DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment for Amendment 31 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment for Amendment 31 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR AMENDMENT 31 TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GROUNDFISH OF THE GULF OF ALASKA ESTABLISH ATKA MACKEREL AS A SEPARATE TARGET SPECIES Prepared by the Staffs of the: Alaska Fisheries Science Center Alaska Region NMFS North Pacific Fishery Management Council North Pacific Fishery Management Council P.O. Box 103136 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 October 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . .0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION. .1-1 1.1 Management Background. .1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Document. .1-1 1.2.1 Environmental Assessment . .1-1 1.2.2 Regulatory Impact Review . .1-2 1.3 Description of the Groundfish Fisheries. .1-2 1.4 Description of and Need for the Action . .1-2 1.5 The Alternatives . .1-4 1.5.1 Alternative 1: Status Quo. .1-4 1.5.2 Alternative 2: Establish Atka mackerel as a separate groundfish target category in the GOA.. .1-4 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES. .2-1 2.1 Biological and Physical Impacts. .2-1 2.1.1 Other Species Category . .2-1 2.1.2 Atka Mackerel Biology and Life History . .2-3 2.1.2.1 Movement and Migration. .2-4 2.1.2.2 Stock Structure Information . .2-5 2.1.3 Atka Mackerel Survey Biomass Distribution . .2-5 2.1.4 Atka Mackerel Fishery. 2-10 2.1.5 Bycatch of Prohibited Species, Other Allocated groundfish, and Forage Species by the Atka Mackerel Fishery. 2-18 2.1.6 Potential Yield for Gulf of Alaska Atka Mackerel . 2-21 2.1.7 Pacific salmon listed under the ESA. 2-21 2.1.8 Seabirds . 2-22 2.1.9 Possible Impacts on the Physical Environment. 2-22 2.1.10 Possible Impacts on the Biological Environment. 2-23 2.1.10.1 Impact on the Other Species Category. 2-23 2.1.10.2 Impact on the Atka Mackerel Resource. 2-23 2.1.10.3 Impact on Marine Mammals. 2-24 2.1.10.4 Impact on Pacific Salmon listed under the ESA . 2-24 2.1.10.5 Impact on Seabirds. 2-25 2.1.10.6 Impact on Bycatch of Prohibited Species, Other Allocated Groundfish and Forage Species. 2-26 2.2 Economic analysis of the alternatives . 2-27 2.2.1 World Markets for Atka Mackerel. 2-28 2.2.2 Revenue Implications . 2-31 2.2.3 Price Effects. 2-32 3.0 EFFECTS ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND ON THE ALASKA COASTAL ZONE . .3-1 4.0 OTHER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291 REQUIREMENTS. .4-1 5.0 IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT . .5-1 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. .6-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . .7-1 8.0 REFERENCES. .8-1 9.0 APPENDIX. .9-1 9.1 Marine Mammals . .9-1 0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygius, has recently become the subject of a directed fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This species is part of the "other species" category, which also contains bycatch species of minor commercial importance including sculpins, skates, squid, smelts, sharks, eulachon, capelin, and octopus. The "other species" category has been available as a Gulf-wide total allowable catch (TAC) equal to 5 percent of the sum of TACs for all target fisheries. High landings of Atka mackerel in 1992 accounted for almost the entire TAC of "other species" in the GOA, resulting in "other species" becoming non­ retainable by May 1992 (57 FR 21215, May 19, 1992) in the entire GOA. Although "other species" were apportioned by management area in 1993, a target fishery for Atka mackerel resulted in a closure to directed fishing for "other species" in the Western Regulatory Area early in April 1993 (58 FR 17806, April 6, 1993). The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the GOA defines "other species" as groundfish species and/or species groups that currently are only of slight economic importance or contain economically valuable species but insufficient data exist to allow separate management. Atka mackerel no longer meets this definition. The purpose for proposed Amendment 31 to the GOA FMP is to improve management and conservation by establishing Atka mackerel as a target species in the GOA. Two alternatives were examined: (1) the status quo, and (2) establishing Atka mackerel as a separate target species. Because neither alternative contains changes to existing regulations that implement the FMP, the proposed action is exempt from procedures of Executive Order (E.O.) 12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Therefore, a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are not included and the analysis consists of an environmental assessment (EA). Under Alternative 1, Atka mackerel would remain in the "other species" category. The Atka mackerel fishery would likely utilize the entire Western Regulatory Area "other species" TAC. Landings of Atka mackerel would be constrained by the Western Regulatory Area TAC, which for 1993 was 3,053 metric tons (mt). Careful management would be needed to ensure that bycatch of species other than Atka mackerel in the Western Regulatory Area remains available for target fisheries operating in that area. "Other species" and target fisheries in the Central and Eastern Regulatory areas are not likely to be impacted. Under Alternative 2, Atka mackerel would be a target species with harvest levels constrained by a Gulf-wide TAC. Harvest levels of Atka mackerel would be based on biological stock assessments. Given the most recent estimate of GOA biomass, potential yield of Atka mackerel could be 4,800 mt. The 1,735 mt TAC difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 for 1994, could be between $ 1,204,888 and $ 1,927,820 in additional exvessel income under Alternative 2. By breaking out Atka mackerel, TAC for the "other species" category would be slightly increased, as it is specified as 5 percent of the sum of the groundfish TACs. The "other species" category would appropriately be comprised of species currently taken in very small amounts and that are needed for bycatch in target fisheries. The "other species" TACs have not been utilized for species other than Atka mackerel to any significant extent in the past 2 years, and are expected to remain available throughout the fishing year. The bycatch of prohibited species (halibut, salmon, and crab) is expected to increase slightly under Alternative 2 if the TAC for 1994 is increased relative to the status quo. For example, a catch of 4,800 mt of Atka mackerel would require about 37 mt of halibut mortality, based on the relatively low bycatch rates observed for this fishery. Bycatch of other allocated species (such as Pacific cod, walleye pollock, and rockfish) could increase under Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1; however, these bycatch rates are relatively low, and adverse impacts under either alternative are not anticipated. At the levels of harvest resulting from Alternatives 1 and 2 (between 3,000 and 4,800 mt for 1994), the spatial compression of the Atka mackerel fishery is not likely to adversely affect marine mammals. However, the Atka mackerel resource and its predators (including marine mammals and the fishery) would benefit from biologically-based management, which will only occur under Alternative 2. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at its June 1993 meeting, approved Alternative 2 for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). If approved by the Secretary, the amendment could be implemented for the 1994 fishery. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Management Background The domestic and joint venture groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (3-200 nautical miles (nm) offshore) in the waters off Alaska are managed under two FMPs; one for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI), and the second for the GOA. These FMPs were prepared by the Council under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The GOA FMP was approved by the Secretary and became effective in 1978. The Council solicits public recommendation for amending the GOA or the BSAI FMPs on an annual basis. Amendment proposals are then reviewed by the Council's GOA and BSAI FMP Plan Teams (PT), Plan Amendment Advisory Group (PAAG), Advisory Panel (AP), and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). These advisory bodies make recommendations to the Council on which proposals merit consideration for plan amendment. Amendment proposals and appropriate alternatives accepted by the Council are analyzed by the Groundfish PTs or other staff analytical teams for their efficacy and for their potential biological and socioeconomic impacts. After reviewing this analysis, the Council, AP, and SSC will make recommendations as to whether the amendment alternatives should be changed in any way, whether and how the analysis should be refined, and whether to release the analysis for general public review and comment. If an amendment proposal and accompanying analysis is released for public review, the AP, SSC, and the Council consider subsequent public comments before the Council decides whether to submit the proposals to the Secretary for approval and implementation. This document analyzes a proposed amendment to the GOA FMP that would remove Atka mackerel from the "other species" category and establish a separate Atka mackerel target species category. 1.2 Purpose of the Document This document provides background information and assessments necessary for the Secretary to determine if the amendment is consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable laws. It also provides the public with information to assess the alternatives that are being considered and to comment on the alternatives. These comments will enable the Council and Secretary to make more informed decisions concerning the resolution of the management problems being addressed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Does Climate Change Bolster the Case for Fishery Reform in Asia? Christopher Costello∗
    Does Climate Change Bolster the Case for Fishery Reform in Asia? Christopher Costello∗ I examine the estimated economic, ecological, and food security effects of future fishery management reform in Asia. Without climate change, most Asian fisheries stand to gain substantially from reforms. Optimizing fishery management could increase catch by 24% and profit by 34% over business- as-usual management. These benefits arise from fishing some stocks more conservatively and others more aggressively. Although climate change is expected to reduce carrying capacity in 55% of Asian fisheries, I find that under climate change large benefits from fishery management reform are maintained, though these benefits are heterogeneous. The case for reform remains strong for both catch and profit, though these numbers are slightly lower than in the no-climate change case. These results suggest that, to maximize economic output and food security, Asian fisheries will benefit substantially from the transition to catch shares or other economically rational fishery management institutions, despite the looming effects of climate change. Keywords: Asia, climate change, fisheries, rights-based management JEL codes: Q22, Q28 I. Introduction Global fisheries have diverged sharply over recent decades. High governance, wealthy economies have largely adopted output controls or various forms of catch shares, which has helped fisheries in these economies overcome inefficiencies arising from overfishing (Worm et al. 2009) and capital stuffing (Homans and Wilen 1997), and allowed them to turn the corner toward sustainability (Costello, Gaines, and Lynham 2008) and profitability (Costello et al. 2016). But the world’s largest fishing region, Asia, has instead largely pursued open access and input controls, achieving less long-run fishery management success (World Bank 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Wholesale Market Profiles for Alaska Groundfish and Crab Fisheries
    JANUARY 2020 Wholesale Market Profiles for Alaska Groundfish and FisheriesCrab Wholesale Market Profiles for Alaska Groundfish and Crab Fisheries JANUARY 2020 JANUARY Prepared by: McDowell Group Authors and Contributions: From NOAA-NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center: Ben Fissel (PI, project oversight, project design, and editor), Brian Garber-Yonts (editor). From McDowell Group, Inc.: Jim Calvin (project oversight and editor), Dan Lesh (lead author/ analyst), Garrett Evridge (author/analyst) , Joe Jacobson (author/analyst), Paul Strickler (author/analyst). From Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission: Bob Ryznar (project oversight and sub-contractor management), Jean Lee (data compilation and analysis) This report was produced and funded by the NOAA-NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Funding was awarded through a competitive contract to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and McDowell Group, Inc. The analysis was conducted during the winter of 2018 and spring of 2019, based primarily on 2017 harvest and market data. A final review by staff from NOAA-NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center was completed in June 2019 and the document was finalized in March 2016. Data throughout the report was compiled in November 2018. Revisions to source data after this time may not be reflect in this report. Typically, revisions to economic fisheries data are not substantial and data presented here accurately reflects the trends in the analyzed markets. For data sourced from NMFS and AKFIN the reader should refer to the Economic Status Report of the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska, 2017 (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/data/2017-economic-status-groundfish-fisheries-alaska) and Economic Status Report of the BSAI King and Tanner Crab Fisheries Off Alaska, 2018 (https://www.fisheries.noaa.
    [Show full text]
  • ATKA MACKEREL Pleurogrammus Monopterygius Also Known As SHIMA HOKKE
    WildALASKA ATKA MACKEREL Pleurogrammus monopterygius also known as SHIMA HOKKE PRODUCTS HARVEST PROFILE SUSTAINABILITY IN ALASKA, protecting the future FROZEN HARVEST SEASON of both the Atka mackerel stocks and JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES PRIORITY Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands over opportunities for commercial H&G ROUND Gulf of Alaska * no directed fishery harvest. The Alaska population of Atka mackerel is estimated from scientific research surveys. Managers use FILLETS ILAB survey data to VA L A E determine the “TOTAL OW LL ED A KIRIMI (BONE-IN HIRAKI AVAILABLE” AND BONELESS) (BUTTERFLY) population, CATCH identify the FAO 61 “ALLOWABLE ” and set Bering Sea / Gulf of Alaska CATCH Aleutian Islands a lower “ACTUAL CATCH” limit to * FAO 61 is also ensure that the wild Atka mackerel harvested population in Alaska's waters will always be sustainable. FAO 67 Atka Mackerel are an FAO 61 and 67: The world’s boundaries of the major fishing areas IMPORTANT FOOD FOR THE established for statistical purposes. endangered PURE ALASKA WESTERN STELLER SEA LION, ECONOMY Atka mackerel jobs | Atka mackerel vessels Source: NOAA a fact managers take 800 25 ATKA MACKEREL are named ~ ~ into consideration when for the island of Atka, the setting the catch limits by spacing out the harvest both largest in the Andreanof Island GEAR TYPE geographically and temporally. group in the Aleutian Chain. to mistake the trawl CERTIFIED AtkaIt can mackerel be easy for the Okhotsk Atka mackerel, the only other The Alaska Atka mackerel fishery species in the Atka mackerel's is certified to an independent certification standard for genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California
    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93g734v0 Authors Pinkas, Leo Gates, Doyle E Frey, Herbert W Publication Date 1974 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 161 California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California By Leo Pinkas Marine Resources Region and By Doyle E. Gates and Herbert W. Frey > Marine Resources Region 1974 1 Figure 1. Geographical areas used to summarize California Fisheries statistics. 2 3 1. CALIFORNIA MARINE FISH LANDINGS FOR 1972 LEO PINKAS Marine Resources Region 1.1. INTRODUCTION The protection, propagation, and wise utilization of California's living marine resources (established as common property by statute, Section 1600, Fish and Game Code) is dependent upon the welding of biological, environment- al, economic, and sociological factors. Fundamental to each of these factors, as well as the entire management pro- cess, are harvest records. The California Department of Fish and Game began gathering commercial fisheries land- ing data in 1916. Commercial fish catches were first published in 1929 for the years 1926 and 1927. This report, the 32nd in the landing series, is for the calendar year 1972. It summarizes commercial fishing activities in marine as well as fresh waters and includes the catches of the sportfishing partyboat fleet. Preliminary landing data are published annually in the circular series which also enumerates certain fishery products produced from the catch.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycled Fish Sculpture (.PDF)
    Recycled Fish Sculpture Name:__________ Fish: are a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic vertebrate animals that lack limbs with digits. At 32,000 species, fish exhibit greater species diversity than any other group of vertebrates. Sculpture: is three-dimensional artwork created by shaping or combining hard materials—typically stone such as marble—or metal, glass, or wood. Softer ("plastic") materials can also be used, such as clay, textiles, plastics, polymers and softer metals. They may be assembled such as by welding or gluing or by firing, molded or cast. Researched Photo Source: Alaskan Rainbow STEP ONE: CHOOSE one fish from the attached Fish Names list. Trout STEP TWO: RESEARCH on-line and complete the attached K/U Fish Research Sheet. STEP THREE: DRAW 3 conceptual sketches with colour pencil crayons of possible visual images that represent your researched fish. STEP FOUR: Once your fish designs are approved by the teacher, DRAW a representational outline of your fish on the 18 x24 and then add VALUE and COLOUR . CONSIDER: Individual shapes and forms for the various parts you will cut out of recycled pop aluminum cans (such as individual scales, gills, fins etc.) STEP FIVE: CUT OUT using scissors the various individual sections of your chosen fish from recycled pop aluminum cans. OVERLAY them on top of your 18 x 24 Representational Outline 18 x 24 Drawing representational drawing to judge the shape and size of each piece. STEP SIX: Once you have cut out all your shapes and forms, GLUE the various pieces together with a glue gun.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations on the Biology of Indian Mackerel Rastrelliger Kanagurta
    Investigations on the biology of Indian Mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier) along the Central Kerala coast with special reference to maturation, feeding and lipid dynamics Thesis submitted to Cochin University of Science and Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF MARINE SCIENCES GANGA .U. Reg. No. 2763 DEPARTMENT OF MARINE BIOLOGY, MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI – 682 016, INDIA September 2010 DECLARATION I, Ganga. U., do hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Investigations on the biology of Indian Mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier) along the Central Kerala coast with special reference to maturation, feeding and lipid dynamics “ is a genuine record of research work carried out by me under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) C.K. Radhakrishnan, Emeritus Professor, Cochin University of Science and Technology, and no part of the work has previously formed the basis for the award of any Degree, Associateship and Fellowship or any other similar title or recognition of any University or Institution. Ganga.U Kochi – 16 September-2010 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Investigations on the biology of Indian Mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier) along the Central Kerala coast with special reference to maturation, feeding and lipid dynamics” to be submitted by Smt. Ganga. U., is an authentic record of research work carried out by her under my guidance and supervision in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Cochin University of Science and Technology, under the faculty of Marine Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Characteristics of Forage Fish Species in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Based on Kirchhoff-Approximation Models
    1839 Acoustic characteristics of forage fish species in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea based on Kirchhoff-approximation models Stéphane Gauthier and John K. Horne Abstract: Acoustic surveys are routinely used to assess fish abundance. To ensure accurate population estimates, the characteristics of echoes from constituent species must be quantified. Kirchhoff-ray mode (KRM) backscatter models were used to quantify acoustic characteristics of Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pelagic fish species: capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). Atka mackerel and eulachon do not have swimbladders. Acous- tic backscatter was estimated as a function of insonifying frequency, fish length, and body orientation relative to the incident wave front. Backscatter intensity and variance estimates were compared to examine the potential to discrimi- nate among species. Based on relative intensity differences, species could be separated in two major groups: fish with gas-filled swimbladders and fish without swimbladders. The effects of length and tilt angle on echo intensity depended on frequency. Variability in target strength (TS) resulting from morphometric differences was high for species without swimbladders. Based on our model predictions, a series of TS to length equations were developed for each species at the common frequencies used by fisheries acousticians. Résumé : Les inventaires acoustiques sont utilisés
    [Show full text]
  • ILLEGAL FISHING Which Fish Species Are at Highest Risk from Illegal and Unreported Fishing?
    ILLEGAL FISHING Which fish species are at highest risk from illegal and unreported fishing? October 2015 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 METHODOLOGY 5 OVERALL FINDINGS 9 NOTES ON ESTIMATES OF IUU FISHING 13 Tunas 13 Sharks 14 The Mediterranean 14 US Imports 15 CONCLUSION 16 CITATIONS 17 OCEAN BASIN PROFILES APPENDIX 1: IUU Estimates for Species Groups and Ocean Regions APPENDIX 2: Estimates of IUU Risk for FAO Assessed Stocks APPENDIX 3: FAO Ocean Area Boundary Descriptions APPENDIX 4: 2014 U.S. Edible Imports of Wild-Caught Products APPENDIX 5: Overexploited Stocks Categorized as High Risk – U.S. Imported Products Possibly Derived from Stocks EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New analysis by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) finds that over 85 percent of global fish stocks can be considered at significant risk of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. This evaluation is based on the most recent comprehensive estimates of IUU fishing and includes the worlds’ major commercial stocks or species groups, such as all those that are regularly assessed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Based on WWF’s findings, the majority of the stocks, 54 percent, are categorized as at high risk of IUU, with an additional 32 perent judged to be at moderate risk. Of the 567 stocks that were assessed, the findings show that 485 stocks fall into these two categories. More than half of the world’s most overexploited stocks are at the highest risk of IUU fishing. Examining IUU risk by location, the WWF analysis shows that in more than one-third of the world’s ocean basins as designated by the FAO, all of these stocks were at high or moderate risk of IUU fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Maternal Growth on Fecundity and Egg Quality of Wild and Captive Atka Mackerel Susanne F
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications, Agencies and Staff of the .SU . U.S. Department of Commerce Department of Commerce 2011 Effects of Maternal Growth on Fecundity and Egg Quality of Wild and Captive Atka Mackerel Susanne F. McDermott National Marine Fisheries Service, [email protected] Daniel W. Cooper National Marine Fisheries Service Jared L. Guthridge Alaska SeaLife Center, 301 Railway Avenue, Seward, Alaska Ingrid B. Spies National Marine Fisheries Service Mike F. Canino National Marine Fisheries Service See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub McDermott, Susanne F.; Cooper, Daniel W.; Guthridge, Jared L.; Spies, Ingrid B.; Canino, Mike F.; Woods, Pamela; and Hillgruber, Nicola, "Effects of Maternal Growth on Fecundity and Egg Quality of Wild and Captive Atka Mackerel" (2011). Publications, Agencies and Staff of ht e U.S. Department of Commerce. 542. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/542 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Commerce at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications, Agencies and Staff of the .SU . Department of Commerce by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Susanne F. McDermott, Daniel W. Cooper, Jared L. Guthridge, Ingrid B. Spies, Mike F. Canino, Pamela Woods, and Nicola Hillgruber This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usdeptcommercepub/542 Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 3:324–335, 2011 C American Fisheries Society 2011 ISSN: 1942-5120 online DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2011.608592 SPECIAL SECTION: ATKA MACKEREL Effects of Maternal Growth on Fecundity and Egg Quality of Wild and Captive Atka Mackerel Susanne F.
    [Show full text]
  • Intrinsic Vulnerability in the Global Fish Catch
    The following appendix accompanies the article Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch William W. L. Cheung1,*, Reg Watson1, Telmo Morato1,2, Tony J. Pitcher1, Daniel Pauly1 1Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory (AERL), 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada 2Departamento de Oceanografia e Pescas, Universidade dos Açores, 9901-862 Horta, Portugal *Email: [email protected] Marine Ecology Progress Series 333:1–12 (2007) Appendix 1. Intrinsic vulnerability index of fish taxa represented in the global catch, based on the Sea Around Us database (www.seaaroundus.org) Taxonomic Intrinsic level Taxon Common name vulnerability Family Pristidae Sawfishes 88 Squatinidae Angel sharks 80 Anarhichadidae Wolffishes 78 Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 77 Sphyrnidae Hammerhead, bonnethead, scoophead shark 77 Macrouridae Grenadiers or rattails 75 Rajidae Skates 72 Alepocephalidae Slickheads 71 Lophiidae Goosefishes 70 Torpedinidae Electric rays 68 Belonidae Needlefishes 67 Emmelichthyidae Rovers 66 Nototheniidae Cod icefishes 65 Ophidiidae Cusk-eels 65 Trachichthyidae Slimeheads 64 Channichthyidae Crocodile icefishes 63 Myliobatidae Eagle and manta rays 63 Squalidae Dogfish sharks 62 Congridae Conger and garden eels 60 Serranidae Sea basses: groupers and fairy basslets 60 Exocoetidae Flyingfishes 59 Malacanthidae Tilefishes 58 Scorpaenidae Scorpionfishes or rockfishes 58 Polynemidae Threadfins 56 Triakidae Houndsharks 56 Istiophoridae Billfishes 55 Petromyzontidae
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 157 GUIDE TO THE COASTAL MARINE FISHES OF CALIFORNIA by DANIEL J. MILLER and ROBERT N. LEA Marine Resources Region 1972 ABSTRACT This is a comprehensive identification guide encompassing all shallow marine fishes within California waters. Geographic range limits, maximum size, depth range, a brief color description, and some meristic counts including, if available: fin ray counts, lateral line pores, lateral line scales, gill rakers, and vertebrae are given. Body proportions and shapes are used in the keys and a state- ment concerning the rarity or commonness in California is given for each species. In all, 554 species are described. Three of these have not been re- corded or confirmed as occurring in California waters but are included since they are apt to appear. The remainder have been recorded as occurring in an area between the Mexican and Oregon borders and offshore to at least 50 miles. Five of California species as yet have not been named or described, and ichthyologists studying these new forms have given information on identification to enable inclusion here. A dichotomous key to 144 families includes an outline figure of a repre- sentative for all but two families. Keys are presented for all larger families, and diagnostic features are pointed out on most of the figures. Illustrations are presented for all but eight species. Of the 554 species, 439 are found primarily in depths less than 400 ft., 48 are meso- or bathypelagic species, and 67 are deepwater bottom dwelling forms rarely taken in less than 400 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Localized Depletion of Three Alaska Rockfish Species Dana Hanselman NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska
    Biology, Assessment, and Management of North Pacific Rockfishes 493 Alaska Sea Grant College Program • AK-SG-07-01, 2007 Localized Depletion of Three Alaska Rockfish Species Dana Hanselman NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska Paul Spencer NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management (REFM) Division, Seattle, Washington Kalei Shotwell NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska Rebecca Reuter NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, REFM Division, Seattle, Washington Abstract The distributions of some rockfish species in Alaska are clustered. Their distribution and relatively sedentary movement patterns could make localized depletion of rockfish an ecological or conservation concern. Alaska rockfish have varying and little-known genetic stock structures. Rockfish fishing seasons are short and intense and usually confined to small areas. If allowable catches are set for large management areas, the genetic, age, and size structures of the population could change if the majority of catch is harvested from small concentrated areas. In this study, we analyzed data collected by the North Pacific Observer Program from 1991 to 2004 to assess localized depletion of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), northern rockfish S.( polyspinis), and dusky rockfish (S. variabilis). The data were divided into blocks with areas of approxi- mately 10,000 km2 and 5,000 km2 of consistent, intense fishing. We used two different block sizes to consider the size for which localized deple- tion could be detected. For each year, the Leslie depletion estimator was used to determine whether catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) values in each 494 Hanselman et al.—Three Alaska Rockfish Species block declined as a function of cumulative catch.
    [Show full text]