and

Summer Flounder

Paralichthys dentatus

(Image © B. Guild Gillespie/www.chartingnature.com)

United States

Bottom gillnet, handline, trap nets

1/07/16 The Safina Center Seafood Analysts

Disclaimer Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at the time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch and The Safina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and other funders. 2

About The Safina Center

The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scientific information into language people can understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC) works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature, especially the sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to actively engage as well-informed and highly motivated constituents for conservation.

Led by conservation pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, the economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina’s books, essays, public speaking, PBS television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make better choices.

The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, writing and policy work by Dr. Safina.

The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center’s founders created the first seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over 160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authoritative, easy to understand and use. Seafood ratings and full reports are available on our website under Seafood Choices. TSC’s Sustainable Seafood Program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the connection between human health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood. • Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scientific ratings for more than 160 wild- caught seafood species and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, our guide now includes seafood ratings from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch® program. • We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provide our scientific seafood ratings for WFM stores in the US and UK. • Through our partnership with Chefs Collaborative, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interactive, online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals. • Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury in seafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc.

Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s current work at www.safinacenter.org .

The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.safinacenter.org [email protected] | 631.632.3763

3

About Seafood Watch®

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild- caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

4

Guiding Principles

The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: • How does fishing affect the species under assessment? • How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? • How effective is the fishery’s management? • How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes: • Factors to evaluate and score • Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates. 5

Summary Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), commonly known as fluke, is a bottom-dwelling, left-eyed flatfish found in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from Maine to Florida. It is most abundant in the Mid- Atlantic Bight from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. This report assesses the sustainability of U.S. summer flounder caught with handlines, trap nets (e.g., pound nets and weirs), and gillnets. These fishing methods contribute to a low proportion of the total catch. Most summer flounder are caught in bottom trawl fisheries, which have been assessed in a separate report.

The abundance of summer flounder was low in the 1980s and 1990s, but the population has increased and is now moderately abundant. But the most recent assessment update for summer flounder indicated that overfishing is occurring. Managers have responded by reducing the commercial and recreational catch limits for summer flounder.

The gillnet, trap net, and handline fisheries that catch summer flounder are typically mixed-species fisheries. Bycatch in these fisheries varies by gear type. The handline fisheries catch few non-target species. In the trap net fisheries, there is some concern about incidental catches of coastal bottlenose dolphin. The gillnet fisheries incidentally catch several protected, threatened, and endangered species, including Atlantic sturgeon, marine mammals, and sea turtles. Management measures are in place to reduce bycatch of these vulnerable species.

The handline fisheries have a minimal impact on bottom habitats, while trap nets and bottom gillnets have a low to moderate impact on the sandy/muddy habitats where summer flounder are found.

Overall, due to current overfishing on summer flounder and concerns about the bycatch of vulnerable ocean wildlife, the trap net and gillnet fisheries are rated “Red” or “Avoid.” The handline fishery is rated “Yellow” or “Good Alternative.”

6

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Species / Fishery Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Overall Impacts on Impacts on Management Impacts on Recommendation the Species other Species Effectiveness the Habitat Under and Assessment Ecosystem Summer flounder Red (2.00) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Red/Avoid (2.054) United States North Atlantic - Gillnet, Bottom Summer flounder Red (2.00) Red (2.16) Green (3.46) Yellow (3.12) Red/Avoid (2.614) United States North Atlantic - Trap net Summer flounder Red (2.00) Yellow (2.71) Green (3.46) Green (3.46) Yellow/Good United States North Alternative Atlantic - Handline (2.840)

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

• Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern 2, or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 7

Table of Contents

About The Safina Center ...... 2

About Seafood Watch® ...... 3

Guiding Principles ...... 4

Summary ...... 5

Introduction ...... 8

Assessment ...... 11 Criterion 1: Impact on the Species Under Assessment ...... 11 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species ...... 16 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 23 Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem ...... 35

Acknowledgements ...... 41

References ...... 42

Appendix A: Main Species Considered in the Assessment ...... 49

8

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report assesses the sustainability of summer flounder caught with gillnets, trap nets (e.g., pound nets and weirs), and handlines along the East Coast of the United States. Summer flounder caught with bottom trawls has been assessed in a separate report.

Overview of the species and management bodies Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), or fluke, is a left-eyed, bottom-dwelling flatfish (URI 1998). It is found from Maine to Florida in the United States (Packer et al. 1999). It is sometimes found as north as Nova Scotia, Canada, although rarely (Froese and Pauly 2014). It is most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic Bight from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Summer flounder undergoes seasonal migrations and can be found inshore during the spring and summer, and offshore during the fall and winter (Packer et al. 1999). In offshore waters, it is found at depths to 150 m (Packer et al. 1999). Summer flounder is typically found on soft-bottom habitats such as sand, silt, or mud (Packer et al. 1999). Male summer flounder reach a maximum size of 61 cm (24 in.) in length and can live to 7 years of age. Females can reach 82 to 94 cm (32 to 37 in.) in length and can live to 12 years of age (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002).

Summer flounder in the United States has been jointly managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) since 1988. The species is managed as a single population from the United States/Canada border to the southern border of North Carolina (MAFMC 2014d). Since 1993, managers have set annual catch limits for summer flounder. The catch limit is divided 60/40 between the commercial and recreational fisheries, respectively (ASMFC 2015e).

Figure 1. Management unit of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) from Maine to North Carolina. Image from NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region. 9

Production Statistics Summer flounder along the East Coast of the United States supports both a commercial and recreational fishery. In 1983, total landings (commercial and recreational) hit a peak of 26,000 metric tons (mt) (57 million lbs) (NEFSC 2013b). From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, total landings dropped dramatically, and have remained relatively stable (ASMFC 2015e). In 2014, total commercial landings of summer flounder were 4,900 mt (10.9 million lbs). North Carolina landed the most summer flounder, followed by Rhode Island, Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. In 2014, recreational landings of summer flounder were 3,350 mt (7.4 million lbs), with New Jersey and New York accounting for most of the recreational catch (MAFMC 2015b).

In the commercial fishery, bottom trawls are the most commonly used gear to catch summer flounder (Rootes-Murdy 2014). Small amounts of summer flounder are caught in coastal waters with gillnets, pound nets, weirs, and handlines. In 2014, bottom trawls accounted for 96% of summer flounder landings, while handlines, gillnets, pound nets, and weirs each contributed 1% or less of the landings (MAFMC 2015b). Some summer flounder are also caught as bycatch in dredge, trap, and pot fisheries (NOAA 2015a). In 2014, states that used gillnets and handlines to catch summer flounder included Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. States that caught summer flounder using pounds nets or weirs included Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia (NOAA 2015a).

Figure 2. Commercial landings and recreational harvest of summer flounder in millions of pounds. Image from ASMFC: summer flounder profile.

10

Importance to the U.S./North American market Summer flounder is solely caught in the U.S. In 2014, summer flounder commercial landings totaled 4,900 mt (10.9 million lbs). The summer flounder fishery is the largest flatfish fishery on the U.S. Atlantic Coast. U.S. landings of Atlantic flounders (summer, winter, witch, and yellowtail) totaled 9,300 mt in 2014. Additionally, 50,800 mt of arrowtooth flounder were landed by the U.S. on the Pacific coast (NOAA 2015c).

The National Marine Fisheries Service reports imports and exports of all flounder species together. In 2014, the U.S. imported 12,500 mt of flounder, the majority of which was from China (NOAA 2015b). There are no reported exports of flounders.

Common and market names Summer flounder is commonly marketed as fluke, flounder, northern fluke, and hirame (sushi or sashimi) (NOAA FishWatch 2014).

Primary product forms Summer flounder is usually found fresh or frozen, either whole or as fillets, and is commonly used raw for sushi or sashimi (Froese and Pauly 2014) (NOAA FishWatch 2014). 11

Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org. Criterion 1: Impact on the Species Under Assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

SUMMER FLOUNDER Region / Method Factor 1.1 Factor 1.2 Factor 1.3 Criterion 1 Score Inherent Abundance Fishing Vulnerability Mortality United States North Atlantic Medium 4.00:Low 1.00:High Red (2.000) Gillnet, Bottom Concern Concern United States North Atlantic Medium 4.00:Low 1.00:High Red (2.000) Handline Concern Concern United States North Atlantic Medium 4.00:Low 1.00:High Red (2.000) Trap net Concern Concern

Criterion 1 Assessment

SUMMER FLOUNDER

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing ( 12

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). • High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Medium

FishBase assigns summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) a medium inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 47 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2014). Males reach a maximum size of 61 cm (24 in.) in length and can live to 7 years of age. Females can reach 94 cm (37 in.) in length and can live to 12 years of age. The average size for this fish typically ranges from 40 to 56 cm (16 to 22 in.) (Collette and Klein- MacPhee 2002). Summer flounder reach maturity at around 2 years and at a length of 25–30 cm (10–12 in.) for males and 30–37 cm (12–15 in.) for females (Packer et al. 1999). They begin to spawn as they move offshore during the fall and winter months, and continue to spawn throughout the winter (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). It has been estimated that females can produce 460,000 to over 4,000,000 eggs, with egg production increasing with size (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Summer flounder are considered opportunistic feeders and are high-level predators in the food chain (Froese and Pauly 2014). Fish make up the largest percentage of their diet but other components include a variety of marine worms, shrimp, clams, and crabs (Packer et al. 1999).

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. • 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 13

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. • 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. • 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Low Concern

A 2015 population assessment update of summer flounder estimated the abundance of sexually mature fish (spawning stock biomass) to be 40,300 metric tons (mt) (90% confidence interval = 35,486 to 49,918 mt), which is 65% of the target abundance level (62,400 mt). Although abundance is below the target abundance level, it is above the limit abundance level (31,200 mt) and therefore the population is not considered overfished/depleted (Terceiro 2015). The target abundance level is set at 35% of the abundance of an unfished population, and is considered a proxy for the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). The limit abundance level is set at one half of the target (Terceiro 2015) (NEFSC 2013a).

The abundance of adult summer flounder declined to historical lows in the late 1980s and early 1990s but then greatly increased, reaching peak levels in 2003 and 2010 (NEFSC 2013a). But in recent years, abundance has declined some. Recruitment, or the amount of new fish entering the population, was below average from 2010–2013, but was close to the average level (41 million fish) in 2014 (Terceiro 2015). See Figure 3.

We have awarded a “low” concern score since the abundance of summer flounder is below the target level, but the species is not overfished/depleted. 14

Figure 3. Summer flounder Spawning Stock Biomass (solid line) and Recruitment at age 0 (bars). Dashed line = proxy for Spawning Stock Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield). Image from NEFSC Summer Flounder Assessment Update for 2015.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality). • 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught). • 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. • 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. • 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

15

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net High Concern

The 2015 update assessment of summer flounder indicates that fishing mortality is above the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), which means that overfishing is occurring. Fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.36 in 2014 (90% confidence interval = 0.27 to 0.44), 16% above the FMSY proxy of 0.31 (Terceiro 2015). The previous 2013 assessment of summer flounder indicated that overfishing on summer flounder was not occurring, but there has been a tendency in recent years to underestimate fishing mortality and overestimate abundance (NEFSC 2013a) (Terceiro 2015).

In 2014, commercial landings of summer flounder were 4,900 mt and recreational landings were 3,400 mt (MAFMC 2015b). An additional 800 mt of summer flounder were discarded at sea in the commercial fishery and 900 mt were discarded in the recreational fishery (Terceiro 2015). Although catches have equaled or been only slightly above the specified catch limits in recent years, there is evidence of substantial illegal and unreported fishing of summer flounder, which is likely contributing to the overfishing of this species (ASMFC 2015e). To address the overfishing of summer flounder, managers reduced the total allowable catch by 29% for the 2016 fishing season (MAFMC 2015a). See Figure 4.

Because overfishing of summer flounder is occurring, we have awarded a “high” concern score.

Figure 4. Total catch and estimated fishing mortality for summer flounder. Red line = fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield. Image from NEFSC Summer Flounder Assessment Update for 2015.

16

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest-scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

Summer flounder Region / Method Factors 2.1-2.3 Factor 2.4 Discard Criterion 2 Score Lowest Rate Modifying Score Lowest Scoring of Species ((Discards+ Other Species Subscore Bait)/Retained Catch) United States North Marine Mammals 1.000 0.95 (20-40%) Red (0.950) Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Finfish 2.709 1.00 (<20%) Yellow (2.709) Atlantic, Handline United States North Bottlenose Dolphin 2.159 1.00 (<20%) Red (2.159) Atlantic, Trap net

Limited information is available on other species caught in the handline, trap net, and gillnet fisheries that catch summer flounder, but some information was obtained from fisheries experts. When rating some species or species groups, we utilized the Seafood Watch Unknown Bycatch Matrix, which is based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type.

All fisheries are likely to catch several other coastal fish species, such as striped bass, bluefish, scup, menhaden, croaker, dogfish, weakfish, and shad (RI DFW 2015) (DNREC 2015a) (pers. comm., Mike Bednarski, MA DMF, 2015) (pers. comm., Harry Rickabaugh, MD DNR, 2015). These species are considered together under the group “finfish.” Some of the fish species that are known to be caught are considered depleted, but fishing mortality on these fish species is likely to be only a low to moderate 17

concern.

In addition, some trap net fisheries are known to incidentally catch bottlenose dolphins (Federal Register 2014a), so we have rated this species for the trap net fisheries. Trap net fisheries may also occasionally entangle sea turtles, but risks to sea turtles are considered low and in most cases they are able to be released uninjured (Federal Register 2014c); therefore sea turtles were not included in the assessment. The gillnet fisheries are likely to catch several protected, threatened, and endangered species, including Atlantic sturgeon, marine mammals, and sea turtles, so these species were assessed for the gillnet fishery (NMFS 2013a) (Federal Register 2014a).

Overall the handline fishery has a moderate impact on other species, with the limiting species being other “finfish.” Impacts on other species are of higher concern in the trap net and gillnet fisheries. Bottlenose dolphin limits the score for the trap net fishery, and marine mammals limit the score for the gillnet fishery.

Criterion 2 Assessment

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Trap net High

All marine mammals are considered to have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing because they are long-lived, reach sexual maturity late in life, and have low reproductive rates.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Trap net High Concern

There are three coastal populations of bottlenose dolphins that may interact with Mid-Atlantic trap net fisheries: Northern Migratory Coastal, Southern Migratory Coastal, and Northern North Carolina Estuarine System (Federal Register 2014a). The Northern and Southern Migratory Coastal populations are listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the status of the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System population is unknown (NOAA 2015g). We have therefore awarded a “high” 18

concern score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderate Concern

The Virginia pound net fishery is listed as a Category II fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, due to occasional injuries or mortalities to coastal bottlenose dolphins (Federal Register 2014a) (NOAA 2014e). The Virginia pound net fishery interacts with three different coastal bottlenose dolphin populations. Because these populations overlap in North Carolina and Virginia waters, it is difficult to determine the mortality on each population. However, there is concern that the total cumulative fishery mortality (from pound nets and gillnets) on the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System bottlenose dolphin population is exceeding the potential biological removal (PBR = 7.9 animals/year), meaning that more dolphins are being killed than the population can sustain (Federal Register 2014b). Although the Virginia pound net fishery’s contribution to the total mortality on the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System bottlenose dolphin population is unknown, it could be substantial (Federal Register 2014b).

In 2008–2009, the average annual mortality to all dolphins by this fishery was 11 per year (with as many as 8.5 dolphins/year taken from the Northern NC Estuarine population). After the implementation of gear modification regulations in 2010, the number of dolphin mortalities for 2010–2011 dropped to 4 animals per year (with as many as 1.5 dolphins/year taken from the Northern NC Estuarine population). The gear modifications, which require fishers to use modified pound net leaders, were originally implemented to reduce sea turtle catches, but they have been shown to reduce dolphin catches too. Managers recently expanded the use of these gear modifications to further reduce dolphin mortalities (Federal Register 2014b) (Federal Register 2015).

Other trap net fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic are considered Category III fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which means interactions with marine mammals are likely to be rare (Federal Register 2014a).

Because the Virginia pound net fishery may be having an adverse impact on some bottlenose dolphin populations, but management actions have been taken to reduce dolphin catches in the fishery, we have awarded a “moderate” concern score.

FINFISH 19

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Handline Medium

A variety of finfish species may be caught in the gillnet, handline, and trap net fisheries that catch summer flounder. To account for the diversity of species we have ranked inherent vulnerability as “medium.”

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Handline High Concern

Limited information was available on the catch of other target and non-target species in the summer flounder handline fisheries. Potential finfish species that may be caught along with summer flounder include black sea bass, scup, sea robins, dogfish, bluefish, striped bass, weakfish, and Atlantic croaker (pers. comm., Mike Bednarski, MA DMF, 2015) (DNREC 2015a) (RI DFW 2015). Although most of these fish are at healthy abundance levels, weakfish is at a very low abundance level and is considered depleted (NOAA 2009). Additionally, the last assessment for striped bass (2013) indicated that the species was not depleted/overfished, but the population was nearing the overfished threshold level and was expected to continue to decline through 2015 (ASMFC 2013). Because some depleted species are likely caught, we have awarded a “high” concern score.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Handline Low Concern

None of the fish species that are likely targeted in the handline fisheries along with summer flounder is considered to be experiencing overfishing (ASMFC 2013) (ASMFC 2010) (NOAA 2009). Additionally, handline fisheries are generally considered to have a low impact on other fish species, and unwanted species can often be released alive. We have rated fishing mortality of finfish species as “low” concern, consistent with the unknown bycatch matrix (see Appendix 3 in the Seafood Watch Wild Fisheries Assessment Criteria). 20

MAMMALS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom High

All marine mammals are considered to have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing because they are long-lived, reach sexual maturity late in life, and have low reproductive rates.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Very High Concern

A variety of marine mammals species may be caught in the Atlantic gillnet fisheries including bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin, harbor porpoise, Risso’s dolphin, white-sided dolphin, gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, hooded seal, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, pilot whale, minke whale, and fin whale (Federal Register 2014a). The humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and fin whale are listed as “endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2015e). The coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are listed as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NOAA 2015g). None of the other species is listed as depleted, threatened, or endangered, but all marine mammals are highly vulnerable to fishing. We have awarded a “very high” concern score because the gillnet fisheries may interact with endangered marine mammal species.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom High Concern

The Mid-Atlantic gillnet and Northeast gillnet fisheries are listed as Category I fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This means these fisheries cause frequent incidental mortality or serious injury to marine mammals. The Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries (South Carolina to Long Island, NY) may incidentally catch several marine mammals species, but the high catches of coastal bottlenose dolphins 21

are driving the Category I listing. The Category I listing for the Northeast gillnet fisheries (Long Island to U.S./Canada border) is due to high catches of harbor porpoises, humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, and minke whales (Federal Register 2014a).

The Category I listing excludes gillnet fisheries that occur in inshore waters, such as bays and estuaries. The Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery and North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery are listed as Category II fisheries, meaning there are occasional interactions with marine mammals. Interactions with bottlenose dolphins are the largest concern in these fisheries. The inshore gillnet fisheries in Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts are considered Category III fisheries, which means interactions with marine mammals are rare (Federal Register 2014a).

Because many gillnet fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic are known to have a high impact on marine mammals, we have awarded a “high” concern score.

ALL SPECIES

Factor 2.4 – Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Scoring Guidelines

The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait use divided by the total retained catch.

Ratio of bait + discards/landings Factor 2.4 score <20% 1 20-40% 0.95 40-60% 0.9 60-80% 0.85 80-100% 0.8 >100% 0.75

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom

20-40%

Discards rates (discard/landings) in gillnet fisheries can vary greatly, ranging from 0% to 66% (Kelleher 2005). Discard rates in U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast gillnet fisheries range from 2% to 28% (NMFS 2013b).

22

United States North Atlantic, Handline

< 20%

The handline fisheries that catch summer flounder likely retain the majority of fish that are captured. Unmarketable and undersized fish can often be released back to sea alive. Discards rates (discards/landings) in handline fisheries typically range from 0% to 7%, with an average discard rate of 2% (Kelleher 2005).

United States North Atlantic, Trap net

< 20%

Trap net fisheries typically catch a mix of fish species. Because the fish remain alive in the nets until they are sorted, the majority of fish that cannot be retained and sold are released alive. We therefore consider the dead discard to landings ratio to be <20%.

23

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Factor 3.1 Factor 3.1 Criterion 3 Score Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy

United States North Atlantic 3.00: Moderate 3.00: Moderate Yellow(3.000) Gillnet, Bottom Concern Concern United States North Atlantic 3.00: Moderate 4.00: Low Green(3.464) Handline Concern Concern United States North Atlantic 3.00: Moderate 4.00: Low Green(3.464) Trap net Concern Concern

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’ 24

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’ • 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Region / Management Recovery Scientific Record of Enforcement Track Stakeholder Factor 3.1 Method Strategy and of Species Research & Following of Regs. Record Inclusion Score Impl. of Concern Monitoring Scientific Advice United States Highly Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Highly 3.00: North Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate Gillnet, Concern Bottom United States Highly Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Highly 3.00: North Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate Handline Concern United States Highly Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Highly 3.00: North Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate Trap net Concern

Factor 3.1 Assessment

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective

Because summer flounder are frequently caught in both inshore state waters and offshore federal waters, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the federal Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) jointly manage summer flounder under the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The joint management plan was first implemented in 1988 (MAFMC 2014d). Since its inception, the fishery management plan has undergone a number of 25

changes through the adoption of various amendments, addenda and framework adjustments (MAFMC 2014d) (Rootes-Murdy 2014). The current objectives of the management plan include: reducing fishing mortality to avoid overfishing, increasing the abundance of fish capable of reproducing by decreasing mortality on immature fish, improving the yield from the fishery, promoting cooperative management between ASMFC and MAFMC, providing consistent enforcement, and minimizing the amount of regulations it takes to accomplish these objectives (Rootes-Murdy 2014).

Target abundance and fishing goals have been defined for summer flounder, and regulations for summer flounder include total allowable catch limits, minimum size limits (14 in. for commercial fishery; varies by state for recreational fishery), gear restrictions, a moratorium on entry to the commercial fishery, recreational bag limits and seasons, and mandatory data collection requirements (Rootes- Murdy 2014) (MAFMC 2014d). Roughly 60% of the total allowable catch is given to the commercial fishery and 40% to the recreational fishery. The commercial catch limit or quota is further allocated among individual states. If a state goes over their catch limit or quota, there is a deduction the following year (NOAA 2014b). When scientists and managers set the annual catch limit, they factor in how many summer flounder are likely to be discarded to sea in the commercial and recreational sectors, and consider uncertainty levels in the abundance and fishing mortality estimates (MAFMC 2013). Managers are responsive to changes in summer flounder abundance and the latest scientific assessments. The most recent assessment update for summer flounder indicated that overfishing is occurring, so managers have reduced catches by 29% for the 2016 season (Terceiro 2015) (MAFMC 2015a).

Other species that are likely targeted and retained along with summer flounder in the handline, trap net, and gillnet fisheries are also managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and/or the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Because the management plan for summer flounder includes appropriate goals and fishing controls, we have awarded a “highly effective” score.

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderately Effective 26

In the late 1980s/early 1990s, summer flounder were at a very low abundance, and a rebuilding plan was established in 1993 (Rootes-Murdy 2014). Since then, the abundance of summer flounder has greatly increased and the population is no longer overfished/depleted, though abundance remains below the target level (NEFSC 2013a) (Terceiro 2015).

Summer flounder caught with handlines, gillnets, and trap nets are often caught in mixed-species fisheries, and some currently depleted/overfished species may be targeted or retained; for example, weakfish and American shad. These species have been at low abundances for over a decade, due to a number of factors. However, management measures are in place to prevent overfishing (ASMFC 2015b)(ASMFC 2015c). The status of striped bass is also a concern because the population was near the overfished threshold in 2013 and was expected to continue to decline through 2015. New regulations were implemented in 2015 to reduce fishing levels on striped bass and rebuild their population (ASMFC 2015d).

Overall, management efforts to recover species of concern are considered “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective

Research surveys are conducted by state agencies from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina; the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS); and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) to monitor the abundance of summer flounder (NEFSC 2013a). The surveys provide information on the abundance of young, immature fish and adult fish, as well as information on the biology of the species (Rootes-Murdy 2014). Federally permitted fishers must submit records of all fishing activity on a monthly basis. Also, federally permitted vessels are required to allow onboard observers if their vessel is selected randomly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observer program (NOAA 2014b). States monitor summer flounder catches in relation to the catch limit or quota through the mandatory submission of monthly or weekly fisher logbook and dealer reports, and in some states through dealer Interactive Voice Response (IVR)—a program in which dealers may call in and report their information to an automated system. Additionally, in 2014, Massachusetts had observers onboard several targeted summer flounder trips (Rootes-Murdy 2014).

27

Population assessments for summer flounder, along with updates to the assessments, are performed on a regular basis and use data collected from research surveys and the fisheries (NEFSC 2013a). Fishery Management Plan reviews are performed every few years (ASMFC 2015e). For these reasons, scientific research and monitoring is awarded a score of “highly effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) provides ongoing advice to help manage the summer flounder fishery. Together, the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee and the SSC provide recommendations on the acceptable catch levels and harvest limits for the commercial and recreational fisheries. These recommendations are then passed along to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service, and limits are set. The commercial quota is further broken down state by state (MAFMC 2013). Total allowable landings can be specified for up to 3 years but must be based on the best available science (Rootes- Murdy 2014). This factor is therefore rated “highly effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderately Effective

In federal waters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard are responsible for enforcing fisheries regulations (MAFMC 2014c) (NOAA 2014c). In state waters, individual states’ marine resource law enforcement personnel are responsible for enforcement of regulations. Both the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission have Law Enforcement Committees. These committees 28

may help coordinate enforcement efforts among states/regions, identify potential enforcement problems, propose resolutions, and monitor enforcement of measures incorporated into the various fishery management plans (ASMFC 2014b).

NOAA Fisheries monitors the states’ quotas through the use of state dealer reports, and determines when to close the fisheries when harvest levels are reached. Weekly updated summer flounder catch reports for all states can be monitored online at NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) (GARFO 2015). If a fish is landed in a particular state, those landings go against that state’s quota, regardless where it was harvested. If a state exceeds its quota, the excess pounds are subtracted from its following year quota, even if the total coastwide quota wasn’t exceeded (NOAA 2014b). Once all states are closed, fishing for summer flounder in federal waters is then closed (NOAA 2014h). This fishery has a relatively good track record of staying under or only slightly going above the commercial quota. Since 2008, landings have stayed within +/–5% of the quota (MAFMC 2013).

One issue facing enforcement in this fishery is illegal harvest. Illegal harvest and underreporting can cause major problems for managers, who need an accurate picture of what is being harvested in order to set sustainable quotas. Often, the penalties for overharvesting are less than the economic gain of harvesting the illegal amounts. Because adequate enforcement can be an issue, many fishers are willing to take that risk (King and Sutinen 2010). Recently, it was found that commercial fishers and seafood dealers were taking advantage of the Research Set-Aside (RSA) program, in which profits from fishers who bid for more quota went toward fisheries research. The commercial fisheries and seafood dealers were abusing the program by underreporting summer flounder catches and submitting false reports (NOAA 2015d). Because of this, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) decided to suspend the Research Set-Aside (RSA) program (MAFMC 2014b).

The summer flounder fishery does not have vessel monitoring systems (VMS), electronic reporting, or specific observer requirements (NOAA 2014b); if these were mandatory, they would likely help to ensure accurate catch reporting. This factor is awarded a score of “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderately Effective 29

Catches of summer flounder along the East Coast of the United States hit a peak in 1983 of 26,000 metric tons (mt) (NEFSC 2013b). After a dramatic decline in the summer flounder population in the late 1980s and early 1990s, managers established a fishery management plan (FMP) in 1988 and a coastwide catch limit (commercial and recreational) in 1993 (ASMFC 2015e) (NEFSC 2013a). Also in 1993, a rebuilding schedule was created, permit and reporting requirements were established, and fish size limits and gear restrictions were implemented. Throughout the years, various amendments, addenda, and framework adjustments have been made to the fishery management plan to help continually manage this species as best as possible (NEFSC 2013a).

Since the mid 1990s, summer flounder abundance has greatly increased and the population has recovered from an overfished/depleted state; however, abundance remains below the target abundance level (NEFSC 2013a). Additionally, a recent assessment update indicated that fishing levels have increased in recent years and that overfishing is currently occurring (Terceiro 2015). Managers responded by reducing catches by 29% for the 2016 season (MAFMC 2015a). Persistent management challenges in this fishery include determining the appropriate annual catch limit and sector allocation, and dealing with problems of illegal fishing (ASMFC 2015e). Overall, we consider the management track record for summer flounder to be “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective

There are 3 commissioners from each of the 15 member states that form the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The members from each state comprise the director of the state’s fisheries management agency, a legislator, and a governor-appointed individual who represents various stakeholder interests (ASMFC 2014a). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) comprises 21 voting members (20 state, 1 federal). Each of the seven states contributes one representative from their fish and wildlife agency to the council. Additionally, there are 13 governor- appointed private citizens on the council who have knowledge about the fishing industry (recreational and commercial) and/or marine conservation issues. There are also four non-voting participants from ASMFC, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (MAFMC 2014c). Additionally, the advisory panels for ASMFC and MAFMC comprise commercial fishers, recreational fishers, scientists, and environmentalists; these advisory panels meet throughout the year 30

so that managers can get their perspective on any new management proposals (MAFMC 2015c).

All changes to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are open for public comment, and the procedures are transparent to the public. Interested parties can express their opinions by attending hearings or writing comments to the management bodies (ASMFC & MAFMC 2014). Copies of board proceedings, management plans, amendments, addenda, and framework adjustments are easily accessible online. Currently, the fishery management plan is undergoing a new amendment to update goals and management strategies for summer flounder (ASMFC & MAFMC 2014).

Due to the fair representation of interest groups on both the commission and the council, the transparency of the management processes, and the allowance for public participation, stakeholder inclusion is ranked “highly effective.”

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these ratings are the same as in 3.1.

• 5 (Very Low Concern) —Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern) —Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern) — All subfactors rates at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern) — At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy but some other factors rated ‘ineffective.’ • 1 (Very High Concern) —Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’ • 0 (Critical)— No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

Factor 3.2 Summary

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy Region / Method All Kept Management Scientific Record of Enforcement Factor 3.2 Strategy and Research & Following of Regs. Score Impl. Monitoring Scientific 31

Advice United States North Atlantic No Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately 3.00: Gillnet, Bottom Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate Concern United States North Atlantic No Highly Effective Moderately Highly Moderately 4.00: Low Handline Effective Effective Effective Concern United States North Atlantic No Highly Effective Moderately Highly Moderately 4.00: Low Trap net Effective Effective Effective Concern

Factor 3.2 Assessment

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Moderately Effective

There are some measures in place to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, sea turtles, and Atlantic sturgeon in Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries. These measures include adding weak links to gillnets to help large whales escape entanglements, adding “pingers” (acoustic devices) to nets to help reduce cetacean interactions, banning the use of large mesh gillnets (in federal and some inshore waters), and having certain seasonal and/or area closures (NOAA 2014g) (NMFS 2013a). The Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries are required to comply with measures in the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan, and Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan. Retention of Atlantic sturgeon is prohibited and research into fishing gear that minimizes Atlantic sturgeon bycatch is ongoing (NMFS 2013a).

Although several measures to reduce bycatch are in place, their effectiveness has been mixed or uncertain. Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. Atlantic gillnet fisheries remains a high concern, suggesting that additional measures are needed. Also, the impact of gillnet fisheries on Atlantic sturgeon is unclear. We have therefore awarded only a “moderately effective” score.

United States North Atlantic, Handline Highly Effective

The handline fisheries that catch summer flounder are likely to retain most of the other fish species that are caught. Unmarketable or undersized species may be discarded, but most are likely released unharmed. Because there are few bycatch concerns in this fishery, we have rated this factor “highly 32

effective.”

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective Unwanted bycatch caught in trap nets (such as pounds and weirs) are generally released alive and in good condition (pers. comm., Harry Rickabaugh, MD DNR, 2015). But in the Virginia pound net fishery, there are some concerns about the bycatch of sea turtles and dolphins. This fishery is listed as a Category II fishery (occasional mortalities to marine mammals) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To reduce sea turtle bycatch in pound nets, Virginia has put in place some management measures, which include using a stiffer material for the leader and placing the leader 10 ft from the low water line in summer months (NOAA 2014f). These measures have also been found to reduce entanglement rates with dolphins (NOAA 2014f). The National Marine Fisheries Service has recently expanded the use of modified leaders in this fishery to further reduce dolphin interactions (Federal Register 2015). Because measures that have been shown to be effective at reducing bycatch of vulnerable species are in place in the Virginia pound net fishery and there are few bycatch concerns in other trap net fisheries, we have rated this factor “highly effective.”

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Moderately Effective

There is limited information on bycatch in the gillnet fisheries that capture summer flounder. Some data on interactions with protected or threatened species, such as marine mammals and sea turtles, have been collected by onboard scientific observers, but observer coverage is low (Federal Register 2014a) (NMFS 2013a). There are no mandatory observer requirements for the summer flounder fisheries (NOAA 2014b). The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) helps monitor sea turtle mortality along the coast, and participates in tagging live turtles to help study their movements. Atlantic sturgeon now has a similar stranding network, in which deceased sturgeon can be studied (NMFS 2013a). Additionally, several studies have been conducted on ways to reduce bycatch of vulnerable species in gillnet fisheries (NOAA 2014g) (NMFS and ASMFC 2013). Because some research is conducted on vulnerable bycatch species but bycatch monitoring in these gillnet fisheries is low, we have awarded a “moderately effective” score.

United States North Atlantic, Handline 33

Moderately Effective

There is limited data collected on bycatch in the handline fisheries that capture summer flounder. But bycatch is not considered a large concern because most species are likely retained. We have therefore rated this factor “moderately effective.”

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderately Effective

Little information on non-target species or bycatch is collected for the trap net fisheries that catch summer flounder; however, in most fisheries bycatch is not considered a large concern. Some data on sea turtle and dolphin bycatch have been collected in the Virginia pound net fishery (Federal Register 2014b). Studies on gear modifications to reduce sea turtle and dolphin bycatch in the Virginia pound net fishery have also been conducted (Magnusson et al. 2012) (Federal Register 2014b). This factor has been ranked as “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Highly Effective

There is no indication that managers do not follow scientific advice. See Harvest Strategy Factor 3.1.4 for further details.

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderately Effective 34

Enforcement in this fishery is considered moderately effective. See Harvest Strategy Factor 3.1.5 for further details.

35

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Factor 4.1 Impact Factor 4.2 Factor 4.3 Criterion 4 Score of Gear on Mitigation of Ecosystem Habitat Score Gear Impacts Based Fisheries Modifier Management Score United States North Atlantic 3.00:Low Concern 0.25:Minimal 3.00:Moderate Yellow (3.123) Gillnet, Bottom Mitigation Concern United States North Atlantic 4.00:Very Low 0.00:No Effective 3.00:Moderate Green (3.464) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern United States North Atlantic 3.00:Low Concern 0.25:Minimal 3.00:Moderate Yellow (3.123) Trap net Mitigation Concern

Criterion 4 Assessment

Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally ( 36

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand • 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) • 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Low Concern

Gillnets are a type of passive fishing gear (Baer et al. 2010). Gillnets are vertical walls of netting that have a weighted groundline and a floatline. Bottom-set gillnets are anchored to the seafloor at both ends so that they stay stationary (FAO 2014c). If ensnared, bottom-set gillnets can damage or break physical or biological structures such as rocks, sponges, or corals; however, they are less damaging when compared to dredges or trawls, or if they are used on softer bottom types (Baer et al. 2010).

Summer flounder are typically found on softer, more resilient bottoms such as sand, mud, or silt (Packer et al. 1999). Occasionally, they are found in or adjacent to eelgrass beds for feeding and possibly for protection; however, their frequency of occurrence in this type of habitat is considered low (Packer et al. 1999) (CT DEEP 2007).

Overall, gillnets used to catch summer flounder are considered to have a low impact on bottom ocean habitats. This factor is rated as “low” concern.

United States North Atlantic, Handline Very Low Concern

Commercial handlines used in the U.S. summer flounder fishery are typically rod and reel (or “hook and line”). Rod and reel gear consists of a pole, a baited hook attached to fishing line, and a reeling mechanism for bringing in the line (FAO 2014b) (CT DEEP 2007). The damage caused by handline gear to the bottom habitat is low, but it can occasionally become entangled in hard structures such as corals, rocks, and sponges (Fuller et al. 2008).

Summer flounder are typically found on softer bottoms such as sand, mud, or silt (Packer et al. 1999). Occasionally, they are found in eelgrass beds for feeding and possible protection; however, their frequency of occurrence in this type of habitat is considered low. Handlines may become ensnared in eelgrass but it has been determined that, overall, this gear type causes no significant damage to eelgrass beds (CT DEEP 2007). For these reasons, the impact of handlines to bottom ocean habitats has been 37

ranked as “very low” concern.

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Low Concern

Trap nets are stationary fishing gears. They are typically set in shallow coastal or estuarine waters and can be set in the same place for several months to years (CT DEEP 2007) (Stephan et al. 2000) (FAO 2014a) (DFO 2010). There are various types of traps nets, including pound nets and weirs. Pound nets are generally set up perpendicular to the shoreline. The gear consists of several nets that extend above the surface of the water. A leader fence interrupts the movement of the targeted catch and the fish are then funneled into deeper water as they move through several larger enclosures, and eventually into the pound (trap) part of the net. The top of the pound is typically open, and fish are then scooped out (NOAA 2014f). Weirs consist of a series of poles with nets attached. The netting runs from the bottom habitat to above the surface of the water (FAO 2014a). Similar to a pound net, a leader fence interrupts the movement of fish and funnels them into the end of the trap where they remain until the fishers come to retrieve the catch (GMRI 2014).

Summer flounder are typically found on soft bottoms such as sand, mud, or silt (Packer et al. 1999). Occasionally, they are found in eelgrass beds for feeding and possibly for protection; however, their frequency of occurrence in this type of habitat is considered low. Unless a trap net is placed directly on an eelgrass bed, impacts are generally considered minimal to the bottom habitat (Stephan et al. 2000). Due to its long placement time, if a trap net is set on top of an eelgrass bed, smothering or uprooting of the grass may occur (CT DEEP 2007). If any damage from trap net fishing does occur, it is localized to the area in which the gear is set, or where the poles are driven into the substrate (DFO 2010). Overall, the impact of trap net fishing on bottom habitats is considered a “low” concern.

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures. • +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing. • +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced. 38

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Minimal Mitigation

Regulations on gillnet use vary state by state. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina have regulations in place to control the use of gillnets by fishers; however, regulations are neither necessarily specific to the summer flounder fishery nor all in place to protect bottom habitat. Regulations include (but are not limited to) area and season closures, permit requirements, and net length restrictions (MA DMF 2015) (RI DEM 2014) (CT DEEP 2015) (NYS DEC 2015) (NJDEP 2014) (DNREC 2015b) (MD DNR 2015a) (VA MRC 2015) (NCDENR 2013). Mitigation is considered to be “minimal.”

United States North Atlantic, Handline No Effective Mitigation

There are no known spatial closures in place for the handline fishery to protect summer flounder habitats, so a score of “no effective” mitigation is awarded.

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Minimal Mitigation

The Atlantic coastal states have varying regulations pertaining to trap nets (i.e., pounds and weirs). Most of these regulations are general and not specific to the summer flounder fishery. States that have regulations pertaining to trap nets include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. Generally, these regulations are in regard to area closures, permit requirements, limits on number of traps, and the use of escape panels (CT DEEP 2015) (MD DNR 2015b) (MA DMF 2015) (NJDEP 2014) (NCDENR 2013) (VA MRC 2015). North Carolina has stricter regulations if pound nets are to be placed in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) areas or in tidal wetlands (NCDENR 2013). Mitigation is considered to be “minimal.”

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators). • 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an 39

exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used. • 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts. • 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. • 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Handline United States North Atlantic, Trap net Moderate Concern

There is no indication that summer flounder should be considered a species of “exceptional importance” in the ocean ecosystem. Throughout its life, summer flounder feeds on a variety of prey items. Although this species is considered an opportunistic feeder and usually feeds on what is available, patterns of preference in diet have been observed as the fish matures. As larvae, they feed primarily on zooplankton and small crustaceans. As small juveniles (< 100 mm), they eat crustaceans and polychaete worms, while as larger juveniles (> 100 mm), fish become a prevalent component of their diet. Adult summer flounder feed on mostly fish and crustaceans but, similar to juveniles, their diet depends on size of the flounder, prey availability, and geographic location (Packer et al. 1999). Summer flounder are also prey items for a variety of species. An array of species feeds on summer flounder during its larval and juvenile phases until it has reached adult sizes (Packer et al. 1999). Adult fish were most frequently found in the stomachs of spiny dogfish, followed by monkfish, winter skates, and bluefish (NEFSC 2013a). Larger sharks and rays also likely prey on adult summer flounder (Packer et al. 1999). One ecosystem issue currently affecting the summer flounder fishery is that this species is undergoing a geographic shift, moving from warmer, southern waters to cooler, northern waters as ocean temperatures rise. This has led to increased fishing activity and landings of this species in northern waters (Pinsky et al. 2013), and the impacts are still being studied. Currently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is running an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Program throughout various regions of the country. Ecosystem-based management approaches are relatively new compared to single-species assessments and management measures, and the IEA program is still developing methods for managing on an ecosystem level. However, they plan on using these methods in the future. So far, the Northeast region has two publications regarding their ongoing 40

work and model developments (NOAA 2014a). In addition to NOAA’s program, both the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) have been working toward ecosystem-based management approaches and multispecies assessments over the last decade (ASMFC 2014c) (MAFMC 2014a). However, no specific ecosystem policies are in place for the summer flounder fishery. Because there are no species of exceptional ecological importance affected by this fishery and ecosystem-based approaches remain in the planning stages, this factor has been awarded a score of “moderate” concern.

41

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of The Safina Center or Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® would like to thank Michael S. Bednarski of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.

42

References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2015a. Atlantic Sturgeon. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/atlantic-sturgeon#management

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2015b. Shad and River Herring. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/shad-river-herring

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2015c. Weakfish. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/weakfish

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2015d. Atlantic Striped Bass. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/atlantic-striped-bass

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2015e. Managed Species, Summer Flounder. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/summer-flounder

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2014a. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: About Us. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/about-us/program-overview

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2014b. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: The Law Enforcement Committee. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/law- enforcement/the-law-enforcement-committee

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2014c. Stock Assessments: Multispecies Assessments and Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. Available online at: www.asmfc.org/fisheries- science

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2013. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Update of the Striped Bass Stock Assessment using Final 2012 Data October 2013. Prepared by Dr. Gary Nelson, MA DMF ASMFC Striped Bass Technical Committee.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2010. Atlantic Croaker 2010 Benchmark Stock Assessment. Available online at: www.asmfc.org

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (ASMFC MAFMC). 2014. Scoping and Public Information Document: Comprehensive Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.asmfc.org/about-us/public-input

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp. 43

Baer, A., A. Donaldson, and J. Carolsfield. 2010. Impacts of Longline and Gillnet Fisheries on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Fisheries and Oceans Cananda, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2010/012.

Bednarski, M. 2015. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF). Personal Communication.

Collette, B.B., and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2002. Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus (Linnaeus 1766) from Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, Third Edition. p 267-270. Washington, Smithsonian Books.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). 2015. 2015 Marine Fisheries Information Circular, Commercial and Recreational Fishing in Marine Waters, Lobstering and Crabbing in Marine Waters, Commercial Fishing in the Inland District. June 1, 2015.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2007. An Assessment of the Impacts of Commercial and Recreation Fishing and Other Activities to Eelgrass in Connecticut’s Waters and Recommendations for Management. Submitted in Response to Public Act 01-115, CT Dept. of Environmental Protection and CT Department of Agriculture.

Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO). 2010. Potential Impacts of Fishing Gears (Excluding Mobile Bottom- Contacting Gears) on Marine Habitats and Communities. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Science Advisory Report 2010/003.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2015a. 2010-2014 Commercial Logbook Data. Provided by DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife, September 2015.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2015b. Title 7 Natural Resources Environmental Control Delaware Administrative Code. Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Fish and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014a. Fishing Gear types. Barriers, fences, weirs, corrals, etc.. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014b. Fishing Gear types. Pole and lines. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014c. Fishing Gear types. Set gillnets. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014d. Global Capture Production: Flounders, halibuts, and soles, Northwest Atlantic. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Fishery Statistical Collections. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-capture- production/en 44

FAO FishStat. 2014. Summer Flounder, Global Capture, Production (FishStat). Available online at: data.fao.org

Federal Register. 2015. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan; Sea Turtle Conservation; Modification to Fishing Activities. A Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 02/09/2015. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/

Federal Register. 2014a. List of Fisheries for 2015; A Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 12/29/2014. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/29/2014-30375/list-of-fisheries-for-2015

Federal Register. 2014b. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan; Sea Turtle Conservation; Modification to Fishing Activities. A Proposed Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 04/17/2014. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/

Federal Register. 2014c. 2015 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement. A Proposed Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 10/22/2014. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2014. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.www.fishbase.org, version (08/2014).

Fuller, S.D., C. Picco, J. Ford, C. Tsao, L.E. Morgan, D. Hangaard, R. Chuenpagdee. 2008. How We Fish Matters: Addressing the Ecological Impacts of Canadian Fishing Gear. Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). 2015. Weekly Quota and Landings Reports: Summer Flounder Coastwide Weekly Landings Report. Available online at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). 2014. NOAA Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 2014 2015 Commercial Quotas and Recreational Harvest Limits for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass. Greater Atlantic Region Bulletin. 4p

Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI). 2014. Herring Harvest: Fixed Geary Fishery- Herring Weirs in the Gulf of Maine. Available online at: http://www.gma.org/herring/harvest_and_processing/weirs/

Rickabaugh, H. 2015. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). Personal Communication.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470. Rome, FAO. 131 p.

Kings, D.M., and J. G. Sutinen. 2010. Rational noncompliance and liquidation of Northeast groundfish resources. Marine Policy 34:7-21. 45

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF). 2015. Laws and Regulations: 322 CMR 4.00: Fishing and Shellfish Equipment.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2015a. Summer Flounder Catch and Landings Limits – 2016 Reductions. Available online at http://www.mafmc.org/.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2015b. Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document, June 2015. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/sf-s-bsb/

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2015c. Advisory Panels. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/advisory-panels/.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2014a. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm/

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2014b. Latest News: Mid-Atlantic Council Votes to Suspend Research Set-Aside Program. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/newsfeed

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2014c. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council: About the Council. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/about/

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2014d. Summer Flounder Advisory Panel Information Document, June 2014. Available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/sf-s-bsb/

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 2013. Memorandum: Summer Flounder Management Measures for 2014 and 2015. Available online at: www.mafmc.org

Magnusson, G.M., K.D. Bisack, and H.O. Milliken. 2012. The Cost-effectiveness of Gear Research Relative to a Closure: Pound Nets and Sea Turtles as an Example. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-01.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). 2015a. General Fishing Prohibitions. 08.02.05.02

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). 2015b. Methods of Fishing in Tidal Waters. 08.02.05.01

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch. 2012. Striped Bass Seafood Watch Report. Available online at: http://www.seafoodwatch.org/

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2013. North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission Rules, June 1, 2013.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2013a. 57th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (57th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13-16; 967 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543- 1026, or online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ 46

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2013b. 57th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (57th SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13-14; 39 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2014. New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife Marine Fisheries Administration; Commercial Regulations, April 1, 2014.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries [Consultation No. F/NER/2012/01956]. FINAL

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013b. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 1 [L. R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E. E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., 57 p. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_nationalreport.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2013. Workshop on Sea Turtle and Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction in Gillnet Fisheries. Jan 22-23, 2013, Ocean City, MD. 48 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015a. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015b. Cumulative Trade Data by Product: U.S. Imports and Exports of Flatfish (all). NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015c. Fisheries of the United States 2013. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/fus/fus13/index

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015d. Federal Fish Dealer Pleads Guilty in Connection with Research Set-Aside Violations. Fisheries Home, Law Enforcement. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015e. NOAA Fisheries: Protected Resources, Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. Available online at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#turtles

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015f. NOAA Fisheries: Protected Resources, Sea Turtles. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/ 47

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015g. NOAA Fisheries: Protected Resources, Species: Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/dolphins/bottlenose-dolphin.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014a. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Program. Available online at: www.noaa.gov/iea

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014b. NOAA Fisheries: Greater Atlantic Region, Sustainable Fisheries, Summer flounder. Available online at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014c. NOAA Fisheries: Law Enforcement. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014d. NOAA Fisheries: Office of Protected Resources, Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014e. NOAA Fisheries: Office of Protected Resources, List of Fisheries (LOF). Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014f. NOAA Fisheries, Pound Nets: Fishing Gear and Risks to Protected Species. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/gear/poundnet.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014g. NOAA Fisheries: Protected Species. Gillnets: Fishing Gear and Risks to Protected Species. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/gear/gillnet.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014h. NOAA Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries, Commercial Summer Flounder Information Sheet.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. A Report of the 48th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop: 48th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (48th SAW) Assessment Summary Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 09-10.

NOAA FishWatch. 2014. FishWatch, U.S. Seafood Facts: Summer Flounder. Available online at: www.fishwatch.gov. Updated June, 16, 2014.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC). 2015. New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Title 6 Department of Environmental Conservation, Chapter I Fish and Wildlife, Subchapter F Marine Fisheries, Part 40 Marine Fish.

Packer, D.B., S. J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. 48

Pinsky, M., Worm, B., Fogarty, M.J., Sarmiento, J.L. Levin, S.A. 2013. Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities. Science (80-. )., 341, 1239–1242.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM). 2014. Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Regulations. Part XI Commercial Fisheries. August 19, 2014.

Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife (RI DFW). 2015. 2009-2014 Commercial Logbook Data. Provided by RI DFW, Marine Fisheries, September 2015.

Robins, C.R. and G.C. Ray. 1986. A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, U.S.A. 354 p.

Rootes-Murdy, K. 2014. 2014 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for the 2013 Summer Flounder Fishery, Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus).

SEDAR. 2015. SEDAR 40 – Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 643 pp. available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=40

Stephan, C.D., R.L. Peuser, and M.S. Fonseca. 2000. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series #5: Evaluating Fishing Gear Impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Determining Mitigation Strategies.

Terceiro, M. 2015. Stock assessment update of summer flounder for 2015. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 15-13; 18 p. Available online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/

University of Rhode Island (URI). 1998. Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Description, Life History, and Behavior. Available online at: www.edc.uri.edu.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 2015. Marine Resources Commission Regulation Index.

49

Appendix A: Main Species Considered in the Assessment Summary of all main species considered in the assessment

Summer flounder: United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Species Inherent Abundance Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality MAMMALS High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern ATLANTIC STURGEON High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern TURTLES High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern SUMMER FLOUNDER Medium 4.00: Low 1.00: High 2.000 Concern Concern FINFISH Medium 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern

Summer flounder: United States North Atlantic, Handline Species Inherent Abundance Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality SUMMER FLOUNDER Medium 4.00: Low 1.00: High 2.000 Concern Concern FINFISH Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern

Summer flounder: United States North Atlantic, Trap net Species Inherent Abundance Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality SUMMER FLOUNDER Medium 4.00: Low 1.00: High 2.000 Concern Concern BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern FINFISH Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern

50

Assessment of main species not included in body of report

ATLANTIC STURGEON

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom High

FishBase assigns Atlantic sturgeon a high inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 85 out of 100. Atlantic sturgeon is long-lived, reaches sexual maturity late in life, and has a low reproductive rate (Froese and Pauly 2014).

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Very High Concern

Overharvest of this species from the 1950s through the 1990s led to significant population declines throughout its range. Historically, spawning populations of Atlantic sturgeon were found in 35 rivers from Florida to Maine. Today, spawning populations are found in only 20 rivers (NOAA 2014d) (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007). In 2012, four distinct population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon were listed as “endangered” (New York Bight, Chesapeake, Carolina, and South Atlantic) and one DPS was listed as “threatened” (Gulf of Maine) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NMFS 2013a). We have therefore awarded a score of “very high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Moderate Concern

Since 1998, there has been a moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic sturgeon. This moratorium was first implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) for state waters, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) followed soon after with a moratorium in federal waters (NOAA 2014d). However, bycatch remains a threat to Atlantic sturgeon populations. Compared to other gear types, bottom gillnets are likely to have the greatest impact on Atlantic sturgeon (NMFS 2013a). 51

Between 2006 and 2010, it was estimated that federal Northeast gillnet fisheries captured around 1,500 sturgeon and that about 20% of those were killed. There are no estimates of the number of sturgeon captured and killed in the southeast gillnet fisheries or in state fisheries (NMFS 2013a). The contribution to Atlantic sturgeon mortalities by the gillnet fisheries that capture summer flounder is unknown. We have therefore awarded a “moderate concern” score.

FINFISH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom United States North Atlantic, Trap net Medium

A variety of finfish species may be caught in the gillnet, handline, and trap net fisheries that catch summer flounder. To account for the diversity of species, we have ranked inherent vulnerability as “medium.”

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom High Concern

Summer flounder is typically caught in gillnet fisheries aimed at other species. There is limited information on exactly what species are caught along with summer flounder. Gillnet catch data from Rhode Island for 2011–2014 indicate that unspecified skates dominate the catch (>50%). Other species that accounted for >5% of the catch included monkfish, dogfish, scup, and bluefish (RI DFW 2015). Catch data from Delaware for 2011–2013 indicate that striped bass is the main component of the gillnet catch. But in some years, Atlantic menhaden, American shad, and white perch also accounted for a significant proportion of the catch (DNREC 2015a).

Many of these fish species are considered to be at healthy abundances, but American shad is depleted and striped bass was near the overfished threshold level and still declining when it was last assessed in 2013 (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2013). Other depleted species that could be caught include weakfish and river herring (Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch 2012), although they were not found to be a common component of the catch in the Rhode Island and Delaware fisheries. Because the gillnet 52

fisheries potentially catch some depleted fish species, we have awarded a “high” concern score.

United States North Atlantic, Trap net High Concern

Trap net fisheries generally catch a mix of finfish species. Limited information was available on what other species are caught in the trap net fisheries that catch summer flounder. Species that could be caught in the trap net fisheries include menhaden, striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic croaker, scup, herring, shad, drum, bluefish, spot, mackerel, catfish, perch, and other coastal fish (pers. comm., Harry Rickabaugh, MD DNR, 2015) (RI DFW 2015). Though most of these fish are at healthy abundance levels, weakfish is at a very low abundance level and is considered depleted (NOAA 2009). Additionally, the last assessment for striped bass (2013) indicated that the species was not depleted/overfished, but the population was nearing the overfished threshold level and was expected to continue to decline through 2015 (ASMFC 2013). Other depleted species that could be caught in the trap net fisheries are river herring and American shad; however, these species are unlikely to be frequently encountered during the time of year when summer flounder are caught (pers. comm., Harry Rickabaugh, MD DNR, 2015). Because the trap net fisheries catch some depleted fish species, we have rated this factor “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Moderate Concern

None of the fish species that are likely targeted/retained in the gillnet fisheries along with summer flounder is considered to be experiencing overfishing (ASMFC 2013) (ASMFC 2010) (SEDAR 2015) (NOAA 2009) (ASMFC 2015b). However, some species are depleted and showing limited recovery (e.g., American shad). Information on the catch of non-target species or bycatch is limited. Because we only have limited information on what is caught in the summer flounder gillnet fisheries, we have rated fishing mortality of finfish species as “moderate” concern, consistent with the unknown bycatch matrix (see Appendix 3 in the Seafood Watch Wild Fisheries Assessment Criteria).

United States North Atlantic, Trap net Low Concern

Fish species that are likely to be targeted/retained along with summer flounder in the trap net fisheries (including striped bass, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, and weakfish) are not considered to be experiencing overfishing (ASMFC 2013) (ASMFC 2010) (SEDAR 2015) (NOAA 2009). Additionally, the fishing method allows for the live release of non-target fish species in most instances. We have 53

rated fishing mortality of finfish species caught in trap fisheries as “low” concern, consistent with the unknown bycatch matrix (see Appendix 3 in the Seafood Watch Wild Fisheries Assessment Criteria).

TURTLES

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom High

All sea turtles are considered to have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing because they are long-lived and do not reach sexual maturity until late in life.

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Very High Concern

All sea turtles found in United States waters are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback sea turtles are listed as “endangered” (NOAA 2015f). The green sea turtle and the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population are listed as “threatened” (NOAA 2015e) (NOAA 2015f). This factor is rated as “very high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

United States North Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Moderate Concern

The Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries most frequently interact with loggerhead sea turtles, out of the five sea turtles found in U.S. Atlantic waters. Between 1995 and 2006, the Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries caught an average of 350 loggerhead turtles annually. The highest catches occurred in large-mesh gillnet fisheries in warm waters of the southern Mid-Atlantic. The most recent (2013) biological opinion for several federally managed Atlantic fisheries (e.g., skates, dogfish, bluefish, monkfish) indicates that gillnet gear may be expected to catch 269 loggerhead turtles annually, with 62% of those catches leading to serious injuries or mortalities. The gillnet fisheries may also incidentally catch leatherback, 54

green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, but catches of these species are expected to be low. Interactions with hawksbill sea turtles are considered unlikely (NMFS 2013a).

Although the U.S. Atlantic gillnet fisheries have some impact on sea turtles, other fisheries (e.g., U.S. shrimp fisheries) pose a much greater threat to these species (NMFS 2013a). We have therefore rated this factor as “moderate” concern.