History of the Fisheries of Raritan Bay, New York and New Jersey

Raritan Bay is the body of water bounded by New York and New Jersey and lying immediately south of New York City (Fig. 1). It has close proximity to the most concentrated urban and industrial area in the United States. Its history has been one of extensive multiple use by the surrounding human population. Dating from the precolonial and colonial periods, people have employed many types of gear to catch and gather its once abundant fishes and shellfishes. Its beaches were once popular for sun bathing and swimming, but after the 1940's they were essentially abandoned because the water became too polluted. Another large use has been for pleasure boating and the transit and dockage of merchant, passenger, and military vessels. Channels and basins were dug in the bay, bulkheads and jetties were constructed along its shores, and it was a donor source of sand and gravel for construction projects. It has also been a receptor for large quantities of domestic and industrial wastes and, mainly for this reason, it is one ofthe most deteriorated estuaries in the United States.

Use of ocean and estuarine habitats by young-of-year bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in the New York Bight

Young-of-year (YOY) blue-fish (Pomatomus saltatrix) along the U.S. east coast are often assumed to use estuaries almost exclusively during the summer. Here we present data from 1995 to 1998 indicating that YOY (30–260 mm FL) also use ocean habitats along the coast of New Jersey. An analysis of historical and recent data on northern and southern ocean beaches (0.1–2 m) and the inner continental shelf (5–27 m) during extensive sampling in New Jersey waters from 1995 to 1998 indicated that multiple cohorts occurred (June–August) in every year. When comparable collections of YOY were made in the ocean and in an adjacent estuary, the abundance was 1–2 orders of magnitude greater on ocean beaches during the summer. The YOY were even more abundant in ocean habitats in the fall (September–October), presumably as a result of YOY leaving estuaries to join the coastal migration south. During 1999 and 2000, YOY bluefish were tagged with internal sequential coded wire microtags in order to refine our under-standing of habitat use and movement. Few (0.04%) of the fish tagged on ocean beaches were recaptured; however, 2.2% of the fish tagged in the estuary were recaptured from 2 to 27 days after tagging. Recaptured fish grew quickly (average 1.37 mm FL/d). On ocean beaches YOY fed on a variety of invertebrates and fishes but their diet changed with size. By approximately 80–100 mm FL, they were piscivorous and fed primarily on engraulids, a pattern similar to that reported in estuaries. Based on distribution, abundance, and feeding, both spring- and summer-spawned cohorts of YOY bluefish commonly use ocean habitats. Therefore, attempts to determine factors affecting recruitment success based solely on estuarine sampling may be inadequate and further examination, especially of the contribution of the summer-spawned cohort in ocean habitats, appears warranted.

Stock assessment of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and An assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic

On September 7, 2000 the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that it was reinitiating consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on pelagic fisheries for swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish. 1 Bycatch of a protected sea turtle species is considered a take under the Endangered Species Act (PL93-205). On June 30, 2000 NMFS completed a Biological Opinion on an amendment to the Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan that concluded that the continued operation of the pelagic longline fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.2 Since that Biological Opinion was issued NMFS concluded that further analyses of observer data and additional population modeling of loggerhead sea turtles was needed to determine more precisely the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on turtles. 3,4 Hence, the reinitiation of consultation. The documents that follow constitute the scientific review and synthesis of information pertaining to the narrowly defined reinitiation of consultation: the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles The document is in 3 parts, plus 5 appendices. Part I is a stock assessment of loggerhead sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. Part II is a stock assessment of leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. Part III is an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. These documents were prepared by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center staff and academic colleagues at Duke University and Dalhousie University. Personnel involved from the SEFSC include Joanne Braun-McNeill, Lisa Csuzdi, Craig Brown, Jean Cramer, Sheryan Epperly, Steve Turner, Wendy Teas, Nancy Thompson, Wayne Witzell, Cynthia Yeung, and also Jeff Schmid under contract from the University or Miami. Our academic colleagues, Ransom Myers, Keith Bowen, and Leah Gerber from Dalhousie University and Larry Crowder and Melissa Snover from Duke University, also recipients of a Pew Charitable Trust Grant for a Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry, made significant contributions to the quantitative analyses and we are very grateful for their collaboration. We appreciate the reviews of the stock definition sections on loggerheads and leatherbacks by Brian Bowen, University of Florida, and Peter Dutton, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center, respectively, and the comments of the NMFS Center of Independent Experts reviewers Robert Mohn, Ian Poiner, and YouGan Wang on the entire document. We also wish to acknowledge all the unpublished data used herein which were contributed by many researchers, especially the coordinators and volunteers of the nesting beach surveys and the sea turtle stranding and salvage network and the contributors to the Cooperative Marine Turtle Tagging Program. (PDF contains 349 pages)

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.

Lethal Parasites in Oysters from Coastal Georgia with Discussion of Disease and Management Implications

Extensive mortalities of oysters, Crassostrea virginica, occurred from 1985 through 1987 in coastal waters of Georgia. Fluid thioglycolate cultures of oysters collected from 16 of 17 locations revealed infections by the apicomplexan parasite Perkinsus marinus. An ascetosporan parasite, Haplosporidium nelsoni, was also observed in histopathological examination of oysters from 4 of the locations. While the range of H. nelsoni currently is recognized as the east coast of the United States from Maine to Florida, this is the first report of the parasite in Georgia waters. This paper documents the occurrence of these two lethal parasites in oysters from coastal waters of Georgia, along with potential disease and management implications. Results of an earlier independent and previously unpublished survey are also discussed which document the presence of P. marinus in Georgia as early as 1966.