mm^i^^fi^^mi ■H>^ f X .«TOfe '"VirEs o* 11^ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service ji,.:^' VjiA-w-ait-.^^. _- 0~ ■ CD Our Living Oceans For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Stock number: 003-020-00171-8 Telephone orders: 202-512-1800 Facsimile orders: 202-512-2250 Internet orders: https://orders.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/sale/prf/prf.html Mail orders: Superintendent of Documents PO Box 371954 '\ ' -' '■ Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 An online version of this publication is available at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/olo99.htm ^Ok This publication is printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based ink. The majority of the photographs in this publication are under the copyright protection of the photographers and/or their employers. Photographs credited to an agency of the U.S. Government are in the public domain. Cover and title page photographs: © Corel Corporation. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1999—792-898. Our Living Oceans i ^ Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 1999 "•"^rsi"' June 1999 NOAA Icchnical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-41 ^ V U.S. Department ^ of Commerce William M. Daley Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration D. James Baker Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Marine Fisheries Service Penelope D. Dalton Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 9/ .^ This publication may be cited as: NMFS. 1999. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 1999. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301 p. Foreword This is the fifth edition ot Our Living Occdin, the report card on the state ot the U.S. living ma- rine resources prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Ma- rine Fisheries Service. These reports are neither mandated nor intended to fulfill any legal require- ment. Rather, they are written to provide an over- view of and a perspective on a very complex sub- ject for the interested reader. The full set of Our Living Oceans spans a pe- riod of tremendous change in the management of living marine resources in the United States. Since 1991 when the first edition was published, there have been several profound legal and conceptual changes in the management landscape — notably, major revisions to the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act (1994) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fish- ery Conservation and Management Act (1996). IntcrnationalK', the development of the United Nations Treaty on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and a major new emphasis on the use of a precautionary approach to fishery management have refocused efforts on dealinti with the problems of overfishing. These national and international legal changes direct fish- ery management authorities to implement pro- grams that end overfishing quickly and rebuild overfished resources in a timely manner. Our Living Oceans 1999 reflects the beginning of implementation of many new management imperatives. Biological populations often respond slowly to management changes. The fishing com- munities which depend on marine life for food and commerce also need time to adjust to changes in management practices, though in many cases efforts to address overfishing have been underway for many years. Furthermore, as this report clearly shows, the majority of our marine stocks are healthy or at least improving. Ultimately, it is not just the passage of new laws that will improve the condition of our living marine resources; it is changes on the water that matter most. This report does not tell the Ameri- can public that the job is done, hut that it has begun. Thus it describes our efforts to improve the conservation and management of the Nation's living marine resources so that their full and enor- mous benefits are available for all Americans. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Silver Spring, Maryland June 1999 Our marine resource legislation is among the strongest in the world. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act re- quires strict deadlines for the development of fish- ery management plans, very conservative manage- ment targets, tight timeframes for rebuilding stocks, and consideration of a broader scope of resource issues, ranging from habitat impacts to bycatch, and to impacts on fishing communities. For Federally protected species, similarly strict mandates to rebuild depleted stocks are now in place. Preface When the inaugural edition of Our Living Oceans was released in November l'-)91 it was to be the first in a series of national status reviews prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service. From the beginning its purpose has been to serve as a report card to the Nation on the biological health ot U.S. living marine resources. Subsequent editions have been completed for the 3-year re- porting periods ending in 1992, 1993. and I99S. Over time, this reporting effort has evolved to a multi-vear cycle to better reflect the extended time period that is often required to observe and docu- ment change in the marine environment. Building on the reception of the biological re- port card. Our Living Oceans: The Economic Sta- tus of U.S. Fisheries was released to the American public in December 1 996. This companion report defined and characterized economic sustainability in the Nation's fisheries, and presented a prelimi- nary assessment of their economic health. Work on a third report that will present the initial as- sessment on the status and health of marine and coastal habitats important to living marine re- siHirces is now underwav. When Our Living Oceans: The Status of Habitat for U.S. Living Ma- rine Resources is released in 200 1 , the envisioned Our Living Oceans series covering stock status, eco- nomics, and habitat will be in place. Our Living Oceans 1999 is the fifth edition on the status of U.S. living marine resources. This report presents new data analyses covering the years 1995-97. On the eve of the 21st Century, it of- fers a progress report and discusses important is- sues impacting our living ocean heritage and the challenges that remain. mi CONTENTS i> Foreword Preface Part 1 NATIONAL OVERVIEW 3 Introduction S Contents 6 Common Terms 7 Productiviry ot Stocks 10 Status of Stocks 13 Degree ot Utilr/ation 16 Regional and Species-group Synopses 16 Northeast Region 19 Southeast Region 22 Alaska Region 24 Pacific Coast Region 23 Western Pacific Region 27 Nearshore Resources -)- Marine Mammals 29 Sea Turtles 30 Recent Trends 30 Stock-level Status and Degree of Utilization 35 Recent Yields 37 Protected Resources 38 Marine Mammals 39 Sea Turtles 39 Issues of National Concern 40 Resource Conservation and Utilization by the Fishery 45 Transboundary jurisdiction 47 Bycatch 48 Habitat 51 Marine Mammals and Protected Species 5! Southeastern U.S. Bottlenose Dolphins 52 Atlantic Harbor Porpoise 52 Steller Sea I. ions 52 Eastern Iropical Pacific Dolphins 53 Adequacv of Scientific Inlormation and Assessments 55 Outlook 5~ Literature Cited Part 2 FEATURE ARTICLES 61 71 The Precautionary Approach: A New Paradigm or Business as Usual; New England Groundfish Status Review ot King Mackerel in the Gull" ot Mexico Part 3 LIVING MARINE RESOURCES 89 Uni t 1 99 Uni J 7 103 Uni t 3 109 Uni t 4 117 Uni t 5 121 Uni t 6 125 Uni t 7 129 Uni t 8 135 Uni t 9 139 Uni t 10 143 Uni t 11 149 Uni t 12 157 Uni t 13 167 Uni t 14 175 Uni t 15 183 Uni t 16 189 Uni t 17 193 Uni t 18 201 Uni t 19 209 Uni t20 213 Uni t21 229 Uni , T 1 237 Uni t23 247 Uni t24 261 Uni t25 Northeast Demersal Fisheries Northeast Pelagic Fisheries Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Atlantic Shark Fisheries Atlantic and Gulf ot Mexico Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Atlantic, Gull ol Mexico, and Caribbean Reef Fisheries Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries Southeast Menhaden Fisheries Southeast and Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries Pacific Coast Salmon Alaska Salmon Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries Western Pacific Bottomfish and Armorhead Fisheries Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Alaska Shellfish Fisheries Nearshore Fisheries Marine Mammals of the Alaska Region Marine Mammals of the Pacific Region and Hawaii Marine Mammals ot the Atlantic Region and the Gull of Mexico Sea Turtles Part 4 APPENDICES 271 273 277 281 287 299 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Acknowledgments Fishery Management Councils, Their lurisdiction, and Fishery Management Plans Principal Facilities ot the National Marine Fisheries Service Stock Assessment Principles and Terms Common and Scientific Names of Species Acronyms and Abbreviations M M Previous page: Sockeve salmon in spawning colora- tion moving upriver, Pacific Northwest. ® Melissa Cole National OvervicAv INTRODUCTION The conservation and management ofliving marine resources (LMR's) in tiie United States is entrusted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which carries out its charge under many hiws, treaties, and legislative mandates from the U.S. Congress. Most of the agency's stewardship respon- sibilities come from five statutes: • The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) regulates fisheries within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), • The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species that are in danger of extinc- tion or likely to become an endangered species, • The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulates the taking of marine mammals, • The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWC^A) authorizes collection of fish- eries data and coordination with other agencies for environmental decisions affecting LMR's, and 1 he Feder.' il lower Act provities for concurrent responsibilities with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in protecting aquatic habitat. The NMFS regulates fisheries in the 3-200 nautical mile (n.mi.) Federal EEZ sea- ward of the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. -affiliated islands (Figure I). Within the 0-3 n.mi. territorial sea,' management jurisdiction belongs to the coastal states and multistate fisheries commissions. International waters outside the U.S. EEZ are regu- Icrntiirul w.itcrs extend 'l n.mi, oft the shiires ofTex.!*, the Florid.i CulfCoast, .md Ptierto Rico. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Vy^--^ Figure 1 Our Living Oceans 1999 di vides the 200-nautical-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Into five regions for purposes of reporting the status of U.S. living ma- rine resources. latcd by applicable international laws and multilateral agreements among sovereign gov- ernments, and the agencv plays an important role on behalf ot the United States in the implementation of those international arrangements, bederal resource conservation laws reqtiire that the best scientific information be used as the basis for management actions. NMFS scientists collect and analyze nuich of these data. From these data bases, the agency prepares scientific reports and makes technical presentations to fisher}- managers, industry groups, and the public for use in formulating sound policies governing ihe long-ierm pro- tection and sustainable use of U.S. LMR's. UltimateK', the Secretary of Commerce has management responsibility for most ma- rine life in U.S. waters. Fishery resources are managed largely through fishery m.iiiagemeiii plans (FMP's). These plans are generalK' developed b\' fisher)- manageiiieiu councils (FMC's) through extensive consultations with state and other Federal agencies, affected industry sectors, public interest groups, and, in pertinent cases, international science and manage- 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW FMP's for EEZ stocks originate through the MSFCMA, which established eight re- gional FMC's (Appendix 2). The PMC's represent diverse interests through their members, who are nominated by state governors in each region and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. For most marine fisheries and tor Federally protected marine mammals and sea turtles, FMP's and protected species recovery plans may be developed by NMFS with input from the public and by direction ot the FMC's. Our Living Occa>is 1999 (OLO 99) covers the majority of LMR's that are of interest tor commercial, recreational, subsistence, and aesthetic or intrinsic reasons to the United States. The biological status ot U.S. fishery resources is reported. Current and potential harvest levels are presented, along with intormation on the degtee ot utilization ot each resource by its fishery and a discussion ot significant management issues. Selected nearshore species, largely the responsibility ot the coastal states, are also discussed, and the status of U.S. stocks ot marine mammals and sea turtles are summarized. Information in this report has been collected trom many sources. Ideally, the latest peer-reviewed stock-assessment reports and publications, which serve as the scientitlc basis tor management, are used. For some species, stock assessments may not be complete, due to lack ot data, but they may still be adequate tor fishery scientists to exercise professional judgments as to stock status and the magnitude ot potential fishery yield. When intorma- tion is inadequate, the stock or fishery status is classified as unknown. In such cases, poten- tial yield is estimated from the most recent catch statistics. More detailed intormation can be obtained trom regional reports produced by NMFS fisheries science centers around the country (Appendix 3) and trom state natural resource agencies. CONTENTS Part 1 contains the national overview ot significant LMR's and their fisheries. It in- cludes this introduction, a briet review ot common terms, LMR summaries and trends, issues ot national concern, and a discussion ot near-term outlook. Part 2 includes three feature articles — an examination of the precautionary approach in U.S. marine fisheries management, an essay on the management histor\' ot the North- east groundfish fishery, and a review ot the Cult ot Mexico's king mackerel fishery. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Midwater trawl catch of Pa- cific wfiitmg, Oregon coast. Part 3 presents in greater detail the biological status ot LMRs in 2S separate units. These unit synopses describe important species or species groups that are linked geographi- cally, ecologically, or by characteristics ot their fisheries. Part 4 includes appendices for acknowledgments, regional FMCs and FMPs, princi- pal NMFS hicilities around the country, stock assessment prniciples and terms, a detailed (but not exhaustive) listing ot the scientific and common names ot species covered in this report, and acronyms and abbreviations. COMMON TERMS Most of the technical terms or phrases used in this report are defined in Appendix 4; the most important are reviewed here. Stock ideally refers to a biologicalh' distinct group ot organisms that are genetically related or reproductively isolated trom other segments ot a larger population. Since stocks intermix in the marine ecosystem, it may be necessary to consider all of the individuals ot a species, or several co-occurring species within a geographical area, as one tishery stock when it is impractical to differentiate between them. Thus, a stock unit detuied tor tishery management purposes may not necessarily correspond to a discrete genetic unit. Recent average yield (RAY) is equivalent to the recent catch history. RAY is the re- ported fisher}' landings averaged tor the most recent 3-year period ot workable data, usu- ally 1995-97, unless otherwise indicated. Current potential yield (CPY) is the potential catch that can be taken depending on the current stock abundance and prevailing ecosystem considerations.^ I his term is analo- gous to acceptable biological catch (ABC) that is speciticd in some FMPs. lor manv stocks, LTPY or (_'PY iiki\ Iu- unknown, tor tlic purpost.- of reporting tot.il LTPY and CPY across resources within the various fishery units and tor the Nation as a whole, if (^I'Y was unknown RAY was substituted when calculating a unit, regional, or national total (^P^'. If ITPY was unknown ( V\ was siihsii- tutcd, or, failing that, RAY was substituted in calculating totals. 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Long-term potential yield (LTPY) is the maximum long-term average catch that can be achieved from the resource." This term is analogous to the concept of maximum sustain- able \'ield (MSY) in fisheries science. Stock level relative to LTPY is a measure of a stock's biological status. The current abundance level of the stock is compared to the level ot abundance that, on average, would support the LTPY. This level is expressed as below, near, above, or unknown relative to the abundance level that would produce LTPY.' Status of resource utilization describes the degree to which a stock is utilized by its fisherv (i.e. underutilized, fully utilized, overutilized, or unknown). It shows how the exist- ing fishing effort compares with levels necessary to achieve LTPY irom the resource. Alaska snow crab. Threatened or endangered are terms specifically defined under the ESA. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger ot extinction throughout a significant portion oi its range; it is threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species within the loreseeable future. Potential biological removal (PBR) is a concept that establishes a quantitative pro- cess for setting levels of take such that marine mammal stocks will equilibrate within their optimal population size. PBR (calculated in numbers ot animals) is the sustainable removal level defined by the MMPA 1994 Amendments. Stocks for which bycatch levels exceed PBR are classified as strategic (stocks listed as depleted under the MMPA, or threatened or endangered under the ESA, are also considered strategic regardless of the level of take). PRODUCTIVITY OF STOCKS The LInited States is ranked fifth in the world for fisheries landings as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations for 1996, its latest survey 'Since 1997, NMFS has been required to produce an .uinu.il "Report to Congress on the St,uus of Fisheties ot the L'nitcd States," which classifies stocks as overfished, nor overfished, or approaching an oxerhshed condi- tion. As explained in Appendix 4, there is not a one-to-one correspondence benveen the status classifications in Our Iji'iiig Oceans and those in the Report to Congress. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Total productivity (t) over the entire range of stock Unit number and fishen/ Prorated productivity Total recent average yield Total current potential yield Total long-term potential yield (t) within the U S, EEZ (RAY) (CPY) (LTPY) US RAY U S LTPY 159,875 134.475 317,500 142.215 253.555 158,500 711,550 701,700 121,300 462,000 9,408 9,208 9,208 9,408 9,208 130,500 109,300 138,000 127,200 133,900 352,800 315,470 348.300 18,300 18,100 7,393 6,430 6.430 7,393 6,430 15,454 20,339 26.448 15.454 26,448 25,737 24.641 37.136 25.737 37,136 33,623 31.420 78.835 33.623 78.835 860,000 860.000 1.140.000 860.000 1.140.000 119,376 116.575 120.953 119,376 120.953 17,304 33.312 33.312 17,304 33.312 376,100 310.600 310.600 376,100 310.600 153,500 334.200 455,200 112,500 348.400 353.264 395.958 462.800 268,085 391.796 109 160 222 109 222 492 470 2.802 492 2.802 2,049,418 3,439.825 3,435,031 253,606 253.116 2,033,982 3.100.410 3,983,420 2.026.272 3.963.290 1,775,600 2.499.900 3,478,700 1,775,600 3.478,700 211,922 548.770 452,980 211,922 452.980 46,460 51.740 51,740 38,750 31.610 52.131 52.131 113.218 52,131 113,218 312.700 312.700 312.700 312,700 312,700 7.221.666 10,319.174 12.033.815 4,899,305 8,016,021 1 Northeast demersal 2, Northeast pelagic 3. Atlantic anadromous 4 Northeast invertebrate 5 Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 6 Atlantic shark 7 Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic 8 Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 9 Southeast drum and croaker 10 Southeast menhaden 1 1 Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 12 Pacific Coast salmon 13 Alaska salmon 14, Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 15 Pacific Coast groundfish 16 Western Pacific invertebrate 17 Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 18 Pacific highly migrator/ pelagic 19 Alaska groundfish (total) Eastern Benng Sea and Aleutian Islands Gulf of Alaska Pacific halibut 20 Alaska shellfish 21 Nearshore Total Table 1 Productivity in metric tons (t) of fisheries resources uti- lized by the United States. year (FAO, 1997). The U.S. catch was 4.5% of the world's total catch (121 milhon metric tons (t)) of marine and freshwater fisheries products. The FAO also ranked the United States second in value for world imports (12.5% ol the $56.9 billion world total), and third (5.6%) in the $52.9 billion international trade in world exports ol fish and fishery prod- ucts, including aquaculture, in 1996 (FAO, 1997). 1 he productivity (Table 1 ) and status ol fishery resources utilized by the United States are summarized in Units 1-21. LMR productivity is represented by RAY, CPY, and LTPY. 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Total long- term potential yield (LTPY) (x 1,000,000 t) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 US share of LTPY by percentage Figure 2 Total long-term potential yield and U.S. prorated share of fisheries re- sources, in metric tons (t) and by percentage. 68% 7.6% 100% 82% 100% 60% 666666 Region All Western Pacific combined Pacific Alaska Coast Southeast Northeast For some stocks, the United States shares productivity with other fishing nations because these stocks range beyond the U.S. EEZ. For the purposes of this report, the productivity of transboundarv species is compiled for the entire stock and sometimes provided for the prorated portion of the stock within the U.S. EEZ. OLO 'S'i^ reports both total productiv- ity and the prorated U.S. share of the stocks based on the ratio of the U.S. RAY to total RAY. The U.S. RAY is taken primarily within the U.S. EEZ. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 2 Regional productivity in metric tons (t) of fisheries resources utilized by the United States. Region Northeast Southeast Alasl undertitili/ed, 39% fully utilized, 22% overutilized, and 27"'n tui- known. This t;rouping includes (SO stock groups oi nearshore resources that arc imder the purview of coastal states. Excluding nearshore resources, the reni.iining 203 stock groups that are tmder NMFS purview have been classified as IS'J-b imderutilized, 37% lull}- uti- lized, 27% overutilized, and 21"(i imknown (Figure 6). There is still a high percentage of stocks, 21% (involving 43 out of 203 stock groups), whose degree of utilization is imknown. 'Fhe majority oi these 43 unknown stock groups are foimd in the .Southeast Region, where assessments of coastal migratory species, reef fishes, and invertebrates are complex and incomplete because of tiie iiuge diversity of spe- cies and fisheries. This catesor\' also includes " stock iiroups from Unit 18 in the Western Pacific Region, where the highly migratory species of tunas move long distances across many national jurisdictions, making assessment of stock utilization difficult. 1 4 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Degree of fisheries utilization of the resource Unit number and fishery 1 Northeast demersal 2 Northeast pelagic 3 Atlantic anadromous 4 Northeast invertebrate 5 Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 6 Atlantic shark 7 Atlantic coastal migraton/ pelagic 8 Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 9 Southeast drum and croaker 10 Southeast menhaden 1 1 Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 12 Pacific Coast salmon 13 Alaska salmon 14 Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 15 Pacific Coast groundfish 16 Western Pacific invertebrate 17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 18 Pacific highly migrator/ pelagic 19 Alaska groundfish (total) 20 Alaska shellfish 21 Nearshore Subtotal of Units 1-20 % of Subtotal % of 160 "known" stock groups Total of Units 1-21 % of Total % of 207 "known" stock groups Under Full Over Unknown Total Table 4 0 3 0 7 0 1 16 1 4 2 0 0 25 4 5 Status of utilization levels of U.S, fisheries resources, 1995-97 1 3 2 2 8 0 2 7 1 10 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 7 1 3 10 14 28 0 0 3 4 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 7 2 5 14 0 3 2 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 2 5 0 0 7 5 10 2 2 19 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 6 5 2 1 7 15 9 16 0 2 27 1 4 0 0 5 5- 34 8 33 80 31 75 54 43 203 15% 37% 27% 21% 19% 47% 34% 36 109 62 76 283 13% 39% 22% 27% 17% 53% 30% There are 160 stock groups ckissified as being of- known status that are under NMFS purview (Units 1-20 in Table 4). Of these, 34% (S4 out ol 160 known-status groups) are overutilized. 1 he majorirv' ot these overurilized cases occurred in Unit 1 (16 stocks trom the Northeast demersal unit) and Unit 8 (10 stocks of Atlantic and Cull ol Mexico reel fish). The remaining stocks have been classified as 19% underutilized and 47%i lully uti- lized, lor a combined total of 66'Mi not overutilized. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Figure 6 Number and percentage of stock groups classified by their status of utilization for stocks under NMFS pur- view. 54 Number of stocks 31 15% 37% 27% 21% Percentage of stocks 6 (1) 6 6 Utilization level of stocks Under Fully Over Unknown REGIONAL AND SPECIES-GROUP SYNOPSES Northeast Region The Ndrtheast Region's fiiifish and invertebrates are grouped under demersal, pe- lagic, anadronious, invertebrate, highK' migratory pelagic, and nearsbore resotirees. 1 beir combined northeastern U.S. LTPY is 951,213 t (I able 5) out of a total (U.S. and Canada) IJPY of 1,589,158 t for the region. The lower U.S. LTPY reflects the sharing of transboundary resources with Canada. The U.S. RAY totaled only 492,873 t, or 52% of the U.S. LTPY, because 29 species, principally groundfish, are overutilized and below the stock levels necessary to produce LTPY. The RAY of 492,873 t excluded 300,000 t of menhaden that were taken in the Northeast. Lhat amount has been atlded to the Sotitheast menhaden data (Unit 10) as it is an integral part of the South Atlantic menhaden stock. 1 6 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Unit number and fishery Total productivity (t) over the entire range of stock (US and Canada) Prorated productivity Total recent Total current potential yield Total long-term potential yield (t) within the US EEZ average yield (RAY) (CPY) (LTPY) US RAY U S LTPY 159,875 134,475 317,500 142,215 253,555 158.500 711,550 701,700 121,300 462,000 9,408 9,208 9,208 9,408 9,208 130,500 109.300 138,000 127,200 133,900 352,800 315,470 348,300 18,300 18.100 74,450 74,450 74,450 74,450 74.450 885,533 1,354,453 1,589,158 492,873 951,213 1 Northeast demersal 2. Northeast pelagic 3 Atlantic anadromous 4 Northeast invertebrate 5 Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 21 Northeast nearshore resources Total The mixed-species groundfish fishery has traditionally been the most vakiable, fol- lowed by American lobster and Atlantic sea scallop. Recreational fisheries for species such as Atlantic cod, winter flounder, Atlantic mackerel, striped bass, bluefish, and bluefin tima are also important to the regions economy. Table 5 Productivity in metric tons (t) of fisheries resources of the Northeast Region, 1995-97 Principal groundfish and flounders in the Northeast, particularly cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, have been severely overfished, reaching record low levels in spawning- stock biomass in 1993-94, but they have since begun to rebuild.^ Dogfish and skates, which increased in abundance beginning in the 1970's as groundfish and flounders de- clined, currently comprise a substantial fraction of the total fish biomass on Georges Bank and have supported larger catches in recent years. Since 1990, however, their abundances have also begun to decrease. Catches of other groundfish have become more important in recent years as the preferred species continued to decline in number. In l'^)'-)4, tlie U.S. catch of goosefish exceeded the catch of Atlantic cod for the first time. Five species, mainly pelagic fishes, are presently underutilized, and the CPY of the two most abundant of these, Atlantic mackerel and herring, is about SSS,SOO t higher than their combined RAY. The anadromous striped bass, driven to very low levels of abimdance 'The h.idd(ick pcipul.uion started to rebiiilil .irmind 19')4-95, .ind has been improving steadily. 1 7 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Headboat, Beltnar, New Jersey. in the earl)' 198()'s and subjected to severe catch restrictions het;inning in tlie mid l')8()'s, was declared fully restored in earlv 19'-)5. I'he region's valuable crustaceans and bivalve mollusks, both oHshore (e.g. American lobster, sea scallop, surfclam, and ocean quahog) and inshore (e.g. blue crab, oyster, blue mussel, and hard and sohshell clam) are nearly all fully or overexploited. Most Northeast Region fisheries are governed by FMP's that are either in place or under development. Despite the goals of FMP's, overexploitatioii of their respective species has occurred in many cases, and efforts to rebuild have generally not yet succeeded in fully restoring depleted stocks. Striped bass (managed since l')81 b\' an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) FMP), herring, mackerel, short-finned sqtiid, and surfclams (managed by Federal FMP's) are the only species to have fully recovered from overutili/ation. Both simimer floimder and weakflsh have experienced marked increases in abundance and reductions in fishing mortality as a result of regulatory constraints imposed by FMP's, although target levels have not vet been fullv achieved. Amendment 'i to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, approved in March l'-)94, was intended to limit commercial fishing effort on groundfish in New Ijiglaiid and bring recovery within S-IO \'ears. However, scientific advice issued in Auiitist 1994, indicatint: that the Cleorges Bank stocks of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder had collapsed or were in danger of collapsing, led to tlie Secretary of Commerce approving, in December 1994, an emergency closure of portions of Georges I^ank and severely restricting fishing for haddock. In addition, tlie New Fin- gland Fishery Management Council (NFIFMC) developed and implemented Amendment 7 to the Multispecies FMP to further reduce fishing mortalit\- on these stocks by means of even stricter restrictions on fishing. As a result, some relniilding has occurred for stocks on Georges Bank, but additional restrictions are in the process of being implemented to achieve management objectives for the cod stock in the Gulf of Maine. Concurrentl\', Canada has tightened controls on its groundfish flsher\' on the eastern part of Georges Bank to pro- mote stock rebuilding, and these measures have resulted in improved abundance in those waters. Amendment 4 to the Sea Scallop FMP, implemented in 1994, was intended to con- trol fishing effort h\ limiting the days at sea for each vessel, placing a moratorium on new entrants, ami imposing a larger mesh-ring size for dredges. Since fishing mortalit)' on sea scallops has remained well above the overfishing level, ftirther measures tor reducing effort and protecting undersized scallops (closed areas in the Mid-Atlantic area) are being devel- 1 8 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW oped. Some protection of scallops has been achieved by the closure, since December 1994, of portions of Georges Bank to all fishing for the protection of groundfish. Amendment 3 to the ASMFC American Lobster FMP, approved in December 1997, introduced eltort control and various other measures aimed at reducing the currently high fishing mortality on lobsters. The highly migratory pelagic species (Unit S) are important components of domestic fisheries in the Northeast and Southeast Regions, and for international fisheries elsewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. For the purpose ot summarizing the information, they have been included in the Northeast Region. U.S. RAY is 5.2% of the total RAY for these stocks over the range of their distribution. The western Atlantic bluefin tuna is well below historic population levels. Marlins (blue and white) and sailfish are below as well. Swordfish in the North Atlantic is also below the level that would produce maximum long-term yield. Yel- lowfin tuna, which accounts for 39% of the total RAY for these stocks, is present!)- fully exploited and near its moast shellfish resources are diverse and important both commercial!)- .iiid recreationally. Shrimp, crab, clam, and abalone fisheries are relatively small in terms of 24 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Unit number and fishery Total productivity (t) over the entire range of stock Total recent Total current Total long-term average yield potential yield potential yield (RAY) (CPY) (LTPY) Prorated productivity (t) within the U S EEZ US RAY U S LTPY 16 Western Pacific invertebrate 17 Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 18 Pacific highly migrator/ pelagic 21 Western Pacific nearshore species Total 109 160 222 492 470 2,802 2,049,418 3,439,825 3,435,031 1,420 1,420 1,420 2,051,439 3,441.875 3.439,475 109 492 253,606 1,420 255,627 222 2,802 253,116 1,420 257,560 tonnage landed, but they contribute substantially to the value of the hsheties, due to the his^h prices they command. Most shellfish species ate fully utilized. Recteational fisheries ate important along the Pacific Coast and especially so in southetn Califotnia. A wide variety of species is taken, and the recreational catch of some greatly exceeds the commercial catch. Many are nearshore resources. Gamefishes such as albacore, billfishes, rockfish, and salmon are highly prized. Recreational crabbing, clam digging, and abalone diving activities are also significant. Table 9 Productivity in metric tons (t) of fisheries resources of IheWestern Pacific Region, 1995-97 Western Pacific Region The vast area that encompass this region stretches across the central and western Pacific and includes the Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. -affiliated islands of American Sa- moa, Guam, and the Northern Matianas (Figute 1). These are tropical and subtropical island waters with a large diversity of species but relatively low sustainable yields due to limited ocean nutrients. Though the magnitude of the fisheties may be relatively small (U.S. RAY and U.S. LTPY are only slightly above 2S0,()(J0 t: Table 9) when compared to certain larger mainland fisheries, thev are valued highly and are important culturally and socially in Hawaii and the Pacific islands. Additionally, certain transboiindary fisheries hold considerable international interest, with high collective importance and value to Pa- cific Rim nations and U.S. fleets fishing within and beyond the U.S. EEZ. Fishety re- sources include highly migratory pelagic fishes, bottomfishes, neatshore reef fishes, and Fish survey. Rose Atoll, American Samoa. 2 5 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS invertebrates. The region also supports protected species such as the Hawaiian monk seal sea turtles, whales, and dolphins. Bigscale soldierfish. Point Panie Pipe, Oahu, Hawaii. rhe highly migratory stocks (tunas, billfishes, swordfish, sharks, and others) range the high seas, ohen bevond U.S. Usheries management jtuisdiction. lunas are the major catch component and migrate across multiple jurisdictions in the Pacihc. I'he combined LTPY oi these stocks throughoiu their migratory range is 3,435,031 t, while the prorated U.S. UTPY is only about 7.5% of that. OI the 1 5 stock groups ol highly migratory pelagic fishes, 1 1 stocks are near the levels that would produce their I.TPYs, 1 is below LTPY (blue marlin), 2 are above (yellowfm and skipjack in the central-western Pacific), and 1 (pelagic sharks) is of imknown status. Together, these stocks accoimt tor 99% ot the region's RAY in tonnage and support some of the most valuable fisheries in the world. Western Pacific bottomfishes (snappers, jacks, grouper, emperors) are harvested from a variety of rock and coral habitats around Hawaii and western Pacific islands. About 90% of the catch is taken in the Main Hawaiian Islands, where stock assessments indicate some important species are only at \0-M)"/o ot original stock levels in some areas. But when the resources are considered across the region, the U.S. RAY of 492 t is only 18'!'i) ol l.'I'PY, mainly because stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands are underutilized. Pelagic armorhead was harvested from 1968 to the late 1980's or early 1990's by foreign fleets on the summits and slopes of submerged seamounts along the southern Em- peror-northern Hawaiian Ridge. Of these undersea mountains, the only gtoup uiuler U.S. jurisdiction is the Hancock Seamounts (representing less than S"/o of the total hshing grounds). Fishing there has been prohibited since 1984, to allow the stock to recover after foreign catch rates declined to low levels. The Llnited States has never fished pelagic armorhead, but because of its fishery potential, the resource is regulated under a Seamount Groundfish FMP The most important invertebrate fisheries in the Western Pacific Region are for spiny and slipper lobsters. They are primarily fished in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This fishery began in 1 977 and reached its peak during the mid 1 98()\, but it has since declined. The primarv cause of the decline is thought to be a general rcdiietioti in lobster productiv- ity and recruitment since 1989, stemming from mesoscale oceanographic changes. Since 26 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW 1991, a limited entry and harvest guideline regulatory regime has been implemented, which has allowed some recovery in the fishery. The lobster total RAY of 109 t is 49% of LTPY. Nearshore Resources In this report, nearshore fishery resources are those coastal and estuarine species un- der the control ot coastal states and lor which NMFS does not have direct responsibiliry. Many ot these species provide the basis lor locally important commercial and recreational fisheries. They vary widely in species divcrsirv' and abundance. Many are highly prized gamefish. Others are small fishes used l"or bait, lood, and industrial products. Those ol greatest interest include invertebrate species like crabs, shrimps, abalones, clams, scallops, and oysters. Because it is difficult to assess the condition of many of the Nations nearshore re- sources, a high percentage are of unknown status. No firm estimates exist for LTPY or CPY. Thus, the RAY of 312,700 t (Tible 1) has been used to indicate minimum amounts for CPY and LTPY. The RAY itself may have been underestimated due to incomplete landings information, and it excludes landings of large-scale nearshore fisheries like anchovy, sar- dine, herring, and invertebrate resources, which are reported in other units. Because the composition of nearshore resources is diverse and management is spread out among the manv coastal states and other local authorities, a comprehensive treatment of them has not been attempted in this report. Unit 21 presents information on the more significant species and their general status. Razor clam shell. Pacific Coast. Marine Mammals The Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-238) require the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Interior to develop stock assess- ment reports (SAR's) for all marine mammal stocks that are found within U.S. waters. NMFS is responsible for assessing and managing stocks of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and fur seals. USFWS has authority over stocks of Pacific walrus, Alaska polar bear, Alaska and Pacific Coast sea otter, and West Indian manatee. 2 7 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 10 Status and trends of marine mammals and sea turtles, 1995-97, Unit number, area, and species Number of stocks Strategic Endangered Threatened Depleted 22 Alaska marine mammals 23 Pacific Coast and Hawaii marine mammals 24- Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico marine mammals 33 10 7 1 1 55 11 9 1 0 57 26 7 0 1 Total 145 47 23 25 Atlantic and Pacific sea turtles 13 Bearded seal, Alaska. The 1994 Amendments require NMFS to include, among other things, information on how a stock is defined, a mininumi abundance estimate, the stock's current and maxi- mum net productivity rate, current population trend, a calculation of potential biological removal (PBR), assessment of whether incidental fishery takes arc "insignificant and ap- proachinij, zero mortality and serious injury rate," and an assessment oi whether the level ol human-caused mortality and serious injury is likely to reduce the stock to below optimum sustainable population (OSP) or whether the stock sht)uld be classified as a strategic stock. Strategic stocks are those that are listed as endangered or threatened under the HSA or declining and likely to be listed in the foreseeable future, those designated as depleted under the MMPA (i.e. below OSP), and those for which human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR. SAR's are to be reviewed annually for strategic stocks and for stocks for which new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for all other stocks. The 1994 Amendments also require that take reduction teams involving user groups and environ- mental groups be formed for e.ich strategic stock and charges them with developing plans to reduce takes to below the PBR's. NMFS SAR's are produced for three regions and more than 145 stocks — Alaska {^^)■, the Pacific Ocean, including Hawaii (SS); and the Atlantic Ocean, including the Ciiilf of Mexico (S7). Currently, 47 marine mammal stocks are classified as strategic ( Fable 10). These include stocks that are considered depleted (2) under the MMPA, listed as threat- ened (2) and endangered (2^) under the ESA, 1 5 stocks for which the total annual mortal- ity equals or exceeds PBR, and 46 stocks for which population status or fisheries related mortality is uncertain. Although explicitly excluded from I'.S. ni.magement under the PBR .section of the MMPA, 2 of 10 stocks of eastern tropieal Pacific dolphins are listed as depleted. 28 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW There are sufficient long-term population data to assign trends for only 18 stocks (12%), with the remaining stocks undetermined. Where reliable information is available, 3 are declining, 6 are stable, and 9 are increasing. Alaska has 13 of 33 stocks that are of known status. The Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico have only 6 stocks of known sta- tus— the harbor, gray, harp, and hooded seals, harbor porpoise, and the western North Atlantic coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin. Upwards of 33 putative stocks of bottlenose dolphins in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, bays, and sounds are of indeterminate status. There are insufficient data to assign an abundance trend to any Pacific Ocean or Hawaiian marine mammal stock. Sea Turtles Six species of sea turtles regularly spend all or part of their lives off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and in U.S. territorial waters of the C^aribbean Sea and western Pacific Ocean. All sea turtles are listed either as endangered or threatened under the ESA (Table 10). The Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback are listed as endangered throughout their range. The loggerhead and olive ridley are listed as threatened throughout their U.S. range, as is the green turtle, except the Florida nesting population, which is listed as endan- gered. The large Pacific green turtle pt)pulation at French Frigate Shoals in the Hawaiian Islands is thought to be increasing, but there is continuing concern about fibropapilloma, a tumor-associated disease. Leatherbacks are seriously declining on their major nesting beaches throughout the Pacific. The collapse of these nesting populations is due to the incidental mortality from fishing and direct harvest of adults and eggs. Loggerhead hatchling. Several distinct loggerhead populations have been identified for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The southern Florida nesting population appears to be increasing; in contrast, the population that nests north of Cape Canaveral through North C]arolina is declining. In the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the earliest stages of recovery. This can be attributed to the full protection of nesting turtles and their nests in Mexico and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices in shrimp trawls. 29 Menhaden, 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Althoiit;h muLh progress has been made towards eliminating tlie killing ot sea turtles in shrimp and summer flounder trawl gear, there continues to be a problem from longlines, driftnets, and gillnets from other fisheries. RECENT TRENDS Successive editions of ()t(r Living Oceans have sought to maintain consistency in the way stocks are classified and in the way data are reported, and therefore to provide a basis for examining overall trends in the degree of utilization of fishers' resources. An examina- tion of recent trends is presented here by comparing the data reported in OI.O '92 and OLO '99. Since these editions generally pertain to stock status averaged over 1988-90 and 1995-97, respectively, the comparisons provide Mt idea of trends over a 7- to 9-year time frame. Readers wishing to obtain more detailed accounting of iiiterannual changes for stocks of interest should refer to the reference sources listed at the end of each unit. Stock Level Status and Degree of Utilization The degree of fishery utilization (underutilized, lull}- utilized, or o\-erutilized) shows liow the level of fishing effort exerted on the resource compares to the level necessary to achieve LTI-'Y. In general, management actions should seek to prevent changes that would cause the utilization level to worsen (go from uncferutilized or fiilK' tuilized to o\-eruti- lized), and should encourage changes that would reverse overutilization (go from overuti- lized to fully utilized or underutilized). By 1999 (not counting nearshore resources for which NMFS does not have primar\' monitoring responsiliiiities), the status of 17 stocks improved, changing from overutilized to full)' utilized (+Hi) or underutilized (+1) (Table 1 1 ). Those improving were pollock, yellovvtail tlounder, haddock, and redflsh in the North- east Region; Spanish mackerel in the Clulf of Mexico and Atlantic (2 stocks); Atlantic menhacfen; pink, brown and white shrimp in the (lulf of Mexico and Adantic (6 stocks); pink, sockeye, and chum salmon oii the Pacific C'oast; and albacore in the North Pacific. Nine stocks experienced changes m the oppt)site direction, from under- or lulK' utilized lo overutilized: red hake, spiny dogfish, silver hake, wmdowpane flounder, black sea bass, and ' I he .Rtii.il m.inagcnicnt .ictions taken by the r(.t;iiin,ii lislicrv ni.ui.igciiKiu lihiikiK .nc hnkLiI ni their own technical dehnitions ot t)\erfislinig aiul oNerfishetl st.uus, uhieli do noi al\\'.i\^ eotresponel lo ihe fishery iitili'/ation and Moek level status used in Our i irni" Oiiiiih. 30 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Total number of stocks by degree of fishery utilization in OLO '92 Degree of fishery utilization (1992) Total Number of stocks by degree of fishery utilization in OLO '99 Over Full Under Unknown 59 56 26 47 Over Full Under Unknown (and (and (and (and change) change) change) change) 42 (-17) 6 (+6) 3 (+3) 3 (+3) 16(+16) 41 (-15) 4 (-1-4) 8 (-1-8) 1 (-1-1) 7 1-1-7) 18 (-8) 3(-f3) 0(0) 2 (-1-2) 1 (-1-1) 33 (-14) Table 11 Change in degree of fishery utilization (above) and in stock level status relative to LTPY (below) between OLO ■92 and OLO '99 (Units 1- 20). Total 54 (-5) 69 (-1-13) 29 {+3] 36 (-11) Total number of stocks by stock- level status relative to LTPY in OLO '92 Number of stocks by stock- level status relative to LTPY in OLO '99 Stock- level status (1992) Total Below Near (and (and change) change) Above Unknown (and (and change) change) Below Near Above Unknown 56 64 25 43 49 (-7) 5 (-1-5) 2 (-1-2) 0 (0) 4 (-1-14) 42 (-22) 7 (-1-7) 1 (-1-1) 4(-f4) 5(-f5) 14 (-11) 2 (-1-2) 4 (-1-4) 5 ( + 5) 1 (-1-1) 33 (-10) Total 71 (-1-15) 57 (-7) 24 ( 36 (-7) Table shows the number of stocks in eacti OLO '92 category (over, full, under, below, near, above, and unknown) that have stayed in the same category or shifted to a different category in OLO '99 These comparisons can be interpreted as changes between the late 1980's and the mid 1990's Stocks not appearing in both OLO '92 and OLO '99 are not included in this summary Entries of "variable by river" from OLO '92 for alewife, American shad, and sturgeons (Unit 3) have been inter- preted as overutilized and below LTPY in OLO '99 bluefish in the Northeast Region; and albacore, blue marlin, and bigeve tima in the North- east and Southeast Regions. In aggregate, then, the changes in utiHzation levels were posi- tive during this time period, resulting in a net reduction in the number of overutili'/,ed stocks. In terms ot scientific iinderstandinu, the utilization level became known for 14 3 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS stocks that were previously classified as unknown. This is in contrast to only 3 stocks whose utilization level was reclassified as unknown. Shortspine thornyhead rockfish, Newport, Oregon. The Stock level relative to L'Fl'Y shows how the stock size compares to the level of abtuidance which on average would support the LTPY harvest. In general, management actions should prevent stocks from tailing below 1 TPY, or rebuild them (i.e. to change from below LTPY to near or above L'lTY). In terms ol stock level relative to LTPY, 7 stocks changed status from below LTPY to near or above LLPY: pollock in the Northeast Region, Atlantic menhaden, Ckilf of Mexico pink shrimp. Pacific sardine. North Pacific albacore, thornvhead rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska, and western Pacific spiny and slipper lobsters. In contrast, 18 stocks changed status Irom near or above LLPY to below LTP\': Atlantic cod, windowpane flounder, spinv dogfish, red hake, white hake, bluehsh, sea scallop, alba- core, and bigcye tuna in the Northeast Region; coho salmon. Pacific whiting, sablefish, widow rockfish, canary rockfish, and yellowtail rockfish oil the Pacific Coast (Oregon- Vancouver Island); Tinner crabs off Alaska; and sablefish in the Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (2 stocks). Lhe status ot 10 stocks was reclassified as known, ct)mpared to 3 stocks that were reclassified as unknown. C_;hanges in the degree of utilization by the fishery can occur more rapidK' th.m ciianges in stock status relative to LTPY. For example, a fishery can be regulated such that the stock's classification changes from overutilized to underutilized in a single year by restricting the number of days-at-sea of fishing vessels, by closing large areas to fishing, or by other regu- latory measures. In contrast, allowing a stock to rebuild from below to above LTPY can take many years, depending on the stocks intrinsic natural capacity to grow, on its initial level ot depletion, and on the regulatory measures put in place dtiring the rebuilding pro- gram. Similarly, deterioration in stock status from, tor example, near to below LLPY is a process that cannot always be halted instantaneously. In addition, changes in how stocks are classified in terms of popul.ition status and utili/ation bv the fishery can be due to improved seientific understanding ot their long- term potential and of how fishing affects stock abundance over time. Even though NMFS has intended to use terms like LLPY in a consistent manner in every edition ot Our iiviug Oceans, our abilitv to quantif- L'LP^' impro\es as we accumulate more biological and tish- er\- intormation, which can result in substanti\'e changes. For example, the two stocks that experienced the largest positive and negative changes in estimates ot LLPY between OLO 32 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Unit number and fishery' 1 Noaheast demersal 2- Northeast pelagic 3 Atlantic anadromous 4 Northeast invertebrate^ 5 Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 6 Atlantic sharks 7 Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic 8 Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 9 Southeast drum and croaker 10 Southeast menhaden- 1 1 Southeast and Canbbean invertebrate 12 Pacific Coast salmon 13. Alaska salmon 14 Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic- 15 Pacific Coast groundfish 16 Western Pacific invertebrate 17 Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 18 Pacific highly migratory pelagic 19 Ala5^a groundfish (total) Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Gulf of Alaska- Pacific halibut (less Canada! 20 Alaska shellfish 21 Nearshore Total U S RAY U S RAY Change Change OLO '92 OLO '99 (t) (%) Table 12 170.221 142,215 ■28,006 -16% Coniparison of U.S. recent 101,100 121,300 20.200 20% average yield (RAY) in met- ric tons (t) reported by OLO 3,773 9,408 5.635 149% ■92 and OLO '99. 129,400 126,200 -3.200 -2% 16,512 18,300 1.788 11% 9,530 7,393 -2.137 -22% 15,838 15,454 -384 -2% 35,186 25,737 ■9,449 -27% 25,808 33,623 7,815 30% 920,000 860.000 -60,000 -7% 126,960 119,376 -7,584 -6% 43,360 17,304 -26,056 -60% 318,104 376,100 57,996 18% 120,400 106,500 ■13,900 -12% 288,538 268,085 -20,453 -7% 395 109 -286 -72% 558 492 -66 -12% 430,061 253,606 -176,455 ■41 % 1,903,324 2,026,272 122,948 6% 1,661,766 1,775,600 113.834 7% 202,308 211,049 8.741 4% 39,250 38,750 -500 -1% 123,821 52,131 -71,690 -58% 225.185 312,700 87,515 39% 5,008,074 4,891,432 -116,642 ■2% 'Some stocks were listed under different units in 1992 Unit groupings correspond to OLO '99 •'Some stocks were not listed in both reports For comparability, these RAY totals exclude the following red crab. Unit 4, 1999, butterfisfi. Unit 10, 1992, Pacific herring. Unit 14. 1999. Atka mackerel.'unit 19 (Gulf of Alaska!. 1999 '92 and OLO '99 were rock snlc in the Eastern Bering Sea (a 285,000 t increase) and Pacific cod in the Cuilf of Alaska (a 321,000 r decrease). In some cases, changes in estimates of LTPY coincide with changes in status classification. An example is windowpane flounder in the Northeast Region, for which an initial I.IPY value of 5,000 t for OLO '92 and OLO '93 was provisional, based on historical landings. In OLO '95, LTPY was estimated to be much lower (2,100 t), and at the same time the stock status classification changed trom near LTPY to below LTPY 33 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Stock Region US recent US recent Status relative average yield average yield to long-term Unit (RAY) (RAY) Change Change potential yield number OLO 92 OLO '99 m (%) (LTPY) Tanner (including snow) crabs Alaska Atlantic cod Northeast Bluefish Northeast Sea scallop Northeast Yellowtail flounder Northeast Jack mackerel Pacific Coast Coho salmon Pacific Coast Pollock Northeast Scup Northeast Northern anchovy Pacific Coast Porgies (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast Sockeye salmon Pacific Coast Sablefish (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands) Alaska Small coastal sharks Southeast Windowpane flounder Northeast Ocean pout Northeast Pacific cod Pacific Coast Haddock Northeast Other porgies (Atlantic) Southeast Wreckfish (Atlantic) Southeast Alewife/blueback Northeast Cusk Western Pacific Spinv and slipper lobsters Western Pacific Nassau grouper and lewfish (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast Sturgeons Northeast Nassau grouper and lewfish (Atlantic) Southeast Total 20 1 2 4 1 14 12 1 1 14 8 12 19 6 1 1 15 1 3 1 16 109,910 58,600 25,100 16,100 9,200 8,766 7.944 9,300 7,400 7,997 3,798 5,097 4,100 3,000 2,700 1,300 1,687 2,000 844 1,100 1.200 1,200 395 73 73 7 288,892 41,910 -68,000 -62% Below 15,200 -43,400 -74% Below 11,200 -13,900 -55% Below 7.100 -9,000 -56% Below 2.400 -6,800 -74%, Below 2.000 -6,766 -77% Above 1,421 -6,523 -82% Below 3.800 -5,500 -59% Near 3,300 -4,100 -55% Below 4.000 -3,997 -50% Near 125 -3.673 -97% Unknown 1.740 -3.357 -66% Near 1,600 -2,500 -61% Below 685 -2,315 -77% Above 800 -1,900 ■70% Below 60 -1,240 -95% Near 515 -1,172 -69% Unknown 900 -1,100 -55% Below 67 -777 -92% Unknown 349 -751 -68% Near 500 -700 -58% Below 600 -600 -50% Below 109 -286 -72% Above 2 -71 -97% Below 7 -66 -90% Below 1 -6 -86% Below 100,391 188,501 -65% Table 13 Comparison of recent average yield (RAY, U.S. share onlyj in met- ric tons (t), except for highly mi- gratory stocks (Units 5 and 18, which have a very high percentage of non-U. S. landings) between OLO '92 and OLO '99. Only stocks with RAY changes greater than -50% are listed. Nearshore re sources are not included. Therefore, the summary picture of recent trends presented in Tltble 1 1 should be interpreted with care. It is evident that most stock status classifications in OLO '99 remained the same as in OLO '92. Nevertheless, it appears that more stocks have improved in utilization level (17 stocks) than have worsened (9 stocks). At the same time, more stocks ha\e worsened in stock-le\-el stattis (18) than ha\e improved (7). Overall, this implies some net progress in bringint; excessive fishing mortality rates 3 4 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW under control, but it does not appear that there has been an overall net improvement in stock status. In hict, this summarv serves to confirm that a transition to eliminate overhsh- ing and rebuild overfished stocks has begun, but it docs not reflect the ver\' real and sub- stantive management measures that have been enacted in recent years nor the improved scientific understanding oi resource dynamics and potential. A case in point is that ot Northeast demersal fisheries, which have recently (since 1996-97) been subjected to very substantial reductions in fishing mortalitv in order to begin rebuilding programs that are designed to meet specific long-term targets (see Feature Article 2). Strengthened manage- ment measures designed to reduce overfishing and initiate rebuilding are also currently being implemented in manv other fisheries, and this should result in an acceleration in the rate of improvement of stock status and degree oi fishery utilization in the near future. Recent Yields Overall, average yields (U.S. share) of the fishery resources reported in Units 1-21 declined by 2"(i ber>.veen the time periods considered by OLO '92 and OIO '99. This corresponds to a decrease of" more than 1 16,600 t (Table 12). The largest declines occurred for Pacific highly migratory fish stocks (-176,435 t), Alaska shellfish (-71,690 t), and Southeast menhaden (-60,000 t). The largest gains were tor Eastern Bering Sea groundfish (11 3,834 t), Alaska salmon (57,996 t), and Northeast pelagic fisheries (20,200 t). Tible 13 lists the individual stocks or stock groups lor which RAY decreased by 50% or more between OLO '5*-? and OLO '99. In terms ol tonnage, the largest reduction in RAY was for Tinner crabs in Alaska, after an all-time high in the early 1990's (Tanner crab landings, including snow crab, declined from 109,910tin 1991 to41,910t in 1996). RAY for Atlantic cod in the Northeast Region also declined substantially during this time pe- riod, due to the low stock abundance caused by overfishing and to current fishing restric- tions aimed at rebuilding the stock. For the same reasons, many ot the stocks that experi- enced large percentage declines in RAY are from the Northeast (Table 13). Some stocks experienced large percentage declines in RAY, although the absolute magnitude ol the land- ings is small. Examples are Nassau grouper and jewfish in the Gull ol Mexico and Atlantic, severely depleted stocks lor which management aims to eliminate catches until rebuilding is achieved. Overall, 26 stock groups experienced a decrease in RAY ol S0% or more, accounting lor a 188,501 t decrease between OLO '92 and this report. Tagged bluefin tuna re- leased off Ocean City, Maryland. 3 5 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS U.S. recent US recent Status relative average yield average yield to long-term Unit (RAY) (RAY) Change Change potential yield Stock Region number OLO 92 OLO 99 (t) (%) (LTPY) Atka mackerel (Bering Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 21,100 83,800 62,700 297% Near Atlantic herring Northeast 2 46,800 92,700 45,900 98% Above Chum salmon Alaska 13 28,694 70,800 42,106 147% Above Bigeye tuna (Atlantic) Northeast 5 63,233 100,700 37,467 59% Below Pacific sardine Pacific Coast 14 3.511 35,000 31,489 897% Near Rock sole (Bering Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 31,600 56,500 24,900 79% Above Flatfish (Gulf of Alaska) Alaska 19 13,548 36.294 22,746 168% Unknown Other fish (Bering Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 4,200 24,000 19,800 471 % Above Other flatfish (Bering Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 18,400 38,100 19.700 107% Above Pacific herring (Bering Seal Alaska 14 15,715 34,000 18.285 116% Near Goosefish Northeast 1 11,700 27,600 15.900 136% Below Spiny dogfish Northeast 1 10,600 23,900 13,300 125% Below Striped bass Northeast 3 1,400 8,300 6,900 493% Above Pacific halibut (Bering Sea) Alaska 19 3.200 8,930 5,730 1 79% Near Arrowtooth flounder (Benng Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 5.600 11,300 5,700 102% Above Pink shrimp (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 11 5.454 11,009 5,555 102% Near Other rockfish (Bering Sea, Aleutians) Alaska 19 800 5,800 5,000 625% Above Seatrouts Southeast 9 6,250 10,820 4,570 73% Variable Northern shrimp Northeast 4 3,800 7,600 3,800 100% Unknown Blue mariin (Atlantic) Northeast 5 1,086 4.100 3,014 278% Below Rock shrimp Southeast 11 3,419 6.240 2,821 83%, Unknown Atlantic croaker Southeast 9 4.946 7,657 2,711 55% Below Red drum (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 9 2.828 5,031 2,203 78% Below Stone crab Southeast 11 1.264 2,961 1,697 134% Near Seabob shrimp Southeast 11 2,269 3,947 1,678 74% Unknown Red snapper (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 8 2,228 3,815 1,587 71% Below Pelagic shelf rockfish (Gulf of Alaska) Alaska 19 1,179 2,605 1,426 121% Unknown Shnmp Alaska 20 340 1,637 1,297 381% Below White marlin (Atlantic) Northeast 5 262 1,600 1,338 511%. Below Spot Northeast 1 1,500 2,500 1,000 67% Unknown Tilefish Northeast 1 800 1,200 400 50% Below Pacific halibut (Wash , Ore , Calif ) Pacific Coast 19 250 570 320 128% Near Snappers (Caribbean) Southeast 8 224 422 198 88% Unknown Royal red shrimp Southeast 11 143 250 107 75% Unknown Bottomtish (NW Hawaiian Islands! Western Pacific 17 98 184 86 88% Near Queen conch (Puerto Rico) Southeast 11 55 91 36 65% Below Wahoo Western Pacific 18 101 160 59 58% Near Subtotal (without Units 5 and 18) 253,915 625,563 371,648 146% Total (all units) 318,597 732,123 413,526 130% 36 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Table 14 lists the individual stock groups for which RAY increased by S0% or more during the same time period. Many of these stocks are from the Alaska Region, where overfishing has not been widespread in the past. Examples ot Alaska stocks with large gains in RAY include Atka mackerel, chum salmon, rock sole, and various other flatfishes (Table 14). In the Northeast Region, RAY increased for striped bass alter an aggressive rebuilding program and a series of good recruitments. Other Northeast stocks that experienced large gains in RAY are often less traditional species like spiny dogfish, which replaced the more traditional stocks when they became depleted. In the Southeast Region, large relative gains in RAY were observed for shrimps and, despite low population sizes, lor stocks such as red snapper and red drum in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental conditions ohen modulate long-term trends in stock abundance. The increased levels of RAY lor coastal pelagic fishes like herrings and sardine are partly due to more favorable environmental conditions. The overall gain in RAY for the 37 stocks in Table 14 amounts to 413,500 t. However, part of that total includes catches of tuna and tuna-like species made by other countries. The total gain excluding these stocks amounts to nearly 372,000 t. It is evident from Table 13 that many of the stocks that experienced declines in land- ings are below the level that supports LTPY (63% of the stocks ol known status in Table 13 are below LTPY). That is, the landings for many ol these stocks decreased because their population sizes can no longer support historical levels ol catch, or because ot restrictive management regulations aimed at rebuilding the stocks, or both. In contrast, many ol the stocks that had very large increases in landings had population sizes that could support LTPY (62% of the stocks of known status in Table 14 are near or above LTPY). Stacking a salmon purse seine, Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Table 14 (facing page) Comparison of recent aver- age yield (RAY, U.S. share only, m metric tons (t) ex- cept for highly migratory stocks from Units 5 and 18, which have a very high per- centage of non-U. S. land- ings) between OLO '92 and OLO '99. Only stocks with RAY changes greater than -i-50% are listed. Nearshore resources are not included. Protected Resources Perhaps the most positive development over the period since enactment of the 1994 MMPA Amendments has been the increase in quality of NMFS stock assessment informa- tion covering a greater number ol separate stocks. OLO '92 reported on 82 stocks ol marine mammals and sea turtles from the Atlantic and Pacific Regions, but with fully 74% having unknown status. In this report, about twice that num- ber of marine mammal and sea turtle stocks (ISS) are enu- merated. Still problematic is that trends can only be assigned 37 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS ):j£~4.'- Hawaiian monk seal. Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, Northwestern Hawaiian Is- lands. to 12% of marine mammal stocks, and that no trend characterizations, other than tor sea turtles, can be made in the Pacific Ocean. The designation of strategic stock confers special status which requires NMFS to prepare recovery plans for impacted stocks and closer scru- tiny through annual status assessments. Marine Mammals C^ff tl:e Atlantic Coast, only the northeastern U.S. bottlenose dolphin stock changed from unknown to stable trend status. Because the total annual mortality estimate was higher than PBR, this stock was listed as depleted in l')')8. Mininumi popu- lation estimates, as compared tt) l')^)2, are ec]tiivocal h)r fin, humpback, pilot, and north- ern right whales, and trends cannot be assigned. Northwest Atlantic harbor porpoise and harbor seals are the onlv species with increasing abtmdance o\-er l'-)92 levels. In the Ciult ol Mexico, abundance estimates are available lor six stocks of bottlenose dolphins, but there are more than 33 individual groups lound in bays, estuaries, and sounds that are ot un- known status. The Flawaiian monk seal remains criticalK' endangered throughotit its range, with no discernible improvement in stock si/e since last reported in OK) ''■)'^. I hree I'acihc Coast stocks of harbor seal are increasing, but little else can be said about the remaining species. In the eastern tropical Pacific, several dolphin stocks are thought to have stabilized, largel}' from significant reductions in bycatch mortality associated with the tuna purse- seine fishery. Steller sea lions hauled out in Southeast Alaska. Recent stock assessments in Alaska show continued incremental improvement h)r bowhead whales, grav whales, and Southeast Alaska harbor seals. Although the thre.iteiied eastern Pacific stock of Steller sea lions (east of long. 144' W) has shown some improve- ment, the western U.S. Pacific stock (west of long. 144"W) continues to decline precipi- tousK' and has been placed in endangered status. In late 1498, NMFS issued a biological opinion fmding the western U.S. Pacific stock to be in jeopard}- and implemented emer- gency rtiles prior to the [aniiarv opening of the l')')') walle\e pollock fisher\'. Contiiuiing their declining trend are harbor seals in the Ctilf of Alaska and Bering Sea. 1 he northern fur seal population remains stable, but retains its depleted status under the MMPA. The eastern stock of Notth Pacific gray whale has the distinction of being the first marine mammal to be removed from ESA listing. This species has fully recovered and is at or above its initial unexploited stock size. 38 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Sea Turtles ESA status For all species of sea turtles remains unchanged from their initial listings in the 1970's, but progress has been made in developing new trend data and sepa- ration ot populations. Improvements over 1992 include estimates of nesting females now available tor the Atlantic populations of leatherback, and tor several nesting populations in the Pacific ot the leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley. Recent work in genetic stock identification has identified three loggerhead populations in the southeastern United States and a tourth oft Mexico's Yucatan Coast. Recent assessments suggest improving conditions in several stocks. Green turtles con- tinue to increase trom 1992 levels throughout their U.S. range. Increases were also ob- served for central-southwest Florida loggerhead (trom stable in 1992), and tor olive ridley in the Pacific (trom unknown in 1992). Conservation ettorts tor the Atlantic Kemp's ridley has reversed an estimated 3"o annual rate of decline (since 1978) to a sustained increase in the number ot nests beginning in the early 199()'s. The leatherback has gone trom un- known status throughout its U.S. range to stable in the Atlantic but declining in the Pa- cific. The Pacit'ic stocks ot loggerhead and hawksbill are now considered stable relative to unknown status in 1 992. Less promising circumstances are noted tor two loggerhead stocks (northern Florida-North Carolina and Florida Panhandle) and the Atlantic hawksbill as thev are in declining or unknown status. ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN The management ot living marine resources is complex and involves many biologi- cal, economic, social, and political factors. Each region and fishery discussed in this report, even those fisheries that arc currently well managed and yielding near their long-term po- tential for the national benetlt, must continually adjust and adapt to ever-changing condi- tions. To increase long-term benefits from currently overutilized and depleted fishery re- sources, the diftlcult issues and practices, which have resulted in overutilization and re- source depletion must be confronted. In all 2S units, major issues attecting the resources and their management are raised. Although each resource unit has unique teatures, com- mon themes are signitlcant to many, it not all ot them; they are discussed below. 3 9 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS China rockflsh. North Pa cific Ocean. Resource Conservation and Utilization by the Fishery The priman' concern oi hsher\- management is conservation — the protection and wise use ot the Nation's Hving marine resources. Management strategies must consider which stocks are overutiHzed and too low to produce LI FY. lable 3 indicates that 46% ot the stocks under NMFS purview, whose status is known (73 out oi 1 58 stock groups), are below the abundance levels that would produce IH PY. Similar compilations indicate that 34% of the stocks (54 out of 160 stock groups) are t)verutili/.ed (Table 4). The list of stocks that are overutilized or below the levels required to produce LIPY includes some of otir most valuable fishery resources, such as New England groundfish, Atlantic sea scallops, several pelagic highly migratory fish stocks (incltiding Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish), some Pacific salmon stocks, some rockfish off Alaska, and Alaska king crab. Many nearshore stocks (including several ovster populations, bay scallops, abalones, and Pacific striped bass) are also overutilized. The Northeast Region presents the worst case ot overutilized stocks (Tibles 3 and 4). C]od, haddock, and yellowtail tlounder, historically the most important groundfish species on Georges Bank off New England, are presentK' among the most depleteci stocks in U.S. ters. By 1994, the Georges Bank haddock and yellowtail flounder stocks had collapsed, nd Georges Bank cod was in danger of collapse. Restrictive controls on fisiiing etiort, and closure of large areas on Cieorges Bank, have been implemented to reduce fishing mortality, and haddock and yellowtail flounder stocks are now improving.^ Examples of resource overutilization can also be found in all other regions. In some cases, like Pacific salmon, the main causes for their decline appear to be changing ocean conditions and habitat alterations, although intense fishing pressure from competing user groups has exacerbated the problem. Other stocks are disproportionately impacted by fish- ing owing to their low numbers in relation to more abundant target species. wa a "On (ieorgcs B,ink, the sp.iwning-stoi;k binni.iss iit li.Rldnck is LiirrentU' .ibout onc-liiiirch to nnc-tliirJ nf the historical average. I he spawning-stock biomass ot yellowtail lloiinder has reboumleLl to its highest level since 197.5. 40 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW In recent years, there has been growing awareness ot Federal actions to mitigate over- utilized situations. Throughout the early and mid 1990 s, Federal FMP's were amended to specify numerical definitions of overfishing levels according to sound population dynamics principles (see Appendix 4). The fisheries managed by those FMP's need to maintain fish- ing mortality at levels lower than the definition of overfishing, which can be accomplished by a number of" controls such as limiting catches. As the previous section on recent trends indicates, it is still too early to realize the full benefits ol related conservation actions that have been taken in all regions. More recently, concurrent with the writing ot this report, all FMP's are being amended again to revise the overfishing definitions, it necessary, to com- ply with changes made to the MSFCMA when it was reauthorized in October 1996. The amended Act has been interpreted by NMFS as being consistent with the precautionary approach, a tramework lor ensuring that conservation objectives take precedence over short- term economic considerations (see Feature Article 1 ). The Act, lor example, dictates that management needs to maintain the abundance ol stocks at levels capable ol producing LTPY (or MSY). As a result, it is expected that management measures designed to elimi- nate overfishing will be strengthened in the near luture. In the case of stocks that are below LTPY, the amended MSFCMA requires plans to rebuild the stocks as quickly as possible. The benefits ol rebuilding are not trivial. A very conservative estimate of the potential gain in yield Irom restoring overutilized stocks (those below LTPY) is 138,700 t, or a 39"o increase of their combined RAY (Table IS). Many of these stocks are extremely valuable, not only commercially and to recreational anglers, but also as important components of the ecosystems that they are a part ol, such that the true benefits to the Nation are dilficult to quantify. It is important to recognize that the benefits ol rebuilding depleted stocks cannot be realized immediatelv after the rebuilding plans become operational. The amoiiiit ol time required to rebiuld a stock depends on the species' longevity and growth potential, on environmental infiuences, and on the management controls put in place. For example, a stock of long-lived rockfish that has been overfished lor decades cannot be rebuilt in 10 years under average environmental conditions, even under a complete moratorium on fish- ing. Where fisheries are overcapitalized and pertorming poorly in economic terms, as many U.S. fisheries are, short-term economic concerns have tended to receive undue weight rela- tive to the steps needed to cut back harvests-sometimes lor many years-and achieve long- term biological and economic goals. 'Fhe reauthorized MSFCMA effectively limits the weight 4 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Stocks Region Recent Long-term average yield potential yield Change (RAY) (LTPY) (t) 4.300 7.200 2.900 15,200 40,000 24,800 15 300 285 3,500 Unknown Unknown 600 Unknown Unknown 27,600 Unknown Unknown 1,400 Unknown Unknown 3,300 Unknown Unknown 15,500 Unknown Unknown 23,900 Unknown Unknown 9,700 24,500 14,800 1,200 1,200 0 800 1,900 1,100 5,500 12,900 7,400 2,000 2,900 900 400 Unknown Unknown 11,200 42,700 31.500 500 Unknown Unknown 600 Unknown Unknown 1 Unknown Unknown 7 Unknown Unknown 7,100 9,310 2.210 100,700 80,000 ■20.700 31,900 32,000 100 4,100 4,500 400 2,300 5,250 2.950 900 700 -200 14,800 13,000 -1.800 1,600 2.200 600 Change (%) American plaice Atlantic cod Atlantic halibut Black sea bass Cusk Goosefish Red hake Scup Silver hake Spiny dogtish Summer flounder Tilefish Windowpane flounder Winter flounder Witch flounder Wolffish Bluefish Alewife/blueback American shad Atlantic salmon Sturgeons Sea scallop Bigeye tuna Albacore (North Atlantic) Blue marlin (Atlantic) Bluefin tuna (West Atlantic) Sailfish (West Atlantic) Swordfish (North Atlantic! White Marlin (North Atlantic) Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast Northeast 67% 163% 1.900% Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 153% 0% 138% 135% 45% Unknown 281% Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 31% -21% 0% 10% 128% -22% -12% 38% Table 15 Potential gains in yield in metric tons (t) from rebuild- ing overutilized stocks that are currently below LTPY. RAY and LTPY are U.S. share only, except for tunas and billfishes.The total is a conservative estimate, as- suming that LTPY equals RAY when RAY is unknown- Table continued on the next page that can be given to short-rcrm economic concerns when a stock's LTPY is in jeopardy. As a result, management measures designee! to achieve rebuilding should also be strengthened over the near future. A few abundant resources, such as some pelagic stocks of Atlantic mackerel and her- ring in the Northeast Region (Unit 2), jack mackerel ofi California (Unit l4), Hatfishes off 42 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Recent Long-term average yield potential yield Chiange Change Stocks Region (RAY) (LTPY) (t) (%) Large coastal sharks Southeast 5,216 Unknown Unknown Unknown King mackerel (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 3.307 9,750 6.443 195% Nassau grouper and lewfish (Gulf of Mex CO) Southeast 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Red snapper (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 3.815 15.000 11,185 293% Nassau grouper and jewfisfi (Atlantic) Southeast 1 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other groupers (Atlantic) Southeast 1.150 Unknown Unknown Unknown Other snappers (Atlantic) Southeast 652 Unknown Unknown Unknown Red porgy (Atlantic) Southeast 236 450 214 91% Red snapper (Atlantic) Southeast 155 Unknown Unknown Unknown Vernnilion snapper (Atlantic) Southeast 564 Unknown Unknown Unknown Nassau grouper and lewfish (Caribbean) Southeast 4 Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic croaker Southeast 7.657 50,000 42.343 553% Red drum (Atlantic) Southeast 800 Unknown Unknown Unknown Red drum (Gulf of Mexico) Southeast 5.031 7,900 2.869 57% Queen conch Southeast 91 Unknown Unknown Unknown Spiny lobster (southeast United States) Southeast 3.325 3,565 240 7% Chinook salmon Pacific Coast 7.444 1 1,460 4,016 54% Coho salmon Pacific Coast 1.421 5,300 3,879 273% Lingcod Pacific Coast 1.966 1,943 -23 -1% Pacific ocean perch Pacific Coast 800 1,100 300 38% Bottomfish (Mam Hawaiian Islands) Western Pacific 249 254 5 2% Pelagic armorhead Western Pacific 0 2,123 2,123 N/A Blue marlm Western Pacific 23.278 23,278 Unknown Unknown Subtotal for "known" LTPY 271,844 410,560 138.716 51% Subtotal for "known" LTPY excluding tuna and billfish 115,544 272,910 157,366 136% Total 357,787 496,503 138.716 39% Alaska (Unit 19), and tunas in the centtal-westetn Pacific, ate currently underutilized. A much larger fishery yield can potentially be obtained from these stocks, perhaps as high as an extra 1,270,000 t (excluding tunas. Table 16). However, market conditions or bycatch limitations have kept the harvest tor many of these stocks at low levels. Shihing fishing pressure from overutilized to underutilized stocks may relieve pressure on stressed stocks and aid in the rebuilding ot depleted stocks. However, the habitats oi the stocks ohen overlap and effective harvesting strategies must be developed to fish one stock while not jeopardizing others. 43 Table 15 Continued from previous page. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Recent Long-term average yield potential yield Change Change Stocks Region (RAY) (LTPY) (t) (%) Atlantic herring Northeast 92.700 266.000 173,300 187% Atlantic mackerel Northeast 14,600 140.000 125.400 859% Butterfish Northeast 2,800 16,000 13.200 471% Jack mackerel Pacific Coast 2,000 100,000 98,000 4.900% English sole Pacific Coast 1,263 3,100 1,837 145% Shortbelly rockfish Pacific Coast 38 23,500 23,462 61,742% Skipiack tuna (central-western Pacific) Western Pacific 950,527 2,000,000 1,049.473 110% Yellowfin tuna (central-western Pacificl Western Pacific 335,451 600,000 264,549 79% Arrowtooth flounder Alaska 11.300 230,000 218,700 1.935% Other fish Alaska 24,000 27,800 3,800 16% Other flatfish Alaska 38,100 253,000 214,900 564% Other rockfish Alaska 5,800 8,300 2,500 43% Rock sole Alaska 56,500 449,000 392,500 695% Subtotal without tunas 249,101 1,516,700 1,267,599 509% Total 1,535.079 4,116,700 2.581,621 168% Table 16 Potential gains in yield in metric tons (t) from fully Litilizing underutilized stocks that are currently above LTPY RAY and LTPY are U.S. share only, except for tunas. In addition to requitements for preventing overfishing, ending overfishing of cur- rently depressed stocks, and rebuilding depleted stocks, the reauthorized MSFCMA also contains provisions for reducing bycatch and minimizing the mortaMty of unavoidable bycatch, designating and conserving essential habitat, reforming the approval process for fishery management plans and regulations, reducing conflicts of interest on regional fish- ery management councils, and establishing user fees. I'he original 1976 Magnuson f-ishery Conservation and Management Act contained seven national standards dealing with over- fishing and optimum }leld, best available science, management units, allocation of fishing privileges, economic efficiency, accounting for variation m stocks and fisheries, and mini- mizing management costs. Fhere are now an addition.il three new national standards on fishing communities, bycatch, and safety at sea. Since the MSFCMA was reauthorized, NMFS and the fishery management councils have succeeded in implenienting many of its requirements, including the development of new guidelines on most of the national stan- dards and definitions of essential habitat, F'Ml' amendments, lormation of sever.il special committees and advisor\' panels, and preparation of numerous studies and reports. 44 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Almost all major U.S. fisheries now have some form oi limited access in recognition of pervasive problems ot overcapacity and overcapitalization and their effects on overfish- ing. Four U.S. fisheries (Alaska halibut and sablefish, wrcckfish, and surlclams-ocean qua- hogs) have individual fishing quotas (IFQ's), a mechanism considered to be effective at matching fishing effort to resource productiviu', but often perceived to result in other prob- lems. In 1996, the U.S. Congress established a moratorium on new IFQ programs pending review by a National Academy of Sciences committee. That review was recently (December 1998) completed and is generalK' favorable towards IFQ's, although recognizing that this system of management is not a panacea and may not be applicable for all fisheries (NRC], 1999a). The United States has also been involved in several FAO-sponsored initiatives concerned with the issue of excess fishing capacity. Sablefish subsample, Aleu- tian Islands bottom trawl assessment survey. Transboundary Jurisdiction Many living marine resources often cross political or geographic boundaries, compli- cating their assessment and management. The boundaries can be bet\veen states, between adjacent countries, or even between distant countries in international waters. Sometimes boundaries are crossed by juvenile or adult fish during migrations, and sometimes the boundaries are crossed by larvae drifting with ocean currents. In all cases, these movements complicate even the most comprehensive fisheries assessment and management regimes. Effective oversight of these species requires coordination, cooperation, and agreement among all interested parties. Stocks located primarily within Federal waters are managed under FMP's prepared by regional FMC's and implemented and enforced by NMFS. Stocks whose distribution over- laps the jurisdiction of more than one regional FMC require the participation of multiple FMC's. Most stocks that extend beyond the U.S. EEZ are managed wholly or in part under international conventions. Stocks located largely within the waters of more than one state are, to an increasing extent, managed by interstate mechanisms. One example of successful interstate manage- ment is the recovery of Atlantic striped bass under a rebuilding plan developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; striped bass were considered to be fully re- stored in 199S. Examples of other resources that require interstate coordination of man- agement are menhaden and mackerels in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 4 5 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Spotted spiny lobster, Car- ibbean Sea. The United States shares important resoiuxes with its continental neii;iiht)rs. Several groimdfish stocks in the Northeast Region are shared with Canada. Ahhongh there is no forma! mechanism to manage these stocks jointi\', there is considerable interaction between the two coimtries in terms of sharing knowledge and information and in conducting joint assessments and reviews. In addition, the two cotuitries share a similar objective of main- taining fishing mortality levels below the same threshold. Pacific halibtit represent an ex- ample of a formal arrangement to assess and manage stocks shared by the U.S. and Canada jointly through the International Pacific Halibtit C Commission. To the south, other valuable resources are shared with Mexico: Gulf of Mexico migra- tory pelagics (mackerels) and Pacific Coast pelagics (mackerels, sardine, and anchovy), as well as highly migratory stocks of tunas, swordfish, and sharks. No bilateral agreements are yet in place for the assessment and management of these stocks, although the foundations for these joint and multilateral agreements are being developed through MEXUS-Gulf and MEXUS-Pacific bilateral discussions, as well as through Mexico's developing interest in joining the international Commission for the (Conservation of Atlantic Timas (KXCAT). In the Atlantic, highly migratiiry bkiefin tima and swordfish fall under the jiuisdic- tion of ICCAT Regulation of these partictilar species is difficult, since international con- sensus on catch levels for these high-vakied fish is not always reached or agreed on. l-'iuther, enacted measures must always be successfully enforced by all nations to be effective. Highly migratory tuna and billfish also cross international borders in the Pacific, and some range across the Pacific. While international exchange of scientific information has been histori- cally good, progress on joint management has been slow. In the absence of cooperative international management reeimes, most stocks are regulated bv individual coastal n.uions. In some cases, foreign fisheries targeting migrating U.S. -origin stocks outside the U.S. EEZ can tmdermine Federal management of those stocks. Salmon on both the Atl.m- tic and Pacific Coast begin life in freshwater and migrate to the open ocean to feed and mature before returning to their natal streams to spawn. During this period, salmon are subject to fishing pressure outside U.S. waters. Heavy exploitation of U.S. -origin Atlantic salmon in the commercial fisheries off Newfoundland and Greenland has recently been reduced through a (Canadian closure of the Newfoimdiand fisher\- and through measures implemented b\- the North Atlantic Salmon (Conservation Organization, (^ff the Pacific Coast, some U.S. -origin salmon are intercepted by Canadian fishermen while migrating 46 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW through Canadian waters, and some sockeye and pink sahnon originating in Canada's Fraser River are caught by U.S. fishermen while transiting U.S. watets. The ever contentious allocation of expected catches h'om stocks originating from each country to fishermen of both nations is handled by the U.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Commission. Some U.S. pol- lock from the Eastern Bering Sea migrate into the Russian zone in the northwestern Bering Sea where they are subject to exploitation by Russian fisheries. While there is scientific exchange on this issue between Russia and the United States, a joint management scheme has not yet been formulated. Other stocks migrate over international borders through larval drift. Caribbean spiny lobsters, distributed from Brazil to Bermuda, produce larvae that can live from 4 to 9 months in the plankton, thus having the potential to move long distances. As yet, there is no international mechanism for the routine analysis and compilation of data that would facilitate Caribbean-wide management schemes for lobsters. A similar situation results in the need for international plans to manage pelagic armorhead fisheries off seamounts in the Western Pacific Region. Bycatch Bycatch, the incidental take of nontarget species or sizes in fishing opetations, is a worldwide problem that results in 17,900,000-39,500,000 t of the world's commercial fish catch being discarded (Alverson et al., 1994). Bycatch not only creates waste but also makes it nearly impossible to meet management objectives simultaneously for the mix of species caught and, in many cases, bycatch results in the overutilization of stocks. Bycatch is a ubiquitous problem, as can be appreciated from many units in Part 2 of this report. In all regions, bycatch results in overutilization or underutilization of resources, conflicts of allocation between competing user groups, or unwanted interactions with pro- tected resources like marine mammals, birds, and sea turtles. Groundfish fisheries have notoriously visible bycatch problems. The fisheries, whethet conducted with trawl gear, longlines, or pot gear, catch and discard large volumes of animals that are of the wrong size, wrong species, wrong maturity stage, or are otherwise unwanted. For instance, as much as 60-80% of the rock sole caught in tecent years in the Eastern Bering Sea were discarded because they are not the valuable roe-bearing female fish. Several Alaska groundfish stocks arc underutilized because their fisheries also catch other depleted stocks or stocks that are 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Loggerhead escaping out a turtle excluder device, Gulf of Mexico. under strict quota management, such as halibut or king and Tanner crabs. The bycatch of juvenile red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries restricts the speed at which the snapper stock can be rebuilt. Tuna and swordfish fisheries often catch marlins and sailfish, prized targets for recreational anglers. There are many other examples. Mitigation of bycatch problems is complex. The problem is partly biological and partly technological. Some technological innovations can work to reduce bycatch, such as the use of turtle excluder devices to minimize impacts on sea turtles in the shrimp fisheries of (he Ckilf of Mexico or fish excluder devices to reduce bycatch of groundfish in the northern shrimp fishery of the Northeast Region. Research by NMFS, industry, and academia continues to develop fishing gears that are more species-selective. In some cases, however, new technologies cannot resolve the problem adequately and it may be necessary to use closed-area and closed-season controls on fishing. In the Northeast Region, for instance, scalloping is prohibited in some areas to aid in the rebuilding ol Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder. Time-area closures are also being used to reduce salmon bycatch in Alaska ground- fish fisheries. Time-area closures may require continuous adjustments when the dynamics and abundance of the species of concern change in time and space and therefore require routine scientific monitoring. Habitat The requirement to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) was one of the most sub- stantive changes in the 1996 reauthorization of the MSFCMA. With the EFH and related provisions, the amended Act gives heightened consideration to fish habitat in resource management decisions, and provides significant new tools to assist resource managers to conserve the habitats of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish and shellfish resources. EFH is identified as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breed- ing, feeding or growth to maturity." The MSFCMA requires that fishery management plans identify and describe EFH for all life stages of each species Federally managed within the U.S. EEZ, using the best scientific information available. Within areas identified as EFH, fishery management councils must minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on the habitat caused by fishing practices. They must also identify adverse impacts from nonfishing activities and consider conservation and enhancement measures to mitigate those impacts. Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may ad- 48 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW versely affect EFH must consult with the Secretary of Commerce, through NMFS, regard- ing the effects of their actions on the habitat and on the associated fisheries. NMFS can provide conservation and enhancement recommendations where appropriate, designed to minimize adverse impacts to EFH. These new policies incorporate the precautionary ap- proach into the management of hsh habitats. Coastal zones contain the most productive marine ecosystems, providing habitats and essential spawning and nursery areas tor most oi the major commercial and recre- ational fishery species. The habitats of the coastal zone also provide a number oi critical services that maintain the health and stability of the coastal ecosystems benefiting the or- ganisms that depend on the system and man. Coastal and riparian wetlands serve as effi- cient filters for contaminants derived from land-based runoff, moderate the effects of flood- ing, and, along with coral reefs, buffer storm surges and help retard coastal erosion. Coastal habitats (mangrove swamps, estuarine oyster beds, salt marsh wetlands, seagrass beds, coral reefs, etc.), although highly productive, are fragile, and susceptible to degradation through human activities. It is here, where the shore meets the sea, and where people are most inclined to build, manufacture, and recreate, that the most susceptible and diverse aspects of marine life exist. Sockeye salmon in spawn- ing river. Pacific Northwest. As the world's most biologically diverse marine ecosystems, coral reefs are home to one-third of all marine fish species and tens of thousands of other species. Coral reef areas under U.S. jurisdiction cover approximately 16,879 square kilometers. In the United States, coral reefs appear threatened wherever they are close to large concentrations of people; however, data are available to monitor the status and trends of U.S. coral reefs in only a few sites. The International Year of the Reef 1997, and the 1998 Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection are providing impetus to new reef monitoring programs that should greatly increase our understanding of the status and outlook for coral reefs worldwide. If coral reefs represent the most diverse marine communities, coastal wetlands and estuaries rank among the most productive ecosystems. These systems, including salt marshes, seagrass beds, and mangroves, are associated with some of the world's greatest fisheries, and provide habitat for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl. They also provide critical ecologi- cal functions supplying nutrients for nearshore production, filtering land runoff, and stabi- lizing coastal lands. Approximately 75 percent, by weight, of the Nation's commercial fish Diver amid kelp and coral off California coast. 4 9 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS catch is composed ot fish and shellfish thac depend on estuaries at some critical stage in their lite cycle. Mangrove roots, Florida Keys, Florida. Until qtiite recently, the United States was losing wetlands at a rapid rate. The Clean Water Act and other Federal environmental laws have heen instrimieiual in decreasing wetland losses since that time. During 1982-92, the losses totaled 31 ,()()() acres ol wetland per year, down From 1 57,000 acres per year in 1 974-83, and down hnther trom the 398,000 acres per year in 1954-74. However, despite regulatory programs and natural resource management plans, human population growth and development coiitintie to result in a net loss of habitat acreage and function. In addition to the coastal and estuarine habitats, fishery managers must also extend their concern to the riverine and riparian ecosystems of anadromous species and to the deeper ofishore ecosystems that support migratory and pelagic species. Although many fish stocks are stable in Alaska, many other west coast salmon stocks are so diminished that they are now listed, proposed for listing, or under consideration for listing under the ESA. Declines in abundance have been attributed to habitat loss and degradation Irom the cu- tnulative impacts ot human activities, including hydropower dams, irrigation diversions, logging, mining, grazing, urbanization, etc. hoss ot these species trom their traditional river reaches has devastating effects on the biological integrity ot those ecosystems. Although pelagic fishes usually are not correlated with the types ot areas commonly thought of as fish habitat (e.g. wetlands and bottom substrate), physiographic and hydro- graphic structures with which migratory pelagic tishes are otten associated (e.g. seamounts, current boundaries, temperature discontinuities) can be characterized as habu.u. In spite ot the distance trom shore, these habitats are susceptible to adverse ettects trom both inshore and oftshore activities due to the transport ot materials to these locations, and to damage (e.g. to seamounts) caused by certain types ot tishing gears. Many changes in the environment are not directly caused by human activities. For example, the decline in ocean survival tor coho and chinook salmon in the Pacific during the last 2 decades coincides with a change in the oceanographic regime oti the west coast. As another example, the abundance of some species, notably sardine and anchovies, typi- cally oscillates in c\'cles that last tor decades. In ail eases, however, human actions can accelerate the declines in pojnilation either trom other changes to the habitat (e.g. tor 50 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW salmon in the rivers of tiie Pacific Coast), or from overfishing (e.g. for Pacific sardine in the 1970s), and may prolong the period oi low ahundance. Marine Mammals and Protected Species Many protected marine mammal stocks and all U.S. sea turtles are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. Developing and implementing management strategies to minimize the adverse impact of human activities on these animals and aiding their recovery, while not unnecessarily restricting commercial and recreational fisheries, is a major challenge. Significant progress has been made towards the recovery of turtle stocks during the last decade. Management strategies are being strengthened in order to ensure that these stocks continue on the path to recovery. In 1998, NMFS and the USFWS published recov- ery plans tor five species ol Pacific turtles and lor one distinct turtle nesting population. Efforts are also underway to revise some of the existing recovery plans for Atlantic popula- tions. Much progress has also been made towards the protection and recovery of marine mammal stocks. The 1994 reauthorization of the MMPA strengthened requirements for classification of stocks in terms of the magnitude of levels of bycatch compared to popula- tion size and productivirv. Efforts at reducing human-induced mortality, especially bycatch, are being focused on those stocks where the problem is more severe. Bycatch mitigation efforts have been focused through take reduction teams, and take reduction plans are in preparation or have been adopted for several stocks and fisheries. The main issues for several selected high profile marine mammal species are summa- rized here. Southeastern U.S. bottlenose dolphins Ouv understanding of the status of bottlenose dolphins in the soiuheastern United States has improved greatly through use of photo- graphic identification, radiotracking, and biomolecular analyses. In the Atlantic, two dis- tinct ecorypes have been identified, a coastal form occurring in shallow warm waters and an offshore form occurring in deep colder water. The coastal form is considered to be a strate- gic stock because it is classified as depleted under the MMPA due to an earlier epizootic. 5 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS i and because current levels ol bycatch slightly exceed the proper PBR level. In the tiull ot Mexico, }} stocks of bottlenose dolphins have been identified in bay, sound, and estuarine areas, which are mostly quite small. Five additional stocks have been identified from the coastal and oHshore areas. Estimates of direct human-induced annual mortalities are only a small traction of the abundances tor these five stocks, so none are classified as strategic. Three anomalous mortality events have been documented tor bottlenose dolphins, sug- gesting that these stocks may be physiologically stressed. Steller sea lion, Gulf of Alaska. Atlantic harbor porpoise A harbor porpoise take reduction plan for the Northeast Region's sink gillnet and Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries was implemented in December 1 998. The bycatch ot the Cult of Maine-Bay ot F'und\' harbor porpoise in gillnets has exceeded the PBR since tlrst estimated in 1990. The fishery has been subject to seasonal and spatial regulation in the Cult ot Maine, and this may be part ot the reason that it has intensified in the Mid-Atlantic Region in recent years. Ihe take reduction plan detines specific areas and seasons that ate closed to fishing or where either acoustic deterrents or net modifications are required to be used. The success ot the plan at reducing bycatch below PBR's will be closely monitored using observer programs and other at-sea research. Steller sea lions Improved estimates ot Steller sea lion abundance were obtained tor 1 998. The western U.S. Pacific stock has continued to decline, while the eastern Pacific stock appears to be either stable or increasing slightlv. I he human-caused mortality exceeded PBR tor the western U.S. Pacific stock, but not tor the eastern Pacitlc stock. Newly insti- tuted management actions (in early 1999) include a no-entry zone around rookeries, a prohibition ot groundfish trawling within 10-20 n.mi. ot most Alaskan rookeries and im- portant liaulout sites, and spatial and temporal allocation ot Eastern Bering Sea and ( lull of Alaska Atka mackerel and walleye pollock catches. Eastern tropical Pacific dolphins The 1997 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act mandated new research to determine whether or not encirclement ot dolphins during tuna purse-seine fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific has an adverse affect on the animals. 1 he status ot several eastern tropical Pacific dolphin stocks continues to be ot concern, especially for two stocks classified as depleted because ot incidental mortality that has oc- curred in the fishery since the early 1960's, even though incidental mortalitv' of dolphins has been substantiallv reduced since the early 1990's. Research is underwas' to clarif\' the status ot these stocks and to determine the effects of chase and recapture. 52 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW Adequacy of Scientific Information and Assessments One of the most important national issues is the quaHty and quantity ot data on which stock assessments and management decisions are based. Stock assessments and other scientific information are the foundation for the rational and sustainable utilization of renewable resources. Stock assessments require data on the biology ot the species, catches, abundance trends, and stock characteristics such as age composition, which are put to- gether to estimate the current status of the stock and its past history. This understanding aids managers in the selection oi fishing targets to be achieved and thresholds or limits to be avoided. Basic information is still lacking to construct adequate assessments for many U.S. LMR's. This is the main reason why 21% of the stocks reported in Units 1-20 have un- known utilization levels (Tables 3 and 4). These stocks of unknown status account for less than 3% of the U.S. RAY, but include important species, such as sharks and many reef fish, for which not even the catch is recorded on a species-by-species basis. Progress has been made during the last few years, as 14 stock groups whose utilization level was unknown in OLO '92 are now of known status (Table 11). But sound, scientifically based fisheries management requires more than the ability to classify the status of stocks. Relatively pre- cise estimates of actual abundance, fishing mortality, and potential yield (e.g. CPY and LTPY) are more desirable. To improve on these estimates, more comprehensive data and research are needed. Weighing a subsample of longspine thornyhead rock- fish, west coast upper con- tinental slope assessment survey- The recent study of stock assessment methods conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NRC, 1998) suggests that one of the key pieces of information required to assess a stock is an adequate index of relative abundance. Abundance indices can be ob- tained from analyses of catch rates in the fishery, or from scientifically designed research surveys. The former type is often problematic because fishing operations tend to occur in areas of high fish densirv', thus introducing potential biases of serious consequence. For instance, an increasing trend in the efficiency of fishing operations over time could mask a decline in abundance. Research surveys do not suffer from the same problem, but they tend to be more imprecise and survey data are more expensive to collect. 53 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Sampling table and mixed catch on chartered com- mercial trawler, triennial west coast groundfish as- sessment survey. The Northeast Region has the longest history oi surveys, which have heen conducted since the 1960's for groundfish, and more recently also for pelagic and invertebrate re- sources. All regions have fishery-independent surveys hir some ol" their more important resources, and ef-forts are underway to improve NMFS' ability to obtain abundance indices through a data acquisition plan involving the deplovment ot new replacement fisheries research vessels and increases in the use ot charter vessels. The new vessels are urgently needed because existing NOAA fisheries research vessels average 34 years old, are techno- logically obsolete, and are approaching the end ot their usekil service life. lo ensure the continuit)- and scientific integrity of NMFS' survey time-series, each replacement vessel must be calibrated with its older counterpart, while it is still operational. Many of the issues discussed in the previous sections end up, in one way or another, affecting the allocation of fishery resources. Allocation can be between countries, between states, between several commercial sectors, commercial-recreational, inshore-offshore, tribal- nontribal, and ciMnbinations of these. Allocation decisions require precise and accurate knowledge of user-specific harvest levels in addition to an understanding of the spatial segregation of the resource. Recreational fisheries have increased consiclerably in impor- tance and are now the main source of fishing mortalit}' tor many stocks, particularly in coastal waters (Unit 21). But, because of their dispersed nature, recreational fishing im- pacts are difficult to quantify. The main source of data for recreational fisheries is the NMFS marine recreational fisheries statistics surveys (MRFSS'') which now constitutes a 20-year continuous time series. In recent years, there have been several efforts to increase levels of samplmt' (e.ti. for kin" mackerel in the Southeast Region) and to conduct region-wide surveys to collect data on the demographics and economics of recreational fisheries (in the Northeast Region in 1994 and 1998, the Southeast Region in 1997, and the Pacific Coast Region in 1998). Cooperative programs to improve the collection of data on charter boat operations have also recently been initiated in Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, anci the Culf of Mexico. Data on recreational fisheries are now available to the public on the World Wide Web.^ ''MRF-.SS (iVKirini- Recrcuion.il F-ishL-rics .St.itisric.s Survey). NMFS tiftkc ol Science ,iiid Technologv, I-'islicr- ies St.uistics .uid ^Aonomil.^ Division, Silver Spring, MD 20910. littp://www.st. nmfs.gov/stl /rec re.it ion.il/d,itab.i.se/i ndex.html 54 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW New insie;ht into the biology of some species is resliaping their stock assessments. For example, an improved understanding of the population structure of several Atlantic tunas is being obtained from genetic studies and from research using biological markers and new tagging technologies. New technologies may also play an important role in enhancing NMFS' capacity to provide more efficient and accurate fish surveys through, for example, the de- velopment ot advanced, integrated acoustic and laser-based systems and sensor platforms. In most cases, the acoustic and laser-based optical technologies are complementary, ad- dressing specific components of an overall assessment problem. For example, an integrated light detection and ranging (IJDAR) system could potentially be developed to survey midwater species, for which the LIDAR system could be used to estimate fish size or iden- tify species, and the integrated acoustic sensor could be used to provide abundance esti- mates from greater water volumes than could be obtained using LIDAR alone. In addition to uncertainties in the status of stocks and abundance estimates or trends, there are critical gaps in our knowledge about ecosystem effects on LMR's. These gaps include the effects of environmental variability and changes caused by climate, functional habitat alteration, and long-term environmental degradation. Also included are gaps in knowledge about multispecies interactions. Several recent studies have stressed the need to incorporate ecosystem considerations and multispecies interactions into fish stock assess- ments and management advice. The National Academy of Sciences indicates that in order to restore fish populations and protect ecosystems, it will probably be necessary to substan- tially reduce fishing mortalities on most species (NRC, 1999b). Outlook Issues of National concern have not changed substantially since Our Living Oceans was first published in 1991. Indeed, it could be said that they have not changed much during the past 2 decades and that they are found in all corners of the world: concerns about overcapacity, overfishing, and the ability to rebuild overfished stocks; bycatch; allo- cation between user groups; management of stocks that straddle different jurisdictions; habitat degradation; fishing interactions with protected species; and the adequacy of scien- tific information in a complex environment. Substantial advances have been made, and continue to be made, on all issues. But because each stock has its own characteristics, each fisher\' has its own peculiarities, and 5 5 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS each set ot available data is unique in some way, the progress made towards resolving these problems on the whole seems slow. Pacific sand lance, Pacific Northwest. Not onlv is each situation uniqtie, but the forces giving rise to the problems also seem to grow over time. Ever intensifying fishing effort and deployment of more powerful and sophisticated fishing gear and electronic flsh-fniding equipment have resulted in gross over- capacity and overfishing of resources that were previously considered to be at near-optimal exploitation. The increasing demand for fishery products or for the fishing experience in- creases the pressure on LMR's constantly. Urbanization of coastal zones and population growth also put continuously increasing pressure on the nearshore habitats that many spe- cies depend on as nursery areas. Long-term impacts from causes such as global warming and biophysical changes to ecosystems will likely also affect many LMR's in ways that are difficult to forecast. The available scientific information and the ability to implement and enforce effec- tive management regulations have been, in many cases, insufficient to manage LMR's at their maximum potential without incurring significant conservation risks. In the face of such uncertainty, fishing should be allowed to proceed conservatively, setting aside part of the resource potential as insurance against unknown risks. But the many increasing pres- sures acting upon LMR's have given rise to unduK' favoring short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term sustainable utilization, hi fact, in the face of uncertainty, fishing has generally proceeded less conservatively. Lhis situation began to be reversed in the early l^^O's, when FMP's were required to contain measurable definitions of overfishing, a conservation threshold or limit to be avoided irrespective of any short-term considerations. Today, FMP's are required to make the defi- nitions of overfishing consistent with avoiding fishing levels higher than those that support MSY. If adequately implemented, the new requirements should result in immediate ac- tions to eliminate overfishing, rebuild depleted stocks, and prevent other stocks from be- coming overfished. However, it is important to realize that stock rebuilding will be slow in many cases, perhaps of the order of a generation or more for some species. Parallel to strengthened management measures, there is a need for strengthened sci- ence: If more is known about a stock and the effects of fishing upon it, then it becomes possible to tine-tune its management and protect the stock with less need for conservatism. .5 6 1999 NATIONAL OVERVIEW There are many scientific elements that can be strengthened, and some may be unique to each situation. A common one to most situations is to set up permanent monitoring pro- grams to measure relative abundance from fishery-independent data. Such efforts should improve the quality oi many stock assessments and would also serve as an improved basis for the understanding of population dynamics. The outlook for the Nation's living marine resources depends in good part on the management actions that are being taken at present. The decline in the abundance ot many stocks in all U.S. regions during the past few decades was primarily the result ol overfishing (sometimes compounded by environmental changes). The strengthened management mea- sures, designed to reduce overfishing and begin rebuilding, that are being implemented should result in an acceleration in the rate of improvement ot stock status and fishery utilization levels. Their success depends on how effectively they can be implemented over the foreseeable future. Short-term losses in yield are expected as an immediate cost of re- building overfished stocks. However, judging from the remarkable ability ot many stocks to recover from overfishing, the outlook is very positive over the long term, and should result in the potential tor higher sustainable yields with reduced risk to the resources. Edwin S.Taylor fishing pier, Folly Beach. South Caro- lina. LITERATURE CITED Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeberg, J. G. Pope, and S. A. Murawski. 1994. A global assessment of fisiieries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339, Food and Agriculture Organization ot the United Nations, Rome, 233 p. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1997. Review of the state of world fishery resources: marine fisher- ies. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 920, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 173 p. NRC (National Re.search Council). 1998. Improving fish stock a.ssessments. National Academy Press, Washing- ton, D.C., 177 p. NRC (National Research Council). 1999a. Sharing the fish: toward a national policy on individual fishing quotas. National Academy Press, Washington. D.C., 422 p. NRC (National Research Council). 1999b. Sustaining marme fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 164 p. 5 7 J I f!^ r / ■JBv '% M I n^^ iWka Previous page: Blacksmith in giant kelp forest off south- ern California coast. William B. Folsom, NMFS. The Precautionary Approach: A New Paradigm or Business as Usual? pre»cau»tion \"pri-'ko-shcii\ n [¥ pirciintidii, tr. \A. pmecaution-, pmecautio, fr. L praecautus, pp. ok praecavere to guard against, [x. prae- + cavere to be on one's guard — more at hear] 1 : care taken in advance : foresichp 2 : a measure taken beforehand to prevent harm or secure good : SAFEGUARD — pre»cau»tion*ary \-she-,ner-e\ ad] approach n 1 a : an act or instance ot approaching b : APPROXIMATIDN 2 a : the taking of preliminary steps toward a particular purpose b : a particular manner ot taking such steps es not impK' that all fishing should cease until all potential impacts have been evaluated and determined to be negligible, and 3) in cases where the likelv impacts of fishing activities are uncer- tain, priority should be given to conserving the productive capaciu' of the fishery resources. Ac- cording to FAO (1995a), the standard of proof to be used in tiecisions regarding authorization of fishing activities should be commensurate with the potential risk to the resource, while also taking into account the expected benefits of the activities. 63 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS The collapse of fish stocks in the United States and elsewhere has often been precipitated by the inability to implement timely conservation mea- sures without irrefutable scientific proof of over- fishing. That is, managers have frequently delayed, postponed, or tailed to implement corrective man- agement actions when scientific information on the status of stocks and the impacts of exploita- tion was not beyond doubt. A shift in the burden of proof is a natural remedy to reverse the situa- tion. As discussed below, it is difficult to define the Precautionary Approach succinctly, because it has so many components. However, the following sen- tence represents one attempt to do so: In hisherhs, eiie Precautionary Approach is about applyin(j ludlcious and responsible fesheries management practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactiviu.y (:() avoid or reverse overexploi- TATION) RATHER THAN REACTIVELY (ONCE ALL DOUBT HAS BEEN REMOVED AND THE RESOURCE IS SEVERELY OVEREXPLOH ED), TO ENSURE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FISHERY RESOURCES AND AS- .SOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF FU- TURE AS WELL AS CURRENT t.ENERAFIONS. INTERNATIONAL EVOLUTION Ihe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 provided several mechanisms to promote responsible management of marine fisheries. However, not until the 1990's did work begin on developing a precautionary approach to fisheries management. In 1991 , the FAO's Com- mittee on Fisheries (COFI) requested the FAO to develop an International CA)de of Conduct for Fisheries. Subsequently, FAC) and the Government of Mexico sponsored an International Conference on Responsible Fishing, held in Cancun in May 1992. Resolutions formulated in (Imcun were presented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNC^FD) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992.'l'he Rio meeting highlighted the importance of the Precaution.uy Approach in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 2 1 . For example, Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration states that "In ORDI R id PROTECT eiie ENVIRONMENT, 1111 Prlcaui loNARY Approach shai i be wideiy ap- plied BY States accordini, to their capabili- ties. Where there are ihreats of serious or irreversibif damage, lack of full scientific ceriainiy snail not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures h5 pre- vent environmental dfgradaiion." Several binding and nonhinding agreements embodying the Precautionary Approach were de- veloped and concluded during 1 99 1 -96. Ihe most comprehensive of these is the FAO International Code of C'onduct, completed in late 1995 {FAO, 1995b). The Code of Conduct addresses six key themes: 1) fisheries management, 2) fishing op- erations, 3) aqu.icultuic development, 4) integra- tion of fisheries into coastal area management, 5) post-har\est practices and trade, and 6) fisheries research. In tot.il, there are 19 general principles and 210 standards in the (^ode. While the Pre- cautionary Approach is integral to all themes, it is applied particularly to fisheries management: "States should apply the Precautionary Ap- proach WIDELY TO CONSERVAFION, MANAGEMENT, AND EXPLOITATION OF LIVIN(, Al.)UATIC RESOURCES IN ORDER TO PROTECI IIILM AND PRESERVE FllF ACHIAIK I NVIRONMFNI." fhe Code of (Conduct also emphasizes th.it "The ABSENCE OF ADEyUAl F SCM N EIFIC INFORMA- IION SHOUI 1) NOT BE USED AS A REASON FOR POST- PONING OR lAII ING lO lAKI CONSERVAIION AND manac;emfn r measures." The Code of ('onduct is a voluntary, nonliiiKl- ing agreement. However, it contains sections that are similar to those in two recently concluded bind- ing agreements: 1) the Agreement to Promote ( "ompliaiice with International Conservatidii .iiid Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (the C^ompiiance Agreement), and 2) the Agreement for the Implementation of the Pro- visions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (of- 64 FEATURE ARTICLE 1 THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH ficially abbreviated as the UN Implementing Agreement or UNIA, but commonly referred to as the Straddling Stocks Agreement) (UN, 1993). The Compliance Agreement was adopted by FAO Conference in November 1993. It specifies the obligations of Parties whose vessels fish on the high seas, including the obligation to ensure that such vessels do not undermine international fish- ery conservation and management measures. The Compliance Agreement is considered to be an in- tegral part of the Code of Conduct. The United States implemented the Compliance Agreement through the High Seas Fishing Vessel Compliance Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 'SSSO et. seq.). The Straddling Stocks Agreement, negotiated over a similar period as the FAO Code ot Con- duct and now in the process of being ratified, con- tains nearly identical language as the Code on many issues, including the Precautionary Ap- proach and General Principles for the conserva- tion and management ol living marine resources. Although the Straddling Stocks Agreement is strictly applicable to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, much ot it is also rel- evant to fishery resources within national exclu- sive economic zones. Indeed, the Straddling Stocks Agreement is being used as the basis lor develop- ing precautionary approaches to fisheries manage- ment in many individual countries, as well as in several intergovernmental organizations such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the International Council for the Ex- ploration ot the Sea (K"ES). research, and 3) fisheries technology. The Precau- tionary Approach to fisheries management requires avoidance ot overfishing, restoration of already overfished stocks, explicit specification of manage- ment objectives including operational targets and constraints (e.g. target and limit reference points), taking account of uncertaint)' by being more con- servative, avoidance of excess harvest capacity, es- tablishment ot rules tor controlling access, data reporting requirements, development of sound management planning processes involving exten- sive consultation, and effective systems for moni- toring and enforcement. Research in support of precautionary management should be designed to provide accurate and complete data and analyses of relevance to fisheries management, to develop operational targets and constraints, to provide sci- entific evaluation ot the consequences ot manage- ment actions, to incorporate uncertainty into as- sessments and management, and to promote multidisciplinary (biological, economic, and so- cial) research. In terms of fisheries technology, the Precautionary Approach primarily involves the promotion of research to evaluate and improve existing technologies and encourage development ot appropriate new technologies, particularly those that will prevent damage to the environment, im- prcive economic and social benefits, and improve safety. KEY ELEMENTS OF PRECAUTIONARY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES SCOPE OFTHE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH The Precautionary Approach to fisheries man- agement is multifaceted and broad in scope. As stated by FAO (1993a), it applies at all levels of fisheries systems: development planning, manage- ment, research, technology development and trans- fer, legal and institutional frameworks, fish cap- ture and processing, fisheries enhancement, and aquaculture. FAO's Technical Ciuidelines on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions (FAO, 1993a) groups the elements of the Precautionary Approach into three categories: 1) fisheries management, 2) fisheries Following completion of the Code ot C'on- duct and FAO's technical guidelines on the Pre- cautionary Approach, the facets of the Precaution- ary Approach that have received by tar the most attention are: 1) definitions of overfishing incor- porating target and limit reference points, 2) for- mulation ot decision rules that stipulate in advance what actions will be taken to prevent overfishing and promote stock rebuilding, and 3) incorpora- tion of uncertainty by using a risk-averse approach to calculate targets, constrain fishing mortality, and rebuild stock biomass. These facets have been the focus of numerous workshops conducted by in- tergovernmental organizations (e.g. ICES, NAFO, North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organiza- 65 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS tion (NASCO), and the International Commis- sion tor the Conservation of Atlantic Ilmas) as well as national governments, including the United States. They will also be the focus of the remain- der of this article. LIMIT ANDTARGET REFERENCE POINTS Limit and target reference points are signposts, usually expressed in terms of fishing mortality rates or stock biomass, that provide benchmarks with which to compare the state ot the stock and status ol exploitation and which can be used to guide fisheries management. Limit reference points set botuidaries that are designed to constrain exploi- tation within safe biological limits so that stocks retain the ability to produce maximum sustain- able yield. Target reference points identify desired outcomes for the fishery and are therefore intended to meet management goals and objectives. 1 he basic idea of using reference points in a Precau- tionary Approach to fisheries management is that targets should be set sufficiently below limits so that the limits will be avoided with high probabil- ity and targets will be attained on average. Ihc L'nited States had already made substan- tial progress in addressing overfishing prior to the development of the Precautionary Approach. In 1989, NMFS published guidelines (§50 CFR Part 602, Guidelines for the preparation of fishery management plans under the MFCMA) (com- monly referred to as the 602 Guidelines) inter- preting National Standard 1 ofthe MFCN4A with respect to overfishing. The 602 Guidelines pro- vided a formal definition of overfishing: "OVFRFISHINI, IS A LEVEL OR RAIF OL LISIIINi; MORTALITY THAT JEOPARDIZES THE LONG-IERM c;AI'AC1TY OF a stock OR STOCK COMPLEX TO PROLW( F [maximum SUSTAINABLE YIELD] ON A CONIlNLIIN(. BASIS." I he 602 tjuidelines required that all tisher\' management plans (FMP's) be amended to include measurable definitions of overfishing for each stock or stock complex covered by that FMP. In most FMPs, this directive was interpreted as a recjuire- ment for defining recruitment overfishiii" which was generally specified in terms of a limit fishing mortality. A review by Rosenberg et al. (1994) of more than 100 such definitions concluded thai most definitions were biologically sensible and at least neutrally conservative in protecting against recruitment overfishing, although there was room tor improvement especially in terms of the link- age to management actions. 1 he most common definitions of recruitment overfishing were fish- ing mortality rates associated with either 20% or 30% of the maximum spawning biomass per re- cruit (i.e. F,||,-,^ and F,,,,,^, see Appendix 4). Once overfishing definitions were de\'elopcd and accepted, fishery management councils were required to develop and implement rebuilding plans for overfished stocks. Many of these plans were well underway, and some stocks had even been proclaimed "rebuilt" when the Act (MSFCMA) was reauthorized in 1996 (Sustain- able Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297). The MSFCMA introduced several new requirements for specifying objective and measurable criteria for determining overfishing and also introduced new or revised definitions for a number of terms re- lated to limits and targets. Most notably, the MSFCMA redefined optimum yield to be no greater than maximum sustainable yield (Fable 1 ). I he new definition of optimum yield also included the protection of marine ecosystems as a national benefit to be considered in setting targets. In ad- dition, the MSFCMA incorporated the definition of overfishing first presented in the 1989 Guide- lines, and mandated that specific remedial actions be taken to prevent overfishing and rebuild over- fished stocks. The treatment of MSY as a management con- straint in the MSFCMA is consistent with Annex II of the L'.N. Straddling Stocks Agreement (UN, 1995) which states: "Till I ISHINl, MORTALITY RAFF WHICH GFNFRAIFS MAXIMUM SUSIAINABLE YIELD SHOLU D BE RF- CARDFD AS A MINIMUM STANDARD LOR 1 IMIT REFERENCE POINTS." In Ma\' 1998, NMFS published new National Standard Ciuidelines (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 840, p. 24212-24327, Mav 1, 1998) that inter- pret the amended Act (Fable 1 and ihc i.letinition 66 FEATURE ARTICLE 1 THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH of overfishing) and directed that fishery manage- ment plans be amended to require "status deter- mination criteria" that include separate parts tor both the act of overfishing and the condition ot being overfished: "Each FMP must specify, to the extent pos- sible, OBJECTIVE AND MEASURABLE STATUS DETER- MINATION CRITERIA FOR EACH STOCK OR STOCK COMPLEX COVERED BY THAT FMP AND PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA WERE CHOSEN AND HC1W THFY RELATE TO REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL. StATLLS DETERMI- NATION CRITERIA MUST BE EXPRESSED IN A WAY THAT ENABLES THE COUNCIL AND THE SECRETARY TO MONITOR THE STOCK OR ST0C;K COMPLEX AND DETERMINE ANNUALLY WHETHER OVERFISHING IS OCCURRING AND WHETHER THE STOCK OR STt")CK COMPLEX IS OVERFISHED. IN ALL CASES, STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA MUST SPECIFY BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING; (i) A MAXIMUM FISHING MOR- TALITY THRESHOLD OR REASONABLE PROXY THEREOF. ... The FISHING MORTALITY THRESHOLD MUST NOT EXCEED THE FISHING MORTALITY RATE OR LEVEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE RELEVANT MSY CONTROL RULE. EXCEEDING THE FISHING MOR- TALITY THRESHOLD FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR OR MORE CONSTITUTES OVERFISHING, (ii) A MINIMUM STOCK SIZE THRESHOLD OR REASONABLE PROXY THEREOF. ... Should the actual size of the STOCK OR stock COMPLEX IN A GIVEN YEAR FALL BELOW THIS THRESHOLD, THE STC1CK OR STOCK COMPLEX IS (.:ONSIDERED OVERFISHED." The MSFCMA does not explicitly require that OY (the target) be set safely below MSY (the Irmit), which is what would be expected using a Precau- tionary Approach. However, the National Stan- dard Guidelines published in May 1998 recom- mend that the fishery management councils "adopt a Precautionary Approach" to fisheries manage- ment characterized by: "Target reference points, such as OY, should be set safely below limit reference points [i.e., THE OVERFISHING DEFINITIONS] ..." "A STOCK OR STOCK COMPLEX THAI IS BIT OW THE SIZE THAT WOULD PRODUCE MSY SHOULD BE HARVESTED AT A LOWER RATE OR LEVEL OF FISH- ING MORTALITY THAN IF THE STOCK OR STOCK COMPLEX WERE ABOVE THE SIZE THAT WOULD PRO- DUCE MSY." "Criteria used to set target catch levels SHOULD BE explicitly RISK AVERSE, SO TH.W THE GREATER UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE STATUS OR REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE STOCK OR STOCK COMPLEX CORRESPONDS TO A GREATER CAUTION IN SETTING TARGET CATCH LEVELS." HARVEST CONTROL RULES AND REBUILDING Harvest control rules (also called decision rules) are preagreed protocols tor controlling tish- ing activities with respect to stock status and the limit and target reference points. For example, a harvest control rule might specify how the fishing mortality rate (or, equivalently, the allowable catches) should vary as a tunction ot the size ot the stock. The 1996 MSFCMA definition of optimum yield instructs that target catch levels for overfished stocks need to allow for rebuilding to the MSY level (Table 1). More specifically, the MSFCMA requires the fishery management councils to take remedial action to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks to MSY levels very rapidly (gen- eralK' in 10 years or less). The definition of opti- mum yield does not provide much guidance for cases in which an overfished condition is being approached from the opposite direction (i.e. trom a healthy stock condition). However, both the MSFCMA and the National Standards Guidelines detlne overtlshing as a level or rate ot tishing mor- talitv that jeopardizes the capacity ot a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. Under a Precautionary Approach, this im- plies that target catch levels should decrease mono- tonically when a stock is below its MSY level to avoid imperiling the stock's productivity. Figure 2 depicts an example ot limit and tar- tlet harvest control rules that are compatible with the National Standard Guidelines. The limit (solid line) is used to decide what level ot tishing mor- talirv' indicates "overfishing," and when the stock 67 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS 1976 MFCMA 1996 MSFCMA Table 1 Definitions of optimum yield in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (em- phasis added). "... the amount of fish - (A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities, and ". the amount of fish which - (A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. (B) which IS prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from such fishery, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor," (B) IS prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor, and (C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery." is in an "overfi.shed condition." The harvest (tar- get) control rule (dasiied line) is designed to achieve OY, which in this example pertains to maintaining a balance between achieving high yields and avoiding overfishing; it the stock size is below its MSY level, the decreasing target fishing mortality allows tor rebuilding back to the MSY level. Specifying limit and target harvest control rules that are compatible with the National Stan- dard Guidelines can be a complicated exercise that should take into account the biology of the stock(s), the characteristics oi the fisheries (e.g. gear selectiviry), the ability to assess the stock's status and productivity, and the relative importance to be assigned to the various management objectives. Restrepo et al. (1998) provide technical guidance for defining limit and target harvest control rules that arc in accordance with the Guidelines, and where, in the spirit ot the Precautionary Approach, resource conservation takes precedence over other management objectives. RISK AVERSION I he concept ot risk aversion has a lona, theo- retical tradition in fisheries, although it is not tre- qiientl)- applied in practice. Risk-averse manage- ment means that when there is greater uncertainty regarding the status or productive capacit\' ot a stock, greater caution is used in setting target catch levels. In the context of the Precautionary Ap- proach, risk-aversion is the mechanism tor revers- ing the burden ot proof For example, consider the case in which man- agers wished to define the average OY as landings close to MSY, MSY being a limit reference point (not to be exceeded with any substantial probabil- ity) and OY being the target reference point (to be achieved on average). A risk- averse Precaution- ar\' Approach would set OY below MSY as a func- tion ot iincertaint)', viz: the greater the uncertainrv, the greater the distance between the two. In this example, onh- in the case ot pertect knowledge (tor both MSY and stock status) and pertect compli- ance could OY be set exactly at MSY. In the ex- ample ot Figure 2, the 2S'!'b ditterence between the limit and target at high stock si/cs provides tor a safety margin to guard against uncertainty in perceived stock status, in implementation ot man- agement controls, and in natural abundance fiuc- tuations. Scientific analvses underpin the Precaution- ary Approach in that they are- the basis for deter- mining reference points, assessing stock abundance and exploitation levels, quantif\'ing uncertainty, and assessing the risk associated with different management options. I he second National Stan- dard in the MSFGMA states that: 68 FEATURE ARTICLE 1 THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH "Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific in- formation available." To the extent that seientific research can re- duce uncertainties, the distance between targets and limits can be reduced when using a Precau- tionary Approach to management. CONCLUSION Tai (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1997c,d) as a result ol regulatory measures. A more detailed description of these changes is contained in the feature article on the rebuilding of New England groundtish stocks. Summer flounder, one of the most valuable groundfish species in the Mid-Atlantic area, is the focus of both commercial and recreational fisher- ies, with about 60% of the landings commercial and 40% recreational. I'rior to the implementa- tion of management measures in 1 988, stock abun- dance had been steadily declining and fishing mor- tality rates had been excessively high. However, spawning stock biomass subsequently increased over threefold from 1989 to 1996 (Northeast Fish- eries Science Center, 1997e,f), and fishing mor- tality has declined, particularly after 1992 when greatly reduced target fishing mortality rates for 'Two nut of four slocks o) \eiln\vtail flounLlcr .uul one out of rvs'o haddock stocks improved. 1993 and subsec]uent years were adopted. Land- ings have remained relatively steady at about 10,000 t annually during 1990-97, compared with a long-term potential \'icld of 24,500 t (Table 1- Dogfish and Skates Dogfish and skates are a significant part ot the aggregate groundfish stock biomass in the North- east (Figure 1-2). Of the two dogfishes (spiny and smooth), the spiny dogfish is dominant by far. Seven species of skates, including little, winter, barndoor, clearnose, thorny, rosette, and smooth, occur on the Northeast shelf — winter, little, and thorny skates account for most ot the landings. Skate and spiny dogfish landings underwent a marked increase from 2,900 t in 1978 to .51 ,500 t in 1992, increasing further to record high levels of 42,500 t in 1996. Recent annual landings aver- aged 34,600 t (Table 1-1). Discards of both spe- cies in fishing activities directed towards other spe- cies are thought to be equivalent to the amounts landed. Abundance of skates and dogfish increased throLighout the 1970's and 1980's, peaked in 1990, and declined each year since (Figure 1-2). Despite these recent declines, overall abundance of skates and dogfish continues to remain high, although a 1997 assessment (Northeast Fisheries Science Cen- ter, 1998a,b) indicated that the biomass of ma- ture female spin\' dogfish had decreased by over 50% from a peak in 1989 to 1997 and that the stock is overexploited. Other Finfish Other groundfish species taken primarily as bycatch in the tlulf of Maine include goosefish, white hake, ocean pout, cusk, wolffish, and At- lantic halibut. In Southern New England, ocean pout are taken as bycatch, while goosefish are pri- marilv taken in directed fisheries. In the Mid-At- lantic, goosefish, scup, weakfish, black sea bass, spot, tilefish, and several others are landed either in directed fisheries or as bycatch. As a group, they can be characterized generally as overexploited, with recent annual landings totaling 47,575 t (Table 1 - 1 ); individually, some have landings well below their lont;-term maximum as a result of be- 92 UNIT 1 NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES ing depleted, while For others (e.g. goosefish), re- cent landings have been well in excess ot their long- term maximum as a consequence of overexploita- tion. Most of these stocks are managed implicitly with other species included in various fishery man- agement plans. For example, white hake, goosefish, cusk, wolffish, and Atlantic halibut are taken in various groundfish fisheries regulated under the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan. Scup and black sea bass represent major com- ponents of the summer flounder directed fishery, and those three species are managed under a single fishery management plan. Weakfish, a stock that has responded well to management controls (un- der an ASMFC fishery management plan) has ex- perienced a recent substantial decline in fishing mortality and increase in stock biomass (North- cast Fisheries Science Center, 1998a, b). In recent years, goosefish has become one ot the most important species in the Northeast re- gion. U.S. landings increased from a yearly aver- age of around 300 t during 1964-72 to about 8,800 t during 1980-88, and then continued to climb to a record high of 28,800 t, valued at $35 million, in 1997 making it the top-ranked dem- ersal species in both landings and value in the Northeast region. The recent average yield was 27,900 t (Table 1-1). This dramatic increase in landings resulted from a diversion of fishing el- fort and attention caused by the decline in abun- dance of the principal groundfish and flounders as well as increased market demand and prices. As a consequence, goosefish abundance has dropped to low levels and the stock is now overexploited (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1997a,b). The growth of this fishery has prompted developrhent of regulations to control both landings and the size ol fish landed. Since landings occur both from directed fishing (primarily by otter trawls and gillnets) and as bycatch from fishing directed to- wards many other species, regulatory measures be- ing developed under a joint New England Coun- cil and Mid-Atlantic Council Goosefish Fishery Management Plan are extensive and complicated. _^ . ^ Southern ^,. .^-^ New England •^"^^^^^^ Nantucket Lightship Closed Area - ISSUES Management Concerns L'ntil the early 1990's, New t^^ngland ground- fish harvests were regulated by indirect controls on fishing mortality, such as mesh and minimum fish size restrictions and some area closures. How- ever, as a result of litigation filed by the Conserva- tion Law Foundation and the Massachusetts Audubon Society, which significantly raised pub- lic awareness and concern and stimulated demands lor strong action to eliminate overfishing and re- store depleted stocks of cod, haddock, and yel- lowtail flounder, regulatory measures since 1994 have been more stringent and focused. Amend- ment 3 to the NEFMC's Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, implemented in March 1994, marked the beginning of an etlort reduction pro- gram to address the requirement to eliminate the overfished condition of cod and yellowtail floun- der in 5 years and haddock in 10 years. The regu- latory package included a moratorium on new vessel entrants, a schedule of reduction in days at sea for trawl and gillnet vessels, increases in regu- lated mesh size, and expanded closed areas to pro- Figure 1-3 Areas closed year-round to protect New England ground- fish. 93 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS reduced trip limits and area closures to achieve management objectives tor cod in the Gult ot Maine (i.e. reduce landmgs and hshing mortahty to target levels). The joint MAFMC-ASMFC Summer Floun- der Fishery Management Plan, mitiallv approved in 1988 but subsequently modified by a series oi amendments, has a strategy to reduce fishing mor- tality to F ,' the level chosen as the overfishing definition for this stock. Fhe Summer Flounder Plan uses commercial catch quotas, allocated by state and season, and recreational harvest limits and possession size limits to achieve these man- agement goals. Increased recruitment levels, com- bined with lower fishing mortality rates during 199.^-96, have resulted in increased biomass. Goosefish. tect haddock. The objective of the plan was to gradually eliminate the overfished condition of cod, yellowtail flounder, and haddock over 5-7 years. Since December 1 994, three large areas (i.e. Closed Areas I and 11 on Georges Bank and Nan- tucket Lightship Closed Area) (Figure 1-3) have been closed through emergency action by the Sec- retary of Commerce to protect the regulated groundfish, particularly spawning fish. In view of a Special Advisory on Groundfish Status on Georges Bank (Northeast Fisheries Science Cen- ter, 1994), based on new assessments which indi- cated that the stocks of haddock and vellowtail flounder had already collapsed and that cod was in imminent danger of also collapsing, Amend- ment 7 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Man- agement Plan was developed and implemented (in 1996) to accelerate the existing days-at-sea reduc- tion schedule established in Amendment 5 and impose other tighter restrictions, including three closed areas in the Gulf of Maine, in order to re- duce fishing mortality to the F^^ | level." Since 1994, the Multispecies Plan has been modified by a series of framework adjustments, with Frame- work 25 (implemented in April 1998) imposing ''F,, J and F^^^ are rwo reference rates oi fishing mortality used in fisheries management (see Appendix 4). F^^^ maximizes the amount of yield from the average recruit to the stocli; Fjj | results in nearly as much yield per recruit bur is more conser- vative than F Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction Significant catches are taken from transbound- ary stocks of Atlantic cod, haddock, and pollock from Canadian waters of Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. In 1997, 18% of the cod, 64% of the haddock, and 73% of the pollock landings were taken by Canadian fishermen. Management regu- lations employed by the two countries, although different, are based on a common objective of maintaining fishing mortality at or below F|, ,. 1 here is coordination of stock assessment activi- ties between the countries, and beginning in 1 998, the two countries embarked on a joint process for annually performing and peer reviewing the as- sessments of these transboundary stocks. I he two countries will, however, continue to independently prepare management advice on the basis of jointly prepared and reviewed assessments. 1 here is no formal joint management of these shared resources, although regular informal discussions take place berween government officials, managers, and in- dustry representatives of the r^vo countries. Economics Rebuilt stocks eventually will provide increased net benefits to producers and consumers, but in the short term, effort reductions will curtail rev- enues to fishermen and may raise prices to con- sumers. Recent analyses (New F^ngland Fishery Management (xiuncil, 1997) indicate that fish- 94 UNIT 1 NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES ing mortality rates in 1997 for the Georges Bank stocks ot cod, haddock, and yellowtaii floiuider and the Southern New England stock of yellow- tail were at or below the overfishing definitions for those stocks and below the more restrictive Amendment 7 targets (F^j) tor all but Georges Bank cod. For Gulf of Maine cod, however, fish- ing mortalirv' in 1 997 was well above both the over- fishing definition and the target (F ). Substan- ^ t' MUX tial reductions in fishing effort have occurred in the New England area in recent years. For example, the total number of limited access permitted ves- sels with individual days-at-sea allocations declined from 197 in 199S to 162 in 1997, and the total davs at sea allocated to these vessels declined from 37,320 in 1 995 to 1 8,293 in 1 997. The fixed-gear sector was brought into the limited access category in 1996, and the total number of days allocated to the fleet days-at-sea category decreased from 187,372 in 1996 to 109,888 in 1997. In addition to these reductions in days at sea for fishing ves- sels, a vessel buyout program, authorized by the Secretary of Commerce and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, was initiated in 1995, first as a pilot project and later as a comprehensive fishing capacity re- duction project. The program was designed to pro- vide economic assistance to fishermen adversely affected by the collapse of the groundfish fishery and who voluntarily chose to remove their vessels permanently from the fishery, while helping fish stocks recover to a sustainable level by reducing the excess fishing capacity in the Northeast. The vessel buyout program, which concluded early in 1998, removed 79 fishing vessels at a cost of nearly $25 million and resulted in an approximate 20% reduction in fishing effort in the Northeast groundfish fishery. The ultimate net benefits of all these effort reductions for the Northeast groundfish resources will be both positive and sub- stantial to the Nation as a whole. Progress Considerable progress in the development and implementation of management alternatives for the Northeast demersal resources has been made since 1994. The implemented measures include reductions in days at sea, increased min imum me. esh sizes, a moratorium on new vessels, expanded closed areas to fishing (Figure 1-3), and trip limirs for depleted cod and haddock stocks. An annual review provision allows the level of effort reduc- tion measures to be changed, depending on the actual state of fishing mortality relative to plan targets. Mandatory reporting systems for North- east resources have been developed to better moni- tor the performance of the fishery. New assess- ipents for principal species including cod, had- dock, and yellowtaii flounder have documented patterns of fishing mortality, discarding, and re- cruitment, and form the basis for additional regu- latory proposals. Fishing effort in the Northeast demersal fish- eries has been reduced substantially since 1994 when Amendment ^ to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan became effective. Be- ginning in March 1994, Amendment 5 introduced a phased-in, 5-year, 50% reduction in days at sea, and expanded Closed Area II on the Northeast Peak of Georges Bank. Closed Areas 1 and II were closed on a vear-round basis by emergency action in December 1994, and the closures became per- manent following implementation of Framework 9 in April 1995. Amendment 7, which became effective in July 1 996, incorporated the essential features of Amendment S and Framework 9. Amendment 7 introduced further restrictions on days at sea to cover fixed-gear as well as mobile- gear sectors, accelerated the days-at-sea reduction schedule, and adopted biomass targets. These tar- Winter flounder. 9 5 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Juvenile skate from research trawl catch, Georges Bank. gets were keyed to rcliiiildint; the spawning stock through hshing niort.iht\' levels well below the 20% maximum spawning potential overfishing definition. Annual adjustments to the allowed days at sea are determined by monitoring a series of target total allowable catches keyed to the fishing mortality rates. Management ol" the summer flounder stock has proceeded with a goal oi reducing hshing mor- tality to F .A series of state-by-state allocations of the annual quota has been the primary regula- tory measure. With improved recruitment, coupled with reduced fishing mortality, catch rates lor the commercial and recreational sectors im- proved during 199.3-96. Lower fishing mortality rates and slightly improved recruitment will re- sult in increased landings and a rebuilding of the spawning stock biomass and its age structure (cur- rently comprised primarily ot fish aged 2 years or younger). LITERATURE CITED Mayo, R. K., M. J. Hogarry, and K M. Serchuk. 1992. Aggregate fish biomass and yield on Georges Bank, 1 960-87. loLirnal oF Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Sci- ence UiSV-yS. New Lngl.iiul I'ishery Management Council. 1997. Report ot the New England Fishery Management C^ouncil's Multispecies Monitoring Committee. Northeast Fishery Management Council, Saugus, Massachusetts, ')8 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1994. Isepori ot the 1 8th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (18th SAW), the Plenary Northeast Fisheries Science C'enter Reference [document 94-2.3, Woods Flole, Ma.ssachusetts, 71 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 1997a. Report of the 23rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (23rd SAW) Stock Assessment Review Com- mittee (SARC^) Consensus Summary of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment ')7-()S, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, l')l p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997b. Report of the 23rd Northcist Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (23rd SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Oocument 97-06, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 40 p. Northcist Fisheries Science Center. l')97c. Report ot the 24th Northeast Rcgi 100 years) and slowest growing marine bivalves in the world. Current annual landings (recent av- Figure 4-2 Atlantic sea scallop landings by the United States and Canada, 1940-97. 1 1 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Atlantic longfin squid. erage yield is 2 1 ,200 t, Table 4- 1 ) can be sustained tor the next 54-76 years in existing fishable areas (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1998c,d). Over the past two decades, ocean quahog fisher- ies have moved progressively northward from the Mid-Atlantic Bight to Southern New England. Large resources still exist off Southern New En- gland and on Georges Bank, but portions of these areas cannot be easily fished with existing tech- nology due to depth or bottom type. Northern Shrimp Gulf ot Maine northern shrimp are at the southern extent of their geographical range, and abundance is generally associated with low water temperatures. Northern shrimp are harvested us- ing small-mesh trawls and inshore traps. The fish- ery began as an inshore winter fishery, but ex- panded during the 1 960's to a year-round offshore fishery until the stock collapsed in the 1 970's, fol- lowing peak landings of 12,800 t in 1969, which prompted a closure of the fishery. A restricted sea- ■sonal fishery resumed in the 1980's. Landings have increased substantially since 1 994, peaked at 9,500 t in 1996, declined to 6,400 t in 1997, and aver- aged 7,600 t during 1995-97 (Table 4-1). In re- sponse to concerns that the stock cannot sustain recent increases in fishing effort, which were asso- ciated with restrictions on the groundfish trawl fishery, a new analytical assessment was completed in 1997 (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1997c,d) which indicated that the stock is cur- rently at a low level of biomass and the fishing mortality rate exceeds sustainable levels. Longfin Inshore Squid Longfin inshore squid form commercially sig- nificant aggregations that sustain otter trawl and trap fisheries from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras, N.C. Recent research shows that longfin squid gen- erally live for less than 1 year, grow rapidly, and spawn year-round. The original fishery began in the 1 8()()'s as a bait fishery, and a valuable market tor human consumption developed in the 1960's. Annual landings fluctuate widely because squid generations have little overlap from year to year, and seasonal dynamics are sensitive to environ- mental factors. Fishing patterns rcfiect the seasonal distribution of the stock — offshore from October to March, then inshore from April to September. In recent years, most landings were taken in the offshore fishery. The most recent stock assessment of longfin squid (Northeast Fisheries Science (Cen- ter, ! 996c, d) indicated that the stock was fully ex- ploited and at an above-average biomass level. Recent average landings were 15,600 t (Table 4- l),with 16,200 t landed in 1997 which generated $26 million 111 ex-vessel revenue. Northern Shortfin Squid Northern shortfin squid are fished commer- cially from Cape Hatteras, N.C, to Newfound- land, Can., and are considered a single stock throughout that range. Ihis species exhibits rapid growth, has a lifespan of about 1 year, and under- goes long-distance migrations. Both its distribu- tion and annu.il .ihundance are strongly influenced by oceanographic factors. The domestic fishery generally occurs during summer and autumn in offshore waters south of New Jersey and is con- ducted by otter trawl vessels, the larger of which freeze the whole squid at sea, while the smaller vessels deliver fresh squid. A robust distant-water fishery existed during the 1 970's and 1 980"s, with the bulk of the landings occurring oft Canada. Peak international landings of nearly 180,000 t were taken in 1979, 90% of which were from Cana- dian waters. This fishery subsequently collapsed 1 1 2 UNIT 4 NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES in the early 1980's, and annual landings during 1983-96 averaged only about 3,300 t, but dem- onstrated a significant increase to 1 5,400 t in 1997. U.S. landings increased steadily from 1988 to a record high of 18,3^0 t in 1994, but they have dropped somewhat to a recent average yield ol 14,900 t (Table 4-1). This decline has been due primarily to a weak export market. The stock was classified as fully utilized and at a medium level ot biomass when it was last assessed (Northeast Fish- eries Science Center, 1996c,d). ISSUES AND PROGRESS Individual Transferable Quota An individual transferable quota system tor the surlclam and ocean quahog hsheries was imple- mented in 1990 (Amendment 8 to the fishery management plan). This system eliminated the need lor complex restrictions on the amount of etlort and time each vessel could fish, which had been characteristic ot the management system under the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council since 1977. As a consequence ot the in- dividual transferable quota, the number of vessels in the surfclam fleet has decreased substantially, with a reduction from about 160 to fewer than 100 vessels in the first year alone. Further consoli- dation ot fishing eftort, as well as construction of new and more efficient vessels to reduce overhead, is expected in the tuture. Fewer than 60 vessels are now used to fish tor both surtclams and ocean quahogs. Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Considerable progress has been made in the past several years in assessing the status of many of the exploited invertebrate stocks ot the North- east region. In 1996, an independent panel of in- ternationally recognized scientists, convened by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), reviewed and endorsed the scientific basis tor the existing overfishing definition for lobsters and the validity of current assessment methods. This panel ottered a number of recommendations for im- provements (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com- mission, 1996). A major benchmark assessment of American lobsters followed later in 1996 (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1996a) and employed length-based cohort analysis, lite-his- tory-stage-based population estimation models, and an improved egg-production-per-recruit model as the basis tor management advice. In 1 997, a major breakthrough was made in the abil- ity to provide reliable swept-area estimates of surfclam and ocean quahog populations from re- search vessel dredge surveys as a result of success- fijl NMFS-academia-industry tield experiments to estimate efficiency ot the research dredge and im- proved capability to monitor dredge performance (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1998a). Also in 1997, a first-time analytical assessment of Gulf of Maine northern shrimp was conducted inte- grating catch and survey abundance indices into estimates of stock size and fishing mortality rates (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 1997c). Management Controls Fishing mortality on sea scallops is well above the level defined as constituting overfishing. In 1994, the New England Fishery Management Council implemented Amendment 4 to the fish- ery management plan which was aimed at reduc- ing fishing mortality on sea sctllops. Measures in- cluded provisions to reduce fishing effort through days-at-sea reductions and a moratorium on new vessel entrants, while removing the meat count re- quirement. Meat count regulations did not con- trol the overall rate of fishing mortality, but redi- rected mortalirv onto older scallops. To reduce fish- ing mortality rates on smaller scallops, the mini- mum ring diameter in the chain bag at the end ot the scallop dredges was increased to 3-1/2 inches (87.5 mm). This was intended to compensate for the removal ot the meat count requirement by re- ducing fishing mortality on small scallops. Given the current overfished status ot the sea scallop re- source, the New England Fishery Management Council is currently considering additional man- agement measures for reducing fishing mortality, protecting undersized scallops in the Mid-Atlan- tic region by means of closed areas, and possibly allowing limited scalloping in the three ground- 1 1 3 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Lobster traps, Boothbay. Maine. fish closure areas in the Georges Bank-Nantucket Shoals region. To comply with the overfishing definition, the fishing mortality rate of the lobster fishery needs to be reduced significantly. Recent increases in landings stem from increased effort and apparent increases in abundance most likely due to favor- able environmental conditions for the survival of pre-recruits. The lobster fishery is almost exclu- sively supported by animals recently molted, most of which are not sexually mature. At present, American lobster populations are regulated pri- marily by a minimimi carapace length set at 3- 1 /4 inches (81.3 mm). Amendment 3 to the Ameri- can Lobster Fishery Management Plan, approved in December 1997, incorporates effort reduction and area management and contains regulations on minmiiini and maximimi landing sizes, prohibi- tion of berried and v-notched' female lobsters, lim- its on gauge size, trap sizes and numbers, limits on nontrap fishermen landings, and requirements for biodegradable mesh panels and escape vents in traps. U.S. management effort continues to be complicated by the international trade in live lob- sters from Canada. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis- sion regulates the northern shrimp fishery in the 'V-notchint; is .i ni.irk inscribed on thtf cirapaccs of hcrricil fcm.ilcs so that they will lie retopnizcd .is female and released, even when not carr\inj; ei;gs. Culf of Maine. Regulations control the duration of the harvesting season (December to May) and gear specifications. However, the fishery has open access, and an overfishing threshold is not defined by the current fishery management plan despite concerns that the stock is overfished. Fhe Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Coun- cil develops management measures tor squids un- der provisions of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Manage- ment targets for both species of squid were recently reevaluated according to new research results on life history parameters. Research continues to im- prove our understanding of squid growth, matu- rity, and reproductive dynamics to better assess ap- propriate levels of sustainable fishing. Fhe United States, which loined the Northwest Atlantic Fish- eries Organization at the end of 1995, is actively promoting efforts to implement more realistic management goals for this species. Real-time man- agement of both squid species is desirable to avoid recruitment overfishing during periods of poor recruitment and to maximize landings during pe- riods of good recruitment. Surfclams and ocean quahogs have been man- aged since 1977 and by individual transferable quotas since I')9() (Amendment 8 to the fishery management plan). In 1996, Amendment 9 changed overfishing definitions for both species from a maximum sustainable \ield basis to a m;ixi- miim spawning potential basis. Amendment 10, currently under consideration, will specify man- agement regulations for an ocean quahog fishery off the coast of Maine. Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions Bycatch and associated discard of groundfish in the Culf of Maine trawl fishery for northern shrimp, which had earlier been considerable, has been reduced following the adoption of a fish-ex- cluding device, the "Nordmore Crate," as a con- dition of participation in this fishery. Sea sampling efforts continue to monitor this fishery. Bycatch of goosefish and flounder in the sea scallop fish- ery continues to be a concern as a source of fish- ing mortality on these stocks as a whole, and par- ticularly on very small fish. Scalloping, either by dredges or otter trawls, is prdhibited in se\'eral large 1 1 4 UNIT 4 NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES areas of Southern New England and Georges Bank which have been closed since December 1994 to assist in rebuilding depleted stocks ot cod, had- dock, and vellowtail flounder. LITERATURE CITED Atlantic States Matine Fisheries Commission. 1996. A review of the population dynamics of American lob- ster in the Northeast. Atlantic States Marine Fisher- ies Commission Special Report 61 , Washington, D.C., 48 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1996a. Report ot the 22nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (22nd SAW) Stock Assessment Review Com- mittee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment 96-1.^, Woods Flole, Massachusetts, 242 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1996b. Report ol the 22nd Northeast Regional Stock As,se,ssment Work- shop (22nd SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 96- 16, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 4S p. Northe,ist Fisheries Science Center. 199(il. Report ol the 21st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (21st SAW) Stock Assessment Review Commit- tee (SARC) Consensus Summary ot Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment 96-OSd, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 200 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1996d. Report of the 2 1st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (21st SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference L^ociiment '■Hi- OSh, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 50 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997a. Report ot the 23rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (2,^rd SAW) Stock Assessinent Review Commit- tee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessmenrs. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- menr 97-05, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 191 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997b. Report of the 23rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (23rd SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 97- 06, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 40 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997c. Report ot the 2'Sth Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (25th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Commit- tee (SARC) Consensus Summarv of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment 97-14, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 143 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1997d. Report of the 25th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (25th SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 97- 1 'i. Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 45 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1998a. Report ot the 26th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (26th SAW) Srock Assessment Review Commit- tee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment 98-03, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 283 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1998b. Report of the 26th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (26th SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98- 04, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 44 p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1998c. Report of the 27th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (27th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Commit- tee (SARC) Consensus Summarv of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Docu- ment 98-15, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 3'>U p. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1998d. Report of the 27th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Work- shop (27th SAW) Public Review Workshop. North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98- 14, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 78 p. 1 1 5 Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries INTRODUCTION Oceanic pelagic fish are highly migratory spe- cies that include swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellow- fin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore, skipjack tuna, blue and white marlin, sailfish, longbill spearfish, and others. In the Atlantic Ocean, swordfish and blue- fin tuna have long provided important fisheries, while in recent years yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna have increased in significance to U.S. fisher- men. Many recreational anglers target yellowfin and bluefin tuna, blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish in U.S. waters and occasionally longbill spearfish. All commercial retention of the latter tout billfish species is now banned in U.S. waters; however, they are still incidentally caught in tuna and swordfish longline fisheries. Because these large pelagic fish migrate widely and are harvested over broad ocean areas by U.S. and foreign fishermen, bt)th national and inter- national management measures are necessary. In all cases, stock assessments are conducted using aggregate data and provide the basis for regula- tions. U.S. fleets operate in the western Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gull ol Mexico. These fleets are regulated under the M.ignuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, which pro- vides authority to implement international agree- ments reached by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). A draft Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for At- lantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish, and Amend- ment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP (which addresses blue niarlm, white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish) were proposed in 1 998 and are slated to be finalized in 1999. Management of Atlantic tu- nas and swordfish has been based largely on rec- Unit 5 STEVE TURNER NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Florida Bluefin tuna. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 5-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of highly migra- tory pelagic fisheries in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean Species and area Recent average yield (RAY)'- Current potential yield (CPY)3 Long-term potential yield (LTPY)3 Fishery utilization level Stock level relative to LTPY Yellowfin tuna (Atlantic) 137,500 -137,500 147,500-155,800 Full Near Bigeye tuna (Atlantic) 100,700 60,000-80,000 70,000-90,000 Over Below Albacore (N, Atlantic) 31,900 Unknown 32,000 Over Below Skipiack tuna (W Atlantic) 27,100 Unknown Unknown Possibly full Near Bluetin tuna (W Atlantic) 2,300 2,000-2,500 2,800-7,700 Over Below Other tunas (Atlantic) 31,900 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Swordfish (N Atlantic) 14,800 1 1 ,400 13,000 Over Below Blue marlin (Atlantic) 4,100 1,920 4,500 Over Below White marlin (Atlantic) 1,600 900 2,200 Over Below Sailfish (W Atlantic) 900 600 700 Over Below Total 352,800 315,470 348,300 US subtotal 18,300 16,400 18,100 'Total LTPY, CPY, and RAY under present tistiing patterns by U S and foreign nationals. '1995-97 average from ICCAT I1998al (1994-96 average used for billlishesi 3|CCAT (In press (a)) ■"Individual LTPY's, CPY's and RAY's based on entire stock regardless of harvesting nation Catch of yellowfin tuna, Manteo, North Carolina. onimciidations by ICCAT and implemented via regulatory articles under the Atlantic lunas Con- vention. ICCAT has set and allocated western Miierni tuna quotas by country since l'^)82 and eastern bluefin quotas since 1 994. ICCAT first es- tablished catch limitations for north Atlantic swordfish in 19')1 and south Atlantic swordfish in 1994; country-specific quotas have since been adopted for both stocks. SPECIES AND STATUS From the early 1960's through 1977, U.S. fish- ermen caught an average of about 5,000 metric tons (t) per year (2,000-12,000 t/year) of the highly migratory pelagic species (Figure 'i-1). During the late 1970's and early 1980's, U.S. fish- ermen caught 8,000 t or more per year, and since 1985 they have caught 1 5,000-20,000 t/year. The U.S. share ot current potential yield for the highly migratory pelagic resource is 16,400 t/year, and long-term potential vielci to the U.S. fleet is esti- mated at 18,100 t/year (Table 5-1) (ICCAT, 1998a). Since l')(i(), the top species b\' volume in the U.S. harvest has changed from bluefin tuna to swordfish to yellowfin tuna (Figure 5-1) as each species declined due to fishing pressure and U.S. fishing effort shifted. Durint: 1961-7.1, bluefin tuna represented 45-80% of the U.S. western At- lantic catch of large pelagics. But since 1980, the percentage has dropped to less than 15%, reflect- ing the decline in the bluefin tuna population, catch restrictions, and the increasing harvests of alternative species. During 1961-73, swordfish represented 5-20% of the U.S. catch, rose to 65% in 1982, but has since dropped to about 25%. During 1961-83, the percentage of yellowfin tuna in the U.S. north Atlantic catch was usually less than 10%, but that has since risen to 35-45%). 1 1 8 UNIT 5 ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES The U.S. dockside ex-vessel revenue from these fishes soared from about $20 milhon (early 1980's) to nearly $100 million in 1988. The average an- nual commercial ex-vessel value has continued at about this level since. Angler harvests ol large pelagic hshes are esti- mated from dockside and telephone surveys. The average annual catch by recreational anglers tor 1995-97 is estimated conservatively at 7,500 t. Fishing tournament surveys indicate a substantial increase in billfish fishing since 1972. Although the practice of tagging and releasing of large pelagics has grown in recent years, more data are needed to quantity the recreational fishery trends for these fishes in U.S. Atlantic and Ciult ot Mexico waters. The value ot the recreational fisheries tor highly migratory species has not been estimated tor all species; however, preliminary estimates in- dicate that they are highly valued. NMFS has classified the following Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) as overfished: west Atlantic bluefin tuna, north Atlantic swordfish, bigeye tuna, blue marlin, white marlin, and sail- fish. Other oceanic pelagics in the HMS FMP are considered fully fished. The HMS FMP and Bill- fish Amendment include rebuilding plans for the overfished species as well as measures designed to maintain healthy stocks at the optimum yield. Catch ot blue and white marlin by domestic and toreign fleets has resulted in overharvesting these stocks. Fishing mortalit}' rates on swordfish have been excessive in recent years, prompting the de- velopment ot international agreements to substan- tially reduce catches beginning in 1991. U.S. har- vests since July 1991 are consistent with ICCAT's recommendations designed to reduce the risk ot further declines. While yellowfin and bigeye tu- nas are tully and over utilized respectively, no catch quotas are in place tor either ot these species. Western Atlantic bluetin tuna have been overhar- vested to the point of being severely depleted, and as a result the harvest of this species has been re- stricted since 1982. The most recent assessment indicates that current quotas may result in a gradual rebuilding of the spawning stock in the future. Landings (t) 25 - Total landings Percentage of landings Bluefin % Swordfish % _J_ 75 80 Year ISSUES Transboundary Stocks Regulation of species that migrate across in- ternational boundaries is difficult. Domestic regu- lation without international agreements inherently is limited, but international agreements can be difficult to achieve. The latter is particularly true it the primary fishing nations cannot agree on fish- ing and conservation objectives, or do not abide by agreements once they are adopted. An addi- tional problem is that not all fishing nations are members of ICCAT. The recent United Nations agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly mi- gratory fish stocks may help to resolve these prob- lems. Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions Marlin and sailfish bycatch in tuna and sword- fish fisheries are a major concern, especially as commercial fisheries encounter concentrations of billfish important to recreational anglers. Expan- sion of the U.S. longline fishery tor Cult ot Mexico yellowfin tuna and Spanish longline fishing in the tropical eastern Atlantic have heightened concern for distressed stock ot Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and the billfish sought by recreational anglers. 70 60 Figure 5-1 Landings in metric tons (t) and percentage of landings of bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, and swordfisfi in U.S. waters of tfie Atlantic Ocean, 1961-96. 1 19 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Albacore tuna, Hudson Can- yon, off New Jersey-New York coast. Domestic Management Although the number of permits for large pelagies increased substantially during the 1990s, actual levels of effort m the longline fishery have declined in recent years. NMFS has proposed a limited access system for the swordfish, shark, and tima longline fisheries as part of the draft HMS FMP in order to reduce latent effort and prevent future expansion of these fleets. Progress In recent years scientists from the United States and several other nations have made substantial progress towards improving our understanding of the biological basis for managing Atlantic highly migratory fisheries. Analyses of the genetic struc- ture of Atlantic and Mediterranean swordfish have been completed and have corroborated some of the stock structure assumptions made by ICCA'l'. Genetic studies of other large pelagic species, and bluetni tuna in particular, are underway. Addi- tional studies of bluefln tuna stock structure us- ing various tagging methods and biological mark- ers are in various stages of implementation. Sev- eral years of research on the growth and reproduc- tive biology of male and female swordfish is being used to increase the understanding of the effect of fishing on the north Atlantic and Mediterranean management units. At recent ICX^AT meetings (1996-98), several recommendations and resolu- tions have been adopted that, if fully implemented, will result in substantial progress in conserving stocks and achieving the following management objectives: 1 ) adoption of recovery plans and re- building strategies for bluefln tuna and swordfish, 2) establishment of country-specific quotas lor swordfish and eastern bluefln tuna, 3) reduction of blue and white marlin catches, and 4) adoption of measures facilitating the monitoring of catch by both member and nonmeniber countries, and the use of trade measures tor nonmeniber nations that fish in a manner that diminishes the effec- tiveness of management measures (ICCAT, 1997, 1998b, and In press (b)). At the domestic level, discussions on proce- dures to establish limited access for some large pelagies are currently well underway. LITERATURE CITED ICCAT. I')47. Report for the biennial period, 1996- 1997, Part I (1996), vol. 1. International Commis- sion for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, M.idrid, Spain, 187 p. ICCAT. 1998a. TunaStat-PC, Release 5097/98, No- vember 1998, International t'ommission for the Con- servation 111 Atlantic liinas. Corazon de Mari.i 8-6°, Madrid :8()()(), Spain. ICCAT. 1998b. Report for the biennial period 1996- 1997, Part II (1997), vol. 1. International Commis- sion for the Conservation ol Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain, 228 p. ICCAT. In press (a). Report of the Meeting of Stand- ing (Committee on Research and Statistics. Report for the biennial period 1998-1999 P.irt II (1999), vol. 2, International Commission tor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain. ICCAl. In press (h). Report tor the bicnm.il period 1998-1999 Part II (1998), vol. 1. International Com- mission tor the Conservation of Atlaniie liinas, Madrid, Spain. 1 20 Atlantic Shark Fisheries Unit 6 JOHN POFFENBERGER NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Florida INTRODUCTION Sharks have been managed under a Federal fisher- ies management plan (FMP) developed by the Na- rional Marine Fisheries Service for the Secretary of Commerce since 1993 (NMFS, 1993, 1996). Since then, management activities tor shark spe- cies have escalated and currentlv inckide annual shark evaluation workshops and meetings ol the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel. A draft Fishery Management Plan tor tunas, sharks, and swordfish was proposed in 1998, and will be ti- nalized in 1999 (NMFS, 1998). This new frame- work will replace the 1993 shark FMP Species and Status Currently, Atlantic shark fisheries are divided into three management groups: 1 ) Large coastal sharks, which include tiger, lemon, smooth ham- merhead, scalloped hammerhead, great hammer- head, blacktip, sandbar, dusky, spinner, silky, bull, bignose, Caribbean reel, Galapagos, night, narrowtooth, and nurse; 2) small coastal sharks, which include Atlantic and Caribbean sharpnose, finetooth, blacknose, bonnethead, smalltail and Atlantic angel; and 3) pelagic sharks, which in- clude longfin and shortfin mako, blue, porbeagle, thresher, bigeve thresher, oceanic whitetip, sevengill, sixgill, and bigeve sixgill. Of these three management groups, species in the large coastal group are overutilized and, con- sequently, they are the subject ot more intense management attention than the other two groups. In 1997, possession of five additional species of large pelagic sharks was prtihibited (i.e. whale, basking, sand tiger, bigeye sand tiger, and white sharks). Species in the pelagic and small coastal groups are considered to be fully titili/.ed. Rough indications ot the status of these three manage- ment groups are presented in Table 6-1. Determining the quantity of sharks that are School of hammerhead sharks. 1 2 1 Table 6-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of Atlantic sliark fisheries. 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Recent Current Long-term Fishery Stock level average potential potential utilization relative to Specie; and area yield (RAY)' yield (CPY) yield (LTPY) level LTPY Large coastal sharks-' 5,216 4,253 n/a3 Over Below Small coastal sharks'* 685 n/a n/a Full Above Pelagic sharks^ 1,492 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Totals 7.393 6,430 6,430 '1994-96 average ^Includes sandbar, Caribbean reel, blacktip, dusky, spinner, silky, bull, bignose, Galapagos, night, tiger, lemon, nurse, narrowtooth, scalloped, smootin and great hammeriiead sharks -^he LTPY for large coastal shark species by number of individuals is 143-149 ''Includes Atlantic and Caribbean sharpnose, finetooth. blacknose, bonnethead, smalltail, and Atlantic angel sharks ''Includes longfm and shortfin mako, blue, porbeagle, thresher, bigeye thresher, oceanic whilelip. sevengill, sixgill, and bigeye six-gill sharks Whitetip reef sharks. landed in weight measurements is difficult for two reasons. First, weight estimates tor recreational catches are highly variable because a relatively .small number ot animals are measured and weighed by the biologists that collect recreational statistics. Second, a significant amount of the commercial catch is only reported under the general category of "sharks," and the species identification either cannot be or is not reported. As a result, these land- ings are assigned to one of the management groups analytically for statistical purposes. Thus, another set of estimated mean weights per fish for recreational catches or another set of assumptions regarding the allocation of the uni- dentified commercial shark landings is likely to produce different total weights for the recent av- erage yield (RAY). To help minimize some of the effects of these two factors, the landings and catch statistics used in the stock assessments are com- piled in numbers of animals instead of weight mea- surements. Thus, the estimates of long-term po- tential yield (LTPY) in Table 6.f are presented as ranges in numbers of fish. The numbers that were reported landed or dis- carded tor sharks in the large coastal management group tor 1988 through f997 are presented in Figure 6-f. Although fishery statistics for sharks were collected prior to 1988, these earlier statis- tics are not considered as suitable for assessment and management purposes. The decreasing trend in these data is apparent beginning in 1 992; how- ever, estimates of the numbers ot sharks that are discarded by commercial fishing were not avail- able prior to 1993. Also, the data tor 1997 are preliminary and likely to change as the fnial re- views are completed on these data. rhe f996 Shark l-A'aluation Workshop report (SEFSC, 1996) concluded that catch rates of many ot the species and species groups declined by about 50-75% from the early 1970's to the mid 1980's. Flowever, the rapid rate of decline in the cati.li rates that characterized the stocks in the early 1980's had slowed significantly in the 1 990's. Partly based on results from the 1 99(i workshop (SEFSC, 1996), a 50% reduction in catches of large coastal species (i.e. relative to 1995) was tar- geted. This reduction was to be achieved by a 509''(i reduction in the commercial quota tor the large coastal management group and a reduction ot the recreational bag limit to two fish (the previously established recreational bag limit was fotir fish per 1 22 UNIT 6 ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES boat per day). During the 1998 Shark Evaluation Workshop (SEFSC, 1998), preUminary data for 1997 were presented and reviewed, and the indi- cations are that commercial catches, in ninnhcrs oFanimals, were reduced Irom 1995 by more than 50%, but recreational catches were reduced by only 12%. Two important points were recognized at the 1998 workshop (SEFSC, 1998). First, to continue to improve shark stock assessments, it is critical to 1 ) continue to improve species- and size-specific catch (landed and discarded animals) and effort data and 2) improve fishery-independent measures of shark abundance and productivity. Second, it was recognized that every effort should be made to manage shark species separately. New analyses indicate that individual species are responding dif- ferently to exploitation. Thus, management of large coastal aggregates can result in excessive regu- lation on some species and excessive risk of over- fishing on others. The draft highly migratory spe- cies FMP (NMFS, 1998) includes a number of proposed measures for sharks, including the fol- lowing: the addition of fifteen Atlantic sharks to the prohibited species list, the separation of the large coastal shark management group into ridgeback' and non-ridgeback species, a minimum size for ridgeback sharks, a quota reduction for non-ricHgeback sharks, a quota reduction tor small coastal sharks, and catch-and-release only for small coastal sharks and large coastal sharks. The final FMP is slated to be published in 1999. ISSUES Scientific Information and Adequacy of Assessments rhe lack of extensive time series and species-spe- cific landings and effort data continues to be a problem for stock assessments. Without reliable 'A numher of species in the large coastal shark ni.in.i^enicn[ unit are characterized by a mid-dorsal ridge that is easily iden- tified even after the fish has been gutted and finned. This mid-dorsal ridge is useful as diagnostic characteristic lor man- agement and enforcement purposes. Ridgeback sharks in- clude sandbar, dusky, silky, night, and bignose sharks. Non- ndgeback sharks include biackrip, spinner, bull, tiger, nurse, lemon, narrowtooth, and hammerhead sharks. Number of sharks |x 1.000) 1,100 - 1,000 - 900 - 800 - 700 - 600 - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100 - 0 - Landings _L_ 92 93 Year species-defined data and stock assessments, man- agement measures will necessarily continue to be based on species aggregates (e.g. 22 species of large coastal sharks), and they may be more broad- brushed and restrictive than otherwise might be possible. Management Concerns Recreational and commercial fishermen have both voiced concern about declining shark popu- lations. As shark stocks declined before the 1993 FMP was implemented, derby-sryle fishing con- ditions developed in the commercial fisheries ("the race for fish"), and recreational fisheries experi- enced reduced fishing opportunities. Such condi- tions often result in fishermen fishing further in- shore than they might otherwise in order to mini- mize transit time from fishing grounds to off-load- ing sites. Fishing in inshore areas where immature sharks predominate can have several negative eco- logical ramifications, including higher fishing ef- fort and higher catches of immature fish with as- sociated higher effective fishing mottality rates, because more small fish than large fish must be caught to reach the same weight-based quota. Ad- ditionally, concerns about high fishing mortality of juvenile sharks in recreational t^isheries were raised at the 1998 Shark Evaluation Workshop. Figure 6-1 Landings of large coastal sharks. 1988-97, 1 23 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Dressing shark catch near Folly Beach, South Carolina. 'v'^i- |>i— -i3 ^^^f^^^ S--i»''^^ fe<' In both commctLKil .ind rccrc.itioii.il fisheries, spe- cies identification problems continue and may only be remedied through extensive public outreach and educational programs. Progress Considerable progress has been made since the original 1993 Atlantic shark FMI' Since that time (when 98% of commercial landings was reported as "sharks'), mandatory commercial permitting and reporting has increased the level of fishery- dependent species-specific information such that less than 17% of landings are now reported as "sharks. " The National Marine Fisheries Service has also funded an observer program since 1994 in the directed shark fishery that has provided ex- tensive information on species and size composi- tion of catches, disposition of catches, fishing ef- fort and distribution, and bycatch in these fisher- ies. Additionally, several fishery-independent nurs- ery area and tagging studies in the Atlantic and Ciulfof Mexico have been expanded and incorpo- rated into stock assessments. Population model- ing on several species has also contributed sub- stantially to stock assessments. Progress has also been made in both domestic and international management. In the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Services' Highly Migratory Species Management Division is responsible for developing management mea- sures consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation .uul Management Act. To that end, a Highly Migra- tory Species Advisory Panel was formed and is pre- paring a Highly Migratory Species FMP for At- lantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, which will amend the original 1993 shark FMP. fhe new FMP will establish rebuilding programs for the overfished large coastal sharks, prevent overfish- ing on the fully fished pelagic and small coastal sharks, and limit access to the commercial shark fishery. Internationally, the United States contin- ues to play a key role in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Consultation on Shark Conservation and Management. This con- sultation will culminate in a plan of action to guide national, regional, and international science and management under the precautionary approach. LITERATURE CITED NMFS. 1943. Fishery Man,igenicnt Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MI), 20910. 273 p. NMFS. 1996. Our living oceans. Report (in the status of Ll.S. living marine resources, 199S. L'.S. Depart- ment of Cx)mmerce, NOAA lechnieal Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-19, 160 p. NMFS. 1998. Draft Fishery Management Plan tor At- lantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Narion.il Ma- rine Fisheries Service, 1315 Fast- West Highway, Sil- ver Spring, MD, 20910. Volume I, 633 p; Volume 2, 520 p. SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 1996. Report on the Shark Evaluation Workshop, Miami, Florida, |une 1996. Sustainable Fisheries Division, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami. FF 33149. 8(1 p. SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 1998. Report on the Shark Evaluation Workshop, Panama Ciry, Florida, |unc 1996. Sustainable Fisheries Divi- sion, ^5 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FF 33149. 109 p. 1 24 Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Unit 7 NANCIE J CUMMINGS NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Florida INTRODUCTION Coastal pelagic fishes inhabiting waters oft the southeastern United States include king and Span- ish mackerels, cero, dolphinfish, and cobia. These species range in coastal and continental shelf wa- ters from the northeastern United States through the Gulf ot Mexico and the Caribbean Sea and as tar south as Brazil. Coastal pelagics are fast swim- mers that school and feed voraciously, grow rap- idly, mature early, and spawn over many months. U.S. and Mexican commercial fishermen have fished Spanish mackerel since the 1 850's and king mackerel since the 1880's. The Spanish mackerel fishery began off New York and New |ersey but shitted southward through the decades to the southern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf ot Mexico. In 1996, over 90% of the commercial catch was landed in Florida. Although early commercial fish- eries harvested Spanish mackerel by hook and line, nearly all the commercial catch now is taken by runaround gillnet. A recreational tishery also ex- ists for Spanish mackerel and accounts for about 17-40% of all the Gulf stock and 31-51% of the Atlantic stock ot Spanish mackerel landed. King mackerel are fished commercially from Chesapeake Bay southward. Four major produc- tion areas exist: North Carolina, Florida east coast (Cape Canaveral to Palm Beach), the Florida Keys, and otf Grande Isle, La. The Louisiana fishery began in the early 1 980's; the area was believed to harbor older king mackerel temales that served as a major spawning population for the Gulf of Mexico stock. Unrestricted fishing mortality was believed to be high on these fish from the late 1970's through the early 1980's, and these stocks currently comprise about 3 1 % of the commercial quota for the Gulf regulatory group. Landings, which approached 680 metric tons (t) in 1983, were reduced trom one-halt to two-thirds by Fed- eral quota management trom the mid 1980's to the present. Dolphinfish. 1 25 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Landings (X 1.000 t) .' I Landings Biomass index (t) Index ^ 31 82 83 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Figure 7-1 Landings and biomass in- dex in metric tons (t) of king mackerel, 1981-97. The bio- mass index is tlie estimate in weight (tl, and the high- est year is given the relative value of 1.0. Year Commercial king mackerel vessels have em- ployed gillnets, troll lines, handlines, purse seines, otter trawls, and potind nets. King mackerel sport Hsheries exist oH many sotitheastern states throughout the year. Commercial yields were un- regulated until the mid 1980's. Recreational land- ings are thought to have been reduced by an ex- panding commercial runaroimd gillnet risher\- in the 1970's and a driftnet fishery operating ott southeast Florida in the late 1980's. Purse seines were used also to exploit the (lulf of Mexico king mackerel during the 1980's but are now prohib- ited as part of the stock recovery plan. Coastal pelagics are comanaged under the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery Man- agement Plan and regulations adopted by the South Atlantic and Cult of Mexico Fishery Man- agement Councils and implemented by the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service. Total allowable catch and commercial and recreational allocations are established by the ("ouncils for rwo separate groups of migratory king and Spanish mackerel: the Culf group and the Atlantic group. Accept- able biological catches are defined for separate geo- graphical areas within the Gulf migratory group. Quota management began in the 198S-86 fish- ing year. Presently, both commercial and charterboat operators must apply for and hold current Federal permits to fish for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, or other coastal pelagics. Rec- reational catches arc regulated by creel and size limits. In addition to quota limits, commercial catches must comply with minimum size restric- tions and, off some states as in Florida and North Carolina, daily landing limits and/or trip limits apply. In 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice invoked a mandatory reporting requirement from commercial king mackerel fishermen through logbook reports tor all trips. Currently, only U.S. fishermen are regulated, while Mexican fishermen fish under no regulations. Mexican catches are thought to be large relative to the U.S. fishery. SPECIES AND STATUS Recreational fishermen caught 8,000-17,000 t/year of coastal pelagic species, and commercial fishermen caught 5,000-14,000 t/year during Table 7-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of coastal migra- tory fishes in the U.S. Atlan- tic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Species and area Recent average yield (RAY) Current potential yield (CPY) Long-term potential yield (LTPY) Fishery utilization level Stock level relative to LTPY Dolphinfish 4.642 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ■ - 'el. Gulf of Mexico 3.307 2.024 9,750 Over Below ■ . ■el, Atlantic 2,823 5.581 3,632 Under Near Spanish mackerel. Gulf of Mexico 1,427 3.956 3,702 Full Near Spanish mackerel, Atlantic 2,065 2.946 3,702 Full Near Cobia 1,168 Unknown 998 Unknown Unknown Cero 22 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Total 15,454 20,339 26,448 'RAY IS for 1994-96 average 1 26 UNIT 7 ATLANTIC AND GULF OF MEXICO MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES 1981—96. King and Spanish mackerel account for about 95% of all coastal pelagic species harvested (Figures 7-1 and 7-2). In addition to king and Spanish mackerel, Atlantic dolphiiifish and cobia contributed significantly to the total recreational yield ot coastal pelagics. Some cobia are inciden- tally caught by commercial mackerel fishermen; however, cobia are for the most part a recreationally caught species. Cero are relatively unimportant and are taken as bycatch in other fisheries. Cero are not known to form large schools and are more difficult to target individually; in general, they do not contribute significantly to coastal pelagic catches. As a group, coastal pelagics yield only about 68% of their long-term potential (Table 7-1), and certain species are fished near or over maximum production levels. The Gult king mackerel stock is considered overfished because of previous overexploitation and has been managed under rigid rebuilding schedules since 1985. The mackerels have been managed recently ac- cording to spawning potential ratio' (SPR). The management benchmark selected for determining overfishing is H,,,,, .' The 1996-97 Atlantic Span- ish mackerel SPR is estimated to be 39% of the maximum potential. Fishing mortality from bycatch in the shrimp fishery is believed to be greater than currently anticipated. Additional in- formation is needed to quantity this source of mor- talit)'. Gulf Spanish mackerel were removed fiom overfished status in 1995 tollowing a period ot regulation to rebuild the stock that began in 1 987. The 1996-97 estimated SPR is 43% of the maxi- mum potential for Ciulf Spanish mackerel. Cur- rentlv, fishing mortality on Gult Spanish mack- erel is less than F,||„ SPR, but additional intor- mation is needed on the exact level of bycatch to evaluate the stock status with more certainty. The Gulf king mackerel stock is believed to have a large long-term potential yield, but the stock is severely depleted. Recent average annual pro- duction is at 15% of its maxinuim level, and ma- jor stock reductions were due to excessive harvests Landings (X 1,000 t) 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - Landings Biomass index (t) - 1 0 - 0,9 - 08 - 07 - 06 - 05 - 04 - 03 - 02 Figure 7-2 Landings and bionnass in- dex in metric tons (t) of Spanish mackerel, 1984-97 The biomass index is the es- timate in weight (t), and the highest year is given the relative value of 1.0. ' rhe spawning potenti.il ratio is tlie amount of reproductive output for one recruit relative to tfie amount expected under no fishing (see Appendix 4). F^^,,, is rhe fishing mortality rate expected to produce 30% SPR. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Year from the late 1970's through the early 1980's. Ab- sence of fishing ettort controls and sparse data hampered determining stock status and conserva- tion efforts until 1986. The Atlantic king mackerel stock is near its long-term potential yield. Catches have remained stable since l')81 with annual total allowable catches not reached in most years. Bycatch ot At- lantic king mackerel is assumed low. The 1996- 97 estimated SPR level is 27% ot the maximum level. The status ot cobia and dolphintish stocks re- mains uncertain. Atlantic cobia yields have ranged trom 351 to 627 t since 1987. Gult cobia yields are traditionally much larger than those of Atlan- tic cobia. Fishing mortality is assumed to be low for the Atlantic group, and Gulf cobia are believed to be more heavily exploited. The 1994 SPR cal- culation tor Gult cobia was about 20%. Manage- ment ot cobia stocks assumes two separate stocks for assessment. Cobia and dolphinfish mostly are caught by recreational anglers, but data needed to assess their long-term potential are limited. In ad- dition, updated information is needed to investi- gate the possibilit)' ot separating cobia into Gult and Atlantic stocks. Also, refined estimates ot co- bia bycatch, natural mortalit}' rate, and increased biostatistical sampling throughout the range ot cobia are needed to improve assessment of stock status and accuratelv estimate long-term poten- tial yields. 1 27 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Left: Spanish mackerel; right: catch of dolphinfish, Manteo, North Carolina. Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction Effective management of migratory species will continue to require the coordination of Federal, state, and international regulatory actions. Accu- rate determination of the status of western Gulf of Mexico resources will require an increase in the information base on Mexican catches, their asso- ciated biological data, and cooperation of inter- national scientists involved. Allocation The division of total allowable catches between recreational and commercial users remains an im- portant issue. Future allocation decisions require improvements in the precision and accuracy of user-specific harvest levels and in the understand- ing of the spatial segregation of the resource. FOR FURTHER READING Legault, C. M., N. Curnmings, and I'. Phares. 1998. Stock assessment analyses on Atlantic migratory group king mackerel. Gulf of Mexico migratory group king mackerel, Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel, and Gulf of Mexico migratory group Spanish mack- erel. Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel — 98/09. Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Sci- ence Center MIA-97/9H-1 S, Mi.inii, F'lorid.i, 90 p. Anonymous. 1998. 1998 Report of the mackerel stock assessment Panel. Unpublished report prepared by the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel at the panel meet- ing held March 23-26, 1998. Gulf of Mexico Fish- ery Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Ti p. I'hompson, N. B. 1998. Characterization of the dol- phin fish (Corphinaenidae, Pisces) fishery of the U.S. western North Atlantic Ocean. Mackerel Stock As- sessment Panel — 98/0.3. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center MlA-97/ 98-15, Miami. Florida, 21 p. Thompson, N. B. 1995. An assessment of cobia in southeast U.S. waters. Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel — 95/02. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science ('enter M1A-94/95-.31, Miami, Florida, 13 p. 1 28 Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Reef Fisheries INTRODUCTION Reef fish include more than 100 species that prefer coral reefs, artificial structures, or other hard bottom areas, and tilefishes that prefer muddy bottom areas. They range along the coast to a depth ot about 200 m, from Cape Hatteras, N.C., through the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Reel: fish fisheries are extremely diverse, have many users (commercial, artisanal, recreational, and scientific), and vary greatly by location and species. Anglers fish for food, commerce, sport, and trophies. They operate from charterboats, headboats, private boats, and shore while using fish traps, hook and line, longlines, spears, tram- mel nets, bang sticks, and barrier nets. Reef fish fisheries are associated closely with fisheries for other reel animals including spiny lob- ster, conch, stone crab, corals, and living rock and ornamental aquarium species. Nonconsumptive uses ot reel resources (e.g. ecotourism, sport div- ing, education, and scientific research) also are economically important and can conflict with tra- ditional commercial and recreational fisheries. Although reef fish have been caught lor genera- tions, good statistical data tor most areas began to accrue in the late 1970's when recreational fishing surveys were started. Fishery data collection re- mains difficult because there are diverse users, and landings are made at many ports. Fishing pressure has increased with growing human populations, greater demands for tlshery products, and tech- nological improvements, such as longlines, wire fish traps, electronic fish finders, and navigational aids. Reef fish fisheries vary widely by area. In most cases, the current and long-term potential yields are unknown, though for many species they are Unit 8 MICHAEL SCHIRRIPA PATTY PHARES DOUGLAS HARPER NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Florida Schoolmaster snappers. 1 29 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 8-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Carribean reef fish fisheries. Area and species Recent average yield (RAY)' Current potential yield (CPY)' Long-term potential yield (LTPY)' Fishery utilization level Stock level relative to LTPY Gulf of Mexico Red snapper 3.815 2,722 15,000 Over Below Red grouper 3.322 Unknown Unknown Full Near Nassau grouper and lewfish^ 2 0 Unknown Over Below Shallow groupers (7 species) 2,197 Unknown Unknown Over Unknown Other groupers (5 species) 575 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other snappers (13 species) 3,479 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Porgies (6 species) 125 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Amberiacks (2 species) 1,462 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (3 species) 1,358 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Sea basses (3 species) 364 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Others (14 species) 1,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic Wreckfish 349 Unknown Unknown Full Near Vermillion snapper 564 Unknown Unknown Over Below Red snapper 155 Unknown Unknown Over Below Red porgy 236 Unknown 450 Over Below Nassau grouper and lewfish^ 1 0 Unknown Over Below Other groupers (16 species) 1,150 Unknown Unknown Over Below Sea basses (3 species) 751 Unknown Unknown Full" Near Other snappers (1 1 species) 652 Unknown Unknown Over Below Amberiacks (2 species) 1,078 Unknown Unknown Under Unknown Other porgies (8 species) 67 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (1 1 species) 354 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Others 1,662 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Caribbean Nassau grouper 4 Unknown Unknown Over Below Snappers (10 species) 422 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other groupers (6 species) 61 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Grunts (5 species) 70 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Others (50 species) 462 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Total 25,737 24.641 37,136 'LTPY IS probably greatly underestimated and CPY overestimated, although potential production estimates are not available for most species groups, many are probably overutilized '1989-91 average ^A total fishing profiibition tias been imposed or is being considered ^Approactring full utilization level probabK- higher than present recent average yields would indicate (Table 8-1). [~)ara are often not available by species, fishery component, or area. Statistics are confounded because species are not further identified into market categories (i.e. grou- pers, snappers, grunts). The reef fish management unit includes about 100 species (excluding those for the marine aquarium trade). In the Southeast Region, reef fi.sh fisheries occurring in the 200- miie U.S. i^one are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheiy Management Council, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. The 3-mile terri- torial waters are managed bv eight coastal states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the ("ommonwealth of Puerto Rico. In the Gulf of MexiLH. the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan prohibits the use of fish traps, roller trawls, and powerheads on spearguns within an inshore stressed area; places a 38 cm (1 5-inch) total length mininium si/c limit on red snapper; and imposes data reporting requirements. A 20% spawning potential ratio was established as a basi,s to measure overfishing. Presently, there is a 4-fish 1 30 UNIT 8 ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN REEF FISHERIES A large grouper of the Ge- nus Epinephelus and a re- mora. recreational bag limit for red snapper, and the com- mercial catch is limited by an annual quota. For grouper, a 3-fish recreational bag limit and 4,455 metric ton (t) shallow-water and 727 t deep-water commercial quotas were established. Other regu- lations included a ban on the harvest of jewfish, a framework procedure tor establishing total allow- able catches and allowing the target date for re- building to be changed depending on scientific information, and a revised target year of 20 U) for rebuilding the red snapper stock. In 1 992, a mora- torium was established to stop issuing new com- mercial reef fish permits. In the southern U.S. Atlantic, the Snappet- Grouper Fishery Management Plan emphasizes minimum size limits, bag limits, and commercial quotas. Seasonal closures exist, and the taking of jewfish and Nassau groupet are prohibited. Vari- ous gears are restricted, including a prohibition of roller trawls and fish traps (except sea bass traps). Certain commercial fishing methods are prohib- ited in designated special management zones around some artificial teefs. An individual trans- ferable quota system has been established for com- mercial wreckfish fishermen which is based on his- toric catch. It provides fishermen with a quota that can be taken any time during the season or bat- tered or sold to another fisherman. In the U.S. Caribbean, the Fishery Manage- ment Plan for the Shallow Water Reef Fish Fish- ery of Puerto Rico established tegulations to re- build declining reef fish stocks in the exclusive eco- nomic zone and reduce conflicts among fishetmen. It established criteria for the construction of fish traps, required owner identification and matking of gear and boats; prohibited hauling or tamper- ing with another person's traps without the owners written consent; prohibited the use of poisons, drugs, other chemicals, and explosives for the tak- ing of reef fish; and established a minimum size limit on the hatvest of yellowtail snapper and Nassau grouper. Additional tegulatory amend- ments have been designed to protect and rebuild the stocks. SPECIES AND STATUS Mote than 100 reef fishes are important to commercial or sport fishermen (Table 8-1 ). While landings and value for individual species are not large, reef fishes overall produce significant land- ings and values (Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3). Re- cent average commercial catches for the U.S. At- lantic and Gulf have been about 24,000 t with a 1 3 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Landings (X 1,000 t) Total landings Abundance index (juvenile red snapper) « Commercial -__ j~.„_j ^ / \ J/'aV^^'^ IT Recrea- ^•^.^^■^SL Ji /\ tional-^ / a" ■^^ ^v V \ '^ A Index - 15 - 14 - 12 - 10 I I I l_ 75 76 77 78 79 Figure 8-1 Gulf of Mexico reef fisfi landings, 1975-97, in metric tons (t). The abundance in- dex is a relative value sfiow- ing fish per standarized haul. 81 82 83 84 85 Year 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 This page: Nassau grouper; facing page: Gustave Quetel Fishing Center, Frenchtown Harbor, US. Virgin Islands. dockside ex-vessel revenue of $48 million. Sport fishermen make more than 20 million angler-trips annually. RlcI hshcs are vulnerable to overfishing ow- ing to their long lives, slow growth, ease of cap- ture, large body size, delayed reproduction, and other hictors. Most are probabfi- either fiilh uti- lized or overutilized (Table 8- 1). Red snapper, tra- ditionally the most important Gulf reef fish, is overutilized in part as a result of its incidental catch by the shrimp fisher\'. Eight of the ten ma|or spe- cies in the Atlantic headboat fishery show signifi- cant size declines since 1*^72. In the Caribbean, such traditional fishery mainstays as Nassau grou- per have practically disappeared, and total land- ings of species of more recent importance like the red hind have declined since the late 1970's. Land- ings of amberjack, lane snapper, vermilion snap- per, and similar species have increased as catches of traditional species have declined. ISSUES Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions Reef fish form a complex, diverse multi-spe- cies system. I'he long-term harvesting effects on reefs are not well understood, requiring cautious management controls of targeted fisheries as well as bycatch. Removals of apex predators from the reef complex ma\' result in shifts of species com- position. i\la|or b\'calch issues currentlv occur with the capture and discarding of red snapper by ves- sels fishing for shrimp with small-mesh nets. This bycatch problem means that, in order to meet the rebuilding goals for the stock, targeted harvests must be even more restricted. Bycatch of other species may pose similar difficulties as will the cap- ture of undersized fish, e\'cn if they are released. 1 he mortalit\ rate of released fish is nr)t well known. Scientific Information and Adequacy of Stock Assessments Several stocks of reef fish are currently depleted and need to be rebuilt (e.g. jewfish and Nassau grouper). A variety of management measures need to be explored, including the use of artificial reefs and the effectiveness of marine p.irks and reserves to protect spawning areas. There are a number of important scientific is- sues which need to be addressed to improve the advice for management. The long-term potential yields for most of the reef fish species is unknown. Data on catch and the identification of species are inadequate tor nian\' stocks. I he\' should be col- lected on a routine basis. Additional life history and biological data are needed to better under- stand this complex of species. 1 32 UNIT 8 ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO. AND CARIBBEAN REEF FISHERIES Allocation Reef tish resources are utilized by .1 wide range of groups. Commercial and recreational fishermen may come into conflict with one another as well as with other users such as ecotourists. Balancing the interests of these groups is an important man- agement issue. Progress An individual transferable quota system was implemented for wreckfish in April 1992. Since then, the shares are generally holding their value and fish prices have improved. FOR FURTHER READING Goodyear, C. P. 1445. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gult of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida, MlA-9S/<)6-()S. Goodyear, C. P., and M. J. Schirripa. 1993. The red grouper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. National Ma- rine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Cen- ter. Miami. Florida, MIA-92/93-75. Landings (X 1.000 t) 12 10 Total landings Abundance index (gag grouper) 78 79 80 81 82 83 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Year Landings (t) 30 - Figure 8-2 U.S. Atlantic Coast reef fish landings, 1978-97, in metric tons (t). The abundance in- dex IS a relative value show- ing fish per standarized haul. Landings _1_ 85 B6 87 88 Year Schirripa, M. J. 1998. Status of the vermilion snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fish- eries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Mi- ami, Florida, SFD-97/98. Schirripa, M. J., and C. P. Goodyear. 1994. Status of the gag stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. National Ma- rine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Cen- ter. Miami, Florida, MIA-93/94-61 . 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Figure 8-3 Carnbean waters reef fish landings, 1978-97, in metric tons (t). 1 33 Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries INTRODUCTION Important recreational and commercial spe- cies in the family Sciaenidae include the Atlantic croaker, spot, red drum, black drum, kingfishes (whiting), weakfish, spotted seatrout, and other seatrouts. These have constituted an important fishery resource since the late 1 800's, although sig- nificant increases in commercial landings did not occur until the 1950's when the pet tood industry began harvesting them in the northern Gult ot Mexico. In recent years the recreational harvest of sciaenids has roughly paralleled and almost equaled commercial landings by weight (Figure 4-1 ). How- ever, since most recreational fishing occurs within state jurisdiction, it is managed primarily through state authorities. Some states have established regu- lations heavily favoring recreational uses of Sciaenidae resources: in particular the prohibition of commercial fishmg tor red drum and spotted seatrout. The recent average annual yield ot sciaenids is estimated at 33,'>00 metric tons (t) (Table 9-1). Large numbers ot sciaenids are also caught and killed as an incidental catch in the shrimp fishery. The small mesh used in shrimp trawls can catch nontarget species such as sea turtles, red snappers, croakers, seatrouts, and other species. Sciaenids constitute the bulk ot the fmfish bycatch biom- ass, and since many are harvested as juveniles, their mortality may slow recovery of overfished stocks or otherwise prevent tuU use ot the adult resource. SPECIES AND STATUS Commercial landings of drum and croaker in the northern Ciulf of Mexico peaked in 1956 at over 32,000 t, more than 20,000 t above that of Unit 9 LARRY MASSEY BEAMY SLATER NMFS S Dutheast F shenes Science Center Miami Florida Red drum. 1 35 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Landings (x 1,000 t) Total landings /*,! Red drum recruitment index Commercial - 03 - 02 I I I I L_ 74 75 76 77 78 79 Figure 9-1 Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico groundfish and red drum landings, 1970-96, in metric tons (t). 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 1 953. This increase tor the most part restihed trom a demand tor sciaenids as raw material in the pro- duction ot canned pet toods, ot which about 76% were Atlantic croaker and sand and silver seatrout. Commercial landings of red drum increased rapidly in the mid 1980's when public popularity and demand suddenly grew for a new seafood preparation called blackened redfish. To supply this demand, a red drum purse-seine fishery evolved in the Gulf of Mexico, primarily targeting the off- shore adult spawning stock. Prior to this, most red drum were harvested in nearshore state waters as juveniles. But as the offshore purse-seine fishery Vij^-BiWWSA developed, it became clear that the schooling adults were extremely vulnerable to overexploitation, thus jeopardizing recruitment in subsequent years. Fish- ery analyses showed that the sustainability ot the long-term potential yield depended in a large p.iit upon limiting the harvest of larger adult red drum in the offshore waters as well as limiting the take of smaller individuals in inshore waters both by recreational and commercial fishermen (Goodyear 1989, 1996). These conservation measures were established by a fishery management plan developed and implemented first in the Gulf of Mexico and later in the U.S. Atlantic. The first plan is the Fishery Management Plan tor the Red Drum Fishery of the'Ciulf of Mexico (administered by the Ciult of Mexico Fishery Management Council), and the second is the Atlantic C'oast Red I^rum Fishery Management Plan (South Atlantic Fishery Man- agement C'mincil). l^oth plans ban red drum tisli- Table9-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of Southeast Re- gion drum and croaker fish- eries resources. Species and area Recent average yield (RAYI- Current potential yield (CPY)' Long-term potential yield (LTPY)' Fishery utilization level Stock level relative to LTPY Black drum 3,712 IJnknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic croaker 7,657 Unknown 50,000 Over Below Spot 4,145 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Red drum, Gulf of Mexico 5,031 2,828 7,900 Over Below Red drum, Atlantic 800 Unknown Unknown Over Below Seatrouts 10,820 Unknown Unknown Unknown Vanable' Kingfishes (whiting) 1,458 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Total 33,623 31,420 78,835 'LTPY IS probably underestimated and CPY overestimated, althougti potential production estimates are not available for some species groups. It IS expected ttiat ttiey may be overexploited '1994-96 average -'Grey seatrout, Cynoscion regalis. is overexploited, but ttie status of other species in this group is unl20() tt) catcher-processors to buy permits and participate in the Pacific whit- ing fishery. Implementation ot the limited entry 1 76 UNIT 15 PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY Species and area Pacific whiting'*'^ Pacific whiting (U S ) Sablefish Lingcod^* Lingcod (U S ) Pacific cod Flatfisfies: Arrowtooth flounder Dover sole English sole Petrale sole Other flatfish' Rockfishes Bocaccio Canary rockfish Chilipepper rockfish Pacific ocean perch Shortbelly rockfish Thornyheads Yellowtail rockfish^ Yellowtail rockfish (US I Widow rockfish Other rockfish'' Other groundfish Total (U S ) Total (U S +Canada) Recent Current Long-term Fishery Stock level average yield (RAVI' potential yield (CPYI^ potential yield (LTPYI utilization level relative to LTPY^ Table 15-1 291,067 207,971 8,022 290.000 232.000 5.625 336,000 268,000 9,800 Full Full Below Below Productivity in metric tons and status of Pacific Coast groundfish. 2,890 1.532 3,100 Over Below 1,966 960 1,943 515 3.200 Unknown Under Unknown 2,257 5.800 Unknown Under Unknown 10,930 9.426 16.300 Full Near 1,263 3.100 3,100 Under Above 1,810 2.700 2.700 Full Near 2,278 7.700 Unknown Unknown Unknown 863 654 -1.800 Full Below 1,054 1,130 -1.250 Full Below 1,846 3,400 <4.000 Under Near 800 2 1.100 Over Below 38 23,500 23.500 Under Above 6,514 4,103 6.600 Full Near 5,232 4,886 <6,700 Full Below 4,073 3,539 4,853 6,426 5,750 6,700 Full Below 7,766 8,750 Unknown Full Unknown 1,693 14.700 Unknown Unknown Unknown 268,085 336.039 391,796 353.264 395.958 462,800 'RAY IS the average 1995-97 landed commercial catch as reported to the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFINj iPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE S2nd Dnve, Suite 100, Gladstone, OR 97027) ^CPY IS taken from the Pacific Fishenes Management Council's Acceptable Biological Catch for 1998 (PFMC, 19971 ■'Stock Status compared to the stock size that would produce LTPY ''Includes tribal catch ^tock as defined crosses Canadian border Estimates of Canadian catch are fron-i Martin Dorn (personal communication, NMFS. AFSC. RACE. 7600. Sand Point Way, Seattle. WA 981 15) for Pacific whiting. Jack Tagart (personal communication. Wash Dept Fish & Wildl . Fish Management Program. Marine Resources Division. 600 Captial Way N . Olympia, WA 98501). for yellowtail, and the 1997 lingcod stock assessment (PFMC. 1997) Canadian catch in 1997 is assumed equal to 1996 ^Recreational catch estimates were added to the commercial catch estimates 438 t lingcod. 200 t bocaccio, and 1,980 t other rockfish including 600 t black rockfish 'Does not include halibut Pacific whiting. system has been beneficial in creating a well-de- fined set ot participants, but it has not decreased the number oF participants sufficiently to allow tor increases in the monthly vessel limits. Nonpermitted vessels may participate in a small- scale, open access fishery. Other major restrictions on the groundfish fishery include a minimum mesh size on trawls to allow escapement ot undersized tish, and area/sea- son restrictions on the whiting fishery to decrease bycatch ot salmon. Species and Status The Pacific coast groundfish fisheries are gen- erally managed with a constant proportional rate of harvest such that the expected level ot egg pro- duction (or spawning biomass) per recruit will be 35 or 40% (for rockfish) of the unfished level. The exception is Pacific whiting, which has a more con- servative and varying harvest rate in recognition of the extreme natural fluctuations in recruitment. Because many groundfish species have longev- 1 77 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Landings (t) 26 - r J 1 Figure 15-2 Total landings and estimated stock biomass (fish over 2 years of age) in metric tons (t) of sablefish off the US. Pa- cific Coast. Landings Biomass (t) - 350 - 300 - 250 - 200 - 160 - 100 - 50 I Kelp greenling. 80 86 90 95 Year ity in the 40-100 year range, the annual exploita- tion rates that achieve the spawning biomas.s per recruit goal are often as low as 5-10'^ii. Thus, it has taken man)' years tor these low exploitation rates to reduce the stock abundance from the hghtly exploited levels of the 1960's to the fully exploited levels of today (Figure 15-2). Reductions in reconinieiided annual harvest amounts over the past decade lor sablefish, widow rockfish, and some other species has been a direct result ot this "fish- ing down" of the surpKis biomass. In no case has the fishing down been smoothly along a constant rate of exploitation. Rather, imprecise stock assess- ments, insufficient staff to revise assessments fre- quently, and natural fluctuations in abundance contribute to changes in recommended harvest levels. The groundfish stocks are generalK- fulK' uti- lized, although a few species such as shortbclK- rockfish remain essentially underutilized because of a lack of market. Pacific whiting is fully uti- lized, but its abundance has been on a decline be- cause of a lack of strong recruitment since the 1 ')cS4 year class. The four species in the deep-water fishery are near full utilization. Within this set, sablefish abun- dance may be below the level needed to produce the long-term potential yield, due in part to a re- cent series ot weak year classes. Dover sole abun- dance is slightly increasing as a result of an esti- mated abo\e-average 1 990 year class and reduced catch levels in 1994-96. The abundance ot shortspine thornyheads appears to be below its tar- get level, and the deeper living, smaller bodied longspine thornyhead has not \'et been fished down to its target level. However, the assessments for all four of these species have considerable uncertainty, and the sablefish and shortspine thornyhead as- sessments have been subject to a high level of scru- tiny and criticism from the fishing industry. Within the set of rockfish, widow rockfish is estimated to be below the target level of abun- dance, based on estimates of low recent recruit- ments to the fishery. Off California, the chilipepper rockfish stock is declining with the passing of the extremely large 1984 year class, while bocaccio is at a low stock level with reduced recruitment lev- els since the 1977 year class (PFMC, 1997). Off Oregon and Washington, the canary rockfish is estimated to be below or close to the level needed to produce the long-term potential yield, based on an estimated downward trend in recruitments during 1987-95. In that same area, yellowtail rockfish stock bio- mass also apparently continues to decline, but there is substantial uncertainty in the recent stock esti- mates. Pacific ocean perch appears to be only slowly rebounding from overharvest that occurred in the 1960's. The current level of catch, intended as bycatch in other t;roundfish fisheries, is close to the overfishing level. Black rockfish, an important recreational species off Oregon and Washington, appears fully utilized and probably is near its tar- get level ot abtindance. An assessment of eight additional rockfish spe- cies indicated that some species have catches much greater than their current potential yield, while others mav be underutilized due to market restric- tions. However, the precision ot all these rockfish 1 78 UNIT 15 PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY assessments appears low, given the amount oi avail- able information. For other species of rockfish, no estimates of abmidance and exploitation rates are available. A recent lingcod assessment in the northern area indicated that harvest over the past decade has equaled or exceeded the overfishing level since 1990. The stock has continued to decline due to the high exploitation rates and steadilv declining recruitment since 1980. Among the other flatfish species, English sole appears to be at a high level of abundance due to large recent recruitments, and Petrale sole is near its target level of abundance and yield. Recreational Fisheries The non-salmon recreational fishery harvests a diverse collection of nearshore fishes, including many species of groundfish managed by the Pa- cific Fishery Management Council. Coasrwide sampling of the recreational fishery resumed in 1993 after a 3-year break. Valuation of the recre- ational fishery for groundfish is important, but more difficult than estimating the magnitude of the catch. In some cases, proxy values from the recreational fishery tor salmon have been used in estimating the economic impact of changing regu- lations for the recreational groundfish fishery. Among the groundfish species, the recreational component is particularly important for lingcod and some species of rockfish. hi 1995, the recre- ational catch of rockfish off California was esti- mated at 2,800,000 fish-. This may represent ap- proximately 1 ,400 t, so it was an important com- ponent of the estimated 8,400 t of rockfish (ex- cluding thornyheads and widow rockfish) har- vested in California in 1995. Off Washington and Oregon, the charter boat fishery has relied on black rockfish to offset de- clining opportunities to fish for salmon. In recent years, the recreational catch of black rockfish has been about 300 t in each of these states. Com- mercial catch of black rockfish has been less than one-third of that amount. The Pacific Fishery Landings (>; 1,000 t) -Marine RcLrcacion,il Fisheries Statistics Survey data, NMI S Office oFScience and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and F,co- nomics Division, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 20 - Other Dover sole Sablefish Widow rockfish I I _l_ _l_ _1_ I 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 97 Year Management Council has supported initiatives to provide long-term protection for this recreational fishing opportunity by recommending spatial seg- regation between recreational and commercial fish- eries for black rockfish, and by imposing restric- tive trip limits and bag limits on the commercial and recreational fisheries, respectively. Landings The landed catch of most species is well-moni- tored through a system of state fish landing re- ceipts and collation of computerized copies of these receipts into the centralized Pacific Fisheries In- formation Network (PacFIN) database. Unfortu- nately, funding for biological sampling of the land- ings is inadequate, so the species composition of mixed rockfish landings is not well known, and size and age composition data are not adequate for many species. The combined U.S. -Canada harvest of Pacific whiting reached a record level of 3'i8,900 t in 1 994 (of which 252,700 t were caught in U.S. waters). The increase in 1994 was due to a new stock as- sessment based on an expanded and improved sur- vey. However, the stock's spawning biomass con- tinued to decline due to reduced recruitment, re- sulting in lower available total yields in 1995-97 (Table lS-1). The landed catch of non-whiting groundfish has generally declined since 1989, reaching ap- Figure 15-3 Pacific Coast commercial groundfish landings in met- ric tons (t), excluding Pacific whiting. 1 79 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS LIngcod. proximately ^4, ()()() t in 1997. Several major stocks such as Dover sole, sablcfish, and widow rockfish contributed to this decline (Figure 15-3) as the stocks were fished down and year classes entering the fisheries were estimated to be at low levels (PFMC, 1997).'nible 15-1 documents the recent average yield (1995-97) for those species that con- tributed substantially to the landings, or were iden- tified with a specific landings target (acceptable biological catch and/or harvest guideline) b\ the PFMC. ISSUES AND PROGRESS Balancing Between Competing Users Management ot the Pacific coast groundfish fisheries involves old and new allocation issues. 1 lie Pacific whiting available yield is allocated first between the United States and Canada and then between shoreside and at-sea deliveries within the United States. The two countries have not come to lull agreement on any allocation scheme. I hus, the United States now sets its harvest guideline at 80% of the overall acceptable biological catch, and Canada sets its harvest guideline such that it will be 30% ol the combined harvest guidelines. Fhis resulting overharvest h.is contributed to the stock's decline in recent years. I he sablefish harvest guideline is allocated be- tween a Native American fishery, an open access fishery, limited entry trawl, and limited entry fixed gear. The allocation between limited entrv and open access is by a fixed percentage lor each spe- cies as established in the fisherv management plan, but the level ot allocation to open access has the potential to become more contentious for lingcod and some rockfish. Direct allocation between rec- reational and commercial fisheries has not oc- curred; however, management actions on black rockfish have been designed to preserve recre- ational fishing opportunities for this species. Re- cent lingcod management has reduced both the commercial and recreational catches to achieve the increasingly lower total harvest allowed. Indirect allocation between high capacity and low capacity participants affects many manage- ment issues. For Pacific whiting, the direct alloca- tion between a brief at-sea fishery and a protracted fisherv tor shoreside deliveries is partly a conse- quence ot this issue. For fixed-gear sablefish, the debate in recent years has been between an ever- shortening derby-style fishery, movement to an individual transferable quota fishery (which could favor high capacity participants), or movement to a protracted trip-limit fishery (which could favor low capacity participants). For trawlers, the de- cline in trip limits over the past decade has had the greatest impact on the vessels that alreadv in- vested in advanced harvesting capability, yet did not greatly deter other vessels from increasing their c.ipabilitv. Bycatch considerations have not much entered into allocation arguments, partly because the lack ot a comprehensive at-sea observet program has hindered collection of data on the magnitude of b\catch. For example, past arguments over trawl versus fixed gear allocation ot sablefish hinged on intractable questions regarding whether sablefish was a target fishery for trawlers or an imavoidable bycatch as they targeted other species. More re- ceiitK', .in estimate ot Pacific halibut bycatch in the groundfish trawl fishery has increased the po- teiuial for this to become a new allocation issue. Both ot these issues need better estimates ot the amount of discards .xni^l the survival rate ot dis- carded fish. 180 UNIT 15 PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY Ecosystem Considerations Accurate, long-term predictions ot potential yield will reqtiire a substantial increase in our knowledge about competitive and predatory in- teractions in the biological system that includes Pacific Coast groundfish, and about climate ef- fects on this community. The target exploitation rate tor most groundfish species is designed to achieve a large fraction of maximum potential yield, while reducing the abundance ot spawners by about two-thirds, in expectation that this will not reduce the mean recruitment level. However, we have been monitoring some ot these stocks for not much more than the span ot just one of their generations. Only decades ot monitoring the stocks performance will ascertain the long-term feasibility of these targets, and the degree ot natu- ral fluctuation that will occur while maintaining these targets. Unfortunately, there is little histori- cal data, and the current level of stock assessment data is not adequate to precisely track changes in abundance tor more than a tew species. In addi- tion, only a low level ot ettort is directed towards food habits studies that may help predict how the interactions among species may change as the abundance of several major species is reduced be- low untlshed levels. Models of long-term potential yield depend on assumptions ot constant average environmen- tal conditions or an abilit)- to predict changing conditions. There is evidence ot a decline in zoop- lankton abundance within the Calitornia Coop- erative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations' 40-year time series (McGowan et al., 1998), as well as of an ocean warming during the late 1970s (Francis and Hare, 1997). Dover sole in southern areas and bocaccio rockfish and lingcod exhibit declines in mean recruitment during this same period. Better understanding ot potential linkages between tish recruitment and li)ni;-term changes in the ocean climate are key to improved 'i- to 10-year tore- casts ot fishery potential yield. LITERATURE CITED PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). l')')7. Status of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery through 1997 and recommended biological catches for 1998: stock assessment and fishery evaluation. Pacific Fish- ery Management Council, 21230 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 9720 1 . PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998. Status of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery through 1998 and recommended biological catches for 1999: stock assessment and fishery c\aluation. Pacific Fish- ery Management Council, 212.^0 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201 . Francis, R. C, and S. R. Hare. 1994. Decadal-scale regime shifts in the large marine ecosystems ot the Northeast Pacific: a case for historical science. Fish- eries Oceanography 3:279-29 1 . McCowan, ]. A., D. R. Cayan, and L. M. Dorman. 1998. Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem re- sponse in the Northeast Pacific. Science 281:210-217. Mixed catch of rockfish, sablefish, and Dover sole off Oregon coast. 181 Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries Unit 16 NMFS SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, HONOLULU LABORATORY Honolulu Hawaii ,^*?-^ INTRODUCTION The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) lobster fishery is the major eommercial marine in- vertebrate fishery in the western Pacific. A very small-scale, primarily recreational, fishery for lob- ster also exists in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), American Samoa, Guam, and the North- ern Mariana Islands. A deepwater shrimp resource is found throughout the Pacific islands but is rela- tively unexploited. A resource of deepwater pre- cious coral (gold, bamboo, and pink corals) exists in Hawaii and possibly other western Pacific ar- eas. A short-lived (1974-79) domestic fishery op- erated oft Makapu'u Point in Hawaii, but there has been no significant precious coral harvest for 20 years. However, interest in the fishery has re- cently resurfaced, and one Federal permit was is- sued in 1997. Management Situation The NWHI lobster fishery, which began in 1977, harvests spiny and slipper lobsters and is governed by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council under a fishery management plan. The MHI lobster fishery is managed by the state of Hawaii, although a few offshore banks are included in the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fishery of the Western Pacific Region. This plan was implemented in 1983 and has since been amended nine times. Many of the ear- lier amendments were in response to requirements to eliminate lobster trap interactions with the en- dangered Hawaiian monk seal (Amendments 2 and 4), protect spiny and slipper lobster repro- ductive potentials (Amendments 3 and 5), and specify overfishing definitions (Amendment 6). The most significant change in the plan occurred in 1992. In response to continuing declines in Blunt slipper lobster. Hana- uma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. 1 83 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Landings (t) 1,400 - 1,200 1,000 - Landings Figure 16-1 Hawaiian lobster landings (spiny and slipper lobsters) for 1983-97, in metric tons (t).The fishery was closed in 1993 and the seasons short- ened in 1994 and 1995. 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 96 97 Year commercial lobster catch per unit of cHort, the plan was amended (Amendment 7) to incliicie an annual 6-montli closed season (Janiiary-Jiine), limit entry into the fishery, and establish an an- nual catch quota. The plan was amended again in 1996 (Amendment 9) to implement a quota sys- tem based on a constant harvest rate that allows only a 10% risk of" overfishing in any given year and allows the retention of all lobsters caught. Precious corals occurring in the U.S. hxclu- sive Economic Zone also are managed under a fish- ery management plan implemented in 1983 by the Western Pacific Regional Fisher)' Management Council. Very limited quotas are allowed under regular permits, and experimental permits are re- quired tor unassessed coral beds. Fishery Landings rile cdmhiiicd landings of spiiu' and slipper lobster in 1997 were 3.^0.00(1 pounds whole weiszhi ( 1 SO metric tons (t) valued at S 1 ,9()(),()()()) and consisted of 175,000 spiny lobster and 135,000 slipper lobster. Ihe fishery initially tar- geted spiny lobster, but b\ 1984 gear modifica- tions and improved markets led to an increase in slipper lobster landings. Landings peaked in 1985 at 1,300 t (worth $6,000,000), and generally de- clined from 1986 to 1995. (The fishery was closed in 1993 and had shortened seasons in 1994 and 1995.) Cratches of slipper lobster were significant for a brief period, 1985 to 1987, and fell into a general decline from 1989 to 1996. Overall land- ings increased in 1996 and 1997 due to recovery of the population following several years of clo- sures and shortened seasons and changes in the fishery management plan, which allowed the re- tention of juvenile and egg-bearing lobsters (Fig- ure 16-1). Most of the lobster catch is processed at sea and landed as frozen tails. In recent years, the open- ing of several foreign markets has led to an in- crease in live landings. Nonetheless, most lobsters are still landed as processed frozen tails. Since 1983 the commercial fishery has fished plastic traps. Approximately 1 0 strings of 1 00 traps each are fished overnight at depths generally rang- ing from 15 to 35 fathoms (27-64 m). Flistori- cally, traps set at the deeper depths caught slipper lobster while the shallower sets caught spiny lob- ster. In recent vears, slipper lobsters have been caught at shallow depths presumablv due in part to the "fishing down" of spinv lobsters and avail- abilitv of suitable lobster habitat. Current, recent, and long-term potential yields for these species are given in Hiblc 16-1 . SPECIES AND STATUS Lobster Ihe populations of spiny and slipper lobster declined dramaticalK' from the mid 1980's through Table 16 1 Productivity in metric tons and status of Western Pacific Region lobster fishery re- sources. Species Spiny and slipper lobster 'Approaching full utilization level Recent Current Long-term average yield potential yield potential yield (RAY) (CPY) (LTPY) 109 160 Fishery Stock level utilization relative to level LTPY 222 Full' Above 1 84 UNIT 16 WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES the mid 1940's. Much of this decline has been at- tributed to the combined effect of a shift in oceano- graphic conditions affecting recruitment and fish- ing mortahty in the mid 1980's. The spawning potential ratio (SPR), which is used to measure the status of the stocks, has ranged between 74 and 88'!b over the past three seasons (1993-97). Overfishing is defined in the fishery manage- ment plan in terms of recruitment' overfishing. The criterion used to assess overfishing is the SPR: the ratio of the spawning potential of a cohort" in a fished condition relative to that in an unfished condition. The fishery management plan defines the 20% level as a minimum SPR threshold, be- low which the stock is considered overfished, and establishes a warning SPR threshold at 50%, in- dicating the need for additional conservation measures. The NWHI lobster fishery is managed with a constant harvest rate such that there is only a 10% chance in any given year that the fishing mortality will exceed the mortality associated with the minimum SPR threshold. Since 1994, SPR values have been substantiallv above the minimum threshold level, indicating that the levels of fish- ing effort exerted during the 1994-97 commer- cial fishing seasons, and resulting fishing mortal- ity and exploitation rate, would not cause long- term recruitment overfishing under equilibrium conditions (Table 16-2). Coral Because there has been no fishery on precious corals over the past 20 years, little solid evidence is available on recovery of the population from the low levels which existed when the Magnuson- Stevens Act was first passed in 1976. However, recent video analysis suggests that the unfished beds have recovered much of their potential and that new beds have been identified. Nonetheless, it also appears that illegal foreign fishing in some remote areas during the 1980's had a very signifi- cant impact on some beds. In 1997, one company obtained a permit to fish precious coral at Landings (t) 30 - 25 Landings 'Recruitment is the process ot new generations oi young fish or .ininuis entering the stocl<. "Recruits from the s,^me ve,ir are called cohorts. 80 Year Makapu u, Oahu, under a 2-year quota for 2,000 kilograms (kg) of pink coral and 600 kg each tor bamboo and gold coral. Harvesting began in early 1998. Historical landings of precious corals are shown in Figure 16-2. ISSUES Bank-specific Status of Lobster Stocks The proportion of fishing effort and reported catch at each bank within the NWHI region has varied both spatially and temporally throughout the 20-year history of this fishery. While as many as 16 banks have been fished on an annual basis, the majority of fishing effort has been directed at four banks: Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, St. Rogatien, and Necker Island (Figure 16-3). The observed spatial-temporal shifts in fishing effort between banks is attributed to declines in the spiny lobster catch per unit of effort; as spiny lobsters were fished down and catch rates at one bank tell below a minimum economic threshold, fishing ef- fort shitted to a more productive bank. In recent years, fishing has generally been limited to Necker Island, where there has been a relatively higher con- centration ot spmv lobsters. Figure 16-2 Landings of precious coral in metric tons (t). 1966-97. Year SPR (%) 1994 74 1995 88 1996 80 1997 74 Table 16-2 Annual estimates of spawn- ing potential ratio (SPR) for NWHI lobsters. 1 85 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Figure 16-3 The Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and Northwestern Ha- waiian Islands (NWHI). \ Hancock 1 ' Kuce A N \ *^" Midway Island Pacific Ocean V ■■ ^ ' iSPearl & Hermes Reef \ Salmon Banl( c - \ .-, Laysan ^\ ■' ■■' -if. ,:■ Island \^ Lisianski Island ^.^ ■■•■■ .--.. ^\ ' Maro \,^ Reef Raita Bank Gardner ^.Pinnacles Northwestern Hawaiian Islands -^ French' Frigate Shoals Necker Island ^^^^^ ^^^ Kauai .^^ ^ , , £W .Oahu ^ '^='"'="' Nihau <#, Molokai \^ La?i'a^\'^^"' ^~--..,,^ MIl Hawaii / 1 1 1 Mam Hawaiian Islands 1 1 1 Total discard rate 07 - 00-1- 83 84 85 Figure 16-4 Lobster discard rate (ratio of lobsters discarded to total lobsters caught), 1983-97. The season was closed in 1993. The effect of new regu- lations took place in 1996. Lobster Discards III the 1 ')8U's, problems were identified related to high catch rates ot then sublegal-sized lobsters and associated discard niortalirv caused bv top- level predators (sharks and jacks) and on-deck han- dling. Escape vents were mandated in 1987 to re- lease small lobsters on the bottom or during trap hauling. Nonetheless, from 1983 through 1995 the lobster (spiny lobster and slipper lobster com- bined) discard rate (the reported ratio ol lobsters discarded to total lobsters caught) generally in- creased, rising from 0.28 in 198.? to 0.62 in 1995 (Figure 16-4). Although the escape vents reduce the number of small lobsters in each trap (based on research results), the average size ol lobsters in the population declined during this period. Alter 1995, the discard rate decreased signitl- cantly due to a relaxation of the minimum legal size requirement in favor of an optional retain-all policy. Implementation ot the retain-all policv was based on research conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Services Honolulu Laboratory to determine the effects ot on-deck exposure on the mortality of sublegal and egg-bearing lobster. Handling mortalities tor two on-deck handling methods (dr\' and wet) and a variety of exposure times were estimated to be as high as 77'?'(i for spiny lobsters and 44% for slipper lobsters, depending on the duration of exposure after being brt)ught on deck. Scientific Information and Adequacy of Assessments Despite the multispecies nature of the NWHI lobster fishery and regulatory measures, mo.st of the biological research has been directed at spiny 1 86 UNIT 16 WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES lobster. Future research is needed to .iddress knowl- edge shortfalls of slipper lobster biology. Estimates of the exploitable population of lobsters in the NWHl have been based solely on commercial catch and effort data from the NWHl lobster fish- ery as a whole. This approach neglects the fact that fishermen target areas with higher concentrations of lobsters, and may lead to estimates of exploit- able biomass that are biased. More accurate as- sessments will require the integration of fishery- independent data into assessments in an effort to fine-tune the parameter estimates and assessment of exploitable biomass on a bank-specific basis. Factors Affecting Abundance In predicting the response of the NWHl lob- ster population to fishing harvest, it must be noted that research to date has identified a dynamic change in the spatial and temporal structure of the NWHl lobster population. One major fish- ing area, Maro Reef, continues to be character- ized by low spiny lobster abundance. Based on oceanographic research, size class and genetic struc- ture analysis, and trends in catch per unit of ef- fort, it appears that recruitment in the NWHl spiny lobster population differs between the south- eastern and northwestern segments of the archi- pelago and remains depressed in the northwest- ern segment relative to the 1975—85 level. Nu- merous hypotheses have been advanced to explain population fluctuations of lobsters in the NWHl, including environmental, biotic (e.g. habitat and competition), and anthropogenic (e.g. fishing). Each hypothesis by itself offers a plausible, how- ever simple, explanation to a rather complex phe- nomenon operating in a system of very high di- mensionality. It is likely that popidation fluctua- tions of lobsters in the NWHl will be more accu- rately described by a mix of the hypotheses pre- sented, each describing a different set of mecha- nisms. Multispecies Interactions The long-term effects of fishmg on ecosystems are not well imderstood, and cautioirs management controls are required. The removal of one species, or complex of species, could result in species com- position shifts. Although both spiny and slipper lobsters are harvested in the NWHl lobster fish- erv, spiny lobster is the primary target at most banks. As large numbers of spiny lobster were be- ing removed from banks in the NWHl, the abun- dance and spatial distribution of slipper lobster on these banks apparently increased; areas tradi- tionally defined as spiny lobster habitat appear now to be occupied by slipper lobster. Progress Much progress in assessing the status of ex- ploited lobster stocks of the Western Pacific Re- gion has been made in the past several years. Shoreside sampling of the commercial landings was started in l')9(i and has provided valuable infor- mation for characterizing the size-structure com- position of the commercial landings. Likewise, sampling of the commercial catch by at-sea ob- servers was conducted in 1995 and 1997, provid- ing information to characterize the commercial catch, as well as spatial heterogeneity of lobster abundance and size composition. These data were used to enhance the annual NWHl lobster fish- ery-independent survey anti provide a more rep- resentative basis for future stock assessments. FOR FURTHER READING DiNardo, G. v.. W. R. Haij^ht, and J. A. Wctherall. l')98. Status ot lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1995-97, and otitlook for 1998. National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Re- port H-98-0S, }S p. Boehlert, G. W. 199.3. Fisheries of Hawaii and U.S.- associated Pacific Islands. Marine Fisheries Review S5(2):l-1.38. Ostczeski, 1. 1997. The deepwater shrimp fishery of the Northern Mariana Islands. National Marine Fish- cries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-97-10, 44 p. Pooley, S. G., and K. E. Kawamoto. 1998. Annual re- port of the 199S-97 western Pacific lobster fishery. National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Re- port H-98-()9, 34 p. Hawaiian spiny lobster, Oahu, Hawaii. 1 87 Western Pacific Bottomfish and Armorhead Fisheries INTRODUCTION The western Pacific bottomhsh hshcry geo- graphically encompasses the Main Hawaiian Is- lands (MHI), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa (lable 17-1). In contrast, the pelagic armorhead is harvested Irom the sum- mits and upper slopes of a series of submerged seamounts along the southern Emperor-northern H,iwaiian Ridge. Ihis chain of seamounts is lo- cated just west of the International Dateline and extends to the northernmost portion of the NWHI. I heCiuam, Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and MHI fisheries eniplo)' relatively Miiall vessels on 1 -day trips close to port; much of the catch is taken by either part-time or sport fishermen. In contrast, the NWHI species are fished by full-time fishermen on relatively large vessels that range far from port on trips of up to 10 days. Fishermen use the handlining technique in which a single weighted line with several baited hooks is raised and lowered with a powered reel. The bottomfish fisheries are managed jointly by the Western Pa- cific Fishery Management Council and territorial, commonwealth, or state authorities. The commercial seamount fishery for armorhead was started by bortom-tr.iwl vessels of the former Soviet Union in l^fiiS. During 1969, lapanese trawlers entered this fishery, and by 1 972 the catch per unit of effort (CPUE) (based on Japa- nese data) peaked at some 34 metric tons (t)/hour (Figure 17-1 ). Fhe United States has never been a participant. By the end of 1975, the two foreign fleets had harvested a combined cumulative total Unit 17 ROBERT HUMPHREYS ROBERT MOFFITT NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory Honolulu Hawaii Pelagic armorhead and soft coral on summit of Hancock Seamount, north of Midway Island. 1 89 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 17-1 Productivity In metric tons and status of western Pacific bottomfish and pelagic armorhead. Species and area Recent average yield (RAY) Current potential yield (CRY) Long-term potential yield (LTPY) Fishery utilization level Stock level relative to LTPY Bottomfish MHI 249 111 254 Over Below NWHI t84 222 288 Under Near American Samoa 18 34 34 Under Near Guam 24 25 25 Full' Near CNMP 17 78 78 Under Near Pelagic armorhead Hancock Seamount 0 0 2,123 Over' Below Total 492 470 2,802 'Approaching full utilization leve ^Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ^Fishing moratorium currently in effect within U S EEZ (Hancock Seamountsl, fishery considered overfished at seamounts outside US EEZ. CPUE (t/hour) of some 1 ,000,000 t of pelagic armorhead. Facing a steady decline in CPUE after 1972, the former Soviet fleet left the fishery alter 1975. The com- bined c.itch index tor all seamotints has remained depressed since the late 1970's. The inckision in 1977 of the southernmost seamounts (Hancock Seamounts) into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) allowed for a small portion of the fishery to be tnanaged in a limited way. A prelimi- nary fishery management plan was developed that year which provided for limited foreign harvest- ing at the Hancock Seamounts under a permit system during 1978-84. However, catches re- mained low, and all fishing ceased after 1984. Under the Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, a 6-year fishing moratorium was imposed on the Hancock Sea- mounts in 1986. The moratorium was extended for rwo additional 6-year periods, the latest start- ing in 1998 and ending in 2004. Figure 17-1 CPUE in metric tons (t) per hour for pelagic armorhead taken by the Japanese trawl fishery. Year SPECIES AND STATUS Bottomfish In Hawaii, the bottomfish species fished in- clude several snappers (ehu, onaga, opakapaka), jacks (ulua, butaguchi), and a grouper (hapu'upu'u), whereas in the more tropical waters of Guam, Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, the fishes include a more diverse assortment of spe- cies within the same families as well as several spe- cies of emperors. These species are found on rock and coral bottoms at depths of 50-400 m. Catch weight, size, and fishing effort data are collected for each species in the five areas. However, the sam- pling programs vary in scope between the areas. About 90"/ii of the total catch is taken in Hawaii, with the majorit\' of the catch taken in the MHI as compared to the NWHI (Figure 17-2). Stock assessments, though somewhat limited, indicate that the spawning stocks of several im- portant MFll species (elm, li.ipu'tipti'u, onaga, opakapaka, and uku) are at only 5-.50% of origi- nal levels. Onaga and ehu presently appear to be the most stressed among MHI bottomfish species. Pelagic Armorhead The seamount groundfish fisher\' has targeted just one species: the armorhead. Since 1976, this bottom trawl fishery has been almost exclusively conducted by Japanese trawlers fishing the sea- 190 UNIT 17 WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND A R M O R H E A D FISHERIES mounts in international waters beyond the Hancock Seamounts. The fishing grounds com- prising the Hancock Seamounts represent less than 5% of the total fishing grounds, llie long-term potential yield (Table 17-1) is 2,123 t, but recov- ery to these former levels has not occurred. Standardized stock assessments were con- ducted during 1985-93. Research cruises were fo- cused on Southeast Hancock Seamount, and the armorhead stock was sampled with bottom longlines and calibrated against Japanese trawling effort. Catch rates vary but have not shown the increases expected after the fishing moratorium was implemented (Figure 17-3). Furthermore, the increase in the 1992 seamount-wide C^PL'E (Fig- ure 17-1) caused by high recruitment was appar- ently short-lived, as CPUE declined appreciably in 1993 and thereafter. Closure ot only the small U.S. EEZ portion of the pelagic armorhead's de- mersal habitat may not be sufficient to allow popu- lation recovery, because these seamounts remain the only part of the fishery currently under man- agement. ISSUES Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments Adequacy ot the biological and catch data col- lected is a primary management concern for the western Pacific bottomfish fishery. For example, the reproductive biology of many of" the impor- tant species in Guam, Mariana Islands, and Ameri- can Samoa is unknown, and spawning stock bio- mass cannot be computed. Transboundary Stocks and IVIanagement Jurisdictions The primary issue tor the armorhead seamount fishery is how to implement some form of man- agement on an international basis to provide con- ditions more conducive for stock recovery. The re- cruitment event of 1992 and subsequent stock de- cline (probably trom overharvesting) reinforce the need to implement some form ot management it this fishery is to recover to early 1970's levels. Landings (t) 600 - Landings (tl 250 - Landings CPUE (lbs/day) Landings Year Figure 17-2 Bottomfish landings in metric tons (t) and CPUE in pounds per day at the Main Hawaiian Islands (above) and the Northwestern Hawai- ian Islands (belowl. Note: This figure in Our Living Oceans 7995 displayed the CPUE for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands prior to 1988 at double the correct value. CPUE (Ibs./day) - 1,600 - 1,400 - 1,200 - 1,000 - 800 - 600 - 400 - 200 - 0 I 55 60 65 70 75 Year Management Concerns The spawning biomass of several important MHI bottomfish species (ehu, hapu'upu'u, onaga, opakapaka, and uku) appears to be at about 5- 3()"o of orii;inal levels. Thus, overtitihzation is a concetn, and the Western Pacific Fishery Manage- ment Council has recommended that Hawaii take 1 91 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS CPUE (lbs,/l ,000 hooks) dergo a 2-year pelagic phase prior to recruitment into the fishery and that the seamount popula- tions comprise a single stock. Figure 17-3 Pelagic armorhead CPUE from bottom longline sam- pling during research cruises. Biannual samples were taken from 1985-88, and annual samples there- after. No samples were taken in 1992. Bigeye trevally, Hanauma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, Year action to prevent overfishing because the lishery and the bottomfish habitat are predominantly within state waters. During the past 2 years, the State ol Hawaii conducted a series of- meetings with fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen to de- velop a management plan for the state's bottomfish fishery. In 1 998, the state established a new admin- istrative rule that governs bottomfishing in state waters and includes restrictions on fishing gear and fishing areas. Progress Researchers continue to identify nursery habi- tat for juvenile snappers and groupers in Hawaii, and age and growth curves have been extended to include early juvenile stages. Improvements have been made in collection ot more complete catch- and-effort data from the NWHI fishery. Fishery discard patterns and interactions with sharks and protected species have also been examined. No progress toward cooperative international management is foreseen for the pelagic armorhead. Cooperative exchanges of fishery data with scien- tific colleagues in Japan have provided annual com- mercial catch data by seamount. Recently acquired biological data of importance for future manage- ment considerations indicate that armorhead un- FOR FURTHER READING Huni|ilire\ s, R. I ., |r., D. T. Tagami, and M. P. ,Seki. 1984. Seamount fishery resources within the south- ern Emperor-northern Hawaiian Ridge area. In R. W. Grigg and K. Y. Tanoue (Editor.s), Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, May 25-27, 1983, volume 2, p. 226-236. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR84- 01. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Humphreys, R. L., Jr., G. A. Winans.and D.T. Tagami. 1989. Synonymy and life history of the north Pacific pelagic armorhead, Pseitdopentaceros whcelcri Hardy (Pisces: Pentacerotidae). Copeia 1989(1): 142- 1 53. Martin, A. P, R. Humphreys, and S. R. Palumbi. 1992. Population genetic structure of the armorhead, Pieudopentdccnis wlieclen. In the north Pacific ( )cean: application of the polymerase chain reaction to fish- eries problems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(1 1):2386-2391. SdiiicrKin, 1). A., .iiid B. S. Kikk.iw.i. ]9VJ, l'n|nila- tion dynamics ot pelagic armorhead, Pieudopentaceros wheeler! on Southeast Hancock Seamount. Fishery Bulletin 90:756-769. LIchida, R. N., S. Hayasi, and G. W. Boehlert (Edi- tors). 1986. Environment and resources olseamounts in the North Pacific. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA •fechnical Report NMFS-43, 106 p. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management ('oun- cil. 1998. Bottomfish and seamount groundfish fish- eries of the western Pacific region. 1997 annual re- port, p. 3-69 to 3-75. Western Pacific Region.il Fish- ery Management ("ouncil. 1 164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. 1 92 Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries INTRODUCTION The fishes in this group range the high seas and often are outside U.S. fisheries management jurisdiction. Some species are sought vigorously by both commercial and sport fishermen. The sta- tus of many is either uncettain or unknown. Inuring 1976-80, the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery expanded and was dominated by the U.S. fleet. Fishing became less profitable in the 1980's, and many U.S. fishermen quit or moved to the central-western Pacific, leaving Mexico, with more than SO purse seiners, the dominant fleet in the e.istern tropical Pacific. In the next decade, the U.S. fleet declined to about 7 vessels in 1993- 97 in response to domestic regulations that ad- dressed dolphiii mortality concerns. Purse seiners (all countries) in the eastern ttopical Pacific in 1997 numbered about 189. Until 1980, the In- ter-American IVopical Tuna Commission (lA T PC) regulated the international fishery with catch quo- tas. Since then, lATTC regulations have been sus- pended because Mexico with its dominant fleet is not a Commission member. Currently, there is no international tuna management in the eastern tropical Pacific; each coastal nation regulates fish- ing within its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Also, since there is not yet an overall resource management ptogram in the central-western Pa- cific, the South Pacific Fotuni Fisheries Agency (FFA), which represents the South Pacific island nations, has instituted a licensing progtam for for- eign (distant-water) fishing fleets through access agreements. The U.S. fleet is currently limited to SS purse seiners in the region under an access agreement called the South Pacific Regional Tuna Unit 18 NMFS SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER La Jolla California and NMFS SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, HONOLULU LABORATORY Honolulu Hawaii Yellowfin tuna. 1 93 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Table 18-1 Productivity in metric tons and status of Pacific highly migratory pelagic species. Species/area Recent average yield (RAY) Current potential yield (CPY) Long-term potential yield (LTPY) Fishery utiJization level Stock level relative to LTPY Yellowfin tuna (central-western Pacific)' 335,451 600,000 600,000 under above Yellowfin tuna (eastern-tropical Pacific)' 257,333 300,000 unknown full near Skipiack tuna (central-western Pacific)' 950,527 2,000,000 2.000,000 under above Skipjack tuna (eastern-tropical Pacific)' 135,967 135,967 135,967 under near Albacore (North Pacific)' 73,667 80,000 80,000 under near Albacore (South Pacific)' 36,733 36,733 36,733 unknown near Bigeye tuna^ 132,615 160,000 160,000 full near Blue marlin^ 23,278 23,278 23,278 over below Black marlin^ 2,621 2,621 2,621 unknown near Striped marlin' 11,649 11,649 11,649 under near Sailfish and shortbill spearfish' 4,360 4,360 4,360 unknown near Swordfish^ 29,794 29.794 25,000 unknown near Wahoo- 160 160 160 unknown near Dolphinfish^ 23.020 23,020 23,020 unknown near Pelagic sharks^ 32,243 32,243 32,243 unknown unknown Total 2,049,418 3,439,825 3,435,031 US Subtotal^ 253,606 253,116 253,116 '1995-97 average '1993-95 average ^1994-96 average "U S subtotal IS U S landings of tunas, swordfisfi, and billfisli for 1993-95, 1995-97 data are unavailable Treaty. The FFA opened multilateral talks m 1 ')')4 for the purpose of developing a conservation and management treat)' for tropical tuna species and South Pacific albacore. These talks are continuing at an accelerated pace. Currently, there is no international manage- ment regime for the pelagic species in the North Pacific. An informal arrangement has existed be- tween lapan and the United States for assessing the status of North Pacific albacore (scientists [mm Canada, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea also participate.) Recently, the United States and Ja- pan, through a bilateral agreement, established the Interim Scientific Committee tor Tuna and luna- like Species in the North Pacific Ocean to moni- tor North Pacific fisheries as a precursor tor a management regime. The temperate-water bluefin tuna is not con- sidered here, as most catches have been relatively minor and taken off California in recent years. This species is taken incidentalK' while purse seining tor other species (anchovy and mackerel; yellow- fin and skipjack tunas). It is also taken sporadi- cally by the fTiwaii-based longline fishery on the northern swordfish grounds. U.S. billfisli harvests (except for swordfish) ha\e been dwarfed by foreign harvests (mostly from longline fisheries). There is no international authotitv managing these species in the Pacific, although they are under consideration in the FFA talks. U.S. management authorin' for billfish and tuna in the FEZ rests with the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management C'ouncil tor cen- tral and western Pacific waters, and with the Pa- cific Fishery Management Council tor North American waters, in the past, the latter has del- egated management to the State of California tor swordfish, striped marlin, and some sharks. Cur- rently, there is renewed interest by the Pacific Fish- ery Management Cotmcil in de\'elo[iing billlish, tuna, antl shark management plans. Species and Status Highly migratory pelagic species include tropi- cal tunas (yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack), alba- 1 9 4 UNIT 18 PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES core, marlins, spearfish, sailfish, swordhsh, sharks, and other large fishes. Most are caught commer- cially, but some, especially marlins, support im- portant recreational fisheries as well. Tropical Tunas Longline gear is used to catch yellowtin and bigeye tunas across the Pacific, whereas the purse seine is the primary gear in the eastern and the western tropical Pacilic for capture ot vellowfin and skipjack tunas. Purse seine fishing is conducted generally between latitude 20^N and 20°S. Longline fishing extends to higher latitudes (e.g. to 40°N). Other gears used in the central-western Pacific fisheries include ring net, handline, troll, and pole-and-line. Purse seiners, dominated by U.S. and Japanese fleets but with substantial fleets from Korea and Faiwan, take 30-'iO% ot the yel- lowfin tuna catch in the central-western Pacific. In 1996, the total number of purse seiners in the central-western Pacific was more than 200, includ- ing 40 U.S. seiners. Virtually all skipjack tuna is taken by pole-and-line and purse seine. Most of the bigeye tuna catch is taken by longline gear. Me.xico is the primary fishing nation in the eastern tropical Pacific. Others include the United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and some other coastal nations. Major fishing fleets in the central-west- ern Pacific come from the United States, Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines, and Taiwan. Cur- rent, recent, and long-term potential yields tor the various species are given in Table 18-1. More skipjack tuna are caught than any other tuna species. The recent annual yield of Pacific skipjack tuna taken by U.S. and foreign fleets is 950,527 metric tons (t) from the central-western Pacific and 135,697 t fiom the eastern tropical Pacific (Figure 18-1); recreational catches are small. The species is believed to be underutilized, with the long-term potential \'ield tor the central-west- ern stock between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 t. The annual dockside ex-vessel revenue ot the U.S. and foreign Pacific skipjack tuna catch is about 5869,000,000, and for yellowfin tuna it is well in excess of $474,000,000. These figures are based on a conservative dockside price ot S800/t tor both species. The recent average yield of yellowfin tuna tor the entire Pacific is about 592,784 t (Table Landings (x 1,000 t) 800 Landings 1- 1.000 tl Eastern tropical Pacific 90 95 Year Figure 18-1 Landings of slito>H>. Pacific Science 50(4): 371-381. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Our living oceans. Report on the statu.s ot U.S. living marine resources, 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-19, 160 p. Price, R. J., and P D. Tom. 1997. Abalone. Cilifornia Sea Grant Program Publication UCSGEP97-6W. Universin'ofC'alitornia, Davis, California. Electronic document: hi tp://ww\v-seafood. ucdavis.edu/ pubs/ abalone.htm, (■> p. Siiiith, M. K. 1993. An ecological perspective on in- shore fisheries in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Marine Fisheries Review 55(2):34-49. Wilkens, M. E., and M. W Saunders (Editors). 1997. Biology and management ot sablefish. Anaplupinna fimbria. Papers trom the international symposium on the biology and management ot sablefish. Seattle, Washington, 1,H-1S April 1993. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 130, 275 p. 227 Marine Mammals of the Alaska Region INTRODUCTION The Alaska region has 39 stocks of 24 species oi marine mammals. Three of these species (sea otter, polar bear, and walrus) are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the remaining cetaceans and pinnipeds are managed by the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Accord- ing to the criteria provided in the 19')4 Amend- ments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), these include 10 strategic stocks: the northern hir seal (which is depleted under the MMPA); the sperm whale, the western North Pa- cific and central North Pacific humpback whales, the fin whale, the North Pacific right whale, and the bowhead whale (listed as endangered imder the Endangered Species Act (ESA)); the Cook In- let stock of beluga (annual takes exceeding the potential biological removal (PBR) level); and the western U.S. Pacific stock of Steller sea lions (listed as endangered under the ESA) as well as the east- ern Pacific stock of this species (listed as threat- ened under the ESA). Of the ,V) stocks, nine are believed to be increasing, five are stable, three are declining, and the population status of the remain- ing 22 are unknown. Flight stocks, the western U.S. Pacific stock of the Steller sea lion, the northern fur seal, the Gulf of Alaska harbor seal and all stocks of beluga whales, are subject to subsistence harvests. While most marine mammal stocks are assessed under the authority of Section 117 of the MMPA, the NMFS determined that management of the stocks subject to subsistence harvests that do not have significant commercial takes should be developed through the comanagement process described in Unit 22 NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory Seattle Washington Harbor seals, LeConte Gla- cier, Alaska. 229 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Section 1 19 of the Act. The process should also include a sound research and management pro- gram to identify and address uncertainties con- cerning the stocks. Table 22-1 presents a summary of the status of stocks tor the marine mammals in the Alaska region. Important population parameters tor the stocks and their status under the various protected species laws are included. These include: stock identification, N (a conservative estimate ot abundance used to estimate the PBR, which is the ma.ximum allowed level ot human-related removal in a given year), estimates ot current human-re- lated mortality, population status, and current population trend. A narrative tor some selected stocks tollows: STELLER SEA LION: EASTERN AND U.S. WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC STOCKS Stock Definition and Geographic Range Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific rim from northern Japan to California, with his- toric centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively The species is not known to migrate, hut indi- viduals disperse widely outside ot the breeding season (late May-early July), thus potentially in- termixing with animals from other areas. Two sepa- rate stocks of Steller sea lions are recognizee! within U.S. waters: an eastern Pacific stock, which in- cludes animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144^'W), and a western U.S. Pacific stock, which includes animals from Cape Suckling wesrward. Steller sea lions in Canada are part ot the eastern Pacific stock. Population Size ing correction t.ictors derived from previous sur- veys, the 1996 surveys resulted in an estimated 39,500 Steller sea lions (33,700 nonpups and 8,800 pups) for the entire Cult ot Alaska, Aleu- tian Islands, and Bering Sea region that comprises the western U.S. Pacific stock. A comparable esti- mate tor the eastern Pacific stock is not possible. However, counts from the southeast Alaska, Brit- ish CA)lumbia, Clilitornia, and Oregon region in- dicate a population ot at least 30,400 Steller sea lions. Minimum Population Estimate Using the population estimate (N) ot 39,500 and an a.ssociated CV of 0.0184, N,^,^,^ for the western U.S. Pacific stock is calculated as 38,893 (Table 22-1). The population estimate for theeast- Steller sea lion bull, cow, and pup. Southeast Alaska. An estimate ot Steller sea lion abundaiice in Alaska is made possible using survey data collected in June and lulv of 1996, from California to the western Aleutian Islands. The surveys iiicluded counts ot animals, excluding pups, at 9S "trend sites," where sea lions in the western U.S. Pacific stock have been monitored since the 1970's. Us- 'Cocfficient of v.iri.iiion (t'V) is a statisticai measure used to calculate confidence intervals (CI), which gauge the accuracy ot population estimates. An accurate population estimate is characterized by a low CV and a narrow CI. CI is often given a percentage likelihood ot being correct (e.g. 9^% means that if the data were rcsampled and the CI were recalcul.iicd Hill times, then 95 times it would contain the true value. 230 UNIT 22 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION Potential Minimum biological Annual population removal human- MMPA estimate level caused Strategic /ESA Species Stock area IN,,,,,)' (PBR)' mortality^ status-" status'" Trend^ Stellar sea lion Western US Pacific 38,893 350 443 Y E D Steller sea lion Eastern Pacific 30,403 1.368 16 Y T 1 Northern fur seal North Pacific 848.539 18,244 1.722 Y D S Harbor seal Southeast Alaska 35,226 2.114 1.778 1 Harbor seal Gulf of Alaska 27,917 868 824 D Harbor seal Bering Sea 12,648 379 26 D Spotted seal Alaska N/A N/A N/A S Bearded seal Alaska N/A N/A N/A U Ringed seal Alaska N/A N/A N/A u Ribbon seal Alaska N/A N/A N/A u Beluga Beaufort Sea 32,453 649 160 s Beluga Eastern Chukchi Sea 3.710 74 54 u Beluga Eastern Bering Sea 6.439 129 127 s Beluga Bristol Bay 1.316 26 20 S Beluga Cook Inlet 712 14 71 Y u Killer whale Eastern North Pacific transient 197 20 08 u Killer whale Eastern North Pacific resident 642 64 08 u Pacific white-sided dolphin North Pacific 486.719 4.867 4 u Harbor porpoise Bering Sea 8.549 86 2 u Harbor porpoise Southeast Alaska 8.156 82 4 u Harbor porpoise Gulf of Alaska 7,085 71 25 u Dall's porpoise Alaska 76,874 1.537 42 u Sperm whale North Pacifc N/A N/A N/A Y E u Baird's beaked whale Alaska N/A N/A 0 u Cuvier's beaked whale Alaska N/A N/A 0 u Stejneger's beaked whale Alaska N/A N/A 0 u Gray whale Eastern North Pacific 21.597 432 47 1 Humpback whale Western North Pacific 367 07 0 Y E u Humpback whale Central North Pacific 3.698 74 1 0 Y E 1 Fin whale Northeast Pacific N/A N/A 0 Y E u Minke whale Alaska N/A N/A 0 u Northern right whale North Pacific N/A 0 0 Y E u Bowhead whale Western Arctic 7,738 77 49 Y E 1 Sea otter' South Central Alaska 20.948 2.095 313 1 Sea otter' Southeast Alaska 8.709 871 376 1 Sea otter' Southwest Alaska 65.761 5.659 101 u Polar bear' Alaska Chukchi & Benng Seas N/A N/A 55 1 Polar bear' Alaska Southern Beaufort Sea 1.61 1 73 34 1 Walrus' Alaska 188.316 7,533 4.890 u 'Nmin IS a conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR and provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate -PBR (potential biological removal) is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stocV while allowing that stock to reach or stay at its optimum sustainable population level (50-100% of its carrying capacity) ^Annual human-caused mortality is an estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans ■"Strategic status: Y = yes, N/A = information is not available, and N/D = estimated value has not been determined at this time ^MMPA/ESA status E = listed as endangered and T - listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act D = listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act ^Trend increasing (I), stab!e(S), decreasing (D), or unknown (U) T'hese species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and are not included in the stock-status tables of the National Overview Table 22-1 Status of marine mammal stocks in the Alaska Region. 231 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Population (X 1.000) 140 - 120 - 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 - 1960s (decade average) 1970's (decade average) Western U S Pacific stock ~ Eastern Pacific stock U S total Year ern Pacifii; stock of 30,400 is used as a miiiimiim because animals not seen in the surveys have not been taken into account. Figure 22-1 Estimated population size of Steller sea lions (adults, ju- veniles, and pups) of tfie two stocks off ttie United States and Canada. Current Population Trend Western U.S. Pacific Stock — Ihe first reported trend counts (an index of population size) of Steller sea lions in Alaska were made durini; 19S6-60 which indicated that there were at least 140,000 sea lions in the Clulf of Alaska and Aleutian Is- lands. Subseqtient surveys indicated a major popu- lation decrease, first detected in the eastern Aleu- tian Islands in the mid 1970s. The decline ap- peared to have spread eastward to the Kodiak Is- land area during the late 1970's and early 1980's, and then wesrward to the central and western Aleu- tian Islands during the early and mid 1980's. The greatest declines occurred in the eastern Aleutian Islands and western Gull of Alaska, but declines also occurred in the central Gulf of Alaska and central Aleutian Islands. Uncorrected counts from 1976-79 indicated about 104,000 ,sea lions. The western U.S. Pacific stock decreased 37.4'!''o from 1 989 to 1 994. The 1 994 estimate was 42,S36 ani- mals, and the 1996 estimate was 39,S()(). 2,000-3,000 animals (Figure 22-1). The counts in Oregon have shown a gradual increase since 1 976, as the adult and juvenile count for that year was 1,486 compared to 3,522 for 1994. This in- crease is likely due to a recovery from reduced numbers caused bv mortality prior to 1972, as im- migration from other areas has not been docu- mented. Cxnints in (California declined by over 50% from 5,000-7,000 berween 1927 and 1947 to 2,000-2,500 berween 1980 and 1990; limited information suggests that counts in northern Cali- fornia have increased from the late 1970's to the early 1990's. At Ano Nuevo, California, a steady decline in ground counts started around 1 970, re- sulting in a 85'Ko reduction in the breeding popu- lation by 1987. Based on data from vertical pho- tography taken between 1990 and 1993, pup num- bers declined at a rate of 9.9%, while older indi- viduals declined at a rate ot 31.5%. Most recently, population estimates tor Steller sea lions in the eastern Pacific stock increased 5.8% from 1989 (22,600) to 1994 (23. 'S33) an increase that ap- parenth' is continuing. Stock Status The PBR tor the western U.S. Pacific stt)ck of Steller sea lions has been estimated at 350 animals and lor the eastern Pacific stock at 1 ,368. 1 he es- timated annual level of total human-caused mor- tality and serious injury was 443 animals lor the western U.S. Pacific stock and 16 tor the eastern Pacific stock, rhe mortalities lor the western U.S. Pacific stock exceed this stock's estimated PBR. Both stocks of Steller sea lion are currently listed under the PSA; the western U.S. Pacific stock is listed as endangered, and the eastern Pacific stock is listed as threatened. Thus, both stocks ol Steller sea lions are classified as strategic stocks. Manage- ment actions recently implemented to reduce in- teractions with human activities include no-entry bufler zones around rookeries, prohibition ot groundfish trawling within 10 20 iiautiL.il miles of certain rookeries, and spatial and tempt)ral al- location of Gulf of Alaska pollock catches. Eastern Pacific Stock — Trend counts lor the east- ern Pacific stock have been relatively stable at about 232 UNIT 22 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION -**;i*^ Northern fur seal bull, cow, and pup. Saint Paul Island, eastern Bering Sea. NORTHERN FUR SEAL: EASTERN PACIFIC STOCK Stock Definition and Geographic Range Northern tur seals are found l"rom southern CaHfornia north to the Bering Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and Honshu Isktnd, japan. During the breeding season, approximately 74% of the worldwide population is found on the I'ribilot Is- lands in the southern Bering Sea, with the remain- ing animals spread throughout the North Pacific. Of the seals in U.S. waters outside of the Pribiloh, appro.ximately 1% ot the population is found on Bogoslot Island in the southern Bering Sea and San Miguel Island off southern t^alitornia. Fur seals may temporarily haul out onto land at other sites in Alaska, British Cohmibia, and on islets along the coast of the continental United States, but generally outside ol the breeding season. Adults usualh' are found on shore during the 6-month reproductive season (June-November), then migrate south and spend the next 6 months at sea. Adult females and pups from the Pribilof Islands migrate through the Aleutian Islands into the North Pacific, often to the Oregon and Cali- fornia offshore waters. Pups may remain at sea for 22 months before returning to their rookery of birth. Adult males generally migrate only as far south as the Gulf of Alaska and the Kamchatka coast. Iwo separate stocks of northern fur seals are recognized within U.S. waters: an eastern Pa- cific stock, and a San Miguel Island stock. Population Size Ihe population estimate for the eastern Pa- cific stock of fur seals is calculated as the estimated number of pups at rookeries multiplied by a series of different expansion factors determined froin a life table analysis to estimate the number of year- lings, 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, and animals at least 4 years old. The expansion factors are based on a sex and age distribution estimated after the har- vest of juvenile males was terminated. The result- ing population estimate is equal to the pup count multiplied by approximately 4.47'i. As the great majority of pups arc born on the I'ribilof Islands, pup estimates are concentrated on these islands, though additional counts are made on Bogoslof Island. A total population estimate for the north- ern Pacific stock based on recent pup counts was 1,002,516 seals. 233 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Pups (X 1.000) Figure 22-2 Northern fur seal pup counts from the Pribilof Islands, 1970-96, St. Paul Island St Geotge Island Year Minimum Population Estimate Using the population estimate (N) ot 1 ,002, S I (i and a CV of 0.2 to account for the cor- rection factor, N for the eastern Pacific stock oi mm northern tur seals is 848,539 animals. Current Population Trend The Alaska population ot northern fur seals recovered to approximatelv 1 ■2'S million animals in 1974, alter the killing ot temales was termi- nated in 1968. The population then began to de- crease, with pup pr<:)dtiction declining at a rate ot 6.5-7.8% per year into the 1980's; the total stock estimate in 1983 was 877,000. Annual pup pro- duction on St. Paul Island has remained relativcK' stable since 1981 (Figure 22-2), indicating that stock size has not changed much in recent years. The most recent stock estimates prior to 1 996 were 984,000 in 1992, and 1.01 million in ]')>)(). I'he northern for seal was designated as depleted un- der the MMPA in 1988 because population levels had declined to less than 50'Mi ot levels observed in the late 1950's, and there was no compelling evidence that carrying capacity (K) had changed substantially since the late 1950's. Under the MMPA, this stock will remain listed as depleted until population levels reach at least the lower limit ot its optimum sustainable population ((iO"ii ot K). Status of Stock The PBR tor the eastern Pacific stock ot north- ern fijr seals is 18,244 animals. The estimated an- nual level ot total human-caused mortality and serious injury is less than 2,000 seals, and thus does not exceed its PBR. The eastern Pacific stock of the northern for seal is classified as a strategic stock because it is designated as depleted under the MMPA. BOWHEAD WHALE: WESTERN ARCTIC STOCK Stock Definition and Geographic Range Bowhead whales are distributed in seasonally ice-covered waters ot the Arctic and near-Arctic, generally north ot 54°N and south ot 75"N in the Western Arctic Basin. Small stocks occur in the Sea ot Okhotsk, Davis Strait, Hudson Bav, and Spitsbergen, but only a tew tens to a tew hundreds are found in each ot these stocks. The largest rem- nant population IS the western Arctic stock which migrates from wintering areas (November to March) in the northern Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the spring (March through June), to the Beaufort Sea where thev spend niticli of the summer (mid May through September) before rettirning to the Bering Sea in the autumn (Sep- tember through November). 1 he bowhead spring migration follows fractures in the sea ice around the coast ot Alaska, generally in the shear zone between the shorefast ice and the mobile polar pack ice. There is evidence ot whales following each other, even when their route does not take advan- tage of large ice-free areas. As the whales travel east past Point Barrow, Alaska, their migration is somewhat ttmneled between the shoreline and the polar pack ice, making for an optimal location from which to study this stock. Most of the year, bowhead whales are closely associated with sea ice. Only during the summer is this population in rela- tively ice-free waters in the southern Beaufort Sea. an area often exposed to industrial activity related to pctroletim exploration. 234 UNIT 22 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION Population Size All stocks ot bowhead whales were severely depleted during intense commercial whaling prior to the 20th century, starting in the early I6th cen- tury near Labrador and spreading to the Bering Sea in the mid 19th century. Prior to commercial whaling, the minimum world wide population estimate was 50,000 animals, with 1 0,400-23,000 in the western Arctic stock. This population dropped to less than 3,000 when commercial whal- ing on this stock ceased at the end of the 19th century (Figure 22-3). Since 1978, bowhead whales have been counted from sites on sea ice north of Point Bar- row during the whales" spring migration. These counts have been corrected for whales missed due to distance offshore (through acoustical locators), whales missed when no watch was in effect (based on sighting rates), and whales missed during a watch (estimated as a function ot visibility, num- ber of observers, and distance offshore). However, in some years a small proportion ot the popula- tion may not migrate past Point Barrow in the spring, therefore the estimate could be negatively biased. In 1993, unusuallv good counting condi- tions resulted in what is considered to be the most accurate population estimate to date for this stock: 8,200 bowhead whales (CV = 0.069), with a 95% confidence interval trom 7,200 to 9,400. Minimum Population Estimate Using the population estimate (N) of 8,200 and its associated CV of 0.069, N tor the west- niin ern Arctic stock of bowhead whales is 7,738. Current Population Trend The western Arctic stock increased at a rate ot 3.1% (95% CI = 1.4-4.7%) from 1978 to 1993, when abundance increased trom approximately 5,000 to 8,000 whales. This rate of increase takes into account whales that passed beyond the view- ing range ot the observers. Landings (X 1,000) Landings Population (X 1,000) Population - 4 - 2 _L. _L_ _L. I I _L. -J_ 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year Status of Stock The PBR tor this stock is 77 whales. The In- ternational Whaling Commission (IWC) indepen- dently established a quota for the number of bow- head whales to be taken by subsistence hunters, such that the number ot whales struck could not exceed 68 in 1995, 67 in 1996, 66 in 1997, and 65 in 1998. The IWC determination takes prece- dence over the U.S. PBR estimate tor the purpose ot managing the Alaska native subsistence harvest. The level ot human-caused mortalitv and serious injury averaged over the past five years (49) does not exceed the PBR (77) nor the IWC quota for 1998 (66). Bowhead whales ot the western Arctic stock are listed as endangered under the ESA and turther classified as a strategic stock. BELUGA WHALE: BEAUFORT SEA, EASTERN CHUKCHI SEA, EASTERN BERING SEA, COOK INLET AND BRISTOL BAY STOCKS Stock Definition and Geographic Range Beluga whales are distributed throughout sea- sonally ice-covered Arctic and subarctic waters ot the Northern Hemisphere, and are closely associ- ated with open leads and polynya in ice-covered regions. Depending on season and region, beluga Figure 22-3 Bowhead whale population trend and catch history, 1848-1993. 235 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS whales in the western Arctic may occur in both offshore and coastal waters, with concentrations in Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Norton Sound, Kasegaluk l.agoon, and the Mackenzie Delta. It is assumed that most beluga whales Irom these sum- mering areas overwinter in the Bering Sea. Sea- sonal distribution is allected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and hu- man interaction. During winter, beluga whales occur in otishore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer coastal es- tuaries, bays, and rivers lor molting and calving. Annual migrations may cover thousands ot kilo- meters. Five ptitative stocks of beluga whales are rec- ognized within U.S. waters: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bav, Kastern Bering Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. Population Size Ihe sources ot information to estimate abun- dance of belugas have included both opportunis- tic and systematic observations. The most recent survey conducted in U)92 tor the Beaufort Sea stock resulted in an estimate of approximately 20,803 whales. A correction factor of 2 has been recommended for the Beaufort Sea stock, result- ing in a current population estimate of .V),2'i,S. The estimated minimum size of the Eastern Chukchi stock of belugas is 1 ,200 based on counts of animals from aerial surveys conducted dtiring 1989-91. If this count is corrected for the pro- portion of animals that were diving and thus not visible at the surface, and for the proportion ot newborns and vearlings not observed due to small size and dark coloration, the total corrected esti- mate for the Eastern Chukchi Sea is 3,710. The 1994 population estimate for Bristol Bay was 1,555. For Cook Inlet, the 1997 population esti- mate was 834 (N = 7 12, Table 22-1); however, mm the estimate for 1998 was less than 500. The cur- rent population estimate for the eastern Bering Sea stock is 7,986 based on surveys in 1992. 1>)')3, and 1994. Minimum Population Estimate Ihe minimiHii population estimates for Alaska beluga whale stocks are: 32,453 for the Beaufort Sea stock; 3,710 for the eastern Chukchi .sea stock; 6,439 for the eastern Bering Sea stock; and 1,316 tor the Bristol Bay stock. The mininuim estimate of abundance for Cook Inlet beluga whales is cur- rently being revised, but will likely be less than 400 animals. Current Population Trend The Beaufort Sea stock ot beluga whales is believed to be stable or increasing; the eastern Chukchi Sea and Bristol Bay stocks are believed to be stable. The population trend h)r the F'astern Bering Sea stock is uncertain at this time. I he Cook Inlet stock is likely declining. Status of Stock The PBR for Alaska beluga stocks are: 649 for the Beaufoft Sea stock, 74 for the eastern Chukchi Sea stock, 26 for the Bristol Bay stock, 1 29 tor the eastern Bering Sea stock, and 14 for the Cook In- let stock. This latter PBR will likely be reduced as NMFS recently solicited information from the public legarding the need to classify this stock as endangered or threatened under the ESA or de- pleted under the MMPA. The levels of human- caused mortality and serious injury for these stocks averaged over the past 5 years are: 1 60 tor the Beau- fort Sea stock, 54 for the eastern Chukchi Sea stock, 127 for the eastern Bering Sea stock, 26 for the Bristol Bav stock, and 71 for the (!ook Inlet stock. At this time, only the C^ook Inlet stock of beluga whales has been classified as a strategic stock under the MMPA. FOR FURTHER READING Hill. P. S., .uul D. P. DcMastL-r. in press. Al.isk.i ni.irine mammal stock assessments: 1998. NDAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-97, 150 p. Hill, P. S., O. R DeMaster, and R. \. Sni.ill. 1 997. Alaska marine m.immal stock assessments, 1996. U.S. De- partment of C'ommerce, NOAA'I'echnital Memor.in- dum NMFS-AFSC-78, 150 p. 236 Marine Mammals of the Pacific Region and Hawaii " CSTTj -vvL '- ^^iMftfe/. ■■ '*^» INTRODUCTION The Pacific region has 65 stocks of at least 37 species of marine mammals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlik' Service is responsible for managing two stocks of sea otters (central Calitornia and Wash- ington), while the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice (NMFS) has management authority for the cetacean and pinniped stocks. According to the criteria provided in the 1994 Amendments to the Matine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), these include 1 1 strategic stocks. In the eastern Pacific (i.e. waters ol Washington, Oregon. California, and northern Mexico), the strategic stocks include; endangered sperm, humpback, blue, fm, and sei whales; short-fmned pilot whales, mesoplodont beaked whales, and threatened Guadalupe fur seals. Strategic stocks in Hawaiian waters include en- dangered blue, fm, and sperm whales, and Ha- waiian monk seals. Table 23-1 summarizes the status of marine mammal stocks in the Pacific tegion. Important population parameters of the stocks and their sta- tirs under the various protected species laws are in- cluded. Some selected stocks are discussed below. HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL Stock Definition and Geographic Range Hawaiian monk seals are distributed through- out the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHl) in six main reproductive populations at French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef Midway Atoll, and Kiue Unit 23 NMFS SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER La Jolla California Hawaiian monk seal and red-footed boobies. North- western Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 237 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Species Stock area Table 23-1 Status of marine mammal stocks of the Pacific region and Hawaii (Barlow et al., 1997). Top: California sea lion near Everett, Washington: bot- tom: northern right whale dolphin. California sea lion Haibor seal Harbor seal Harbor seal Northern elephant seal Guadalupe fur seal Northern fur seal Hawaiian monk seal Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin Risso's dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Stnped dolphin Common dolphin, short-beaked Common dolphin, long-beaked Northern right whale dolphin Killer whale Killer whale Pilot whale, short-finned Baird's beaked whale Mesoplodont beaked whales Cuvier's beaked whale Pygmy sperm whale Dwarf sperm whale Sperm whale Humpback whale Blue whale Fin whale Bryde's whale Sei whale Minke whale Rough-toothed dolphin Risso's dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin Spinner dolphin Striped dolphin Melon-headed whale Pygmy killer whale False killer whale Killer whale Pilot whale, short-finned Blainville's beaked whale Cuviers beaked whale Pygmy sperm whale Dwarf sperm whale Sperm whale United States California Oregon/Washington coast Washington inland waters California breeding Mexico to California San Miguel Island, California Hawaii Central California Northern California Oregon/Washington coast Inland Washington California/OregonAWashington California/Oregon/Washington California/OregonAA/ashington California coastal Calif ./Oreg./Wash offshore Calif ornia/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington California California/OregonAA/ashington California/Oregon/Washington Southern Resident Stock California/OregonAA/ashington California/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington California/Oregon/Washington Calif VOreg /Wash -Mexico California/Mexico California/Oregon/Washington Eastern Tropical Pacific Eastern North Pacific California/Oregon/Washington Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Minimum population estimate Potential biological removal level (PBR)' Annual human- caused mortality^ Strategic status** ESA status^ 111,339 6,680 974 N 27,962 1,678 243 N 25,665 1,540 15 N 15,349 921 36 N 51,625 2,142 145 N 3,028 104 00 Y T 5,018 216 00 N 1.431 43 N/A Y E 3,431 33 14 N 7,640 76 00 N 22,046 212 13 N 2,681 21 15 N 34,393 330 22 N 82,939 796 22 N 22,388 224 37 N 134 1 3 00 N 1,904 15 44 N 19,248 154 1 2 N 309,717 3,097 272 N 5,504 53 14 N 15,080 151 47 N 436 35 1 2 N 96 1 9 00 N 741 59 13 Y 252 20 12 N 1.169 11 92-13 N 6.070 61 28 N 2.059 19 28 N N/A N/A 00 N 896 1 8 45 Y E 563 05 1 8 Y E 1.463 1 5 02 Y E 747 1 5 <1 Y E 11.163 02 00 N N/A N/A 00 Y E 122 1 0 1 2 N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N 677 68 N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A Y E 238 UNIT 23 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION INCLUDING HAWAII Atoll. Additional populations, with limited rtpro- diiction and maintained by immigration, are found at Necker Island and Nihoa Island, and a small number of seals are distributed throughout the Main Hawaiian Islands. Demographically, the different island popula- tions have exhibited considerable independence. For example, abundance at French Frigate Shoals grew rapidly from the 1950's to the 1980's, while other populations declined rapidly. Current de- mographic variability among the island popula- tions probably reflects a combination oi different histories and varying environmental conditions. While management activities and research focus on single island and atoll populations, this species is managed as, and considered to be, a single stock. In the last two centuries, this species has expe- rienced rwo major declines which, presumably, have severely reduced its genetic variation. The tendency for genetic drih may have been (and may continue to be) relatively large, due to the small size of the different island and atoll populations. However, 1 0- 1 5% of the seals migrate among the different populations and, at least to some degree, this movement should counter the development ot separate genetic stocks. Population Size Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in 1997 was estimated bv counts of individual seals, the relationship between beach counts and total popu- lation size for subpopulations at Necker and Nihoa Islands, and a "best guess" for the Main Hawaiian Islands. A total of 1,295 seals (including pups) were observed at the main reproductive populations in 1997. Estimates for Necker and Nihoa Islands (± standard deviation) are 65 (+15.1) and 56 (±21.1), respectively. Finally, sporadic reports indicate that abundance on the Main Hawaiian Islands may be as high as 40 seals. By applying NMFS guidelines tor assessing marine mammal stocks, which account tor uncer- tainty in our abundance estimates, the minimum size tor the entire Hawaiian monk seal population in 1997 was 1,423 seals. Current Population Trend Between 1958 and 1993, average beach counts at the main reproductive population sites declined Liy 60%. From 1985 to 1993, the total of the av- erage site count declined by about 5'!i) annually. From 1993 to 1997, the total remained relatively stable (Figure 23-1). In the near future the trend will likely be determined by the extent to which expected growth at Kure Atoll and Pearl and Hermes Reef will offset the expected further de- cline at French Frigate Shoals. Human-induced mortality has caused two major declines ot the Hawaiian monk seal, and it ma\- continue to be an important tactor impeding Species StocI' area Potential Minimum biological Annual population removal human- estimate level caused Strategic ESA (N I' (PBR)- mortality^ status^ status- Blue whale Fin whale Bryde's whale Sea otter* Sea otter^ Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii California Washington N/A N/A N/A Y E N/A N/A N/A Y E N/A N/A N/A N 2,376 N/A N/A Y T 360 N/A N/A Y T Table 23-1 Continued from the previ ous page. ^Nmin IS a conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR and orovides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate Calculations are from 1996 N/A = information is not available 'PBR (potential biological removal) is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or stay at its optimum sustainable population level 150-100% of its carn/ing capacity) Calculations are from 1996 'Annual human-caused mortality is an estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious iniuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans Annual records for each species are not available Estimated totals are based upon available records, which vary by species (Barlow el a! . 1997) ""Strategic status Y = yes, N = no ^ESA status E = listed as endangered, and T = listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act ^his species is under the jurisdiction of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, and is not included in the stock-status tables of the National Overview 239 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Number of seals Average beach counts lation trends at Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll, and French Frigate Shoals appear to have been deter- mined by the pattern of human disturbance. Such disiiirhanccs caused pregnant females to abandon prime pupping habitat and nursing females to abandon their pups, thereby increasing juvenile mortality. Since 1979, disturbance from human activi- ties on land has generally declined and is currently a matter of concern at only Midway Island, where opportunities for ecotourism must be carefully monitored and controlled to prevent such distur- bances. Development and expansion of fisheries during the 1970's in the NWHl has led to inter- actions detrimental to monk seals. Ihc interac- tions fall into four categories: operations and gear conflict, potential entanglement in fisheries de- bris, seal consumption of potentially toxic discard, and competition for prey. Direct Hawaiian monk seal interactions have involved four fisheries: the NWHl lobster fishery, the NWHI bottomfish fish- ery, the pelagic longline fishery, and recreational fisheries in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Recent construction efforts and the establishment of a Pro- tected Species Zone around the Northwestern Ha- waiian Islands appear to have substantially reduced the potential for direct fisheries interactions. Pos- sible indirect interactions with fisheries, such as competition for lobster or the degradation of for- aging habitat associated with precious coral har- vesting, require further investigation. Status of Stock Figure 23-1 Average beach counts of Ha- waiian monk seals (exclud- ing Midway Island and pups). Year its recovery. In the 1800's, this species was deci- mated by sealers, surviving sailors of wrecked ship.s, and guano and feather hunters. A 19S8 survey in- dicated at least partial recovery of the species in the first half of this century; however, subsequent surveys documented a second major decline be- ginning in 1958 (or earlier), during which several populations (Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll, and Pearl and Hermes Reef) decreased by 80-100%. Popu- In 1976, the Hawaiian monk seal was desig- nated as endangered under the Kndangered Spe- cies Act (ESA) and depleted under the MMPA. Under the methodology specified in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA (NMFS, 1996), and employing the values of N (a conservative esti- mate of the minimum population of the stock) and R (one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size) or 1,42.5 monk seals and 0.07/yr, respectively, the calculated potential bio- logical removal (PBR) is 5 seals. However, the ESA takes precedence in the management of this spe- cies and, under the ESA, the allowable take of monk seals is zero. The species is assumed to be 240 UNIT 23 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION INCLUDING HAWAII well below its optimum sustamable population (OSP) and, theretore, is characterized as a strate- gic stock. HARBOR PORPOISE: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA STOCK is limited, harbor porpoise in central California is considered to be a separate stock. Other Pacific coast stocks of harbor porpoise include: 1 ) a north- ern California stock, 2) an Oregon/Washington coastal stock, 3) a Washington inland-waters stock, and 4) an Alaska stock. Left page: Hawaiian monk seal. Northwestern Hawai- ian Islands NationalWildlife Refuge. Stock Definition and Geographic Range In the Pacific, harbor porpoise are found in coastal and inland waters from Point Conception, California, to Alaska and across to Kamchatka and Japan. Harbor porpoise appear to have more re- stricted movements along the west coast of the con- tinental United States than along the U.S. east coast. Regional differences in pollutant residues from harbor porpoise tissue samples indicate that the species does not mix freely between Califor- nia, Oregon, and Washington (Calambokidis and Barlow, 1991). The study also showed some re- gional differences within California (although the sample size was small). This pattern stands in sharp contrast to the east coast of the United States and Canada where harbor porpoises are believed to migrate seasonally from as far south as the Caroli- nas to the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy. Early genetic analyses did not show any significant dif- ferences between samples from California and Washington, but more recent analyses with larger sample sizes do show significant differences. These studies show that porpoises on the west coast are not freely mixing or migratory, and movement is sufficiently restricted that genetic differences have evolved. In its harbor porpoise assessment (Barlow and Hanan, 1995), the NMFS and the California Department of Fish and Game recommended that the animals inhabiting the central California coast (from Point Conception to the Russian River) be treated as a separate stock. The justifications for this were: 1) fishery mortality of harbor porpoise is limited to central California, 2) movement of individual animals appeared to be restricted within California, and consequently 3) fishery mortality could cause the local depletion of harbor porpoise if the central California coast stock was not man- aged separately. Because the recent genetic studies have confirmed that movement on the west coast Population Size A 1994 review (Barlow and Forney, 1994) of previous estimates of harbor porpoise abundance along central California resulted in a new estimate of 4,120 animals (CV = 0.22)' based on a series of aerial surveys from 1988 to 1993. This recent es- timate is not significantly different from the pre- vious estimate of 3,274 animals (CV = 0.31) but is more precise (owing to the greater number of kilometers surveyed). Both of these estimates only include the region between the coast and the ')] m (50 fathom) isobath. In California, the vast ma- jority of harbor porpoises are sighted within this depth range; however, 24% of the harbor porpoises seen during aerial surveys of Oregon and Wash- ington were between the 100 m and 200 m isobaths (55-109 fathoms). Thus, these abundance estimates are likely underestimates of the total abundance by a non-trivial amount. The current minimum population estimate of 3,431 animals in central California is based on aerial surveys con- ducted between 1988 and 1993 (Barlow and Forney, 1994). Current Population Trend An analysis of a 1986—95 time series of aerial surveys was conducted to examine trends in har- bor porpoise abundance in central California (Forney, 1996). After controlling for the effects of sea state, cloud cover, and area on sighting rates, a negative trend in population size was evident. The trend was not statistically significant, but statisti- ' Coefficient of varidiion (CV) is a statistical measure used to calculate confidence intervals (CI), which gauge the accuracy of population estimates. An accurate population estimate is characterized by a low CV and a narrow CI. CI is often given a percentage likelihood of being correct (e.g. 9S% means that it the data were resampled and the CI were recalculated 100 tmies, then ^)'S times it would contain the true value. 24 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Humpback whale. Southeast Alaska. cal power to detect trends remains low. Indica- tions of a decline were most evident in the south- ern part of central California, between Point Con- ception and Monterey Bay. A real popidation de- cline would be somewhat surprising since fishery mortality has been declinmg during this same time period. Harbor porpoise abundance appears to be correlated with changes in sea surface temperature, and apparent trends could be caused by changing oceanographic conditions. Status of Stock The estimated PBR of 3.i animals for this stock is calculated as the product of one half of the mini- mum population estimate (3,431), one-half the default maximum net growth rate for cetaceans (4%), and a recovery factor of 0.48 (for a species of unknown status with a mortality rate coeffi- cient of variation equal to 0.44). The harbor porpoise in CLilifornia is not listed as rhrcatened or endangered under the ESA nor as depleted under the MMPA. Calculation of har- bor porpoise status relative to historic carrying ca- pacity suggests that the central ("alifornia popula- tion could have been reduced to between 30% and 97% of its carrying capacity by incidental fishing mortality. Present information is insufficient to narrow the range of this estimate, and the status of harbor porpoise relative to their OSP levels in central California is unknown. The average mor- tality rate of 14 animals over the past 3 years is less than the calculated PBR (33 animals) for cen- tral California harbor porpoise; thus, the central California harbor porpoise population is not con- sidered a strategic stock under the K4MPA. The Pacific Scientific Review Group (established by the MMPA) recommended, however, that this stock be considered strategic because it appears to be in decline and may be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act unless this trend is stopped. Because fishery mortality has been re- duced over the past 10 years and because there is some indication that the decline in animals may be due to natural causes, the NMFS does not be- lieve that a strategic status is justified at this time. Research will continue to monitor this population si/.e and to imestigate the possible causes of its decline. HUMPBACK WHALE: CALIFORNIA/ OREGON/WASHINGTOIM-MEXICO STOCK Stock Definition and Geographic Range Four relatively separate migrator\' populations of humpback whales have been identified in the North I'acific based on sightings of distinctively marked individuals. Ehese are the coastal ("alitor- nia/Oregon/Washington-Mexico stock, the Mexico offshore island stock (feeding destination unknown), the central North Pacific stock (Ha- waii/Alaska), and the western North Pacific stock (Japan/feeding destination probably the Aleutian Islands). The California/Oregon/Washington- Mexico stock ranges from Costa Rica to southern British Columbia hut is most common in coastal waters of C'alifornia (in summer and fall) and Mexico (in winter and spring). Significant levels of genetic differences exist between the California and Alaska feeding groups based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. The genetic exchange rate between California and Alaska is estimated to be less than one female per generation. Genetic profiles from 242 UNIT 23 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION INCLUDING HAWAII animal samples in the Hawaiian and coastal Mexi- can breeciing areas showed fewer genetic differ- ences than did the two feeding areas. These differ- ences are substantiated by the observed movement of individually identified whales between Hawaii and Mexico. There have been no individual matches between 597 humpbacks photographed in California and 617 humpbacks photographed in Alaska. Few whales photographed in British Co- lumbia have matched with a California photo- graphic catalog, indicating that British Columbia is an approximate geographic boundary between feeding populations. Population Size Based on whaling statistics, the pre- 1905 population of humpback whales in the North Pa- cific was estimated to be 15,000, but this popula- tion was reduced by commercial whaling to ap- proximately 1,200 by 1966. The present North Pacific total almost certainly exceeds 3,000 hump- back whales. Population estimates for the Calitornia/Or- egon/Washington-Mexico stock range from 338 (CV = 0.29) to 626 (CV = 0.41). The most pre- cise and least biased estimate is likely to be a 1 994 mark-recapture estimate of 597 (CV = 0.07) ani- mals. The minimum population estimate lor humpback whales in this stock from mark-recap- ture methods is approximately 563 humpback whales. Current Population Trend There is some indication that humpback whales have increased in abundance in C^alilornia coastal waters between 1979-80 and 1991, but this trend is not significant. Mark-recapture popu- lation estimates have increased steadily from 1 988- 90 to 1992-93 at about 5% per year. Although the North Pacific population is expected to have grown since it was given protected status in 1966, the possible effects of continued unauthorized take, incidental ship strikes, and gillnct mortality make this uncertain. Status of Stock The PBR level is estimated as 1 . 1 whales; how- ever, because this stock spends approximately half its time in Mexican waters, the PBR allocation for U.S. waters is one-half of the PBR estimate, or 0.5 whale/year. Humpback whales in the North Pacific were estimated to have been reduced to 13% of carry- ing capacity by commercial whaling, and the popu- lation remains severely depleted. The population's initial abundance has never been estimated sepa- rately for the California/Oregon/Washington- Mexico stock, but this stock was also probably de- pleted by whaling. Humpback whales are formally listed as endangered under the ESA, and conse- quently the California/Oregon/Washington- Mexico stock is automatically considered as a de- pleted and strategic stock under the MMPA. Al- though the estimated annual mortality due to en- tanglement (1.2/yr) plus ship strikes (0.6/yr) in California is greater than the estimated PBR level allocation of 0.5 for this stock in U.S. waters, the California/Oregon/Washington-Mexico stock ap- pears to be increasing in abundance. EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC DOLPHINS Approximately nine species of dolphins are in- cidentallv taken in the international purse-seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) waters off Mexico and Central America. Only four species (representing 10 stocks) have experienced significant mortality as- sociated with the tuna fishery. Since these four spe- cies also occur in U.S. waters and are impacted by U.S. fishing boats in the fleet, the NMFS South- west Fisheries Science Center has routinely assessed these dolphin populations. The greatest dolphin mortality occurred in the 1 960's and 1970's and led to dramatic declines in abundance of the northeastern spotted dolphin and eastern spinner dolphin stocks to one-fourth of their pre-exploitation level in 19S9. Addition- ally, trend data collected since 1975 indicate both stocks are still significantly below the levels of 1975. In 1993, the NMFS listed both the north- eastern offshore spotted and the eastern spinner stocks as depleted under the MMPA because they 243 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Spinner dolphins. thci inablc were Delow their optiniiim Mistainanlc popula- tions. Although the greatest mortaliry oeeurred in the 1960'sancl 1970s, incidental mortaliry of ETP dolphins was still lairK- high as recently as 1986 when 133,1 74 dolphins were estimated killed, and, out ot eight stocks for which a PBR level can now be calculated, seven had incidental mortaliries that exceeded their PBR's. In 1991, mortality in the three stocks ot greatest concern (northeastern spot- ted, eastern spinner, central common) still ex- ceeded their PBR's. These comparisons are illus- trative only, as the MMPA specifically manages ETP dolphins by quotas, not calculated PBRs. In- cidental mortaliry ot northeastern spotted dolphins increased in 1986 to 7% ot their abundance esti- mate, a level that is not likely to be sustainable, and this apparently led to another significant de- cline in the stock between 1983 and 1994. The data also indicate that the central stock ot com- mon dolphins is still significantlv below its 1975 level. N4t)rtality ot EIP dolphins has been declin- ing since 1986 and has decreased dramatically since 1991 Clable 23-2). A 1992 international agree- ment to manage the incidental mortaliry ot ETP dolphins, which included individual vessel quo- tas, has led to a decrease in the total mortalitv (2,914 dolphins of all species) in 1997. Since 1992, the incidental mortality has been less than the es- timated PBR tor all stocks, and the annual inci- dental mortality of each stock is now less than 0.2% ot their estimated abundance. Such low mortaliry rates should be sustainable and should, if continued, allow the northeastern spotted dol- phin and the eastern spinner dolphin populations to increase and eventuallv recover. Table 23-2 Mortality of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific due to the tuna fishery. Abundance 1986-90 Minimum population estimate 1986-90 Potential biological removal level (PBR)' 1986-90 Incidental mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery Stock 1994 1995- 1996' Northeastern spotted'' 730,000 648.900 6,489 934 952 818 West/South spotted 1.298,400 1.145.100 11,451 1,226 859 545 Coastal spotted 29,800 22.500 225 N/A N/A N/A Eastern spinner^ 631,800 518,500 5,185 743 654 450 Whitebelly spinner 101.9300 872,000 8,720 619 445 447 Central American spinner N/A N/A N/A 11 17 11 Northern common 476,300 353,100 3,531 101 9 77 Central common 406,100 297,400 2,974 151 192 51 Southern common 2,210,900 1,845,600 18,456 0 0 30 Striped 1,918.000 1,745.900 17,459 1 1 34 5 ' Comparison ot recent incidental mortality to potential biological removal levels (PBRs) calculated for slocks of eastern tropical Pacific dolphins It sfiould be noted thai ETP dolphins are explicitly excluded from management under the PBR section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Nonetheless, the calculated PBRs still provide a useful guide for mtepreting the significance of dolphin mortality Abundance estimates are from Wade and Gerrodette (1992) PBRs were calculated using an assumed maximum net productivity rate of 0 04 and a recovery factor of 0 5 m each case ^Hall and Lennert, 1997 ■lennert and Hall. In press ■* Listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 244 UNIT 23 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION INCLUDING HAWAII There are still some uncertainties and concerns about the status of two small populations ot en- demic subspecies that are found in the ETP, the coastal spotted dolphin and the Central Ameri- can spinner dolphin. An abundance estimate, only available for the coastal spotted stock, indicates that mortality of more than 225 animals per year may not be sustainable. No coastal spotted dol- phins were reported killed in 1 993 and 1 994 (with near 1 00% observer coverage), although they were reported killed in previous years. Additionally, 41 and 237 unidentified dolphins were reported killed in 1993 and 1994, respectively, which may have included some of these subspecies. Only 18 and 1 1 Central American spinner dolphins were re- ported killed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Monitoring of both ot these coastal distributed stocks remains important, particularly if much fishing effort occurs close to the coasr. In 1995, another international agreement set dolphin mortality limits by stock, provided for an end to U.S. embargoes of ETP tuna, and proposed a new definition ot "dolphin-sate" tuna. U.S. leg- islation (the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act) signed into law in 1997 imple- mented provisions ot this agreement and mandated new research to determine whether or not encircle- ment of dolphins during tuna purse-seine fishing has a signitlcant adverse impact on dolphin stocks. It it is found that encirclement does have a sig- nificant adverse ettect, the current definition of "dolphin-safe" (no dolphins were chased or en- circled while catching the tuna) will be retained; otherwise, the definition will be changed to mean that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured in that particular set even it dolphins were chased and encircled. The Secretary ot Commerce must make a preliminary determination on this matter by March 1 999 and a final determination by De- cember 2002. LITERATURE CITED Barlow. J., and K. A. Forney. 1994. An assessment ot the 1994 status of harbor porpoise in California. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memor.indum NMFS-SWFSC-20S. 17 p. Barlow, J., P. S. Hill, K. A. Forney, and D. R DeMaster. 1998. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 1998. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- SWFSC-258, 44 p. Barlow, J., and D. Hanan. 1995. An assessment of the status of harbor porpoise in central California. Re- port of the International Whaling Commission, Spe- ciallssue 16:123-140. Calambokidis, J., and |. Barlow. 1991. Chlorinated hydrocarbon concentration and their use tor describ- ing population discreteness in harbor porpoises from Washington. Oregon, and California. /;;: J. E. Reynolds HI and D. K. Odell (Editors), Marine mam- mal strandings in the United States. NOAA Fechni- cal Report NMFS 98, p. 101-110. Forney, K- A. 1996. Trends in harbor porpoise abun- dance off central California, 1986-95: Evidence for interannual changes in distriburion. International Whaling Commission Working Paper SC/48/SM5, 17 p. Hall, M. A., and C. Lennert. 1997. Incidental mortal- iry of dolphins in the Eastern Pacific Ocean tuna fish- ery in 1995. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47:641-644. Lennert, C, and M. A. Hall. In press. Incidental mor- tality of dolphins in the eastern Pacific Ocean tuna fishery in 1996. Report of the International Whaling Commission 48. NMFS. 1996. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 1995. U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-19. 160 p. Wade, R R., and T Gerrodette. 1992. Estimates of dolphin abundance in the eastern tropical Pacific: preliminary analysis of five years ot data. Report ot the International Whaling Commission 42:533-539. ERRATUM In Our Living Oceans 1995. the section ot Unit 23 on the harbor porpoise stock oft central California con- tained a figure showing population counts (Figure 23- 2). This figure was in error, and actually showed har- bor seal counts. 245 Marine Mammals of the Atlantic Region and the Gulf of Mexico INTRODUCTION The Atlantic region has at least 91 stocks of 39 species of marine mammals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has management authorit)' tor two stocks of the endangered West Indian manatee (Florida and Antillean), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has responsibility lor management of the remaining cetacean and pin- niped stocks. According to criteria provided by the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) there are 23 strategic stocks (Table 24-1). In the western North Atlantic, the strate- gic stocks iiicltide 6 stocks of endangered whales (right, humpback, fin, sei, blue, and sperm whales); the coastal bottlenose dolphin which is depleted under the MMPA; and stocks where estimated mortality exceeds their Potential tor Biological Removal (PBR) (dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, killer whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, mesoplodont beaked whale, short-finned pilot whale, common dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, and the Gult ot Maine/Bay ot Fundy harbor porpoise). In the northern Gult ot Mexico, strategic stocks include the endangered sperm whale, bottle- nose dolphin in coastal bays, sounds and estuar- ies, dwart and pygmy sperm whales, and the Florida and Antillean stocks ot endangered West Unit 24 STEVE SWARTZ NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Florida DEBRA L PALKA GORDON T WARING PHIL J CLAPHAM NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole Massachusetts Pantropical spotted dolphin. 247 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Species Stock area Table 24-1 Status of marine mammal stocks in the Atlantic region and Gulf of Mexico. Harbor seal Gray seal Harp seal Hooded seal Harbor porpoise Risso's dolphin Atlantic white-sided dolphin White-beaked dolphin Common dolphin Atlantic spotted dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin Striped dolphin Spinner dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Dwarf sperm whale Pygmy sperm whale Killer whale Pygmy killer whale Northern bottlenose whale Cuvier's beaked whale Mesoplodont beaked whale Pilot whale, long-tinned Pilot whale, short-finned Sperm whale North Atlantic right whale Humpback whale Fin whale Sei whale Minke whale Blue whale Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Atlantic spotted dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin Striped dolphin Spinner dolphin Rough-toothed dolphin Western North Atlantic Northwest North Atlantic Northwest North Atlantic Northwest North Atlantic Gulf of Maine/ Bay of Fundy Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic, offshore Western North Atlantic, coastal Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Western North Atlantic Canadian east coast Western North Atlantic Gulf of Mexico, outer continental shelf Gulf of Mexico, continental shelf edge and slope Western Gulf of Mexico coastal Northern Gulf of Mexico coastal Eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal Gulf of Mexico bay, sound, and estuarine' Northern Gulf of Mexico Northern Gulf of Mexico Northern Gulf of Mexico Northern Gulf of Mexico Northern Gulf of Mexico Potential Minimum biological Annual population removal human- ESA' estimate level caused Strategic MMPA (N„,)' (PBR)^ mortality^ status" status^ Trend^ 30,990 1.859 898 N 1 2,010 121 41 N 1 N/A N/A 329 N 1 N/A N/A 56 N 1 48,289 483 1,667 Y U 11,140 111 18 N U 19,196 192 218 Y u N/A N/A 0 N u 15,470 155 247 Y u 1,617 16 16 Y u 1,617 16 16 Y u 18,220 182 1 1 N u N/A N/A 031 N u !,794 43,233 4,530 2,938 3,518 8.963 432 45 29 35 90 58 2.482 25 29 Y D S N/A N/A 02 Y U N/A N/A N/A N U N/A N/A 0 N U 6 0 1 0 N U N/A N/A 0 N U 895 89 97 Y U 895 8,9 97 Y u 4.968 50 32 N u 457 46 32 Y u 1,617 32 0 Y E u 295 04 23 Y E u 0,019 32 6 57 Y E u 1,704 34 05 Y E u N/A N/A N/A Y E u 2.145 21 08 N u N/A N/A N/A Y E u 28 13 10 3,933 397 30 Y 2,255 23 1 5 N 26,510 265 1 5 N 3,409 34 0 N 4.465 45 0 N 660 6.6 0 N 248 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO Sperm whale. Species Stock area Potential Minimum biological population removal estimate level (N ,)' (PBRl- Annual human- ESA' caused Strategic MMPA mortality^ status" status^' Trend'' Clymene dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico 4,120 41 0 N U Fraser's dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico 66 07 0 N U Killer whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 197 2 0 N U False killer whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 236 24 0 N U Pygmy killer whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 285 28 0 N U Dwarf sperm whale Northern Gulf of Mexico N/A N/A N/A Y U Pygmy sperm whale Northern Gulf of Mexico N/A N/A N/A Y U Melon-headed whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 2,888 29 0 N U Risso's dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico 2,199 22 19 N U Cuvier's beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 20 02 0 N U Blainvilie's beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico N/A N/A 0 N u Gervais' beaked whale Northern Gulf of -Mexico N/A N/A 0 N u Pilot whale, short-finned Northern Gulf of Mexico 186 1 9 03 yS u Sperm whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 411 08 0 Y E u Br/de's whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 17 02 0 N u Manatee^ Florida Y E D Manatee^ Antillean Y E D 'N ,^ IS a conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR and provides reasonable assurance ttiat the stock size is equal to or giealer tlian the estimate ■'PBR (potential biological removal) is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock wtiile allowing that stock to reach or stay at its optimum sustainable population level (50-100% of its carrying capacity) ^Annual human-caused mortality is an estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans ""Strategic status Y = yes, N = no 'E = listed as endangered, and T = listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act D = listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Piotection Act ^Trend IS increasing (I), stable (S), decreasing (D), or unknown (U) 'Represents at least 33 individually recognized stocks of bottlenose dolphin m U S Gulf of Mexico bays, sounds, and other estuaries "The total level of estimated fishery-related mortality and serious iniury is unknown, but because there is a record of a fishery-related mortality or serious iniury and because of the extremely low estimated stock size, this is a strategic stock 'This species is under the jurisdiction of the U S Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice, and is not included in the stock-status tables of the National Oven/iew Table 24-1 Continued from previous page. 249 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Blue whale. Indian manatees. Recent assessments indicate that there is an increasing trend in the tour seal stocks; the coastal bottlenose dolphin stock is believed to be stable; West Indian manatees are believed to be declin- ing; and the trends for the remaining 84 stocks are unknown. BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN: GULF BAY, SOUND, AND ESTUARINE STOCKS Stock Definition and Geographic Range There are now 33 recognized provisional stocks that occupy the bays, soimds, and estuaries along the U.S. Cult ot Mexico. Seaward of these are rec- ognized an additional three coastal-to-shelt edge and three offshore provisional stocks. Studies re- lying on identification of individual dolphins sug- gest that bottlenose dolphins inhabiting many of the bays, sounds, and other estuaries form discrete communities. Ahhough breeding mav occur be- tween adjacent communities, the geographic na- ture of these areas suggests that each community exists as a functioning unit of its ecosystem and, under the MMPA, must be maintained as such. Therefore, each of the areas forming a contiguous enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water is provi- sionally considered to contain a distinct bottle- nose dolphin stock or management unit, but the number of these will likely change as new infor- mation on the biological uniqueness and degree of mixing among these communities is obtained. Although this is believed to be a risk averse ap- proach to management, the small size of many of these populations often results in estimates of sus- tainable removal levels (i.e. potential biological removal (PBR)) of less than one individual, and this becomes problematic, io this end, a major research objective is to develop biologically based criteria to better define and manage this species in the tlulf of Mexico. The continuous distribution ofbottleno.se dol- phins around the Gulf coast theoretically allows genetic exchange between adjacent communities. However, long-term mark-recapture studies using photo-identification of individual dolphins in the vicinity of Sarasota and Tampa Bavs in Florida demonstrate that individual dolphins remain in a given area year-round. Three distinct dolphin com- munities have been described in and around Sarasota Bay. One community was formed by dol- phins residing in the Clulf of Mexico coastal wa- ters, another consisted of the dolphins in the deep- water areas of Passage Key Inlet and Tampa Bay (adjacent to Sarasota Bay), and a third commu- nity resided in the shallow waters of Sarasota Bay. Females of the highly structured Sarasota dol- phin communit)' form a stable, discrete, long-term breeding unit with strong geographical fidelity Electrophorctic isozyme analysis showed signifi- cant differences between dolphins of the shallow- water Sarasota communit\' and the iampa Bay communitv, and from dolphins tiom Charlotte Harbor, to the south; however, there was a high degree of genetic heterozvgositv indicating that the Sarasota comniuiiin, \\ hile socialK' and geographi- cally distinct, is not genetically isolated. It has been suggested that the Sarasota community is likely one of a number of communities which comprise an extended popul.ition, the limits of which are unknown. I'hoto-identification and radio-tracking stud- 250 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO ics L(infirniL-d that some individual dolphins re- main in the same general areas within Matagorda Bay, Texas, throughout the year (Lynn, 1993); thus, the situation there may be similar to that ot the Florida west coast. Movement ot resident bottlenose dolphins in Texas through passes link- ing bays with the GulF ot Mexico appears to be relatively limited, but does occur and suggests that these communities, like those along the Florida west coast, may not be reproductively isolated from the coastal populations. For example, two bottle- nose dolphins previously seen in the South Padre Island, Texas, coastal area were seen in Matagorda Bay, 285 kilometer north, in May 1992 and May 1993. Preliminary analyses of mitochondrial DNA using polymerase chain reaction procedures sug- gested that Matagorda Bay dolphins appear to be a localized population, despite the suggestion ot mixing ot some individuals over large distances (NMFS, unpublished data'). Over 1,000 indi- vidual bottlenose dolphins have been identitied in bay and coastal waters near the northeast end ot Galveston Island, Texas, but most ot these were sighted only once with only 200 individuals re- ported to use the area over the long term, suggest- ing that a significant number ot dolphins are not resident in this area. Much less is known about the movements ot resident bottlenose dolphins in estuaries ot the northern Gulf of Mexico. Seasonal differences in bottlenose dolphin abundance in Mississippi Sound suggest seasonal migration; however, these migration patterns are yet to be fully described. It is probable that some exchange occurs between the Mississippi Sound communities and the coastal dolphins in this area as well. Population Size Population size tor all ot the provisional stocks except Sarasota Bay, Florida, was estimated from preliminary analyses of line-transect data collected during aerial surveys conducted in September- October 1992 in Texas and Louisiana, in Septem- ber-October 1993 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Ala- 'Nation.il M.irinc I'lshcrics Service, Northcist Fisheries Sci ence Center, l(i(> W.uer Street. Woods Hole, MA 02S4.^ bama, and the Florida panhandle, and aerial sur- veys of the west coast of Florida in September- November. Population estimates for the Sarasota Bay, Florida, community were obtained through direct count of known individuals. Minimum population estimates were calculated trom the es- timates ot population size and their associated co- efficients of variation (Table 24-1). Where the population size resulted from a direct count ot known individuals, the minimum population size was identical to the estimated population size. Current Population Trend Population data are insufficient to determine trends for the provisional stocks of bottlenose dol- phin that inhabit the bays, sounds, and estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. However, three anomalous mortality events occurred among portions ot these communities between 1990 and 1994. While these events may have resulted in declines in some loca- tions, it is not possible to accurately partition the mortalities between the bay, sound, and estuary communities and adjacent coastal dolphin com- munities. Thus, the effect ot these mortalit)' events on the growth ot these populations cannot be de- termined at this time. Ongoing monitoring will be required to establish more accurate populations estimates and, over time, trends in abundance for these dolphin communities. Status of Stock In the absence of information on population trends and unknown status for Gult bay, sound, and estuary bottlenose dolphin communities, PBR's are calculated using a recovery tactor ot O.SO. The estimates tor each provisional stock are given in Table 24-1. Although these provisional stocks are not listed as threatened or endangered, the occurrence ot the three anomalous mortality events within their communities is cause for concern. While the spe- cific tactors that presumably caused and or con- tributed to these mortalir)' events has yet to been determined, evidence suggests that bottlenose dol- phins m the northern and western coastal portion of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico may have experienced a morbillivirtis epidemic in 1993 (Lipscomb, 251 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS 1994). Seven of 35 live-captured bottlenose dol- phins (20%) from Matagorda Bay, Texas, in 1992, tested positive for previous exposure and it is pos- sible that other cstuarine resident dolphin com- mimities have been exposed as well. Ihe relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths which occurred during these mortality events suggests that these populations may be physiologically stressed, possibly from nearshore pollution and chemical contamination or other causes. For these reasons, and because the PBR tor most of these relatively small provisional stocks would be ex- cecdeci with the incidental capture ot a single dol- phin, each is recognized as a strategic stock. HARBOR PORPOISE: GULF OF MAINE- BAY OF FUNDY STOCK Stock Definition and Geographic Range rhis harbor porpoise stock is found in U.S. and C'anadian Atlantic waters. During the sum- mer duly to September), harbor porpoises are con- centrated in the northern Gulf of Maine-south- ern Bay of Fundy region, generally in waters less than 1 50 meters (m) deep (Palka et al., 1996). [dur- ing hill ((October to necember) and spring (April to |une), harbor porpoises are widely dispersed from North Carolina to Maine, though in much lower densities than that seen during the summer. No specific migratory routes to the northern Gulf of Maine-lower Bay of Fundy region have been documented. Animals are seen from the coastline to the middle of the Gulf of Maine (>200 m deep) in both spring and tall. During winter (December to March), some harbor porpoises have been re- ported in waters ott the Mid-Atlantic (trom New Jersey to North C^arolina). Two stranding records trom Florida occurred during the 1980's. Ciaskin ( 1984. 1992) proposed that there were tour separate populations in the western North Atlantic: the Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy, Gult ot St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Greenland populations. Recent analy.ses involving mitochon- drial DNA (Wang et al., 1996), organochlorine contaminants (Westgate et al., 1997), heavy met- als (Johnston, 1995), and life history parameters (Read and Horn, 1 995) support G.iskin's proposal. In particular, there is a suggestion that the Gulf ot Maine-Bay ot Fundy females are different than Gulf of St. Lawrence females, but males were sta- tistically indistinguishable (Palka et al., 1 996). Re- search on microsatellites, a potentially powerful genetic tool, is currently being conducted to re- analyze existing genetic data and analyze new samples in order to resolve the larger scale stock structure question. Population Size Line-transect surveys were conducted during 1991, 1992, and 1995 to estimate the population size of harbor porpoises aggregated in the Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy region during the summer. The next scheduled survey is in the summer ot 1999. The abundance estimated trom the 1991 survey was 37,500 (CV- = 0.29, 95% C! = 26,700-86,400) (Palka, 1995a), 67,500 from the 1992 survey (CV = 0.23, 95% CI = 32,900- 104,600) (Smith et al., 1993) and 74,000 harbor porpoises from the 1995 survey (CV = 0.20, 95% CI =40,900-109,100) (Palka, 1996). The inverse variance weighted-average abundance estimate from all three survevs (Smith et al., 1993) was 54,300 harbor porpoises (CV = 0.14, 95% CI = 41 ,300-71,400). Possible reasons tor inter-annual differences in abundance and distribution include experimental error and inter-annual changes in wa- ter temperature and availability ot primary prey species (Palka, 1995b). Ihe minimuiii population estimate calculated tor this popuLitimi is 48,289 (CV = 0.14). Current Population Trend Data are not sufficient to determine the popu- lation trends tor this species. Previous abundance estimates tor harbor porpoises in the Cult ot -C'oc-KiLicni of varidiion ((-V) is a statisiic.ll measure used to calculate confidence iniervais (CI), which gauge the accuracy' of popuhuion estimates. An accurate population estimate is characterized by a low CV and a narrow CI. CI is often given a percentage likelihootl of being correct (e.g. 95% means thai if the data were rcsampled and the CI were recalculated 10(1 times, then 95 times it would contain the true value. 252 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO Maine-Bay ot Fundy are available from earlier studies (e.g. 4,000 animals (Gaskin, 1977) and 15,800 animals (Kraus et al., 1983)). These esti- mates cannot be used in a trends analysis because they were from selected small regions within the entire known summer range and, in some cases, do not incorporate an estimate tor the probability that an animal on the transect track line will be missed (NEFSC, 1992). Status of the Stock The National Marine Fisheries Service has pro- posed listing the Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy har- bor porpoise as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS, 1993). The Gulf of Maine- Bay of Fundy harbor porpoise stock has also been classified as strategic because total U.S. annual fish- ery-related mortality and serious injury (1,667) exceeds PBR (483) (Waring et al., 1997). The es- timated annual mortalities from the New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery from 1 990 to 1 996 are 2,900 (CV = 0.32), 2000 (CV = 0.35), 1,200 (CV = 0.21), 1,400 (CV = 0.18), 2,100 (CV = 0.18), 1,400 (CV = 0.27), and 1,200 (CV= 0.23) respectively (Bravington and Bisack, 1995; Bisack, 1997a). The annual estimated mortalities from the pelagic drift gillnet fishery from 1991 to 1996 are 0.7 (CV = 1 .0), 0.4 (CV = 1 .0), 1 .5 (CV = 0.34), 0, 0, and 0, respectively (Bisack, 1997b). The an- nual estimated mortalities from the Mid-Atlantic coastal sink gillnet fisheries for 1995 and 1996 are 103 (CV = 0.57) and 31 1 (CV = 0.31) (War- ing et al, 1 999). In addition, harbor porpoise by- catch in Canadian gillnets in the Bay of Fundy from 1994 to 1997 were 101 (95% CI = 80-122), 87, 20, and 43 respectively (Trippel et al., 1996). To address bycatch of harbor porpoises two take reduction teams have been formed to design a plan to reduce bycatch. The first team met in 1996 to address bycatch in the New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery. The second team met in 1 997 to address bycatch in the Mid-Atlan- tic coastal gillnet fisheries. HARBOR SEAL: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC STOCK Stock Definition and Geographic Range In the western North Atlantic, harbor seals are common from Labrador to southern New England and New York, and occasionally to the Carolinas (Boulva and McLaren, 1979; Katona et al., 1993; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998). Although the stock structure is unknown, the northwest Atlantic sub- species, Phoca vttulina concolor, is believed to rep- resent one breeding population. Breeding and pup- ping normally occurs in waters north of the New Hampshire-Maine border, although breeding oc- curred as far south as Cape Cod in the early part of the twentieth century (Temte et al., 1991; Katona etal., 1993). Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine (Katona et al., 1993), and seasonally along the southern New England and New York coasts from September through late May (Schneider and Payne, 1983). A general southward movement from the Bay of Fundy to southern New England waters occurs in autumn and early winter (Rosenfeld et al., 1988; Whitman and Payne, 1990). A northward movement from southern New England to Maine and eastern Canada oc- curs prior to the pupping season, which takes place from mid-May through June along the Maine Harbor seal. 253 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Fraser's dolphin. Coast (Richardson, 1976; KL-nney, 1994). The overall geographic range throughout U.S. Atlan- tic coast waters has not changed greatly during the last century. Population Size Since passage ot the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act in 1972, the number of- seals along the New England coast has increased nearly hvetold. Coast-wide aerial surveys along the Maine coast were conducted in May-Iimc during pupping in 1981, 1982, 1986, 1993, and 1997 (Ciilbert and Stein, 1981; Gilbert and Wynne, 198.^; Gilbert and Wynne, 1 984; Kenney, 1 994; and Gilbert and Guldager, 1998). Aerial survey haul-out counts (adults and pups) were 10,540 (1981), 9,3.^1 (1982), 12,940 (1986), 28,810 (1993), and 30,990 ( 1997). These niunbers are considered to be minimum abundance estimates because they are uncorrected tor animals in the water or out- side the survey area. The annual increase since 1993 has been 1 .8 percent (Gilbert and ( luldager, 1 998). Since 1 98 1 , the average annual increase has been 4.2 percent (Gilbert and Ciuldager, 1998), about 50% ot the 8.9 percent annual increase es- timated by Kenney (1994) from counts through 1993. Pup counts along the Maine coast during the May-June period were: 676 (1981), 1,198 (1982), 1,713 (1986), 4,250 (1993), and 5,359 (1997). The 1997 estimate is 26 percent above the 1993 value. Since 1981, the number ot pups along the Maine coast has increased at an annual rate of 12.9 percent (Gilbert and Guldager, 1998). Increased abundance ot seals in wintering ar- eas in southern New pjigland and New York has also been documented m monnoring programs conducted by a variety nongovernment organiza- tions. C'anadian scientists counted 3,600 harbor seals during an August 1992 aerial survey in the Bay ot Pundy (Stobo and Fowler, 1 994), but noted that the survey was not designed to obtain a popu- lation estimate. Harbor seals, like gray seals, were bounty hunted in New England waters until the late 1960's. This hunt may have caused the demise ot this stock in U.S. waters (Katona et al., 1993). Researchers and fishery observers have docu- mented incidental mortality in several fisheries in recent years, particularh' within the Cult ot Maine (Waring et al., 1997). An unknown level ot mor- tality also occurs in the mariculture industry (i.e. salmon farming), in power plant intake pipes, and by deliberate shooting (NMFS unpublished data^). An unknown number of harbor seals have been taken in Newfoundland and Labrador, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Bay ot Fundy groundtish gillnets, Atlantic Canada and Greenland salmon gillnets, Atlantic Canada cod traps. Bay ot Fundy herring weirs, and from deliberate shooting (Read, 1994). Estimated average annual mortality and serious in- jury to this stock during 1990-93 are 602 (CV = 0.68), 231 (CV = 0.22), 373 (CV = 0.23), 698 (CV = 0.19), 1,330 (CV = 0.25), 1,179 (CV = 0.21 ), and 911 (CV = 0.27), respectively. Small numbers ot harbor seals regularly strand during the winter period in southern New England and Mid-Atlantic regions (NMFS, unpublished data'). Sources ot mortality include human inter- actions (boat strikes, fishing gear, power plant in- take, aquaculture operations), storms, abandt)n- ment by the mother, and disease (Katona et al., 1993; NMFS unpublished data'). In 1980, more than 350 seals were found dead in the Cape Cod area from an influenza outbreak (Geraci et al., 1981). The mininmni population estimate is 30,990 harbor seals (Waring et al., 1997). 'Northeast Mshcries Scicncx ("enter. NMFS. 166 W.iter Street, Woods Hole. MA 02S4.?. 254 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO Current Population Trend Based on recent aerial survey counts during the May-June pupping season along the Maine coast, harbor seal abundance in U.S. waters is in- creasing, but the actual trend is unknown. Status of Stock PBR (Barlow et al., 1995) was specified as the product of minimum population size (30,990), one-halt the ma.xinium productivity rate (0.06), and a recovery factor of 1.0, to give a PBR lor this stock of 1,859 harbor seals (Waring et al., 1997). The status of the harbor seal population, rela- tive to the optimum sustainable population, in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone is un- known, but the population is increasing. The spe- cies is not listed as threatened or endangered un- der the Endangered Species Act. The estimated annual level of human-caused mortality and seti- ous injury in U.S. waters does not exceed PBR; therelore, this is not a strategic stock. NORTHERN RIGHTWHALE: NORTH ATLANTIC STOCK Historical Background Ihe northern right whale was the first large whale to be hunted on a systematic, commercial basis. The species was taken by Basque whalers in the Bay of Biscay at least as early as the 1 1 th cen- tury (Aguilar, 1986). By the late 1 500's the Basques had established a substantial fishery off the Labra- dor coast (Cumbaa, 1986). This was succeeded by intensive shore whaling ot( New England in the 17th and 18th centuries, an activity which continued sporadically into the early part of this century. Similarly intensive exploitation occurred in the North Pacific population beginning in 1 835. Although the right whale was officially protected throughout its range in 1935, it is now known that the former Soviet Union took substantial numbers of these animals in the North Pacific and Sea of Okhotsk into the 1960's (Yablokov, 1994). There is presently no evidence that these illegal catches extended to the North Atlantic. Stock Definition and Geographic Range The right whale is a slow animal which fre- quents coastal and shelf habitats. It feeds in tem- perate or high latitudes in summer and calves in warmer water in winter. The North Atlantic popu- lation is generally thought to consist of two rela- tively discrete stocks in the eastern and western portions of this ocean basin. Historically, right whales were found in coastal waters throughout the North Atlantic in a range which extended from Florida (and perhaps fur- ther south) to Greenland in the west, and from western Africa to Norway in the east. However, intensive exploitation has greatly reduced the range of this animal. In the western North Atlantic, the remaining population is today largely confined to U.S. and Canadian waters, feeding in the Gulf of Maine and on the Scotian Shelf and calving in the coastal waters of Georgia and Florida (Kraus et al., 1986b; Winn et al., 1986). Right whales appear in the Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays region in late winter, move to the Great South Channel (southeast of Cape Cod) in spring, and then migrate to Canadian waters for the summer. The Bay of Fundy constitutes a major summer nursery area for the population, although recent genetic studies suggest the existence of a second, unidentified nursery (Schaeffet al., 1993). In win- ter, pregnant females migrate to give birth off the southeastern United States; although other whales are also found there at this time, the whereabouts of a substantial portion of the population in win- ter remains unknown. In the eastern North Atlantic, right whales are rarely observed today and the stock appears to be close to extinction. Historically, the species fed in northern European and Icelandic waters and was believed to have calved off the west coast of Africa (Reeves and Mitchell, 1986). Female right whales are sexually mature be- tween about 4 and perhaps 12 years of age, and produce a single calf on average every 3-4 years (Knowlton et al., 1994); this is a significantly slower rate of reproduction than that of the rorquals (Lockyer, 1984). The right whale is 255 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Atlantic spotted dolphin- stenophagous on zooplanktor,, notably topepods (Mayo and Mant, 1989). Individual animals can be identified from photographs of the pattern of callosities on the head, and from prominent scar- ring (Kraus et al., 1986a). The western North Atlantic population has been the subject of a long-term study since the 1970's, and much of its biology and behavior is reasonably well understood (see Kraus et al., 1986b; Kenney et al., 1994; Knowlton et al., 1994). Most of the population has been biopsy sampled, and genetic analyses are ongoing (Schaeft et al., 1993, 1997; Brown et al., 1994). There is no ongoing field research on this species in the eastern North Atlantic. Population Size Based upon photographs of identified individu- als, studies indicate that the present western North Atlantic population numbers fewer than 300 ani- mals (Knowlton et al., 1994). The size of the east- ern North Atlantic stock is unknown, but is clearly extremely small. It is assumed that the census of identified whales in the western North Atlantic in 1992 represents a minimum population size esti- mate (295 individuals). The minimum size of the eastern stock, based on rare sightings, is assumed to be a handful of individuals (perhaps fewer than 20). Current Population Size No sustained growth is .ippaiciu despite six decades of protection, although the initial post- whaling size of this stock in 193S is unknown. Status of Stock The northern right whale is critically endan- gered throughout its range (Brownell et al., 1986; Clapham et al.. In press). Cjiiven the various prob- lems described below, this species is arguably the most threatened of all baleen whales, and further conservation action is urgently required to avoid its extinction. In the North Atlantic, the eastern stock ap- pears to be essentially extinct; it is likely that much of the then-extant popul.itioii was wiped out by Norwegian whaling at the turn of the century (Collett, 1909). Rare sightings are made of single individuals in European waters (Brown, 1986), but it is not clear whether these represent a tiny rem- nant population or individuals who have wandered in from the west. Nineteenth-century whaling oc- curred at Centra Bay on the coast of West Africa (Reeves and Mitchell, 1 986), raising the hope that this area may still be a breeding ground for any remaining eastern North Atlantic animals. A sur- vey in this region in earlv 1996 failed to find a single whale, although survey conditions were ex- tremely poor. Analyses based upon photographs of identi- fied individuals indicate that the present western North Atlantic population numbers fewer than 300 animals (Knowlton et al., 1994); given that the majority of the popul.ition appears to have been identified, this is likely to represent one of the more accurate estimates of abundance for any large whale. Unfortunately, the right whale appears to suf- fer from anthropogenic mortalities more than any other. In the western North Atlantic, entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes are known to have caused several right whale deaths in recent years, undoubtedly contributing to the apparent failure 256 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO to recover. Kr.uis (1990) estimated mottality in the fifst 4 yeats of life at between 2% and 17%, with at least a thitd attributable to ship collisions and entanglement. Photographs of 1 1 8 identified individuals showed that 57% possessed scarring indicative of entanglement (Kraus, 1990). Sources of ship strikes are generally unknown, but are pri- marily large commercial vessels; regrettably, many of the right whale's major habitats in the western North Atlantic are adjacent to, or even straddle, major shipping lanes. Given this population's de- pendence upon ncarshore habitat tor much oi its lite cycle, intensive coastal development in this and other portions ot the range poses additional threats to recovery. Studies showing relatively low genetic diver- sity in the western North Atlantic population (Schaeff et al., 1993, 1997) suggest that inbreed- ing may be inhibiting recover)-, but this is diffi- cult to interpret without a knowledge of historic genetic structure. The latter topic is currently be- ing investigated using DNA extracted from his- toric baleen samples (Rosenbaum et al., 1997, 1998). This is a strategic stock. PBR was specified as the product of minimum population size (29S), one-half the maximum productivity rate (0.02), and a recovery factor of 0.1 because this species is listed as endangered under the ESA. PBR for the northern right whale is therefore 0.4 whales. Over the past several years, known human-caused mor- talit\' has consistently exceeded PBR. This is a cause for concern, given the critically endangered status of the stock and its apparent failure to recover. LITERATURE CITED Aguilar, A. 1986. A review of old Basque whaling and its effect on the right whales (Eubalaena glaci.ilis) of the North Atlantic. Report of the International Whal- ing C'ommis.sion, Special Issue 10:191-1^4. Barlow, J., S. L. Swartz. T. C. Eagle, and P. R. Wade. 1993. U.S. marine mammal stock assessments: guide- lines for preparation, backgrt)und, and a SLniimar\' of the 1995 assessments. National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-6, 7.^ p. Bisack, K. n. 199"^.!. Harbor porpoise bycatch estimates in the U.S. New laigland miiltispecies sink gillnet fishery: 1994 and 1993. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47:703-714. Bisack, K. D. 1997b. Marine mammal bycatch esti- mates and their sampling char.icteristics in the U.S. New England sink gillnet, pelagic pair trawl, pelagic drift gillnet and North Atlantic bottom trawl fisher- ies: 1994 to 199"^. Working Paper SC/49/SM33 sub- mitted to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee meeting in Botiriieniouth, U.K., September 1997. Bonlva, }., and 1. A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal (I'/'oci vittilnia) in Eastern Clinada. Fish- eries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 200, 24 p. Bravington, M. V., and K. D. Bisack. 1995. Estimates of harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery, 1990-1993. Report of the Intetnational Whaling Commission 46:567-74. Brown, M. W., S. D. Kraus, D. E. Gaskin, and B. N. White. 1994. Sexual composition and analysis of re- productive females in the North Atlantic fight whale (Huhaldciiii glacidlii) population. Marine Mammal Science 10:2'S3-265. Brown, S. G. 19,S6. twentieth ceiuiirv records of right whales [EubdLuiiii glacialti] in the northeast Atlantic Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Cxim- mfssion. Special Issue 10:121-127. Brownell, R . L., jr., R B. Best, and j. H. Prescott, (Edi- tors). 1986. Right whales: past and present status. Report of the International Whaling t'onimission, Speciallssue 10, 289 p. Cdapham, P. f, S. E. Young, and R. 1 . Brownell, |r. In press. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the sta- tus of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review. (^ollett, R. 1909. A few notes on the whale Halacna glih-htln and its capture in recent years in the North Atlantic by Norwegian whalers. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, p. 91-98. taimbaa, S. L. 1986. Atchaeologica! evidence ot the 16th century Basque right whale fishery in Labrador. Report of the International Whaling C'ommission, Special IssLie 10:187-190. Ciaskin, D. E. 1977. Harbour porpoise, Phoioiud pliihoviid (L.), in the western approaches to the Bay of Eundy 1969-75. Report of the International Whal- ing Commission 27:487-492. Gaskiii, 1). E. 1984. The harbor porpoise I'ltinDcnd phiHOfUii (L.): Regional populations, status, and in- 257 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Common dolphm. torni.ition on i.liri.i.t .mtl indirect catches. Report ii( the hitern.uion.il Wh.ihng Commission 34:S(i9-S86. Gaskin, D. E. 1992. The status ot the harbour por- poise. Canadian Field-Naturahst 106:.^6-54. Geraci, R., D. j. St. Auhin, and 1. K. B.irker. I9S1. Mass morrahty ot harbor seals; pneumom.i associated with intluen/a A virus. Science 21 S; 1 129-1 131. Gilbert,]. R., and N. Guidager. 1998. Status of harbor and gray seal populations in Northern New England. Final Cooperative Report 14-16-009-1 I S7. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science C\'nter, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 1.^ p. Gilbert, |. R., and |. 1.. Stem. 1 '18 1 . Harbor seal popu- lations and marine mammal tlsheries interactions, 1981. Annual Report, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Contract NA-80-FA-C-00029, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Gilbert, J. R., and K. M. Wynne. 198.^. Harbor seal populations and marine mammal fisheries interac- tions, 1982. Second Annual Report, Northeast Fish- eries Science Center, Conrracr NA-S0-FA-C;-00029, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Gilbert, j. R. and K. M. Wynne. 1984. Harbor seal populations and marine mammal fisheries interac- tions, 198.V Third Annual Report, Northeast Fisher- ies .Science Center, Contract NA-80-FA-C-()0029, Woods Hole, Ma.s,sachusetts. Johnston. D. W. 199'S. Spatial and temporal ditterences in heavy metal concentrations in the tissues of harbour porpoises {Phocnena phocncna L.) from the western North Atlanric. M.S. Thesis. University ol Guelph, ( iuelph, t )m.irio, C an.id.i, 1 S2 [i. Kaiona, S. K., V. Rough, and I). T. Richardson. 199.V A field guide to whales, porpoises, and seals from Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washingron, D.C'., .^16 p. Kenney, M. K. 1994. Harbor seal population trends and habitat use in Maine. M.S. thesis. University of Maine, Orono, 'iS p. Kenney, R. O., H. E. Wmn, and M. ( :. Macauley. 1 994. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: right whale [Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research 1S;385-414. Knowlton, A. R., S. D. Kraus, and R. 1). Kenney. 1994. Reproduction in North All.miic righr whales (Euhalaeihi g/riiia/n). Canadian Journal of /.oology 72:1297-1.^05. Kraus, S. D. I')9(). Rates and potential causes of mor- tality in North Atlantic right whales (F.iihalaenii glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 6:278-291. Kraus, S. n., K. F,. Moore, C'. F. Price, M. |. Oone, W A. Watkins, H. F. Winn, and III. Prescott. 1 986a. The use of photographs to identify individual North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacudii). Report of 258 UNIT 24 MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND THE GULF OF MEXICO the International Whaling Commission, Special Is- sue 10:14S-151. Kraus, S. D., J. H. Prescott, A. R. Knowlton, and G. S. Stone. 1986b. Migtation and calving of tight whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the westetn Notth Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 10:139-144. Kraus, S. D., J. H. Prescott, and G. S. Stone. 14S.1 Harbour porpoise, Phocoeua phocoeiid, in the U.S. coastal watets of the Gulf of Maine: A survey to de- termine seasonal distribution and abundance. Report to the Directof, NMFS Northeast Region, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 13 p. Lipscomb, T. P. 1994. Motbilliviral disease in an At- lantic bottlenose dolphin ( Tiirswps truiiciitus) from the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Diseases ,^0(4): 372-576. Lockyer, C. L. 1984. Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implications for management. Re- port of the International Whaling Commission, Spe- cial Issue 6:27-48. Lynn, S. K. 1993. Movements, site fidelity, and surfac- ing patterns of bottlenose dolphins on the central Texas coast. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Col- lege Station, '■)! p. Mayo, C. A., and M. K. Marx. 1989. Surface foraging behavior ot the North Atlantic fight whale, EuhalMiia gldcuibs. and associated zooplankton chatacteristics. Canadian Journal ot Zoolog)- 68:2214-2220. NEFSC. 1992. Harbor porpoise in eastern North America: Status and teseatch needs. Results ot a sci- entific workshop held May 3-8, 1992 at the North- east Fisheries Science Center. Woods Hole, Massa- chusetts. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Centet Retetence Document 92-06, Woods Hole. Massachu- NMFS. 199.3. Proposed listing of Gulf of Maine popu- lation ot hatbor porpoises as threatened undet the Endangered Species Act. Fedetal Register 38:3108- 3120, 7 January 1993. Palka, D. 1993a. Abundance estimate of the Gulf ot Maine harbor porpoise. /;; A. Biorge and G. P. Donovan (Editots), Biolog\' ot the Phocoenids, p. 27— 50, Repoft ot the International Whaling Commis- sion, Special Issue 16. I'.ilk.i, D. 1 V^Sb, Influences on spatial patterns ot tiult ot Maine harbor porpoises. /;/ A. S. Blix, L. Walloe, and O. Ulltang (liditors). Whales, seals, tish and man. p. 69-73, Elsevier Science B.V., The Netherlands. Palka, D. 1996. Update on abundance ot Cult of Maine/Bay ot Fundy harbor porpoises. NMFS North- east Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 96- 04, Woods Hole. Massachusetts. Palka, D. I... A. J. Read, A. J. Westgate, and D. W Johnston, 1996. Summary of current knowledge ot harbour porpoises in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters. Report ot the International Whaling C^om- mission 46:539-565. Read, A. |. 1^14. Interactions between cetaceans and giUnet and trap fisheries in the northwest Atlantic. Report ot the Intetnational Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15:133-147. Read, A. J., and A. A. Hohn. 1995. Life in the fast lane: The lite histotv ot harbour porpoises from the Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science 1 1(4):423- 440. Reeves, R. R., and E. Mitchell. 1986. American pe- lagic whaling tor right whales in the North Atlantic. Repoft ot the International Whaling t'ommission. Special Issue 10:221^2S4. Richardson, D. T 1976. Assessment of harbor and gray seal populations in Maine 1976-1973. Final teport to Matine Mammal Commission, Contract MM-4- AC-1)0'), Washington, D.C. Rosenbaum, H. C, M. G. Egan, P. J. Clapham, R. L. Bfownell, Jr., and R. DeSalle. 1997. An effective method tor isolating DNA ttom historical specimens ot baleen. Molecular Ecology 6:677-681. Rosenbaum, H. C, M. G. Egan, R J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, Jr., S. Malik, M. Brown, B. White, and R. DeSalle. 1948. Levels of historic genetic divetsity and population structure in North Atlantic right whales detected by an effective technique to isolate DNA ffom museum specimens. P. 117. /;/ Proceedings ot the I'weltth Biennial Conterence on the Biology of Marine Mammals (abstract). Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, Kansas. Rosenfeld M., M. George, and J. M. Terhune. 1988. Evidence ot autumnal harbour seal, I'hoca vitulina, movement trom Canada to the United States. Cana- dian Field-Naturalist 102(3):^27-S29. Schaeff, C. M., S. D. Kraus, M. W Brown, J. S. Perkins, R. Payne, and B. N. White. 1997. Compatison of genetic variability of Notth and South Atlantic right whales {Eiihiilaoiii), using DNA tuigcrprinting. Ca- n.Klian Journal of Zoology 73:1073-1080. 259 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Pilot whales. SchaetT, C. M., S. D. Kraus, M. W. Brown, and B. N. White. 1993. Assessment of the population structure ot western North Atlantic right whales (Eiibalaena glacialis) based on sighting and mtDNA data. Cana- dian Journal of Zoology 71:339-.^45. Schneider, D. C, and P. M. Payne. 1983. Factors af- fecting haul-out of harbor seals at a site in southeast- ern Massachusetts. Journal ot Maniniology 64(3):518-520. Smith, T, D. Palka, and K. Bisack, 1993. Biological significance ot bycatch ot harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine demersal gillnet fishery. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Cenrer Reference Document 93-23, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Stobo, W. I., and G. M. Fowler. 199^. Aerial surveys of seals in the Bay ot Fundy and off southwest Nova Scotia. Canadian Technical Report ot Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1943, 'i? p. lemte, J. L., M. A. Bigg, and (). Wiig. 1991. Clines revisited: the timing of pupping in the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina). lournal of Zoology, London 224:617-632. Irippel, E. A., J. Y. Wang, M. B. Strong, L. S. Carter and J. D. Conway. 1996. Incidental mortality of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocnena) by the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay ot Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:1294-1300. Wang, J. \.. 1). E. Ciaskin, and B. N. White. 1996. Mitochondrial DN.A analysis ot harbour porpoise, Phuciieiiii pliiHoeiia, stibpopulaiions in North Ameri- can waters. (Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:1632-1645. Waring, G. T, D. L. Palka, R J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M. Rossman,7. Cole, K. D. Bisack, and I.. J. Hansen. 1999. U.S. Atlantic marine mammal stock assessments — 1998. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-NE-116, 182 p. Waring, G. 1., I). L. Palka, K. U. Mullm, J. H. W. Hain, L. j. Hansen, and K. D. Bfsack. 199^. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments — 1996. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-NE-114, 250 p. Westgate, A. J., D. C. G. Muir, D. E. Gaskin, and M. C. S. Kingsley. 1997. Concentrations and accumula- tion patterns of organochlorine contaminants in the blubber ot harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, from the coast of Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy/Ciult ot Maine. En- vironmental Pollution 95:105-1 19. Whitman, A. A., and R M. Payne. 1 990. Age of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina concolor. wintering in southern New England. Canadian Field-Naturalist 104(41:579-582. Winn. H. E., C;. A. Price, and P. W. Soren.scn. 1986. The distributional biologv of the right whale (luihdLu'11,1 i^ldcuilii) in the western North Atlantic. Report ol ihe International Wli.iling C'ommission, Special Issue 1(1:129-138. Yablokov, A. \'. 1994. Validity ot Soviet whaling data. Nature 3(r: 108. 260 Sea Turtles Unit 25 NMFS OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES Silver Spring Maryland NMFS SOUTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER INTRODUCTION Miami Florida Sea turtles are highly migratorv and widely dis- tributed throughout the world's oceans. The six species found in U.S. waters are the loggerhead, Kemps ridley, olive ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill. In the Pacific Ocean, all these species except the Kemp's ridley inhabit either the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or the high seas. Nesting populations of" the green turtle and the hawskbill occur in the Hawaiian Archipelago and American Samoa. With rare exception, the log- gerhead, leatherback, and olive ridley do not nest in U.S. Pacific states or territories. The loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill and leatherback are commonly found in U.S. Atlantic waters, while the olive ridley inhabits South Atlantic Ocean waters. Significant nesting assemblages of the log- gerhead, leatherback, green, and hawksbill are found in the southeastern United States and in the U.S. C^aribbcan. Ihc current status of U.S. sea turtles, based on research conducted at major nesting beaches, is summarized in Fable 2'i-l. All six species of sea turtles found in the United States (7 species worldwide) are currently listed either as endangered or threatened under the En- dangered Species Act (ESA). The Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback are listed as endangered throughout their ranges. Ihe loggerhead and ol- ive ridley are listed as threatened. The green turtle is also listed as threatened, except the Florida nest- ing population and the Pacific Mexico breeding population, which are listed as endangered. The authority to protect and conserve sea turtles in the marine environment is vested in the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service (NMFS), while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has principal re- sponsibility at the Federal level for protection of sea turtles on land (nesting beaches). NMFS SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER La Jolla California Nesting green turtles. 261 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS SPECIES AND STATUS Atlantic Region Historical data on the size of sea turtle popu- lations are limited or nonexistent. Complicatini; the question ot population size is the need for a long time-series ot data to understand the popu- lation dynamics ot these species which have com- plex lite histories. Standardized surveys of" selected nesting beaches were implemented in the United States in the late 1980's. These surveys, which count the number of nests laid per year, provide an indirect estimate of the adult female popula- tion and an indication of whether this population is declining, stable, or increasing. In recent years, our knowledge of sea turtle biology has been enhanced by the use of tools to understand the genetic identity of different nest- ing assemblages. Three subpopulations of logger- heads have been identified in the southeastern United States, and a fourth nests along the Yucatan coast of Mexico. Adult and immature turtles from these four subpopulations mix with each other on the foraging grounds. Most loggerhead nesting oc- curs along Florida's east coast where the annual number of nests deposited has remained relatively stable (about 65,000 nests/year), with evidence of some increases in recent years. In contrast, nest- ing of the sulipopulation north of Cape Canaveral, Florida, has continued to decline (about 6,700 nests/year), and little is known about the small subpopulation that nests in the Florida Panhandle (about 500 nests/year). The Kemp's ridley inhabits coastal waters throughout the Mid- and southeast Atlantic and the Cjulf of Mexico. The Kemps ridle\- rs unusual in that it nests almost exclusiveh' along one stretch Table 25-1 Status and trends of princi- pal sea turtle nesting popu- lations in the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific regions. Region and species Historic number Current of number females of Trend in Status Location of principal nesting nesting nesting in nesting populations' annually females population US' Atlantic region Loggerhead, northern subpopulation-' Loggerhead, southern Florida subpopulation' Loggerhead. Florida Panhandle subpopulation-' Green"" Kemp's ndley^ Leatherbacl<'' Hawksbill' Pacific region Loggerhead^ Green^ Olive ridley '° Leatherback" HawksbiH'^ Northern Florida-North Carolina Central Florida-southwest Florida Florida Panhandle Florida Mexico Florida, U S Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico Unknown U S Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico Japan Hawaii, Mexico Mexico. Costa Rica Mexico, Costa Rica. Maylasia. Irian Jaya Unknown Hawai >7,800 3,700 Decreasing T Unknown 40,000 Increasing T Unknown 350 Unknown T Unknown 675 Increasing T, E >40,000 954 Increasing E Unknown 160 Stable E Unknown 367 Unknown E Unknown 1,000 Stable T Unknown 1,000 Increasing T Unknown 350,000 Increasing T Unknown 985 Decreasing E Unknown 30-40 Stable E 'Sea tuflles in the U S Atlantic and Pacific regions originate from nesting populations in the U S and foreign countries -T = threatened E - endangered ^Estimated total number of nesting females in the population based on 4 1 nests/female/year and a 2 S-year remigration interval '^Average -■■-■t^f- ■ --< ♦r.males nesting annually based on 3 5 nests/female/year for 1993-97 ^Numbe' 'Sting in 1997 based on 2 5 nests/female/year ^Average ..jn-L/e tmales nesting annually based on 5 3 nests/female/year for 1993-97 for Florida, Sandy Point (U S Virgin Islands), and Culebra Island [Puerto Rtcof 'Average number of females nesting annually based on 4 5 nests/female/year for 1994-98 for fvlona Island (Puerto Ricol Nesting also occurs at other beaches in Puerto Rico and the U S Virgin Islands "Estimate of current Japanese nesting population is an aggregate of 1995 survey results for principal nesting beaches ^Estimate of current total Hawaiian nesting population is based on doubling the estimate of nesters at East Island in 1997. Despite growth in the Hawaiian nesting population, concern remains over the increasing incidence of fibropapillomatosis The trend of the nesting population in fVlexico is decreasing "^Estimated number of nesters at La Escobilla beach, Oaxaca. fylexico, m 1996 Nesting also occurs at other beaches in Mexico and in Costa Rica ' 'Current nesting population estimate is for Mexico only, and based on an estimated 5,222 nests m 1996 on principal nesting beaches ^^Current nesting population estimate for Hawaii is based on surveys through 1997 by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service 262 UNIT 25 SEA TURTLES of beach in the State ot Tamaulipas on the Carib- bean coast of Mexico. This single population un- derwent a dramatic decline since 1947, when, on a single day, 40,000 Kemp's ridleys were filmed coming ashore to nest. The population pkmimeted to fewer than 1,000 females nesting annually through the early 1980's. Today, under strict pro- tection, the population appears to be in the earli- est stages of recovery (Figure 2S-1). The increase can be attributed to rwo primary factors — tuU protection of nesting turtles and their nests in Mexico and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices (TED's) in shrimp trawls both in the United States and Mexico. The green turtle nesting population in the southeastern United States appears to be stable. Rased on genetic information, subpopulations throughout the North and South Atlantic com- mingle on the foraging grounds, but only one population nests in the continental United States — along Florida's east coast. Fhe annual number of nests fluctuates greatly, usually alter- nati[ig between high and low years. In recent years, the number of nests deposited annually has ranged from less than 430 to over 3,800. The leatherback is widely distributed in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. In the United States, the largest nesting as- semblages of leatherbacks are found in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida. Nesting data for these locations have been collected since the early 1980's and indicate that the annual num- ber of nests is likely stable; however, information regarding the status of the entire leatherback popu- lation in the Atlantic is lacking. The hawksbill is most commonly found in the Caribbean, but also regularly occurs in southern Florida and southern Texas. Within the continen- tal United States, a small amount of nesting oc- curs in southern Florida. The largest nesting as- semblages of hawksbills in the United States are found at Mona Island, Puerto Rico; Buck Island, U.S. Virgin Islands; and at other sites in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. There is clear and convincing evidence that hawksbill populations in the Atlantic have been greatly depleted during the 2()th century as a result of overharvest for trade in products made from their shell. Number of nests I I 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 87 88 Year Pacific Region In the Pacific, most reproductive colonies of the olive ridley are in continental coastal areas and rarely on oceanic islands. Although large nesting assemblages of olive ridleys are found along the Pacific Coast of Mexico and Central America, there continues to be significant pressure on this popu- lation from harvest of eggs and incidental capture in trawl and longline fisheries. Major North Pacific nesting populations of the loggerhead occurs in Japan and, in the South Pa- cific, in Australia. At different stages of their life cycle loggerheads occupy oceanic waters and coastal benthic habitats around continents. In the open ocean they are apt to be associated with con- vergence zones, oceanic fronts, and boundary cur- rents. Loggerheads have been recorded in waters around the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Hawaii but are uncommon there. Fhe status of loggerhead populations in most areas of the Pacific is imknown due to a lack of historical data on their distribution and abundance. How- ever, long-term data on nesting and foraging popu- lations in Queensland, Australia, indicate that log- 92 93 94 95 96 97 Figure 25-1 Number of Kemp's ridley nests observed annually at Rancho Nuevo.Tepehuajes, and Barra delTordo, Mexico, 1979-98 (Gladys Porter Zoo, 1997; R. Marquez M.', un published data). 'R. Marquez M., SEMARNAP/INP, CRIP-Manzanillo, Pro- gram Nacional dcTortugas Marinas, P VentanasS/N. A.P s')l, Manzanilln, C.iluiia. Mexico 28200 263 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Oiive ridley. gerheads arc declining in that area. The leathcrback is a pelagic species that prob- ably occurs near all U.S. Pacific islands, is ohen sighted in U.S. west coast waters, and is widelv distributed on the high seas. Principal Ic.itherback nesting populations occur in the Solomon Islands, Irian Java, Papua New Guinea, Mexico, Costa Rica, and peninsular Malaysia. I.cathcrbacks are seriously declining at all major nesting beaches throughout the Pacific. The decline is dramatic along the Pacific Coasts ol Mexico and Costa Rica and coastal Malaysia. Nesting along the Pacific Coast of Mexico declined at an annual rate of 22"'o over the last 12 years, and the Malaysian popula- tion represents 1% of the levels recorded in the 19S0's. Fhe collapse of these nesting populations was precipitated bv a tremendous overharvest of eggs, direct harvest of adults, and incidental mor- tality from fishing. The hawksbill is typically more insular than other sea turtles and is usually associated with coral reefs. Although not all U.S. -flag islands in the cen- tral-western Pacific have been surveyed, the hawks- bill and the green turtle probably occur at most of them. The USFWS estimates that 30-4() hawks- hills nest (in the Main I l.iw aiian beaches each year, primarily along the east coast of the island of Ha- waii. I'he number of hawksbills present in Ameri- can Samoa and Guam is unknown, but nesting has been observed at Rose Atoll and the Manua Islands in American S.imo.i. fhe status of the hawksbill throughout the Pacific is unknown, but continued exploitation ol hawksbills for their shells in areas outside the Lhiited States makes them a special conservation concern, fhe most important conservation achievement m recent years was Japan's decision to end the import of hawksbill shell. Further tieclines are possible if trade is re- newed. Fhe green turtle is the most widely distrib- uted sea turtle species in U.S. Pacific waters, par- ticularly in Hawaii. A USFWS nesting survey ti)uiui that in 1997 about SOO green turtles nested at East Island, a small, sandy islet at French Frig- ate Shoals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where about 50% of all Hawaii green turtle nest- ing is assumed to occur. Fhe green turtle nesting population at F^ast Island appears to have tripled since NMFS initiated the annual surveys in 1973 (Figure 25-2). The increase in Hawaiian green turtle nesting is attributed to a reduction of hu- man-caused mortality after enactment of the ESA 111 19^74 "pj^g historic level of green turtle nesting in Hawaii is unknown. In American Samoa the primary nesting beach is at Rose Atoll where an estimated 25 to 35 females nest annualK'. Fhe number of green turtles in Guam is unknown, and onlv sporadic nesting has been recorded there. ISSUES Bycatch and Fisheries Interactions Sea turtles arc threatened b\- multiple factors, most of which are human-related. A principal con- cern is incidental capture in commercial fisheries. Irawls, longline, and gillnet fisheries pose the greatest threats. Prior to the implementation of FED regulations, the National Academy of Sci- ences estimated that a maximum of 44,000 sea turtles, mostly loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys, were killed annually in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic shrimp fishery. While FED use is mandated lor the shrimp fishery and some of the summer flounder trawl fishery, recent mortality events indicate that significant mortal- ity is still occurring in some areas as a result of these or other trawl fisheries. Sea turtles are also taken and killed in pelagic longline, gillnet, and lobster trap lines. Of particular concern are the 264 UNIT 25 SEA TURTLES gillnct tkslieries for coastal species, including sharks, and the JongHne and gilinet fisheries tor sword- fish, tuna, and sharks. Propeller strikes and vessel collisions also pose significant threats to sea turtles, especially in areas of high human population, where recreational boat traffic is heaw and coastal ports are active. Habitat Concerns Coastal development can deter or interfere with nesting, affect nest success, and degrade foraging habitats for sea turtles. Nesting beaches of the southeastern United States and Hawaii are essen- tial to the recovery and survival of sea turtles. Many nesting beaches have already been significantly de£;raded or destroved. Nesting habitat is threat- ened bv rigid shoreline protection or "coastal armoring" such as sea walls, rock revetments, and sandbag installations. Many miles of once produc- tive nesting beach have been permanently lost to this type of shoreline protection. Additional!)', nesting habitat can be negatively impacted by beach nourishment projects that result in altered beach and sand characteristics that affect nesting activity and nest success. Artificial beachfront light- ing, increased human activity, and beach driving also seriously threaten species recovery. In light of these issues, conservation and long-term protec- tion of sea turtle nesting habitats is an urgenr and hisjh priority need. Marine Debris Ingestion of marine debris can be a serious threat to sea turtles. When feeding, sea Turtles can mistake debris tor natural food items. An exami- nation of the feeding habits of loggerhead hatchlings inhabiting offshore convergence zones revealed a high incidence of tar and plastic inges- tion. Some types of marine debris may be directly or indirectly toxic, such as oil. Other types of marine debris, such as discarded or derelict fish- ino £;car, may entangle and drown sea turtles. Disease A disease known as fibropapillomatosis (FP), oritrinallv identified in green turtles, but now af- Number of nesters 550 - 500 450 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 L I I J I I L_ _L_ I _L_ 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Year fecting loggerheads and olive ridleys as well, has emerged as a serious threat to their recovery. The disease is most notably present in green turtles of Hawaii, Florida, and the Caribbean. FP is expressed as tumors which occur primarily on the skin and eves, and the disease can be fatal. In Hawaii, green turtles afflicted with FP have a high incidence of tumors in the oral cavity, whereas oral tumors have not been found in Florida or other areas. The cause of the disease remains unknown. The disea.se has been systematically monitored in several locales in Hawaii. At a study site on southern Molokai, for example, where tumors were virtually unknown before 1988, the prevalence of rumored sea turtles ranged from 42 to 56% during the 1995-97 sur- veys. In Florida, up to 50% of the immature green turtles captured in the Indian River Lagoon are in- fected, and there are similar reports from other sites in Florida, including Florida Bay, as well as from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Florida, rhe disease has been found to affect up to 1 3% of loggerheads inhabiting Florida Bay. FP appears ro be the chief threat ro full recovery of the Hawaii green turtle population, and the disease could hinder the recovery of green turtle populations elsewhere as well. Research to determine the cause of this dis- ease is a high priority. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Figure 25-2 Population estimates for nesting green turtles on East Island. 265 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS ^^^^^^^^K^4 .M^ ^S^"^' ^^^^1 ^Hifcj^^t^^^ k^^pNPI 1^ ^^2 |||wfl ^^^^^^^^ 1 Green turtle exhibiting fibro papillomatosis tumors. Progress In l')^).S, the NMFS and USFWS published recovcr\' plans tor five species ot" Pacific sea turtles and one distinct nesting population. Plans are underway to revise some oi the U.S. Atlantic re- covery plans which were completed in the earh' 1990's. Ihese plans describe and prioritize the ac- tions which are necessary to conserve and recover the species. Significant progress is being made in the moni- toring ot Hawaiian green turtles by the NMhS and the USFWS. A S-year series ot saturation sur- veys, completed in 1992, led to the development ot rigorous quantitative methods to estimate the nesting population. Progress is also being made in monitoring juvenile and subadiilt Hawaiian green turtles in their nearshore habitat. Signiticant progress has also been made in collaboration with Mexico and the USFWS to establish and main- tain more comprehensive nesting beach surveys tor Kemp's ridleys. Progress has been made in the study of migra- tory movements ot post-nesting sea turtles, to iden- tity routes of travel and resident foraging grounds. NMFS scientists have conducted higliK' success- ful satellite telemetry studies with post-nesting Ha- waiian and Florida green turtles and Florida log- gerheads. A multidisciplinary research program is un- derway to study the cause and eftects ot IP. Re- search has been initiated on the possible etiolo- gies ot the disease, including viruses, parasites, and environmental pollutants. Recent research has demonstrated the involvement ot both a retrovirus and a herpesvirus. In addition to field and labora- tory research, statistical analysis and modeling studies are underway to link FP incidence and se- \erit\- to key aspects ot green turtle population dy- namics and assess impacts ot the disease on popu- lation recovery. In the 1 lawaii and Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries tor tuna and swordfish, the incidental take ot sea turtles is being monitored through a log- book and observer program. Workshops have been held to tormulate research techniqties to assess the population level ettects ot hooking and entangle- ment and to identify ways to reduce or mitigate iiieidental capture. In related research, satellite transmitters h.ue been deployed on sea turtles hooked incidentally in the longline fishery to track post-release mtwements to better understand the loni;-term ettects o( hooking, f mkages between sea turtle movements and oceanographic processes are also being studied. Computer simulation mod- els are under development to better assess the im- pacts ot the Hawaii-based longline fishery. In the last decade considerable ettorts have been expended to elucidate sea turtle management Linits through the use ot genetic tools. There is a high degree ot genetic structuring within ocean basins for all species except the leatherback. These genetically distinct management units arose as a result ot genetic isolatit)n tacilitated by the spe- cies' natal homing. While the animals do appear to segregate when nesting, thev commingle on the toraging grounds, sometimes thousands ot miles away trom their natal beach (where they hatched). The analyses ot genetic material trom turtles inci- dentally taken in various fisheries can tell us which populations are being impacted. 1 he 1 lawaii-based longline fishery interacts with loggerheads trom Japan, green turtles trom Hawaii and Mexico, and leatherbacks trom both the eastern I'acitic (Mexico or Costa Rica) and the southwestern Pacific (Irian laya, Malaysia, or Solomon Islands). Analyses tor olive ridleys are currently in progress. In the At- lantic, the longline fisheries ot the eastern Atlan- tic and the Mediterr.mean interact with logger- heads from the western Atlantic (primarily United States). Loggerheads inhabiting foraging habitats along the east coast ot the U.S. originate trom the United States, Mexico, and Brazil, tireen turtles in the same area come trom Florida, the Carib- 266 UNIT 25 SEA TURTLES bcjii. and the South Atlantic Ocean (east and west). Progress has been made in our understanding of the hfe history of Kemp's ridleys, loggerheads, and green turtles at various study sites in Florida, North Carolina, and the northwestern Gull" ot Mexico. A number ot current studies are investi- gating the use and importance ot these inshore and nearshorc habitats. Critical habitat for the green turtle has been designated tor the nearshore foraging grounds oft Culebra, Puerto flico, and for the hawksbill in Mona and Monita Islands. NMFS has conducted considerable research on the use of various kinds ot tags to mark and identifii' sea turtles in order to collect important biological information during their life history such as growth, survival rates, and age of maturirv. LITERATURE CITED Gladys Porter Zoo. 1997. Report on the Mexico/United States of America population restoration project tor the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kciiipii. on the coasts ot Tamaullpas and Veracruz, Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, Washington, D.C., 58 p. FOR FURTHER READING Bjorndal, K. A. (Editor). 199'i. Biology and conserva- tion ot sea turtles (revised edition). Smithsonian In- stitution Press, Washington, D.C., 61? p. National Research Council. 1990. Decline ot the sea turtles: causes and preventions. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 259 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific populations ot the hawksbill turtle [Eretiiiochciyi imbriciitii). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 83 p. National iMarine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific populations of the loggerhead turtle (Ciiretta caretta). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Marvland. 60 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific populations ot the olive ridley turtle (Lcpiriochflyi oliviiceii). National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland, 53 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific populations ot the green turtle (Chelo)iia y>iydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 84 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific populations ot the East Pacific green turtle (Che- loniii Diydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Sil- ver Spring, Maryland, 51 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pa- cific popukitions ot the leatherback turtle (Dcrmochelys coridcfii). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 66 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991 . Recover)- plan tor U.S. popu- lation ot Atlantic green turtle. National Marine Fish- eries Service, Washington, D.C., 52 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlite Service. 1993. Recovery plan tor hawksbill turtle in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, 52 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan tor U.S. popu- lation ot loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisher- ies Service, Washington, D.C., 64 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan tor the Kemp's ridlev sea turtle (Lepidochelys ketupii). National Ma- rine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, 40 p. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan tor leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf ot Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, Washington, D.C., 65 p. Plotkin, P. T. (Editor). 1995. National Marine Fisher- ies Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlite Service Status reviews tor sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, Silver Spring, Maryland, 139 p. Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment ot the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and logger- head {Qireru! eiirem) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memoran- dum NMFS-SEFSC-409, 96 p. 267 r/'j^'iaa. '. 'mm 'i^-'-'^:*^'-^ ^:j^? :>-j^^^^^^Mfa 'Y -Nfc^_ ^^ fr ' V •\ ■ ■:^ M ■.t:'^'i^ -., -J . -:•<-.- V :'-';;.;--v-- \ • IT- fT- ~ :M 'i>'€i ^m ■"--V-. ''t ' y?^^ K^ k-c'^^-j^^^fi^-y- ^*'»^■**■ . t, .t- :«-,''<■ Previous page: Intertidal zone at low tide, Puget Sound. Washington. © Leo J. Shaw, The Seattle Aquarium. Appendix 1: Acknowledgments The National Marine Fisheries Service wishes to acknowledge the role of William W. Fox, Jr., Senior Scientist for Fisheries; the authors; and the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Editors Allen M. Shimada NMFS Office of Science and Technology. Silver Spring, Maryland David G. Stanton NMFS Scientific Publications Office, Seattle, Washington Willis L. Hobart NMFS Scientific Publications Office, Seattle, Washington Mark D. Chandler NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland Scientific editor Victor R. Restrepo University of Miami, Miami, Florida, and NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland Regional coordinators F.morv l^. Anderson NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Larry L. Massey NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida Maryann Acinger LaRosh and Judith L. Kendig NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Lajolla, California. Robert G. Kope NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington Loh-Lee Low NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington National Overview — Victor R. Restrepo, Llniversity of Miami, Miami, Florida, and NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; and Pamela M. Mace, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland. Unit 16— Gerard T. DiNardo, Wayne R. F^aight, and jerry A. Wethcrall, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Llonolulu, Hawaii. Unit 18 — Norman W. Bartoo and Atilio L. Coan, jr., NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La lolla, Clilifornia; and ("hristopher H. Boggs, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Unit 22— t;harles W. Fowler, Douglas V. l>Master, P Scott Hill, Roderick Hobbs, Thomas R. Loughlm, Bruce W. Robinson, Elizabeth S. Sinclair, and Paul Wade, NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. 27 1 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS Unit 23 — George A. Antonelis, Jr., and Jason D. Baker, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honokilu, Hawaii; and Meghan A. Donahue, Karin A. Forney, and Stephen B. Reillv', NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolia, California. Unit 25 — George H. Baiazs and Jerry A. Wetherali, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Hono- lulu, Hawaii; Therese Conant and Barbara Schroeder, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland; and Sheryan E. Epperiy, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science C\-nter, Miami, Florida. Additional assistance provided by the following individuals and organizations; Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Bellevue, Washington; Shelley E. Arenas, NMFS Scientific Publica- tions Office, Seattle, Washington; Morris Barker, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olym- pia, Washington; John Blevins, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts; James A. Bohnsack, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida; William B. Brooks, Jr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida; John L. Butler, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La )olla, California; C'ara Campbell, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science ('enter, Seattle, Wash- ington; Alexander J. C'hester, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science ('enter, Miami, Florida; (ieorge Darcy, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Sandra P. J. Davis, NMFS Scientific Publications Office, Seattle, Washington; William B. Folsom, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Robert W Hannah, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport, Or- egon; Kevin Hill, California Department of Fish and Game, La Jolla, C'alift)rnia; Ronald L. Hill, NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland; Rachel Husted, NMFS (Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; William G. jacobson, NMFS Southwest Regional Office, Long lieach, California; Daniel K. Kimura, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington; Sari J. Kiraly, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Cheri S. McC^arty, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Richard Methot, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington; John V. Merrincr, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort, North t'arolina; Robert C. Morrill, NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Portland, Maine; Bruce C. Mundy, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii; Sharon Newman, NMFS Office of Sci- ence and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Joseph E. Powers, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida; Phillip W. Rigby, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska; Chris- topher Rogers, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Greg Ruggerone, Natural Resources C^onsultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington; Gerald P. Scott, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida; Tim D. Smith, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massa- chusetts; Jacki A. Strader, NMFS Scientific Publications Office, Seattle, Washington; David L. Sutherland, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; The Seattle Aquarium, Seattle, Wash- ington; Gary E. Walters, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington; and Ian K. Work- man, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, Mississippi. 272 Appendix 2: Fishery Management Councils, their Jurisdiction, and Fishery Management Plans NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Sunt.uig Cfficf I'ark 3 Broadway (Rt. 1) Saugus, MA 01906 (781)231-0422 http://www.netmc.org Jurisdiction N4ainc, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut Fishery Management Plans • American Lobster l"isiier\' Management Plan • Fishery Management Plan tor the Northeast Multispecies Fishery • Fishery Management Plan tor Atlantic Sea Scallops • Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan • Fishery Management Plan tor Monktlsh (Joint management with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management t^ouncil) MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Federal Biiildmg, Room 2113 300 S. New Street Dover, DE 19904-6790 (302)674-2331 http:// www. matmc.org Jurisdiction New York, New |ersey, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina Fishery Management Plans • Fishery Management Plan tor the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Buttertlsh Fisheries • Fishery Management Plan tor the Atlantic Surt Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries • Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish • Fishery Management Plan for the Simimer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries • Fishery Management Plan tor Monkfish (joint management with the New England Fishery Management Council) SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Dne Southpark C^ircle, Suite 306 Charleston, SC 29407-4699 (843) 371-4366 http://www.satmc.nmfs.gov Jurisdiction North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, east coast ot Florida Fishery Management Plans • Fishery Management Plan tor the Spiny Lobster Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico ancf 273 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS South Atlantic (Joint management with the Gulf ot Mexico Fishery Management Council) • Fishety Management Plan tor the Snapper- Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region • Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery Manage- ment Plan • Fishery Management Plan tor Coastal Migra- tory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (joint management with the Gulf ot Mexico Fishery Management Council) • Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region • Fishery Management Plan tor the Shrimp Fishery ot the South Atlantic Region • Fishery Management Plan tor the Golden Crab Fishery ot the South Atlantic Region GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Fhe Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33619-2266 (813)228-2815 (888) 833-1844 (toll free) http://www.gultcouncil.org Jurisdiction lexas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, west coast of Florida Fishery Management Plans • Fishery Management Plan tor the Spiny Lobster Fishery in the Cult of Mexico and South Atlantic (Joint management with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council) • Fishery Management Plan tor Coastal Migra- tory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf ot Mexico and South Atlantic ([oint management with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council) • Fishery Man.igement Plan tor Coral and ("oral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico • Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery ot the Cult of Mexico • Fisher\- Management Plan tor the Shrimp Fishery ot the Cjult ot Mexico, U.S. waters Fishery Management Plan for the Reel Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for the Red Drum Fishery ot the Cult ot Mexico CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 268 Miuioz Rn-era Ayenue, Siute I 108 San Juan, PR 00918-2577 (809) 766-5926 Jurisdiction Virgin Islands, C^ommonwealth ot Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plans • Fishery Management Plan tor the Spiny Lobster Fishery ot Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands • Fishery Management Plan tor the Shallow- Water Reel Fish Fisher\' ot Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands • Fishery Management Plan tor t^orals and Reel Associated Plants and Inyertebrates ot Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands • Fishery Management Plan tor the Queen Conch Resources ot Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virtrin Islands PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 2130 SW 5th Ayenue, Suite llH Portland, OR 97201 (503) 326-6352 http://vy\yw.pcouncil.org Jurisdiction Calitt)rnia, Washington, Oregon, Idalm Fishery Management Plans • Fishery Management Plan tor the Groiindtisli Fishery oti Washington, Oregon, and C'alih)r- nia • Northern Anchoyy Fishery Management Plan • Fishery Management Plan tor ('ommercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries ott the Cxjasts ioscion regalis White hake, ihvp/iycis tenuis Black sea bass, ('ciitivpristis striata Scup, Stoiotomui chryiopi Spot, Leiostomus xanthiirin Tilefish, Lopholatiliis cha>iiaclcoiitiitps Cusk, Broiiiie brosme Wolffishes, Anarhicbas spp. Ocean pout, Macrozoarca aDicriciniiis Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossiis hippoglossiis Unit 2: Northeast Pelagic Fisheries Atlantic herring, Cliipea harengus Atlantic mackerel. Scomber icomhnis Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix Biitterfish, Peprilus triacanthm Unit 3: Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries Striped bass, Morone saxatilis American shad, Alosa sapidissima Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengits Blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchiis Shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brei'irostniin Atlantic .salmon, Salmo salar Unit 4: Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries American lobster, Homarus ainericaiius Atlantic surtclam, Spisula solidissima Ocean quahog, Arctica islandica Longfln inshore st]uid, Loligo pealcii Northern shortfln squid, Illex illecebrosus Sea scallop, Placopectcn luagclLuiicns Northern shrimp, Paiidahis borealis Red crab, ('Jiaceo)i quinqiiedeiis 287 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS Unit 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Yellowfin tuna, rimnuus albacares Bis^eye tuna, Thiiiniiis ohesus AJbacore, Tbunnui alalutiga Skipjack tuna, Katsmvoiim pelainis Bluefin tuna, Tluiiiiuis thyniiiis Other tunas Blackfin tuna, IhiDinus atlanticus Little tunny, Eitthynnus allctteratiis Atlantic bonito, uirdd uvda Wahoo, Acantbocybium iolandri Bullet mackerel, Auxh rochei Frigate mackerel, Auxh thazard Swordfish, Xipbias ghidim Billfishes Blue marhn, Makiitvii >iigruiiiis White marhn, Ictydplurus alliulus Sailfish, htiopbtiriis platypterui Unit 6: Atlantic Sharks Large coastal sharks Sandbar shark, (.arcbarbuiui pbmdtcus Reef shark, Canharbiiius peivzi Blacktip shark, Carcharbinw limhatus Dusky shark, Cincharhinin nbscurus Spinner shark, (^an/hirbiims hrcvipiinid Silky shark, Carcbarhinits falcifonnis Bull shark, Carcharbhnis Icucui Bignose shark, C(irihinhiiiii> iiltiiniis tialapagos shark, Carcbarbinus gaUpagensis Night shark, Carcbarbinus sigiunus Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvicr Lemon shark, Negapniiu brerirostris Nurse shark, G'i?ig/yriiosto»ia cirratuDi Narrowtooth shark, Carcbarbinus bracbyurus Scalloped hammerhead, Spbyrna lewini Smooth hammerhead, Spbyrna zygaena Great hammerhead, Spbyrna niokarran Small coastal sharks Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rbizoprionodon terraenovae Caribbean sharpnose shark, Rhizoprinnodot: porosus Finetooth shark, Carcbarbinus isodon Blacknose shark, (.arcbarbinus acronotus Bonnethead, Sp/iyrna tiburo Atlantic angel shark, Squatina duincril Smalltail shark, Carcbarbinus porosus Pelagic sharks Longfm mako, Isurus piiucus Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrincbus Blue shark, Prionace glauca Porbeagle, Lamna nasus Thresher shark, Alopias rulpinus Bigeye thresher, Alopias supcrcibusus Oceanic whitetip shark, Carcbiirbinus b>ng!inanus Sevengill sh.irk, Hcptra)ubias perlo Sixgill shark, Hexa)icbus griscus Bigeye sixgill shark, Hexancbus i/itubts Unit 7: Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries nolphmhsh, Corypbacna bippurus King mackerel (Atlantic and Gulf), Sco)nbcru)norus cavalla Spanish mackerel (Atlantic and Gulf), Sconibcroniurm maculatus Cobia, Racbyccntron caiiaduni Cero (mackerel), Scond>eroniorus regabs Unit 8: Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Reef Fish Fisheries Gulf of Mexico Red snapper, Lutjanus campecbanus Red grouper, Hpinepbelus morin Nassau grouper, Epinepbebis striatus Jewfish, Epincpbcbts itajara Shallow groupers Gag, Myctcroperca niicrolcpis Rock hind, }-.pnicpbcbts adscoisionis Speckled hind, Epinephebis druinnunidliayi Red hind, Epinepbebis guttatus Black grouper, Myctcroperca bonaci Scamp, Myctcroperca pboutx Yellowfin grouper, Myctcroperca venenosa Other groupers Snowy grouper, Epiiwpbcbis niveatus Yellowedge grouper, E.pitiepbebis flavobnd)atus Yellowmouth grouper, Myctcroperca i)iterstitialis Misty grouper, E.pinepbebis mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinepbebis nigritus 288 APPENDIX 5 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES Other snappers Vermilion snapper, Rhoinboplites auroniheiis Queen snapper, Etelis oculatiis Mutton snapper, Lutjivius aniilis Schoolmaster, Liitjanus apodits Blackfin snapper, Liitjanm buccanella Cubera snapper, Ltitjaniis cytuwpterus Mahogany snapper, Liit/iinns inahogo)ii Lane snapper, Lutjaiius syiiagris Dog snapper, Lutjaum jocn Silk snapper, Liitjanus vivamis Yellowtail snapper, (Jcytiriis chrysunis Grey (Mangrove) snapper, Liitjaiiiis griseiis Black snapper, Apsiliis dentatiis Porgies Jolthead porgy. Calamus bajonado Longspine porg)', Stenotomus caprinus Red porgy, Pagrus pagriis Whitebone porgy. Calamus leucosteus Knobbed porgy. Calamus iiodosiis Littlchead porgy. Calamus proridens Amberjacks Greater amberjack, Seriola diimerili Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata Grunts White grunt, Hacmulou plumieri Bluestriped grunt, Haemiilon schirus French grunt, Haemiilon flavolineatiim Sea basses Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocytiriis Others Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephaliis Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen Blueline (grey) tilefish, Caulolatiliis mtcrops BLickline tilefish, Caiilotilus cyanops Tilefish (golden), Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Yellow goatfish, Miilloidichthys martmicus Blue runner, Caranx crysos Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera Hogfish, Lachnolaimiis maximus Queen angclfish, Holacanthus ciliaris Atlantic Spadefish, Chaetodtpterns faber Great barracuda, Sphyreiui barracuda Atlantic Wreckfish, Polyprion americaniis Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites auroriibens Red snapper, Lutjaniis campcchatnis Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatiis [evvfish, Epinephelus itajara Other groupers Red grouper, Epinephelus morio Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatiis Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatiis Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis Mist)' grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus iiigntiis Coney, Epinephelus fulviis Graysby, Epinephelus criientatiis Creole-fish, Paranthias furcifer Sea basses Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyiiriis Other snappers Queen snapper, Etelis oculatiis Mutton snapper, Lutjaniis analis Schoolmaster, Lutjaniis apodus Blackfin snapper, l^utjanus buccanella Cubera snapper, Liitjanus cyanopteriis Mahogany snapper, Lutjaniis mahogoni Lane snapper, Liitjanus synagris Silk snapper, Liitjanus vivanus Yellowtail snapper, Ocyiiriis chrysuriis Grey (Mangrove) snapper, Liitjanus griseiis Black snapper, Apsilus dentatiis Amberjacks Greater amberjack, Seriola diimerili Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata tether porgies lolthead porg)', Calamus bajonado Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus Whitebone porgy. Calamus leucosteus 289 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS Knobbed porgy. Calamus nodosiis Littlehead porgy, Calamm pruridcns Saucereye porgy, Calamm calamui Spottail pinfish, Diplodiis liolbrooki Scup, Steiiotonnii chrysnps Grunts White grunt, Hacniulou plumicri Bluestripcd grunt, Haeniulon sciurns French grimt, Haemulon flavolineatum Margate, Hae)}iiilim album Sailors choice, Haonuloii parra Tomtate, Haemtdon aurolineatuni Pori^fish, Anisotremus I'irgiiiict/s Biaci< margate, Aiiiwtirmus suiiiuvnoisis Spanish grunt, Haemulon macrostouium Pigfish, Ortbopristis clnyioptera Smailmouth grunt, Haemulon chiysargyirtim Others Sheepshead, Anhosargus probatoccphalus Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula Gray triggerfisii, Raliites capriscus Ocean triggerfish, Canthidennis sujflamen Blueline (grey) tilefish, Caulolatdui microps Blackline tilefish, Caulotilus cya>u)ps Tilefish (golden), lopholatilus cbamaeleonticcpi Hogfish, Lachnolaimui maxbnui Queen angeifish, Holacantlnn rdiaiis Atlantic Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber Great barracuda, Sphyrena barracuda Caribbean Nassau grouper, F.pinephelus strialus Other groupers Rock hind, Hpiiiephclus adsccnsionn Red hind, Epinepltelus guttatus Yellowfin grouper, Myctcropcria I'liicnoia Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis Coney, Epniephelui fulvus tlraysby, hpuicphilus cruciitatus Snappers Vermilion snapper, Rlunuboplilci iiurorubois Queen snapper, F.telis oculalui Mutton snapper, Lutjanus attain Schoolmaster, l.iitjatiui apodus Blacktm snapper, Ltttjaitus buiraiiclla Mahogany snapper, Lutjatim ttiahogotti Lane snapper, l.utjatius sytiagrn Silk snapper, l.utjatius rivanus Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus Grunts White grunt, Haemulon plutnieri Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus French grunt, Haetnulon flavolineatum Margate, Haetnulon albutti Tomtate, Haetnulon aurolittealmn Others Greater amberjack, Seriola diiitterill Blue runner, Caranx erysos Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos Horse-eye jack, Caranx latus Black jack, Caratix lugubris Bar jack, Caranx ruber Lookdown, Selene votner Bigeye scad, Selar criititettophlhaltnus Yellow jack, Caranx banholotiiaci Sea bream, Archosargus rhottiboidalis lolthead porg>'. Calamus bajotiado Sheepshead porgy, Calattim petina Yellow goatfish, Mulloidiehthys tnartinicus Spotted goatfish, Pseudupeneus maculatus Spotfin butterflyfish, Chaetodon ocellatus Foureye butterflyfish, Chaetodon capistratus Atlantic Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber Queen angeifish, Holacatilhus eiliaris Rock beautv, Holacatithus tricolor Cjtay angeifish, Pomacanthus arcuatus French angeifish, Pottiacatithus paru Spanish hogfish, Bodiatius rufus Hogfish, Lachnolaitnus ttiaxitttus Puddingwife, Halichoeres radiatus Midnight parrotfish, Scarus coelestinus Blue parrtitfish, Scarus coeruleus Striped parrotfish, Scarus croicensis Rainbow parrotfish, Scarus guacatnaia Princess parrotfish, Scarus taeniopterus C^ueen parrotfish, Scarus vetula Redband parrotfish, Sparisotna aurofrenatum Redtail p.iirotfish, Spiirisoma chrysopterutn Recifin parrotfish, Sparisotna rubripitine Stoplight parrotfish, Sparisottta viride Ocean surgeonfish, Acanthurus bahiatius Doctorfish, Acattthurus chirurgus Blue tang, Acanthurus coeruleus Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufjlatneit Black durgon, Melichthys tiiger 290 APPENDIX 5 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES Spotted trunkfish, Lactoplirys bicaiidalis Honeycomb cowfish, Lactophrys polygoiiui Scrawled cowfish, Lactoplirys qitadricornis Smooth trimkfish, Lactoplirys triqueter Trunkfish, Lactoplirys trigonus Squirrclfish, Holoceiitnis adscensionis Longspine squirrelfish, Holoceiitnis rnfiis Bigeye, Priacaiit/ius aroiatiis Porkfish, Anisotremus virginicus Mutton Hamlet, Epinephelus afer Unit 9: Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries Black drum, Pogoiiias cromis Atlantic croaker, Micropogoiiuis iindidatus Spot, Lciostomus xanthurm Red drum, Sciaoiops ocellatiis Seatrouts Grey seatrout (weakfish), Cyiioscion regalis Spotted seatrout, Cyiioscioii uchidosiis Silver seatrout, Cynoscion notlms Sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius Kingfishes Southern kingfish, Meiiticirrhiis aniericdniis Gull" kingfish, Meiiticirrhiis littoralis Northern kingfish, Menticirrlms saxatilis Unit 10: Southeast Menhaden Fisheries Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus Gulf menhaden, Brevoortia patroniis Unit 11: Southeast and Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries Shrimps Brown shrimp, Penaeus azteciis White shrimp, Penaeus setifenis Pink shrimp, Penaeus duoraruni Royal red shrimp, Pleoticiis rohustiis Seabob, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri Rock shrmip, Stcyonia brevirostris Spiny lobster (Southeast and Caribbean), Panulirus argiis Spotted spiny lobster, Panuliris guttatus Stone crab, Menippe inercenaria Queen conch, Stronduis gigas Coral, Phylum Cnidaria Units 12 and 13: Pacific Coast andAlasl/iaig/iiatiis Slipper lobster (Ulapapa), Sc)i//aiides st/iiai/iiiiasiis Unit 17: Western Pacific Bottomfish andArmorhead Fisheries Bottomfishes Silverjaw jobfish (lehi), Apbareiis niti/aiis Gray jobfish (iiku), Aprioii rireseeiis Squirrelfish snapper (ehu), F.tells larbtiiieulus Ruby (Long-tail) snapper (onaga), Etelis eoriiscaiis Bluestripe snapper (taape), Lutjauus kasinira Yellowtail snapper (yellowtail kalekale), i'ristipiiiiioides aiiruilhi Crimson snapper (opakapaka), Pristipomoides fiLinientasiis Yelloweye snapper (yelloweye opakapaka), Pristipomoides flavipiiiiius Pink snapper, (kalekale), Pristipomoides sieboldii Small-scaled snapper (Opakapaka), Pristipomoides mterolepis Giant trevally (white ulua), Caraiix igiiobilis Black jack, (black ulua), C.annix higubris Thick lipped trevally, (butaguehi), Pseudoearanx dentex Greater amberjack, (kahala), Seriola diiiiierili Blacktip grouper, ipnupheliis faseiatiis Cirouper (hapu upu u), Hpiiieplu'his ijuenius Lunartail grouper. Variola loiiti Ambon emperor, Letbriiiiis amboniensis Redgili emperor, Lethriims nibriopeyeidaliis Seamount fishes Pelagic arnn)rhead, Pseiidopeiitaeeros wlieeleri 292 APPENDIX 5 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES Unit 18: Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Yellowfin tuna, ThiDDiiti albacarei Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonin pelamis Albacore (North and South), Thiinuui ahihoiga Bigeye tuna, Thiiiiuns obesus Blue marlin, Makaim )iigricans Black marlin, Makaira indica Striped marlin, Tctraptitrus aiidax Sailfish, htiophorui platypterus Shortbill spearfish, Tetrapturus ivigiistirostris Swordfish, Xipliias gladim Wahoo, Acaiuhocybiiim solandri Dolphinfish (mahimahi), Coryphaena hippurm Pelagic sharks Families: Carcharhinidae, Alopiidae, Sphyrnidae, and Lamnidae Unit 19: Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Pacific h.ilihut, Hippogloaus stenolepn Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish resources Walleye pollock, Vbcmgra chdlcogm}>iina Pacific cod, Gadui inacroctphaliis Yellowfin sole, Pleiiroiiectes asper Greenland (turbot) halibut, Reiid.hirdtitis hippoglossoides Arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stoniias Rock sole, Pleiiroiu'ctfs biliueatiis Other flatfishes Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodoii Alaska plaice, Pleurotiectes quadrituberculatiis Kamchatka flounder, Atheresthes eiiennaiini Bering flounder, Hippoglossoides robustus Arctic flounder, PleuwJiectes gLnialis Butter sole, Plcuroiiectes isolepis C-O Sole, Plenronichthys coeuosus C'alilornia tonguefish, Symphiiviis atrieaudd Curlfin sole, Pleuronectes decurrens Deepsea sole, Embassichthys bathybius Dover sole, Microstomtts pacificus English sole, PleKfouectes vetiihis Hybrid sole, luopsetta ischyra Longhead dab, Pleuronectes proboscideus Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus Petrale sole, Eopsetta jordani Rex sole, Errex zachirus Roughscale sole, Clinoderma asperriinum Sand sole, Psettichthys melatiostictus Slender sole, Eopsetta exilis Starry flounder, Platichthys stelLttits Sablefish (black cod), Auoplopoma fiiiibria Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes aliitiis Other rockfishes Aurora rockfish, Sebastes aurora Black rockfish, Sebastes melanops Blackgill rockfish, Sebastes melauosto)nus Blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus Bocaccio, Sebastes paticispiiiis Brown rockfish, Sebastes auriculatus Canary rockfish, Sebastes pinniger Chameleon rockfish, Sebastes phillipsi Chilipepper, Sebastes goodei Copper rockfish, Sebastes caiirim/s Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes cramei Dusky rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus Gray rockfish, Sebastes glaucus Greenstriped rockfish, Sebastes elougatus Harlequin rockfish, Sebastes variegatus Northern rockfish, Sebastes polyspinis Pinkrose rockfish, Sebastes simulator Pygmy rockfish, Sebastes wilsoni Redbanded rockfish, Sebastes babcoeki Redstripe rockfish, Sebastes proriger Rosethorn rockfish, Sebastes helvouiaculatus Rosy rockfish, Sebastes rosaceus Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutia>ius Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus Shortraker rockfish, Sebastes borealis Silvergray rockfish, Sebastes brevispiriis Splitnose rockfish, Sebastes diploproa Stripetail rockfish, Sebastes saxicola figer rockfish, Sebastes nigrocinctus Widow rockfish, Sebastes eutoinetas Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus Yellowmouth rockfish, Sebastes reedi Yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flauidus Broadbanded thorn vhead, Sebastolobus macrochir Longspine thornvhead, Sebastolobus altivelis Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus alascanus Atka mackerel, Pleurogramiuus )uoiiopterygius Other fishes Antlered sculpin, Euophrys dieeraus Armorhead sculpin, Eurymeii gyriuus Bigmouth sculpin, Hemitripterus bolini 293 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS Blackfin sculpin, Malacocnttus kiiicaidi Blob sculpin, Psychrolittes phrictiis Brown Irish lord, Hci>iilcpi/lutus spiiwsus Butterfly sculpin, Hemilepidottn papilio Calico sculpin, Clinocottus embryiim Crested sculpin, Blepsias hilohiis Dusky sculpin, hclniui bnnhniiii Great sculpin, Myoxocfpl-ialiii polyaciuithdifplhiliii Pacific staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus iiniiatiis Plain sculpin, Myoxocephalus jdok Red Irish lord, Hemilepidotus hciiiiUpidotiis Ribbed sculpin, Iriglopi piiigdi Scissortail sculpin, Iriglops forficalus Shorthorn sculpin, Myoxocephalus scorpius Spinyhead sculpin, Dasycottiis sen'ger Tadpole sculpin, Psychroliitcs paraduxus Thorny sculpin, Ictliis spiniger Warty sculpin, iMyoxocepbalus verrucosus Yellow Irish lord, HcDulepidotus jordiDii Alaska skate, Hathyrdjii pdrxiifcra Aleutian skate, Biuhyraja aleutica Big skate. Raja binoculata Deepsea skate, Bathyraja abyssicola tiolden skate, Biithyraja siiiinuwi Longnose skate, Rii/ii rbiiiii Starry skate, Rii/a stclluLitti Blue shark, Priuiiiicc g/inicii Pacific sleeper shark, SoDuiiosus pacificus Salmon shark, l.iuniui ditropis Sixgill shark, Hexanchus griseus Soupfin shark, Cudcorhi>ius zyoptcrus Spiny dogfish, Squalus acantltias Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinm Capelin, MaHotiis vdlosus Eulachon, Vhak'ichthys pacifnus Rainbow smelt, Osriierus inordiix Giant octopus, Octopus doflciiii Orange bigeye octopus. Octopus califoniicus Magistrate armhook squid, Berryteutbis magister Boreal clubhook squid, Oiiychotcutbis borealijupotiica Gulf of Alaska groundflsh resources Walleye pollock, I bcragra chahogruiuina Pacific cod, Gadus inacroccpbalus Flatfishes Arrowtooth tlounder, Athcrcstbcs stuinias Alaska plaice, Plcuroncctcs quddritubercidatus Butter sole, Plcuronectes isoUpis Deepsea sole, Embassichtbys buthybius Dover sole, Alicrostoi/ius pucijlcus English sole, Plcuronectes vetulus Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides ehnsodoti Greenland (turbot) halibut, Rciubardtius hippoglossoides Rex sole, Hrrex zachinis Rock sole, Plcuronectes bilincatus Sand sole, Psettichthys mehuiostictus Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus Yellowfin sole, Plcuro)iectes asper Sablefish (black cod), Aiwploponui fiinbriii Atka mackerel, Pleurograinnius inonopterygius Slope rockflshes Northern rockfish, Scbastcs polyspinis Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes iilutus Rougheye rockfish, Scbastcs alcutiauus Shortraker rockfish, Scbastcs borealis rhornyhead rockfishes Broadbanded thornvhead, Sebastolobus macrocbir Longspine rhornyhead, Sebastolobus allirelis Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus alascauus Pelagic shelf rockfishes Dusky rockfish, Scbastcs ciliatus Widow rockfish, Scbastcs ciitoinclas Yellowtail rockfish, Scbastcs flai'idiis Demersal shelf rockfishes Yelloweye rockfish, Scbastcs rubcrrnuus Unit 20: Alaska Shellfish Fisheries fanner crab, Chionoeeetes bairdi Snow crab, Chionoeeetes opilio King crabs Blue king crab, Paralithodcs platypus Golden (brown) king crab, Lilhodcs iicquispina Red king crab, Paralithodcs caiiitschalica Shrimps Alaskan pink shrimp, Pandalus eous Side-stripped shrimp, Pandalopsis dispar Humpy shrimp, Pandalus gouiurus Coonstripped shrimp, Pa)idalus hypsiuotus Spot shrimp, Paudalus platyccros Sea snails Angular whelk, Bucciuuiii anguhhuiu augulosuin 294 APPENDIX 5 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES Fat wliL'lk, Nt'ptioiea veiitricosa Frai;ilc whelk, Voliitopsiiis fi\igilis Ladder whelk, Biuriiiuin scaLirifonne Lyre whelk, Neptiiiiea lyraUi lynud Oregon triton, Fusitriton oregoneinis Polar whelk, Biiccimim polare Pribilot whelk, Neptunea pribiloffeiisls Sinuous whelk, Bnccuiiivi plectrum Tulip whelk, Voliitopsitis middtnii-lorffii Hero whelk, Neptunea heroi Whelk, Plicifiisus kroyeri Unit 21: Nearshore Fisheries Northeast Nearshore Fishery Resources Blue Liab, ('iillnieitei sdpi/iia Sea urchin, Stroiigyloce)itwtus spp. Atlantic hardshell clam, Mercenaria mercenaria Eastern oyster (Atlantic), CmsiOitrea wginica Blue mussel, Mytilus ednlis Horseshoe crab (Atlantic), Li)miliii polyhoiius Tltutog, Tautoga oiiitis Other shads and herring Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepeduvuim Hickor)' shad, Aloiu mediocris Roimd herring, Etnimeui teres White perch, Moroiie americana Jonah crab. Cancer horealis Softshell clam, Aiya arenaria Atlantic rock crab. Cancer irroratin Conchs Channeled whelk, ^usycotypiis canaliculate Knobbed whelk, Busycon carica Lightning whelk, Busycon sinistrum Sea cucumber, Cucumaria fio)idosa American eel, Aiiguilla rostrata Sea worms Sandworni, Nereis virens Bloodworm, Ctycera dibranchiata Tapeworm (milk worm), Cerebratulus lacteiis Periwinkle, Littoritia littorea Bay scallop, Argopectcn irradiaiis Southeast Nearshore Fishery Resources Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Mullets, Family Mugilidae Eastern oyster (Atlantic), Crassostrea virgi>i!Cii Other herrings and Spanish sardine Gizzard shad, Dorosoma ccpediaiiuni Round herring, Etrumeus teres Atlantic thread herring, Opisthonema ogliniini Hickory shad, Alosa mediocris Threadfin shad, Dorosoma petenense Spanish sardine, Sardinella aurtta Gull flounder, Paralichthys albigutta Southern flounder, Paralichthys lethostigma Bait shrimp, Decapoda, Dendrobranchiata Calico scallops (Atlantic), Argopectcn gibbus Ballyhoo, Hemiramphus brasiliensis Bigeye scad, Selar criDnoiophthahnus Flyingfish (Atlantic), Cypsclurus mcLinurus Pacific Nearshore Fishery Resources (California) California market squid, Loligo opalcscens Sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus spp. Shrimps Bay shrimp, Crangon fianciscoriim Dock shrimp, Pandaliis danae Ocean shrimp, Pandaliis jordani Pacific ridgeback rock shrimp, Sicyonia iiigentis Pacific (pink) shrimp, Pandaliis burcalis Sidestripe shrimp, Pandalopsis dispar Spot shrimp, Pandaliis platyceros Dungeness crab. Cancer magister Other crabs Rock crab. Cancer spp. Sheep crab, Loxorhynchus grandis Pacific bonito, Sarda chiliensis Smelts Night smelt, Spirinchus starksi Surt smelt, Hypomesus pretiosiis Whitebait smelt, Allosmerus elongatiis Elasmobranchs, Class Elasmobranchiomorphi California halibut, Paralichthys californicus Sea cucumbers, Parastichopus spp. Calilornia spiny lobster, Paniiliriis intcrruptiis Abalones, Haliotis spp. Croakers Spotfin croaker, Roncador stearnsi Yellow croaker, Uinbrina roncador White croaker, Genyonemus lineatus Pacific barracuda, Sphyraena argentea Bivalves Pacific razor clam, Siliqua patula Butter clam, Saxidomus nuttalli 295 1998 OUR LIVING OCEANS Banded chione, Chione californiemh Smooth Lliione, Chione flnctifi-iiga Wavy chione, (Jlno)ie H)idatclla Thin-shelled littleneck clam, Protothaca tenerritna Manila clam, Venerupis japoiiica Pacific Nearshore Fishery Resources (Oregon) Clams Butter clam, Saxidomm iiuttalli Horseneck gaper clam, Tresm capax Pacific littleneck clam, Protothaca itaniitiea Oysters Pacific oyster, ('rassostrea gigas Dungeness crab, (dancer iiiagister Shrimps Blue mud shrimp, Upogehta piigettoisis Ocean shrimp, I'a)ul,ihii lordaiit Pacific (pink) shrimp, Paiidithis horcahs Sea Urchins Purple sea urchin, Stroti^ylocfntivtHS purpura tns Red sea urchin, Strongyloceiitrotus franciscaniis Elasmobranchs Blue shark, Prionace glauca Spiny dogfish, sc/iiahn aianthias Big skate. Raja hiiiociilata Longnose skate. Raja rhina Sturgeon Green sturgeon, Acipi'iner nicdiroitrii White sturgeon, Acipensfr trainxtoiitanui Other fish and invertebrates Chub (Pacific) mackerel. Scomber iapo)iicm Pacific herring, Chipea pallasi Pacific sarciine, Sardi>wps sagax Market sc]uid, I.ohga opalesccm Humboldt squid, Dosidiciis gigai Pacific Nearshore Fishery Resources (Washington) Pacific geoduck clam, Paiiopca ahrupta Other clams Horseneck gaper clam, Tresiis capax Manila clam, Vencruph japoiiica Pacific littleneck clam, Pnitothaca Uamiuca Oysters Pacific ovster, ('rassostrca gigas Other bivalves Venus clams, Pscphidia sp. Mussels, Family Mytilidae Dungeness crab. Cancer inagisler Shrimps Ocean shrimp, Paudahis jordaiii Pacific (pmk) shrimp, Paada/iis horealis Sea cucumber California sea cucumber, Parastichopui calijortiicus Elasmobranchs Spiny dogfish, upiahn aeauthias Sturgeons Green sturgeon, Acipemcr inedirostris White sturgeon, Acipeiner Iraiisiiioiitaiiiis Western Pacific Island Nearshore Fishery Resources Bigeye scad (Akule), Selar crumeaophthahnus Mackerel scad (Opelu), Decapturus macarelhis Alaska Nearshore Fishery Resources Dungeness crab. Cancer inagntcr Tanner crab, Chionoecetes bairdi Red king crab, Paralithodci Ciiinlschatica Scallops Weathervane scallop, Patinopectin caiiriniis Pink scallop, (JiLiniys rulnda Spiny scallop, Chlamys hastata Rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantca Pacific geoduck clam, Panopea ahrupta Shrimps Alaskan pink shrimp, Panilahn eons Coonstriped shrimp, Paiidahis hypsinotus Humpy shrimp, Paiidahis goiimnis Ocean shrimp, Pandahis jordani Sidestripe shrimp, Pandalnpiii dispar Spot shrimp, I'andahis pLityceroi Other clams Arctic surlclam, Mactromeris polynyma Butter cl.im, Saxidomns giganteaiis C'ockles, Chiiiicirdiin/i spp. Pacific littleneck clam, I'roliilliaca slainiiica Pacific razor clam, Siliqiia patiila Softshell clam, Mya arenaria Sea urchins, Slrongyloceiitrinn> spp. Sea cucumbers, Parastichopin spp. Abalones, Haliotis spp. 296 APPENDIX 5 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES Units 22, 23 and 24: Marine Mammals of Alaska, Pacific, and Atlantic Regions Dolphins Atlantic spotted dolphin, StfuclLi fiviitis Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhyiichus iiciitiis Bottlenose dolphin, Tiirsiops tnaiaitiis Clymene Dolphin, StenelLi cl\ii>ie)ie Common dolphin, Delpbunis delphii Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphu hosei Northern right-whale dolphin, Liiiodelphis borealii Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchui obliqtiidem Pantropical spotted dolphin, SteiielLi attenuata Risso's dolphin. Grampus griseiis Rough-toothed dolphin, Steiio bredanensis Spinner dolphin (Eastern), SteneHa longirostris orientalii Striped dolphin, Stenella coerukoalba Whitebelly spinner dolphin, SteneHa loiigirostrh White-beaked dolphin, Lageiiorl))nicbtii albifostris Fur seals Guadalupe tur seal, hvQtocephalns toiviueiidi Northern fur seal, Callorbinus uninm Manatees Florida manatee, Tricbecus wanatus latiroitrh Antillean manatee, Tricbecus niaiiatiis }}iaiiatus Porpoises Dalls porpoise, Phocoena dalli Harbor porpoise, Phocoena pbocoena Seal lions California sea lion, Zalopbus californianus Stellar sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus Seals Bearded seal, Erignatbus barbatus Grey seal, Halichoeriis grypus Harbor seal, Pboca vitulma Harp seal, Pboca groeidaiidna Hawaiian monk seal, Moiiachus sbauiiisLvidi Hooded seal, Cystopbora cr'utata Northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris Ribbon seal, PItoca fascia ta Ringed seal, Pboca bispida Spotted seal, Pboca largba Whales Baird's beaked whale, Bcrardnts bahdii Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas Blainville's beaked whale, Mesoplodoti deusirostris Blue whale, BaLietwptera niiiscidus Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus Brydes whale, Balaenoptera edeiii Cuvier's beaked whale, Zipbius cavirostris Dwarf sperm whale, Kogia siinus False killer whale, Psciidorca crassideiis Fin whale, BaLienoptera pbysahis Gervais' beaked whale, Mesoplodoii europaens Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae Killer whale, Orcinus orca Longfm pilot whale, GlobicepbaLi mehiena (melas) Melon-headed whale, Peponocepbahi electra Mesoplodont beaked whales. Mesoplodoii spp. Minke whale, BaLienoptera acutorostrata Northern bottlenose whale, Hypcroodon ampuUatns Northern Right whale, EubaLiena glaclalis Pygmy Killer whale, Feresa attenuata Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps Sei whale, BaLienoptera borealis Shortfin pilot whale, GlobicepbaLi macrorbynclnis Sperm whale, Pbyseter macrocepbaliis (catodon) Stejneger's beaked whale, Mesoplodoii stejne^eri Other marine mammals Polar bear, Ursus maritimus Sea otter, Enbydra lutris Wilms, Odobenus rosniarus Unit 25: Sea Turtles Kemp's ridle)', Lcpidocbelys kcnipi Olive ridley, Lcpidocbelys olivacea Leatherback, Dcnnocbclys coriacea Green turtle, Cbelonia mydas Loggerhead, Caretta caretta Hawksbill, Eretinochelys inibricata 297 Appendix 6: Acronyms and Abbreviations ABC acceptable biological catch ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Ciame AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission CalCOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CI confidence interval cm centimeter CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands COFI Committee on Fisheries CPUE catch per unit of effort CPY current potential yield CV coefficient of variation CWP central-western Pacific Ocean DDT DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane DNA deoxyribonucleic acid EEZ Flxclusive Economic Zone EFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 ESU evolutionarilv significant unit ETP eastern tropical Pacific Ocean F instantaneous fishing mortality rate FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFA South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency fm fathom f^-^^ rate ot fishing mortality that results in the maximum level of yield per recruit FMC fishery management council FMP fishery management plan FP fibropapillomatosis FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act GPS global positioning system GSMFC Culf States Marine Fisheries Commission HMS highly migratory species lATTC Inter-American Iropical luna ("ommission ICCAT International Commission tor the Conservation ot Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council tor the FAploration ot the Sea 299 1999 OUR LIVING OCEANS ICNAF International Convention tor the Nortliwest Atlantic Fisheries IFQ intiividtial fishing quota INPFC International North Pacific Fisheries Coniniission IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission IWC International Whaling Commission K carrying capacity kg kilogram LIDAR light detection and ranging LMR living marine resource(s) LTPY long-term potential yield m meter M instantaneous rate of natural mortality MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management (Council MFCMA Magnuson Fishery txuiservation and Management Act ol 1976 MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended through October 11, 1996) MHI Main Hawaiian Islands mm millimeter MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MMS Minerals Management Service, Department ol Interior MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey MSAP Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel MSY maxinuuTi sustainable yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization NEFMC New Fngland Fishery Management Council NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service n.mi. nautical mile N^i^ mininumi population estimate of the stock NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPAFC North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science ("enter NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OLO Our Living Oceans OY optimum yield OSP optimum sustainable population PA Precautionary Approach PacFIN Pacific Fisheries Information Network PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PBR potential biological removal PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Cxnincil PICES North Pacific Marine Science Organization PSC U.S.-("anada Pacific Salmon ("ommission PSP paralytic shellfish poisoning RAY recent average yield 300 APPENDIX 6 ABBREVIATIONS R one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size SAR Stock Assessment Report SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee SAW Stock Assessment Workshop SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center SEP Socio-economic Panel SNE southern New England SPR spawning potential ratio or spawner per recruit SSB spawning stock biomass SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center t metric ton TAC total allowable catch TED turtle excluder device U exploitation rate UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNIA United Nations Implementing Agreement USGS U.S. Geological Survey USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 301 ■;^:'^;^V«^ ■ ■' ■ ^^ ^ ■■ ■ ^ ■'' '■$J><^ I- 1* t' ■ i'- -■;'¥ - '!-' '-'t' :• !:<>-■ ■ ii *^'i5* .''5 ^n#1-