DOCSLIB.ORG

Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment NORTHWEST TRAINING AND TESTING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FINAL MARCH 2015 Lead Agency Department of the Navy Action Proponents Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Air Systems Command Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This assessment of the effects of Navy activities in the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Study Area on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) covers regulatory issues, impacts of the Proposed Action, and mitigation measures. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976 mandates identification and conservation of EFH. A second habitat type is also identified to focus conservation efforts: Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. These subsets of EFH are rare, sensitive, ecologically important, or located in an area that is already stressed. Federal agencies are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and to prepare an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) if their activities may adversely affect EFH. The Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Study Area The NWTT Study Area includes offshore air, sea, and undersea space; nearshore air, land, sea, and undersea space, and inland airspace. Offshore and nearshore operating areas contain EFH for species covered under Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), including salmonids, coastal pelagic species, Pacific Coast groundfish, and highly migratory species. The NWTT Study Area is located within the California Current System: the offshore and nearshore areas adjacent to Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), and northern California (CA) coasts; and the marine and estuarine waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, WA; and the Western Behm Canal located in southeast Alaska (AK). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has management responsibilities over the EFH in offshore waters of WA, OR, and CA and the Inland Waters portion of the Study Area. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) has management responsibilities in Alaskan waters. The Navy has determined that the Proposed Action will have no effect on EFH Western Behm Canal, Alaska; therefore, discussion of Alaskan waters is not carried forward in this analysis. Proposed Activities The Navy proposes to continue training and testing activities in the NWTT Study Area. Navy training activities include missile, gunnery, bombing, and electronic combat exercises; anti- submarine warfare tracking exercises; mine countermeasures training; naval special warfare training; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities. The Navy’s research and acquisition community engages in a broad spectrum of testing activities in support of the fleet. These activities include, but are not limited to, basic and applied scientific research and technology development; testing, evaluation, and maintenance of systems (missiles, radar, and sonar), and platforms (surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); and acquisition of systems and platforms to support Navy missions. Analysis Factors The following factors were considered in the analysis of potential impacts: the duration, frequency, intensity, and spatial extent of the impact; the sensitivity or vulnerability of the habitat; and the habitat functions that might be altered by the impact. Adverse effects are defined as any impact that reduces the quality or quantity of EFH. Temporary effects are limited in duration and allow the environment to i Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment recover without measurable impact. Minimal effects do not cause large-scale changes in ecological function. Effects on EFH could be associated with sonar and vessel noise; underwater explosives and weapons firing, launch, and impact noise; electromagnetic devices; vessel movement; in-water devices; military expended materials; seafloor devices; explosives and explosives byproducts; metals; chemicals; and other materials. Navy activities could have short-term, temporary, long-term, or permanent effects, as well as minimal, effects on individual species, substrates, biogenic habitats, or could alter water quality. Summary of Assessment Acoustic Stressors Acoustic energy from sonar and vessel noise may adversely affect water column EFH. However, these effects would be minimal and temporary. Noise from explosives and weapons firing, launch, and impact may adversely affect water column EFH. However, these effects would be minimal and temporary. These actions may also adversely affect substrate and biogenic EFH and the effects would range from minimal and short term to permanent. Energy Stressors Electromagnetic devices may adversely affect water column EFH. However, these effects would be minimal and temporary. Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Vessel movement and in-water devices may adversely affect substrates. However, the effects would range from minimal and short term to permanent. Vessel movement and in-water devices would have no effect on biogenic EFH as mitigation measures would prevent activities occurring near sensitive nearshore habitats. Military expended materials may adversely affect water column EFH; however, these effects would be minimal and temporary. Military expended materials may adversely affect substrate and biogenic EFH. However, these effects would range from minimal and long term to permanent. Seafloor devices would have no effect on water column EFH, but may adversely affect substrate and biogenic EFH. These effects, however, would be minimal and temporary. Contaminant Stressors Explosives and explosives byproducts may adversely affect water column, substrate, and biogenic EFH. However, these effects would be minimal and temporary. Metals, chemicals, and other materials would have no effect on any EFH in the Study Area. Conclusion The assessment concludes that the potential impacts from the Proposed Action may adversely affect EFH; however, these effects would not exceed a determination of more than minimal (Table ES-1). The individual stressor effects were all either no effect or may adversely affect. However, any expected effects would be minimal and range in duration from temporary to permanent, depending on the habitat impacted. ii Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table ES-1: Summary of Determinations EFH Species HAPC Water Prey Species Substrate Biogenic Column Pacific Coast • Attached macroalgae: may adversely affect (minimal and long Groundfish May adversely term based on hard substrate affect (minimal and impacts) May variable duration, May • Submerged rooted vegetation: May adversely adversely habitat dependent; adversely may adversely affect (minimal and affect (minimal affect mitigation avoids affect long term; mitigation avoids and (minimal and sensitive nearshore (minimal and sensitive nearshore habitats) temporary) short term to habitats, mapped temporary) • permanent) Sedentary invertebrate beds: may hard bottom, and adversely affect (minimal and surface macroalgae short term to permanent [based concentrations) on substrate impacts]; mitigation avoids mapped hard bottom) Pacific Coast • Attached macroalgae: may adversely affect (minimal and long Salmon Species May adversely term based on hard substrate affect (minimal and impacts) May variable duration, May • Submerged rooted vegetation: May adversely adversely habitat dependent; adversely may adversely affect (minimal and affect (minimal affect mitigation avoids affect long term; mitigation avoids and (minimal and sensitive nearshore (minimal and sensitive nearshore habitats) temporary) short term to habitats, mapped temporary) • permanent) Sedentary invertebrate beds: may hard bottom, and adversely affect (minimal and surface macroalgae short term to permanent [based concentrations) on substrate impacts]; mitigation avoids mapped hard bottom) Coastal Pelagic • Attached macroalgae: may Species adversely affect (minimal and long term based on hard substrate impacts) May May • Submerged rooted vegetation: May adversely adversely adversely may adversely affect (minimal and affect (minimal affect affect long term; mitigation avoids None and (minimal and (minimal and sensitive nearshore habitats) temporary) short term to temporary) • permanent) Sedentary invertebrate beds: may adversely affect (minimal and short term to permanent [based on substrate impacts]; mitigation avoids mapped hard bottom) Highly Migratory • Attached macroalgae: may Species adversely affect (minimal and long term based on hard substrate impacts) May May • Submerged rooted vegetation: May adversely adversely adversely may adversely affect (minimal and affect (minimal affect affect long term; mitigation avoids None and (minimal and (minimal and sensitive nearshore habitats) temporary) short term to temporary) • permanent) Sedentary invertebrate beds: may adversely affect (minimal and short term to permanent [based on substrate impacts]; mitigation avoids mapped hard bottom) iii Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank iv Northwest Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ° degree ft.2 square feet > greater than ft./s feet per second < less than G gauss µg/L micrograms per liter GIS Geographic Information System µPa micropascal GUNEX Gunnery Exercise A-A Air-to-Air h depth A-S Air-to-Surface HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern AAW Anti-Air Warfare HARM High Speed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISH LIST WISH LIST: a Case for Updating the Canadian Government’S Guidance for Common Names on Seafood
    FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood Authors: Christina Callegari, Scott Wallace, Sarah Foster and Liane Arness ISBN: 978-1-988424-60-6 © SeaChoice November 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 Findings . 5 Recommendations . 6 INTRODUCTION . 7 APPROACH . 8 Identification of Canadian-caught species . 9 Data processing . 9 REPORT STRUCTURE . 10 SECTION A: COMMON AND OVERLAPPING NAMES . 10 Introduction . 10 Methodology . 10 Results . 11 Snapper/rockfish/Pacific snapper/rosefish/redfish . 12 Sole/flounder . 14 Shrimp/prawn . 15 Shark/dogfish . 15 Why it matters . 15 Recommendations . 16 SECTION B: CANADIAN-CAUGHT SPECIES OF HIGHEST CONCERN . 17 Introduction . 17 Methodology . 18 Results . 20 Commonly mislabelled species . 20 Species with sustainability concerns . 21 Species linked to human health concerns . 23 Species listed under the U .S . Seafood Import Monitoring Program . 25 Combined impact assessment . 26 Why it matters . 28 Recommendations . 28 SECTION C: MISSING SPECIES, MISSING ENGLISH AND FRENCH COMMON NAMES AND GENUS-LEVEL ENTRIES . 31 Introduction . 31 Missing species and outdated scientific names . 31 Scientific names without English or French CFIA common names . 32 Genus-level entries . 33 Why it matters . 34 Recommendations . 34 CONCLUSION . 35 REFERENCES . 36 APPENDIX . 39 Appendix A . 39 Appendix B . 39 FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood 2 GLOSSARY The terms below are defined to aid in comprehension of this report. Common name — Although species are given a standard Scientific name — The taxonomic (Latin) name for a species. common name that is readily used by the scientific In nomenclature, every scientific name consists of two parts, community, industry has adopted other widely used names the genus and the specific epithet, which is used to identify for species sold in the marketplace.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico And
    A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes THIRD EDITION GSMFC No. 300 NOVEMBER 2020 i Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Commissioners and Proxies ALABAMA Senator R.L. “Bret” Allain, II Chris Blankenship, Commissioner State Senator District 21 Alabama Department of Conservation Franklin, Louisiana and Natural Resources John Roussel Montgomery, Alabama Zachary, Louisiana Representative Chris Pringle Mobile, Alabama MISSISSIPPI Chris Nelson Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. Mississippi Department of Marine Bon Secour, Alabama Resources Biloxi, Mississippi FLORIDA Read Hendon Eric Sutton, Executive Director USM/Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Florida Fish and Wildlife Ocean Springs, Mississippi Conservation Commission Tallahassee, Florida TEXAS Representative Jay Trumbull Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, Florida Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas LOUISIANA Doug Boyd Jack Montoucet, Secretary Boerne, Texas Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Baton Rouge, Louisiana GSMFC Staff ASMFC Staff Mr. David M. Donaldson Mr. Bob Beal Executive Director Executive Director Mr. Steven J. VanderKooy Mr. Jeffrey Kipp IJF Program Coordinator Stock Assessment Scientist Ms. Debora McIntyre Dr. Kristen Anstead IJF Staff Assistant Fisheries Scientist ii A Practical Handbook for Determining the Ages of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast Fishes Third Edition Edited by Steve VanderKooy Jessica Carroll Scott Elzey Jessica Gilmore Jeffrey Kipp Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 2404 Government St Ocean Springs, MS 39564 and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1050 N. Highland Street Suite 200 A-N Arlington, VA 22201 Publication Number 300 November 2020 A publication of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4070076 and NA15NMF4720399.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockfish (Sebastes) That Are Evolutionarily Isolated Are Also
    Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1787–1796 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Rockfish (Sebastes) that are evolutionarily isolated are also large, morphologically distinctive and vulnerable to overfishing Karen Magnuson-Ford a,b, Travis Ingram c, David W. Redding a,b, Arne Ø. Mooers a,b,* a Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 b IRMACS, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 c Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, #2370-6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4 article info abstract Article history: In an age of triage, we must prioritize species for conservation effort. Species more isolated on the tree of Received 23 September 2008 life are candidates for increased attention. The rockfish genus Sebastes is speciose (>100 spp.), morpho- Received in revised form 10 March 2009 logically and ecologically diverse and many species are heavily fished. We used a complete Sebastes phy- Accepted 18 March 2009 logeny to calculate a measure of evolutionary isolation for each species and compared this to their Available online 22 April 2009 morphology and imperilment. We found that evolutionarily isolated species in the northeast Pacific are both larger-bodied and, independent of body size, morphologically more distinctive. We examined Keywords: extinction risk within rockfish using a compound measure of each species’ intrinsic vulnerability to Phylogenetic diversity overfishing and categorizing species as commercially fished or not. Evolutionarily isolated species in Extinction risk Conservation priorities the northeast Pacific are more likely to be fished, and, due to their larger sizes and to life history traits Body size such as long lifespan and slow maturation rate, they are also intrinsically more vulnerable to overfishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish Complex (Sebastes Aleutianus and S
    DRAFT SPECIES AT RISK ACT MANAGESPECIESMENT PLAN AT RISK SERIES ACT MANAGEMENT PLAN SERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ROUGHEYE/BLACKSPOTTEDMANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ROCKFISH ROUGHEY E COMPLEXROCKFISHROUGHEYE (SEBASTES ALEUTIANUSROCKFISH COMPLEX AND S. MELANOSTICTUS(SEBASTES ALEUTIANUS) AND LONGSPINE AND S. THORNYHEADMELANOSTICTUS (SEBASTOLOBUS) AND LONGSPINE ALTIVELIS THORNYHE) IN AD CANADA(SEBAST OLOBUS ALTIVELIS)INCANADA SEBASTES ALEUTIANUS; SEBASTES MELANOSTICTUS SEBASTES ASEBASTOLOBUSLEUTIANUS; SEBASTES ALTIVELIS MEL ANOSTICTUS SEBASTOLOBUS ALTIVELIS S. aleutianus S. melanostictus 2012 Photo Credit: DFO Sebastolobus altivelis 2012 About the Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003, and one of its purposes is “to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.” What is a species of special concern? Under SARA, a species of special concern is a wildlife species that could become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Species of special concern are included in the SARA List of Wildlife Species at Risk. What is a management plan? Under SARA, a management plan is an action-oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become threatened or endangered. For many species, the ultimate aim of the management plan will be to alleviate human threats and remove the species from the List of Wildlife Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California
    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93g734v0 Authors Pinkas, Leo Gates, Doyle E Frey, Herbert W Publication Date 1974 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 161 California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California By Leo Pinkas Marine Resources Region and By Doyle E. Gates and Herbert W. Frey > Marine Resources Region 1974 1 Figure 1. Geographical areas used to summarize California Fisheries statistics. 2 3 1. CALIFORNIA MARINE FISH LANDINGS FOR 1972 LEO PINKAS Marine Resources Region 1.1. INTRODUCTION The protection, propagation, and wise utilization of California's living marine resources (established as common property by statute, Section 1600, Fish and Game Code) is dependent upon the welding of biological, environment- al, economic, and sociological factors. Fundamental to each of these factors, as well as the entire management pro- cess, are harvest records. The California Department of Fish and Game began gathering commercial fisheries land- ing data in 1916. Commercial fish catches were first published in 1929 for the years 1926 and 1927. This report, the 32nd in the landing series, is for the calendar year 1972. It summarizes commercial fishing activities in marine as well as fresh waters and includes the catches of the sportfishing partyboat fleet. Preliminary landing data are published annually in the circular series which also enumerates certain fishery products produced from the catch.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Fishes of California
    COMMON FISHES OF CALIFORNIA Updated July 2016 Blue Rockfish - SMYS Sebastes mystinus 2-4 bands around front of head; blue to black body, dark fins; anal fin slanted Size: 8-18in; Depth: 0-200’+ Common from Baja north to Canada North of Conception mixes with mostly with Olive and Black R.F.; South with Blacksmith, Kelp Bass, Halfmoons and Olives. Black Rockfish - SMEL Sebastes melanops Blue to blue-back with black dots on their dorsal fins; anal fin rounded Size: 8-18 in; Depth: 8-1200’ Common north of Point Conception Smaller eyes and a bit more oval than Blues Olive/Yellowtail Rockfish – OYT Sebastes serranoides/ flavidus Several pale spots below dorsal fins; fins greenish brown to yellow fins Size: 10-20in; Depth: 10-400’+ Midwater fish common south of Point Conception to Baja; rare north of Conception Yellowtail R.F. is a similar species are rare south of Conception, while being common north Black & Yellow Rockfish - SCHR Sebastes chrysomelas Yellow blotches of black/olive brown body;Yellow membrane between third and fourth dorsal fin spines Size: 6-12in; Depth: 0-150’ Common central to southern California Inhabits rocky areas/crevices Gopher Rockfish - SCAR Sebastes carnatus Several small white blotches on back; Pale blotch extends from dorsal spine onto back Size: 6-12 in; Depth: 8-180’ Common central California Inhabits rocky areas/crevice. Territorial Copper Rockfish - SCAU Sebastes caurinus Wide, light stripe runs along rear half on lateral line Size:: 10-16in; Depth: 10-600’ Inhabits rocky reefs, kelpbeds,
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of the Fishes of the Monterey Bay Area Including Elkhorn Slough, the San Lorenzo, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers
    f3/oC-4'( Contributions from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories No. 26 Technical Publication 72-2 CASUC-MLML-TP-72-02 A CHECKLIST OF THE FISHES OF THE MONTEREY BAY AREA INCLUDING ELKHORN SLOUGH, THE SAN LORENZO, PAJARO AND SALINAS RIVERS by Gary E. Kukowski Sea Grant Research Assistant June 1972 LIBRARY Moss L8ndillg ,\:Jrine Laboratories r. O. Box 223 Moss Landing, Calif. 95039 This study was supported by National Sea Grant Program National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States Department of Commerce - Grant No. 2-35137 to Moss Landing Marine Laboratories of the California State University at Fresno, Hayward, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose Dr. Robert E. Arnal, Coordinator , ·./ "':., - 'I." ~:. 1"-"'00 ~~ ~~ IAbm>~toriesi Technical Publication 72-2: A GI-lliGKL.TST OF THE FISHES OF TtlE MONTEREY my Jl.REA INCLUDING mmORH SLOUGH, THE SAN LCRENZO, PAY-ARO AND SALINAS RIVERS .. 1&let~: Page 14 - A1estria§.·~iligtro1ophua - Stone cockscomb - r-m Page 17 - J:,iparis'W10pus." Ribbon' snailt'ish - HE , ,~ ~Ei 31 - AlectrlQ~iu.e,ctro1OphUfi- 87-B9 . .', . ': ". .' Page 31 - Ceb1diehtlrrs rlolaCewi - 89 , Page 35 - Liparis t!01:f-.e - 89 .Qhange: Page 11 - FmWulns parvipin¢.rl, add: Probable misidentification Page 20 - .BathopWuBt.lemin&, change to: .Mhgghilu§. llemipg+ Page 54 - Ji\mdJ11ui~~ add: Probable. misidentifioation Page 60 - Item. number 67, authOr should be .Hubbs, Clark TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 AREA OF COVERAGE 1 METHODS OF LITERATURE SEARCH 2 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 TABLE 1
    [Show full text]
  • Behaviour and Patterns of Habitat Utilisation by Deep-Sea Fish
    Behaviour and patterns of habitat utilisation by deep-sea fish: analysis of observations recorded by the submersible Nautilus in "98" in the Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic By Dário Mendes Alves, 2003 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in International Fisheries Management Department of Aquatic Bioscience Norwegian College of Fishery Science University of Tromsø INDEX Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..iii page 1.INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1 1.1. Deep-sea fisheries…………………………………………………………….……..1 1.2. Deep-sea habitats……………………………………………………………………2 1.3. The Bay of Biscay…………………………………………………………………..3 1.4. Deep-sea fish locomotory behaviour………………………………………………..4 1.5. Objectives……………………………………………………………………...……4 2.MATERIAL AND METHODS…………………………………………….…..……5 2.1. Dives, data collection and environments……………………………………………5 2.2. Video and data analysis……………………………………………………...……...7 2.2.1. Video assessment and sampling units………………………………...…..7 2.2.2. Microhabitats characterization…………………………………….……...8 2.2.3. Grouping of variables……………………………………………………10 2.2.4. Co-occurrence of fish and invertebrate fauna……………………………10 2.2.5. Depth and temperature relationships…………………………………….10 2.2.6. Multivariate analysis……………………………………………………..11 2.2.7. Locomotory Behaviour………………………………………………......13 3.RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………14 3.1. General characterization of dives………………………………………………….14 3.1.1. Species richness, habitat types and sampling……………………………14 3.1.2. Diving profiles, depth and temperature………………………………….17 3.1.3. Fish distribution according to depth and temperature………………...…18 3.2. Habitat use………………………………………………………………………....20 3.2.1. Independent dive analysis……………………………………………..…20 3.2.1.1. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), Dive 22……………...…..20 3.2.1.2. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), Dive 34………………….22 3.2.1.3. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), Dive 35………………….24 3.2.1.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Age and Growth of Pontinus Kuhlii (Bowdich, 1825) in the Canary Islands*
    SCI. MAR., 65 (4): 259-267 SCIENTIA MARINA 2001 Age and growth of Pontinus kuhlii (Bowdich, 1825) in the Canary Islands* L.J. LÓPEZ ABELLÁN, M.T.G. SANTAMARÍA and P. CONESA Centro Oceanográfico de Canarias, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Carretera de San Andrés, s/n, 38120 Santa Cruz de Tenerife. España. E-mail: [email protected] SUMMARY: Pontinus kuhlii is a Scorpaenidae which forms part of the bottom longline by-catch in the Canary Islands fish- eries within setting operations from 200 to 400 metres depth. Information on their biology and on the age determination and growth of the species is very scarce. The main objective of the study was to look at this biological aspect based on 421 spec- imens caught in the Canarian Archipelago during the period July 1996 and August 1997, 286 of which were male, 130 female and 5 indeterminate. Age was determined through the interpretation of annual growth rings of otoliths and scales, and the results fitted the von Bertalanffy growth function. Otolith sectionings were discarded due to annuli losses caused by the edge structure. The structures used in age interpretation showed numerous false rings that made the process difficult, causing 17% of the cases to be rejected. However, the age interpretations from scales showed less variability in relation to the whole otolith. The ages of the specimens ranged from 6 to 18 years for males and from 6 to 14 years for females. The growth parameters for males were: K= 0.132, L∞ = 46.7 and to= 1.74; for females: K= 0.094, L∞= 46.3 and to= 0.05; and for the total: K= 0.095, L∞= 52.2 and to= 1.01.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to the Rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) of Alaska
    Field Guide to the Rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) of Alaska Extracted from: Orr, J. W., M. A. Brown, and D. C. Baker. 2000. Guide to rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) of the genera Sebastes, Sebastolobus, and Adelosebastes of the Northeast Pacific Ocean, second edition. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-117, 47 p. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center Alaska Groundfish Observer Program 2002 ABSTRACT The rockfishes (family Scorpaenidae) of the northeast Pacific Ocean north of Mexico comprise five genera, three of which are included in this guide: Sebastes, Sebastolobus, and Adelosebastes. Sebastes includes some 100 species worldwide; 33, including one to be described, are presently recognized from Alaskan waters. Sebastolobus (commonly known as the thornyheads) includes only three species worldwide; all three are found in Alaskan waters. The single species of Adelosebastes (the Aleutian scorpionfish, A. latens) is known only from the Aleutian Islands and Emperor Seamounts. Of the three genera treated here, Sebastes poses the most difficulties in identification, both because of the numbers of species and because of their morphological similarity and variability. This guide includes color images of 37 species photographed under natural and electronic flash conditions in the field. Most specimens were photographed immediately after collection. iii CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 157 GUIDE TO THE COASTAL MARINE FISHES OF CALIFORNIA by DANIEL J. MILLER and ROBERT N. LEA Marine Resources Region 1972 ABSTRACT This is a comprehensive identification guide encompassing all shallow marine fishes within California waters. Geographic range limits, maximum size, depth range, a brief color description, and some meristic counts including, if available: fin ray counts, lateral line pores, lateral line scales, gill rakers, and vertebrae are given. Body proportions and shapes are used in the keys and a state- ment concerning the rarity or commonness in California is given for each species. In all, 554 species are described. Three of these have not been re- corded or confirmed as occurring in California waters but are included since they are apt to appear. The remainder have been recorded as occurring in an area between the Mexican and Oregon borders and offshore to at least 50 miles. Five of California species as yet have not been named or described, and ichthyologists studying these new forms have given information on identification to enable inclusion here. A dichotomous key to 144 families includes an outline figure of a repre- sentative for all but two families. Keys are presented for all larger families, and diagnostic features are pointed out on most of the figures. Illustrations are presented for all but eight species. Of the 554 species, 439 are found primarily in depths less than 400 ft., 48 are meso- or bathypelagic species, and 67 are deepwater bottom dwelling forms rarely taken in less than 400 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Localized Depletion of Three Alaska Rockfish Species Dana Hanselman NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska
    Biology, Assessment, and Management of North Pacific Rockfishes 493 Alaska Sea Grant College Program • AK-SG-07-01, 2007 Localized Depletion of Three Alaska Rockfish Species Dana Hanselman NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska Paul Spencer NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management (REFM) Division, Seattle, Washington Kalei Shotwell NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska Rebecca Reuter NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, REFM Division, Seattle, Washington Abstract The distributions of some rockfish species in Alaska are clustered. Their distribution and relatively sedentary movement patterns could make localized depletion of rockfish an ecological or conservation concern. Alaska rockfish have varying and little-known genetic stock structures. Rockfish fishing seasons are short and intense and usually confined to small areas. If allowable catches are set for large management areas, the genetic, age, and size structures of the population could change if the majority of catch is harvested from small concentrated areas. In this study, we analyzed data collected by the North Pacific Observer Program from 1991 to 2004 to assess localized depletion of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), northern rockfish S.( polyspinis), and dusky rockfish (S. variabilis). The data were divided into blocks with areas of approxi- mately 10,000 km2 and 5,000 km2 of consistent, intense fishing. We used two different block sizes to consider the size for which localized deple- tion could be detected. For each year, the Leslie depletion estimator was used to determine whether catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) values in each 494 Hanselman et al.—Three Alaska Rockfish Species block declined as a function of cumulative catch.
    [Show full text]