The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is now accepting comments on the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. For more information, check the CDFG website at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/nfmp/. The comment period is from August 23 through October 5, 2001. The local meeting date has been changed in Eureka to September 29, 2001, from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. at the Eureka Vets Hall. However, if you want the Commission to have a chance to read your letter before they make a decision, comments must be received by September 26, 2001. All written comments must include the author's name and mailing address. Comments must be sent to:
California Fish and Game Commission
Draft Nearshore FMP
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
Fax: 831-649-2917
E-mail: nearshoreFMP@dfg.ca.gov
Note: list DNFMP in the email subject line.
Legal Basis
The Nearshore Fishery Management plan (NFMP) was mandated by The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA). The MLMA provides that fishery management plans shall form the primary basis for managing the state’s marine fisheries. The NFMP fulfills that requirement for 19 nearshore finfish species. The NFMP is being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Nearshore Defined
The California’s nearshore is defined as the area from the high-tide line offshore to a depth of 120 ft (20 fm). The nearshore area is comprised of different habitats (environment where plants and animals live) ranging from high-relief rocky reef to broad expanses of sand and mud. The nearshore is one of the most productive ocean areas in the world. The area is the home to a wide variety of fishes, and marine invertebrates such as spiny lobster, abalone, sea urchin, crabs, and marine mammals as well as a large number of sea and shore bird species. Although there are many species in the nearshore zone, this management plan only addresses 19 fish species.
The 19 Effected Nearshore Fish Species _
1. California sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher;
2. *Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus;
3. *Kelp greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus;
4. *Rock greenling, Hexagrammos lagocephalus;
5. California scorpionfish, Scorpaena guttata;
6. *monkyface. prickelback, Cebidichthys violaceus;
7. *Black rockfish, Sebastes melanops;
8. Black-and-yellow rockfish, Sebastes. chrysomelas;
9. *Blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus;
10. *Brown rockfish, Sebastes auriculatus;
11. Calico rockfish, Sebastes dallii;
12. China rockfish, Sebastes. nebulosus;
13. *Copper rockfish, Sebastes caurinus;
14. Gopher rockfish, Sebastes carnatus;
15. *Grass rockfish, Sebastes rastrelliger;
16. Kelp rockfish, Sebastes atrovirens;
17. Olive rockfish, Sebastes serranoides;
18. Quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger;
19. Treefish rockfish, Sebastes serriceps.
* Species found in Humboldt Bay (Barnhart et al. 1992).
Problem Statement
The majority of these 19 fish species are the core of a recently developed commercial fishery for a live or premium quality product. Beginning in the 1980s, a demand developed for plate-sized fish kept alive until purchased for consumption. This demand has grown rapidly, fueled by high prices offered by recently established or number of Asian restaurants and markets in the state’s major metropolitan areas. This rapid change in market demand, coupled with apparent large-scale environmental changes in the ocean off California, have focused attention on the health of the nearshore fish stocks and the need to protect them from further depletion.
Management Alternatives
The four alternative management programs are described briefly as follows:
1)No Change (Continue Current Regulations): Existing management would continue. Catch levels of species under Federal management would be set by the Council. Catch levels of species under state jurisdiction would be set by the Commission.
2)Nearshore Finfish Conservation Areas: In coordination with the Marine Life Protection Act Process, fishing in at least 30 percent but not more than 50 percent of the available statewide habitat for NFMP species would be tightly restricted or prohibited in order to prevent overfishing, protect habitat, and allow depressed stocks to recover.
3) Gear Restrictions and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): Commercial fishing would be restricted to less efficient types of fishing gear. Together with marine protected areas, these measures would help prevent overfishing, protect habitat, and allow depressed stocks to recover.
4) Preferred Alternative: This alternative combines the use of MPAs with annual limits on fishing mortality as key components for harvest control rules.
Summary
The NFMP describes how the California Department of Fish and Game proposes to manage the nearshore fishery. This includes harvest controls, regional management, the use of marine protected areas, how to share the resource, and restricted access. Recent regulations were also adopted to manage the nearshore fishery with the use of maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield. The draft NFMP describes and analyzes four alternative management programs. Within these general programs, a wide range of management measures may be used, including quotas, bycatch allowances, landing or bag limits, time or area closures, MPAs, size limits, and gear restrictions. The network of MPAs would cover at least 15 percent of appropriate nearshore habitat in southern and at least 10 percent in both central and northern California.
Issues
The alternatives are all weighted towards maximum sustained yield for all species, including fish we know virtually nothing about in California. CDFG should present the full range of alternatives, including a fishing target less than optimium yield or maximum sustained yield with recovery and restoration of the stocks on a long term basis as the primary goal, especially for stocks lacking adequate information.
The preferred alternative should include the following:
A different baseline goal of recovery of the nearshore fisheries rather than just maximum sustained yield or optimum sustained yield population levels based on economics of different harvest levels.
The preferred alternative should make more of an effort to include elements from other alternatives, such as gear restrictions proposed under alternative # three, and larger MPA designation encompassing 50% of the potential area as proposed under alternative #2.
There should be an analysis of which MPA(s) provide the best habitat for each of the 19 species, and a determination of the likely amount of area needed for each of the 19 fish species.
An analysis of the eelgrass beds. Even though eelgrass beds and estuaries are documented as providing critical habitat for specific nearshore fish, there is virtually no information about the importance of seagrass communities and their role in many different fish life cycles. Habitat threats are not considered, particularly in Humboldt Bay to the Sebastes complex and the brown rockfish, Cabezon, greenlings, and the monkeyface prickleback.
