Distribution of Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, purse-seine sets and catches from southern New England to North Carolina, 1985-96

Sets and catches of Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, made in 1985-96 by purse-seine vessels from Virginia and North Carolina were studied by digitizing and analyzing Captain's Daily Fishing Reports (CDFR's), daily logs of fishing activities completed by captains of menhaden vessels. 33,674 CDFR's were processed, representing 125,858 purse-seine sets. On average, the fleet made 10,488 sets annually. Virginia vessels made at least one purse-seine set on 67%-83% of available fishing days between May and December. In most years, five was the median number of sets attempted each fishing day. Mean set duration ranged from 34 to 43 minutes, and median catch per set ranged from 15 to 30 metric tons (t). Spotter aircraft assisted in over 83% of sets overall. Average annual catch in Chesapeake Bay (149,500 t) surpassed all other fishing areas, and accounted for 52% of the fleet's catch. Annual catch from North Carolina waters (49,100 t) ranked a distant second. Fishing activity in ocean waters clustered off the Mid-Atlantic states in June-September, and off North Carolina in November-January. Delaware Bay and the New Jersey coast were important alternate fishing grounds during summer. Across all ocean fishing areas, most sets and catch occurred within 3 mi. of shore, but in Chesapeake Bay about half of all fishing activity occurred farther offshore. In Virginia, areas adjacent to fish factories tended to be heavily fished. Recent regulatory initiatives in various coastal states threaten the Atlantic menhaden fleet's access to traditional nearshore fishing grounds. (PDF file contains 26 pages.)

Protecting a threatened coastal fish species through regional collaboration

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are small anadromous fish that live in nearshore coastal waters during much of the year and migrate to tidal rivers to spawn during the spring. They are a key prey species in marine food webs, as they are consumed by larger organisms such as striped bass, bluefish, and seabirds. In addition, smelt are valued culturally and economically, as they support important recreational and commercial fisheries. The Atlantic Coast range of rainbow smelt has been contracting in recent decades. Historically, populations extended from the Delaware River to eastern Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Buckley 1989). More recent observations indicate that rainbow smelt spawning populations have been extirpated south of Long Island Sound, and evidence of spawning activity is extremely limited between Long Island and Cape Cod, MA. In the Gulf of Maine region, spawning runs are still observed, but monitoring surveys as well as commercial and recreational catches indicate that these populations have also declined (e.g., Chase and Childs 2001). Many diverse factors could drive the recently noted declines in rainbow smelt populations, including spawning habitat conditions, fish health, marine environmental conditions, and fishing pressure. Few studies have assessed any of these potential threats or their joint implications. In 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed rainbow smelt as a species of concern. Subsequently, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were awarded a grant through NMFS’s Proactive Conservation Program to gather new information on the status of rainbow smelt, identify factors that affect spawning populations, and develop a multi-state conservation program. This paper provides an overview of this collaborative project, highlighting key biological monitoring and threats assessment research that is being conducted throughout the Gulf of Maine. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Fecundity estimates for Maryland Striped Bass

Contemporary striped bass population modeling efforts on coastal stocks point to a reduced population fecundity in Chesapeake Bay being partially responsible for declining reproduction (Anonymous 1985; Boreman and Goodyear 1984). Fecundity values used in these models were based on earlier work by jackson and tiller (1952), lewis and Bonner (1966), Hollis (1967) and Holland and Yelverton (1973). An important feature to the Boreman and Goodyear (1985) model (FSIM) is an accurate determination of the fecundity weight regression equation used to determine the rate of egg deposition over time. Egg deposition models in turn can be used to determine how reproductive potential is changing over time in response to various management actions, i.e. reducing fishing mortality rates. thus it is imperative to follow population stock structure in the Bay system and to develop a contemporary fecundity relationship for striped bass. This report deals with the gonadal material collected in 1986 and 1987 from a coordinated Maryland field program. Samples were obtained from drift gill net collections during the spawning season from four localities: Potomac Estuary, Upper Bay, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and the Choptank Estuary (Figure 1).

Multiple stable reference points in oyster populations: implications for reference point-based management

In the second of two companion articles, a 54-year time series for the oyster population in the New Jersey waters of Delaware Bay is analyzed to examine how the presence of multiple stable states affects reference-point–based management. Multiple stable states are described by four types of reference points. Type I is the carrying capacity for the stable state: each has associated with it a type-II reference point wherein surplus production reaches a local maximum. Type-II reference points are separated by an intermediate surplus production low (type III). Two stable states establish a type-IV reference point, a point-of-no-return that impedes recovery to the higher stable state. The type-II to type-III differential in surplus production is a measure of the difficulty of rebuilding the population and the sensitivity of the population to collapse at high abundance. Surplus production projections show that the abundances defining the four types of reference points are relatively stable over a wide range of uncertainties in recruitment and mortality rates. The surplus production values associated with type-II and type-III reference points are much more uncertain. Thus, biomass goals are more easily established than fishing mortality rates for oyster population

Activity in the pallial nerve of knobbed (Busycon carica) and channeled (Busycotypus canaliculatum) whelks recorded during exposure of the osphradium to odorant solutions

Adult horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) are the preferred bait in the U.S. east coast whelk pot fishery, but their harvest is being restricted because of severe population declines in the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. To identify other baits, the activity in the pallial nerve of whelks was determined during exposure of the osphradium to odorant solutions prepared from horseshoe crab eggs, horseshoe crab hemolymph, and hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) tissue. All three elicited significant responses; bait based on them may provide an alternative to the use of adult horseshoe crabs, although extensive behavioral testing remains to be done. Channeled whelk did not respond to molecular weight fractions (>3 kDa and <3 kDa) prepared from horseshoe crab egg odorant solutions but did respond when the molecular weight fractions were recombined. Whelks appear to have broadly tuned chemoreceptors and manufactured baits may need to mimic the complex mixture of odorants derived from natural sources.

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part II, History by Province and State

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England and Long Island, N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has given consumers a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Tabasco leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certified beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part I, Biology, Ecology, and Historical Uses

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has provided consumers with a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Campeche leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certifi ed beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Harvest History of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, represent a unique and isolated marine mammal population that has been hunted for a variety of purposes since prehistoric times. Archeological studies have shown that both Alutiiq Eskimos and Dena'ina Atabaskan Indians have long utilized many marine resources in Cook Inlet, including belugas. Over the past century, commercial whaling and sport hunting also occurred periodically in Cook Inlet prior to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). During the 1990's, the hunting mortality by Alaska Natives apparently increased to 40-70 whales per year, which led to the decling of this stock and its subsequent designation in 2000 as depleted under the MMPA. Concerns about the decline of the Cook Inlet stock resulted in a voluntary suspension of the subsistenc hunt by Alaska Natives in 1999. The difficulty in obtaining accurate estimates for the harvest of these whales is due to the inability to identify all of the hunters and, in turn, the size of the harvest. Attempts to reconstruct harvest records based on hunters' recollections and interviews from only a few households have been subject to a wide degree of speculation. To adequately monitor the beluga harvest, the National Marine Fisheries Service established marking and reporting regulations in October 1999. These rules require that Alaska Natives who hunt belugas in Cook Inlet must collect the lowere left jaw from harvested whales and complete a report that includes date and time of the harvest, coloration of the whale, harvest location, and method of harvest. The MMPA was amended in 2000 to require a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Native organizations before hunting could be resumed.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

Problems with Unofficial and Inaccurate Geographical Names in the Fisheries Literature

Over a century of fi shery and oceanographic research conducted along the Atlantic coast of the United States has resulted in many publications using unofficial, and therefore unclear, geographic names for certain study areas. Such improper usage, besides being unscholarly, has and can lead to identification problems for readers unfamiliar with the area. Even worse, the use of electronic data bases and search engines can provide incomplete or confusing references when improper wording is used. The two terms used improperly most often are “Middle Atlantic Bight” and “South Atlantic Bight.” In general, the term “Middle Atlantic Bight” usually refers to an imprecise coastal area off the middle Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and the term “South Atlantic Bight” refers to the area off the southeastern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida’s east coast.

Linking elements of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) with the planned National Water Quality Monitoring Network. Proceedings from the NOAA-Supported workshop 19-21 September 2005

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in cooperation with the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC), hosted a workshop at Rutgers University on 19-21 September 2005 to explore ways to link the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to the emerging infrastructure of the National Water Quality Monitoring Network (NWQMN). Participating partners included the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association, U.S. Geological Survey, Rutgers University Coastal Ocean Observing Laboratory, and the New Jersey Sea Grant College. The workshop was designed to highlight the importance of ecological and human health linkages in the movement of materials, nutrients, organisms and contaminants along the Delaware Bay watershed-estuary-coastal waters gradient (hereinafter, the “Delaware Bay Ecosystem [DBE]”), and to address specific water quality issues in the mid-Atlantic region, especially the area comprising the Delaware River drainage and near-shore waters. Attendees included federal, state and municipal officials, coastal managers, members of academic and research institutions, and industry representatives. The primary goal of the effort was to identify key management issues and related scientific questions that could be addressed by a comprehensive IOOS-NWQMN infrastructure (US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004; U.S. Ocean Action Plan 2004). At a minimum, cooperative efforts among the three federal agencies (NOAA, USGS and EPA) involved in water quality monitoring were required. Further and recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, outreach to states, regional organizations, and tribes was necessary to develop an efficient system of data gathering, quality assurance and quality control protocols, product development, and information dissemination.