80% of US Squid

Market Squid Doryteuthis (Loligo) opalescens

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

California Purse Seine

November 9, 2012 Oren Frey, Consulting Researcher

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

Final Seafood Recommendation

This report provides recommendations for the US domestic fishery for market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens, formerly Loligo opalescens). Nearly all market squid are fished and landed in California using purse seines, and are considered a Good Alternative.

Impacts Impacts on Manage- Habitat and Fishery on the Overall Other Species ment Ecosystem Stock Lowest scoring Rank species Rank Rank Recommendation

(Score) Rank*, (Subscore, (Score) (Score) (Score) Score) Market Squid, GOOD Purse Seine Yellow Northern Anchovy Yellow Yellow ALTERNATIVE (2.64) Yellow, (2.64,2.64) (2.45) (3.12) (2.7)

Scoring note – scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. * Rank and color in the 'Impacts on other Species' column is defined based on the Subscore rather than the Score. See scoring rules for more information.

Table of Contents

Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2

Executive Summary ...... 4

Introduction ...... 5

Analysis ...... 8 Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ...... 8 Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks ...... 14 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 22 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem ...... 31

Acknowledgements ...... 37

References ...... 37

Appendix A: Review Schedule ...... 46

About Seafood Watch® ...... 47

Guiding Principles ...... 48

Executive Summary

This report provides recommendations for the US domestic fishery for market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens, formerly Loligo opalescens). Market squid range from southeastern Alaska to Punta Eugenia, Baja California Sur, Mexico. The fishery for market squid occurs along the US West Coast and is one of the largest fisheries by mass in the country. Since 1986, nearly all market squid have been fished and landed in California. As such, this report assesses and provides a recommendation for only the purse seine market squid fishery in California.

Market squid are highly resilient to fishing pressure. There is no estimate for market squid biomass and without this information MSY cannot be determined. Factors affecting market squid abundance are minimally understood, and the effects of fishing mortality on the market squid stock are unclear.

Bycatch in the market squid fishery is generally very low and bycatch is most commonly comprised of other coastal pelagic species (CPS). Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) is evaluated as a limiting species. Biomass of northern anchovy is largely unknown. Very little is known about fishing mortality on northern anchovy.

Although management recognizes the need to conduct research on market squid to better understand its life history and population dynamics, the market squid fishery lacks a stock assessment and there is no plan to conduct one. Various management measures are in place, but these are based entirely on fishery-dependent data. Although bycatch concerns in the fishery are minimal, management has not fully addressed the landing of market squid egg capsules and unspawned female market squid by the fishery.

The purse seine fishery for market squid is conducted on sandy and muddy substrate and there is some interaction with the benthos. Managers have closed the waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to market squid fishing boats that use attracting lights. Although several state MPAs protect market squid spawning grounds, there are no regulations to reduce the incidence of bottom contact by purse seine nets. As a key forage species in the California Current ecosystem, market squid can be considered an ‘exceptional species’ and there are efforts underway to assess the ecological impacts of the fishery.

Introduction

Scope of the Analysis and Ensuing Recommendation This report provides recommendations for the domestic US fishery for market squid. Market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens, formerly Loligo opalescens) range from southeastern Alaska to Punta Eugenia, Baja California Sur, Mexico (Okutani and McGowan 1969). The fishery for market squid occurs along the US West Coast and is one of the largest fisheries by mass in the country. Since 1986, nearly all market squid have been fished and landed in California. As such, this report assesses and provides a recommendation only for the purse seine market squid fishery in California.

Species Overview i. Overview of the species and management bodies California market squid is a short-lived species (~9 months) that has been an important commercial fishery species since the 1860s. The purse seine market squid fishery in California is comprised of northern and southern components. The northern fishery around Monterey Bay typically operates from April through November, and the southern fishery around the Channel Islands and coastal areas typically operates from October through March due to regional and temporal differences in peak spawning (Porzio and Brady 2008). The market squid fishery is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) under the 2005 Market Squid Fishery Management Plan (MSFMP). The fishery is also federally monitored by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (CPS FMP).

ii. Production statistics Though established in 1863, California’s market squid fishery did not expand much until the 1980s. Diminishing squid fisheries in other parts of the world drove demand for increased landings of market squid from the US West Coast (NMFS 2012b). Landings have been almost entirely from nearshore waters in California. Though environmental factors have limited landings in some years, the overall trend has been toward increased landings. Market squid landings were over 127,500 mt in 2011 (CDF&G 2012), down slightly from a record high of 130,851 mt in 2010 (NMFS 2012a). In 2010, the mass of this single species fishery was approximately 66% of all capture fisheries in California as well as 41% of the value (Sweetnam 2011). These high landings represent a major increase from lower production levels from 2003 to 2008, when landings fell as low as 40,011 mt (Figure 3). Although landings in the Southern California Bight (the southern fishery) have exhibited ‘regional domination’ in recent years, market squid landings in Monterey Bay (the northern fishery) increased sharply in 2010 and 2011 (Sweetnam 2011). Monterey Bay landings had been less than 1,000 mt per year from 2007- to 2009, and increased to over 20,000 mt in 2010 (Sweetnam 2011).

Figure 3. US landings by calendar year for market squid, including all gear types, 1981-2010. Data from NMFS 2012a

iii. Importance to the US/North American market The growing global market for squid has resulted in an increased demand for US squid. More than 80% of US squid landings (including longfin squid, shortfin squid, and market squid) are exported, with China being the largest market (65% of exports; Sea Fare Group 2011). In China, US squid is often processed into cleaned tubes and tentacles, and then imported to markets in the EU, US, and Japan (Sea Fare Group 2011). US squid imports have been increasing over time, reaching 66,000 mt in 2010 (37,000 mt from China; Sea Fare Group 2011). The growing popularity of fried calamari is the principle driver behind this trend (Sea Fare Group 2011).

Market Squid The market squid fishery is the 5th largest fishery in the US by weight; in 2010 130,850 mt were landed in California, valued at $71,160,775 (Figure 8; NMFS 2012a). In most years, since 1990, the market squid fishery has been the most valuable (in US dollars) and the largest (in tons) in California (CDF&G 2012). The decrease in market squid landings from 2003 to 2008 drove up per-haul market prices and since 2008 the overall value of the fishery has skyrocketed (Sweetnam 2011). Domestic market squid sales are generally made to restaurants, Asian fresh fish markets or for use as bait (PFMC 2011), but there is relatively little domestic demand for market squid. The majority of the commercial catch is exported, and 80% of US squid exports are market squid (Sea Fare Group 2011). In 2010, market squid exports amounted to 92,559 mt (70.7% of total landings), were worth $107 million, and reached 42 countries (Sweetnam 2011). This demand has led to increased effort and landings facilitated by newer, larger, and more efficient vessels and greater processing capacity on shore (PFMC 2008a).

Figure 8. Market (ex-vessel) values by calendar year of total US landings for market squid, 1981-2010. (Data from NMFS 2012a) iv. Common and market names. Market squid have previously been referenced in the literature as Loligo opalescens, prior to the name change to Doryteuthis opalescens. Common names for market squid include California squid, market squid, calamari, opal squid, and opalescent inshore squid (NMFS 2012b).

v. Primary product forms. Edible parts of squid include the arms, the mantle (tube), and the fins, with cleaned tubes and arms, squid rings, stuffed squid, squid steak and calamari being the primary product forms for human consumption (Sea Fare Group 2011). Squid are an excellent source of protein, selenium, riboflavin, and vitamin B12 (NFMS 2012d).

Although most market squid is frozen for human consumption, smaller amounts are sold fresh or canned. Market squid is also sold frozen or live as bait for commercial and recreational fisheries (Porzio and Brady 2008).

Analysis

Scoring guide  All scores result in a zero to five final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of five indicates high performance.  The full Seafood Watch® Fisheries Criteria that the following scores relate to are available on our website at www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for Which You Want a Recommendation

Guiding principles

 The stock is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long-term productivity of the stock or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web.  Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent resilience to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

Stock Fishery Inherent Stock Status Fishing Criterion 1 Vulnerability Mortality Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Rank (Score)

Market Moderate Market Moderate Yellow Squid, Purse Low Concern Squid Concern (3) (2.64) Seine (2.33)

Justification of Ranking

Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability: Low Vulnerability

Key relevant information: Market squid have a low inherent vulnerability due to their short lifespan, fast growth to maturity and rapid recruitment into the fishery.

Detailed rationale:

Factor Market Squid Score Source Average age at maturity ≤6 months 3 (Maxwell et al. 2005) Average maximum age <1 year 3 (Sweetnam 2011; Maxwell et al. 2005) Reproductive strategy Demersal egg layer 2 (Zeidberg 2004; Macewicz et al. 2004) Density dependence Unknown N/A Score (mean of factor scores) 2.67, Low vulnerability

Factor 1.2 Stock Status: Moderate Concern

Market Squid:

Key relevant information:

BCURRENT:BMSY is unknown because biological reference points have not been defined. Very little is known about the stock status of market squid and NMFS’ classification status for the species is “unknown” (NMFS 2012i).

Detailed rationale: The current status of wild market squid stocks and trends in biomass are largely unknown, and NMFS’ classification status for the species is “unknown” (NMFS 2012i). Since there is no biomass estimate for market squid, a stock assessment has not been completed. Because market squid live less than one year and die soon after spawning, there is no generational overlap and the population size reflects only the previous generation’s spawning success and the new generation’s survivorship (NMFS 2012; Porzio and Brady 2008). The commercial harvest from year to year is rather unstable, and paralarvae data indicate sensitivity toward environmental factors (Koslow and Allen 2011). As fishing occurs only on spawning aggregations in shallow water and squid have been documented at greater depths, it is unclear if trends in catch data reflect availability to the fishery or overall stock size (NMFS 2012b; CDF&G 2005). However, the available evidence suggests that dramatic fluctuations in landings are more likely due to changes in abundance rather than mere shifts in availability to the fishery (Reiss et al. 2004). The long- term trend in landings varies greatly (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Comparison of market squid landings for northern and southern fisheries by fishing season (1 April–31 March), from 1980–81 to 2010–11 seasons. (Figure from Sweetnam 2011)

Using sidescan sonar surveys outside Monterey Harbor (northern fishery), Young and colleagues (2011) measured a 95% decrease in the total number of egg mops from 2005 to 2007. This finding correlated with the alarming trend of no landings in the northern fishery in the 2006/2007 fishing season, 2007/2008 season and through most of the 2008/2009 season (CDF&G 2008). However, both southern and even more notably northern landings have increased during the past two seasons. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) has been relatively steady, but CPUE is generally unreliable as a proxy for stock biomass, particularly since the market squid fishery targets only nearshore spawning aggregations (Koslow and Allen 2011). Fishery-dependent data has thus revealed high fluctuations in biomass.

Large population fluctuations from year to year are believed to be largely in response to environmental factors (Koslow and Allen 2011), and market squid abundance appears to be strongly related to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles. During extreme El Niño events (e.g., 1984, 1998, 2006), squid landings and catch per unit effort declined (Zeidberg 2004; Porzio 2012), while in La Niña years they have been high (Marinovic et al. 2003; Marinovic 2007). Although it is possible that lower landings by the fishery during El Niño events are because squid spawning occurs at depths inaccessible to purse seiners, there is evidence of less squid consumption by sea lions during these times (Lowry and Carretta 1997), which supports the belief that lower landings are probably due to major declines in population. Such declines may be due to loss of suitable spawning habitat during El Niño events; squid having to go deeper to find water temperatures within the narrow range in which spawning can occur may decrease spawning success due to a decrease in available oxygen (Zeidberg et al. 2011, Koslow and Allen 2011). Although fishery data suggest that the market squid stock can recover quickly after El Niño conditions, fishery-independent paralarval surveys suggest that the spawning stock may recover more slowly (over several years) than the fishery (Koslow and Allen 2011, Zeidberg and Hamner 2002). Additionally, during less extreme El Niño events (e.g., early 1990s and around 2005), paralarval abundance tends to have been impacted while CPUE was not (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Time series of market squid paralarval abundance ((#/1000 m3)1/2) measured on CalCOFI ichthyoplankton cruises and CPUE for the Southern California commercial fishery (mt/landing). (Figure from Koslow and Allen 2011)

While the natural stock’s age, size and sex distributions are unknown, a troublesome trend experienced in the past decade was a decrease in the mean length and weight of market squid supporting the fishery (Brady 2008; Porzio and Brady 2008). Data from 1999 to 2006 show a general decline in mean squid dorsal mantle length in the northern and southern fisheries with the exception of the southern fishery’s 2005/2006 season (Figure 16). However, further research is needed to include data from more recent years, as this may have been a short term trend correlated with an extreme El Niño event (Porzio 2012).

Figure 16. Mean squid dorsal mantle length by fishing season for fishery-dependent samples taken from Monterey (MRY), the northern Channel Islands (N CI), and Catalina Island (CAT). (Figure from Porzio and Brady 2008)

A high degree of uncertainty persists with regard to the market squid stock. It is unknown whether there is natal homing or migration and mixing between the northern and southern nearshore spawning

grounds targeted by the fishery, as well as whether spawning occurs in deeper waters during fishery off- seasons (Warner et al. 2009; Zeidberg et al. 2011).

Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality: Moderate Concern

Market Squid

Key relevant information: FCURRENT:FMSY is unknown because biological reference points for fishing mortality have not been defined. Very little is known about fishing mortality on market squid.

Detailed rationale: The occurrence of overfishing in the fishery is unknown. Because there is no fishery-independent population survey or measure of biannual recruitment success, it cannot be determined how vulnerable the stock is to fishing pressure. Because of their short life cycle, the entire stock of market squid is renewed twice annually. While such life history characteristics make the species highly resilient, market squid are somewhat vulnerable to fishing pressure because a) they aggregate to spawn, which is when they are targeted by the fishery (Young et al. 2011; Forsythe et al. 2004), b) they are attracted to lights used by fishermen, and c) the sandy nearshore substrate required by market squid for spawning is vulnerable to damage from fishing gear (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003).

In terms of both value and volume, the market squid fishery has been the largest fishery in the state of California for most of the last 15 years (Warner et al. 2009). The northern fishery usually extends from April to November while the southern fishery runs from October to April. This seasonal difference in peak spawning is usually attributed to differences in ocean bottom temperatures (CDFG 2005) or the productive season (Zeidberg et al. 2006). Since the early 1980s, an increasing proportion of the statewide landings have come from Southern California, mainly around the Channel Islands and nearby submarine canyons (Warner et al. 2009). Preliminary numbers for the 2011-2012 fishing season show that the southern fishery landed 106,915 mt and the northern fishery landed 14,613 mt (Porzio 2012). The seasonal catch limit of 107,048 mt, implemented in 2002, was reached for the first time in 2010 and again in 2011—in both instances only 7-9 months into the 12-month season (CDF&G 2010, 2011).

To date, attempts to estimate biological reference points, namely MSY, FMSY, and BMSY, have been unsuccessful (PFMC 2011). Instead, the CDF&G uses an MSY proxy approach (a modified MSY control rule) that is based on the ‘egg escapement method,’ the current informal assessment tool for market squid (PFMC 2002, 2011). ‘Escapement’ in this sense is defined as the proportion of a female squid’s lifetime fecundity that is spawned, on average, before the female is captured in the fishery (PFMC 2002). This lifetime potential fecundity is based on the number of eggs a female has when she begins to spawn. The number of eggs in her body decreases as she lays them, as such, the number of eggs remaining in her body when she is caught compared to the presumed potential fecundity will reveal an estimate of how many eggs she has laid. Management does not count the actual number of remaining eggs and instead uses indirect indices to estimate reproductive output. Indirect indices include mantle length (as body mass is thought to be redirected to reproduction) or gonad mass (as new eggs are not formed once a female begins to spawn) in relation to mantle length (Figure 19; Macewicz et al. 2004). The sampled female squid are thought to be representative of the entire population of female squid caught in the fishery.

Figure 19. One of the indices used in the egg escapement method, showing the number of oocytes in ovaries of 98 market squid as a function of dorsal mantle length. Line expresses potential fecundity as a function of length for 13 mature preovulatory females only (dark circles). (Figure adapted from Macewicz 2003)

The egg escapement method is considered an “informal” management tool due to the substantial spatial and temporal variability in productivity of the market squid population as well as to the constraints of timely data collection, laboratory processing, and modeling (PFMC 2011). The primary focus of the MSY proxy is on the biomass of the stock, and the extraction threshold is set more conservatively than the MSY levels set for actively managed fisheries. In theory, this allows time to assess the need for more active, dynamic management, but in actuality there is a need for the egg escapement method to be conducted on a more systematic basis (PFMC 2011). In 2010, the PFMC approved an OFL of FMSY proxy resulting in egg escapement of at least 30% (Table 1). Further research is needed to determine whether egg escapement as a proxy for MSY is being determined correctly or is even an appropriate proxy. The market squid fishery is managed based on proportional escapement, and there is no calculation for absolute egg production in order to predict future population sizes (Maxwell et al. 2005).

Table 1. Benchmarks approved by the PFMC in 2010 for market squid. (Table from (PFMC 2011).)

Additionally, although CDF&G documents the maturity of all squid during sampling, the current percentage of immature squid in market squid landings is undocumented. In the 1998/1999 season, the figure was 2.6% (Macewicz 2004), but this has likely changed and it is important to continue monitoring for management considerations. Because the egg escapement model is based on only catching mature squid, a large catch of immature squid could greatly overestimate the amount of egg escapement in the population because immature squids produce no eggs (Macewicz 2004; Maxwell et al. 2005). Furthermore, the catch of market squid egg capsules has been increasing over the past several years. From 2006 to 2010, an average of 9.2% of sampled landings contained market squid egg capsules (PFMC

2011). Removing viable egg capsules can lead to negative impacts on the survival of market squid hatchlings; even the physical disturbance of egg capsules can affect normal development or stimulate the premature hatching of embryos (Young et al. 2011).

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Retained and Bycatch Stocks

Guiding principles

 The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level.  Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’ abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

Stock Inherent Stock Fishing Subscore Score Rank Vulnerability Status Mortality (subscore*discard (based modifier) on Rank Rank Rank (Score) subscore) (Score) Market Squid Low Moderate Moderate 2.64 2.64 Yellow Concern (3) Concern (2.33) Northern Low Moderate Moderate 2.64 2.64 Yellow Anchovy Concern (3) Concern (2.33) Jack Low Moderate Very Low 3.87 3.87 Green Mackerel Concern (3) Concern (5) Pacific Low Low Very Low 4.47 4.47 Green Sardine Concern (4) Concern (5) Pacific Medium Low Very Low 4.47 4.47 Green Mackerel Concern (4) Concern (5)

Synthesis Bycatch in the market squid fishery is generally very low and bycatch is most commonly comprised of other coastal pelagic species. Market squid scored lower for Criterion 2 than the four most commonly landed bycatch species in the fishery. Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), the bycatch species with the next lowest score, is evaluated as a limiting species.

Justification of Ranking

Management agencies include summary data on bycatch and discards from regional observer programs in regular publications such as environmental assessments and fishery status reports (Tables 2-4). Non- target species assessed here include those comprising 5% or more the catch, or those with a conservation status of concern (endangered, threatened, overfished, etc.). In the market squid fishery, bycatch is very low, with no incidentally caught species amounting to 5% of the catch. For this fishery, the most frequently caught non-target species were assessed. Assessed species include: Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) and northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). Some protected species caught in the market squid fishery, including California sea lion and harbor seal, are not assessed here since all observed catches were observed to be returned alive. Northern anchovy limit the scores in the U.S. West Coast region.

Table 4. Preliminary catch summary from vessels targeting market squid from NMFS-SWR coastal pelagic species pilot observer program, 2004-2008. (Table from PFMC 2011)

Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability

Northern Anchovy: Low Vulnerability Key relevant information: FishBase vulnerability score for northern anchovy is 33 of 100; inherent vulnerability is low (Cheung et al. 2005).

Pacific Sardine: Low Vulnerability Key relevant information: FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific sardine is 33 of 100; inherent vulnerability is low (Cheung et al. 2005).

Pacific Mackerel: Medium Vulnerability Key relevant information: FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific mackerel is 46 of 100; inherent vulnerability is medium (Cheung et al. 2005).

Jack Mackerel: Low Vulnerability Key relevant information: FishBase vulnerability score for jack mackerel is 30 of 100; inherent vulnerability is low (Cheung et al. 2005).

Factor 2.2 Stock Status

Northern Anchovy: Moderate Concern

Key relevant information: Biomass of northern anchovy is largely unknown.

Detailed rationale: The US West Coast northern anchovy population is divided into three stocks. The northern stock supports an emerging food fishery and a small bait fishery offshore of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. There have been no recent biomass estimates of the northern stock, although it appears to have declined since the 1980s (Baraff and Loughlin 2000). The southern stock is entirely within Mexican waters (Baraff and Loughlin 2000) and is not discussed here. The central subpopulation ranges from San Francisco to Punta Baja, Baja California, with a concentration within the Southern California Bight (between Point Conception, CA and Point Descanso, Mexico) (Baraff and Loughlin 2000). The central stock has supported the largest commercial ﬁshery and has been the most extensively studied; it is thus the focus of our analysis here.

The central northern anchovy population is relatively sedentary compared to other small pelagic stocks, although older and larger individuals venture the farthest north and offshore (Barange et al. 2009). The stock is also believed to move north during El Niño events and at high abundance levels (Methot 1989). While assumed by managers to be at a moderate level of abundance, there is very little current information on the status of northern anchovy populations (NMFS 2012c). Total biomass for year-old ﬁsh of the central stock averaged 326,000 t until the early 1970s, increased to nearly 1.6 million t in

1973, then declined steadily to 500,000 t in 1978. Levels ﬂuctuated through the 1980s, declined during the early 1990s, then increased slightly in 1995 (Figure 22; Baraff and Loughlin 2000). Until 2011, the most recent assessment for northern anchovy stock size was completed by Jacobson et al. in 1995 (PFMC 2011). At that time, biomass was determined to be 392,000 t (Barange et al. 2009).

Figure 22. Annual landings and total biomass of northern anchovy, 1916-2007. Total landings includes Mexican landings. (Figure from NMFS 2009)

In 2011, Fissel et al. updated estimates of critical northern anchovy stock assessment parameters by building a model based on California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) ichthyoplankton data. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) estimates were calculated for the period 1981- 2009 (Figure 23). Although the estimated SSB exhibits peaks in 1997, 2001, and from 2005 to 2006, overall SSB, post-1990, has been relatively low (Fissel et al. 2011). Despite peaks of productivity during those years, recruitment estimates suggest that years of larger SSB did not translate into large recruitment classes due to high mortality during the egg phase. This may be a result of warmer than normal sea surface temperatures and unfavorable wind patterns (Fissel et al. 2011) or due to top-down effects of predation by species such as albacore, which may remove as much as 17% of anchovy pre- recruitment biomass annually (Glaser 2010). While an overall estimate of the stock size is still lacking, it is probable that the period of low productivity and recruitment that has occurred for over fifteen years will combine with northern anchovy’s short life span to lead to a stock size that is smaller than that of the 1980s and 1990s (Fissel et al. 2011).

Figure 23. Comparison of historical and new annual spawning stock biomass (SSBs) 1964–2009 (left panel). Annual spawning stock biomass 1981–2009 (right panel). (Figure from Fissel et al. 2011)

The PFMC considers northern anchovy a “monitored species” and there is no protocol for annual assessments of stock status. NMFS FSSI stock status for both the northern and central stocks is “undefined” (NMFS 2012i).

Pacific Sardine: Low Concern

Key relevant information: Over the past decade Pacific sardine biomass has remained well above the lowest level of estimated biomass at which the PFMC allows harvest, which is 150,000 mt (PFMC 2011a). However, this fishery is vulnerable to natural fluctuations in populations due to changes in sea surface temperature (Baumgartner et al 1992). Though this vulnerability is independent of fishing pressure, when combined, fishing and natural changes in oceanic conditions have the potential to cause steep declines in the Pacific sardine stocks even if current best management practices are followed. Though biomass is believed to be above the level at which recruitment would be impaired, stock biomass relative to a target level such as Bmsy or a proxy is not certain, due to the natural variability of the stock.

Pacific Mackerel: Low Concern

Key relevant information: The most recent full assessment of the ‘northeastern Pacific Ocean’ stock of Pacific mackerel was completed in 2011. Both total biomass (age 1+) and spawning stock biomass declined steadily from the mid 1980s to the early 2000s. Although the population has increased moderately since then, it remains at a relatively low abundance level and this is believed to be primarily due to oceanographic conditions (PFMC 2011). Total biomass for 2011 has been estimated at 211,126 mt (PFMC 2011). NMFS stock status is ‘not overfished.’

Jack Mackerel: Moderate Concern

Key relevant information: Minimal targeting of jack mackerel has resulted in very little knowledge of the stock’s abundance. Like market squid and northern anchovy, jack mackerel are only ‘monitored’ by the PFMC, as the lack of a complete stock assessment precludes active management. As there is no biomass estimate, NMFS stock status is ‘undefined.’

Factor 2.3 Fishing Mortality

Northern Anchovy: Moderate Concern

Key relevant information: FCURRENT:FMSY is unknown because biological reference points for northern anchovy fishing mortality have not been estimated (NMFS 2012i). Very little is known about fishing mortality on northern anchovy.

Detailed rationale: The northern anchovy fishery is managed by means of a low constant quota based on annual harvest data, and harvest has been low in recent years (Table 5; NMFS 2012c). Following the collapse of the Pacific sardine fishery, anchovy landings peaked in the 1970s with a record high of 144,000 t in 1975 (Barange et al. 2009) before falling precipitously through the 1980s and 1990s (Figure 22). From 1983 to 1999, landings did not exceed 6,000 mt per year (PFMC 2011). Anchovy landings reached a much lower peak of 19,277 mt in 2001 and ranged from 11,182-14,285 mt from 2005-2008, but fell to 2,093 mt by 2010. Average landings over the past decade from 2000 to 2010 were 322 mt in Washington, 71 mt in Oregon, and 9,028 mt in California (PFMC 2011). The relatively low catch levels since the 1990s are more a result of poor market conditions and less a reflection of biomass availability (Barange et al. 2009). Harvested primarily by roundhaul purse seines off California, northern anchovy have been sold for reduction to fishmeal, oil, and soluble protein products, used as live and frozen bait in recreational fisheries, used as an ingredient in pet food and, to a lesser extent, marketed for human consumption (NMFS 2009). As sardines recovered and demand and prices for fishmeal fell, catches of northern anchovy declined and the central stock went from being considered “fully exploited” in the early 1990s to “underutilized” by 1999 (Baraff and Loughlin 2000; NMFS 2011a). The fishery is now primarily a bait fishery (NMFS 2012c).

Table 5. Northern anchovy landings data from Washington, Oregon, and California, 2000-2010. Table from PFMC 2011

Previously managed by the CDF&G, the PFMC has managed the fishery for the central stock of northern anchovy since 1978, first under the Northern Anchovy FMP and more recently as a monitored species under the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP (Baraff and Loughlin 2000). Northern anchovy is subject to the same regulations that apply to other species in the CPS FMP including limited vessel entry and provisions to reduce bycatch and increase the survival of incidental catch (PFMC 1998). The ﬁshery operates year-round, from July 1 to June 30 of the following year, and large numbers of age 0-1 fish are taken (PFMC 1998). Anchovies have high natural mortality; 45%–55% of the total stock would die annually in the absence of fishing (NMFS 2012c). Jacobson et al. (1995) estimated that ﬁshing mortality rates had rarely surpassed 17%, but more recent estimates are not available. Through the 1970s and early 1980s, Mexican landings increased, peaking at 258,745 mt in 1981 In 2010,(T awithble 11the- 1)reauthorization. Mexican landi of ngsthe deMagnusoncreased -tStevenso less t haFisheryn 2,324 Conservation mt per yea andr dur Managementing the early Act 1990 s, (MSA)wi, theth PFMCa spik eadopted of 17,772 new m managementt in 1995, pr ibenchmarksmarily during for t henorthern month sanchovy of Sept (Tableember 6thr). oTheugh November. overfishingCatche limits in (OFL) Ense valuesnada de arecr ebasedased tono 4,past168 estimates mt in 19 96;of biomass and rem (Jacobsonained at letes sal. t ha1995)n 5, 000and themt tABChrou gh values2007. account for a 75% uncertainty buffer in the OFL. The annual catch limit was set equal to the ABC. An annual catch target (ACT) for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy was established In 2010, with the reauthorization of the MSA, the Council adopted new management (NMFS 2012c). There are no specified criteria for deciding when to adjust this quota, although benchmarks for northern anchovy. The overfishing limit (OFL) values are based on past managers may adjust benchmarks or otherwise change the level of the fishery’s management if landings estimates of biomass and the ABC values account for a 75% uncertainty buffer in the OFL. The increase significantly or exceed the annual catch limit (NMFS 2012c). annual catch limit was set equal to the ABC. An annual catch target (ACT) for the northern

subpopulation of northern anchovy was established. Table 6. Management benchmarks adopted by the PFMC in 2010 for northern anchovy. Table from PFMC 2012c

Stock OFL ABC ACL ACT Northern anchovy, 39,000 mt 9,750 mt Equal to ABC 1,500 mt northern subpopulation Northern anchovy, 100,000 mt 25,000 mt Equal to ABC central subpopulation

11.2.2 Jack Mackerel

Until 1999, jack mackerel were managed under the Council's groundfish FMP. Jack mackerel are now a monitored species under the CPS FMP. This species has not been significantly targeted on the West Coast and accordingly, regular stock assessments or efforts to collect biological information on jack mackerel. The SWFSC Acoustic-Trawl survey, which began in 2006 and was approved by a methodology review panel in early 2011, may be used to provide abundance estimates in the future. Management efforts to collect fishery-dependent age composition data, such as the CDFG Port Sampling Program, are in place for the two actively managed CPS (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel), but not for jack mackerel, aside from samples taken prior to 1995. Previous discussions of jack mackerel, such as in the groundfish FMP, are brief:

Available data indicate that the current, nearly un-used spawning biomass is about one million mt, the natural mortality rate is in the range of 0.1 to 0.2, a fishery located north of 39° N latitude would harvest fish that are mostly older than age 16, and the long-term potential yield for this age range is 19,000 mt. The GMT recommended close tracking of this fishery and the age composition of the harvested fish, particularly if catches are begun outside the exclusive economic zone. (PFMC 1998.)

Landings of jack mackerel in the California pelagic wetfish fishery through the decade of the 1990s reached a maximum of 5,878 mt in 1992, and averaged under 1,900 mt over 1990-2000. During the previous decade, California landings ranged from a high of 25,984 mt in 1982 to a low of 9,210 mt in 1985. Currently, most landings of jack mackerel are incidental to Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel in California; however, pure landings do occur sporadically. From

Pacific Fishery Management Council 58 July 2011 21

Along with other CPS species that sometimes school near market squid, the northern anchovy population is not considered to be jeopardized by the market squid fishery (PFMC 2011). From 2006 to 2010, an average of 4.1% of market squid loads observed by CDF&G contained northern anchovy (PFMC 2011). It should be noted that these data do not tell us whether 1 or 1,000 anchovy were present on an observed load (Harrington et al. 2005). Fishermen in the market squid fishery are able to sell a certain percentage of northern anchovy and other CPS bycatch to processors even if the bycatch species fisheries have already reached their limit. Data for market squid bycatch by weight are only available when bycatch species are sold and reported on landing receipts. In 2010, less than 1% of market squid landings (by tonnage) reported incidental catch of all other CPS, including northern anchovy (PFMC 2011). Thus, there appears to be minimal impact from the market squid fishery

NMFS FSSI status determinations are for the northern and central stocks and are not available for the coast wide stock. The status of the central stock, where the majority of fishing pressure occurs, ‘overfishing’ is not occurring while the northern stock status is ‘undefined’ (NMFS 2012i).

Pacific Sardine: Very Low Concern

Key relevant information: Along with other CPS species that sometimes school near market squid, the Pacific sardine population is not considered to be significantly impacted by the market squid fishery (PFMC 2011). Summary data from the NMFS-SWR coastal pelagic species pilot observer program, which is available from 2004-2008, show that on observed trips in which 1,274 mt of market squid were caught, incidental landings of Pacific sardines were 12 mt. Additionally, 13 mt of Pacific sardine were returned alive, with a very small amount returned dead (PFMC 2011). In 2010, less than 1% of market squid landings (by tonnage) reported incidental catch of all other CPS, including Pacific sardine (PFMC 2011). Thus, there appears to be minimal impact from the market squid fishery. Although a major fishery for Pacific sardine continues to exist, seasonal catch limits are based on an accepted biomass estimate, and NMFS FSSI status states that ‘overfishing’ is not occurring (NMFS 2012i). Although the coast wide rate is higher, the US exploitation rate has averaged 7.6% since 2000 (PFMC 2011).

Pacific Mackerel: Very Low Concern

Key relevant information: The market squid fishery has a low level of impact on Pacific mackerel (PFMC 2011). Summary data from the NMFS-SWR coastal pelagic species pilot observer program, which is available from 2004 to 2008, show that on observed trips in which 1,274 mt of market squid were caught, incidental landings of Pacific mackerel were 20 mt. An additional 20 mt of Pacific mackerel were returned alive, with a very small amount returned dead (PFMC 2011). In 2010, less than 1% of market squid landings (by tonnage) reported incidental catch of all other CPS, including Pacific mackerel (PFMC 2011). Overall fishing pressure on the Pacific mackerel resource has been very low in recent years, averaging 5,000 mt over the past decade (PFMC 2011). This level is well below designated harvest guidelines (PFMC 2011). NMFS FSSI status states that ‘overfishing’ is not occurring (NMFS 2012i).

Jack Mackerel: Very Low Concern

Key relevant information: Jack mackerel have not been significantly targeted on the West Coast. Most landings have been incidental to Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel landed in California, with pure landings and incidental catch in the market squid fishery also contributing to fishing mortality (PFMC 2011). From 2000 to 2010, jack mackerel landings averaged 890 mt for California (PFMC 2011). Summary data from the NMFS-SWR coastal pelagic species pilot observer program, which is available from 2004 to 2008, show that on observed trips in which 1,274 mt of market squid were caught, incidental landings of jack mackerel were 2 mt. Additionally, a very small quantity (20 pounds) was discarded (PFMC 2011). In 2010, the PFMC adopted management benchmarks that are far above current fishing pressure (PFMC 2011). NMFS FSSI status states that ‘overfishing’ is not occurring (NMFS 2012i).

Factor 2.4 Overall Discard Rate: 0%–20%

Key relevant information: Weighted discard rate for small coastal pelagic purse seine fisheries given in Kelleher (2005) as 1.6% and for the California market squid fishery in MRAG (2005) as 0.006%.

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Guiding principle

 The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species. Management should be appropriate for the inherent resilience of affected marine life and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long-term productivity or ecological role of any species in the future.

Fishery Management: Harvest Management: Bycatch Criterion 3 Strategy Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) (Score) Market Squid, Yellow High Concern (2) Moderate Concern (3) Purse Seine (2.45)

Factor 3.1 Management of Fishing Impacts on Retained Species: High Concern

Fishery Critical? Mgmt Recovery of Scientific Scientific Enforce. Track record Stakeholder strategy and stocks of research and advice inclusion implement. concern monitoring

Market Squid, Purse Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Seine No Effective N/A Ineffective Effective Effective Effective Effective

Market Squid

Key relevant information: There is no stock assessment (or plan to conduct one), and an assortment of static management measures are based entirely on fishery-dependent data.

Detailed rationale:

Management Strategy and Implementation: Moderately Effective The market squid fishery is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The MSA requires a biomass estimate for federally managed fisheries. Because there is no biomass estimate for market squid, CDF&G has managed the squid fishery for California (where virtually all landings occur) since 2001 and is responsible for implementing the 2004 Market Squid Fishery Management Plan (MSFMP), which went into effect at the start of the 2005/2006 fishing season (CDF&G 2005). The PFMC has deferred management of market squid to CDF&G consistent with the PFMC’s 1999 Federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The PFMC also manages other migratory species under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (CPS FMP) including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy, and jack mackerel (PFMC 2011).

Thus, despite the regional importance of the fishery, it is monitored without a formal stock assessment to guide management (Koslow and Allen 2011). CDF&G regulations on the market squid fishery include weekend closure dates (noon Friday to noon Sunday), which provide for uninterrupted spawning; a restricted access program with provisions for initial entry into the fishery, permit types, permit fees and permit transferability; and an annual (1 April – 31 March) catch limit of 118,000 short tons (107,047 mt; Porzio 2012; CDF&G 2005). In 1998, a moratorium on the number of permits was enacted and 243 squid vessel (purse seine) permits and 53 light boat (attracting) permits were issued for the following season (Porzio and Brady 2008). By contrast, the CDF&G issued 83 market squid vessel, 60 light boat, and 26 brail (or dip net) permits in 2010. Of the 83 vessel permits, 73 vessels were active in the fishery with 56 vessels contributing 95% of the landings (Sweetnam 2011).

The annual catch limit is an average of the maximum landings obtained during three seasons (1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002 (Koslow and Allen 2011). Low yield years were not included because it was thought that the El Niño years were anomalously low, and thus the TAC value was set to be just below the all-time record catch at the time (CDF&G 2005). The chosen TAC was the least conservative (highest) of all options considered, as there was desire to maintain the historic size of the fishery (CDF&G 2005). Until 2009, landings over the past decade were usually only half of the TAC, and until the 2010 and 2011 seasons there was scientific opinion that the TAC may have been set much too

high (Zeidberg 2012; CDF&G 2005).

Large-scale spatial closures within state designated ecological reserves, such as the Channel Islands and areas protected under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), provide additional areas where uninterrupted spawning can occur (Porzio 2012). There are concerns that some sites where market squid have consistently spawned (records go back over 100 years), particularly in the Monterey Bay area, are not protected from fishing pressure (Young et al. 2011). Restrictions on gear focus on lights used to attract market squid toward the surface. As a result of documented increases in seabird nest abandonment and chick predation, attracting lights are limited to 30,000 watts and must be shielded above the horizontal line of sight (CDF&G 2005). Collectively, CDF&G believes these measures reduce the potential for overfishing and help to ensure long-term resource conservation and sustainability (Porzio 2012).

In contrast to the longfin squid and shortfin squid fisheries on the East Coast, there is neither a fishery- independent stock assessment for market squid nor one planned for the future. In California, estimating biological reference points (most notably MSY) for market squid has been unsuccessful. Instead, managers use the ‘egg escapement method’ (discussed in Factor 2.3) as an MSY proxy approach. The method is considered an informal assessment tool with the aim of maintaining a long-term average catch similar to what would be harvested using MSY (Macewicz et al. 2004; PFMC 2011). This threshold is currently set at 30% (a “preliminary statistic intended as a precautionary reference point” PFMC 2011). In order to successfully use the egg escapement method, data need to be analyzed in a timely manner to enable effective management actions. If the data are not analyzed on a relevant time scale, the assumptions underpinning the egg escapement model may not hold, but fishing would continue. The assumptions of the egg escapement model are that a) only mature squid are harvested, b) potential fecundity and number of eggs are accurately measured, c) life history parameters such as natural mortality and egg laying rate are accurately estimated, and d) instantaneous fishing mortality can be used as management units (e.g., used as fishing effort) (Macewicz et al. 2004; PFMC 2011). Although the maturity of all squid sampled by CDF&G is documented, with the most recent figure (2.6%) being from the 1998/1999 season (Macewicz et al. 2004), it is currently unknown how many immature females are caught by the market squid fishery. The MSY control rule is used as a tool to gauge whether the fishery should be considered for active management (PFMC 2011). At this time, however, its limitations preclude adaptive management.

Recovery of Stocks of Concern: N/A There are no stocks of concern targeted in the market squid fishery, therefore it is ranked as N/A

Scientific Research and Monitoring: Ineffective Only fishery-dependent data are regularly collected and analyzed by management, and it has not been demonstrated that this is being done on a relevant time scale. The CDF&G has conducted regional/quarterly preliminary analyses, including estimates of fishing mortality, egg escapement, and abundance with data from 1999 to2006 (PFMC 2009). Sensitivity analyses and simulation modeling have been conducted for the same time period. It has not been demonstrated that regional/quarterly collections and analyses are at the proper time scale to detect changes in the fishery and facilitate maintenance of stock productivity. The lifespan of market squid is approximately six months and the fishing season is even shorter, but data are not analyzed for months after collection. Data for the market squid fishery need to be analyzed in real-time so that management can close the fishery if there is a problem.

A new market squid live bait fishery has expanded in Southern California in recent years. However, the amount of market squid harvested and the value of the fishery are largely unknown, as there are no reporting requirements or permitting requirements for amounts under two tons (PFMC 2011; Porzio 2012). Understanding the impact of this fishery represents another monitoring need. In 2007, CDFG developed a protocol to retain egg capsules in order to determine if capsule age can be quickly determined in the laboratory. The question aims to identify whether the eggs were scraped off the benthos or laid in the net, a scenario that seems unlikely (Zeidberg 2012). Based on market squid embryo development and the condition of the outside of the egg capsule, determining if the egg case was laid in the net or collected from the bottom is possible but since sampling is limited this is not being widely practiced (Zeidberg 2012; PFMC 2011). Further monitoring of landed egg capsules is needed to a) determine the extent to which gear is interacting with benthic habitats and ecosystems and b) better understand how many female squid are being caught before having a chance to spawn naturally. As long as market squid are allowed to spawn prior to being caught, the sub-annual recruitment can sustain the population (Young et al. 2011).

Substantial research has been conducted outside of CDF&G monitoring efforts. Koslow and Allen (2011) found that market squid paralarval abundance is significantly correlated with near-surface temperature, nutrient and chlorophyll concentrations, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index (ENSO), and to a lesser with the extent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). A model to predict paralarval abundance based on ENSO and PDO indices has been found to closely resemble actual abundance trends (Figure 26; Koslow and Allen 2011). By providing less optimistic, more precautionary predictions of stock biomass, ENSO and PDO indices could thus be used to facilitate adaptive, real-time management of the market squid resource (Koslow and Allen 2011).

Figure 26. Market squid paralarval abundance and its abundance predicted based on a stepwise regression with ENSO and PDO. (Figure from Koslow and Allen 2011)

Additionally, sampling of egg cases, which persist for 5-12 weeks before paralarvae hatch, could provide fishery-independent data to forecast the abundance of future cohorts. Surveys of egg beds in the seasons that have not traditionally supported market squid fisheries would allow for better understanding of migration and spawning patterns and could provide management with valuable information (Zeidberg et al. 2011). It has been demonstrated that sidescan sonar and/or multibeam

backscatter surveys could serve as important management tools by efficiently mapping the locations of spawning grounds used throughout the year (Young et al. 2011; Foote et al. 2006). Performing reconnaissance mapping early in the fishing season could help to determine how many spawning areas are protected by MPAs already in place and designate seasonally adaptive no-take spawning zones if needed. Estimating biomass of both reproductive output and the population could be used to help develop stock assessments (Young et al. 2011). Dynamic, spatially based management is important because the exact areas of egg deposition within the spawning grounds change from year to year (Young et al. 2011).

Scientific Advice: Moderately Effective Although management recognizes the need to conduct research on market squid to better understand its life history and population dynamics (NMFS 2012g), there is not enough information available to determine whether management has a good track record of heeding the advice of external scientists when setting or exceeding catch quotas. However, the pre-season statistic of sustainable exploitation, set in 2005, remains at its initial value of 30% (CDF&G 2005, PFMC 2011). Given the six options considered in designing the MSFMP, the TAC was not set conservatively (Zeidberg 2012). There are documented scientific opinions, some in the MSFMP itself, that the TAC should be set more conservatively, and that this TACs should be considered more carefully in the future (CDF&G 2005). Improved proxies for stock biomass and a better understanding of the species’ response to environmental conditions have also been highlighted by scientists as ‘needs’ for the sustainable management of the fishery (Koslow and Allen 2011). Knowledge of the stock is characterized by uncertainty:

Major uncertainty that is critical for management is the extent to which geographically distinct populations are either separated or well-connected over ecological timescales. Do squid home back to the spawning grounds where they hatched, or is there extensive mixing and little natal homing as squid migrate back offshore to feed? (Warner et al 2009).

Warner and colleagues (2009) have suggested that analyzing statolith signatures of natal and returning adults could help answer these questions and inform management. CDF&G has expressed interest in management advances and has helped several market squid research efforts, but lacks funding and personnel resources needed to implement such changes:

“While we would like to see advances in management and assessing stock status, we have limited resources to perform essential tasks to manage the fishery and meet the goals of the Market Squid Fishery Management Plan (MSFMP). Our tasks include tracking catches, managing logbook data, issuing permits and processing transfers, enforcement, and dockside sampling. CDF&G continues to collaborate with industry and academia to investigate and advance methods to effectively manage the squid resource” (Porzio 2012).

Major management changes seem unlikely in the near future, especially given the tremendous success of the fishery in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 seasons (Zeidberg 2012). There may be cause to reassess management’s use of science as new data become available and as management comes up for review.

Enforcement: Moderately Effective The California Fish and Game Commission has the authority to revoke or suspend the permit or license of violators, and squid fishing without a permit can result in forfeiture of the catch to the CDF&G

(CDF&G 2005). CDF&G enforcement personnel have addressed violations in the past, such as complaints from coastal communities about attracting lights not being properly shielded (CDF&G 2005). CDF&G also has an anonymous violation reporting program. From July 2004 through 2008, NMFS conducted a pilot observer program on California purse seine fishing vessels landing CPS (PFMC 2011). The program’s main focus was to augment and confirm bycatch rates derived from CDFG dockside sampling, and to assess interactions between fishing gear and protected species such as marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds. A total of 306 trips and 654 sets were observed during this time (all CPS fisheries), but there has been no observer coverage since 2008 (PFMC 2011).

Track Record: Moderately Effective CDF&G has implemented a variety of management measures, and there is evidence that some have been quite effective. The longstanding weekend closure, for example, has been shown to result in the individuals of greatest size and the largest volumes of market squid being caught on Mondays (Leos 1998). However, the stock and fishery have remained highly unstable, and it is unclear to what extent this is a result of environmental conditions or fishing pressure requiring adjustment by management. Further studies are needed in order to adequately set the MSY and TAC, which are not considered precautionary. Reliable fishery-independent assessments of abundance are needed to manage the fishery (Porzio and Brady 2008). Enhanced assessment of CDF&G’s logbook program and more studies of biological-related parameters involving spawning and death could elucidate the amount of time spent on spawning grounds and the maturity levels of those squid. This is important to ensure that models and MSY estimates are accurate and that catches of immature squid and un-spawned mature squid are minimal (Jackson and Domeier 2003; Forsythe et al. 2004; Maxwell et al. 2005). Active management for market squid, based on annual stock assessments, would be desirable.

Stakeholder Inclusion: Moderately Effective Many stakeholders were involved in the creation of the MSFMP in 2004. Both fishing and conservation interests put forth their desired annual catch limit figures, and a compromise, albeit not regarded as conservative by many, was reached (Zeidberg 2012). It is less clear if management has been receptive to stakeholder concerns in more recent years. However, the process is transparent.

Factor 3.2 Management of Fishing Impacts on Bycatch Species: Moderate Concern

Fishery All Critical? Mgmt Scientific Scientific Enforce Species Strategy Research Advice Retained? and and Implement Monitoring

Market Squid, Purse Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Seine No No Effective Effective Effective Effective

Market Squid

Key relevant information: Bycatch is of moderate concern in the market squid fishery. Trends of bycatch in the fishery, although not quantified, are increasing, as is the capture of market squid egg capsules.

Detailed rationale:

Management Strategy and Implementation: Moderately Effective Bycatch in the market squid fishery is considered to be very low. Because market squid sometimes school with other CPS, mixed hauls are occasionally taken (Zeidberg 2012). In 2010, less than one percent of round haul market squid landings (by weight) included reported incidental catch of marketable CPS (PFMC 2011). Within a certain percent of volume, fishermen are able to sell CPS bycatch from the market squid fishery to processors even when that fishery has already reached its limit (Porzio 2012). Of the most commonly landed species (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy and jack mackerel), none are considered overfished or otherwise jeopardized by the market squid fishery (PFMC 2011). The presence of unsold bycatch has been documented through CDF&G’s port sampling program. This program records incidental catch observed (presence or absence), but does not currently quantify bycatch and the overall bycatch rate is unknown (PFMC 2011). There were 33 different species of bycatch in 2010, including pelagic and benthic finfish, elasmobranchs, invertebrates, plants, and marine algae (PFMC 2011). There were 237 incidents (each incident could be one organism or 100) of bycatch in 130 observed landings in 2010 (PFMC 2011). Non-CPS species are not assessed in Criterion 2 because 2004-2008 CPS pilot observer program data indicate that none come close to making up 5% of the catch (Table 4; PFMC 2011).

Species caught in 2010 included some benthic organisms such as sanddabs, flounders, rays, crabs, eelgrass, and market squid egg capsules, indicating gear interaction with benthic habitats and ecosystems (PFMC 2011). Because market squid catch is often pumped directly into the hold rather than sorted by hand, there are fewer opportunities to release bycatch live while at sea; however, larger fishes that will not fit through the pumps are generally released prior to pumping. This often means that larger species are not reported (or are only reported in logbooks) and are not tallied by port-side observers. However, as large predators often cut through schools instead of remaining in them when foraging, many can avoid capture in the squid nets (PFMC 2011). The fishery has occasional interactions with marine mammals, but assessments show that no marine mammals, sea turtles or seabirds were caught in the fishery from 2006–2008. The consequences for populations of these species, how the ecosystem is affected by discarded bycatch, and current trends in the rate of overall bycatch are unknown.

Although the MSFMP illustrates several inherent qualities of the market squid fishery that reduce bycatch (CDF&G 2005, PFMC 2011), several of these properties are outdated or irrelevant (e.g., California no longer has a large-scale reduction fishery, and squid are not caught over rocky bottoms). To reduce potential negative effects on nesting seabirds, management has prohibited attracting lights in all waters of the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and has restricted lights to a maximum of 30,000 watts and required that lights be shielded in all areas. However, management has not implemented any other measures to reduce the capture of non-target species. There is also no bycatch plan to address the capture of market squid egg capsules, which occurred in 8.6%, 0.6%, 15.6%, 12.9%, and 8.4% of observed landings, from 2006 to 2010 respectively (PFMC 2011). Bycatch is low in the market squid fishery, but there are no plans to address potential bycatch issues when bycatch has been reported.

Scientific Research and Monitoring: Moderately Effective CDF&G’s port sampling program allows bycatch monitoring at the time of landing, but not on-board vessels during fishing operations (Porzio 2012). Port-side bycatch is only recorded as being in a certain percentage of landed market squid hauls and not in terms of numbers of individuals or weights (PFMC 2011). Logbook information is also routinely investigated to better understand bycatch trends (PFMC 2011).

Beginning in late July 2004, NMFS trained at-sea observers have monitored CPS fishing practices in a pilot program with the aim of complementing port-side monitoring and documenting bycatch rates (PFMC 2011). Observers used the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Sardine Bycatch Observations’ form to record data on fishing gear characteristics, fishing operations, and target/non- target species catch and disposition (PFMC 2011). Preliminary data from the at-sea observer program are available from July 2004 to January 2008, over which a total of 306 trips by vessels targeting CPS were observed (approximately 5% coverage for the market squid fishery). On trips targeting marketing squid, a minimal amount of non-CPS incidental catch was observed (Table 4). While this program is an important component of assessing bycatch, it has yet to be standardized with appropriate statistical techniques, especially spatially and across fisheries.

Annual marine mammal stock assessment reports in the US Pacific have shown few interactions with the market squid fishery, but NMFS classifies it as a Category II fishery (occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals; Carretta et al. 2010).

Scientific Advice: Moderately Effective A major concern among scientists is bycatch of market squid egg capsules. The fishery’s management is based on the number of eggs that escape mortality (fishing-caused and natural). Thus, unintentional capture of successfully escaped eggs will cause estimates of survivorship to be inaccurately high and could result in overfishing. Capturing successfully escaped eggs also indicates interaction with the seafloor. In 2010, market squid egg capsules were observed in 8.4% of observed landings (PFMC 2011), a decrease from the previous two years when rates were observed to be higher. Since market squid remain in the vicinity of egg capsules during spawning and deposit new egg capsules at the bases of capsules already attached to the substrate (Zeidberg et al. 2011), they can be difficult to target effectively without imperiling eggs.

The 2005 MSFMP states that if the incidence of egg capsule bycatch continues to increase, management may need to restrict fishing over certain bottom depths, temporarily close shallow habitats or impose stringent gear restrictions (CDF&G 2005). Although the capture of eggs directly affects the fishery, which is based on surviving egg escapement, no action has yet been taken by management to address this problem. Setting net depth limits could easily address this problem (Zeidberg 2012). According to CDFG market squid logbooks, fishing nets in the northern fishery have the potential to contact the bottom more frequently than in the southern fishery (PFMC 2011), presumably because optimal spawning temperatures and other conditions are found at shallower depths in the northern component of the fishery (Zeidberg et al. 2011). Additionally, management has yet to ensure that the fishery is not targeting unspawned females, which could result in gross overestimates of the actual escapement and lead to overfishing. This is a large risk when fishing grounds are located directly above the spawning grounds (Forsythe et al. 2004). More precaution is necessary.

Enforcement: Moderately Effective CDF&G effectively enforces existing regulations related to interactions with other species through the use of mandatory logbooks and port-side samplers that collect data on landings and bycatch. The apparent slight increase in bycatch rates in the fishery could be due to increased enforcement efforts to ensure compliance of proper reporting of bycatch on landing receipts (Porzio 2012). NMFS trained at- sea observers provide an additional enforcement mechanism. However, the effectiveness of enforcement is uncertain.

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Guiding principles

 The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.  Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity. 

Fishery Impact of Gear on Mitigation of Gear EBFM Criterion 4 the Substrate Impacts Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Rank (Score) (Score) Market Squid, Minimal Mitigation Moderate Concern Yellow Low Concern (3) Purse Seine (0.25) (3) (3.12)

Justification

Factor 4.1 Impact of the Fishing Gear on the Substrate: Low Concern

Key relevant information: The purse seine fishery for market squid is prosecuted on sandy and muddy substrate (CDF&G 2005), and there is some interaction with the benthos.

Detailed rationale: The California market squid fishery mainly fishes using purse seine nets and surface pumps (CDF&G 2005). Seine nets are generally known to inflict minimal habitat damage as long as they do not contact the seafloor. However, this is not the case in the market squid fishery: there is evidence that market squid seine nets do interact with the benthos. Logbooks report that this occurs more often in the northern fishery than in the southern fishery (PFMC 2011). The frequency of such interactions with the benthos is unknown, but may occur frequently since nets are often deeper than the bottom depths at specific fishing locations (Zeidberg 2012). Further evidence of interactions with the benthos comes from bycatch records, which include many species of bottom-dwelling fishes, invertebrates, and mature (>2 weeks old) market squid egg capsules (PFMC 2011, Zeidberg 2012). When seine nets drag across the bottom as is sometimes the case with the market squid fishery, they may be as destructive to the benthos as bottom trawls (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003). However, it is likely that the seine nets behave more like fixed gear (e.g., pots, bottom longlines) than bottom trawls due to the area impacted.

The preferred spawning habitats of market squid are thought to be sandy and muddy bottom areas, although there are several sources of bias that may skew this assumption (CDF&G 2005). Market squid are found in these areas because fishermen avoid the net damage that can result from fishing over rocky reefs (Zeidberg et al. 2011), and market squid may lay embryos on kelp, rocky reef, or other hard substrate given the opportunity. Thus, areas where market squid can spawn may be underestimated in

some cases for these reasons. As the confirmed spawning habitats, sandy and muddy bottom areas are known to be moderately resilient to fishing (Morgan 2003). A review of fishing effects found that fauna associated with sandy (coarser) sediments were less affected by trawl disturbance than those in soft, muddy (biogenic) sediments (Collie 2000). The market squid fishery occurs on a moderate spatial scale, and thus habitat damage occurs on a moderate scale as well in terms of the California ecosystem. However, the coverage of fishing activity over squid spawning grounds is extensive.

The greatest concern associated with purse seine nets contacting the bottom in sandy habitats is disruption of the market squid’s complex mating and egg laying behaviors, as well as dislodging egg capsules from their attachments to the sandy substrate (Young et al. 2011). From 2006 to 2010, an average of 9.2% of sampled landings contained market squid egg capsules. In 2008, 15.6% of sampled landings contained egg capsules (PFMC 2011). The occurrence of egg capsules as bycatch was higher in the northern fishery than in the southern fishery (PFMC 2011). This is thought to be due to the shallower waters in which squid are targeted in the northern fishery and may be cause for concern in terms of both habitat destruction and management, as reduced survivorship would have negative impacts on the stock. Further investigations into potential damage to market squid spawning beds from fishing operations would benefit status-based analyses of the overall market squid population off California, given that the eggs-per-recruit theory underlies the recently adopted market squid assessment method and egg removal could result in overestimates of stock size (PFMC 2011). Substrate damage associated with the use of purse seine nets in shallow water and the subsequent mortality of squid eggs have been poorly studied, but acoustic techniques used to estimate egg beds on shallow substrates could help assess this damage (Foote et al. 2006).

Factor 4.2 Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Fishing Gear Impacts: Minimal Mitigation

Key relevant information: Managers have closed the waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to market squid fishing boats using attracting lights. Although several state MPAs protect market squid spawning grounds, there are no regulations to reduce the incidence of bottom contact by purse seine nets. Detailed rationale: When the California Fish and Game Commission adopted the Market Squid FMP regulations in 2004, it was decided to not set aside specific areas as harvest replenishment areas for market squid. This decision was largely due to market squid having a large geographic range (Baja California north to Alaska) in relation to the small to moderate spatial scale of the fishery, meaning that there are an abundance of areas that are unfished for squid (CDF&G 2005). However, a network of state marine reserves (SMRs) around Point Conception and at San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San MigueI Islands provide no-take areas in which commercial fishermen are not allowed to fish for market squid using roundhaul nets (Figure 30). New MPAs put into effect under California’s MLPA now encompass 15% of the south coast region from Point Conception south to the Mexican border, and as part of the MLPA process several no-take state marine reserves have also been established in the vicinity of the northern market squid fishery, including Point Lobos SMR, Asilomar SMR, and Lover’s Point SMR. Although not managed specifically for market squid, these areas effectively provide general habitat closure areas that protect spawning habitat, function as forage reserves, offer protection against bycatch and fishery interactions, and provide areas of uninterrupted spawning for market squid (CDF&G 2005).

Figure 30. Map of areas around the northern Channel Islands closed to the Southern California market squid fishery. Squid fishing with roundhaul gear is prohibited in all state and federal marine reserves and marine conservation areas depicted here. (Figure from CINMS 2012)

The primary measures that management has implemented to reduce impacts on other species include the restriction of attracting lights to a maximum of 30,000 watts and requiring light shields that extend low enough to be parallel to the deck of the vessel. In addition, management has prohibited squid fishing with attracting lights in all waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (CDF&G 2005). These measures were implemented primarily to reduce potential negative effects on nesting seabirds, marine mammals, and important commercial and sport fishes, and to minimize the potential for overfishing of the market squid resource. Additionally, the nature of purse seine gear makes it possible to sort larger non-CPS from the catch with the use of grates, and to release larger fish before pumping or brailing by lowering a section of the cork-line or by using a dip net (PFMC 2011). However, management has not implemented any measures to minimize interactions with benthic habitats and ecosystems nor to reduce the capture of non-target species and market squid egg capsules. A precautionary management strategy that could be implemented would involve setting net depth limits so that nets do not reach the seafloor, coupled with a cost effective means of enforcement. Benthic bycatch and habitat disturbance could thus be avoided altogether (Zeidberg 2012). Since there is no current effort underway to reduce bottom contact by purse seine gear in areas open to the fishery, the fishery is deemed to have ‘Minimal’ mitigation measures in place.

Factor 4.3 Ecosystem and Food Web Considerations: Moderate Concern

Market squid, and other small to medium sized fishes and invertebrates, are called forage species because they provide prey for a wide range of predators such as fishes, marine mammals, and seabirds. Being relatively short-lived and with minimal energy reserves, squid populations can be greatly affected by changes to their planktonic food sources (e.g., as a result of changes in oceanographic conditions) as well as by predation levels, larval retention patterns, and water conditions. Forage species like squid occupy a middle trophic level and play the important ecological role of linking lower trophic level biomass to upper trophic levels. At higher and lower trophic levels, there are many species to facilitate these energy transfers, but the small number of forage species means their role is crucial to the food web (Alder and Pauly 2006).

Because they are so critical to the marine ecosystem, removing forage species can impact marine mammals and seabirds (Baraff and Loughlin 2000, Tasker et al. 2000, Furness 2003, Becker and Beissinger 2006). One study estimated that forage species contribute $11.3 billion annually by serving as food for other commercially important fish, while only generating $5.6 billion in direct catch, suggesting that forage species may be twice as valuable when unfished instead of fished (Pikitch et al. 2012). Kaschner and colleagues spatially modeled interactions between forage fisheries and marine mammal and seabird predators using data collected in the 1990s (Kaschner et al. 2006). The model results showed a much higher consumption of forage species by fisheries than by marine mammals (Figure 31). In contrast, in a study more focused on squid, Overholtz et al. (2000) estimated that consumption of longfin and shortfin squid by fish predators was equal to or exceeded squid landings in most years. Hunsicker et al. (2010) found that cephalopods provide substantial ecosystem services in support of fisheries and on average support 15% of global marine fisheries landings. Commercial fishing for krill, another important forage species, was banned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 132, 13 July 2009) because the fishery has been documented to have direct impacts on ecosystems (PFMC 2008b).

Figure 31. Mean estimated annual consumption of small pelagic forage species by marine mammals in comparison to fishery catches in the 1990s. (Figure from Kaschner et al. 2006)

Key relevant information: As a key forage species in the California Current ecosystem, market squid can be considered an exceptional species. Though the ecosystem role of market squid is not considered in its management, there are some positive ecosystem-based management steps being taken in the region

Detailed rationale: Due to apparently high abundance and rapid turnover, market squid are presumed to play a key role in the transfer of production from the plankton to higher trophic levels within the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME) (Figure 32; Koslow and Allen 2011). There is currently a call for caution from the fishery conservation community, with requests to address ecosystem effects in the management of forage fisheries in the CCLME (Enticknap et al. 2011). However, the market squid fishery is still managed using a single-species rather than an ecosystem-based approach. This is largely because the role of squid in the California Current ecosystem has not been quantified. The only ecosystem concern explicitly addressed by current market squid management is the negative effect of vessels using light to attract squid on nesting seabirds. Management has placed restrictions on attracting lights and has closed the waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to the fishery as discussed above (CDF&G 2005).

Figure 32. Known interactions of market squid off California. This figure may underestimate the importance of market squid as it focuses on vertebrates, and market squid are also important to many marine invertebrates. (Figure adapted from Morejohn et al. 1978 in Boyle and Rodhouse 2005) There is concern that removing market squid could cause substantial localized changes in the food web (Morejohn et al. 1978; Jackson and Domeier 2003). Market squid is a critical food source for numerous species in the California Current, including many threatened and endangered species. In Monterey Bay alone, 19 species of fish feed on market squid, including many commercially important species such as Pacific bonito, halibut, tuna, and all of the depleted, threatened and endangered salmon stocks along the West Coast (Morejohn et al. 1978; CDF&G 2005). Thus, removing large numbers of market squid

could affect the availability of the resource to higher marine predators. Additionally, as discussed above, the fishery continues to capture market squid egg capsules. The overall effect of egg capsule removal on the ecosystem is unknown. While management recognizes the important role of market squid in the CCLME (Porzio 2012; PFMC 2011) an assessment of the ecosystem impacts of the market squid fishery has not been completed, and therefore the impacts of the removal of market squid on the ecosystem are unknown (Porzio 2012). In conclusion, market squid bycatch is very low, direct fishery impacts on other species are minimal, and market squid have the capacity to recover quickly from fishing pressure. However, the removal of a key forage species in increasingly large numbers is cause for concern. Market squid can be considered an ‘exceptional’ forage species. Though not specific to the market squid fishery, there are some positive ecosystem-based management steps being taken in the region, including the state of California recognizing the importance of forage species and adopting a policy preventing the development of new forage species fishery without incorporating the information needed for ecosystem-based management (see http://seastewards.org/ca-fish-and-game-commission- passes-the-forage-fish-bill/).

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

Seafood Watch® thanks Michael Navarro, and one anonymous reviewer who graciously reviewed this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Alder, J. and D. Pauly. 2006. On the Multiple Uses of Forage Fish: From Ecosystems to Markets. In: Alder, J., Pauly, D., (Eds). On the multiple uses of forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia: viii-ix. Auster, P. J. and R. W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:150-187. Baraff, L. S. and T. R. Loughlin. 2000. Trends and potential interactions between pinnipeds and fisheries of New England and the U.S. West Coast. Marine Fisheries Review 62(4): 1-39. Barange, M., M. Bernal, M. C. Cergole, L. A. Cubillos, C. L. Cunningham, G. M. Daskalov, J. A. A. De Oliveira, M. Dickey-Collas, K. Hill, D. J. Gaughan, L. D. Jacobson, F. W. Köster, J. Masse, H. Nishida, M. Ñiquen, Y. Oozeki, I. Palomera, S. A. Saccardo, A. Santojanni, R. Serra, S. Somarakis, Y. Stratoudakis, C. D. van der Lingen, A. Uriarte, and A. Yatsu. 2009. Current trends in the assessment and management of small pelagic fish stocks. In: Checkley, D., C. Roy, Y. Oozeki, J. Alheit (Eds.). Climate change and small pelagic fish stocks. Cambridge University Press, p. 191- 255. Becker, B. H. and S. R. Beissinger. 2006. Centennial decline in the trophic level of an endangered seabird after fisheries decline. Conservation Biology 20: 470-479. Bochenek E. A., E. N. Powell, A. J. Bonner, and S. E. Banta. 2005. An assessment of scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristas striata) discards in the directed otter trawl ﬁsheries in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 103: 1-14. Boyle, P. and P. G. Rodhouse. 2005. Cephalopods: Ecology and Fisheries. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. 452 p. Brady, B.C. 2008. Long-term changes in biological characteristics and fishery of Loligo opalescens. Master's Thesis, San Jose State University. Paper 3502. http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3502 Butler, J. L. 1989. Growth during the larval and juvenile stages of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, in the California Current during 1980-84. Fishery Bulletin 87: 645-652. Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, E. Oleson, K. Martien, M. M. Muto, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. Brownell Jr., J. Robbins, D. K. Mattila, K. Ralls, and M. C. Hill. 2010. US Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-476. CDF&G. 2005. Market Squid Fishery Management Plan. California Department of Fish and Game: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MRD/msfmp/entire.html CDF&G. 2010. Commercial Market Squid Fishery to Close December 17. DFG News Release, December 13, 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news10/2010121302-Commercial-Squid.html

CDF&G. 2011. Commercial Market Squid Fishery to Close Nov. 18. DFG News Release, November 10, 2011. http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/commercial-market-squid-fishery-to-close- nov-18/ CDF&G. 2012. 2012 California Legislative Fisheries Forum: Department of Fish and Game Annual Marine Fisheries Report. California Department of Fish and Game: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=42564 Cheung, W. W. L., T. J. Pitcher and D. Pauly. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124: 97-111. Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1: 517-524. CINMS. 2012. Marine Reserves Network Map. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA. http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html 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. Dawe, E.G. and P.C. Beck. 1997. Population structure, growth and sexual maturation of short-finned squid (Illex Illecebrosus) at Newfoundland. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54: 137-146. Dawe, E. G. and L. C. Hendrickson. 1998. A review of the biology, population dynamics, and exploitation of short-finned squid in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean in relation to the assessment and management of the resource. NAFO SCR. Doc. 98/59, Ser. No. N3051. Dawe, E. G., E. B. Colbourne, and K. F. Drinkwater. 2000. Environmental effects on recruitment of short- finned squid (Illex illecebrosus). ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 1002-1013. Dawe, E. G., L. C. Hendrickson, E. B. Colbourne, K. F. Drinkwater, and M. A. Showell. 2007. Ocean climate effects on the relative abundance of short-finned (Illex illecebrosus) and long-finned (Loligo pealeii) squid in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 16(4): 303-316. Dawe, E. G. and W. Warren. 1993. Recruitment of short-finned squid in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and some environmental relationships. J. Cephalopod Biol. 2(2): 1-21. Didden, J. 2012. Personal Communication. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, DE. EAP. 2009. Ecosystem Assessment Report for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. US Dept. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 09-11, 34 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0911/ 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. Enticknap, B., A. Blacow, G. Shester, W. Sheard, J. Warrenchuk, M. LeVine, and S. Murray. 2011. Forage Fish: Feeding the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceana, Washington, D.C. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Forage_Fish_OCEANA_2011_final.pdf FAO. 2012a. Species Fact Sheets: Illex illecebrosus. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2720/en. FAO. 2012b. Species Fact Sheets: Loligo pealei. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2714/en. Federal Register. 2011. Rules and Regulations: MSB Amendment 11, Final Rule. Federal Register 76:215 (7 November 2011), p. 68642-68657. Federal Register. 2012. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures, Final rule and interim specifications. Federal Register 77:55 (21 March 2012), p. 16472-16481. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-21/pdf/2012-6456.pdf Finkbeiner, E. M., B. P. Wallace, J. E. Moore, R. L. Lewison, L. B. Crowder, and A. J. Read. 2011. Cumulative estimates of sea turtle bycatch and mortality in USA ﬁsheries between 1990 and 2007. Biological Conservation 144: 2719-2727.

Fissel, B. E., N. C. H. Lo, and S. F. Herrick Jr. 2011. Daily egg production, spawning biomass and recruitment for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy, 1981-2009. CalCOFI Reports 52: 116-135. Foote, K. G., R. T. Hanlon, P. J. Iampietro, and R. G. Kvitek. 2006. Acoustic detection and quantification of benthic eggs beds of the squid Loligo opalescens in Monterey Bay, California. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119: 844-856. Forsythe, J., N. Kangas, and R. T. Hanlon. 2004. Does the California market squid (Loligo opalescens) spawn naturally during the day or at night? A note on the successful use of ROVs to obtain basic ﬁsheries biology data. Fish. Bull. 102: 389–392. Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org, version (02/2012). Furness, R. W. 2003. Impacts of fisheries on seabird communities. Scientia Marina 67: 33-45. Glaser, S. M. 2011. Do albacore exert top-down pressure on northern anchovy? Estimating anchovy mortality as a result of predation by juvenile north paciﬁc albacore in the California current system. Fisheries Oceanography 20(3): 242-257. Hammond, P. S., G. Bearzi, A. Bjørge, K. Forney, L. Karczmarski, T. Kasuya, W. F. Perrin, M. D. Scott, J. Y. Wang, R. S. Wells, and B. Wilson. 2008. Delphinus delphis. In: IUCN 2012 Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org Hanlon, R. T. 1998. Mating systems and sexual selection in the squid Loligo: How might commercial fishing on spawning squids affect them? CalCOFI Reports 39: 92-100. Hanlon, R. T. 2012. Personal Communication. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA. Hixon, M. A. and B.N. Tissot. 2007. Comparison of trawled vs untrawled mud seafloor assemblages of fishes and macroinvertebrates at Coquille Bank, Oregon. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 344:23–34. Hunsicker, M. E., T. E. Essington, R. Watson, and U. R. Sumaila. 2010. The contribution of cephalopods to global marine fisheries: can we have our squid and eat them too? Fish and Fisheries 11: 421- 438. Hunter, J. R. and B. J. Macewicz. 1980. Sexual maturity, batch fecundity, spawning frequency, and temporal pattern of spawning for the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, during the 1979 spawning season. CalCOFI Reports 21: 139-149. Hunter, J. R. and S. R. Goldberg. 1980. Spawning incidence and batch fecundity in northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. Fishery Bulletin 77(3): 641-652. Jacobson, L. D., N. C. H. Lo, S. F. Herrick Jr., and T. Bishop. 1995. Spawning biomass of the Northern anchovy in 1995 and status of the coastal pelagic fishery during 1994. National Marine Fisheries Service Administrative Report LJ-95-11. La Jolla, CA. Jackson, G. D., and M. L. Domeier. 2003. The effects of an extraordinary El Niño event on the size and growth of the squid Loligo opalescens off Southern California. Marine Biology 142: 925-935. Kaiser, M. J., J. S. Collie, S. J. Hall, S. Jennings, and I. R. Poiner. 2002. Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries 3: 114–136. Kaiser, M. J., K. R. Clarke, H. Hinz, M. C. V. Austen, P. J. Somerfield, and I. Karakassis. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 1–14. Kaschner, K., V. Karpouzi, R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2006. Forage fish consumption by marine mammals and seabirds. In: Alder, J. and D. Pauly (Eds). On the multiple uses of forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia: 33-46. Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical paper. Issue 470. 154pp.

King, S. E., E. N. Powell and E. A. Bochenek. 2009. Effect of an increase in codend mesh size on discarding in the Loligo squid-directed fishery: a commercial-scale test. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 40: 41-58. Doi:10.2960/J.v40m631. Koslow, J. A. and C. Allen. 2011. The influence of the ocean environment on the abundance of market squid, Doryteuthis (Loligo) opalescens, paralarvae in the Southern California Bight. CalCOFI Reports 52: 205-213. Lange, A. M. and G. T. Waring. 1992. Fishery interactions between long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) off the Northeast USA. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 12: 49-62. Leos, R. R. 1998. The biological characteristics of the Monterey Bay squid catch and the effect of a two- day-per-week fishing closure. CalCOFI Reports 39: 204-211. Lindholm, J., P. Auster, and P. Valentine. 2004. Role of a large marine protected area for conserving landscape attributes of sand habitats on Georges Bank (Northwest Atlantic). Marine Ecology Progress Series 269: 61-68. Logan, J. M., E. Rodriguez-Marin, N. Goni, S. Barreiro, H. Arrizabalaga, W. Golet, and M. Lutcavage. 2011. Diet of young Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in eastern and western Atlantic foraging grounds. Marine Biology 158: 2147-2148. Logan, J. M. and M. E. Lutcavage. In press. Assessment of trophic dynamics of cephalopods and large pelagic fishes in the central North Atlantic Ocean using stable isotope analysis. Deep Sea Research II, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.07.013. Lowry, M. S. and J. V. Carretta. 1999. Market squid (Loligo opalescens) in the diet of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in southern California (1981-1995). CalCOFI Reports 40: 196-207. Macewicz, B. J., J. R. Hunter, N. C. H. Lo, and E. L. LaCasella. 2004. Fecundity, egg deposition, and mortality of market squid (Loligo opalescens). Fish. Bull. 102: 306-327. MAFMC. 1998. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/pdf/SMB_Amend_8.pdf MAFMC. 2009. Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/09/09smbamend10FSEIS-web.pdf MAFMC. 2011a. Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP); Discussion document. MAFMC. 2011b. 2012 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Specifications and Management Measures; Environmental Assessment; Regulatory Impact Review; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11smb2012-2014specsEA.pdf MAFMC. 2011c. 2011 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Specifications Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA). http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11SMB2011ButterfishSpecsRevisedEA.pdf MAFMC. 2011d. Illex AP Informational Document. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council. April 2011. http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/2012_Specs/Illex%20APInfo.pdf MAFMC. 2011e. Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/pdf/Amendment%2011%20FEIS%20- %20FINAL_2011_05_12.pdf MAFMC. 2012a. History of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/history/smb-hist.htm. MAFMC. 2012b. Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) 2012 Specifications. http://www.mafmc.org/fmp/msb_files/msbSpecs2012.htm. MAFMC. 2012c. 2012 MAFMC Council Meetings. http://www.mafmc.org/meetings/meetings.htm

MAFMC. 2012d. 2012 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Information Documents. Accessed October 19, 2012 at http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012- 05/SSC_2012_05.htm. Marinovic, B., D. A Croll, and M. S. Mangel. 2003. Assessing the impact of climate change on the California squid fishery: an integrated approach. California Sea Grant Program 03-04. Marinovic, B. 2007. New Model Links Ocean Conditions to Squid Biomass. California Sea Grant Program. Maxwell, M. R., L. D. Jacobson, and R. J. Conser. 2005. Eggs-per-recruit model for management of the California market squid (Loligo opalescens) fishery. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 62: 1640-1650. Methot, R. D. 1989. Synthetic estimates of historical abundance and mortality for northern anchovy. American Fisheries Society Symposium 6: 66-82. Miller, T. and P. Rago. 2012. Empirical exploration of feasible bounds on butterfish stock size and fishing mortality rates, 1975-2011. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee. 14 p. Accessed November 8, 2012 at http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/2-Miller-Rago-2012-Butterfish-Logical- Assessment.pdf. Morejohn, V. G., J. T. Harvey, and L. T. Krasnow. 1978. The importance of Loligo opalescens in the food web of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay, California. Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 169: 67-98. Moustahfid, H., M. C. Tyrrell, and J. S. Link. 2009. Accounting explicitly for predation mortality in surplus production models: an application to longfin inshore squid. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29(6): 1555-1566. MRAG Americas Inc. 2005. Final Report to Oceana: Wasted Resources: Bycatch and Discards in U.S. Fisheries. Report compiled by Harrington, J. M., R. A. Myers, and A. A. Rosenberg. 286pp. NAFO. 2011. Scientific Council Meeting - 2011. SCS Doc. 11/16, Ser No. N5930, 236 p. NEFSC. 1996. Report of the 21st Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessments. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 96-05d. 200p. NEFSC. 2002a. 34th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (34th SAW), Public Review Workshop. National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0207/0207.pdf. NEFSC. 2002b. Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats of the Northeastern United States. A Report of the Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee., October 23-25, 2001, Boston, Massachusetts. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 02-01; 86 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0201/ NEFSC. 2006. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW), 42nd SAW Assessment Summary Report. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-01, 61 p. National Marine Fisheries Service. NEFSC. 2010a. 49th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (49th SAW), Assessment Summary Report. National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/saw49/SARC49SummaryReport.pdf. NEFSC. 2010b. Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus): Western North Atlantic Stock. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/72_SFPW.pdf NEFSC. 2011. 51tst Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW), Assessment Summary Report (2nd Edition). National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/saw51/SARC51SummaryReport.pdf. NMFS. 2007. Draft Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy. National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/atgtrp/meeting/7%20Draft%20Atlantic%20Trawl%20Take %20Reduction%20Plan.pdf

NMFS. 2008. Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/omnibus/ NMFS. 2009. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 6th edition. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-80, 369p. NMFS. 2010. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Federal Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Atlantic Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP): Biological Opinion. 136 p. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/section7/NMFS-signedBOs/SMB%20BIOP%202010.pdf NMFS. 2011a. National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. National Bycatch Report [W. A. Karp, L. L. Desfosse, S. G. Brooke, Eds.]. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117C, 508 p. NMFS. 2011b. Annual Report to Congress on the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. 96p. NMFS. 2011c. Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus): Western North Atlantic Stock. Accessed November 7, 2012 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2011whps-wn.pdf NMFS. 2011d. Long-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas melas): Western North Atlantic Stock. Accessed November 7, 2012 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2011whpl-wn.pdf NMFS. 2011e. Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis delphis): Western North Atlantic Stock. Accessed November 7, 2012 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2011docs- wn.pdf NMFS. 2012a. Annual Commercial Landings Statistics. Accessed February 19, 2012. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html NMFS. 2012b. FishWatch: US Seafood Facts: Market Squid. http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/squid/species_pages/market_squid.htm NMFS. 2012c. FishWatch: US Seafood Facts: Northern Anchovy. http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/anchovy/species_pages/northern_anchovy .htm NMFS. 2012e. Mid-Atlantic Bottom Trawl Fishery. Accessed 8 April 2012. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fisheries/midatlantic_bottom_trawl.pdf NMFS. 2012f. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Compliance Guides. Quick Reference: Atlantic Swordfish Regulation. NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Compliance_Guide/Comm/Comm_Compliance_Guide_QR _Swordfish.pdf NMFS. 2012g. Market Squid Research. NOAA Fisheries Southwest Science Center. Accessed October 12, 2012. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=1117 NMFS. 2012h. Office of Protected Resources: Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). Accessed November 9, 2012 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm NMFS. 2012i. Status of U.S. Fisheries, 3rd Quarter 2012. Table A. Summary of Stock Status for FSSI Stocks. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/third/Q3_2012_FSSI_nonFSSIstockstatus .pdf NRC. 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. A multi-author study prepared for NMFS by the National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 126 p. Norse, E. and L. Watling. 1999. Effects of mobile fishing gear: the biodiversity perspective. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22: 31-40. O’Dor, R. K. and E. G. Dawe. 2012. Illex illecebsosus. In Advances in Squid Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. [R. Rosa, G. Peirce and R. K. O’Dor, Eds.]. In Press. Nova Science Publisher, Inc.

Okutani, T. and J. A. McGowan. 1969. Systematics, distribution, and abundance of the epiplanktonic squid (Cephalopoda, Decapoda) larvae of the California current, April, 1954-March, 1957. Bulletin of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography 14: 1-90. Overholtz, W. 2006. Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus). Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US. Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, Northeast Fisheries Science Center. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/butter/ Overholtz, W.J., J. S. Link, and L. E. Suslowicz. 2000. Consumption of important pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish in the northeastern USA shelf ecosystem with some fishery comparisons. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 1147–1159. Packer, D., D. Boelke, V. Guida, and L. McGee. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Northeastern US region: Maine to Cape Hatteras. In: Lumsden S.E., T.F. Hourigan, A. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Eds.) The state of deep coral ecosystems of the United States. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. Pecl, G. T. and G. D. Jackson. 2008. The potential impacts of climate change on inshore squid: biology, ecology, and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 18: 373-385. PFMC. 1998. Amendment 8 (to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan) incorporating a name change to: The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/fishery-management-plan-and- amendments/amendment-8/ PFMC. 2002. Amendment 10 to the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP: Limited Entry Fleet Capacity Management and Market Squid Maximum Sustainable Yield Control Rule. Pacific Fishery Management Council. http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/fishery-management- plan-and-amendments/amendment-10/ PFMC. 2008a. Status of the Pacific Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE). Pacific Fishery Management Council 9: 1- 135. http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/stock- assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/ PFMC. 2008b. Management of krill as an essential component of the California Current ecosystem. Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review & Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pacific Fishery Management Council. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/CPS_Am12_Krill_DraftEA.pdf PFMC. 2009. Status of the Pacific Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE). Pacific Fishery Management Council 10: 1-137. http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/stock- assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/ PFMC. 2011. Status of the Pacific Coast Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE). Pacific Fishery Management Council 12: 1-93. http://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/stock- assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/ Pikitch, E., P.D. Boersma, I.L. Boyd, D.O. Conover, P. Cury, T. Essington, S.S. Heppell, E.D. Houde, M. Mangel, D. Pauly, É. Plagányi, K. Sainsbury, and R.S. Steneck. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program, Washington, D.C., 108 p. Pol, M. and H. A. Carr. 2002. Scup bycatch reduction in Loligo squid fishery. NOAA/NMFS Marine Fisheries Initiative NA16FL1215. Final Report. Porzio, D. 2012. Personal Communication. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA Porzio, D. and B. Brady. 2008. Status of the fisheries report: market squid. California Department of Fish and Game: 1-11.

Powell, E. N., A. J. Bonner, B. Muller, and E. A. Bochenek. 2004. Assessment of the effectiveness of scup bycatch-reduction regulations in the Loligo squid fishery. Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2): 155-167. Rago, P. J., and K. A. Sosebee. 2010. Biological reference points for the spiny dogfish. Northeast Fishery Science Center Reference Document 10-06; 52 p. Reiss, C. S., M. R. Maxwell, J. R. Hunter, and A. Henry. 2004. Investigating environmental effects on population dynamics of Loligo opalescens in the Southern California Bight. CalCOFI Reports 45: 87-97. Roberts, S. 2011. Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Sharks and Dogfish. Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA, 121 p. Roel, B. 2011. CIE Independent Peer Review Report; 51st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC): Silver, red, and offshore hakes, and Loligo squid. Prepared for the Centre of Independent Experts, Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science (UK). http://www.nefmc.org/tech/cte_mtg_docs/110412- 13/whiting/5b_SAW%2051%20Reviewer%20Rept_Roel.pdf Rossman, M. C. 2010. Estimated bycatch of small cetaceans in northeast US bottom trawl fishing gear during 2000–2005. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 42: 77–101. doi:10.2960/J.v42.m650: Sea Fare Group. 2011. Quantification and Market Analysis of the Top 30 Seafood Species/Categories Consumed in the U.S. Prepared by Sea Fare Group for Monterey Aquarium Seafood Watch®, March 15, 2011. Shaw, P. W., L. Hendrickson, N. J. McKeown, T. Stonier, M. J. Naud, and W. H. H. Sauer. 2010. Discrete spawning aggregations of loliginid squid do not represent genetically distinct populations. Marine Ecology- Progress Series 408: 117-127. Staudinger, M.D. 2006. Seasonal and size-based predation on two species of squid by four fish predators on the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 104: 605–615. Stevenson D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, and M. Pentony. 2004. Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the northeast US shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential habitat. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 181; 179 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm181/ Sweetnam, D. 2011. Review of selected California fisheries for 2010: Coastal pelagic finfish, market squid, ocean salmon, groundfish, highly migratory species, Dungeness crab, spiny lobster, spot prawn, kellet’s whelk, and white seabass. CalCOFI Reports 52: 13-35.77.1+1 Tasker, M. L., C. J. Camphuysen, J. Cooper, S. Garthe, W. A. Montevecchi, and S. J. M. Blaber. 2000. The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 531-547. Taylor, B. L., R. Baird, J. Barlow, S. M. Dawson, J. Ford, J. G. Mead, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, P. Wade, and R. L. Pitman. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2012 Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org Thrush, S. F. and P. K. Dayton. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: implications for marine biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecolog. Syst. 33: 449–473. Tingley, G. 2011. Individual CIE Report. SARC 51: silver hake, red hake, offshore hake, and the squid Loligo pealeii. Prepared for the Centre of Independent Experts, Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science (UK). http://www.nefmc.org/tech/cte_mtg_docs/110412- 13/whiting/5c_SAW%2051%20Reviewer%20Rept_Tingley.pdf Turtle Expert Workgroup (TEWG). 2009. Assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐SEFSC‐575, 131p. Vojkovich, M. 1998. The California fishery for market squid (Loligo opalescens). CalCOFI Reports 39: 55- 60.

Warner, R. R., S. L. Hamilton, M. S. Sheehy, L. D. Zeidberg, B. C. Brady, and J. E. Caselle. 2009. Geographic variation in natal and early larval trace-elemental signatures in the statoliths of the market squid Doryteuthis (formerly Loligo) opalescens. Marine Ecology Progress Series 379: 109-121. Whitaker, J. D. 1980. Squid catches resulting from trawl surveys off the southeastern United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42: 39-43. Young, M. A., R. G. Kvitek, P. J. Iampietro, C. D. Garza, R. Maillet, and R. T. Hanlon. 2011. Seafloor mapping and landscape ecology analyses used to monitor variations in spawning site preference and benthic egg mop abundance for the California market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 407: 226-233. Zeidberg, L. D. and W. M. Hamner. 2002. Distribution of squid paralarvae, Loligo opalescens (Cephalopoda: Myopsida), in the Southern California Bight 1997-1998 El Niño. Marine Biology 141: 111-122. Zeidberg, L. D., W. M. Hamner, K. Moorehead, and E. Kristof. 2004. Egg masses of Loligo opalescens (Cephalopoda: Myopsida) in Monterey Bay, California following the El Niño event of 1997-1998. Bulletin of Marine Science 74: 129-141. Zeidberg, L. D., W. M. Hamner, N. P. Nezlin, and A. Henry. 2006. The fishery for California market squid (Loligo opalescens) (Cephalopoda: Myopsida), from 1981 through 2003. Fisheries Bulletin 104: 46-59. Zeidberg, L. D., J. L. Butler, D. Ramon, A. Cossio, K. L. Stierhoff, and A. Henry. 2011. Estimation of spawning habitats of market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens) from field surveys of eggs off Central and Southern California. Marine Ecology (2011): 1-11. Zeidberg, L. D. 2012. Personal Communication. Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, CA.

Appendix A: Review Schedule

The market squid fishery lacks a stock assessment and there is no plan to conduct one, see: http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=1117. Only fishery-dependent data are regularly collected and analyzed by management. The CDF&G has conducted ‘regional/quarterly’ assessments, including estimates of fishing mortality, egg escapement, and abundance with data from 1999 to 2006. It has not been demonstrated that these analyses are at the proper time scale to detect changes in the fishery and facilitate maintenance of stock productivity as the lifespan of market squid is approximately six months and the fishing season is even shorter. Although market squid populations can vary widely according to fluctuating environmental conditions, there are no indications for major changes to stocks or management at this time; therefore, an updated Seafood Watch ® assessment should be performed in 2015.

About Seafood Watch®

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

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

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

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.

Guiding Principles

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

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

 Stocks are healthy and abundant.  Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life.  The fishery minimizes bycatch.  The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species.  The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.  Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity.

Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

1. Impacts on the species/stock for which you want a recommendation 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts

Each criterion includes:  Factors to evaluate and rank  Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score  A resulting numerical score and rank for that criterion

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.

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

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

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