Sumilon Island reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustrations

Over 20 years, successive openings and closures of the Sumilon Island marine reserve to fishers have provided unique opportunities to examine the effects of marine reserves on populations and communities of fishes and upon local fisheries. The history of the reserve also highlights the problems and frustrations of educating and convincing people of the need for rational management of renewable marine resources. Yet, it is a symbol of hope in that it has provided a unique example of the potential benefits of marine reserves in fisheries management, particularly in the developing world.

Collaborative Pacific Halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, Bycatch Control by Canada and the United States

ABSTRACT—Bycatch mortality of Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, in nontarget fisheries is composed primarily of immature fish, and substantial reductions in yield to directed halibut fisheries result from this bycatch. Distant-water bottomtrawl fleets operating off the North American coast, beginning in the mid 1960’s, experienced bycatch mortality of over 12,000 t annually. Substantial progress on reducing this bycatch was not achieved until the of extension fisheries jurisdictions by the United States and Canada in 1977. Bycatch began to increase again during the expansion of domestic catching capacity for groundfish, and by the early 1990’s it had returned to levels seen during the period of foreign fishing. Collaborative action by Canada and the United States through the International Pacific Halibut Commission has resulted in substantial reductions in bycatch mortality in some areas. Methods of control have operated at global, fleet, and individual vessel levels. We evaluate the hierarchy of effectiveness for these control measures and identify regulatory needs for optimum effects. New monitoring technologies offer the promise of more cost-effective approaches to bycatch reduction.

Observations on Fisheries Activities at Navassa Island

Unmanaged and unquantified artisanal fishing is ongoing at Navassa Island, a small oceanic island about 70 km west of Haiti that is part of the U.S. Caribbean Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Concern has been expressed regarding the possible impact of these fishing activities on reef resources, and no quantitative catch or effort data are available. However, informal qualitative observations made during a cruise in November 2002 suggest that escalation in fishing activity (and impact) has occurred since previous observations made in April 2000. Namely, size structure of fish was markedly reduced and the adoption of net fishing has allowed the exploitation of queen conch, Strombas gigas, and hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata.

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.

Cook Inlet Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas: Status and Overview

Of the five populations of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, in Alaska, the most isolated is the one in Cook Inlet (Hazard, 1988; Hill and DeMaster, 1998) (Fig. 1). The geographic and genetic segregation of this stock (O’Corry-Crowe et al., 1997), combined with the beluga’s tendency toward site fidelity in summer, makes this population especially vulnerable to impacts from large or persistent harvests.

Distribution of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, During June/July 1993–2000

Aerial surveys of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet wre flown each year during June and/or July from 1993 to 2000. This project was designed to delineate distribution and collect aerial counts, elements critical to the managment of this small, isolated stock that was subjected to a persistent harvest by Native hunters. The surveys provided a thorough, annual coverage of the coastal areas of the inlet (1,300 km of shoreline) and included roughly 1,000 km of offshore transects annually. Coastal transects were flown 1.4 km from the waterline, thus surveying most of the area within 3 km of shore. These, along with offshore transects, provided annual systematic searches of 13-33% of the entire inlet. The largest concentration of belugas (151-288 whales by aerial count) was in the northern portion of upper Cook Inlet in the Susitna River Delta and/or in Knik Arm. Another concentration (17-49 whales) was consistently found between Chickaloon River and Point Possession. Smaller groups (generally <20 whales) were occasionally found in Turn-again Arm, Kachemak Bay, Redoubt Bay (Big River), and Trading Bay (McArthur River) prior to 1995 but not thereafter. Over the past three decades, summer distribution has shrunk such that sightings now only rarely occur in lower Cook Inlet and in offshore areas. In the 1990's, most (96-100%) of the sightings were concentrated in a few dense groups in shallow areas near river mouths in upper Cook Inlet.

Historic and Current Use of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas

Dedicated at-sea surveys for marine birds and mammals conducted in lower Cook Inlet in late July and early August from 1995–99 failed to locate any belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. Surveys covered a total of 6,249 linear km and were conducted in both nearshore and offshore habitats. Sightings included 791 individual marine mammals of 10 species. Both historical data and local knowledge indicate that belugas were regularly seen in summer in nearshore and offshore areas of lower Cook Inlet up until the early 1990’s. Diminished presence of belugas in lower Cook Inlet may be a direct function of reduced numbers but may also indicate changes in habitat quality that may inhibit recovery.

Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Distribution and Survey Effort in the Gulf of Alaska

Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and adjacent inside waters was examined through a review of surveys conducted as far back as 1936. Although beluga sightings have occurred on almost every marine mammal survey in northern Cook Inlet (over 20 surveys reported here), beluga sightings have been rare outside the inlet in the Gulf of Alaska. More than 150,000 km of dedicated survey effort in the Gulf of Alaska resulted in sightings of over 23,000 individual cetaceans, of which only 4 beluga sightings (5 individuals) occurred. In addition, nearly 100,000 individual cetaceans were reported in the Platforms of Opportunity database; yet, of these, only 5 sightings (39 individuals) were belugas. Furthermore, approximately 19 beluga sightings (>260 individuals), possibly including resightings, have been reported without information on effort or other cetacean sightings. Of the 28 sightings of belugas outside of Cook Inlet, 9 were near Kodiak Island, 10 were in or near Prince William Sound, 8 were in Yakutat Bay, and 1 anomalous sighting was well south of the Gulf. These sightings support archaeological and commercial harvest evidence indicating the only persistent group of belugas in the Gulf of Alaska occurs in Cook Inlet.

Abundance of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1994–2000

Annual abundance estimates of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet were calculated from counts made by aerial observers and aerial video recordings. Whale group-size estimates were corrected for subsurface whales (availability bias) and whales that were at the surface but were missed (detection bias). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability that entire groups were missed during the systematic surveys, and the results were used to calculate a correction to account for the whales in these missed groups (1.015, CV = 0.03 in 1994–98; 1.021, CV = 0.01 in 1999– 2000). Calculated abundances were 653 (CV = 0.43) in 1994, 491 (CV = 0.44) in 1995, 594 (CV = 0.28) in 1996, 440 (CV = 0.14) in 1997, 347 (CV = 0.29) in 1998, 367 (CV = 0.14) in 1999, and 435 (CV = 0.23, 95% CI=279–679) in 2000. For management purposes the current Nbest = 435 and Nmin = 360. These estimates replace preliminary estimates of 749 for 1994 and 357 for 1999. Monte Carlo simulations indicate a 47% probability that from June 1994 to June 1998 abundance of the Cook Inlet stock of belugas was depleted by 50%. The decline appears to have stopped in 1998.

Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Group Sizes in Cook Inlet, Alaska, Based on Observer Counts and Aerial Video

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, groups were videotaped concurrent to observer counts during annual NMFS aerial surveys of Cook Inlet, Alaska, from 1994 to 2000. The videotapes provided permanent records of whale groups that could be examined and compared to group size estimates ade by aerial observers.Examination of the video recordings resulted in 275 counts of 79 whale groups. The McLaren formula was used to account for whales missed while they were underwater (average correction factor 2.03; SD=0.64). A correction for whales missed due to video resolution was developed by using a second, paired video camera that magnified images relative to the standard video. This analysis showed that some whales were missed either because their image size fell below the resolution of hte standard video recording or because two whales surfaced so close to each other that their images appeared to be one large whale. The correction method that resulted depended on knowing the average whale image size in the videotapes. Image sizes were measured for 2,775 whales from 275 different passes over whale groups. Corrected group sizes were calcualted as the product of the original count from video, the correction factor for whales missed underwater, and the correction factor for whales missed due to video resolution (averaged 1.17; SD=0.06). A regression formula was developed to estimate group sizes from aerial observer counts; independent variables were the aerial counts and an interaction term relative to encounter rate (whales per second during the counting of a group), which were regressed against the respective group sizes as calculated from the videotapes. Significant effects of encounter rate, either positive or negative, were found for several observers. This formula was used to estimate group size when video was not available. The estimated group sizes were used in the annual abundance estimates.

Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Habitat Associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska

A review of available information describing habitat associations for belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet was undertaken to complement population assessment surveys from 1993-2000. Available data for physical, biological, and anthropogenic factors in Cook Inlet are summarized followed by a provisional description of seasonal habitat associations. To summarize habitat preferences, the beluga summer distribution pattern was used to partition Cook Inlet into three regions. In general, belugas congregate in shallow, relatively warm, low-salinity water near major river outflows in upper Cook Inlet during summer (defined as their primary habitat), where prey availability is comparatively high and predator occurrence relatively low. In winter, belugas are seen in the central inlet, but sightings are fewer in number, and whales more dispersed compared to summer. Belugas are associated with a range of ice conditions in winter, from ice-free to 60% ice-covered water. Natural catastrophic events, such as fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, have had no reported effect on beluga habitat, although such events likely affect water quality and, potentially, prey availability. Similarly, although sewage effluent and discharges from industrial and military activities along Cook Inlet negatively affect water quality, analyses of organochlorines and heavy metal burdens indicate that Cook Inlet belugas are not assimilating contaminant loads greater than any other Alaska beluga stocks. Offshore oil and gas activities and vessel traffic are high in the central inlet compared with other Alaska waters, although belugas in Cook Inlet seem habituated to these anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic factors that have the highest potential negative impacts on belugas include subsistence hunts (not discussed in this report), noise from transportation and offshore oil and gas extraction (ship transits and aircraft overflights), and water quality degradation (from urban runoff and sewage treatment facilities). Although significant impacts from anthropogenic factors other than hunting are not yet apparent, assessment of potential impacts from human activities, especially those that may effect prey availability, are needed.

Application of Suction-cup-attached VHF Transmitters to the Study of Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Surfacing Behavior in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Suction-cup-attached VHF radio transmittes were deployed on belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in 1994 and 1995 to characterize the whales' surfacing behavior. Data from video recordings were also used to characterize behavior of undisturbed whales and whales actively pursued for tagging. Statistics for dive intervals (time between the midpoints of contiguous surfacings) and surfacing intevals (time at the surface per surfacing) were estimated. Operations took place on the tidal delta of the Susitna and Little Susitna Rivers. During the 2-yr study, eight whales were successfully tagged, five tags remained attached for >60 min, and data from these were used in the analyses. Mean dive interval was 24.1 sec (interwhale SD=6.4 sec, n=5). The mean surfacing interval, as determined from the duration of signals received from the radio transmitters, was 1.8 sec (SD=0.3 sec, n=125) for one of the whales. Videotaped behaviors were categorized as "head-lifts" or "slow-rolls." Belugas were more likely to head-lift than to slow-roll during vessel approaches and tagging attempts when compared to undisturbed whales. In undisturbed groups, surfacing intervals determined from video records were significantly different between head-lifting (average = 1.02 sect, SD=0.38 sed, n=28) and slow-rolling whales (average = 2.45 sec, SD=0.37 sec, n=106). Undisturbed juveniles exhibited shorter slow-roll surfacing intervals (average = 2.25 sec, SD=0.32 sec, n=36) than adults (average = 2.55 sec, SD=0.36 sec, n=70). We did not observe strong reactions by the belugas to the suction-cup tags. This tagging method shows promise for obtaining surfacing data for durations of several days.

Development of Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Capture and Satellite Tagging Protocol in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Attempts to capture and place satellite tags on belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska were conducted during late spring and summer of 1995, 1997, and 1999. In 1995, capture attempts using a hoop net proved impractical in Cook Inlet. In 1997, capture efforts focused on driving belugas into nets. Although this method had been successful in the Canadian High Arctic, it failed in Cook Inlet due to the ability of the whales to detect and avoid nets in shallow and very turbid water. In 1999, belugas were successfully captured using a gillnet encirclement technique. A satellite tag was attached to a juvenile male, which subsequently provided the first documentation of this species’ movements within Cook Inlet during the summer months (31 May–17 September).

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.