Seafood Watch Seafood Report

Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus)

Lingcod, courtesy Fisheries and Oceans Canada

West Coast Region

Final Report November 29, 2004

Updated June 1, 2007

Irene Tetreault Independent Consultant MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports

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 the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. 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® Fisheries 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 (831) 647-6873 or emailing [email protected].

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

2 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Executive Summary

Lingcod is a commercially and recreationally important groundfish inhabiting the west coast of North America, with its center of abundance in British Columbia. Adult lingcod are found on rocky bottom substrate from the intertidal zone to water more than 300 meters (m) in depth on the continental shelf. Fall and winter closures protect spawning aggregations of lingcod and males as they guard nests. The three major management regimes for lingcod are the U.S. West Coast, Canada, and Alaska, with nearly 60% of the lingcod on the U.S. market caught by Canada. Historically, landings had been relatively low until the 1940s with the emergence of bottom trawl gear. Subsequent harvest rose dramatically and then began declining in the 1980s. The U.S. West Coast stocks fell to < 10% of virgin spawning biomass in 1997 but are now beginning to increase.

Because lingcod are fast-growing and mature early, they are moderately resilient to fishing pressure. The wild stocks in the U.S. West Coast have experienced long-term declines and a recent stabilization trend. The Alaskan stocks are not as well known, but appear to be rebounding due to timely management action after an initial decline. The Canadian stocks are even less well known, but appear stable after long-term decline, although the stocks within the Strait of Georgia appear to be in poor condition with no indication of rebuilding. Overall, caution is warranted because stocks appear to be stable at low levels.

Bycatch and ecosystem/habitat effects of the lingcod fisheries within the three management regimes depend in large part on the extent of trawling allowed for the directed commercial harvest. Bottom trawling indiscriminately collects multiple species and causes great damage to bottom habitat, particularly when targeting lingcod in rocky bottom habitat, which has low resilience to disturbance. Half of the U.S. West Coast harvest employs bottom trawl gear and the remainder is caught with hook and line methods. Trawling accounts for 75% of the Canadian fishery, but the Alaskan fishery is dominated by hook and line gear. Management in the U.S. West Coast responded to fishery declines only after stock biomass fell below 10% of virgin biomass. Recently, U.S. commercial fishery management has performed well. The Canadian management performance is less known and the stocks appear to be poorly understood. Alaskan management responded to widespread declines in 2000, and the stock now appears more stable.

Based on the five criteria outlined below, lingcod for all three regions are ranked Good Alternative. The conservation concern regarding inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure is moderate throughout lingcod’s range. Stock status is ranked moderate for all regions, but for different reasons. The status of the U.S. West Coast stock is considered “moderate/rebuilding” due to long-term declines and short-term increases. The Canadian stock has experienced long- term declines in some areas, and is described as “moderate” to “unknown” by Canada. The majority of the Canadian fishery is relatively unknown, and is rated here as “moderate/unknown.” The Alaskan stock has experienced long-term declines and appears to be experiencing a short-term increase, but there is more uncertainty in the stock status in Alaska than there is for the U.S. West Coast, thus stock status is rated “moderate/unknown.” Bycatch and habitat effects are ranked according to the degree that trawling is used in the lingcod fisheries. Hook and line methods exhibit low conservation concern for both bycatch and habitat effects. Trawling practices create moderate concern regarding bycatch and high concern regarding habitat effects. With regard to management practices, each of the three management

3 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 regions is considered “moderately effective.” Each region responded after substantial stock declines with appropriate regulations (although the effectiveness of the Canadian regime is still relatively unknown).

It is notable for lingcod stocks that recreational harvest is greater than commercial harvest, and the recent rebound may be undermined by continued increases in recreational catches.

Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherently Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ Nature of Bycatch √ Hook & Line √ Trawl Habitat Effects √ Hook & Line √ Trawl Management Effectiveness √

About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: • A seafood product is ranked “Avoid” if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above. • A seafood product is ranked “Good Alternative” if the five criteria “average” to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the “Status of Stocks” and “Management Effectiveness” criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked “Best Choice” if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern.

Overall Seafood Recommendations:

U.S. West Coast Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Canada Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Alaska Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

4 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Introduction

Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) is a marine finfish inhabiting the west coast of North America, with its center of abundance in British Columbia. It is the largest member of the family Hexagrammidae (greenlings), which includes 11 species (Nelson 1994). Lingcod vary in color from gray-brown to green and bluish, with darker spotting and mottling on upper parts. It is considered common in its range, from west of the Shumagin Islands in the Gulf of Alaska southeastward to Pt. San Carlos, Baja California in Mexico (Miller and Lea 1976).

The preferred habitat for lingcod varies depending on age and gender of the fish. Larvae are pelagic both nearshore and offshore. When 8-10 cm long (3 months), juveniles begin to settle in sand, gravel and eelgrass in bays, estuaries and shallow soft bottoms, then at ages one to two years, move to rocky bottom areas. Adults are often found on rocky bottom substrate from the intertidal zone to more than 300 m depth on the continental shelf, but typically prefer 0 to 70 m depth. Adults can grow to more than 1 m in length and live for 20 years (AFSC 2004). Males set up territories in late fall on spawning grounds. Females briefly deposit eggs and then males aggressively guard the large egg nests during winter and spring. The timing of aggregations, spawning, and egg hatching vary somewhat throughout the range. Hatching typically occurs by April in Washington but has been reported as early as January or as late as June (Jagielo et al. 2003). The spawning aggregations and male nest-guarding behavior leave males somewhat vulnerable to fishing gear.

There are three regions that manage the relevant lingcod fishery within the international range. From south to north, those regions are the U.S. West Coast, Canada, and Alaska.

U.S. West Coast In the U.S. West Coast (Washington, Oregon and California) the lingcod fishery is managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) as groundfish under their Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Pacific Coast Region, Figure 1).

Figure 1. The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, highlighting domestic management regions. From the Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

In January 2000 the Secretary of Commerce declared a disaster for the groundfish fishery. There are 89 species being managed as groundfish, typically harvested as multi-species complexes because fishing gear usually catches several different species at the same time. Lingcod are now being separately assessed and managed, taking into account both directly-targeted and incidental harvest (“landings”). Incidental harvest is a crucial element in management of the groundfish fishery (Jagielo et al. 2003). The 1997 lingcod assessment concluded that the stock had fallen

5 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 below 10% of its unfished size. Consequently, substantial harvest reductions were imposed coast-wide by the PFMC, and the stock was declared overfished in 1999 (Jagielo et al. 2003).

Domestic lingcod provide limited commercial landings and large recreational catches. Both commercial and recreational fishing involve discarded fish returned to the ocean either dead or alive (bycatch). The numbers of discarded lingcod are substantial, discussed further under Criterion 3.

Canada Canadian stocks are managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), also as groundfish for their Pacific Region. Assessments and management recommendations are contained in Stock Status Reports. The Canadian commercial fishery for lingcod began in approximately 1860, limited primarily to inshore hook and line methods. After the trawl fishery began in the 1940s lingcod catches increased dramatically. Today the principle fishing methods employed are otter trawl and bottom longline. In 1996 bycatch limits of lingcod in the halibut fishery (trawling) were implemented, which resulted in reduced lingcod landings.

An otter trawl consists of a large bag-shaped net dragged along the ocean floor. The trawl net is a long wedge-shaped net that narrows into a funnel (the cod-end). The net mouth is held open by the pressure of moving water on two “otter” doors made of iron-clad wood or metal. Canadian Pacific coast trawl boats or "draggers" are 12 to 33 m long with a crew of two to eight persons. As the trawl is towed, fish entering the net are forced into the cod-end. Mesh sizes are regulated according to the type of fishery so that under-sized fish can escape.

Figure 2. General diagram of an otter trawl, courtesy Matt Squillante, Monterey Bay Aquarium.

The net may be towed for up to three hours. Once the net is full, it is hauled to the surface on a hydraulic drum and hoisted on board to be emptied on deck and the catch sorted. According to DFO (2004), an otter trawl may harvest 60 or more metric tons (mt) of fish at once.

Alaska Alaskan lingcod stocks are managed by the State of Alaska. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages groundfish within all state waters. ADF&G is also responsible for black rockfish and lingcod in both state and federal waters as these fish are not considered groundfish under the groundfish federal fisheries management plans. Lingcod do occur in the Southwest region of southern Alaska (Victoria O’Connell, ADF&G, personal communication), but are harvested mainly in the Southcentral and Southeast regions (Figure 3). Southern Alaska’s three regions—Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast—are researched and managed separately. The majority of Alaska’s lingcod commercial harvest and recreational landings come from the Southeast region (the panhandle). The commercial fishery is open access.

6 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

There is no comprehensive stock assessment for the lingcod stock in Alaska, although an assessment of the most active fishery (Southeast region) should be reported in late 2004. Evidence of increasing fishing pressure and a severe local decline in Resurrection Bay near Seward (near the border of the Southcentral and Southeast regions) led the Board of Fisheries in 2000 to enact comprehensive management changes that include significant overall harvest reduction.

Figure 3. Boundaries and regulatory areas in the Gulf of Alaska, from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Summary of Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, 2001.

Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation: The U.S. West Coast, Canadian, and Alaskan lingcod fisheries are considered in this report. Although the Canadian portion of the range is small in comparison to the U.S. portion (Figure 1), Canadian commercial lingcod landings provide almost 60% of consumable product in the U.S. market. Landings south of the U.S. West Coast are not considered here, as there are no imports reported from Mexico to the U.S. market.

Although recreational harvest, by definition, does not contribute to the market, it is considered in this report. For lingcod, recreational harvest surpasses commercial harvest and consequently is relevant to the status of the lingcod stocks (Figure 4). Recreational harvest is substantial in many U.S. fisheries. According to Coleman et al. (2004), in 2002 59% of all U.S. landings of marine finfish were attributable to recreational fishing for populations of concern on the Pacific Coast. The estimated total recreational harvest of lingcod in the U.S. in 2002 was 1208.8 mt, 2.75 times greater than the commercial harvest of 438.8 mt. By 1 700 state, 301.1 mt of lingcod were landed in the

600 recreational fishery in Alaska (2000); 154.7 mt were Commercial 500 Recreational landed in Washington; 239.5 mt were landed in Oregon; and 513.5 mt were landed in California. Further, 400 recreational catch-and-release fishing results in lingcod 300 discards comparable to the number of fish kept.

Harvest (mt) Harvest 200

100 Figure 4. U.S. commercial and recreational lingcod harvest by

0 state (Holmes et al. 2003; Walker et al. 2003; MRFSS 2004). AK WA OR CA

1 Estimated round weight of fish harvested in Alaska, 2000. Estimation based on overall mean weight of sport fish harvested in 2000 (19.0625 lbs) in the Southeast Region, except the Alaska Peninsula (Holmes et al. 2003), multiplied by number of fish harvested in 2000 statewide (Walker et al. 2003).

7 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Availability of Science

Because lingcod were declared overfished in 1999 (U.S. West Coast), there are active research programs underway to aid in fishery management and rebuilding. Also available are sophisticated, comprehensive stock assessments and a rebuilding plan for lingcod for the U.S. West Coast. The Alaskan lingcod stocks have not yet been formally assessed, but fishery- dependent data were made available for this report. Detailed information on Canadian stocks is limited to the Strait of Georgia, with only summary information available for the rest of the country’s stocks.

There is a disparity in reporting between commercial and recreational fisheries for all species because recreational fishing is inherently more difficult to track. Accordingly, data are more accessible for the commercial lingcod fishery in all regions compared to the recreational fishery.

Market Availability

Common and market names: Blue cod, bluefish, bocalao (Mexico), buffalo, buffalo cod, card, cod, codfish, cultus, cultus cod, dragonfish, green cod, greenling, greenlinger, kin mutsu (Japan), leopard cod, ling, lingcod, Pacific cultus, skilfish, steamer cod, testoni, white cod (Love 1996; Cailliet et al. 2000 and references therein). Lingcod are not within the cod family (Gadidae) and should not be confused with Pacific or Atlantic cod, nor with sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), which are also known as bluefish or blue cod.

Seasonal availability: Lingcod may be found year-round, but availability is greatest in spring and summer.

Product forms: Lingcod may be marketed as fresh or frozen fillets or portions.

Import and export sources and statistics: U.S. commercial lingcod landings in 2002 were approximately 257.5 metric tons (mt) worth more than $500,000 in ex-vessel value (NMFS 2004).

U.S. imports in 2002 were reportedly a total of 341.3 mt of fresh lingcod worth $968,445 (nominal ex-vessel value). Canadian imports totaled 328.9 mt worth $939,068. The U.S. exported 24.5 mt worth $48,982 to Spain. Accordingly, domestic product available on the U.S. market totaled 225.9 mt. Brazil was also listed as 59.3% importing 12.4 mt of “lingcod” worth $29,377 in 2002 350 (NMFS 2004). Because lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) 300 does not occur in the Atlantic, this discrepancy is likely 250 40.7% due to misidentification. For this report, we include only 200 domestic and Canadian product in our evaluation. 150

100

Figure 5. Total lingcod available in 2002 to U.S. market as domestic 50 (U.S. landings minus exports) and imports (NMFS 2004). (mt) Product Market 0 Domestic Canadian

8 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

In 2003, reported U.S. imports totaled 371.4 mt of fresh lingcod worth $1,141,014. Imports from Canada were 357.4 mt worth $1,065,818. Imports were also described (but are probably misidentified) from the Bahamas as 7.7 mt worth $55,484, from Brazil as 3.4 mt worth $4,974, and from New Zealand as 3.0 mt worth $14,738. In 2003 the U.S. exported 2.7 mt worth $4,000 to Japan. The U.S. trade balance for lingcod in 2002 was negative: 316.8 mt worth $919,463. The 2003 trade balance for lingcod was also negative: 368.7 mt worth $1,137,014.

Misidentification of lingcod imports may include the Brazilian codling, Urophycis brasiliensis of the family Phycidae, a commercial species ranging from Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to south of Mar del Plata, Argentina (Acuña et al. 2000). Also, seafood distributors in the southwestern Pacific offer “ling,” which is genus Genypterus of the Ophidiidae family.

Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species

Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure

Life history parameters differ slightly between male and female lingcod, and also among geographic locations. PFMC’s Fishery Management Plan (U.S. West Coast) divides the fishery into northern and southern portions of their management zone (Figure 6).

Both genders grow rather rapidly, and begin to mature at age two. For males, 50% are mature at age three, and for females, 50% are mature at age five. Maximum length and weight for males is 95 cm, 1.2 kg; for females, 127 cm, 3.1 kg (PFMC 2003). Another measure of growth is the Von Bertalanffy growth coefficient “k” used widely in fisheries science. For lingcod, k varies somewhat but generally indicates moderate growth. For northern (Lingcod North, “LCN”) males, k is 0.149, and for LCN females, k is 0.104. For southern (Lingcod South, “LCS”) males, k is 0.223, and for LCS females, k is 0.145 (Jagielo et al. 2003).

Figure 6. Lingcod stock boundaries and location of the Pacific Fishery Management Council area, from PFMC Assessment of Lingcod 2003.

The life span of lingcod is considered to be short to moderate duration. For males, maximum age is variously reported as six to 15 years, and for females maximum age is 12 to 20 years. Reproductive potential is high, with reports from 60,000 eggs/year for a 70 cm female to 500,000 eggs/year for a 118 cm female (Cailliet et al. 2000 and references therein).

As a species, the lingcod geographic range is somewhat narrow because the species is restricted to one coastline; however, their range covers a large area of that coastline. Vulnerability to fishing is increased in species that aggregate for spawning. Lingcod males aggregate in the late

9 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

fall and winter for spawning and to guard egg nests. Large egg masses are usually found in crevices and under ledges in shallow nearshore areas with swift current. Males aggressively guard the nests for eight to ten weeks until the eggs hatch. The aggressive guarding behavior makes males moderately vulnerable to fishing.

Lingcod juveniles have different habitat preferences than adults. Juveniles prefer sandy shallow bottoms such as estuaries, and move to deeper water as they grow. Estuarine habitats are particularly vulnerable to loss and degradation from development and bottom trawling. Adults are usually found on rocky bottoms. Adults prefer a depth range of 10 to 70 m, living on or near the bottom, preying on fish, squid and octopus. Mature females inhabit deeper water than males. Females move to shallow depths for winter spawning (Jagielo et al. 2003). Overall, the resiliency of the habitat to fishery impacts is moderate.

Table 1. Life history characteristics of lingcod.

Life History Preferred Growth Age at Longevity Fecundity Literature Stage Habitat Rate/Max Size Maturity Shallow Juveniles sandy; See below See below N/A N/A Cailliet et al. estuarine 2000; Rocky k=0.149-0.223; 50% at 3 6 to 15 Jagielo et al. Adult males N/A bottom 95 cm, 1.2 kg years years 2003; Adult Rocky k=0.104-0.145; 50% at 5 12 to 20 60,000-500,000 PFMC 2003 females bottom 127 cm, 3.1 kg years years eggs/yr

Synthesis Lingcod exhibit high reproductive output and juveniles are relatively fast-growing, increasing their resiliency to fishing pressure. Their overall growth rate and longevity, however, leaves them moderately vulnerable to fishing. Additionally, estuarine juvenile habitat is highly vulnerable and unique adult reproductive behaviors increase the vulnerability of lingcod to fishing pressure. Consequently, overall, lingcod are considered neutral to fishing pressure.

Inherent Vulnerability Rank: Resilient Neutral Vulnerable

Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks

U.S. West Coast The Washington, Oregon and California lingcod fishery is managed by one of the U.S.’s eight fishery management councils, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC; Pacific Coast Region, Figure 1) as part of the multi-species groundfish complex. Abundance is greater within Lingcod North (LCN), which encompasses the U.S.-Vancouver and Columbia areas; Lingcod South (LCS) includes the Eureka, Monterey and Pt. Conception areas (Figure 6). See Appendix 1 for the distribution of lingcod biomass throughout the U.S. West Coast. Note that the scale for the northern region is an order of magnitude greater than for the southern.

10 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

In the past four decades, commercial landings in the northern region typically have been higher than in the southern region (Figure 8). Commercial landings peaked at 3,129 mt in 1985 in the north, and at 1,735 mt in 1974 in the south. The U.S. West Coast lingcod fishery is now under rebuilding management, with reduced annual catches averaging less than 135 mt in both regions.

Figure 7. Comparison of commercial lingcod landings in the northern and southern management areas of the U.S. West Coast, from Jagielo et al. 2003.

Recreational landings have often exceeded commercial landings in the southern waters since the 1980s. In the north also, recreational landings are now a major fraction of total landings (John Field, NMFS, personal communication). The proportion of recreational landings (relative to commercial landings) has increased substantially in both northern and southern waters in recent years (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Comparison of recreational lingcod landings in the northern and southern areas of the U.S. West Coast, from Jagielo et al. 2003.

In 2002 the recreational fishery harvested 83% of the total catch in the south, and 52% in the north (Jagielo et al. 2003). In other words, the recreational fishery in the U.S. (West Coast and Alaska) is presently harvesting more lingcod than the commercial fishery (also see Figure 4).

In 1997 the lingcod stock was assessed as below 10% of its unfished size. Accordingly, in 1999 the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated lingcod overfished. Groundfish are considered “overfished” by NMFS when their population size decreases below 25% (B25%) of the population’s “unfished biomass,” or the size the stock would be if there was no fishing. B represents the stock biomass of mature females. A stock is considered rebuilt when it reaches B40%. Another important stock reference point is F, the fishing mortality rate. The target fishing mortality rate for lingcod is F45%, which is the harvest rate that reduces the spawning biomass per recruit to 45% of the unfished stock. F45% is used as a proxy for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for lingcod. MSY is a central concept in stock management, representing a theoretical measure of optimum harvest level. There is controversy regarding the use of MSY with various scientists advocating a more precautionary approach to management; however, it is still widely accepted as a useful reference point.

The U.S. West Coast lingcod assessment is recent, includes long-term data for both commercial and recreational fisheries as well as robust fishery-independent data, and uses accepted

11 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 standardized methodology. Thus overall uncertainty in stock status is low, but there is more certainty regarding the northern stock than the southern stock.

The long-term abundance trends for both LCN and LCS are down, but there has been a recent rebound. Jagielo et al. (2003) graphed estimated female spawning biomass and depletion for northern, southern and coast-wide stocks (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Estimated female spawning biomass (top) and depletion (bottom) estimated under assumption of asymptotic fishery selectivity, from Jagielo (2003).

Estimates of the female spawning stock biomass (coast- wide) declined from 22,918 mt in 1973 to 1,942 mt in 1994, and then increased to 10,776 mt in 2003. Depletion is the ratio of virgin biomass (B0) divided by biomass at time t (Bt). Female spawning biomass depletion ranged from 0.67 in 1973 to a low of 0.04 in 1994, then increased to 0.23 in 2003.

Unlike slower-growing species (e.g., Sebastes), lingcod mature quickly and are fully recruited to the fishery by age four. Thus their life history characteristics can allow a relatively quick recovery to overfishing. Figure 10 shows large pulses in both northern and southern stocks of one-year-old fish in 1999/2000 that are presently available to the fishery.

Figure 10. Northern (top) and southern (bottom) recruitments used for rebuilding projections (number of age 1 fish in thousands), from Jagielo et al. 2003, Addendum February 1, 2004.

In summary, there has been a long-term decrease in stock abundance but a short-term increase. Uncertainty is greatest for the southern stock, but overall uncertainty is low. The ratios of spawning biomass over virgin biomass are 0.31 in the north, 0.18 in the south, and 0.25 coast-wide (the overfishing threshold is ≤ 0.25). The ratios of spawning biomass over biomass at MSY are 0.78 in the north, 0.44 in the south, and 0.61 coast-wide (the overfishing threshold is ≤ 0.50). The northern stock

12 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 is not overfished, but the southern stock is. Although abundance levels are higher in the northern area (Figure 9 and Appendix 1), catches are higher in the southern area: commercial and recreational catches totaled 632 mt in the southern area and 221 mt in the northern area in 2002.

The recent rebound shows that stocks are rebuilding coast-wide. However, there is concern that recreational catches are a significant factor that could undermine the rebuilding plan (particularly for the southern stock). Thus, U.S. West Coast stocks are rated moderate/rebuilding.

Table 2. Stock status and trends for domestic and foreign lingcod. Spawning Biomass (SpBio) estimates based on data through 2003 (Jagielo et al. 2003, Addendum February 1, 2004). A ratio of SpBio2003/SpBio0 ≤ 0.25 or SpBio2003/SpBioMSY ≤ 0.50 indicates overfishing for West Coast groundfish. SpBioMSY = 40% of SpBio0.

Lingcod Classifica- SpBio2003/ SpBio2003/ Abundance Age/Size/Sex Degree of Stock tion Status* SpBio0 SpBioMSY Trends Distribution Uncertainty U.S. No OFG 8,477/27,024 = 8,477/10,809 = <10% of virgin Depletion‡ Long-term North 0.31 (i.e., 31% of 0.78 (i.e., 78% of biomass, 1997, 0.67 in 1973 to low, short- virgin spawning MSY spawning presently 0.04 in 1994 to term biomass) biomass) increasing 0.23 in 2003 moderate U.S. OFG 4,481/25,603 = 4,481/10,241 = <10% of virgin Depletion 0.67 Long-term South 0.18 (i.e., 18% of 0.44 (i.e., 44% of biomass, 1997, in 1973 to 0.04 low, short- virgin spawning MSY spawning presently in 1994 to 0.23 term biomass) biomass) increasing in 2003 moderate Canada Not Unknown Unknown Long-term No evidence High Applicable declines, no of rebuilding changes in in Georgia short-term Strait Alaska Not Unknown Unknown Decreasing in No signs of Moderate Applicable † 1990s, stable recruitment in since 2001 Resurrection Bay * Based on PFMC (2004); OFG = Overfishing. † Alaska lingcod are not considered “groundfish” and thus do not fall under the federal definitions. ADF&G does not have biological data, but does not consider the stock to be fully fished because commercial quotas are not exhausted (see Appendix 5). ‡ Depletion = female spawning biomass depletion.

Status of Wild Stocks Rank:

U.S. West Coast Lingcod: Healthy Moderate/Rebuilding Poor Critical

Canada Fisheries operating off the coast of British Columbia are managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and lingcod are part of the groundfish fishery. Canadian groundfish include lingcod, ocean perch, sole and flounder, and are primarily caught with otter trawls. In 1979 DFO began implementing an Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) system for the commercial trawl groundfish fishery. The 1999 trawl fleet was made up of 142 licensed vessels (approximately 88 of them recorded landings). By volume, this is the largest fishery on Canada’s west coast, with annual landings of approximately 140,000 mt worth an estimated value of $65 million.

13 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Figure 11 illustrates British Columbia’s trawling grounds and management areas. The majority of the Strait of Georgia (Area 4B) is closed to commercial and recreational lingcod fishing.

The most recent lingcod stock assessment was reported in 2002. Stock parameters such as BMSY and FMSY were not reported (DFO 2002), but summary information states that the Georgia Strait (Area 4B) stock still “warrants conservation concern.” Lingcod abundance of Vancouver Island (3C/D), Queen Charlotte Sound (5A/B), and Hecate Strait (5C/D) are “moderate,” and lack evidence of any strong year classes recruiting through the 1990s. The stock status off Queen Charlotte Island (5E) is “unknown.”

Figure 11. Major statistical areas and Canadian trawl catch locations for lingcod in British Columbia, 1999. From DFO (2002).

The total directed commercial lingcod harvest in 2002 totaled 2,674 mt, and in 2003 totaled 2,765 mt. Directed landings and quotas are described for local areas, below. Most of the reporting areas are termed “Offshore” (3C/D, 5A/B, 5C/D, and 5E), and the Strait of Georgia (4B) is termed “Inshore.”

Directed commercial landings west of Vancouver Island (3C/3D) usually range between 500 and 2000 mt. The first quota was introduced in 1987 at 1400 mt and was reduced in 1998 to 950 mt. In 2002 the yield options in Area 3C were ≤ 1000 mt, and the yield options in Area 3D were 400-800 mt. According to DFO (2002) the commercial CPUE index shows no large consistent changes in lingcod abundance, and ecosystem data show average to below average year classes of many groundfish species.

Trawling is primarily used in Queen Charlotte Sound (Areas 5A/B). Lingcod are reported as a minor component of that fishery, with directed landings steadily declining since 1990. In 1998 the quota was 1100 mt; in 1999 600 mt were landed. In 2002 the yield options were ≤ 1100 mt. The DFO (2002) assessment reports that CPUE had been declining since the late 1980s, but has been fairly constant since 1992.

The years 1991-1995 yielded high landings of ~850 mt in Hecate Sound (5C/D). The first quota for Areas 5C/D was set in 1993 at 1000 mt. In 2002 the yield options were ≤ 1000 mt for Areas 5C/D/E combined. The DFO (2002) states that the CPUE index shows no change in abundance trend, and no evidence that the lingcod stock is being overexploited.

Off the Queen Charlotte Islands (5E) landings peaked at ~150 mt. The 1996 quota was 1000 mt. According to DFO (2002) there is a rapidly expanding live fishery here, but without an adequate trawl CPUE index, the stock status is unknown.

14 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Sources of lingcod abundance data for Inshore Area 4B come from the recreational fishery and intermittent nest density surveys. Creel survey data show that in recent years recreational catches have risen. DFO (2002) reports that the ecosystem status has declined since 1989, rebuilding may not have been possible, and the levels of the spawning stock warrant conservation concern.

Recreational statistics are reported separately for each region, which uses different sampling methods and time periods. Thus recreational catch data are not generally comparable for summarizing the entire Canadian Pacific coast.

Synthesis Detailed stock information for the Canadian lingcod stock was not made available for this report. The summary information available does not adequately gauge stock status. Generally, it appears that the directed commercial fishery for lingcod has experienced long-term declines, and recent trends are flat. Year-class strength appears to vary from below average to stable. The lingcod stocks in the Strait of Georgia appear to be in poor condition, where commercial harvest has been halted but recreational harvest continues. Thus the stocks are rated unknown and are of moderate conservation concern.

Status of Wild Stocks Rank:

Canada Lingcod: Healthy Moderate/Unknown Poor Critical

Alaska The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages lingcod in both state and federal waters for both commercial and recreational catch. Because of its vast size, the State of Alaska has limited ability to perform comprehensive stock assessments; fishery management and reports are generally limited to one of the three regions in southern Alaska (Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast). The majority of lingcod harvest occurs in the Southeast region (the panhandle). The Alaskan directed commercial lingcod fishery uses primarily dinglebar gear (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Diagram of dinglebar gear, from Gordon 1994, used with permission.

With dinglebar gear, a jig (iron bar) is dropped to the bottom to determine depth, then lifted a short distance above the bottom and jigged up and down to lure fish into biting the bait. Bottom contact for dinglebar gear, longline, and trolling gear are much more limited compared to trawling gear. Anchors are used to “find” the bottom but do not stay in constant contact with the bottom, such as with trawls (Recht 2003).

15 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Reporting for the Southeast region, Gordon (1994) showed the emergence of the directed lingcod commercial fishery beginning in 1984. Despite the lack of a stock status report, in February 2000 the Alaska Board of Fisheries responded to the apparent widespread decline in lingcod abundance by substantially changing fishery management practices (Holmes et al. 2003).

Based on the O’Connell and Management Area Proposed 98/98 mean Proposed Brookover (2000) report of GHL harvest reduction declines between 21% and 62% Icy Bay Section 50,000 NA NA in catch per unit effort in 1440 – 1400 (IBS) (new area) Alaska’s Southeast region East Yakutat Section: EYKT 225,000 278,000 -20% 0 0 (1988 to 1999, see Appendix 140 – 137 and Yakutat Bay Northern Southeast Outside 40,000 53,000 -30% 2), Guideline Harvest Levels NSEO (GHLs) were substantially Central Southeast Outside 240,000 342,000 -30% reduced throughout CSEO southeastern Alaska (Figure Southern Southeast Outer Coast 140,000 176,000 -20% 13). SSE-OC Northern Southeast Inside 36,000 51,000 -30% NSEI Figure 13. Harvest level changes (round pounds) to the southeastern Southern Southeast Internal 53,000 53,000 0% Alaska commercial lingcod fishery. SSE-I

In 2002, management implemented the proposed reductions and adopted the new approach that commercial (both directed and bycatch) as well as sport harvest would be included in Guideline Harvest Levels.

According to O’Connell (Groundfish Project Leader Southeast Region), preliminary analysis of recent directed commercial fishery CPUE indicate an increasing trend from 2001 to the present in three of the four management areas, and a stable trend in the fourth. Also, preliminary analysis of density estimates for lingcod indicate that current quotas are conservative. A stock assessment will likely be reported in late 2004.

West of 144º W longitude (Southcentral region) directed commercial fishing for lingcod is found 180 in Prince William Sound (PWS) and Cook Inlet 160 (CI). Compared to the eastern Southeast region, 140 landings are low. The Guideline Harvest Level 120 in PWS is 24,500 round lbs (11.11 mt) and in CI 100 is 52,500 round lbs (23.81 mt), with the season 80 opening July 1. 60 Recreational 40

20 Lingcod Harvest (mt) Figure 14. Estimated weight (mt) of lingcod recreational 0 harvest in Southcentral Alaska (excluding Alaska 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Peninsula) 1987-2000. Data from Meyer and Stock 2002.

16 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

According to Mike Ruccio (Kodiak-Alaska Peninsula Shellfish-Groundfish Management Biologist), in the past 15 years the largest annual directed harvest was 20,000 lbs round weight (9.07 mt).

In contrast to commercial landings, Figure 14 shows that most lingcod removals from the Southcentral region are from the recreational fishery (Meyer and Stock 2002), and that catches are increasing, which may be limiting recovery in that area. Small-scale studies indicate that lingcod abundance in Resurrection Bay remains extremely low, and that signs of recruitment are lacking (Bethe and Meyer 2002). Only 20 individuals were caught despite intensive sampling done in 1998 in Resurrection Bay, suggesting very low abundance levels. Comparisons of length and sex composition between a 1993-1994 study and a 1998 study suggest that little recruitment took place in that time. Accordingly, Resurrection Bay remains closed to lingcod fishing.

Synthesis For Alaska the small-scale closures presently in place (i.e., Resurrection Bay and Sitka sound) appear warranted. Generally, there is a lack of formal stock information regarding lingcod in Alaska, but long-term CPUE data in Alaska’s Southeast region have been made available for this report. The long-term CPUE data show declines, but the recent CPUE trend is more favorable. Thus the stock status is to some extent unknown but may be increasing, warranting the designation “moderate.”

Status of Wild Stocks Rank:

Alaska Lingcod: Healthy Moderate/Unknown Poor Critical

Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch

Seafood Watch® defines sustainable wild-caught seafood as marine life captured using fishing techniques that successfully minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species (i.e., bycatch). Bycatch is defined as species that are caught but subsequently discarded (injured or dead) for any reason. Bycatch does not include incidental catch (non-targeted catch) if it is utilized, accounted for and/or managed in some way.

Groundfish trawl fisheries catch multiple species during each haul. Consequently the nature of the fishery involves frequent discarding of unmarketable or under-sized fish. In contrast, dinglebar and other hook and line techniques for directed lingcod are more selective, with less bycatch.

U.S. West Coast All groundfish occupying nearshore or shelf habitats co-occur with lingcod (depths 0 to 233 fathoms). That includes most of the rockfish (Sebastes) species managed under the PFMC Fishery Management Plan, seven of which are overfished: bocaccio (S. paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), cowcod (S. levi), darkblotched rockfish (S. crameri), Pacific ocean perch (S. alutus), widow rockfish (S. entomelas), and yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus). Also co-

17 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 occurring are sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and some commercially important flatfish such as Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus).

Trawling has historically been the main method of commercial lingcod harvest in the U.S. West Coast. Trawl restrictions are now in place, resulting in approximately half of lingcod landings being taken by trawl, and the other half by hook and line (Figure 15). In 2002 trawling accounted for 67% of the commercial landings in the northern area of the U.S. West Coast, and 36% in the southern area (Jagielo et al. 2003). Averaging these percentages throughout the U.S. West Coast, it is estimated that 50.6% of lingcod landings were harvested by trawl in 2002.

Figure 15. Commercial lingcod landings in the U.S. 120 Northern West Coast in 2002, by gear type used. S T = shrimp 100 trawl, which were not computed in 2002 percentages Southern of “trawling” reported. Data from Jagielo et al. 80 (2003). 60

Another source of bycatch is the recreational 40 catch-and-release fishery, which discards 2002 Commercial Commercial 2002 20

lingcod alive or dead. In 1998 the (mt) Landings Lingcod recreational size limit increased from 22 to 0 l ll t t r w L T o o e e ra & S r P N th 24 inches and in 2000 a California seasonal T H T O closure was implemented, which resulted in a substantial increase in lingcod discarded live (Figure 16). This phenomenon is most pronounced in southern California. In 2002 the estimated number of lingcod discarded alive in southern California was 305,000; the total number of landed fish was around 25,000.. The state of Washington estimated that 57% of the recreational catch in 2002 was discarded either alive or dead.

Because lingcod lack a swim bladder, their survival rate after being released alive is much greater than for those with a bladder, such as rockfish (Sebastes). Albin and Karpov (1998) tested the survivorship of lingcod caught by sport rod-and-reel and trolling equipment in California. They found 4.3% of the fish caught by rod-and-reel died of capture-related injuries and none of the troll-caught fish died. 600 500 Dead Figure 16. Estimated percentage of the lingcod recreational Alive 400 catch discarded averaged across all regions in the U.S. West Coast. From Jagielo 2003, data from the Marine Recreational 300 Fisheries Statistical Survey (RecFIN). 200

% recreational 100 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

lingcoddiscarded catch 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 conducted a survival study of trawl-caught lingcod. Survival after 21 days was 100% for tow durations up to five hours when fish were placed in seawater tanks within 10 minutes of capture. Survival dropped dramatically for lingcod left on deck for more than 10 minutes. See Appendix 4 for detailed results.

Interestingly, the increases in discarding suggest the possibility of recent good recruitment. The Stock Assessment Team reviewing the 2003 lingcod assessment stated the following:

18 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

It was reported to the Panel that both recreational and commercial fisheries are seeing a lot more lingcod in recent years than they have seen previously. It is unclear whether this is due to a shift in fishing area due to management regulations, local abundance changes, or total abundance changes. However, recent increases in discarding suggest the possibility of recent good recruitment. Although the model results show an increasing trend in recent years, there are not signs of much higher recruitment. This apparent discrepancy needs to be explored further.

Synthesis Approximately half of the directed commercial lingcod fishery in the U.S. West Coast employs trawl gear, which inherently results in large discard levels of various species that include overfished Sebastes. However, approximately half of the directed commercial fishery utilizes hook and line gear, which results in much less bycatch than bottom trawl gear. There is a large quantity of bycatch of live lingcod in the recreational fishery, but Albin and Karpov (1998) report low mortality rates. Consequences to lingcod populations and the ecosystem from bycatch in the lingcod fishery are not well known. The effect of bycatch is considered minimal for lingcod caught with hook and line gear and moderate for lingcod caught with trawl gear.

Nature of Bycatch Rank: Hook & Line Trawl Gear U.S. West Coast Lingcod: Minimal Moderate Severe Critical

Canada Commercial lingcod annual landings in Canada for 2002-2003 were reported according to

75.6% method of take (excluding charter and seamount trips) that 2000 include directed and incidental landings. Trawling accounted

1500 for 1897.9 mt, and hook and line accounted for 613.20 mt (DFO 2004). Thus, bottom trawling is used in 75.6% of the 1000 24.4% Canadian commercial landings (Figure 17).

500 Annual Commercial Lingcod Landings (mt) 0 Figure 17. Annual commercial Canadian lingcod fishery 2002-2003 Trawl Hook & Line landings (mt) by fishing method, from DFO Pacific Region, Groundfish.

The groundfish trawl fishery includes bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis), which has been designated as threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). If bocaccio is legally listed under the Species at Risk Act, DFO will re-examine management practices of their groundfish fishery.

Synthesis The majority of the directed commercial lingcod fishery in Canada utilizes bottom trawling gear, with total directed commercial lingcod landings via bottom trawl near 1900 mt. Bycatch includes a species that may potentially be listed as threatened. However, the percentage of

19 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

bycatch in relation to target landings is unknown. The effect of bycatch is considered minimal for lingcod caught with hook and line gear and moderate for trawl gear.

Nature of Bycatch Rank: Hook & Line Trawl Gear Canada Lingcod: Minimal Moderate Severe Critical

Alaska There is no trawling allowed in state or federal waters for any species in the eastern Gulf of Alaska (east of 140º longitude) with the exception of the internal waters where there is a very small trawl fishery for flatfish in three areas near the port of Wrangell on a seasonal basis. Those efforts and landings are described as very small or almost trace. In southeast Alaska only hook and line gear are allowed for lingcod. The directed commercial fishery uses dinglebar gear (Figure 12), which is selective for lingcod. According to Gordon (1994), the predominate bycatch from the directed lingcod fishery is yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), which averages 3% of the total weight, and other Sebastes species totaling <1%.

Management in southeast Alaska allows lingcod as bycatch for salmon troll gear or longline gear (5% for halibut longline, 35% for other longline). Bycatch allocations have been generally adhered to, as seen in Appendix 5 for the years 2000 to the present.

Within Alaska state waters, Cook Inlet (CI) and Prince William Sound (PWS) are closed to bottom trawling for groundfish with the exception of a single permit for sablefish. For all gear types, there is a limited directed lingcod fishery in CI and PWS; from 1988-2003 the largest directed lingcod harvest was 20,000 lbs. round weight (9.07 mt), and the greatest bycatch landed from other fisheries was 14,000 lbs (6.35 mt).

There is extensive trawling in federal waters in the central and western Gulf of Alaska; however, since 1988 the largest annual lingcod harvest by bottom trawl in both state and federal waters was 12,188 round lbs (5.53 mt) in 1996 in CI and PWS (Trowbridge, ADF&G, personal communication). In the central Gulf of Alaska, there is limited bycatch where trawling is allowed because trawlers are not targeting rocky-bottom habitat where lingcod occur.

Synthesis The majority of the directed commercial harvest for lingcod in Alaska occurs in the Southeast region, where there is very limited trawling. The relative lack of trawling activity and the selectivity of the dinglebar/hook and line fishery results in a rank of minimal bycatch.

Nature of Bycatch Rank:

Dinglebar (Hook & Line) Alaska Lingcod: Minimal Moderate Severe Critical

20 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

Ecosystems include both physical and biotic components. The flow of material and energy throughout an ecosystem’s biological web is profoundly influenced by habitat. Marine habitats are characterized by bathymetry and physical topography. Ocean currents also profoundly influence ecosystems. The North Pacific Gyre moves cold subartic surface water east across the Pacific Ocean to the North American west coast, splitting north into the Alaska Current and south into the California Current.

Habitat Lingcod are classified by PFMC as estuarine-mesobenthal (PFMC 2003), meaning juveniles occupy estuarine habitat and adults are bottom dwelling at continental shelf depths typically between 0 and 426 m (233 fathoms). There are two types of preferred adult habitat: hard bottom slopes with seaweed and eelgrass 10 to 70 m deep, and channels with swift currents around rocky reefs. Adults are highly residential, but long migrations of juveniles have been reported. Hard bottom habitat is less resilient to fishing methods than soft bottom habitat.

For groundfish, an important ecological demarcation is water depth or distance from shore. Lingcod are grouped within a distinct species complex inhabiting the continental shelf.

The U.S. West Coast has a relatively narrow continental shelf (compared to the U.S. East Coast). The 200-m shelf break is closest to shore off Cape Mendocino, Point Sur, and in the Southern California Bight. The shelf is widest off central Oregon north to Canada, and in Monterey Bay. See Appendix 6 for bathymetric charts showing the distribution of all lingcod life stages and spawning habitat.

Historically trawling has been limited to soft-sediment bottom types because rocky outcrops snag the net. Recently, however, roller gear or “rockhopper” trawls have been developed, which place rubber rolling bobbins along the footrope, allowing the leading edge of the net to roll or pivot over rocks. More is known of the effects of trawling on soft sediments, with limited information available for trawling effects on rocky bottoms; however, it is recognized that the scraping action inherent in bottom trawling is highly destructive to marine habitats, which has been compared to forest clear-cutting in terrestrial habitats (Watling and Norse 1998).

For soft bottom habitats, it is known that trawling impacts sea-floor communities by scraping the ocean bottom causing 1) sediment re-suspension (turbidity) and smoothing, 2) removal of and/or damage to non-target species, and 3) destruction of three-dimensional habitat (biotic and abiotic; Auster and Langton 1999). The degree of impact is determined by many factors, most notably 1) the type and weight of gear used, 2) the resilience of the seabed, and 3) the amount and frequency of the disturbance. Bottom trawl disturbance of the seabed is mainly a function of bottom type (rock, sand, mud, etc.) and gear type (dredge, beam, otter trawl, etc.).

Some types of trawling gear cause less damage (e.g., otter trawl vs. scallop dredge) and some sediment types (and their associated ecosystems) are more resilient to disturbances caused by trawling. In a review of fishing effects, Collie et al. (2000) found that fauna associated with sandy (coarser) sediments were less affected by disturbance than those in soft, muddy (biogenic) sediments. Recovery rate appears to be slower in muddy and structurally complex habitats,

21 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 while mobile sandy sediment communities can withstand 2-3 trawl passes per year without significant (adverse) change (Collie et al. 2000). Otter trawling has been ranked as causing less disturbance to the sea floor than other types of trawling, such as intertidal and scallop dredging (Collie et al. 2000; NOAA 2002).

Engel and Kvitek (1998) compared two similar adjacent areas in Monterey Bay, California, with gravel to silt-clay bottom. Each area was in 180 m of water; the first was lightly trawled and the second heavily trawled. They found that the heavily-trawled area had more trawl tracks, exposed sediment and shell fragments, and significantly fewer rocks and mounds. In addition, the heavily trawled area had fewer invertebrates, including an important prey item for commercially important flatfishes.

The amount of bottom scraping is somewhat reduced by using roller gear for trawling on rocky bottoms; however, rockhopper gear can produce a larger sediment plume than otter trawl gear (Recht 2003), and it allows a highly destructive fishing method access to sensitive rocky-bottom habitat. In 1999, to prevent trawlers from capturing lingcod and certain rockfish that inhabit high relief rocky bottom habitat, PFMC limited trawl-footrope size to 20 cm.

Ecosystem Effects Ecosystems are influenced not only by surface currents, but also by vertical water movements. The west coasts of the world’s continents are often very productive due to upwelling of cold nutrient-rich waters into the shallow sun-lit habitat of the continental shelf. The North American west coast is characterized by just such a highly productive environment. It is also characterized by high intrinsic environmental variability that introduces a large degree of uncertainty in management of its natural resources (Sherman 1991). In addition to horizontal current and vertical upwelling, the northeast Pacific is also influenced by periodic episodes that influence ocean temperatures and productivity. El Niño-Southern Oscillation events occur within periods of a few to 10 or 15 years, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can influence ecosystem conditions for 15 to 25 years.

Arguably, lingcod are top predators (Phillips 1959) and their removal may impact ecosystems. Myers and Worm (2003) found that populations of large predatory fish are in decline worldwide, and there is a shrinking global reserve of unexploited fisheries to replace exhausted stocks (Vitousek et al. 1997). Particularly in the northern temperate waters that lingcod inhabit, Pauly et al. (1998) found an overall decline in trophic levels within marine food webs. In other words, large carnivorous fish are being replaced by smaller species that consume plants and tiny plankton, indicating generally unsustainable fishing practices.

Synthesis Trawling causes great habitat damage, and can be employed in rocky bottom habitat that has low resiliency to damage. The U.S. West Coast, Canada, and Alaska differ in the amount of trawling allowed in their respective commercial lingcod fisheries. The U.S. West Coast fishery utilizes approximately 50% trawling, the Canadian fishery is dominated by trawling, and the Alaskan fishery is dominated by hook and line methods. The Canadian assessment lists ecosystem damage to the Strait of Georgia and off the coast of Vancouver Island. For all regions, fishing occurs on a large scale in habitat that has low resilience to disturbance. Removal of predators in

22 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

general causes damage to ecosystems, but specific information regarding the ecosystem effects from lingcod removal is lacking.

Effect of Fishing Practices Rank:

U.S. West Coast and Canada Lingcod: Hook & Line Trawl Gear

Benign Moderate Severe Critical

Alaska Lingcod: Hook & Line

Benign Moderate Severe Critical

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime

U.S. West Coast The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (amended on October 11, 1996, and renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or MSA) established a U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between 3 and 200 miles offshore (Figure 1). The Act addresses foreign fishing and manages domestic fishing. The Act also created eight regional fishery councils to manage the living marine resources. Guidelines are detailed within fishery management plans, which are amended yearly via Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) technical reports.

The MSA states: “For a fishery that is overfished, any fishery management plan, amendment, or proposed regulations … shall … specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery.” The goal of rebuilding a stock is to return the population size to BMSY in as short a time as possible while incorporating socioeconomic considerations. PFMC developed rebuilding plans in Amendment 12 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Management Plan, which was later revised as Amendment 16-2 and became effective on May 13, 2004. There are robust stock assessments available to managers in formulating rebuilding plans. The MSA requires that rebuilding plans be reviewed routinely, at least every two years to evaluate progress. The rebuilding plan for lingcod adopted June 2003 predicts a 60% probability that the stock will be rebuilt by the year 2009.

Figure 18. History of PFMC lingcod Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs), Harvest Guidelines (HGs) or Optimum Yields (OYs) and landings from 1983 to 2003, from (Jagielo et al. 2003).

23 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

A key parameter in fishery management is the amount of landings allowed per year, which can be measured as Optimum Yield (OY). The OY for lingcod in 1998 was 838 mt; the OY was then reduced under the rebuilding plan to 577 mt for 2002. The 2002 landings (commercial and recreational) exceeded the OY set by PFMC by 51% (Jagielo et al. 2003), in part due to a large increase in recreational catch in northern California.

The current rebound in lingcod stocks can be attributed to management’s effective response in decreasing commercial catches and the recent pulse of recruitment to the fishery. For the northern stock, Figure 19 shows lowered commercial catches, as well as an upward trend in vulnerable biomass (fish available to the fishery). Trends are similar in the southern stock

Figure 19. Commercial catch and lingcod biomass available to the fishery for the northern lingcod stock. Biomass is based on model output from the stock assessment (Jagielo et al. 2003).

However, there is concern that continued increase in recreational catches could undermine recent gains in the lingcod stock, especially in the south. Figure 20 illustrates recreational biomass vs. catches for the northern lingcod stock, and trends are similar in the southern stock.

Figure 20. Recreational catch and lingcod biomass available to the fishery for the northern lingcod stock. Biomass is based on model output from the stock assessment (Jagielo et al. 2003).

Fishing mortality from bycatch is a crucial component in the commercial groundfish fishery. PFMC has begun developing a trawl bycatch model to assess this component. The West Coast Groundfish Observer program began in August 2001. The estimated discard (2001-2002) of observed catch of lingcod was 78.8%. In 2002 the PFMC Groundfish Management Team began inflating observed discards by 20% to account for unobserved lingcod mortality. Thus the inflated proportion of discarded lingcod is 94.6%.

The recreational fishery has monitoring programs in place. Figure 16 shows the proportion of recreation discard to be greater than 300%. For this report we did not see evidence that either the commercial or recreational sectors have bycatch elimination plans in place.

Synthesis Management is committed to robust and frequent stock assessments that utilize fishery- dependent and -independent data, logbooks are required and there are observer and dockside reporting programs in place. Restrictive regulations, however, were not put in place until there was significant stock decline (less than B10%). Management’s recent regulations for the commercial lingcod fishery have been effective in that the stocks are now rebuilding, but there is

24 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007 concern over high recreational catches. These factors result in a rating of moderately effective management.

Effectiveness of Management Rank:

U.S. West Coast Lingcod:

Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical

Canada There is substantial uncertainty in the Canadian lingcod stock status, as reported by the 2002 lingcod stock assessment, and a bycatch plan is not included. Enforcement measures include logbook records, and substantial dockside monitoring. Responsible fishing practices are promoted through education and individual quotas for trawlers.

Effectiveness of Management Rank:

Canada Lingcod:

Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical

Alaska The vast size of Alaska makes management inherently difficult. The actions taken by the Board of Fisheries in 2000 to reduce harvest in the Southeast region were substantial and warranted. In 2000 and 2001 the State of Alaska restricted bag limits and minimum lengths by emergency order. Those regulations were not effective initially, however, in reducing sport harvest to the Guideline Harvest Levels. Appendix 3 shows that the estimated harvest exceeded the allocations for some areas in 2000 and 2001, but recent efforts have been more successful. Recent initial indications of stabilization in the fishery are promising, and a stock assessment in the Southeast region should be available in late 2004.

Effectiveness of Management Rank:

Alaska Lingcod:

Highly Effective Moderately Effective Ineffective Critical

25 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Overall Evaluation and Seafood Recommendation

Lingcod is a commercially and recreationally important groundfish inhabiting the west coast of North America, with its center of abundance in British Columbia. Adult lingcod are found on rocky bottom substrate from the intertidal zone to water more than 300 m in depth on the continental shelf and juvenile lingcod are found in shallow estuarine waters. Three major management regimes exist for lingcod along the west coast of North America: the U.S. West Coast, Canada, and Alaska. Nearly 60% of the lingcod on the U.S. market is harvested by Canada.

Lingcod exhibit high reproductive output and juveniles are relatively fast-growing, increasing their resiliency to fishing pressure. Their overall growth rate and longevity, however, leaves them moderately vulnerable to fishing. Additionally, estuarine juvenile habitat is highly vulnerable and unique adult reproductive behaviors, including aggregating to spawn and aggressive guarding of nests by male lingcod, increase the vulnerability of lingcod to fishing pressure. The wild stocks in the U.S. West Coast have experienced long-term declines followed by a recent stabilization trend. The Alaskan stocks are not as well known, but appear to be rebounding due to timely management action after an initial decline. The Canadian stocks are even less well known, though generally it appears that the directed commercial fishery for lingcod in Canada has experienced long-term declines, and recent trends are flat. The lingcod stocks in the Strait of Georgia, however, appear to be in poor condition, where commercial harvest has been halted but recreational harvest continues. Recreational harvest, overall, for lingcod is greater than commercial harvest, and recent rebounds in some areas may be undermined by continued increases in recreational catches.

Bycatch and ecosystem/habitat effects of the lingcod fisheries within the three management regimes depend in large part on the extent of trawling allowed for the directed commercial harvest. Bottom trawling indiscriminately collects multiple species and causes great damage to bottom habitat, particularly when targeting lingcod in rocky bottom habitat, which has low resilience to disturbance. Hook and line gear result in minimal bycatch and little impact to bottom habitat. Half of the U.S. West Coast harvest employs bottom trawl gear, while the other half uses hook and line methods. Trawling accounts for 75% of the Canadian fishery, but the Alaskan fishery is dominated by hook and line gear. There is also a large quantity of bycatch in the recreational fisheries of the three management regimes, though mortality rates for released lingcod are reported to be low. Consequences to lingcod populations and the ecosystem from bycatch in the lingcod fisheries are not well known.

Management in the U.S. West Coast responded to fishery declines only after stock biomass fell below 10% of virgin biomass, though recently, U.S. commercial fishery management has performed well. The Canadian management performance is less known and the stocks appear to be poorly understood. Alaskan management responded to widespread declines in 2000, and the stock now appears more stable. The management regimes in each of the three management regions are considered “moderately effective,” and lingcod in each of the three regions along the west coast of North America is given the overall recommendation of Good Alternative.

26 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherently Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ Nature of Bycatch √ Hook & Line √ Trawl Habitat Effects √ Hook & Line √ Trawl Management Effectiveness √

About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: • A seafood product is ranked “Avoid” if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above. • A seafood product is ranked “Good Alternative” if the five criteria “average” to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the “Status of Stocks” and “Management Effectiveness” criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked “Best Choice” if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern.

Overall Seafood Recommendations:

U.S. West Coast Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Canada Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

Alaska Lingcod: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

27 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Acknowledgements

The Seafood Watch® program would like to thank Dr. John Field of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Dr. Rick Starr of the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program, and Victoria O’Connell of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for reviewing all or a portion of this document.

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of Seafood Watch® on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Supplemental Information

Consumption advice on the Seafood Watch© pocket guides is provided by Environmental Defense Fund. Environmental Defense Fund applies the same risk-based methodology as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to data from government studies and papers published in scientific journals.

Environmental Defense Fund has issued a consumption advisory for lingcod for men and women (ages 18-75) and children (ages 0-12) due to elevated mercury levels. Consumption of lingcod should be limited to one meal per month for children and two meals per month for men and women (recommended meal sizes are 3 ounces and 4.5 ounces, respectively). There is no consumption advisory for adults. More detailed information about the Environmental Defense Fund advisory can be found at http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15732.

28 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

References

Acuña, B. A., F. Viana, D. Vizziano, and E. Danulat. 2000. Reproductive cycle of female Brazilian codling, Urophycis brasiliensis (Kaup 1858), caught off the Uruguayan coast. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 16:48-55.

AFSC. 2004. Personal communication from NMFS, Seattle WA. Available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/behavioral/default_fbe.htm. in. Alaska Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Behavioral Ecology Program.

Albin, D., and K. A. Karpov. 1998. Mortality of lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus, related to capture by hook and line. Marine Fisheries Review 60:29-34.

Auster, P. J., and R. W. Langton. 1999. The Effects of Fishing on Fish Habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:150-187.

Bethe, M. L., and S. C. Meyer. 2002. A survey of lingcod in Resurrection Bay and the Chiswell Islands, Gulf of Alaska, 1998. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Cailliet, G. M., E. J. Burton, J. M. Cope, L. A. Kerr, R. J. Larson, R. N. Lea, D. VenTresca, and E. Knaggs. 2000. Biological characteristics of nearshore fishes of California: a review of existing knowledge and proposed additional studies, submitted to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958-1960.

Collie, J. S., S. J. Hall, M. J. Kaiser, and I. R. Poiner. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:785-798.

DFO. 2002. Lingcod. DFO Science Stock Status Report A6-18.

DFO. 2004. Personal communication from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, available at http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/groundfish/GFTrawl/fishery.htm. in. Pacific Region Fisheries Management.

Engel, J., and R. Kvitek. 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12:1204-1214.

Gordon, D. A. 1994. Lingcod Fishery and Fishery Monitoring in Southeast Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 1:140-152.

Holmes, R. A., T. E. Brookover, M. W. Schwan, S. H. Hoffman, R. E. Chadwick, D. F. Fleming, R. P. Ericksen, R. E. Johnson, S. McCurdy, B. J. Glynn, and M. J. Jaenicke. 2003. Area management report for the sport fisheries of Southeast Alaska, 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

Jagielo, T. H., F. R. Wallace, and Y. W. Cheng. 2003. Assessment of lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus). Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

29 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Love, M. S. 1996. More than you wanted to know about fishes of the Pacific Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara.

Meyer, S. C., and C. E. Stock. 2002. Management report for Southcentral Alaska recreational halibut and groundfish fisheries, 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1976. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Fishery Bulletin.

MRFSS. 2004. U.S. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey. in. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.

Myers, R. A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280-283.

Nelson, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the World, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

NMFS. 2004. Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/. in. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division.

NOAA. 2002. Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the Northeastern United States, October 23-25, 2001. Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee, Boston, Massachusetts.

O'Connell, T., and T. Brookover. 2000. Alaska Board of Fisheries Charge to the Lingcod Fishery Task Force, RC182.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. NOAA.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860-863.

PFMC. 2003. Amendment 16-2: Rebuilding plans for darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, canary rockfish, and lingcod. Environmental impact statement and regulatory analyses.

Phillips, J. B. 1959. A review of the lingcod Ophiodon elongatus. California Fish & Game 45:19-28.

Recht, F. 2003. Description of fishing gears used on the U.S. West Coast, draft. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: research and management strategy for living marine resources. Ecological Applications 1:349-360.

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.

30 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Walker, R. J., C. Olnes, K. Sundet, A. L. Howe, and A. E. Bingham. 2003. Participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

Watling, L., and E. A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology 12:1180-1197.

31 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 1. Geographic distribution of lingcod biomass (kg/ha) within the U.S. West Coast management zone. Survey estimates from the NMFS Triennial Shelf Trawl Surveys for all years combined (1977, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001), from (Jagielo et al. 2003). a) Northern

b) Southern

32 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 2. Catch Per Unit Effort (lingcod/hook hour) for the directed commercial fishery in the Southeast region of Alaska with 95% confidence limits, by area and year (O'Connell and Brookover 2000).

CSEO Summer Directed CPUE NSEO Summer Directed CPUE

1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 fish/hook hour fish/hook fish/hook hour 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 year Year

EYKT Summer Directed CPUE SSE-OC Summer Directed CPUE

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 fish/hook hour fish/hook fish/hook hour 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Year

NSEI Summer Directed CPUE

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

33 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 3. Lingcod harvest (lbs) in Alaska sport fishery, by groundfish management area in southeast Alaska. Horizontal blue bars indicate the Alaska Board of Fisheries Guideline Harvest Levels. From ADF&G’s Area Management Report for the Sport Fisheries of Southeast Alaska, 2002 (Holmes et al. 2003).

34 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 4. Survival rate of lingcod caught by trawl: a) duration of tow, b) duration of time left on deck. From Oregon Department of Fish and Game.

a)

b)

35 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 5. Lingcod fishery update (8/16/04) for Alaska’s Southeast region, from Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Division.

2004 Lingcod Landed in the Directed Lingcod Fisheries, Bycatch in the Longline Fisheries & Bycatch in the Salmon Troll Fishery Lingcod Combined Round Status Pounds Area Quota Landed Remaining L_IBS 66,660 43,922 22,738 open 2004 Directed Lingcod Fishery Lingcod Directed Round Status Pounds Area Quota Landed Remaining fishery opens 05/16 L_EYKT 86,000 100,891 -14,891 closed 05/20 L_NSEO 17,200 2,609 14,591 open L_CSEO 86,400 22,014 64,386 open L_SSEOC 50,100 50,100 open L_NSEI 0 0 closed L_SSEIW 0 0 closed 2004 Lingcod Landed as Bycatch in Longline Fisheries Lingcod Longline Round Status Pounds Area Quota Landed Remaining fishery opens 01/01 L_EYKT 94,000 63,611 30,389 open L_NSEO 10,800 12,391 -1,591 closed 05/19 L_CSEO 55,200 34,092 21,108 open L_SSEOC 28,390 19,722 8,668 open L_NSEI 9,600 9,875 -275 closed 05/07 L_SSEIW 2,080 1,357 723 open 2004 Lingcod Landed as Bycatch in the Salmon Troll Fishery Lingcod Troll Round Status Pounds Area Quota Landed Remaining fishery opens 05/16 L_EYKT 16,000 6,935 9,065 open L_NSEO 3,200 3,607 -407 closed 07/29 L_CSEO 16,800 6,419 10,381 open L_SSEOC 3,340 3,277 63 closed 08/09 L_NSEI 6,400 333 6,067 open L_SSEIW 2,080 475 1,605 open

* Quotas and harvest shown above are based on round pounds of Lingcod.

36 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

History of Lingcod Bycatch in the Longline Fisheries 2003 2002 2001 2000 Management Closure Area Allocation Catch Date Allocation Catch Allocation Catch Allocation Catch L-IBS* *66,660 10,822 33,330 20,470 33,330 21,746 33,330 12,506 L-EYKT 94,000 41,578 94,000 41,230 94,000 70,662 94,000 68,760 L-NSEO 10,800 13,319 7-May 10,800 15,877 10,800 14,917 10,800 13,662 L-CSEO 55,200 45,007 55,200 55,988 55,200 45,976 55,200 41,392 L-SSEOC 28,390 25,742 28,390 26,475 28,390 24,756 28,390 27,150 L-NSEI 9,600 9,771 3-Aug 9,600 8,606 9,600 10,757 9,600 7,745 L-SSEIW 2,080 2,747 5-Feb 2,080 2,873 2,080 1,562 2,080 2,159 History of Catch in the Lingcod Directed Fishery 2003 2002 2001 2000 Management Closure Area Allocation Catch Date Allocation Catch Allocation Catch Allocation Catch L-IBS* *66,660 confidential NA 0 NA 0 NA 221 L-EYKT 86,000 101,419 21-May 86,000 93,172 86,000 88,688 86,000 160,744 L-NSEO 17,200 14,493 17,200 16,258 17,200 17,593 17,200 18,188 L-CSEO 86,400 75,652 96,000 59,091 96,000 24,041 96,000 65,424 L-SSEOC 50,100 48,762 63,500 10,261 63,500 6,966 63,500 62,083 L-NSEI NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 L-SSEIW NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 History of Lingcod Bycatch in the Salmon Troll Fishery 2003 2002 2001 2000 Management Closure Area Allocation Catch Date Allocation Catch Allocation Catch Allocation Catch L-IBS* *66,660 1,427 33,330 2,137 33,330 536 33,330 1,217 L-EYKT 16,000 8,728 16,000 29,249 16,000 15,352 16,000 12,201 L-NSEO 3,200 4,010 22-Jul 3,200 9,393 3,200 4,991 3,200 L-CSEO 16,800 12,464 16,800 13,472 16,800 4,397 16,800 **25,497 L-SSEOC 3,340 3,194 22-Aug 3,340 684 3,340 1,095 3,340 1,690 L-NSEI 6,400 1,614 6,400 1,787 6,400 1,307 6,400 1,933 L-SSEIW 2,080 1,997 22-Aug 2,080 44 2,080 75 2,080 788 Quotas shown above are based on round pounds of Lingcod. * In 2003 the lingcod allocation in the IBS Subdistrict became a combined allocation for the directed commercial lingcod fishery, bycatch in the commercial salmon troll fishery & bycatch in the commercial longline fisheries. ** In 2000, CSEO and NSEO troll catch is combined

37 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

Appendix 6. Lingcod habitat for all life stages within the U.S. West Coast EEZ. From (PFMC 2003).

38 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

39 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

40 MBA_SeafoodWatch_LingcodReport_06012007.doc June 1, 2007

41