Protecting Offshore Habitats while Rebuilding New Jersey Beaches

By Karen Greene, Sandy Hook Habitat Conservation Division Field Office, NOAA
from The Fishing Wire

The State of New Jersey has 130 miles of sandy beaches along the Atlantic Ocean. These beaches are constantly eroding, as waves and wind move the sand around. To protect local communities from storm and flood damage and to provide recreational opportunities for visitors to the Jersey shore, the Federal, State and local governments must regularly replenish the supply of sand.

For decades, the US Army Corps of Engineers has been dredging sand from “borrow areas” in the Atlantic Ocean and placing it on beaches. Local communities also shore up beaches by trucking in sand or dredging sand from back bays. NOAA Fisheries’ Habitat Conservation Division has a role in these projects. We provide advice on the best ways to rebuild depleted coastal beaches while conserving important living marine resources. We recommend ways to minimize impacts to important offshore habitats that might be impacted by sand mining to restore these coastal areas.

We’ve been working with the Corps and the State of New Jersey on beach re-nourishment and shore protection since the 1980s. We’ve consulted on various projects in northern Monmouth County, on Long Beach Island and in Ocean City. Since Superstorm Sandy, we’ve been providing suggestions for ecologically responsible ways to replenish decimated beaches and bayshores along the entire New Jersey coast, Delaware Bay and Raritan, and Sandy Hook Bay.

With demand high, the Corps and the state have stepped up efforts to find more sources of suitable sand offshore in State waters and on the Outer Continental Shelf. Offshore shoals and ridges provide good sources of sand. They also happen to be valuable habitat for fish and other species. Shoals are dynamic features that attract a diversity of marine life. They produce a variety of bottom types and foraging opportunities for finfish, like summer flounder, bluefish, bonito and false albacore and bottom dwelling organisms. Finfish tend to congregate around shoals and ridges. They also provide guiding features for coastal migratory species such as whales, dolphins, sea turtles and tuna. Many of these areas are also important habitat for surf clams. However, sand mining can alter the bathymetric contours (depths and gradients) of shoals and ridges.

Our staff works with the Corps to help identify and evaluate options for reducing impacts to these ecologically rich habitats. Some options may include simply maintaining the vertical relief (elevation) of shoals and ridges, avoiding areas of high quality surf clam habitat and conducting ongoing monitoring to assess changes to ocean bottom conditions due to the dredging activity. Where we can, we also support the research of other agencies and academic institutions. Through further study, we can learn more about the functions and habitat values of offshore shoals and ridges and the effects of sand mining on these special areas.

Anglers applaud progress of red snapper reallocation

Today’s feature comes to us from Ted Venker of the CCA. It reviews progress on dividing the Gulf red snapper fishery equitably between recreational and commercial anglers–as always both sides would like a bigger slice of the pie. Fortunately, there’s a whole lot bigger pie to work with these days as snapper stocks have come roaring back–hopefully both sides will go away winners. –Frank Sargeant
from The Fishing Wire

Gulf Council moves forward with amendment to modernize allocation

By Ted Venker, Coastal Conservation Association

A nice red snapper

“The current allocation of 51 percent commercial, 49 percent recreational was set using data from when Ronald Reagan was president. There is a strong case for reallocation based simply on the tremendous changes that have taken place along the Gulf Coast since then,” said Richen Brame, CCA’s Regional Fisheries Director. “Nonetheless, allocation decisions are always contentious and we applaud the Council for continuing its efforts to set the allocation based on modern criteria.”

The Gulf Council voted to send Amendment 28 – Red Snapper Reallocation out to a series of public hearings in the Gulf states and set a special meeting for May in New Orleans to take final action. Amendment 28 contains seven alternatives for reallocating red snapper that range from status quo to shifting up to 10 percent to the recreational sector. The Council selected Alternative 5, which directs 75 percent of any quota over 9.12 million pounds to the recreational sector and 25 percent to the commercial sector, as its preferred alternative. With the current Gulf-wide quota set at 11 million pounds, Alternative 5 would shift roughly 1.4 million pounds to the recreational sector in time for the 2014 season if approved.

“When the original allocation was set red snapper stocks were in far worse condition, and there are questions about the quality of harvest data even today, which makes the accuracy of an allocation set in the mid-1980s extremely suspect. It is quite possible that the allocation of this fishery has never been correct and that may explain some of the issues anglers are grappling with today,” said Brame. “We know that this is not a cure for all the problems in recreational management, but if Alternative 5 is approved it will do a lot to fix the foundation of this fishery and give us something solid on which to build. We would strongly encourage that the allocation be reviewed regularly from now on.”

Efforts to keep Amendment 28 on track were aided greatly by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who highlighted the issue during the nomination process for Dr. Kathryn Sullivan to be the Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“This is huge news for Gulf Coast recreational anglers. After months of urging NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to take action on Amendment 28, they have finally started moving on it,” said Sen. Vitter. “We intend to follow it through to completion. Proactively managing Gulf fisheries based on the best science and economics should always be the ultimate goal, and this is a positive step in the meantime that could lead to an economic boost for Gulf economies, something we can all support.”

Visit www.joincca.org for more information.

Chow Down on Lionfish
from The Fishing Wire

To beat ’em, eat ’em suggests Florida Sea Grant regarding invasive lionfish. They’re tasty–but toxic if you’re not careful where you get them.

Lionfish is not a traditional or likely seafood selection, but growing interest in response to its invasive and increasing abundance has stirred recreational and commercial interest. Seafood specialist Steve Otwell offers this perspective.

Handling

Eating lionfish, Pterois miles or Pterois volitans, is being encouraged as one of the best options to mitigate the harmful impact of this prolific, invasive fish threatening reefs and coastal fisheries in ocean waters throughout the Caribbean Sea and neighboring regions in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern United States.

The venom in lionfish spines remains active, so fisherman are urged to clean their catch with an abundance of caution. Photo by John Stevely

Be careful of spines when cleaning lionfish

All prudent advice has included statements of caution regarding product handling and preparation, to avoid the notorious, venomous stings that can be inflicted by the unique array of body fins and spines. Although attractive and distinguishing for the lionfish, the fins and spines can inflict a severe sting resulting in localized pain, redness and swelling. More advanced cases can involve neurological problems such as headaches, nausea, numbness, dizziness, and possible convulsions and paralysis. Fortunately, proper handling procedures, including use of gloves and scissors, can remove the potential harm.

Consumption

It is always reasonable to question the quality and safety of all new food selections. In the case of lionfish, additional safety concerns can involve certain natural toxins that could be encountered when you eat it. As with other predatory fish species found in or near certain tropical and reef-associated marine waters, the lionfish may contain ciguatoxins. This risk was recently confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, following studies in the Virgin Islands, where the waters are known to support the production of potentially ciguatoxic fish. The ciguatoxins are not caused by contamination, and they differ from the toxins associated with the lionfish fins and spines. The ciguatoxins are acquired from the food eaten by the lionfish.

Ciguatoxins are produced in certain waters that favor the growth of a particular kind of plankton, the dinoflagellates known as Gambierdiscus. These plankton introduce the potential toxins that can be transmitted through the local food chain, eventually accumulating in some top-order predator fish. The toxins can be concentrated to potentially harmful levels that will persist in the edible portions of the fish and cannot be reduced or eliminated by cooking. Potential toxic levels in certain predators from Atlantic waters can be as low as 0.10 ppb (parts per billion). Indeed the toxins are very potent and the resulting illness is known as ciguatoxic fish poisoning, or CFP.

CFP is distinguished primarily by symptoms that can begin to occur within 6 hours after consumption. This rapid onset is a primary reason for the close association people have after eating a meal involving a particular predatory fish. Initial symptoms are gastrointestinal in nature – nausea, cramping, vomiting followed by neurological discomforts – headache, flushing, muscular aching, pain in joints, and weakness, tingling and numb sensation of the lips, tongue and mouth that can be accompanied with dizziness and imbalance. More severe cases have reported sensitivity to reoccurrence and prolonged discomfort for months and years.

Avoiding Risk

Confirming a particular ciguatoxic fish poisoning case can be difficult. Many of the symptoms for CFP can be associated with other foodborne illnesses. The identity of the fish involved can be confused by differences in names and unreliable information regarding where the fish was harvested. Analytical tests to confirm the presence and level of ciguatoxins are specialized and complicated, and not routinely available. They also require a sample of the actual meal involved. So far, attempts to develop more convenient and rapid analytical test kits that are reliable have not been successful enough to warrant recommended use in confirming toxins present in fish, harvest areas or meals. Confirmations are further complicated by variation between fish. Meals from two separate fish of the same type from the same source may not present the same CFP risk.

Likewise, the occurrence of potential ciguatoxic fish poisoning is difficult to predict. Current advice from food safety professionals is to avoid certain fish species, larger sized fish or fish from certain harvest areas. In 2013, lionfish were added to the list of species that could cause CFP. This existing list is maintained in regulatory guidance for seafood safety issued by the FDA. Lionfish join the list for species of concern, such as jacks, snappers, groupers and other related reef species relative to certain harvest areas.

As top-order predators, barracuda are well-known candidates for ciguatoxins. The FDA and certain Caribbean authorities have actually cautioned against consuming it. Florida Sea Grant stock photo.
The list already contains some more well-known CFP candidates like amberjacks and barracuda. The FDA and certain Caribbean authorities have actually cautioned against consumption of the larger predators, like barracuda.

Avoidance of larger fish in certain areas can be helpful, but not always reliable for all species. This recommendation lacks a definition for large fish, and questions how restaurant goers can distinguish a particular fish’s size from the serving portion size. Young fish of larger species can also accumulate toxins, depending on their exposure to particular food chains. The barracuda, for example, is a well-known, top-order predator that can feed in a variety of regional food chains, perhaps accumulating ciguatoxins when they are smaller. Mindful of the voracious and diverse appetite that supports their rapid growth rate, the lionfish could be distinguished as a top-order predator in certain harvest areas.

Overall, the primary way to avoid CFP is to avoid fish harvested from known or suspect ciguatoxic areas. Unfortunately, knowing about suspect areas depends on knowing how many illnesses have occurred in those areas, rather than confirmation through routine testing. Advice from pertinent regulatory authorities and health-based programs has cautioned against harvests in certain areas, but there are no actual prohibitions restricting harvest of lionfish or other potential ciguatoxic fish from any waters.

Obviously, because we have little history of eating lionfish, and no reported CFP cases associated with eating lionfish, there is no evidence to guide our harvest of lionfish. Some evidence for CFP associated with other fish species has resulted in historical attempts to prohibit markets and restaurant from selling certain potential ciguatoxic fish, such as barracuda in Puerto Rico or Dade County, Florida, but there are no prevalent or enforced restrictions at this time.

What may appear to be hesitation by authorities and confused debates among public advisories are due to the lack of distinct and confident confirmations for CFP occurrence in certain harvest areas. Potential CFP risk per area is unpredictable and lacking analytical verifications that are consistent through time. Likewise, the potential risk for ciguatoxins in the food chain is also difficult to confirm, because it is subject to changes in the distribution of fish species and their feeding regimes, which are in turn influenced by seasons and shifting thermal conditions.

‘Official’ designations for risk areas or prohibited harvest and market restrictions of a particular species are difficult to enforce and can have unintended consequences for other fishing, tourism and related commerce in the region. Unofficial designations, available through a variety of publications and public advisories, have ranged in geographic extent from small, individual islands to coastal and reef perimeters involving the entire Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic waters. These designations are often compiled without documented confirmations. In general, many experts identify ciguatoxic regions as the tropical and subtropical waters of the world between 35° N and 35° S latitudes. This designation encompasses areas with a preponderance of reef environments.

To further confound the situation, legal interests focused on concerns for food safety can view the questionable risk and conflicting advice regarding lionfish as potential liability across all sectors of commerce. At present, the commercial harvest, processing and distribution of seafood in retail establishment and restaurants is subject to a multitude of food safety regulations. One system of mandated food safety control is known as HACCP, which is a preventative approach to food safety practiced industry-wide. All seafood processed for commerce in the United States, regardless of the means or location of harvest, must comply with mandatory HACCP guidelines. Seafood is also subject to food codes and state-based health requirements that include general guidelines to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to any toxins in any food.

The ciguatera issue is specifically addressed for a variety of specified fish in the FDA’s Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance, which represents FDA’s current thinking on appropriate risk prevention. In addition to a list of species of concern, the FDA has specifically mentioned concerns for harvest of potential ciguatoxic fish from the Flower Gardens area, one of the most northern regions for reefs found in the Gulf of Mexico. The FDA has likewise included advice against consumption of barracuda. FDA advice is based on actual product analysis or occurrence of illnesses associated with particular fish species. The agency’s advice is not a legal prohibition, but it carries the same essential message because of the legal consequences that could result when a complaint occurs for any associated illnesses.

In addition, in 2013, the FDA proposed amendments to its Hazards Guide specifically citing lionfish as a potential ciguatoxic species relative to the area where it is harvested. This recommendation was deemed necessary based only on product analysis in suspect waters about the Virgin Islands. The FDA amendment added wording that suggested ciguatera was “emerging” in areas not previously noted and occurrence could be influenced but thermal trends. Again, potential lawsuits arising from foodborne illnesses could reference this advice and heighten liability, regardless of whether there were existing prohibitions for harvest or consumption.

Recommendations

The majority of lionfish based on their current distribution in waters about the United States should be safe for consumption, but the voracious eating habits and diversity of prey suggests lionfish is a candidate species more prone to accumulation of ciguatoxins if present in areas that harbor the potentially hazardous food chain. Based on occurrence with other CFP-related species, the more problematic harvest areas have involved warmer tropical waters and imported sources.

Cooking lionfish does not kill ciguatoxins; the best way for recreational fishermen to avoid CFP is to avoid areas known to have a CFP history. Florida Sea Grant stock photo.
Recreational harvesters should be aware and informed about potential ciguatoxic areas and concerns. This will be complicated by lack of designated areas, as previously discussed, and limited use of analytical verifications to distinguish risk areas for recreational harvest. Mindful of this situation, some recreational harvest events have resorted to participant signatures on statements to insulate the event promoters from possible liabilities. Attempts to use rapid ciguatera test kits for detection of toxins in the edible portions of lionfish meat is not advisable due to complications with the application and errors that can occur in interpretation.

The best advice is to rely on prior experience with other CFP-related species in that area. Traditional commercial and recreational harvests of fish that are more permanent residents in waters about Florida and the South Atlantic region have not been typically implicated in ciguatera. In contrast, some of the waters and reefs within more tropical areas like the southern Caribbean have reputations for certain ciguatoxic fish and areas. This reputation is stronger for some of the larger and more migratory predators, like barracuda that feed at the top of the food chains.

The sources of advice encouraging lionfish harvest and consumption should be scrutinized relative to the area of harvest. Well-intended articles, such as the cookbook by the Reef Environmental Education Foundation that specifically introduces the lionfish as “The Caribbean’s New Delicacy” could be questionable advice without evidence for the harvest area.

Illegal use of fish sold from a recreational catch could also impose risk for the buyers and introduce liability for an uninformed restaurant or retail market. The vulnerability is lack of knowledge for harvest waters and sale of potentially hazardous seafood without scrutiny through established regulations for food safety.

Commercial harvest remains subject to mandated HACCP controls for product safety. These require written plans and records as evidence for avoidance of any potential ciguatoxic fish. Avoidance involves controls to assure no harvest from known or designated problematic waters. This requirement is difficult to evidence because of a lack of formal designations and reliance on hearsay information, but it is a real and enforceable requirement that has involved many companies being implicated in inspection and liability cases.

Illegal representation of a commercial harvest, either by improper identification of the source or species is a strict violation of prevailing food safety regulations, and can increase the liability for the processors, wholesaler, or retail operations. Likewise, harvest and importation from areas more suspect for potential ciguatoxic lionfish should be discouraged. Persistent publicity about illegal fish substitution and mislabeling of species or product origin suggest less scrupulous commerce could be tempted to seek and market lionfish without proper identification. Buyers are cautioned to purchase lionfish from reputable suppliers and sources with food safety programs and evidence for harvest area. It would be prudent to document product suppliers and respective sources as done for other commercial species and harvest areas of concern.

Best Lures For Wintertime Snook

By David A. Brown
from The Fishing Wire

Jason Stock is a Florida fishing guide, not an economist. Nevertheless, he understands the law of supply and demand, so when late fall drives out the remaining parcels of the baitfish schools that were so prevalent during the warm season, he knows that his favorite lures will quickly become a more valued commodity.

For several months, massive schools of scaled sardines (aka “pilchards” or “whitebait”) have provided steady food supplies for snook and all the other inshore predators roaming the beaches, bays and backwaters of west-central Florida.

During summer, gamefish with even basic hunting skills could count on filling their bellies with little difficulty, but as fall’s declining temperatures and shortening days signal the forthcoming cold season, Florida’s snook go on a feeding binge that nearly decimates the forage. Add increasingly frequent cold snaps and before the fish even know it, their tasty buffet has vanished.

But don’t feel bad for the linesiders. These savvy sportfish know how to survive, and adaptability is an essential part of the plan. What does this mean for anglers? It means a notable increase in the snook’s willingness to take artificial baits.

Not that the fish necessarily avoid lures during the warm season; rather, it’s a case of availability. When loads of natural food exists, snook can make a living on an easy food source that requires little discernment. Once that gravy train leaves town, it becomes an eat-what-you-can deal.

“When you have to compete with live bait, it’s hard to get the snook interested in artificials,” Stock said. “But if you can get them fired up on lures (during the colder months) when they’re already looking for something, they’re gonna go for it, especially if it mimics natural forage.”

Here’s a quick look at some of the artificial baits that tempt cold-season snook:

Topwaters: Stock said that one of the best ways to attract a big-time winter snook strike is with a mullet-imitating surface bait. A straightforward walk-the-dog retrieve is usually most effective, but Stock likes to vary the sound of his topwater attack.

“I like the Heddon Spook Jr. and the One Knocker Spook,” Stock said.

Bomber Mullet Lure

The new Bomber Saltwater Grade Mullet was made for this application and has an advantage over the Spook. The Mullet is a slow-sinking lure that anglers can work slowly under the surface if the fish aren’t willing to take a bait off the top. One time when this sub-surface walk really shines is on those post-cold-front days with blue skies and no wind. The fish are there and looking up, but in a neutral or negative feeding mode. Let the Mullet sashay right in front of its nose, however, and it can’t help but strike.

Jigs: Lead heads in 1/8- to 3/16-ounce size and dressed with curly or paddletail soft plastics are a good winter lure choice for those days when the topwater action isn’t panning out. Stock said that he spends most of his time with paddletails for their natural vibration that helps attract fish in the cold winter water.

Jigs with paddletail or shad-type tail that mimic any remaining pilchards in color are effective, but darker colors that imitate shrimp and crabs are a can’t-miss as well. The key to an effective presentation, Stock said, is to keep it low and slow to mimic a crustacean slowly skittering along the bottom.

“When you’re working that jig, pull the rod back nice and smooth and feel that shad tail vibrate – I call it the ‘flutter technique,'” Stock said. “If the jig’s not fluttering and making contact with the bottom, a lot of times you’re not going to get bit in the winter time. You have to get that puff of sand when the jig hits bottom and let the fish feel the vibration to get an impulse bite.”

Other Options: Subsurface baits will also produce this time of year. In shallow water, floater/divers are great. But when tide’s up, go with a slow sinker or suspending bait like the aforementioned Bomber Saltwater Grade Mullet or Badonk-A-Donk SS.

WHERE TO LOOK

Catch snook like this one on lures

Once winter locks the region in its icy grip, snook retreat to the deepest water they can find in coastal rivers, canals and marina/port basins. Here, they’ll pass the coldest season in a lethargic state with minimal movement and even less feeding. Warm days may find some fish rising to shallow edges to sun their backs and chase whatever prey is available.

Until this winter lockdown, however, look for snook to feed around the mouths of coastal creeks and canals and within the protected waters of bays. Potholes amid lush sea grass, mangrove points and oyster bar drop-offs are the likely haunts.

“They can slide in and out with the weather,” Stock said of these transitional areas. “If the water gets colder, they’ll pull back inside.”

Whatever you do during the fall and winter, keep watch for mullet schools, which provide what Stock calls “a buffer for fish.” Snook know that running alongside and within mullet schools provide shelter from dolphins and ospreys while affording them feeding opportunities, as their vegetarian hosts kick up loads of crustaceans.

Savvy snook know to pick off these mullet-jostled freebies. Savvy anglers know that making their topwaters, jigs and swimbaits resemble these freebies yields a bent rod.

Florida’s snook season remains closed through the end of January on the Atlantic Coast and through the end of February on the Gulf Coast, but it’s legal to catch and release this great gamefish throughout the closed season.