en en X o in X o 00 CU 00 CO M en en CN CU to CO T3 •H 4-J CJ CO U CU en 00 en en co V CN O U-l en CO E u o U-l en en en 4.1 C CO o i-i en 4-1 cu co i-i o o o o \0 O O o C ■H 0 •H a •H cfl E 0 •H c a o c X X X •r-l 4-1 X X X OJ ,C en •H U-l iH CO 3 4-1 X en cu en en oo c •H en eu en Calcul anchov pa c 4- CU JO U-l en m O en cni en rH CO OJ •H en o CN u-l o CN 00 O rH E U CU C 3 CO a. en en O 0 !-i cfl •H -a OJ E CO — y 4-1 M CU j-i CN 0) CD CO 4-1 3 < pa u C CO < ca cj CO < pc u XJ M 0 0 U-l 00 o U-l 1 fa. u o i i CO j_i CO 1j •H CO 3 0- OJ r-l JO CO •H ■H ■H •H 3 •H CO 3 -a 3 T3 CU E -a a E H F-15 i ID O I I ■v a •H U c o (J CN I Fn u I ^-^ s En + Fk 1 O 1 0) oo /-s s CO vO F g + 1-4 O Pn o 1— 1 "T* U-l 1 5 1 01 M 0 o • H 1 pq . -i « ■ — ' r 3 -1 i — i CO X 0 /I 1 0 4-1 CO X CO ro 1) •a m > vO o CU • ^-^ -1 o pq )-i O J -i • D. O 0 i-H vO ii II 03 M CNI >> 1) II • l« XI O" ■1 -> H js o -a X It II • • CU CO *- n • • CO E ca M w n cu o CO 3 E f-H . L) 4-1 CO CO 0 3 **s 13 CO • • E C •H £ u u CU o o XI E 4J ■H u O ai >. >■. (0 X 00 U-l 4J u 4-1 M X a EB H •H C CO •H JH l-l r H t-l jj CO •H ^ C CO CO 4-J 0) U-l a u 4-1 3 E (8 E 0 -I S-l O U-l o. 0 •H 0 o u M 0 en J-t U-l 4J cO E E 00 O >> H 4J 50 H CJ 01 4-1 co A ■H C CO ■H oo •H •i-* (0 0 H S-l u CO 4-1 4-1 4_i H c 3 CO S-l c •H 0 a. en 4-1 E 0) CO C 3 * H CO O > 3 -H a- 4) l ■i C CO CO a" o -O o* a ea ■a Xl CO H F-16 fishery -of several hundred thousand tons annually, estimated available forage is expected to decrease on the order of 1.23 million tons annually, or about half of the amount consumed by predators in the absence of a fishery. While the anchovy management plan did allow for forage for predators, the question remains of whether it allowed enough. Had such calculations been incorporated in the plan, the OY selected might have been different. The northern anchovy plan contained a reference to an en- dangered species, the brown pelican, which depends on ancho- vies for food. A link between anchovy abundance and reproduc- tive success of the brown pelican is suspected. High anchovy abundance may be required for successful reproduction, although definitive data are not yet available. The Pacific Fishery Management Council became aware of this relationship after the plan had been drafted when comments were made through the NEPA review process. A Section 7 consultation was held as required by the ESA. While no specific action was taken in the final plan, monitoring for impacts of the anchovy fishery on the pel- icans was recommended. Such monitoring is not a Council respon- sibility, however, and funding for it is not guaranteed. Crit- ical habitat for the pelican under the ESA has not yet been of- ficially .designated . Summary : The northern anchovy plan provides a good ex- ample of beginning the shift of fishery management techniques from the single species orientation to an ecosystem perspective. MSY was calculated as required under the FCMA, but OY was re- duced substantially from MSY on the basis of ecosystem level considerations, namely the role of anchovies as forage fish and the need to support predator populations in the ecosystem. An endangered species was considered explicitly in the plan. The intents of environmental legislation were recognized and acted upon in the plan, although more could have been done with the available data to gain an ecosystem level perspective on impacts of proposed fishing levels. Rough quantitative estimates of the impact of proposed fishing levels on predators, based on present ecological theory and on data in the plan, could also have been incorporated in the plan. Draft Squid Plan, 1978 The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed a management plan for squid in the northwest Atlantic in 1978. These comments apply to the August 1978 draft. Species : longfinned squid, Loligo sp . ; shortfinned squid, illex sp . F-17 Distribution : Longfinned squid range over the continental shelf from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico. Primary com- mercial concentrations occur from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras . Summer or shortfinned squid extend from Greenland to Florida, but are most abundant between Nova Scotia and New Jersey. They are most abundant in the summer in the Gulf of Maine and New- foundland region. Squid move offshore in late fall. Management objectives adopted in the plan were to : 1. Achieve and maintain optimum stocks for future recruit- ment ; 2. Prevent destructive exploitation of squid species; 3. Minimize capture of nontarget species; 4. Achieve efficiency in harvesting and use; 5. Maintain adequate food supply for predator species, recognizing that squid are also predators; 6. Minimize user conflicts; 7. Improve understanding of the condition of the stocks; and , 8. Encourage increased American participation in the squid fishery . Ecological relationships : Overexploitation of squid could result in decrease of other marine species which compete with fisheries for squid. Substantial increases in squid numbers might threaten fish species that are preyed upon during early life stages by squid. Some 54 species of fish have been identi- fied as predators of adult squid. The largest predator reported is the pilot whale (dobicephala melaena) which feeds almost ex- clusively on squid, mainly illex. Off Newfoundland these whales subsist on illex about 6 months a year. The plan recognized that years of illex scarcity could significantly impact pilot whale populations in the Newfoundland area. While no data are available from the Atlantic, it can be inferred from Pacific data that squid are also a significant part of porpoise diet. Billfishes, a valuable commercial and recreational group, use squid heavily for food. It has been postulated that an apparent increase in squid abundance may have occurred in response to declining abundance of finfish, but the actual relationship re- mains unclear. F-18 History : Gear for squid includes pound nets, otter trawls, floating traps, and rarely haul seines. Foreign fishing began in 1975 with an incidental catch. Mean squid catch for 1972-1976 for all countries except the U.S. was 50,000 tons, peaking in 1973 at 56,768 metric tons. For- eign landings are currently about 95% of all squid landings. Squid are taken as a bycatch for silver hake, red hake, other groundfish, herring, mackerel and some other pelagic and fin- fish. Status : Squid are shor-t lived and fluctuate widely in abundance. Preliminary data analysis indicated that Loligo num- bers in 1977 in the southern New England mid-Atlantic area were 18% greater than in 1976, but 23% less than in 197 5. The plan concluded that even on conservative estimates , this would be adequate to support an OY of 44,000 tons for Loligo. For illex, abundance has increased sharply from 1974 to 1976. Catches as high as 20,000 tons have not had an apparent impact on produc- tion when the population has been large. The USSR estimated minimum biomass of illex on Georges Bank as 100,000, 58,000, 197,000 and 258,000 tons for the summers of 1971, 1972, 1975, and 1976 respectively. MSY estimated for Loligo in the plan was 44,000 tons based on recruitment of 1.5 billion individuals to the population an- nually. A preliminary estimate of MSY for illex was' 40,000 tons. The plan indicated that the Council chose conservative values for MSY. OY set in the plan restricted the harvests of illex to 30,000 metric tons and Loligo to 44,000 metric tons. Foreign harvests were limited to 20,000 metric tons and 30,000 metric tons respectively for 1979. OYs were set at conservative levels of estimated MSY for Loligo and at 75% of the estimated MSY for illex to allow for incomplete data. Review : The plan contained no explicit mention of the MMPA. However, the potential impact of several years of scarce squid on habitat for pilot whales and possibly other marine mammals was recognized. Optimum carrying capacity and OSP for pilot whales were not addressed in the plan, nor were any im- pacts on the habitat or ecosystem extrapolated from proposed catch levels. The combined OY of 74,000 metric tons was the same as recent ICNAF quotas , but higher than recent catches . Squid are fish food. There has been some concern among fishermen that F-19 these quotas may be too high, not leaving enough left over as forage for tuna and other species. In setting the OY for illex, a safety factor was incorp- orated to allow for incomplete data, in line with conservation principles (Holt and Talbot, 1978). U.S. mid-Atlantic squid catch in 1976 was 901 metric tons, on the order of 170 of OY. U.S. fishery capacity was estimated at 24,000 metric tons. There was considerable room in the plan for increasing the ecological safety margin by reducing OY with- out affecting domestic fisheries. The plan implied that because of their short life span, squid which are not harvested are wasted. The implicit attitude that nonconsumptive uses of a fishery are not valuable is con- trary to the conservation definition in the FCMA, the intent of ecological legislation, and good management practice. Summary : The potential impacts of an intense squid fishery on squid prey and predators, including marine mammals, were rec- ognized in the plan. No quantitative estimates of the impacts of various harvesting levels on the ecosystem, e.g., food avail- able to predators, were attempted, although rough calculations along the lines of the anchovy example (discussed earlier in this appendix) were possible given the data in the plan. For one species OY was set below MSY to allow for deficiencies in data used in MSY estimation, reflecting one aspect of the conserva- tion intent of the FCMA. Draft Spiny Lobster Plan, 1978 The Western Pacific Council is developing a plan for spiny lobster. These comments apply to the draft version of May 1978, Species : Spiny lobster, Palinurus sp . Distribution : Depth range of 1 to 200 meters; commonly as- sociated with coral reefs or rock bottom, around islands. Management objectives adopted in the plan were to : 1. Maintain the reproductive potential of spiny lobster stocks ; 2. Permit expansion and continuation of economically via- ble spiny lobster fisheries: F-20 3~. Minimize environmental and ecological impacts of the fisheries, particularly on the endangered Hawaiian monk seal; and, 4. Acquire additional information on the resources and fisheries for use in refining management measures as necessary. For all areas other than the northwestern Hawaiian Is- lands, the main plan objective was to promote acquisition and review of information, since fisheries are little developed and little documented. There is a small fishery with a defi- nite potential for growth in" the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. An objective of the management plan was to institute conserva- tion measures sufficient to safeguard the stock against serious loss of productivity and to protect other elements of the en- vironment, while placing minimum obstacles to further develop- ment of the fishery. Ecological interactions : Lobsters feed mainly on small invertebrates and detritus, and are eaten by octopuses, reef fish, monk seals and tiger sharks. While monk seals are known to prey on lobsters, the im- portance of lobsters in their diet is not known and may vary with the area. Lobsters are significant food items for seals around Laysan. However, they are assumed not to be significant elsewhere . The Hawaiian monk seal is an endangered species. The same habitat is used by the green sea turtle, proposed as a threatened species . The NMFS may at some future time declare waters around some of the Hawaiian Islands to be critical hab- itat for the monk seal. Anticipated environmental impacts included in the plan were the expected long term maintenance of the reproductive capacity of the stock, a continuing but unknown degree of com- petition with lobster predators such as Hawaiian monk seals, and some minimal risk of entrapping the seals in lobster traps. Prohibition of trapping in shallow water and establishment of a refuge around Laysan Island were expected to provide addi- tional protection for lobster populations and to mitigate in- teractions with monk seals . Status : Spiny lobster stocks were considered to be in a healthy condition. None have been severely overfished or ad- versely affected by other human activities. F-21 Present exploitation: Harvest is by diving, grabbing, or spearing for recreation or subsistence, and a small commercial fishery with tangle nets; some incidental catch in fish traps. MSY was estimated in the plan at 552,000 to 690,000 lob- sters, based more on extrapolation from other lobster fishing regions than on the sparse data from Hawaii. Conservation measures : No OY or Total Allowable Catch fig- ures were established in the plan. The fishery was regulated by gear, area, and size restrictions instead. Conservation measures would prohibit fishing within 20 miles of Laysan Island for five years, would place size restrictions on males and fe- males taken, and would prohibit landing of females with eggs or lobsters with swimmerettes removed. Measures also would pro- hibit fishing methods other than trapping or hand catching, spe- cifically tangle nets, traps with triggered closures, and spear- ing. Fishing would be prohibited in water shallower than 10 fathoms except around Midway and Kure (to allow recreational fishing by military personnel) in order to protect lobster spawning stock to some extent, and also to protect the fringing reef area inhabited by monk seals and to minimize interactions between the seals and fishermen. Laysan Island would be established as a refuge for monk seals to allow a comparison of the effects of fishing and not fishing on monk seal populations around an island. Extensive observation of monk seals was recommended both to check on pop- ulation trends and to try to assess food habits. Review: The plan rested on the assumptions that regula- tions of no fishing above 10 fathoms and a sanctuary around Laysan Island would serve as protection to the monk seals, and that either lobsters were not a significant food item for monk seals, or that the potential reduction in lobster abundance due to the fishery would not be serious for the seals. The fishery before 1978 consisted of three boats, fishing six months a year and landing about 60,000 lobsters. Because Hawaiian lobsters are a relatively unexploited stock, the possi- bility for high short term profits by rapid overexploitation exists. Very few boats could potentially accomplish that. A large jump in harvesting levels, on the order of a tenfold in- crease, could result from the recommended catch regulations. Such a rapid jump would not allow much of a margin of safety for anticipated or unanticipated ecological impacts of the fishery. The management plan acknowledged that the MMPA and ESA completely protect Hawaiian monk seals which are listed as an endangered species. The need for monitoring the seal population F-22 was recognized. However, the responsibility for such monitor- ing would not rest with the council. While lobsters were shown to be a significant part of the diet of monk seals around Laysan, the plan simply assumed that not to be the case for the rest of the area. The MMPA and ESA issues were recognized, but the only action taken with respect to them in the plan was in- clusion of gear regulations intended to prevent incidental catch of seals . The council assumed that it did not have responsibility for demonstrating plan compliance with the MMPA and ESA, but instead that other agencies must document that the plan does not comply before the council needed to take action responding to the MMPA or ESA. The spiny lobster plan illustrated the problem of resource management with insufficient data. In this case the best avail- able scientific information is not sufficient to indicate the importance of spiny lobsters in Hawaiian monk seal diet, or the extent to which local lobster stocks depend on spawning around other islands. Both of these unknown relationships in- fluence the impact of a lobster fishery on monk seals. The plan recommendation to increase fishery levels and try to monitor the impacts on monk seals through observations of their popula- tion dynamics implied that resource exploitation should con- tinue until an adverse impact on monk seals was demonstrable, at which time the ESA and MMPA protection of the seals would require changes in the fishery. However, because monk seals are long lived, it is quite possible that by the time a decline in total population numbers could be observed and documented, se- vere reductions in population numbers would be unavoidable. The council has acted on the premise that because a risk to monk seals of greatly intensified lobster fishing has not been demon- strated by an agency such as the Marine Mammal Commission, that increased harvesting should proceed. The council could have chosen to delay greatly increased harvesting until such time as its safety, that is a low risk of impact to monk seals, could be documented. One possible alternative approach, with a greater ecological safety margin, would have been to increase fishing intensity gradually and only when a low risk of affect- ing monk seal populations could be demonstrated. The latter ap- proach would shift the burden of proving that a particular level of resource utilization is compatible with the ecosystem con- servation intent of environmental legislation onto the exploit- ers of the resource. The risk of adverse impact on seals could have been reduced through measures designed to allow only a very slow growth of the fishery. F-23 Summary : While the spiny lobster plan recognized the application of the ESA and MMPA as well as the FCMA , recom- mended lobster catch regulations reflected concern with direct interaction between fishermen and seals, but not with assuring low risk of adverse impacts on seal populations. Analysis of this plan illustrates that different management approaches can be based on interpretation of the same best available scientif- ic information. F-24 References Green, K.A. 1977 . Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling, revised Ross Sea model, general southern ocean budget, and seal model. NTIS PB 270 375. 1978. Ecosystem description of the California Current. Final report, Marine Mammal Commission contract MM7AC-026. Holt, S.J. and L.M. Talbot 1978 . New Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources. Wildlife Monographs #59, 33 p. Laevastu, T. and F. Favorite 1978. The Control of Pelagic Fishery Resources in the Eastern Bering Sea (A numerical ecosystem study of factors affecting fluctuations of pelagic fishery resources with emphasis on herring), March 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA/NMFS , Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, Washington. 63 p. May, R.M. , J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, and R.M. Laws 1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. Science 205: 267-277. Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 191: 382 p. U.S. Department of Commerce 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals . Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS, July 1979. F-25 AFPENDIX G FISHERY YIELD CONCEPTS Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is defined as "the greatest harvest that can be taken from a self -regenerating stock of ani- mals year after year while maintaining constant average size of the stock" (Holt and Talbot, 1978). Important elements of this definition include the concept of sustainability , i.e., a level of harvest that can be maintained year after year because it does not affect the average abundance of the resource, and the con- cept of maximization, i.e., conditions that produce the greatest sustainable yield. The MSY concept applies only to stocks that are self -renewing . In practice this means that management for MSY should cover all or almost all of a breeding population. The MSY concept is derived from hypotheses supported to some extent by observation. The fundamental assumption is that an ani- mal population increases rapidly when the initial population size is small, but that the rate of increase slows as the population size increases, until a point is reached at which the rate of in- crease is zero and the population size remains steady. The graph of such a population size against time is an S-shaped or sigmoid growth curve. When the population size ceases to grow, births and deaths still occur, but losses from the population are ex- actly replaced by additions to it. Another assumption associated with MSY calculation is that the population size at which birth and death rates balance in an unexploited population is the carrying capacity, or the population size which the environment can support. Populations which have never been exploited are assumed to be at carrying capacity. Since it depends on the condition of the habitat, carrying capacity can change over time in response to environmental changes such as cli- mate variation, pollution, etc. When exploitation begins the av- erage standing stock of a resource population will be reduced and will fall below the carrying capacity level. The relationship of birth and survival rates to population size is assumed to be a density dependent one. This means that birth and/or survival rates are higher when total population is lower. Higher birth or survival rates may result from more favor- able conditions due to less crowding, from behavioral responses, or from increased food availability in proportion to number of individuals in the population. (A given amount of food divided ten ways provides a larger individual portion than if it were divided among a hundred members of a population) . G-l A population of a given size can have either few births and deaths (low turnover) , or many births and deaths (high turn- over) . The turnover rate is a replacement rate for a popula- tion. A high turnover rate generally implies more production available to the ecosystem of which the population is a part, since most deaths are due to predation and provide food for other elements of the ecosystem. The density of a stock is its standing population size per unit area. When the density of a population falls below carry- ing capacity, according to the theory underlying MSY, birth rate (not necessarily the total number of births) and survival rate increase and exceed the death rate. The rate at which new individuals in a population enter a given age class (e.g., 2 year olds or adults) or size class (e.g., longer than 10 cm.) is called recruitment to that class and depends on the combination of birth rate and rate of survival to the given age or size. When recruits outnumber losses for an age or size class, either the surplus can be removed by harvesting and the population level will remain below carrying capacity, or the surplus will in- crease standing population size until recruitment and death rates are once again in balance. If harvesting removes ex- actly the surplus of recruits over deaths, then the average pop- ulation size will not change, the surplus will be the same the following year, and that level of harvest can be sustained. The population level at which the surplus of recruits over deaths for the total population is greatest, is the population level producing MSY. This approach assumes that environmental condi- tions remain constant. When the size of a population is not changing, it is in equilibrium with the combination of environmental conditions and harvesting pressure. Equilibrium yield (EY) , also known as re- placement yield, is the level of harvesting that removes the surplus of births over deaths without changing population size. Depending on the size of the population, EY can be greater than, less than, or equal to MSY. EY is sustainable yield for the population at a particular abundance level; EY varies with time because population size varies with time. MSY is achieved at only one of a possible range of population sizes, and, concep- tually, is constant for a given carrying capacity. Using highly simplified birth, survival and death rate as- sumptions, the MSY population for "r selected" species is esti- mated to be half of carrying capacity. Frequently the MSY level is assumed to be between 40% and 607o of carrying capacity (Holt and Talbot, 1978.) The relative size of MSY level and carrying capacity appears to vary with the species being harvested. For marine mammals, for which simplified sigmoid population growth curve assumptions are not appropriate, MSY population levels have been estimated to be higher than 607o of carrying capacity (Fowler, et al . , 1978). When enough information is available G-2 on the biological characteristics of a population to make more realistic assumptions about its growth rate, then MSY can be determined more accurately. Assumptions underlying MSY calculations are that: 1. the stock is self-contained; 2. the stock was at carrying capacity before exploitation began; 3. there are no significant changes in carrying capacity during the period of exploitation: 4. the kind of density dependence of reproduction, growth and/or natural mortality, and any time lags in the stock's response to exploitation, will not cause fluc- tuations of large amplitude in the stocks; and 5. the process of reducing the 'initial' stock by exploi- tation is reversible. These assumptions are very difficult to test and overly simplis- tic (Holt and Talbot, 1978). Methods for calculating sustainable yields from a population of a single species are well developed. The method used in a particular case depends on which assumptions are applicable for the patterns of recruitment, growth, natural mortality, fishing mortality, and fishing effort (Ricker, 1975). Data for estimating rates of natural and fishing mortality come from mark-recapture experiments, size or age composition of fishery catch, or the relation of fishery success to effort (catch per unit effort) . Estimates of recruitment or growth rate are de- rived similarly, and may have additional information from life history or physiology of the species, e.g., how many eggs a gravid female produces. It is important to note that most of the data on which fishery yield calculations are based come from fishing. When exploitation of a population stops, there is no longer as much information on the condition of the stock. If data are not sufficient to base MSY calculations on vari- ous population models with well defined assumptions about growth and mortality rates, then sustainable yield levels are estimated through a process of educated guessing and experience. Yield es- timates can be based on the apparent effects, or lack of them, on a stock of recent or historic catches. This is dangerous since "effects" may not be apparent if substantial time lags are in- volved. Yield estimates might also be based on information about 6-3 the life history of the target species, or on the basis of ex- perience with similar species, or the same species in a differ- ent area. Traditional yield calculations are very much single species oriented. They depend on the assumptions that the environment remains constant and that natural mortality rate (M) also re- mains constant. Natural mortality rate is that from all causes except fishing. Natural mortality results from predation, dis- ease, old age, pollution, etc. In a healthy ecosystem, preda- tion is such a large component of natural mortality that M can be used as an estimate of predation rate. In MSY calculations M is assumed to remain constant. This implies that predation rate is independent of predator abundance, an unrealistic assumption. However, even if M does remain constant, the total food avail- able to predators may vary. M is a rate analogous to interest rate on a savings account. While the interest rate may remain constant, accumulated interest for a year very much depends on the amount of principal in the account. Half the principal earns half the interest with the same interest rate. Similarly, even if mortality rate remains constant for a fished population, the fact that the fishery usually reduces the average standing stock of the population means that the annual total consumed by preda- tors may be likewise reduced. With reduced food the predator population may shift to other prey or become reduced in size. Another problem with the constant M assumption is that it does not take into account the time required for a predator pop- ulation to adjust to changes in density of its prey. Marine mam- mals, for example, might respond to a long term reduction in available food through ' lower survival of pups and/or other age classes, older age of first reproduction, longer intervals be- tween births for adult females, and eventually a lower overall population size. Such population responses are slow, not imme- diate as assumed in the MSY concept. The time required for ad- justment to changed environmental conditions is called a time lag. During the adjustment process, the relatively overabundant predators can put unusual stress on prey populations. For long lived predators such as marine mammals, consideration of adjust- ment time lags is essential for realistic management (May, et al. , 1979) . The assumptions underlying MSY are particularly strained when more than one stock is fished in a given area. Stock re- cruitment relationships are affected both by the changes in the environment and by fishing on other stocks in the same ecosystem (Gulland, 1978). Ecological problems with MSY derive from its concentration on only the stock, excluding the factors of competition or rela- tionships between trophic levels , the impacts of symbiotic or G-4 commensal relationships , and environmental changes such as cli- mate, pollution, or other human influences which affect changes in carrying capacity (Holt and Talbot, 1978). The concept of MSY as a function of stock size alone was developed to provide an approximate description of the response of a stock to exploitation. It has been useful as a teaching aid and in providing a very preliminary conservation criterion for avoiding or correcting overexploitation . The MSY concept has been a useful simplified model for understanding wild popu- lations. However, it has become institutionalized and is play- ing a more absolute role than is justified. It was never in- tended as the sole conceptual basis for management. Unfortu- nately, MSY has become an obstacle to accepting concepts derived from more detailed ecological information that could provide a more adequate management basis. In particular, a more adequate basis is necessary when human impacts on the biosphere are in- creasing and diversifying (Holt and Talbot, 1978). The MSY concept has shortcomings, but it has focused man- agement on long term and sustainable yields, considering the fu- ture, as well as on an exploitation level that definitely cannot be exceeded without depleting the resource stock. The MSY concept is not applicable in situations of harvesting both predator and prey. In such cases time scales and trophic interactions become very important (May, et a_l. , 1979). If enough assumptions are made about population dynamics , recruitment and mortality rates, and fishing effort on a stock, then population models exist which provide formulas for the cal- culation of sustainable yields (MSY or EY) Ricker , 1975). However, maintenance of existing population sizes or highest sustainable yields may not always be appropriate management objectives. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) may be greater or less than MSY on the basis of biological considerations such as fluc- tuating recruitment in stock or allowing depleted stocks to in- crease. ABC estimates depend on scientific or managerial judge- ment in addition to formulated calculations . MSY is a single species management concept. One problem that has been apparent with MSY is the difficulty of estimating and attaining it in practice. Such difficulty has arisen in part from incomplete data, in part from the tendency of fisheries to become overcapitalized and hence reluctant to remain at specified catch levels, and in part from failure of the oversimplified as- sumptions underlying MSY calculations. However, there are con- ceptual as well as practical problems with MSY. In a multi-species fishery situation with various ecological interactions among re- source populations to be taken into account, MSY for each species is no longer an appropriate management goal . G-5 Replacement of MSY as a management concept will not be simple. Sustainable yield calculations that incorporate im- pacts of a fishery on the ecosystem as well as on the stock it- self, and that allow for the impacts on alternate prey of a shift in predation pressure, will be more complicated than MSY calculations because they will involve more variables . More realistic treatment of natural mortality is a good starting place for departure from present MSY theory. New theories should incorporate the effects of a fishery on predators, as well as the effects of predators on a changing fishery stock. Incorporation of more realistic predator prey interactions will be a step toward whole ecosystem considerations in fisheries management. G-6 References Fowler, C. W. , W. T. Bunderson, M. B. Cherry, R. J. Ryel, and B. B. Steele. 1978. Comparative Population Dynamics of Large Mammals: A Search for Management Criteria. Draft Report to the U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, for Contract #MM7AC013 . Gulland, J. 1978. Fishery management; new strategies for new conditions. Trans. Amer . Fish. Soc . 107:1-11. Holt, S.J. and L.M. Talbot 1978. New Principle for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources. Wildlife Monographs #59, 33 p. May, R. M. , J. R. Beddington, C. W. Clark, S. J. Holt, and R. M. Laws . 1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. Science 205: 267-277. Ricker, W. E. 1975 Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull, Fish, Res. Board Can. 191: 382 p. G-7 APPENDIX H MARINE MAMMALS IN THE U. S. FCZ Page Provisional list of common, rare and threatened or endangered species of marine mammals by Council Area H-2 Descriptive information for marine mammals in the U. S. FCZ - H-7 References H-17 H-l Provisional List of Common, Rare, and Threatened or Endangered Species of Marine Mammals by Council Area (In many cases the distribution, biology, ecology, and popula- tion status of marine mammals are poorly known. It is likely that this list should be modified and enlarged.) Relatively Common Species Relatively Rare Species Threatened or Endangered Species NORTH PACIFIC COUNCIL minke whale killer whale belukha whale Pacific white- sided dolphin harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise bottlenose dolphin northern fur seal bearded seal Steller sea lion walrus ribbon seal ringed seal larga seal harbor seal sea otter polar bear Baird's beaked whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale Risso's dolphin bottlenose whale northern right whale dolphin Stejneger ' s beaked whale narwhal false killer whale striped dolphin Cuvier ' s beaked whale hooded seal northern ele- phant seal bowhead whale sei whale blue whale fin whale gray whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale H-2 Relatively Common Species Relatively Rare Species Threatened or Endangered Species PACIFIC COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale long-finned pilot whale Pacific white- sided dolphin northern right whale dolphin harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise bottlenose dolphin Cuvier ' s beaked whale northern fur seal Steller sea lion northern elephant seal harbor seal California sea lion Bryde ' s whale Baird' s beaked whale pygmy killer whale Risso's dolphin dwarf sperm whale shortsnouted dolphin Hubb ' s beaked whale dense-beaked whale ginkgo -toothed whale Stejneger's beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin spotted dolphin rough- toothed dolphin sei whale blue whale fin whale gray whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale Guadalupe fur seal sea otter CARIBBEAN COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale Risso's dolphin harbor porpoise bottlenose dolphin Cuvier ' s beaked whale pygmy killer whale pygmy sperm whale dense-beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin spotted dolphin rough-toothed dolphin sei whale blue whale fin whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale West Indian manatee H-3 Relatively Common Species Relatively Rare Species Threatened or Endangered Species NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin long- finned pilot whale Risso's dolphin harbor porpoise bottlenose dolphin grey seal harbor seal short-finned pilot whale bottlenose whale pygmy sperm whale dwarf sperm whale Atlantic white- sided dolphin white-beaked dolphin Sowerby's beaked whale dense-beaked whale True ' s beaked whale false killer whale bridled dolphin striped dolphin Cuvier ' s beaked whale hooded seal harp seal sei whale blue whale fin whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale Risso ' s dolphin harbor porpoise bottlenose dolphin Cuvier 's beaked whale harbor seal Bryde ' s whale pygmy killer whale long-finned pilot whale pygmy sperm whale dwarf sperm whale Atlantic white-sided dolphin dense-beaked whale Gervais ' beaked whale True ' s beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin spotted dolphin rough-toothed dolphin hooded seal gray seal harp seal sei whale blue whale fin whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale H-4 Relatively Common Species Relatively Rare Species Threatened or Endangered Species SOUTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale harbor porpoise spotted dolphin bottlenose dolphin Cuvier's beaked whale harbor seal Bryde ' s whale pygmy killer whale long-finned pilot whale Risso's dolphin pygmy sperm whale dense-beaked whale Gervais ' beaked whale True ' s beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin rough-toothed dolphin hooded seal sei whale blue whale fin whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale West Indian manatee GULF OF MEXICO COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale pygmy sperm whale harbor porpoise spotted dolphin bottlenose dolphin Cuvier's beaked whale Bryde ' s whale pygmy killer whale Risso's dolphin dwarf sperm whale dense-beaked whale Gervais ' beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin rough-toothed dolphin sei whale blue whale fin whale right inhale humpback whale sperm whale West Indian manatee H-5 Relatively Common Species Relatively Rare Species Threatened or Endangered Species WESTERN PACIFIC COUNCIL minke whale killer whale common dolphin short-finned pilot whale harbor porpoise bottlenose dolphin Cuvier's beaked whale northern fur seal Baird's beaked whale belukha whale pygmy killer whale Risso's dolphin pygmy sperm whale dwarf sperm whale shortsnouted dolphin northern right whale dolphin dense-beaked whale false killer whale spinner dolphin bridled dolphin striped dolphin rough-toothed dolphin sei whale blue whale fin whale right whale humpback whale sperm whale Hawaiian monk seal dugong H-6 CO CU 00 cj 1 — 1 c o> m u • — i cu •« ,^- <• cu tf ro Ol * » co 00 i-H CNI « 00 r-~ ^H vD . — 1 1 — 1 •« ~H n ~H < — 1 ** Ol * — 1 00 a « r~~ « * on m * « ro n » CM - —1 00 LPl t— 1 00 u-i .— I co -h — i 01 c o IS] c o co > u cu co c o a >. QJ 4S co cu cu a > C •H CO 4J T3 CO C iH 3 a> * OS < -a ai 00 c cfl T3 C 0> o CO C o ca £ Cfl e cu o u u ca •a cu u cu 00 c Cfl c Ol ca .c #> n T3 td ca ca ^ C •H -H n 0) CJ CO •H 14-1 -a c o ca o •H t-H >> 3 00 o •a th 14 0 U 3 cfl C 43 -H — 1 * ca o- d a^H ■z ca ca ca 3 O ca -a n CU o ca •H •> CU •> 43 CO ■a •H ca cj tH « CJ T3 0 ca T3 C 01 co ca o a- 3 O CO 1-1 3 EL •H ca a. h 01 -a C rH CU 43 43 01 T3 ^ •H Cfl i-H c el a. a c o 3 rH Cfl o £ 3 0 CO Cfl a" cfl E CJ ca 0) cj ca £ ca a co T) T3 01 0) U U 01 Ol 00 oo (3 c ct) cfl -a -a C e cu cu £ * so CO SO cfl •H ». C i-H « M- 1 -a ■H CU CO •H J-i CL T3 iH 3 h •H ■H CT cu iH •H CO CO 43 iH CO E CO 3 co * » E cfl 4= CO CO 43 H Cfl T3 a. ca •H •H * 3 c U-l •H CO 01 o q CO -a •H t-i 3 o ■H CO 0) CO a. i-i ca 4J 43 cu 43 CO CJ 13 P. a CO E u cfl 3 o ■H ca o .— 1 cu o u^ 0) 4J c •H < CO a- a co I s cu c ■H CO S o c o 4-1 cfl O H-i c cu > u u CO 0) o CO 01 •H CJ CU a co CO cfl 01 en > 4-1 A •H #« J-l CJ CJ * oo 0 •H •H CJ 3 4-1 c J-l ^ •H 3 CO O 3 1J cfl 0) M 43 01 01 CJ < O pa oa o T3 c CO iH O CJ CO -H O y CJ H CJ 4-1 -H ■rl •H c •H C U-I C C CO cu ca -h cfl cfl OJ O iH O CU CU o (-4 4-1 Cfl CJ CJ 0 4-1 < fL, O o « •H 3 £3 4J 01 CU 01 w 0) r-4 0 CO ts 01 T3 <-> OJ CO <2 ■1 43 +j H ,3 01 * Cd 40 3 HJ m cfl m 0) to 3 HJ H m 01 u CO iH ^ r" iH 1—t Sh M cfl Sh rH < »i -a -H 01 0 f-H C 3 q 0 3 c <0 •rl R >. £3 3 3 c tfl 3 u QJ o cu -u ■H CD — i A --H — — » m o> - . — l M 00 —i ■ en » >* #• • 00 — • os ~-i r~ csi « •» - r » r— 1 i-» cm 00 CO u~> «00 *- p-H •» p-H M f-H r— I LA •* r- •> CO r-l « - i— 1 00 » C-4 . . C 01 •H CO 00 .U "3 c CO f CO rH 3 "3 01 42 C OS < 01 a. r- 0) oo c CO C a; 4-1 T3 en -a 0) 0 0. r-l E i-i OJ a. 00 C 00 c o Cfl c CO p cfl CO *o g 0) -3 c 0 u a 01 u CO 0) >, 4J r-l C 0) CO > T3 c 4-1 3 O XI C CO ca to • CO E "H CO r-l Cfl U-l 00 0) CO 00 X CO 5 « 00 3 E •* "3 01 CO C 3 CO •H 4-1 -a -h oo u -a •r-l M 0 r-l C 3 o CO a. o •H CJ a. CO T3 0) o r-l 0) rC 0 o, x S-i CO a Q. o O cj 0) 01 0 3 fc- a co x co CJ 0) CO r-l rH 01 ■» » CO 4-J m ■3 CO 0) CO 0) o cu CO 3 c a i-i T3 .C •H cfl ■1 •H X -3 - X CO B •H r- -3 3 3 IH at CO •H 3 •» CO CO 3 « 4-1 CO O O 3 er J3 •3 ■H •H cd *■ CO CO » O X C 0) •3 rC •H Cfl 0- 4-1 O CJ O CO « 14-1 C 0 3 4-1 CO o •H 3 •H r-l 0) r*S 4J 4-1 O 0) X CO X 3 CO 0) 4_) E 00 P- -3 Cfl 3 E CO H S-l ■H a. ^3 rH i-i o rH CO CO O 3 3 0. U CO > 0) X O 4-1 3 X ■H ^ CO 3 X 3 — z 3 0 0 -H Cn 0 0 31 H 3 3 c in -3 2- 3 CO W fcl s: O a, CO cq H-8 Cfl • 0) CN O t-H 3 • 01 i-H U ■— i r- 0) * .-H u-j o> - 0) « 3 ■rl « 4J -3 (13 c i— 1 a 0) A pa < 4J o c o cd o i— i « 4-1 O < m o> H 3 cfl cfl In Cfl 0) 3 > c — I CM 00 > en C Z c o rH cfl 0) cfl m 1-1 O c c . #, t-H cfl CJ l-l 0 cfl CO -a X. •#« iH cu U cfl 3 o 0) 3 4J £ £ l-l 3 o u 00 [fl E 0 un aj o j-i CO 01 cd 3 a O u UH en 5-i In 01 CO X 00 m CO c cu •H m •* •H ^ U-l •* ■a a. 4-1 cfl 3 t-i ■H E Cfl r= )-i T3 0) 3 -H U 01 •H -a cr J-i oo ■» *J 3 c CD A •a •H 60 c a- 3 CO ■H s C cfl CO 0 n 3 •H .H rH Cfl « CT CO UH H ■* U-l T) J3 CO e o l-l * CO O CO 0) cu CO 0) « a. -h ^ 4-1 CO A CU •H 4-1 O u-i rH M 1— 1 3 > 3 ^H A o «• •H 0 -0 CO l-i Cfl ~3 o -= •o r- •l-l A 0) XI A 0 r- CO l-l CJ 1— 1 a. a Cfl o 0 o •H CC3 c TO 0) 4J l-l l-l r~ CO UH CO cfl J3 CJ O U a. oo c o o A CJ CO -a G CO •a •h j: 3 CO O* -H CO U-l o CJ CD ■"HI -H H ^~ 4.) -a o •h .a 3 l-i O" 3 CO 4J T3 •H 3 a- co B CO w ,— J z iH Q-, Cfl a •H oo Z £ co z — l-i H C 0 3 Cfl 01 CO O Cfl 5 0) a at u-i CJ CJ A 4J • n 0 o •H a cfl cu 4-1 4-1 •H l-l 4-J CJ C U-l 01 CO •H X Cfl •H — e 4-1 4-1 — o s ■H CJ 3 4J CO 01 ^H l-i o < — 4-1 a < CO S3 cj < < Pm en W Z_ < < P-< en CU CU CU 4-1 4J 4-1 T3 Cfl "3 ■a Cfl CO ■«4J H l-l c T3 3 l-l -a l-l a co cfl CU Cfl C cfl 0) c 0) •rl 01 c_ CO n a. Cfl a us — 1 E o CJ iH g 0) e 3 cfl cu •H CJ a ■H re 5 01 l-i cu Cfl CJ CJ 4-1 4-1 •H •H 4-1 CJ 4-1 t-l O 4J i-l -H -J 3 U-l U-l C 'rH o _*— ' 4JU4 4J &- B re ■H ■H cfl c- £ A Cfl T— 1 < -H Cfl z u ^H CJ o — o l-i CO U-l 0 cj re u Cfl 4-1 CO CO 4-1 l-l re 3 UJ o • CO o 4J 3 < — Oh < 4-1 3 •H 0 o ■Z. Ph CJ U-l O -a CO 3 cfl U-l iH cfl 0) rH H CO 3 cfl cu CJ 4J iH ■ #t re cfl •V cfl M CJ U-l ^ 0) •H r-l CO P. a. 01 cfl £ o — H 0) M CO < 4J 4-1 to c C •H •r-| -H 13 0) Cfl £ •c: ^= 01 0) rH 4J l-i •a CU CJ CO CL Cfl Q, o. •rl CO rH CO 0) T) 0) !0 cu i-\ 0) T3 rH 3 rH 3 r-H rH — a 3 re a rH 3 rH 3 3 re ih qj re 0) o — 0) o — 0) a In A 3 re R rH "3-c; 3 -C CO m C rC CO T3 e t3 T3 01 CO co c 0) 3 ai •H -H 0 •H 3 X •H C 3 'H re A •rl J2 •H 4-J re "3 4J Ai T3 C UH 3 T3 •H in en |H to c 1 0 cu ^rj C3U co A 4J a) x: 3^ 1 4-1 ■d UH 4-1 cn- oo 3 O 01 a rH Cu "3 M ^ CU 13 >> rH a^: 4J O 4-1 Q. CO 1 O o Cfl C! 6 4-1 u ~ r-l 3 CO 3 3 4-1 e re 0) M In ^ 0 0) C5 CO rH CO CO >! 01 -M S •H o T3 0 ■H Cfl rH rH •H ITS 00 X O'O 0 •H rH 0 OJ C -H 3 CO cfl 1-1 ■c o — CO T3 ^J 0 CU 1) CJ Cfl >. 3 •H Is ^3 C3l -H ■H. (0 o a. Q, -H (H a Qj O 3 CO Q< 3 -Q -3 -> 0) O. rQ CJ Cfl Q. rQ M rH E pa oo 01 ~H — i c — W 4-1 T3 ca £ i—i 3 OJ Q « < 1-1 o c co a > o o e z o 4-1 U o CO c O 4J CJ e en e E CO 0 o o en OJ CJ U C rH -a .. co 0 CO CO 01 CO O1 E CO •H U X rl E 0) j-l CO 01 CO o 1-1 CO S-i H u u CO > ■A r-. 4-1 OJ •H 1-4 CO > ca o CD — CO TD 4J B •H = OJ 3 0) 4-1 42 H -a n "D •H 43 C 3 ca o CJ* ■H r» ca <4-4 c CO CO 43 CO CJ » ft •a e •r-t -H 3 S-i o- J CO to oi A! CO 4= S-i OJ > r-t •H ca - c TJ -H 4-1 •H Sn rH 3 U 0) CT OJ E ca x: ca •k T3 p c CO iH H 01 CJ CO ft •H e CO 00 CO CJ CO H «k •t 0) rf3 CO -a ft CO C c •H (0 CJ •k <4-l 01 00 CJ •» c E CO ■o •H C 4J •H t-i 4-1 ca 3 !h 4-1 3 — 91 o l-i ca _c 43 O 2 ft ft < Ed 3 O Z at * * < < ft s ft S co 3 U 3 w s < CJ ■H CO •H 4-1 CJ 4-1 3 CO c 43 CO ■H eo — l-i c 4-1 u •H < CO l-l •H 0) • Q ca z • o U-l CO CJ 0 4-1 iH • 4-J X •> CO TJ <4H o 4-1 0) 0) co 2 ca • •H 3 c •» CO rH 3 3 C rH 01 rH •o o CO 4= uh ■ -M C r^ co a 1-1 00 o — a o •H O l-i U a -h 0 c o •- •H CO •H UH 01 01 •tH U-i 43 a 43 01 IM CO U-H CO •H 4J 4-1 ft -H CO 01 4-1 B 0 CO rH 3 i-H ca CO O CJ >4H 3 ft )-l ■H H CO 3 CO CO CO CO U CO Uh CU CO O CO iH 2 CJ CJ 0) CJ 4J ft 0 Z rj c S ca 0) ■H U 01 a CO •H CO 4-1 Q4 01 a 0) 0) E E CO CO CO 01 0 i-< S-i o rH o CO 'H 01 0) CO c c 4-1 o s> ft CO ft c 3 u 0) < 3 - > ^ •-H y_| 0 ■H 4-1 4-1 CO 4-1 4-1 CO 4-1 CO E co co s-i 0 i-H 1-4 o ~ S-i o CJ 4-1 J^ t! SO 43 CO Is 3 0 _3 3 0 43 9 o 3 *H ?^ 3 T3 3 0) 2, c c 43 CJl ft ••H -O Ql E 0 bi a ti ^ 0 * ^ 0) co *o O OJ -C--0-H 01 rH W4JrH ■^3(1 x; 04; C co CXC I -H- rn CO 0143 S- qj 4-14-1 ft 01 tj IJ'HH CO 0 OJ3 O CO C43 3-TJ 1-1 01 CO '— &> CO t3 o -a CO 3 o c 31 43 r4 0 0) tjl fO rq I 01 ■h x- 3 H O U T3 C 0) ra -a -a o 4>; co n 01 C (h 43 ~t 31 4j 1 x: x: co oi ft (H 0 4J rH 0 >s -iH O 3 -hX-j CJ 42 3 Si r-( i-5 H-10 Cfl » OJ CN u t— * c ■ 01 i—4 u t— I C ■H co 4-1 "0 CO G H a 01 — ^ < 4J C C Sj CO O -O u-i C -H 3 rH 43 Cfl Cfl CJ cc •» -a- r-- c o u-i «- 4-1 <4-l Ml (3 60 o CO o G •H to •H 4J c 01 ,ci c i-l u en CO o o rt — 14-1 3 a •H 01 3 iH 1-1 — 43 CO CO G CO u 1-1 cO qj u cfl s-l 01 u CO 00 S-l CO s-i ON CO 00 G c o •H •H T3 03 c CO CO u u u 4-1 0 Cfl a •H >> 4= 3 u cn cr 3 4= •H Cfl Cfl Cfl CO 14-1 cfl •H s •i T3 U-l OJ S-i Cfl •> C ^J QJ OJ >. CO o M 4-1 G > •H CO •H 0 •O 00 ^3 3 — .43 •H CO C T3 S-l 'J 3 i-H 0 •H CO C CT 0) Pd B CO CO Cfl O. p- < OH Oh 3^ CO O - U-l 4-1 cfl 3 42 .—1 O * CJ -H •H •H 4= ■H Cfl CO *• CO •H i-l S-l 43 o S-i 4-1 4>S #. Uh 4*; U-l CO oa = Cfl 4J Cfl cn CO i— i CO •H U 3 Cfl 4-1 Cfl Cfl CO in 0) <0 CJ TO T— 1 Cfl CO •H 0 .— 1 cfl r* 1— 1 cfl O C 0 CO CO Q o < U-l QJ 3 Z U CO QJ to — 45 r-l 3 OJ 45 CO QJ T3 1 0 4J c m 4ti 3 4= ra QJ 0) •H 4= •H C CO OJ 4: Tj 3 cu Q< *■ QJ 4-1 4= 00 4= aj 0) ^1 ~H 0) CO — T3 0 co — en -h d •H p- TS ja CO Sh ■^ -a — cfl OJ Sh OJ e Ed 3 43 ^( S-i T— 1 ■H J3 CO CO QJ to QJ SI ^ 3 43 Cfl _3 •C «1 3 c CO o 45 CO cfl 3 0 01 4* ■H — 3 CO QJ 0) 3 0 3 -o ■H c -3 — 01 43 CO Sh tH 01 — S-i 3 QJ O 4= S-l 3 >-, •» T, -a 3 01 3 •U •H >a 43 C Cfl 4-1 ~3 31 'O tH T3 0, CO OJ QJ 0 43 QJ 0) 0 CO cu 43 0 to > QJ 1 0) 0 -H QJ CO QJ 45 -.H 14-| CJ >-H •H H ^ S-i — ~ ^ TJ " H 1 T3 0 c a QJ rH T) cfl — 4 Cfl U-l CO 0) O iJU •H 'O f— i r^ cn 00 * - r—4 A 1— 1 CI - r^ •— t •» i-H ■k cj c > c ■H •H CO T3 jj -a C fl c aj o> ca 0 CO u CO (-. 0 n 0) Cfl i— 1 OJ 60 cj •o » c CO •* » c -o •H 4-1 -o -3 3 -H ,40 M CO ■H ^ ■H 0 3 cfl I-I 3 3 en 3 i-H D- iH 0) M a* •H cr u_i en o -C a en U-l Cfl < Oh < 00 w < Oh Oh Oh < Oh Oh z -C 4-J « Cfl CO 3 ,£ 0 jq i-i •'- ) •r- 1 OJ c 4J 4-1 C 4-1 o CO 4-1 ■H 0 Sh cfl u c M «» Cfl cfl ■H CO 0 CO 01 0 Cfl Vh CJ 4-1 •H c OJ CJ C * 0 •H 0) •H 3 c co 0 u 4-1 c OJ a. a J lH 4-1 CO i—i ■H CJ 1h M e o •H 0 £ T3 00 C CJ cfl 4-1 •H Cfl o O 01 i-i l-i U-l a •H C 0 •H 4-1 c U-H -^ U-l X 4-1 4-1 — •H V4 U •H 00 4-1 Cfl cfl •H Cfl •H Cfl Cfl Cfl 1—1 Sj 0 )-i 0) CJ Cfl r-4 CJ Cfl l — M-l l-l T3 cfl •H Cfl 3 iH 01 1-4 Vh 0 4-1 cfl 1—1 CO U-l i— 1 C OJ a u Cfl CJ "a 0 *! U 0) 4-J o Cfl ■a OJ Jj! CO M o Cfl OJ H CO - CO OJ iH CO T3 01 X. 4-1 < Cfl 0 is CJ 0 CJ Cfl c OJ 0 0 < OJ Cfl •H O a. i-i 0- < U O CO CO Cfl l-i OJ i-l Cn 0 JJ E CJ J3 "H 1-1 0) 3 aj 3 o o 0 0 0 tfl OJ CJ Cfl tfl i—l CJ I c C 1m oo x> T) 4-1 Q H On T3 •i-4 C Jj2 0 0 CJ 0 Cfl 0) 0 CJ 0) CU 00 01 1) c cfl M ■H w o T! CJ 01 "O 00 1—1 T3 M H 'a Cn c ^ c ^ 1-1 i—i J= m O 0 » a. 0 ■ts OJ 1—1 Cfl 0 .*: 2 0 OJ cfl 0 Q) •1—1 CO •H CO 01 cfl R 3 c _l c i—i i-i lH ■H CO cfl 0) i-H i"H 3 -H c CJ OJ l-l 0) Xl J3 0 >H OJ lH OJ •i-. i—i o 0 tfl i-l X. •H 0, •H "5 ft. l-l 3 Qj T-) 4-1 ■fl OJ -Q cfl 3 "a Cfl 0 a 0 "~i cfl Cu 'O tfl CO 3 U 0 00 0 H o aj CO BQ cfl 0 C 0 -~ Cj "H Q 3 ts U-H 01 Cfl tfl CO 4-1 c 0 0 *J OJ 1h a OJ OJ OJ Cfl 0 •c •c; -a Cfl 0 CO £ s £ s: a, a. a. H-12 ON ON CT\ - ft « c ■H rt u T3 CO C tH 3 0) .O Pi < CU u co T3 3 ffl (0 M-H CO o O c O -H CJ o e t-i >4-i •H 01 e 1 OH X Sn 6 O H 3 01 n) o O Pn O 2 u o •■H £ m co 0 -H *- C H T3 CU •H 4-J 3 C v co co ^H 00 a •H H M T3 0) •H J3 3 cr •• co J= CO M •H to <4-4 OJ •rl 00 > c c •H 43 >^ o H a <4H id c. E ■H 1-1 43 CO «, T3 43 •H CO 3 ■rl O" «-i CO A 43 43 CO CO cS •rl U T. < < r-l 2 CJ •H A CJ Cu - 3 3 O 3 m 0 < < u P-4 w s o < Ph 2 3 O < * p- CO — l CM I-H m in ro ■I in in a •• M en .— i i— t ca c CJ •H CO a — ■u tj — CD cd c 4-1 e J*i H 3 Cfl a CO 0) J3 o ,3 CD Pi < E a) XI C 0) o CO U o £. CD o 4-1 00 • • » g; o en o co o to o -o n CD O C • i-( csi CD .— i CD I- CO 1- TJ O 3 P- O CO • o co o « en o • • m D 3 o o o o o CO c CO CD • CJ X. CO CO 4-1 •H » CO 14-1 CO 3 CO -a i- E CD 0 o CD i— 1 Cu 4-1 X o f- w CO *-* 'd t-i CO -<= TJ •H ,- 4_l 0 CO »■ G O > cd > U t-l J3 * CO TJ X i-l o 3 1-1 cr D. CO — » o _^ o (0 •H A U-4 c o >-4 g CD H - CO 4J CO o m a M 60 cj C o •H ■a rH )-< •H —i 'r-4 3 o CD CT ft X co -» CO CO rH £ •H -a n CO en •H rH C -a 3 CJ CO 0 CT a. CO «k » 0 CO r! CO •■ -C 01 •H X. CO •H CO u 14-1 - •H CJ CO u-i « TJ A CO 0 CJ a - Q. ■H E C •H 00 •H o -3 CO Vj 4-1 0. r-H X CJ E CD CO O CO a. < Pu z W Z Pu" < 2 en Pm Z < P- Pm Z l-i 0) CD 4-1 c 4-1 rH cfl o CO CO 3 •H l-l CJ 0- -J CD •H CD 3 n. n CD X E O •a 1-1 CD U M 4J 4J ■ M 4-1 CO CO i-H •a CO 1-1 -H a CD Q (0 CO CO rH •H CO T3 — CD CD c o •H •a C CO a a u 4-1 C oo C CO C o A 30 3 CO o l-i c u o . n o 4-1 CO ca 1-i rH TJ U-l CO o 1-1 CD •H l-i oo CO •H "O o s CO c •H X. U-l — — U-4 CD 3 ^ CO 0) ■H i-i TJ CO T— 1 en •H CD -j •H 4J -H Cfl cfl c l-l -^ c CO — CO ca — CD u O c M ca CJ •H o CD CO 3 Cfl CJ rH CO l-i o CO •H PL, f-H CJ CO — C_> W cj M ^—^ < U — B P- 3 en < o 2 Pu M 0 •H 4-1 4-1 c M l-l •H l-l oo O X CO o c '— o X. U-l •H 3 .* m •H l-l cfl 3 CO H CD CD J3 i— 1 cfl CQ pp U < U eo ■H X3 m CD +j JaS 1-4 CO cfl TJ 3 0 CD 1) U-l Is X ^S en ■H CO 3 CD ^ Cfl CD -H P. T3 «• — J3 o *- P-. 0 to CO CD •H ■•H 3 3 0 3 H 0 C3 3 CO CJ -C CJ oo Z 4J a CJ CD D, Z 0 0 a •H H li ■u C/3 N PM "s en CO 3 CD CJ CO •H to S-i In 3 3 U-l CO C rH 3 l-i CO c; CD CD -q X CO 1-4 1-4 u 0 0 3 ^4 3 U-l Ifl o H- ■14 efl 10 CD J en rl a o "o CD c en rg U Is -O CJ O CDXJr- -^ -3"3 Cfl C OUi O Oi-h to 4-1 .3X en cj tn 3 4J IT3 A i— 1 u cfl ffl CD X) CO en — 3 CD -c TJ 4J S-l <0 CO q CD o-i X ■H l-l Cd c c 0 to o •H 3 —4 rH 4J 1— 1 m Cfl ^a cfl CD 3 CD CO ■i-> CO 3 to l-l l-i IB CD CD "H rH X f-4 rH 4-1 0 CD 1-4 4J 4-1 0 1) C/J ~ § bj ^ — i CM 00 •— I sf 1—1 CSI co CO CO - * .— < i— i CO - #1 i-H .-1 CM M » i— H lo C — i re 4J "3 (0 3 — 3 a) X BS < (U c ■o •H 4-1 o 0) Cfl jj 0) 4-1 u S - (0 ^ eu co o o o 00 c M r» 3 o o c 1-1 0) — i 4.) o o cfl 4-1 1 c •1 * •a o Cfl CN CO o o c co 3 -i Z m \£> 01 o o o o o CN o O O CO O O Jx! o -co - O CO O O i-H en i— i <; CU S-i CO t-i o 4-> O o o o O -CO O O JH "O HI O u-i CO in - i-H M H < o O cfl O £ » co o co o H CN < » CO a X H CU M o cu CU u x O CO -13 cu CO -o CO x X •H •a a CO CO 4J y-i CO £ -a •H CU o 30 XI c t4_i > § CD * co •H - s i-i " Sm .-1 T3 CO 4J X ^; cu CJ CC (J Cfl H CO o -a •H CO- .« 01 o i-H 0 c 4-1 !h t3 4-> x -a •H t-I 3 ■H CU -H CO 4-1 o CO i-H 0 )-j E 3 x c 0 > O i-l CD CU D- o cu PL. CO o. m-i C "O CO .-i X CO 0) ._*: en CO CO 3 3 rt E i-H o * EX CO CJ -H t>« — 1 U-i X-H T3 4-> iH ■H 3 Ol D 0) X er ,C CO CO c o ■U J=- c CO )-4 CU 00 n CO X CD •H X CO cfl -a •H O CH O. ■H ■H X h a co E E co en •> CO "3 *T3 O -H CJ -H Cfl CJ 3 •H CO 4-1 X cj a. Sn 3 < cu * CO T3 3 •H id 3 cu cr o co CO 4-1 * CO CO 3 ■H u •H o cfl a n CO CO 3 *1 3- X o CO 4-1 •H CJ 4-1 0 H O < 3 s 3 O Cd u a Ph Cm* a Ph 3 p- a Ph a w a Ph a Ph a 3 • o 14-1 0 ■H >~ •H 00 4-1 0) O --I cfl 3 Cfl 4-1 CO a .h X i-4 UH CJ cfl 01 •H 0) O CO •H D. u *-l X M - ■H 1-4. -1 4J U-4 CO cfl Cfl X M 3 jn H CO •'-) 3 U •H 01 O 3 i—l CO CO U P a 3 O < pa -E CO * CO CO >, CO CO cfl T3 cfl -o 01 CO 0) c 01 c CO cfl CO 3 en cfl •« 0J &H 1— 1 o cfl •» 4-1 *■ 4-1 oo •> -H *> •H oo 4J •H « •!-( !-4 •H M 00 X <4-l oo x c c 00 X O X o M COO c CJ w 4J •H 3 U U-l CJ M-I 3 •H ^J •H Jsj CO oo •H J* 3 4<; 3 •H H 3 >> !-H 3 3 CO Sh U 3 CO 3 C3 M CU X cfl 01 X 01 O •H 0) X 01 j3 0) CU CO Uffl m CJ a o > PQ CJ pa CJ PQ pa 4-i c i-H to ca CO T3 3 — 0) CO tJ o, 3. J*S CO 3 -i-H 3 to CU c In TJ H Sh •i-f i-H ■-H o a it) T3 i-4 C iH cfl C3> !H 0) T) e c E -u CO CO it! CO i-H CU rH -U R o CO ffl 01 i-H i—i tf 01 it) Cfl Cfl to CO to c ID c E 0 •i-4 Cfl 3 CO •-4 Cfl -3 01 3 a> o l-l M CO »H o CU CU Q< tn cfl x) Sn CO Sh (U to •H 3 CO CO C 0 Cfl CO -3 i-4 cu OJ ffl ■H X 1-1 CO C ■H — i cfl CO 3 us o S-4 •i-H 0) tt) CO 4-1 CO 0 >> Oi -U 4-1 CO 3 ■H CO cfl Cfl 3 U 4-4 X &> a. -C. 00 -4 00 4-1 cu *! Cfl C CO u 01 .c; 3 3 0) >i 3 — 1 h3 u 3 Sh 0 •H 0 M 3 3 o CO 0 CO CO CO cfl QJ cfl tS •H T3 cfl rfl -H (0 CO Oh o ■i-H oo 0 tn H CO -C 1 — hJ rQ 3 0 u 0 ,3 0 !-4 0 t-f Cfl CU ►H in q c 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 03 •1 to 0 to 13 -C -£^ J5 -3 CO *^- s s: a a, a, Dh a, H-15 to . 0). u p 01 U CU D-l » m at en l-H 00 • »— I o - - 00 iH "~ m 01 cu o . > c •H 03 4-1 -a CO c — 3 a .a OS <[ -3 O o o 01 I 00 c CO CO .-I J! t-i ca CO co O 3 o o o B -O •H O U1 cd r-~ S CM l~- o O O o o o - • tn O CN 00 — i c •H — c cu si •H 6 l-i 4-1 O CO >4-l 01 *H J- -H £ to 4-> u CO CO a! 0 rH w < o o o o o O m CJ •H 4-1 cj < o o m o o o CTv CI 13 cu l-l 01 oo c CO T3 c cu CO c CB 01 oo c •rl S-i o) T3 a 3 4J • O" CO ^ CO 3 cj ^ o « o l-H CO O -H » 1-1 CU 01 £ O J3 CO > CO CO ■x 3 » CO E a. oi !-4 CO o ^ n » CU H u CO 00 r-l CO £ U CO u x. C 0) ^ J a o •H l-l CO -a •» & l-i 01 3 CO o -4= 1-1 X. ■H •• iH 4-1 x: co 01 u r- 1 CO CU CJ CO i-l x: co 0 = CO o -H U~< E e u CO 14-J 0) a » CJ >, ' cj T) 5 CO « -H > c •H o l-l •a x: o o X C » 01 •H 4-1 ■c e 4-1 •H x: 4J 3 C CJ rH c X CO CO a* cu C CO 0) o •H >, CO XI CO CO X cu <4-l o CO CO CO u oo co CU CO CO 1 — w z T- M CJ < <: c 0- C/2 a •» » 0 Oh < -1- u Z Oh z < < CO * •H CO c •n J3 l-l co • A 4J O ^ »«i O — 3 0 •4-1 CO 4-1 a i—l C 4J •H O •H CO CO CO iH 4-1 c l-l i— 1 C CO cfl )-l O CO O 1-1 X •H O CO o — M •H 01 CO 02 ^ IXH CO CO X •H E CO tH l-i 00 CO 4-1 4-1 a CO CO r-l XI C O u ■H h •i— — CO CO o CJ 3 l-l o CO < u hJ -J O 14-1 P3 u pa < 0- 0- z • CO 14-4 C •H CO — •H CO ^J O a 0) A 1—1 CO < •r-) CO o S3 4-1 Z l-i P- CD •H CO CO 0) l-i m C/5 4-J 4J C/2 l-l •H O X! oo 14-4 U c — ^i t4 cO 3 u 0> x: 01 pa u ca 1— a 4-J i-l cu CO CO 3 o cu !-H CO ~ CO o CU 4-1 i-l E •H cu ■ A o •a CO •H CO IJ pa ffl •H c 01 4-1 — o CJ X CO l-l c CO — 1 o • cu l-i o <; ^ b 4-1 z *£ a CO — c CO ■•H CU l-H CO 3 4_j l-l •H 0 CD •> — CU u ■H CO CO CJ 0 JZ 01 0 o. ^ •r. Oh 01 CO CO to 3 CO •H C •H W l-l *H i-\ •H > IH CO :-. •H CO t — i M 'vJ CU 0 -1 a z 5l CO i-H