DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Kelp Greenling (Hexagrammos Decagrammus) Along the Oregon Coast in 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Kelp Greenling (Hexagrammos Decagrammus) Along the Oregon Coast in 2015 Status of Kelp Greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) along the Oregon Coast in 2015 Aaron M. Berger1 Linsey Arnold2 Brett T. Rodomsky3 1Northwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2032 SE OSU Drive, Newport, OR 97365 2Oregon State University, Department of Fish and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, 2820 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 3Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2040 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365 November 17, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Stock........................................................................................................................... 1 Catches ...................................................................................................................... 1 Data and assessment ................................................................................................ 3 Stock biomass ........................................................................................................... 3 Recruitment ................................................................................................................ 7 Exploitation status ..................................................................................................... 8 Ecosystem considerations ..................................................................................... 10 Reference points...................................................................................................... 10 Management performance ...................................................................................... 11 Unresolved problems and major uncertainties ..................................................... 12 Forecast ................................................................................................................... 13 Decision table .......................................................................................................... 14 Research and data needs ........................................................................................ 16 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 18 1.1 Basic Information .......................................................................................... 18 1.2 Map................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 Life History .................................................................................................... 19 1.4 Ecosystem Considerations .......................................................................... 19 1.5 Fishery Information ....................................................................................... 20 1.6 Summary of Management History................................................................ 21 1.7 Management Performance ........................................................................... 22 2 Assessment ................................................................................................ 22 2.1 Data ................................................................................................................ 22 2.1.1 Fishery-Dependent Data: Commercial Landings and Discards ................ 22 2.1.2 Fishery-Dependent Data: Recreational Landings and Discards ............... 24 2.1.3 Fishery-Dependent Data: Oregon Commercial Logbook .......................... 26 2.1.4 Fishery-Dependent Data: Recreational Dockside Survey ......................... 27 2.1.5 Fishery-Dependent Data: Recreational Onboard Observer Surveys ........ 28 2.1.6 Fishery-Independent Data: sources considered, but not used in assessment ............................................................................................................ 29 2.1.7 Fishery-Dependent Data: sources considered, but not used in assessment 30 2.1.8 Biological Data: Length and age compositions ......................................... 30 2.1.9 Biological Data: Age structures ................................................................ 31 2.1.10 Biological Data: Ageing precision and bias ............................................... 32 2.1.11 Biological Data: Weight-Length ................................................................ 32 2.1.12 Biological Data: Maturity and Fecundity ................................................... 32 2.1.13 Biological Data: Natural Mortality ............................................................. 33 2.1.14 Biological Data: Sex ratios ....................................................................... 33 2.2 History of Modeling Approaches Used for this Stock ................................ 33 2.2.1 Previous assessments ............................................................................. 33 2.3 Response to the 2005 STAR Panel Recommendations .............................. 34 2.4 Model Description ......................................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Transition from 2005 to 2015 stock assessment ...................................... 35 2.4.2 Definition of fleets and areas .................................................................... 37 2.4.3 Summary of data for fleets and areas ...................................................... 37 i 2.4.4 Modeling software .................................................................................... 37 2.4.5 Data weighting ......................................................................................... 37 2.4.6 Priors ....................................................................................................... 37 2.4.7 General model specifications ................................................................... 38 2.4.8 Estimated and fixed parameters ............................................................... 38 2.5 Model Selection and Evaluation ................................................................... 39 2.5.1 Key assumptions and structural choices .................................................. 39 2.5.2 Alternative models explored ..................................................................... 40 2.5.3 Convergence ............................................................................................ 40 2.6 Response to STAR Panel Recommendations ............................................. 40 2.7 Base-Model(s) Results .................................................................................. 42 2.8 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses .......................................................... 43 2.8.1 Sensitivity analyses .................................................................................. 43 2.8.2 Retrospective analysis ............................................................................. 44 2.8.3 Likelihood profiles .................................................................................... 44 3 Reference Points ........................................................................................ 45 4 Harvest Projections and Decision Tables ................................................ 45 5 Regional Management Considerations .................................................... 46 6 Research Needs ......................................................................................... 46 7 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... 48 8 Literature Cited ........................................................................................... 48 9 Tables .......................................................................................................... 54 10 Figures ........................................................................................................ 75 Appendix A. SS data file ................................................................................. 151 Appendix B. SS control file ............................................................................ 189 Appendix C. SS starter file ............................................................................. 194 Appendix D. SS forecast file .......................................................................... 195 Appendix E. Reef Delineation and Drift Selection Methodologies ............. 197 Appendix F. History of Oregon Regulations................................................. 199 Appendix G. Oregon Nearshore Commercial Fishery Public Input (2011- 2014) ................................................................................................................. 205 Appendix H. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Visual Surveys ...... 206 ii Executive Summary Stock This is the second stock assessment of the population status of Kelp Greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus [Pallas, 1810]) along the Oregon coast (Figure 1). Kelp Greenling is endemic to nearshore rocky reef, kelp forest, and eelgrass habitats of the Northeast Pacific Ocean and ranges from southern California, north to the Alaskan Aleutian Islands, but is rarely found south of Point Conception, California. The first stock assessment of Kelp Greenling (Cope and MacCall, 2005) modeled a separate substock off the coast of California. However, there was insufficient population information (e.g., age, growth, natural mortality, abundance index) at the time for the California assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Western Bering Sea Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut Longline
    MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification Western Bering Sea Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline Public Consultation Draft Report – August 2019 Longline Fishery Association Assessment Team: Dmitry Lajus, Daria Safronova, Aleksei Orlov, Rob Blyth-Skyrme Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 1 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Contents Table of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 5 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................... 7 Glossary.............................................................................................................................. 10 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 12 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ................................................................................... 14 2.1 Use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF): ............................................................ 15 2.2 Peer Reviewers .................................................................................................... 15 3 Description of the Fishery ............................................................................................ 16 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ........................... 16 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Otters and Kelp Forest fishes in the Aleutian Archipelago
    Oecologia (2005) DOI 10.1007/s00442-005-0230-1 COMMUNITY ECOLOGY Shauna E. Reisewitz Æ James A. Estes Charles A. Simenstad Indirect food web interactions: sea otters and kelp forest fishes in the Aleutian archipelago Received: 24 January 2005 / Accepted: 25 July 2005 Ó Springer-Verlag 2005 Abstract Although trophic cascades—the effect of apex of otter-free systems at islands where otters were initially predators on progressively lower trophic level species abundant. Significant changes in greenling diet occurred through top-down forcing—have been demonstrated in between the mid-1980s and the 2000 although the rea- diverse ecosystems, the broader potential influences of sons for these changes were difficult to assess because of trophic cascades on other species and ecosystem pro- strong island-specific effects. Whereas urchin-dominated cesses are not well studied. We used the overexploita- communities supported more diverse fish assemblages tion, recovery and subsequent collapse of sea otter than kelp-dominated communities, this was not a simple (Enhydra lutris) populations in the Aleutian archipelago effect of the otter-induced trophic cascade because all to explore if and how the abundance and diet of kelp islands supported more diverse fish assemblages in 2000 forest fishes are influenced by a trophic cascade linking than in the mid-1980s. sea otters with sea urchins and fleshy macroalgae. We measured the abundance of sea urchins (biomass den- Keywords Kelp Æ Rock greenling Æ Sea urchins Æ sity), kelp (numerical density) and fish (Catch per unit Trophic cascades effort) at four islands in the mid-1980s (when otters were abundant at two of the islands and rare at the two others) and in 2000 (after otters had become rare at all Introduction four islands).
    [Show full text]
  • The Disruption of Habitat Isolation Among Three Hexagrammos Species by Artificial Habitat Alterations That Create Mosaic- Title Habitat
    The disruption of habitat isolation among three Hexagrammos species by artificial habitat alterations that create mosaic- Title habitat Author(s) Kimura, Motoko R.; Munehara, Hiroyuki Ecological Research, 25(1), 41-50 Citation https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-009-0624-3 Issue Date 2010-01 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/42621 Rights The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com Type article (author version) File Information ER25-1_41-50.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP The disruption of habitat isolation among three Hexagrammos species by artificial habitat alterations that create mosaic-habitat Motoko R. Kimura1*, Hiroyuki Munehara2 1. Division of Biosphere Science, Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University. 152 Usujiri, Hakodate 041-1613, Japan 2. Usujiri Fisheries Station, Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University. 152 Usujiri, Hakodate 041-1613, Japan *author for correspondence E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +81-138-25-3237 Fax: +81-138-25-5088 1 Abstract In coastal areas in Japan, three species of greenling (Hexagrammos spp.) can hybridize. In a natural reef setting we showed that Hexagrammos agrammus and H. octogrammus established their breeding territories in a shallow area where seaweed was abundant, whereas H. otakii established breeding territories in a deep area that was sparsely covered with seaweed. This difference in habitat use resulted in H. otakii being distributed separately from the other two species, thereby reducing the potential for hybridization. However, all the three species co-occurred in an artificial area near a breakwater. This area is characterized by steep slopes and complex stacked concrete structures, which create a mosaic-habitat consisting of a shallow environment with seaweed and a deep environment with sparse seaweed, allowing the three species to breed within a single area.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Fish Catch Results for James Island E and James Island W, 2008 and 2009
    Summary of Fish Catch Results for James Island E and James Island W, 2008 and 2009 Skagit River System Cooperative Research Program December 2012 Beach seine sampling for fish was conducted at James Island E and James Island W as part of Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board Project # 07-1863 N: WRIA2 Habitat Based Assessment of Juvenile Salmon, also locally known as the Big Picture Project. James Island E and James Island W are located on James Island within the San Juan Islands (Figure 1). Sets were made on both sides of the isthmus of the island (E and W) using large net beach seines after methods described in Skagit System Cooperative Research Department (2003). We made 28 beach seine sets over the two-year study period. Beach seining occurred monthly from March through September 2008 and April through October 2009. The beach seine sites at both James Island E and James Island W consisted primarily of gravel to mixed coarse substrate. Vegetative cover consisted of eelgrass or mixed eelgrass and macro- algae 57% of the time, and was without any cover 43% of the time (both sites). Average maximum water depth was 2.79 meters and average salinity was 30.4 parts per thousand within the area seined at both sites. Water temperatures varied by month, but ranged from a low of 7.5 °C in April 2008 to a high of 12.8 °C in September 2008. The temperatures did not vary more than a half a degree C between the sites on each sampling day.
    [Show full text]
  • Modulation of Buccal Pressure During Prey Capture in Hexagrammos Decagrammus (Teleostei: Hexagrammidae)
    The Journal of Experimental Biology 200, 2145–2154 (1997) 2145 Printed in Great Britain © The Company of Biologists Limited 1997 JEB1045 MODULATION OF BUCCAL PRESSURE DURING PREY CAPTURE IN HEXAGRAMMOS DECAGRAMMUS (TELEOSTEI: HEXAGRAMMIDAE) DONNA HENRIQUES NEMETH* Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA† Accepted 13 May 1997 Summary Changes in intraoral pressure during prey capture were generated by the predator. No differences in buccal recorded for a trophic generalist, Hexagrammos pressure patterns were detected between strikes that decagrammus, feeding on different prey species. Prey were resulted in a capture or a miss, suggesting that misses were grouped into elusive (shrimps), grasping (isopods and due to the escape behavior of the prey and were not the crabs) and non-elusive (pieces of shrimp) categories. result of an inappropriate suction force. These data Elusive and grasping prey elicited strikes with a larger and support the current view that fish can modify their feeding faster reduction in buccal pressure than did non-elusive mode in response to prey behavior, and they emphasize prey. The suction force generated by the predator differed that the behavioral responses of the individual prey must for strikes among the shrimp genera in the elusive prey be considered when defining the appropriate strategy for category. The most sedentary shrimps (Crangon alaskensis prey capture. The use of a flexible, modifiable feeding and C. nigricauda) elicited the fastest and greatest behavior is associated with a broad diet in H. decagrammus reduction in pressure relative to the most evasive shrimps and may increase capture success on diverse prey relative (Pandalus danae and Heptacarpus stylus).
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Confidence in Trawl Efficiency and Catch Quantification for the Eastern Bering Sea Shelf Survey
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-335 doi:10.7289/V5/TM-AFSC-335 Estimating Confidence in Trawl Efficiency and Catch Quantification for the Eastern Bering Sea Shelf Survey D. E. Stevenson, K. L. Weinberg, and R. R. Lauth U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center November 2016 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. This document should be cited as follows: Stevenson, D. E., K. L. Weinberg, and R. R. Lauth. 2016. Estimating confidence in trawl efficiency and catch quantification for the eastern Bering Sea shelf survey. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-335, 51 p. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-AFSC-335. Document available: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-335.pdf Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-335 doi:10.7289/V5/TM-AFSC-335 Estimating Confidence in Trawl Efficiency and Catch Quantification for the Eastern Bering Sea Shelf Survey D.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Discordant Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Diversities in Atka Mackerel M
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications, Agencies and Staff of the .SU . U.S. Department of Commerce Department of Commerce 2010 Highly Discordant Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Diversities in Atka Mackerel M. F. Canino National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, [email protected] I. B. Spies National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington S. A. Lowe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington W. S. Grant University of Alaska Anchorage Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub Canino, M. F.; Spies, I. B.; Lowe, S. A.; and Grant, W. S., "Highly Discordant Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Diversities in Atka Mackerel" (2010). Publications, Agencies and Staff of ht e U.S. Department of Commerce. 532. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/532 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Commerce at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications, Agencies and Staff of the .SU . Department of Commerce by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 2:375–387, 2010 [Special Section: Atka Mackerel] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2010 DOI: 10.1577/C09-024.1 Highly Discordant Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Diversities in Atka Mackerel M. F. CANINO,* I. B. SPIES, AND S. A. LOWE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast, Seattle, Washington 98115, USA W.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens
    CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens List updated June 2016 0-CWU-Collection-List.docx Specimens collected primarily from North American mid-continent and coastal Alaska for zooarchaeological research and teaching purposes. Curated at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, under the direction of Dr. Pat Lubinski, [email protected]. Numbers on right margin provide a count of complete or near-complete specimens. There may also be a listing of mount (commercially mounted articulated skeletons), part (partial skeletons), skull (skulls), or * (in freezer but not yet processed). Vertebrate specimens in taxonomic order, then invertebrates. Taxonomy follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System online (www.itis.gov) as of June 2016 unless otherwise noted. VERTEBRATES: Phylum Chordata, Class Petromyzontida (lampreys) Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae: Pacific lamprey ............................................................. Entosphenus tridentatus.................................... 1 Phylum Chordata, Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) unidentified shark teeth Order Squaliformes Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish ......................................................... Squalus acanthias ............................................. 1 Order Rajiformes Family Rajidae Aleutian skate ........................................................ Bathyraja aleutica ............................................. 1 Alaska skate ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens
    CWU Comparative Osteology Collection, List of Specimens List updated November 2019 0-CWU-Collection-List.docx Specimens collected primarily from North American mid-continent and coastal Alaska for zooarchaeological research and teaching purposes. Curated at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, under the direction of Dr. Pat Lubinski, [email protected]. Facility is located in Dean Hall Room 222 at CWU’s campus in Ellensburg, Washington. Numbers on right margin provide a count of complete or near-complete specimens in the collection. Specimens on loan from other institutions are not listed. There may also be a listing of mount (commercially mounted articulated skeletons), part (partial skeletons), skull (skulls), or * (in freezer but not yet processed). Vertebrate specimens in taxonomic order, then invertebrates. Taxonomy follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System online (www.itis.gov) as of June 2016 unless otherwise noted. VERTEBRATES: Phylum Chordata, Class Petromyzontida (lampreys) Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae: Pacific lamprey ............................................................. Entosphenus tridentatus.................................... 1 Phylum Chordata, Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) unidentified shark teeth ........................................................ ........................................................................... 3 Order Squaliformes Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf
    NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18 Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis Theodore W. Pietsch James W. Orr September 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce Papers NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientifi c Editor Administrator Richard Langton National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Service Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Offi ce of Science and Technology Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientifi c Publications Offi ce 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service - The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is published by the Scientifi c Publications Offi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service, The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, fl ora and fauna studies, and data- Seattle, WA 98115. intensive reports on investigations in fi shery science, engineering, and economics. The Secretary of Commerce has Copies of the NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series are available free in limited determined that the publication of numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also available in this series is necessary in the transac- exchange for other scientifi c and technical publications in the marine sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Gopher Rockfish
    Summary of Data Sources for Stock Assessments for the Species in the Nearshore Fisheries Management Plan (NFMP) Teresa Ish1,2 Meisha Key3 Yasmin Lucero1 1 Center for Stock Assessment Research (CSTAR), Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 2 Also with Sustainable Fishery Advocates, P.O. Box 233, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 3 California Department of Fish and Game, 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, #100 Monterey, CA 93940 February 1, 2005 Table of Contents Scope and structure of report 1 Table 1: Ranking of species by data richness 2 Descriptions of data sources 3 Table 2: Summary of data by data source 10 Individual species reports and data summary tables Black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) 12 Black and yellow rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas) 16 Blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) 20 Brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) 24 Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) 28 Calico rockfish (Sebastes dalli) 32 China rockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) 35 Copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) 39 Gopher rockfish (Sebastes carnatus) 42 Grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger) 46 Kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) 50 Kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens) 53 Monkeyface prickleback eel (Cebidichthys violaceus) 57 Olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) 60 Quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) 63 Rock greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus) 66 Scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata) 68 Sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) 71 Treefish (Sebastes serriceps) 74 Scope and structure of report The purpose of this report is to summarize the data sources that are available for the 19 nearshore species identified in the Nearshore Fisheries Management Plan (NFMP), to provide a means for the California Fish and Game to determine which species have enough data to assess and where more data need to be collected.
    [Show full text]