atlantic striped bass (us) - seafood watch...seafood watch standard used in this assessment:...

AND

Atlantic striped bass (US)

Morone saxatilis

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

United States of America: Northwest Atlantic

Set gillnets, Stationary uncovered pound nets, Handlines andhand-operated pole-and-lines

Published November 7, 2016, Reviewed March 2, 2020 – see appendix for more details

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate andreflect the most up-to-date ev idence available at the time of publication. A ll our reports are peer-rev iewed for accuracy and completeness byexternal scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture.Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement ofthe Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists.Seafood Watch and TheSafina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be usedfor the next rev ision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundationand other funders.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table of Contents

About The Safina Center

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Appendix B: Updates to Striped Bass Report

1

About The Safina CenterThe Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scientific information into language people canunderstand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC)works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature, especiallythe sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to actively engage as well-informed and highly motivatedconstituents for conservation.

Led by conservation pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, theeconomy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina’s books, essays, public speaking, PBStelevision series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to makebetter choices.

The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, writingand policy work by Dr. Safina.

The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center’s founders created the first seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authoritative, easy to understandand use. Seafood ratings and full reports are available on our website under Seafood choices. tsc’s sustainableseafood program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the connection betweenhuman health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood.

Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scientific ratings for more than 160 wild-caught seafoodspecies and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay Aquarium,our guide now includes seafood ratings from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch program.We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provideour scientific seafood ratings for WFM stores in the US and UK.Through our partnership with Chefs Collaborative, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interactive,online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals.Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury inseafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc.

Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s currentwork at www.safinacenter.org .

The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciencesat Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.safinacenter.org [email protected] | 631.632.3763

®

2

http://www.safinacenter.org/seafoods

http://safinacenter.org/programs/sustainable-seafood-program/green-chefsblue-ocean-online-course/

http://safinacenter.org/issues/mercury-seafood/

http://www.safinacenter.org

http://www.safinacenter.org

mailto:[email protected]

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafoodas originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in thelong-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes itsscience-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation 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 WatchAssessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystemscience on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at arecommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” This ethic is operationalized in the SeafoodWatch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks outresearch published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informationinclude government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and otherscientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly withecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations whenevaluating 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 theunderlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

3

Guiding PrinciplesThe Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fishedor farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure orfunction of affected ecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria forevaluating wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?How effective is the fishery’s management?How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and the Safina Center’s online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

SummaryAtlantic striped bass is an anadromous game and commercial fish species found in coastal systems andestuaries from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida. This report covers the US Atlantic striped bass fishery on thecoastal migratory stock found on the US East Coast that is harvested primarily with hook and line, gillnet, andpound net gears.

Atlantic striped bass is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The lastbenchmark assessment was peer reviewed and approved for management use in 2019. Based on results of the2019 assessment, the Atlantic coastal stock is overfished and is it experiencing overfishing. The stock wasestimated below the threshold spawning stock biomass (SSB) and target levels. Fishing mortality was similarlyestimated to be above its target and threshold levels.

Three gear types are typically used to target striped bass: hook and line, gillnet, and pound net. Hook and linegear has minimal bycatch except for sublegal striped bass (i.e., undersized, or outside the slot size limit), whichexperiences low mortality as a result, and some bluefish. Gillnet fisheries catching Atlantic striped bass alsoencounter American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, river herring, weakfish, and white perch. Of these, shad, sturgeon,and weakfish are the most concerning, given the depleted or unknown status of those stocks or species, theirdocumented interactions, and the gears’ reduced ability to release fish alive when compared to other gear types(e.g., pound nets, hook and line). Pound net gear also encounters river herring, shad, sturgeon, and weakfish.But mortality of shad and sturgeon in pound nets is less concerning, given the stationary nature of the fishery,its lower incidence of encounters, and the ability to release these species of fish alive. Overall, weakfish is thelowest scoring species for both net gears because it is depleted and the total mortality on the species is toohigh.

ASMFC manages the coastwide migratory stock. This body produces regular stock assessment reports completewith reference points, projections, and measures of uncertainty. These assessments are regularly updated andpeer reviewed. Managers follow scientific advice and member states must monitor and enforce commercialquotas, recreational bag limits and size limits, closed seasons, and other measures. Enforcement of andcompliance by harvesters is moderate. The ASMFC fishery management and conservation process includesample opportunity for stakeholder input.

The estuarine and coastal areas where the fishery takes place mostly comprises sand, silt, and clay, with littlelong-term damage occurring as a result of the gear used in this fishery. But gillnet and pound net gear types dodisturb the bottom to some extent, so they have moderate habitat impact. Striped bass is an importantpredatory fish in these ecosystems. Efforts are underway to better account for predator-prey relationships (e.g.,striped bass and menhaden) during the fishery management process, through ecosystem-based managementapproaches. Striped bass’ role as a top-down predator on species of concern has not been examined on apopulation level.

Overall, the hook and line fishery rates “Good Alternative” due to poor stock health, low interactions with otherspecies, adequate management, and low habitat impact. The gillnet and pound net fisheries rate “Avoid,” basedon the the overfished/overfishing status of striped bass and bycatch of depleted species or stocks.

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and either Criterion 1 or Criterion 3 (or both) is Green, and no RedCriteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

SPECIES |FISHERY

CRITERION 1:Impacts onthe Species

CRITERION 2:Impacts onOther Species

CRITERION 3:ManagementEffectiveness

CRITERION 4:Habitat andEcosystem

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Striped bassUnited States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic |Handlines andhand-operatedpole-and-lines |United States ofAmerica

Red (1.000) Green (5.000) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.873) Good Alternative(2.760)

Striped bassUnited States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic | Setgillnets | UnitedStates of America

Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.732)

Striped bassUnited States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic |Stationaryuncovered poundnets | UnitedStates of America

Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.732)

2

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

The Atlantic striped bass (Morone saxatilis) is an anadromous predatory fish that ranges from Florida to the Gulfof St. Lawrence. This report covers the US commercial fishery on the coastal migratory stock harvested withhook and line, pound net, and gillnet. Trawl gear was not included because it makes up less than 3% of thestock commercial landings.

Figure 1 Landings in metric tons (MT) by gear type for striped bass caught in the commercial fishery 2010–2014(data from https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index).

Species Overview

Atlantic striped bass is a large-bodied, moderately long-lived predatory fish that ranges from the Gulf of St.Lawrence to Florida along the North American Atlantic coast. It is an anadromous species, spending most of itslife in estuaries or coastal ocean waters, but moving into freshwater systems in the spring for spawning.

Atlantic striped bass is an important game and commercial fish (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). Within the US,three large systems produce the bulk of the striped bass caught in the fishery: the Chesapeake Bay, DelawareBay, and the Hudson River. Although other river systems contribute to a lesser extent, these areas are theprinciple production areas. Stocks from the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and the Hudson River, along withthe resident and migratory fish from smaller systems between Maine and North Carolina, are assessed andmanaged as one stock, which is termed the coastal migratory stock. The Albemarle Sound and Roanoke Riverstock of Atlantic striped bass is managed separately.

Atlantic striped bass does occur south of North Carolina, but fish south of Pamlico Sound are not consideredpart of the coastal migratory stock. Total coastwide harvest is predominantly from the recreational sector. Mostcommercial landings come from the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.

Striped bass is managed through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a collaborativeeffort by the states along the US Atlantic Coast. The Commission has representation from all states, thePotomac River Fisheries Commission, and Washington D.C., and it makes decisions on fishery-related issuesaffecting all member jurisdictions (ASMFC 2016a). In 1981, the ASMFC implemented the first FisheryManagement Plan (FMP) for striped bass. Initially, this FMP only made recommendations, because the decisionsmade by the ASMFC were not binding. Congress passed the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (PL 98-613)in 1984, which required states to follow the ASMFC management plan, thereby making the ASMFC decisionprocess binding across all member states.

7

Atlantic Striped bass is principally a recreational fishery, with only a small commercial component. Recreationalremovals account for 60 to 70% compared to the commercial fishery removals of 30 to 40% (ASMFC 2015b).Commercial landings and price by year and state are given below. Overall landings and value have remainedrelatively constant.

Figure 2 Landings in metric tons (MT) and value in USD for striped bass caught in the commercial fishery 2013–2017 by State (data from https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial- landings/annual-landings/index). Data from Delaware confidential 2014-2017

Importance to the US/North American market.

Striped bass, a popular game and commercial fish, is native to North America. The US does not export stripedbass and there are no imports. Thus, all landings are used in the US market. There is a growing aquacultureindustry for striped bass (NMFS 2015).

Common and market names.

It is most commonly referred to as striped bass, but also can be sold as bass, greenhead, linesides, rockfish,and striper. When used for sushi, it is referred to as suzuki.

Primary product forms

Fresh or frozen, either whole or filleted.

Production Statistics

8

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries,available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all SeafoodWatch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under AssessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Whenabundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculatedusing a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometricmean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Criterion 1 Summary

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Abundance

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impairrecruitment or productivity.

STRIPED BASSRegion | Method Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

United States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic | Set gillnetsUnited States of America

1.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.000)

United States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic | Stationaryuncovered pound netsUnited States of America


United States ofAmerica/NorthwestAtlantic | Handlinesand hand-operatedpole-and-linesUnited States of America


9

abundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass.3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the targetlevel, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable.2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundancelevel, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable.1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened orendangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainablelevel, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is lowenough to not adversely affect its population.3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortalityrelative to a sustainable level is uncertain.1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

STRIPED BASS


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICSet Gillnets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICStationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICHandlines And Hand-Operated Pole-And-Lines | United States Of America

High Concern

As estimated in the most recent assessment update (ASMFC 2019b), striped bass female spawning stockbiomass (SSB) was approximately 68,476 metric tonnes (MT) in 2017, which is below the updated SSBthreshold of 91,436 MT indicating that the stock is currently in an overfished state. As a result of theoverfished stock status, Seafood Watch considers abundance to be a "high" conservation concern.

Justification:

The statistical catch-at-age model that is currently used to guide management was modified to allowmodelling of two biologically distinct stocks. However, this was not endorsed by the Stock Assessment ReviewCommittee (SARC) for the purposes of guiding fisheries management (ASMFC 2019b). Therefore ourassessment considers the result of the single-stock statistical catch-at-age model as presented in the 2018stock assessment report. Reference points are based on the 1995 estimate of female SSB when the stock wasdeclared recovered. Using a six-year projection model with four levels of constant catch or F, there is a veryhigh probability that female SSB will remain below the SSB threshold through 2023 (ASMFC 2019b).

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate target

10


Figure 3 Atlantic striped bass female spawning stock biomass (SSB) and recruitment through 2017. Solid redline indicates SSB threshold, dotted red line shows SSB target. Source: ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview2019.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICSet Gillnets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICStationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICHandlines And Hand-Operated Pole-And-Lines | United States Of America

High Concern

Fishing mortality has been increasing, for both the Chesapeake Bay fleet and the Atlantic Ocean fleet, since1990, and the combined fishing mortality was 0.307 in 2017 (ASMFC 2019b). This is higher than both F target(0.197) and F threshold (0.240) indicating that overfishing is taking place; as a result, Seafood Watchconsiders fishing mortality to be a "high" conservation concern.

Justification:

Landings averaged 2,948 MT annually from 2004 to 2014 and F was above the target reference point duringthis time. As a result, commercial and recreational measures were introduced in 2014 to reduce F to a moresustainable level. However, the new benchmark assessment found that the stock has been overfished since2013 and experiencing overfishing (ASMFC 2019b).

11

Figure 4 Atlantic striped bass fishing mortality relative to target and threshold values through 2017. Totalfishing mortality was estimated at 0.307, above the threshold of 0.240. Source: ASMFC Stock AssessmentOverview 2019.

12

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other SpeciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch definesbycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples includediscards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the sameguidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’spotential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on asynthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fisheryis also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. Todetermine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied bythe discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤=3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

STRIPED BASSUnited States Of America/Northwest Atlantic | Handlines And Hand-Operated Pole-And-Lines | United StatesOf America

Subscore: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 5.000

Species | Stock Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

No other main species caught

STRIPED BASSUnited States Of America/Northwest Atlantic | Set Gillnets | United States Of America



American shad 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Weakfish 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Atlantic sturgeon 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

River herring (unspecified) 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

13

For Criterion 2, each gear type that targets striped bass was assessed separately. For presentation purposes,each species or stock is presented with the associated gear types explained in the “Key Information” section forthat species or stock. Six species or stocks were evaluated: American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, river herring(both alewife and blueback herring combined), weakfish, and white perch, along with the striped bass.

American shad was included in this report based on its occurrence in the gillnet fishery as well as its uncertainbut depleted status. Atlantic sturgeon, an endangered species, was included due to its known interactions withgillnet gear and its overlap in time and space with the gillnet fishery during the spring spawning migrations.River herring, a common term for two species of anadromous clupeids (alewife and blueback herring), wasincluded due to its status as a species of concern as well as its known interactions with both gillnet and poundnet gear. Like shad, both species of river herring interact with the striped bass fishery during the upstreamspring migration of striped bass, shad, and river herring. Weakfish was included due to its prevalence in gillnetgear landings that were also targeting striped bass. White perch, an anadromous species outside of ASMFCmanagement, was included because it overlaps in time and space with both the gillnet and pound net fisheriesfor striped bass.

A species that was included in a previous report, summer flounder, was excluded in this report. Examination bythe Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC 2015) indicates that most of the summer flounder iscaught using trawl gear in offshore waters (Figure 5 in (MAFMC 2015)), while striped bass is targeted usinggillnet gear and pound nets in the winter and spring in bays and estuaries. Although striped bass may be caughtin the directed summer flounder fishery during summer and fall, summer flounder is rarely caught in thedirected striped bass fishery. Therefore, summer flounder was considered outside the scope of this report.

Two other species groups, dolphins and sea turtles, were considered but ultimately excluded fromconsideration. Though these two groups were important in the evaluation of summer flounder and croakerfisheries, the directed striped bass fishery mostly operates in the upper, more freshwater regions of estuaries inthe late winter to early spring timeframe. Dolphins and sea turtles are generally absent from those regions,especially during the late winter to spring ((NMFS 2013); Figure 7).

Hook and line gear had few interactions with other species other than striped bass because it is quite selectivefor the species, with minimal bycatch of other species, though occasionally bluefish are encountered. Gillnetsgenerally scored lower when compared to pound nets. This is partly because of this gear’s sizable landings of

White perch 3.67:Low Concern 5.00:Low Concern Green (4.284)

STRIPED BASSUnited States Of America/Northwest Atlantic | Stationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of America



Weakfish 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

River herring (unspecified) 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Atlantic sturgeon 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)

American shad 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)

White perch 3.67:Low Concern 5.00:Low Concern Green (4.284)

14

shad, its known interactions with sturgeon, and its documented removals of weakfish. Pound nets scored lowfor river herring, partly because of the stocks’ status as well as the unknown status of those species. Pound netsalso score low for weakfish because of its depleted status and unsustainable total mortality rate.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.2 above)

AMERICAN SHAD



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICSet Gillnets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICStationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of America

High Concern

The most recent assessment was conducted in 2007 (ASMFC 2007). Though estimates of abundancecoastwide were not made, abundance trends were estimated on selected river systems. The assessmentstated that many American shad stocks were found to be at historically low abundance and not recovering.Due to this, we have scored abundance as "high" concern.

Justification:

Though no reference points are available for American shad on a coastwide basis, a benchmark stockassessment is expected to be completed in the fall of 2020 (ASMFC 2019c).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICSet Gillnets | United States Of America

High Concern

Sources of mortality include habitat loss, upstream passage, bycatch in oceanic-based fisheries, and fishing.The magnitude of removal relative to the coastwide abundance is not known, but fishing removals areconsidered to be an important source of mortality (ASMFC 2007). The bulk of the landings of American shadare from gillnets, while pound nets make up only a small percentage of the total landings (Figure 5). Given thedepleted status of American shad, and relative difference in landings between gillnet and pound net gear, theformer was of "high" concern, while the latter was of "low" concern.

15

Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.

Figure 5 Percentage of American shad landings by gear type 2010–2014 (data fromhttps://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICStationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of America

Low Concern

Sources of mortality include habitat loss, upstream passage, bycatch in oceanic-based fisheries, and fishing.The magnitude of removal relative to the coastwide abundance is not known, but fishing removals areconsidered to be an important source of mortality (ASMFC 2007). The bulk of the landings of American shadare from gillnets, while pound nets make up only a small percentage of the total landings (Figure 5). Given thedepleted status of American shad, and relative difference in landings between gillnet and pound net gear, theformer was of "high" concern, while the latter was of "low" concern.

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%

Hook and line, gillnet, and pound net gear have bycatch and mortality associated with use. Hook and line geartends to be highly selective for striped bass, but does catch undersized fish that may not be retained (ASMFC2015a). Gillnet and pound net gear likewise encounter undersized striped bass as well as other main speciesthat are not targeted (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). For all three gear types, dead discards are less thantotal poundage landed. Total commercial dead discards are estimated at 22.5% relative to landings in 2014(ASMFC 2015b).

Justification:

16

WEAKFISH




High Concern

According to the 2019 stock assessment update, the Atlantic coast weakfish stock is overfished and has beensince 2003 (ASMFC 2019d). The 2017 estimate of SSB was 1,922 MT, which is well below the SSB threshold(SSB30% = 6,170 MT (ASMFC 2019d). Due to this, we have scored abundance as "high" concern.

Justification:

Figure 6 Weakfish female spawning stock biomass (SSB) and recruitment through 2017. Dashed blue lineindicates SSB threshold. Source: ASMFC Weakfish Stock Assessment Update Report.


High Concern

Although abundance for this stock is very low, natural mortality rather than fishing mortality is thought to bethe driving factor in the decline (ASMFC 2016c). Total mortality (Z) in 2017 (both fishing and natural) wasestimated at 1.45, which is above the threshold (1.43) and the target level (1.03); fishing mortality (F) wasabove F target, but below F threshold (ASMFC 2019d). The bulk of the landings of this stock comes fromgillnets during most years. Pound nets make up a small, but important component of the landings (10 to20%) (ASMFC 2016d). Overfishing can be determined with F reference points when Z is below Z target, which

17

Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.

is currently not the case. Fishing mortality has increased in recent years and total mortality on the stock is toohigh; therefore, we award a score of "high" concern.

Justification:

Figure 7 Natural and fishing mortality for weakfish 1982–2017 (from ASMFC 2019d).

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%

Hook and line, gillnet, and pound net gear have bycatch and mortality associated with use. Hook and line geartends to be highly selective for striped bass, but does catch undersized fish that may not be retained (ASMFC2015a). Gillnet and pound net gear likewise encounter undersized striped bass as well as other main speciesthat are not targeted (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). For all three gear types, dead discards are less thantotal poundage landed. Total commercial dead discards are estimated at 22.5% relative to landings in 2014

(ASMFC 2015b).

18

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessFive factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined asfollows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered.4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors.3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors.2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andImplementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are‘ineffective.’0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary

FisheryManagementStrategy

BycatchStrategy

ResearchandMonitoring Enforcement

StakeholderInclusion Score

Fishery 1: United States ofAmerica/Northwest Atlantic |Handlines and hand-operatedpole-and-lines | UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

Fishery 2: United States ofAmerica/Northwest Atlantic |Set gillnets | United States ofAmerica

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

Fishery 3: United States ofAmerica/Northwest Atlantic |Stationary uncovered poundnets | United States ofAmerica

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

19


Factor 3.1 - Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve ahighly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that arebased on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICHandlines And Hand-Operated Pole-And-Lines | United States Of America

Moderately Effective

For hook and line, gillnet, and pound net gears, only a limited number of states allow for commercial fishing ofstriped bass (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). In those states that allow a commercial fishery, quotas are inplace. In addition, many states have seasonal, gear, and area restrictions. Specific management goals arelisted in the Justification section below.

Managers gauge the health of the stock based on an analytic assessment (ASMFC 2015b) and takeappropriate management action (ASMFC 2006). Since the 1980s, effective management by ASMFC hasresulted in the stock rebuilding to historic highs in the mid-2000s, though the stock has since declined. Stripedbass female SSB was above the biomass limit reference point from 1994 to 2013, but it has been below targetand threshold biomass reference points since then (ASMFC 2019b). Exploitation has increased and has beenabove the target and threshold mortality rates since 2010. It should be noted that the previous stockassessment (through 2015) did not find evidence of overfishing nor did it determine that striped bass wasoverfished (ASMFC 2015b). The 2019 stock assessment uses the same reference point definitions withupdated values (ASMFC 2019b).

There is an FMP for striped bass, peer-reviewed stock assessments are conducted, and reference points havebeen established. However, striped bass have experienced overfishing since 2013, which indicates thatmanagement measures may not be effective. In response to the latest stock status for striped bass (October2019) managers reduced commercial quotas by 18% relative to 2017 levels, changed recreational limits toachieve an 18% in reduction of recreational removals, and will require circle hook when fishing with baitin recreational fisheries by 2021 (ASMFC 2019f). Because previous management measures have not beeneffective at maintaining healthy stock levels, and new policies haven't been in place long enough to evaluatetheir effectiveness, we award a score of "moderate" concern.

20

Figure 9 Summary of Atlantic striped bass commercial regulations in 2015 (from ASMFC (Table 10 in ASMFC2016e).

The current management goals for Atlantic striped bass include:

Manage striped bass fisheries under a control rule designed to maintain stock size at or above the targetfemale spawning stock biomass level and a level of fishing mortality at or below the target exploitationrate.Manage fishing mortality to maintain an age structure that provides adequate spawning potential to sustainlong term abundance of striped bass populations.Provide a management plan that strives, to the extent practical, to maintain coastwide consistency ofimplemented measures, while allowing the states defined flexibility to implement alternative strategies thataccomplish the objectives of the fishery management plan (FMP).Foster quality and economically viable recreational, for hire, and commercial fisheries.Maximize cost effectiveness of current information gathering, and prioritize state obligations in order tominimize costs of monitoring and management.Adopt a long term management regime that minimizes or eliminates the need to make annual changes ormodifications to management measures.Establish a fishing mortality target that will result in a net increase in the abundance (pounds) of age 15and older striped bass in the population, relative to the 2000 estimate.

Justification:

21



Striped bass fisheryFor hook and line, gillnet, and pound net gears, only a limited number of states allow for commercial fishing ofstriped bass (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). In those states that allow a commercial fishery, quotas are inplace. In addition, many states have seasonal, gear, and area restrictions. Specific management goals arelisted in the Justification section below.

Managers gauge the health of the stock based on an analytic assessment (ASMFC 2015b) and takeappropriate management action (ASMFC 2006). Since the 1980s, effective management by ASMFC hasresulted in the stock rebuilding to historic highs in the mid-2000s, though the stock has since declined. Stripedbass female SSB was above the biomass limit reference point from 1994 to 2013, but it has been below targetand threshold biomass reference points since (ASMFC 2019b). Exploitation has increased and has been abovethe target and threshold mortality rates since 2010. It should be noted that the previous stock assessment(through 2015) did not find evidence of overfishing nor did it determine that striped bass wasoverfished (ASMFC 2015b). The 2019 stock assessment uses the same reference point definitions withupdated values (ASMFC 2019b).

Because the gillnet and pound net fisheries may also land weakfish and American shad, management of thosespecies is also considered here.

WeakfishWeakfish are managed under Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Weakfish.The stock is assessed with fisheries-dependent and -independent data with regular stock status updates. Totalmortality reference points are used for this species in order to prevent an increase in fishing pressure underhigh M and low F scenarios (ASMFC 2019d). Management of this species is highly restrictive and limitsinclude: 100 lb commercial trip limit, 100 lb commercial bycatch limit, and one fish limit for recreationalfishers (ASMFC 2019e). Although discards are believed to have declined since management measures wereimplemented in the 1990s, there is a need to increase observer coverage to better understand the currentlevel of discards in the commercial fishery (ASMFC 2019e). Management of this species is considered"moderately effective."

American shad Shad are managed under Amendment 3 to the (FMP) for Shad and River Herring, which includesrequirements of states to develop sustainable FMPs and to submit a habitat plan. Several states andjurisdictions have submitted such plans (ASMFC 2019c). The last stock assessment for shad was completed in2007, a benchmark stock assessment workshop occurred in November 2019, and an updated stockassessment is expected in the summer of 2020 (ASMFC 2019c).

There are FMPs at various levels for striped bass, weakfish, and American shad, peer-reviewed stockassessments are conducted, and reference points have been established. However, striped bass haveexperienced overfishing since 2013, which indicates that management measures may not be effective. Inresponse to the latest stock status for striped bass (October 2019) managers reduced commercial quotas by18% relative to 2017 levels, changed recreational limits to achieve an 18% in reduction of recreationalremovals, and will require circle hook when fishing with bait in recreational fisheries by 2021 (ASMFC 2019f).Because previous management measures have not been effective at maintaining healthy stock levels, and new

22

policies haven't been in place long enough to evaluate their effectiveness, we award a score of "moderate"concern.

Justification:

Figure 10 Summary of Atlantic striped bass commercial regulations in 2015 (from ASMFC (Table 10 in ASMFC2016e).

The current management goals for Atlantic striped bass include:

Manage striped bass fisheries under a control rule designed to maintain stock size at or above the targetfemale spawning stock biomass level and a level of fishing mortality at or below the target exploitationrate.Manage fishing mortality to maintain an age structure that provides adequate spawning potential to sustainlong term abundance of striped bass populations.Provide a management plan that strives, to the extent practical, to maintain coastwide consistency ofimplemented measures, while allowing the states defined flexibility to implement alternative strategies thataccomplish the objectives of the fishery management plan (FMP).Foster quality and economically viable recreational, for hire, and commercial fisheries.Maximize cost effectiveness of current information gathering and prioritize state obligations in order tominimize costs of monitoring and management.Adopt a long term management regime that minimizes or eliminates the need to make annual changes or

23

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these managementmeasures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatchor ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species?Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust populationassessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collectionprogram must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

modifications to management measures.Establish a fishing mortality target that will result in a net increase in the abundance (pounds) of age 15and older striped bass in the population, relative to the 2000 estimate.


Highly Effective

Hook and line fishing is highly selective for striped bass (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b). Although the fisherydoes catch smaller fish than the size limit, the discard and discard mortality rates are figured into the stockassessment (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2015c). This is rated as “highly effective.”



Bycatch and discards of several vulnerable or depleted species that are known to occur in the striped bassfishery and are examined in this report include shad, river herring, and weakfish. The impact on these speciesis not well known, although these species are managed and can typically be released alive from pound nets. Itis recommended that studies be developed to provide information on gear-specific discard mortality rates(ASMFC 2016e). Some measures are in place to protect spawning of striped bass, such as time/area closuresand gear restrictions. Also, only a few states allow gillnet and pound net gear to target striped bass (tableabove in section 3.1). These measures may reduce bycatch mortality of some depleted or vulnerable species;however, there is no comprehensive or strategic plan in place to reduce bycatch and discarding in the directedstriped bass fishery by ASMFC. This is rated as "moderately effective."


Highly Effective

Throughout the fishery, comprehensive fishery-dependent and -independent monitoring are in place, whichinclude mandatory catch reporting, mandatory catch sampling, and mandatory fishery independent

24

Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

surveys (ASMFC 2013) (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). Stakeholders also participate involuntary tagging programs, which have been useful in gauging fishing mortality and fish migration (ASMFC2013) (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). Commercial discards are estimated through amandatory self-reporting system, limited at-sea observer data, and a tag-based recovery system. There hasbeen extensive research on the effects of hook and line release mortality on this stock. Recreational catchestimates are an uncertainty and are by far the largest removals associated with this stock (ASMFC 2013)(ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). But removals (including mortality due to catch-and-releasefishing) are well estimated, according to the most recent peer-reviewed benchmark assessment (ASMFC2013).

Atlantic striped bass status is updated every year or every other year, with a benchmark assessmentconducted every 5 years. Managers and the Technical Committee review landings, important indices, state-by-state regulations, and fishery performance yearly. This is rated as “highly effective.”



Throughout the fishery, comprehensive fishery-dependent and -independent monitoring are in place, whichinclude mandatory catch reporting, mandatory catch sampling, and mandatory fishery independentsurveys (ASMFC 2013) (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). Stakeholders also participate involuntary tagging programs, which have been useful in gauging fishing mortality and fish migration (ASMFC2013) (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). Commercial discards are estimated through amandatory self-reporting system, limited at-sea observer data, and a tag-based recovery system. There hasbeen extensive research on the effects of hook and line release mortality on this stock. Recreational catchestimates are an uncertainty and are by far the largest removals associated with this stock (ASMFC 2013)(ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2015b) (ASMFC 2016e). But removals (including mortality due to catch-and-releasefishing) are well estimated, according to the most recent peer-reviewed benchmark assessment (ASMFC2013).

Atlantic striped bass status is updated every year or every other year, with a benchmark assessmentconducted every 5 years. Managers and the Technical Committee review landings, important indices, state-by-state regulations, and fishery performance yearly.

A comprehensive regime for research and monitoring is in place fishery-wide, but data and monitoring onbycatch in the gillnet and pound net fishery are lacking. Research is underway to better document and reducethese gaps (NMFS 2013). This is rated as "moderately effective."

25

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism toeffectively address user conflicts.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICHandlines And Hand-Operated Pole-And-Lines | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICSet Gillnets | United States Of AmericaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NORTHWEST ATLANTICStationary Uncovered Pound Nets | United States Of America


Commercial harvesters generally comply with regulations, and quotas are mostly adhered to (ASMFC 2016e).Overages by individual states are routine but are paid back the following year. Since implementation ofAmendment 6 in 2003, there have been no overall overages of the commercial fishery quota coastwide.States also require commercial landed fish to be tagged, which allows the tracking of caught fish fromharvester to dealer and end-user (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e).

Law enforcement not only enforces regulations as needed (see http://www.asmfc.org/law-enforcement/the-law-enforcement-committee) but also comments on the enforceability of proposed management actions(ASMFC 2012b). This ensures that management actions are more readily enforceable, thereby ensuringcompliance.

Nonetheless, there are numerous reports of catch occurring in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) beyondstate water jurisdiction (Patch 2015) and of directed illegal harvest (MDDNR 2017). Although the magnitude ofthe illegal activity has not been comprehensively summarized, the number of reports of illegal activity availableonline, as well as comments from an anonymous reviewer, suggest that a score of "moderately effective" isappropriate.


Highly Effective

ASMFC has a highly transparent process that includes peer review of scientific information, publicand stakeholder participation, and notification throughout the process. Stakeholders can comment atmanagement board meetings, at public hearings, and by contacting their representatives on the managementboards on the advisor process (ASMFC 2016a). This is rated as "highly effective."

26

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and EcosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (factor 4.1 +factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 rating is determined asfollows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associatedbiological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 - Vertical line gear3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap)and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom.2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottomlongline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there isknown trampling of coral reef habitat.1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or

Region | Method

Gear TypeandSubstrate

Mitigation ofGear Impacts EBFM Score

United States of America/Northwest Atlantic |Stationary uncovered pound netsUnited States of America

3 0 ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.000)

United States of America/Northwest Atlantic |Set gillnetsUnited States of America

3 0 ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.000)

United States of America/Northwest Atlantic |Handlines and hand-operated pole-and-linesUnited States of America

5 0 ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

27

boulder)0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, andlimits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limitedand for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified toreduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or thereis an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawlfisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measuresare in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing thatare expected to be effective.0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear usedis benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain afunctioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services providedby any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction ofgenetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fisheryis managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in theecosystem should be considered and rated below.

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles andecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels toprovide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foragingareas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices donot have negative ecological effects.4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not provento be effective and at least some spatial management is used.3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimentalfood web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological rolesand ecosystem functioning.2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihoodof detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusivescientific evidence is not available for this fishery.1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food webimpact are resulting from this fishery.

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate


28

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

5Hook and line fishing for striped bass occasionally encounters the bottom; however, two of the largestestuaries where fishing occurs, Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, have bottom types that comprise sand, silt,and clay muds (Chesapeake Benthic Habitat Integration 2009).


3

Fuller et al. (2008) list gillnets as having moderate to low impact because they are in contact with the bottombut are stationary. Thus, these gears are rated "3."


3

Pound nets are stationary nets that are hung on stakes fixed to the substrate, usually by wooden pilings.Impacts by pound net gear are not well documented. Fuller et al. (2008) does not list pound nets or anysimilar gear, such as a weir. Because pound nets are stationary nets but with an unknown impact, a rating of"3" was chosen.


0

Hook and line gear have little impact, so there is little mitigation.


0

Although some areas and even states are closed to gillnet fishing (ASMFC 2015a), such closures are generallyto reduce mortality, to reduce bycatch, or because commercial fishing is not allowed (ASMFC 2015a). Overall,these closures do not reach the threshold of moderate mitigation because the bulk of the commercial harvestcomes from Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, which are open to gillnet fishing. Hence, a score of "0," or nomitigation, has been given.


0

Although some areas and even states are closed to pound net fishing (ASMFC 2015a), such closures aregenerally to reduce harvest, to reduce bycatch, or because commercial fishing is not allowed (ASMFC 2015a)(ASMFC 2015b). Overall, these closures do not reach the threshold of moderate mitigation because the bulk of

29

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

the commercial harvest comes from Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, which are open to gillnet fishing.Hence, a score of "0," or no mitigation, has been given.


Moderate Concern

ASMFC has started the process of ecosystem based-management (http://www.asmfc.org/fisheries-science/stock-assessments). Of particular concern is the availability of menhaden and other forage fishes tomeet the needs of striped bass and other important predators. But ecosystem-based reference points forthese forage species are currently not in place. In addition, striped bass can place predation pressure onvulnerable forage stocks such as river herring, shad, and weakfish (Davis et al. 2012) (Hartman and Brant1995). Currently, no measures are in place that examine the top-down role of striped bass and its potentialconsumption of these vulnerable stocks; however, it is not expected that the striped bass fishery contributes todetrimental food web impacts, such as trophic cascades. This is partly because similar roles are occupied byother predators, such as bluefish, weakfish, and spiny dogfish (seehttp://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/2012MSPVA_Update.pdf). Thus, a score of "moderate" concern wasassigned, even though research and management action to address some aspects are underway.

30

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of The Safina Center or Seafood Watch® program, or itsseafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® aresolely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this update, Gabe Andrews, as wellas several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

31

ReferencesASMFC. 2006. Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/sbAmendment6.pdf.

ASMFC. 2007. American Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review: Volume I Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/2007ShadStockAssmtReportVolumeI.pdf.

ASMFC. 2012a. River Herring Benchmark Stock Assessment Volume I. Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/riverHerringBenchmarkStockAssessmentVolumeIR_May2012.pdf.

ASMFC. 2012b. Law Enforcement Committee Recommendations for Management Options in Striped Bass DraftAddendum III. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/lecRecommendations_StripedBassBd_DraftAddIII_May2012.pdf.

ASMFC. 2013. Stock Assessment Report for Atlantic Striped Bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/529e5ca12013StripedBassBenchmarkStockAssessment_57S AWReport.pdf.

ASMFC. 2015a. Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan forStriped bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/Summer2015/AtlStripedBassBoardSupplemental.pdf.

ASMFC. 2015b. Atlantic Striped Bass Stock Assessment Update 2015. Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/564106f32015AtlStripedBassAssessmentUpdate_Nov2015.pdf.

ASMFC. 2015c. Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Shadand River Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/573e341e2015shad_riverhHerring_fmpreview.pdf.

ASMFC. 2016a. Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter. Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission, Washington DC. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/files/pub/ISFMPCharter_Feb2016.pdf.

ASMFC. 2016b. 2016 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management plan for Atlantic Sturgeon forfishing year 2013 and 2014. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/56ba055fSturgeonFMPReview2016.pdf.

ASMFC. 2016c. ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Weakfish. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file//572b74a22016WeakfishAssessmentOverview_Final.pdf.

ASMFC. 2016d. Weakfish Benchmark Stock Assessment and Peer Review Report. Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5751b3db2016WeakfishStockAssessment_PeerRevi ewReport_May2016.pdf.

ASMFC. 2016e. 2016 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan forStriped bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington DC. Available at:

32

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/57b22f6dsbfmpreview2016.pdf.

ASMFC. 2017. River Herring Stock Assessment Update Volume I: Coastwide Summary. ASMFC River HerringStock Assessment Subcommittee. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/59b1b81bRiverHerringStockAssessmentUpdate_Aug2017.pdf

ASMFC. 2019. Stock Assessment Overview: Atlantic Striped Bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington DC. Available at:https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5cc9ba4eAtlStripedBassStockAssessmentOverview.pdf

ASMFC. 2019b. Summary of the 2019 Benchmark Stock Assessment for Atlantic Striped Bass. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5d28f18dAtlanticStripedBassAssessmentSummaryReport_April2019.pdf

ASMFC. 2019. Shad and River Herring Species Page. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/shad-river-herring

ASMFC. 2019d. Weakfish Stock Assessment Update Report October 2019. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5de7fc7c2019WeakfishAssessmentUpdate.pdf

ASMFC. 2019e. Stock Assessment Overview: Weakfish. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington DC. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5df29fd92019WeakfishAssessmentOverview_Nov2019.pdf

ASMFC. 2019f. Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan.Approved October 30, 2019. Available at:http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5dd447baStripedBassAddendumVI_Amend6_Oct2019.pdf

Bonzek, C. F., Gartland, J., Gauthier, D. J., & Latour, R. J. 2019. ANNUAL REPORT - 2018 Data collection andanalysis in support of single and multispecies stock assessments in Chesapeake Bay: The Chesapeake BayMultispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program.. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William andMary. https://doi.org/10.25773/3v19-3f27

Chesapeake Bay Benthic Habitat Integration. 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Chesapeake Bay Office. 28 April 2015. Available at: http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/acoustic-seafloor-mapping/chesapeake-bay-benthic-habitat-integration.

CITES. 2014. Checklist of CITES species. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge,United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.cites.org. Accessed on [Aug 1, 2016].

Davis, J. P., E T. Schultz, J. C. Vokou., 2012. Striped Bass Consumption of Blueback Herring during VernalRiverine Migrations: Does Relaxing Harvest Restrictions on a Predator Help Conserve a Prey Species ofConcern? Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science. Available at:http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/libr_oa/5.

Federal Register. 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Threatened and Endangered Status for Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in theNortheast Region. Vol 77. Number 24. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr77-5880.pdf.

Federal Register. 2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Notice of a listing determination. 78FR 48943. Doc Number 2013-19380. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2013-19380.

33

Fuller, S.S. Ford, J. Tsao, C.F. Morgan, L. Hangaard, D. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2008. How We Fish Matters:Addressing the Ecological Impacts of Canadian Fishing Gear. Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, andMarine Conservation Biology Institute. Available at: https://mcbi.marine-conservation.org/publications/pub_pdfs/HowWeFish.pdf.

Hartman, K. J., S. B. Brandt. 1995. Predatory demand and impact of striped bass, bluefish, and weakfish in theChesapeake Bay: applications of bioenergetics models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1667–1687.

MAFMC. 2015. Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document June 2015. Mid-Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Fluke-AP-FPR-Info-Doc-2015_final-o8dr.pdf.

MDDNR. 2015. 2014 Maryland FMP Report (September 2015) Section 21. White Perch (Morone americana).Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Available at:http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Section_21_White_Perch.pdf.

MDDNR. 2017. Press release: Two Poachers Banned from Striped Bass Fishery. MDDNR. Available at:http://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2016/06/27/two-poachers-banned-from-striped-bass-fishery/.

NMFS. 2013. Workshop on Sea Turtle and Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction in Gillnet Fisheries. Available at:https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/seaturtles/docs/gillnetworkshopfinalreport_april2013.pdf.

NMFS. 2015. Fisheries of the United States, 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science andTechnology. Silver Spring, MD. Available at:http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus14/documents/FUS2014.pdf.

Patch 2015. Fishermen Arrested for Illegal Striped Bass Fishing. Patch media, East Providence, RI. Available at:http://patch.com/rhode-island/eastprovidence/fisherman-arrested- illegal-striped-bass-fishing.

34

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesATLANTIC STURGEON




High Concern

Atlantic sturgeon is listed as both an “Endangered” and “Threatened” species, depending on which discretepopulation segment is of interest (Federal Register 2012). It is also listed under the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 2014); therefore, abundance isscored as "high" concern.


Moderate Concern

According to the most recent Fishery Management Plan Review (ASMFC 2016b), harvest or possession ofAtlantic sturgeon was made illegal in all states in 1997; however, bycatch during other fishing activitiescontinues. The ASMFC indicates that gillnets and pound nets have routine interactions with sturgeon (ASMFC2015a). Mortality due to those interactions is likely low in the pound net fishery, and moderate to high in gillnetgear, although the total removal due to interactions with the gear is not known. Overall, both gillnet gear andpound net gear are allowed to operate during the February to June migration of adults (Table 5). This activity,coupled with the inability of gillnet gear to usually release sturgeon alive, suggests a rating of "moderate"concern for the gillnet fishery and a rating of "low" concern for the pound net fishery.


Low Concern

According to the most recent Fishery Management Plan Review (ASMFC 2016b), harvest or possession ofAtlantic sturgeon was made illegal in all states in 1997; however, bycatch during other fishing activitiescontinues. The ASMFC indicates that gillnets and pound nets have routine interactions with sturgeon (ASMFC2015a). Mortality due to those interactions is likely low in the pound net fishery, and moderate to high in gillnetgear, although the total removal due to interactions with the gear is not known. Overall, both gillnet gear andpound net gear are allowed to operate during the February to June migration of adults (Table 5). This activity,coupled with the inability of gillnet gear to usually release sturgeon alive, suggests a rating of "moderate"concern for the gillnet fishery and a rating of "low" concern for the pound net fishery.

35

RIVER HERRING (UNSPECIFIED)




< 100%



High Concern

River herring, both blueback herring and alewife, are listed as a species of concern by NMFS (Federal Register2013) because of declining populations throughout most of its range. River herring continue to be depleted ona coast-wide basis, though some stocks experienced increasing trends from 2006 to 2015 (ASMFC 2017).Because river herring populations continue to be at historic lows, we have scored abundance as "high"concern.


Moderate Concern

Landings of river herring are only allowed in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and SouthCarolina (ASMFC 2015c). Bycatch is generally not well documented (ASMFC 2012a), but occurs throughout therange (Figure 8). Removals by gillnets and pound nets from NY to NC are likely smaller than the removals byAtlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, which have removals similar to the directed river herring harvest inMaine (ASMFC 2015c). Because the bycatch of river herring in both gillnet and pound nets is not well-documented, and because this is listed as a species of concern, a score of "moderate" concern was given toboth gears.

Justification:

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

36


Figure 8 American shad and river herring in-river commercial and ocean bycatch landings (in pounds)provided by states, jurisdictions, and NOAA Fisheries for 2013 (from Table 2, ASMFC 2015c).


< 100%

Hook and line, gillnet, and pound net gear have bycatch and mortality associated with use. Hook and line gear

37

WHITE PERCH




tends to be highly selective for striped bass, but does catch undersized fish that may not be retained (ASMFC2015a). Gillnet and pound net gear likewise encounter undersized striped bass as well as other main speciesthat are not targeted (ASMFC 2015a) (ASMFC 2016e). For all three gear types, dead discards are less thantotal poundage landed. Total commercial dead discards are estimated at 22.5% relative to landings in 2014(ASMFC 2015b).


Low Concern

Although assessment information across the range of the stock is not available, most landing of white perchoccurs in Maryland (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index). An analysis conducted by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR 2015)indicates that, in Maryland waters, white perch is above the minimum biomass target (equal to B ) and thatrecent recruitment is higher than average, despite lower abundance in the assessment’s terminal year. Recentabundance indices from surveys in the Chesapeake Bay show that white perch populations continue to behealthy (Bonzek et al. 2019). Due to the above, we have scored abundance as "low" concern.

MSY


Low Concern

Fishing mortality is below target levels overall (MDDNR 2015). Because fishing mortality is low, a score of"low" concern was given to both gear types.


< 100%


38

Appendix B: Updates to Striped Bass ReportUpdates to the November 7, 2016 Striped Bass report were made on December 20, 2019:

Overall Recommendations for striped bass caught by handlines and hand-operated pole-and-linesdowngraded to "Good Alternative" and striped bass caught via set gillnets and stationary uncovered pound netsdowngraded to "Avoid." Changes are due to recently updated stock status changes (C1 and C2) and updatedscoring for management strategies as outlined below.

Updates included:C1: Downgraded from "Low" Concern to "High" Concern (C1.1) and "Moderate" Concern to "High" Concern(C1.2) for all fisheries due to an updated stock assessment stating that striped bass is overfished andundergoing overfishing. Scoring and Summary changed.C2.2: Weakfish downgraded from "Moderate" Concern to "High" Concern for the gillnet fishery due to anupdated stock assessment, stating that total mortality on this species is too high. This DID NOT change theimpacts on other species scoring overall. C2.2: Weakfish downgraded from "Low" Concern to "High" Concern for the pound net fishery due to anupdated stock assessment stating that total mortality on this species is too high. This DID NOT change theimpacts on other species scoring overall. C3.1 (Management Strategy): Downgraded from "Highly Effective" to "Moderately Effective" due to continuedoverfishing of striped bass, uncertain effectiveness of new policies, and moderately effective management ofother landed species. Scoring changed.Executive Summary verbiage was also updated to reflect any changes appropriately.

39