Great White Shark CESA petition – an update

Today the California Department of Fish and Wildlife published a status evaluation report for the Fish and Game Commission in connection with the petition to list the Northeastern Pacific (NEP) population of the white shark under the California Endangered Species Act.

I previously discussed the petition – https://miketcon.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/great-white-sharks-now-a-candidate-species-in-california/

Not surprisingly, the report concludes – “The Department’s recommendation is that the petitioned action to list the NEP population of white shark as threatened or endangered is not warranted.”  The Commission has am agenda item for its April 16 meeting dedicated to the state evaluation report.  After consideration, the Commission is free to accept the Department’s recommendation or not.  You can access the full report by clicking here – Ca DFW’s status evaluation re great white shark.  It is very lengthy, well written and informative.

2014 List of Fisheries

This is reproduced from our business page, which you can link too by clicking here,  I apologize for the formatting issues as importing tables into WordPress leads to some interesting challenges.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) requires the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a list of commercial fisheries and to rate each fishery based upon occurrences of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.  The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been tasked to fulfill these requirements and does so through the annual List of Fisheries (“LOF”).  The LOF classifies U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories depending on the level of incidental mortality or serious injury to marine mammals:

Category I – frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals;

Category II – occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals; or

Category III – a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals.

This fishery classification criteria is based on a two-tiered, stock-specific approach.  The first step addresses the total impact of all fisheries in each marine mammal stock.  Once that is complete, the second step addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock.  A full description of how this works can be technical and is outside the scope of this document.  See also – 50 CFR 229.2 (detailed definition of each category), 60 FR 45086 (details regarding how the categories were determined) and 60 FR 67063 (details regarding factors considered when including a fishery within a particular category without any documented injuries or mortalities).

The classification of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements.  Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required to:

1. Obtain a valid Certificate of Authorization by registering with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (50 CFR 229.4).
2. Accommodate an observer onboard your vessel(s) upon request (50 CFR 229.7).
3. Comply with any applicable take reduction plans. NMFS may develop and implement take reduction plans for any Category I or II fishery that interacts with a strategic stock.  Note – the 2013 LOF proposes the following take reduction plans which will impact certain Pacific Ocean Fisheries:
4. False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP)—50 CFR 229.37

Category I – HI deep-set (tuna target) longline/set line.

Category II – HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline/set line.

1. Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP)—50 CFR 229.31.

Category II – CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh).

Section 118 of the MMPA, codified at 16 USC §1387, requires an annual review of the LOF to reflect new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals as well as new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SAR) and other relevant sources.  On December 6, 2013 NMFS published the proposed LOF for 2014 in the Federal Register.[1]  Three entities submitted public comments.  The final LOF for 2014 was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014[2].  There were some modifications to fisheries in the Pacific Ocean and those are highlighted below[3].  Unlike last year, no fisheries in the Pacific were reclassified in this LOF.

West Coast and Pacific fisheries removed from the LOF

Category II Western Pacific pelagic “pot vessel,” “factory mothership,” and “multipurpose vessels not elsewhere identified (NEI);”

Category II Pacific highly migratory species “pot vessel” and “multipurpose vessels (NEI);”

Category II South Pacific albacore troll “pot vessel” and “multipurpose vessels (NEI);”

Estimated number of vessels/persons in the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean were adjusted as follows (if your fishery is not listed, there were no changes):

Category	Fishery	Est # of participants (2013 LOF)	Est # of participants (2014 LOF)
I	CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet	25	19
II	CA spot prawn pot	27	28
II	CA Dungeness crab pot	534	570
III	CA pelagic longline	6	1
III	CA coonstripe shrimp, rock crab, tanner crab pot or trap	305	203
III	CA spiny lobster	225	198

Note – while not reflected in the 2014 LOF, the following fisheries were noted in public comments to have different estimated number of vessels/persons.

Category	Fishery	Est # of participants (2013 LOF)	Est # of participants (2014 LOF)
III	WA salmon purse seine	440	75
III	WA salmon reef net	53	11

Updates to list of mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by Pacific Ocean fisheries:

CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery – addition of minke whales.

Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot fishery – addition of grey whale (Eastern North Pacific).

HI deep-set (tuna target) longline fishery – changes the false killer whale stock name from “HI Insular” to “MHI Insular” on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “HI deep-set (tuna target) longline” fishery and removes the superscript “1” to indicate the stock is no longer driving the fishery’s Category I classification.  Sperm whale (HI stock) is added.

HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline fishery – addition of Blainville’s beaked whale (HI stock).

American Samoa longline fishery – adds Cuvier’s beaked whale (unknown stock), short-finned pilot whale (unknown stock), and bottlenose dolphin (unknown stock)

Updates to the estimated number of High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in the Pacific Ocean:

Category	High Seas Fishery	# of HSFCA Permits (2013 LOF)	Est # of HSFCA Permits (2014 LOF)
II	South Pacific tuna Purse Seine	38	40
II	South Pacific albacore Troll Longline	11	13
II	South Pacific tuna fisheries longline	10	8
II	Pacific highly migratory species handline/pole and line	40	46
II	South Pacific albacore troll handline/pole and line	7	9
II	Western Pacific pelagic handline/pole and line	6	5
II	South Pacific albacore troll	36	33
II	South Pacific tuna fisheries troll	3	2
II	Western Pacific pelagic troll	22	19
III	Pacific highly migratory species liners nei	1	3
III	Pacific highly migratory species Longline	96	101
III	Pacific highly migratory species Purse Seine	6	8
III	Pacific highly migratory species Troll	263	262

Updates to list of mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by Pacific Ocean High Seas fisheries:

Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Deep-set component) fishery – removal of the following “unknown” stocks: bottlenose dolphin, false killer whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, and striped dolphin.  Addition of sperm whale (HI stock).

Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Shallow-set component) fishery – removal of the following “unknown” stocks: bottlenose dolphin, Kogia sp. whale (pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), Risso’s dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, and striped dolphin.  addition of false killer whale (HI Pelagic stock), short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA), and Blainville’s beaked whale (HI stock).

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean

(note – some of these also have a high seas component and are listed in the table that follows)

Fishery Description	Est # of vessels/persons	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
	CATEGORY I
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES:
HI deep-set (tuna target) longline/set line	129	Bottlenose dolphin, HI PelagicFalse killer whale, MHI Insular & HI Pelagic (drivers for Cat I status)False killer whale, Palmyra Atoll Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI Risso’s dolphin, HI Short-finned pilot whale, HI Striped dolphin, HI
GILLNET FISHERIES:
CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh)	19	Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore.California sea lion, U.S.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Minke Whale, CA/OR/WA Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Risso’s dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Sperm Whale, CA/OR/WA (driver for Cat I status)
	CATEGORY II
Fishery Description	Est # of vessels/persons	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
GILLNET FISHERIES: CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in mesh)	50	California sea lion, U.S.Harbor seal, CA. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status) Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. Sea otter, CA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/W
CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size ≥3.5 in and <14 in)	30	California sea lion, U.S.Long-beaked common dolphin, CA.Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet	1863	Beluga whale, Bristol Bay.Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet	982	Beluga whale, Bristol Bay.Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Spotted seal, AK.
AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet	188	Harbor porpoise, GOA. (driver for Cat II status)Harbor seal, GOA.Sea otter, Southwest AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S
AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet	738	Beluga whale, Cook Inlet.Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor porpoise, GOA. Harbor seal, GOA. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. (driver for Cat II status) Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet	569	Beluga whale, Cook Inlet.Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor porpoise, GOA. (driver for Cat II status) Harbor seal, GOA. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet	162	Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor porpoise, GOA.Harbor seal, GOA. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific
AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet	114	Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea.Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet	537	Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor porpoise, GOA.1Harbor seal, GOA. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Sea otter, South Central AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.  (driver for Cat II status)
AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet	474	Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK.Harbor seal, Southeast AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. (driver for Cat II status) Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.
AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet	167	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Harbor Porpoise, Southeastern AK.Harbor seal, Southeast AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK).
WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-Treaty Indian fishingis excluded)	210	Dall’s porpoise, CA/OR/WA.Harbor porpoise, inland WA. (driver for Cat II status)Harbor seal, WA inland.
PURSE SEINE FISHERIES:
AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine	82	Humpback whale, Central North Pacific
AK Kodiak salmon purse seine	379	Humpback whale, Central North Pacific
TRAWL  FISHERIES:
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl	34	Bearded seal, AK.Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea. Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Humpback whale, Western North Pacific. (driver for Cat II status) Killer whale, AK resident. (driver for Cat II status) Killer whale, GOA, AI, BS transient. (driver for Cat II status) Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Ringed seal, AK. Ribbon seal, AK. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. (driver for Cat II status)
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl	95	Bearded Seal, AK.Dall’s porpoise, AK.Harbor seal, AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific and Western North Pacific. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Ribbon seal, AK. Ringed seal, AK. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. (driver for Cat II status)
Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl	10	Killer whale, ENP AK resident.Killer whale, GOA, AI, BS transient
POT, RING, NET AND TRAP FISHERIES:
CA spot prawn pot	28	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status)
CA Dungeness crab pot	570	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status)
OR Dungeness crab pot	433	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status)
WA/OR/CA sablefish pot	309	Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.
WA coastal Dungeness crab pot/trap	228	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status)
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES:
HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline/set line	20	Blaineville’s beaked whale, HiBottlenose dolphin, HI Pelagic.False killer whale, HI Pelagic. (driver for Cat II status) Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. Kogia sp. whale (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), HI. Risso’s dolphin, HI. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI
American Samoa longline	24	Bottlenose Dolphin, unknownCuvier’s beaked whale, unknownFalse killer whale, American Samoa. Rough-toothed dolphin, American Samoa. Short-finned pilot whale, unknown
HI shortline	11	None documented
	CATEGORY III
Fishery Description	Est # of vessels/persons	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet	1702	Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea.
AK miscellaneous finfish set gillnet	3	Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet	30	Harbor seal, GOA.Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet	990	None documented
CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 in)	304	None documented
HI inshore gillnet	36	Bottlenose dolphin, HI.Spinner dolphin, HI.
WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing)	24	Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
WA/OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish gillnet	913	None documented
WA/OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift gillnet.	110	California sea lion, U.S.Harbor seal, OR/WA coast
WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet	82	Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.Northern elephant seal, CA breeding.
PURSE SEINE, BEACH SEINE, ROUND HAUL, THROW NET AND TANGLE NET FISHERIES:
AK Southeast salmon purse seine	415	None documented in the most recent 5 years of data
AK Metlakatla salmon purse seine	10	None documented
AK miscellaneous finfish beach seine	1	None documented
AK miscellaneous finfish purse seine	2	None documented
AK octopus/squid purse seine	0	None documented
AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine	6	None documented
AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine	367	None documented
AK salmon beach seine	31	None documented
AK salmon purse seine (excluding salmon purse seine fisheries listed as Category II).	935	Harbor seal, GOA.
CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine	65	California sea lion, U.S.Harbor seal, CA.
CA squid purse seine	80	Long-beaked common dolphin, CA.Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
CA tuna purse seine	10	None documented
WA/OR sardine purse seine	42	None documented
WA (all species) beach seine or drag seine	235	None documented
WA/OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara	130	None documented
WA salmon purse seine	75	None documented
WA salmon reef net	11	None documented
HI opelu/akule net	22	None documented
HI inshore purse seine	< 3	None documented
HI throw net, cast net	29	None documented
HI hukilau net	26	None documented
HI lobster tangle net	0	None documented
DIP NET FISHERIES:
CA squid dip net	115	None documented
WA/OR smelt, herring dip net	119	None documented
MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES:
CA marine shellfish aquaculture	Unknown	None documented
CA salmon enhancement rearing pen	> 1	None documented
CA white seabass enhancement net pens	13	California sea lion, U.S.
HI offshore pen culture	2	None documented
OR salmon ranch	1	None documented
WA/OR salmon net pens	14	California sea lion, U.S.Harbor seal, WA inland waters
TROLL FISHERIES:
AK North Pacific halibut, AK bottom fish, WA/OR/CA albacore, groundfish, bottom fish, CA halibut nonsalmonid troll fisheries	1320 (120 AK)	None documented
AK salmon troll	2008	Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
American Samoa tuna troll	7	None documented
CA/OR/WA salmon troll	4300	None documented
HI trolling, rod and reel	1560	Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll	40	None documented
Guam tuna troll	432	None documented
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES:
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline	154	Dall’s Porpoise, AK.Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish longline	0	None documented
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline	36	Killer whale, AK resident
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline	28	None documented
AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline	1302	None documented
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline	107	Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish longline	0	None documented
AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline	291	Sperm whale, North Pacific.
AK halibut longline/set line (State and Federal waters)	2280	None documented in the most recent 5 years of data
AK octopus/squid longline	2	None documented
AK State-managed waters longline/setline (including sablefish, rockfish, lingcod, and miscellaneous finfish)	1323	None documented
WA/OR/CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line	367	Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore.
WA/OR North Pacific halibut longline/set line	350	None documented
CA pelagic longline	1	None documented in the most recent 5 years of data
HI kaka line	17	None documented
HI vertical longline	9	None documented
TRAWL FISHERIES:
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl	9	Ribbon seal, AK.Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl	93	Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl	41	Northern elephant seal, NP.
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl	62	Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl	62	Dall’s porpoise, AK.Fin whale, Northeast Pacific.Northern elephant seal, North Pacific. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl	34	None documented
AK food/bait herring trawl	4	None documented
AK miscellaneous finfish otter/beam trawl	282	None documented
AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet)	33	None documented
AK State-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl.	2	None documented
CA halibut bottom trawl	53	None documented
WA/OR/CA shrimp trawl	300	None documented
WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl	160 – 180	California sea lion, U.S.Dall’s porpoise, CA/OR/WA.Harbor seal, OR/WA coast. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.
POT, RING, NET AND TRAP FISHERIES:
AK statewide miscellaneous finfish pot	243	None documented
AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot	8	None documented
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot	68	None documented
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot	296	None documented
AK Bering Sea sablefish pot	6	None documented
AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot	389	None documented
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot	154	Harbor seal, GOA.
AK Southeast Alaska crab pot	415	Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK).
AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot	274	Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK).
AK shrimp pot, except Southeast	210	None documented
AK octopus/squid pot	26	None documented
AK snail pot	1	None documented
CA coonstripe shrimp, rock crab, tanner crab pot or trap	203	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Harbor seal, CA
CA spiny lobster	198	Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
OR/CA hagfish pot or trap	54	None documented
WA/OR shrimp pot/trap	254	None documented
WA Puget Sound Dungeness crab pot/trap	249	None documented
HI crab trap	9	None documented
HI fish trap	9	None documented
HI lobster trap	< 3	Hawaiian monk seal.
HI shrimp trap	4	None documented
HI crab net	6	None documented
HI Kona crab loop net	48	None documented
HANDLINE AND JIG FISHERIES:
AK miscellaneous finfish handline/hand troll and mechanical jig	456	None documented
AK North Pacific halibut handline/hand troll and mechanical jig	180	None documented
AK octopus/squid handline	0	None documented
American Samoa bottomfish	12	None documented
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish	28	None documented
Guam bottomfish	> 300	None documented
HI aku boat, pole, and line	3	None documented
HI Main Hawaiian Islands deep-sea bottomfish handline	567	Hawaiian monk seal.
HI inshore handline	378	None documented
HI tuna handline	459	None documented
WA groundfish, bottomfish jig	679	None documented
Western Pacific squid jig	< 3	None documented
HARPOON FISHERIES:
CA swordfish harpoon	30	None documented
POUND NET/WEIR FISHERIES:
AK herring spawn on kelp pound net	411	None documented
AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net	4	None documented
WA herring brush weir	1	None documented
HI bullpen trap	< 3	None documented
BAIT PENS:
WA/OR/CA bait pens	13	California sea lion, U.S.
DREDGE FISHERIES:
Coastwide scallop dredge	108 (12 AK)	None documented
DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES:
AK abalone	0	None documented
AK clam	156	None documented
WA herring spawn on kelp	4	None documented
AK Dungeness crab	2	None documented
AK herring spawn on kelp	266	None documented
AK urchin and other fish/shellfish	521	None documented
CA abalone	0	None documented
CA sea urchin	538	None documented
HI black coral diving	< 3	None documented
HI fish pond	16	None documented
HI handpick	57	None documented
HI lobster diving	29	None documented
HI spearfishing	143	None documented
WA/CA kelp	4	None documented
WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, octopus, oyster, sea cucumber, scallop, ghost shrimp hand, dive, or mechanical collection.	637	None documented
WA shellfish aquaculture	684	None documented
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL(CHARTER BOAT)  FISHERIES:
AK/WA/OR/CA commercial passenger fishing vessel	> 7000 (2702 AK)	Killer whale, stock unknown.Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
HI charter vessel	114	Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI.
LIVE FINFISH/SHELLFISH  FISHERIES:
CA nearshore finfish live trap/hook-and-line	93	None documented

Commercial Fisheries on the Pacific High Seas

(note – some of these also have a Pacific Ocean component and are listed in the table above)

Fishery Description	Number of HSFCA permits	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
	CATEGORY I
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES:
Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Deep-set component)	124	Bottlenose dolphin, HI PelagicFalse killer whale, HI Pelagic.Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI. Risso’s dolphin, HI. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI.
	CATEGORY II
Fishery Description	Number of HSFCA permits	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
DRIFT GILLNET FISHERIES:
Pacific Highly Migratory Species	4	Long-beaked common dolphin, CA.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Risso’s dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
TRAWL FISHERIES:
Western Pacific Pelagic	0	Undetermined
PURSE SEINE FISHERIES:
South Pacific Tuna Fisheries	40	Undetermined
Western Pacific Pelagic	3	Undetermined
LONGLINE FISHERIES:
South Pacific Albacore Troll	13	Undetermined
South Pacific Tuna Fisheries	8	Undetermined
Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Shallow-set component)	28	Blaineville’s beaked whale, HIBottlenose dolphin, HI PelagicFalse Killer Whale, HI Pelagic Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. Kogia sp. whale (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), HI Risso’s dolphin, HI. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA Short-finned pilot whale, HI. & unknown Striped dolphin, HI. & unknown
HANDLINE/POLE AND LINE FISHERIES:
Pacific Highly Migratory Species	46	Undetermined
South Pacific Albacore Troll	9	Undetermined
Western Pacific Pelagic	5	Undetermined
TROLL FISHERIES:
South Pacific Albacore Troll	33	Undetermined
South Pacific Tuna Fisheries	2	Undetermined
Western Pacific Pelagic	19	Undetermined
LINERS NEI FISHERIES:
Pacific Highly Migratory Species	3	Undetermined
South Pacific Albacore Troll	1	Undetermined
Western Pacific Pelagic	1	Undetermined
	CATEGORY III
Fishery Description	Number of HSFCA permits	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: Pacific Highly Migratory Species	101	None documented in the most recent 5 years of data.
PURSE SEINE FISHERIES:
Pacific Highly Migratory Species	8	None documented
TROLL FISHERIES:
Pacific Highly Migratory Species	262	None documented

[1] 78 CFR 73477.  See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/12/06/2013-29208/list-of-fisheries-for-2014

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/14/2014-05576/list-of-fisheries-for-2014

[3] At the end of this document is a full list of all Pacific commercial fisheries showing their respective Category, estimated number of vessels/persons and marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured.

California’s commercial fishing differential fee statutes deemed unconstitutional

In Marilley v Bohnam (Case # C-11-02418 DMR) certain aspects of California’s commercial fishing licensing statutes were recently reviewed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The following Statutes establish differential fees for nonresidents to commercial fish in California:

§7852 – Commercial fishing licenses;

§7881 – Commercial fishing boat registration;

§8550.1 – Herring gill net permits;

§8280.6 – Dungeness crab vessel permits.

For the 2012 – 2013 commercial season (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2012) the differential fees were as follows:

Commercial fishing license – $130.03 for residents, $385.75 for nonresidents;

Commercial fishing boat registration – $338.75 for residents, $1,002.75 for nonresidents;

Herring gill net permit – $359.00 for residents, $1,334.25 for nonresidents;

Dungeness crab vessel permit – $273.00 for residents, $538.00 for residents.

Plaintiffs here represent a class of nonresident fishermen who participate in California fisheries.  They challenged the aforementioned differential fee statutes as being unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.  Cross motions for summary judgment were filed and the Court granted the motion filed by Plaintiffs.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause reads as follows, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” US Const Art IV §2, cl 1.  The Clause seeks to ensure the unity of the several states by protecting the interests of nonresidents which are fundamental to the promotion of interstate harmony.  While the Clause forbids a State from intentionally giving its own citizens a competitive advantage in business or employment it does not prohibit differential fee structures, or other disparity of treatment in the many situations where there are perfectly validly independent reasons for it.

Analyzing residency classifications under the Privileges and Immunities Clause requires a two-step inquiry.

1. First – is the restricted activity “sufficiently basic to the livelihood of a nation . . . as to fall within the purview of the Clause?”  If not, the inquiry ends and the government action is permissible.  The focus here is on the activity burdened, not the extent to which the activity is burdened.
2. Second – can the activity’s restriction be shown to be closely related to the advancement of a substantial state interest?    For example, if non-residents constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed – a substantial reason for state residency based discrimination exists.  This is not unlimited; however, if “less restrictive means” to achieve the government’s objective are identified, this may lead to finding that the restriction is not related to a substantial state interest.

Applying the above to the California statutory fee differential for nonresidents.

Does the activity in question fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause?

Plaintiffs contend the activity affected by the fee differential, commercial fishing, involves the ability to earn a living – one of the most fundamental privileges that receives the Clause’s protections (citations).

The State raises three arguments supporting its belief that the challenged activity does not trigger constitutional protections:

1. Plaintiff have not shown California fails to treat nonresidents on terms of substantial equality with residents.  This was quickly dismissed as a strained interpretation of the legal standard which lacks merit. 
2. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that nonresident fishermen have been excluded from participating in commercial fishing in California.  Evidence obtained during discovery supports the conclusion that the challenged fee differential targeted nonresidents for higher fees in order to close budget gaps, rather than address any burdens specifically attributable to the nonresidents.  In 2009, AB 1442 was passed which contained a number of changes “to update, correct and improve the Fish and Game Code.”  One of the items included in that Bill was an extension of the sunsets on provisions of existing law related to the Dungeness Crab fishery.  During discussion on this Bill, lawmakers opined that the fishery’s restricted access structure “appeared to be more about market protection for fishermen than the conservation of crab.”  Protectionism of resident fishermen is just the sort of thing the Privileges and Immunities Clause is designed to guard against.   Under this interpretation, it would be permissible to require citizens of another state to do business in California on terms of substantial inequality, so long as California does not drive them out of the state.  Because this exclusion requirement runs counter to the fundamental principal of the Clause, the Court wasn’t persuaded.  
3. In cases were privileges involve state funded benefits, the court must frame the step one inquiry by examining the interests at stake – here, a nonresident commercial fisherman’s interest in an equal subsidy to utilize California’s State funded commercial fisheries.  This argument failed because it read too much into Supreme Court precedent and is not an accurate statement of the law.

The Court was not persuaded by the State’s arguments and found “Commercial fishing, the activity directly affected by California’s differential fees, involves the right to earn a living, ‘one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the Clause’.  Therefore, California’s differential commercial fishing fees may be called to account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.’”  The Court then proceeded to the second step of the inquiry.

Is the differential fee structure closely related to the advancement of a substantial state interest?    

In the Ninth Circuit, the State can only satisfy this test by showing that the differential statute targets a specific burden caused by non-residents: a “substantial reason” for discrimination does not exist unless there is something to indicate that non-residents constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed.  Prior courts have addressed similar differential fee structures:

In Toomer v Witsell 334 US 385 (1948), the US Supreme Court held, a state may “charge non-residents a differential which would merely compensate the State for any added enforcement burden they may impose or for any conservation expenditures from taxes which only residents pay.”

In Carlson v State 789 P.2d 1269 (1990), the Alaska Supreme Court held ““where residents pay proportionately more by way of foregone benefits than nonresidents for fisheries management, nonresidents may be charged higher fees to make up the difference,” noting that “[t]he point of Toomer . . . is that the state may equalize the economic burden of fisheries management.”

California offered three state interests which justify the imposition of higher fees for nonresidents:

1. California’s interest in recovering a reasonable share of its investment in its fisheries;
2. California’s interest in minimizing the subsidization of nonresidents; and
3. California’s interest in maintaining its own natural resources

With regard to the Ninth Circuit’s “peculiar source of evil” formulation, the evil presented here, according to the State, is the potential for nonresidents to obtain a free ride.  Note – the State did identify an added burden on California’s commercial fisheries by nonresidents in the form of time spent by the DFW communicating with nonresidents regarding fisheries rules and procedures and obtaining information from other agencies regarding out-of-state boat registries.  Because the State wasn’t able to quantify the added burden directly attributable to nonresident commercial fishermen, it couldn’t show how, or to what degree, nonresidents obtained a free ride[1].

The Court paraphrased California’s step two inquiry as follows, “The fee differentials are closely related to the advancement of California’s interests because the state can require nonresidents to pay their “fair share” of the costs of enforcing, managing, and conserving its fisheries.”  California incurs a shortfall because the revenue collected through license fees does not cover investments by the State in its commercial fisheries.  California argues, it may seek reimbursement from nonresidents to cover a “fair share” of that shortfall.  Its fee differentials are constitutionally permissible as long as they meet two limitations: the nonresident fee differentials cannot 1) overcompensate the state for nonresidents’ share of the state’s investment, or 2) result in the exclusion of nonresidents from commercial fishing.  In a footnote, the Court notes, “It bears noting that Defendant created these two limits himself; no case law supports this articulation of his proposed constitutional boundaries.”

The Court did not buy this.  The question is whether nonresident commercial fishermen are able to do business in California “on terms of substantially equality” with California residents, the State’s approach ignores the required comparison.  The comparison is necessary because the Clause was designed to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned.  To the extent that Defendant must demonstrate that “non-citizens constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed,’” Defendant has failed to do so.

Conclusion

The Privileges and Immunities Clause “forbids a State from intentionally giving its own citizens a competitive advantage in business or employment.”  A license fee that is two to three times less expensive than what nonresidents have to pay for the same license is undeniably a “competitive advantage.”  States are allowed to make judgments resulting in discrimination against nonresidents where the State establishes an “advancement of a substantial state interest” as a reason for the disparate treatment, and if the facts evenly or approximately evenly distributes the costs imposed on residents and nonresidents to support those programs benefitting both groups.  The State failed to meet its burden.  As a result, the differential fee statutes, in question here, are not constitutionally permissible.

© 2014 West Coast Fisheries Consultants LLC – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

---

[1] There is no record evidence 1) that California conducted any analysis of nonresidents’ impact on its commercial fisheries; 2) that the differentials compensate California for any added burden on its commercial fisheries or expenses caused by non-residents; or 3) that California has identified any savings that it would realize if nonresidents were excluded from participating in commercial fishing in California.

Waiver of US citizenship requirements for crewmembers on commercial fishing vessels

The US Coast Guard has released new rules regarding the waiver of citizenship requirements for crewmembers on commercial fishing vessels.  To see the publication the Federal Register click here.

Summary:

The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to include a description of the procedures for requesting and processing waivers of citizenship requirements on commercial fishing vessels.  This is being done to inform the commercial fishing industry of this opportunity by codifying the application procedure policy into the Code of Federal Regulations.

With the exception of §28.1105 and 28.1100 (collection of information procedures which have not yet been approved), the final rule is effective March 17, 2014.

Statutory Background:

46 USC §8103[1] governs the citizenship requirements on vessels operating in US waters.  §8103(i)(1) discusses “unlicensed seaman on a fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessel” fishing in navigable waters of the US or the EEZ.  Except for a fishing vessel fishing exclusively for highly migratory species[2], each such seaman must be:

(A) a citizen of the United States;

(B) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence;

(C) any other alien allowed to be employed under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (“INA”); or

(D) an alien allowed to be employed under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands if the vessel is permanently stationed at a port within the Commonwealth and the vessel is engaged in the fisheries within the exclusive economic zone surrounding the Commonwealth or another United States territory or possession.

§8103(i)(2) further limits the number of non-permanent resident aliens authorized for employment under the Immigration and Nationality Act to not more than 25%.

§8103(b)(3)(C) empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive a citizenship requirement if he/she, after an investigation, determines that qualified seaman who are US citizens are not available.

Reasons for the Rule Making:

In 2001, the USCG published policy letter, “Procedures for Waiver of Requirements for Citizenship Aboard Commercial Fishing Vessels’’ (G–MOC Policy Letter 01–02).  Between the publication of that letter and 2008, the USCG received between 125 and 200 waiver requests annually.  In 2008, that number dropped to 6 and hasn’t increased to the earlier levels.  This led the USCG to surmise that not all fishing vessel owners, operators and employers are aware that they can request such a waiver.  This rule puts into Regulations, the requirements contained in the 2001 letter.

Additions to Regulations:

The new Regulations appear in 46 CFR Part 28.  It creates two new subparts – H and I:  H is reserved; I is entitled Citizenship Waiver Procedures.  Four new sections are added and are summarized below:

§28.1100              General

(a)    A citizenship requirement (as defined in 46 USC §8103 and described above) on commercial fishing vessels, other than a requirement that applies to the master of a documented vessel,  may be waived for unlicensed seamen when qualified seamen who are US citizens are not available.

(b)   Incorporates and repeats the exclusion from the citizenship requirements for a fishing vessel fishing exclusively for highly migratory species.

(c)    Subpart I preempts and state or local law that attempts to regulate this and is in conflict.

§28.1105              Request for a waiver

(a)    Vessel owners, operators, or employers who desire a waiver of citizenship requirements from the Coast Guard must submit a written request to the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, 2100 Second St. SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593–7581.

(b)   Defines the Information which must be contained within the waiver request:

(c)    Requesting party must include a statement certifying the vessel(s) will operate in compliance with all other applicable citizenship requirements.

(d)   Information required showing the aliens who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence are authorized for the employment under the INA.

(e)   Upon receipt of the request the information required by (b) through (d), the USCG will evaluate and reserves the right to investigate further to determine validity of the information provided.

§28.1110              Waiver Approval

(a)

(1)    If USCG does not make a determination with 30 days of receipt of a properly submitted request, or does not advise the applicant that additional time is required for consideration, request is deemed provisionally approved for 90 days from the end of that 30 day period.

(2)    If no determination is made within 30 days of receipt, a copy of the request and supporting documentation must be available on board the vessel as proof of submission.

(b)

(1)    If USCG determines no qualified US Citizen seamen are available, USCG will grant the waiver to exceed the 25% limit for employment of non-permanent resident alien seamen for the period authorized for each alien under the INA.  USCG will issue a letter of approval.

(2)    A copy of the waiver approval letter must be kept on board the vessel as proof.

§28.1115              Waiver request and approval records

The USCG will maintain a record of citizenship waiver requests and approvals.  Approvals will be documented for the applicable vessel(s) in the Coast Guard’s vessel information database.

Thoughts: 

If you plan on seeking a citizenship waiver, it would behoove you to start the process early.  Unfortunately, it isn’t often that you have the luxury of having 30-days to wait for the USCG to process the waiver request.  The specific information required may be time consuming to gather, the notice in the Federal Register estimates it will take an owner or operator approximately 9.25 hours to compile and submit the appropriate documentation to the Coast Guard (see page 8867 in the link provided above).

Appeals of any denials are governed under Part 1 of Title 46 of the CFRs.

If you have any questions or would like assistance in submitting your waiver request, feel free to contact us at info@wecofm.com

© 2014 – West Coast Fisheries Consultants, LLC            All Rights Reserved

---

[1] See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/8103

[2] 16 USC §1802(21), “The term “highly migratory species” means tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).”

Discussion Draft version of the ‘‘Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act’’

On December 18, 2013 the House Committee on Natural Resources released a Discussion Draft version of the ‘‘Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act’’.  This is the Title of the Act reauthorizing and amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  You can access the Discussion Draft version here:

“The Magnuson-Stevens Act has enabled the U.S. to have the best managed fisheries in the world and has been instrumental in providing a framework for allowing regions to address their own unique challenges. Yet, as the Committee has heard at multiple oversight hearings, many fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries are currently facing challenges – including sudden severe cuts to quotas, rising costs, and restrictive fishing seasons. I believe there are updates to the law that should be considered that will address these concerns and ensure there is a proper balance between the biological needs of fish and the economic needs of fishermen,” said Chairman Doc Hastings.

The draft proposal, while maintaining the key themes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, would make the following improvements:

• Provide flexibility for fishery managers when rebuilding depleted fisheries
• Provide flexibility for fishery managers when setting annual catch levels
• Provide more transparency for fishermen and others in both science and management
• Provide more predictability and stability for fishermen and fishery-dependent communities
• Allow fishery managers to take the economic impact of their decisions into account when setting harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
• Allow fishery managers to take environmental conditions into account when establishing harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
• Allow fishermen in regions where catch share programs have been controversial to have a say in whether a new catch share program will be implemented and to be provided better information when considering such a program
• Provide a schedule for obtaining better fishery dependent and fishery independent data especially for data poor fisheries and provide greater protection for confidential information submitted to regulatory agencies
• Authorize appropriations for an additional five fiscal years at current funding level

Looking at the text of the Draft Discussion:

1.    Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks (16 USC §§1854 & 1855)

–       For those overfished fisheries deemed highly dynamic a Council may phase-in the rebuilding plan over a three-year period to lessen economic harm to fishing communities.  Interestingly, the Draft doesn’t define highly dynamic fishery, nor does it offer any guidance to the Councils.

–       Current law requires overfished fisheries be rebuilt within 10 years, with certain exceptions.  The Draft removes this definitive time frame and focuses on the reproductive capabilities of a particular stock.  The general rule is rebuilding “may not exceed the time the stock would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean generation” with exceptions.

–       Rebuilding plans are to be adaptable to changing conditions and can be terminated if it determined that a fishery is not, in fact, depleted.

–       Emergency actions undertaken shall remain in effect for no more than one year (currently 185 days) and can be extended for, at most, another year.

–       For fisheries not subject to chronic overfishing and where an immediate end to overfishing will result in significant adverse impacts to fishing communities, restrictions may be phased-in over a continuous period not to exceed three years.

2.    Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) requirements (16 USC §§1852)

–       The Draft provides a list of considerations whereby a Council can modify ACL requirements

• Changes to the ecosystem and economic needs of  the fishing communities;
• ACLs are not required for: ecosystem component species – later defined as a non-targeted, incidentally taken stock of fish in a fishery or a non-targeted, incidentally taken stock of fish found to not be subject to overfishing or not depleted and not likely to become such absent conservation and management measures; species with a life cycle of 1 year, unless that fishery is subject to overfishing; or those stocks where more than half of a year’s recruitment will complete their life cycle in less than 18 months and fishing mortality will have little impact on the stock.
• If the fishery is subject to International Agreements to which the US is a party; Transboundary fishing activities subject to informal transboundary agreements where management activities by another country outside the EEZ may hinder conservation efforts by US fishermen.
• Can establish an ACL for multispecies stock complex or can set ACLs for each year in a continuous period not to exceed three years. 

3.    Distinguishing between Overfished and Depleted (16 USC §1802)

–       Depleted is added to the definitions and means, “with respect to a stock of fish, that the stock is of a size that is below the natural range of fluctuation associated with the production of maximum sustainable yield.’’

–       In his annual report, the Secretary shall distinguish fisheries depleted (or approaching that condition) as a result of fishing and fisheries depleted (or approaching that condition) as a result of other factors.  Also whether a fishery identified as depleted (or approaching that condition) is the target of directed fishing. 

4.    Transparency and public process for scientific and management actions (16 USC §1852)

–       Each Council’s scientific and statistical committee shall develop scientific advice in a transparent manner and allow public involvement.

–       Requires each Council’s website to broadcast and/or provide audio, video and transcript of certain Council meetings.

–       A new section is added entitled “Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969” which states that any fishery management plan or regulation implementing such – or amendment to either of those – prepared in accordance with the MSA satisfies §102(2)(C) of NEPA.  My guess, this is in direct response to the number of lawsuits filed which challenge Council actions under NEPA.

5.    Limitation of future catch share programs (16 USC §§1802 & 1853a)

–       Catch share is defined as, “any fishery management program that allocates a specific percentage of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, community, sector, processor, or regional fishery organization established in accordance with 16 USC 1853a(c)(4), or other entity.’’.

–       The New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils may not create a catch share program for a fishery unless a majority of the permit holders eligible to participate (later defined to exclude permit holders who haven’t fished in 3 of the 5 years preceding a referendum unless sickness, injury or unavoidable hardship prevented the permit holder from fishing) in that fishery approve the plan.  Re multispecies permits holders in the Gulf of Mexico, latent permit holders (those with no landings within the 5 year period preceding the referendum) shall not be included in the vote.  Certain information is required to be given to permit holders eligible to participate: copy of the proposed program; cost estimate including costs to participants; estimate of the amount of fish or percentage of quota each permit holder will be allocated; and information about the referendum process. 

6.    Data collection and data confidentiality

–       Within 6 months of enactment – objectives, performance standards, and regulations governing the use of electronic monitoring for data collection and monitoring purposes, with input from industry – shall be developed.  If the Secretary fails to do this, each Council may do so.

–       Electronic monitoring as a substitute for human observers if: the monitoring provides same level of coverage and standards for electronic monitoring are in effect.

–       Work to develop and implement video survey technologies and expand use of acoustic survey technologies.

–       Many proposed changes to 16 USC §1881a – Information Collection.

–       The terms Confidential Information and Observer Information are newly defined in 16 USC §1802.

–       New provisions are added which call for increased data collection and actions to address data poor fisheries.

7.    Council jurisdiction for overlapping fisheries (16 USC §1852(a))

–       Limited to the Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils.

8.    Gulf of Mexico cooperative research and Red Snapper Management

–       16 USC §1883 will be repealed.

–       Includes provisions which require: establishment of a real-time reporting and data collection program for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery; establishment of a cooperative research program for fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions; develop a schedule of stock surveys and assessments for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic for 5-year period beginning on date of enactment and every 5-year period thereafter; ensure fisheries information made available through research funded under Public Law 112-141 is incorporated into any fisheries stock assessments; and redefines the term Exclusive Economic Zone for the purposes of managing the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the seaward boundary of a coastal State in the Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 miles seaward from the baseline from which he territorial sea of the United States is measured.

9.    North Pacific fishery management clarification (16 USC §1856)

–       A clerical correction

10.  Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout their range (16 USC §1801)

–       Conflicts between this Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC §1431 et seq.) or the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC §431 et seq.) – this Act controls.

–       Any restriction on the management of fishery resources that is necessary to implement a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531 et seq.) shall be implemented—(1) using authority under this Act; and (2) in accordance with processes and time schedules required under this Act.

Trying my hand at something scientific – Ocean Acidification

Before I post this on the company’s website, I thought I would release it here to see if anyone had any suggested edits that could be made to make it (1) more user friendly, (2) more informative and/or (3) overall better.  I thank you in advance for any and all comments…

Ocean Acidification

Defined

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Workshop on Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biology and Ecosystems (2011, p. 37) defines Ocean Acidification (OA) as “a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period, typically decades or longer, which is caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere, but can also be caused by other chemical additions or subtractions from the ocean.”  Put another way, OA is a condition of prolonged reduction in sea water pH driven by increasing levels of CO₂ in sea water, primarily caused by CO₂ emissions from human activities.  Secondary causes include regional drivers such as:

1. Upwelling – Upwelling is caused by winds which cause deep, cold, salty, oxygen-poor, CO₂-rich, nutrient-rich (and recently corrosive) waters to be drawn up to the surface.
2. Respiration and hypoxia – Respiration depletes oxygen that would otherwise be available to marine animals living in and above the sediment.  Hypoxia describes dissolved oxygen levels that are low enough to be stressful or fatal.  Hypoxic events are expected to occur more frequently as climate change warms the ocean.  This results in stratification of the water column, which discourages penetration of oxygen from the surface.
3. Other non-CO₂ sources – Nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides reduced pH.  These enter the atmosphere via fossil fuel burning, biomass burning, and agricultural practices.  In some coastal regions these can contribute up to 10–50% of the CO₂-derived acidification near major population or agricultural centers. In some regions, ammonia from agricultural processes can actually increase the pH levels.
4. Watershed Inputs – Freshwater generally has varying pH levels ranging from about 6.5 to near 8.5.  As stream and river waters enter marine environments, they deliver material that falls into them, runs off the soil surface, or leaches in through the ground from one ecosystem (terrestrial) to another (estuarine).  Thus, places where freshwater mixes with sea water (river mouths and estuaries) can be quite corrosive to calcifying organisms.  While many pollutants are regulated under the Clean Water Act, a number of carbon-based items are not.  These can substantially impact coastal waters. An example of how this works can be seen with the Columbia River which divides Oregon and Washington.

In addition to declining pH levels, OA also directly impacts the marine environment as follows:

1. Lowers the concentration of carbonate ion, and
2. Reduces the saturation state of biologically important forms of calcium carbonate.

In researching OA I found there are those who do not believe it.  They point to past events (as described below) and make the claim that it is just another attempt to perpetuate the myth of global warming.  While some of the arguments raised by the contrarians are compelling; I am going to operate under the assumption that the scientists studying this phenomenon know what they are doing and their findings are valid.   One cannot argue with the fact that a measurable chemical reaction is occurring and that reaction is ocean acidification.

Chemistry

I tried to make this readable for those without an in depth understanding of chemistry.  When CO₂ enters the ocean it reacts with water to form carbonic acid.  This, eventually, reduces seawater pH, lowers the concentration of carbonate ion, and increases the concentration of bicarbonate.  The carbonate ion is used by marine life that build shells or skeletons composed of calcium carbonate. As levels of the carbonate ion are depleted oysters, corals, and pteropods (an important food source of juvenile salmonids) have been shown to have difficulty producing their shells or skeletons.  This does not mean other organisms do not experience similar problems, but rather there are insufficient studies to make definitive claims.

Aragonite and calcite are two important forms of calcium carbonate which are negatively impacted by declining pH.  With aragonite levels above 1.0, aragonite shell forming organisms should not experience issues.   However, aragonite levels below 1.0 can be “corrosive” to these organisms, unless they have a mechanism for preventing dissolution. Other important forms of calcium carbonate, calcite and high-magnesium calcite, respond in a similar fashion to declining pH.

The graph below shows atmospheric CO2 and corresponding readings for partial pressure of CO2 in seawater (pCO2) and seawater pH.

History

Atmospheric CO₂ levels have reached very high concentrations several times during the past 300 million years, and during a number of these periods, ocean pH was also lower than it is today. However, the current rate of pH change in unprecedented in recorded history. 55 million years ago, the pH of the oceans was estimated to have declined by as much 0.45 units over roughly 5000 years. This decline has been attributed to a rapid change of atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 1800 ppm, which also pushed global average temperatures up by ~6° C.  Such rapid pH change can outpace the natural capacity of the ocean to buffer the excess CO2 levels.

Marine life obviously recovered in wake of that event.  Biodiversity in the oceans is thought to have undergone a dramatic shift.  Many species near the bottom of the food web are thought to have gone extinct over a 1000-year period. Today, the ocean is acidifying at a rate nearly 10 times faster than the one that drove this extinction 55 million years ago, and the natural processes that ultimately will restore the oceanic pH and carbonate chemistry balance cannot compensate rapidly enough.

So what?

Open ocean surface waters have become ~30% more acidic since the mid-1700s. At current CO₂ emission rates, surface oceans acidity is projected to rise by 100–150% over pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.  In 2007, waters corrosive with respect to aragonite were appearing within the California Current Ecosystem.  While we know this, what is unknown is how species and marine ecosystems will respond.  Much of the scientific literature on OA discusses how species or ecosystems could be impacted or may be impacted.  However, empirical evidence does exist with regard to how some species are impacted by lowering pH levels.

The truth of the matter is that we don’t know exactly what will happen to calcium carbonate-producing organisms when carbon dioxide levels hit certain thresholds, especially when these changes are not accompanied by the elevated seawater alkalinity that probably accompanied intervals of high atmospheric carbon dioxide in the geologic past. Thus, researchers set out to simulate future acidic oceans and to investigate the responses of marine calcifiers.

Oyster farms in the Pacific Northwest:

At the recent conference on Ocean Acidification in Irvine, California Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish recounted their experiences dealing with OA in their oyster farming operations.  Beginning around 2005 Puget Sound oyster farmers began noticing a high level of oyster larvae mortality during certain parts of the year, namely shortly after the prevailing wind switched and caused seasonal upwellings along the Washington coast.  It was initially thought an increase in a pathogenic bacterium, Vibrio tubiashii, was responsible for the increased mortalities.  In order to guard against the Vibrio bacteria, many oyster farmers chose to grow their product in hatcheries which featured a filtration system water to guard against infection.  Even in these tanks, oyster larvae were dying at an alarming rate.  Examination of the dead larvae showed they were unable to form the required shell.  When researchers studied the problem they noticed the water being pumped into the hatcheries was low in pH and the more corrosive waters did not allow young oysters to properly form their shells.  Washington is particularly vulnerable to lower pH level as upwelling events tend to be more severe and are located closer to shore than other areas along the US West Coast.  In order to guard against this, some Washington Oyster farmers have set-up hatchery sites in areas away from Puget Sound.  Goose Point Oysters and Taylor Shellfish have established hatcheries in Hawaii.  Oyster larvae are raised in tanks in Hawaii.  After the initial shell has formed they are shipped to Washington for the remainder of their growth cycle.

Last April, researchers at Oregon State University “definitively linked an increase in OA to the collapse of oyster seed production at a commercial oyster hatchery in Oregon, where larval growth had declined to a level considered by the owners to be ‘non-economically viable’”.  The effected hatchery was owned by Whiskey Creek Shellfish and located in Netarts Bay, Oregon.

Some Oyster species, such as the Suminoe oyster native to Asia, are comparatively immune to the effects of acidification.

Other mollusks:

In tests, other mollusks fared by far the worst under the elevated carbon dioxide scenarios. Bay scallops, periwinkles, whelks, oysters and softshell clams built their shells more and more slowly as carbon dioxide increased. The conchs and the quahogs showed no response to carbon dioxide levels up to 900 ppm — but above 900 ppm, they showed a very negative response. One type of mollusk, the slipper limpet, showed a particularly surprising response. Its calcification rate actually increased under rising carbon dioxide levels up to 900 ppm, and only showed a decline under the highest carbon dioxide treatment (2,850 ppm). Intriguingly, the tasty blue mussel did not respond at all to the elevated carbon dioxide.  This is potentially bad news not only for shellfish lovers, but also for the local, state and federal governments that reap substantial tax receipts from the billion-dollar industries based upon these briny delicacies.

Purple Sea Urchins:

In an effort to show some species have a genetic predisposition towards dealing with lower pH waters, studies we done on the Purple Sea Urchin.  Researchers used individuals from two different purple sea urchins colonies.  One from coastal Oregon where upwelling events are more severe and located closer to shore where the urchins are exposed to lower pH levels; the other from Southern California where upwelling events are more timid and located further from shore.  Individuals from these two populations were cross bred to determine whether rapid evolution was possible.  In controlled environments with differing CO2 levels, offspring of northern sires were larger than those of southern sires.  This led to the conclusion that OA resistant genes could be inheritable in the Purple Sea Urchin.

Crustaceans:

Blue crabs, gulf shrimp and American lobsters exhibited the most striking response of all. They each calcified most rapidly under the highest carbon dioxide level. The response of blue crabs and the shrimp was fairly linear, with calcification rates increasing steadily with rising carbon dioxide. The lobsters showed no response to elevated carbon dioxide between 400 and 900 ppm, and exhibited an increase in calcification under the highest level.

Fish Species:

Other physiological processes in organisms without shells are also sensitive to changes in pH.  For example, how will lowering pH effect formation of otoliths?  Those of us who fish in central and southern California will recognize these as the calcium based “stones” residing in the head of a white sea bass.  All fish have these though.  How will lowering pH effect early stages of larval fish?  Fish use their gills to regulate pH balance. It turns out early stages of larval fish don’t have gills.  There are countless other questions across the marine ecosystem.

It’s not all doom and gloom though.  Recent studies seem to suggest that sea grasses could be valuable in slowing the lowering pH processes.  It is theorized that introduction of limestone to the marine environment could also remediate OA.  Calcium carbonate is a major component of limestone.  Studies need to be undertaken to analyze and guard against any unintended effects which could negatively impact marine ecosystems.

Websites dedicated to Ocean Acidification:

California Current Acidification Network – http://c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/

Ocean Margin Ecosystems Group for Acidification Studies – http://omegas.science.oregonstate.edu/

NOAA – http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

Resources consulted:

Transcript of Trouble in the Water: Acidifying Oceans Hinder Health of Northwest Shellfish. Broadcast on PBS on December 7, 2012.  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec12/climate_12-07.html

(2012) Hatchery, OSU scientists link ocean acidification to larval oyster failure. Oregon State News and Research Communications.  http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/apr/hatchery-managers-osu-scientists-link-ocean-acidification-larval-oyster-failure

Doney, S.C. et al (2007): Impact of anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on ocean acidification and the inorganic carbon system. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 104(37), 14,580–14,585, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/37/14580.

Fabry, V.J. et al (2008): Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. Ices J. Mar. Sci., 65(3), 414–432, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn048.

Feely, R.A. et al (2012): Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification in Washington State Marine Waters. NOAA OAR Special Report. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1201016.pdf.

Hauri, C. et al (2012): Spatiotemporal variability and long-term trends of ocean acidification in the California Current System. Biogeosci. Discuss., 9, 10,371–10,428, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-9-10371-2012.

Hönisch, B. et al (2012): The geological record of ocean acidification. Science, 335(6072),1058–1063, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1208277.

Pespini et al (2013) Evolutionary change during experimental ocean acidification. PNAS 2013 110 (17) 6937-6942; published ahead of print April 8, 2013, http://www.pnas.org/citmgr?gca=pnas;110/17/6937

Ries, J.B., (2010): Shell-shocked: How different creatures deal with an acidifying ocean. Earth Magazine, 55 (3): 46-53.  http://www.unc.edu/~jries/Ries_2010_EARTH_ShellShocked_Biolgical_Effects_of_Ocean_Acidification.pdf

Rykaczewski, R.R., and J.P. Dunne (2010): Enhanced nutrient supply to the California Current Ecosystem with global warming and increased stratification in an earth system model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045019/abstract.

Salisbury, J. et al (2008), Coastal Acidification by Rivers: A Threat to Shellfish?, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(50), 513–513, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008EO500001.

Sheets, Changes in ocean put shellfish business in jeopardy.  The Herald – Everett, Washington.  February 1, 2013.  http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130201/NEWS01/702019904?page=single

National Marine Fisheries Service – 2013 List of Fisheries

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) required creation of the List of Fisheries (“LOF”).  The LOF classifies U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories depending on the level of incidental mortality or serious injury to marine mammals:

Category I – frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals;

Category II – occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals; or

Category III – a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals;

This fishery classification criteria is based on a two-tiered, stock-specific approach.  The first step addresses the total impact of all fisheries in each marine mammal stock.  Once that is complete, the second step addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock.  A full description of how this works can be technical and is outside the scope of this document.  See also – 50 CFR 229.2 (detailed definition of each category), 60 FR 45086 (details regarding how the categories were determined) and 60 FR 67063 (details regarding factors considered when including a fishery within a particular category without any documented injuries or mortalities).

The classification of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements.  Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required to:

1. Obtain a valid Certificate of Authorization by registering with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (50 CFR 229.4).
2. Accommodate an observer onboard your vessel(s) upon request (50 CFR 229.7).
3. Comply with any applicable take reduction plans. NMFS may develop and implement take reduction plans for any Category I or II fishery that interacts with a strategic stock.  Note – the 2013 LOF proposes the following take reduction plans which will impact certain Pacific Ocean Fisheries:

• False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP)—50 CFR 229.37

Category I – HI deep-set (tuna target) longline/set line.

Category II – HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline/set line.

• Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP)—50 CFR 229.31.

Category II – CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh).

Section 118 of the MMPA, codified at 16 USC §1387, requires an annual review of the LOF to reflect new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals as well as new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SAR) and other relevant sources.  On Monday, April 22 the National Marine Fisheries Service published the proposed LOF for 2013 in the Federal Register.[1]  Public comments will be taken until May 22, 2013.  The following proposals impact fisheries in the Pacific Ocean:

West Coast Fisheries slated to have their fishery classification changed under the 2013 LOF:

CA Thresher Shark/Swordfish Drift Gillnet Fishery

Proposed reclassification from Category II to Category I based on two sperm whale encounters in 2010 where one whale died and the other was seriously injured.  Because observer coverage ranged from 11.9% to 20.9% between 2005 and 2010, a bycatch estimate of 16 sperm whales resulted.  This places it well above the potential biological removal (“PBR”) level for the sperm whale stock.

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Rockfish Trawl Fishery

Proposed reclassification from Category III to Category II based on one observed mortality of a killer whale from the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea transient stock.

Alaska Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Longline Fishery

Proposed reclassification from Category II to Category III based on no documented serious injuries or mortalities to killer whales from the Alaska Resident stock since 2003.

Alaska Bering Sea Sablefish Pot Fishery

Proposed reclassification from Category II to Category III based on no documented serious injuries or mortalities to humpback whales or any other marine mammal stocks since 2002.

Hawaii Charter Vessel and Hawaii Trolling, Rod and Reel Fisheries

The 2012 LOF proposed reclassification from Category III to Category II based on interactions with Pantropical spotted dolphins.  The NMFS is now rescinding that recommendation and has determined these two fisheries should remain Category III.  They point to a number of reasons (seven) for this decision.

Proposal to update the estimated number of vessels/persons in the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean as follows (if your fishery is not listed, there are no proposed changes):

In order to save space on this blog, click here to access a document listing the proposed changes to the estimated number of vessels or persons in certain Pacific Ocean commercial fisheries – LOF 2013 updates re nbr vessels persons in Comm Fisheries

Proposed updates to list of mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by Pacific Ocean fisheries:

CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery – addition of sperm whales (CA/OR/WA stock) and bottlenose dolphins (CA/OR/WA offshore stock).  Highlight that the sperm whale stock is the driver for the proposed Category I classification.

WA/OR/CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/setline fishery – addition of bottlenose dolphins based on observer report of an entangled bottlenose dolphin in the fishery.

HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline fishery – addition of short-finned pilot whales (Hawaiian stock); removal of Bryde’s whales (Hawaiian stock).  Highlight that the false killer whale (Hawaii pelagic stock) is now the driver for the fishery’s Category II classification.  Previously the bottlenose dolphin (Hawaii pelagic stock) was driving the fishery’s classification.

HI deep-set (tuna target) longline fishery – removal of humpback whales (Central North Pacific stock) and Blainville’s beaked whales (Hawaiian stock).

HI trolling, rod and reel and HI charter vessel fisheries – addition of pantropical spotted dolphins (Hawaii stock).  To be noted that severity of injuries are not known; but are assumed to be minor and resulting from being snagged by participants in the troll fishery.

AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Flatfish trawl fishery – addition of: grey whales (Eastern North Pacific stock), humpback whales (Western North Pacific stock) which will now be a driver for the Category II classification, killer whales (Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea transient stock) which will now also be a driver for the Category II classification; and ringed seals (Alaska stock)

AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock trawl – addition of ringed seals (Alaska stock), bearded seals (Alaska stock) and Northern fur seals (Eastern Pacific stock).  Removal of killer whales (Eastern North Pacific, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea transient stock) and minke whales (Alaska stock).

AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod longline fishery – addition of Northern fur seals (eastern Pacific stock) and Dall’s porpoise (Alaska stock).  Removal of Stellar sea lions (Western United States stock), ribbon seals (Alaska stock), and killer whales (Alaska Resident stock).

Gulf of Alaska Pacific Cod longline fishery – addition of the Stellar sea lion (Western United States stock).

Gulf of Alaska Sablefish longline fishery – removal of the Stellar sea lion (Eastern United States stock).

Alaska Halibut longline fishery – removal of the Stellar sea lion (Eastern United States stock).

Atka Mackerel trawl fishery – addition of ribbon seal (Alaska stock).

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod trawl fishery – removal of harbor seals (Bering Sea stock).

Alaska Bering Sea sablefish pot fishery – removal of humpback whale (Western North Pacific and Central North Pacific stocks)

Proposed updates to the estimated number of High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in the Pacific Ocean:

Category	High Seas Fishery	# of HSFCA Permits (final 2012 LOF)	Est # of HSFCA Permits (proposed 2013 LOF)
II	Pacific HMS Drift Gillnet	3	4
II	Western Pacific Pelagic Trawl	1	0
II	South Pacific Tuna Purse Seine	33	38
II	South Pacific Tuna Longline	11	10
II	Pacific HMS Handline/Pole and Line	30	40
II	South Pacific Albacore Handline/Pole and Line	8	7
II	Western Pacific Pelagic Handline/Pole and Line	8	6
II	South Pacific Albacore Troll	51	36
II	Western Pacific Pelagic Troll	32	22
III	Pacific HMS Longline	84	96
III	Pacific HMS Purse Seine	7	6
III	Pacific HMS Troll	258	263

Proposed updates to list of mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by Pacific Ocean High Seas fisheries:

Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Deep-set component) fishery – removal of humpback whales (Central North Pacific stock) and Blainville’s beaked whales (Hawaiian and unknown stocks).  Note – this is a subset of the HI deep-set longline fishery noted above.

Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Shallow-set component) fishery – addition of short-finned pilot whales (Hawaiian and unknown stocks).  Removal of Bryde’s whales (Hawaiian and unknown stocks).  Note – this is a subset of the HI shallow-set longline fishery noted above.

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean

LOF 2013 – Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean.  Clicking the link to the left will provide a list of all commercial fisheries, by Categ0ry, in the Pacific Ocean (except those subject to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act).  There is a description of the fishery, an estimate of the number of persons or vessels in the fishery and a listing of marine mammal species and stocks which are incidentally killed or injured in the prosection of that fishery.  Here is an example of what you would find in the attached document:

Fishery Description

Est # of vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured

CA spot prawn pot

27

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. (driver for Cat II status)

Commercial Fisheries on the Pacific High Seas which are subject to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act

LOF 2013 – HSFCA Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific.  Clicking the link to the left will provide a list of the commercial fisheries, by Category, in the Pacific High Seas which are subject to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act.  As with the prior document, this provides a description of the fishery and a listing of any marine mammal species and stocks which are incidentally killed or injured in the prosecution of the fishery.  Instead of estimating the number of vessels or persons in the fishery, this document privides the number of HSFCA permitted vessels for that fishery.  It is important to remember that just because a vessel or individual has a permit, does not necessarily mean that permit is active in the fishery.  Here is an example of the information contained in the attached document:

	CATEGORY III
Fishery Description	# of HSFCA permits	Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured
LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: Pacific Highly Migratory Species	96	None documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

---

[1] 78 CFR 23708.  See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-22/pdf/2013-09391.pdf

Unusual Mortality Event declared for the California Sea Lion

The following definitions apply to this document.

Stranding – 16 USC §1421h(3)

The term “stranding” means an event in the wild in which—

(A) a marine mammal is dead and is—

(i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or

(ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or

(B) a marine mammal is alive and is—

(i) on a beach or shore of the United States and unable to return to the water;

(ii) on a beach or shore of the United States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of apparent medical attention; or

(iii) in the waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to return to its natural habitat under its own power or without assistance.

Unusual mortality event – 16 USC §1421h(6)

A stranding that—

(A) is unexpected;

(B) involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and

(C) demands immediate response.

The first three months of 2013 have not been good for California Sea Lion pups born in the summer of 2012.  An increasing, and intensifying, number of sea lions are stranding themselves on beaches and rocky shorelines south of Point Conception, California.  As the graphical representation below shows, the number of strandings this year is well above the number of strandings observed in similar areas over the past five years.

Chart from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/californiasealions2013.htm

On March 27, 2013 the National Office Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared these strandings an unusual mortality event (UME).  This represents the fifty-seventh time NOAA has declared a UME since the program was created in 1991; and the first in California since 2008 when a statistically significant number harbor porpoise were stranded along the central California coast.  This is the sixth UME for the California Sea Lion with other events occurring in 1991 (infectious disease), 1992 – 93 (ecological factors – El Nino), 1998 (biotoxin), 2000 (biotoxin) and 2002 (biotoxin).

So now that the UME has been officially declared, what happens?  A marine mammal unusual mortality event working group will be created to attempt to investigate a cause for the UME and, depending on the cause, determine appropriate response actions (if any).  It can take anywhere from weeks to years to pinpoint a definitive cause.   “Understanding and investigating marine mammal UMEs is important because they can serve as indicators of ocean health, giving insight into larger environmental issues which may also have implications for human health and welfare[1].”

A stock assessment on the California Sea Lion was completed in December of 2011.  In that, the population estimate was 296,750 and the growth rate is 5.4% per year[2].  In the recently release Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan, Public  Review Draft, the Pacific Fishery Management Council noted, “many mammal populations appear to be approaching some level of carrying capacity[3].”  That thought is echoed throughout scientific literature discussing the California Sea Lion – see International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41666/0).  Carrying capacity is defined as the total number of individuals of a population that a given environment can sustain.

With the population close to its natural carrying capacity and a growth rate which will take the population well above it, it stands to reason that increased mortality of weaker individuals would be observed.  The UME declaration states, “Consistent findings in the sea lions are emaciation and dehydration with most animals very underweight for their age. The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network continues to rescue and rehabilitate animals.”  Wouldn’t these findings be consistent with a population close to its natural carrying capacity and an unsustainable growth rate?  Yet we still deem it necessary to rescue and rehabilitate these animals.  Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that 25% of the rescued pups are rehabilitated and released back into the wild.  Through March 24, that would result in roughly 200 individuals reentering the ecosystem.  As these animals age, they will require more and more food.  According to SeaWorld.org, “Based on records of animals at Sea World, adult sea lions eat about 5% to 8% of their body weight per day.”  What impacts will this have on the California Current Ecosystem as a whole?  As sea lions consume more and more forage, what will happen to the other species which rely upon that forage?  Will sea lions become even more brazen in their interactions with humans?

I am all for investigating these strandings in order to determine the cause thereof.  If the cause is linked to ocean conditions or other environmental factors not related to the population size, that information could be invaluable.  My guess, given the incredible amounts of forage available over the past few years more pups were birthed over the past couple of years.  Now that we are transitioning to a more normal ocean temperature cycle (rather than the cold water years experienced recently) there isn’t enough food to support the current population and the pups of the weaker mothers are suffering as a result.  If you wish to follow the UME on the California Sea Lion, the National Marine Fisheries Service has a page on its website dedicated to this event.  http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/californiasealions2013.htm.

---

[1] Taken from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/.  Last visited 3/28/13.

[2] The IUCN estimates the current population at greater than 355,000.

[3] Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem – Public Review Draft, February 2013. (Document prepared for the Council and its advisory entities.), Page 17.

Thoughts on the PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) for the US Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCE).

This assumes the PFMC adopts a final Fishery Ecosystem Plan which is substantially similar to the PUBLIC DRAFT REVIEW version released in February.

So the Council has approved and adopted the Fishery Ecosystem Plan – what does that mean?  There is no one word answer for this.  It needs to be recognized that this represents a substantial paradigm shift in terms of fishery management.  Historically, fishery management plans (FMP) were focused on a single species or species group (salmons) or a grouping of species with similar characteristics (groundfish, highly migratory species[1] (HMS) and coastal pelagic species[2] (CPS)).  Especially with the CPS FMP, ecosystem concerns have been considered and addressed.  “The Council’s basic harvest control rule for CPS exemplifies the ecosystem-based fisheries management approach when setting annual harvest quotas by accounting for the importance of CPS as forage for commercially important, recreationally important and protected species predators.”  As we move forward, ecosystem concerns will be more prevalent and primary emphasis will be placed on them.

I think it will be beneficial to answer this question in both a short-term perspective as well as the long-term.

In the short-term, adoption of the FEP will lead to an increase in the knowledge base surrounding the California Current Ecosystem (CCE). The process of writing the FEP (and Appendix) provided the Council with an opportunity to define where we eventually want to be, “integrating physical, ecological and economic systems into an analytical framework directed toward maximizing the benefits that the CCE is capable of providing society. * * *  Critical in this regard will be appropriate extraction levels for commercially and recreationally targeted species that take into account their interaction with other species having commercial, recreational or charismatic value.”  With that destination in mind, the short-term will be about researching different routes to get us there.  For FMP policies, the FEP is needed to “identify and prioritize research needs and provide recommendations to address gaps in ecosystem knowledge and FMP policies, particularly with respect to the cumulative effects of fisheries management on marine ecosystems and fishing communities.”

In the long term, effectiveness and success of the FEP will be measured by its ability to adapt to changing circumstances.  As was highlighted in the FEP, climate change is expected to lead to higher sea temperatures, ocean acidification and decreasing oxygen levels within the CCE’s waters.  The Council will hopefully be prepared with studies and models which can better predict the effects of those on its managed species and the CCE as a whole.  The FEP acknowledges there will be some who will likely suffer from this approach to fishery management.  “* * there will be tradeoffs between different ecosystem services or functions in order to achieve optimal use of the marine ecosystem. Recognition of these values and of ecosystem services has given rise to the current move in fisheries governance toward ecosystem-based management. Achievement of ecosystem-based fisheries management will be a lengthy, complicated process, one that engages diverse scientific methodologies in an interdisciplinary exercise to identify and describe all aspects of the linkages between complex natural and socioeconomic systems. The key here is to broaden the focus of traditional fisheries conservation and management science from a relationship between a target species and a commercial or recreational fishery, to a more comprehensive outlook that embraces all species in terms of their trophic, ecological, habitat and fishery interactions, and most importantly their relationship to all of society. Only when the consequences of human actions and values are highlighted throughout the ecosystem can the entire range of tradeoffs be made apparent and considered in conservation and management decision-making.”

There were some undertones which could lead one to conclude that a more regional based management approach will eventually surface.  How these regions will be defined and/or further subdivided is debatable.  If I were to guess, the three regions mentioned in Chapter 3 of the FEP seem like good starting points.  These could be further subdivided based on such variables as depth, geologic make-up (canyons as compared to islands) and/or social factors (prevalence of fishing communities, etc).

In terms of impacts on existing fisheries, my guess is the CPS fishery will likely be affected.  From the FEP, “The ecosystem/economic modeling approach may indicate that it is advisable to reduce harvest levels on low-value feed species (e.g. anchovy and sardine) to provide the potential for increases in the harvest volume and value of species that feed on these species. An ecosystem/economic modeling approach would allow us to include significant ecological and technological interactions among species in the calculation of their optimum yields and the extent to which these interactions affect their relative economic value.”  It could very well be that the initiative described in the appendix – protection for unfished forage fish – was created to try and guard against harvest reduction levels on low-value feed species.

Of course, it is difficult – if not impossible – to predict what may or may happen as much of that hinges on research and studies which have yet to be defined.  As we learn more about the complexities and (inter)dependencies around and within the CCE, the insights provided in this analysis may be proven completely incorrect.

© West Coast Fisheries Consultants, LLC all rights reserved

---

[1] Tunas (north Pacific albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack and northern bluefin), Sharks (common thresher, pelagic thresher, bigeye thresher, shortfin mako and blue), Billfish/swordfish (striped marlin, Pacific swordfish), and dorado.

[2] Northern anchovy, market squid, Pacific sardine, Pacific mackeral, and jack mackeral.

Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix (Appendix A) to the Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) for the US Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCE)

While the FEP is intended in part to provide “management policies that coordinate Council management across its Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and the CCE”, the appendix’s ecosystem-based fishery management initiatives provide examples of how the PFMC could address issues that affect two or more PFMC FMPs or coordinate major Council policies across FMPs to fulfill identified FEP needs.  While ecosystem initiatives are likely to be cross-FMP in scope, some initiatives might primarily affect conservation and management measures within a single FMP.

This appendix is separate from the FEP and can be amended without having to address the FEP.  In conducting its annual review of the appendix’s ecosystems initiatives and assessing whether changes are needed to this appendix, the Council and its advisory bodies will:

• Review progress of initiatives already underway;
• Review identified potential ecosystem initiatives and determine is any current action is warranted;
• If new initiatives are chosen, request background materials from the appropriate entities; and
• Beginning in November 2017, assess whether to initiate a review and/or update of the FEP.

Management authority still resides within the PFMCs FMPs, thus no regulatory authority stems from the new FEP.  Changes to regulations based on a cross-FMP initiative would have to be implemented under one or more existing FMPs.  There are examples of other Fishery Management Councils developing comprehensive management actions under the authority of more than one of its FMPs.  For example, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council include their Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Management Amendment (CEBA) 1, addressing effects of bottom-tending fishing gear across their FMPs on deepwater corals, and CEBA 2, addressing essential fish habitat (EFH), retention limits for octocorals, sea turtle bycatch measures, and other issues.

The appendix contains one currently active ecosystem initiative (forage species) and nine proposed initiatives.  The forage species initiative has been the subject of much discussion at the Council; as such, a developed process to move forward is described below.  The other nine initiatives represent example ecosystem initiatives that are presented in a conceptual manner.

A1.      FEP Initiative 1, Protection for Unfished Forage Fish 

The intent of this Initiative is NOT to pursue a moratorium on fishing for forage fish.  The intent is to recognize the importance of forage fish to the CCE and to ensure these species are adequately protected.  The objective is to prohibit the development of new directed fisheries on forage species that are not currently managed by the Council, or the States, until a thorough review of the proposed fishery and any impacts to existing fisheries and/or communities.

Council Policy on the Development of New Fisheries for Unfished Species:  US citizens wishing to initiate new fisheries (not currently managed or explicitly permitted by list of fisheries in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) at 16 USC §1855 and in Fed Reg (50 CFR 600.725(v))) have two options:

1. Apply for an Exempted Fishing Permit through the PFMC; or
2. Follow the Council notification process described at 50 CFR 600.747

Regardless of which option is utilized, the PFMC would view new fisheries as having the potential to affect its conservation and management measures if those fisheries had an effect on:

• Any PFMC-managed species;
• Species that are prey of any species that is: PFMC-managed, marine mammal, seabird, sea turtle, or ESA-listed;
• Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or otherwise protected habitat within a FMP, critical habitat identified or protected under ESA, or habitat managed or protected by state or tribal fishery or habitat management programs;
• Species subject to state or tribal management within 0-3 miles offshore Wa., Or., or Ca.;
• Species that migrate beyond the US EEZ.

Council Process for Implementing FEP Initiative 1:  Two-step process for preventing future development of fisheries for currently unfished forage fish species:

Amending the Federal List of Allowable Fisheries and Gear:

Recommend to NMFS that the federal list of authorized West Coast EEZ fisheries and gear found in 50 CFR 600.725(v) be updated in the “most specific and narrow terms possible[1].”  Page A-6 of Appendix A provides draft revisions for PFMC consideration.

Protecting Unfished Lower Trophic Level (Forage) Species Through FMP Authority:

Actions above would not prohibit new fisheries from developing without Council consultation. Thus this second stage incorporates any additional needed protections into the current FMPs through the amendment process.

This begs the question – what is a “forage species suitable for additional protection” under this initiative?  First, and foremost, the species or species group must fall under the PFMC’s jurisdiction – federal waters within the US West Coast EEZ.  Once that is established, a two prong analysis – the species in question must be a “forage species” which is “suitable for additional protection”:

• “Forage Species” – are “low trophic level species, which are: often present in high abundance, forming dense schools or aggregations, and which are generally plankton feeders for a large part of their life cycle[2].”  The last part of the definition excludes species that are lower trophic species as juveniles transitioning to higher levels as adults.
• “Suitable for additional protection” – the species must currently be unmanaged by a PFMC FMP or a state management program of Oregon, Washington, or California.  Thus, market squid – which isn’t managed under the CPS FMP[3], but is managed under a FMP implemented by the state of California, would not be suitable for additional protection.

Once a list of potential “forage species suitable for additional protection” has been created, the PFMC will review the connections these have to managed fish and fisheries.  Are the unmanaged, unfished forage species:

• Structurally and/or biologically similar to species within a FMP;
• Prey of and FMP species or species group;
• Bycatch of a managed fishery or likely caught by gear managed under and existing FMP ; or
• Otherwise connected to any FMP species.

If sufficient connections are established, the applicable FMP(s) can be amended to define the unfished, unmanaged forage species as a fishery management unit (FMU) or ecosystem component (EC) species. [4]

The PFMC may also wish to consider measures utilized by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in amendments to their Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish FMP and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish FMP which prohibited fishing for families and orders of forage species, rather than identifying specific species of forage.

I have reproduced a Table that is included in the appendix which captures a majority of the significant West Coast species and assemblages that could be considered lower trophic level (forage) species.  It is attached at the bottom of this article and is fairly self-explanatory.  “Literature suggests that greatest proportion of energy flow in the CCE appears to be through krill, market squid, northern anchovy, Pacific sardine and Pacific herring.  There are few other species (excluding juveniles of non-lower trophic level species) that occur with high frequency and with a comparable significance to the above core group of species. Thus, despite real or potential historical or future conservation problems for some of these species, there is not a high level of unmanaged standing biomass for forage species that could become subject to fisheries targeting over the short term and which are critical to large scale CCE functioning, energy flow, or integrity.”

A2.      Potential Future FEP Initiatives for Council Consideration

The following potential FEP initiatives are based on the (i) FEP’s Purpose and Need Statement, (ii) FEP’s Objectives, and (iii) MSA’s national standards and other requirements, including environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Potential initiatives are based on major themes of the MSA and consider cross-FMP issues, including:

• harvest level policies and overfished/overfishing/subject to overfishing;
• bycatch;
• EFH; and
• and community effects of fisheries management.

Initiative on Potential Long‐Term Effects of Council Harvest Policies on Age‐ and Size‐ Distribution on Managed Stocks:  Relevant for Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS), Groundfish and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries.  Several goals that could help the PFMC better address the larger-scale harvest issue of maintaining broad age- and size-distributions in managed fish stocks:

• Through studies, better understand consequences of changing age and/or size structure on a species’ biology and social structures.  How changes in climate may impact this as well;
• Review & analyze long term effects of changing age- and size-distribution of managed stocks under current harvest control rules (HCR); and
• Evaluate current HCRs and alternative HCRs that incorporate age- and size-structure into PFMC management reference points.

Analysis should evaluate the trade-offs between managing for a greater proportion of older and/or larger fish in a population relative to current management strategies that do not explicitly consider age composition.  Models suggest consequences of truncation in age and size structure include but are not limited to:

• Reduced and/or more variable egg or larval productivity,
• Real or likely increases in population or recruitment variability, and
• Increased variability in catches.

Bio‐Geographic Region Identification and Assessment Initiative:  Chapter 3 of the FEP enumerated the CCE’s three large scale bio-geographic regions[5]. These are capable of subdivision to allow finer scale fisheries management actions and to assist in implementing ecosystem-based management and to facilitate linkages with other government policies and processes. This could be particularly useful for nearshore species and fisheries, since the large scale regions are too large for effective implementation of localized ecosystem-based management.  One possibility for defining such subdivisions could be based upon the functional distributions of species, for example:

• Estuarine habitats;
• Nearshore habitats;
• Inshore demersal (on or near the bottom) habitats;
• Offshore demersal habitats;
• Pelagic habitats (coastal and offshore)

This could improve management outcomes and allow for stronger connectivity between biophysical and ecological processes.

Cross‐FMP Bycatch and Catch Monitoring Policy Initiative:  National Standard 9 states: “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch[6].”  FMPs are required to “establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority – (A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided[7].”

Using bycatch minimization and monitoring policies of its current FMPS, the Council would develop cross-FMP bycatch minimization goals.  Challenges with this initiative surround the gear types, fishing methods and locations, and target species of the different FMPs are so distinct from each other there is a reasonable possibility that bycatch minimization methods effective in one fishery will not be effective in other fisheries.

Moving beyond the fishery-by-fishery approach could allow the Council to better assess:

• Cumulative effects of bycatch of non-Council species taken in Council-managed fisheries;
• Whether gear innovation programs or products in one fishery could benefit other fisheries; and
• Whether timing and interactions of multiple Council-managed fisheries increase or decrease likelihood of bycatch in these fisheries.

Cross‐FMP EFH Initiative:  EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity[8].”  All four of Council’s FMPs have described EFH for managed species, with the ground-fish FMP having most detail, including Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) designations and closed areas to protect EFH. Geographic maps of EFH have been developed for all FMPs, except CPS – whose EFH is described by sea surface temperature and the thermocline/mixed layer.

An ecosystem-based Council approach to EFH would provide a better understanding of complex overarching issues such as: research needs, common threats to habitat quality, protected species interactions, and/or ocean acidification.  An ecosystem-based EFH review would provide required updates for FMPs, and work across FMPs to identify habitat areas considered highly productive or biodiverse under more than one FMP. Habitats of importance to species from multiple FMPs could serve as focal points for Council efforts to assess and mitigate for fishing and non-fishing effects on those; and for research to better understand the complex interactions between FMP species and their shared habitat. One possible result of an integrated EFH review would be cross-FMP HAPC designations for areas that are important to species from multiple FMPs.

Cross‐FMP Safety Initiative:  National Standard 10 states: “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea[9].”  NMFS is considering revising and updating the federal National Standard 10 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.355, to better use and account for modern safety information and technology.  An ecosystem-based, cross-FMP safety review would look at the safety implications of not just one fishery, but at all of the injuries and mortalities in West Coast fisheries. Although the Council does not manage the West Coast fishery that is usually considered as highest in mortalities, Dungeness crab fishermen and vessels from that fishery regularly participate in Council managed fisheries.

Human Recruitment to the Fisheries Initiative:  National Standard 8 states: “Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) [National Standard 2 requiring the use of best available science], in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such  communities[10].”

How does the aging of permit holders impact the sustained participation of fishing communities?  The FEP discussed the age distribution of fishery participants and how it differs notably from the age distribution of West Coast residents (see FEP PUBLIC DRAFT @ p 83).  If providing for the sustained participation of fishing communities in fisheries were considered at the coastwide level, the “graying” of West Coast fishing fleets may be a concern for the Council and all of the management entities participating in the Council process. For example as of October 1, 2012, the average age of groundfish trawl quota share owners, weighted by percentage of shares owned, is 60, and the median age is 59 – meaning that the ages of quota share owners are fairly evenly distributed around a center point of age 59. The average age of the owners of groundfish vessels carrying quota shares, weighted by percentage of vessel owned, is 57, and the median age of those vessel owners is also 57.  Similarly, for permit owners in both Oregon’s salmon troll fleet and in its pink shrimp fleet, average age is 58, with a median age of 59. According to U.S. Census data, the median age of Oregonians in 2010 was age 38.

However, a cross-FMP look at both the ages of participants and the flexibility of movement between fleets could give the Council better information about the long-term viability of West Coast fleets.

Cross‐FMP Socio‐Economic Effects of Fisheries Management Initiative:  This initiative is also intended to support the MSA’s National Standard 8, particularly where the standard refers to taking into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meets National Standard 2. National Standard 2 states: “Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available[11].”

This initiative would investigate operational tradeoffs when management decisions made under different FMPs affect the same communities. West Coast fishing ports can be ranked in terms of their annual landings and exvessel revenues, by species management group and gear type. This provides a foundation upon which an assessment can be made about economic benefits generated to the port and the surrounding business community. The types of businesses within those communities would differ from port to port, depending on the level of local infrastructure development and maintenance.

Cross‐FMP Effects of Climate Shift Initiative:  As you will recall from Section 4.5 of the FEP, 3 prominent properties of the environment are predicted to undergo significant change over the long term as a result of climate change:

• Temperature;
• Ocean surface water pH (acidity versus alkalinity), and
• Deep-water oxygen.

Other physical changes are less predictable but relatively likely, including changes in upwelling intensification,  changes in the timing of the spring transition, and changes in both the frequency and intensity of current modes of climate variability (ENSO and PDO).

While individual FMPs are more apt to consider climate change impacts on a particular species or species group, the focus of this initiative would be on the combined, long-term effects of such changes on multiple species across all management plans. CCE fisheries support, to varying degrees, the economies and social fabric of at least 125 communities in California, Oregon and Washington. As fish populations and the ecosystems that sustain them are altered in response to climate change, there are potentially profound consequences for the fisheries and the communities that they support.

Indicators for Analyses of Council Actions Initiative:  Under NEPA, federal fishery management actions that “may” have an effect on the environment, are required to be analyzed for the significance of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on the environment.  40 CFR 1508.7 defines cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

Ultimately, this initiative could help the Council to assess whether shifts in management measures are needed to help buffer against uncertainties resulting from the cumulative effects of human activities on the environment, and to support greater long-term stability within the CCE and for its fishing communities.

© 2013 West Coast Fisheries Consultants, LLC – all rights reserved

---

[1] Final Council Action at G.1.d, June 2012.

[2] As recommended by the Ecosystem Plan Development Team – from Smith et al. (2011)

[3] It is a monitored species under the CPS FMP.

[4] FMU Species: Defined (50 CFR 600.10) – “a fishery or that portion of a fishery identified in an FMP relevant to the FMP’s management objectives. The choice of an FMU depends on the focus of the FMP’s objectives, and may be organized around biological, geographic, economic, technical, social, or ecological perspectives.”  FMU species are considered in the fishery (50 CFR 610.310(d)(1)  – All stocks in an FMP are considered in the fishery, unless they are identified as EC species (see 50 CFR 310(d)(5)) as either “target stocks” or “non-target species.”  Target stocks are those which sought for sale or personal use and include “economic discards” (16 USC §1802(9) – fish which are the target of a fishery, but which are not retained because they are of an undesirable size, sex, or quality, or for other economic reasons).  Non-target species and/or non-target stocks are fish caught incidental to take of a fishery’s target species and include “regulatory discards.” (16 USC §1802(38) – fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard whenever caught, or are required by regulation to retain but not sell) Some non-target species may be identified in an FMP as an EC species.

EC Species: Are not “in the fishery”.  Described (50 CFR 600.310(d)(5)(i) – Those species should:

(1)   Be a non-target species or non-target stock;

(2)   Not be determined to be subject to overfishing, approaching overfished, or overfished;

(3)   Not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished, according to the best available information, in the absence of conservation and management measures; and

(4)   Not generally be retained for sale or personal use (Occasional retention OK).

What are the repercussions for defining a species as an EC species?  These species may:

(1)   be identified at the species or stock level;

(2)   may be grouped into complexes;

(3)   but are not required, to be included in FMP/FMP amendment for:

a.     Data collection purposes;

b.     ecosystem considerations related to specification of Optimum Yield for the associated fishery;

c.     as considerations in the development of conservation and management measures for the associated fishery; and

d.     to address other ecosystem issues

EC species should be monitored so that as new pertinent scientific information becomes available (e.g., catch trends, vulnerability, etc.) evidencing changes in their status or their vulnerability to the fishery – they should be reclassified as ‘in the fishery’ if necessary.

[5] Northern sub-region: Strait of Juan De Fuca, Wa. to Cape Blanco, Or. (375 miles)

Central sub-region:  Cape Blanco, Or. to Point Conception, Ca. (635 miles)

Southern sub-region:  Point Conception, Ca. to Mexico border (236 miles)

[6] 16 USC §1851(a)(9)

[7] 16 USC §1853(a)(11)

[8] 16 USC §1802(10)

[9] 16 USC §1851(a)(10)

[10] 16 USC §1851(a)(8)

[11] 16 USC §1851(a)(2)

____________________________________________________

Preliminary summary of select lower trophic level species in the CCE

Common and Species Name	Relative Abundance	Fisheries Potential	Role in ecosystem	Managed?
Vertebrates
Northern anchovy	Low frequency (regime scale) variability over time and space, but typically abundant from nearshore to offshore habitats throughout the CCE	Formerly a major fisheries target (100,000s tons), currently a small scale (largely bait) and incidental catch	Key forage species for wide range of HMS, salmon, groundfish, seabird and marine mammals	CPSFMP
Pacific sardine	Low frequency (regime scale) variability over time and space, but often abundant from nearshore to offshore habitats throughout the CCE	Historically, largest fishery in California Current (100,000s tons), currently a major fisheries target	When abundant, a key forage species for wide range of HMS, salmon, groundfish, seabird and marine mammals	CPSFMP
Pacific mackerel	Low frequency (regime scale) variability over time and space, but often abundant from nearshore tooffshore habitats throughout the CCE	Historically and currently an important fisheries target (10,000s tons)	When abundant, amoderately important foragespecies for many HMS andsome marine mammals	CPSFMP
Jack mackerel	Low frequency (regime scale) variability over time and space, but often abundant in offshore habitats (rarely close to shore) throughout the CCE	Occasionally important fisheries target (10,000s tons)	When abundant, a moderately important forage species for many HMS and some marine mammals	CPSFMP
Pacific herring	Abundant to very abundant in nearshore and many estuaries	Fairly high commercial importance (up to 10,000s tons)	Among the more frequently encountered prey in predators such as salmon, hake, rockfish, marine mammals, seabirds	States
Round and thread herrings	Subtropical species that are “reasonably abundant” in the southern part of the CCS. Range likely to expand with global climate change	Unknown in CCS, but in 100,000s tons throughout Eastern Tropical Pacific	Currently key LTL species in core range, could potentially be in CCS with global change	none
American shad	Anadromous, moderately abundant in rivers, estuaries	CCS landings in 100s tons, com./rec. important elsewhere	An introduced species, moderately important prey for some predators	none
Mesopelagic fishes100s of species in CCS	Likely the most abundant fish assemblage on the planet. Uncommon inshore but tremendously abundant in mesopelagic (offshore, midwater) waters	Currently limited fisheries potential; despite tremendous abundance, technology is historically infeasible	Important prey for entire mesopelagic food web, many large squids, many tunas and HMS, some rockfish (esp. blackgill, bank), rare in mammal or seabird diets	none
Pacific sandlance	Common, but not abundant, in coastal waters of Pacific Northwest	Important fishery target in other regions (particularly North Atlantic)	Moderately important prey for some fishes, seabirds and marine mammals in the Pacific Northwest	none
Pacific saury	Low frequency (regime scale) variability over time and space, primarily an offshore (pelagic) species, often very abundant in offshore waters during cool regimes/periods	Very important fishery off of Japan, elsewhere in North Pacific; presumably a potential large-scale target	Relatively important prey to albacore, sablefish, sharks, other HMS species (rarely found in predators shoreward of shelf break)	none
Silversides	Moderately abundant in nearshore (but considerably less so than osmerids based on larval abundance data)	Historically commercial and recreational targets (up to ~ 1000 tons in 1940s), recent catches relatively modest. Fisheries typically nearshore	Very abundant in some nearshore areas, presumably important forage species in such areas, but rarely encountered in food habits data for key commercial species	none
Eulachon	Anadromous, coastal, formerly fairly abundant, currently rare	Formerly of fairly high commercial and recreational importance (CCS landings in 1000s tons)	Common but not abundant prey item for wide range of predators	ESA
Other Osmerid – smelts	After the clupeids (and exclusive of mesopelagics), among the most abundant family of forage fish species in nearshore; typically less abundant offshore	Some species are of minor to modest commercial significance (surf smelt), or have been the target of major fisheries elsewhere (e.g., Atlantic capelin)	Preyed on by wide range of piscivores (seabirds, marine mammals, Pacific hake, sablefish, rockfish, salmon), but rarely comprise a large fraction of total prey.	none
Shortbelly rockfish	Likely the most abundant Sebastes spp. in Central and Southern California, exhibits low frequency (regime like) variability	Minor incidental landings, potential future fisheries target	Juvenile and adult life history stages are very important to salmon, many groundfish, seabirds and marine mammals.	Groundfish FMP
Sanddabs	One of the more abundant soft-bottom groundfish, also found in water column, typically over shelf.	Substantial commercial and recreational catches (100s to 1000s tons)	Juvenile and adult life history stages are very important to many groundfish, particularly piscivorous flatfish; some seabirds and marine mammals.	Groundfish FMP
Pacific tomcod	Locally abundant in some nearshore habitats	Trace historical landings, little current fishery interest or potential	Relatively minor importance in most food habits studies.	none
Small croakers	Fairly abundant, particularly in nearshore waters of the southern CCE	Some commercial and recreational landings (perhaps to 1000s tons)	Somewhat important for some nearshore species; larvae are very abundant in ichthyoplankton, suggesting relatively high abundance in some areas.	none
Invertebrates
Euphausiids (krill)	Tremendously abundant throughout coastal and offshore waters, a hugely important component of the food web	Commercial targets in Antarctica, Japan, some small fisheries off British Columbia and other locations; increasing commercial potential.	Key forage species for wide range of both juvenile and adult salmon, groundfish, squid, seabird and marine mammals	Fishing prohibited in CPSFMP
Market squid	Nearshore and shelf distribution (adults relatively rare offshore)	Very important commercial target in CCS (up to, rarely over, 100,000 tons)	Key forage species for wide range of HMS, salmon, groundfish, seabird and marine mammals	CPSFMP (CA state)
Pelagic squids	Offshore distribution (most spp. rare inshore)	Important commercial target elsewhere in range	These and other squid are key prey for HMS species and marine mammals.	none