DOCSLIB.ORG

Interstate Fisheries Management Program Implementation for North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interstate Fisheries Management Program Implementation for North Carolina INTERSTATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA By Kevin Brown and Blake Price Completion Report for NOAA Award No. NA16FG1220 Segment 3 Study II DOCUMENTATION AND REDUCTION OF BYCATCH IN NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES JOB 3: Commercial Gillnet Observations in the Large (> 5 inch stretch mesh) and Small (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries throughout the Albemarle Sound, Pamlico/Pungo Rivers, and the Neuse River, North Carolina September 2004 Abstract Observations were made of commercial gillnet fisheries throughout the Albemarle Sound Management Area, the Neuse River, and the Pamlico/Pungo River from January through June 2004. These observations were used to characterize the fishery and determine relative effort and discards of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and other federally managed species of finfish. Observations were made on 101 trips, consisting of 985 nets with a total length of 125,042 yards. Three different gear types were observed: anchored sink gillnets, anchored floating gillnets, and runaround gillnets. There were 423 striped bass observed in this study, with 92% of these caught in the winter. The Albemarle Sound was the most productive area for striped bass. The at-net mortality of striped bass in the winter was low (7% in the large mesh fishery and 2% in the small mesh fishery, respectively). The at-net mortality of striped bass in the large mesh spring fishery was 53%. No striped bass were observed in the spring small mesh fishery. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) were only observed in the large mesh spring fishery and all were released alive. The results of this study offer insights for fishery managers developing Fishery Management Plans and may assist in bycatch mortality estimates. Recommendations include expansion of the observer coverage in commercial gillnet fisheries to encompass all seasons, establishing a long-term observer program throughout North Carolina commercial fisheries and requiring mandatory observer coverage in North Carolina commercial fisheries. ii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. v Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Coverage ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Gear Parameters ........................................................................................................................... 7 Species Composition .................................................................................................................... 8 Effort .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Key Species Catches .................................................................................................................. 12 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) – Key Species ........................................................................... 16 Finfish Bycatch .......................................................................................................................... 18 At Net Discard Mortality ........................................................................................................... 21 Runaround Gillnet Fishery ......................................................................................................... 21 Striped Bass ............................................................................................................................... 22 Red Drum ................................................................................................................................... 23 Sea Bird and Protected Species Bycatch ................................................................................... 24 Project Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 24 Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 26 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 26 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 27 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Study areas for commercial gillnet observations made in North Carolina from 1 January through 30 June 2004. ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Large mesh (> 5 inch stretch mesh) commercial gillnet set samples made in North Carolina from 1 January through 30 June 2004. ..................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Small mesh (< 5 inch stretch mesh) commercial gillnet set samples made in North Carolina from 1 January through 30 June 2004. ..................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Total effort (yards*soakdays) per 100 yards observed in the winter (January – March) and spring (April – June) commercial anchored sink and floating large mesh (> 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries throughout the Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and the Pamlico River (PR), 2004. .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Total effort (yards*soakdays) per 100 yards observed in the winter (January – March), and spring (April – June) commercial anchored sink and floating small mesh (<5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries of Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and Pamlico River (PR), 2004. ............................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6. Total weight (kg) of the top six species observed in the winter (January – March), and spring (April – June) commercial anchored sink large mesh (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries throughout Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and Pamlico River (PR), 2004....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Total weight (kg) of the top six species observed in the winter (January – March), and spring (April – June) commercial anchored floating large mesh (> 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries in Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and Pamlico/Pungo River (PR), 2004. ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 8. Total weight (kg) of the top six species observed in the winter (January – March), and spring (April – June) commercial anchored sink small mesh (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries in Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and Pamlico River (PR), 2004. ..... 15 Figure 9. Total weight (kg) of the top six species observed in the winter (January – March) commercial anchored floating small mesh (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries throughout Albemarle Sound (AS), Neuse River (NR), and Pamlico River (PR), 2004. ..... 16 iv List of Tables Table 1. Total reported trips, total trips observed and percent coverage by month and area for commercial gillnet observations made in North Carolina from 1 January through 30 June 2004. AS = Albemarle Sound, NR = Neuse River, and PR = Pamlico/Pungo River. ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2. Summary statistics for the large mesh (> 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet gear parameters from observations made in North Carolina, 1 January through 30 June 2004. ................ 7 Table 3. Summary statistics for small mesh (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet gear parameters from observations made in North Carolina, January through June 2004. ................................. 8 Table 4. Relative biomass (kg) and number of individuals observed in the winter commercial gillnet fisheries in North Carolina, January through March 2004. ................................... 9 Table 5. Relative biomass (kg) and number of individuals observed in the spring commercial gillnet fisheries in North Carolina, April through June 2004. ........................................ 10 Table 6. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) defined as: total weight (kg) / (total
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Settling the Albemarle Sound 91 and George Took out Some of the Earliest Deeds in the Area
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________SettlingSettling thethe _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study
    1991 Project No. 89-09 Classification of Pamlico Sound Nursery Areas: Recommendations for Critical Habitat Criteria ALBEMARLE PAMLICO ESTUARINE STUDY -·,' .. ·. ~J~~ ~t;; Funding Provided By North Carolina Department of Natural Enviro nmental Protection Agency Resources and Communi ty Development National Estuary Program NC DENR LIBRARY C1 1610MSC RAlEtGK.NC 27699•1610 509:C61 919-715-4161 CLASSIFICATION OF PAMLICO SOUND ~1JRSERY AREAS: RECOMMENDATIOXS FOR CRITICAL HABITAT CRITERIA By Elizabeth B. Noble and Dr. Robert J. Monroe North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 February 1991 "The research on which the report is based was financed, in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, through the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study." "Contents of the publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency , the ~orth Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States or North Carolina Government." A/P Project Number 89·09 r ( ........ .. · -- ....._ ··-······· · · · ··· -····· ................. ···-· The authors would like to thank M. Street for his encouragement and review, P. Phalen for his assistance with programming, statistics, and brain-storming, and also L. Mercer for her comprehensive review. Thanks to reviewers M. \Jolff, B. Burns, J. Ross, R. Holman, and anonymous external reviewers for their contribution to the quality of the manuscript. Thanks also to D. \Jillis and D. Tooele for manuscript preparation, and T.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of the Natural Areas of Dare County, North Carolina
    AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 Cover photograph: Buxton Woods, Maritime Shrub Swamp (Dogwood Subtype) taken by Bruce A. Sorrie. AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 ABSTRACT This inventory of the natural areas, biological communities, and rare species of Dare County was funded by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund. The inventory identifies the most significant natural areas in the county, describes their features, and documents all natural communities and rare species of plants and animals associated with them. Habitat conditions, natural processes, and threats are also described. The inventory is intended to provide guidance for land use decisions by county, state, and federal governments, conservation and land management organizations, and interested citizens. Field work was carried out by Bruce A. Sorrie of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program during 2012 and 2013. The inventory identifies 34 areas of outstanding ecological significance as determined by criteria established by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and agencies contributed to the planning, progress, and completion of this inventory. Jame Amoroso, Misty Buchanan, John Finnegan, Harry LeGrand, Janine Nicholson, and Linda Rudd reviewed the draft report and maps and assisted in the production of the final copy.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Erosion Studies
    S h o r e l i n e E r o s i o n Chapter 3: North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Erosion Studies OVERVIEW they all come up with the same general erosion is severe in Pamlico Sound and is results and rates of recession. The studies ubiquitous throughout all subhabitats Numerous estuarine shoreline are briefly summarized below. (Table 3.2, page 39). erosion studies were previously done for portions of the N.C. coastal counties and REGIONAL STUDIES North Carolina Coastal Counties include the following: In northeastern North Carolina: Stirewalt and Ingram Pamlico Sound The USDA-SCS (1975) produced (1974); USDA-SCS (1975); Dolan and data for 15 coastal counties concerning Bosserman (1972); Hardaway (1980); Using 1938 to 1971 aerial photo- rates and types of estuarine shoreline and Everts et al. (1983). Bellis et al. graphs, Stirewalt and Ingram (1974) erosion (Table 3.3, page 40). Pender, New (1975); O’Connor et al. (1978); and evaluated the shoreline recession at 16 Hanover and Brunswick counties were Riggs et al. (1978) mapped 1,593 miles sites around the perimeter of the Pamlico judged to have minimal problems with of estuarine shorelines in the Albemarle- Sound (Table 3.1, page 38). Five of these estuarine shoreline erosion, and therefore Pamlico estuarine system. sites were situated on the backside of the were not included in their evaluation. Also, Hartness and Pearson (1977), barrier islands, and 10 sites were on Also, erosion processes along the back- summarized the estuarine shoreline shorelines that rim the mainland coast. barrier estuarine shorelines were consid- erosion in three southern coastal counties: The Stirewalt and Ingram (1974) ered to be beyond the scope of their Pender, New Hanover and Brunswick, study made no attempt to relate the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Manteo Harbor Report
    A CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF SUBMERGED LANDS AFFECTED BY THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION Manteo, North Carolina Conducted By Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Richard W. Lawrence, Head Leslie S. Bright Mark Wilde-Ramsing Report Prepared by Mark Wilde-Ramsing November, 1983 Abstract Field investigations of the submerged bottom lands at Manteo, North Carolina were carried out by the Underwater Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources. The purpose of these investigations was to identify historically and/or archaeologically significant cultural materials lying within the area to be affected by construction of a bridge and canal system and berthing area proposed for the 400th Anniversary Celebration (1984 to 1987) on Roanoke Island. Initially, a systematic survey of the project area was performed using a proton precession magnetometer to isolate magnetic disturbances, any of which might be generated by cultural material. Following this, a diving and probing search was conducted on isolated magnetic targets to determine the source. With the exception of the remains of a sunken vessel, Underwater Site #0001ROS, all magnetic disturbances were attributed to cultural debris of recent origin (twentieth century) and were determined historically and archaeologically insignificant. Recommendations for the sunken vessel located on the south side of the proposed berthing area are (1) complete avoidance of the site during construction activities, or (2) further
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure of River Herring in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, Inferred from Geometric Morphometrics and Otolith Shape Analysis
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarShip Population Structure of River Herring in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, Inferred from Geometric Morphometrics and Otolith Shape Analysis By Walter Douglas Rogers April, 2015 Director: Dr. Roger A. Rulifson Department of Biology Abstract Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, collectively known as River herring, use tributaries of the Albemarle Sound, North Carolina as spawning and nursery habitats. Stocks of these anadromous fish have experienced dramatic declines in North Carolina, and show no sign of recovery. Although the state has designated considerable resources to the management of river herring, we still do not fully understand river herring utilization of North Carolina’s estuaries, and know little about the structure and composition of populations. Determining the population, or “stock” structure of species is crucial for the proper distribution of management efforts. We utilized two robust stock identification methods to identify distinct groups of River Herring. Using geometric morphometric analysis, we found that groups of juvenile Alewife and Blueback herring from different tributaries of the Albemarle Sound had significantly different overall body shapes, despite apparent mixing between groups. Overall body shape of adult Blueback Herring was not significantly different at the tributary level, but did differ significantly at the state level between North Carolina and New Jersey. Elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith shape revealed the same pattern as geometric morphometric analysis on adult Blueback Herring, with significant differences in otolith shape at the state level but not the tributary level. Our results suggest that a portion of spawning adult River Herring returning to the Albemarle Sound may return to non-natal tributaries to spawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Currituck Bridge Final Re-Evaluation of the Final
    MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY Currituck County and Dare County, NC Federal-Aid Project Number: BRSTP-000S (494) WBS Element: 34470.1.TA1 STIP No. R-2576 REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation March 6, 2019 Date Edward T. Parker Acting Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Date Rodger D. Rochelle, PE NCTA Chief Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation North Carolina Turnpike Authority MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY Currituck County and Dare County, NC Federal-Aid Project Number: BRSTP-000S (494) WBS Element: 34470.1.TA1 STIP No. R-2576 REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Documentation Prepared By: WSP USA Date Lynn Purnell, PE, ENV SP Southeast Traffic, Planning and Environment Manager Date John Page, AICP Project Manager Documentation Prepared For: North Carolina Turnpike Authority Date John G. Conforti, REM Senior Project Manager, Project Management Unit-Eastern Region North Carolina Department of Transportation REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is evaluating proposed transportation improvements in the Currituck Sound area, including construction of a Mid‐Currituck Bridge. The proposed action is defined as a bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks. A bridge across Currituck Sound is a part of the Preferred Alternative identified in the FEIS. The proposed action is included in the NCDOT’s 2018 to 2027 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (August 2017) as project R-2576.
    [Show full text]
  • Piping Plovers in North Carolina
    Compilation and Assessment of Piping Plover Wintering and Migratory Staging Area Data in North Carolina Susan Cameron and David Allen NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Marcia Lyons Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC Jeff Cordes Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Sidney Maddock Buxton, NC Piping Plovers in North Carolina • North Carolina is unique because piping plovers can be observed twelve months out of the year • North Carolina is at the northern extent of the wintering range and is an important stopover area during spring and fall migration • All three populations are known to use our coastline during the non-breeding season 1 Threats - Development/Beach Stabilization S. Maddock S. Maddock Threats – Chronic Human Disturbance 2 History of Non-breeding Piping Plover Program • In the past, surveys for migrating and wintering piping plovers were conducted mostly in an opportunistic fashion with data stored in multiple formats • In 2001, NCWRC obtained a grant from USFWS to create an Access database for non-breeding piping plover observations • Observations were compiled in an effort to identify some of the most important areas for piping plovers History of Non-breeding Piping Plover Program • In recent years, systematic surveys have been conducted at various locations including Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores and at several sites in association with beach stabilization projects • An observation form has been created and distributed in an effort to increase the number of sightings reported 3 Non-breeding Piping Plover
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Hatteras Captured
    Fort Hatteras Captured http://civilwar150.longwood.edu Since the humiliating rout at Manassas a month before, the giddy confidence of many in the North had been replaced by gloomy acceptance that this would be a real war. Abraham Lincoln and the Northern public were anxious for some good news in the growing conflict. In late August, 1861, Union forces finally achieved their first significant victory of the Civil War. The barrier islands of North Carolina were strategically important as they provided protection to the Albemarle Sound and a number of important North Carolina coastal cities. Perhaps more importantly, they provided protection for Confederate raiders who would pounce upon merchant ships riding the Gulf Stream from the Caribbean to northern cities. Ships could slip quickly out of Hatteras Inlet, between Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, raid a merchant ship and then scurry back to the safety of the Carolina sounds. These waters had long been known for this sort of activity, dating back to the pirate Blackbeard in the early 1700s. Shortly after secession, North Carolina authorities quickly constructed two rudimentary forts at Hatteras Inlet. Fort Clark had five small guns and was located near the inlet itself. Fort Hatteras had ten guns and was situated a half mile farther back toward the sound side of Hatteras Island. None of the guns in either fort was large enough to be suitable for coastal defense. As the number of merchant ships attacked grew during 1861, there was pressure in Washington to do something about it. Naval officials realized that if the forts at Hatteras Inlet were captured, they would not only stop the raiding of merchant ships but would also effectively blockade the North Carolina cities on the sounds from receiving supplies by sea.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina's Connection to the Southern Watersheds of Virginia
    Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership (APNEP) North Carolina’s Connection to the Southern Watersheds of Virginia Stacey Webb Feken Policy and Engagement Manager City of Virginia Beach Sea Level Rise Summer Symposium Series September 19, 2018 V B G O V . C O M / B U I L D I N G A S H A R E D V I S I O N All of Virginia Is *Not* in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed virginiaplaces.org Celebrate Estuaries Week, September 15-22 www.estuaries.org Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System: Nation’s 2nd Largest Estuary Chesapeake Bay Albemarle Sound Pamlico Sound Cape Hatteras Cape Lookout Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System • Complex estuarine system • Network of 8 major sounds –Back, Bogue, Core, Croatan, Currituck, Roanoke, Albemarle, Pamlico • Drained by 6 major river basins • Semi-enclosed lagoonal system • Approximately 3,000 square miles of open water. Estuaries: Where Rivers Meet the Sea Over 28,000 square miles of land drain to the sounds through more than 10,000 miles of rivers and streams. 6 River Basins: Chowan, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar- Pamlico, Neuse, White Oak (Carteret County) 3 major basins originate in Virginia Why is the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system important? Estuaries: “Nurseries of the Sea” • Among the most productive ecosystems in the world. • Home to unique plant and animal communities that have adapted to brackish water. • Many animals rely on estuaries for food, habitat, places to breed, and migration stopovers. Ecosystem Services of Estuaries Economic Valuation of the Albemarle-Pamlico Watershed (RTI, 2016) Wetlands act as natural filters of pollutants Protection from floods and storms Reduce shoreline erosion Over $3.7 billion from fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing Annual value of $640 million for visits to national seashores, wildlife refuges, and state parks.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. 64 Improvements Project Purpose and Need Statement
    Chapter 1 Project Purpose and Need PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1.0 Project Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction This State Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA G.S. 113A, Article 1), for the purpose of evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed transportation improvement project. This is an informational document intended for use by both decision‐makers and the public. As such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the proposed action. The action proposed in this state‐funded DEIS is located along a rural 27.3‐mile corridor of US 64 from east of Columbia in Tyrrell County to US 264 in Dare County. The NCDOT proposes to widen the existing road from two lanes to a four‐lane divided highway and build a new four‐lane bridge over the Alligator River. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour (mph). The NCDOT 2012‐2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) allocates funds for the bridge replacement portion of the proposed project to begin design‐build activities (which include design, right‐of‐way acquisition, and construction) in FY 2014. This section also includes constructing highway on new location that will connect a new bridge to back to existing US 64, on both sides of the Alligator River. The project section in Tyrrell County is funded to start right‐of‐way acquisition in FY 2014 and start construction in FY 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Trends in Abundance of American Shad and River Herring
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:257-271. 1996 American Fisheries Society 1996 Historical Trends in Abundance of American Shad and River Herrin Albemarln gi e Sound, North Carolina JOSEP . HIGHTOWEE H R National Biological Service. North Carolina Cooperative FishWildlifeand Research Unit 7617,Box North Carolina State University. Raleigh. North Carolina 27695-7617.USA ANTON M. WICKER AND KEITH M. ENDRES' U.S. FishWildlifeand Service Post Office Box 33726. Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726. USA Abstract.—The Albemarle Sound basin once supported large fisheries for American shad Alosa sapidissima and river herring (alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback herring Alosa aestivalis combined); however, current landing f botso h stock extremele sar y lowusee W .d calch-per-unit- effort (CPUE) data from an 1845-1907 haul-seine fishery to estimate the historical abundance and productivity of these stocks. These historical data are valuable because we can measure (1) the respons stocke th f eo s toperioa fishino n f ) stoco dg(2 durinkd productivitan Civie r gth Wa l y before significant changes in water quality and habitat. We found that biomass-based models fitted the historical haul-seine CPUE data reasonably well t thebu , models appeare unreliable b o t d r efo forecasting. For river herring, an analysis that included 1977-1993 pound-net CPUE data appeared provido t e better management advice. Estimate populatioe th f so n growth rat ) rangee(r d fro5 m0. to 0.9 for American shad and 0.3 to 0.5 for river herring. We estimated that maximum sustainable yield was roughly 1-2 million kilograms for American shad, compared to 5-6 million kilograms for river herring.
    [Show full text]