CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES. , Iv LIST OF TABLES E XECUTI VE SUMMARY . II. INTRODU CTION. .6 III. PURPOSE ...,6 A. Description of Problem..... 10 B. Project Objective . 10 IV, APPROACH ,.10 A. Description. 10 1, Gear 2. Experimental Design and Statistics. 13 3. Fishing Efficiency Comparisons. 13 . 13 Trap Size Comparisons . 14 Soak Time ... Trap Hole Size and Soak Time Comparisons, . 14 Trap Hoie Sizeand BaitConcentration Comparisons. 14 Nocturnal Activity and Bait Comparisons. 15 , 15 Ghost Fishing . Depth Comparisons. 15 4. Trap Design Comparisons. 16 ,.16 ROV Observations, Trap Design Comparisons 16 17 5. Skin Quality. Fishing Related Skin Quality 17 On-board Treatments. 17 B, Project Management 18 19 V. FINDINGS. 19 A. Accomplishments.. 'I9 1. Fishing Efficiency Comparisons Trap Comparisons 19 20 Soak Time Trap Hole Size and Soak Time Comparisons 22 Trap Hole Size and Bait Concentration Comparisons Nocturnal Activity and Bait Comparisons, Ghost Fishing Depth Comparisons. 2. Trap Design Comparisons ROV Observations Trap Design Comparisons. 3. Skin Quality Fishing Related Skin Quality, On-board Treatments 4. Industry Liaison. 5, General Observations 6. IndustryHandling and Capture Recommendations. B. Problems C. Acknowledgments. D. Literature Cited. ,45 References Personal Communications, .47 Vl. EVALUATION., A. Description of Original Project Goals. l. Original Project Goals and Objectives. 2. Measurability 3. Modifications, 4. Goals and Objectives Obtained. B. Description of Specific Accomplishments. 1, Specific Information Produced 2. Relationship to Original Project Goals and Objectives................, 3. Extent to Which Information Meets industry Needs. 4. Value of the Products and Services. C. Description of Benefitsto the FishingIndustry l. Industry Access, 2, Industryand AssociatedInfrastructure Use of Projectinformation. 3, Liklihood of Industry Use in the Future, 4. Future Use of Project Results by Others, D. Description of Specific Economic Benefits, 1, Demonstrable Clear Economic Benefit. 2. Nature of Benefits. E. Description ot Actual Need for Federal Assistance VII, CONCLUSONS A. Conclusions Derived from This Work. B. Success, C, Further Work Needed. LIST OF FIGURES 11 Figure 1. Hagfishcollection stations in MontereyBoy, California, 12 Figure 2. Schematic of hagfish trapline fishing gear. Meannumber per trap of hagfishfor each of threetrap types0-gallon trash Figure 3. can,Korean, and 5-gallon bucket trop! and overage for all traps combined, ...,.. 19 Meanlength per trap cm!of hagfishfor each of three trap types 0-gallon trash Figure 4. can.Korean. and 5-gallon bucket trap! and average ot alltraps combined......X Figure 5, Mean number of hagfishper trap for each of three soaktimes 4,8,ond24hours!. 21 Figure 6. Hagfishmean length per trap cm!for each of threesoak times , 8,and 24 hours!. 21 Figure 7. Meannumber of hogfishper trap for each of threetrap escapement hole sizes .34. 0.45,and 0.56 inches! and for traps with no holes ! at eachof threesook times. 8,and 24 hours! 22 Figure 8. Wagfishmean length per trap cm!for each of three trap escapement hole sizes ,34, 0,45,and 0.56 in,! ond for traps with no holes ! at eochof threesoak times , 8,and 24 hours!. 23 Figure 9. Meannumber of hagfishper trap for each of fivetrap escapementhole sizes .38. 0,42,0.45, 0.48, and 0,52in.! at each of three soaktimes , 8,ond 24 hours!. 24 Figure 10. Hagfishmean length per trap cm!for each of five trap escapeme~t hole sizes .38, 0.42.0.45, 0,48 and 0,52 in,! at eachof threesoak times . 8.ancl 24 hours!. 24 Figure 11. Percenthagfish >= 12 in. 0.48 cm! for all trop escapement hole sizes in ! tested ond for trapswith no holes! fromtwo experimentscomparing length with trop holesize and soaktime 25 Figure 12. Percenthagfish >= 12in. 0,48 cm! for threesoak times hrs!from two experimentscomparing trap hole size and soak time 26 Figure 13. Meannumber of hagfishper trap for trapswith two escapementhole sizes ,42 ond 0.45in,!. 26 Figure 14. Meanlength of hagfishper trap cm!for traps with two escapement hole sizes ,42 and 0.45in,!, 27 Figure 15. Meannumber of hagfishper trap for each of two trap escapementhole sizes .45 and0,48 inches! at threebait concentrations. 2. ond 4 poundsof choppedmackerel! 28 Figure 16. Meanlength of hagfishper trap cm!for each of twotrap escapement hole sizes.45 and 0.48inches! at threebait concentrations. 2, and 4 poundsof choppedmackerel! 28 Figure 17. Percenthagfish >= 12in. 0.48 cm! fortraps with three escapement hole sizes from two experiments., Figure 18. Meannumber of hogfishper trap for threefishing periods daytime/12 hours, nighttime/12hours, and day and nighffime/24 hours! for each of two baittypes rockfishcarcasses and choppedmackerel!...,......,.........,........,.....,33 Figure 19. Hagfishmean length cm! for eachof threefishing periods daytime/12 hours, nighttime/12hours, and day and nighttime/24 hours!. XI Figure 20, IVleannumber of hagfishper trap for each of fourtrop designs one funnel/no side holes,one funnel/with side holes,two funnels/noside holes.and two funnels/withside holes!. 35 Figure 21. Meanlength cm! of hagfishfor each of fourtrap designs one funnel/noside holes. one funnel/with side holes. two funnels/no side holes, and two funnels/with side holes! Figure 22. Percenthagfish >=12 inches ond >=14inches for fourtrap designs one funnel/no side holes,one funnel/with side holes.two funnels/no side holes, and two funnels/withside holes! and for totals oll data pooled!. 37 LIST OF TABLES Table 1, EstimatedPacific Hagfish I andings.............................. ...7 Table 2. Totalnumber caught, mean number per trap and meanlength per trap of hagfishcaught using bucket traps n=5! with 2 poundsof baitfished for 24 hours at five depths m!, 32 Table 3. Meannumber per trap and standarderror S.E.!.mean length per trap and S.E.. andtotal number caught for each of fourtrap designs, 33 Table 4, Meannumber per trop and standarderror S,E.!of hagfishcaught in each of four trap designs, 34 Mean numberper trap and standarderror S.E.!.total numbercaught, and mean Table 5. lengthper trap cm!and S.E. for hagfish caught in four trap designs ................,..... 35 Table 6. Skinquality of Pacifichagfish captured in 5-gallonbucket traps fished for 24 hours and Korean traps fished for 5,5 hours Table 7. Skinquality of Pacifichagfish held live in sixon-board handling treatments n=l0!. 43 Table 8. Skinquality of Pacifichagfish held live in five on-boardhandling treatments n =10!, 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Skinquality defects and a lackof information onfishing gear, fishing techniques, and managementtoolsthreaten thedevelopment ofthe new fishery i'or Pacific haglish onthe Pacific Coastof North America. Solutions tothese problems are likely to allowthe development ofboth a profitableanda sustainablehagfish fishery from California toAlaska, asa supplementtohighly regulated and harvest-limited traditional fisheries. Theobjective ofthis project was to provide the seafood harvesting industry with the tools to fullydevelop a profitable andsustainable fishery for the Pacific hagfish onthe West Coast of NorthAmerica, and to provide an alternative orsupplemental fishery for small coastal vessels. especiallydisplaced gillnet vessels. Specific objectives wereto; 1! develop gear and techniques that wouldselect for more and larger hagfish, 2!characterize hagfish behavior around baited traps and improvetrap designs based onthese observations, 3!characterize anddevelop means tocontrol skinquality problems, and4! develop industry recommendations forcapturing and handling Pacific hagfish, Multipleexperiments were completed in three general categories: fishing efficiency, trap design.and skin quality. Fishing efficiency experiments compared thenumber and size of hagfish caughtasa functionoi'trap size, gear soak time, bait concentration andtype, fishing depth, and trapescapement holesize. The purpose wasto develop means toselect forlarge fish >= 12 inches! withoutcompromising overallproduction. Preliminary testswere also included onthe extent of ghostfishing bylost traps, Trap design tests compared design features single vs.double funnels andplacement ofescapement holes}that might select i'or more and possibly larger fish based on ROVobservations ofhagfish behavior in the presence ofbaited traps. Skin quality tests compared a suiteof on-board handling techniques that might minimize oreliminate skin quality defects bitesand dorsal holes!. All samplingwas done in MontereyBay, CA, using Moss Landing Marine Laboratories' R/V Ed Ricketts. Meannuinber per trap and mean length did notvary significantly with trap sizein comparisonsofKorean traps, 5-gallon bucket traps, and 30-gallon traps. Because therelatively fewhagfish caught with Korean traps 9.8 /trap vs. 29.6/bucket trapand 24,8/30 gallon trap! appearedstressed. and the 30-gallon traps were difficult to handle. 5-gallon bucket traps were selectedfor i'uture comparisons. Using pooled data, the mean length of males 5.1 cm!was greater thanthat of iernales4.1 cm!,but thisdifference was not significant p=0.095!. Comparingthree soak times , 8,and 24 hours!. mean number per trap increased slightly v ithincreasing soak time, but results were not statistically significant,. The meaii length of hagfishcaught inthe 24-hour soak was significantly greater 4.8 crn; p=0,000! than for those caughtineither the 4-hour 3.2 cm! or the 8-hour soaks 2,4 cm!, Using pooled data rom all soak t.imes, males were significantly larger 5.2 cm!than iemales 3.5 cm:p=0.000!; 13.5 "ro had undevelopedgonads and werelabeled