A biogeographic asssessment of seabirds, deep sea corals and ocean habitats of the New York Bight: science to support offshore spatial planning

This report provides a compilation of new maps and spatial assessments for seabirds, bathymetry, surficial sediments, deep sea corals, and oceanographic habitats in support of offshore spatial planning led by the New York Department of State Ocean and Great Lakes Program. These diverse ecological themes represent priority information gaps left by past assessments and were requested by New York to better understand and balance ocean uses and environmental conservation in the Atlantic. The main goal of this report is to translate raw ecological, geomorphological and oceanographic data into maps and assessments that can be easily used and understood by coastal managers involved in offshore spatial planning. New York plans to integrate information in this report with other ecological, geophysical and human use data to obtain a broad perspective on the ocean environment, human uses and their interactions. New York will then use this information in an ecosystem-based framework to coordinate and support decisions balancing competing demands in their offshore environment, and ultimately develop a series of amendments to New York’s federally approved Coastal Management Program. The targeted users of this report and the compiled spatial information are New York coastal managers, but other State and federal decision-makers, offshore renewable energy development interests and environmental advocates will also find the information useful. In addition, the data and approaches will be useful to regional spatial planning initiatives set up by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) and federal regional planning bodies for coastal and marine spatial planning.

Submarine landslides : selected studies in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

Submarine Landslides: An Introduction 1 By RIo Lee, W.C. Schwab, and J.S. Booth U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope Landslides: Their Distribution, General Anributes, and Implications 14 By J.S. Booth, D.W. O'Leary, Peter Popenoe, and W.W. Danforth Submarine Mass Movement, a Formative Process of Passive Continental Margins: The Munson-Nygren Landslide Complex and the Southeast New England Landslide Complex 23 By D.W. O'Leary The Cape Fear Landslide: Slope Failure Associated with Salt Diapirism and Gas Hydrate Decomposition 40 By Peter Popenoe, E.A. Schmuck, and W.P. Dillon Ancient Crustal Fractures Control the Location and Size of Collapsed Blocks at the Blake Escarpment, East of Florida 54 By W.P. Dillon, J.S. Risch, K.M. Scanlon, P.C. Valentine, and Q.J. Huggett Tectonic and Stratigraphic Control on a Giant Submarine Slope Failure: Puerto Rico Insular Slope 60 By W.C. Schwab, W.W. Danforth, and K.M. Scanlon Slope Failure of Carbonate Sediment on the West Florida Slope 69 By D.C. Twichell, P.C. Valentine, and L.M. Parson Slope Failures in an Area of High Sedimentation Rate: Offshore Mississippi River Delta 79 By J.M. Coleman, D.B. Prior, L.E. Garrison, and H.J. Lee Salt Tectonics and Slope Failure in an Area of Salt Domes in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 92 By B.A. McGregor, R.G. Rothwell, N.H. Kenyon, and D.C. Twichell Slope Stability in Regions 01 Sea-Floor Gas Hydrate: Beaufort Sea Continental Slope 97 By R.E. Kayen and H.J. Lee Mass Movement Related to Large Submarine Canyons Along the Beringian Margin, Alaska 104 By P.R. Carlson, H.A. Karl, B.D. Edwards, J.V. Gardner, and R. Hall Comparison of Tectonic and Stratigraphic Control of Submarine Landslides on the Kodiak Upper Continental Slope, Alaska 117 By M.A. Hampton Submarine Landslides That Had a Significant Impact on Man and His Activities: Seward and Valdez, Alaska 123 By M.A. Hampton, R.W. Lemke, and H.W. Coulter Processes Controlling the Style of Mass Movement in Glaciomarine Sediment: Northeastern Gulf of Alaska 135 By W.C. Schwab and H.J. Lee Contents V VI Contents Liquefaction of Continental Shelf Sediment: The Northern California Earthquake of 1980 143 By M.E. Field A Submarine Landslide Associated with Shallow Sea-Floor Gas and Gas Hydrates off Northern California 151 By M.E. Field and J.H. Barber, Jr. Sur Submarine Landslide, a Deep-Water Sediment Slope Failure 158 By C.E. Gutmacher and W.R. Normark Seismically Induced Mudflow in Santa Barbara Basin, California 167 By B.D. Edwards, H.J. Lee, and M.E. Field Submarine Landslides in a Basin and Ridge Setting, Southern California 176 By M.E. Field and B.D. Edwards Giant Volcano-Related Landslides and the Development of the Hawaiian Islands 184 By W.R. Normark, J.G. Moore, and M.E. Torresan Submarine Slope Failures Initiated by Hurricane Iwa, Kahe Point, Oahu, Hawaii 197 By W.R. Normark, Pat Wilde, J.F. Campbell, T.E. Chase, and Bruce Tsutsui (PDF contains 210 pages)

An integrated assessment of the continued spread and potential impacts of the colonial ascidian, Didemnum sp. A, in U.S. waters

Didemnum sp. A is a colonial ascidian or “sea squirt” of unknown geographic origin. Colonies of Didemnum sp. A were first documented in U.S. waters in 1993 at Damariscotta River, Maine and San Francisco Bay, California. An alarming number of colonies have since been found at several locations in New England and along the West Coast of the contiguous continental United States. Originally believed to be restricted to artificial structures in nearshore habitats, such as ports and marinas, colonies of Didemnum sp. A have also been discovered on a gravel-pavement habitat on Georges Bank at depths of 40-65m. The wide distribution of Didemnum sp. A, the presence of colonies on an important offshore fishing ground, and the negative economic impacts that other species of noninidigenous ascidians have had on aquaculture operations have raised concerns about the potential impacts of Didemnum sp. A. We reviewed the available information on the biology and ecology of Didemnum sp. A and potentially closely related species to examine the environmental and socioeconomic factors that may have influenced the introduction, establishment and spread of Didemnum sp. A in U.S. waters, the potential impacts of this colonial ascidian on other organisms, aquaculture, and marine fisheries, and the possibility that it will spread to other U.S. waters. In addition, we present and discuss potential management objectives for minimizing the impacts and spread of Didemnum sp. A. Concern over the potential for Didemnum sp. A to become invasive stems from ecological traits that it shares with other invasive species, including the ability to overgrow benthic organisms, high reproductive and population growth rates, ability to spread by colony fragmentation, tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions, apparent scarcity of predators, and the ability to survive in human dominated habitats. At relatively small spatial scales, species of Didemnum and other nonindigenous ascidians have been shown to alter the abundance and composition of benthic assemblages. In addition, the Canadian aquaculture industry has reported that heavy infestations of nonindigenous ascidians result in increased handling and processing costs. Offshore fisheries may also suffer where high densities of Didemnum sp. A may alter the access of commercially important fish species to critical spawning grounds, prey items, and refugia. Because colonial ascidian larvae remain viable for only 12–24hrs, the introduction and spread of Didemnum sp. A across large distances is thought to be predominantly human mediated; hull fouling, aquaculture, and ballast water. Recent studies suggest that colony growth rates decline when temperatures exceed 21 ºC for 7 consecutive days. Similarly, water temperatures above 8 to 10 ºC are necessary for colony growth; however, colonies can survive extended periods of time below this temperature threshold as an unidentified overwintering form. A qualitative analysis of monthly mean nearshore water temperatures suggest that new colonies of Didemnum will continue to be found in the Northeast U.S., California Current, and Gulf of Alaska LMEs. In contrast, water temperatures become less favorable for colony establishment in subarctic, subtropical, and tropical areas to the north and south of Didemnum’s current distribution in cool temperate habitats. We recommend that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force serve as the central management authority to coordinate State and Federal management activities. Five objectives for a Didemnum sp. A management and control program focusing on preventing the spread of Didemnum sp. A to new areas and limiting the impacts of existing populations are discussed. Given the difficulty of eradicating large populations of Didemnum sp. A, developing strategies for limiting the access of Didemnum sp. A to transport vectors and locating newly established colonies are emphasized. (PDF contains 70 pages)

A bioregional classification of the continental shelf of northeastern North America for conservation analysis and planning based on representation

Understanding how well National Marine Sanctuaries and other marine protected areas represent the diversity of species present within and among the biogeographic regions where they occur is essential for assessing their conservation value and identifying gaps in the protection of biological diversity. One of the first steps in any such assessment should be the development of clearly defined and scientifically justified planning boundaries representing distinct oceanographic conditions and faunal assemblages. Here, we propose a set of boundaries for the continental shelf of northeastern North America defined by subdivisions of the Eastern Temperate Province, based on a review and synthesis (i.e. meta-analysis) of the scientific literature. According to this review, the Eastern Temperate Province is generally divided into the Acadian and Virginian Subprovinces. Broad agreement places the Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, and Bay of Fundy within the Acadian Subprovince. The proper association of Georges Bank is less clear; some investigators consider it part of the Acadian and others part of the Virginian. Disparate perspectives emerge from the analysis of different groups of organisms. Further, while some studies suggest a distinction between the Southern New England shelf and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, others describe the region as a broad transition zone with no unique characteristics of its own. We suggest there exists sufficient evidence to consider the Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and Southern Mid-Atlantic Bight as distinct biogeographic regions from a conservation planning perspective, and present a set of proposed mapped boundaries. (PDF contains 23 pages.)

Quantitative composition and distribution of the macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the Continental Shelf ecosystems of the Northeastern United States

From the mid-1950's to the mid-1960's a series of quantitative surveys of the macrobenthic invertebrate fauna were conducted in the offshore New England region (Maine to Long Island, New York). The surveys were designed to 1) obtain measures of macrobenthic standing crop expressed in terms of density and biomass; 2) determine the taxonomic composition of the fauna (ca. 567 species); 3) map the general features of macrobenthic distribution; and 4) evaluate the fauna's relationships to water depth, bottom type, temperature range, and sediment organic carbon content. A total of 1,076 samples, ranging from 3 to 3,974 m in depth, were obtained and analyzed. The aggregate macrobenthic fauna consists of 44 major taxonomic groups (phyla, classes, orders). A striking fact is that only five of those groups (belonging to four phyla) account for over 80% of both total biomass and number of individuals of the macrobenthos. The five dominant groups are Bivalvia, Annelida, Amphipoda, Echninoidea, and Holothuroidea. Other salient features pertaining to the macrobenthos of the region are the following: substantial differences in quantity exist among different geographic subareas within the region, but with a general trend that both density and biomass increase from northeast to southwest; both density and biomass decrease with increasing depth; the composition of the bottom sediments significantly influences both the kind and quantity of macrobenthic invertebrates, the largest quantities of both measures of abundance occurring in the coarser grained sediments and diminishing with decreasing particle size; areas with marked seasonal changes in water temperature support an abundant and diverse fauna, whereas a uniform temperature regime is associated with a sparse, less diverse fauna; and no detectable trends are evident in the quantitative composition of the macrobenthos in relation to sediment organic carbon content. (PDF file contains 246 pages.)

Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida

The purpose of this field guide is to provide information on nonindigenous (i.e., non-native) fishes that have been observed in Florida’s marine waters. Introductions of non-native marine fishes into Florida’s waters could be intentional or unintentional, and are likely from a variety of sources, including aquarium releases, escape from aquaculture, loss due to extreme weather events (e.g., flooding from hurricanes), and possibly transfer with ballast water or hull-fouling. Presently the lionfishes (Pterois volitans and P. miles) are the only non-native marine fish species known to be established along the coast of Florida. All other marine fishes in this guide (except the euryhaline species, see below) have infrequent occurrences, occur singly or in small groups, and have not yet become self-sustaining populations. Aquarium releases are one of the major pathways whereby nonindigenous fishes gain access to new environments (Ruiz et al. 1997; Fuller et al. 1999). Most of the nonindigenous marine fishes found in Florida’s waters are thought to be aquarium fishes that either were illegally released into the ocean or escaped captivity (e.g., during severe storm/flooding events). Indeed, south Florida is a hotspot for nonindigenous marine aquarium fishes (Semmens et al. 2004). Increased public awareness of the problems caused by released or escaped aquarium fishes may aid in stemming the frequency of releases. For example, HabitattitudeTM (www.habitattitude.net) is a national public awareness and partnership campaign that encourages aquarists and water gardeners to prevent the release of unwanted aquarium plants, fish and other animals. It prompts hobbyists to adopt alternative actions when dealing with these aquatic plants and animals. (PDF file contains 133 pages.)

Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States Echinodermata: Crinoidea

The crinoid fauna of the continental margin (0-1500 m) of northeastern North America (Georgia to Canada) includes 14 species in 13 genera and 5 families. We introduce the external morphology and natural history of crinoids and include a glossary of terms, an illustrated key to local taxa, annotated systematic list, and an index. The fauna includes 2 species found no further south than New England and 8 that occur no further north than the Carolinas and Blake Plateau. Comactinia meridionalis (Agassiz) is the only species commonly found in shallow water «50 m). No taxa are endemic to the area. (PDF file contains 34 pages.)

History of whaling in and near North Carolina

This study aims to reconstruct the history of shore whaling in the southeastern United States, emphasizing statistics on the catch of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, the preferred targets. The earliest record of whaling in North Carolina is of a proposed voyage from New York in 1667. Early settlers on the Outer Banks utilized whale strandings by trying out the blubber of carcasses that came ashore, and some whale oil was exported from the 1660s onward. New England whalemen whaled along the North Carolina coast during the 1720s, and possibly earlier. As some of the whalemen from the northern colonies moved to Nortb Carolina, a shore-based whale fishery developed. This activity apparently continued without interruption until the War of Independence in 1776, and continued or was reestablished after the war. The methods and techniques of the North Carolina shore whalers changed slowly: as late as the 1890s they used a drogue at the end of the harpoon line and refrained from staying fast to the harpooned whale, they seldom employed harpoon guns, and then only during the waning years of the fishery. The whaling season extended from late December to May, most successfully between February and May. Whalers believed they were intercepting whales migrating north along the coast. Although some whaling occurred as far north as Cape Hatteras, it centered on the outer coasts of Core, Shackleford, and Bogue banks, particularly near Cape Lookout. The capture of whales other than right whales was a rare event. The number of boat crews probably remained fairly stable during much of the 19th century, with some increase in effort in the late 1870s and early 1880s when numbers of boat crews reached 12 to 18. Then by the late 1880s and 1890s only about 6 crews were active. North Carolina whaling had become desultory by the early 1900s, and ended completely in 1917. Judging by export and tax records, some ocean-going vessels made good catches off this coast in about 1715-30, including an estimated 13 whales in 1719, 15 in one year during the early 1720s, 5-6 in a three-year period of the mid to late 1720s, 8 by one ship's crew in 1727, 17 by one group of whalers in 1728-29, and 8-9 by two boats working from Ocracoke prior to 1730. It is impossible to know how representative these fragmentary records are for the period as a whole. The Carolina coast declined in importance as a cruising ground for pelagic whalers by the 1740s or 1750s. Thereafter, shore whaling probably accounted for most of the (poorly documented) catch. Lifetime catches by individual whalemen on Shackleford Banks suggest that the average annual catch was at least one to two whales during 1830·80, perhaps about four during the late 1870s and early 1880s, and declining to about one by the late 1880s. Data are insufficient to estimate the hunting loss rate in the Outer Banks whale fishery. North Carolina is the only state south of New Jersey known to have had a long and well established shore whaling industry. Some whaling took place in Chesapeake Bay and along the coast of Virginia during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, but it is poorly documented. Most of the rigbt whales taken off South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida during the 19th century were killed by pelagic whalers. Florida is the only southeastern state with evidence of an aboriginal (pre-contact) whale fishery. Right whale calves may have been among the aboriginal whalers' principal targets. (PDF file contains 34 pages.)

Distribution of red deepsea crab (Chaceon quinquedens) by size and sex in the Gulf of Mexico

The red deepsea crab (Chaceon quinquedens (Smith, 1879)) has supported a commercial fishery off the coast of New England since the 1970s (Wigley et al., 1975) and has had annual harvests from 400 metric tons (t) (1996) to 4000 t (2001) (NEFMC, 2002). In 2002, a fishery management plan for the northeast fishery on the Atlantic coast was implemented and total allowable catch was reduced to approximately 2500 t (NEFMC, 2002). Although there are management plans for the golden crab (C. fenneri) and the red deep sea crab for Atlantic coast regions, there is no fishery management plan for red deepsea crabs in the Gulf of Mexico. Successful management for sustainable harvests should be based on a knowledge of the life history of the species, but C. quinquedens has been a difficult species for which to obtain life history and abundance information because of its deep distribution.

The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, Massachusetts Through North Carolina: Its Biology and the History of Its Habitats and Fisheries

This article covers the biology and the history of the bay scallop habitats and fishery from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The scallop species that ranges from Massachusetts to New York is Argopecten irradians irradians. In New Jersey, this species grades into A. i. concentricus, which then ranges from Maryland though North Carolina. Bay scallops inhabit broad, shallow bays usually containing eelgrass meadows, an important component in their habitat. Eelgrass appears to be a factor in the production of scallop larvae and also the protection of juveniles, especially, from predation. Bay scallops spawn during the warm months and live for 18–30 months. Only two generations of scallops are present at any time. The abundances of each vary widely among bays and years. Scallops were harvested along with other mollusks on a small scale by Native Americans. During most of the 1800’s, people of European descent gathered them at wading depths or from beaches where storms had washed them ashore. Scallop shells were also and continue to be commonly used in ornaments. Some fishing for bay scallops began in the 1850’s and 1860’s, when the A-frame dredge became available and markets were being developed for the large, white, tasty scallop adductor muscles, and by the 1870’s commercial-scale fishing was underway. This has always been a cold-season fishery: scallops achieve full size by late fall, and the eyes or hearts (adductor muscles) remain preserved in the cold weather while enroute by trains and trucks to city markets. The first boats used were sailing catboats and sloops in New England and New York. To a lesser extent, scallops probably were also harvested by using push nets, picking them up with scoop nets, and anchor-roading. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, the sails on catboats were replaced with gasoline engines. By the mid 1940’s, outboard motors became more available and with them the numbers of fishermen increased. The increases consisted of parttimers who took leaves of 2–4 weeks from their regular jobs to earn extra money. In the years when scallops were abundant on local beds, the fishery employed as many as 10–50% of the towns’ workforces for a month or two. As scallops are a higher-priced commodity, the fishery could bring a substantial amount of money into the local economies. Massachusetts was the leading state in scallop landings. In the early 1980’s, its annual landings averaged about 190,000 bu/yr, while New York and North Carolina each landed about 45,000 bu/yr. Landings in the other states in earlier years were much smaller than in these three states. Bay scallop landings from Massachusetts to New York have fallen sharply since 1985, when a picoplankton, termed “brown tide,” bloomed densely and killed most scallops as well as extensive meadows of eelgrass. The landings have remained low, large meadows of eelgrass have declined in size, apparently the species of phytoplankton the scallops use as food has changed in composition and in seasonal abundance, and the abundances of predators have increased. The North Carolina landings have fallen since cownose rays, Rhinoptera bonsais, became abundant and consumed most scallops every year before the fishermen could harvest them. The only areas where the scallop fishery remains consistently viable, though smaller by 60–70%, are Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Mass., and inside the coastal inlets in southwestern Long Island, N.Y.

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.

Reef Habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, Distribution, Associated Biological Communities, and Fishery Resource Use

One particular habitat type in the Middle Atlantic Bight is not well recognized among fishery scientists and managers, although it is will known and used by recreational and commercial fisheries. This habitat consists of a variety of hard-surface, elevated relief "reef" or reef-like environments that are widely distributed across the predominantly flat or undulating, sandy areas of the Bight and include both natural rocky areas and man-made structures, e.g. shipwrecks and artificial reefs. Although there are natural rock and shellfish reefs in southern New England coastal waters and estuaries throughout the Bight, most reef habitats in the region appear to be man-made reef habitat modification/creation may be increasing. Very little effort has been devoted to the study of this habitat's distribution, abundance, use by living marine resources and associated biological communities (except on estuarine oyster reefs) and fishery value or management. This poorly studied and surveyed habitat can provide fish refuge from trawls and can be a factor in studies of the distribution and abundance of a variety of reef-associated fishery resources. This review provides a preliminary summary of information found on relative distribution and abundance of reef habitat in the Bight, the living marine resources and biological communities that commonly use it, threats to this habitat and its biological resources, and the value or potential value of artificial reefs to fishery or habitat and its biological resources, and the value or potential value of artificial reefs to fishery or habitat managers. The purpose of the review is to initiate an awareness among resource managers about this habitat, its role in resource management, and the need for research.

The Origins and Early History of the Steamer Albatross, 1880–18

Spencer Fullerton Baird (Fig. 1), a noted systematic zoologist and builder of scientific institutions in 19th century America, persuaded the U.S. Congress to establish the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries1 in March 1871. At that time, Baird was Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Following the death of Joseph Henry in 1878, he became head of the institution, a position he held until his own demise in 1887. In addition to his many duties as a Smithsonian official, including his prominent role in developing the Smithsonian’s Federally funded National Museum as the repository for governmental scientific collections, Baird directed the Fish Commission from 1871 until 1887. The Fish Commission’s original mission was to determine the reasons and remedies for the apparent decline of American fisheries off southern New England as well as other parts of the United States. In 1872, Congress further directed the Commission to begin a large fish hatching program aimed at increasing the supply of American food f

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.