Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-08

SPATIAL AND SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE BIOMASS AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE FISHES ASSOCIATED WITH A PETROLEUM PLATFORM OFF THE CALIFORNIA COAST, 2008-2010 Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform off the California Coast, 2008-2010

Authored by: Mary M. Nishimoto and Milton S. Love

Submitted by: Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Prepared under: MMS Cooperative Agreement No.: M08AX12732

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Pacific OCS Region Camarillo, CA, 93010

March 2011

Disclaimer The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U. S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U. S. Government.

Availability Available for viewing and in PDF at: www.lovelab.id.ucsb.edu Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Pacific OCS Region 770 Paseo Camarillo Camarillo, CA 93010 805-389-7621

Milton Love Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805-893-2935

Suggested Citation Nishimoto, M. M. and M. S. Love. 2011. Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform off the California Coast, 2008-2010. BOEMRE OCS Study 2011-08. Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. MMS Coopera- tive Agreement No.: M08AX12732. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Technical Summary v

Study Products viii

Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform off the California Coast, 2008-2010 1

Appendix 1 38

Appendix 2 62

Appendix 3 88

Appendix 4 102

Appendix 5 123

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Study Title: Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform off the California Coast, 2008-2010 Report Title: Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform off the California Coast, 2008-2010 Contract Numbers: M08AX12732 Sponsoring OCS Region: Pacific Applicable Planning Area: Central and Southern California Fiscal Years of Project Funding: 2008–2011 Completion Date of the Report: March 2011 Costs: $460,000 Cumulative Project Cost: $460,000 Principal Investigator: Milton Love Key Words: oil platforms, platforms, California, rockfishes,Sebastes , decommissioning, platform decommissioning

Background and Objectives energy, or recruitment, it is important to determine if The BOEMRE defines decommissioning as the platforms provide critical habitat for early life his- process of ending oil, gas, or sulfur operations and tory stages. returning the lease or pipeline right-of-way to a con- Previous BOEMRE-supported research has estab- dition that meets the requirements of the regulations. lished that there can be extremely large numbers of The BOEMRE will conduct detailed environmental young-of-the-year (YOY) rockfishes (of several spe- reviews of any proposed decommissioning projects cies) inhabiting the midwater portions of oil platforms. to evaluate the impacts from platform removal on This research documents that 1) Some rockfish species regional fish populations. When a platform is disas- (such as bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis) recruit at sembled, habitat is removed, and numerous fishes and far higher densities to some platforms compared to invertebrates are killed. However, yet unknown are the most natural reefs, at densities that are large enough impacts of platform removal on regional populations to later positively impact the abundance of the adult of coastal organisms, particularly the economically stock; 2) These juvenile rockfishes may be at least important rockfish species, on the Pacific Outer Con- as healthy (as measured by growth rates) as similar tinental Shelf (OCS). The assessment of the effects of fishes on natural reefs; 3) Subsurface currents likely platform activities and of the habitat created by the deliver juvenile rockfishes to the platforms at 25 m or structure of platforms on marine populations greatly deeper; 4) The timing of settlement pulses is related bears upon decommissioning issues, as questions to variability in current patterns, suggesting that the about essential fish habitat and the ecological role of offshore location and the vertical structure of plat- Pacific OCS platforms are still unresolved. forms serve an important function for recruitment (i.e., Platform decommissioning alternatives fall into settlement) of juvenile rockfishes; 5) In the absence four general categories: complete removal (the default of a platform, many of the young-of-year rockfishes option), toppling, partial removal, and leave-in-place. would not have been transported by currents to natural The suite of decommissioning alternatives that pro- reefs and would have perished before finding settle- poses to leave part or all of the abandoned platform ment habitat. structure in the marine environment is often collec- However, in order to understand the environmen- tively referred to as “rigs-to-reefs.” At this time there tal consequences of the various decommissioning are several key issues in the Pacific OCS platform alternatives on local and regional fish populations, decommissioning and reefing debate. Because fish there is a need to know the importance of the platform populations are usually limited by available habitat, as depth-stratified fish habitat when compared to ad-

v jacent natural reefs of comparable depths. Platforms (b) fish recruitment to natural reefs whose crests are are structurally similar to pinnacles that steeply rise at depths of 20-35 m (the possible platform topping from the deep to shallow waters. Such natural features, depths) were surveyed using scuba to characterize the which have been shown to harbor high densities of recruiting fish assemblage that might be expected to juvenile fishes, are uncommon along the Califor- settle on a topped platform.; and (c) a novel experi- nia coast. This study was designed to evaluate the ment employing fish aggregation devices (FADs) was importance of the vertical structure of the platform designed to evaluate the importance of the shallow as settlement (i.e., recruitment) habitat for juvenile portion of platforms (<25 m) for recruitment. rockfishes, particularly in regard to a decommission- Our specific tasks in regard to the second ques- ing alternative of cutting off the top of a platform tion were to identify (a) what species recruit to and leaving a subsurface, vertical structure in place. platforms and natural reefs, and (b) the differences The primary goal of the present study is to fill and similarities of species composition, density, and gaps in information about the spatial and depth recruitment timing among platforms and natural variability in recruitment of juvenile fishes to POCS reefs. Our findings provide useful information for platforms and natural reefs off of the California coast, comparing platforms (and natural reefs) as habitat particularly in order to analyze the environmental for young rockfishes. consequences of partial platform removal on local and regional fish populations. Significant Results Visual surveys of fishes were conducted by scuba Description at seven oil platforms, seven natural reefs, and three The purpose of this study is to provide BOEMRE shipwrecks from Avila Beach, central California, with information that can be used to determine the to Long Beach, southern California, during sum- potential importance of platforms to the recruitment mer of 2008 and 2009 as scheduled for this project. and survival of depleted fish stocks. In the decommis- Sites were surveyed between one and five times in sioning process, it will be important to understand the each year. After numerous reports of relatively high role that platforms play as rockfish nursery grounds. abundances of recruiting YOY rockfishes in the Santa BOEMRE defined the following questions: Barbara Channel region in spring 2010, we revisited 1) What is the effect of depth on juvenile fish den- most of the platforms, reefs, and wrecks at least once sity, size distribution, and species composition through the summer. This study provides two lines of along the vertical structure of platforms? evidence that indicate that rockfishes likely will recruit 2) Do platforms provide critical habitat for early to platforms topped to subsurface depths between life history stages? What is the recruitment 25 and 30 m (the partial removal decommissioning value of a platform? option). The evidence is that: (1) young-of-the-year To address these information needs of BOEMRE, (YOY) rockfishes are uncommon in shallow waters at we conducted scuba surveys of the fish assemblages platforms; and (2) YOY rockfishes recruit to natural around seven platforms that represent all of the reefs and artificial structures (wrecks) that crest at various environmental parameters these structures depths comparable to where decommissioned plat- encounter. California platforms are sited in a variety forms would be topped. The implication from this of water masses, bottom depths, and distances from study that rockfishes would recruit to a number of shore. We also conducted scuba surveys on seven the topped platforms is in agreement with surveys of representative reefs and three shipwrecks that are in deeper-water reefs that note high, although localized, 25 to 30 m of water and that occupy the same water densities of YOY rockfishes. masses as surveyed platforms. Previous studies show Overall, 67 taxa were observed during the two that most rockfish recruitment at platforms occurs scheduled survey seasons (2008 and 2009) and the below 25 m; however, reefs of comparable depth had supplemental survey season (2010) combined: 45 yet to be surveyed before our study commenced. taxa were seen at platforms, 53 taxa at reefs, and 50 This study addresses the first question in three taxa at wrecks. At the platforms, 21 rockfish species ways: (a) the platform scuba surveys were conducted were observed; the most abundant were bocaccio, at three different depths to give some indication of shortbelly rockfish, squarespot rockfish, and widow what depth young fishes recruit from the plankton; rockfish. With only two exceptions, all rockfish species vi with juvenile or adult representatives on platforms Non-rockfishes, in contrast with rockfishes, occurred as recently settled YOY in that habitat. Only generally were most abundant at the two shallower five rockfish species did not occur at the platforms and levels of the platforms during the two scheduled were found at either or both reefs and wrecks. Among survey seasons and the supplemental survey season. the 10 most abundant fish taxa at platforms in the two Jack mackerel, a schooling pelagic species, and black- scheduled surveys combined, six were non-rockfishes: smith, a schooling nearshore reef species, were the blacksmith, jack mackerel, jacksmelt (or topsmelt), predominant non-rockfish taxa. Also numerous on Pacific sardine, sharpnose seaperch, and halfmoon. occasion were other schooling species: jacksmelt (or The shell mound at the Platform Hazel site was sur- topsmelt) and halfmoon. All of these schooling species veyed in November 2008 and only a few fish of four have warm water affinities. Rockfishes and cabezon, species (YOY calico rockfish, YOY vermillion rockfish, species with cold water affinities, tended to be found blackeye goby, and YOY sheephead) were observed. at the deep 30-m level of platforms. Non-rockfishes Species-specific summaries of habitat use by rockfishes 12 cm TL and less were more abundant by an order of and non-rockfishes that are numerically important at magnitude at platforms off San Pedro than platforms the platforms and their size distributions are reported. in the Santa Barbara Channel during the two sched- A consistent pattern among the two scheduled uled survey years; in contrast in 2010, the smaller size survey seasons and the supplemental survey season class of non-rockfishes was uncommon at Ellen and was the rarity of YOY rockfishes at the shallowest level Eureka. Conspicuously rare were non-rockfishes at of the platforms. In 2008, only one YOY rockfish was the northernmost platform, Irene; and like rockfishes, observed at the shallowest level among all platforms; non-rockfishes were absent from the shallowest level. in 2009, only 89 YOY rockfishes were observed at the Irene is located off Point Conception, where wind- shallowest level of platforms. Moreover, YOY rockfish- induced upwelling occurs through much of the year es predominated the assemblage at the deepest level with strong currents directed offshore and turbulent of the platforms with bocaccio, shortbelly rockfish, wave surges in surface waters. squarespot rockfish, and widow rockfish as the most The relative abundance of total YOY rockfishes abundant of 21 rockfish taxa observed. YOY rockfish among platforms reefs and wrecks differed between recruitment at the platforms generally was greater in the two scheduled survey seasons. In 2008 the density 2009 than in 2008, and higher densities at the deep- of YOY rockfishes at reefs and wrecks was no greater est level of the platforms accounted for the increase. than the density at the middle and deep levels of the Other than the concentration of YOY rockfishes platforms. In contrast, in 2009, rockfish densities at at the deeper levels of the structures, there was no the deepest level of platforms exceeded the densities consistent pattern in overall YOY rockfish densities at reefs and wrecks. YOY rockfish assemblages at among the platforms between years. In 2008, the aver- platforms changed between years due to the recruit- age YOY rockfish density was two orders of magnitude ment of different YOY species; whereas, in contrast, higher at Platform Irene than at the other platforms the composition of the YOY rockfish assemblage at due to a single observation of a very large school of reefs and wrecks were more consistent between years widow rockfish at the middle and deep levels. Rockfish and similar among sites. The assemblages from the recruitment was weak among the other platforms two deeper levels of the platforms, reefs and wrecks in 2008 except for squarespot rockfish at Platform were more similar in 2008 than in 2009. In 2009, the Ellen recruiting to the deepest level. In contrast, in assemblages of the two deeper platform habitats dif- 2009, YOY rockfish densities were highest at Platform fered from reef habitat; the relatively high density of Gilda. Average densities increased at least two orders YOY bocaccio at the two deeper platform level habitats of magnitude at this platform and at B, Grace, and and squarespot rockfish at reef habitat primarily ac- Eureka from the previous year. In 2010, YOY rockfish counted for the dissimilarity. densities at Gilda, Grace, and Gina, three platforms The supplemental surveys in 2010 documented a clustered with Gail near the eastern entrance of the strong recruitment year for rockfishes. Clearly, YOY Channel, far exceeded densities at all platforms in rockfish densities increased at platforms, reefs, and the two previous years. The increase in each year was wrecks in 2010 from the previous years. Moreover, primarily due to bocaccio recruitment to the deepest YOY rockfish densities at reefs in 2010 increased by level of the platforms. an order of magnitude from the previous year to

vii exceed YOY densities at platforms in 2010. In the STUDY PRODUCTS two previous years combined, jackmackerel and blacksmith dominated the reef assemblage by total Report count. In contrast, in 2010, YOY shortbelly rockfish Love, M. S. and M. M. Nishimoto. 2009. Spatial and bocaccio each outnumbered all non-rockfishes and seasonal variation in the biomass and size distri- counted in the two previous years. YOY squarespot bution of juvenile fishes associated with a petroleum rockfish also were far more abundant in 2010. Simi- platform off the California coast, 2008 Annual Report. larly at the wrecks in 2010, rockfishes, namely YOY (U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Manage- bocaccio, squarespot rockfish, and blue rockfish, were ment Service, Camarillo, CA, 93010, OCS Study MMS) more abundant than all non-rockfishes combined. Strong recruitment of YOY rockfishes in 2010 clearly Poster contributed to the decline in the importance of non- Nishimoto, M. M. and M. S. Love. The vertical rockfishes from the previous two years and changes distribution of young-of-year rockfishes at platforms: in the relative importance of species in the rockfish the lowdown on partial removal for rig-to-reef con- assemblage at all habitats. version. 16th Western Groundfish Conference, April In summary, the findings from this study show 26 – 30, 2010, Juneau, AK. that YOY rockfish densities typically are concentrated below the shallow portion of the platform that would be removed should a platform be partially left in place when decommissioned. Additionally, YOY rockfish re- cruit to reefs and wrecks and these assemblages do not necessarily differ from the assemblage found between 25 and 30 m at platforms. Thus, it is plausible that the environmental consequences on local and regional rockfish populations from the partial removal of any of the platforms in this study will not be significant. However, to complicate the matter, the YOY rockfish assemblage and the abundance of YOY vary spatially and temporally among platforms. If the consequences of full removal of platforms, on a rig-by-rig basis, must be evaluated, then it is particularly important to determine the contribution of each platform to the fish stock in the region.

viii Spatial and Seasonal Variation in the Biomass and Size Distribution of Juvenile Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform Off The California Coast, 2008-2010

ABSTRACT deepest level (26-35 m) of the platforms with bocaccio, The assessment of the effects of platform ac- widow rockfish, and squarespot rockfish as the most tivities and of the habitat created by the structure of abundant of 17 rockfish taxa observed. YOY rockfish petroleum platforms on marine populations greatly recruitment at the platforms generally was greater in bears upon decommissioning issues. The suite of 2009 than in 2008, and higher densities at the deep- decommissioning alternatives that proposes to leave est level of the platforms accounted for the increase. part or all of the abandoned platform structure in the Supplementary data for this study from additional marine environment is often collectively referred to scuba surveys in 2010 are summarized. We revisited as “rigs-to-reefs.” The primary goal of this study was most of the platforms, reefs, and wrecks in 2010 at to evaluate the importance of the vertical structure of least once during summer 2010 after numerous re- the platform as settlement (i.e., recruitment) habitat ports of relatively high abundances of recruiting YOY for juvenile rockfishes, particularly in regard to the rockfishes in the Santa Barbara Channel region. YOY decommissioning alternative of cutting off the top of a rockfish densities in all habitats (platforms, reefs, and platform and leaving a subsurface, vertical structure in wrecks) increased markedly in 2010 above levels in the place. We conducted visual surveys of fishes by scuba two previous years with the effect most pronounced at at seven oil platforms, seven natural reefs, and three reefs. As in 2008 and 2009, the densities of rockfishes shipwrecks from Avila Beach, central California, to in 2010 were highest at the deepest level of platforms. Long Beach, southern California, during the summers The additional surveys in 2010 suggest that in years of 2008 and 2009. Overall, 65 fish taxa were observed of relatively poor recruitment (e.g., 2008 and 2009), during the two survey seasons combined: 44 taxa platforms play a more significant role as nursery were seen at platforms, 49 taxa at reefs, and 49 taxa habitat for regional populations of juvenile rockfishes. at wrecks. At the platforms, 17 rockfish species were observed; the most abundant were bocaccio, widow INTRODUCTION rockfish, squarespot rockfish, and shortbelly rockfish. Although hundreds of thousands of juvenile With only two exceptions, all rockfish species with rockfishes sometimes inhabit the midwaters of Pacific juvenile or adult representatives on platforms oc- Outer Continental Shelf platforms (e.g., Love et al. 2003, curred as recently settled young-of-the-year (YOY) in 2010), the role that platforms play as nursery grounds that habitat. Among the 10 most abundant fish taxa for a number of commercially and recreationally ex- at platforms, six were non-rockfishes: blacksmith, ploited species is not well understood. Understanding jack mackerel, jacksmelt/topsmelt, Pacific sardine, this role is of critical importance to the Bureau of Ocean sharpnose seaperch, and halfmoon which are all Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement schooling species with warm-water affinities. This (BOEMRE) and the State of California in assessing the study provides two lines of evidence that indicate that ramifications of different platform decommissioning rockfishes likely will recruit to platforms topped to options (Holbrook et al. 2000; Bernstein et al. 2010). subsurface depths between 25 and 30 m (the partial re- Platform decommissioning alternatives fall into moval decommissioning option). The evidence is that: four general categories: complete removal (the default (1) YOY rockfishes are uncommon in shallow waters at option), toppling, partial removal, and leave-in-place. platforms; and (2) YOY rockfishes recruit to reefs and The suite of decommissioning alternatives that pro- wrecks and these assemblages do not necessarily differ poses to leave part or all of the abandoned platform from the assemblage found between 25 and 30 m at structure in the marine environment is often col- platforms. A consistent pattern between the two years lectively referred to as “rigs-to-reefs.” In a technical of scuba surveys was the rarity of YOY rockfishes at the analysis to inform State policy on platform decommis- shallowest level (5-11 m) of the platforms. Moreover, sioning, Bernstein et al. (2010) assessed that there will YOY rockfishes predominated the assemblage at the be much less biological production under the complete

1 removal option compared to the partial removal op- reef fishes are subject to dispersal by ocean currents tion. The potential impacts of partial removal on the while in the plankton for days to months depending nursery function of platforms concern Federal and on species. Thus, local and regional current patterns State marine resource managers charged with ensur- will influence the composition of species that recruit ing marine population sustainability and stakeholders from the plankton to an individual platform or reef, that include but are not limited to recreational and and affect the distribution of these YOY populations commercial fishers, scuba divers, and conservationists. across habitats in the region. The newly enacted California Marine Resources Legacy The distribution of the platforms spans a biogeo- Act authorizes the California Department of Fish and graphic transition zone between the cold Oregonian Game to approve the conversion of a decommissioned and warm San Diegan marine provinces of the Califor- rig in State or Federal waters into an artificial reef if nia Current System where a great diversity of marine beneficial to the environment compared to the alterna- organisms of both warm- and cold-water affinities tive of complete removal. BOEMRE is the lead agency occur (Hickey et al. 2003; Pondella et al. 2005). To the for permitting the decommissioning of individual north and at the western entrance of the Santa Barbara platforms in Federal waters (Schroeder and Love 2004). Channel, cool waters of the California Current flow Previous scuba and submersible studies show that southward along the outer shelf, and colder, nutrient- different fish and invertebrate species tend to occur at rich water upwells nearshore and flows offshore over different depths on the platforms. The depths at which the shelf. Through much of the spring and summer fish recruit and the depths that adults inhabit vary when the YOY of rockfishes and many other reef fishes markedly among species. Young-of-year (YOY) of a recruit to coastal habitat, upwelling occurs off Point variety of shallow-dwelling and deep-dwelling benthic Arguello and Point Conception where four north- reef fish species recruit from the plankton primarily to ernmost platforms (including Platform Irene) are the upper depths of the platform structure (e.g., Carr situated. In contrast, seven southernmost platforms et al. 2003, Love et al. 2003). Furthermore, the relative (including Platforms Ellen and Eureka) are bathed in densities of the YOY of many common rockfish species warmer currents that flow northward from Mexico. can be far greater on platforms than on reefs. Some of Within the Santa Barbara Channel, platforms are dis- these species remain on the platforms for only part of tributed along a gradient between these two extremes. their lives while others reside at the manmade habitats The generalized circulation pattern in the Channel is through much of adult life as documented by annual cyclonic (counterclockwise in direction) during the submersible surveys that have been conducted since spring and summer when the YOY of rockfishes and 1995 (Love et al. 2003). These findings collectively gen- many other reef fishes recruit (Harms and Winant erated what is now a long-standing concern that partial 1998). Relatively warm currents from the Southern removal of the shallow portion of a platform (above ~ 25 California Bight flow westward along the mainland m depth), may decrease the number of YOY rockfishes shelf and slope while cooler currents flow eastward that recruit to the converted structure (Carr et al. 2003). along the Channel Islands. During this period, wa- Twenty-seven active offshore production plat- ters in the western half of the Channel generally are forms are distributed in State and Federal waters cooler than waters in the eastern Channel. Regional from just north of Point Arguello to south off Orange and local oceanographic conditions, such as current County. The oil platforms extend throughout the wa- flow patterns, temperature and salinity, and nutrient ter column from the ocean bottom to the surface. The concentrations, are variable seasonally and interannu- platforms are located between 1.9 and 16.9 km from ally (Lynn and Simpson 1987; Bjorkstedt et al. 2010). shore and at depths ranging from 11-363 m (Love et Changes in fish species abundance and distribution, al. 2010). Details regarding platform dimensions and reproduction, YOY recruitment, and survivorship placement are found in Love et al. (2003). have been associated with the phenomena of El Nino/ The diversity in the species assemblage of YOY La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillations (Lenarz et fishes around platforms is not only related to the al. 1995; McGowan et al. 1998). vertical structure of the platform, geographic loca- The primary goal of this study is to fill gaps in tion, and bottom depth of the platform, but also information about the spatial and vertical depth vari- coastal oceanography (Love et al. 2003, 2010; Nishi- ability in recruitment of rockfishes to POCS platforms moto et al. 2008). The early life stages of most coastal and natural reefs off of the California coast, particu-

2 larly to provide data that can be used in future analyses the design of each platform may vary. Level 1 ranged of the environmental consequences of partial platform from 5-11 m, level 2 11-22 m, and level 3 26-35 m. removal on local and regional fish populations. For Two slightly different sampling methodologies example, at the time of this study, Bernstein et al. were employed when conducting fish surveys on (2010) identified the lack of recruitment data from natural reefs and shipwrecks. First, using a retractable platforms and reefs for species other than bocaccio transect tape one diver would count and estimate sizes which limited the modeling of local biological pro- of all fishes encountered along belt transects 30 m in duction at platforms and the estimation of impacts length x 2 m wide x 2 m high. In addition, another of partial platform removal. Particularly lacking in observer would perform a series of five-minute fish previous studies has been information on fish recruit- counts. During these timed transects the diver would ment at natural reefs at intermediate depths between search for and count only young-of-the-year (YOY) 20 and 40 m. Rocky outcrops between 50 and 100 m rockfishes. These divers would look for rockfish YOY in the Southern California Bight are habitat for sev- in places where they are known to occur such as boul- eral species of YOY rockfish that commonly occur in der fields, crevices, and overhangs. Whenever possible either nearshore kelp beds or deeper-water reefs (Love at least three transects of each sampling method were and Schroeder 2007; Love et al. 2009). We conducted conducted during each survey (i.e., site visit). SCUBA surveys at platforms and at natural reefs and Fish counts from each oil platform survey were shipwrecks that are at depths of at least 25 m to col- converted to density estimates (fish/100 m2). The lect comparative data on what rockfish species settle lengths of the survey transects at the platforms were (i.e., recruit), their densities, and size distributions in measured by the divers. Fish density per platform was these habitats, as well as the depth at which rockfishes based on the total distance surveyed at each structure. recruit at platforms. In addition, a novel experiment Although the observer’s swim pattern was consistent employing fish aggregation devices (FADs), was among platforms (Fig. 2), the lengths of the survey designed to evaluate the importance of the shallow transects varied among the structures of different portion of platforms (<25 m) for recruitment. sizes. We also estimated fish density per level per platform. The areal coverage differed among the three METHODS levels at each platform. Fish densities (fish/100 2m ) at the natural reefs, SURVEYS AT PLATFORMS, REEFS, shipwrecks, and the Hazel shell mound were estimated AND SHIPWRECKS from belt transect surveys. For each survey, the aver- Visual surveys of fishes were conducted by scuba age number of fish per 30 m transect was calculated at oil platforms, natural reefs, and shipwrecks from and then standardized to number of fish/100 m2. In Avila Beach, central California, to Long Beach, south- 2008, density estimates were based on three to eleven ern California, during Summer of 2008 and 2009 (Fig. transects per survey. In 2009, three transects were 1). Sampling months at each site are given in Table conducted during each survey. 1. Sites were surveyed between one and five times in The timed fish surveys provided relative abun- each year. Seven oil platforms, seven natural reefs, dances of young-of-year rockfish species by rank. Four and three shipwrecks were surveyed. In addition, the Mile Reef was sufficiently deep (restricting bottom shell mound at the site where Platform Hazel was time) and steep to preclude belt transect sampling. removed was surveyed once in 2008. Divers recorded Fish densities were estimated for two size classes: both the abundance and total length of each fish en- 1) less than or equal to 12 cm TL; 2) greater than 12 countered. All divers engaged in visual surveys were cm TL. We defined the smaller size class to include all first thoroughly trained in fish species identification YOY rockfishes, and refer to this size class as such. We and size estimation. compared YOY rockfish assemblages at levels of the During each oil platform survey divers recorded platforms, reefs, and wrecks using methods of multi- observations within a 2 m wide x 2 m high window dimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and analysis of while swimming a pattern that covered the four similarity (PRIMER). Species densities were square corners and major horizontal support beams of the root transformed for the assemblage analyses. platform at three different depths (Fig. 2). The depths Supplementary data from additional scuba of these levels differ somewhat between platforms as surveys in 2010 are summarized in this report (Ap-

3 Avila Beach

San Luis

C A LF IO R N AI

Irene Pt. Arguello

Santa Pt. Conception Barbara

SM1 X Four Mile Santa Maria Basin Holly B Santa Barbara Channel Area X Ventura Detailed Area Gilda Detailed Super Pin Grace San Miguel Egg Rock Gina Island Gail

Anacapa Santa Rosa Admirals Island Island Santa Cruz The Nine Island

Palos Long Beach Figure 1. Map of the study area. Scuba surveys were conducted at sites Verdes from Avila Beach, central California to Long Beach, southern California, Avalon during Summer of 2008–2010. Circles demarcate platforms in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa Barbara Channel (large map) and on the San Olympic

Pedro shelf and slope (small map). The platforms surveyed in this study Ellen are designated by name. Surveyed reefs and wrecks are labeled by name and demarcated by stars and squares, respectively. The two sites where the Eureka Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) experiment was conducted, near Platform Holly and Platform B, are labeled X. pendix 4). We revisited most of the platforms, reefs, Catalina and wrecks in 2010 at least once during summer 2010 Island after numerous reports of relatively high abundances Farnsworth of recruiting YOY rockfishes in the Santa Barbara Bank Channel region. Two platforms, Gina and Gail, which were not surveyed in 2008 or 2009, were surveyed in 2010 (Fig. 1). The same visual survey methodology During Spring 2009, Fish Aggregating Devices was used in 2010 as in the two previous years. (FADs) were deployed as platform analogs to evalu- Appendix 5 provides the locations and descrip- ate the importance of the shallow water habitat (<25 tions of platforms, reefs, and wrecks surveyed, June m) for recruitment at platforms. The experiment to September, 2008–2010. was conducted at two sites, one within the area of Platform Holly, the other near Platforms A and B FISH AGGREGATING DEVICE (FAD) (Fig. 1, Table 2). EXPERIMENT A set of three experimental moorings and three control moorings were deployed at each site (Fig. 3). Each experimental mooring served as an analog of a

4 Table 1. Schedule of 3-level surveys at platforms and belt transect and timed transect surveys at reefs, wrecks, and shell mound in 2008 and 2009; n is number of 30-m belt transects completed during a survey visit to a reef, wreck, or shell mound with exception of Four Mile Reef where 5-minute transects were conducted.

2008 2009 Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 PLATFORMS HOLLY 6/3 6/24* 7/24* 8/21 9/26 6/9 7/7 8/4 9/9 GILDA 6/10 7/18 8/22 9/18 6/5 7/10 8/13 9/10 GRACE 6/10 7/18 8/19 9/18 6/5 7/10 8/13 9/10 B 6/17 7/17 8/26 9/16 5/19 6/23 8/6 9/8 ELLEN 7/9 9/13 7/17 8/21 EUREKA 7/9* 9/13 7/17* 8/21 IRENE 7/11 8/28* 9/23 5/29 8/19

REEFS Admirals 5/13 6/12 7/15 8/15 9/19 5/26 6/26 7/31 9/1 n 54865 3333 Egg Rock 5/16 6/27 9/4 9/25 5/22 8/11 9/2 n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Farnsworth 7/16 n 3 Nine 5/15 6/20 8/7 9/9 5/28 8/11 9/2 n 4 11 10 8 3 3 3 San Luis 9/5 9/24 8/28 n 5 6 3 Super Pin 5/16 6/27 9/4 9/25 5/22 8/11 9/2 n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Four Mile 6/26 7/29 7/31 9/8 6/11 7/20 9/3 n 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

WRECKS Avalon 7/8 9/12 7/15 8/20 n 3 3 3 3 Olympic 7/8 9/12 7/15 8/20 n 3 3 3 3 SM1 6/24 7/25 8/28 9/23 5/29 7/9 8/19 n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

SHELL MOUND Hazel 11/21 n 4

*partial survey at platform 5 dant at the upper FAD units than lower FAD units on the control moorings. Additionally, if recruits vertically migrated to deeper water after initially settling on shallow water habitat, the abundance of recruits would be greater on the deep FAD units on the control mooring than on the FAD units at comparable depth on the experi- mental mooring. Each FAD unit was comprised of two structures: 1) a SMURF (Standard Monitoring Units For the Recruitment of temperate reef Fishes), a 1 m x 0.25 m diameter plastic wide-mesh tube loosely stuffed with strips of plastic sheet- ing (Ammann 2004); and a Porcu- pine Fish Attractor© (2009 Patent pending, Cedars Ltd.), a spherical structure about 1.5 m diameter made of PVC rods radiating from a central orb. Scuba divers moni- tored the FAD moorings using two methods. First, the divers censused all fishes around the two types of FAD structures. Next, the divers encased the SMURF with a small- mesh net to retrieve, identify, in- Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the sampling transect pattern swum by scuba divers numerate, and measure the cryptic surveying three levels of a typical oil platform structure. The transect pattern was individuals that had settled within repeated on the opposite side of the platform to complete the survey. the SMURF. platform dismantled down to 25 m below the surface RESULTS and consisted of one FAD unit acting as juvenile fish settlement habitat at that depth. As would be the case SPECIES COMPOSITION IN THE THREE HABI- at a “topped” platform, no structure was available for TATS: PLATFORMS, REEFS, AND WRECKS fishes to settle upon above this FAD. Only a thin line, Overall, 65 fish taxa were observed during the which we presumed would have a negligible effect two scheduled survey seasons, 2008 and 2009 (Tables as structure for fish settlement in the water column, 3-8). Forty-four taxa were seen at platforms, 49 taxa ascended from the FAD unit at 25 m to a small surface at reefs from the 30-m transect surveys and the 5-min marker buoy. In contrast, each control mooring con- transect surveys, and 49 taxa at wrecks from the two sisted of one FAD unit about 25 m below the surface survey methods. as on the experimental mooring and another FAD Among the three habitats, twenty-two species unit at 6-9 m providing shallow settlement habitat as of rockfishes and three rockfish species complexes on an intact platform. (KGB, OYT, ROSY) were observed (Tables 4-7). The Our hypothesis was that if shallow water habitat complexes are designations for groups of rockfish is important for juvenile rockfish recruitment to species that are indistinguishable from one another as offshore structures, the recruits would be more abun- small YOY in visual surveys. Fish identified as “KGB”

6 Surface Marker (0.15m x 0.35m)

6-9m

23-29m

Subsurface Buoy (0.5m diameter)

Porcupine Fish 64-67m Attractor (1.5m diameter)

SMURF (1m length, 0.25m diameter)

Control FAD Experimental FAD

Anchor (chain)

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental (right) and control (left) moorings deployed in the Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) experiment.

7 Table 2. Survey schedule of the fish attraction device (FAD) experiment in 2009. Moorings 1-6 were deployed off Goleta near Platform Holly, moorings 7-12 off Santa Barbara off Platforms A and B on the initial date during round 1 or 2. Each mooring was revisited on subsequent dates. "NS", no survey conducted.

Mooring Top Bottom Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 1 x 2-Jun 16-Jun 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul NS NS NS 2 x x 2-Jun * 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug NS 3 x 2-Jun 16-Jun 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 4 x x NS 16-Jun 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 5 x 2-Jun 16-Jun 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 6 x x 2-Jun * 30-Jun 13-Jul 28-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 7 x 4-Jun 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 8 x x NS 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 9 x 4-Jun 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 10 x x 4-Jun 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 11 x 4-Jun 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep 12 x x 4-Jun 18-Jun 2-Jul 14-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 27-Aug 11-Sep

* Original mooring could not be located, and a replacement mooring was deployed complex are kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black- as YOY, juveniles, and adults at the reefs and wrecks. and-yellow rockfish. Fish identified as OYT are either Among the 10 most abundant fish taxa at plat- olive rockfish or yellowtail rockfish. Fish designated forms, six were non-rockfishes: blacksmith, jack ROSY are likely rosy rockfish or swordspine rockfish, mackerel, jacksmelt (or topsmelt), Pacific sardine, but may also be other members of the rockfish subge- sharpnose seaperch, and halfmoon (Table 4). These nus Sebastomus. Species-specific summaries of habitat non-rockfishes comprised 41% of the total fishes use by rockfishes that were numerically important at counted at platforms. Blacksmith (27% of all fishes the platforms in 2008 and 2009 are in Appendix 1. All counted) was second to bocaccio (45%) at platforms. rockfish species, except for brown rockfish and black- At reefs, jack mackerel (45%) and blacksmith (29%) and-yellow rockfish, occurred as recently settled YOY outnumbered all rockfishes (16%) (Table 5). At (12 cm TL and less) at one or more of the habitats. wrecks, blacksmith (41%), the most common non- Black-and-yellow rockfish less than 12 cm TL may rockfish, was equally abundant as all rockfishes com- have been counted but identified as KGB during the bined (41%) (Table 6). Species-specific summaries surveys at any of the three habitats. of habitat use by non-rockfishes that are numerically At the platforms, seventeen rockfish species, three important at the platforms are in Appendix 2. species complexes (KGB, OYT, ROSY), and a few Five non-rockfish taxa, atherinids, zebra perch, unidentified rockfishes were observed (Table 4). All ocean sunfish, YOY and adult sharpnose seaperch, and rockfish species with juvenile or adult representatives pipefish, were observed only at the platforms (Tables on the platform, with exception of brown rockfish and 4-8). Fifteen non-rockfish taxa occurring at the reefs black-and-yellow rockfish, occurred as recently settled or wrecks were not seen on platforms. Kelp perch, YOY in that habitat. black perch, unidentified kelpfish, spotfin surfperch, Only five rockfish species did not occur at the rainbow seaperch, bluebanded goby, lingcod, and platforms and were found at either or both reefs and rubberlip seaperch occurred on both reefs and wrecks. wrecks (Tables 4-6). YOY black rockfish and strip- Wolf-eel, giant kelpfish, California scorpionfish, tube- etail rockfish were observed only at the reefs (Table snout, barred sandbass, stripedfin ronquil, and giant 5). YOY and older juvenile starry rockfish and YOY seabass were exclusively observed at wrecks. china rockfish were found exclusively at the wrecks in At Four-Mile Reef, we used only the 5-minute the timed surveys. Vermillion rockfish were identified transect method to estimate the relative abundance

8 Table 3. List Tableof taxa 3. Listobserved of taxa observed in surveys, in surveys, 2008–2009, 2008 and 2009, at atplatforms, platforms, reefs, reefs, wrecks, wrecks, and shell and mounds shell with mounds with stage of developmentstage at of 12 development cm TL (YOY at 12 cm = TLYoung-Of-the (YOY = Young-Of-the Year). Year). Stage at 12 Family Scientific name Common name cm TL Anarhichadidae Anarrhichthys ocellatus wolf-eel immature Atherinidae Atherinops affinis or Atherinopsis californiensis topsmelt or jacksmelt immature Aulorhynchidae Aulorhynchus flavidus tube-snout mature Bathymasteridae Rathbunella hypoplecta stripedfin ronquil immature Rathbunella spp. ronquil spp. immature Carangidae Trachurus symmetricus jack mackerel YOY Clinidae Gibbonsia spp. kelpfish spp. immature Clinidae Heterostichus rostratus giant kelpfish immature Clupeidae Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine YOY Cottidae Cottidae sculpin spp. mature Cottidae Scorpaenichthys marmoratus cabezon YOY Embiotocidae Brachyistius frenatus kelp perch mature Embiotoca jacksoni black perch mature Embiotoca lateralis striped seaperch immature Hyperprosopon anale spotfin surfperch mature Hypsurus caryi rainbow seaperch immature Phanerodon atripes sharpnose seaperch immature Phanerodon furcatus white seaperch mature Rhacochilus toxotes rubberlip seaperch immature Rhacochilus vacca pile perch immature Gobiidae Lythrypnus dalli bluebanded goby mature Rhinogobiops nicholsii blackeye goby mature Hexagrammidae Hexagrammos decagrammus kelp greenling YOY Ophiodon elongatus lingcod YOY Oxylebius pictus painted greenling mature Kyphosidae Girella nigricans opaleye immature Hermosilla azurea zebra perch immature Medialuna californiensis halfmoon immature Labridae Oxyjulis californica senorita mature Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead YOY Molidae Mola mola ocean sunfish YOY Polyprionidae Stereolepis gigas giant seabass YOY Pomacentridae Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith immature Hypsypops rubicundus garibaldi immature Scorpaenidae Scorpaena guttata California scorpionfish immature Sebastes atrovirens kelp rockfish YOY Sebastes atrovirens, S. carnatus, or kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or S. chrysomelas black-and-yellow rockfish (KGB) YOY Sebastes auriculatus brown rockfish YOY Sebastes carnatus gopher rockfish YOY Sebastes caurinus copper rockfish YOY Sebastes chrysomelas black-and-yellow rockfish YOY Sebastes constellatus starry rockfish YOY Sebastes dalli calico rockfish mature Sebastes entomelas widow rockfish YOY Sebastes flavidus or S. serranoides yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) YOY Sebastes hopkinsi squarespot rockfish YOY Sebastes jordani shortbelly rockfish YOY Sebastes melanops black rockfish YOY Sebastes miniatus vermillion rockfish YOY Sebastes mystinus blue rockfish YOY Sebastes nebulosus china rockfish YOY Sebastes paucispinis bocaccio YOY Sebastes pinniger canary rockfish YOY Sebastes rastrelliger grass rockfish YOY Sebastes rosaceus rosy rockfish (ROSY)* mature Sebastes rubrivinctus flag rockfish immature Sebastes saxicola stripetail rockfish mature Sebastes semicinctus halfbanded rockfish mature Sebastes serranoides olive rockfish YOY Sebastes serriceps treefish YOY Sebastes spp yoy unidentified young-of-year rockfish YOY Sebastes umbrosus honeycomb rockfish mature Serranidae Paralabrax clathratus kelp bass YOY Paralabrax nebulifer barred sandbass YOY Syngnathidae Syngnathus californiensis kelp pipefish mature

*Likely primarily Sebastes rosaceus, but also possibly swordspine rockfish,Sebastes ensifer, or other species of subgenus Sebastomus. 9 of fishes less than 12 cm TL (Table 8). Squarespot 4, 5, and 6; Appendices 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c). Although rockfish was relatively common and the ROSY com- some consistencies among years were observed in plex and blue rockfish occurred in both survey years. the rockfish assemblage, the relative importance of The assemblage of newly recruited fishes changed several abundant species (% of total count) in each somewhat between 2008 and 2009. In 2008, the spe- of the three habitats (platforms, reefs, and wrecks) cies assemblage was dominated by squarespot rockfish varied between years. For example at the platforms, followed by ROSY complex and blacksmith. In 2009, bocaccio, widow rockfish, squarespot rockfish, and halfbanded rockfish numerically dominated the spe- shortbelly rockfish were the most abundant rockfish cies assemblage although it occurred on only one of taxa during the three years; however, their relative the survey dates, 3 September; also common were importance changed from year to year as recruitment squarespot rockfish and ROSY complex as in 2008. strength varied. We observed treefish, gopher rockfish, and stripetail Strong recruitment of YOY rockfishes in 2010 rockfish only in 2008, and bocaccio, copper rockfish, clearly contributed to the decline in the importance and vermillion rockfish only in 2009. of non-rockfishes from the previous two years and More taxa measuring less than 12 cm TL were changes in the relative abundance of species in the observed at the reefs and wrecks using the standard rockfish assemblage at all habitats. Blacksmith were transects (53 taxa) than timed transects (45 taxa) (data the most abundant non-rockfish YOY and the sec- not shown). However, some rare taxa were observed ond most abundant taxa at the platforms during only during 5-min transects. At reefs, 2 rainbow 2008 and 2009 comprising 27% of the total count. seaperch, 1 stripetail rockfish, and 6 unidentified However, in 2010, although by number blacksmith rockfish(es) occurred in the 5-min transect surveys, just edged out jack mackerel as the most abundant but were not observed in any 30-m transect surveys. non-rockfish species, YOY blacksmith declined to At the wrecks, 1 striped seaperch, 2 starry rockfish, 1 1.3% of the total count and were superseded by YOY china rockfish, 2 grass rockfish, and 5 ROSY complex shortbelly rockfish, squarespot rockfish and widow and 1 unidentified rockfish were observed exclusively rockfish in importance. As in the two previous years, in the 5-min transects. Taxa that were not observed YOY squarespot were abundant in 2010 at reefs; in the 30-m transect surveys were excluded in our however, their numbers were overtaken by shortbelly comparative analysis of the three habitats. and bocaccio which together comprised 89% of all The shell mound at the Platform Hazel site was fishes counted. In contrast, only one bocaccio was surveyed using the 30 m-transect method on one seen and no shortbelly rockfish were observed in the date, 21 November 2008, and only a few fish of four two previous years at reefs. The importance gained by species were observed (Table 7). They were YOY calico rockfishes over nonrockfishes at reefs in 2010 is seen rockfish, YOY vermillion rockfish, blackeye goby, and in their relative numbers. In the two previous years YOY sheephead. combined, jackmackerel and blacksmith were each The supplemental surveys in 2010 documented more abundant than all rockfishes combined by total a strong recruitment year for rockfishes. Although count. In contrast, in 2010, shortbelly rockfish and bo- fewer surveys were conducted in 2010 than in the two caccio each outnumbered all non-rockfishes counted previous years, increases in the total number of fishes in the two previous years. Squarespot rockfish were were pronounced at platforms and reefs, and YOY ac- four times more abundant than all non-rockfishes counted for the increase in counts (Tables 4, 5 and 6; combined by count in 2010. Similarly at the wrecks Appendices 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c). Clearly, YOY rockfish in 2010, rockfishes, namely YOY bocaccio, squarespot densities increased at platforms, reefs and wrecks in rockfish, and blue rockfish, each outnumbered all non- 2010 from the two previous years (Fig. 13a, Appendix rockfishes combined. Densities of species of rockfishes 4.2). Moreover, YOY rockfish density at the reefs in and non-rockfishes in 2010 at all habitats are reported 2010 increased by an order of magnitude from the in Appendices 4.4a and 4.4b. previous year to exceed densities at platforms in 2010. Fewer fish taxa were observed in 2010 than in the previous two years combined. In 2010, 21 rockfish taxa and 28 nonrockfish taxa were observed, and these were fewer than in the two previous years combined (Tables

10 Table 4. Rockfishes and non-rockfishes observed at platforms during the survey years , 2008 and 2008, com- bined . Included are number of fish in each taxon, proportion of total count, size range, count and proportion of fish 12 cm TL or less and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish Fish <= 12cmTL > 12cmTL % of Min Max % of % of Total total cm cm Total Total Common name Count count TL TL Count Count Count Count ROCKFISHES bocaccio 161991 44.6% 5 15 161923 100.0% 68 0.0% widow rockfish 27013 7.4% 4 8 27013 100.0% squarespot rockfish 12993 3.6% 3 25 11039 85.0% 1954 15.0% shortbelly rockfish 10000 2.8% 8 12 10000 100.0% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 386 0.1% 2 12 386 100.0% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 318 0.1% 2 16 313 98.4% 5 1.6% kelp rockfish 259 0.1% 8 40 11 4.2% 248 95.8% blue rockfish 242 0.1% 6 35 148 61.2% 94 38.8% copper rockfish 84 0.0% 5 40 41 48.8% 43 51.2% grass rockfish 55 0.0% 3 45 6 10.9% 49 89.1% treefish 37 0.0% 4 17 35 94.6% 2 5.4% rosy rockfish 25 0.0% 3 12 25 100.0% halfbanded rockfish 21 0.0% 6 10 21 100.0% gopher rockfish 12 0.0% 13 35 12 100.0% calico rockfish 8 0.0% 8 15 2 25.0% 6 75.0% flag rockfish 6 0.0% 10 16 1 16.7% 5 83.3% honeycomb rockfish 4 0.0% 6 6 4 100.0% canary rockfish 3 0.0% 8 11 3 100.0% black and yellow rockfish 2 0.0% 25 28 2 100.0% unidentified rockfish spp. 2 0.0% 4 5 2 100.0% brown rockfish 1 0.0% 35 35 1 100.0% NON-ROCKFISHES blacksmith 98174 27.0% 2 34 88417 90.1% 9757 9.9% jack mackerel 21680 6.0% 7 25 8610 39.7% 13070 60.3% jacksmelt or topsmelt 20700 5.7% 10 15 10200 49.3% 10500 50.7% Pacific sardine 5740 1.6% 4 16 5200 90.6% 540 9.4% sharpnose seaperch 1122 0.3% 10 24 100 8.9% 1022 91.1% halfmoon 786 0.2% 8 30 109 13.9% 677 86.1% painted greenling 495 0.1% 4 22 281 56.8% 214 43.2% California sheephead 357 0.1% 8 70 10 2.8% 347 97.2% garibaldi 201 0.1% 4 28 30 14.9% 171 85.1% kelp bass 197 0.1% 15 52 197 100.0% white seaperch 119 0.0% 15 25 119 100.0% pile perch 119 0.0% 14 40 119 100.0% cabezon 93 0.0% 7 75 6 6.5% 87 93.5% opaleye 78 0.0% 18 36 78 100.0% kelp greenling 39 0.0% 4 18 30 76.9% 9 23.1% senorita 9 0.0% 12 20 6 66.7% 3 33.3% sculpin spp. 8 0.0% 6 14 6 75.0% 2 25.0% blackeye goby 5 0.0% 8 13 3 60.0% 2 40.0% ocean sunfish 3 0.0% 42 90 3 100.0% pipefish 2 0.0% 20 22 2 100.0% striped seaperch 1 0.0% 18 18 1 100.0% zebra perch 1 0.0% 25 25 1 100.0% ronquil spp. 1 0.0% 10 10 1 100.0% Rockfishes 213462 58.7% 210973 98.8% 2489 1.2% Non-rockfishes 149930 41.3% 113009 75.4% 36921 24.6% Total 363392 100.0% 323982 89.2% 39410 10.8%

11 Table 5. RockfishesTable 5. Rockfishes and non-rockfishes and non-rockfishes observed observed at reefsat reefs during during 3030 m transect transect surveys surveys in intwo two years combined, 2008 and 2009.years Includedcombined, are2008 number and 2009. of Includedfish in areeach number taxon, of proportionfish in each taxon,of total proportion count, size of total range, count and pro- portion of fishcount, 12 size cm range, TL or countless andand proportiongreater than of fish 12 12 cm cm TLTL. or less and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish Fish <= 12cmTL > 12cmTL % of Min Max % of % of Total total cm cm Total Total Common name Count count TL TL Count Count Count Count ROCKFISHES squarespot rockfish 4609 12.5% 4 18 4608 100.0% 1 0.0% blue rockfish 1078 2.9% 5 40 283 26.3% 795 73.7% gopher rockfish 115 0.3% 7 38 12 10.4% 103 89.6% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 114 0.3% 5 16 109 95.6% 5 4.4% treefish 45 0.1% 4 38 23 51.1% 22 48.9% copper rockfish 33 0.1% 24 45 33 100.0% kelp rockfish 30 0.1% 8 30 13 43.3% 17 56.7% vermillion rockfish 18 0.0% 30 40 18 100.0% rosy rockfish 18 0.0% 5 28 17 94.4% 1 5.6% black and yellow rockfish 16 0.0% 24 40 16 100.0% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 13 0.0% 4 9 13 100.0% olive rockfish 12 0.0% 20 35 12 100.0% black rockfish 3 0.0% 5 6 3 100.0% canary rockfish 3 0.0% 12 15 2 66.7% 1 33.3% brown rockfish 1 0.0% 35 35 1 100.0% bocaccio 1 0.0% 8 8 1 100.0% NON-ROCKFISHES jack mackerel 16380 44.5% 12 12 16380 100.0% blacksmith 10559 28.7% 6 30 1895 17.9% 8664 82.1% senorita 1205 3.3% 3 20 159 13.2% 1046 86.8% Pacific sardine 1000 2.7% 10 10 1000 100.0% blackeye goby 375 1.0% 5 15 331 88.3% 44 11.7% painted greenling 365 1.0% 5 22 134 36.7% 231 63.3% California sheephead 201 0.5% 8 60 13 6.5% 188 93.5% spotfin surfperch 129 0.4% 5 7 129 100.0% pile perch 122 0.3% 10 40 3 2.5% 119 97.5% white seaperch 76 0.2% 14 24 76 100.0% black perch 63 0.2% 6 32 13 20.6% 50 79.4% rubberlip seaperch 53 0.1% 25 45 53 100.0% bluebanded goby 46 0.1% 5 6 46 100.0% kelp perch 25 0.1% 8 15 23 92.0% 2 8.0% lingcod 20 0.1% 40 75 20 100.0% kelp bass 11 0.0% 20 45 11 100.0% opaleye 9 0.0% 28 45 9 100.0% kelp greenling 8 0.0% 13 42 8 100.0% halfmoon 6 0.0% 35 40 6 100.0% California scorpionfish 6 0.0% 20 35 6 100.0% sculpin spp. 5 0.0% 8 13 4 80.0% 1 20.0% striped seaperch 3 0.0% 25 28 3 100.0% garibaldi 3 0.0% 22 24 3 100.0% wolf-eel 2 0.0% 15 15 2 100.0% giant kelpfish 2 0.0% 25 30 2 100.0% ronquil spp. 2 0.0% 16 18 2 100.0% cabezon 2 0.0% 45 45 2 100.0% kelpfish spp. 1 0.0% 12 12 1 100.0% Rockfishes 6109 16.6% 5084 83.2% 1025 16.8% Non-rockfishes 30679 83.4% 20131 65.6% 10548 34.4% Total 36788 100.0% 25215 68.5% 11573 31.5%

12 Table 6. RockfishesTable 6. Rockfishes and non-rockfishes and non-rockfishes observed observed at atwrecks wrecks duringduring 3030 m m transecttransect surveys surveys in twoin two years com- bined, 2008years and combined,2009. Included 2008 and are 2009. number Included of fish are number in each of taxon, fish in eachproportion taxon, proportion of total count, of total size range, count and proportioncount, of size fish range, 12 cm count TL andor less proportion and greater of fish 12than cm 12TL cmor less TL. and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish Fish <= 12cmTL > 12cmTL % of Min Max % of % of Total total cm cm Total Total Common name Count count TL TL Count Count Count Count

ROCKFISHES squarespot rockfish 2075 28.9% 4 9 2075 100.0% blue rockfish 372 5.2% 5 25 262 70.4% 110 29.6% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 261 3.6% 5 15 254 97.3% 7 2.7% brown rockfish 75 1.0% 20 45 75 100.0% kelp rockfish 42 0.6% 10 40 1 2.4% 41 97.6% olive rockfish 38 0.5% 12 40 4 10.5% 34 89.5% calico rockfish 17 0.2% 10 16 10 58.8% 7 41.2% vermillion rockfish 17 0.2% 12 15 9 52.9% 8 47.1% black and yellow rockfish 12 0.2% 20 28 12 100.0% copper rockfish 11 0.2% 9 30 7 63.6% 4 36.4% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 8 0.1% 4 8 8 100.0% gopher rockfish 8 0.1% 13 30 8 100.0% honeycomb rockfish 8 0.1% 7 24 3 37.5% 5 62.5% treefish 3 0.0% 16 30 3 100.0% widow rockfish 1 0.0% 4 4 1 100.0% bocaccio 1 0.0% 8 8 1 100.0% canary rockfish 1 0.0% 6 6 1 100.0%

NON-ROCKFISHES blacksmith 2961 41.2% 5 22 885 29.9% 2076 70.1% senorita 367 5.1% 12 18 306 83.4% 61 16.6% rubberlip seaperch 180 2.5% 20 40 180 100.0% pile perch 177 2.5% 7 40 5 2.8% 172 97.2% blackeye goby 145 2.0% 5 15 111 76.6% 34 23.4% painted greenling 108 1.5% 3 18 38 35.2% 70 64.8% black perch 101 1.4% 10 30 39 38.6% 62 61.4% California sheephead 82 1.1% 8 100 6 7.3% 76 92.7% ronquil spp. 26 0.4% 8 16 9 34.6% 17 65.4% lingcod 16 0.2% 50 80 16 100.0% stripedfin ronquil 13 0.2% 8 20 7 53.8% 6 46.2% white seaperch 12 0.2% 6 20 9 75.0% 3 25.0% kelp bass 9 0.1% 28 45 9 100.0% kelp perch 7 0.1% 12 15 7 100.0% opaleye 6 0.1% 30 35 6 100.0% garibaldi 6 0.1% 22 29 6 100.0% cabezon 6 0.1% 35 45 6 100.0% kelp greenling 5 0.1% 30 40 5 100.0% rainbow seaperch 4 0.1% 12 20 3 75.0% 1 25.0% sculpin spp. 3 0.0% 8 12 3 100.0% tube-snout 1 0.0% 10 10 1 100.0% kelpfish spp. 1 0.0% 14 14 1 100.0% spotfin surfperch 1 0.0% 9 9 1 100.0% bluebanded goby 1 0.0% 6 6 1 100.0% barred sandbass 1 0.0% 40 40 1 100.0% giant seabass 1 0.0% 100 100 1 100.0%

Rockfishes 2950 41.0% 2636 89.4% 314 10.6% Non-Rockfishes 4240 59.0% 1424 33.6% 2816 66.4% Total 7190 100.0% 4060 56.5% 3130 43.5% 13 Table 7. Rockfishes and non-rockfishes observed at shell mound Table 7. Rockfishesat the and Platform non-rockfishes Hazel removal observed site. at shell Included mound are at at number the Platform of fish Hazel in removal site. Included are number of fish in each taxon, proportion of total count, and size range. each taxon, proportion of total count, size range.

Total % of total Min cm Max cm Common name Count count TL TL Shell mound ROCKFISHES calico rockfish 6 35.3% 3 10 vermillion rockfish 3 17.6% 12 12

NON-ROCKFISHES blackeye goby 6 35.3% 8 12 California sheephead 2 11.8% 2 2

Rockfishes 9 52.9% Non-rockfishes 8 47.1% Total 17 100.0%

Table 8. Rockfishes and non-rockfish, 12 cm TL and less, observed at Four-Mile Table 8.reef Rockfishes during 5-minute and non-rockfish, transect surveys 12 cm TL in and2008 less, and observed 2009; totalat Four-Mile number Reef of fish during 5-minute transect surveysobserved in 2008 and in two2009; years total numbercombined, of fish and observed total count in two and years number combined, of fish and per total survey count and number of fish perobserved survey observed in each in year each (mean, year (mean, s.d., N=numbers.d., N=number of surveys). of surveys).

2008 and 2009 (N=7) 2008 (N=4) 2009 (N=3) Mean Mean Total Total fish/ Total fish/ Common name count count survey s.d. count survey s.d. squarespot rockfish 1578 1031 116.0 135.6 547 60.8 31.0 halfbanded rockfish 1385 1385 153.9 266.5 rosy rockfish 109 68 6.4 7.3 41 4.6 3.7 blacksmith 25 25 3.1 6.3 treefish 4 2 0.3 0.5 2 0.2 0.4 blue rockfish 4 4 0.3 0.7 bocaccio 3 3 0.3 0.6 copper rockfish 2 2 0.2 0.4 vermillion rockfish 2 2 0.2 0.4 blackeye goby 1 1 0.1 0.3 gopher rockfish 1 1 0.1 0.2 stripetail rockfish 1 1 0.1 0.2

14 All Platforms All Platforms 4a 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=24 4c 2008, Non-rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=24 4000 3000 1000 ) . )

2000 . 750 d . d 1000 . 500 s s

1 600 1 400

+ + ( 2 ( 2 m 300 400 m 0 0 100 0

/ 1

200 / ish

200 sh F i

F 100

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep

2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=22 2009, Non-rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=22 4000 3000 1000 ) . ) 750 . 2000 d . d

. 1000

s 500

s

600 1

400 1 + + ( ( 2 2 300 m 400 m 10 0 100

/ 200 / sh i

ish 200 F F 100

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep 4b 4d 2008, Rockfishes, greater than 12 cm TL, N=24 2008, Non-rockfishes, greater than 12 cm TL, N=24 60 1000 ) ) . 40 .

d 750 d . . s 20 s

500 1 1

10 + + ( ( 2 2 m m 200 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

/ 5 / sh sh i i 100 F F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep 2009, Rockfishes, greater than 12 cm TL, N=22 2009, Non-rockfishes, greater than 12 cm TL, N=22 ) . 60

d 1000 . s

40

) 750 1 .

d . + 20

s 500

( 2 10 1

m + ( 2 200 10 0

m / sh i 10 0

5 F / 100 sh i F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep Platform level Platform level Figure 4. Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d., N=total number of visits) of: (a) rockfishes 12 cm TL or less; (b) rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL; (c) non-rockfishes 12 cm TL or less; and (d) non-rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three platform levels. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m. 15 5a 5b 2008, Fish <12 cm TL 2009, Fish <12 cm TL 2008, Fish >12 cm TL 2009, Fish >12 cm TL Rockfishes Rockfishes Rockfishes Rockfishes

IRENE IRENE IRENE IRENE

HOLLY HOLLY HOLLY HOLLY

B B B B m r o GILDA GILDA f GILDA GILDA atfor m a t l l P P

GRACE GRACE GRACE GRACE

ELLEN ELLEN ELLEN ELLEN

EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 3 6 1 9 0 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 00 0 00 0 7 5 2 1 2 00 0 1 2 10 0 12 5 50 0 1 Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Shallow level Middle level Deep level 2008, Fish <12 cm TL 2009, Fish <12 cm TL 2008, Fish >12 cm TL 2009, Fish >12 cm TL 5c Non-rockfishes Non-rockfishes 5d Non-rockfishes Non-rockfishes

IRENE IRENE IRENE IRENE

HOLLY HOLLY HOLLY HOLLY

B B B B m o r

GILDA GILDA f t GILDA GILDA atfor m a l l P P

GRACE GRACE GRACE GRACE

ELLEN ELLEN ELLEN ELLEN

EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 0 15 0 20 0 00 0 00 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 20 0 40 0 1 2 3 Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Fish/100 m2 (+1 s.d.) Figure 5. Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of (a) rockfishes 12 cm TL or less; (b) rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL; (c) non-rockfishes 12 cm TL or less; and (d) non-rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed at individual platforms. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m. See Table 1 for the number of visits to each platform annually. 16 Platform Irene Platform Holly 6 7 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=3 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=5 2000 100 ) ) . . d d . 1500 . s s 1 1 + + ( ( 2 2 m 1000 m 50 100 100

/ / 500 ish ish F F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep

2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=2 2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 200 150 ) ) . . d d . 150 . s s 1 1 100 + + ( ( 2 2 m

100 m 100 100

/

/ 50 50 ish ish F F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep Platform level Platform level Platform B Platform Gilda 8 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 9 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 8 3 ) ) . . d d . .

s 6 s 1 1

+ 2 + ( ( 2 2 m

4 m 100 100

/

/ 1

ish 2 ish F F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep 2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 12000 1000 8000 ) ) . . 4000 d d . . s 750 s 50 1 1 + + ( ( 40 2 2 m 500 m 30 100 100

/ / 20

ish 250 ish F F 10

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep Platform level Platform level Figure 6. Platform Irene: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. Figure 7. Platform Holly: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. Figure 8. Platform B: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. Figure 9. Platform Gilda: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. 17 10 Platform Grace 11 Platform Ellen 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=2 4 300.00 200.00 ) ) . . d d . 100.00 3 . s s 1.00 1 1 + + ( ( 2 2 0.75 m

2 m 100 100

0.50 / / 1 ish ish F

F 0.25

0 0.00 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep

2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=4 2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=2 1200 900 800 600 ) . )

. 400

d 300 . d . s

s 160 3 1 1 + + ( ( 2

2 120 m m 2 100

100 80 /

/ 1 ish ish

40 F F

0 0 shallow middle deep shallow middle deep Platform level Platform level 12 Platform Eureka VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF YOY ROCKFISHES 2008, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=2 AT THE PLATFORMS 0.2 ) .

Recruiting YOY rockfishes were rare at the shal- d . lowest level of the platforms (Figs. 4a, 5a, 6-12; annual s 1 + averages of species density in Appendix 1). During ( 2 the 2008 survey season, only one YOY rockfish was m 0.1 100

observed in the uppermost level, a KGB at Platform / 2

Ellen (0.2 fish/100 m ) in July (Figs. 5a, 11; Appendix ish 1). In 2009, few YOY rockfishes were observed at the F shallowest level, and these occurred at only two plat- 0.0 forms: 1 OYT (0.2 fish/100 2m ) at Holly and 47 KGB shallow middle deep 2009, Rockfishes, 12 cm TL and less, N=2 (8.4 fish/100 2m ) at Gilda in June; and 1 KGB (0.2 300.0 fish/100 m2) at Holly and 40 bocaccio (7.2 fish/100 200.0 ) 2 . 100.0 d m ) at platform Gilda in July. .

s 1.0

In contrast, YOY rockfishes were consistently 1 +

( 0.8 more abundant at the two deeper levels surveyed and 2 m occurred on more platforms (Figs. 4a, 5a, 6-12). In 0.6 100

2008, YOY rockfishes were observed at the middle level / 0.4 on 5 of the 7 platforms and at the deepest level of all ish F 0.2 platforms. Survey abundances ranged from 1 to 11,000 rockfishes (0.1 – 1486 fish/1002 m ) at the middle level, 0.0 shallow middle deep 2 and 3 to 15,000 rockfishes (0.4 – 2109 fish/100 m ) at Platform level

Figure 10. Platform Grace: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. Figure 11. Platform Ellen: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three levels surveyed. Figure 12. Platform Eureka: Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s. d., N=total number of visits) of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less, and rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL. at the three levels surveyed. 18 the deep level. YOY rockfishes were absent from the at the shallow level (9 of 18 surveys). And third, the deep level during only 5 of 25 surveys, and on only 2 density of YOY rockfishes at the deep level of platforms of these 5 occasions were YOY rockfishes present on disproportionately accounted for the increase in total the upper portion of the platforms: 1 rockfish on Gilda rockfish abundance at the platforms (Appendix 4.2). and 3 rockfish on Irene on the middle level. In 2010, YOY rockfish densities at Gilda, Grace, YOY rockfish recruitment at the platforms gener- and Gina, three platforms clustered near the eastern ally was greater in 2009 than in 2008, and higher den- entrance of the Channel, far exceeded densities at all sities at the deep level of the platforms accounted for platforms in the two previous years (Appendix 4.3a). the increase (Figs. 4a and 5a). In 2009, YOY rockfishes YOY rockfish densities increased at Holly, but the were present at the deep level of all platforms during recruitment effect was less pronounced than at the every survey with numbers ranging from 3-100,400 eastern Channel platforms. Highest densities of YOY rockfish (0.4 – 13,792 fish/100 m2). In contrast, YOY rockfishes had occurred in the eastern Channel the rockfishes were observed at the shallow level on only previous year, and north and south of the Channel in 4 of 22 surveys. 2008. Species-specific summaries of the distribution The distribution of YOY rockfishes among plat- of YOY rockfishes among platforms in 2010 by density forms differed between years. In 2008, YOY rockfishes are in Appendices 4.4a. occurred at relatively high abundances at platforms, Irene, Holly, and Ellen where concentrations were YOY ROCKFISH ASSEMBLAGES AT PLATFORM centered at the deep level of the platforms ( Fig. 5a). LEVELS, REEFS, AND WRECKS The highest density of YOY rockfishes in 2008 was The relative abundance of total YOY rockfishes observed in September at platform Irene where widow among platforms, reefs, and wrecks differed between rockfish numbered 15,000 at the deep level (2109 years. In 2008, the density of YOY rockfishes at the fish/100m2) and 11,000 at the middle level (1767 reefs and wrecks were no greater than the density at fish/100 2m ). In contrast on that date, no fish, other the middle and deep levels of the platforms (Fig. 13a). than 1 cabezon, a non-rockfish, were seen at the shal- In contrast, in 2009, rockfish densities at the deepest low level on Irene. At the four other platforms where level of platforms exceeded the densities at the reefs YOY rockfish occurred in relatively low numbers, and wrecks (Fig. 13a). Within each survey year, densi- densities also were centered at the deep level. ties of total YOY rockfishes were highly variable (note In 2009, YOY rockfishes occurred at relatively high large standard deviation:mean in figures) within the abundances at Gilda, B, Grace, and Ellen (Fig. 5a). habitat types (e.g., levels of platforms, reefs, wrecks). The highest density of rockfishes occurred at Gilda Cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling in August, when bocaccio numbered 100,400 (13,790 shows that the YOY rockfish assemblages at the two fish/100 m2) at the deep level, far exceeding the highest deeper levels of platforms tended to be more similar density of rockfishes observed in 2008 (widow rock- to each other than to the shallow level of platforms, fish at Irene) by nearly 10 fold. In contrast, only one reefs, or wrecks (the proximity of individual sites rockfish was observed at the middle level and none is directly related to their similarity to one another at the shallow level during the same survey at Gilda. in Figs. 14 and 15). Figures 16-21 show the annual Highest densities of several other rockfish species were density of every YOY rockfish taxon in each habitat centered at the deep level of platforms: for example, averaged from site mean densities. shortbelly rockfish at Grace in July (1375 fish/100 In 2008, the assemblages from the two deeper m2 at the deep level, 0 fish at the middle and shallow levels of the platforms, reefs, and wrecks were not levels); bocaccio at Irene, Gilda, B, and Eureka; and strikingly dissimilar (Fig. 14); differences among the squarespot rockfish at Ellen and Holly. YOY rockfish assemblages in the four habitats were Several findings from the 2010 supplemental only marginally significant based on an analysis of surveys were consistent with the two previous years in similarity (Global R=0.166, n=20, p=0.046). Pairwise regard to the vertical distribution of YOY rockfishes at tests showed that only the YOY rockfish assemblages the platforms. First, densities of YOY rockfishes were at the middle level of platforms and reefs were not lowest at the shallowest level of the platforms (Ap- similar to each other statistically (R=0.256, p=0.04; pendix 4.2). Second, YOY rockfishes were observed average dissimilarity 92.31). Dissimilarity between more frequently at the deep level (all 18 surveys) than these two habitats was accounted for by squarespot

19 Rockfishes the deeper levels of the platforms differed between 13a 2008 2009 years (Figs. 14-18). In 2008, widow rockfish, squares- 12 cm TL or less pot rockfish, KGB, OYT, and bocaccio, in descending 600 order, were the most abundant in the YOY rockfish as- 4000 2 2 500 m

m semblage at the deep level of platforms. At the middle 400 3000 10 0 10 0

level, the relative importance of these same species, /

/ 300

2000 h h 200 other than bocaccio which was absent at the middle Fis Fis 1000 100 level, was similar. In contrast, in 2009, bocaccio was 0 0 f ll f e e e e e the most abundant species at both of the deeper lev- deep r reck sh deep r reck middle w middle w shallow shallow Habitat Habitat els. Squarespot rockfish and shortbelly rockfish were important at the deep level, and OYT at the middle More than 12 cm TL level. In both years, densities of individual species were 25 50 highly variable (note large standard deviation:mean 2 2 20 m 40 m 15 in figures) among sites within each habitat type (e.g., 10 0 30 10 0

/ /

10 levels of platforms, reefs, wrecks) (Appendix 1). h 20 h Fis 10 Fis 5 In contrast to the platforms, the composition 0 0 of the YOY rockfish assemblage at reefs and wrecks f ll f e e e e e deep r reck sh deep r reck middle w middle w were more consistent between years (Figs. 19 and shallow shallow Habitat Habitat 20). Squarespot rockfish was the most abundant YOY rockfish, blue rockfish, and KGB which were consis- rockfish, and blue rockfish also was important at reefs tently more abundant at reef sites than at the middle and wrecks in both years. KGB was more important in level of platforms; and by widow rockfish observed at the YOY rockfish assemblage at reefs than at wrecks, the middle level exclusively at Platform Irene. and treefish occurred at reefs, but not at wrecks in In 2009, the assemblages among the three levels of both years. OYT was important at wrecks in both the platforms, reefs and wrecks were more dissimilar years. Calico rockfish, in both years, and vermillion than the previous year (Fig. 15). Differences among rockfish, in 2009, were seen in wreck habitat, but not the YOY rockfish assemblages among the five habi- in reef or platform habitats. tats were significant based on analysis of similarity (Global R=0.218, n=25, p=0.008). As in the previous Non-Rockfishes year, pairwise tests showed that the assemblages at the 13b middle and deep levels of platforms did not differ from 2008 2009 12 cm TL or less each other (R=0.01, p=0.38). However, both platform 1200 1200 2 habitats differed significantly from reefs (R=0.296, 2 1000 1000 m m 800 800

p=0.045; average dissimilarity=95.05 for middle level 10 0 10 0

/

/ 600 600

h v reef; R=0.258, p=0.023; average dissimilarity=81.23 h 400 400 Fis for deep level v reef). The relatively high density of Fis 200 200 0 0 YOY bocaccio at the two deeper platform level habi- f ll f e e e e e deep r reck sh deep r reck middle w middle w tats and squarespot rockfish at reef habitat primarily shallow shallow accounts for the dissimilarity. Interestingly, the deep Habitat Habitat level at Ellen and Holly were more similar to reefs More than 12 cm TL than to other platforms. Unlike the other platforms, 1000 500 2 2 800 400 m squarespot rockfish occurred in relatively high abun- m 600 300 10 0 10 0

/ /

dance and bocaccio were rare at these two platforms. 400 200 h h Fis In 2009, YOY rockfishes occurred at the shallow level Fis 200 100 of only two platforms: KGB and OYT at Holly, and 0 0 f ll f e e e e e bocaccio and KGB at Gilda (Appendix 1). deep r reck sh deep r reck middle w middle w shallow shallow The composition of YOY rockfish assemblages at Habitat Habitat

Figure 13. Annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of: (a) two size classes of rockfishes (12 cm TL or less, greater than 12 cm TL); (b) non-rockfishes 12 cm TL or less and non-rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL at the three platform levels, reefs, wrecks, and shell mound. Shallow level L1 ranged from 5-11 m, middle level 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m. 20 0 Habbiitat platform, shallow 2D Stress: 0.1 Habitat GILDA Platform, middle ELLEN Platform, shallow Platform, deep 20 reefPlatform, middle Platform, deep HOLLY wreck Nine shellmounreef d wreck 40 GILDA shellmound y

t Hazel i Avalon SuperPin r B GRACE ELLEN a l

i SanLuis GRACE

m EggRk EUREKA

i Admirals

S Olympic 2008 HOLLY 60 ELLEN 2008 SM1 Rockfishes

100 IRENE IRENE

l Similarity k c s s n n e 1 Y Y E E B A E E A A N N N i i l i e o n L L R p u a z l i K C C E D E E M N N D

P 20 r L L g r i a a L L L L L E N m A A E E S I I g e v L L L O O H y m R R l R R p an L E G G A I I d E E E H H u G G O S A S EU R Samples

2D Stress: 0.1 Habitat GILDA ELLEN Platform, shallow Platform, middle

HOLLY Platform, deep Nine reef wreck GILDA shellmound

Hazel Avalon SuperPin B GRACE ELLEN SanLuis GRACE EggRk Admirals EUREKA Olympic HOLLY ELLEN 2008 SM1 Rockfishes < 12 cm TL

IRENE IRENE Similarity 20

Figure 14. Species assemblage structure of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less from six habitats in 2008. Habitats are shallow (5-11 m), middle (11-22 m), and deep (26-35 m) levels of platforms, reefs, wrecks, and shell mound. (a) Dendrogram for hierarchical group-averaged clustering of the habitat sites from Bray-Curtis similarities on square root-transformed fish densities. 20% similarity threshold is indicated by horizontal line. (b) Non-metric multidimensional scaling configuration of the habitat sites from the same similarities with superimposed clusters from the dendrogram at the 20% similarity level. 21 0 Habbiitat Platform, shallow 2D Stress: 0.11 Habitat Avalon Platform, middle Platform,Platform, deep shallow 20 B Platform, middle GILDA reef Platform, deep IRENE wreck reef B GRACE wreck IRENE 40 EUREKA GRACE

y GILDA t i r

a EUREKA l i i m

i GILDA HOLLY S Farnsworth 2009 60 ELLEN 2009 Nine Rockfishes Admirals EggRk Rockfishes SuperPin SM1 Olympic HOLLY < 12 cm TL HOLLY < 1212 ccmm TL 80 SanLuis

100 ELLEN k s c s e 1 n h n Y Y Y E E E A A E A A A N N B i i l B i t n o r L L L R u p a i l K K M C N N E E D C D D Similarity P r o g L L L r L i a L L L L L N E E A S m A I I I g n v w L L O O O

y 20 m R R R l s a E G G G A IR E IR E E E d H H H up e n U G S G O r A S E EU R a F Samples 2D Stress: 0.11 Habitat Avalon Platform, shallow

GILDA B Platform, middle Platform, deep IRENE reef B GRACE wreck IRENE EUREKA GRACE GILDA

EUREKA

GILDA HOLLY Farnsworth ELLEN 2009 Nine Admirals EggRk Rockfishes SuperPin SM1 Olympic HOLLY HOLLY < 1212 ccmm TL

SanLuis

ELLEN Similarity 20

Figure 15. Species assemblage structure of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less from six habitats in 2009. Habitats are shallow (5-11 m), middle (11-22 m), and deep (26-35 m) levels of platforms, reefs, wrecks, and shell mound. (a) Dendrogram for hierarchical group-averaged clustering of the habitat sites from Bray-Curtis similarities on square root-transformed fish densities. 20% similarity threshold is indicated by horizontal line. (b) Non-metric multidimensional scaling configuration of the habitat sites from the same similarities with superimposed clusters from the dendrogram at the 20% similarity level. 22 2008 Rockfishes <12cm TL at shallow level of platforms 0.06

0.05

0.04 2

0.03 FIsh / 100 m 0.02

0.01

0.00 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

2009 Rockfishes <12cm TL at shallow level of platforms 1.00 0.50

0.05

2 0.04

0.03

FIsh / 100 m 0.02

0.01

0.00 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

Figure 16. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2 ±1 s.d.) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at the shallow level of platforms, 5-11 m depth, in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.

23 2008 Rockfishes <12cm TL at middle level of platforms 300.0 200.0 100.0 1.0

2 0.8

0.6

FIsh / 100 m 0.4

0.2

0.0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

2009 Rockfishes <12cm TL at middle level of platforms 100.0 50.0

1.0

2 0.8

0.6

FIsh / 100 m 0.4

0.2

0.0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

Figure 17. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2 ±1 s.d.) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at the middle level of platforms, 11-22 m depth, in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.

24 2008 Rockfishes <12cm TL at deep level of platforms 400 300 200 100

30

25 2

20

15 FIsh / 100 m / FIsh

10

5

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf ROSY black rf black treefish grass rf calico rf calico widow rf widow canary rf copper rf bocaccio vermillion rf vermillion shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf honeycomb Species or complex

2009 Rockfishes <12cm TL at deep level of platforms 1500 1000 500

30 2

20 FIsh / 100 m

10

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf ROSY black rf black treefish grass rf calico rf calico widow rf widow canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf vermillion shortbelly rf shortbelly squarespot rf halfbanded rf honeycomb rf honeycomb Species or complex

Figure 18. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2 ±1 s.d.) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at the deep level of platforms, 26-35 m depth, in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.

25 2008 Rockfishes <12cm TL at reefs 100 50

15 2

10 FIsh / 100 m

5

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

2009 Rockfishes <12cm TL at reefs 200 150 100 15 2

10 FIsh / 100 m

5

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf blue ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf bocaccio copper rf vermillion rf shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf Species or complex

Figure 19. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2 ±1 s.d.) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at reefs in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.

26 2008 Rockfishes <12cm TL at wrecks 300 200 100

15 2

10 FIsh / 100 m

5

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf ROSY black rf black treefish grass rf calico rf calico widow rf widow canary rf copper rf bocaccio vermillion rf vermillion shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf honeycomb

Species or complex

2009 Rockfishes <12cm TL at wrecks 200 150 100 50

15 2

10 FIsh / 100 m

5

0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf ROSY black rf black treefish grass rf calico rf calico widow rf widow canary rf copper rf bocaccio vermillion rf vermillion shortbelly rf shortbelly halfbanded rf squarespot rf honeycomb rf honeycomb Species or complex

Figure 20. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2 ±1 s.d.) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at wrecks in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.

27 2008 Rockfishes<12 cm TL at Hazel shell mound (Platform removed from site) 3.0

2.5

2.0 2

1.5 FIsh / 100 m 1.0

0.5

0.0 OYT KGB flag rf blue rf ROSY black rf treefish grass rf calico rf widow rf canary rf canary bocaccio copper rf copper vermillion rf shortbelly rf halfbanded rf squarespot rf squarespot honeycomb rf Species or complex

Figure 21. Average density of each taxon (fish/100 m2) in the assemblage of rockfishes 12 cm TL or less at the Hazel shell mound in 2008.

HABITAT USE OF ROCKFISHES GREATER THAN HABITAT USE OF NON-ROCKFISHES 12 CM TL The vertical distribution pattern of non-rockfish- Rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL were very rare es and rockfishes at platforms markedly differed (Figs. at the shallow level of the platforms (Fig. 4b). Similar 4a-d). Unlike YOY rockfishes with densities centered to YOY rockfishes (size class 12 cm TL and less; Fig. at the deepest level in both years surveyed (Fig 4a), 4a), the density of juvenile and adult rockfishes (size non-rockfishes 12 cm TL and less generally were most class greater than 12 cm TL) was centered at the deep- abundant in shallower waters at the two uppermost est level of platforms in 2008 and 2009 (Fig. 4b). The levels (Fig. 4c). In 2008, non-rockfishes greater than larger size class of rockfishes was far less abundant 12 cm TL were most abundant at the shallowest level than YOY rockfishes at the platforms (note the dif- (Fig. 4d). Summaries of the vertical distribution of ferent scales of density in Figs. 4a and 4b). the most common non-rockfishes at the platforms Rockfishes greater than 12 cm TL occurred on all are in Appendix 2. platforms except Irene in both survey years (Fig. 5b). Densities of non-rockfishes of both size classes The density of the larger size class of rockfishes at were greater by an order of magnitude at the two individual platforms was fairly stable between years. platforms in the more southerly Southern California The relative density of juvenile and adult rock- Bight (Ellen and Eureka) than at platforms in the Santa fishes among platforms (Fig. 5b) was not related to Barbara Channel (Figs. 5c and 5d). In both survey that of YOY rockfishes among platforms (Fig. 5a). years, blacksmith were by far the most abundant fish For example, no widow rockfish greater than 12 cm at the shallow and middle levels at these two platforms. TL were observed in either survey year at Irene where Non-rockfishes were rare at Platform Irene located high densities of YOY widow rockfish occurred. north of the Channel (Appendix 2). Supplemental 2010 survey data summaries of the Supplemental 2010 survey data summaries of the vertical distribution pattern of rockfish species greater vertical distribution pattern of non-rockfish species at than 12 cm TL at platforms and their densities at platforms and their densities at individual platforms individual platforms are in Appendices 4.4a and 4.5a. are in Appendices 4.4b and 4.5b.

28 FAD EXPERIMENT During visual surveys by divers at the moorings, Divers conducted 8 rounds of visual surveys and sightings of fishes were infrequent. Fishes were present collections at two sets of FAD moorings from June during 11 of 41 mooring surveys at the Goleta array, through September 2009 (Table 2; Fig. 3). During and 25 of 47 mooring surveys at the Santa Barbara ar- 8 of the 96 sampling attempts (8 rounds x 2 sites x ray. Juvenile jack mackerel, a schooling pelagic species, 6 moorings per array = 96), divers were unable to was the most abundant taxa accounting for 95% of locate a mooring. In cases when a mooring could not the total of 1841 fishes counted and occurring in 26% be located, a new mooring was deployed to replace of the 88 mooring surveys, the most often among the the lost mooring in its vicinity, and the surveys and taxa. Pacific pompano and pipefish, the second and collections resumed at the next sampling round. third most frequently occurring taxa, were observed in 9 and 6 mooring surveys, respectively. In contrast,

TableTable 9. 9. Fishes Fishes observed observed in in FADFAD experiment.experiment. NumberNumber ofof individuals observed on thethe floats,floats, line, line, and and FADs FADs of theof themoorings moorings with with site, site, type type of mooring,of mooring, and and frequency frequency of occurrenceof occurrence in parentheses.*in parentheses.*

Part of mooring sfc subsurface topline top FAD midline deep deepline TOTAL marker float FAD Depth of feature surface 6-9 m 6-9 m 7-9 m 12-24 m 23-27 m 32 m ROCKFISHES: Olive rockfish or 10 10 yellowtail rockfish (G-TB-1) bocaccio 1 1 (S-TB-1) unidentified rockfishes 1 1 (S-TB-1) NON-ROCKFISHES:

jack mackerel 350 729 2 660 3 1744 (S-TB-1) (S-TB-5, (S-B-2) (G-TB-1, (G-B-1, G-TB-3) S-TB-6) S-B-1) Pacific pompano 1 45 11 1 58 (S-B-1) (G-TB-1, (G-TB-1, (S-B-1) S-TB-2) S-TB-1, S-B-1) Pacific pipefish 2 1 2 1 1 7 (G-B-1, (G-TB-1) G-TB-1, (S-B-1) (S-TB-1) S-B-1) S-B-1) blacksmith 1 1 2 (G-TB-1) (G-TB-1) Scalloped ribbonfish 1 1 (G-TB-1) unidentified fishes 1 16 17 (S-TB-1) (G-B-1, S-B-1) TOTAL 350 729 5 710 14 32 1 1841

*Codes separated by dashes in parentheses: Mooring set, Goleta or Santa Barbara Type of mooring, Top and Bottom FADs or Bottom FAD only Number of observations when fish were present 29 SMURF Bottom 0 0 31 50 1 0 10 20 00 41 Line

3 0 8 20 4 Top Total non-rockfishes SMURF c. SMURF Bottom 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 Line ottom (B) FAD units of every mooring were

Total rockfishes 0 0 3 1 0 10 0 11 0 ental moorings (odd numbered) consisted of a Top SMURF b. o data (i.e., FAD mooring could not be located, see Table kfishes collected from the top SMURFs, lines, and bottom

L: L: ‐ Sep ‐ Sep T: B: F00NF20 23 2 NF 00 RYOY, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 2

Sebastes

L: T: ‐ Aug 11 ‐ Aug 11 B: B: NF NF SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 2 SYNG, 2 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 RYOY, 1;

L: NF NF NF NF L: NF L: NF L: SYNG, 1 SYNG, 1 1 (cabezon), SMIN =

T: B: NF NF NF NDNF 00 NF 0 NF L: 10 0 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 2 SYNG, 1 SYNG, 2 SMAR, 1 1 1 1

T: T: NF NF NF NF NF 0 0 0 1 0 0 SMIN, SMAR, SMAR, SMAR, 1 1 1

(kelp pipefish), RYOY = unidentified Young-Of-Year L: NF NF NF NF L: PSIM, SMAR, SMAR, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus 1 23472126 STRE, 1 SMAR, NFNF NFNF ND NF NF NF NFNF NF T: NF NF NF NFNF ND ND NF NF NF T: ND NF L: NF ND NFNF L: NFNF NF L: T: NF NFNF L: NF NF T: NF NF L: ‐ Jun 18 ‐ Jun 2 ‐ Jul 14 ‐ Jul 30 ‐ Jul‐ Aug 14 27 ‐ Jun 16 ‐ Jun 30 ‐ Jun 13 ‐ Jul 28 ‐ Jul 14 ‐ Aug 27 ND NF T: ND NF NF NF L: Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Syngnathus californiensis 84 90 75 84 82 88 (ft) Bottom (Pacific pompano), SMAR = 25 75 30 60 21 85 23 88 25 88 34 93 (ft) Top Site 24 Site 12 Mooring Peprilus simillimus (vermillion rockfish), SYNG = fish 2 10 2 12 2 11 27 12 14 16 28 15 29 13 11 Site dates Total Collection miniatus rockfish. a. Table 10. Fishes collected from FAD moorings at Site 1 near Platform Holly and 2 B in summer 2009. Experim bottom FAD unit, and control moorings (even numbered) consisted of a top units. SMURFs the (T) b * PSIM = sampled on eight visits to the sites. a) Data is coded: taxon*, number of fish collected; or NF = no in SMURF; ND n 2). Also, reported are fishes closely associated with the mooring line (L) that divers were able to collect. b) Number of roc SMURFs summed. c) Number of non-rockfishes Table 10. Fishes Table collected from moorings FAD at Site 1 near Platform Holly and Site 2 near Platform B in summer 2009. Experimental moorings of SMURFs units. FAD bottom and FAD top a of consisted numbered) (even moorings control and unit, FAD bottom a of consisted numbered) (odd collected; fish of number taxon*, coded: is Data a) sites. the to visits eight on sampled were mooring every of units FAD (B) bottom and (T) top the Also, reported are fishes closely associated with Table 2). FAD mooring could not be located, see or NF = no fish in SMURF; or ND = no data (i.e., summed. SMURFs bottom and lines, SMURFs, top the from collected rockfishes of Number b) collect. to able were divers that (L) line mooring the c) Number of non-rockfishes summed.

30 rockfishes, represented by least three species and all forms from Point Arguello (Irene) to near the east en- YOY, were observed on only three occasions. trance of the Channel (Gina) during a six-year period In visual surveys, divers observed 710 fishes (at (1995-2001), the majority of juvenile rockfish recruits least 6 species) around the shallow FADs (7-9 m), and resided at depths greater than 26 m at platforms. In 32 fishes (at least 6 species) around the deep FADs (23- a more recent scuba survey in 2004, Nishimoto et al. 27 m) (Table 9). Among these, 12 were rockfishes: 1 (2008) found that YOY rockfishes at two platforms, bocaccio (8 cm TL YOY) and 1 unidentified rockfish Gilda and Gail, were far less abundant in the upper 15 (2 cm TL YOY) around shallow FADs, and 10 OYT m of the platform than at depths between 25 and 30 m. (7 cm TL YOY) around a deep FAD. This deep FAD YOY rockfishes predominated the total fish as- was paired with a shallow FAD on the mooring line. semblage at the deepest level of the platforms with Jack mackerel, exclusively, were observed schooling bocaccio, widow rockfish, and squarespot rockfish around the surface float (350 fish) and subsurface as the most abundant of seventeen rockfish taxa float between 6 and 9 m (729 fish). This species ac- observed. The YOY of these species have commonly counted for 93% of the fishes observed around the been associated with the midwater of platform struc- shallow FADs and only 9% of those near the deep tures (Holbrook et al. 2000; Love et al. 2003). YOY FADs. Twenty fishes, none rockfishes, were observed rockfish recruitment at the platforms generally was along the mooring lines: 5 fishes (jack mackerel, pom- greater in 2009 than in 2008, and higher densities pano, pipefish) seen on the upper portion of the line at the deepest level of the platforms accounted for between 6 and 9 m on moorings (topline); 14 fishes the increase. In 2010, the densities of YOY rockfishes (pompano, pipefish, scalloped ribbonfish) on the line increased at all three levels of the platforms with the at middepth, 12 and 24 m (midline); and 1 pipefish stronger recruitment effect at the two deeper levels of on the line at 32 m (deep line). the platforms primarily accounting for the increase Very few fishes were collected from SMURFS on in the total abundance of individual species at the the moorings (Table 10). Only 3 rockfishes (1 treefish, platforms. Oceanographic monitoring at the plat- 2 unidentified rockfishes), 6 cabezon, and 1 pipefish forms and regional physical conditions during the were collected from the shallow SMURFS. Only 4 fish, 2004 study at platforms Gail and Gilda indicated that all pipefish, were collected from the deep SMURFS. offshore subsurface currents likely delivered juvenile In addition to the fishes collected from the SMURFS, rockfishes to the deepest portion of the upper 30 m 1 vermillion rockfish and 19 pipefish were collected surveyed where recruits were found at highest densi- along the mooring line. ties (Nishimoto et al. 2008). Non-rockfishes, in contrast with rockfishes, DISCUSSION generally were most abundant at the shallowest level The 2008 and 2009 surveys and the supplemental of the platforms. Jack mackerel, a schooling pelagic 2010 survey provide two lines of evidence that indicate species, and blacksmith, a schooling nearshore reef that rockfishes likely will recruit to platforms topped species, were the predominant non-rockfish taxa. Also to subsurface depths between 25 and 30 m (the partial numerous on occasion were other schooling species: removal decommissioning option). The evidence is jacksmelt (or topsmelt) and halfmoon. All of these that: (1) YOY rockfishes are uncommon in shallow schooling species are characteristic of the warm water waters at platforms; and (2) YOY rockfishes recruit assemblage of the San Diegan province (Pondella et to natural reefs and artificial structures (wrecks) that al. 2005). Non-rockfishes were more abundant by crest at depths comparable to where decommissioned an order of magnitude at platforms off San Pedro platforms would be topped. These findings were than platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. At consistent in years of weak (e.g., 2008) and strong both platforms Ellen and Eureka, the distributions recruitment (e.g., 2010) for rockfishes. of non-rockfishes, unlike rockfishes, were centered A number of studies have shown that juvenile at the two upper levels of the platform. Sheephead rockfish abundance at depths deeper than 26 m are and garibaldi, two other species with warm-water greater than that in shallower waters at platforms in affinities were found only on these two platforms in the Southern California Bight (Carr et al 2003; Love this study. Conspicuously rare were non-rockfishes at et al. 2003, Nishimoto et al. 2008,). In previous scuba the northernmost platform, Irene; and like rockfishes, surveys conducted at least once per year at nine plat- non-rockfishes were absent from the shallowest level.

31 Irene is located off Point Conception, where wind- YOY species; whereas, in contrast, the composition of induced upwelling occurs through much of the year the YOY rockfish assemblage at reefs and wrecks were with strong currents directed offshore and turbulent more consistent between years and similar among wave surges in surface waters. sites. The assemblages from the two deeper levels of Recent work by Martin and Lowe (2010) also has the platforms, reefs and wrecks were more similar in found significant differences among the assemblages 2008 than in 2009. In 2009, the assemblages of the two of the deep 30-m level and shallower depths. They deeper platform habitats differed from reef habitat; surveyed platforms on the San Pedro shelf in 2006 the relatively high density of YOY bocaccio at the two and 2007 and included Ellen and Eureka which we deeper platform level habitats and squarespot rockfish surveyed. Similar to our findings, Martin and Lowe at reef habitat primarily accounted for the dissimilarity. reported that the platform fish community in waters The oceanographic conditions in this study area above 20 m was greatly influenced by species charac- that is encompassed by the California Current System teristic of the warm water San Diegan biogeographic changed markedly from year to year (2008-2010). province. In comparison, they found, as we did, that The dominant forcing were cool La Niña-type condi- species characteristic of the cold water Oregonian tions during our 2008 survey that prevailed from the biogeographic province, in particular rockfishes and summer of 2007 through early 2009 (McClatchie et cabezon, tended to be found at the deep 30-m level. al. 2009). During spring 2009 through spring 2010, A striking difference between the findings of Mar- changes in the state of the CCS reflected a transition tin and Lowe (2010) and our study is the abundance from cool La Niña conditions into and through a of YOY rockfishes at the platforms. They report YOY short-lived, relatively weak El Niño event. During rockfishes at only two of six platforms. The rarity the 2009 survey, weaker than normal upwelling and of YOY and older rockfishes at platforms off Long several extended relaxation events contributed to Beach, CA, is in striking contrast to ours and previous warming over much of the CCS (Bjorkstedt et al. surveys of platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel 2010). The 2009–2010 El Niño diminished rapidly in and around Point Conception (Love et al. 2003, 2010; early 2010, and upwelling off central and southern Nishimoto et al. 2008). They observed YOY rockfishes California resumed unusually early and strongly for only at Edith and Ellen, although the specific depth a spring following an El Niño (Bjorkstedt et al. 2010). at which these fishes were observed was not reported. Caselle et al. (2010) showed that interannual variation No YOY rockfishes were observed at Platform Eureka; in settlement of YOY rockfish species in nearshore however, Martin and Lowe did not survey as deep as shallow reefs in the Santa Barbara Channel is strongly we did. Because we were able to include the deep 30-m and positively correlated to the summer Bakun up- level of all platforms surveyed in our study, we are welling index. The increase in rockfish recruitment in able to document that YOY rockfish recruit to Plat- 2010 throughout the study area may be related to the form Eureka at densities comparable to that at some effects of regional upwelling on dispersal or survival platforms in the Channel region. Love et al. (2010) during the pelagic stage before settlement which lasts report that numbers of YOY rockfishes observed in weeks to months depending on species. submersible surveys, 2005-2008, were second only to We observed only light recruitment of young-of- adult squarespot rockfish in the deeper midwater at the-year rockfishes to the FADs. This occurred despite Platform Eureka. evidence that the pelagic juveniles of a number of typi- The relative abundance of total YOY rockfishes cal southern California rockfish species (e.g., copper, among platforms, reefs, and wrecks differed between gopher, kelp, and olive rockfishes) will settle on such years. In 2008 the density of YOY rockfishes at pin- moored artificial structures as SMURFs (Caselle et nacles and reefs were no greater than the density at al. 2010). There are several possible reasons for this the middle and deep levels of the platforms. In con- low level of recruitment. First, both 2008 and 2009 trast, in 2009, rockfish densities at the deepest level of saw generally poor rockfish recruitment in the Santa platforms exceeded the densities at reefs and wrecks. Barbara Channel (D. Kushner, National Parks Service, Densities of YOY rockfishes at reefs and wrecks in- Channel Islands, pers. comm.; this report) and the creased in 2010 from the two previous years. supply of pelagic juveniles available for settlement on YOY rockfish assemblages at platforms changed the FADs may have been low. Second, by chance, the between years due to the recruitment of different location of the FADs may have been relatively poor.

32 The FADs were small structures and there is evidence may serve important EFH functions that enhance the that pelagic juvenile rockfish distribution is patchy survivorship of juvenile rockfishes on account of its (Nishimoto et al. 2008). Thus, by chance alone, these offshore location and vertical structure. Emery et al. small groups of fishes may not have been in the vicin- (2006), modeling the drift paths of pelagic juvenile ity to encounter the structures. In addition, species rockfishes using high-frequency radar, showed that, in that will utilize SMURFs as recruitment habitat may the absence of a platform, many of the young-of-year more likely be nearshore species, whose larvae and rockfishes would not have been transported by cur- pelagic juveniles may be primarily retained in near- rents to natural reefs and would have perished before shore waters, inshore of where we placed our FADs. finding settlement habitat. Indeed, other work with SMURFs has all taken place According to Beck et al. (2001), the nursery role within a few hundred meters of rocky shores or kelp of habitats must be compared on a unit-area basis to beds, where densities of these juveniles may be highest allow the management and conservation of habitats (Ammann 2004, Caselle et al. 2010). even if they are small in area and particularly if these In this study, at least 17 of 52 rockfish species habitats are uncommon. The nursery value of habitat falling under the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Manage- used by juveniles, regardless of the size of the habitat, ment Plan were found to inhabit platforms as YOY can be evaluated for conservation and management. and adults. The adults of some of these species occur Precisely defined by Beck et al. (2001), “a habitat is deeper in the midwaters of the structures or reside a nursery for juveniles of a particular species if its on the bottom under the platforms (e.g., submers- contribution per unit area to the production of in- ible survey findings in Love et al. 2003). Under the dividuals of a particular species that recruit to adult Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996, Congress defined populations is greater, on average, than production “essential fish habitat” (EFH) for federally managed from other habitats in which juveniles occur.” Any fish species as “those waters and substrate necessary combination of four factors: (1) density, (2) growth, to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to (3) survival of juveniles, and (4) movement to adult maturity.” In the present and previous studies (Love habitats support a habitat’s contribution to adult et al. 2003), a number of YOY rockfish species were populations. common at platforms and occurred at lower densities Love and Schroeder (2006) provided evidence that at reefs. These included: bocaccio, widow rockfish, survivorship may be enhanced around the midwater shortbelly rockfish, blue rockfish, the KGB complex, structure of offshore platforms by providing habitat and OYT complex. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act away from predators that utilize the nearshore reefs. of 1996, US Federal agencies (e.g., BOEMRE) must Love and Schroeder (2006) used a tethering experi- consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service ment to determine the relative risk of predation for a (NMFS) on actions (e.g., platform decommissioning) small benthic fish, painted greenling, between a natu- that may adversely affect EFH. NMFS recognizes that ral reef and an oil platform. The juvenile fish at the “the occurrence of juvenile and large adult rockfish at natural reef suffered a significantly greater predation some platforms suggests that they may support im- rate than platform juveniles. Furthermore, while there portant ecological functions” (Helvey 2002). Because was no difference between habitats in the predator- rockfish show long-term population declines, Helvey prey ratio, the number of predator species was greater (2002) concludes that the evaluation of platform eco- at the natural reef which suggests that relative preda- logical structure and function as EFH is warranted and tion risk among habitat types may be affected by the should be integrated into the environmental review habitat-suite of predators. Thus, decommissioning process of platform decommissioning. actions that alter the piscivore assemblage may impact In an assessment of platforms as EFH, it is impor- the ecological performance of platform structure as tant to determine whether platforms are necessary “to juvenile fish habitat or EFH. support a sustainable fishery or contribute to a healthy Findings from Love et al. (2007) indicate that a ecosystem, the two basic tenets of EFH” (Helvey 2002). platform can outperform a natural reef as nursery In recent years, a few studies have been directed toward habitat; young blue rockfish collected from a plat- determining the ecological performance of a platform form were found to have grown as well or better than as nursery habitat. congeners living on natural reefs based on age-length Emery et al. (2006) demonstrated that a platform comparisons. Fish that recruit to platforms as YOY can

33 thrive for years at a single platform through adulthood ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS as shown in tagging studies by Hartman (1987). Love This research was funded by the Minerals Manage- et al. (2006) suggested that a platform served as good ment Service Cooperative Number M08AX12732. We nursery habitat for a strong year class of bocaccio that thank S. Clark, F. Hurd, M. McCrea, J. Ruvalcaba, and they were able to track by modal size from when the very helpful volunteers for conducting the surveys. YOY recruited to the midwater habitat through several years to adulthood when the fish occupied the bottom REFERENCES habitat of the platform. Ammann, A. J. 2004. SMURFs: standard monitoring Based on an estimate of the number of YOY bo- units for the recruitment of temperate reef fishes. caccio at eight platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 299:135– 154 in 2003, Love et al. (2006) estimated that the juveniles Beck, M. W., K. L. Heck Jr., K. W. Able, D. L. Childers, from these platforms contributed about a one percent D. B. Eggleston, B. M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C. increase to the stock at large. According to Fodrie and G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T. J. Minello, R. J. Orth, P. F. Levin (2008) the approach of using juvenile distribu- Sheridan, and M. P. Weinstein. 2001. The identifica- tions as an indicator of unit-area productivity of dif- tion, conservation, and management of estuarine ferent juvenile environments provided a remarkably and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. good estimate of the contribution of local nurseries Bio. Sci. 51:633-641. to adult stocks, particularly given that the individuals Bernstein, B. B., A. Bressler, P. Cantle, M. Henrion, do not migrate far from their nursery origin. Mini- J. DeWitt, S. Kruse, D. Pondella, A. Scholz, S. Set- mally, the quantitative evaluation of the local nursery nicka, S. Swamy. 2010. Evaluating Alternatives for contribution of rockfishes from each platform to the Decommissioning California’s Offshore Oil and regional population requires a comparison among Gas Platforms: A Technical Analysis to Inform State all artificial and natural habitats that juveniles use. Policy. http://www.calost.org/reports/Decommis- Presently, (and at the time of Love et al. (2006)) an sioning_Report_Full.pdf estimate of the amount of rocky reef habitat in the Bjorkstedt, E. P., Ralf. Goericke, S. McClatchie, E. We- region is not available, so the importance of platforms ber, W. Watson, N. Lo, B. Peterson, B. Emmett, J. in relation to all available rockfish recruitment habitat Peterson, R. Durazo, G. Gaxiola-Castro, F. Chavez, is yet to be determined. Future studies with this aim of J. T. Pennington, C. A. Collins, J. Field, S. Ralston, evaluating each platform’s value as nursery habitat or K. Sakuma, S. J. Bograd, F. B. Schwing, Y. Xue, W. J. EFH will help decision-makers determine the actions Sydeman, S. A. Thompson, J. A. Santora, J. Largier, for decommissioning on a platform by platform basis. C. Halle, S. Morgan, S. Y. Kim, K. P.B. Merkens, J. A. In conclusion, the findings from this study show Hildebrand, and L. M. Munger. 2010. State of the that YOY rockfish densities typically are concentrated California Current 2009-2010: Regional variation below the shallow portion of the platform that would persists through transition from La Nina to El Nino be removed should a platform be partially left in place (and back?). CalCOFI Reports 51:39-69. when decommissioned. Additionally, YOY rockfish re- Carr, M. H., M. V. McGinnis, G. E. Forrester, J. Hard- cruit to reefs and wrecks and these assemblages do not ing, and P. T. Raimondi. 2003 Consequences of necessarily differ from the assemblage found between Alternative Decommissioning Options to Reef 25 and 30 m at platforms. Thus, it is plausible that the Fish Assemblages and Implications for Decom- environmental consequences on local and regional missioning Policy. MMS OCS Study 2003-053. rockfish populations from the partial removal of any Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, of the platforms in this study will not be significant. University of California, Santa Barbara, California. However, to complicate the matter, the YOY rockfish MMS Cooperative Agreement Number 14-35- assemblage and the abundance of YOY vary spatially 0001-30758. 104 pp. and temporally among platforms. If the consequences Caselle, J. E., M. H. Carr, D.P. Malone, J. R. Wilson, of full removal of platforms, on a rig-by-rig basis, and D. E. Wendt. 2010. Predictability of settlement must be evaluated, then it is particularly important of nearshore rockfishes (genus Sebastes) in central to determine the contribution of each platform to the and southern California using simple proxies of fish stock in the region. ocean conditions. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish. Invest. 51:91–106.

34 Emery, B. M., L. Washburn, M. S. Love, M. N. Nishi- Love, M. S., D. M. Schroeder, and M. M. Nishimoto. moto, and J. C. Ohlmann. 2006. Do oil and gas 2003. The ecological role of natural reefs and oil platforms off California reduce recruitment of and gas production platforms on rocky reef fishes bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) to natural habi- in southern California: A synthesis of informa- tats? Analysis on trajectories derived from high tion. U. S. Geological Survey, OCS Study MMS frequency radar. Fish. Bull. 104:391-400. 2003-032. Fodrie, F. J. and L. A. Levin. 2008. Linking juvenile Love, M. S., M. Yoklavich, and D. M. Schroeder. 2009. habitat utilization to population dynamics of Cali- Demersal fish assemblages in the southern Cali- fornia halibut. Limnol. Oceanog. 53(2):799-812. fornia Bight based on visual surveys in deep water. Harms, S., and C. D. Winant. 1998. Characteristic Env. Biol. Fish. 84:55-68. patterns of the circulation in the Santa Barbara Love, M. S., E. Brothers, D. M. Schroeder, and W. H. Channel. J. Geophys. Res. 103:3041–3065. Lenarz. 2007. Ecological performance of young- Hartman, A. R. 1987. Movement of scorpionfishes of-the-year blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) as- (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes and Scorpaena) in the south- sociated with oil platforms and natural reefs in ern California Bight. Calif. Fish Game 73:68-79. California measured by daily growth rates. Bull. Helvey, M. 2002. Are southern California oil and gas Mar. Sci. 80:147-157. platforms essential fish habitat? ICES J. Mar. Sci. Love, M. S., D. M. Schroeder, W. H. Lenarz, A. Mac- 59: S266–S271. Call, A. S. Bull, and L. Thorsteinson. 2006. Potential Hickey, B., E. L. Dobbins, and S. E. Allen. 2003. Local use of offshore marine structures in rebuilding and remote forcing of currents and temperature in an overfished rockfish species, bocaccioSebastes ( the central Southern California Bight. J. Geophys. paucispinis). Fish. Bull. 104:383–390. Res.: Oceans 108:[doi:10.1029/1200JC000313]. Lynn, R. J., and J. J. Simpson, 1987. The California cur- Holbrook S.J., R.F. Ambrose, L. Botsford, M.H. Carr, rent system: The seasonal variability of its physical P.T. Raimondi, M.J. Tegner. 2000. Ecological Is- characteristics, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 12,947-12,966. sues Related to Decommissioning of California’s Martin, C. J. B and C. J. Lowe. 2010. Assemblage struc- Offshore Production Platforms. A Report to the ture of fish at offshore petroleum platforms on the University of California Marine Council by The San Pedro Shelf of Southern California. Marine Select Scientific Advisory Committee on Decom- and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, missioning, University of California. http://www. and Ecosystem Science 2:180–19. ucop.edu/research/ucmc_decommissioning/ McClatchie, S., R. Goericke, F. B. Schwing, S. J. Bograd, Lenarz, W. H., D. A. VenTresca, W. M. Graham, F. B. W. T. Peterson, R. Emmett, R. Charter, W. Watson, Schwing, and F. Chavez. 1995. Explorations of El N. Lo, K. Hill, C. Collins, M. Kahru, B. G. Mitchell, Nino events and associated biological population J. A. Koslow, J. Gomez-Valdes, B. E. Lavaniegos, dynamics off central California, CalCOFI Rep. 36, G. Gaxiola-Castro, J. Gottschalk, M. L’Heureux, pp. 106–119 Y. Xue, M. Manzano-Sarabia, E. Bjorkstedt, S. Love, M. S. and D. M. Schroeder. 2006. Ecological Ralston, J. Field, L. Rogers-Bennett, L. Munger, G. performance of OCS platforms as fish habitat off Campbell, K. Merkens, D. Camacho, A. Havron, A. California. MMS OCS Study 2004-005. Marine Douglas, and J. Hildebrand. 2009. The state of the Science Institute, University of California, Santa California Current, 2008–2009: Cold conditions Barbara, California. MMS Cooperative Agreement drive regional difference. CalCOFI Rep. 50: 43–68. Number 1435-01-03-CA-72694. McGowan, J. A., D. R. Cayan, L. M. Dorman. 1998. Cli- Love, M. S. and D. M. Schroeder. 2007. A character- mate-Ocean Variability and Ecosystem Response in ization of the fish assemblage of deep photic zone the Northeast Pacific. Science 281:210-217. rock outcrops in the Anacapa Passage, southern Nishimoto, M. M., M. S. Love, L. Washburn, D. M. California, 1995 to 2004, with evidence of a regime Schroeder, and B. M. Emery. 2008. Assessing the shift. CalCOFI Rep. 48:165-176. fate of juvenile rockfish at offshore petroleum Love, M. S., M. Nishimoto, and D. Schroeder. 2010. platforms and natural reefs in the Santa Barbara Fish assemblages associated with platforms and Channel. MMS OCS Study 2007-008. natural reefs in areas where data are non-existent Pondella, D. J., II, B. E. Gintert, J. R. Cobb, and L. G. or limited. OCS BOEMRE Study 2010-012. Allen. 2005. Biogeography of the nearshore rocky-

35 reef fishes at the southern and Baja California islands. J. Biogeogr. 32, 187–201 Schroeder, D. M. and M. S. Love. 2004. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of offshore oil facilities in the southern California Bight. Ocean Coast. Manage. 47:21-48. 4

36 APPENDICES

37 APPENDIX 1 Summaries of rockfish species and complexes that were numerically important at the platforms during the two survey years, 2008 and 2009. The summaries include: (a) annual average densities (±1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL and less, greater than 12 cm TL) in five habitat types (the three levels of platforms, reefs and wrecks) and (b) annual average densities of the two size classes at individual platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names.

Blue rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

50 12 2 2 40 10 m m 0 0 8 0 0 30 1 1

6 / /

20 4 Fish Fish 10 2 0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

50 20 2 2 40 m m 15 0 0 0 0 30 1 1

10 / /

20

Fish 5 Fish 10 0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

38

2 1

) 0 1 . L T

s. d m 8 1 c + sh

i (

2

k f 1 6 2 ≤

m

ro c

0 ish 4 0 F 1

/

Blue h 2 s i

F

2009, 0 d) E B E A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L E HOLLY I

U

G

E 4 4 . 0 0

)

.

L

3 . T 0

s. d m 1 h c s

+

i

( f 2

2 . 1 0 2 c k ≤ o m

r 0

0

Fish lue 1 1 . 0 / B h s i

F

2008,

0 . 0 c) A B A N K D E LL E R

GI L IRENE

E

HOLLY U GRACE m or tf a Pl

Shallow level 0 . 2 Middle level Deep level

)

L .

5 . T 1

s. d m c 1 sh

i +

(

k f

0 . 12 1 ≥ 2

ro c m

ish 0

F

0

5 . 0 1 Blue / h s

i

2009, F

0 . 0 b) E B E A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

. 0 0 2 E U 2

L )

. 5 . T 1 s. d h cm 1 s

i

f

+

( 0 . 1 c k 2 ≥12 o r m

0

Fish 0

lue

5 . 0 1 B / h s

i

F 2008 ,

0 . 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R

GI L IRENE

E

HOLLY

U GRACE m or tf a Pl E E

39 Bocaccio

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.2 4000 2 2 m

m 1.0 0 0 3000 0 0 0.8 1 1

/ /

0.6 2000 0.4 Fish Fish 1000 0.2 0.0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

1.0 3.0 2 2 2.5 m m 0 0 No fish observed 2.0 0 0 1 1

/ / 0.5 1.5

1.0 Fish Fish 0.5 0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

40

0 00 5 5 1

0 00 0 0 1

0 00 5 5 )

L .

T 0 40 s. d m 1 c

+ io 0 30 (

12 c 2 <

a

m

0 20 0 ish 0 Bo c F

1

/

0 10 h s i

F 2009 , 0 d) E A B E A K N L D E O LL Y R

G I I ELLE N

H

GRA C

4 EUR E 4

) L . T 3 s. d 1 cm

+

(

12 2 2 < m

0

0

Bocaccio Fish 1 1 / h s i

F

2008, 0 c) B A

D

EK A

R GI L IRENE ELLE N HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 9.

0 6.

0 3. ) L .

T

5 0.

m s. d

c 1

4 0. + io (

c

>12 2 3 a 0. m

0 2 Bo c 0. Fish 0 1

/

h 1 0. s

i

2009, F

0 0. b) E E B A KA N E RA C R

GIL D I ELLE N

HOLLY

G

1 E UR 1 L ) . T s. d cm 1 + (

>12 2 m

0 Bocaccio Fish 0

1 / h s

i

No fish observed 2008 , F 0 a) B A EK A R GIL D IRENE ELLE N HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

41 Copper rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

0.3 1.6 2 2 m m 1.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 1 1

0.8 / /

0.1 0.4 Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL 2 2 1.5 1.0 m m 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1

/ /

0.5 0.5 Fish Fish

0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre middl wrec s shallo Habitat Habitat

42

8 . 0 )

.

L

6 . T 0

s. d h m 1 s i c f +

( k

4 . 12 0 2 > ro c

m

r 0 ish 0

F

1

2 . 0 / h Coppe s i

F

2009,

0 . 0 d) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R GI L I E HOLLY

G

EUR E 8 8 . 0 0

)

.

L

6 . T 0

s. d sh 1 i c m + (

2 4 . 0 >12 rock f m

0 0

1 Fish /

2 . 0 h s Copper i

F

2008 ,

0 . 0 c) A B A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 . 2

)

. L

5 . T 1

h s. d m s i 1 c f

+

k

2

(

0 . 1 1 2 < ro c

r m

ish 0

0 F

5 . 0 1 / h Coppe s i

F 2009,

0 . 0 b) E B E A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

5 5 . 0 E U 0

) 4 . L 0 . T

m s. d

sh

i

c 1 3 . 0 k f + 2 (

1

2

<

ro c

2 . 0 m

0 0 Fish

1

/ 1 . 0 h Copper s i

F

2008,

0 . 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

43 Grass rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 0.15 2 2 m m 0.10 0 0 0 0 1 1

0.5

/ /

0.05 Fish Fish

0.0 0.00 e p k l e p w f c w f k dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

0.3 0.30 2 2 0.25 m m 0 0 0.2 0.20 0 0 1 1

0.15 / /

0.1 0.10 Fish Fish 0.05 0.0 0.00 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

44

2 . 1

) 0 . 1 . L T

s. d 8 . h 0 m 1 s c i

+

f

( k

6 . 12 0 c 2 > o

r m

s

0 4 . ish 0 0 F

1 ra s

/

G h 2 . 0 s i

F

2009,

0 . 0 d) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R GI L I E HOLLY

G EUR E 2 2 . 1 1

0 . 1 ) L .

T

8 . 0 s. d h s 1 c m i f +

k (

6 . 0 2 >12 ro c m

s

0 4 . s 0 0 Fish a

1

/

G r h 2 . 0 s i

F

2008 ,

0 . 0 c) A B A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E

HOLLY U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

4 . 0

)

.

L

3 . T 0

s. d h m 1 s c i

+

f

(

2 k

2 . 1 0 c 2 < o

r m

s 0 ish

0

F

1 . 0 1 ra s / G h s i

F

2009,

0 . 0 b) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

4 4 . 0 EUR E 0

)

L .

3 . T 0

h m s. d s c 1 i

f +

2 k

(

2 . 1 0 2 < ro c

m

s 0 ish s

0

F

a

1 . 0 1 / G r h s i

F

No fish observed 2008 ,

0 . 0 a) A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

45 Halfbanded rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 0.8 2 2 m m No fish observed 0.6 0 0 0 0 1 1

0.5 0.4 / /

0.2 Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

1.0 1.0 2 2 m m 0 0 No fish observed No fish observed 0 0 1 1

/

/ 0.5 0.5

Fish Fish

0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

46 No halfbanded rockfish >12 cm TL

observed at platforms in 2008 or 2009

5 . 2

) . 0 . L 2 T

sh i f s. d

m

k

1 c 5 . c 1

+ o 2 ( r

1

2

<

0 . 1 m

0 0 Fish

1

banded

/ 5 . 0 h s i

Hal f

F

2009,

0 . 0 b)

Y A E A B E N L K D E N L L AC E I L O L R G I E H

G R

Shallow level Middle level Deep level E UR 1 L h ) T .

s i f m c s. d

1 2 roc k + 1 (

<

2 h m

i s 0 F

0 banded 1 / h Hal f s

i No fish observed 2008 ,

F 0 a) Y E E B A A N L K C N L D E LLE O L R RA RE G I I E H

U G

E m or tf a Pl

47 KGB rockfish complex

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

2.0 15 2 2 m m 0 0 1.5 0 0 10 1 1

/ /

1.0 5 Fish Fish 0.5

0.0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

5 6 2 2 4 m m 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 1

/ /

2 2 Fish Fish 1 0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

48

7 6 ) . L

T

5 s. d m 1

c

+ 4 (

12 B 2

>

G 3 m

K

0 ish

0 F 2

1

/

h 1 s i

F 2009, 0 d) E B E A N C N D KA E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U

5 . 2

) 0 . 2 . L T

s. d

1

cm 5 . 1 + (

2 B

>12

G m 0 . 1 K 0 0

Fish

1

/

5 . 0 h s i

F

2008 ,

0 . 0 c) B A A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 2

5 1

0

1 ) . L 5 T

s. d m 1

c

+ 2 ( 2

1 B 2 <

G m

K

0 ish 1 0 F

1 / h s i

F 2009, 0 b) E B E A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U 9 9 6

)

L . T 3

s. d m

1 c

2 + 2 (

1 B 2 < G m

K 0

0 Fish 1 1 / h s i

F 2008, 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

49 OYT complex

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

40 12 2 2 m m 10 30 0 0 0 0 8 1 1

20 / /

6

4 10 Fish Fish 2 0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

6 0.8 2 2 m m 0 0 0.6 0 0 4 1 1

/ /

0.4 2 Fish Fish 0.2

0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

50

4 . 0

)

.

L

3 . T 0 s. d m 1 c

+

( 2

2 . 1 0 T 2 > m

O Y sh 0 i

0

F

1 . 0 1 , / h s i

F

2009

0 . 0 d) Y E B E A L K C N L E O R GILDA I ELLE N H UR E

GR A

E 0 . 1 ) L . s. d 1 +

(

5 . T 0 2 >12 cm T m h

O Y 0 0 1 / h s i

F

No fish observed 2008, Fi s

0 . 0 c) E B A

K N

LD A E I

O LL Y R G I ELLE N H

UR E GRAC E

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level L 4 ) . T

m s. d c 1 + ( 12

T

<

2 O Y 2 m sh

i 0 F 0 1 / h s

i

2009, F 0 b) Y E B E A L K C N LE N E L R GILDA I E HO L UR E

GR A

E

0 2. L

) .

T

5 m 1. s. d c 1 +

12 (

T

< 0 1. 2

h m O Y

s i 0

F

0

, 5 0. 1 / h s

i

2008 F

0 0. a) Y B E L N L LD A E I O R G I ELLE N H

UR EK A GRAC E

E m or tf a Pl

51 ROSY rockfish complex (Sebastomus)

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 0.14 2 2 0.8 0.12 0m 0m 0.10 0.6 000.088 / 10 / 10 0.4 0.06 0.04 Fish Fish 0.2 0.02 0.0 0.00 w e p k e f k dee reef shell deep ree middl wrec middl wrec shallo shallow Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

0.20 1.0 2 2 010.155 0m 0m No fish observed 0.10 0.5 / 10 / 10 Fish Fish 0.05

0.00 0.0 k k deep reef shell deep reef middle wrec middle wrec shallow shallow Habitat Habitat

52 No ROSY complex >12 cm TL

observed at platforms in 2008 or 2009

9 . 0 x L ) e

. l T

p

6 . m 0 m s. d c

1 co 2

+ 1 (

< sh

i 2 f

m 3 . ish 0

F 0

roc k 0

1 / h s

i

2009,

F 0 . ROSY 0

b)

E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R GI L I E HOLLY

G

EUR E Shallow level Middle level Deep level

9 9 . 0 0 x L e )

l T .

p

6 . m 0 m c s. d

o 1 c 2

+ 1 h (

< s i 2

f

k m 3 . 0 ish c 0 F o

r 0

1 / h s

i

2008 ,

F 0 . ROSY 0 a) A B A N K D E LL E R

GI L IRENE E

HOLLY

U GRACE

m or tf a Pl

53 Shortbelly rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 400 2 2 m m 300 0

0 No fish observed 0 0 1 1

0.5 200 / /

100 Fish Fish

0.0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

1.0 1.0 2 2 m m No fish observed No fish observed 0 0 0 0 1 1

0.5 0.5 / /

Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre middl wrec s shallo Habitat Habitat

54 No shortbelly rockfish >12 cm TL

observed at platforms in 2008 or 2009

0 150 ) . L T h h

s

s. d i i 0 m 100 f f 1 c k k

+ c ( 2

o 1 r

2 < y

l l

m l l

e 0 50 0 ish b b 0 t t F r

1 / o h h h s i S F

2009,

0 b)

E E B A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U Shallow level Middle level Deep level

1 1 ) L . T h h

s i i s. d m f f 1 c k k

c + 2 ( o

1 r 2

< y l m l l

e 0 b 0 t t b Fish r 1 / o h h s i S h

No fish observed

F 2008, 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R

GI L IRENE

E

HOLLY U

GRACE

m or tf a Pl E

55 Squarespot rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less 2 300 2 300 m m 0 0 0 200 0 200 1 1

/ /

100 100 Fish Fish

0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wre hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

60 20 2 2 50 m m 15 0 0 40 0 0 1 1

/ / 30 10

20 Fish Fish 5 10 0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

56

0 8 ) L . h T

s

i

f 0 m 6 s. d c 1

+ roc k (

12

> 0 4 2

pot m

ish

0

F

0

0 2 1 / uare s h s

i S q

2009, F 0 d) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R G I E H

G

E U 0 0 30 30

0 L 25 ) . h T

d s

i .

f 0 k 20 s cm c 1

+

ro

( 0 15 >12 2

po t

m

0 10 0 e s Fish r 0

1

/

ua 0 5 h q s

i S

2008 , F 0 c) B A A N

K D

L E

I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 75

0 50

0

L 25 )

. h

T 0 4 s i f m s. d c

1

2 0 3 + roc k ( 1

<

2

pot h 0 2 m

i s 0 F

0

1 0 uare s 1 / h s S q

i

2009 , F 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

0 0 30 E U 30

0 L 25 ) h . T

s

i

f 0 m 20 k s. d c c

1

2

+ ro 0 1 15 (

< 2

po t

m

0 e s 10 0 Fish r 0

1

ua / 0 q 5 h s S

i

2008, F 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

57 Treefish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 1.5 2 2 0.8 m m 0 0 1.0 0 0 0.6 1 1

/ /

0.4 0.5 Fish Fish 0.2 0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

0.8 0.8 2 2 m m 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1 1

/ /

0.4 0.4 Fish Fish 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

58

5 1 . 0 L )

.

T

0 1 . m 0 s. d c

1 h + ( s 12 i

f >

2 e

e

m

r

5 0 . ish 0 T 0 F

0 1 / h s

i

2009,

F 0 0 . 0 d) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R GI L I E HOLLY

G

EUR E 5 5 1 1 . 0 0 L

) .

T

0 1 . 0 s. d c m 1 h + s ( i

f >12 2 e

e

m

r

5 0 . T 0 0 Fish

0 1 / h s

i

2008 ,

F 0 0 . 0 c) A B A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

5 . 1 ) L .

T

0 . 1 s. d m 1 c

+ h 2 (

s 1 i f 2 <

e

m

e

r 5 . ish 0 0 T F 0

1 / h s

i

F 2009,

0 . 0 b) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

5 5 . 0 EUR E 0

) 4 . L 0 . T

m

s. d

c 1 3 . 0 + h 2 ( s 1

i

f 2

<

e 2 . 0 m e

r ish 0 T 0 F

1

/ 1 . 0 h s i

F 2008 ,

0 . 0 a) A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

59 Widow rockfish

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

600 40 2 2 500 m m 30 0 0 400 0 0 1 1

300 20 / /

200 10 Fish Fish 100 0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k dee ree shel dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

1.0 1.0 2 2 m m 0 0 0 0 No fish observed No fish observed 1 1

0.5 0.5 / /

Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

60 No widow rockfish >12 cm TL

observed at platforms in 2008 or 2009

0 . 00 1

0 . 50

L )

.

T 0 . 2 h m s s. d i c

f

1

k 2 5 . 1 + c ( 1

o < r

2

h 0 . 1 m w

i s o 0 F d

i 0

1 5 . 0 / W h s

i

2009 ,

F

0 . 0 b)

Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R G I E H

G

Shallow level E U Middle level Deep level

2

0 0 200 2 200

L

) . 0 50 1 T 1

h h m s s. d i i c f f

1

k k 2

+ c 0 00 1 1 1 (

< ro 2

m w

o

0

Fish d 0 50 0 i 1 / W h s

i

2008, F 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R

G IRENE

E HOLLY

U

GRACE

m or tf a Pl E

61 APPENDIX 2 Summaries of non-rockfish species numerically important at the platforms during the two survey years, 2008 and 2009. The summaries include: (a) annual average densities (± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL and less, greater than 12 cm TL) in five habitat types (the three levels of platforms, reefs and wrecks); and (b) average annual den- sities of the two size classes at individual platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names.

Blackeye goby

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

20 10 2 2 8

15 m m 0 0 0

0 6 1 1

10 / /

4

5 Fish Fish 2 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s

More than 12 cm TL

1.2 8 2

2 1.0 m

m 6 0

0 0.8 0 0 1 1

0.6 / 4 /

0.4

Fish 2 Fish 0.2 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

62

5 0.1 L )

.

T

y 0 0.1 b m s. d o c

1 g

2 + ( e 1

y >

2 e

k 5 0.0 m sh c

i a 0 F l

0 , B 1 / h

s

i

2009 0 0.0 F d) Y E B A E L K C N L E O R GILDA I ELLE N H UR E

GR A

E 5 0.1 L ) .

y 0 0.1 s. d b 1 o g +

(

2 >12 cm T

h

m

5 0.0 0 0 1 / Blackeye h s

i

2008, Fi s F

0 0.0 c) E B A

K N

LD A E

I O LL Y R G I ELLE N H

UR E GRAC E

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

5 0.1 ) . L T

s. d 0 m 0.1 1 c + ob y (

g

12 2 e < y m

e

sh 0 k 5 i 0.0 c 0 F a 1 l / B h s i

F

2009,

0 0.0 b) Y E B E A L K C N LE N E L R

GILDA I E

HO L

UR E

GR A

5 1 . E 0 ) L . T

y 0 1 . m 0 s. d b c 1 o + g (

12

e < 2

y

h

m

s k e 5 0 . i 0 0 c F 0 a

l , 1 / B h s

i

2008 No fish observed F

0 0 . 0 a) Y B E L N L LD A E I O R G I ELLE N H

UR EK A GRAC E

E m or tf a Pl

63 Blacksmith

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1000 2 2 600 m m 800 0 0 0 0 1 1 600

400 / /

400 Fish Fish 200 200 0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL 2 2 300 400 m m 0 0 300 0 0 1 1 200

/ /

200 100 Fish Fish 100

0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

64

0 400

0 200

) L

.

T 5 12 m

s. d

c

1 h

0 t 10 i + 2 ( 1

m

< 2 5 7 k s h m c

i s a

l 0 0 F 5 0

B

1

/

5 2 h s

i

2008, F d) 0 E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R GI L I E HOLLY

G

EUR E 0 0 200 200

0 100

L )

.

T 0 10 m s. d c

h

1 t

i 2 5 7 + ( 1 m

< 2

k s

m c 0 5 ish a 0 l F 0

B

1

/ 5 2 h s

i

2008 , F 0 c) A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 30

0 25

L 0 20 )

.

T

0 10 m s. d c h

1 + ( 12 mi t

>

2

k s

c 0 5 m

ish a l 0 F

B 0 , 1 / h s

i

2009 F 0 b) E E B A N KA C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U 0 0 7 7

0 6

L

)

. T

0 5

s. d

cm

h

t 1 0 i 4 + ( m

>12

2 0 k s 3 c m

a

l 0 0 Fish 2

0 B

1

/

0 1 h s i

2008 ,

F a) 0 A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

65 Cabezon

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

0.08 0.15 2 2 m m 0.06 0 0 0.10 0 0 1 1

0.04 / /

0.05 0.02 Fish Fish

0.00 0.00 e p k l e p w f c w f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wre hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

0.5 0.8 2 2 0.4 m m 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.3 1 1

0.4 / /

0.2

Fish 0.2 Fish 0.1 0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

66

8 . 0 ) L .

T

6 . m 0 s. d c 1

n + ( o

12

> 4 . 0 2

m

ish 0

Cabe z

F

0

2 . 0 1 / h s

i

2009, F

0 . d) 0 Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R G I E H

G

E U

8 . 0

L )

. T

6 . 0 s. d cm 1 n + o (

>12 2 4 . 0 m

0

Cabe z

Fish 0

2 . 0 1 / h s

i

2008 , F

0 . 0 c) B A A N

K D

L E

I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

5 . 0

4 . L 0 ) T .

m

s. d c 3 . 0 1 n 2 + o 1 (

<

2 2 . h 0 m i s

Cabe z

F 0

0

1 . 0 1 / h s

i 2009 ,

F 0 . 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

5 . 5 0 E U 0

4 . L 0 ) T .

m

c 3 . 0 s. d

n 1 2 o + 1 (

<

2 2 . 0 m

Cabe z 0 Fish

0

1 . 0 1 / h s

i

2008,

F 0 . 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

67 California sheephead

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.8 2 2 1.0 m m 0 0 0.6 0.8 0 0 1 1

/ / 0.6

0.4 0.4 Fish Fish 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL 6 6 5 5 2 2 m m 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3

/ /

2 2 Fish Fish 1 1 0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s

68 4 L )

.

T

m 3 s. d c

1 + 12

(

> 2 2 m ish

0 F

0 1 1 / h s

i California sheephead 2009,

F 0 d) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R G I E H

G

E U 8 L

) T . 6 cm s. d 1 +

(

>12 4 2 m

0 Fish

0 2 1 / h s

i California sheephead 2008 ,

F 0 c) B A A N

K D

L E

I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 . 1

8 . L 0 ) . T

m

s. d c 6 . 0 1 2 + 1 (

<

2 4 . h 0 m

i s

0 F

0

2 . 0 1 / h s

i

California sheephead 2009 ,

F 0 . 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

0 0 . 1 E U 1

8 . L 0 ) T .

m

c s. d 6 . 0 1 2 + 1 (

<

2 4 . 0 m

0 Fish

0

2 . 0 1 / h s

i

California sheephead 2008,

F 0 . 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R

G IRENE E

HOLLY

U GRACE

m or tf a Pl E

69 Garibaldi

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less 2 2 0.3 0.3 m m 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 1 1

/ /

0.1 0.1 Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

1.5 1.5 2 2 m m 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1 1

/ /

0.5 0.5 Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

70 3 L

) .

T

m 2 s. d c

1 + 12 (

>

2

m ish 1

Garibaldi F 0

0 1 / h s

i 2009,

F 0 d) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

6 E U 6 L 5

) T . 4 cm s. d 1

+ 3 ( >12

2

m 2 Garibaldi 0 Fish

0

1 1 / h s

i 2008 ,

F 0 c) B A A N

K D

L E I

LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

7 . 0

6 . 0 L )

.

T

5 . 0 m

s. d

c

1 4 . 2 0 +

( 1

< 3 . 0 2 h m

i s

0 2 . Garibaldi 0 F

0

1

/

1 . 0 h s

i

2009 ,

F 0 . 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

4 4 1 1 E U .

2 . 1 L

)

. T

0 . 1 m

s. d c

8 . 0 1 2 +

1 (

< 6 . 0 2 m

0 4 . Garibaldi 0 Fish 0

1

/

2 . 0 h s

i

2008,

F 0 . 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

71 Halfmoon

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

0.3 4 2 2 m m 3 0 0 0.2 0 0 1 1

/ 2 /

0.1 Fish

Fish 1

0.0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

12 2.0 10 2 2 1.5 m m 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 1.0

/ /

4 0.5 Fish Fish 2 0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

72 8

L

) . T 6

m s. d c

1

+ 12 4 (

>

moon 2 m ish

0 F

Hal f

2 0 1 / h s

i 2009,

F 0 d) E E B A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 2 E U 2

L

) 5 T 1 . cm s. d

1

on

+ 0 o 1 (

>12 2 m m

0 Fish

Hal f

5 0 1 / h s

i 2008 ,

F 0 c) B A A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

2 1

)

. L

0 T 1

s. d m

1 c 8

+ 2 (

1

2 < 6 moon m

0 ish 4 0 F Hal f

1 /

h 2 s i

F 2009 , 0 b) E B E A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 . 1 E U 1

) 8 . L 0 . T

s. d

m

c 1 6 . 0 + 2 ( on

1 o 2

<

m m 4 . 0 0 0

Fish Hal f

1

/

2 . 0 h s i

F

2008,

0 . 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

73 Jack mackerel

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1000 1.0 2 2 800 m m No fish observed 0 0 0 0 600 1 1

0.5 / /

400 Fish Fish 200 0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL 2 2 300 0.6 m m 0 0 0 0 200 1 1 0.4

/ /

100 0.2 Fish Fish

0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

74

5 . 2

) 0 . L 2 . T

l

m s. d

c 1 5 . 1 + ( 12

ck er e

> 2 a

0 . 1 m m

ish 0 F

ck 0

1 5 . 0 / J a h s

i

2009, F

0 . 0 d) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 90 EUR E 90

0 60

0 30 L )

.

T

0 l 9 e s. d r c m 1 e +

k

(

c

0 >12 6 2 a m m

0 k

Fish c 0

0 a 3 1 / J h s

i

2008 , F 0 c) A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level 1 L ) . T

l m s. d r e c 1

2 + ( 1 ck e

< 2 m a m

ish 0 F ck

0 1 J a / h s

i

No fish observed 2009 , F 0 b) Y E A B E A N L K C N L D E E LL E O L R RA R

G I I E

H

G

0 0 60 E U 60

0 40

0

L 20

)

.

T 0 9 l m e s. d r c

1 e 2

k +

1 ( c 0 6 < a 2 m m

k

0

Fish c

0 0 a 3 1 / J h s

i

2008, F 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

75 Jacksmelt or topsmelt

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

4 600 2 2 500 m m 3 No fish observed 0 0 400 0 0 1 1

2 / / 300

200 1 Fish Fish 100 0 0 e p k l e p w f c w f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wre hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

15 600 2 2 500 m m No fish obserobserveedd 0 0 10 0 0 400 1 1

/ /

300

200 5 Fish Fish 100 0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wrec hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

76 1 t t l l ) L . e T

m m s s. d c p 1

o + t t (

12

r > 2 o

t t l l m

e ish 0 F 0

sm 1 / k k h c s a

i

No fish observed J 2009, F 0 d) E B E A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 0 0 2 20 2 E U 20 t t

l l L )

. e 0 0 T 15 s. d cm 1

ops m

+ t t

( 0 0 r 10

>12 2 o

t t m l l

e

0

Fish

0 m

0 0 s 5 1 / k k h c s

a i

J 2008 , F 0 c) A B A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

GRACE

E U

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level 1 t L ) . T

me l m s s. d c p 1

o + 2 t (

1

r < o 2

t l m

e ish 0 F 0

s m 1 / k h c s

i

No fish observed J a 2009, F 0 b) E E B A N KA C N D A E LL E R R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 2 250 2 EUR E 250

t 2 2 0 l 00 L ) . e T

m

s m

s. d

c 0 50 1 p 1

1 o 2 + t

( 1 r

< 2

o

0 00 1 1 m lt

e ish 0 F

0 m

1 0 50 / h ck s s

a i

J 2008 , F 0 a) A B A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

77 Kelp bass

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 1.0 2 2 m m No fish observed No fish observed 0 0 0 0 1 1

0.5 0.5 / /

Fish Fish

0.0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

2.0 250 2 2 200 m m 1.5 0 0 0 0 150 1 1

1.0 / /

100 0.5 Fish Fish 50 0.0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

78 4

) L . T 3

m s. d c 1

s

+ s

( 12 2 > ba 2

m

ish elp 0

F

K 0

1 1 / h

s

i

2009, F 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L Shallow level Middle level R Deep level RA R

G I E

H

G

4 E U 4

L

) . T 3 s. d cm 1

+

( 2 >12 bass 2 m

0

Fish

Kelp 0

1 1 / h s

i

2008 , F 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl _ No kelp bass <12 cm TL observed at platforms in 2008 or 2009

79 Pacific sardine

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

160 1.0 2 2 m m 120 No fish observed 0 0 0 0 1 1

80 0.5 / /

40 Fish Fish

0 0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

25 1.0 2 2 20 m m No fish observed 0 0 0 0 15 1 1

/ / 0.5

10 Fish Fish 5 0 0.0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

80 1 L ) . T

e m s. d n c i

1 d + r 12 ( a

> s

2 c i m f

ish i 0 c F

0 a 1 P / h s

i No fish observed 2009,

F 0 d) E E B A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

0 0 6 E U 6

0

L 5

) T .

0 e 4 cm s. d

1

+ 0 3 (

>12 s ardi n

2

c

i

m f 0 2 0 ci Fish

0 a ,

1

P / 0 1 h s

i

2008 F 0 c) B A A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level 1 L ) . T

e m s. d n c i

1 d 2 + r ( 1 a

< s 2

c i m f

ish i 0 c F

0 a 1 P / h s

i No fish observed 2009 ,

F 0 b) E B E A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U

0 30 L ) . T

m

s. d c

0 20 1 2 + 1 (

< s ardi n e 2 c i m

f

0 0 ci 10 Fish 0 a 1 P / h s

i

2008, F 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

81 Painted greenling

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

4 4 2 2 m m 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 2 / /

1 1 Fish Fish

0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL 2 2 6 6 m m 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 1

/ /

2 2 Fish Fish

0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

82

6 . 1 L )

. T

g 2 . 1 m s. d c

1 +

12 (

eenlin

r 8 . > 0

g 2 m

ish ed

0 F

0 4 . 0 1 ain t / P h s

i

2009,

F 0 . 0 d) E E B A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R GI L I E HOLLY

G

E U

6 . 1

L

)

T .

2 . 1 cm s. d 1

+

( 8 . 0 >12 greenling 2 d m

e

0

Fish

0 4 . in t 0 1 a / h P s

i

2008 ,

F 0 . 0 c) B A A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level 4

L

) . T 3

g m s. d c 1

2 +

( 1 2 eenlin

r < 2 g m

ish ed

0

F

1 0 1 / ain t h P s

i

2009 , F 0 b) E B E A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

5 5 . 1 E U 1

2 . L 1 ) . T

m

s. d

c 9 . 0 1 2 + 1 (

< 2

greenling

6 . 0 m d

e 0 Fish

0

in t

1 3 . 0 / a h P s

i

2008, F

0 . 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

83 Senorita

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

2.0 80 2 2 m m 1.5 0 0 60 0 0 1 1

1.0 / /

40 0.5 Fish Fish 20

0.0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

40 40 2 2 m m 0 0 30 30 0 0 1 1

/ /

20 20 Fish Fish 10 10

0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

84

4 . 0

L

) 3 . T 0 .

m c s. d

1

+ 12 2 . 0 (

>

2 m ish

Senorita

F

0

1 . 0 0 1 / h

s

2009, i

0 . 0 F d) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

1 E U 1 L ) T . cm s. d 1 + ( >12

2 m

Senorita Fish 0

0 1 / h s

i 2008 , No fish observed

F 0 c) B A A N

K D

L E

I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

4 . 0

L

)

. 3 . T 0

m s. d c

1

2

+ 2 . 1 0 (

< 2 h m i s

Senorita

0 F

1 . 0 0 1 / h s

i

2009 ,

F 0 . 0 b) Y E B A E A N L K C N D L E E I LL E O L R RA R

G I E

H

G

1 E U 1 L ) T .

m c s. d

1 2 + 1 (

< 2 m

Senorita 0 Fish 0 1 / h s

i 2008,

No fish observed F 0 a) B A A N K D L E I LL E R G IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

85 Sharpnose seaperch

2008 2009 12 cm TL or less

1.0 4 2 2

m 3 m 0 0 0 0 No fish observed 1 1

0.5 2 / /

1 Fish Fish

0.0 0 w e p f k l w e p f k hel dee ree s dee ree middl wrec hallo middl wrec shallo s Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

15 4 2 2 m m 0 0 3 10 0 0 1 1

/ /

2 5 Fish Fish 1

0 0 e p k l e p k w f c w f hel dee ree s dee ree hallo middl wre hallo middl wrec s s Habitat Habitat

86

0 4

)

L .

0 T 3

s. d m c 1

+

(

0 12 2 seaperch > 2

m

ish 0

F

0

0 1 1 / h s

i

Sharpnose 2009, F 0 d) E E B A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

4 4 1 E U 1

2 1 ) L

h .

T

c 0 1 s. d

cm 1 8 + eape r (

s

2 >12 e 6 m

0 Fish 4 0

pno s 1 /

h ha r 2 s

i

S F 2008 , 0 c) B A A N

K D

E

LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U GRACE

E

m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

2 1

0 L 1 ) .

T

m 8 s. d c 1

2 +

( 1 6

seaperch < 2

m

ish 4 0 F

0

1

/ 2 h s

i Sharpnose

2009 , F 0 b) E B E A A N K C N D E E LL E R RA R

GI L I E

HOLLY

G

1 E U 1 L ) h . T c

m s. d c

1 2 + eape r 1 ( s

< 2 e m

0 Fish 0 pno s 1 / h ha r s

i S

2008, F No fish observed 0 a) B A A N K D E LL E R GI L IRENE E HOLLY

U

GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

87 APPENDIX 3 Size distribution of rockfish species and complexes that comprised more than 0.1% of the total number of fishes at the platforms in 2008 and 2009 combined. Histograms are the summed size frequency observations at the three platform levels, reefs, and wrecks from 2008 and 2009 combined. The contributions of individuals identifiable to species are added to the histograms of the two complexes, KGB and OYT. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names.

Blue rockfish - Platform

No fish at shallow level

5

4 Middle level h s 3 f i o

be r m

u 2 N

1

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 cm TL

70

60 Deep level 50 h s i f

f 40 o

be r

m 30 u N

20

10

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 cm TL

88 Blue rockfish

550

500 450 Reef 400

h 350 s i f

f

o 300

be r 250 m u

N 200

150

100

50

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

150

125 Wreck

100 h s f i o

75 be r m u N 50

25

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

89 Bocaccio - Platform

50

Shallow level 40 h s i

f 30 f o

be r m

u 20 N

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cmTL

5000

4000 Middle level h s 3000 f i o

be r m

u 2000 N

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cm TL

125000

100000 Deep level h s i 75000 f o

be r m

u 50000 N

25000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cmTL 90 Bocaccio

Reef: No fish

Wreck: No fish

91 KGB complex - Platform

35

30 Shallow level

25 h s

f i 20 o

r e b

m 15 u N

10

5 Kelp rockfish

0 KGB 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

35

30 Middle level

25 h s

f i 20 o

r e b

m 15 u N 10 Gopher rockfish 5 Kelp r ockfish 0 KGB 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

200 Deep level

150 h s f i o

100 be r

m &

u Black yellow N rockfish 50 Gopher rockfish Kelp r ockfish

0 KGB 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

92 KGB complex

60 Reef 50

40 h s i f f o r 30 e b m u N 20

10

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

16

14 Wreck

12

10 h s i f

o 8

be r

m 6 u N

4

2

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL Black & yellow rockfish Gopher rockfish Kelp r ockfish KGB

93 OYT complex - Platform

1 Shallow le vel h s i f o

be r m u N

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 cm TL

80

70 Middle level 60 h

s 50 i f f o

40 be r m u 30 N

20

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 cm TL

100 Deep level 80 h s i 60 f o

be r m

u 40 N

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 cm TL

94 OYT complex

10 Reef 8 h s 6 f i o be r m

u 4 N

2

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL

100 Wreck 80 h s 60 f i o

be r 40 m 40 u N

20

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 cm TL Olive rockfish OYT

95 Shortbelly rockfish - Platform

Shallow level: no fish

Middle level: no fish

12000

10000 Deep level

8000 h s f i o

6000 be r m u N 4000

2000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 cm TL

96 Shortbelly rockfish

Reef: No fish

Wreck: No fish

97 Squarespot rockfish - Platform

Shallow level: no fish

20

Middle level h s f i o

10 be r m u N

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 cm TL

4000

Deep level 3000 h s f i o

2000 be r m u N

1000

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 cm TL

98 Squarespot rockfish - Platform

Shallow level: no fish

20

Middle level h s f i o

10 be r m u N

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 cm TL

4000

Deep level 3000 h s f i o

2000 be r m u N

1000

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 cm TL

99 Widow rockfish - Platform

Shallow level: no fish

12000

10000 Middle level

8000 h s i f o

r 6000 e b m u N 4000

2000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 cm TL

20000

Deep level 15000 h s i f

f o

10000 be r m u N

5000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 cm TL

100 Widow rockfish

Reef: No fish

Wreck: 1 fish at 4 cm TL

101 APPENDIXTable 4.1A. Rockfishes and non‐rockfishes observed at platforms during 2010. Included are number of Rockfishesfish andin each non-rockfishes taxon, proportion observed of total atcount, platforms size range, during count the and 2010 proportion supplemental of fish 12 survey cm TL season.or less Included are number ofand fish greater in eachthan 12taxon, cm TL. proportion of total count, size range, count and proportion of fish 12 cm TL or less and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish <= 12cmTL Fish > 12cmTL % of % of % of Total Total Min Max Total Total Common name Count Count cm TL cm TL Count Count Count Count ROCKFISHES bocaccio 324533 41.8% 5 16 302818 93.3% 21715 6.7% shortbelly rockfish 308824 39.8% 8 15 308319 99.8% 505 0.2% squarespot rockfish 82685 10.7% 4 22 82680 100.0% 5 0.0% widow rockfish 24829 3.2% 5 13 24826 100.0% 3 0.0% blue rockfish 6989 0.9% 3 30 6975 99.8% 14 0.2% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 3388 0.4% 5 30 3381 99.8% 7 0.2% halfbanded rockfish 1772 0.2% 3 8 1772 100.0% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 482 0.1% 4 10 482 100.0% calico rockfish 403 0.1% 6 9 403 100.0% kelp rockfish 237 0.0% 8 40 5 2.1% 232 97.9% copper rockfish 141 0.0% 4 35 111 78.7% 30 21.3% grass rockfish 26 0.0% 25 40 26 100.0% treefish 15 0.0% 7 12 15 100.0% stripetail rockfish 6 0.0% 7 8 6 100.0% gopher rockfish 4 0.0% 15 30 4 100.0% rosy rockfish 4 0.0% 6 8 4 100.0% brown rockfish 1 0.0% 28 28 1 100.0% flag rockfish 1 0.0% 5 5 1 100.0% young‐of‐year rockfish spp. 1 0.0% 9 9 1 100.0%

NON‐ROCKFISHES blacksmith 10221 1.3% 3 30 6109 59.8% 4112 40.2% jack mackerel 10100 1.3% 15 20 10100 100.0% sharpnose seaperch 347 0.0% 15 25 347 100.0% painted greenling 302 0.0% 3 20 168 55.6% 134 44.4% California sheephead 176 0.0% 10 75 1 0.6% 175 99.4% opaleye 141 0.0% 25 35 141 100.0% senorita 140 0.0% 15 20 140 100.0% garibaldi 98 0.0% 15 30 98 100.0% cabezon 90 0.0% 3 60 18 20.0% 72 80.0% jacksmelt or topsmelt 60 0.0% 12 15 50 83.3% 10 16.7% kelp bass 30 0.0% 20 45 30 100.0% kelp greenling 18 0.0% 8 15 15 83.3% 3 16.7% pile perch 12 0.0% 20 35 12 100.0% blackeye goby 5 0.0% 8 12 5 100.0% sculpin spp. 2 0.0% 8 12 2 100.0% lingcod 2 0.0% 22 22 2 100.0% unidentified fish 1 0.0% 20 20 1 100.0%

Rockfishes 754341 97.2% 731799 97.0% 22542 3.0% Non‐rockfishes 21745 2.8% 6368 29.3% 15377 70.7% Total 776086 100.0% 738167 95.1% 37919 4.9% 102 APPENDIXTable 4.1B . Rockfishes and non-rockfishes observed at reefs during 30 m transect surveys in 2010. RockfishesIncluded and non-rockfishes are number of fish observed in each taxon, at reefs proportion during of thetotal 2010 count, supplemental size range, count survey and season. Included are number ofproportion fish in each of fish taxon, 12 cm proportionTL or less and of greater total count,than 12 size cm TL.range, count and proportion of fish 12 cm TL or less and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish <= 12cmTL Fish > 12cmTL % of % of % of Total Total Min Max Total Total Common name Count Count cm TL cm TL Count Count Count Count ROCKFISHES shortbelly rockfish 110000 48.4% 8 10 110000 100.0% bocaccio 92921 40.9% 5 15 92912 100.0% 9 0.0% squarespot rockfish 17840 7.8% 6 10 17840 100.0% blue rockfish 1976 0.9% 6 30 1609 81.4% 367 18.6% young-of-year rockfish spp. 73 0.0% 10 12 73 100.0% widow rockfish 55 0.0% 8 10 55 100.0% California sheephead 42 0.0% 12 75 2 4.8% 40 95.2% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 40 0.0% 5 8 40 100.0% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 25 0.0% 4 10 25 100.0% treefish 25 0.0% 7 30 15 60.0% 10 40.0% halfbanded rockfish 24 0.0% 6 6 24 100.0% gopher rockfish 22 0.0% 12 30 1 4.5% 21 95.5% kelp rockfish 12 0.0% 20 30 12 100.0% olive rockfish 5 0.0% 18 30 5 100.0% copper rockfish 3 0.0% 30 40 3 100.0% black and yellow rockfish 3 0.0% 25 30 3 100.0% rosy rockfish 2 0.0% 4 30 1 50.0% 1 50.0% vermillion rockfish 1 0.0% 40 40 1 100.0%

NON-ROCKFISHES blacksmith 3570 1.6% 10 25 2254 63.1% 1316 36.9% senorita 368 0.2% 12 20 368 100.0% sharpnose seaperch 105 0.0% 8 22 103 98.1% 2 1.9% painted greenling 95 0.0% 6 20 34 35.8% 61 64.2% black perch 26 0.0% 10 30 6 23.1% 20 76.9% pile perch 18 0.0% 12 35 2 11.1% 16 88.9% blackeye goby 17 0.0% 9 13 11 64.7% 6 35.3% striped seaperch 5 0.0% 8 30 3 60.0% 2 40.0% lingcod 5 0.0% 40 60 5 100.0% garibaldi 4 0.0% 25 25 4 100.0% zebra goby 3 0.0% 8 8 3 100.0% shiner perch 2 0.0% 10 10 2 100.0% kelp bass 2 0.0% 35 35 2 100.0% rubberlip seaperch 2 0.0% 35 40 2 100.0% California scorpionfish 2 0.0% 30 35 2 100.0% California moray 1 0.0% 12 12 1 100.0% opaleye 1 0.0% 28 28 1 100.0% halfmoon 1 0.0% 30 30 1 100.0% white seaperch 1 0.0% 20 20 1 100.0% cabezon 1 0.0% 35 35 1 100.0%

Rockfishes 223069 98.1% 222597 99.8% 472 0.2% Non-rockfishes 4229 1.9% 2419 57.2% 1810 42.8% Total 227298 100.0% 225016 99.0% 2282 1.0%

103 APPENDIX 4.1C RockfishesTable and .non-rockfishes Rockfishes and non observed-rockfishes at observedwrecks duringat wrecks the during 2010 30supplemental m transect surveys survey in 2010.season. Included are Included are number of fish in each taxon, proportion of total count, size range, count and number of fish in each taxon, proportion of total count, size range, count and proportion of fish 12 cm TL or proportion of fish 12 cm TL or less and greater than 12 cm TL. less and greater than 12 cm TL. Fish <= 12cmTL Fish > 12cmTL % of % of % of Total Total Min Max Total Total Common name Count Count cm TL cm TL Count Count Count Count ROCKFISHES bocaccio 1419 29.9% 8 13 1403 98.9% 16 1.1% squarespot rockfish 1160 24.5% 6 9 1160 100.0% blue rockfish 700 14.8% 6 25 683 97.6% 17 2.4% halfbanded rockfish 572 12.1% 4 8 572 100.0% yellowtail rockfish or olive rockfish (OYT) 218 4.6% 6 10 218 100.0% vermillion rockfish 24 0.5% 15 15 24 100.0% rosy rockfish 12 0.3% 8 25 5 41.7% 7 58.3% copper rockfish 10 0.2% 9 30 3 30.0% 7 70.0% brown rockfish 9 0.2% 30 40 9 100.0% black and yellow rockfish 9 0.2% 22 30 9 100.0% gopher rockfish 7 0.1% 8 30 3 42.9% 4 57.1% kelp rockfish, gopher rockfish, or black and yellow rockfish (KGB) 6 0.1% 6 8 6 100.0% olive rockfish 5 0.1% 14 30 5 100.0% treefish 4 0.1% 8 10 4 100.0% calico rockfish 2 0.0% 10 15 1 50.0% 1 50.0% flag rockfish 1 0.0% 7 7 1 100.0%

NON-ROCKFISHES blacksmith 227 4.8% 8 20 6 2.6% 221 97.4% senorita 206 4.3% 10 18 200 97.1% 6 2.9% black perch 31 0.7% 15 30 31 100.0% California sheephead 28 0.6% 10 80 3 10.7% 25 89.3% blackeye goby 27 0.6% 5 13 12 44.4% 15 55.6% painted greenling 26 0.5% 10 15 2 7.7% 24 92.3% rubberlip seaperch 14 0.3% 35 40 14 100.0% pile perch 8 0.2% 13 40 8 100.0% ronquil spp. 5 0.1% 15 18 5 100.0% garibaldi 3 0.1% 22 24 3 100.0% lingcod 3 0.1% 45 75 3 100.0% sculpin spp. 2 0.0% 12 12 2 100.0% kelp perch 1 0.0% 12 12 1 100.0% kelp greenling 1 0.0% 30 30 1 100.0% kelp bass 1 0.0% 40 40 1 100.0% barred sandbass 1 0.0% 50 50 1 100.0% California scorpionfish 1 0.0% 35 35 1 100.0%

Rockfishes 4158 87.7% 4059 97.6% 99 2.4% Non-rockfishes 585 12.3% 226 38.6% 359 61.4% Total 4743 100.0% 4285 90.3% 458 9.7%

104 APPENDIX 4.2 Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less) of rockfishes and non-rockfishes at three levels of the platforms, reefs, and wrecks. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level ranged from 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m among platforms.

2010

Rockfishes Non-Rockfishes 12 cm TL or less

40000 400 20000 2 8000 2

m 300 m 6000 10 0 10 0

200 / /

4000 100 Fish 2000 Fish 0 0

deep reef deep reef middle wreck middle wreck shallow shallow Habitat Habitat

More than 12 cm TL

800 500 2 2 600 400 m m 300

150 10 0 10 0

/ /

100 200 Fish Fish 50 100 0 0

deep reef deep reef middle wreck middle wreck shallow shallow Habitat Habitat

105 APPENDIX 4.3 Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less, and greater than 12 cm TL) of (a) rockfishes and (b) non-rockfishes at the three levels surveyed at individual platforms. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level ranged from 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m among

platforms.

0 00 2 2

0 50 1 1

0 00 1 1

0 50

0 20 s.d. )

1

L +

0 15 ( T

2 m

c

m

0 10 0 0

>12

1

/

0 5 h s

i

F 0 E A B A KA C A Non-rockfishes GAI L GI N R GIL D ELLE N HOLLY

G

EUR E 0 0 30 30

0 urvey: 20

S 0 10

0 8 s.d. ) 1

L

2010

+ T 0 6 (

2

cm

m

0 4 0 12 0

<

1

/

0 2 h s

i

F 0 B A

EK A

GAI L GINA R GIL D ELLE N HOLLY

U GRACE

E m or tf a Pl

Shallow level Middle level Deep level

0 300

0 200

0 100

0 40 s.d. )

1

L

+ 0 30 ( T

2

m

c

m 0 20 0 0

>12

1

/ 0 10 h s

i

F 0 E B A A A Rockfishes K GAI L GI N O LL Y GIL D ELLE N H GRA C

EUR E

urvey:

0 000 2

S

0 000 1

0 400 2010

s.d. )

1 L 0 300 + T (

2

cm 0 200 m

0 12 0

<

1

/ 0 100 h s

i

F 0 B A EK A GAI L GINA R GIL D ELLE N HOLLY

U

106 GRACE E

m or tf a Pl APPENDIX 4.4A Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less, greater than 12 cm TL) of rockfish species and complexes in five habitats (three platform levels, reefs, and wrecks). Surveyed levels, L1 ranged from 5-11 m, L2 11-22 m, and L3 26-35 m among platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names.

Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N black and yellow rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3----18 reef - - 0.19 0.39 9 wreck - - 1.25 2.15 4 blue rockfish L1 9.54 22.38 - - 18 L2 53.82 86.14 - - 18 L3 14.58 19.37 0.12 0.21 18 reef 99.32 69.88 22.65 64.45 9 wreck 94.86 159.20 2.36 3.15 4 bocaccio L1 1.03 3.61 8.37 27.12 18 L2 94.77 245.76 22.87 68.24 18 L3 2353.88 4305.30 139.84 554.79 18 reef 5735.31 14639.85 0.56 1.18 9 wreck 194.86 389.72 2.22 4.44 4 brown rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3 - - 0.01 0.03 18 reef ----9 wreck - - 1.25 1.84 4 calico rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3 4.07 14.05 - - 18 reef ----9 wreck 0.14 0.28 0.14 0.28 4 copper rockfish L1 0.24 0.73 - - 18 L2 0.92 2.98 0.14 0.44 18 L3 0.08 0.23 0.15 0.30 18 reef - - 0.19 0.28 9 wreck 0.42 0.83 0.97 1.94 4 flag rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3 0.01 0.04 - - 18 reef ----9 wreck 0.14 0.28 - - 4

107 Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N gopher rockfish L1----18 L2 - - 0.02 0.05 18 L3 - - 0.02 0.05 18 reef 0.06 0.19 1.30 1.27 9 wreck 0.42 0.83 0.56 0.45 4 grass rockfish L1 - - 0.02 0.06 18 L2 - - 0.10 0.35 18 L3 - - 0.07 0.16 18 halfbanded rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3 17.87 41.30 - - 18 reef 1.48 4.44 - - 9 wreck 79.44 97.40 - - 4 kelp rockfish L1 - - 0.05 0.16 18 L2 0.06 0.27 0.22 0.43 18 L3 0.02 0.09 1.55 2.07 18 reef - - 0.74 1.82 9 wreck ----4 KGB complex L1 0.20 0.71 - - 18 L2 1.96 3.71 - - 18 L3 2.15 3.50 - - 18 reef 1.54 2.63 - - 9 wreck 0.83 0.72 - - 4 Olive rockfish reef - - 0.31 0.56 9 wreck - - 0.69 1.39 4 ROSY complex L1----18 L2----18 L3 0.04 0.13 - - 18 reef 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.19 9 wreck 0.69 1.39 0.97 1.94 4 shortbelly rockfish L1----18 L2 35.35 149.97 - - 18 L3 2487.83 6133.44 3.86 16.20 18 reef 6790.12 20370.37 - - 9 wreck ----4

108 Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N squarespot rockfish L1 5.60 22.89 - - 18 L2 66.62 176.20 - - 18 L3 600.96 517.85 0.05 0.14 18 reef 1101.23 1150.50 - - 9 wreck 161.11 235.97 - - 4 stripetail rockfish L1----18 L2----18 L3 0.06 0.19 - - 18 treefish L1 0.02 0.07 - - 18 L2 0.07 0.16 - - 18 L3 0.05 0.09 - - 18 reef 0.93 2.19 0.62 0.98 9 wreck 0.56 0.79 - - 4 vermillion rockfish reef - - 0.06 0.19 9 wreck - - 3.33 4.71 4 widow rockfish L1 0.25 1.08 - - 18 L2 43.89 139.48 0.03 0.14 18 L3 180.45 350.94 - - 18 reef 3.40 6.77 - - 9 wreck ----4 OYT complex L1 4.59 13.54 0.02 0.07 18 L2 30.58 92.73 - - 18 L3 8.69 33.68 0.08 0.32 18 reef 2.47 4.04 - - 9 wreck 30.28 47.84 - - 4 YOY rockfish spp. L1----18 L2----18 L3 0.01 0.03 - - 18 reef 4.51 13.52 - - 9 wreck ----4

109 APPENDIX 4.4B Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less, greater than 12 cm TL) of non-rockfish taxa in five habitats (three platform levels, reefs, and wrecks). Surveyed levels, L1 ranged from 5-11 m, L2 11-22 m, and L3 26-35 m among platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names.

Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N barred sandbass reef ---- 9 wreck - - 0.14 0.28 4 black perch reef 0.37 0.79 1.23 2.30 9 wreck - - 4.31 6.58 4 blackeye goby L1 ---- 18 L2 ---- 18 L3 0.05 0.10 - - 18 reef 0.68 0.99 0.37 0.92 9 wreck 1.67 2.22 2.08 4.17 4 blacksmith L1 19.73 25.23 27.13 33.79 18 L2 31.32 69.03 8.97 23.52 18 L3 5.28 19.46 0.90 3.49 18 reef 139.14 209.53 81.23 161.58 9 wreck 0.83 1.67 30.69 53.89 4 cabezon L1 0.17 0.39 0.44 1.15 18 L2 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.20 18 L3 0.02 0.06 0.23 0.32 18 reef - - 0.06 0.19 9 wreck ---- 4 California moray reef 0.06 0.19 - - 9 wreck ---- 4 California scorpionfish reef - - 0.12 0.37 9 wreck - - 0.14 0.28 4 California sheephead L1 - - 0.51 1.04 18 L2 0.01 0.03 0.71 2.24 18 L3 - - 0.09 0.36 18 reef 0.12 0.37 2.47 2.47 9 wreck 0.42 0.53 3.47 3.28 4 garibaldi L1 - - 0.57 2.16 18 L2 - - 0.14 0.60 18 L3 ---- 18 reef - - 0.25 0.74 9 wreck - - 0.42 0.83 4

110 Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N halfmoon L1----18 L2----18 L3----18 reef - - 0.06 0.19 9 wreck ----4 jack mackerel L1 - - 1.27 5.38 18 L2----18 L3 - - 91.69 389.02 18 reef ----9 wreck ----4 jacksmelt or topsmelt L1 - - 0.13 0.54 18 L2----18 L3 0.38 1.62 - - 18 kelp bass L1 - - 0.24 0.32 18 L2 - - 0.06 0.15 18 L3----18 reef - - 0.12 0.37 9 wreck - - 0.14 0.28 4 kelp greenling L1----18 L2 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.07 18 L3 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.03 18 reef ----9 wreck - - 0.14 0.28 4 kelp perch reef ----9 wreck 0.14 0.28 - - 4 lingcod L1----18 L2----18 L3 - - 0.02 0.09 18 reef - - 0.31 0.49 9 wreck - - 0.42 0.28 4 opaleye L1 - - 1.27 3.13 18 L2 - - 0.14 0.49 18 L3----18 reef - - 0.06 0.19 9 wreck ----4

111 Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N painted greenling L1 0.33 0.70 0.41 0.58 18 L2 0.66 0.83 0.64 0.72 18 L3 0.72 0.76 0.30 0.40 18 reef 2.10 2.32 3.77 2.47 9 wreck 0.28 0.32 3.33 1.57 4 pile perch L1 - - 0.02 0.05 18 L2 - - 0.07 0.19 18 L3 - - 0.01 0.04 18 reef 0.12 0.37 0.99 1.03 9 wreck - - 1.11 0.64 4 ronquil spp. L1----18 L2----18 L3----18 reef ----9 wreck - - 0.69 1.05 4 rubberlip seaperch reef - - 0.12 0.24 9 wreck - - 1.94 3.16 4 sculpin spp. L1 0.02 0.06 - - 18 L2----18 L3----18 reef ----9 wreck 0.28 0.56 - - 4 senorita L1 - - 1.29 3.67 18 L2----18 L3----18 reef - - 22.72 40.35 9 wreck 27.78 55.56 0.83 1.67 4 sharpnose seaperch L1 - - 2.78 11.55 18 L2 - - 1.02 3.14 18 L3 - - 0.09 0.39 18 reef 6.36 14.61 0.12 0.37 9 wreck ----4 shiner perch reef 0.12 0.37 - - 9 wreck ----4

112 Species or complex < 12 cm TL > 12 cm TL habitat mean s.d. mean s.d. N striped seaperch L1----18 L2----18 L3----18 reef 0.19 0.56 0.12 0.37 9 wreck ----4 white seaperch L1----18 L2----18 L3----18 reef - - 0.06 0.19 9 wreck ----4 zebra goby reef 0.19 0.56 - - 9 wreck ----4 L1----18 L2----18 L3----18

113 APPENDIX 4.5A Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less, and greater than 12 cm TL) of rockfish species and complexes at the three levels surveyed at individual platforms. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level ranged from 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m among platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.1 0.0 0.1 12 cm TL level Deep ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 8.0 5.5 0.0 0.1 12 cm TL > 20.8 27.0 16.916.4 18.930.4 25.5 21.7 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 24.4 30.6 2299.9 2956.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Middle ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > 15.1 14.6 84.3 72.5 22.8 36.5 25.5 34.6 64.2 108.4 19.4 24.0 56.4 97.7 22.8 35.2 175.2 149.5 373.3 579.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Shallow ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 0.6 0.5 3 3 1.4 1.9 33 8.7 46.5 7.8 40.6 1 1 1 33 0.133 0.1 0.23 37.3 5.3 0.2 0.6 64.6 8.8 1.2 1.0 11.8 3.0 2.1 20.4 5.2 40.2 87.9 127.8 35.8 6.2 96.6 15.1 9.9 167.3 26.1 4811.2 60.7 6893.2 7823.0 105.2 4849.3 787.6 21.6 1363.3 7.0 21.4 11.8 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 surveys N rockfish rockfish HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA B GILDA GRACE GINA HOLLY GAIL ELLEN EUREKA GINA GAIL HOLLY B GILDA GRACE ELLEN EUREKA B GILDA HOLLY GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA rockfish blue ROCKFISHES Platform bocaccio brown calico

114 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.10.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 12 cm TL level Deep ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 12 cm TL > ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.4 12 cm TL < level Middle ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.5 6.1 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 12 cm TL > ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 12 cm TL < level Shallow ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 33 1.4 1.4 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 surveys N HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL HOLLY ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA copper rockfish ROCKFISHES Platform flag rockfish gopher rockfish grass rockfish

115 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.6 0.2 3.84.8 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 12 cm TL level Deep ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 8.9 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 2.7 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 12 cm TL > 106.7 17.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.2 0.3 0.10.9 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 12 cm TL < level Middle ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.1 6.8 1.7 0.4 0.3 4.5 7.0 12 cm TL > ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.3 0.3 12 cm TL < level Shallow ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1.0 1.7 3 0.2 0.3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 surveys N (KGB) rockfish HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA B HOLLY GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA yellow rockfish halfbanded ROCKFISHES Platform kelp rockfish kelp rockfish, gopher or black and rosy rockfish

116 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL level Deep ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.8 2.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 12 cm TL > 13.5 114.9 198.9 23.2 39.5 903.0 487.9 0.3 0.3 385.8 203.6 645.7 400.5 289.1 347.0 426.1 3728.7 6457.6 1234.7 628.4 11081.8 11342.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Middle ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.2 13.5 7.6 13.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 12 cm TL > 16.5 17.8 20.3 35.2 212.1 367.3 346.1 347.8 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Shallow ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1.2 2.1 3 32.4 56.2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0.1 0.2 3 1 1 1 surveys N rockfish rockfish rockfish HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA shortbelly ROCKFISHES Platform squarespot stripetail treefish

117 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.4 12 cm TL level Deep ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 12 cm TL > 93.7 54.6 82.2 73.2 47.2 81.8 49.5 81.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Middle ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.4 4.4 1.9 3.2 12 cm TL > 55.1 95.5 15.9 9.8 25.2 37.0 208.2 322.5 0.2 0.3 859.6 435.7 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL < level Shallow ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 cm TL > < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 1.5 2.6 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 0.6 0.7 3 3 33 0.1 26.8 0.3 25.9 0.1 0.2 136.2 225.4 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 surveys N

spp. or olive rockfish rockfish rockfish rockfish HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA HOLLY B GILDA GRACE GINA GAIL ELLEN EUREKA widow ROCKFISHES Platform yellowtail (OYT) young ‐ of year

118 APPENDIX 4.5B Supplemental survey season 2010: annual average density (fish/100 m2 ± 1 s.d.) of two size classes (12 cm TL or less, and greater than 12 cm TL) of non-rockfish taxa at the three levels surveyed at individual platforms. Shallow level ranged from 5-11 m, middle level ranged from 11-22 m, and deep level 26-35 m among platforms. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of common names. 01 TL

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 01 0.10.1 0.1 0.2

level

Deep TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.1 0.2 0.1

11.5 3 . 03 0 01 TL <

cm 2 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.0 0.1 9.4 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 3.5 1.4 02 0 00 0.0 0.1

99.5 level

3 . 10 3 Middle TL >

cm 3 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.1 73 7 2.3 0.6

5 . 15 1 02 TL <

cm 9 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.0 0.1 3.8 0.2 1.7 0.3 2.9 0.0 0.1 5.4 09 0 01 0.1 0.2

12.2 level

6 . 35 6 TL >

Shallow cm 6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12

34 6 < Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 48.3 13.4 38.4 39.7 9.8 10.0 1.7 1.9 0.2 0.2 3 1 1 3 3 3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 3 3 1 3 3 3 12.7 19.5 40.4 42.1 118.8 141.8 11.8 13.1 27.6 47.5 5.0 8.6 1 0.4 3 17.9 31.1 31.8 43.7 51.1 60.9 5.3 6.3 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 4.7 8.2 44.5 42.8 3 0.8 0.7 2.2 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 surveys

N sheephead

goby

Rockfishes ‐ HOLLY GINA GRACE GILDA GAIL EUREKA ELLEN B3 EUREKA ELLEN ELLEN EUREKA GINA GAIL GINA GAIL HOLLY B3 HOLLY ELLEN HOLLY GILDA B GRACE GRACE GAIL B GILDA EUREKA GINA B B3 GILDA GRACE Platform California cabezon blacksmith blackeye Non

119 TL

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

550.2 952.9 level

Deep TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 2.3 4.0

TL <

cm 5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 25 2

level

Middle TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

0.2 TL <

cm 2 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.3 7.6 13.2 0.3 92 9 0.3 0.2

level

TL >

Shallow cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

< Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 surveys

N topsmelt or

Rockfishes bass mackerel

‐

EUREKA ELLEN GAIL GINA GRACE GILDA B3 HOLLY EUREKA ELLEN ELLEN EUREKA GAIL GINA GINA GAIL GRACE ELLEN HOLLY GRACE GRACE GILDA HOLLY B3 GAIL B GILDA EUREKA GINA B B3 GILDA Platform B3 HOLLY ack acksmelt kelp j Non j garibaldi

120 2 . 02 0 TL

cm 1 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ . 12 0.1 01 0 level

Deep TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1

TL <

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 1.1 0.00.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.8 1.1 level

0.2 Middle TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

TL <

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 7.6 3.4 level

TL >

Shallow cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

< Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 1 1 1 33 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 3 3 1 3 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 surveys

N greenling

Rockfishes greenling

‐ EUREKA ELLEN GINA GAIL HOLLY GRACE B GILDA EUREKA ELLEN HOLLY ELLEN GRACE EUREKA GINA GAIL GINA GAIL B3 GILDA HOLLY ELLEN GRACE GRACE B3 HOLLY B GILDA EUREKA GINA GAIL B B3 GILDA Platform painted opaleye lingcod Non kelp

121 0.1 TL

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

level

Deep TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

0.2 TL <

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 4.1 7.0 2.0 3.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

level

Middle TL >

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

0.1 63 TL <

cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.3 0.3 0.1 77 7.7 6.3 0.1 0.1

16.4 28.3 level

TL >

Shallow cm ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12

< Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0.01 0.1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 0.1 0.1 surveys

N seaperch

spp.

Rockfishes perch ‐

EUREKA ELLEN GINA GAIL GRACE GILDA HOLLY B3 EUREKA GRACE HOLLY ELLEN ELLEN EUREKA B3 GILDA HOLLY GINA GAIL GINA GAIL ELLEN GRACE GRACE GAIL B GILDA EUREKA GINA B B3 GILDA Platform B3 HOLLY sharpnose senorita sculpin Non pile

122 APPENDIX 5 Locations and descriptions of structures surveyed, June to September, 2008–2010.

Platforms Irene: 34°36’N, 120°43’W. Bottom depth 73 m; distance from shore 7.6 km. Holly: 34°22’N, 119·52’W, Bottom depth 64 m; distance from shore 2.9 km. B: 34°19’N, 119°37’W. Bottom depth 58 m; distance from shore 9.1 km. Gail: 34°07’N, 119°24’W. Bottom depth 224 m; distance from shore 15.9 km. Gina: 34°07’N, 119°16’W. Bottom depth 29 m; distance from shore 6.0 km. Grace: 34°10’N, 119°28’W. Bottom depth 96 m; distance from shore 16.9 km. Gilda: 34°10’N, 119°25’W. Bottom depth 62 m; distance from shore 14.2 km. Ellen: 33°34’N, 118°08’W. Bottom depth 80 m; distance from shore depths 13.8 km. Eureka: 33°33’N, 118°06’W. Bottom depth 212 m; distance from shore 14.8 km.

Reefs San Luis: 35°48’N, 120°28’W. This pinnacle is the smallest of the seafloor features surveyed in this study. It is a small bladelike spire of rock that is approximately 25 m long and 5 m wide at its peak. It rises to a depth of 20 m and drops nearly vertically along smooth walls on all sides to a depth of 38 m. It is surrounded by sand.

Super Pin: 34°03’N, 120°13’W. This pinnacle lies off the north coast of San Miguel Island, rising from 49 to 61 m deep up to a depth of 21 to 24 m. The top is roughly circular measuring 30 to 37 m across, dropping steeply on all sides.

Egg Rock: 34°02’N, 120°09’W. Egg Rock lies between Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands, rising from a depth of about 61 m. The top is relatively flat, measures 44 m long by 26 m wide, and is 20 to 23 m deep. It drops steeply on all sides, the walls having many overhangs and caves.

The Nine: 33°33’N, 119°35’W. The Nine is an oblong rise off the southeast corner of Santa Rosa Island. It rises to a depth of 17 to 21 m. The flat rock is crossed by numerous channels of gravel and sand. The edges drop off gradually to sandy gravel on all sides. Northward towards Santa Rosa Island the surrounding sand flats are 26 m deep. To the south the sand begins at approximately 31 m deep.

Admiral’s: 34°00’N, 119°16’W. This pinnacle is one of several that rise from the sea floor off the east side of Anacapa Island. It rises sharply from a depth of 38 m. The top of the feature is a plateau approximately 15 by 21 m long that ranges from 21–27 m deep. To the north and west it drops nearly vertically to the sea floor, while the other sides slope somewhat more gradually to boulder piles that begin at 30 m deep.

Four Mile: 34°13’N, 119°23’W. The Four Mile is a small, roughly circular, seafloor feature that is perhaps 30 m across. It rises from a depth of 46 to 61 m to a peak at 32 m. The top is of very high relief and much of it is 37 m deep. It has numerous overhangs, crevices, and channels running across it.

Farnsworth Bank: 33°21’N, 118°33’W. Farnsworth Bank, covering about 6 hectares, is a series of hard bedrock pinnacles, rising to as shallow as 15 m, but mostly in 24 m and deeper, from a soft sediment sea floor. Much of this feature is covered in purple hydrocoral, Stylaster californica.

Shipwrecks SM1: 34°16’N, 120°14’W. The SM1 was a metal U.S. Navy landing ship that was converted to an oil drilling rig in the 1950s. It sank in 1961 and now lies upside down in 23 m of water just east of Government Point. It has numerous holes in it ranging from several inches to several meters in diameter. The top of the wreck (or the bottom of the hull) rises 6 m off the seafloor.

123 Avalon: 33°28’N, 118°15’W. The Avalon was a steel 82 m passenger ship that sank off Palos Verdes in 1964 in 23 m of water on a bottom of sand and boulders. Today it is nothing more than a widely scattered pile of debris, although some sections of the hull are still recognizable and stand 6 m off the bottom.

Olympic: 33°23’N, 118°08’W. The Olympic was an iron 79 m fishing barge that sank off San Pedro after a collision with the Japanese freighter Sakito Maru in 1940. Considered a hazard to navigation, the wreckage was blown up soon after. As a result the wreckage is strewn about widely, most lying flat on the bottom although a few sections of the hull still stand as high as 10 m off the bottom. The remains lie in 30 m of water on a sandy bottom.

124