DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan PACIFIC COAST FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN FOR THE U.S. PORTION OF THE CALIFORNIA CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 7700 NE AMBASSADOR PLACE, SUITE 101 PORTLAND, OR 97220 (503) 820-2280 (866) 806-7204 WWW.PCOUNCIL.ORG JULY 2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ECOSYSTEM PLAN DEVELOPMENT TEAM Ms. Yvonne deReynier, Chair (NMFS/NWR, Seattle, WA); Dr. John Field, Vice-Chair (NMFS/SWFSC, Santa Cruz); Mr. Michael Burner (Council Staff, Portland, OR); Dr. Larry Gilbertson, (Quinault Fisheries, Taholah, WA); Dr. Melissa Haltuch (NMFS/NWFSC, Seattle, WA); Dr. Samuel Herrick (NMFS/SWFSC, La Jolla, CA); Dr. Phil Levin (NMFS/NWFSC, Seattle, WA); Mr. Joshua Lindsay (NMFS/SWR, Long Beach, CA); Dr. Andrew Leising (NMFS/SWFSC, Pacific Grove, CA); Mr. Corey Niles (WDFW, Montesano, WA); Ms. Cyreis Schmitt (ODFW, Newport, OR); Dr. Richard Scully (IDFG, Lewiston, ID); Ms. Deborah Wilson-Vandenberg (CDFW, Monterey, CA); Dr. Lisa Wooninck (ONMS, Monterey, CA); with legal counsel from Mr. Judson Feder (NOAA/GC, Long Beach, CA). The Ecosystem Plan Development Team and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert assistance provided by: Ms. Anna Holder, Ms. Caroline McKnight, Ms. Melanie Parker, and Mr. Eric Wilkins of CDFW; Mr. Peter Hassemer of IDFG; Mr. Colby Brady, Dr. Peter Dygert, Dr. James Hilger, Dr. Isaac Kaplan, Ms. Debra Lambert, Ms. Peggy Mundy, Ms. Elizabeth Petras, Dr. Lauren Saez; Ms. Barbara Seekins, Mr. Jerry Sutton, Ms. Sarah Towne, Dr. Waldo Wakefield, Dr. Brian Wells, and Dr. Mary Yoklavich of NMFS; Mr. Robert Jones and Ms. Sandra Zeiner of NWIFC; Ms. DeAnna Erickson, Ms. Arlene Merems, Mr. Patrick Myrick, and Mr. Derek Wiley of ODFW; Mr. Edward Hibsch of PSMFC; Ms. Heather Reed and Mr. Eric Kraig of WDFW; Mr. Brian Corrigan, Mr. Daniel Hardin, and Ms. Peggy Murphy of USCG; Mr. Dave Hillemeier of Yurok Tribe Fisheries; and numerous other agency and tribal personnel in completing this report. The Ecosystem Plan Development Team and the Council staff also express their thanks for the expertise and guidance provided by the 2010-2013 members of the Ecosystem Advisory SubPanel: Mr. Merrick Burden, Mr. Paul Dye, Mr. Ben Enticknap, Ms. Kathy Fosmark, Mr. Steven Fukuto, Dr. Terrie Klinger, Mr. Geoff LeBon, Mr. Don Maruska, Mr. Scott McMullen, Mr. Nate Stone, Mr. Dan Waldeck, and Mr. Frank Warrens. All of the images in this document were either created for the document or are used by permission of or (if a government agency) by citation to the image’s owner. Images herein that are credited to a particular individual or to a business may not be reproduced for use elsewhere without express permission of the image’s owner. Images herein that are credited to a government agency may not be reproduced for use elsewhere without providing appropriate credit to that government agency. FEP cover image: Blue Marble: Next Generation, Reto Stöckli, NASA Earth Observatory This document may be cited in the following manner: Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number FNA10NMF4410014. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan ii 2013 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACL annual catch limit AM accountability measure AP advisory panel CalCOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations CCE California Current Ecosystem, or California Current Large Marine Ecosystem CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG, for “. and Game” CFGC California Fish and Game Commission CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Council Pacific Fishery Management Council CPS Coastal Pelagic Species DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DPS Distinct Population Segment (under the Endangered Species Act) EAS Ecosystem Advisory SubPanel EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat ENSO El Niño/Southern Oscillation EPDT Ecosystem Plan Development Team ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit (under the Endangered Species Act) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations) FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan FMP Fishery Management Plan HAB Harmful algal bloom HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HCR Harvest control rule HMS Highly Migratory Species IEA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission ISC International Scientific Committee (of the WCPFC process) JMC Joint Management Committee (of the U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty process) JTC Joint Technical Committee (of the U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty process) MLPA Marine Life Protection Act MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPA Marine Protected Area MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSY maximum sustainable yield MTL mean trophic level nm nautical miles NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMS National Marine Sanctuary NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODSL Oregon Deparment of State Lands OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation Department PacFIN Pacific Fisheries Information Network PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PICES Pacific ICES; formally, the North Pacific Marine Science Organization PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission RCA Rockfish Conservation Area RecFIN Recreational Fisheries Information Network SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (Reports for Council FMPs) SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee SST Sea surface temperature U&A Usual and Accustomed (fishing areas, of Treaty tribes) U.S. United States of America USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WFWC Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan iii 2013 Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 How this Document is Organized ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Schedule and Process for Developing and Amending the FEP and the Ecosystem Initiatives ..... 2 1.4 State-of-the-Ecosystem Reporting ................................................................................................ 3 2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 4 3 California Current Ecosystem Overview .............................................................................................. 6 3.1 Geography of the Ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.1 General Description and Oceanographic Features of the CCE ............................................ 6 3.1.2 Major Bio-Geographic Sub-Regions of the CCE ................................................................. 8 3.1.3 Political Geographic and Large-Scale Human Demographic Features of the CCE ........... 12 3.2 Biological Components and Relationships of the CCE .............................................................. 15 3.2.1 Biological Components ...................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Species Interactions ............................................................................................................ 27 3.3 CCE Abiotic Environment and Habitat ...................................................................................... 31 3.3.1 Geological Environment ..................................................................................................... 33 3.3.2 Water Column Temperature and Chemical Regimes ......................................................... 37 3.3.3 CCE Vegetation and Structure-Forming Invertebrates ...................................................... 38 3.3.4 Human Effects on Council-Managed Species’ Habitat ...................................................... 43 3.4 Fisheries of the CCE ................................................................................................................... 51 3.4.1 Historical CCE Fisheries .................................................................................................... 51 3.4.2 Current Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 56 3.4.3 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................................... 82 3.5 Fisheries and Natural Resource Management in the CCE .......................................................... 88 3.5.1 Council Fisheries Management .......................................................................................... 90 3.5.2 Tribe and State Fisheries .................................................................................................. 102 3.5.3 Multi-State, Multi-Tribe and State-Tribal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abstracts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104Th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, Ashingtw On, March 24–29, 2012
    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles 4-2012 Abstracts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, ashingtW on, March 24–29, 2012 National Shellfisheries Association Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation National Shellfisheries Association, Abstr" acts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, ashingtW on, March 24–29, 2012" (2012). VIMS Articles. 524. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/524 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in VIMS Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 231, 2012. ABSTRACTS OF TECHNICAL PAPERS Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting NATIONAL SHELLFISHERIES ASSOCIATION Seattle, Washington March 24–29, 2012 231 National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, Washington Abstracts 104th Annual Meeting, March 24–29, 2012 233 CONTENTS Alisha Aagesen, Chris Langdon, Claudia Hase AN ANALYSIS OF TYPE IV PILI IN VIBRIO PARAHAEMOLYTICUS AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN PACIFICOYSTERCOLONIZATION........................................................... 257 Cathryn L. Abbott, Nicolas Corradi, Gary Meyer, Fabien Burki, Stewart C. Johnson, Patrick Keeling MULTIPLE GENE SEGMENTS ISOLATED BY NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Fisheries Report an Update Through 2008
    STATUS OF THE FISHERIES REPORT AN UPDATE THROUGH 2008 Photo credit: Edgar Roberts. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission as directed by the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 Prepared by California Department of Fish and Game Marine Region August 2010 Acknowledgements Many of the fishery reviews in this report are updates of the reviews contained in California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report published in 2001. California’s Living Marine Resources provides a complete review of California’s three major marine ecosystems (nearshore, offshore, and bays and estuaries) and all the important plants and marine animals that dwell there. This report, along with the Updates for 2003 and 2006, is available on the Department’s website. All the reviews in this report were contributed by California Department of Fish and Game biologists unless another affiliation is indicated. Author’s names and email addresses are provided with each review. The Editor would like to thank the contributors for their efforts. All the contributors endeavored to make their reviews as accurate and up-to-date as possible. Additionally, thanks go to the photographers whose photos are included in this report. Editor Traci Larinto Senior Marine Biologist Specialist California Department of Fish and Game [email protected] Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 ii Table of Contents 1 Coonstripe Shrimp, Pandalus danae .................................................................1-1 2 Kellet’s Whelk, Kelletia kelletii ...........................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • The Political, Security, and Climate Landscape in Oceania
    The Political, Security, and Climate Landscape in Oceania Prepared for the US Department of Defense’s Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance May 2020 Written by: Jonah Bhide Grace Frazor Charlotte Gorman Claire Huitt Christopher Zimmer Under the supervision of Dr. Joshua Busby 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 United States 8 Oceania 22 China 30 Australia 41 New Zealand 48 France 53 Japan 61 Policy Recommendations for US Government 66 3 Executive Summary Research Question The current strategic landscape in Oceania comprises a variety of complex and cross-cutting themes. The most salient of which is climate change and its impact on multilateral political networks, the security and resilience of governments, sustainable development, and geopolitical competition. These challenges pose both opportunities and threats to each regionally-invested government, including the United States — a power present in the region since the Second World War. This report sets out to answer the following questions: what are the current state of international affairs, complexities, risks, and potential opportunities regarding climate security ​ issues and geostrategic competition in Oceania? And, what policy recommendations and approaches should the US government explore to improve its regional standing and secure its national interests? The report serves as a primer to explain and analyze the region’s state of affairs, and to discuss possible ways forward for the US government. Given that we conducted research from August 2019 through May 2020, the global health crisis caused by the novel coronavirus added additional challenges like cancelling fieldwork travel. However, the pandemic has factored into some of the analysis in this report to offer a first look at what new opportunities and perils the United States will face in this space.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    CALIFORNIA’S WETFISH INDUSTRY: ITS IMPORTANCE – PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE Executive Summary In major measure, California’s fishing industry was founded on “wetfish.” So called traditionally because these fish were conveyed from ocean to can with minimal preprocessing, “wet from the sea”, sardines, mackerels, squids and anchovies, as well as coastal tunas, have represented the lion’s share of commercial fishery landings in the Golden State since before the turn of the 20th Century. Today sardines, jack and Pacific mackerel, anchovy and market squid are called, for management purposes, Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS). Another link among these species: all are harvested primarily with round-haul nets (lampara and purse seine). The complex of fisheries that comprises the wetfish industry has shaped the character of California’s culture in addition to the infrastructure of California’s fishing industry. The immigrant fishermen of Asian, Italian, Slavic and other nationalities introduced new fishing gear and helped to build the fishing ports of San Pedro and Monterey, as well as San Diego and San Francisco. Although changed in many ways, the wetfish industry today remains an essential, critically important part of California’s fishing industry as a whole. In the year 2000, the wetfish fishery complex produced about 455.5 million pounds (227,734 short tons) of fish, 83.6 percent of total commercial fishery landings in California, valued at $38.9 million ex-vessel, or 29.3 percent of total value of all fisheries in California. This report is subdivided
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BETA UNIT GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY OFFSHORE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No. 1602-1681 Prepared for: Beta Operating Company, LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1240 Long Beach, CA 90802 Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 1861 Knoll Drive Ventura, California 93003 SEPTEMBER 2017 Beta Unit Geophysical Survey Biological Assessment 1602-1681 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3 2.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Project Vessel Configuration and Mobilization .......................... 3 2.2.2 Offshore Survey Operations ...................................................... 6 2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 13 3.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS OF THE SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA 15 3.1 INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................ 16 3.1.1 White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) ............................................ 16 3.2 FISH ...................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................ 17 3.3 MARINE BIRDS ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title A historical perspective of California recreational fisheries using a new database of "trophy" fish records (1966-2013), combined with fisheries analyses of three species in the genus Paralabrax Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1g40s1h0 Author Bellquist, Lyall F. Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO A historical perspective of California recreational fisheries using a new database of “trophy” fish records (1966-2013), combined with fisheries analyses of three species in the genus Paralabrax A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Biology by Lyall F. Bellquist Committee in charge: Brice Semmens, Chair Richard Carson David Checkley Philip Hastings Ed Parnell 2015 Copyright Lyall F. Bellquist, 2015 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Lyall F. Bellquist is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review of the Pinto Abalone - Decision
    Status Review of the Pinto Abalone - Decision TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary Sheet ............................................................................................................. 1 of 42 CR-102 ......................................................................................................................... 3 of 42 WAC 220-330-090 Crawfish, ((abalone,)) sea urchins, sea cucumbers, goose barnacles—Areas and seasons, personal-use fishery ........................................ 6 of 42 WAC 220-320-010 Shellfish—Classification .................................................................. 7 of 42 WAC 220-610-010 Wildlife classified as endangered species ....................................... 9 of 42 Status Report for the Pinto Abalone in Washington .................................................... 10 of 42 Summary Sheet Meeting dates: May 31, 2019 Agenda item: Status Review of the Pinto Abalone (Decision) Presenter(s): Chris Eardley, Puget Sound Shellfish Policy Coordinator Henry Carson, Fish & Wildlife Research Scientist Background summary: Pinto abalone are iconic marine snails prized as food and for their beautiful shells. Initially a state recreational fishery started in 1959; the pinto abalone fishery closed in 1994 due to signs of overharvest. Populations have continued to decline since the closure, most likely due to illegal harvest and densities too low for reproduction to occur. Populations at monitoring sites declined 97% from 1992 – 2017. These ten sites originally held 359 individuals and now hold 12. The average size of the remnant individuals continues to increase and wild juveniles have not been sighted in ten years, indicating an aging population with little reproduction in the wild. The species is under active restoration by the department and its partners to prevent local extinction. Since 2009 we have placed over 15,000 hatchery-raised juvenile abalone on sites in the San Juan Islands. Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was evaluated in 2014 but retained the “species of concern” designation only.
    [Show full text]
  • White Abalone (Haliotis Sorenseni)
    White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) Five-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credits: Joshua Asel (left and top right photos); David Witting, NOAA Restoration Center (bottom right photo) National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region Long Beach, CA July 2018 White Abalone 5- Year Status Review July 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Reviewers ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Biological Opinions.......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Addressing Key Threats ................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Outreach Partners ............................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Recovery Coordination ...................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 3 Abalones, Haliotidae
    3 Abalones, Haliotidae Red abalone, Haliotis rufescens, clinging to a boulder. Photo credit: D Stein, CDFW. History of the Fishery The nearshore waters of California are home to seven species of abalone, five of which have historically supported commercial or recreational fisheries: red abalone (Haliotis rufescens), pink abalone (H. corrugata), green abalone (H. fulgens), black abalone (H. cracherodii), and white abalone (H. sorenseni). Pinto abalone (H. kamtschatkana) and flat abalone (H. walallensis) occur in numbers too low to support fishing. Dating back to the early 1900s, central and southern California supported commercial fisheries for red, pink, green, black, and white abalone, with red abalone dominating the landings from 1916 through 1943. Landings increased rapidly beginning in the 1940s and began a steady decline in the late 1960s which continued until the 1997 moratorium on all abalone fishing south of San Francisco (Figure 3-1). Fishing depleted the stocks by species and area, with sea otter predation in central California, withering syndrome and pollution adding to the decline. Serial depletion of species (sequential decline in landings) was initially masked in the combined landings data, which suggested a stable fishery until the late 1960s. In fact, declining pink abalone landings were replaced by landings of red abalone and then green abalone, which were then supplemented with white abalone and black abalone landings before the eventual decline of the abalone species complex. Low population numbers and disease triggered the closure of the commercial black abalone fishery in 1993 and was followed by closures of the commercial pink, green, and white abalone fisheries in 1996.
    [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]