Atlantic Cod, Haddock,...7 Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation The...

Atlantic Cod, Haddock, Pollock

Gadus morhua, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Pollachius virens

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

United States Bottom trawl, Bottom gillnet, Bottom longline, Handline

November 6, 2013 Sam Wilding, Seafood Watch staff

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

2

Final Seafood Recommendation

Stock / Fishery Impacts on the Stock

Impacts on other Spp.

Management Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Handline

Red (1.41) Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.57) Good Alternative (2.950)

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Handline

Red (1.41) Red (2.00) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.57) Avoid (2.346)

Haddock: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Handline

Green (5.00) Red (1.41) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.57) Good Alternative (2.950)

Haddock: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Handline

Red (2.00) Red (1.41) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.57) Avoid (2.346)

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Large mesh bottom gillnet

Red (1.41) Red (1.34) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Avoid (2.054)

Atlantic pollock United States Georges Bank ‐ Large mesh bottom gillnet

Green (5.00) Red (1.34) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Good Alternative (2.816)

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Large mesh bottom gillnet


Atlantic cod: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Haddock: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Haddock: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Atlantic pollock United States Georges Bank ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Atlantic cod: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Longline, Bottom


Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Longline, Bottom


3

Haddock: Georges Bank United States Georges Bank ‐ Longline, Bottom


Haddock: Gulf of Maine United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Longline, Bottom


Atlantic pollock United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Large mesh bottom gillnet


Atlantic pollock United States Gulf of Maine ‐ Large mesh bottom trawl


Scoring note – Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and

five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of

the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice = Final Score between 3.2 and 5, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores Good Alternative = Final score between 2.2 and 3.199, and Management is not Red, and no

more than one Red Criterion other than Management, and no Critical scores Avoid = Final Score between 0 and 2.199, or Management is Red, or two or more Red Criteria,

or one or more Critical scores.

4

Executive Summary

The following Seafood Watch report provides recommendations for Atlantic cod (Gadus

morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and pollock (Pollachius virens) caught in the

Northwest Atlantic by U.S fishing vessels. The three species inhabit similar habitats, have

similar natural ranges, and are caught in mixed fisheries using a variety of methods including

bottom trawls, sink gillnets, bottom longlines, and rod and line which will be covered by this

report. The fisheries which capture cod, haddock and pollock in the Northwest Atlantic are

managed by New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) under the Multispecies

Fishery Management Plan.

Cod, haddock and pollock have a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure. There are two

seperate stocks of cod and haddock in the US Northwest Atlantic; Georges Bank and the Gulf of

Maine. Cod abundance on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine is in an overfished state and

of high conservation concern. Fishing pressure on both stocks by all fishing gears is too

high. Haddock stocks are healthier and have fully rebuilt on Georges Bank and are above

threshold biomass levels in the Gulf of Maine. Georges Bank haddock are fished at a

sustainable level, whilst fishing presure in the Gulf of Maine is too high. Pollock abundance in

the Northwest Atlantic is helathy and is being fished at a sustainable level.

The handline fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic are relatively selective, with no species of

concern caught other than the target species (typically cod). Bottom trawl fisheries in the

Northwest Atlantic catch a wide variety of species, including commercially important fish and

marine mammals. Of greatest concern in the bottom trawl fisheries for cod, haddock and

pollock is the bycatch of yellowtail flounder which is overfished and experiencing overfishing on

Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine. Bottom gillnet fisheries catch a variety of species,

including a number of marine mammals; of greatest concern are harbor porpoise which are

listed as a species of concern under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and are being

negatively impacted by fishing activities in the region. Bottom longline fisheries are relvatively

selective compared to the trawl and gillnet fisheries, however there is a bycatch of cod and a

number of skate species that are stocks of concern. Bottom trawls have a discard rate of 48%

in the region, with gillnets and longlines having a discard rate of 28% each, and handline having

a discard rate of 8% (most of which is undersized cod).

The NEFMC manages the groundfish fishery through a collective FMP which covers 20 stocks

form 13 species. Grouping species together allows NEFMC to manage these mixed fisheries

more effectively than if individual species FMPs were used. Due to the historical exploitation to

5

which the stocks have been exposed, a number of stocks are depleted or in a state of

rebuilding. NEFMC has recently introduced a new management system which should improve

the rate of recovery of stocks. There is a considerable effort to collect data in these fisheries

through logbooks and observer coverage, which guides stock assessments (along with fishery

independent data). NEFMC take into account the scientific information provided by stock

assessments on the majority of occasions, however in some instances TACs have been set too

high in response to social and economic need. There are a number of regulations in place

which require fisheries managers to reduce the impacts of fishing activities on non‐target

populations. Reporting of bycatch incentivizes reduction efforts whilst providing data for

scientific research and stock assessments. The observer program provides considerable data to

aid in stock assessments of target and bycatch species. Enforcement is generally good,

however enforcement of regulations concerning the use of pingers in gillnet fisheries could be

improved.

The majority of the groundfish fishery takes place in water less than 100m deep over sand and

sand‐silt habitats, and gravel habitats impacted by the fishery occur in waters less than 60m

deep. Habitata impacts are a moderate conservation concern for bottom trawl fisheries, low

conservation concern for bottom gillnet and bottom longline fisheries, and very low concern for

handline fisheries. There is a minimal level of mitigation measures in place as a number of

permanent closed areas protect essential fish habitat from bottom trawls, and other temporary

and permanent closures which offer some protection from all gears (although these are not

designated specifically for habitat protection and may not protect the most vulnerable of

habiats). Ecosystem‐based management is currently being developed for the groundfish fishery

in the Northwest Atlantic and this process is expected to take a minimum of 5

years. Management of the ecosystem in this region is a moderate conservation concern.

6

Table of Contents

Final Seafood Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ...................................................................................... 12

Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks .................................................................................... 24

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 94

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem .............................................................................................. 111

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 119

References ................................................................................................................................................ 120

About Seafood Watch® ............................................................................................................................. 125

Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................... 126

7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

The following Seafood Watch report provides recommendations for Atlantic cod (Gadus

morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and pollock (Pollachius virens) caught in the

Northwest Atlantic by U.S fishing vessels. The three species are caught in mixed fisheries using

a variety of methods including bottom trawls, sink gillnets, bottom longlines, and rod and line

which will be covered by this report. Recommendations are provided for the gears that catch a

significant volume of each species or provide a more sustainable option (see table 1).

Overview of the species and management bodies

Atlantic cod is widely distributed throughout the North Atlantic and the Arctic Oceans. In the

Northwest Atlantic it can be found from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Greenland. It is found

to depths of 600m although typically it inhabits depths of less than 200m {Froese & Pauly

2012}. The Atlantic cod is an extremely important commercial species which has been targeted

throughout its range for many years making it culturally and socially significant.

Haddock is found in both the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic between temperatures of 4°C

and 10°C. In the Northwest Atlantic it is found between Cape May, New Jersey and the Strait of

Belle Isle, Newfoundland. Typically found at depths of between 10m and 200m, it is demersal,

living above rocky, sand, gravel or shell‐based seabeds, feeding on crustaceans, echinoderms,

mollusks, worms and fish {Froese & Pauly 2012}.

Pollock is closely related to both cod and haddock and is part of the Gadoid family of fish. It is

found throughout a similar range to both cod and haddock, occurring throughout the coastal

and continental shelf region of the North Atlantic. In the Northwest Atlantic it ranges from

Greenland to North Carolina, in both inshore and offshore areas, typically forming shoals

{Froese & Pauly 2012}.

The groundfish fishery in New England has been in existence for 400 years and provided the

first major industry for early settlers in this region, with a number of associated businesses

arising to support the fishing industry. As such the groundfish fishery of New England is of

great social and economic importance to the local communities. Over the centuries capture

methods have changed dramatically with improvements in technology and efficiency of the

fishery. As a result of the increased efficiency, overfishing occurred resulting in the depletion of

many of the Northwest Atlantic groundfish stocks. Concerns with overfishing were raised in the

early 1900s and in the 1930s the overcapacity of the industry became evident

(http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/history/stories/groundfish/grndfsh1.html). The introduction of

8

factory trawlers in the 1960s from overseas (including USSR, Poland, Spain and Japan) led to the

virtual collapse of stocks of groundfish, some of which are yet to recover following continued

fishing pressure through the 1980s and 1990s. In recent years fishermen have been using more

selective fishing gears, particularly in the trawl fishery, where seperator trawls and Ruhle trawls

have been developed and adopted to reduce bycatch and discarding of non‐target and/or low

abundance species. Due to quotas restrictions on low abuindance species, fishermen have also

started to target more abundant species and stocks such as haddock and redfish.

The U.S fisheries targeting the species above are managed by the New England Fisheries

Management Council (NEFMC) under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NE

Multispecies FMP, ‘the plan’), which was originally enacted in 1986. Since its inception it has

been amended several times to account for changes in fishing activity and abundance of the 20

stocks (comprising 13 different species) managed under the plan {NEFSC 2012a}.

Production Statistics

Cod, haddock and pollock are all globally important commercial species. In 2010, cod was the

tenth most landed species by volume with a total of 950,950mt. Global landings of pollock

(26th) and haddock (27th) were 400,920mt and 396,389mt respectively {FAO 2012}.

Figure 1: Landings of Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish from U.S vessels between 1950 and

2011. Compiled from NMFS landings data, with landings shown in metric tons.

9

Landings of all three species from U.S waters are currently below 50‐year average, although

pollock landings are approaching this value. Figure 1 shows the trends in landings for the four

species from U.S vessels from 1950 to 2011. Landings for cod, haddock and pollock have been

fluctuating between 3,000mt and 10,000mt since 2003. For cod this represents the historical

low, whereas pollock and haddock landings have increased from historical lows in the mid‐

1990s.

For the New England fisheries discussed in this report, the breakdown of which gears are used

to catch each of the species is summarized in table 1 (recommendations are provided for the

species‐gear combinations that are shown in bold).

Table 1: A breakdown of percentage of landings (by species) for gears used in New England fisheries.

Gear → Species

↓

Handline/ Rod &

Reel

Otter trawl Sink Gillnet Bottom longline Source

Atlantic Cod 1.9 70.3 21.2 3.0 NEFSC 2012a;

NEFSC 2012b

Haddock 1.4 89.1 1.6 7.8 NOAA 2012Atlantic Pollock 0.5 56.7 39.0 0.0 NOAA 2012

Importance to the US/North American market

All three species of groundfish considered within the scope of this report are imported into the

U.S. In 2010, 17,570mt of Atlantic cod (with a value of $97.2million), 34,636mt of haddock

($151.1million), and 5,432mt of pollock ($1.3million) were imported into the U.S. Figure 2

shows the sources of the imports, and it is clear that the main countries of importance are

Canada, Iceland and China, with Norway being an important source of haddock. It should be

noted that imports from China are likely to be caught in other countries (including the U.S) and

sent to China for processing, before being imported to the U.S markets. There is confusion over

the original source of cod from China, and there are also concerns over the volume of IUU

(illegal, unregulated and unreported landings) fish entering Chinese (and other Asian)

processors {Album 2010}.

Export data is harder to analyze as it is generally grouped into similar species, e.g. both Atlantic

and Pacific cod are grouped together. Data from the NOAA Office of Science and Technology

(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/cumulative_data/TradeDataProduct.html) shows that

in 2010 a total of 692mt of haddock and 726mt of pollock were exported from the U.S. for

values of $3million and $1.3million respectively. It is interesting to notice that the value of

pollock imports is equal to the value of exports, whereas imports of cod and haddock are much

10

higher than exports, illustrating the importance of these species to U.S consumers.

Figure 2: Source of imports for Atlantic cod (A), haddock (B), and pollock (C) into the U.S in 2010. From data

obtained from NOAA Office of Science and Technology. NOTE: Only data which was species specific was included

in this comparison, unknown or unspecified species were not included.

Common and market names

Atlantic cod is generally labeled simply as ‘cod’, but is also known as ‘true‐cod’ and smaller cod

are referred to as scrod.

Haddock is marketed as haddock, and smaller haddock are also known as scrod.

Pollock is the only known common name in use in the U.S, however this species is referred to as

saithe or coley in Europe, where a closely related species Pollachius pollachius is given the

name pollack. This species should not be confused with walleye (Alaskan) pollock which is

caught in the Pacific.

11

All of the species considered in this report can be found under the name ‘whitefish’, a generic

term used for firm, white fleshed fish.

Primary product forms

Cod, haddock and pollock from the New England region is primarily available fresh in the form

of whole fish and fillets.

Other forms of cod, haddock and pollock that may be available on the market include frozen

fillets, breaded/battered, smoked, salted, or block (typically used for fish sticks etc).

12

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 http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current

abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored,

when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 Score is determined by taking the geometric

mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores.

ATLANTIC COD: GEORGES BANK

Region / Method Inherent Vulnerability

Stock Status Fishing Mortality

Subscore

United States Georges Bank Handline

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern

1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Georges Bank Large mesh bottom gillnet


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Georges Bank Large mesh bottom trawl


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Georges Bank Longline, Bottom


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

ATLANTIC COD: GULF OF MAINE



Subscore

United States Gulf of Maine Handline


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Gulf of Maine Large mesh bottom gillnet


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Gulf of Maine Large mesh bottom trawl


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

United States Gulf of Maine Longline, Bottom


1.00:High Concern

Red (1.414)

13

ATLANTIC POLLOCK



Subscore


1.00:High 5.00:Very Low Concern

5.00:Very Low Concern

Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

HADDOCK: GEORGES BANK



Subscore




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

HADDOCK: GULF OF MAINE



Subscore


1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern

1.00:High Concern

Red (2.000)



1.00:High Concern

Red (2.000)



1.00:High Concern

Red (2.000)

Justification of Ranking

Factor 1.1 ‐ Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing

Low = FishBase vulnerability score for species 0‐35 OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, e.g., early maturing (<5 years), short lived (< 10 years), small maximum size, and low on food chain.

Medium = FishBase vulnerability score for species 36‐55 OR life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable or resilient to fishing, e.g. moderate age at sexual maturity (5‐15 years), moderate maximum age (10‐25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain.

14

High = FishBase vulnerability score for species 56‐100 OR life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, e.g. long‐lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top‐predator. Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine

fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity,

longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g. schooling,

aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or

reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 ‐ Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern) = Strong evidence that population is above target abundance level (e.g. biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass

4 (Low Concern) = Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished.

3 (Moderate Concern) = Abundance level is unknown and species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing

2 (High Concern) = Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern OR Abundance is unknown and species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

1 (Very High Concern) = Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 ‐ Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern) = Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level

(e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY) OR fishery does not

target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a

sustainable level of fishing mortality)

3.67 (Low Concern) = Probable (>50% chance) that fishing mortality is at or below a

sustainable level, but some uncertainty OR fishery does not target species and does not

adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible OR fishing

mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low

susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught)

2.33 (Moderate Concern) = Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels OR

fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate‐high susceptibility to the fishery,

and if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

1 (High Concern) = Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail

overfishing OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted and no management is in

place

15

0 (Critical) = Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in

place to curtail overfishing.

ATLANTIC COD: GEORGES BANK

1.1 ‐ Inherent Vulnerability

United States Georges Bank, Handline

United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom gillnet

United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom trawl

United States Georges Bank, Longline, Bottom

High 1.00

The Fishbase vulnerability score for Atlantic cod is 65 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.

1.2 ‐ Stock Status





High Concern 2.00

The Georges Bank cod population had an estimated SSB of 13,216mt (following retrospective pattern

adjustment) which is only 7% of the SSBMSY (186,535mt) {NEFSC 2013a}.

Rationale:

Biomass has declined from 96,864mt in 1980 to 19,220mt in 1995 (figure 4). After a brief increase in the

late 1990s to 25,624mt in 2001, biomass again declined to a historic low of 10,121mt in 2010. The

biomass has since increased however it is still well below threshold values and rebuilding is minimal

{NEFSC 2013a}.

Recruitment (age 1 fish) has been below series average (13.6 million fish) for the last two decades, and

has not exceeded the long‐term mean since 1991 {NEFSC 2013a}. Considering the current trend in low

recruitment, it is unlikely that rebuilding of this stock will occur in the short to medium term.

16

Figure 3: Spawning stock biomass and recruitment for Georges Bank Atlantic cod between 1978 and 2011.

Dashed line represents SSBTHRESHOLD (½SSBMSY) at 93,268mt. Adapted from NEFSC 2013.

1.3 ‐ Fishing Mortality





High Concern 1.00

Overfishing is occurring in the Georges Bank cod fisheries as total fishing mortality in 2011 was 0.43,

compared to an FMSY of 0.18 {NEFSC 2013a}.

Rationale:

The Georges Bank cod fisheries have failed to meet the FREBUILD target set at 0.18 in Amendment 13 of

the NE Multi FMP {NEFMC 2004}. Management has failed to effectively reduce fishing mortality to allow

rebuilding of the Georges Bank cod stock, a new management system based on hard TACs and quotas

(rather than the previous days at sea effort control) was introduced in 2010 however FMSYPROXY was

exceeded in 2010 and 2011, suggesting quotas are too high.

Cod is caught using large mesh otter trawls, large mesh gillnets, longline, and rod & reel with each

method contributing 55%, 36%, 3% and 2% to landing volumes respectively. As cod are a target species

17

in each of these fisheries, all methods are considered to be contributing towards the overfishing.

ATLANTIC COD: GULF OF MAINE


United States Gulf of Maine, Handline

United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom gillnet

United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom trawl

United States Gulf of Maine, Longline, Bottom

High 1.00

The Fishbase vulnerability score for Atlantic cod is 65 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.






High Concern 2.00

The Gulf of Maine cod population is estimated to be below the SSBTHRESHOLD {NEFSC 2013a}.

Rationale:

The most recent stock assessment of Gulf of Maine cod used two different models to estimate the

biomass of the stock; the M0.2 model estimated a SSB2011 of 9,903mt compared to a SSBTHRESHOLD of

27,372mt, and the MRAMP model estimated a SSB2011 of 10,221mt compared to a SSBTHRESHOLD of 40,100mt

{NEFSC 2013a}. Both models show that the biomass is well below threshold targets (figure 3) and

remains in an overfished state. Recruitment has declined in recent years and in both models is at a

historical low {NEFSC 2013a}.

18

Figure 4: Estimated trends in spawning stock biomass of Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod between 1982 and 2011 as

predicted by M0.2 and MRAMP models. Threshold targets, SSBTHRESHOLD, (1/2 SSBMSY) are shown for each

model. From NEFSC 2013.






High Concern 1.00

There is overfishing occurring on the Gulf of Maine stock of Atlantic cod as F2011 was above FMSYPROXY

{NEFSC 2013a}

Rationale:

Fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.86 or 0.90 by the M0.2 and MRAMP models respectively, and whilst

this represents a decline from historical highs in the mid‐1990s, it is still 4.7 or 5.0 times higher than

FMSYPROXYas predicted by each model {NEFSC 2013a}.

The Gulf of Maine cod fisheries have failed to meet the target of F=0.21 as set in amendment 13 of the

19

New England Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NE Multi FMP) {NEFMC 2004}. Management has

failed to effectively reduce fishing mortality to allow rebuilding of the Georges Bank cod stock, a new

management system based on hard TACs and quotas (rather than the previous days at sea effort

control) was introduced in 2010 however FMSYPROXY was exceeded in 2010 and 2011, suggesting quotas

are too high.

Cod is caught using large mesh otter trawls, large mesh gillnets, longline and rod & reel with each

method contributing 55%, 36%, 3% and 2% to landing volumes respectively. As cod are a target species

in each of these fisheries, all methods are considered to be contributing towards the overfishing.

ATLANTIC POLLOCK






High 1.00

Fishbase provides a vulnerability score of 61 for pollock {Froese & Pauly 2012}.






Very Low Concern 5.00

The latest stock assessment for pollock in the Northwest Atlantic was conducted using 2009 data. The

SSB2009 was estimated to be 196,000mt, which is above the SSBMSY of 91,000mt {NEFSC 2010}.

20







The most recent estimate of fishing mortality on the pollock stock was F2009 = 0.07, which is 28% of the

FMSY set at 0.25 {NEFSC 2012b}.

Rationale:

Pollock is caught using large mesh otter trawls and large mesh gillnets with each gear contributing 56%

and 39% respectively to landing volumes.

HADDOCK: GEORGES BANK





High 1.00

Fishbase provides a vulnerability score of 63 for haddock {Froese & Pauly 2012}.






The SSB2010 for Georges Bank haddock was estimated to be 167,278mt, which is above the SSBMSY of

21

124,900mt {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

Spawning stock biomass peaked in 2007 at over 250,000mt and has since decreased (figure 5), although

it is still above biological reference points and is considered rebuilt. Short term projections predict a

further increase in biomass between 2011 and 2015 ranging between 147,700mt and 240,200mt {NEFSC

2012a}. One of the major factors in this projected increase is the strong 2010 year‐class recruiting to the

fishery, estimated to be 750 million age‐1 fish (compared to an average of 19 million between 2000 and

2009). There is still uncertainty over the size of this cohort, however the projections described have

taken this uncertainty into account.

Figure 5: Spawning stock biomass of Georges Bank haddock between 1930 and 2010. Taken from NEFSC 2012a)






The Georges Bank haddock population is considered to be rebuilt and is being fished below the FMSY

proxy of 0.39 at a level of 0.24 {NEFSC 2012a}.

22

Rationale:

Haddock is caught using rod & reel, large mesh otter trawls, and bottom longlines which each contribute

1%, 89% and 8% respectively to landing volumes.

HADDOCK: GULF OF MAINE





High 1.00

Fishbase provides a vulnerability score of 63 for haddock {Froese & Pauly 2012}.





Low Concern 4.00

The spawning stock biomass of haddock in the Gulf of Maine in 2010, SSB2010, was 2,868mt, just above

the SSBTHRESHOLD of 2,452mt and below the SSBMSY of 4,904mt {NEFSC 2012a}.





High Concern 1.00

The Gulf of Maine haddock stock is experiencing overfishing as F2010 was 0.82, compared to an FMSY of

23

0.46 {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

Whilst the stock has increased in abundance {NEFSC 2012a}, management measures have failed to

achieve the target fishing mortality set in Amendment 13 of the NE Multi FMP {NEFMC 2004} of F=0.22.

Haddock is caught using rod & reel, large mesh otter trawls, and bottom longlines which each contribute

1%, 89% and 8% respectively to landing volumes. As haddock is a main target species in each of these

fisheries, all are considered to contribute to overfishing.

24

Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks All retained and primary bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the

species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all

fisheries‐related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards,

endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2

score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate

score (ranges from 0‐1), which evaluates the amount of non‐retained catch (discards) and bait

use relative to the retained catch.

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Handline

Subscore:: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 5.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability


Subscore

ATLANTIC COD: GEORGES BANK 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

HADDOCK: GEORGES BANK 1.00: High 5.00: Very Low Concern

5.00: Very Low Concern

5.000

SCUP 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

SPINY DOGFISH 1.00: High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom gillnet




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414

HARBOR PORPOISE: GULF OF MAINE/BAY OF FUNDY

1.00: High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

THORNY SKATE 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

HUMPBACK WHALE: GULF OF MAINE

1.00: High 1.00: Very High Concern

2.33: Moderate Concern

1.526

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



1.526

FIN WHALE: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC


3.67: Low Concern

1.916

25

ATLANTIC HALIBUT 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC, OFFSHORE



2.159

HARBOR SEAL: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



2.159

WINTER SKATE 1.00: High 5.00: Very Low Concern

1.00: High Concern

2.236

ATLANTIC WHITE‐SIDED DOLPHIN: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

HARP SEAL: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



3.162

HOODED SEAL: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



3.162

RISSO'S DOLPHIN: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



3.162

SHORT‐BEAKED COMMON DOLPHIN: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC



3.162

BARNDOOR SKATE 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

ROSETTE SKATE 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

SMOOTH SKATE 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

CLEARNOSE SKATE 1.00: High 5.00: Very Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

4.284

GRAY SEAL: WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC

1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

ACADIAN REDFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

ATLANTIC POLLOCK 1.00: High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000



5.000

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414

26


1.00: High Concern

1.414

WITCH FLOUNDER 2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER: GEORGES BANK

2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414



2.159




2.159

OCEAN POUT 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

PILOT WHALE (UNSPECIFIED) 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern


2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162

MINKE WHALE: CANADIAN EAST COAST



3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

MONKFISH 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

WHITE HAKE 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284

LITTLE SKATE 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

4.284

AMERICAN PLAICE 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

27




4.472

SUMMER FLOUNDER 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

WINTER FLOUNDER: GEORGES BANK

3.00: Low 4.00: Low Concern


4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Atlantic cod: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Longline, Bottom




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.236


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



5.000



5.000

28

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Handline




Subscore

ATLANTIC COD: GULF OF MAINE 1.00: High 2.00: High Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.414

HADDOCK: GULF OF MAINE 1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern

1.00: High Concern

2.000



5.000



5.000

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom gillnet




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414




1.526




1.526



3.67: Low Concern

1.916



2.159




2.159




2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709

29




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284




4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414

YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER: CAPE COD/ GULF OF MAINE


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000



2.159

30




2.159



2.159



2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

WINTER FLOUNDER: GULF OF MAINE

3.00: Low 3.00: Moderate Concern


3.873


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472




4.472



4.472



5.000

31



5.000



5.000

Atlantic cod: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Longline, Bottom




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000


1.00: High Concern

2.236


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



5.000

Atlantic pollock: United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom gillnet




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414




1.526

32




1.526



3.67: Low Concern

1.916



2.159




2.159




2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284




4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

33

Atlantic pollock: United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414



2.159




2.159



2.159



2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

34


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472




4.472



4.472




4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Atlantic pollock: United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom gillnet




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414




1.526




1.526



3.67: Low Concern

1.916



2.159

35




2.159




2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284




4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Atlantic pollock: United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414

36


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000



2.159




2.159



2.159



2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831




3.873


3.67: Low Concern

4.284

37


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472




4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Haddock: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Handline




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414



5.000



5.000



5.000

Haddock: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414



2.159

38




2.159



2.159



2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472




4.472



4.472




4.472



5.000

39



5.000



5.000



5.000

Haddock: Georges Bank: United States Georges Bank, Longline, Bottom




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.236


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



5.000



5.000

Haddock: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Handline




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000



5.000

40



5.000

Haddock: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Large mesh bottom trawl




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414



1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000



2.159




2.159



2.159



2.159


1.00: High Concern

2.236



3.67: Low Concern

2.709




3.162




3.162




3.162




3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

41


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831




3.873


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472




4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Haddock: Gulf of Maine: United States Gulf of Maine, Longline, Bottom




Subscore


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

1.414


1.00: High Concern

2.000


1.00: High Concern

2.236


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

42


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



5.000


Only species that scored ‘red’ are included here. All other species evaluations are in Appendix 1. See criterion 1 for scoring definitions. ACADIAN REDFISH






Medium 2.00

Fishbase provides a vulnerability score of 44 for Acadian redfish {Froese & Pauly 2012}.







The latest information available on the Acadian redfish stock in the Northwest Atlantic estimates that

43

SSB2010 is 314,780mt, which is higher than the SSBMSY of 238,000mt {NEFSC 2012a}.







Total fishing mortality in 2010 was 0.006 compared to FMSY of 0.04 {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

The Acadian redfish stock was previously in a rebuilding plan and is now considered to be rebuilt as

management was successful in reaching the FREBUILD target of 0.01 set through Amendment 13 of the NE

Multi FMP {NEFMC 2004}. Acadian redfish are caught primarily using large mesh otter trawl (93% of

landings) and gillnet (6% of landings).

AMERICAN PLAICE




High 1.00

American plaice has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 63 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




Low Concern 4.00

44

In 2010 the estimated spawning stock biomass of American plaice was 10,805mt, which was above

SSBTHRESHOLD = 9,199mt but only 59% of the biomass target (SSBMSY=18,398mt) {NEFSC 2012a}. Spawning

stock biomass has been below SSBMSY since the early 1980s, but has shown an increasing trend over the

last decade (figure 6).

Rationale:

Figure 6. Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank American plaice spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality (F)

estimates during 1980‐2007, along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates, from GARM III assessment

in 2008 (blue circles). Green diamond shows 2007 SSB and F estimates adjusted for retrospective pattern, and

open squares show projected SSB and F, along with 80% confidence intervals (Figure from data in NEFSC 2012a).





Fishing mortality on American plaice reached a historical low in 2010 at 0.13, which is below the

benchmark of FMSY = 0.18. The Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank American plaice population is a

transboundary stock, however since the mid‐1970s 95‐100% of landings have come from US fisheries

{NEFSC 2012a}. Otter trawls account for the majority of landings of American plaice. Discards from the

groundfish otter trawl fisheries are less than 1% of landings (of all species), with discards from other

45

gears being insignificant {NMFS 2011b}.

ATLANTIC HALIBUT






High 1.00

Atlantic halibut has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 88 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.






High Concern 2.00

The latest estimates of Atlantic halibut abundance show that biomass, B2010 = 1,700mt, is well below the

threshold reference point, BTHRESHOLD = 24,000mt (figure 7) {NEFSC 2012a}. Atlantic halibut is considered a

species of concern by NMFS {NMFS 2012e}.





46


Moderate Concern 2.33

Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Atlantic halibut is in year eight of a 52‐year rebuilding plan {NMFS 2012c}.

Since 2009 NMFS also had a possession limit of one fish per trip for Atlantic halibut{NEFSC 2012a}. The

most recent assessment of Atlantic halibut indicated F2010 = 0.032 and FMSY = 0.0731, so F2010/FMSY =

0.438, and overfishing was therefore not occurring {NEFSC 2012a}. However, Frebuild, the target fishing

pressure if the stock is to be rebuilt by 2056, is 0.044 {Col & Legault 2009}, so while F2010/Frebuild = 0.73,

fishing mortality exceeded Frebuild in six of the last ten years for which data were available, and the

average value of F for this time was 0.0504, slightly above Frebuild {NEFSC 2012a}. Frebuild is likely highly

optimistic see “Detailed rationale”, below). Discards of halibut are a low proportion of the landings for

all of the gears assessed here (<0.1%) {NMFS 2011b}; however discards of halibut have been increasing

and now outweigh landings, partly due to the increase in minimum landing size in 1999 and 2004, and

the introduction of the retention limit {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

No directed fishery exists for halibut in federal waters, although a limited halibut fishery is permitted in

Maine’s state waters. Amendment 9 to the NE Multispecies FMP permits a one‐fish possession limit

{NMFS 2009}

Frebuild and the rebuilding timeframe may be highly optimistic for three reasons. First, the population

model makes the unrealistic assumption that the population grows at its maximum rate, even though

there are currently no indications that this is the case. Second, the model does not incorporate age

structure, so the fact that the mean age of maturity for females is 7.3 years means that there will be a

lag time of initial response to management measures and a slower rebuilding trajectory than projected.

Third, the currently assessed Gulf of Maine‐Georges Bank stock is likely a small portion of a larger US‐

Canadian Atlantic halibut stock, as there is strong evidence that halibut are capable of both long

distance movements and crossing US‐Canada boundaries in substantial numbers, and this dynamic is

unaccounted for by the current model {Col & Legault 2009}.

Rationale:

47

Figure 7. Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Atlantic halibut biomass (B) and fishing mortality (F) estimates during

1800‐2007, along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates, from GARM III assessment in 2008 (blue

circles). Open squares show projected SSB and F, along with 80% confidence intervals (Figure from data in NEFSC

2012a).







High 1.00

Seafood Watch considers all marine mammals to have a high vulnerability to fishing pressure {Seafood

48

Watch 2013}.






High Concern 2.00

The status of the population relative to the OSP (optimum sustainable population) is unknown. The best

estimate of abundance is 48,819, although there is a possibility that seasonal variations in abundance

occur and future studies (2011‐2015) may improve estimations {Waring et al 2013b}. White‐sided

dolphin are no longer considered a strategic stock in the Western North Atlantic as average annual

human related mortality between 2006 and 2010 does not exceed the PBR {Waring et al 2013b}.






Low Concern 3.67

The average estimated annual mortality rate of white‐sided dolphins in the gillnet fishery was 38

between 2006 and 2010 {Waring et al 2013b}. This represents 13% of the PBR (304) which is not

exceeded by collective fishing activities.

BARNDOOR SKATE



49






High 1.00

The barndoor skate has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 77 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.








Low Concern 4.00

B/BMSY = 0.69 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance is believed to be between the biomass target and the

limit reference point (figure 8). NMFS classifies the stock as not overfished and rebuilding.

50

Figure 8: NEFSC survey biomass indices (kg/tow). Thin lines are annual indices, thick lines are three‐

year moving averages, the red line represents the biomass limit reference point, and the blue line

represents the biomass target. From NEFMC 2012.








Low Concern 3.67

The 2008‐2010 average survey index (1.11 kg/tow) was 10% higher than the 2007‐2009 average 1.01

51

kg/tow), indicating that the population was undergoing rebuilding {NEFMC 2012}. In the fourth quarter

of 2012, NMFS considered there to be no overfishing occurring on barndoor skate in the Northwest

Atlantic {NMFS 2012c}.

Rationale:

The fishing mortality reference points for skates are based on changes in survey biomass indices. If the

three‐year moving average of the survey biomass index for a skate species declines by more than the

average CV of the survey time series, then fishing mortality is assumed to be greater than FMSY and

overfishing is occurring for that skate species {Sosebee 2006}.





High 1.00


Watch 2013}.




High Concern 2.00

In 2008 the bottlenose dolphin population in the Western North Atlantic was believed to consist of a

minimum of 70,775 individuals {NMFS 2008}. However, the optimum sustainable population (OSP) has

not been calculated for this stock so it is not possible to determine whether the current population is at

a sustainable level. Bottlenose dolphins are not considered to be an endangered or threatened species

{NMFS 2008}.



52



Although the potential biological removal for bottlenose dolphin has been calculated as 566 animals per

year, the number of mortalities and serious injuries caused by fishing activities has not been calculated

therefore the impact is unknown. The only fishery known to interact with bottlenose dolphins within the

scope of this report is the Northeast sink gillnet fishery {NMFS 2008}.

CLEARNOSE SKATE








High 1.00

Clearnose skate has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 57 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.









53

B/BMSY = 1.43 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance is at or around the biomass target, with the three‐year

average above this benchmark (figure 8).








Low Concern 3.67

The 2008‐2010 average survey index of 1.10 kg/tow was not 40% lower than the 2007‐2009 average of

1.16 kg/tow, therefore NMFS did not consider overfishing to be occurring {NEFMC 2012}. In the fourth

quarter of 2012 overfishing was not occurring on the clearnose skate population {NMFS 2012c}.

Rationale:









High 1.00


Watch 2013}.


54



Very High Concern 1.00

The status of the stock relative to the OSP is unknown; however fin whales are listed as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and by the IUCN.

Rationale:

The best available abundance estimate for the fin whales in the North Atlantic is 3,522 individuals. There

is insufficient information available to assess trends in this population.




Low Concern 3.67

The large mesh gillnet fishery is the only fishery within the scope of this report that is known to interact

with fin whales in the Northwest Atlantic {NMFS 2012d}. The PBR for fin whales is 5.6 whales per year.

Between 2005 and 2009, minimum annual human‐caused mortalities and serious injury to fin whales

was 2.6 per year, including a rate of 0.6 whales per year in US fisheries. This represents 11% of the PBR,

which is not exceeded by human activities.







High 1.00


55

Watch 2013}.






Low Concern 4.00

The current status of the Western North Atlantic population of gray seals is unknown relative to the

OSP, abundance is unknown but is believed to be increasing in US and Canadian waters {Waring et al

2013a}.







A PBR has not been estimated for the Western North Atlantic gray seal population, however indications

that the stock is increasing suggests that the impact of US fisheries on the population is insignificant and

approaching zero relative to the size of the population {Waring et al 2013a}.

Rationale:

The gillnet and large mesh trawl fisheries are known to have interactions with gray seals in the

northwest Atlantic. Between 2006 and 2010 the average annual mortality and serious injury to gray

seals in the gillnet fishery was 794 seals {Waring et al 2013a}. The large mesh trawl fishery has a lower

impact with no observed interactions prior to 2005, since when interactions have been in the single

figures on an annual basis {Waring et al 2013a}.

56







High 1.00


Watch 2013}.






High Concern 2.00

Harbor porpoises are listed as strategic species by the Marine Mammal Protection Act {Waring et al

2013b} and as a species of special concern for the Northeast sink gill net fishery {NMFS 2012d}.

Rationale:

The Northeast sink gill net fishery is listed as a Category I fishery in the 2012 LOF (List of Fisheries)

because the annual mortality and serious injury to harbor porpoises (Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy) stock

exceeds 50% of the PBR level of harbor porpoises {NMFS 2012d}. A current population trend analysis has

not been conducted for this species; the current abundance estimate is 79,883 individuals {Waring et al

2013b}.



57


High Concern 1.00

The harbor porpoise is a species of special concern, the fishery removes more than 50% of the Potential

Biological Removal (PBR) level, and some management actions are in place (time & area closures, and

pingers) and are believed to be effective. However, due to low compliance with pinger requirements,

the target bycatch rate was exceeded in 2011 and 2012 {NERO 2013}. More recent data indicate that

PBR is no longer exceeded, and that compliance is improving.

Rationale:

Total annual estimated average fishery‐related mortality or serious injury of harbor porpoises in the Gulf

of Maine and Bay of Fundy is 835, compared to a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) of 706. Of those

instances, 883 per year are from US fisheries using observer and Marine Mammal Authorization

Program data, with an annual average of 511 serious injuries and mortalities attributable to the

Northeast gillnet fishery between 2005 and 2009 {Waring et al 2013b}. The 1994‐1998 average

estimated harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury rate in the NE gillnet fishery (mesh size

unspecified) was 1,163 animals per year, so there has been a decrease in serious injuries and mortalities

since the introduction of the Take Reduction Plan. However, total US fishery‐related mortality and

serious injury for this stock exceeded the PBR, so the stock qualified as a Strategic stock.

The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) was implemented in 1998 to reduce interactions

between harbor porpoises and commercial gillnet gear capable of catching multiple species in the Gulf

of Maine and Mid‐Atlantic coasts {NMFS 1998}. The plan includes 4 complete time and area closures,

and time and area closures unless pingers are used (see Appendix A1). Also included in the HPTRP are

historically high areas of harbor porpoise bycatch. These areas are considered ‘consequence closure

areas’ that will seasonally close if bycatch rates averaged over two consecutive managements season

are greater than the specified bycatch rate of 0.031 harbor porpoise per metric ton. If the rate is

exceeded the Coastal Gulf of Maine Consequence Closure Area will be closed during October and

November to gill net fishing (See Appendix A2; {NMFS 2010a}). These measures have decreased the

average estimated harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury by 49% from 1994‐98 (before the

HPTRP) to 2004‐08 (after the HPTRP) {NMFS 2010b}. Unfortunately, due low compliance with pinger

requirements, bycatch rates for the monitoring seasons in 2010‐11 (0.078) and 2011‐12 (0.043)

exceeded the target rate (0.031) and prompted the area closure {NERO 2012}{NERO 2013}. However,

after a request from the fishing industry, and a review of the conservation benefit to harbor porpoise,

the area was closed from February 1 – March 31 2013 instead of October and November 2012 {NERO

2012}{NERO 2013}. Recent data suggests that compliance is improving, and that PBR may no longer be

exceeded, with the gillnet fishery contributing to a mortality rate less than 50% of the PBR based on

2012 data, although it remains one of the main contributors to mortality of the species ({NERO 2013};

{NOAA 2013b}).

58




The estimated average annual mortality of harbor porpoise in the Northeast bottom trawl fishery

between 2006 and 2010 was 4.5 {Waring et al 2013b}. This is less than 1% of the PBR of 706.







High 1.00


Watch 2013}.






High Concern 2.00

Current abundance estimates are unavailable for harbor seals in the Western North Atlantic due to a

lack of recent data {Waring et al 2013a}.

59







A PBR has not been established for the Western North Atlantic population of harbor seals, therefore it is

not possible to determine whether the impact from fisheries is at a sustainable level. Total mortality and

serious injury is believed to be at a low level relative to population size, but cannot be considered to be

approaching zero {Waring et al 2013a}.

Rationale:

The large mesh gillnet and large mesh otter trawl are known to interact with harbor seals in the

northwest Atlantic. The average annual fishing mortality and serious injury associated with gillnet

fishery was 280 seals between 2006 and 2010 {Waring et al 2013a}. An average mortality has not been

generated for the otter trawl fishery, however 4 mortalities were observed between 2006 and 2010

{Waring et al 2013a}.







High 1.00


Watch 2013}.

60






High Concern 2.00

The Western North Atlantic harp seal population is believed to be at around 8.3 million individuals,

although the proportion of the population residing in US waters is unknown. The OSP has not been

calculated for this population therefore it is unclear whether the population is at a sustainable level,

although it does appear to have stabilized {Waring et al 2013a}.







The PBR for Western North Atlantic harp seals is unknown; however mortalities and serious injuries due

to interactions with fishing gear are low and believed to be insignificant and approaching zero relative to

population size {Waring et al 2013a}.

Rationale:

The large mesh gillnet and large mesh otter trawl are known to interact with harp seals to some degree.

The average annual mortality and serious injury rate associated to the gillnet fishery was 218 seals from

2006 to 2010 {Waring et al 2013a}. Average impact rates have not been calculated for the trawl fishery,

although 4 interactions have been observed between 2002 and 2010 {Waring et al 2013a}.



61



High 1.00


Watch 2013}.




High Concern 2.00

The latest stock assessment of hooded seals in the Western North Atlantic was conducted in 2007 which

leads to a degree of uncertainty in the current situation. The 2007 assessment produced a best estimate

abundance of 592,100 {NMFS 2007}. An OSP was not derived; however the population appeared to be

increasing.





The average estimated fishing mortality of hooded seals as a result of the large mesh gillnet fishery was

25 between 2001 and 2005. Total human‐caused mortalities were 5,199 over the same time period,

relative to a PBR of 15,360 seals {NMFS 2007}.





62

High 1.00


Watch 2013}.





The humpback whale is listed as endangered under the United States ESA.

Rationale:

The best abundance estimate for humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine is 847 individuals, with a

minimum population of 823 individuals {Waring et al 2013a}. The population in the Gulf of Maine is

steadily increasing in size, which is consistent with an average increase in the wider North Atlantic

population as a whole; however the population may be below the OSP within the US EEZ {Waring et al

2013a}.





The average annual human‐related mortality and serious injury rate exceeds the PBR (2.7 whales per

year). Between 2006 and 2010, annual mortalities due to US fisheries are estimated to be 5.8 per year

{Waring et al 2013a}. The contribution of gillnet fisheries (the only fishery within the scope of this report

with known interactions with humpback whales) is 0.2 whales per year{NMFS 2012d}. In 2010, NMFS

removed the humpback whales from the list of species driving the category 1 listing of the Northeast

sink gillnet fishery as the known interaction (0.2) represented 18% of the PBR at that time (1.1 whales)

{NMFS 2012d}.

63

LITTLE SKATE






Medium 2.00

Little skate has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 44 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.







B/BMSY = 1.16 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance and the three‐year average abundance are both above

the biomass target (figure 8).






Low Concern 3.67

The 2008‐2010 average survey index (8.15 kg/tow) was 33% higher than the 2007‐2009 average (6.12

kg/tow), therefore NMFS did not consider overfishing to be taking place {NEFMC 2012}. In the fourth

64

quarter of 2012, overfishing was not occurring {NMFS 2012c}.

Rationale:









High 1.00


Watch 2013}.




High Concern 2.00

The status of the Canadian east coast population of minke whales relative to the OSP is unknown. Best

estimates of the population suggest that there are 20,741 whales {Waring et al 2013b}.





The average estimated annual mortality of minke whales in the bottom trawl fishery between 2006 and

65

2010 was 2.6 whales. Total US fishery mortalities average 3.6 whales, compared to a PBR of 162{Waring

et al 2013b}.

MONKFISH




High 1.00

Monkfish has a fishbase vulnerability score of 77 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




Low Concern 4.00

The northern monkfish stock is believed to be in the region of 66,000mt {NEFSC 2010}, which is above

the target biomass of 52,930mt. There is however incomplete information on the life history of

monkfish and a lack of discard information from the 1980s which lead to uncertainties in the stock

assessment.

Rationale:

The monkfish population in the Northwest Atlantic is divided into two stocks, northern and southern, for

management purposes although biological indicators suggest that the population is in fact one large

stock {NEFSC 2010}. The cod, haddock, and pollock fisheries of the Northeastern United States are likely

to encounter the northern stock. Monkfish biomass estimates in both management areas are currently

above Btarget, though the stocks in the northern management area have fluctuated around that level

since the late 1990s (figure 9).

66

Figure 9: Estimated stock biomass for the northern and southern fishery management areas, with associated

target and threshold biomass estimates (Figure from NEFSC 2010).




Low Concern 3.67

Fishing mortality for both the northern and southern stocks is below the target reference points, with

F2009 at 0.1 in the north (FTHRESHOLD=0.43) {NEFSC 2010}. There is uncertainty in the model used to assess

the monkfish stock however. Discarding of monkfish has decreased in recent years and the average

discard/kept ratio between 2005‐2009 (0.17) is close to the longterm average (0.15) {NEFSC 2010}.

Monkfish discards in the amount to 1% of total landings in the groundfish trawl fishery {NMFS 2011b}

and are not considered significant in the other gears discussed in this report.

Rationale:

Overall fishing mortality is believed to be below threshold targets in both the northern and southern

stocks (figure 10), however there is uncertainty in the stock assessment.

67

Figure 10: Monkfish fishing mortality in both the northern and southern fishery management areas

(includes all gear types) (Figure from NEFSC 2010).





High 1.00


Watch 2013}.



68



Current population estimates of North Atlantic right whales in the western North Atlantic suggest there

is a minimum of 444 individuals {Waring et al 2013a}. It is believed that this is extremely low relative to

the OSP. North Atlantic right whales are listed as endangered under the US ESA {Waring et al 2013a} and

by the IUCN.





Between 2006 and 2010 there were 15 recorded mortalities or serious injuries due to human‐related

interactions with North Atlantic right whales. Nine of these interactions involved entanglement or

fishery interactions {Waring et al 2013a}. This rate of interaction is equal to the PBR of 0.9 whales per

year. Between 2001 and 2006 there was one reported mortality associated with a gillnet, however it

was not possible to determine which gillnet fishery was responsible.

OCEAN POUT




High 1.00

Fishbase vulnerability score is 67 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




69

High Concern 2.00

The three‐year average survey index for ocean pout in 2010 was 0.41kg/tow, which was 8% of the BMSY

proxy (4.94kg/tow) {NEFSC 2012a}.





The most recent assessment of ocean pout was published in 2012, which indicated F2010 = 0.31 and FMSY

proxy = 0.76, so F2007/FMSY = 0.41, and overfishing was therefore not occurring {NEFSC 2012a}. However,

as catch and exploitation ratios remain at, or near, record low levels, stock size has not increased from

its own record low level, suggesting that it may be in a depensatory state. Discards are believed to

exceed landings, due mainly to a lack of market {NEFSC 2012a}, and are less than 1% of landed weight in

the otter trawl and longline fisheries {NMFS 2011b}.

Rationale:

Historically, the majority of ocean pout landings have been taken using otter trawl gear; however, in

2010, otter trawl landings dropped down to less than one percent of all landings, with fish and lobster

pots contributing over 85% of landings for the year {NEFSC 2012a}. Over the period from 2006 to 2010,

large‐mesh otter trawl fisheries also accounted for 62%–93% of ocean pout discards {NEFSC 2012a}. In

recent years, discards have exceeded landings, and may be sufficiently high to hinder stock recovery;

nevertheless, the lack of response to reduced exploitation suggests that the stock’s dynamics have been

so severely impacted by historical overfishing that the stock is unlikely to rebuild, even in the absence of

fishing mortality {NEFSC 2008}.

PILOT WHALE (UNSPECIFIED)




High 1.00


70

Watch 2013}.




High Concern 2.00

Long‐finned pilot whales are listed as strategic species by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, whereas

short‐finned pilot whales are not. However, since the two species are difficult to differentiate at sea and

inhabit overlapping ranges, their abundance estimates are combined {Waring et al 2011}.





Not enough data exist to partition mortality of long‐finned and short‐finned pilot whales, so mortality

and serious injury estimates are only available for the two species combined.Total annual estimated

average fishery‐related mortality or serious injury of pilot whales in the US Atlantic during 2005‐2009

was 162 animals. The Potential Biological Removal (PBR) for each species is 93 long‐finned and 172

short‐finned pilot whales. The only fishery considered within the scope of this report which interacts

with the pilot whale populations is the large mesh otter trawl. The average estimated annual mortality

rate of pilot whales in the trawl fishery between 2005 and 2009 was 12 {Waring et al 2011}, which

represents approximately 13% of the PBR of long‐finned pilot whales.

Rationale:

Insufficient data exist to determine population trends for each species, and the difficulty in

differentiating the two species further limits assessment. Due to the possibility that total US fishery‐

related mortality and serious injury for long‐finned pilot whales exceeded the PBR, the stock qualified as

a strategic stock. The leading source of fishery‐related mortality during this time was the pelagic longline

fishery, which accounted for an average annual mortality of 122 animals {Waring et al 2011}; if pelagic

longline‐caused mortality of pilot whales were to be discounted, the long‐finned pilot whale would no

longer meet the criteria for a strategic stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972). NMFS

convened a take reduction team in 2005 to address bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery, and

published a final rule in 2009 based on the team’s recommendations, implementing a special research

71

area, gear modifications, outreach material, observer coverage, and encouraging captains’

communications regarding interactions {Federal Register 2009b}, but no comparable action has been

taken to reduce mortality in the otter trawl fisheries.





High 1.00


Watch 2013}.




High Concern 2.00

The best abundance estimate for Risso’s Dolphins in the Western North Atlantic is 15,197 individuals

based on a 2011 survey. There is uncertainty over the current population size relative to sustainable

levels and there is insufficient data to assess trends {Waring et al 2013b}.





The PBR for the Western North Atlantic population of Risso’s dolphins is 95, and between 2006 and

2010, total estimated mortalities due to human causes were 17 {Waring et al 2013b}. It is unknown how

many of these mortalities are attributable to the Northeast gillnet fishery between 2006 and 2010;

however between 2005 and 2009 of the 18 mortalities documented, an average of 3 dolphins a year

were killed or seriously injured by the gillnet fishery {Waring et al 2011}.

72

ROSETTE SKATE








Medium 2.00

Rosette skate have a Fishbase vulnerability score of 54 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.








Low Concern 4.00

B/BMSY = 0.83 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance is approaching the limit reference point, and the three‐

year average abundance has recently dropped below the benchmark target having fluctuated around

this level for the last decade (figure 8).



73






Low Concern 3.67

The 2008‐2010 average survey index of 0.04 kg/tow was not 60% less than the 2007‐2009 average of

0.05 kg/tow, therefore NMFS did not consider overfishing to be occurring {NEFMC 2012}. In the fourth

quarter of 2012, overfishing was not taking place {NMFS 2012c}.

Rationale:





SCUP






Medium 2.00

Fishbase vulnerability score is 38 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




74




SSB2011 was estimated to be 190,424mt, above SSBMSY of 92,044mt {Terceiro 2012b}.

Rationale:

The most recent peer review of the scup stock assessment took place in 2008 when the Northeast Data

Poor Stocks (DPS) Peer Review Panel accepted the use of an Age Structured Assessment Program (ASAP)

as the basis of reference points and stock abundance estimation. The model showed that overfishing

was not occurring and that the stock was not overfished. Fishing mortality was estimated to have fallen

rapidly since 1994 to F2007 = 0.054. With reduced fishing mortality and improved recruitment, SSB

increased to 119,300mt in 2007. Following this 2008 stock assessment, NMFS declared the scup stock

rebuilt in 2009 {Terceiro 2012b}.







F2011 was estimated to be 0.034 which is below the reference point FMSY which is 0.177. Accurate

estimates of scup discards are unavailable, but they are believed to exceed landings {Terceiro 2012b}.

Discards from the otter trawl fishery are <1% of the weight of all species landed.






75


High 1.00


Watch 2013}.






High Concern 2.00

The minimum population size for the short‐beaked common dolphin was believed to be 52,893 in 2011

{Waring et al 2013a}. The OSP has not been calculated for this stock and therefore it is not possible to

determine whether abundance is at a sustainable level.





The average annual mortality in the gillnet fishery from 2006‐2010 was 30 animals, which is lower than

the PBR of 529 {Waring et al 2013a}. Cumulative fishing impacts are around 31% of the PBR{Waring et al

2013a}.




The average annual mortality of common dolphins due to the large mesh trawl was 20 between 2006

76

and 2010 {Waring et al 2013a}. Cumulative fishing impacts are approximately 31% (164 per year, with

PBR at 529) of the PBR {Waring et al 2013a}.

SMOOTH SKATE








Medium 2.00

Smooth skate has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 49 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.








Low Concern 4.00

B/BMSY = 0.55 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance is between the biomass target and limit reference

points (figure 8).


77







Low Concern 3.67

The 2008‐2010 average survey index (0.16 kg/tow) was 23% higher than the 2007‐2009 average (0.13

kg/tow), therefore NMFS did not consider overfishing to be taking place {NEFMC 2012}. In the fourth

quarter of 2012, smooth skate was not experiencing overfishing {NMFS 2012c}.

Rationale:





SPINY DOGFISH








High 1.00

Inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure is high based on a Fishbase vulnerability score of 69 {Froese &

Pauly 2012}.

78









The spiny dogfish population in the Northwest Atlantic biomass has been above the target, SSBMAX

(159,288mt) since 2008 and was estimated to be 169,415mt in 2011 {Rago & Sosebee 2011}.









Fishing mortality is below the target (F=0.2439), with estimated fishing mortalities of 0.113 and 0.093 in

2009 and 2010 respectively {Rago & Sosebee 2011}. Dead discards in the otter trawl fishery were

estimated at 2,782mt (based on a 50% discard mortality rate) in 2010, and were 716mt in gillnet

fisheries in the same year (based on a 30% discard mortality rate) {Rago & Sosebee 2011}.

SUMMER FLOUNDER


79



Medium 2.00

Summer flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability socre of 47 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




Low Concern 4.00

In 2011, summer flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be 57,020mt, just below the

target reference point of SSBMSY = SSB35% = 60,074 {Terceiro 2012a}; in 2010 SSB had been slightly higher

than SSBMSY. As of March 29, 2012, NMFS listed Mid‐Atlantic coast summer flounder as rebuilt {NMFS

2012c}.





The latest stock assessment estimated that F2011 = 0.241, below the benchmark FMSY = 0.31 {Terceiro

2012a}. Fishing mortality ranged from 1.0 to 2.0 between 1982 and 1996, since when it has declined to

the current level; F has been below FMSY since 2007 (figure 11) {Terceiro 2012a}. Discard mortality of

summer flounder is near historical lows, and between 2006 and 2010 annual discard mortality was less

than 10% of commercial landings {Terceiro 2012a}. Summer flounder discards in the groundfish trawl

fishery are approximately 1% of total landings {NMFS 2011b}.

80

Figure 11: Total fishery catch and fishing mortality rate (F3‐7) for summer flounder (from Terceiro 2012a).

THORNY SKATE








High 1.00

Thorny skate have a Fishbase vulnerability score of 70 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




81





High Concern 2.00

B/BMSY = 0.06 {NMFS 2012c}; current abundance estimates are below the limit reference point and at

historical lows. NMFS classifies the thorny skate stock as overfished {NMFS 2012c}, and it is listed as

vulnerable by the IUCN.








High Concern 1.00

The 2010‐2012 average survey index of 0.18 kg/tow was more than 20% less than the 2009‐2011

average of 0.25 kg/tow, therefore NMFS considers overfishing to be occurring {NEFSC 2013c}.

Rationale:





WHITE HAKE


82



High 1.00

The FishBase vulnerability score for white hake is 65 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




Low Concern 4.00

The most recent assessment of white hake was the 56th SAW assessment in 2013, which indicated

SSB2011 26,877 mt and BMSYproxy = 32,400 mt; the stock was therefore not overfished, with B2011/BMSY =

0.83 {NEFSC 2013b}.

Rationale:

The estimated spawning stock biomass has been increasing in recent years from 14,205mt in 2007 to

26,877mt in 2011; during this period F has been relatviely low and recruitment has been around the

long‐term average. It is believed that this is a genuine increase in abundance and not the result of

changing the model used to assess the state of the stock {NEFSC 2013b}.




Low Concern 3.67

The most recent assessment of white hake was the 56th SAW assessment in 2013, which indicated F2011 =

0.130 and FMSY = 0.2 , so overfishing was not occurring, with F2011/FMSY = 0.65 {NEFSC 2013b}. Over the

period of 1989‐2010, landings have exceeded discards by nearly ten to one, with approximately two

thirds to three quarters of landings made by the bottom otter trawl fleet and another 20‐25% of

landings from the sink gillnet fishery {NEFSC 2012a}. White hake represent approximately 5% of the

landings from the groundfish otter trawl fishery {NMFS 2011b}.

83




Low 3.00

Winter flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 34 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.



Low Concern 4.00

In 2010 the Georges Bank winter flounder population had a SSB of 9,703mt, which is above the

minimum biomass threshold (5,900mt) but below the biomass target (11,800mt) (figure 8) {NEFSC

2011}.

Rationale:

Figure 12. Georges Bank winter flounder spawning stock biomass (B) and fishing mortality (F) estimates during

1982‐2010, reported in SARC 52 assessment (blue circles), along with 80% confidence intervals for 2010

estimates (Figure from data in NEFSC 2012a).

84




Fishing mortality rate in 2010 was 0.15, below FMSY of 0.42 {NEFSC 2011}. Fishing mortality rates peaked

between 1984 and 1993 when they ranged between 0.57 and 1.17, before declining to between 0.31

and 0.51 in the mid‐1990s. Fishing mortality has fluctuated throughout the timeseries but has been

below FMSY since 2006 (figure 12) {NEFSC 2011}.




Low 3.00

Winter flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 34 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.




The most recent assessment of Gulf of Maine winter flounder was the S52nd SAW assessment in 2011,

which estimated the stock biomass of fish larger than 30cm as B2010 = 6,341 mt (80% confidence interval

4230 ‐ 8800 mt) {NEFSC 2011}{NMFS 2012b}. However, the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC)

rejected the analytical model, and a biomass reference point could not be estimated {NEFSC 2011}




Fishing mortality in 2010 (F2010=0.03) was below the target (FMSY=0.3) and threshold (FTHRESHOLD=0.23)

values {NEFSC 2011}.

Rationale:

85

In 2008, the stock assessment was rejected by the GARM‐III review panel, and biological reference

points could not be used for management purposes. However in 2011 SARC determined that overfishing

was not occurring as all models produced F2010 estimates that were significantly lower than the biological

reference points {NEFSC 2011}.

A proxy value of the overfishing threshold was derived from a length‐based yield per recruit analysis

that assumes all fish above 30cm are fully recruited to the fishery and that natural mortality is 0.3. Using

F40% (0.31) as a proxy for FMSY, the threshold exploitation rate is 0.23. Exploitation rate in 2010 was

estimated at 0.03 (80% confidence interval 0.02–0.05) which was based on the ratio of 2010 catch (195

mt) to survey based swept area estimate of biomass for winter flounder exceeding 30cm in length (6341

mt) {NEFSC 2011}.

WINTER SKATE








High 1.00

Winter skate has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 62 {Froese & Pauly 2012}







86



B/BMSY = 1.72 {NMFS 2012c}; current and three‐year average abundance is above the target biomass

(figure 15).








High Concern 1.00

The 2010‐2012 average survey index (6.68kg/tow) was 23% lower than the 2009‐2011 average

(9.64kg/tow); NMFS considers overfishing to be taking place as the decrease is greater than 20% {NEFSC

2013c}.

Rationale:





WITCH FLOUNDER




Medium 2.00

Witch flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 51 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.

87




High Concern 2.00

The most recent assessment of the witch flounder was released in 2012 and indicated that, based on

2010 data, that SSB was below the minimum biomass threshold (figure 13); SSB2010/SSBMSY =0.408

{NEFSC 2012a}.




High Concern 1.00

The latest stock assessment shows that current fishing mortality (F2010=0.47) is higher than the target

fishing mortality (FMSYProxy=0.27) {NEFSC 2012a}. Whilst fishing mortality has declined since 1996, it is still

about twice as high as the estimated fishing mortality in the early 1990s.Discards from the large mesh

otter trawl make up the majority of discards, however total discards are considered to be a minor part

of the overall catch of witch flounder{NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP adopted a broad suite of management measures to achieve

fishing mortality targets. Specific to witch flounder, a rebuilding plan has been proposed which would

have a 75% likelihood of rebuilding the stock by 2017. To accomplish the reduction in fishing mortality,

the amendment expanded the use of sectors that have their catch limited by a quota and implement

Accountability Measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing. In 2010 there was a transition from an effort

control fishery to one managed through hard TACs (total allowable catch). In addition, this amendment

implemented new requirements for establishing Allowable Biological Catch (ABC), ACLs, and AMs for the

stocks managed under the FMP {Federal Register 2010}.

Rationale:

88

Figure 13. Witch flounder spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality (F) estimates during 1982‐2007, from

GARM III assessment in 2008 (blue circles), along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates. Projected

SSB and F are shown with open squares, along with 80% confidence intervals (Figure from data in NEFSC 2012a).




Medium 2.00

Yellowtail flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 37 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.



High Concern 2.00

89

The most recent assessment of Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder was published in 2012, and

it indicated SSB2010 = 1,680 mt and SSBMSY proxy = 7,080 mt so the stock was therefore considered

overfished with B2010/BMSY = 0.237 (figure 14) {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:

Figure 14. Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F)

estimates during 1985‐2007, from GARM III assessment in 2008 (blue circles), along with 80% confidence

intervals for 2007 estimates. Projected SSB and F with 80% confidence intervals are shown with open squares.

Figure from data in NEFSC 2012a.



High Concern 1.00

The most recent assessment of Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder indicated F2010 = 0.36 and

FMSY = 0.26, so F2007/FMSY = 1.38, and overfishing was therefore occurring {NEFSC 2012a}. However,

fishing mortality had been declining since 2004, and was at its lowest point in the time series {NEFSC

2008}{NEFSC 2012a}. The stock is currently in year 8 of its 19‐year rebuilding plan {NMFS 2012c}.

Between 1994 and 2010 discards (across all gear types) averaged 17% of total landings {NEFSC 2012a}.

Rationale:


fishing mortality targets. To accomplish the reduction in fishing mortality, the amendment will expand

the use of sectors that have their catch limited by a quota and implement Accountability Measures

(AMs) to prevent overfishing. In particular, these AMs include differential Days‐At‐Sea (DAS) counting to

90

correct for over‐ or under‐harvesting, and a transition in 2012 from an effort control fishery to one

managed through hard TACs. In addition, this amendment will implement new requirements for

establishing Allowable Biological Catch (ABC), Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), and AMs for the stocks

managed under the FMP {Federal Register 2010}.




Medium 2.00

Yellowtail flounder has a Fishbase vulnerability score of 37 {Froese & Pauly 2012}.



High Concern 2.00

The latest stock assessment by the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee revealed that

SSB2011 was 4,600mt, below the target reference point SSBMSY = 43,200mt {TRAC 2012}. Biomass has

been below SSBMSY for the whole of the timeseries (figure 15).

Rationale:

91

Figure 15. Georges Bank yellowtail flounder spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality (F) estimates during

1973‐2010, from 2011 TRAC assessment, along with 80% confidence intervals for 2010 estimates (Figure from

data in NEFSC 2012a).



High Concern 1.00

The fishing mortality reference point, FREF=0.25, has been exceeded throughout the timeseries, and is

currently estimated at F2011=0.31, however if current retrospective trends continue this is expected to

increase to 0.62 {TRAC 2012}. Discards are estimated to be 20% of the landed volume, coming mainly

from the trawl fishery and scallop dredge fishery.

Rationale:


fishing mortality targets. Specific to Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, the rebuilding plan was adjusted

to meet rebuilding targets, with a probability of 50%, by 2032 {Federal Register 2012}.To accomplish the

reduction in fishing mortality, the amendment expanded the use of sectors that have their catch limited

92

by a quota and implement Accountability Measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing. In 2010 there was a

transition from an effort control fishery to one managed through hard TACs. In addition, this

amendment will implement new requirements for establishing ABC, ACLs, and AMs for the stocks

managed under the FMP {Federal Register 2010}.

2.4 ‐ Discard Rate



< 20% 1.00

The only recorded discards in the handline fishery were of Atlantic cod {NMFS 2011b}. It is likely that

these are regulatory discards of fish below the minimum landing size. Discarded cod are approximately

8% of the landed weight {NMFS 2011b}. A recent stock assessment suggests that post release mortality

of cod can range between 20% and 80% dependant on the gear used (unfortunately it did not provide an

estimate for individual gear types) {NEFSC 2013a}.



20‐40% 0.95

The main species discarded in the large mesh gillnet fishery is spiny dogfish (41.6% of total landings)

{NMFS 2011b}. Spiny dogfish has been shown to have a 55% overall mortality rate in gillnet fisheries

{Rulifson 2007}, therefore the overall discard rate was adjusted to account for the survival rate of spiny

dogfish, resulting in an overall discard rate of 28%.



40‐60% 0.90

Discards from the large mesh otter trawl fishery largely consist of skate species and spiny dogfish {NMFS

2011b}. Skate are believed to have a higher post‐release survival rate than other fish species. A recent

study revealed that post‐release mortality of the skate complex (species combined) was 19%; with the

highest post‐release mortality exhibited by smooth skate at 60% {Mandelman et al 2013}. Due to the

uncertainty around which skate species are discarded during the groundfish fishery, a precautionary

93

assumption that they are all smooth skate is made; resulting in an overall discard rate of 43%.

Rationale:

It is worth noting than in recent years fishermen have been adopting more selective gears in an attempt

to reduce bycatch of non‐target, low abundance species. Seperator trawls and Ruhle trawls are designed

to take advantage of the different behaviours of different species, catching species such as haddock

which have a tendency to swim upwards and allowing the release of species that have a tendency to

swim down during capture, such as cod and flatfish.



20‐40% 0.95

The majority of discards from the longline fishery are skates and spiny dogfish{NMFS 2011b}. There is no

post‐release survival information for this fishery (although there are ongoing studies in this area) so a

discard mortality of 100% is assumed. Smaller amounts of cod and haddock are also discarded in this

fishery.

94

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species and management of non‐

retained species/bycatch. The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two

scores.

Region / Method Management of Retained Species

Management of Non‐Retained Species

Overall Recommendation


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)


3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000)

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species

Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion


Moderately Effective




Highly Effective


Highly Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective

United States Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Highly

95

Georges Bank Large mesh bottom trawl

Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective






Highly Effective


Highly Effective


Factor 3.1: Management of Fishing Impacts on Retained Species

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern,

Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations,

Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective’,

‘moderately effective’, or ‘highly effective’.

5 (Very Low Concern) = Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered

4 (Low Concern) = Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective’.

3 (Moderate Concern) = All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective’.

2 (High Concern) = At minimum meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective’.

1 (Very High Concern) = Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective’

0 (Critical) = No management exists when a clear need for management exists (i.e.,

fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species) OR there is a high

level of Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing occurring.

96

3.1.0 ‐ Critical?









No 0.00

Subfactor 3.1.1 ‐ Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place, are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met. To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species. United States Georges Bank, Handline








Moderately Effective 2.00

The New England fisheries for cod, haddock, and pollock are managed by the New England Fisheries

97

Management Council (NEFMC) through the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NE

Multispecies FMP), alongside 9 other species of flatfish and groundfish.

Originally enacted in 1985, the NE Multispecies FMP has been amended a number of times to improve

the management of the relevant fisheries, including the introduction of gear restrictions (e.g. mesh size,

number of nets/hooks etc.), seasonal closures, spatial closures, minimum landing sizes, trip limits on

poundage of fish landed, limited access (a restriction on the number of vessels able to work within the

fishery), effort limits based on a days at sea (DAS) system, and most recently a system based on

transferable quotas set against a hard annual catch limit (ACL) (this replaced the previous effort based

limitation of the DAS system in 2010).

In 2010, Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP greatly expanded catch share, or sector‐based,

management. The sectors function essentially as cooperatives, as they are self‐selecting and largely self‐

regulating; albeit within a framework deisgnated and closely monitored by federal agencies. The sectors

are exempt from many of the effort controls previously used to manage the fishery; instead, they

adhere to an overall hard quota known as an ACL, which is subdivided into Annual Catch Entitlements

(ACE) allocated to each sector. The shift to output management instead of effort management enables

efficiency gains by allowing increased operational efficiency. While the sectors are optional to join, the

majority of fishers have chosen to participate: sector vessels made 65% of all NE Multispecies landings in

2010, including 98% of groundfish and 54% of non‐groundfish ({Kitts et al 2011}, {Labaree 2012},

{Federal Register 2012}).

Under the Magnuson‐Stevens Act, the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) must be set less than or equal to the

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) (to account for management uncertainty), which must be set less than

or equal to the Overfishing Level (OFL) (to account for any scientific uncertainty in the stock assessment)

(Figure 16) {Federal Register 2009a}.

Fishing mortality targets are set for each stock independently based on achieving MSY in the longterm,

therefore for stocks which are overfished (and may also be subject to overfishing) the target fishing

mortality is set at a level which will have a reasonable probability (>50%) of ensuring rebuilding of the

stock within the timeline set within the relevant rebuilding program (see “Recovery of Stocks of

concern”, below). However, should a sector approach the ACE for one of the target stocks, then the

area inhabited by that stock is closed to all gears capable of catching that stock, resulting in a potential

‘under‐harvest’ of more abundant stocks. The sector system allows fishermen to share, trade or lease

quota within a fishery, reducing the chance of overfishing depleted stocks while targeting more

abundant stocks; and if a sector is nearing its quota for a particular species, it may be possible to lease it

from another sector.

There have been some concerns with the management strategy in the past, particularly with respect to

depleted stocks (see “Recovery of Stocks of concern”, below). In addition, in many cases target TACs

have been set too high, due to errors in stock assessments, and there has been a need for increased

precaution (see “Scientific Advice”). The management system, however, has substantially changed

under Amendment 16, which is expected to reduce the race to fish and improve conservation outcomes.

98

For example, discarding appears to have been reduced, and the fishery now relies on hard ACLs (which

include discards) rather than target TACs, all of which helps reduce the likelihood of exceeding

sustainable fishing mortality rates for targeted stocks. In addition, sectors have not exceeded their ACEs,

while in the past it was possible for target TACs to be exceeded, as the regulations were based on effort

control (DAS) rather than output control {Kitts et al 2011}. The new management regime has not been in

place long enough to fully assess its impact.

Rationale:

Figure 16: Relationship between OFL, ABC, ACL, and ACT as described by the National Marine

Fisheries Service. (NOAA 2009)

Subfactor 3.1.2 ‐ Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success. To achieve a rating of highly effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species. United States Georges Bank, Handline

99









There are a number of stocks of concern impacted by the fisheries managed under the NE Multispecies

FMP, and the management plan has had varying degrees of success in recovering these stocks.

Under the NE Multispecies FMP, and in accordance with the Magnuson‐Stevens Act, stocks which are

overfished are subject to rebuilding programs which aim to rebuild the stock within a given timeframe;

usually 10 years, although some stocks where decreasing fishing mortality to a level that would allow

rebuilding are likely to have negative social and/or economic impacts are subject to extended timelines,

for example Georges Bank cod which has a rebuilding target of 2026 {Federal Register 2004}.

The rebuilding programs are based on meeting fishing mortalities that are likely to allow rebuilding of

the stock within the given time period (FREBUILD), which are typically a reduction from the fishing

mortalities to which the stocks were subject to when the programs were first established in 2003

(implemented in 2004 fishing year). Any reduction in fishing mortality was conducted in one of two

ways: through phased reduction strategy where the fishing mortality was gradually reduced over the

rebuilding period in order to reach the target biomass with median probability; or an adaptive rebuilding

strategy where fishing mortality was held at or below FMSY from 2004 to 2009, at which point

adjustments would be made in order to achieve the target biomass by the end of the rebuilding period.

The most recent stock assessments have shown that a number of stocks of concern have not yet been

rebuilt and that the targets set within the rebuilding programs have not been met (e.g. Georges Bank

cod, Gulf of Maine cod, Cape Cod yellowtail flounder) ({NMFS 2011a} {NEFSC 2012a}). With the recent

adoption of a new management system, it is too early to determine whether the rebuilding targets will

be met by the end of the rebuilding period. There are however, a number of stocks that have rebuilt

prior to the end of the rebuilding period (typically due to strong recruitment and good survival of

abundant year‐classes during periods of reduced exploitation). These stocks include Georges Bank

haddock, Gulf of Maine haddock, Acadian redfish, and pollock among others ({NMFS 2011a},{NEFSC

2012a}).

Although there is concern that some of the stocks have yet to meet their rebuilding targets, other stocks

have rebuilt within the specified timelines, and the new management system is likely to improve

100

rebuilding of stocks due to reduced levels of discarding.

Subfactor 3.1.3 ‐ Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species. To receive a highly effective score, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status. United States Georges Bank, Handline









There is a high level of scientific research and monitoring associated with the Northeast U.S fisheries,

including regular stock assessments and gear modification trials {NMFS 2011b}. Much of the scientific

research and monitoring is carried out by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) which provides

the NEFMC with scientific advice, including stock assessments, to guide the management of the

fishery. A number of independent and academic institutions also conduct research in the region

including testing gear modifications and conducting tagging experiments to monitor fish

populations. Stock assessments account for all sources of fishing mortality, including commercial and

recreational landings and discards {NEFSC 2008}{NEFSC 2012a}, as well as environmental factors. There

is therefore a wealth of both fishery dependent and fishery independent data available to NEFMC and

NMFS in order to ensure the fishery is managed effectively.

There are concerns of a continued retrospective pattern which overestimates biomass and

underestimates fishing mortality in some stocks, for example Georges Bank cod, and stock assessments

are taking account of this pattern which is thought to be caused, in part, by increased natural mortality

rates {NEFSC 2013a}. Observer coverage in the fishery comprises of two forms; the Northeast Fisheries

Observer Program (NEFOP) and the At Sea Monitoring (ASM) program. The level of observer coverage

aims to ensure precision in the catch levels of each managed stock, based on a methodology set out in

101

the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodolgy (SBRM). The SBRM was vacated by the courts as it

contained discretions to be made that allowed observer coverage to be below that required to meet an

acceptable level of precision (CV<30) based on budget reasons. The questions surrounding the observer

program and the appropriate level of coverage prevent the management system form achieving the

highest possible score for scientific research and monitoring.

Rationale:

Standard bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) indicates that a simple percent observer coverage is

not appropriate, and, instead, indicates that the appropriate metric of coverage is the coefficient of

variation (CV), or the ratio of the square root of the variance of the bycatch estimate (i.e., standard

error) to the estimate itself. SBRM establishes a standard level of precision of CV = 0.3 {Federal Register

2008}.

Subfactor 3.1.4 ‐ Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels). A highly effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice. United States Georges Bank, Handline









The NEFMC takes scientific advice into account when setting quotas and developing management

strategies in the majority of cases. Under the Magnuson‐Stevens Act the NEFMC has a duty to consider

the social and economic consequences of the quotas that they set, and for some stocks, particularly cod,

there are concerns among environmental groups that the council will follow a less precautionary

scientific option in order to meet social and economic goals. Whilst NEFMC is implementing scientific

advice on a regular basis, there is potential room for improvement by implementing a more

precautionary approach, particularly when considering the potential retrospective pattern as previously

102

discussed.

Subfactor 3.1.5 ‐ Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations. To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance. United States Georges Bank, Handline








Highly Effective 3.00

A variety of enforcement measures are in place in the New England groundfish fishery. All vessels

fishing in the multispecies fishery are required to have a vessel monitoring system (VMS) fitted {Federal

Register 2006}, which allows fishery officers to monitor the location of each vessel from a remote

location. VMS systems enable fishery managers to not only monitor where catches are being taken, but

also enables enforcement of spatial closures, of which there are a number in the Northwest Atlantic.

Enforcement of fishery legislation at sea is a cooperative operation between coastal states and the

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and the United States Coast Guard. OLE officers conduct

dockside inspections and inspect fish processing plants (OLE webpage), while the coastguard inspect

vessels at sea {Nies 2013}. OLE enforce fisheries legislation including minimum landing sizes, retention

of prohibited species, gear restrictions etc. Violation of such management measures can result in

criminal or civil actions and can result in fines, loss of quota, or imprisonment for more serious cases.

Under Amendment 16 of the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan accountability measures (AMs)

were established {Federal Register 2010}. AMs are required to ensure accountability within the fishery

and to prevent overfishing. Proactive AMs are designed to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, whereas

reactive AMs are designed to correct any overages should they occur {Federal Register 2012}. AMs can

result in reduction or complete loss of quota for a sector which regularly or greatly exceeds its quota

103

{Federal Register 2010}. It is thought that loss of a community pool will encourage a greater level of

self‐management, improving compliance throughout the fishery.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels. A highly effective rating will be given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long‐term maintenance of species overtime. United States Georges Bank, Handline









The fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic have been subject to fishing pressure for centuries, and as a

result many of them have become overfished or depleted. Management of the fisheries through the

NEFMC began in 1977 when the fishery management councils were formed through the Magnuson‐

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MS Act), then called the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act 1976 (NEFMC website). During the early years of management

under the NEFMC, many of the stocks underwent declines in biomass under increasing fishing

mortalities, for example Acadian redfish, Georges Bank cod, Gulf of Maine cod {NEFSC 2008}. However,

in more recent years, following revision of the MS Act and the requirement for fisheries management

councils to implement rebuilding programs, there have been increasing biomasses in a number of stocks

{NEFSC 2008}, and more recent changes in management suggest that these improvements will

continue. It is too early to determine whether the sector‐based management system will enable stocks

to rebuild and stabilize at a sustainable level.

Subfactor 3.1.7 ‐ Stakeholder Inclusion

104

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision‐making process. Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g. fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A highly effective will be given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. United States Georges Bank, Handline









The New England Fisheries Management Council has a good track record of including stakeholders in the

development of legislation, with oral and written comments being invited on each draft amendment or

framework adjustment to the FMP. The NEFMC also responds to each of the comments in the Federal

Register documents to show transparency of process {Federal Register 2010}{Federal Register 2012}.

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species

Region / Method Strategy Research Advice Enforce


No Moderately Effective































105


Factor 3.2: Management of Fishing Impacts on Bycatch Species

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Scientific Research/Monitoring,

Following of Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective’,

‘moderately effective’, or ‘highly effective’. Unless reason exists to rank Scientific

Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently,

these ranks are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern) = Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered

4 (Low Concern) = Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective’.

3 (Moderate Concern) = All subfactors rates at least ‘moderately effective’.

2 (High Concern) = At minimum meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy but some other factors rated ‘ineffective’.

1 (Very High Concern) = Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective’

0 (Critical) = No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

3.2.0 ‐ All Species Retained?









No 0.00

3.2.0 ‐ Critical?

106









No 0.00

Subfactor 3.2.1 ‐ Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures. To achieve a highly effective rating the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g. catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).










The Magnuson‐Stevens Act requires fisheries management to prevent overfishing from occurring, and

for depleted and overfished stocks to be rebuilt. Marine mammals are further protected under the

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, which requires the maintenance of marine mammal

107

populations above their optimum sustainable level, and the rebuilding of depleted populations. The

Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides protection for species that are endangered or threatened with

extinction, including fish, marine mammals, turtles, and seabirds. These three pieces of legislation

provide a framework directed at ensuring FMPs are designed and implemented in such a way that

prevents overfishing and allows recovery of stocks caught within a fishery, whether they are targeted or

caught incidentally.

The MSA requires that all management measures must minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and

minimize mortality of bycatch when bycatch is unavoidable (Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act 1976).

To comply with the MSA requirement of including a standardized bycatch reporting methodology

(SBRM) in all FMPs, and prompted by successful lawsuits by Oceana, the Conservation Law Foundation,

and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NEFMC and the Mid‐Atlantic Fisheries Management

Council jointly developed an omnibus amendment, corresponding to Amendment 15 to the NE

multispecies FMP. The SBRM amendment is meant to “establish, maintain, and utilize biological

sampling programs designed to minimize bias to the extent practicable, thus promoting accuracy while

maintaining sufficiently high levels of precision” {Federal Register 2008}. The original SBRM was

considered inadequate and was vacated by the courts in 2011; NMFS are currently developing a

replacement action {Brogan pers. comms 2013}.

To be approved to operate, sectors must submit an operations plan to the regional administrator

(NEFMC) detailing, among other things, how bycatch of regulated species and ocean pout will be

avoided to prevent allowable catch entitlement overages. To date this has not occurred as NMFS is

currently funding both the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and the at‐sea monitoring

program (ASM); sector operation plans will be required when the financial burden for ASM passes from

NMFS to the individual sectors {Litsinger pers. comms. 2013}

To address harbor porpoise mortality in gillnet fisheries, NMFS updated its Harbor Porpoise Take

Reduction Plan (HPTRP) to reduce mortality below the PBR threshold level. Measures implemented in

New England include new areas with acoustic deterrent (“pinger”) requirements as well as

“consequence” closure areas that would seasonally close certain areas to gillnet fishing if the observed

average bycatch rate exceeds the target bycatch rate for two consecutive management

seasons. Acoustic deterrents, or “pingers,” are highly effective in reducing harbor porpoise bycatch in

gillnets when used properly, with a controlled scientific study showing a 92% reduction in harbor

porpoise bycatch {Kraus et al 1997}. Area closures, if triggered and properly enforced, should be highly

effective, too. However, at this time, levels of bycatch remain above 50% of the PBR level for the

species, thus management is considered uncertain until data demonstrate that it has fallen below that

threshold, particularly considering recent concerns with regulations compliance (see “Enforcement”).

Subfactor 3.2.2 ‐ Scientific Research and Monitoring

108

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species. To achieve a highly effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met. United States Georges Bank, Handline









Fishery observers are required in groundfish fisheries, with the exception of handgear, under the

Multispecies FMP and by the MMPA and ESA {NMFS 2011b}. Observers are trained biologists who

collect data on fishing activities onboard commercial vessels to provide robust data to support science

and management programs. Observers in the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) record

weights of kept and discarded fish and crustacean species on observed hauls, as well as biological

information (length, age, sex, and tags) from all species caught including marine mammals and seabirds.

Currently observer coverage targets are 25% for sector vessels and 17% for common pool vessels. As of

March 2013, the average observer coverage on sector vessels was estimated at 20.5% for the 2012‐13

fishing year, with coverage of 11% for the common pool {NEFOP 2013}. Observer coverage has

decreased since the 2010‐11 season; however, current levels of observer coverage are higher than in

2006‐2008 when the average was below 10% for groundfish trawl and gillnet fisheries in the Northeast

{NMFS 2011b}. Due to the rarity of some bycatch species, the same level of observer coverage that is

sufficient for monitoring retained species may not always be sufficient for monitoring bycatch species;

similarly, a given level of coverage may be sufficient for a large fishery but not for a small one. The level

of observer coverage aims to ensure precision in the catch levels of each managed stock, based on a

methodology set out in the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodolgy (SBRM). The SBRM was vacated by

the courts as it contained discretions to be made that allowed observer coverage to be below that

required to meet an acceptable level of precision (CV<30) based on budget reasons. The questions

surrounding the observer program and the appropriate level of coverage prevent the management

system form achieving the highest possible score for scientific research and monitoring.

109

Rationale:

Standard bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) indicates that a simple percent observer coverage is

not appropriate, and, instead, indicates that the appropriate metric of coverage is the coefficient of

variation (CV), or the ratio of the square root of the variance of the bycatch estimate (i.e., standard

error) to the estimate itself. SBRM establishes a standard level of precision of CV = 0.3 {Federal Register

2008}.

Subfactor 3.2.3 ‐ Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels). A highly effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice. United States Georges Bank, Handline









See section 3.1 above.

Subfactor 3.2.4 ‐ Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s’ compliance with regulations. To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance. United States Georges Bank, Handline


110






See section 3.1.




Enforcement may be somewhat weaker for bycatch species than for retained species. For instance,

when a study demonstrated the effectiveness of acoustic pingers in reducing harbor porpoise bycatch

{Kraus et al 1997}, a take reduction plan was subsequently implemented in the fishery, and harbor

porpoise bycatch decreased from above 1500 animals per year prior to 1996 to below 500 animals per

year during 1999‐2001. However, within several years of implementation, compliance decreased, and

bycatch of harbor porpoises started to increase {Orphanides 2012a}{Orphanides 2012b}. Outreach

activities increased in 2006‐07 to remind fishers about TRP requirements, and compliance subsequently

increased, so bycatch started decreasing again {NMFS 2011b}, reaching a mean serious injury and

annual mortality of 511 animals during 2005‐2009 {Waring et al 2013b}. However, concerns about

compliance remain.

Recently published data from 2009‐2010 suggests that acoustic pinger deployment rates in the Gulf of

Maine were just 43%, with full compliance (accounting for functionality as well) at only 6.7%

{Orphanides 2012a}. Although observed deployment rates were higher in 2011‐2012 (73% for Southern

New England and 80% for the Gulf of Maine), improvement is still needed. Target bycatch rates for

harbor porpoises continue to be exceeded, which is believed to be due to inadequate compliance with

deployment regulations as well as malfunctioning pingers {Orphanides 2012b}.

111

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the EBFM score.

Region / Method Gear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of Gear Impacts

EBFM Overall Recomm.



0.25:Minimal Mitigation

3.00:Moderate Concern

Green (3.571)


3.00:Low Concern



Yellow (3.123)





Yellow (2.598)


3.00:Low Concern



Yellow (3.123)





Green (3.571)


3.00:Low Concern



Yellow (3.123)





Yellow (2.598)


3.00:Low Concern



Yellow (3.123)


Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

5 (None) = Fishing gear does not contact the bottom

4 (Very Low) = Vertical Line Gear

3 (Low) = Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (<25% of the time) or purse seine known to commonly contact bottom

2 (Moderate) = Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand;

1 (High) = Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g. cobble or boulder).

112

0 (Very High) = Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, e.g. deep‐sea corals, eelgrass and maerl.

Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive plausible habitat type




Handline or rod and reel fisheries have minimal contact with the seabed and any negative impacts are

expected to be minimal.



Low Concern 3.00

Gillnets are used to target cod and pollock predominently over gravel, sand, and silt habitats in inshore

areas of the Northwest Atlantic. Impacts on the seabed are expected to be limited to the impact of

anchors on the substrate and minimal amounts of scouring during setting and hauling nets.




Otter trawls, along with other forms of bottom trawl, are known to have a detrimental impact on some

seabed habitats, particularly low energy environments and biogenic reef habitats. The majority of

fishing activity for cod, haddock and pollock takes place in statistical areas 513‐515, 521, 522, 525, and

561‐562 with smaller amounts of fish being landed from areas 537‐539 (figure 17). These areas contain

a number of seabed types, however the most predominant types are sand, gravel‐sand, and sand‐

silt/clay in waters less than 100m deep; gravel habitats impacted by trawling in this region are less than

60m deep (figure18) {NEFSC 2011b}{NEFSC 2011c}. These seabed types and the communities they

support are generally more resilient to trawling than deepwater, biogenic reef habitats.

Rationale:

113

Figure 17: Seabed types in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region. Taken from Stiles et al 2007.

Figure 18: Northeast Fisheries Science Center statistical areas. From Shepherd 2004.

114



Low Concern 3.00

Demersal longline fisheries for haddock take place over sand and gravel seabeds in the Gulf of Maine

and Georges Bank region.

Factor 4.2 ‐ Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation) = Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from

fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to

reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage,

or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation) = 20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other

measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of

damage caused from fishing.

+0.25 (Low Mitigation) = A few measures in place, e.g., vulnerable habitats protected

but other habitats not protected; some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively

being reduced.

0 (No Mitigation) = No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.



Minimal Mitigation 0.25

The impacts of the handline fishery on the marine habitat are believed to be minimal and are further

limited in part by rolling spatial closures, and by the multispecies closed areas indicated in figure 19.




The impacts of gillnets on the marine habitat are limited in part by rolling spatial closures, and by the

multispecies closed areas indicated in figure 19.

115




The alteration of marine habitats due to fishing gear can be reduced through the reduction of fishing

effort or spatial closures that protect vulnerable habitats. There are a number of permanent and

temporary spatial closures in place in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. There are 7 permanent

closures in place to protect essential fish habitat (EFH) from the impacts of bottom trawling (figure mm),

established under Amendment 13 of the multispecies FMP {NEFMC 2004}. There are an additional 5

year‐round closures designated through the multispecies FMP, along with 5 rolling closures in the Gulf

of Maine and a seasonal closure on Georges Bank. These closures are primarily designed to protect

important spawning grounds and juvenile fish.

Rationale:

The requirement for fisheries management plans to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse

effects of fishing on essential fish habitat, was set forth in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996

(SFA). Amendment 11 of the multispecies FMP established EFH for the species covered by the plan and

established areas where bottom‐tending gears were to be prohibited in order to protect the marine

habitats {NEFMC & NMFS 1998}.

In order to mitigate against and minimize potential damage to EFH, NEFMC has implemented spatial

closures (figure 19), introduced limited permit schemes, and placed restrictions on the gears that can be

used when trawling {Orphanides & Magnusson 2007}. In addition to the year‐round and rolling closures

mentioned above, there are also restricted gear areas (RGAs) which provide protection from particular

gear types, for example the Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area.

Approximately 20% of the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine seabed is protected from trawling activities

through the variety of closures, although only 9.7% of the seabed is permanently protected through EFH

closures {NOAA 2013b}. Framework Adjustment (FA) 48 to the MSFMP provides sectors with the

opportunity to request exemptions to year‐round fishing mortality area closures, which has raised

concerns among fishing industry stakeholders and environmental groups pertaining to impacts on

seabed habitat. However the rule set forth in FA48 prevents an exemption from being made to areas

that overlap with closures created to protect essential fish habitat {Federal Register 2013}.




The impacts of the longline fishery on the marine habitat are limited in part by rolling spatial closures,

and by the multispecies closed areas indicated in figure 19

116

Figure 19: Year‐round spatial closures in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region which prohibit

bottom trawling. From Orphanides & Magnusson 2007.

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern) = Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’

ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g.

large proportion of fishery area protected with marine reserves, abundance is

maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

4 (Low Concern) = Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and

measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an

exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. If hatchery supplementation or fish

aggregating devices (FADs) are used, measures are in place to minimize potential

negative ecological effects.

3 (Moderate Concern) = Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large

role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect

the ecological role of these species. OR negative ecological effects from hatchery

supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these

impacts.

117

2 (High Concern) = The fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in

the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into

management.

1 (Very High Concern) = The use of hatchery supplementation or Fish Aggregating

Devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic

consequences. OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts

to the food web.










Collectively, the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National

Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the

Coastal Zone Management Act require fisheries managers to take into account the impact of fishery

operations on the ecosystem within which they are conducted {NEFMC SSC 2010b}. In July 2010, an

Executive Order established the first US national policy on the stewardship of the oceans, coasts, and

Great Lakes. One of the nine national priorities set out in this policy is the adoption of Ecosystem Based

Management (EBM) {NEFMC SSC 2010b}.

The NEFMC has started the process of developing and implementing Ecosystem Based Fisheries

Management (EBFM). It is anticipated that the process of moving from the current management system

to EBFM will take a minimum of 5 years. The current multispecies FMP has elements of EBFM within it

as it already considers multiple species rather than the traditional single‐species fisheries

management. Moving forwards, other EBFM plans will become more holistic and integrated for a given

ecosystem region, for example the Western Gulf of Maine {NEFMC SSC 2010b}, with predator‐prey

relationships, competition, habitat status and gear impacts, and protected species all considered under

one plan. The development and implementation of these plans is proceeding through three

phases: establish goals and objectives; identify management and scientific requirements to implement

118

EBFM in the region; and implement EBFM using quota‐based management in all ecosystem production

units.

119

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® would like to thank Chris Glass of the University of New Hampshire and three

anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

120

References Album, G. 2010. Survey of the trade flow in the fisheries sector in Asia. Analysis for the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. Revised Version. Brogan, G. 2013. Oceana. Northeast Representative. Personal Communication. CLF 2012. Conservation Law Foundation Position Paper on Interim Emergency Action by National Marine Fisheries Service: Fishing Years 2012 and 2013. Conservation Law Foundation. Col, L. A., and Legault, C. M. 2009. The 2008 Assessment of Atlantic Halibut in the Gulf of Maine‐Georges Bank Region. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. FAO 2012. FAO Yearbook 2010. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 2012. Federal Register 2004. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 13; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 648 Federal Register 2006. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery, Framework Adjustment 42; Monkfish Fishery, Framework Adjustment 3. 50 CFR Part 648 Federal Register 2008. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment. 50 CFR Part 648. Federal Register 2009a. Magnuson‐Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National Standard Guidelines. 50 CFR Part 600. Federal Register 2009b. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan. Federal Register Vol 74, No. 95. 50 CFR part 229. May 2009. Federal Register 2010. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 16; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 648 Federal Register 2012. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 47. 50 CFR Part 648 Federal Register 2013. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48. 50 CFR Part 648 Froese, R., & Pauly, D. 2012. Editors. Fishbase. www.fishbase.org

121

Kitts, A., Bing‐Sawyer, E., Walden, J., Demarest, C., McPhearson, M., Christman, P., Steinback, S., Olson, J., & Clay, P. 2011. 2010 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispeceis (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2010 – April 2011). 2nd Edition. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Referecne Document 11‐19. 97pp. Kraus, S. D., A. J. Read, A. Solow, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, and J. Williamson. 1997. Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388:525. Labaree, J. M., 2012. Sector management in New England’s groundfish fishery: Dramatic change spurs innovation. Gulf of Maine Research Institute. 13pp. Litsinger, E. 2013. Environmental Defense Fund. New England Fisheries Manager, Oceans. Personal Communication. Mandelman, J.W., Cicia, A.M., Ingram Jr, G.W., Driggers III, W.B., Coutre, K.M., Sulikowski, J.A., 2013. Short‐term post‐release mortality of skates (family Rajidae) discarded in a western North Atlantic commercial otter trawl fishery. Fisheries Research. 139: pp76‐84. NEFMC & NMFS 1998. Amendment 11 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan for Essential Fish Habitat. In New England Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service, 62 CFR 1403. NEFMC 2004. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 13; Final Rule. 50 CFR part 648. NEFMC 2012. 2012‐2013 Northeast Skate Complex Specifications Environmental Assessment Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. March 20, 2012. New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. NEFMC website ‐ http://www.nefmc.org/about/index.html NEFMC SSC 2010a. Technical Review of the Analyses to Support Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2. Scientific and Statistical Committee. New England Fisheries Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. NEFMC SSC 2010b. White Paper on Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management for New England Fisheries Management Council. Prepared by Scientific and Statistical Committee, NEFMC. October 2010. NEFOP 2013. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/asm/coverage_web_report.pdf NEFSC 2008. Assessment of 19 Northest Groundfish Stocks through 2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, US Department of Commerce, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NEFSC 2010. 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (50th SAW): Assessment Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 10‐17. 844pp NEFSC 2011. 52nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (52nd SAW): Assessment Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11‐17. 962pp

122

NEFSC 2011b. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report. Section 1. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. NEFSC 2011c. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report. Section 2. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. NEFSC 2012a. Assessment or data updates of 13 Northeast Groundfish Stocks through 2010. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12‐06. 784pp NEFSC 2012b. 53rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (53rd SAW): Assessment Summary Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12‐03. 33pp NEFSC 2013a. 55th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (55th SAW): Assessment Summary Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 13‐01. 41pp NEFSC 2013b. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 56th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (56th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13‐10; 868 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543‐1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/ NEFSC 2013c. Update of Skate Stock Status Based on NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey Data through Autumn 2012 and Spring 2013 (July 2, 2013). Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543‐1026 NEFMC & NMFS 2003. Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan including a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pp I‐31 – I‐50. NERO 2012. Northeast Sink Gillnet Fisheries Notice, Harbor Porpoise Consequence Closure Area Update. Northeast Region Bulletin. October 2012. 3p. NERO. 2013. Northeast Sink Gillnet Fisheries Reminder: Coastal Gulf of Maine Closure Area. Northeast Fishery Bulletin. January 2013. 2p. Nies, T. 2013. New England Fisheries Management Council. Executive Director. Personal Communication. NMFS. 1998. Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, Final Rule. NOAA Fisheries Service. 50 CFR Part 229: 1998 (63). 27 p NMFS 2007. Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata): Western North Atlantic stock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2007seho‐wn.pdf NMFS 2008. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Western North Atlantic Stock. October 2008. NMFS. 2009. Species of concern ‐ Altantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlantichalibut_detailed.pdf

123

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Consequence Closure Areas. NOAA Fisheries Service: Protected Resources Division. NMFS 2010b. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments ‐2010. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐NE‐219. 598p. NMFS 2011a. Fish Stocks in Rebuilding Plans: A Trend Analysis. NOAA Fisheries: Office for Sustainable Fisheries. 9 pp. NMFS 2011b. U.S National Bycatch Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. NMFS 2012b. Framework Adjustment 47 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP; Proposed Rule. Pages 331 in N. O. a. A. Administration, editor. New England Fishery Management Council, Federal Register. NMFS 2012c. Status of U.S. Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries ‐ Office of Sustainable Fisheries. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm NMFS 2012d. List of Fisheries: Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/final2012.htm NMFS 2012e. Proactive Conservation Program: Species of concern. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/#list NOAA 2009. Magnuson‐Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National Standard Guidelines; Final Rule. In 50 CFR Part 600, Federal Register, Vol.74. NOAA 2012. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Landings Data Request: Multispecies FMP landings by gear 2007‐2011. NOAA 2013a. NE Multispecies Information Sheet – Landing/Possession Limits. February 2013. NOAA. 2013b. Proposed rule; request for comments. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Regulations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. OLE Website ‐ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/investigations.html Orphanides, C.D., & Magnusson, G.M., 2007. Characterization of the Northeast and Mid‐Atlantic Bottom and Mid‐water Trawl Fisheries Based on Vessel Trip Report (VTR) Data. Northeast Marine Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07‐15. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole Lab, 166 Water St, Woods Hole MA 02543‐1026. Orphanides, C.D., 2012a. Update on Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Monitoring Initiatives: Compliance and Consequential Bycatch Rates from June 2009 through May 2010. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 28 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett RI 02882 USA Orphanides, C.D. 2012b. New England harbor porpoise bycatch rates during 2010‐2012 associated with Consequence Closure Areas. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12‐19.

124

Rago, P., & Sosebee, K. 2011. Update on the Status of Spiny Dogfish in 2011 and Initial Evaluation of Alternative Harvest Strategies. Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, Science and Statistical Center, September 11, 2011. Rulifson, R.A., 2007. Spiny dogfish mortality induced by gill‐net and trawl capture and tag and release. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27: pp 279‐285. Seafood Watch 2013. Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries. Version January 18, 2013. Shelley, P. 2012. Mega Million, fishery‐style. Conservation Law Foundation. http://www.clf.org/blog/ocean‐conservation/mega‐millions‐fishery‐style/ Shepherd, G.R., 2004. Estimation of Striped Bass Discards in the Multispecies Groundfish Fishery during the 2002 Fishing Year (May 2002‐April 2003). Northeast Fisheries Scinece Center Reference Document 04‐09. Sosebee, K. 2006. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US: Skates. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA. Stiles, M.L., Ylitalo‐Ward, H., Faure, P., Hirshfield, M.F., 2007. There’s no place like home: Deep seafloor ecosystems of New England and the Mid‐Atlantic. Oceana. Terceiro, M., 2012a. Stock Assessment of Summer Flounder for 2012. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12‐21. October 2012. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. Terceiro, M., 2012b. Stock Assessment of Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) for 2012. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12‐25. October 2012. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. TRAC 2012. Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder Status Report 2012/01 (Revised). Fisheries and Oceans Canada & NOAA Fisheries. 8pp Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze‐Foley, K., & Rosel P.E., 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze‐Foley, K., & Rosel, R.E., Editors 2013. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments ‐ 2012. Volume 1. March 2013. Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze‐Foley, K., & Rosel, P.E., Editors. 2013b. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments ‐ 2012. 10 Revised Stock Assessments.

125

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.

126

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:

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

127

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

Atlantic Cod, Haddock,...7 Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation The...

Documents

Transcript of Atlantic Cod, Haddock,...7 Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation The...