Weathervane Scallop

 Weathervane Scallop Patinopecten caurinus
©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scanfish.com Alaska: Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Scallop Dredge 8/22/2012 Wendy Norden, Senior Fisheries Analyst Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up‐to‐date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer‐
reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 2
Final Seafood Recommendation All weathervane scallops (Patinopecten caurinus) on the US market are from the Alaskan drdge fishery, which is ranked as a Best Choice. Species/Stock Gear/Region Scallop Alaska: Scallop Dredge Impacts on the Stock Rank Score Green 3.32 Impacts on Management
other Species Rank Lowest scoring Score species Rank*, Subscore, Score Tanner Crab Green, 4.47,4.25
Green 4.47 Habitat and Ecosystem Rank Score Overall Recommendation
Score Yellow 3.16 BEST CHOICE 3.81 Scoring note – scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. 3
Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ........................................................................................ 9 Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks .................................................................................... 28 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 35 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem ................................................................................................ 41 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 46 References .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix A: Review Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 50 About Seafood Watch® ............................................................................................................................... 51 Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................................... 52 4
Executive Summary The Alaskan weathervane scallop (Patinopecten caurinus) fishery uses scallop dredge gear to fish in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Weathervane scallops are the largest scallops in the world and range from Point Reyes, California, to the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, but are only fished commercially in Alaska. They are found from intertidal waters to depths of 300 meters, but abundance tends to be greatest between 40 and 130 meters on mud, clay, sand, and gravel substrate. Weathervane scallops are considered moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure due to high average maximum age and the potential for Allee effects at low population sizes that may reduce spawning success. The weathervane scallop is not considered overfished, however, a quantitative stock assessment is lacking. Fishing pressure on the weathervane scallop has been less than ½ maximum sustainable yield (MSY) since 1996, but some stocks have seen slight reductions in catch‐rates (CPUE), leaving some uncertainty of sustainable catch levels. Bycatch rates are generally less than five percent of the scallop catch for each bycatch species, and there are currently no concerns over the amount of finfish bycatch. The only bycatch species analyzed in this assessment is the Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi). Tanner crabs have been chosen for analysis because of their historic low population abundance (leading to a closure of the fishery in the Bering Sea and most of the Gulf of Alaska since 2009/10), overfished staus in 2009/10, although this status has recently been upgraded by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee, and relatively high bycatch in the Bering Sea; although bycatch in the weathervane scallop fishery accounts for only a fraction of total Bering Sea crab bycatch. However, overfishing is currently not occurring in the Tanner crab fishery as a result of bycatch in the weathervane scallop fishery. Established crab bycatch limits are adhered to and have not resulted in exceeding fishing limits. The Alaskan weathervane fishery is well managed. The fishery has been managed under state and federal fishery management plans (FMPs) since 1993. FMPs detail precautionary management measures including a limited entry program, area‐specific catch quotas to prevent overfishing, gear and crew size restrictions and bycatch controls. Annual harvest levels are set pre‐season for all scallop management areas at a level below the catch limits so that the sum of the estimated discard mortality in scallop and groundfish fisheries as well as directed scallop fishery catch does not exceed the statewide catch limits. However, there is a weakness in using fishery‐dependent data (catch per unit effort—CPUE) for management purposes, as CPUE may be unreliable due to environmental conditions, time of year, gear type and crew/captain experience levels. Since 1994, vessels are required to carry observers to collect biological, bycatch and effort data as well as provide information on regulatory enforcement. Crab bycatch is a concern for the weathervane scallop fishery, however, crab bycatch has been strictly controlled since 1993 through the use of crab catch limits set at the beginning of the fishing season. These catch limits are based on the condition of individual crab stocks. Scallop 5
observer data are released to the public in reports prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in a management process that is transparent and open to the public. Scallop dredges have been shown to have severe impacts on benthic populations, communities, and habitats by damaging or reducing structural biota and habitat complexity, and by altering seafloor structure and reducing habitat features. Concerns about habitat effects associated with dredging in Alaska prompted the Alaska Board of Fisheries to establish extensive closures to fishing with scallop dredges in state and federal waters. In addition, the overall fishing footprint of weathervane scallop fishing is very small (149 square nautical miles) equating to about 0.1 percent of the total available benthic essential fish habitat area. In Alaska, management regulations already include ecosystem‐based fishery management measures such as control of directed and incidental catches; a prohibition on fishing of forage species (on which other fish, seabirds, and marine mammals depend); protection of habitat for fish, crabs, and marine mammals; and temporal and spatial controls of fishing. 6
Introd
duction
n Scope o
of the analyysis and en
nsuing reco
ommendatiion The Alaskkan weatherrvane scallop
p (Patinopeccten caurinuus) fishery usses scallop dredge gear tto fish in the Gulf of Alaaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Island s (Figure 1). Weathervaane scallops are the large
est scallops in
n the world and range frrom Point Reeyes, Califorrnia, to the P
Pribilof Islands, Alaska. D
Despite theirr range, theyy are fished ccommercially only in Alaaska (EDF 20
012; NPFMC 2011). They are foun
nd from inte
ertidal waterrs to depths of 300 meteers, but abun
ndance tend
ds to be greate
est between
n 40 and 130
0 meters on m
mud, clay, saand, and graavel substratte (NPFMC 2011). Figure 1. Alaska weathervane scallo
op fishing grou
unds. Figure frrom NPFMC 20
011. Species Overview Overview
w of the speccies and ma
anagement b
bodies e eight species of scallop
ps found in A
Alaskan wat ers: howeveer the weath
hervane scallop There are
(Patinopeecten caurin
nus) is the on
nly species in
n Alaska thatt is commerrcially fished (Hennick, 1
1973; NPFMC 2
2011). 7
Alaska weathervane scallop populations were first investigated for commercial harvest in the early 1950s (North Pacific Fishery Management Council {NPFMC} 2011). Interest in the Alaska fishery increased in the late 1960s as catches for the Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) fisheries on Georges Bank declined due to poor stock status, and consumer demand for scallops remained high (NPFMC 2011). The Alaskan weathervane scallop fishery began in 1967 (Kruse et al 2005; NPFMC 2011). Initially the fishery was unregulated which led to widespread depletion of stocks (Kruse et al 2005). However, stocks rebounded in the 1980s and 1990s once it became regulated, (Kruse et al 2000; Kruse et al 2005). Improvement in stocks and increased market‐value led to the growth of the fishery in the 1980s and 90s (Kruse et al 2005; Kruse et al 2000). Since the 1990s, the fishery has been managed under state and federal FMPs that contain precautionary management measures including: a limited entry program; area‐specific catch quotas; gear and crew size restrictions; bycatch controls and area closures to minimize adverse benthic impacts (Kruse et al 2005). Currently, the scallop fishery is managed jointly by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) under the federal FMP for the weathervane scallop (NPFMC 2011). Under the current scallop FMP, management of all aspects of the scallop fishery, except limited access, is delegated to the State of Alaska (NOAA 2012). To limit access, the NPFMC has developed a scallop license limitation program, implemented in 2000 (NOAA 2012). NMFS and the NPFMC have recently developed overfishing definitions and a plan for essential fish habitat for scallops (NOAA 2012). State regulations have established guideline harvest levels (GHLs), fishing seasons, open and closed fishing areas, the scallop observer program, bycatch limits, gear restrictions, and measures to limit processing efficiency (including a ban on the use of mechanical shucking machines (NOAA 2012). Production statistics Although weathervane scallop landings reached a high of over 1.2 million pounds in the 1994/95 fishing year, over the last decade, annual catch of weathervane scallops ranged from approximately 340,000 to 570,000 lbs (NPFMC 2011; Figure 2). Importance to the US/North American market Weathervane scallops are sold primarily on the domestic market, which fluctuates widely based on the stock status and sale of Atlantic sea scallops (NPFMC 2011; Kruse et al 2005). The height of value in the fishery (since 1993), occurred in the 1994/95 fishing season when the approximate value in the US market was $9.9 million (NPFMC 2011; Figure 2). Since the 1994/95 height, revenue in the fishery has fluctuated (Figure 2). Overall, the total value has trended downward as landings have fallen from more than 1.2 million pounds in 1994/95 down to a low in 2008/09 of 342,434 pounds (NPFMC 2011; Figure 2). The total revenue fell to less than $2.2 million in 2008/09; however, the 2009/10 revenue improved to $3.2 million (NPFMC 2011; Figure 2). 8
1,400,000
12,000,000.00
1,200,000
10,000,000.00
1,000,000
8,000,000.00
800,000
6,000,000.00
600,000
400,000
200,000
‐
4,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
‐
Figure 2. Weathervane scallop landings (in pounds; dark line left axis) and value (in U.S. dollars; light line right axis) by fishing year 1993–2010. Graph created from data compiled by NPFMC 2011 Common and market names
The Alaska weathervane scallop is marketed as either Weathervane Scallops or Alaska Scallops (ASMI 2012) Primary product forms
Weathervane scallops are shucked at sea and sold either frozen or fresh (NPFMC 2011). Frozen scallops are available year‐round and fresh from July 1 to February 15 (ASMI 2012). 9
Analysis Scoring guide •
•
All scores result in a zero to five final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of five indicates high performance. The full Seafood Watch Fisheries Criteria that the following scores relate to are available on our website at www.seafoodwatch.org. Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation Guiding principles •
•
The stock is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long‐term productivity of the stock or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web. Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent resilience to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non‐fishery impacts such as habitat degradation. Stock Inherent Vulnerability Rank Stock Status Rank (Score) Fishing Mortality Rank (Score) Scallop Medium Moderate Concern (3) Low Concern (3.67) Crit 1 Score Crit 1 Rank 3.32 GREEN Synthesis Weathervane scallops are considered moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure due to high average maximum age and the potential for Allee effects at low population sizes that may reduce spawning success. The weathervane scallop is not considered overfished, however, a quantitative stock assessment is lacking. Fishing pressure on the weathervane scallop has been low and less than ½ MSY since 1996, but some stocks have seen reductions in catch‐rates (CPUE), leaving some uncertainty of sustainable catch levels. 10
Justification of Ranking Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability: Medium Key relevant information: Weathervane scallops are considered of Medium Vulnerability due to high average maximum age and the potential for Allee effects at low population sizes that may reduce spawning success. Detailed rationale (optional) Factor Scallop Score Source Average age at Maturity 3 years 3 NPFMC 2011 Average maximum Age Estimated 28 years , 2 NPFMC 2011; D. but weathervane Witherell pers. scallops cannot be aged
comm. 2012 past 17 annuli,
therefore categorized
as 10–25 years Reproductive Strategy Broadcast Spawner 3 NPFMC 2011 Density Dependence Density dependent 1 Orensanz et al stock recruitment 2003; NPFMC 2011 relationship has been suggested Score 2.25 Factor 1.2 Stock status: Moderate concern Key relevant information: There are no statewide biomass estimates of weathervane scallop populations (EDF 2012). The main sources of data on biomass and/or abundance are derived from: fishery‐dependent catch‐
per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) data; observer data and some regions where dredge surveys are conducted (NPFMC 2011). The biomass needed to achieve maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) has not been determined for the weathervane scallop, but the MSY or catch (based on the average retained catch from 1990 to 1997) has been estimated at 1.284 million lbs (NOAA 2011). This estimate was recently revised from 1.24 million lbs to account for discard and bycatch mortality (NPFMC 2011a, NOAA 2011). The weathervane scallop fishery is not classified as overfished, but a quantitative stock assessment is lacking. 11
Detailed rationale (optional): In Alaska, the population of weathervane scallop has been divided into 9 major regions, a few of which have been further divided into districts (see below) for management and assessment purposes (NPFMC 2011; Figure 1). Abundance is estimated for only two of the nine registration areas (Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet) (NPFMC 2011). Regions include: the Southeastern Alaska Registration Area (Area A); Yakutat Registration Area (Area D and District 16); Prince William Sound Registration Area (Area E); Cook Inlet Registration Area (Area H); Kodiak Registration Area (Area K), which is subdivided into the Northeast, Shelikof and Semidi Districts; Alaska Peninsula Registration Area (Area M); Dutch Harbor Registration Area (Area O); Bering Sea Registration Area (Area Q); and Adak Registration Area (Area R). Due to low scallop biomass, scallop seasons have never been opened in Southeastern Alaska (except for Area 16; Figure 1), with the exception of a small amount of subsistence harvest done by divers (Figure 1; NPFMC 2011). Most populations are evaluated based on fishery catch per unit effort data (CPUE = pounds of scallop meats per hour dredged), which is used as an index of abundance (NPFMC 2011). However, biennial dredge surveys are conducted in two areas in the central Gulf of Alaska region (Kayak Island in Prince William Sound, and Kamishak Bay in Cook Inlet), which allows for some abundance estimates (NPFMC 2011). In addition, there are some experimental surveys using a CamSled, however, formal biomass estimates have not been derived from these surveys (Rosenkranz et al. 2008). Stock status (CPUE, abundance estimates and biomass estimated) for the primary weathervane scallop fishing areas are as follows. Yakutat Registration Areas: Area D and District 16 Abundance data in this region is derived mainly from CPUE and observer data (NPFMC 2011). Area D and District 16 have seen some variation and an overall declining trend in CPUE, which is used as a proxy to infer a slight decline in scallop abundance (NPFMC 2011; Figure 1; Figure 3; Figure 4). 12
Figure 3. Yaku
utat Area D W
Weathervane sccallop harvest and CPUE. Figgure from NPFFMC 2011. Fiigure 4. Yakuttat District 16 W
Weathervane scallop harvesst and CPUE. FFigure from NP
PFMC 2011. Prince W
William Sound Registration Area Biennial dredge surveys are cond
ducted in tw
wo areas in thhe central G
Gulf of Alaskaa region (Kayyak Island in Prince Williaam Sound, aand Kamishak Bay in Coook Inlet), wh
hich allows fo
or some abundance estimates (NPFMC 20
011; Figure 1
1). Scallop bbiomass estimates at Kayak Island have 13
fluctuate
ed from 1996
6 to 2008 (NPFMC 2011;; Figure 5; Fiigure 6). Bio
omass and abundance have both bee
en declining in this region since 2004
4 (NPFMC 20011). In the west, biomaass reached a high of ju
ust over 300,000 kg in 20
000 and the most recent estimate (22010) was th
he lowest level recorded
d in the time series (23,9
908; Figure 5
5; NPFMC 20011). In the east, biomaass reached a high of over 600,000
0 kg and has since decreaased to just over 280,0000 kg (NPFMC 2011; Figu
ure ndance estim
mates have fo
ollowed similar decliness (Figure 6; N
NPFMC 2011
1). The mostt 6). Abun
recent ab
bundance in the west sh
how a 49% decrease from
m 2008 to 20010, and thee east has haad major de
ecreases in scallop abund
dance since the height i n 2004 (over 17 million scallops/nm
m) (NPFMC 2011). 600000
500000
400000
Kayak Island W
West
300000
Kayak Island Eaast
200000
100000
0
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2
20066
2008
2010
Figure 5. Biomass estim
mates (kg of m
meats) for weathervane scalllops in Kayak IIsland west an
nd east. Note: The as not surveye
ed in 2010 due to high seas aand gear failurre. Graph derivved from dataa in NPFMC 2011. east wa
14
30000000
25000000
20000000
Kayak Island W
West
15000000
Kayak Island Eaast
10000000
5000000
0
1996
1998
2000
0
2002
2004
20066
2008
2010
Figure 6. Abundance (scallops/nauticcal mile) Estimates for weath
hervane scallo
ops in Kayak Island west and
d east. bars representt 95% CI. Note
e—The east waas not surveyeed in 2010 duee to high seas aand gear failurre. Error b
Grraph derived frrom data in NPPFMC 2011. Cook Inle
et Registratiion Area, Kaamishak Disttrict Scallop d
dredge surve
eys are also cconducted b
biennially in Kamishak Baay (Area H; FFigure 1; NPFMC 2011). Biomass has d
declined since the late 1
1990s from oover 350,0000 kg meats ((1996) down
n to over 97,0
000 kg (2009
9) in the nortth and from over 221,0000 (2003) to
o over 18,000
0 kg (2009) in the south
h (NPFMC 20
011). Biomaass estimates in other arreas are currrently not avvailable (NPFFMC 2011). Kodiak R
Registration Area, North
heast Districtt Weatherrvane scallop
p CPUE has rremained relatively stabble since 20000/01 where the height o
of CPUE was 73 poundss meats per hour dredge
ed (NPFMC 22011; Figuree 7). The mo
ost recent estimate (2009/10) is 61 poundss meats per h
hour dredgeed (NPFMC 22011; Figure 7). 15
Figure 7. K
Kodiak Registraation Area, Northeast Districct CPUE. Figurre from NPFMC
C 2011 Kodiak R
Registration Area, Shelikkof District
Weatherrvane scallop
p CPUE has ffluctuated an
nd the most recent estim
mates in 200
09/10 (49 pounds m
meats per ho
our dredged) were down
n from the hheight of 74 pounds meaats per hour dredged in 2007/08 (NPFMC 201
11; Figure 8). However,, some of the declines in
n CPUE may,, in part, be d
due to smalller vessels using smallerr dredges in tthe 2007/088 fishing year (NPFMC 20
011). 16
Figure 8. Kodiak Registrration Area, Sh
helikof Districtt CPUE. Figuree from NPFMC 2011 Registration Area, South
hwest Districct Kodiak R
Opened in 2009 on aan experimental basis–N
No abundancce reported (NPFMC 201
11) Registration Area, South
hwest Districct Kodiak R
State waters closed tto fishing in 2000 and no
o effort has occurred in offshore waaters since 1999 (NPFMC 2011). Alaska Pe
eninsula Reggistration Area on was close
ed to fishing due to deplletion of sca llop stock frrom 2001 to 2005, so theere is This regio
an incom
mplete record
d of CPUE trends (NPFM
MC 2011). Thhe highest reecorded CPU
UE in 1993/9
94 was 66 pounds meatt per hour drredged, and the most reecent recorded CPUE waas 16 poundss meat perr hour dredgged in 2008//09 (NPFMC 2011). No vvessel fished
d this area in
n 2008/09 an
nd it was close
ed in 2009/1
10 (NPFMC 2
2011). Bering Se
ea registratiion Area There has been a gen
neral declining trend in C
CPUE from tthe height off 65 pounds (1996/97; Figure 9) meats per h
hour dredge
ed to 38 pounds meats pper hour dredged in 2009/10, but CP
PUE has been
n relatively sttable since 2
2004/2005 ((NPFMC 20111). 17
Figure 9
9. Bering Sea C
CPUE. Figure frrom NPFMC 20011 Dutch Ha
arbor Registtration Area The Dutcch Harbor region does no
ot have a co
onsistent reccord for CPUE. The fisherry was closeed for several yyears due to poor stock sstatus and to
o allow for stock rebuild
ding (NPFMC
C 2011). Howeverr, the 2009/1
10 fishing ye
ear had the h
highest CPUEE on record (81 meats p
per hour dredged)) (NPFMC 20
011). Adak Reggistration Arrea on, distributtion and abundance dataa on weatheervane scallo
ops in the Ad
dak region iss Populatio
unavailab
ble (NPFMC 2011). The Adak area iss not surveyyed (Barnharrt 2006). Factor 1..3 Fishing mortality: Low
w concern Key relevvant informaation: Fishing p
pressure on tthe weathervane scallop
p has been leess than ½ M
MSY since 19
996, and the fishery iss classified byy NOAA as ““overfishing not occurrinng.” Howeveer, some sto
ocks have seen reduction
ns in abundaance and in ccatch‐rates, leaving susttainable catcch levels som
mewhat uncertain
n. 18
Detailed rationale (optional): Amendment 6 to the weathervane scallop FMP established an MSY at 1.24 million pounds of shucked meats (NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011; NPFMC 2006; NPFMC 1999). MSY was based on the average catch from 1990 to 1997 (excluding 1995) (NPFMC 2011; NPFMC 2006; NPFMC 1999; Table 1). Optimum Yield (OY) was defined as 0–1.24 million lbs, and the overfishing control rule was defined as a fishing rate in excess of the natural mortality rate statewide(NPFMC 2011). While catch levels vary by region, they have been below MSY since 1993 and catches have averaged from 39% to 66% (mean = 45.5%) of MSY (NPFMC 2011; Table 1; Figure 10). Since 1996 the average annual catch has been less than half of MSY (NOAA 2011). The statewide MSY has recently been revised from 1.24 million pounds to 1.284 million pounds of shucked meats (NOAA 2011; NPFMC 2011). The original overfishing limits (OFL) did not account for scallop discards, so the current OFL incorporates discards into the limits (NPFMC 2011). The new OFL limits are thought to be conservative estimates because they do not include areas with scallop populations that are closed to fishing into the catch calculation (NPFMC 2011). Amendment 13 to the weathervane scallop FMP specifies a default OFL equal to the MSY of 1.284 million pounds. The OFL is set statewide because the best available information indicates that there is one statewide stock (NOAA 2011). To be compliant with National Standard 1 of the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) the weathervane scallop fishery must set annual catch limits and accountability measures (to ensure that overfishing does not occur) by 2011/2012 (NPFMC 2011). Amendment 13 to the weathervane scallop FMP established an acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule, and sets the annual catch limit (ACL) equal to the ABC (NOAA 2011). The ABC will be used to set the maximum catch at 90 percent of the OFL (including discards), allowing a 10 percent buffer to reduce the risk of overfishing and account for scientific uncertainty (NOAA 2011) for the 2011/12 fishing season (NPFMC 2011). However, due to the lack of a stock assessment models, there is a high level of scientific uncertainty (NOAA 2011). Therefore, under Amendment 13, scientific uncertainty is incorporated in the buffer between the OFL and the ABC. (NOAA 2011) Annual GHL are set (pre‐season catch targets) for each scallop management area at a level below the ACL so that the sum of the estimated discard mortality in scallop and groundfish fisheries, as well as the directed scallop fishery catch (GHL), do not exceed the statewide ACL (NPFMC 2011). Data used to establish GHLs are dependent upon region and data availability, but typically include fishery‐dependent observer data, surveys (if conducted) and historic catch levels (NPFMC 2011). If the ACL is exceeded, the overage triggers an adjustment to the GHL (decrease) during the following fishing season (NPFMC 2011). In some regions lacking biomass data, CPUE benchmarks may be set to prevent overfishing (NPFMC 2011). 19
Table 1. Sttate‐wide Alasska weathervaane scallop MSSY and catch (lb
bs. meat) 19933–2010. Tablee from NPFMC
C 2011 Figure 10. 20
009/10 Scallop
p catch (lbs me
eats) by regionn in Alaska. Figgure from NPFMC 2011 20
GHLs by managemen
nt area Yakutat R
Registration
n Areas: Area D and Disttrict 16 Area D: GHLs in this region are b
based on the
e average hi storic catch from 1969 tto 1992, min
nus hen no fishing occurred ((NPFMC 200
05; NPFMC 22011). Begin
nning in the 2001/02 seaason, years wh
n GHL to 200
a decline
e in catch rattes was obse
erved, which
h triggered aa reduction in
0,000 pound
ds (NPFMC 2011; Table 2). The 200
05/06 season
n showed a ddeclining catch rate, poo
or recruitmeent, and decrreases in largge scallops, ttherefore the GHL was rreduced to 1150,000 pounds for the 2006/07 season (NPFFMC 2011; TTable 2). In tthe 2006/077and 2008/009 season, th
he GHL was reached and closed b
by emergenccy order (NP
PFMC 2011; TTable 2). Table 2. Yakutat Area D G
GHL and catch summary 19993 – 2011. Tab
ble from NPFM
MC 2011 Area 16: Prior to the 22006/07 scallop season, thhe GHL for Di strict 16 was reduced to 221,000 (40%) due to declinin
ng commercial catch ratess and poor reccruitment (N PFMC 2011; TTable 3). Durring the 2008/09 season, GHL was reach
hed and close
ed by emergency order (NPPFMC 2011; TTable 3). Upw
ward adjustm
ments to the GHLs for both A
Area D and Disstrict 16 were
e made prior tto the 2009/110 season due to observerr data evidence of lo
ocalized depleetion (NPFMC
C 2011; Tablees 2; Table 3). showing sstable catch rates and no e
21
Table 3. Yakkutat District 16 GHL and catch summary 11993–2011. Taable from NPFM
MC 2011
22
Prince W
William Sound The westt scallop bed
d has shown a declining trend in abuundance, bio
omass and C
CPUE since 2003, therefore
e waters in tthe west bed
d closed for the 2010 annd 2011 seassons (NPFMC
C 2011; Figure 6; Figure 7). The east scallop bed abundance estimates in
ndicated a ddeclining tren
nd and obseerver logbook data show
wed a declin
ning trend in
n CPUE (44%
% decline from
m 2008 to 2010) since the 2005/06 season (N
NPFMC 2011
1; Figure 6; FFigure 7). De
eclining CPU
UE and biomass have cau
used some concernss; as a precaution, management reduced GHL too 8,400 poun
nds for the 2
2010/11 seasson (NPFMC 2011; Table 4). The nextt survey is sccheduled forr spring 2012. Tablle 4. Prince Wiilliam Sound A
Area East GHL aand catch sum
mmary 1993–20011. Note—20
010/11 data is preliminary.
p
Table from NP
T
FMC 2011 23
Cook Inle
et Registratiion Area, Kaamishak Disttrict The mostt recent fishing effort occcurred in th
he 2004/05 sseason; 3 vessels participated in thee fishery harvesting 6,1
117 lbs of sccallop meatss (NPFMC 20011; Table 5)). Currently there is no fishing efffort in this rregion (NPFM
MC 2011; Taable 5). Table 5. Cook Inle
et, Kamishak D
District GHL an
nd catch summ
mary 1993–20110. Table from
m NPFMC 2011
24
Kodiak R
Registration Area: North
heast, Kodiaak Shelikof, SSouthwest aand Semidi Districts In Northe
east District, GHLs are d
defined usingg fishery‐obsserver data aand includess effort (dred
dge hours), size frequenccy of retaine
ed and discarrded scallop s, harvest lo
ocation and d
depth (NPFM
MC 2011). C
Catch and GH
HL have remained relativvely constannt since 19999 (Table 6). TThe Alaska Departm
ment of Fish aand Game (A
ADF&G) track CPUE by vessel througghout the seeason (NPFM
MC 2011). To
o provide an
n opportunityy for exploraatory scallopp fishing, thee 2006/07 GHL was increased
d by 15,000 pounds (NPFMC; Table 6). Due to loow explorato
ory effort, fo
or the 2009//10 season th
he explorato
ory harvest level was rem
moved (NPF MC 2011; Taable 6). Table 6. Kodiak,, Northeast Disstrict GHL and catch summa ry 1993–2010. Table from N
NPFMC 2011 25
Kodiak SShelikof Distrrict In the Ko
odiak Sheliko
of region, the
e GHL was caalculated byy applying a ttier 6 calculaation (eg: OFL = average caatch 1990–1
1997 and ABC = 0.75*OFFL) (NPFMC 22011). Therre was a onary GHL o
of 162,000 po
ounds which
h was revisedd up to 180,,000 poundss to match th
he precautio
amount o
of scallops h
harvested du
uring the 199
98/99 season (NPFMC 2011; Table 7
7). The GHL w
was then reduced to 160,000 poundss for the 200
05/06 and 20006/07 seasons due to cconcerns abo
out C 2011; Tablee 7). Duringg the 2008/0
09 season the the unevven concentrrations of efffort (NPFMC
Shelikof District was closed priorr to the GHL being achie ved when th
he Tanner crrab (Chionoeecetes bairdi and C. opilio
o) bycatch cap was exceeeded, and d
during 2009//10 season the GHL was achieved an
nd Tanner crrab bycatch w
was lower (N
NPFMC 20111; Table 7). HL and catch su
ummary 1993––2011. Note—
—2010/11 dataa are preliminaary. Table 7. Kodiak Shelikof District GH
Table frrom NPFMC 20011 Kodiak R
Registration Area: South
hwest and SSemidi Distriicts The Soutthwest Distriict is an expe
erimental fisshery (25,0000 pound GH
HL) only and the Semidi District h
has not had aany fishing e
effort since 2
2000, therefoore fishing m
mortality in tthe region w
will not be asssessed (NPFFMC 2011). 26
Alaska Pe
eninsula Reggistration Area Weatherrvane scallop
p fishery clossed in 2010//11 (NPFMC 2011) Bering Se
ea Registration Area e mid to late
e 1990s were often restrricted by Tanner crab byycatch limitss and Scallop catches in the
for severral seasons, ccatch did no
ot reach the GHLs set (NPPFMC 2011; Table 8). In
n 2000/01 GHLs were adjusted down to 200,000 pounds to represent ac hievable cattch (NPFMC 2011; Tablee 8). Decrease
es in CPUE re
esulted in a reduction off GHL to 1055,000 pounds in 2002/03
3 (NPFMC 20
011; Table 8). Catches continued to d
decrease and
d experimenntal video su
urvey tows co
onducted in 2003 sho
owed scallop
ps widely distributed and
d at low dennsities, leadin
ng to further GHL reduction
ns. The curre
ent 50,000 p
pound GHL aappears to b e appropriate (NPFMC 2
2011). Table 8. Bering Sea GHL and catch ssummary 19933–2011. Tablee from NPFMC 2011 27
Dutch Ha
arbor Registtration Area For Dutch Harbor, th
he GHL was initially set aat 170,000 poounds and w
was then low
wered to 110
0,000 for the 1998/99 and 1999/00 seaasons. Severral closed se asons follow
wed due to lo
ow catch rattes and to allow for rebu
uilding (NPFFMC 2011; Taable 9). Currrently the G
GHL is set at 10,000 poun
nds to provid
de sufficient economic in
ncentive for the industryy to cautioussly pursue th
he fishery an
nd generate
e information
n needed to assess stockk status (NPFMC 2011; TTable 9). Table 9. D
Dutch Harbor G
GHL and catch summary 19993–2011. Tablee from NPFMC
C 2011
28
Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks Guiding principles •
•
The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries‐related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre‐catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post‐release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level. Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’ abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty and non‐fishery impacts such as habitat degradation. Summary Stock Inherent Vulnerability Rank Tanner Crab Medium Stock Status Rank (Score) Low Concern (4) Fishing Mortality Rank (Score) Very Low Concern (5) SubScore Discards Criterion Criterion 2 Score 2 Rank 4.47 20‐40% (0.95) 4.25 Green Bycatch rates are generally less than five percent of the scallop catch for each bycatch species, and there are currently no concerns over the amount of finfish bycatch. The only bycatch species analyzed in this assessment is the Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi). Tanner crabs have been chosen for analysis because of their historic low population abundance (leading to a closure of the fishery in the Bering Sea and most of the Gulf of Alaska since 2009/10), overfished staus in 2009/10, although this status has recently been upgraded by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee, and relatively high bycatch in the Bering Sea; although bycatch in the weathervane scallop fishery accounts for only a fraction of total Bering Sea crab bycatch. However, overfishing is currently not occurring in the Tanner crab fishery as a result of bycatch in the weathervane scallop fishery. Established crab bycatch limits are adhered to and have not resulted in exceeding fishing limits. 29
Justification of Ranking Species Impacted by the Fishery Bycatch in the weathervane scallop fishery includes some prohibited species, commercially important, and some non‐commercial species (Barnhart and Rosenkranz 2003; NOAA 2011a; Table 10). Prohibited species include red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus), Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi), snow crab (C. opilio), and Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) (NOAA 2011a). However, the weathervane scallop fishery does not have a significant effect on the sustainability of any non‐target groundfish species (NOAA 2011a). Additionally, the scallop FMP targets a GHL that is well below any of the proposed alternative ACLs and the 100% observer coverage collects complete data on all bycatch in the scallop fishery, therefore at this time there is no concern regarding bycatch (NOAA 2011a). During the 2000/01 and 2007/08 fishing seasons, the most common species, by percent weight, were weathervane scallops (84%), twenty‐arm seastar—Pycnopodia helianthoides— (4%), natural debris (3%), and assorted skate species (2%) (NOAA 2011a). Gorgonian coral spp are rarely encountered in observer samples; corals were observed in only 11 of 15,836 sampled tows (NOAA 2011a). There were no marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird bycatch reported in the fishery observer database between 1996–2008 (NOAA 2011a). During the 2009/10 fishing season, weathervane scallops made up the bulk of the catch, ranging from a low of 68% to a high of 90% of the catch by weight, dependent upon the region fished (NPFMC 2011; Table 10). Crab bycatch is regulated through set crab bycatch limits (CBL) (NPFMC 2011; NPFMC 2011a; NOAA 2011a; Rosenkranz and Spaford 2010). Since 1993, there has been 100% observer coverage in the weathervane scallop fishery in order to maintain bycatch limits and ensure the productivity of the scallop fishery (NOAA 2011a; NPFMC 2011). The only exception to this is one or two vessels fishing in Kamishak Bay (G. Kruse, pers. comm. 2012). These small boats are allowed a single, six‐foot dredge, they must fill out a logbook, and have their catches inspected at the dock (G. Kruse, pers. comm. 2012). 30
Ta
able 10. Summ
mary of catch/b
bycatch by perrcent weight o
of weathervane scallop catch
h during the 2009/10 fishing seasson. Table fro
om NPFMC 20111 31
Table
e 11. Bycatch limits and estiimated bycatch (in numberss of animals for the Bering Seea 1993–2010. Figure frrom NOAA 20111a. Tanner C
Crab Factor 2..1 Inherent V
Vulnerabilityy: Medium
Key relevvant informaation: Tanner C
Crab ‐ Mediu
um Vulnerab
bility 32
Detailed rationale (opt): Tanner Crab Vulnerability Analysis Factor Tanner Crab Average age at Maturity 5–8 years Score 2 Average maximum Age 14 years 2 Reproductive Strategy Brooder/broadcast larvae High density mating aggregations; however, no strong density‐dependence dynamics indicated 2 Density Dependence 2 Source NMFS (2004); ADFG (2004) NMFS (2004 ); ADFG (2004)
NMFS (2004); ADFG (2004 Zheng and Kruse (1998) Score 2 = Medium Factor 2.2 Stock status: Low concern Key relevant information: Tanner crab was listed as overfished in 2009/10 (Balsiger 2012). However, the most up‐to‐date assessment, recently approved by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) uses a new model which has been under development for several years (NPFMC 2012b). Based on a modification in the time frame employed to estimate recruitment, the model indicates that the stock status has changed and the stock is no longer considered overfished (NPFMC 2012b; NPFMC 2012c). However, some members of the Crab Plan Team (CBT) have expressed concerns about using the recruitment estimates for 1966‐73, but the NPFMC will be forming a joint CPT and SSC workgroup to evaluate how uncertainty is currently being addressed (NPFMC (NPFMC 2012b; 2012c). Detailed rationale (optional): Tanner Crab: The Tanner crab stock was declared rebuilt from its previously overfished status in 2007 (Rugolo and Turnock 2010). However, stock status in 2009/10 was 0.38 relative to BREF (BMSY proxy) which is below the limit that defines an overfished stock ( minimum stock size threshold (MSST)=0.5BREF), and the US Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Tanner crab stock is determined to be currently overfished (Rugolo and Turnock 2010; Figure 11). The 2009/10 Tanner crab stock was determined to be overfished by NOAA Fisheries based on the 2010 stock assessment (Rugolo and Turnock 2010). The 2010 mature male biomass (MMB) was 28.44 thousand tons which represents a ratio of 0.34 relative to BREF. The Tanner crab fishery was 33
closed aggain for the 2
2010/11 seaason due to tthe overfish ed status (R
Rugolo and TTurnock 2011
1; Figure 11
1). Currentlyy, the stock iis at Tier 3 le
evel and the FMSY proxyy (F35%) is 00.61 and the 2012/13 FOFL=0.6
61 under the
e Tier 3 OFL C
Control Rule
e (NPFMC 20012b). This eequates to aa total male and female caatch of 19.02 thousand tons. The marked changge in OFL is d
due to the ch
hange from a Tier 4 OFFL calculation
n to a model‐based asse
essment wheere catchabiility is estimaated, therefo
ore the stockk is now estimated to be
e above BMSSY (NPFMC 22012c). The MMB projections for 20
013 is 42.74 tthousand tons under the
e assumption that the tootal catch fo
or 2012/13 eequals the OFL (NPFMC 2012c). The
e EBS Tannerr crab MMB was above BMSY at thee time of mating in mid‐
Februaryy 2012(NPFM
MC 2012c). O
Overfishing d
did not occu r during the 2011/12 fishing year because total catch losses (1.24 thousand t) did not exceeed the totaal catch OFL (2.75 thousaand MC 2012c). t) (NPFM
Figure 1
11. Trawl surve
ey of populatio
on level for the
e Bering Sea TTanner crab. Note the decline of male matture biomass (MMB) fro
om 1992 to 199
97, falling belo
ow MSST in 19995. Tanner craab MMB in 200
09/10 declined
d d fell below th
he MSST at surrvey time. MM
MB at the time of the 2010 su
urvey substantiially from prevvious years and
declined 8.3
3% relative to 2009. * LMB == Legal male Biiomass. Figure from Ru
F
ugolo and Turn
nock 2010. Factor 2..3 Fishing mortality: Verry low conce
ern Key relevvant informaation: 34
Overfishiing is not occurring for TTanner crabss in the weatthervane fishery. Established crab bycatch llimits are ad
dhered to and have not rresulted in eexceeding OFFL. Rebuildin
ng plans for Tanner crabs include
e bycatch am
mounts that w
will allow for rebuilding targets (Ballsiger 2012). Detailed rationale (optional): Overfishiing is not occurring for TTanner crabss in the weatthervane fishery. The O
OFL for the 2010/11 season was set at 1,610
0 mt. The directed fishe ry was closeed in 2010/1
11; thereforee retained catch was zero (Balsiger 2012). Tottal catch from
m all other ssources of bycatch morttality data wass 879 mt (Balsiger 2012). A rebuildin
ng plan will bbe developeed in 2012/13 (Balsiger 2012). TTanner crab bycatch limiits have been set for all weathervan
ne scallop fisshing regionss since 199
93 (Barnhartt 2006; NPFM
MC 2011; Fre
ee‐Sloan 20007; Figure 100; Table 11; Table 12). Independ
dent fisherie
es observers record all crab bycatch,, and regions that reach
h their bycatcch quotas cllose for the remainder o
of the season
n (NPFMC 20011). Bycatcch limits for the Tanner crab fishery are set conservatively and are consistent with th e Tanner craab rebuilding plan, usingg a three tier approach ((Barnhart 20
005; Table 12
2). Once th e crab bycattch limit is reeached, thatt area will close to scallop fishing. Four areas were closedd in the 19933/94 season due to CBL hese limits h
have not bee
en reached i n recent yeaars, likely du
ue to reduced being reaached, but th
crab abundance (Barrnhart 2006; Barnhart an
nd Rosenkraanz 2003). Table 1
12. Bycatch lim
mits for crab sp
pecies caught iin the weatherrvane scallop ffishery (% weaathervane catcch). NE = N
Not Establishe
ed. Figure from
m NPFMC 20111. 3 tier approach for Tan
nner crab = (1)) spawning bio
omass above m
minimum stockk size threshold (MSST); bycaatch limit = 260
0,000 crabs; (2
2) spawning biomass below MSST; bycatch
h limit = 130,0000 crabs; (3) sp
pawning biom
mass is below MSST a
and commercial fishery is clo
osed; bycatch limit = 65,0000 crabs (Barnhaart 2005). 35
Factor 2.4 Overall discard rate: 20‐40% Key relevant information: The discard to landings ratio range from 10.5% to 32%, with yields in the range of 20%–40% according the Seafood Watch criteria (NPFMC 2011; SFW 2012). Discards are juvenile scallops, which are estimated to have a 20% survival rate; echinoderms, finfish and crabs, which Kaiser (1986) estimated, to have a 19% survival rate (NOAA 2011a; Kaiser 1986; Table 10). Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Guiding principle •
The fishery is managed to sustain the long‐term productivity of all impacted species. Management should be appropriate for the inherent resilience of affected marine life and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long‐term productivity or ecological role of any species in the future. Fishery Management of Retained Species Rank (Score) Scallop Dredge Low Concern (4) Management of non‐
retained species Criterion Criterion 3 3 Score Rank Very Low Concern (5) 4.47 Green Synthesis The Alaskan weathervane fishery is well managed. The fishery has been managed under state and federal FMPs since 1993 (Kruse et al 2005; NPFMC 2011). FMPs detail precautionary management measures including a limited entry program, area‐specific catch quotas to prevent overfishing, gear and crew size restrictions and bycatch controls. Annual harvest levels are set preseason for all scallop management areas at a level below the catch limits so that the sum of the estimated discard mortality in scallop and groundfish fisheries, as well as directed scallop fishery catch, does not exceed the statewide catch limits. However, there is a weakness in using fishery‐dependent CPUE data for management purposes, as CPUE may be unreliable due to environmental conditions, time of year, gear type and crew/captain experience levels. Since 1994, there has been a requirement for vessels to carry onboard observers to collect biological, bycatch and effort data as well as provide information for regulatory enforcement (ADFG 2004). 36
Crab bycatch is a concern for the weathervane scallop fishery; however, crab bycatch has been strictly controlled since 1993 through the use of crab catch limits set at the beginning of the fishing season, which are based on the condition of individual crab stocks. Scallop observers monitor crab bycatch and the observer data are released to the public in reports prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in a management process that is transparent and open to the public. Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1 Management of fishing impacts on retained species: Low Concern Fishery
Critical?
Scallop dredge
No
Mgmt Recovery of Scientific Scientific strategy and stocks of research and advice
implement. concern
monitoring
Enforce.
Track record Stakeholder inclusion
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
N/A
Moderately Highly Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Key relevant information: The Alaska weathervane scallop fishery management is a low concern. Detailed rationale: Management Strategy and Implementation: Highly effective The weathervane scallop fishery has been managed under state and federal FMPs since 1993 (Kruse et al 2005; NPFMC 2011). The National Standard Guidelines for Fishery Management Plans, published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), requires that a stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) report is prepared and reviewed annually for each FMP (NPFMC 2011). The SAFE report summarizes the current status (biologic and economic) of the fishery and the information used in fishery management such as harvest strategies (NPFMC 2011). For the weathervane scallop fishery, the report is prepared by the Scallop Plan Team (SPT) with contributions from the ADF&G, NMFS, and the NPFMC. FMPs detail precautionary management measures including a limited entry program, area‐
specific catch quotas to prevent overfishing, gear and crew size restrictions and bycatch controls (Kruse 2005; Free‐Sloan 2007; NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011). In addition, some vessels operate as fishing cooperatives to optimize harvest allocations among participants and minimize operational costs (Kruse 2005; NPFMC 2011).There is also a mandatory onboard observer program that collects data for fishery management purposes and ensures regulatory compliance (Kruse 2005; Free‐Sloan 2007; NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011). The most recent Amendment (13) to the weathervane scallop FMP (adopted in 2010; approved 2011) established Accountability Measures (AMs) to prevent annual catch limits (ACLs) from being exceeded, and to correct when over‐harvest occurs by reducing ACL the following fishing 37
year (NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011). Under Amendment 13, annual GHLs are set for each fishing region at a level well below the ACL so that the sum of the directed scallop removals, and estimated discard mortality in the scallop and groundfish fisheries, does not exceed the ACL (NPFMC 2011; NMFS 2011). Recovery of stocks of concern: N/A Weathervane scallop are not a stock of concern. Annual GHL are set (preseason catch targets) for each scallop management area at a level below the ACL so that the sum of the estimated discard mortality in scallop and groundfish fisheries as well as directed scallop fishery catch (GHL) does not exceed the statewide ACL (NPFMC 2011). Scientific Research and Monitoring: Moderately effective Since 1994, when the weathervane scallop FMP was adopted (established in 1993), there has been a requirement for vessels to carry onboard observers to collect biological, bycatch, and effort data as well as provide information on regulatory enforcement (ADFG 2004; Free‐Sloan 2007). Observer coverage is 100% in the scallop fishery in order to collect the data necessary on crab and halibut bycatch, discards, CPUE and to help manage the fishery and set appropriate GHLs (Barnhart 2005; ADFG 2004 NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011). However, the ADFG does recognize the weakness in using fishery‐dependent data (CPUE) for management, as CPUE may be unreliable due to environmental conditions, time of year, gear type and crew/captain experience levels (NPFMC 2011) Most populations are evaluated based on fishery catch per unit effort data (CPUE = pounds of scallop meats per hour dredged), which is used as an index of abundance (NPFMC 2011). However, biennial dredge surveys are conducted in two areas in the central Gulf of Alaska region (Kayak Island (Prince William Sound) and Kamishak Bay in Cook Inlet), which allows for some abundance estimates (NPFMC 2011). In addition, there are some experimental surveys using a CamSled, however, formal biomass estimates have not been derived from these surveys (Rosenkranz et al. 2008). Scientific Advice: Highly effective The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) manages the scallop fishery by registration areas and districts (NPFMC 2011). Catch limits are established, as are preseason targets, prior to each season (NPFMC 2011). Total harvest for each fishing area during a given season will typically be near or below the GHL and these harvest levels are monitored by independent fishery observers (NPFMC 2011). Therefore, due to strict catch limits that are adhered to, the weathervane scallop fishery follows scientific advice. Enforcement:Highly effective There is 100% observer coverage in the weathervane scallop fishery (Barnhart 2005; ADFG 2004 NPFMC 2011; NOAA 2011). The only exception to this is one or two vessels fishing in Kamishak Bay (G. Kruse, pers com 2012). These small boats are allowed a single six‐foot dredge, must fill 38
out a logbook, and have their catches inspected at the dock (G. Kruse, pers com 2012). Independent fishery observers provide real‐time data on all catch and bycatch with fishery managers monitoring the observer data, with the authority to close a fishery in‐season to prevent catch from exceeding the GHL or bycatch limits (NOAA 2011). If the total catch does exceed the ACL, state managers will account for the overage through a downward adjustment to the GHL in the following season (NOAA 2011). Track Record: Highly effective Since 1993, the weathervane scallop fishery had been managed through an FMP (NPFMC 2011). There is a long history of the weathervane scallop fishery being maintained through setting appropriate scallop and bycatch limits (by management region), that are not generally exceeded (NPFMC 2011). In addition, there has been 100% observer coverage since 1993 to help generate data on catch and effort as well as to enforce regulations. GHLs and observer data allow the state to make, real‐time, in‐season management decisions for the fishery as the need occurs (NPFMC 2011). Areas or parts of areas may be closed before the upper end of the GHL is reached due to concerns about fishery performance, bycatch rates, or localized depletion. Thus, the weathervane scallop fishery has a long track record in maintaining scallop stocks (NPFMC 2011). Stakeholder inclusion: Highly effectove Scallop observer data are released to the public in reports prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) (Rosenkranz and Spafard 2010; Rosenkranz and Burt 2009). The NPFMC has a management process that is open to the public. The NPFMC website has a “How Do I get Involved” section for stakeholders that explains: “One of the keys to successful fishery management is incorporating diverse views into decision making through a transparent public process. The Council system was designed so that fisheries management decisions were made at the regional level to allow input from affected stakeholders” (NPFMC 2012). To this end the NPFMC website posts all decisions, meetings, fisheries newsletters and ways to contact council and members to make comments (NPFMC 2012). Stock assessment reports are also presented to the Council on an annual basis and are available to the public (NPFMC 2011). The Scallop Plan Team meets annually to review the status of the weathervane scallop stocks, to discuss issues of importance in scallop management, and to compile the annual SAFE report (NPFMC 2011). Reviews of scallop plans are based on presentations by staff of the NPFMC, NMFS, and ADF&G with opportunity for public comment and input (NPFMC 2011). In addition, if a stakeholder has an issue to discuss with the Council they are provided a summary of each meeting so they will know what actions have already been taken and are given a chance to comment during council meetings (NPFMC 2012). Each Council decision is made by recorded vote in a public forum after public comment, and final decisions then go to NMFS for a second review, public comment, and final approval (NPFMC 2012). Most fishery participants routinely attend meetings of the Scallop Plan Team, where they interact with scallop biologists and managers about research topics and management issues. 39
Factor 3.2 Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species: Very low concern Fishery
All Main Critical?
Species Retained?
Mgmt Scientific Scientific strategy and research and advice
implement. monitoring
Enforce.
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
Scallop dredge
No
No
Key relevant information: The Alaska weathervane scallop fishery bycatch management is a very low concern. Detailed rationale: Management Strategy and Implementation: Highly effective Crab bycatch is the main concern for the weathervane scallop fishery (NPFMC 2011). Crab bycatch has been strictly controlled since 1993 through the use of crab bycatch limits (CBLs), set at the beginning of the fishing season and based on condition of individual crab stocks (NPFMC 2011). In fishing regions without crab abundance estimates, CBLs may be set as a fixed number of crabs that is not adjusted seasonally (NPFMC 2011). In some regions there is a three tier approach for CBLs (NPFMC 2011). The three tiers for Tanner crab include: (1) Spawning biomass above MSST; bycatch limit is set at 260,000 crabs (2) Spawning biomass below MSST; bycatch limit is set at 130,000 crabs (3) Spawning biomass is below MSST and the commercial fishing season is closed; limit is 65,000 crabs. The three tiers for snow crab include: (1) Spawning biomass above the MSST; bycatch limit is set at 300,000 crabs, (2) Spawning biomass below MSST; bycatch limit is set at 150,000 crabs (3) Spawning biomass below MSST and the commercial fishing season is closed; limit is 75,000 crabs. When CBLs are reached in an area, the scallop fishery will cease in that region (NPFMC 2011). These closures have decreased over the years, due in part to decreased crab abundance (Barnhart and Rosenkranz, 2003). There are also voluntary industry cooperative and communication, which provide the fleet additional flexibility to move off of high bycatch areas (NPFMC 201). The ADF&G closely monitors bycatch rates during scallop seasons and has used a rate of one crab per pound of scallop meats as a benchmark since 1993 (NPFMC 2011). 40
Scientific Research and Monitoring: Highly effective In addition to enforcement, the primary purposes of the onboard scallop observer program are to collect biological and fishery data and to monitor bycatch (NPFMC 2011). Detailed logbooks are completed by vessel operators, verified by observers and submitted to ADF&G along with other observer data forms (NPFMC 2011). Observers also send summary reports to ADF&G fishery managers multiple times a week during the fishing season by radio or email. Scientific Advice: Highly effective Crab bycatch limits are set each season prior to fishing (NPFMC 2011). Bycatch in the scallop fishery may include prohibited species such as red king crab, Tanner crab, snow crab and Pacific halibut. Other commercially important species of fish and invertebrates and miscellaneous noncommercial species may also be included bycatch (NPFMC 2011). Concerns about overharvest of scallops and bycatch of other species prompted the ADF&G to designate the weathervane scallop fishery a high‐impact emerging fishery in 1993 (NPFMC 2011). This action required ADF&G to close the fishery and implement an interim management plan prior to reopening (NPFMC 2011). The interim management plan included CBLs for most areas (NPFMC 2011). Since then, crab bycatch limits have been established (NPFMC 2011). The interim management plan included 100% onboard observer coverage to monitor crab bycatch and to collect biological and fishery data. In March 1994, the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) adopted the interim regulations identified as the Alaska Scallop Fishery Management Plan, 5 AAC 38.076 (NPFMC 2011). Since 1993, there has been 100% observer coverage in the weathervane scallop fishery in order to maintain bycatch limits and ensure the productivity of the scallop fishery (NOAA 2011a; NPFMC 2011). The only exception to this is one or two vessels fishing in Kamishak Bay (G. Kruse, pers. comm. 2012). These small boats are allowed a single six‐foot dredge, must fill out a logbook, and have their catches inspected at the dock (G. Kruse, pers. comm. 2012). Crab bycatch limits are not regularly exceeded; therefore the fishery management is consistent with scientific advice. Enforcement: Highly effective As mentioned above observers and logbooks are used as enforcement 41
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem Guiding principles •
•
The fishery is conducted so that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity. Fishery Gear type and substrate Rank (Score) Scallop Dredge High Concern (1) Mitigation of gear impacts Rank (Score) EBFM Rank (Score) Strong mitigation (1) Very Low Concern (5) Criterion 4 Score Criterion 4 Rank 3.16 Yellow Synthesis Scallop dredges have severe impacts on benthic populations, communities, and habitats by damaging or reducing structural biota and habitat complexity and by altering seafloor structure and reducing habitat features. Concerns about crab bycatch and habitat effects associated with dredging prompted the Alaska BOF to establish extensive closures to fishing with scallop dredges in state and federal waters. In addition, the overall fishing footprint is very small (149 square nautical miles) equating to approximately 0.1 percent of the total available benthic essential fish habitat area. In Alaska, management regulations already include ecosystem‐
based fishery management measures such as control of directed and incidental catches; a prohibition on fishing of forage species (on which other fish, seabirds, and marine mammals depend); protection of habitat for fish, crabs and marine mammals; and temporal and spatial controls of fishing. Justification Factor 4.1 Impact of the fishing gear on the substrate: High concern Key relevant information: Scallop dredges are ranked a High Concern by Seafood Watch (SFW criteria 2012). Detailed rationale: Scallop dredges have impacts on benthic populations, communities, and habitats by damaging or reducing structural biota and habitat complexity and by altering seafloor structure and 42
reducing habitat features (DFO 2006). In an international review that examined studies investigating the impacts of fishing methods on habitats, scallop dredging was shown to have the highest impact on seafloor ecology of any mobile fishing method (Kaiser et al., 2006). Scallop dredging was listed as the third most severe fishing method in terms of bycatch and habitat impact in a gear impact study done by a range of user groups, including fishermen (38%), scientists (27%) and marine conservationists (25%) (Fuller et al., 2008). Scallop dredging may impact the benthic community by reducing densities and shifting spatial distribution of macrofaunal populations (Langton et al., 1987 Langton, 1990, Thrush et al., 1995, Kenchington, 2000, Bradshaw et al. 2002), by removing colonial epifauna, reducing habitat complexity (Dayton et al., 1995, Auster et al., 1996, Collie et al., 1997, Collie and Escanero, 2000, Hall‐
Spencer and Moore, 2000, Stokesbury and Harris, 2006) and by redistributing the grain sizes of sediments and increasing silt in the water column (Caddy, 1989, Mayer et al., 1991, Grant, 2000, MacDonald, 2000). Gear used in the weathervane scallop fishery is primarily a 15‐foot dredge weighing approximately 2,600 pounds or more, or a 6‐foot dredge weighing approximately 900 pounds (NPFMC 2011). These dredges are towed for approximately one hour at an average speed of 4.7 knots before hauling (NPFMC 2011). Large concentrations of scallops are found in elongated beds oriented in the same direction as prevailing currents (NPFMC 2011; Orensanz et al., 2003). Image data shows that the primary sediment types in scallop fishing grounds are sand, silt and mud, and harder bottom and larger sediments are found inshore from where scallop fishing occurs (NPFMC 2011). The ADF&G is beginning to map benthic habitat types in scallop fishing areas (NPFMC 2011). Factor 4.2 Modifying factor: Mitigation of fishing gear impacts: Strong mitigation Key relevant information: Concerns about crab bycatch and habitat effects associated with dredging prompted the Alaska BOF to establish extensive closures to fishing with scallop dredges in state and federal waters. Closures include Yakutat Bay; state and federal waters south of Cordova, eastern Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay and nearby state waters of outer Kenai Peninsula; and most of the state waters surrounding Kodiak and Afognak Islands as well as some of federal waters (Witherell and Woodby 2005; Figure 12; Figure 13). In addition, the overall fishing footprint is very small (149 square nautical miles) equating to about 0.1 percent of the total available benthic essential fish habitat (EFH) area and the fishery is concentrated in a very small portion of the EFH (NPFMC 2006); therefore the weathervane scallop fishery has strong mitigation for benthic impacts. 43
Detailed rationale: Figure 12. Marine P
Protected Areaas designed to protect Essenttial Fish Habitaat. Figure from
m: Witherell and Woodby 2005 Factor 4..3 Ecosystem
m and Food W
Web Consid
derations: Veery low concern Key relevvant informaation: According to Seafood
d Watch, the
ere are no exxceptional species caught in the weeathervane scallop fishery. In Alaska, managgement regu
ulations alreaady include ecosystem‐based fisherry managem
ment measures such as ccontrol of diirected and iincidental caatches; a pro
ohibition on fishing off forage speccies (on which other fish
h, seabirds, aand marine mammals depend); protectio
on of habitatt for fish, craabs and marine mamma ls; and temp
poral and sp
patial controls of fishing (W
Witherell and
d Woodby 2
2005; Pikitch et al. 2004)). In addition
n a substanttial portion o
of the marin
ne environm
ment has bee
en set‐aside as marine reeserves with
h the Gulf Alaska comprising 140, 200km2 and the
e Bering Sea encompassiing 25% of thhe shelf (Witherell and W
Woodby 200
05; Figure 13
3; Table 13). In addition, since 1995 the FMPs hhave contained ecosysteem consideraation sections (Witherell and Woodby 2005). The “ecosystem
m consideration” section of the mostt recent sccallop FMP states: “The Alaska weathervane scaallop fisheryy occurs in co
ontinental sh
helf waters at depths 40–
–150 m in th
hree main areeas: the eas tern Gulf of Alaska betw
ween Prince 44
William SSound and C
Cape Spencerr; around Ko
odiak Island; and in the eeastern Berin
ng Sea. Beca
ause the fisherry footprint is confined tto these area
as and becauuse many arreas of simila
ar habitat arre closed to
o scallop dred
dging, we exxpect the efffects of the sscallop fisherry on the GO
OA and Berin
ng Sea ecosyystems to bee minor” (MP
PFMC 2011)). Detailed rationale (optional): Figure 13. M
Marine Protectted Areas in A
Alaska as of 20007. Figure from
m National System of Marine Prrotected Areass 2012 45
Table 13.. Marine Prote
ected Area Invventory in Fedeeral and State waters off Alaaska. Table from Witherell and Wo
oodby 2005 46
Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch would like to graciously thank Dr. Gordon Kruse and Dr. Dave Witherell for their thorough review of this report. References ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Weathervane Scallop Observer Manual. Regional Information Report No. 4K04‐39. Kodiak, Alaska. 69pp. ASMI (Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute). 2012 www.alaskaseafood.org/.../Wild%20Alaska%20Scallops%20Fact%20Sheet. Auster, P.J., Malatesta, R.J., Langton, R.W., Watting, L., Valentine, P.C., Donaldson, C.L.S., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N., Babb, W.G. 1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4, 185‐202. Balsiger, J.W. 2012. Stock status determination for Southern Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) in the Eastern Bering Sea – Decision Memorandum. January 13th 2012. NOAA, NMFS, Juneau, Alaska. 5pp Barnhart, J.P. 2006. Annual management report for the commercial weathervane scallop fisheries in Alaska’s westward region, 2004/05. Fishery Management Report No. 06‐41. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 51 pp. Barnhart, J. P. and G. E. Rosenkranz. 2003. Summary and analysis of onboard observer‐collected data from the 1999/2000 through 2001/2002 statewide commercial weathervane scallop fishery. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report No. 4K03‐09, Kodiak. Collie, J., Escanero, G. 2000. Photographic evaluation of the impacts of bottom fishing on benthic epifauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 987‐1001. Collie, J., Escanero, G., Valentine, P. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155, 159‐172. Dayton, P., Thrush, S., Agardy, M., Hofman, R. 1995 Environmental effects of marine fishing. 47
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5, 205‐232. DFO. 2006. Impacts of trawl gears and scallop dredges on benthic habitats, populations and communities. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2006/025, pp. 13 EDF (Environmental Defense Fund). 2012. Seafood Locator. Available at: http://apps.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15762 Free‐Sloan, N. 2007. A Brief Overview of the Alaska Weathervane Scallop Fishery and the Vessel Permit Limited Entry Program. CFEC Report 07‐2N. State of Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Juneau, Alaska 99801. 1444. Fuller, S.D., Picco, C., Ford, J., Tsao, C.‐F., Morgan, L.E., Hangaard, D., Chuenpagdee, R. 2008 How we fish matters: addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear. Living 50 Oceans Ecology Action Centre, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute Available at http://www.ecologyaction.ca/content/how‐we‐fish pp. 25 Hall‐Spencer, J., Moore, P. 2000 Impact of scallop dredging on maerl grounds. In: MJ Kaiser and SJ DeGroot (Ed.) Effects of fishing on non‐target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio‐economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 105‐118. Hennick, D. P. 1973. Sea scallop, Patinopecten caurinus, investigations in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Completion Report 5‐23 R, Juneau. Kaiser, R.J. 1986. Characteristics of the Pacific weathervane scallop (Pecten [Patinopecten] caurinus, Gould 1850) fishery in Alaska, 1967‐1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries (Unpublished Report, Catalog RUR‐5J86‐01), Juneau. Kaiser, M., Clarke, K., Hinz, H., Austen, M., Somerfield, P., Karakassis, I. 2006 Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311, 1‐14. Kenchington, E. 2000. The seabed impacts of scalloping: the scientific evidence. In: Stokesbury KDE, Feder HM, Paul AJ, Pengilly D, Kruse GH (Ed.) A workshop examining potential fishing effects on population dynamics and benthic community structure of scallops with emphasis on the weathervane scallop Patinopecten caurinus in Alaskan waters. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK, pp. 44‐52. Kruse, G.D., Barnhart, J.P., Rosenkranz, G.E., Funk, F.C., Pengilly, D. 2000. Pages 6‐12 in Alaska Department of Fish and Game and University of Alaska Fairbanks. A workshop examining potential fishing effects on population dynamics and benthic community structure of scallops with emphasis on the weathervane scallop, Patinopecten caurinus in Alaskan waters. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, special publication 14, Juneau 48
Kruse, G. H., Barnhart, J.P. and G.E. Rosenkranz. 2005. Management of the data‐limited weathervane scallop fishery in Alaska. Pages 51‐68 In G.H. Kruse, V.F. Gallucci, D.E. Hay, R.I. Perry, R.M. Peterman, T.C. Shirley, P.D. Spencer, B. Wilson, and D. Woodby (eds.). Fisheries assessment and management in data‐limited situations. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 958 pp. Kruse, G. President's Professor of Fisheries, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Fisheries Division, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 2012. Personnel Communication Langton, R., Robinson, W. 1990 Faunal associations on scallop grounds in the western Gulf of Maine. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 144, 157‐171. Langton, R., Robinson, W., Schick, D. 1987. Fecundity and reproductive effort of sea scallops Placopecten magellanicus from the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37, 19‐25. Masuda, M.M and R.P. Stone. 2003. Biological and Spatial Characteristics of the Weathervane Scallop Patinopecten Caurinus at Chiniak Gully in the Central Gulf of Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 10(2):104–118. National System of Marine Protected Areas. 2012. Available at: www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/.../AK_Map_090831_final.pdf NMFS, Alaska Regional Office. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Fisheries. Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/eis/index.htm NOAA. 2011. Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska; Amendment 13. Federal Registrar Vol. 76 (No. 194): 61996‐61998. October 6, 2011. NOAA 2011a. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska. 81pp.
NOAA 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Regional Office. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/scallop/default.htm NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2012a. Accessed on March 8, 2012. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/help/get‐involved.html NPFMC 2012b. News and Notes. 8pp. Available at: www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc NEFMC. 2012c. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Agenda Item C‐6(g)(1) 49
October 2012. Available at: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/resources/SAFE/CrabSAFE/CrabSA
FE2012intro.pdf NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2011. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the weathervane scallop fishery off Alaska. 82pp. NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska. 172pp. NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 1999. Environmental assessment for Amendment 6 to the fishery management plan for the scallop fishery off Alaska to 1. Revised definitions of overfishing, MSY, and OY, and additional information on bycatch data collection to FMP. 63 pp. Orensanz, J.M., Parma, A.M., Turk, T and Valero J. 2003. Dynamics, Assessment and Management of Exploited Natural Populations In: Shumway, S.E. and G.J. Parsons (editors) 2003. Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture. Elsevier. 2nd Edition. Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun., Bonfil, R., Conover, D.)., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P., Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., Houde, E.D., Link, J., Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope, J., Sainsbury, K.J. 2004. Ecosystem‐Based Fishery Management. Science (305) 346‐347. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/improvement/pdfs/science.pdf Rosenkranz, G.E. and M. Spafard. 2010. Summary of observer data collected during the 2008/2009 Alaska weathervane scallop fishery. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10‐97, Anchorage. Rosenkranz, G. and R. Burt. 2009. Summary of Observer Data Collected during the 2008/09 Alaska Weathervane Scallop Fishery. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fishery Data Series. Rosenkranz, G., S. Gallager, R. Shepard, and M. Blakeslee. Development of a high‐resolution benthic imaging system for coastal fisheries reserach in Alaska. 2008. Fisheries Research. 92: (3) pp 340–344 Rugolo, L.J. and B. J. Turnock. 2010. 2010 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions—Draft. Alaska Fisheries Science Center 31 September 2010 Rugolo, L.J. and B. J. Turnock. 2011. 2011 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions—Draft Alaska Fisheries Science Center 50
Witherell, D., Pautzke, C., Fluharty, D. 2000. An ecosystem‐based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57: 771‐777. Witherell, D and D. Woodby. 2005. Application of marine protected areas for sustainable production and marine biodiversity off Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review: 67(1) 1‐17 Witherell, D. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2012. Personal Communication Zheng, J., and G.H Kruse. 1998. Stock Recruitment Relationship for Bristol Bay Tanner Crabs. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin (5) 2: 1‐18 Zheng, J., M.C. Murphy, and G.H. Kruse. 1996. Overview of population estimation methods and recommended harvest strategy for red king crabs in Bristol Bay. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Reg. Inf. Rep. 5J96‐04, Juneau, Alaska. pp.37 Appendix A: Review Schedule The stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) report is prepared and reviewed annually for weathervane scallops 51
About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild‐caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild‐caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long‐term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science‐based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer‐reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s® sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1‐877‐229‐9990. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 52
Guiding Principles Seafood Watch™ defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long‐term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program: • Stocks are healthy and abundant. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. • The fishery minimizes bycatch. • The fishery is managed to sustain long‐term productivity of all impacted species. • The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity. Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: 1. Impacts on the species/stock for which you want a recommendation 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts Each criterion includes: • Factors to evaluate and rank • Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score • A resulting numerical score and rank for that criterion Once a score and rank have been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color‐coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide: Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways. Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.