Draft - October 16, 2015 Fish Species Environmental Vulnerabilities Consolidation By Mitchell A. Roffer and Candice Hall. Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc. (ROFFS™), West Melbourne, FL https://www.roffs.com - [email protected] Introduction: This is a literature review to consolidate the documents related to the apparent vulnerabilities to environmental change for the important commercial and recreational fishes in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean regions. It is provided as background material for the “Climate Variability and Fisheries Workshop: Setting Science Priorities for the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Regions,” St. Petersburg Beach, FL, October 26-29, 2015. It was not our purpose to conduct the actual vulnerability assessments for the 70 species we reviewed. However, in some cases where they was none we assigned an assessment. The main species under consideration were subjectively selected from the top 21 species identified from 2013 NOAA commercial annual landings and values for the South Atlantic States and Gulf of Mexico regions (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/MF_ANNUAL_LANDINGS) added additional species derived from the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council’s Fishery Management Plans (http://www.caribbeanfmc.com/index.html) and South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council’s managed species list. In addition, we added important recreational and highly migratory species. Each species review includes: a) an initial summary of their apparent vulnerability status and information related to their tolerances to key physical parameters; b) Rapid Assessment Profiles; c) SouthEast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) documentation; and d) additional information derived from a variety of sources. Statements of vulnerability are derived from the rapid assessment profiles, the SEDAR documentation (both detailed below), or determined by us from the available information contained in this document. We did not change the vulnerability statements (“high,” “moderately,” and “low”) from other sources and we only used the term “vulnerable” for the Roffer and Hall consideration. The amount of information provided for the individual reviews are not equal for each species due to the varying availability and subjective importance of the data. The rapid assessment profiles (if available) were derived by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC, http://www.asmfc.org/), the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC, http://www.mafmc.org/), the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC, http://www.nefmc.org/), and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC, http://www.safmc.net/). Certain species have profiles in multiple management council documents. Direct quotes are provided where appropriate. The rapid assessment profiles included government risk or management risk and is the consideration of whether and how agile the management will be able to adjust its management to changes related with climate variability. Not all species had rapid assessment profiles, but the rapid assessment profiles address the following key questions: • Climate vulnerability? • Ecosystem considerations? • Linkages to other fisheries? • Known climate-related concerns? • Social and economic concerns? • Management Risk? In the SEDAR subsection, the stock assessment documentation for each species is included, but not all species have SEDAR stock assessments (see http://sedarweb.org/). Page numbers from within the SEDAR document are included for easy reference. Note that multiple documents are included in SEDAR pdf’s. Each species summary also includes additional information related to the species- specific environmental tolerances that are important when considering changing climate and climate vulnerabilities. Conditions considered include temperature, salinity, oxygen and pH, depth range, life-cycle environments and locations, spawning season, and substrate preference. Additional interesting information is included for inquisitive minds. There is also a summary spreadsheet. Below is the summary by category. Category summary (n=70) Highly vulnerable (includes very, quite, medium-high) = 25 Vulnerable (includes medium, moderate) = 27 Low (includes low-medium) = 12 Possible = 1 Need more information = 5 When referencing this document please use: M.A. Roffer and C. Hall. 2015. Draft Fish Species Environmental Vulnerabilities Consolidation. Prepared for the Climate Variability and Fisheries Workshop: Setting Science Priorities for the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Regions, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, October 26-29, 2015. 210p. Below is a list of the species considered within this review: American eel Hogfish American shad King mackerel Atlantic bay scallop Northern kingcroaker (kingfish) Atlantic blue marlin Other reef fish Atlantic bluefin tuna Pinfish Atlantic deep-sea scallop Pink shrimp Atlantic croaker Quahog clam Atlantic menhaden Queen conch Atlantic sailfish Red drum Atlantic spadefish Red porgy Bar jack Red snapper Bigeye tuna Rock shrimp Black drum Royal red shrimp Black sea bass Scallops Blackfin tuna Scamp grouper Blue crab Sheepshead Blue runner Skipjack tuna Bluefish Southern flounder Blueline tilefish Southern kingcroaker (kingfish) Brown shrimp Spanish mackerel Butterfish Spiny dogfish Caribbean spiny lobster Spot Cobia Spotted seatrout Corals Striped mullet Deepsea golden crab Summer flounder Dolphin Swordfish Eastern oyster Tilefish Gag grouper Tomtate Golden tilefish Vermilion snapper Goliath grouper Wahoo Gray triggerfish Weakfish Greater amberjack White grunt Gulf flounder White marlin Gulf kingcroaker (kingfish) White shrimp Gulf menhaden Yellowfin menhaden Harvestfish Yellowfin tuna American eel: Anguilla rostrata Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable (ASMFC) Depth Range: Need information Temperature Range: 3 – 31 °C (Chesapeake Bay); 4 – 25 °C (FishBase 2006) Salinity Range: Need information Oxygen Rage: Greater than 4 mg/L pH Range: Need information 2013: $880,996.00, 31.9 tonnes: (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/MF_ANNUAL_LANDINGS) 1. Rapid Assessment Profiles: Info on climate change susceptibility Yes – ASMFC Management authorities? Interstate: ASMFC; State: ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, PRFC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL Climate vulnerability? “Highly vulnerable. Changing oceanic conditions affect the ability of out-migrating silver (mature) eels to reach breeding grounds in the Sargasso Sea.” “Changes in ocean current and temperatures impact the return of passively-dispersed larvae to estuaries along the entire Atlantic coast. Changes in the temperature, salinity, and habitat composition of estuarine and freshwater habitats impact the growth, morbidity, and maturity rates”. Ecosystem considerations? “Both predator and prey in the myriad of ecosystems in which they are found throughout their range and life cycle. However, disturbances to these predator-prey interactions are complicated and thus difficult to predict.” Linkages to other fisheries? “Preferred baits for the striped bass recreational fishery” (after reduction in availability of river herring due of population declines). “Eels are prey for striped bass, bluefish, and catfish and decreases in eel populations could contribute to declines in these” fisheries. “Horseshoe crabs are preferred bait in the yellow eel pot fishery”. Reduced landings in horseshoe crab harvest are already impacted the eel fishery (some progress in developing artificial baits, which until recently has not been very successful). Known climate-related concerns? “There is a concern over changes in oceanographic temperatures, which could influence the dispersal of the leptocephali larvae. This is a long term concern. Additionally, climate related concerns have been expressed for the decline in European eel stocks.” “The concern of a changing climate on American eels was one of the main reasons the USFWS is considering listing eels under the Endangered Species Act. Social and economic concerns? “Temperature influences the arrival of glass eels to East Coast Rivers. Huge swings in the winter temperature result in an unstable economics in the glass eel fishery if the eels recruit much earlier or later than when the fishing season is open.” Management Risk? Unknown. “One of the most unique life histories. 1) Recruitment is at random throughout the range (Canada to Brazil). Conservation efforts made in the US may not necessarily benefit US stocks of American eels. 2) If range consolidation caused by shifting oceanographic conditions is mistaken for increasing population trends and is followed by increasing fishing pressure then the result could be detrimental to the entire range. 3) Warmer water temperatures and decreasing salinity in eel habitats may also be associated with increased prevalence of the non-native swim bladder nematode, A. crassus. The parasite can increase stress response that may cause secondary bacterial infections and mass mortalities. Swim bladders are irreversibly damaged by the parasite, and infections can result in early migration failure because of reduced swimming performance and inability to regulate depth during migration.” 2. No SEDAR document available 3. ASMFC Chapter 7: American Eel http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/Chp7_American_Eel_Final.pdf “Factors that are thought to influence the daily abundance of migrating elvers include nightly tidal height, river water temperature and discharge, and the difference between bay and river temperatures (McCleave and Kleckner 1985; Sorensen