DOCSLIB.ORG

Framework Adjustment 46 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Framework Adjustment 46 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Framework Adjustment 46 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Including an Environmental Assessment Regulatory Impact Review Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council In consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service Initial Framework Meeting: January 26, 2011 Final Framework Meeting: April 28, 2011 Date Submitted: May 13, 2011 Date Resubmitted: June 17, 2011 Executive Summary Intentionally Blank Framework Adjustment 46 2 Executive Summary 1.0 Executive Summary Background In New England, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is charged with developing management plans that meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act). The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies the management measures for thirteen groundfish species (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout) off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. The FMP has been updated through a series of amendments and framework adjustments. The most recent multispecies amendment, published as Amendment 16, was submitted for review by the National Marine Fisheries Service in October 2009 and became effective on May 1, 2010. This amendment adopted a broad suite of management measures in order to achieve fishing mortality targets and meet other requirements of the M-S Act. The amendment allowed vessels with groundfish permits to either fish under the days-at-sea (DAS) effort control system or to join sectors, which are small groups of self-selected fishermen that receive an allocation of annual catch entitlement (ACE) based upon the catch history of each member. Included in Amendment 16 was a process for setting specifications for the fishery and updating measures through framework actions. Framework 44 and Framework 45 to the FMP set specifications for fishing years 2010-2012 and made other minor adjustments to the management program. The NEFMC also manages the Atlantic herring fishery. The Atlantic herring FMP was implemented January 10, 2001. The FMP adopted a program of quotas for the fishery, managed through the use of four management areas. The FMP has been modified through four amendments and one framework action. Framework 1 (2002) implemented a split-season quota in the management area in the inshore Gulf of Maine. Amendment 1 to the FMP adopted a limited access program in 2007 as well as seasonal gear restrictions. Amendment 2 (2008) adopted the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology while Amendment 3 is under development as part of the Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus amendment. Amendment 4 was submitted in April 2010, and proposes annual catch limit (ACL) provisions for the FMP. Work is proceeding on Amendment 5, which will propose numerous changes to the FMP that address reporting and monitoring requirements, river herring bycatch, midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas, and other issues in the fishery. Other requirements have been imposed on the fishery in response to a court-approved motion to stay pending litigation over management of the fishery. The multispecies and herring fisheries take place in the same areas and seasons. Throughout the recent history of these two fisheries concerns have been raised that herring fishing vessels may catch groundfish species and that these catches may affect the rebuilding of overfished groundfish stocks. As a result, herring vessels were prohibited from catching groundfish when the Northeast Multispecies FMP was amended in 1996. There were also concerns that measures designed to reduce catches of groundfish by the herring fishery reduced the ability of the herring fishery to achieve optimum yield. These concerns led to herring vessels being allowed to fish in multispecies closed areas because the gear was not expected to catch groundfish. These two competing issues came to a head in 2005 when herring midwater trawl vessels caught haddock from a large haddock year class on George Bank. This led to the adoption of Framework Adjustment 43 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP in 2006. FW 43 modified the restrictions for herring vessels so that herring fishing could continue on Georges Bank. This framework prohibited certain herring vessels from discarding haddock and limited possession of other Framework Adjustment 46 3 Executive Summary groundfish to small amounts. It also adopted a cap on the amount of haddock that could be caught by certain herring vessels. The cap was set at 0.2 percent of the combined GB and GOM haddock target total allowable catch (TTAC). When the cap was reached, catches of herring from a large part of the GOM and GB areas were limited to 2,000 pounds per trip for all herring vessels. Purpose and Need for Action Given the current large biomass of haddock on GB, the current fixed 0.2% cap on haddock catch by the herring fleet (adopted in FW 43) risks creating a gross constraint on herring catch despite the fact that overall haddock catches are far below the ABC for that stock. The overarching need for this framework is because unless action is taken to modify the provisions adopted in FW 43 to reflect current conditions in the fishery, it appears likely that herring midwater trawl vessels may be prevented from fishing on GB for a large portion of the year after the cap is reached. Specifically, this action is needed because such an interruption in the herring fishery would have negative impacts on the fishery participants and it is necessary to avoid potential impacts to the supply of herring used as bait for the lobster fishery. It is also needed to avoid reducing opportunities for the herring TAC in Area 3 (and OY) to be fully utilized. Perhaps most importantly, it is needed because reduced fishing effort in the Area 3 herring fishery may result in a shift of effort into Area 1A during the summer and fall, exacerbating concerns about the inshore GOM component of the resource and the impacts of concentrated midwater trawl fishing effort in this area (Table 3). The Council adopted the following objectives (purpose) for this action: 1) To maximize the chance for Georges Bank (Area 3) herring TAC to be caught; 2) To provide incentives to fish offshore; 3) To provide incentives to fish in a manner, at times, and in areas when and where haddock bycatch is none to low; and 4) To reduce the impact of a haddock cap on the entire herring fishery. Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative The Proposed Action is identified in the document as Option 2. It is the preferred alternative. The Proposed Action would change the catch cap provisions adopted in FW 43. The haddock catch cap provisions would apply only to midwater trawl vessels with a herring permit because these vessels catch nearly all of the haddock caught by the herring fishery. Catches of haddock by midwater trawl vessels fishing in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and 3 that are documented by at-sea observers would be extrapolated to an estimate of the total catch of haddock. Individual estimates would be developed for each haddock stock (GOM and GB haddock). The cap is applied based on the multispecies fishing year (May 1 through April 30). The catch cap would be 1 percent of the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) of each stock. If the haddock catch estimate extrapolated from observer reports exceeds a stock-specific cap, midwater trawl vessels would be limited to catching 2,000 pounds of Atlantic herring in a relevant area (see Figure 11). If there is an overage of the cap, the cap for the following year would be reduced by the amount of the overage. In order to monitor the cap there would be changes to the reporting requirements for MWT vessels. In addition to the existing requirement to report herring catches by herring management area, MWT vessels fishing in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and 3 would be required to Framework Adjustment 46 4 Executive Summary report total kept catch by haddock stock area and gear used. This information would be needed to extrapolate observer information to an estimate of total haddock catch. If this measure is adopted in the middle of the groundfish fishing year, the measure would be applied retroactively. That is, catches of haddock would be estimated based on observer reports form the beginning of the fishing year and a determination made as to whether the cap was exceeded. If the cap was exceeded, MWT vessels would be limited to 2,000 pounds of herring in the appropriate area(s). If the cap was not exceeded, herring fishing would not be restricted or, if previously limited by the FW 43 provisions, the restrictions would be removed. Implementation of the cap in the middle of the fishing year will also reduce sector haddock Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE) by about one percent. Alternatives to the Proposed Action Two alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered. These alternatives are not preferred. Option 1/No Action: This option would maintain the haddock catch cap provisions adopted by FW 43. Under this option, the haddock catch cap would be 0.2 percent of the combined GOM and GB haddock ABC. Catches of haddock by herring vessels with a Category A or B herring permit count against the cap. Only catches that are documented by observers, dealer reports, or NMFS enforcement activities are counted against the cap (observer reports are not extrapolated to an estimate of total catch). If the cap is reached, all vessels issued a herring permit are prohibited from landing herring in excess of 2,000 pounds per trip from the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area (see Figure 6). Option 3/Other Sub-Components: This option would eliminate the catch cap for the herring fishery.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico And
    A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes THIRD EDITION GSMFC No. 300 NOVEMBER 2020 i Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Commissioners and Proxies ALABAMA Senator R.L. “Bret” Allain, II Chris Blankenship, Commissioner State Senator District 21 Alabama Department of Conservation Franklin, Louisiana and Natural Resources John Roussel Montgomery, Alabama Zachary, Louisiana Representative Chris Pringle Mobile, Alabama MISSISSIPPI Chris Nelson Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. Mississippi Department of Marine Bon Secour, Alabama Resources Biloxi, Mississippi FLORIDA Read Hendon Eric Sutton, Executive Director USM/Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Florida Fish and Wildlife Ocean Springs, Mississippi Conservation Commission Tallahassee, Florida TEXAS Representative Jay Trumbull Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, Florida Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas LOUISIANA Doug Boyd Jack Montoucet, Secretary Boerne, Texas Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Baton Rouge, Louisiana GSMFC Staff ASMFC Staff Mr. David M. Donaldson Mr. Bob Beal Executive Director Executive Director Mr. Steven J. VanderKooy Mr. Jeffrey Kipp IJF Program Coordinator Stock Assessment Scientist Ms. Debora McIntyre Dr. Kristen Anstead IJF Staff Assistant Fisheries Scientist ii A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes Third Edition Edited by Steve VanderKooy Jessica Carroll Scott Elzey Jessica Gilmore Jeffrey Kipp Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 2404 Government St Ocean Springs, MS 39564 and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1050 N. Highland Street Suite 200 A-N Arlington, VA 22201 Publication Number 300 November 2020 A publication of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4070076 and NA15NMF4720399.
    [Show full text]
  • (Anarhichas Lupus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas Minor) in West Greenland Waters
    NAFO SCI. Coun. Studies, 12: 13-20 Distribution, Abundance and Migration of Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor) in West Greenland Waters Frank Riget Greenland Fisheries and Environment Research Institute Tagensvej 135, Copenhagen N, Denmark and J. Messtorff Bundesforschungsanstalt fUr Fischerei, Institut fUr Seefischerei 0-2850 Bremerhaven, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract Results from stratified-random bottom-trawl surveys off West Greenland during the autumns of 1982-86 indicated substantial decline in biomass and abundance of both Atlantic wolffish and spotted wolffish. Atlantic wolffish were the more abundant of the two species, with the catch rate generally decreasing from north to south, and occurred mainly in the 0-200 and 200-400 m depth ranges. Spotted wolffish, on the other hand, were rather uniformly distributed over the three depth ranges (to 600 m) and also over the north-south strata. Mean lengths of both species tended to increase from north to south. Reported recaptures from the taggings, during 1955-64, of 174 Atlantic wolffish and 746 spotted wolffish were 2 and 53 respectively. The two Atlantic wolffish were taken in the vicinity of the tagging site about 2 years after they were tagged. Spotted wolffish exhibited rather stationary behavior, with most recaptures generally within 20 nautical miles (nm) of the tagging sites up to 10 years after they were tagged. Only three spotted wolffish were found more than 100 nm from the tagging sites, two southward and one northward. Analysis of long line catches of spotted wolffish in the Nuuk area indicated local seasonal movements. Introduction experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean Volume
    ISBN 0-9689167-4-x Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean (Davis Strait, Southern Greenland and Flemish Cap to Cape Hatteras) Volume One Acipenseriformes through Syngnathiformes Michael P. Fahay ii Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean iii Dedication This monograph is dedicated to those highly skilled larval fish illustrators whose talents and efforts have greatly facilitated the study of fish ontogeny. The works of many of those fine illustrators grace these pages. iv Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean v Preface The contents of this monograph are a revision and update of an earlier atlas describing the eggs and larvae of western Atlantic marine fishes occurring between the Scotian Shelf and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Fahay, 1983). The three-fold increase in the total num- ber of species covered in the current compilation is the result of both a larger study area and a recent increase in published ontogenetic studies of fishes by many authors and students of the morphology of early stages of marine fishes. It is a tribute to the efforts of those authors that the ontogeny of greater than 70% of species known from the western North Atlantic Ocean is now well described. Michael Fahay 241 Sabino Road West Bath, Maine 04530 U.S.A. vi Acknowledgements I greatly appreciate the help provided by a number of very knowledgeable friends and colleagues dur- ing the preparation of this monograph. Jon Hare undertook a painstakingly critical review of the entire monograph, corrected omissions, inconsistencies, and errors of fact, and made suggestions which markedly improved its organization and presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Stomach Contents of the Atlantic Wolffish, Anarhichas Lupus, from The
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N785 NAFO SCR Doc. 84/VI/12 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 1984 Stomach contents of the Atlantic wolffish, Anarhichas lupus, from the Northwest Atlantic by Wilfred Templeman Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fisheries Research Branch Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, P. 0. Box 5667 St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada AlC 5X1 10 Abstract 1. 1 Stomach contents of Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), collected in the 12 Northwest Atlantic from West Greenland to the Scotian Shelf, were examined by 13 volume and by occurrence. Invertebrates made up 85% of the food and fish 15%. It The most important invertebrates in order were: molluscs, especially whelks 15 and Iceland scallops; echinoderms, particularly brittle stars and sea urchins; 16 and crustacea, mainly crabs. Redfish formed the predominant fish food. 17 Molluscs increased and echinoderms usually decreased in importance from the 18 smaller to the larger wolffish. 19 Introduction 1. The food of Anarhichas lupus was studied for the Labrador-Newfoundland 2 region by Albikovskaya (1983), and off Iceland by Pálsson (1983). Notes on 3 the food of this species were recorded by Verrill (1871), Smith (1889, 1890, 4 1891, 1892), Scott (1902, 1903), Gill (1911), Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Barsukov (1959), JOnsson (1982), and others. 6 7 Materials and Methods Stomach contents of 103 Atlantic wolffish were examined in the field for 9 volumes of various food items. Classification was limited in detail to species 10 or groups readily identified in the field without further detailed 11 investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS of the 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project
    DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS OF THE 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project March 2018 DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS OF THE 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project Citation: Aguilar, R., García, S., Perry, A.L., Alvarez, H., Blanco, J., Bitar, G. 2018. 2016 Deep-sea Lebanon Expedition: Exploring Submarine Canyons. Oceana, Madrid. 94 p. DOI: 10.31230/osf.io/34cb9 Based on an official request from Lebanon’s Ministry of Environment back in 2013, Oceana has planned and carried out an expedition to survey Lebanese deep-sea canyons and escarpments. Cover: Cerianthus membranaceus © OCEANA All photos are © OCEANA Index 06 Introduction 11 Methods 16 Results 44 Areas 12 Rov surveys 16 Habitat types 44 Tarablus/Batroun 14 Infaunal surveys 16 Coralligenous habitat 44 Jounieh 14 Oceanographic and rhodolith/maërl 45 St. George beds measurements 46 Beirut 19 Sandy bottoms 15 Data analyses 46 Sayniq 15 Collaborations 20 Sandy-muddy bottoms 20 Rocky bottoms 22 Canyon heads 22 Bathyal muds 24 Species 27 Fishes 29 Crustaceans 30 Echinoderms 31 Cnidarians 36 Sponges 38 Molluscs 40 Bryozoans 40 Brachiopods 42 Tunicates 42 Annelids 42 Foraminifera 42 Algae | Deep sea Lebanon OCEANA 47 Human 50 Discussion and 68 Annex 1 85 Annex 2 impacts conclusions 68 Table A1. List of 85 Methodology for 47 Marine litter 51 Main expedition species identified assesing relative 49 Fisheries findings 84 Table A2. List conservation interest of 49 Other observations 52 Key community of threatened types and their species identified survey areas ecological importanc 84 Figure A1.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • Across-Shelf Larval, Postlarval, and Juvenile Fish Collected at Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms and a Coastal Rock Jetty West of the Mississippi River Delta
    OCS Study MMS 2001-077 Coastal Marine Institute Across-Shelf Larval, Postlarval, and Juvenile Fish Collected at Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms and a Coastal Rock Jetty West of the Mississippi River Delta U .S . Department of the Interior AnK Cooperative Agreement Minerals 11Aanagement Service Coastal Marine Institute Adw Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Louisiana State University IR OCS Study MMS 2001-077 Coastal Marine Institute Across-Shelf Larval, Postlarval, and Juvenile Fish Collected at Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms and a Coastal Rock Jetty West of the Mississippi River Delta Authors Frank J. Hernandez, Jr. Richard F. Shaw Joseph S . Cope James G . Ditty Mark C. Benfield Talat Farooqi September 2001 Prepared under MMS Contract 14-35-0001-30660-19926 by Coastal Fisheries Institute Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Published by U .S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement Minerals Management Service Coastal Marine Institute Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Louisiana State University DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Coastal Fisheries Institute (CFI), Louisiana State University (LSU). This report has been technically reviewed by the MMS and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of LSU or the MMS, nor does mention of trades names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with the MMS editorial standard. REPORT AVAILABILITY Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034) at the following address : U.S .
    [Show full text]
  • Anarhichas Lupus), a Species of Con- Lupus) on Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts Cern in U.S
    191 Abstract—Full life history informa- Spring feeding of Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas tion is lacking for Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), a species of con- lupus) on Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts cern in U.S. waters. Scientific stud- ies indicate that Atlantic wolffish 1 are found in low densities—either Elizabeth A. Fairchild solitary or, during spawning season, Shelly Tallack2 paired. Groundfish surveys show Scott P. Elzey3 wolffish abundance in U.S. waters 3 is highest in the Gulf of Maine– Michael P. Armstrong Georges Bank region, especially in the southwestern portion at depths Email address for the contact author: [email protected] of 80–120 m. Contrary to these data, commercial fishermen have reported, 1 Department of Biological Sciences and we have validated, that high University of New Hampshire concentrations of Atlantic wolffish 38 Academic Way are found in specific shallow loca- Durham, New Hampshire 03824 tions and at specific times on the 2 Gulf of Maine Research Institute Stellwagen Bank National Marine 350 Commercial Street Sanctuary (SBNMS) in Massachu- Portland, Maine 04101 setts Bay. From 53 tows conducted 3 during May–June 2011, 395 Atlantic Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station wolffish were captured on the SB- Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries NMS. Average daily catch per unit 30 Emerson Avenue of effort ranged from 0.6 to 37.8 fish Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 h−1 in an area characterized by shal- low (depths: 27–46 m), cold (5–7°C) water, and a sand and gravel sub- strate. At this site, wolffish were mature (mean age: 20 years; range: 7–33 years) and in prespawning con- dition, both sexes were equally rep- Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), a directed fishery for Atlantic wolf- resented, and 99% of the fish were 1 of 3 wolffish species found in the fish; it is thought that they are typi- feeding actively.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of Wolffishes (Anarhichas Denticulatus, A. Lupus, A
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N5284 NAFO SCR Doc. 06/52 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2006 Feeding Habits of Wolffishes (Anarhichas denticulatus, A. lupus, A. minor) in the North Atlantic Concepción González (1), Xabier Paz, Esther Román and M. Alvárez Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo (I. E. O.) P O. Box 1552. 36280 Vigo. Spain. (1) [email protected] Abstract Feeding habits of 7 995 individuals of three wolffish species distributed in the north Atlantic were analyzed: 1 016 of northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), 4 783 of Atlantic wolffish (A. lupus) and 2 196 of spotted wolffish (A. minor). The individuals sampled were taken in the NAFO Area Divisions 3NO in spring in the period 2002- 2005, Div. 3L in summer in the period 2003-2004, Div. 3M in summer in the period 1993-2005, and in the ICES Area Div. IIb in autumn in the period 2004-2005. Feeding intensity was higher in the NAFO Area than in the northeast Atlantic (spring-summer vs. autumn), mainly in spotted wolffish in Div. 3M. The importance of each prey taxa was evaluated using the weight percentage. Wolffish species diet showed geographical differences. Ontogenic diet changes and prey variation throughout the studied period were observed, mainly in Atlantic and spotted wolffishes. This two species preyed primarily on bottom (echinoderms, gastropods and bivalves) and benthopelagic (northern shrimp and redfish) organisms on Flemish Cap and Grand Bank. However fish and northern shrimp predation were more important on the Flemish Cap, mainly in spotted wolffish, showing periods with higher predation on these prey when the biomass of these prey species increased.
    [Show full text]
  • Training Manual Series No.15/2018
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CMFRI Digital Repository DBTR-H D Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ministry of Science and Technology Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Department of Biotechnology CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual This is a limited edition of the CMFRI Training Manual provided to participants of the “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals” organized by the Marine Biotechnology Division of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), from 2nd February 2015 - 31st March 2018. Principal Investigator Dr. P. Vijayagopal Compiled & Edited by Dr. P. Vijayagopal Dr. Reynold Peter Assisted by Aditya Prabhakar Swetha Dhamodharan P V ISBN 978-93-82263-24-1 CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Published by Dr A Gopalakrishnan Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR-CMFRI) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute PB.No:1603, Ernakulam North P.O, Kochi-682018, India. 2 Foreword Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi along with CIFE, Mumbai and CIFA, Bhubaneswar within the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Department of Biotechnology of Government of India organized a series of training programs entitled “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals”.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review
    Chapter 3 Assessments of new scientific information to support Commonwealth marine reserve zoning and management decisions The Expert Scientific Panel (ESP) terms of reference included providing advice on options for zoning and allowed uses consistent with the Goals and principles for the establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Commonwealth waters (the Goals and Principles). Noting the extensive scientific process that underpinned the design of the Commonwealth marine reserves (CMRs) proclaimed in 2012, as outlined in chapter 2, and mindful of work of the Bioregional Advisory Panel (BAP) to identify possible new zoning boundaries for the CMR estate, the ESP focused its work on this term of reference on new science directly relevant to the needs of the BAP. The BAP referred a number of matters to the ESP for advice. These matters related to areas of contention identified through the BAP consultation process. They are listed in table 3.1 and are addressed in this chapter. The associated findings were communicated to the BAP for consideration in formulating recommendations on zoning options. Broadly, these matters related to: • concerns about the applicability of Fishing Gear Risk Assessment (FGRA) findings to certain gear types in certain areas of the CMR estate (section 3.1) • concerns about the impact of recreational fishing (section 3.2) • concerns about the effectiveness of different zone types (section 3.3) • the need to have up-to-date scientific information for particular marine features and particular CMRs (sections 3.4 and 3.5). Table 3.1 Issues referred by the Bioregional Advisory Panel to the Expert Scientific Panel for advice Advice request CMR and/or network to Relevant which the request related section of ESP report Evaluate the process used to determine fishing gear risk for Estate-wide 2.3.5 CMRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Wolffish
    Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: January 13, 2016 Anarhichas lupus (Atlantic Wolffish) Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Class: Actinopterygii (Ray-finned Fishes) Order: Perciformes (Perch-like Fishes) Family: Anarhichadidae (Wolffishes) General comments: ESA Species of Concern - Georges Bank & western Gulf of Maine; General information: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticwolffish.htm No Species Conservation Range Maps Available for Atlantic Wolffish SGCN Priority Ranking - Designation Criteria: Risk of Extirpation: NA State Special Concern or NMFS Species of Concern: Anarhichas lupus is listed as a Species of Concern by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Recent Significant Declines: Atlantic Wolffish is currently undergoing steep population declines, which has already led to, or if unchecked is likely to lead to, local extinction and/or range contraction. Notes: Recent significant declines: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticwolffish_detailed.pdf Regional Endemic: NA High Regional Conservation Priority: NA High Climate Change Vulnerability: NA Understudied rare taxa: Recently documented or poorly surveyed rare species for which risk of extirpation is potentially high (e.g. few known occurrences) but insufficient data exist to conclusively assess distribution and status. *criteria only qualifies for Priority 3 level SGCN* Notes: Recent significant declines: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticwolffish_detailed.pdf Historical: NA Culturally Significant:
    [Show full text]