Estuarine Fish and Shellfish Species in 

U.S. Commercial and Recreational 

Fisheries: 

Economic Value as an Incentive to Protect and Restore 

Estuarine Habitat 

K. A. Lellis-Dibble, K. E. McGlynn, and T. E. Bigford 

November 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-90 
 
 

Estuarine Fish and Shellfish Species in 

U.S. Commercial and Recreational 

Fisheries: 

Economic Value as an Incentive to Protect and Restore 

Estuarine Habitat 

K. A. Lellis-Dibble1, K. E. McGlynn2, and T. E. Bigford3

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Habitat Conservation 

Habitat Protection Division 

November 2008 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-90 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutiérrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

 

1

 Current address: University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources Sciences, Coastal Institute 

in Kingston, 1 Greenhouse Road, Kingston, RI 02881. Email: kimberlylellis@yahoo.com 2

 Current address: Habitat Ecological Consulting, 182 East 9th Street #12C, New York, NY 10128. 

Email: kemcglynn@gmail.com 

3

 Current address: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, 1315 EastWest Highway, F/HP Room 14100, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Email: Thomas.bigford@noaa.gov 
 

Suggested citation: 

Lellis-Dibble, K. A., K. E. McGlynn, and T. E. Bigford. 2008. Estuarine Fish and Shellfish 

Species in U.S. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Economic Value as an Incentive to 

Protect and Restore Estuarine Habitat. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/SPO-90, 94 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Habitat Protection Division 

NOAA/NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation 

1315 East-West Highway, Rm 14100 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/wetlands/index5.htm
 iii

 ABSTRACT 

 Commercial and recreational fisheries generate billions of dollars each year for the 

U.S. economy. In 2006, 9.5 billion pounds of commercial catch was valued at $4.0 billion. 

This value is enhanced by the recreational fishing sector, whose 13 million recreational 

anglers caught 476 million fish in 2006, generating billions of dollars via small businesses 

such as tackle shops, restaurants, and hotels (Van Voorhees and Prichard 2007). 

 An analysis of U.S. commercial fishery landings from 2000 through 2004 

indicates that estuarine species1

 comprised approximately 46% by weight and 68% by 

value of the commercial fish and shellfish landed nationwide. A similar analysis of U.S. 

recreational landings indicates that for the same time period estuarine species comprised 

approximately 80% of the fish harvested nationwide. Those numbers, which are likely to 

be conservative given trends described in the Discussion section below, support the 

importance of efforts by NOAA and others to protect and restore estuarine habitats that 

provide the ecological basis for the majority of our nation’s commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Since many of the aquatic habitat types used by estuarine species may also be 

found outside estuaries, the value of species that use near shore and coastal wetland 

habitats is thought to be comparable to the value of estuary-using species to U.S. 

commercial landings and recreational harvest. NOAA uses that ecological connection 

and its legal mandates to focus its investment in protecting and restoring estuaries and 

coastal habitat. The agency’s efforts yield positive returns in fish population health, 

higher harvest levels, and associated socioeconomic benefits to coastal communities. 

 

1

 “Estuarine species” used in this report are finfish and shellfish that use estuaries during some stage of 

their life cycle. Estuaries are defined as zones where rivers and ocean waters mix to yield ecosystems with 

salinity ranges between oceanic and freshwater. 
 
 v

CONTENTS 

Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iii 

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 

Methods................................................................................................................................6 

Estuarine Use Determination...........................................................................................7 

NMFS Commercial Landings Data and Recreational Harvest Data.............................10 

Economic Analysis of Commercial and Recreational Species That Use Estuaries ......14 

Results................................................................................................................................15 

Commercial Landings of Estuarine Species..................................................................15 

Recreational Harvest of Estuarine Species....................................................................27 

Discussion..........................................................................................................................37 

Conclusions........................................................................................................................53 

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................54 

References..........................................................................................................................56 

Appendix A........................................................................................................................71 

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................82 

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................89 

Appendix D........................................................................................................................92 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 

Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water where freshwater mixes with 

oceanic saltwater to produce a mixed salinity environment. They extend from the 

landward edge of saltwater or tidal influence seaward to the boundary between mixedsalinity and oceanic saltwater (Heinz Center 2002). There is a vast diversity of estuaries 

throughout the United States, with some characterized by low-elevation, marshy 

shorelines whose freshwater inflow is derived from dendritic tributary tidal streams (i.e., 

South Carolina and Georgia), to lagoons bounded by barrier islands (i.e., North Carolina 

and Florida), to drowned continental valleys and glacially carved areas restricted by the 

Coast Range mountains (i.e., California, Oregon, and Washington) (Nelson and Monaco 

2000). 

Estuaries contain diverse aquatic habitat types, including seagrass and kelp beds, 

shellfish beds and coral reefs, hard-bottom communities of sponges and outcrops, softbottom communities with mud and sand, rocky inter-tidal zones, fringing mangrove 

forests, and vegetated marshes/wetlands (Heinz Center 2002; Nelson and Monaco 2000). 

These are highly productive environments that provide important forage, spawning, 

refuge, and nursery habitat for commercial, recreational, and forage fish species during 

one or more of their life history stages (Able 2005; Chambers 1992; Nelson and Monaco 

2000). 

Vegetated marshes/wetlands are important estuarine habitat that stabilize 

shorelines, protect uplands against erosion, and improve water quality by filtering 

pollutants and trapping fine sediments. Those same habitats also provide food and cover 
 2

for fish, invertebrates, birds, mammals, amphibians, and others. The high productivity of 

wetlands also plays a role in the cycling of food and nutrients within estuaries and in 

nearby coastal areas (Thayer et al. 2005). 

Although estuarine areas provide vital functions and services, including key 

habitat for economically and environmentally important species, their health is declining 

and continues to be at risk. The National Coastal Condition Report II (NCCR) (EPA 

2004)—released by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS)—reports that the nation’s estuarine resources are diminishing 

and continue to be threatened, receiving a “fair” rating on a scale of good, fair, and poor. 

Evaluation of sediment quality, water quality, benthic community condition, and coastal 

habitat loss indices as part of the NCCR II indicates that 28% of estuarine waters are 

impaired for aquatic life use.1

According to this report, the overall national coastal habitat 

condition, based on long-term wetland loss rates, is poor. 

The degraded and continued precarious state of the nation’s estuarine and other 

coastal resources is related to a history of high human population density in the narrow 

fringe along the U.S. coastline, among other stressors. This trend is projected to continue 

in the foreseeable future. An estimated 53% of the current U.S. population lives in 

coastal counties. This translates to more than half of the nation’s population living in 

17% of the U.S. land area, excluding Alaska2

 (NOS 2004). To accommodate coastal 

 

1

 Note: 0.1% of the 33,211 square miles of Alaskan coastal bays and estuaries have been surveyed. 

Therefore, the national statistic quoted (28%) for percent of estuarine water impairment would likely be 

altered if Alaskan lands were included in the NCCR II analysis. 

2

 Note: 45,000 square miles of Alaska coastline is excluded from this NOS 2004 analysis. The statistic for 

U.S. land area (17%) would decrease if the analysis included Alaska, (i.e., ≥53% of the current U.S. 

population lives in an area less than 17% of the U.S. land area). 

 
 3

population growth during the past century, human activities such as land development, 

water control, and agriculture have resulted in rapid estuarine and other coastal habitat 

loss and degradation, with negative effects on aquatic species. For example, habitat 

degradation and overfishing have depressed landings of some commercial species of fish 

and shellfish. In Chesapeake Bay, between 1995 and 2005, the landings of menhaden fell 

from 320,000 tons to 176,000 tons; from 1990-2005, the landings of shad fell from 395 

tons to 3.1 tons. In Atlantic coast estuaries, between 1985 and 2005, the landings of 

oysters, northern quahogs, soft shell clams, and bay scallops have declined by 87%, 49%, 

52%, and 94%, respectively (Phelan, pers. comm. 2007). 

Compounding the challenge of managing estuarine habitats is the parcity of 

scientific information about species and their habitats. In 1991, NOAA released the first 

national evaluation of coastal wetland distribution and aerial extent (Field et al. 1991). 

Unlike other national wetland trend reports, this evaluation defined coastal wetlands as 

wetlands in watersheds or drainage areas that surround estuarine waters, or within 

counties adjacent to marine waters. This expanded definition is important, particularly 

for evaluating estuarine health given linkages between the biological, physical, and 

hydrological components of freshwater wetlands (including streams and rivers) and 

saltwater wetlands in estuaries and coastal watersheds. Using this definition of coastal 

wetland, NOAA reported approximately 27.4 million acres of coastal wetlands in the 

continental United States,3 which accounted for one-third of the nation’s total wetlands at 

that time (Field et al. 1991). This analysis has not been updated to reflect recent changes. 

 

 

3

 “Continental United States” excludes Hawaii and Alaska. 

 
 4

FWS’ most recent status and trends report (Dahl 2006) reported promising news. 

For the first time in the study’s history there was an overall net gain in U.S. wetland 

acreage. According to that report, between 1998 and 2004 the continental United States 

gained an additional 191,750 acres of wetlands. This is a notable turnaround from the 

tremendous annual wetland loss rate of 458,000 acres per year estimated between the 

mid-1950s and the mid-1970s (Dahl 2006). This overall increase would not have 

occurred without the large increase in open water ponds, many of them artificial. 

In contrast to freshwater wetlands, estuarine and marine wetlands are still 

experiencing an annual average loss rate of approximately 4,740 acres, representing an 

increasingly large percentage of the last vestiges of this important habitat type. This 

decline is attributed to the natural and human-induced conversions of salt marsh to open 

water systems. Those losses from subsidence, dredging, and water control activities 

affect estuarine and coastal areas that serve as habitat for commercial, recreational, and 

forage species. Those estuarine habitats also provide ecosystem services such as shoreline 

stabilization and nutrient/toxin filtration; therefore, continued protection against their loss 

and degradation is important both ecologically and economically. 

A new analysis of the 1998 to 2004 FWS data (Stedman and Dahl, 2008) shows 

that coastal wetlands (all wetlands in coastal watersheds, including marine, estuarine, and 

freshwater) experienced a net loss of 59,000 acres a year during that time period. A 

majority (82%) of the loss occurred in freshwater coastal wetlands. Freshwater coastal 

wetlands are important habitat for species that migrate between marine waters and fresh 

water, and are also important for the hydrologic and water quality services they perform 

for downstream estuarine and marine water bodies. Their loss has a direct effect on the 

 
 5

functions of estuarine and marine ecosystems, including support for commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

A previous National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) analysis, prepared in 1992 

using fishery statistics from the 1980s, reported that estuarine species comprise a 

substantial portion of commercial and recreational landings by weight—an average of 

75% nationally with a maximum of 98% in the Gulf of Mexico (Chambers 1992). 

Similar reports by other agencies and organizations note the importance of estuarine and 

wetland habitats in supporting commercial and recreational fish harvest. The National 

Research Council (1997) reported that 85% of commercially harvested fish depend on 

estuaries and nearshore habitats for at least one life stage. The NCCR II report (EPA 

2004) indicates this value may be even higher - 95% of commercial fish and 85% of 

recreational fish use coastal wetlands and estuarine habitats. These numbers have been 

used to convey the importance of minimizing estuarine and coastal habitat loss and 

degradation, as well as the need to restore habitats degraded by human actions or natural 

events. 

This paper builds on those earlier efforts by calculating the value of estuarine 

species using updated fishery landing statistics from 2000 to 2004. Estuarine percentages 

generated by NRC (1997) and EPA (2004) cannot be directly compared to figures 

generated in this report due to differing methodologies, data sources, and estuarine 

species (i.e., fish, shellfish, and other estuarine-using species used to calculate 

percentages). In addition, since Chambers’ (1992) did not describe his methods, it is not 

possible to compare his percentages with this paper. To ease future analyses, our 

 
 6

evaluation of domestic landings use methods that use readily available data and can be 

replicated easily. 

METHODS 

This analysis: (1) developed a nationwide list of estuaries species by reviewing 

literature and consulting with NMFS scientists; (2) obtained commercial landings data 

and recreational harvest data for 2000 through 2004 from the NMFS Office of Science 

and Technology for fish and shellfish species on the national list (Appendix B); (3) 

calculated the national and regional percent4

 of commercial species landed (by weight 

and dollar value)5 that use estuaries during any stage of their life cycle; and (4) calculated 

the national and regional percent6 of recreational species harvested (by weight)7 that use 

estuaries during any stage of their life cycle. 

 

4

 National and regional estuarine percentages listed in this paper were calculated by taking the aggregate 

sum of estuarine commercial landings (by weight and value; see Appendix B for estuarine species used in 

this analysis) and estuarine recreational harvest (by weight) from 2000-2004, and then dividing the 

estuarine values by the aggregate sum of 2000-2004 nationwide and regional data for commercial landings 

and recreational harvest. 

5 Commercial landings are defined as quantities of fish and shellfish brought ashore and sold. Estuarine 

values in this paper are provided in pound weight and U.S. dollar value as collected and reported by the 

NMFS Office of Science and Technology. Pound weight are reported in terms of live or dressed weight. 

Crustacean landings are generally weighed when alive, although shrimp landings may be reported as 

dressed weight (heads-on, heads-off basis). Data for all mollusks are reported on a dressed, meat-weight 

basis (excludes shell weight). Dollar values refer to the ex-vessel price, which is the price paid to the 

harvester. Dollar values for 2000-2004 are reported as nominal values (current at the time of reporting), 

and have not been cost adjusted for inflation. 

6

 See footnote 4. 

7 Recreational harvest is defined as any fish that is killed and brought back to the dock, combined with fish 

that are used for bait, released dead, or filleted. Harvest is reported in this paper in pound weight, as 

collected and reported by NMFS. Weight estimates are minimums and may not reflect the actual total 

weight harvested by the recreational fishing sector. Recreational harvest is reported in weight only because 

dollar value is not reported in the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey. 

 
 

 

7

1. Estuarine Use Determination

A nationwide list of commercial and recreational species that use estuaries in any 

stage of their life cycle was developed during the first phase of this project. The list 

includes species identified in Fishery Management Plans (FMP), non-FMP commercial 

and recreational species, and forage species such as fish, mollusks, and crustaceans.8

 It is 

important to note that the species used to generate the statistics in this paper include both 

estuary-dependent and other estuary-using species (also referenced in scientific literature 

as “estuarine opportunists,” “estuarine-related,” or “estuarine-marine” species). An 

evaluation of the economic difference between obligate and facultative estuarine species 

is outside the scope of this study, mainly due to a lack of information regarding the 

degree to which many species use estuarine habitats (see Able 2005 for an in-depth 

discussion of estuary dependence and the associated information gaps). 

Estuary use by commercial and recreational fish and shellfish was determined via 

two steps: (1) the authors reviewed information on species’ relative abundance, density, 

distribution, preferred substrate, ideal temperature/depth,/salinity ranges, seasonality, and 

life history stage (e.g., eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adults) in which 

estuaries were used; (2) the authors used that information to prepare a preliminary 

nationwide list of species that use estuaries; and (3) NMFS scientists in Regional Offices 

and Fishery Science Centers commented on the preliminary list of estuarine species. 

Those comments were used to prepare a final nationwide list of estuarine species 

(Appendix B). 

 

8

 Although the nationwide list of estuarine species is based on the best scientific information available to 

us, we recognize this list is not a comprehensive inventory of every estuary-using fish and shellfish species 

found in U.S. waters. 
 

 

8

Documents Used to Determine Estuarine Use 

 Literature searches revealed many documents pertaining to commercial and 

recreational species’ use of estuaries, including NOAA Estuarine Living Marine 

Resource (ELMR) program reports, NOAA Technical Memoranda and scientific reports, 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designations in fishery management plans, environmental 

and living resource publications by other agencies, and peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

NOAA ELMR program reports provide information on the presence, distribution, 

abundance, and life history characteristics of economically and ecologically important 

fish and invertebrate species in estuarine environments (Nelson and Monaco 2000). 

Regional data and life history summaries from that program include reports for the north 

Atlantic (Jury et al. 1994), mid-Atlantic (Stone et al. 1994), southeast (Nelson et al. 

1991), Gulf of Mexico (Nelson et al. 1992; Pattillo et al. 1997), and the west coast 

(Emmett et al. 1991; Monaco et al. 1990). 

NOAA Technical Memoranda (TM) are published by NMFS Regional and 

Headquarters Offices and Fishery Science Centers and are used for timely documentation 

and communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or more localized or special 

purpose information that may not have received formal outside peer reviews or detailed 

editing. NMFS Offices and Science Centers review the technical accuracy of information 

published in TMs. 

EFH designations have been compiled by the eight regional fishery management 

councils and the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, with assistance from NMFS 
 9

Regional Offices and Fishery Science Centers and the three interstate marine fisheries 

commissions. EFH includes “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Information supporting EFH designations 

includes: literature searches; historical accounts; NMFS inshore and offshore trawl 

surveys; NMFS Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) 

ichthyoplankton surveys; exploratory trapping; transect dives; geospatial information; 

SEAMAP bottom mapping projects; and ELMR data. 

Additional information sources included publications by other agencies and peerreviewed scientific journal articles, reports, and books. For this analysis, 61 journal 

articles, reports, and books beyond those used for EFH designations were reviewed for 

species’ use of estuaries. 

After a thorough review of the aforementioned sources of information on 

estuarine habitat use, a preliminary nationwide list was drafted of finfish and shellfish 

species that use estuaries. The common and scientific names of the species on this list 

were then verified with the following American Fisheries Society publications: (1) 

Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico (6th

ed.) (Nelson et al. 2004); (2) Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates 

from the United States and Canada: Mollusks (Turgeon et al. 1988); and (3) Common 

and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: 

Decapod Crustaceans (Williams et al. 1988). 

 
 10

Review of Nationwide Estuarine Species List by NMFS Regions and Science Centers 

The second step in classifying a species as estuarine included a confirmation of 

the species’ estuarine use by NMFS scientists in Regional Offices and Fishery Science 

Centers. Each reviewer examined the nationwide estuarine species list to determine: (1) 

whether any species on the list were not estuary users; and (2) whether any omitted 

species warranted estuarine status. Reviewer recommendations on estuarine status were 

then compiled and incorporated into the final nationwide estuarine species list (see 

Appendix B). 

2. NMFS Commercial Landings Data and Recreational Harvest Data 

NMFS and its predecessor agencies (U.S. Fish Commission and the Bureau of 

Commercial Fisheries) have collected fisheries landings data since 1880, with 

comprehensive surveys of species landed in each coastal state since 1951. NMFS 

currently compiles commercial landings data (by weight and value) and recreational 

harvest data (by weight) for fish and shellfish species caught in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone, in U.S. territorial seas, and by domestic vessels on the high seas. As 

described below, different methodologies are used to gather data—commercial data are 

collected at the dock when fish are landed, whereas recreational data are collected via 

two independent surveys. 

 
 11

Commercial Landings Data 

 Commercial fisheries data are collected at U.S. ports by NMFS regional staff by 

measuring the weight and quantity of fish and shellfish landed.9 Weight, quantity, and 

ex-vessel value data are computed monthly and annually by gear type, distance from 

shore, state, sub-region, and nationwide. Those commercial data have been divided into 

the following regions: the north Atlantic including coastal states from Maine through 

Delaware; the Chesapeake including Maryland and Virginia (includes landings from the 

Chesapeake Bay and offshore waters of Maryland and Virginia); the south Atlantic 

including North Carolina through the east coast of Florida; the Gulf of Mexico including 

the coastal states from the west coast of Florida through Texas; the state of California; the 

Pacific northwest including Oregon and Washington; the state of Alaska; and the 

Hawaiian Islands region including only Hawaii.10 

Commercial landings provided by NMFS included data for individual species 

(e.g., Atlantic cod, sockeye salmon, etc.) or group of species at the sub-phylum, class, 

order, family, or genus level (e.g., Crustacea, Bivalvia, Pleuronectiformes, Serranidae, 

Seriola, etc.). When landings data were provided by species grouping, it was not possible 

to determine which portion of the landings was attributed to estuarine species. The 

decision to include a species grouping toward the calculation of estuarine species in U.S. 

commercial landings was based on best professional judgment and an estimate of 

individual estuarine species in that particular grouping. The recalculation of estuarine 

 

9

 In the northeastern Pacific, groundfish species caught and processed at sea aboard U.S. vessels are 

credited as landings to the state nearest the area of capture. 10 Commercial and recreational fishing data from Pacific Island territories (other than Hawaii) were not 

available and therefore not included in the commercial or recreational analysis; data on Caribbean landings 

were available only for recreational species and therefore the Caribbean is not included in the commercial 

analysis. 

 
 12

species in commercial landings was performed using a “conservative” and “very 

conservative” selection from the NMFS commercial list, with a conservative selection 

containing fewer species groupings and the very conservative selection containing almost 

none. Reducing or omitting the larger species grouping had little effect on the 

nationwide percentages of estuarine species in commercial landings (reduction in 1% by 

weight and 3% by value), indicating that these larger taxonomic groupings make up only 

a small portion of the national estuarine landings. The accepted estuarine species used to 

calculate landings data were based on the conservative selection combined with finfish 

and shellfish species groupings (e.g., shrimp) primarily containing estuary users. 

Therefore, species groupings reported in commercial and recreational landings herein 

contain individual species (e.g., Pacific, Atlantic, and blueback herring) and species 

groupings (e.g., herrings), and are referred to by species grouping (e.g., herrings). See 

Appendix C for the specific species and species groupings used to calculate the nation’s 

commercial estuarine percentages. 

Recreational Harvest Data 

 Recreational fishing effort, catch, and participation data are collected by the 

NMFS Fisheries Statistics Division via the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS)11, which consists of two independent yet complementary surveys: (1) a 

telephone survey of households; and (2) an intercept survey of anglers at fishing access 

sites. Telephone surveys of fishing and non-fishing households produce statistics on 

recreational fishing effort and participation. These statistics are based on questions asked 

 

11 Methodology used in the MRFSS can be found in Chapter 1: Survey Methodology, in the MRFSS Data 

User’s Manual, available online at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/pubs/data_users/index.html. 

 
 13

during telephone surveys pertaining to the number of trips made in the previous two 

months, dates on which those fishing trips were made, and locations fished.12 Intercept 

surveys consist of on-site interviews with marine recreational anglers, in which catch, 

demographic, and avidity (trips per year) data are collected for three fishing modes: (1) 

party/charter boat; (2) private/rental boat; and (3) shore based (e.g., beaches, banks, and 

man-made structures such as docks). Information gathered during intercept surveys 

includes species, number, and weights and lengths of fish caught. Data from the 

telephone and intercept surveys are combined with U.S. Bureau of the Census data to 

produce estimates of catch, effort, and total participation in each mode and area of fishing 

activity in each state and sub-region.13 

NMFS provided recreational fishing data14 by regions: the north Atlantic 

including coastal states from Maine south to Connecticut; the mid-Atlantic from New 

York south to Virginia; the south Atlantic from North Carolina through the east coast of 

Florida; the Gulf of Mexico from the west coast of Florida through Louisiana; the 

 

12 Telephone surveys focus on households located in counties within 25 miles of an ocean coastline, 

including estuaries and bays. In the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico subregions during May through 

October, telephone surveys are extended to households located within 50 miles of the coast. In North 

Carolina, sampling effort is extended to 50 miles from the coast during November to April, and extended 

farther to 100 miles from the coastline during May through October. The extended telephone sampling 

effort in North Carolina is due to the high proportion of non-coastal anglers sampled in intercept surveys. 13 In the south Atlantic and Gulf subregions the MRFSS has not collected catch data from headboats (i.e., 

“party boats”—large number of anglers (~100) taken out to fish) since 1985, so estimates for these 

subregions now only include charter boats (fewer anglers in a small boat, ~4–8 people). The Texas 

Department of Parks and Wildlife monitors marine recreational fishing via the Texas Marine Recreational 

Fishing Survey and has not contributed data to the national MRFSS database since 1985. In addition, on 

the Pacific coast, ocean boat trips during certain time periods and salmon trips are not sampled because 

they are surveyed through the state natural resource agencies. Alaska conducts its Sport Fish Statewide 

Harvest Survey and does not contribute data to the national MRFSS database, so this analysis does not 

include data from Alaska. Hawaii started contributing to the MRFSS in 2003, rendering an incomplete data 

set from 2000 to 2004, so the authors did not include Hawaiian data in their analysis. 

14 The MRFSS gathers information on recreational fish species harvested; recreational data are not 

collected for shellfish species such as oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp. 

Therefore, this paper reports on the weight of fish (not shellfish) harvested in the U.S. recreational fishing 

sector. 

 
 14

Caribbean including Puerto Rico; the state of California; and the Pacific northwest 

including Oregon and Washington (see Appendix D for the specific species and species 

groupings used to calculate the nation’s recreational estuarine percentages). 

3. Economic Analysis of Commercial and Recreational Species That Use Estuaries

 The first phase of this project involved the development and verification of a 

nationwide estuarine species list (see Appendix B), and the second phase encompassed 

the compilation of 2000–2004 commercial landings data and recreational harvest data for 

those species on the nationwide estuarine species list. The third and fourth phases of this 

project involved the computation of national and regional statistics on the proportion of 

commercial species landed (by weight and dollar value) and recreational species 

harvested (by weight) that use estuaries for any stage during their life cycle (Tables 1, 2, 

and 4, and Figures 1-3). This paper also presents the national top 10 estuarine species in 

U.S. commercial and recreational fish and shellfish fisheries from 2000 to 2004 (Tables 3 

and 5) and a breakdown of top estuarine commercial and recreational fish and shellfish in 

each region (Appendix A, Tables A-1 through A-14). The regional analysis for 

recreational data is presented as the top 10 estuarine species; the commercial analysis is 

also based on the top 10 species, but is limited to species that make up at least 1% by 

weight or dollar value of the total regional landings. 

 Taken together, these estuarine statistics provide a snapshot of estuarine 

importance to U.S. fisheries in terms as a proportion of total weight (commercial and 

recreational) and economic value (commercial) of fish that use estuaries for any stage of 

their life cycle.

 
 15

RESULTS 

1. Commercial Landings of Estuarine Species 

 Commercial fisheries landings data were obtained from NMFS for 2000 through 

2004. Of the approximately 450 fish and shellfish species or species groupings landed 

during this time period, approximately 200 were identified as estuarine (see Appendix C) 

and used to determine the estuarine value of commercial fisheries.15 Analysis indicates 

that from 2000 to 2004 estuarine species comprised approximately 46% by weight and 

68% by value of the total U.S. commercial landings. Those years are thought to be 

representative of other time frames. 

The percent of estuarine landings in fisheries varies by region, and is highest in 

the Chesapeake region (Maryland, Virginia, and Chesapeake Bay) where 98% of the 

commercial landings (by weight) are estuarine (Table 1). This is due to high landings of 

Atlantic menhaden and crabs. Table 1 lists the regional percentages of estuarine landings 

throughout the United States. According to these numbers, most of the fish and shellfish 

landed in the Chesapeake, Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic, south Atlantic and Pacific 

northwest use estuaries for at least one stage of their life cycle. Additionally, a high 

percentage of the species landed in California use estuaries. The Hawaiian Islands and 

Alaska have a lower percent of estuarine species in their regional landings by both weight 

and dollar value. 

 

15 In addition to the ~450 species of fish and shellfish, U.S. commercial landings for 2000–2004 also 

included 20 species groupings excluded from this evaluation because they were not fish or shellfish. They 

included seaweeds, sponges, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, jellyfish, sandworms, starfish, echinoderms, etc. 

 
 16

Table 1. Commercial Estuarine Landings as Percent of Catch in Each Region and for 

Entire Nation (by weight and value, rounded), 2000–2004. 

Estuarine Landings (by weight) Estuarine Landings (by value) 

Chesapeake 98% Chesapeake 97% 

Gulf of Mexico 97% Gulf of Mexico 93% 

South Atlantic 87% North Atlantic 83% 

North Atlantic 77% South Atlantic 83% 

Pacific Northwest 76% Pacific Northwest 73% 

California 49% California 50% 

Alaska 15% Alaska 32% 

Hawaii 2% Hawaii 3% 

Nationwide 46% Nationwide 68% 

 

The rankings in Table 1 differ when considering the percent of regional 

contribution to total national estuarine landings. The Gulf of Mexico led the regional 

estuarine contribution (by weight) by providing 38% of all national estuarine pounds, and 

the north Atlantic region led the regional estuarine contribution (by value) with 32% of 

all national estuarine dollars from 2000–2004 (Table 2). Note the numbers in Table 2 

reflect totals during a five year period, not an annual mean during any one year. These 

high percentages are due to the substantial Atlantic menhaden fishery, as well as shrimp, 

oyster, and crab fisheries (Table A-4, Appendix A). Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 show 

regional contributions to total national estuarine landings. 

 
 17

Table 2. Regional Contribution to National Commercial Estuarine Landings (by weight 

and value; rounded), 2000–2004. 

Region 

2000–2004 

Commercial 

Estuarine 

Landings 

(weight in lbs) 

Percent of 

National 

Comm. 

Estuarine 

Landings 

Region 

2000–2004 

Commercial 

Estuarine 

Landings 

(value in $) 

Percent of 

National 

Comm. 

Estuarine 

Landings 

Gulf of 

Mexico 7,964,226,642 38% North Atlantic $3,628,131,288 32% 

Alaska 3,758,219,974 18% Gulf of 

Mexico $3,586,776,369 31% 

North 

Atlantic 3,200,386,320 15% Alaska $1,521,265,608 13% 

Chesapeake 2,579,111,548 12% Chesapeake $885,998,184 8% 

Pacific 

Northwest 1,537,169,333 7% Pacific Northwest $838,634,606 7% 

California 935,943,498 4% South 

Atlantic $719,410,846 6% 

South 

Atlantic 897,741,014 4% California $298,298,123 3% 

Hawaii 2,279,240 <1% Hawaii $8,909,821 <1% 

Nationwide 20,875,077,569 100% Nationwide $11,487,424,845 100% 

 
 18

 Figure 1. Regional Contribution to National Commercial Estuarine Landings (by weight), 

2000–2004. 

North Atlantic

15%

Chesapeake

12%

Pacific 

Northwest

7%

California

4%

South Atlantic

4%

Alaska

18%

Gulf of Mexico

38%

Hawaii

<1%

Figure 2. Regional Contribution to National Commercial Estuarine Landings (by value), 

2000–2004. 

North Atlantic

32%

Gulf of Mexico

31%

Alaska

13%

Chesapeake

8%

Pacific Northwest

7%

South Atlantic

6%

California

3%

Hawaii

<1%

Although approximately 200 commercial species or groups of species were 

identified as estuarine (see Appendix C), the majority of estuarine landings are generated 

by only a few species and species groups, notably Atlantic menhaden, salmon, shrimps, 

 
 19

crabs, and lobsters (Table 3). Atlantic menhaden contributes the most to national 

commercial pounds, comprising 18% of the nation’s estuarine landings by weight, 

followed by salmon at 7% (Table 3). Shrimp is the estuarine species group that generated 

the highest percentage (15%) of commercial dollars from 2000–2004, followed by two 

other shellfish species groups, crabs at 11%, and lobsters at 10%. Table 3 lists the top 10 

estuarine species landed by U.S. commercial fisheries according to weight and dollar 

value. This table is dominated by species groupings for shrimps, crabs, lobsters, salmon, 

scallops, clams, and herrings. Where NMFS data allow, the primary contributors for these 

groupings (e.g., brown and white shrimps for that category) are discussed in the regional 

results below. 

Table 3. Top 10 Estuarine Fish and Shellfish in Commercial Landings (by weight and 

value, rounded), 2000–2004. 

Rank 

Top 10 Estuarine 

Species in U.S. 

Commercial Landings 

(by weight) 

Percent of 

National 

Commercial 

Pounds 

Top 10 Estuarine 

Species in U.S. 

Commercial Landings 

(by dollar value) 

Percent of 

National 

Commercial 

Dollars 

1 Atlantic menhaden, 

Brevoortia tyrannus 

18% Shrimps 15% 

2 Salmon, Oncorhynchus

spp. 

7% Crabs 11% 

3 Shrimps 3% Lobsters 10% 

4 Crabs 3% Salmon, 

Oncorhynchus spp. 

7% 

5 Herrings 3% Scallops 6% 

6 Pacific sardine, 

Sardinops sagax 2% Clams 3% 

7 Pacific hake (whiting), 

Merluccius productus 2% Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus

3% 

8 Lobsters 1% Eastern oyster, 

Crassostrea virginica 2% 

9 

Spanish mackerel, 

Scomberomorus 

maculatus 

1% Pacific oyster, 

Crassostrea gigas 1% 

10 Scallops 1% Atlantic cod, 

Gadus morhua 1% 

 
 20

The North Atlantic Region landed approximately 4.1 billion pounds of fish and 

shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $4.3 billion. Approximately 77% of 

these landed pounds, and 83% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). The north Atlantic region comprises 15% by weight and 32% by 

value of all national estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As 

listed in Table A-1 (Appendix A) the top estuarine species landed in the north Atlantic 

region by weight are Atlantic herring (22% of total north Atlantic commercial landings), 

American lobster (10%), and the mackerel group (7%). Atlantic mackerel was the 

primary contributor to the mackerel species grouping. Top estuarine species by value are 

American lobster (35%), scallops (18%), and clams (7%). Sea scallops are the primary 

contributor to the scallop species grouping, and quahogs and soft-shell clams are the 

primary contributors to the clam species grouping. 

The Chesapeake Region (Maryland, Virginia, and Chesapeake Bay) landed 

approximately 2.6 billion pounds of fish and shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more 

than $908 million. Approximately 98% of these landed pounds, and 97% of their dollar 

value, are attributed to estuarine fish and shellfish (Table 1). The Chesapeake region 

comprises 12% by weight and 8% by value of all national estuarine landings in the 

United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As listed in Table A-2 (Appendix A), the top 

estuarine species landed in the Chesapeake region by weight are Atlantic menhaden (77% 

of total Chesapeake commercial landings), crabs (10%), and sea scallops (3%). The top 

Chesapeake estuarine species by value are sea scallops (34%), crabs (31%), and Atlantic 

menhaden (14%). Blue crab is the primary contributor to the Chesapeake crab species 

grouping in both weight and dollar value. 

 
 

 

21

Profile: Atlantic Menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus) 

Photo: NOAA Photo Library 

Life History and Habitat Use 

Estuaries are particularly important to species such as Atlantic menhaden, which are transported 

inshore as larvae and spend most of their early developmental stage in estuarine waters. The 

Chesapeake Bay, which is the largest estuary on the east coast of North America, provides an 

important nursery ground for filter-feeding juvenile menhaden. Larval and juvenile Atlantic 

menhaden enter estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay to feed on rich supplies of plankton. After 

the species quadruples in size, they migrate south to North Carolina where they overwinter and 

become prey for species such as striped bass, bluefish, sea trout, Spanish mackerel, tuna, sharks, 

marine mammals, herons, egrets, ospreys, and eagles. Atlantic menhaden are considered a major 

forage species in estuarine and marine environments, and are known to use estuaries and 

nearshore marine habitats during their sub-adult and adult life history stages. 

Commercial Landings 

Atlantic menhaden was the #1 estuarine fish landed by weight from 2000–2004 in the United 

States commercial fishing industry, accounting for 18% (8.3 billion lbs) of the nation’s total 

commercial landings over the five-year time span. This oily fish species is prized as bait or 

processed and used in: (1) protein meal; (2) paints; (3) crop fertilizer; and (4) food additives 

(ASMFC 2007). 

Threats to Habitat 

A robust menhaden population depends on healthy estuaries for survival from larval to adult. As 

coastal development, eutrophication, pollutant runoff, dead zones, overfishing, dredging/filling, 

and other environmental impacts affect habitat in Chesapeake Bay, the menhaden’s population 

could become depressed, thereby affecting other populations that depend on this keystone 

species. Since Atlantic menhaden accounted for 77% of the Chesapeake region’s commercial 

landings from 2000–2004, actions to protect and restore estuarine habitats are of utmost 

importance. 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

Fisheries management in the Chesapeake Bay is currently transitioning from traditional singlespecies management to ecosystem-based fisheries management (including Atlantic menhaden). 

This shift is beneficial because it seeks to protect, enhance, and restore living resources, their 

habitats, and ecological relationships. 
 22

The South Atlantic Region landed approximately 1.0 billion pounds of fish and 

shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $871 million. Approximately 87% of 

these landed pounds, and 83% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). The south Atlantic region comprises 4% by weight and 6% by value 

of all national estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As listed in 

Table A-3 (Appendix A), the top estuarine species landed in the south Atlantic region by 

weight are Atlantic menhaden (27% of total south Atlantic commercial landings), crabs 

(23%), and shrimps (11%). The top south Atlantic estuarine species by value are shrimps 

(28%), crabs (25%), and flatfish (6%). Like the Chesapeake region, blue crab is the 

primary contributor to the crab species grouping. Brown and white shrimp are the major 

contributors to the south Atlantic shrimp species grouping. 

The Gulf of Mexico Region landed approximately 8.2 billion pounds of fish and 

shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $3.8 billion. Approximately 97% of 

these landed pounds, and 93% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). The Gulf of Mexico is the largest contributor to the nation’s estuarine 

landings (by weight), amounting to 38% of the estuarine weight and 31% of the 

economic revenue gained via estuarine fish landings (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As listed in 

Table A-4 (Appendix A), the top estuarine species landed in the Gulf of Mexico by 

weight are Atlantic menhaden (72%), shrimps (15%), and crabs (4%). The top Gulf of 

Mexico estuarine species by value are shrimps (58%), Atlantic menhaden (9%), and crabs 

(9%). Like the south Atlantic region, brown and white shrimp are the major contributors 

to the Gulf of Mexico shrimp group. Blue crab is the primary contributor to the crab 

species grouping, with additional numbers provided by Florida stone crabs. 

 
 

 

23

Profile: Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.)

Photo: NMFS Southwest Regional Office (Chinook salmon) 

Life History and Habitat Use

Freshwater streams and estuaries provide important habitat for salmon species such as Chinook, 

coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon. Salmon are an anadromous species that spend most of 

their adult lives in saltwater but must travel to their natal freshwater streams and rivers to spawn. 

Salmon depend on healthy spawning habitat containing gravel, cool water, and good water flow 

(oxygen supply). Fry and smolts spend up to 2 years in freshwater, after which they migrate 

downstream to estuaries. Estuaries and their associated wetland habitats provide vital nursery 

habitat, in which salmon may spend approximately 6 months feeding on terrestrial and aquatic 

insects, amphipods, crustaceans, and small fish. After leaving the estuary, salmon may live in the 

open ocean for up to 8 years before returning to their natal freshwater streams and rivers to spawn 

and complete their life cycle (PSMFC 2007). 

Commercial Landings and Recreational Harvest 

The salmon fishery is an important commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery in 

California, the Pacific northwest, and Alaska. Nationwide, commercial landings of salmon 

generated $1.1 billion in economic revenue and was the #2 estuarine fish landed (by weight, 3.3 

billion lbs) in the United States from 2000–2004. In Alaska, salmon accounts for 20% of the 

economic revenue generated in the commercial fishing industry (Table A-5). Salmon supports an 

important recreational fishery that generates millions of dollars in revenue for the Pacific states. 

Chinook salmon was the #1 fish harvested recreationally off California, accounting for 15% of 

the regions recreational harvest from 2000-2002. In the Pacific northwest, Chinook, coho, chum, 

and pink salmon accounted for 58% of the regions total recreational harvest from 2000 to 2002, 

with more than 20 million pounds harvested. Salmon is also a highly coveted subsistence species 

and many Native American tribes depend on a healthy salmon fishery for food and cultural needs.

Threats to Habitat 

Human induced changes in habitat, such as altered freshwater flows due to dam construction and 

operations, lack of fish passage, pollutant runoff, high water temperatures, wetland destruction, 

poor forestry practices, and loss of stream cover have adversely affected salmon habitat in rivers 

and streams along the Pacific coast. Since salmon must migrate to native spawning habitat to 

reproduce and complete their life cycle, it is necessary for rivers to have adequate flow and fish 

passage structures around impediments (e.g., hydropower dams). 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

As provided under the Federal Power Act, NMFS works with federal and state agencies during 

the hydropower licensing process to ensure migratory fish such as salmon have adequate passage 

around dams to reach their natal spawning habitat and to ensure the hydrology of the river is 

conducive to fish survival. NMFS issues mandatory Section 18 fishway prescriptions and 

Section 4(e) flow recommendations to achieve those results. Flow recommendations benefit 

migratory and estuarine species alike, because adequate freshwater flow will ensure aquatic 

habitat conditions remain tolerable to all species. 
 24

The state of Alaska landed approximately 25.2 billion pounds of fish and shellfish 

from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $4.7 billion. Approximately 15% of these landed 

pounds, and 32% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and shellfish (Table 

1). The state of Alaska comprises 18% by weight and 13% by value of all national 

estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As listed in Table A-5 

(Appendix A), the top estuarine species landed in Alaska by weight are salmon (12% of 

Alaska’s total commercial landings) and Pacific herring (1%). The top Alaskan estuarine 

species by value are salmon (20%), crabs (10%), and Pacific herring (1%). Sockeye and 

pink salmon are the top contributors to the salmon species group. 

The state of California landed approximately 1.9 billion pounds of fish and 

shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $594 million. Approximately 49% of 

these landed pounds, and 50% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). California comprises 4% by weight and 3% by value of all national 

estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). As listed in Table A-6 

(Appendix A), the top estuarine species landed in California by weight are Pacific sardine 

(28% of California’s commercial landings), northern anchovy (5%), and chub mackerel 

(5%). The top Californian estuarine species by value are crabs (20%), Chinook salmon 

(9%), and the Pacific oyster (5%). Dungeness crab is the top contributor to the crab 

species group in California. 

The Pacific Northwest Region landed approximately 2.0 billion pounds of fish 

and shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $1.1 billion. Approximately 76% 

of these landed pounds, and 73% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). The Pacific northwest region comprises 7% by both weight and 

 
 25

dollar value of all national estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 2). 

As listed in Table A-7 (Appendix A), the top estuarine species landed in the Pacific 

northwest region by weight are Pacific hake (36% of total regional commercial landings), 

Pacific sardine (17%), and crabs (9%). The top Pacific northwest estuarine species by 

value are crabs (30%), clams (15%), and oysters (12%). Dungeness crab is the top 

contributor to the crab species group in the Pacific northwest region. The Pacific geoduck 

clam and the manila clam are the top contributors to the estuarine clam species group. 

The Pacific oyster is the primary contributor to the estuarine oyster species group in the 

Pacific northwest region.

 The Hawaiian Islands Region landed approximately 128 million pounds of fish 

and shellfish from 2000 to 2004, valued at more than $284 million. Approximately 2% 

of these landed pounds, and 3% of their dollar value, are attributed to estuarine fish and 

shellfish (Table 1). The Hawaiian Islands region comprises less than 1% by both weight 

and dollar value of all national estuarine landings in the United States (Table 2; Figs. 1, 

2). Only one estuarine species group, the snappers, comprised more than 1% of the total 

regional catch. The snapper species group comprised approximately 1% by weight and 

2% by value of the total regional Hawaiian commercial landings. 

 
 

 

26

Profile: Shrimp 

Photo: NOAA (in Graff and Middleton 2002)

Life History and Habitat Use 

Brown, white, and pink shrimp are the most common species of shrimp found in southern 

estuaries (Nelson et al. 1991, 1992). Shrimp spawn in the open ocean and drift into estuaries and 

salt marshes, habitats critically needed by shrimp to grow, evade predators, and ensure survival 

during postlarval and juvenile life history stages. Juvenile shrimp eat detritus and algae that grow 

on marsh plants such as rooted vegetation, bottomland forests, marsh grasses, seagrass, and 

mangroves (Graff and Middleton 2002; NMFS, In prep.). 

Commercial Landings 

The commercial shrimp fishery generated the highest economic revenue from 2000 to 2004 (over 

$2.5 billion) when ranked against revenues generated by other estuary-using species. 

Commercial shrimp landings comprised 15% of the nation’s commercial landings (by value—

Table 3), with the south Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and California regions contributing the most to 

nationwide landings of shrimp. 

Threats to Habitat 

A major threat to shrimp habitat is loss of coastal wetlands, which provide shrimp with protective 

cover to reduce predation as well as increased resources for growth to maturity (Zimmerman et al. 

2000). Another habitat threat for the species is hypoxic zone expansion in the Gulf of Mexico, 

which has been shown to decrease brown shrimp catch (O’Connor and Whitall 2007; Zimmerman 

and Nance 2001). Recently, NMFS scientists have reported that a 1-acre increase in hypoxia 

represents a decrease of 2 pounds of brown shrimp catch, while a 1-acre increase in nursery 

habitat can yield a gain in catch of 6 pounds of brown shrimp (Zimmerman et al. 2007). 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

The NOAA Restoration Center is conducting large-scale habitat protection and restoration 

projects via the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act. These projects 

conserve marsh habitats that support shrimp and other NOAA trust resources. In addition, 

regional habitat conservation programs use regulatory and other tools to protect habitat from 

degradation and loss. Together, both habitat conservation approaches aim to increase estuarine 

habitats to support species such as shrimp. 

Conservation Issue: Bycatch in the Commercial Shrimp Fishery 

Throughout the United States, a major issue for NMFS is the unintentional capture of non-target 

species during fishing activities (i.e., “bycatch”), representing a major source of mortality within 

the ecosystem. For example, red snapper is not in itself an estuarine species, but it is caught 

unintentionally in large numbers by commercial shrimp fishermen. Non-target species removals 

adversely affect other fisheries (red snapper), but also affect ecosystem health by altering trophic 

food webs and ecosystem productivity. To help resolve this issue, NMFS is developing a 

National Bycatch Report that may be used to address such bycatch of non-target species. 
 27

2. Recreational Harvest of Estuarine Species

Recreational harvest data provided by NMFS for 2000–2004 were used to 

calculate the total U.S. and regional recreational fishing harvest of estuarine species. Of 

the approximately 600 species or species groupings on the nationwide estuarine species 

list (see Appendix B), NMFS provided recreational harvest data for approximately 250 

(see Appendix D). Nationwide, the 2000–2004 recreational harvest totaled 1.2 billion 

pounds, with 958 million pounds coming from estuarine species. Analysis of these data 

indicates that from 2000 to 2004 estuarine species comprised approximately 80% of the 

fish harvested recreationally in the United States16 (Table 4). 

The proportion of estuarine species harvested recreationally is high in many 

regions, with at least 54% of species recreationally harvested in every region using 

estuarine habitat during at least one stage of their life cycle (with the sole exception of the 

Caribbean at 19%) (Table 4). Estuarine harvest varies among regions and is highest in 

the north Atlantic, where 98% of the recreational fish harvested are estuary users. This is 

likely due to the high landings of striped bass, Atlantic cod, and bluefish (Table A-8, 

Appendix A). The mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific northwest regions’ 

recreational harvest data from 2000–2004 also show a high proportion of estuary users 

(90%, 87%, and 74%, respectively—Table 4). The proportion of estuarine harvest in the 

south Atlantic region and in California ranges from 54–61%. The Caribbean region had 

the smallest proportion of harvest contributed by estuary users (19%–Table 4). 

 

16 The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) does not collect recreational data for 

shellfish harvest (i.e., species such as oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp). This 

paper reports on the weight of fish (not shellfish) harvested in the U.S. recreational fishing sector. Since 

several of the top ten estuarine fish and shellfish in commercial landings were shellfish, the national 

recreational estuarine percentage would likely have been >80% if MRFSS reported data on both finfish and 

shellfish recreational harvest. 

 
 28

Table 4. Recreational Estuarine Harvest Compared to Total Recreational Harvest (all 

areas) in Each Region (by weight in pounds), 2000–2004.17

Region Recreational Harvest 

(weight in lbs) 

Estuarine Harvest 

(weight in lbs) 

Percent of 

Recreational 

Harvest from 

Estuarine 

Species 

North Atlantic 133,833,465 130,758,196 98% 

Mid-Atlantic 297,378,386 266,259,991 90% 

Gulf of Mexico 382,754,961 334,095,800 87% 

Pacific Northwest 35,036,943 26,004,296 74% 

South Atlantic 266,489,755 161,269,131 61% 

California 68,967,595 37,393,196 54% 

Caribbean 16,390,206 3,160,429 19% 

Nationwide 1,200,851,311 958,941,039 80% 

The Gulf of Mexico, mid-Atlantic, south Atlantic, and north Atlantic regions 

contribute the largest proportion of estuarine fish harvested recreationally (Figure 3). Of 

the total recreational harvest, the Gulf of Mexico contributes the highest proportion of 

estuarine fish, representing 35% of the nation’s estuarine harvest (Figure 3). This is 

likely due to the large numbers of red drum, spotted seatrout, and sheepshead harvested 

recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico (Table A-11, Appendix A). Estuarine fish harvested 

in the mid-Atlantic region represent 28% of the nation’s estuarine harvest (Figure 3), 

largely driven by the striped bass, summer flounder, and Atlantic croaker fisheries (Table 

A-9, Appendix A). The south Atlantic contributes 17% to the nationwide harvest of 

estuarine species, while the north Atlantic region contributes 14%. Overall, California, 

the Pacific northwest, and the Caribbean contribute the least to nationwide estuarine 

harvest, with a combined contribution of less than 8% (Figure 3). However, it is 

 

17 Alaska conducts its Sport Fish Statewide Harvest Survey and does not contribute data to the national 

MRFSS database, so this analysis does not include data from Alaska. Hawaii started contributing to the 

MRFSS in 2003, rendering an incomplete data set from 2000 to 2004, so the authors did not include 

Hawaiian data in their analysis. 

 
 29

important to note that we analyzed only 2000–2002 recreational data for California and 

the Pacific northwest, rather than data for the entire 2000–2004 time period (see footnote 

18).18

Figure 3. Regional Contribution to National Recreational Estuarine Harvest (by weight), 

2000–2004. 

Gulf of Mexico

35%

Mid Atlantic

28%

South Atlantic

17%

North Atlantic

14%

California

4%

Pacific NW

3%

Caribbean

<1%

 

 

18 Starting in 2003, California, Oregon, and Washington replaced the MRFSS with new surveys to collect 

better recreational fish assessment data. Since the survey design of MRFSS differs from that of individual 

surveys, the 2000–2002 data gathered via MRFSS are different than the data gathered in 2003 and 2004 by 

the individual states. Therefore, we analyzed only the 2000–2002 data collected via MRFSS methodology 

for California, Oregon, and Washington, and no data gathered via the individual surveys. Recreational 

estuarine harvest data (Table 4) will be minimally affected by the reduced data from the west coast because 

those numbers are computed by dividing estuarine harvest (over a number of years) by total harvest within 

the region. However, Figure 3 will be affected by the lack of 2003–2004 data for California, Oregon, and 

Washington. Harvest numbers are computed over a 5-year period and then divided by the total amount of 

pounds caught nationwide from recreational fish that use estuaries. The lack of data for 2003 and 2004 

puts California and the Pacific northwest at a disadvantage compared to the other regions because the 

regional harvest numbers are deflated in relation to other regions (although the west coast states do not 

have high annual harvest rates). The data presented in Table 5 could also be affected by this lack of data—

any west coast species harvested would change the other estuarine species’ relative contribution toward 

national estuarine harvest. However, these changes are likely to be minimal given the small contribution 

California, Oregon, and Washington made in 2000, 2001, and 2002 toward national estuarine harvest. 

 
 30

The top ten estuarine fish harvested recreationally in the United States from 2000 

to 2004 are displayed in Table 5. Striped bass, red drum, and spotted seatrout were the 

top three estuarine fish harvested recreationally nationally from 2000 to 2004, with 

striped bass accounting for 9% of the nation’s recreational harvest, red drum 6%, and 

spotted seatrout 6% (Table 5). 

Table 5. Top 10 Estuarine Species Harvested in the U.S. Recreational Fishing Sector as 

Percent of National Harvest (by weight), 2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest 

(weight 

in lbs) 

Percent of 

National 

Recreational

Harvest

Primary 

Region (s) 

Harvested 

1 Striped bass, 

Morone saxatilis 106,724,473 9% NA, MA, 

SA 

2 Red drum, 

Sciaenops ocellatus 73,943,599 6% MA, SA, G 

3 Spotted seatrout, 

Cynoscion nebulosus 67,778,187 6% SA, G 

4 Bluefish, 

Pomatomus saltatrix 65,971,560 5% NA, MA, 

SA 

5 

Summer flounder, 

Paralichthys 

dentatus

58,851,827 5% NA, MA 

6 

Atlantic croaker, 

Micropogonias 

undulatus

50,478,475 4% MA, SA 

7 

King mackerel, 

Scomberomorus 

cavalla

38,718,710 3% SA, G, C 

8 

Sheepshead, 

Archosargus 

probatocephalus

31,568,921 3% SA, G 

9 Scup, 

Stenotomus chrysops 26,219,770 2% NA, MA 

10 Atlantic cod, 

Gadus morhua 25,921,918 2% NA 

NA = North Atlantic; MA = Mid-Atlantic; SA = South Atlantic; G = Gulf of Mexico; C = 

Caribbean. 

 
 

 

31

Profile: Red Drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) 

Photo: NOAA Photo Library

Life History and Habitat Use 

Red drum is a commercially and recreationally important bottom-feeding species that uses 

mangrove wetlands, seagrasses, salt marshes, shallow tidal creeks, bays, and tidal flats: as 

nursery habitat; as refuge from predators; and as feeding grounds for crabs, shrimps, marine 

worms, and fish (ASMFC 2007; Graff and Middleton 2002). Juveniles use inshore habitats 

including tidal freshwater habitats, low-salinity reaches of estuaries, estuarine emergent vegetated 

wetlands (flooded salt marshes, brackish marsh and tidal creeks), mangrove fringe, seagrasses, 

oyster reefs, shell banks, and soft sediments. Sub-adults use backwater areas behind barrier 

islands, beaches, and tidal creeks and channels of southern estuaries. Nearshore areas close to 

inlets and passes are used during the spawning season (ASMFC 2007; NMFS, In prep.). 

Commercial Landings and Recreational Harvest 

This species is harvested recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico, mid-Atlantic, and south Atlantic 

regions and landed commercially in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake, south Atlantic, and north 

Atlantic regions. The red drum recreational fishing industry harvested 73,943,599 pounds from 

2000–2004, ranking this species #2 in the top 10 species harvested by the recreational fishing 

sector (Table 5). Red drum commercial landings in 2000–2004 were 798,386 pounds valued at 

$936,475. 

Threats to Habitat 

Threats to red drum habitat include coastal development, dredging, jetty construction, loss of 

estuarine wetlands, invasive species, pollutant discharges, and hydrologic modifications that alter 

freshwater flow into estuarine areas, among many others (ASMFC 2007). 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

NMFS works with state and federal agencies to develop permit conditions that minimize or 

mitigate adverse impacts to fish habitat. In addition to recommending permit conditions, the 

agency also uses its mandates to protect habitats before threats materialize, address unavoidable 

impacts through restoration, and share information with the public via education and outreach 

activities.
 32

The North Atlantic Region’s recreational fishermen harvested 133,833,465 

pounds of fish from 2000 to 2004, with 130,758,196 of these pounds (98%) attributed to 

species that use estuaries during at least one stage of their life cycle (Table 4). 

Recreational estuarine species harvested in the north Atlantic region accounted for 14% 

of the nation’s estuarine recreational harvest from 2000 to 2004 (Figure 3). As shown in 

Table A-8 (Appendix A), striped bass, Atlantic cod, and bluefish were the top three 

estuarine species harvested in the north Atlantic region from 2000 to 2004, representing 

60% of the region’s recreational harvest. Striped bass accounted for 25% of the north 

Atlantic’s recreational harvest, Atlantic cod represented 19%, and bluefish accounted for 

16% of the harvest (Table A-8, Appendix A). 

 Mid-Atlantic Region recreational fishermen harvested 297,378,386 pounds from 

2000 to 2004, with approximately 90% (266,259,991 lbs) from estuary-using fish (Table 

4). From 2000 to 2004, 28% of the nation’s estuarine recreational harvest came from the 

mid-Atlantic region (Figure 3). As shown in Table A-9 (Appendix A), striped bass, 

summer flounder, and Atlantic croaker were the top three estuarine species harvested 

recreationally in the mid-Atlantic region from 2000 to 2004, representing 52% of the 

region’s recreational harvest. Striped bass accounted for 21% of the region’s recreational 

harvest, summer flounder represented 16%, and Atlantic croaker accounted for 15% of 

the harvest (Table A-9, Appendix A). 

 The South Atlantic Region’s recreational fishermen harvested 266,489,755 pounds 

of fish from 2000 to 2004, with approximately 61% (161,269,131 lbs) attributed to 

species using estuarine environments during at least one stage of their life cycle (Table 

4). The south Atlantic region comprises 17% (by weight) of the total recreational 

 
 33

estuarine species harvested in the United States from 2000 to 2004 (Figure 3). King 

mackerel, striped bass, and bluefish were the top three estuarine species recreationally 

harvested in the south Atlantic region from 2000 to 2004, and when combined, 

represented 16% of the region’s recreational harvest (Table A-10, Appendix A). 

The largest proportion of the nation’s recreational estuarine harvest is brought to 

shore in the Gulf of Mexico region. This region comprised 35% (by weight, 334,095,800 

of the 958,941,039 pounds harvested) of the nation’s recreational harvest of species 

having use of estuaries during their lifecycle (Table 4 and Figure 3). Within this region, 

approximately 87% of the harvest was composed of estuary-using species (Table 4). Red 

drum, spotted seatrout, and sheepshead were the top three estuarine species harvested 

recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico region from 2000 to 2004, contributing 39% to the 

region’s recreational harvest (Table A-11, Appendix A). 

Recreational fishermen in the Caribbean harvested 16,390,206 pounds of fish 

from 2000 to 2004, with approximately 19% of those fish (3,160,429 lbs) being estuary 

users (Table 4). The Caribbean region comprised <1% by weight of the total recreational 

estuarine species harvested and caught in the United States from 2000 to 2004 (Figure 3). 

The top three estuarine species harvested recreationally in the Caribbean region from 

2000 to 2004 were the great barracuda, crevalle jack, and king mackerel, collectively 

representing 6% of the region’s recreational harvest (Table A-12, Appendix A). 

 
 

 

34

Profile: Striped Bass

(Morone saxatilis) 

Photo: Duane Raver (in Graff and Middleton 2002) 

Life History and Habitat Use 

Striped bass are a migratory fish species whose Atlantic coast geographic range spans from 

Quebec south to Florida. Adult striped bass typically spend most of the time in coastal estuaries 

or in the ocean, but the species seasonally migrates north and south and ascends rivers to spawn 

in spring. Spawning occurs in freshwater near the heads of Atlantic coast estuaries or in major 

inland tributaries. Chesapeake Bay tributaries—as well as the Delaware, Hudson, and Roanoke 

Rivers—are principal spawning areas for striped bass along the Atlantic coast. Historically, 

Chesapeake Bay was the spawning ground for 90% of the Atlantic striped bass population 

(ASMFC 2007). Striped bass typically remain in coastal sounds and estuaries until they are 2 to 4 

years old, when they commence their intercoastal migrations (ASMFC 2007). While in coastal 

estuaries, striped bass forage on small shrimp and other crustaceans, insects, worms, and fish such 

as Atlantic menhaden that live in salt marsh habitats (Graff and Middleton 2002). 

Commercial Landings and Recreational Harvest 

Striped bass support an important recreational fishery along the Atlantic coast that provides 

income for small businesses such as bait and tackle shops, restaurants, hotels, gas stations, boat 

rental shops, marinas, and many others. From 2000 to 2004, over 106 million pounds of striped 

bass were harvested by recreational fishermen, ranking this species #1 in the list of harvested 

recreational fish that use estuaries during their life cycles. The striped bass commercial fishery is 

also very important, with 2000–2004 landings weighing 33,159,964 pounds worth $59,046,462 in 

seafood markets. Considering commercial landings weighed less than one-third as much as the 

recreational harvest during this period, it is clear that small towns stand to gain significant 

business revenue from a healthy recreational striped bass fishery. 

Threats to Habitat 

Potential threats include the construction of dams, spillways, culverts, jetties, water withdrawal 

facilities, and hydropower facilities; thermal and toxic discharges into the environment; 

channelization and dredging; land use affecting estuaries and rivers (farming, logging, 

urbanization); release of aluminum and other metals into the water; and changes in pH levels, 

among many others. 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

Fish habitat regulators address environmental impacts that adversely affect striped bass habitat 

via the consultative processes set forth under the Clean Water Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

National Environmental Policy Act, and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. To assess the 

potential impacts of development projects, research on the habitat needs of migratory striped bass 

has been and will continue to be conducted by ASMFC and NMFS, among others. For example, 

an analysis of preferred striped bass wintering habitat has informed the Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACE) about potential impacts a proposed dredging project in North Carolina could have on the 

striped bass population, providing information ACE can use to make construction decisions.
 35

Chinook salmon, barred sand bass, and California halibut were the top three 

estuarine species harvested recreationally off California from 2000 to 200219, 

representing 31% of the region’s recreational harvest (Table A-13, Appendix A). 

Chinook salmon accounted for 15% of the region’s recreational harvest, barred sand bass 

represented 9%, and California halibut accounted for 7% of the harvest (Table A-13, 

Appendix A). The region’s recreational fishermen harvested 68,967,595 pounds of fish 

from 2000 to 2002, with 37,393,196 pounds (54%) attributed to species using estuarine 

environments during at least one stage of their life cycle (Table 4). California comprised 

4% (by weight) of the nation’s total recreational estuarine species harvest from 2000 to 

200420 (Figure 3). 

The Pacific Northwest’s recreational fishermen harvested 35,036,943 pounds of 

fish from 2000 to 200221, with approximately 74% (26,004,296) of these harvested 

pounds coming from species that use estuaries (Table 4). The region comprised 3% by 

weight of the total recreational estuarine species harvested in the United States from 

2000–200422 (Figure 3). Chinook and coho salmon and lingcod were the top three 

estuarine species harvested recreationally in the Pacific northwest region from 2000-

2002, representing 56% of the region’s recreational harvest. Chinook salmon accounted 

for 28% of the region’s recreational harvest, coho represented 22%, and lingcod 6% of 

the harvest. Collectively, Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon accounted for 58% of 

the region’s total recreational harvest from 2000 to 2002, with more than 20 million 

pounds of salmon harvested by recreational anglers (Table A-14, Appendix A). 

 

19 See footnote 18. 

20 See footnote 18. 

21 See footnote 18. 

22 See footnote 18. 

 
 

 

36

Profile: Crab 

 Blue Crab Dungeness Crab

 (Callinectes sapidus) (Cancer magister) 

 

 Photos: NOAA (in Graff and Middleton 2002) 

Life History and Habitat Use

Crab species such as the blue crab use a variety of habitats during their life cycles, ranging from 

marshes to open-water estuaries. Juvenile blue crabs use wetlands and submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) as nursery habitat, to forage for food, and for refuge from predation. Adult blue 

crabs use grassy shallow bays and wetland vegetation for protection from predation during 

molting, as well as for feeding on clams, dead fish, seaweed, and smaller crabs. After adult 

dungeness crab spawn in lower portions of estuaries, larvae are transported by tidal currents to 

wetland vegetation and SAV beds, which they use as nursery habitat (Graff and Middleton 2002). 

Commercial Landings and Recreational Harvest 

Crabs are revenue-generating species that are enjoyed throughout the United States; every region 

except Hawaii has at least one crab species in their top 10 commercial estuarine species landed 

(by value). Nationwide, crabs ranked #2 in the nation’s top 10 estuarine species landed from 

2000 to 2004 (by value), generating $1.8 billion for the U.S. economy. The top two contributors 

to the crab species grouping (by value) from 2000–2004 were: (1) blue crab, $766,301,043, and 

(2) dungeness crab, $488,609,220. Species such as the blue crab are also caught recreationally 

along the East coast, boosting local economies and serving as a cultural symbol.

Threats to Habitat 

More than 70% of historic estuarine habitat used by dungeness crabs in the Pacific northwest and 

in California has been lost or degraded due to human activities such as hydraulic dredging, 

trawling, diking, filling, and pollution (NMFS, In prep.). Blue crab habitat such as wetland 

vegetation and SAV has been degraded throughout the nation, particularly in areas such as the 

Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. Nutrient over-enrichment coupled with phytoplankton 

blooms can result in hypoxic conditions, in which a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water 

column minimizes the biological productivity of these areas. Destructive fishing practices can 

also decrease food availability, thereby adversely affecting dungeness and blue crab populations. 

Example of NOAA Habitat Conservation Measures 

As an example of the agency’s broader efforts, NOAA has been working with the Chesapeake 

Bay Program (CBP) and other federal, state, and private partners to improve blue crab habitat 

(e.g., SAV) in the Chesapeake Bay. CBP has adopted a goal to restore historic SAV beds to 

185,000 acres in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. To achieve this goal, 

actions to protect existing SAV will be taken, water quality improvements will allow SAV to 

grow in new areas, and SAV transplants will restore historic beds. CBP and its partners have also 

developed a ‘healthy bay goal’ to decrease hypoxia and increase the bay’s water quality. A 

reduction in nutrients and sediment flowing into the bay will result in a healthier bay capable of 

supporting a diverse ecosystem of plants and animals. 
 37

DISCUSSION 

Interpreting These Data 

 These data reaffirm the strong dependence of the fishing industries and coastal 

communities on fish stocks that rely on estuarine habitats during some portion of their 

life cycle. The economic value of estuarine harvests should serve to urge society to 

protect and restore habitats that provide valuable services, including many beyond the 

fishing industries. When considering that value, and for the reasons noted below, it is 

important to note that these data are likely to under-represent the economic value of 

estuarine habitats to commercial and recreational fisheries: 

• Recreational harvest could be under-represented where some catch might be 

outside existing surveys. While NMFS surveys are fairly complete for finfish 

from estuaries and the oceans along the Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, invertebrates and anadromous fish in tidal rivers are 

generally not covered. There are also some coverage questions in Texas and the 

Pacific coast states, particularly Washington and Oregon, where some estuary and 

shore surveys have been suspended due to funding constraints. Also, MRFSS 

does not include recreational harvest of crabs, lobsters, bivalves or shrimp, which 

may be significant in some areas. 

• Harvest weights and values analyzed herein include production from finfish and 

shellfish aquaculture for some states but not all. Culture operations depend on the 

same high-quality estuarine habitats as wild-caught fisheries. 

• Ecological value from forage species, biomass exported from estuaries, and other 

secondary benefits of estuarine productivity add an economic value to estuaries. 

 
 38

The NMFS (pending assessment for 2005 or 2006) and US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (five-year intervals, most recently for 2006) have estimated the overall 

economic impact of recreational fisheries nationwide. Those studies may be 

adaptable to an evaluation of the estuarine-dependent component of the fishery. 

• Similarly, value added by participants, services, and others connected to 

commercial and recreational fishing add billions of dollars but are not part of this 

analysis. Some species and associated commercial fisheries or angling 

opportunities could convey an intrinsic existence value such as is documented for 

national parks. 

• Billions of eggs, larvae, and juveniles lost to entrainment, impingement, and other 

impacts are not easily converted into adult equivalents that would register as 

harvest in these analyses. And, even with precise conversions, the ecological loss 

of those early life stages to predators represents a significant loss to the estuarine 

and nearshore food cycle. 

• Some major fisheries such as Alaskan walleye pollock have a minor estuarine 

connection but are not categorized as “estuarine” in this report. If pollock were 

considered estuarine users, 92% by weight (not 46%) and 88% by dollar value 

(not 68%) of the commercial fish and shellfish landed nationwide would be 

considered “estuarine,” with major implications to our conclusions regarding the 

connection of harvest to habitat. Recreational statistics would not be affected 

since pollock are not harvested by anglers. 

• These data are reported and analyzed by large geographic region. Finer analyses 

by state or smaller water body would be more useful to decision makers trying to 

 
 39

account for these economic values but such refinements are not feasible until 

harvest data are recorded on a comparable scale. 

• These data also reflect fisheries from a narrow, five-year slice of our nation’s 

fishing history. In past centuries, when coastal development encroached less into 

estuarine habitat and when fish stocks were more robust, harvests of many 

commercial and recreational fish may have been much higher in total and in 

comparison to the non-estuarine portion. 

• Over time, it appears possible that the top producing fisheries have changed both 

by species and by estuarine dependence. Colonial dependence on nearshore 

species such as cod and riverine species such as shad gave way to offshore 

fisheries in the 1800s and then further shifts followed major offshore collapses in 

the late1900s. Those shifts would have a major effect on interpreting the numbers 

and trends in this report. The authors would estimate that estuarine dependence is 

lower now (given the state of estuarine habitat in the early 2000s) than in the past 

but further analysis would be needed. 

• Looking to the future, with coastal wetland losses continuing at higher rates than 

other wetlands (see below in this section), future estuarine harvests could decline 

if habitat loss is manifested in decreased fish populations and lower harvests. 

• Adverse impacts to estuarine habitat are often offset by regulatory requirements to 

mitigate. Habitat mitigation remains more “art” than “science” and requires years 

of patience while ecological services are restored. Those negatives could be 

moderated by using the economic values from this report to sharpen mitigation 

ratios. For example, for estuarine habitat known to be crucial for multiple species 

 
 40

supporting valuable fisheries, mitigation plans could request a higher ratio of 

mitigation:impact than for a project affecting habitat with less value. 

Connections Between Estuarine and Coastal Habitats of the United States

These data offer glimpses of value beyond estuaries and to other coastal habitats. 

Estuaries are major habitats between freshwater and ocean systems; coastal habitats such 

as wetlands are key environments in coastal watersheds with direct, hydrologic 

connections to the sea. Values expressed in this report could be indicative of societal 

services provided by other shoreline habitats. 

Estuaries and associated wetlands support various fish, shellfish, and bird species 

in parts or all of their life cycles (EPA 2004). Fish and shellfish may use the 

environments for shelter and food in a manner that is facultative (i.e., opportunistic) 

rather than obligate (i.e., dependent) (Able 2005). Many notable estuary-dependent or 

obligate species such as penaeid shrimps, Atlantic menhaden, and salmonids comprise a 

significant portion of U.S. commercial and recreational landings. Facultative species 

may be less significant economically but still essential to ecosystem health (i.e., spiny 

dogfish as predators) (ASMFC 2002). Alternatively, some fish and shellfish may never 

enter the estuary (i.e., highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna) but forage on 

species produced in estuarine environments (i.e., Atlantic herring, sand lance, bluefish, 

Atlantic mackerel, squid) (Chase 2002). 

Estuarine habitats used by economically valuable, facultative, and obligate 

species include seagrasses and salt marsh vegetation that also provide a variety of 

ecological services to the ecosystem, including: primary production (providing food for 

 
 41

fish and wildlife); canopy structure (providing habitat, refuge, nursery, settlement, and 

support of fisheries); nutrient, contaminant, and sediment filtration and trapping; 

epibenthic and benthic production (supporting food webs); oxygen production; nutrient 

regeneration and recycling; organic matter accumulation (counteracting sea level rise and 

supporting fisheries); and shoreline erosion control by dampening waves and currents 

(EPA 2004; Short et al. 2000). Seagrasses, salt marsh, and other estuarine habitats are 

important for both the ecological services they provide and the economic benefit they 

bring by supporting commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species 

(Dawes et al. 2004). 

Shrimp and crabs are two economically important species that use estuarine 

habitats during their life cycles (see shrimp and crab profiles on pages 25 and 35). 

Shrimp spawn in the open ocean and larvae eventually drift into estuaries and salt 

marshes, where they transform into juveniles as they eat detritus laden with food and 

algae growing on marsh plants (i.e., saltgrass, cordgrass, seagrass, mangroves, and rooted 

vegetation). Shrimp need these habitats for growth, evading predators, and survival 

during postlarval and juvenile life history stages. 

Crabs also use seagrasses and salt marsh vegetation as habitat during their life 

cycle. Juvenile blue crabs use wetlands as nursery habitat and depend on marsh 

vegetation and seagrasses for food and refuge from predation. Adults use grassy shallow 

bays and wetland vegetation to escape predation during molting, as well as to feed on 

clams, dead fish, seaweed, and other crustaceans. The Dungeness crab also uses estuarine 

salt marshes and seagrass beds as nursery habitat. Dungeness crab larvae are transported 

by tidal currents from spawning grounds in lower portions of estuaries, shoreward to 

 
 42

areas with wetland vegetation. Wetland areas provide food and refuge essential for 

larvae to grow into juveniles and morph into adults. 

Commercial species such as Atlantic menhaden and salmon are estuary users 

contributing the most to estuarine landings (by weight) in the United States (see Atlantic 

menhaden and salmon profiles, pages 20 and 22). Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries 

play an important role as nursery habitats for species such as Atlantic menhaden, which 

are transported as larvae into estuaries and spend most of their early developmental stage 

in estuarine waters. 

Salmon are anadromous species that travel through estuaries to sea as juveniles 

and return as adults to their natal streams and rivers to spawn. After spawning, fry and 

smolts may spend up to 6 months in estuarine waters. Estuaries and their associated 

wetland habitats provide vital nursery habitat in which salmon feed and find refuge from 

predators. Salmon then leave the estuarine environment for the open ocean returning 

several years later as they migrate through the estuary to their natal spawning grounds in 

rivers and streams (PSMFC 2007). NMFS dedicates significant effort in its Endangered 

Species Act programs to salmon listed in New England and the west coast. Atlantic and 

Pacific salmonids on their way to sea or returning to spawn rely heavily on estuarine 

habitats that are strongly influenced by human activities. For the reasons stated above, 

NMFS dedicates significant effort in its Endangered Species Act programs to salmon 

listed in New England and the west coast. 

Striped bass and red drum are highly valued by recreational fishermen (see 

profiles, pages 30 and 33). Striped bass are a migratory fish that typically spends most of 

its life cycle in coastal estuaries or in coastal ocean waters, while seasonally migrating 

 
 43

north and south and ascending rivers to spawn in spring. Nursery habitats for red drum 

include coastal marshes, shallow tidal creeks, bays, tidal flats and impoundments, and 

seagrass beds (ASMFC 2007). Juvenile red drum use a variety of inshore habitats, 

including tidal freshwater habitats, low-salinity reaches of estuaries, estuarine emergent 

vegetated wetlands, mangrove fringe, seagrasses, oyster reefs, shell banks, and soft 

sediments. Sub-adults use backwater areas behind barrier islands, beaches, and in tidal 

creeks and channels of southern estuaries (ASMFC 2007; NMFS, In prep.). 

Factors Adversely Affecting Estuarine Habitat in the United States

Wetland Vegetation Loss 

The six species or species groupings mentioned above and in the profiles 

exemplify highly valued species dependent on estuaries. Those same species represent 

the largest commercial landings (by weight and dollar value) and recreational harvest (by 

weight) of all estuary-using species. The top species (Atlantic menhaden, salmon, 

shrimps, crabs, red drum, and striped bass) use estuarine wetland vegetation as nursery 

habitat, shelter/refuge from predators, and/or feeding. Wetlands throughout the United 

States continue to be affected by human activities, including coastal development, 

transportation, agriculture, hydropower dam construction/operation, flood control, 

agriculture, waste disposal, shipping, and oil/gas development, as well as by natural 

processes such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, sea-level rise, and sediment compaction 

(EPA 2004). Those indicators foretell a troubling trend with implications to estuaries, the 

fish dependent on estuarine habitat, and coastal economics linked to commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

 
 44

The first status and trends report on wetlands estimated that between the mid1950s and the mid-1970s the United States was losing about 458,000 wetland acres per 

year (Frayer et al. 1983). A re-evaluation from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s revealed 

the rate of wetlands loss had declined, but annual loss of wetlands remained significant 

and still measured approximately 290,000 acres (Dahl and Johnson 1991). In a third 

report in 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reported the net loss had 

decreased to 58,500 acres per year from 1986 to 1997 (Dahl 2000). The decrease has 

been attributed to more strict regulatory actions taken by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and states under the Clean Water Act 

and habitat conservation efforts such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

“Swampbuster” program (EPA 2004). 

In 2006, FWS published a report indicating that wetland protection, restoration, 

and creation efforts had combined for a net gain of wetlands nationally for the first time. 

Gains of 191,750 wetland acres from 1998 to 2004 represented an average annual net 

gain of 32,000 acres (Dahl 2006). A deeper analysis revealed how gains of 700,000 

acres of open water ponds, land set-asides, agricultural conservation programs, retirement 

programs, disincentives for wetland drainage, education programs, federal and state 

wetland management programs, and wetland restoration and creation programs involving 

partners on conservation lands offset losses from continued development pressures (Dahl 

2006). There was also a significant message when separating coastal and in-land 

wetlands. While the in-land data revealed a net gain, data for coastal wetlands showed a 

net loss as witnessed in past decades. 

 
 45

A significant trend emerges when coastal and inland wetlands are evaluated 

separately. While the data revealed a net gain for inland wetlands, coastal wetlands 

showed a net loss of 59,000 acres per year during that time period (Stedman and Dahl, 

2008). This loss rate is equiavent to the loss over the entire lower 48 states during the 

previous study period of 1986-1997. Clearly, while wetlands loss in inland areas is 

declining (or being offset by gains), wetland loss in coastal areas is accelerating. 

 The FWS 1998–2004 data revealed that estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands 

(salt and brackish water marsh habitats) continue to decline. In 2004, approximately 5.3 

million acres of marine and estuarine wetlands remained in the contiguous coastal states 

(Dahl 2006). From 1998 to 2004, estuarine emergent wetlands declined by 5,540 acres 

per year, with a total loss of 0.9% during the 6-year period. This rate of salt marsh 

wetland loss is consistent with the 1986–1997 rate of estuarine wetland loss reported in 

the previous FWS study. While small when viewed out of context, the continued loss of 

coastal wetlands adds stress to valued habitats supporting harvested species. The 2006 

report attributed the loss of estuarine and marine wetlands to the conversion of emergent 

salt marsh to open saltwater systems. Activities contributing to this loss in salt marsh 

habitat include water control, commercial and recreational boat traffic, and dredging 

(Dahl 2006), as well as sea-level rise due to warming ocean temperatures (Nicholls et al. 

2007). 

However, the greatest amount of recent coastal wetland loss is occurring in 

freshwater wetlands (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). Freshwater shrub wetlands experienced 

the greatest loss, followed by freshwater marshes and freshwater forested wetlands. 

Coastal areas continue to experience enormous development pressures that affect those 

 
 46

habitats in estuaries and other coastal areas. Previous studies (Brady and Goebel, 2002) 

have shown that 66% of the wetland loss in coastal counties was due to development (as 

compared to 41% in inland counties). Freshwater wetlands are important components of 

coastal and estuarine ecosystems, supplying nutrients, floodwater control, and habitat for 

migrating species such as alewife, herring, and salmon. The loss of freshwater coastal 

wetlands has a direct adverse effect on the quality of estuarine and marine ecosystems. 

Salmon offer distinct challenges as the only species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) yet harvested by commercial or recreational fisheries. Most of those 

fisheries are heavily regulated to conserve remaining populations. Human activities in 

watersheds supporting salmon are also scrutinized through the ESA section 7 

consultation process since development pressures often compromise hydrology, water 

quality, sedimentation rates, and other key determinants of estuarine habitat quality. 

In the lower 48 states, 30% of all coastal marshes, 45% of intertidal coastal 

marshes, and 14% of coastal wetlands (marshes, forests, and mangroves) are found in 

Louisiana. Louisiana has lost more than 1.22 million acres of coastal wetlands during the 

past 70 years. Louisiana experiences approximately 90% of all coastal wetland loss in 

the contiguous coastal states, with an estimated 448,000 additional wetland acres 

projected to be lost in the next 50 years based on conservative estimates for sea-level 

change. Wetland loss is caused in part by the lost sediment transfer between rivers and 

the coastline resulting from the construction and maintenance of dams, levees, and 

navigation projects. Louisiana’s coast was formed by sediments from the Mississippi 

River, which are now mostly shunted past wetlands by human manipulations for flood 

control, navigation, and hydropower development. Sediment delivery from the 

 
 47

Mississippi River to coastal Louisiana has been reduced 67%, resulting in major 

subsidence and coastal wetland loss in the Gulf of Mexico (EPA 2004). The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers announced an effort in 2007 to open sediment delivery channels 

along the Mississippi, hoping to nourish those disappearing wetlands and dampen those 

trends. 

 In addition to fish habitat benefits provided by wetlands and the economic 

benefits to fishermen and their communities, these habitats provide ecological services 

such as: filtration and processing of industrial, residential, and agricultural wastes; 

shoreline erosion control; coastal storm buffers; flood control; and many others (EPA 

2004). In 2006, U.S. consumers spent approximately $69.5 billion for fish products (Van 

Voorhees and Prichard 2007), supporting more than 1 million jobs that involve catching, 

processing, and/or selling fish and shellfish (EPA 2004; presumed similar in 2006). 

Considering the ecological and economic importance of wetland habitats to fishers and 

society, the continued loss of salt marsh wetlands from natural and anthropogenic causes 

could have troubling implications for our nation’s economy and environment. 

Wetland protection and restoration must continue to be a national priority. 

Resources should be directed toward protecting and restoring important wetland habitats 

in estuaries and elsewhere along the coast. By doing so, the United States will not only 

enhance fish and shellfish habitat but also gain additional ecological services provided by 

wetlands, shellfish beds, and other estuarine habitats. 

 
 48

Hypoxia and Eutrophication 

According to the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR II) (EPA 2004), the 

overall condition of estuaries in the United States is rated as “fair” on a scale of poor, 

fair, and good. Nationwide, coastal habitat is rated “poor” and water quality is rated 

“fair.” Those habitats and their NCCR II grades are interconnected. A healthy water 

column is just as important as healthy wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat 

for fish and shellfish. NCCR II reported that 60% of the nation’s estuarine waters are 

moderately to highly degraded. Degraded water quality variables include increased 

chlorophyll a concentration, decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, increased 

nutrient concentration, and reduced water clarity. 

Increased nutrient levels an fuel an increase in phytoplankton production, as 

indicated by increased levels of chlorophyll a in the water column. Overproduction of 

microscopic algae can cause problems because, after algae blooms, the cells die and sink 

to the substrate. Microbes use oxygen to decompose decaying algae, thereby lowering 

the DO content of the water column. Low DO degrades habitat, forcing finfish and 

shellfish to vacate an area to find adequate oxygen levels. These hypoxic zones are often 

referred to as “dead zones” because plant and animal species cannot live in these areas 

and the sedentary species (i.e., clams) or other species that do not vacate the area can die 

from lack of oxygen in the water column (EPA 2004). 

In the northern Gulf of Mexico, nutrient loading from the Mississippi River 

results in an annual loss of habitat due to hypoxic conditions (EPA 2004). Each spring 

and summer, hypoxic “dead” zones develop in the region with DO levels below 2 mg/L, 

minimizing benthic and pelagic habitat used by aquatic organisms. Some years, these 

 
 49

hypoxic zones extend west from the mouth of the Mississippi River past the Texas 

border. From 1985 to 1992, the region averaged 3,205 square miles of habitat affected by 

hypoxia, and from 1993 to 2001 averaged 16,178 square miles (EPA 2004). The 

incidence of such dead zones nationwide has increased dramatically in recent decades, 

becoming a common occurrence with significant impacts extending into estuaries and 

affecting species dependent on estuarine habitats. 

A nationwide assessment of coastal hypoxia and eutrophication in coastal waters 

was conducted by the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on 

Environment and Natural Resources (CENR 2003). The assessment showed that more 

than half of U.S. estuaries experience hypoxia during some part of the year, and the 

duration and frequency of these events have increased in recent decades. Hypoxia is now 

an issue in commercially and recreationally important areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, 

Chesapeake Bay, and Puget Sound (CENR 2003). 

Habitat loss caused by wetland destruction in the Gulf of Mexico, combined with 

the increasing aerial extent of the “dead zone,” has the potential to adversely affect 

commercially and recreationally important species such as shrimp and red drum. Shrimp 

were the top revenue-generating, commercial estuarine species in the United States from 

2000 to 2004, with 88% ($2.2 billion) of the landings from the Gulf of Mexico. Red 

drum was the second highest recreational estuarine species harvested in the United States 

from 2000 to 2004, with approximately 74 million pounds harvested by anglers, which 

fueled local economies via the support of bait and tackle shops, restaurants, hotels, gas 

stations, and other local businesses. 

 
 50

Shrimp and red drum represent a small portion of species with major importance to the 

nation’s economy. The much larger assemblage described in this report depend on 

healthy estuarine ecosystems with good water quality and intact wetland habitats. For 

that reason, NOAA protects, restores, enhances, and creates ecologically important and 

well functioning estuarine habitats that support our nation’s fisheries, buffer the 

shorelines from degradation, create ecologically and economically resilient coastal 

communities, and provide societal services such as filtration of industrial, residential, and 

agricultural wastes from the land.

Other Factors Degrading Estuarine Habitat 

 Estuarine losses of wetland and water column habitats, whether from 

development or hypoxia, are not the only factors degrading benthic and pelagic estuarine 

health in the United States. Estuaries and the species therein have been adversely 

affected by pipeline installation, pier construction, noise, channel dredging, warming 

ocean waters due to climate change, siltation/pollutant runoff from terrestrial areas, 

fishing practices, chemical spills, fish and shellfish disease, invasive species, noxious 

phytoplankton blooms, vessel traffic, and more. The cumulative impacts on estuaries and 

aquatic flora and fauna caused by these stressors are large, and demand additional 

resources to protect and restore habitats critically needed by our nation’s commercial and 

recreational fish species. 

 
 51

Actions to Conserve Fish Habitat 

Federal, state, local, and tribal governments and non-governmental organizations 

spanning from industry sectors to local environmental often work together to conserve 

fish habitat. Collaboration and partnering are crucial ingredients for setting habitat 

conservation priorities and for combining and leveraging limited resources to maximize 

habitat gains. NMFS is currently supplementing its traditional regulatory work with 

proactive, cooperative efforts to protect habitats as well as identify products, tools, and 

partners to address priority habitat threats more efficiently than by individual projects or 

expensive restoration. Success will hinge on careful use of all available tools, but some 

new opportunities could be particularly effective. 

One partnership, the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP), has assembled 

more than 450 federal, state, local, and tribal agencies; non-governmental organizations; 

nonprofit foundations; and others to protect, restore, and enhance the nation’s fish and 

aquatic communities through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation in a 

voluntary, non-regulatory manner. NFHAP aims to leverage federal and privately raised 

funds, strategically focus resources, set habitat conservation priorities, improve 

coordination, and support efforts to improve fish habitat throughout the nation. Regional 

fish habitat partnerships established under the NFHAP umbrella could be an excellent 

approach to collaborative research, analysis, and management, as is occurring for 

migratory waterfowl under the program that served as the NFHAP model. NMFS is one 

federal partner in NFHAP, working with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

the states, and others. 

 
 52

In addition to supporting non-regulatory approaches such as NFHAP, NMFS has 

several other roles in conserving estuaries and other coastal habitats. The agency has 

traditionally provided technical advice to other agencies and the public on thousands of 

individual proposed actions that could negatively affect living marine resources. NMFS 

often recommends ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects of a proposed 

project via the Essential Fish Habitat consultation process set forth under the MagnusonStevens Act (MSA) of 1996. In addition, NMFS provides conservation recommendations 

to the Army Corps of Engineers who may issue permit conditions under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act requiring the developer to reduce adverse effects of their project. 

Recommendations can include making a proposed project smaller, moving it away from 

estuarine habitats, timing some activities to avoid migrating fish populations, or 

compensating for the loss of wetland habitat by restoring nearby habitat. Initially under 

the Clean Water Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act but now under the MSA, 

this consultative role has helped to inform agencies and educate the public about 

acceptable activities along our nation’s coasts. Environmental pressures remain, but the 

agency sees fewer non-water-dependent projects and more carefully designed projects 

than in years past. 

In addition to protecting habitat via regulatory and nonregulatory activities, 

NMFS also restores coastal wetlands via several other programs. The Damage 

Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program assesses injuries to natural resources 

and habitats (e.g., oil spills and ship groundings in or near coastal wetland habitats), seeks 

financial damages for those injuries, implements restoration activities to rebuild those 

natural resources, and monitors restoration progress. The Community-based Restoration 

 
 53

Program provides grants to communities to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats 

(e.g., oyster reefs) at the local level. NMFS actively participates in the protection and 

restoration of coastal Louisiana’s wetlands under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration Act. In 2007, NMFS added the Open Rivers Initiative to its 

portfolio, with a focus on rivers supporting diadromous species. Those rivers are the 

hydrological life blood of downstream estuaries, and play a direct role in the health of 

many fish stocks. NMFS conducts estuarie research and investigates topics such as the 

importance of wetlands to fish, the success of coastal restoration projects, trends in 

coastal wetland loss, and the effects of development on coastal wetlands and their 

watersheds. NMFS is involved in public outreach and actively disseminates information 

on the consequences of wetland habitat loss as well as the ecological and economic value 

of healthy estuarine environments. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In 1992, NMFS published an analysis of the economic importance of estuaries to 

commercial and recreational fish and shellfish, reporting that estuarine species comprise 

as much as 75% of the nation’s commercial and recreational landings (Chambers 1992). 

Although the results of the 1992 analysis and the current 2000–2004 analysis cannot be 

directly compared (because the methods, data, and estuarine species differ between the 

two reports), this report offers comparable conclusions that estuaries are important both 

economically and ecologically. From 2000 to 2004, estuarine species comprised 

 
 54

approximately 46% by weight and 68% by value of the commercial fish and shellfish 

landed and approximately 80% of the recreational fish harvested nationwide. 

The values reported in this document underscore the importance of healthy 

estuarine ecosystems to the nation’s fisheries and to the economy. It is important to note 

that the estimates of estuarine value referenced here are not the economic worth of 

estuaries or all estuarine species. Rather, the estimates are the weight in pounds and 

dollar value of estuarine species landed/harvested via commercial and recreational 

fishing. A full economic and environmental valuation of estuarine species would likely 

reveal a greater total value if it was expanded to include habitat functions and services 

such as: supporting trophic food webs, fauna, and other habitat components; enhancing 

recreational use through boating, fishing, tourism, restaurants, etc.; and intrinsic value of 

the species’ existence individually and as part of a greater ecosystem. Until these 

estuarine attributes are realistically addressed, the value of estuarine and coastal habitats 

are, at best, undervalued. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Kevin Bailey, Stephen K. Brown, Bryant 

Chesney, Gordon Colvin, Jim Ditty, Meghan Donahue, Virginia Fay, Dan Farrow, Bob 

Hoffman, Scott Johnson, Mark Monaco, Patricia Montanio, Bruce Mundy, Jeff Napp, 

Julie Nygard, John Olson, Derek Orner, Frances Pflieger, Beth Phelan, Art Rios, Mike 

Sigler, George Silva, Tom Sminkey, Susan-Marie Stedman, John Stein, Andy Strelcheck, 

Dave Sutherland, Bob Walker, Brittany White, and Matt Wilson for their time and effort 

 
 55

to review this technical memorandum. The authors also thank the Habitat Committee of 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for their many suggestions on how best 

to interpret these data. Nerie Canasa provided valued assistance in final design and lay 

out. Finally, we would like to thank our colleagues in the NMFS Office of Habitat 

Conservation, whose patience, dedication, and encouragement provided us with the 

impetus to finish this report. 

 
 56

REFERENCES 

Able, K.W. 2005. A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: Evidence for 

connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 64: 5–17. 

Abookire, A.A., J.F. Piatt, and M.D. Robards. 2000. Nearshore fish distributions in an 

Alaskan estuary in relation to stratification, temperature, and salinity. Est., Coast. and 

Shelf Sci. 51: 45–59. 

Akin, S., K.O. Winemiller, and F.P. Gelwick. 2003. Seasonal and spatial variations in 

fish and macrocrustacean assemblage structure in Mad Island Marsh estuary, Texas. Est., 

Coast. and Shelf Sci. 57: 269–282. 

Allen, L.G., T.E. Hovey, M.S. Love, and J.T.W. Smith. 1995. The life history of the 

spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus) within the Southern California Bight. 

CalCOFI Rep. 36:193–203. 

Allen, L.G. 1982. Seasonal abundance, composition, and productivity of the littoral fish 

assemblage in upper Newport Bay, California. Fish. Bull. 80(4): 769–790. 

Allen, L.G. 1990. Fishes of bay, estuary, and harbor habitats in Southern California: A 

prospectus and predictions regarding Ballona Wetlands restoration. Consultation for 

Maquire Thomas Partners, April 1990. 

Allen, L.G., and M.H. Horn. 1975. Abundance, diversity and seasonality of fishes in 

Colorado Lagoon, Alamitos Bay, California. Est. and Coast. Mar. Sci. 3: 371–380. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2002. Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Spiny Dogfish. Fishery Management Report No. 40, November 

2002. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007. ASMFC species 

profiles, habitat fact sheets, stock status information. Available: http://www.asmfc.org/. 

Ayvazian, S.G., L.A. Deegan, and J.T. Finn. 1992. Comparison of habitat use by 

estuarine fish assemblages in the Acadian and Virginian zoogeographic provinces. 

Estuaries 15(3): 368–383. 

Benson, L.K., and J.M. Fitzsimons. 2002. Life history of the Hawaiian fish Kuhlia 

sandvicensis as inferred from daily growth rings of otoliths. Env. Biol. Fish. 65: 131–

137. 

Bottom, D.L., and K.K. Jones. 1990. Species composition, distribution, and invertebrate 

prey of fish assemblages in the Columbia River Estuary. Prog. Oceanog. 25: 243–270. 

 
 57

Bozeman, E.L. Jr., and J.M. Dean. 1980. The abundance of estuarine larval and juvenile 

fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek. Estuaries 3(2): 89–97. 

Brady, S.J. and Goebel, J.J. 2002. Geographical Distribution of Wetland Changes in the 

U.S., 1992-1997. Paper presented at the 5th Wetlands Workshop, Atlantic City, New 

Jersey, October 21-24. 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to: Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Management Plan, Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, Coral Fishery Management Plan 

for the U.S. Caribbean. 

Chambers, J.R. 1992. Coastal degradation and fish population losses. Pages 45–51 in 

Stroud, ed. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss. National Coalition for Marine 

Conservation, Inc., Leesburg, VA. 

Chase, B.C. 2002. Differences in diet of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) at five 

seasonal feeding grounds on the New England continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 100: 168–

180. Available: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/1002/02chasef.pdf. 

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). 2003. An Assessment of 

Coastal Hypoxia and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology 

Council, Washington, D.C. Available: 

http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/outreach/pdfs/coastalhypoxia.pdf. 

Cowan, J.H. Jr., and R.S. Birdsong. 1985. Seasonal occurrence of larval and juvenile 

fishes in a Virginia Atlantic Coast estuary with emphasis on drums (Family Sciaenidae). 

1985. Estuaries 8(1): 48–59. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 

to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 

to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous 

United States, mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips, and G. Morrison. 2004. Seagrass communities of the gulf 

coast of Florida: status and ecology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, 

Florida. 

Derickson, W.K., and K.S. Price Jr. 1973. The fishes of the shore zone of Rehoboth and 

Indian River Bays, Delaware. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 3: 552–562. 

 
 58

Ellis, R.H. 1999. Tillamook Bay: fish use of the estuary. 1999 Monitoring Report 

prepared for the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project and Tillamook County 

Cooperative Partnership, Garibaldi, Oregon. 

Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and 

abundance of fishes and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life 

history summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. 

EPA-620/R-03/002. Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, 

Washington, D.C. 

Field, D.W., A.J. Reyer, P.V. Genovese, and B.D. Shearer. 1991. Coastal wetlands of the 

United States: an accounting of a valuable national resource. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends 

of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Graff, L., and J. Middleton. 2002. Wetlands and fish: catch the link. Office of Habitat 

Conservation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2005. Final Amendment 

Number 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico, U.S. Waters with Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Tampa, Florida. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Habitat Amendment to the following fishery 

management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the GOM, Red 

Drum Fishery of the GOM, Reef Fish Fishery of the GOM, Stone Crab Fishery of the 

GOM, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of the GOM, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the GOM and 

South Atlantic, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the GOM and South Atlantic. 

Tampa, Florida. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1998. Generic Amendment for 

Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management 

Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the GOM, Red Drum Fishery of the 

GOM, Reef Fish Fishery of the GOM, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) 

in the GOM and South Atlantic, Stone Crab Fishery in the GOM, Spiny Lobster in the 

GOM and South Atlantic, Coral and Coral Reefs of the GOM. Tampa, Florida. 

 
 59

Haedrich, R.L. and S.O. Haedrich. 1974. A seasonal survey of the fishes in the Mystic 

River, a polluted estuary in downtown Boston, Massachusetts. 1974. Est. and Coast. 

Mar. Sci. 2: 59–73. 

Haertel, L., and C. Osterberg. 1966. Ecology of zooplankton, benthos and fishes in the 

Columbia River Estuary. Ecology 48(3): 459–472. 

Hagan, S.M., and K.W. Able. 2003. Seasonal changes of the pelagic fish assemblage in 

a temperate estuary. Est., Coast. And Shelf Sci. 56: 15–29. 

Heck, K.L., Jr., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay, and C.T. Roman. 1989. Fishes and decapod 

crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows: Species composition, seasonal abundance 

patterns and comparison with unvegetated substrates. Estuaries 12(2): 59–65. 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (Heinz Center). 

2002. The state of the nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living 

resources of the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

Hoff, J.G., and R.M. Ibara. 1977. Factors affecting the seasonal abundance, 

composition, and diversity of fishes in a southeastern New England estuary. Est. and 

Coast. Mar. Sci. 5: 665–678. 

Horn, M.H. 1980. Diel and seasonal variation in abundance and diversity of shallowwater fish populations in Morro Bay, California. Fish. Bull. 78(3): 759–770. 

Hughes, J.E., L.A. Deegan, J.C. Wyda, M.J. Weaver, and A. Wright. 2002. The effects 

of eelgrass habitat loss on estuarine fish communities of southern New England. 

Estuaries 25(2): 235–249. 

Hurst, T.P., K.A. McKown, and D.O. Conover. 2004. Interannual and long-term 

variation in the nearshore fish community of the mesohaline Hudson River Estuary. 

Estuaries 27(4): 659–669. 

Johnson, S.W., A. Darcie Neff, and J.F. Thedinga. 2005. An atlas on the distribution and 

habitat of common fishes in shallow nearshore waters of Southeastern Alaska. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-157. 

Jones, K.K., C.A. Simenstad, D.L. Higley, and D.L. Bottom. 1990. Community 

structure, distribution, and standing stock of benthos, epibenthos, and plankton in the 

Columbia River estuary. Prog. Oceanog. 25: 211–241. 

Jung, S., and E.D. Houde. 2003. Spatial and temporal variabilities of pelagic fish 

community structure and distribution in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Est., Coast. and Shelf 

Sci. 58: 335–351. 

 
 60

Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution 

and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in North Atlantic estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 

13. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Keller, A.A., G. Klein-MacPhee, and J. St. Onge Burns. 1999. Abundance and 

distribution of ichthyoplankton in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, 1989–1990. 

Estuaries 22(1):149–163. 

Kneib, R.T., and S.L. Wagner. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different 

stages of tidal inundation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 106: 227–238. 

Lazzari, M.A., S. Sherman, and J.K. Kanwit. 2003. Nursery use of shallow habitats by 

epibenthic fishes in Maine nearshore waters. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 56: 73–84. 

Lazzari, M.A. and B. Tupper. 2002. Importance of shallow water habitats for demersal 

fishes and decapod crustaceans in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Env. Biol. Fishes 63: 57–66. 

Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbiel, and E.J. Larson (eds.). 2001. California's living 

marine resources: a status report. ANR Publ. SG01-11. Calif. Dep. Fish Game and Univ. 

Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. 

Ley, J.A., C.C. McIvor, and C.L. Montague. 1999. Fishes in mangrove prop-root 

habitats of northeastern Florida Bay: distinct assemblages across an estuarine gradient. 

Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 48: 701–723. 

Lippson, A.J. (ed). 1985. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: an atlas of natural 

resources. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Livingston, R.J. 1976. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of organisms in a North Florida 

estuary. Est. and Coast. Mar. Sci. 4: 373–400. 

Mattila, J., G. Chaplin, M.R. Eilers, K.L. Heck, Jr., J.P. O’Neal, and J.F. Valentine. 

1999. Spatial and diurnal distribution of invertebrate and fish fauna of a Zostera marina

bed and nearby unvegetated sediments in Damariscotta River, Maine (USA). J. Sea Res.

41: 321–332. 

McCain, B. 2003. Essential Fish Habitat: West Coast Groundfish. Draft Revised 

Appendix. Prepared Initially in June, 1998 by EFH Core Team for West Coast 

Groundfish. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Seattle, Washington. 

Mecklenburg, C.W., T. A. Mecklenburg, and L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of 

Alaska. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1998. Amendment 8 to the 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. 

 
 61

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2002. Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, 

and Black Seabass Fishery Management Plan, Volume 1. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998. Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery 

Management Plan. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC). 1999. Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan. 

Monaco, M.E., T.A. Lowery, and R.L. Emmett. 1992. Assemblages of U.S. West Coast 

estuaries based on the distribution of fishes. J. Biogeography 19: 251–267. 

Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, R.L. Emmett, and S.A. Hinton. 1990. Distribution and 

abundance of fishes and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries, Volume I : Data 

summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 4. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, Silver Spring, MD. 

Murdy, E., R. Birdsong, and J. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake. Smithsonian 

Institution. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Annual Report to Congress on the 

Status of U.S. Fisheries – 2003. United States Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, Maryland. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998a. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine 

Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. A Primer for Federal 

Agencies. National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Northeast 

Regional Office. Available: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/finprim.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998b. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine 

Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. A Primer for Federal 

Agencies. National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Southwest 

Regional Office. Available: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/efhprim.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. Juneau, Alaska. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Office of Science and Technology, Marine 

Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Data User’s Manual. Available: 

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/pubs/data_users/index.html. 

 
 62

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In Prep. Our Living Oceans: The Status of 

Habitats of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 2008. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-75. 

National Ocean Service (NOS). 2004. Population Trends Along the Coastal United 

States: 1980 – 2008. Coastal Trends Report Series. Management and Budget Office, 

Special Projects. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship of 

Marine Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Nelson, D.M., and M.E. Monaco. 2000. National Overview and Evolution of NOAA’s 

Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS 

NCCOS CCMA 144. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA, NOS, Center for Coastal Monitoring 

and Assessment. 

Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, C.D. Williams, T.E. Czapla, M.E. Pattillo, L.C. Clements, 

L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates in southeast estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 9. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, 

Rockville, MD. 

Nelson, D.M. (ed.), M.E. Monaco, C.D. Williams, T.E. Czapla, M.E. Pattillo, L.C. 

Clements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1992. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume I: Data summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 

10. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, Rockville, MD. 

Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and 

J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico. 6th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2005a. Atlantic Herring Fishery 

Management Plan (draft Amendment 1). Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 1988. Atlantic Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2003a. Atlantic Sea Scallop 

Fishery Management Plan. Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2002. Deep Sea Red Crab 

Fishery Management Plan. Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 1998. Final Amendment #11 to 

the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, Amendment #9 to the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery Management Plan, Amendment #1 to the Monkfish Fishery Management 

 
 63

Plan, Amendment #1 to the Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan, and Components 

of the proposed Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan for Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH Omnibus Amendment). Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2003b. Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan. Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2003c. Northeast Skate 

Complex Fishery Management Plan. Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. 

Ragoonaden, and C.D. Woodroffe. 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: 

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson 

(Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 315-356. 

Northeast Regional Office Habitat Conservation Division. Guide to Essential Fish 

Habitat Descriptions in the Northeastern United States. Available: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 1998. Fishery Management Plan 

for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. Anchorage, Alaska. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2005a. Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2005b. Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 1990. Fishery Management Plan 

for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2004. Fishery Management Plan 

for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 

O’Connor, T. and D. Whitall. 2007. Linking hypoxia to shrimp catch in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Poll. Bull. 54(4): 460-63. 

Olsen, S., D. Robadue, and V. Lee. 1980. An Interpretive Atlas of Narragansett Bay. 

Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island Marine Bulletin 40. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2005a. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 

Management Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

 
 64

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2005b. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan: Essential Fish Habitat Designation and Minimization of Adverse 

Impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2003. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2007. Anadromous Fish Life 

History Profiles. Available: http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu_anad_table.html

Packer, D.B. (ed.). 1999-2005. Essential Fish Habitat Species Source Documents. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE Series. 

NMFS-NE-123: American Plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, Life History 

and Habitat Characteristics. By: D.L. Johnson, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and 

J.J. Vitaliano. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-124: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: M.P. Fahay, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 

1999. 

NMFS-NE-125: Atlantic Halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, and W.W. Morse. 

1999. 

NMFS-NE-128: Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, 

and D.L. Johnson. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-129: Ocean Pout, Macrozoarces americanus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: F.W. Steimle, W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, D.L. 

Johnson, and C.A. Zetlin. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-130: Offshore Hake, Merluccius albidus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: S. Chang, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C.A. Zetlin. 

1999. 

NMFS-NE-131: Pollock, Pollachius virens, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, 

D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. 

 
 65

NMFS-NE-132: Redfish, Sebastes sp., Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

By: R.A. Pikanowski, W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and D.G. 

McMillan. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-133: Red Hake, Urophycis chuss, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: F.W. Steimle, W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and D.L. Johnson. 

1999. 

NMFS-NE-136: White Hake, Urophycis tenuis, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: S. Chang, W.W. Morse, and P.L. Berrien. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-137: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: S. Chang, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 

1999. 

NMFS-NE-138: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History 

and Habitat Characteristics. By: J.J. Pereira1

, R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. 

Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-139: Witch Flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, P.L. 

Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-140: Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: Donna L. Johnson, Wallace W. Morse, Peter L. 

Berrien, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. 1999. 

NMFS-NE-163: Red Deepsea Crab, Chaceon (Geryon) quinquedens, Life 

History and Habitat Characteristics. By: F.W. Steimle, C.A. Zetlin, and S. 

Chang. 2002. 

NMFS-NE-173: Barndoor Skate, Dipturus laevis, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-174: Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-175: Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-176: Rosette Skate, Leucoraja garmani virginica, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-177: Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

 
 66

NMFS-NE-178: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-179: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.B. Packer, C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. 

NMFS-NE-186: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: M.C. Lock and D.B. Packer. 2004. 

NMFS-NE-189: Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. By: D.R. Hart and A.S. Chute. 2004. 

NMFS-NE-192: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. By: D.K. Stevenson and M.L. Scott. 2005. 

Paperno, R., K.J. Mille, and E. Kadison. 2001. Patterns in species composition of fish 

and selected invertebrate assemblages in estuarine subregions near Ponce de Leon Inlet, 

Florida. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 52: 117–130. 

Paperno, R. and R.B. Brodie. 2004. Effects of environmental variables upon the spatial 

and temporal structure of a fish community in a small, freshwater tributary of the Indian 

River Lagoon, Florida. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 61: 229–241. 

Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and 

abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume II: Species 

life history summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 11. NOAA/NOS SEA Division, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Pearcy, W.G., and S.S. Myers. 1974. Larval fishes of Yaquina Bay, Oregon: A nursery 

ground for marine fishes? Fish. Bull. 72(1): 201–213. 

Pearcy, W.G. and S.W. Richards. 1962. Distribution and ecology of fishes of the Mystic 

River Estuary, Connecticut. Ecology 43(2): 248–259. 

Phelan, B. 2007. Chief, Behavior Ecology Branch, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Highlands, NJ. Personal communication via 

memorandum dated July 2, 2007. 

Pinnix, W.D., T.A. Shaw, K.C. Acker, and N.J. Hetrick. 2005. Fish communities in 

eelgrass, oyster culture, and mudflat habitats of North Humboldt Bay, California. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Final Report. August 2005. Arcata Fisheries Technical Report 

Number TR2005-02. 

Rakocinski, C.F., J. Lyczkowski-Shultz, and S.L. Richardson. 1996. Ichthyoplankton 

assemblage structure in Mississippi Sound as revealed by canonical correspondence 

analysis. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 43: 237–257. 

 
 67

Recksiek, C.W. and J.D. McCleave. 1973. Distribution of pelagic fishes in the 

Sheepscot River-Back River Estuary, Wiscasset, Maine. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 3: 541–

551. 

Robards, M.D., J.F. Piatt, A.B. Kettle, and A.A. Abookire. 1999. Temporal and 

geographic variation in fish communities of lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. Fish. Bull. 97(4): 

962–977. 

Rountree, R.A., and K.W. Able. 1992. Fauna of polyhaline subtidal marsh creeks in 

southern New Jersey: Composition, abundance, and biomass. Estuaries 15(2): 171–185. 

Rountree, R.A., and K.W. Able. 1993. Diel variation in decapod crustacean and fish 

assemblages in New Jersey polyhaline marsh creeks. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci. 37: 181–

201. 

Rozas, L.P. and C.T. Hackney. 1984. Use of oligohaline marshes by fishes and 

macrofaunal crustaceans in North Carolina. Estuaries 7(3): 213–224. 

Rozas, L.P. and T.J. Minello. 1998. Nekton use of salt marsh, seagrass, and 

nonvegetated habitats in a south Texas (USA) estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 63(3): 481–501. 

Sheridan, P.F. 1992. Comparative habitat utilization by estuarine macrofauna within the 

mangrove ecosystem of Rookery Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 50(1): 21–39. 

Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, C.A. Short, R.C. Davis, and P.A. Morgan. 2000. Developing 

success criteria for restored eelgrass, salt marsh, and mud flat habitats. Ecol. Engineering

15: 239–252. 

Sogard, S.M., G.V.N. Powell, and J.G. Holmquist. 1989. Utilization by fishes of 

shallow, seagrass-covered banks in Florida Bay: 2. Diel and tidal patterns. Env. Biol. 

Fish. 24(2): 81–92. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2000. Final Amendment 12 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region. Charleston, South Carolina. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the 

South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management 

Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, South Carolina. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2003. Fishery Management Plan 

for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic. Charleston, South Carolina. 

 
 68

Stedman, S.M., and Dahl, T.E. 2008. Coastal Watersheds of the eastern United States: 

Status and Trends of Wetlands. (In press at National Wetland Newsletter by 

Environmental Law Institute). 

Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowery, J.D. Field, S.H. Jury, D.M. Nelson, M.E. Monaco, C.D. 

Williams, and L.A. Andreasen. 1994. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates in Mid-Atlantic estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 12. NOAA/NOS SEA 

Division, Silver Spring, MD. 280 p. 

Subrahmanyam, C.B., and C.L. Coultas. 1980. Studies on the animal communities in 

two north Florida salt marshes. Part III: Seasonal fluctuations of fish and 

macroinvertebrates. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30(4): 790–818. 

Szedlmayer, S.T., and K.W. Able. 1996. Patterns of seasonal availability and habitat use 

by fishes and decapod crustaceans in a southern New Jersey estuary. Estuaries 19(3): 

697–709. 

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H. Merkey, F.M. Burrows, and P.F. Gayaldo, 

(eds.). 2005. Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, Volume Two: 

Tools for Monitoring Coastal Habitats. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision 

Analysis Series No. 23. NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver 

Spring, MD. 628 pp. plus appendices. 

Tremain, D.M., and D.H. Adams. 1995. Seasonal variations in species diversity, 

abundance, and composition of fish communities in the northern Indian River Lagoon, 

Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57(1): 171–192. 

Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. 

Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific 

names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. American 

Fisheries Society, Special Publication 16, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Van Voorhees, D. 2007. Fisheries of the United States, 2005. Current Fishery Statistics 

No. 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, 

Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Van Voorhees, D. and E.S. Pritchard (ed.). 2003. Fisheries of the United States, 2002. 

Current Fishery Statistics No. 2002. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

Van Voorhees, D. and E.S. Pritchard (ed.). 2004. Fisheries of the United States, 2003. 

Current Fishery Statistics No. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

 
 69

Van Voorhees, D. and E.S. Pritchard (ed.). 2005. Fisheries of the United States, 2004. 

Current Fishery Statistics No. 2004. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Van Voorhees, D. and E.S. Pritchard (ed.). 2007. Fisheries of the United States, 2006. 

Current Fishery Statistics No. 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Wagner, C.M. 1999. Expression of the estuarine species minimum in littoral fish 

assemblages of the lower Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Estuaries 22(2A): 304–312. 

Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and 

shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull. 77(2): 339–357. 

Weinstein, M.P. and H.A. Brooks. 1983. Comparative ecology of nekton residing in a 

tidal creek and adjacent seagrass meadow: community composition and structure. Mar. 

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 12: 15–27. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2005a. Bottomfish and 

Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2004 Annual Report. 

Honolulu, Hawai’i. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2004. EFH/HAPC 

Designations for Fishery Management Units Covered Under the Bottomfish, Crustacean, 

Pelagic, Precious Corals and Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plans. 

Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2001. Final Fishery 

Management Plan for Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region. Volume 

III: Essential Fish Habitat for Management Unit Species. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2005b. Pelagic Fisheries of 

the Western Pacific Region: 2004 Annual Report. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2005c. Western Pacific 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 1995. Western Pacific 

Crustaceans Fishery Management Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2003. Western Pacific 

Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 2005d. Western Pacific 

Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

 
 

 

70

Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. 

McLaughlin, and I. Perez Farfante. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic 

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. American 

Fisheries Society, Special Publication 17, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Yoklavich, M.M., G.M. Cailliet, J.P. Barry, D.A. Ambrose, and B.S. Antrim. 1991. 

Temporal and spatial patterns in abundance and diversity of fish assemblages in Elkhorn 

Slough, California. Estuaries 14(4): 465–480. 

Yoklavich, M.M., M. Stevenson, and G.M. Cailliet. 1992. Seasonal and spatial patterns 

of ichthyoplankton abundance in Elkhorn Slough, California. Est., Coast. and Shelf Sci.

34: 109–126. 

Zimmerman, R.J. and T.J. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus 

setiferus, and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7(4A): 421–433. 

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. Pages 

293-314 in M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, editors. Concepts and controversies in 

tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 

Zimmerman, R.J. and L.M. Nance. 2001. Effects of hypoxia on the shrimp fishery of 

Louisiana and Texas. Pages 293-310 in N.N. Rabalais and R.E. Turner, editors. Coastal 

Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems. American Geophysical 

Union, Washington, DC. 

Zimmerman, R.J., J. Nance, and R. Hart. 2007. Correlative Relationship of Annual 

Brown Shrimp Catch to Nursery and Hypoxia Areas in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

A presentation/abstract given at the “Ecological Impacts of Hypoxia on Living Resources 

Workshop,” convened by NMFS, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, March 26-27, 2007.
71

Appendix A: Regional Estuarine Commercial Landings and Recreational Harvest, 2000-2004. Note: Percent values stated in the tables below are based on total regional catch (i.e., estuarine plus non-estuari

Table A-1. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in the North Atlantic Region, and the Species’ Proportion of Regi

Landings, 2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total North 

Atlantic 

Commercial 

Landings 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus 893,400,666 22% American lobster, Homarus americanus $1,506,329,372 American lobster, Homarus americanus 401,073,843 10% Scallops $777,128,943 Mackerel 273,257,340 7% Clams $283,202,624 Flatfish 206,858,066 5% Flatfish $233,276,315 Scallops 175,380,329 4% Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua $138,483,286 Hakes 161,892,345 4% Crabs $97,957,867 Skates, Rajidae 153,958,516 4% Longfinned squid, Loligo pealeii $97,048,588 Longfinned squid, Loligo pealeii 142,843,071 3% Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus $80,558,229 Crabs 141,280,374 3% Hakes $76,166,6810 Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua 126,921,685 3% Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus $61,087,52
72

Table A-2. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in the Chesapeake Region (Maryland, Virginia, Chesapeake Bay)Proportion of Regional Commercial Landings, 2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total 

Chesapeake 

Commercial 

Landings 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. 2,014,789,393 77% Sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus $305,056,622 Crabs 271,961,143 10% Crabs $284,412,033 

Sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus

75,358,794 3% Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. $124,090,68

4 

Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus

67,271,119 3% Clams $44,057,74

5 Clams 47,333,987 2% Striped bass, Morone saxatillis $33,266,506 Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus $21,458,957 Flatfish $21,348,418 Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica $15,866,139 Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus $9,165,34
73

Table A-3. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in the South Atlantic Region, and the Species’ Proportion of Regi

Landings, 2000–2004. 

Rank Estuarine Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total South 

Atlantic 

Commercial 

Landings 

Estuarine 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. 281,310,175 27% Shrimps $242,424,192 Crabs 238,174,969 23% Crabs $217,839,143 Shrimps 111,078,085 11% Flatfish $56,032,224 

Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus

58,847,005 6% Clams $34,734,40

5 Flatfish 34,433,725 3% Mackerels $32,241,616 Mackerels 28,963,451 3% Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus $15,848,277 Mullets 18,661,141 2% Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica $11,712,988 Bluefish 17,567,745 2% Groupers $11,185,309 Sharks 16,747,978 2% Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus $10,863,8710 Shads 15,438,802 1% Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. $10,603,35
74

Table A-4. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region, and the Species’ Proportion of Reg

Landings, 2000–2004. 

Rank Estuarine Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total Gulf 

of Mexico 

Commercial 

Landings 

Estuarine 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. 5,927,791,398 72% Shrimps $2,234,807,702 Shrimps 1,245,882,147 15% Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia spp. $345,964,143 Crabs 344,988,171 4% Crabs $343,724,124 Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica 127,561,567 2% Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica $278,713,665 Groupers $106,386,806 Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus $96,858,647 Mullets $47,846,49
75

Table A-5. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in Alaska, and the Species’ Proportion of Regional Commercial L

Rank Estuarine Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total 

Alaska 

Commercial 

Landings 

Estuarine 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. 3,144,546,334 12% Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. $958,486,012 Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii 362,448,750 1% Crabs $462,638,793 Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii $51,772,68
76

Table A-6. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in California, and the Species’ Proportion of Regional Commerci

2004. 

Rank Estuarine Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total 

California 

Commercial 

Landings 

Estuarine 

Species 

Commerc

Landings 

Dollar

1 Pacific sardine, Sardinops 

sagax 535,008,038 28% Crabs $120,224

2 Northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax 97,310,175 5% Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha $52,5203 Chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus 87,683,144 5% Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas $28,3374 Crabs 70,878,570 4% Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax $24,4285 Pacific hake, Merluccius productus 36,184,816 2% Spot shrimp, Pandalus platyceros $14,7056 Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii 28,770,499 2% California halibut, Paralichthys californicus $13,5977 Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 28,740,843 2% Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii $9,2478 Jack mackerel, Trachurus symmetricus 15,611,861 1% Chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus $5,6949 Northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax $4,33510 Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys 

marmoratus $3,253
77

Table A-7. Top Commercial Estuarine Species in the Pacific Northwest Region, and the Species’ Proportion of RLandings, 2000–2004. 

Rank Estuarine Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Weight in 

Pounds

Percent of Species in 

Total 

Pacific 

Northwest 

Commercial 

Landings 

Estuarine 

Species 

Commercial 

Landings by 

Dollar

1 Pacific hake (whiting), Merluccius productus 738,037,664 36% Crabs $341,905,682 Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax 350,629,447 17% Clams $172,204,993 Crabs 191,481,027 9% Oysters $134,372,844 Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. 140,789,328 7% Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. $96,816,405 Oysters 47,495,680 2% Pacific hake (whiting), Merluccius productus $29,001,036 Clams 14,216,479 1% Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax $19,927,497 English sole, Pleuronectes vetulus 10,616,544 1% Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis $16,941,178 Penaeid shrimp $9,170,89

Note: The Hawaiian Islands region does not have a table listing the top commercial estuarine species and their proportion 

Only one species group (snappers) comprised more than 1% of total regional landings. The snapper species group compris

1% by weight and 2% by dollar value of the total regional Hawaiian commercial landings. 
 78

Table A-8. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, North Atlantic Region, 

2000–2004. 

 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional

Recreational

Harvest

1 Striped bass, Morone saxatilis 33,139,976 25% 

2 Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua 25,921,409 19% 

3 Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix 21,407,821 16% 

4 Scup, Stenotomus chrysops 13,718,374 10% 

5 Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus 11,579,824 9% 

6 Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus 10,148,820 8% 

7 Tautog, Tautoga onitis 5,130,690 4% 

8 Pollock, Pollachius virens 3,768,276 3% 

9 Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus 1,954,409 1% 

10 Black sea bass, Centropristis striata 1,686,562 1% 

Table A-9. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, Mid-Atlantic Region, 

2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 Striped bass, Morone saxatilis 62,694,918 21% 

2 Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus 47,005,992 16% 

3 Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus 45,227,481 15% 

4 Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix 32,946,909 11% 

5 Black sea bass, Centropristis striata 14,957,201 5% 

6 Tautog, Tautoga onitis 12,523,494 4% 

7 Scup, Stenotomus chrysops 12,499,022 4% 

8 Weakfish, Cynoscion regalis 9,504,524 3% 

9 Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus 8,062,665 3% 

10 Winter flounder, Pleuronectes americanus 4,519,664 2% 

 

 
 79

Table A-10. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, South Atlantic Region, 

2000–2004. 

 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 King mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla 24,507,215 9% 

2 Striped bass, Morone saxatilis 9,638,872 4% 

3 Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix 9,190,779 3% 

4 Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus 8,660,415 3% 

5 Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus 8,629,993 3% 

6 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus 8,359,797 3% 

7 Red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus 6,865,989 3% 

8 Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus 6,432,834 2% 

9 Southern kingfish, Menticirrhus americanus 6,227,888 2% 

10 Black drum, Pogonias cromis 5,765,700 2% 

Table A-11. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, Gulf of Mexico Region, 

2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 Red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus 66,669,935 17% 

2 Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus 60,738,352 16% 

3 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus 23,034,894 6% 

4 Gag grouper, Mycteroperca microlepis 20,312,030 5% 

5 Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus 15,255,132 4% 

6 Black drum, Pogonias cromis 14,059,012 4% 

7 King mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla 13,846,739 4% 

8 Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides 10,686,977 3% 

9 Red grouper, Epinephelus morio 9,956,168 3% 

10 White grunt, Haemulon plumieri 9,597,316 3% 

 
 80

Table A-12. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, Caribbean Region, 

2000–2004. 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 Great barracuda, Sphyraena barracuda 486,407 3% 

2 Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos 279,259 2% 

3 King mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla 229,373 1% 

4 Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis 218,692 1% 

5 Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus 175,554 1% 

6 Common snook, Centropomus undecimalis 166,501 1% 

7 Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus 165,261 1% 

8 Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris 163,517 1% 

9 Tripletail, Lobotes surinamensis 163,037 1% 

10 Blue runner, Caranx crysos 105,702 <1% 

Table A-13. Top 10 Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, California, 2000–2002. 

 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 10,614,047 15% 

2 Barred sand bass, Paralabrax nebulifer 5,874,388 9% 

3 California halibut, Paralichthys californicus 4,797,558 7% 

4 Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus 2,509,265 4% 

5 Pacific chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus 2,456,656 4% 

6 Kelp bass, Paralabrax clathratus 2,300,158 3% 

7 White sea bass, Atractoscion nobilis 1,500,992 2% 

8 Striped bass, Morone saxatilis 1,243,996 2% 

9 Pacific sand dab, Citharichthys sordidus 1,106,409 2% 

10 California scorpionfish, Scorpaena guttata 882,504 1% 

 
 81

Table A-14. Top Ten Estuarine Species Recreationally Harvested, Pacific Northwest Region, 

2000–2002. 

Rank Species 

Recreational 

Harvest by 

weight in 

pounds

Percent of 

Regional 

Recreational

Harvest

1 Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 9,705,085 28% 

2 Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch 7,701,774 22% 

3 Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus 2,001,383 6% 

4 Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta 1,647,932 5% 

5 Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1,132,957 3% 

6 White sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus 891,373 3% 

7 Surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus 677,262 2% 

8 Kelp greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus 470,135 1% 

9 Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus 380,637 1% 

10 Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus 374,023 1% 

 
 82

Appendix B: Nationwide List of Species that Use Estuaries for Any Stage of Their 

Lifecycle. 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Capelin Mallotus villosus 

Amberjack Seriola sp. Carp, common Cyprinus carpio 

Amberjack, greater Seriola dumerili Catfish, blue Ictalurus furcatus 

Anchovies Engraulidae Catfish, channel Ictalurus punctatus 

Anchovy, bay Anchoa mitchilli Catfish, gafftopsail Bagre marinus 

Anchovy, deepbody Anchoa compressa Catfish, hardhead Arius felis 

Anchovy, northern Engraulis mordax Catfish, white Ameiurus catus 

Anchovy, slough Anchoa delicatissima Chubsucker, creek Erimyzon oblongus 

Anchovy, striped Anchoa hepsetus Chubsucker, lake Erimyzon sucetta 

Angelfish, gray Pomacanthus arcuatus Cisco, Arctic Coregonus autumnalis 

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus Cisco, least Coregonus sardinella 

Barracuda, great Sphyraena barracuda Clam, Atlantic middleneck Mercenaria sp. 

Barracudas Spyraenidae Clam, Atlantic rangia Rangia cuneata 

Bass, kelp Paralabrax clathratus Clam, Atlantic topneck Mercenaria sp. 

Bass, largemouth Micropterus salmoides Clam, banded chione Chione californiensis 

Bass, rock Ambloplites rupestris Clam, butter Saxidomus gigantea 

Bass, smallmouth Micropterus dolomieu Clam, button Mercenaria species 

Bass, striped Morone saxatilis Clam, California jacknife Tagelus californianus 

Beaugregory Stegastes leucostictus Clam, frilled venus Chione undatella 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Clam, horseneck gaper Tresus capax 

Blenny, feather Hypsoblennius hentz Clam, manila Corbicula manilensis 

Blenny, Florida Chasmodes saburrae Clam, Pacific gaper Tresus nuttallii 

Blenny, freckled Hypsoblennius ionthas Clam, Pacific geoduck Panopea abrupta 

Blenny, Gossamer Omobranchus ferox Clam, Pacific littleneck Protothaca staminea 

Blenny, highfin Lupinoblennius nicholsi Clam, Pacific manila Tapes philippinarum 

Blenny, striped Chasmodes bosquianus Clam, Pacific razor Siliqua patula 

Blenny, tasseled Parablennius thysanius Clam, quahog Mercenaria mercenaria 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Clam, razor Siliqua sp. 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Clam, rough-sided littleneck Protothaca laciniata 

Bonefish Albula vulpes Clam, smooth venus Chione fluctifraga 

Bonefish, longjaw Albula forsteri Clam, softshell Mya arenaria 

Bonefish, roundjaw Albula glossodonta Clam, Texas hard Mercenaria mercenaria 

texana 

Bream, sea Archosargus rhomboidalis Clam, thin-shelled littleneck Protothaca tenerrima 

Bullhead, black Ameiurus melas Clam, Washington Saxidomus nuttalli 

Bullhead, brown Ameiurus nebulosus Clams or bivalves Bivalvia 

Bullhead, yellow Ameiurus natalis Clingfish, kelp Rimicola muscarum 

Bumper, Atlantic Chloroscombrus chrysurus Cobia Rachycentrum canadum 

Burrfish, striped Chilomycterus schoepfi Cockle, nuttall Clinocardium nuttallii 

Butterfish Peprilus sp. Cockscomb, high Anoplarchus purpurescens 

Butterfish, Atlantic Peprilus triacanthus Cod, Arctic Boreogadus saida 

Butterfish, Gulf Peprilus burti Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua 

Butterflyfish, banded Chaetodon striatus Corbina Menticirrhus undulatus 

Butterflyfish, foureye Chaetodon capistratus Cowfish, scrawled Acanthostracion 

quadricornis 

Butterflyfish, spotfin Chaetodon ocellatus Crab, Atlantic rock Cancer irroratus 

Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Crab, blue Calliectes sapidus 

 
 83

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Crab, blue king Paralithodes platypus Eel, speckled worm Myrophis punctatus 

Crab, broadback mud Eurytium limosum Eel, whip Bascanichthys scuticaris 

Crab, cancer Cancer sp. Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus 

Crab, dungeness Cancer magister Filefish, orange Aluterus schoepfi 

Crab, Florida stone Menippe mercenaria Filefish, planehead Monacanthus hispidus 

Crab, green Carcinus maenas Flagtail, Hawaiian Kuhlia sandvicensis; Kuhlia 

xenura 

Crab, green porcelain Petrolisthes armatus Flatfish Pleuronectiformes 

Crab, Gulf stone Menippe adina Flounder, fourspot Paralichthys oblongus 

Crab, hairy hermit Pagurus hirsutiusculus Flounder, fringed Etropus crossotus 

Crab, hermit Paguroidea Flounder, gray Etropus rimosus 

Crab, horseshoe Limulus polyphemus Flounder, Gulf Paralichthys albigutta 

Crab, jonah Cancer borealis Flounder, ocellated Ancylopsetta quadrocellata 

Crab, kelp Majidae Flounder, Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus 

Crab, mangrove tree Aratus pisonii Flounder, smallmouth Etropus microstomus 

Crab, Pacific rock Cancer antennarius Flounder, smooth Pleuronectes putnami 

Crab, red king Paralithodes camtschaticus Flounder, southern (fluke) Paralichthys lethostigma 

Crab, red rock Cancer productus Flounder, speckled 

sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus 

Crab, snow/tanner Chionoecetes sp. Flounder, starry Platichthys stellatus 

Crab, spider Majidae Flounder, summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Crab, tanner Chionoecetes bairdi Flounder, windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 

Crab, triangle tanner Chionoecetes angulatus Flounder, winter Pleuronectes americanus 

Crabs Decapoda Flounder, yellowtail Pleuronectes ferrugineus 

Crappie, black Pomoxis nigromaculatus Flounders, righteye Pleuronectidae 

Crappie, white Pomoxis annularis Gag Mycteroperca microlepis 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus Gar, longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Croaker, white Genyonemus lineatus Gar, spotted Lepisosteus oculatus 

Croaker, yellowfin Umbrina roncador Goatfish, spotted Pseudupeneus maculatus 

Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus Goatfish, yellow Mulloidichthys martinicus 

Cusk-eel, crested Ophiodon josephi Goby, arrow Clevelandia ios 

Cusk-eel, striped Ophiodon marginatum Goby, bay Lepidogobius lepidus 

Cutlassfish, Atlantic Trichiurus lepturus Goby, blackeye Rhinogobiops nicholsii 

Damselfish, bicolor Stegastes partitus Goby, cheekspot Ilypnus gilberti 

Damselfish, yellowtail Microspathodon chrysurus Goby, clown Microgobius gulosus 

Darter, tessellated Etheostoma olmstedi Goby, code Gobiosoma robustum 

Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus Goby, darter Gobionellus boleosoma 

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Goby, freshwater Ctenogobius shufeldti 

Dragonet, spotted Diplogrammus pauciradiatus Goby, frillfin Bathygobius soporator 

Drum, banded Larimus fasciatus Goby, green Microgobius thalassinus 

Drum, black Pogonias cromis Goby, highfin Gobionellus oceanicus 

Drum, freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens Goby, lyre Evorthodus lyricus 

Drum, red Sciaenops ocellatus Goby, naked Gobiosoma bosc 

Drum, star Stellifer lanceolatus Goby, ragged Bollmannia communis 

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata Goby, seaboard Gobiosoma ginsburgi 

Eel, pikeconger Nettastomatidae Goby, shadow Quietula y-cauda 

Eel, ridged Neoconger mucronatus Goby, tidewater Eucyclogobius newberryi 

Eel, shrimp Ophichthus gomesii Goby, violet Gobioides broussonetii 

 
 84

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Goby, yellowfin Acanthogobius flavimanus Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 

Goldfish Carassius auratus Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus 

Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus Hogfish, Spanish Bodianus rufus 

Greenling, kelp Hexagrammos decagrammus Jack, bar Caranx ruber 

Greenling, masked Hexagrammos octogrammus Jack, crevalle Caranx hippos 

Greenling, painted Oxylebius pictus Jack, horse-eye Caranx latus 

Greenling, rock Hexagrammos lagocephalus Jack, yellow Caranx bartholomaei 

Greenling, whitespotted Hexagrammos stelleri Jacks Carangidae 

Greenlings Hexagrammidae Jacksmelt Atherinopsis californiensis 

Grouper, black Mycteroperca bonaci Killifish, banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Grouper, goliath Epinephelus itajara Killifish, bayou Fundulus pulvereus 

Grouper, Nassau Epinephelus striatus Killifish, California Fundulus parvipinnis 

Grouper, red Epinephelus morio Killifish, diamond Adinia xenica 

Grouper, yellowfin Mycteroperca venenosa Killifish, goldspotted Floridichthys carpio 

Groupers Serranidae Killifish, gulf Fundulus grandis 

Grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus Killifish, longnose Fundulus similis 

Grunt, bluestriped Haemulon sciurus Killifish, marsh Fundulus confluentus 

Grunt, French Haemulon flavolineatum Killifish, rainwater Lucania parva 

Grunt, white Haemulon plumieri Killifish, spotfin Fundulus luciae 

Grunts Haemulidae Killifish, striped Fundulus majalis 

Gunnel, crescent Pholis laeta Kingfish, Gulf Menticirrhus littoralis 

Gunnel, penpoint Apodichthys flavidus Kingfish, northern Menticirrhus saxatilis 

Gunnel, red Pholis schultzi Kingfish, southern Menticirrhus americanus 

Gunnel, rock Pholis gunnellus Ladyfish Elops saurus 

Gunnel, rockweed Apodichthys fucorum Lamprey, Pacific Lampetra tridentata 

Gunnel, saddleback Pholis ornata Launces Ammodytes sp. 

Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Leatherjack Oligoplites saurus 

Hake, Pacific (whiting) Merluccius productus Limia, Cuban Limia vittata 

Hake, red Urophycis chuss Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus 

Hake, silver Merluccius bilinearis Lizardfish, inshore Synodus foetens 

Hake, southern Urophycis floridana Lobster, American Homarus americanus 

Hake, spotted Urophycis regia Lobster, spiny Panulirus argus 

Hake, white Urophycis tenuis Lord, brown Irish Hemilepidotus spinosus 

Halfbeak Hemiramphidae Lord, red Irish Hemilepidotus 

hemilepidotus 

Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus Lumpsucker, Pacific spiny Eumicrotremus orbis 

Halibut, California Paralichthys californicus Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus 

Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus Mackerel, jack Trachurus symmetricus 

Helmet, flame Cassis flammea Mackerel, king Scomberomorus cavalla 

Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus Mackerel, Pacific chub Scomber japonicus

Herring, Atlantic thread Opisthonema oglinum Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus 

Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis Margate Haemulon album 

Herring, dwarf Jenkinsia lamprotaenia Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Herring, Pacific Clupea pallasii Menhaden, finescale Brevoortia gunteri 

Herring, round Etrumeus teres Menhaden, Gulf Brevoortia patronus 

Herrings Clupeidae Menhaden, yellowfin Brevoortia smithi 

High-hat Pareques acuminatus Midshipman, plainfin Porichthys notatus 

Hind, red Epinephelus guttatus Midshipman, Atlantic Porichthys plectrodon 

 
 85

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Midshipman, specklefin Porichthys myriaster Pholids Pholidae 

Milkfish Chanos chanos Pickerel, chain Esox niger 

Minnow, bluntnose Pimephales notatus Pickerel, redfin Esox americanus 

americanus 

Minnow, fathead Pimephales promelas Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 

Minnow, pugnose Opsopoeodus emiliae Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Minnow, sheepshead Cyprinodon variegatus Pinfish, spottail Diplodus holbrooki 

Minnow, silvery Hybognathus sp. Pipefish Syngnathidae 

Mojarra, flagfin Eucinostomus melanopterus Pipefish, bay Syngnathus leptorhynchus 

Mojarra, mottled Eucinostomus lefroyi Pipefish, chain Syngnathus louisianae 

Mojarra, spotfin Eucinostomus argenteus Pipefish, dusky Syngnathus floridae 

Mojarra, striped Diapterus plumieri Pipefish, Gulf Syngnathus scovelli 

Mojarras Gerreidae Pipefish, northern Syngnathus fuscus 

Molly miller Scartella cristata Pipefish, sargassum Syngnathus pelagicus 

Monos Monodactylidae Pipefish, Texas Syngnathus affinis 

Moonfish, Atlantic Selene setapinnis Plaice, American Hippoglossoides 

platessoides 

Mosquitofish, eastern Gambusia holbrooki Poacher, northern 

spearnose Agonopsis vulsa 

Mosquitofish, western Gambusia affinis Poacher, pricklebreast Stellerina xyosterna 

Mudsucker, longjaw Gillichthys mirabilis Poacher, sturgeon Podothecus accipenserinus 

Mullet, striped Mugil cephalus Poacher, tubenose Pallasina barbata 

Mullet, white Mugil curema Poacher, warty Chesnonia verrucosa 

Mullets Mugilidae Pollock Pollachius virens 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus Pompano, African Alectis ciliaris 

Mussel, blue Mytilus edulis Pompano, Florida Trachinotus carolinus 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina Pompano, Irish Diapterus auratus 

Needlefish, redfin Strongylura notata Porcupinefish Diodon hystrix 

Opaleye Girella nigricans Porgy, grass Calamus arctifrons 

Oyster, eastern Crassotrea virginica Porgy, littlehead Calamus proridens 

Oyster, European flat Ostrea edulis Porgy, whitebone Calamus leucosteus 

Oyster, Olympia Ostreola conchaphila Porkfish Anisotremus virginicus 

Oyster, Pacific Crassostrea gigas Pout, eel Lycodes sp. 

Parrotfish, rainbow Scarus guacamaia Pout, ocean Zoarces americanus 

Parrotfish, redtail Sparisoma chrysopterum Prickleback, rock Xiphister mucosus 

Parrotfish, stoplight Sparisoma viride Prickleback, snake Lumpenus sagitta 

Parrotfish, striped Scarus iseri Puffer, least Sphoeroides parvus 

Perch, black Embiotoca jacksoni Puffer, northern Sphoeroides maculatus 

Perch, dwarf Micrometrus minimus Puffer, sharpnose Canthigaster rostrata 

Perch, kelp Brachyistius frenatus Puffer, southern Sphoeroides nephelus 

Perch, pile Rhacochilus vacca Puffers Tetraodontidae/Sphoeroides 

Perch, shiner Cymatogaster aggregata Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Perch, silver Bairdiella chrysoura Queenfish Seriphus politus 

Perch, tule Hysterocarpus traski Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 

Perch, white Morone americana Rabbitfishes Siganidae 

Perch, yellow Perca flavescens Ratfish, spotted Hydrolagus colliei 

Periwinkle, marsh Littorina irrorata Ray, bat Myliobatis californica 

Permit Trachinotus falcatus Ray, cownose Rhinoptera bonasus 

 
 86

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Ray, spotted eagle Aetobatus narinari Sculpin, ribbed Triglops pingelii 

Redhorse, shorthead Moxostoma macrolepidotum Sculpin, sailfin Nautichthys oculofasciatus 

Rockfish, brown Sebastes auriculatus Sculpin, sharpnose Clinocottus acuticeps 

Rockfish, grass Sebastes rastrelliger Sculpin, shorthorn Myoxocephalus scorpius 

Ronquil, Alaskan Bathymaster 

caeruleofasciatus Sculpin, silverspotted Blepsias cirrhosus 

Ronquil, northern Ronquilus jordani Sculpin, smoothhead Artedius lateralis 

Runner, blue Caranx crysos Sculpin, tadpole Psychrolutes paradoxus 

Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Sculpin, tidepool Oligocottus maculosus 

Sailors choice Haemulon parra Sculpins Cottidae 

Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar Scup Stenotomus chrysops 

Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Sea bass, black Centropristis striata 

Salmon, chum Oncorhynchus keta Sea bass, white Atractoscion nobilis 

Salmon, coho Oncorhynchus kisutch Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus 

Salmon, pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sea urchin, green Strongylocentrotus 

droehbachiensis 

Salmon, sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka Seahorse, dwarf Hippocampus zosterae 

Sand bass, barred Paralabrax nebulifer Seahorse, lined Hippocampus erectus 

Sand bass, spotted Paralabrax maculatofasciatus Seahorses Syngnathidae 

Sand lance, American Ammodytes americanus Seaperch, striped Embiotoca lateralis 

Sand lance, Pacific Ammodytes hexapterus Seaperch, white Phanerodon furcatus 

Sandfish, Pacific Trichodon trichodon Searobin, bighead Prionotus tribulus 

Sardine, Pacific Sardinops sagax Searobin, northern Prionotus carolinus 

Sardine, scaled Harengula jaguana Searobin, spotted Prionotus punctatus 

Sardines Clupeidae Searobin, striped Prionotus evolans 

Sawfish Pristis species Seatrout, sand Cynoscion arenarius 

Scad, yellowtail Atule mate Seatrout, spotted Cynoscion nebulosus 

Scallop, bay Argopecten irradians Sergeant major Abudefduf saxatilis 

Scallop, sea Placopecten magellanicus Shad, Alabama Alosa alabamae 

Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Scorpionfish, California Scorpaena guttata Shad, gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Scorpionfish, spotted Scorpaena plumieri Shad, hickory Alosa mediocris 

Sculpin, antlered Enophrys diceraus Shad, threadfin Dorosoma petenense 

Sculpin, Arctic Myoxocephalus scorpioides Shanny, Arctic Stichaeus punctatus 

Sculpin, armorhead Gymnocanthus galeatus Shark, Atlantic angel Squatina dumerili 

Sculpin, buffalo Enophrys bison Shark, Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon 

terraenovae 

Sculpin, crested Blepsias bilobus Shark, blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus 

Sculpin, fluffy Oligocottus snyderi Shark, blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus 

Sculpin, frog Myoxocephalus stelleri Shark, bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo 

Sculpin, great Myoxocephalus 

polyacanthocephalus Shark, brown smoothhound Mustelus henlei 

Sculpin, leister Enophrys lucasi Shark, bull Carcharhinus leucas 

Sculpin, longhorn Myoxocephalus 

octodecemspinosus Shark, dusky Carcharhinus obscurus 

Sculpin, manacled Synchirus gilli Shark, finetooth Carcharhinus isodon 

Sculpin, northern Icelinus borealis Shark, gray smoothhound Mustelus californicus 

Sculpin, Pacific staghorn Leptocottus armatus Shark, lemon Negaprion brevirostris 

Sculpin, padded Artedius fenestralis Shark, leopard Triakis semifasciata 

Sculpin, prickly Cottus asper Shark, nurse Ginglymostoma cirratum 

 
 87

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Shark, sand tiger Carcharias taurus Skate, clearnose Raja eglanteria 

Shark, sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus Skate, little Leucoraja erinacea 

Shark, scalloped 

hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Skate, longnose Raja rhina 

Shark, smalltail Carcharhinus porosus Skate, winter Leucoraja ocellata 

Shark, smooth dogfish Mustelus canis Skates Rajidae 

Shark, soupfin Galeorhinus galeus Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Shark, spinner Carcharhinus brevipinna Sleeper, bigmouth Gobiomorus dormitor 

Shark, spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Sleeper, emerald Erotelis smaragdus 

Sharks, pelagic Carcharinidae,/Sphyrnidae Sleeper, fat Dormitator maculatus 

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus Smelt, delta Hypomesus transpacificus 

Shiner, blacknose Notropis heterolepis Smelt, longfin Spirinchus thaleichthys 

Shiner, golden Notemigonus crysoleucas Smelt, night Spirinchus starksi 

Shiner, satinfin Cyprinella analostana Smelt, rainbow Osmerus mordax 

Shiner, spottail Notropis husonius Smelt, surf Hypomesus pretiosus 

Shrimp, banded 

snapping Alpheus armillatus Smelt, wakasagi Hypomesus nipponensis 

Shrimp, bay Crangon franciscorum Smelt, whitebait Allosmerus elongatus 

Shrimp, bigclaw 

snapping Alpheus heterochaelis Smelts Osmeridae 

Shrimp, blacktailed bay Crangon nigricauda Snailfish, kelp Liparis tunicatus 

Shrimp, blue mud Upogebia pugettensis Snailfish, ringtail Liparis rutteri 

Shrimp, brackish grass Palaemonetes intermedius Snailfish, showy Liparis pulchellus 

Shrimp, brown Farfantepenaeus aztecus Snailfish, slimy Liparis mucosus 

Shrimp, coonstripe Pandalus hypsinotus Snailfish, slipskin Liparis fucensis 

Shrimp, daggerblade 

grass Palaemonetes pugio Snailfish, tidepool Liparis florae 

Shrimp, ghost Callianassidae Snapper, cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus 

Shrimp, green snapping Alpheus normanni Snapper, dog Lutjanus jocu 

Shrimp, mantis Stomatopoda Snapper, gray Lutjanus griseus 

Shrimp, marsh grass Palaemonetes vulgaris Snapper, lane Lutjanus synagris 

Shrimp, northern Pandalus borealis Snapper, mahogany Lutjanus mahogoni 

Shrimp, penaeid Penaeidae Snapper, mutton Lutjanus analis 

Shrimp, pink Farfantepenaeus duorarum Snapper, yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus 

Shrimp, riverine grass Palaemonetes paludosus Snappers Lutjanidae 

Shrimp, roughback Trachypenaeus similis Snook, common Centropomus undecimalis 

Shrimp, roughneck Trachypenaeus constrictus Soapfish, greater Rypticus saponaceus 

Shrimp, sevenspine bay Crangon septemspinosa Sole, English Pleuronectes vetulus / 

Parophrys vetulus (PFMC) 

Shrimp, snapping Alpheidae Sole, lined Achirus lineatus 

Shrimp, spot Pandalus platyceros Spadefish, Atlantic Chaetodipterus faber 

Shrimp, white Litopenaeus setiferus Spadefishes Ephippidae 

Silver Jenny Eucinostomus gula Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Silverside, Atlantic Menidia menidia Sprats Clupeidae 

Silverside, hardhead Atherinomorus stipes Squid, bay Lolliguncula brevis 

Silverside, inland Menidia beryllina Squid, long-finned Loligo pealeii 

Silverside, rough Membras martinica Squirrelfish, longspine Holocentrus rufus 

Silverside, tidewater Menidia peninsulae Stargazer, northern Astroscopus guttatus 

Silversides Atherinidae/Menidia sp. Stargazer, southern Astroscopus y-graecum 

Skate, big Raja binoculata Stickleback, four-spine Apeltes quadracus 

Skate, California Raja inornata Stickleback, nine-spine Pungitius pungitius 

 
 88

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Stickleback, three-spine Gasterosteus aculeatus Timucu Strongylura timucu 

Stingray, Atlantic Dasyatis sabina Toadfish, Gulf Opsanus beta 

Stingray, round Urobatis halleri Toadfish, oyster Opsanus tau 

Stingray, southern Dasyatis americana Toadfishes Batrachoididae 

Sturgeon, Atlantic Acipenser oxyrhynchus Tomcod, Atlantic Microgadus tomcod 

Sturgeon, green Acipenser medirostris Tomcod, Pacific Microgadus proximus 

Sturgeon, lake Acipenser fulvescens Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 

Sturgeon, shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Tonguefish, blackcheek Symphurus plagiusa 

Sturgeon, white Acipenser transmontanus Tonguefish, California Symphurus atricauda 

Sturgeons Acipenseridae Topminnow, saltmarsh Fundulus jenkinsi 

Sucker, Sacramento Catostomus occidentalis Topsmelt Atherinops affinis 

Sunfish, green Lepomis cyanellus Trevally, black Caranx lugubris 

Sunfish, redbreast Lepomis auritus Trevally, bluefin Caranx melampygus 

Sunfish, warmouth Lepomis gulosus Trevally, giant Caranx ignobilis 

Surfperch, barred Amphistichus argenteus Trevally, thick-lipped Pseudocaranx dentex

Surfperch, redtail Amphistichus rhodoterus Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis 

Surfperch, silver Hyperprosopon ellipticum Trout, cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki 

Surfperch, spotfin Hyperprosopon anale Trout, steelhead (rainbow) Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Surfperch, walleye Hyperprosopon argeneum Trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus 

Surfperches Embiotocidae Trunkfish, spotted Lactophrys bicaudalis 

Surgeon, ocean Acanthurus bahianus Tube-snout Aulorhynchus flavidus 

Tang, blue Acanthurus coeruleus Turbot, diamond Hypsopsetta guttulata 

Tarpon Megalops atlanticus Turbot, spotted Pleuronichthys ritteri 

Tautog Tautoga onitis Waspfish Tetrarogidae 

Terrapin Terrapin sp. Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 

Threadfin, Atlantic Polydactylus octonemus Whiff, bay Citharichthys spilopterus 

Threadfin, Pacific Polydactylus sexfilis Wolf-eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus 

Threadfins Polynemidae Wrasse, bluehead Thalassoma bifasciatum 

Tilapia, blackchin Sarotherodon melanotheron Wrasse, yellowhead Halichoeres garnoti 

 
 89

Appendix C: Estuarine Species or Species Groupings in U.S. Commercial 

Landings, 2000–2004. 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Drum, black Pogonias cromis 

Amberjack Seriola sp. Drum, freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens 

Amberjack, greater Seriola dumerili Drum, red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Anchovies Engraulidae Eel, american Anguilla rostrata 

Anchovy, northern Engraulis mordax Flatfish Pleuronectiformes 

Barracudas Sphyraenidae Flounder, flukes Paralichthys 

Bass, striped Morone saxatilis Flounder, Pacific, sanddab Citharichthys 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Flounder, starry Platichthys stellatus 

Butterfish Peprilus sp. Flounder, summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Flounder, windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 

Carp, common Cyprinus carpio Flounder, winter Pleuronectes americanus 

Catfish, blue Ictalurus furcatus Flounder, yellowtail Pleuronectes ferrugineus 

Catfish, channel Ictalurus punctatus Flounders, righteye Pleuronectidae 

Clam, butter Saxidomus giganteus Gag Mycteroperca microlepis 

Clam, California 

jackknife Ensis myrae Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 

Clam, manila Corbicula manilensis Grouper, black Mycteroperca bonaci 

Clam, Pacific geoduck Panopea abrupta Grouper, red Epinephelus morio 

Clam, Pacific littleneck Protothaca staminea Grouper, yellowfin Mycteroperca venenosa 

Clam, Pacific razor Siliqua patula Grouper, yellowmouth Mycteroperca interstitialis 

Clam, Pacific, gaper Tresus Groupers Serranidae 

Clam, quahog Mercenaria Grunt, white Haemulon plumieri 

Clam, softshell Mya arenaria Grunts Haemulidae 

Clams or bivalves Bivalvia Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 

Cobia Rachycentron canadum Hake, Atlantic, red/white Urophycis 

Cockle, nuttall Clinocardium nuttallii Hake, Pacific (whiting) Merluccius productus 

Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua Hake, red Urophycis chuss 

Crab, Atlantic rock Cancer irroratus Hake, silver Merluccius bilinearis 

Crab, blue Callinectes sapidus Hake, white Urophycis tenuis 

Crab, cancer Cancer Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus 

Crab, dungeness Cancer magister Halibut, California Paralichthys californicus 

Crab, Florida stone Menippe mercenaria Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus 

Crab, green Carcinus maenas Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus 

Crab, horseshoe Limulus polyphemus Herring, Atlantic thread Opisthonema oglinum 

Crab, jonah Cancer borealis Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Crab, king Paralithodes Herring, Pacific Clupea pallasii 

Crab, red rock Cancer productus Herring, round Etrumeus teres 

Crab, snow/tanner Chionoecetes sp. Herrings Clupeidae 

Crab, southern tanner Chionoecetes bairdi Hind, red Epinephelus guttatus 

Crab, spider Majidae Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus 

Crabs Decapoda Jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus 

Crappie Pomoxis Jacks Carangidae 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus Jack, bar Caranx ruber 

Croaker, Pacific white Genyonemus lineatus Jack, crevalle Caranx hippos 

Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus Jack, horse-eye Caranx latus 

Cutlassfish, Atlantic Trichiurus lepturus King whiting Menticirrhus 

 
 90

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Ladyfish Elops saurus Salmon, coho Oncorhynchus kisutch 

Launces Ammodytes Salmon, Pacific Oncorhynchus 

Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Salmon, pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 

Lobster, American Homarus americanus Salmon, sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka 

Lobster, Caribbean spiny Panulirus argus Sanddab, Pacific Citharichthys sordidus 

Mackerel (scomber) Scomber Sardine, Pacific Sardinops sagax 

Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus Scallop, bay Argopecten irradians 

Mackerel, chub Scomber japonicus Scallop, sea Placopecten magellanicus 

Mackerel, king Scomberomorus cavalla Scorpionfish, spotted Scorpaena plumieri 

Mackerel, king and cero Scomberomorus Sculpins Cottidae 

Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus Scup Stenotomus chrysops 

Mantis shrimps Stomatopoda Scups or porgies Sparidae 

Margate Haemulon album Sea bass, black Centropristis striata 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia sp. Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus 

Mojarras Gerreidae Seabass, white Atractoscion nobilis 

Moonfish, Atlantic Selene setapinnis Seatrout, sand Cynoscion arenarius 

Mullet, striped (liza) Mugil cephalus Seatrout, spotted Cynoscion nebulosus 

Mullet, white Mugil curema Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Mullets Mugilidae Shad, gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus Shad, hickory Alosa mediocris 

Mussel, blue Mytilus edulis Shark, Atlantic angel Squatina dumeril 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina Shark, Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon terraenovae 

Oyster, eastern Crassostrea virginica Shark, blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus 

Oyster, European flat Ostrea edulis Shark, blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus 

Oyster, Olympia Ostrea conchaphila Shark, bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo 

Oyster, Pacific Crassostrea gigas Shark, bull Carcharhinus leucas 

Penaeid shrimp Penaeidae Shark, dogfish Squalidae 

Perch, white Morone americana Shark, dusky Carcharhinus obscurus 

Perch, yellow Perca flavescens Shark, finetooth Carcharhinus isodon 

Permit Trachinotus falcatus Shark, lemon Negaprion brevirostris 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera Shark, leopard Triakis semifasciata 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Shark, nurse Ginglymostoma cirratum 

Pinfish, spottail Diplodus holbrooki Shark, sand tiger Odontaspis taurus 

Plaice, American Hippoglossoides platessoides Shark, sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus 

Pollock Pollachius virens Shark, smooth dogfish Mustelus canis 

Pompano, African Alectis ciliaris Shark, soupfin Galeorhinus zyopterus 

Pompano, Florida Trachinotus carolinus Shark, spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias 

Porgy, whitebone Calamus leucosteus Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 

Pout, ocean Macrozoarces americanus Shellfish Crustacea 

Puffers Tetraodontidae Shrimp, blue mud Upogebia pugettensis 

Puffers Sphoeroides Shrimp, brown Farfantepenaeus aztecus 

Queenfish Seriphus politus Shrimp, ghost Callianassidae 

Ratfish spotted Hydrolagus colliei Shrimp, marine, other Decapoda, Dendrobranchiata 

Rays Rajiformes Shrimp, penaeid Penaeidae 

Rockfish, brown Sebastes auriculatus Shrimp, pink Farfantepenaeus duorarum 

Rockfish, grass Sebastes rastrelliger Shrimp, spot Pandalus platyceros 

Runner, blue Caranx crysos Shrimp, white Litopenaeus setiferus 

Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Shrimp, Atlantic & Gulf, 

roughneck Trachypenaeus 

Salmon, chum Oncorhynchus keta Silversides Atherinidae 

 
 91

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Skate, big Raja binoculata Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Skates Rajidae Squid, longfin Loligo pealeii 

Smelt, eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Sturgeon, green Acipenser medirostris 

Smelt, rainbow Osmerus mordax Sturgeon, white Acipenser transmontanus 

Smelts Osmeridae Sturgeons Acipenseridae 

Snappers Lutjanidae Surfperches Embiotocidae 

Snapper, cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus Tarpon Megalops atlanticus 

Snapper, dog Lutjanus jocu Tautog Tautoga onitis 

Snapper, gray Lutjanus griseus Threadfins Polynemidae 

Snapper, lane Lutjanus synagris Toadfishes Batrachoididae 

Snapper, mahogany Lutjanus mahogoni Tomcod, Pacific Microgadus proximus 

Snapper, mutton Lutjanus analis Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis 

Snapper, schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Trout, rainbow Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Snapper, yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 

Sole, english Pleuronectes vetulus Wolf-eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus 

Spadefishes Ephippidae 

 
 92

Appendix D: Estuarine Species in U.S. Recreational Harvest, 2000–2004. 

Common Name Scientific name Common Name Scientific name 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Drum, red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Amberjack, greater Seriola dumerili Drum, star Stellifer lanceolatus 

Anchovy, deepbody Anchoa compressa Eel, American Anguilla rostrata 

Anchovy, northern Engraulis mordax Eel, shrimp Ophichthus gomesii 

Anchovy, striped Anchoa hepsetus Filefish, orange Aluterus schoepfi 

Angelfish, gray Pomacanthus arcuatus Filefish, planehead Monacanthus hispidus 

Barracuda, great Sphyraena barracuda Flounder, fourspot Paralichthys oblongus 

Bass, barred sand Paralabrax nebulifer Flounder, Gulf Paralichthys albigutta 

Bass, black sea Centropristis striata Flounder, ocellated Ancylopsetta quadrocellata 

Bass, kelp Paralabrax clathratus Flounder, southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Bass, smallmouth Micropterus dolomieu Flounder, starry Platichthys stellatus 

Bass, spotted sand Paralabrax maculatofasciatus Flounder, summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Bass, striped Morone saxatilis Flounder, windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 

Bass, white sea Atractoscion nobilis Flounder, winter Pleuronectes americanus 

Blue runner Caranx crysos Flounder, yellowtail Pleuronectes ferrugineus 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Gar, longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Gar, spotted Lepisosteus oculatus 

Bonefish Albula vulpes Goatfish, yellow Mulloidichthys martinicus 

Bream, sea Archosargus rhomboidalis Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 

Bullhead, brown Ameiurus nebulosus Greenling, kelp Hexagrammos 

decagrammus 

Bullhead, yellow Ameiurus natalis Greenling, painted Oxylebius pictus 

Bumper, Atlantic Chloroscombrus chrysurus Greenling, rock Hexagrammos lagocephalus 

Burrfish, striped Chilomycterus schoepfi Greenling, whitespotted Hexagrammos stelleri 

Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Grouper, goliath Epinephelus itajara 

Carp, common Cyprinus carpio Grouper, black Mycteroperca bonaci 

Catfish, blue Ictalurus furcatus Grouper, gag Mycteroperca microlepis 

Catfish, channel Ictalurus punctatus Grouper, Nassau Epinephelus striatus 

Catfish, gafftopsail Bagre marinus Grouper, red Epinephelus morio 

Catfish, hardhead Arius felis Grouper, yellowfin Mycteroperca venenosa 

Catfish, white Ameiurus catus Grunt, bluestriped Haemulon sciurus 

Cobia Rachycentrum canadum Grunt, French Haemulon flavolineatum 

Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua Grunt, white Haemulon plumieri 

Corbina Menticirrhus undulatus Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 

Cowfish, scrawled Acanthostracion quadricornis Hake, Pacific Merluccius productus 

Crappie, black Pomoxis nigromaculatus Hake, red Urophycis chuss 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus Hake, silver Merluccius bilinearis 

Croaker, white Genyonemus lineatus Hake, southern Urophycis floridana 

Croaker, yellowfin Umbrina roncador Hake, spotted Urophycis regia 

Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus Hake, white Urophycis tenuis 

Cutlassfish, Atlantic Trichiurus lepturus Halibut, California Paralichthys californicus 

Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus 

Drum, banded Larimus fasciatus Herring, Atlantic thread Opisthonema oglinum 

Drum, black Pogonias cromis Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Drum, freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens Hind, red Epinephelus guttatus 

 
 93

Common Name Scientific name Common Name Scientific name 

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Perch, yellow Perca flavescens 

Hogfish, Spanish Bodianus rufus Permit Trachinotus falcatus 

Jack, bar Caranx ruber Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 

Jack, crevalle Caranx hippos Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Jack, horse-eye Caranx latus Pinfish, spottail Diplodus holbrooki 

Jack, yellow Caranx bartholomaei Pollock Pollachius virens 

Jacksmelt Atherinopsis californiensis Pompano, African Alectis ciliaris 

Killifish, striped Fundulus majalis Pompano, Florida Trachinotus carolinus 

Kingfish, Gulf Menticirrhus littoralis Pompano, Irish Diapterus auratus 

Kingfish, northern Menticirrhus saxatilis Porcupinefish Diodon hystrix 

Kingfish, southern Menticirrhus americanus Porgy, grass Calamus arctifrons 

Ladyfish Elops saurus Porgy, littlehead Calamus proridens 

Leatherjack Oligoplites saurus Porgy, whitebone Calamus leucosteus 

Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Porkfish Anisotremus virginicus 

Lizardfish, inshore Synodus foetens Pout, ocean Zoarces americanus 

Lord, red Irish Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Prickleback, rock Xiphister mucosus 

Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus Puffer, least Sphoeroides parvus 

Mackerel, jack Trachurus symmetricus Puffer, northern Sphoeroides maculatus 

Mackerel, king Scomberomorus cavalla Puffer, southern Sphoeroides nephelus 

Mackerel, Pacific chub Scomber japonicus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus Queenfish Seriphus politus 

Margate Haemulon album Raven, sea Hemitripterus americanus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus Ray, bat Myliobatis californica 

Menhaden, Gulf Brevoortia patronus Ray, cownose Rhinoptera bonasus 

Menhaden, yellowfin Brevoortia smithi Ray, spotted eagle Aetobatus narinari 

Midshipman, plainfin Porichthys notatus Rockfish, brown Sebastes auriculatus 

Midshipman, specklefin Porichthys myriaster Rockfish, grass Sebastes rastrelliger 

Minnow, sheepshead Cyprinodon variegatus Sailors choice Haemulon parra 

Mojarra, flagfin Eucinostomus melanopterus Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar 

Mojarra, mottled Eucinostomus lefroyi Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

Mojarra, spotfin Eucinostomus argenteus Salmon, chum Oncorhynchus keta 

Mojarra, striped Diapterus plumieri Salmon, coho Oncorhynchus kisutch 

Moonfish Selene sp. Salmon, pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 

Mullet, striped Mugil cephalus Salmon, sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka 

Mullet, white Mugil curema Sand dab, Pacific Citharichthys sordidus 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina Sand dab, speckled Citharichthys stigmaeus 

Opaleye Girella nigricans Sardine, Pacific Sardinops sagax 

Parrotfish, rainbow Scarus guacamaia Sardine, scaled Harengula jaguana 

Parrotfish, redtail Sparisoma chrysopterum Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus 

Parrotfish, stoplight Sparisoma viride Scorpionfish, California Scorpaena guttata 

Parrotfish, striped Scarus iseri Scorpionfish, spotted Scorpaena plumieri 

Perch, black Embiotoca jacksoni Sculpin, buffalo Enophrys bison 

Perch, pile Rhacochilus vacca Sculpin, great Myoxocephalus 

polyacanthocephalus 

Perch, shiner Cymatogaster aggregata Sculpin, Pacific staghorn Leptocottus armatus 

Perch, silver Bairdiella chrysoura Sculpin, shorthorn Myoxocephalus scorpius 

Perch, white Morone americana Scup Stenotomus chrysops 

 
 

 

94

Common Name Scientific name Common Name Scientific name 

Seaperch, striped Embiotoca lateralis Snapper, yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus 

Seaperch, white Phanerodon furcatus Snook, common Centropomus undecimalis 

Searobin, bighead Prionotus tribulus Soapfish, greater Rypticus saponaceus 

Searobin, northern Prionotus carolinus Sole, English Pleuronectes vetulus / 

Parophrys vetulus (PFMC) 

Searobin, striped Prionotus evolans Spadefish, Atlantic Chaetodipterus faber 

Seatrout, sand Cynoscion arenarius Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Seatrout, spotted Cynoscion nebulosus Squirrelfish, longspine Holocentrus rufus 

Sergeant major Abudefduf saxatilis Stargazer, northern Astroscopus guttatus 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima Stargazer, southern Astroscopus y-graecum 

Shad, gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum Stingray, Atlantic Dasyatis sabina 

Shad, hickory Alosa mediocris Stingray, round Urobatis halleri 

Shark, Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Stingray, southern Dasyatis americana 

Shark, blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus Sturgeon, green Acipenser medirostris 

Shark, blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus Sturgeon, white Acipenser transmontanus 

Shark, bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo Sunfish, redbreast Lepomis auritus 

Shark, brown smoothhound Mustelus henlei Surfperch, barred Amphistichus argenteus 

Shark, bull Carcharhinus leucas Surfperch, redtail Amphistichus rhodoterus 

Shark, dusky Carcharhinus obscurus Surfperch, silver Hyperprosopon ellipticum 

Shark, finetooth Carcharhinus isodon Surfperch, spotfin Hyperprosopon anale 

Shark, gray smoothhound Mustelus californicus Surfperch, walleye Hyperprosopon argeneum 

Shark, lemon Negaprion brevirostris Surgeon, ocean Acanthurus bahianus 

Shark, leopard Triakis semifasciata Tang, blue Acanthurus coeruleus 

Shark, nurse Ginglymostoma cirratum Tarpon Megalops atlanticus 

Shark, sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus Tautog Tautoga onitis 

Shark, scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Threadfin, Atlantic Polydactylus octonemus 

Shark, smalltail Carcharhinus porosus Timucu Strongylura timucu 

Shark, smooth dogfish Mustelus canis Toadfish, Gulf Opsanus beta 

Shark, soupfin Galeorhinus galeus Toadfish, oyster Opsanus tau 

Shark, spinner Carcharhinus brevipinna Tomcod, Atlantic Microgadus tomcod 

Shark, spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Tomcod, Pacific Microgadus proximus 

Sheepshead Archosargus 

probatocephalus Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 

Silverside, rough Membras martinica Topsmelt Atherinops affinis 

Skate, big Raja binoculata Trevally, black Caranx lugubris 

Skate, California Raja inornata Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis 

Skate, clearnose Raja eglanteria Trout, cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki 

Skate, little Leucoraja erinacea Trout, steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Skate, winter Leucoraja ocellata Trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus 

Smelt, rainbow Osmerus mordax Trunkfish, spotted Lactophrys bicaudalis 

Smelt, surf Hypomesus pretiosus Tube-snout Aulorhynchus flavidus 

Snapper, cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus Turbot, diamond Hypsopsetta guttulata 

Snapper, dog Lutjanus jocu Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Snapper, gray Lutjanus griseus Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 

Snapper, lane Lutjanus synagris Whiff, bay Citharichthys spilopterus 

Snapper, mahogany Lutjanus mahogoni Wolf-eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus 

Snapper, mutton Lutjanus analis 

**Note: 2000–2004 recreational harvest data not available for shellfish species such as oysters, clams, scallops, 

mussels, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp.