Our Living Oceans
Front cover photographs, clockwise from top left: black rockfish, Steve Lonhart, Monterrey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary; nesting leatherback sea turtle, Canaveral National Seashore, U.S. National Parks 

Service; giant trevally, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NMFS; spotted seal, Brent Stewart, 

Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. 

This publication may be cited as:

NMFS. 2009. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 6th edition. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-80, 369 p.
Our Living Oceans

Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources • 6th edition

John Butler, SWFSC

October 2009

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-80

U.S. Department

of Commerce

Gary Locke

Secretary of Commerce

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco

Under Secretary of Commerce

for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine

Fisheries Service

James W. Balsiger

Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries

v

Foreword

This new edition of Our Living Oceans serves 

as a major yardstick to measure the success of 

managing our Nation’s living marine resources 

since the last report was released in 1999. In addition to detailing the status of the Nation’s living 

marine resources, this report also focuses on the 

steps that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) has taken to end overfishing and reduce 

bycatch, and spotlights what is known and what 

still remains unknown about fishery stocks and 

protected resources. 

The passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) has changed 

the landscape of fisheries management. In addition to its requirement to end overfishing by 

2010, the Act requires expanded fishery management tools (including market-based management approaches, e.g. “catch shares”), a larger 

role for science in the fishery management process (including improved recreational data collection and strengthened peer-review processes), and 

enhanced international cooperation (to address 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and 

bycatch of protected species). The keys to achieving sustainable fishery stocks, and local communities dependent upon them, are ending overfishing 

and rebuilding overfished stocks. The agency and 

the Nation we serve face new and emerging challenges: setting effective and accurate annual catch 

limits, conserving and rehabilitating the marine 

and freshwater habitats needed to sustain fishery 

stocks, recovering endangered species and protecting those at risk of becoming endangered, creating successful limited access privilege programs 

that help provide for sustainable and safe fisheries, and designing ecosystem-based management 

plans that consider multiple uses of marine ecosystems, including fisheries and a wide range of 

other societal needs. 

NMFS has been working to anticipate and 

meet emerging management and conservation 

challenges. The NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research, published in 2007, describes the 

agency’s research priorities for the next 5 years 

and provides a framework for targeting NOAA’s 

resources to best meet science and management 

needs. The NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Plan, released in October 2008, outlines NOAA’s plans to 

replace its aging fleet of sea-going vessels, the primary platforms for collecting fishery-independent 

data, which is vital for assessing stocks and managing fisheries. Updating the NOAA fleet will give 

us the tools to build capacity and collect more, 

and more comprehensive, data to better manage 

living marine resources. NMFS is also working 

with industry and academic partners to develop 

advanced sampling technologies that will further 

enhance data collection and the fisheries management that depends on those data. 

 In order to better meet the Nation’s stewardship responsibilities for the oceans, coasts, and 

Great Lakes, the Obama Administration established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force 

(OPTF) to be led by the Chair of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. On 10 September 2009 

the Obama Administration released the interim 

Ocean Policy Task Force report. The OPTF report 

provides proposals for a comprehensive national 

approach to uphold stewardship responsibilities 

and ensure accountability. It outlines a more balanced, productive and sustainable approach to 

managing ocean resources focusing on an integrated and science-based approach to ecosystem 

protection and restoration strategies. It calls out 

as a priority the importance of the “protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of populations and 

essential habitats supporting fisheries, protected 

species, ecosystems, and biological diversity.”

 The United States has some of the strongest 

marine resource legislation in the world, and passage of the MSRA gives NMFS critically needed 

tools to effectively manage our Nation’s living marine resources for the sustainable use and enjoyment by this and future generations. This report 
vi

serves as a report card to the Nation on the status of our living marine resources, but it will also 

serve as a baseline for measuring future progress 

under the MSRA mandates and meeting the requirements and initiatives of the OPTF. While 

we will eliminate known overfishing on Federally managed stocks in 2010, we know that it will 

take time to restore those populations—but recover they will of we are vigilant in keeping fishing mortality within sustainable limits. We expect 

Quarterly updates on the status of populations can be found at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.

that comparisons of future reports with this one 

will show continued improvements in the status 

and health of stocks, as well as increases in knowledge about those stocks.

Steve Murawski, Ph.D.

Director of Scientific Programs 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Silver Spring, Maryland

October 2009
vii

This is the sixth edition of Our Living Oceans. 

Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources

to be released since the inaugural edition was 

published in November 1991. These publications 

serve as a series of National status reviews by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. The reports are 

neither mandated nor intended to fulfill any legal 

requirement. Instead, the purpose of Our Living 

Oceans from the beginning has been to provide a 

report card to the American public on the biological 

health of U.S. living marine resources. Additional 

reports in this series were released in 1992, 1993, 

1995, and 1999. Over time, this reporting effort 

has evolved from a 1-year cycle to a multiyear 

cycle so as to better reflect the extended time 

periods often requireds to observe and document 

change in biological populations and the marine 

environment.

Building on the reception of the biological report card, Our Living Oceans. The Economic Status 

of U.S. Fisheries was released to the American public 

in December 1996. This companion report defined 

and characterized economic sustainability in the 

Nation’s fisheries, and presented a preliminary assessment of their economic health. An update to 

the 1996 Economics report is currently underway. 

Work on a third report that will present an initial 

assessment of the status and health of marine 

and coastal habitats important to living marine 

resources is nearing completion. When Our Living 

Oceans: Habitat. Status of the Habitat of U.S. Living 

Marine Resources is released in the near future, the 

envisioned Our Living Oceans series covering stock 

status, economics, and habitat will be in place. 

Our Living Oceans 6th Edition presents new data 

analyses focusing on the principal fishery resources, 

marine mammals, and sea turtles that are under the 

management jurisdiction of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Living marine resources in this 

report are discussed in terms of seven regional 

ecosystems around the United States: Northeast 

Shelf, Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, California Current, Alaska Ecosystem 

Complex, and Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex, 

plus Highly Migratory Species. The information 

reported is drawn from stock assessment reports, 

field surveys, biological and physical studies, and 

independent monitoring of recreational, subsistence, and commercial fisheries. As with previous 

editions of Our Living Oceans, this publication and 

the data presented are the result of the collective efforts of National Marine Fisheries Service staff from 

around the country. The principal contributors to 

this report are listed in Appendix 1. 

Preface
viii

CONTENTS

 v Foreword

vii PreFace

 x	 List oF	tabLes

xii	 List oF	Figures

	 Part	1	NaTiONal OvErviEw

		3	 Introduction

		6	 	 Reauthorization	of the Magnuson–Stevens Act

		7	 	 Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management

10	 Contents

11	 Common Terms

13	 U.S. Fisheries Production and Status

16	 	 Harvest	Rate

17	 	 Stock Status

19	 Fishery Resource Status Relative to Fishing Mortality and Biomass Targets

19	 	 Stock Level Relative to BMSY

20	 	 Fishing Mortality and Resource Biomass relative to Target Levels

21	 Protected Resource Status

21	 	 Marine Mammals

22	 	 Sea Turtles

23	 Regional Ecosystem and Unit Summaries

23	 	 Northeast Shelf

25	 	 Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea

28	 	 California Current

30	 	 Alaska Ecosystem Complex

33	 	 Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex

34	 	 Highly Migratory Species	

36	 Recent Trends for Fisheries

36	 	 Stock Level

37	 	 Recent Yields

40	 Recent Trends for Protected Resources

40	 	 Marine	Mammals	

41	 	 Sea Turtles

42	 Issues of National Concern

42	 	 Stock Rebuilding and Recovery

45	 	 Recreational Fishing

46	 	 Place-based Management

48	 	 Limited Access Privilege Programs

50	 	 Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments

52	 Outlook

53	 Literature Cited
ix

	 Part	2 fEaTurE arTiCLES

57 Prelude to Sustainability: Ending Overfishing in U.S. Fisheries

67 Improving Fisheries Science with Advanced Sampling Technologies

77 Deep-sea Coral Ecosystems of the United States

87 Conservation and the Endangered Species Act: The National Marine Fisheries

 Service’s Cooperative and Proactive Approaches

	 Part	3	LiviNg mariNE rESOurCES

103 Unit 1. Northeast Demersal Fisheries

113 Unit 2. Northeast Pelagic Fisheries

117 Unit 3. Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries

125 Unit 4. Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries

133 Unit 5. Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries

137 Unit 6. Atlantic Shark Fisheries

149 Unit 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Pelagic Fisheries

157 Unit 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Reef Fisheries

163 Unit 9. Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries 

169 Unit 10. Southeast Menhaden Fisheries

173 Unit 11. Southeast and Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries

181 Unit 12. Pacific Coast Salmon

189 Unit 13. Alaska Salmon

201 Unit 14. Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic Fisheries

211 Unit 15. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries

223 Unit 16. Western Pacific Invertebrate Fisheries

231 Unit 17. Western Pacific Bottomfish and Groundfish Fisheries

237 Unit 18. Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries

251 Unit 19. Alaska Groundfish Fisheries

263 Unit 20. Alaska Shellfish Fisheries

267 Unit 21. Marine Mammals of the Alaska Region

283 Unit 22. Marine Mammals of the Pacific Region and Hawaii

301 Unit 23. Marine Mammals of the Atlantic Region and the Gulf of Mexico

317 Unit 24. Sea Turtles

	 Part 4 appENdiCES

331 Appendix 1. Acknowledgements

333 Appendix 2. Fishery Management Councils, Their Jurisdictions, and Fishery Management Plans

337 Appendix 3. Principal Facilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service

341 Appendix 4. Stock Assessment Principles and Terms

347 Appendix 5. Common and Scientific Names of Species

361 Appendix 6. Acronyms and Abbreviations

367 Appendix 7. Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act
x

LIST OF TABLES

	 Part	1	nATIOnAL OvErvIEw

13 Table 1. Productivity of U.S. fisheries resources

15 Table 2. Regional productivity of U.S. fisheries resources

16 Table 3. Harvest rate of U.S. fisheries resources

17 Table 4. Stock status of U.S. fisheries resources

19 Table 5. Stock levels relative to BMSY for U.S. fisheries resources

22 Table 6. Status of marine mammals and sea turtles

22 Table 7. Population trends of marine mammals 

23 Table 8. Productivity of Northeast Shelf fisheries resources

25 Table 9. Productivity of Southeast Shelf fisheries resources

26 Table 10. Productivity of Gulf of Mexico fisheries resources

26 Table 11. Productivity of Caribbean Sea fisheries resources

29 Table 12. Productivity of California Current fisheries resources

31 Table 13. Productivity of Alaska Ecosystem Complex fisheries resources

33 Table 14. Productivity of Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex resources

35 Table 15. Productivity of highly migratory species fisheries resources

36 Table 16. Stock level changes since OLO ‘99

37 Table 17. U.S. RAY changes since OLO ‘99

38 Table 18. RAY changes greater than −50% since OLO ‘99

39 Table 19. RAY changes greater than +50% since OLO ‘99

43 Table 20. Potential gains in yield from rebuilding depleted stocks

	 Part	2	FEATurE ArTIcLES

PrELudE TO SuSTAInABILITy: EndIng OvErFIShIng In u.S. FIShErIES

62 Table 1. U.S. stocks subject to overfishing, 1997–2007

64 Table 2. Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) scores for U.S. stocks

dEEP-SEA cOrAL EcOSySTEmS OF ThE unITEd STATES

78 Table 1. Differences between tropical shallow-water and deep-water stony corals

81 Table 2. Current threats to deep coral communities by U.S. region

cOnSErvATIOn And ThE EndAngErEd SPEcIES AcT: ThE nATIOnAL 

mArInE FIShErIES SErvIcE’S cOOPErATIvE And PrOAcTIvE APPrOAchES

95 Table 1. Proactive Species Conservation Program projects funded for Fiscal Year 2007
xi

	 Part	3	LiviNg mariNE rESOurCES

104 Table 1-1. Productivity and status of Northeast demersal fishes

114 Table 2-1. Productivity and status of Northeast pelagic fishes

118 Table 3-1. Productivity and status of Atlantic anadromous fishes 

126 Table 4-1. Productivity and status of Northeast invertebrates 

136 Table 5-1. Productivity and status of U.S. highly migratory pelagic fishes in the Atlantic

138 Table 6-1. Current shark management groups

140 Table 6-2. Productivity and status of Atlantic sharks

150 Table 7-1. Productivity and status of U.S. coastal pelagic fishes in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

159 Table 8-1. Productivity and status of Southeast reef fishes 

164 Table 9-1. Productivity and status of Southeast drums and croakers

170 Table 10-1. Productivity and status of Southeast menhaden

175 Table 11-1. Productivity and status of Southeast invertebrates

182 Table 12-1. Productivity and status of Pacific Coast salmon

192 Table 13-1. Productivity and status of Alaska salmon 

203 Table 14-1. Productivity and status of Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic fishes

213 Table 15-1. Productivity and status of Pacific Coast groundfishes

226 Table 16-1. Productivity and status of Western Pacific invertebrates

232 Table 17-1. Productivity and status of Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish

238 Table 18-1. Productivity and status of Pacific highly migratory pelagic fishes

252 Table 19-1. Productivity and status of Pacific halibut

264 Table 19-2. Productivity and status of Alaska groundfishes

264 Table 20-1. Productivity and status of Alaska shellfishes

268 Table 21-1. Status of Alaska marine mammals

274 Table 21-2. Population estimates for Alaska harbor seal stocks

284 Table 22-1. Status of Pacific Region marine mammals

289 Table 22-2. Incidental mortality and serious injury of false killer whales

293 Table 22-3. Population estimates for central California harbor porpoise

295 Table 22-4. Potential biological removal and mean annual takes of harbor porpoise

302 Table 23-1. Status of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammals

310 Table 23-2. Incidental mortality of pilot whales in commercial fisheries

311 Table 23-3. Pilot whale strandings along the U.S. Atlantic Coast

318 Table 24-1. Status of principal sea turtle nesting populations
xii

LIST OF FIgurES

Part	1	nATIOnAL OvErvIEw

 5 Figure 1. Map of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and Regional Ecosystems

14 Figure 2. Total recent average yield, sustainable yield, and U.S. prorated share

15 Figure 3. U.S. sustainable yield by Regional Ecosystem

17 Figure 4. Stock harvest rates

18 Figure 5. Stock status 

19 Figure 6. Stock levels relative to BMSY

20 Figure 7. Status of U.S. living marine resources relative to fishing mortality and biomass targets

Part	2	FEATurE ArTIcLES

PrELudE TO SuSTAInABILITy: EndIng OvErFIShIng In u.S. FIShErIES

61 Figure 1. U.S. stocks subject to overfishing in 2007 by Fishery Management Council

ImPrOvIng FIShErIES ScIEncE wITh AdvAncEd SAmPLIng TEchnOLOgIES

68 Figure 1. Acoustic echograms displaying volume backscatter

69 Figure 2. Acoustical systems used during routine pelagic fish surveys

70 Figure 3. Spatial distribution of Atlantic herring observed during an acoustic survey

70 Figure 4. Pelagic trawl on board the NOAA ship Miller Freeman

71 Figure 5. Acoustical and optical technologies for surveying fish

71 Figure 6. Underwater video image of Atlantic herring and feeding blue shark

72 Figure 7. Fetch3X autonomous underwater vehicle 

73 Figure 8. Classification of acoustic backscatter using echo sounder data

75 Figure 9. Three-dimensional computed tomography image of an alewife

dEEP SEA cOrAL EcOSySTEmS OF ThE unITEd STATES

82 Figure 1. Map of active oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico 

cOnSErvATIOn And ThE EndAngErEd SPEcIES AcT: ThE nATIOnAL 

mArInE FIShErIES SErvIcE’S cOOPErATIvE And PrOAcTIvE APPrOAchES

92 Figure 1. Protected Species Cooperative Conservation Program funding by state

93 Figure 2. Total grant funding by species

93 Figure 3. Map of critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles

94 Figure 4. Fiscal Year 1999–2007 Allocation of species of concern research/outreach funds

96 Figure 5. Map of green sturgeon distribution

97 Figure 6. Catch of green sturgeon in the Yurok tribal salmon fishery
xiii

Part	3	LiviNg mariNE rESOurCES

106 Figure 1-1. Landings and survey index of principal groundfishes

107 Figure 1-2. Landings and survey index of dogfish and skates

109 Figure 1-3. Areas closed year-round to protect New England groundfishes

115 Figure 2-1. Landings and survey index of Northeast principal pelagic stocks 

118 Figure 3-1. Landings of anadromous stocks

120 Figure 3-2. Atlantic salmon returns to U.S. rivers and mariculture production 

121 Figure 3-3. Landings, spawning stock biomass, recruitment of Atlantic striped bass

126 Figure 4-1. Landings of American lobster

127 Figure 4-2. U.S. and Canadian landings of Atlantic sea scallop

134 Figure 5-1. U.S. landings of Atlantic highly migratory species

141 Figure 6-1. Catches and stock abundance of Atlantic large coastal sharks

143 Figure 6-2. Catches and stock abundance of Atlantic small coastal sharks

144 Figure 6-3. Landings of Atlantic pelagic sharks

150 Figure 7-1. Total landings of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal pelagic stocks

151 Figure 7-2. Landings and relative abundance index of Spanish mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

152 Figure 7-3. Landings relative abundance index of king mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

153 Figure 7-4. Landings of cobia in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

154 Figure 7-5. Landings of dolphinfish in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

160 Figure 8-1. Landings of Gulf of Mexico reef fish

161 Figure 8-2. Landings of South Atlantic reef fish

161 Figure 8-3. Landings of Caribbean reef fish

164 Figure 9-1. Landings of Southeast drums and croakers

171 Figure 10-1. Landings and fecundity of menhaden in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

174 Figure 11-1. Landings and abundance index of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico

176 Figure 11-2. Landings of Southeast and Caribbean stone crab, golden crab, and Caribbean spiny lobster

183 Figure 12-1. Landings of Pacific Coast Chinook salmon

184 Figure 12-2. Landings of Pacific Coast coho salmon

184 Figure 12-3. Landings of Pacific Coast sockeye salmon

185 Figure 12-4. Landings of Pacific Coast chum salmon

185 Figure 12-5. Landings of Pacific Coast pink salmon

190 Figure 13-1. Commercial landings of all Alaska salmon

192 Figure 13-2. Commercial landings of Alaska pink salmon

193 Figure 13-3. Average commercial landings of Alaska salmon by number

193 Figure 13-4. Commercial landings of Alaska sockeye salmon

194 Figure 13-5. Commercial landings of Alaska chum salmon

195 Figure 13-6. Commercial landings of Alaska coho salmon

195 Figure 13-7. Commercial landings of Alaska Chinook salmon

196 Figure 13-8. Ex-vessel revenue of Alaska commercial salmon landings

202 Figure 14-1. Landings and biomass of Pacific Coast Pacific sardine

203 Figure 14-2. Landings and biomass of Pacific Coast northern anchovy

204 Figure 14-3. Landings and biomass of Pacific Coast Pacific chub mackerel

205 Figure 14-4. Landings of Pacific Coast jack mackerel

206 Figure 14-5. Landings of market squid in California

206 Figure 14-6. Commercial landings of Pacific herring off the Pacific Coast

207 Figure 14-7. Landings of herring roe and kelp in California

208 Figure 14-8. Landings of Pacific herring off Alaska 
xiv

212 Figure 15-1. Relative components of Pacific Coast groundfish total ex-vessel value

214 Figure 15-2. Relative spawning biomass of overfished Pacific Coast groundfishes

215 Figure 15-3. Relative spawning biomass of selected Pacific Coast groundfishes

224 Figure 16-1. Map of the Main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

225 Figure 16-2. Landings of Hawaiian lobsters

227 Figure 16-3. Historical landings of Western Pacific precious corals

232 Figure 17-1. Fishery catch per unit of effort for North Pacific armorhead in the Western Pacific

233 Figure 17-2. Landings and catch per unit of effort for Western Pacific bottomfishes

234 Figure 17-3. Survey catch per unit of effort for North Pacific armorhead in the Western Pacific

242 Figure 18-1. Landings of skipjack tuna in the Pacific Ocean

243 Figure 18-2. Landings of yellowfin tuna in the Pacific Ocean

243 Figure 18-3. Landings of bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean

244 Figure 18-4. Landings of albacore in the Pacific Ocean

244 Figure 18-5. Landings of swordfish in the Pacific Ocean

245 Figure 18-6. Landings of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean

246 Figure 18-7. Landings of blue shark in the Pacific Ocean

253 Figure 19-1. Landings and exploitable biomass of Pacific halibut

253 Figure 19-2. Landings and biomass of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish

257 Figure 19-3. Landings and biomass of Gulf of Alaska groundfishes

265 Figure 20-1. Landings and abundance of king crab in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea

265 Figure 20-2. Landings and abundance of southern Tanner and snow crabs in the Gulf of Alaska and 

 Bering Sea

266 Figure 20-3. Landings of shrimp and snails in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea

270 Figure 21-1. Estimated population size of Steller sea lions off the United States and Canada

271 Figure 21-2. Map of eastern North Pacific right whale historical distribution and recent sightings

288 Figure 22-1. Map of survey sighting locations for false killer whales in Hawaii

289 Figure 22-2. Map of false killer whale takes in the Hawaii-based longline fishery

291 Figure 22-3. Map of survey sighting locations of humpback whales off the Pacific Coast

292 Figure 22-4. Map of survey sightings for blue whales off the Pacific Coast

293 Figure 22-5. Harbor porpoise stocks and boundaries in California and southern Oregon

294 Figure 22-6. Aerial survey estimates of abundance for central California stocks of harbor porpoise

308 Figure 23-1. Map of survey sightings of pilot whales off the East Coast

319 Figure 24-1. Number of Kemp’s ridley nests observed annually at Mexican nesting sites

322 Figure 24-2. Population estimates for nesting green turtles on East Island in the Northwestern 

 Hawaiian Islands
part 1

National Overview
Photo on previous page: 

Gray snappers find shelter 

beneath a coral reef ledge. 

Photo courtesy of Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
3

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

INTRODUCTION

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine 

resources (LMR’s). This is accomplished through science-based conservation and management, 

and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. As a steward, NMFS has an obligation to conserve, 

protect, and manage these resources in a way that ensures their continuation as functioning components of healthy marine ecosystems, affords economic opportunities, and enhances the quality 

of life for the American public. 

In addition to its responsibilities within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NMFS 

plays a supportive and advisory role in the management of LMR’s in the coastal areas under 

state jurisdiction and provides scientific and policy leadership in the international arena. NMFS 

also implements international measures for the conservation and management of LMR’s, as appropriate. 

NMFS receives its stewardship responsibilities under a number of Federal laws. These include 

the Nation’s primary fisheries law, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

This law was first passed in 1976, later reauthorized as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1996, and reauthorized again on 12 January 2007 as the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA). The 

MSRA mandates strong action to conserve and manage fishery resources and requires NMFS to 

end overfishing by 2010 in all U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries, rebuild all overfished 

stocks, and conserve essential fish habitat. 

Additional stewardship responsibilities come from the following statutes:

 • The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of their range and the conservation 

of the ecosystems on which they depend.

• The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulates interactions with marine mammals 

and establishes a national policy to prevent marine mammal species and population stocks 

from declining beyond the point where they cease to be significant functioning elements 

of the ecosystems of which they are a part.

 • The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to analyze the 

potential effects of any proposed Federal action that would significantly affect historical, 

cultural, or natural aspects of the environment.

National Overview
4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

1

The U.S. EEZ extends from 9 n.mi. to 200 n.mi. off the shores of Texas, the Gulf Coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico.

• The Federal Power Act (FPA) allows NMFS to minimize the effects of dam operations on 

anadromous fish, such as by prescribing fish passageways that bypass dams.

• The Lacey Act prohibits fish and wildlife transactions and activities that violate state, Federal, Native American tribal, or foreign laws.

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires the reduction of impacts of fishing gear on sea birds, 

in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires all Federal agencies to consult 

with and give strong consideration to the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

NMFS, and state wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife of projects 

that propose to impound, divert, channel, or otherwise alter a body of water.

The U.S. EEZ starts at 3 nautical miles (n.mi.) and extends to 200 n.mi.1 seaward of the 48 

contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S.-affiliated islands of the Caribbean and western Central 

Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). It is the largest EEZ in the world, covering 3.36 million square n.mi., 

or 1.7 times the area of the U.S. continental landmass (FAO, 2005). Jurisdiction over waters 

from 0 to 3 n.mi. offshore belongs to the coastal states, interstate fisheries management commissions (which coordinate state actions), and even counties or municipalities. International waters 

outside the U.S. EEZ are generally managed by applicable international laws and multilateral 

agreements among sovereign governments. 

Eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC’s; see Appendix 2) work in partnership 

with NMFS to manage LMR’s and prepare Fishery Management Plans (FMP’s). FMC’s represent 

diverse interests through their members, who are nominated by state governors in each region 

and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce oversees the FMC’s 

and their development of fisheries regulations and is ultimately responsible for the management 

and conservation of LMR’s in the U.S. EEZ; if the FMC’s fail to act or are unable to act on an 

FMP or fishery problem in a timely manner, the Secretary must develop a Secretarial FMP. The 

Secretary of Commerce also has management authority for Atlantic highly migratory species and 

is responsible for the preparation of FMP’s to manage these stocks; the Secretary also oversees 

implementation of international requirements related to fisheries. 

Fishery management plans specify how fisheries will be managed, and are developed through 

extensive consultations with state and Federal agencies, affected industry sectors, public interest 

groups, and international science and management organizations where appropriate. The MSRA 

contains 10 National Standards to guide development of FMP’s, taking into consideration the 

social, economic, biological, and environmental factors associated with fisheries. NMFS, state, 

and commission programs collect and analyze much of the fisheries data used by managers. Federal law requires that managers use the “best science available” to make management decisions. 

Our Living Oceans 6th Edition (OLO 6th Edition) covers the majority of LMR’s that are of inBlack rockfish in a West Coast 

kelp forest.

Kip Evans
5

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Figure 1

Our Living Oceans 6th Edition

divides the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone into seven 

Regional Ecosystems plus 

international/highly migratory species for the purpose 

of reporting the status of U.S. 

living marine resources. An 

eighth Regional Ecosystem 

designated by NOAA, the 

Great Lakes, is not covered.

Map courtesy of Tim Haverland, NMFS.

terest to the United States for commercial, recreational, subsistence, and aesthetic or intrinsic 

reasons. The volume reports on the biological status of U.S. fishery resources, presents information on current and sustainable yields, in addition to current harvest rate and stock status relative 

to prescribed thresholds, and discusses significant management issues. Finally, the status of U.S. 

stocks of marine mammals and sea turtles is summarized.

Although a short discussion on the status of selected nearshore species has been included in 

previous editions of Our Living Oceans, no nearshore unit is included here. Many nearshore 

species provide the basis for locally important commercial and recreational fisheries, but these 

coastal and estuarine species are under the control of coastal states and their local governments, 

and NMFS does not have direct responsibility inshore of 3 n.mi. NMFS and the FMC’s do coordinate with the states on the management of some large-scale fisheries, and certain nearshore 

resources such as anchovy, sardine, and some herrings are included in Federal FMP’s. Because 

the composition of nearshore resources is diverse and management is shared among many coastal 

states and other local authorities, a comprehensive treatment of them has not been attempted in 

this report. However, some large-scale nearshore fisheries of national interest are reported. 
6

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Much of the information in this report comes from peer-reviewed stock assessment reports 

and publications. These sources form the scientific basis for management. Some stock assessments 

provide complete information necessary to judge stock status and the magnitude of current and 

sustainable fishery yield. When information is inadequate, the stock or fishery status is classified 

as unknown. In such cases, current and sustainable yield may be estimated from the most recent 

catch statistics. More detailed information can be obtained from regional reports produced by 

NMFS fisheries science centers (Appendix 3) and from state natural resource agencies.

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976 Act) was first adopted in 

1976 to govern fishing activities in Federal waters. Most notably, the 1976 Act aided in the development of the domestic fishing industry by phasing out foreign fishing, and it created the system 

of regional fishery management councils to govern domestic fishing activities and conservation 

efforts. The 1976 Act was reauthorized in 1996 (MSA) and gave NMFS the initial legal tools 

necessary to begin slowing fisheries expansion and stop the overcapitalization of U.S. fisheries. 

Since then, progress has been made towards rebuilding overfished stocks, but NMFS needed 

stronger laws to enable it to stop overfishing and accelerate rebuilding. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 

(MSRA) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on 12 January 2007. The MSRA 

guides U.S. ocean and fisheries policy and gives NMFS the authority to manage the Nation’s 

$62 billion fishing industries. Passage of the bill followed many years of hard work and much 

debate and compromise between the House, Senate, Administration, conservation groups, and 

the fishing industry to find common ground in their shared goal to maintain strong fishing industries and healthy marine ecosystems. The legislation is an important step for the United States 

to rebuild our Nation’s fisheries and will allow our fishermen to utilize all available tools to fish 

safely and economically. 

The MSRA will end overfishing in the United States, help rebuild overfished stocks, and 

advance international cooperation and ocean 

stewardship. One of the centerpieces of the legislation is a firm deadline to end overfishing in 

the United States by 2010. This is achieved by 

directing the regional FMC’s to establish Annual Catch Limits (ACL’s) by 2010 for Federally managed fish stocks currently undergoing 

overfishing and by 2011 for all other Federally 

managed fish stocks. ACL’s are required to be 

set within the range of scientific recommendations—currently, most fishery managers abide 

by this principle, but this is not always the case. 

See Feature Article 1 for more information on 

ending overfishing. 

MSRA GOALS

 • End overfishing

 • Help rebuild overfished stocks

 • Promote market-based management

 approaches

 • Advance the state of fisheries science

 and its role in decisionmaking

 • Enhance international cooperation

 and ocean stewardship

 • Strengthen enforcement of fisheries laws

 • Improve monitoring of recreational 

 fisheries 
7

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

The MSRA also supports a number of other priorities to move towards sustainable fisheries 

in the United States. Among these is the use of market-based incentives to sustainably manage 

U.S. fish stocks: the MSRA aims to double the number of limited access privilege programs by 

the year 2010. Increasing the number of these programs will end the race for fish, improve the 

quality of catches, raise profits for fishermen, and increase safety. Strengthening enforcement of 

U.S. fishing laws is also a key piece of the new legislation. The MSRA expands cooperation between state and Federal officials to ensure that fishing laws are fully enforced and encourages the 

use of the latest technology in vessel monitoring to aid in real-time tracking of fishing boats. In 

addition, ecosystems are an important part of the MSRA, which improves information and decisions about the state of ocean ecosystems by creating several programs to improve the quality 

of information used by fishery managers. 

Ecosystem Approaches to Management

As problems associated with decreasing natural populations and marine biodiversity become 

better defined and recognized, increasing calls are being made for new approaches to management. Although traditional fisheries management has worked well in some situations, a need 

exists for managers to move past single-species resource management and consider the many 

needs and interconnections between biodiversity and human uses. Ecosystem-based management 

fills this need by using an integrated approach to management that considers all elements of an 

ecosystem, including the role of humans. In the marine environment, an ecosystem approach 

to fisheries management (EAFM) extends the conventional principles and practices of fisheries 

management to cover the ecosystem as a whole. 

Ecosystems are geographically specified systems of organisms, their environment, and the 

processes that control their dynamics. Humans, their institutions, and the benefits they derive 

from the ocean are all integral parts of marine ecosystems. Thinking of the ocean and its life as 

an ecosystem provides a more realistic view of the underlying causes and effects of changes in 

living marine resources. To understand a marine ecosystem, many factors need to be considered, 

including climate and oceanography, species habitat requirements, the biology of all of the organisms in the system from the phytoplankton at the base of the food web to the top predators, 

and the connections that link all of these parts. 

An ecosystem approach to management is a geographically specified and adaptive process that 

takes account of ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple external influences, 

and strives to balance diverse societal objectives. This kind of approach allows managers to consider the effects of multiple factors and their interactions. For management to be effective, relevant geographic management areas must be defined according to ecosystem rather than political 

boundaries. The goals of ecosystem-based management include conservation and management 

of species, minimization of bycatch (and discards), consideration of tradeoffs, accounting for 

feedback effects, maintenance of ecosystem productivity, balancing ecosystem structure, and accounting for climate variability. The benefits of ecosystem-based management are more sustainable fisheries, healthy marine ecosystems, and economically healthy coastal communities. 

A wide variety of human activities may affect marine ecosystems, including fishing, coastal 

Healthy habitat is important 

to the health of many living 

marine resources.

John Butler, SWFSC
8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

development, pollution, shipping, and oil 

and gas extraction. Human-induced climate change may also affect marine ecosystems. The ecosystem-level issues most 

relevant to fisheries management are the 

conservation and management of target 

and non-target species, maintenance of 

marine biodiversity, balancing competing uses between fisheries and other user 

groups, accounting for feedback effects 

(e.g. predator–prey interactions and 

habitat effects of fishing gear), maintaining ecosystem productivity and balanced 

trophic structure, and use of adaptive apGOALS OF 

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT

 • Conservation and management of species

 • Minimization of bycatch (and discards)

 • Consideration of tradeoffs

 • Accounting for feedback effects

 • Establishment of ecosystem boundaries

 • Maintenance of ecosystem productivity

 • Balancing ecosystem structure

 • Accounting for climate variability

proaches in management. A comprehensive ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) 

requires managers to consider all interactions between a target stock and its predators, competitors, and prey species. Other factors such as the effects of weather and climate on fisheries biology 

and ecology, the effects of fishing on fish stocks and their habitat, and the complex interactions 

between fishes and their habitat must also be considered. However, the approach does not need 

to be endlessly complicated—an initial step might require only that managers consider how the 

harvesting of one species may impact co-occurring species in the ecosystem. Such steps have already been taken in the management of many U.S. LMR’s.

Important building blocks for an EAFM already exist within the current NMFS management 

structure. These include provisions for protecting essential fish habitat (EFH), reducing bycatch, 

and elements related to overall conservation goals under the MSA and for protecting non-target 

species under the MMPA and ESA. Although a number of provisions of the MSA are directly 

related to the objectives of an EAFM, its measures may be more relevant to the management of 

recovering resources but less so for optimizing among multiple conflicting uses of rebuilt ecosystems. Passage of the MSRA strengthens existing ecosystem provisions in previous mandates and 

additionally authorizes FMP’s to include measures to conserve both target and non-target species 

as well as habitats, considering the ecological factors affecting fishery populations. 

NMFS and the FMC’s have already made significant progress in integrating ecosystem considerations into fisheries management. NOAA has designated eight Regional Ecosystems (RE’s) 

to guide and coordinate research and management decisions (Figure 1). Additionally, NMFS has 

begun working with the FMC’s to develop voluntary Fisheries Ecosystem Plans (FEP’s). FEP’s are 

umbrella documents that provide Council members with a clear description and understanding 

of the fundamental physical, biological, and human/institutional aspects of ecosystems within 

which fisheries are managed, and direct how that information should be used in FMP’s. A single 

FEP developed by each Council for the ecosystem under its jurisdiction will set policies for the 

development and implementation of management options. Because issues of optimality, particularly for rebuilt resources and ecosystems, are less well described under the MSRA due to its focus 

on rebuilding, FEP’s appear to have utility in addressing some issues that are not addressed fully 

under existing management measures. They may help FMC’s achieve the maximum cumulative 

An ecosystem approach to 

fisheries management takes 

into account multiple factors 

in addition to the abundance 

of target stocks, such as species interactions and habitat 

quality.

NOAA
9

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

societal benefits from ecosystems by considering the interactions among stocks (while fishing all 

stocks at their single-species optima may not result in overfishing of target stocks, the resulting 

suite of cumulative benefits from an ecosystem may not be maximized).

A number of cases from around the country emphasize the importance of considering ecosystem-level issues, as well as provide examples of the work that NMFS is doing to advance an 

EAFM. In Alaska, the North Pacific FMC already accounts for many ecosystem considerations 

in its management approach, including environment and climate regimes, the effects of fishing 

on habitat, non-fishing impacts on living marine resources, bycatch management, management 

of protected resources, uncertainty and risk in fishery management decisions, and research needs. 

To support the management needs of the North Pacific FMC, scientists at the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center (AFSC) conduct annual or biennial stock assessments for both target and some 

non-target stocks and stock complexes. Stock assessments include ecosystem considerations such 

as investigations of the relationship between catchability and environmental factors; the effect of 

regime shifts on stock recruit relationships; results of ecosystem models; linkages between species; and habitat characteristics. Stock assessment reports for North Pacific stocks also include a 

full review of ecosystem status and trends, including climate, human influences, and biological 

trends. Additionally, the AFSC conducts a large amount of ecosystem research to support the 

shift to EAFM. For example, multidisciplinary research in the Bering Sea uses wind transport 

models to explain and predict recruitment patterns of winter-spawning flatfish species. The AFSC 

researches the effects of climate on fishery production; this research is currently expanding to 

consider the role of sea ice on population productivity and the consequences of reduced sea ice 

coverage due to climate change.

 The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) also conducts a great deal of ecosystem-based 

research. The NEFSC has had an integrated ocean observation system in place for many decades, 

as a basis for understanding changes in marine ecosystems in response to natural and humanrelated factors. The NEFSC Observing System is a broad-based monitoring program that draws 

on many different instruments and sampling systems and encompasses the physics, chemistry, 

and biology of the seas as well as the human dimension. Data from the observing system as well 

as from other NEFSC scientific studies support the New England and Mid-Atlantic FMC’s and 

their programs to conserve and manage living marine resources of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. In particular, NEFSC ecosystem research has been useful in supporting the New England 

FMC’s Ecosystem Pilot Project, which is introducing EAFM concepts to the Council and public, 

and exploring options for developing an FEP for the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. Additionally, 

the NEFSC is leading an effort to develop a suite of ecosystem indicators that can be used across 

regions to track the health and status of ecosystems.

There is also much ecosystem-related research in the Northwest Region. The Science for 

Ecosystem-Based Management Initiative at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) 

examines the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem structure, composition, and function where fish and fisheries coexist. By understanding the factors that sustain 

the ecosystem, scientists will be able to provide managers with the scientific advice needed to 

inform an EAFM for groundfish in the Pacific Northwest. The research initiative at the NWFSC addresses five research foci to guide EAFM: 1) interactions of target species with predators, 

A sablefish tagging research 

cruise in Alaska to support 

ecosystem research and sablefish stock assessments.

CMDR John Bortniak, NOAA Corps
10

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

competitors, and prey species; 2) effects of weather and climate on target species and their ecological communities; 3) effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and fish habitat; 4) interactions 

between fish and their habitat; and 5) use of marine protected areas (MPA’s) as a fishery conservation and management tool. 

The move to an EAFM is an incremental and ongoing process, and NMFS continues to support the effort through research, scientific support, proposed legislation, management efforts, and 

outreach. As ecosystem information and understanding improves over time, the shift from traditional single-species fisheries management to a more holistic EAFM will become more possible 

and accepted. NMFS continues to work with the regional FMC’s to apply ecosystem principles 

to the management process, and to adopt precautionary and proactive management plans. The 

significant ecosystem research currently being conducted by NOAA, including expanding ocean 

observation systems, will support these efforts. 

CONTENTS

Part 1 of this report is a national overview of significant LMR’s and their fisheries. It includes 

this introduction, a brief review of common fisheries terms, LMR summaries and trends organized by Regional Ecosystem (RE), and a discussion of issues of national concern and near-term 

outlook. 

John Butler, SWFSC

One focus of ecosystem 

research at the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center is 

on the interactions between 

fish and their habitat.
11

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Part 2 contains four feature articles—a discussion of overfishing and NMFS’ efforts to end 

overfishing in U.S. fisheries, a look at how NMFS scientists are improving fisheries science with 

advanced sampling technologies, an assessment of the deep sea coral communities of the United 

States, and an examination of NMFS’ cooperative and proactive approaches to implementation 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

Part 3 presents in greater detail the biological status of LMR’s in 24 units that describe important species linked geographically, ecologically, or by characteristics of their fisheries. 

Part 4 consists of appendices containing acknowledgements; a list of regional FMC’s and 

their FMP’s; a list of the principal NMFS facilities; a summary of stock assessment principles 

and terms; a list of scientific and associated common names of species covered in this report; a 

list of acronyms and abbreviations; and a list of species under NMFS jurisdiction currently protected under the ESA. 

COMMON TERMS

Explanations of most of the technical terms and phrases used in this report can be found in 

Appendix 4; the most important are briefly described here.

Stock ideally refers to a biologically distinct group of organisms that are genetically related 

or reproductively isolated from other segments of a larger population. However, a stock unit defined for management purposes may not necessarily correspond to a discrete genetic unit and 

can include all the individuals of a species or several co-occurring species within a geographical 

area as one fishery stock when it is impractical to differentiate between them.

Recent average yield (RAY) is the total catch, including commercial landings, recreational 

landings, and discards, averaged over the most recent 3-year period of workable data, usually 

2004–06 unless otherwise noted.

Current yield (CY)2 is the potential catch that can be taken, depending on current stock 

abundance and prevailing ecosystem considerations. CY is analogous to acceptable biological 

catch (ABC) that is specified in some FMP’s. ABC, where specified, usually represents the upper limit of CY.

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY)2 is the maximum long-term average catch that can be 

achieved from the resource.

Henry B. Bigelow, the second of four technologically 

advanced fishery survey 

vessels currently being 

added to the NOAA fleet. 

These new vessels feature a 

low acoustic radiated noise 

profile to help scientists 

quietly monitor fish and 

protected species without 

affecting their behavior, 

scientific sonar systems to 

measure fish biomass in 

the water column, dynamic 

ship positioning to maintain 

a fixed station location in 

the ocean, and multibeam 

sonar systems to map and 

provide information about 

the seafloor. 

NOAA

2For some stocks, CY and MSY may be unknown. For the purpose of reporting total CY and MSY across resources within the 

various fishery units and for the Nation as a whole, if CY was unknown RAY was substituted when calculating a unit, regional, 

or national total CY. If MSY was unknown, CY was substituted, or failing that, RAY was substituted in calculating totals.
12

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Harvest rate3 describes a stock’s harvest level relative to a prescribed fishing mortality (harvest) 

threshold defined in the FMP. This rate is expressed as overfishing, not overfishing, unknown, or 

undefined. A stock is experiencing overfishing when it is being harvested above the prescribed 

fishing mortality rate threshold (defined as less than or equal to FMSY, the fishing mortality rate 

that would produce MSY); a stock is undefined when no threshold has yet been defined in the 

FMP.

Stock status4 defines a stock’s size relative to a prescribed biomass threshold. Status is expressed 

as overfished, rebuilding, not overfished, approaching overfished, unknown, or undefined. A stock 

is overfished when its biomass is below the prescribed threshold amount (defined as 1⁄2BMSY in 

many FMP’s). Stocks classified as approaching overfished are estimated to become overfished 

within 2 years. Rebuilding stocks have recovered to above their overfished threshold level under 

a stock rebuilding plan and are no longer considered overfished, but are still below the biomass 

target level. A stock status is undefined when no threshold has yet been defined in the FMP.

Stock level relative to BMSY

5 is a measure of the stock’s biological status. The current abundance level of the stock is compared to the biomass that, on average, would support the MSY 

(BMSY). This level is expressed as below, near, above, or unknown relative to the abundance level 

that would produce MSY. The concept of BMSY is similar to the Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) level used in marine mammal stock assessments.

Threatened or endangered are terms specifically defined under the ESA. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range; it is 

threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.

Potential biological removal (PBR) is a concept that establishes a quantitative process for 

setting levels of take such that marine mammal stocks will equilibrate within their OSP. PBR 

(calculated as number of animals) is the sustainable removal level defined by the MMPA 1994 

Amendments. Stocks for which bycatch levels exceed PBR are classified as strategic (stocks listed 

as depleted under the MMPA, or threatened or endangered under the ESA, are also considered 

strategic regardless of the level of take).

Juvenile yellowfin tuna captured for physiological studies of heart function.

Allen Shimada, NMFS

3Harvest rate in OLO 6th Edition aligns with the overfishing classifications in NMFS’ 2008 Status of U.S. Fisheries, First Quarter 

Update status tables (available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm). Because the list of stocks 

considered and the stock units used for classifying harvest rate may differ from those used to officially track overfishing status, 

not all stocks included in this publication have a harvest rate status determination listed or are included in Table 3.

4Stock status in OLO 6th Edition aligns with the overfished classifications in NMFS’ 2008 Status of U.S. Fisheries, First Quarter 

Update status tables (available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm). Because the list of 

stocks considered and the stock units used for classifying stock status may differ from those used to officially track overfished 

status, not all stocks included in this publication have a stock status determination listed or are included in Table 4.

5Although both compare current biomass levels to a biomass threshold to determine the health of the stock, there is not a oneto-one correspondence between the stock level relative to BMSY and overfished stock status classifications. While the first metric 

(stock level) compares biomass directly to BMSY, stock status compares biomass to a threshold defined in the FMP, which may 

be some fraction of BMSY (if known), a fraction of the estimated unfished biomass, or some other level.
13

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Table 1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

of fisheries resources utilized 

by the United States.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 1. Northeast demersal2 162,034 192,926 306,234 147,168 263,977

 2. Northeast pelagic 229,633 550,461 406,065 160,335 336,766

 3. Atlantic anadromous2 16,633 16,633 17,127 16,633 17,127

 4. Northeast invertebrate2 155,316 169,407 205,456 126,600 167,470

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic2 290,221 282,190 322,731 18,569 24,760

 6. Atlantic shark3

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal pelagic2 17,482 18,959 18,473 17,482 18,473

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish2 24,253 23,416 37,145 24,253 37,145

 9. Southeast drum and croaker2 40,994 40,994 77,801 40,994 77,801

10. Southeast menhaden 652,000 652,000 909,000 652,000 909,000

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 127,961 127,961 128,712 127,961 128,712

12. Pacific Coast salmon 21,110 33,312 33,312 21,110 33,312

13. Alaska salmon 377,449 317,900 317,900 377,449 317,900

14. Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 279,177 295,930 448,933 216,742 372,438

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 388,403 458,660 682,238 288,605 531,607

16. Western Pacific invertebrate2,4 0 0 0 0 0

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish5 317 424 2,628 317 2,628

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic6 2,926,372 2,960,401 4,422,354 145,596 258,628

19. Alaska groundfish 2,228,226 3,210,397 3,856,508 2,219,202 3,849,508

20. Alaska shellfish 26,101 30,853 192,138 26,101 192,138

Total 7,963,682 9,382,824 12,384,755 4,627,117 7,539,390

12004–06 average, unless otherwise noted.

2Total MSY is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY values where available, or on RAY.

3RAY for Atlantic sharks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights, so totals for this Unit have been excluded from this and other National

 Overview summary tables.

4Lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has been closed since 2000.

5RAY is 2002–04 average for Hawaii and 2003–05 for other island areas.

6A majority of the U.S. RAY is caught outside of the U.S. EEZ.

U.S. FISHERIES PRODUCTION AND STATUS

The United States is one of the most productive fishing nations, ranking third in the world 

for fisheries landings in 2004, the most recent year surveyed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007). 

The 2004 U.S. catch of 5.0 million metric tons (t) was just over 5% of the world’s total production of capture fisheries products in that year. The United States is the fourth-largest exporter of 

fishery products, exporting $3.8 billion worth in 2004. Despite these large exports, the United 

States ranks second in value for world imports; the nearly $12 billion of fishery products imported in 2004 accounted for about 16% of the $75 billion world trade. The United States is also 

the tenth-largest aquaculture producer, producing 606,549 t in 2004 and showing an estimated 

10.4% annual growth rate in production. 

The productivity of Federally managed fishery resources utilized by the United States is expressed as RAY, CY, and MSY (Table 1; Figure 2). Some stocks range beyond the boundaries of 

the U.S. EEZ, and the United States shares productivity with other fishing nations. For these 
14

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 2

Total recent average yield 

(RAY, dark blue bars), maximum sustainable yield (MSY, 

peach bars), and U.S. prorated share of fisheries resources (blue pie slices), 

in metric tons (t) and by 

percentage.

U.S. share

of MSY by

percentage

Regional

Ecosystem

All

61%

Northeast

Shelf

Southeast

Shelf

Gulf of

Mexico

Caribbean

Sea

California

Current

Alaska

Ecosystem

Complex

Pacific

Islands

Ecosystem

Complex

Highly

Migratory

Species

84% 100% 100% 100% 79% 100% 100% 6%

Total

productivity

(million t)

12,384,755

934,882

1,131,730

4,399,299

2,628

4,745,085

806,921

363,043

1,167

Total RAY

Total MSY

U.S. Share of MSY Foreign Share of MSY

12

13

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0
15

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

transboundary stocks, OLO 6th Edition reports both total productivity and the prorated 

U.S. share of the stocks based on the ratio of 

the U.S. RAY to total RAY. The U.S. RAY 

for these stocks is primarily taken within the 

U.S. EEZ.

The total MSY of all U.S. fishery resources, 

across their entire range, is estimated to be 

12,384,755 t (Table 1; Figure 2). Total CY is 

9,382,824 t, indicating that the present productivity of U.S. stocks is about 24% below 

the long-term sustainable yield. The recent 

productivity (76% of MSY) is somewhat 

lower than the productivity reported in Our 

Living Oceans 19996 (86% of MSY; NMFS, 

1999). Total RAY for 2004–06 (unless otherwise noted) was 7,963,682 t, or 36% below 

the MSY. 

Considering only the U.S. prorated share 

Table 2

Productivity, by Regional 

Ecosystem and in metric tons 

(t), of fisheries resources utilized by the United States.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Regional Ecosystem yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

Northeast Shelf 563,616 929,427 934,882 450,736 785,340

Southeast Shelf2 255,939 256,554 363,043 255,939 363,043

Gulf of Mexico2 605,584 605,609 806,921 605,584 806,921

Caribbean Sea 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167

California Current 658,030 756,039 1,131,730 486,773 897,604

Alaska Ecosystem Complex 2,662,436 3,591,013 4,399,299 2,662,436 4,399,299

Pac. Islands Ecosystem Complex 317 424 2,628 317 2,628

Highly Migratory Species 3,216,593 3,242,591 4,745,085 164,165 283,388

Total 7,963,682 9,383,824 12,384,755 4,627,117 7,539,390 

12004–06 average.

2Values exclude totals for Unit 6, Atlantic sharks; RAY for this Unit is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons

 and cannot be converted to weights.

of fisheries resources, the U.S. MSY (7,539,390 t) accounts for 61% of the total MSY. The distribution of U.S. MSY by Regional Ecosystem (RE) is 10% for the Northeast Shelf, 5% for the 

Southeast Shelf, 11% for the Gulf of Mexico, <1% for the Caribbean Sea, 12% for the California Current, 58% for the Alaska Ecosystem Complex, <1% for the Pacific Islands Ecosystem 

Complex, and 4% for Highly Migratory Species (Table 2; Figure 3). 

Figure 3

Apportionment of maximum 

sustainable yield, by Regional Ecosystem, of the U.S. 

prorated share of fisheries 

resources.

6OLO ‘99 used slightly different terminology than the current edition: current potential yield (CPY), equivalent to CY; and longterm potential yield (LTPY), equivalent to MSY. See the Recent Trends for Fisheries section on p. 35 for more information.

Southeast Shelf 5%

Gulf of Mexico 11%

Caribbean Sea <1%

California Current 12%

Northeast Shelf 10%

Highly Migratory 4%

Pacific Islands <1%

Alaska 58%
16

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

The U.S. RAY is 4,627,117 t, or 61% of the estimated U.S. MSY. The missing 39% was not 

realized due to a combination of some underutilized stocks, some overfished stocks that cannot 

be fished at MSY levels due to low population abundance, and some stocks that are rebuilding from past overfishing and are therefore not currently producing at their MSY levels. By RE, 

10% of U.S. RAY comes from the Northeast Shelf, 6% from the Southeast Shelf, 13% from the 

Gulf of Mexico, <1% from the Caribbean Sea, 10% from the California Current, 58% from the 

Alaska Ecosystem Complex, <1% from the Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex, and 4% from 

Highly Migratory Species (Table 2).

Harvest Rate

Harvest rate compares the current level of fishing pressure to a prescribed fishing mortality 

(harvest) threshold to determine if a stock is experiencing overfishing. Of the 217 OLO stocks 

that have harvest rates available,7 14% are classified as experiencing overfishing, 65% are not 

experiencing overfishing, 1% are undefined (i.e. have no fishing mortality threshold defined in 

their FMP’s), and 19% are unknown8 (Table 3, Figure 4). Known-status stocks account for 79% 

Table 3

Harvest rate of U.S. fisheries 

resources (see text footnote 

8).

Harvest rate of the resource

Unit number and fishery Overfishing Not overfishing Undefined1 Unknown Total

 1. Northeast demersal 10 17 1 4 32

 2. Northeast pelagic 0 4 0 0 4

 3. Atlantic anadromous 0 3 0 2 5

 4. Northeast invertebrate 0 7 0 0 7

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 5 3 0 1 9

 6. Atlantic shark 3 5 0 5 13

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal pelagic 0 6 0 0 6

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 9 6 0 1 16

 9. Southeast drum and croaker 1 1 0 1 3

10. Southeast menhaden 0 1 0 0 1

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 1 10 2 2 15

12. Pacific Coast salmon2 0 0 0 0 0

13. Alaska salmon 0 1 0 0 1

14. Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 0 3 0 1 4

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 0 22 0 1 23

16. Western Pacific invertebrate 0 1 0 0 1

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish 0 4 0 1 5

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 2 7 0 11 20

19. Alaska groundfish 0 30 0 0 30

20. Alaska shellfish 0 11 0 11 22

Total 31 142 3 41 217

Percentage of total 14% 65% 1% 19%

Percentage of 173 “known”stocks 18% 82%

1Stocks categorized as “undefined” have no overfishing limit defined in their Fishery Management Plan.

2Harvest rates are determined for individual runs of Pacific Coast salmon and are not available for the coast-wide stocks.

7Not all stocks listed in Our Living Oceans have harvest rates available; those stocks that do not have a harvest rate available are 

omitted from harvest rate calculations.

8Although the harvest rates listed in OLO 6th Edition match the overfishing determinations listed in NMFS’ 2008 Status of U.S. 

Fisheries, First Quarter Update status tables, the list of stocks considered differs between the two publications and the summary 

calculations listed in the National Overview may not match those listed in the First Quarter Update or those appearing in the 

feature article on ending overfishing that is in this report. 
17

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

of the total; of these, 18% are classified as experiencing overfishing, while a majority (82%) are not 

experiencing overfishing. The fisheries with the 

most instances of overfishing are Unit 1 (10 stocks 

of Northeast demersal species), Unit 5 (five stocks 

of Atlantic highly migratory pelagic species), and 

Unit 8 (nine stocks of Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean reef fishes), although overfishing is occurring in a number of other fisheries as well. 

Stock Status

Stock status compares current stock biomass to 

a prescribed biomass threshold defined in the FMP 

to determine a stock’s health (i.e. if it is overfished 

or not). Classifications for the 217 OLO stocks with 

stock status determinations available9 are summarized in Table 4. Of these, 19% are overfished, 6% 

Table 4

Stock status of U.S. fisheries 

resources (see text footnote 

10).

Stock status of the resource

Unit number and fishery Overfished Rebuilding1

Not

overfished

Appr.

overfished Undefined2 Unknown Total

 1. Northeast demersal 17 5 8 0 0 2 32

 2. Northeast pelagic 1 1 2 0 0 0 4

 3. Atlantic anadromous 2 0 1 0 0 2 5

 4. Northeast invertebrate 0 0 5 0 0 2 7

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 5 2 0 1 0 1 9

 6. Atlantic shark 3 0 5 0 0 5 13

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal pelagic 0 1 5 0 0 0 6

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 5 0 3 1 2 5 16

 9. Southeast drum and croaker 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

10. Southeast menhaden 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 2 0 6 0 3 4 15

12. Pacific Coast salmon3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13. Alaska salmon 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

14. Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 0 0 2 0 1 1 4

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 4 3 14 0 0 2 23

16. Western Pacific invertebrate 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish 1 0 4 0 0 0 5

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 0 0 9 0 0 11 20

19. Alaska groundfish 0 0 20 0 10 0 30

20. Alaska shellfish 1 2 3 0 16 0 22

Total of units 1–20 41 14 89 2 33 38 217

Percentage of total 19% 6% 41% 1% 15% 18%

Percentage of 146 “known” stocks 28% 10% 61% 1%

1Stocks categorized as “rebuilding” have rebuilt to above the overfished threshold but not yet rebuilt to their targets under the rebuilding program.

2Stocks categorized as “undefined” have no biomass threshold defined in their Fishery Management Plan.

3Stock status is determined for individual runs of Pacific Coast salmon and is not available for the coast-wide stocks.

Figure 4

Stocks classified by their 

harvest rate (see text footnote 8).

Undefined

1%

Unknown

19%

Overfishing

14%

Not overfishing

65%

9Not all stocks listed in Our Living Oceans have a stock status available; those stocks that do not have a stock status available are omitted from calculations. 
18

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 5

Stocks classified by their 

stock status (see text footnote 10).

are rebuilding, 41% are not overfished, <1% 

are approaching overfished, 15% are undefined, and 18% are unknown10 (Figure 5). Of 

the 146 known stocks, 28% are overfished, 

10% are rebuilding, 1% are approaching overfished, and 61% are not overfished. The majority of overfished stocks occur in Unit 1 (5 rebuilding and 17 overfished stocks of northeast 

demersal species), Unit 5 (two stocks rebuilding and five overfished among Atlantic highly 

migratory pelagic species), Unit 8 (five stocks 

overfished and one approaching overfished 

among Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fishes), and Unit 15 (three stocks 

rebuilding and four overfished among Pacific 

Coast groundfishes). A majority of the stocks 

classified as overfished are currently under rebuilding plans but have not yet been rebuilt 

to above the overfished threshold. 

Several stocks of Atlantic 

highly migratory species 

are classified as overfished, 

including the blue marlin.

William B. Folsom, NMFS

Approaching

overfished

1%

Undefined

15%

Unknown

18%

Overfished

19%

Rebuilding

6%

Not overfished

41%

10Although the stock statuses listed in OLO 6th Edition match 

the overfishing determinations listed in NMFS’ 2008 Status 

of U.S. Fisheries, First Quarter Update status tables, the list of 

stocks considered differs between the two publications and 

the summary calculations listed in the National Overview 

may not match those listed in the First Quarter Update.
19

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

FISHERY RESOURCE STATUS RELATIVE TO

FISHING MORTALITY AND BIOMASS TARGETS

Stock Level Relative to BMSY

One of the metrics used to measure the health of fisheries stocks is the current level of a stock’s 

biomass relative to the biomass that would produce the MSY (BMSY). The 283 stocks11 covered 

in OLO 6th Edition are 22% below, 14% near, 20% above, and 43% unknown relative to BMSY

(Table 5, Figure 6). Although a large number (122) of stocks are classified as unknown,12 many 

of these are not dominant in fisheries or ecosystems and this category contributes only a small 

proportion of the U.S. RAY.

Of the 161 known stocks, a relatively high percentage (39% or 63 stocks) are below levels that 

would produce the MSY. Many of these low-abundance cases are in Unit 1 (23 stocks of Northeast demersal species) and Unit 8 (eight stocks of Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef 

fishes). A few cases of low abundance can be found in all regions. The remaining stocks (98 of 161 

known-status stocks) are classified as 25% near and 35% above BMSY. Assuming that stocks near 

or above BMSY are healthy, about 60% of known-status stocks are at healthy abundance levels. 

11This is the total number of stocks and stock groups listed in Units 1–20.

12Stocks that did not have a reported stock level were counted as unknown.

Table 5

Stock levels relative to the 

biomass producing the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) 

of U.S. fisheries resources.

Stock level relative to BMSY

Unit number and fishery Below Near Above Unknown1 Total

 1. Northeast demersal 23 2 3 8 36

 2. Northeast pelagic 2 0 2 0 4

 3. Atlantic anadromous 4 0 0 1 5

 4. Northeast invertebrate 0 0 3 5 8

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 3 4 0 3 10

 6. Atlantic shark 3 0 6 5 14

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal pelagic 1 1 0 4 6

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 8 1 0 24 33

 9. Southeast drum and croaker 3 0 0 4 7

10. Southeast menhaden 0 0 1 1 2

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 1 8 0 7 16

12. Pacific Coast salmon 0 5 0 0 5

13. Alaska salmon 2 0 3 0 5

14. Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic 0 2 2 4 8

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 5 6 11 5 27

16. Western Pacific invertebrate 0 0 0 1 1

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish 2 3 2 3 10

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 1 3 5 12 21

19. Alaska groundfish 3 6 19 12 40

20. Alaska shellfish 2 0 0 23 25

Total of units 1–20 63 41 57 122 283

Percentage of total 22% 14% 20% 43%

Percentage of 161 “known” stocks 39% 25% 35%

1Category includes stocks whose status is listed as “undefined” or “variable.”

Figure 6

The percentage of stocks 

that are above, near, below, 

or unknown relative to the 

biomass level that would 

produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).

Unknown

Below 43%

22%

Near

14% Above

20%
20

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Fishing Mortality and Resource Biomass Relative to Target Levels

Another metric used to measure the condition of fisheries stocks compares the status of living 

marine resources relative to general fishing mortality and biomass targets. Current fishing mortality rates (F) are compared to the fishing mortality rate that would produce the MSY (FMSY), 

and current biomass (B) is compared to the biomass necessary to produce the MSY (BMSY). This 

analysis is similar to looking at harvest rate and stock status definitions, but allows for a more 

quantitative examination. 

When comparing F and B targets in tandem, there are four states in which a stock can exist13

(Figure 7): 

 1) currently experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY>1) but not overfished at this time 

 (B/BMSY>0.5);

 2) not experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY<1) and not overfished (B/BMSY>0.5);

 3) not experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY<1) but overfished (B/BMSY<0.5); and

 4) experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY>1) and overfished (B/BMSY<0.5). 

13These are general definitions and may not match the legal overfished and overfishing status determination criteria specified 

in the FMP.

Figure 7

Current status of U.S. living 

marine resources relative to 

fishing mortality and biomass targets, by regional 

ecosystem. 

B/Bmsy

-2 -1 0

F/Fmsy

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Alaska Ecosystem Complex

Northeast Shelf

Southeast Shelf

California Current

Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex

Gulf of Mexico Highly Migratory Species

Fmsy

1/2 Bmsy

1 2 3 4

No overfishing

Not overfished

No overfishing

Overfished

Overfishing

Not overfished

Overfishing

Overfished

Rebuilding

Depletion (1)

(3) (2)

(4)
21

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

States 1 and 3 are transitional in nature. Stocks can rarely persist in State 1 because stocks 

cannot support continued overfishing without experiencing negative effects on population abundance. State 3 represents a rebuilding phase where stock abundance levels have been negatively 

affected by previous high fishing mortality rates and are now being managed to allow the stock 

abundance to recover to sustainable population levels. Sufficient data are available to define the 

resource status relative to F and B target levels for 140 U.S. stocks and a majority of stocks are 

healthy (Figure 7). Of the 140 stocks, 101 are not experiencing overfishing and are not overfished, nine are not experiencing overfishing but are overfished (rebuilding), 12 are experiencing 

overfishing but are not overfished, and 18 are experiencing overfishing and are overfished. 

PROTECTED RESOURCE STATUS

Marine Mammals

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-522, as amended in 1994 and 

2007) requires the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Interior to develop stock assessment 

reports (SAR’s) for all marine mammal stocks found within U.S. waters. NMFS is responsible 

for assessing and managing stocks of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and fur seals, 

while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has authority over stocks of Pacific walrus, 

Alaska polar bear, Alaska and Pacific Coast sea otter, and West Indian manatee. 

Stock assessment reports must include, among other things, information on how a stock is 

defined, a minimum population estimate (Nmin), the stock’s current and maximum net productivity rate, current population trend, a calculation of potential biological removal (PBR), 

assessment of whether incidental fishery takes are “insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate,” and an assessment of whether the level of human-caused mortality 

and serious injury is likely to reduce the stock to below optimum sustainable population (OSP) 

or whether the stock should be classified as a strategic stock. Strategic stocks are stocks that are 

listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA or declining and likely to be listed in the foreseeable future, those designated as depleted under the MMPA (i.e. below OSP), and those for 

which human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR. SAR’s are to be reviewed annually for strategic 

stocks and stocks that have new information available, and at least once every 3 years for all other 

stocks. Recent MMPA Amendments also require that take-reduction teams involving user groups 

and environmental groups be formed for each strategic stock, and charges them with developing 

plans to reduce takes below the PBR. 

Stock assessment reports are produced by NMFS for 190 stocks of marine mammals across 

three regions—Alaska (36 stocks); the Pacific Ocean, including Hawaii (62 stocks); and the 

Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico (92 stocks; Table 6). Currently, 80 stocks under 

NMFS jurisdiction are classified as strategic, including 4 depleted stocks under the MMPA, 2 

threatened and 25 endangered stocks under the ESA, 2 stocks for which the total annual mortality equals or exceeds the PBR, and 48 stocks for which the population status or fisheries-related 

mortality is uncertain. 

Harbor seals.

Dave Withrow
22

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

There are sufficient long-term data to determine trends for 29 stocks (15%), with trends for 

the remaining stocks (85%) unknown (Table 7). Of the stocks with known trends, 6 are decreasing, 7 are stable, 2 are stable/increasing, and 14 are increasing. In the Alaska Region, 14 of 36 

stocks have known trend status. The Pacific Region has made a significant improvement since 

the last Our Living Oceans (NMFS, 1999), when there were insufficient data to assign an abundance trend to any Pacific or Hawaiian marine mammal stock; now, 12 of 62 stocks have known 

abundance trends. In the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Region, only three stocks have known 

status, but all three stocks are increasing.

Unit number, area, and species

Number

of stocks Strategic Endangered Threatened Depleted1

21. Alaska Region marine mammals 36 14 7 1 3

22. Pacific Region and Hawaii marine mammals 62 15 11 1 0

23. Atlantic Region and Gulf of Mexico marine mammals 92 51 7 0 1

Total 190 80 25 2 4

24. Sea turtles2 10 8 5

1Stocks that are threatened or endangered under the ESA are also considered depleted under the MMPA, but not counted here.

2Some species of sea turtles include individual breeding populations with different ESA status.

Table 6

Status of marine mammals 

and sea turtles.

Unit number, area, and species

Number

of stocks Decreasing Stable

Stable/

Increasing Increasing Unknown

21. Alaska Region marine mammals 36 5 2 1 6 22

22. Pacific Region and Hawaii marine mammals 62 1 5 1 5 50

23. Atlantic Region and Gulf of Mexico marine mammals 92 0 0 0 3 89

Total 190 6 7 2 14 161

Table 7

Population trends of marine 

mammals.

Captive turtle escaping from 

an experimental turtle excluder device (TED) during 

gear testing.

SEFSC Mississippi Laboratories

Sea Turtles

Six species of sea turtles regularly spend all or part of their lives off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in U.S. territorial waters of the Caribbean Sea and western Pacific Ocean. All six 

species are currently listed as either threatened or endangered under the ESA in both the Atlantic 

and Pacific Oceans (Table 6), and several species are endangered throughout their U.S. ranges. 

In the Atlantic Region, loggerhead turtle populations have been declining in recent years, while 

leatherbacks and green turtles appear to be increasing in the United States. Kemp’s ridley turtles 

appear to be in the earliest stages of recovery under strict protection, including the requirement 

to use turtle excluder devices (TED’s) in shrimp trawls in both the United States and Mexico 

and full protection of nesting turtles and their nests.

In the Pacific Region, loggerheads, leatherbacks, and green turtles have all shown dramatic 

declines at many locations, likely due to the harvest of eggs and adult turtles by humans in the 

case of leatherbacks and green turtles. Incidental mortality from fishing may also play a role in 
23

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

the decline of leatherbacks, and continues to threaten olive ridleys in the region as well. The 

status of hawksbill turtles in the Pacific Region is unknown, but the continued exploitation of 

hawksbills for their shells is an ongoing conservation concern.

Although much progress has been made toward reducing turtle injury and mortality in shrimp 

and bottomfish trawl gear through the use of TED’s, the incidental capture of turtles in commercial fisheries remains the greatest concern. Capture in trawl, longline, and gillnet fisheries poses 

the greatest threats, although sea turtles are also taken and killed in poundnets and other types 

of fixed gear such as lobster and crab pots. Non-fishery interactions, such as propeller strikes 

and vessel collisions, also pose significant threats to sea turtles, especially in areas of high human 

population where recreational boat and commercial traffic is heavy and commercial ports are active. Additionally, a disease known as fibropapillomatosis that affects some species of sea turtles 

is emerging as a serious threat to the recovery of some populations. 

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM AND UNIT SUMMARIES

Northeast Shelf

Fisheries in the Northeast Shelf RE are grouped into demersal, pelagic, anadromous, and 

invertebrate resources. The combined MSY for the Northeast Shelf RE is 934,882 t; the U.S. 

share of this is 785,340 t (84%) due to sharing of transboundary resources with Canada (Table 

8). The U.S. RAY (450,736 t) is about 57% of the U.S. MSY, primarily because a large number of stocks on the Northeast Shelf are below the biomass needed to produce MSY and fishing quotas have been reduced to help stocks rebuild to sustainable population abundances. The 

RAY for the Northeast Shelf excludes menhaden landed in the Northeast—these landings have 

been added to the data for Southeast menhaden (Unit 10) because they are an integral part of 

the South Atlantic menhaden stock. 

The mixed-species groundfish fishery on the Northeast Shelf has traditionally been the most 

valuable fishery in this area, but profits have dropped while many northeast groundfishes recover 

from the effects of overfishing. Invertebrate fisheries are currently the most valuable fishery in 

the region; American lobster and sea scallop account for most of the value in these fisheries. RecHawaiian green turtle. Ursula Keuper-Bennett

Table 8

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) of fisheries resources in 

the Northeast Shelf regional 

ecosystem.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 1. Northeast demersal2 162,034 192,926 306,234 147,168 263,977

 2. Northeast pelagic 229,633 550,461 406,065 160,335 336,766

 3. Atlantic anadromous2 16,633 16,633 17,127 16,633 17,127

 4. Northeast invertebrate2 155,316 169,407 205,456 126,600 167,470

Total 563,616 929,427 934,882 450,736 785,340

12004–06 average.

2Total MSY is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY when available or on RAY.
24

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

reational fisheries are also important to the region’s economy, with species such as Atlantic cod, 

winter flounder, summer flounder, Atlantic mackerel, striped bass, bluefish, and bluefin tuna all 

being sought-after game fishes. 

Demersal fishery resources on the Northeast Shelf (Unit 1) account for 33% of the total U.S. 

RAY and 34% of the U.S. MSY (Table 8). The U.S. RAY is presently 56% of the U.S. MSY for 

these stocks, primarily due to reductions in catch quotas while many stocks recover from overfishing. Many principal groundfish stocks were severely overfished previously, reaching record 

low levels of spawning stock biomass during the early 1990’s. Although some stocks have since 

begun to rebuild, 23 demersal stocks remain below BMSY, 22 are classified as overfished or rebuilding, and 10 are currently experiencing overfishing. 

Measures currently in place to regulate demersal fisheries on the Northeast Shelf include effort 

control measures limiting allowable days at sea, coupled with closed areas, trip limits, and target 

levels for total allowable catch. In 2004, the New England FMC developed Amendment 13 to 

the Northeast Multispecies FMP to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The Amendment contained various effort-reduction measures, as well as measures to provide flexibility and 

business options for fishing permit holders. In 2006, Framework 42 adjusted rebuilding schedules 

for overfished stocks based on the results of stock assessments conducted in 2005. Amendment 

16, currently under development by the New England FMC, will implement further rebuilding adjustments based on revised biological reference points and status of stocks through 2007.

Northeast pelagic fisheries resources (Unit 2) in general are somewhat underutilized; the U.S. 

RAY (160,335 t) is less than half of the U.S. MSY (Table 8). The combined MSY of the two 

most abundant pelagic species, Atlantic mackerel and herring, is more than 100,000 t higher than 

their combined RAY. Landings of these two species could likely be increased without jeopardizing stock productivity, though fishery expansion is limited by processing capacity, low export 

demand, and bycatch and ecosystem considerations. The other two pelagic species, bluefish and 

butterfish, are at low levels of abundance and below BMSY; as a result, their respective RAY’s are 

relatively low in comparison to MSY.

Atlantic anadromous species (Unit 3) account for a very small proportion of Northeast Shelf 

fisheries, contributing only 4% of the U.S. RAY and 2% of the U.S. MSY (Table 8). The current 

RAY is higher than a decade ago but is still far below historic levels. All stocks with a known stock 

level are below BMSY, and the harvest of Atlantic salmon and sturgeon is prohibited. Both species 

are considered Species of Concern14 by NMFS, and the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2000. The shortnose sturgeon 

is also listed as endangered and is managed under a recovery plan prepared under the ESA. As 

the landings of most anadromous species have notably declined in recent years, the aquaculture 

industry has grown greatly to fill the production void. Aquaculture production peaked in 2000 

at 16,000 t, but has since declined due to changing aquaculture practices designed to reduce disease risks. Striped bass make up a majority of Northeast Shelf anadromous species landings and 

14Species of Concern are species that NMFS has identified as having significant uncertainty regarding status and threats, and 

insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA.

Alewife in the Nemasket 

River, Massachusetts.

Jim Turek, NOAA Restoration Center

American lobster in offshore 

Maine waters.

OAR/NURP
25

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

are a popular target of recreational fisheries. Following highly restrictive management actions in 

the 1980’s, the stock was declared rebuilt in 1995 and has since been maintained at levels well 

above the threshold target biomass. Production of historically large year-classes in recent years 

should contribute to continued sustainable fisheries.

Northeast invertebrate fisheries resources (Unit 4) represent around a quarter of Northeast 

Shelf U.S. RAY and U.S. MSY. These fisheries are the Northeast’s most valuable, contributing an 

average of $884 million ex-vessel annually in recent years. American lobster is the most important 

of the invertebrate fisheries resources, making up about 33% of the U.S. RAY and nearly half of 

the ex-vessel value. Sea scallops are also a significant fishery resource; landings and ex-vessel value 

are only slightly lower than for lobster. Most Northeast Shelf invertebrate stocks are considered 

to be healthy, with only a single stock (southern New England American lobster) classified as 

experiencing overfishing or overfished. 

Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea 

The Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea RE’s share close proximity in the 

southeastern United States and a number of fishery stocks. Important fishery resources include 

Atlantic coastal sharks, coastal migratory pelagics, reef fishes, Sciaenids (drum and croaker), menhaden, and invertebrates. A conservative estimate of the total MSY for the three RE’s combined 

is 1,171,131 t; the Southeast Shelf contributes 363,043 t to this total (Table 9), while the Gulf 

of Mexico makes up a majority of the rest (806,921 t; Table 10). The Caribbean Sea RE makes 

up a much smaller amount (1,167 t; Table 11). Values for Atlantic sharks have not been included 

in the totals listed here or throughout the National Overview because the RAY for these species is 

expressed in thousands of fish and cannot be converted to weights. The U.S. share of the MSY in 

the southeast is equal to the total MSY—although stock geographic areas do span international 

boundaries in this region, only the U.S. portion is reported here. The total RAY (also all U.S.) 

for the three RE’s combined (862,690 t) makes up about 74% of the estimated MSY.

Table 9

Productivity in metric tons (t) of fisheries resources 

in the Southeast Shelf regional ecosystem. Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 6. Atlantic shark2

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory pelagic3 10,179 10,696 10,328 10,179 10,328

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish3 6,142 6,240 7,691 6,142 7,691

 9. Southeast drum and croaker3 31,046 31,046 65,822 31,046 65,822

10. Southeast menhaden 196,000 196,000 264,000 196,000 264,000

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 12,572 12,572 15,202 12,572 15,202

Total 255,939 256,554 363,043 255,939 363,043

12004–06 average.

2Total RAY value for Atlantic sharks does not include prohibited shark species. RAY for Atlantic sharks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and can not be converted to

 weights, so totals for this Unit have been excluded from this and other National Overview summary tables.

3Total MSY value is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on the CY when available, or the RAY.

Additional data are needed 

on species such as nurse 

shark, seen above, before 

they can be assessed as a 

single species.

Matthew Gilligan
26

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

The RAY for Atlantic shark fisheries (Unit 6) is 1,271 thousands of fish (landings cannot be 

converted to weights) and represents a relatively small portion of landings in the Southeast Shelf 

and Gulf of Mexico RE’s (pelagic shark species are discussed with the Highly Migratory Species). 

Although these species do not contribute heavily to landings in the southeast, they are important 

components of the ecosystem and are particularly vulnerable to the effects of overfishing due to 

their low reproductive capacity. Most sharks are assessed as part of several multispecies complexes, 

though improvements in data collection since OLO ‘99 have allowed for some single species assessments to be conducted. Continued improvements in data collection will be required before 

additional stocks can be assessed on an individual basis; until then, aggregate management may 

result in excessive risk of overfishing on some species while other species may experience excessive 

regulation. A number of shark species have been declared prohibited species and can no longer 

be kept commercially or recreationally due to their rarity or susceptibility to exploitation. Three 

of these species, dusky, night, and sand tiger sharks, have been added to the NMFS Species of 

Concern list (see Appendix 7). 

Table 10

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) of fisheries resources in 

the Gulf of Mexico regional 

ecosystem. Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 6. Atlantic shark2

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory pelagic3 7,303 8,263 8,145 7,303 8,145

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish3 17,177 16,242 28,520 17,177 28,520

 9. Southeast drum and croaker3 9,948 9,948 11,979 9,948 11,979

10. Southeast menhaden 456,000 456,000 645,000 456,000 645,000

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 115,156 115,156 113,277 115,156 113,277

Total 605,584 605,609 806,921 605,584 806,921

12004–06 average.

2RAY for Atlantic sharks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights, so totals for this Unit have been excluded from this and other National 

 Overview summary tables.

3Total MSY value is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY when available, or on RAY.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish2 934 934 934 934 934

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate 233 233 233 233 233

Total 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167

12004–06 average.

2Total MSY value is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY when available, or on RAY.

Table 11

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) of fisheries resources in 

the Caribbean Sea regional 

ecosystem.
27

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Coastal pelagic species (Unit 7) also account for only a small portion of southeast fisheries 

landings. However, coastal migratory species are popular components of recreational fisheries on 

the Southeast Shelf and in the Gulf of Mexico. These species are managed under a single FMP 

co-administered by the South Atlantic FMC and the Gulf of Mexico FMC. Several species (including dolphinfish and cobia) are primarily recreationally fished species, while both commercial 

fishermen and recreational anglers target other species. The division of total allowable catches 

(TAC’s) between recreational and commercial fisheries remains an important issue for all of the 

coastal pelagic species. Improvements in the precision and accuracy of fishery-specific harvest levels and in the understanding of stock structure are needed to aid in future allocation decisions.

Reef fishes in the Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea RE’s (Unit 8) are a 

highly diverse group including more than 200 stocks of about 100 individual species. The RAY 

in the Gulf of Mexico (17,177 t; Table 10) is substantially larger than that in the South Atlantic 

(6,142 t; Table 9) or the Caribbean (934 t; Table 11). The status of many reef fish resources is 

unknown, and potential production estimates (CY and MSY) are not available for most species. 

In cases where CY and MSY estimates are available, they are likely higher than current RAY’s 

would indicate, due to low stock abundances. Fishing pressure on reef fish resources continues to 

increase and is correlated with growing human populations, greater demand for fishery products, 

and technological improvements in fishing gear. This, combined with life history characteristics 

such as slow growth and late reproductive maturity, makes overfishing a continuing concern for 

reef fishes. Rebuilding plans are in place for all reef fishes classified as overfished, and some of these 

species (i.e. goliath grouper) are showing significant increases in population abundance. Collection of data necessary for adequate assessment and management in the reef fish fishery remains 

difficult due to the diversity of resource users, gears, and locations; data are often not available 

for individual species, fishery components, or areas. Additional or improved fishery-dependent 

and fishery-independent data would improve the accuracy of existing stock assessment models, 

and allow data-poor species to be assessed for the first time. 

Fisheries for Sciaenid (drum and croaker; Unit 9) fishery resources in the southeastern United 

States have a long history dating back to the 1800’s. These species are targeted in both recreational 

and commercial fisheries, with regulations on some stocks and in some areas heavily favoring 

recreational users. Much of the recreational fishing for drums and croakers occurs inshore of the 

3-mile limit, in state waters, and management of these species is primarily by the coastal states. 

Allocation of resources between commercial and recreational fishing sectors remains an important issue in the management of drum and croaker fisheries. Sciaenids make up a majority of 

the finfish bycatch in southeast shrimp fisheries, and bycatch of these species is a major management issue in the Southeast Shelf and Gulf of Mexico RE’s. Much of this bycatch is composed 

of juvenile fishes, and there is concern that mortality from shrimp bycatch may slow recovery of 

overfished stocks and reduce fishery yields. 

Menhaden (Unit 10) comprise about 78% of the MSY for the three southeast RE’s. The Gulf 

menhaden resource is approximately 2.5 times larger than Atlantic menhaden, and contributes 

a majority of the total RAY and MSY for southeast menhaden fisheries. Atlantic menhaden is 

at a healthy abundance level and above BMSY, but the status of Gulf menhaden is currently unknown. Because menhaden stocks migrate long distances across state boundaries, management 

Gag grouper off the coastal 

Carolinas.

T. Potts, OAR/NURP/UNC
28

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

requires coordination through interstate marine fisheries commissions (the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, ASMFC; and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, GSMFC). The 

most significant issue in menhaden management is the importance of menhaden to ecosystem 

health—as key forage for many fishes, marine mammals, and sea birds, menhaden form an important trophic link in coastal ecosystems. Current research is focusing on the management of 

forage and predator fish species at a multispecies level.

Shrimp are the most important of the southeastern United States invertebrate fisheries resources (Unit 11). The fishery for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico is much larger than that on the 

Southeast Shelf. Overall, shrimp are one of the most valuable U.S. fisheries and lead the region’s 

fisheries in value although they make up only 14% of the RAY for the three southeast RE’s. All 

of the commercial shrimp species are currently harvested at the maximum level and until very 

recently, the shrimp fishery was believed to be overcapitalized (i.e. there were more boats and 

fishing gear than economically needed to catch the available harvest, and yields were not closely 

tied to effort). Bycatch of commercially important finfish and protected species such as sea turtles in the small-mesh trawl nets used by shrimpers is a major issue currently facing managers 

in the Southeast Shelf and Gulf of Mexico RE’s. Progress has been made to address these issues 

through gear modifications (turtle excluder and bycatch reduction devices) and other controls, 

and efforts continue to further reduce bycatch. Other invertebrate fisheries, such as those for 

spiny lobster and stone crab, contribute a much smaller amount to landings and ex-vessel values, but are important on local or regional scales. However, information on invertebrate species 

other than commercial shrimp stocks is incomplete, and abundance and production estimates 

are unknown for many species.

California Current

Fisheries of the California Current RE include Pacific salmon, coastal pelagic species, groundfish, and Pacific halibut. Highly migratory species (summarized in a separate section below) and 

state-managed invertebrate species are also important components. California Current fisheries 

resources have an estimated prorated U.S. MSY of 897,604 t (Table 12). This value is 79% of 

the total MSY for the California Current, due to sharing of transboundary resources with Canada (Pacific hake and Pacific halibut) and Mexico (some coastal pelagic species). The U.S. RAY 

is 486,773 t, or 54% of the MSY, due in part to underutilization of some coastal pelagic species and low abundance levels of some groundfish stocks. Many stocks are near or above BMSY, 

although several groundfish stocks are below BMSY. 

Pacific salmon (Unit 12) stocks make up a small proportion of California Current fisheries, 

accounting for about 4% of the prorated U.S. RAY and U.S. MSY (Table 12). The RAY is 63% 

of the MSY; this depressed production is partly due to generally unfavorable ocean conditions 

resulting in poor survival of salmon off the Pacific Coast since the late 1970’s. Recently, it briefly 

appeared that ocean conditions were improving for salmon species, but by 2005 most indicators of ocean productivity in the California Current had returned to unfavorable levels. Because 

salmon depend on freshwater habitat for spawning and rearing of juveniles, management of the 

Pacific salmon resource is complex, involving many stocks originating from various rivers and 

jurisdictions and requiring coordination with many entities not directly involved in the manageNets equipped with turtle 

excluder devices and bycatch 

reduction devices hang from 

a shrimp trawler tied to a 

dock in South Carolina. 

William B. Folsom
29

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Table 12

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

of fisheries resources in the 

California Current regional 

ecosystem.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

12. Pacific Coast salmon 21,110 33,312 33,312 21,110 33,312

14. Pacific Coast pelagic 238,424 255,177 408,180 175,989 331,685

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 388,403 458,660 682,238 288,604 531,607

19. Pacific halibut (Pacific Coast) 10,093 8,890 8,000 1,069 1,000

Total 658,030 756,039 1,131,730 486,773 897,604

12004–06 average.

ment of fisheries. Fisheries management is also complicated by the mixing of hatchery and wild 

stocks on fishing grounds—depleted wild stocks may be taken as bycatch in fisheries that target 

hatchery-produced stocks. Each of the coast-wide stocks of Pacific salmon is considered to be 

near BMSY, although the status of individual runs may differ. Some runs are severely depleted and 

have triggered ESA designations to protect listed stocks and prevent further declines. The need 

to reduce impacts on listed stocks and to provide adequate spawning escapement for healthier 

stocks has constrained allowable harvest rates on healthy stocks in recent years, causing declines in 

landings to be more pronounced than declines in abundance. Sharp declines in the abundance of 

most southern salmon stocks over the past 5 years led to a closure of all ocean salmon fisheries off 

the coasts of Oregon and California in 2008 (with the exception of one small recreational coho 

fishery for hatchery fish in Oregon). Additionally, commercial fishermen face declining prices 

driven by market competition from steadily increasing aquaculture production of salmon and 

record landings of wild salmon in Alaska, Japan, and Russia. The use of hatcheries to enhance 

fisheries production and mitigate habitat loss on the Pacific Coast continues to be a contentious 

issue and raises concerns about the interactions between hatchery and wild salmon.

The abundance of coastal pelagic species (Unit 14) typically fluctuates widely from year to 

year, and consequently, landings of these species also tend to fluctuate. Coastal pelagic species 

currently make up 36% of the California Current U.S. RAY and 37% of the U.S. MSY (Table 

12). Several coastal pelagic species (including jack mackerel and northern anchovy) are currently 

underutilized, primarily due to a lack of commercial markets, causing the RAY for the fishery 

to be only about half of the MSY. These species could potentially support increased harvest by 

U.S. fishermen, but increased data and biological information are necessary to ensure sustainable management of the stocks if landings increase. Coastal pelagic species form an important 

component of the California Current ecosystem as forage for fish, mammals, and birds. Thus, 

the continued well-being of ecologically related species is an important factor in the management of these species. The Coastal Pelagic Species FMP specifies a threshold for optimum yield 

that both prevents resource depletion and provides adequate forage for other species in the California Current ecosystem. Recently another forage species, krill, was added to this FMP to assure control of any potential future fishery. The transboundary nature of many of these species 

is also an important issue for fisheries managers; sardine, anchovy, and mackerels are exploited 

by both U.S. and Mexican fleets, but no bilateral management agreements have been reached to 

coordinate management of the stocks. Harvest levels are currently increasing in Mexican waters, 

further evidencing the need for a governing bilateral agreement. The problem is confounded by 

School of northern anchovy.

OAR/NURP
30

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

ongoing uncertainty regarding stock structure, distribution, and environmental influences on 

the highly dynamic populations of coastal pelagic species. 

The California Current groundfish fishery (Unit 15) harvests a wide variety of bottomassociated species along the coast from Washington to California. Many stocks have ranges that 

extend into Canadian or Mexican waters. The groundfish fishery has undergone a number of 

striking changes in recent years, and currently the RAY is just over half of the MSY (Table 12) 

due to a variety of factors. Foremost among these is the diversity of the fishing complex, with 

some species overfished and other species underutilized due to lack of markets or harvest restrictions in place to protect rebuilding stocks. Nine groundfish stocks were declared overfished 

between 1999 and 2002, and implementation of rebuilding plans for these stocks has limited 

fishing opportunities throughout nearly all sectors of the fishery. Two overfished stocks (Pacific 

hake and lingcod) have since been declared rebuilt, but rebuilding for other overfished stocks is 

expected to take decades due to low productivity of the species. To assist in this rebuilding, major portions of the Continental Shelf off the U.S. West Coast have been closed to fishing since 

September of 2003, further limiting fishing opportunities. These factors have combined to result 

in historically low allowable harvest levels. However, many strides have been made to improve 

management of the groundfish fishery, including implementation of a coastwide observer program to monitor bycatch, expansion of groundfish resource surveys, completion of several fleet 

capacity reduction programs, identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas 

of Particular Concern (HAPC’s), and implementation of coastwide conservation areas to protect 

overfished species and EFH. 

Alaska Ecosystem Complex

The Alaska Ecosystem Complex dominates all other U.S. RE’s in fisheries landings (57% of 

the total U.S. RAY) and the tonnage that could be obtained in the long term (58% of the total 

U.S. MSY; Table 13). Major fisheries resources in Alaska include Pacific salmon, small pelagic 

species, Pacific halibut, groundfish, and shellfish. The combined MSY for all Alaska stocks is 

4,399,299 t (all U.S. share). Current catch levels are substantially below the MSY levels because 

many resources, especially flatfishes, are underutilized, and long-standing optimum yield caps 

are in place to reduce risk and ensure ecosystem health. 

Harvests of Alaska salmon (Unit 13) in recent years have remained favorable, with landings 

in 2005 reaching a new all-time harvest level of 222 million salmon. Catches in 2006 and 2007 

were slightly lower, but still well above the long-term average. Although abundances of some 

individual salmon runs in Alaska are down, many runs continue to be successful, contributing 

to a RAY that was slightly above the MSY. An inverse production regime pattern associated with 

abundance levels of West Coast and Alaska salmon, along with some changes in environmental 

conditions, raised concerns that Alaska salmon catches would decline, but recent catch histories 

show no conclusive evidence of such a decline. However, the value of the Alaska salmon catch 

has declined significantly in recent years due to a number of worldwide factors. Foremost among 

these is a rising trend in world salmon production, mainly due to the rapid growth of salmon 

aquaculture, but also resulting from worldwide record catches of wild salmon (including fish 

produced from hatcheries and ocean ranching programs) in Alaska, Japan, and Russia. 

The Pacific Coast stock of 

lingcod was declared overfished in 1999, but has since 

been reclassified as rebuilt.

V. O’Connell, ADFG, OAR/NURP

The stern view of an Alaskan 

trawler.

David Csepp
31

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Pacific herring (Unit 14) is the major pelagic species harvested in Alaska and produced a RAY 

of 40,753 t in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea combined. The fishery occurs within state waters 

and is therefore managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Both stocks of Pacific 

herring in Alaska are thought to be near BMSY and in a relatively stable condition, although estimates of their production potential are not available. As with many small pelagic species, herring 

abundance tends to fluctuate widely. 

Pacific halibut (Unit 19) support an important traditional fishery for both the United States 

and Canada along the West Coast and in Alaska. Pacific halibut are thought to represent one 

large, interrelated stock and are managed throughout their entire range by a bilateral treaty between the United States and Canada and through research and regulation recommendations 

from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The center of abundance for Pacific halibut is the Gulf of Alaska; the two Alaskan management units account for a majority 

of halibut landings (RAY): 98% of the U.S. subtotal and 83% of the coastwide total. Recently, 

the Alaskan halibut fishery moved from an open-access fishery with a short derby-style fishing 

season to an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fishery with a nearly 8-month-long season. Under 

the new fishing regulations, there has been an overall decline in the size of the halibut fleet, and 

most components of the fishery have been very successful in recent years. The halibut resource is 

considered healthy, with both Alaska management units above their respective BMSY levels, and 

total catch near record levels. 

One of the greatest successes of the 1976 Act has been the development of domestic groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Until its implementation in 1977, Alaska’s groundfish fisheries were 

dominated by foreign vessels (with the exception of the U.S. fishery for Pacific halibut). However, under the new management regime the U.S. fleet has largely replaced foreign fishing fleets 

in U.S. EEZ waters off Alaska. The Alaska groundfish fishery is the largest fishery by volume in 

the U.S. EEZ.

Groundfish landings in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) region (Unit 19) 

account for about 74% of the total Alaska RAY and 72% of the MSY (Table 13). Due to the high 

abundance (above BMSY) of many stocks, the CY is nearly 1 million t higher than the RAY. However, the RAY of BSAI groundfish is currently only 62% of the MSY level because catch quotas 

Table 13

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

of fisheries resources in the 

Alaska Ecosystem Complex 

regional ecosystem.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

13. Alaska salmon 377,449 317,900 317,900 377,449 317,900

14. Alaska pelagic 40,753 40,753 40,753 40,753 40,753

19. Alaska groundfish (total) 2,218,133 3,201,507 3,848,508 2,218,133 3,848,508

 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 1,981,062 2,676,035 3,188,973 1,981,062 3,188,973

 Gulf of Alaska 188,039 480,271 604,535 188,039 604,535

 Pacific halibut (Alaska) 49,032 45,201 55,000 49,032 55,000

20. Alaska shellfish 26,101 30,853 192,138 26,101 192,138

Total 2,662,436 3,591,013 4,399,299 2,662,436 4,399,299

12004–06 average.

A Pacific halibut is hauled 

aboard the F/V Bold Pursuit in the eastern Gulf of 

Alaska.

Dan Rafla, IPHC
32

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

have been capped at an optimal yield (OY) limit of 2 million t set in the BSAI Groundfish FMP 

to prevent harvesting of the full CY. Landings in the Alaska groundfish fisheries are dominated 

by walleye pollock; Pacific cod, flatfishes (especially yellowfin sole and rock sole), Atka mackerel, 

and rockfishes are also important. Walleye pollock in the BSAI region are highly productive, and 

yield the largest catch of any single species in the U.S. EEZ. Flatfish stocks in general are underutilized in the BSAI region, both because of the 2 million t OY cap and the need to prevent bycatch of prohibited species such as Pacific halibut, salmon, and king and Tanner crabs in flatfish 

trawl fisheries. Incidental take of prohibited species and allocation issues between user groups are 

important problems in the management of BSAI groundfish fisheries. Ecosystem considerations 

and marine mammal interactions with fish and fisheries are also important management issues 

in Alaska. Fisheries put marine mammals and sea birds at risk for incidental interactions with 

fishing gear and also compete for prey items that they depend on for food; the OY cap reduces 

these impacts on the ecosystem. The impact of fish removals has been implicated as a factor in 

the decline of Steller sea lion populations15 in Alaskan waters. Because Steller sea lions feed on 

pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod, these groundfish fisheries are now carefully regulated to 

reduce adverse impacts near Steller sea lion rookeries. 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish (Unit 19) make up a much smaller proportion of the total Alaska RAY (7%) and MSY (14%; Table 13). The GOA RAY is currently only 39% of the 

CY, mainly due to underutilization of abundant flatfish species that are not fully harvested in 

order to prevent exceeding bycatch limits set for Pacific halibut. Important species in the GOA 

groundfish fishery include walleye pollock, Pacific cod, flatfishes, and rockfishes. Pollock in the 

GOA are currently estimated to be at their lowest known abundance levels. The pollock fishery is carefully managed due to concerns about the impact of fisheries on Steller sea lions in the 

area, and harvest rates have never exceeded 15%, so it is thought that variation in population 

abundance is related primarily to environmental forcing. Populations of Pacific cod, flatfishes, 

and rockfishes are all considered to be in good condition due to favorable conditions and precautionary management practices. 

Crabs, including king, Tanner, and snow, dominate Alaska shellfish fisheries. A majority of 

shellfish production comes from the Bering Sea, which contributes a majority of king crab landings and all snow crab landings. Shellfish fisheries in Alaska are highly valued and generated an 

estimated $153 million in ex-vessel revenue in 2006. The RAY (26,101 t) is only slightly below 

the estimated CY, but well below the MSY value of 192,138 t (derived from historical data). 

This difference is largely due to depressed stock levels for several species and low harvest limits 

while stocks are rebuilding. The fishery for Tanner crab was closed in 1997 due to continued 

decreases in population abundance and landings, but abundance has increased, especially in the 

past two years, and abundance is now above the BMSY level. King crab landings dropped steeply 

in the early 1980’s and have remained low, while snow crab catches have decreased in recent years 

due to low stock abundance. However, some stocks of king and snow crabs are showing signs of 

increases. Shrimp resources, which make a minor contribution to Alaska shellfish fisheries, also 

remain depressed. 

15The eastern Pacific population is classified as threatened, while the western U.S. Pacific population is endangered under the 

ESA. See Unit 21 for more information.

China rockfish.

AFSC
3 3

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Table 14

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) of fisheries resources 

in the Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex regional 

ecosystem.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

16. Western Pacific invertebrate2 0 0 0 0 0

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and groundfish3 317 424 2,628 317 2,628

Total 317 424 2,628 317 2,628

12004–06 average, unless otherwise noted.

2Total MSY is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY when available, or on RAY. 

 Lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has been closed since 2000.

3RAY is 2002–04 average for Hawaii and 2003–05 for other island areas.

Scaly slipper lobster in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

© B. Mundy

Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex

The Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex stretches across the central and western Pacific and 

includes the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), and 

the U.S.-affiliated islands of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI; Figure 1). The area is made up of tropical and subtropical island waters 

with a high diversity of species, but relatively low sustainable yields due to limited ocean nutrients. Although catches are low compared to some mainland fisheries, Pacific Islands fisheries are 

highly valued and are important culturally and socially in Hawaii and the outer islands. 

Fisheries resources of the Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex include invertebrates, bottomfishes, and seamount groundfishes. The U.S. RAY for the region is 317 t (equal to the total RAY), 

which is 12% of the U.S. MSY level (Table 14). The MSY level is not well understood due to 

uncertainty in the estimates for lobsters and groundfishes. The considerable difference between 

RAY and MSY is due to the moratorium on fishing for seamount groundfishes, which make up 

an estimated 2,123 t of the total MSY. 

The most important invertebrate fisheries in the Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex are for 

spiny and slipper lobsters (Unit 16). These species were fished primarily in the NWHI until 

2000, when the NWHI fishery for lobsters was closed as a precautionary measure due to uncertainty about the status of the lobster stocks. In December 2000, President William J. Clinton 

established the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, which established reserve preservation 

areas in which fishing activities were prohibited. President George W. Bush designated the area 

a National Monument in 2006, forever protecting this unique and remote ecosystem. Research 

since the 2000 fishery closure has indicated that spiny lobster populations in the NWHI constitute a metapopulation and that a variety of anthropogenic and biotic factors contributed to their 

decline. Additionally, it appears that as spiny lobsters were removed, slipper lobster populations 

expanded to fill habitats formerly occupied by spiny lobsters; this may affect the ability of spiny 

lobster stocks to rebound (although recent increases have been seen in certain locations). The 

fishery for precious coral was reinitiated in 1999 for the first time since the 1970’s, and ended 

in 2001. The fishery remains open, though no harvesting is occurring due to the high cost of 

operations and the low price of coral. The biological information needed for the management 

of precious coral remains limited, and warrants further attention.
3 4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Onaga and boarfish at a 

depth of 200 m off Oahu in 

the Main Hawaiian Islands.

Hawaiian Undersea Research Laboratory

Bottomfishes (Unit 17) are harvested from a variety of rock and coral habitats around the Hawaiian Islands and western Pacific Islands. Across the region, the RAY for bottomfishes is 75% of 

the CY due to underutilization of some stocks and low abundance levels of others. Although no 

bottomfish stocks are classified as overfished, it is thought that overfishing is occurring in some 

areas of the Hawaiian Islands, and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has recommended that the State of Hawaii take action to prevent overfishing because the bottomfish fishery 

and bottomfish habitat are predominantly within state waters. The MHI stock of bottomfishes 

is currently below BMSY, and assessments indicate that the biomass of some important species 

within this complex is at 5–30% of unfished levels due to excess harvest. The primary management concern for the Western Pacific bottomfish fishery is the adequacy of the biological and 

catch data collected—the reproductive biology of many of the important species in American 

Samoa, Guam, and CNMI is unknown and the spawning stock cannot be computed, leading 

to unreliable status determinations.

The fishery for seamount groundfishes (Unit 17) occurs on the summits and slopes of submerged seamounts along the southern Emperor–northern Hawaiian Ridge. The only area under U.S. jurisdiction is Hancock Seamount, which accounts for less than 5% of the total fishing 

grounds. Pelagic armorhead is the most important species of seamount groundfish, and fishing 

has been prohibited at Hancock Seamount since 1984 to allow the stock to recover after foreign catch rates declined to low levels. The current fishing moratorium extends at least through 

2010, but the stock has yet to show any signs of recovery even after 20+ years of closures. It is 

likely that closure of only the small U.S. EEZ portion of the armorhead’s demersal habitat is 

not sufficient to allow for population recovery; Hancock Seamount remains the only portion of 

the fishery currently under management. The primary issue for seamount groundfishes is how 

to implement some form of cooperative international management that will provide conditions 

conducive to stock rebuilding, but no progress has yet been made. 

Highly Migratory Species

Highly migratory species include species that migrate great distances across the Atlantic or 

Pacific Oceans and are harvested widely by both U.S. and foreign fishermen. Fishing for highly 

migratory stocks occurs within the U.S. EEZ, on the high seas, and within the EEZ’s of other 

nations. These transboundary fishery resources hold considerable interest internationally, with 

high collective importance and value to foreign nations and U.S. fleets fishing within and beyond 

the U.S. EEZ. Management of highly migratory stocks is complicated and requires a good deal 

of international coordination and cooperation. Regulations enforced by only one of the many 

nations that harvest these stocks will likely do little to manage the overall status of the stock and 

fishery as a whole. 

Atlantic highly migratory pelagic species (Unit 5) include several species of tunas, swordfish, 

marlins, other billfishes, and other tuna relatives; also included in this discussion are the pelagic 

sharks (Unit 6). These species form important components of domestic fisheries along the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast. International management efforts for these stocks are coordinated by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Landings by U.S. fishermen have been declining steadily since the late 1980’s. Currently, the U.S. RAY accounts for 
35

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Table 15

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) of highly migratory species fisheries resources utilized by the United States.

Total productivity (t) over the entire range of the stock Prorated productivity (t)

Total within the U.S. EEZ

recent average

yield (RAY)1

Total

current

yield (CY)

Total

sustainable

Unit number and fishery yield (MSY) U.S. RAY U.S. MSY

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic2 290,221 282,190 332,731 18,569 24,760

 6. Pelagic sharks3

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic 2,926,372 2,960,401 4,422,354 145,596 258,628

Total 3,216,593 3,242,591 4,745,085 164,165 283,388

12004–06 average.

2Total MSY is unknown due to unknown values for individual stocks; value shown is based on CY when available, or on RAY. 

3RAY for Atlantic sharks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights, so totals for this Unit have been excluded from this and other National 

 Overview summary tables.

Juvenile albacore being 

brought aboard in the U.S. 

troll fishery.

NOAA

only 6% of the total RAY for migratory species over the range of their distribution (Table 15), 

indicating the significant role of foreign fisheries and the need for both national and international 

management measures. Many Atlantic migratory species are currently at low abundance levels 

and classified as both experiencing overfishing and overfished. The Consolidated Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species FMP addresses rebuilding and overfishing for depleted stocks, but only has 

jurisdiction over the U.S. portion of the fisheries. 

Pacific highly migratory stocks (Unit 18) such as tunas, billfishes, and sharks range the high 

seas and often migrate across multiple management jurisdictions in the Pacific Ocean. These 

stocks support some of the most valuable fisheries in the world. Tunas make up the major catch 

component of highly migratory fisheries. The combined MSY of these stocks throughout their 

migratory range is 4,422,354 t, but the U.S. prorated share of the MSY is only 6% of that 

(258,628 t; Table 15). The status of most tuna stocks is relatively well known, with only one 

stock (Eastern Pacific bigeye tuna) below BMSY; however, three tuna stocks (Eastern Pacific skipjack tuna, South Pacific albacore, and Pacific bluefin tuna) continue to have an unknown status 

relative to the biomass that would support the MSY. Less is known about the status of other 

species, although stocks that do have sufficient information appear to be healthy. International 

coordination for the management of Pacific tuna fisheries is carried out by the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), in which the United States is a member country. In addition to the problem of unknown population status for some highly migratory stocks, a management issue of increasing concern is the growth of total fleet fishing capacity in the Pacific. Many 

stocks are believed to already be harvested at or above sustainable levels, and the economic effects of overcapacity are becoming more evident. Closely related to overcapacity is the problem 

of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing by vessels operating outside the control of 

regional management regimes. 

RECENT TRENDS FOR FISHERIES

Successive editions of Our Living Oceans have sought to maintain consistency in the way stocks 

are classified and in the way data are reported, in order to provide a basis for examining overall 

trends in the health of fishery resources. However, some changes have been introduced into this 
36

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 16

Changes in stock level relative to BMSY between OLO 

‘99 and OLO 6th Edition (Units 

1–20).1

Total number of stocks by stock level

status relative to BMSY in OLO ‘99

Number of stocks by stock level status

relative to BMSY in OLO 6th Edition

Stock level

status (1999) Total

Below

(and change)

Near

(and change)

Above

(and change)

Unknown

(and change)

Below 72 35 (−37) 14 (+14) 6 (+6) 17 (+17)

Near 60 5 (+5) 20 (−40) 16 (+16) 19 (+19)

Above 24 3 (+3) 2 (+2) 12 (−12) 7 (+7)

Unknown 41 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (+2) 39 (−2)

Total 197 43 (−29) 36 (−24) 36 (+12) 82 (+41)

1This table shows the number of stocks in each OLO ‘99 category (Below, Near, Above, and Unknown) that have stayed in the same category or 

shifted to a different category in OLO 6th Edition. These comparisons can be interpreted as changes between the mid 1990’s and the mid 2000’s. 

Only stocks appearing in both OLO ‘99 and OLO 6th Edition are included in this summary. Entries of Variable and Unidentified have been counted 

as Unknown.

Yellowfin tuna awaiting 

sale at the Honolulu fish 

auction.

Allen Shimada, NMFS

new edition of Our Living Oceans to reflect the way that data are currently being collected for 

stocks and to more closely align with how stocks are tracked and reported in the annual Status of 

U.S. Fisheries as mandated by the MSA. Changes in the stock status tables include: stocks have 

been broken out by geographic area where information is available; Current Yield replaces Current Potential Yield (CPY) in OLO ’99; Sustainable Yield replaces Long Term Potential Yield 

(LTPY) in OLO ’99; Stock Level Relative to BMSY replaces Stock Level Relative to LTPY in OLO 

’99; and Harvest Rate and Stock Status (equivalent to overfishing and overfished determinations 

in the Status of U.S. Fisheries) replace Fishery Utilization Level in OLO ’99.

An examination of recent trends is presented here by comparing equivalent data reported in 

OLO ’99 and OLO 6th Edition. These editions pertain to stock status averaged over 1995–97 

and 2004–06, respectively. Comparisons provide an idea of trends over a 9- to 11-year timeframe. Readers wishing to obtain a more detailed accounting of interannual changes for stocks 

of interest should refer to the references listed at the end of each species unit or consult stock 

assessment reports, which may be obtained electronically from Fishery Management Council 

websites listed in Appendix 2. 

Stock Level

Stock level relative to BMSY is a measure of how current fish stock abundance compares to the 

stock size that, on average, would support the MSY. Generally, management actions seek to prevent 

stock abundance from falling below BMSY, and to rebuild stocks that have fallen below this level. 

Between OLO ’99 and OLO 6th Edition, the status of 20 stocks had improved: 14 moved from 

Below BMSY to Near BMSY and 6 moved from Below BMSY to Above BMSY (Table 16). Although 

8 stocks moved from Near or Above to Below BMSY, in aggregate these changes are positive, and 

resulted in a net reduction of stocks Below BMSY. Although rebuilding of overfished stocks can 

sometimes take many years depending on the stock’s intrinsic natural capacity to grow, its initial 

level of depletion, the specific management measures in place, and other factors, it would appear 

that the process of rebuilding overfished stocks is underway. Less positive news is that the number 

of stocks with unknown stock level status has increased, with 2 stocks becoming known and 41 

stocks being reclassified as unknown. The reasons for a stock being reclassified as unknown vary 
37

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Table 17

Comparison of U.S. recent 

average yield (RAY) in metric 

tons (t) reported by OLO ‘99

and OLO 6th Edition.

Unit number and fishery

U.S. RAY

OLO ‘99

U.S. RAY

OLO 6th Edition Change (t) Change (%)

 1. Northeast demersal1 142,215 146,324 4,109 3%

 2. Northeast pelagic 121,300 160,335 39,035 32%

 3. Atlantic anadromous 9,408 16,633 7,225 77%

 4. Northeast invertebrate 127,200 126,600 –600 0%

 5. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic 18,300 18,569 269 1%

 6. Atlantic shark2

 7. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory pelagic1 15,432 17,482 2,050 13%

 8. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean reef fish 24,739 24,253 –486 –2%

 9. Southeast drum and croaker 33,623 40,994 7,371 22%

10. Southeast menhaden 860,000 652,000 –208,000 –24%

11. Southeast and Caribbean invertebrate1 119,376 127,784 8,408 7%

12. Pacific Coast salmon 17,304 21,110 3,806 22%

13. Alaska salmon 376,100 377,449 1,349 0%

14. Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic1 112,500 165,284 52,784 47%

15. Pacific Coast groundfish 268,085 288,605 20,520 8%

16. Western Pacific invertebrate 109 0 –109 –100%

17. Western Pacific bottomfish and armorhead 492 317 –175 –36%

18. Pacific highly migratory pelagic1 253,606 145,448 –108,158 –43%

19. Alaska groundfish 2,026,272 2,219,202 156,930 8%

20. Alaska shellfish 52,131 26,101 –26,030 –50%

Total 4,614,192 4,574,490 –39,702 –1%

1Some stocks were not listed in both reports. For comparability, these RAY totals exclude the following: hagfish, Unit 1, OLO 6th Edition; cero mackerel, Unit 7, OLO ‘99; Gulf of Mexico grunts, Unit 8, OLO 6th Edition; golden crab, Unit 11, OLO 6th Edition; market squid, Unit 14, OLO 6th Edition; 

and bluefin tuna, Unit 18, OLO 6th Edition.

2RAY for Atlantic sharks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights, so totals for this Unit have been 

excluded from this and other National Overview summary tables.

and may include a number of factors, including 1) improved stock assessment review processes 

that have increased expectations about the data that are needed to gain sufficient knowledge of a 

stock’s status and ensure the best science available is used to manage it; 2) better recognition of 

the uncertainty associated with determining target abundance levels due to environmental variables and other ecosystem factors; and 3) the challenges associated with maintaining adequate 

data streams for all stocks. 

Recent Yields

Overall, the U.S. share of the fishery resources reported in Units 1–20 has held fairly steady in 

recent years, decreasing just 1% between the time periods considered by OLO ’99 and OLO 6th

Edition. This corresponds to a decrease of 39,702 t in the U.S. RAY (Table 17). This corresponds 

to an overall increase in the total RAY (10%), but a decrease in the U.S. share, mainly of Pacific 

highly migratory pelagic fisheries. Although the overall level has been relatively steady, some individual fisheries have experienced increases or decreases. The largest increases in terms of tonnage 

occurred for Alaska groundfish fisheries (156,930 t) and Pacific Coast and Alaska pelagic fisheries 

(52,784 t). In terms of percentage, Atlantic anadromous fisheries also had a large increase (77%). 

Large tonnage declines occurred for Southeast menhaden fisheries (−208,000 t) and Pacific highly 

migratory pelagic fisheries (−108,158 t). Large percentage decreases were experienced by Western 

Pacific invertebrates (−100% due to fishery closure) and Alaska shellfish (−50%).
3 8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Stock Regional Ecosystem

OLO

Unit

U.S. RAY

OLO ‘99

U.S. RAY

OLO 6th Edition Change (t) Change (%)

Stock level 

relative to BMSY

American plaice Northeast Shelf 1 4,300 1,627 −2,673 −62% Below

Cusk Northeast Shelf 1 600 78 −522 −87% Unknown

Red hake Northeast Shelf 1 1,400 519 −881 −63% Unknown

Silver hake Northeast Shelf 1 15,500 6,941 −8,559 −55% Below

Spiny dogfish Northeast Shelf 1 23,900 6,451 −17,449 −73% Undefined

Weakfish Northeast Shelf 1 4,200 1,013 −3,187 −76% Unknown

Wolffishes Northeast Shelf 1 400 106 −294 −74% Unknown

Northern shrimp Northeast Shelf 4 7,600 2,199 −5,401 −71% Unknown

Amberjacks—South Atlantic Southeast Shelf 8 1,078 382 −696 −65% Unknown

Red porgy—South Atlantic Southeast Shelf 8 236 47 −189 −80% Below

Wreckfish—South Atlantic Southeast Shelf 8 349 71 −278 −80% Unknown

Rock shrimp Gulf of Mexico 11 6,240 2,189 −4,051 −65% Unknown

Seabob shrimp Gulf of Mexico 11 3,947 1,149 −2,798 −71% Unknown

Stone crab Gulf of Mexico 11 2,961 1,177 −1,784 −60% Near

Pink salmon California Current 12 3,931 1,846 −2,085 −53% Near

Chub mackerel California Current 14 20,000 6,433 −13,567 −68% Above

Jack mackerel California Current 14 2,000 705 −1,295 −65% Unknown

Pacific herring—Pacific Coast California Current 14 6,000 85 −5,915 −99% Unknown

Bocaccio California Current 15 863 81 −782 −91% Below

Canary rockfish California Current 15 1,054 55 −999 −95% Near

Chilipepper California Current 15 1,846 125 −1,721 −93% Above

Lingcod California Current 15 1,966 821 −1,145 −58% Above

Other rockfishes California Current 15 7,766 3,113 −4,653 −60% Unknown

Pacific ocean perch California Current 15 800 104 −696 −87% Below

Shortbelly rockfish California Current 15 38 11 −27 −71% Above

Thornyhead rockfishes California Current 15 6,514 1,605 −4,909 −75% Above

Widow rockfish California Current 15 6,426 196 −6,230 −97% Near

Yellowtail rockfish California Current 15 4,073 840 −3,233 −79% Above

Bottomfishes—CNMI Pacific Islands 16 17 6 −11 −65% Above

Greenland halibut—BSAI Alaska 19 7,400 2,247 −5,153 −70% Above

Sea snails Alaska 20 1,414 0 −1,414 −100% Unknown

Snow crab Alaska 20 39,053 12,976 −26,077 −67% Below

White marlin—Atlantic Highly Migratory 6 1,600 400 −1,200 −75% Below

Table 18

Comparison of recent average yield (RAY; U.S. share only except for highly migratory stocks from Units 5 and 18, which 

have a very high percentage of non-U.S. landings) between OLO ‘99 and OLO 6th Edition. Only stocks with RAY changes 

greater than −50% are listed. RAY is in metric tons (t). Not included here are those stocks which have been closed to 

fishing: Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, goliath and Nassau groupers throughout their range, and spiny and slipper 

lobsters in the NWHI. Atlantic sharks (Unit 6) are also excluded because RAY for these stocks is expressed in thousands 

of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights. CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands; BSAI = Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

Table 18 lists individual stocks for which RAY decreased by 50% or more between OLO ’99

and OLO 6th Edition. These stocks are distributed around the country and are found in every 

RE except the Caribbean Sea, although more stocks from the Northeast Shelf and California 

Current had substantial decreases. In terms of tonnage, the largest decrease in RAY was for snow 

crab (−26,077 t). Snow crab and several other Alaska crab stocks are currently at low abundance 

levels, so lower harvest allowances have been set to allow the stocks to rebuild to healthy levels. 

Other stocks that experienced large decreases in tonnage included spiny dogfish (−17,449 t), as 

a result of recent restrictions on dogfish landings, and Pacific chub mackerel (−13,567 t), due 

mainly to a lack of commercial markets. Many stocks have experienced large percentage declines 
39

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

Stock Regional Ecosystem

OLO

Unit

U.S. RAY

OLO ‘99

U.S. RAY

OLO 6th Edition Change (t) Change (%)

Stock level 

relative to BMSY

Haddock Northeast Shelf 1 900 8,836 7,936 882% Below

Ocean pout Northeast Shelf 1 60 294 234 390% Below

Pollock Northeast Shelf 1 3,800 6,190 2,390 63% Below

Scup Northeast Shelf 1 3,300 6,955 3,655 111% Below

Skates Northeast Shelf 1 10,700 41,575 30,875 289% Undefined

Yellowtail flounder Northeast Shelf 1 2,400 5,250 2,850 119% Below

Atlantic mackerel Northeast Shelf 2 14,600 52,455 37,855 259% Above

Striped bass Northeast Shelf 3 8,300 15,933 7,633 92% Below

Red deepsea crab Northeast Shelf 4 1,000 1,923 923 92% Unknown

Sea scallop Northeast Shelf 4 7,100 28,716 21,616 304% Above

Other porgies—South Atlantic Southeast Shelf 8 67 989 922 1,376% Unknown

Atlantic croaker Southeast Shelf 9 7,657 15,224 7,567 99% Below

White shrimp—Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico 11 28,942 51,995 23,053 80% Near

Chum salmon California Current 12 2,768 6,170 3,402 123% Near

Coho salmon California Current 12 1,421 3,127 1,706 120% Near

Northern anchovy California Current 14 4,000 11,641 7,641 191% Unknown

Pacific sardine California Current 14 35,000 105,667 70,667 202% Above

Arrowtooth flounder California Current 15 2,257 4,160 1,903 84% Above

Other groundfishes California Current 15 1,693 5,115 3,422 202% Unknown

Pacific cod California Current 15 515 898 383 74% Unknown

Pacific halibut—U.S. Pacific Coast California Current 19 570 1,069 499 88% Near

Pacific herring—Gulf of Alaska Alaska 19 11,500 17,212 5,712 50% Near

Bigeye tuna Highly migratory 18 132,615 240,823 117,208 95% Unknown

Skipjack tuna—Central Western Pacific Highly migratory 18 950,527 1,494,421 543,894 57% Above

Skipjack tuna—Eastern Pacific Highly migratory 18 135,967 274,974 139,007 102% Unknown

Wahoo Highly migratory 18 160 831 671 419% Unknown

Table 19

Comparison of recent average yield (RAY; U.S. share only except for highly migratory stocks from Units 5 and 18, which 

have a very high percentage of non-U.S. landings) between OLO ‘99 and OLO 6th Edition. Only stocks with RAY changes 

greater than +50% are listed. RAY is in metric tons (t). Atlantic sharks (Unit 6) were not considered for this analysis because 

RAY for these stocks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be converted to weights.

in RAY, although the absolute magnitude of the landings is small. Stocks on the Northeast Shelf 

have seen decreased landings in recent years due to harvest restrictions designed to allow stocks 

to rebuild. In the California Current, some of the stocks have decreased RAY’s due to stock rebuilding, while others could support higher catch levels but are restricted due to co-occurrence 

with overfished stocks. Overall, 33 stocks (excluding those stocks for which fisheries have been 

entirely closed) experienced a decrease in RAY greater than 50%, accounting for a decrease of 

129,874 t since OLO ’99. 

Table 19 lists stock groups that experienced a RAY increase of 50% or greater between the 

publication of OLO ’99 and OLO 6th Edition. Many of the stocks showing increases are from the 

Northeast Shelf or California Current; the others are spread around the other RE’s, although there 

are none found in the Caribbean Sea or Pacific Islands Ecosystem Complex. In terms of tonnage, 

the largest increases in RAY were seen for several Pacific highly migratory species: skipjack tuna 

(543,894 t for the Central Western Pacific stock; 139,007 t for the Eastern Pacific stock) and bigeye 

tuna (108,208 t for both Pacific stocks combined). Skipjack tuna are currently the volume leader 
4 0

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

in Pacific fisheries for highly migratory species, and the stocks are believed to be underutilized, 

although MSY and the biomass relative to BMSY are unknown for the Eastern Pacific stock (the 

Central Western Pacific stock is above BMSY). Bigeye tuna are a highly migratory stock fished by 

several nations; the stock is experiencing overfishing and the eastern Pacific population is below 

BMSY. Other tonnage increases were less substantial, but some stocks experienced large percentage increases in RAY. Some of these increases are due to improved management measures and 

reduced harvest restrictions on stocks as they rebuild to sustainable population levels. In total, 

26 stocks showed an increase in RAY greater than 50%, accounting for a 1,034,624 t increase 

between OLO ’99 and OLO 6th Edition. 

Many of the stocks (37%) with known status listed in Table 18 that experienced declines in 

landings are below the biomass level that would support the MSY. This indicates that landings 

for a significant portion of the stocks listed on the table decreased because their population sizes 

can no longer support historical catch levels. However, the rest of the known-status stocks experiencing RAY decreases are at healthy population levels. Declines in RAY for these stocks may be 

a result of a lack of commercial markets, shifts in fishing effort, or management restrictions to 

prevent bycatch of overfished co-occurring stocks that are overfished and rebuilding. Decreases 

in RAY may also be seen in healthy stocks as population abundance moves from above BMSY to 

BMSY. Unfortunately, a large number of stocks (42%) experiencing a large decrease in RAY had 

an unknown or undefined stock level, indicating the need for improved data collection and additional stock assessment efforts. About half of the stocks with known stock levels that experienced an increase in RAY had healthy population abundance levels; some of the increases seen 

for stocks classified as below BMSY are due to easing of catch restrictions as the populations rebuild toward sustainable levels (the case for several stocks of Northeast groundfish). About 35% 

of the stocks with substantial RAY increases have unknown stock levels, indicating the need for 

cautious management of these stocks as fisheries for them increase. 

RECENT TRENDS FOR PROTECTED RESOURCES

Since the last OLO report in 1999, the quality of stock assessments for protected resources such 

as marine mammals and sea turtles has continued to improve. OLO ’99 reported on 145 stocks 

of marine mammals and assigned trends to 12% of the stocks. OLO 6th Edition reports on a total 

of 190 marine mammal stocks, and assigns trends to 15% of the stocks (a gain of 11 stocks with 

assigned trends, relative to OLO ’99). The largest improvements have been in the Pacific Ocean, 

where in 1999 authors were not able to assign population trends to any stocks (except for sea 

turtles), and now a total of 12 marine mammal stocks have known trends.

Marine Mammals 

Recent stock assessments in Alaska show continued increases for bowhead whales, gray whales, 

and central North Pacific humpback whales. The Eastern Pacific stock of Steller sea lion also 

continues to increase, and the Western U.S. Pacific stock of Steller sea lion has showed increases 

in annual census counts since 2000—the first region-wide increase for that stock since standardized surveys began in the 1970’s. These increases suggest a change in trend for the endangered 

Humpback whales, Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary.

Louis M. Herman
41

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

The status of spotted seal 

and two other stocks in 

Alaska went from known to 

unknown between OLO ‘99 

and OLO 6th Edition.

Brent Stewart

stock, which is now considered to be stable. Other improvements in the Alaska Region include 

improved population trends for Bristol Bay beluga; trends for Cook Inlet beluga, fin whale, and 

eastern North Pacific Northern Resident killer whale going from unknown to known; stocks of 

killer whales increasing from two to five stocks; and the addition of known values for population or mortality estimates for several stocks. Additionally, the North Pacific right whale was 

recognized as a separate species from the North Atlantic right whale in 2000 and classified as 

endangered under the ESA. Between OLO ’99 and OLO 6th Edition, three stocks (Beaufort Sea 

beluga, southeast Alaska harbor seal, and spotted seal) went from known status to unknown, 

northern fur seal went from stable to decreasing, Cook Inlet beluga was classified as depleted, 

and three stocks were reclassified as strategic (as well as the addition of a new strategic stock, 

AT1 Transient killer whales). 

In the Pacific region and Hawaii, a good amount of progress has been made since the last OLO. 

In OLO ’99, no population trends were available for marine mammal stocks, but now 12 stocks 

have known trends. Five new stocks have been added to the Hawaii area of the Pacific, and the 

stock structure for harbor porpoises has been refined and now contains six stocks instead of four. 

New estimates have been made for a number of stocks that previously had unknown population 

or mortality values, and one stock (CA/OR/WA short-finned pilot whale) is no longer considered a strategic stock. Unfortunately, the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident killer whale 

(found principally in Puget Sound) is now considered strategic and was also recently classified 

as endangered under the ESA.

In the Atlantic region and Gulf of Mexico, three new stocks have been added in the western 

North Atlantic, and the stock structure of bottlenose dolphin in the Gulf of Mexico has been 

refined. Since OLO ’99, nine stocks have moved from strategic to not strategic status, while four 

moved from not strategic to strategic—a net gain of five fewer non-strategic stocks. In the Atlantic region, less progress has been seen in terms of defining abundance trends for marine mammal 

stocks. No new trends have been added, and two stocks with previously known trends are now 

unknown. Of the greatest concern in the Atlantic region is the North Atlantic right whale, which 

continues to show no sustained population growth despite six decades of protection. 

Sea Turtles 

Of the seven species of sea turtles found worldwide, six species are found in U.S. waters and all 

are currently listed as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. Authority to conserve and 

protect sea turtles is shared by NMFS (responsible for turtles while in the marine environment) 

and USFWS (jurisdiction over nesting beaches and turtles on land). A lack of historical abundance data makes it difficult to fully understand current population dynamics, but standardized 

surveys of selected nesting beaches that began in the 1980’s (1973 for Hawaiian green turtles) 

provide an indication of whether turtle relative abundances are declining, stable, or increasing. 

In the Atlantic Ocean, southeast U.S. nesting populations of green turtles seem to be increasing, but are not genetically distinct from other nesting populations. The Kemp’s ridley turtle, 

after dramatic earlier declines, appears to be in the earliest stages of recovery under strict protection (including full protection of nesting females and required use of turtle excluder devices). 
42

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Other species in the Atlantic are not faring as well as the green and Kemp’s ridley. Leatherback 

turtle nesting populations in the United States are stable but small in number, but the status and 

trends of larger populations in the Guianas and Trinidad are unclear. The Florida subpopulation 

of loggerhead turtle is in decline.

Sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean face continued threats, and some species are currently experiencing serious population declines. Although the olive ridley does not nest on any U.S. beaches, 

it faces continued threats in U.S. and other waters from incidental capture in trawl and longline 

fisheries. The loggerhead has two primary nesting locations in the Pacific Ocean—Japan and 

eastern Australia; current nesting and foraging data from eastern Australia indicate a severe decline for the species. Serious declines are also occurring for leatherback turtles at all major nesting beaches throughout the Pacific, primarily due to the overharvest of eggs, direct harvest of 

adult turtles, and incidental mortality from fishing. The exploitation of hawksbill turtles for 

their shells remains an ongoing concern for the conservation of the species; a recent decision by 

Japan to end the import of hawksbill shells was an important conservation achievement. The 

degradation and destruction of coral reefs important to hawksbills for food and habitat is also a 

major threat to their recovery. Green turtles have shown continued population increases in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands due to reduced human-caused mortality under ESA protection, 

but populations in many other Pacific Island areas continue to decrease as a result of the harvest 

of eggs and adults by humans. 

ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN

The management of living marine resources is complex and involves many considerations, including biology, economics, sociology, and politics. Changing conditions require resource managers to continually make adjustments to management schemes, even in regions and fisheries that 

are currently at healthy abundance levels with catches near their sustainable yield levels. In order 

to increase the long-term benefits from those stocks that are currently overfished, the difficult 

issues and practices that have led to the overfished status must be confronted. In each of the 24 

units in this report, the major issues affecting the resources and their management are raised. Although each unit has its own unique issues affecting the management of its resources, some issues 

are common across many LMR’s or important at the National level and are discussed below. 

Stock Rebuilding and Recovery

The goal of fisheries management is conservation of living marine resources for maximum 

societal benefits. A stock that is depleted (i.e. below BMSY) or overfished cannot be fully utilized 

until it has been rebuilt, and management restrictions must remain in place while rebuilding is 

occurring. The list of stocks that are overfished or below BMSY includes some of our Nation’s most 

valuable fishery resources, including New England groundfishes, several pelagic highly migratory 

fish stocks (including Atlantic albacore, bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, several billfishes, and eastern Pacific bigeye tuna), several Southeast reef fishes, some Pacific Coast groundfish stocks, and 

crabs and groundfishes in Alaska (Table 20). The Northeast Region presents the largest number 

of depleted stocks (see Tables 4 and 5), although examples of resource depletion can be found in 

Hawksbill turtle off the coast 

of Florida.

FKNMS

Fishing is prohibited on 

all three stocks of Nassau 

grouper (South Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) to allow the stocks 

to rebuild. 

OAR/NURP
4 3

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

all other Regions. Table 20 indicates that if stocks currently classified as overfished, rebuilding, 

or below BMSY were rebuilt to healthy population levels (i.e. BMSY), U.S. fishery yields could potentially increase up to 23% over recent yields. This is a conservative estimate, using the lower 

end of ranges and the RAY when MSY is unknown, but it illustrates the consequences to fishery 

yield of depleted fishery stocks. 

Table 20

Potential gains in yield in metric tons (t) from rebuilding stocks currently classified as either overfished/rebuilding or 

below BMSY. Values are the U.S. share only, except for Highly Migratory Species. When a range of values is available for 

the MSY estimate, the lower end of the range is used to calculate totals. Atlantic sharks (Unit 6) were not considered 

for this analysis because RAY for these stocks is expressed in thousands of fish instead of metric tons and cannot be 

converted to weights. (Table continued on next page.)

Stock Regional ecosystem

OLO

unit

Recent average

yield (RAY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY) Change (t) Change (%)

Acadian redfish Northeast Shelf 1 487 8,200 7,713 1,584%

American plaice Northeast Shelf 1 1,627 4,900 3,273 201%

Atlantic cod—coastwide Northeast Shelf 1 8,852 41,226 32,374 366%

Atlantic halibut Northeast Shelf 1 14 175 161 1,150%

Haddock—coastwide Northeast Shelf 1 8,836 26,593 17,757 201%

Ocean pout Northeast Shelf 1 294 1,500 1,206 410%

Pollock Northeast Shelf 1 6,190 13,861 7,671 124%

Red hake—Gulf of Maine/N. Georges Bank Northeast Shelf 1 165 2,000 1,835 1,112%

Silver hake—Gulf of Maine/N. Georges Bank Northeast Shelf 1 466 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Silver hake—S. Georges Bank/Mid-Atlantic Northeast Shelf 1 6,475 Unknown Unknown Unknown

White hake Northeast Shelf 1 2,543 4,069 1,526 60%

Windowpane—S. New England/Mid-Atlantic Northeast Shelf 1 385 900 515 134%

Winter flounder—coastwide Northeast Shelf 1 5,407 14,942 9,535 176%

Yellowtail flounder—coastwide Northeast Shelf 1 5,250 25,401 20,151 384%

Spiny dogfish Northeast Shelf 1 6,451 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Black sea bass Northeast Shelf 1 2,200 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Goosefish—northern stock Northeast Shelf 1 10,800 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Goosefish—southern stock Northeast Shelf 1 10,500 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Scup Northeast Shelf 1 6,955 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Summer flounder Northeast Shelf 1 13,484 21,444 7,960 59%

Tilefish Northeast Shelf 1 918 2,000 1,082 118%

Bluefish Northeast Shelf 2 9,706 51,890 42,184 435%

Butterfish Northeast Shelf 2 1,468 12,175 10,707 729%

American shad Northeast Shelf 3 367 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Atlantic salmon Northeast Shelf 3 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Atlantic sturgeon Northeast Shelf 3 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Striped bass Northeast Shelf 3 15,933 16,427 494 3%

Black sea bass Southeast Shelf 8 770 1,730 960 125%

Goliath grouper Southeast Shelf 8 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Nassau grouper Southeast Shelf 8 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Red porgy Southeast Shelf 8 47 450 403 857%

Snowy grouper Southeast Shelf 8 130 142 12 9%

Other groupers Southeast Shelf 8 489 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Atlantic croaker Southeast Shelf 9 15,224 50,000 34,776 228%

Red drum Southeast Shelf 9 709 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Pink shrimp Southeast Shelf 11 551 786 235 43%
4 4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

In many fisheries with overfished stocks, rebuilding of stocks is the most pressing issue. The 

MSRA requires that FMC’s (or the Secretary of Commerce, when necessary) develop rebuilding 

plans for overfished stocks to rebuild the stocks as quickly as possible. For some stocks, rebuilding may occur over a few years, but for others rebuilding may take decades. The amount of time 

required to rebuild a stock depends on the species’ longevity and growth potential, environmental 

conditions, and on the management controls put into place (which may be affected to a limited 

extent by economic and social considerations). 

Implementation of rebuilding plans can sharply curtail fishing opportunities not only for 

overfished species, but also for co-occurring species, affecting multiple sectors of a fishery. In the 

short term, fishermen may see allowable harvests and landings in some fisheries drop to nearhistoric lows during rebuilding, as catch quotas are reduced to allow overfished species to rebuild 

to sustainable stock levels. However, there are many benefits that can be gained from rebuilding 

overfished stocks. The economic benefits from restoring depleted stocks to healthy levels are apTable 20

Continued from previous 

page.

Stock Regional Ecosystem

OLO

unit

Recent average

yield (RAY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY) Change (t) Change (%)

King mackerel—Gulf group Gulf of Mexico 7 4,434 5,183 749 17%

Red snapper—Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico 8 3,657 15,000 11,343 310%

Red drum—Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico 9 5,869 7,900 2,031 35%

Nassau grouper—Caribbean Caribbean 8 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Queen conch Caribbean 11 110 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Chinook salmon California Current 12 5,106 5,200 94 2%

Coho salmon California Current 12 15,642 17,600 1,958 13%

Bocaccio California Current 15 81 1,974 1,893 2,337%

Canary rockfish California Current 15 55 1,574 1,519 2,762%

Cowcod California Current 15 2 61 59 2,950%

Darkblotched rockfish California Current 15 186 621 435 234%

Pacific ocean perch California Current 15 104 1,411 1,307 1,257%

Widow rockfish California Current 15 196 2,000 1,804 920%

Yelloweye rockfish California Current 15 15 44 29 193%

Pacific cod—Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Alaska Ecosystem 19 208,717 207,000 −1,717 −1%

Walleye pollock—Eastern Bering Sea Alaska Ecosystem 19 1,483,411 1,640,000 156,589 11%

Walleye pollock—Gulf of Alaska Alaska Ecosystem 19 72,262 95,429 23,167 32%

Blue king crab—Pribilof Islands Alaska Ecosystem 20 0 1,179 1,179 NA

Blue king crab—Saint Matthews Island Alaska Ecosystem 20 0 1,995 1,995 NA

Snow crab Alaska Ecosystem 20 12,976 125,397 112,421 866%

Shrimp Alaska Ecosystem 20 853 14,722 13,869 1,626%

Bottomfishes—Hawaiian Islands Pacific Islands Ecosystem 17 274 368 94 34%

Seamount Groundfishes Pacific Islands Ecosystem 17 0 2,123 2,123 NA

Albacore—North Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 32,400 26,800–34,100 −5,600 −17%

Bigeye tuna—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 74,500 68,000–99,000 −6,500 −9%

Blue marlin—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 2,500 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Bluefin tuna—Western Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 1,900 3,000–3,400 1,100 58%

Sailfish—Western Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 900 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Swordfish—North Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 12,000 12,800–14,790 800 7%

White marlin—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 5 400 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Bigeye tuna—Eastern Pacific Highly Migratory Species 18 109,987 81,350 −28,637 −26%

Subtotal for “known” MSY 2,142,908 2,639,542 496,634 23%

Subtotal for “known” MSY excluding HMS 1,912,121 2,447,592 535,471 28%

Total 2,192,230 2,688,864 496,634 23%
4 5

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

parent to the commercial and recreational fishing industries and to fishing communities. The 

benefits to the Nation of restoring important components of ecosystems and the functions associated with healthy ecosystems are more difficult to quantify. 

Stock recovery and conservation is also a vital issue for protected species. Of the 190 marine 

mammal stocks found in U.S. waters, 27 are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and 

an additional 4 stocks are classified as depleted under the MMPA. All sea turtle stocks are listed 

under the ESA, as well as a number of other stocks, including several Pacific salmon stocks, other 

anadromous and marine fish stocks, several invertebrate stocks, and one marine plant (Johnson’s 

sea grass). As one means of recovering protected species, the ESA requires development of recovery plans for all species listed as threatened or endangered; these plans help to organize and guide 

the recovery process. A wide variety of methods are in use to recover protected species around the 

country. These include measures to reduce interaction with, and bycatch in, commercial and recreational fisheries, such as time and area closures and gear restrictions or modifications; measures 

to reduce mortality and serious injury associated with other human activities (ship collisions, 

etc.); research to increase available information on protected species biology, ecology, habitat requirements, and threats; and measures to protect, conserve, and rehabilitate critical habitat used 

by protected species. Recovery of protected species not only restores vital ecosystem functions 

and the intrinsic value associated with these species, but also can lead to delisting of species and 

a reduction in the management restrictions in place to recover the stock. 

Recreational Fishing

Marine recreational fishing supports nearly 350,000 jobs and generates $30.5 billion annually in the United States. It is the top outdoor recreational sport, attracting 17 million saltwater 

anglers in the U.S. EEZ. In every region of the United States, sport fishing is a popular pursuit, 

attracting an ever-increasing number of users and contributing millions of dollars to local economies. Because recreational fishing is so popular in the United States, keeping track of recreational 

fishermen and their catches is an important part of managing our Nation’s fisheries. High quality 

marine recreational fisheries statistics are required by law and are necessary for effective, fair, and 

responsible management of fishery resources. Improving marine recreational fisheries statistics 

will also increase recreational fishing opportunities for Americans, enhance and protect stocks, 

improve the economy, and promote the best use of the resources of the Nation. 

NMFS has a Recreational Fisheries Statistics Program whose mission is to provide accurate, 

precise, and timely fisheries-dependent information for U.S. marine waters through the coordination and administration of recreational fishing surveys nationwide. The Program has historically collected information on participation, effort, and catch through its Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Economic questions were also added to the MRFSS to allow NMFS to estimate the economic impacts of marine recreational fishing in addition to the 

other data currently collected. 

In April 2006 the National Research Council (NRC) completed a review of recreational data 

collection programs at the request of NMFS and found that improvements could be made to 

MRFSS to increase the quality and accuracy of its information (NRC, 2006). The report idenTwo young anglers with 

their striped bass catch 

in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.

Mary Hollinger, NOAA/NODC
4 6

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

tified a number of potential problems with the sampling and estimation designs employed in 

the current surveys and questioned the adequacy of the existing surveys to provide the statistics 

needed to support accurate stock assessments and appropriate fishery management decisions. In 

the report, the NRC recommended that current surveys be redesigned to improve their effectiveness, the appropriateness of their sampling procedures, their applicability to various kinds of 

management decisions, and their usefulness for social and economic analyses. 

NMFS has taken the recommendations of the NRC report very seriously and, working together with the interstate marine fisheries commissions, state agencies, regional fishery management 

councils, and constituents, has already begun the process of responding to the recommendations 

and making the changes necessary to develop a credible and usable data collection program. 

The existing MRFSS program will be phased out over the next several years and a new program, 

the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), will replace it. The MRIP is designed 

to improve the collection and analysis of marine recreational fishing data. Its surveys will better 

answer fundamental questions important to resource management, such as who is fishing and 

what is being caught. The MRIP will ultimately help policymakers gain a more complete understanding of the role of recreational fishing in the conservation of living marine resources and 

marine ecosystems. In January 2009, NMFS will deliver a comprehensive report to Congress on 

the MRIP and its status.

The recently passed MSRA requires additional improvements to the collection of marine recreational fisheries data. The MSRA requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish and implement a regionally based saltwater angler registry program to track recreational fishermen in each 

of the eight fishery management regions. A proposed rule for the new Saltwater Angler Registration Program was released in June 2008. Such a registry program is deemed necessary because 1) 

accurately counting the United States’ marine anglers is widely acknowledged as being a necessary step towards improving Federal fisheries management; and 2) the existing state-based system of fishing licenses is incomplete, which hampers enumeration of this important user group 

and subsequent collection of angler information for fisheries management. The Federal program 

will provide for registration (including identification and contact information) of individuals engaging in recreational fishing in the U.S. EEZ for anadromous species, or for Continental Shelf 

fishery resources beyond the EEZ; and if appropriate, will provide for the registration (including 

ownership, operator, and identification) of vessels used in these fishing activities. The resulting 

regionally based registry programs will be used to support more efficient statistical surveys of 

recreational fishing. 

Place-based Management

Place-based management is a broad term that refers to a range of management tools, including fishery management zones, marine reserves, and marine protected areas (MPA’s). Sometimes 

the terms “marine reserve” and “MPA” are confused or used interchangeably, but these are actually different kinds of management zones. Marine reserves are relatively rare “no-take” areas that 

prohibit all extractive uses and are designed to protect spawning or nursery grounds or to protect ecologically important habitats. MPA is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety 

of place-based approaches to marine management and includes multiple-use conservation areas 

Measuring a pair of banded 

rudderfish during a NMFS 

Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey.

Charles Gardner, NMFS

Marine protected areas protect species and the habitats 

they depend on, such as this 

seagrass bed.

Paula Whitfield, NOAA
47

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

that may permit both consumptive and non-consumptive uses such as fishing, diving, boating, 

and swimming. Multiple-use MPA’s allow managers to protect ecosystems and, at times, support 

sustainable fisheries while allowing other user groups to enjoy the resource. Gear restrictions or 

zoning schemes are sometimes used in MPA’s to manage potentially harmful activities like fishing, 

or to restrict them to appropriate habitats and/or seasons. Fishery management zones include area 

closures that may be gear- or species-specific and may be temporary, seasonal, or permanent. 

The term “MPA” may be relatively new, but the use of place-based management is not. Resource managers have used place-based management tools for decades to manage living marine 

resources in the United States. Examples include the Nation’s 13 National Marine Sanctuaries, 

the recently designated Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, dozens of fishery management zones administered by NMFS, and many smaller 

MPA’s and marine reserves around the United States. The first National Marine Sanctuary was 

established in 1975, and the use of fishery management zones as a management tool by fishery 

managers has a long history in the United States. 

Although place-based management is not new, the use of these management tools, especially 

MPA’s, is gaining a new emphasis. Traditional management measures have failed to prevent stock 

depletion in some fisheries, and managers are increasingly being tasked with protecting habitat, 

particularly from the effects of certain types of fishing gear. Place-based management tools can 

be used to enhance rebuilding of overfished stocks and protect habitat, and may be combined 

with other management tools such as effort controls and gear restrictions to achieve conservation 

and management goals. Place-based management can also contribute to the conservation and 

recovery of protected species, and is useful for protecting the critical habitat of endangered and 

threatened species. Because ecosystem-wide processes can be managed in an MPA, these areas are 

ideal for contributing to an EAFM. Many existing examples of EAFM include MPA’s as important tools for the conservation and management of living marine resources and their ecosystems. 

In May of 2000, Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas was issued, emphasizing the 

emerging importance of MPA’s as a tool for the conservation and management of living marine 

resources in the United States. The Executive Order (EO) directs Federal agencies to work with 

government and non-governmental partners to increase protection and sustainable use of ocean 

resources by strengthening and expanding a national system of MPA’s. 

Place-based management is used to complement traditional management measures in many areas to conserve and protect living marine resources. Management actions implemented by NMFS 

to protect endangered Steller sea lions in Alaska include setting no-entry buffer zones around rookeries to prevent human disturbance of sea lions and a prohibition on groundfish trawling within 

10–20 n.mi. of certain rookeries to minimize competition for fish between commercial fisheries 

and sea lions. The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was created to 

protect endangered humpback whales and their breeding grounds in Hawaii. The North Pacific 

and South Atlantic FMC’s use a variety of spatial management zones in addition to traditional 

management measures to manage their fisheries resources; the South Atlantic FMC is also currently considering MPA’s as a management tool to conserve deepwater snapper-grouper species. 

Similarly, the Gulf Reeffish FMP developed by the Gulf of Mexico FMC includes several MPA’s 

in its regulations. In the Northeast, three large areas have been closed since the mid 1990’s to 

Marine protected areas 

can be created to protect 

a variety of fishery stocks, 

protected species, habitats, 

or life history stages. The 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary protects breeding humpback whales and 

their young in important 

tropical wintering habitats 

around Hawaii.

Dave Glickman
4 8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

protect and help rebuild depleted groundfishes; these closed areas have been used in combination 

with traditional management restrictions to manage the stocks. The closed areas in the Northeast 

also benefited the Atlantic sea scallop stock and fishery, increasing stock biomass and leading to 

large increases in scallop landings and revenues when the areas were reopened to scallop harvest. 

Because of the benefits to the scallop fishery, the Sea Scallop FMP has been amended to include 

rotational area management to close some fishing areas to allow young scallops to grow, and to 

shift effort toward larger scallops with the highest meat yields. 

The West Coast is currently at the forefront of place-based management activity in the United 

States, and has a growing network of multiple-use conservation areas and reserves supported by 

strong science and stakeholder input. Major portions of the Continental Shelf off the U.S. West 

Coast have been closed to fishing since 2003, in addition to several rockfish conservation areas 

implemented the same year to protect overfished species. Additionally, in 2006, Federal regulations introduced a network of 51 MPA’s to protect West Coast groundfish EFH from fishing 

gear impacts. This network will serve as a pilot project for the national MPA system described 

in EO 13158; its goals are to facilitate the effective use of MPA’s as an ecosystem management 

tool to conserve and protect living marine resources and their habitats, and to inform the development of a regionally-based national system of MPA’s. The coastal states (California, Oregon, 

and Washington) are also adopting networks of marine managed areas to conserve and protect 

habitat and marine populations inshore of the Federal EEZ. California is leading the way with 

its Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, which divides the coast of California into five study regions and is implementing MPA networks in each region; so far, the State has adopted 29 new 

management areas in the central coast study region, and the planning process for the north central coast is nearly complete. 

Limited Access Privilege Programs

After the initial passage of the 1976 Act, domestic fisheries rapidly expanded in U.S. waters 

to replace the excluded foreign fleets. This combined with advances in technology over the past 

30 years that have allowed fishing vessels to harvest more quickly and efficiently has caused fleets 

in some fisheries to expand beyond sustainable levels. When there are too many vessels present 

in a fishery than are necessary to harvest the resource, this is termed overcapacity. Many fisheries 

throughout the Nation are currently experiencing overcapacity. Overcapacity leads to a number of problems, including exacerbating overfishing, increasing safety concerns, gear conflicts 

and allocation issues, and reducing the economic viability of fisheries and creating market gluts. 

Overcapacity often can lead to greater fishing restrictions. 

One solution to the overcapacity problem is the implementation of limited access privilege 

programs (LAPP’s; also called dedicated access privilege) such as individual transferable quota 

(ITQ) and individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs. LAPP’s typically work by allocating a percentage of the total allowable catch for the fishery to each qualifying individual or business entity. 

Allocation can be accomplished in several different ways, but is usually based on the historical 

landings associated with a permit or vessel; other considerations may include allocating a portion 

of the quota equally among qualifying fishermen. In many cases, it is prohibitively expensive for 

new participants not originally allocated quotas to enter the fishery once allocation has taken 

A variety of marine reserves 

and marine protected areas have been created on 

the West Coast to protect 

species such as these 

whitespeckled and starry 

rockfishes.

John Butler, SWFSC
4 9

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

place, effectively solving the overcapacity issue. However, LAPP’s often have a small amount of 

quota set aside for distribution to or purchase by new entrants and/or non-qualifying small-scale 

fishermen. 

The MSRA contains language supporting the development of LAPP’s in U.S. fisheries and 

provides specific guidelines and requirements for the implementation of such programs. LAPP’s 

should promote conservation and management goals, and the MSRA specifies that such programs 

must assist in the rebuilding of a stock if established in a fishery that is overfished or subject to a 

rebuilding plan, or contribute to reducing capacity if established in a fishery that is determined 

to have overcapacity. LAPP’s also must promote fishing safety and social and economic benefits 

in addition to their fishery conservation and management goals. 

There are many benefits of LAPP’s. Foremost among these are achieving conservation goals 

such as reducing fishing mortality and increasing stock size to sustainable levels. However, there 

are many direct benefits to fishermen as well. By reducing overcapacity, LAPP’s result in more 

efficient and more sustainable fisheries. LAPP’s also increase safety for fishermen, especially in 

fisheries where derby fishing16 existed prior to implementation of the LAPP. The increased flexibility for fishermen to fish during a longer fishing season prevents market gluts, which combines with greater control over product quality to increase profitability of fisheries. Additionally, 

LAPP’s increase the level of individual accountability, and encourage greater levels of responsibility and stewardship. 

Limited access privilege programs may also have some drawbacks as well. Market transfers can 

redistribute fishery infrastructure, impacting local economies and coastal communities dependent 

on fisheries. Similarly, concentration of quota ownership can concentrate fishery resource usage. 

Creation of LAPP’s may also create a situation where new entrants or those who did not receive 

an allocation have difficulty entering the fishery due to the cost of quota shares. Additional rules 

or special programs built into the LAPP either at implementation or after implementation can 

often mitigate any potential negative impacts. 

Limited access privilege programs have already been implemented in a total of 12 U.S. fisheries. Alaska leads the way with six current LAPP’s; other programs exist in the Northeast Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, and California Current RE’s. Five additional LAPP’s are currently planned for 

the tilefish, Atlantic sea scallop, Gulf of Mexico grouper, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, and 

the West Coast groundfish trawl fisheries. The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery in 

the Mid-Atlantic is one of the oldest LAPP’s in the United States, operating under an ITQ system enacted in 1990; the ITQ system has successfully rationalized harvesting capacity, promoted 

higher profitability, and helped to reduce fishing mortality. In Alaska, the halibut fishery moved 

from an open access fishery with a short fishing season to a nearly 8-month-long season under 

an IFQ program; under IFQ, the resource has been healthy while the total catch has been near 

record levels, and most components of the fishery have been very successful in recent years. The 

crab fisheries in Alaska just recently underwent the Crab Rationalization Program, in which crab 

resources were allocated among harvesters (as IFQ’s), processors (as individual processing quotas, 

16A fishery of brief duration during which fishermen race to take as much catch as they can before the fishery closes.

King and Tanner crab fisheries in the Bering Sea have 

recently entered the Crab 

Rationalization Program, 

which allocated crab resources among harvesters, 

processors, and coastal 

communities. The Program 

is a limited access system 

that addresses conservation and management issues associated with the 

previous derby fishery, reduces bycatch and associated discard mortality, and 

increases the safety of crab 

fishermen by ending the 

“race for fish.” 

Aleksey Zuyev, Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
50

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

or IPQ’s), and local communities (as community development quotas, or CDQ’s). The Crab 

Rationalization Program addresses conservation and management issues associated with the previous derby fishery, reduces bycatch and associated discard mortality, and increases the safety of 

crab fishermen by ending the “race for fish.” An ITQ program in the South Atlantic wreckfish 

fishery, established under the South Atlantic Reeffish FMP, has stabilized management of that 

resource while assuring fishermen a stable, reasonable price. 

Scientific Advice and Adequacy of Assessments

Timely, precise, and comprehensive scientific advice serves as the basis for preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks, guiding and tracking recovery of protected resources, 

and enveloping fisheries management in a more holistic approach for an EAFM. NMFS is 

mandated by legislation and guided by executive order to provide the best scientific information available17 for stewardship of the Nation’s living marine resources. The MMPA established 

three independent regional scientific review groups to advise and report on the status of marine 

mammals in Alaskan waters, along the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii), and along the Atlantic 

Coast (including the Gulf of Mexico) and requires evaluation of the interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries. The ESA requires the designation of critical habitat for 

endangered and threatened species, the development of recovery plans and long-term conservation plans, and authorizes research to learn more about protected species. The recently passed 

MSRA increases NMFS’ responsibilities for marine fisheries stocks by requiring greater use of 

science in the fishery management process and authorizing the establishment of a peer review 

process to strengthen the scientific information used to advise the FMC’s about the conservation 

and management of fisheries. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service’s living marine resource and essential habitat assessments 

provide the basis for scientific advice to management. The provision of the best scientific information for the management of fisheries involves collecting and evaluating relevant data; analyzing 

those data by using an assessment model of the stock and its fishery; subjecting the data, methods, 

and assessment results to a peer-review process; and delivering the results of the assessment to the 

FMC and other clients. A fully adequate fish stock assessment provides estimates of historical, 

current, and future abundance of the stock and mortality caused by fishing; in other terms, it 

provides the necessary information to determine if overfishing is occurring and if the stock has 

become depleted. Data sources for stock assessments include fishery-dependent data collected 

from fishermen, processors and observers, and fishery-independent data collected through at-sea 

resource surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries Survey Vessels (FSV’s) and program-chartered 

fishing vessels. A National Research Council review in 1998 determined that fishery-independent 

surveys are the most reliable source of information on trends in fish abundance (NRC, 1998). 

NOAA’s multiyear initiative to modernize and replace its aging fleet of FSV’s is a key component to improving NMFS’ fishery-independent data collection and providing multidisciplinary 

capabilities to simultaneously collect biological, environmental, and ecosystem-level data. Such 

Advanced scientific technologies such as this acoustic 

buoy being deployed from 

the NOAA ship Oscar Elton 

Sette help to collect environmental data used in stock 

assessments. 

Allen Shimada, NMFS

17In the United States, use of the term “best scientific information available” and related terms originated in MMPA legislation, in 

later amendments to the ESA, and in establishing management standards for marine fisheries in the original 1976 Act, carried 

through in the reauthorized MSA and refined in the MSRA.
51

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

multidisciplinary approaches are necessary to support ecosystem-based management, which requires additional information beyond target species abundance trends. 

Stock assessments also provide information on the health of marine mammals and other protected resources. The MMPA requires that Stock Assessment Reports be prepared at least every 

3 years for all cetacean and pinniped stocks in U.S. waters. The data used to assess protected 

species includes fishery-dependent data on fishery interactions with protected species, biological research conducted by NMFS scientists, and surveys performed aboard NOAA FSV’s. The 

information in protected resource assessments is necessary to design effective and efficient conservation and recovery programs. 

Many stocks still lack adequate assessment advice about their current status, which diminishes 

NMFS’s ability to sufficiently manage these stocks (i.e. select appropriate thresholds or limits 

and determine status). Of the stocks reported in Units 1–20, 18% have unknown harvest rates 

(Table 3) and 17% have unknown stock statuses (Table 4). A number of stocks are still classified 

as having undefined harvest rates or stock status, meaning that no thresholds have been set in 

the FMP to measure current fishing mortality or biomass levels against. Although these stocks 

account for only a small proportion of the total RAY, they include stocks that support important local fisheries and important ecosystem components such as sharks and several pelagic species. Of the marine mammal stocks listed in Units 21–23, 35% have no minimum population 

estimate (Nmin) available, 44% have unknown values for potential biological removal (PBR) or 

total annual human-caused mortality, and 85% do not have population trends available. In most 

cases, data availability is much more limiting at this point than assessment theory, models, or 

computation capacity. To improve scientific advice to management, more comprehensive data 

Wayne Hoggard, NMFS

The launch of the NOAA 

Ship Bell M. Shimada, the 

fourth in a series of new 

state-of-the-art fishery survey vessels for the NOAA 

fleet. The ship, designed to 

conduct both fisheries and 

oceanographic research, 

is one of the most technologically advanced survey 

vessels in the world. Once 

operational, the Shimada

will support NMFS’ living 

marine stewardship and 

ecosystem management 

requirements in the California Current and adjacent international waters of 

the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean. 
52

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

collection, better species identification and stock delineation, and additional biological research 

is needed to enable the assessment of additional stocks. 

The practical consequence of NMFS’ mandate to provide the best science information available is that NMFS has the responsibility to improve scientific information for better decision 

making. Improved data collection for many stocks will be necessary before there is sufficient information available to assess these stocks. For some fisheries stocks, such as many shark and reef 

fish species in the Atlantic and Pacific, species-specific catch data are needed to move from multispecies complex assessments to adequate assessments completed on an individual stock basis. 

Other stocks will need additional fishery-independent surveys to provide data for assessments; 

an example is some of the nearshore rockfish species on the U.S. West Coast that cannot be adequately sampled with traditional techniques because of their rocky habitats. Additionally, the 

requirements for the next generation of fish and protected resource stock assessments will necessitate continued improvements to data and refinements to models to allow managers to emphasize ecosystem considerations such as multispecies interactions, trophic structure, environmental 

effects, fisheries oceanography, socioeconomic use data, and spatial and seasonal analyses. 

Although there is still a need for improved data collection to support stock assessments and 

advice to management, substantial advances have been made toward improving the adequacy 

of assessments. Improving data collection is a top priority in order to improve the quality of 

scientific advice to management. Data collection improvements are being achieved through a 

number of programs, including increased cooperative research programs with university and 

fishing industry partners; increased observer coverage; improved recreational fishing surveys; 

higher quality fishery-independent surveys being conducted on the new state-of-the-art NOAA 

Fishery Survey Vessels (FSV’s); and outreach efforts to improve species identification and reporting from commercial fishermen. Such improvements in data collection have led to new insights 

into the biology of some species that have allowed for more precise stock assessments. Additionally, improvements in data collection for some stock complexes have allowed for some stocks to 

be assessed as single species independent of the rest of the complex. New technologies are also 

playing an important role in enhancing NMFS’ capacity to provide more efficient and accurate 

population surveys (see Feature Article “Improving Fisheries with Advanced Sampling Technologies” for more information). 

OUTLOOK

The recent reauthorization of the MSA highlights the main issues facing living marine resource management in the United States in the 21st century. The movement towards ecosystem 

approaches to management, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks to healthy and sustainable levels, improving data collection and the quality of scientific advice for management, 

and developing new approaches to meet these goals are currently some of the most important 

issues of national concern. 

Substantial advances have been made since the first Our Living Oceans was published in 1991. 

However, because each stock and each fishery is unique, the progress made towards resolving the 

Fishery scientists process 

the catch aboard a chartered 

fishing vessel in a survey of 

Gulf of Alaska groundfish 

stocks. 

OAR/NURP
53

NATIONAL OVERVIEW

6 T H EDITION

A school of pygmy rockfish.

John Butler, SWFSC

problems facing them as a whole may seem slow. Additionally, our oceans and living marine resources face ever-increasing pressures from intensifying fishing effort and technological advances 

allowing for more efficient harvests, increasing demand for seafood products and recreational 

fishing experiences, habitat pressures from urbanization of coastal zones and population growth, 

and the long-term effects of climate change. These increasing pressures act to balance out some 

of the forward progress that has been made and create additional challenges for scientists and 

managers working to conserve and protect the Nation’s LMR’s. 

The outlook for the Nation’s living marine resources depends in good part on the management 

actions that are being taken at present. The MSRA gives NMFS and the FMC’s powerful new 

tools to end overfishing, reduce overcapacity, and accelerate the rebuilding of depleted stocks. 

Additionally it encourages movement toward ecosystem-based management, which will allow 

for a more holistic approach to managing fisheries and the marine ecosystems they are an integral part of. Substantial progress toward implementation of the MSRA management measures 

has already been made, but the success of these new management tools depends on continued 

progress and effective implementation in the foreseeable future. Losses in yield may occur as an 

immediate cost of rebuilding some overfished stocks, but these are expected to last only in the 

short-term. Judging from the remarkable ability of many stocks to recover from overfishing, the 

outlook is very positive over the long term regarding the potential for higher sustainable yields 

from healthy stocks. 

LITERATURE CITED

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2005. Fishery country profile. Internet 

site—http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/USA/profile.htm.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2004. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 162 p.

NMFS. 1999. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301 p.

NRC. 1998. Improving fish stock assessments. Report of the National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 188 p.

NRC. 2006. Review of recreational fisheries survey methods. Report of the National Research Council. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 202 p.

Part 2

Feature Articles
Photo on previous page: 

Conch beds move en masse 

when food is scarce. Photo 

courtesy of G. Wenz, NURP/

Caribbean Marine Research 

Center.
57

PRELUDE TO SUSTAINABILITY: ENDING OVERFISHING IN U.S. FISHERIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 1

prelude to Sustainability: 

Ending Overfishing in 

u.S. fisheries

Feature

Article

1

GALEN R. TROMBLE

DEBRA M. LAMBERT

LEE R. BENAKA

NMFS Office of

Sustainable Fisheries

Silver Spring

Maryland

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable management of fisheries is a core 

mission for the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). Sustainable fishing has been defined as 

“fishing activities that do not cause or lead to undesirable changes in the biological and economic 

productivity, biological diversity, or ecosystem 

structure and functioning from one human generation to the next” (NRC, 1999). It is necessary 

to end overfishing in order to achieve the goal of 

sustainable fisheries. Ending overfishing is a priority of both the Administration and Congress. In 

2006, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 

(MSRA) to include requirements to end overfishing by 2010.

This article describes the problem of overfishing in U.S. marine fisheries, efforts to address it, 

and the outlook for the future. The outlook is optimistic because management measures have been 

implemented or are under development to end 

overfishing for most stocks, and because the MSRA 

requires strict annual catch limits starting in 2010 

to ensure that overfishing does not occur.

OVERFISHING: “a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a

fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.”

—Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

 A BRIEF HISTORY OF OVERFISHING 

SINCE THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT OF 1976

 Congress passed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 (1976 

Act), establishing jurisdiction over fisheries out to 

200 nautical miles (n.mi.), largely because foreign 

fleets were thought to be overfishing domestic 

fish stocks. The 1976 Act’s stated purpose was “to 

take immediate action to conserve and manage 

the fishery resources found off the coasts of the 

United States.” The 1976 Act established eight 

Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC’s) 

to develop fishery management plans (FMP’s) for 

fisheries within their jurisdiction. It also established 

a process for phasing out foreign fishing in favor of 

domestic fisheries. The 1976 Act also established 

seven national standards for fishery management 

and conservation. National Standard 1 (NS1) states 

that “conservation and management measures shall 

prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for 

the United States fishing industry.”

The National Marine Fisheries Service first developed guidelines for NS1 in 1989. These guidelines directed the FMC’s to amend all FMP’s to 

include measurable definitions of overfishing for 
5 8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

1Recruitment overfishing is generally defined as a reduction 

in spawning stock biomass to the point where recruitment is 

significantly reduced.

2Federal Register, 63 FR 24212, 5 May 1998.

each stock or stock complex. In most FMPs’, this 

requirement was met by defining recruitment overfishing,1 which was generally specified in terms of a 

limit on fishing mortality rate. The most common 

definition of recruitment overfishing referred to 

fishing mortality rate that would reduce spawning 

biomass per recruit to 20 or 30% of the unfished 

level (Rosenberg et al., 1994). Although FMP 

amendments intended to end overfishing were 

implemented, management measures proved insufficient for many stocks, and some stocks continued 

to show declines in biomass.

 The 1976 Act was reauthorized and amended 

by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 to form 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA). The MSA introduced 

new requirements for specifying objective and 

measurable criteria for determining overfishing 

and for rebuilding overfished stocks. Revised NS1 

guidelines to implement the new provisions were 

published in 1998.2 These guidelines addressed 

an ambiguity in the statutory language by distinguishing between the condition of overfishing 

(fishing mortality rate too high) and the state of 

being overfished (stock biomass too low), and they 

required new FMP amendments to specify status 

determination criteria for determining overfishing and overfished status. The MSA also required 

NMFS to submit an annual report to Congress on 

the status of U.S. fisheries.

 In spite of the strengthened provisions of the 

MSA, overfishing continued for some stocks in 

the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

for the entire 11-year period from 1997 through 

2007. This was one of the major issues that Congress addressed in the 2006 reauthorization of the 

MSA. The MSRA requires establishment of annual 

catch limits (ACL) and accountability measures 

in all fisheries to ensure that overfishing does not 

occur. Fisheries subject to overfishing must have 

ACL’s beginning in the 2010 fishing year, and all 

other fisheries must have ACL’s beginning in the 

2011 fishing year. The only exceptions to the ACL 

requirement are for some stocks managed under 

international agreements, or species such as shrimp 

that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year and 

are not subject to overfishing (MSA section 303).

 In addition, the new law specifically requires 

that overfishing must be ended immediately when 

rebuilding plans are implemented (MSA section 

304(e)(3)(A)). Previously, Councils were allowed 

1 year to prepare a rebuilding plan after they were 

notified by NMFS that a stock was overfished. The 

rebuilding plan could allow overfishing to continue 

during some years, provided the biomass rebuilding goal was met in the required time. In contrast, 

the MSRA now gives Councils 2 years to prepare 

and implement rebuilding plans that, when implemented, must immediately end overfishing. 

EFFECTS OF OVERFISHING

 The primary impact of overfishing is its effect 

on stock biomass. The biomass level that supports 

the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the target 

biomass mandated by the MSA. High levels of overfishing can cause biomass to decline enough that a 

stock is considered to be overfished, and can prevent overfished stocks from rebuilding. Relatively 

small levels of overfishing lead to smaller declines in 

biomass, but any degree of overfishing, particularly 

over a period of years, may prevent stock biomass 

from reaching the MSY level mandated by the 

MSA.

 In addition to the effect on the specific stock 

subject to overfishing, overfishing can also adversely 

affect marine ecosystems in several ways. Overfishing can contribute to increased levels of bycatch, 

which can have serious ecosystem impacts (Kelleher, 2005). Overfishing may also affect predator–

prey systems (Pauly et al., 1998), contribute to the 

collapse of coastal ecosystems (Jackson et al., 2001), 

and lessen the productivity of target or nontarget 

species by affecting their habitat (Kaiser et al., 

2004).

 Additionally, overfishing has long-term negative impacts on the economy. Depleted fish stocks 

result in a loss of economic benefits as well as a 

reduction in the Nation’s supply of wild-caught 

seafood. In the short term (before a stock becomes 

depleted), overfishing may increase harvests and 

revenue from the fishery; however, these increases 

are not sustainable, and in the long term they will 

have adverse economic impacts on fishing commu-
59

PRELUDE TO SUSTAINABILITY: ENDING OVERFISHING IN U.S. FISHERIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 1

nities. According to the Pew Oceans Commission 

(2003), “Increasing annual catches to long-term 

sustainable levels could add at least $1.3 billion 

to the U.S. economy.” Ending overfishing has the 

potential to increase net economic benefits from 

currently overfished stocks (Sumaila and Suatoni, 

2006). 

WHY OVERFISHING PERSISTS

A number of factors have contributed to continued overfishing on U.S. stocks. They include 

the need by fishery managers to achieve multiple 

objectives, imperfect scientific knowledge about 

the population dynamics of stocks, the length of 

time needed to develop and implement new management measures, bycatch, overcapacity, and international fishing effort. 

Fishery managers must weigh impacts on the 

fishing community against the need to quickly end 

overfishing. Ending overfishing necessitates reductions in catch until stocks can rebuild, and this reduces fishing income in the short term. Fisheries 

management stakeholders often express concerns 

that new regulations may affect certain sectors of 

the fishery disproportionately, change the character of the local processing infrastructure, or cause 

U.S. fishermen to lose market share to seafood 

imports. 

Often, management decisions are based on 

considerations of acceptable risk. Sometimes confidence in the available scientific information is 

lacking, and managers may be unwilling to make 

major decisions based on incomplete data. More 

conservative or risk-averse approaches to end overfishing usually have greater short-term economic 

impacts on fishermen, whereas riskier approaches 

have fewer impacts on fishing communities in the 

short term but could result in even greater stock 

declines—and more drastic regulatory action—in 

the future. 

In some instances, managers determine that 

particular management measures are adequate to 

end overfishing or achieve stock rebuilding, but 

new data or stock assessment approaches reveal that 

a stock is worse off than previously thought or that 

rebuilding plans are insufficient to meet targets. For 

example, the final environmental impact statement 

for Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species FMP (NMFS, 2007a) 

cut the sandbar shark quota by 85% of 2003–05 

levels. This dramatic cut was partly due to revisions 

in life history parameters between stock assessments 

of large coastal sharks conducted in 2002 and 2006. 

The new data from the 2006 assessment revealed 

that the existing quota was too high to allow the 

sandbar shark to meet its rebuilding target.

 A great deal of time is needed to develop and 

implement management measures through an FMP 

amendment process, often several years. Only rarely 

can amendments be developed and implemented 

in less than 2 years, and management measures do 

not always successfully end overfishing. For example, the process of determining stock status and 

addressing overfishing may consist of the following 

steps:

 Data for a fishing year are collected and finalized; 

the stock assessment is completed; the overfishing determination is made; and the Council is 

notified (may take 1 year). 

 FMP amendment is developed and approved 

(may take another 2 years). 

 Management measures take effect in the fishery.

 After a few years of fishing under the new measures, another stock assessment needs to be conducted to determine the overfishing status (similar to the first step, this takes about 1 year). 

– If the stock assessment determines that overfishing is not occurring, then the status determination is changed (i.e. the stock is no longer 

listed as subject to overfishing). 

– If the stock assessment determines that overfishing is still occurring, it may be another 2 

years before improved measures can be developed and implemented. 

 This outline of events illustrates why overfishing can persist for a number of years, even when 

management takes steps to end it. Because of limitations in the availability of data and the capacity 

to conduct stock assessments, several years may 

pass between stock assessments. For example, in 

1994, Amendment 6 to the FMP for the Snapper–

Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic established 

a one-fish-per-trip limit (commercial and recreational) for Warsaw grouper and speckled hind, 

and also prohibited sale of the fish. However, assessments will not take place for Warsaw grouper 
6 0

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

and speckled hind until 2012, so the effectiveness 

of these 1994 measures to end overfishing will not 

be determined for a few more years.

The annual catch limit provisions required by 

the MSRA, when implemented beginning in 2010, 

will largely solve this problem. They require that 

FMP’s contain ACL’s and accountability measures 

to control fishing mortality on an annual basis and 

to make adjustments quickly (in the next year, if 

possible) to limit mortality and prevent overfishing. 

This is similar to the system used for some stocks 

on the West Coast, where overfishing is determined 

by comparing annual catch levels with a specified 

limit, called the overfishing level. For these stocks, 

annual changes in the status of the stock can be 

readily detected and reported. 

Bycatch can contribute to overfishing problems. Bycatch is “the discarded catch of any living 

marine resource plus unobserved mortality due 

to a direct encounter with fishing gear” (NMFS, 

2004a). Large amounts of discards of juvenile and 

adult fish belonging to a stock that is subject to 

overfishing can significantly delay the ending of 

overfishing. For example, it will not be possible to 

end overfishing of red snapper without addressing the significant levels of juvenile bycatch in the 

Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, as well as discards 

of juveniles in directed red snapper fisheries. In 

2008, NMFS issued a final rule to implement joint 

Amendment 27 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Amendment 14 

to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico,3 which, among other things, allowed the 

implementation of seasonal closures of the Gulf 

shrimp fishery to reduce red snapper bycatch based 

on a 74% bycatch reduction target established in 

the final rule.

 Overcapacity is another factor contributing to 

overfishing. Overcapacity is the difference between 

the estimated harvesting capacity and the commercial harvest quota for a fishery, which is assumed to 

be a target harvest level that will achieve the sustainability objectives for a fishery (NMFS, 2008a). 

For example, summer flounder and scup have been 

subject to overfishing since 2000; overcapacity in 

the Northeast summer flounder, scup, and black 

sea bass fishery was estimated to be 35% in 2004 

(NMFS, 2008a). The Notice of Intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for Amendment 15 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black 

Sea Bass FMP4 suggested that overcapacity in the 

summer flounder and scup fisheries may be having 

negative impacts. Harvest privilege-based management, including limited access privilege programs 

(LAPP’s) and similar programs, has a strong track 

record for reducing overcapacity (NMFS, 2008a). 

This occurs in part because, with an effective LAPP, 

fishermen are generally more willing and able to 

accept and adapt to quota reductions or other 

management actions taken to rebuild stocks and 

prevent or end overfishing of target and non-target 

species.

Finally, the United States also manages a 

number of stocks for which international fisheries 

make up the majority of the fishing mortality. For 

example, NMFS notified the Pacific and Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Councils on 15 December 2004 that overfishing was occurring on 

the bigeye tuna stock in the Pacific. Pacific bigeye 

tuna are exploited by foreign fishing fleets as well 

as the U.S. fleet, which accounts for only a small 

percentage of the Pacific bigeye tuna harvest. In 

2004, the estimated bigeye tuna catch by U.S. 

commercial fisheries was 2.3% of the 2004 total 

Pacific-wide bigeye tuna catch. Overfishing in this 

case was a result of excessive international fishing 

pressure, and the capacity for unilateral action by 

the United States to prevent or end overfishing is 

limited. Management of the international bigeye 

tuna fishery is guided by the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission. These organizations 

have implemented catch limits to address bigeye 

tuna overfishing in recent years, but NMFS feels 

these measures are insufficient to end overfishing. 

 On 16 May 2007, NMFS approved Amendment 14 to the FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region, prepared by the Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. Amendment 14 included measures designed to address 

overfishing on bigeye tuna stocks. In addition, on 

7 June 2007, NMFS approved Amendment 1 to 

the FMP for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly 

3Federal Register 73 FR 5117, 29 January 2008. 4Federal Register 71 FR 15384, 28 March 2006.
61

PRELUDE TO SUSTAINABILITY: ENDING OVERFISHING IN U.S. FISHERIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 1

Figure 1

U.S. stocks subject to overfishing in 2007, reported by 

Fishery Management Councils 

(NMFS, 2008b). *Indicates 

stocks not included in the 

Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI). **Indicates stocks 

where the U.S. harvest is 

a minor component of an 

international fishery.

PFMC

Yellowfin tuna - Eastern Pacific**

PFMC/WPFMC

Bigeye tuna - Pacific**

WPFMC

Bottomfish multispecies complex - 

 Hawaiian Archipelago

GMFMC

Red snapper

Greater amberjack

Gag

Gray triggerfish

NEFMC

Atlantic cod - Gulf of Maine

Atlantic cod - Georges Bank

Yellowtail flounder - Georges Bank

Yellowtail flounder - SNE/Mid-Atlantic

Yellowtail flounder - Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine

White hake

Winter flounder - Georges Bank

Winter flounder - SNE/Mid-Atlantic

MAFMC

Summer flounder

Scup

CFMC

Snapper Unit 1

Grouper Unit 1

Grouper Unit 4

Queen conch

Parrotfishes*

Vermilion snapper

Snowy grouper

Red grouper

Gag

Speckled hind

Red drum*

Red snapper

Tilefish

Black sea bass

Black grouper

Warsaw grouper

SAFMC

HMS

Blue marlin - Atlantic

White marlin - Atlantic

Sailfish - West Atlantic

Albacore - North Atlantic**

Bluefin tuna - West Atlantic

Sandbar shark

Finetooth shark

Dusky shark

Migratory Species, prepared by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council to address overfishing of 

bigeye tuna stocks. 

CURRENT SCOPE OF OVERFISHING

More than a decade after passage of the MSA, 

overfishing has ended for a number of stocks. For 

other stocks, overfishing has not ended, and recent 

stock assessments have added some new stocks to 

the list of overfishing stocks. In 2007, of 243 stocks 

and stock complexes under Federal jurisdiction 

with known status, 41 (17%) were listed as subject 

to overfishing5 (NMFS, 2008b). This percentage 

is a decrease from 26% in 2000 (NMFS, 2001). A 

year-by-year summary of stocks subject to overfishing shows progress in ending overfishing for some 

stocks, but consistent overfishing for others (Table 

1).

 The 41 stocks and stock complexes currently 

subject to overfishing are managed under 11 different Federal FMP’s (there are currently 46 Federal 

FMP’s). All of the FMC’s except the North Pacific 

FMC have at least one stock in their jurisdiction 

subject to overfishing (Figure 1). In some cases, the 

majority of the fishery occurs either in international 

waters or in waters of a U.S. state or territory, so 

Federal management in the EEZ alone cannot end 

overfishing. Most stocks subject to overfishing are 

in the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico. For three 

of the stocks that are experiencing overfishing, the 

U.S. harvest or allocation is a minor component 

of an international fishery (Figure 1). For example, 

the U.S. allocation of albacore tuna in the Atlantic 

is less than 5% of the total allowable catch for the 

international fishery.

HOW THE UNITED STATES

ADDRESSES OVERFISHING

 The Secretary of Commerce (through NMFS) 

and the FMC’s have implemented or begun development of management actions designed to reduce 

or end overfishing on the majority of the stocks 

that are currently experiencing overfishing. Typical 

5Numbers differ from those reported in the National Overview, 

which analyzes only those stocks listed in OLO (a subset of the 

total stocks referred to here).
62

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Stocks and stock complexes 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

New England FMC

Sea scallop1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Haddock—Gulf of Maine Unk Unk Yes No No No No No No No No

American plaice Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Witch flounder Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

Windowpane flounder—Gulf of Maine/ 

 Georges Bank Und Und Yes No No No No No No No No

Atlantic cod—Gulf of Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Atlantic cod—Georges Bank No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yellowtail flounder—SNE/Mid-Atlantic2 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yellowtail flounder—Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine Unk Unk Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

White hake Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Winter flounder—SNE/Mid-Atlantic Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yellowtail flounder—Georges Bank No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Winter flounder—Georges Bank Unk Unk Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Winter skate Und Und Und Und Und Und Unk Unk No Yes No

New England/Mid-Atlantic FMC’s

Spiny dogfish Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

Monkfish—North3 Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Monkfish—South3 Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Mid-Atlantic FMC

Black sea bass Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Bluefish Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Northern shortfin squid No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Tilefish Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Scup Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Summer flounder Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Atlantic FMC

Scamp Yes No No No No No No No No No No

Red porgy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

Wreckfish Unk Yes No No No No No No No No No

Nassau grouper** Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

White grunt Yes No No No No No No No No No No

Vermilion snapper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Red snapper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Snowy grouper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tilefish Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Red grouper Unk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Black sea bass Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Gag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Speckled hind Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Warsaw grouper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Black grouper Unk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Red drum** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico FMC’s

King mackerel—Gulf Group Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Yellowtail snapper Unk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Gulf of Mexico FMC

Nassau grouper Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Vermilion snapper No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Red drum Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No

Red snapper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Red grouper Unk Unk Unk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Greater amberjack No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table 1

U.S. stocks and stock complexes subject to overfishing, 

1997–2007, by Fishery Management Council (FMC). Data 

are from published Reports 

to Congress on the Status 

of U.S. Fisheries (NMFS, 

1997; 1998; 1999; 2001; 2002; 

2003; 2004b; 2005; 2006; 

2007b; 2008b), and as such 

are uncorrected. The North 

Pacific FMC is not listed 

because it did not have any 

stocks subject to overfishing 

in 1997–2007.
6 3

PRELUDE TO SUSTAINABILITY: ENDING OVERFISHING IN U.S. FISHERIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 1

Stocks and stock complexes 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gulf of Mexico FMC (cont.)

Gag Unk Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes

Gray triggerfish Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Yes Yes

Caribbean FMC

Grouper Unit 2 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Queen conch Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Grouper Unit 1 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Grouper Unit 4 – – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes

Parrotfishes** – – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes

Snapper Unit 1 – – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes

Pacific FMC

Lingcod No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

Shortspine thornyhead No No No No No No No Yes No No No

Black rockfish Unk Unk Unk No No No No Yes No No No

Pacific whiting No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No

Darkblotched rockfish Unk Unk Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Bank rockfish Unk Unk Yes No No No No No No No No

Silvergrey rockfish** Unk Unk Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Yelloweye rockfish Unk Unk Unk Yes No No No No No No No

Yellowfin tuna—Eastern Pacific4,5 Und Und Und Und Und Und No No No Yes Yes

Petrale sole No No No No No No No No No Yes No

Pacific/Western Pacific FMC’s

Bigeye tuna—Pacific5 Und Und Und Und Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Western Pacific FMC

Bottomfish multispecies complex—

 Hawaiian Archipelago6 – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yellowfin tuna—Central Western Pacific5 Und Und Und Und Und Und No No Yes Yes No

Highly Migratory Species

Swordfish Und Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

Blue marlin—Atlantic Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

White marlin—Atlantic Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sailfish—West Atlantic Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bigeye tuna—Atlantic5 Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Albacore—North Atlantic5 Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bluefin tuna—West Atlantic Und Und Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sandbar shark Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Finetooth shark No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dusky shark – – – – – – – – – Yes Yes

Large Coastal Shark Complex7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unk Unk

Unk = Unknown overfishing determination; i.e., an overfishing definition exists in the FMP but no determination of overfishing has been made relative to that definition. 

Und = Undefined; i.e., no overfishing determination exists in the FMP.

Dash (–) denotes that the stock or complex/unit was not assessed as it is currently defined.

** denotes a stock not included in the Fish Stock Sustainability Index.

1Before 2003, this stock was listed as two stocks: Georges Bank and Mid-Atlantic. Only Mid-Atlantic had been listed as subject to overfishing.

2Before 2003, this stock was listed as two stocks, Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic. In 2000–02, only the Mid-Atlantic portion of the stock 

was listed as subject to overfishing.

3In 1999, the monkfish stocks were assessed as one stock.

4Even though this stock is shown to be under the jurisdiction of a single Council and under the management of a single FMP, it is acknowledged that 

both the Pacific and Western Pacific FMS’s have jurisdiction over this stock, and it is managed under both the West Coast Highly Migratory Species 

FMP and the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP. The Pacific FMC is the lead Council for the purpose of reporting. Prior to 2004, this stock was listed as 

yellowfin tuna—Eastern Tropical Pacific and Central Western Pacific stocks (WPFMC jurisdiction).

5The U.S. harvest of this stock is a minor component of an international fishery.

6This complex contains up to 19 species. Prior to 2004, these species were listed as single stocks with an unknown overfishing determination.

7Although stocks were listed individually before 2005, large coastal sharks were assessed as a complex.

Table 1

Continued from previous 

page.
6 4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Quarter and year FSSI score

3rd quarter 2005 481.5

4th quarter 2005 495.5

1st quarter 2006 496 

2nd quarter 2006 495

3rd quarter 2006 501

4th quarter 2006 506.5

1st quarter 2007 508.5

2nd quarter 2007 516

3rd quarter 2007 524

4th quarter 2007 531

1st quarter 2008 531

Table 2

Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) scores as 

reported in quarterly updates on the status of 

U.S. stocks. The maximum possible FSSI score 

is 920, based on 230 stocks and four points per 

stock: one point for known status, one point 

for not subject to overfishing, one point for not 

overfished, and one point if biomass is at or 

above 80% BMSY. More information on quarterly 

updates and FSSI scoring is available online 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/

SOSmain.htm).

management actions include such measures as annual specifications, time/area closures, bag limits, 

limits on days at sea, trip limits, size limits, gear 

restrictions, and programs to reduce overcapacity. 

A few examples that highlight recent efforts to end 

or reduce overfishing are described below. 

Overfishing of North Atlantic swordfish occurred during 1998–2001, but ended in 2002 

and has not occurred since. Strong management 

measures implemented by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

(ICCAT) and NMFS led to an end to overfishing. 

Specifically, all ICCAT member nations agreed to 

adopt a lower catch quota, and NMFS also closed 

nursery areas in the U.S. EEZ to pelagic longline 

fishing to protect juvenile swordfish. 

To address overfishing of red snapper in the 

Gulf of Mexico, NMFS not only implemented 

bycatch reduction measures (described above), but 

it also reduced commercial and recreational quotas 

for red snapper, reduced the commercial minimum 

size limit for red snapper, reduced the recreational 

bag limit for red snapper, and prohibited the retention of red snapper under the bag limit for the 

captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter 

vessel or headboat (through the same final rule).

In the Pacific Northwest, the lingcod stock was 

designated as overfished in 1999, with overfishing 

occurring for several years. Lingcod is one of more 

than 80 species managed under the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish FMP. A broad array of management 

tools—e.g. quotas, trip limits, depth restrictions, 

size limits, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions—

have been applied in this fishery in recent years. 

Through a comprehensive approach that addressed 

fishing mortality from commercial, recreational, 

and tribal fisheries and also considered bycatch 

in nontarget fisheries, NMFS successfully ended 

overfishing of lingcod in 2005. Although 2009 was 

established as the end date for the lingcod rebuilding plan, the rebuilding target was reached several 

years ahead of schedule while avoiding a complete 

closure of lingcod fisheries.

 Supporting and encouraging international efforts to end overfishing are critical to NMFS’ ability 

to address overfishing. NMFS will need to work 

closely with the Convention on the Conservation 

and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 

in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPFC) and 

the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

(IATTC) to end the overfishing of bigeye tuna and 

yellowfin tuna in the Pacific.

 NMFS also faces a challenge to persuade ICCAT nations to adopt tough conservation measures 

to end overfishing of eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna. 

Although the United States is not a participant in 

eastern Atlantic bluefin fisheries, overfishing of 

this stock affects the availability of bluefin in U.S. 

waters due to the mixing of eastern and western 

stocks. In 2007, the United States called for ICCAT to implement a 3- to 5-year moratorium on 

the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin 

tuna fishery. The proposed moratorium failed to 

win sufficient support at ICCAT’s November 2007 

meeting. 

Strong and effective management measures 

have been accompanied by monitoring and tracking of stock status. Each year NMFS reports to 

Congress on the status of the U.S. fisheries, as 

mandated by the MSA. This report characterizes 

all managed marine fish stocks with known status 

under two broad categories: 1) subject to overfishing, and 2) overfished. In addition to the annual 

report, since the third quarter of 2005 NMFS has 

reported quarterly on the status of stocks. These 

reports are available online (http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm).

Ending overfishing is a key component of 

NMFS’ Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI), a 

performance measure of the sustainability of 230 

fish stocks selected because of their importance 

to commercial and recreational fisheries (Table 

2). These stocks represent about 90% of all commercial landings in the United States. The FSSI 

is a performance measure under the Government 
6 5

PRELUDE TO SUSTAINABILITY: ENDING OVERFISHING IN U.S. FISHERIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 1

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and NMFS’ 

GPRA performance rating is tied to increases in 

the FSSI. The FSSI score increases as overfishing is 

ended and stock biomass increases. Additional and 

more comprehensive stock assessments also increase 

the FSSI score by increasing the number of stocks 

with known status. The maximum possible FSSI 

score is 920, based on 230 stocks and four points 

per stock. The FSSI score has increased from 481.5 

in the 3rd quarter 2005 to 531 in the 1st quarter 

2008, and the goal is to increase the score further 

as overfishing is ended.

OUTLOOK FOR ENDING OVERFISHING

Many of NMFS’ efforts to end overfishing will 

revolve around implementing the MSRA. This new 

law is groundbreaking in several respects related to 

ending overfishing: it mandates the use of annual 

catch limits and accountability measures, provides 

for widespread market-based fishery management 

through limited access programs, strengthens law 

enforcement, and calls for increased international 

cooperation. 

The NMFS also is using tools such as the Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, quarterly updates, and the FSSI to get a more 

complete picture of overall trends in the sustainability of U.S. fisheries. These tools are helping us 

identify areas of progress, as well as areas needing 

attention. 

The Administration is committed to ending 

overfishing and recognizes the importance of FMC 

action, and Secretarial action if necessary. This 

commitment, coupled with the annual catch limit 

measures in the MSRA, sets the tone for a new era 

of fishery management with a strong mandate to 

end overfishing and with increased accountability 

for results. 

Although the MSRA provided for some sweeping changes to the management of our Nation’s 

fisheries, Congress reaffirmed its confidence in the 

FMC system by maintaining it as the framework 

for management of U.S. fisheries. NMFS remains 

committed to working closely with the FMC’s to 

end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks, 

while taking into account other important factors as mandated by law. In addition, NMFS will 

continue its commitment to work with our many 

partners and constituents to achieve sustainable 

fisheries, providing new opportunities for constituent feedback and collaboration. The ultimate 

result should be dynamic and responsive management that provides for long-term sustainability in 

U.S. fisheries. With successful implementation of 

the overfishing provisions in the MSRA, and with 

continued careful tracking and monitoring of overfishing status—along with sufficient resources to 

conduct needed stock assessments—we should see 

an end to persistent overfishing, and future instances of overfishing in our Nation’s fisheries should be 

few and brief.

LITERATURE CITED

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, 

R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. 

Kiwell, C. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. 

Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 

2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of 

coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638.

Kaiser, M. J., J. S. Collie, S. J. Hall, S. Jennings, and 

I. R. Poiner. 2004. Impacts of fishing gear on marine 

benthic habitats. In M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson 

(Editors), Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, p. 197–217. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and CABI Publishing, 

Cambridge, MA.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries, an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 131 p.

NMFS. 1997. Report to Congress. Status of fisheries of 

the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD, 81 p.

NMFS. 1998. Report to Congress. Status of fisheries of 

the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD, 94 p.

NMFS. 1999. Report to Congress. Status of fisheries of 

the United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD, 104 p.

NMFS. 2001. Annual report to Congress on the status 

of U.S. fisheries—2000. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 122 p. 
66

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

NMFS. 2002. Annual report to Congress on the status 

of U.S. fisheries—2001. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 142 p. 

NMFS. 2003. Annual report to Congress on the status 

of U.S. fisheries—2002. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 156 p. 

NMFS. 2004a. Evaluating bycatch: A national approach 

to standardized bycatch monitoring programs. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-66, 108 p.

NMFS. 2004b. Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries—2003. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 24 p.

NMFS. 2005. Annual report to Congress on the status 

of U.S. fisheries—2004. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 20 p.

NMFS. 2006. Annual report to Congress on the status 

of U.S. fisheries—2005. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 20 p.

NMFS. 2007a. Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD, 726 p.

NMFS. 2007b. Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries—2006. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 22 p.

NMFS. 2008a. Excess harvesting capacity in U.S. fisheries—A report to Congress. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 56 p.

NMFS. 2008b. Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries—2007. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD, 27 p.

NRC. 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. Committee 

on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, 

Environment, and Resources, National Research 

Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 

164 p.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Roese, and 

F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. 

Science 279:860–863.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. Socioeconomic perspectives on marine fisheries in the United States. Pew 

Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.

Rosenberg, A., P. Mace, G. Thompson, G. Darcy, W. 

Clark, J. Collie, W. Gabriel, A. MacCall, R. Methot, 

J. Powers, V. Restrepo, T. Wainwright, L. Botsford, 

J. Hoenig, and K. Stokes. 1994. Scientific review of 

definitions of overfishing in U.S. Fishery Management 

Plans. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-17, 205 p.

Sumaila, U. R. and L. Suatoni. 2006. Economic benefits 

of rebuilding U.S. ocean fish populations. Fisheries 

Centre Working Paper 2006-04, University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
67

IMPROVING FISHERIES SCIENCE WITH ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 2

INTRODUCTION

 The ability of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to meet mandates to conserve 

and manage the Nation’s living marine resources 

and promote a healthy marine environment is enhanced through implementation of advanced sampling technologies for providing accurate, precise, 

and timely population estimates of economically 

and ecologically important marine species. Conventional methods for monitoring and assessing 

marine populations and their habitat have relied 

primarily on surveys involving net sampling for 

physical capture of marine animals. Although net 

sampling operations are relatively inexpensive and 

necessary for species identification, even the largest nets sample only a very minute proportion of 

the ocean, necessitating a large number of hauls 

to adequately sample an area. Recent efforts have 

incorporated advanced sampling technologies that 

utilize remote sensing approaches such as acoustical 

and optical technologies. Net and trap sampling 

will continue to be a critical need for biological data 

requirements, particularly for age-based fisheries 

assessments. However, NMFS’ evolving goals and 

mandates require development of survey operations 

that combine advanced sampling technologies with 

conventional methods to achieve multidisciplinary 

objectives in cost-effective ways. The integration of 

advanced sampling technologies with conventional 

sampling operations provides an optimal sampling 

strategy for investigating spatial and temporal variability of populations, ecosystem dynamics, and 

Feature

Article

2

J. MICHAEL JECH

W. MICHAELS

NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center

Woods Hole

Massachusetts

C. WILSON

NMFS Alaska Fisheries

Science Center

Seattle

Washington

improving fisheries

Science with advanced 

Sampling Technologies

pelagic (open water), benthic (seafloor), and demersal (near seafloor) habitats.

 Recognizing the need for a cohesive effort to 

improve the quality of assessments using advanced 

sampling technologies, NMFS established the 

Advanced Sampling Technology Working Group 

(ASTWG) to demonstrate leadership in the implementation of existing and new technologies. The 

ASTWG mission is:

“To improve the accuracy and precision of

living marine resource assessments by 

identifying information needs through 

the quantification and prioritization of 

components of uncertainty in stock assessments; identifying new technologies, 

innovative uses of existing technologies, 

and approaches that involve a combination 

of technologies to address these information needs; and facilitation and conducting research to develop these sampling 

technologies and their standardization 

implementation.”

 Advanced sampling technologies will play an 

increasing role in improving survey operations for 

assessing commercially important marine populations, monitoring and managing ecosystems, classifying essential fish habitat (EFH), delineating 

marine protected areas (MPA’s), and exploring the 

ocean realm. Agency research vessels are presently 

being upgraded to integrate advanced sampling 

technologies into ongoing National Oceanic and 
6 8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 1

Acoustic echograms at frequencies of 18 kHz (upper 

panel) and 200 kHz (lower 

panel) covering about 4 n.mi. 

in Barnabus Trough, Alaska. 

Downward-facing transducers mounted on the ship’s 

hull transmit sound pulses 

and receive echoes from the 

sea floor, fish, and zooplankton in the water column. 

These echograms display 

volume backscatter, which is 

representative of the number 

of organisms per cubic meter 

(i.e. density). Lower backscatter (lower organism density) 

is shown in blue and higher 

backscatter (higher organism 

density) in red. Echogram 

images are vertically exaggerated to highlight features 

and patterns. Differences 

between the two echograms 

highlight acoustic dependencies in fish and zooplankton 

scattering and potential uses 

for classification.

18 kHz

200 kHz

walleye pollock

euphausiids & fish

seafloor

sea surface

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) surveys to 

achieve multidisciplinary objectives and minimize 

duplication of sampling efforts. For example, 

acoustic data can be collected concurrently with 

routine fisheries trawl surveys to estimate population abundances, continuously record fish and 

zooplankton distributions throughout the water 

column, map seafloor bathymetry, and characterize pelagic and benthic habitats. In this article, 

we describe examples of advanced technologies 

implemented within NMFS that provide effective 

approaches for achieving our strategic goals and 

crosscutting opportunities for intra-agency, interagency, industry, and academic partnerships.

ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

Most advanced sampling technologies operate 

by transmitting energy (acoustical or optical) into 

the water and then receiving energy scattered or 

reflected from objects in the water. The returning 

energy carries information about the objects, and 

the goal is to decipher this information to obtain 

measurements that are meaningful for biologists, 

ecologists, and fisheries managers. These technologies operate remotely, i.e. the instrumentation need 

not be located in close proximity to the species or 

habitat of interest. The remoteness of the instrumentation is dependent on the type of energy, 

where the operating frequency determines the 

sampling range and resolution. For example, optical and high-frequency acoustical instrumentation 

provide high spatial resolution, often less than 1 

cm, but have limited sampling ranges of a few meters. Acoustical instrumentation operating at low 

frequencies can sample over scales of hundreds to 

thousands of meters, but provides lower-resolution 

data, from tens of centimeters to meters. Therefore, the selection of technologies will depend on 

the types of organisms or habitat to be surveyed, 

areal coverage, and the spatial and temporal resolution needed for target detection and classification. 

Recent initiatives have been devoted to integrating advanced sampling technologies into ongoing 

survey operations, evaluating new technologies, 

and developing innovative empirical and theoretical methods for quantitative data interpretation. 

The suite of available technologies provides a wide 

variety of options for surveying our living marine 

resources and their environment.

 Acoustical technologies, such as single-beam 

echo sounders, SONAR (sound navigation and 

ranging), and multibeam systems, are efficient 

tools for sampling the water column and seafloor. 

Sound travels about 1,500 m per second (almost 

5,000 feet per second) in water, and when a sound 

wave encounters an object, such as a fish or the 

bottom, an echo is generated (Figure 1). The first 

application of underwater acoustics was for navigation and obstacle (e.g. iceberg) avoidance. While 

using these SONAR and depth sounder systems, 

it quickly became apparent that aggregations of 

fish were readily detected. From the 1920’s to the 

1970’s, echo sounders and SONAR were utilized 

extensively to locate fish and for qualitative investigations of fish behavior and distribution. Since the 

1970’s, advances in computer and electronic technologies have led to improvements in instrument 

performance and the development of quantitative 

methods that produce reliable, timely, and costeffective population estimates. Fisheries acoustic 

methods are well established for quantitative population estimates, but further improvements can be 

made with species and habitat classification. There 

are other established acoustical technologies that 

have been routinely implemented during NOAA 

survey operations, such as acoustic doppler current 

profilers (ADCP) used for deriving current velocity 
69

IMPROVING FISHERIES SCIENCE WITH ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 2

Figure 2

Acoustical systems used 

during routine acoustic surveys for pelagic fish. (Note: 

mention of trade names or 

commercial products does 

not imply endorsement by 

the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA.)

profiles, or net mensuration sensors (Figure 2).

Optical technologies, such as underwater photography and video, laser-line scans, LIDAR (light 

detection and ranging), optical plankton counters 

(OPC), and video plankton recorders (VPR) are 

advantageous because they provide very high-resolution, in some cases photographic-quality, images. Optical methods can be used to survey fish 

and zooplankton in areas that cannot be surveyed 

using traditional net surveys, such as coral beds or 

rock reef habitats. Optical methods are also used 

to visually identify organisms, observe animal behavior in undisturbed environments and in the 

presence of fishing gear to understand variability in 

abundance estimates, and for habitat classification. 

Optical technologies are limited to sampling small 

areas—from a few meters to a few tens of meters—

and in the case of photography and video, limited 

to the availability of natural or artificial light. As 

with acoustic technologies, there is a need for automated methods that can process and analyze large 

amounts of data.

Effective use of advanced sampling technologies 

in fisheries requires a multidisciplinary effort. System development and signal processing require engineering; data interpretation requires physics and 

biology; and applications to management require 

fisheries, biological, and ecological expertise. In addition, advanced sampling technologies currently 

require parallel biological sampling for verification 

of taxonomy and identification and for measures 

of length, weight, age, gender, and diet.

ADVANCED SAMPLING

TECHNOLOGIES IN FISHERIES

Acoustics

Scientific echo sounders are the primary advanced sampling technology used by NMFS for 

quantitative measures of abundance and biomass 

and mapping spatial distributions of economically 

and ecologically important species. Beginning in 

the 1970’s, the Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

(AFSC) pioneered the use of fisheries acoustics in 

the United States. Through collaboration with the 

academic community and industry, the first digital 

data collection and analysis system was developed 

and applied to fisheries acoustic assessments of 

Pacific hake and walleye pollock (Figure 1). This 

early echo sounder was a fairly complex collection 

of transmitting, receiving, and signal processing 

electronics, operating at a single frequency (38 

kHz). In the ensuing years, echo sounders and 

analysis methods have improved, allowing for increased data collection and a better understanding 

of marine populations.

 Fisheries management utilizes long-term time 

series of population abundance, which requires 

standardization of sampling methods, and in the 

case of advanced sampling technologies, calibration 

of the instruments. Scientific-grade echo sounders 

are calibrated to an absolute standard during each 

survey, providing a high level of confidence that 

the systems are operating properly and ensuring 

high-quality measurements. Calibration ensures 

long-term measurement consistency among surveys 

and ensures that changes in the acoustic population estimates are due to fluctuations in abundance, 

rather than changes in instrument performance.

 Deriving population abundances requires surveying the entire distribution of a selected population at the appropriate spatial and temporal resolution. Since 1998, the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC) has conducted an annual acoustic 

survey of Atlantic herring during the fall, when 

the offshore stock aggregates on Georges Bank to 

spawn. Combining historical commercial and scientific data with ongoing survey data has been an 

effective method for conducting acoustical surveys 

of the herring spawning stock biomass. Net hauls 
70

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 3

Spatial distribution of Atlantic herring as determined during an 

acoustic survey in the Georges Bank region in September 2003. 

Acoustic sA is a measure of areal relative abundance, with larger 

numbers representing greater abundances of herring. Acoustic data 

are displayed in a geographic context using geographic information 

system (GIS) software. 

Figure 4

Pelagic trawl on board the 

NOAA ship Miller Freeman. 

Trawls are used to verify species composition of acoustic 

backscatter and to collect 

samples for obtaining biological information such as 

length, weight, age, gender, 

and diet of the targeted species.

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

are used in conjunction with acoustic sampling to 

obtain maturity, gender, age, diet, and length- and 

weight-frequency distributions. In addition to the 

biological and acoustical data, GPS (global positioning system), ship-borne sensors (e.g. sea-surface 

temperature), and electronic event logs are used to 

display and analyze the data (Figure 3). These data 

are used in concert to develop estimates of stock 

abundance in a given year.

 Relating acoustic energy to taxonomic levels 

such as genus or species is a great challenge for 

fisheries acousticians. Difficulties in classification 

or identification are due to the anatomical and 

behavioral complexities of aquatic animals. For 

fish, echo characteristics depend on body shape 

(i.e. length and width), presence or absence of a 

swimbladder (a gas-filled organ inside the fish), 

shape of the swimbladder, gut fullness, gonad production, lipid content, and behavior. Additionally, 

the relationships between echo characteristics and 

these biological and behavioral characteristics are 

non-linear and often co-dependent. While difficulties assigning taxonomic identification to acoustic 

energy are not insurmountable, these complexities 

require collection of additional information. Classification of acoustic energy to taxonomic levels is 

most often verified from samples collected using 

nets (e.g. Figure 4), which are also used to collect 

biological information. Biological verification and 

sampling have also been improved through the use 

of underwater video technologies.

 Acoustic technologies are effective at sampling 

pelagic animals, but often provide inadequate 

sampling at boundaries such as the sea surface or 

near the seafloor, especially when instrumentation 

is attached to a vessel’s hull. The demersal habitat 

is especially important for a number of economically important species such as Atlantic cod in the 

Northeast, various grouper species in the Southeast, 

rockfish species in the Southwest and Northwest 

Regions, and walleye pollock in Alaska. Demersal 

fish are often associated with irregular topographic 

features such as sand waves and rocks or reefs (Figure 5). Positioning the acoustical transducer closer 

to the animals or seafloor alleviates many issues 

with acoustic sampling, but this process requires 

additional layers of technology such as pressuretolerant housings and other specialized hardware 

to address data transfer issues. Nets are convenient 
71

IMPROVING FISHERIES SCIENCE WITH ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 2

Figure 5

Ship-borne and alternative-platform-deployed acoustical and optical 

technologies for surveying fish in pelagic and demersal regions. Multibeam sonars (blue fan-shaped beams) significantly increase sampling 

volume over single-beam echo sounders (orange beam). Stationary 

transducers sample at one location over time, providing information on 

short- to long-term behavior, and are often attached to buoys for power 

and data storage and transmission. Autonomous underwater vehicles, 

towbodies, and remotely operated vehicles position acoustical and optical 

instrumentation near the seafloor, improving detection and quantification 

of fish at boundary surfaces.

Figure 6

Image of Atlantic herring 

and a blue shark feeding 

on the herring, taken from 

underwater video in the Gulf 

of Maine. 

NMFS

to sample living marine resources, but are less effective in areas of irregular topography and provide 

limited information on behavior.

Optics

Underwater optical methods are used for directly observing and characterizing marine habitats, animal behavior, predator–prey interactions, and for 

enumerating various species in untrawlable regions 

(Figure 6). Optical methods include still photography, video, and laser-based systems. Photographic 

and video methods use cameras that typically have 

the ability to image under low-light conditions. 

Most photographic or video systems require some 

level of artificial light, although newer generation 

systems are able to produce quality images with very 

little ambient light. Artificial light has little to no 

effect for benthic habitat or seabed classification 

applications; however, the use of artificial light can 

be problematic when attempting to enumerate fish 

or quantify fish behavior, as many fish are either 

repelled by or attracted to light. Optical plankton 

counters (OPC) using laser technology and video 

plankton recorders (VPR) utilize laser (OPC) or 

photographic (VPR) technologies to enumerate 

and identify species and map zooplankton distributions. Utilizing optical methods for behavioral 

observations or species identification is an area of 

intense interest, and significant advances are being 

made in instrumentation and data interpretation 

and analysis (e.g. video mosaics, stereo imaging, 

and automated optic recognition).

ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

IN FISH HABITAT STUDIES

An animal’s habitat encompasses not only 

where it lives, but also the chemical, physical, and 

biological environments that surround the animal. 

Temperature, salinity, currents, and light are components of the physical environment commonly 

measured by fisheries scientists. The physical environment is important to fish as it directly influences where a fish lives, its metabolism, and its behavior. A common misconception is that habitat is 

associated with only the benthic environment. For 

pelagic animals, such as swordfish or tuna, characteristics of the seafloor play much less of a role in 

survival than do the properties and dynamics of the 

water column. Thus, it is critical that habitat studies incorporate all aspects of the environment. 

The marine environment is a dynamic habitat. 

Temperature can dramatically change at thermal 

fronts and create boundaries for fish that prefer 
72

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 7

Fetch3X autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) recently 

purchased by NMFS. The 

AUV is outfitted with a Falmouth Scientific CTD sensor 

that measures conductivity, 

temperature, and depth, Videre Design FireWire stereo 

camera system and Ocean 

Imaging Systems strobe, 

and a Simrad EK60 scientific 

echo sounder, for acoustical 

and optical investigations 

of pelagic and benthic habitats. (Note: mention of trade 

names or commercial products does not imply endorsement by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA.)

Sias Patterson, Inc.

certain temperatures. These fronts are affected by 

wind and currents and can shift vertically as well as 

horizontally. Predators are constantly on the move 

to find new food, prey fish are constantly searching for food or avoiding predators, and plankton is 

carried about with the currents. Light levels change 

from day to night, with phase of the moon, and 

with the seasons. The seafloor is constantly changing due to currents, biological influences such as 

burrowing animals, and human-induced manipulations. Because of these forces, organisms are not 

evenly distributed throughout the oceans; they 

form patches that change in response to their environment. Detecting these patches and studying 

how they interact with their environment requires a 

large field of view and concurrent physical, chemical, and biological measurements at similar resolutions and extents. Traditional sampling provides 

important information on marine habitats, but 

often the data are not at the necessary spatial and 

temporal resolution to improve our understanding of ecosystem dynamics. Advanced sampling 

technologies provide continuous high-resolution 

measurements that give us the ability to characterize 

marine habitats and detect changes in the marine 

environment.

Multibeam sonars use an array of narrow 

beams, typically in a fan shape, to significantly increase the field of view of the water column and sea 

floor, and are useful in multiple applications (Figure 

5). Because multibeam systems are the standard 

tool for charting navigable waters, they are in widespread use along the U.S. coasts. Bathymetric data 

can be used to study the association of demersal 

and benthic fish with seafloor topographic features, 

from sand waves to seamounts. Acoustic backscatter from the seafloor can be used to classify and 

map the type of bottom (e.g. mud, sand, or rock), 

which plays an important role in where fish live 

and spawn. In the pelagic realm, multibeam data 

provide three-dimensional images of fish schools. 

These three-dimensional images are used to characterize schooling behavior and may improve the 

ability to identify acoustic echoes. Multibeam sonar 

can also be deployed at stationary sites to monitor 

behavior and predator–prey interactions.

THE FUTURE OF ADVANCED

SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

 Advancements in sampling technologies will 

continue to come from collaborations among the 

engineering, physics, and biological disciplines. 

As engineers develop more accurate, precise, and 

robust instrumentation, and physicists advance 

characterization and interpretation of the data, biologists are able to gain an improved understanding 

of living marine resources and their habitats. There 

is great potential for improving our ability to effectively monitor, manage, and forecast changes of 

our living marine resources by integrating advance 

technologies into existing survey operations, utilizing alternative platforms, and developing new data 

processing and interpretation methods.

Alternative Platforms

 The fisheries research vessel is the ubiquitous 

platform for conducting living marine resource 

surveys, and it is necessary for conventional net 

sampling operations to obtain standardized indices 

of abundance and biological samples. Vessels can 

accommodate a diverse group of scientists who can 

conduct a variety of operations for durations of days 

to weeks or even months. While vessels will continue to be invaluable for fisheries surveys, ships can 

be costly to operate and are limited to areas where 
73

IMPROVING FISHERIES SCIENCE WITH ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 2

the vessel can safely navigate. Advanced technologies aboard alternative platforms such as remotely 

operated vehicles (ROV’s), autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV’s; Figure 7), and stationary arrays 

or buoys (Figure 5; Box 1) complement sampling 

from vessels by providing coverage in areas or times 

when vessel-deployed instrumentation is not practical, or for positioning the instrumentation closer 

to the animals or habitat being surveyed. Sampling 

over the entire range of a population at fine temporal and spatial resolution has the potential for 

significantly improving population estimates and 

ultimately for advancing our ability to predict the 

dynamic nature of fisheries populations.

Multiple Frequencies

Acoustic-based fish abundance estimates are 

currently derived solely from 38 kHz data. While 

this method has been successful for providing 

population estimates for several semi-demersal 

and pelagic species when used in conjunction with 

biological sampling, a single frequency is not sufficient for objective classification or identification. 

Increasing the bandwidth (i.e. increasing the acoustical frequency spectrum) is necessary to improve 

our ability to classify or identify acoustical targets. 

Two ways to increase the number of frequencies are 

to add echo sounder systems operating at different 

frequencies (multiple discrete frequencies) or to 

use broadband signals. Broadband signals transmit 

acoustic energy over a wide frequency spectrum 

and may be ideal for remote identification, but are 

presently not always able to sample to the depths 

required.

Most fisheries research vessels have multiple 

echo sounders operating at different frequencies 

(e.g. Figure 1) and these data are routinely archived 

and used for subjective classification of the species 

being surveyed. While such classification has proven successful for estimating abundances of selected 

species (e.g. walleye pollock, Pacific hake, and Atlantic herring), more objective methods to classify 

or identify target species are needed to avoid biases 

and to achieve consistency in data interpretation. 

A number of classification schemes have been proposed over the years that range in complexity from 

simple relationships to more involved neural networks. Complex schemes are advantageous because 

they are able to incorporate more information, but 

can be less intuitive to understand or apply. Simple 

schemes rely on fewer variables, but can be robust 

and straightforward to apply in the field (Figure 

8). Regardless of the algorithms, development of 

robust and accurate classification methods to objectively identify species remains the ultimate goal 

of advanced technologies.

Acoustic Modeling

Translating acoustical energy to meaningful 

biological measurements requires establishing a 

relationship between the reflected energy and the 

biological measurement. These relationships are 

obtained by building statistical regressions such as 

echo amplitude to fish length regressions from in 

situ (in the natural environment) or ex situ (laboFigure 8

Classification of acoustic 

backscatter using three-frequency (18, 38, and 120 kHz) 

echo sounder data (lower 

panels) highlighting distributional patterns of fish 

and zooplankton in the Gulf 

of Maine. The upper panel 

displays the results of a 

simple classification algorithm where the presence or 

absence of backscatter from 

each frequency is color-coded. For example, backscatter 

present only in the 120-kHz 

echogram (“- - 3” in the color 

key) is represented as red, 

and backscatter present at 

all three frequencies is represented as light blue (“123” in 

the color bar). The light blue 

patches in these echograms 

are Atlantic herring.
74

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Acoustical studies of fish behavior 

suggest that fish may exhibit a diving 

or fright response to noises generated 

by a vessel conducting surveys as well 

as during trawling operations. It is unknown whether this type of response is 

typical. If it is, however, there is a strong 

possibility that when survey/trawling 

operations are used to directly estimate 

population size, those estimates may be 

biased. For example, if the fish move 

away from the path of the vessel or dive 

to the bottom before the ship passes 

over them, they may not be detected by 

acoustic surveys. During trawl-based 

surveys, if fish dive into the mouth of 

a trawl, the effective headrope height of 

the trawl may be much different than 

the actual measured headrope height, 

and estimates of abundance based on 

area swept by the trawl may be in error. The new, acoustically quiet Fishery 

Survey Vessels (FSV’s) currently being 

added to the NOAA fleet will reduce 

the bias caused by noise responses of 

target species and provide more accurate survey data for stock assessments. 

A free-drifting acoustic buoy was 

designed and constructed by researchers from the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Box 1: Fish behavior and vessel noise

Center to evaluate the response of fish to vessel and trawl noise (see figure above). The buoy contains an echo sounder 

and split beam transducer operating at 38 kHz, and other instrumentation to facilitate remote operation of the buoy. 

An acoustic buoy is an ideal device to measure the response of fish to vessel and trawl noise because it can be rapidly 

deployed and recovered from the support vessel under adverse sea conditions, and it can monitor the response of 

fish in an undisturbed state (before the vessel/trawl passes the buoy), disturbed state (at the closest point of approach 

between the vessel/trawl and buoy), and during recovery to the undisturbed state (as the vessel/trawl moves away 

from the buoy). This allows scientists to evaluate whether avoidance reactions exist for different species of fish under 

many different environmental conditions.
75

IMPROVING FISHERIES SCIENCE WITH ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES

FEATURE ARTICLE 2

D. Chevrier, NEFSC.

Figure 9

Three-dimensional image of 

an alewife and its internal 

swimbladder (elongated 

red object) derived from a 

computed tomography (CT) 

scan. A digital picture of 

the alewife was superimposed on the CT scan and 

made translucent to show 

the swimbladder. 

ratory) measurements. Regressions derived from 

these measurements are advantageous because they 

usually incorporate the natural conditions in which 

the animals are surveyed. However, these measurements are difficult to obtain and often require accumulating years of data to develop a robust relationship. In addition, these statistical relationships 

are limited in their ability to predict outside of the 

conditions used to develop the relationship, such 

as when the fish vertically migrate, grow, feed, or 

develop gonads.

Mathematical models have been developed 

over the past few decades to predict the echo characteristics of marine animals. These models vary in 

their complexity and the information required for 

calculations. Because marine animals have complex anatomy and shapes, developing models that 

predict echo characteristics is difficult. In general, 

acoustic models are approximations that use geometric approximations of animal anatomy and 

shape to generate echo characteristics. Anatomical 

measurements of fish are obtained from dissections 

or x-rays, or, recently, computed tomography (CT) 

images (Figure 9). In spite of the complexities, 

models have been developed that are able to calculate echo amplitude over a wide range of frequencies and fish anatomies, thus improving our ability 

to predict echo characteristics over a wide range of 

conditions. While these models hold great promise, 

verification requires precise acoustic and biological 

measurements, as well as monitoring the behavior 

of the organism. Incorporating acoustic models in 

acoustic surveys is an area of ongoing research, and 

will aid in translating acoustic energy to biological 

measurements and in remote classification of species.

77

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

INTRODUCTION

Coral reefs are among the most spectacular 

ecosystems on the planet, supporting such rich 

biodiversity and high density of marine life that 

they have been referred to as the rainforests of the 

sea. The coral reefs that most people think of are 

found in warm shallow waters, generally within 

recreational diving depths (30 m or less). However, other coral ecosystems thrive on continental 

shelves, slopes, canyons, ocean ridges, and seamounts around the world, sometimes thousands of 

meters below the ocean’s surface. These communities are structured by deep-sea corals, also referred 

to as cold-water corals, and are distributed across 

a wide range of depths and latitudes, in both temperate and tropical oceans. 

 Research over the last decade has revolutionized our understanding of these deep-sea coral 

ecosystems and spurred calls for their protection. 

In 2006, the U.S. Congress included provisions 

for research and conservation of deep-sea corals 

in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, our 

Nation’s primary fisheries law, and the United Nations General Assembly passed major resolutions 

designed to help protect deep-sea corals and other 

vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas. In 

2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published The State of Deep 

Coral Ecosystems of the United States (Lumsden et 

al., 2007), the first major peer-reviewed assessment 

of deep-sea coral ecosystems in U.S. waters and the 

source for this chapter. 

deep-sea Coral Ecosystems

of the united States

Feature

Article

3

S. ELIzABETH LUMSDEN

THOMAS F. HOURIGAN

ANDREW W. BRUCKNER

NMFS Office of Habitat

Conservation

Silver Spring

Maryland

1

The term “deep-sea” usually refers to depths greater than 200 

m; however, structure-forming corals that lack symbiotic 

zooxanthellae occur over a broader range of depths.

Major Groups of Structure-Forming

Deep-Sea Corals

 Corals are a taxonomically and morphologically diverse collection of animals in the Phylum 

Cnidaria with rigid skeletal structures composed 

of calcium carbonate or a horn-like proteinaceous 

substance. Deep-sea corals lack symbiotic algae 

(zooxanthellae) characteristic of most reef-building 

shallow-water tropical corals (Table 1). Deep-sea 

corals occur in cold oceanic waters worldwide from 

near the surface to 6,000 meters in depth; however, 

most are found between 50 and 2,000 meters.1

Unlike their shallow-water relatives, which rely 

heavily on photosynthesis by their symbionts to 

produce food, deep-sea corals assimilate plankton 

and organic matter for much of their energy needs. 

They generally grow much more slowly than their 

shallow-water counterparts.

Deep-sea corals include both reef-building and 

non-reef-building corals. While more than 90% of 

shallow-water stony corals (Order Scleractinia) are 

colonial structure-forming species (many contributing to coral reefs), there are at most 14 species 

of azooxanthellate deep-water scleractinians in the 

world that can be considered structure-forming 

species, 13 of which occur in U.S. waters (Cairns, 

2001, 2007). These structure-forming species can 

occur as individual small colonies or they may form 

aggregations that can create vast reef complexes tens 
78

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Parameter Tropical shallow-water stony corals Deep-water stony corals

Depth range 0–100 m 39–2,000 m

Temperature 18–31o C 4–13o C

Distribution Tropical and subtropical seas from 

 30o N to 30o S latitude.

Tropical to subpolar, at least from 71oN to

 56o S latitude.

Symbiotic algae Yes No (however, several species of Oculina and 

 Madracis have a facultative relationship 

 with zooxanthellae in shallow populations)

Growth rates 1–10 mm per year for massive slow- 

 growing corals

50–150 mm per year for faster-growing 

 branching corals

1–20 mm per year for three branching 

 species; growth rates for other species

 are unknown

Number of reef-building species Approximately 650 Approximately 6–14

Nutrition Photosynthesis, zooplankton, and

 suspended organic matter

Zooplankton and possibly suspended organic

 matter

Primary threats Overfishing & destructive fishing

Pollution & siltation

Coastal development

Over-harvest of corals

Recreational misuse

Diseases 

Climate change (coral bleaching, ocean 

 acidification, and storm intensity)

Bottom-tending fishing gear

Oil and gas exploration and production

Pipelines and cables

Climate change (ocean acidification and

 possible changes in currents and

 temperatures)

Table 1

Comparison of tropical shallow-water and deep-water 

structure-forming stony 

corals (modified from Freiwald et al., 2004; Hourigan 

et al., 2007).

Rockfish among primnoid 

corals in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

of kilometers across and tens of meters in height 

over time (Freiwald et al., 2004). Lophelia pertusa

and Oculina varicosa are the most important stony 

corals that form reef-like structures in U.S. waters. 

Other species of deep-sea corals, including black 

corals (Order Antipatharia), gold corals, Gerardia

species, octocorals (gorgonians, true-soft corals, 

and sea pens), and lace corals (Family Stylasteridae, 

Class Hydrozoa) do not form reefs, but often have 

branching tree-like forms and either occur singly 

or form thickets of many colonies. 

Importance of Deep-sea 

Coral Communities

 As our understanding of deep-sea coral ecosystems has increased, so has our appreciation of their 

value. Deep-sea coral communities can be hot spots 

of biodiversity in the deeper ocean, making them of 

particular conservation interest. Stony coral reefs, 

as well as thickets of sea fans or black corals and 

aggregations of lace corals, often have large assemblages of associated fauna. This high biodiversity is 

intrinsically valuable and may provide significant 

opportunities for chemical and biological research 

on marine organisms. For example, deep-sea bamboo corals are being investigated for their medical 

potential in bone grafts and other biomedical applications (Ehrlich et al., 2006). 

Strong associations have been observed between 

certain commercially important fishes and structure-forming deep-sea coral habitats. In Alaska, 

commercially valuable species of rockfish, shrimp, 

and crabs are associated with coral habitat, appar-
79

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

ently using it for protection from predators and 

as a feeding area (Krieger and Wing, 2002; Stone, 

2006). In the Gulf of Mexico, a number of fish species are closely associated with Lophelia reefs (Sulak 

et al., 2008). Koenig (2001) found a relationship 

between the abundance of economically valuable 

fish (e.g. grouper, snapper, sea bass, and amberjack) 

and the condition of Oculina coral. These Oculina

coral reefs off Florida have been identified as essential fish habitat for Federally managed species, as 

have gorgonian-dominated deep-sea coral communities in Alaska and along the West Coast. In other 

cases, however, the linkages between commercial 

fisheries species and deep-sea corals remain unclear 

(Auster, 2005) and may be indirect.

Deep-sea gorgonian and stony coral species 

have proven useful in reconstructing historical 

global climate and oceanographic conditions (Risk 

et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2006). Skeletons of 

living deep-sea corals have been dated at more than 

1,000 years old, and dead corals forming deep 

banks have been radiocarbon-dated at more than 

40,000 years old. Stable isotopes and trace elements 

incorporated in the skeletons of deep-sea corals can 

provide a record of past temperatures, and analyses 

of deep-sea coral skeletal microchemistry allow researchers to reconstruct past oceanic conditions. 

MAJOR DEEP-SEA CORAL

COMMUNITIES IN U.S. WATERS

The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends 200 n.mi. (370 km) offshore, covering 11.7 

million square kilometers in the Pacific, Atlantic, 

and Arctic Oceans. This broad geographic range 

includes a wide variety of deep-water ecosystems, 

most of which have not been explored. Despite 

growing knowledge of the distribution of deep-sea 

coral communities and regional differences in the 

types of corals that structure these communities and 

associated organisms, the majority of the U.S. EEZ 

has not been surveyed, mapped, or characterized. 

Important deep-sea coral communities have 

been identified in every U.S. region. Most deepsea coral groups, with the exception of sea pens, 

occur primarily on hard substrata, especially near 

the Continental Shelf break, along the Continental 

Slope, and on oceanic islands and seamounts.

Currently, it is impossible to ascertain the overall extent of deep-sea coral communities, much 

less their condition or conservation status, since so 

many of the deeper areas that these communities 

inhabit have been insufficiently explored or have 

not been explored at all. There is also very limited 

information on the species composition and condition of some Continental Shelf habitats prior to 

the inception of trawl fisheries. Therefore, the following discussion on trends in distribution should 

be viewed with caution.

Pacific

Alaska: The U.S. EEZ around Alaska includes the 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Eastern Bering Sea in the Pacific, and the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in the Arctic. Deep-sea corals appear to 

be rare in the Arctic, but they are an important 

structural component of other Alaska marine ecosystems (Stone and Shotwell, 2007). Gorgonian 

deep-sea corals reach their highest diversity in the 

United States in the Aleutian Islands, often forming 

structurally complex “coral gardens” with lace corals, sponges, and other sedentary taxa. Gorgonians 

are also the most important structure-forming corals in the Gulf of Alaska, with species of the genus 

Primnoa reaching 5–7 m in size, while the Bering 

Sea has dense aggregations of soft corals and sea 

pens on the Continental shelf and slope, respectively. The region is relatively depauperate in stony 

corals; those that do occur appear as solitary cups 

and do not form true coral reefs. 

U.S. West Coast: The deep-sea coral communities 

off the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts 

share many similarities with those farther north 

along the Pacific coasts of British Columbia and 

Alaska (Hourigan et al., 2007). Understanding of 

the spatial distribution of these communities has 

benefited from relatively extensive NOAA trawl 

survey catch records, supplemented by museum 

collections and underwater vehicle exploration 

(Whitmire and Clarke, 2007). Gorgonians are the 

most abundant and diverse structure-forming deepsea corals along the West Coast (Whitmire and 

Clarke, 2007). There appear to be biogeographic 

differences in the distributions of certain deep-sea 

coral groups within the region. Gorgonians appear 

to be most abundant south of Point Conception 
8 0

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

and north of Cape Mendocino. Black corals appear 

abundant between Cape Mendocino and Canada, 

and are less common in Alaska. 

U.S. Pacific Islands: The U.S. Pacific Islands represent diverse oceanic archipelagos scattered across 

wide areas of the Pacific and encompassing several 

different biogeographic regions. They do not have 

continental shelves or slopes, but represent emergent and non-emergent seamounts—many highly 

isolated from other areas. Aside from the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, almost nothing is known of the deepsea coral resources in the U.S. Pacific Islands. The 

first submersible explorations of American Samoa 

and the U.S. Line Islands were begun in 2005, and 

surveys of additional areas in the U.S. Pacific are 

needed. Octocorals and black corals are the principal structure-forming species on deep Hawaiian 

slopes and seamounts (Parrish and Baco, 2007). 

While the Hawaiian Archipelago shares some species with Alaska and the West Coast, it likely has a 

relatively high number of endemic species. Understanding of the unique deep-sea coral assemblages 

in Hawaii has benefited from information gathered 

in association with commercial harvests of deep-sea 

corals—including gold (Gerardia species) and pink 

(Corallium species) precious corals and the shallower black corals (Antipathes species). Monitoring in 

support of management has provided perhaps the 

most extensive studies of growth and recruitment 

rates for any deep-sea coral taxa. 

Atlantic

Northeast United States: This region has among the 

longest histories of both deep-sea scientific research 

and extensive trawl fisheries. Gorgonians represent 

the predominant structure-forming deep-sea coral 

taxa in this region, and they appear to be most numerous on hard substrates associated with canyons 

along the shelf and Georges Bank slopes, and on 

the New England Seamount chain (Packer et al., 

2007). Though L. pertusa has been reported occasionally, no major reef-like formations have been 

recorded from U.S. waters in this region.

Southeast United States: Within U.S. waters, 

deep-water scleractinian coral reefs probably reach 

their greatest abundance and development in the 

Atlantic south of Cape Hatteras (Ross and Nizinski, 2007). The deep reef-forming coral L. pertusa

is the major structural component of reefs on the 

Continental Slope and Blake Plateau from North 

Carolina to Florida. These reefs provide habitat at 

depths from 370 to at least 800 m for a well developed faunal community that appears to differ 

from the surrounding non-reef habitats (Ross and 

Nizinski, 2007). The world’s only known Oculina 

varicosa reefs are found in 70–100 m depths off 

east-central Florida. Because of their shallow depth 

and occurrence on the Continental Shelf, Oculina

banks may be atypical of deeper coral communities. 

However, their accessibility has facilitated a more 

comprehensive understanding of the ecology of the 

corals, the role of the reefs as essential fish habitat, 

and the impacts of trawl fishing on these resources 

(Koenig, 2001; Reed et al., 2007; Ross and Nizinski, 2007). Gorgonians are common in the region, 

but relative to the northeast and West Coast much 

less is known (or at least less information has been 

systematically collated) concerning the region’s octocoral and black coral resources. 

Northern Gulf of Mexico: The northern Gulf of 

Mexico is home to significant L. pertusa reefs, 

though their structure appears to differ from that 

observed in the southeast United States (Brooke 

and Schroeder, 2007; Sulak et al., 2008), growing primarily on carbonate and clay substrates 

rather than mounds of dead coral. Despite extensive environmental studies associated with oil and 

Deep-water Lophelia coral reef community in the 

southeast United States.

S. W. Ross, K. Sulak, M. Nizinski
81

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

gas development in the Gulf, knowledge of the 

distribution of deep-sea coral reefs is limited to a 

handful of sites where targeted studies have been 

conducted. Each area, from Pourtales Terrace in the 

Florida Straits to sites in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico, represents unique habitat types. As in the 

southeast, limited information is available concerning the distribution of the gorgonian and black 

coral resources that occur in this region. Recent 

remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys focused 

on the reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf 

of Mexico at depths of 50–150 m have resulted in 

expanded knowledge of the distribution of deepwater biological communities, including black 

corals, gorgonians, and sponges. The communities 

are more widespread and densely populated than 

reported thus far. These studies are ongoing, and 

are being led by NOAA’s Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary.

U.S. Caribbean: The U.S. Caribbean includes the 

waters surrounding Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Navassa Island, and represents a small 

part of the larger Caribbean ecosystem. It has not 

been well studied with respect to deep-sea corals (Lutz and Ginsburg, 2007) and the primary 

information comes from scientific collections—

most from other areas of the wider Caribbean. In 

U.S. waters, limited ROV and submersible studies 

have been conducted off Navassa Island and Puerto 

Rico, revealing scleractinian, black, and gorgonian 

corals, but distributions have not been rigorously 

documented.

CONSERVING U.S. DEEP-SEA 

CORAL ECOSYSTEMS

Threats to Deep-sea Coral Communities

Deep-sea corals are generally slow-growing and 

fragile, making them and their associated communities vulnerable to human-induced impacts, particularly physical disturbance. The level and types 

of threats affecting these ecosystems differ regionally (Table 2), as do the management actions that 

have been adopted to address impacts from fisheries. 

Disturbances to deep-sea coral communities 

from bottom-tending fishing gear, especially bottom trawl gear, are the best documented (Freiwald 

et al., 2004; Stone, 2006; Reed et al., 2007) and 

are considered the major threat to deep-sea corals 

in most U.S. regions where such fishing is allowed 

(Hourigan et al., 2007; Table 2). With the exception of a few areas (e.g. the Oculina Banks), the full 

extent of habitat degradation resulting from these 

threats is largely unknown. In such complex habitats as deep sea-coral communities, recovery rates 

could be extremely slow (decades to centuries), if 

at all. 

Table 2

Summary of perceived levels of current threats to deep coral communities for U.S. regions. NA = 

Not Applicable (i.e. this threat is prohibited or does not occur anywhere within that region). Source: 

Hourigan et al. (2007). Note that these threat levels are derived from expert opinions and reflect only 

the occurrence of these stressors in a region, and their potential, if unmitigated, to damage deep 

coral communities they might encounter. The threat levels do not indicate the actual impacts of each 

stressor, which will likely vary widely within and among regions.

Threats

Regions

Alaska West Coast

Pacific

Islands Northeast Southeast Gulf of Mexico Caribbean

Bottom trawl fishing impacts High High NA High High Low-Medium NA

Other bottom fishing impacts Low-Medium Low Low Low-Medium Low Low Low

Deep-sea coral harvest NA NA Medium NA NA NA NA

Oil and gas development Low Low NA NA NA Medium NA

Cable deployment Low Low Unknown Low Low Low Unknown

Sand and gravel mining Low NA NA Low Low Low NA

Invasive species Unknown Unknown Medium Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Climate change Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
82

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Other activities that can directly impact deepsea coral communities include coral harvesting; oil, 

gas, and mineral exploration and extraction; and 

submarine cable/pipeline deployment (Freiwald 

et al., 2004; Hourigan et al., 2007). Hawaii is the 

only jurisdiction where precious coral harvests are 

allowed. It is also the only place where an invasive 

species, the snowflake coral, has been identified as 

a current threat, having overgrown and killed over 

50% of commercial black coral colonies in one location. Oil and gas exploration and development 

in the Gulf of Mexico, where approximately 98% 

of all active U.S. oil and gas leases are located, is 

increasingly conducted in deeper waters and has 

been identified as a moderate threat to deep-sea 

coral communities in that region (Figure 1). Climate change and ocean acidification represent 

potentially serious threats that have not been adequately studied. 

Managing Impacts to U.S. 

Deep-sea Coral Communities

Most deep-sea corals in U.S. waters occur in 

the EEZ, beyond the jurisdiction of individual 

states. Fisheries in the EEZ are managed by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under fishery management plans prepared by eight 

regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC’s) 

in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Management and Conservation Act.2 In 2006, the 

Act was reauthorized, directing NOAA to establish a Deep-sea Coral Research and Technology 

Program and authorizing the designation of zones 

to protect deep-sea corals from damage caused by 

fishing gear under fishery management plan discretionary provisions. 

 NMFS and the FMC’s have been active in protecting deep-sea coral habitat, relying on tools such 

as closed areas and gear modifications to address 

fishing impacts. In 1983, the Western Pacific FMC 

recommended and NMFS implemented a prohibition on the use of trawl gear, bottom-set longlines, 

and bottom-set gill nets—all identified as threats 

to deep-sea corals—within all 3.9 million km2 of 

seafloor habitat waters in the EEZ surrounding the 

U.S. Pacific Islands. The following year, the South 

Atlantic FMC recommended establishment of the 

world’s first area to protect deep-sea corals (the 

Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

off Florida). Despite these steps, incomplete protection and lack of sufficient enforcement resulted 

in continued destruction of much of the Oculina

habitat by 2001 (Reed et al., 2007), with damFigure 1

Map of the Gulf of Mexico 

showing active leases by 

water depth in 2007. Courtesy of the Minerals Management Service.

216 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
8 3

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

age attributed to bottom trawling. Expansion of 

the protected area, requirements for use of vessel 

monitoring systems, and enhanced enforcement 

since 2001 provide hope for the remaining reefs.

Recent research has begun to reveal the extent 

and ecological importance of deep-sea coral communities, as well as the threats they face, greatly 

accelerating conservation action. In 2005, the New 

England and Mid-Atlantic FMC’s recommended 

and NMFS approved closures of Oceanographer and 

Lydonia Canyons (approximately 400 km2), on the 

southern flank of Georges Bank, to bottom trawling 

and gillnetting for monkfish. In 2006, NMFS approved FMC recommendations to protect almost 

1.5 million km2 of vulnerable benthic habitats in 

the Pacific. In 2008, additional habitat conservation efforts were underway through the North Pacific, New England, and South Atlantic FMC’s. 

 In addition to the FMC’s, NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuary Program has responsibilities 

for protection and management of natural resources within the boundaries of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, eight of which are known to contain 

deep-sea corals. The goals of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act3 include maintaining the natural 

biological communities in the National Marine 

Sanctuaries, and protecting—and where appropriate—restoring and enhancing natural habitats, 

populations, and ecological processes. New oil 

and gas development is currently prohibited in 

all National Marine Sanctuaries, although leases 

in place before sanctuary designation are allowed 

to continue. Deep-sea coral communities also occur in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

and are likely to occur in certain National Parks 

and National Wildlife Refuges, especially in Alaska 

and the Pacific Remote Island Areas.

Mineral resource exploration and extraction activities, including oil and gas exploration in Federal 

waters, are managed by the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The MMS regulates the impact of mineral 

resource activities on the environment through an 

Environmental Studies Program and an Environmental Assessment Program. These programs provide scientific and technical information to support 

decisions and monitor environmental impacts of 

exploration, development, and production of mineral resources.

DEEP-SEA CORAL RESEARCH PRIORITIES

 Over the past few years, NOAA has increased 

activities to locate, study, and protect deep-sea 

corals. The following research priorities common 

to most or all U.S. regions have been identified as 

having the potential of contributing to better understanding and improved management of deepsea coral ecosystems. This is not a comprehensive 

list of scientific research needs and is not in order 

of importance.

Habitat Mapping and Characterization: The highest 

priority in every region is to locate, map, characterize, and conduct a baseline assessment of deepsea coral habitats. The locations of deep-sea coral 

habitats are not well known, making it difficult, if 

not impossible, to adequately manage associated 

resources.

Left: Commercial groupers 

on healthy Oculina deepsea coral habitat off the 

East Coast of Florida. Right: 

Left: Grant Gilmore, Dynamac Corp.; right: Lance Horn, NURC/UNCW

Trawled Oculina habitat.

3

16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
8 4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Juvenile rockfish in Alaskan red tree coral (Primnoa

species).

Victoria O’Connel, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Modeling the Distribution of Deep-sea Coral Habitats: Modeling the distribution of deep-sea coral 

habitats will facilitate the geographic targeting of 

future research efforts and the identification of areas 

that should be managed with greater precaution, in 

the absence of expensive ground-truthed data.

Data Mining and Data Management: Because of the 

high cost of new exploratory surveys, there is a priority on mining data from museum collections or 

past submersible surveys focused on other subjects 

(e.g. geology or fish) to yield distributional data for 

corals at a low cost. These may also provide qualitative baselines for assessing change. There is also 

a need to better manage existing information to 

enhance research collaboration and access to data 

for management purposes.

Monitoring: Monitoring is key to understanding 

the state of resources and gaining clues to processes 

that may affect change and recovery from damage. 

However, in contrast to shallow reefs, the costs associated with observing deep-sea coral communities 

are much higher. As a result, most deep-sea coral 

communities have likely not yet been discovered, 

much less have baselines developed or repeated surveys begun. To date, monitoring of deep-sea corals 

in U.S. waters has been limited to the relatively 

shallow Oculina Banks off Florida, and black and 

precious corals in selected locations off Hawaii. 

These studies have yielded valuable life-history and 

ecological information on those coral species. 

Understanding the Biology and Ecology of Deepsea Coral Species: The basic taxonomy of deep-sea 

coral taxa, their biogeography, and the processes 

that may contribute to distributions and endemism 

are poorly known. Needs include: genetic studies 

to understand recruitment dynamics and resilience 

to disturbance; the study of factors influencing reproduction, recruitment, and recolonization rates; 

and study of patterns and processes of growth and 

mortality for key coral species.

Biodiversity and Ecology of Deep-sea Coral Communities: Structure-forming deep-sea corals have been 

shown to provide important ecosystem functions in 

the deep sea environment, especially as habitat for 

numerous other species. In addition to conducting species inventories and quantifying the associations between corals, other invertebrates, and fish, 

this may include characterizing trophic dynamics 

within deep-sea coral communities, and studies on 

the life history of associated species. Understanding 

the ecological function of these communities and 

their importance for Federally managed species is 

a management priority. 

Understanding Effects of Climate Change and Ocean 

Acidification: Deep-sea corals may provide windows 

into past environmental conditions in the deep 

ocean, as well as clues for prospective analyses of 

future changes that may result from climate change. 

Deep-sea coral communities may also be uniquely 

vulnerable to ocean acidification (changes in ocean 

chemistry associated with increased atmospheric 

CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels).

Fishery Impacts: Since fishing impacts are currently the major threat to these communities in 

U.S. waters and around the world, it is especially 

important to gain a comprehensive understanding 

of fishing effort and distribution with respect to the 

location of deep-sea coral habitat. Coral bycatch in 

trawl surveys and commercial fisheries has proven 

valuable in mapping coral resources and interactions with fisheries. 

Other Anthropogenic Stressors: Many other human 

activities are also expanding into deeper waters. 

Documenting their effects on seafloor habitats provides a foundation for developing sound policy and 
85

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

making wise management decisions. Additionally, 

there is a need for basic research to understand recently recognized threats to these ecosystems, such 

as invasive species.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this article has highlighted regional 

variability and the many gaps in our knowledge of 

deep-sea corals and the communities they structure, 

there has been tremendous progress in our understanding of these ecosystems over the last decade. 

Though a comprehensive inventory of deep-sea 

coral habitats is not possible at the present time, 

these communities appear to be more widespread 

in deeper waters of the U.S. EEZ than previously 

thought. Impacts from fishing gear, especially bottom trawl gear, are currently the greatest threat to 

deep-sea coral habitat, and we may never know 

the true extent of past fishing-related impacts on 

Continental Shelf ecosystems. However, deeper 

coral habitats (>500 m) appear to be relatively 

undisturbed, and increased appreciation of these 

coral communities by Federal management agencies, regional fishery management councils, and the 

public has resulted in major conservation actions 

on a geographic scale that was previously unprecedented. Continued progress in conservation will 

require sustained mapping and research efforts, as 

well as application of scientific and management 

lessons learned across the Nation’s varied regions.

It is clear that other biogenic habitats in deep 

water also deserve study. In particular, sponges may 

contribute to habitat complexity in much the same 

way as do deep-sea corals. We know even less about 

the biology and ecology of deep sponges and their 

habitats. As NOAA moves forward with partners 

to better understand deep-sea coral communities, 

these other types of deep-sea communities also deserve attention. 

Understanding and conserving habitats of high 

biological diversity, such as deep-sea coral habitats, 

is taking on increasing importance as NOAA moves 

towards an ecosystem approach to managing the 

Nation’s living marine resources. Deep-sea coral 

habitats were highlighted for special attention in 

the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. In 

a similar vein, conservation of these vulnerable 

marine ecosystems on the high seas has become a 

major subject of international negotiations. 

For more in-depth information on the state 

of our knowledge of deep-sea coral communities, 

please see The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the 

United States (Lumsden et al., 2007). 

LITERATURE CITED

Auster, P. J. 2005. Are deep-water corals important habitats for fishes? In A. Freiwald and J. M. Roberts (Editors), Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems, p. 747–760.

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 

Brooke, S., and W. W. Schroeder. 2007. State of deep 

coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region. Texas 

to the Florida Straits. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The 

State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States, 

p. 271–306. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Cairns, S. D. 2001. A brief history of taxonomic research 

on azooxanthellate Scleractinia (Cnidaria: Anthozoa). Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 

10:191–203.

Cairns, S. D. 2007. Deep-water corals. An overview 

with special reference to diversity and distribution of 

deep-water scleractinian corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 81:311–322.

Ehrlich, H., P. Etnoyer, S. D. Litvinov, M. Olennikove, 

H. Domaschke, T. Hanke, R. Born, H. Meissner, and 

Pink coral (Corallium) jewelry 

for sale in Japan. Pink and 

red precious corals have 

been valued for jewelry and 

art objects for over 5,000 

years.

Andy Bruckner
86

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

H. Worch. 2006. Biomaterial structure in deep-sea 

bamboo coral (Gorgonaceas: Isididae). Perspectives 

for the development of bone implants. Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik 37(6):553–557.

Freiwald, A., J. H. Fosså, A. Grehan, T. Koslow, and J. M. 

Roberts. 2004. Cold-water coral reefs. United Nations 

Environment Program, World Conservation Monitoring Center, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 84 p.

Hourigan, T. F., S. E. Lumsden, G. Dorr, A. W. Bruckner, 

S. Brooke, and R. P. Stone. 2007. Deep coral ecosystems of the United States. Introduction and national 

overview. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. 

Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The State of Deep 

Coral Ecosystems of the United States, p. 1–65. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Koenig, C. C. 2001. Oculina Banks. Habitat, fish populations, restoration and enforcement. Report to the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC, 24 p.

Krieger, K. J. and B. L. Wing. 2002. Megafaunal associations with deepwater corals (Primnoa spp.) in the Gulf 

of Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471:83–90. 

Lumsden, S. E., T. F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and 

G. Dorr (Editors). 2007. The State of Deep Coral 

Ecosystems of the United States. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP3, 365 p.

Lutz, S. J. and R. N. Ginsburg. 2007. State of deep coral 

ecosystems in the Caribbean region. Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The 

State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States, 

p. 307–365. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Packer, D. B., D. Boelke, V. Guida, and L. A. McGee. 

2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the northeastern 

U.S. Region. Maine to Cape Hatteras. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr 

(Editors), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the 

United States, p. 195–232. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Parrish, F. A. and A. R. Baco. 2007. State of deep coral 

ecosystems in the western Pacific Region. Hawaii and 

the United States Pacific Islands. In S. E. Lumsden, T. 

F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), 

The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United 

States, p. 155–194. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Reed, J. K., C. C. Koenig, and A. N. Shepard. 2007. 

Impacts of bottom trawling on a deep-water Oculina

coral ecosystem off Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 

81(3):481–496.

Risk, M. J., J. M. Heikoop, M. G. Snow, and R. Beukens. 

2002. Lifespans and growth patterns of two deep-sea 

corals: Primnoa resedaeformis and Desmophyllum cristagalli. Hydrobiologia 471(1–3):125–131.

Ross, S. W., and M. S. Nizinski. 2007. State of deep 

coral ecosystems in the Southeast Region. Cape Hatteras to Southeast Florida. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. 

Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The 

State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States, 

p. 233–269. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Stone, R. P. 2006. Coral habitat in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska: Depth distribution, finescale species 

association, and fisheries interactions. Coral Reefs 

25:229–238.

Stone, R. P., and S. K. Shotwell. 2007. State of deep coral 

ecosystems in the Alaska Region. Gulf of Alaska, Bering 

Sea and the Aleutian Islands. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. 

Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors). The 

State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States, 

p. 65–108. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP-3.

Sulak, K. J., M. T. Randall, K. E. Luke, A. D. Norem, 

and J. M. Miller (Editors). 2008. Characterization of 

northern Gulf of Mexico deepwater hard bottom communities with emphasis on Lophelia coral—Lophelia

reef megafaunal community structure, biotopes, genetics, microbial ecology, and geology (2004–2006). 

USGS Open-File Report 2008-1148 and OCS Study 

MMS 2008-015, various pagination + appendices.

Williams, B., M. Risk, S. Ross, and K. Sulak. 2006. 

Deep-water antipatharians: proxies of environmental 

change. Geology 34(9):773–776.

Whitmire, C. E., and M. E. Clarke. 2007. State of deep 

coral ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific Coast. California 

to Washington. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. 

W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The State of Deep 
87

DEEP-SEA CORAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

FEATURE ARTICLE 3

Coral Ecosystems of the United States, p. 109–154. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum CRCP-3.

8 9

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

INTRODUCTION 

In signing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

into law on 28 December 1973, President Richard 

M. Nixon noted, 

“Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of 

animal life with which our country has 

been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, 

of value to scholars, scientists, and nature 

lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the 

heritage we all share as Americans” (Wooley 

and Peters, 1999–2009). 

The ESA evolved from two earlier pieces of legislation, the Endangered Species Conservation Act 

of 1969 and the Endangered Species Preservation 

Act of 1966.1 However, it was President Nixon’s 

signing of the 1973 law that set in motion a comprehensive national program to protect wildlife 

threatened with extinction.

 Today, the ESA is arguably one of the most 

important and most controversial of the Federal 

environmental protection laws. Controversy generally arises from the regulatory nature of ESA programs and the length of time that is often required 

to recover listed species. However, in recent years 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has 

placed additional emphasis and resources into reConservation and the Endangered

Species act: The National marine

fisheries Service’s Cooperative

and proactive approaches

Feature

Article

4

ANGELA SOMMA

LISA MANNING

DWAYNE MEADOWS

MARTA NAMMACK

NMFS Office of

Protected Resources

Silver Spring

Maryland

1H.R. 9424 (Endangered species preservation) Public Law 

89-669 (80 Stat. 926).

covery and conservation programs. Most notable 

among these programs are a cooperative program 

that involves state partners in the recovery of listed 

species (Section 6 Program) and a newly developed 

program that addresses species of concern before 

population declines warrant ESA protection (Species of Concern Program). In this article we review 

how these two programs are currently working to 

recover listed species and conserve species of concern before listing under the ESA becomes necessary. 

BACKGROUND: IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973

Currently, there are 1,925 threatened and 

endangered species listings under the ESA, with 

1,351 of those species found in the United States 

or its waters, and the remainder occurring in international waters or foreign countries. NMFS and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share 

responsibility for implementing the ESA but have 

divided jurisdiction over most species. In general, 

USFWS manages terrestrial and freshwater species, 

while NMFS manages marine species, including 

most anadromous fishes (species such as salmon 

that reside in salt water and return to fresh water 

to spawn). Under the ESA, species include any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife which interbreeds when mature.2 Two poli2Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532).
9 0

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

5Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536).

cies provide guidance on the definition of distinct 

population segments for Pacific salmon (NMFS, 

1991) and other vertebrate species (NMFS, 1996). 

At the present time, NMFS is responsible for 66 

listed species.3

In order to receive protection under the ESA, a 

species must first be listed as endangered or threatened. A species is considered endangered if it is “in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range,” and a species is considered 

threatened if it “is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future.” 4 The ESA 

requires that listing decisions be based solely on the 

best scientific and commercial data available. The 

ESA also requires NMFS or USFWS to determine 

whether any species is endangered or threatened 

because of any of the following factors:

 present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ 

habitat or range; 

 overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

 disease or predation; 

 inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

 other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence. 

Once a species is listed as endangered, it is generally protected from take (defined as harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect) by any individual or organization. This take 

prohibition may also be, and often is, extended to 

threatened species by regulation. 

Because habitat loss and modification is a major 

threat to many imperiled species, the ESA requires 

that critical habitat be designated for species listed 

under the ESA. Critical habitat includes specific 

areas within the geographical range occupied by 

the species at the time of listing containing physical or biological features essential to conservation 

that may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographical range occupied by the species if 

NMFS determines that the area itself is essential 

for conservation. Maps of critical habitat can be 

found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

criticalhabitat.htm.

 Additionally, under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies are obligated to

“Ensure that any action authorized, funded,

or carried out by such agency . . . is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat . . . which is 

determined . . . to be critical.”5

An exposed male sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 

nerka).

Mark Scheuerell, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

3A complete list of threatened and endangered species currently under NMFS’ jurisdiction can be found in Appendix 

7 and is also available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa.htm.

4Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532).
91

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

States currently holding ESA Section 6 agreements with NMFS; year 

effective noted in parentheses.

Delaware (2007) New Jersey (2004)

Florida (2003) New York (1992) 

 Georgia (1990) North Carolina (2000)

Hawaii (2006) Puerto Rico (2003)

Maine (2005) South Carolina (1984)

Maryland (1998) U.S. Virgin Islands (2003)

Massachusetts (1996) Washington (2008)

Box 1 In order to meet this requirement, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any activities that may 

affect a listed species under NMFS jurisdiction 

(known as an interagency or Section 7 consultation). The ESA also requires Federal agencies to 

use their authorities to carry out programs for the 

conservation of species. This section of the ESA 

provides NMFS with a powerful tool for working 

with a number of Federal agencies to design programs and activities in a manner that provides for 

the conservation of listed species. 

To promote the recovery of a species once it has 

been listed, a recovery plan is prepared that identifies the conservation measures necessary to recover 

the species. Most recent plans can be found online 

at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.

htm. NMFS works with other Federal agencies, 

state and local governments, and private entities to 

implement the measures in these plans. One means 

of supporting such measures is through funding 

associated with cooperative agreements with the 

states under Section 6 of the ESA. 

COOPERATION WITH STATES:

THE ESA SECTION 6 PROGRAM 

States play an essential role in the conservation 

and recovery of endangered and threatened species. 

Protected species under NMFS’ jurisdiction may 

spend part or all of their lifecycles in state waters, 

and success in conserving these species depends in 

large part on working cooperatively with state agencies. In Section 2 of the ESA, Congress declared 

that 

“Encouraging the states and other interested

parties, through Federal financial assistance 

and a system of incentives, to develop and 

maintain conservation programs which 

meet national and international standards 

is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, 

for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s 

heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.”6

Under the authority of Section 6 of the ESA, 

NMFS is explicitly authorized to work cooperatively with states7 and provide Federal assistance 

to support the development of state conservation 

programs for listed marine and anadromous species (Box 1). States may also receive support for 

monitoring of candidate and recently recovered species.8 Section 6 requires state matching (at 10% to 

25%) of Federal funding, thereby leveraging what 

are typically very limited Federal dollars. This program also capitalizes on the existing expertise and 

knowledge of state natural resource agencies and 

their existing intrastate partners to better protect 

and recover the listed species that reside within a 

particular state. Because of its emphasis on cooperative partnerships, the Section 6 Program is an 

excellent example of the type of Federal–state partnership articulated in President George W. Bush’s 

2004 Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation.

The mechanism for formalizing these Federal–

state partnerships is a Section 6 cooperative agreement. A state interested in entering into a cooperative agreement submits information to NMFS 

regarding the state’s legal authorities and conservation programs for threatened and endangered 

species. Once a state’s conservation program is 

7The term “state” is used here as defined in Section 3 of the 

ESA and therefore includes U.S. territories. 

8Candidate species are those species that are actively being considered for listing under the ESA, but are not yet the subject 

of a proposed rule (50 CFR 424.02). NMFS’ definition of a 

candidate species includes petitioned species that are actively 

being considered for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA, as well as those species for which NMFS has 

initiated an ESA status review that it has announced in the 

Federal Register. 6Section 2(5) of the ESA.
92

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 1 (above)

Total funding through the 

Protected Species Cooperative Conservation Grant 

Program by state for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2003–07 grant cycles; amounts include funding awarded but not yet 

obligated for out-years of 

multiyear projects, which 

extend into FY2009. Maine 

and Hawaii each submitted 

proposals for the first time to 

the FY2007 grant cycle. Funding decisions for the FY2008 

cycle had not yet been finalized when this article was 

prepared.

Photo (below)

A newborn smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) measuring 812 mm (total length) 

captured as part of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s longterm monitoring project.

Massachusetts

$122,937

New York

$377,102

New Jersey

$108,435

Maryland

$467,102

North Carolina

$94,663 South Carolina

$506,681

Georgia

$1,110,138

Florida

$989,552

Puerto Rico

$332,465

USVI - $61,859

Hawaii

$153,000

Maine

$281,393

FWCC

found to be adequate and active in accordance with 

the criteria of Section 6(c) of the ESA, the state, 

through its respective natural resources agency or 

agencies, enters into an agreement with NMFS. 

The state then becomes eligible to receive Federal 

funding to support development of conservation 

programs for listed species and monitoring of candidate and recovered species residing within that 

state. NMFS and the states often work together to 

identify priority projects that address a particular 

state’s needs, recovery actions identified in a NMFS 

recovery plan, or both. Currently, NMFS holds 

agreements with 14 states, the newest agreement 

being with Washington, which was signed in 2008 

(Box 1). Since NMFS received new funding from 

Congress in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 to support this 

program, the number of ESA Section 6 agreements 

has more than doubled. NMFS anticipates that this 

program will continue to grow at a pace of at least 

one new agreement per year until all eligible states 

are included in the program. 

 Using the funding provided by Congress in 

2003 and thereafter, NMFS instituted the Protected Species Cooperative Conservation Grant 

Program. This grant program has provided between 

$750,000 and $950,000 annually to support conservation of endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species (Figure 1). Funded projects have involved 

development and implementation of management 

plans, scientific research, and public education and 

outreach efforts. Project budgets have ranged in size 

from small management measures costing several 

thousand dollars to large multiyear research projects 

costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Funding has supported work for most of the listed species that occur within the waters of partner states, 

particularly sea turtles, sturgeons, and smalltooth 

sawfish (Figure 2). A complete list of previously 

funded projects is available at http://www.nmfs.

noaa.gov/pr/conservation/states/funded.htm.

 An excellent example of a small, cost-effective 

management project is the ongoing work being 

conducted in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) to reduce injury and mortality of leatherback sea turtles 

as a result of boat collisions. The USVI Division 

of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has documented an 

increase in the number of injured and stranded 

leatherbacks during several recent nesting seasons 

in the area of Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, the largest nesting beach for leatherbacks in the 

United States and the first sea turtle nesting beach 

ever to be proposed as critical habitat (FWS,1978; 

Figure 3). During this same time period, off the 

southern shore of the refuge, there has also been an 

increase in boat traffic associated with the seasonal 

mutton snapper fishery. Observation of propeller 

wounds on leatherbacks confirms that the injuries 

are often the result of boat strikes. Although there 

are speed restrictions in this area, most boaters are 

unaware of these restrictions or are unaware of the 

presence of endangered leatherbacks so close to 

shore. To address this issue, the DFW has partnered with the West Indies Marine Animal Research and Conservation Service (WIMARCS) to 

install marker buoys around Sandy Point Wildlife 

Refuge, establish a no-wake zone, and increase lo-
93

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

Figure 2 (above)

Grants awarded under the Protected Species Cooperative Conservation Grant Program by species 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003–07 grant 

cycles. Amounts include funding 

awarded but not yet obligated for 

out-years of multiyear projects, 

which extend into FY2009. Sea turtle species include green, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, 

and hawksbill. Sturgeon species 

include shortnose, Atlantic, and 

Gulf sturgeon. Program support 

includes funding for workshops, 

meetings, and general program 

development. Elkhorn coral first 

became eligible to receive funding 

during the FY2005 grant cycle after 

it became a candidate for listing in 

June 2004 (NMFS, 2004).

Sea turtles (5 spp.)

$1,439,509

Program support

$339,977

Hawaiian monk seal

$121,500

Elkhorn coral

$103,811

Sturgeon (3 spp.)

$2,202,863

Smalltooth sawfish

$397,678

Figure 3 (left)

Critical habitat (yellow lines) for 

leatherback sea turtles consists of 

both a nesting beach (bold black 

line) and waters adjacent to Sandy 

Point, St. Croix, up to and inclusive of waters from the 100-fathom 

curve shoreward to the level of 

mean high tide. The mutton snapper closed area is shown within 

this critical habitat. Map courtesy 

of WIMARCS.

cal fishermen and recreational boaters’ awareness of 

the presence of leatherbacks in this area. With no 

available territorial funding, funding through the 

Protected Species Cooperative Grant ($41,859) is 

essential to conducting this project. 

Large, multiyear research projects supported 

through this grant program include ongoing longterm monitoring of the endangered smalltooth sawfish in Florida. The U.S. population of smalltooth 

sawfish has been extirpated from most of its range 

and was listed as endangered in 2003 (NMFS, 

2003). In the United States, smalltooth sawfish 

once ranged from Texas to Florida and up the Atlantic coast to Cape Hatteras; smalltooth sawfish 

are now mainly found only around the southern 

part of Florida. NMFS has provided over $200,000 

through the Protected Species Cooperative Conservation Grant Program to the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to 
9 4

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

continue monitoring this species and to examine 

the movements and distribution of smalltooth 

sawfish in relationship to physical characteristics of 

the habitat. Results of this research will be valuable 

in NMFS’ effort to identify and designate critical 

habitat for this species.

PROACTIVE CONSERVATION:

THE SPECIES OF CONCERN PROGRAM

In addition to the conservation efforts being 

made through the Section 6 Program, NMFS is 

also engaged in proactive conservation efforts that 

address species potentially at risk before protections 

of the ESA can or should be applied. In April 2004 

NMFS established the Species of Concern Program 

specifically to 1) identify species potentially at risk; 

2) identify data deficiencies and uncertainties in 

species’ status and threats; 3) increase public awareness about these species; 4) stimulate cooperative 

research efforts to obtain the information necessary 

to evaluate species status and threats; and 5) foster 

voluntary efforts to conserve these species before 

ESA listing becomes warranted. Species of Concern 

are defined as those species about which NMFS 

has some concerns regarding status and threats, 

but for which insufficient information is available 

to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA 

(NMFS, 2004). Currently, there are 42 species of 

concern (see fact sheets at http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/pr/species/concern/ and a list in Appendix 7). 

Boxes 2, 3, and 4 provide information about a few 

of these species of concern and current efforts to 

conserve them.

Before establishing the Species of Concern Program, NMFS maintained many of these species 

on its list of candidate species. However, most of 

these species did not fit NMFS’ definition of a 

candidate species, and a species of concern list was 

considered a better way of highlighting these species for conservation purposes. Neither candidate 

species nor species of concern designations carry 

any procedural or substantive protections under 

the ESA. 

 NMFS funds conservation efforts for species 

of concern through one of two mechanisms: 1) an 

annual allocation among NMFS Regions and Science Centers for research and outreach projects, 

and 2) the newly established Proactive Species 

Conservation Grant Program, which funds states 

and other non-Federal management entities for 

on-the-ground conservation efforts. The information gained and conservation actions taken through 

these projects are designed to benefit the species by 

addressing known threats to their existence. 

From FY1999 through FY2007, NMFS has 

provided over $2.7 million to NMFS Regional Offices and Science Centers for research and outreach 

projects through its annual allocation (Figure 4). 

Some of the species groups that have benefited from 

these funds include corals, sturgeon, salmonids, 

and groupers. Table 1 lists the 7 projects that were 

funded with the $178,316 available for FY2007. 

The Proactive Species Conservation Grant Program is a competitive grant program that provides 

funds to states, counties, or other non-Federal entities with management authority over a species of 

concern so that they can conserve these species. 

An applicant submits a proposal that must meet 

certain criteria. The main evaluation criteria are 

importance/relevance and applicability; technical/scientific merit; overall applicant qualifications 

and project costs; and outreach and education. In 

FY2006 (the inaugural year of the grant program) 

and FY2007, $490,000 was available each year and 

was awarded in two separate grants: a Mississippi 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) project on the saltmarsh topminnow, Fundulus jenkinsi 

Figure 4

Fiscal year 1999–2007 allocation of species of concern research and outreach funds (in 

thousands of dollars).

Year

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250 Sturgeon

Grouper/rockfishes

Corals

Abalone

Gadids/herring

Elasmobranchs

Salmonids

Other fishes

Outreach

Funding

(thousands)
95

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

Table 1

Projects funded for Fiscal 

Year 2007 Science Center 

and Region projects through 

the Proactive Species Conservation Grant Program.

Project Funding

Black abalone status review and population 

 assessment $25,000

Estimating the size of green sturgeon populations $35,000

SOC national education and outreach proposal $9,751

Biological relevance of morphologically 

 indistinguishable but genetically distinct 

 pinto abalone $34,426

Field surveys in Hawaii for Hawaiian reef coral, 

Lingula reevii, and inarticulated brachiopod, 

Montipora dilatata $16,150

Using meta-analysis to determine the status of 

 the U.S. population of sand tiger shark, 

 Carcharias taurus $35,000

Coral recovery planning $22,989

($143,095), and a Maine Department of Marine 

Resources project on Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic 

salmon, and rainbow smelt ($836,905). Neither of 

these 5-year projects is far enough along to discuss 

results, but some details on the MDNR project are 

provided in Box 3.

SUMMARY

While the ESA is highly regulatory in nature, 

NMFS has established programs that take cooperative and non-regulatory approaches to conserving 

listed species and species of concern. In particular, 

NMFS has made small, but increasingly significant, steps in developing both the ESA Section 

6 and the Species of Concern programs. Federal 

funding through these programs has supported 

research, management, and outreach projects for 

over a dozen species in about a dozen states. For 

the external partners, Federal support through these 

programs has been invaluable, because other funds 

are largely unavailable for this work. 

The Section 6 Program has been, and continues to be, a critical component of recovery efforts 

for listed species. Work supported through this 

program often directly addresses recovery priorities identified in NMFS Recovery Plans. Since the 

beginning of 2006, NMFS has drafted or revised 

13 recovery plans, including new recovery plans 

for white abalone and smalltooth sawfish. As the 

number of state partners engaged in this program 

increases, so too will the number of species and 

recovery actions implemented for these species. 

Continuing to invest in the Section 6 Program 

means continuing to invest in recovery efforts for 

species listed under the ESA.

Although still in its infancy, the Species of Concern Program has evolved from a small amount of 

agency research and outreach effort into a national 

program that engages external partners in proactive 

conservation efforts. Funding remains limited for 

this program, but over time and with some demonstrated success in preventing the need to protect 

species of concern under the ESA, this program is 

expected to grow. Overall, these proactive efforts 

will serve to increase our knowledge of potentially 

at-risk species and provide a measure of protection 

before more costly and cumbersome regulatory 

mechanisms are required. 

LITERATURE CITED

FWS. 1978. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed determination of critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle. 

Federal Register 43:12050–12051.

Moser, M. L., and S. T. Lindley. 2007. Use of Washington estuaries by subadult and adult green sturgeon. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:243–253.

NMFS. 1991. National Marine Fisheries Service policy 

on applying the definition of species under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific salmon. Federal Register 

56:58612–58618. 

NMFS. 1996. National Marine Fisheries Service policy 

regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. 

Federal Register 61:4722–4725.

NMFS. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service declaration of final endangered status for a distinct population segment of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in 

the United States. Federal Register 68:15674–15680.

NMFS. 2004. National Marine Fisheries Service notice 

of establishment of species of concern list, addition of 

species to species of concern list, description of factors 

for identifying species of concern, and revision of candidate species list. Federal Register 69:19975–19979. 

Wooley, J., and G. Peters. 1999–2009. The American 

presidency project. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (Internet host). Internet site—http://www.

presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4090.
9 6

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Year Identified as a Species of Concern: 2003

Other Conservation Designations: International 

Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources—Near Threatened; American Fisheries Society—Endangered; California—Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need

The green sturgeon is an ocean-oriented sturgeon 

found in nearshore waters from Baja Mexico to Canada. It is anadromous and spawns in the spring. Green 

sturgeon differ from co-occurring white sturgeon by 

the number of side-body scutes (23–30, compared to 

>38 for white sturgeon), the presence of 1–2 scutes 

behind the dorsal fin (white sturgeon have none), 

and a longer snout with barbels closer to the mouth. 

While many green sturgeon are olive-green dorsally, 

they can also be gray or golden brown. Green sturgeon can reach 7 feet in length and 350 pounds, and 

feed mainly on burrowing shrimps. Two distinct population segments (DPS’s) have been defined under the 

ESA—a northern DPS that spawns in the Klamath 

and Rogue Rivers and a southern DPS that spawns in 

the Sacramento River (Figure 5). The southern DPS 

was listed as threatened in 2006, while the northern 

DPS was identified as a species of concern because of 

remaining uncertainties in its status.

An 88% decline in commercial landings of all sturgeon occurred from 1887–1901. The best contemporary abundance indicator for the northern DPS appears to be the Klamath Tribal salmon gillnet harvest, 

in which green sturgeon are bycatch (Figure 6). Data 

from this fishery indicates that catch has declined 

slightly over 20+ years, with 200–400 fish taken per 

year. Spawning populations in the Eel and Trinity 

Rivers in California have been lost. In addition to historical overfishing, threats to green sturgeon include 

habitat destruction and alteration from water develBox 2: Green sturgeon (Northern DPS)

Figure 5

Distribution of the northern and southern DPS’s 

of green sturgeon. Map courtesy of S. Lindley, 

NMFS. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
97

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

Box 2: Green sturgeon (continued)

Figure 6

Catch of green sturgeon 

in the Yurok Tribal salmon 

gillnet fishery on the Klamath River. Data courtesy 

of NOAA.

opment, dams, and land-use practices in the Sacramento and Klamath Rivers. Green sturgeon also have many characteristics that make them vulnerable including large size, late maturity, low reproductive productivity, and long life span. 

The Species of Concern Program has funded recent projects entitled Modeling the Freshwater Habitat of Green Sturgeon from Sightings Data; Marine Migration and Estuary Use of Green Sturgeon; and Seasonality and Habitat Use of 

Green Sturgeon in Washington Estuaries. The marine migration study found that green sturgeon migrate north in the fall 

into Canada, often as far as the north end of Vancouver Island, and return south in the spring. The Washington estuary 

project indicated that green sturgeon use estuaries throughout their migratory range, and use them in the summer when 

estuary water temperature is at least 4°F warmer than coastal marine waters (Moser and Lindley, 2007). Overall, these 

projects suggest a higher risk than previously expected of green sturgeon ending up as bycatch in other fisheries due to 

their frequent and long-distance movements.

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

Number of

green sturgeon
9 8

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Year Identified as a Species of Concern: 1991 

Other Conservation Designations: International Union 

for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources—Not 

Evaluated; American Fisheries Society—Threatened in 

Florida, Vulnerable elsewhere; Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi—Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

Box 3: Saltmarsh topminnow

The saltmarsh topminnow is endemic to brackish water estuaries, coastal salt marshes, and backwater slough areas 

from Galveston Bay, Texas, to Escambia Bay in the western panhandle of Florida. It is one of the smallest members of the 

topminnow/killifish family (Fundulidae), seldom exceeding 1.75 inches total length, with most individuals ranging from 

1 to 1.4 inches. They have cross-hatching on the back and sides that may be gray-green or fainter, and 12–30 dark round 

spots are often arranged in rows along the midside of the body from above the pectoral fin to the base of the caudal fin. 

Females become slightly larger than males. Saltmarsh topminnows are tolerant to salinities of 1–20 parts per thousand 

(ppt). Abundance is highest in Spartina and Juncus salt marshes with salinity of <12 ppt and depths of 1–2 feet. They 

belong to the guild of species that mostly uses the edge (rather than the interior) of saltmarshes adjacent to tidal creeks. 

Other pupfishes (Family Cyprinodontidae) use the marsh interior more. No information is available on diet or feeding 

habits. Breeding occurs from March to August in shallow flooded marshes. Few adults survive beyond breeding in their 

second year of life. 

Abundance has likely declined as a result of extensive loss of habitat. Habitat alteration, dredging, and marsh erosion 

are the most serious threats to this species. The conversion of marsh to deeper, open water eliminates important feeding, 

sheltering, and breeding areas. Dock and other construction along marsh edges may prevent saltmarsh topminnows from 

accessing flooded marsh. Hurricanes have further reduced available saltmarsh habitat. 

In 2006 and 2007 the Species of Concern Program provided the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

(MDMR) $143,095 for the study Fundulus jenkinsi, Saltmarsh Topminnow: Conservation Planning and Implementation. The MDMR is working cooperatively with The Nature Conservancy and the University of Southern Mississippi on 

this project. Sampling of saltmarsh topminnow began in March 2007 and continues quarterly using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the species distribution and abundance. In later years of this 5-year project, the MDMR 

will use this information to focus conservation efforts in areas found to be most important to the species. Bulkhead construction is popular in the areas suspected to be important saltmarsh topminnow habitat; if the research indicates that 

these areas are in fact important to this species, then the state could address threats to the species through its permitting 

process. This project is also being conducted in collaboration with three National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERR’s) 

in the area. NERR’s are also collaborations between NOAA and the states. Florida Fish and Wildlife Cons. Comm.
99

CONSERVATION AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE 4

Year Identified as a Species of Concern:

1991 

Other Conservation Designations: International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resource—Not Evaluated

 

 Ivory bush coral, which is more commonly known by its scientific name, Oculina varicosa, is endemic to the southeastern United States and ranges from Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, through the 

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, although 

the main population occurs off east-central Florida. Colonies are arborescent, 

with highly clumped, irregular, bushy 

branches; branches average 1/4 inch in diameter, and colonies can be 4–5 feet tall. 

Colonies are found to depths of 500 feet 

on limestone rubble, low-relief limestone 

Box 4: Ivory bush coral

NMFS

outcrops, and high-relief, steeply sloping prominences. Colonies are semi-isolated, patchy, and low-growing in shallow water, or form larger, massive coalescing aggregates (thickets) with substantial topographic relief in depths over 

160 feet. Shallow-water colonies are golden to brown due to symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae), and have shorter, stout 

branches with closely-spaced corallites. Deep-water colonies are lavender to white in color (they lack symbiotic algae) 

and have thinly tapered branches. The deeper individuals have an approximately 50% faster growth rate than shallow 

individuals. The taxonomy of the Oculina genus is unclear, and there is debate whether the deep-water and shallowwater forms are the same species. Oculina filter-feed on planktonic organisms. Oculina serves as a keystone species by 

providing important habitat; over 300 species of invertebrates have been found living in its branches. The abundances 

of economically valuable fishes (e.g. grouper, snapper, sea bass, and amberjack) are often higher in areas with high Oculina coral cover. 

 The Species of Concern listing is based on well-documented declines in the Oculina Banks area, which lies off the 

central east coast of Florida. Banks containing partially dead colonies of Oculina were first observed in the late 1970’s. 

Submersible surveys performed in 1995–1997 indicated extensive habitat damage. Damage to corals in the Oculina 

Banks area has resulted from the use of mechanical fishing gear, including dredges, bottom long lines, trawl nets, and 

anchors. As of 2001, it was estimated that only 10% of Oculina coral habitat there remained intact. Colonies may also 

be negatively impacted by sediments and red tides.

In 1984, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council established the 122 mi2 Oculina Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), the world’s first protection granted specifically to deep coral habitat. In 2000, the South Atlantic 

Council expanded the Oculina HAPC to 397 mi2 and prevented trawling in that area. Current research is focusing on 

clarifying the uncertain taxonomy of this species. Systematic monitoring of the Oculina Banks area began in 2005, and 

the Species of Concern Program recently provided partial funding for an update of the species’ status. 

Part 3

Living Marine Resources
Photo on previous page: 

Steller sea lion rookery in 

Alaska. Photo courtesy of 

Carolyn Gudmundson.
103

NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES

UNIT 1

INTRODUCTION

Northeast groundfish fisheries include about 

35 stocks, primarily in New England waters and 

also off the Mid-Atlantic states. In New England, 

groundfish fisheries are dominated by members of 

the cod family (Atlantic cod, haddock, hakes, and 

pollock), flounders, and goosefish (also known as 

monkfish). Other important species in the complex 

include dogfish and skates. Mid-Atlantic groundfish fisheries are primarily for summer flounder, 

scup, goosefish, and black sea bass.

Groundfish fishermen use various fishing gears 

including otter trawls, gillnets, traps, and set lines. 

Otter trawling is the predominant fishing method 

employed throughout the region, although many 

vessels participating in groundfish fisheries switch 

gears seasonally. In 2006, 1,545 vessels possessed 

multispecies limited-access permits to participate 

in groundfish fisheries in the Northeast Region. 

Recent average yield (RAY; 2004–06; includes 

Unit

1

R. K. MAYO

L. BROOKS

L. COL

L. C. HENDRICKSON

C. KEITH

C. LEGAULT

T. MILLER

P. NITSCHKE

L. O’BRIEN

A. RICHARDS

G. SHEPHERD

K. SOSEBEE

M. TERCEIRO

M. TRAVER

S. E. WIGLEY

NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center

Woods Hole

Massachusetts

Northeast demersal fisheries

Photo above:

School of haddock.

Andrew J. Martinez

United States, Canada, and recreational) of mixed 

groundfish was just over 160,000 metric tons (t; 

Table 1-1). This level is about one-half of the sustainable yield, primarily due to reductions in catch 

quotas while many stocks rebuild from overfishing 

in previous years.

Northeast groundfish resources occur in mixedspecies aggregations that result in significant 

bycatch interactions among fisheries targeting 

different species or species groups. Management of 

the fishery is complex due to differences in mesh 

size, gear type, minimum landing (fish) size, quotas, 

and seasonal and year-round closure regulations set 

by the various regional management bodies: New 

England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), individual states, and Canada. The 

principal species of New England groundfish are 

managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), as well as peripherally 
104

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 1-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of northeast 

U.S. demersal fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent

average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield

(CY)

Sustainable

yield

(MSY)

Stock level

relative

to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Principal groundfish

Acadian redfish 487 1,946 8,200 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

American plaice 1,627 3,666 4,900 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Atlantic cod2,3,4

 Gulf of Maine 5,298 5,146 16,600 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Georges Bank 5,080 7,458 35,200 Below Overfishing Overfished

Atlantic halibut 24 Unknown 300 Below Unknown Overfished

Haddock2,3,5

 Gulf of Maine 1,430 1,279 5,100 Below Not overfishing Overfished

 Georges Bank 18,228 49,829 52,900 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Ocean pout6 294 38 1,500 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Pollock2,3,7 7,860 12,005 17,600 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Red hake

 Gulf of Maine / N. Georges Bank 165 Unknown 2,000 Below Unknown Not overfished

 S. Georges Bank / Mid-Atlantic 354 Unknown Unknown Unknown Undefined Not overfished

Silver hake

 Gulf of Maine / N. Georges Bank 466 Unknown Unknown Below Not overfishing Not overfished

 S. Georges Bank / Mid-Atlantic 6,475 Unknown Unknown Below Not overfishing Not overfished

White hake2,8 2,625 2,056 4,200 Below Overfishing Overfished

Windowpane flounder6

 Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank 652 389 1,000 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 S. New England / Mid-Atlantic 385 173 900 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Winter flounder2,3,9

 Gulf of Maine 441 Unknown 1,500 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

 Georges Bank6 2,038 1,424 3,000 Below Overfishing Not overfished

 S. New England / Mid-Atlantic 3,035 2,481 10,600 Below Overfishing Overfished

Witch flounder 2,659 5,511 4,400 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Yellowtail flounder2,10

 Cape Cod / Gulf of Maine 450 650 2,300 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Georges Bank 4,330 3,000 12,900 Below Overfishing Overfished

 S. New England / Mid-Atlantic 934 146 14,200 Below Overfishing Overfished

Subtotal, principal groundfish 65,337 105,122 206,595

Dogfish and skates

Skates11 41,575 Unknown Unknown Undefined

Spiny dogfish2,3,12 6,451 1,800 Unknown Undefined Not overfishing Rebuilding

Subtotal, dogfish and skates 48,026 43,375 43,375

under provisions of the ASMFC’s Northern Shrimp 

FMP, while other species are managed either directly or indirectly under other FMP’s. 

Groundfish fisheries in New England were 

traditionally managed by indirect methods such as 

restrictions on mesh sizes, minimum fish lengths, 

and some area closures. Regulatory measures 

currently in place for the major New England 

groundfish stocks include effort controls through 

allowable days at sea coupled with closed areas, trip 

limits, and target levels for total allowable catch. 

The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

FMP includes provisions for catch quotas aimed 

at rebuilding these stocks.

Extensive historical data for Northeast demersal 

fisheries have been derived from both fisherydependent (i.e. catch and effort monitoring) and 

fishery-independent (i.e. NOAA fishery research 

vessel surveys since 1963) data collection programs. 

Beginning in 1989, an at-sea observer program 

has been conducted aboard a subset of commercial fishing vessels to document discard rates and 

collect high quality, high-resolution data on the 

groundfish catch. Some of the Northeast demersal 
105

NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES

UNIT 1

Species/stock

Recent

average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield

(CY)

Sustainable

yield

(MSY)

Stock level

relative

to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Other finfish

Atlantic hagfish13 844 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Black sea bass3 2,200 3,100 Unknown Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Cusk2,13,14 263 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Goosefish (monkfish)2,15

 Northern stock 10,800 7,737 Unknown Above Not overfishing Overfished

 Southern stock 10,500 3,667 Unknown Above Not overfishing Overfished

Scup3 6,955 8,977 Unknown Below Overfishing Overfished

Spot3 1,588 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Summer flounder3 13,484 10,704 21,444 Above Overfishing Overfished

Tilefish 918 905 2,000 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Weakfish3 1,013 6,538 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Wolffishes13 106 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, other finfish 48,671 44,429 56,264

Total 162,034 192,926 306,234

U.S. Subtotal 147,168 157,287 263,977

12004–06 average. Includes foreign and recreational landings.

2Includes more than 100 t/year of foreign (Canadian) landings.

3Includes more than 100 t/year of recreational landings.

4U.S. portion of RAY is 8,852 t.

5U.S. portion of RAY is 8,836 t.

6CY represents landings only.

7U.S. portion of RAY is 6,190 t.

8U.S. portion of RAY is 2,543 t.

9U.S. portion of RAY is 5,407 t.

10U.S. portion of RAY is 5,250 t.

11Consists of barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skates. Collectively, the status of the species complex cannot be 

determined.

122004–05 average; discards not yet estimated for 2006.

13Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

14U.S. portion of RAY is 78 t.

15U.S. portion of RAY is 21,300 t.

Table 1-1

Continued from previous 

page.

Silver hake.

B. F. Figuerido

stocks (Atlantic cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock, 

American plaice, and summer flounder) are among 

the best understood and most thoroughly assessed 

fishery resources in the United States.

SPECIES AND STATUS

Principal Groundfish

The principal groundfish group includes important species in the cod family (Atlantic cod, 

haddock, silver hake, red hake, white hake, and 

pollock), flounders (yellowtail, winter, witch, windowpane, Atlantic halibut and American plaice), 

ocean pout, and Acadian redfish. Recent (2004–06) 

yields of these 14 species (representing 23 stocks) 

have averaged about 65,000 t (78% U.S. and 22% 

Canadian), compared to a combined sustainable 

yield of about 207,000 t (Table 1-1). Current 

yields are lower than the sustainable yield because 

many of these stocks are considered overfished and 

currently rebuilding. Total ex-vessel revenue from 

the principal U.S. groundfish commercial landings 

has dropped in recent years and was $83 million 

in 2006, compared to $107 million in 2003. The 

groundfish complex also supports important recreational fisheries for summer flounder, Atlantic cod, 

winter flounder, and pollock, representing about 

10% of the total catch of these species.

The research vessel survey abundance index1

for this group of species declined rapidly during 

1An aggregate index of abundance used to monitor resource 

trends; computed as the sum of the individual species stratified mean catch-per-tow values, smoothed to compensate for 

between-year variability.
106

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 1-1

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and abundance survey index 

(kg/tow) of principal groundfishes, 1960–2007.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

200

400

600

800

Abundance

survey index

(kg/tow)

0

20

40

60

Landings

Survey index

the 1960’s and early 1970’s (Figure 1-1), reflecting 

substantial increases in exploitation associated with 

the arrival of distant-water fleets. Many stocks in 

this group declined sharply during that period, 

notably Georges Bank haddock, most silver and 

red hake stocks, and most flatfish stocks. By 1974, 

indices of abundance for many of these species had 

dropped to the lowest levels ever recorded.

Groundfish partially recovered during the midto-late 1970’s because of reduced fishing effort associated with increasingly restrictive management 

under the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in the early 1970’s, and 

implementation of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1977 (Mayo et 

al., 1992). Cod and haddock abundance increased 

markedly, stock biomass of pollock increased more 

or less continually, and recruitment and abundance 

also increased for several flatfish stocks. The aggregate abundance index began to increase through the 

late 1970’s, but then subsequently declined, reaching new lows in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. 

The 1989 and 1990 abundance values were slightly 

higher than the previous two years, primarily due 

to recruitment of moderate 1987 year-classes of 

Atlantic cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. 

However, subsequent abundance indices declined, 

due in large part to the rapid depletion of the 1987 

yellowtail flounder year-class and declining cod 

abundance. The overall index of abundance of 

the principal groundfish and flounders reached a 

30-year low in 1992, but has subsequently more 

than doubled (Figure 1-1) owing to rebuilding 

efforts. The most recent changes in the aggregate 

abundance index are strongly influenced by substantial increases since 1996 of the biomass index 

for Acadian redfish in the Gulf of Maine, but also 

reflect increased biomass of haddock and yellowtail 

flounder on Georges Bank, and cod in the Gulf of 

Maine (NEFSC, 2001; NEFSC, 2005; Mayo and 

Terceiro, 2005; TRAC, 2007a,b). 

Landings of most groundfish species declined 

substantially during the mid 1990’s. For many 

stocks, landings continue to remain relatively 

low as a result of generally poor recruitment and 

continued restrictions on effort, low trip limits, 

and additional area closures in the Gulf of Maine. 

However, relatively strong year-classes produced 

in 1997 for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, in 

1998, 2000, and 2003 for Georges Bank haddock, 

and in 2003 for Gulf of Maine cod, combined with 

sharp reductions in fishing mortality, have led to 

improved conditions for these stocks (NEFSC, 

2005).

Dogfish and Skates

Dogfish and skates make up a significant part 

of the aggregate groundfish stock biomass in the 

Northeast. Of the two dogfish species, spiny 

dogfish make up a much larger proportion than 

smooth dogfish. Seven species of skates, including 

little, winter, barndoor, clearnose, thorny, rosette, 

and smooth occur on the Northeast shelf; of these, 

winter, little, and thorny skates account for most 

of the landed catch.

As catches of principal groundfish declined, 

reported landings of skates and spiny dogfish increased markedly from 2,600 t in 1978 to 29,700 

t in 1992, and peaked at 41,700 t in 1996 (Figure 

1-2). Annual landings declined to a low of 15,500 

t in 2005 and averaged 17,200 t during 2005–06, 

primarily as a result of continued restrictions on 

spiny dogfish landings. Discards of these species in 

fisheries directed towards other species are at least 

equivalent to the amounts landed and sometimes 

exceed the landings. The abundance of skates 

and dogfish increased throughout the 1970’s and 

1980’s, peaked in 1990, declined through 2000, 

and has since increased (Figure 1-2). Estimates of 
107

NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES

UNIT 1

Figure 1-2

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and abundance survey index (kg/tow) of dogfish and 

skates, 1960–2007.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Abundance

survey index

(kg/tow)

0

40

80

120

Landings

Survey index

spiny dogfish exploitable and spawning stock biomass in 2002 were about one-half of the maximum 

level observed in 1985 (NEFSC, 2006). However, 

the restrictions on dogfish landings have resulted 

in an increase in spawning stock biomass through 

2007. Trends in biomass for most skate species 

indicate decreases or stability in the last 5 years 

(NEFSC, 2007).

Other Finfish

Other groundfish species include those taken 

primarily as bycatch in fisheries directed at the 

principal groundfish species, as well as those 

that are targeted directly. In the Gulf of Maine, 

goosefish (also known as monkfish), cusk, and 

wolffishes are taken primarily as bycatch. In the 

Mid-Atlantic area, goosefish, scup, weakfish, black 

sea bass, spot, tilefish, and several other species are 

landed both in directed fisheries and as bycatch. 

As a group, other finfish can be characterized as 

generally overexploited; individually, some have 

landings well below their long-term mean as a 

result of being depleted, while for others, recent 

landings have exceeded their long-term mean due 

to overfishing. Some of these stocks are managed 

indirectly by other FMP’s; for example, cusk and 

wolffishes are taken in various groundfish fisheries 

managed under the Northeast Multispecies FMP. 

Other stocks are managed directly under FMP’s. 

Goosefish has been managed under a single-species 

FMP since 1999. Scup and black sea bass represent 

major directed fisheries as well as components of 

the summer flounder directed fishery, with all three 

species managed under a single FMP. 

In recent years, goosefish has become one of the 

most important species in the Northeast region and 

is currently the top-ranked groundfish species in 

both landings and value. U.S. landings increased 

from less than 600 t annually during 1964–72 to 

about 8,800 t during 1980–1988, and then peaked 

at 28,300 t in 1997 with ex-vessel revenue of $35 

million. Landings have declined steadily since 2003 

due to regulatory changes, and averaged 18,300 t 

during 2004–06. The value of goosefish landings 

peaked at $53.4 million in 2000, but has since 

declined to $33.5 million in 2006. The marked 

increase in goosefish landings during the 1990’s 

resulted from a diversion of fishing effort from 

principal groundfish stocks, increased market demand for the species, and resulting higher prices. 

The most recent assessment (Northeast Data Poor 

Stocks Working Group, 2007) indicated that the 

goosefish resource is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. However, the assessment had 

significant uncertainties due to poorly understood 

life history parameters and application of a newlydeveloped model. Intensive cooperative industry 

vessel surveys conducted during 2001 and 2004 

provided significant new information, and biological studies are underway to improve understanding 

of life history of goosefish.

Summer flounder, one of the most valuable 

groundfish species in the Mid-Atlantic area, is the 

focus of both commercial and recreational fisheries 

with about 60% of the landings commercial and 

40% recreational. Prior to the implementation of 

management measures in 1988, stock abundance 

had been steadily declining due to excessively high 

fishing mortality rates. However, spawning stock 

biomass increased substantially from 1989 to 2006 

(Terceiro, 2006) and fishing mortality has declined 

since 1997. The recent average yield was about 

13,500 t during 2004–06, compared to a sustainable yield of nearly 21,500 t (Table 1-1). 

Atlantic hagfish, common in U.S. waters between the Gulf of Maine and North Carolina, 

support a small commercial fishery (six vessels in 

2005) and can be a problem in hook and gillnet 

fisheries where they feed on caught fish. Hagfish 
108

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Goosefish lying camouflaged 

on a rocky reef on Georges 

Bank.

OAR/National Undersea Research Program

landings are exported to Asia where the skin is 

used to make “eel skin” leather products and the 

meat is used for food. Landings are uncertain because reporting is not required, but appear to have 

increased substantially during the 1990’s. During 

2004–06, reported annual landings averaged 844 

t (Table 1-1), a decline from 2001–03. Ex-vessel 

revenues were over $1,200,000 for landings of 

1,340 t in 2004. Currently, the hagfish fishery is 

not managed, as there is no FMP in place. Based 

on a recent review (NEFSC, 2003), little is known 

about the condition of hagfish stocks, although the 

biological characteristics of the species (e.g. low 

fecundity, potentially delayed sexual maturity, and 

years with apparently no reproduction) indicate 

that hagfish may be vulnerable to overfishing. 

Collection of basic biological and fishery data for 

hagfish is ongoing and a stock assessment is planned 

for the near future.

ISSUES

Management Concerns

During most of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, 

New England groundfish harvests were regulated by 

indirect controls on fishing mortality such as mesh 

and minimum fish size restrictions and some area 

closures. Amendment 5 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, implemented in March 1994, marked the 

beginning of an effort reduction program to address 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) requirement to eliminate 

the overfished conditions of Atlantic cod, haddock, 

and yellowtail flounder. The regulatory package 

included a moratorium on new vessel entrants, a 

schedule of reduction in days at sea for trawl and 

gillnet vessels, increases in regulated mesh size, and 

expanded closed areas to protect haddock. Since 

December 1994, three large areas (Closed Areas 

I and II on Georges Bank and Nantucket Lightship Closed Area; Figure 1-3) have been closed to 

protect the regulated groundfish stocks. In May 

1998, a large portion of the western Gulf of Maine 

was also closed to afford protection for several additional groundfish stocks.

Amendment 7 to the Northeast Multispecies 

FMP was developed and implemented in 1996 

to accelerate the existing days-at-sea reduction 

schedule and impose other restrictions, including 

the creation of three year-round closed areas and a 

system of seasonal closures in the Gulf of Maine. 

Amendment 9, implemented in 1999, established 

overfishing definitions and rebuilding objectives 

to meet the requirements of the MSA. The Multispecies FMP has also been modified by a series of 

framework adjustments which enacted increases 

in codend mesh size, as well as trip limits and area 

closures, to achieve specific management objectives 

for cod in the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank. 

Trip limits were also imposed on Georges Bank 

haddock catches.

A groundfish vessel buyback program was initiated in 1995, first as a pilot project and later as a 

comprehensive fishing-capacity reduction project. 

The program was designed to reduce excess fishing capacity and provide economic assistance to 

fishermen adversely affected by the collapse of 

the groundfish fishery if they voluntarily chose to 

permanently remove their vessels from the fishery. 

The vessel buyback program, which concluded in 

1998, successfully removed 79 fishing vessels at a 

cost of nearly $25 million and resulted in an approximate 20% reduction in fishing effort in the 

Northeast groundfish fishery.

In December 2001, as a result of a lawsuit filed 

by the Conservation Law Foundation and several 

other environmental groups, a Federal district court 

ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service 
109

NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES

UNIT 1

Figure 1-3

Areas closed year-round 

to protect New England 

groundfishes.

74 72 70 68 66

44

42

40

Western 

Gulf of Maine 

Closure Area

Gulf of Maine

Nantucket Lightship

Closed Area

Southern

New England

Area I

Closure

Georges

Bank

Area II

Closure

U.S.A. Canada

had failed to comply with the MSA’s overfishing 

and rebuilding provisions, and failed to accurately 

account for bycatch and to minimize bycatch mortality in the groundfish fishery. To bring the Northeast Multispecies FMP into full compliance with 

the MSA, the NEFMC developed Amendment 13, 

which was implemented in May 2004. Amendment 

13 established a new days-at-sea baseline for each 

individual operator, and allowed only 60% of those 

days to be directed at regulated species in fishing 

years 2004 and 2005, with further reductions 

scheduled through 2009. The remaining 40% of 

days can only be used in Special Access Programs 

that minimize the catch of overfished stocks or in 

directed fishing where it can be otherwise demonstrated that bycatch of overfished stocks is minimal. 

Amendment 13 also established a formal rebuilding plan for overfished groundfish stocks based 

on re-estimated biomass and fishing mortality 

reference points (NEFSC, 2002). Framework 42 

was implemented in 2006 to adjust the rebuilding 

schedules following assessment results obtained at 

the August 2005 Groundfish Assessment Review 

Meeting (NEFSC, 2005). The NEFMC is currently developing Amendment 16 to the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP to implement further rebuilding 

adjustments based on revised biological reference 

points and status of 19 stocks through 2007.

The joint MAFMC-ASMFC Summer Flounder 

FMP was initially approved in 1988 but was subsequently modified by a series of amendments to 

include scup and black sea bass, as well as revised 

overfishing definitions. This FMP has a strategy 

to reduce fishing mortality to the level producing 

maximum yield per recruit for summer flounder 

(i.e. Fmax, used as a proxy for FMSY). The FMP 

uses commercial landings quotas (allocated by 

state and season), recreational harvest limits, and 

possession/size limits to achieve this goal. Increased 

recruitment levels, combined with lower fishing 

mortality rates during 1993–2002, have resulted 

in significant increases in stock biomass. 

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

Significant catches are taken from transboundary 

stocks of Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, 

and pollock in Canadian waters on Georges Bank 

and in the Gulf of Maine. During 2004–06, 15% 

of cod, 21% of pollock, 8% of yellowtail flounder, and 55% of haddock landings were taken by 

Canadian fishermen. Stock assessment activities 

between the United States and Canada have been 

coordinated on an informal basis for decades, 

but in 1998 a formal joint stock assessment and 

peer review process for transboundary stocks was 

initiated under the auspices of the Transboundary 

Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC). Both 

countries have continued to independently prepare 

management advice on the basis of jointly prepared 

and reviewed assessments.

Further coordination efforts led to the formation in 2000 of a bilateral government–industry 

committee, the Transboundary Management 

Guidance Committee (TMGC), to provide a 

linkage between fisheries and their respective management bodies. This committee is charged with 

recommending harvesting strategies and harvest 

levels consistent with each country’s management 

strategies. The TMGC also developed a United 

States–Canada Resource Sharing Agreement for the 

joint management of cod and haddock on Eastern 

Georges Bank and yellowtail flounder on all of 

Georges Bank, which was formally implemented 

in Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies 
110

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Wolf fish hiding amongst the 

rocks in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

Norm Despres

FMP. Under the agreement, country-specific quotas 

are applied annually for each of the three stocks 

based on an agreed total allowable catch (TAC) 

sharing formula. 

Stock Recovery

Fishing effort restrictions were first implemented in 1994 under Amendment 5 to the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP through days-at-sea allocations 

based on either individual vessel or fleet-level 

performance criteria. Since 1995, the number of 

vessels in these two permit categories has fluctuated 

due to changing stock status, new regulations, and 

vessel buyback programs. Total allocations of days 

at sea have also changed according to a prescribed 

schedule of reductions in Amendments 5 and 7. 

As a result, the total number of permitted vessels 

in the individual vessel category declined between 

1995 and 1998. The number of permitted vessels and their allocated days remained relatively 

unchanged in 1998–2001. The total number of 

vessels in the fleet category, however, rose between 

1995 and 1996 when the fixed-gear sector (gillnets 

and longline) was included following the adoption 

of Amendment 7. The vessel buyback reduced the 

total number of fleet vessels in 1998, but neither 

effort allocation nor number of permitted vessels 

changed much through 2001. Measures enacted 

following implementation of Amendment 13 will 

generally result in a substantial reduction in overall 

effort, depending on the usage rate of fishing time 

in the Special Access Programs and in other fisheries 

that do not target the overfished stocks. At the same 

time, Amendment 13 allows for leasing or transfer 

of days at sea between comparable vessels, which 

could lead to further consolidation of the fleet.

After a decade of direct-effort control measures 

and many indirect controls on exploitation, several 

of the groundfish stocks regulated by the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP have begun to recover and are 

approaching biomass levels not seen for many 

decades (e.g. Acadian redfish and Georges Bank 

haddock). Thus, although total fishing effort may 

decline, the catch per day-at-sea may increase as 

stocks continue to recover and approach a level 

that will allow harvest rates equal to the sustainable 

yield. Summer flounder spawning stock biomass, 

regulated by fishing quotas that shut down the 

fishery when attained (known as a hard TAC level), 

has increased eight-fold over the last decade. Indications are that the biomasses of scup and black sea 

bass have also increased.
111

NORTHEAST DEMERSAL FISHERIES

UNIT 1

LITERATURE CITED

Mayo, R. K., M. J. Fogarty, and F. M. Serchuk. 1992. 

Aggregate fish biomass and yield on Georges Bank, 

1960–87. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 

Science 14:59–78.

Mayo, R. K., and M. Terceiro, (Editors). 2005. Assessment of 19 Northeast groundfish stocks through 

2004. 2005 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting 

(2005 GARM), Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 15–19 August 2005. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center Reference Document 05-13, 499 p.

NEFSC. 2001. Report of the 33rd Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop (33rd SAW) Public Review 

Workshop. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 01-19, Woods Hole, MA, 38 p.

NEFSC. 2002. Final Report of the Working Group on 

Re-Evaluation of Biological Reference Points for New 

England. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 02-04, Woods Hole, MA, 232 p.

NEFSC. 2003. Report of the 37th Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop (37th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary 

of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Reference Document 03-04, Woods Hole, MA, 597 p.

NEFSC. 2005. Assessment of 19 northeast groundfish 

stocks through 2004: 2005 Groundfish Assessment 

Review Meeting (2005 GARM), 15–19 August 2005. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 05-13, Woods Hole, MA, 499 p.

NEFSC. 2006. 43rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (43rd SAW) 43rd SAW Assessment 

Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 06-25, Woods Hole, MA, 400 p.

NEFSC. 2007. 44th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (44th SAW) 44th SAW Assessment 

Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 07-10, Woods Hole, MA, 661 p.

Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2007. 

Monkfish assessment report for 2007. Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-21, 

Woods Hole, MA, 232 p.

Terceiro, M. 2006. Summer flounder assessment and 

biological reference point update for 2006. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 64 

p. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/

saw/2006FlukeReview/.

TRAC. 2007a. Eastern Georges Bank haddock. Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee Status 

Report 2007/02.

TRAC. 2007b. Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee Status 

Report 2007/03.

113

NORTHEAST PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 2

Northeast pelagic fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Northeast pelagic fisheries target small schooling species in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 

particularly Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, 

bluefish, and butterfish.1 The fisheries on these 

stocks are seasonal and reflect fish migration patterns and temporal availability. Generally, these species overwinter in relatively warm offshore waters 

of the Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and move 

southward to avoid seasonal cooling of northern 

nearshore waters. This is followed by a return 

northward and inshore migration during the spring 

and summer to feed and reproduce. 

Various fishing gears, including bottom trawls, 

midwater trawls, gillnets, and seines are used to harvest pelagic species in the Northeast Region. During 

2004–06, total landings averaged 229,633 metric 

tons (t; Table 2-1), 70% by the United States and 

Unit

2

WILLIAM J. OVERHOLTz

NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center

Woods Hole

Massachusetts

Photo above:

Butterfish.

1For taxonomic consistency, longfin and shortfin squid are 

included in Unit 4: Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries.

Peter Gamache, OMAO

30% by Canada. This includes recreational landings 

(bluefish and Atlantic mackerel) of about 7,666 t.

 During the early 1970’s, the principal Northeast pelagic species (Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic 

herring) were exploited heavily by foreign fleets. 

As a result, stock sizes and fishery yields declined 

to record low levels by the late 1970’s. Abundance 

has since increased due to the exclusion of foreign 

fleets, resulting in lower harvest rates and improved 

recruitment. Stock sizes for these species are currently at historically high levels.

 Northeast pelagic fisheries are managed under 

three fishery management plans (FMP’s): Atlantic 

mackerel by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council’s (MAFMC) Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, 

and Butterfish FMP; bluefish by the joint MAFMC 

and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

(ASMFC) Atlantic Bluefish FMP; and Atlantic herring, in coordination with the ASMFC, by the New 

England Fishery Management Council’s Atlantic 

Sea Herring FMP.
114

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 2-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Northeast 

pelagic fisheries resources.

Species/Stock

Recent average 

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Atlantic herring2 112,240 194,000 194,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Atlantic mackerel3 106,219 335,000 148,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Bluefish4 9,706 16,916 51,890 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Butterfish 1,468 4,545 12,175 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Total 229,633 550,461 406,065

U.S. Subtotal 160,335 481,162 336,766

12004–06 average. Includes foreign and recreational landings.

2Includes significant foreign (Canadian) landings; the U.S. portion of the RAY is 96,706 t.

3Includes significant foreign (Canadian) and recreational landings; the U.S. portion of the RAY is 52,455 t.

4Includes significant recreational landings.

SPECIES AND STATUS

Northeast pelagic fisheries are dominated by 

four species: Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, 

bluefish, and butterfish. The abundance of mackerel and herring is presently above average, while 

that of bluefish is near or above average and that 

of butterfish is below average.

Long-term population trends for pelagic species, as measured by research vessel survey data, 

have fluctuated considerably during the last 25 

years (Figure 2-1). The combined abundance index 

for mackerel and herring reached minimal levels in 

the mid-to-late 1970’s, reflecting pronounced declines for both and a collapse of the Georges Bank 

herring component, but subsequently increased 

steadily and peaked in 2001, declined somewhat, 

and remained relatively flat since then.

Atlantic Mackerel

 The Atlantic mackerel stock recovered during 

the mid 1980’s, and the most recent stock assessment (NEFSC, 2007) indicated that the spawning 

stock biomass reached 2.3 million t in 2005. Abundance indices from research vessel surveys have 

remained fairly stable in recent years, suggesting 

that stock biomass remains relatively high. Recent 

annual landings were about 106,219 t (Table 2-1), 

of which 49% was taken by the United States. 

Atlantic Herring

The Atlantic herring stock complex in the 

Northeast Region is still somewhat underutilized 

as a whole, but the inshore Gulf of Maine component is considered fully utilized (NEFSC, 2007). 

Total landings of herring in 2003 were 115,000 

t, up from 104,000 t in 2002. The U.S. catch accounted for 82% of the 2004 landings. Recent 

average landings totaled about 112,240 t (Table 

2-1). The U.S. coastal stock complex consists of 

two major stock components, the Gulf of Maine 

and Georges Bank. Canadian catches off New 

Brunswick have also been included in a combined 

stock analysis since these fish mix with those from 

the other stocks during portions of the year. The 

Georges Bank stock component collapsed in 1976 

after intensive exploitation by foreign fleets during 

the 1960’s and early 1970’s. A total allowable catch 

of 60,000 t was in effect for the nearshore portion 

of the Gulf of Maine in 2006.

Atlantic herring on a sorting 

table aboard a NMFS survey 

vessel.

Charles Byrne, NEFSC
115

NORTHEAST PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 2

Figure 2-1

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and abundance survey index 

(kg/tow) of principal pelagic 

stocks, 1960–2007. 

Atlantic mackerel on the deck 

of a trawler.

NEFSC Photo Archives

Bluefish

Bluefish landings peaked in 1981 at 51,400 t, 

but have declined to a recent annual average of only 

9,706 t (Table 2-1). About 68% of recent bluefish 

catches have been taken by recreational fishermen. 

During 2004–06, recreational and commercial 

landings increased slightly over the 2001–03 period. Currently, bluefish stock abundance is above 

average.

Butterfish

The butterfish stock is currently below average 

abundance (NEFSC, 2007). Butterfish landings 

have declined significantly in recent years, primarily 

due to reduced export demand and low stock size.

ISSUES

Scientific Advice and 

Adequacy of Stock Assessments

Although historical catch data are generally adequate for assessment purposes (with the possible 

exception of bluefish), stock assessments for Northeast pelagic resources are somewhat imprecise. This 

is due to the highly variable trawl survey indices 

of abundance used for calibrating cohort analysis 

models; the short lifespan of butterfish; and current 

low exploitation rates for mackerel and herring. The 

development of more precise assessments will require the use of hydroacoustic, midwater trawl, and 

improved bottom trawl surveys to estimate herring 

and mackerel abundance, and alternative types of 

sampling methods to estimate bluefish abundance. 

Efforts to improve stock assessments for Atlantic 

herring began in 1997 with the implementation 

of autumn hydroacoustic surveys aimed at indexing herring spawning concentrations. Research is 

currently underway to estimate the size of herring 

spawning groups from these surveys. 

Fleet Capacity

Although total yields of mackerel and herring 

can be increased to some extent (Table 2-1), fishery 

expansion is limited by low export demand for herring and bycatch considerations for both species. In 

any case, overall fleet capacity in the mackerel and 

herring fisheries in the region has been reached.

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

 Aggregations of schooling fish, like Northeast 

pelagics, are utilized as prey items by a wide variety of predatory fish, marine mammals, and birds, 

and form an important link in many marine food 

chains. In winter, the directed fisheries for Atlantic 

mackerel and herring have historically taken some 

marine mammals as incidental catch, including 

pilot whales and common dolphins. An intensification of these fisheries to harvest the full sustainable yield of these resources could result in greater 

marine mammal interactions and incidental takes. 

Choosing appropriate time–area closures to prevent 

marine mammal–fishery interactions could keep 

such incidental takes to a minimum.

LITERATURE CITED

NEFSC. 2007. Status of fishery resources off the northeastern United States. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.

noaa.gov/sos/.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

200

400

600

800 Abundance 

survey index

(kg/tow)

0

4

8

12

16

20

Survey index

Total landings

Mackerel

Herring

117

ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES

UNIT 3

atlantic anadromous fisheries

INTRODUCTION

The anadromous fishes of the Northeast Atlantic are a diverse group and include river herrings 

(alewife and blueback herring), American shad, 

hickory shad, striped bass, Atlantic salmon, sturgeons (Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon), 

sea lamprey, and rainbow smelt. Regulation of these 

stocks is diverse as well. The Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has implemented 

fishery management plans (FMP’s) for shad, river 

herrings, and Atlantic sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon 

is Federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and managed under a 1998 

recovery plan that identifies a recovery strategy 

and associated tasks. The Gulf of Maine Distinct 

Population Segment of Atlantic salmon was listed 

as endangered in 2000 and is managed under a 

2005 recovery plan. All other U.S.-origin Atlantic 

salmon are managed through a New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) FMP and by 

Photo above:

Alewife in the Nemasket 

River, Massachusetts.

Unit

3

JOHN KOCIK

RUTH HAAS-CASTRO

GARY SHEPHERD

CHRISTINE LIPSKY

NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center

Orono, ME

Woods Hole, MA

Jim Turek, NOAA Restoration Center

the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO). Striped bass are regulated under 

an ASMFC FMP and by special Congressional 

authority under the Striped Bass Conservation Act 

(implemented by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

Recent average landings (2004–06) of Atlantic 

anadromous species are over 16,000 metric tons (t; 

Table 3-1, Figure 3-1). This level is higher than a 

decade ago, but far below historic levels. The recent 

increase is due to increased striped bass landings; 

other anadromous species remain low or in decline. 

Several species have regional importance to recreational fisheries, including American shad, striped 

bass, and rainbow smelt. Recreational landings are 

dominated by striped bass, with average landings 

in recent years exceeding 10,000 t annually. All 

recreational fisheries for sea-run Atlantic salmon 

in the United States are closed, with the exception 

of catch-and-release angling in Maine’s Penobscot 

River. There is a coast-wide moratorium in both 
118

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 3-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Atlantic anadromous fisheries resources.

Figure 3-1

Landings in metric tons 

(t) of anadromous stocks, 

1982–2006. Atlantic salmon 

mariculture production is not 

included (see Figure 3-2).

Species/Stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

American shad 367 Unknown Unknown Below Unknown Unknown

Atlantic salmon 0 Unknown Unknown Below Not overfishing Overfished

Atlantic sturgeon 0 Unknown Unknown Below Not overfishing Overfished

River herrings2 333 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Striped bass3 15,933 Unknown 16,427 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

Total 16,633 16,633 17,127

12004–06 average; includes recreational landings.

2Includes alewife and blueback herring, with some localized stocks; the status of aggregate harvest and stock cannot be determined.

3Includes significant recreational landings.

Year

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Total landings

Striped bass

American shad

River herrings

Sturgeon

Federal and state waters for Atlantic sturgeon.

Landings of most Atlantic anadromous species have declined greatly in recent years. River 

herring catches peaked in 1965 at about 28,000 

t coast-wide, declined to less than 500 t, and are 

remaining at this relatively low level (Table 3-1). 

Likewise, commercial landings of American shad 

peaked at over 2,500 t in 1970, but now average 

around 500 t as well (Table 3-1). Striped bass commercial landings exceeded 6,000 t in 1973, but by 

1985 had declined to less than 1,000 t. Following 

several years of strict management restrictions and 

reduced annual landings, striped bass populations 

have recovered and support increased commercial 

landings that have averaged around 3,000 t annually since 1999. Currently, domestic fisheries for 

U.S.-origin Atlantic salmon are closed to capture 

(catch and release only) and foreign fisheries are under conservation-based quotas. However, sea-cage 

rearing (aquaculture) of Atlantic salmon in Maine 

averaged over 11,000 t annually between 1995 and 

2001 but has declined to lower levels since, due to 

revised management plans to reduce disease risks 

that include fallowing as a key component. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

 Unlike most of the offshore resources in the 

Northeast region, Atlantic anadromous stocks are 

greatly influenced by human non-fishing activities 

in the coastal zone. Alteration of river migration 

routes, thereby blocking access to historic spawning 

grounds, and pollution have been major factors 

in the decline of Atlantic salmon, sturgeons, river 

herrings, and shad. Today, anadromous species face 

continued threats from coastal development and 

pollution; when considered along with reduced 

population sizes, recovery of some stocks is uncertain.

River Herrings 

(Alewife and Blueback Herring) 

 River herrings is the name commonly applied 

to two species, alewife and blueback herring. The 

coastal ranges of the two species overlap, with blueback herring found from Nova Scotia to Florida, 

and alewife from Labrador to South Carolina 

(Haas-Castro, 2006a). In coastal rivers where both 

species are present, catches of fisheries targeting 

these species are typically mixed. Both species 

are anadromous, migrating upriver from coastal 
119

ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES

UNIT 3

Restoration partners and 

volunteers collect migrating 

river herrings to move them 

in trucks above dams to their 

spawning grounds. 

Louise Kane, NOAA Restoration Center

habitats to spawn during the spring. Alewives are 

known to live as long as 10 years and reach a length 

of 36 cm. Blueback herring may live for about 7 or 8 

years and reach a maximum length of about 32 cm. 

The river herring fishery is one of the oldest 

documented fisheries in North America. It was 

exclusively a U.S. inshore fishery until the late 

1960’s when foreign fleets began to fish for river 

herrings off the Mid-Atlantic coast, with catches 

sometimes exceeding 25,000 t. A sharp decline in 

catches began in the early 1970’s and has continued to the present, with total landing levels of less 

than 1,000 t annually since 1993 (Figure 3-1). 

Currently, the principal methods of harvesting 

river herrings include fish weirs, pound nets, and 

gill nets. Recreational fishing on these species is 

minimal.

ASMFC prepared a comprehensive coastwide 

FMP for shad and river herrings to facilitate 

cooperative management and restoration efforts 

between the coastal states in 1985 (amended in 

1999; ASMFC, 1999). Restoration efforts have involved habitat improvement, fish passage, stocking, 

and transfer programs. In response to the decline 

in landings and population abundance, fisheries 

managers have expressed a need for a more quantitative assessment of river herring. At present, there 

is limited information available on which to base 

regulations, but additional data is being collected 

under provisions of the FMP Amendment I that 

will provide a better understanding of resource 

status and a stronger basis for regulatory actions 

(ASMFC, 2002). A benchmark assessment of river 

herring populations is scheduled to be completed 

in 2012. Amendment 1, Technical Addendum 1, 

and Addendum I to the FMP for American Shad 

and River Herring (ASMFC, 1999, 2002) are the 

current management documents for alewife and 

blueback herring. At present, the Commission is 

developing an amendment to the FMP intended 

to address declines in river herring stocks by controlling fishing mortality. At present, all jurisdictions must maintain existing or more conservative 

recreational regulations for river herring. In 2006, 

NMFS listed river herring as a species of concern 

(NMFS, 2007). Four states—Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, and North Carolina—

have closed their river herring fisheries in response 

to declining stocks within their waters.

American Shad

American shad are anadromous members of the 

Clupeid family. They are found between southern 

Labrador and northern Florida (Haas-Castro, 

2006b). An introduced stock of American shad 

occurs along the Pacific coast as well. American 

shad are highly migratory, feeding at sea along the 

Canadian coast, particularly the Bay of Fundy, in 

large pelagic schools during the summer, traveling 

southward along the Continental Shelf during the 

winter, and then returning to natal rivers to spawn 

in the spring. Life history patterns vary among 

individual populations of shad and depend on the 

latitudinal location of their natal rivers. Most shad 

remain in the ocean for 4 years before returning to 

their natal river for their first spawning, although 

the mean age at first spawning increases to 5 for 

the more northerly populations. After spawning, 

American shad north of Cape Hatteras begin a 

feeding migration and may later return to their 

rivers to spawn for several subsequent years; more 

southerly members of the species typically die after 

a single spawning. 

Most major rivers along the Atlantic coast have 

historically supported spawning stocks of American 

shad. Shad have been exploited for their meat as 

well as their roe since the late 19th century and are 

harvested primarily by gillnets in a coastal intercept 
120

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 3-2

Number of Atlantic salmon returning to U.S. rivers and 

mariculture production in metric tons (t), 1967–2007.

Year

1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Total returns

(no. of fish)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Total returns

Mariculture

Mariculture

(x 1,000 t)

fishery. Recreational angling occurs and is locally 

significant; however, no comprehensive data are 

available. Commercial landings remained around 

3,000 t during the 1960’s, but began to decline 

in the early 1970’s; annual landings since 1999 

have been below 900 t (Figure 3-1). Overfishing 

has been blamed for declines in abundance in the 

Hudson and Connecticut Rivers, as well as in 

rivers in Maryland, North Carolina, and Florida. 

However, dam construction along many larger 

rivers throughout North America has led to an 

almost complete disappearance of shad in many 

watersheds and the loss of their associated fisheries. Additionally, pollution in the lower Delaware 

River has been cited as the primary cause for the 

past decline of the fishery in that system. 

The ASMFC has implemented a coast-wide 

FMP for American shad and river herring to facilitate cooperative management and restoration 

plans between the states. Restoration efforts include 

habitat improvement, fish passage, stocking, and 

transfer programs. Despite improved runs in some 

major river systems such as the Susquehanna, 

Delaware, and Connecticut Rivers, the coast-wide 

abundance of American shad remains well below 

historic levels. The 1985 FMP was amended in 

1999 with specific measures to control exploitation of American shad populations (ASMFC, 

1999). Amendment 1, Technical Addendum 1, 

and Addendum I to the FMP for American Shad 

and River Herring are the current management 

documents for American shad (ASMFC, 1999, 

2002). Amendment 1 established a 5-year phaseout of the ocean-intercept fishery for American 

shad, which closed the fishery by 1 January 2005. 

In addition, Amendment 1 set fishing mortality 

targets for specific American shad in-river fisheries 

and implemented a creel limit of 10 fish daily in 

recreational fisheries. At present, the Commission is 

developing an amendment to the FMP in response 

to the 2007 American shad assessment. 

Atlantic Salmon

 Atlantic salmon reside in freshwater streams as 

juveniles for 2 or 3 years before migrating to the 

sea, where U.S. populations typically remain for 2 

winters (Kocik and Sheehan, 2006). While at sea, 

U.S. stocks generally undergo extensive migrations to waters off Canada and Greenland before 

returning to their natal rivers in June and spawning in November. In the United States, Atlantic 

salmon were once indigenous from the Housatonic 

River, Connecticut, northward to tributaries of 

the St. John River, Maine. As a consequence of 

industrial and agricultural development, all native 

runs south of the Kennebec River in Maine were 

extirpated (Fay et al., 2006). The only remaining 

populations with documented substantial natural 

reproduction occur in eight small (<100 km) rivers 

in eastern Maine; these populations are perilously 

small, with total run sizes of less than 100 spawners annually since 2005. The Penobscot River in 

Maine retains the largest sea-run U.S. population, 

averaging about 1,100 returns annually for the 

past 10 years. The Penobscot population is almost 

exclusively supplemented by hatchery production 

(i.e. little natural reproduction is occurring) but is 

genetically linked to ancestral stocks and thought 

to be locally-adapted to that watershed (Fay et al., 

2006). 

 The abundance of Atlantic salmon stocks in 

U.S. rivers is represented by direct counts of adult 

returns (Figure 3-2). U.S. population abundances, 

as for most stocks throughout North America, have 

declined during the past decade, and domestic fish-
121

ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES

UNIT 3

Figure 3-3

Striped bass landings and 

female spawning stock biomass in metric tons (t) and 

recruitment in number of fish 

at age 1, 1980–2006.

Year

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Landings and

biomass

(x 1,000 t)

Recruitment

(x 1,000,000

age 1 fish)

Female spawning

stock biomass

Recruitment

Recreational

landings

Commercial landings

eries in U.S. waters are all closed with the exception 

of very limited catch-and-release in the Penobscot 

River. Distant-water commercial gillnet fisheries off 

Canada and Greenland, which previously exploited 

U.S. stocks in the high seas, are now regulated 

more stringently under the auspices of NASCO. 

Canadian interception fisheries have been closed, 

and the Greenland fishery is quota-controlled to 

allow for adequate spawning escapement. Despite 

these conservation measures, the overall abundance 

of Atlantic salmon throughout North America continues to decline, and several southern populations 

may go extinct if they are not supplemented with 

hatchery fish. Current population recovery efforts 

in Maine focus on stocking, although expanded 

efforts in habitat management and conservation 

are also occurring under the current recovery plan. 

Restoration efforts, in the form of stocking and fish 

passage construction, are underway in the Connecticut, Pawcatuck, Merrimack, and Saco Rivers. 

Most stocking programs operate in a river-specific 

fashion, collecting broodstock from juveniles or 

adults in these river systems after 1.5 to 5 years of 

natural rearing. However, donor stocks are used for 

the Merrimack and Saco River programs (from the 

Penobscot River) as well as the Pawcatuck River 

program (from the Connecticut River). 

In the face of declining natural populations, the 

Atlantic salmon aquaculture industry has grown to 

fill the production void. In eastern Maine, companies typically rear fish to smolt stage in private 

freshwater facilities, transfer them into anchored 

net pens or sea cages, feed them until they reach 

market size, and then harvest the fish. As a fledgling 

industry in the early 1980’s, growth was rapid and 

by 1995 annual production exceeded 10,000 t in 

round weight, peaking in 2000 at over 16,000 t 

(Figure 3-2). Fallowing to eradicate diseases and 

changing management practices, however, have 

reduced annual production to below 5,000 t in 

recent years, though some rebuilding is expected. 

Striped Bass

Four primary stocks of striped bass occur along 

the Atlantic coast, in the Hudson River, Delaware 

Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and Roanoke River, North 

Carolina (Shepherd, 2006). Striped bass stocks 

historically have supported important commercial 

and recreational fisheries, with recreational harvests 

often equaling or exceeding commercial landings 

(Figure 3-3). 

Commercial fisheries use a variety of gears 

including haul seines, trawls, pound nets, gillnets, 

and hook-and-line. Commercial landings peaked 

in 1973 and began to steeply decline thereafter. 

This decline, coupled with consistently poor recruitment indices in the Chesapeake Bay, required 

highly restrictive management actions taken by 

ASMFC in the mid 1980’s to conserve and recover 

the stocks. Improved recruitment and reduced 

fishing mortality allowed the stocks to rebound to 

abundance levels similar to the years prior to the 

decline, and the fishery was partially reopened in 

1990. The ASMFC declared Atlantic striped bass 

fully rebuilt in 1995, permitting further relaxation 

of management restrictions on the commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

 A recent assessment of the striped bass coastal 

complex (NEFSC, 2008) indicates that the current 

level of fishing mortality is below the threshold 

level, but slightly above the target mortality established in Amendment 6 to the FMP. The large 

recreational fishery, which includes removals from 

both landings and discards, accounts for the majority of the fishing mortality. The recent average 

yield (2004–06) is about 16,000 t (Table 3-1); of 

that, 80% is attributed to recreational landings. The 

female spawning stock biomass increased steadily 

after 1984, reaching a peak in 2003 at 33,000 t, 
122

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

but declined to 25,000 t in 2006. Spawning stock 

biomass remains well above the threshold biomass 

of 14,000 t and has resulted in the production of 

historically large year-classes in 2001 and 2003 

(Figure 3-3). This high recruitment should foster 

continued population growth under targeted levels 

of fishing mortality. 

Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon

Sturgeon species are distributed along the 

east coast of the United States and Canada from 

Florida to New Brunswick. Atlantic and shortnose 

sturgeons are two species native to this range. Both 

species supported a substantial commercial fishery 

during the late 1800’s, but today only remnant 

populations remain. Sturgeons have been adversely 

affected by degradation of rivers, starting during 

the industrial revolution, and from overfishing. 

Recovery is hampered by the lack of effective fish 

passage facilities at dams, bycatch of sturgeon in 

other directed fisheries, and poor habitat conditions. 

The life history patterns for the two species 

of sturgeon are very similar. Both are benthic 

(bottom) feeders and consume a variety of crustaceans, bivalves, and worms. Atlantic sturgeon 

migrate from the marine environment to fresh 

water to spawn during late winter through early 

summer, with migrations occurring later in the 

year at higher latitudes. Shortnose sturgeon are 

considered amphidromous1 in the northern part 

of their range—juveniles and adults regularly enter 

estuarine environments during various times of the 

year, but adults migrate to freshwater spawning 

areas, predominantly in their natal rivers. In waters 

where the species co-occur, the shortnose sturgeon 

tends to begin its migration earlier than the Atlantic 

sturgeon. For Atlantic sturgeon, spawning generally occurs in the lower sections of rivers, below 

the fall line. In populations of shortnose sturgeon 

that have free access to the total length of a river 

(e.g. no dam within the species’ range in the river), 

spawning areas are located at the most upstream 

reach of the river used by sturgeon. The two species 

are long-lived, with lifespans exceeding 20 years. 

Maturing late in life, sturgeons are highly fecund 

and show increases in egg production as females 

grow larger. The most obvious difference between 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon is their adult size; 

shortnose sturgeon reach body lengths of approximately 100 cm (40 in) whereas Atlantic sturgeon 

can attain more than twice that length.

 Shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered 

throughout its range in 1967 under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (a predecessor to 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973). The species’ 

status was last officially examined in 1987; the 

status review was never finalized but information 

was used to develop a recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon in 1998. Research and monitoring 

programs and conservation actions by Federal, 

state, and private entities have been ongoing. As 

a result, new information is available, and a new 

status review is ongoing, with expected completion 

in 2009. 

Atlantic sturgeon was commercially harvested throughout much of its range through the 

early 1990’s under ASMFC management plans. 

Managers believe that overharvesting of sturgeon 

continued through the 1990’s until ASMFC and 

Federal agencies implemented a coast-wide moratorium in 1998. The result has been cessation of 

targeted fisheries for sturgeon (Figure 3-1). Because 

the population has been severely overfished, the 

ASMFC Interstate FMP for Atlantic Sturgeon 

calls for a rebuilding of 20 year-classes, which is 

estimated to take about 40 years from 1998. In 

2005, NOAA updated the Atlantic sturgeon status 

review to reevaluate whether this species required 

protection under the ESA. The Status Review 

Team (SRT) determined that Atlantic sturgeon 

populations function within five distinct population segments (DPS’s) from the Gulf of Maine 

unit in the north to the South Atlantic unit in the 

south (ASSRT, 2007). The most significant threats 

to all of the DPS’s are bycatch mortality, poor water quality, lack of adequate state and/or Federal 

regulatory mechanisms, and dredging activities. 

Additional stressors that are unique to some DPS’s 

include habitat impediments and ship strikes. This 

additional information is currently being used to 

determine whether listing is warranted under the 

ESA.

Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon 

in a conservation culture 

project at the University of 

Florida, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

Program.

Eileen McVey, NOAA Central Library

1Amphidromous fish move between fresh and salt water during 

some part of their life cycle, but not for breeding.
123

ATLANTIC ANADROMOUS FISHERIES

UNIT 3

ISSUES

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

The interception of U.S.-origin Atlantic 

salmon in commercial fisheries off Canada and 

western Greenland was thought to be an impediment to the restoration of runs and U.S. fisheries. 

However, beginning in 1992, the largest portion 

of the Canadian fishery was closed. Likewise, the 

Greenland fishery quota, set to meet spawning 

escapements to North American rivers, should 

provide adequate protection. If these conservation 

tools, implemented through NASCO, remain in 

place, the threat of the interception fisheries to U.S. 

stocks should be greatly reduced. 

The St. Croix International Waterway Commission was established by the Maine and New 

Brunswick legislatures to plan for a heritage management plan for the St. Croix boundary corridor 

in 1987. This commission is often in the center of 

U.S.–Canada anadromous fish issues, especially 

those related to Atlantic salmon and river herrings, 

and facilitates a unified approach to management. 

The passage of river herrings to upstream lakes remains a controversial issue, with U.S. Federal agencies and Canada supporting restoration of access for 

river herrings while some state agencies and tribal 

entities in Maine are concerned about impacts on 

smallmouth bass fisheries and understanding the 

historical extent of herring distribution.

Endangered Species Concerns

Anadromous Atlantic salmon throughout their 

U.S. range are at low levels of abundance. The Gulf 

of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon has been listed as 

endangered under the ESA. The remaining populations in the Gulf of Maine tributaries and those 

of the Penobscot River represent the last naturally 

spawning populations in the United States. 

Shortnose sturgeon is listed as endangered 

throughout its entire range. The recently completed status review of Atlantic sturgeon resulted 

in a delineation of five DPS’s; three of these are at 

critically low levels of abundance, and the review 

recommended ESA protection (ASSRT, 2007). A 

formal decision is pending but active research and 

protection measures are moving forward. NMFS is 

committed to improving the health of these species 

to make them viable populations with sustainable 

fisheries through its partnership with the states and 

other Federal partners as well as non-governmental 

organizations. 

Management Controls

 An issue of particular concern for striped bass 

is the potential impact of discard mortality. Recreational fishing effort for striped bass currently 

far exceeds commercial effort, and over 90% of 

the recreational catch was released alive during the 

last decade. Even with high survival rates of catchand-release striped bass, the potential for hooking 

mortality in recreationally caught fish may reduce 

the conservation benefit of large minimum-size 

regulations. As striped bass populations increase, 

another concern is the greater likelihood of striped 

bass bycatch in commercial fisheries targeting other 

species. There is a desire among all parties not to 

reverse the progress made in rebuilding the severely 

depleted spawning stocks in Chesapeake Bay.

A recreational angler prepares to release an undersize 

striped bass from the pier 

at Pirates’ Cove Marina in 

Manteo, North Carolina. 

William B. Folsom, NMFS
124

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

LITERATURE CITED

ASMFC. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Shad and River Herring. Fishery 

Management Report 35 of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC, 77 p. Internet 

site—http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/

fmps/shadam1.pdf.

ASMFC. 2002. Addendum I To Amendment 1 and 

Technical Addendum #1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Shad and River Herring. Report 

35b of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C., 10 p. Internet site—http://

www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/fmps/addendumI.pdf. 

ASSRT. 2007. Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report by the Atlantic 

Sturgeon Status Review Team to the NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office, Gloucester, MA, 174 p. Internet site—

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/

atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf. 

Fay, C. A., M. Barton, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, 

R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. 2006. Status 

review for anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 

in the United States. Report by the Atlantic Salmon 

Biological Review team to the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 294 p. 

Internet site—http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

statusreviews/atlanticsalmon.pdf. 

Haas-Castro, R. 2006a. Status of fishery resources off the 

northeastern U.S. River herring Alosa pseudoharengus

(alewife) and Alosa aestivalis (blueback). NEFSC 

Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/

herring/.

Haas-Castro, R. 2006b. Status of fishery resources off 

the northeastern U.S. American shad (Alosa sapidissima). NEFSC Resource Evaluation and Assessment 

Division. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

sos/spsyn/af/shad/.

Kocik, J. F., and T. F. Sheehan. 2006. Status of fishery 

resources off the northeastern U.S. Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo salar). Internet site—http://www.nefsc.noaa.

gov/sos/spsyn/af/salmon/. 

NMFS. 2007. Species of concern. River herring (alewife 

and blueback herring) Alosa pseudoharengus and A. 

aestivalis. NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver 

Spring, MD. Internet site—http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf. 

NEFSC. 2008. 46th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (46th SAW) Assessment Report. Part 

A. Striped Bass Assessment Report. Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center Reference Document 08-03a, Woods 

Hole, MA, 252 p. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.

noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0803/. 

Shepherd, G. 2006. Status of fishery resources off the 

Northeastern U.S. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis). 

NEFSC Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, 

Woods Hole, MA. Internet site—http://www.nefsc.

noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sbass/.
125

NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 4

Northeast invertebrate fisheries

Unit

4

LARRY JACOBSON

DEBORAH HART

LISA HENDRICKSON

JOSEF IDOINE

TONI CHUTE

NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center

Woods Hole

Massachusetts

INTRODUCTION

Fisheries for offshore invertebrates, including 

crustaceans and mollusks, are the most valuable 

fisheries in the Northeast Region, with U.S. landings averaging 126,600 metric tons (t) per year 

(Table 4-1) and ex-vessel revenues averaging $884 

million per year during 2004–06. The American 

lobster fishery ranked first in value, with average 

annual ex-vessel revenues of $406 million during 

2004–06. The sea scallop fishery ranked second, 

with average annual revenues of $379 million. 

Landings of all other offshore invertebrates contributed roughly $98 million in additional revenue 

annually.

Several different Fishery Management Plans 

(FMP’s) regulate the offshore harvest of invertebrate species in the region. These include the 

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP and 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP 

(developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery ManagePhoto above:

An American lobster resting 

on the sea floor off the coast 

of Rhode Island.

Rick Wahle

ment Council), and the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP 

and Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP (developed by the 

New England Fishery Management Council). 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC), operating under an interstate compact, 

has implemented non-Federal FMP’s for American 

Lobster and for Northern Shrimp. The ASMFC’s 

Lobster FMP is in addition to a Federal FMP 

that deals with the smaller offshore lobster fishery 

components.

SPECIES AND STATUS

American Lobster

 American lobsters are harvested with baited 

lobster traps (pots), although some incidental catch 

and bycatch of lobsters occurs in trawl fisheries 

targeting other species. The primary management 

controls are minimum and maximum size limits, 

maximum trap limits, release of ovigerous females 
126

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 4-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Northeast 

invertebrate fisheries resources.

Figure 4-1

American lobster landings 

in metric tons (t), 1940–

2006.

Year

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Landings

(egg bearing; also called eggers), and release of 

v-notched (tagged) females in some areas. Management of lobsters is area-specific, with fishermen 

often helping to develop management-area rules 

for their local components of the fishery. 

High fishing mortality is a persistent problem in lobster fisheries along the northeast coast 

(ASMFC, 2006). With previous removals of relatively large individuals from the population, the 

lobster fishery has become increasingly dependent 

on small and young lobsters that reach a legal size 

just prior to capture. In some locations, more than 

90% of the lobsters landed are new recruits to 

the fishery and many are not yet sexually mature. 

Commercial catch rates have markedly declined 

in nearshore areas, particularly in areas south of 

Cape Cod to Long Island Sound, where fishing is 

heaviest. Lobster abundance in the Gulf of Maine 

has remained high despite heavy fishing pressure, 

due to favorable environmental conditions for 

lobster reproduction and recruitment, in addition 

to beneficial effects of size limits and release of 

ovigerous and v-notched females.

 American lobster landings during 2004–06 

averaged 41,300 t (Table 4-1) while ex-vessel revenues averaged $406 million. Recent (2004–06) 

average landing levels were at or near record high 

levels since 1940 (Figure 4-1).

Sea Scallop

Sea scallops are harvested in U.S. waters on the 

Continental Shelf from Cape Hatteras north to the 

U.S.-Canada border on Georges Bank, and inside 

the Gulf of Maine. Dredges are the principal fishing gear, although otter trawls account for a small 

proportion of total landings (NEFSC, 2007a).

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

American lobster2 41,303 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Atlantic surfclam3,4,5 27,453 26,217 Unknown Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Longfin inshore squid6 16,152 21,000 26,000 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Northern shortfin squid6,7 17,351 Unknown Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

Northern shrimp 2,199 5,000 5,000 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Ocean quahog3,4,5 16,720 24,189 55,238 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Red deepsea crab 1,923 2,690 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

Sea scallop3,8 32,215 31,657 Unknown Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Total 155,316

U.S. Subtotal 126,600

12004–06 average; includes Canadian landings where available.

2Status determinations are made for individual stocks of American lobster: the Southern New England stock is overfishing and depleted; the Gulf 

 of Maine and Georges Bank stocks are both not overfishing and not overfished.

3Yields are for shucked meat weights.

4RAY includes landings from both inshore (state) and offshore (U.S. EEZ) areas. CY and MSY refer only to offshore areas.

5Current yield (CY) is based on recent quotas.

6This species has a lifespan of less than one year and was not assessed during 2004–06.

7Does not include Canadian landings.

8Includes United States and Canadian portions of Georges Bank.
127

NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 4

Figure 4-2

United States and Canadian 

landings in metric tons (t) of 

sea scallop, 1941–2006.

Year

1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

United States

Canada

Management of the sea scallop fishery changed 

markedly in 1994 when regulations restricting the 

number of days at sea, vessel crew size, and dredge 

ring size began to be gradually implemented. Fishing has been prohibited in two areas of Georges 

Bank and in one area on Nantucket Shoals since 

1994, except during highly controlled re-openings 

in 1999–2001 and since November 2004. These 

area closures were implemented primarily to protect groundfish, but have also benefited the scallop 

stock and fishery. In the Mid-Atlantic, there have 

been a number of rotational closures specifically for 

sea scallop management (two in 1998 and one each 

in 2004, 2007, and 2008). These areas are closed 

for 2–3 years to allow small scallops to grow to a 

larger size, and then reopened to limited fishing. 

The most successful of these rotational closures 

was the Elephant Trunk closure off Delaware Bay, 

where biomass built up to unprecedented levels 

during the 3-year 2004–06 closure. Landings 

during 2007 in the Elephant Trunk area were 

7,000 t of meat, with an ex-vessel value of around 

$100 million. Landings are expected to continue 

at this level or higher during the planned 5-year 

controlled harvesting of this area.

The combination of effort controls and area 

closures have rapidly rebuilt the sea scallop fishery 

so that the biomass is now well above its target 

and landings are at record levels (Hart and Rago, 

2006). The most recent sea scallop stock assessment (NEFSC, 2007a) indicated that biomass 

was 53% above its BMSY proxy target level (Table 

4-1). U.S. sea scallop landings during 2004–06 

averaged 28,716 t (shucked meat weight) and were 

at or near record levels in all three years (Figure 

4.2). Total ex-vessel value of the landings during 

the same period averaged $379 million per year, 

making it one of the most valuable fisheries in the 

United States and the most valuable wild scallop 

fishery in the world.

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog

Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs are 

harvested primarily with hydraulic dredges. Most 

surfclam fishing occurs off New Jersey, while most 

fishing for quahog is off southern New England 

and Long Island. Fishing for both species has been 

prohibited on Georges Bank since late 1989 due 

to the possibility of paralytic shellfish poisoning 

from shellfish taken in that area. The primary 

management tool for these species is an Individual 

Transferable Quota (ITQ) system, enacted in 

1990. This system allows individual quota shares 

for both species to be freely traded. The ITQ system has successfully rationalized harvesting capacity, promoted higher profitability, and helped to 

reduce fishing mortality (Serchuk and Murawski, 

1997).

Surfclam landings increased steadily during 

the 1960’s and early 1970’s, peaking in 1974. 

Subsequently, poor reproduction and a surfclam 

die-off along the New Jersey coast in 1976 led 

to low stock biomass and reduced landings 

(NEFSC, 2007b). Large year-classes in 1976 and 

1977 spawned off New Jersey and the Delmarva 

Peninsula, followed by consistent population-wide 

recruitment and reduced fishing pressure, have 

helped restore and maintain the surfclam stock. 

During 2004–06, annual landings from state and 

Federal waters averaged 27,453 t (shucked meat 

weight; Table 4-1), while annual ex-vessel revenues 

averaged $34.7 million per year.

 Ocean quahogs inhabit relatively deep waters 

along the Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and on 

Georges Bank. As the surfclam resource declined 

in the late 1970’s, a market for processed clam 

products developed and ocean quahog landings 

increased rapidly. Over the past two decades, the 

fisheries for ocean quahogs have moved progres-
128

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

A Northern shortfin squid 

cruising over a sand flat.

William Millhouser, NOS

sively northward from the Mid-Atlantic Bight to 

southern New England (NEFSC, 2007c). In the 

Gulf of Maine, where the species is found in relatively shallow nearshore waters, limited quantities 

of small ocean quahogs are harvested and sold as 

mahogany clams at relatively high prices for consumption in raw seafood restaurants (the half-shell 

market). Annual landings of ocean quahog during 

2004–06 averaged 16,720 t (shucked meat weight; 

Table 4-1) with average annual ex-vessel revenues 

of $20.5 million.

Northern Shrimp

Northern shrimp occur at the southern extent 

of the species’ geographical range in the Gulf of 

Maine. As a result, higher shrimp abundances are 

generally associated with lower than average water 

temperatures. Northern shrimp are harvested 

using small-mesh trawls and inshore traps. The 

fishery began as an inshore winter fishery during 

the late 1930’s and expanded in the 1960’s to a 

year-round offshore fishery with peak landings 

of 12,800 t in 1969 (Clark et al., 2000). The 

stock collapsed during the mid 1970’s and the 

fishery was closed from mid May 1977 to February 1979. Since 1980, fishing has been restricted 

to the December–May period. Landings were 

between 3,000–5,000 t during the mid 1980’s 

and early 1990’s, increased to 9,200 t in 1996, 

and subsequently sharply declined. According to 

the most recent stock assessment (Hunter et al., 

2007; NEFSC, 2007d), annual landings averaged 

2,199 t during 2004–06 (Table 4-1), while annual 

revenues averaged $2.3 million. 

Longfin Inshore Squid

 The east coast U.S. stock of longfin inshore 

squid is distributed between the Gulf of Maine 

and south of Cape Hatteras, where they are harvested primarily with bottom trawls in commercial 

fisheries. Longfin inshore squid live less than 1 

year, grow rapidly, migrate seasonally, and spawn 

year-round (Hatfield and Cadrin, 2002; Macy 

and Brodziak, 2001). Availability and abundance 

of this short-lived species are strongly affected 

by environmental factors, causing annual landings to fluctuate from year to year (Brodziak and 

Hendrickson, 1999; Dawe et al., 2007). Fishing 

patterns reflect the seasonal distributions of the 

stock, with offshore catches from October to 

March and inshore landings from April through 

September. The main management tools are seasonal fishing quotas that limit landings. During 

1982–2003, landings averaged 15,100 t. Recent 

average landings (2004–06) increased slightly to 

16,152 t (Table 4-1) with average annual ex-vessel 

revenues of $27.5 million. 

Northern Shortfin Squid

 The northern shortfin squid stock is distributed 

from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland. Northern 

shortfin squid are harvested in U.S. waters between 

Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank, mainly by bottom trawls, but fisheries also occur in nearshore 

waters off Newfoundland, Canada, and historically on the Scotian Shelf. Living for less than 1 

year, this species grows rapidly and undertakes 

seasonal migrations covering long distances (Hendrickson, 2004; Hendrickson and Holmes, 2004). 

Similar to longfin inshore squid, the distribution 

and abundance of northern shortfin squid are also 

influenced by oceanographic factors (Brodziak and 

Hendrickson, 1999; Dawe et al., 2007). 

 The U.S. fishery for northern shortfin squid 

generally occurs during June–October in offshore 

waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Larger vessels 

catch and freeze squid at sea, while smaller ves-
129

NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 4

Gravel-cobble bottoms off 

the coast of Maine are favored scallop grounds. 

OAR/National Undersea Research Program

sels land fresh squid. A foreign fishery for shortfin 

squid existed during the 1970’s and 1980’s with a 

peak in total landings of 180,000 t in 1979, 90% 

of which were from Canadian waters. The international fishery collapsed in the early 1980’s, and 

since 1983, U.S. domestic fisheries have accounted 

for most of the landings. Research surveys and 

fishery data indicate that the northern shortfin 

squid stock has been in a low-productivity regime 

since 1982. During 1982–2003, total landings averaged 14,721 t and U.S. landings averaged 9,348 

t (Hendrickson et al., 2005). U.S. landings during 

2004–06 averaged 17,351 t and were much higher 

than the long-term average (Table 4-1). Ex-vessel 

revenues averaged $11 million during the same 

period. 

Red Deepsea Crab

Red deepsea crabs inhabit deep waters of the 

Continental Shelf, slope, and canyons, with most 

of the biomass occurring between 320 and 640 m 

(1,050 to 2,100 ft.). The southern New England 

stock is thought to be genetically distinct from 

the stock off the coast of Florida and in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Weinberg et al., 2003). Growth is 

thought to be slow, and individuals may reach 

a maximum age of about 15 years. Red deepsea 

crabs have been fished off the U.S. Atlantic coast 

since the early 1970’s, primarily with baited traps. 

Male crabs are typically harvested when they reach 

about 115 mm (41⁄2 inches) carapace width, but all 

female crabs must be released. Surveys completed 

in 2005 (Weinberg and Keith, 2003; Wahle et 

al., 2008) indicated that the proportion of large 

males in the harvested population off southern 

New England is lower than during the 1970’s. 

Developments in the deep-sea red crab fishery 

led to a new survey (Wahle et al., 2008), a new 

FMP in 2002, and an updated stock assessment 

completed in 2007 (NEFSC, 2006). Prior to 2006, 

the most recent stock assessment for red crabs was 

completed in the late 1970’s. 

 During 1995–2003, U.S. landings of red crab 

were fairly stable and averaged 1,944 t. Recent 

(2004–06) landings averaged 1,923 t per year 

(Table 4-1) while ex-vessel revenues averaged $3.6 

million.

ISSUES

Rotational Area Management 

for Sea Scallops

 The key to increasing fishery yields and revenues in the sea scallop fishery and maintaining 

relatively high stock biomass levels is reducing 

harvest rates on young scallops that are still growing rapidly and shifting effort towards the larger, 

slow-growing individuals with the highest meat 

yields. Rotation between management areas (Hart, 

2003) and a larger minimum ring size for commercial scallop dredges are particularly important in 

this regard. Under rotational management, some 

areas are closed to fishing to allow small scallops 

to grow. Larger rings (used to construct the bag 

which closes the dredge) allow small scallops to 

pass through commercial scallop dredges and 

increase efficiency for catching larger scallops. 

This approach is expected to improve yields from 

the fishery, while reducing total fishing effort 

on the stock and related environmental impacts. 
130

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Scallop dredgers in Seaford, Virginia.

William B. Folsom, NMFS

Amendment 10 to the Sea Scallop FMP, in effect 

since 2004, implements these approaches in the 

sea scallop fishery.

LITERATURE CITED

ASMFC. 2006. American lobster stock assessment for 

peer review. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission stock assessment report 06-03 (Supplement), 

Washington, DC, 352 p.

Brodziak, J., and L. C. Hendrickson. 1999. An analysis 

of environmental effects on survey catches of squids, 

Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus, in the Northwest 

Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin 97:9–24.

Clark, S. H., S. X. Cadrin, D. F. Schick, P. J. Diodati, 

M. P. Armstrong, and D. McCarron. 2000. The Gulf 

of Maine northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fishery. 

A review of the record. Journal of Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Science 27:193–226.

Dawe, E. G., L. C. Hendrickson, E. B. Colbourne, 

K. F. Drinkwater, and M. A. Showell. 2007. Ocean 

climate effects on the relative abundance of shortfin 

(Illex illecebrosus) and long-finned (Loligo pealeii) 

squid in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries 

Oceanography 16:303–316.

Hart, D. R. 2003. Yield- and biomass-per-recruit 

analysis for rotational fisheries, with an application to 

Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus). Fishery 

Bulletin 101:44–57.

Hart, D. R., and P. J. Rago. 2006. Long-term dynamics 

of U.S. Atlantic sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus 

populations. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 26:490–501.

Hatfield, E. M. C., and S. X. Cadrin. 2002. Geographic 

and temporal patterns in size and maturity of the longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) off the northeastern 

United States. Fisheries Bulletin 100:200–213.

Hendrickson, L. C. 2004. Population biology of 

northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean and initial documentation 

of a spawning area. ICES Journal of Marine Science 

61:252–266. 

Hendrickson, L. C., E. G. Dawe, and M. A. Showell. 

2005. Interim monitoring report for the assessment 

of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in Subareas 3+4 during 2004. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 

Organization, Scientific Council Research Document 

05/45, Dartmouth, NS, 9 p.

Hendrickson, L. C., and E. M. Holmes. 2004. Essential fish habitat source document. Northern shortfin 

squid, Illex illecebrosus, life history and habitat characteristics, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-191, 

36 p.

Hunter, M., R. Glenn, C. McBane, J. Idoine, and B. 

Spear. 2007. Assessment report for Gulf of Maine 

northern shrimp—2007. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission Special Report 61, Washington, DC. 

Macy, W. K. III, and J. K. T. Brodziak. 2001. Seasonal 

maturity and size at age of Loligo pealeii in waters 

of southern New England. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science 58:852–864.
131

NORTHEAST INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 4

NEFSC. 2006a. Assessment of deep-sea red crab. In

43rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(43rd SAW) Assessment Report, p. 310–400. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 

06-25, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC. 2007a. Assessment of Atlantic sea scallops. In

45th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(45th SAW) Assessment Report, p. 139–370. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 

07-16, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC. 2007b. Assessment of Atlantic surfclam. In

44th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(44th SAW) Assessment Report, p. 548–661. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 

07-10, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC. 2007c. Assessment of ocean quahogs. In 44th

Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(44th SAW) Assessment Report, p. 14–284. Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-10, 

Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC. 2007d. Assessment of northern shrimp. In

45th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(45th SAW) Assessment Report, p. 13–138. Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-16, 

Woods Hole, MA.

Serchuk, F. M., and S. A. Murawski. 1997. The offshore molluscan resources of the northeastern coast 

of the United States. Surfclams, ocean quahogs, and 

sea scallops. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, 

Jr., A. Rosenfield, and W. L. Hobart (Editors), The 

History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North and Central America and 

Europe.Volume 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, p. 45–62. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Report 127.

Wahle, R. A., C. E. Bergeron, A. S. Chute, L. D. Jacobson, and Y. Chen. 2008. The Northwest Atlantic 

deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) population 

before and after the onset of harvesting. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science 65(6):862–872.

Weinberg, J. R., T. G. Dahlgren, N. Trowbridge, and 

K. M. Halanych. 2003. Genetic differences within 

and between species of deep-sea crabs (Chaceon) 

from the north Atlantic Ocean. Biological Bulletin 

204:318–326.

Weinberg, J. R., and C. Keith. 2003. Population sizestructure of harvested deep-sea red crabs (Chaceon 

quinquedens) in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Crustaceana 76:819–833.

133

ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 5

atlantic highly 

migratory pelagic fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Oceanic pelagic fish are highly migratory species (HMS) that include swordfish, bluefin tuna, 

yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore, skipjack tuna, 

blue and white marlin, sailfish, longbill spearfish, a 

variety of sharks (see Unit 6, Atlantic Shark Fisheries), and others. In the Atlantic Ocean, swordfish 

and bluefin tuna have long been the target of important fisheries. Since the early 1980’s, yellowfin 

tuna and swordfish comprise the majority of the 

U.S. landings of tunas and tuna-like species. Landings of bigeye tuna also increased in the 1980’s but 

represented a much lower proportion of total U.S. 

landings. Many recreational anglers target yellowfin 

tuna, bluefin tuna, blue marlin, white marlin, and 

sailfish in U.S. waters. Swordfish has also become 

Photo above:

School of yellowfin tuna in 

the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic Ocean.

Unit

5

GUILLERMO A. DIAz

NMFS Office of Science

and Technology

Silver Spring

Maryland

OAR/National Undersea Research Program

a target of recreational fishermen in the past few 

years. 

Although some HMS are not directly targeted by commercial fisheries, they are incidentally 

caught in some of them. For example, blue and 

white marlin, sailfish, and longbill spearfish are 

incidentally caught in longline fisheries for tuna 

and swordfish. However, as a conservation measure, 

landings of these species by commercial fishermen 

have been prohibited in U.S. waters since 1988.

 Because these large pelagic fish migrate widely 

and are harvested over broad ocean areas by both 

U.S. and foreign fishermen, national and international management measures are necessary. In 

all cases, stock assessments are conducted using 

aggregate data and provide the basis for regulations. U.S. fleets operate in the western Atlantic 
134

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 5-1

U.S. landings in metric tons 

(t) of Atlantic highly migratory 

pelagic species, 1960–2006.

Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico and 

are regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Management of Atlantic tunas and swordfish in U.S. 

waters is based largely on recommendations by the 

International Commission for the Conservation 

of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented via 

regulatory articles under the ATCA. In the case of 

bluefin tuna, ICCAT has set and allocated quotas 

for the western stock by country since 1982 and 

for the eastern stock since 1994. Catch limitations 

were first established for North Atlantic swordfish 

in 1991 and South Atlantic swordfish in 1994; 

country-specific quotas have since been adopted for 

both stocks. ICCAT has additionally recommended 

reductions in billfish catches for all nations since 

1997. Atlantic highly migratory pelagic species 

were formerly managed under two separate U.S. 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), the Atlantic 

Tunas, Sharks, and Swordfish FMP and the Atlantic Billfish FMP. In 2006, the new Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP merged 

the management of all HMS stocks under a single 

plan. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

Total landings of tuna and tuna-like species 

by U.S. fishermen increased from the early 1960’s 

through the mid 1970’s. Total U.S. landings peaked 

in 1975 with approximately 32,000 metric tons 

(t; Figure 5-1). Through 1967 the majority of the 

highly migratory species landings were bluefin 

tuna; although variable, landings of yellowfin tuna 

have tended to dominate since then. Swordfish 

landings showed an important increase from the 

mid 1970’s until about 1990 and have been in a 

constant decline since then. Overall, landings by 

U.S. fishermen have steadily declined since 1988.

 The U.S. share of current yield of the highly 

migratory pelagic fish stocks is about 13,300 t/year 

(Table 5-1; ICCAT, 2007). Since 1960, the top 

species by volume in the U.S. harvest has changed 

from bluefin tuna to swordfish to yellowfin tuna 

(Figure 5-1), with fishing effort shifting between 

these species as their abundance declined due to 

fishing pressure. During the 1960’s, bluefin tuna 

represented up to 80% of the U.S. western Atlantic 

catch of large pelagics. However, that percentage 

has dropped to less than 15% since 1980, reflecting declines in the bluefin tuna population, catch 

restrictions, and increasing harvests of alternative 

species. Swordfish represented up to 20% of the 

U.S. catch during the 1960’s, but during most of 

the 1970’s swordfish constituted a very low percentage of U.S. landings. Swordfish landings increased 

toward the end of the decade and climbed to 51% 

in 1982, but have since dropped to about 15–20%. 

From the early to mid 1960’s, the percentage of 

yellowfin tuna in the U.S. north Atlantic catch was 

less than 2%; levels have risen to 40–50% since 

1980. The U.S. dockside ex-vessel revenue from 

these fisheries soared from about $30 million in 

the early 1980’s to nearly $100 million in 1988, 

but has declined to roughly $60 million in recent 

years.

Recreational angler harvests of large pelagic 

fishes are estimated from dockside and telephone 

surveys. The average annual landed catch by recreational anglers for 2004–06 is conservatively 

estimated at about 7,500 t. Surveys of fishing 

tournaments indicate a substantial increase in recreational billfish fishing since 1972. Although the 

practice of tagging and releasing large pelagic fish 

has become common in recent years, additional 

data are needed to quantify the recreational fishery 

trends for these species in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico waters. The value of U.S. recreational 

fisheries for highly migratory species has not been 

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Total U.S. landings

Yellowfin tuna

Bluefin tuna

Swordfish
135

ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 5

Table 5-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of highly migratory 

pelagic fisheries in U.S. waters 

of the Atlantic Ocean.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Albacore (N. Atlantic) 32,400 36,077 26,800–34,100 Near Overfishing Overfished

Bigeye tuna (Atlantic) 74,500 64,700 68,000–99,000 Near Not overfishing Rebuilding

Blue marlin (Atlantic) 2,500 2,060 Unknown Below Overfishing Overfished

Bluefin tuna (W. Atlantic) 1,900 1,929 3,000–3,400 Below Overfishing Overfished

Sailfish (W. Atlantic) 900 697 Unknown Unknown Overfishing Overfished

Skipjack tuna (W. Atlantic) 26,900 25,802 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Swordfish (N. Atlantic) 12,000 11,445 12,800–14,790 Near Not overfishing Rebuilding

White marlin (Atlantic) 400 342 Unknown Below Overfishing Overfished

Yellowfin tuna (Atlantic) 109,700 103,908 ~148,000 Near Not overfishing Appr. overfished

Other tunas (Atlantic)3 29,021 35,230 Unknown Unknown

Total 290,221 282,190

U.S. Subtotal 18,569 13,305

12004–06 average from ICCAT Task 1 data as of 5 October 2007. Total includes landings by U.S. and foreign nationals.

2From ICCAT data. Based on the entire stock regardless of the harvesting nation.

3Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

Circle hooks on longlines 

arranged and ready for deployment. 

Allen Shimada, NMFS

estimated for all stocks; however, preliminary estimates indicate that they are highly valued.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

has classified the following Atlantic HMS stocks 

as overfished: West Atlantic bluefin tuna, North 

Atlantic albacore, West Atlantic sailfish, blue marlin, and white marlin (Table 5-1). Swordfish and 

bigeye tuna are rebuilding following past overfishing, while Atlantic yellowfin tuna is approaching 

an overfished condition. The Consolidated Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species FMP addresses rebuilding and/or overfishing of depleted stocks and also 

includes measures designed to maintain healthy 

stocks at the optimum yield and begin the process 

to update essential fish habitat. Fishing mortality 

rates on swordfish have been excessive since the 

late 1970’s, prompting the development of international agreements to substantially reduce catches 

and the risk of further declines, beginning in 1991. 

U.S. harvests of swordfish since July 1991 have 

been consistent with ICCAT’s recommendations. 

As a result, the last assessment of North Atlantic 

swordfish showed that the stock is almost rebuilt 

and is no longer experiencing overfishing. Western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna have been overharvested to 

the point of being severely depleted, and as a result 

the harvest of this species has been restricted since 

1982. Stock status projections prepared during the 

2006 stock assessment indicated that the 2,100 t 

quota established in 2007 should result in a slight 

increase of the spawning stock in the near future. 

No catch quotas are currently in place for either 

of the fully utilized yellowfin and bigeye tuna 

stocks. 

ISSUES

Transboundary Stocks

 Regulation of species that migrate across international boundaries is difficult. U.S. domestic 

regulations without international agreements are 

inherently limited, but international agreements 

can be difficult to achieve. The latter is particularly 

true if the primary fishing nations cannot agree on 

commonly shared fishing and conservation objectives, or do not abide by agreements once they are 

adopted. Additionally, not all nations participating 

in HMS fisheries belong to the international regulatory body, ICCAT. The United Nations agreement 

on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish 

stocks may help resolve these problems.

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

Bycatch of Atlantic highly migratory species causes conflicts between commercial and 

recreational fisheries, and reduces the impact of 

conservation efforts. Marlin and sailfish bycatch 

in tuna and swordfish fisheries is a major concern, 

especially when these commercial fisheries encounter concentrations of billfish that are important to 
136

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Bigeye tuna. recreational anglers. Expansion of the U.S. longline 

fishery for Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna, and other 

nations’ longline fishing in the tropical eastern 

Atlantic, have heightened concern for distressed 

stocks of Atlantic tunas and billfish. Bycatch of 

marine mammals, sea birds, and sea turtles is an 

important issue for the pelagic longline fishery. In 

2004, the use of circle hooks in the U.S. Atlantic 

longline fishery became mandatory as a mitigation 

measure to reduce the bycatch of sea turtles. Research is currently underway to better characterize 

the interactions of this fleet with sea mammals and 

sea birds.

Domestic Management

Although the number of U.S. permits in large 

pelagic fisheries increased substantially during the 

1990’s, actual levels of effort in the longline fishery 

have declined in recent years. In order to reduce 

latent effort and prevent future expansion of the 

fleets, NMFS has put into place a limited-access 

permit system for Atlantic swordfish, shark, and 

tuna longline fisheries.

Since 1999, multiple areas in the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean have been closed to 

U.S. longline fishing for 1–2 months each year for 

the purpose of reducing bycatch of small swordfish, 

marlins, sea turtles, and bluefin tuna. In some of 

those areas, scientifically designed experimental 

fishing has been and is being conducted to study 

factors influencing bycatches.

Progress

In recent years, scientists from the United 

States and several other nations have made substantial progress towards improved understanding of the biological basis for managing Atlantic 

highly migratory fisheries. Analyses of the genetic 

structure of Atlantic and Mediterranean swordfish have been completed and have corroborated 

some of the stock structure assumptions made by 

ICCAT. Additionally, several years of research on 

the growth and reproductive biology of male and 

female swordfish has increased the understanding of fishing effects on both north Atlantic and 

Mediterranean management stock units. Genetic 

studies of other large pelagic species, bluefin tuna 

in particular, are underway. Additional studies of 

bluefin tuna stock structure using various tagging 

methods and biological markers (such as otolith 

micro-constituents) are in various stages of implementation. Preliminary results have corroborated 

the stock structure assumptions made by ICCAT. 

These assumptions include the existence of a 

western stock with spawning grounds in the Gulf 

of Mexico and an eastern stock that spawns in 

the Mediterranean Sea. There is an undetermined 

degree of mixing between both stocks, but fish that 

originated in one spawning ground always return 

to the same site to spawn. 

LITERATURE CITED

ICCAT. 2007. Report of the Standing Committee on 

Research & Statistics (SCRS), International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 1–5 

October 2007, Madrid, Spain. Internet site—http://

www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/scrs_report_eng_all_oct_16.pdf.

Allen Shimada, NMFS
137

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6

atlantic Shark fisheries

Unit

6

ENRIC CORTéS

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Panama City

Florida

JULIE A. NEER

South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council

Charleston

South Carolina

INTRODUCTION

The first Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) 

for sharks was developed by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Secretary of Commerce and implemented in 1993 (NMFS, 1993). 

As new information on the fisheries and on shark 

biology became available, four shark evaluation 

workshops were convened in 1994, 1996, 1998, 

and 2002. As a result, regulation of the fishery was 

moved under a new Secretarial FMP for Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks published in 1999 

(NMFS, 1999a). This FMP was amended in 2003 

(NMFS, 2003) to reflect the findings in the stock 

assessments for small and large coastal sharks 

conducted in 2002 (Cortés, 2002a; Cortés et al., 

2002). Annual shark evaluation reports with updates of shark landings and catches, catch rates, and 

average sizes were produced in 1999, 2000, 2003, 

and 2005 (Cortés, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005).

 The latest assessment for large coastal sharks 

(LCS), completed in 2006, followed the guidelines 

set forth by the SouthEast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR) process. Although SEDAR is a 

joint process for stock assessment and review by 

the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, NMFS, 

the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 

the Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and the 

Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, it was felt that this process would work 

for the large and small coastal shark management 

groups as well. SEDAR is organized around three 

workshops: data, assessment, and review. Input data 

are compiled during the data workshop, population models are developed during the assessment 

workshop, and an independent peer review of the 

data and assessment models is provided during the 

review workshop. SEDAR documents include a 

data report produced by the data workshop, a stock 

Photo above: 

Blue shark.

Allen Shimada, NMFS
138

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

assessment report and summary produced by the 

assessment workshop, a review panel report evaluating the assessment (drafted during the review 

panel workshop), and collected stock assessment 

documents considered in the SEDAR process. In 

October 2006, NMFS announced the availability 

of the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (NMFS, 

2006a). This new consolidated FMP replaced the 

former Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP and 

currently manages 39 species of sharks.

 SPECIES AND STATUS

Currently, the 2006 FMP divides Atlantic 

shark species into four management groups: large 

coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, pelagic sharks, 

and prohibited species (Table 6-1). Following 

declines in the abundance of large coastal sharks, 

new management measures were introduced in 

1997. Notably, the commercial quota for the large 

coastal complex was reduced from 2,570 to 1,285 

metric tons (t) dressed weight (dw). A new quota 

for small coastal sharks was also established at 1,760 

t dw. The commercial quota for pelagic sharks was 

reduced from 1,560 to 580 t dw. Additionally, the 

recreational bag limit for all Atlantic sharks was 

reduced to two sharks per vessel per trip, with an 

additional allowance of two Atlantic sharpnose 

sharks per person per trip. For all fisheries, possession of five species was prohibited (i.e. whale, 

basking, sand tiger, bigeye sand tiger, and white 

sharks).

 Based in part on the results of the third shark 

evaluation workshop (SEFSC, 1998), the 1999 

FMP proposed new management measures to 

further restrict commercial quotas and recreational 

bag limits. Regulations divided shark species into 

large coastal species, small coastal species, pelagic 

species, and deep water and other species, and set 

total allowable catches (TAC’s) for large coastal, 

small coastal, and pelagic species. New manageLarge Coastal Sharks Small Coastal Sharks Pelagic Sharks Prohibited Sharks

Blacktip shark Atlantic sharpnose shark Blue shark Atlantic angel shark

Bull shark Blacknose shark Oceanic whitetip shark Basking shark

Great hammerhead Bonnethead Porbeagle Bigeye sand tiger

Lemon shark Finetooth shark Shortfin mako Bigeye sixgill shark

Nurse shark Thresher shark Bigeye thresher

Sandbar shark Bignose shark

Scalloped hammerhead Caribbean sharpnose shark

Silky shark Dusky shark

Smooth hammerhead Galapagos shark

Spinner shark Longfin mako

Tiger shark Narrowtooth shark

Night shark

Reef shark

Sand tiger

Sevengill shark

Sixgill shark

Smalltail shark

Whale shark

White shark

Table 6-1

Current shark management 

groups under the consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP (NMFS, 

2006).

Bull shark.

SEFSC Pascagoula Laboratory
139

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6

Atlantic sharpnose shark fitted with an external acoustic 

transmitter. NMFS scientists 

use these transmitters to 

monitor shark movement 

patterns.

1 A number of species in the large coastal shark management unit 

are characterized by a mid-dorsal ridge that is easily identified 

even after the fish has been gutted and finned. This mid-dorsal 

ridge is useful as diagnostic characteristic for management and 

enforcement purposes. Ridgeback sharks include sandbar, 

dusky, silky, night, and bignose sharks. Non-ridgeback sharks 

include blacktip, spinner, bull, tiger, nurse, lemon, narrowtooth, and hammerhead sharks.

Dana M. Bethea, SEFSC Panama City Laboratory

ment actions included 1) a reduction of the annual 

commercial quota for large coastal sharks from 

1,285 to 816 t dw, apportioned between ridgeback1 (620 t dw) and non-ridgeback (196 t dw) 

sharks; 2) a reduction of the annual commercial 

quota for small coastal sharks from 1,760 to 359 

t dw (i.e. 10% higher than the 1997 landings); 3) 

an increase of the annual commercial quota for 

pelagic sharks from 580 to 853 t dw, apportioned 

between porbeagle (92 t dw), blue sharks (273 t 

dw), and other pelagic sharks (488 t dw), reducing 

the pelagic shark quota by any overharvest in the 

blue shark quota; 4) establishment of a minimum 

size of 137 cm fork length for ridgeback sharks; 

5) a reduction of the recreational bag limit from 

two sharks to one shark per vessel per trip (with a 

minimum size of 137 cm fork length for all sharks) 

and an allowance of one Atlantic sharpnose shark 

per person per trip; 6) a prohibition on possession of 19 species (Atlantic angel, basking, bigeye 

sand tiger, bigeye sixgill, bigeye thresher, bignose, 

Caribbean sharpnose, dusky, Galapagos, longfin 

mako, narrowtooth, night, reef, sand tiger, sevengill, sixgill, smalltail, whale, and white sharks); 

7) a requirement to count all sources of mortality, 

including dead discards and all landings in state 

waters, against the quota; and 8) a prohibition on 

finning of all shark species. 

 Due to litigation, only measures 3, 5, 6, and 8 

were initially implemented. Based on stock assessments of large and small coastal sharks in 2002, 

NMFS classified the large coastal group as overfished, whereas the small coastal group was deemed 

to be fully utilized. The status of the pelagic group 

was listed as unknown for lack of adequate data to 

conduct stock assessments. Owing to its overfished 

status, the large coastal group has since received 

more intense attention than the other two management groups. As a result of the 2002 stock assessments and numerous comments received, NMFS 

decided that many of the management measures in 

the 1999 FMP should be reexamined. In November 

2003, NMFS released the Final Amendment I to 

the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2003), which contained 

several management changes. Most notably, the 

ridgeback and non-ridgeback classification of the 

large coastal shark group was re-aggregated, with 

the commercial quotas for large coastal sharks being set at 1,017 t dw, small coastal sharks at 454 

t dw, and pelagic sharks at 853 t dw, apportioned 

between porbeagle (92 t dw), blue sharks (273 t 

dw), and other pelagic sharks (488 t dw). Additional actions included 1) implementation of three 

fishing seasons per year instead of two; 2) a requirement that state landings after Federal closures be 

counted against the Federal quota; 3) adjustment 

to regional quotas; and 4) a time/area closure from 

January through July off North Carolina. The list 

of 19 prohibited species and minimum size of 137 

cm fork length for the recreational fishery were 

maintained. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

implemented additional management measures, 

including 1) mandatory shark identification workshops for Federally permitted shark dealers; and 2) 

a requirement that the second dorsal and anal fins 

must remain on all sharks through landing. Both 

measures are designed to improve data collection 

at the species level.

 Determining the quantity of sharks landed or 

discarded in terms of weight is difficult for several 

reasons. First, weight estimates for recreational 

catches are highly variable because a relatively small 

number of animals are measured and weighed by 

the biologists collecting recreational data. Second, a 

significant amount of the commercial catch is only 

reported under the general category of “sharks,” 

and species identification either cannot be or is not 

reported. As a result, these landings are assigned 

to one of the management groups analytically for 
140

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 6-2

Productivity in numbers or 

metric tons (t) and status 

of Atlantic shark fisheries 

resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)3

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Large coastal sharks4 273 1,017 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Blacktip shark (Gulf of Mexico) 127 NA 12,100 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Blacktip shark (Atlantic) 31 NA Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Sandbar shark 60 NA 202 Below Overfishing Overfished

Small coastal sharks5 998 454 2,623 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Atlantic sharpnose shark 442 NA 1,270 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Blacknose shark 84 NA 89 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Bonnethead 310 NA 569 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Finetooth shark 14 NA 96 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Pelagic sharks6 26 853 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Blue shark7 3 273 Unknown Above Unknown Unknown

 Shortfin mako7 12 488 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Prohibited shark species8 Unknown 0 Unknown Unknown

 Dusky shark 19 0 ≤23 Below Overfishing Overfished

Total9 1,297 2,324 Unknown

12002–04 average for large coastal sharks (LCS); 2003–05 average for small coastal sharks (SCS); 2004–06 average for pelagic sharks; 2001–03 

average for dusky sharks. Expressed in thousands of fish, except for dusky sharks, which are in tons dressed weight (t dw). Shark totals are not 

included in the summary tables of the National Overview.

2Total allowable catches for sharks include quotas and discards. Dead discards and state landings after Federal closures are subtracted from quotas 

when adjusting the commercial quota for sharks to account adequately for all sources of fishing mortality. Expressed as t dw.

3MSY values are in t dw for LCS and dusky sharks; in thousands of fish for SCS.

4Separate stock assessments were conducted for sandbar and blacktip sharks (Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic), but the management unit is large 

coastal sharks and there are no individual quotas set for these species.

5Separate stock assessments were conducted for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, blacknose, and finetooth sharks, but the management unit is 

small coastal sharks and there are no individual quotas set for these species.

6CY is apportioned between porbeagle (92 t dw), blue sharks (273 t dw), and other pelagic sharks (488 t dw).

7Separate stock assessments were conducted by ICCAT for blue shark and shortfin mako in the North Atlantic Ocean. Values reported refer to the 

U.S. portion.

8Species that cannot be kept commercially or recreationally. 

9Total value for RAY does not include any of the prohibited shark species.

statistical purposes. Third, discard estimates are 

typically reported as numbers of fish. Because of 

these uncertainties, another set of estimated mean 

weights per fish for recreational catches or another 

set of assumptions regarding the allocation of the 

unidentified commercial shark landings is likely 

to produce different total weights for the recent 

average yield (RAY). To help minimize some of the 

effects of these factors, the landings and catch data 

used in the large coastal shark stock assessments are 

typically compiled in numbers of animals instead 

of weight (Table 6-2). 

Large Coastal Sharks

The U.S. Atlantic shark fishery is primarily a 

southeastern fishery extending from Virginia to 

Texas, although sharks are also landed in the states 

north of Virginia. Figure 6-1 shows the numbers 

that were reported landed and discarded for sharks 

in the large coastal management group from 1981 

to 2004. Commercial landings collected under 

the NMFS cooperative statistics program include 

the period of 1981–2004. Landings are typically reported in dressed weight, and an average 

weight is used to convert to numbers. Data for 

average weights are more reliable for 1994–2004 

because they were based on an observer program 

of the directed shark bottom longline fishery. 

Similarly, commercial landings estimates are more 

reliable starting in 1995 because of improved 

species-specific reporting. Unreported commercial 

landings from 1986 to 1991 are also included. 

Recreational catches in numbers also span the 
141

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6

Figure 6-1

Catches (above) of large 

coastal sharks and estimated 

stock abundance (below) 

of blacktip shark (Gulf of 

Mexico stock) and sandbar 

shark, 1981–2004.

Year

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Catch

(x 1,000 fish)

Total catch

Blacktip shark

Sandbar shark

period of 1981–2004 and include estimates from 

the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics 

Survey (MRFSS), headboat survey, and the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife recreational creel survey. Discards include estimates from the pelagic longline 

fishery for 1981–2004, the shark bottom longline 

fishery for 1993–2004, and the menhaden fishery 

in the Gulf of Mexico for 1994–2004. 

Sandbar and blacktip sharks are the two most 

important species in the large coastal shark (LCS) 

fishery (Figure 6-1). An assessment of these two 

species was conducted at the 1998 and 2002 Shark 

Evaluation Workshops (SEFSC, 1998) and at the 

2006 LCS SEDAR (NMFS, 2006b). At the LCS 

SEDAR it was determined that blacktip sharks 

in the Gulf of Mexico and the western Atlantic 

Ocean comprise two separate stocks, based on 

genetic evidence. As such, two assessments were 

conducted for that species: blacktip sharks—Gulf 

of Mexico and blacktip sharks—western Atlantic 

Ocean. The catch series available for sandbar and 

blacktip sharks spanned the period from 1981 

to 2004, including commercial landings, recreational catches, catches from artisanal fisheries in 

Mexico, and unreported commercial landings (for 

1986–1991). Discards included estimates from the 

menhaden fishery for 1981—2004.

The report of the Second Shark Evaluation 

workshop (SEFSC, 1996) concluded that catch 

rates of many shark species and species groups 

declined by about 50–75% from the early 1970’s 

to the mid 1980’s, but that the rapid rate of decline 

in catch rates that characterized the stocks in the 

early 1980’s had slowed significantly in the 1990’s. 

Partly based on results from the 1996 workshop, 

a 50% reduction in catches of large coastal species 

(i.e. relative to 1995) was targeted. This reduction 

was to be achieved by a 50% reduction in the 

commercial quota for the large coastal management group and a reduction of the recreational 

bag limit to two fish per boat per day (from the 

previously established recreational bag limit of four 

fish). During the third Shark Evaluation Workshop 

(SEFSC, 1998), preliminary data for 1997 were 

presented and reviewed, and the indications were 

that commercial catches, in numbers of animals, 

were reduced from 1995 by more than 50%, but 

recreational catches were reduced by only 12%. 

The most recent catch rate data analyzed at that 

time continued to show inconsistent trends, many 

of which were not statistically significant. These 

findings were not totally unexpected given that 

the expected rates of change in shark abundance 

are small and the measures of stock abundance 

used are uncertain, meaning that longer time series 

are needed to detect significant changes in stock 

size following implementation of the most recent 

management measures.

 Biomass dynamic model analyses that utilized 

catch, catch rate, and demographic data were 

integrated within a Bayesian statistical estimation approach during the Third Shark Evaluation 

workshop (SEFSC, 1998). The main findings of 

these analyses were that 1) for the large coastal 

Year

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

0

20,000

21,000

22,000

23,000

24,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Blacktip shark

abundance

(x 1,000 fish)

Sandbar shark

abundance

(x 1,000 fish)

Blacktip shark

Sandbar shark
142

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Hammerhead shark on the 

deck of a NOAA Fishery Survey Vessel.

SEFSC Mississippi Laboratories

complex, the 1998 stock size was estimated to be 

between 30 and 36% of the stock size producing 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY); 2) for sandbar 

shark, the 1998 stock size was between 58 and 

70% of MSY levels; and 3) for blacktip shark, the 

1998 stock size was between 44 and 50% of MSY 

levels. A sensitivity analysis undertaken following 

peer review (Cortés, 2002a) showed that results for 

blacktip shark were particularly sensitive to some 

of the estimation techniques used. The 2002 stock 

assessment (Cortés et al., 2002) conducted for the 

LCS complex showed that the status of the resource 

had improved since 1998, but continued to show 

that overfishing was likely to be occurring and the 

resource was likely to be overfished. It also indicated 

that on average a reduction in catch of at least 50% 

of the 2000 catch level was likely required for the 

biomass to reach MSY in 10 years.

Multiple models and estimation techniques 

were used to assess the status of sandbar and blacktip sharks during the 2002 assessment (Cortés et al., 

2002). Results indicated on average that the status 

of sandbar sharks had also improved since 1998 

and that 2002 biomass could be near or somewhat 

above MSY, but overfishing could still be occurring. 

Most results for blacktip shark indicated that the 

stock was rebuilt and that 2002 removal levels were 

sustainable.

For the 2006 assessment, three large coastal 

shark groupings were assessed: 1) LCS complex including all 22 species originally in the management 

group (1993 FMP); 2) LCS excluding all prohibited species (11 species; current LCS management 

group); and 3) LCS excluding all prohibited species 

as well as sandbar and blacktip sharks (nine species). For all assessments prior to 2006, the large 

coastal aggregate included the species of prohibited 

sharks that were formally considered part of the 

LCS management group.

 The Review Panel for the 2006 LCS SEDAR 

determined that, overall, the data utilized in the 

assessment of the LCS complex were the best 

available to the analysts at the time, and the assessment of the status of the complex was the best 

possible given the data available (NMFS, 2006b). 

However, the assessment performed inadequately at 

representing the status of the LCS complex (in any 

of the formulations: 22, 11, or 9 species) because 

of the potential for conflicting or mismatching 

information from various species components in 

the catch and abundance index data. Therefore, it 

was unclear to the Panel what exactly the results of 

the assessment represented, making it impossible to 

support use of the results for management of the 

complex. Further, the Panel stressed that results of 

previous assessments that used the same approach 

and similar data (perhaps of lesser quality) would 

attract the same or even stronger negative criticisms. They concluded that continued assessment 

of the LCS complex with the current approach and 

data was unlikely to produce effective management 

advice and was not recommended (although for 

continuity, output from such an approach should 

be made available when the complex is next subject 

to review). Instead, research, data analysis, and 

model development to permit species-specific assessments for the main components (except sandbar 

and blacktip, which are already assessed separately) 

of the complex (both permitted and prohibited 

species) was deemed a priority. 

 For sandbar sharks, the SEDAR Review Panel 

determined that the population model and resulting population estimates were the best possible 

given the data available (NMFS, 2006b). The 

change in stock status in the 2006 assessment from 

the more optimistic status in 2002 appears to be 

mainly attributable to revisions to the life history 

parameters in the 2006 assessment, along with 

changes in the input data due to standardization 
143

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6

Figure 6-2

Catches (above) and estimated stock abundance 

(below) of small coastal 

sharks (1972–2005), Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, 

and blacknose sharks (1950–

2005), and finetooth shark 

(1983–2005).

of many of the relative abundance indices. The 

population was assessed to be less productive than 

was assumed in 2002. The Panel was confident 

that the 2006 assessment provided a more reliable 

estimate of stock status than the 2002 and earlier 

assessments did. Stock status was determined from 

the results of a range of model fits reflecting the 

Panel’s uncertainty about life history parameters. 

All results indicated that the stock was overfished 

and that overfishing was occurring. The target year 

to rebuild the stock was estimated to be 2070. 

Blacktip sharks in the Gulf of Mexico were 

determined not to be overfished, nor was overfishing occurring. The Panel accepted the stock 

status, but did not accept the absolute estimates 

of stock abundance. The three abundance indices 

believed to be most representative of the stock 

were consistent with each other, suggesting that 

stock abundance has been increasing over a period 

of declining catch during the past 10 years. Based 

on life history characteristics, blacktip sharks are a 

relatively productive shark species, and a combination of these characteristics and recent increases in 

the most representative abundance indices suggests 

that the blacktip stock is relatively healthy. However, there was no scientific basis for advising an 

increase in catches.

For blacktip sharks in the western Atlantic 

Ocean, the Panel concluded that the data used for 

the analyses were treated appropriately (NMFS, 

2006b). However, it was unclear whether catch 

estimates prior to 1991 adequately represented 

historical removals. Moreover, it was impossible 

to judge the extent to which each of the standardized catch-rate series reflected real trends in the 

abundance of the stock. Therefore, given the widely 

differing results arising from the different models, 

the status of the stock of Atlantic blacktip shark 

was deemed to be uncertain, and no reliable estimates of abundance, biomass, or exploitation rates 

were advanced. Further, in the absence of reliable 

estimates of abundance, biomass, and exploitation 

rates, no reliable estimates of stock status were suggested. In summary, given that current status was 

unknown, no reliable population projections were 

possible, so no probable values for future population condition and status were provided. However, 

there was clearly no scientific basis for advising a 

change in catch levels.

Small Coastal Sharks

 Of the four species (Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, blacknose, and finetooth sharks) of small 

coastal sharks (SCS) in the complex, Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks account for approximately 94% of the catch (Figure 6-2). Landings 

represent only a small fraction of all catches because 

small coastal sharks are also caught as bycatch and 

discarded in a variety of fisheries, notably shrimp 

trawl fisheries. Bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. South 

Atlantic was estimated based on observer data and 

Year

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

600

1,200

1,800

2,400

3,000

3,600

4,200

4,800

5,400

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Atlantic sharpnose shark

Bonnethead

Blacknose shark Finetooth shark

Total abundance

Species

abundance

(x 1,000 fish)

Total

abundance

(x 1,000 fish)

Year

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

2,100

Catch

(x 1,000 fish)

Atlantic sharpnose shark

Bonnethead

Blacknose shark

Finetooth shark

Total catch
144

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

total effort for 1972–2005 for the small coastal 

shark aggregate, and for 1950–2005 for Atlantic 

sharpnose, bonnethead, and blacknose sharks, and 

accounts for the majority of the catches.

The latest stock assessments for the small coastal shark complex, and Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, blacknose, and finetooth sharks individually 

were conducted by the 2007 SCS SEDAR using 

surplus-production and age-structured approaches 

and Bayesian estimation techniques (NMFS, 

2007). The Review Panel for the 2007 SCS SEDAR 

concluded that while the assessment of the status 

of the complex was considered adequate based 

on the available data, given that species-specific 

assessments were also conducted, any conclusions 

should be based on the results of the individual 

species assessments. Only Bayesian biomass dynamic models could be used to evaluate the status 

of finetooth sharks. Results, which incorporated 

uncertainty about life history parameters, catches, 

and indices of relative abundance, indicated that 

the stock was not overfished nor was overfishing 

occurring, in contrast to the results of the 2002 

SCS assessment (Cortés, 2002b), which found 

overfishing was occurring. Because of the general 

level of uncertainty in the data, the Review Panel 

suggested cautious management of this resource.

Both biomass dynamic and age-structured 

models were used for the other three species. For 

blacknose sharks, the assessment indicated that the 

stock was overfished and overfishing was occurring 

both in 2005 and in the preceding 2001–04 period. 

However, due to uncertainty in life history parameters, catches, and indices of relative abundance, 

the Review Panel cautioned that stock status could 

change substantially in an unpredictable direction 

in future assessments. In contrast, the assessments 

for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks determined that the stocks were not overfished nor 

was overfishing occurring. However, for Atlantic 

sharpnose sharks, F was near FMSY and for bonnethead sharks, fishing mortality rates in recent 

years had fluctuated above and below FMSY.

Pelagic Sharks

For the pelagic group, the available catch series 

spans from 1981 to 2006 (Figure 6-3). Commercial landings include the period of 1982–2006, 

recreational catches include 1981–2006, and dead 

discard estimates from the pelagic longline fishery 

are available for 1987–2006. Due to the highly 

migratory nature of pelagic sharks, these species 

are harvested or caught as bycatch in the North 

Atlantic by fishermen from several nations. An 

assessment of blue sharks and shortfin makos was 

conducted by the International Commission for 

the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) SubCommittee on Bycatch in June 2004 using surplus 

production, age-structured, and catch-free stock assessment models. Results indicated that blue shark 

biomass in the North and South Atlantic is above 

BMSY, while shortfin mako biomass may be below 

BMSY in the North Atlantic but is above BMSY in the 

South Atlantic. The conclusions drawn from this 

assessment were considered to be very preliminary 

due to limitations on the quantity and quality of 

available data, and recommendations were made 

to increase research and monitoring efforts for 

sharks and other species caught as bycatch in tuna 

fisheries. The next ICCAT assessment for shortfin 

mako and blue shark is scheduled for late 2008.

Prohibited Species

Dusky sharks off the U.S. East Coast were classified as a prohibited species by NMFS in 1999, 

but had not been individually assessed. In 1997, 

they were also designated by NMFS as a candidate 

species for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and in 2004 were listed by the International 

Figure 6-3

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

pelagic sharks, 1981–2004.

Year

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total catch

Mako sharks

Blue shark

Catch

(x 1,000 fish)
145

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 

Red List of Threatened Species as vulnerable in 

the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

A stock assessment of dusky sharks was completed in 2006 (Cortés et al., 2006). The multiple 

indicators used in this assessment all provided a 

consistent picture of heavy fishing impact and high 

vulnerability to exploitation of dusky sharks in the 

northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

Decreasing temporal trends in mean size of catch 

and catch rates, in tandem with decreasing biomass and increasing fishing mortality rates derived 

from all the stock assessment methodologies used, 

indicated that the stock considered has been very 

heavily exploited. Results obtained with multiple 

stock assessment methods, which included surplus 

production, age-structured, and age-structured 

catch-free modeling approaches, indicated depletions in 2003 ranging from 62 to 93% of virgin 

biomass, with most models estimating depletions 

of over 80%. In all, the various stock assessment 

methodologies used to estimate stock status were all 

consistent in showing large depletions with respect 

to virgin (unexploited) levels. Despite some recent 

signs of recovery, the dusky shark stock in the U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico has been severely 

depleted with respect to virgin levels.

ISSUES

Scientific Information and 

Adequacy of Assessments

The lack of extensive time series for speciesspecific catch and effort data continues to be a 

problem that hampers shark stock assessments 

(NMFS, 1999b). Without reliable species-specific 

data and stock assessments, management measures 

will necessarily continue to be based on species 

aggregates. Several of these important data deficiencies have been recognized in the past (SEFSC, 

1998; Cortés et al., 2002; NMFS, 2006b). To 

continue to improve shark stock assessments, it is 

critical to 1) continue to improve species- and sizespecific catch (landed and discarded animals caught 

both in U.S. and non-U.S. fisheries) and effort 

data, and 2) improve fishery-independent measures 

of shark abundance and productivity. Additionally, 

it has been recognized that every effort should be 

made to assess the status of shark species separately 

because individual species respond differently to 

exploitation based on their innate capacity to rebound and fishing history (NMFS, 2006b). Thus, 

management of coastal shark species aggregates can 

result in excessive regulation on some species and 

excessive risk of overfishing on others.

Management Concerns

Although the collection of species-specific data 

is preferable from a scientific standpoint, reliable 

species identification continues to pose problems in 

the practical management of the fisheries, and may 

only be remedied through observer programs, extensive public outreach, and educational programs. 

The new mandatory shark identification workshops 

described in the latest FMP will assist in this process 

(NMFS, 2006a). The magnitude of recreational 

catch estimates has surpassed that of commercial 

landings in several years since 1996. It also appears that the minimum size limit imposed on 

the recreational sector has been largely ineffective, 

and a reduced bag limit per trip is not achieved. 

Significant reductions in mortality from the recreational sector could be realized if these regulations 

were followed. The issue of incidental catches and 

discarding of dead sharks in commercial fisheries is 

also contentious from a management perspective. 

Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP incorporated a 

number of measures to mitigate bycatch in comNurse shark resting beneath 

a coral ledge.
146

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

mercial shark fisheries, including gear restrictions 

and adoption of Vessel Monitoring Systems2

(VMS) in some cases (NMFS, 2003). A time/area 

closure aimed at protecting sandbar and dusky 

shark nursery and pupping areas off North Carolina from January to July was also implemented. 

Pending work includes individual assessments of 

species classified as prohibited, especially night and 

sand tiger sharks, which were recently designated 

as Species of Concern3 by NMFS. 

Progress

Considerable progress has been made since 

the first Atlantic shark FMP implemented in 

1993. Since that time (when 98% of commercial 

shark landings were simply reported as “sharks”), 

mandatory commercial permitting and reporting 

has significantly reduced the proportion of catch 

reported as unclassified. Beginning in 1995, a quota 

monitoring program on permitted shark dealer 

reports from the Southeast Region has improved 

the quality of commercial landings data because 

it supports a more diverse species list. NMFS also 

funds two observer programs that provide extensive 

data on species and size composition, catch disposition, distribution of fishing effort, and bycatch 

in directed shark fisheries. The shark drift gillnet 

observer program has been in effect since 1993, 

and the shark bottom longline observer program 

since 1994. A third observer program providing 

valuable information on sharks caught as bycatch 

in pelagic longline fisheries targeting tunas and 

tuna-like species began in 1992.

A number of improvements have supported 

more informative and comprehensive assessments 

of shark stocks. There has been an increase in 

the number and duration of fishery-independent 

surveys, and some fishery-dependent time series of 

relative abundance have become available and have 

been analyzed through General Linear Modelling 

(GLM) techniques. Nursery area and tagging studies in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico have been 

expanded and incorporated into stock assessments 

to some degree. Population and demographic 

modeling on several species has also contributed 

substantially to new stock assessments. 

 Progress has also been made in domestic management. NMFS’ HMS Management Division is 

responsible for developing management measures 

consistent with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. To that end, an HMS Advisory Panel was 

formed to help prepare the 1999 FMP for Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, which amended the 

1993 FMP. The 1999 FMP and its amendment 

(NMFS, 2003) established a rebuilding program 

for the overfished large coastal shark complex, attempted to prevent further overfishing of sandbar 

and finetooth sharks, continued to monitor the 

status of some stocks that were deemed to be rebuilt 

and healthy (blacktip and all small coastal sharks 

except the finetooth shark), and limited access to 

the commercial shark fishery. The 2006 FMP was 

finalized before the results of the 2006 LCS SEDAR 

were complete; an amendment to incorporate the 

2006 LCS results is under development.

 Internationally, the United States continues to 

play a key role in several shark management forums. 

The United States participated in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Consultation on Shark Conservation and Management. 

This consultation culminated in the adoption of a 

National Plan of Action in 2001 to guide national, 

regional, and international science and management under the precautionary approach. The 

United States also participates actively in ICCAT 

as a member of the Shark Working Group of the 

Sub-Committee on Bycatch, providing data for 

stock assessments. These efforts contributed to the 

2004 stock assessments of blue shark and shortfin 

mako. In 2001, NMFS implemented the Shark 

Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-

557), which effectively bans the practice of finning 

(landing or possessing shark fins without carcasses) 

in U.S. territorial waters. Additionally, the United 

States has been collaborating with Mexico in catch 

rate analysis of sharks commonly harvested by both 

countries in the Gulf of Mexico, and a research 

survey to assess Mexican shark resources in the Gulf 

2A device that continuously beams a boat’s location, direction, 

and speed to a global satellite network that relays the information, alerting NMFS and the Coast Guard when a boat 

enters a closed area or when it is fishing out of season.

3Species of Concern are species that NMFS has identified as 

having significant uncertainty regarding status and threats, 

but insufficient information is available to indicate a need to 

list the species under the Endangered Species Act.
147

ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES

UNIT 6

of Mexico. These bilateral activities are conducted 

under the auspices of the MEXUS-Gulf Cooperative Program.

LITERATURE CITED

Cortés, E. 1999. Shark evaluation annual report. NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-98/99-64, Panama 

City, FL, 10 p.

Cortés, E. 2000. Shark evaluation annual report. NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-00/01-119, Panama 

City, FL, 23 p.

Cortés, E. 2002a. Sensitivity analysis of the 1998 Large 

Coastal Shark Evaluation Workshop results to new data 

and model formulations following recommendations 

from peer reviews. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution 

SFD-01/02-167, Panama City, FL, 71 p.

Cortés, E. 2002b. Stock assessment of small coastal 

sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-01/02-152, Panama 

City, FL, 133 p.

Cortés, E. 2003. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2003-0031, 

Panama City, FL, 75 p.

Cortés, E. 2005. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2005-054, 

Panama City, FL, 57 p.

Cortés, E., L. Brooks, P. Apostolaki, and C. A. Brown. 

2006. Stock assessment of dusky shark in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2006-014, Panama City, FL, 155 p.

Cortés, E., L. Brooks, and G. Scott. 2002. Stock assessment of large coastal sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution 

SFD-02/03-177, Panama City, FL, 222 p.

NMFS. 1993. Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of 

the Atlantic Ocean. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD, 273 p.

NMFS. 1999a. Final Fishery Management Plan for 

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Volumes I and 

II. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

NMFS. 1999b. Our living oceans. Report on the status 

of U.S. living marine resources, 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301 p.

NMFS. 2003. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, 

and Sharks. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

NMFS. 2006a. Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2006b. SEDAR 11 stock assessment report. 

Large coastal shark complex, blacktip and sandbar 

shark. NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division, Silver Spring, MD, 387 p.

NMFS. 2007. SEDAR 13 stock assessment report. Small 

coastal shark complex, Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, 

bonnethead, and finetooth shark. NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, 

MD, 395 p.

SEFSC. 1996. Report on the Shark Evaluation Workshop. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, Miami, FL, 80 p.

SEFSC. 1998. Report on the Shark Evaluation Workshop. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, Miami, FL, 109 p.

149

ATLANTIC AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTAL PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 7

atlantic and gulf of mexico 

Coastal pelagic fisheries

Unit

7

SHANNON L. CASS-CALAY

MAURICIO ORTIz

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Miami

Florida

INTRODUCTION

Coastal pelagic species of the U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean and Gulf of Mexico include king mackerel, 

Spanish mackerel, dolphinfish, cobia, and cero. The 

mackerels typically occur in tropical, subtropical, 

and temperate waters at depths from 20 to 150 

feet. King mackerel are distributed throughout 

the western Atlantic from New England south to 

Brazil, while Spanish mackerel are generally found 

north of the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. Cobia 

and dolphinfish are broadly distributed in tropical 

to warm-temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific 

and Indian Oceans. In the western North Atlantic, 

cobia range from Nova Scotia south to Argentina, 

including the Caribbean Sea. Dolphinfish share a 

similar distribution from New England south to 

Brazil. During autumn and winter months, cobia 

Photo above: 

Retrieving a dolphinfish 

hooked on a recreational 

squid jig.

Allen Shimada, NMFS

migrate southward and offshore, seeking warmer 

waters. In early spring, the population moves northward and inshore along the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

 Coastal pelagic species share a suite of typical 

adaptations. They are generally fast-swimming 

predatory fishes that school, feed voraciously, grow 

rapidly, mature early, and spawn over an extended 

period of several months. 

 Most coastal pelagic species are highly valued 

and sought-after gamefish. During 1984–2006, 

recreational fishermen landed between 7,200 and 

19,000 metric tons (t) of coastal pelagics each year 

(Figure 7-1). Annually, king and Spanish mackerel 

accounted for 36–61% of all coastal pelagic recreational harvests. In addition to king and Spanish 

mackerel, dolphinfish and cobia contributed significantly to the total recreational yield of coastal 

pelagics.
150

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 7-1

Total landings in metric 

tons (t) by fisheries sector 

of coastal pelagic stocks, 

1984–2006.

Table 7-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of coastal pelagic 

fishes in the U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Cobia 1,097 972 659 (Gulf) Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Dolphinfish 5,451 5,770 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

King mackerel

 Atlantic group 2,415 2,676 2,308 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 Gulf group2 4,434 5,301 5,183 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Spanish mackerel

 Atlantic group 2,313 2,250 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Gulf group 1,772 1,990 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Total 17,482 18,959

12004–06 average. Includes recreational landings.

2Stock status is classified as rebuilding because in the most recent stock assessment (2004), the stock abundance was above the overfished threshold but still had not reached the target biomass level of MSY.

Year

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

Commercial

Recreational

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Commercial landings of coastal pelagic species oscillated between 4,200 and 6,600 t per year 

during 1984–2006 (Figure 7-1). Landings were 

primarily of king and Spanish mackerels (80% on 

average). Cobia are caught incidentally on some 

commercial trips targeting mackerels, but these 

landings are restricted to two fish per trip. Cero 

are of minor commercial importance since they are 

typically non-schooling and are difficult to target 

in commercially relevant densities. 

Coastal pelagic species under the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are co-managed by the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 

and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council (GMFMC). Management regulations have 

included annual total allowable catches (TAC’s), 

minimum size restrictions, and creel limits. For 

king and Spanish mackerel, the Councils recognize 

two separate migratory groups: the Gulf of Mexico 

group managed by the GMFMC, and the Atlantic 

group managed by the SAFMC. The management 

process begins with SouthEast Data, Assessment, 

and Review (SEDAR) assessments that recommend 

Acceptable Biological Catches (ABC’s) for each 

migratory group. The Councils then choose annual 

TAC’s, with separate commercial and recreational 

allocations. The TAC set for the Gulf migratory 

group is further divided into separate sub-regions 

within the Gulf (e.g. eastern and western). Quota 

management of coastal pelagic species began in 

1985. Presently, both commercial and charter boat 

operators must hold current Federal fishing permits 

for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and other 

coastal pelagic species. In addition to quota limits, 

commercial catches must comply with minimum 

size restrictions; daily landing limits and/or trip 

limits in Florida and North Carolina may also 

apply. Since 1998, NMFS requires mandatory 

reporting through logbooks for all commercial king 

mackerel fishing trips. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

 Some species in the coastal pelagics group are 

currently being fished near or at the maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) production levels (Table 

7-1). The Gulf king mackerel stock was considered 
151

ATLANTIC AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTAL PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 7

Figure 7-2

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and relative spawning stock 

size of Spanish mackerel, 

1984–2006. Top, Gulf of Mexico group; bottom, South 

Atlantic group.

Year

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Total landings

Recreational

Commercial

Abundance index

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Relative

abundance

index

Year

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

0

1

2

3

4

0

0.5

1.0

1.5 Total landings

Recreational

Commercial

Abundance index

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Relative

abundance

index

overfished until recently because of prior overexploitation and has been under a rebuilding program 

since 1985. According to the most recent stock 

assessment in 2004, MSY was estimated at 5,183 

t for the Gulf king mackerel stock and 2,308 t for 

the Atlantic king mackerel stock. Current yields 

(2006) were above the MSY estimates, 5,301 t in 

the Gulf and 2.676 t in the Atlantic.

The king mackerel stocks of the Gulf of Mexico 

and Atlantic migratory groups are managed using 1) 

a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) 

of F30%SPR1 and 2) a minimum spawning stock 

threshold (MSST) of 80% of BMSY. By definition, 

overfishing is occurring if the current median estimated harvesting rate (F ) is above MFMT, and the 

stock is considered overfished if the current biomass 

is below the MSST levels. According to the 2004 

assessment, the king and Spanish mackerel stocks 

are not experiencing overfishing. The Councils have 

also defined target (MSY) and optimal yield (OY) 

levels for these stocks. In the case of Atlantic king 

mackerel, OY is defined as the yield at F40%SPR, 

while a value of yield at 85% FMSY is used for Gulf 

king mackerel. 

Spanish Mackerel

Both U.S. and Mexican fishermen have commercially exploited Spanish mackerel since the 

1850’s. Initially, the U.S. fishery was located off 

the northeastern United States, but over time, it 

shifted southward to the U.S. South Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, over 70% of the commercial catch was landed off Florida. During the 

early years, most Spanish mackerel were harvested 

using hook-and-line gear. Later, gillnets became 

the dominant gear, and accounted for the majority of the landings. However, in 1996 gillnets were 

banned in Florida state waters which substantially 

reduced the total commercial catch of Spanish and 

king mackerel, particularly on the West Florida 

coast where state waters extend up to 9 n.mi. offshore.

Spanish mackerel are highly valued recreational 

gamefish throughout their range. Since the 1990’s, 

the proportion of Spanish mackerel landed by 

recreational fishermen has increased in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Currently, about 30% of the landings of 

the Atlantic stock and 70% of the landings of the 

Gulf stock are taken by recreational anglers (Figure 

7-2). 

Atlantic Spanish mackerel are considered to 

be at or near their full maximum fishery potential. 

The 2003 stock assessment suggested that the stock 

was not overfished. However, fishing mortality on 

Spanish mackerel from the Atlantic shrimp fishery 

is believed to be greater than had been assumed. 

Similar uncertainty exists for other coastal pelagic 

species caught incidentally by the shrimp fishery, 

1The spawning potential ratio (SPR) is the amount of 

reproductive output produced by an average recruit in a 

fished stock, divided by the reproductive output produced 

by an average recruit in an unfished stock. F30% is the fishing 

mortality rate expected to produce 30% SPR.
152

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 7-3

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and relative spawning stock 

size of king mackerel, 1981–

2007 (data for 2007 are not 

final). Top, Gulf of Mexico 

group; bottom, South Atlantic group.

Year

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Total landings

Recreational

Commercial

Abundance index

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Relative

abundance

index

Year

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Total landings

Abundance index

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Relative

abundance

Recreational index

Commercial

and additional information is needed to better 

quantify this source of mortality. A new assessment of the Atlantic stock of Spanish mackerel is 

underway and will be completed in 2008.

Gulf Spanish mackerel successfully recovered 

from an overfished status in 1995, following management regulations that began in 1987. The 2003 

stock assessment of Gulf Spanish mackerel indicated that current fishing mortality on this stock is 

less than MFMT (F30%SPR), although there is also 

high uncertainty regarding the mortality associated 

with the Gulf shrimp fishery. 

King Mackerel

The U.S. commercial fishery for king mackerel 

began in the 1880’s off Chesapeake Bay and has 

since moved southward. There are four major production areas: 1) off North Carolina, 2) the Florida 

east coast (Cape Canaveral to Palm Beach), 3) the 

Florida Keys, and 4) off Grand Isle, Louisiana. The 

Louisiana fishery began in the early 1980’s; this area 

harbors larger and older king mackerel (mainly females). Unrestricted high fishing mortality on these 

fishes from the late 1970’s through the early 1980’s 

quickly reduced the overall Gulf stock. Landings 

reached a peak of 7,600 t in 1981 in the Gulf, and 

3,600 t in 1982 in the Atlantic (Figure 7-3). Since 

then, Gulf landings decreased to a minimum of 

2,000 t in 1989, then recovered during the 1990’s 

to about 4,500 t. In the Atlantic, landings decreased 

to a minimum of 1,600 t in 2002, then recovered 

to 2,600 t by 2006. King mackerel landings have 

been under a Federal quota management system 

since 1985. 

Historically, the commercial king mackerel 

fisheries have utilized gillnets, troll lines, handlines, 

purse seines, otter trawls, and pound nets. In 1989, 

purse seines and drift gillnets were prohibited, and 

in 1996, all gillnets were prohibited in Florida state 

waters. Commercial yields remained unregulated 

until the mid 1980’s. Recreational fisheries for king 

mackerel have been very popular in the Gulf and 

South Atlantic, with several tournaments targeting king mackerel since the 1960’s. In fact, since 

1981 recreational landings have consistently been 

greater than commercial landings. Recreational 

landings experienced large reductions during the 

1980’s, likely as a consequence of the expansion of 

the commercial runaround gillnets fishery during 

the 1970’s and a driftnet fishery that operated off 

southeast Florida during the late 1980’s. By 2006, 

recreational landings accounted for 70% of the 

total landings of king mackerel in the Gulf. 

 The Gulf king mackerel stock is believed to 

have a large MSY, but the stock was severely depleted until recent years (Figure 7-3, upper graph). 

According to the last stock assessment (2004), 

average annual production in the early 2000’s 

was estimated at approximately 62% of the MSY 

level. It is believed that the major stock reductions 

during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s were due 
153

ATLANTIC AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTAL PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 7

Figure 7-4

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

cobia, 1981–2006.

2SBR is the expected lifetime contribution to the spawning stock 

biomass for the average recruit, calculated by assuming that 

fishing mortality, natural mortality, and growth are constant 

over the lifespan of a year-class.

Year

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Recreational

Commercial

to excessive harvests in the late 1970’s and early 

1980’s. Results from the 2004 stock assessment 

indicated that the Gulf stock had recovered and 

that overfishing was not occurring. However, these 

results should be viewed with caution. During the 

most recent years, recruitment was estimated to 

be higher than average, particularly for the 1999 

and 2001 year-classes. As these year-classes move 

out of the fishery, future stock biomass levels could 

decline. 

The Atlantic king mackerel stock is thought 

to be at or near its MSY. Catches have oscillated 

between 1,500 and 3,000 t since 1981 (Figure 

7-3, lower graph); however, annual TAC’s have not 

been reached in most recent years. Commercial 

and recreational landings show a similar degree of 

annual variability. Bycatch of Atlantic king mackerel in shrimp fisheries is assumed to be low, but 

it is recognized that the actual level has not been 

determined with either accuracy or precision. The 

results of the 2004 stock assessment of Atlantic 

king mackerel indicated that current harvest rates 

were below the MFMT, thus overfishing was not 

occurring. Spawning stock biomass was above the 

spawning biomass at MSY in 2003, indicating that 

the population was not overfished at that time. The 

next assessment of king mackerel stocks is scheduled to be finished by the end of 2008 (SEDAR 

16).

Cobia

Cobia is primarily targeted by recreational 

anglers; commercial landings are on average 13% 

of the total annual landings (Figure 7-4). Current 

management regulations for cobia include minimum size, individual bag limits, and commercial 

trip limits (2 cobia per trip). For management 

and assessment purposes, it is assumed that two 

separate stock units of cobia exist: one in the Gulf 

of Mexico and another in the U.S. Atlantic. During 1981–2006, annual yields of Atlantic cobia 

have ranged from 13 to 700 t. Gulf cobia yields 

are generally larger, ranging from 300 to 1,110 t 

annually since 1981. Fishing mortality is assumed 

to be low for the Atlantic group, while in the Gulf, 

cobia are believed to be more heavily exploited. 

The data needed to assess the population dynamics and stock status of cobia are scarce and limited. Therefore, the status of cobia stocks remains 

uncertain. The 1993–94 assessment estimated that 

the spawning stock biomass per recruit (SBR)2 for 

Gulf cobia was between 20% and 45% of the maximum possible SBR, while, for the Atlantic group, 

SBR was estimated to be above 30% with low 

fishing mortality rates. The last stock assessment 

for Gulf cobia (2001) indicated that the population 

had increased since the 1980’s, and that the Gulf 

stock was not overfished. The sustainable yield for 

Gulf cobia was set at 659 t. 

More information on biology and fisheries data 

are needed to assess the population structure and 

stock status of cobia in the Gulf and the Atlantic. 

This can be accomplished by increasing biological 

sampling of fish landed by the recreational and 

commercial fisheries, updating available reproductive information, and estimating the bycatch of 

cobia in other fisheries. In addition, more precise 

estimates of the natural mortality rate would 

improve assessment estimates of stock levels and 

maximum sustainable yield. 

Dolphinfish

Dolphinfish are primarily landed by recreational anglers in the southeastern United States. 
154

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Fishermen with their catch of 

king and Spanish mackerel 

from a charter boat trip out 

of Watson Island near Miami, 

Florida. 

William B. Folsom, NMFS

During 1998–2006, recreational anglers landed, on 

average, 6,240 t (94%) while commercial fishermen 

landed 415 t (6%) of dolphinfish. Total landings 

increased from 2,100 t in 1981 to a peak of 11,300 

t in 1997; by 2006 landings decreased to 5,800 t 

(Figure 7-5). The available information supports 

the hypothesis of a single stock across the Gulf 

of Mexico and the U.S. South Atlantic. Current 

stock status is difficult to quantify because comprehensive information for the total U.S. stock is 

limited. Stock assessment results in 2000 suggested 

some increase in stock size relative to previous estimates. Uncertainties in stock structure, the need 

to corroborate abundance trends, and the lack of 

mortality rates in recent years make it difficult to 

estimate the true current status of U.S. dolphinfish 

stocks. Research efforts should be focused on these 

areas. Also, because of the transnational migratory 

movements of this species, international cooperation between scientists is needed to further refine 

information on stock status.

ISSUES

Stock Separation and 

Mixing Rates of King Mackerel

The stocks of Atlantic and Gulf king mackerel 

overlap during the winter months in the southeast 

Florida and Florida Keys region. Recent studies 

suggest that there is considerable mixing, but the 

proportion of effective emigration/immigration 

between stocks, and the contribution of each stock 

to regional landings during the mixing period, are 

still uncertain. Additional sampling and research 

are needed to better quantify the stock composition 

of king mackerel landed in the mixing region. 

Transboundary Stocks

Effective management of migratory coastal 

pelagic species will continue to require the coordination of Federal and state regulatory agencies. 

Furthermore, king mackerel (and to some degree 

Spanish mackerel) in the western Gulf of Mexico 

migrate between Mexico and U.S. territorial waters. 

Assessing the magnitude of mixing between these 

transboundary stocks merits increased research 

efforts.

FOR FURTHER READING

DeVries, D. A., C. B. Grimes, and M. H. Prager. 2002. 

Using otolith shape analysis to distinguish eastern Gulf 

of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean stocks of king mackerel. 

Fisheries Research 57:51–62.

MSAP. 2003. Report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment 

Panel meeting 19–21 May 2003, Miami, FL. Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL, 

and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

Charleston, SC. 

Ortiz, M. 2004. Stock assessment analysis on Gulf of 

Mexico king mackerel. NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division, SFD2004-004, Miami, FL. 

Prager, M. H. 2000. Exploratory assessment of dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus, based on U.S. landings 

from the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort 

Laboratory, 18 p.

SEDAR. 2004. SEDAR 5 stock assessment report on 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico king mackerel. 

Report prepared at the meeting held February 2004, 

Miami, FL. SouthEast Data, Assessment and Review, 

Charleston, South Carolina.

SEFSC. 2003. Stock assessment analysis on Spanish 

and king mackerel stocks. Southeast Fisheries Science 

Figure 7-5

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

dolphinfish, 1981–2006.

Year

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Recreational

Commercial
155

ATLANTIC AND GULF OF MEXICO COASTAL PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 7

Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division SFD-2003-

0008, Miami, FL.

Thompson, N. B. 1999. Characterization of the dolphinfish (Coryphaenidae) fishery of the United States 

western North Atlantic Ocean. Scientia Marina 63: 

421–427.

Williams, E. H. 2001. Assessment of cobia, Rachycentron 

canadum, in the waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-469, 55 p.
156

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION
157

ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN FISHERIES

UNIT 8

atlantic, gulf of mexico, 

and Caribbean reef fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Reef fishes include a variety of structureassociated species that reside on coral reefs, artificial 

structures, or other hard-bottom areas, and also tilefishes that live in muddy bottom and Continental 

Shelf areas. Reef fishes occur from Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina, through the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean Sea in depths ranging from ~2 m to 

more than 200 m. Reef fish fisheries are extremely 

diverse, vary greatly by location and species, and are 

utilized by commercial, artisanal, and recreational 

fisheries for food, commerce, sport, and trophies. 

These fisheries operate from charter boats, head 

boats, private boats, and the shore, while using 

gears such as fish traps, hook and line, longlines, 

spears, trammel nets, bang sticks, and barrier 

nets. 

Unit

8

DOUGLAS HARPER

TODD KELLISON

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Miami

Florida

Photo above:

Bluestriped grunts peek out 

from the shelter of a coral 

reef.

Larry Benvenuti

 Reef fish fisheries are associated closely with 

fisheries for other reef animals, including spiny 

lobster, conch, stone crab, corals, and live rock and 

ornamental aquarium species (see Unit 11, Southeast and Caribbean Invertebrate Fisheries). Nonconsumptive uses of reef resources (e.g. ecotourism, 

sport diving, education, and scientific research) also 

are economically important and may conflict with 

traditional commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Although reef fishes have been caught for generations, dependable landings data for most areas did 

not begin to accrue until the late 1970’s, when 

recreational fishing surveys were initiated. Fishery 

data collection remains difficult because there are 

diverse users and landings are made at many ports. 

Fishing pressure has increased over time along with 

growing human populations, greater demands for 

fishery products, and technological improvements 
158

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Measuring a gray (mangrove) snapper during a 

NMFS Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS) in Florida.

Charles Gardner

(e.g. more efficient and less expensive gear, electronic fish finders, and navigational aids).

SPECIES AND STATUS

Although figures vary for individual species, 

reef fishes overall produce significant landings and 

values (Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3). Recent average 

commercial and recreational catches (2004–06) for 

the U.S. Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico 

have been about 24,253 metric tons (t) annually 

(Table 8-1), with dockside ex-vessel commercial 

revenue of $68,124,000. In the U.S. South Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico, sport anglers make more than 

20,000,000 angler-trips per year. 

Many reef fishes are vulnerable to overfishing 

due to life-history characteristics such as slow 

growth, late maturity, ease of capture, large body 

size, and other factors. Many stocks with known 

status are currently considered overfished (Table 

8-1). In most cases, the current and maximum 

sustainable yields are unknown, though for many 

species they are probably higher than current recent 

average yields would indicate due to overfishing 

(Table 8-1). 

The South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (SAFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (GMFMC), and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) 

manage reef fish fisheries in the Southeast Region 

occurring within the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ; seaward of territorial waters out to 200 

miles from shore). These three Councils have developed Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for reef 

fish fisheries that include a combined total of 117 

reef fishes (excluding fish species collected for the 

marine aquarium trade). The territorial waters are 

managed by the eight coastal states of the region, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. 

 In the Gulf of Mexico, the Reef Fish Resources 

of the Gulf of Mexico FMP and its amendments 

contain numerous management measures for the 

42 reef fish species within the management unit. 

These measures include the prohibition of fish 

traps, roller trawls, and powerheads on spearguns 

within designated stressed areas; minimum size and 

bag limits on many reef fishes; and data reporting 

requirements. For example, during 2008 there 

was a two-fish recreational daily bag limit for red 

snapper with a 1,111 t annual quota, and a com-
159

ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN FISHERIES

UNIT 8

Table 8-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean reef 

fish fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

South Atlantic

 Black sea bass 770 719 1,730 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Gag 491 727 Unknown Unknown Overfishing Appr. overfished

 Goliath grouper3,4 0 0 Unknown Below

 Nassau grouper3 0 0 Unknown Below Not overfishing Unknown

 Red porgy 47 Unknown 450 Below Not overfishing Overfished

 Red snapper 146 Unknown Unknown Unknown Overfishing Unknown

 Snowy grouper 130 124 142 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Tilefish 215 134 153 Near Overfishing Not overfished

 Vermilion snapper 571 Unknown Unknown Unknown Overfishing Unknown

 Wreckfish 71 Unknown Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

 Amberjacks5 382 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Grunts5 226 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other groupers5,6,7 489 Unknown Unknown Below

 Other porgies5 989 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other sea basses5 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other snappers5 606 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other species5 1,007 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, South Atlantic 6,142 6,420 7,691

Caribbean

 Nassau grouper3 0 Unknown Unknown Below Overfishing Overfished

 Grunts 70 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other groupers5,6,7 69 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Snappers5,6 363 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other species5,6 432 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, Caribbean 934 934 934

Gulf of Mexico

 Goliath grouper3 0 0 Unknown Unknown

 Nassau grouper3 0 0 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Red grouper 3,769 Unknown Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Red snapper 3,657 2,722 15,000 Below Overfishing Overfished

 Vermilion snapper 1,069 Unknown Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Gray triggerfish 285 Unknown Unknown Unknown Overfishing Undefined

 Amberjacks5,6,7 1,403 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Shallow groupers5 2,940 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other groupers5 695 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other snappers5 2,144 Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Other species5 1,215 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, Gulf of Mexico 17,177 16,242 28,520

Total 24,253 23,416 37,145

12004–06 average.

2CY is overestimated, and MSY is probably greatly underestimated; although potential production estimates are not available for most species 

groups, many are probably overfished.

3A total fishing prohibition has been imposed on these species in all Federal waters, state waters of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and 

territorial waters of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

4Status determinations for goliath grouper are for the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico combined; the stock is not overfishing and stock status is 

unknown.

5Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

6This multispecies stock grouping contains at least one species that individually is considered to be overfishing.

7This multispecies stock grouping contains at least one species that individually is considered to be overfished.
160

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 8-1

Gulf of Mexico reef fish 

landings in metric tons (t), 

1977–2006.

Yellowtail snapper in front of 

a sea fan.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Commercial

Recreational

mercial annual quota of 1,157 t. For grouper, a 

five-fish recreational daily bag limit (one fish for 

red grouper) and 3,992 t shallow-water and 463 

t deepwater commercial quotas were established. 

Other FMP regulations include a ban on the harvest of goliath and Nassau groupers, a framework 

procedure for establishing total allowable catches 

and allowing the target date for rebuilding to be 

changed depending on scientific information, and 

a revised target year of 2032 for rebuilding the red 

snapper stock. In 1992, a moratorium on issuing 

new commercial reef fish permits was established. 

Marine protected areas (MPA’s) closed to fishing 

have been established in three areas near the Dry 

Tortugas (off south Florida) and in two areas off 

west-central Florida (the Madison-Swanson and 

Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves).

In the southern U.S. Atlantic, the Snapper–

Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region FMP 

emphasizes minimum size limits, bag limits, and 

commercial fishing quotas. A total of 73 reef fishes 

are included in the snapper–grouper complex. 

Because of its mixed-species nature, this fishery is 

challenging to manage. Through the original FMP 

and subsequent amendments, the Council has 

addressed overcapacity, implemented measures to 

rebuild overfished species, and is moving forward 

with the use of MPA’s as a management tool for 

deepwater species. Various gears are restricted, 

including a prohibition of roller trawls and fish 

traps (except sea bass traps). Strict management 

measures, including prohibition of harvest in some 

cases, have been implemented to rebuild overfished 

species in the snapper–grouper complex. For 

example, both goliath grouper (since 1990) and 

Nassau grouper (since 1992) are protected from 

harvest, and strict limits have been implemented 

for speckled hind and warsaw grouper. Additional 

restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing 

have been enacted for designated special management zones.

 In the U.S. Caribbean, the Reef Fish Fishery 

of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands FMP 

establishes regulations to rebuild declining reef 

fish stocks in the EEZ and reduce conflicts among 

users. In this fishery management unit there are 

79 reef fish species harvested for human consumption, plus an additional 60 species collected for 

the aquarium trade only. Regulatory management 

measures include those that define criteria for the 

construction of fish traps and requirements for 

owner identification and the marking of gear and 

boats; prohibit hauling or tampering with another 

person’s traps without the owner’s written consent; 

prohibit the use of poisons, drugs, other chemicals, 

and explosives for the taking of reef fish; and establish minimum size and bag limits for multiple 

species of reef fish. Many species of reef fish in 
161

ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN FISHERIES

UNIT 8

Figure 8-3

Caribbean reef fish landings in metric tons (t), 1978–

2006.

Figure 8-2

South Atlantic reef fish 

landings in metric tons (t), 

1978–2006.

Photo, above left: 

A catch of snapper from the 

small-boat fishing fleet in 

Municio de Rincon, Puerto 

Rico.

William B. Folsom, NMFS

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Commercial

Recreational

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are believed 

to be overexploited, largely due to trap fishing and 

bycatch associated with this fishery.

ISSUES

Fishing Impacts, 

Trophic Interactions, and Bycatch

Fishing may have direct and indirect effects on reef 

fish ecosystem structure and production. Removals 

of apex predators from the reef complex may result 

in shifts of species composition (i.e. trophic and 

ecological cascades), increased variability in population dynamics of targeted species, and potential 

evolutionary effects on targeted species. Bycatch 

(non-targeted catch) increases mortality rates for 

non-targeted species. For example, juvenile red 

snapper are caught in nearshore shrimp trawls in 

the Gulf of Mexico region, resulting in increased 

red snapper mortality and, subsequently, decreased 

numbers of adults available for harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries. For species caught 

and released alive, post-release mortality may affect 

stock production levels.

Scientific Information and 

Adequacy of Stock Assessments

 There are a number of important issues that 

need to be addressed to improve scientific advice 

for management. For all species, additional or improved fishery-dependent and fishery-independent 

data would improve the accuracy of statistical 

models used in stock assessments. For many species, 
162

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

A large goliath grouper 

swims between pier pilings. 

Fishing on this species is 

prohibited in the EEZ and 

state/territorial waters except 

off Puerto Rico to allow the 

species to recover from past 

overfishing.

SEFSC

insufficient data exist to perform stock assessments. 

Additional life history and biological data are also 

needed for many species. Additionally, information on species interactions (e.g. predator–prey 

dynamics) will be necessary to guide multispecies 

assessments and facilitate the movement toward 

ecosystem management.

Allocation

A wide range of stakeholders utilizes reef fish 

resources, and conflicts may arise between commercial and recreational fishers and other users such 

as ecotourists. Balancing the competing interests 

of these user groups is an important management 

issue.

Progress

Stock rebuilding plans are in effect for all reef 

fish species classified as overfished or experiencing 

overfishing. Some overfished reef fishes (e.g. goliath grouper) are undergoing apparent significant 

increases in abundance. Increased awareness and 

public interest in conservation of marine resources 

have led to the establishment of a number of marine protected areas in which harvest of all marine 

organisms is prohibited.

FOR FURTHER READING

Coleman, F. C., C. C. Koenig, G. R. Huntsman, J. 

A. Musick, A. M. Eklund, J. C. McGovern, R. W. 

Chapman, G. R. Sedberry, and C. B. Grimes. 2000. 

Long-lived reef fishes. The grouper–snapper complex. 

Fisheries 25(3):14–21.

NMFS. 2006. Status report on the continental United 

States distinct population segment of the goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara). NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, St. Petersburg, FL, 49 p. Internet site—http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/Final_Status_Report_on_

the_Goliath_Grouper.pdf.

Schirripa, M. J., and C. M. Legault. 1999. Status of 

the red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico, 

updated through 1998. NMFS Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-99/00-75, Miami, FL.

SEDAR. 2003. SEDAR 2 Consensus Assessment Report on the assessments of the status of the stocks of 

vermilion snapper and black sea bass from the south 

east of the U.S. SouthEast Data, Assessment, and 

Review, Charleston, SC. Internet site—http://www.

sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar.

SEDAR. 2006. SEDAR 10 Stock Assessment Report 

1, South Atlantic gag grouper and Stock Assessment 

Report 2, Gulf of Mexico gag grouper. SouthEast Data, 

Assessment, and Review, Charleston, SC. Internet 

site—http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2002. Draft status of 

red grouper in the United States waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico during 1986–2001. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-01/02-175rev, Miami, FL.
163

SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES

UNIT 9

Southeast drum 

and Croaker fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Important recreational and commercial species in the family Sciaenidae (drums and croakers) include the Atlantic croaker, spot, red drum, 

black drum, kingfishes (whiting), weakfish (grey 

seatrout), spotted seatrout, and other seatrouts. 

These species are all bottom-dwelling carnivores 

that feed on benthic invertebrates and small fishes. 

Sciaenids have constituted an important fishery 

resource since the late 1800’s, although significant 

increases in commercial landings did not occur 

until the 1950’s, when the pet food industry began 

harvesting them in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

The recreational harvest of Sciaenids in the Gulf 

of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean has generally been 

similar to commercial landings in weight (Figure 

9-1). Some stocks occur primarily within state 

Unit

9

CLAY PORCH

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Miami

Florida

Photo above:

Juvenile Atlantic croaker, 

spot, other Sciaenids, and 

other species in the bycatch 

from a shrimp trawl.

Dan Foster, SEFSC Mississippi Laboratories

jurisdiction (generally 0–3 n.mi.) and are managed by state authorities and the interstate fishing 

commissions; other stocks are managed jointly by 

the interstate fishing commissions and the regional 

fishery management councils. Most recreational 

fishing occurs within state waters and is managed 

primarily by the coastal states. Regulations heavily 

favoring recreational use of Sciaenids have been 

established in some states, including the declaration 

of some species (red drum and spotted seatrout) as 

game fish species, prohibiting commercial fishing. 

The recent average annual yield of Sciaenids in the 

Southeast Region is estimated at almost 41,000 

metric tons (t; Table 9-1).

Large numbers of Sciaenids are caught and 

killed as an incidental catch in Southeast shrimp 

fisheries. The small mesh used in shrimp trawls 

can catch nontarget species such as sea turtles, red 
164

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 9-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of southeast 

drum and croaker fisheries 

resources.

Figure 9-1

Southeast Sciaenid landings in metric tons (t), 1970–

2006.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Atlantic croaker3 15,224 Unknown 50,000 Below

Black drum4 4,079 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Kingfishes (whiting)4 2,039 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Red drum5

 Atlantic 709 Unknown Unknown Below Overfishing Unknown

 Gulf of Mexico 5,869 Unknown 7,900 Below Not overfishing Undefined

Seatrouts6 9,002 Unknown Unknown Variable

Spot 4,072 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total 40,994

12004–06 average.

2MSY is probably underestimated and CY overestimated; although potential production estimates are not available for some species groups, it is 

expected that they may be overfished. 

3Status determinations are made for two separate stocks of Atlantic croaker: the Mid-Atlantic stock is not overfishing and not overfished; the 

harvest rate and stock status of the South Atlantic stock are both unknown. 

4Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

5Gulf of Mexico red drum were last assessed in 1999 and Atlantic red drum were last assessed in 2000.

6Status determinations are not available for this stock grouping. The most recent assessment of weakfish (grey seatrout) in 2002 showed that the 

stock had recovered and was no longer overfished. However, the population abundance is believed to have declined precipitously in recent years 

and is now classified as unknown. The status of other species in this group is unknown as well.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings Commercial

Recreational

snappers, croakers, seatrouts, and other species. 

Sciaenids constitute the bulk of the finfish bycatch 

biomass. Much of this bycatch is juveniles, and 

mortality resulting from incidental take may slow 

the recovery of overfished stocks or otherwise prevent full use of the recruited adult population. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

Commercial landings of drums and croakers in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico rose sharply in 1956 

to over 32,000 t, more than 20,000 t above that 

of 1953. The catch consisted mainly of Atlantic 

croaker and sand and silver seatrouts, which made 

up about 76%. This increase for the most part 

resulted from a developing demand for Sciaenids 

as raw material in the production of canned pet 

foods. 

Atlantic Croaker

 As one of the most abundant fishes along the 

U.S. Atlantic coast, Atlantic croaker are popular 

in both commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Although they are found in coastal waters from 

the Gulf of Maine south to Argentina, croaker 

fisheries occur mainly off Maryland through 

North Carolina. The annual recruitment for Atlantic croaker is highly variable and can fluctuate 

with environmental conditions. Because of this, 

commercial landings tend to be cyclical and range 

between approximately 1,100 and 15,500 t annually. Landings have been near the high end of the 

cycle since 1996; the commercial catch in 2006 was 

9,460 t. The available time series of recreational 
165

SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES

UNIT 9

A young angler displays her 

red drum catch in Florida.

Charles Gardner

landings goes back only as far as 1981, but shows 

a similar trend (steadily increasing since the early 

1990’s, with current levels at about 4,000 t). The 

recent average yield (2004–06; commercial and 

recreational landings) of Atlantic croaker is 15,224 t 

(Table 9-1). Although the stock status is unknown, 

the current stock biomass is estimated to be below 

the level required to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) approved the Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) for Atlantic croaker in 1987. This 

plan addressed the lack of data available for stock 

assessments, as well as the serious issue of bycatch 

of Atlantic croaker in other fisheries (particularly 

in the shrimp trawl fishery). In 1994, ASMFC 

determined that the FMP lacked the clearly 

defined recommendations necessary to meet its 

goals. Amendment 1 was prepared in response and 

later approved in November 2005. In addition to 

revising the management goals and objectives, the 

amendment also establishes biological reference 

points and provides for the development of separate 

management measures for the Mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic stock components. 

Spot

The recent average yield (2004–06) of spot is 

4,072 t (Table 9-1), divided evenly between commercial landings and recreational catches. The 

commercial fishery peaked at 6,600 t in 1952, and 

landings have generally fluctuated between 2,000 

and 5,000 t since. Annual fluctuations in landings 

are normal because spot are a short-lived species, 

the catch is composed mainly of a single year-class, 

and stock abundance is largely determined by 

environmental conditions. No formal coast-wide 

spot assessment has ever been conducted, and its 

stock status is currently unknown. 

The ASMFC and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (SAFMC) cooperatively 

manage spot. In 1987, the FMP for Spot addressed 

the lack of biological and fisheries data necessary 

for management of the resource. Currently, management is primarily through minimum size limits 

administered by the Atlantic coastal states. Progress 

has also been made in reducing the impact of spot 

bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery. 

Red Drum

 Red drum are one of the most popular recreational fish species in the Southeast Region. Recreational anglers catch red drum mainly in nearshore 

(state) waters; most of this nearshore catch is composed of juveniles. Since the 1980’s, recreational 

landings have accounted for approximately 90% of 

the total catch (ASMFC, n.d.). State management 

actions have heavily favored recreational use of the 

red drum resource; North Carolina and Virginia 

are currently the only states that allow commercial 

fishing for red drum. 

 Commercial landings of red drum increased 

rapidly in the mid 1980’s, when public popularity and market demand suddenly grew for a new 

seafood preparation called blackened redfish. To 

supply this demand, a red drum purse-seine fishery 

primarily targeting the offshore adult spawning 

stock evolved in the Gulf of Mexico. As the offshore 

purse-seine fishery developed it became clear that 

the schooling adults were extremely vulnerable to 

overexploitation, thus jeopardizing recruitment in 

subsequent years. 

 Fishery analyses showed that maintaining the 

maximum sustainable yield depended in large part 

on limiting the harvest of adult red drum from offshore waters, as well as limiting the take of smaller 

individuals in inshore waters by both recreational 

and commercial fishermen (Goodyear, 1996; 

Porch, 2000). These conservation measures were 
166

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Catch of red drum from a 

recreational charter boat in 

Mississippi.

Tom McIllwain

established by FMP’s developed and implemented 

first in the Gulf of Mexico and later in the U.S. 

Atlantic. The FMP for the Red Drum Fishery of 

the Gulf of Mexico (administered by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council [GMFMC]), 

was followed by the Atlantic Coast Red Drum 

FMP (administered by the SAFMC). Both ban red 

drum fishing within Federal jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; generally 3–200 

n.mi. off the shore) until the adult population has 

sufficiently increased in abundance. Because state 

management actions have preserved inshore harvests, they have in effect barred the development of 

another adult red drum fishery in Federal waters.

The ASMFC and SAFMC are responsible for 

jointly managing the red drum fishery resource 

on the Atlantic coast, where the recent average 

yield (2004–06) is 709 t. The stock status of red 

drum on the Atlantic coast is unknown, and the 

stock level is below the MSY level (Vaughan and 

Carmichael, 2000), although significant population increases have been seen over the past decade. 

Major concerns remain over poor recruitment to 

the spawning stock due to heavy fishing pressure on 

juveniles in state waters. Because data on the adult 

population are very limited, scientists are not able 

to accurately assess its status and the state fishery 

is managed to ensure that a certain percentage of 

juvenile females survive to reproduce (referred to as 

spawning potential ratio or SPR). Amendment 2 to 

the Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP was approved 

in June 2002 and established several measures, 

including bag and size limits for recreational fisheries. The Amendment also requires management 

actions to achieve and maintain a SPR of at least 

40%. A new stock assessment is scheduled for 2009 

to check the effect of the management measures 

implemented in Amendment 2. 

 The GMFMC and various state agencies are 

responsible for managing red drum in the Gulf of 

Mexico. The recent average yield (2004–06) of red 

drum is 5,869 t, a level substantially higher than 

landings on the Atlantic coast (Table 9-1). The 

status of the Gulf stock is undefined, although the 

stock level is thought to be below the level necessary to produce MSY. The absence of an offshore 

fishery, size limits, bag limits, and increased catchand-release by conservation-oriented anglers are all 

expected to help rebuild the red drum spawning 

stock and reduce overall mortality in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Current statistics indicate that such conservation measures are having this desired effect in 

some areas.

Black Drum

Black drum are found mainly within state 

waters in the Southeast Region and are managed 

primarily by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (GSMFC). The species was generally 

considered undesirable and was underutilized until 

the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, when demand grew 

because black drum could be substituted for red 

drum in restaurants as blackened fish. The demand 

for black drum has dropped since 1988 and it is 

currently a relatively low-value species (GSMFC 

2005). The recent average annual yield of black 

drum is 4,079 t (Table 9-1).

Weakfish

Weakfish (grey seatrout) have supported coastal 

fisheries since the 1800’s. They are found along the 

entire U.S. Atlantic coast, but are most common 

from New York through North Carolina. Tremendous growth in commercial fisheries began in 

the early 1970’s and continued until 1980, when 

annual landings reached a peak of 16,000 t. Since 

then, commercial landings have steadily declined 

to 482 t in 2006. Recreational catches of weakfish 

have exhibited a similar decline and are currently 

about equal to the commercial catch (417 t). The 

ASMFC is the primary management authority for 

weakfish. In 1996, Amendment 3 to the Weakfish 
167

SOUTHEAST DRUM AND CROAKER FISHERIES

UNIT 9

Two red drum larvae collected by researchers at the 

Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center.

SEAMAP Plankton Team

FMP was approved and a subsequent assessment 

indicated that the measures imposed led to significant declines in fishing mortality and increases 

in recruitment and the spawning stock biomass. 

These developments moved the stock status from 

overfished to recovered. In November 2002, 

Amendment 4 was approved and established assessment benchmarks for fishing mortality (F) and 

spawning stock biomass (SSB), further improving 

management of weakfish. However, some important concerns regarding weakfish stock assessments 

were identified during an external peer review in 

2006 and the stock status is currently unknown; 

a new peer-reviewed assessment is scheduled for 

2009.

Spotted Seatrout

Abundant from Chesapeake Bay southward, 

spotted seatrout are a highly popular and soughtafter gamefish. In the Gulf of Mexico, landings 

are almost exclusively in state waters and management is coordinated through the GSMFC. Some 

states have declared spotted seatrout a gamefish 

(banning all commercial fishing), while other 

states still allow limited commercial harvests. On 

the Atlantic Coast, management actions are administered jointly by the ASMFC and SAFMC. 

Declines in spotted seatrout abundance have been 

seen in South Atlantic waters in recent years; such 

declines are the combined result of habitat loss 

due to increased coastal development and heavy 

fishing pressures. Recreational landings have been 

substantially larger than commercial landings for 

the past 20 years and have increased since 1996 

(ASMFC, n.d.). However, the number of spotted 

seatrout released annually by conservation-oriented 

anglers has also increased since 1998. Although the 

collection of data on catch and effort has improved 

since the Spotted Seatrout FMP was approved by 

the ASMFC in 1984, more accurate data is still 

needed to support a coast-wide stock assessment.

ISSUES

Bycatch

Bycatch of Sciaenids in other fisheries, particularly in the southeast shrimp fishery, has a 

significant impact on their status. Large numbers 

of small Atlantic croaker, spot, and seatrout are 

caught and discarded dead from shrimp trawls. It 

is estimated that as many as 500 million spot, 1 

billion seatrout, and 7.5 billion Atlantic croaker 

are discarded annually. These species constitute 

the bulk of the finfish bycatch (Atlantic croaker 

alone make up about 10%), which averaged about 

175,000 t per year during the 1980’s. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service continues to actively work 

with the fishing industry to develop and test gear 

designs that will reduce bycatch levels without being prohibitively expensive to the fishing industry. 

Cooperative efforts have developed bycatch reduction devices for shrimp trawls, which can reduce the 

amount of bycatch by as much as 50 to 75%. Use 

of these types of gear modifications have become 

more popular as the cost has fallen and the devices 

have become easier to use. Shrimp management 

regulations currently require the use of bycatch 

reduction devices, and shrimpers throughout the 

South Atlantic use them. Widespread use of such 

devices has contributed to the rebound of some 

overfished stocks, such as weakfish. 

LITERATURE CITED

ASMFC. n.d. Managed species. Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. Internet 

site—http://www.asmfc.org.

Goodyear, C. P. 1996. Status of the red drum stocks of 

the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, MIA-95/96-47, Miami, FL.

GSMFC. 2005. Interjurisdictional Fisheries Program. 

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean 

Springs, MS. Internet site—http://www.gsmfc.org.

Porch, C. E. 2000. Status of the red drum stocks of 

the Gulf of Mexico (version 2.1). NMFS Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division 

Contribution SFD-99/00-85, Miami, FL.

Vaughan, D. S., and J. T. Carmichael. 2000. Assessment of the Atlantic red drum for 1999, northern and 

southern regions. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-447, 

57 p. + appendix.

169

SOUTHEAST MENHADEN FISHERIES

UNIT 10

Southeast menhaden fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Menhaden are a herring-like fish found in 

coastal and estuarine waters of the U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico. They form large schools at 

the surface, which are located by aircraft and harvested by purse seines to produce fishmeal, fish oil, 

and fish solubles1 (a reduction fishery). An active 

bait-fish fishery along the Atlantic coast, primarily 

located in Virginia and New Jersey, harvests about 

15–20% of the amount landed by the industrial 

fishery. These fisheries are managed by individual 

coastal states, with interstate coordination handled 

through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Gulf States Marine 

Unit

10

DOUGLAS S. VAUGHAN

JOSEPH W. SMITH

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Beaufort

North Carolina

Photo above:

Menhaden boats heading out 

for a day of fishing in Moss 

Point, Mississippi.

1Fish solubles are the heavier components of the liquid that is 

pressed from cooked fish while making fishmeal; the lighter 

portion of the liquid is fish oil. The solubles are boiled down 

to a thick solution that is sold as fish emulsion and used in 

pet food as flavoring, in animal feed as added protein, and 

in fertilizer. 

Allen Shimada, NMFS

Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). Menhaden are 

prey for many fishes, marine mammals, and sea 

birds, and form an important component of coastal 

ecosystems.

 In the Atlantic area, the menhaden resource 

is near fully utilized, with a maximum sustainable yield of 264,000 metric tons (t) per year and 

a recent average annual yield (2004–06) for the 

reduction and bait fisheries of 196,000 t (Table 10-

1). In the Gulf of Mexico, the menhaden resource 

is near fully utilized, with a maximum sustainable 

yield of 645,000 t and a recent average yield for 

the reduction fishery of 456,000 t.

SPECIES AND STATUS 

Atlantic Menhaden

Atlantic menhaden range from West Palm 

Beach, Florida, north to Nova Scotia, Canada. As 

coastal waters warm in April and May, large surface 
170

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 10-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of southeast menhaden fishery resources.

Species/Stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)1

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY3

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Atlantic menhaden 196,000 196,000 264,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Gulf menhaden4 456,000 456,000 645,000 Unknown

Total 652,000 652,000 909,000

12004–06 average; includes reduction fishery landings only for gulf menhaden, and both reduction and bait landings for Atlantic menhaden.

2MSY is based on the yield per recruit at F-threshold times median recruitment.

3Stock level criteria are based on terminal population fecundity relative to target fecundity.

4Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock. Benchmarks for gulf menhaden have been developed similar to Atlantic menhaden 

(Vaughan et al., 2007); these benchmarks have been recommended but not yet adopted by the GSMFC. Status relative to the proposed benchmarks is not overfishing and not overfished.

Menhaden catch is concentrated or “hardened” in the 

bunt of the purse seine and 

pumped aboard the carrier 

vessel through a large hose.

Joseph W. Smith, NMFS

schools form along the coasts of Florida, Georgia, 

and the Carolinas. The schools move slowly northward, stratifying by age and size during summer, 

with the older and larger fish generally moving 

farther north. The southward migration begins 

in early fall with surface schools disappearing in 

late December or early January off the Carolinas. 

Atlantic menhaden may live up to 10 years, but 

most fish caught are age 3 or younger. 

Menhaden reduction landings rose during 

the 1940’s and early 1950’s, peaking at 712,100 

t in 1956 (Figure 10-1). Landings remained high 

during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, dropped 

precipitously during the mid 1960’s and remained 

low, bottoming out at 161,600 t in 1969. Through 

the 1970’s and 1980’s, landings improved, but not 

to the levels of the late 1950’s. Landings peaked 

again in 1983 at 418,600 t. Landings during 

1990–98 averaged about 311,000 t annually. 

Beginning in 1998 the industry underwent considerable consolidation until only two factories 

(one in Reedville, VA, and one in Beaufort, NC) 

and 12 vessels were active on the Atlantic coast 

in 2000. Correspondingly, reduction landings in 

2002 and 2003 declined to 174,000 t and 166,100 

t, respectively. After the 2004 fishing season, the 

factory in Beaufort closed; since 2005 the factory 

in Reedville, VA, with 10 vessels, has been the 

only reduction facility active on the Atlantic coast. 

Reduction landings in 2007 amounted to 174,500 

t. The commercial ex-vessel revenue of Atlantic 

menhaden for 2004–06 averaged $27.3 million 

per year. 

The decline in stock biomass in the 1960’s 

resulted from poor recruitment during a period of 

initially high spawning stock. This decline drove 

fishing effort southward to Virginia and North 

Carolina, and more recently concentrated effort in 

Chesapeake Bay (Smith, 1999). During the 1990’s, 

spawning stock biomass increased following goodto-excellent survival of recruits during the 1970’s 

and 1980’s. While spawning stock biomass recently 

peaked in 1997 at about 130,800 t, recruitment of 

age-1 fish has declined over the last decade to recent 

lows. Recruitment of age-0 Atlantic menhaden appears to have improved during odd years from 1999 

to 2005, with the 2005 year-class contributing substantially to the reduction catch as age-1 and age-2 
171

SOUTHEAST MENHADEN FISHERIES

UNIT 10

Figure 10-1

Landings in metric tons (t) 

and fecundity of menhaden, 

1950–2006. Top, Atlantic (includes both reduction and 

bait fishery landings); bottom, Gulf of Mexico (includes 

only reduction landings).

fish during 2006 and 2007, respectively. Moreover, 

adult Atlantic menhaden have been abundant in 

the coastal waters of southern New England during 

the summers of 2005–07, suggesting that the stock 

is expanding once again toward the northern half 

of its range.

Concern over recent poor recruitment (especially from Chesapeake Bay) and heightened 

interest in the ecological role of menhaden led 

to development of an Amendment to the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Menhaden 

(ASMFC, 2001). The Amendment provided 

managers with two benchmark variables: fishing 

mortality (F ), and spawning stock biomass (SSB). 

Exceeding pre-specified levels of these benchmark 

variables determines the need for specific management actions. In 2003, the stock assessment 

for Atlantic menhaden underwent a peer review 

process, SouthEast Data Assessment and Review, 

or SEDAR (ASMFC, 2004). In early 2004, the 

Atlantic Menhaden Plan Development Team 

recommended changing the second management 

benchmark to address population fecundity; later 

that year the ASMFC adopted an Addendum to 

the FMP. 

Gulf of Mexico Menhaden

Gulf menhaden are found from Mexico’s 

Yucatán Peninsula to Tampa Bay, Florida. They 

form large surface schools that appear in nearshore 

Gulf waters from April to November. Although no 

extensive coastwide migrations are known, some 

evidence suggests that older fish move toward the 

Mississippi River delta. Gulf menhaden may live to 

age 5, but most of those landed are ages 1 and 2. In 

2007, active gulf menhaden reduction plants were 

located in Moss Point, Mississippi, and in Empire, 

Intracoastal City, and Cameron, Louisiana.

Historically, landings rose after World War 

II to a peak of 982,800 t in 1984 (Figure 10-1). 

Landings were generally high during the mid 1980’s 

(greater than 800,000 t for 1982–87), but they declined steeply from 894,200 t to 421,400 t between 

1987 and 1992. During this period (1987–92), the 

number of processing plants declined from 8 to 6 

and the number of active vessels fell from 75 to 51. 

Landings in 1994 of 761,600 t were the greatest 

during the 1990’s. Since 2000, only 4 processing 

plants operated on the Gulf, with about 40 vessels. 

Landings during 2004–06 averaged 456,000 t annually. Landings in 2007 amounted to 453,800 t. 

In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did considerable damage to the four gulf menhaden reduction factories; two closed after the storms for the 

remainder of the fishing season, and faced major 

difficulties re-opening in 2006. The commercial 

ex-vessel revenue of Gulf menhaden for 2004–06 

averaged $39.7 million/year. 

 Because Gulf menhaden have a short life cycle 

and a high natural mortality, growth overfishing has 

not been a management concern. Management is 

coordinated through the GSMFC, and consists of 

an approximate 28-week fishing season (mid April 

through 1 November) and closure of inside waters 

Year

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

50

100

150

Fecundity

(trillions 

of eggs)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

Fecundity

Year

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

50

100

150

200

Fecundity

(trillions 

of eggs)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

Fecundity
172

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Above: Menhaden swim 

through the water column 

with their mouths agape, 

filtering out plankton for 

food. 

Wm. Hettler, NMFS

across the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf 

Menhaden FMP was revised and adopted in 2002 

(GSMFC, 2002). An updated stock assessment 

for Gulf menhaden (using data through 2004) has 

recently been completed (Vaughan et al., 2007). 

Suggested benchmarks for management of the 

fishery are similar to those for Atlantic menhaden 

(F and population fecundity).

ISSUES

Management Concerns

The primary concern for the Atlantic menhaden stock is a decline in recruitment noted since 

1989 (1988 year-class) to low levels through 2003. 

This is considered in context with relatively high 

population fecundity during this period. Poor 

recruitment through the 1990’s, with high spawning, suggests an underlying environmental problem 

(e.g. predation, water quality, etc.), rather than 

overfishing. Additionally, the need for multispecies management has been raised. In August 2006, 

ASMFC approved Addendum III of the Atlantic 

menhaden FMP, which capped annual removals of 

menhaden for reduction from Chesapeake Bay at 

109,020 t for 5 years (2006–10) with provisions 

for catch overages and underages. Additionally, 

Addendum III encourages research on the status 

of menhaden within the Bay and assessment of 

localized depletion of the resource.

Gulf menhaden landings have declined 

greatly since the mid 1980’s; however, estimates of 

static spawning potential ratio remain high (about 

60%).

Transboundary Stocks and 

Fishery Management Jurisdictions

Because this resource migrates long distances, 

interstate coordination of fishery management is 

required for Atlantic menhaden along the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast and for Gulf menhaden along the 

northern Gulf of Mexico through the interstate marine fisheries commissions. During the late 1980’s 

and early 1990’s, fish landed at processing plants 

in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, were 

caught off Maine by U.S. vessels and transported 

to Canada for processing.

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

Two Saltonstall-Kennedy studies, funded in 

1992 to investigate bycatch in the Atlantic and 

Gulf menhaden purse-seine fisheries, showed very 

low bycatch incidence (<0.1% of other species). 

However, the importance of menhaden as prey for 

other species has been an issue of much concern. 

The ASMFC recently created a Multispecies Technical Committee, and a subcommittee is currently 

updating the multispecies virtual population analysis (MSVPA) that passed Stock Assessment Review 

Committee (SARC) peer review in December 

2005. This model focuses on the effect of three 

predators (striped bass, bluefish, and weakfish) on 

Atlantic menhaden. The eventual goal of this work 

is to manage forage and predator fish species at a 

multispecies level.

LITERATURE CITED

ASMFC. 2001. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fisheries Management Report 37, Washington, DC, 127 p.

ASMFC. 2004. Atlantic menhaden stock assessment 

report for peer review. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Stock Assessment Report 04-01 (Supplement), Washington, DC, 145 p.

GSMFC. 2002. The menhaden fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico, United States: a regional management plan. 

2001 Revision. Report 99. Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. 

Smith, J. W. 1999. Distribution of Atlantic menhaden, 

Brevoortia tyrannus, purse-seine sets and catches from 

southern New England to North Carolina, 1985–96. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS 144, 22 p.

Vaughan, D. S., K. W. Shertzer and J. W. Smith. 2007. 

Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in the U.S. 

Gulf of Mexico. Fishery characteristics and biological 

reference points for management. Fisheries Research 

83:263–275.
173

SOUTHEAST AND CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 11

Southeast and Caribbean 

invertebrate fisheries

Unit

11

JAMES NANCE

DOUGLAS HARPER

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Galveston, TX

Miami, FL

INTRODUCTION

Important recreational and commercial marine 

invertebrates in the southeastern United States include shrimp, spiny lobster, stone crab, and conch. 

Some fisheries, as for coral, are almost nonexistent. 

Others, like the Penaeid1 shrimp fishery, are both 

extensive and extremely valuable. The Southeast 

Region’s shrimp fisheries are one of the most valuable U.S. fisheries, based on ex-vessel revenue. Other fisheries, such as those for spiny lobster and stone 

crab, have only moderate value on a national basis 

but are important locally or regionally. Because of 

the diversity in species, fisheries, geographic locations, yields, values, and other factors, each species Photo above: 

Caribbean spiny lobster, 

Florida Keys. 1Family of prawns.

SEFSC, Protected Resources and Biodiversity Division

group in the marine invertebrates unit must be examined separately for proper perspective.

SPECIES AND STATUS

Shrimp Species

Penaeid shrimp have been fished commercially 

since the late 1800’s. The first fishery used long 

seines in shallow waters, until the otter trawl (introduced in 1915) extended shrimping to deeper 

waters. At first, most vessels towed one large trawl, 

sometimes 120 feet wide at the mouth. Soon, a 

single-trawl arrangement on both sides of the vessel (with each trawl about 40–75 feet wide at the 

mouth) was found more effective. Some shrimpers began using a twin-trawl system that tows four 
174

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 11-1

Shrimp landings in metric 

tons (t) and abundance index 

from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, 

1980–2006. The abundance 

index is calculated by dividing the current level of 

reproductive shrimp by the 

overfishing level.

Photo on right:

Shrimp boats, Bayou la Batre, Alabama.

William B. Folsom, NMFS

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

30

60

90

120

150

0

2

4

6

8

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Abundance

index

Total landings

Brown shrimp index

White shrimp index

Pink shrimp index

trawls, each about 40 feet wide at the mouth. The 

twin-trawl system is now a very common gear on 

commercial offshore shrimpers. 

Brown, white, and pink shrimp account for 

over 99% of the total Gulf of Mexico shrimp 

catch. In 2006 alone, these three important species produced 128,644 metric tons (t) valued at 

$388,278,286 in ex-vessel revenue (Figure 11-1). 

They are typically found in all U.S. Gulf waters 

shallower than 120 m. Most of the offshore brown 

shrimp catch is taken at 40–80 m depths; white 

shrimp are caught in 20 m or less; and pink shrimp 

in 40–60 m. Brown shrimp are most abundant off 

the Texas–Louisiana coast, whereas the greatest 

concentration of pink shrimp is off southwestern 

Florida. Current, recent, and maximum sustainable 

yields for these species are given in Table 11-1.

Brown and white shrimp catches in the Gulf increased significantly from the late 1950’s to around 

1990, but catch levels during most of the 1990’s 

were below these maximum values. However, 

catch levels in 2000 were extremely good for both 

species, with near-record levels reported. Catches 

in 2001–04 were again below these record catch 

levels, but still well above average for both species. 

Catch levels in 2006 were excellent for both species, with white shrimp reaching an all-time high 

at approximately 59,500 t. Pink shrimp catches 

remained stable until about 1985 and then declined to an all time low in 1990. During the mid 

1990’s, catches increased above average levels, but 

have again shown a moderate declining trend in 

recent years (Hart and Nance, 2007). The number of young shrimp of each species entering the 

fisheries has generally reflected the level of catch. 

All commercial shrimps are harvested at maximum 

levels. Until very recently the fishery was believed to 

have more boats and gear than needed (i.e. reducing fishing effort would not significantly reduce the 

shrimp catch; Nance, 2007a). Reducing bycatch of 

the shrimp industry, however, would help protect 

finfish resources.

 Recruitment overfishing has not been evident 

in the Gulf of Mexico for any shrimp stocks (Klima et al., 1990; Nance, 1993, 2007b). The number of young brown shrimp produced per parent 

increased significantly until about 1991 and has 

remained near or slightly below that level during 

most years. White and pink shrimp have not shown 

any general trend. Although pink shrimp stocks 

rebounded from the low values experienced in the 

early 1990’s, they have started to decline again in 

recent years. The brown shrimp increase appears 

related to marsh habitat alterations. Coastal sinking and a sea-level rise in the northwestern Gulf 

of Mexico inundates intertidal marshes longer, allowing shrimp to feed for longer periods within 

the marsh area. Both factors have also expanded 

estuarine areas, created more marsh edges, and pro-
175

SOUTHEAST AND CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 11

Table 11-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Southeast 

and Caribbean invertebrate 

fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Brown shrimp2

 Gulf of Mexico 53,557 Unknown 57,809 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 South Atlantic 2,160 Unknown 3,341 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Pink shrimp2

 Gulf of Mexico 6,563 Unknown 7,392 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 South Atlantic 551 Unknown 786 Near Not overfishing Overfished

Rock shrimp

 Gulf of Mexico 715 Unknown 1,070 Unknown Undefined Undefined

 South Atlantic 1,474 Unknown 1,561 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Royal red shrimp 227 Unknown 305 Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

Seabob shrimp 1,149 Unknown 2,927 Unknown Undefined Undefined

White shrimp2

 Gulf of Mexico 51,995 Unknown 42,614 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 South Atlantic 5,995 Unknown 6,290 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Coral3 0 0 Unknown Unknown

Queen conch4 110 Unknown Unknown Below Overfishing Overfished

Caribbean spiny lobster

 Caribbean 123 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Southeast United States5 1,988 Unknown 2,742 Near Not overfishing Unknown

Golden deepsea crab 177 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Stone crab6 1,177 Unknown 1,465 Near Not overfishing Undefined

Total 127,961 Unknown 128,712

12004–06 average.

2MSY for brown, pink, and white shrimp is based upon last observed 10-year average annual yield (1997–2006). 

3Coral harvest prohibited except for a small take allowed for use in aquarium and pharmaceutical industries. Harvest rate and stock status are 

 not available for this stock.

4Landings from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Fishing for this species is prohibited in Florida.

5Yields based on commercial catches; recreational catch is unknown but may be significant.

6Yields are in tons of claws; declawed crabs are released and regenerate new claws.

vided more protection from predators. As a result, 

the nursery function of those marshes has been 

greatly magnified, and brown shrimp production 

has expanded. However, continued subsidence will 

lead to marsh deterioration and an ultimate loss of 

supporting wetlands, and current high fishery yields 

may not be indefinitely sustainable. Parent stock 

indices for the three major Gulf species are shown 

in Figure 11-1.

Regulations in the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) restrict shrimping by closing two shrimping grounds. There is a 

seasonal closure of fishing grounds off Texas for 

brown shrimp and a closure off Florida for pink 

shrimp. Size limits also exist for white shrimp 

caught in Federal waters and landed in Louisiana. 

These regulations strive to improve the monetary 

value of the shrimp fishery (Hart and Nance, 2007; 

Nance, 2008).

The shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic is 

much smaller than the Gulf of Mexico fishery. 

White shrimp landings are about 12% of the Gulf 

yield, while brown and pink shrimp are around 

4% and 8% of the Gulf yield, respectively (Table 

11-1). In the South Atlantic, white shrimp stocks 

are centered off the Georgia and South Carolina 

coasts and brown shrimp are centered off the North 

and South Carolina coasts. The Atlantic fishery is 

currently managed under a Federal FMP implemented in November 1993. The FMP provides for 

compatible state and Federal closures if needed to 

protect overwintering shrimp stocks. Subsequent 

amendments added rock shrimp and royal red 

shrimp to the management unit of the FMP, and 

defined overfishing definitions for all species.
176

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 11-2

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of stone crab (claw weight), 

golden crab, and Caribbean 

spiny lobster, 1962–2006.

2Coral colonies are cemented together by the calcium carbonate 

secreted by individual coral polyps. The calcium carbonate 

skeletons form reefs.

3Corals that do not produce substantial calcium carbonate 

skeletons and do not build reefs.

Close-up of a sea fan (left) 

and brain coral (right). Corals 

provide important habitat for 

many species of fish.

Florida Keys Nat. Marine Sanctuary

Caribbean Spiny Lobster

Annual landings of Caribbean spiny lobster in 

Florida historically have fluctuated, but remained 

fairly stable since 1980 with an average catch of 

about 2,790 t (Figure 11-2). Recent high landings 

were experienced in 1996 when the 3,568 t catch 

was worth approximately $30 million ex-vessel. 

The fishery is considered overcapitalized, and a 

trap reduction program was instituted in 1993. 

This program, not to exceed 10% per year, is oriented toward maintaining or maximizing the sustainable Caribbean spiny lobster harvest from the 

fishery. The program has successfully reduced the 

number of traps from 900,000 in 1992 to slightly 

fewer than 500,000 in 2005 (SEDAR, 2005). A 

continuing problem in the commercial fishery is 

the use of live undersized lobsters as attractants in 

lobster traps. Due to a high mortality rate for these 

live bait animals, about 30–50% of the potential 

yield is lost. The recreational fishery for Caribbean 

spiny lobster in the southeastern U.S. is not well 

quantified in terms of effort and landings; however, 

it is a popular recreational species, and the recreational catch may be significant. 

Caribbean spiny lobster along the southeastern 

coast of the United States are managed under a joint 

FMP coordinated with regulations by the State 

of Florida. Current regulations specify a 3-inch 

minimum carapace length, a closed season from 

1 April to 5 August to protect spawning adults, 

mandatory release of egg-bearing females, closure 

of some nursery areas, recreational bag limits, a 

2-day sport season, and a trap reduction program 

which began in 1993 (Harper and Muller, 2001).

 The fishery for Caribbean spiny lobster in the 

U.S. Caribbean is much smaller than the Florida 

fishery (Table 11-1). Annual Caribbean spiny lobster landings for Puerto Rico have averaged 104 t 

since 1990, varying from 68 t in 1993 to a high 

of 149 t in 1999. U.S. Virgin Islands landings for 

1980–2006 were fairly stable, averaging 28 t. In 

the U.S. Caribbean, Caribbean spiny lobster are 

caught primarily by fish traps, lobster traps, and 

divers. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council’s Spiny Lobster FMP includes the Federal waters 

of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 

Federal plan is based on a 3.5-inch minimum carapace length and protection of egg-bearing female 

lobsters (Bolden, 2001).

Caribbean spiny lobster larvae may drift at 

sea for up to 9 months, and thus identification of 

their source or parent stock is almost impossible. 

The origin of Caribbean spiny lobster stocks in 

U.S. waters, including the Florida stock, remains 

unknown. To improve management, there is a practical need to increase knowledge of lobster origin 

and subsequent movements into fisheries. 

Conch

 The conch fishery targets the queen conch but 

also takes other species. Most conchs are taken by 

divers, and the resource can be easily depleted. 

Conchs are currently protected in state and Federal 

waters off Florida, but a fishery still exists in some 

areas of the U.S. Caribbean. An FMP was implemented in 1996 for the Federal waters off Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands by the Caribbean 

Fishery Management Council.

Corals

 Corals are managed as two groups, hard2 and 

soft3. Because they are generally slow growing and 

Year

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Caribbean spiny lobster

Stone crab

Golden crab
177

SOUTHEAST AND CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 11

Conch in a healthy sea grass 

bed, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary.

Heather Dine

provide critical habitat for many fishes, hard corals are protected except for very small collections 

taken by permit for research and educational 

purposes. Regulations are based on the fact that 

the value of coral as natural habitat is far more 

important than their commercial use. Soft corals 

include gorgonians and sea fans. Some gorgonians 

are taken (about 50,000 colonies annually) for the 

aquarium and pharmaceutical trade. Growth potential for most species is considered limited. Sea 

fans are completely protected except for research 

and educational use by permit.

Stone Crab

Stone crabs are caught mainly off southern 

Florida, though some are landed farther north 

along Florida’s west coast. The Gulf of Mexico 

Stone Crab FMP, approved in September 1979, 

generally extended Florida’s regulations into the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These regulations are based on a minimum claw size of 2.75 

inches, biodegradable trap panels, protection of 

egg-bearing females, and closed seasons. Minimum 

size regulations assure that crabs have reproduced 

at least once before being caught.

Annual catches of stone crab (claw weight) 

averaged 1,419 t on the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts 1990–2006, with a record 1,604 t 

landed during 1998 (Figure 11-2). Recent annual 

ex-vessel revenue averaged $24,400,000. The number of stone crab traps fished seasonally increased 

from 295,000 in 1979–80 to a record 1,568,000 

during 2001–02 (Muller et al., 2006). While total 

landings have increased since 1980, it is clear that 

these landings are the result of increased fishing effort (number of traps fished), especially during the 

early months of the stone crab season.

Golden Deepsea Crab

The deepwater commercial fishery for golden 

deepsea crab was established in the mid 1990’s following the prohibition of fish traps in the snapper–

grouper fishery of the U.S. South Atlantic Ocean. 

The Golden Crab FMP was developed cooperatively with fishermen and included measures to protect 

the stock. These measures included a limited entry 

program that prohibited large vessels entering the 

fishery from outside the area, and established fishing zones and other protective measures for the 

crabs. Annual catches have averaged 300 t from 

1995 through 2006, with a record 759 t landed in 

1997 (Figure 11-2).

ISSUES

Habitat Concerns

Habitat concerns impact many of the southeast 

and Caribbean invertebrate fishery resources. Estuarine and marsh loss removes critical habitat used by 

young shrimp (Zimmerman et al., 2000; Minello 

et al., 2003). Additional studies are needed to further assess the impacts of human-induced changes 

in habitat availability, environmental conditions, 

predator abundance, and pollution in nursery areas. 

Caribbean spiny lobsters in Florida depend on reef 

habitat and shallow-water algal flats for feeding and 

reproduction, but these habitat requirements may 

conflict with expanding coastal development. The 

productivity of stone crabs in Florida Bay is related 

to water quality and flow through the Everglades. 

Specific water requirements need to be identified 

and maintained through comprehensive Everglades 
178

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

A shrimp trawl outfitted 

with a combination bycatch 

reduction/turtle excluder 

device deployed in the water. 

Fish escape by swimming 

forward and out of the large 

holes in the net, while shrimp 

are retained by being swept 

into the bag at the end of the 

net. The oval metal ring and 

bars (right side of photo) 

deflect turtles, and force any 

turtle that has become stuck 

in the net toward a trap door 

that will open, allowing the 

turtle to swim free. 

NOAA

water management. A unified program to integrate 

and study the combined effects of environmental 

alterations, fishing technology improvements, regulations, habitat restoration, and economic factors 

on shrimp, lobster, and crab production is needed, 

particularly in the reef habitats of south Florida. 

Steps also need to be taken to mitigate or restore 

lost estuarine habitats. 

Transboundary Stocks and 

Fishery Management Jurisdiction

Spiny lobster stocks in Florida could be of 

Caribbean origin, being swept into the region by 

currents of the Gulf Stream. Another hypothesis 

is that they could comprise a number of different 

spawning stocks. The actual sources of all Florida 

and Caribbean lobster stocks (both U.S. and foreign) need to be identified and international management established to prevent overharvesting.

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

Shrimp fisheries use small-mesh trawl nets and 

can catch nontarget species, including commercially fished species such as red snappers, croakers, and 

seatrouts, and also protected resources such as sea 

turtles. Juvenile finfish are a major component of 

the bycatch and this may be a major source of mortality for them. Some fish caught by shrimpers are 

currently at low stock levels (see Unit 8, Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Reef Fisheries and 

Unit 9, Southeast Drum and Croaker Fisheries); 

this bycatch may prevent or slow recovery if not 

mitigated. All sea turtle species are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act, and shrimp vessels have been required to use 

turtle excluder devices in their nets since 1988 to 

avoid capturing sea turtles.

Other Management Concerns

 In Florida, increasing numbers of recreational 

Caribbean spiny lobster fishermen have been a 

cause of concern for fishery managers and have 

sparked conflicts between the commercial and recreational sectors. Also, a recently discovered, highly 

lethal virus infecting juvenile spiny lobster has the 

potential to negatively impact recruitment of this 

important fishery species. 

 Until very recently, the shrimp fisheries were 

overcapitalized, with more fishing effort being expended than was needed to sustainably harvest the 

resource (Nance et al., 2006). This trend in fishing 

effort may have been modified by the lower-thanaverage ex-vessel prices for shrimp and higher-thanaverage fuel prices over the past few years. Additionally, the harvesting of small shrimp is sacrificing 

yield and value of the catch by cutting short future 

population growth (Caillouet et al., 2008).

Progress

 The National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

fishing industry are working together to continue 

development of bycatch-reduction gear to address 

the problems of finfish bycatch in shrimp fisheries 

of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. A gear 

conflict between stone crab trappers and shrimp 

trawlers off southwestern Florida has mostly been 

resolved in the 200-mile EEZ with a line separating the fishing areas and seasonal area closures. This 

approach requires continued monitoring to gauge 

its success and prevent renewal of conflicts. 
179

SOUTHEAST AND CARIBBEAN INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 11

LITERATURE CITED

Bolden, S. K. 2001. Status of the U.S. Caribbean spiny 

lobster fishery 1980–1999. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory Contribution PRD99/00-17, 66 p. 

Caillouet, C. W. Jr., R. A. Hart, and J. M. Nance. 2008. 

Growth overfishing in the brown shrimp fishery of 

Texas, Louisiana, and adjoining Gulf of Mexico EEZ. 

Fisheries Research 92:289–302.

Harper, D. E., and R. G. Muller. 2001. Spiny lobster 

fisheries of the United States of America. In P. A. Medley and S. C. Venema (Editors), Report on the FAO/

DANIDA/CFRAMP/WECAF regional workshops 

on the assessment of the Caribbean spiny lobster 

(Panulirus argus), p. 258–278. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Report 

619, Rome, Italy. 

Hart, R., and J. M. Nance. 2007. A biological review of 

the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery through December 

2006. Report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL, 17 p.

Klima, E. F., J. M. Nance, E. X. Martinez, and T. Leary. 

1990. Workshop on definition of shrimp recruitment 

overfishing. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-264, 21 p.

Minello, T. J., K. W. Able, M. P. Weinstein, and C. 

G. Hays. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton. 

Testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival 

through meta-analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246:39–59.

Muller, R. G., T. M. Bert, and S. D. Gerhart. 2006. 

The 2006 stock assessment update for the stone 

crab, Menippe spp., fishery in Florida. Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report IHR 

2006-011, 43 p. 

Nance, J. M. 1993. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery recruitment overfishing definition. Workshop 2. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-323, 12 p.

Nance, J. M. 2007a. Stock Report 2006. Gulf of Mexico 

Shrimp Fishery. Report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council, Tampa, FL, 15 p.

Nance, J. M. 2007b. Review of the status and health of 

the shrimp stocks for 2006. Report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL, 7 p.

Nance, J. M. 2008. Biological review of the 2007 Texas 

closure. Report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL, 27 p.

Nance, J., W. Keithly Jr., C. Caillouet Jr., J. Cole, W. 

Gaidry, B. Gallaway, W. Griffin, R. Hart, and M. Travis. 2006. Estimation of effort, maximum sustainable 

yield, and maximum economic yield in the shrimp 

fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Report of the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Effort Working Group to the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL, 85 p.

SEDAR. 2005. Assessment of spiny lobster, Panulirus 

argus, in the Southeast United States. Stock Assessment Report. SouthEast Data, Review, and Assessment, 

North Charleston, SC, 97 p.

Zimmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello, and L. P. Rozas. 2000. 

Salt marsh linkages to productivity of penaeid shrimps 

and blue crabs in the northern Gulf of Mexico. In

M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (Editors), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, p. 

293–314. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands.

181

PACIFIC COAST SALMON

UNIT 12

pacific Coast Salmon

Unit

12

ROBERT G. KOPE

NMFS Northwest Fisheries

Science Center

Seattle

Washington

INTRODUCTION

Pacific salmon support important commercial 

and recreational fisheries in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. Salmon are a vital part of the culture and heritage of the Pacific Northwest, having 

been harvested by Native Americans for millennia 

and by European settlers since their arrival on the 

Pacific Coast of North America.

Pacific salmon include five species: Chinook, 

coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon. All are 

anadromous: they spawn in fresh water and migrate 

to the ocean where they may undergo extensive 

migrations. At maturity, they return to their home 

stream to spawn and complete their life cycle. Coho 

salmon and most southern U.S. runs of Chinook 

salmon tend to stay over the Continental Shelf during their ocean residency, where they are vulnerable 

to fisheries as immature fish. Sockeye, pink, and 

chum salmon migrate farther offshore and rear in 

the Gulf of Alaska and central North Pacific Ocean. 

These species are only vulnerable to shore-based 

Photo above:

Male coho salmon showing 

spawning coloration and 

physical condition.

David Csepp

fisheries as mature fish on their spawning migrations.

 Chinook and coho salmon are harvested recreationally and commercially in the Pacific Ocean, 

Puget Sound, and in freshwater rivers on their 

spawning migrations. All recreational fisheries use 

hook-and-line gear, whereas commercial fisheries use a variety of gear depending on location. 

In the Pacific Ocean all harvest is by trolling; in 

Puget Sound, gillnets and purse seines are used in 

addition to trolling; in fresh water and estuaries, 

gillnets are the primary gear used. Pink, chum, 

and sockeye salmon are not as important to recreational fisheries as Chinook and coho salmon, and 

are uncommon in recreational catches outside of 

Puget Sound. While there are intense recreational 

fisheries directed at these species in a few locations, 

the majority of harvest is by commercial gillnet and 

purse seine fisheries in Puget Sound and gillnet 

fisheries in estuaries. All species are also harvested 

for subsistence and ceremonial purposes by Native 

American tribes.
182

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 12-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Pacific Coast 

salmon fisheries resources. 

Harvest rate and stock status 

information for Pacific Coast 

salmon are available for 

individual runs, but cannot 

be calculated for coastwide 

stocks. For more information 

on the status of individual 

salmon runs, see the Status 

of U.S. Fisheries Reports

available online at http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/

statusoffisheries/SOSmain.

htm.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY3

Chinook salmon 8,919 11,460 11,460 Near

Chum salmon 6,170 4,636 4,636 Near

Coho salmon 3,127 5,300 5,300 Near

Pink salmon 1,846 7,270 7,270 Near

Sockeye salmon 1,048 4,646 4,646 Near

Total 21,110 33,312 33,312

12004–06 average, except for pink salmon which is for the years 2001, 2003, and 2005. Recreational harvests were converted from numbers of fish to 

approximate weights using average weights of salmon caught in commercial fisheries from 1999–2006: Chinook = 6.00 kg; chum = 3.79 kg; coho = 

 3.04 kg; pink = 1.75 kg; sockeye = 2.32 kg. 

2Potential yields include doubling of production for some stocks.

3B is biomass. BMSY represents the stock size that can withstand maximum sustainable yield without collapsing.

William Heard, AFSC

Photo to right:

School of juvenile pink salmon in a healthy river. 

During 2004–06, the annual commercial 

salmon catch averaged 16,300 metric tons (t) and 

provided revenues averaging approximately $40 

million at dockside. Recreational catches are more 

difficult to value since the recreational experience 

associated with the catch cannot be easily measured. 

If recreationally caught fish are valued at a conservative $20 per fish, the 2004–06 average catch of 

800,000 fish would have been worth about $16 

million annually. Total recent average annual landings (2004–06) were more than 21,000 t (Table 

12-1). 

The abundance of individual stocks of Pacific 

salmon and the mixture of stocks contributing to 

fisheries fluctuate considerably. Consequently, annual landings fluctuate as well. For all species, there 

is excess fishing capacity and overcapitalization of 

the fishing fleets. Although harvest rates in recent 

years have been held near or below levels that would 

produce the maximum sustainable yield, recent 

environmental conditions have resulted in poor 

ocean survival of Chinook and coho salmon stocks 

in general and some individual stocks of the other 

species. This has led to sharp declines in abundance 

of most southern stocks over the past 5 years and 

has led to the closure of all 2008 ocean salmon 

fisheries off the coasts of Oregon and California, 

except for a small recreational coho fishery off the 

coast of Oregon which only allows retention of 

marked hatchery fish.

Management Situation

 The management of this resource is complex, 

involving many stocks originating from various 

rivers and jurisdictions. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), in cooperation with the 

states and tribal fishery agencies, manages ocean 

fisheries for Chinook and coho salmon under 

a framework fishery management plan (FMP). 

Within Puget Sound and the Columbia River, the 

states and tribes manage fisheries for these two 

species. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), 

the State of Washington, and tribal fishery agencies 

primarily manage fisheries for pink, chum, and 

sockeye salmon.

Fisheries are managed using a variety of regulations. Ocean fisheries are managed mainly through 
183

PACIFIC COAST SALMON

UNIT 12

Figure 12-1

Chinook salmon landings in 

individual fish, 1960–2007.

gear restrictions, minimum size limits, and time 

and area closures, although harvest quotas have 

been in place for individual fisheries in recent years. 

The PSC uses harvest quotas (updated on the basis 

of in-season abundance forecasts) and cumulative 

impact quotas for weak stocks to regulate some 

commercial fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and north Puget Sound.

Pacific salmon depend on freshwater habitat 

for spawning and rearing of juveniles. Because the 

quality of freshwater habitat is largely a function of 

land management practices, salmon production is 

heavily influenced by entities not directly involved 

in the management of fisheries. Salmon management involves the cooperation of the U.S. Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Army 

Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Bonneville Power Administration, state 

resource agencies, Indian tribes, municipal utility 

districts, agricultural water districts, private timber 

companies, and landowners.

Following coast-wide status reviews for all species of salmon and anadromous trout, numerous 

evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s) of all species 

except pink salmon have been listed as threatened 

or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). As a result, most freshwater habitat supporting anadromous salmonids now includes listed 

species. The need to reduce impacts on listed stocks 

has constrained allowable harvest rates on healthy 

stocks in recent years. In order to access hatcheryproduced salmon, most hatchery-produced coho 

salmon are currently being marked by removal 

of the adipose fin to distinguish them from wild 

salmon. In most hook-and-line fisheries allowing 

retention of coho salmon, all unmarked fish must 

be released. Similar mass marking of hatcheryproduced Chinook salmon has begun in many 

hatcheries, and limited mark-selective fisheries have 

been implemented for this species as well. 

SPECIES STATUS

Chinook Salmon 

The main production areas for Chinook 

salmon are rivers and hatcheries in Puget Sound 

in Washington, the Umpqua and Rogue Rivers 

in Oregon, the Klamath and Sacramento Rivers 

in California, and the Columbia River. Stocks are 

named for the season in which they migrate from 

the ocean to freshwater to spawn, and include 

spring, summer, fall, and winter runs. Chinook 

salmon production tends to fluctuate considerably 

(Figure 12-1) depending on hatchery production, freshwater habitat conditions, and ocean 

productivity. The proportion of Chinook salmon 

production originating from hatcheries has been 

increasing. In recent years, freshwater habitat loss 

and degradation have been exacerbated by drought 

in many areas in the west, in addition to generally 

unfavorable ocean conditions for Chinook salmon 

from the late 1970’s through the late 1990’s. This 

resulted in historically low abundance for a number 

of stocks and reduced commercial and recreational 

catches in many areas. 

 Currently, the upper Columbia River springrun and the Sacramento River winter-run ESU’s 

are listed as endangered under the ESA and seven 

additional ESU’s are listed as threatened. Concern 

over the depressed status of stocks and biological 

opinions requiring reduced impacts on listed ESU’s 

led to increasingly restrictive ocean fishing seasons 

through most of the 1990’s. Improvements in 

marine survival beginning around 1999 allowed 

for brief modest increases in harvests and improvements in spawner abundance for most Chinook 

salmon stocks. However, since 2004 most populations originating south of the Columbia River have 

declined sharply.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

4

Landings

(million fish)

Total landings

Commercial landings

Recreational landings
184

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 12-3

Sockeye salmon landings in 

individual fish, 1960–2007. Coho Salmon

Coho salmon are produced primarily in rivers 

and hatcheries in the Puget Sound area in Washington, hatcheries on the Columbia River, and coastal 

rivers and hatcheries in Oregon and California. 

Hatcheries play a larger role in the production of 

coho salmon than they do for Chinook salmon; in 

some areas, hatcheries account for more than 80% 

of the abundance available to fisheries. Landings 

reductions during the 1990’s resulted from record 

low abundances of several stocks of coho salmon, 

including Oregon coast natural and Columbia 

River hatchery stocks (Figure 12-2). To protect 

the spawning escapement of these stocks and to 

provide fish for the legally mandated tribal allocation, severe restrictions have been placed on ocean 

fisheries since 1993. Since then, natural populations of coho salmon in the United States have 

also benefited from reductions in Canadian cohodirected fisheries to protect depressed Canadian 

stocks and the implementation of mark-selective 

regulations in most U.S. ocean fisheries, under 

which only hatchery-marked coho may be retained 

and unmarked natural coho must be released.

 Currently, three coho salmon ESU’s are Federally listed as threatened: northern Californiasouthern Oregon in 1997; Lower Columbia River 

in 2005; and Oregon Coast ESU, which was originally listed in 1998 but had the listing overturned 

by a Federal district court in 2001 and was re-listed 

in 2008. Additionally, the central California ESU, 

formerly listed as threatened, was upgraded to 

endangered in 2005.

Sockeye, Pink, and Chum Salmon

Pink and chum salmon originate primarily 

from the tributaries of Puget Sound, Washington. 

Chum salmon are also produced, in limited numbers, in the Columbia River and coastal streams 

as far south as the central Oregon coast. Sockeye 

salmon originate primarily from river systems connected to lakes. They are produced in a few rivers 

in the Puget Sound area, in limited numbers in a 

few coastal rivers on the Olympic Peninsula, and in 

the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. The 

majority of these species are caught commercially 

in the Puget Sound region of Washington. Much 

of the sockeye and pink salmon harvested in Puget 

Sound originates from the Fraser River in Canada. 

Chum salmon in Puget Sound have been doing very 

well, and recent abundance has been near record 

levels. Sockeye runs in the Fraser River have been 

erratic in the past decade. There have been large 

changes in survival and run timing for several runs, 

and some run components are under consideration 

for listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. Pink 

salmon in Puget Sound rebounded from a record 

Figure 12-2

Coho salmon landings in individual fish, 1960–2007.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

2

4

6

8

Landings

(million fish)

Total landings

Commercial landings

Recreational landings

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

4

Landings

(million fish)

Total landings
185

PACIFIC COAST SALMON

UNIT 12

Figure 12-5

Pink salmon landings in individual fish, 1960–2007.

low return in 1999 to near record high abundance 

in recent years. However, commercial fisheries have 

been constrained by a combination of low price and 

incidental impacts on sockeye and listed Chinook 

populations. Historical landings of the species are 

shown in Figures 12-3, 12-4, and 12-5 for sockeye, 

chum, and pink salmon, respectively.

Recreational Fisheries

Pacific salmon support valuable recreational 

fisheries in salt water, fresh water, and estuaries. 

Recreational landings of Chinook salmon have 

averaged about 480,000 fish annually for the period 

2004–06. During the same period, recreational 

landings of coho salmon have averaged about 

230,000 salmon from hatchery and natural production combined. These landings reflect a substantial 

decline in abundance since 2004.

Recreational landings for sockeye and chum 

salmon have averaged 25,000 and 10,000 fish annually over the 2004–06 period. In years when pink 

salmon are available, they normally account for the 

bulk of recreational landings for these species, but 

there are only significant runs in odd-numbered 

years. Recreational landings of pink salmon from 

the 2001, 2003, and 2005 runs averaged nearly 

214,000 fish. While recreational landings of Chinook and coho are comparable to commercial 

landings, recreational landings of pink, chum, and 

sockeye account for a much lower proportion of the 

total catch. The reason for this lies partly in the life 

histories and migration patterns of the individual 

species. Sockeye, pink, and chum salmon migrate 

far offshore into the central North Pacific Ocean 

and the Gulf of Alaska. Thus they are only available to recreational fisheries briefly during their 

spawning migration. In addition, pink and chum 

salmon spawn and die shortly after entering fresh 

water as adults. By the time they reach terminal 

areas where recreational fisheries are located, they 

have undergone physiological changes in preparation for spawning, reducing the quality of their 

flesh and making them less highly prized relative 

to Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. While the 

recreational fisheries for sockeye, pink, and chum 

salmon are substantially smaller than recreational 

fisheries for Chinook and coho salmon, they are 

still important.

Commercial Fisheries

 For 2004–06, the combined Chinook salmon 

harvest from natural and hatchery production averaged about 910,000 fish. In the same period, the 

commercial catch of coho salmon averaged about 

799,000 salmon. Both species experienced brief 

rebounds from very low abundance levels in the 

1990’s. However, since 2003, stocks originating 

south of the Columbia River have declined sharply, 

Figure 12-4

Chum salmon landings in 

individual fish, 1960–2007.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Landings

(million fish)

Total landings

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

2

4

6

8

Landings

(million fish)

Total landings
186

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Spawning salmon in a Washington State fish hatchery.

OAR/National Undersea Research Program

culminating in the 2008 closure of all commercial 

salmon fisheries in California and most of the 

Oregon coast.

Landings of sockeye, pink, and chum salmon 

demonstrate a very different pattern from those of 

Chinook and coho salmon. Recent average annual 

catches of these species were roughly 427,000 sockeye salmon (2004–06), 1.57 million chum salmon 

(2004–06), and 843,000 pink salmon (2001, 2003, 

and 2005). Recent trends in landings have generally 

been stable or increasing, but marked downturns 

in landings were seen in the late 1990’s. Landings 

of chum salmon have rebounded since then, while 

landings of pink salmon and sockeye salmon have 

not. The reasons for these differences are unique 

for each species. 

While landings of chum salmon are mainly 

made up of stocks from the Puget Sound region, 

a large proportion of the pink salmon and nearly 

all of the sockeye salmon landed in Washington 

State are from stocks originating in the Fraser River 

system in British Columbia. Pink and chum salmon 

stocks both increased in abundance around 2000, 

and while chum landings reflect this rebound, pink 

salmon landings do not. After rebounding from a 

record low return in 1999, near record runs of pink 

salmon in 2001 and 2003 were only lightly harvested because of depressed prices, and incidental 

impacts on depressed sockeye runs and ESA-listed 

Chinook runs in Puget Sound. In the case of sockeye salmon, Fraser River runs were strong through 

the mid 1990’s, but ocean conditions have caused 

a large proportion of the fish to migrate north of 

Vancouver Island where they were unavailable to 

U.S. fisheries. Renegotiation of the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty with Canada also sharply reduced the U.S. 

share of the catch. In addition, since 1996 the 

late-run of sockeye salmon has been entering the 

river earlier than it did historically. The timing of 

the late-run has advanced as much as 6 weeks, and 

this early river entry has been associated with high 

pre-spawning mortality. This unexplained behavior, as well as declines in abundance and shifts in 

the timing of other run components, has alarmed 

fishery managers and prompted severe restrictions 

on harvest in sockeye fisheries. 

ISSUES AND PROGRESS

Balancing Competing Uses

The decline in Chinook and coho salmon 

abundance has forced severe reductions and closures of ocean fisheries in recent years. These reductions, in some cases, follow earlier legally mandated 

reductions to allocate salmon to interior-water 

fisheries for harvest by Native American tribes. 

Ocean salmon fisheries cannot redirect their effort 

to take advantage of abundant sockeye, pink, and 

chum salmon stocks because the ocean distribution 

of these species keeps them outside the range of 

coastal fisheries. With the prospect of continued 

restrictions to protect threatened and endangered 

species and depressed prices, the future viability of 

these commercial fisheries is uncertain.

Hatchery Versus Wild Salmon

 The use of hatcheries to mitigate habitat loss 

and enhance fisheries, especially for Chinook 

and coho salmon, has raised concerns about the 

interactions of hatchery and natural fish. While 

hatchery fish can supplement natural production, 

they can also compete with naturally produced 

fish. In areas where fisheries are managed on the 

basis of hatchery production, harvest rates may 

be higher than the natural stocks can sustain. In 

addition, some hatchery fish fail to return to the 

hatchery, spawning in natural areas with wild fish. 

Some hatchery brood stocks are of non-local origin, 

and the insertion of non-local genes into natural 

populations can compromise the genetic integrity 

of the native stocks and decrease their productivity. Even when hatchery stocks are of local origin, 

multiple generations of hatchery rearing appear to 
187

PACIFIC COAST SALMON

UNIT 12

Photo to left:

Fertilized salmon eggs.

David Csepp

reduce the fitness of fish to compete and survive in 

the wild.

Market Competition

One problem faced by commercial salmon 

fisheries in the Pacific Northwest has been declining 

prices driven by market competition from record 

landings of Alaskan salmon and steadily increasing 

aquaculture production. For example, in 2002 the 

average ex-vessel price paid for dressed Chinook 

salmon in California was $1.55/lb, while the 1979 

price was $2.53/lb. Prices for other species have 

declined even more, with pink salmon selling for 

as little as $0.05/lb in Puget Sound in 2003. Since 

then, prices have rebounded somewhat, as niche 

markets for local ocean-caught fish have developed, 

and catches have declined.

Marine Mammal Interactions

 Since the passage of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act in 1972, populations of pinnipeds 

(seals and sea lions) have increased to historic levels. 

As pinniped populations have increased, so have 

their interactions with salmon populations and 

with fisheries. Aggregations of seals and sea lions 

have appeared at river mouths and dams where 

migrating salmon are concentrated and more 

vulnerable to predation. In addition to preying 

on migrating salmon, some pinnipeds have also 

specialized in removing salmon from recreational 

and commercial fishing gear. This has resulted in 

damage to fishing gear, injuries to pinnipeds, and 

an increase in the incidental mortality associated 

with recreational and commercial salmon fishing, 

but the magnitude of the increase is unknown.

 In 2005, Southern Resident killer whales were 

listed under the Federal ESA as an endangered 

species. While transient killer whales feed on other 

marine mammals, the resident killer whales feed 

primarily on fish. Genetic analysis of observed 

feeding events and stool samples indicate that Chinook salmon are their preferred prey. The listing of 

these killer whales and recent declines in Chinook 

abundance have focused further scrutiny on the 

ecological impacts of salmon fisheries.

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

Because salmon migrate long distances, they are 

subject to interception by fisheries far from their 

region of origin. Issues of allocation have never 

been easy to resolve and have been addressed in a 

variety of forums. Much of the annual process of 

managing ocean salmon fisheries by the PFMC 

is concerned with the allocation of fish between 

different user groups: ocean and interior-water 

fisheries, commercial and recreational fisheries, 

and tribal and non-tribal fisheries. The PSC oversees the allocation of salmon between the United 

States and Canada. In 1994, a breakdown of the 

United States–Canada negotiations led to aggressive harvesting that compounded forecasting errors 

and nearly destroyed one of the most productive 

runs of sockeye salmon from the Fraser River in 

British Columbia. In 1999 the PSC reached an 

agreement that established an abundance-based 

management regime for Chinook salmon, replacing the fixed quotas in major southeast Alaska and 

British Columbia fisheries with a quota system that 

changes in response to the aggregate abundance of 

Chinook salmon available to each fishery. A similar 

abundance-based management regime for coho 

salmon was agreed upon in 2002.
188

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Ecosystem Considerations

Coho salmon abundance reached a peak in 

1976, and suffered a dramatic decline through the 

late 1990’s. Chinook salmon abundance has also 

generally declined since the mid 1970’s, although 

there was a brief increase in the late 1980’s. These 

declines affected both hatchery and natural stocks, 

and appeared to indicate a period of declining 

ocean survival. These declines were also coincident 

with a change in the oceanographic regime off 

the West Coast that occurred around 1978. Since 

then, the coastal waters off California, Oregon, 

and Washington, where many Chinook and coho 

salmon stocks mature, have been warmer and less 

productive than they were in the period from 

roughly 1950 to 1978. The decline in ocean productivity off the Pacific Coast appears to be linked 

to increased productivity in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Sockeye, pink, and chum salmon, which migrate 

farther offshore than Chinook and coho salmon, 

were relatively stable or increasing during the same 

period that Chinook and coho salmon declined.

More recently, conditions for Chinook and 

coho salmon briefly improved. In 1999, water temperatures were lower than normal off the coasts of 

California, Oregon, and Washington. In 2000, the 

marine plankton assemblages in the Pacific Northwest shifted from species characteristic of temperate 

regions to species more characteristic of subarctic 

regions, and bait fish became abundant. However, 

by 2005 most indicators of ocean productivity in 

within the California Current system pointed toward poor conditions for survival of Chinook and 

coho salmon. Indicators have remained unfavorable 

since then, and Chinook and coho populations 

south of the Columbia River have continued to 

decline.

 Because Pacific salmon depend on freshwater 

habitat for spawning and juvenile rearing, they 

are particularly vulnerable to habitat degradation. 

Dam construction, logging, agriculture, grazing, urbanization, and pollution have degraded 

freshwater habitat throughout their range. Water 

extraction and flow manipulation for hydropower, 

irrigation, flood control, and municipal needs directly compete with salmon for the fresh water on 

which they depend. As the human population in 

the western United States continues to increase, so 

will the pressures on salmon habitat. The fact that 

we still have salmon in harvestable quantities is a 

tribute to the resilience of these fish.

FOR FURTHER READING

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (Editors). 1991. Pacific 

Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 546 p.

Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. 

Inverse production regimes: Alaska and West Coast 

Pacific salmon. Fisheries 24(1):6–14.

ODFW and WDFW. 2002. Status report. Columbia 

River fish runs and fisheries 1938–2000. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, 324 p.

PFMC. 2008. Review of 2007 ocean salmon fisheries. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR, 

326 p.
189

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

alaska Salmon

INTRODUCTION

Pacific salmon have played an important and 

pivotal role in the history of Alaska. Salmon, 

along with mining, timber, and furs, were the 

keystone natural resources that led to the settling 

and development of the 49th state by non-native 

peoples. Even now, the abundant salmon resources 

of this region continue to shape much of the contemporary lives of residents and visitors to Alaska. 

Alaska native peoples and their heritage have a 

long, colorful bond with salmon as an economic, 

cultural, and subsistence necessity. This heritage 

incorporated some of the most highly developed 

aboriginal fishing complexes anywhere (Cooley, 

1961; Betts and Wolf, 1992). 

 Today many Alaskans still depend heavily on 

salmon for recreation, food, and industry. Commercial harvesting and processing, along with 

rapidly growing tourism-based guided sport fishUnit

13

WILLIAM R. HEARD

NMFS Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center

Auke Bay

Alaska

William Heard, AFSC

Photo above:

Pink salmon spawning in an 

Alaska river.

ing for salmon, provides the state with its largest 

private sector employment. Subsistence use by rural 

Alaskans is still an important part of the overall 

salmon story, accounting for around 1 million fish 

per year (ADFG, 2005; NPAFC, 2005). 

 Alaska commercial salmon harvests generally 

have increased over the last 3 decades (Figure 13-1). 

After reaching record low catch levels in the 1970’s, 

most populations rebounded and fisheries in recent 

years have been at or near all-time peak levels in 

many regions of the state (Burger and Wertheimer, 

1995; Baker et al., 1996; Wertheimer, 1997; Byerly 

et al., 1999; McGee, 2004; ). The record-high commercial landings of 218 million salmon in 1995 

were 17% higher than the previous record of 196 

million salmon in 1994. Throughout the mid to 

late 1990’s, recreational and subsistence fishermen 

harvested between 2 and 3 million salmon annually (Howe et al., 2001; ADFG, 2005; NPAFC, 

2005).
190

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 13-1

Commercial landings of 

Alaska salmon (all species) in 

metric tons (t) and individual 

fish, 1970–2007.

A number of factors have contributed to the 

current high abundance of Alaska salmon. These 

include 1) pristine habitats with minimal impacts 

from extensive development; 2) generally favorable oceanic conditions that allow high survival 

of juveniles; 3) improved fisheries management 

by state and Federal agencies; 4) elimination of 

high-seas drift-net fisheries by foreign nations; 5) 

a well-managed hatchery production system; and 

6) some reductions of salmon bycatch in fisheries 

for other species.

Significant declines in commercial catches 

occurred during the 3 years following the peak 

harvest in 1995 and were thought by many to 

possibly indicate the beginning of a major downturn in productivity of Alaska salmon. Historical 

commercial landings show a distinct cyclic pattern 

of alternating high and low harvests, often lasting 

decades. Much of this fluctuation is now believed 

to be due to inter-decadal climate oscillations in the 

ocean environment (Mantua et al., 1997; Minobe 

and Mantua, 1999) that affect marine survival of 

juveniles. A major climatic regime shift occurred 

in 1977 and helped Alaska salmon stocks rebound 

from the previous years of low abundance. There 

is concern that another regime shift in 1989 (Hare 

and Mantua, 2000) may lead to a downward trend 

in Alaska’s salmon resources. 

An interesting pattern associated with Alaska’s 

cyclic salmon harvest is an inverse production regime with abundance levels of West Coast salmon 

(Hare et al., 1999). Recent increases in numbers of 

some West Coast salmon, therefore, may also suggest a declining trend for Alaska salmon. However, 

no conclusive evidence of a decline is available 

from recent catch histories. While Alaska’s commercial catch did decline in the 3 years following 

the record 1995 harvest, landings in 1999 reached 

217 million fish, nearly matching the peak harvest 

year of 1995. Landings in 2000 fell to 137 million 

salmon, rebounded to 175 million fish in 2001, 

again dropped to 131 million in 2002, increased 

to 178 million in 2003, and then reached a new 

all-time high harvest level of 222 million salmon 

in 2005. Harvest levels in 2006 and 2007 were 141 

and 213 million salmon, respectively. All of these 

recent Alaska harvests are well above the long-term 

average, in spite of some rebounds that West Coast 

salmon runs have experienced. Unspoiled freshwater habitats, favorable oceanic conditions, and 

adequate numbers of salmon returning to spawn in 

rivers and streams are likely the paramount issues 

affecting current Alaska salmon abundance. Alaska 

salmon management continues to focus on maintaining pristine habitats and ensuring adequate 

escapements. 

MANAGEMENT

 Alaska’s 34,000-mile coast is nearly two-thirds 

the length of the coastline of the coterminous 

lower 48 states. Along this coastline, over 14,000 

water bodies support populations of five species 

of salmon. Salmon management over such a vast 

area requires a complex mixture of domestic and 

international bodies, treaties, regulations, and other 

agreements. Federal and state agencies cooperate 

in managing Alaska salmon fisheries. The Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) manages 

salmon fisheries within state jurisdictional waters, 

where the majority of harvest occurs. ADFG’s 

principal salmon conservation policy is based 

on escapement-based management, providing 

adequate spawning escapement into natal streams 

over any preseason harvest goals. Management in 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; 3–200 

n.mi. offshore) is the responsibility of the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), 

which has deferred specific regulations to the State 

of Alaska. Management of state salmon fisheries is 

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

(million fish)

Landings (weight)

Landings (individuals)
191

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

Crew members on a commercial fishing vessel removing salmon from a gillnet in 

Bristol Bay, Alaska.

Karen Ducey, NMFS

based primarily on regional stock groups of each 

species, and on time and area harvesting by specific 

types of fishing gear. 

Over 25 different commercial salmon fisheries 

are managed within a special limited-entry permit 

system that specifies when, where, and what type 

of fishing gear can be used in each area of the state. 

These fisheries, extending from Dixon Entrance in 

southeastern Alaska to Norton Sound in the Bering Sea, are allowed to catch salmon in different 

fisheries with drift gillnets, set gillnets, beach seines, 

purse seines, hand trolls, power trolls, or fish wheel 

harvest gear (CFEC, 1997). Sport fishing is limited 

to hook and line, while subsistence fishermen may 

use gillnets, dip nets, or hook and line. Special 

permits also regulate some native subsistence harvesting of salmon; and in some rivers, fish wheels 

are allowed.

Management of some Alaska salmon fisheries 

is also negotiated with Canada under the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty, first implemented in 1985. The initial fishing agreements between the two countries, 

setting catch allocations and ceilings for individual 

fisheries and species, were based on an individualstock-based management (ISBM) principle. In 

1999, a new fishery management regime was 

reached under the Treaty, based on the aggregate 

abundance-based management (AABM) principle 

(PSC, 1999). This new accord, originally proposed 

by Alaska, sets overall harvest levels based on the 

fluctuating abundance levels for groups of stocks 

of different species. 

Major issues of concern between the two 

countries include 1) Chinook salmon catches in 

southeastern Alaska, where Canadian salmon are 

caught along with other non-Alaska U.S. stocks; 

2) fisheries in the Dixon Entrance area, where each 

country catches salmon originating in the other 

nation; 3) transboundary river stocks and fisheries associated primarily with the Alsek, Taku, and 

Stikine Rivers; 4) Canadian fisheries off the west 

coast of Vancouver Island that catch salmon bound 

for Washington, Oregon, and the Columbia River; 

and 5) Strait of Juan de Fuca fisheries for sockeye 

and pink salmon bound for the Fraser River in 

Canada. Chinook salmon issues under the Treaty 

are among the more important concerns affecting 

Alaska fisheries (PSC, 1999, 2004). Currently 

treaty negotiations are underway between the two 

countries to establish a new 10-year management 

regime. 

Another area involving Alaska salmon and 

negotiations with Canada concerns the stocks and 

fisheries in the 2000-mile-long Yukon River system. 

After 16 years of deadlocked talks, an agreement 

was recently adopted and signed, setting harvest 

quotas and establishing restoration, conservation, 

and management programs for Yukon River Chinook and chum salmon stocks. 

On a broader international scope, the management of salmon harvest in the high seas of the 

North Pacific Ocean from 1957 to 1992 was under 

the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) and bilateral and multilateral agreements negotiated with Taiwan and the Republic 

of Korea. In 1993, the North Pacific Anadromous 

Fish Commission (NPAFC) replaced the INPFC. 

Initial signatories to the new Commission included 

Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the 

United States. In 2003, the Republic of Korea officially joined the Commission, which now provides 

a broad framework for international cooperation 

in salmon management and research in the North 

Pacific Ocean. 

 The NPAFC Convention prohibits high seas 

salmon fishing and trafficking of illegally caught 

salmon. Coupled with United Nations General 

Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 46/215, which bans 

large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing in the world’s 

oceans, harvesting of Pacific salmon on the high 
192

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 13-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Alaska salmon 

fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Chinook salmon 5,106 5,200 5,200 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

Chum salmon3 61,636 51,600 51,600 Above

Coho salmon3 15,642 17,600 17,600 Below

Pink salmon3 179,632 135,300 135,300 Above

Sockeye salmon3 115,433 108,200 108,200 Above

Total 377,449 317,900 317,900

12001–03 average.

21980–2003 average.

3Part of the Coho Salmon Assemblage. Collectively, the Assemblage is not overfishing and not overfished.

seas, except for illegal fishing, no longer exists. 

Thus, effective management control was returned 

to the salmon-producing nations. A basic premise 

of NPAFC policy is that the country of origin has 

proprietary ownership of its stocks even as freeswimming adults in the open ocean. NPAFC, 

with agreement among the five parties, has also 

established a formal science plan to help direct 

priority research for better knowledge of salmon 

stocks around the Pacific Rim. 

Because salmon are anadromous and spend a 

portion of their lives in freshwater streams, rivers, 

and lakes, the health of salmon populations in 

Alaska is directly influenced by land management 

practices. The quality of freshwater habitats determines the success of both reproduction and initial 

rearing of juveniles. Several agencies, entities, and 

groups have significant influence on the quality 

of freshwater spawning and rearing habitats for 

salmon throughout the state. Included among these 

are the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, National Wildlife 

Refuges, Alaska State Parks and Forests, and Alaska 

Native Regional and Village Corporations, as well 

as municipalities, boroughs, and private landowners that control watersheds used by salmon. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

All five species of Alaska salmon (pink, sockeye, 

chum, coho, and Chinook) are fully utilized, and 

stocks in most regions of the state have rebuilt to 

near or beyond previous high levels (Table 13-

1). Research into all aspects of the life histories 

of Pacific salmon has been extensive (Groot and 

Margolis, 1991), and this information has been 

used to regulate fisheries by monitoring escapement size and catch numbers by species, season, 

and area. Although there has been a high statewide 

abundance of salmon, there are issues of serious 

concern for some stocks, especially for certain 

species and regions. For example, stocks in western 

Alaska (especially Chinook and chum salmon) have 

generally been at very depressed levels since the mid 

1990’s. Some of the same issues implicated in the 

declines of Pacific Northwest salmon stocks are 

of concern in certain areas of Alaska. These issues 

include overfishing, incidental take of salmon as 

bycatch in other fisheries, and loss of freshwater 

spawning and rearing habitats.

Pink Salmon 

 Pink salmon are the most abundant species of 

Pacific salmon in Alaska (Figure 13-2), accountFigure 13-2

Commercial landings of 

Alaska pink salmon in metric 

tons (t) and individual fish, 

1970–2007.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Landings

(million fish)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings (individuals)

Landings (weight)
193

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

ing for 40 to 70% of the total harvest each year. 

During the past 37-year period (1970–2007), pink 

salmon comprised 58% of the average annual commercial harvest of salmon in Alaska (Figure 13-3). 

Pink salmon are mostly harvested by purse seines 

in southeastern and central southern Alaska, as 

well as around Kodiak Island. In Prince William 

Sound, hatcheries produce a large portion of the 

pink salmon catch. 

Unique among Pacific salmon, pink salmon 

have a fixed life history cycle whereby the species always matures and spawns at 2 years of age. 

This cycle is genetically set so that spawners in 

even-numbered years are always separate and 

distinct from spawners in odd-numbered years. 

Throughout much of its range, the species has viable populations in both odd- and even-numbered 

years; however, in some areas pink salmon only 

occur in one or the other cycle year. In Bristol Bay 

and western Alaska, for example, pink salmon are 

near the effective limit of their northern range 

and occur mostly in even-numbered years. At the 

southern limit of their range (the Pacific Northwest), they occur primarily in odd-numbered years. 

There is, however, growing evidence of population 

increases of pink salmon and other salmon species 

in northern parts of western Alaska (Norton Sound 

and Kotzebue Sound), perhaps due to climatic 

changes. 

Sockeye Salmon

Sockeye salmon, the second most abundant 

species caught in Alaska fisheries (Figures 13-3, 13-

4), accounted for 27% of the harvest in recent years 

(ADFG, 2007). Sockeye salmon, however, provide 

a greater dollar value than all other commercially 

caught salmon in Alaska combined, usually yielding between 60 and 70% of the ex-vessel value of 

the annual harvest. Bristol Bay sockeye salmon 

in southwestern Alaska is the most valuable wild 

Figure 13-3

Alaska commercial 

salmon landings by 

numbers of fish, averaged over 1970–2007.

Pink 58%

Chinook 1%

Coho 4%

Chum 10%

Sockeye 27%

capture fishery for salmon in the world, previously 

yielding $300 to $400 million (ex-vessel) per year 

in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. In the late 1990’s 

and early 2000’s, prices declined significantly, and 

the ex-vessel value of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon 

has averaged only $77 million per year during the 

past 10-year period of 1998–2007 (ADFG, 2007). 

A recent upswing in Alaska sockeye salmon prices 

in Bristol Bay from 2004–06 has averaged $103 

million per year in ex-vessel value. 

 Sockeye salmon are harvested by purse seine in 

southeastern Alaska, Kodiak Island, and Chignik 

fisheries and by drift gillnet or set gillnet throughout the state. The largest fisheries for sockeye 

salmon occur in Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, the Alaska 

Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Island 

regions. Other significant fisheries also occur in 

southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and 

Chignik. 

Juvenile sockeye salmon most commonly grow 

in lakes for 1 to 2 years before migrating seaward 

as smolts. The large lake complexes associated 

with Bristol Bay rivers provide this necessary life 

history component and form a critical part of the 

important fishery in this region. The Bristol Bay 

fishery, based on drift and set gillnet catches, is 

concentrated in a narrow window of time from 

late June until mid July when millions of returning 

adult sockeye salmon pour into Bristol Bay rivers 

from the ocean. 

 Commercial sockeye salmon catches in Bristol 

Bay in 1997 (12.1 million fish) and 1998 (10.0 

Figure 13-4

Commercial landings of 

Alaska sockeye salmon in 

metric tons (t) and individual 

fish, 1970–2007.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Landings

(million fish)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings (weight)

Landings

(individuals)
194

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 13-5

Commercial landings of 

Alaska chum salmon in metric tons (t) and individual 

fish, 1970–2007.

million) fell sharply, relative to harvest levels that 

averaged 36.5 million sockeye salmon per year 

during the previous 5-year period, 1992–96. 

Returns improved somewhat in 1999 and 2000, 

with commercial catches of 26.1 and 20.5 million 

sockeye salmon respectively, but declined again in 

2001, 2002, and 2003 with commercial catches of 

only 14.2, 10.7, and 14.9 million fish, respectively 

(ADFG, 2007). Beginning in 2004, commercial 

catches again improved to 26.3 million, followed 

by catches of 24.5, 28.5, and 29.5 million, respectively, in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Most of these 

recent harvest levels of sockeye salmon in Bristol 

Bay are well below previous decadal averages. These 

low returns continue to create significant hardships 

to state residents and fishermen dependent on this 

fishery. 

Several hypotheses have been suggested to 

explain recent declines in sockeye salmon returning to Bristol Bay. One hypothesis suggests that 

unusually warm and calm summer weather has 

resulted in warmer water temperatures. Elevated 

water temperatures may cause high mortality and 

changes in migration of adult salmon entering 

Bristol Bay. Other hypotheses include changes in 

freshwater or ocean rearing conditions affecting 

the growth and survival of juveniles and immature 

adults, increased predation at sea, interception 

by other fisheries, disease, and in some instances, 

over-escapements on spawning grounds. The true 

causes likely involve a combination of many factors 

and remain unknown. It is also unknown whether 

these shortfalls are due to a shift in cyclical oceanic 

conditions, which could lead to lower survival and 

smaller sockeye returns in future years. 

Chum Salmon

Chum salmon (Figure 13-5) are harvested 

commercially by purse seines, drift and set gillnets, 

and in large western Alaska rivers by fishwheels 

in subsistence fisheries. Over the 37-year period 

from 1970 to 2007, chum salmon accounted for 

10% of Alaska’s salmon harvest (Figure 13-3). 

Statewide average annual catches of chum salmon 

were 18.6 million fish during 1996–2003. The 

harvest in 2000 was well above this average, with a 

record harvest of 24.3 million fish (ADFG, 2007). 

Currently, 60–70% of the commercially harvested 

chum salmon in Alaska occur in the southeastern 

region, where hatcheries produce a significant portion of the catch.

 Recently, chum salmon runs in southwestern 

and western Alaska, similar to sockeye salmon in 

Bristol Bay, have been well below long-term averages, which has added to the hardships experienced 

by fishermen in those regions. Western Alaska 

chum salmon may spend part of their ocean life 

in the Gulf of Alaska and then funnel through the 

Aleutian Island passes as maturing adults on their 

return migration. Management of chum salmon 

fisheries in western Alaska is complicated because 

a fishery (targeting sockeye salmon returning to 

Bristol Bay) at False Pass in the Aleutian Islands 

incidentally harvests chum salmon destined for the 

Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers in western Alaska. 

The Alaska Board of Fisheries has placed major 

restrictions on the False Pass fishery in an effort 

to help rebuild depleted chum salmon resources 

in western Alaska; however, at more recent Board 

meetings those restrictions were somewhat relaxed. 

In some years significant numbers of chum 

salmon are incidentally caught as bycatch in Bering 

Sea groundfish fisheries that target walleye pollock 

and other groundfish species. Bycatch of chum 

salmon in these fisheries may have negative impacts 

on populations of stock originating from western 

Alaska rivers. Chum salmon in western Alaska are 

not only an important part of commercial fisheries 

in that region, but also a significant subsistence 

resource for local residents. 

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Landings

(million fish)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings (weight)

Landings (individuals)
195

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

Figure 13-7

Commercial landings of 

Alaska Chinook salmon in 

metric tons (t) and individual 

fish, 1970–2007.

Coho Salmon

Coho salmon are caught commercially by purse 

seines in southeastern and central southern regions, 

by drift or set gillnets in all regions, and by hand 

and power troll gear in the southeastern region. 

Coho, along with sockeye and Chinook salmon, 

are popular target species in recreational fisheries 

throughout Alaska.

Commercial catches of coho salmon across 

Alaska in 2002 totaled 5.1 million fish and have 

averaged 4.5 million fish during the most recent 

10-year period, 1998–2007 (ADFG, 2007). These 

harvest levels are well above the record low catches 

in the 1970’s (Figure 13-6). This recent period of 

relatively high commercial harvests was due to generally favorable returns of both hatchery and wild 

coho salmon in the southeastern region, where over 

3.0 million coho salmon were harvested in 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004. Exceptionally high marine 

survivals of coho salmon smolts, averaging over 

20% in some systems in this region, are thought to 

be the main reason for these harvest levels (Shaul et 

al., 2007). This favorable survival pattern, however, 

may be shifting. In 2007 the statewide harvest of 

coho salmon was 3.7 million fish, with 2.1 million 

from the southeast region (ADFG, 2007). 

Chinook Salmon

The annual commercial harvest of Chinook 

salmon has ranged between 360,000 and 800,000 

fish over the past two decades (Figure 13-7). The 

statewide 10-year (1998–2007) average annual 

harvest was 568,000 fish (ADFG, 2007). Chinook 

salmon, like coho salmon, are commercially harvested by purse seines in southeastern and central 

southern regions, by drift or set gillnets in all 

regions, and by hand and power troll gear in the 

southeastern region. In addition, fishwheels harvest 

Chinook salmon in western Alaska rivers for commercial sales and for subsistence uses. 

In general, Chinook salmon are the first species 

each calendar year to begin spawning migrations 

into Alaska rivers. Fisheries are permitted to directly 

target these early returning runs of Chinook salmon 

in only a few Bristol Bay and western Alaska rivers. 

However, Chinook salmon are often taken as bycatch in fisheries targeted on other salmon. Sockeye 

salmon migrations into many larger river systems 

begin during the later portion of Chinook salmon 

runs in the same rivers. In these cases (such as certain Cook Inlet and southeastern rivers and in the 

Copper River near Cordova), significant numbers 

of Chinook salmon may be caught incidentally in 

fisheries targeting sockeye salmon. Some of these 

fisheries may have a quota in place limiting the 

catch of Chinook salmon. 

 Chinook salmon stocks thoughout Alaska in 

Figure 13-6

Commercial landings of 

Alaska coho salmon in metric 

tons (t) and individual fish, 

1970–2007.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Landings

(million fish)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings (weight)

Landings (individuals)

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Landings

(million fish)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings (weight)

Landings (individuals)
196

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 13-8

Ex-vessel value of Alaska 

commercial salmon landings, 1970–2007.

general have relatively stable sustainable populations (Heard, et al., 2007; Wertheimer, 1997). 

Western Alaska, however, is the one region of the 

state where there is concern over trends in abundance of this species. Harvest levels of Chinook 

salmon in Bristol Bay and in the Kuskokwim and 

Yukon Rivers have been in a declining mode since 

the 1980’s. In 2001, runs into the Yukon River, 

a transboundary river originating in Canada and 

managed under a separate U.S.–Canada Treaty 

Annex, were so low that no commercial fishery was 

allowed. Another area of concern is the often large 

bycatch of Chinook salmon in Bering Sea groundfish fisheries and the likelihood that a significant 

part of this bycatch is from western Alaska stocks. 

In 2007 a total of 130,000 Chinook salmon were 

caught as bycatch in those fisheries (see groundfish 

catch reports at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/). 

A quota, under provisions of the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty, normally regulates the Chinook salmon 

harvest in southeastern Alaska, where significant 

numbers of non-Alaska-origin fish are caught. The 

Alaska Board of Fisheries, a jurisdictional body 

dealing with allocation of fisheries resources, then 

reallocates this annual harvest quota among various fisheries. For example, the troll fishery (both 

hand and power troll), which historically has been 

highly dependent on Chinook salmon, is allocated 

the largest portion of the southeastern Chinook 

salmon quota. Net fisheries in the region (purse 

seine and drift gillnet) primarily target pink, chum, 

or sockeye salmon but are provided quotas to take a 

limited catch of Chinook salmon in pursuit of other 

target species. The remaining allowable quota is 

allocated to guided and non-guided sport fisheries. 

ISSUES

Value of Alaska Salmon

Although commercial harvests have been at 

high levels in recent years, the value of the catch 

has declined significantly due to a number of complex worldwide factors. The record 1995 statewide 

catch of 451,000 metric tons (t) was worth $466 

million (ex-vessel), far less than the smaller 1992 

harvest (312,000 t), valued at $546 million. The 

fluctuating but downward trend in ex-vessel value 

has persisted over much of the last decade (Figure 

13-8), although there has been a moderate upward trend in ex-vessel value over the last 3 years 

(2005–07) primarily due to aggressive marketing 

campaigns. Along with this general decline in value 

is a rising trend in total worldwide salmon production (ASMI, 1993). Increases in world salmon 

supplies are due to rapid growth in the worldwide 

production of farmed salmon (Folsom et al., 1992), 

in addition to record catches of wild salmon and of 

fish produced from hatcheries and ocean ranching 

programs in Alaska, Japan, and Russia. 

Total world production from capture and 

farmed fisheries in 2002 was about 1.8 million t, 

including 983,000 t of farmed salmon (Knapp, 

2003). This production represents a continuation 

of recent trends for increased production of farmed 

salmon and lower prices paid to fishermen in capture fisheries (Heard, 1996, 1997). Decreases in the 

price paid for wild-caught salmon also characterize 

capture fisheries for salmon in Japan (Kaeriyama 

and Urawa, 1993) and elsewhere. Although Alaska’s 

salmon harvest represents about 45% of all wild 

salmon caught, it only represents 19% of total 

world salmon production. While more than 15 

countries now produce farmed salmon, over 70% 

of production comes from just three countries: 

Norway, Chile, and the United Kingdom (Knapp, 

2003). Beginning in 2000, Norway’s farmed Atlantic salmon annual production has exceeded the 

total Alaska commercial salmon harvest. 

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Value

(million USD)

Ex-vessel value
197

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

Recreational Salmon Fisheries

Recreational fishing continues to grow and be 

an important component of the Alaska lifestyle. 

This is partly due to the fact that many households 

use sport fishing as a convenient method to collect 

wholesome seafood for the table. Some part of the 

total recreational salmon fishery in Alaska, therefore, 

might more appropriately be included in subsistence fishery statistics. Much of the recent growth 

in recreational fishing is due to an increase in guided 

fishing trips for visitors and tourists. Sport fishing for 

salmon in Alaska as a recreational outlet is an important pursuit for both residents and visitors alike. 

Since 1990, the number of sport fishing licenses 

sold to nonresidents has exceeded the number sold 

to Alaska residents (Howe et al., 2001). A total of 

392,980 sport fishing licenses were issued in 2002; 

71% of these licenses were issued to nonresident 

anglers.1 Sport fishing for salmon is a vital part of 

the recent rapid growth in Alaska tourism.

Coho salmon are the most popular recreational 

salmon species in Alaska, representing 38% of the 

3.2 million salmon caught by recreational fishermen in 2002. This is followed by pink salmon 

(25%), sockeye salmon (21%), chum salmon (7%), 

Chinook salmon (5%), and non-anadromous 

landlocked salmon (4%).2

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

Salmon bycatch by U.S. groundfish fisheries in 

the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska continues to 

be a problem in fisheries management. Although 

the groundfish fisheries are prohibited from retaining any salmon, many are taken incidentally, 

especially in trawl fisheries. Most of the bycatch are 

chum salmon and Chinook salmon. The problem 

is being addressed by the NPFMC through time–

area closures and bycatch limits set for different 

gear types in the groundfish fisheries.

Protecting Salmon Habitats

Responsible conservation of Alaska’s salmon 

resource is a national issue shared with the State 

of Alaska. Maintaining this renewable resource 

requires conservation of the thousands of miles of 

riparian habitat in the state that support salmon 

production. Competing uses for this habitat include logging, mining, oil and gas development, 

and industrial and urban development. Although 

progress has been made in setting Federal and state 

land-use guidelines, conflicts still occur. Natural 

resource managers continually face increasing 

demands from extractive industries to log, drill, 

or fill riparian habitats while working to change 

land-use laws. For example, the debate continues 

between land managers and the logging industry 

over the required size of clear-cut buffer zones 

along anadromous fish streams. In its recent review 

of timber harvest in the Tongass National Forest, 

the U.S. Forest Service concluded that long-term 

application of current timber harvest procedures 

could lead to (or continue) declines in habitat 

productivity and the eventual loss of salmon stocks. 

However, efforts are being made to protect the 

salmon resource and the habitats they depend on; 

the recent buy-back of Federal gas and oil leases 

in Bristol Bay is one such effort. A new proposed 

development in the Bristol Bay drainage area is 

the controversial Pebble Mine project that would 

build one of the largest open-pit gold and copper 

mines in the world. Many fisheries resource groups 

oppose this project. 

A young sport fisherman 

with his coho salmon catch. 

Recreational salmon fishing is popular among state 

residents and draws many 

tourists from outside Alaska 

as well.

William Heard, AFSC

1Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, data files.

2Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, data files.
198

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

William Heard, AFSC

Pink salmon fry.

Hatcheries and Ocean Ranching

Alaska’s salmon enhancement programs produce significant numbers of fish for commercial 

and sport harvest. While most hatcheries are now 

operated by private-sector regional aquaculture 

associations, the state maintains oversight of the 

hatcheries and manages them to minimize catches 

of wild salmon in fisheries that catch large numbers 

of returning hatchery fish (McGee, 2004). However, overfishing is of concern where wild stocks are 

in low abundance and spawning escapement goals 

may not be achieved. Prince William Sound is an 

area of particular concern where large returns of 

hatchery pink salmon mix with lower numbers of 

wild fish. In a recent analysis, one group of scientists 

argued that the pink salmon hatchery program in 

Prince William Sound has essentially replaced the 

wild stock production that would have occurred 

in the absence of hatcheries (Hilborn and Eggers, 

2000). Other scientists, however, have examined 

the same data sets and concluded that hatcheries 

in the region were primarily supplementing wild 

stock production, with net gains of 17.5–23.7 million pink salmon to fisheries in the region annually 

(Wertheimer et al., 2001, 2004).

The present statewide hatchery program, which 

began in 1974, contributed almost 73 million 

salmon to the total commercial salmon harvest in 

Alaska and 348,983 salmon to sport fisheries in 

2003 (Farrington, 2004). Contributions to salmon 

fisheries from Alaska hatcheries vary considerably 

by species and region. Hatcheries make important 

contributions in southeastern Alaska to catches of 

chum, coho, and Chinook salmon; in Prince William Sound to catches of coho, pink, and sockeye 

salmon; in Cook Inlet to catches of coho, Chinook, 

and sockeye salmon; and in Kodiak to catches of 

coho salmon (Farrington, 2004; White, 2008).

Interception Fisheries 

 Significant progress has been made to control 

the interception and incidental take of Alaska’s 

salmon resources. First, a former high-seas salmon 

fishery by Japan that was authorized by an international convention from 1952–92 was terminated 

under the new Convention for the Conservation 

of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean. 

Second, high-seas driftnet fisheries for squid by 

various countries that also intercepted U.S.-origin 

fish in the central North Pacific were terminated 

by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 

46/215. The NPFMC actively manages the prob-
199

ALASKA SALMON

UNIT 13

lem of salmon bycatch in U.S. groundfish fisheries 

in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska through time–

area closures and bycatch limits. Interceptions of 

nontarget salmon species within Alaska-managed 

salmon fisheries continue to be addressed by the 

Alaska Board of Fisheries. Additionally, negotiations continue between the United States and 

Canada under the Pacific Salmon Treaty to resolve 

long-standing interception issues, particularly in 

the northern British Columbia and Alaska boundary area.

LITERATURE CITED

ADFG. 2005. Alaska subsistence fisheries 2003 annual 

report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence, Juneau, AK, 252 p.

ADFG. 2007. Catch, effort, and value statewide harvest. 

Recent years harvest statistics. Blue Sheets. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Internet site—http://

www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/.

ASMI. 1993. Salmon 2000 yearbook, 1993. Alaska 

Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau, AK.

Baker, T. T., A. C. Wertheimer, R. D. Burkett, R. Dunlap, D. M. Eggers, E. I. Fritts, A. J. Gharrett, R. A. 

Holmes, and R. L. Wilmot. 1996. Status of Pacific 

salmon and steelhead escapements in southeastern 

Alaska. Fisheries 21(10):6–19.

Betts, M. F., and R. J. Wolfe. 1992. Commercialization 

of fisheries and the subsistence economies of the Alaska 

Tlingit. Society and Natural Resources 5:277–295. 

Burger, C. V., and A. C. Wertheimer. 1995. Pacific salmon in Alaska. In E. T. La Roe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and J. J. Mac (Editors), Our living 

resources. A report to the nation on the distribution, 

abundance, and health of U. S. plants, animals, and 

ecosystems, p. 343–247. U.S. Department of Interior, 

National Biological Survey, Washington, DC.

Byerly, M., B. Brooks, B. Simonson, H. Savikko, and 

H. Gieger. 1999. Alaska commercial salmon catches, 

1878–1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 5J99-05, Juneau, AK.

CFEC. 1997. Permit status report for all fisheries. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Juneau, AK. 

Cooley, R. A. 1961. Decline of Alaska salmon. A case 

study in resource conservation policy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Farrington, C. 2004. Alaska salmon enhancement program annual report. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries Regional 

Information Report 5J04-02, Juneau, AK, 41 p. 

Folsom, W., D. Altman, A. Manuar, F. Neilson, T. 

Tevord, E. Sandborn, and M. Wildman. 1992. World 

salmon culture. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/ SPO-3, 

323 p. 

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (Editors). 1991. Pacific 

Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 564 p.

Hare, S. R., and N. J. Mantua. 2000. Empirical evidence 

for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. 

Progress in Oceanography 47:103–145.

Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. 

Inverse production regimes. Alaska and West Coast 

Pacific salmon. Fisheries 24:6–15.

Heard, W. R. 1996. Ocean ranching, an assessment. In

W. Pennel and B. Barton (Editors), Principles of Salmonid Culture, p. 833–869. Elsevier Science Publications, 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 

Heard, W. R. 1997. Are capture fisheries for Pacific 

salmon in a crisis of abundance? Bulletin of the National Research Institute of Aquaculture Supplement 

3:161–167.

Heard, W.R., E. Shevlyakov, O. V. Zikunova, and 

R. E. McNicol. 2007. Chinook salmon—trends in 

abundance and biological characteristics. Bulletin 

of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission 

4:77–91.

Hilborn, R., and D. Eggers. 2000. A review of the 

hatchery programs for pink salmon in Prince William 

Sound and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 129:333–350.

Howe, A. L., R. J. Walker, C. Olnes, K. Sundet, and A. 

E. Bingham. 2001. Participation, catch, and harvest in 

Alaska sport fisheries during 1998. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series 99-41 (revised), 

Anchorage, AK. 
200

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Kaeriyama, M., and S. Urawa. 1993. Future research by 

the Hokkaido Salmon Hatchery for the proper maintenance of Japanese salmonid stocks. In Y. Ishida, Y. K. 

Nagasawa, D. Welch, K. W. Myers, and A. Shershnev 

(Editors), Proceedings of the International Workshop 

on Future Salmon Research in the North Pacific Ocean, 

p. 57–62. National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries Special Publication 20, Shimuzu, Japan. 

Knapp, G. 2003. Estimates of world salmon supply. University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. (Excel datafiles)

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, 

and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 

78(6):1069–1079. 

McGee, S. 2004. Salmon hatcheries in Alaska—plans, 

permits, and policies that provide protection for wild 

stocks. In M. J. Nickum, P. M. Mazik, J. G. Nickum, 

and D. D. MacKinlay (Editors), Propagated Fish in 

Resource Management. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD.

Minobe, S., and N. Mantua. 1999. Interdecadal modulation of interannual atmospheric and oceanic variability 

over the North Pacific. Progress in Oceanography 

43:163–192.

NPAFC. 2005. Statistical Yearbook, 1999–2001. North 

Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, Vancouver, 

BC, Canada.

PSC. 1999. Preliminary retrospective analysis of the U.S. 

and Canadian proposals for abundance-based regimes 

for Chinook fisheries. Pacific Salmon Commission, 

Joint Chinook Technical Committee (TCCHINOOK) 

99-1, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

PSC. 2004. Catch and escapement of Chinook salmon 

under Pacific Salmon Commission Jurisdiction 2003. 

Pacific Salmon Commission, Joint Chinook Technical 

Committee Report (TCCHINOOK) 04-2, Vancouver, 

BC, Canada.

Shaul, L., L. Weitkamp, K. Simpson, and J. Sawada. 

2007. Trends in abundance and size of coho salmon 

in the Pacific Rim. Bulletin of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission 4:93–104.

Wertheimer, A. C. 1997. The status of Alaska salmon. 

In D. J. Strouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman (Editors), Pacific Salmon and their Ecosystems. Status and 

Future Options, p. 179–197. Chapman Hall, New 

York, NY. 

Wertheimer, A. C., W. R. Heard, and W. W. Smoker. 

2004. Effects of hatchery releases and environmental 

variation on wild-stock productivity. Consequences 

for sea ranching of pink salmon in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. In K. M. Leber, S. Kitada, T. Svasand, 

and H. L. Blankenship (Editors), Stock Enhancement 

and Sea Ranching 2, p. 307–326. Blackwell Science, 

Oxford, England.

Wertheimer, A. C., W. W. Smoker, T. L. Joyce, and W. 

R. Heard. 2001. Comment. A review of the hatchery 

program for pink salmon in Prince William Sound and 

Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 130:712–720.

White, B. 2008. Alaska salmon enhancement program 

2007 annual report. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial 

Fisheries, Fishery Management Report No. 08-03, 

Juneau, AK. 
201

PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 14

Pacific coast and 

Alaska Pelagic Fisheries

Unit

14

KevIN T. HIll 

 e. Dorval 

PaUl r. CroNe

JeNNy D. MCDaNIel

NMFS Southwest Fisheries

Science Center

La Jolla, CA

MarCI l. yareMKo 

Dale SweeTNaM

California Department of

Fish and Game

Santa Barbara, CA

DoUGlaS a. wooDBy 

MIKe PloTNICK

Alaska Department of

Fish and Game

Juneau, AK

INTroDUCTIoN

Several stocks of coastal pelagic species (CPS) 

support fisheries along the Pacific Coast from 

northern Mexico to Alaska. The major ones are 

Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, Pacific chub 

mackerel), jack mackerel, California market squid, 

and Pacific herring. Sardine, anchovy, and the two 

mackerels are primarily concentrated and harvested 

off California and Baja California, although a major 

sardine fishery has recently developed off the Pacific 

Northwest. Market squid are distributed from the 

Pacific Northwest to Baja California, Mexico, but 

the population is mostly harvested in northern and 

southern California. Pacific herring are taken along 

the West Coast from California to Alaska.

Sardine and anchovy are the most prominent 

Photo above:

Close-up view of a California 

market squid.

Anne Allen, SWFSC

of the CPS fisheries from a historical perspective. 

These small pelagic fish, like Peruvian anchovy 

and Japanese sardine, tend to fluctuate widely in 

abundance from year to year. California sardines 

supported the largest fishery in the western hemisphere during the 1930’s and early 1940’s, when 

total annual catches averaged 500,000 metric tons 

(t). Sardine abundance and catches declined after 

World War II, and the stock finally collapsed in 

the late 1950’s. In the mid 1940’s, U.S. processors 

began canning anchovy as a substitute for sardine. 

Consumer demand for canned anchovy, however, 

was low, and catches from the mid 1940’s to mid 

1950’s averaged only 20,000 t per year. Catches 

declined and remained low before starting to increase in 1965 after the sardine collapse. Together 

with catches from Mexico, the total catch increased 
202

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 14-1

Pacific sardine landings and 

biomass in metric tons (t), 

1916–2007. No data are available for 1966–80, when the 

biomass had declined to immeasurable low levels.

Year

1916 1926 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Biomass

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Biomass

to 250,000 t per year during 1975–80. Thereafter, 

U.S. catches declined mainly due to significant 

price reductions for fishmeal. Low prices and market problems continue to prevent a significant U.S. 

reduction fishery for anchovy in recent years. The 

other small pelagic species also have a tendency to 

fluctuate widely in abundance.

All of these pelagic fishery resources are under 

state or Federal management. The fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, Pacific chub mackerel, and jack mackerel are managed under the CPS 

Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council; California market 

squid are monitored under this FMP as well, but 

management has been transferred to the State of 

California. The State of California also manages the 

Pacific herring fishery in the waters off California. 

The State of Alaska manages its inshore Pacific herring fishery. 

The wellbeing of ecologically related species 

in the marine ecosystem is an important factor in 

management of CPS resources. For example, the 

endangered brown pelican depends on anchovy as 

an important food source. Thus, the CPS FMP has 

specified a threshold for its optimum-yield determination to prevent severe depletion and provide 

adequate forage for marine fishes, mammals, and 

birds.

PACIFIC COAST PELAGIC FISHERIES

Pacific Sardine

California’s Pacific sardine abundance has gone 

through multiple boom-and-bust cycles (Figure 14-

1). The decline of the resource, from a biomass of 

more than 3.6 million t in the 1930’s to immeasurably low levels (a few thousand t) in the 1970’s, 

stimulated much debate as to whether fishing or 

an adverse natural environmental period was to 

blame. In retrospect, the intense fishing pressure 

on the resource in the 1930’s and 1940’s probably 

accelerated a long-term pattern of natural decline. 

The biomass of sardines remained negligibly low 

for about 40 years. Stock biomass increased rapidly 

through the 1980’s and 1990’s, peaking at 1.71 million t in 2000, but has since decreased to 832,706 

t in July 2007 (Hill et al., 2007).

 In the past, sardines were harvested for fishmeal, bait, and human consumption. However, 

there is currently no fishmeal (reduction) fishery. 

Sardines are now taken for human consumption, 

bait, and aquaculture feed. Commercial demand 

for sardines is strong and, as resource abundance 

has grown, the coastwide fishery has revived. Recent average yields (2005–07) for the United States 

are 105,667 t per year and 157,573 t for combined 

fisheries of Pacific North America (Table 14-1). The 

current U.S. yield is 135,946 t, or about 77% of 

the maximum sustainable yield for the U.S. fishery. However, the most recent stock assessment 

indicated a decline in abundance and resulted in a 

significantly lower harvest guideline for 2008 (Hill 

et al., 2007).

Northern Anchovy

 Northern anchovy, fished off California and 

Mexico, are divided into several subpopulations. 

The central subpopulation of the resource is the 

one that supports most of the U.S. fisheries. Historically, anchovy have been harvested for reduction 

into fishmeal, oil, and soluble protein products. 

Other uses include human consumption (fresh, 

frozen, canned, and paste), and as bait (live and 

frozen) for recreational fisheries.

Anchovy landings in California have fluctuated more in response to market conditions than 

Dense schools of anchovy 

seen from the coast of southern California.

Anne Allen, SWFSC
203

PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 14

Table 14-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Pacific 

Coast and Alaska pelagic 

fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent 

average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to 

BMSY Harvest rate Stock status

Pacific Coast

 California market squid2 51,458 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

 Jack mackerel3 705 646 48,000 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Northern anchovy4 14,946 13,297 31,000 Unknown

 Pacific herring5 85 34 Unknown Unknown

 Pacific chub mackerel6 13,657 16,623 102,327 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Pacific sardine7 157,573 173,119 175,361 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Subtotal, Pacific Coast 238,424 255,177 408,180

Alaska

 Pacific herring (Bering Sea)8 23,541 Unknown Unknown Near

 Pacific herring (Gulf of Alaska)8 17,212 Unknown Unknown Near

Subtotal, Alaska 40,753 40,753 40,753

Total 279,177 295,930 448,933

U.S. subtotal 216,742 207,232 372,438

12004–06 coastwide average, unless otherwise noted.

2Currently, California market squid are managed based on an egg escapement model, which evaluates the interaction between the population’s 

reproductive output and levels of fishing pressure. This assessment approach does not provide estimates of historical or current total biomass, so 

a definitive yield (e.g. quota, CY, MSY, etc.) cannot be determined at this time. Values are the U.S. share only.

3RAY and CY are 2005–07, U.S. share only. MSY is a crude coastwide estimate calculated using 1995 data.

4RAY and CY are 2005–07; the U.S. share of the RAY is 11,641 t. Status determinations are based on two subpopulations and are not available 

for the coastwide stock. The central subpopulation is not overfishing and has undefined stock status; the northern subpopulation has undefined 

harvest rate and stock status.

5RAY is 2000–02, U.S. share only. Harvest rate and stock status determinations are not available for this stock.

6U.S. share of the RAY is 6,433 t.

7RAY and CY are 2005–07; the U.S. share of the RAY is 105,667 t.

8Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

to stock abundance. Figure 14-2 shows the historical catch trend for the United States and Mexico. 

Landings by the United States have varied from 

1,000 t to nearly 160,000 t. Since 1983, U.S. landings have been low, and have been used mostly for 

live bait and other non-reduction uses. The biomass 

trend for the anchovy resource (Figure 14-2) hit a 

peak of 1.6 million t in 1973 and declined steadily 

to 392,000 t by 1994. The anchovy resource, last 

assessed in 1995 (Jacobson et al., 1995), is assumed 

to be at a moderate level of abundance. The default 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the United 

States is 25,000 t or 30% of the maximum sustainable yield (Table 14-1). Recent catches have been 

much lower (about 11,000 t) due to a lack of commercial markets. 

Figure 14-2

Northern anchovy landings 

and biomass in metric tons 

(t), 1916–2007.

Year

1916 1926 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

0

100

200

300

400

0

1000

2000

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Biomass

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Biomass

U.S. landings

500

1500
204

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 14-3

Pacific chub mackerel landings and biomass in metric 

tons (t), 1929–2006.

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

Year

1929 1937 1945 1953 1961 1969 1977 1985 1993 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Biomass

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

U.S. landings

Biomass

Spawning

biomass

Pacific Chub Mackerel 

Pacific chub mackerel has a worldwide distribution in temperate and subtropical seas. On the 

Pacific Coast, it is most abundant south of Point 

Conception, California. Pacific chub mackerel supported one of California’s major fisheries during 

the 1930’s and 1940’s and again in the 1980’s and 

1990’s. It was second only to sardine during the 

heyday of the southern California sardine fisheries 

in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The peak catch in that 

era was 66,600 t in 1935, and catches generally 

declined throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s before 

reaching a low in the mid 1960’s and early 1970’s 

(Figure 14-3). In 1970, a moratorium was placed 

on the fishery after the stock collapsed.

A series of successful year-classes in the late 

1970’s stimulated a recovery of the stock, and 

the fishery was reopened under a quota system in 

1977. Three separate fisheries now harvest the resource: the California commercial fishery, a sport 

fishery, and a Mexican commercial fishery. From 

1980–89, the California recreational catch averaged 1,500 t per year. The combined fisheries of 

the United States and Mexico landed 71,551 t in 

1990 and 62,823 t in 1998 (Figure 14-3). A harvest guideline of about 40,000 t currently restricts 

the U.S. commercial catch (Dorval et al., 2008), 

but the recent average yield has been only 6,400 t 

(Table 14-1). If the biomass dips below 18,200 t, 

commercial fishing will be stopped.

 The historical trend in Pacific chub mackerel 

biomass is shown in Figure 14-3. Recent peak 

abundance was 1.34 million t in 1982. Biomass 

declined to a recent low of about 90,000 t in 2001 

and since then has risen to a recent average of about 

280,000 t. Analyses of fish-scale deposits in ocean 

bottom sediments off southern California and Baja 

California indicate that the prolonged period of 

high Pacific chub mackerel biomass levels during 

the late 1970’s and 1980’s may have been unusual 

and would only be expected to occur, on average, 

about once every 60 years. 

Jack Mackerel

 Jack mackerel catches have fluctuated widely 

with changing market demands and the ability of 

the fleet to fish for other species that were more 

valuable or available, especially sardine, Pacific 

chub mackerel, and California market squid. Additionally, the availability of jack mackerel can be 

very erratic. Jack mackerel has two distinct behavior patterns during its life cycle: juveniles are found 

inshore off southern California and Baja California, 

while adult fish are distributed offshore and farther 

north, as far as the Gulf of Alaska in some years. 

Adult jack mackerel found offshore are sometimes 

caught incidentally by trawlers, particularly those 

targeting Pacific hake.

The foreign trawl fishery of the 1970’s resulted 

in jack mackerel being placed in the groundfish 

FMP. Jack mackerel are now managed under the 

CPS FMP and have a default ABC for the United 

States of 31,000 t per year. The history of jack 

mackerel commercial landings is shown in Figure 14-4. Landings for the U.S. fishery peaked at 

66,500 t in 1952. Recent average yield for the U.S. 

is only about 705 t (Table 14-1). Jack mackerel have 

occasionally been important to the recreational 

fishery off southern California. 

 Assessment and management of jack mackerel 

are difficult because of limited data and broad distribution of the species. The most recent estimate 

of biomass was made in 1983. Spawning biomass 

was estimated at 1.5 million t and total biomass 

was estimated at 1.6–1.9 million t. Its maximum 

sustainable yield is little more than an educated 

guess at this time (Table 14-1).
205

PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 14

Figure 14-4

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

jack mackerel in the United 

Year States, 1926–2007.

1926 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

Jack mackerel larvae.

Anne Allen, SWFSC

California Market Squid 

California market squid range from southeastern Alaska to Bahia Asunción, Baja California, 

Mexico, and play an important role in the food 

web of many organisms along California’s coast. 

Market squid are mollusks and members of the 

Family Loliginidae. This species is milky white to 

iridescent in color and, like most squid species, 

has eight arms and two feeding tentacles. Adults 

caught in the fishery average 130 mm dorsal mantle 

length and are believed to live roughly 6–8 months, 

dying within days following spawning (Macewicz 

et al., 2004). Distinguished by its high productivity, the California market squid fishery fluctuates 

in response to environmental conditions, coupled 

with rapid changes in the export market (Figure 

14-5). With significant expansion of fishing activity in southern California waters during the 1980’s 

and 1990’s, the California market squid fishery has 

emerged as one of the most important in the state 

in terms of revenue and tons landed.

The California market squid fishery was an unregulated, open-access fishery before 1 April 1998. 

In order to ensure sustainability of the resource, 

new legislation placed a moratorium on the number of vessels in the fishery. In 2001, legislation 

transferred authority for management of the market squid fishery to the California Fish and Game 

Commission. In compliance with this legislation, 

the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) adopted the Market Squid FMP in 2005, 

with implementation of the management recommendations for the 2005–06 fishing season.

 The vast majority of California market squid 

are frozen for human consumption and exported 

to China, Japan, and Europe. Other uses include 

fresh and canned squid for human consumption, 

and fresh or frozen squid for use as bait in other 

fisheries. The role of international buyers in the 

temporal success of the California market squid 

fishery is substantial. After decades of generally 

low catches, volume increased during the 1990’s 

because of new (primarily Asian and European) 

markets and higher prices paid for squid from 

California waters. Although the volume of squid 

produced by California markets depends on the international market, the price paid to fishermen can 

influence both effort exerted toward fishing operations and the overall volume of catch. Additionally, 

the price paid to fishermen for their catch depends 

not only on market demand but availability of the 

resource.

California’s market squid fishery is separated at 

Point Conception, California, into northern and 

southern fisheries. Historically, the northern fishery 

accounted for the majority of the catch; however, 

the southern fishery has dominated landings since 

the mid 1980’s. Although market squid are caught 

year-round in some years, the northern fishery typically occurs during the summer–fall months, and 

the southern fishery occurs in the winter–spring 
206

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 14-6

Commercial landings in 

metric tons (t) of Pacific 

herring off the Pacific Coast, 

1970–2007.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings

months. California landings plummet during the 

cyclical El Niño oceanographic regimes, but increase considerably when these relatively warmwater oceanic events are displaced by cool-water 

processes (i.e. La Niña regimes). For example, during the 1997–98 El Niño, landings declined to an 

estimated 2,900 t, but they rebounded during the 

1999 La Niña to nearly 92,000 t and hit a record 

high in 2000 with approximately 119,000 t landed 

statewide (Figure 14-5). A moderate El Niño event 

in 2002–03 likely contributed, to some degree, to 

an overall decrease in landings coastwide (estimated 

73,000 t). Although the southern fishery for market squid was hampered during this oceanographic 

phenomenon, the northern fishery experienced 

record landings. The U.S. recent average yield for 

California market squid is nearly 52,000 t (Table 

14-1). 

 Currently, California market squid are monitored and managed based on a catch limit of 

118,000 t and a 2-day weekend closure. The stock 

is also monitored using biological proxies developed from the interactions between this species’ 

reproductive output (egg escapement) and fishing 

pressure (fishing mortality, F ). Egg escapement is 

defined here as the number (or proportion) of a female squid’s potential lifetime fecundity that she is 

able to spawn, on average, before being harvested 

in the fishery. The egg escapement model is based 

on conventional yield and spawning biomass-perrecruit theory and application. Ultimately, the 

population assessment method can be used to assess whether the fleet is fishing above or below a 

predetermined sustainable level of exploitation, and 

in this context can be used as an effective management tool.

Pacific Herring 

In the contiguous United States, Pacific herring 

are fished primarily off California. The fishery in 

Puget Sound, Washington, is small by comparison. 

The fishery off California has peaked three times in 

recent decades: in 1982 at over 10,000 t, in 1989 at 

about 9,000 t, and in 1997 around 11,500 t (Figure 

14-6). Landings have since decreased to a recent 

average of 85 t. In the earlier years, Pacific herring 

were harvested for reduction into fishmeal and for 

pet food or bait. Some were canned to supplement 

the declining supply of sardines. Canned herring 

proved to be a poor substitute for sardines, and the 

fishery for human consumption ended in 1954.

 Since 1973, Pacific herring in California have 

been harvested primarily for their roe to export to 

the Japanese market. Landings declined in 1984 

when an El Niño episode caused a corresponding 

Figure 14-5

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

market squid in California, 

1928–2007.

Year

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings
207

PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 14

Year

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

Landings (t)

Roe-on-kelp

landings

Figure 14-7

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of herring roe and kelp from 

the roe-on-kelp fishery in 

California, 1988–2007. Data 

unavailable for 2003.

decline in the herring population. However, most 

stocks have recovered somewhat and so have catches. The herring roe fishery is limited to California’s 

four largest herring spawning areas: San Francisco 

Bay, the Tomales–Bodega Bay area, Humboldt Bay, 

and the Crescent City harbor. San Francisco Bay 

has the largest spawning population of herring and 

supplies more than 90% of the state’s herring catch. 

The four spawning areas are managed separately 

by CDFG, with catch quotas based on population 

estimates.

Another lucrative segment of the Pacific herring 

industry is the roe-on-kelp fishery (Figure 14-7). 

Beginning in 1965, scuba divers harvested species 

of marine vegetation with herring eggs attached in 

Tomales and San Francisco Bays. This product is 

exported to Japan as a holiday delicacy. The fishery 

has evolved into the present roe-on-kelp fishery. 

Giant kelp is harvested from the Channel Islands 

off Southern California, brought to San Francisco 

Bay, and suspended from 60- by 40-ft floating rafts. 

The rafts are towed to areas where herring spawning is expected to occur and are anchored. After 

spawning has ended, the kelp with herring eggs 

attached is removed from the rafts and packed in 

salt. Catches have been generally low (Figure 14-7) 

but valuable.

ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

Pacific Herring

Pacific herring is the major pelagic species 

harvested in Alaska. The fisheries occur in specific 

inshore spawning areas of the Gulf of Alaska and 

the Bering Sea. In the Gulf of Alaska, spawning fish 

concentrate mainly in Southeast Alaska, in Prince 

William Sound, and around the Kodiak Island–

Cook Inlet area. In the Bering Sea, the centers of 

spawning abundance are in northern Bristol Bay 

and the eastern shore of Norton Sound. This fishery 

occurs within state waters (0–3 n.mi. offshore), and 

is therefore monitored and managed by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). ADFG 

manages the fisheries by 20 separate fishery statistical areas.

Herring spawn every year after reaching sexual 

maturity at 3 or 4 years of age. The number of eggs 

varies with the age of the fish and averages 20,000. 

The average life span for these fish is about 8 years 

in Southeast Alaska and up to 16 years in the Bering Sea.

Alaska’s herring industry began as early as 1878 

when about 14 t were marketed for human consumption. The fishery expanded rapidly in the late 

1800’s and early 1900’s, with markets shifting from 

salt-cured herring to reduction products for fishmeal and oil. By 1934 the catch from the Gulf of 

Alaska alone had reached a record 140,000 t. The 

Bering Sea fishery began in the late 1920’s, initially with a small salt-cure plant in Dutch Harbor. 

A large foreign offshore fishery developed in the 

1950’s and peaked dramatically in 1970 at more 

than 145,000 t. It then fell off sharply to 16,000 

t in 1975 (Figure 14-8). Since 1977, Bering Sea 

herring have been harvested primarily in inshore 

sac roe fisheries, and catches have since risen slowly 

but steadily. A portion of the Bering Sea harvest 

is taken as bycatch in the offshore Federally managed groundfish fishery. Retention of herring in 

these fisheries is prohibited, with regulations limiting herring bycatch to no more than about 1,000 

t annually. From 2003 to 2007 the actual herring 

bycatch averaged 763 t.

 From catch records, it is evident that herring 

biomass fluctuates widely due to influences of 

strong and weak year-classes. Herring abundance 

levels typically increase abruptly following major 

recruitment events, then decline over a number 

of years because of natural and fishing mortality. 

Prince William Sound herring continue to be de-
208

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Pacific sardine.

Anne Allen, SWFSC

pressed from a disease outbreak in 1993. In the 

past 5 years, statewide herring harvests have averaged about 38,000 t, with a value averaging around 

$12,000,000. About 5% of the commercial harvest 

is taken for food and bait, and the rest is taken in 

the sac roe fisheries. In addition, there is a roe-onkelp fishery that harvests about 300 t of product 

annually, with a value of around $2,900,000. Currently, the herring populations in Alaska remain at 

moderate levels and are in relatively stable condition, with the exception of Prince William Sound 

and Cook Inlet. 

ISSUES

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

Sardine, anchovy, and mackerels are transboundary stocks exploited by both U.S. and Mexican fleets, but no bilateral management agreement 

has yet been reached for coordinated management 

of the stocks. Harvest policies in the CPS FMP take 

into account approximate stock portions residing in 

U.S. waters and prorate allowable harvest accordingly. Aside from minimum size requirements, CPS 

harvest levels are unregulated in Mexican waters, 

and the absence of a governing bilateral agreement 

is compromising management of the stocks that 

are fished by both countries. This problem is confounded by ongoing uncertainty regarding stock 

structure, distribution, and environmental influences on these highly dynamic populations.

Underutilized Species

Jack mackerel and northern anchovy are underutilized species and may support increased harvest 

by U.S. fishermen in the near future.

PROGRESS

 Scientists from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service continue to work closely with state biologists and the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

in assessing and managing the stocks. Stock assessment models have been developed for northern 

anchovy, Pacific sardine, and Pacific mackerel. The 

models now use more data, including fish-spotter 

data from pilots employed by commercial fishermen, and the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations’ (CalCOFI) long-term ichthyoplankton data base. Recent progress has been made 

toward improving collaborative research and data 

sharing between U.S. and Mexican scientists.

LITERATURE CITED

Dorval, D., K. T. Hill, N. C. H. Lo, and J. D. McDaniel. 

2008. Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) stock assessment for U.S. management in the 2008–09 fishing season. Report to Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR, 78 p. Internet site—http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/0608/G1b_ATT1_0608.pdf.

Hill, K. T., E. Dorval, N. C. H. Lo, B. J. Macewicz, C. 

Show, and R. Felix-Uraga. 2007. Assessment of the 

Pacific sardine resource in 2007 for U.S. management 

in 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-413, 176 p. 

Internet site—http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/

SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-413.pdf.

Jacobson, L. D., N. C. H. Lo, S. F. Herrick. Jr., and T. 

Bishop. 1995. Spawning biomass of the northern anchovy in 1995 and status of the coastal pelagic species 

fishery during 1994. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-95-11, La Jolla, CA.

Macewicz, B. J., J. R. Hunter, N. C. H. Lo, and E. 

L. LaCasella. 2004. Fecundity, egg escapement, and 

mortality of market squid (Loligo opalescens). Fishery 

Bulletin 102:306–327.

Figure 14-8

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of Pacific herring off Alaska, 

1900–2007.

Year

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Gulf of Alaska

Bering Sea
209

PACIFIC COAST AND ALASKA PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 14

FOR FURTHER READING

CalCOFI. n.d. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports, Volumes 46–48. Internet 

site—http://www.calcofi.org.

Leet, W. S., C. M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E. J. Larson 

(Editors). 2001. California’s living marine resources. A 

status report. California Department of Fish and Game 

ANR Publication SG01-11. Internet site—http://www.

dfg.ca.gov/marine/status/status2001.asp.

PFMC. 1998. Amendment 8 (to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan) incorporating a name 

change to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR.

PFMC. 2008. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic 

species fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation 

2008. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. Internet site—http://www.pcouncil.org/

bb/2008/0608/G1a_ATT1_0608.pdf.
210

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION
211

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

pacific Coast 

groundfish fisheries

Unit

15

S. D. MILLER

M. E. CLARKE

J. D. HASTIE

O. S. HAMEL

NMFS Northwest Fisheries

Science Center

Seattle

Washington

INTRODUCTION

The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is conducted along the entire coastline of Washington, 

Oregon, and California, and includes a diverse 

range of habitats, species, and participants. The 

Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC) 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

contains more than 90 species organized into 

several sub-fisheries, including 1) the Dover sole, 

thornyheads, and sablefish (DTS) complex; 2) 

nearshore rockfishes, lingcod, and cabezon; 3) shelf 

and slope rockfishes; 4) flatfishes; and 5) Pacific 

hake (whiting). Many of the stocks included in the 

FMP have geographic ranges that extend beyond 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) into 

Canadian or Mexican waters. The fishery has four 

general sectors: commercial limited-entry, com- Photo above:

Yelloweye rockfish.

NWFSC, FRAM Division

mercial open-access, recreational, and tribal. These 

sectors use a variety of gears including trawl gear, 

an array of hook-and-line gears, and pots/traps. 

Participation in one gear group does not necessarily preclude participation in another. Most vessels 

targeting groundfish deliver to shoreside processors. 

However, within the Pacific hake trawl fishery, there 

are vessels that deliver their catch to motherships as 

well as to shoreside processors, and there are other 

vessels that process their own catch at sea.

 A number of dramatic changes have occurred 

in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery since the last 

publication of Our Living Oceans (NMFS, 1999). 

Between 1999 and 2002, nine stocks were declared 

overfished, with spawning estimated to be below 

25% of unfished levels. Rebuilding plans were 

implemented, reducing allowable fishing mortality 

for overfished and associated species throughout 
212

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 15–1

Relative components of Pacific Coast groundfish total 

ex-vessel value in 2006.

Pacific hake

44%

Sablefish

28%

Petrale sole

4%

Dover sole

6%

Other flatfish

3%

Thornyheads

7%

Other rockfish

4%

Other fish

3%

all sectors of the groundfish fishery and resulting 

in historically low allowable harvests. In addition 

to lower allowable harvest levels for overfished 

species and co-occurring species, major portions 

of the Continental Shelf off the U.S. West Coast 

have been closed to fishing since September 2003. 

Two of the overfished stocks, Pacific hake and 

lingcod, have since been rebuilt to target levels. 

Rebuilding for the overfished rockfish stocks is 

expected to require longer periods of time due to 

their relatively low productivity, which limits their 

ability to recover quickly to BMSY. In addition to 

rebuilding plans for overfished stocks, many strides 

have been made toward improving management 

of the groundfish fishery and research necessary 

to support management. These include completion of a fixed-gear permit-stacking program and 

a trawl permit buy-back to reduce fishing capacity, 

implementation of a coast-wide observer program 

to monitor bycatch, expansion of groundfish resource surveys, and identification of essential fish 

habitat and habitats of particular concern.

 The recent average yield (2004–06) of Pacific 

Coast groundfishes in the U.S. was 288,604 metric 

tons (t; Table 15-1). In 2006, U.S. commercial 

landings of Pacific coast groundfish totaled 288,990 

t, generating $81 million in ex-vessel revenue. Pacific hake accounted for 91% of the 2006 landed 

catch and 44% of the associated ex-vessel value. 

Other important species in 2006 were sablefish 

($23 million), Petrale sole ($6 million), Dover 

sole ($5 million), and thornyhead rockfish ($3 

million; PSMFC, 2008; Figure 15-1). The trawl 

fleet (including Pacific hake) is the largest sector 

of the commercial fishery, generating 75% of the 

ex-vessel revenue (PSMFC, 2008). 

SPECIES AND STATUS

Stock status has been estimated for nearly 30% 

of the groundfish stocks throughout at least a portion of their Pacific coast range. Of the assessed 

stocks, more than 70% are near or above target levels. However, many of the assessed stocks, whether 

currently below target levels or not, experienced 

declines in biomass throughout much of the 1980’s 

and 1990’s. These declines coincided with a period 

of reduced productivity of the California Current 

that lasted from 1977 into the late 1990’s. It is likely 

that this decline in ocean productivity contributed 

to the decline in overall abundance, but the effect 

appears to have been variable across species and is 

not well understood at this time. In the most recent 

period of improved ocean productivity, increases 

in recruitment and abundance have been observed 

for many species.

 In addition to the role of ocean productivity, 

harvest levels have contributed to the current status 

of these species. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, harvest 

rates for many Pacific Coast groundfish species were 

based upon knowledge of the productivity of other, 

similar species. This was a reasonable approach in 

the absence of species-specific information and 

given the paucity of fishery-independent trend information, but many Pacific Coast rockfish species 

now appear to be less productive than originally 

thought. As a result, managers set harvest rates for 

many species at levels that, in hindsight, were too 

high. Harvest metrics were re-evaluated during the 

1990’s and again in 2000, resulting in lower harvest 

rates for most species. 

Dover Sole, Thornyheads, 

and Sablefish Complex

 The DTS complex, consisting of Dover sole, 

longspine and shortspine thornyheads, and sablefish, represents some of the most valuable species 

in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. Dover sole 

have been targeted along the West Coast since 
213

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

Table 15–1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Pacific 

Coast groundfish fisheries 

resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)3

Stock level

relative to BMSY4

Harvest

rate5

Stock

status4

Flatfish

Arrowtooth flounder 4,160 5,800 5,148 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Dover sole 7,483 8,589 16,505 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

English sole 1,262 3,100 3,452 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Petrale sole 2,536 2,762 3,164 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Other flatfishes6 1,939 6,781 Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, flatfish 17,380 27,032 35,050

Rockfish

Black rockfish (coastwide)6 980 1,276 1,443 Above

Blackgill rockfish7 130 343 223 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Bocaccio7 81 549 1,974 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Canary rockfish 55 270 1,574 Near Not overfishing Rebuilding

Chilipepper7 125 2,700 2,155 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Cowcod7 2 24 61 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Darkblotched rockfish 186 294 621 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Longspine thornyhead 800 2,461 3,687 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Pacific ocean perch8 104 934 1,411 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Shortbelly rockfish9 11 13,900 Unknown Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Shortspine thornyhead 805 1,077 1,720 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Splitnose rockfish7 262 615 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

Widow rockfish 196 3,059 2,000 Near Not overfishing Rebuilding

Yelloweye rockfish 15 55 44 Below Not overfishing Overfished

Yellowtail rockfish8 840 3,681 4,680 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Other rockfishes6 1,538 6,749 Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, rockfish 6,130 37,987 42,857

Other groundfish

Cabezon (California) 92 108 137 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Lingcod 821 2,716 3,378 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Pacific cod 898 3,200 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Pacific hake (whiting)10 351,643 364,842 576,688 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Sablefish (blackcod) 6,416 8,175 6,328 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Other groundfishes6,11 5,023 14,600 Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, other groundfish 364,893 393,641 604,331

Total 388,403 458,660 682,238

U.S. Subtotal 288,615 390,363 531,607

12004–06 average of total mortality including commercial and recreational catch as well as estimated discards.

22006 allowable biological catch (ABC).

3MSY as calculated in assessment model using management proxies (SSB or SPR) or as estimated by model.

4Stock level relative to target and stock status are taken from estimates in most recent stock assessment models. 

5Overfishing status is based on 2006 total mortality estimates as reported in Hastie and Bellman (2007) compared to 2006 ABC targets.

6Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

7The RAY and CY apply to the stock south of 40 ̊10’N latitude. Northern catch and CY are included in the “Other rockfishes” category.

8The RAY and CY apply to the stock north of 40 ̊10’N latitude. Southern catch and CY are included in the “Other rockfishes” category.

9RAY is based on 2006 catch rather than average of 2004–2006.

10Values shown are for coastwide stock (U.S. and Canadian portions). The U.S. RAY is 251,844 t, and the U.S. MSY is 426,057 t.

11Category includes sharks, skates, rays, ratfish, morids, grenadier, kelp greenling, and other groundfishes. See Appendix 5 for a complete listing.
214

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

World War II, almost exclusively with trawl gear. 

Annual landings from U.S. waters averaged 18,872 

t during the 1980’s, 12,368 t during the 1990’s, and 

7,483 t from 2004–06 (Sampson, 2006; PSMFC, 

2008). Following a period of decline in the mid 

1990’s, Dover sole biomass is steadily increasing; 

the current estimated spawning stock biomass is 

63% of the unexploited level (Sampson, 2006). 

Landings of thornyheads peaked in 1990 at 

10,082 t and then steadily declined, with recent 

landings dipping below 2,500 t. An increasing 

percentage of shortspine thornyhead has been 

caught with hook-and-line gear (from 7% in 2000 

to more than 20% since 2003). Much of this 

increase is delivered to lucrative live-fish markets. 

Thornyheads are long-lived and slow growing, with 

estimated maximum ages of 45 years for longspine 

thornyhead and 100 years or more for shortspine 

thornyhead (Love et al., 2002). However, recent 

stock assessments of shortspine and longspine 

thornyheads estimate spawning biomass to be 

above their targets, at 63% and 71% of unfished 

levels, respectively (Hamel, 2006; Fay, 2006). 

 Sablefish (also known as blackcod) are highly 

valuable, making up only 2% (6,470 t) of groundfish catch but generating 28% of total groundfish 

revenues for 2006 (Hastie and Bellman 2007; 

PSMFC, 2008). Sablefish are harvested by using 

trawl nets and fixed gear such as hook-and-line and 

pot gear. Sablefish biomass steadily declined during 

the 1990’s, but has been increasing in recent years. 

Current spawning stock biomass is estimated to be 

38% of the unfished level (Schirripa, 2008). 

Rockfishes

 Rockfishes make up the majority of managed 

species under the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, 

accounting for about $3.6 million in revenue in 

2006 (PSMFC, 2008). They vary greatly in their 

morphological and behavioral traits, with some 

species found in mid-water schools and having 

semi-pelagic behavior, and others leading solitary, 

sedentary, bottom-dwelling lives (Love et al., 

2002). Rockfishes inhabit a wide range of depths, 

from nearshore kelp forests and rock outcrops 

to varied deepwater (greater than 150 fathoms) 

habitats on the Continental Slope. Despite the 

range of behaviors and habitats, most rockfishes 

share general life history characteristics, which 

include slow growth rates, bearing of live young, 

and large but infrequent recruitment events. These 

life history characteristics contribute to relatively 

low average productivity that may reduce their 

ability to withstand heavy exploitation (Parker et 

al., 2000), especially during periods of unfavorable 

environmental conditions. The combination of 

high historic exploitation, generally low productivity, and changes in oceanic conditions have resulted 

in the decline of seven rockfish stocks below the 

overfished threshold (25% of unfished spawning 

potential, often measured as spawning biomass; 

Figure 15-2). According to the most recent assessments, three of the species were below the 

overfished threshold by the mid 1980’s, well before 

Dover sole. the implementation of fishery management plans. NWFSC, FRAM Division

Figure 15–2

Relative spawning biomass 

or output of Pacific Coast 

groundfishes declared overfished since 1999 for the period 1970–2007 (if available). 

The overfished threshold 

for Pacific Coast groundfish 

is 25% of the estimated unfished spawning biomass. 

Lingcod and Pacific hake 

have been rebuilt to the 

target level of 40% of the 

estimated unfished spawning biomass. While previous assessments estimated 

widow rockfish spawning 

stock output to be below 

the overfished threshold, 

the most recent assessment 

estimated the stock has not 

fallen below the overfished 

threshold. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding 

these point estimates and 

the stock is still considered 

in rebuilding.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Relative spawning

biomass (%)

Unfished

biomass

Rebuilding

target

Overfished

threshold

Canary rockfish Lingcod (North)

Darkblotched rockfish

Cowcod Yelloweye rockfish

Pacific ocean perch

Widow rockfish

Bocaccio

Pacific hake 
215

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

1This fishery targets smaller-sized fishes from nearshore areas; 

fish are kept alive and transferred to markets on the same 

day as capture. Growth of the nearshore live-fish fishery for 

thornyheads and rockfishes has been propelled by ex-vessel 

prices that are commonly ten times higher than those for dead 

fish of the same species. The previously large number of small, 

open-access boats participating in this fishery has been reduced 

through the initiation of state permit programs. 

The overfished species are currently estimated to be 

between 3.8 and 35% of unfished levels; however, 

all appear to be increasing in abundance under their 

respective rebuilding plans. 

Not all rockfishes have declined in abundance 

over the past two decades. A number of species such 

as chilipepper, yellowtail rockfish, gopher rockfish, 

and blackgill rockfish are above their target levels, 

with estimated spawning biomass ranging from 

52 to 97% of unfished levels (Figure 15-3). These 

rockfish inhabit a wide range of habitats which 

span nearshore, shelf, and slope depths. Although 

relatively abundant, landings for some of these 

species are near historical lows as a result of catch 

restrictions associated with rebuilding species that 

co-occur with these abundant stocks.

The majority of rockfish landings in shelf and 

slope depths are made with trawl gear, but there 

are important commercial and recreational hookand-line fisheries, especially within nearshore and 

rocky reef habitats. There is growing concern about 

local and regional depletions of some rockfishes and 

other nearshore groundfish species. One source of 

concern is the concentration of recreational removals from fishing grounds near various ports, while 

another is the level and concentration of effort in 

the high-valued live-fish fishery1 that originated in 

California, but has gradually moved up the coast 

into Oregon.

Lingcod and Cabezon 

Lingcod and cabezon are important targeted 

species in both commercial and recreational fisheries. Lingcod is found throughout rocky shelf and 

nearshore habitats along the entire Pacific Coast. 

The longer-lived females of the species can reach 

20 years in age. The Pacific Coast lingcod stock was 

designated as overfished in 1999, with a spawning 

biomass that was less than 20% of its unfished level. 

However, the stock quickly rebuilt to the coast-wide 

target level by 2003, following the recruitment of 

very large year-classes in 1999 and 2000, and was 

officially declared rebuilt in 2005, which is 4 years 

earlier than the target rebuilding year established 

in the rebuilding plan (PFMC, 2008). Annual 

combined commercial and recreational landings 

declined from roughly 4,800 t in the mid 1980’s 

to less than 500 t in 2000–01, but have increased 

to an average of 821 t between 2004 and 2006 

(PSMFC, 2008; Table 15-1). 

Cabezon are primarily a nearshore species 

found intertidally and among jetty rocks (Miller 

and Lea, 1972). Cabezon are one of the largest 

species in the Family Cottidae, attaining a length 

of nearly 1 m and a weight in excess of 11 kg 

(Feder et al., 1974). Similar to lingcod, males are 

reported to show nest-guarding behaviors (Garrison and Miller, 1982). The commercial catch of 

cabezon has increased over the past 10 years and 

has become a major source of removals because 

of the developing live-fish fishery off California 

and Oregon. The stock has only been assessed in 

California waters because the available data sources 

remain insufficient to form the basis for a reliable 

assessment of cabezon in Washington and Oregon. 

The California stock is estimated to be 38% of 

unfished levels (Cope and Punt, 2006). 

Figure 15–3

Relative spawning biomass 

or output of selected groundfish stocks for the period 

1970–2007. The target MSYproxy is 40% of the estimated 

unfished spawning biomass, 

while the overfished threshold is 25% of the estimated 

unfished spawning biomass. 

Many groundfish stocks are 

near or above target levels.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Relative spawning

biomass (%)

Unfished

biomass

Rebuilding

target

Overfished

threshold

Blackgill rockfish Yellowtail rockfish

English sole

Petrale sole

Gopher rockfish

Dover sole

Longspine thornyhead

Shortspine thornyhead

Sablefish

Chilipepper

Black rockfish - North

Black rockfish - South

Blue rockfish

Arrowtooth flounder
216

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Flatfishes

Shelf flatfishes such as Petrale sole, English 

sole and starry flounder are found in low-relief 

mud, sand, or gravel habitats, and are harvested 

primarily with commercial trawl gear. Arrowtooth 

flounder are an abundant flatfish commonly found 

in depths from 50 to 800 m. Some flatfish species 

can attain ages of 15–27 years, while other flatfishes 

are unlikely to live beyond 10 years. Petrale and 

English sole experienced protracted periods of 

generally poor recruitments from the mid 1970’s 

through the mid 1990’s that left the stocks near 

historically low levels. Higher recruitments since 

the mid 1990’s have produced substantial increases 

in both populations. 

Current spawning stock biomass is estimated to 

be above target levels for English sole, arrowtooth 

flounder, and starry flounder (116%, 79%, and 

50%, respectively) while Petrale sole is near target 

levels at 32% of unfished spawning biomass (Figure 

15-3; Stewart, 2008; Kaplan and Helser, 2008; Ralston, 2006; Lai et al., 2006). The increasing trends 

in spawning stock biomass estimated in assessments 

for these species are mirrored by increasing trawl 

survey catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for several 

unassessed flatfish species. Combined landings 

of shelf flatfish in recent years are roughly half of 

what they were around 1990. These declines have 

resulted from changes in markets, as well as from 

restrictions imposed on flatfish catch to reduce 

rockfish bycatch in the flatfish fishery. 

Pacific Hake 

 The coastal stock of Pacific hake (whiting) is 

the most abundant groundfish population in the 

California Current system (Helser and Martell, 

2008). The stock is characterized by highly variable recruitment patterns and a relatively short 

lifespan when compared to other groundfish 

stocks. Pacific hake was declared overfished in 

2002 following many years of poor recruitments. 

However, similar to lingcod, a strong year-class in 

1999 led to substantial spawning biomass increases 

as this year-class reached maturity. The 2007 stock 

assessment shows the stock had declined to historically low levels in 2000 (although not below 

the overfished threshold as previously thought), 

and had increased to target levels by 2002. The 

volatility of this stock is reflected in the doubling 

of the spawning biomass between 2000 and 2003 

due to the recruitment of a single strong year-class. 

The stock is now considered rebuilt, and the 2007 

spawning biomass was estimated to be 36.2% of 

unfished levels (Figure 15-2; Helser and Martell, 

2008). Coastwide (United States and Canada) 

landings of Pacific hake peaked at 360,000 t in 

2005 and 2006 but are expected to decline as the 

1999 year-class makes its way through the population. A recent treaty between the United States and 

Canada (2003) establishes an annual assessment 

and management process, a research commitment, 

and a harvest-sharing agreement providing 73.9% 

of the coastwide allowable catch for U.S. fisheries 

and 26.1% for Canadian fisheries. The treaty is 

expected to be ratified by the end of 2008, with 

implementation of the agreement starting for the 

2009 fishing season. 

Other Groundfish

 The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP also includes species such as sharks, skates, rays, ratfish, 

codlings, grenadiers, kelp greenling, and other 

species that are neither common nor targeted by 

commercial and recreational fisheries. Two of 

these stocks, kelp greenling (Oregon substock) 

Hanumant Singh, WHOI

Groundfishes, including a 

longnose skate, a Dover sole, 

an unidentified thornyhead, 

and a hagfish, observed using the Seabed AUV on Santa 

Lucia Bank, California.
217

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

and longnose skate (coastwide) were assessed for 

the first time in 2005 and 2007, respectively. Both 

kelp greenling and longnose skate are estimated to 

be above target levels, at 49% and 66% of unfished 

levels, respectively (Cope and MacCall, 2006; 

Gertseva and Schirripa, 2008). 

ISSUES AND PROGRESS

Recent years have brought sweeping changes 

to the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and the 

research and science supporting the management 

of this fishery. Many important issues cited in prior 

editions of Our Living Oceans have been addressed. 

For example, a comprehensive observer program to 

monitor total catch in at-sea hake fisheries and discards in the remaining groundfish fisheries has been 

implemented coastwide. In addition, an allocation 

scheme between the United States and Canada for 

Pacific hake has been formalized, although it is 

still awaiting ratification. Furthermore, additional 

progress has been made in several other areas to 

continue to improve management of groundfish.

Resource Surveys and Stock Assessments 

Scientific surveys to collect vital information 

on the distribution, relative abundance, and age 

structure of Pacific Coast groundfish populations 

are conducted along the West Coast using bottom 

trawls, fixed-gear, and acoustic technology. Many 

of these surveys have been expanded in spatial and 

depth coverage as well as an increase in frequency 

of occurrence. For example, in 1998 an annual 

cooperative research2 bottom trawl survey of slope 

groundfish resources was implemented along the 

West Coast using locally chartered commercial 

fishing vessels. In 2003, the survey’s coverage 

was expanded to include the area south of Point 

Conception, California, and shallow depths on the 

Continental Shelf (Keller et. al., 2007). Likewise, a 

mid-water trawl survey to estimate relative abundance of pelagic juvenile rockfish and Pacific hake 

was expanded from a core area off central California 

to a coastwide survey in 1999. Additionally, the integrated acoustic and trawl survey used to assess the 

distribution and abundance of coastal Pacific hake 

is now conducted on a biennial instead of triennial 

basis, in collaboration with Canada’s Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans. These expanded surveys 

have provided additional information to improve 

the precision of groundfish assessments. 

Habitat surveys are being conducted using sidescan and multibeam sonar, human-occupied submersibles, and remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s). 

With these surveys, scientists are exploring, mapping, and documenting the interactions between 

groundfishes, other demersal fishes, invertebrates, 

and benthic habitats. Of particular importance in 

the future will be the determination of the distribution and abundance of biogenic species3 including 

deep water corals and their role and importance to 

the groundfish ecosystem (Whitmire and Clarke, 

2007).

 Great strides have also been made in standardizing and improving the integrated age/length 

modeling framework used for many of these assessments, as well as reporting the scientific uncertainty 

associated with the assessment results. There are, 

however, remaining challenges, particularly to develop survey and assessment methods for data-poor 

and data-limited species, especially those occurring 

in rocky, untrawlable habitats. Non-extractive 

3Plants and animals that create physical structures that may be 

used as habitat by other species. 

Flag rockfish as seen from 

an ROV.

NWFSC, FRAM Division

2Research in which industry and other stakeholders partner 

with NMFS, state agencies, and university scientists in the 

collection of fundamental fisheries information to support the 

development and evaluation of management options.
218

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

surveys utilizing ROV’s, autonomous underwater 

vehicles (AUV’s), and acoustic methods are being 

tested as appropriate tools for surveying in rocky 

habitats and are needed to develop fishery-independent indices of abundance in order to assess many 

of the data-poor species. 

Bycatch

In addition to understanding the status and 

trends of groundfish populations, it is crucial to 

document and quantify total fisheries removals, 

including landed catch and discards. Groundfish 

landings have long been documented by state fishery agencies. However, until 2001, at-sea discard 

had not been systematically monitored outside of 

the at-sea processing hake fleet and isolated research 

projects. This lack of discard information contributed to greater uncertainty in stock assessments and 

in evaluating management performance relative 

to harvest benchmarks. An observer program was 

initiated in 2001 to collect information on the 

magnitude and composition of discard within the 

groundfish industry. These data are used to document total mortality to assess whether overfishing 

has occurred, and are also used to study patterns of 

co-occurrence among target and bycatch species, 

identify gear-specific bycatch and discard activity, 

and note changes in fishing behavior as vessels 

approach limits for target species. Many of the 

observers are assigned to permit-holders within 

the trawl fleet, with the remainder accompanying 

permitted fixed-gear vessels or open-access boats. 

Harvest Policy

Harvest rates for most assessed groundfish 

stocks have been reduced in recent years, and allowed harvests of unassessed and data-poor species 

have been set with greater precaution. Assessed 

species are generally managed with a constant proportional rate of harvest such that the expected level 

of spawning potential (egg production or female 

spawning biomass) per recruit will be reduced to 

some fraction of the estimated unfished level. In 

circumstances where the maximum sustainable 

yield (MSY) harvest rate is not reliably estimated, 

the PFMC’s harvest policy uses spawning potential 

values of 50% for rockfishes and thornyheads, 40% 

for flatfishes and Pacific hake, and 45% for other 

species including sablefish and lingcod (Ralston et 

al., 2000). These rates are now believed to be more 

sustainable than the 35–40% rates used for most 

assessed stocks during the 1990’s because research 

has since shown rockfishes and thornyheads have 

less resilient spawner–recruit relationships than 

previously believed. Allowable harvests for unassessed species and complexes that were set based 

on historical levels are now reduced by 50%. 

In addition to a reduction in harvest rates, 

Pacific Coast groundfish are managed under the 

40–10 Rule, where species with abundance levels 

between SB25% and SB40% are designated as being 

within a precautionary zone. Under this policy, 

yield is reduced linearly from the amount available when the stock is at 40% of the unfished level 

(SB40%) to zero catch when the stock is at 10% of 

the unfished level. In practice, stocks are designated 

as overfished when spawning biomass falls below 

25% of the unfished level (SB25%), and a rebuilding 

plan, including a species-specific rebuilding harvest 

rate, must be developed. 

Gear Changes

 Prior to 2000, trawl vessels were able to use 

gear with very large footropes—including some 

configurations with large truck tires—in order to 

fish in rocky shelf and slope habitat areas. Beginning in 2000, measures were adopted to restrict the 

Longspine thornyhead.

NMFS
219

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

Pink rockfish.

NWFSC, FRAM Division

use of gear in shelf depths to footropes no larger 

than 8 inches in diameter. This greatly limited the 

ability of the trawl fleet to fish in habitats that are 

believed to be the most critical for rockfish recovery. 

Since then, additional research and experimental 

fisheries have been conducted on modified trawl 

net designs that provide greater opportunity for 

rockfish to escape, while preserving CPUE for 

targeted flatfish species. In particular, research 

conducted off the northern part of the U.S. West 

Coast developed a more flatfish-selective trawl gear 

design to reduce bycatch of co-occurring rockfish 

(King et al., 2004; Hannah et al., 2005). This gear 

is now required in nearshore waters north of Cape 

Mendocino, California.

Groundfish Fishing 

Capacity Reduction Programs

In 2001, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) implemented a permit stacking program 

for the limited-entry, fixed-gear sablefish fishery. 

This program allows eligible permit owners to stack 

up to three permits on a single vessel in order to access the sablefish limits associated with each of those 

permits. This simplified individual quota program 

has reduced the number of vessels participating in 

the primary sablefish fishery by about 50%.

 A trawl permit buy-back program was implemented in 2003 to reduce the capacity of the 

groundfish fishery. The program removed 91 

groundfish trawl permits (about 35% of thenexisting trawl permits) and many state crab and 

shrimp permits owned by the same operators. Coast 

Guard fishing endorsements were removed from 

each vessel actively using these permits, meaning 

that they can never again be used for commercial 

fishing in U.S. waters. Remaining permit holders 

are responsible for repaying roughly $30 million 

in Federal loans that enabled the buy-back. 

 The PFMC is now midway through the development of a trawl rationalization program that 

will implement, depending on the fishery, either 

individual transferable quotas or co-operatives. The 

Council is also seeking to convert the open-access 

portion of the groundfish fishery into a limitedentry fishery.
220

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Closed Areas and Essential Fish Habitat

West Coast groundfish fisheries are managed 

with a variety of closed areas intended to either 

minimize the bycatch of overfished groundfish 

species or to protect sensitive habitats. Many of 

the closed areas are gear-specific, meaning that 

they are closed to some particular gear types, but 

not others. 

The rockfish conservation areas (RCA’s) are 

large-scale closed areas that extend along the entire 

length of the U.S. West Coast and are intended 

to protect a complex of species, such as the overfished shelf and slope rockfish stocks. The RCA’s 

differ between gear types (e.g. trawl, non-trawl, 

and recreational RCA’s), and have boundaries that 

may be seasonally adjusted to facilitate harvest of 

abundant stocks in seasons and areas with the least 

impact on overfished stocks. Although both the 

eastern and western RCA boundaries have changed 

over time for all of the gear groups, a 5,500 mi2

area between the trawl RCA boundary lines approximating the 100- and 150-fathom (fm) depth 

contours has remained closed since January 2003. 

The Cowcod Conservation Areas are two areas in 

southern California that have been closed to most 

commercial and recreational fishing since January 

2001. 

Essential fish habitat (EFH) along the West 

Coast is described as all water and substrates in areas 

with a water depth less than or equal to 3,500 m, 

as well as seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 

m (NMFS, 2005). In 2006, 51 areas encompassing 

over 130,000 mi2 were closed to protect sensitive 

habitats associated with EFH or habitat areas 

of particular concern (HAPC’s) (Whitmire and 

Clarke, 2007). The closed areas are fully protected 

from bottom trawl impacts; in addition, some sensitive areas are closed to all fishing gears that contact 

the bottom. The largest of these closures prohibits 

the use of bottom trawls deeper than 1,280 m (700 

fm) and out to the extent of EFH (i.e. 3,500 m), 

essentially freezing the footprint of recent bottom 

trawl activity. 

In addition to closures implemented by the 

PFMC and NMFS, the States of California, 

Oregon, and Washington are developing and 

implementing protected areas within their waters. 

California has implemented a network of marine 

protected areas as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and anticipates expanding the 

network. Oregon is engaged in an ongoing process 

to designate a system of marine reserves in Oregon’s territorial sea, and Washington is initiating 

a process to update its inventory of state marine 

protected areas as well as identify criteria for the 

potential creation of additional marine protected 

areas in the future. 

LITERATURE CITED

Cope, J. M., and A. D. MacCall. 2006. Status of kelp 

greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) in Oregon and 

California waters as assessed in 2005. In Status of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 5. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

Cope, J. M., and A. E. Punt. 2006. Status of cabezon 

(Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) in California waters 

as assessed in 2005. In Status of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock Assessment 

and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 1. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR.

Fay, G. 2006. Stock assessment and status of longspine 

thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis) off California, Oregon and Washington in 2005. In Status of the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock AssessA diversity of rockfish and 

megafauna invertebrates associated with a rock outcrop 

located off Cherry Bank in 

Southern California’s borderlands region.

NWFSC, FRAM Division
221

PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 15

ment and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 4. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR.

Feder, H. M., C. H. Turner, and C. Limbaugh. 1974. 

Observations on fishes associated with kelp beds in 

southern California. California Department of Fish 

and Game Fisheries Bulletin 160, 144 p. 

Garrison, K. J., and B. S. Miller. 1982. Review of the 

early life history of Puget Sound fishes. Contract 80-

ABA-3360. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, 

WA, 729 p. 

Gertseva, V. V., and M. J. Schirripa. 2008. Status of the 

longnose skate (Raja rhina) off the continental US 

Pacific Coast in 2007. In Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

Hamel, O. 2006. Status and future prospects for the 

shortspine thornyhead resource in waters off Washington, Oregon, and California as assessed in 2005. 

In Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Through 2005. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 4. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR. 

Hannah, R. W., S. J. Parker, and T. V. Buell. 2005. 

Evaluation of a selective flatfish trawl and diel variation 

in rockfish catchability as bycatch reduction tools in 

the deepwater complex fishery off the U.S. west coast. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

25:581–593.

Hastie, J., and M. Bellman. 2007. Estimated 2006 

discard and total catch of selected groundfish species. 

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Fishery 

Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division, Seattle, 

WA.

Helser, T. E., and S. Martell. 2008. Stock assessment of 

Pacific hake (whiting) in U.S. and Canadian waters in 

2007. Report of the U.S.–Canada Pacific Hake Joint 

Technical Committee (JTC). In Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. 

Kaplan, I. C., and T. E. Helser. 2008. Stock assessment 

of the arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) population off the West Coast of the United States in 2007. 

In Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Stock Assessment 

and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, Portland, OR.

Keller, A. A., B. H. Horness, V. H. Simon, V. J. Tuttle, 

J. R. Wallace, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, and J. C. Buchanan. 2007. The 2004 U.S. West 

Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources 

off Washington, Oregon, and California. Estimates 

of distribution, abundance, and length composition. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-87, 134 p. 

King, S. E., R. W. Hannah, S. J. Parker, K. M. Matteson, and S. A. Berkely. 2004. Protecting rockfish 

through gear design: development of a selective flatfish 

trawl for the U.S. west coast bottom trawl fishery. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

61:487–496.

Lai, H.-L., M. Haltuch, A. Punt, and J. M. Cope. 2006. 

Stock assessment of Petrale sole: 2004. In Status of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 2. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. 

Love, M., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. 

The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA, 405 p.

Miller, D. J., and R. J. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal 

marine fishes of California. California Department of 

Fish and Game Fisheries Bulletin 157, 249 p. 

NMFS. 1999. Our living oceans. Report on the status 

of U.S. living marine resources, 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301 p. 

NMFS. 2005. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Essential Fish Habitat Designation and 

Minimization of Adverse Impacts. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. NMFS Northwest Regional Office, 

Seattle, WA. Internet site—http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/EFH-Final-EIS.cfm.

PFMC. 2008. Pacific Coast groundfish fishery stock 

assessment and fishery evaluation, volume 1. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

PSMFC. 2008. Pacific Fisheries Information Network 

(PacFIN) website. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. Internet site—http://www.

psmfc.org/pacfin.

Parker, S. J., S. A. Berkeley, J. T. Golden, D. R. Gunder-
222

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

son, J. Heifetz, M. A. Hixon, R. Larson, B. M. Leaman, 

M. S. Love, J. A. Musick, V. M. O’Connell, S. Ralston, 

J. J. Weeks, and M. M. Yoklavich. 2000. Management 

of Pacific rockfishes. Fisheries 25(3):22–30. 

Ralston, S. 2006. An assessment of starry flounder off 

California, Oregon and Washington. In Status of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 2. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. 

Ralston, S., J. Bence, W. Clark, R. Conser, T. Jagielo, and 

T. Quinn II. 2000. Panel Report From the West Coast 

Groundfish Harvest Rate Policy Workshop. In Status 

of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2000 

and Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001. Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR.

Sampson, D. 2006. The status of Dover sole off the U.S. 

West Coast in 2005. In Status of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Through 2005. Stock Assessment 

and Fishery Evaluation. Volume 4. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR. 

Schirripa, M. 2008. Status of the sablefish resource off 

the continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2007. In Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR. 

Stewart, I. J. 2008. Updated U.S. English sole stock 

assessment: Status of the resource in 2007. In Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR. 

Whitmire, C. E. and M. E. Clarke. 2007. State of deep 

coral ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific coast: California to 

Washington. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. 

Bruckner, and G. Dorr (Editors), The State of Deep 

Coral Ecosystems of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

CRCP-2, 365 p.
223

WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 16

western pacific 

invertebrate fisheries

INTRODUCTION

The Western Pacific fisheries for invertebrates 

target myriad species in state, territorial, commonwealth, and remote island waters, including lobsters, shrimp, squid, octopus, precious corals, and 

other species. Most of these fisheries are small scale 

and regulated only by the island fisheries agencies 

in the region. 

The now-closed Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI; Figure 16-1) lobster trap fishery was 

the major commercial marine invertebrate fishery 

in the Western Pacific. A small-scale, primarily recreational, fishery for different species of lobster exists in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. 

A deepwater shrimp resource is found throughout 

the Pacific Islands but currently is lightly exploited. 

Unit

16

JOSEPH O’MALLEY

GERARD DINARDO

NMFS Pacific Islands

Fisheries Science Center 

Honolulu

Hawaii

A resource of deepwater precious coral (gold, bamboo, and pink corals) and shallower coral (black 

corals) exists in Hawaii and possibly other Western 

Pacific areas. A short-lived domestic precious coral 

fishery operated in Hawaii from 1974 to 1979, but 

there was no significant precious coral harvest for 

20 years until 1999–2001. 

Management Situation

 Fisheries management in this area is guided by 

the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(WPFMC), approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and implemented by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NWHI lobster 

fishery and the Hawaii precious coral fishery are 

the only invertebrate fisheries managed by NMFS 

in this area.

©B. Mundy

Photo above:

Banded spiny lobster, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
224

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

The NWHI comprises an isolated range of 

islands, atolls, islets, reefs, and banks that extend 

1,500 n.mi. west-northwest of the Main Hawaiian 

Islands from Nihoa to Kure Atoll (Figure 16-1). 

A commercial lobster trap fishery operated in the 

NWHI from the mid 1970’s through 1999. It was a 

multispecies fishery, primarily targeting the banded 

(Hawaiian) spiny lobster and blunt slipper lobster 

(ula-pãpapa). Three other species, pronghorn spiny 

lobster (‘ula-hiwa), Aesop slipper lobster, and sculptured mitten lobster (ula-pehu), were also caught 

in low abundances. The Fishery Management Plan 

for the Crustaceans of the Western Pacific Region 

(Crustaceans FMP) combines all species of lobster 

into a single management unit. The MHI lobster 

fishery is managed by the State of Hawaii, although 

fishing on a few offshore banks is included under 

the Crustaceans FMP. 

The Crustaceans FMP was implemented in 

1983 and has since been amended nine times. 

Many of the earlier amendments were in response 

to requirements to eliminate any likelihood of interactions with the Hawaiian monk seal (Amendments 2 and 4), protect spiny and slipper lobster 

reproductive potentials (Amendments 3 and 5), 

and specify overfishing definitions (Amendment 

6). A significant change occurred in 1992 when, in 

response to continuing declines in commercial lobster catch per unit of effort (CPUE), Amendment 7 

was approved to include an annual 6-month closed 

season (January–June); limit entry into the fishery 

to 15 vessels; and establish an annual catch quota. 

Amendment 9 implemented in 1996 a lobster quota 

system based on a constant harvest rate that allows 

only a 10% risk of overfishing in any given year, but 

allows the retention of all lobsters caught (i.e. replacing the previous size restrictions). Spatial management of the lobster fishery commenced in 1998 

with the identification of four management areas 

in the NWHI: Necker Island, Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, and all other banks combined. The 

lobster fishery was closed in 2000 by the WPFMC 

because of uncertainty in the population and assessment models used to assess stock status, and 

remains so to this date. In December 2000, President Clinton, through Executive Order (EO) 

13178 and later through EO 13196, established 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Reserve. These EO’s also established 

reserve preservation areas in which fishing activities, including lobster trapping, are prohibited. To 

continue protection of the NWHI, President Bush 

designated the NWHI as a National Monument in 

2006. The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument is cooperatively managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, in close coordination with the State of Hawaii.

Precious corals occurring in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed under a 

Figure 16-1

The Main Hawaiian Islands 

and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Hancock

Bank

Kure

Atoll Midway Island

Salmon Bank

Pearl & Hermes Reef

Lisianski Island

Laysan 

Island

Maro

Reef

Raita

Bank Gardner

Pinnacles

French

Frigate

Shoals

Necker Island

Nihoa

Kauai

Nihau Kaula Oahu

Molokai

Maui Lanai

Hawaii

Main Hawaiian Islands

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

30N

25

20

180W 175 170 165 160 155

P a c i f i c O c e a n 

N
225

WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 16

fishery management plan implemented in 1983. 

Three types of coral are recognized targets of the 

fishery, including pink (Corallium spp.), gold 

(Gerardia spp., Narella spp., Calyptrophora spp., 

and Callogorgia spp.) and bamboo (Lepidisis spp. 

and Acanella spp.). Quotas are set based on visual surveys of the one fully surveyed coral bed at 

Makapu’u, Oahu. Exploratory permits with very 

limited quotas are available for unsurveyed coral 

beds found elsewhere. The fishery was reinitiated 

in 1999 and ended in 2001 with fishing conducted 

at the Makapu’u and Keahole beds. 

 Surveys using submersibles in 1997 provided 

solid evidence of recovery of pink coral at the 

Makapu’u, Oahu, bed that has been the historical 

focus of the fishery. In prior years no permits for 

coral harvesting outside of Makapu’u had ever been 

issued. Nonetheless, it appears that illegal foreign 

fishing in some remote areas at the north end of 

the archipelago during the 1970’s and early 1980’s 

likely had a very significant impact on some coral 

beds.

SPECIES AND STATUS

NWHI Lobster

The commercial lobster fishery in the NWHI 

was initiated with two-chambered wire traps but 

shifted to plastic traps in the 1980’s. Although the 

traps contained escape vents, the decreased mesh 

size of the new traps resulted in an increase in the 

catch of smaller lobsters. Approximately 10 strings 

of 100 traps each are fished overnight at depths generally ranging from 15 to 35 fathoms (27–64 m). 

Historically, traps set at the deeper depths caught 

slipper lobster while the shallower sets caught spiny 

lobster. In later years, slipper lobsters (particularly 

at Maro Reef) have been caught at shallow depths, 

possibly due to the “fishing down” of spiny lobsters and the availability of suitable lobster habitat 

formerly occupied by spiny lobster; the effect of 

environmental fluctuations on lobster recruitment 

may also affect the relative abundance of lobster 

species. 

Historically, most of the lobster catch was processed at sea and landed as frozen tails. In the late 

1990’s, however, the opening of several foreign 

markets led to an increase in live landings. Nonetheless, most lobsters continued to be landed as 

processed frozen tails.

Although as many as 16 banks within the 

NWHI were fished on an annual basis before the 

closure in 2000, the proportion of fishing effort 

at each bank varied both spatially and temporally. 

The observed spatio-temporal shifts in fishing effort between banks are attributed to declines in 

spiny lobster CPUE; as spiny lobsters were fished 

down and catch rates at a particular bank fell below some minimum economic threshold, fishing 

effort shifted to more productive banks. By the 

mid 1990’s, fishing was generally limited to Necker 

Island where spiny lobsters were highly concentrated. With the adoption of spatial management 

in 1998, fishing effort was redistributed throughout the NWHI, and the major target of the fishery 

changed to slipper lobster.

 The combined landings of lobsters peaked in 

1985 at 1,075 metric tons (t; worth $5,888,000) 

and generally declined from 1986 to 1995 (Figure 

16-2). The fishery was closed in 1993 and had 

shortened seasons in 1994 and 1995. Landings 

in 1999 were 118 t whole weight and consisted 

of about 87,000 spiny lobster and 149,000 slipper lobster, valued at $1,200,000. The fishery was 

closed in 2000 as a precautionary measure to prevent overfishing of the lobster resource and currently remains closed (Table 16-1).

Uncertainty exists with the current parameterization of the NWHI lobster population and 

Figure 16-2

Hawaiian lobster (spiny and 

slipper lobsters) landings in 

metric tons (t), 1983–2007. 

The seasons were shortened 

in 1994 and 1995, and the 

fishery was closed in 1993 

and again from 2000 to the 

present.

Year

1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Landings
226

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

assessment models, and the status of NWHI lobster stocks is indeterminate. Many of the model 

assumptions may be invalid, and independent estimates of key fishing performance and biological 

parameters are inconsistent with estimates derived 

from current NWHI lobster population and assessment models. Much of the uncertainty stems from 

processes that are related to spatial scale and the 

treatment of data, which has been pooled across 

species. Previous assessments did not recognize the 

importance of spatial heterogeneity and assumed 

synchronous dynamics among local populations 

of NWHI lobsters, regardless of species. Improving lobster stock assessments will require better 

population models with sufficient spatial and species resolution that explicitly characterizes the dependence between local lobster populations. The 

development of spatially structured population 

models for NWHI lobster populations is progressing and should provide for more reliable stock assessments. 

The estimated populations of spiny and slipper 

lobsters declined dramatically from the mid 1980’s 

through the mid 1990’s. Much of this decline has 

been attributed to a shift in oceanographic conditions affecting recruitment in the mid 1980’s. 

While vagaries in oceanography may have contributed to the decline of NWHI spiny lobster, 

improvements in our understanding of the spatial 

structure of the NWHI spiny lobster population, 

the dynamics of larval transport, and commercial 

fishery data suggest that spiny lobster populations 

in the NWHI constitute a metapopulation1 and 

that a suite of factors (both anthropogenic and biotic) contributed to the observed decline. As the 

population size is reduced, the chance of population collapse due to environmental stochasticity 

increases, particularly when the population is spatially structured. Although oceanographic conditions have returned to a more typical long-term 

state and the fishery has been closed since 2000, 

recent NMFS research surveys have not indicated 

any increase in spiny lobster populations at Necker Island. While increases in spiny lobster relative 

abundance have been detected in isolated locations 

around Maro Reef, it is premature to assess the impact of this change at the population level. 

The primary objective of the Crustaceans FMP 

is to prevent overfishing and is defined in terms 

of recruitment overfishing.2 The criterion used to 

assess overfishing is the spawning potential ratio 

(SPR), defined as the ratio of the spawning potential of a population in a fished condition relative 

to that in an unfished condition. The FMP defines 

1A group of populations inhabiting discrete patches of suitable 

habitat that are connected by the dispersal of individuals 

between patches; the degree of isolation for local populations 

may vary depending on the distance between habitat patches.

2Recruitment overfishing refers to a level of fishing intensity that 

reduces the adult spawning stock to the point that the number 

of recruits produced is greatly reduced and is insufficient to 

maintain the population.

©B. Mundy

Blunt slipper lobster, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Table 16-1

Productivity in metric tons 

(t) and status of Western 

Pacific invertebrate fisheries 

resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Spiny and slipper lobsters (NWHI)2 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Unknown

Total 0 0 0

12004–06 average.

2Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; fishery has been closed since 2000.
227

WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 16

the 20% level as a minimum SPR threshold, below 

which the stock is considered overfished, and establishes a warning SPR threshold at 50%, indicating 

the need for additional conservation measures. The 

NWHI lobster fishery was managed with a constant 

harvest rate such that there was only a 10% chance 

in any given year that the fishing mortality will exceed the mortality associated with the minimum 

SPR threshold.

Precious Coral

For the first time since the mid 1970’s, deepwater precious corals (pink, gold, and bamboo corals) 

were harvested beginning in 1999 through 2001. 

Historical landings of precious corals are shown in 

Figure 16-3. A single company collected corals at 

the established coral bed of Makapu’u, Oahu, and 

in the exploratory bed off Keahole, Hawaii. Because 

only one company was fishing, it is not possible 

to report data on landings without compromising 

NMFS confidentiality provisions; however, the 

allowable harvest quotas were not filled in either 

location. Makapu’u, Oahu, has a 2-year quota for 

2,000 kilograms (kg) of pink coral and 600 kg each 

for bamboo and gold coral. The exploratory beds 

have a combined quota of 1,000 kg of any of the 

coral target species. Single-person submarines were 

used to selectively harvest coral colonies and minimize collateral damage to the habitat. Although the 

fishery remains open, the company has suspended 

harvesting due to the high cost of operating submarines and the low bid price for coral. The only 

shallow water coral species currently harvested are 

black corals (Antipathes dichotoma, A. grandis, and

Myriopathes ulex). Black corals are collected by three 

independent divers working 80 m and shallower, 

all within the Au’au channel, Maui.

In 2000 and 2001, scientists surveyed all known 

precious coral beds in the Hawaiian Archipelago 

using the submersibles of the Hawaii Undersea 

Research Laboratory. These surveys have provided 

the first real insight as to the relative abundance 

of precious corals across the archipelago. Postharvest inspections of the coral beds at Makapu’u 

and Keahole found numerous live colonies with 

little evidence of damage associated with harvesting. The 2001 survey of the Makapu’u bed will be 

compared with a pre-harvest survey data collected 

Figure 16-3

Historical precious coral 

landings in metric tons (t), 

1966–98. No fishery occurred 

in 1998; data are not available for 1999–2001 because 

only one company was fishing and confidentiality provisions prevent the release 

of landings information. 

Although the fishery remains 

open, harvest has been suspended due to high operation costs.

at Makapu’u in 1997 to evaluate possible harvesting impacts. Both divers and submersibles also 

surveyed the black coral bed of the Au’au channel 

in 2000 and 2001. Submersible surveys at depths 

below 80 m observed an invasive species of soft 

coral (Carijoa riisei) overgrowing black coral trees. 

At depths shallower than 80 m, divers surveyed 

the size structure of black coral trees and their associated fish assemblages. A follow-up survey of 

size structure was conducted in 2004 and will be 

used to revisit the harvesting regulations presently 

in place.

Year

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Landings (t)

Landings

OAR/NURP; Hawaii Undersea Research Lab

Photo below:

Gold coral in Hawaii.
228

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

ISSUES

Scientific Information and

Adequacy of Assessments

Despite the multispecies nature of the NWHI 

lobster fishery and regulatory measures, most of the 

biological research has been directed at spiny lobster. Future research is needed to address knowledge 

shortfalls of slipper lobster biology. Estimates of the 

exploitable population of lobsters in the NWHI 

have been based solely on commercial catch and effort data from the NWHI lobster fishery as a whole. 

This approach neglects the fact that fishermen target areas with higher concentrations of lobsters and 

may lead to estimates of exploitable biomass that 

are biased. More accurate assessments will require 

the integration of fishery-independent data, such 

as the annual NWHI lobster resource survey and 

the lobster-tagging program, into assessments to 

fine-tune the parameter estimates and assessment 

of exploitable biomass on a bank-specific basis.

Biological information necessary for management of precious corals remains limited. Estimates 

on the growth rate of pink coral and black coral 

have been documented, but the growth rate of gold 

coral is unknown. Understanding the growth rate is 

essential to effectively evaluating the rate of recruitment and setting a reasonable harvest size to protect 

the reproductive population. During the 2000 and 

2001 surveys of coral beds, gold coral colonies large 

and small were marked and will be measured again 

in following years. Archival temperature recorders 

were also deployed at these sites to account for environmental variables that could influence differences in growth rates between sites. 

Factors Affecting Abundance

In predicting the response of the NWHI lobster population to fishing harvest, it must be noted that research to date has identified a dynamic 

change in the spatial and temporal structure of the 

NWHI lobster population. One major fishing area, 

Maro Reef, continues to be characterized by low 

spiny lobster abundance. Based on oceanographic 

research, size class and genetic structure analysis, 

and trends in CPUE, recruitment in the NWHI 

spiny lobster population appears to differ between 

the southeastern and northwestern segments of the 

archipelago, and remains depressed in the northwestern segment relative to 1975–85 levels. Numerous hypotheses have been advanced to explain 

population fluctuations of lobsters in the NWHI, 

including environmental, biotic (e.g. habitat and 

competition), and anthropogenic (e.g. fishing). 

Each hypothesis by itself offers a plausible, but 

simple, explanation to a rather complex phenomenon operating in a system of high dimensionality. 

It is likely that population fluctuations of lobsters 

in the NWHI will be more accurately explained by 

a mix of the hypotheses presented, each describing 

a different set of mechanisms.

Multispecies Interactions

 The long-term effects of fishing on ecosystems 

are not well understood, and cautious management 

controls are required. The removal of one species, 

or complex of species, could result in species composition shifts. Although both spiny and slipper 

lobsters are harvested in the NWHI lobster fishery, 

spiny lobster is the primary target at most banks. 

As large numbers of spiny lobster were removed 

from banks in the NWHI, the abundance and spatial distribution of slipper lobster on these banks 

apparently increased; areas traditionally defined as 

spiny lobster habitat appear now to be occupied by 

slipper lobster. However, it is unknown if this sort 

of shift has occurred at all banks because NMFS 

lobster resource surveys occur only at Necker Island 

and Maro Reef. 

 Activities related to the precious coral fishery 

might interfere with the endangered Hawaiian 

monk seal. Studies of monk seal foraging patterns 

using seal-mounted satellite tags documented a 

small number of seals visiting sites with deepwater 

precious coral beds. Depth-of-dive records from 

one study show that a small percentage of the seals’ 

dives reached depths of 350–500 m. In another 

study of diving behavior, three seals at French 

Frigate Shoals in the NWHI dove below 350 m. 

One seal was documented foraging at subphotic 

depths, while all three of the seals were heard making feeding sounds at depth. A follow-up study also 

recorded seals visiting black coral beds on successive nights to feed on eels hiding among the corals. This feeding behavior is considered analogous 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands lobster phyllosoma 

larva.

Joseph O’Malley
229

WESTERN PACIFIC INVERTEBRATE FISHERIES

UNIT 16

to the foraging activity proposed for seals in the 

subphotic deepwater precious coral beds. These 

studies have spurred concern that coral harvesting 

might impact the seals’ use of the deepwater fish 

community. Consequently, surveys conducted at 

all the coral beds (in 2000–01) included assessment of fish populations both in and outside of 

coral beds to evaluate the degree to which the corals aggregate deepwater fish species. Comparative 

surveys of bank summits at the northern extreme 

of the NWHI were conducted in 2002, and these 

data will be combined with data from the 2000 and 

2001 surveys for full analysis. In 2003, a seal was 

observed by a submersible at 540 m near precious 

coral, further strengthening the link between seals 

and precious coral beds.

Metapopulation Approach

Treating spiny and slipper lobsters in the 

NWHI as metapopulations is consistent with the 

available data and represents a departure from the 

status quo. Given the dependence among local 

populations of spiny lobster in the NWHI, overfishing or depletion of local populations could 

result in catastrophic impacts to the population 

as a whole (e.g. reduction in average recruitment 

or recruitment failure), particularly when a large 

number of local populations, or the most productive populations, are heavily exploited. Also, when 

spatial correlation among local populations is high 

(as it appears to be for NWHI spiny lobsters), bankspecific relationships between population size and 

fishing can become decoupled, masking the true 

impact of fishing. The decline of spiny lobsters at 

Laysan Island may provide an example of this decoupling. 

 This paradigm shift also changes the data requirements for NWHI lobster stock assessments. 

While the discrete population model relied solely 

on commercial catch and effort data as input, metapopulation models require data (both biological 

and fishery related) with greater spatial resolution. 

Because of life history differences between spiny 

and slipper lobsters, the models may also need to 

be species-specific.

Invasive Species 

 Recent surveys of the Au’au channel bed have 

documented an infestation by an invasive soft coral, 

Carijoa riisei, which settles on and smothers black 

coral colonies. Carijoa has infested nearly every 

black coral below depths of 80 m where light levels 

are dim enough for Carijoa to colonize. Black corals 

in shallower depths are exposed to more light that 

constrains the Carijoa to the undersides of ledges. 

The loss of deep black corals, beyond the reach of 

coral divers, removes a functional reproductive reserve for the black coral stock. Consequently, the 

black coral stock and any associated fishery parameters are in need of revaluation.

Progress

Much progress in assessing the status of exploited lobster stocks of the Western Pacific region has 

been made during recent years. At-sea sampling of 

the commercial fleet by biological technicians was 

conducted in 1995 and 1997–99, providing inforResearchers PIT tagging a 

slipper lobster (left) and a 

spiny lobster (right) during the 2003 Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands lobster 

tagging cruise. These lobster tagging cruises are a 

cooperative effort between 

the NMFS Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center 

and Hawaiian commercial 

fishermen.

Joseph O’Malley
230

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

mation to characterize the commercial catch as well 

as spatial heterogeneity of lobster abundance and 

size composition. These data were used to enhance 

the annual NWHI lobster fishery-independent 

survey and provided a more representative basis 

for future stock assessments. 

To provide independent estimates of population size and updated estimates of population dynamics and fishery parameters, a NWHI lobster 

tagging program was implemented. Spiny lobsters 

at Necker Island were tagged with external ribbon 

tags in 1998, 1999, and 2002 on both Federal 

and chartered commercial vessels. In 2003, spiny 

lobsters at Necker Island and slipper lobsters at 

Maro Reef were tagged with internal PIT (passive integrated transponder) tags aboard chartered 

commercial vessels. Further population and assessment model development will require an increase 

in the program’s scope to include tagging at other 

banks.

Significant progress in population and assessment model development, as well as CPUE standardization, has also occurred. A spatially explicit 

population model has been developed for spiny and 

slipper lobsters and feasibility testing of the model 

is progressing. In situ research is focusing on the 

behavior of lobsters in and around traps to better 

interpret CPUE time series. Larval drift models 

are being developed to further understand the role 

oceanographic conditions have on recruitment. 

FOR FURTHER READING

Abernathy, K. A., and D. B. Siniff. 1998. Investigations 

of Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi, pelagic habitat use. Range and diving behavior. Report to 

NMFS Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA.

Boehlert, G. W. 1993. Fisheries of Hawaii and U.S.-

associated Pacific Islands. Marine Fisheries Review 

55(2):1–138.

DeMartini, E. E., G. T. DiNardo, and H. A. Williams. 

2003. Temporal changes in population density, fecundity, and egg size of the Hawaiian spiny lobster 

(Panulirus marginatus) at Necker Bank, Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Fishery Bulletin 101:22–31.

DiNardo, G. T., W. R. Haight, and J. A. Wetherall. 1998.

Status of lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands, 1995–97, and outlook for 1998. Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-98-

05, Honolulu, HI, 35 p.

DiNardo, G. T., and R. Marshall. 2001. Status of lobster 

stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1998–

2000. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-01-04, Honolulu, HI, 47 p.

DiNardo, G. T., and J. A. Wetherall. 1999. Accounting for the uncertainty in the development of harvest strategies for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

lobster trap fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 

59:943–951.

Grigg, Richard. 2001. Black coral. History of a sustainable fishery in Hawai’i. Pacific Science 55(3):291–

299.

Grigg, Richard. 2004. Harvesting impacts and invasion 

by an alien species decrease estimates of black coral 

yield off Maui, Hawai’i. Pacific Science 58(1):1–6.

Ostezeski, J. 1997. The deepwater shrimp fishery of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-97-10, 

Honolulu, HI, 44 p.

Parrish, F. A., K. Abernathy, G. J. Marshall, and B. 

M. Buhleier. 2002. Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus 

schauinslandi) foraging in deep-water coral beds. Marine Mammal Science 18(1):244–258.

Parrish, F. A., M. P. Craig, T. J. Ragen, G. J. Marshall, 

and B. M. Buhleier. 2000. Identifying diurnal foraging habitat of endangered Hawaiian monk seals using 

a seal-mounted video camera. Marine Mammal Science 16(2):392–412.

Polovina, J. J. 2000. The lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In B. F. Phillips and J. Kittaka 

(Editors), Spiny Lobsters. Fisheries and Culture. Second edition, p. 98–104. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 

Pooley, S. G. and K. E. Kawamoto. 1998. Annual report 

of the 1995–97 western Pacific lobster fishery. NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative 

Report H-98-09, Honolulu, HI, 34 p.
231

WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 17

western pacific Bottomfish 

and groundfish fisheries

Unit

17

ROBERT MOFFITT

ROBERT HUMPHREYS

NMFS Pacific Islands

Fisheries Science Center 

Honolulu

Hawaii

INTRODUCTION

The Western Pacific bottomfish fishery geographically encompasses the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI), Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CMNI), and American Samoa. In contrast, North Pacific (pelagic) 

armorhead are harvested from the summits and 

upper slopes of a series of submerged seamounts 

along the southern Emperor–northern Hawaiian 

Ridge. This chain of seamounts is located just west 

of the International Date Line and extends to the 

northernmost portion of the NWHI.

The Guam, CNMI, American Samoa, and 

MHI bottomfish fisheries employ relatively small 

vessels on 1-day trips close to port; either parttime or sport fishermen take much of the catch. In 

contrast, bottomfishes in the NWHI are fished by 

full-time fishermen on relatively large vessels that 

range far from port on trips of up to 21 days. Fishermen use the handlining technique in which a single 

weighted line with several baited hooks is raised 

and lowered with a powered reel. The bottomfish 

fisheries are managed jointly by the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) and territorial, commonwealth, or state authorities.

The commercial seamount fishery for armorhead was started by bottom-trawl vessels of 

the former Soviet Union in 1968. During 1969, 

Japanese trawlers entered this fishery, and by 1972 

the catch per unit of effort (CPUE; based on Japanese data) peaked at 54 metric tons (t) per hour 

(Figure 17-1). The United States has never been 

a participant in this fishery. By the end of 1975, 

the two foreign fleets had harvested a combined 

Russell Ito, PIFSC

Photo above:

NWHI bottomfish awaiting 

sale at the Honolulu fish 

auction.
232

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

cumulative total of 1 million t of North Pacific 

armorhead. Facing a steady decline in CPUE after 

1972, the former Soviet fleet left the fishery after 

1975. The combined catch index for all seamounts 

has remained depressed since the late 1970’s. The 

inclusion in 1977 of the southernmost seamounts 

(Hancock Seamounts) into the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) allowed for a small portion 

of the fishery to be managed in a limited way. A 

preliminary Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was 

developed that year and provided for limited foreign harvesting at the Hancock Seamounts under a 

permit system during 1978–84. However, catches 

remained low, and all fishing ceased after 1984. 

Under the FMP for the Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, 

a 6-year fishing moratorium was imposed on the 

Hancock Seamounts in 1986. The moratorium 

was extended for three additional 6-year periods, 

the latest starting in 2004 and ending in 2010.

SPECIES AND STATUS

Bottomfishes

 In Hawaii, the bottomfish species fished include several snappers (ehu, onaga, opakapaka, and 

uku), jacks (ulua and butaguchi), and a grouper 

(hapu’upu’u). In the more tropical waters of Guam, 

CNMI, and American Samoa, the fishes include a 

more diverse assortment of species within the same 

families as in Hawaii, as well as several species of 

emperors. These species are found on rock and coral 

bottoms at depths of 50–400 m. Catch weight, size, 

and fishing effort data are collected for each species 

in the five areas. However, the sampling programs 

vary in scope between the areas. About 90% of the 

total catch is taken in Hawaii, with the majority 

Figure 17-1

Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) 

in metric tons (t) per hour for 

North Pacific armorhead 

taken by the Japanese trawl 

fishery, 1970-2002.

Species/stock

Recent average 

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Bottomfish

 Hawaiian Islands total 274 287 368 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

 Main Hawaiian Islands2 159 69 164 Below

 Mau Zone, NWHI2,3 47 46 46 Near

 Ho’omalu Zone, NWHI2,3 68 172 158 Near

 American Samoa 22 34 34 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Guam 15 25 25 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

 CNMI4 6 78 78 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Seamount Groundfish5 Unknown Overfished

 Alfonsino2 0 0 Unknown Unknown

 North Pacific armorhead2 0 0 2,123 Unknown

 Raftfish2 0 0 Unknown Unknown

Total 317 424 2,628

12002–04 average for Hawaii and 2003–05 average for other island areas.

2Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

3Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

4Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

5A fishing moratorium on seamount groundfish has been in effect within the U.S. EEZ since 1986.

Table 17-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of western Pacific 

bottomfish and groundfish 

fisheries resources.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CPUE

(t/hour)

CPUE
233

WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 17

of the catch taken in the MHI as compared to the 

NWHI (Figure 17-2). Data on recent average, 

current, and maximum sustainable yields for the 

five areas are in Table 17-1. 

The most recent stock assessment for American 

Samoa, Guam, and CNMI bottomfish resources 

used catch and effort data collected through 2005 

in a risk-based, Baysian, state-space surplus production model. Although CPUE data were not 

particularly informative about the ratio of initial 

biomass to carrying capacity and, therefore, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the set of credible 

models for each island group provided a consistent 

evaluation of current bottomfish status. In all cases 

the risk of overfishing and overfished status conditions was very low. 

The status of Hawaiian bottomfish resources 

is based on a surplus production model applied 

to commercial bottomfish data collected through 

2004. This assessment indicates that Hawaiian 

bottomfish stocks are not overfished, but are experiencing overfishing. A closer look at biomass 

and harvest metrics for the three fishing zones in 

the Hawaiian Islands suggests that fishing in the 

MHI is the major source of excess harvest and that 

biomass in this zone is well below that necessary 

to produce MSY. Biomass and harvest metrics for 

both NWHI zones, on the other hand, suggest no 

cause for concern in these areas. Based on the results 

of this assessment, management measures including a summer closed season and an annual catch 

limit were established for the MHI in 2007. The 

next assessment of Hawaiian bottomfish resources 

is scheduled for late 2008. 

North Pacific (Pelagic) Armorhead

The seamount groundfish fishery has targeted 

just one species: the North Pacific (pelagic) armorhead. Since 1976, Japanese trawlers fishing 

the seamounts in international waters beyond the 

Hancock Seamounts have almost exclusively conducted this fishery. The fishing grounds comprising 

the Hancock Seamounts represent less than 5% of 

the total fishing grounds. The maximum sustainable yield (Table 17-1) is 2,123 t, but recovery to 

these former levels has not yet occurred.

Standardized stock assessments were conducted 

during 1985–93. Research cruises were focused on 

Figure 17-2

Bottomfish landings in metric tons (t; top) and catch 

per unit of effort (CPUE; 

bottom) in pounds per day, 

1950–2004. 

Southeast Hancock Seamount, and the armorhead 

stock was sampled with bottom longlines and calibrated against Japanese trawling effort. Catch rates 

vary but have not shown the increases expected 

after the fishing moratorium was implemented 

(Figure 17-3). Furthermore, the increase in the 

1992 seamount-wide CPUE (Figure 17-1) caused 

by high recruitment was apparently short-lived, as 

CPUE declined appreciably in 1993 and thereafter. Closure of only the small U.S. EEZ portion 

of the armorhead’s demersal habitat may not be 

sufficient to allow population recovery because 

these seamounts remain the only part of the fishery 

currently under management.

Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Landings (t)

Total landings

MHI

NWHI, Mau

NWHI, Ho’omalu

Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

CPUE

(lbs/day)

MHI

NWHI, Ho’omalu

NWHI, Mau
234

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 17-3

Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) 

in pounds per 1,000 hooks 

for North Pacific armorhead from bottom longline 

sampling during research 

cruises, 1985–1993. Biannual 

samples were taken from 

1985–88, and annual samples 

thereafter. No samples were 

taken in 1992.

Seamount groundfish stocks within the U.S. 

EEZ have not been assessed since 1993; however, 

more recent data for adjacent areas outside of the 

EEZ suggest that these stocks remain overfished. 

Although poaching in this remote area is possible, 

it is assumed that harvest has not occurred within 

the EEZ since the 1986 moratorium. Even if true, 

however, overfishing on the stock as a whole could 

be occurring, with harvest applied to seamounts 

outside the EEZ. Data on current harvest rates 

for these outside areas are not available, so harvest 

status remains unknown. 

ISSUES

Scientific Advice and Adequacy

of Assessments

Adequacy of the biological and catch data 

collected is a primary management concern for the 

Western Pacific bottomfish fishery. For example, 

the reproductive biology of many of the important 

species in Guam, CNMI, and American Samoa is 

unknown, and spawning stock biomass cannot be 

computed.

Transboundary Stocks 

and Management Jurisdictions

The primary issue for the armorhead seamount fishery is how to implement some form of 

management on an international basis to provide 

conditions more conducive for stock recovery. The 

recruitment event of 1992 and subsequent stock 

decline (probably from overfishing) reinforce the 

need for some form of management if this fishery 

is to recover to early 1970’s levels.

Management Concerns

NMFS determined that overfishing of the 

bottomfish species complex was occurring within 

the Hawaiian Archipelago, with the primary 

problem being excess fishing mortality in the 

MHI. The WPFMC was notified by NMFS of 

this overfishing determination in May 2005. A 

stock assessment completed by the Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center in 2006 concluded that 

the required reduction in fishing mortality based on 

2004 data would be 24%. In addition, a phase-out 

of the bottomfish fishery by 2011 in the NWHI 

was mandated through the Presidential designation of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument.1 This may be significant because the 

bottomfish are assessed as a stock complex combining the MHI and the NWHI, and because 

larval transport may allow for one area to serve as 

a source of recruitment to other areas such that 

management actions in one area may affect fish 

stocks in the other. This permanent closure will 

also result in the elimination of one of the major 

sources of locally caught bottomfish for use in local 

markets and restaurants. After the NWHI closure, 

experienced NWHI commercial bottomfish vessel 

operators will either begin fishing in the MHI or 

discontinue fishing for bottomfish.

 To end bottomfish overfishing, the WPFMC 

supports a stepped approach by first controlling 

fishing mortality in 2007 and 2008 through the use 

of seasonal closures in all sectors of the MHI bottomfish fishery, in conjunction with a total allowable 

catch (TAC) limit in the commercial sector and 

bag limits for the non-commercial sector. In 2009 

and beyond, a single fleetwide TAC would be applied to both the commercial and non-commercial 

sectors. Adaptive management would be utilized to 

address new information or significant changes in 

the fishery or fishery conditions. 

CPUE (lbs/

1,000 hooks)

CPUE

Year

1986 1988 1990 1992

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1Federal Register 36443, 26 June 2006.
235

WESTERN PACIFIC BOTTOMFISH AND GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 17

Gindai seen off of southwestern Molokai from the 

submersible Pisces IV at a 

depth of about 200 m. 

Progress

Researchers continue to identify nursery habitat 

for juvenile snappers and groupers in Hawaii, and 

age and growth curves have been extended to include early juvenile stages. Improvements have been 

made in the collection of more complete catchand-effort data from the NWHI fishery. Fishery 

discard patterns and interactions with sharks and 

protected species have also been examined.

Improvements will be made to the state’s MHI 

bottomfish commercial data collection program. 

Major changes will require fishermen to report on 

a per-trip basis instead of on a monthly catch report 

and to provide GPS position recording. NMFS will 

implement a MHI recreational bottomfish permit 

and reporting program to capture catch and effort 

data from this sector of the fishery.

Recent international consultations have begun 

on the establishment of new mechanisms for the 

management of high-seas bottom fisheries by vessels operating in the northwestern Pacific Ocean. 

Representatives from Japan, the Republic of Korea, 

the Russian Federation, and the United States 

have met to continue efforts toward establishing 

interim management measures that would include 

the bottom fishery for North Pacific armorhead. 

Cooperative exchanges of fishery data with scientific colleagues in Japan have provided annual 

commercial catch data by seamount through 2002. 

Biological data of importance for future management considerations indicate that armorhead 

undergo a pelagic phase of 2 or more years prior to 

recruitment into the fishery and that the seamount 

populations comprise a single stock. Recent analysis 

of otolith increment width patterns among recruits 

sampled across years of high to low recruitment 

at the Hancock Seamounts suggests that in low 

recruitment years, recruits are larger at settlement 

and deposit narrower growth increments on their 

otoliths during the first year of the pelagic phase.

FOR FURTHER READING

Humphreys, R. L. Jr. 2000. Otolith-based assessment 

of recruitment variation in a North Pacific seamount 

population of armorhead Psedopentaceros wheeleri. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 204:213–223.

Humphreys, R. L. Jr., D. T. Tagami, and M. P. Seki. 

1984. Seamount fishery resources within the southern 

Emperor-northern Hawaiian Ridge area. In R. W. 

Grigg and K. Y. Tanoue (Editors), Proceedings of the 

second symposium on resource investigations in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 25–27 May 1983, 

Volume 2, p. 226–236. Unihi-Seagrant-MR84-01, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

 Humphreys, R. L. Jr., G. A. Winans, and D. T. Tagami. 

1989. Synonymy and life history of the north Pacific 

pelagic armorhead, Pseudopentaceros wheeleri Hardy 

(Pisces: Pentacerotidae). Copeia 1989(1):142–153.

Martin, A. P., R. Humphreys, and S. R. Palumbi. 1992. 

Population genetic structure of the armorhead, Pseudopentaceros wheeleri, in the North Pacific Ocean. Application of the polymerase chain reaction to fisheries 

problems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 49(11):2386–2391.

Moffitt, R. B., J. Brodziak, and T. Flores. 2007. Status of 

the bottomfish resources of American Samoa, Guam, 

and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

2005. NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Administrative Report H-07-04. Honolulu, HI, 52 p.

Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory
236

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Moffitt, R. B., D. R. Kobayashi, and G. T. Dinardo. 

2006. Status of the Hawaiian bottomfish stocks, 2004. 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative 

Report H-06-01, Honolulu, HI, 45 p.

Somerton, D. A., and B. S. Kikkawa. 1992. Population dynamics of pelagic armorhead, Pseudopentaceros 

wheeleri on Southeast Hancock Seamount. Fishery 

Bulletin 90:756–769.

Uchida, R. N., S. Hayasi, and G. W. Boehlert (Editors). 

1986. Environment and resources of seamounts in the 

North Pacific. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS-43, 106 p. 

WPRFMC. 2004. Bottomfish and seamount groundfish 

fisheries of the western Pacific region. 2002 annual 

report. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council, Honolulu, HI.
237

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

pacific highly migratory 

pelagic fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Adult fishes in this group are large pelagic 

predators found primarily in oceanic waters across 

the Pacific Ocean, from the tropics to temperate 

latitudes. Many of these fishes routinely travel 

great distances performing trans-Pacific migrations, 

crossing the waters of several nations and the high 

seas in their pursuit of forage and ideal habitat for 

reproduction. Collectively referred to as highly 

migratory species, these fishes include yellowfin 

tuna, skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore, blue 

marlin, swordfish, dolphinfish (mahi mahi), large 

pelagic sharks, and others. Many are valuable and 

highly prized by both commercial and sport fishermen. The status of most tuna stocks is relatively 

well known, while the status of many stocks of 

Photo above:

Very young sailfish collected 

on a NMFS research cruise.

Unit

18

JOHN CHILDERS

 GARY SAKAGAWA

NMFS Southwest Fisheries

Science Center

La Jolla

California

 KEITH BIGELOW

NMFS Pacific Islands

Fisheries Science Center

Honolulu

Hawaii

SEFSC Pascagoula Laboratory

the other species is either uncertain or unknown 

(Table 18-1).

Fleets belonging to coastal and distant-water 

fishing nations target highly migratory species 

throughout the Pacific Ocean. Some of the fleets 

are capable of operating across the Pacific as well 

as in other oceans during a single fishing season. 

These fleets use larger purse-seine nets or longline 

gear, and the vessels have fish-holding capacities 

of several hundred to 2,000 metric tons (t) each. 

Other small fleets operate only in coastal waters 

with handline, troll, gillnet, harpoon, and longline 

gears and produce fresh fish for local economies and 

for subsistence use. Several Pacific Island communities and nations also depend on highly migratory 

species for income, largely from the sale of fishing 

access licenses to foreign tuna fishermen. 
238

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 18-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Pacific highly 

migratory pelagic fisheries 

resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Tropical tunas

Bigeye tuna Overfishing Not overfished

 Eastern Pacific2 109,987 103,322 81,350 Below

 Central Western Pacific3 130,836 114,247 87,000 Above

Skipjack tuna

 Eastern Pacific4 274,974 322,004 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Central Western Pacific5 1,494,421 1,538,112 2,700,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Yellowfin tuna

 Eastern Pacific6 252,412 174,780 285,000 Near Overfishing Not overfished

 Central Western Pacific7 399,378 399,828 554,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Subtotal, tropical tunas 2,662,008 2,652,293 4,029,354 

Temperate tunas

Albacore

 North Pacific8 74,013 67,541 Unknown Near Unknown Unknown

 South Pacific9 37,602 32,108 117,000 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Pacific bluefin tuna (Pacific)10 25,100 24,196 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, temperate tunas 136,715 123,845 208,737 

Billfishes

Black marlin (Pacific) 1,705 1,705 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Blue marlin (Pacific) 17,369 17,369 17,369 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Sailfish (Pacific) 5,153 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Striped marlin (CWP)11 8,065 8,065 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Swordfish (North Pacific)12 33,000 57,000 57,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Subtotal, billfish 65,292 89,292 89,292 

Oceanic sharks

Bigeye thresher (North Pacific) 4 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Blue shark (North Pacific) 37,386 70,000 Unknown Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Pelagic thresher (North Pacific)13 2 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Shortfin mako (North Pacific) 69 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Thresher shark (North Pacific)14 323 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, oceanic sharks 37,784 70,398 70,398 

United States fishermen have a long history 

of fishing for Pacific highly migratory species. In 

American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

handline fisheries for highly migratory species have 

operated since antiquity. Immigrants established 

pole-and-line and longline fisheries for tuna in 

Hawaii and southern California in the late 1800’s 

and early 1900’s. Pole-and-line fishing was the 

dominant fishery in Hawaii through the 1970’s, 

but in the late 1980’s longline fishing for tunas expanded rapidly and diversified to include swordfish 

in the 1990’s. A sizable longline fishery for albacore 

has developed in American Samoa since 1995. 

Currently, U.S. fisheries targeting highly migratory 

species include commercial purse-seine fisheries in 

the eastern and western tropical Pacific; troll fisheries in the North and South Pacific; longline fisheries 

operating out of American Samoa, California, and 

Hawaii; troll and handline fisheries operating in the 

Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ’s) of U.S. Pacific 

Islands; and drift gillnet and harpoon fisheries in 

the West Coast EEZ. 

Recreational fishermen in the 1920’s were 

instrumental in drawing attention to the seasonal 

availability of highly migratory species off Califor-
239

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

Species/Stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Other Migratory Species

Dolphinfish (Pacific)15 23,742 23,742 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Wahoo (Pacific)16 831 831 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Subtotal, other migratory species 24,573 24,573 24,753

Total 2,926,372 2,960,401 4,442,354 

U.S. subtotal 145,596 

12004–06 average.

2U.S. portion of the RAY is 1,504 t. Status determinations are made for the entire Pacific region.

3U.S. portion of the RAY is 9,928 t. Status determinations are made for the entire Pacific region.

4U.S. portion of the RAY is 1,726 t.

5U.S. portion of the RAY is 55,588 t.

6U.S. portion of the RAY is 1,749 t.

7U.S. portion of the RAY is 55,588 t.

8U.S. portion of the RAY is 13,166 t.

9U.S. portion of the RAY is 3,950 t.

10U.S. portion of the RAY is 148 t.

11Central Western Pacific stock.

12U.S. portion of the RAY is 1,625 t.

13U.S. portion of the RAY is 1 t.

14U.S. portion of the RAY is 179 t.

15Also commonly known as dorado or mahi mahi.

16Average includes U.S. yield of 444 t and FAO Pacific yield of 387 t.

Table 18-1

Continued from previous 

page.

A SWFSC albacore troll observer. Observers collect 

data on catch, effort, and various special projects aboard 

commercial U.S. troll vessels 

that operate throughout the 

North Pacific. 

Scott Landis, F/V MIDDLEPOINT

nia. Since then, sportfishing has grown in popularity and now supports important recreational 

fisheries for marlins, yellowfin tuna, dolphinfish, 

albacore, pelagic sharks, and other species in locations such as San Diego, California. Recreational 

highly migratory species fisheries also developed in 

other locations in the United States, such as Kona, 

Hawaii. Sportfishing participants contribute several 

million dollars annually to local economies.

The largest contemporary U.S. commercial 

fishery for highly migratory species started off the 

U.S. West Coast and Baja California, Mexico in 

the 1930’s. At that time, U.S. fishermen targeted 

Pacific bluefin tuna and albacore for the emerging 

canned tuna market. The fishery rapidly expanded 

southward and westward with the development of 

new purse-seine fishing gear and discovery of large 

stocks of tropical tunas (yellowfin, skipjack, and 

bigeye tunas). During 1976–80, expansion of the 

fishery was concentrated in the eastern tropical Pacific. The U.S. fleet dominated the fishery until the 

1980’s, when fishing became less profitable owing 

to declining catch rates and increased costs associated with domestic regulations to reduce dolphin 

mortality. Many U.S. fishermen quit the fishery 

or moved their fishing operations to the central 

western Pacific. The U.S. fleet in the eastern tropical Pacific declined to about eight vessels by 2003. 

Simultaneously, the fleets of Mexico and other 

Latin American nations expanded and quickly filled 

the void. In 2006, 226 large purse seiners were active in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. In 

2006, Ecuador (with 85 vessels) and Mexico (with 

57 vessels) were leaders in the fishery. 

Pacific tuna fisheries east of 150 ̊W longitude 

have traditionally been managed in accordance with 

recommendations made by the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), to which the 

United States is a party. The IATTC historically has 

managed the fisheries with a focus on maintaining 

the tuna stocks at levels associated with maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY). The principal conservation measures have been catch quotas for yellowfin tuna. However, the IATTC has broadened 

the scope of its management program to include 

consideration of bycatch (including undersized 

fish), fleet capacity limits, and most recently, time–

area closures for purse-seine fishing. Also, for the 
240

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Unloading tunas from the 

longline vessel Gail Ann to 

the Honolulu fish auction.

Russell Ito, PIFSC

1Australia, Canada, Cook Islands, Federated States of 

Micronesia, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, 

New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, 

Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, United States, and Vanuatu; 

Japan and Korea voted against, and China, France, and Tonga 

abstained. 

2Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, 

Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua 

New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Tonga.

2005–07 fishing seasons, the IATTC agreed to 

a management scheme of time–area closures for 

purse-seine gear and national catch quotas for 

longline gear to reduce fishing mortality on yellowfin and bigeye tuna. For the 2008 fishing season 

the IATTC parties were not able to reach agreement 

on management measures to correct overfishing of 

yellowfin and bigeye tunas. The IATTC has begun 

monitoring North Pacific albacore catches as well 

to ensure that the total level of fishing effort is 

not increased beyond current levels. In addition, 

under the Agreement on the International Dolphin 

Conservation Program (AIDCP), the parties to that 

agreement continued implementation of an overall 

dolphin mortality limit of 5,000 animals for the 

fishery by distributing individual vessel quotas to 

qualified vessels. Furthermore, all large tuna purse 

seiners operating in the eastern Pacific Ocean are 

required to carry an observer to collect data on 

compliance with AIDCP requirements. 

In 1988, the United States and 16 South Pacific 

Island nations concluded a 5-year tuna fishing access agreement called the South Pacific Regional 

Tuna Treaty. This treaty gave the U.S. tuna purseseine fleet fishing access to a 26 million km2 area of 

the central western Pacific Ocean in exchange for 

fees. In 1993, the treaty was extended for 10 years, 

and in 2003 it was extended again for 10 years. The 

2003 extension limits the fleet to a maximum of 40 

licenses (one per vessel), plus 5 additional licenses 

for joint venture arrangements with the island parties. The annual industry license fee is $3 million. 

An additional $18 million is provided annually by 

the U.S. government for economic assistance to the 

island parties. In 2007, 18 U.S. purse seiners were 

licensed to fish under the treaty.

Following 5 years of negotiations involving 24 

nations, 19 Pacific nations1 adopted the Convention on the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and 

Central Pacific (WCPFC) on 4 September 2000, 

in Honolulu, Hawaii. By 19 December 2003, 13 

nations2 had ratified the convention, triggering its 

entry into force on 19 June 2004 and creating the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 

The U.S. domestic procedures for ratification of 

the Convention were completed in 2007, and the 

United States actively participates in the WCPFC 

as a member. The WCPFC has authority to manage catch, bycatch, fishing capacity, and effort in 

order to achieve its goal of conserving the stocks 

and managing the fisheries for tuna and tuna-like 

species in the central and western Pacific Ocean 

west of 150 ̊W longitude and between temperate 

waters in the North and South Pacific. Means 

for monitoring and compliance include a vessel 

register, vessel monitoring systems, an observer 

program, port monitoring, and reporting of landings, fishing effort, catch, and transshipment. 

A Scientific Committee was formed when the 

WCPFC entered into force to provide scientific 

advice to the Commission for the Conservation 

and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 

in the Western and Central Pacific. 

While WCPFC nations negotiated terms for 

an overall conservation and management convention for highly migratory species west of 150 ̊W 

longitude, two informal, international scientific 

arrangements have been in place in the North 
241

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

Pacific for a number of years. The North Pacific 

Albacore Workshop was established in 1974 for 

exchange of scientific information useful for assessing the status of North Pacific albacore. Scientists 

from Canada, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States 

have participated in this arrangement. The second 

arrangement, the Interim Scientific Committee for 

Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific 

Ocean3 (ISC), was formed in 1995 to enhance 

scientific research and cooperation for conservation and rational utilization of highly migratory 

species resources of the North Pacific. The ISC also 

establishes the scientific groundwork for any future 

management regime. Scientists from Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, the United States, the 

IATTC, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 

and the North Pacific Marine Science Organization 

are active in this arrangement, with collaborative 

scientific studies and sharing of fishery data. In this 

regard, a central database and website have been 

established by the ISC. At the ISC’s 2004 meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, participants concluded 

that the ISC should continue as an independent 

body and be available to provide scientific stock 

advice to other bodies (e.g. WCPFC, IATTC) as 

needed. The ISC also decided to invite the North 

Pacific Albacore Workshop to become part of the 

ISC. With the addition of the albacore workshop 

in 2005 as the ISC Albacore Working Group, the 

ISC’s primary focus is now on the North Pacific 

stocks of albacore, bluefin tuna, swordfish, striped 

marlin, and blue shark. 

In 1981, the United States and Canada entered 

into an agreement, the U.S.–Canada Albacore 

Treaty, which allows for reciprocal fishing in each 

party’s EEZ and landing privileges at selected ports 

for albacore fishing vessels of both countries. In 

2002, that access agreement was amended to limit 

access of each party’s vessels fishing for albacore in 

the waters of the other party. Over a period of 3 

years, the effort-limitation regime requires by the 

third year no more than 125 vessels with 4 months 

fishing for each, or 500 vessel-fishing months 

regardless of the number of vessels involved, will 

be allowed by each party in each other’s EEZ. In 

2007, Canadian vessels fished 339 vessel months 

in the U.S. EEZ, while U.S. vessels fished 22 vessel 

months inside the Canadian EEZ. The agreement 

also had a provision that if at the end of the third 

year no new agreement was reached, fishing limits 

would be reduced to 94 vessels for 4 months or 

376 vessel-fishing months in each party’s EEZ. This 

provision was implemented for 2006 and 2007.

While international mechanisms for conservation and management of Pacific highly migratory 

species throughout their range are being developed, 

the United States has proceeded with managing 

its domestic fisheries for highly migratory species. 

Lead management authority for highly migratory species rests with the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (WPFMC) for the U.S. EEZ 

in the central western Pacific and with the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for the U.S. 

EEZ along the West Coast. The WPFMC has had 

a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for pelagic 

fisheries since 1986. The most significant provision 

of that plan is a maximum limit of 164 permits for 

longline vessels operating from ports in Hawaii and 

60 permits for longliners operating from American 

Samoa. In addition, an amendment to the plan in 

2001 prohibited targeting swordfish in the North 

Pacific with longline gear and imposed time and 

area closures for longline gear targeting tuna in 

order to reduce sea turtle interaction and mortality. 

In 2004, the swordfish-directed component of the 

Hawaii-based fishery was re-opened but subject to 

restrictions on the types of hooks and bait to be 

used, annual fleetwide limits on turtle interactions 

and fishing effort, and other mitigation measures. 

The first complete year in which the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery was allowed to target swordfish was 

2005. In the following year, the shallow-set longline 

fishery reached the annual interaction limit of 17 

loggerhead sea turtles and the fishery was closed 20 

March 2006. The vessels that targeted swordfish 

converted to deep-set longline and targeted tunas 

for the remainder of the year. In 2007, the Hawaiibased shallow-set longline fishery stayed below the 

annual sea turtle interaction limit and remained 

open throughout the entire year.

The PFMC began developing an FMP for 

West Coast highly migratory species in 2000 and 

approved the FMP in June 2003. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approved the 

3Name was changed in 2005 to the International Scientific 

Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North 

Pacific Ocean.
242

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 18-1

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of skipjack tuna in the Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2006.

FMP in February 2004 and implemented the plan 

beginning in 2005. Vessels immediately affected 

most by the plan were those using drift gillnet and 

longline gear. The plan prohibits shallow setting of 

longline gear (used largely to target swordfish) west 

of 150 ̊W longitude because of concerns for sea 

turtle and seabird interactions. In a separate action, 

NMFS implemented regulations to prohibit targeting swordfish east of 150 ̊W longitude to prevent 

jeopardy to sea turtles. Regulations protecting sea 

turtles from adverse impacts of the drift gillnet 

fishery had previously been announced and were 

continued under the FMP; certain new closures 

within the EEZ off Washington and Oregon have 

been implemented by the plan.

The United States has also taken steps to manage sharks taken in commercial fisheries. Shark 

finning (the removal and retention of shark fins 

only and discarding the carcass at sea) is currently 

prohibited in all U.S. fisheries. Landing shark carcasses with fins, however, is allowed at U.S. ports. 

Harvest guidelines have been set for thresher shark 

and shortfin mako shark by the PFMC, and the 

white shark and megamouth shark have both been 

designated protected species under the plan. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

Highly migratory pelagic species are often 

grouped for convenience into tropical tunas (yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack), temperate tunas 

(Pacific bluefin and albacore), billfishes (marlins 

and swordfish), oceanic sharks (thresher, blue, 

and mako), and other species (dolphinfish and 

wahoo). Most of these fishes are caught commercially and support large industries. Some, such as 

tropical tunas and dolphinfish, are important to 

subsistence fisheries of small Pacific Island nations 

and U.S. territories. Others, especially marlins, 

yellowfin tuna, and albacore, support important 

recreational fisheries.

Tropical Tunas

Yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tunas are the 

principal tuna species categorized as tropical tunas. 

Their concentrations are highest in the tropics 

between latitudes 20 ̊N and 20 ̊S. The primary 

fishing gears used to catch these tunas commercially are longlines and purse seines. Other fishing 

gears of less importance include ring net, handline, 

troll, and pole-and-line. In 2002, more than 400 

large purse seiners and more than 5,000 longliners 

participated in Pacific tuna fisheries.

Longline gear is used to catch yellowfin and 

bigeye tunas across the Pacific, whereas the purse 

seine is the primary gear used in the eastern and 

the central western Pacific. In the eastern Pacific, 

the largest purse-seine fleets are from Ecuador, 

Mexico, and Venezuela. In the central-western 

Pacific, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and the United States have major 

purse-seine fleets. Major longline fleets fishing 

for yellowfin and bigeye tunas are based in Japan, 

Korea, and Taiwan.

Skipjack tuna is the volume leader in the Pacific 

and is caught primarily with purse-seine gear. The 

catch is used primarily as raw material for canning. 

Recent average annual yield (2004–06) is 274,974 

t for the eastern Pacific and 1,494,421 t for the 

central western Pacific (Table 18-1, Figure 18-1). 

The U.S. Pacific-wide catch of skipjack tuna has 

averaged about 57,314 t recently. The dockside 

ex-vessel revenue of the total Pacific catch is about 

$869 million annually. The skipjack tuna stocks are 

believed to be underutilized, with the MSY for the 

central western stock at 2.7 million t; MSY for the 

eastern Pacific stock is unknown.

Yellowfin tuna is another prized species used 

principally for canning. Recent average yield 

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Central Western Pacific

U.S. landings

Eastern Tropical Pacific
243

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

Figure 18-3

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of bigeye tuna in the Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2006.

is 252,412 t for the eastern Pacific fishery and 

399,378 t for the central western Pacific fishery 

(Table 18-1, Figure 18-2). The U.S. catch has averaged 57,337 t in recent years. The ex-vessel value of 

the Pacific-wide catch is about $474 million. The 

eastern stock of yellowfin tuna is near the biomass 

that produces the MSY, but the stock is experiencing overfishing. The central western stock is slightly 

above the biomass for MSY.

Large-sized bigeye tuna are sold mainly as raw 

material for the high-priced restaurant trade, particularly sushi restaurants. However, landings by purse 

seiners of smaller sizes, or subadults, are largely used 

for canning. Recent average yield for the entire 

Pacific is about 240,824 t, up significantly from 

earlier yields owing to increased catches by purse 

seiners taking young fish with fish-aggregating 

devices (Figure 18-3). The ex-vessel revenue from 

the total bigeye tuna catch is about $1 billion annually. Most of the catch is taken by longline fleets of 

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. catch of about 

11,432 t annually is taken mostly with purse seines. 

However, U.S. longliners catch about 4,000 t annually, valued at about $20 million that includes a 

significant catch by Hawaii-based longliners. The 

recent average yield for U.S. longliners is 317 t in 

the eastern Pacific. 

The MSY and current yield for bigeye tuna 

are undergoing review. The stock structure of the 

Pacific-wide population is unclear. However, current best estimates of yield potential indicate that 

the stocks (especially the stock or stock portion 

in the eastern Pacific) are at full utilization, and 

overfishing may be occurring.

Temperate Tunas

Pacific bluefin tuna and North and South Pacific 

albacore are categorized as temperate tunas. They 

generally occur in large concentrations in higher 

latitudes of the North and South Pacific. Adults, 

however, seasonally migrate to tropical waters for 

spawning.

U.S. catches of Pacific bluefin tuna have recently 

been relatively minor. This species is taken seasonally off southern California and Baja California, 

Mexico, primarily by purse seiners that normally 

target other species (anchovy, sardine, and mackerel) and by recreational fishermen. In the mid North 

Pacific, Pacific bluefin tuna are taken sporadically 

by the Hawaii- and California-based longline fleets 

targeting swordfish and bigeye tuna. Recent Pacificwide average (2004–06) yield is about 25,100 t. 

Approximately 63% of the landings are taken by 

Japan, 7% by Taiwan, 24% by Mexico, 3% by 

Korea, and 2% by the United States. Stock status 

is uncertain and undergoing review.

In the North Pacific, albacore are fished primarFigure 18-2

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

yellowfin tuna in the Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2006.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Central Western Pacific

Eastern Tropical Pacific

U.S. landings

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Central Western Pacific

Eastern Tropical Pacific

U.S. landings
244

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 18-5

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of swordfish in the Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2007. 

Data are not available for 

some recent years.

ily by longline, pole-and-line, troll, and up until 

1992, drift gillnet gears. Longline gear is used in the 

lower latitudes and off the Japanese archipelago and 

currently accounts for 35% of the catch. Pole-andline and troll gears are used in the surface fisheries 

that operate in the North Pacific Transition Zone 

and higher latitudes. These gears account for 60% 

of the catch. The 2004–06 average yield was 74,013 

t, and the U.S. yield was 13,166 t (Figure 18-4). 

Based on a dockside price of $1,973 per ton, the 

annual ex-vessel revenue of the 2004–06 average 

North Pacific albacore yield was about $142 million 

per year. The MSY is unknown. The status of the 

North Pacific albacore population is reviewed on an 

ongoing basis by an international team of scientists 

through the ISC’s North Pacific Albacore Working 

Group. A comprehensive review was conducted in 

2006. Although a stock assessment was conducted 

and a suite of candidate biological reference points 

have been documented, management bodies (e.g., 

PFMC and WPFMC) have not established formal 

harvest control rules to date.

In the South Pacific, fisheries for albacore are 

expanding with largely longline and troll gears. 

The 2004–06 average yield was 37,602 t (Figure 

18-4). Longline fleets from Japan and Taiwan are 

the largest producers. Longline gear accounts for 

86% of the catch and is the gear of choice for new 

vessels entering the fisheries. The newer vessels use 

a large reel with miles of monofilament main line. 

South Pacific Island countries (French Polynesia, 

New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa), for example, 

are rapidly building significant longline fleets for 

albacore. The U.S. fishery, which primarily consists 

of longliners and troll vessels, landed approximately 

3,950 t of albacore in the South Pacific in 2004–06. 

The troll fishing season is the austral summer (November through April) in the higher latitudes (35° 

to 45°S) east of New Zealand. 

Billfishes

Billfishes, including swordfish, marlins, and 

spearfish, generally range from North America 

to Asia and between the North and South Pacific 

Convergence Zones. These fishes are more abundant near islands, continental slopes, seamounts, 

and oceanic fronts, and many are important to local 

economies. They are caught by foreign and U.S. 

recreational and commercial fishermen. 

Swordfish are distributed throughout the 

temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters of the 

Pacific. Much of the Pacific-wide catch of swordfish is taken by the Japanese longline fishery as 

bycatch while targeting tunas. Other longline fleets 

target swordfish, particularly the longline fleets of 

the United States, Mexico, Chile, and Australia. 

Coastal swordfish fisheries occur off the United 

Figure 18-4

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

albacore in the Pacific Ocean 

region, 1970–2007.

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

North Pacific

South Pacific

U.S. landings

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

10

20

30

40

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Entire Pacific

U.S. Eastern Tropical Pacific

U.S. Central Western Pacific
245

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

Figure 18-6

Landings in metric tons (t) 

of blue marlin in the Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2007. 

Some recent years of data 

are not available for all metrics.

Mako shark.

Anne Allen, SWFSC

States, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Chile, and Australia, 

using various surface gears, such as harpoons and 

driftnets. Yields increased throughout the 1980’s 

and fluctuated in the 1990’s (Figure 18-5), averaging about 33,000 t in recent years (Table 18-1).

Until recently, a substantial fraction of the 

Pacific catch of swordfish was harvested by the 

U.S. longline fleet in the central western Pacific 

(Figure 18-5), and prior to prohibition of the gear 

in 1993, some of the catch was caught by high-seas 

drift gillnet vessels. The rest of the swordfish yield 

is largely taken by surface gears, such as harpoons, 

handlines, and coastal drift gillnets. From 1989 to 

1993, production from the U.S. domestic longline 

fishery in Hawaii increased rapidly, reaching 5,925 

t and an ex-vessel revenue of $26.1 million in 1993. 

Production from the Hawaii fishery accounted for 

about 14% of the total Pacific production in the 

1990’s. The swordfish production from the U.S. 

domestic gillnet and harpoon fisheries located primarily off California increased markedly between 

1975 and 1985, when a peak yield of 3,400 t was 

landed. Production from these sources declined 

in the 1990’s, while production increased from 

longline vessels based in California and with 

seasonal participation by vessels from the Hawaiibased fleet making landings in California. The U.S. 

eastern Pacific fishery has a recent average annual 

yield of about 1,400 t worth about $6 million in exvessel revenue. Both the U.S. longline and gillnet 

fisheries have recently been affected by concerns 

over interactions with protected species. In 2001, 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery was prohibited 

from using shallow-set fishing methods that target 

swordfish, due to high bycatch rates of primarily 

loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. This fishery was reinstated in 2004 with new gear, fishing 

effort, and turtle take limitations. Annual catches 

in the Hawaii-based fishery during 2001 and 2002 

declined to about 225 t due to the regulations prohibiting swordfish fishing. The catch and effort of 

the California gillnet fishery also plummeted owing 

to expansion of area and season closures to reduce 

pinniped and turtle interactions.

The stock structure and status of Pacific swordfish stocks are unclear. Several studies suggest 

more than one Pacific stock. A stock assessment 

of a North Pacific population indicated a decline 

in abundance in the northwest Pacific. The MSY, 

however, is estimated to be greater than the current yield.

 Other Pacific billfish species include blue, 

black, and striped marlins; sailfish; and shortbill 

spearfish. U.S. commercial fishermen primarily use 

longline, troll, and handline gears to catch marlins 

and spearfish, while recreational fishing gears include rod-and-reel and handline. The U.S. catch 

of blue and striped marlin is worth about $2,500 

per ton ex-vessel.

Blue marlin are one of the most important big 

game fish for recreational fishermen and are of great 

economic value to communities with charter fleets 

and fishing tournaments for this species. It is also an 

important commercial species. Pacific-wide commercial yields of blue marlin increased in the 1970’s 

and fluctuated between 16,000 t and 22,000 t in 

the 1980’s and 1990’s (Figure 18-6). Annual U.S. 

Pacific fisheries yields of blue marlin increased in 

the 1970’s and 1980’s and leveled out in the 1990’s 

at 700 to 900 t, comprising about 4% of the Pacific 

total. Concern over the status of blue marlin has 

prompted several recent efforts to assess the status 

of the Pacific-wide stock. Earlier, scientists had 

suggested that the stock might be overfished, as 

Pacific-wide fishing effort increased in the 1980’s 

and yields remained level. However, the most recent 

assessment models indicate that effective fishing 

effort for blue marlin has not increased very much 

since the early 1980’s, and at most, blue marlin are 

now thought to have a biomass close to the level 

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Entire Pacific

U.S. Central Western Pacific
246

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 18-7

Landings in metric tons (t) of 

blue shark in the North Pacific 

Ocean region, 1970–2000.

Year

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

Catch

(x 1,000 t)

Total catch

U.S. catch

that supports the MSY (Table 18-1). The status of 

most other billfish species stocks is unknown or 

uncertain, although earlier assessments using data 

through 1985 indicated that striped marlin were 

underutilized.

Oceanic Sharks

Pacific oceanic shark species include requiem, 

thresher, and mackerel sharks. Sharks are taken by 

longline in the central North Pacific and by drift 

gillnet off the U.S. West Coast. Shark prices vary 

greatly by product form, and until recently most 

landings in U.S. fisheries were from the Hawaiibased longline fishery in the form of shark fins, 

selling for about $40,000 per ton. Shark finning 

with discarding of the carcass at sea is currently 

banned in all U.S. fisheries. Limits on non-blue 

shark landings are being considered for Hawaiibased longline vessels. In Hawaii, whole sharks are 

sold for about $1,400 per ton. 

All pelagic longline fisheries catch appreciable 

numbers of sharks, but only a few nations report 

their shark catches. Most foreign longline fisheries 

collect shark fins to produce a dried product for 

making soup. The product is marketed primarily 

through Hong Kong. In some cases, shark finning 

is conducted by fishing crew members as a separate enterprise from the primary fishery. Because 

carcasses are discarded at sea, shark catches are 

often treated as discards and are seldom logged; 

hence, the total Pacific harvest of pelagic sharks 

is unknown. 

Blue sharks are the most numerous shark species in the North Pacific, and research to estimate 

yield based on data reported by a subset of fishing 

vessels has recently allowed an assessment of blue 

shark to be completed. Estimated yield of sharks 

(including discards) reached high levels during the 

era of the North Pacific drift gillnet fishery, which 

ended in the early 1990’s (Figure 18-7). After an 

international ban on high-seas drift nets, the annual shark yield (mostly by longliners) stabilized at 

around 33,000 t (weight estimated from number 

caught multiplied by an assumed average weight of 

45 kg per shark). The U.S. North Pacific yield (estimated round weight, including discards) was taken 

mainly by Hawaii-based longliners and peaked at 

about 6,800 t in 1993. Yields subsequently declined 

as the fleet altered its fishing strategy in the mid 

1990’s, but shark landings continued to increase 

through 1999 (Figure 18-7) because an increasing 

fraction of the yield was landed in the form of fins 

(landings expressed as round weight regardless of 

product form). The recent North Pacific blue shark 

stock assessment estimated an MSY of about twice 

the recent annual yield and indicated that the stock 

is underexploited. In 2003, a regional MSY and 

optimum yield were calculated for the U.S. Pacific 

Coast stock of thresher shark, with harvest guideline established at 340 t per year. The condition of 

other pelagic shark stocks remains unknown. 

Other Migratory Species

Other Pacific highly migratory species include 

wahoo and dolphinfish (mahi mahi). These species 

are primarily caught commercially using longline, 

troll, and handline gears; recreational fishermen use 

mainly rod-and-reel and handlines. The U.S. catch 

of dolphinfish and wahoo is worth about $4,200 

per ton. The MSY and status for these stocks is 

unknown, but both species are thought to be near 

the biomass level that would produce the MSY. 

ISSUES

Management Concerns

Growth of total fleet fishing capacity for highly 

A freshly landed wahoo on 

the deck of a NOAA Fisheries 

Research Vessel.

Allen Shimada, NMFS
247

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

Blue shark in the Southern 

California Bight, an important nursery area for young 

blue sharks.

Mark Conlin, NMFS

migratory species in the Pacific is of increasing 

concern to fishery managers, because many of 

the target species are already fully harvested or 

harvested above sustainable levels. In addition, the 

economic impacts of high capacity are becoming 

more apparent. Regional fishery management organizations and nations are increasingly considering 

management and limitation of fishing capacity as a 

major component of a rational fishery conservation 

and management program. The paradigm is that 

if fishing capacity can be managed effectively, the 

need for more restrictive, complicated, and costly 

management measures (e.g. limitations on fishing 

effort, catches, sizes, seasons, and area closures) 

would not be necessary. Therefore it is prudent 

to manage capacity rather than to limit efficiency. 

In recent years, the IATTC has been working on 

limiting purse-seine fishing capacity in the eastern 

Pacific, and parties involved in developing the 

WCPFC consider limitation of fishing capacity as 

a priority topic for consideration. 

Closely aligned with fishing capacity is the problem of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 

fishing by vessels that operate outside the control 

of regional management regimes. In June 2001, 

the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization 

Council adopted an international plan of action to 

prevent IUU fishing. The IATTC has been actively 

addressing this issue, and the emerging WCPFC 

deliberated on this issue as part of the groundwork 

for establishing the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific.

Another issue in the Pacific is the high fishing 

mortality (and subsequent reduction in future 

spawning biomass) being exerted on juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna with increasing use of fish 

aggregating devices by purse seiners and domestic 

fisheries of the Philippines and Indonesia. The 

WCPFC, in collaboration with the Secretariat of 

the Pacific Community, has initiated a program to 

document the level of mortality, particularly that 

caused by the Philippine and Indonesian fisheries, 

for highly migratory species. The IATTC has also 

been addressing this issue with proposed measures 

to limit the catch of bigeye tuna and to prevent 

overall fishing effort from increasing, but conservation measures for 2008 to address overfishing have 

not been adopted.

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

Of continuing concern is the bycatch of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals by fisheries 

for Pacific highly migratory species. NMFS has 

been and will continue to be a strong proponent 

for accurate reporting of catches of bycatch species as well as for adoption of preventative and 

mitigative gear and procedures. In this regard, 

NMFS is promoting the international adoption of 

fishing gear and techniques (i.e. large circle hooks 

and mackerel-type bait) developed in the Atlantic 

Ocean and currently being implemented in the Hawaii-based longline fishery to significantly reduce 

turtle bycatch in swordfish fishing. The IATTC 

and the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish 

have had a working group to address the problem 

of bycatch of protected species as well as incidental 

catches of fishes for a number of years. A similar 

working group was established by the WCPFC at 

its inaugural meeting in December 2004.

Participants in various fisheries under the WPFMC’s jurisdiction continue to voice concern about 

the impacts of competing fisheries on their fishing 

success (for example, near-island troll and handliners complain about offshore longline and handline 

fishing, particularly now as handline fishing around 

privately deployed fish aggregating devices expands 

offshore into waters fished by longliners). Also, 

longline fishery participants object to the number 

and severity of management measures specific to 
248

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Removing the hook from a 

freshly landed juvenile yellowfin tuna.

Allen Shimada, NMFS

that fishery. In particular, regulations to protect sea 

turtles and seabirds are contested in the Hawaiibased longline fishery because the impact of that 

fishery is believed to be slight compared to that of 

other fisheries, particularly foreign longliners that 

continue to operate unhindered on the high seas. 

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

Although they fish the same resources as the 

Hawaii-based vessels and sometimes fish the same 

areas, longline vessels operating out of California 

have not been subject to the management regulations developed by the WPFMC. As noted earlier, 

however, in 2004 the PFMC approved and implemented a highly migratory species FMP to close 

this loophole. The plan requires California-based 

longline vessels fishing highly migratory species on 

the high seas to follow practices applied to longliners by the WPFMC for prevention of sea turtle and 

seabird interactions. Combined with a separate 

regulation issued by NMFS, the FMP results in a 

prohibition of all shallow swordfish longline sets by 

West Coast-based longline vessels. The PFMC is 

considering whether to amend its FMP to require 

the same gear and techniques as in the WPFMC’s 

FMP and thus restore some swordfish fishing opportunity for the longline fleet. Other provisions 

of the PFMC’s plan apply to conservation of shark 

resources and involve application of existing state 

regulations. 

International cooperation and conservation 

measures are a growing management issue emerging for the highly migratory species FMP of the 

PFMC. If a tuna stock is experiencing overfishing 

or becomes overfished, FMP regulations could 

result in limits on the catch of U.S. fishermen, 

even when the regulations result in no significant 

advantage to the stock because of the relatively 

small amount of effort exerted by the U.S. fleet. 

The FMP regulations would have no effect on the 

substantial amount of foreign fishing that occurs 

on the high seas, although this sector of the fishery 

for highly migratory species may be the root cause 

of overfishing. United States fishermen would thus 

be disadvantaged. Efforts of the United States in 

establishing the WCPFC and strengthening the 

IATTC are designed to ensure that conservation 

measures would be equally applied to foreign and 

U.S. fishermen.

An administrative problem arising in all areas 

in the Pacific is the increasing need for vessel records and statistical documents for shipments of 

various tuna from nation or region to nation or 

region. Fish are easily shipped across regions, and 

all nations have a stake in ensuring that fishermen 

are not allowed to circumvent catch restrictions 

in one area by simply shipping fish to other areas 

and reporting they were caught there. While cumbersome, catch documentation requirements are 

increasingly needed to support effective conservation and management of important stocks in the 

Pacific Ocean.

Scientific Advice and 

Adequacy of Assessments

The condition is unknown for populations of 

some of the billfishes, dolphinfish, wahoo, and 

most shark species, largely because of a lack of 

comprehensive data on these species, in particular 

fishery statistics from all fishing fleets. Many of the 

species with unknown status are not targeted in 

highly migratory species fisheries but are captured 

as incidental catch or bycatch. United States fishery data collection through logbooks and observer 

programs is comprehensive, but is not enough 

for performing stock assessments. These data 

represent only a small fraction of the total catch 

from the stocks. Data collection and exchange 

on an international scale are required. Recent as-
249

PACIFIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY PELAGIC FISHERIES

UNIT 18

sessments undertaken for tuna species, swordfish, 

blue marlin, and blue shark have resulted from 

international collaboration. This collaborative approach also led to new stock assessment activities 

and a re-examination of stock structure for striped 

marlin in 2007. For other species, particularly 

bycatch species, international data collection must 

be significantly improved before credible stock assessments can be performed. 

The take of protected species by U.S. fisheries 

is well monitored, and aggressive management 

measures have been taken to minimize the impacts of U.S. fisheries. However, the impacts of 

U.S. fisheries on protected species and bycatch in 

general are relatively minor compared to those of 

the much larger foreign fleets that fish across the 

Pacific, because they represent only a small fraction of total fishing effort. Further work on an 

international scale will be required to minimize 

these impacts.

The U.S. monitoring of landings (including 

estimation of total catches), collection of fishing 

effort and resulting catch data (logbooks), and size 

data for domestic coastal and high-seas fisheries 

provide the basis for preparing scientific advice on 

domestic fisheries. They also comprise a disproportionate amount of the data used by international 

bodies for stock assessments. At meetings of multinational management bodies, NMFS will continue 

to strongly advocate participation of all fishing nations to meet their obligations for monitoring their 

fleets commensurate with their fisheries production. Data collected ought to be shared and made 

available to international management bodies and 

scientific working groups tasked to conduct stock 

assessments and to provide advice on the condition 

of the highly migratory species stocks.

Progress

Progress has been made on the stock assessment 

of several important fish stocks and in reducing 

U.S. fishery impacts on protected and endangered 

species. An updated blue marlin stock assessment 

indicates no overutilization. The status of several 

tuna stocks also has been updated. For central 

western Pacific tunas, the Secretariat of the Pacific 

Community annually convenes informal international scientific meetings to assemble fisheries 

statistics, evaluate fishery developments, and assess 

the condition of the western and South Pacific 

stocks. The recent assessments of North Pacific 

swordfish and blue shark were undertaken cooperatively under the sponsorship of the ISC. This 

organization now meets regularly to organize such 

research. The eastern Pacific stocks are assessed 

annually by the IATTC for providing fishing 

management advice.

Management of the domestic fisheries has 

been successful in reducing gear conflicts among 

longline, troll, driftnet, rod-and-reel, and handline 

fisheries and in reducing U.S. fishery impacts on 

Hawaiian monk seals, California sea lions, cetaceans, albatrosses, and sea turtles. Although the 

swordfish sector of the Hawaii longline fishery was 

closed between April 2001 and April 2004, the 

tuna harvest by the fishery continued to increase 

throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

FOR FURTHER READING

Boggs, C., P. Dalzell, T. Essington, M. Labelle, D. Mason, 

R. Skillman, and J. Wetherall. 2000. Recommended 

overfishing definitions and control rules for the Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council’s pelagic 

fishery management plan. NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory Administrative 

Report H-00-05, Honolulu, HI, 18 p. 

Childers, J. 2001. Summary of the 2000 U.S. North and 

South Pacific albacore troll fisheries. NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla Laboratory Administrative Report LJ-01-05, La Jolla, CA, 42 p.

Crone, P. R., and R. J. Conser (Editors). 2002. Report 

of the eighteenth North Pacific Albacore Workshop, 

La Jolla, CA, 4–11 December 2002. NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA, 92 p.

FAO. 2001. FAO yearbook of fishery statistics. Capture 

production 1999. Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries Series Volume 

88, Rome, Italy, 765 p.

Fournier, D. A., J. Hampton, and J. R. Sibert. 1998. 

MULTIFAN-CL. A length-based, age-structured 

model for fisheries stock assessment, with application to South Pacific albacore, Thunnus alalunga. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

55:2105–2216.
250

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

IATTC. 2001. Annual report of the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission, 1999. Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, 183 p.

IATTC. 2008. The fishery for tunas and billfishes in the 

eastern Pacific Ocean in 2007. Report of the 9th Stock 

Assesment Review Meeting, Inter-American Tropical 

Tuna Commission, La Jolla, CA, 49 p. Internet site—

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SARM-9-04-Thefishery-in-2007.pdf.

Interim Scientific Committee. 2004. Report of the 

Plenary Session of the Fourth Meeting of the Interim 

Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species 

in the North Pacific, February 2004, Honolulu, HI. 

National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Shimizu, Japan. Internet site—http://isc.ac.affrc.go.jp/

rep/ISC4PlenaryReport.pdf.

Ito, R. Y., and W. A. Machado. 2001. Annual report of 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery for 2000. NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory Administrative Report H-01-07, Honolulu, 

HI, 61 p.

Kleiber, P., Y. Takeuchi, and H. Nakano. 2001. Calculation of plausible maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 

for blue sharks (Prionace glauca) in the North Pacific. 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu 

Laboratory Administrative Report H-01-02, Honolulu, 

HI, 10 p. 

PFMC. 2003. Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. West Coast Fisheries 

for Highly Migratory Species. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. Internet site—http://

www.pcouncil.org.

SCTB. 2004. Report of the 16th meeting, Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish. Mooloolaba, Queensland, 

Australia, 9–16 July 2003. Internet site—http://www.

spc.int/oceanfish/html/SCTB/index.htm.

WPRFMC. 2004. Pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific 

region. 2002 annual report. Western Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Internet 

site—http://www.wpcouncil.org/pelagic-data.html.
251

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

alaska groundfish fisheries

INTRODUCTION

The groundfish complex is the most abundant 

fisheries resource off Alaska, with a combined biomass of more than 21.8 million metric tons (t). 

About 76% of the biomass is found in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands region, with the remainder 

in the Gulf of Alaska. From 2004 to 2006, groundfish catches averaged nearly 2.2 million t or about 

10% of the total groundfish biomass, although 

harvest rates vary for individual species. Prior to 

1976, the only groundfish species of significant 

commercial value to domestic fisheries was Pacific 

halibut; foreign fisheries harvested most other 

targeted commercial species. The implementation of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 (1976 Act) extended 

Federal fisheries management jurisdiction to 200 

nautical miles (n.mi.), excluding foreign fisheries 

and stimulating the growth of domestic fisheries. 

Although the domestic fisheries engaged initially 

Unit

19

JAMES IANELLI

SANDRA LOWE

ANNE HOLLOWED

LOH-LEE LOW

NMFS Alaska Fisheries

Science Center

Seattle

Washington

STEVEN HARE

International Pacific

Halibut Commission

Seattle

Washington

Photo above:

Walleye pollock catch.

David Csepp

in joint-venture operations with foreign partners 

after the 1976 Act, exclusively domestic fisheries 

had replaced these joint-venture operations by 

1983. The North Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council (NPFMC) manages Alaska groundfish 

fisheries within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ; 3–200 n.mi. offshore). Inshore groundfish 

resources (0–3 n.mi.) are managed by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. 

SPECIES AND STATUS

Pacific Halibut

 Pacific halibut are found from the Bering Sea 

to California, with the center of abundance in the 

Gulf of Alaska. The resource is managed by a bilateral treaty between the United States and Canada 

and through research and regulation recommendations from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). Pacific halibut, considered to be 
252

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 19-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Pacific halibut 

fisheries resources.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)2

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Pacific halibut3

 Bering Sea 9,691 9,770 15,000 Above

 Gulf of Alaska 39,341 35,431 40,000 Above

 U.S. Pacific Coast 1,069 1,079 1,000 Near

 Canadian Pacific Coast 9,024 7,811 7,000 Near

Total 59,125 54,091 63,000 

U.S. subtotal 50,101 46,280 56,000 

12001–03 average.

2Yield for 2007.

3Status determinations for Pacific halibut are coastwide: the stock is classified as not overfishing and not overfished.

one large interrelated biological stock, are regulated 

by subareas through catch quotas, time–area restrictions, and by individual fishing quotas. 

Although the commercial Pacific halibut fishery 

has a long tradition dating back to the 1880’s, the 

nature of the fishery has changed dramatically in 

recent years. Both Canadian and Alaskan halibut 

fisheries have moved from an open-access fishery 

with short fishing seasons to an individual fishing 

quota (IFQ) fishery of nearly 8 months’ duration. 

Under the IFQ system there has been a decline in 

overall size of the fishing fleet. In 2003, 220 vessels fished in Canada and 1,586 fished in Alaska, 

whereas in 2007, the number of vessels was 212 

in Canada and 1,482 in Alaska. In addition, the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a 

catch-sharing plan for Treaty Indian, commercial, 

and recreational Pacific halibut fisheries for the 

Washington–California region. 

Most components of the halibut fishery have 

been very successful in recent years, including 

the growing recreational fishery. The resource has 

been healthy, and the total catch has been near record levels. The recent average yield (2004–06) of 

halibut was 59,125 t (Table 19-1); the 2007 catch 

was slightly lower at 54,091 t. The breakdown by 

fishery sector in 2007 was 37,986 t for commercial 

fisheries, 6,004 t for recreational fisheries, 896 t for 

personal use, 7,321 t as bycatch in other fisheries, 

and 1,461 t as mortality due to fishing by lost gear 

and discards. 

Because of the long history of the fishery, data 

on the Pacific halibut stock go back to the 1920’s. 

The stock was depleted by unregulated commercial 

fishing early in the 20th century but recovered under IPHC management between 1930 and 1950. A 

combination of adverse environmental conditions, 

large bycatch of halibut in foreign fisheries in the 

1960’s, and continued high quotas again depressed 

the stock to a low level in the early 1970’s. In the 

mid 1970’s the IPHC adopted a stock rebuilding 

plan and greatly reduced commercial quotas. At 

the same time, the implementation of the 1976 Act 

limited bycatch of Pacific halibut. These factors, 

combined with a dramatic shift in the climate of 

the North Pacific, resulted in much higher reproductive success and a rapid recovery of the stock 

during the 1980’s.

 While the history of the halibut stock is well 

known, the modern assessment is conducted only 

for the time frame of 1996 to the present. The 

modern assessment relies heavily on data that 

have only been collected since the coastwide stock 

resource surveys began in 1996. The most recent 

assessment shows that the stock has declined from 

the very high levels of the late 1990’s (Figure 19-

1; Clark and Hare, 2002; Hare and Clark, 2008) 

but is still well above any level of concern for the 

spawning biomass. On a coastwide basis, removals 

are very close to the target 20% harvest rate identified for halibut as providing the optimal combination of precaution and exploitation. In the western 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

region, comprehensive surveys first conducted in 

the latter half of the 1990’s showed a substantially 

greater abundance of halibut than previously estimated. After several years of increased quotas, harvest rates in those areas are now at the target level, 
253

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

Figure 19-1

Pacific halibut landings and 

exploitable biomass in metric tons (t), 1996–2007.

Figure 19-2

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands groundfish landings 

and biomass in metric tons 

(t), 1977–2007.

and the actual catch levels are likely right around 

the MSY. Although status determinations are not 

made for individual subareas, the coastwide stock 

is classified as not subject to overfishing and the 

stock status is not overfished.

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Groundfishes

The average eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands groundfish catch in recent years (2004–06) 

was nearly 2 million t (Figure 19-2, Table 19-2). 

The dominant species harvested were walleye pollock (75%), Pacific cod (11%), yellowfin sole (4%), 

Atka mackerel (3%), and rock sole (2%). The rest 

of the species complex makes up 1% or less of the 

total catch. 

Groundfish biomass has been maintained at 

relatively high levels since implementation of the 

1976 Act in 1977. The current potential yield (2.68 

million t) is slightly below the MSY (as estimated 

from long-term averages of all species combined) 

of just over 3 million t (Table 19-2). This yield, 

however, has not been allowed to be fully harvested 

because catch quotas have been capped at a 2 million t optimum yield limit set in the groundfish 

fishery management plan (FMP) for the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands region. The economically 

more valuable species, such as walleye pollock and 

Pacific cod, have been allowed to be harvested closer 

to their full biological potential while many less 

valuable species are relatively lightly harvested. 

Walleye pollock: The catch of walleye pollock 

is the largest of any single species within the U.S. 

EEZ. The three principal management stocks, in 

decreasing order of abundance, are eastern Bering 

Sea, Bogoslof Island (in the Aleutian Basin), and 

Aleutian Islands. The biomass of eastern Bering 

Sea pollock has fluctuated in the past three decades 

as a result of variable strengths of recruiting yearclasses. Recent trends indicate that the stock has 

declined since 2003 due to poor recruitment from 

the 2001–05 year-classes. This string of consecutive below-average year-classes is unusual, but the 

two surveys conducted in 2007 indicate that the 

2006 year-class may be above average, and if so, 

the stock should stabilize and begin increasing after 

2009. The eastern Bering Sea stock is considered 

fully utilized and is well managed for bycatch and 

other issues such as minimizing impacts on Steller 

sea lion populations. Near-term projections indicate that the recent reductions in quota will persist for 2009. 

The Bogoslof Island management stock is 

considered to be below the peak biomass levels 

observed during the late 1980’s. Recent analyses 

suggest that due to stock structure uncertainty and 

Year

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0

150

300

450

600

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Exploitable

biomass

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

U.S. landings

Biomass

Canadian landings

Year

1977 1987 1997 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

10

20

30

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Biomass

(million t) Total landings

U.S. landings

Foreign landings

Joint venture landings

Biomass
254

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 19-2

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Alaska groundfish fisheries resources. BSAI 

= Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; GOA = Gulf of Alaska.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Flatfish

Alaska plaice (BSAI) 11,951 190,000 241,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Arrowtooth flounder 

 BSAI 14,934 158,000 193,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 20,909 184,008 214,828 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Flathead sole

 BSAI 17,164 79,200 95,300 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 2,685 37,110 48,658 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Greenland halibut (BSAI) 2,247 2,440 15,600 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Rex sole (GOA) 2,311 9,100 11,900 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Rock sole (BSAI) 39,835 198,000 200,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Yellowfin sole (BSAI) 87,499 225,000 240,000 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Deepwater Flatfishes (GOA) 499 8,707 10,431 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Shallow water Flatfishes (GOA) 5,168 51,450 62,418 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Other Flatfishes (BSAI) 4,167 21,400 28,500 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Subtotal, flatfish 209,369 1,164,415 1,361,635

Rockfish

Northern rockfish 

 BSAI 4,157 8,190 9,750 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 4,856 4,938 5,890 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Pacific ocean perch

 BSAI 11,720 21,900 26,100 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 12,130 14,636 17,158 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Shortraker/rougheye rockfishes

 BSAI3 285 626 833 Unknown

 GOA4 933 1,831 2,270 Above

Demersal Shelf Rockfishes (GOA) 256 410 650 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Other Slope Rockfishes (GOA)5 844 4,154 5,394 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Pelagic Shelf Rockfishes (GOA) 2,575 5,542 6,458 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

Thornyheads (GOA) 816 2,209 2,945 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Other Rockfishes (BSAI) 533 999 1,330 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Subtotal, rockfish 39,105 65,435 78,778

possibly environmental conditions, expectations to 

return to the peak stock levels may be unrealistic 

since pollock fishing within this region has been 

prohibited since 1992. Survey biomass estimates 

for Bogoslof since 2000 have all been lower than 

estimates prior to 2000, ranging from a low of 

198,000 t in 2003 to a high of 301,000 t in 2000. 

The 2007 estimate is the highest since the 2000 

estimate. 

Similar stock-structure uncertainty exists for 

the Aleutian Islands region, which was closed to 

directed pollock fishing from 1999–2005. Age 2+ 

biomass is estimated to have increased from 1999 

to 2004, after which it has been stable. Spawning 

biomass is estimated to have been increasing slowly 

since 1999. The 2000 year-class is estimated to have 

been well above average (third-largest in the time 

series), and preliminary indications are that the 

2005 and 2006 year-classes may be slightly above 

average. The status of the stock in this region indicates that 28,200 t could potentially be harvested. 

Current regulations restrict the Aleutian Islands 

pollock quota to be at or below 19,000 t due to 

concerns over potential interactions or food competition with Steller sea lions in this area (which 

contains significant portions of the critical habitat 

for the species). To better understand interactions 

between Steller sea lions and fisheries, an exempted 

fishing permit was granted in 2006 and 2007. This 

project is restricted to catch fewer than 3,000 t and 
255

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

Table 19-2

Continued from previous 

page.

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)2

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

Other groundfish

Atka mackerel

 BSAI 60,977 74,000 86,900 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 831 4,700 6,200 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Pacific cod

 BSAI 208,717 176,000 207,000 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA 46,641 68,859 97,000 Near Not overfishing Not overfished

Sablefish (blackcod)6

 Eastern Bering Sea 1,099 2,980 3,520 Near

 Aleutian Islands 1,083 2,810 3,320 Near

 Gulf of Alaska 14,323 14,310 16,906 Near

Walleye pollock

 Aleutian Islands 1,502 44,500 54,500 Above Not overfishing Not overfished

 Bogoslof Island7 Trace 5,220 48,000 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Eastern Bering Sea 1,483,411 1,394,000 1,640,000 Below Not overfishing Not overfished

 GOA8 72,262 68,307 95,429 Below

Other Species (BSAI)9 28,648 68,800 91,700 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Squids (BSAI) 1,133 1,970 2,620 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Subtotal, other groundfish 1,920,627 1,926,456 2,353,095

Total 2,169,101 3,156,306 3,794,108

Subtotal, BSAI 1,981,062 2,676,035 3,188,973

Subtotal, GOA 188,039 480,271 605,135

12004–06 average.

2MSY is equal to the overfishing level for all stocks.

3Status determinations are made separately for these stocks: shortraker rockfish is not overfishing and undefined stock status; rougheye rockfish 

is not overfishing and undefined stock status.

4Status determinations are made separately for these stocks: shortraker rockfish is not overfishing and has undefined stock status; rougheye 

rockfish is not overfishing and not overfished.

5Other Slope Rockfishes are predominately comprised of harlequin and sharpchin rockfishes.

6Status determinations for sablefish are made for the entire Alaska region; this stock is not overfishing and not overfished.

7Trace amounts of catch only; the TAC in recent years has been set well below the ABC to account for bycatch in other directed fisheries.

8Status determinations are made for individual areas in the GOA: the Western/Central GOA stock is not overfishing and not overfished; the Eastern 

GOA stock is not overfishing and has undefined stock status.

9BSAI Other Species includes sculpins, skates, sharks, and octopus.

has strict guidelines for providing scientifically validated survey information. For both the Aleutian 

Islands and Bogoslof Island regions, stocks of pollock are underutilized by directed fishing. 

Pacific cod: Estimated Pacific cod abundance 

reached a high of about 2.5 million t in 1985, then 

declined, and has fluctuated between 1.5 and 1.0 

million t between 1991 and 2007. Since 2003, estimated biomass has declined to just below 1 million t. The 2007 eastern Bering Sea (EBS) shelf 

bottom trawl survey estimate is 18% lower than the 

2006 survey estimate and is the all-time low in the 

survey biomass time series. This recent decline is 

due mainly to a sequence of five consecutive yearclasses of the EBS Pacific cod stock, from 2001–05 

(that ranged from 204 to 399 million age-0 fish), 

which are noticeably below the 30-year average 

year-class strength (658 million age-0 fish during 

1977–2006). However, the 2006 year-class appears 

to be more than 2.5 times higher than the average 

recruitment. Although substantially lower than 

the high levels of the 1980’s, the current biomass 

is still relatively high when compared to the much 

lower abundance levels of the 1970’s. The stock is 

considered to be fully utilized. Developments in 

the assessment model include a revised maturityat-age schedule and the incorporation of new age 

data into the assessment.

Arrowtooth flounders.

AFSC, RACE Division
256

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Flatfishes: All flatfish species in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands area are underutilized as a result of 

the requirement in the groundfish FMP to maintain overall groundfish catches within the 2 million 

t optimum yield cap and the need to prevent excessive bycatch of Pacific halibut and king and Tanner 

crabs in flatfish trawl fisheries. Yellowfin sole is the 

most abundant of the flatfish complex, followed by 

northern rock sole, Alaska plaice, arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, and Greenland halibut. Greenland halibut, a deep-water flatfish species found on 

the Continental Slope, is the only flatfish species 

that is relatively low in historical abundance. The 

biomass of Greenland halibut increased during the 

1970’s from the early 1960’s level and is currently 

about 61% of the level expected under no fishing 

using average recruitment since 1977. Recruitment 

of young juvenile Greenland halibut appeared to 

have been poor for about 15 years since the early 

1980’s after several strong year-classes during the 

1970’s. Recently, there has been evidence of positive recruitment for Greenland halibut beginning 

in 2000. The biomass of all the other flatfish species has generally gone through a long period of 

increases from the late 1960’s to the early 1990’s, 

due to recruitment of a succession of strong incoming year-classes. The strength of the year-classes recruiting after 1985 has stabilized, and the biomass 

of flatfishes is high and stable. 

Sablefish: Sablefish (blackcod) is a valuable species 

caught mostly with longline and pot gear in depths 

greater than those fished by trawlers. Sablefish are 

considered to belong to a single stock from the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region to the Gulf 

of Alaska. Sablefish abundance increased during 

the mid 1960’s due to strong year-classes from the 

1960’s. Abundance subsequently dropped during 

the 1970’s due to heavy fishing; catches peaked at 

53,000 t in 1972. The population recovered due to 

strong year-classes from the late 1970’s, and spawning abundance peaked again in 1987. The population then decreased as these strong year-classes died 

off. Abundance has increased from an all-time low 

in 2000. The 2000 year-class now appears to be 

larger than the 1997 year-class and is expected to 

comprise 18% of the spawning biomass in 2008. 

Sablefish abundance is now considered moderate, 

and current spawning biomass is estimated to be 

37% of unfished biomass. The stock is fully utilized. Sablefish have been harvested under an IFQ 

system since 1995, which significantly changed the 

dynamics of the fishery. 

Rockfishes: Rockfishes are assessed and managed in several species groups: Pacific ocean perch, 

northern rockfish, rougheye and shortraker rockfish, and other rockfishes. The abundance of Pacific 

ocean perch dropped sharply in the 1960’s due to 

intensive foreign fisheries, and remained low into 

the early 1980’s. In the mid 1980’s effort levels 

were low and have helped rebuild the stock. The 

Pacific ocean perch stock appears to be recovered 

and is currently estimated to be at high levels similar to peak levels in the 1960’s. Northern rockfish, 

rougheye rockfish, and shortraker rockfish were 

previously managed in the “other red rockfishes” 

species complex, but have now been separated into 

single-species management groups and have assessment models to help guide management. Northern 

rockfish were managed as a separate species beginning in 2002. Shortraker rockfish and rougheye 

rockfish were managed as separate species beginning in 2004. The trend in survey biomass for each 

of these three species is highly variable. However, 

model estimates of abundance show an increasing 

trend since 1980 for northern rockfish, a declining trend for rougheye rockfish, and a stable trend 

for shortraker rockfish. The “other rockfishes” 

species group is composed largely of shortspine 

John Butler, SWFSC

An unidentified octopus rests 

in a curled up position on the 

sea floor. 
257

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

Figure 19-3

Gulf of Alaska groundfish 

landings and biomass in 

metric tons (t), 1977–2007.

thornyhead and dusky rockfish. Based on bottom 

trawl survey information, shortspine thornyhead 

and dusky rockfish biomass appears to be increasing since 1997. Yields of rockfishes are established 

based on their longevity and productivity; hence, 

recommended exploitation rates are low relative to 

other groundfish species. 

Atka mackerel: The Atka mackerel stock is centered mainly in the Aleutian Islands region. Total biomass built up steadily from a biomass of 

279,000 t in 1977 to a peak of 677,000 t in 1992 

due to particularly strong recruitment from the 

1988 year-class. From 1992 to about 1996, the resource declined rather rapidly due to more moderate recruitment from incoming year-classes. From 

1996 to 2000, the population trend was fairly stable 

with several above-average year-classes contributing 

to the population. After 2000, biomass increased 

rapidly, reaching a peak of nearly 750,000 t in 2004 

due to several back-to-back strong year-classes, and 

particularly strong recruitment from the 1999 yearclass. The biomass is now in the 500,000 t range 

and is expected to decrease in the near future as 

recent strong year-classes pass through the population. The stock is fully utilized. 

Other Species: The Other Species complex is 

made up of sharks, skates, sculpins, and squids 

and octopuses. In response to a developing fishery 

in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), the GOA FMP was 

amended to remove skates from the Other Species 

category. A similar FMP amendment was initiated 

by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1999 to remove both skates and sharks from 

the Other Species category in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands area to increase the level of management attention and control for these potentially 

vulnerable species groups; this action is still in the 

process of revision and review. Additional FMP 

amendments are being proposed to split the Other 

Species category into component groups in both 

the BSAI and GOA. 

Most of the species in this complex are expected 

to be underutilized and below their MSY. No targeted fisheries for any species in this category exist at this time; their current yields are all taken as 

bycatch amounts to other target groundfish fishing 

operations. In recent years, the species that make up 

this category have received special attention as data 

on the individual species have been accumulated 

and are being analyzed. Biomass levels are being 

estimated for the individual species, and management of the complex by species or major taxonomic 

groups is being evaluated. 

Gulf of Alaska Groundfishes

 Groundfish abundance in the Gulf of Alaska 

has increased since 1977, peaking at 6.3 million t 

in 1982 and most recently in 2007 at 5.3 million t, 

primarily due to increasing arrowtooth flounder 

biomass. Abundance since 1986 has remained 

relatively stable, fluctuating between about 4 and 

5 million t. The recent average yield (2004–06) 

for groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska was just over 

188,000 t (Table 19-2). This is substantially lower 

than the current yield of 480,271 t due to underutilization of some groundfish species (particularly flatfish species) that cannot be fully harvested 

without exceeding the bycatch limits for Pacific 

halibut set by the NPFMC. The MSY for GOA 

groundfishes is higher than the current yield at just 

over 600,000 t. Gulf of Alaska groundfish catches 

have ranged from a low of 146,703 t in 1987 to a 

high of 356,659 t in 1984 (Figure 19-3). Recent 

groundfish catches have been dominated by walleye 

pollock as well as flatfish, Pacific cod, and rockfish. 

Groundfish catches since 1989 have fluctuated 

around 200,000 t. 

Year

1977 1987 1997 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

2

4

6

8

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Biomass

(million t)

Total landings

U.S. landings Biomass

Joint venture landings

Foreign

landings
258

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Walleye pollock: Pollock abundance in the Gulf 

of Alaska increased dramatically during the 1970’s, 

peaked in the early 1980’s, and subsequently declined. Current abundance is estimated to be at the 

lowest levels in the time series. The 2007 winter 

Shelikof Strait hydroacoustic survey was 38% lower 

than the 2006 estimate and is the lowest biomass 

estimate observed from this region. Estimated 

harvest rates have never exceeded 15%, suggesting 

that the extreme variation in pollock abundance is 

primarily a result of environmental forcing. Pollock abundance may also be negatively impacted 

by increases in piscivorous fish species in the Gulf 

of Alaska. The 1999 and 2000 year-classes are the 

most recent confirmed strong year-classes. Currently, the 2004 and 2005 year-classes appear to be 

above average, but levels are highly uncertain. Pollock are carefully managed due to concerns about 

the impact of fisheries on endangered and threatened Steller sea lions; pollock are a major prey item 

of Steller sea lions in the Gulf of Alaska. Sea lion 

protection measures include closed areas around 

rookeries and haul-outs, apportionment of the 

western central Gulf of Alaska pollock total allowable catch among 3 years and 4 seasons, and the use 

of more conservative harvest policy to determine 

the acceptable biological catch (ABC). Pollock in 

this area are considered fully utilized. 

Pacific cod: The trawl survey biomass estimates of 

Pacific cod peaked in 1990 at about 350,000 t and 

are presently about 230,000 t based on the most 

recent trawl survey biomass estimate. The Pacific 

cod stock is considered healthy but declining and 

is fully utilized. Assessment modeling of Pacific 

cod in this region has improved with the addition 

of age composition data, improved estimates of 

growth and maturity, and acknowledgements of 

uncertainties on assumed natural mortality and 

survey catchability. Additionally, ecosystem analysis of the role Pacific cod plays in the environment 

has been expanded. 

Flatfishes: Flatfishes in the Gulf of Alaska are in 

general very abundant, largely due to great increases 

in arrowtooth flounder biomass. Arrowtooth flounder continues to dominate this group (and leads 

all groundfish based on the 2007 survey biomass 

estimates for the western and central GOA. Flathead sole, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder are 

managed as separate categories, while the rest of 

the flatfishes are managed as deepwater and shallow water groups. Flatfishes are underutilized due 

to halibut bycatch considerations. 

Sablefish: Sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska are part 

of a single stock throughout the Gulf, Bering Sea, 

and Aleutian Islands. For more information on the 

Alaska sablefish stock, see the sablefish section under Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish. 

Rockfishes: For management purposes, rockfishes 

in the Gulf of Alaska are divided into four assemblages or species groups: slope rockfishes, pelagic 

shelf rockfishes, thornyheads, and demersal shelf 

rockfishes. The slope rockfishes comprise the largest 

biomass component of Gulf of Alaska rockfishes. 

Within this group, Pacific ocean perch, shortraker 

and rougheye rockfish, and northern rockfish are 

managed as separate categories along with an “other 

slope rockfishes” category that aggregates the less 

abundant species. Slope rockfishes, particularly 

Pacific ocean perch, were intensively exploited by 

foreign fleets in the 1960’s. Since the 1990’s, Pacific ocean perch has rebounded from the heavy 

exploitation due to apparently favorable recruitment conditions. Their abundance is at moderately 

high levels compared to the low abundance levels 

of the 1980’s, and is increasing. Pacific ocean perch 

are fully utilized. As with Pacific ocean perch, the 

northern rockfish and rougheye rockfish assessments are now based on age-structured models. 

Thornyheads are highly valued and believed to 

be at above-average levels of abundance, based on 

Yelloweye rockfish. stable to increasing survey trends. V. O’Connell, ADFG; OAR/NURP
259

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

The crew of the F/V Clyde

pose with a large Pacific 

halibut caught in the Aleutian Islands while on an 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission stock assessment survey.

Ivan Loyola, IPHC

In the pelagic shelf rockfishes group, dusky 

rockfish is the dominant species and is now assessed 

with an age-structured model. The abundance 

estimate for the dusky rockfish is variable but appears to be at above-average levels (due to low to 

moderate fishing pressure). Assessments results for 

dusky rockfish indicate a stable to increasing trend. 

Other species in the pelagic shelf group have more 

uncertain estimates of abundance because their occurrence is relatively rare. 

Demersal shelf rockfish assessment and management focuses primarily on yelloweye rockfish; 

the six other species in this group are much less 

abundant. Traditional population assessment 

methods (e.g. bottom trawl surveys) are considered 

problematic for these species due to their affinity 

for rough terrain. They are currently assessed using 

submersible line-transect methods. Available information suggests that abundance is stable for this 

species group, but overall, the trend is uncertain.

Rockfish stocks in general appear to be in good 

condition due to favorable conditions and precautionary management practices. 

Atka mackerel: The Atka mackerel stock occurs 

mainly in the Aleutian Islands region; its abundance 

in the Gulf of Alaska is much lower and highly variable. The resource supported a large foreign fishery 

in the Gulf through the mid 1980’s but disappeared 

thereafter. Fisheries targeting the species resumed 

in the Gulf in 1990 as the population increased. 

The absolute abundance of the stock has been difficult to estimate by trawl gear since it is a shallow, 

schooling species that tends to reside on rough and 

rocky bottoms. Due to extreme variance in survey 

catches, it has been concluded that stock abundance 

cannot be reliably determined from trawl survey 

data. Because there is no reliable estimate of Atka 

mackerel biomass and this species has exhibited 

vulnerability to fishing pressure in the past, Atka 

mackerel are currently managed as a bycatch-only 

species. Quota levels are set at low levels that preclude a directed fishery but accommodate bycatch 

needs in other fisheries. 

ISSUES AND PROGRESS

Transboundary Stocks and Jurisdiction

Some of the U.S.-origin eastern Bering Sea 

walleye pollock migrate into the Russian zone of 

the northern Bering Sea, intermingle with Russian stocks, and are subject to Russian exploitation. Such exploitation is of concern to the United 

States as it could impact U.S. stocks and management. While this transboundary issue is a subject 

of continuing U.S.-Russian scientific studies and 

discussions, a coordinated exploitation and man-
260

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

agement scheme has not yet been reached. At this 

time, the United States can only indirectly consider 

the possible impact of Russian fishing on the U.S. 

stocks in setting domestic exploitation strategies. 

A former unregulated pollock fishery that occurred in the Donut Hole area of the central Bering 

Sea has come under regulation since the implementation of the Convention on the Conservation and 

Management of Pollock Resources in the Central 

Bering Sea in 1997. Under this Convention, signed 

by the Russian Federation, Japan, Poland, China, 

the Republic of Korea, and the United States, a 

central Bering Sea walleye pollock fishery has not 

been authorized because of low biomass of the 

Aleutian Basin stock. In fact, the moratorium on 

pollock fishing in the central Bering Sea was voluntarily imposed beginning in 1993 as negotiations on the Convention were proceeding. Parties 

to the convention meet annually to discuss current 

conditions and experimental fishing guidelines (if 

agreed), and exchange relevant scientific reports.

Bycatch

Pacific halibut, king, Tanner, and snow crabs, 

salmon, herring, and shrimp all fall under the “prohibited species” category for groundfish fisheries. 

When taken incidentally in the groundfish fisheries their numbers are reported and counted against 

cap levels that are set in regulation. Some species 

are returned immediately to the sea, whereas other 

species are landed and given to food banks or other 

non-profit programs. The cap levels for incidental 

take restrict a number of directed fisheries. For 

example, the Pacific halibut cap constrains Bering Sea flatfish fisheries. As such, the prohibited 

species regulations affect the allocation of directed 

fishery quotas. Since bycatch limits of prohibited 

(and other managed) species are strictly followed, 

directed groundfish fisheries could be closed before 

the entire available groundfish quota is taken. 

 The NPFMC also has an incentive program 

to control bycatch whereby bycatch rates are established for the fleet and regulated by individual 

vessels. It is designed to give a vessel more control 

over its own fishing strategy by holding it directly 

accountable for its bycatch rates. 

Multispecies Interactions

Marine mammal interactions with fish and fisheries are a great concern to Alaska fishery resource 

School of yellowtail rockfish.

AFSC, RACE Division
261

ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 19

management. Fisheries compete for prey items that 

marine mammals and other species, including seabirds, depend on for food in the marine ecosystem. 

The impact of fish removals on Steller sea lions has 

been implicated as an important factor in the decline of sea lion populations. The Steller sea lion 

is listed as threatened (eastern Pacific population) 

and endangered (western U.S. Pacific population) 

under the Endangered Species Act. Since sea lions 

feed on walleye pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific 

cod, these groundfish fisheries have been regulated 

to reduce impact on them. In November 2000, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion under the Section 7 Consultation of 

the Endangered Species Act that the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska walleye 

pollock fisheries are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of Steller 

sea lions and adversely modify its critical habitat 

(NMFS, 1998). As a result of this jeopardy determination, NMFS has proposed some reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to disperse the intensity 

of pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries in the critical habitat of sea lions and to enact 

additional prohibitions, including 10–20 n.mi. notrawl zones around sea lion rookeries and haul-out 

areas. 

Allocation Issues

As the domestic groundfish fisheries are now 

fully developed and capitalized, emerging allocation issues between user groups are important 

management problems. The NPFMC has been 

addressing problems as they arise and developing FMP amendments to mitigate them. Recent 

amendments have made explicit allocations to inshore and offshore sectors of the industry as well 

as specific percentage allocations of target and 

bycatch amounts to specific gear types. Industrysponsored regulation (The American Fisheries Act) 

has developed a successful cooperative system for 

the Bering Sea pollock fishery. In 1995, NMFS 

promulgated regulations to implement an IFQ 

program for sablefish and Pacific halibut. Under 

this program, vessel owners are allocated transferable quota shares of sablefish and Pacific halibut 

that resulted in more efficient use of the resources 

than under an open-access system. 

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, W. G., and S. R. Hare. 2002. Effects of climate 

and stock size on recruitment and growth of Pacific 

halibut. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(3):852–862. 

Hare, S. R., and W. G. Clark. 2008. 2007 IPHC harvest 

policy analysis. Past, present, and future considerations. 

International Pacific Halibut Commission Report of 

Assessment and Research Activities 2007:275–295.

NMFS. 1998. Biological opinion on groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea–Aleutian Islands and Gulf of 

Alaska. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, 160 p.

263

ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 20

Alaska Shellfish Fisheries

Unit

20

BeNJaMIN J. TUrNoCK

NMFS Alaska Fisheries

Science Center

Seattle

Washington

INTroDUCTIoN

Alaska’s major shellfish fisheries developed in 

the 1960’s in the Gulf of Alaska and then later 

expanded to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

region. Shellfish landings in 2006 generated an 

estimated ex-vessel value of over $153 million. King 

and snow crabs account for a majority of this value 

(about $127 million); Tanner crab contributed 

little to the total value due to low harvest limits 

while the stock was rebuilding. Other miscellaneous invertebrate fishery resources include shrimp 

and sea snails. Recent shrimp harvests continue to 

be low due to depressed stock abundance levels, and 

there has been no reported harvest of sea snails since 

1997. Landings of non-crab invertebrates in Alaska 

added about $13.7 million to ex-vessel revenue in 

2006. 

The State of Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADFG) is the primary management authority for a majority of Alaska shellfish resources. 

Photo above: 

Red king crabs.

Yury A. Zuyev, Hydrometeorological University of St. Petersburg

Although a Federal fishery management plan 

(FMP) exists for crab stocks in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands, the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council has deferred management 

authority to ADFG. Crab fisheries in the Gulf of 

Alaska, as well as shrimp and other miscellaneous 

invertebrate resources in Alaska, are also managed 

by ADFG. 

SPeCIeS aND STaTUS

Crabs

 The fleet fishing for Alaskan crabs is comprised 

of 200–250 vessels, many of which are based in the 

Pacific Northwest. Crabs are captured with baited 

pots, and most of the catch is landed in Dutch 

Harbor, Alaska. Quotas, seasons, and size and sex 

limits restrict catches, with landings limited to large 

male crabs. Seasonal closures are set to avoid fishing 

during times when crabs are molting or mating, 
264

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 20-1

Productivity in metric tons (t) 

and status of Alaska shellfish 

fisheries resources. 

Species/stock

Recent average

yield (RAY)1

Current

yield (CY)

Sustainable

yield (MSY)

Stock level

relative to BMSY

Harvest

rate

Stock

status

King crabs2

Blue king crab

 Pribilof Islands 0 0 1,179 Unknown Not overfishing Overfished

 Saint Lawrence Island 0 0 45 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Saint Matthews Island 0 0 1,995 Unknown Not overfishing Rebuilding

Golden (brown) king crab

 Aleutian Islands 2,435 2,495 6,803 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Northern District 0 0 136 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Pribilof Islands 32 0 136 Unknown Unknown Undefined

Red king crab

 Aleutian Islands, Adak 0 0 680 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Aleutian Islands, Dutch Harbor 0 0 Unknown Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Bristol Bay 7,895 8,303 7,125 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Norton Sound 175 204 227 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Pribilof Islands 0 0 590 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

Scarlet king crab

 Aleutian Islands 0 0 0 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Eastern Bering Sea 0 0 0 Unknown Unknown Undefined

Subtotal, king crab 10,537 11,002 18,916

Snow and Tanner crabs

Grooved Tanner crab3

 Eastern Aleutian Islands 0 0 91 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Eastern Bering Sea 0 0 680 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Western Aleutian Islands 0 0 816 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

Snow crab 12,976 16,774 125,397 Below Not overfishing Rebuilding

Southern Tanner crab3

 Adak (western Aleutians) 41 41 181 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Eastern Aleutian Islands Unknown Unknown 317 Unknown Not overfishing Undefined

 Eastern Bering Sea 464 962 25,805 Unknown Not overfishing Not overfished

 Gulf of Alaska4 1,230 1,561 Unknown Unknown

Triangle Tanner crab3

 Eastern Bering Sea 0 0 136 Unknown Unknown Undefined

 Eastern Aleutian Islands 0 0 454 Unknown Unknown Undefined

Subtotal, snow and Tanner crab 14,711 19,338 155,438

other shellfishes

Sea snails4 0 0 3,062 Unknown

Shrimp4 853 513 14,722 Below

Subtotal, other shellfish 853 513 17,784

Total 26,101 30,853 192,138

12004–06 average.

2Stock level determinations are not available for individual stocks; collectively, the stock level of king crabs is below BMSY.

3Stock level determinations are not available for individual stocks; collectively, the stock level of Tanner crabs is below BMSY.

4Harvest rate and stock status are not available for this stock.

Top photo: close-up of a 

large male red king crab.

Lower photo: Alaskan pink 

shrimp.

A. Zuyev, Murmansk Marine Biol. Inst. AFSC, RACE Division
265

ALASKA SHELLFISH FISHERIES

UNIT 20

Figure 20-2

Southern Tanner and snow 

crab landings in metric tons 

(t) and abundance in individuals for the Gulf of Alaska 

and Bering Sea, 1960–2006. 

Figure 20-1

King crab landings in metric tons (t) for the Gulf of Alaska 

and Bering Sea, 1960–2006. Abundance trends are for Bering Sea red, Pribilof Island blue, and Saint Matthews Island 

blue king crab stocks combined.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

200

400

Abundance

(millions

of crabs)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Bering Sea

Gulf of

Alaska

Abundance

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

Abundance

(millions

of crabs)

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

Total landings

Bering Sea

Gulf of

Alaska

Tanner crab

abundance

Snow crab

abundance

and during soft-shell periods. These regulations 

are in place both to protect the crab resource and 

to maintain product quality. 

Three king crab species (red, blue, and golden 

or brown), snow crab, and southern Tanner crab 

have traditionally been harvested commercially off 

Alaska. Exploratory fisheries on deep-water stocks 

of scarlet king crab, grooved Tanner crab, and 

triangle Tanner crab have occurred sporadically, 

producing minor landings to date. Yield values 

from these fisheries are presented in Table 20-1. 

Information on current and maximum sustainable 

yields is not available for king and Tanner crabs; 

values presented in Table 20-1 were derived from 

historical data. Stock status is determined by comparison of the short-term average catches against 

sustainable production. Alaska crab resources are 

fully utilized.

The recent average yields for king (10,537 

metric tons [t]), snow (12,976 t) and southern 

Tanner (1,735 t) crabs are all below their respective 

sustainable yields. Harvest of snow crab has been 

lower than the sustainable yield since 2000 due to 

low abundance and lower harvest rates established 

under a rebuilding plan. 

The ex-vessel value in 2006 was about $84.5 

million for king crabs, $6.7 million for Tanner 

crabs, and $42.9 million for snow crabs (ADFG, 

2007). Landings in 2006 were: king crab (11,003 

t), Southern Tanner crab (1,564 t), and snow crab 

(16,774 t). Almost all this production came from 

the Bering Sea, which contributes a majority of 

king crab landings and all snow crab landings. 

Snow crab dominates the total crab landings, accounting for 54% of the catch; however, king crabs 

comprise 55% of the ex-vessel value. 

Catch and abundance trends (Rugolo et al., 

2007) for king crabs are shown in Figure 20-1. After 

a peak in 1964–66, declines were evident. Until 

1967, Japanese and Russian fisheries dominated 

Bering Sea landings, but those fisheries were phased 

out by 1974. In the Bering Sea, domestic catches 

peaked at 74,000 t in 1980 and then dropped 

precipitously in 1981. Since then, catches have 

remained low. Gulf of Alaska catches peaked in 

1965, varied at a relatively low level for a decade, 

and then dropped lower still in 1983. Almost all 

Gulf of Alaska king crab fisheries have been closed 

since 1983.

Southern Tanner and snow crab trends (Rugolo 

et al., 2007) are shown in Figure 20-2. The 1965–75 

period was a developmental phase for this fishery. 

During 1975–85, the catch peaked at about 75,000 

t in 1979 and then declined thereafter. The catch 

began to increase again beginning in 1984, reaching 

an all-time high of 168,000 t in 1991. Landings 

again decreased until 1997 when the Tanner crab 

fishery was closed. Abundance trends for the Bering 

Sea indicate that the Tanner crab stock declined 

from a relatively high level in the late 1970’s to a 
266

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 20-3

Shrimp and snail landings in 

metric tons (t) for the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands (BSAI), 

1960–2006.

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

20

40

60

80

Landings

(x 1,000 t)

BSAI shrimp

GOA shrimp

Snails

low in 1985. The stock recovered and then declined 

again subsequent to 1989. Tanner crab abundance 

has increased in the last two years and is now above 

the BMSY level. Similarly, snow crab reached a low 

in 1985 but then sharply rebounded and produced 

high catches in the 1990’s. The stock then declined 

and reached low levels in 1999. The catch of snow 

crab has decreased in recent years due to low stock 

abundance. 

Shrimp and Sea Snail

Pink shrimp are the most important of the five 

species making up Alaskan shrimp landings. The 

domestic shrimp fishery in western Alaskan waters 

is currently at a low level; in the Bering Sea, shrimp 

abundance is too low to support a commercial 

fishery. The western Gulf of Alaska has been the 

main area of operation. During the 1970’s, when 

the fishery was more productive, 50–100 vessels 

trawled for shrimp at Kodiak Island and along the 

Alaska Peninsula.

Shrimp landings in the western Gulf during 

1960–90 rose steadily to about 58,000 t in 1976 

and then declined precipitously (Figure 20-3). 

Since 1988, negligible amounts have been landed, 

almost all of it coming from Southeast Alaska. 

Ex-vessel revenue from the western shrimp fisheries averaged $4 million annually, and yielded peak 

revenue of $14 million in 1977. Bering Sea shrimp 

catches by Russia and Japan peaked at 32,000 t 

in 1963, declining gradually thereafter, until the 

fishery ended in 1973. As with crabs, the sustainable yields of shrimp stocks in Alaska are not well 

understood, and they have been equated to average 

catches. Shrimp are managed by regulating catch 

levels according to stock abundance. In addition, 

spring “egg hatch” closures are used to protect 

breeding stocks.

 The Japanese pot fishery for snails, conducted 

from about 1972 until 1987, peaked at about 

13,000 t in 1974. Annual catches averaged about 

4,800 t during the period of the fishery. The snail 

stocks of the Bering Sea are underutilized, with no 

reported catch since 1997. Recent average yield and 

current yield equal the 2004–06 average catch, and 

the maximum sustainable yield equals the 1972–97 

average.

ISSUES AND PROGRESS

Bycatch and Multispecies Interactions

In general, crab and shrimp resources are 

depressed throughout Alaska. However, several 

stocks have recently increased under rebuilding 

plans where directed fisheries were closed. Eastern 

Bering Sea Tanner crab has increased to above the 

BMSY level in 2006 with the fishery closed since 

the 1996–97 season. Snow crab and St. Matthews 

Island blue king crab are showing signs of increases 

as well. Although the Bristol Bay red king crab stock 

is still well below the high levels that occurred in 

the 1970’s, the stock has increased from the low 

levels of the mid 1980’s. The bycatch of crabs in 

pot fisheries is an issue, due to uncertainty in the 

mortality of discarded crab. Bycatch in groundfish 

trawl fisheries is regulated with caps and/or closed 

areas for most stocks.

LITERATURE CITED

ADFG. 2007. 2006 preliminary Alaska commercial 

shellfish catches & exvessel values. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Internet site—http://

www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/shellfsh/06value.

php.

Rugolo, L. J., E. A. Chilton, C. E. Armistead, and J. A. 

Haaga. 2007. Report to industry on the 2006 eastern 

Bering Sea crab survey. NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center Processed Report 2006-17, 59 p.
267

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

marine mammals

of the alaska region

Unit

21

MICHAEL F. CAMERON

BRIAN FADELY

KIM E. W. SHELDON

MICHAEL A. SIMPKINS

LISA HIRUKI-RARING

NMFS National Marine

Mammal Laboratory

Seattle

Washington

INTRODUCTION

The Alaska Region has 42 stocks of 25 species 

of marine mammals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service manages three of these species (sea otter, 

polar bear, and walrus), while the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the remaining 

cetacean and pinniped stocks. Fourteen of the 42 

stocks in Alaska have been classified as strategic 

stocks, as defined by criteria provided in the 1994 

Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA). These include northern fur seal, 

Cook Inlet beluga, and AT1 Transient killer whale 

(listed as depleted under the MMPA); sperm whale, 

western North Pacific and central North Pacific 

humpback whales, fin whale, North Pacific right 

whale, and bowhead whale (all listed as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973); 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Southeast Alaska 

harbor porpoise (abundance estimates are old and 

there is a lack of information about fisheries mortality); and western U.S. (listed as endangered under 

the ESA) and eastern U.S. stocks of Steller sea lion 

(listed as threatened under the ESA). In the Alaska 

Region, six stocks are believed to be increasing, two 

are stable or slightly increasing, three are stable, six 

are decreasing, and the abundance trends for the 

remaining 25 stocks are unknown. 

 Twenty-three stocks of marine mammals are 

subject to subsistence harvest in Alaska. While 

most marine mammal stocks are assessed under 

the authority of Section 117 of the MMPA, NMFS 

has determined that management of stocks subject 

to subsistence harvests without significant commercial takes should be developed through the 

co-management process described in Section 119 of 

Photo above:

Humpback whale, Chatham 

Strait, Alaska. 

Jay Barlow, NMFS
268

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Annual

subsistence

mortality4

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality5

Strategic

status6

MMPA/

ESA

status7 Trend8

Seals and sea lions

Bearded seal (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0.68 6,788 6,788.68 No U

Harbor seal

 Bering Sea9 20,109 603 1.3 174.3 176.2 No D

 Gulf of Alaska9 44,453 1,334 24 795 820 No D

 Southeast Alaska9 108,670 3,260 0 1,092 1,094 No U

Northern fur seal (eastern Pacific) 709,881 15,262 0.78 702 704 Yes D D

Ribbon seal (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0.8 193 193.8 No U

Ringed seal (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0.71 9,567 9,567.71 No U

Spotted seal (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0.88 5,265 5,265.88 No U

Steller sea lion 

 Eastern U.S. 44,584 2,006 1.4 9 15.8 Yes T I

 Western U.S. 38,988 234 24.6 198 223.6 Yes E S

Whales and porpoises

Baird’s beaked whale (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0 0 0 No U

Beluga whale

 Beaufort Sea 32,453 324 0 152 152 No U

 Bristol Bay 1,619 32 0 19 19 No S/I

 Cook Inlet10 264 Undet. 0 1 1 Yes D D

 Eastern Bering Sea 14,898 298 0 209 209 No U

 Eastern Chukchi Sea 3,710 74 0 65 65 No S

Bowhead whale (western Arctic) 9,472 95 0.2 46 46.2 Yes E I

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0 0 0 No U

Dall’s porpoise (Alaska)10 Unknown Undet. 29.9 0 29.9 No U

Fin whale (northeast Pacific) 5,700 11.4 0 0 0 Yes E I

Gray whale (E. North Pacific) 17,752 417 6.7 122 130 No I

Harbor porpoise

 Bering Sea 54,492 545 0.35 0 0.35 Yes U

 Gulf of Alaska 34,740 347 68 0 70 Yes U

 Southeast Alaska11 13,713 137 0 0 0 Yes U

Humpback whale

 Central North Pacific 3,698 12.9 3.2 0 5 Yes E I

 Western North Pacific 367 1.3 0.2 0 0.2 Yes E U

Killer whale

 E. North Pacific Northern resident 1,123 11.2 1.5 0 1.5 No U

 E. North Pacific transient 216 2.16 0 0 0 No I

 Gulf, Aleutian, Bering Sea transient 314 3.1 0.4 0 0.4 No U

 AT1 transient 7 0 0 0 0 Yes D D

 West Coast transient 314 3.1 0 0 0 No U

Minke whale (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0.32 0 0.32 No U

North Pacific right whale (E. North Pacific) Unknown Unknown 0 0 0 Yes E U

Table 21-1

Status of marine mammal 

stocks in the Alaska Region.

the MMPA. The process includes a sound research 

and management program to identify and address 

uncertainties concerning the stocks. At this time, 

the management of most of the stocks that are 

subject to subsistence harvest is being accomplished 

under co-management agreements. 

Table 21-1 presents a summary of the status 

of stocks for the marine mammals in the Alaska 

region. Important population parameters for the 

stocks and their status under protected species laws 

are included. These include stock identification, 

minimum population estimates (Nmin), potential 

biological removal levels (PBR), current humanrelated mortality (divided into fisheries-related, 

subsistence, and other removals), population status, and current population trend. A narrative for 

selected stocks follows. 
269

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

Table 21-1

Continued from previous 

page.

Steller sea lion rookery at 

Seal Rock in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska.

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Annual

subsistence

mortality4

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality5

Strategic

status6

MMPA/

ESA

status7 Trend8

Pacific white-sided dolphin (N. Pacific)10 Unknown Undet. 0 0 0 No U

Sperm whale (North Pacific) Unknown Unknown 0.5 0 0.5 Yes E U

Stejneger’s beaked whale (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 0 0 0 No U

Other marine mammals12

Polar bear

 Alaska: Chukchi & Bering Seas Unknown Unknown 0 44.8 44.8 No U

 Alaska: Southern Beaufort Sea13 1,973 88 0 32.2 54.8 No S

Sea otter9

 South Central Alaska 13,955 1,396 0 297 297 No S/I

 Southeast Alaska 9,266 927 0 301 301 No U

 Southwest Alaska 33,203 830 0.2 97 99.4 No D

Walrus (Alaska) Unknown Unknown 1.2 5,789 5,794 No U

1A conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR; provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the 

estimate.

2The maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or stay 

at its optimum sustainable population level (50–100% of its carrying capacity); calculated as the product of Nmin, one-half of Rmax (the maximum 

productivity rate), and Fr (the recovery factor). 

3An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by commercial fisheries.

4An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by subsistence hunting.

5An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans; includes other removals, such 

as ship strikes, strandings, orphaned animals collected for public display, mortalities associated with research activities, take by foreign countries, 

and mortalities associated with activities authorized through incidental take regulations. 

6As defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Amendments of 1994, any marine mammal stock 1) for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the PBR level; 2) which is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or 3) 

which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or as depleted under the MMPA.

7As defined in the MMPA, any species that is listed as threatened (T) or endangered (E) under the ESA is also considered to be a depleted (D) stock. 

8Trends: I=increasing; S/I=stable/increasing; S=stable; D=decreasing; U=unknown.

9Recent changes in the abundance estimates do not indicate a major population increase. Instead, these increases are due to new analytical methods that take environmental covariates into account and thus provide an improved estimate of harbor seal abundance.

10Undetermined PBR indicates data are available to calculate a PBR level, but a determination has been made that calculating a PBR level using 

those data is inappropriate.

11No or minimal take reported by fisheries observers; however, observer coverage was minimal or nonexistent.

12These species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are not included in the stock status tables of the National Overview.

13The PBR level for the Southern Beaufort Sea stock of polar bears assumes a bias of 2 males for every 1 female in the harvest; no more than 30 

females may be harvested annually.

Carolyn Gudmundson, NMML/AFSC

STELLER SEA LION: EASTERN 

AND WESTERN U.S. STOCKS

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

Steller sea lions occur along the North Pacific rim from northern Japan to California, with 

historic centers of abundance and distribution 

in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. The 

current center of abundance has shifted eastward 
270

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 21-1

Estimated population size of 

Steller sea lions (adults, juveniles, and pups) of the two 

stocks off the United States 

and Canada, 1958–2007. 

Numbers from 1977–2007 

for the Eastern U.S. stock represent a 3.1% annual growth, 

based on an average count of 

52,000 from the 2002 survey 

(midpoint of 46,000–58,000; 

Pitcher et al., 2007). Points 

from 1958–1989 for the Western U.S. stock represent 

individual surveys. Numbers 

from 2000–04 show 2.9% annual growth, with numbers 

stable at 45,000 between 

2004–07 (Fritz and Stinchcomb, 2005; NMFS, 2008).

Steller sea lions hauled out 

to rest, sleep, and socialize 

on Shakun Rock, Alaska.

Carolyn Gudmundson, NMML/AFSC

to Southeast Alaska and British Columbia because 

of proportional declines in the western portion of 

the range. The species is not known to migrate, but 

individuals disperse widely outside of the breeding 

season (late May–early July), potentially intermixing with animals from other areas. Two separate 

stocks of Steller sea lions are recognized within 

U.S. waters: an eastern U.S. stock, which includes 

animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144°W), 

and in Canada; and a western U.S. stock, which 

includes animals from Cape Suckling westward. 

Population Size and Current Trends 

Western U.S. stock: The western U.S. stock 

is distributed across the western Gulf of Alaska, 

the Aleutian Islands, and the U.S. portion of the 

Bering Sea. The most recent population estimate 

for this stock is 38,988 Steller sea lions, based on 

aerial surveys of non-pups in 2004 and aerial and 

ground surveys of pups in 2004 and 2005. This 

estimate has not been corrected for animals not seen 

during the surveys (i.e. in the water or out of the 

survey area), so it should be considered a minimum 

population size. The first reported trend counts of 

Steller sea lions in Alaska during 1956–60 indicated 

that there were at least 140,000 sea lions in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Subsequent 

surveys indicated a major population decrease, first 

detected in the eastern Aleutian Islands in the mid 

1970’s, spreading eastward to the Kodiak Island 

area during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and 

then westward to the central and western Aleutian 

Islands during the early and mid 1980’s. The greatest declines since the 1970’s occurred in the eastern 

Aleutian Islands and western Gulf of Alaska, but 

declines also occurred in the central Gulf of Alaska 

and central Aleutian Islands. More recently, counts 

of Steller sea lions at trend sites for the western U.S. 

Pacific stock showed a 3.1% average annual decline 

from 1991 to 2004. During 2000–04, counts increased 5.5%, the first region-wide increase for the 

western stock since standardized surveys began in 

the 1970’s. Surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 

did not encompass the entire western U.S. stock; 

as a result, abundance trends for the western U.S. 

stock as a whole through 2007 are not available. 

However, available data for sub-areas indicate that 

the western U.S. stock remained largely unchanged 

between 2004 and 2007 throughout much of its 

range in Alaska (Cape St. Elias to Tanaga Island, 

145°–178° W). 

Eastern U.S. stock: The Steller sea lion eastern 

U.S. stock covers Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. 

The current minimum population estimate is 

44,584 animals (uncorrected) based on aerial 

surveys in 2002–05. Trend counts for the eastern 

U.S. stock indicate a growth rate of about 3.1% 

since the 1970’s (Figure 21-1). Counts of adult 

and juvenile sea lions in Oregon have shown a 

gradual increase from 1,486 in 1976 to 4,169 in 

2002. Counts in California declined by over 50%, 

from 5,000–7,000 in 1927–47 to 1,500–2,000 

during 1980–2004. Limited information suggests 

that counts in northern California appear to be 

stable, while in central California, a steady decline 

in ground counts at Año Nuevo started around 

1970, resulting in an 85% reduction in the breeding population by 1987 and a 5% annual decline 

in pup counts since 1990. Overall, counts of nonpups in California and Oregon have been relatively 

stable since the 1980’s. In Southeast Alaska, counts 

of non-pups at trend sites increased by 56% between 1979 and 2002. During 1979–2005, counts 

of pups on the three largest rookeries in Southeast 

Alaska increased by 148%. In British Columbia, 

counts of non-pups increased at a rate of 3.2% 

annually during 1971–2002. 

Year

1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

Population

(x 1,000)

U.S. total population

Western U.S. Pacific population

Eastern Pacific population
271

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

Figure 21-2

Distribution of eastern North 

Pacific right whales during 

the 1800’s (yellow area) and 

sightings of right whales 

reported between 1979 and 

2005 (red stars), as determined by whaling catch and 

sighting records. The blue 

box shows the location of focused right whale surveys in 

1997–2000, 2002, and 2004.

Stock Status

The PBR has been estimated at 234 animals for 

the western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions and 2,006 

for the eastern U.S. stock. The estimated annual 

level of total human-caused mortality and serious 

injury was 223.6 animals for the western U.S. 

stock and 15.8 animals for the eastern U.S. stock. 

Although the annual human-caused mortality and 

serious injury does not exceed the PBR level, both 

stocks of Steller sea lions are classified as strategic 

stocks under the MMPA because the western U.S. 

stock is listed as endangered and the eastern U.S. 

stock is listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Issues

The unprecedented decline in the western U.S. 

stock of Steller sea lion caused a change in the ESA 

listing status of the stock from threatened to endangered in 1997. The population decline documented 

in 1990, when it was first listed as threatened, 

continued until at least 2000. Increasing annual 

counts of Steller sea lions at census sites since 2000 

suggest a change in trend over portions of the range, 

but data are insufficient to confirm that the decline 

has stopped. Many theories, including overfishing 

of sea lion prey species, environmental change, 

disease, and increased killer whale predation have 

been suggested as possible causes, but it is not clear 

what factor or factors are the most important causes 

of the decline. However, predation by killer whales, 

environmental variability, and competition for 

fish, perhaps with commercial fisheries, have been 

identified as potentially high threats to recovery. 

Management actions implemented by NMFS 

since 1990 to reduce interactions between humans 

and Steller sea lions include setting no-entry buffer 

zones around rookeries, a prohibition on groundfish trawling within 10–20 nautical miles of certain 

rookeries, and the spatial and temporal allocation of 

Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock catch. More recent 

modifications began in 1999 and continued into 

2002, including reductions in fishery removals of 

Atka mackerel in areas designated as Steller sea lion 

critical habitat; further temporal and spatial dispersion of the pollock, cod, and mackerel fisheries; and 

expansion of the number and extent of protective 

zones around sea lion rookeries and haul-outs. 

Area-specific management measures including 

restrictions and closures designed to reduce direct 

and indirect interactions between Steller sea lions 

and the groundfish fisheries were developed by a 

committee formed from the fishing industry, the 

Alaska community, environmental groups, and 

NMFS. A revised Recovery Plan for both stocks of 

Steller sea lion was released in March 2008 (NMFS, 

2008).

EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC

RIGHT WHALE

Stock Definition and Geographic Range 

 In April 2008, North Pacific right whales were 

listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act as a separate species from North Atlantic right 

whales. Two stocks are found in the North Pacific: 

one in the Sea of Okhotsk and the other in the eastern North Pacific (Brownell et al., 2001). Migratory 

patterns of the North Pacific stocks are unknown, 

although researchers believe that the whales spend 

summers on high-latitude feeding grounds and 

migrate to more temperate waters during the winter (Clapham et al., 2004). Calving areas for these 

stocks are unknown. Recent sightings of eastern 

North Pacific right whales (Figure 21-2) have been 

reported as far south as Baja California, Mexico, as 
272

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Right whale sighted in the 

Bering Sea, Alaska, in September 2004.

H. Fearnbach, NMML/AFSC

far west as Hawaii in the central North Pacific, and 

as far north as the sub-Arctic waters of the Bering 

Sea in the summer (Brownell et al., 2001). Aerial 

and vessel surveys for right whales have occurred 

in a portion of Bristol Bay in the eastern Bering 

Sea where whales have been observed each summer 

since 1996 (Figure 21-2; LeDuc et al., 2001; Wade 

et al., 2006; National Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished data1). Right whale calls obtained from 

yearlong deployments of autonomous recorders 

confirmed their presence in this region from late 

May to early November (Munger et al., 2003). 

Commercial whaling records indicate that right 

whales historically ranged across the entire North 

Pacific north of 35°N and occasionally as far south 

as 20°N (Brownell et al., 2001). In the eastern 

North Pacific, commercial whalers focused on concentrations of animals found in the Gulf of Alaska, 

eastern Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea (Shelden et 

al., 2005), though whales were observed and killed 

as far south as the Hawaiian Islands (Figure 21-2). 

Right whales are large, slow-swimming, and float 

when killed, making them an easy and profitable 

species for whalers. By the time the modern whale 

fishery (with harpoon cannons and steam-powered 

catcher boats) began in the late 1800’s, right whales 

were rarely encountered in the North Pacific. 

Population Size and Current Trend 

The pre-exploitation size of this stock exceeded 

11,000 animals and was perhaps twice that number 

(Scarff, 2001). Estimates of current abundance 

range from 100 to 500 for the entire North Pacific; 

however, no quantitative data exist to confirm these 

estimates (Brownell et al., 2001). The few sightings 

reported in the eastern North Pacific since the late 

1960’s were primarily sightings of single whales or 

small groups of 4–6 animals (Brownell et al., 2001). 

At this time, it is not possible to produce a reliable 

estimate of minimum abundance or population 

trend for this stock. The portion of the eastern 

North Pacific stock found during summer in the 

Bering Sea has been studied since 1997 and as of 

2004, a total of 23 individuals have been identified 

from genotyping of biopsy samples (16 males and 7 

females; Wade et al., 2006). This includes two male 

calves accompanied by females that shared at least 

one allele for each microsatellite marker, as well as 

sharing a mitochondrial haplotype (Wade et al., 

2006). In 2004, the number of females detected in 

this region rose from one whale biopsied in 2002 

to seven, including the female from 2002 (Wade et 

al., 2006). There is some suggestion of site fidelity 

among right whales found in the Bering Sea. Of 

the whales observed between 1997 and 2004, at 

least five were photographed and five were biopsied 

over multiple years. This mark-recapture success 

rate is consistent with a very small population size 

(Brownell et al., 2001). Dedicated ship-based surveys conducted in the Bering Sea in August 2007 

using line-transect methods and passive acoustic 

monitoring failed to find a single right whale. Additional and considerably expanded effort (shipboard, 

aerial, acoustic, and oceanographic) is planned for 

July and August 2008. 

Stock Status

The North Pacific right whale is listed as endangered under the ESA, and is therefore designated as 

depleted under the MMPA, and the eastern North 

Pacific stock is classified as an MMPA strategic 

stock. The abundance of this stock is considered to 

represent only a small fraction of its pre-commercial 

whaling abundance (i.e. the stock is well below its 

Optimum Sustainable Population [OSP] size), but 

1National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.
273

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

3K. Hough, NOAA, 1801 Fairview Avenue E, Seattle, WA 

98102.

4P. Wade, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

reliable estimates of minimum population size and 

PBR are not available. Between 1835 and 1909, 

an estimated 15,374 right whales were taken from 

the North Pacific by American-registered whaling 

vessels, with most of those animals taken prior to 

1875. Total whaling mortality may have been in the 

range of 26,500–37,000 animals when including 

struck-but-lost whales and non-American whalers (Scarff, 2001). In addition, 28 right whales 

were killed between 1911 and 1938 in waters off 

Alaska and British Columbia, Canada (Reeves 

et al., 1985). A prohibition on the catching of 

right whales established in 1935 provided some 

protection for the species until the U.S.S.R. began 

widespread illegal whaling in the post-war period. 

Soviet pelagic whalers illegally killed at least 372 

right whales in Alaskan waters from 1963 to 1967, 

which severely depleted what remained of the 

slowly recovering North Pacific right whale population and may explain why little recovery has been 

observed to date (Brownell et al., 2001). 

The current estimates of annual human-caused 

mortality and serious injury appear to be minimal 

for this stock. Although gillnets were implicated in 

the death of a right whale off the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) in October 1989, no other incidental 

takes of right whales are known to have occurred in 

the North Pacific (Brownell et al., 2001). Evidence 

of entanglements or ship strikes (such as scarring) 

has not been observed in photographs taken for 

identification purposes (W. Perryman, personal 

communication2). Any right whale mortality 

incidental to the commercial fisheries would be 

considered significant. 

Issues

Because of the critically small size of the eastern North Pacific right whale stock, determining 

seasonal distribution and habitat use is imperative 

to adequately manage this stock. Some studies on 

the distribution of the species have already been 

conducted. Short- and long-term passive acoustic monitoring have been used during dedicated 

surveys to locate right whales and to determine 

length of habitat occupation, respectively. Deployment of autonomous acoustic recorders to detect 

right whale calls year-round was initiated in the 

southeastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska in 2000 

(Munger et al., 2003; Mellinger et al., 2004; Moore 

et al., 2006). Results of these acoustic data collected 

from 2000 to 2006 indicate that at least a few right 

whales continue to occupy middle-shelf habitats in 

the southeastern Bering Sea from late May through 

November, and in one year as late as December 

(Munger, 2007). Acoustic recorders deployed along 

the Bering Sea slope in April 2004, which marked 

the first attempt to monitor this region for right 

whales over the course of a year, detected right 

whale calls south of the Pribilof Islands on only one 

day in June 2005 (Munger, 2007). Right whale calls 

have also been recorded in August and September 

from instruments deployed in the Gulf of Alaska in 

the vicinity of the 1998 (Waite et al., 2003), 2004 

(K. Hough, personal communication3), and 2005 

(P. Wade, personal communication4) sightings near 

Kodiak Island, as well as waters southwest of there 

(ca. 53°N, 157°W) in a region where right whales 

have not been encountered since the 19th century 

(Mellinger et al., 2004). Funding for deployments 

in 2007 was not available, but deployments in the 

Bering Sea are planned for 2008. 

Data are also needed to provide reliable estimates of abundance, or at least to establish the 

minimum population size. Genetic analysis and 

photo-identification are techniques that have been 

used successfully to determine population abundance, viability, movement patterns, and survival 

in other cetacean populations. For example, markrecapture analyses of photographs taken in the 

North Atlantic has led to a minimum population 

estimate of 291 right whales (Waring et al., 2002). 

Furthermore, genetic analysis of North Atlantic 

right whales suggests that inbreeding depression 

is slowing the recovery of this stock, compared to 

South Atlantic right whales which exhibit greater 

genetic diversity (NMFS, 2002). Further analysis of 

the photographs and genetic samples obtained thus 

far may provide preliminary estimates of abundance 

and viability. 

2W. Perryman, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La 

Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037.
274

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

HARBOR SEALS

Stock Definition and Geographic Range 

Harbor seals are distributed continuously along 

the Alaskan coast from southernmost Southeast 

Alaska, throughout the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian 

Islands, and as far north as Cape Newenham and 

the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea. They haul 

out on offshore rocks and reefs, nearshore beaches 

and tidal flats, and drifting ice calved from glaciers 

in glacial fjords. Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such 

factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, 

and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Fisher, 

1952; Bigg, 1969, 1981). Individual seals seem to 

have a very small home range, rarely moving more 

that 200 km from a central haul-out site (Lowry et 

al., 2001), though some long-distance movements 

of tagged animals have been recorded (Pitcher and 

McAllister 1981; Lowry et al., 2001; Small et al., 

2001). The stock structure of Alaskan harbor seals 

is unclear and much research, including mitochondrial DNA studies, is underway (O’Corry-Crowe 

et al., 2003). Currently three stocks (or management units) are recognized by NMFS: 1) Southeast 

Alaska, 2) Gulf of Alaska (including the Aleutian 

Islands), and 3) Bering Sea.

Population Size and Current Trend

The population size of harbor seals in Alaska is 

estimated using aerial surveys to count seals during 

their annual molt (August–September), the time 

of year when the largest number of seals are hauled 

out on land and visible to observers. The state is 

divided into five survey regions for census purposes: 

1) southern Southeast Alaska (from the Canadian 

border to Frederick Sound); 2) northern Southeast Alaska (Frederick Sound to Kayak Island); 3) 

Gulf of Alaska (from Prince William Sound to the 

Shumigan Islands); 4) the Aleutian Islands; and 5) 

the north side of the Alaska Peninsula, including 

Bristol Bay. One region is surveyed each year, and 

the entire state is surveyed on a 5-year cycle. 

 To derive an accurate estimate of population 

size from these surveys, a method was developed to 

address the influence of external conditions on the 

number of seals hauled out on shore, and counted, 

during the surveys. Many factors influence the 

propensity of seals to haul out, including tides, 

weather, time of day, and date in the seals’ annual 

life history cycle. A statistical model defining the 

relationship between these factors and the number 

of seals hauled out was developed for each survey 

region. Based on those models, the survey counts 

for each year were adjusted to the number of seals 

that would have been ashore during a hypothetical survey conducted under ideal conditions for 

hauling out (Boveng et al., 2003). In a separate 

analysis of radio-tagged seals, a similar statistical 

model was used to estimate the proportion of seals 

that were hauled out under those ideal conditions 

(Simpkins et al., 2003). The results from these two 

analyses were combined for each region to estimate 

the population size of harbor seals in Alaska. 

 Combining the most recent population estimates for the three Alaska stocks, the total population size of harbor seals in Alaska is estimated 

to be 180,017 (Table 21-2), based on surveys 

in 1996–2000 that had incomplete coverage of 

terrestrial sites in Prince William Sound and of 

glacial sites in the Gulf of Alaska and the Southeast Alaska regions. The population estimates for 

the Gulf of Alaska (45,975) and Southeast Alaska 

stocks (112,391) include survey estimates from 

glacial sites where seals haul out on ice calved from 

glaciers. These sites are difficult to survey using 

standard aerial survey techniques, and photogrammetric techniques are being developed and used 

to provide more accurate estimates of population 

sizes at glacial sites. Current estimates probably 

Table 21-2

Population estimates for harbor seal stocks in Alaska.

Stock Year

Population

size (N)

1 CV (N)2 Nmin3

Gulf of Alaska 45,975 0.04 44,453

 Aleutian Is. region 1999 9,993 0.06

 All other regions 1996 35,982 0.05

Southeast Alaska 112,391 0.04 108,670

 N. SE AK region 1997 32,454 0.06

 S. SE AK region 1998 79,937 0.05

Bering Sea 2000 21,651 0.1 20,109

Total 180,017 0.03

1Population sizes are based on survey data from the years indicated 

(Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). 

2Coefficient of variation for the population estimates.

3Conservative estimate of abundance calculated based on each population estimate and its coefficient of variation (Wade and Angliss, 1997).
275

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

underestimate the actual number of seals at these 

sites. The Bering Sea stock is estimated at 21,651 

seals.

Minimum population estimates (Nmin) are 

calculated for management purposes based on 

each population estimate and its coefficient of 

variation (CV; Wade and Angliss, 1997). Nmin is 

44,453 for the Gulf of Alaska stock; 108,670 for 

the Southeast Alaska stock; and 19,907 for the 

Bering Sea stock (Table 21-1). Because the Pribilof 

Islands are not included in the aerial surveys used 

to estimate the population size of the Bering Sea 

stock, the maximum count of 202 seals from the 

Pribilof Islands in 1995 is added to the estimate 

for this stock (Jemison, 1996), and Nmin becomes 

20,109 harbor seals. The Nmin estimates for the 

Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska stocks may 

be underestimates because survey counts from 

the glacial sites within those regions are probably 

underestimated. 

Population trends vary within and between the 

three stocks. Population abundance has declined 

substantially in some areas of the Gulf of Alaska 

since the 1970’s (including up to an 85% decline 

from 1976–1988 at Tugidak Island, near Kodiak 

Island, which was formerly one of the largest harbor 

seal haul-out sites in the world). Recent trends vary 

geographically within the Gulf of Alaska. Harbor 

seal abundance is increasing in the Kodiak Island 

archipelago (6.6% annually during 1993–2001; 

Small et al., 2003) and Tugidak Island (7% annual increase during 1992–2001; Small, 1996; 

Withrow et al., 2002) and decreasing in Prince 

William Sound (–3.3% annually during 1990–99; 

VerHoef and Frost, 2003). Despite some positive 

signs of growth in some areas, the overall Gulf of 

Alaska stock size likely remains small compared to 

its size in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Population trends in Southeast Alaska also 

vary geographically. Harbor seal abundance near 

Ketchikan has increased (5.6% annually during 1994–1998; Small et al., 2003), while seal 

populations near Sitka showed no detectable trend 

during 1995–2001 (Small et al., 2003), and seal 

abundance in Glacier Bay National Park showed 

a sharp decline of 63–75% from 1992 to 2002 

(Mathews and Pendleton, 2006). 

Harbor seal abundance in the Bering Sea is 

thought to have declined substantially between the 

1970’s and 1990’s. Counts of harbor seals along 

the north side of the Alaska Peninsula in 1995 

were less than 42% of the 1975 census, though 

the 1975 counts were not adjusted for the effects 

of covariates (environmental conditions, time of 

day, survey date, etc.; Withrow and Loughlin, 

1996). The Bristol Bay population has remained 

stable since 1990. In recent years, the Bering Sea 

stock size seems to have stabilized (no detectable 

trend during 1998–2001; Small et al., 2003).

Stock Status

Harbor seals are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA nor depleted under 

the MMPA. PBR levels were estimated for each 

stock based on Nmin, maximum net productivity 

rate for harbor seals, and a recovery factor set at 0.5 

for pinniped stocks of unknown status (Bering Sea 

and Gulf of Alaska) and 1.0 for stable or increasing 

stocks (Southeast Alaska; Wade and Angliss, 1997). 

A reliable estimate of the annual rate of mortality 

incidental to commercial fisheries is unavailable. 

Based on abundance and mortality data from the 

mid 1990’s, the estimated annual level of total 

human-caused mortality is 820 for the Gulf of 

Alaska stock, 1,094 for the southeast Alaska stock, 

and 176.2 for the Bering Sea stock (Table 21-1). All 

Mother harbor seal and 

pup on an ice floe calved 

from the LeConte Glacier 

near Petersburg, Alaska. 

Many harbor seals in Alaska 

have their young on ice 

floes calved from tidewater 

glaciers, which provide a 

relatively safe location to pup 

and molt.

Dave Withrow, NMML/AFSC
276

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Male ribbon seal at the end 

of molt season on an ice floe 

in the Bering Sea.

Captain Budd Christman, NOAA Corps

of these mortality levels are below estimated PBR 

levels for each stock, and none of the three stocks 

is currently defined as strategic. The status of the 

stocks relative to their OSP sizes is unknown. 

Issues

The stock structure of harbor seals in Alaska 

likely will be revised in the near future. Genetics 

data, information about animal movements, and 

contrasting population trends within the current 

three stocks suggest that the stocks be further 

subdivided. Reviews of genetic and trend data are 

underway to determine the number of stocks, as 

well as the geographic boundaries between them 

(O’Corry-Crowe et al., 2003). As discussed above, 

subsistence harvest and fishery bycatch mortality 

levels appear to be sustainable, based on the current 

three stocks and data from the mid 1990’s, though 

good fishery bycatch estimates are not available and 

revised stock assessments have been delayed pending new stock boundaries. If stocks are redefined, 

however, both harvest and bycatch numbers will 

need to be re-evaluated relative to the new stock 

boundaries.

Potential impacts of industrial activities are a 

concern in some regions. Exploration and development of oil reserves and the potential for oil spills 

during production or transport of oil are important 

issues, particularly in the aftermath of the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska 

(e.g. Hoover-Miller et al., 2001). Potential impacts 

of the cruise ship industry on seals have recently 

become a concern, especially in glacial fjords that 

are popular tourist destinations (Jansen et al., 

2003). 

ARCTIC ICE SEALS: 

BEARDED SEAL, RIBBON SEAL, 

RINGED SEAL, AND SPOTTED SEAL 

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

Four species of phocid seals are commonly associated with sea ice in Alaska and are collectively 

known as Arctic ice seals: bearded seals, ribbon 

seals, ringed seals, and spotted seals. These seal 

species all haul out on sea ice to rest, give birth, 

and molt, and are therefore particularly sensitive to 

changes in the environment that affect the timing 

and extent of sea ice formation and breakup. 

 Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution 

from approximately 45° to 85°N. In Alaska waters 

they are distributed over the shallow (less than 

200 m) Continental Shelf of the Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort Seas. Bearded seals generally prefer 

pack ice habitats with well-developed lead systems 

(Burns, 1981a). Some migrate through the Bering 

Strait from April to June and spend the summer 

along the ice edge in the Chukchi Sea, while others 

appear to remain in open water areas of the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas during this time. 

 Ribbon seals inhabit the North Pacific Ocean 

and southern parts of the Arctic Ocean. In Alaska 

waters, they range northward from Bristol Bay in 

the Bering Sea to the Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas. Ribbon seals are usually found in the 

loose ice of the ice front zone near the ice edge, and 

rarely along the coast or on fast ice (Burns, 1981b). 

From March to May they inhabit the Bering Sea 

ice front and are most abundant in the central and 

western Bering Sea. Little is known about ribbon 

seal distribution during the rest of the year. Some 

animals are thought to migrate north through the 

Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea (Kelly, 1988), 

while others may remain in the central Bering Sea 

(Burns, 1981b).

 Ringed seals have a circumpolar distribution 

from approximately 35°N to the North Pole. In 

Alaska waters, and depending on ice cover, they 

are found throughout the Beaufort, Chukchi, 

and Bering Seas as far south as Bristol Bay in the 

southern Bering Sea. Ringed seals prefer areas 

with high ice cover, either in fast ice along coastal 

areas, or in the interior ice pack, away from the ice 

edge (Burns et al., 1981). Because ringed seals are 

believed to remain associated with ice throughout 

the spring and summer, their seasonal distribution 

is constrained by the seasonal advance and retreat 

of sea ice in the Bering Sea.

 Spotted seals are distributed along the Continental Shelf of the Beaufort, Chukchi, Bering, 

and Okhotsk Seas south to the northern Yellow 

Sea and western Sea of Japan. In Alaska waters, 

they are known to occur as far south as the Pribilof 

Islands, Bristol Bay, and the eastern Aleutian 

Islands. Spotted seals migrate south from the 
277

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

A juvenile ribbon seal with 

the NOAA Ship Oscar Dyson

seen in the background. The 

Dyson, the first of four technologically advanced survey 

vessels being added to the 

NOAA fleet, was in the Bering 

Sea conducting research on 

ice seal breeding ecology as 

part of the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory’s Polar 

Ecosystems Program.

National Marine Mammal Laboratory

Chukchi Sea through the Bering Strait in October 

and November ahead of the advancing sea ice, and 

overwinter in the Bering Sea in the pack ice over 

the Continental Shelf (Lowry et al., 1998, 2000). 

During spring, they are distributed mainly in the 

ice front (Burns et al., 1981) and move to coastal 

habitats after the sea ice retreats. Spotted seals are 

often mistaken for North Pacific harbor seals, as 

there is little morphological difference between the 

two species and their geographic ranges overlap in 

the southern Bering Sea. However, only the spotted 

seal is regularly associated with pack ice.

A lack of significant genetic, phenotypic, and 

population response data precludes subdividing the 

stocks of bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted seals. 

Therefore, in U.S. waters, only the Alaska stocks 

are recognized. 

Population Size and Current Trend

Reliable estimates for the current minimum 

population size, abundance, and trend of the Alaska 

stocks of bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted seals 

are unavailable. However, crude estimates are available from the historical literature. Early estimates 

of the Bering–Chukchi Sea population of bearded 

seals range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Burns, 

1981a). Burns (1981b) estimated the worldwide 

population of ribbon seals at 240,000 in the mid 

1970’s, with an estimate of 90,000–100,000 for 

the Bering Sea. A similarly rough estimate for the 

number of ringed seals in Alaska is 3.3–3.6 million 

(Frost et al., 1988), based on aerial surveys conducted in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during 

1985–87. A more accurate estimate of the density 

of bearded seals in the Chukchi Sea, based on aerial 

surveys and haul-out behavior studies conducted 

in 1999 and 2000, resulted in an average density 

of 0.07 seals/km2 and 0.14 seals/km2, respectively, 

with consistently high densities along the coast to 

the south of Kivalina (Bengtson et al., 2005). The 

same surveys produced ringed seal abundance estimates, corrected for seals in the water, of 252,488 

and 208,857 for 1999 and 2000, respectively. 

Similar surveys, flown in 1996–99 in the Alaska 

Beaufort Sea, produced observed ringed seal densities of 0.81–1.17 km2, resulting in an estimate of 

18,000 seals hauled out in the surveyed area of the 

Beaufort Sea. Combining this estimate with the 

average abundance estimate of 230,673 from the 

Chukchi Sea (Bengtson et al., 2005) gives a total 

of approximately 249,000 ringed seals. This total 

is a minimum population estimate, as it does not 

include the whole geographic range of the ringed 

seal stock. 

The worldwide population of spotted seals was 

estimated to be 335,000–450,000, with an estimate 

for the Bering Sea of 200,000–450,000 (Burns, 

1973). Aerial surveys conducted in 1992–93 produced a maximum count of 4,145 spotted seals 

hauled out on the ice in the Bering Sea in spring 

and along the western Alaska coast during summer 

(Rugh et al., 1995). The proportion of time that 

spotted seals haul out averages about 6.8% (CV = 

8.85; Lowry et al., 1994); applying this correction 

factor to the maximum count of 4,145 results in 

an estimate of 59,214 seals.

Stock Status

 Bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted seals are 

not listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA, nor as depleted under the MMPA. Current 

and reliable estimates of the minimum population 

size, total abundance, PBR, and human-caused 

injury or mortality are not available. Because 

current information is insufficient to evaluate 

whether subsistence hunting is adversely affecting 

these stocks, and because of minimal evidence of 

interactions with U.S. fisheries, the Alaska stocks 
278

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

of bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted seals are 

not classified as strategic stocks. 

Issues

Arctic ice seals are a critical component of the 

Alaska Native subsistence harvest. All four species 

are hunted for subsistence purposes, but bearded 

and ringed seals in particular are targeted, with an 

average of 6,788 and 9,567 taken each year, respectively (ADFG, 2000a,b). There is significant annual 

variation in harvest numbers; however, the effect of 

the subsistence hunt on ice seal populations cannot be assessed, because there are no current and 

reliable population dynamics and ecological data 

for any of the four species of Arctic ice seals. Abundance, population discreteness, annual survival, 

and reproductive rates (together with information 

on food habits, seasonal movements, distribution, 

and habitat requirements for breeding, foraging, 

and molting) are all unknown, but are essential 

to making sound management and conservation 

decisions. Current knowledge of vital rates in all 

four species of Arctic ice seals is insufficient to allow 

for the timely detection of changes in population 

trends. Without reliable estimates of the abundance 

of these species, PBR levels cannot be calculated 

and any impacts of human activities on the populations cannot be assessed. 

Ecological data are particularly important with 

regard to the effect of global climate change and the 

resulting changes to Arctic ice habitats. A reduction 

or change in ice cover would directly affect the 

survival of all four species of ice seals, since they 

depend on seasonal ice for breeding and haul-out 

substrate. Evidence indicates that the Arctic climate 

is changing significantly and that one result of the 

change is a reduction in the extent of sea ice in 

at least some regions of the Arctic (ACIA, 2004; 

Johannessen et al., 2004). All four species of ice 

seals will be vulnerable to reductions in sea ice, as 

they are dependent on sea ice for at least part of 

their life history. There are insufficient data to make 

reliable predictions on the effects of Arctic climate 

change on ice seal populations.

Oil and gas exploration and development 

overlaps with both the summer and winter ranges 

of ringed seals in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. There 

has been concern that oil and gas exploration 

could result in changes in ringed seal distribution. 

However, aerial surveys conducted for 3 years both 

before and after industry activities indicate that local seal densities in the spring were not significantly 

different after industry activity (Moulton et al., 

2002). 

The effects of interactions with commercial 

fisheries (both direct, such as entanglement in 

nets, and indirect, such as competition for food 

resources) are not well known. However, given that 

there is little overlap between the distribution of 

commercial fisheries and the distribution of Arctic ice seals, it is possible that commercial fishery 

impacts may be minor.

LITERATURE CITED

ACIA. 2004. Impacts of a warming Arctic. Arctic 

Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, U.K., 140 p. Internet site—http://

amap.no/acia/.

ADFG. 2000a. Community Profile Database 3.04 for 

Access 97. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.

ADFG. 2000b. Seals+ Database for Access 97. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.

Ringed seal near Kotzebue, 

Alaska, instrumented with 

a satellite-linked time–depth 

recorder to evaluate the 

amount of time that seals 

spend basking on the surface 

of the ice.

Lisa Hiruki-Raring, NMML/AFSC
279

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

Angliss, R. P., and R. B. Outlaw. 2007. Alaska marine 

mammal stock assessments 2007. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSAFSC-180, 252 p. 

Bengtson, J. L., L. M. Hiruki-Raring, M. A. Simpkins, 

and P. L. Boveng. 2005. Ringed and bearded seal densities in the eastern Chukchi Sea, 1999–2000. Polar 

Biology 28(11):833–845. 

Bigg, M. A. 1969. The harbour seal in British Columbia. 

Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

172, 33 p.

Bigg, M. A. 1981. Harbour seal, Phoca vitulina, Linnaeus, 1758 and Phoca largha, Pallas, 1811. In S. H. 

Ridgway and R. J. Harrison (Editors), Handbook of 

Marine Mammals. Volume 2. Seals, p. 1–27. Academic 

Press, NY.

Boveng, P. L., J. L. Bengtson, D. E. Withrow, J. C. Cesarone, M. A. Simpkins, K. J. Frost, and J. J. Burns. 

2003. The abundance of harbor seals in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 19:111–127. 

Brownell Jr., R. L., P. J. Clapham, T. Miyashita, and T. 

Kasuya. 2001. Conservation status of North Pacific 

right whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2:269–286.

Burns, J. J. 1973. Marine mammal report. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Pittman-Robertson 

Project Reports W-17-3, W-17-4, and W-17-5, Anchorage, AK.

Burns, J. J. 1981a. Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus 

Erxleben, 1777. In S. H. Ridgway and R. J. Harrison 

(Editors), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 2. 

Seals, p. 147–170. Academic Press, NY.

Burns, J. J. 1981b. Ribbon seal Phoca fasciata. In S. H. 

Ridgway and R. J. Harrison (Editors), Handbook of 

Marine Mammals. Volume 2. Seals, p. 89–109. Academic Press, NY.

Burns, J. J., L. H. Shapiro, and F. H. Fay. 1981. Ice as 

marine mammal habitat in the Bering Sea. In D. W. 

Hood and J. A. Calder (Editors), The Eastern Bering 

Sea Shelf. Oceanography and Resources. Volume 2. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of 

Marine Pollution Assessment. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 1339 p.

Clapham, P., C. Good, S. Quinn, R. R. Reeves, J. E. 

Scarff, and R. L. Brownell Jr. 2004. Distribution of 

North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) as 

shown by 19th and 20th century whaling catch and 

sighting records. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 6:1–6.

Fisher, H. D. 1952. The status of the harbour seal in 

British Columbia, with particular reference to the 

Skeena River. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board 

of Canada 93, 58 p.

Fritz, L. W., and C. Stinchcomb. 2005. Aerial, ship, and 

land-based surveys of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in the western stock in Alaska, June and July 2003 

and 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-153, 56 p.

Frost, K. J., L. F. Lowry, J. R. Gilbert, and J. J. Burns. 

1988. Ringed seal monitoring. Relationships of distribution and abundance to habitat attributes and industrial activites. Report submitted to U.S. Department 

of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, 

AK, 101 p.

Hoover-Miller, A., K. R. Parker, and J. J. Burns. 2001. 

A reassessment of the impact of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in Prince 

William Sound, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 

17:111–135. 

Jansen, J. K., J. L. Bengtson, P. L. Boveng, and S. P. 

Dahle. 2003. Investigation of the potential disturbance 

of harbor seals by cruise ships in Disenchantment Bay, 

Alaska, May to August 2002. Draft report 1. Field 

activities and preliminary results. NMFS National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

Jemison, L. A. 1996. Report of the 1995 field season on 

Otter Island, Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Annual report 

to Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage, AK.

Johannessen, O. M., L. Bentsson, M. W. Miles, S. 

I. Kuzmina, V. A. Semenov, G. V. Alexseev, A. P. 

Nagumyi, V. F. Zakharov, L. P. Bobylev, L. H. Pettersoon, K. Hasselmann, and H. P Cattle. 2004. Arctic 

climate change. Observed and modeled temperature 

and sea-ice variability. Tellus 56A:328–341.

Kelly, B. P. 1988. Ribbon seal, Phoca fasciata. In J. W. 

Lentfer (Editor), Selected marine mammals of Alaska.

Species accounts with research and management rec-
280

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

ommendations, p. 77–94. U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission, Bethesda, Maryland.

LeDuc, R. G., W. L. Perryman, J. W. Gilpatrick Jr., 

J. Hyde, C. Stinchcomb, J. V. Carretta, and R. L. 

Brownell Jr. 2001. A note on recent surveys for right 

whales in the southeastern Bering Sea. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 

2:287–289.

Lowry, L. F., V. N. Burkanov, K. J. Frost, M. A. Simpkins, 

R. Davis, D. P. DeMaster, R. Suydam, and A. Springer. 

2000. Habitat use and habitat selection by spotted seals 

(Phoca largha) in the Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 78:1959–1971.

Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, R. Davis, D. P. DeMaster, and R. 

S. Suydam. 1998. Movements and behavior of satellitetagged spotted seals (Phoca largha) in the Bering and 

Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology 19:221–230.

Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, R. Davis, R. S. Suydam, and 

D. P. DeMaster. 1994. Movements and behavior of 

satellite-tagged spotted seals (Phoca largha) in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-38, 

71 p.

Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, J. M. VerHoef, and R. A. DeLong. 2001. Movements of satellite-tagged subadult 

and adult harbor seals in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 

Marine Mammal Science 17:835–861. 

Mathews, E. A., and G. W. Pendleton. 2006. Declines 

in harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) numbers in Glacier Bay 

National Park, Alaska, 1992–2002. Marine Mammal 

Science 22:167–189.

Mellinger, D. K., K. M. Stafford, S. E. Moore, L. Munger, 

and C. G. Fox. 2004. Detection of North Pacific right 

whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Marine Mammal Science 20(4):872–879. 

Moore, S. E., K. M. Stafford, D. K. Mellinger, and J. 

A. Hildebrand. 2006. Listening for large whales in the 

offshore waters of Alaska. BioScience 56(1):49–55.

Moulton, F. D., W. J. Richardson, T. L. McDonald, R. E. 

Elliott, and M. T. Williams. 2002. Factors influencing 

local abundance and haulout behavior of ringed seals 

(Phoca hispida) on landfast ice of the Alaskan Beaufort 

Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1900–1917.

Munger, L. M. 2007. North Pacific right whale calling 

behavior and habitat characterization in the southeastern Bering Sea. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

California, San Diego, CA.

Munger, L., S. Moore, J. Hildebrand, S. Wiggins, and 

M. McDonald. 2003. Calls of North Pacific right 

whales recorded in the southeast Bering Sea, abstract. 

In Marine Science in the Northeast Pacific. Science 

for Resource-dependent Communities. 2003 Annual Workshop, 13–17 January, University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks, AK.

NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus), revised. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 325 p.

O’Corry-Crowe, G. M., K. K. Martien, and B. L. Taylor. 

2003. The analysis of population genetic structure in 

Alaskan harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, as a framework 

for the identification of management stocks. NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative 

Report LJ-03-08, La Jolla, CA. 

Pitcher, K. W., and D. C. McAllister. 1981. Movements and haulout behavior of radio-tagged harbor 

seals, Phoca vitulina. Canadian Field Naturalist 

95:292–297.

Pitcher, K. W., P. F. Olesiuk, R. F. Brown, M. S. 

Lowry, S. J. Jeffries, J. L. Sease, W. L. Perryman, C. E. 

Stinchcomb, and L. F. Lowry. 2007. Abundance and 

distribution of the eastern North Pacific Steller sea 

lion (Eumetopias jubatus) population. Fishery Bulletin 

107:102–115. 

Reeves, R. R., S. Leatherwood, S. A. Karl, and E. R. Yohe. 

1985. Whaling results at Akutan (1912–39) and Port 

Hobron (1927–37), Alaska. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission 35:441–457.

Rugh, D. J., K. E. W. Shelden, and D. E. Withrow. 1995. 

Spotted seal sightings in Alaska 1992–93. Annual report to the MMPA Assessment Program. NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD.

Scarff, J. E. 2001. Preliminary estimates of whalinginduced mortality in the 19th century North Pacific 

right whale (Eubalaena japonica) fishery, adjusting for 

struck-but-lost whales and non-American whaling. 

Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special 

Issue 2:261–268.
281

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ALASKA REGION

UNIT 21

Scheffer, V. B., and J. W. Slipp. 1944. The harbor seal 

in Washington state. American Midland Naturalist 

32:373–416.

Shelden, K. E. W., S. E. Moore, J. M. White, P. R. Wade, 

and D. J. Rugh. 2005. Historic and current habitat use 

by North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in 

the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Mammal Review 

35(2):129–155.

Simpkins, M. A., D. E. Withrow, J. C. Cesarone, and P. 

L. Boveng. 2003. Stability in the proportion of harbor 

seals hauled out under locally ideal conditions. Marine 

Mammal Science 19:791–805.

Small, R. J. 1996. Population assessment of harbor seals 

in Alaska. Report of a workshop held in Fairbanks, 

Alaska, 14–16 November 1995, 36 p.

Small, R. J., L. F. Lowry, K. J. Frost, J. M. VerHoef, R. 

A. DeLong, and M. J. Rehberg. 2001. Movements 

of satellite-tagged harbor seal pups in Prince William 

Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 17:835–861.

Small, R. J., G. W. Pendleton, and K. W. Pitcher. 2003. 

Trends in abundance of Alaska harbor seals, 1983–

2001. Marine Mammal Science 19:344–362. 

VerHoef, J. M., and K. J. Frost. 2003. A Bayesian hierarchical model for monitoring harbor seal changes 

in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environmental and 

Ecological Statistics 10:201–219.

Wade, P. R., and R. P. Angliss. 1997. Guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks. Report of the GAMMS 

workshop 3–5 April 1996, Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-12.

Wade, P. R., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, K. Shelden, J. Barlow, J. Carretta, J. Durban, R. LeDuc, L. Munger, S. 

Rankin, A. Sauter, and C. Stinchcomb. 2006. Acoustic 

detection and satellite tracking leads to discovery of 

rare concentration of endangered North Pacific right 

whales. Biology Letters 2(3):417–419.

Waite, J. W., K. Wynne, and D. K. Mellinger. 2003. 

Documented sighting of a North Pacific right whale in 

the Gulf of Alaska and post-sighting acoustic monitoring. Northwestern Naturalist 84:38–43.

Waring, G. T, J. M. Quintal, and C. P. Fairfield. 2002. 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Western stock. In G. T. Waring, J. M. Quintal, and C. P. 

Fairfield (Editors), U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

marine mammal stock assessments 2002, p. 6–14. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-169.

Withrow, D. E., J. C. Cesarone, L. Hiruki-Raring, and 

J. L. Bengtson. 2002. Abundance and distribution of 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Gulf of Alaska (including the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak 

Island, Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound) during 

2001. In A. L. Lopez and S. E. Moore (Editors), Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species 

Act implementation program 2001, p. 19–63. NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center Processed Report 2002-

06, Seattle, WA.

Withrow, D. E., and T. R. Loughlin. 1996. Abundance 

and distribution of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Bristol Bay during 1995. Annual report to the MMPA 

Assessment Program. NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD.

283

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

marine mammals of the 

pacific region and hawaii

Unit

22

JAY BARLOW

JIM CARRETTA

 KARIN FORNEY

 MARK LOWRY

NMFS Southwest Fisheries

Science Center

La Jolla

California

DAVE JOHNSTON

JASON BAKER

NMFS Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center

Honolulu

Hawaii

INTRODUCTION

The Pacific region has 64 stocks of at least 39 

species of marine mammals. All species are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), and threatened and endangered species 

are also protected under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

responsible for managing two stocks of sea otters 

(central California and Washington), while the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has 

management authority for cetacean and pinniped 

stocks. Of the 64 marine mammal stocks found 

in the Pacific region, 13 stocks are listed under 

the ESA (2 threatened, 11 endangered), and 16 

stocks are strategic under the MMPA. In the eastern 

Pacific Ocean (i.e. waters off Washington, Oregon, 

California, and northern Mexico), the strategic 

stocks of marine mammals include endangered 

sperm, humpback, blue, fin, sei, and southern 

resident killer whales; short-finned pilot whales; 

long-beaked common dolphins; and threatened 

Guadalupe fur seals and California sea otters. Strategic stocks in Hawaiian waters include endangered 

sperm, blue, fin, and sei whales; false killer whales 

(Hawaii stock); and endangered Hawaiian monk 

seals. Fourteen stocks have known population 

trends: seven are increasing, one is stable/increasing, five are stable, and one is declining; the trends 

for the remaining 50 stocks are unknown. The status of marine mammal stocks in the Pacific region is 

summarized in Table 22-1. Seven marine mammal 

stocks are highlighted in this chapter: the Hawaiian 

monk seal, the Pacific Islands Stock Complex of 

false killer whales, the eastern North Pacific stocks 

of humpback and blue whales, and three stocks of 

Photo above:

A killer whale breaks the 

ocean surface. The Southern Resident stock of killer 

whales is listed as Endangered under the ESA.

SEFSC Pascagoula Laboratory
284

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 22-1

Status of marine mammal 

stocks in the Pacific region.

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality4

Strategic

status5

MMPA/

ESA

status6 Trend7

Seals and sea lions

California sea lion (U.S.) 141,842 8,511 > 159 > 232 No I

Guadalupe fur seal 3,028 91 0.0 0.0 Yes T I

Harbor seal

 California 31,600 1,896 389 >389 No S

 Oregon & Washington Coast 22,380 1,343 > 13 > 15.2 No S

 Washington Inland Waters 12,844 771 > 30 > 34 No S

Hawaiian monk seal 1,214 Undet. Unknown Unknown Yes E D

Northern elephant seal (California Breeding) 74,913 4,382 > 8.8 > 10.4 No I

Northern fur seal (San Miguel Island) 5,096 219 > 1.0 > 1.0 No U

Whales and porpoises

Baird’s beaked whale (CA / OR / WA) 203 2.0 0 0.2 No U

Blainville’s beaked whale (Hawaii) 1,204 9.6 0.8 0.8 No U

Blue whale 

 Eastern North Pacific 1,005 1.0 0 0.6 Yes E U

 Western North Pacific Unknown Undet. Unknown Unknown Yes E U

Bottlenose dolphin

 California Coastal 290 2.4 0.4 0.4 No S

 CA / OR / WA Offshore 2,295 23 0.2 0.2 No U

 Hawaii 2,046 20 > 0.2 > 0.2 No U

Brydes whale 

 Eastern Tropical Pacific Unknown Undet. 0 0 No U

 Hawaii 373 3.7 Unknown Unknown No U

Common dolphin (CA / OR / WA) 392,687 3,927 59 59 No U

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

 CA / OR / WA 1,234 10 0 > 0.2 No U

 Hawaii 6,919 69 Unknown Unknown No U

Dall’s porpoise (CA / OR / WA) 43,425 347 1.8 1.4 No U

Dwarf sperm whale

 CA / OR / WA Unknown Undet. 0 0 No U

 Hawaii 11,555 116 Unknown Unknown No U

False killer whale 

 Hawaii 249 2.4 4.9 4.9 Yes U

 Palmyra Atoll 806 7.7 1.9 1.9 No U

Fin whale 

 CA / OR / WA 2,760 16 0 1.4 Yes E U

 Hawaii 101 0.2 Unknown Unknown Yes E U

Fraser’s dolphin (Hawaii) 7,917 79 Unknown Unknown No U

Harbor porpoise

 Morro Bay 1,206 10 4.5 4.5 No I

 Monterey Bay 1,149 10 9.5 9.5 No S

 Northern California / Southern Oregon 12,940 259 > 0 > 0 No U

 Oregon / Washington Coast 27,705 277 0.6 0.6 No U

 San Francisco–Russian River 6,254 63 > 0.8 > 0.8 No S/I

 Washington Inland Waters 7,841 63 15.2 15.4 No U

Humpback whale (CA / OR / WA) 1,236 2.5 > 1.8 > 2.2 Yes E I

Killer whale

 Eastern North Pacific Offshore 331 3.3 0 0 No U

 Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident 89 0.18 0 0.2 Yes E U

 Hawaii 250 2.5 Unknown Unknown No U

Long-beaked common dolphin (California) 1,152 11 12.5 12.5 Yes U

Longman’s beaked whale (Hawaii) 371 3.7 Unknown Unknown No U

Melon-headed whale (Hawaii) 1,386 14 Unknown Unknown No U

Mesoplodont beaked whales (CA / OR / WA) 576 5.7 0 0 No U
285

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Table 22-1

Continued from the previous page.

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality4

Strategic

status5

MMPA/

ESA

status6 Trend7

Minke whale

 CA / OR / WA 544 5.4 0 0 No U

 Hawaii Unknown Undet. Unknown Unknown No U

Northern right whale dolphin (CA / OR / WA) 11,754 113 18 18 No U

Pacific white-sided dolphin (CA / OR / WA) 39,822 382 5.4 5.4 No U

Pantropical spotted dolphin (Hawaii) 7,362 74 > 0.8 > 0.8 No U

Pygmy killer whale (Hawaii) 382 3.8 Unknown Unknown No U

Pygmy sperm whale 

 CA / OR / WA Unknown Undet. 0 0.2 No U

 Hawaii 4,082 41 Unknown Unknown No U

Risso’s dolphin 

 CA / OR / WA 9,947 80 6.6 6.6 No U

 Hawaii 1,426 14 Unknown Unknown No U

Rough-toothed dolphin (Hawaii) 13,184 132 Unknown Unknown No U

Sei whale 

 Eastern North Pacific 27 0.005 0 0 Yes E U

 Hawaii 37 0.1 Unknown Unknown Yes E U

Short-finned pilot whale 

 CA / OR / WA 123 0.98 1.0 1.0 Yes U

 Hawaii 5,986 60 0.8 0.8 No U

Sperm whale 

 CA / OR / WA 1,719 3.4 0.2 0.2 Yes E U

 Hawaii 5,531 11 0.0 0.0 Yes E U

Spinner dolphin (Hawaii) 1,691 17 0 0 No U

Striped dolphin

 CA / OR / WA 16,737 167 0 0 No U

 Hawaii 7,078 71 Unknown Unknown No U

Other marine mammals8

Sea otter

 California 2,376 7 Unknown Unknown Yes T I

 Washington9 790 8 Unknown Unknown No I

1Nmin is a conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR; it provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than 

the estimate.

2The maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or stay 

at its optimum sustainable population level (50–100% of its carrying capacity); calculated as the product of Nmin, one-half of Rmax (the maximum 

productivity rate), and Fr (the recovery factor). Undet. = undetermined.

3An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by commercial fisheries; represents 

injuries/mortalities occurring only within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.

4An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans; includes other sources of 

mortality, such as ship strikes, strandings, orphaned animals collected for public display, mortalities associated with research activities, take by 

foreign countries, and mortalities associated with activities authorized through incidental take regulations. 

5As defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Amendments of 1994, any marine mammal stock 1) for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the PBR level; 2) which is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or 3) 

which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or as depleted under the MMPA.

6As defined in the MMPA, any species that is listed as threatened (T) or endangered (E) under the ESA is also considered to be a depleted (D) stock. 

7Trends: I=increasing; S/I=stable/increasing; S=stable; D=decreasing; U=unknown.

8These species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are not included in the stock-status tables of the National Overview.

9There is no formal Federal ESA designation for the northern sea otter, but this stock is legally designated as endangered by the State of Washington (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-014). 
286

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION Charles Littnan, NMFS

Juvenile monk seal. harbor porpoise in central California. Additional 

details and information about all 62 stocks managed by NMFS in the Pacific region can be found 

in the MMPA stock assessment reports (Carretta 

et al., 2007).

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

Hawaiian monk seals are distributed throughout the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) 

in six main reproductive subpopulations at French 

Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl 

and Hermes Reef, Midway Atoll, and Kure Atoll. 

Additional populations with limited reproduction 

are found at Necker and Nihoa Islands, and a small 

but apparently growing number of seals occur 

throughout the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). 

Genetic variation among NWHI monk seals 

appears low and may reflect both a long-term history of low population levels and more recent declines 

due to human influences. On average, 10–15% of 

the seals migrate among the NWHI subpopulations 

(Johnson and Kridler, 1983; Harting, 2002 ). These 

subpopulations are therefore not demographically 

isolated, although the different island subpopulations have exhibited considerable independence. 

For example, abundance at French Frigate Shoals 

grew rapidly from the 1950’s to the 1980’s, while 

other subpopulations rapidly declined. NWHI and 

MHI seals have not been compared genetically, 

but observed interchange of individuals among 

the regions is extremely rare, suggesting that these 

may be more appropriately designated as separate 

stocks. Further evaluation of a separate MHI stock 

will be pursued following genetic stock structure 

analysis (currently underway) and additional studies of MHI monk seals. In the meantime, while 

research and recovery activities may focus on the 

problems of single island/atoll subpopulations, the 

species is managed as a single stock.

Population Size and Current Trend

 The total Hawaiian monk seal abundance 

in 2007 was estimated at 1,247; this estimate is 

the sum of estimated abundance at the six main 

NWHI subpopulations, an extrapolation of counts 

at Necker and Nihoa Islands, and a minimum 

abundance estimate for the MHI. A total of 1,072 

seals (including pups) were estimated for the main 

reproductive subpopulations in 2005. Estimates for 

Necker and Nihoa Islands (± standard deviation) 

were 48.5 (± 19.9) and 51.7 (± 22.1), respectively. 

The total number of individually identifiable seals 

in the MHI was 77 for 2005, and is the current 

best minimum abundance estimate for this area. 

The minimum population estimate (Nmin) for the 

entire Hawaiian monk seal population in 2007 was 

1,214 seals.

 Total mean non-pup beach counts at the six 

main reproductive NWHI subpopulations in 2005 

were 67% lower than in 1958. From 1998 (the first 

year for which a reliable total abundance estimate 

has been obtained) through 2005, abundance has 

declined at 3.8% per year; this is the best estimate 

of current population trend. 

 Natural sources of mortality which may impede 

the recovery of Hawaiian monk seals include food 

limitation, shark predation, single- and multiplemale aggression, and disease/parasitism. Various 

measures to detect and mitigate male aggression 

have been developed and successfully applied. 

Shark-related injury and mortality incidents occur 

throughout the monk seal’s range, but shark predation on monk seal pups has emerged as a serious 

threat since the late 1990’s. Various mitigation 

measures are ongoing to address this problem. 

 An Unusual Mortality Event (UME) contin-
287

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

gency plan has recently been published for the 

monk seal (Yochem et al., 2004). While disease 

effects on monk seal demographic trends are uncertain, there is concern that diseases of livestock, 

feral animals, pets, or humans could be transferred 

to native monk seals in the MHI and potentially 

spread to the core population in the NWHI. Recent 

diagnoses confirm that in 2003 and 2004, two 

deaths of free-ranging monk seals were associated 

with diseases not previously found in the species: 

leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis. Leptospira bacteria 

are found in many of Hawaii’s streams and estuaries and are associated with livestock and rodents. 

Cats, domestic and feral, are a common source of 

toxoplasma parasites.

Human-induced mortality has caused two 

major declines of the Hawaiian monk seal (Ragen, 

1999). Sealers, surviving sailors of wrecked ships, 

guano gatherers, and feather hunters decimated 

this species in the 1800’s (Dill and Bryan, 1912; 

Wetmore, 1925; Clapp and Woodward, 1972). A 

1958 survey indicated at least a partial recovery 

of the species during the first half of this century 

(Rice, 1960); however, subsequent surveys documented a second major decline beginning in 1958 

(or earlier), during which several populations 

(Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll, and Pearl and Hermes 

Reef) decreased by 80–100%. The causes of this 

second decline have not been fully explained, but 

population trends at some sites appear to have been 

determined by the pattern of human disturbance 

(Kenyon, 1972; Gerrodette and Gilmartin, 1990; 

Ragen, 1999). Such disturbances have caused pregnant females to abandon prime pupping habitat 

and nursing females to abandon their pups, thereby 

increasing juvenile mortality. Currently, human activity in the NWHI is highly restricted and human 

disturbance of seals has become relatively rare. In 

contrast, a small number of seals coexist with 1.2 

million residents and over 6 million tourists each 

year in the MHI, where disturbance of seals is a 

concern. 

Fishery interactions with monk seals include 

operations/gear conflict, seal consumption of 

discarded fish, and competition for prey. Entanglement of monk seals in discarded fishing 

gear, which is believed to originate outside the 

Hawaiian Archipelago, is a source of mortality and 

injury throughout the seal’s range. The NWHI 

lobster fishery has been closed since 2000 due 

to uncertainty in stock assessments, removing a 

potential source of interactions with monk seals. 

The NWHI bottomfish fishery, which has been 

reported to interact with monk seals, will close 

no later than 2011 in accordance with President 

Bush’s establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea 

Marine National Monument in 2006. Interactions 

between the pelagic longline fishery and monk seals 

apparently ceased in 1991 after NMFS established 

a permanent Protected Species Zone extending 50 

nautical miles (n.mi.) around the NWHI and the 

corridors between the islands. Interactions between 

nearshore fisheries and monk seals also occur in the 

MHI, mostly involving hookings of seals. A total 

of 32 seals were observed with embedded hooks in 

the MHI during 1990–2005, and the frequency of 

such hookings appears to be on the rise. 

 In addition to disturbance and nearshore fishery interactions, monk seals face other challenges 

in the MHI. These include exposure to feral and 

domestic animals, which represent potential disease vectors. Additionally, vessel traffic around the 

populated islands carries the potential for collisions 

with seals and impacts from oil spills. Thus, issues 

surrounding the presence of monk seals in the 

MHI will likely become an increasing focus for 

management and recovery of this species. 

Stock Status

 In 1976, the Hawaiian monk seal was designated as endangered under the ESA and depleted 

under the MMPA. The species is well below its 

optimum sustainable population (OSP) and 

therefore is characterized as a strategic stock under the MMPA. According to the methodology 

specified in the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA 

and guidelines subsequently developed by NMFS, 

potential biological removal (PBR) for the monk 

seal is undetermined. The original 1983 Recovery 

Plan for the Hawaiian monk seal was revised in 

2007.

J. P. McVey, NOAA Sea Grant

Hawaiian monk seal, Laysan 

Island, Hawaii.
288

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Figure 22-1

False killer whale sighting locations during standardized shipboard surveys 

of the Hawaiian U.S. EEZ (2002, black diamond), the Palmyra U.S. EEZ (2005, 

open squares), and pelagic waters of the central Pacific south of the Hawaiian 

Islands (2005, open squares). Outer lines represent approximate boundary of 

U.S. EEZs.

FALSE KILLER WHALE:

PACIFIC ISLANDS STOCK COMPLEX

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

False killer whales are found worldwide in 

tropical and warm-temperate waters. In the North 

Pacific, this species is well known from southern Japan, Hawaii, and the eastern tropical Pacific. Most 

knowledge about this species comes from outside of 

Hawaiian waters, although there are six stranding 

records from Hawaiian waters (Nitta, 1991; Maldini et al., 2005) and two sightings of false killer 

whales were made during a 2002 shipboard survey 

of U.S. waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands 

(Figure 22-1; Barlow, 2006). Smaller-scale surveys 

conducted in the MHI show that false killer whales 

are also commonly encountered in nearshore waters 

(Mobley et al., 2000; Mobley, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004; Baird et al., 2005). 

Genetic analyses of tissue samples collected near 

the main Hawaiian Islands indicate that Hawaiian 

false killer whales are reproductively isolated from 

false killer whales found in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (Chivers et al., 2007); however, 

the offshore range of this Hawaiian population is 

unknown. Fishery interactions demonstrate that 

this species also occurs in U.S. territorial waters 

around Palmyra Atoll (Table 22-2; Figure 22-2), 

but it is not known whether these animals are part 

of the Hawaiian stock or whether they represent a 

separate stock of false killer whales. Recent surveys 

have confirmed the presence of false killer whales 

in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters of American Samoa and Johnston Atoll. For 

the MMPA stock assessment reports, there are 

currently two Pacific Island Region management 

stocks: 1) the Hawaiian stock, which includes animals found within the EEZ of the Hawaiian Islands; 

and 2) the Palmyra stock, which includes false killer 

whales found in the EEZ of Palmyra Atoll. 

Population Size and Current Trend

 Population estimates for this species have been 

made from shipboard surveys in Japan and the 

eastern tropical Pacific, but genetic evidence suggests that false killer whales around Hawaii form 

a distinct population. A recent mark–recapture 

180o 170o 160o 150o 140o

Longitude (W)

0

o

10o

20o

30o

Latitude (N)

Johnston

Atoll

Palmyra Atoll

Jarvis I

Howland & 

Baker Is

Hawaiian

Islands

False killer whales and dolphins seen from the bow of a NOAA Research Vessel.

Wayne Hoggard, SEFSC
289

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Figure 22-2

Locations of observed false 

killer whale takes (filled symbols) and possible takes of 

this species (open symbols) 

in the Hawaii-based longline 

fishery, 2001–05. Stars are 

locations of genetic samples 

from fishery-caught false 

killer whales. Solid lines 

represent the U.S. EEZ. 

photo-identification study of false killer whales in 

the inshore waters of the main Hawaiian Islands 

produced an estimate of 123 individuals (CV = 

0.72; Baird et al., 2005). Analyses of a 2002 shipboard line-transect survey of the entire Hawaiian 

EEZ (Hawaiian Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem 

Assessment Survey or HICEAS) resulted in an 

abundance estimate of 236 (CV = 1.13) false 

killer whales (Barlow, 2006). A re-analysis of the 

HICEAS data using improved methods and incorporating additional sighting information obtained 

during line-transect surveys south of the Hawaiian 

EEZ during 2005 resulted in a revised estimate 

of 484 (CV = 0.93) false killer whales within the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ (Barlow and Rankin, 2007). 

This is the best available abundance estimate for 

false killer whales within the Hawaiian Islands 

EEZ. 

Recent line-transect surveys in the Palmyra 

EEZ produced an estimate of 1,329 (CV = 0.65) 

false killer whales (Barlow and Rankin, 2007). This 

is the best available abundance estimate for false 

killer whales within the Palmyra Atoll EEZ. 

Information on the current population trend of 

false killer whales is not available for either Hawaii 

or Palmyra Atoll. 

Stock Status

Information on fishery-related mortality of 

cetaceans in Hawaiian waters is limited, but the 

types of gear used in Hawaiian fisheries (including gillnets, traps, and longlines) are responsible 

for marine mammal mortality and serious injury 

in other fisheries throughout U.S. waters. Gillnets 

appear to capture marine mammals wherever they 

are used, and float lines from lobster traps and 

longlines occasionally entangle whales. Interactions 

with cetaceans have been reported for all Hawaiian 

pelagic fisheries, and false killer whales have been 

identified in fishermen’s logs and NMFS observer 

catches from pelagic longlines (Nitta and Henderson, 1993). 

180o 170o 160o 150o 140o

Longitude (W)

0

o

10o

20o

30o

Latitude (N)

Johnston

Atoll

Palmyra Atoll

Jarvis I

Howland & 

Baker Is

Hawaiian

Islands

Table 22-2

Summary of available information on observed (Obs.)

and estimated (Est.) incidental mortality and serious 

injury of false killer whales 

(Hawaiian stock) in commercial fisheries, by EEZ region. 

Data is based on observer 

data from the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery. Mean annual take estimates are based 

on 2001–05 data; the coefficient of variation (CV) is in 

parentheses. The minimum 

total annual take within U.S. 

EEZ waters is estimated to be 

6.8 (CV = 0.34).

Year

% observer 

coverage

Outside of U.S. EEZ Hawaiian Island EEZ Palmyra Island EEZ

Obs. Est.

Mean annual 

takes Obs. Est.

Mean annual 

takes Obs. Est.

Mean annual 

takes

2001 23.0 2 11 (0.71) 0 0 (-) 1 4 (1.00)

2002 24.8 3 12 (0.58) 0 0 (-) 2 5 (0.71)

2003 21.9 0 0 (-) 7.7 (0.34) 2 8 (0.68) 4.9 (0.41) 0 0 (-) 1.9 (0.59)

2004 25.4 3 12 (0.58) 3 13 (0.58) 0 0 (-)

2005 34.2 1 4 (1.00) 1 3 (1.00) 0 0 (-)

 Between 1994 and 2005, 20 false killer whales 

were observed hooked in the Hawaii-based longline 

fishery, with approximately 4–34% of all effort observed (Forney and Kobayashi, 2007; Figure 22-2). 

The average interaction rate of false killer whales 

was 0.81 animals per 1,000 sets. All false killer 

whales caught were considered seriously injured, 

based on the nature of the interactions (Forney 
290

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Humpback whale breaching, 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary.

Stan Butler

and Kobayashi, 2005). Average 5-year estimates of 

mortality and serious injury for 2001–05 are 7.7 

(CV = 0.34) false killer whales per year outside of 

the U.S. EEZ, 4.9 (CV = 0.41) false killer whales 

within the Hawaiian Islands EEZ, and 1.9 (CV = 

0.59) false killer whales within the Palmyra Atoll 

EEZ (Table 22-2). Total U.S. EEZ mortality and 

serious injury for all areas combined averaged 6.8 

(CV = 0.34) false killer whales per year between 

2001 and 2005. 

False killer whales are not listed as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA or as depleted 

under the MMPA. Because the rate of mortality 

and serious injury to false killer whales within 

the Hawaiian Islands EEZ (4.9 animals per year) 

exceeds the PBR (PBR = 2.4) under the MMPA, 

this stock is considered a strategic stock under the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA. The total fishery 

mortality and serious injury for Hawaiian false 

killer whales cannot be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero, because it exceeds the 

PBR. The rate of mortality and serious injury to 

false killer whales within the Palmyra Atoll EEZ in 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery (1.9 animals per 

year) does not exceed the PBR (7.7) for this stock 

and thus, this stock is not considered strategic. 

The total fishery mortality and serious injury for 

the Palmyra stock is greater than 10% of the PBR 

and, therefore, cannot be considered insignificant 

and approaching zero. 

HUMPBACK WHALE: CALIFORNIA/

OREGON/WASHINGTON STOCK

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

 Within the North Pacific, at least three separate stocks of humpback whales migrate between 

their winter/spring calving and mating areas and 

their summer/fall feeding areas: 1) the California/

Oregon/Washington stock (CA/OR/WA stock, 

also called the eastern North Pacific stock), which 

includes whales that migrate from Mexico and 

Central America to feeding grounds off the U.S. 

west coast and southern British Columbia in 

summer/fall (Figure 22-3); 2) the Central North 

Pacific stock, which includes whales that migrate 

from the Hawaiian Islands to northern British 

Columbia, Southeast Alaska, and Prince William 

Sound west to Kodiak; and 3) the Western North 

Pacific stock, which includes whales that migrate 

from islands in the western Pacific to feeding areas 

off Russia, along the Aleutian Islands, and in the 

Bering Sea. Winter/spring populations of humpback whales also occur in Mexico’s offshore islands, 

but the summer/fall feeding destination of these 

whales is not well known. Although this structure 

represents the predominant migration pathways, 

some individual whales migrate from Mexico to 

the Gulf of Alaska and others migrate from Japan 

to British Columbia. In general, interchange occurs 

(at low levels) between breeding areas, but fidelity 

is extremely high among the feeding areas. 

Significant genetic differences exist between 

the California and Alaska feeding groups based on 

analyses of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. 

The genetic exchange rate between the California 

and Alaska groups is estimated to be less than one 

female per generation. The two breeding areas (Hawaii and coastal Mexico) showed fewer genetic differences than did the corresponding feeding areas. 

The observed movement of individually identified 

whales between Hawaii and Mexico substantiates 

these findings. 
291

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Figure 22-3

Humpback whale sightings 

based on shipboard surveys off California, Oregon, 

and Washington, 1991–2005. 

Dashed line represents the 

U.S. EEZ; thin lines indicate 

completed transect effort of 

all surveys combined. 

Population Size and Current Trend

Based on whaling statistics, the pre-1905 population of humpback whales in the North Pacific 

was estimated to be 15,000, but whaling reduced 

this population to approximately 1,200 by 1966. 

The entire North Pacific total now almost certainly 

exceeds 6,000 humpback whales. For the CA/OR/

WA stock, the more recent abundance estimate is 

1,300–1,400 whales based on ship surveys in 1996 

and 2001 and on mark–recapture studies in 2002 

and 2003. Ship surveys provide some indication 

that humpback whales increased in abundance 

in California coastal waters between 1979–80 

and 1991 and between 1991 and 1996; however, 

estimates declined between 1996 and 2001. Mark–

recapture population estimates increased steadily 

from 1988–90 to 1997–98 at about 8% per year. 

The CA/OR/WA stock appears to have declined in 

abundance between 1998 and 1999, but the most 

recent mark–recapture estimate shows that growth 

may have resumed. Population estimates for the entire North Pacific have also increased substantially, 

from 1,200 whales in 1966 to between 6,000 and 

10,000 whales circa 1992. Although these estimates 

are based on different methods and the earlier 

estimate is extremely uncertain, the population 

growth rate implied by these estimates (6–8%) is 

consistent with the recently observed growth rate 

of the CA/OR/WA stock. The best estimate of 

humpback whale abundance in the CA/OR/WA 

region is the average of the 2001–05 line-transect 

estimate (1,401 animals) and the 2002/2003 

mark–recapture estimate (1,391 animals) or 1,396 

whales.

Stock Status

Humpback whales in the North Pacific were 

estimated to have been reduced to 13% of carrying 

capacity (K) by commercial whaling. The initial 

abundance has never been estimated separately 

for the CA/OR/WA stock, but this stock was also 

depleted (probably twice) by whaling. Both the 

central and eastern stocks have been recovering 

since the end of commercial whaling in 1964, and 

recent population growth rates have been 6–8% 

annually. Humpback whales are formally listed as 

endangered under the ESA, and consequently the 

California/Mexico stock is automatically considered as a depleted and strategic stock under the 

MMPA. The estimated annual mortality and injury 

due to entanglement (1.8 per year), ship strikes (0.2 

per year), and other anthropogenic sources (0.2 per 

year) is less than the potential biological removal 

(PBR = 2.5) estimated for U.S. waters. 

BLUE WHALE:

EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC STOCK

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

The North Pacific contains at least two stocks of 

blue whales that are distinguishable based on stable 

differences in call characteristics. Up to five stocks 

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

130°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 120°0'0"W

30°0'0"N

35°0'0"N

40°0'0"N

45°0'0"N
292

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION SWFSC Protected Resources Division

Aerial photo of a blue whale 

with her calf in the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean.

Figure 22-4

Blue whale sighting locations based on aerial and summer/autumn shipboard 

surveys off California, Oregon, and Washington, 1999–2005. Dashed line 

represents the U.S. EEZ; thin lines represent completed transect effort for all 

surveys combined. 

have been proposed for the North Pacific. This 

section covers the Eastern North Pacific stock that 

feeds primarily in California waters in summer/

fall (from June to November) and migrates south 

to reproductive areas off Mexico and as far south 

as the Costa Rica Dome (10°N) in winter/spring. 

Blue whales have been seen and heard off Oregon 

with increasing frequency since 2000 (Figure 22-

4). In 2004, blue whales were seen in the northern 

Gulf of Alaska for the first time in approximately 

two decades. One of those whales was identified 

by photographers as a whale that was previously 

seen off southern California in the 1990’s. In recent years, acoustic researchers have documented 

Eastern North Pacific blue whale calls in the Gulf 

of Alaska. It is not known whether blue whales are 

now rediscovering this historical feeding area or 

whether they have continued to use this area in 

small numbers that escaped the notice of whale 

biologists.

Population Size and Current Trend

 The size of the feeding stock of blue whales in 

California was estimated recently using both linetransect methods and mark–recapture methods. 

The line-transect estimates of 800 whales were 

based on ship surveys off California, Oregon, 

and Washington in 2001 and 2005. The markrecapture estimates were based on photographs of 

individual whales taken off California in 2000–02, 

and averaged 1,567 individuals. The best current 

estimate of blue whale abundance is the average of 

the line-transect and mark–recapture estimates, or 

approximately 1,186 blue whales off the U.S. West 

Coast. 

There is some indication that blue whales 

have increased in abundance in California coastal 

waters between 1979–80 and 1991, and between 

1991 and 1996. This may be due to an increase 

in the blue whale stock as a whole, but could also 

be the result of increased use of California waters 

as a feeding area. Although the population in the 

North Pacific is expected to have grown since being given protected status in 1966, the possibility 

of continued unauthorized takes after blue whales 

were protected and the existence of incidental ship 

strikes make this uncertain. 
293

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Figure 22-5

Harbor porpoise stocks and 

boundaries in California and 

southern Oregon. Stippled 

area shows approximate 

harbor porpoise habitat between 0–200 m depths. The 

thick solid line represents 

survey transects flown during 1989–2002 aerial surveys. 

Survey coverage north of the 

California/Oregon border 

has been completed by the 

National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory. 

Stock Status

Previously, blue whales in the entire North 

Pacific were estimated to be at 33% (1,600) of 

historic carrying capacity (4,900). The initial abundance has never been estimated separately for the 

eastern stock, but this stock was almost certainly 

depleted by whaling. Blue whales are formally listed 

as endangered under the ESA, and consequently 

the eastern North Pacific stock is automatically 

considered as a depleted and strategic stock under 

the MMPA. There were no observed fishery entanglements during the period of 1998–2002, and 

the total estimated human-caused mortality and 

serious injury due to ship strikes (0.6 per year) is 

less than the potential biological removal (PBR = 

1.0) calculated for this stock. 

HarBor PorPoISe:

CeNTral CalIForNIa SToCKS

Stock Definition and Geographic range

In the Pacific, harbor porpoises are found in 

coastal and inland waters from Point Conception, California, north to Alaska and west to the 

Kamchatka Peninsula (in eastern Russia) and Japan (Gaskin, 1984). Most harbor porpoise along 

the California coast are found in waters less than 

60 m deep (Barlow, 1988; Carretta et al., 2001). 

In contrast to harbor porpoises on the U.S. East 

Coast, which exhibit seasonal migrations between 

the Carolinas and the Gulf of Maine (Polacheck et 

al., 1995), U.S. West Coast harbor porpoises appear 

to have limited geographic movement. Along the 

California coast, harbor porpoise were previously 

divided into two stocks (central California and 

northern California) based on regional differences 

in pollutant levels and other evidence of limited 

movement in this region (Calambokidis and 

Barlow, 1991). Recent molecular genetic evidence 

has revealed further population subdivision within 

this region (Chivers et al., 2002), and four harbor 

porpoise stocks are now recognized off California 

(Figure 22-5). This stock structure includes three 

stocks in central California (Morro Bay, Monterey 

Bay, and San Francisco–Russian River; Table 22-3), 

and a Northern California/Southern Oregon stock. 

Harbor porpoise stock boundaries may be further 

refined as additional genetic samples are analyzed 

in this region. 

 Small-scale movements of harbor porpoises 

along the California coast in response to changing 

oceanographic conditions, such as El Niño, have 

been suggested by Forney (1999), who found that 

porpoise abundance off central California was 

negatively correlated with higher than normal sea 

surface temperatures. 

128.0° W 126.0° W 124.0° W 122.0° W 120.0° W 118.0° W

34.0° N

36.0° N

38.0° N

40.0° N

42.0° N

44.0° N

Oregon

Northern California/ California

Southern Oregon

San FranciscoRussian River

Monterey Bay

Morro Bay

Cape Blanco

Monterey Bay

Cape Mendocino

Point Conception

Point Arena

Morro Bay

Oregon/Washington

 coast

Russian River

Stock

Population

size

Lower 95%

confidence interval

Upper 95%

confidence interval

Coefficient

of variation

Morro Bay 1,656 730 3,183 0.39

Monterey Bay 1,149 675 3,353 0.42

San Francisco–Russian River 8,521 4,151 17,145 0.38

Table 22-3

Estimated population sizes 

for harbor porpoise stocks 

in central California based 

on 1999 and 2002 aerial 

surveys.
294

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Population Size and Current Trend

	 The	most	recent	estimates	of	population	size	

for	the	three	central	California	porpoise	stocks	are	

based	on	pooled	data	from	aerial	surveys	conducted

in	 1999	 and	 2002	 (Carretta	 and	 Forney,	 2004;

Table	22-3).	A	new	series	of	aerial	surveys	was	conducted	between	2003	and	2007	to	provide	updates

on	the	abundance	of	these	stocks.	Data	from	these	

surveys	are	currently	being	analyzed.

Morro Bay Stock: Abundance	estimates	from	a	series

of	nine	aerial	surveys	conducted	between	1988	and

2002	 suggested	 that	 the	Morro	 Bay	 population

of	 harbor	 porpoise	was	increasing.	The	 first	 five	

aerial	surveys	conducted	between	1988	and	1993	

yielded	 abundance	 estimates	 between	 100	 and

500	 animals.	 Aerial	 surveys	 conducted	 between

1995	and	2002	yielded	abundance	estimates	between	600	and	1,700	animals.	Based	on	just	the	

1999–2002	aerial	surveys,	which	were	conducted	

under	the	best	conditions,	the	abundance	estimate	

is	1,656	animals.	The	slope	of	a	linear	regression	on	

the	natural	logarithm	of	abundance	from	1988	to	

2002	is	significantly	different	from	zero	(p	<	0.002,

Figure	22-6),	indicating	population	growth.

Monterey Bay Stock: Harbor	porpoise	in	Monterey

Bay	do	not	show	any	trend	in	abundance	over	the	

period	of	1988–2002.	The	slope	of	a	linear	regression	on	the	natural	logarithm	of	abundance	from	

1988	 to	 2002	is	 not	 significantly	 different	from	

zero	 (p	 =	 0.64,	 Figure	 22-6).	 Based	 on	 just	 the

1999–2002	aerial	surveys,	which	were	conducted	

under	the	best	conditions,	the	abundance	estimate	

is	1,613	animals.	

		 	 	 	 	 	

San Francisco–Russian River Stock: Abundance	of	

the	San	Francisco-Russian	River	 stock	of	harbor	

porpoise	appeared	to	be	stable	or	declining	between

1988–1991,	and	the	slope	of	a	linear	regression	on	

the	natural	logarithm	of	abundance	from	1988	to	

2002	is	not	significantly	different	from	zero	(p	=	

0.24,	Figure	22-6).	Based	on	just	the	1999–2002	

aerial	 surveys,	which	were	 conducted	 under	 the

best	conditions,	the	abundance	estimate	is	6,254	

animals.	

Figure 22-6

Aerial survey estimates of abundance for central California stocks 

of harbor porpoise, 1988–2002. Error bars represent the lower and 

upper 95% confidence intervals. Solid lines represent linear regressions on the natural logarithm of abundance over time. Top, Morro 

Bay stock (slope of regression is statistically significant, p < 0.002); 

middle, Monterey Bay stock (slope of regression is not statistically 

significant, p = 0.64); bottom, San Francisco–Russian River stock 

(slope of regression is not statistically significant, p = 0.24).

Year

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Abundance

(individuals)

Year

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Abundance

(individuals)

Year

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Abundance

(individuals)
295

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Stock Status

Harbor porpoise in California waters are not 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or 

as depleted under the MMPA. In the early 1980’s, 

harbor porpoise mortality in set gillnets off central 

California was estimated at more than 200 animals 

annually (Diamond and Hanan, 1986). In the 

mid-to-late 1990’s, estimates of harbor porpoise 

mortality in Monterey Bay ranged from 40 to 130 

animals annually (Forney et al., 2001). A ban on 

all gillnets in central California waters shallower 

than 110 m took effect in September 2002; this 

ban is expected to effectively reduce fishery-caused 

harbor porpoise mortality in this region to near 

zero. The current mean annual human-caused 

mortality (take) for the three central California 

stocks is less than the potential biological removal, 

and none of the stocks is considered strategic under 

the MMPA. The average annual mortality for each 

stock compared to PBR is given in Table 22-4. 

Stock PBR Mean annual takes

Morro Bay 10 4.5 (0.97)

Monterey Bay 10 9.5 (0.66)

San Francisco–Russian River 63 0.8 (NA)

Table 22-4

Potential biological removal (PBR) and mean 

annual mortality and serious injury of harbor 

porpoise for the period 1998–2002, with the coefficient of variation in parentheses.

LITERATURE CITED

Baird, R. W., A. M. Gorgone, D. L. Webster, D. J. 

McSweeney, J. W. Durban, A. D. Ligon, D. R. 

Salden, and M. H. Deakos. 2005. False killer whales 

around the main Hawaiian islands. An assessment 

of inter-island movements and population size using 

individual photo-identification. Report prepared for 

the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Barlow, J. 1988. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) abundance estimation in California, Oregon, 

and Washington. I. Ship surveys. Fishery Bulletin 

86:417–432.

Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters 

estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. Marine 

Mammal Science 22:446–464.

Barlow, J., and S. Rankin. 2007. False killer whale 

abundance and density. Preliminary estimates for the 

PICEAS study area south of Hawaii and new estimates 

for the US EEZ around Hawaii. NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ07-02, La Jolla, CA.

Calambokidis, J., and J. Barlow. 1991. Chlorinated 

hydrocarbon concentrations and their use in describing population discreteness in harbor porpoises from 

Washington, Oregon, and California. In J. E. Reynolds 

and D. K. Odell (Editors), Marine Mammal Strandings 

in the United States, p. 101–110. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS-98. 

Carretta, J. V., and K. A. Forney. 2004. Preliminary 

estimates of harbor porpoise abundance in California 

from 1999 and 2002 aerial surveys. Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Administrative Report LJ-04-01, 13 p. 

Internet site—http://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/

Divisions/PRD/Programs/Coastal_Marine_Mammal/

LJ-04-01_Carretta_Forney.pdf

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. 

Baker, B. Hanson, and M. M. Muto. 2007. U.S. Pacific 

marine mammal stock assessments. 2007. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-414, 316 p.

Carretta, J. V., B. L. Taylor, and S. J. Chivers. 2001. 

Abundance and depth distribution of harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) in northern California determined 

from a 1995 ship survey. Fishery Bulletin 99:29–39.

Chivers, S. J., R. W. Baird, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. 

Webster, N. M. Hedrick, and J. C. Salinas. 2007. 

Genetic variation and evidence for population 

structure in eastern North Pacific false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens). Canadian Journal of Zoology 

85:783–794.

Chivers, S. J., A. E. Dizon, P. J. Gearin, and K. M. 

Robertson. 2002. Small-scale population structure 

of eastern North Pacific harbour porpoises (Phocoena 
296

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Humpback Whale migrating through The Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary.

phocoena), indicated by molecular genetic analyses. 

Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

4(2):111–122.

Clapp, R. B., and P. W. Woodward. 1972. The natural 

history of Kure Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Atoll Research Bulletin 164:303–304.

Diamond, S. L., and D. A. Hanan. 1986. An estimate 

of harbor porpoise mortality in California set gillnet 

fisheries April 1, 1983 through March 31, 1984. 

NMFS Southwest Regional Office Administrative 

Report SWR-86-15, 40 p. 

Dill, H. R., and W. A. Bryan. 1912. Report on an expedition to Laysan Island in 1911. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Survey Bulletin 42:1–30.

Forney, K. A. 1999. Trends in harbor porpoise abundance 

off central California, 1986–95. Evidence for interannual changes in distribution? Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management 1:73–80.

Forney, K. A., and D. Kobayashi. 2005. Updated estimates of mortality and serious injury of cetaceans in 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery, January 1994–June 

2004. Draft report. Document PSR6-07 presented to 

the Pacific Scientific Review Group, 4–6 January 2005. 

Available from the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center, La Jolla, CA.

Forney, K. A., S. R. Benson, and G. A. Cameron. 2001. 

Central California gillnet effort and bycatch of sensitive 

species, 1990–1998. In E. F. Melvin and J. R. Parrish 

(Editors), Seabird Bycatch. Trends, Roadblocks, and 

Solutions, p. 141–160. Alaska Sea Grant, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks, AK.

Forney, K. A., and D. R. Kobayashi. 2007. Updated 

estimates of mortality and injury of cetaceans in the 

Hawaii-based longline fisheries, 1994–2005. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-412.

Gaskin, D. E. 1984. The harbour porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena L.). Regional populations, status, and information on direct and indirect catches. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission 34:569–586.

Gerrodette, T. M., and W. G. Gilmartin. 1990. Demographic consequences of changed pupping and hauling 

sites of the Hawaiian monk seal. Conservation Biology 

4:423–430.

Harting, A. L. 2002. Stochastic simulation model for 

the Hawaiian monk seal. Ph.D. thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman, MT, 328 p.

Johnson, A. M., and E. Kridler. 1983. Interisland movement of Hawaiian monk seals. Elepaio 44(5):43–45.

NOAA Sanctuaries
297

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Kenyon, K. W. 1972. Man versus the monk seal. Journal 

of Mammology 53(4):687–696.

Maldini, D., L. Mazzuca, and S. Atkinson. 2005. Odontocete stranding patterns in the Main Hawaiian Islands 

(1937–2002): How do they compare with live animal 

surveys? Pacific Science 59(1):55–67.

Mobley, J. R. 2001. Results of 2001 aerial surveys of 

humpback whales north of Kauai. Report to North 

Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Program, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA, 27 p. Internet 

site—http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu/SocialSci/

jmobley/2001NPAL.pdf.

Mobley, J. R. 2002. Results of 2002 aerial surveys of 

humpback whales north of Kauai. Report to North 

Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Program, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA, 17 p. Internet 

site—http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu/SocialSci/

jmobley/2002NPAL.pdf.

Mobley, J. R. 2003. Results of 2003 aerial surveys of 

humpback whales north of Kauai. Report to North 

Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Program, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA, 22 p. Internet 

site—http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu/SocialSci/

jmobley/2003NPAL.pdf.

Mobley, J. R. 2004. Results of 2004 aerial surveys of 

humpback whales north of Kauai. Report to North 

Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Program, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA, 24 p. Internet 

site—http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu/SocialSci/

jmobley/2004NPAL.pdf.

Mobley, J. R., S. S. Spitz, K. A. Forney, R. A. Grotefendt, 

and P. H. Forestall. 2000. Distribution and abundance 

of odontocete species in Hawaiian waters. Preliminary 

results of 1993–98 aerial surveys. NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ00-14C, La Jolla, CA, 26 p.

Nitta, E. 1991. The marine mammal stranding network 

in Hawaii: an overview. In J. E. Reynolds III and D. 

K. Odell (Editors), Marine Mammal Strandings in the 

United States, p. 56–62. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-98.

Nitta, E., and J. R. Henderson. 1993. A review of interactions between Hawaii’s fisheries and protected species. 

Marine Fisheries Review 55(2):83–92.

Polacheck, T. F., W. Wenzel, and G. Early. 1995. What 

do stranding data say about harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena). In A. Bjørge and G. P. Donovan (Editors), 

Biology of the Phocoenids, p. 169–179. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 16. 

Ragen, T. J. 1999. Human activities affecting the 

population trends of the Hawaiian monk seal. In J. 

A. Musick (Editor), Life in the Slow Lane. Ecology 

and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals, p. 

183–194. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Rice, D. W. 1960. Population dynamics of the Hawaiian 

monk seal. Journal of Mammology 41:376–385.

Wetmore, A. 1925. Bird life among lava rock and coral 

sand. The National Geographic Magazine 48:77–108.

Yochem, P. K., R. C. Braun, B. Ryon, J. D. Baker, and 

G. A. Antonelis. 2004. Contingency plan for Hawaiian monk seal unusual mortality events. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-PIFSC-2, 27 p.

FOR FURTHER READING

Baker, C. S. 1992. Genetic variability and stock identity 

of humpback whales, world-wide. Final contract report 

to the International Whaling Commission, 45 p.

Baker, C. S., D. A. Gilbert, M. T. Weinrich, R. Lambertsen, J. Calambokidis, B. McArdle, G. K. Chambers, and S. J. O’Brien. 1993. Population characteristics 

of DNA fingerprints in humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Journal of Heredity 84:281–290.

Baker, C. S., S. R. Palumbi, R. H. Lambertsen, M. T. 

Weinrich, J. Calambokidis, and S. J. O’Brien. 1990. 

Influence of seasonal migration on geographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in humpback 

whales. Nature 344(15):238–240.

Barlow, J. 1994. Abundance of large whales in California 

coastal waters: a comparison of ship surveys in 1979/80 

and in 1991. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 44:399–406.

Barlow, J. 2003a. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian 

waters during summer/fall of 2002. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report 

LJ-03-13, 20 p. 
298

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Barlow, J. 2003b. Preliminary estimates of the abundance 

of cetaceans along the U.S. west coast, 1991–2001. 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-03-03, 31 p. 

Berzin, A. A., and A.A. Rovnin. 1966. The distribution 

and migrations of whales in the northeastern part of 

the Pacific, Chukchi and Bering Seas. In K. I. Panin 

(Editor), Soviet research on marine mammals of the Far 

East, p. 103–136. (Izvestiya Tikhookeanskogo Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo Institut Rybnogo Khozyaistva 

I Okeanografii 58:179–207.) Translation from the 

original Russian. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle, 1968.

Braham, H. W. 1991. Endangered whales: status update. 

A report on the 5-year status of stocks review under 

the 1978 amendments to the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. National Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished 

report. 

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, K. Rasmussen, G. H. 

Steiger, and L. Schlender. 1999. Humpback and blue 

whale photo-identification research off California, 

Oregon and Washington in 1998. Final contract 

report to NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

La Jolla, CA, 35 p.

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, L. Schlender, K. Rasmussen, and G. H. Steiger. 2002. Research on humpback 

and blue whales off California, Oregon and Washington in 2001. Final contract report to NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA, 51 p.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. C. Cubbage, K. C. 

Balcomb, C. Ewald, S. Kruse, R. Wells, and R. Sears. 

1990. Sightings and movements of blue whales off 

central California 1986–88 from photo-identification 

of individuals. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission, Special Issue 12:343–348.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. R. Evenson, K. R. 

Flynn, K. C. Balcomb, D. E. Claridge, P. Bloedel, J. M. 

Straley, C. S. Baker, O. von Ziegesar, M. E. Dahlheim, 

J. M. Waite, J. D. Darling, G. Ellis, and G. A. Green. 

1996. Interchange and isolation of humpback whales 

in California and other North Pacific feeding grounds. 

Marine Mammal Science 12(2):215–226.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. M. Straley, L. Herman, 

S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, J. Urbán-R., J. K. Jacobsen, 

O. von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. 

E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, G. Ellis, Y. Miyamura, P. 

Ladrón de Guevara-P., M. Yamaguchi, F. Sata, S. A. 

Mizroch, L. Schlender, K. Rasmussen, J. Barlow, and 

T. J. Quinn II. 2001. Movements and population 

structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific. 

Marine Mammal Science 17(4):769–794. 

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. M. Straley, T. J. 

Quinn II, L. M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, 

M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urbán-R., J. Jacobsen, O. 

von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. E. 

Dahlheim, N. Higashi, S. Uchida, J. K. B. Ford, Y. 

Miyamura, P. Ladrón de Guevara-P., S. A. Mizroch, L. 

Schlender, and K. Rasmussen. 1997. Abundance and 

population structure of humpback whales in the North 

Pacific Basin. Final contract report to NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA, 72 p.

Clapham, P. J., S. Leatherwood, I. Szczepaniak, and 

R. L. Brownell Jr. 1997. Catches of humpback and 

other whales from shore stations at Moss Landing and 

Trinidad, California, 1919–1926. Marine Mammal 

Science 13(3):368–394.

Darling, J. D. 1991. Humpback whales in Japanese 

waters, Ogasawara and Okinawa, fluke identification 

catalog 1987–1990. Final contract report to World 

Wildlife Fund for Nature, Japan, 22 p.

Forney, K. A., and R. L. Brownell Jr. 1996. Preliminary 

report of the 1994 Aleutian Island marine mammal 

survey. International Whaling Commission Paper 

SC/48/O11. 

Hammond, P. S. 1986. Estimating the size of naturally 

marked whale populations using capture-recapture 

techniques. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 8:253–282.

Johnson, J. H., and A. A. Wolman. 1984. The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Fisheries 

Review 46(4):30–37.

Larkman, V. E., and R. R. Veit. 1998. Seasonality and 

abundance of blue whales off southern California. 

California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, Report 39:236–239.

Leatherwood, S., R. R. Reeves, W. F. Perrin, and W. E. 

Evans. 1982. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the 

eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters. A 

guide to their identification. NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS-444, 245 p.
299

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PACIFIC REGION AND HAWAII

UNIT 22

Mate, B. R., B. A. Lagerquist, and J. Calambokidis. 

1999. Movements of North Pacific blue whales during 

their feeding season off southern California and their 

southern fall migration. Marine Mammal Science 

15(4):1246–1257.

Mizroch, S. A., D. W. Rice, and J. M. Breiwick. 1984. 

The blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus. Marine Fisheries Review 46:15–19.

Nishiwaki, M. 1966. Distribution and migration of the 

larger cetaceans in the North Pacific as shown by Japanese whaling results. In K. S. Norris (Editor), Whales, 

Dolphins and Porpoises, p. 172–191. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Rice, D. W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North 

Pacific: distribution, exploitation, and numbers. In

K. S. Norris and R. R. Reeves (Editors), Report on a 

workshop on problems related to humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, p. 29–44. Contract report to U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, 

NTIS No. PB-280-794, 90 p.

Stafford, K. M., C. G. Fox, and D. S. Clark. 1998. Longrange acoustic detection and localization of blue whale 

calls in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 104(6): 3616–3625.

Steiger, G. H., J. Calambokidis, R. Sears, K. C. Balcomb, 

and J. C. Cubbage. 1991. Movement of humpback 

whales between California and Costa Rica. Marine 

Mammal Science 7:306–310.

Stewart, B. S., S. A. Karl, P. K. Yochem, S. Leatherwood, 

and J. L. Laake. 1987. Aerial surveys for cetaceans in 

the former Akutan, Alaska, whaling grounds. Arctic 

40(1):33–42.

Wade, P. R., and T. Gerrodette. 1993. Estimates of 

cetacean abundance and distribution in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 43:477–493.

Yablokov, A. V. 1994. Validity of whaling data. Nature 

367:108. 

301

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

marine mammals 

of the atlantic region 

and the gulf of mexico

INTRODUCTION

The Atlantic region, including the Gulf of 

Mexico, has at least 94 stocks of 39 species of 

marine mammals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has management authority for two stocks 

of the endangered West Indian manatee, while the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has 

responsibility for management of the remaining 

cetacean and pinniped stocks. 

According to criteria provided by the 1994 

Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA), there are 53 strategic stocks in the 

Atlantic region, including several stocks classified 

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Unit

23

KATHERINE MAzE-FOLEY

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Pascagoula

Mississippi

GORDON T. WARING

ELIzABETH JOSEPHSON

NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center

Woods Hole

Massachusetts

Photo above: 

Oceanic bottlenose dolphins 

in the Gulf of Mexico.

SEFSC/NMFS

Species Act (ESA; Table 23-1). In the western North 

Atlantic, the strategic1 stocks include endangered 

right, humpback, fin, sei, blue, and sperm (two 

stocks) whales; endangered West Indian manatee 

(two stocks); western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin (depleted under the MMPA); stocks 

where estimated mortality exceeds their potential 

for biological removal (PBR): harbor porpoise; 

1Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a strategic stock is 

defined as a marine mammal stock that 1) has a level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeding the potential biological 

removal; 2) based on the best available scientific information 

is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species 

under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or 3) is listed 

as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is 

designated as depleted under the MMPA. 
302

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 23-1

Status of marine mammal 

stocks in the Atlantic region, including the Gulf of 

Mexico.

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality4

Strategic

status5

MMPA/

ESA

status6 Trend7

Seals and sea lions

Grey seal (W. North Atlantic) Unknown Unknown 304 445 No I

Harbor seal (W. North Atlantic)8 91,546 2,746 882 893 No I

Harp seal (NW North Atlantic)8 Unknown Unknown 73 447,442 No I

Hooded seal (NW North Atlantic) Unknown Unknown 25 5,199 No U

Whales and porpoises

Atlantic spotted dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 22,626 226 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic 36,235 362 6 6 No U

Atlantic white-sided dolphin (W. North Atlantic) 50,883 509 357 357 No U

Blainville’s beaked whale (N. Gulf of Mexico)9 24 0.2 0 0 Yes U

Blue whale (W. North Atlantic) Unknown Unknown 0 0.2 Yes E U

Bottlenose dolphin

 Gulf of Mexico bay, sound, and estuary10 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes U

 N. Gulf of Mexico oceanic 2,641 26 Unknown Unknown No U

 N. Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf 17,084 270 0 0 No U

 N. Gulf of Mexico coastal stocks11

 Eastern Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes U

 Northern Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes U

 Western Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes U

 W. North Atlantic offshore 70,775 566 Unknown Unknown No U

 W. North Atlantic coastal Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes D U

Brydes whale (N. Gulf of Mexico) 5 0.1 0 0 No U

Clymene dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 4,901 49 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Common dolphin (W. North Atlantic) 99,975 1,000 151 151 No U

Cuvier’s beaked whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 39 0.4 0 0 Yes U

 W. North Atlantic12 2,154 17 1 1 Yes U

Dwarf sperm whale13

 N. Gulf of Mexico 340 3.4 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic 285 2 0 0 No U

False killer whale (N. Gulf of Mexico) 501 5 0 0 No U

Fin whale (W. North Atlantic) 1,678 3.4 0.8 2.8 Yes E U

Fraser’s dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Gervais’ beaked whale (N. Gulf of Mexico)9 24 0.2 0 0 Yes U

Harbor porpoise (Gulf of Maine / Bay of Fundy) 60,970 610 652 734 Yes U

Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine) 549 1.1 2.8 4.2 Yes E U

Killer whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 28 0.3 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Long-finned pilot whale (W. North Atlantic)14 24,866 249 163 163 No U

Melon-headed whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 1,293 13 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Mesoplodont beaked whales (W. N. Atlantic)12 2,154 17 1 1 Yes U

Minke whale (Canadian East Coast) 1,899 19 2.2 2.6 No U

North Atlantic right whale (Western) 313 0 1.4 3.2 Yes E U

Northern bottlenose whale (W. North Atlantic) Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Pantropical spotted dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 29,311 293 0 0 No U
303

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

Species/stock

Minimum

population

estimate

(Nmin)

1

Potential

biological

removal

level

(PBR)2

Annual

fisheriescaused

mortality3

Total

annual

humancaused

mortality4

Strategic

status5

MMPA/

ESA

status6 Trend7

Pantropical spotted dolphin (continued)

 W. North Atlantic 3,010 30 6 6 No U

Pygmy killer whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 203 2 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Pygmy sperm whale13

 N. Gulf of Mexico 340 3.4 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic 285 2 0 0 Yes U

Risso’s dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 1.271 13 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic 12,920 129 40 40 No U

Rough-toothed dolphin (N. Gulf of Mexico) 2,034 20 0 0 No U

Sei whale (Nova Scotia) 128 0.3 0 0.4 Yes E U

Short-finned pilot whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 542 5.4 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic14 24,866 249 163 163 No U

Sperm whale

 N. Gulf of Mexico 1,409 2.8 0 0 Yes E U

 North Atlantic 3,539 7.1 0 0.2 Yes E U

Spinner dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 1,356 14 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic Unknown Unknown 0 0 No U

Striped dolphin

 N. Gulf of Mexico 2,266 23 0 0 No U

 W. North Atlantic 68,558 686 0 0 No U

White-beaked dolphin (W. North Atlantic) 1,023 10 0 0 No U

Other marine mammals 

West Indian manatee15

 Florida 1,822 3.6 Unknown > PBR Yes E D

 Antillean 86 0.172 Unknown Unknown Yes E D

1Nmin is a conservative estimate of abundance used to estimate PBR; it provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than 

the estimate.

2The maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or stay at 

its optimum sustainable population level (50–100% of its carrying capacity); it is calculated as the product of Nmin, one-half of Rmax (the maximum 

productivity rate), and Fr (the recovery factor). 

3An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by commercial fisheries.

4An estimate of the total number of annual mortalities and serious injuries (likely to result in death) caused by humans; it includes other sources of 

mortality, such as ship strikes, strandings, orphaned animals collected for public display, mortalities associated with research activities, takes by 

foreign countries, and mortalities associated with activities authorized through incidental take regulations. 

5As defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Amendments of 1994, any marine mammal stock 1) for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the PBR level; 2) which is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or 3) 

which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or as depleted under the MMPA.

6As defined in the MMPA, any species that is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is also considered to be a depleted stock. 

7Trends: I=increasing; S/I=stable/increasing; S=stable; D=decreasing; U=unknown.

8Annual mortality includes Canadian fishery bycatch data and NW Atlantic commercial hunt statistics.

9This is a combined abundance estimate for Blainville’s beaked whale and Gervais’ beaked whale.

10Represents at least 33 individually recognized stocks of bottlenose dolphin in U.S. Gulf of Mexico bays, sounds, and other estuaries. These 

stocks are combined in a single report in U.S. Atlantic Stock Assessment Reports (e.g. Waring et al., 2007).

11Represents three individually recognized stocks of bottlenose dolphin in U.S. Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. These stocks are combined in a 

single report in U.S. Atlantic Stock Assessment Reports. 

12The abundance estimate may include both Cuvier’s beaked whale and mesoplodont beaked whales.

13The abundance estimate may include both dwarf and pygmy sperm whales.

14The estimates may include both short-finned and long-finned pilot whales.

15This species is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is not included in the stock-status tables of the National Overview.

Table 23-1

Continued from previous 

page.

Pilot whale.

NEFSC Protected Species Branch
304

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Gulf of Mexico oceanic bottlenose dolphin.

SEFSC/NMFS

and stocks designated as strategic based on Atlantic Scientific Review Group recommendations: 

pygmy sperm whale in the western North Atlantic, 

bottlenose dolphins (33 bay, sound, and estuarine 

stocks and 3 coastal stocks) in the Gulf of Mexico, 

Blainville’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale (2 

stocks), Gervais’ beaked whale, and mesoplodont 

beaked whales. 

Recent assessments indicate that of the 94 Atlantic marine mammal stocks, 3 are increasing (gray, 

harbor, and harp seals), 2 are decreasing (Florida 

and Antillean stocks of West Indian manatee), and 

trends for the remaining 89 stocks are unknown 

(Table 23-1). The four marine mammal stocks 

highlighted in this unit are representative of the 

scientific and management issues for Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico regions. 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN: NORTHERN

GULF OF MEXICO OCEANIC STOCK

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

Based on research currently being conducted on 

bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico and the 

western North Atlantic Ocean, stock structure is 

uncertain but appears to be complex. The multidisciplinary research programs conducted over 

the last three and a half decades (e.g. Wells, 1994) 

are beginning to shed light on stock structures of 

bottlenose dolphins, though additional analyses are 

needed before they can be elaborated on in the Gulf 

of Mexico. As additional research is completed, it 

may be necessary to revise the stock structure of 

bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Thirty-eight stocks have been provisionally 

identified for Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphins 

(Waring et al., 2007). These stocks are comprised 

of both long-term resident and nonresident (e.g. 

migratory) stocks; the former are more susceptible 

to human impacts. Stock sizes are generally small, 

ranging from about 30 to 1,500 animals. Seasonal 

movements of dolphins provide opportunities for 

genetic exchange between individual stocks, complicating the identification of stocks, especially in 

coastal and inshore waters. Gulf of Mexico stock 

structure includes 33 bay, sound, and estuarine 

stocks located in inshore habitats; 3 Gulf of Mexico 

coastal stocks covering nearshore waters; a Continental Shelf stock; and an oceanic stock in waters 

from the 200 m isobath to the seaward extent of 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

Both coastal/nearshore and offshore ecotypes of 

bottlenose dolphins (Hersh and Duffield, 1990) 

occur in the Gulf of Mexico (LeDuc and Curry, 

1997). The offshore and nearshore ecotypes are 

genetically distinct using both mitochondrial 

and nuclear markers (Hoelzel et al., 1998). In the 

northwestern Atlantic, Torres et al. (2003) found 

a statistically significant break in the distribution 

of the ecotypes at 34 km from shore. The offshore 

ecotype was found exclusively seaward of 34 km 

and in waters deeper than 34 m. Within 7.5 km 

of shore, all animals were of the coastal ecotype. If 

the distribution of ecotypes found by Torres et al. 

(2003) is similar in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 

the oceanic stock consists of the offshore ecotype. 

Population Size and Current Trend

During summer 2003 and spring 2004, 

line-transect surveys dedicated to estimating the 

abundance of oceanic cetaceans were conducted 

in the northern Gulf of Mexico. During each year, 

a grid of uniformly-spaced transect lines from a 

random start were surveyed from the 200-m isobath to the seaward extent of the U.S. EEZ using 

NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter (Mullin, 2007). The 
305

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

estimate of abundance for bottlenose dolphins in 

oceanic waters, pooled from 2003 to 2004, was 

3,708 (CV=0.42) (Mullin, 2007), which is the 

best available abundance estimate for this species 

in the northern Gulf of Mexico. However, population data are insufficient to determine trends for 

this stock. 

Stock Status

The level of past or current, direct, humancaused mortality of bottlenose dolphins in the 

Gulf of Mexico is unknown; however, interactions between bottlenose dolphins and fisheries 

have been observed in the Gulf of Mexico. Pelagic 

swordfish, tunas, and billfish are the targets of the 

pelagic longline fishery operating in the U.S. Gulf 

of Mexico. There were no reports of mortality or 

serious injury to bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of 

Mexico by this fishery during 1998–2006 (Yeung, 

1999, 2001; Garrison, 2003, 2005; Garrison and 

Richards, 2004; Fairfield-Walsh and Garrison, 

2006). However, fishery interactions have previously been reported to occur between bottlenose 

dolphins and the pelagic longline fishery in the 

Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, unpublished data2), with 

annual fishery-related mortality and serious injury 

to bottlenose dolphins estimated to be 2.8 per year 

(CV=0.74) during 1992–93 (Waring et al., 2007). 

This could include bottlenose dolphins from the 

Continental Shelf and oceanic stocks. One animal 

was hooked in the mouth and released by the pelagic longline fishery in 1998 (Yeung, 1999).

There have been no reports of incidental mortality or injury associated with the shrimp trawl 

fishery in this area. A trawl fishery for butterfish was 

monitored by NMFS observers for a short period 

in the 1980’s, with no records of incidental take of 

marine mammals (Burn and Scott, 1988; NMFS 

unpublished data2), although an experimental set 

by NMFS resulted in the death of two bottlenose 

dolphins (Burn and Scott, 1988). There are no 

other data available with regard to this fishery. 

The use of explosives to remove oil rigs in portions of the Continental Shelf in the western Gulf 

of Mexico has the potential to cause serious injury 

or mortality to marine mammals. These activities 

have been closely monitored by NMFS observers 

since 1987 (Gitschlag and Herczeg, 1994). There 

have been no reports of either serious injury or 

mortality to bottlenose dolphins in the oceanic 

Gulf of Mexico (NMFS unpublished data2). 

The status of bottlenose dolphins, relative to 

the optimal sustainable population (OSP), in the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico oceanic waters is unknown. 

Although the total fishery-related mortality and 

serious injury for this stock is unknown, it is assumed to be less than 10% of the calculated PBR 

and (from a population perspective) insignificant 

and approaching zero. Because bottlenose dolphins 

are not listed as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA and the annual fishery-related mortality 

and serious injury has not exceeded the PBR, this 

is not considered a strategic stock. 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE:

NORTH ATLANTIC STOCKS

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

The right whale is a slow-swimming animal 

that frequents coastal and shelf habitats. It feeds in 

temperate or high latitudes in summer, and calves 

in warmer water in winter. The North Atlantic 

population is generally thought to consist of two 

relatively discrete stocks in the eastern and western 

portions of this ocean basin, although the eastern 

population is functionally extinct. 

Historically, right whales were found in coastal 

waters throughout the North Atlantic in a range 

that extended from Florida (and perhaps further 

south) to Greenland in the west, and from western 

Africa to Norway in the east. However, intensive 

exploitation has greatly reduced the range of 

this animal. In the western North Atlantic, the 

remaining population is largely confined to U.S. 

and Canadian waters, spending summers feeding 

in the Gulf of Maine and on the Scotian Shelf. In 

winter, pregnant females migrate to give birth in 

the coastal waters of Georgia and Florida (Kraus 

et al., 1986; Winn et al., 1986); although other 

whales are also found there at this time, the whereabouts of a substantial portion of the population 

in winter remains unknown. The Bay of Fundy 

constitutes a major summer feeding area for the 

2National Marine Fisheries Service, SEFSC, Mississippi Laboratory, 3209 Frederic St., Pascagoula, MS 39567.

Gulf of Mexico oceanic bottlenose dolphin.

SEFSC/NMFS
306

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

3Individual right whales can be identified from photographs 

using the pattern of callosities on the head and any prominent 

scarring (Kraus et al., 1986).

population, although recent genetic studies suggest 

the existence of a second, unidentified feeding area 

(Schaeff et al., 1993). 

The western North Atlantic stock has been the 

subject of a long-term study since the 1970’s, and 

much of its biology and behavior is reasonably well 

understood (see Kraus and Rolland, 2007). Most 

of the population has been biopsy sampled, and 

genetic analyses are ongoing (Schaeff et al., 1993, 

1997; Brown et al., 1994; Rosenbaum et al., 1997, 

2000; Frasier et al., 2007). 

Population Size and Current Trend

No consistent, statistically based population 

estimates are available for the western North 

Atlantic population. However, considerable effort has been spent recording re-sighting histories 

of individual whales using photo-identification 

techniques3 so that a reasonable and consistently 

calculable population index, minimum number 

alive (MNA), is available. In 1992, the western 

North Atlantic MNA was estimated to be 295 individuals (Knowlton et al., 1994), and an updated 

census yielded an MNA estimate of 291 animals in 

1998 (Kraus et al., 2001). A review of the photo-ID 

recapture database on 30 June 2007 indicated that 

325 individually recognized whales in the catalog 

were known to be alive during 2003. This index, 

while known to be biased low, can be used to track 

population trends more precisely than is possible 

for other large whale stocks. An International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) workshop on status 

and trends of western North Atlantic right whales 

(IWC, 2001) concluded that the population was in 

decline during the 1990’s. However, over the 14-

year period of 1990–2003, the MNA increased by a 

mean growth rate of 1.8%, despite losses exceeding 

gains during some years in the 1990’s.

In the eastern North Atlantic stock, only a 

handful of individuals are assumed to exist. Rare 

sightings have been made of single individuals in 

European waters (Brown, 1986), but it is unclear 

whether these represent a tiny residual population 

or individuals who have wandered in from the 

western North Atlantic. However, in recent years, 

re-sightings of two photographically identified 

individuals have been made off Iceland and arctic 

Norway and in the old Cape Farewell whaling 

ground east of Greenland (Jacobsen et al., 2004; 

Frasier et al., 2007). 

Stock Status

The North Atlantic right whale is critically 

endangered throughout its range (Brownell et al., 

1986; Clapham et al., 1999). Given the various 

threats described below, this species is among the 

most threatened of all large whales and further 

conservation action is urgently required to avoid 

extinction. 

Right whales suffer significant anthropogenic 

mortality. The principal anthropogenic factors 

preventing recovery and growth of the population 

are ship strikes and entanglements in fishing gear. 

From 2001 to 2005, the average reported mortality 

and serious injury to right whales was 3.2 animals 

per year (1.4 from fishery interactions and 1.8 from 

ship strikes). During this period, 7 of 16 records 

of mortality or serious injury (including records 

from both U.S. and Canadian waters) involved 

entanglements or fishery interactions. Sources of 

ship strikes are generally unknown, though many 

of the right whale’s major habitats in the western 

North Atlantic right whales.

NEFSC Protected Species Branch
307

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

Pilot whales.

NEFSC Protected Species Branch

North Atlantic are adjacent to, or even straddle, 

major shipping lanes. Given the population’s dependence upon nearshore habitat during much of 

its life cycle, intensive coastal development poses 

additional threats to recovery.

Awareness and mitigation programs for reducing right whale anthropogenic injury and mortality 

have been established in both the southeastern 

and northeastern United States. A Recovery Plan 

was implemented in 1991, and a revised plan was 

published in 2004. Additionally, a Mandatory 

Ship Reporting System was implemented in 1999 

covering right whale critical habitat areas in the 

southeastern United States and in the Great South 

Channel/Cape Cod Bay/Massachusetts Bay areas. 

This system requires vessels over 300 tons to report 

information on their identity, location, course, and 

speed. In return, the vessels receive information on 

right whale occurrence and on measures to avoid 

collisions with the whales. Research is ongoing to 

test compliance with suggested speed restrictions in 

areas where right whales have been reported. 

Studies showing relatively low genetic diversity 

in the western North Atlantic population (Schaeff 

et al., 1993, 1997) suggest that inbreeding may be 

inhibiting recovery. This topic has been investigated 

using DNA extracted from historic baleen and bone 

samples (Rosenbaum et al., 1997, 2000). Findings suggest that the eastern and western North 

Atlantic populations were not genetically distinct 

(Rosenbaum et al., 2000), but the virtual extirpation of the eastern stock and its lack of recovery in 

the last hundred years strongly suggests population 

subdivision over a protracted (but not evolutionary) time scale. Genetic studies concluded that the 

principal loss of genetic diversity occurred prior to 

the 18th century (Waldick et al., 2002). However, 

revised conclusions of species composition in North 

American Basque whaling archaeological sites 

(Rastogi et al., 2004) contradict the previously held 

belief that Basque whaling during the 16th and 17th

centuries was principally responsible for the loss of 

genetic diversity. 

This is a strategic stock because the average 

annual fishery-related mortality and serious injury 

exceeds PBR and because the North Atlantic right 

whale is an endangered species (Waring et al., 

2007). PBR is usually calculated using the minimum population size, maximum net productivity 

rate, and a recovery factor. However, given the 

decline of estimated survival rates for this stock 

(Caswell et al., 1999; IWC, 2001), the PBR has 

been set to zero and no mortality or serious injury 

can be considered insignificant.

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE:

WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC STOCK

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

There are two species of pilot whales in the 

Western Atlantic—the long-finned and the shortfinned pilot whale. The distribution of long-finned 

pilot whales, a northern species, overlaps with that 

of the short-finned pilot whales, a predominantly 

southern species, between 35°30′ N and 38°00′ N 

(Leatherwood et al., 1976). Most of the pilot whale 

takes in fishery bycatch are not identified to species, 

and bycatch does occur in the overlap area. In this 

summary, therefore, long-finned pilot whales and 

unidentified pilot whales are considered together. 

The long-finned pilot whale is distributed in 

the northern hemisphere from North Carolina 

east to North Africa and the Mediterranean and 

north to Iceland, Greenland, and the Barents Sea 

(Sergeant, 1962; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Abend, 
308

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

4NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., 

Woods Hole, MA 02543.

5Targeted fisheries on whales where groups of whales are herded 

by motorized boats toward shore for slaughter.

Figure 23-1

Distribution of pilot whale 

sightings from Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center and 

Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center shipboard and aerial 

surveys during the summer 

in 1998–2006. Isobaths are at 

100 m and 1,000 m.

1993; Buckland et al., 1993; Abend and Smith, 

1999). The stock structure of the North Atlantic 

population is uncertain (ICES, 1993; Fullard et 

al., 2000). Morphometric (Bloch and Lastein, 

1993) and genetic (Siemann, 1994; Fullard et al., 

2000) studies have provided little support for stock 

structure across the Atlantic. However, Fullard et 

al. (2000) have proposed a stock structure that is 

correlated to sea surface temperature: a cold-water 

population west of the Labrador/North Atlantic 

current, and a warm-water population that extends 

across the Atlantic in the Gulf Stream. 

In the western North Atlantic, pilot whales 

are found in winter and early spring principally 

along the Continental Shelf edge of the northeastern United States (CETAP, 1982; Payne and 

Heinemann, 1993; Abend and Smith, 1999). In 

the late spring, they move onto Georges Bank, 

the Gulf of Maine, and more northern waters, 

and remain in these areas through late autumn. In 

general, pilot whales occupy areas of high relief or 

submerged banks, but are also associated with the 

Gulf Stream north wall and thermal fronts along 

the Continental Shelf edge (Waring et al., 1992; 

NMFS, Unpublished data4). 

Population Size and Current Trend

The total number of long-finned pilot whales 

in the Atlantic off the eastern United States and 

Canadian coasts is unknown. The initial population size was estimated to be between 50,000 and 

60,000 individuals in this region (Mitchell, 1974; 

Mercer, 1975), but no current reliable estimates exist due to the difficulty of distinguishing long- and 

short-finned pilot whales at sea. The current best 

estimate for pilot whales (both species combined) 

in the western North Atlantic is 31,139 (CV = 

0.27). This estimate is the result of two line-transect 

sighting surveys conducted in 2004 (Figure 23-1): 

one in waters north of Maryland (15,728 animals, 

CV = 0.34), and one south of Maryland (15,411 

animals, CV = 0.43; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). 

The minimum population size of pilot whales is 

estimated to be 24,866. Due to changes in survey 

methodology, earlier abundance estimates should 

not be used to make comparisons to more current 

estimates, and no population trends are currently 

available for this species. 

Stock Status

The status of long-finned pilot whales relative 

to the OSP in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown, 

but the stock’s abundance may have been affected 

by reduction in foreign fishing, curtailment of drive 

fisheries5 for pilot whales in the western North 

Atlantic, and increased abundance of pilot whale 

prey items (Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, 

and squid). The current and maximum net productivity rates for long-finned pilot whales are also 
309

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

unknown. To calculate PBR, the default value for 

cetaceans (0.04, based on reproductive life history 

constraints) was used for the maximum productivity rate. The PBR for western North Atlantic pilot 

whales is 249 animals per year. 

As with the abundance estimates, the total 

fishery-related mortality and serious injury cannot be estimated separately for the two species of 

pilot whales in the U.S. Atlantic. The estimated 

average fishery-related mortality or serious injury 

of pilot whales during the period 2001–05 was 

163 animals per year (CV = 0.09; Table 23-2). 

Pilot whales have frequently been observed to feed 

on hooked fish (NMFS, unpublished data4), and 

pelagic longline fisheries accounted for more than 

half of the estimated annual mortality and serious 

injury of pilot whales in the western North Atlantic 

(87 whales per year, including one seriously injured 

pilot whale in a 2005 experimental fishery; CV = 

0.16). Bycatch of pilot whales also occurs in MidAtlantic bottom trawls (38 whales per year, CV = 

0.15) and northeast bottom trawls (19 whales per 

year, CV = 0.12), Mid-Atlantic midwater trawls (7 

whales per year, CV = 0.34), northeast midwater 

trawls (1 whale per year, CV = 0.35), and herring 

midwater trawls (11 whales in 2001). Although 

no data are available on bycatch of pilot whales 

in the bluefin tuna purse seine fishery (which has 

not been observed since 1996), previous interactions have been observed and may continue to be 

an issue. An unknown number of western North 

Atlantic pilot whales have also been taken in fisheries operating in the Canadian EEZ (Read, 1994; 

Hooker et al., 1997). 

Another potential human-caused source of 

mortality is pollution. Bioaccumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and chlorinated 

pesticides (DDT, DDE, dieldrin, and others) in 

whale blubber has been recorded by a number of 

researchers (Taruski et al., 1975; Muir et al., 1988; 

Dam and Bloch, 2000; Weisbrod et al., 2000). 

Elevated levels of toxic metals (mercury, lead, and 

cadmium) and selenium have also been measured 

in pilot whales (Nielsen et al., 2000). The population effects of observed tissue contaminant levels 

remain unknown. 

Additionally, strandings (including mass strandings) of pilot whales are another source of mortality, 

although the role of human activity in such events is 

unknown (Table 23-3). Two hundred and twentyone pilot whales were reported stranded between 

Maine and Florida during 2001–05, including 

two mass strandings in Massachusetts (57 whales 

in 2002 and 18 whales in 2005), one in Florida 

in 2003 (28 whales), and one in North Carolina 

in 2005 (33 whales; NMFS, unpublished data4). 

Although some of these animals were returned to 

the water, some studies have indicated that animals 

returned to the water frequently swim away and 

strand someplace else (Fehring and Wells, 1976; 

Irvine et al., 1979; Odell et al., 1980). 

The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor is it classified as depleted 

under the MMPA. This stock is not a strategic stock 

because the estimated average human-related mortality is below the PBR for pilot whales. The total 

U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury is 

not less than 10% of the PBR and therefore cannot 

be considered to be approaching zero mortality and 

serious injury rate. 

HARBOR SEAL: WESTERN 

NORTH ATLANTIC STOCK

Stock Definition and Geographic Range

Harbor seals are the most abundant seal species found in U.S. Atlantic waters and the most 

commonly seen marine mammal in New England 

coastal waters. In the western North Atlantic, harBiopsy sample being collected by NMFS scientists 

aboard the NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter.

Wayne Hoggard, SEFSC
310

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Fishery

Data

type1 Year

No. 

Vessels2

Observer

coverage3

Obs.

serious

injury4

Obs.

mortality4

Est.

serious 

injury

Est.

mortality

Est.

combined 

mortality5

Est.

CV6

Mean

annual

mortality7

Mid-Atlantic 

bottom trawl

Observer, 

dealer

2001

Unk.

0.01 0 0 0 39 39 0.31

38 (0.15)

2002 0.01 0 0 0 38 38 0.36

2003 0.01 0 0 0 31 31 0.31

2004 0.03 0 0 0 35 35 0.33

2005 0.03 0 4 0 31 31 0.31

Northeast 

bottom trawl

Observer, 

dealer

2001

Unk.

0.01 0 0 0 21 21 0.27

19 (0.12)

2002 0.03 0 0 0 22 22 0.26

2003 0.04 0 0 0 20 20 0.26

2004 0.05 0 2 0 15 15 0.29

2005 0.12 0 4 0 15 15 0.30

Mid-Atlantic 

mid-water 

trawl

Observer, 

dealer, 

VTR

2001 23 0 0 0 0 Unk. Unk. Unk.

7 (0.34)

2002 20 0.003 0 0 0 Unk. Unk. Unk.

2003 23 0.018 0 0 0 3.9 3.9 0.46

2004 25 0.064 0 0 0 8.1 8.1 0.38

2005 31 0.084 0 0 0 7.5 7.5 0.76

Northeast 

mid-water 

trawl

Observer, 

dealer, 

VTR

2001 24 0.001 0 0 0 Unk. Unk. Unk.

1 (0.35)

2002 27 0 0 0 0 Unk. Unk. Unk.

2003 28 0.031 0 0 0 1.9 1.9 0.56

2004 22 0.126 0 1 0 1.4 1.4 0.58

2005 25 0.199 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 0.68

Gulf of Maine / 

Georges Bank 

herring midwater trawl8

Observer 2001 10 1 0 11 0 11 11 NA 11 (NA)

Pelagic longline 

(excluding 

NED-E)9

Observer, 

logbook

2001 98 0.04 4 1 50 20 70 0.5

86 (0.16)

2002 87 0.05 4 0 52 2 54 0.46

2003 63 0.09 2 0 21 0 21 0.77

2004 60 0.09 6 0 74 0 74 0.42

2005 60 0.06 9 0 212 0 212 0.21

Pelagic longline 

(NED-E area 

only)9

Observer

2001 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2002 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pelagic longline 

experimental 

fishery10 Observer 2005 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 NA 1 (NA)

Total 163 (0.9)

1Observer data are used to measure bycatch rates, and are collected within the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Observer Program. 

Logbook data are mandatory, collected by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and used to measure total effort for the longline fishery. Dealer 

data are mandatory, collected by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and used to estimate effort. 

2The number of vessels in the fishery. For the squid trawl fisheries, numbers are based on 2002 permit holders; many trawl vessels participate in 

multiple fisheries, so numbers are not additive across fisheries. For the herring mid-water trawl fishery, three foreign and seven American vessels 

participate. For the pelagic longline fishery, numbers are based on vessels reporting effort to the pelagic longline logbook.

3Coverage for the trawl fisheries is measured as the number of trips; coverage for the longline fishery is measured as the number of sets. 

4Recorded by on-board observers.

5Includes estimates of mortality and serious injury.

6Coefficient of variation for the combined mortality estimates.

7The mean of the estimated combined mortality for the years shown, with the coefficient of variation in parentheses.

8Includes joint venture (JV) and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) fishing. During JV operations, nets that are transferred from the 

domestic vessel to a foreign vessel for processing are observed on board the foreign vessel; nets that are fished by a domestic vessel but not 

transferred to a foreign vessel are not observed. During TALFF operations, all nets fished by the foreign vessel are observed.

9An experimental program to test effects of gear characteristics, environmental factors, and fishing practices on sea turtle bycatch rates in the 

Northeast Distant (NED-E) water component of the fishery conducted from 1 June 2001 to 31 December 2003. Observer coverage was 100% during this experimental fishery. Summaries are provided for the pelagic longline excluding the NED-E in one row and for only the NED-E in a second 

row. No mortalities nor serious injuries were observed for pilot whales in the NED-E, though 1 pilot whale was caught alive and released without 

injury (Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004).

10A cooperative research program to test effects of gear characteristics and fishing practices.

Table 23-2

Summary of the incidental 

mortality of pilot whales 

(Globicephala spp.) in commercial fisheries.

Pilot whale and calf.

NEFSC Protected Species Branch
311

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 State total

Maine 6 2 1 4 2 15

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 3 65 5 1 22 96

Rhode Island 1 1 1 1 0 4

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0

New York 1 0 0 3 1 5

New Jersey 0 0 6 0 2 8

Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maryland 0 0 0 0 4 4

Virginia 0 0 3 1 4 8

North Carolina 2 0 3 3 38 46

South Carolina1 1 0 1 0 0 2

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 0 0 29 4 0 33

Annual total 14 68 49 17 73 221

1Only moderate confidence on species identification for 2003.

Table 23-3

Pilot whale strandings, by 

state, along the U.S. Atlantic Coast during the years 

2001–05. No distinction has 

been made between shortfinned and long-finned pilot 

whales.

bor seals are common from Labrador to southern 

New England and New Jersey, and occasionally to 

the Carolinas (Boulva and McLaren, 1979; Katona 

et al., 1993; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998). Although 

the stock structure is unknown, the northwest Atlantic subspecies, Phoca vitulina concolor, is believed 

to represent a single breeding population. Breeding and pupping normally occurs in waters north 

of the New Hampshire/Maine border, although 

breeding occurred as far south as Cape Cod in the 

early part of the twentieth century (Temte et al., 

1991; Katona et al., 1993). 

Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the 

coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine (Katona et al., 1993), and are found seasonally along 

the southern New England and New York coasts 

from September through late May (Schneider and 

Payne, 1983; Barlas, 1999). A general southward 

movement from the Bay of Fundy to southern New 

England waters occurs in autumn and early winter (Rosenfeld et al., 1988; Whitman and Payne, 

1990; Jacobs and Terhune, 2000). A northward 

movement from southern New England to Maine 

and eastern Canada occurs prior to the pupping 

season, which takes place from mid May through 

June (Richardson, 1976; Kenney, 1994; deHart, 

2002). The overall geographic range throughout 

U.S. Atlantic coast waters has not changed greatly 

during the last century.

Population Size and Current Trend

Harbor seals, like gray seals, were bountyhunted in New England waters until the late 

1960’s. This hunt may have caused the demise of 

the harbor seal stock in U.S. waters (Katona et al., 

1993). However, the number of seals along the 

New England coast has increased nearly five-fold 

since the passage of the MMPA in 1972. A 2001 

coast-wide aerial summer survey produced a count 

of 99,340 seals (CV = 0.097; Gilbert et al., 2005). 

Although this number has been corrected for animals in the water or outside of the survey area, the 

count is considered to be a minimum population 

estimate. This number is substantially higher than 

the last survey count in 1997; the number of pups 

in 2001 was also much higher than the 1997 count 

(Gilbert and Guldager, 1998; Gilbert et al., 2005). 

Increased abundance of seals in the Northeast Region has also been documented during aerial and 

boat surveys of overwintering haulout sites (Payne 

and Selzer, 1989; Rough, 1995; Barlas, 1999). 

The average increase in uncorrected counts 

over the 1981–2001 survey period (i.e. 1981, 

1982, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 surveys) has 

been 6.6% (Gilbert et al., 2005). Possible factors 

contributing to harbor seal population increase 

include MMPA protection, fishery management 

regulations designed to rebuild groundfish stocks 
312

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

(e.g. closed areas and fishing effort reduction), 

and habitat protection of important haulout sites 

(e.g. National Park Service and National Wildlife 

Refuge lands). 

Stock Status

Researchers and fishery observers have documented incidental mortality of harbor seals in 

several fisheries in recent years, particularly within 

the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery (Waring 

et al., 2007). Bycatch in several Atlantic Canada 

and Greenland fisheries was summarized in Read 

(1994). Estimated average annual fishery-related 

mortality and serious injury to this stock in U.S. 

waters during 2001–05 was 882 harbor seals (CV 

= 0.16). 

Shark predation has become an important 

source of pup mortality at Sable Island, Nova 

Scotia. Lucas and Stobo (2000) suggest that sharkinflicted mortality in pups, as a proportion of 

total production, was less than 10% in 1980–93, 

approximately 25% in 1994–95, and increased to 

45% in 1996. Also, shark predation on adults was 

selective towards mature females. They suggest that 

predation mortality is likely impacting population 

growth, and may be contributing to the observed 

population decline in that area.

Other sources of mortality include human 

interactions (boat strikes, fishing gear, and deliberate shooting), storms, abandonment of pups 

by the mother, and disease (Katona et al., 1993; 

NMFS, unpublished data4). Canada’s Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans reports small numbers of 

harbor seals taken annually in a subsistence hunt 

(numbers in the 2002–05 period range from 16 

in 2004 to 334 in 2002 [DFO, 2006]). Annually, 

small numbers of harbor seals regularly strand during the winter period in southern New England 

and Mid-Atlantic regions (NMFS, unpublished 

data4). Reported strandings from 2001 through 

2005 were 177 in 2001, 262 in 2002, 377 in 

2003, 560 in 2004, and 341 in 2005. Sixty-eight 

(4.0%) of the seals stranded during this 5-year period showed signs of human interactions. Further, 

many live stranded animals are euthanized due to 

poor condition of the animals, although some sick 

and injured seals are transported to rehabilitation 

facilities. Stranding data probably underestimate 

the extent of fishery-related mortality and serious 

injury because not all animals that die or are seriously injured are washed ashore, and not all animals 

washed ashore show obvious signs of entanglement 

or other fishery interactions. 

The western North Atlantic harbor seal stock is 

increasing and is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The stock is not a strategic 

stock since the estimated annual level of fisheryrelated mortality and serious injury in U.S. waters 

(882 seals) does not exceed PBR (2,746 animals). 

However, because human-induced mortality and 

serious injury is greater than 10% of PBR, these 

losses cannot be considered to be approaching a 

zero mortality and serious injury rate. 

LITERATURE CITED

Abend, A. 1993. Long-finned pilot whale distribution 

and diet as determined from stable carbon and nitrogen 

ratio isotope tracers. M.S. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 147 p.

Abend, A., and T. D. Smith. 1999. Review of the distribution of the long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

melas) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-117, 22 p.

Barlas, M. E. 1999. The distribution and abundance 

of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) and gray seals 

Aerial view of harbor seals 

hauled out on a beach.

NEFSC Protected Species Branch
313

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

(Halichoerus grypus) in southern New England, winter 

1998–summer 1999. M.A. thesis, Boston University, 

Boston, MA, 52 p.

Bloch, D., and L. Lastein. 1993. Morphometric segregation of long-finned pilot whales in eastern and western 

North Atlantic. Ophelia 38:55–68.

Boulva, J., and I. A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) in eastern Canada. Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 200, 24 p.

Brown, M. W., S. D. Kraus, D. E. Gaskin, and B. N. 

White. 1994. Sexual composition and analysis of reproductive females in the North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) population. Marine Mammal 

Science 10:253–265.

Brown, S. G. 1986. Twentieth century records of right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the northeast Atlantic 

Ocean. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 10:121–127.

Brownell, R. L. Jr., P. B. Best, and J. H. Prescott (Editors). 

1986. Right whales. Past and present status. Reports 

of the International Whaling Commission, Special 

Issue 10, 289 p.

Buckland, S. T., D. Bloch, K. L. Cattanach, T. Gunnlaugsson, K. Hoydal, S. Lens, and J. Sigurjónsson. 

1993. Distribution and abundance of long-finned pilot 

whales in the North Atlantic, estimated from NASS-87 

and NASS-89 data. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 14:33–49.

Burn, D., and G. P. Scott. 1988. Synopsis of available 

information on marine mammals–fisheries interactions 

in the southeastern United States. Preliminary report. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribution ML-CRG-87/88-26, 37 p.

Caswell, H., S. Brault, and M. Fujiwara. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic 

right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science 96:3308–3313.

CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals 

and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the 

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program, University of Rhode Island, final 

report to Bureau of Land Management, Washington, 

DC, 538 p.

Clapham, P. J., S. E. Young, and R. L. Brownell Jr. 1999. 

Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of 

the most endangered populations. Mammal Review 

29:35–60.

Dam, M., and D. Bloch. 2000. Screening of mercury 

and persistent organochlorine pollutants in long-finned 

pilot whale (Globicephala melas) in the Faroe Islands. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:1090–1099.

deHart, P. A. P. 2002. The distribution and abundance 

of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) in the Woods 

Hole region. MA thesis, Boston University, Boston, 

MA, 88 p. 

DFO. 2006. Overview of the Atlantic seal hunt—2006–

2010 management plan. Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. Internet site—http://www.

dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/

mgtplan-plangest0610/mgtplan-plangest0610-eng.

htm. 

Fairfield-Walsh, C., and L. P. Garrison. 2006. Estimated 

bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-539, 52 p.

Fehring, W. K., and R. S. Wells. 1976. A series of strandings by a single herd of pilot whales on the west coast of 

Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 57(1):191–194. 

Frasier, T. R., B. A. McLeod, R. M. Gillett, M. W. Brown, 

and B. N. White. 2007. Right whales past and present 

as revealed by their genes. In S. D. Kraus, and R. M. 

Rolland (Editors), The Urban Whale: North Atlantic 

Right Whales at the Crossroads, p. 200–231. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Fullard, K. J., G. Early, M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, D. Bloch, 

A. Rosing-Asvid, and W. Amos. 2000. Population 

structure of long-finned pilot whales in the North 

Atlantic: a correlation with sea surface temperature? 

Molecular Ecology 9:949–958.

Garrison, L. P. 2003. Estimated bycatch of marine 

mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic 

longline fleet during 2001–2002. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-515, 52 p.

Garrison, L. P. 2005. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline 
314

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

fleet during 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-531, 

57 p.

Garrison, L. P., and P. M. Richards. 2004. Estimated 

bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2003. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-527, 57 p.

Gilbert, J. R., and N. Guldager. 1998. Status of harbor 

and gray seal populations in northern New England. 

Final Report to NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Woods Hole, MA, 13 p.

Gilbert, J. R., G. T. Waring, K. M. Wynne, and N. Guldager. 2005. Changes in abundance and distribution of 

harbor seals in Maine, 1981–2001. Marine Mammal 

Science 21:519–535.

Gitschlag, G. R., and B. A. Herczeg. 1994. Sea turtle 

observations at explosive removal of energy structures. 

Marine Fisheries Review 56(2):1–8.

Hersh, S. L., and D. A. Duffield. 1990. Distinction 

between northwest Atlantic offshore and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins based on hemoglobin profile and 

morphometry. In S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves 

(Editors), The Bottlenose Dolphin, p. 129–139. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Hoelzel, A. R., C. W. Potter, and P. B. Best. 1998. 

Genetic differentiation between parapatric ‘nearshore’ and ‘offshore’ populations of the bottlenose 

dolphin. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 

265:1177–1183.

Hooker, S. K., R. W. Baird, and M. A. Showell. 1997. 

Cetacean strandings and bycatches in Nova Scotia, eastern Canada, 1991–1996. Paper SC/49/05 presented 

to the International Whaling Commission Scientific 

Committee, September 1997, 11 p.

ICES. 1993. Report of the study group on long-finned 

pilot whales. International Council for the Exploration 

of the Seas, 1993/N:5, Copenhagen, Denmark, 29 p.

Irvine, A. B., M. D. Scott, R. S. Wells, and J. G. Mead. 

1979. Stranding of the pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus, in Florida and South Carolina. Fishery 

Bulletin 77(2):511–513.

IWC. 2001. Report of the workshop on status and trends 

of western North Atlantic right whales, International 

Whaling Commission. In P. B. Best, J. L. Bannister, R. 

L. Brownell, Jr., and G. P. Donovan (Editors), Right 

whales. Worldwide status. Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management, Special Issue 2:61–87. Internet 

site—http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/publications/

jcrmsumm.pdf

Jacobs, S. R., and J. M. Terhune. 2000. Harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina) numbers along the New Brunswick 

coast of the Bay of Fundy in autumn in relation to 

aquaculture. Northeastern Naturalist 7(3):289–296. 

Jacobsen, K., M. Marx, and N. Øien. 2004. Two-way 

trans-Atlantic migration of a north Atlantic right 

whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Maine Mammal Science 

20:161–166. 

Katona, S. K., V. Rough, and D. T. Richardson. 1993. 

A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises, and Seals from 

Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, DC, 316 p.

Kenney, M. K. 1994. Harbor seal population trends and 

habitat use in Maine. M.S. thesis, University of Maine, 

Orono, ME, 55 p.

Knowlton, A. R., S. D. Kraus, and R. D. Kenney. 

1994. Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 

72:1297–1305.

Kraus, S. D., P. K. Hamilton, R. D. Kenney, A. Knowlton, and C. K. Slay. 2001. Status and trends in reproduction of the North Atlantic right whale. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 

2:231–236.

Kraus, S. D., J. H. Prescott, A. R. Knowlton, and G. S. 

Stone. 1986. Migration and calving of right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. 

Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 

Special Issue 10:139–144.

Krauss, S. D., and R. M. Rolland (Editors). 2007. The 

Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the 

Crossroads. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 

MA, 543 p.

Leatherwood, S., D. K. Caldwell, and H. E. Winn. 

1976. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the western 

North Atlantic. A guide to their identification. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report 

NMFS Circular 396, 176 p. 
315

MARINE MAMMALS OF THE ATLANTIC REGION AND GULF OF MEXICO

UNIT 23

LeDuc, R. G., and B. E. Curry. 1997. Mitochondrial 

DNA sequence analysis indicates need for revision of 

the genus Tursiops. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission 47:393.

Lucas, Z., and W. T. Stobo. 2000. Shark-inflicted mortality on a population of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) 

at Sable Island, Nova Scotia. Journal of Zoology 

252(3):405–414. 

Mercer, M. C. 1975. Modified Leslie-DeLury population 

models of the long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

melaena) and annual production of the short-finned 

squid (Illex illecebrosus) based upon their interactions 

at Newfoundland. Journal of the Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada 32(7):1145–1154. 

Mitchell, E. 1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin 

and other whale stocks. In W. E. Schevill (Editor), The 

Whale Problem. A Status Report, p. 108–169. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge, MA, 419 p.

Muir, D. C. G., R. Wagermann, N. P. Grift, R. J. 

Norstrom, M. Simon, and J. Lien. 1988. Organochlorine chemical and heavy metal contaminants in 

white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) and 

pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) from the coast of 

Newfoundland. Canada Archives in Environmental 

Contaminant and Toxicology 17:613–629. 

Mullin, K. D. 2007. Abundance of cetaceans in the 

oceanic Gulf of Mexico based on 2003–2004 ship 

surveys. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Pascagoula, MS, 26 p. 

Mullin, K. D., and G. L. Fulling. 2003. Abundance of cetaceans in the southern U.S. North Atlantic Ocean during summer 1998. Fishery Bulletin 101:603–613.

Nielsen, J. B., F. Nielsen, P-J. Jørgensen, and P. Grandjean. 2000. Toxic metals and selenium in blood 

from pilot whales (Globicephala melas) and sperm 

whales (Physeter catodon). Marine Pollution Bulletin 

40:348–351. 

Odell, D. K., E. D. Asper, J. Baucom, and L. H. Cornell. 

1980. A recurrent mass stranding of the false killer 

whale, Pseudorca crassidens, in Florida. Fishery Bulletin 

78(1):171–177.

Payne, P. M., and D. W. Heinemann. 1993. The distribution of pilot whales (Globicephala sp.) in shelf/shelf 

edge and slope waters of the northeastern United States, 

1978–1988. Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission, Special Issue 14:51–68. 

Payne, P. M., and L. A. Selzer. 1989. The distribution, 

abundance and selected prey of the harbor seal, Phoca 

vitulina concolor, in southern New England. Marine 

Mammal Science 5(2):173–192. 

Rastogi, T., M. W. Brown, B. A. McLeod, T. R. Frasier, R. 

Grenier, S. L. Cumbaa, J. Nadarajah, and B. N. White. 

2004. Genetic analysis of 16th century whale bones 

prompts a revision of the impact of Basque whaling on 

right and bowhead whales in the western North Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:1647–1654. 

Read, A. J. 1994. Interactions between cetaceans and 

gillnet and trap fisheries in the northwest Atlantic. 

Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 

Special Issue 15:133–147. 

Richardson, D. T. 1976. Assessment of harbor and gray 

seal populations in Maine 1974–1975. Final report 

to Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC, 

46 p.

Rosenbaum, H. C., M. S. Egan, P. J. Clapham, R. L. 

Brownell Jr., M. W. Brown, B. N. White, S. Malik, 

P. D. Walsh, and R. DeSalle. 2000. Utility of North 

Atlantic right whale museum specimens for assessing 

changes in genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 

14(6):1837–1842.

Rosenbaum, H. C., M. G. Egan, P. J. Clapham, R. 

L. Brownell Jr., and R. DeSalle. 1997. An effective 

method for isolating DNA from historical specimens 

of baleen. Molecular Ecology 6:677–681.

Rosenfeld M., M. George, and J. M. Terhune. 1988. 

Evidence of autumnal harbour seal, Phoca vitulina, 

movement from Canada to the United States. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 102(3):527–529.

Rough, V. 1995. Gray seals in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts, winter and spring, 1994. Final report to 

Marine Mammal Commission. National Technical Information Service Publication PB95-191391, 28 p. 

Schaeff, C. M., S. D. Kraus, M. W. Brown, J. S. Perkins, 

R. Payne, and B. N. White. 1997. Comparison of 

genetic variability of North and South Atlantic right 

whales (Eubalaena), using DNA fingerprinting. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1073–1080.
316

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Schaeff, C. M., S. D. Kraus, M. W. Brown, and B. N. 

White. 1993. Assessment of the population structure 

of western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) based on sighting and mtDNA data. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 71:339–345.

Schneider, D. C., and P. M. Payne. 1983. Factors affecting 

haul-out of harbor seals at a site in southeastern Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy 64(3):518–520.

Sergeant, D. E. 1962. The biology of the pilot or pothead 

whale (Globicephala melaena (Traill)) in Newfoundland 

waters. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of 

Canada 132:1–84. 

Siemann, L. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA sequence 

variation in North Atlantic long-finned pilot whales, 

Globicephala melas. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 164 p.

Taruski, A. G., C. E. Olney, and H. E. Winn. 1975. 

Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetaceans. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(11):2205–

2209. 

Temte, J. L., M. A. Bigg, and O. Wiig. 1991. Clines 

revisited: the timing of pupping in the harbour seal 

(Phoca vitulina). Journal of Zoology 224:617–632.

Torres, L. G., P. E. Rosel, C. D’Agrosa, and A. J. Read. 

2003. Improving management of overlapping bottlenose dolphin ecotypes through spatial analysis and 

genetics. Marine Mammal Science 19:502–514.

Waldick, R. C., S. D. Kraus, M. Brown, and B. N. 

White. 2002. Evaluating the effects of historic bottleneck events: An assessment of microsatellite variability 

in the endangered, North Atlantic right whale. Molecular Ecology 11(11):2241–2250. 

Waring, G. T., C. P. Fairfield, C. M. Ruhsam, and M. 

Sano. 1992. Cetaceans associated with Gulf Stream 

features off the northeastern USA shelf. ICES Marine 

Mammals Committee CM 1992/N:12, 29 p. 

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, C. P. Fairfield, and K. 

Maze-Foley (Editors). 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments—2007. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-205, 426 p.

Weisbrod, A. V., D. Shea, M. J. Moore, and J. J. Stegeman. 2000. Bioaccumulation patterns of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in northwest 

Atlantic pilot whales. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 19:667–677.

Wells, R. S. 1994. Determination of bottlenose dolphin stock discreteness: application of a combined 

behavioral and genetic approach. In K. R. Wang, P. 

M. Payne, and V. G. Thayer (Compilers), Coastal 

stock(s) of Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin. Status Review 

and Management. Proceedings and Recommendations 

from a Workshop held in Beaufort, North Carolina, 

p. 16–20. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-4.

Whitman, A. A., and P. M. Payne. 1990. Age of 

harbour seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, wintering in 

southern New England. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

104(4):579–582.

Winn, H. E., C. A. Price, and P. W. Sorensen. 1986. The 

distributional biology of the right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Reports of 

the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 

10:129–138.

Yeung, C. 1999. Estimates of marine mammal and marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline 

fleet in 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-430, 26 p. 

Yeung, C. 2001. Estimates of marine mammal and 

marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic 

longline fleet in 1999–2000. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-467, 43 p. 
317

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

Sea Turtles

Unit

24

PROTECTED RESOURCES 

STAFF

NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources 

Silver Spring, MD

NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office

Gloucester, MA

NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center

Woods Hole, MA

NMFS Pacific Islands

Regional Office

Honolulu, HI

NMFS Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center

Honolulu, HI

NMFS Southeast 

Regional Office

St. Petersburg, FL

NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center

Miami, FL

NMFS Southwest 

Regional Office

Long Beach, CA

NMFS Southwest Fisheries

Science Center

La Jolla, CA

INTRODUCTION

Sea turtles are highly migratory and widely 

distributed throughout the world’s oceans. Of the 

seven species found worldwide, six are found in 

U.S. waters and include the loggerhead, Kemp’s 

ridley, olive ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill turtles. In the Pacific Ocean, all of these species 

except the Kemp’s ridley inhabit either the U.S. 

coastal and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or 

the high seas. Nesting populations of the green 

and hawksbill occur in the Hawaiian Archipelago, 

American Samoa, and other U.S. territories (e.g. 

Guam, Northern Marianas, Palau, Micronesia, 

Jarvis Island, and Palmyra Atoll). With rare exception, the loggerhead, leatherback, and olive ridley 

do not nest in U.S. Pacific states or territories. The 

loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, green, hawksbill, and 

leatherback are commonly found in U.S. Atlantic 

waters, while the olive ridley almost exclusively 

inhabits South Atlantic Ocean waters. Significant 

Photo above:

Green turtle feeding on sea 

grass.

R. P. van Dam

nesting assemblages of the loggerhead, leatherback, 

green, and hawksbill are found in the southeastern 

United States and the U.S. Caribbean. The current 

status of U.S. sea turtles, based on research conducted at major nesting beaches, is summarized in 

Table 24-1.

All six species of sea turtles found in the United 

States are currently listed either as endangered 

or threatened under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). The Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback are listed as endangered throughout their 

ranges. The loggerhead is listed as threatened. 

The green turtle is also listed as threatened, except 

for breeding populations found in Florida and 

on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as 

endangered. The olive ridley is listed as threatened, 

except for nesting populations on the Pacific coast 

of Mexico, which are listed as endangered. The 

authority to protect and conserve sea turtles in 

the marine environment is vested in the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), while the U.S. 
318

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Table 24-1

Status of principal sea turtle 

nesting populations in the 

Atlantic and Pacific regions.

Species ESA status1 Location of principal nesting populations2

Atlantic region

Loggerhead Threatened North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida

Green3 Endangered, threatened Florida, all other Atlantic populations

Kemp’s ridley Endangered Mexico

Leatherback Endangered Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,

 Suriname, French Guiana

Hawksbill Endangered U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico

Pacific region

Loggerhead Threatened Japan, Australia

Green3 Threatened, endangered Hawaii, Mexico

Olive ridley3 Threatened, endangered Mexico, Costa Rica

Leatherback Endangered Mexico, Central America (including Costa Rica),

 Irian Jaya, Malaysia

Hawksbill Endangered Hawaii 

1Status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2Sea turtles in the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific regions originate from nesting populations in the U.S. and foreign countries.

3The ESA status for this species varies for different breeding populations. 

Loggerhead turtle moving up 

the beach at night to make a 

nest and lay eggs.

Gray’s Reef NMS

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction for protection of sea turtles, their eggs, and 

hatchlings on land (nesting beaches).

SPECIES AND STATUS

Sea turtles have complex life histories, but 

historical data on population sizes are limited or 

nonexistent. This paucity of long-term abundance 

and trend data makes it difficult to fully understand 

current population dynamics. Standardized surveys 

of selected nesting beaches were implemented in 

the United States for green turtles (in Hawaii) in 

1973 and for other sea turtles in the late 1980’s. 

These surveys, which count the number of nests 

laid per year, provide an index of the annual adult 

female population and an indication of whether 

their relative abundance is declining, stable, or 

increasing.

Atlantic Region

Loggerhead

Genetic research has enhanced our knowledge 

of sea turtle biology by identifying unique breeding 

populations. Only two large loggerhead nesting assemblages (e.g. > 10,000 nesting females per year) 

exist in the world, and are restricted to the southeastern United States and Masirah Island in the 

Middle Eastern country of Oman. The U.S. and 

Oman nesting aggregations are similar in size and 

represent about 35 and 40% of the nests, respectively, for this species. Most nesting in the United 

States occurs along Florida’s east coast, where the 

mean annual number of nests deposited in south 

Florida from 1998–2002 was 75,459 nests per year. 

This number of nests equates to approximately 

18,405 females nesting per year (Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished 

data1). The most current analyses show evidence of 

a declining trend from 1982–2007 in the Florida 

aggregation. After reaching a high of almost 86,000 

nests in Florida during 1998, the number dropped 

to 45,084 nests in 2007 (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, unpublished data1). 

Four U.S. nesting subpopulations occur: central 

and southwest Florida; north of Cape Canaveral, 

Florida (about 7,500 nests in 1998; stable or declining); the Florida Panhandle (about 1,000 nests in 

1998); and the islands of the Dry Tortugas near Key 

West, Florida (about 200 nests per year). Adult and 

immature turtles from these four subpopulations, 

as well as a fifth subpopulation that nests along the 

Yucatán coast of Mexico, mix with each other on 

1Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 S. 

Meridian St., Tallahassee, FL 32399.
319

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

Pamlico–Albemarle Sound estuarine complex 

in North Carolina provides important foraging 

habitat, and green turtles are not uncommon in 

Connecticut and New York in the Long Island 

Sound during warmer months. In Texas, Laguna 

Madre once supported a significant green turtle 

population that was heavily exploited in the late 

19th and early 20th centuries. The primary nesting 

beaches in the United States are along the east 

and southwest coasts of Florida; limited nesting 

also occurs in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico. The nesting population in the southeastern 

United States appears to be increasing, but is not 

genetically distinct from other nesting populations. 

Based on genetic information, subpopulations 

throughout the North and South Atlantic mix 

while on the foraging grounds. The number of nests 

deposited annually in the southeast United States 

fluctuates greatly, alternating between years of high 

and low levels of nesting, with an overall dramatic 

increase in the number of nests in Florida. From 

1990–2007, Florida green turtle nests have ranged 

from 435 to 12,752 (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, unpublished data1). 

Leatherback

 Leatherbacks are capable of tolerating a wide 

range of water temperatures and are distributed 

along the entire U.S. East Coast from as far north 

as the Gulf of Maine, south to Puerto Rico and the 

Figure 24-1

Number of Kemp’s ridley 

nests observed annually 

at nesting sites of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico, 

1978–2007 (Gladys Porter 

Zoo, 2001; R. Marquez M., 

unpublished data, SEMARNAP/INP, CRIP-Manzanillo, 

Program Nacional de Tortugas Marinas, P. Ventanas S/N, 

A.P. 591, Manzanillo, Colima, 

Mexico 28200).

Year

1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Number

of nests

Nests

the foraging grounds. Important developmental 

habitat for juvenile loggerheads consists of inshore 

bays, sounds, and lagoons along U.S. Gulf and 

Atlantic coasts from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to 

southern Texas. 

Kemp’s Ridley

The Kemp’s ridley inhabits coastal waters 

throughout the U.S. Atlantic coast and the Gulf 

of Mexico. The Kemp’s ridley is unusual in that it 

nests almost exclusively along one stretch of beach 

in the State of Tamaulipas on the Caribbean coast 

of Mexico. This single population underwent a 

dramatic decline after 1947, when on a single day 

an estimated 40,000 Kemp’s ridley females were 

filmed coming ashore to nest. This mass nesting 

emergence is a phenomenon commonly known as 

an arribada. The population plummeted to fewer 

than 1,000 females nesting annually through the 

early 1980’s. Today, under strict protection, the 

population appears to be in the earliest stages of 

recovery (Figure 24-1). Nesting, although still rare, 

has also increased in the United States (primarily 

Texas), rising from 6 in 1996 to 128 in 2007 (U.S. 

National Park Service, unpublished data2). This 

increase can be attributed to two primary factors—

full protection of nesting females and their nests 

in Mexico, and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices (TED’s) in shrimp trawls both in the 

United States and Mexico. Significant progress has 

also been made through collaboration with Mexico 

and the USFWS to establish and maintain more 

comprehensive nesting beach surveys for Kemp’s 

ridleys.

Green

Green turtles are found in southeastern U.S. 

waters around the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico, and off the continental United States from 

Texas to Massachusetts. Important feeding grounds 

in Florida include the Indian River Lagoon, the 

southeast Florida coastline, the Florida Keys, 

Florida Bay, Homosassa, Crystal River, Cedar 

Key, and St. Joseph Bay. North of Florida, the 

2U.S. National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20240.
320

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Leatherback turtle surfacing 

to breathe.

Scott R. Benson, SWFSC

U.S. Virgin Islands, and into the Gulf of Mexico. 

They occupy pelagic waters where they feed primarily on jellyfish and salps, but also commonly forage 

in coastal waters. In the western North Atlantic, 

waters shared with Canada (including the Gulf of 

Maine, Scotian Shelf, and Newfoundland) act as 

important seasonal foraging habitats for leatherbacks. To protect turtles while in these vital habitats, both countries collaborate on the development 

of an interactive and cooperative research program 

to address turtle conservation issues. 

In the United States, the largest nesting assemblages of leatherbacks are found in the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida. Nesting in Puerto 

Rico between 1978–2005 has ranged from 469 to 

882 nests, and the population has been growing 

since 1978 (TEWG, 2007). At the primary nesting 

beach on St. Croix, nesting has fluctuated from 

a few hundred nests to a high of 1,008 in 2001 

(TEWG, 2007). The Florida nesting population 

is of growing importance, with between 800 and 

900 total nests per year in the 2000’s, following 

nesting totals of fewer than 100 nests per year in 

the 1980’s (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data1). However, 

U.S. nesting populations are very small in number 

compared to major Atlantic nesting grounds. 

Hawksbill

 The hawksbill is most commonly found in the 

Caribbean Sea, but also regularly occurs in southern 

Florida and southern Texas and has occasionally 

been recorded as far north as Massachusetts. Within 

the continental United States, a small amount 

of nesting occurs in Southeast Florida and the 

Florida Keys. The largest U.S. nesting assemblages 

of hawksbills are found at Mona Island in Puerto 

Rico, Buck Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

to a lesser extent at other sites in these areas. Approximately 500–1,000 nests are laid on Mona 

Island each year. The most significant nesting in 

the Caribbean Sea occurs in Mexico, where about 

2,800 females nest in Campeche, Yucatán, and 

Quintana Roo each year. Hawksbill populations 

in the Atlantic were greatly depleted during the 

20th century as a result of overharvest for trade in 

products made from their shells.

Pacific Region

Olive Ridley

 Olive ridleys are well known for their synchronized mass nesting emergences, a phenomenon 

commonly known as arribadas. Although nonnesting individuals are occasionally seen in the 

waters of the southwestern United States, olive 

ridleys are rare in the Pacific Islands and do not 

have any nesting sites located on U.S. Pacific coasts. 

Significant nesting assemblages were once found 

along the Pacific coast of Mexico, but in recent years 

the Mexican arribadas have been largely restricted 

to one site, La Escobilla in the state of Oaxaca. In 

Costa Rica, a major nesting aggregation is found at 

Playa Ostional; smaller aggregations also occur in 

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Panama. This species 

continues to be threatened by incidental capture 

in trawl and longline fisheries. 

Loggerhead

Loggerheads originating from Japanese nesting 

beaches spend much of their early life stages in the 

central Pacific Ocean. A portion of this subpopulation regularly forages off the Pacific coast of Baja 

California, Mexico, and occasionally as far north 
321

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

as the waters off southern California. Generally, 

the loggerheads found foraging off these coasts are 

immature. A few records exist of loggerheads as far 

north as Alaska and as far south as Chile; however, 

these extremes are likely not part of the normal 

range of the species. Loggerheads have been recorded in waters around the Northern Mariana Islands, 

American Samoa, and Hawaii, but are uncommon 

there. Loggerheads occupy both oceanic waters and 

coastal benthic habitats around continents during 

their life cycle. In the open ocean they are often 

associated with convergence zones, oceanic fronts, 

and boundary currents. Nesting occurs primarily 

in Japan and Australia. Currently, less than 1,000 

female loggerheads nest annually in all of Japan 

and less than 500 nest annually in eastern Australia, where long-term data on nesting and foraging 

populations indicate a severe decline. Preliminary 

genetic analysis indicates that loggerheads inhabiting the eastern and North Pacific originate from 

the Japanese nesting stock, while animals foraging 

off of the coast of South America originate from 

nesting beaches in Australia (Dutton, unpublished 

data3). 

Leatherback

The leatherback is a pelagic species that likely 

occurs near all U.S. Pacific islands and is widely 

distributed on the high seas. The leatherback 

is often sighted in coastal waters of the western 

United States, which provide critical foraging 

habitat. Principal leatherback nesting populations 

in the western Pacific occur in the Solomon Islands, 

Vanuatu, Papua (Indonesia), Papua New Guinea, 

and historically in peninsular Malaysia. In the eastern Pacific, principal leatherback nesting beaches 

occur in Mexico and Costa Rica. Leatherbacks are 

seriously declining at all major nesting beaches 

throughout the Pacific. The decline is dramatic 

along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica 

and coastal Malaysia. The Malaysian nesting population, once one of the largest in the Pacific (e.g. 

several thousand nesters annually), is essentially 

extinct, with only two or three females currently 

nesting each year. From 1984 to 1995, nesting at 

Mexiquillo, a major nesting beach on the Pacific 

coast of Mexico, declined at an annual rate of 22%. 

Similar declines have been reported for major nesting assemblages of leatherbacks in Costa Rica, with 

counts of nesting females declining from 1,367 in 

1988–89 to 49 during the 2004–05 season. The 

collapse of these nesting populations has likely been 

caused by a tremendous overharvest of eggs, the 

direct harvest of adults, and incidental mortality 

from fishing. Satellite telemetry tracks from six 

post-nesting leatherbacks tagged at Jamursba-Medi, 

Papua, Indonesia, indicate that a portion of the 

western Pacific population utilizes the temperate 

waters off of North America (Benson et al., 2007). 

This information is consistent with genetic studies that are currently underway (Dutton et al., 

2006).

Hawksbill

 The hawksbill is typically more associated 

with islands than other sea turtle species and is 

often found foraging on coral reefs. Although not 

all U.S. flag islands in the western Central Pacific 

have been surveyed, the hawksbill likely occurs at 

most of them. The USFWS estimates that probably 

no more than 35 hawksbills nest in Hawaii each 

year, primarily along the east coast of the island 

of Hawaii. The number of hawksbills present in 

American Samoa and Guam is unknown, but nesting has been observed at Tutuila and the Manu’a 

Islands in American Samoa. The status of the 

hawksbill throughout the Pacific is unknown, but 

continued exploitation of hawksbills for their shells 

is a conservation concern. The most important 

conservation achievement for this species in recent 

years was the decision by Japan to end the import 

of hawksbill shell. Further declines are possible if 

this trade is renewed. Additionally, destruction and 

degradation of coral reefs that hawksbills rely on 

for food and habitat is a major threat to recovery. 

Green

 The green turtle is found throughout the North 

Pacific, occasionally ranging as far north as Eliza 

Harbor on Admiralty Island, Alaska, and Ucluelet, British Columbia. On the U.S. West Coast, a 

resident population of green turtles occurs in San 

3P. H. Dutton, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

8604 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.
322

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Diego Bay. In the Central Pacific, green turtles 

can be found at most tropical islands including 

the islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Ninety 

to 95% of all nesting and breeding activity occurs 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands at French 

Frigate Shoals. At least 50% of these activities take 

place on East Island, which has been monitored by 

researchers since 1973 (Figure 24-2). Beach counts 

of nesting females have increased over the last three 

decades from a low of 35 individuals in 1983 to 

a high of 548 in 2004. This increase in Hawaiian 

green turtle counts is attributed to a reduction in 

human-caused mortality after the species was listed 

under the ESA in 1978. In American Samoa, the 

primary nesting beach is at Rose Atoll where an 

estimated 15 to 25 females return annually. The 

number of green turtles in Guam is unknown, and 

only low nesting activity has been recorded there. 

Based on limited data, green turtle populations in 

American Samoa, Guam, Palau, Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States 

of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 

and the Unincorporated Islands (Wake, Johnston, 

Kingman, Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker, and 

Midway) have declined dramatically, due foremost 

to the harvest of eggs and adult turtles by humans. 

Genetic studies to determine the population structure and migratory patterns of green turtles in the 

Pacific are currently underway.

Significant progress is being made in the 

monitoring of Hawaiian green turtles by NMFS 

and USFWS. A 5-year series of saturation surveys 

completed in 1992 led to the development of 

rigorous quantitative methods to estimate the 

nesting population. Progress is also being made in 

monitoring juvenile and subadult Hawaiian green 

turtles in their nearshore habitat. 

ISSUES

Fisheries Interactions

 Sea turtles are threatened by multiple factors, 

most of which are human-related. A principal concern is their incidental capture in fisheries. Trawl, 

longline, and gillnet fisheries pose the greatest 

threats, although turtles are also taken and killed 

in fixed-gear fisheries, such as pound nets and 

traps/pots. Trawl fisheries pose a large threat to 

turtle survival, although much progress has been 

made towards reducing this source of mortality. 

Prior to the implementation of TED regulations, 

the National Academy of Sciences estimated that 

as many as 44,000 sea turtles, mostly loggerheads 

and Kemp’s ridleys, were killed annually in the Gulf 

of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic shrimp 

trawl fisheries. Currently, TED use is mandated for 

the shrimp fishery and a portion of the summer 

flounder trawl fishery. In 2003, regulations were 

amended to increase the size of the TED escape 

opening, a change that benefits larger species such 

as leatherback and adult green and loggerhead 

turtles. 

In the Pacific and Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries for highly migratory species (including tuna, 

swordfish, and some shark species), the incidental 

take of sea turtles is monitored through a logbook 

and observer program. Workshops have been held 

to formulate research techniques to assess the 

population-level effects of hooking and entanglement and to identify ways to reduce or mitigate 

incidental capture in longline fisheries. 

 NMFS supported a landmark experiment to 

evaluate the effects of hook and bait types on sea 

turtle bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries in the 

eastern Atlantic, known to capture significant 

numbers of sea turtles. NMFS also conducted 

fishery-dependent research on the Grand Banks 

in the North Atlantic to identify gear and fishing method modifications that would reduce or 

Figure 24-2

Population estimates for 

nesting green turtles on East 

Island, French Frigate Shoals, 

Northwest Hawaiian Islands, 

1973–2007.

Year

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Number

of nesters

Nesters
323

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

eliminate the bycatch of sea turtles while preserving local longline fisheries. Researchers found that 

using larger offset circle hooks and substituting 

mackerel-style bait had the potential to significantly 

reduce the interaction rate and mortality rate of 

leatherbacks and loggerheads. 

Implementation of U.S. gear modifications, 

such as those demonstrated in gear experiments 

in the Atlantic, may have broader implications for 

sea turtles around the world. If modifications in 

longline fishing practices demonstrate that target 

species (e.g. swordfish) can be caught sustainably 

and with similar catch-per-unit-effort as before, 

the international community will be more likely 

to accept the results of such studies and to adopt 

gear and fishing modifications.

In related research, satellite transmitters have 

been deployed on sea turtles captured on longline 

hooks to track post-release movements and better 

understand the long-term effects on individual 

animals. Linkages between individual movements 

and oceanographic processes are also being studied, and computer simulation models are under 

development to better assess the impacts of Pacific 

fisheries on these populations.

Significant progress has been made with coastal 

states to investigate fishery interactions in the MidAtlantic and to implement a management response 

to reduce annual spring mortality of loggerheads 

and Kemp’s ridleys in Virginia and North Carolina 

waters. A comprehensive NMFS strategy for sea 

turtle conservation and recovery in Atlantic Ocean 

and Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational 

fisheries addresses incidental capture through a 

consistent, gear-based approach. 

Non-Fisheries Interactions

Propeller strikes and vessel collisions pose 

significant threats to sea turtles, especially in areas 

of high human population where recreational boat 

and commercial traffic is heavy and coastal ports 

are active. Sea turtles can become entrained and 

killed in the draghead of hopper dredges used in 

constructing and maintaining navigation channels. Coastal power plants that draw their cooling 

water from nearshore and estuarine waters can also 

entrain sea turtles and cause mortality.

Habitat Concerns

 Coastal development can interfere with or 

prevent nesting and affect reproductive success. 

Monitoring and protecting beaches of the southeastern United States and Hawaii is essential to 

the survival and recovery of sea turtles. Many 

nesting beaches have already been significantly 

degraded or destroyed. In particular, nesting habitat 

is threatened by coastal armoring structures (i.e. 

rigid shoreline protection) such as sea walls, rock 

revetments, and sandbag installations. Many miles 

of once productive nesting beach have been permanently lost to this type of shoreline protection. 

Additionally, nesting habitat can be negatively 

impacted by altered beach and sand characteristics 

resulting from beach nourishment projects. Artificial beachfront lighting, increased human activity 

in the coastal zone, and beach driving also seriously 

threaten species’ recovery. In light of these issues, 

conservation and long-term protection of nesting 

habitats is an urgent and high priority need. 

 Development in the coastal zone can also degrade the foraging habitat of sea turtles. Important 

foraging grounds for several species of sea turtles 

exist along the U.S. East Coast and throughout the 

Gulf of Mexico near major areas of nearshore and 

Children travel through a 

makeshift shrimp trawl 

equipped with a TED. Outreach and education events, 

such as this one sponsored 

by the NMFS Pascagoula 

Laboratory, help teach people about sea turtle conservation. 

SEFSC Pascagoula Laboratory
324

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

offshore oil exploration and production. Offshore 

oil extraction may result in chronic low-level spills 

and occasional massive spills, which may imperil 

important foraging habitat. 

Damage and destruction of coral reefs and 

nearshore hard-bottom habitat is also an important 

habitat issue facing sea turtles. Many sea turtles rely 

on coral reefs for food and habitat; degradation of 

these critical habitats can pose a major threat to 

turtle species’ recovery. 

Marine Debris

Ingestion of marine debris can be a serious 

threat when turtles mistake debris for natural food 

items. An examination of loggerhead hatchlings’ 

feeding habits in offshore convergence zones revealed a high incidence of tar and plastic in their 

stomachs. Some types of marine debris, such as oil, 

may be directly or indirectly toxic through exposure or 

ingestion. Other hazards, such as discarded or derelict 

fishing gear, may also entangle and drown turtles.

Disease

A disease known as fibropapillomatosis (FP), 

originally identified in green turtles but now affecting other species as well, has emerged as a serious 

threat to the recovery of some populations. The 

disease is most notably present in green turtles of 

Hawaii, Australia, Florida, and the Caribbean. FP 

can be fatal and is commonly expressed as tumors 

that occur on the skin and eyes. Regional differences in symptoms exist between some affected 

populations; in Hawaii, green turtles have a high 

incidence of tumors in the oral cavity, whereas oral 

tumors have not been found in Florida or other 

areas. The cause of the disease remains unknown, 

although a fibropapilloma-associated turtle herpesvirus is consistently present in turtles with FP 

(Greenblatt et al., 2004). 

Recently, FP has been systematically monitored in several locales in Hawaii. At a study site 

on southern Molokai where tumors were virtually 

unknown before 1988, the prevalence of tumored 

green turtles ranged from 42 to 56% during the 

1995–97 surveys and declined to 9–15% during 

the 2005–07 surveys. In Florida, up to 50% of the 

immature green turtles captured in Indian River 

Lagoon are infected, and there are similar reports 

from other sites, including Florida Bay, as well 

as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 

disease has also been found to affect loggerheads 

in Florida Bay. 

A multidisciplinary research program is underway to study the cause and effects of FP. The 

possible etiologies of the disease, including viruses, 

parasites, and environmental pollutants are also 

under investigation. Recent studies demonstrated 

the involvement of both a retrovirus and a herpesvirus. In addition to field and laboratory research, 

statistical analyses and modeling are underway to 

link FP incidence and severity to key aspects of 

green turtle population dynamics and to assess 

impacts on population recovery.

Progress

In 1998, recovery plans were published for 

five species of Pacific sea turtles and one regionally distinct and important population (the East 

Pacific green turtle). U.S. Atlantic recovery plans 

were completed in the early 1990’s; two plans, the 

loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley, are currently under 

revision. These plans describe and prioritize the 

actions that are necessary to conserve and recover 

turtles throughout their ranges. In addition to addressing these issues, research priorities focus on 

understanding population structure, migratory 

movements, and life histories, as well as threats to 

sea turtle recovery. 

 In the last decade, considerable effort has been 

expended to elucidate sea turtle management units 

(stocks) through the use of genetic tools. For all species, scientists have found a high degree of genetic 

Hawaiian green turtle exhibiting the skin, eye, and 

oral tumors that result from 

fibropapillomatosis (FP).

Ursula Keuper-Bennett/Peter Bennett
325

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

structuring within ocean basins. It is believed that 

these genetically distinct stocks arose as a result of 

genetic isolation facilitated by the species’ natal 

homing behavior. While the animals appear to 

segregate when nesting, they commingle on foraging grounds, sometimes thousands of miles away 

from natal beaches (where they hatched). 

Additionally, the analyses of genetic material 

from turtles incidentally taken in various fisheries 

can tell us which populations are being impacted 

by fisheries interactions. For example, the Hawaiibased longline fishery interacts with loggerheads 

originating from Japan, green turtles originating 

from Hawaii and the eastern Pacific (Mexico or 

Ecuador), and leatherbacks originating primarily 

from the far western Pacific rookeries—Papua (Indonesia), Malaysia, and the Solomon Islands—and 

to a lesser extent from the eastern Pacific—Mexico 

and Costa Rica. The fishery also interacts with olive 

ridleys originating from both the eastern Pacific, 

and the Indian and western Pacific rookeries. Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean longline fisheries 

interact with migrating loggerheads from the western Atlantic (primarily the United States). 

 Genetic analyses also can identify the natal 

areas of turtles mixing on foraging grounds. Loggerheads inhabiting foraging habitats along the 

East Coast of the United States originate from the 

United States, Mexico, and Brazil. Green turtles 

co-occur from Florida, the Caribbean, and the 

South Atlantic Ocean (east and west). Leatherbacks 

caught in the Northeastern Distant Fisheries in the 

Atlantic originate from the western Atlantic stock 

(e.g. Caribbean). 

 Complementing the genetic work, satellite 

telemetry studies are helping to identify routes of 

travel and resident foraging grounds of sea turtles. 

NMFS scientists have successfully used satellite 

telemetry to study the migratory movements of 

post-nesting Hawaiian and Florida green turtles; 

Florida loggerheads; foraging green turtles in San 

Diego Bay; post-nesting leatherbacks in the western 

Pacific and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; and foraging Pacific leatherbacks off central California.

 NMFS has conducted considerable research 

on various kinds of tags to mark and identify sea 

turtles in order to collect important biological information on life history variables such as growth, 

Hawksbill turtle.

Caroline Rogers, USGS
326

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Olive ridley turtle.

Michael Jensen

survival rates, and age at maturity. A number of 

studies are also investigating habitat use to further 

our understanding of the life histories of Kemp’s 

ridleys, loggerheads, and greens. Work at study 

sites in Florida, North Carolina, the northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico, and Hawaii will help determine 

the importance of inshore and nearshore habitats 

to the survival of these species. Based on this research, critical habitat for the green turtle has been 

designated for the nearshore foraging grounds off 

Culebra, Puerto Rico, and for the hawksbill on 

Mona and Monita Islands, Puerto Rico. 

LITERATURE CITED

Benson, S. R, P. H. Dutton, C. Hitipeuw, B. Samber, J. 

Bakarbessy, and D. Parker. 2007. Post-nesting migrations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from 

Jamursba-Medi, Bird’s Head Peninsula, Indonesia. 

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1):150–154.

Dutton, P. H., S. R. Benson, and S. A. Eckert. 2006. 

Identifying origins of leatherback turtles from Pacific foraging grounds off Central, CA, USA. In N. J. 

Pilcher (Compiler), Proceedings of the Twenty-third 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536, 261 p.

Gladys Porter Zoo. 2001. Report on the Mexico/United 

States of America population restoration project for 

the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on 

the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC, 58 p.

 

Greenblatt, R. J., T. M. Work, G. H. Balazs, C. A. 

Sutton, R. N. Casey, and J. W. Casey. 2004. The 

Ozobranchus leech is a candidate mechanical vector 

for the fibropapilloma-associated turtle herpesvirus 

found latently infecting skin tumors on Hawaiian green 

turtles (Chelonia mydas). Virology 321:101–110.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic 

Ocean. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555, 116 p.

FOR FURTHER READING

Bjorndal, K. A. (Editor). 1995. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (revised edition). Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, DC, 615 p.

Bolton, A. B., and B. E. Witherington (Editors). 2003. 

Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 311 p.

Gulko, D. A., and K. L. Eckert. 2003. Sea Turtles. An 

Ecological Guide. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, HI, 

128 p.

Lutz, P. L., and J. A. Musick (Editors). 1997. The Biology 

of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 431 p.

Lutz, P. L., J. A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (Editors). 2003. 

The biology of sea turtles. Volume II. CRC Press, Boca 

Raton, Florida. 455 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Washington, DC, 52 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Washington, DC, 64 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, 40 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback 

turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and 

Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Washington, DC, 65 p.
327

SEA TURTLES

UNIT 24

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for hawksbill 

turtle in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and 

Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. 

Petersburg, FL, 52 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific 

populations of the East Pacific green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD, 51 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific 

populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 

84 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD, 83 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific 

populations of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD, 66 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific 

populations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 

60 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific 

populations of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD, 53 p.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea 

Turtles. Causes and Preventions. National Academy 

Press, Washington, DC, 259 p.

Plotkin, P. T. (Editor). 1995. National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD, 139 p.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2001. Stock assessments 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. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-455, 343 p.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. An assessment 

update of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations 

in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-409, 96 p.

Part 4

Appendices
Photo on previous page: 

Shortbelly rockfish swimming past intact, healthy bottom habitat. Photo courtesy 

of John Butler, SWFSC. 
331

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

APPENDIX 1

appendix 1:

acknowledgements

The National Marine Fisheries Service wishes to acknowledge the role of Steve Murawski, Senior Scientist 

for Fisheries; the authors; and the following individuals for their contributions to this report:

Editor

Kristan Blackhart NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Seattle, Washington.

Regional coordinators

Paul Rago NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Larry L. Massey NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida.

Sarah Shoffler NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California.

Robert G. Kope and 

Stacey D. Miller NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

Loh-Lee Low and

Lisa Hiruki-Raring NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

Gerard T. DiNardo NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

National Overview—Kristan Blackhart, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Seattle, Washington.

Prelude to Sustainability Feature Article—Karen Greene, Jennifer Isé, Mark Millikin, Rachel O’Malley, 

and Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Rebecca 

Lent, NMFS Office of International Affairs, Silver Spring, Maryland; and Fran Pflieger, NMFS Office of 

Management and Budget, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Additional assistance was provided by the following individuals and organizations: 

Pete Adams, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California; Anne Allen, NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California; Jen Bachus, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland; Dana M. Bethea, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, 

Florida; Cal Blood, International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington; Heather Blough, 

NMFS Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida; John Butler, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California; Mark Chandler, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, 

Maryland; Bill Clark, International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington; Jennifer Costanza, 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts; Miles Croom, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, St. Petersburg, Florida; David Csepp, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Juneau, Alaska; 

David Dale, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida; Paul Dalzell, Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Honolulu, Hawaii; John Field, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa 

Cruz, California; Larry Goldberg, NMFS Office of the Chief Information Officer, Silver Spring, Maryland; Mark A. Grace, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, Mississippi; Karen Greene, 
332

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Tim Haverland, NMFS Office of Science 

and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Willis Hobart, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Seattle, 

Washington; Wayne Hoggard, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, Mississippi; Beth 

Josephson, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts; Chris Kellogg, New 

England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts; Peter and Ursula Keuper-Bennett; 

Rosemary Kosaka, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Kirsten Larsen, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; Kristy Long, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland; Joanne Lyczkowski-Shultz, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Pascagoula, Mississippi; Sarah Malloy, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii; 

Larry Massey, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida; Emily Menashes, NMFS Office 

of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland; Richard Methot, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Seattle, Washington; Brandi Noble, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, Mississippi; Laura Oremland, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Elizabeth 

Pritchard, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Margo Schulze-Haugen, 

NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Janet Sears, NMFS Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington; Fred Serchuck, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts; Allen Shimada, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Larry 

Simpson, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Mississippi; Terry Smith, National 

Sea Grant Program, Silver Spring, Maryland; David Stanton, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 

Seattle, Washington; Brent Stewart, Hubbs Sea World, San Diego, California; Wayne Swingle, Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida; Teresa Turk, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland; Kristy Wallmo, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, 

Maryland; Lori Wilson, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland; Dave Withrow, 

NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington; Mary Wozny, Broward County Sea 

Turtle Conservation Program, Plantation, Florida. 
333

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS, THEIR JURISDICTIONS, AND FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS

APPENDIX 2

appendix 2:

fishery management 

Councils, Their Jurisdictions, 

and fishery management plans

NEW ENGLAND 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

50 Water Street, Mill 2

Newburyport, MA 01950

Voice (978) 465-0492

Fax (978) 465-3116 

http://www.nefmc.org

Jurisdiction

Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, and Connecticut

Fishery Management Plans

• Atlantic Herring

• Atlantic Salmon

• Atlantic Sea Scallop

• Deep-Sea Red Crab

• Monkfish (joint management with the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council)

• Northeast Multispecies

• Northeast Skate Complex

MID-ATLANTIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Suite 2115 Federal Building

300 S. New Street

Dover, DE 19904

Voice (302) 674-2331

Toll free (877) 446-2362

Fax (302) 674-4136

http://www.mafmc.org

info@mafmc.org

Jurisdiction

New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina

Fishery Management Plans

• Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 

• Bluefish

• Spiny Dogfish (joint management with the 

New England Fishery Management Council)

• Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 

• Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 

• Tilefish

SOUTH ATLANTIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201

North Charleston, SC 29405

Voice (843) 571-4366

Toll free (866) SAFMC-10

Fax (843) 769-4520

http://www.safmc.net

safmc@safmc.net

Jurisdiction

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 

the east coast of Florida

Fishery Management Plans

• Atlantic Coast Red Drum 

• Coral, Coral Reefs and Live/Hard Bottom 

Habitats of the South Atlantic Region
334

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

• Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic

• Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region

• Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic 

Region

• Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region

• Snapper–Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region

GULF OF MEXICO 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

2203 N Lois Ave, Suite 1100

Tampa, FL 33607

Voice (813) 348-1630

Toll free (888) 833-1844 

Fax (813) 348-1711

http://www.gulfcouncil.org

gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org

Jurisdiction

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the 

west coast of Florida

Fishery Management Plans

• Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico

• Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (joint 

management with the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council)

• Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

• Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

• Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

• Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic (joint management with the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council)

• Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

CARIBBEAN 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108

San Juan, PR 00918

Voice (787) 766-5926

Fax (787) 766-6239

http://www.caribbeanfmc.com

Jurisdiction

U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico

Fishery Management Plans

• Corals and Reef Associated Plants and 

Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands

• Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands

• Shallow Water Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands

• Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands

PACIFIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101

Portland, OR 97220

Voice (503) 820-2280

Toll free (866) 806-7204

Fax (503) 820-2299

http://www.pcouncil.org

Jurisdiction

California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho

Fishery Management Plans

• Coastal Pelagic Species

• Pacific Coast Groundfish

• Pacific Coast Salmon

• U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory 

Species

WESTERN PACIFIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400

Honolulu, HI 96813

Voice (808) 522-8220

Fax (808) 522-8226

http://www.wpcouncil.org

info.wpcouncil@noaa.gov

Jurisdiction

Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and 

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas 

Islands

Fishery Management Plans

• Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries 

of the Western Pacific Region
335

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS, THEIR JURISDICTIONS, AND FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS

APPENDIX 2

• Coral Reef Ecosystem of the Western Pacific 

Region

• Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region

• Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region

• Precious Coral Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region

NORTH PACIFIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

605 W 4th Avenue, Suite 306

Anchorage, AK 99501

Voice (907) 271-2809

Fax (907) 271-2817

http://fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/

Jurisdiction

Alaska

Fishery Management Plans

• Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs

• Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area

• Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

• Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of 

Alaska

• Scallop Fishery off Alaska

OFFICE OF SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, 

HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES DIVISION

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Voice (301) 713-2347

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/

Secretarial Plans

• Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species

337

PRINCIPAL FACILITIES OF THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

APPENDIX 3

appendix 3:

principal facilities 

of the National marine 

fisheries Service

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES

National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Voice (301) 713-2239

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

REGIONAL OFFICES AND 

FISHERY SCIENCE CENTERS

Northeast Regional Office

55 Great Republic Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

Voice (978) 281-9300

Fax (978) 281-9333

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Voice (508) 495-2000

Fax (508) 495-2258

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

Woods Hole Laboratory

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Voice (508) 495-2000

Fax (508) 495-2258

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/woodshole/

Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Voice (401) 782-3200

http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/

Milford Laboratory

212 Rogers Avenue

Milford, CT 06460-6499

Voice (203) 882-6500

Fax (203) 882-6570 or –6517

http://mi.nefsc.noaa.gov

James J. Howard 

Marine Sciences Laboratory

74 Magruder Road, Sandy Hook

Highlands, NJ 07732

Voice (732) 872-3000

http://sh.nefsc.noaa.gov/

National Systematics Laboratory

10th & Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20560

Voice (202) 357-4990

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/systematics/

Maine Field Station

17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1

Orono, ME 04473

Voice (207) 866-7322

Fax (207) 866-7342

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/orono/
338

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Southeast Regional Office

263 13th Avenue S

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Voice (727) 824-5301

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, FL 33149

Voice (305) 361-4200

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

Miami Laboratory

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, FL 33149-1003

Voice (305) 361-4200

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/facility.jsp

Mississippi Laboratory

3209 Frederic Street

Pascagoula, MS 39567

Voice (228) 762-4591

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

Panama City Laboratory

3500 Delwood Beach Road

Panama City, FL 32408

Voice (850) 234-6541

Fax (850) 235-3559

http://www.sefscpanamalab.noaa.gov/

Galveston Laboratory

4700 Avenue U

Galveston, TX 77551-5997

Voice (409) 766-3500

http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/index.html

Beaufort Laboratory

101 Pivers Island Road

Beaufort, NC 28516-9722

Voice (252) 728-3595

Fax (252) 728-8784

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

Southwest Regional Office

501 W. Ocean Boulevard

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

Voice (562) 980-4000

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/

Southwest Fisheries Science Center

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive

La Jolla, CA 92037-1508

Voice (858) 546-7000

Fax (858) 546-7003

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/

La Jolla Laboratory

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive

La Jolla, CA 92037-1508

Voice (858) 334-2800

Fax (858) 546-7003

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/

Santa Cruz Laboratory

110 Shaffer Road

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Voice (831) 420-3900

Fax (831) 420-3980

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/

Pacific Grove Laboratory

1352 Lighthouse Avenue

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097

Voice (831) 648-8515

Fax (831) 648-8440

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/

Northwest Regional Office

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6150

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

2725 Montlake Boulevard E

Seattle, WA 98112-2097

Voice (206) 860-3200

Fax (206) 860-3217

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/

Manchester Research Station

7305 E Beach Drive

Port Orchard, WA 98366

Voice (206) 842-5434

Fax (206) 842-8364

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/facilities/

manchester.cfm
339

PRINCIPAL FACILITIES OF THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

APPENDIX 3

Newport Research Station

2032 SE OSU Drive, Building 955

Newport, OR 97365-5275

Voice (541) 867-0500

Fax (541) 867-0505

Pasco Research Station

3305 E Commerce Street

Pasco, WA 99301-5839

Voice (509) 547-7518

Fax (509) 547-4181

Point Adams Research Station

520 Heceta Place

Hammond, OR 97121-0155

Voice (503) 861-1818

Fax (503) 861-2589

Mukilteo Research Station

10 Park Avenue, Building 8

Mukilteo, WA 98275-1618

Voice (425) 347-6935

Fax (425) 347-4072

Alaska Regional Office

P.O. Box 21668 

Juneau, AK 99802-1668

Voice (907) 586-7221

Fax (907) 586-7249

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/

alaska.webmaster@noaa.gov

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 4

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

Voice (206) 526-4000

Fax (206) 526-4004

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/

afsc.webmaster@noaa.gov

Seattle Laboratory

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 4

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

Voice (206) 526-4000

Fax (206) 526-4004

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/

National Marine Mammal Laboratory

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

Voice (206) 526-4045

Fax (206) 526-6615

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/

Auke Bay Laboratories

Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute

17109 Pt. Lena Loop Road

Juneau, AK 99801

Voice (907) 789-6000

Fax (907) 789-6094

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/abl/TSMRI.htm

Kodiak Laboratory

P.O. Box 1638 

Kodiak, AK 99615

Voice (907) 481-1700

Fax (907) 481-1781

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/kodiak/

Little Port Walter Field Station

P.O. Box 253

Sitka, AK 99835

Voice (907) 723-4457

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/abl/MarSalm/3lpw.

html

Pacific Islands Regional Office

1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110

Honolulu, HI 96814

Voice (808) 944-2200

Fax (808) 973-2941

http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

2570 Dole Street

Honolulu, HI 96822-2396

Voice (808) 983-5300

Fax (808) 983-2902

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov

341

STOCK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES AND TERMS

APPENDIX 4

appendix 4:

Stock assessment

principles and Terms

Much of the information in this report comes 

from the scientific analysis of fisheries data to develop stock assessments. Stock assessment is the 

process of collecting and analyzing demographic 

information about fish populations to describe the 

conditions or status of a fish stock. The result of 

a stock assessment is a report that often includes 

an estimation of the amount or abundance of the 

resource, an estimation of the rate at which it is 

being removed due to harvesting and other causes, 

and one or more reference levels of harvesting rate 

and/or abundance at which the stock can maintain 

itself in the long term. Stock assessments often 

contain short-term (1–5 years, typically) projections or prognoses for the stock under a number of 

different scenarios. This information on resource 

status is used by managers to determine what actions are needed to promote the best use of our 

living marine resources. 

Stock assessment reports describe a range of life 

history characteristics for a given species, including 

age, growth, natural mortality, sexual maturity and 

reproduction, stock boundaries, diet preferences, 

habitat characteristics, species interactions, and 

environmental factors that may affect the species. 

Assessment reports also include descriptions of the 

fishery for a species, using information from both 

scientists and fishermen. Additionally, stock assessments describe the assessment model, or the collection of mathematical and statistical techniques 

that were used to perform the stock assessment. 

Stock assessment analyses rely on various sources of information to estimate resource abundance 

and population trends. The principal information 

comes from the commercial and recreational fisheries (fishery-dependent information). For example, the quantity of fish caught and the individual 

sizes of the fish, their biological characteristics (e.g. 

age, maturity, and sex), and the ratio of fish caught 

to the time spent fishing (catch per unit of effort) 

are basic data for stock assessments. In addition, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

conducts resource surveys with specialized fishery 

research vessels or chartered fishing vessels (fishery-independent information). These surveys, 

often conducted in cooperation with state marine 

resource agencies, universities, the fishing industry, 

international scientific organizations, and fisheries 

agencies of other nations, produce estimates of resource abundance. 

Resource surveys are conducted differently 

from commercial fishing. Commercial operations 

seek out the greatest aggregations of fish and target 

them to obtain the largest or most valuable catch. 

Fishery research vessels operate in a standardized 

manner, over a wide range of locations and within 

waters inhabited by the stocks, to provide unbiased 

population abundance and distribution indices year 

after year. The survey results are then used with 

commercial and recreational catch data to assess 

the resource base. The final critical data comes 

from studies on the basic biology of the animals 

themselves. Understanding the natural history of 

the harvested species and the other species with 

which they interact is crucial to understanding the 

population dynamics of living marine resources. 

Fish abundance or population size can be expressed as either the number of fish or the total fish 
342

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

weight (or biomass). Increases in the amount of fish 

are determined by body growth of individual fish 

in the population, and the addition or recruitment 

of new generations of young fish (i.e. recruits; 

recruits from the same year are said to comprise a 

year-class [or cohort]). Those gains must then be 

balanced against the proportion of the population 

removed by harvesting (called fishing mortality, 

F ) and other losses due, for example, to predation, 

starvation, or disease (called natural mortality, M ). 

In stock assessment work, removals of fish from the 

population are commonly expressed in terms of 

rates within a time period. The fishing mortality 

rate is a function of fishing effort, which includes 

the amount, type, and effectiveness of fishing gear 

and the time spent fishing. Catch per unit of effort 

(CPUE) is an index showing the ratio of a catch 

of fish, in numbers or in weight, and a standard 

measure of the fishing effort expended to catch 

them. 

Surplus production (or production) is the 

total weight of fish that can be removed by fishing 

without changing the size of the population. It is 

calculated as the sum of the growth in weight of 

individuals in a population, plus the addition of 

biomass from new recruits, minus the biomass of 

animals lost to natural mortality.

 The production rate is expressed as a proportion of the population size or biomass. The 

production rate can be highly variable owing to 

environmental fluctuations, predation, and other 

biological interactions with other populations. 

On average, production decreases at low and high 

population sizes, and biomass decreases as the 

amount of fishing effort increases. This means there 

is a relationship between average production and 

fishing effort. This relationship is known as the 

production function. 

Production functions are the basis for certain 

important concepts used in this report: maximum 

sustainable yield, current yield, and recent average yield. In addition, the term stock level is 

employed as a biological reference for determining 

resource status relative to the biomass that would 

on average support the sustainable yield. Recent 

average yield also is reported in order to allow comparison of the current situation to the sustainable 

yield. 

 Many other reference levels are used as 

benchmarks for guiding management decisions. A 

number of these are expressed as fishing mortality 

rate levels that would achieve specific results from 

the average recruit to the fishery if the stock were 

subjected to fishing at those rates indefinitely. Some 

of these benchmarks are used to index potential 

fishery production, and others are used to index 

potential reproductive output. Fmax is the fishing 

mortality rate that maximizes the yield obtained 

from the average recruit. Growth overfishing occurs over the range of fishing mortality, at which 

the losses in weight from total mortality exceed the 

gain in weight due to growth. This range is defined 

as beyond Fmax. F0.1 is a rate that results in almost 

as much yield per recruit as Fmax does, but can be 

much lower—and thus more conservative—than 

Fmax (at F0.1, only a 10% increase in yield per recruit occurs following an additional unit of fishing 

effort compared to the yield per recruit produced 

by the first unit of effort on the unexploited 

stock). Benchmarks used to measure reproductive 

potential usually express an amount of spawning 

output relative to the amount expected under no 

fishing. For example, F20% and F30% are the rates 

that would reduce spawning biomass per recruit to 

20 or 30% of the unfished level, respectively. This 

percentage of the unfished level is also known as 

the spawning potential ratio (SPR).

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

MSY is the maximum long-term average yield 

that can be achieved through conscientious stewardship by controlling F through regulating fishing 

effort or total catch levels. MSY is a reference point 

for judging the potential of the resource. However, 

it is not necessarily the goal of fishery managers to 

always set the maximum yield. Other factors influence the choice of a management objective, such as 

socioeconomic considerations or conservation and 

ecosystem concerns for other marine life indirectly 

affected by fishery harvests. The methods of estimating MSY, and MSY itself, may be controversial. 

Nevertheless, NMFS scientists have used their best 

professional judgment to provide these figures as a 

gauge of long-term production potential whenever 

possible. 
343

STOCK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES AND TERMS

APPENDIX 4

Current Yield (CY)

CY, the potential catch that can be safely 

taken at the present time, depends on the current 

abundance of fish and population dynamics of the 

stock. It is usually estimated by applying the F associated with MSY (e.g. target fishing effort) to the 

current population size. This yield may be either 

greater than or less than MSY. CY is the amount 

of catch that will maintain the present population 

level (biomass) or, for overutilized stocks, stimulate 

a trend toward recovery to a population size that 

will produce the MSY. For stocks at high biomass 

levels, the CY may be larger than the MSY. In this 

circumstance a large fishery harvest would not be 

sustainable in the long run, but it would bring the 

stock down to the level supporting MSY. 

Recent Average Yield (RAY)

RAY is equivalent to recent average catch. 

Unless designated otherwise, RAY is the reported 

fishery landings averaged for the most recent 3-year 

period, 2004–06.

Stock Level Relative to BMSY

To further clarify resource status, stock level 

(i.e. abundance) in the most recent year available is 

compared with the biomass that on average would 

support the MSY harvest (BMSY). This is expressed 

as being below, near, above, or unknown relative 

to BMSY. In some cases, heavy fishing in the past 

reduced a stock to a low abundance, and even if 

the stock currently is harvested only lightly, it may 

take many years for it to rebuild. 

Harvest Rate

A stock’s harvest rate compares the current 

harvest rate to a prescribed fishing mortality (catch) 

threshold defined in the stock’s Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP). A stock is described as overfishing

when the harvesting is occurring at a rate that is 

above the prescribed fishing mortality rate. A stock 

is not overfishing when harvesting is below that 

rate. A stock may also be classified as undefined if 

no fishing mortality threshold has been set in the 

FMP, or its harvest rate may be unknown. 

Stock Status

Stock status defines a stock’s size relative to 

a prescribed biomass threshold defined in the 

stock’s FMP. A stock is overfished when its stock 

size is below the prescribed biomass threshold, or 

rebuilding when its biomass has rebuilt to above 

the threshold level but not yet to the biomass target 

defined in the rebuilding plan. Stocks that have 

stock sizes above the prescribed biomass threshold 

are described as not overfished. Stocks may also 

be described as undefined if no prescribed biomass 

threshold has been set, or the current stock size may 

be unknown. 

Classification of Resource Status

 Previous editions of Our Living Oceans have 

used utilization level1 as a major factor in determining the status of a stock. However, this classification 

scheme did not always give a comprehensive picture 

of stock status or one that was consistent with legal 

classifications. The classification scheme used in 

OLO 6th Edition has been updated to be based on 

the requirements for status determination criteria 

listed in Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and 

match the overfishing (Harvest Rate in OLO) and 

overfished (Stock Status in OLO) determinations 

that are listed in the Annual Report to Congress on 

the Status of U.S. Fisheries. 

 In 1989, NMFS published revised guidelines 

addressing National Standards 1 and 2 of the 1976 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (1976 Act). Among other 

things, the intent of the guidelines was to prevent 

recruitment overfishing and to have a conservation 

standard for each fishery such that stocks were 

not driven to, or maintained at, the threshold of 

overfishing. The guidelines defined overfishing as 

a level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes 

the long-term capacity of a stock or stock-complex 

to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY)

on a continuing basis. Each FMP was required to 

specify, to the maximum extent possible, an objec1A qualitative measure of the level of fishery use derived 

by comparing the present levels of fishing effort and stock 

abundance to those levels necessary to achieve the long-term 

potential yield (analogous to the MSY). Stocks were classified 

as underutilized, fully utilized, overutilized, or unknown.
344

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

tive and measurable definition of overfishing for 

each stock or stock complex covered by that FMP, 

and to provide an explanation of how the definition 

was determined and how it relates to reproductive potential. Overfishing could be expressed in 

terms of a minimum level of spawning biomass, 

maximum level or rate of fishing mortality, or other 

acceptable measurable standard. If data indicated 

that an overfished condition existed, a program 

must be established for rebuilding the stock over 

a period of time specified by the Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) and acceptable to the 

Secretary of Commerce.

Over the period 1989–96, NMFS and the 

FMCs used the 1989 guidelines as a basis for 

developing, refining, and evaluating definitions 

of overfishing based on recruitment overfishing 

thresholds. There was considerable variation in 

the overfishing definitions developed and accepted, 

due to the flexibility afforded by the guidelines. 

Subsequently, in late 1996, the Magnuson Act 

was reauthorized as the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) with 

several changes that required a rethinking of the 

basis for defining overfishing. In particular, the 

MSA required MSY itself to be the upper limit on 

the allowable amount or rate of fishing. NMFS 

responded by producing new guidelines that were 

finalized in mid 1998. The new guidelines required 

the specification of status determination criteria, 

which include both a maximum fishing mortality 

rate (beyond which overfishing is deemed to be occurring) and a minimum stock-size threshold (below which the stock is deemed to be overfished). 

Both criteria must be associated with MSY-based 

reference points. The MSA and the new guidelines 

have considerably reduced the amount of flexibility 

allowed in defining overfishing, and require a much 

greater degree of conservatism in the biological 

reference points used to delimit overfishing. 

The MSA was reauthorized again in 2006 

as the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 

(MSRA). The reauthorization act gives NMFS even 

stronger laws that will enable it to stop overfishing 

and accelerate rebuilding of overfished stocks. One 

of the centerpieces of the new MSRA legislation is 

that it directs the regional FMC’s to establish annual catch limits (ACL’s) by 2010 for all stocks 

currently undergoing overfishing, and by 2011 for 

all other Federally managed stocks, setting a firm 

deadline to end overfishing in the United States. 

Economic value

 In many of the fishery units, a dollar figure is 

given for the ex-vessel revenue generated by the 

commercial fishery on a given stock or group of 

stocks. Ex-vessel revenue is defined as the quantity 

of fish landed by commercial fishermen multiplied 

by the average price received by them at the first 

point of sale. As such, ex-vessel revenue captures 

the immediate value of the commercial harvest, 

but does not reflect multiplier effects of subsequent 

revenues generated by seafood processors, distributors, and retailers.

The estimate of economic value often takes 

both recreational and commercial catches and 

multiplies them by an average price to arrive at a 

baseline measure of economic worth among various 

user groups. It may underestimate those fisheries 

where there is a large recreational component. 

Nevertheless, the value serves as a useful gauge of 

relative potential revenues generated over many 

disparate stocks, fisheries, and regions.

Marine Mammal Assessments

The same scientific principles apply to the 

population dynamics of these protected species, 

but the terminology of not overfished, rebuilding, 

and overfished does not apply. Instead, marine 

mammals are referred to as depleted when they are 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) or when their population size 

is below their optimum sustainable population 

(OSP) level. Stocks are additionally classified as 

strategic when the level of direct human-caused 

mortality2 exceeds the potential biological removal (PBR) level; when the stock is declining 

2Total annual human-caused mortality is the total number of 

annual mortalities and serious injuries likely to result in death 

caused by humans and includes fisheries-caused mortality 

resulting from commercial fisheries, subsistence mortality 

resulting from subsistence hunting, and other removals such as 

ship strikes, strandings, orphaned animals collected for public 

display, mortalities associated with research activities, take by 

foreign countries, and mortalities associated with activities 

authorized through incidental take regulations.
345

STOCK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES AND TERMS

APPENDIX 4

and is likely to be listed as threatened under the 

ESA within the foreseeable future based on the 

best science available; or when the stock is listed 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA or 

depleted under the MMPA.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

defines OSP as the number of animals which will 

result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying 

capacity of their habitat and the health of their 

ecosystem. For operational purposes, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS)3 and NMFS4 have 

interpreted this definition to mean a population 

size falling within a range from the population level 

of a given species or stock which is the largest supportable within the ecosystem (carrying capacity) 

to the population level that results in maximum 

net productivity. 

 Potential biological removal is the maximum 

number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or stay at its OSP level 

(50–100% of its carrying capacity). PBR is calculated using the minimum population estimate, the 

maximum net productivity rate, and the recovery 

factor. The minimum population estimate (Nmin)

is an estimate of the minimum number of animals 

in a stock, based on the best available scientific 

information on abundance and incorporating the 

precision and variability associated with such 

information, that provides reasonable assurance 

that the stock size is equal to or greater than the 

estimate. The maximum net productivity rate 

(Rmax) is defined under the MMPA as the annual 

per-capita rate of increase in a stock resulting from 

additions due to reproduction, less losses due to 

mortality. The recovery factor (Fr) ranges between 

0.1 and 1.0 and is used in calculating the PBR to 

compensate for endangered, threatened, depleted, 

or unknown stock status relative to OSP stocks. 

Protected species of marine mammals may also 

be classified as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A species is 

considered threatened if it is likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable future. A 

species is considered endangered if it is in danger 

of extinction throughout a significant portion of 

its range. 

3Implements programs and regulations for manatees, sea otters, 

polar bears, and walruses.

4Responsible for all non-USFWS-managed marine mammals, 

including whales, porpoises, dolphins, seals, and sea lions.

347

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

appendix 5:

Common and Scientific 

Names of Species

The following is a listing of common and scientific names of fish, shellfish, marine mammals, 

and sea turtles found in Units 1–24. This listing 

is included for reference purposes only and is not 

all-inclusive. 

Unit 1: Northeast Demersal Fisheries

Principal Groundfish

Acadian redfish, Sebastes fasciatus

American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides

Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua

Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus

Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Ocean pout, Zoarces americanus

Pollock, Pollachius virens

Red hake, Urophycis chuss

Silver hake (whiting), Merluccius bilinearis

White hake, Urophycis tenuis

Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus

Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes 

 americanus

Witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus

Yellowtail flounder, Limanda ferruginea

Dogfish and Skates

Smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis

Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias

Skates

 Barndoor skate, Dipturus laevis

 Clearnose skate, Raja eglanteria

 Little skate, Leucoraja erinacea

 Rosette skate, Leucoraja garmani

 Smooth skate, Malacoraja senta

 Thorny skate, Amblyraja radiata

 Winter skate, Leucoraja ocellata

Other Finfish

 Atlantic hagfish, Myxine glutinosa

 Black sea bass, Centropristis striata

 Cusk, Brosme brosme

 Goosefish (monkfish), Lophius americanus

 Scup, Stenotomus chrysops

 Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus

 Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus

 Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

 Weakfish, Cynoscion regalis

 Wolffishes, Anarhichas spp.

Unit 2: Northeast Pelagic Fisheries

Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus

Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus

Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix

Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus

Unit 3: Atlantic Anadromous Fisheries

American shad, Alosa sapidissima

Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar

Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhinchus

 oxyrhinchus

Hickory shad, Alosa mediocris

Rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax

River herring

 Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus

 Blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis

Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus

Shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum

Striped bass, Morone saxatilis

Unit 4: Northeast Invertebrate Fisheries

American lobster, Homarus americanus
348

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Atlantic surfclam, Spisula solidissima

Longfin inshore squid, Loligo pealeii

Northern shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus

Northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis

Ocean quahog (mahogany clam), Arctica 

islandica

Red deepsea crab, Chaceon quinquedens

Sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus

Unit 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Pelagic 

Fisheries

Albacore, Thunnus alalunga

Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus

Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans

Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus

Longbill spearfish, Tetrapturus pfluegeri

Sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus

Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis

Swordfish, Xiphias gladius

White marlin, Kajikia albidus

Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares

Other tunas, Family Scombridae

Unit 6: Atlantic Shark Fisheries

Large Coastal Sharks

Blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus

Bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas

Great hammerhead, Sphyrna mokarran

Lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris

Nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum

Sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus

Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini

Silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis

Smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zygaena

Spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna

Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier

Small Coastal Sharks

Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon 

 terraenovae

Blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus

Bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo

Finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon

Pelagic Sharks

Blue shark, Prionace glauca

Oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus 

 longimanus

Porbeagle, Lamna nasus

Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus

Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus

Prohibited Shark Species

 Atlantic angel shark, Squatina dumeril

 Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus

 Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai

 Bigeye sixgill shark, Hexanchus nakamurai

 Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus

 Bignose shark, Carcharhinus altimus

 Caribbean sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon 

 porosus

 Dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus

 Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus galapagensis

 Longfin mako, Isurus paucus

 Narrowtooth shark, Carcharhinus brachyurus

 Night shark, Carcharhinus signatus

 Reef shark, Carcharhinus perezii

 Sand tiger, Carcharias taurus

 Sevengill shark, Notorynchus 

 cepedianus

 Sixgill shark, Hexanchus griseus 

Smalltail shark, Carcharhinus porosus

 Whale shark, Rhincodon typus

 White shark, Carcharodon carcharias

Unit 7: Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coastal 

Pelagic Fisheries

Cero, Scomberomorus regalis

Cobia, Rachycentron canadum

Dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus

King mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla

Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus

Unit 8: Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Reef Fisheries

South Atlantic

 Black sea bass, Centropristis striata

 Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis

 Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara

 Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus

 Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus

 Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus

 Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus

 Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

 Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens

 Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus

 Amberjacks

 Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili

 Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata

 Unclassified amberjacks, Seriola spp.
349

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

Grunts

 Black grunt, Haemulon bonariense

 Black margate, Anisotremus 

 surinamensis

 Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus

 French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum

 Margate, Haemulon album

 Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera

 Porkfish, Anisotremus virginicus

 Sailors choice, Haemulon parra

 Spanish grunt, Haemulon macrostomum

 Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum

 White grunt, Haemulon plumierii

 Unclassified grunts, Family Haemulidae

Other groupers

 Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci

 Coney, Cephalopholis fulva

 Graysby, Cephalopholis cruentata

 Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus

 Red grouper, Epinephelus morio

 Red hind, Epinephelus gluttatus

 Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis

 Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax

 Speckled hind, Epinephelus 

 drummondhayi

 Tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris

 Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

 Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus 

 flavolimbatus

 Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca 

 venenosa

 Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca 

 interstitialis

 Unclassified groupers, Family 

Serranidae

Other porgies

 Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado

 Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus

 Littlehead porgy, Calamus proridens

 Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus

 Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus

 Scup, Stenotomus chrysops

 Spottail pinfish, Diplodus holbrookii

 Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus

 Unclassified porgies, Family Sparidae

Other sea basses

 Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus

 Rock sea bass, Centropristis 

 philadelphica

 Other snappers

 Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus

 Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella

 Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus

 Gray (mangrove) snapper, Lutjanus 

 griseus

 Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris

 Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogoni

 Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis

 Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus

 Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus

 Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus

 Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus

 Unclassified snappers, Family 

 Lutjanidae

 Other species

 Angelfishes, Family Pomacanthidae

 Atlantic spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber

 Blackline tilefish, Caulolatilus cyanops

 Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps

 Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus

 Great barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda

 Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus

 Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis 

 sufflamen

 Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula

 Sheepshead, Archosargus 

 probatocephalus

 Other tilefishes, Family Malacanthidae

 Other triggerfishes, Family Balistidae 

Caribbean

 Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus

 Grunts

 Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus

 French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum

 Margate, Haemulon album

 Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum

 White grunt, Haemulon plumierii

 Unclassified grunts, Family Haemulidae

 Other groupers

 Coney, Cephalopholis fulva

 Graysby, Cephalopholis cruentata

 Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus

 Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis

 Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca 

 venenosa

 Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca 

 interstitialis
350

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

 Unclassified groupers, Family 

 Serranidae

Snappers

 Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus

 Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella

 Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris

 Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogoni

 Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis

 Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus

 Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus

 Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus

 Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites 

 aurorubens

 Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus

 Unclassified snappers, Family

 Lutjanidae

Other species

 Atlantic spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber

 Bar jack, Carangoides ruber

 Bigeye, Priacanthus arenatus

 Bigeye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus

 Black durgon, Melichthys niger

 Black jack, Caranx lugubris

 Blue parrotfish, Scarus coeruleus

 Blue runner, Caranx crysos

 Blue tang, Acanthurus coeruleus

 Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos

 Doctorfish, Acanthurus chirurgus

 French angelfish, Pomacanthus paru

 Gray angelfish, Pomacanthus arcuatus

 Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus

 Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili

 Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus

 Honeycomb cowfish, Acanthostracion 

 polygonius

 Horse-eye jack, Caranx latus

 Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado

 Longspine squirrelfish, Holocentrus 

 rufus

 Lookdown, Selene vomer

 Midnight parrotfish, Scarus coelestinus

 Mutton hamlet, Alphestes afer

 Ocean surgeon, Acanthurus bahianus

 Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis 

 sufflamen

 Porkfish, Anisotremus virginicus

 Princess parrotfish, Scarus taeniopterus

 Puddingwife, Halichoeres radiatus

 Queen angelfish, Holacanthus ciliaris

 Queen parrotfish, Scarus vetula

 Rainbow parrotfish, Scarus guacamaia

 Redband parrotfish, Sparisoma 

 aurofrenatum

 Redtail parrotfish, Sparisoma 

 chrysopterum

 Rock beauty, Holacanthus tricolor

 Scrawled cowfish, Acanthostracion 

 quadricornis

 Sea bream, Archosargus rhomboidalis

 Sheepshead porgy, Calamus penna

 Smooth trunkfish, Lactophrys triqueter

 Spanish hogfish, Bodianus rufus

 Spotfin butterflyfish, Chaetodon

 ocellatus

 Spotted goatfish, Pseudupeneus 

 maculatus

 Spotted trunkfish, Lactophrys bicaudalis

 Squirrelfish, Holocentrus adscensionis

 Stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride

 Striped parrotfish, Scarus iseri

 Trunkfish, Lactophrys trigonus

 Yellow goatfish, Mulloidichthys 

 martinicus

 Yellow jack, Caranx bartholomaei

 Yellowtail parrotfish, Sparisoma 

 rubripinne

Gulf of Mexico

 Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara

 Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus

Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus

 Red grouper, Epinephelus morio

 Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus

 Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens

 Amberjacks

 Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana

 Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili

 Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata

 Unclassified amberjacks, Seriola spp.

 Grunts

 Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus

 French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum

 White grunt, Haemulon plumierii

 Unclassified grunts, Family Haemulidae

 Shallow groupers

 Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci

 Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis

 Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus

 Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis
351

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

 Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax

 Speckled hind, Epinephelus 

 drummondhayi

 Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca

 venenosa

Other groupers

 Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus

 Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus

 Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

 Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus 

 flavolimbatus

 Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca 

 interstitialis

 Unclassified groupers, Family

 Serranidae

Other snappers

 Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus

 Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella

 Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus

 Dog snapper, Lutjanus jocu

 Gray (mangrove) snapper, Lutjanus 

 griseus

 Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris

 Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogoni

 Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis

 Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus

 Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus

 Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus

 Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus

 Unclassified snappers, Family 

 Lutjanidae

Other species

 Angelfishes, Family Pomacanthidae

 Atlantic spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber

 Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus

 Black sea bass, Centropristis striata

 Blackline tilefish, Caulolatilus cyanops

 Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps

 Blue runner, Caranx crysos

 Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos

 Dash-dot goatfish, Parupeneus 

 barberinus

 Great barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda

 Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus

 Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado

 Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus

 Littlehead porgy, Calamus proridens

 Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus

 Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis 

 sufflamen

 Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula

 Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus

 Rock sea bass, Centropristis

 philadelphica

 Sheepshead, Archosargus 

 probatocephalus

 Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

 Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus

 Other tilefishes, Family Malacanthidae

 Other triggerfishes, Family Balistidae

Unit 9: Southeast Drum and Croaker 

Fisheries

Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus

Black drum, Pogonias cromis

Kingfishes (whiting), Menticirrhus spp.

Red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus

Sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius

Silver seatrout, Cynoscion nothus

Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus

Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus

Weakfish (grey seatrout), Cynoscion regalis

Other seatrouts, Cynoscion spp.

Unit 10: Southeast Menhaden Fisheries

Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus

Gulf menhaden, Brevoortia patronus

Unit 11: Southeast and Caribbean 

Invertebrate Fisheries

Brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus

Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus

Golden deepsea crab, Chaceon fenneri

Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum

Queen conch, Strombus gigas

Rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris

Royal red shrimp, Pleoticus robustus

Seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri

Soft corals (gorgonians and sea fans), Order 

 Gorgonacea

Stone crabs, Menippe spp.

Stony corals, Order Scleractinia 

White shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus

Other conchs, Strombus spp.
352

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Units 12 and 13: Pacific Coast and Alaska 

Salmon Fisheries

Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta

Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch

Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka

Unit 14: Pacific Coast and Alaska Pelagic 

Fisheries

California market (opalescent inshore) squid, 

Loligo opalescens

Jack mackerel, Trachurus symmetricus

Northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax

Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii

Pacific chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus

Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax

Unit 15: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries

Flatfish

Arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias

Dover sole, Microstomus pacificus

English sole, Parophrys vetulus

Petrale sole, Eopsetta jordani

Other flatfishes

 Butter sole, Isopsetta isolepis

 Curlfin sole, Pleuronichthys decurrens

 Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon

 Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus

 Rex sole, Glyptocephalus zachirus

 Rock sole, Lepidopsetta bilineata

 Sand sole, Psettichthys melanostictus

 Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus

Rockfish

Black rockfish, Sebastes melanops

Blackgill rockfish, Sebastes melanostomus

Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis

Canary rockfish, Sebastes pinniger

Chilipepper, Sebastes goodei

Cowcod, Sebastes levis

Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes crameri

Longspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus altivelis

Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus

Shortbelly rockfish, Sebastes jordani

Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus 

 alascanus

Splitnose rockfish, Sebastes diploproa

Widow rockfish, Sebastes entomelas

Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus

 Yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flavidus

 Other rockfishes

 Aurora rockfish, Sebastes aurora

 Bank rockfish, Sebastes rufus

 Black-and-yellow rockfish, Sebastes

 chrysomelas

 Blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus

 Bronzespotted rockfish, Sebastes gilli

 Brown rockfish, Sebastes auriculatus

 Calico rockfish, Sebastes dallii

 California scorpionfish, Scorpaena 

 guttata

 Chameleon rockfish, Sebastes phillipsi

 China rockfish, Sebastes nebulosus

 Copper rockfish, Sebastes caurinus

 Dusky rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus

 Dwarf-red rockfish, Sebastes rufinanus

 Flag rockfish, Sebastes rubrivinctus

 Freckled rockfish, Sebastes lentiginosus

 Gopher rockfish, Sebastes carnatus

 Grass rockfish, Sebastes rastrelliger

 Greenblotched rockfish, Sebastes

 rosenblatti

 Greenspotted rockfish, Sebastes

 chlorostictus

 Greenstriped rockfish, Sebastes 

 elongatus

 Halfbanded rockfish, Sebastes

 semicinctus

 Harlequin rockfish, Sebastes variegatus

 Honeycomb rockfish, Sebastes umbrosus

 Kelp rockfish, Sebastes atrovirens

 Mexican rockfish, Sebastes macdonaldi

 Olive rockfish, Sebastes serranoides

 Pink rockfish, Sebastes eos

 Pinkrose rockfish, Sebastes simulator

 Puget Sound rockfish, Sebastes 

 emphaeus

 Pygmy rockfish, Sebastes wilsoni

 Quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger

 Redbanded rockfish, Sebastes babcocki

 Redstripe rockfish, Sebastes proriger

 Rosethorn rockfish, Sebastes 

 helvomaculatus

 Rosy rockfish, Sebastes rosaceus

 Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutianus

 Semaphore rockfish, Sebastes 

 melanosema

 Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus
353

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

 Shortraker rockfish, Sebastes borealis

 Silvergray rockfish, Sebastes brevispinis

 Speckled rockfish, Sebastes ovalis

 Squarespot rockfish, Sebastes hopkinsi

 Starry rockfish, Sebastes constellatus

 Stripetail rockfish, Sebastes saxicola

 Swordspine rockfish, Sebastes ensifer

 Tiger rockfish, Sebastes nigrocinctus

 Treefish, Sebastes serriceps

 Vermilion rockfish, Sebastes miniatus

 Yellowmouth rockfish, Sebastes reedi 

Other groundfish

Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus

Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus

Pacific hake (whiting), Merluccius productus

Sablefish (blackcod), Anoplopoma fimbria

Other groundfishes

 Big skate, Raja binoculata

 California skate, Raja inornata

 Kelp greenling, Hexagrammos 

 decagrammus

 Leopard shark, Triakis semifasciata

 Longnose skate, Raja rhina

 Pacific flatnose, Antimora microlepis

 Pacific grenadier (rattail), 

 Coryphaenoides acrolepis

 Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias

 Spotted ratfish, Hydrolagus colliei

 Tope, Galeorhinus galeus 

Unit 16: Western Pacific Invertebrate 

Fisheries

Aesop slipper lobster, Scyllarides haanii

Bamboo corals, Lepidisis olapa, Acanella spp.

Banded (Hawaiian) spiny lobster, Panulirus 

marginatus

Black corals, Antipathes dichotoma, A. grandis, 

Myriopathes ulex

Blunt slipper lobster (ula-pãpapa), Scyllarides 

squammosus

Gold corals, Callogorgia gilberti, Calyptrophora

spp., Gerardia spp., Narella spp. 

Pink corals, Corallium spp.

 Pronghorn spiny lobster (‘ula hiwa), Panulirus 

penicillatus

Sculptured mitten lobster (ula-pehu), Parribacus 

antarcticus

White telesto (invasive soft coral), Carijoa riisei

Unit 17: Western Pacific Bottomfish and 

Groundfish Fisheries

Bottomfish

 Snappers, Family Lutjanidae

 Crimson jobfish (opakapaka),

 Pristipomoides filamentosus

 Flame snapper (onaga), Etelis coruscans

 Green jobfish (uku), Aprion virescens

 Oblique-banded snapper (gindai), 

 Pristopomoides zonatus

 Ruby snapper (ehu), Etelis carbunculus

 Jacks, Family Carangidae

 Jacks (ulua), Caranx spp.

 White trevally (butaguchi),

 Pseudocaranx dentex

 Groupers, Family Serranidae

 Hawaiian grouper (hapu’upu’u),

 Epinephelus quernus

 Emperors, Family Lethrinidae

Seamount groundfish

 Alfonsino, Beryx splendens

 North Pacific armorhead, Pseudopentaceros 

 wheeleri

 Raftfish, Hyperoglyphe japonica

Unit 18: Pacific Highly Migratory Pelagic 

Fisheries

Tropical tunas

 Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus

 Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis

 Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares

Temperate tunas

 Albacore, Thunnus alalunga

 Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis

Billfish

 Black marlin, Istiompax indica

 Blue marlin, Makaira nigricans

 Sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus

 Shortbill spearfish, Tetrapturus angustirostris

 Striped marlin, Kajikia audax

 Swordfish, Xiphias gladius

Oceanic sharks

 Megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios

 Mackerel sharks, Family Lamnidae

 Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus

 White shark, Carcharodon carcharias

 Requiem sharks, Family Carcharhinidae

 Blue shark, Prionace glauca

 Thresher sharks, Family Alopiidae
354

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

 Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus

 Pelagic thresher, Alopias pelagicus

 Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus

Other migratory species

Dolphinfish (mahi mahi), Coryphaena 

 hippurus

Wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri

Unit 19: Alaska Groundfish Fisheries

Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis

Flatfish

Alaska plaice, Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus

Arrowtooth flounder, Reinhardtius stomias

Flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon

Greenland halibut, Reinhardtius 

 hippoglossoides

Northern rock sole, Lepidopsetta polyxystra

Rex sole, Glyptocephalus zachirus

Yellowfin sole, Limanda aspera

BSAI Other Flatfishes

 Arctic flounder, Pleuronectes glacialis

 Butter sole, Isopsetta isolepis

 Curlfin sole, Pleuronichthys decurrens

 Deepsea sole, Microstomus bathybius

 Dover sole, Microstomus pacificus

 English sole, Parophrys vetulus

 Longhead dab, Limanda proboscidea

 Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus

 Petrale sole, Eopsetta jordani

 Rex sole, Glyptocephalus zachirus

 Roughscale sole, Clidoderma

 asperrimum

 Sakhalin sole, Limanda sakhalinensis

 Sand sole, Psettichthys melanostictus

 Slender sole, Lyopsetta exilis

 Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus

Gulf of Alaska Deepwater Flatfishes

 Deepsea sole, Microstomus bathybius

 Dover sole, Microstomus pacificus

 Greenland halibut, Reinhardtius 

 hippoglossoides

Gulf of Alaska Shallow Water Flatfishes

 Alaska plaice, Pleuronectes 

 quadrituberculatus

 Butter sole, Iopsetta isolepis

 C-O sole, Pleuronichthys coenosus

 Curlfin sole, Pleuronichthys decurrens

 English sole, Parophrys vetulus

 Northern rock sole, Lepidopsetta

 polyxystra

 Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus

 Petrale sole, Eopsetta jordani

 Rock sole, Lepidopsetta bilineata

 Sand sole, Psettichthys melanostictus

 Slender sole, Lyopsetta exilis

 Speckled sanddab, Citharichthys

 stigmaeus

 Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus

 Yellowfin sole, Limanda aspera

 Rockfish

 Northern rockfish, Sebastes polyspinis

 Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus

 Rougheye rockfish, Sebastes aleutianus

 Shortraker rockfish, Sebastes borealis

 BSAI Other Rockfishes

 Dark rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus

 Dusky rockfish, Sebastes variabilis

 Harlequin rockfish, Sebastes variegatus

 Redbanded rockfish, Sebastes babcocki

 Redstripe rockfish, Sebastes proriger

 Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus

 Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus

 alascanus

 Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus

 Gulf of Alaska Demersal Shelf Rockfishes

 Canary rockfish, Sebastes pinniger

 China rockfish, Sebastes nebulosus

 Copper rockfish, Sebastes caurinus

 Quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger

 Rosethorn rockfish, Sebastes 

 helvomaculatus

 Tiger rockfish, Sebastes nigrocinctus

 Yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus

 Gulf of Alaska Other Slope Rockfishes

 Blackgill rockfish, Sebastes 

 melanostomus

 Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis

 Chilipepper, Sebastes goodei

 Darkblotched rockfish, Sebastes crameri

 Greenstriped rockfish, Sebastes

 elongatus

 Harlequin rockfish, Sebastes variegatus

 Northern rockfish, Sebastes polyspinis

 Pygmy rockfish, Sebastes wilsoni

 Redbanded rockfish, Sebastes babcocki

 Redstripe rockfish, Sebastes proriger

 Sharpchin rockfish, Sebastes zacentrus
355

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

 Silvergray rockfish, Sebastes brevispinis

 Splitnose rockfish, Sebastes diploproa

 Stripetail rockfish, Sebastes saxicola

 Vermilion rockfish, Sebastes miniatus

 Yellowmouth rockfish, Sebastes reedi

Gulf of Alaska Pelagic Shelf Rockfishes

 Dark rockfish, Sebastes ciliatus

 Dusky rockfish, Sebastes variabilis

 Widow rockfish, Sebastes entomelas

 Yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flavidus

Gulf of Alaska Thornyheads

 Longspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus

 altivelis

 Shortspine thornyhead, Sebastolobus

 alascanus

Other Groundfish

Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygius

Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus

Sablefish (blackcod), Anoplopoma fimbria

Walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma

BSAI Other Species

 Pacific sleeper shark, Somniosus

 pacificus

 Salmon shark, Lamna ditropis

 Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias

 Antlered sculpin, Enophrys diceraus

 Arctic staghorn sculpin, Gymnocanthus 

 tricuspis

 Armorhead sculpin, Gymnocanthus 

 galeatus

 Banded Irish lord, Hemilepidotus 

 gilberti

 Bigmouth sculpin, Hemitripterus bolini

 Blackfin sculpin, Malacocottus kincaidi

 Blacknose sculpin, Icelus canaliculatus

 Blob sculpin, Psychrolutes phrictus

 Bride sculpin, Artediellus miacanthus

 Broadfin sculpin, Bolinia euryptera

 Butterfly sculpin, Melletes papilio

 Crested sculpin, Blepsias bilobus

 Darkfin sculpin, Malacocottus zonurus

 Eyeshade sculpin, Nautichthys 

 pribilovius

 Flabby sculpin, Zesticelus profundorum

 Fourhorn sculpin, Myoxocephalus 

 quadricornis

 Great sculpin, Myoxocephalus

 polyacanthocephalus

 Grunt sculpin, Rhamphocottus 

 richardsonii

 Highbrow (crescent-tail) sculpin, 

 Triglops metopias

 Hookhorn sculpin, Artediellus pacificus

 Leister sculpin, Enophrys lucasi

 Longfin Irish lord, Hemilepidotus zapus

 Longfin sculpin, Jordania zonope

 Northern sculpin, Icelinus borealis

 Pacific staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus 

 armatus

 Plain sculpin, Myoxocephalus jaok

 Purplegray sculpin, Gymnocanthus 

 detrisus

 Red Irish lord, Hemilepidotus 

 hemilepidotus

 Ribbed sculpin, Triglops pingelii

 Roughspine sculpin, Triglops macellus

 Roughskin sculpin, Rastrinus scutiger

 Sailfin sculpin, Nautichthys

 oculofasciatus

 Scaled sculpin, Archistes biseriatus

 Scalybreasted sculpin, Triglops 

 xenostethus

 Scissortail sculpin, Triglops forficatus

 Slim sculpin, Radulinus asprellus

 Smoothcheek sculpin, Eurymen gyrinus

 Spatulate sculpin, Icelus spatula

 Spectacled sculpin, Triglops scepticus

 Spinyhead sculpin, Dasycottus setiger

 Sponge sculpin, Thyriscus anoplus

 Tadpole sculpin, Psychrolutes paradoxus

 Thorny sculpin, Icelus spiniger

 Threaded sculpin, Gymnocanthus

 pistilliger

 Uncinate sculpin, Icelus uncinalis

 Warty sculpin, Myoxocephalus 

 verrucosus

 Wide-eye sculpin, Icelus euryops

 Yellow Irish lord, Hemilepidotus jordani

 Flapjack octopus, Opisthoteuthis 

 californiana

 Giant octopus, Enteroctopus dofleini

 Pelagic octopus, Japetella diaphana

 Smoothskin octopus, Benthoctopus 

 leioderma

 Spoonarm octopus, Bathypolypus 

 arcticus 

 Octopus Benthoctopus oregonensis
356

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

 Octopus Graneledone boreopacifica

 Berry armhook squid, Gonatus berryi

 Boreopacific armhook squid, 

 Gonatopsis borealis

 Clawed armhook squid, Gonatus onyx

 Fiery armhook squid, Gonatus pyros

 Flowervase jewel squid, Histioteuthis 

 hoylei

 Madokai armhook squid, Gonatus 

 madokai

 Magister armhook squid, Berryteuthis 

 magister magister

 Makko armhook squid, Gonatopsis 

 makko

 Minimal armhook squid, Berryteuthis 

 anonychus

 Robust clubhook squid, Moroteuthis 

 robusta

 North Pacific bobtail squid, Rossia 

 pacifica

 Squid Belonella borealis 

 Squid Chiroteuthis calyx

 Squid Cranchia scabra

 Squid Eogonatus tinro

 Squid Galiteuthis phyllura

 Squid Gonatus kamtschaticus

 Alaska skate, Bathyraja parmifera

 Aleutian skate, Bathyraja aleutica

 Big skate, Raja binoculata

 Butterfly skate, Bathyraja mariposa

 Commander skate, Bathyraja lindbergi

 Deepsea skate, Bathyraja abyssicola

 Mud skate, Bathyraja hubbsi

 Okhotsk skate, Bathyraja violacea

 Roughshoulder skate, Amblyraja badia

 Roughtail skate, Bathyraja trachura

 Sandpaper (Bering) skate, Bathyraja 

 interrupta

 Whiteblotched skate, Bathyraja 

 maculata

 Whitebrow skate, Bathyraja 

 minispinosa

Gulf of Alaska Other Species

 Pacific sleeper shark, Somniosus 

 pacificus

 Salmon shark, Lamna ditropis

 Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias

 Antlered sculpin, Enophrys diceraus

 Armorhead sculpin, Gymnocanthus 

 galeatus

 Bigmouth sculpin, Hemitripterus bolini

 Blackfin sculpin, Malacocottus kincaidi

 Blob sculpin, Psychrolutes phrictus

 Brightbelly sculpin, Microcottus sellaris

 Brown Irish lord, Hemilepidotus 

 spinosus

 Buffalo sculpin, Enophrys bison

 Crested sculpin, Blepsias bilobus

 Darkfin sculpin, Malacocottus zonurus

 Dusky sculpin, Icelinus burchami

 Eyeshade sculpin, Nautichthys 

 pribilovius

 Fourhorn sculpin, Myoxocephalus 

 quadricornis

 Frog sculpin, Myoxocephalus stelleri

 Frogmouth sculpin, Icelinus oculatus

 Great sculpin, Myoxocephalus

 polyacanthocephalus

 Grunt sculpin, Rhamphocottus 

 richardsonii

 Hookear sculpins, Artediellus spp. 

 Longfin sculpin, Jordania zonope

 Northern sculpin, Icelinus borealis

 Pacific staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus 

 armatus

 Plain sculpin, Myoxocephalus jaok

 Red Irish lord, Hemilepidotus 

 hemilepidotus

 Ribbed sculpin, Triglops pingelii

 Roughskin sculpin, Rastrinus scutiger

 Roughspine sculpin, Triglops macellus

 Sailfin sculpin, Nautichthys

 oculofasciatus

 Scissortail sculpin, Triglops forficatus

 Silverspotted sculpin, Blepsias cirrhosus

 Slim sculpin, Radulinus asprellus

 Smoothcheek sculpin, Eurymen gyrinus

 Smoothhead sculpin, Artedius lateralis

 Spatulate sculpin, Icelus spatula

 Spectacled sculpin, Triglops scepticus

 Spinyhead sculpin, Dasycottus setiger

 Sponge sculpin, Thyriscus anoplus

 Spotfin sculpin, Icelinus tenuis

 Tadpole sculpin, Psychrolutes paradoxus

 Thorny sculpin, Icelus spiniger

 Threaded sculpin, Gymnocanthus

 pistilliger
357

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

 Threadfin sculpin, Icelinus filamentosus

 Warty sculpin, Myoxocephalus 

 verrucosus

 Wide-eye sculpin, Icelus euryops

 Yellow Irish lord, Hemilepidotus jordani

 East Pacific red octopus, Octopus

 rubescens

 Flapjack octopus, Opisthoteuthis 

 californiana

 Giant octopus, Enteroctopus dofleini

 North Pacific bigeye octopus, Octopus 

 californicus 

 Pelagic octopus, Japetella diaphana

 Smoothskin octopus, Benthoctopus 

 leioderma

 Berry armhook squid, Gonatus berryi

 Boreal clubhook squid, Onychoteuthis 

 borealijaponicus

 Clawed armhook squid, Gonatus onyx

 Fiery armhook squid, Gonatus pyros

 Flowervase jewel squid, Histioteuthis 

 hoylei

 Madokai armhook squid, Gonatus 

 madokai

 Magister armhook squid, Berryteuthis 

 magister magister

 Makko armhook squid, Gonatopsis 

 makko

 Minimal armhook squid, Berryteuthis 

 anonychus

 Octopus squid, Octopoteuthis deletron

 Opalescent inshore squid, Loligo 

 opalescen

 Robust clubhook squid, Moroteuthis 

 robusta

 Vampire squid, Vampyroteuthis 

 infernalis

 Squid Chiroteuthis calyx

 Squid Cranchia scabra

 Squid Eogonatus tinro

 Squid Galiteuthis phyllura

 Squid Gonatus kamtschaticus

 Alaska skate, Bathyraja parmifera

 Aleutian skate, Bathyraja aleutica

 Big skate, Raja binoculata

 Deepsea skate, Bathyraja abyssicola

 Longnose skate, Raja rhina

 Roughshoulder skate, Amblyraja badia

 Roughtail skate, Bathyraja trachura

 Sandpaper (Bering) skate, Bathyraja 

 interrupta

 Whiteblotched skate, Bathyraja 

 maculata

Unit 20: Alaska Shellfish Fisheries

King Crabs

 Blue king crab, Paralithodes platypus

 Golden (brown) king crab, Lithodes 

 aequispinus

 Red king crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus

 Scarlet king crab, Lithodes couesi

Snow and Tanner Crabs

 Grooved Tanner crab, Chionoecetes tanneri

 Snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio

 Southern Tanner crab, Chionoecetes bairdi

 Triangle Tanner crab, Chionoecetes angulatus

Other Shellfishes

 Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum

 Sea snails, Class Gastropoda

 Other shrimps, Family Penaeidae

Unit 21: Marine Mammals of the Alaska 

Region

Seals and Sea Lions

 Bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus

 Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina

 Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus

 Ribbon seal, Histriophoca fasciata

 Ringed seal, Pusa hispida

 Spotted seal, Phoca largha

 Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus

Whales and Porpoises

 Baird’s beaked whale, Berardius bairdii

 Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas

 Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus

 Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis

 Cuvier’s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris

 Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli

 Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus

 Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus

 Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena

 Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae

 Killer whale, Orcinus orca

 Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata

 North Pacific right whale, Eubalaena 

 japonica

 Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

 obliquidens
358

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Sperm whale, Physeter catodon

Stejneger’s beaked whale, Mesoplodon

 stejnegeri

Other Marine Mammals (USFWS jurisdiction)

Polar bear, Ursus maritimus

Sea otter, Enhydra lutris

Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus

Unit 22: Marine Mammals of the Pacific 

Region and Hawaii

Seals and Sea Lions

California sea lion, Zalophus californianus

Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi

Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina

Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus 

 schauinslandi

Northern elephant seal, Mirounga 

 angustirostris

Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus

Whales and Porpoises

Baird’s beaked whale, Berardius bairdii

Blainville’s beaked whale, Mesoplodon 

 densirostris

Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus

Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus

Brydes whale, Balaenoptera edeni

Cuvier’s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris

Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli

Dwarf sperm whale, Kogia sima

False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens

Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus

Fraser’s dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei

Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena

Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae

Killer whale, Orcinus orca

Long-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus 

 capensis

Longman’s beaked whale, Indopacetus 

 pacificus

Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra

Mesoplodont beaked whales, Mesoplodon

 spp.

Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis 

 borealis

Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

 obliquidens

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella 

 attenuata

 Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata

Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps

 Risso’s dolphin, Grampus griseus

 Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis

 Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis

 Short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala 

 macrorhynchus

 Sperm whale, Physeter catodon

 Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris

 Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba

Other Marine Mammals (USFWS jurisdiction)

 Southern sea otter, Enhydra lutris nereis

Unit 23: Marine Mammals of the Atlantic 

Region and the Gulf of Mexico

Seals and Sea Lions

 Grey seal, Halichoerus grypus

 Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina

 Harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus

 Hooded seal, Cystophora cristata

Whales and Porpoises

 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis

 Atlantic white-sided dolphin, 

 Lagenorhynchus acutus

 Blainville’s beaked whale, Mesoplodon 

 densirostris

 Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus

 Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus

 Brydes whale, Balaenoptera edeni

 Clymene dolphin, Stenella clymene

 Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis

 Cuvier’s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris

 Dwarf sperm whale, Kogia sima

 False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens

 Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus

 Fraser’s dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei

 Gervais’ beaked whale, Mesoplodon europaeus

 Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena

 Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae

 Killer whale, Orcinus orca

 Long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas

 Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra

 Mesoplodont beaked whales, Mesoplodon

 spp.

 Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata

 North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena 

 glacialis

Northern bottlenose whale, Hyperodon 

 ampullatus
359

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

APPENDIX 5

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella 

 attenuata

Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata

Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps

Risso’s dolphin, Grampus griseus

Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis

Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis

Short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala 

 macrorhynchus

Sperm whale, Physeter catodon

Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris

Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba

 White-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

 albirostris

Other Marine Mammals (USFWS jurisdiction)

 West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus

Unit 24: Sea Turtles

Green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas

Hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii

Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea

Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta

Olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea
360

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION
361

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX 6

appendix 6:

acronyms and abbreviations

1976 Act Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

AABM aggregate abundance-based management

ABC acceptable biological catch; also allowable biological catch

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

ACL Annual Catch Limit

ADCP acoustic Doppler current profiler

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center

AIDCP Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program

AMPDT Atlantic Menhaden Plan Development Team

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

ASMI Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute

ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team

ASTWG Advanced Sampling Technology Working Group

ATCA Atlantic Tunas Convention Act

AUV autonomous underwater vehicle

B biomass

BMSY biomass that on average will produce the maximum sustainable yield

BRD bycatch reduction device

BSAI Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

CalCOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations

CA/OR/WA California, Oregon, and Washington

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDQ community development quota

CETAP Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program

CFMC Caribbean Fishery Management Council

cm centimeter

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

CPS coastal pelagic species

CPUE catch per unit of effort

CT computed tomography

CTD conductivity, temperature, and depth sensor

CV coefficient of variation

CWP central western Pacific Ocean

CY current yield

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
362

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)

DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife (U.S. Virgin Islands)

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DPS distinct population segment

DTS Dover sole, thornyheads, and sablefish complex

dw dressed weight

EAFM ecosystem approach to fisheries management

EBS eastern Bering Sea

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

Est. estimated

ESU evolutionarily significant unit

F fishing mortality rate

FX% the fishing mortality rate that reduces the spawning stock biomass per recruit to X% 

 of the amount present in the absence of fishing

FX%SPR the fishing mortality rate expected to produce X% spawning potential ratio

Fmax rate of fishing mortality that results in the maximum level of yield per recruit

FMSY rate of fishing mortality that, if applied constantly, would produce the greatest yield 

 from the fishery

Fr recovery factor

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FEP Fisheries Ecosystem Plan

fm fathom

FMC Fishery Management Council

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FP fibropapillomatosis

FPA Federal Power Act 

FR Federal Register

FSSI Fish Stock Sustainability Index

FSV Fishery Survey Vessel

F/V fishing vessel

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

FWCC Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Florida)

FY fiscal year

GARM Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting

GIS Geographic Information System

GLM General Linear Modeling

GMAC Gulf Menhaden Advisory Committee

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GOA Gulf of Alaska

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPS global positioning system

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HARP high-frequency acoustic recording package

HICEAS Hawaiian Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey

HMS highly migratory species
363

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX 6

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

IFQ individual fishing quota

INPFC International North Pacific Fisheries Commission

IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission

IPQ individual processing quota

ISBM individual stock-based management 

ISC Interim Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific 

 Ocean

ITQ individual transferable quota

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUU illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing

IWC International Whaling Commission

JV joint venture

K carrying capacity

kg kilogram

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer

LAPP limited access privilege program

lb pound

LCS large coastal shark

LIDAR light detection and ranging

LMR living marine resource

m meter

M instantaneous rate of natural mortality

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

MDNR Mississippi Department of Natural Resources 

MFMT maximum fishing mortality threshold

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands

mi mile

MLPA Marine Life Protection Act

mm millimeter

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service (Department of Interior)

MNA minimum number alive

MNP maximum net productivity

MPA marine protected area

MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey

MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended 

 through 11 October 1996; also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act)

MSRA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 

 2006

MSST minimum spawning stock threshold

MSVPA multispecies virtual population analysis

MSY maximum sustainable yield

Nmin minimum population estimate

NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
364

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

n.mi. nautical mile

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPAFC North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission

NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council

NRC National Research Council

NS National Standard

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

Obs. observed

OLO Our Living Oceans

OLO 6th Edition Our Living Oceans. Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 6th Edition

OLO ‘99 Our Living Oceans. Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 1999

OPC optical plankton counter

OSP optimum sustainable population

OY optimal yield

p probability

PBR potential biological removal

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

PIT passive integrated transponder

ppt parts per thousand

PSC Pacific Salmon Commission

PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Rmax maximum productivity rate

RAY recent average yield

RCA rockfish conservation area

RE Regional Ecosystem

ROV remotely operated vehicle

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

SAR Stock Assessment Report

SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee

SAW Stock Assessment Workshop

SBX% spawning biomass at X% of the unfished level

SBR spawning stock biomass per recruit

SCS small coastal shark

SEDAR Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center

SERO Southeast Regional Office

SNE southern New England

SONAR sound navigation and ranging

SPR spawning potential ratio; also spawner per recruit

SRT Status Review Team

SSB spawning stock biomass
365

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX 6

SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center

t metric tons

TAC total allowable catch

TALFF total allowable level of foreign fishing

TCCHINOOK Joint Chinook Technical Committee

TED turtle excluder device

TEWG Turtle Expert Working Group

TMGC Transboundary Management Guidance Committee

TRAC Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee

UME unusual mortality event

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

U.S.C. United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands

VMS vessel monitoring system

VPR video plankton recorder

WCPFC Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 

 in the Western and Central Pacific

WIMARCS West Indies Marine Animal Research and Conservation Service

WPFMC West Pacific Fishery Management Council

367

ESA LISTED SPECIES

APPENDIX 7

appendix 7:

ESa Listed Species

The following is a list of species under NMFS 

jurisdiction that are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Endangered Species 

are those species that are in danger of extinction 

throughout a significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species are species that are likely to 

be become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Also listed here are Species of Concern, those 

species about which NMFS has some concerns 

regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need 

to officially list the species under the ESA. Candidate Species are those species that are actively 

being considered for listing as either endangered 

or threatened under the ESA. Neither Candidate 

Species nor Species of Concern designations carry 

any procedural or substantive protections under 

the ESA.

For more information, please see the Species 

Information page at the NMFS Office of Protected 

Species website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

species/.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Marine and Anadromous Fishes

Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine DPS)

Chinook salmon (Upper Columbia River 

spring-run ESU; Sacramento winter-run

ESU)

Coho salmon (Central California coast ESU;

listed as threatened in 1996, status changed

to endangered in 2005)

Shortnose sturgeon

Sockeye salmon (Snake River ESU)

Smalltooth sawfish (U.S. portion of range DPS)

Steelhead trout (Southern California DPS)

Totoaba (foreign, no U.S. stocks)

Invertebrates

White abalone

Marine Mammals

Cetaceans

 Blue whale

 Bowhead whale

 Chinese River dolphin (baiji; foreign, no 

U.S. stocks)

 Fin whale

 Gray whale (Western North Pacific DPS; 

Eastern North Pacific DPS delisted in 

1994)

 Gulf of California harbor porpoise (vaquita; 

foreign, no U.S. stocks)

 Humpback whale

 Indus River dolphin (foreign, no U.S. stocks)

 Killer whale (Southern Resident DPS)

 North Atlantic right whale

 North Pacific right whale

 Sei whale

 Southern right whale (foreign, no U.S. 

stocks)

 Sperm whale

Pinnipeds

 Caribbean monk seal (proposed for delisting 

in 2008—believed to be extinct)

 Hawaiian monk seal

 Mediterranean monk seal (foreign, no U.S. 

stocks)

 Saimaa seal (foreign, no U.S. stocks)
368

OUR LIVING OCEANS

6 T H EDITION

Steller sea lion (Western DPS; listed as 

threatened in 1990, status changed to 

endangered in 1997)

Sea Turtles

Green turtle (Florida & Mexico’s Pacific Coast 

breeding colonies)

Hawksbill turtle

Kemp’s ridley turtle

Leatherback turtle

Olive ridley turtle (Mexico’s Pacific Coast 

breeding colonies)

THREATENED SPECIES

Marine and Anadromous Fishes

Chinook salmon (California coastal ESU; 

Central Valley spring-run ESU; Lower 

Columbia River ESU; Puget Sound ESU; 

Snake River fall-run ESU; Snake River 

spring/summer-run ESU; Upper Willamette 

River ESU)

Chum salmon (Columbia River ESU; Hood 

Canal summer-run ESU)

Coho salmon (Lower Columbia River ESU;

Oregon Coast ESU; Southern Oregon & 

Northern California coasts ESU)

Green sturgeon (southern DPS)

Gulf sturgeon

Sockeye salmon (Ozette Lake ESU)

Steelhead trout (Central California Coast DPS;

Central California Valley DPS; Lower 

Columbia River DPS; Middle Columbia 

River DPS; Northern California DPS; 

Puget Sound DPS; Snake River Basin DPS; 

South-Central California Coast DPS; Upper 

Columbia River DPS [listed as endangered in 

1997, status changed to threatened in 2006]; 

Upper Willamette River DPS )

Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

Marine Mammals

Guadalupe fur seal (foreign)

Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS)

Sea Turtles

Green turtle (all areas not listed as endangered)

Loggerhead turtle

Olive ridley turtle (all areas not listed as 

 endangered)

Marine Plants

Johnson’s seagrass

PROPOSED SPECIES

Marine and Anadromous Fishes

Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine other 

populations in streams and rivers in Maine 

outside the range of the listed Gulf of Maine 

DPS)

Invertebrates

Black abalone (Oregon, California, Baja 

 California)

Marine Mammals

Beluga whale (Cook Inlet population)

CANDIDATE SPECIES

Marine and Anadromous Fishes

Atlantic sturgeon (Atlantic coastal waters)

Bocaccio (Puget Sound)

Canary rockfish (Puget Sound)

Cusk

Greenstriped rockfish (Puget Sound)

Pacific eulachon/smelt (Washington, Oregon, 

and California)

Pacific herring (southeastern Alaska)

Redstripe rockfish (Puget Sound)

Yelloweye rockfish (Puget Sound)

Marine Mammals

Bearded seal

Ribbon seal

Ringed seal

Spotted seal
369

ESA LISTED SPECIES

APPENDIX 7

SPECIES OF CONCERN

Marine and Anadromous Fishes

Alabama shad (Gulf of Mexico–Alabama, 

Florida)

Alewife (Newfoundland to North Carolina)

Atlantic halibut (Labrador to southern New 

England)

Atlantic wolffish (Georges Bank and western 

Gulf of Maine)

Barndoor skate (Newfoundland, Canada to Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina)

Blueback herring (Cape Breton, Nova 

Scotia, to St. John’s River, Florida)

Bocaccio (Southern DPS: Northern California to 

Mexico)

Bumphead parrotfish (Indo-Pacific-Red Sea and

East Africa to the Line Islands and Samoa; 

north to Yaeyama, south to the Great Barrier

Reef and New Caledonia; Paulau, Caroline,

Mariana in Micronesia; in U.S. waters it 

occurs in Guam, American Samoa, CNMI, 

and the Pacific Remote Island Areas-Wake 

Islands)

Chinook salmon (Central Valley, fall and late 

fall-run ESU)

Coho salmon (Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia 

ESU)

Cowcod (Central Oregon to central Baja 

California and Guadalupe Island, Mexico)

Dusky shark (Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico; Pacific)

Green sturgeon (northern DPS, including coastal 

spawning populations from the Eel River 

north to the Klamath River)

Humphead wrasse (Indo-Pacific-Red Sea to 

Tuamotus, north to the Ryukyus, east to 

Wake Islands, south to New Caledonia, 

throughout Micronesia; includes U.S. 

territories of Guam and American Samoa)

Key silverside (Atlantic: Florida Keys) 

Largetooth sawfish (Atlantic: Texas–Florida)

Mangrove rivulus (Atlantic: Florida)

Nassau grouper (North Carolina southward to 

Gulf of Mexico)

Night shark (Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico)

Opossum pipefish (Atlantic: Florida; Indian 

River Lagoon)

Pacific hake (Georgia Basin DPS)

Porbeagle shark (Newfoundland, Canada to New 

Jersey)

Rainbow smelt (Labrador to New Jersey)

Saltmarsh topminnow (Atlantic: Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida)

Sand tiger shark (Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico) 

Speckled hind (North Carolina to Gulf of 

Mexico)

Steelhead trout (Oregon Coast ESU)

Striped croaker (Atlantic: Florida; Antilles and 

Caribbean from Costa Rica to Guyana)

Thorny skate (West Greenland to New York)

Warsaw grouper (Massachusetts southward to 

Gulf of Mexico)

White marlin (Atlantic)

Invertebrates

Green abalone (Point Conception, California to 

 Bahia de Magdalena, Mexico) 

Hawaiian reef coral (Hawaii: Kaneohe Bay; 

 Midway Atoll; and Maro Reef) 

Inarticulated brachiopod (Hawaii: Kaneohe Bay) 

Ivory bush coral (West Indies, Bermuda, 

North Carolina, Florida, Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean) 

Pink abalone (Point Conception, California, to 

Bahia de Tortuga, Mexico)

Pinto abalone (Sitka, Alaska, to Point 

 Conception, California)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2009–677/135