ROCKFISH RECOVERY PLAN

Puget Sound / Georgia Basin

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus)

and Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis)

Prepared by

Office of Protected Resources

West Coast Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Approved: ______________________________

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Date: ______________

Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species. Plans are published by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UWFWS)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes 

prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, states agencies, and others. Recovery plans 

do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies 

involved in the plan formation other than USFWS/NMFS. They represent the official position of 

USFWS/NMFS only after they have been signed by the Regional Director/Assistant Administrator. 

Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented 

by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. 

Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency 

obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal 

year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341, or any other law or regulation. 

Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species 

status, and the completion of recovery actions. 

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2017. Rockfish Recovery Plan: Puget Sound / Georgia Basin 

yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Seattle, WA.

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Protected Resources Division

7600 Sandpoint Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

206-526-6100

Recovery plans can be downloaded from the NMFS website:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

Cover art: Yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, by Claudia Makeyev.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NMFS gratefully acknowledges the commitment and efforts of the following Rockfish Recovery Team 

members and thanks them for generously contributing their time and expertise to the development of the 

Rockfish Recovery Plan.

Terrie Klinger, Ph.D. Robert Pacunski, M.S.

University of Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jason Cope, Ph.D. Lorenz Hauser, Ph.D.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center University of Washington

Donald Gunderson, Ph.D. Dayv Lowry, Ph.D.

University of Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Kelly Andrews, M.S. Keith Lutz

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

William Beattie Dan Tonnes, M.S.

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission NMFS (Recovery Coordinator / Team Leader)

Chris James

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Additional thanks go to other substantial contributors for their technical assistance or reviews, editing, 

and/or drafting sections of this document:

Jennifer Heibult Sawchuk, M.S. Lynne Barre, M.S.

NMFS (document research and preparation) NMFS

Adam Obaza, M.S. Anne Beaudreau, Ph.D.

NMFS (document research and preparation) University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Mark Carr, Ph.D. Dana Haggarty, Ph.D.

University of California, Santa Cruz University of British Columbia, Canada

Jeff Marliave, Ph.D. Nick Tolimieri, Ph.D.

Vancouver Aquarium, Canada Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Robin Waples, Ph.D. Susan Wang, M.S.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center NMFS

Jon Drake, Ph.D. Chris Yates, M.S.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center NMFS

Gary Rule, M.S. Steve Copps, M.S.

NMFS NMFS

Nicole Naar, Ph.D. Candidate Teresa Mongillo, M.S.

University of California, Davis NMFS
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan i

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures..............................................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables................................................................................................................................................v

Abbreviations and Acronyms .....................................................................................................................vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................1

Overview—Recovering Listed Rockfish..................................................................................................1

Current Species Status ..............................................................................................................................1

Recovery Objectives.................................................................................................................................2

Recovery Strategy and Program ...............................................................................................................2

Recovery Criteria ......................................................................................................................................3

Coordination, Estimated Date, and Recovery Cost...................................................................................5

I. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................6

A. PURPOSE OF THE RECOVERY PLAN ........................................................................................6

Multispecies Planning Considerations..................................................................................................7

Appendices to Support Implementation................................................................................................7

B. LEGAL STATUS OF THE SPECIES..............................................................................................7

C. RECOVERY PLANNING COORDINATION ................................................................................9

Rockfish Recovery Team......................................................................................................................9

Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities............................................9

Rockfish Workgroup...........................................................................................................................10

Canada.................................................................................................................................................10

Recreational Fishers............................................................................................................................10

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................11

Scientific Peer Review........................................................................................................................11

Public Input.........................................................................................................................................11

II. BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................13

A. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY ............................................................................13

B. LIFE HISTORY/ECOLOGY..........................................................................................................13

Larval Stage Life History, Habitat Use, and Ecosystem Requirements..............................................13

Juvenile Stage Life History, Habitat Use, and Ecosystem Requirements...........................................14

Adult Stage Life History, Habitat Use, and Ecosystem Requirements...............................................16

Age and Growth Rates........................................................................................................................17
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan ii

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Reproduction, Recruitment, and Natural Mortality Rate ....................................................................17

Diet and Feeding Behavior .................................................................................................................18

Natural Predators ................................................................................................................................18

C. ABUNDANCE, PRODUCTIVITY, CONNECTIVITY, AND DIVERSITY................................19

Abundance and Productivity...............................................................................................................19

Spatial Structure and Connectivity .....................................................................................................24

Life History Diversity, Demographic and Genetic Structure..............................................................25

D. MANAGEMENT UNITS AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS..............................................29

Management Unit and Habitat Descriptions.......................................................................................31

Critical Habitat Designation................................................................................................................36

E. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DECLINE AND FEDERAL LISTING ..................................39

Factor 1: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range .....40

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

............................................................................................................................................................43

Listing Factor 3: Disease and Predation .............................................................................................44

Listing Factor 4: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms...................................................47

Listing Factor 5: Other Natural or Human-made Factors Affecting Continued Existence................48

Summary of Threats Assessment........................................................................................................54

Threats Assessment for Fisheries........................................................................................................55

Rockfish Catch Risk Based on Existing Fisheries in Each Management Unit ...................................61

Detailed Threats Assessment – Habitat and Other Factors.................................................................62

F. CONSERVATION MEASURES, RESEARCH, AND MONITORING .......................................75

Fisheries Management ........................................................................................................................75

Cooperative Research .........................................................................................................................78

Derelict Fishing Gear Removal and Prevention..................................................................................80

Education and Outreach......................................................................................................................82

Habitat Mapping .................................................................................................................................82

Historical Rockfish Abundance Trends and Assemblages .................................................................83

G. RESEARCH AND MONITORING IN PROGRESS.....................................................................83

III. RECOVERY STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................85

A. KEY FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................85

B. PRIMARY FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES OF RECOVERY EFFORTS........................................88

C. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................89
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan iii

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

IV. RECOVERY GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA .....................................................................90

A. RECOVERY GOAL.......................................................................................................................90

B. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................90

C. RECOVERY CRITERIA................................................................................................................90

Recovery Criteria—Background.........................................................................................................91

V. RECOVERY PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................100

A. RECOVERY ACTION OUTLINE...............................................................................................101

B. RECOVERY NARRATIVE.........................................................................................................104

VI. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES...........................113

VII. LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................................130

APPENDIX I: EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...................................153

APPENDIX II: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................153

APPENDIX III: BAROTRAUMA RESEARCH AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................153

APPENDIX IV: BENTHIC HABITAT CONSERVATION...................................................................153

APPENDIX V: NEARSHORE HABITAT AND KELP CONSERVATION.........................................153

APPENDIX VI: SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY.......................................................................153

APPENDIX VII: CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION...........................................153

APPENDIX VIII: FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ROCKFISH CONSERVATION.....................153

APPENDIX IX: PREDATION.................................................................................................................153

APPENDIX X: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................153
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan iv

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

List of Figures

Figure 1. Bocaccio DPS (left) and yelloweye rockfish DPS (right)........................................................ 6

Figure 2. Frequency (% total) for yelloweye rockfish in the recreational catch in Puget Sound proper 

(PSP) and North Puget Sound (NPS)..................................................................................... 21

Figure 3. Frequency (% total) for bocaccio in the recreational catch in Puget Sound proper (PSP) and 

North Puget Sound (NPS)...................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4. Yelloweye rockfish length frequency distributions (cm) for four decades............................ 26

Figure 5. Yelloweye rockfish length frequency distributions (cm) from fish caught in 2014 and 

2015........................................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 6. Three clusters of yelloweye rockfish based on a principal components analysis of the genetic 

variation between individuals ................................................................................................ 28

Figure 7. Bocaccio length frequency distributions (cm) for four decades............................................. 29

Figure 8. Bocaccio DPSs area and Management Units. ........................................................................ 30

Figure 9. Critical Habitat for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio............................................................ 37

Figure 10. Rockfish Conservation Areas in Canada and reserves that do not allow most fishing. ......... 77

Figure 11. No distinct genetic structure observed in canary rockfish based on a principal components 

analysis of the genetic variation between individuals inside and outside the DPS................ 79

Figure 12. 2015 Rockfish ROV survey target sites. ................................................................................ 80

Figure 13. Sidescan sonar images of deepwater derelict nets located on Point Roberts Reef of the San 

Juan Basin .............................................................................................................................. 81

Figure 14. The Adaptive Management Process....................................................................................... 89
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan v

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

List of Tables

Table ES1. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (non-Hood Canal population).............. 3

Table ES2. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (Hood Canal population). .................... 4

Table ES3. Bocaccio biological-based downlisting criteria. ........................................................................ 4

Table ES4. Bocaccio biological-based delisting criteria............................................................................... 4

Table ES5. Example Threats-based delisting criteria for yelloweye rockfish. ............................................. 4

Table ES6. Example Threats-based downlisting and delisting criteria for bocaccio.................................... 5

Table 1. Summary of listed rockfish habitat use.................................................................................. 17

Table 2. Characteristics of ESA-listed rockfish species....................................................................... 18

Table 3. Abundance estimates for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio................................................... 22

Table 4. Physical and biological features and management considerations of subadult and adult 

habitat for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio prior to exclusions. .......................................... 39

Table 5. Summary of Threats Assessment for Management Units and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin...55

Table 6. Known fisheries in Puget Sound and their relative risk of rockfish bycatch ......................... 56

Table 7. Annual estimated recreational fishing trips in the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 8. Proportion of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in the total rockfish catch for past set line 

fisheries in the North Puget Sound......................................................................................... 61

Table 9. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 1: San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin.......... 65

Table 10. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 2: Main Basin and Whidbey Basin. .................. 67

Table 11. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 3: South Sound.................................................. 69

Table 12. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 4: Hood Canal Basin......................................... 70

Table 13. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 5: Primary listing factors in Canada and all Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin (other factors)...................................................................................... 72

Table 14. Research projects in progress to address rockfish attributes and inform recovery. ............... 83

Table 15. Detailed assessment for priorities for MPA/RCA establishment by Management Area ....... 87

Table 16. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (non-Hood Canal population).......... 93

Table 17. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (Hood Canal population)................. 94

Table 18. Bocaccio biological-based downlisting criteria ..................................................................... 96

Table 19. Bocaccio biological-based delisting criteria .......................................................................... 97

Table 20. Priority for Marine Reserves/Rockfish Conservation Areas................................................ 107
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan vi

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 21. Implementation schedule for research and recovery actions................................................ 115
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan vii

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 

in Canada COSEWIC

Department of Defense DOD

Department of Natural Resources, WA DNR

Department of Ecology, WA Ecology

Fisheries and Oceans Canada DFO

Distinct Population Segments DPS

Environmental Protection Agency, US EPA

Endangered Species Act ESA

Fisheries Conservation Plan FCP

Incidental Take Permit ITP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA

Northwest Fisheries Science Center NWFSC

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission NWIFC

Northwest Straits Foundation NWF

Northwest Straits Initiative NWSI

National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS 

Marine Resource Committees MRCs

Multibeam Echosounder MBES

Ocean Acidification OA

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers PBDEs

Polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs

Remotely Operated Vehicle ROV

Rockfish Conservation Area RCA

Species at Risk Act (Canada) SARA

Spawning Potential Ratio SPR

United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW

Young-of-Year YOY
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 1

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview—Recovering Listed Rockfish: Total rockfish abundance in Puget Sound has declined

approximately 70 percent in the last 40 years. Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and bocaccio 

(Sebastes paucispinis) have declined to an even greater extent (Drake et al. 2010). 

This recovery plan outlines actions and research for the conservation and survival of threatened yelloweye 

rockfish and endangered bocaccio using the best available science per the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The recovery plan links management actions to an active research program to fill data 

gaps and a monitoring program to assess these actions’ effectiveness. Research and monitoring results

will provide information to refine ongoing actions and prioritize new actions to achieve the plan’s goal:

to restore the listed species to the point where they no longer require the protections of the ESA. 

Current Species Status: Yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio occupy the waters of the Pacific coast from 

California to Alaska. Yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in the waters of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

were each determined to be a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (75 Fed. Reg. 22276). The Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish was listed as “threatened” and bocaccio was listed as

“endangered” under the ESA on April 28, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 22276). The DPSs include all yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish) found in waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca east of Victoria Sill. Critical habitat was designated for all species of listed rockfish 

in 2014 under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (79 Fed. Reg. 68041, November 13, 2014). Recent research 

has found evidence for two populations of yelloweye rockfish within the DPS—one in Hood Canal and 

one within the rest of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

There is no single reliable historical or contemporary population estimate for yelloweye rockfish or 

bocaccio within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Drake et al. 2010). Despite this limitation, there is 

clear evidence that each species’ abundance has declined dramatically (Drake et al. 2010). The best 

available data indicates that the total rockfish population in the Puget Sound region is estimated to have 

declined approximately 3 percent per year for the past several decades, corresponding to an approximate 

70 percent decline from 1965 to 2007 (Drake et al. 2010). The decline of yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio is estimated to be greater than the 70 percent observed in the total rockfish decline during 

that time period (Drake et al. 2010).

Regulatory measures have been taken by the State of Washington over the last several decades to protect

all rockfish, including a commercial ban on rockfish fishing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, more 

recent closures of commercial fisheries with rockfish bycatch (Palsson et al. 2009; WDFW 2010b), a 

moratorium initiated in 2010 on recreational rockfish catch, and a 120-foot (36.6-m) depth limit while 

bottom fishing (WDFW 2014). Despite these measures, listed rockfish continue to be at risk from bycatch 

in some of the areas of the DPSs.

Though historical overfishing has been recognized as the primary cause of the decline of rockfishes in 

Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2010; Williams et al. 2010), there is some uncertainty 

about the relative impact of some fisheries today, and of the additional remaining threats, which include 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 2

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

degraded water quality and habitat, contaminants, derelict fishing gear, and other threats (Palsson et al. 

2009; Drake et al. 2010; WDFW 2013).

The life history of listed rockfish species, including long lives, slow growth, and late maturity combined 

with low survival rates of young make recovery especially challenging. Even if all threats are effectively 

reduced or eliminated, it is likely recovery will take several decades. 

Recovery Objectives: 1) Continue to improve our knowledge of the current and historical population 

status of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio and their habitats. This information is necessary so that 

populations can be characterized on a management unit basis and a detailed program can be developed for 

implementing recovery actions to most efficiently achieve the delisting criteria. 2) Reduce or eliminate 

existing threats to listed rockfish from fisheries/anthropogenic mortality. 3) Reduce or eliminate existing 

threats to listed rockfish habitats and restore degraded or removed rockfish habitat.

Recovery Strategy and Program: The plan addresses all of the known threats—drawing on existing 

information to prioritize actions. The plan uses an adaptive management approach for conducting the 

research required to manage and recover listed rockfish and inform implementation of actions to ensure

each of the potential threats does not limit recovery. Comments on a draft plan from the Recovery Team, 

the public, peer reviewers, stakeholders, and co-managers were valuable in finalizing the recovery 

strategy and program outlined in this final plan.

The plan identifies research to better understand potential impacts from fisheries and other threats, as well 

as the efficacy of regulations put into place to minimize the effects of threats. The plan calls for research 

where more information is needed and for action where sufficient information exists to move forward. For 

example, the plan includes evaluation of fishery regulations and recommends further assessments of the 

impact of some fisheries. In some areas, listed rockfish bycatch risk may be relatively high from some 

fisheries despite regulations put into place in 2010 or before to limit bycatch. The plan recommends the 

potential use of marine reserves or rockfish conservation areas to contribute to the restoration of rockfish 

population abundance and size and age diversity because their use for rockfish conservation is wellsupported in the research. We do not suggest specific sites for these conservation areas, but include 

biological and sociological parameters to consider during any process to establish them, as well as tribal 

treaty rights considerations.

The recovery program laid out in the plan includes approximately 45 actions to address the following 

topics:

 Actions to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population abundance, demographics, and 

habitat associations. 

 Example action: fishery-independent population and spatial surveys (such as Remotely Operated 

Vehicle (ROV) surveys) in the nearshore and deepwater environments.

 Fisheries management consistent with recovery goals.

 Example action: assess the need for and potentially establish marine reserves or rockfish 

conservation areas (areas not subject to potential anthropogenic mortality) where prioritized.

 Protection and restoration of rockfish habitats and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem.

 Example action: nearshore protection/restoration, with an emphasis on native kelp.

 Development of an education, outreach, and public involvement plan.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 3

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

 Example action: improve rockfish species identification by fishers and documentation of 

bycatch.

 Securing public support for listed rockfish recovery.

 Example action: work with partners to seek a variety of types of funds to support recovery over a 

long time frame.

Recovery Criteria: To develop objective and measurable biological criteria to quantitatively evaluate 

rockfish recovery, we use spawning potential ratio (SPR). SPR compares the spawning ability (or 

reproductive capacity) of a stock in the fished condition to the stock's spawning ability (or reproductive 

capacity) in the unfished condition. Changes in SPR through time provide insight into population viability 

and recovery trajectory. The calculation of SPR typically requires estimates of the current fishing 

mortality (F), natural mortality (M), age and growth parameters, and maturity (and selectivity is typically 

estimated) at age. While these parameters are often inputs or estimates from data-rich stock assessments, 

more data-limited SPR estimators have been developed for some species. Unfortunately, the estimation of 

these parameters is often data intensive and difficult, especially for data-poor species like yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. However, a variation on this approach uses ratios of 

life history parameters that are easier to obtain and length data, and we have applied this approach for 

listed rockfish. The status of SPR over defined time periods is the biological criterion for delisting 

yelloweye rockfish and downlisting/delisting bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs.

We identify different scenarios of levels of SPR and time periods, which if reached would provide 

sufficient population viability for each species (in association with an assessment of the threats-based 

criteria) for delisting/downlisting each species as applicable (Tables ES1 to ES4). We also identified 

threats-based criteria for known threats; examples of these criteria are shown in Tables ES5 and ES6. The 

downlisting criteria for bocaccio generally require completed research and/or that programs are in place to 

understand, limit, and mitigate threats, while delisting criteria for both yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio 

requires that the threats are found to not limit recovery of the listed species. 

Table ES1. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (non-Hood Canal population).

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 15% (and increasing after 

first sampling event finds 

15%)

25 years (no less than five systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability/confidence interval)

Scenario B 20 to 24% 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario C 25% (and above) 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 

80% probability)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 4

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table ES2. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (Hood Canal population).

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 20 to 24% 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario B 25% (and above) 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 

80% probability)

Table ES3. Bocaccio biological-based downlisting criteria.

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

10% and increasing 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% probability)

Table ES4. Bocaccio biological-based delisting criteria.

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 15% (and increasing after 

first sampling event finds 

15%)

15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario B 20% and above 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 

80% probability)

Scenario C 25% and above 5 years (no less than two systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Table ES5. Example Threats-based delisting criteria for yelloweye rockfish.

Listing Factor 1: Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

Derelict fishing 

gear 

Programs are in place to facilitate, and require reporting, preventing, and promptly removing 

derelict fishing gear (i.e., shrimp pots, fishing nets) that has been demonstrated to result in 

bycatch or result in harm to yelloweye rockfish and yelloweye rockfish habitat.

Contaminants/

Bioaccumulants

Contaminant levels in yelloweye rockfish, prey species, or surrogate rockfish populations (i.e., 

quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger) in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin indicate a reduction or 

slowing of accumulation of legacy contaminants, such as PCBs and DDTs. This could include 

data showing that overall contaminant levels in the population are decreasing or accumulation 

is slowing, or information that younger fish have a proportionally reduced contaminant load. A 

decrease in the number of contaminated sites would also indicate a reduction in contaminants 

in a portion of the habitat of yelloweye rockfish.

Nutrients Management actions and programs are in place to prevent and reduce nutrient inputs. The 

effects of nutrient inputs (food chain, hypoxia) are found to be not limiting recovery.

Invasive 

species/

Non-native 

species

Invasive species that can affect habitat (e.g., tunicates, seaweeds, others) are found to be not 

limiting recovery. Programs are in place to remove or mitigate the effects of invasive species 

on yelloweye rockfish and yelloweye rockfish habitat.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 5

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table ES6. Example Threats-based downlisting and delisting criteria for bocaccio.

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Downlisting Criteria Delisting Criteria

Bycatch/Catch Bocaccio are protected from bycatch/catch 

by fishery regulations and research 

permitting sufficient to support maintenance 

and enhancement of abundance, LBSPR/biomass, spatial structure, and diversity 

(bycatch/catch can be reliably estimated from 

empirical data sources). Bycatch is mitigated 

when it occurs (i.e., use of descending 

devices and safe handling techniques).

Bocaccio are protected from bycatch/catch by 

fishery regulations and research permitting 

sufficient to support maintenance and 

enhancement of abundance, LB-SPR/biomass, 

spatial structure, and diversity (bycatch/catch 

can be reliably estimated from empirical data 

sources). Bycatch is mitigated when it occurs 

(i.e., use of descending devices and safe 

handling techniques).

Coordination, Estimated Date, and Recovery Cost: Recovery of listed rockfish is a long-term effort 

that requires cooperation and coordination from organizations and communities around Puget Sound. 

Many actions that will benefit listed rockfish and their habitats are already underway and involve such 

cooperation. This plan was developed with involvement and input from a variety of co-managers and 

stakeholders, including Federal and state agencies, some treaty tribes, individuals from non-profit groups, 

and the fishing and academic communities. 

At present, it is difficult to project a date for recovery. As we obtain information on present abundance, as 

well as information to assess the impact on how threats may limit recovery and how the threats can be 

effectively mitigated, more robust time and expense projections will be developed. 

The cost of the approximately 45 actions recommended in this plan for the first 5 years of recovery is 

about $16,843,126. Assuming that recovery takes one and a half generations (of yelloweye rockfish) or 

approximately 60 years, the total recovery costs over 60 years would be approximately $82,970,000. The

annual cost of recovery is estimated to decrease substantially after the first 5 to 10 years if the necessary 

baseline research and management actions are performed. There are numerous parallel efforts underway, 

independent from listed rockfish recovery, to protect and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem. Examples of 

such efforts include oil spill prevention measures, contaminated sediment clean-up projects, and 

restoration of nearshore environments. These efforts will provide benefits to listed rockfish and their 

habitats and prey base and are thus highlighted in the plan. However, the costs of these actions are not

included in the total cost of rockfish recovery because they would occur independent of this plan. 

Similarly, actions conducted to restore listed rockfish and their habitats will benefit other listed species

that utilize the Puget Sound area, such as Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and 

may provide economic benefits. We are unable to quantify the economic benefits of listed rockfish 

recovery actions, but the benefits to the ecosystem and economy could completely or partially offset the 

total recovery costs estimated here. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 6

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

I. BACKGROUND

A. PURPOSE OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) to develop recovery plans for marine species listed under the ESA. The purpose of recovery 

plans is to guide implementation of recovery of the species. Plans address threats to ensure the species are 

once again self-sustaining components of their ecosystem and no longer require the protections of the 

ESA. 

This recovery plan (plan) is for yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) distinct population segments (DPSs) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, hereafter referred to 

as “listed rockfish.” The range of these DPSs includes all the waters of Puget Sound south of the North 

Strait of Georgia, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of Victoria Sill (Figure 1), with the yelloweye 

rockfish DPS extending further north than bocaccio into the waters of Johnstone Strait. 

Figure 1. Bocaccio DPS (left) and yelloweye rockfish DPS (right).

This recovery plan provides a roadmap for restoring the DPSs of listed rockfish and their habitat to levels 

that support recovery and allow the species to become viable components of their ecosystems. 

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they are important 

tools that help: 1) provide context for regulatory decisions; 2) provide criteria for status reporting and 

delisting decisions; 3) organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions; and 4) organize research, 

monitoring, adaptation, and evaluation efforts.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 7

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery plans under serious 

consideration as they make the following kinds of decisions and allocate their resources: 1) actions 

carried out to meet section 7(a)(1) obligations to use their programs in furtherance of the purposes of the 

ESA and to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species; 2) actions that 

are subject to ESA sections 4(d), 7(a)(2), or 10; 3) revisions of land use and resource management plans;

and 4) other natural resource decisions at the state, tribal, and local levels.

Multispecies Planning Considerations

An analysis of recovery plans indicated that multispecies and ecosystem recovery plans were less likely to 

result in improving status trends than single species plans (Boersma et al. 2001). This may be for a variety 

of reasons, such as insufficient funding for multiple species versus single species (Boersma et al. 2001); 

thus, in cases where the status or recovery needs of rockfish differ, they will be discussed separately in the 

recovery plan. We use a multispecies plan not only because of taxonomic and geographic similarities 

between the species but also because they face similar threats and research gaps that need to be addressed 

for recovery. Funding initiatives will also stress the needs of the two species, as well as the efficiencies 

gained by combined pursuit of research and recovery actions. Progress toward the individual species’ 

recovery and threat abatement will be monitored (Clark and Wallace 2002) through recovery actions

outlined in this document. 

Appendices to Support Implementation

We have developed appendices to assist in recovery implementation for listed rockfish. The appendices 

provide detailed information regarding a variety of research and recovery actions outlined in this plan, 

including: 1) education, outreach, and public involvement; 2) fisheries management; 3) barotrauma 

research and adaptive management; 4) benthic habitat conservation; 5) nearshore habitat and kelp 

conservation; 6) sediment and water quality; 7) climate change and ocean acidification; 8) funding 

opportunities for rockfish conservation; and 9) predation. In addition, we have included an appendix 

summarizing the public comments on the draft recovery plan.

B. LEGAL STATUS OF THE SPECIES

Based on information related to rockfish life history, and the environmental and ecological features of 

Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin, we identified Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs for yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio (Drake et al. 2010). On April 28, 2010, we listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish as threatened under the ESA, and bocaccio as 

endangered (75 Fed. Reg. 22276). We based the decision to list the yelloweye rockfish and canary 

rockfish DPSs as threatened and the bocaccio DPS as endangered on an evaluation of their status using 

the best available science and an evaluation of the listing factors that include: 1) present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; 2) over-utilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 3) disease and predation; 4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and 5) other natural or human-made factors affecting continued existence. 

Critical habitat was designated for all three species of rockfish in 2014 under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the 

ESA (79 Fed. Reg. 68041, November 13, 2014). In 2014, we initiated a cooperative research project to 

investigate listed rockfish genetics (see sidebar). As a result of the project and subsequent analysis, on 

January 23, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 7711) we removed canary rockfish from the List of Threatened and 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 8

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Endangered Species under the ESA because they were found to not be discrete from coastal populations

and no longer met the criteria to be considered a DPS. Hence, this recovery plan only addresses 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs.

We identified several extinction risk factors common to 

each DPS (Drake et al. 2010):

 Declining trends in abundance within each DPS 

contribute significantly to extinction risk.

 Each species has an inherently low growth rate and 

low productivity and these characteristics are likely 

exacerbated by the relative paucity of larger, older 

fish. There is evidence of size truncation for each 

species, which shifts reproductive output to 

younger and less productive females.

 These characteristics increase the extinction risk for 

each species when combined with continued 

primary threats from fisheries (bycatch), loss of 

nearshore habitat, chemical contamination, climate 

change, and areas of low dissolved oxygen. 

Specifically, some commercial and recreational 

fisheries can cause direct mortality to rockfish and 

modify habitats and remove prey species; nearshore 

habitat degradation and loss can harm rearing 

habitats used by juveniles for predation refuge and 

feeding; chemical contamination can harm listed 

rockfish through accumulation in their food sources 

or direct exposure to the contaminant; and areas of 

low dissolved oxygen can alter listed rockfish 

behavior and habitat use, as well as cause direct 

mortality to rockfish and their prey. 

Based on an evaluation of abundance trends, spatial 

structure, and diversity as well as the threats listed 

above, we determined that the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin DPS of bocaccio is at high risk of extinction 

throughout all of its range and that the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish is at 

moderate risk of extinction throughout all of its range (Drake et al. 2010). In 2016, we completed 5-year 

reviews of the listed species under the ESA and recommended that the status of yelloweye rockfish 

remain as threatened and that the status of bocaccio remain as endangered (NMFS 2016). 

Washington State has listed 13 species of rockfish as “Species of Concern,” including yelloweye rockfish 

and bocaccio (WDFW 2012b). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created a Plan 

for Rockfish Recovery in 2011 that included policies, strategies, and actions for all rockfish (WDFW 

2011).

Since the 2010 listing, NOAA Fisheries

and numerous partners have pursued 

research to enable further understanding 

of listed rockfish population levels, 

habitat use, genetics, threats, bycatch, 

and other information important to 

recovery. The genetics project highlights 

the success of this cooperation.

The genetics project involved Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, recreational 

fishing guides, anglers, WDFW, and 

Canada’s Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans working together to gather 

biological samples of listed rockfish. The 

genetic analysis showed canary rockfish 

in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are 

not discrete from canary rockfish off the 

Pacific Coast. As a result, we removed

canary rockfish from the endangered 

species list in 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 7711). 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AT WORK
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 9

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

In Canada, the yelloweye rockfish population status in inside waters in British Columbia, which extends 

from east of Vancouver Island down to the U.S. border of Puget Sound, was designated as “special 

concern” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2008

(COSEWIC 2008; DFO 2012). The coastal (outside) population of yelloweye rockfish status was also 

identified as “special concern.” The bocaccio population is recognized as one unit (DFO 2009), including 

coastal (outside) and inside waters. This population’s status was identified as threatened in 2002

(COSEWIC 2002); COSEWIC re-examined the bocaccio population and identified them as endangered in 

2013 (COSEWIC 2013). Yelloweye rockfish inside and outside populations were also designated as 

“special concern” under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2011. The bocaccio population is

also being considered for listing under the Canadian SARA. Currently, these populations are managed

through the Canadian Fisheries Act and Environmental Protection Act. If listed under SARA, they will be 

given additional protection and the development of a management plan will commence (COSEWIC 

2008).

C. RECOVERY PLANNING COORDINATION

This recovery plan was developed with the involvement and input from various participants. The 

Rockfish Recovery Team was the primary author of the plan, and other individuals provided invaluable 

input, review, and feedback. Some of the primary coordinating partnerships are outlined below. 

Rockfish Recovery Team

A review of recovery plans found that plans written by a team comprising non-Federal participants as 

well as Federal employees were more likely to result in improving status trends of endangered species 

(Boersma et al. 2001). Therefore, it was determined that members of the academic and fisheries science 

and management communities would be invited to be on the recovery team in addition to Federal 

employees. The team is composed of experts with backgrounds in genetics, marine ecology, fisheries 

biology, stock assessment, fisheries management, and other technical knowledge and local expertise 

needed for recovery planning.

Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities

In early 2013, NMFS sent a letter to each Puget Sound Treaty Tribe and the Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission (NWIFC) informing them of the recovery planning process. As a result of these letters, 

NMFS and several treaty tribes had several meetings during summer of 2013 and fall of 2014 to discuss 

the draft plan. The NWIFC also designated representatives to participate on the Rockfish Recovery Team 

and the NWIFC and treaty tribes were invited to provide feedback on an early draft recovery plan in 

2015. 

Puget Sound treaty Indian tribes retain strong spiritual and cultural ties to marine life, based on thousands 

of years of use for tribal religious/cultural ceremonies, subsistence, and commerce. Many Northwest 

Indian tribes have treaties reserving their right to fish in usual and accustomed fishing places including 

areas covered by this recovery plan. These treaty tribes are co-managers of fisheries with the State of 

Washington. The NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee (June 2003), emphasized the importance of this co-manager relationship: “We have 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 10

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

repeatedly stressed to the region’s leaders, tribal and non-tribal, the importance of our co-management

and trust relationship to the tribes.”

Rockfish Workgroup

Collaboration with and outreach to stakeholders was initiated by NMFS soon after the rockfish ESA 

listing. It continued through various workgroups, speaking engagements, informal meetings, and phone 

calls, and by soliciting individual review and comments on draft documents throughout the recovery 

planning process. These stakeholders include Federal, tribal, and state partners; researchers and 

academics with rockfish expertise; conservation groups; and recreational angling groups. Specifics of this 

stakeholder involvement follow. 

In June 2011, NMFS, the SeaDoc Society, and WDFW hosted a workshop titled “Rockfish Recovery in 

the Salish Sea; Research and Management Priorities.” This workshop convened scientists, managers, and 

industry professionals to focus on recent and ongoing research and recovery efforts for rockfish and their 

habitats in the Salish Sea to enable further collaboration and recovery. The first day of the workshop 

included sessions detailing recent research on the historical context of rockfish depletion, benthic habitat 

surveys and abundance estimates, stressors, ecosystem and species interactions, juvenile recruitment, and 

genetics. The second day of the workshop focused on agency, tribal, and Canadian perspectives on 

rockfish recovery, and included concurrent sessions designed to list additional research priorities related 

to reserves and population biology. The proceedings of the workshop were published in Tonnes (2012).

After the June 2011 workshop, a group of interested entities (thereafter termed the Rockfish Workgroup) 

continued to meet regularly, and individual members shared rockfish research and discussed research 

priorities for rockfish conservation in the Salish Sea (the Salish Sea encompasses the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin, but also includes the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Neah Bay). This informal group also 

received updates on the recovery planning process. The Rockfish Workgroup has included attendees from 

the Seattle Aquarium, Point Defiance Aquarium, the SeaDoc Society, the Wild Fish Conservancy, the 

Sierra Club, Puget Sound Anglers, the Coastal Conservation Association, Natural Resource Consultants, 

the University of Washington, University of Alaska, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 

WDFW, U.S. Geological Survey, the Puget Sound Partnership, the Northwest Straits Commission, and 

the Lummi Indian Nation. 

Canada

Approximately half of the DPSs’ geographic ranges are within Canadian waters. In 2001, the Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) developed an inshore rockfish conservation plan (Yamanaka and Lacko 

2001), which continues to be implemented today. In 2011, a retired DFO representative presented and 

provided a paper entitled “Rockfish Conservation: The British Columbia Experience” at the Salish Sea 

Rockfish Workshop. Prior to initiating recovery planning, we invited DFO representation on the 

Recovery Team, which was declined. We also invited representatives from DFO to review the early draft 

plan in 2015. Two individual rockfish experts from Canada conducted peer review on the plan itself.

Recreational Fishers

In June 2011, NMFS partnered with the University of Washington to conduct a survey of recreational 

anglers in Puget Sound to inform rockfish recovery planning. The survey was conducted with 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 11

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

approximately 500 recreational anglers at the 15 most commonly used boat launches in Puget Sound. The 

survey was designed to understand angler knowledge of rockfish life history and regulations, current 

fishing practices, perceptions of threats to rockfish, and preferences for rockfish recovery, as well as 

relationships between those variables and demographics of the anglers (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 

2015). This research was used to inform the Education, Outreach, and Public Involvement Appendix 

(Appendix I).

Additionally, we have presented research on many occasions to recreational fishing groups. Finally, we 

have worked cooperatively on projects with fishing guides and fishers, many from the Puget Sound 

Anglers (PSA). See Section F Conservation Measures and Research. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

NMFS and WDFW worked closely during the recovery planning process. Two members of the rockfish

recovery team are members of the WDFW Marine Fish Science Unit and are actively involved in rockfish 

research and management. These members worked closely with NMFS, particularly on the areas of 

monitoring, research, cooperative research, and fisheries management. WDFW also provided feedback on 

an early draft recovery plan (Unsworth 2015) and provided a letter on the draft plan that was released for 

public review (Unsworth 2016).

Scientific Peer Review

Several rockfish experts from Alaska, Canada, California, and Washington peer reviewed an early version 

of the draft recovery plan, and their individual input was incorporated as appropriate. The peer reviews 

led to changes in the final plan, including revisions to the delisting and downlisting criteria, and revised 

and additional research and recovery measures. 

Public Input

The draft recovery plan was provided to the public for comment from August 16, 2016 through 

November 16, 2016 (81 FR 54556; August 16, 2016). In addition, NMFS held meetings for public 

comment in Olympia, Friday Harbor, Anacortes, and Seattle. Ninety-five comments were provided 

through the regulations.gov website. Additional oral comments were provided at the public meetings.

NMFS organized these comments and revised the draft recovery plan, as appropriate, in accordance with 

this feedback. Appendix X, Summary of Public Comments on the draft Recovery Plan, includes a 

summary of the public comments and references the sections in the final recovery plan where revisions 

were made in response to comments. 

Public and WDFW comments led to several revisions to the final plan:

 The delisting and downlisting criteria were revised and clarified. The most significant change was 

the use of Spawning Potential Ratio to replace Fractional Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP) as the 

primary biological metric to assess population status. This final plan uses SPR, which does not 

require the historical population information needed for a FLEP assessment and which may not 

be sufficiently available.

 The description of fisheries and assessment of risk of bycatch of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio 

was expanded. We include the approximate number of fishing trips annually within each 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 12

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Management Unit and a qualitative risk of bycatch. Additional information regarding some tribal 

fisheries was added.

 Most public comments were related to fisheries management, particularly rockfish conservation 

areas (RCA) and marine protected areas (MPAs). While some comments were in favor of 

establishing them, a large proportion of commenters were not. We revised this plan to prioritize 

the Management Units for the establishment of additional fisheries protections and added 

additional scientific information regarding the efficacy of reserves. We also revised the plan by 

identifying the need for additional time to monitor the effectiveness of existing fisheries 

regulations and enforcement prior to potentially starting the process of designating RCAs/MPAs. 

 A large proportion of commenters stated they did not support additional fisheries protections

because of concerns about predation on rockfish that is limiting recovery. In response, we created 

an appendix (IX) that summarizes what is known about predation on rockfish, with an emphasis 

on the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, and outlines research projects related to predation that would 

improve recovery implementation. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 13

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

II. BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

A. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY

Worldwide, there are over 100 species of rockfishes (the Sebastes or Sebastolobus), the majority of which 

are found along the western coast of North America (Love et al. 2002). These fishes are characterized by 

having spines on their head (at least as juveniles); stiff dorsal fins; spines with venom glands at the base 

of dorsal, anal, and pectoral fins; internal fertilization of eggs; and birth of live larvae (Love et al. 2002).

Rockfish are mid-level predators that commonly occupy reef habitats, though are also found on complex 

soft bottom or in association with subtidal vegetation. A significant portion of the marine fish community

within Puget Sound waters is composed of rockfish, which account for at least 28 of an estimated 253

(~11 percent) fish species (Pietsch and Orr 2015). The following section details the unique biological 

traits of rockfish and their relevance to recovery. 

B. LIFE HISTORY/ECOLOGY

Rockfish are iteroparous (i.e., have multiple reproductive cycles during their lifetime) and are typically 

long-lived. This trait allows the adult population to persist through many years of poor reproduction until 

a good recruitment year occurs, likely dictated by climatic or oceanic conditions (Tolimieri and Levin 

2005; Leaman 1991). As adults, listed rockfish generally inhabit relatively deep waters with steep and 

complex bathymetry, though they may also occur over less complex habitat or in the water column in 

association with sheer walls. Their diets are diverse and include many species of marine invertebrates and 

fish. Below, we describe rockfish life history by larval, juvenile, and subadult/adult stages, which reflect 

distinct habitat use and food sources. 

Larval Stage Life History, Habitat Use, and Ecosystem Requirements

Female yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio produce from 1 to 3 million larvae annually, depending upon 

age and body size. Rockfish are viviparous, meaning the eggs are fertilized internally, the embryonic fish 

develop within the mother, and the young are released as larvae (Love et al. 2002). Larval rockfish have 

been documented throughout all major basins of Puget Sound (Greene and Godersky 2012). Larval 

rockfish are often observed under free-floating algae, seagrass, and detached kelp (Shaffer et al. 1995;

Love et al. 2002), and also occupy the full water column (Weis 2004). Larval marine fishes, including 

rockfishes, have high mortality rates. For instance, in a laboratory setting (without risk of predation), 

rockfish larvae experienced 70 percent mortality 7 to 12 days after birth (Canino and Francis 1989). Their 

small size, relative inability to store food within their gut, and slow swimming speeds likely contribute to 

this high mortality rate by making them vulnerable to predators and starvation. Poor larval survival in 

most years provides evidence that rockfish populations persist through what has been termed “the storage 

hypothesis” (Warner and Chesson 1985), where episodic high recruitment success is important in driving 

population size. Poor larval survival in most years is balanced by the long lives of reproductive adults; 

thus, when good conditions occur there are new larval cohorts that benefit from them (Drake et al. 2010). 

Episodic recruitment rates also mean that high fecundity rates do not appear to mitigate risk of extinction 

or enable more rapid recovery from exploitation (Dulvy et al. 2003). We do not know the relative 

importance of these factors in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 14

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

The timing of larval release for each species 

varies throughout their geographic range. In 

Puget Sound, there is some evidence that

yelloweye larvae are extruded in early spring 

to late summer (Washington et al. 1978) and 

in British Columbia between April and 

September with a peak in May and June 

(Yamanaka et al. 2006). Along the coast of 

Washington State, bocaccio release larvae 

between January and April (Love et al. 2002).

Pelagic larval duration (PLD) is defined as 

the length of time larvae may drift before 

settling to juvenile habitat or adult habitat, 

and it is an indication of the spatial scales of 

connectivity and sources for population 

replenishment. For shelf/slope species of 

fishes, such as the yelloweye rockfish, PLD

in the California Current is greater than 120 

days (Shanks and Eckert 2005), and for 

bocaccio PLD is 150 to 170 days (Shanks et 

al. 2003). Population genetic studies have 

shown that despite longer PLD, rockfish 

often exhibit population structure over 

regional scales (Siegle et al. 2013).

Juvenile Stage Life History, Habitat Use, 

and Ecosystem Requirements

Generally, juvenile rockfish move from the 

pelagic environment and associate with 

benthic environments when they reach about 

1.2 to 3.6 inches (3 to 9 cm ) in length and 

approximately the age of 3 to 6 months (Love 

et al. 2002). As they grow, juveniles of each 

species gradually move to areas of high 

rugosity (roughness) and rocky habitat in 

deeper waters (Love et al. 1991; Johnson et 

al. 2003; Love et al. 2002). This movement to 

deeper water may be driven by environmental 

conditions that are less favorable for 

juveniles; over the fall and winter,

temperatures decrease, turbulence increases, and submerged aquatic vegetation coverage decreases 

(Halderson and Richards 1987; Matthews 1989; Love et al. 1991; Carr 1991; Doty et al. 1995).

Rockfish and Kelp along the Pacific Coast

~By Nicole Naar~

Along the Pacific Coast, rockfish and kelp are linked 

through both bottom-up and top-down trophic 

relationships. Healthy kelp forests provide habitat and 

primary production that support diverse marine food 

webs (Klinger 2015). Isotopic analyses have 

demonstrated kelp’s contribution to food chains 

including rockfishes (von Biela et al. 2015), traced the 

decline of kelp signatures in rockfish samples since 

European contact (Szpak et al. 2013), and linked 

greater kelp cover to increased rockfish recruitment 

(Markel 2011). 

However, kelp forests are vulnerable to trophic 

cascades, which occur when the elimination of 

predators leads to a proliferation of kelp grazers 

(Steneck et al. 2002). Rockfish are important 

mesopredators in temperate marine ecosystems that 

may influence community structure. Therefore, 

overharvesting of rockfish and other predatory fish 

populations may be linked to the decline of kelp 

forests within Puget Sound.

Juvenile bocaccio in a kelp forest in waters of 

California. Photo by Adam Obaza.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 15

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Areas with floating and submerged kelp (families Chordeace, Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, 

and Laminaricea) support the highest densities of most juvenile rockfish species (Matthews 1989; 

Halderson and Richards 1987; Carr 1991; Carr and Syms 2006; Hayden-Spear 2006; Springer et al. 

2010). Kelp is photosynthetic and requires high ambient light levels and a lack of fine sediment in the 

water column (Mumford 2007). There are 23 annual or perennial species of kelp in Puget Sound, two of 

which have a floating canopy and the rest non-floating stipitate or prostrate canopies (Mumford 2007). 

When solid substrates occur in lower intertidal and subtidal zones, kelp is often the dominant aquatic flora 

and forms dense canopies (Mumford 2007). Kelp are attached with a root-like structure, called a holdfast,

to solid substrates such as bedrock, large rocks or pebbles, clam shells, or artificial substrates. Kelp grows 

in areas of high to moderate wave energy or currents to depths as great as 65 feet (20 m) (Mumford 2007; 

reviewed by Springer et al. 2010; Schiel and Foster 2015; Carr and Reed in press). Most kelp species 

form blades 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 m) long, though the one floating variety within the range of the DPSs 

(Nereocystis luetkeana) grows to over 33 feet (10 m) long. 

Juvenile yelloweye rockfish are not typically found in intertidal waters (Love et al. 1991; Studebaker et 

al. 2009). A few juveniles have been documented in shallow nearshore waters (Love et al. 2002; Palsson 

et al. 2009), but most settle in habitats along the shallow range of adult habitats in areas of complex 

bathymetry and rocky/boulder habitats and cloud sponges in waters greater than 98 feet (30 m) (Richards 

1986; Love et al. 2002; Yamanaka et al. 2006). In British Columbia, juvenile yelloweye rockfish have 

been observed at a mean depth of 239 feet (73 m), with a minimum depth of 98 feet (30 m) (Yamanaka et 

al. 2006). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish occur in similar habitats as adults, though in areas with smaller 

crevices, including cloud sponge formations, crinoid aggregations on top of rocky ridges, and over cobble 

substrates (Weispfenning 2006; Yamanaka et al. 2006; Banks 2007).

Young-of-year juvenile bocaccio occur on shallow rocky reefs and nearshore areas (Moser 1967; 

Anderson 1983; Kendall and Lenarz 1986; Carr 1991; Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 1996; Murphy et al. 

2000; Love et al. 2002). Young bocaccio associate with macroalgae, especially kelps (Laminariales), and 

sandy areas that support seagrasses. They form aggregations near the bottom in association with drift 

algae and throughout the water column in association with canopy-forming kelps. It is likely that 

nearshore habitats used by juvenile bocaccio and other rockfish juveniles offer a beneficial mix of warmer 

temperatures, food, and refuge from predators (Love et al. 1991). Habitat formed by kelp provides 

structure for feeding, refuge from predators, and reduced currents that enable energy conservation for 

juvenile bocaccio.

Juvenile yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have been only rarely documented in Puget Sound (Palsson et 

al. 2009). This may be due to a relative lack of studies in Puget Sound that assessed nearshore rockfish 

assemblages prior to the onset of fisheries removals of adult rockfish. Many small post-settlement 

rockfish are difficult to identify at the species level (Anderson 1983; Love et al. 2002), though juvenile 

yelloweye rockfish are relatively easy to identify. Love et al. (1991) describe three reasons that postsettlement habitat is essential for rockfish populations: 1) the successful recruitment of substrateassociated juveniles by larvae dispersed in the pelagic environment is crucial to the survival of local 

populations; 2) density-dependent regulation of populations may occur at the early juvenile stage; thus,

the quality and quantity of these habitats could strongly influence subadult and adult abundance (Johnson 

2006a, 2006b, 2007); and 3) larval abundance can be a poor predictor of subsequent adult year-class 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 16

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

strength, suggesting that post-settlement rearing habitat can strongly influence subsequent population 

viability.

Adult Stage Life History, Habitat Use, and Ecosystem Requirements

Adult yelloweye rockfish remain near the substrate and have relatively small home ranges, while some

bocaccio have larger home ranges, move long distances, and spend time suspended in the water column 

(Demott 1983; Love et al. 2002; Friedwald 2009). Depth is generally the most important determinant in 

the distribution of many rockfish species of the Pacific Coast (Chen 1971; Williams and Ralston 2002; 

Anderson and Yoklavich 2007; Young et al. 2010). Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio generally 

occupy habitats from approximately 90 to 1,394 feet (30 to 425 m) (Orr et al. 2000; Love et al. 2002).

There have not been historical or contemporary systematic surveys of rockfish populations in all of the 

basins of Puget Sound (Drake et al. 2010). Fisheries catch data can be used to assist in determining 

rockfish habitat (Yamanaka and Logan 2010), but the lack of systematic record keeping and unreliable 

species identification from commercial and recreational fishing in Puget Sound limits the utility of 

available fishery data (Palsson et al. 2009; Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). In addition, spatial 

information on rockfish fishing areas reflects both fisher behavior and underlying species distributions. 

Where most historical fisheries data do exist, the precise location of the catch is not documented (e.g., 

Bargmann 1977). The documented occurrences of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are from a wide range 

of years and with diverse sampling methods such as research trawls, drop cameras, SCUBA, ROVs, and 

commercial and recreational fishing (Table 1). Most of these documented occurrences are for subadult 

and adult life stages, with relatively few young-of-year fish documented. 

Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio frequently occupy habitats within and adjacent to areas that are 

highly rugose. These are benthic habitats with moderate to extreme steepness; complex bathymetry; 

and/or substrates consisting of fractured bedrock, rock, and boulder-cobble complexes (Yoklavich et al. 

2000; Love et al. 2002; Wang 2005; Anderson and Yoklavich 2007) and glass sponges (cloud sponges are 

a type of glass sponge) (Marliave et al. 2009). Most of the benthic habitats in Puget Sound consist of 

unconsolidated materials such as mud, sand, clays, cobbles, and boulders (Burns 1985), and despite the 

relative lack of rock, some of these benthic habitats are moderately to highly rugose. More complex 

marine habitats are generally used by larger numbers of fish species relative to less complex areas 

(Anderson and Yoklavich 2007; Young et al. 2010; Pacunski et al. 2013) and thus support food sources 

for subadult and adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. Biogenic structure (e.g., kelps) also provides

refuge from predators and may provide shelter from currents, thus leading to energy conservation (Young 

et al. 2010). 

Though areas near rocky habitats or other complex structure are most readily used by adults of each 

species, alternative benthic habitats are also occupied. In Puget Sound, adult yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio have been documented in areas with non-rocky substrates such as sand, mud, and other 

unconsolidated sediments (Haw and Buckley 1971; Washington 1977; Miller and Borton 1980; Reum 

2006). Surveys from outside the range of the DPSs also have documented each species in relatively less 

complex habitats, though generally on a less frequent basis than more complex habitats. Yelloweye 

rockfish have also been documented in areas with mud and mud/cobble habitats in waters off the coasts of 

Washington (Wang 2005), California (Yoklavich et al. 2000), Oregon (Stein et al. 1992), and British 

Columbia, Canada (Richards 1986), and have been observed adjacent to large and isolated boulders in 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 17

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

areas of flat and muddy bottoms in Alaskan waters (O’Connell and Carlile 1993). Bocaccio also occupy 

benthic areas with soft-bottomed habitats, particularly those adjacent to structure such as boulders and 

crevices (Yoklavich et al. 2000; Anderson and Yoklavich 2007). Bocaccio are also known to occupy the 

water column well off the bottom, making their documentation with traditional bottom sampling methods 

problematic.

Table 1. Summary of listed rockfish habitat use.

Species Approximate Size 

Range

Habitat Associations (e.g., 

biogenic structure, substrate)

Depth Range

Larval yelloweye rockfish <1.2 in (3cm) Water column, free-floating algae, 

seagrass, detached kelp

Variable

Juvenile yelloweye 

rockfish

1.2-3.6 in (3-9cm) Rocky habitat / complex structure, 

cloud sponges

98-293 ft (30-73m)

Subadult / adult yelloweye 

rockfish

>3.6 in (9cm+) Rocky habitat / complex structure,

occasionally other (sand, mud, etc.)

90-1,394 ft (30-425m)

Larval bocaccio <1.2 in (3cm) Water column, free-floating algae, 

seagrass, detached kelp

Variable

Juvenile bocaccio 1.2-3.6 in (3-9cm) Water column, in association with 

drift algae, seagrasses, and canopy 

forming kelp

>6 ft (2m), variable

Subadult/adult bocaccio >3.6 in (9cm+) Water column, rocky habitat / 

complex structure, occasionally 

other (sand, mud, etc.)

Variable, 90-1,394 ft 

(30-425m)

Age and Growth Rates

Yelloweye rockfish are one of the longest lived of the rockfishes, with some individuals reaching more 

than 100 years of age. Yelloweye rockfish reach 50 percent maturity at sizes of 16 to 20 inches (40 to 50 

cm) and ages of 15 to 20 years (Rosenthal et al. 1982; Yamanaka and Kronlund 1997). The maximum age 

of bocaccio is unknown, but may range from 40 to 50 years. Bocaccio are estimated to reach 50 percent 

maturity at 14 to 20 inches (35 to 50 cm) and become reproductively mature near ages 4 to 6 years 

(Stanley et al. 2001; Love et al. 2002).

Reproduction, Recruitment, and Natural Mortality Rate

Depending on the size and age of the fish, individual female yelloweye rockfish produce up to 2,700,000 

larvae and bocaccio produce up to 2,298,000 larvae annually (Love et al. 2002). Larval rockfish have a 

low rate of survival in their first year of life and recruitment is erratic and poorly understood in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. Larvae birthed by older female rockfish have significantly greater growth rates and 

starvation tolerance compared to larvae of younger females (Berkeley et al. 2004). 

The mean natural mortality rate for rockfish varies by species and environmental conditions. The mean 

natural mortality rate is approximately 3 percent per year for yelloweye rockfish and 8 percent per year

for bocaccio (Table 2) (Gunderson and Vetter 2006; Palsson et al. 2009). 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 18

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 2. Characteristics of ESA-listed rockfish species.

Common 

Name 

Maximum Age 

(yrs.)

Age at 50%

Maturity (yrs.)

Range Natural 

Mortality Rate 

(% per year)

Depth range (ft.) 

(Adults)

Yelloweye 

rockfish 118+ 19-22 2 to 4.6 percent 90-1400

Bocaccio 50 4 8 90-1400

Note: Adapted from Orr et al. 2000, Love et al. 2002, Gunderson and Vetter 2006, and Palsson et al. 2009.

Diet and Feeding Behavior

Food sources for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio occur throughout Puget Sound. However, each of the 

basins has unique biomass and species compositions of fish and invertebrates that vary temporally and 

spatially (Rice 2007; Rice et al. 2012). Absolute and relative abundance and species richness of most fish 

species in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin increase with latitude (Rice 2007; Rice et al. 2012). Despite 

these differences, each basin hosts common food sources for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio as 

described below. 

Larval and juvenile rockfish feed on very small organisms such as zooplankton, particularly copepods,

phytoplankton, small crustaceans, invertebrate eggs, krill, and other invertebrates (Moser and Boehlert 

1991; Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). Larger juveniles also feed upon small fish (Love et al. 1991). 

Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have diverse diets that include many species of fish and 

invertebrates, including but not limited to crabs (Crustacea spp.), various rockfish (Sebastes spp.), flatfish 

(Pleuronectidae and Paralichthyidae spp), juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp), walleye pollock (Gadus 

chalcogrammus), Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), green sea 

urchin (Stongylocentrotus droebachiensis), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) eggs, various shrimp species 

(Pandalus spp.), and surf perch (Rhacochilus spp.). Common forage fish that are part of rockfish diets 

include Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific sand lance 

(Ammodytes hexapterus) (Washington et al. 1978; Lea et al. 1999; Love et al. 2002; Yamanaka et al.

2006). 

Natural Predators

Rockfishes of all sizes are an important food resource for a variety of predators in Puget Sound (Palsson 

et al. 2009). There is little data regarding specific predators of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio of the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, thus we refer to available information regarding predation on Sebastes

species generally. Rockfish are preyed upon by numerous fish species, birds, and several marine 

mammals (Mills et al. 2007; Lance et al. 2012; Buzzell et al. 2014). Larvae and juveniles are eaten by 

birds, salmon, rockfish, lingcod, and other fish species (Mills et al. 2007). Juveniles and adults are eaten 

by lingcod and some marine mammals (mostly pinnipeds) (Love et al. 2002; Palsson et al. 2009). As with 

many other marine fish species, as rockfish grow, their potential predators are generally reduced in 

number because of their larger sizes, physiological development, and behavioral changes (Gislason et al. 

2010).

It is important to note that the impact of predation on rockfish cannot be determined from the quantity and 

frequency of rockfish occurrence in predator diets alone. Data on the sizes and quantity of rockfish 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 19

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

consumed by predators should be used in combination with models that assess the ecological conditions 

in which predation has an influence on rockfish population dynamics. A more detailed review of 

predation on rockfish may be found in Appendix IX, Predation.

C. ABUNDANCE, PRODUCTIVITY, CONNECTIVITY, AND DIVERSITY

We summarize our knowledge of each species at the DPS level according to the following demographic 

viability parameters: abundance and productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These 

viability criteria are outlined in McElhaney et al. (2000) and reflect concepts that are well founded in 

conservation biology and are generally applicable to a wide variety of species. These criteria describe 

demographic conditions that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk

(Drake et al. 2010). Below, we summarize the demographic information applicable to the DPSs and then 

present specific demographic information for each DPS. This section also identifies factors influencing 

demographics and how parameters have changed over time. The term Puget Sound proper refers to the 

waters east of and including Admiralty Inlet, and North Puget Sound refers to the San Juan/Strait of Juan 

de Fuca area within the DPSs. 

Abundance and Productivity

The Role of Rockfish in Indigenous Pacific Northwest Subsistence

~By Nicole Naar~

Archaeological evidence indicates that indigenous cultures in the Pacific Northwest have 

consumed rockfishes for at least the past 1,500 years (McKechnie 2007) and likely for much longer 

(Mitchell 1990). Although rockfish were secondary to salmon and likely harvested opportunistically 

within Puget Sound, they were a primary food source along the outer coast of Washington, 

Vancouver Island, and coastal British Columbia (Williams et al. 2010). For example, nearly 66 

percent of the identified skeletal specimens found at a Nuu-chah-nulth site on Vancouver Island 

were from Sebastes species (McKechnie 2007), and rockfish were a significant part of the diet at 

various mainland Comox (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990), Makah (Renker and Gunther 1990), and 

Klallam (Wessen 1990) sites. The North Salish harvested rockfish and other saltwater fish yearround (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990), while the Nuu-chah-nulth (Arima and Dewhirst 1990), 

Snoqualmie (Turner 1976), Makah, and Klallam (Wessen 1990) captured them in the summer 

months. Rockfish and other deep water fish were harvested from dugout canoes using hook and 

line (Williams et al. 2010; Stewart 1977; Gunther, field notes) (figure below). Among the mainland 

Comox, “[t]he best fishermen owned special songs that they sang to the rockfish as they jigged for 

them” (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:445). Once captured, rockfish were usually consumed fresh 

by members of the household unit after roasting or boiling (Turner 1976), but the Kwakwaka’wakw 

also dried the fish for later consumption (Boas 1921). The Makah also used the spines of the 

yelloweye rockfish to make pins for blankets, and a part of the skull was used as a berry spoon 

(Gunther, field notes).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 20

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Abundance

There is no single, reliable historical or contemporary abundance estimate for the yelloweye rockfish or 

bocaccio DPSs in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (Drake et al. 2010). Despite this limitation, there is 

clear evidence that each species’ abundance has declined dramatically (Drake et al. 2010). In Canada, 

yelloweye rockfish biomass is estimated to be 12 percent of the unfished stock size on the inside waters of 

Vancouver Island (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2011). The median estimate of bocaccio biomass is 3.5 

percent of its unfished stock size (though this included Canadian waters outside of the DPS’area (Stanley 

et al. 2012). In Puget Sound, catches of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have declined as a proportion of 

the overall rockfish catch (Figure 2 and Figure 3, from Drake et al. 2010). Analysis of SCUBA surveys, 

recreational catch, and WDFW trawl surveys indicated total rockfish populations in the Puget Sound 

region are estimated to have declined between 3.1 and 3.8 percent per year for the past several decades, 

which corresponds to a 69 to 76 percent decline from 1977 to 2014 (Tonnes et al. 2016).

These patterns are consistent with results of a study that assessed historical trends in rockfish abundance 

based on local knowledge of resource users and scientists (Beaudreau and Levin 2014). Beaudreau and 

Levin (2014) reconstructed trends in relative abundance of seven species of rockfish in Puget Sound, 

including ESA-listed species, since the 1940s from interviews with fishers, divers, and researchers. 

Trends in abundance indices indicated that seven rockfish species in Puget Sound have been in decline 

since at least the 1960s, and the two ESA-listed species were viewed as relatively lower in abundance 

across all time periods compared to other rockfishes. Trends from local knowledge likely reflected true 

patterns in nature, based on the following: 1) there was a high degree of agreement among respondents

about patterns in species abundance, and 2) trends from interview data showed strong concordance with 

scientific surveys of Puget Sound species for which historical data were available (i.e., harbor seal, Phoca

vitulina; Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii; lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus) (Beaudreau and Levin 2014).

Abundance indices from local knowledge sources could be used in combination with contemporary 

survey and fishery-dependent data to generate plausible estimates of historical abundance prior to the use 

of biological surveys (Beaudreau and Levin 2014).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 21

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 2. Frequency (% total) for yelloweye rockfish in the recreational catch in Puget Sound proper 

(PSP) and North Puget Sound (NPS) (Source: Drake et al. (2010).

Figure 3. Frequency (% total) for bocaccio in the recreational catch in Puget Sound proper (PSP) and 

North Puget Sound (NPS) (Source: Drake et al. (2010).

Fishery-independent estimates of abundance come from spatially and temporally limited research trawls, 

drop camera surveys, and underwater ROV surveys conducted by WDFW. These abundance estimates 

included in Table 3 should be interpreted in the context of the sampling design and gear. The trawl 

surveys were conducted on the bottom to assess marine fish abundance. These trawls generally sample 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 22

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

non-rocky substrates where yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are less likely to occur (Drake et al. 2010). 

The drop camera surveys sampled habitats less than 120 feet (36.6 m) deep, which is potential habitat for 

juveniles, but less likely habitat for adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. Similarly, because juvenile 

yelloweye rockfish are less dependent on rearing in shallow nearshore environments, the likelihood of 

documenting them with drop camera surveys in water shallower than 120 feet (36.6 m) is low. Therefore, 

trawl surveys and drop cameras would likely underestimate listed species, especially yelloweye rockfish. 

The WDFW ROV surveys were conducted exclusively within the rocky habitats of the San Juan Basin in 

2008, and represent the best available abundance estimates to date for one basin of the DPS for each 

species because of their survey area, number of transects, and stratification methods (Pacunski et al. 

2013). Rocky habitats have been mapped within the San Juan Basin, which allows a randomized survey 

of these areas to assess species assemblages and collect data for abundance estimates. WDFW conducted 

200 transects and categorized each rocky habitat survey as either “shallower than” or “deeper than” 120 

feet (36.6 m). The total area surveyed within each stratum was calculated using the average transect width 

multiplied by the transect length. The mean density of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio was calculated by 

dividing the species counts within each stratum by the area surveyed. Population estimates for each 

species were calculated by multiplying the species density estimates by the total survey area within each 

stratum (Pacunski et al. 2013). Because WDFW did not survey non-rocky habitats of the San Juan Basin 

with the ROV, these estimates do not account for listed rockfish in non-rocky habitat in 2008. WDFW 

expanded the survey data to estimate total abundance in the San Juan Basin (Table 3). From the bottom

trawl and drop camera surveys, WDFW has reported abundance estimates in the North Sound and Puget 

Sound proper (Table 3).

Table 3. Abundance estimates for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio.

WDFW Survey Method Yelloweye Population Estimate Percent Standard Error

(or Variance)

North Sound Puget Sound 

proper

Bottom Trawl Not detected 600 fish NA 400 (variance)

Drop Camera Not detected Not detected NA NA

Remotely Operated Vehicle 47,407 fish (San Juan Basin only) 29

WDFW Survey Method Bocaccio Population Estimate Percent Standard Error

North Sound Puget Sound 

proper

Bottom Trawl Not detected Not detected NA NA

Drop Camera Not detected Not detected NA NA

Remotely Operated Vehicle 4,606 fish (San Juan Basin only) 100

Though the bottom trawl and drop camera surveys did not detect bocaccio in Puget Sound proper, 

bocaccio were historically caught in recreational fisheries (Palsson et al. 2009; Williams et al. 2010) and 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 23

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

have been caught in genetic research and ROV surveys in 2015. Bocaccio were most commonly 

documented within the South Sound and Main Basin in recent decades (Drake et al. 2010; Williams et al. 

2010). The lack of detected bocaccio from these sampling methods in Puget Sound proper is likely due to 

the following factors: 1) populations are depleted, 2) the general lack of rocky benthic areas in Puget 

Sound proper may lead to densities of each species that are naturally less than the San Juan Basin, 3) the 

study design or effort may not have been sufficient to detect each species, and 4) bottom trawls do not 

effectively sample core rockfish habitats (i.e., high-relief rock). Though bocaccio were likely never a 

predominant component of the multi-species rockfish abundance within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

(Drake et al. 2010), their present-day abundance is likely a fraction of their historical abundance. 

Though yelloweye rockfish were detected in Puget Sound proper with bottom trawl surveys, we do not 

consider the WDFW estimate of 600 fish to be comprehensive for the same reasons outlined above for 

bocaccio. Throughout the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (in U.S. waters), yelloweye rockfish are very likely 

most abundant within the San Juan Basin. Though there is no reliable population census (ROV or 

otherwise) within all the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin for comparison, the San Juan Basin has the most 

suitable rocky benthic habitat (Palsson et al. 2009) and historically was the area of greatest numbers of 

recreational catch (Moulton and Miller 1987; Olander 1991).

Productivity

Productivity is the measurement of a population’s growth rate through all or a portion of its life cycle. 

Life history traits of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio suggest generally low levels of inherent 

productivity because they are long-lived, mature slowly, and have sporadic episodes of successful 

reproduction (Musick 1999; Tolimieri and Levin 2005). 

Yelloweye rockfish productivity may also be impacted by an Allee effect. This situation arises when 

reproductive adults are removed from the population and remaining individuals are eventually unable to 

encounter mates. This process then further reduces population density and can lead to extinction. Adult 

yelloweye rockfish typically occupy relatively small ranges (Love et al. 2002), and the extent to which 

they may move to find suitable mates is unknown. However, there is insufficient information to determine 

that this is currently occurring for yelloweye rockfish and further research is needed (Hutchings and 

Reynolds 2004). 

Tolimieri and Levin (2005) found that the bocaccio population growth rate is around 1.01, indicating a 

very low intrinsic growth rate for this species. This species demonstrates some of the highest recruitment 

variability among rockfish species, with many years of poor recruitment being the norm (Tolimieri and 

Levin 2005) and an estimated natural mortality of 8 percent (Palsson et al 2009). Given their severely 

reduced abundance, Allee effects could be particularly acute for bocaccio, even considering the 

propensity of some individuals to move long distances and potentially find mates, though the extent of 

these effects are yet unknown.

Overfishing can have dramatic impacts on the size or age structure of rockfish populations as anglers may 

select for larger individuals, reducing the size of individuals in the breeding population. The change in 

female size structure is particularly important, as larger and older females of various rockfish species have 

a higher weight-specific fecundity (number of larvae per unit of female weight) (Bobko and Berkeley 

2004; Boehlert et al. 1982; Sogard et al. 2008). Survival is also improved in offspring of larger females 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 24

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

because they provide more nutrients to larvae by developing a larger oil globule released at parturition, 

which provides energy to the developing larvae (Berkeley et al. 2004; Fisher et al. 2007), and in black 

rockfish enhances early growth rates (Berkeley et al. 2004). This change in reproductive success is part of 

a broader phenomenon termed maternal effects, defined as alterations in parental phenotypes or the 

environment that influence offspring (Heath and Blouw 1998). A consistent maternal effect in rockfishes 

relates to the timing of larval release. The timing of larval birth can be critical because corresponding with 

favorable oceanographic conditions is essential for reproductive success and most individual fishes 

release larvae for only 2 days each year. Several studies of rockfish species have shown that larger or 

older females release larvae earlier in the season compared to smaller or younger females (Nichol and 

Pikitch 1994; Sogard et al. 2008). Maternal effects illustrate the compound effect artificial selection from 

overfishing may have on rockfish population growth.

Reproductive function as well as other life history stages of rockfish are likely affected by contaminants 

(Palsson et al. 2009), though the extent of this effect is not known (Drake et al. 2010). Contaminants such 

as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and chlorinated 

pesticides appear in rockfish collected in urban areas (West and O’Neil 1998; West et al. 2001). While the 

highest levels of contamination occur in urban areas, toxins can be found in the tissues of fish throughout 

Puget Sound (West et al. 2001). Although few studies have investigated the effects of toxins on rockfish 

ecology or physiology, other fish in the Puget Sound region that have been studied do show a substantial 

impact, including reproductive dysfunction of some sole species (Landahl et al. 1997). A more 

comprehensive review of contamination effects on rockfishes may be found in Appendix VI.

Future climate-induced changes to rockfish habitat could alter their productivity (Drake et al. 2010). 

Harvey (2005) created a bioenergetic model for rockfish, showing that their productivity is highly 

influenced by climate conditions. For instance, El Niño-like conditions generally lowered growth rates 

and increased generation time. The negative effect of the warm water conditions associated with El Niño 

appear to be common across rockfishes (Moser et al. 2000). Recruitment of all species of rockfish appears 

to be correlated at large scales (Caselle et al. 2010). Field and Ralston (2005) hypothesized that such 

synchrony was the result of large-scale climate forcing. Exactly how climate influences rockfish in Puget 

Sound is unknown; however, given the general importance of climate to rockfish recruitment, it is likely 

that climate strongly influences the dynamics of listed rockfish population viability (Drake et al. 2010).

In summary, though abundance and productivity data for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are limited, it 

is likely that both abundance and productivity have been reduced largely by fishery removals,

contaminants, and habitat degradation within the range of both Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs (Drake 

et al. 2010).

Spatial Structure and Connectivity

Spatial structure (also referred to as distribution) consists of both the geographical distribution of 

individuals in the population and the processes that generate that distribution (McElhaney et al. 2000). A 

population’s spatial structure is driven by habitat quality, spatial configuration, and dynamics as well as 

dispersal characteristics of individuals within the population (McElhaney et al. 2000). Prior to 

contemporary fishery removals, each of the major basins in the range of the DPSs likely hosted relatively 

large populations of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, though their distribution was likely not uniform 

throughout the basins of Puget Sound (Moulton and Miller 1987; Washington 1977; Washington et al. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 25

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1978; Williams et al. 2010). Wide distribution enables each species to potentially exploit good habitat, 

which may be naturally limited in portions of Puget Sound, and protect them from potentially negative 

environmental fluctuations or conditions. These types of fluctuations may include change in prey 

abundance for various life stages and/or change in environmental conditions, such as temperature, that 

influence the number of annual recruits. Wide spatial distribution also provides a measure of protection 

from larger scale anthropogenic changes that damage habitat suitability, such as oil spills or hypoxia that 

can cause acute local or regional effects. Rockfish population resilience may be sensitive to changes in 

connectivity among various groups of fish (Hamilton 2008). Exchange of water masses that influence 

larval transport and population connectivity between the basins of Puget Sound is naturally restricted by 

relatively shallow sills located at Deception Pass, Admiralty Inlet, the Tacoma Narrows, and in Hood 

Canal (Burns 1985). The Victoria Sill bisects the Strait of Juan de Fuca and runs from east of Port 

Angeles north to Victoria (Drake et al. 2010). These sills regulate water exchange from one basin to the 

next, and thus likely moderate the movement of rockfish larvae (Drake et al. 2010). When localized 

depletion of rockfish occurs, it can reduce resiliency of the entire DPS (Levin 1998; Hilborn et al. 2003; 

Hamilton 2008). It is likely that natural biogeographic limits to rockfish dispersal (as evidenced by a 

population of yelloweye rockfish in Hood Canal that is separate from the rest of the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin yelloweye rockfish population, discussed below) and distribution make them particularly 

susceptible to localized depletion as a result of fishery harvest. 

Yelloweye rockfish spatial structure and connectivity has been reduced by the decline of fish within each 

basin. This reduction is likely most acute within the basins of Puget Sound proper. The severe decline of 

fish in these basins may eventually result in a contraction of the DPS’ range (Drake et al. 2010). Although 

yelloweye rockfish are probably most abundant within the San Juan Basin, the likelihood of juvenile 

recruitment from this basin to the adjacent basins of Puget Sound proper is likely naturally low because of 

the generally retentive circulation patterns that occur within each of the major basins of Puget Sound 

proper. Combined with limited adult movement, yelloweye rockfish DPS viability may be highly 

influenced by the localized loss of populations within the DPS, which decreases spatial structure and 

connectivity.

Bocaccio may have been historically limited in their spatial distribution. They were likely historically 

most abundant in the Main Basin and South Sound (Drake et al. 2010; Williams et al. 2010) with no

known documented occurrences in the San Juan Basin until 2008 (Pacunski et al. 2013). Spatial structure 

and connectivity in the DPS likely comes from the propensity of some adults and pelagic juveniles to 

migrate long distances, which could re-establish aggregations of fish in formerly occupied habitat (Drake 

et al. 2010). The apparent reduction of populations of bocaccio in the Main Basin and South Sound 

represents a further reduction in the historically limited distribution of bocaccio, and adds significant risk 

to the viability of the DPS.

In summary, spatial structure and connectivity for each species have been adversely impacted, in large 

part because of fishery removals (Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2010). 

Life History Diversity, Demographic and Genetic Structure

Characteristics of life history diversity for rockfishes include age/size structure, fecundity, timing of 

larval release, larval condition, age at reproductive maturity, and molecular genetic characteristics. In 

spatially and temporally varying environments, there are three general reasons why diversity is important 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 26

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

for species and population viability: 1) it allows a species to use a wider array of environments, 2) it 

protects a species against short-term spatial and temporal changes in the environment, and 3) genetic 

diversity provides the raw material for adaptation to long-term environmental changes. More information 

is needed to understand factors influencing diversity and how these factors may have changed populations 

over time. 

Yelloweye rockfish demographic information

Data from the 1970s through 2000s indicate that yelloweye rockfish size and age distributions became

truncated (Figure 4). Recreationally caught yelloweye rockfish in the 1970s spanned a broad range of 

sizes. By the 2000s, there was some evidence of fewer older fish in the population (Drake et al. 2010). As 

a result, the reproductive burden may be shifted to younger and smaller fish. This shift in demographic 

structure could alter the timing and condition of larval release, which may be mismatched with habitat 

conditions within the range of the DPS and reduce the viability of offspring (Drake et al. 2010).

Figure 4. Yelloweye rockfish length frequency distributions (cm) for four decades. Approximately one 

third of harvested individuals in the 1970s were larger than the size depicted by the vertical 

dashed line (Source: Drake et al. 2010).

WDFW scientists observed a strong rockfish recruitment event in 2006 (Lowry et al. 2013), and there is 

evidence of improved population size distribution of yelloweye rockfish from data gathered in 2014 and 

2015 (Figure 5). Size frequency information was collected during the 2014-2015 genetics research study 

(described in Section F and NMFS 2016), which was initiated to gain genetic data to better delineate the 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 27

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

population structure for the listed species (Andrews et al. 2015). Yelloweye rockfish show some evidence 

of recruitment within the last 10 years (Figure 5). Nine of the sampled yelloweye rockfish were less than 

15.8 inches (40 cm) in fork length (FL). Using the von Bertalanffy growth parameters from Love et al. 

(2002), these fish are approximately 7 to 10 years of age at 13.8 inches. Thus, the data suggest some 

recent replenishment of local populations of yelloweye rockfish although the extent is not known. In 

addition, several observations of young-of-year (YOY) yelloweye rockfish in Puget Sound have been 

documented by local recreational divers, the Seattle Aquarium, and WDFW (NMFS, unpublished 

database). 

Figure 5. Yelloweye rockfish length frequency distributions (cm) from fish caught in 2014 and 2015 

(Andrews et al. 2015). 

Yelloweye rockfish genetic information

New collection and analysis of yelloweye rockfish tissue samples reveal significant genetic differentiation 

between the inland (DPS) and coastal samples. These new data are consistent with and further support the 

existence of a population of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish that is discrete from coastal 

populations (Ford 2015; NMFS 2016). In addition, yelloweye rockfish from Hood Canal were genetically 

differentiated from other Puget Sound/Georgia Basin fish (cluster in the upper right of Figure 6), 

indicating a previously unknown degree of population differentiation within the DPS (Ford 2015; NMFS 

2016). Other genetic analysis has found that yelloweye rockfish in the Georgia Basin had the lowest 

molecular genetic diversity of a collection of samples along the coast (Siegle et al. 2013). Although the 

adaptive significance of such microsatellite diversity is unclear, it may suggest low effective population 

size, increased drift, and thus lower genetic diversity in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS.

TWO POPULATIONS OF YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH

Recent genetic research has found that yelloweye rockfish in Hood Canal are 

genetically differentiated from other yelloweye rockfish within the DPS—constituting 

two separate populations of fish within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 28

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 6. Three clusters of yelloweye rockfish based on a principal components analysis of the genetic 

variation between individuals inside and outside the DPS and among specific regions 

(Andrews et al. 2015).

Bocaccio demographic information

Size-frequency distributions for bocaccio in the 1970s indicate a wide range of sizes, with recreationally 

caught individuals from 9.8 to 33.5 inches (25 to 85 cm) (Figure 7). This broad size distribution suggests 

a spread of ages, with some successful recruitment over many years. A similar range of sizes is also 

evident in the 1980s catch data (Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2010). The temporal trend in size 

distributions for bocaccio also suggests size truncation of the population, with larger fish becoming less 

common over time. By the 2000s, no size distribution data for bocaccio were available. The potential loss 

of diversity in the bocaccio DPS, in combination with their relatively low productivity, may result in a 

mismatch with habitat conditions and further reduce population viability (Drake et al. 2010).

In summary, although there may have been some recruitment in recent years, size and age structure of 

both species has likely been adversely impacted by past fishery removals, with catch biased toward larger 

individuals, thereby altering demographic structure. During the 2014/2015 collection and analysis of 

yelloweye rockfish tissue, scientists also tried to collect bocaccio tissue. Because of their rarity, genetic 

analysis for bocaccio included only three samples from within the DPS area (Andrews et al. 2015); this is 

not sufficient information to change the prior status review determination (Ford 2015; NMFS 2016).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 29

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 7. Bocaccio length frequency distributions (cm) for four decades. Approximately one third of 

harvested individuals in the 1970s were larger than the size depicted by the vertical dashed 

line (Note: there is no vertical dashed line in the 2000s because no bocaccio were recorded in 

catch) (Source: Drake et al. 2010). 

D. MANAGEMENT UNITS AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS

The yelloweye rockfish DPS and the bocaccio DPS span a range of habitats in the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin that are adjacent to urban hubs, agricultural areas, and remote regions. They also span regions that 

exhibit different oceanographic conditions. Therefore, we use five geographically based management 

units (Figure 8) to describe different habitat characteristics to further assist with delisting and downlisting 

criteria, rank threats by management unit, and identify specific research and recovery actions. The DPS 

boundary for yelloweye rockfish has also been extended further north into Canada to include Johnstone 

Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel (Figure 8) (NMFS 2016).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 30

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 8. DPSs area and Management Units.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 31

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Management Unit and Habitat Descriptions

The range of the two DPSs includes Puget Sound and Georgia Basin, which make up the southern arm of 

an inland sea located on the Pacific Coast of North America and connected to the Pacific Ocean by the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. Puget Sound can be subdivided into biogeographic basins that encompass 

contiguous, ecologically unique, and spatially isolated freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats 

(Downing 1983; Burns 1985). Puget Sound is a fjord-like estuary covering 2,331.8 square miles (6,039.3 

sq. km). Puget Sound is fed by 14 major river systems and consists of a series of interconnected basins 

separated by prominent sills. Most of the water exchange in Puget Sound proper is through Admiralty 

Inlet, and the configuration of sills and deep basins results in the partial recirculation of water masses and 

the retention of contaminants, sediment, and biota (Strickland 1983). Tidal action, freshwater inflow, and 

ocean currents interact to circulate and exchange salty marine water from the Strait of Juan de Fuca at 

depth and less dense fresh water from the surrounding watersheds at the surface, producing a net seaward 

flow of water at the surface (Strickland 1983). 

The sills largely define the boundaries between the biogeographic basins (except where the Whidbey 

Basin meets the Main Basin) and contribute to relatively fast water currents during portions of the tidal 

cycle. The sills restrict water exchange, and in combination with bathymetry, freshwater input, and tidal 

exchange, influence environmental conditions such as the movement and exchange of biota from one 

region to the next, water temperatures, and water quality (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1984; Burns 1985; Rice 

2007). In addition, each basin differs in biological condition; depth profiles and contours; subtidal 

benthic, intertidal habitats; and shoreline composition and condition (Downing 1983; Ebbesmeyer et al. 

1984; Burns 1985; Rice 2007; Drake et al. 2010). Puget Sound has approximately 2,400 miles (3,862 km) 

of shoreline, ranging from rocky sea cliffs to coastal bluffs and river deltas. Most of the shoreline of Puget 

Sound proper is composed of erodible gravel, sand, and clay deposited by glaciers more than 15,000 years 

ago, while much of the San Juan Basin’s shoreline is composed of rock and large cobble materials 

(Downing 1983). 

The five Management Units are listed below and shown in Figure 8. The first four are based on the 

aforementioned conditions. The fifth management unit, which includes the Canadian portion of the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin, is a political boundary because the U.S. does not have authority in Canadian 

waters. 

(1) The San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin

(2) Main Basin

(3) South Puget Sound

(4) Hood Canal

(5) The Canadian portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

The San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin: This basin is the northwestern boundary of the U.S. portion

of the DPSs’ ranges. The basin includes Bellingham Bay and is delimited to the north by the Canadian 

border, to the west by the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to the south by the Olympic Peninsula 

and Admiralty Inlet, and to the east by Whidbey Island and the mainland between Anacortes and Blaine, 

Washington. The predominant feature of this basin is the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is 99.4 miles (160 

km) long and 13.7 miles (22 km) wide at its western end and over 24.9 miles (40 km) at its eastern end 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 32

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

(Thomson 1994). Drake et al. (2010) considered the western boundary of the DPSs’ range as the Victoria 

Sill because it is hypothesized to control larval dispersal for rockfish (and other biota) of the region.

The San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin has the most rocky shoreline and benthic habitats of the U.S. 

portion of the DPSs. Most of the basin’s numerous islands have rocky shorelines and extensive, 

submerged, aquatic vegetation and floating kelp beds that support juvenile bocaccio settlement to benthic 

habitats, provide cover from predation, and support rearing. Approximately 93 percent of the rocky 

benthic habitats of the U.S. portion of the range of all three DPSs are in this basin (Palsson et al. 2009). 

Commercial and recreational fisheries occur in the San Juan Basin, as well as scientific research, that may 

encounter listed rockfish as bycatch. The highest concentration of derelict fishing nets in the DPSs’ 

ranges remain here, including many nets in waters deeper than 100 feet (30.5m). This basin has the most 

kelp in the DPSs’ ranges, and because of its commonality, commercial kelp harvest may be proposed for 

the San Juan Islands area. The Ports of Bellingham and Anacortes are located in this basin, and numerous 

dredging and dredge disposal projects and nearshore development, such as new docks, piers, and 

bulkheads, occur in this basin. These development actions have the potential to alter nearshore rearing

habitats of bocaccio. Two open-water dredge material disposal sites are located in the basin, one in 

Rosario Strait and the other northwest of Port Townsend. These are termed dispersive sites because they 

have higher current velocities; thus, dredged material does not accumulate at the disposal site and settles 

on benthic environments over a broad area (Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Sediment disposal activities 

in these specific areas may temporarily alter dissolved oxygen levels and alter the ability of juvenile 

rockfish to seek out prey. There are several areas with contaminated sediments along the eastern portion 

of this basin, particularly in Bellingham Bay and Guemes Channel near Anacortes.

The Main Basin: The Main Basin is delimited to the north by the marine waters east of Whidbey Island at 

Deception Pass, to the west by a line between Point Wilson near Port Townsend and Partridge Point on 

Whidbey Island, and to the south by Tacoma Narrows. The Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers 

flow into this northern portion of the basin and contribute the largest influx of freshwater inflow to Puget 

Sound (Burns 1985). The sill at the border of Admiralty Inlet and the eastern Straits of Juan de Fuca 

regulates water exchange of Puget Sound (Burns 1985). Water retention is estimated to be 1 month in the 

southern portion of this basin and 5.4 months in the northern portion, largely because of the sills at 

Admiralty Inlet and Deception Pass (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1984).

The nearshore of the Main Basin consists of bluff-backed beaches with unconsolidated materials ranging 

from mud and sand to mixes of gravels and cobbles (McBride et al. 2006). Some of these nearshore areas 

support the growth of kelp and support juvenile bocaccio settlement, cover from predation, and rearing. 

Much of the northern part of this basin is relatively shallow with moderately flat bathymetry near the 

Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish River deltas and does not support essential nearshore features such 

as holdfasts for kelp, and rock and cobble areas for rearing juvenile bocaccio. The southern portion of the 

basin has more complex bathymetry compared to the north, with deeper waters adjacent to Whidbey 

Island, southern Camano Island, and off of Mukilteo. Subtidal surface sediments in Admiralty Inlet tend 

to consist largely of sand and gravel, whereas sediments just south of the inlet and southwest of Whidbey 

Island are primarily sand. Sediments in the deeper areas of the central portion of the Main Basin generally 

consist of mud or sandy mud (PSWQA 1987). Benthic areas in this basin with steep and irregular 

bathymetry and high rugosity support growth, refuge, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 33

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Possession Point is centrally located within this basin at the southern end of Whidbey Island and has 

relatively steep eastern, southern, and western edges. It also has some rocky substrates and has relatively 

consistent aggregations of forage fish (Squire and Smith 1977). There are benthic areas deeper than 98 

feet (30 m) along Possession Point, Admiralty Inlet, and the rims of Puget Sound beyond the nearshore 

that feature sloping bathymetry and areas of high rugosity that support growth, refuge, reproduction, and 

feeding opportunities for both yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. The waters in this basin are generally 

stratified, with surface waters warmer in summer (generally 50° to 55°F [10° to 13°C]) and cooler in 

winter (generally 45° to 50°F [7° to 10°C]) (Collias et al. 1974). 

In Port Susan and Saratoga Passage, salinities of surface waters (27.0 to 29.5 psu) are generally lower 

than in the southern portion of the basin because of runoff from the major rivers; moreover, after heavy 

rain these salinities range from 10 to 15 psu. Subsurface temperatures are usually between 46° and 54°F 

(8° and 12°C). In the deeper portions of the Main Basin, salinities are generally approximately 30 psu in 

summer and fall, but decrease to approximately 29 psu during the more rainy months. 

This basin has consistently higher temperatures and lower salinity relative to the San Juan Basin. 

Dissolved oxygen levels vary seasonally, with lowest levels of about 5.5 mg/L occurring at depth in 

summer months, and highest levels of about 7.5 mg/L near the surface. Occasionally, summertime highs 

reach 13 to 14 mg/L at the surface. 

Activities in this basin that may affect listed rockfish and their habitat include bycatch from commercial 

and recreational fisheries, scientific research, dredging projects and dredge disposal operations, nearshore 

development projects, and tidal energy projects. Vessel traffic in this basin is common as cargo ships 

transit to/from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and other destinations in the 

Main Basin and South Puget Sound (Bassett et al. 2012). An estimated 23 derelict nets in waters 

shallower than 100 feet (30.5 m) and one in deeper waters remain in this basin (NRC 2014). Pollution and 

runoff are particular concerns in this basin because of the extensive amounts of impervious surface and 

activities associated with urbanization. Two open-water dredge disposal sites are located in the basin—

one located in Elliot Bay and the other in Commencement Bay. These are non-dispersive disposal sites, 

which are areas where currents are slow enough that dredged material is deposited on the disposal target 

area rather than dispersing broadly with prevailing currents (Army Corps of Engineers 2010). An 

estimated 36 percent of the shoreline in this area has been modified by human activities (Drake et al. 

2010), and bulkhead/pier repair projects and new docks/piers are proposed regularly in this basin. There 

are several areas with contaminated sediments in this basin, particularly in Port Gardner, Elliot Bay, 

Sinclair Inlet, and Commencement Bay.

South Puget Sound: This basin includes all waterways south of Tacoma Narrows. This basin is 

characterized by numerous islands and shallow (generally < 65 feet [20 m]) inlets with extensive 

shoreline areas. The sill at Tacoma Narrows restricts water exchange between the South Puget Sound and 

the Main Basin, and water retention is an estimated 1.9 months (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1984). This restricted 

water exchange influences environmental characteristics of South Puget Sound, such as nutrient levels 

and dissolved oxygen, and perhaps its biotic communities (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1984; Rice 2007). 

The nearshore and intertidal areas of this basin consist of a wide assortment of sediments (Bailey et al. 

1998). The most common sediments and the percent of the intertidal area they cover are: mud, 38.3 ± 

29.3 percent; sand, 21.7 ± 23.9 percent; mixed fine, 22.9 ± 16.1 percent; and gravel, 11.1 ± 4.9 percent. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 34

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Subtidal areas have a similar diversity of surface sediments, with shallower areas consisting of mixtures 

of mud and sand and deeper areas consisting of mud (PSWQA 1987). Kelp has likely declined in the 

South Puget Sound, but some areas still support the growth of kelp and also support juvenile bocaccio 

settlement, cover from predation, and rearing. The southern inlets of this basin include Oakland Bay, 

Totten Inlet, Budd Inlet, and Eld Inlet, in addition to the Nisqually River delta. 

Sediments in Tacoma Narrows and Dana Passage consist primarily of gravel and sand. With a mean depth 

of 121 feet (37 m), this basin is the shallowest of the biogeographic basins (Burns 1985), and benthic 

areas deeper than 98 feet (30 m) occur in portions of the Tacoma Narrows. The rims of South Puget 

Sound beyond the nearshore have sloping bathymetry and areas of high rugosity that support growth, 

refuge, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. The major urban areas, and thus more pollution and 

runoff into South Puget Sound, are found in the western portions of Pierce County. Other urban centers in 

the southern Puget Sound area include Olympia and Shelton. 

The major channels of the southern basin are moderately stratified compared to most other greater Puget 

Sound basins. Salinities generally range from 27 to 29 psu and, although surface temperatures reach 57° 

to 59°F (14° to 15°C) in summer, the temperatures of subsurface waters generally range from 50° to 55°F

(10° to 13°C) in summer and from 46° to 50°F (8° to 10°C) in winter (Ecology 1999). Dissolved oxygen 

levels generally range from 6.5 to 9.5 mg/L. Salinity in the inlets tends to be similar to those of the major 

channels, whereas temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels in the inlets are frequently much higher in 

summer. Two of the larger inlets, Carr and Case, have surface salinities ranging from 28 to 30 psu in the 

inlet mouths and main bodies, but lower salinities range from 27 to 28 psu at the heads of the inlets 

(Collias et al. 1974). Summertime surface waters in Budd, Carr, and Case Inlets commonly have 

temperatures that range from 59° to 66°F (15° to 19°C) and dissolved oxygen values of 10 to 15 mg/L. 

Activities in this basin that may affect both yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio and their habitat include 

bycatch from commercial and recreational fisheries, scientific research, dredging and dredge disposal, 

nearshore development, pollution and runoff, aquaculture operations, and potential tidal energy projects. 

An estimated 20 derelict nets in waters shallower than 100 feet (30.5 m) and one in deeper waters remain 

in this basin (NWSI 2014b). A non-dispersive dredge disposal site is located off Anderson/Ketron Island 

(Army Corps of Engineers 2010) and is monitored for impacts collaboratively by WDFW and DNR. A 

potential tidal energy site is located in the Tacoma Narrows area. Important point sources of waste 

include sewage treatment facilities, and about 5 percent of the nutrients (as inorganic nitrogen) entering 

greater Puget Sound enter this basin through non-point sources (Embrey and Inkpen 1998). An estimated 

34 percent of the shoreline in this area has been modified by human activities (Drake et al. 2010), and 

bulkhead/pier repair projects and new docks/piers are proposed regularly in this basin. There are several 

areas with contaminated sediments in this basin (Appendix VI). 

Hood Canal: Hood Canal branches off the northwest part of the Main Basin near Admiralty Inlet and is 

the smallest of the greater Puget Sound basins, being 55.92 miles (90 km) long and 0.62 to 1.24 miles (1

to 2 km) wide (Drake et al. 2010). Water retention is estimated at 9.3 months; exchange in Hood Canal is 

regulated by a 164-foot (50-meter) deep sill near its entrance that limits the transport of deep marine 

waters in and out of Hood Canal (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1984; Burns 1985). 

The major components of this basin consist of the Hood Canal entrance, Dabob Bay, the central basin, 

and the Great Bend at the southern end. A combination of relatively little freshwater inflow, the sill at 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 35

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Admiralty Inlet, and bathymetry lead to relatively slow currents; thus, water residence time within Hood 

Canal is the longest of the biogeographic basins, with net surface flow generally northward (Ebbesmeyer 

et al. 1984). The intertidal and nearshore zone consists mostly of mud (53.4 ± 89.3 percent of the 

intertidal area), with similar amounts of mixed fine sediment and sand (18.0 ± 18.5 percent and 

16.7 ± 13.7 percent, respectively) (Bailey et al. 1998). Some of the nearshore areas of Hood Canal support 

the growth of kelp and have cobble and gravel substrates intermixed with sand that support juvenile 

bocaccio settlement, cover from predation, and rearing. Surface sediments in the subtidal areas also 

consist primarily of mud and cobbles (PSWQA 1987). The shallow areas of the Great Bend, Dabob Bay, 

Hamma, Quilcene, Duckabush, Dosewallips, Tahuya, and Skokomish River deltas feature relatively 

muddy habitats that do not support essential nearshore features such as holdfasts for kelp, and rock and 

cobble areas for rearing juvenile bocaccio. Benthic areas deeper than 98 feet (30 m) occur along the rim 

of nearly all of Hood Canal, and these areas have sloping and steep bathymetry and areas of high rugosity 

that support growth, refuge, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. 

Portions of Hood Canal are stratified, with marked differences in temperature and dissolved oxygen 

between the entrance and the Great Bend. Water temperature, salinity, and concentration of dissolved 

oxygen in Hood Canal are routinely measured by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) at 

two sites—near the Great Bend and near the entrance. Salinities generally range from 29 to 31 psu and 

tend to be similar at both sites. In contrast, temperature and dissolved oxygen values are often markedly 

different between the two sites. 

Activities in Hood Canal that could affect yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio include commercial and 

recreational fisheries, scientific research, nearshore development, non-indigenous species management, 

and pollution and runoff. An estimated three derelict nets in waters shallower than 100 feet (30.5 m) and 

two in deeper waters remain in this basin (NRC 2014). The unique bathymetry and low water exchange 

have led to episodic periods of low dissolved oxygen (Newton et al. 2007), though the relative role of 

nutrient input from humans in exacerbating these periods of hypoxia is in doubt (Cope and Roberts 2012). 

Dissolved oxygen levels have decreased to levels that cause behavioral changes and kill rockfish (i.e., 

below 1.0 mg/L) (Palsson et al. 2008), and beginning in 2004, bottom fishing in Hood Canal became 

prohibited. An estimated 34 percent of the shoreline in this area has been modified by human activities 

(Drake et al. 2010), and bulkhead/pier repairs and new docks/piers are regularly proposed in this basin. 

The non-indigenous tunicate Ciona savignyi has been documented at 86 percent of sites surveyed in Hood 

Canal (Drake et al. 2010).

Canada: The waters of Canada from the international border in the San Juan Basin northward on the 

inside of Vancouver Island to the Johnstone Strait constitute the northern portion of the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio DPS range. This waterway is commonly termed the Strait of Georgia, 

which is 137.94 miles (222 km) long, 12.43 to 24.85 miles (20 to 40 km) wide, and covers approximately 

of 4,225 square miles (6,800 square km). Depths average 508 feet (155 m), with only 5 percent of the 

strait estimated to have depths greater than 1,181 feet (360 m) (Wilson et al. 1994). 

Major components of this unit include the Fraser River and large networks of islands, such as the Gulf 

Islands, that result in shallow tidal passes. Water flow and currents in the Strait of Georgia are complex

and are driven by a large influx of fresh water from the Fraser River, a large tidal range, and prevailing 

winds. The Fraser River provides regionally significant nutrient and contaminant loadings to the Strait of 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 36

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Georgia. Aside from the Fraser River estuary and nearby shorelines, much of the shorelines in the Strait 

of Georgia consist of rock and cobble formations, much of which support various species of kelp. 

Activities in the inside waters of the Canadian portion of the San Juan Basin northward include First 

Nations fishing, commercial fishing, and recreational fishing. As of 2006, 100 percent at-sea monitoring 

standards were put into place for the entire commercial groundfish fishery. This monitoring was intended 

to eliminate unreported catch of rockfish throughout the commercial groundfish fishery and allow all 

rockfish to be accounted for within their total allowable catch (TAC). There are also a number of 

Rockfish Conservation Areas in these waters (Yamanaka et al. 2006; DFO 2015).

Sediment contamination including elevated levels of PAHs, lead, and mercury have been found in various 

areas of this basin, particularly near the City of Vancouver (Goyette et al. 1988), Howe Sound, and other 

industrialized areas (Wilson et al. 1994). Other recognized threats in Canada include fisheries (Yamanaka 

et al. 2006). Oceanographic conditions are a natural limiting factor that may affect successful rockfish

recruitment in Canada (Yamanaka et al. 2006), though this effect still requires further regional research. 

Critical Habitat Designation

Critical habitat was designated for listed rockfish in 2014 under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (79 Fed. 

Reg. 68041, November 13, 2014) (Figure 9; Table 4). The specific areas designated for bocaccio total

approximately 1,004.50 square miles (1616.59 sq. km) of deepwater (> 98.4 feet [30 m]) and nearshore (< 

98.4 feet [30 m]) marine habitat in Puget Sound. The specific areas designated for yelloweye rockfish 

include 414.10 square miles (666.43 sq. km) of deepwater marine habitat in Puget Sound, all of which 

overlap with areas designated for bocaccio. Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as “(i) the 

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . on which are 

found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which 

may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary 

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.”

Critical habitat is not designated in areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction; therefore, although waters in

Canada are part of the DPSs’ ranges for the two species, critical habitat was not designated in that area. 

We also excluded 13 of the 14 Department of Defense Restricted Areas, Operating Areas, and Danger 

Zones, and waters adjacent to tribal lands from the critical habitat designation.

On January 23, 2017 we issued a final rule to remove the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish 

(Sebastes pinniger) DPS from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and remove its 

critical habitat designation (82 Fed. Reg. 7711).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 37

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 9. Critical habitat for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 38

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Physical and Biological Features Essential for Conservation

Based on the best available scientific information regarding natural history and habitat needs, we 

developed a list of physical and biological features essential to the conservation of adult and juvenile 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio (Table 4), and relevant to determining whether proposed specific areas 

are consistent with the above regulations and the ESA section (3)(5)(A) definition of “critical habitat.”

The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio fall 

into major categories reflecting key life history phases:

Adult bocaccio, and adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish: We designated sites deeper than 98 feet

(30 m) that possess (or are adjacent to) areas of complex bathymetry. These features are essential to 

conservation because they support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding. Several attributes of these 

sites affect the quality of the area and are useful in considering the conservation value of the feature, in 

determining whether the feature may require special management considerations or protection, and in 

evaluating the effects of a proposed action in a section 7 consultation if the specific area containing the 

site is designated as critical habitat. These attributes include: 1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey 

species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; 2) water quality 

and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding; and 3) 

structure and rugosity to support feeding and predator avoidance.

Juvenile bocaccio only: We designated juvenile settlement sites located in the nearshore1 with substrates 

such as sand, rock, and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp and eelgrass. These features are 

essential for conservation because they enable forage opportunities and refuge from predators, and enable 

behavioral and physiological changes needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. Several 

attributes of these sites affect the quality of the area. They are useful in considering the conservation value 

of the feature to determine whether the feature may require special management considerations or 

protection, and in evaluating the effects of a proposed action in a section 7 consultation if the specific area 

containing the site is designated as critical habitat. These attributes include: 1) quantity, quality, and 

availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding; 2) water 

quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding;

and 3) structure and rugosity (geologic, macroalgae, seagrass) to support predator avoidance.

 

1 Most nearshore areas are contiguous with the shoreline from the line of extreme high water out to a depth no 

greater than 98 feet (30 m) relative to mean lower low water. Several nearshore areas designated as critical habitat 

are not associated with a beach, but are shallower than 98 feet (30 m) and can support kelp and rearing habitat. 

They include areas of Hein Bank, Partridge Bank, Coyote Bank, Middle Bank, and several areas north of Orcas 

Island.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 39

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 4. Physical and biological features and management considerations of subadult and adult habitat 

for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, prior to exclusions1.

DPS Basin

Nearshore 

Square Miles

(for juvenile

bocaccio only)

Deepwater Square 

Miles(for adult and 

juvenile yelloweye 

rockfish and adult 

bocaccio)

Physical or Biological Features

San Juan/Strait of 

Juan de Fuca

349.4 203.6 Deepwater sites 

>98 feet (30 m) 

that support 

growth, survival,

reproduction, and 

feeding 

opportunities

Nearshore juvenile 

rearing sites with 

sand, rock, cobbles, 

and/or structureforming macroalgae 

(e.g., kelp) to 

support forage and 

refuge

Whidbey Basin 52.2 32.2

Main Basin 147.4 129.2

South Puget Sound 75.3 27.1

Hood Canal 20.4 46.4

1 After exclusions, total nearshore critical habitat includes 590.4 square miles (a reduction from 644.7 square miles)

and deepwater critical habitat includes 414.1 square miles (a reduction from 438.5 square miles). 

E. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DECLINE AND FEDERAL LISTING

When evaluating a species for protection under the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce must consider 

whether any one (or more) of five listing factors affect the species. Listing factors deal with those aspects 

of the species’ biology or habitat that affect the level of threat to the species’ continued persistence. The 

ESA requires that each of the factors that contributed to the species’ listing be addressed in the recovery 

actions identified in the recovery plan. 

The five listing factors are: 

1. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

2. Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

3. Disease and Predation

4. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

5. Other Natural or Human-made Factors Affecting Continued Existence

NMFS’ listing determinations regarding the rockfish DPSs (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 2010, updated 

79 Fed. Reg. 20802, April 14, 2014) and additional technical reports (e.g., Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et 

al. 2010; WDFW 2011) identified the factors of concern for rockfish. In 2016, we completed a 5-year 

review under the ESA that included a review of the listing factors (NMFS 2016). The review included 

updated information on threats and actions being implemented to address them and concluded that the 

collective risk to yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin’s persistence has not 

changed significantly since the listing determinations in 2010. Below we summarize threats and sources 

of those threats identified in the listing documents and 5-year review that incorporated updated 

information available since 2010, noting potential threats that require more research to understand 

whether they are limiting rockfish recovery. Following the summary addressing all of the threats for listed 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 40

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

rockfish throughout their range, there is a threats assessment that is broken down into the four

geographically based management units in the United States, and one in Canada. The threats assessment 

conducted for each unit provides more detailed information on the level of threat from each source. 

Factor 1: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

Degradation and/or Loss of Nearshore Habitat

The nearshore provides important habitat for juvenile bocaccio, which most readily use rocky areas with 

and without kelp, and also use sandy areas and areas that support eelgrass (Moser 1967; Carr 1983; 

Kendall and Lenarz 1986; Love et al. 1991; Murphy et al. 2000; Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). 

Macroalgae and eelgrass provide structure for feeding, predation refuge, and buffer against currents to

enable energy conservation for juvenile bocaccio (Love et al. 1991). 

The human population in the greater Puget Sound region has increased rapidly over the last three decades 

with approximately 4 million residents. Hutchinson (1988) indicated that overall losses by area of 

intertidal habitat were 58 percent for greater Puget Sound and 18 percent for the Strait of Georgia since 

European settlement. Four river deltas (the Duwamish, Lummi, Puyallup, and Samish) have lost more 

than 92 percent of their intertidal marshes (Simenstad et al. 1982). At least 76 percent of the wetlands

around greater Puget Sound have been eliminated, especially in urbanized estuaries. Substantial declines 

of mudflats and sand flats have also occurred in the deltas of rivers draining to estuaries (Levings and 

Thom 1994). More recent estimates suggest that more than 80 percent of all tidal wetlands have been 

converted to human-dominated land uses (Collins and Sheikh 2005). Furthermore, nearly 52 percent of 

central Puget Sound and about 35 percent of the shorelines of Whidbey Island, Hood Canal, and South 

Puget Sound have been modified by humans (Nearshore Habitat Program 2001). A third of all Puget 

Sound shoreline is armored, and in south-central Puget Sound over 60 percent is armored (Simenstad et 

al. 2011). 

The development of nearshore areas likely continues to degrade rearing habitats, such as kelp, and prey 

resources for rockfish (NMFS 2016). From an analysis of development permits it appeared that in 2014, 

for the first time, more shoreline armoring has been legally removed than installed (Hamel et al. 2015).

However, permitted projects are not always carried out and unpermitted armoring can occur, and while 

this result was taken from the best available data, the actual change in shoreline armoring may differ from 

the cited report. 

This development and loss of nearshore habitat impairs the productivity of some food sources for 

rockfish, and alters the quality of nearshore rearing habitats for juvenile bocaccio. For more information 

and research priorities see Appendix V, Nearshore Habitat and Kelp Conservation. 

Degradation and/or Loss of Benthic/Deepwater Habitat

The known and potential threats of deepwater habitat include derelict fishing gear, dredging and sediment 

disposal, invasive species, artificial reefs (which could act to either augment or threaten habitat), 

alternative energy structures, and cable laying. Dredging and disposal activities may affect benthic 

habitats and water quality features. Sediment plumes within the water column may disrupt the ability of 

rockfish to pursue prey, may temporarily reduce dissolved oxygen levels, and may obscure and 

homogenize depressions used by adult fish (NMFS 2014). The loss of rocky habitats as a result of
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 41

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

sedimentation has been documented near the Skagit River delta (Grossman et al. 2007). Dredging often 

occurs in areas with a variety of contaminated sediments that can be released into the water column by the 

dredging and disposal process. These contaminants may be taken up by phytoplankton, zooplankton, 

benthic invertebrates, demersal fish, forage fish, and other fishes (Army Corps of Engineers 2010), which 

can then be bioaccumulated by long-lived predators such as rockfish. Additionally, Palsson et al. (2009) 

note that benthic habitat can also be degraded by construction of bridges, sewer lines, and other 

structures; deployment of cables and pipelines; and by burying from dredge spoils and natural subtidal 

slope failures. 

Benthic habitats have benefited from the removal of thousands of derelict fishing nets, though deepwater 

derelict nets (NRC 2011) and the continued accumulation of derelict crab and shrimp pots (Antonelis et 

al. 2011; NRC 2013) change benthic habitats with uncertain impacts to habitat conditions. Some areas 

with contaminated sediments have been improved (Sanga 2015), yet pollutant loading continues, 

particularly in the Main Basin and the South Puget Sound. See further details in Appendix IV, Benthic 

Habitat Conservation and in Appendix VI, Sediment and Water Quality.

Invasive / Nonindigenous Species

Invasive or nonindigenous species are an emerging threat to biogenic habitat in Puget Sound. Sargassum 

muticum is an introduced brown alga now common throughout much of Puget Sound (Drake et al. 2010). 

The degree to which S. muticum influences native macroalgae, eelgrass, or rockfish is not understood

(Drake et al. 2010). However, invasive S. muticum has been shown to compete with and impair the reestablishment of giant kelp forests in southern California (Ambrose and Nelson 1982). Several species of 

nonindigenous tunicates have also been identified in Puget Sound (Cordell et al. 2012). For example, 

Ciona savignyi was initially seen in one location in 2004, but within 2 years spread to 86 percent of sites 

surveyed in Hood Canal (Drake et al. 2010). The exact impact of invasive tunicates on rockfish or their 

habitats is unknown, but results in other regions (e.g., Levin et al. 2002) suggest the potential for 

introduced invertebrates to have widespread impacts on rocky reef fish populations by changing habitat 

conditions (Drake et al. 2010). For more information and research priorities see Appendix IV, Benthic 

Habitat Conservation. 

Contaminants

Over the last century, human activities have introduced oil and a variety of other toxins into the Georgia 

Basin at levels that may affect rockfish populations or the prey that support them. The sources of these 

toxins range from oil and chemical spills, to chronic discharges from point (i.e., sewage) and non-point 

sources, such as surface water runoff from roads and developed areas. Evidence of decades of 

contaminant inputs are found in several urban embayments in Puget Sound that have high levels of heavy 

metals and organic compounds (Palsson et al. 2009), and about 32 percent of the sediments in the Puget 

Sound region are considered to be moderately or highly contaminated (Puget Sound Action Team 2007). 

Organisms that live in or eat these sediments are consumed, thus transferring contaminants up the food 

web to higher level predators like rockfishes and to a wider geographic area (Drake et al. 2010).

Not surprisingly, contaminants such as PCBs, chlorinated pesticides (e.g., DDT), and PBDEs appear in 

rockfish collected in urban areas (West and O’Neil 1998; West et al. 2001; West et al. 2001b). While the 

highest levels of contamination occur in urban areas, toxins can be found in the tissues of fish in all 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 42

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

regions of Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). Rockfish collected in rural areas of the San 

Juan Islands contained high levels of mercury and hydrocarbons (West et al. 2001).

Although few studies have investigated the effects of toxins on rockfish ecology or physiology, other fish 

in the Puget Sound region that have been studied do show a substantial impact. As an example, in English 

sole, a demersal fish in Puget Sound that may live in the same depth ranges as rockfishes, reproductive 

impairment has been documented in individuals from contaminated areas (Landahl et al. 1997). 

Rockfishes are longer-lived than English sole, and reproductive function of adult rockfish is also likely 

affected by contaminants (Palsson et al. 2009) as well as other life history stages (Drake et al. 2010).

Some areas with good habitat structure for rockfish are also located in areas that are now subject to high

levels of contaminants. This is evidenced by the fact that rockfish were historically captured in great 

numbers in these areas (Palsson et al. 2009; Puget Sound Action Team 2007; NOAA 2010).

Contaminants may influence growth rates of rockfish. For example, Palsson et al. (2009) describe a case 

in which male rockfish were found to have lower growth rates than females—an unusual pattern for 

rockfish because males typically grow faster than females. The explanation may be that male rockfish 

tend to accumulate PCBs while the female’s body burden does not increase with time because they lower 

their toxin level when they release larvae (West et al. 2001b). Thus, the observed difference in growth 

rate may result from the higher contaminant concentration in males versus females (Drake et al 2010).

Rockfish rely to some degree on pelagic prey and thus may experience greater exposure to persistent 

bioaccumulative toxins, or bioaccumulants, across a greater spatial range (not just urban areas) than the 

discussion above suggests. Prey, such as Pacific herring in Puget Sound, have unusually high body 

burdens of toxins that can biomagnify in their predators. Long lifespan and residency in Puget Sound, 

both characteristics of the listed rockfish species, increase the risk of exposure. In addition, environmental 

levels of legacy toxins such as PCBs were probably higher in Puget Sound’s pelagic species in the 1970s 

and 1980s, the period when the listed species declined (Drake et al. 2010).

Microplastics are an emerging concern for marine ecosystems. Microplastics come from large plastic 

trash that has been reduced into smaller particles or they may also come from manufactured plastics such 

as microbeads in products like facial soap, body wash, and toothpaste. A laboratory experiment found that

microplastic particles stunted larval growth, decreased activity rates and predator-avoidance strategies of

European perch larvae (Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016). The perch larvae also preferentially ate microplastic 

particles instead of plankton. These findings may be of concern for many marine species because 

microplastic particles often accumulate in shallow coastal areas where developmental stages of many

organisms, in addition to fish, occur (Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016). Rochman et al. (2015) surveyed fish for 

presence of anthropogenic debris and found that 33 percent of yellowtail rockfish and 20 percent of blue 

rockfish surveyed contained particles. For more information and research priorities on all contaminants

see Appendix VI, Sediment and Water Quality.

Nutrient Addition and Low Dissolved Oxygen

Water quality in Puget Sound is influenced by sewage, animal waste, and nutrient input. Portions of Hood 

Canal have episodic periods of low dissolved oxygen, though the relative role of nutrient input from 

humans in exacerbating these episodes is in doubt (Cope and Roberts 2012). Typically, rockfish move out 

of areas with dissolved oxygen less than 2 mg/L; however, when low dissolved oxygen waters were 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 43

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

upwelled to the surface in 2003, about 26 percent of the rockfish population was killed (Palsson et al. 

2008). In addition to Hood Canal, periods of low dissolved oxygen are becoming more widespread in 

waters south of Tacoma Narrows (Palsson et al. 2009).

Ecology has been monitoring water quality in the Puget Sound region for several decades. Monitoring 

includes fecal coliform, nitrogen, ammonium, and dissolved oxygen. In 2005, of the 39 sites sampled, 8

were classified as highest concern and 10 were classified as high concern. Hood Canal has seen persistent 

and increasing areas of low dissolved oxygen since the mid-1990s. For more information and research 

priorities see Appendix VII, Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization

for Commercial, Recreational, 

Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Bycatch and Barotrauma

Historical overfishing played a major 

role in the declines of rockfish in 

Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009;

Williams et al. 2010), and while 

fishery regulations continue to evolve

and are markedly different than they 

were historically, the ongoing effects 

of fishing are long-lasting and may 

constitute an ongoing threat (Drake et 

al. 2010; Collie et al. 2013). Fishing 

can have dramatic impacts on the size 

or age structure of rockfish 

populations because even minor levels 

of fishing can remove disproportionate 

numbers of older and larger fish 

(Drake et al. 2010). Notably, when the 

size and age of females declines, 

productivity declines, as older and 

larger females release a higher number 

of larvae that are equipped with a

more developed oil globule that 

protects against the risk of starvation (Berkeley et al. 2004; Sogard et al. 2008). Additionally, in a broad 

range of species, there is evidence that age or size truncation is associated with increased variability in 

recruitment (Hsieh et al. 2006). When reproduction is limited to younger ages, breeding individuals may 

not have the opportunity to reproduce during environmental conditions that enhance output (Longhurst 

2002) and populations more closely follow short-term fluctuations in the environment (Hsieh et al. 2006).

Palsson et al. (2009) found that fished areas contain lower abundance of rockfish and smaller sizes than 

no-take marine protected areas. WDFW considers bycatch of rockfish to be a “high impact stressor” on 

rockfish populations (Palsson et al. 2009). WDFW estimates the bycatch from recreational fisheries on an 

annual basis, and has placed a moratorium on retaining rockfish in Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands. 

What is Barotrauma?

All rockfishes possess a closed swim bladder, which is a gasfilled organ that regulates buoyancy. When brought up from deep 

waters, decreasing pressure allows the gas to expand, which can 

cause injury and prevent the fish from swimming back down on its 

own. External symptoms of gas expansion include a swollen and 

tight belly, stomach protruding into the mouth, and distended 

and/or bubbles in eyes (see photo below), which may all cause 

injury or death to the fish. For more information on barotrauma, 

including research priorities and techniques and tips to properly 

release rockfish, please refer to Appendix III, Barotrauma 

Research and Adaptive Management.

Yelloweye rockfish caught in the San Juan Islands area during a 

genetics research project. This fish has barotrauma. Photo 

courtesy of Kelly Andrews.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 44

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

WDFW also closed several commercial fisheries that have rockfish bycatch. See Appendix II, Fisheries 

Management, for more information.

A study of yelloweye rockfishes indicated that when they are caught and released at the surface, the 

mortality rate is high; however, survival is increased when they are released at depth with a 

decompression device (Hochalter and Reed 2011). Other studies of rockfish released at depth indicate 

good short-term survival of released fish (Parker et al. 2006; Jarvis and Lowe 2008). One recent study 

found that short-term (48 hours) survival for recompressed yelloweye rockfish was good (80 percent or 

higher) at a variety of depths of capture (Hannah et al. 2014).

However, questions about long-term survival probability and effects on productivity and reproduction 

remain (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011; Rankin et 

al. 2017). There is some emerging evidence that female yelloweye rockfish can remain reproductively 

viable after recompression. A recent study conducted in Alaska found that recompressed female 

yelloweye rockfish remained reproductively viable a year or two after the event (Blain 2014). In addition, 

one yelloweye rockfish observed in Hood Canal by WDFW was observed as gravid several months after 

barotrauma.

It is notable that when rockfish are released at depth using descending devices (recompression) there are 

many variables that may influence long-term survival, such as angler experience and handling, thermal 

shock, and depth of capture (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl 

et al. 2011). Cox et al. (2007) found that bycatch mortality reduction measures implemented across a 

variety of resource users did not perform as well as the reduction measures implemented by managers and

scientists (Cox et al. 2007). A study of boat-based anglers in Puget Sound revealed that few anglers who 

incidentally captured rockfish released them at depth (approximately 3 percent), while a small number of 

anglers attempted to puncture the swim bladder (Sawchuk 2012), which could cause bacterial infections 

or mortality.

Appendix II, Fisheries Management, and Appendix III, Barotrauma Research and Adaptive Management,

summarize recommended research and actions to address bycatch and barotrauma. 

Listing Factor 3: Disease and Predation

Predation

Rockfishes are an important food resource for a variety of predators in Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009), 

but there is little data regarding specific predators of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio of the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. Rockfish are preyed upon by numerous fish species, birds, and several marine 

mammals (Mills et al. 2007; Lance et al. 2012; Buzzell et al. 2014). Larvae and juveniles are eaten by 

birds, salmon, rockfish, lingcod, and other fish species (Mills et al. 2007). Juveniles and adults are eaten 

by lingcod and some marine mammals (Love et al. 2002; Palsson et al. 2009). 

Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have several physical defenses and behaviors to reduce the 

likelihood of predators (Roche and Halstead 1972). They occupy deep waters, often near structure such as 

rock and boulders, where they can seek refuge and thus reduce their vulnerability to predation (Griffiths 

and Harrod 2007). Like other rockfish species, adults have venom glands at the base of their fins to deter 

predators. In addition, rockfishes are deep-bodied, with long dorsal spines that may inhibit gape-limited 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 45

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

predators. These factors likely influence consumption rates of adult rockfish by some predators, such as 

pinnipeds. 

Patterns of rockfish predation by marine mammals and fishes have been shown to vary over space and 

time. Rockfish predation by harbor seals, the most abundant pinniped species in Puget Sound and the 

most common pinniped in the San Juan Islands (Jeffries et al. 2000), varies annually by location and time 

of the year (Lance and Jeffries 2007). Harbor seal populations have increased from hundreds during the 

1970s to more than 10,000 in the late 1990s, a 7- to 10-fold increase in estimated abundance; since the 

1990s their population has remained stable (Jeffries et al. 2003). The harbor seal is the only pinniped 

species that breeds in Washington waters, and is the only pinniped with known haul-out sites in the San 

Juan Islands (Jeffries et al. 2000). Harbor seals are considered a threat to local fisheries in many areas 

(Olesiuk et al. 1990; Bjorge et al. 2002) and concerns have arisen about their impact on fisheries in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, where consumption of fish by California sea lions and harbor seals 

are estimated to be almost half of what was harvested in commercial fisheries in the late 1990s (NMFS 

1997). Rockfish (all species) occurred in 12 percent of harbor seal diets in the San Juan area in 2006 and 

2007, compared to 2.3 percent in 2005 and 2006 (Lance and Jeffries 2007). Most of these rockfish were 

juveniles. However, in scat collection areas adjacent to marine reserves in the San Juan Islands, rockfishes 

composed a minor portion of harbor seal diets (Lance et al. 2012). Tagged harbor seals did not forage 

inside marine reserves in the San Juan Islands (Peterson et al. 2012), and during the collection from 2005

to 2008, rockfishes were found to compose 0.95 percent (or 16/1,682 scat samples) of harbor seal diets

throughout all seasons (Lance et al. 2012). The authors of that study suggested that the abundance of 

other species was an important factor in this low predation rate as harbor seals fed primarily on species 

that are seasonally and regionally abundant, such as herring (year-round), adult salmon (in summer), and 

sand lance, anchovy, and juvenile walleye pollock (in winter and spring) (Lance et al. 2012). Recent 

analysis of harbor seal diets in the San Juan Islands found rockfish exceeding 10 percent of the average 

diet, with relatively large proportions of black rockfish (Sebastes melanops), yellow rockfish (S. flavidus), 

copper rockfish (S. caurinis), and Puget Sound rockfish (S. emphaeus). No listed rockfish were found in 

seal diets in this study (Bromaghin et al. 2013). A study in Hood Canal found rockfish present in 1 

percent of seal scats, a result similar to areas adjacent to marine reserves in the San Juan Islands (London 

et al. 2002). While rockfish may constitute a small component of seal diets, increases in seal populations 

may still negatively affect rockfishes, warranting further investigation into factors affecting variation. 

Other mammalian predators also require consideration. About 2,000 Steller sea lions occur seasonally in 

Washington waters, particularly in the San Juan Islands (Palsson et al. 2009). About 8 percent of the 

Steller sea lion diet is rockfish (Lance and Jeffries 2007). Though not abundant, their large size and 

aggregated distribution suggest that their local impact could be substantial (Drake et al. 2010). Rockfish 

have been found as prey of killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Ford et al. 1998), but are not known to be a 

considerable component of the Puget Sound resident killer whales’ diet (Palsson et al. 2009; Hanson et al. 

2010). A study from the San Juan Islands showed that rockfish were present in 2.7 to 21.9 percent of river 

otter (Lontra canadensis) scat, depending on the sampling location (Buzzell et al. 2014). Juvenile rockfish 

occurred more frequently in river otter scat than adult rockfish.

Rockfish are a common lingcod prey item, making up 11 percent of their diet by weight, on average, and 

occurring in 10.5 percent of sampled lingcod stomachs in Puget Sound (Beaudreau and Essington 2007).

Lingcod consumed rockfish ranging from 1.57 to 9.45 inches (4 to 24 cm) in standard length, but most of 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 46

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

these were Puget Sound rockfish (S. emphaeus), a small-bodied species. Total consumption of rockfishes 

by lingcod was 5 to 10 times greater in no-take marine reserves compared to nearby fished areas 

(Beaudreau and Essington 2009). Rockfish predation by lingcod in the San Juan Islands also varied by 

season, site, and predator size (Beaudreau and Essington 2007). As one of the primary consumers of 

rockfish, this predator/prey relationship warrants further exploration.

Fifteen species of marine birds breed along the Washington coast, seven of which also breed in the San 

Juan Islands/Puget Sound area (Speich and Wahl 1989). The predominant marine birds in the San Juan 

Islands are pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba), double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), 

pelagic cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), and members of the western gull and glaucous-winged 

gull complex (Larus occidentalis and L. glaucescens) (Speich and Wahl 1989). The first three species are 

locally abundant. Whether or not these avian predators have an impact on rockfish populations is 

unknown (Drake et al. 2010).

It is important to note that the impact of predation on rockfish cannot be determined from the quantity and 

frequency of rockfish occurrence in predator diets alone. Data on the sizes and quantity of rockfish 

consumed by predators should be used in combination with models that assess the ecological conditions 

in which predation has an influence on rockfish population dynamics. For further exploration of predation 

impacts on rockfish, see Appendix IX. 

Disease

Infectious diseases may be a factor in both the decline of threatened or endangered wildlife species and in 

their recovery (Gaydos et al. 2004). Rockfish are susceptible to diseases and parasites (Love et al. 2002), 

but their impact on the listed rockfish is not known (Drake et al. 2010). Because rockfish are a long-lived 

species with inconsistent reproductive success, diseases that affect fecundity or reproduction could 

adversely affect population size and viability (Gaydos et al. 2004). Additionally, small population sizes

may make species more susceptible to disease (Gaydos et al. 2004), as may the relatively small home 

ranges of listed rockfish. Palsson et al. (2009) also suggest that stress associated with poor water quality 

may exacerbate the incidence and severity of naturally occurring diseases, thereby directly or indirectly 

decreasing survivorship of the listed rockfish, as has been seen in other fishes (Hershberger et al. 2002).

There are few data on diseases in all Sebastes species, and fewer data on yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio, especially in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Necropsies of 119 Puget Sound rockfishes 

(Sebastes emphaeus) captured by hook and line in four sites around the San Juan Islands in 2003 revealed 

intraerythrocytic blood parasites in approximately 45 percent the fish (van der Straaten et al. 2005). 

Intraerythrocytic blood parasites had previously only been reported as “relatively rare” in fishes of the 

northeast Pacific Ocean, which may suggest they had previously gone undetected or unstudied, or that 

they represent an emerging infection (van der Straaten et al. 2005). In the same sites sampled by van der 

Straaten et al. (2005), 302 Puget Sound rockfishes (S. emphaeus) were captured and tested for 

Ichthyophonus infection (Halos et al. 2005). Ichthyophonus was found in approximately 11 percent of the 

fish tested. This parasite has also been found in canary rockfish, though not in the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin (Halos et al. 2005). 

In coastal British Columbia a visible infection was identified and described as “black mold” in rockfishes 

that fishermen had brought to market (Conboy and Speare 2002). Fourteen visibly infected fish of various 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 47

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Sebastes species were tested to determine the cause of infection. Researchers found the main cause of 

infection was the intraepithelial deposition of eggs from a trichuroid nematode (genus Huffmanela), 

coupled with an inflammatory response (Conboy and Speare 2002). There are several different species of 

Huffmanela, and this is the first documentation of the parasite in rockfish species in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean (Conboy and Speare 2002). Eight of the 14 rockfish tested also exhibited lymphocytic myocarditis 

associated with Ichthyophonus hoferi. This fungus commonly affects the heart muscle of Pacific herring, 

which are prey of rockfishes (Conboy and Speare 2002). All of the rockfishes also had low levels of the 

blood fluke miracidia in their gill pillar channels accompanied by interstitial bronchitis, which has 

previously been reported in other rockfishes on the Pacific coast of Canada (Conboy and Speare 2002).

Finally, in 1995, 42 bocaccio collected by commercial fishermen in northern and southern California 

waters were found to have Kudoa miniauriculata, which in some cases can cause an inflammatory 

reaction. This parasite was found in over 40 percent of the bocaccio tested. Several other species of 

Kudoa are known to be found in fishes in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans off the United States 

(Whitaker et al. 1996). 

Listing Factor 4: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Bycatch

Despite increasingly restrictive regulations, rockfish are still incidentally taken in some recreational and

commercial fisheries managed by WDFW and the tribes. As detailed under Listing Factor 2: Overutilization, fishing can have dramatic effects on the size or age structure of the population (Drake et al. 

2010). The effects can influence ongoing productivity because even minor levels of fishing can remove 

disproportionate numbers of older and larger fish (Drake et al. 2010), thereby shifting reproduction to 

younger and smaller-sized fish that produce fewer young that are less equipped to survive starvation 

(Berkeley et al. 2004; Sogard et al. 2008). Many fisheries with rockfish bycatch have been closed

(WDFW 2010b), but some fisheries (such as fisheries targeting spot prawn, halibut, and bottom fish) that 

may affect recovery remain open, and their impact is not well known because bycatch data are

insufficient and a lack of population information in some areas in which these fisheries occur (see Section 

F. Conservation Measures, Research, and Monitoring for further discussion). Regulations enacted in 2010 

restrict recreational anglers from retaining rockfish within the U.S. portion of the DPSs and anglers are 

also no longer allowed to fish deeper than 120 feet (36.6 m) for bottom fish (this does not include halibut)

(WDFW 2014).

The majority of the existing marine protected areas (MPAs) in the U.S. portion of the DPSs do not 

encompass rockfish habitat and they were not intended to serve as a regional network for rockfish 

protection (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 2010). The life-history characteristics that make rockfish

vulnerable to overfishing also make them good candidates for protection in MPAs (Yoklavich 1998).

Rockfish and other species with similar life histories have been key species for protection in networks of 

MPAs that have been developed in several states and countries, particularly on the west coast of North 

America in Alaska; British Columbia, Canada; Oregon; California; and Baja California Sur, Mexico. The 

WDFW has established 25 marine reserves within the DPSs, and 16 host rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009), 

though most of these reserves are within waters shallower than those typically used by adult yelloweye 

rockfish or bocaccio (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 2010). Most reserves in Puget Sound were 

established over several decades with unique and somewhat unrelated ecological goals, and encompass 

relatively small areas (average of 23 acres). The net effect of existing reserves to listed rockfish 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 48

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

abundance, productivity, and spatial structure is probably very small (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 

2010). Less than 0.1 percent of Puget Sound is protected at the highest level of restriction as either notake or no-access areas (Van Cleve et al. 2009; Osterberg 2012). Compared to fished areas, studies have 

found higher fish densities, sizes, or reproductive activity in the assessed WDFW marine reserves 

(Palsson and Pacunski 1995; Palsson 1997; Eisenhardt 2001; Palsson et al. 2004). WDFW’s 2011 Puget 

Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan also calls for a network of MPAs for recovery (WDFW 2011), but 

pursuing this management approach has recently been de-emphasized by WDFW (Unsworth 2015).

In general, the characteristics of a network of reserves that are relevant to enhancing populations of 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio include sites in each of the major regions of the DPSs, and sites that 

provide some connectivity to each other for larvae transport (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 2010).

Finally, the sites would need to be large enough to collectively encompass quality and diverse habitats 

that facilitate productivity of individual fish and reserve resiliency to outside disturbances and stressors 

(Sobel and Dahlgren 2004). 

Most tribes in the Puget Sound region limit rockfish harvest to subsistence only with no targeted 

commercial fisheries for rockfish. Therefore, the greatest threat of rockfish bycatch from tribal fisheries 

may occur in the commercial halibut fishery in the San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca area.

In 2007, the Canadian government designated approximately 135 rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) that 

encompass 30 percent of the area of the inside waters of Vancouver Island. These reserves do not allow 

directed commercial or recreational harvest for any species of rockfish, nor do most allow harvest of 

marine species that may incidentally catch rockfish (NOAA 2010). These RCAs have been shown thus far 

to have good compliance within the commercial fishing industry because of the use of boat tracking 

technology, but they likely have low recreational compliance; therefore, increased education, outreach, 

and enforcement is recommended (Haggarty 2014). Compliance is seen as one of the most important 

factors driving success of no-take areas (Gill et al. 2017).

Appendix II, Fisheries Management, discusses in-depth steps to limit bycatch. 

Listing Factor 5: Other Natural or Human-made Factors Affecting Continued Existence

Genetic Changes

Inbreeding

Smaller and more isolated populations are more vulnerable to external environmental changes (Keller and 

Waller 2002) and more prevalent inbreeding, or mating, between closely related individuals (Hoglund 

2009), which reduces fitness. There are no known published studies regarding inbreeding in rockfish; 

thus, we look to other species to understand the potential effects of inbreeding. Small populations may 

have limited potential for adaptive evolution to environmental disturbances because of reduced genetic 

diversity (Franklin and Frankham 1998; Willi et al. 2006). The synergistic effects between inbreeding and 

environmental disturbance can be extensive and have been studied in both laboratory and wild 

populations. Laboratory-reared zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to chemicals (in this case to the fungicide 

clotrimazole), for example, exhibited more greatly intensified deleterious effects of inbreeding on key 

reproductive traits compared to zebrafish that were inbred but not exposed to the chemicals (Bickley et al. 

2012). In harbor seal pups, inbreeding as measured by multi-locus heterozygosity of 14,585 RAD loci 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 49

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

explained 49 percent of the variance in lungworm infestation (Hoffman et al. 2014). The interaction may 

cause increased selection for less inbred individuals, which may reduce average individual reproductive 

success and therefore population productivity (Forcada and Hoffman 2014). 

The contribution of inbreeding to extinction risk compared to demographic factors is still unresolved. A 

study combining a meta-analysis of inbreeding effects in birds and mammals and stochastic population 

projections applying these estimates concluded that average inbreeding reduced median times to 

extinction by an average of 37 percent (O’Grady et al. 2006). Other studies found limited genetic 

contribution to extinction risk (Wootton and Pfister 2013). Nevertheless, the more precautionary principle 

is to assume such effects, supported by findings that loss of genetic diversity generally precedes 

population collapse and extinction (Frankham 2005).

Hybridization

Reduced population sizes may induce or increase the rate of hybridization (Currat et al. 2008), which may 

occur between populations within species or between species. Intraspecific hybridization with coastal 

conspecifics may lead to the genetic dilution and possible extinction of locally adapted populations.

Depending on the genetic differentiation between populations and intrinsic reproductive barriers, 

hybridization may result in a range of effects, from an increase of fitness because of hybrid vigor to a 

reduction in fitness as a result of outbreeding depression (McClelland and Naish 2007). Hybrid vigor is 

commonly only observed in highly inbred populations (Hedgecock and Davis 2007), though it can lead to 

the genetic rescue of such populations (Tallmon et al. 2004). More common in marine species is probably 

outbreeding depression, which reduces fitness in hybrids between locally adapted populations. In Atlantic 

cod, for example, reproductive barriers among geographically proximate populations appear to be 

sufficiently strong to prevent backcrossing, even though hybrids between populations were found 

(Bradbury et al. 2014). Many Sebastes species are further along the speciation continuum, and cryptic 

species were recently found in several Sebastes groups (e.g., vermillion rockfish (S. miniatus) (Hyde et al. 

2008), rougheye rockfish (S. aleutianus) (Gharrett et al. 2005), Southern Hemisphere rockfishes (RochaOlivares et al. 1999), and Atlantic Sebastes (Daníelsdóttir et al. 2008). These findings suggest at least the 

possibility of incipient speciation of listed rockfish. If so, hybridization between Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin and coastal populations may constitute a threat to the defined DPSs. Such intraspecific 

hybridization would be difficult to detect other than by genetic approaches, making genetic monitoring of 

the population essential.

Interspecific hybridization has been described for both Pacific and Atlantic species of Sebastes, and may 

also pose a threat to the integrity and existence of listed rockfish. Extensive hybridization between copper 

(S. caurinus), quillback (S. maliger), and brown (S. auriculatus) rockfish was found in Puget Sound, 

possibly because of the increased abundance of those species (Schwenke 2012). Up to 40 percent of 

sampled fish were hybrids, though no F1 hybrids were found (Schwenke 2012). This suggests weak 

reproductive barriers, even though the three species have not formed a hybrid swarm and are 

morphologically easily distinguishable. In Atlantic Sebastes species, hybridization appears to be 

widespread (Roques et al. 2001; Pampoulie and Daníelsdóttir 2008; Artamonova et al. 2013). Although 

there is no evidence for hybridization in listed rockfish, loss of genetic identity of threatened and 

endangered rockfish species because of hybridization may become a concern if population sizes stay at 

low levels.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 50

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Hatchery Supplementation

Although not currently an issue, genetic changes as a result of any future rockfish aquaculture/hatchery 

practices and trans-basin introductions may alter the genetic structure of wild rockfish stocks (Palsson et 

al. 2009). However, there is little research on the topic specifically regarding rockfish, making the threat 

difficult to assess (Palsson et al. 2009). A recent review by NOAA on genetic risks of marine aquaculture 

and stock enhancements lists three main types of adverse genetic change to wild populations: 1) loss of 

genetic diversity within populations, 2) loss of diversity among populations, and 3) loss of fitness 

(Waples et al. 2012). Most of these effects are well known from Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), 

where hatchery supplementation has mitigated effects of dam construction, habitat destruction, and 

exploitation, but has also caused considerable issues with genetic integrity and fitness of endangered 

populations (Ford 2002; Naish et al. 2008). Because of the high fecundity of marine fishes such as 

rockfish, such effects of domestication selection and ‘swamping’ of wild populations are probably more 

pronounced (Waples et al. 2012). Any supplemental breeding program for listed rockfish should be wellconsidered and executed with clear goals, balance the extinction risk with the possible adverse genetic 

changes, and take measures to minimize possible adverse genetic changes or introduction of diseases into 

wild populations. 

Competition

Rockfishes are known to partition their food and habitat resources (Larson 1980; Carr 1991). Harvey et al. 

(2006) used bioenergetics models to suggest that recovery of coastal populations of bocaccio may be 

inhibited by more common species of rockfish congeners. In Puget Sound, more abundant species, such 

as copper and quillback rockfish, may interact with juvenile yelloweye or bocaccio rockfish and compete 

for food and habitat resources. Evidence documenting competition among rockfishes in Puget Sound is 

generally lacking (Drake et al. 2010), and competition among marine fishes is difficult to demonstrate 

empirically in the wild (Link and Auster 2013). Though competition within and among species is natural, 

any anthropogenic influences that affect competition (e.g., habitat alterations) should be closely 

scrutinized.

Release of Propagated Fish

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) consume larval 

and juvenile rockfish, and also compete for prey with small size classes of rockfish (Buckley 1997); thus,

large releases of hatchery salmon have the potential to influence the population dynamics of listed 

rockfish. Influxes of delayed release (yearling) Chinook salmon and coho salmon into Puget Sound occur,

and delayed-release hatchery fishes are more likely to stay in Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009), where 

they could potentially consume rockfishes.

Derelict Fishing Gear

Derelict fishing gear, such as lost nets and shrimp pots, alter benthic habitats and likely kill yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio, and/or their prey (NRC 2008). Lost crab pots are also prevalent in Puget Sound 

and alter habitat, but derelict crab pots have been found to result in very low catch of rockfish (two 

rockfish found in nearly 3,000 derelict crab pots removed) (K. Antonelis, electronic mail, NRC, 

December 10, 2013). Commercial gill nets compose the majority of derelict nets in Puget Sound (Good et 

al. 2010). An estimated 16 to 42 gill nets are lost annually in Puget Sound salmon fisheries (NRC 2010). 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 51

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

It is estimated that around 12,000 commercial and recreational crab pots, and an estimated 523 to 893

shrimp pots are lost annually in Puget Sound (Antonelis et al. 2011; NRC 2014). Actively fished shrimp 

pots result in bycatch of juvenile rockfish in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin (Favro et al. 2010; NRC 2014), and are 

estimated to result in a low of 253 to a high of 2,809 caught 

rockfish (of a variety of species) in Puget Sound annually 

(NRC 2014). Derelict shrimp pots can result in bycatch of 

juvenile rockfish, but no estimates of annual bycatch have 

been developed to date (NRC 2014).

Derelict gear may also cause degradation to habitat where it is 

ensnared through scouring, obstructing, and sediment 

entrapment (Gilardi et al. 2010; Good et al. 2010; Antonelis 

2013). Specifically, fine sediments may be trapped out of the 

water column, making a layer of soft sediment over rocky 

areas and changing habitat quality and suitability for benthic 

organisms (Good et al. 2010). Lost nets can cover habitats 

used by rockfish for shelter and pursuit of food, rendering the 

habitat unavailable, and can also reduce the abundance and 

availability of rockfish prey that include invertebrates and fish 

(Good et al. 2010).

As of the end of 2013, the Northwest Straits Foundation 

(NWF), in partnership with WDFW and volunteers, has 

removed 4,605 derelict fishing nets (primarily gillnets),

3,173 crab pots, and 47 shrimp pots from Puget Sound over the course of 11 years. There is an estimate of 

274 remaining nets in shallower water (< 105 feet [32 m]) and at least 205 are in deeper water (> 105 feet 

[32 m]) (NWSI 2014b). Appendix IV, Benthic Habitat Conservation, summarizes recommended research

and actions to address derelict fishing gear. 

Climate Change

Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have increased from approximately 280 ppm 250 years ago 

to present levels of approximately 387 ppm, and nearly half of this increase has occurred in the past three

decades (IPCC 2007). Approximately one-third of the CO2 produced in the last 200 years has been taken 

up by the oceans (Sabine et al. 2004). The effects of climate change include, but are not limited to, 

changes in temperature; distribution shifts of species; changes in primary production; changes in 

biodiversity; declining mid-water oxygen concentrations; changes in upwelling and vertical mixing; sealevel rise; expanding ocean dead zones; an increase in the magnitude, frequency, and duration of harmful 

algal blooms; erosion; and more severe and frequent inundation from the combined effects of rising sea 

levels and intensified and more frequent storms (Harley et al. 2006; IPCC 2007; Feely et al. 2008; Fabry

et al. 2008; Moore et al. 2008; Brewer and Peltzer 2009; Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; Ainsworth et al. 

2011; Feely et al. 2012; Dalton et al. 2013; others). 

Climate change can affect the benthic, pelagic, and nearshore environments of rockfish. In November 

2015, the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington released “State of Knowledge: Climate 

Copper rockfish (top) in a derelict 

shrimp pot. Canary rockfish (bottom) in 

a derelict gillnet. Photos courtesy of 

Natural Resources Consultants.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 52

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Change in Puget Sound” (Mauger et al. 2015). The report summarizes how climate change will likely 

affect the Puget Sound region by altering climate-related factors that shape the local environment. These 

key factors include temperature, precipitation, heavy rainfall, sea level, and ocean acidification (Mauger 

et al. 2015). The changes in these factors have implications for changes in freshwater resources, sediment 

transport, and ecosystems, and consequences for marine waters, coastal and marine ecosystems, water 

quality, water circulation, species distributions, and timing of biological events (Mauger et al. 2015). 

Direct studies on the effect of climate variability on rockfish are rare, but all studies performed to date 

suggest that climate plays an extremely important role in population dynamics. Tolimieri and Levin 

(2005) examined the effects of climate variability on bocaccio recruitment. They found that the dynamics 

of bocaccio populations were governed by rare recruitment events, and that these rare events resulted 

when specific climate conditions (such as various combinations of temperature and upwelling regimes)

occurred at different times in their early life history. The coincidence of such climate patterns only 

occurred 15 percent of the time. Harvey (2005) created a generic bioenergetics model for rockfish, 

finding that productivity of rockfish is highly influenced by climate conditions, such that El Niño-like 

conditions generally lowered growth rates and increased generation time. The negative effect of the warm 

water conditions associated with El Niño appears to be common across rockfishes (Moser et al. 2000). 

Field and Ralston (2005) noted that recruitment of all species of rockfish appeared to be correlated at 

large scales and hypothesized that such synchrony was the result of large-scale climate forcing. Exactly 

how climate influences listed rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin is unknown; however, given the 

general importance of climate to Puget Sound and to rockfish, it is likely that climate strongly influences 

the dynamics of the listed species (Drake et al. 2010). Appendix VII further outlines climate change 

effects, local monitoring, and recommended research.

Ocean Acidification

Ocean acidification (OA) results from increased absorption of carbon dioxide into marine waters caused 

by elevated atmospheric CO2. The projected pH decrease is 0.3 to 0.4 for the 21st century, equivalent to 

an approximately 150 percent increase in H+and a 50 percent decrease in CO3

2-

, which is essential for the 

biology and survival of a wide range of marine organisms (Fabry et al. 2008; Doney et al. 2009). The 

west coast of the United States is particularly vulnerable to enhanced OA because the Pacific Coast’s 

continental shelf is relatively narrow and therefore experiences upwelling events. Deeper waters are often 

more acidic and upwelling lowers the pH in more productive nearshore areas (Feely et al. 2010). 

OA will adversely affect calcification, or the precipitation of dissolved ions into solid calcium carbonate 

structures, for a number of marine organisms, which could alter trophic functions and the distribution 

and/or availability of prey (Fabry et al. 2008; Feely et al. 2010). 

Pteropods (Euthecosomatous pteropods), which require CaCO3 to form their shells, may be first among 

the major groups of planktonic calcifiers to experience reduced calcification (Fabry et al. 2008). Though 

effects of a reduction in this prey species on rockfish have not been studied, in pink salmon

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) it was found that a 10 percent decrease in pteropod production could lead to a 

20 percent decrease in mature body weight (Fabry et al. 2008).

Fertilization rates, early development, and larval size are negatively affected by high CO2 concentrations 

in a number of groups such as sea urchins, some molluscs, and copepods (Fabry et al. 2008; Marshall et 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 53

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

al. 2017), which are important prey items for larval and juvenile rockfish (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 

2002). As food webs are complex, impacts to one group of species may lead to dramatic changes in the 

ecosystem. A modeling exercise on the direct and indirect effects of OA on Puget Sound ecosystems 

showed reductions in copepods (microscopic zooplankton) would lead to large-scale ecosystem changes 

(Busch et al. 2013). However, the authors noted that results must be interpreted with care given the 

complex nature of the modeling exercise. 

In addition to altering the food web, OA can alter the physiology, metabolism, and reproductive biology 

of fishes. Increased temperature and OA have been linked to impaired immune systems of marine 

organisms, such as shellfish and fishes, and increased disease frequency (Feely et al. 2012). There have 

been very few published studies to date on direct effects of OA on rockfish. In other fishes, there is 

evidence that ocean acidification could have serious consequences on behavior and sensory functions 

important to recruitment, settlement, prey and predator detection, and overall survival (e.g., Munday et al. 

2009; Simpson et al. 2011; Chung et al. 2014). In a laboratory setting, OA did result in changes to 

juvenile splitnose rockfish (Sebastes diploproa) behavior (Hamilton et al. 2014). More research is needed 

to better understand the effects of OA on rockfish and their ecosystems and to evaluate if this threat is 

limiting listed rockfish recovery. Appendix VII, Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, further details 

the effects of OA, local monitoring efforts, and suggested research. 

Anthropogenic Noise and Vessel Traffic

Little is known about the overall effect of anthropogenic noise levels on fishes (Popper and Hastings 

2009). A recent study of coral reef fish larvae found that vessel traffic noise may have a disruptive effect 

on orientation and settlement (Holles et al. 2013), which are important to finding appropriate habitat to 

many marine fishes, including rockfishes. Air guns have been shown to significantly depress catch rates 

of some commercial fish species (Skalski et al. 1992; Engas et al. 1996). For example, catch rates of 

Sebastes species in the commercial hook-and-line fishery along the central California coast (including

bocaccio) exposed to a single 1639-cm3air gun with a source level of 223 dB re 1μPa were found to 

decline in catch per unit effort (CPUE) by approximately 52 percent compared to control trials (Skalski et 

al. 1992). Pile driving may also have lethal or sublethal effects on fishes, including reduced avoidance of 

predators, inability to find mates, or traveling to less favorable habitat (Popper and Hastings 2009; 

Mueller-Blenkle et al. 2010; Slabbekoorn et al. 2010). Fishes exposed to acute sound impacts may also 

experience barotrauma (Casper et al. 2013). Given rockfishes’ sensitivity to barotrauma and the numerous 

other sublethal and lethal impacts of noise on fishes, it is likely that acute sound level spikes in the 

vicinity of rockfish may adversely affect survival. 

Regionally, vessel traffic within Admiralty Inlet is high and increasing (Bassett et al. 2012). Cargo ships, 

tugs, and passenger vessels all contribute to elevated noise levels (approximately 120 decibels or greater) 

(Basset et al. 2012) and may affect rockfishes. Instead of an acute impact, these chronic changes in noise 

may have sublethal impacts on rockfishes that may make survival and reproduction more difficult. 

Few published studies assess mortality from vessel traffic on fishes. Ichthyoplankton, such as larval 

rockfishes, may be particularly susceptible to mortality because they are unable to swim away from traffic 

and thus may be harmed by propellers and turbulence (Bickel et al. 2011). One study has shown that 

although mortality is low, larval loss may be size dependent and smaller larvae will be more susceptible 

to mortality (Kilgore et al. 2001). Another recent study assessed mortality on copepods, prey of rockfish
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 54

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

and many other marine organisms, and suggested that marine food webs may be affected, especially in 

more enclosed areas (Bickel et al. 2011).

Summary of Threats Assessment

The Recovery Team assessed current and expected future threats to listed rockfish persistence and 

recovery within each of the management unit basins. To develop this threats assessment, we evaluated the 

best available information regarding habitat, fisheries, prey, listed rockfish conditions, and other factors. 

Below we summarize the threats for each management unit where sufficient information is available. 

Where there is not enough information at the management-unit scale, we provide a summary for the 

whole Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Because of the complexities of fisheries in the DPSs, we also include 

a separate assessment based on effort and gear type below (see also Tables 6 through 8). Detailed 

summaries of all of the threats are found below this summary table (Tables 9 through 13). The risk in 

Table 5 was calculated by considering the severity of the threat, the level of certainty the listed species are 

affected, the geographic range of the threat, and the likelihood that the actions outlined in this plan may 

reduce the threat.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 55

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 5. Summary of Threats Assessment for Management Units and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

Listing 

Factor

Canada San 

Juan

Main 

Basin

South 

Sound

Hood 

Canal

Derelict Fishing Gear E 1 1 2 4 4

Commercial Catch/Bycatch B, D 3 *1 *3 4 4

Recreational Catch/Bycatch B, D 3 1 2 4 4

Nearshore Habitat Disruption A 4 3 1 1 2

Deepwater Habitat Disruption A 3 3 3 3 3

Non-native Species Habitat Disruption E P P P P P

Hypoxia/Nutrient Addition E 4 4 3 2 1

Chemical Contamination/

Bioaccumulants

A 3 3 1 1 2

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

Marine Mammal Predation C 4

Fish Predation/Hatchery Practices C, E 4

Competition C P

Diseases C P

Oil Spills E 1

Genetic Changes 

(Inbreeding/Hybridization)

E P

Anthropogenic Noise E P

Ocean Acidification E 1

Climate Change E 1

A = Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

B = Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes

C = Disease or predation

D = Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism

E = Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence

1 = High risk 

2 = Moderate risk 

3 = Low risk

4 = Very Low risk

P = Potential threat. Not enough information to determine if it is a threat at the current time, but could plausibly 

become a threat in the future.

*Further information required to assess the extent and effects of commercial fisheries in this area and this ranking 

could change. 

Threats Assessment for Fisheries

Past fishing is likely a primary cause of the depletion in listed rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et al. 

2010). The threat that fishing creates today is indirect through bycatch. To inform management actions 

recommended in this plan, we assess the relative threat of catch/bycatch for listed rockfish for fisheries 

within the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, with narratives for fisheries with larger 

potential to catch listed rockfish. We also provide a narrative for each of the management units based on 

the known existing fisheries that occur in each area. For many of these fisheries we do not have reliable 

bycatch numbers or estimates for listed rockfish; thus, we assess the catch risk qualitatively based on the 

characteristics of effort and gear-type (Table 6). 

Table 6. Known fisheries in Puget Sound and their relative risk of rockfish bycatch. This table has been 

modified from WDFW’s incidental take permit from 2012, but also incorporates updated 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 56

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

information and known tribal fisheries. “Commercial” may refer to tribal or non-tribal 

commercial fisheries. 

Type License Group/

Gear

Potential to 

Encounter 

Listed Rockfish

Fishery 

Access

(managed 

by WDFW)

Comments

MARINE FISH

Commercial 

Forage fish lampara net Low Open access This gear type has little or no risk of 

bycatch.

Forage fish drag seine None Open access 

and limited 

entry

This gear type has no risk of bycatch.

Herring dip net None Limited 

entry

Fishery closed because of low 

abundance.

Herring purse seine Low Limited 

entry

Fishery closed because of low 

abundance.

Halibut longline (tribal 

fishery only)

High Limited 

entry

This gear type has high potential for 

rockfish bycatch.

SALMON

Commercial 

Gill net Low Limited 

entry

These fishing methods target the 

midwater zone which is likely not 

Purse seine Low Limited occupied by listed rockfish.

entry

Reef net Low Limited 

entry

Does not fish in deep waters, thus

avoiding listed adult rockfish, and 

mesh size too large for juvenile listed 

rockfish.

Beach seine Low Limited 

entry

Does not fish in deep waters, thus 

avoiding listed adult rockfish, and

mesh size too large for most juvenile 

listed rockfish.

SHELLFISH

Commercial

Crab ring net None These gear types have little or no risk 

Clam mechanical harvester None of rockfish bycatch.

Burrowing shrimp None Open access

Shrimp trawl Low Limited 

entry

This gear fishes non-rugose habitat,

but very limited rockfish bycatch 

may still occur.

Squid None Open access

These gear types have little or no risk 

of rockfish bycatch.

Dungeness crab pot Low (mostly 

derelict gear)

Limited 

entry

Geoduck dive None

Sea cucumber dive None Limited 

entry

Sea urchin dive None Limited 

entry

OTHER FIN FISH

Recreational Salmon Hook-and-line Moderate Unlimited 

entry

Risk depends on fishing method 

(e.g., trolling, jigging, mooching) 

and proximity to complex habitat.

High effort in this fishery. See 

discussion in threats section below.

Halibut Hook-and-line High Similar habitats are fished.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 57

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Type License Group/

Gear

Potential to 

Encounter 

Listed Rockfish

Fishery 

Access

(managed 

by WDFW)

Comments

Halibut Spear fishing None Divers should be sure of species 

identification (ID) before shooting 

(no rockfish of any species can be 

targeted).

Lingcod Hook-and-line High Habitats are the same and listed 

rockfish typically co-occur. 120-foot 

rule reduces bycatch risk.

Lingcod Spear fishing None Divers should be sure of species ID 

before shooting.

Other 

bottom fish

Hook-and-line Moderate Risk depends on fishing method, 

target species, and habitat. 120-foot 

rule may reduce bycatch risk.

Other 

bottom fish

Spear fishing None Divers should be sure of species ID 

before shooting and no rockfish of 

any species are allowed.

Forage fish Hook-and-line None This gear type has little or no risk of 

bycatch.

Forage fish Dip net None This gear type has little or no risk of 

bycatch.

SHELLFISH

Recreational

Crab Ring and trap Low Unlimited 

entry

This gear type has little or no risk of 

Crab Dip net None bycatch.

Shrimp Pot Low to

Moderate

Risk depends on habitat fished;

bycatch of juveniles can occur.

Squid Hook-and-line None Conducted from piers. This gear type 

has little or no risk of bycatch.

Bivalves Shovel or tube None Intertidal. This gear type has no risk 

of bycatch.

Listed rockfish are caught by some recreational fisheries targeting other species, particularly salmon, 

bottom fish, and halibut. The WDFW estimates the number of recreational fishing trips as part of their 

catch estimate calculations. (See Table 7 for annual estimates from 2010-2014.)

Table 7. Annual estimated recreational fishing trips in the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia

Basin; estimates from WDFW from 2010-2014.

Recreational Fishing Trips

with Rockfish Bycatch 

Potential

San Juan /Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (annual number of 

individual fishing trips)

Main Basin Hood Canal South Sound

Target Species: salmon 87,395 291,469 11,208 24,587

Target Species: bottom fish 15,640 21,846 606 6,020

Target Species: halibut 11,738 2,579 132 0

Target Species: other 3,098 10,475 2,219 3,247

TOTAL 117,871 326,369 14,060 33,854
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 58

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Salmon Fisheries and Rockfish Bycatch Risk

The vast majority of recreational fishing trips in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin target Chinook, coho, 

pink, and/or chum salmon. Recreational and commercial salmon fishers use diverse equipment, with each 

gear type having a different risk of incidentally catching yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. Based on data 

collected through creel surveys between 1986 and 1999, Palsson (2002) estimated anglers targeting 

salmon in Puget Sound caught 0.65 groundfish, including 0.05 rockfish per angler trip. The incidental 

groundfish catch, and likely rockfish catch, varied by marine catch area from a high of 2.09 groundfish 

per angler trip in Marine Catch Area 5 (Sekiu-Pillar Point), to a low of 0.024 groundfish per angler trip in 

Marine Catch Area 11 (Tacoma-Vashon) (Palsson 2002; NMFS 2004). The WDFW salmon fishery test 

boat uses recreational fishing gear, and from 2003 to 2016 has not caught a yelloweye rockfish or a 

bocaccio (WDFW 2016), yet the net impact from the salmon fishery on listed rockfish may be larger than 

other fisheries sectors because of the large number of fishing trips (Palsson et al. 2009). Aside from the 

test boat data, we do not have detailed data sets that explain bycatch for many of these fishing gears and 

sectors; thus, we provide a qualitative description of them and highlight data/estimates of bycatch where it 

is available. 

Many recreational salmon anglers use downriggers that consist of cables and weights that deliver fishing 

gear to specific depths, mostly while trolling artificial lures. A smaller fraction of recreational salmon 

fishers, often referred to as “moochers,” use 1 to 6 ounces of weight with herring as bait, and free drift or 

slowly troll. Some anglers also use weighted artificial lures and free drift while jigging. Salmon and 

rockfish have several overlapping prey items that include herring, sand lance, and smelt, making them 

vulnerable to the use of herring as bait and fishing lures imitating these prey items. As a result, anglers 

targeting salmon occasionally unintentionally hook yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. Though the 

frequency of listed rockfish bycatch by recreational salmon anglers is extremely low, the large numbers of 

angler trips nonetheless results in measurable incidental catches. Most methods of recreational salmon 

fishing have the potential to encounter listed rockfish, with the risk increasing the deeper the gear is 

fished.

The WDFW estimates the annual bycatch of rockfish from anglers targeting salmon, halibut, bottom fish

and other marine fishes. There are a number of uncertainties regarding the WDFW recreational fishing 

bycatch estimates because: 1) they are based on dockside (boat launch) interviews of 10 to 20 percent of 

fishers, and anglers whose trips originated from a marina are generally not surveyed; 2) because rockfish 

can no longer be retained by fishermen, the surveys rely upon fishermen being able to recognize and 

remember rockfish released by species. Recent research has found the identification of rockfish to species 

is poor; only 5 percent of anglers could identify bocaccio and 31 percent identify yelloweye rockfish in a 

study performed throughout the Puget Sound region (Sawchuk et al. 2015); and 3) anglers may underreport the numbers of released fish. A study in Canadian waters compared creel survey reports to actual 

observer generated information on recreational fishing boats in the Southern Georgia Strait. Substantial 

differences were documented, with the number of released rockfish observed significantly higher than the 

number reported by recreational anglers during creel surveys (Deiwert et al. 2005).

These factors could make the actual bycatch of yelloweye rockfish or bocaccio higher or lower than 

WDFW’s estimates. There is additional uncertainty regarding these estimates because WDFW continues

to change the methodology to calculate them; thus, we show data from each method to represent a 

potential range of bycatch for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. WDFW has provided bycatch estimates 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 59

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

from the 2003 through 2009 time period (WDFW 2011b) and provided updated catch estimates for the 

2003 through 2011 time period (WDFW 2014a). The previous (WDFW 2011b) estimates have larger 

yelloweye and bocaccio bycatch numbers than the new estimates even though they span the same time 

period from 2003 through 2009 (the new estimates include the years 2010 and 2011). WDFW’s estimates 

of rockfish bycatch from 2014 are similarly small, with the exception of bocaccio. In 2014, WDFW 

estimated that 132 bocaccio where caught by anglers targeting salmon (all in the San Juan Islands area). 

The average annual estimated bycatch of yelloweye rockfish from salmon anglers ranges from 4 (WDFW 

2014a) to 111 (WDFW 2011b) fish. The average annual estimated bycatch of bocaccio from salmon 

anglers ranges from 2 (WDFW 2014a) to 132 (WDFW 2011b) fish. Note that it is likely that not all of 

these fish are killed when they are caught as bycatch (see Appendix III, Barotrauma Research and 

Adaptive Management).

Most commercial salmon fishers in Puget Sound use purse seines and gill nets (WDFW 2010a). A

relatively small number of salmon are harvested within the DPS by reef nets and beach seines. Gill nets 

and purse seines rarely catch rockfish of any species. From 1990 to 2008, no rockfish were recorded 

caught in the purse seine fishery (WDFW 2010a). In 1991, one rockfish (of unknown species) was 

recorded in the gill net fishery, and no other fish were caught through 2008 (WDFW 2010a). Low 

encounter rates may be attributed to a variety of factors. For each net type, the mesh size restrictions that 

target salmon based on size tend to allow juvenile rockfish to pass through. Gill net and purse seine 

operators also tend to avoid fishing over rockfish habitat, as rocky reef structures can damage their gear. 

In addition, nets are deployed in the upper portion of the water column away from the deeper water 

rockfish habitat, thus avoiding interactions with most adult rockfish. In the mid-1990s, commercial 

salmon net closure zones were established in much of Puget Sound for seabird protection. Some of these 

closed areas overlap with rockfish habitat, reducing the potential for encountering rockfish. Specific areas 

are: 1) a closure of the waters inside the San Juan Islands, 2) a closure extending 1,500 feet (457.2 m)

along the northern shore of Orcas Island, and 3) closure of waters 3 miles from the shore inside the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca (WDFW 2010b).

Bottom Fish Fisheries and Rockfish Bycatch Risk

Recreational anglers targeting bottom fish such as lingcod and cabezon (and to a lesser extent flatfish) use 

lures and bait that catch yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. As a result, some anglers targeting bottom fish 

unintentionally hook listed rockfish. Targeting rockfish and the retention of rockfish of any species is not 

allowed, nor is fishing in waters deeper than 120 feet (36.6 m) where subadult and adult listed rockfish 

are most likely to reside. WDFW also has a prohibition on barbed hooks and limits fishing gear to two 

individual hooks (no treble hooks). In 2012, WDFW estimated that the 120-foot (36.6 m) rule would 

result in a reduction of bycatch from anglers targeting bottom fish by approximately 75 percent for 

yelloweye rockfish (WDFW 2012c). We do not have data regarding the compliance levels with the 120-

foot (36.6 m) rule, but in 2011 the majority of anglers targeting lingcod and other bottom fish were not 

aware of the regulation (Sawchuk 2012).

There is a small tribal commercial dogfish fishery. The fishery utilizes gillnets with a seven-inch mesh to 

limit bycatch of other species. The fishery consists of less than 10 fishers, with two to three who regularly 

fish. It occurs in bays, which generally do not include rockfish habitat, and the nets are not deployed deep 

in the water column, thus decreasing chance of rockfish bycatch. This fishery is confined to northern 

Puget Sound.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 60

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

There is also a tribal commercial bottom trawl fishery consisting mainly of one fisher who typically fishes 

a couple times a year. Tribal scientists have observed the fishery because of concerns about crab bycatch 

and they have not seen any rockfish bycatch. This fishery occurs in Bellingham Bay and targets flatfish.

Halibut Fisheries and Rockfish Bycatch Risk

Recreational and commercial fishers targeting halibut use lures and bait that catch yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio and other rockfish species. Historically, many recreational anglers would simultaneously target 

halibut and rockfish (Olander 1991), and because of their similar habitat usage, catches of deep-water 

rockfish during halibut fisheries can be common. For the recreational fishery, WDFW regulations for 

anglers targeting bottom fish (such as lingcod) do not allow fishing in waters deeper than 120 feet (36.6 

m) (where subadult and adult listed rockfish are most likely to reside). This regulation does not apply to 

anglers targeting halibut. The recreational halibut regulations include a prohibition on barbed hooks and 

limit fishing gear to two individual hooks (no treble hooks). In recent years, halibut fishing has been

restricted to several days annually during the spring in order to apportion the catch among geographic 

areas and user groups. 

The tribal commercial halibut fishery has increased its catch nearly annually in recent years. In 2009, the 

tribal commercial fishery had 258 landings and caught 61,443 pounds of halibut. In 2013, the fishery had 

550 landings and caught 150,211 pounds of halibut.

In U.S. waters of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, gear used in the tribal commercial fisheries include:

 Hook-and-line (rod and reel, no more than two hooks)

 Hand line (no more than two hooks)

 Longline (snap gear only with typically 400 to 800 hooks)

 Bottom troll (no more than six lines)

Fish caught on longline gear are typically hooked and suspended near the seafloor for minutes to hours; 

thus, some fish are likely harmed or killed by predators such as dogfish, sixgill sharks, harbor seals, and 

sea lions. Yelloweye rockfish are historically a commonly caught rockfish in halibut longline fisheries 

within the DPS area (Table 8), and have been commonly caught in halibut long-line fisheries in DPS 

waters of the Georgia Strait (NMFS 2013). Bocaccio are less commonly caught in long-line fisheries 

(NMFS 2013).

Table 8. Proportion of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in the total rockfish catch for past set line 

fisheries in the North Puget Sound (non-tribal set line fisheries have been closed by WDFW). 

Table created from data in Palsson et al. 2009.

1970-1987 1988 1989 1990 1991-1992 1993-2003

Yelloweye 28% 49.8% 72.5% 83.4% 91.9% 48.8%

Bocaccio 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Spot Prawn Fisheries and Rockfish Bycatch Risk

The spot prawn trap fishery consists of recreational, non-treaty commercial, and treaty 

commercial/subsistence sectors. The yearly harvest quotas are split evenly between the state recreational 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 61

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

and commercial sectors and the treaty fisheries. Seasons and quotas are set using data collected during 

test fisheries conducted by WDFW and participating treaty tribes. The non-treaty commercial fishery, 

limited to 18 licenses, takes place from June through September with a weekly harvest cap of 600 pounds

(272 kg) per fisher. Typically, traps used in the commercial fishery are a truncated cone shape surrounded 

by nylon mesh and weighing approximately 5 to 7 pounds (2.3 to 3.2 kg). Entrance rings are 3-inch (7.6-

cm) diameter and aligned with the bait cup, usually containing pellet type bait. Strings of 15 to 25 traps 

are attached to a heavy groundline 29.53 to 98.43 feet (9 to 30 m) apart. Buoyed anchors mark the ends of 

each string, and soak times range from 2 to 48 hours. The treaty fishery has grown in participation in the 

past decade, with under 200 fishers participating each year, employing similar gear as the non-treaty 

commercial fleet. The treaty fishery occurs over a relatively short period of time, mostly in April and 

May, with openings commonly lasting only a few hours (NRC 2012, 2014). 

The recreational fishery occurs on specific days in the month of May, and the number of days varies 

between management regions. The maximum trap limit is two traps per licensed fisher, with no more than 

four traps per vessel, and daily harvest is limited to 80 individual spot prawn per licensee. The 

recreational fleet uses similar web mesh trap designs as the commercial fleet, but typically with added 

weight. More common in the recreational fishery are the square-, round-, and octagonal-shaped, wire 

mesh traps with two to four entry ramps leading to a bait container, often filled with canned cat food or 

similar bait. Each trap is fished separately, attached to a single buoy line and buoy. Soak times vary 

depending on the location and timing of the effort, and the derby style openings usually last 45 minutes to 

3 hours (NRC 2012, 2014). 

While the limited number of permits allowed prevents growth of the non-treaty commercial fleet, the 

recreational and treaty spot prawn fleets have increased significantly since the 1990s. Much of the 

recreational and commercial fishing effort for spot prawn occurs in waters ranging from 196.85 to 393.7 

feet (60 to 120 m) deep, along relatively steeply sloped and rugose benthic areas of Puget Sound (Martinis 

2015), coinciding with juvenile and adult rockfish primary habitats, especially deep water species such as 

listed rockfish.

Rockfish have been documented as bycatch in active spot prawn fisheries and have been observed in 

derelict pots. Recent studies from British Columbia have reported rockfish bycatch rates in actively fished 

prawn traps (Favaro et al. 2010, 2012), and the majority of those rockfish were juveniles. While the 

bycatch rates reported in British Columbia were relatively low, the large amount of fishing effort 

associated with spot prawn fisheries raised concern about the overall effect this bycatch posed on rockfish 

populations, especially considering the low survival rate of discarded rockfish following the effects of 

barotrauma (Favaro et al. 2010). A total of 58 derelict prawn traps have been incidentally removed during 

derelict net and crab trap removal efforts in Puget Sound. Two of those derelict prawn traps contained a 

total of eight rockfish (Sebastes spp.), two of which were dead. By comparison, only two juvenile 

rockfish have been found in over 3,900 removed derelict crab traps in Puget Sound (NRC 2012).

Rockfish Catch Risk Based on Existing Fisheries in Each Management Unit

The narrative below provides a qualitative bycatch risk for the management units in the U.S. portion of 

the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 62

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca

We rank this region as having High bycatch risk for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. This 

region has the second most salmon fishing trips and bottom fishing trips within the U.S. portion of the 

DPS, the highest number of recreational halibut trips (Table 7), and a commercial tribal halibut fishery 

with high risk of rockfish bycatch (Table 6). Of the currently open commercial and recreational fishing 

sectors, halibut fishing likely has the highest risk of bycatch, and this management unit has the largest 

number of fishing trips targeting halibut for each sector. The 120-foot (36.6-m) rule for recreational 

fishers targeting bottom fish (which does not apply to halibut fishing) reduces risk of bycatch, but the 

bathymetry of most of the San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca is extremely complex, with steep walled 

pinnacles a very common feature around each island and offshore benthic area. This complex bathymetry 

makes compliance with the 120-foot (36.6-m) rule challenging as the depth can change rapidly in small 

horizontal distances, and it makes enforcing the rule difficult because of the uncertainty in assessing from 

a distance whether a boat is fishing in 120 feet (36.6 m) or more of water. This region also has high 

numbers of commercial and recreational spot prawn fisheries, but bycatch of rockfish in this region is less

compared to other areas (NRC 2012). The San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge areas and associated 

buffer areas may contribute to rockfish protection (Don 2002). However, one study (Don 2002) found that

management and protection of the marine areas surrounding refuge sites could be inadequate to constitute 

a de facto MPA network and that implementation and success of the MPA network would depend upon 

the creation of partnerships with other existing agencies and institutions.

Main Basin

We rank this management unit as having Low bycatch risk for commercial fishing and Moderate for

recreational fishing sectors. This basin has the most annual recreational salmon fishing trips as well as the 

most bottom fishing trips and a relatively low number of halibut fishing trips (Table 8). A relatively small 

amount of recreational halibut fishing occurs mostly in the northwestern portion of this basin (near 

Mutiny Bay and Port Townsend), and it is likely few, if any, commercial halibut trips occur here because 

of the paucity of halibut in these waters. Recreational and commercial shrimp pot fisheries are popular in 

this basin. 

Hood Canal

We rank this region as having Low bycatch risk for commercial fishing and Very Low for recreational 

fishing sectors. Recreational bottom fishing in most areas of Hood Canal have been closed since 2004

because of concerns about hypoxia. Halibut fishing is also closed in this basin. Recreational salmon 

fishing occurs in this basin in smaller numbers than other management units, and recreational and 

commercial shrimping are very popular. 

South Sound

We rank this region as having Low bycatch risk for commercial fishing and Low bycatch risk for 

recreational fishing sectors. Bycatch risk in the South Sound is minimal because of the low amount of 

bottom fishing trips and no halibut fishing occurring there. Relatively high numbers of recreational 

salmon fishing trips occur in this basin; thus, the greatest risk of bycatch likely is from this fishing sector. 

Detailed Threats Assessment – Habitat and Other Factors
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 63

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Several identified and potential threats and limiting factors may negatively impact rockfish populations. 

They may cause direct mortality, increased vulnerability to predation or disease, or reduced fitness and 

productivity (Palsson et al. 2009). The threats are assessed for each management unit, and the results are 

presented in Tables 9 through 13 according to these criteria: 1) the severity of the threat, 2) the level of 

certainty that the listed species are affected in the respective Management Unit, 3) the geographic extent 

of the threat, and 4) the likelihood that the actions outlined in this plan could reduce the threat. The 

severity of a threat refers to effects it has on the listed species (High—causes direct mortality, loss of 

productivity, fitness, and other key attributes; Moderate—does not cause decreased fitness or direct 

mortality and affects a moderate number of other attributes; Low—does not cause decreased fitness or 

direct mortality and affects a low number of other attributes). The level of certainty that a species is 

affected refers to the amount of evidence that the threat affects the species in that management unit

(High—direct evidence or multiple lines of indirect evidence; Moderate—indirect evidence; Low—little 

or no evidence). Geographic extent refers to the spatial extent of the threat within the management unit

(High—throughout much the basin; Moderate—in a moderate amount of the basin; Low—isolated areas;

Very Low—occurs in a negligible amount of the basin). The likelihood of an action reducing a threat 

refers to the actions outlined in this plan and the likelihood they may reduce the threat (High—action has 

been proven to decrease threat; Moderate—action is likely to reduce the threat; Low—action has small 

ability to reduce the threat; Very Low—action may or may not reduce the threat). An example of these 

actions are removal of derelict fishing gear in an area with a lot of derelict gear (High) compared to 

assessing competition for prey and habitat between rockfish and other fish species like salmon and other 

groundfish. The criteria may also be rated as Unknown, meaning more information is needed.

Overall Evaluation of Risk: The threats criteria described above are combined and assessed to calculate 

the overall risk of the threats. Criteria include the geographic extent of the threat within the management 

unit (or DPSs) and the severity of the threat in that same area. 1 = High risk, 2 = Moderate risk, 3 = Low 

risk, 4 = Very low risk, P = Potential threat, not enough information to determine if it is a threat at the 

current time, but could plausibly become a threat in the future based on information known at this time. 

Listing Factors: 1) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or 

range; 2) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 3) disease or 

predation; 4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 5) other manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. The primary listing factors we identified as responsible for decline of the DPSs of 

rockfishes at the time of listing appear with an (*) in Tables 9 through 13, along with other factors that 

may have contributed to decline.

Life Stage Affected: L = larval; J = juvenile; A = adult

Historical, Current, Future Effects: H = historical; C = current; F = future

High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, Unknown, Potential: High = H, Moderate = M, Low = L, Very Low

= VL, Unknown = U, Potential = P

Tables 9 through 13 are for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, and are broken down by management unit. 

Differences between species are highlighted with a footnote. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 64

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 65

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 9. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 1: San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin.

(San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin -- MCAs 6 and 7)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

Fisheries Interactions

1, 2, 5 *Derelict Gear 

(in nearshore 

and benthic 

environments)

Primarily 

commercial 

salmon nets, 

shrimp pots

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity

J, A H, C, F H H H 3.1.1, 

3.2.1

H 1

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(commercial 

bycatch)

Primarily 

bycatch from 

fisheries 

targeting halibut 

and shrimp

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity, 

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H M U 2.1-2.6 H 1

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(recreational 

bycatch)

Bycatch by 

anglers targeting 

salmon, bottom 

fish, and halibut; 

inadequate 

enforcement

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness 

J, A H,C, F H M H 2.1-2.6, 

4.1-4.5

H 1

Habitat

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(**nearshore)

Nearshore 

development / 

Modification

Productivity J, A H, C, F L M L 3.1, 3.1.2, 

3.10, 3.11

H 3

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(benthic)

Sediment 

disposal 

practices, 

development

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 3.2, 3.2.2, 

3.2.3, 

3.10, 3.11

M 3

1 *Non-native 

Species that 

Alter Habitat

(Sargassum, 

tunicates)

Global shipping 

and fisheries 

practices, 

natural disasters

Productivity J, A H, C, F U U U 3.1.3 U P

1, 4 *Hypoxia/

Nutrient 

Addition

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Mortality,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H L L 3.4 L 4
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 66

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

(San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca Basin -- MCAs 6 and 7)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

1, 4 *Chemical 

Contamination 

(bioaccumulants)

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Fitness, 

Growth, 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior

L, J, A H, C, F H L L 3.3, 3.3.1 H 3

* Primary listing factor as designated by Palsson et al. 2009 and Drake et al. 2010. 

** Most directly affects bocaccio. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 67

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 10. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 2: Main Basin and Whidbey Basin.

(Main Basin and Whidbey -- MCAs 9, 10, and 11 and 8-1, 8-2)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat 

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

Fisheries Interactions

1, 2, 5 *Derelict Gear 

(in nearshore 

and benthic 

environments)

Primarily 

commercial 

salmon nets, 

shrimp pots

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity

J, A H, C, F H H L 3.1.1, 3.2.1 H 2

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(commercial 

bycatch)

Primarily 

current bycatch

from fisheries 

targeting 

halibut, shrimp

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H U U 2.1-2.6 H ***3

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(recreational 

bycatch)

Bycatch by 

anglers 

targeting 

salmon, bottom 

fish, spot 

prawns, and 

halibut; 

inadequate 

enforcement

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H M H 2.1-2.6, 

4.1-4.5

H 2

Habitat

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(**nearshore)

Nearshore 

development

Productivity J, A H, C, F L H H 3.1, 3.1.2, 

3.10, 3.11

M 1

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(benthic)

Sediment 

disposal 

practices, 

development

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 3.2, 3.2.2, 

3.2.3, 3.10, 

3.11

M 3

1 *Non-native 

Species that 

Alter Habitat, 

(Sargassum, 

tunicates)

Global 

shipping and 

fisheries 

practices; 

natural 

disasters

Productivity J, A H, C, F U U U 3.1.3 U P
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 68

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

(Main Basin and Whidbey -- MCAs 9, 10, and 11 and 8-1, 8-2)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat 

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

1, 4 *Hypoxia/

Nutrient 

Addition

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Mortality,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H M L 3.4 M 3

1, 4 *Chemical 

Contamination 

(bioaccumulants)

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Fitness, 

Growth, 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior

L, J, A H, C, F H H H 3.3, 3.3.1 H 1

* Primary listing factor as designated by Palsson et al. 2009 and Drake et al. 2010. 

** Most directly affects bocaccio. 

***Further information required to assess the extent and effects of commercial fisheries in this area and this ranking could change.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 69

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 11. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 3: South Sound.

(South Sound Basin – MCA 13)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

Fisheries Interactions

1, 2, 5 *Derelict Gear 

(in nearshore 

and benthic 

environments)

Primarily 

commercial 

salmon nets

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity

J, A H H L L 3.1.1, 

3.2.1

M 4

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(commercial 

bycatch)

There are few 

commercial 

fisheries 

remaining here

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 2.1-2.6 L 3

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(recreational 

bycatch)

Bycatch by 

anglers targeting 

salmon, bottom 

fish; inadequate 

enforcement

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 2.1-2.6, 

4.1-4.5

M 3

Habitat

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(**nearshore)

Nearshore 

development

Productivity J, A H, C, F L H H 3.1, 3.1.2, 

3.10, 3.11

M 1

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(benthic)

Sediment disposal practices, 

development

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 3.2, 3.2.2, 

3.2.3, 

3.10, 3.11

M 3

1 *Non-native 

Species that 

Alter Habitat

Global shipping 

and fisheries 

practices; 

natural disasters

Productivity J, A H, C, F U U U 3.1.3 U P

1, 4 *Hypoxia/

Nutrient 

Addition

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Mortality,

Productivity 

L, J, A H, C, F H H M 3.4 M 2

1, 4 *Chemical 

Contamination 

(bioaccumulants)

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Fitness, 

Growth, 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior 

L, J, A H, C, F H H H 3.3, 3.3.1 H 1

* Primary listing factor as designated by Palsson et al. 2009 and Drake et al. 2010. 

** Most directly affects bocaccio. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 70

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 12. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 4: Hood Canal Basin.

(Hood Canal – MCA 12)

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

Fisheries Interactions

1, 2, 5 *Derelict Gear

(in nearshore 

and benthic 

environments)

Primarily 

commercial 

salmon nets, 

shrimp pots

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity

J, A H H L L 3.1.1, 

3.2.1

H 4

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(current 

commercial 

bycatch)

Primarily 

bycatch from 

fisheries 

targeting spot 

prawns

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 2.1-2.6 M 3

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(current

recreational 

bycatch)

Bycatch by 

anglers 

targeting 

salmon, spot 

prawns; 

inadequate 

enforcement

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L VL 2.1-2.6, 

4.1-4.5

M 4

Habitat

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(**nearshore)

Nearshore 

development

Productivity J, A H, C, F M H M 3.1, 3.1.2, 

3.10, 3.11

H 2

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(benthic)

Sediment 

disposal 

practices, 

development

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 3.2, 3.2.2, 

3.2.3, 

3.10, 3.11

M 3

1 *Non-native 

Species that 

Alter Habitat

(Sargassum, 

tunicates)

Global 

shipping and 

fisheries 

practices; 

natural 

disasters

Productivity J, A H, C, F U U U 3.1.3 U P

1, 4 *Hypoxia/

Nutrient 

Addition

Primarily

natural 

conditions 

exacerbated by

Mortality,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H H M 3.4 M 1
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 71

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

* Primary listing factor as designated by Palsson et al. 2009 and Drake et al. 2010. 

** Most directly affects bocaccio. 

local point and 

non-point 

pollution

1, 4 *Chemical 

Contamination 

(bioaccumulants)

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Fitness, 

Growth, 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior

L, J, A H, C, F H M M 3.3, 3.3.1 H 2
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 72

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 13. Threats Assessment for Management Unit 5: Primary listing factors in Canada and all Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (other factors).

Canada 

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

Fisheries Interactions

1, 2, 5 *Derelict Gear

(in nearshore 

and benthic 

environments)

Primarily 

commercial 

salmon nets, 

shrimp pots

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity

J, A H, C, F H H H 3.1.1, 

3.2.1

H 1

2, 4 *Fisheries

Removals 

(commercial 

catch/bycatch)

Primarily bycatch

from fisheries 

targeting shrimp, 

salmon, and 

groundfish 

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H M L 2.1-2.6 M 3

2, 4 *Fisheries 

Removals 

(recreational 

catch/bycatch)

Primarily bycatch 

from fisheries 

targeting bottom 

fish and salmon

Mortality,

Reproduction, 

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H M U 2.1-2.6, 

4.1-4.5

M 3

Habitat

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(**nearshore)

Nearshore 

development

Productivity J, A H, C, F L L L 3.1, 3.1.2, 

3.10, 3.11

M 4

1, 4 *Habitat 

Disruption 

(benthic)

Sediment 

disposal 

practices, 

development

Productivity,

Fitness

J, A H, C, F H L L 3.2, 3.2.2, 

3.2.3, 

3.10, 3.11

M 3

1 *Non-native 

Species that 

Alter Habitat

(Sargassum, 

tunicates)

Global shipping 

and fisheries 

practices; natural 

disasters

Productivity J, A H, C, F U U U 3.1.3 U P

1, 4 *Hypoxia/

Nutrient 

Addition

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Mortality,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H L L 3.4 M 4

1, 4 *Chemical 

Contamination 

(bioaccumulants)

Primarily local 

point and nonpoint pollution

Fitness, 

Growth, 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior

L, J, A H, C, F H L L 3.3, 3.3.1 H 3
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 73

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Canada 

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

ALL PUGET SOUND/GEORGIA BASIN (US and Canada)

Species and Ecosystem Interactions

3 Marine 

Mammal 

Predation

Pinnipeds, otters Mortality,

Fitness,

Productivity

J, A H, C, F H M L 3.5.2 VL 4

3 Fish Predation Lingcod, 

rockfish, salmon

Mortality, 

Fitness,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H U L 3.5.2 VL 4

5 Hatchery 

Practices

Salmon 

hatcheries

Mortality, 

Fitness,

Productivity

L, J H, C, F H U L 3.7 M 4

5 Competition Chinook salmon, 

coho salmon, 

other rockfish 

spp., other 

groundfish spp.

Productivity L, J, A H, C, F L L L 3.5.3 VL P

3 Diseases Unknown, though 

we do know of a 

number of 

parasites 

affecting rockfish

Mortality, 

Productivity, 

Fitness

U H, C, F H U U 3.6 L P

5 Inbreeding Mating between 

related 

individuals in 

small populations

Fitness, 

Productivity,

Reproduction,

Genetic 

Integrity

L, J, A U H U U 1.4, 1.41. L P

5 Hybridization Low encounter 

rate of suitable 

mates in small 

populations

Fitness, 

Productivity, 

Genetic 

Integrity

L, J, A U H U U 1.4, 1.4.1 L P

1 Oil Spills Global and local 

shipping and 

boating

Mortality, 

Reproduction,

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F H H H 3.9 H 1

4, 5 Ocean 

Acidification

Global and local 

carbon dioxide 

output; local land 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior,

L, J, A H, C, F H H H 3.5, 3.5.1 L 1
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 74

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Canada 

Descriptive Information Threat Ranking Information

Listing 

Factor

Threat Source Key 

Ecological 

Attributes 

Affected

Life 

Stage 

Affected

Historical, 

Current, 

Future 

Effect

Severity 

of 

Threat

Level of 

Certainty 

Species is 

Affected

Geographic 

Extent of 

Threat

Recovery 

Action(s)

Likelihood 

Recovery 

Action(s) 

Reduce 

Threat

Overall 

Ranking

use practices; 

lack of collective 

action or 

legislation, 

natural upwelling

Fitness

4, 5 Climate 

Change

Global and local 

carbon dioxide

output; lack of 

collective action 

or legislation

Likely 

Reproduction,

Productivity,

Behavior,

Fitness

L, J, A H, C, F H H H 3.5, 3.5.1 L 1

5 Anthropogenic 

Noise

Construction, 

shipping, military 

exercises

Likely 

Behavior, 

Productivity

L, J, A H, C, F M L U 3.8 M P

* Primary listing factor as designated by Palsson et al. 2009 and Drake et al. 2010. 

** Most directly affects bocaccio. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 75

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

F. CONSERVATION MEASURES, RESEARCH, AND MONITORING

This section provides an overview of conservation efforts that have been undertaken for yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin since their listing, and discusses overall efficacy 

of all efforts and protections. In some cases, these conservation efforts are relatively new and may not 

have had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions for adequate monitoring 

and funding of conservation efforts are essential to ensure that intended conservation benefits are realized. 

Further protective action, research, and outreach efforts are still urgently needed to ensure recovery of the 

ESA-listed DPSs. Further information on research and monitoring efforts, along with recommended 

additional research that address many of the primary threats outlined in this recovery plan are discussed in 

further detail in the appendices. The appendices are included to provide additional detail for specific 

topics and aid in implementation.

Fisheries Management

Washington State

In 2010, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission formally adopted regulations that ended 

targeting and retention of rockfish by recreational anglers in Puget Sound and closed fishing for bottom

fish in waters deeper than 120 feet (36.6 m) (does not apply to anglers targeting halibut) to reduce 

bycatch. Additionally, on July 28, 2010, WDFW closed the following non-tribal commercial fisheries in 

Puget Sound (WDFW 2010):

 the set net fishery

 the set line fishery

 the bottom trawl fishery

 the inactive scallop trawl fishery

 the inactive pelagic trawl fishery

 the inactive bottom fish pot fishery

WDFW also applied for and received a 5-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and developed a Fisheries 

Conservation Plan (FCP) with NOAA (WDFW 2012c). The FCP included the monitoring and 

management of two fisheries authorized by the State of Washington to minimize the interactions with 

listed rockfish. Potential bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery is monitored by an observer program, and the 

state also provides estimates of rockfish bycatch in the recreational bottom fish fishery. The ITP was 

issued in 2012 and ran through 2017. 

Canada

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) manages fisheries in Area 4(b) of the inside waters of 

Vancouver Island separately from outside waters. Area 4(b) encompasses all of the Canadian portion of 

the DPSs’ ranges and includes some waters outside of the DPSs’ ranges to the west and north. In 2001,

DFO began a process to improve inshore2rockfish management by: 1) accounting for all catch (landed 

and released), 2) decreasing fishing mortality, 3) establishing areas closed to activities that result in 

bycatch, and 4) improving stock assessment and monitoring (Yamanaka and Lacko 2001). DFO adopted a 

 

2

Inshore rockfish include yelloweye, black, copper, quillback, China, and tiger rockfish.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 76

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

policy to ensure that inshore rockfish are subjected to fisheries mortality equal to or less than half of 

natural mortality. 

In 2007, the DFO formally designated 30 percent of inside rockfish habitat as Rockfish Conservation 

Areas (RCAs) (Figure 10). The DFO defined and mapped rockfish habitat from commercial fisheries log 

CPUE density data as well as change in slope bathymetry analysis (Yamanaka and Logan 2010). Within 

the RCAs, DFO allows some harvest of marine biota.

3 However, these reserves do not allow directed 

commercial or recreational harvest for any species of rockfish or the harvest of many other marine species 

that may incidentally catch rockfish. There are anecdotal reports that compliance with the RCAs may be 

poor and that some may be located in less than optimum areas of rockfish habitat (Haggarty 2014). 

Systematic monitoring of the RCAs may be lacking as well (Haggarty 2014). Because the RCAs are 

relatively new, it is uncertain how effective they have been in protecting rockfish populations (Haggarty 

2014), but one analysis found that sampled RCAs in Canada had 1.6 times the number of rockfish 

compared to unprotected areas (Cloutier 2011), while a second found no difference in rockfish density 

and size structure between RCAs and control sites (Haggarty et al. 2016). Outside the RCAs, recreational 

fishers generally may keep one rockfish per day from May 1 to September 30. Commercial rockfish 

catches in Area 4(b) are managed by a quota system (DFO 2011a). DFO’s 2015 Integrated Groundfish 

Management Plan calls for a TAC of 110 tonnes (242,508 pounds) of bocaccio from commercial trawling 

in Area 4(b) (DFO 2015). For yelloweye rockfish, the TAC is 6 tonnes from the commercial hook-andline fishery and 1 ton for the halibut fishery (DFO 2015). As of 2006, 100 percent at-sea monitoring 

standards were put in place for the entire groundfish fishery. This monitoring is intended to eliminate 

unreported catch of rockfish throughout the commercial groundfish fishery and allow all rockfish to be 

accounted for within their TACs (Yamanaka et al. 2006).

 

3 Recreational fishing allowed in RCAs: invertebrates by hand picking or dive, crab by trap, shrimp/prawn by trap,

smelt by gillnet. Commercial fishing allowed in RCAs: invertebrates by hand picking or dive; crab and prawn by 

trap; scallops by trawl; salmon by seine or gillnet; herring by gillnet and seine; spawn-on-kelp sardine by gillnet, 

seine, and trap; smelt by gillnet; euphausiid (krill) by mid-water trawl; opal squid by seine; groundfish by midwater trawl. (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/permitted-permis-eng.htm)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 77

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 10. Rockfish Conservation Areas in Canada and reserves in Puget Sound that do not allow most 

fishing.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 78

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Cooperative Research

Creating partnerships for the purposes of researching various aspects of rockfish recovery has already 

proven valuable in engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. This section summarizes a number of 

completed and ongoing research programs.

In recognition of the knowledge that fishers can bring to the recovery effort, NMFS began an initiative

soon after the Federal listing to both further assess bycatch and involve fishers in research and recovery of 

rockfish. Beginning in late 2010, NMFS partnered with the University of Washington to assess 

recreational anglers’ knowledge and 

perceptions regarding rockfish threats and 

recovery actions. This project documented 

angler knowledge of rockfish life history, 

regulations, and species identification abilities; 

perceived threats to rockfish; fishing practices; 

and preferred recovery measures (Sawchuk 

2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). The survey 

findings have been used to inform Appendix I, 

Education, Outreach, and Public Involvement,

and guided further angler engagement. 

In 2012, NMFS partnered with the Northwest 

Straits Foundation to commission a study to 

assess spatial distribution and magnitude of 

derelict shrimp pots and their potential impacts 

to rockfish in Puget Sound. The study utilized 

sidescan sonar surveys, an analysis of the 

WDFW creel surveys, and an online survey

that was made available for shrimp fishers. 

This study has enabled a foundational 

knowledge of the potential impact shrimp pots 

may have on rockfish. In 2013, NMFS 

partnered with the Northwest Straits 

Foundation to conduct an assessment of 

bycatch rates of rockfish in actively fished 

shrimp pots based on WDFW test fisheries 

data (NRC 2014).

In 2012, NMFS and the SeaDoc Society 

sponsored an assessment of cooperative 

research projects (Browning 2013). The 

assessment examined several cooperative research projects involving partnerships between fishers and 

researchers/fishery managers, and it has been used to guide future collaborative efforts. 

In 2013 and 2014, NMFS, WDFW, and the SeaDoc Society began two cooperative research projects with 

recreational fishing guides to assess rockfish bycatch in fisheries targeting lingcod and halibut, and to 

Rockfish Cooperative Research Program

In 2014 and 2015, NMFS, WDFW, Puget Sound 

Anglers, and local fishing guides partnered on a 

cooperative research rockfish genetics project. 

This project assessed listed rockfish genetics by 

gathering samples through hook-and-line 

sampling. 

The project resulted in new genetics information 

that revealed that canary rockfish in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin are not discrete from the 

coastal fish, thus leading to their delisting from the 

ESA in 2017. 

Another cooperative study to assess rockfish 

bycatch in local lingcod fisheries was initiated in 

2017. Each project has provided important 

information for rockfish recovery efforts.

Captain Jay Field and Kelly Andrews with a 

yelloweye rockfish caught in the San Juan Islands. 

Photo courtesy of Kelly Andrews.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 79

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

gain genetic samples of listed rockfish. In 2017, NMFS began a study with local fishing guides to assess 

rockfish bycatch in lingcod fisheries.

The cooperative genetics research utilized the experience of recreational fishing guides who had ideas 

about where to find the rare species of rockfish. Over the course of 74 fishing trips, guides and 

researchers collected fin clips and length data from listed rockfishes (Andrews et al. 2015). All of the fin 

clips were analyzed, which resulted in the delisting of canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

in early 2017. Analyses indicated a lack of genetic differentiation between coastal and Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin samples of canary rockfish, as seen in the lack of distinct clusters in the principal 

components analysis (Figure 11). FST values, a metric of population differentiation, among groups was not 

significantly different from zero, and STRUCTURE analysis did not provide evidence supporting 

population structure. These analyses all suggest there is no evidence of genetic differentiation of canary 

rockfish across the boundaries of the DPS (Andrews et al. 2015). A full report of this project and the 

results for all the listed species is found in our 5-year review on our website (NMFS 2016).

4

Figure 11. No distinct genetic structure observed in canary rockfish based on a principal 

components analysis of the genetic variation between individuals inside and 

outside the DPS (Andrews et al. 2015). 

In 2014, NMFS and WDFW began a rockfish habitat-stratified ROV survey in Puget Sound proper. This 

research enables an assessment of the population while also collecting important habitat information 

necessary to better characterize rockfish habitat. This cooperative research is key to assessing the status of 

the population now and into the future. The 2015 survey sampling plan is depicted in Figure 12. 

 

4http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_report

_rockfish.pdf
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 80

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 12. 2015 Rockfish ROV survey target sites. 

Derelict Fishing Gear Removal and Prevention

Removal: Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other Federal funds enabled 

the Northwest Straits Initiative to remove over 4,500 derelict fishing nets and 140 derelict pots from 

waters shallower than 100 feet (30.5 m), restoring hundreds of acres of Puget Sound habitat. Conservation 

efforts directed at removing derelict nets have reduced the threat of mortality and rocky habitat 

degradation; however, there remain an unknown number of deepwater nets that still require removal.

Most derelict nets have been removed by divers with surface supplied air and supported by a dive vessel 

that can mechanically lift the nets from the surface onto the boat. All of the derelict nets removed have 

been from waters 105 feet (32 m) or shallower because of diver safety protocols. Nets that have been 

found to extend below 105 feet (32 m) are cut off and only the shallow portion of the net is removed. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 81

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Several hundred derelict nets have been documented in waters deeper than 100 feet (30.5 m) (NRC 2010). 

Removal methodology for deepwater nets has been identified and subsequent testing of deepwater net 

removal by ROV has occurred recently. In 2013 and 2014, WDFW and NWSI applied for funding to test 

removal methods and begin removing deepwater derelict gear to benefit listed rockfish under NOAA’s 

Species Recovery Grants to States program. Neither project proposal was funded. 

Research: NMFS funded a pilot survey using side-scan sonar for derelict fishing nets in waters deeper 

than 100 feet (30.5 m) off the west coast of San Juan Island, resulting in the documentation of over 50 

nets (Figure 13). NMFS was also involved in research to assess possible methods to remove derelict 

fishing nets at depths great than 98 feet (30 m) and worked with the Northwest Straits Foundation (NSF)

and Natural Resources Consultants (NRC) to quantify lost shrimp pots and bycatch of rockfish in actively 

fished shrimp pots.

Figure 13. Sidescan sonar images of deepwater derelict nets located on Point 

Roberts Reef of the San Juan Basin. Suspended nets have a larger 

acoustic shadow than nets flush with the bottom. Image courtesy of 

Natural Resource Consultants.

Further, NMFS has worked with the NSF and NRC to identify and quantify mortality (including rockfish) 

in derelict fishing gear (Good et al. 2010). With the help of the NMFS Genetics Program, this group of 

collaborators identified some rockfish bone samples using molecular markers to quantify and compile a 

list of affected species. 

In 2013, NMFS funded a study by the NSF and the NWIFC that utilized ideas and recommendations from 

commercial fishers and fishing gear experts to assess how to better prevent the loss of nets and encourage

the quick retrieval of derelict gillnets from Puget Sound fisheries. They used information from personal 

interviews, letters, email exchange, and an anonymous online survey (Gibson 2013).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 82

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

State Regulations: On March 29, 2012, the Washington Governor signed into law Senate Bill 5661, 

making it mandatory for non-tribal commercial fishers to report lost nets to WDFW within 24 hours of 

loss so that they can be retrieved (Washington State Legislature 2012). In 2013, the Washington State 

Legislature appropriated 3.5 million dollars to support further removal of shallow water derelict nets, and 

the vast majority of these nets were removed by summer of 2015. Thus far, a total of 5,660 nets and 3,800 

shellfish pots have been removed, improving the habitat conditions of 813 acres (see 

www.derelictgear.org). 

Additionally, WDFW and NSF, assisted by funding from NMFS, have established a reporting, response,

and retrieval network that allows online and telephone reporting of derelict nets by members of the 

public. After a report is received it is evaluated and, if appropriate, a unit is mobilized to locate and 

remove the gear before it can sink and affect both marine organisms and their habitat. 

Education and Outreach

In 2012, the Puget Sound Anglers began outreach to local anglers to better identify rockfish and use 

rapid-submergence techniques to reduce the effects of barotrauma. This outreach was related to the 

findings of the NMFS/University of Washington angler study that was introduced at the beginning of the 

Cooperative Research section (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). WDFW has also produced materials 

on rockfish bycatch avoidance, identification, handling procedures, and recompression

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/bottomfish/rockfish/mortality.html) and has recently added informational 

signage to a number of boat launches throughout Puget Sound. Additionally, WDFW has piloted a 

voluntary recreational fishing logbook program at several ports along the outer coast and in the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca. This program is now making its way into Puget Sound, starting with some recreational 

charter boat captains. In 2017, NMFS, WDFW, and the Seattle Aquarium partnered to install rockfish 

conservation signage at major boat launches in each Management Unit. The signage is designed to assist 

anglers’ knowledge of rockfish species, fishing regulations, and release practices. In recent years, NMFS, 

WDFW, Puget Sound Anglers, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission have distributed 

thousands of descending devices to local anglers.

In 2003, the Puget Sound Recreational Fisheries Enhancement Fund (PSRFEF) Oversight Committee was 

created by the legislature to advise WDFW on issues related to improving the recreational fisheries within 

Puget Sound (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/psrfef/). PSRFEF developed program goals (adopted in 

2013) to measure progress of improving recreational bottom fish fisheries by utilizing outreach and 

education to decrease the mortality on rockfish (WDFW 2013). Specific performance measures pertaining 

to recovering bottom fish include increasing angler identification of rockfish species, increasing the use of 

descender tools, and decreasing angler encounters (e.g., bycatch) of rockfish.

Habitat Mapping

A Puget Sound benthic habitat mapping team consisting of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), 

SeaDoc Society/Tombolo Laboratory, the University of Washington, WDFW, NMFS, and others is 

working to better map and characterize benthic habitat conditions in Puget Sound. The USGS is working 

on detailed benthic habitat characterizations for most, but not all, of Puget Sound proper. In the San Juan 

Islands, a cooperative study involving WDFW and the SeaDoc Society/Tombolo Laboratory is using high 

resolution multibeam bathymetry data, interpreted habitat types informed by geology, and fish occurrence 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 83

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

data from visual surveys to develop probabilistic occurrence maps for the listed rockfish and a variety of 

other benthic organisms. These maps will inform future survey efforts, critical habitat designation, and 

fishery management actions.

Historical Rockfish Abundance Trends and Assemblages

NMFS partnered with the University of Washington to conduct an analysis of historical rockfish data in 

Puget Sound and reported in Washington et al. (1977). The analysis calculated the catch per unit of effort 

of nine species of local rockfish (including listed rockfish), determined depth of capture, and assessed 

potential habitat associations (Browning 2013).

A seven-decade time series of relative abundance was developed for seven species of rockfish in Puget 

Sound, including the listed rockfish, from interviews with fishers, divers, and researchers (Beaudreau and 

Levin 2014). Trends in abundance indices indicated that all seven species in Puget Sound have been in 

decline since at least the 1960s. The listed rockfish were viewed as relatively lower in abundance across 

all time periods compared to other rockfishes. The study showed that expert knowledge in combination

with available scientific data may help resolve patterns of abundance for rockfishes and other data-poor 

species.

G. RESEARCH AND MONITORING IN PROGRESS

There are a number of important research projects underway, and these are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14. Research projects in progress to address rockfish attributes and inform recovery.

Entity Research Type

General Rockfish Attribute(s) Research Will Address

Abundance

Spatial Structure/

Habitat Usage Connectivity

Diversity

(age/size)

Injury /

Mortality

WDFW/NMFS Remotely operated 

video surveys    

NMFS/University 

of Washington Larval dispersal 

NMFS/Select 

Fishing Guides

Bycatch and 

gear/bait attributes



NMFS/WDFW/ 

Northwest Straits 

Foundation/NRC

Shrimp pots,

bycatch rates, and 

derelict gear

 

NMFS/WDFW/

Sea Doc 

Society/others

Fine scale habitat 

associations



WDFW Trawl surveys  

NMFS/WDFW/

NWSI

Dive surveys –

YOY and kelp 

restoration

  
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 84

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Puget Sound 

Restoration 

Fund/NMFS

Bull kelp life

history



WDFW/NMFS

Evaluation of 

barotrauma post 

release (ROV obs.)

  
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 85

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

III. RECOVERY STRATEGY

This section presents NMFS’ recommended strategy for recovering yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, 

including the primary focus of the recovery effort and how it addresses the known threats and biological 

needs of the species. The plan is comprehensive to address all of the threats, draws on existing 

information to prioritize actions, and identifies research to inform an adaptive approach to develop,

prioritize, and implement actions as data gaps are filled. This section provides the rationale for the 

recommended recovery program, linking information presented in the background section to information 

provided in the sections on recovery objectives, criteria, and actions.

A. KEY FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Population Decline and Life History—The abundance of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio within the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs have each declined, likely as a result of past overharvest and other 

interacting factors (Palsson et al. 2009; Yamanaka and Logan 2010; Drake et al. 2010). The life history of 

listed rockfish includes long generation times and naturally low productivity. Past fishery removals and 

anthropogenic factors such as contaminants and other habitat degradation have likely exacerbated 

vulnerabilities related to their life history. Listed rockfish take many years to become reproductive adults, 

making them extremely vulnerable to threats that unduly impact adults, including overfishing, and slow to 

recover once depleted (Drake et al. 2010). The connectivity of larval and juvenile listed rockfish is 

probably naturally limited between Management Units (particularly within U.S. waters) by relatively 

shallow sills, and the effects of localized depletions of rockfish are likely exacerbated by these natural 

hydrologic constrictions (Drake et al. 2010). 

Fisheries—Under current protective regulations, listed rockfish catch in the U.S. portion of the DPSs’ 

ranges is incidental to other fisheries targeting salmon, bottom fish, halibut, and shrimp (see Section E. 

Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing, Threats Assessment for Fisheries). Identifying and 

quantifying this bycatch is difficult because of largely inaccurate species identification by recreational 

anglers (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015) and limited frequency of angler surveys, and because of the 

lack of systematic bycatch tracking in some remaining commercial fisheries.

Recent State of Washington regulations that ended the retention of rockfish and prohibited fishing for 

bottom fish in waters deeper than 120 feet (36.6 m) have likely reduced bycatch of listed rockfish, though 

compliance is uncertain because most anglers were found to be unaware of the rule (Sawchuck 2012). In 

addition, effective enforcement of the 120-foot (36.6-m) rule is challenging because of the large spatial 

area which it covers, and the rule does not address recreational and commercial fisheries targeting 

salmon, shrimp, or halibut. Releasing rockfish at-depth with a descending device likely reduces mortality, 

but a recent survey found that only 3 percent of anglers report releasing rockfish bycatch at-depth within 

Puget Sound (Sawchuk 2012). There is emerging evidence that long-term survival of yelloweye rockfish 

and bocaccio released at-depth and with barotrauma is good, and in one study female yelloweye rockfish 

were found to be reproductively viable after recompression (Blain 2014). However, there are many 

variables that may influence long-term survival of rockfish after recompression, such as angler experience 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 86

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

and handling, thermal shock, and depth of capture (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; 

Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011). 

Recreational and commercial fisheries in the Canadian portion of the DPSs may retain limited numbers of 

rockfish. Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) were designated in 30 percent of inside Vancouver Island 

rockfish habitat in 2007, and though commercial compliance with them is high, recreational compliance 

with them may be low (Haggarty 2014). Cloutier (2011) documented 1.6 times the number of rockfish in 

RCAs compared to outside unprotected areas and Frid et al. (2016) saw abundance and size increases of 

several rockfish species, including yelloweye rockfish, in central British Columbia RCAs; overall, it is 

likely that the RCAs in Canada are too recently established to determine their overall effectiveness, 

though compliance is thought to be an issue with their effectiveness thus far (Haggarty 2014). Compared 

to fished areas, studies have found higher fish densities, sizes, or reproductive activity in the assessed 

WDFW marine reserves (Palsson and Pacunski 1995; Palsson 1997; Eisenhardt 2001; Palsson et al. 

2004). However, because most reserves in Puget Sound were established over several decades with 

unique and somewhat unrelated ecological goals, and encompass relatively small areas (average of 23

acres), the net effect of existing reserves to listed rockfish abundance, productivity, and spatial structure 

are probably very small (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, April 28, 2010). The San Juan Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge comprises 83 discrete areas throughout the archipelago that each have a 200-yard (182.9 m) 

prohibited entry buffer. Research has shown that these areas could act as an MPA but enforcement is 

inadequate to achieve that level of protection (Don 2002) and recent research has shown enforcement to

be one of the most important factors driving success of protected areas (Gill et al. 2017). 

The life history characteristics that make rockfish vulnerable to overfishing also make them good 

candidates for protection in MPAs (Yoklavich 1998), and rockfish and other species with similar life 

histories have been key species for protection in networks of MPAs that have been developed in several 

states and countries, particularly on the west coast of North America in Alaska; British Columbia, 

Canada; Oregon; California; and Baja California Sur, Mexico (Keller et al. 2014). Results from central 

California show that rockfish biomass increases in protected areas (Paddack and Estes 2000), though 

meaningful changes may occur more on the order of decades (2015).

Therefore, in the areas we have assessed to have remaining high risk of bycatch despite the regulations 

put into place by WDFW in 2010 to limit bycatch (areas are the San Juan Basin and the eastern Strait of 

Juan de Fuca (generally east of Port Angeles)) (Table 15), we recommend further assessing the need to 

establish marine protected or rockfish conservation areas to protect listed rockfish. If needed, rockfish 

conservation areas would potentially be created after a period of 5 years following release of this final 

recovery plan. These areas also have the most rockfish habitat. In other areas where additional 

information is needed, we recommend further assessment to determine whether spatial protection or other 

improved fisheries management protections are warranted. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 87

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 15. Detailed assessment for priorities for MPA/RCA establishment by Management Area.

Mgmt.

Unit

Fisheries 

w/ 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk1

Rec. 

Trips 

(Bottom

fish) 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. 

Trips 

(Halibut) 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. Trips 

(Salmon)

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. 

Trips 

(Other)

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Significant 

Regulations 

Affecting 

Rockfish 

Bycatch w/ 

Known High 

Compliance3

Spatial 

Isolation Risk

(Genetics + 

Geography) 4

Rockfish 

Habitat5

(sq. mi.)

Priority 

Ranking

Canada - - - - - - - - N/ARCA 

network 

exists

San 

Juan Is / 

Strait of 

Juan de 

Fuca

Halibut 

longline –

High risk;

Salmon 

fisheries –

Low risk

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Low risk

78,202

Moderate

risk

58,688 

High risk

436,977 

Moderate 

risk

15,489

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

Moderate 

genetic 

Moderate 

spatial

533 High

Main 

Basin

(includes

Whidbey

Basin)

Salmon 

fisheries –

Low risk

Halibut 

longline –

More 

information 

needed for 

assessment

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Low risk

109,228

Moderate 

risk

12,896 

Low risk

1,457,346 

Moderate 

risk

52,373

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

Moderate 

genetic 

Moderate 

spatial

361 Medium

South 

Sound

NA 30,102

Low risk

0 

N/A

122,933 

Low risk

16,237

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

High genetic

High spatial

102.4 Low

Hood 

Canal

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Low risk

3,028 

Low risk

132

Very Low 

risk

56,042 

Low risk

11,097

Unknown 

risk

Long-term 

WDFW 

recreational 

bottom fish 

closure; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

High genetic

High spatial

66.8 Low

1 Risk is rated by considering both risk of bycatch by fishery/fishing type and number of trips/effort for both commercial and recreational 

fisheries.

2 Includes 2010-2014 WDFW creel survey trip estimates. Risk is rated by considering both risk of bycatch by fishery and number of trips. 

3 In 2010, WDFW also put into place a no retention regulation and 120-ft. depth restriction while bottom fishing to decrease rockfish bycatch in 

recreational fisheries (this regulation is difficult to enforce, compliance is unknown, and it does not apply to fishers targeting halibut) and closed 

several commercial fisheries (see list in Recovery Plan, Section F, and full list of fisheries and bycatch risk in Section E, Table 6).

4 This column considers listed rockfish decline as a result of spatial and genetic isolation, which can exacerbate fisheries effects. Hood Canal and 

South Sound waters also both have long residency times and Hood Canal is subject to episodes of low dissolved oxygen. 

5

Includes nearshore and deepwater critical habitat prior to exclusions, designated in 2014 for each of the listed rockfish under section 4(a)(3)(A) 

of the ESA (79 Fed. Reg. 68041, November 13, 2014).

Note: recreational shrimp fisheries are not listed in the table. Though we assess this fishery to be low risk, further information about the risk of 

this fishery as well as the effects of the commercial fishery will be integrated into this assessment as it becomes available. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 88

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Habitat Relationships—The relationship between larval and post-settlement rockfish in the DPSs and 

their habitats is poorly understood and needs further research. Adult listed rockfish habitat usage in most 

of Puget Sound proper also needs further research and has been recently addressed through ROV surveys 

in collaboration with WDFW. Marine habitats have been degraded by chemical contamination, derelict 

fishing gear, dredge disposal, fill, nearshore degradation, poor water quality, and possibly mobile fishing 

gear such as bottom trawls (Drake et al. 2010; WDFW 2011). The protection and restoration of marine 

habitats—including structure such as nearshore kelp beds and rocky/complex benthic habitat—is 

warranted because these areas/features are necessary for listed rockfish recruitment and reproduction 

(Love et al. 1991; Palsson et al. 2009; Young et al. 2010; Springer et al. 2010). 

Public Involvement—Education, outreach, and public involvement are essential because support and 

participation from stakeholders are fundamental to successful conservation (Stankey and Shindler 2006). 

This support is particularly essential for management that relies largely upon self-regulation and selfreporting by user groups, such as occurs in recreational fisheries (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). In 

addition, continuing the inclusion of anglers, fishing guides, divers, the PSRFEF Oversight Committee,

and others in cooperative research will enable collection of additional information about listed rockfish 

and their habitats while helping foster trust and inclusion into recovery plan implementation.

B. PRIMARY FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES OF RECOVERY EFFORTS

The primary focus and objectives of the recovery effort collectively serve to address the gaps in our 

knowledge about listed rockfish and reduce threats so the recovery goals outlined in this plan have the 

greatest likelihood of being achieved. Additional details on aspects of the recovery effort by primary 

focus area can be found in the appendices, which are intended to facilitate implementation of actions. The 

recovery effort for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio will require a focus on several actions, some of 

which will be conducted concurrently and some of which will necessarily follow others.

Based on the key facts and assumptions and information regarding biology and threats, the recovery 

strategy focuses on research to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population abundance, 

distribution, diversity, genetics, demographics, and habitat associations. Better understanding of 

population characteristics and habitat associations, as well as the extent of some threats, is important to 

enable management for long-term survival and recovery of such long-lived species.

The recovery strategy calls for fishery management that improves accounting of bycatch and mortality 

rates consistent with rebuilding each species, expanded use of descending devices to reduce barotrauma, 

the establishment of Marine Reserves/Rockfish Conservation Areas where potential bycatch remains 

high, and focused enforcement of fisheries, particularly newly enacted regulations to protect listed 

rockfish. 

The recovery strategy also calls for the protection and restoration of listed rockfish habitat, including key 

habitats in the nearshore (< 98.4 ft [< 30 m]), and deep water (> 98.4 ft [> 30 m]) from threats such as 

derelict fishing gear, construction, hypoxia, and contaminants. Restoration actions include the removal of 

derelict fishing gear, rehabilitation of altered shorelines to improve rearing habitats, the production of 

rockfish prey species, and clean-up of contaminated sediments. Research on the effects of contaminants, 

ocean acidification, and other anthropogenic disturbances are important to understand changes to 

productivity and long-term survival of each species. Systematic surveys of listed rockfish populations will 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 89

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

enable observations of population changes over time, adjustment of management actions where 

warranted, and gauge attainment of the recovery criteria. Finally, this plan includes actions for enhancing 

public outreach and education, which is vital to garner long-term support for listed rockfish recovery. 

C. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

This plan calls for continued improvement of knowledge, checking assumptions, monitoring progress, 

and adjusting actions prior to and throughout implementation (Figure 14). The process of adaptive 

management—making decisions, implementing them, learning from the results of implementation, and 

adjusting decisions as necessary—is recognized as an important management tool (especially in data-poor 

scenarios) to reduce uncertainty over time. It will also safeguard against inaction and/or misdirection of 

funding and facilitate integration of the best available science into policy. 

Research is identified as a focus of the recovery strategy and, as new information is collected, it will 

inform implementation of the fishery, habitat, outreach, and funding strategies. We prioritize using 

adaptive management to: 1) assess rockfish population abundance, distribution, diversity, genetics, 

demographics, and habitat associations; 2) better understand the relative risk of threats to rockfish and 

abate their impact on recovery where possible; 3) take appropriate fisheries management, habitat research,

and protection actions; and 4) conduct a gap analysis to identify additional needed research, monitoring, 

policies, or funding. 

Figure 14. The Adaptive Management Process.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 90

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

IV. RECOVERY GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA

A. RECOVERY GOAL

The goal of this recovery plan is to improve yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio abundance, productivity,

and spatial structure in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin to viable and self-sustaining levels such that 

yelloweye rockfish can be removed from the Endangered Species List and bocaccio can be downlisted to 

threatened status and subsequently removed from the Endangered Species List.

B. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES

The first objective of the recovery plan is to continue to improve our knowledge of the current and 

historical status of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio and their habitats. This will be necessary so that 

populations can be characterized on a management unit basis and a detailed plan can be adaptively 

managed to carry out recovery actions in a way that will most efficiently achieve the delisting criteria. 

The second objective of the recovery plan is to reduce or eliminate existing threats to listed rockfish from 

fisheries and other anthropogenic threats.

The third objective of the recovery plan is to reduce or eliminate existing threats to listed rockfish habitats 

and restore important rockfish habitat.

C. RECOVERY CRITERIA

In order to determine when recovery objectives have been achieved, we must provide, to the maximum 

extent practicable, objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin should be removed from the 

Endangered Species List. Recovery criteria need to be established for each recovery objective and must 

provide evidence that the greatest threats have been eliminated or controlled and are unlikely to return if 

protections provided under the ESA are removed.

There is some uncertainty in our knowledge regarding anthropogenic and natural factors that could 

potentially be limiting yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. It may be possible to recover listed rockfish 

without addressing additional potential threats with uncertain impacts. If the greatest known threats are 

addressed and a positive response in population demographics is not observed, then additional threatbased objectives and criteria may need to be developed.

The criteria are organized into two categories: Biological and Demographic Recovery Criteria, which 

encompass principles of abundance, distribution, productivity, and genetic diversity, and Threat-based 

Recovery Criteria, which address the greatest known threats impeding recovery. The best available 

information must be used in order to ascertain whether the species has met the recovery criteria and 

qualifies for delisting or downlisting.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 91

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Recovery Criteria—Background

A decision to list or delist a species focuses on its biological performance and the threats to its continued 

existence. Our approach to developing objective, measurable criteria focuses on two areas: performance 

of the population over a defined period of time (biological criteria) and the reduction of threats that may 

have caused the population decline or that limit recovery (threats criteria). In order to propose 

downlisting/delisting a species, we conduct a review of both the biological criteria and threats criteria. In 

practicality, conducting this dual assessment would occur when yelloweye rockfish or bocaccio of the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are found to be approaching the biological criteria as a result of systematic 

surveys and other applicable information about the population characteristics.

The following sections provide the basis for the criteria and set out objective, measurable criteria for 

delisting and downlisting. Under the ESA, we must, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate the 

recovery plan criteria, which when met would result in a determination that the species be removed from 

the list. There is one set of biological and threats-based criteria to downlist bocaccio and one set of each 

criteria to delist bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish. Each species will be evaluated separately.

Introduction—Assessing Progress in Meeting Biologically Based Delisting Criteria

We identify listed rockfish population characteristics in terms of population status that would contribute 

to long-term viability, support delisting/downlisting decisions, and account for uncertainties. To inform 

these population characteristics, we assessed the best available information regarding Sebastes population 

recovery off the Pacific Coast managed under rebuilding plans (Pacific Fishery Management Council

2014). Yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio populations outside of the DPSs’ area have each begun to rebuild 

from levels below 25 percent of initial unfished biomass (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2014;

NMFS 2017). The rebuilding of these rockfish populations has demonstrated that biomass levels ranging 

from 10 percent to 20 percent of initial, unfished biomass can impart sufficient resiliency to maintain and 

grow population levels (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2014). While biomass is not measurable for 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio within the DPSs’ area, we instead look at the potential spawning 

capacity. Delisting targets for yelloweye rockfish range from 15 percent to 25 percent of Spawning 

Potential Ratio (SPR). The downlisting target for bocaccio is 10 percent of SPR, and 15 percent to 25 

percent SPR for delisting.

Data Sources: To measure whether the biological-based criteria for listed rockfish are being met, we will 

need to sample listed rockfish with systematic surveys conducted at least every 5 years at to-bedetermined sites in each of the management units in the U.S. portion of the DPSs’ ranges. We will work 

with the government of Canada to develop/review complementary surveys in the Canadian portion of the 

DPS. In waters of the U.S. portion of the DPSs, this information will likely primarily come from fisheryindependent information through ROV surveys, but additional observations through other research types 

or fisheries bycatch reports could provide very useful information.

The biological-based population characteristics are discussed separately below, but nonetheless overlap in 

terms of gauging population viability. 

Productivity (as a proxy for biomass recovery): The productivity of listed rockfish can be measured in 

several different ways, and additional metrics may be developed or refined in the future as data streams 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 92

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

change. A commonly used biological reference point applicable to rockfish is spawning potential ratio 

(SPR), calculated as:

SPR =

Total Egg ProductionFished

Total Egg ProductionUnfished

5

Changes in SPR through time provide insight into population viability and recovery trajectory. The 

calculation of SPR typically requires estimates of the current fishing mortality (F), natural mortality (M),

age and growth parameters, and maturity (and selectivity is typically estimated) at age. While these 

parameters are often inputs or estimates from data-rich stock assessments, more data-limited SPR 

estimators have been developed to account for uncertainties of the sampled population. Hordyk et al.

(2015a, 2015b) have developed a method (length-based SPR or LB-SPR) for identifying SPR using

length data and ratios of life history and fishing related parameters (M/k and Lm/L∞) without knowledge 

of the individual parameters where M is natural mortality, k is growth rate, Lm is length at maturity, and 

L∞ is maximum length. Length data may be taken from any number of sampling approaches, including

ROV surveys and fishing. This approach calculates the current population’s spawning potential compared 

to a theoretically unfished population’s spawning potential. SPR is the ratio of both values over defined 

time periods and is the biological criterion for delisting yelloweye rockfish and downlisting/delisting

bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs.

Measuring Historical SPR: The calculation of historical SPR is not necessary for the purposes of 

delisting or downlisting species, but still provides useful information on past population status or trends

and habitats occupied (where available). As mentioned above, there is limited historical/unfished 

population data for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio from within the DPSs’ area. Known historical size 

structure data for listed rockfish is summarized in Drake et al. (2010) and Washington et al. (1978). Data 

summarized in Drake et al. (2010) show the length of each species of fish caught in recreational fisheries 

over several time periods beginning in the 1970s. Washington et al. (1978) reported length data from 

research using recreational fishing methods from 1974 to 1977. LB-SPR can be applied to all available 

years of data to compare historical SPR to current SPR.

Spatial Structure: Relative presence (and population characteristics) of listed rockfish within each of the 

management units is a metric to gauge population viability. The first step to gauge the potential change of 

spatial structure/distribution of listed rockfish is to determine the amount of rockfish habitat and, in turn,

how much of it is occupied. Rockfish habitat has been estimated in Canada (Yamanaka and Logan 2010) 

and within the rest of the management units in the U.S. via critical habitat designation (79 Fed. Reg.

68041, November 13, 2014). Also, see the details of habitat mapping projects noted in the Cooperative 

Research section above. Habitat valuation will be improved with additional surveys and the development 

of a habitat suitability model to provide a more sophisticated understanding of listed rockfish habitat.

Spatial structure/distribution will be assessed through the systematic surveys to be developed across the 

U.S. portion of the DPSs, and will provide information on presence/absence, life stage, and productivity 

of listed rockfish across a range of habitats. This data will be used to calculate LB-SPR, in addition to 

similar data that may be gathered through fisheries or other research efforts.

 

5 Equation taken from Hordyk et al. 2015a
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 93

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Diversity (Demographic Structure): Population viability is enhanced with multiple size and age classes 

of fish because this allows the species to use a wider array of environments, which protects a species 

against short-term spatial and temporal changes in the environment. Length-based measurements assist in 

gauging changes in a population’s diversity over time for delisting/downlisting. The proportion of listed 

rockfish in each management unit and as an aggregate DPS identified as young-of-year, juveniles, and 

adults are captured through length-based estimate data to be used in SPR calculations.

Summary of Approach: For yelloweye rockfish we have separate target levels for each population (Hood

Canal and the rest of the DPS). Each population must reach specified target levels for delisting 

consideration of the DPS. We utilize more conservative population target levels for yelloweye rockfish in 

Hood Canal because they occupy a spatially isolated environment and have less habitat area available 

than the rest of the DPS population. For yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio we provide generalized 

scenarios to gauge population status as part of determining delisting/downlisting criteria for each species 

(see Tables 16 through 19 below). We identify different levels of SPR and time that if they are reached,

would provide sufficient population viability for each species (in association with an assessment of the 

threats-based criteria) for delisting/downlisting.

The minimum time at SPR target level, number of sampling events, and 80 percent probability level (or 

confidence interval) collectively provide a precautious metric to ensure that biologically based criteria are 

measured and interpreted in a systematic and conservative manner, and thus reduce the likelihood of overestimating the SPR of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 

Introduction—Assessing Progress in Meeting Threats-based Delisting Criteria

The threats criteria are designed to address the five statutory listing factors (see Section E. Factors

Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing) described in the ESA listing determination for each species. 

These same factors must be considered in delisting, with objectives related to each factor included as part 

of the recovery criteria. Because listed rockfish live in deep waters and are difficult to sample, we may 

rely on surrogate rockfish species from within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin in certain sections. The 

downlisting criteria for bocaccio generally require completed research and/or that programs are in place to 

understand, limit, and mitigate threats. The delisting criteria for both yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio 

require that the threats are found to not limit recovery of the listed species.

Yelloweye Rockfish

Table 16. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (non-Hood Canal population).

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 15% (and increasing 

after first sampling 

event finds 15%)

25 years, (no less than five systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario B 20 to 24% 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario C 25% (and above) 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 94

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 17. Yelloweye rockfish biological-based delisting criteria (Hood Canal population).

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 20 to 24% 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario B 25% (and above) 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Yelloweye Rockfish Threats-based Delisting Criteria (applicable to both populations)

Listing Factor 1: Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

A. Derelict Fishing Gear (i.e., shrimp pots, fishing nets). Programs are in place to 

facilitate and require reporting, preventing, and promptly removing derelict fishing 

gear that has been demonstrated to result in bycatch or result in harm to yelloweye

rockfish and yelloweye rockfish habitat.

B. Contaminants/Bioaccumulants. Contaminant levels in yelloweye rockfish, prey 

species, or surrogate rockfish populations (i.e., quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger) 

in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin indicate a reduction or slowing of accumulation 

of legacy contaminants, such as PCBs and DDTs. This could include data showing 

that overall contaminant levels in the population are decreasing or accumulation is 

slowing, or information that younger fish have a proportionally reduced contaminant 

load. A decrease in the number of contaminated sites would also indicate a reduction 

in contaminants in a portion of the habitat of yelloweye rockfish.

C. Nutrients. Management actions and programs are in place to prevent and reduce 

nutrient inputs. The effects of nutrient inputs (food chain, hypoxia) are not found to 

be limiting recovery.

D. Invasive species/Non-native Species. Invasive species that can affect habitat (e.g., 

tunicates, seaweeds, others) are found to be not limiting recovery. Programs are in 

place to remove or mitigate the effects of invasive species on yelloweye rockfish

and yelloweye rockfish habitat.

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes.

A. Bycatch/Catch. Yelloweye rockfish are protected from bycatch/catch by fishery 

regulations and research permitting sufficient to support maintenance and 

enhancement of abundance, LB-SPR/biomass, spatial structure, and diversity

(bycatch/catch can be reliably estimated from empirical data sources). Bycatch is 

mitigated when it occurs (i.e., use of descending devices and safe handling 

techniques).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 95

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Listing Factor 3: Disease/Predation

A. Disease. Sufficient knowledge exists to determine that disease and parasite effects on 

productivity and survival are not currently limiting yelloweye rockfish recovery. 

B. Predation. Monitor for possible predation on yelloweye rockfish that impedes 

population maintenance and growth. Conclusions are drawn that predation is not

limiting recovery of yelloweye rockfish populations.

Listing Factor 4: Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms

A. Habitat. Programs are in place to protect, and restore where necessary, rearing and 

adult habitats.

B. Fisheries. Enforcement adequately controls bycatch and poaching. 

C. Contaminants/Bioaccumulants. Regulations are in place to limit the introduction of 

harmful contaminants and remove large, known areas of contaminated sediments. 

There is evidence of decreasing levels of contaminants detected in yelloweye 

rockfish, prey species, or surrogate rockfish populations (i.e., quillback rockfish, 

Sebastes maliger) in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, or evidence that the current 

level of contaminants is not limiting recovery.

Listing Factor 5: Other Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence

A. Hatchery Releases. Research has been carried out to determine if/how hatcheryreleased fish (i.e., salmon) affect yelloweye rockfish recovery. Any releases that are 

determined to be harmful to recovery potential are subsequently controlled or 

mitigated. 

B. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Research has been undertaken to better 

understand and adapt to deleterious effects of climate change and ocean acidification. 

Action has been taken to limit deleterious effects on yelloweye rockfish, or the 

deleterious effects of climate change and ocean acidification have been slowed or 

reversed or determined unlikely to limit their recovery. 

C. Oil Spills. Effective oil spill prevention and response plans are in place for the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin (i.e., the Northwest Area Contingency Plan).

D. Genetic Changes. Research has been conducted to understand the extent of 

inbreeding and hybridization on the listed species, and neither have been found to be 

limiting yelloweye rockfish recovery. 

Long-term Monitoring Criteria

A long-term monitoring plan and criteria will be developed as part of any proposal to delist the 

species. We recommend that potential criteria take into consideration the long generation times of 

the listed species.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 96

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Bocaccio

Table 18. Bocaccio biological-based downlisting criteria.

Overall Minimum

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

10% and increasing 15 years (no less than four systematic sampling events with 

80% probability)

Bocaccio Threats-based Downlisting Criteria

Listing Factor 1: Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

A. Nearshore habitats. Nearshore nursery habitats are protected from adverse 

development and are determined to be of sufficient size and quality to provide 

adequate food, shelter, and other essential requirements for juvenile bocaccio.

B. Derelict Fishing Gear (i.e., shrimp pots, fishing nets). Programs are in place to 

facilitate and require reporting, preventing, and promptly removing derelict fishing 

gear that has been demonstrated to result in bycatch or result in harm to bocaccio and 

bocaccio habitat.

C. Contaminants/Bioaccumulants. Contaminant levels in bocaccio, prey species, or 

surrogate rockfish populations (i.e., quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger) in the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin that indicate a reduction or slowing of accumulation of 

legacy contaminants, such as PCBs and DDTs. This could include data showing that 

overall contaminant levels in the population are decreasing or accumulation is 

slowing, or information that younger fish have a proportionally reduced contaminant 

load. A decrease in the number of contaminated sites would also indicate a reduction 

in contaminants in a portion of the habitat of bocaccio.

D. Nutrients. Management actions and programs are in place to prevent and reduce 

nutrient inputs. 

E. Invasive species/Non-native Species. Research has been conducted to assess the 

effects of invasive species on bocaccio and bocaccio habitat (e.g., tunicates, 

seaweeds, others). 

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes. 

A. Bycatch/Catch. Bocaccio are protected from bycatch/catch by fishery regulations and 

research permitting sufficient to support maintenance and enhancement of 

abundance, LB-SPR/biomass, spatial structure, and diversity (bycatch/catch can be 

reliably estimated from empirical data sources). Bycatch is mitigated when it occurs 

(i.e., use of descending devices and safe handling techniques).

Listing Factor 3: Disease/Predation

A. Disease. Research has been conducted to assess the effects of disease and parasites 

on the productivity and survival of bocaccio.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 97

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

B. Predation. Monitor for possible predation on bocaccio that impedes population 

maintenance and growth.

Listing Factor 4: Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms

A. Habitat. Programs are in place to protect, and restore where necessary, rearing and 

adult habitats.

B. Fisheries. Enforcement adequately controls bycatch and poaching. 

C. Contaminants/Bioaccumulants. Regulations are in place to limit the introduction of 

harmful contaminants and remove large, known areas of contaminated sediments. 

Listing Factor 5: Other Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence

A. Hatchery Releases. Research has been carried out to determine if/how hatcheryreleased fish (i.e., salmon) affect bocaccio recovery.

B. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Research has been undertaken to better 

understand and adapt to deleterious effects of climate change and ocean acidification. 

C. Oil Spills. Effective oil spill prevention and response plans are in place for the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin (i.e., the Northwest Area Contingency Plan).

D. Genetic Changes. Research has been conducted to understand the extent of 

inbreeding and hybridization on bocaccio.

Table 19. Bocaccio biological-based delisting criteria.

Overall Minimum 

Productivity (SPR) Minimum Time at Target

Scenario A 15% (and increasing 

after first sampling 

event finds 15%)

15 years, (no less than four systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario B 20% and above 10 years (no less than three systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Scenario C 25% and above 5 years (no less than two systematic sampling events with 80% 

probability)

Bocaccio Threats-based Delisting Criteria

Listing Factor 1: Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range

A. Nearshore habitats. Nearshore nursery habitats are protected from adverse 

development and are determined to be of sufficient size and quality to provide 

adequate food, shelter, and other essential requirements for juvenile bocaccio, such 

that population abundance can increase.

B. Derelict Fishing Gear (i.e., shrimp pots, fishing nets). Programs are in place to 

facilitate and require reporting, preventing, and promptly removing derelict fishing 

gear that has been demonstrated to result in bycatch or result in harm to bocaccio and 

bocaccio habitat.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 98

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

C. Contaminants. Contaminant levels in bocaccio, prey species, or surrogate rockfish 

populations (i.e., quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger) in the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin that indicate a reduction or slowing of accumulation of legacy contaminants, 

such as PCBs and DDTs. This could include data showing that overall contaminant 

levels in the population are decreasing or accumulation is slowing, or information 

that younger fish have a proportionally reduced contaminant load. A decrease in the 

number of contaminated sites would also indicate a reduction in contaminants in a 

portion of the habitat of bocaccio.

D. Nutrients. Management actions and programs are in place to prevent and reduce 

nutrient inputs. The effects of nutrient inputs (food chain, hypoxia) are not found to 

be limiting recovery.

E. Invasive species/Non-native Species. Research has been conducted to assess the 

effects of invasive species on bocaccio and bocaccio habitat (e.g., tunicates, 

seaweeds, others). Effects are found to not limit recovery, or programs are in place to 

remove or mitigate the effects of invasive species on bocaccio and bocaccio habitat.

Listing Factor 2: Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes. 

B. Bycatch/Catch. Bocaccio are protected from bycatch/catch by fishery regulations and 

research permitting sufficient to support maintenance and enhancement of 

abundance, LB-SPR/biomass, spatial structure, and diversity (bycatch/catch can be 

reliably estimated from empirical data sources). Bycatch is mitigated when it occurs 

(i.e., use of descending devices and safe handling techniques).

Listing Factor 3: Disease/Predation

A. Disease. Research has been conducted to assess the effects of disease and parasites 

on the productivity and survival of bocaccio. The effects have been determined to not 

limit recovery of bocaccio.

B. Predation. Monitor for possible predation on bocaccio that impedes population 

maintenance and growth. Conclusions are drawn that predation is not unduly limiting 

recovery of bocaccio.

Listing Factor 4: Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms

D. Habitat. Programs are in place to protect, and restore where necessary, rearing and 

adult habitats. 

E. Fisheries. Enforcement adequately controls bycatch and poaching. 

F. Contaminants/Bioaccumulants. Regulations are in place to limit the introduction of 

harmful contaminants and remove large, known areas of contaminated sediments. 

There is evidence of decreasing levels of contaminants detected in bocaccio, prey 

species, or surrogate rockfish populations (i.e., quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger) 

in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, or evidence that the current level of contaminants 

is not limiting recovery.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 99

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Listing Factor 5: Other Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence

E. Hatchery Releases. Research has been carried out to determine if/how hatcheryreleased fish (i.e., salmon) affect bocaccio recovery. Any releases that are determined 

to be harmful to recovery potential are subsequently controlled or mitigated. 

F. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Research has been undertaken to better 

understand and adapt to deleterious effects of climate change and ocean acidification. 

Action has been taken to limit deleterious effects on bocaccio, or the deleterious 

effects of climate change and ocean acidification have been slowed or reversed or 

determined unlikely to limit their recovery. 

G. Oil Spills. Effective oil spill prevention and response plans are in place for the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin (i.e., the Northwest Area Contingency Plan).

H. Genetic Changes. Research has been conducted to understand the extent of 

inbreeding and hybridization on the listed species, and neither have been found to be 

limiting recovery. 

Long-term Monitoring Criteria

A long-term monitoring plan and criteria will be developed as part of any proposal to delist the 

species. We recommend that potential criteria take into consideration the long generation times of

the listed species.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 100

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

V. RECOVERY PROGRAM

We developed a list of specific recovery actions to implement the Recovery Strategy and ensure that 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio reach a spatially and demographically viable state. The recovery actions 

are intended to increase abundance, support healthy demographic structure and diversity, protect and 

restore habitat, and sufficiently alleviate the past, current, and potential future threats. Because of the

general lack of information regarding listed rockfish abundance and distribution, and regarding some of 

the threats these species face, the following recovery program provides research and recovery actions to 

fill key data gaps and address the most significant threats during the first 5 years (Phase I). 

Phase I will include:

1. Research to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population abundance, distribution, 

diversity, genetics, demographics, ecology, and habitat associations (some actions are already 

underway or have been completed).

2. Fisheries research, monitoring, and management consistent with recovery goals.

3. Protection, restoration, and research of rockfish habitats and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

ecosystem on which they rely.

4. Implementation of an education, outreach, and public involvement plan (Appendix I).

5. Securing public support and funding for listed rockfish recovery.

Phase II (years 5 through 15) will include:

A continuation of Phase I actions 1 through 5 and address lower priority habitat threats. 

This recovery plan details an outline and narrative that describes the recovery actions that, once 

implemented, should achieve the goal of recovering yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. Specifically, these 

actions will provide demographic data needed to assess the populations and address the greatest threats to 

promote recovery. These threats were ranked as high, medium, low, or unknown for overall risk in the 

threats assessment. If these recovery actions are fully implemented and recovery of listed rockfish

recovery is not achieved, then it is likely that additional threats that are currently ranked lower may need

to be re-assessed and addressed in the future (Phase II). In order to better understand and develop specific

recovery actions for the remaining threats, it is imperative to develop and implement a comprehensive 

long-term research plan. Most actions apply to both yelloweye and bocaccio and we identify where 

actions apply to whole DPSs or particular Management Units. Some actions could be conducted in one 

Management Unit (such as telemetry studies), but nonetheless inform management throughout the DPSs.

An Implementation Schedule follows the recovery action outline and narrative. It provides a summary of 

the actions, prioritizes them, identifies lead entities and potential partners to carry out the actions, and 

provides an estimate of rockfish recovery program costs over a 5-year period (Phase I). For the high 

priority actions, we have developed more detailed appendices to help guide recovery implementation, 

research, and adaptive management. The recovery actions are identified in the outline and narrative, and 

detailed information about the threats and opportunities, tools, and research needed are detailed in the 

appendices. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 101

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

A. RECOVERY ACTION OUTLINE

Step-down Outline.

This outline serves to summarize research and recovery actions needed to meet the goals and objectives of 

the recovery plan. 

Recovery Action 1. Research to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population 

abundance, distribution, diversity, genetics, demographics, ecology, and 

habitat associations.

1.1 Fishery-independent surveys of abundance, distribution, and size-structure in the nearshore and 

deepwater environments, with identification of index survey sites and long-term survey 

methodology in each Management Unit in U.S. waters.

1.1.1 Surveys every 5 years in each Management Unit to observe changes in population 

abundance, distribution, diversity, demographics, and habitat associations, which will 

inform adaptive management and support delisting/downlisting considerations. 

1.2 Improved benthic habitat mapping and rockfish habitat characterization, prioritizing 

management units of Hood Canal, South Sound, and Main Basin.

1.2.1 Benthic habitat mapping and rockfish habitat characterization will be used to develop a 

probabilistic habitat model to assess spatial structure and support recovery actions, and 

potentially evaluate progress toward achieving delisting or downlisting for the DPSs.

1.2.2 Supplementary multibeam data collection will be needed to understand habitat 

characteristics and listed rockfish habitat associations throughout the DPSs. Though this 

has been done in some areas, further data collection is required. 

1.3 Assessment of historical fishing and scientific records and historical “grey literature” for the 

DPSs.

1.3.1 Develop statistical methods to integrate these multiple sources of historical data on 

rockfish size structure and abundance to establish an understanding of baseline 

abundance and size structure.

1.4 Periodically assess genetic structure in DPSs to inform effective dispersal distances, population

size, and variance in reproductive success.

1.4.1 Develop a model to determine genetic thresholds of inbreeding and hybridization within 

the DPSs.

1.5 Annual juvenile (YOY) rockfish surveys in each of the Management Units.

1.6 Larval surveys in each Management Unit.

1.6.1 Surveys will be used to assist the development of a connectivity model.

1.7 Assess home range and movement of various life stages of listed rockfish via tagging or other 

methods.

1.8 Develop population models to evaluate critical life stages dictating rockfish population growth.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 102

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.9 Develop and assess statistical methods for integrating multiple sources of data on rockfish size 

structure and abundance (i.e., ROV surveys, drop camera surveys, fisheries information, etc.)

into informative indices of current trends in rockfish size and abundance.

1.10 Conduct and/or assess comparative studies of rockfish abundance and demographic structure 

inside and outside established marine reserves/MPAs.

Recovery Action 2. Fisheries management consistent with recovery goals.

2.1 Account for all catch and bycatch within the DPSs with statistically valid techniques.

2.1.1. Further assess fisheries in the DPSs by integrating ongoing ROV survey data, compliance 

with existing regulations, and additional bycatch risk data. 

2.2 Ensure that anthropogenic mortality falls within accepted risk-averse precautionary guidelines 

at appropriate scales(note that this includes the use of devices to mitigate barotrauma and 

research of long-term survival).

2.3 Potentially establish marine reserves and/or rockfish conservation areas (areas not subject to 

potential anthropogenic mortality) in prioritized areas in the U.S. portion of the DPSs.

2.3.1 Monitoring and adaptive management of established areas to assess and improve their 

efficacy.

2.4 Conduct further research on bycatch to develop and implement measures to avoid and mitigate 

barotrauma and other sources of bycatch mortality.

2.5 Assess long-term survival and productivity of recompressed yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in 

the wild and take appropriate management actions to improve recompression practices, if 

appropriate.

2.6 Additional enforcement of fishery regulations with emphasis on reducing listed rockfish 

mortality.

Recovery Action 3. Protection, restoration, and research of rockfish habitats and the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem on which they rely.

3.1 Nearshore (< 98.4 feet [30 m]) protection, research, and restoration.

3.1.1. Continue programs to prevent, report, and remove derelict fishing gear from nearshore 

environments.

3.1.2 Assess potential of native kelp restoration projects and pursue restoration projects as 

applicable.

3.1.3 Assess non-indigenous species (e.g., Sargassum muticum, Japanese wireweed, and 

tunicates, Ciona savignyi, S. clava, and D. vexillum) to determine if they are degrading

or impairing rearing habitats such that they are limiting recovery. 

3.2 Protection, research, and restoration of deepwater (> 98.4 feet [30 m]) benthic habitats.

3.2.1 Continue programs to prevent, report, and remove derelict fishing gear from deepwater 

environments.

3.2.2 Continue to assess sediment disposal practices to determine if they are limiting recovery. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 103

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.2.3 Assess and determine if the additional habitat created by artificial reefs is 

necessary/sufficient to support listed rockfish recovery.

3.3 Assess the impact of contaminants and bioaccumulants (including emerging contaminants such 

as microplastics) on listed rockfish survival, health, productivity, and behavior.

3.3.1 Clean up or cap contaminated sediments and reduce contaminant inputs, emphasizing the 

South Puget Sound and Main Basin.

3.4 Prevent and reduce excessive nutrient input (e.g., from septic systems and other human sources) 

with emphasis in the South Puget Sound, Main Basin, and Hood Canal. 

3.5 Develop ecological models to evaluate critical life stages dictating rockfish population growth, 

understand the potential impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on rockfish 

population dynamics, and assess the potential for predation and competition to limit listed

rockfish recovery. 

3.5.1 Predict, assess, and manage for habitat changes as related to climate change and ocean 

acidification and synergistic effects in the DPSs.

3.5.2 Determine conditions under which predation could limit recovery.

3.5.3 Determine the potential for interspecific competition to limit recovery within the DPSs 

using field studies, experimentation, and modeling. 

3.6 Assess disease and parasites to determine if it is limiting recovery of the DPSs.

3.7 Assess the effects of hatchery salmon releases (as warranted) to determine if they are limiting 

recovery of the listed rockfish species.

3.8 Evaluate effects of anthropogenic noise on listed rockfish behavior and productivity to 

determine if it is limiting recovery.

3.9 Continue oil spill prevention and response within the DPSs.

3.10 Continue state and Federal review of permitted activities to minimize impacts to rockfish 

habitats and their prey base.

3.11 Continue to enforce habitat protection laws and regulations; improve as warranted to protect 

rockfish habitat.

Recovery Action 4. Implement education, outreach, and public involvement plan.

4.1 Improve rockfish identification and documentation of bycatch by recreational and commercial 

fishers.

4.2 Encourage rockfish catch avoidance and educate anglers why it is a preferred conservation 

measure. Increase use of descending devices to mitigate barotraumas.

4.3 Improve knowledge of rockfish life history and habitat usage, the role rockfish play in the Puget 

Sound ecosystem, and current efforts to recover rockfish.

4.4 Improve understanding of rockfish fishing regulations.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 104

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

4.5 Continue the Cooperative Research Program and create an Innovative Fishing Program and 

other outreach projects to further cooperative fishing research, and fishers’, scuba divers’, and 

the publics’ engagement in rockfish recovery.

Recovery Action 5. Secure public support and funding for listed rockfish recovery.

5.1 Seek a variety of funding sources, including Federal, state, and private grants over a long time 

frame.

5.2 Establish collaborative research and cooperative funding agreements among state, Federal,

tribal, university, and private entities.

B. RECOVERY NARRATIVE

This section provides additional context to the research and recovery outlines above. Note that the asterisk 

(*) corresponds to the highest priority level in the implementation schedule.

Recovery Action 1. Research to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population 

abundance, distribution, diversity, genetics, demographics, ecology, and habitat associations. Our 

understanding of current and historical rockfish abundance, distribution, genetics, demographics, and 

habitat associations in most Management Units is currently limited. Understanding of each of these 

elements is required to address critical information gaps and assess the status of the population, evaluate 

and refine delisting and downlisting criteria, assist in evaluating proposed Federal actions under ESA 

section 7 jeopardy analyses, and track progress towards attaining recovery goals. Many of these actions 

will be conducted in partnership with WDFW and other agencies and partners, as appropriate. 

1.1. Fishery-independent surveys of abundance, distribution, and size structure in the 

nearshore and deepwater environments, with possible identification of index survey sites in 

each Management Unit in U.S. waters.* WDFW and NMFS will design an ROV survey 

program that focuses on listed rockfish and their habitat, in addition to obtaining information for 

other ecosystem component species. Observation and surveys of yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio adults are challenging because adults are found in deep waters (normally from 90 to 

1,394 feet [30 to 425 m]) occurring in or around complex bathymetry. Analogous population 

monitoring should be continued in Canadian waters as well. These surveys are necessary to 

assess the status of the DPSs, evaluate and refine delisting and downlisting criteria and critical 

habitat, and conduct section 7 jeopardy analyses.

1.1.1 Surveys should be conducted every 5 years in each Management Unit to observe 

changes in population abundance, distribution, diversity, genetics, demographics, 

and habitat associations to inform adaptive management and assess the status of 

the DPSs.* ROV surveys may be used in combination with drop camera or other 

surveys.

1.2. Improved benthic habitat mapping and rockfish habitat characterization, prioritizing 

Management Units of Hood Canal, South Sound, and Main Basin.* Habitat mapping is 

required to assess the status of the DPSs, provide information needed to conduct efficient ROV 

surveys, and help develop a probabilistic habitat model. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 105

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.2.1 Benthic habitat mapping and rockfish habitat characterization will be used to 

develop a probabilistic habitat model to assess spatial structure/distribution and 

support recovery actions, and potentially evaluate progress toward achieving

delisting or downlisting for the DPSs.* The model will integrate habitat characteristics 

within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin and historical and contemporary locations of 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. It will provide a habitat suitability gradient (or similar 

metric).

1.2.2 Supplementary multibeam data collection will be needed to understand habitat and 

listed rockfish habitat associations throughout the DPSs.* Though this has been done 

in some areas, mainly near the San Juan Island archipelago, further data collection is 

required.

1.3 Assessment of historical fishing and scientific records and historical “grey literature” for 

the DPSs.* Historical abundance and distribution of listed rockfish is poorly understood, and 

assessing recovery will be improved by understanding past trends.

1.3.1 Development of statistical methods for integrating multiple sources of historical 

data on rockfish size structure and abundance.* This product will enable an 

understanding of baseline abundance and size structure. 

1.4 Assess genetic structure, determine effective dispersal distances, population size, and 

variance in reproductive success.* Genetic analysis, particularly of bocaccio, will help define 

possible metapopulation structure in addition to assessing the boundaries of the DPSs’ ranges

and potential introgression with fish from outside of the DPS (as applicable). A non-lethal 

assessment of genetic structure may also be used to determine effective dispersal and 

population size. 

1.4.1 Develop a model to determine genetic thresholds of inbreeding and hybridization 

within the DPSs. This will enable an assessment of the viability of the DPSs.

1.5 Annual juvenile (YOY) rockfish surveys in each of the Management Units.* These surveys

will be necessary for understanding primary rearing locations, habitat threats, and restoration 

opportunities. Frequent surveys (e.g., at least every other year) will provide documentation of 

both episodically successful settlement events and the more common years in which little 

settlement occurs.

1.6 Larval surveys in each Management Unit. Surveys will help determine larval abundance, 

dispersal, connectivity, and seasonal and interannual abundance. 

1.6.1 Surveys could be used to develop a connectivity model.

1.7 Assess home range and movement of various life stages of listed rockfish via tagging or 

other methods.* Home range and movement of listed rockfish, particularly bocaccio, is poorly 

understood within the DPSs. This assessment would aid in the development of the habitat 

model to assess the population as well as inform fisheries management. 

1.8 Develop population models to evaluate critical life stages dictating rockfish population 

growth.* Better understanding of which life stages confer the most benefit to the population 

will help us better understand what life stages to prioritize in conservation efforts.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 106

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.9 Develop and assess statistical methods for integrating multiple sources of data on rockfish 

size structure and abundance into informative indices of current trends in rockfish size 

and abundance.* Recent methods to assess rockfish size structure and abundance vary (e.g., 

ROV surveys, drop camera surveys, fisheries information, etc.). Combining these methods to 

provide estimates on rockfish size structure and abundance may inform delisting and 

downlisting criteria, as well as delisting and downlisting decisions.

1.10 Conduct and/or assess comparative studies of rockfish abundance and demographic 

structure inside and outside established marine reserves/MPAs.* Scientifically established, 

well-enforced marine reserves have been shown to protect structure of reproducing rockfish, 

increase abundance and diversity, and have beneficial effects that may spill over outside the 

reserve areas. Few studies in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are available to conduct beforeafter/control-experiment studies or to assess present efficacy and placement of current reserves.

Recovery Action 2. Fisheries management consistent with recovery goals. To limit listed rockfish 

bycatch, current fisheries management, enforcement, and data collection needs to be improved. Available 

data is insufficient for determining the relative threat of some commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Many of these actions will be conducted in cooperation with Puget Sound Treaty Tribes, WDFW, and 

other parties, as appropriate. 

2.1 Account for all catch and bycatch within the DPSs with statistically valid techniques.*

Estimates of listed rockfish bycatch in recreational and some commercial fisheries needs 

improvement. Within the recreational fishery, studies in the Salish Sea have found that anglers 

have under-reported their bycatch of rockfish (and other species) and also have difficulty 

identifying rockfish to species. These studies highlight the uncertainty in current self-reported 

bycatch estimates. There are also a number of private boat docks and marinas that are not subject 

to the creel surveys, bringing into further question the current bycatch estimates. There is also a 

lack of bycatch data for some fisheries. Quantifying all fisheries bycatch is necessary to 

understand listed rockfish mortality rates and thus impacts to population abundance, productivity,

and spatial structure, and is in keeping with principles of fisheries management outlined in 

Appendix II, Fisheries Management.

2.1.1 Further assess fisheries in the DPSs by integrating ongoing ROV survey data and 

additional bycatch risk data. This action is detailed in Appendix II, Fisheries 

Management, and can be used to assess whether further management actions (including 

establishment of marine reserves or rockfish conservation areas) are needed. 

2.2 Ensure that anthropogenic mortality falls within accepted risk-averse precautionary 

guidelines at appropriate scales(note that this includes the use of devices to mitigate 

barotrauma and research of long-term survival).* This action first requires accurate catch and 

bycatch estimates. Accurate estimates will enable a determination of whether bycatch mortality of 

listed rockfish fall within acceptable levels. These guidelines are detailed in Appendix II,

Fisheries Management. 

2.3 Potentially establish marine reserves and/or rockfish conservation areas not subject to 

potential anthropogenic mortality. Rockfish Conservation Areas have been established across 

30 percent of rockfish habitat in the part of the range of the DPSs that extends into Canada. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 107

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Establishing analogous areas within prioritized areas (San Juan Islands/eastern Strait of Juan de 

Fuca) (Table 20) in the U.S. portion of the range of the DPSs may help to (a) restore 

metapopulation structure and abundance; (b) protect spawning biomass; (c) support 

proportionally appropriate size and age structure; (d) buffer for uncertainty regarding climate 

change impacts and habitat changes over time; (e) benefit other fish and other goals (see 

Appendix II, Fisheries Management). WDFW put regulations into place in 2010 to help limit 

rockfish bycatch; however, as identified in the threats assessment (Section E), the San Juan 

Islands and the Strait of Juan de Fuca may still be at relatively high risk for rockfish bycatch. 

Thus, while this plan includes continued enforcement and evaluation of fishery regulations, it also 

suggests beginning the process to assess the need for establishing protected areas in the San Juan 

Islands/eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, likely after the first 5 years of implementation, and 

considering additional protections after further assessment in other areas over the long term. 

Appendix II provides the general biological goals, size and shape attributes, and ecological design 

considerations for establishing reserves/RCAs, but does not recommend specific sites. Appendix 

II, Fisheries Management, also discusses tribal guidance and socioeconomic considerations for 

the establishment of reserves/RCAs.

Table 20. Relative Priority for Marine Reserves/Rockfish Conservation Areas.

Management Unit within U.S. portion of 

the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

RCAs/MPAs – relative priority 

Yelloweye rockfish Bocaccio*

San Juan Islands/Strait of Juan de Fuca High Priority Low Priority

Main Basin Medium Priority Low Priority

Hood Canal Low Priority Low Priority

South Sound Low Priority Low Priority

* Bocaccio move more as adults than yelloweye rockfish, which have very high site fidelity; therefore, the benefits of 

RCAs/MPAs (depending on their location/size, etc) to bocaccio may be less than the benefits to yelloweye rockfish. 

Priorities were calculated by examining effort (commercial effort and type and recreational fishing trips and type), 

available rockfish habitat, existing protections to protect rockfish by each management unit, and risk to listed rockfish 

decline as a result of spatial and genetic isolation. 

2.3.1 Monitoring and adaptive management of established areas to assess and improve 

their efficacy.* Monitoring will provide information needed for adaptive management of 

these areas and ensure they are effective. Also, sharing long-term monitoring results with 

the public is anticipated to be important for long-term support of these areas. Appendix II, 

Fisheries Management, also discusses monitoring and adaptive management of 

reserves/RCAs.

2.4 Conduct further research on bycatch to develop and implement measures to avoid

incidental catch and mitigate barotrauma and other sources of bycatch mortality.* Bycatch 

avoidance is preferred because long-term effects of recompression on listed rockfish are not 

currently well understood. Education on catch avoidance, safe handling techniques, and the use of 

descending devices, expanding on existing work by WDFW 

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/bottomfish/rockfish/mortality.html), should also occur to mitigate the 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 108

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

effects of barotrauma to the greatest extent achievable (also see 4.2). See Appendix III,

Barotrauma Research and Adaptive Management.

2.5 Assess long-term survival and productivity of recompressed yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio in the wild and take appropriate management actions to improve recompression 

practices, if appropriate. The survival, sublethal effects, and productivity of recompressed listed 

rockfish are poorly understood, but there is evidence of internal hemorrhaging, infection, and 

difficulty returning to neutral buoyancy. As additional information is gathered about long-term 

effects, management and fisheries actions may be modified. See Appendix III, Barotrauma

Research and Adaptive Management. 

2.6 Additional enforcement of fishery regulations with emphasis on reducing listed rockfish 

mortality.* Continued and additional enforcement of regulations for recreational and commercial 

fisheries with risk of listed rockfish catch/bycatch (including derelict gear) is necessary. Research 

has found that some recreational anglers within the Salish Sea area may under-report their 

bycatch, have difficulty identifying rockfish to species, and are not familiar with some of the 

rockfish regulations. Also, after establishment of protected areas (2.3), enforcement will also be 

required to ensure those areas are effective to help achieve recovery goals. 

Recovery Action 3. Protection, restoration, and research of rockfish habitats and the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem on which they rely. Protection and restoration of rockfish habitats is a 

priority action and essential for recovery. General principles and the best available science about rockfish 

habitat use guide immediate actions, and research actions are outlined to address information gaps. 

3.1 Nearshore (< 98.4 feet [30 m]) protection, research, and restoration.* Juvenile bocaccio 

recruit to kelp and eelgrass in the nearshore. Natural rearing habitats, including existing kelp or 

eelgrass, or areas that could support kelp (i.e., areas with substrate that could support kelp 

holdfasts), need to be preserved. See Appendix V, Nearshore Habitat and Kelp Conservation. 

3.1.1 Continue programs to prevent, report, and remove derelict fishing gear from 

nearshore environments.* Prevention, reporting, and removal of derelict fishing gear has 

restored hundreds of acres of rockfish habitat, and the continuation of such programs is 

important to ensure habitat needed for recovery is available and to decrease the threat of 

mortality or habitat degradation from lost gear. 

3.1.2 Assess potential of native kelp restoration projects and pursue restoration projects as 

applicable.* Native kelp,and eelgrass are important for juvenile bocaccio recruitment. 

Native kelp is important for rearing forage fish of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. As 

such, research should be conducted into the feasibility of kelp and eelgrass restoration, and 

restoration actions should be taken if found viable.

3.1.3 Assess non-indigenous species (Sargassum muticum, Japanese wireweed, and 

tunicates, Ciona savignyo, S. clava, and D. vexillum) to determine if they are 

degrading or impairing rearing habitats such that they are limiting recovery. 

Research has shown that S. muticum alters macroalgal communities; additionally, it 

competes with and impairs the reestablishment of giant kelp forests in California. C.

savignyi, S. clava, and D. vexillum have increased in Puget Sound, but their distributions 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 109

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

and effects may not have reached full potential. However, the degree to which all of these 

non-indigenous species affect native macroalgae, eelgrass, or rockfish is not understood, so 

further assessment is needed. 

3.2 Protection, research, and restoration of deepwater (> 98.4 feet [30 m]) habitats.* Adult listed 

rockfish live in deep water, making its protection and restoration a priority. See Appendix IV,

Benthic Habitat Conservation.

3.2.1 Continue programs to prevent, report, and remove derelict fishing gear from 

deepwater environments.* As in nearshore environments, preventing, reporting, and 

removal of derelict fishing gear in deepwater habitat will protect these habitats and 

decrease the threat of mortality from lost gear. Because many shallow-water nets have 

already been removed, an emphasis on removal from deepwater environments is 

appropriate. 

3.2.2 Periodically assess sediment disposal practices to determine if they are limiting 

recovery. Periodic assessments of disposal practices will help managers make adjustments, 

if appropriate.

3.2.3 Assess and determine if artificial reefs are needed for listed rockfish recovery. An 

assessment of the role, function, and necessity of artificial reefs would inform their 

potential use and efficacy for listed rockfish recovery. 

3.3 Assess the impact of contaminants and bioaccumulants (including emerging contaminants 

such as microplastics) on listed rockfish survival, health, productivity, and behavior.*

Potential impacts of bioaccumulants on listed rockfish are not well understood, but research thus 

far indicates they may have significant deleterious effects and additional research is needed. 

Appendix VI, Sediment and Water Quality, addresses these needs. 

3.3.1 Clean up/cap contaminated sediments and reduce contaminant inputs, emphasizing 

the South Puget Sound and Main Basin.* Reducing contaminant input and contaminated 

sediment restoration or capping is a priority as toxins and contaminants may have a large 

impact on rockfish productivity and health. Generally, the South Puget Sound and Main 

Basin contain the most legacy and present contamination. See Appendix VI, Sediment and 

Water Quality.

3.4 Prevent and reduce excessive nutrient input (e.g., from septic systems and other human 

sources) with emphasis in the South Puget Sound, Main Basin, and Hood Canal).*

Anthropogenic input of nutrients may contribute to hypoxia and kill listed rockfish and/or their

prey base. Portions of Hood Canal, in particular, have episodic periods of low dissolved oxygen, 

though the relative role of nutrient input from humans in exacerbating these episodes is in 

question. In addition to Hood Canal, periods of low dissolved oxygen are becoming more 

widespread in waters south of Tacoma Narrows. The input of nutrients could particularly threaten 

nearshore habitats of juvenile bocaccio because it can compromise the growth and recruitment of 

eelgrass by causing plankton blooms or excess growth of epiphytes that collectively reduce light 

levels. Potential modifications for projects that result in pollution and runoff include changing the 

outfall location to less sensitive habitats and using enhanced pollutant treatment techniques. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 110

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.5 Develop ecological models to evaluate critical life stages dictating rockfish population 

growth, understand the potential impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on 

rockfish population dynamics, and assess the potential for predation and competition to 

limit rockfish recovery.* Climate change may cause increasing surface temperatures, changes to 

precipitation evaporation, vertical mixing, and other changes to marine ecosystems. Ocean 

acidification may cause changes in the physiology, behavior, metabolism, and reproductive 

biology of fish. Ocean acidification could also impact the food web, resulting in unknown 

changes of food availability to upper-level predators such as rockfish. Improving models would 

inform further assessment of the relative impacts of threats to listed rockfish, including but not 

limited to climate change, OA, predation, and competition. Further, developing a better 

understanding of critical life stages that may influence rockfish population growth will enable 

managers to better direct resources toward threats that could limit this growth. See Appendix VI,

Sediment and Water Quality, and Appendix VII, Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. 

3.5.1 Predict, assess, and manage for habitat changes as related to climate change and 

ocean acidification and synergistic effects in the DPSs.* Little is known about the effect 

climate change and ocean acidification will have on listed rockfish, but recent research 

indicates that the combined effects of OA, hypoxia, and other factors could cause more 

severe and more frequent deleterious effects in inland waters than in the open ocean. 

Research and prediction capabilities are needed to understand and plan to adaptively 

manage habitats used by listed rockfish in the face of these changes.

3.5.2 Determine conditions under which predation could limit recovery. Models will also 

enable understanding of levels of predation under varying conditions, and how or if

predation could limit recovery. See Appendix IX, Predation, for additional information.

3.5.3 Determine the potential for interspecific competition to limit recovery within the 

DPSs using field studies, experimentation, and modeling. Little is understood about 

interspecific competition within Puget Sound, and various analysis methods would enable 

understanding of how or if competition could limit recovery. 

3.6 Assess disease to determine if it is limiting recovery of the DPSs. The effect of disease on 

rockfish is not well understood, especially on listed rockfish, and further research is needed to 

determine the extent and severity of disease in rockfish to determine if it may be limiting 

recovery over time. 

3.7 Assess the effects of hatchery salmon releases (as warranted) to determine if they are 

limiting recovery of the listed species. The effects of hatchery salmon on listed rockfish requires 

further assessment to determine if predation by or competition with hatchery fish may be limiting 

recovery.

3.8 Evaluate effects of anthropogenic noise on listed rockfish behavior and productivity to 

determine if it is limiting recovery. The effects of anthropogenic noise on listed rockfish in 

Puget Sound is poorly understood, though research in other marine species indicates it could be 

significant, especially as vessel traffic and other anthropogenic noise is anticipated to increase in 

Puget Sound. An assessment of anthropogenic noise would assist in determining if sound affects 

listed rockfish productivity, habitat use, and behavior and limits recovery.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 111

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.9 Continue oil spill prevention and response within the DPSs.* Response and prevention are 

already conducted in the range of the DPSs. These activities are highlighted here to stress their 

importance to a healthy ecosystem that supports listed rockfish. 

3.10 Continue state and Federal review of permitted activities to minimize impacts to rockfish 

habitats and their prey base.* Regulatory agencies should continue to assess activities that 

could affect listed rockfish, their habitat, and their prey-base.

3.11 Continue to enforce habitat protection laws and regulations; improve as warranted to 

protect listed rockfish habitat.* Enforcement of current habitat protections is important to 

support a healthy ecosystem for rockfish recovery.

Recovery Action 4. Implement the Outreach and Education Plan. Outreach and education, 

particularly directed at commercial and recreational anglers, have been prioritized because individual 

actions may engender more accurate bycatch estimates, decrease effects of bycatch and barotrauma, and 

garner support for listed rockfish recovery in general. See Appendix I, Education, Outreach, and Public 

Involvement, for the detailed Plan. 

4.1 Improve rockfish identification and documentation of bycatch by recreational and 

commercial fishers.* Many recreational anglers are unable to reliably identify rockfish to 

species. Literature produced and distributed by WDFW, the Puget Sound Anglers, and NMFS has 

improved education, but much remains to be done. Because anglers must self-report bycatch 

returned at sea, reliable identification is important to validate bycatch estimates. Some fisheries 

with risk of bycatch may not be well monitored for bycatch, which is needed to assess the risk of 

bycatch as well as identify actions to decrease the risk, if needed. 

4.2 Encourage rockfish catch avoidance and educate fishers why it is preferred over 

recompression; increase use of best practices to mitigate barotraumas.* Catch avoidance is 

preferred over recompression because of concerns about long-term survival, health, and 

productivity after recompression; thus, education and outreach to fishers should highlight this 

priority (2.4). Additionally, when recreational and commercial anglers cannot avoid rockfish

bycatch, education and outreach is needed to ensure best practices for handling and rapid 

recompression using descending devices because there is strong evidence that experience and 

handling time can affect recompression outcomes. WDFW efforts to this end should be expanded 

upon (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/bottomfish/rockfish/mortality.html).

4.3 Improve knowledge of rockfish life history and habitat usage, their role in the ecosystem, 

and current efforts to recover rockfish.* Fishers who understand rockfish life history are more 

likely to support recovery efforts. Further, understanding the roles that rockfish play in the local 

ecosystem may make rockfish recovery more relevant to commercial fishers, recreational anglers, 

and other stakeholders. Finally, improving fishers’ knowledge of ongoing efforts to recover 

rockfish will improve understanding of challenges and opportunities to recovery. 

4.4 Improve understanding of rockfish fishing regulations.* Some recreational fishers are not 

aware of some of the regulations enacted to protect rockfish. Education and outreach may help 

fishers’ awareness of fishing regulations and the reasons for their existence. Additionally, 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 112

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

providing education for commercial fishers about the requirement to report lost derelict gear may 

engender expedient retrieval of lost gear, as has been demonstrated by a WDFW/NWSF program.

4.5 Continue the Cooperative Research Program, create an Innovative Fishing Program and 

other outreach projects to further cooperative fishing research and fishers’ engagement in 

rockfish recovery.* Although public support is also a goal of education and outreach, the plan 

will focus on recreational and commercial fishers and SCUBA divers because they are most 

likely to come into contact/observe rockfish. Further engagement, such as additional cooperative 

research as part of the Cooperative Research Program or other projects, may engender support 

for rockfish recovery and conservation as well as provide needed research. 

Recovery Action 5. Secure public support for listed rockfish recovery. Strong public support is 

crucial to accomplish the criteria and goals established in this plan. Assessment and monitoring of 

rockfish, their habitats, and their threats; implementing fishery changes; and implementing an education 

and outreach program will require considerable funding to achieve this plan’s goals and objectives. While 

some funding programs have supported rockfish recovery (e.g., ESA section 6 grants), current funding is 

inadequate to implement all of the actions identified in the recovery plan. This plan identifies necessary 

actions and will help support partners seeking funding opportunities. Below, we identify potential sources 

for obtaining necessary funding support.

5.1 Seek a variety of types of funds, including Federal, state, and private grants over a long 

time frame.* The rockfish recovery effort has obtained funding primarily from within NMFS

through ESA section 6 grants to Washington State and through the Dedicated Rockfish Research 

Fund created by the Washington State Legislature. Single entities alone cannot support the 

rockfish recovery effort; typically, the funding scope of one grant program can cover the costs of 

only a subset of the actions necessary to recover the species. As this recovery program is 

implemented, there will be an increasing need to secure long-term funding for monitoring the 

species’ status over a timeframe that spans several decades. Appendix VIII, Funding 

Opportunities for Rockfish Conservation, is a partial list of programs and awards that may 

support rockfish recovery and may be pursued by a variety of organizations. 

5.2 Establish collaborative research and cooperative funding agreements among state, Federal,

tribal, university, and private entities.* Cooperative agreements formed between and within 

state, Federal, tribal, university, and private entities will enable the capacity needed to recover 

listed rockfish. The effort to pool resources and expertise may also help avoid redundancy in 

effort and extend the scope of available funds.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 113

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

VI. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

This Implementation Schedule (Table 21) outlines recovery research and actions, priority numbers, and 

estimated rockfish recovery program costs over a 5-year period. The Implementation Schedule provides 

projections of which actions may continue beyond year 5, but there is considerable uncertainty regarding 

how long recovery will take. Currently, we do not have reliable biomass information for listed rockfish. 

As prioritized information is obtained on present and past biomass, as well as information to assess the 

impact on how threats may limit recovery and how the threats can be effectively mitigated, more robust 

time and expense projections will be developed. 

The cost of the approximately 45 actions recommended in this plan for the first 5 years of recovery is 

about $16,843,126. Assuming that recovery takes one and a half generations (of yelloweye rockfish), or 

approximately 60 years, the total recovery costs over 60 years would be approximately $82,970,000. The 

annual cost of recovery is estimated to decrease substantially after the first 5 to 10 years, once the 

necessary baseline research and management actions are performed. Note that the RCA process would 

begin after the first 5 years of implementing the recovery plan and therefore this action and costs are not 

included on the Implementation Schedule. Development of RCAs with appropriate monitoring and public 

input is estimated to cost approximately $6,516,874. 

There are numerous parallel efforts underway, independent from rockfish recovery, to protect and restore 

the Puget Sound ecosystem. Such efforts include oil spill prevention measures, contaminated sediment 

clean-up projects, and other important projects. These efforts will provide benefits to listed rockfish and 

their habitats and prey base and are thus highlighted in the plan. However, the cost of these actions will 

not be included in the total cost of rockfish recovery because they would occur independent of this plan. 

Similarly, actions conducted to restore listed rockfish and their habitats will benefit other listed species 

that utilize the Puget Sound area, such as Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and 

may provide economic benefits. We are unable to quantify the economic benefits of listed rockfish 

recovery actions, but it is likely the benefits to the ecosystem and economy would offset the total recovery 

costs estimated here.

All recovery actions and descriptions reflect the actions as numbered in the Step-down Outline and 

Recovery Narrative. Priorities in the Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

Priority 1 – An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to identify those actions 

necessary to prevent extinction. 

Priority 2 – An action that must be taken to prevent significant decline in the listed species 

population/habitat quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction. 

Priority 3 – All other actions necessary to provide for recovery of yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio.

Recovery of listed rockfish is a long-term effort that requires cooperation and coordination from a number 

of agencies, organizations, and communities around Puget Sound. Lead entities and potential partners are 

listed in the Implementation Schedule. Listing a party in the Implementation Schedule does not require 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 114

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

the identified party to implement the action(s) or secure funding for implementing the actions(s), but it 

does denote which organizations may be appropriate for performing those actions. Abbreviations used

appear in the key below. A more detailed breakdown of how cost estimates in the Implementation 

Schedule (Table 21) were calculated is available upon request. 

Key to Implementation Table Abbreviations

Department of Defense DOD

Department of Natural Resources, WA DNR

Department of Ecology, WA ECY

Fisheries and Oceans Canada DFO

Environmental Protection Agency, US EPA

Northwest Fisheries Science Center NWFSC

Northwest Straits Foundation NWF

Northwest Straits Initiative NWSI

National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS

Marine Resource Committees MRCs

The Nature Conservancy TNC

United States Army Corps of Engineers USACOE

United States Geological Survey USGS

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 115

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 21. Implementation schedule for research and recovery actions. 

Implementation Schedule 

Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Research and Recovery Actions

(action is for both species unless otherwise indicated in the comments section)

Labor Costs Source: 2012 American Fisheries Society Salary Survey of Fishery Professionals (Table 2, Public Agencies, WA State, average labor costs for Levels 1-5)

and consultation with applicable agencies

Operation Costs Sources: Funded NWFSC proposals, IE Economic Report prepared for the Plan, Section 6 Funding Proposals from WDFW and DNR,

WDFW and other agency or non-profit consultation, and other applicable sources

Action 

#

Action 

Description

Priority 

#

Action 

Duration

*Lead 

Entities and 

Potential 

Partners

Estimated Fiscal Year Costs (2016 US$) Comments

FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

1. Actions to enable a greater understanding of listed rockfish population abundance, distribution,

diversity, genetics, demographics, ecology, and habitat associations

1.1 Fishery 

independent 

population 

abundance and 

spatial structure 

ROV surveys 

(nearshore 

and/or deep

water)

1 FY1 and 

every 5 years 

through 

recovery

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

Seattle 

Aquarium, 

DFO

500,114 500,114 Required to assess population 

abundance, distribution, and 

recovery.

1.1.1 Regular ROV 

survey 

monitoring to 

observe changes 

in population 

abundance, 

distribution, 

diversity, 

genetics, 

demographics, 

and habitat 

associations

1 Every 5 

years 

through 

recovery 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

Seattle 

Aquarium, 

DFO

Required to indicate when some 

delisting/ downlisting criteria are 

met. Cost included in action 1.1.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 116

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.2 Benthic habitat 

mapping and 

rockfish habitat 

characterization

1 FY1 and 2 *WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

USGS, TNC, 

SeaDoc 

Society, DFO, 

DNR, 

Academia

77,500 77,500 Action required to assess 

population habitat use and 

management.

1.2.1 Research output 

of action 1.2 

will be used to 

develop a 

probabilistic 

habitat model 

and report to 

assess spatial 

structure 

1 FY3 *WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

USGS, TNC, 

SeaDoc 

Society, DFO, 

DNR, 

Academia

51,667 Model will aid fishery 

management and metapopulation assessment.

1.2.2 Supplemental 

multibeam 

bathymetry data 

collection

2 FY4 and 

beyond

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

USGS, TNC, 

SeaDoc 

Society, DFO, 

DNR, 

Academia

410,128 This is not needed throughout 

the DPS, but is needed in many 

areas. 

1.3 Assessment of 

historical 

fishing and 

scientific 

records and 

grey literature

1 FY1 and 2 *WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWFSC, 

DFO, 

Academia

84,843 84,843 Required to inform recovery 

targets.

1.3.1 Development of 

method to 

integrate 

multiple types 

of historical 

data to establish 

an 

understanding 

of baseline 

abundance and 

size structure

1 FY2 *WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWFSC, 

DFO, 

Academia

38,750 Required to understand present 

populations relative to historical.

1.4 Assess genetic 

structure in 

DPSs, effective 

dispersal 

distances, and 

population size

1 FY1 and 2 *NMFS, 

*NWFSC, 

*WDFW, 

DFO, Seattle 

Aquarium, 

Academia

155,822 155,822 Required to understand DPSs’

boundaries and potential metapopulation structure. Genetic 

data necessary for bocaccio.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 117

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.4.1 Develop a 

model to 

determine 

genetic 

thresholds of 

inbreeding and 

hybridization 

within the DPSs

1 FY3 *NMFS, 

*NWFSC, 

*WDFW, 

DFO, 

Academia

32,292 Needed for the delisting and 

downlisting criteria to assess the 

status of populations.

1.5 Annual YOY 

surveys in each 

of the 

management 

units

1 FY1, 3, and 

5 and every 

5 years after

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

REEF, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

Seattle 

Aquarium, PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWSI, DNR, 

Academia

257,128 257,128 257,128 Necessary for understanding 

primary rearing locations, 

habitat threats, and restoration 

opportunities.

1.6 Larval surveys 

in each 

management 

unit

2 FY2, 3, and 

4 and 

approx.

every 10 

years after

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

DFO, 

USACOE, 

Academia

66,261 66,261 66,261 Needed to understand larval 

abundance, dispersal, and 

conditions associated with 

recruitment and connectivity.

1.6.1 Research output 

of action 1.6 

will be used to 

develop a 

connectivity 

model

2 Complete in 

FY3, 4, and 

5 and every 

10 to 15 

years after

*WDFW, 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Academia

80,048 80,048 80,048 Needed to inform fishery 

management, meta-population 

assessment, habitat restoration, 

and possible reserve siting.

1.7 Assess home 

range and 

movement of 

various life

stages of ESAlisted rockfish

2 FY3 and 5 *WDFW, 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Academia

48,894 48,894 Assessments inform the habitat 

model as well as fisheries 

management actions.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 118

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

1.8 Develop 

population 

models to 

evaluate critical 

life stages 

dictating 

rockfish 

population 

growth

2 FY2 *WDFW, 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Academia

51,667 Model will help guide adaptive 

management and prioritize 

actions. 

1.9 Develop and 

assess statistical 

methods for 

integrating 

multiple 

historical and 

present sources 

of data on 

rockfish size 

structure and 

abundance into 

informative 

indices of 

current trends in 

rockfish size 

and abundance

1 FY2 *WDFW, 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Academia

95,314 Essential for use of data sources 

from various methods and times 

of collection to assess the listed 

populations’ status. 

1.10 Conduct and/or 

further assess 

comparative 

studies of 

rockfish 

abundance and 

demographic 

structure inside 

and outside of 

established 

marine 

reserves/MPAs 

in Puget 

Sound/Georgia 

Basin to 

establish 

knowledge 

baseline

1 FY2 and 3 *WDFW, 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Seattle 

Aquarium, 

REEF, 

SeaDoc 

Society, Wild 

Fish 

Conservancy, 

Academia, 

DFO

113,128 113,128 Robust baseline data enable 

assessments of the efficacy of 

past and future sites and aid in 

adaptive management actions.

2. Fisheries management consistent with recovery goals

2.1 Account for all 

catch and 

bycatch with 

statistically 

valid techniques

1 Annually 

through 

recovery

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*DFO, 

*NMFS

157,500 157,500 157,500 157,500 157,500 Further investment will inform 

management decisions. See 

Appendix II. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 119

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

2.1.1 Further assess 

fisheries by 

integrating 

ROV survey 

data and 

additional 

bycatch risk 

data

1 FY 1-5 and 

FY 5-15, and 

every 10 

years 

through 

recovery

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*DFO, 

*NMFS

77,500 77,500 Further assessment will inform 

management decisions. See 

Appendix II. 

2.2 Ensure that 

anthropogenic 

mortality falls 

within accepted 

risk-adverse 

precautionary 

guidelines at 

appropriate 

scales

1 Annually 

through 

recovery

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*DFO

38,750 38,750 38,750 38,750 38,750 Needed to ensure the DPSs are 

managed in accordance with best 

available science. Appendix II.

2.3 Implement 

measures to 

avoid and 

mitigate 

barotrauma; 

conduct further 

research on 

both avoidance 

and mitigation

1 FY1-5 and 

every 10 

years 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWFSC, 

Academia, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

recreational 

and/or 

commercial 

fishers, 

Aquaria*, 

WDFW, 

*NMFS, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*NWIFC, 

other 

interested 

parties

147,012 147,012 147,012 147,012 147,012

93,128

Limits bycatch mortality.

2.3.1 Assess longterm survival 

and 

productivity of 

recompressed 

yelloweye 

rockfish and 

bocaccio in the 

wild and take 

appropriate 

management 

actions.

Implement 

measures to 

1 FY1 to 5 and 

every 10 

years after

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWFSC, 

Academia, 

SeaDoc 

Society,

Aquaria,

recreational 

and/or 

commercial 

fishers

111,384 111,384 111,384 111,384 111,384 Action will inform adaptive 

management. Appendix III.

Limits bycatch mortality. 

Appendix III.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 120

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

avoid and 

mitigate 

barotrauma; 

conduct further 

research on 

both avoidance 

and mitigation

2.4 Additional 

enforcement of 

fishery 

regulations.

Assess longterm survival 

and 

productivity of 

recompressed 

yelloweye 

rockfish and 

bocaccio in the 

wild and take 

appropriate 

management 

actions 

1 Annually 

through 

recovery

FY1-FY5 

and every 10 

years after

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*NWIFC, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, *PS

Treaty Tribes, 

NWFSC, 

Academia, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

recreational 

and/or 

commercial 

fishers, 

Aquaria

137,012 137,012 137,012 137,012 137,012 Needed to enforce regulations to 

protect listed rockfish. Estimates 

from WDFW. Appendix II.

Action will inform adaptive

management. Appendix III.

2.6 Additional 

enforcement of 

fishery 

regulations 

1 Annually 

through 

recovery

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*NWIFC, 

*NMFS

137,012 137,012 137,012 137,012 137,012 Needed to enforce regulations to 

protect listed rockfish. Estimates 

from WDFW. Appendix II.

3.1 Nearshore 

(< 30 m) 

protection/ 

restoration

1 FY1-5 and 

beyond

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

NWS 

Commission, 

DNR, MRCs, 

Academia, 

Fishers

See Appendix V (most 

applicable to bocaccio). Costs 

detailed in action 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 

and 3.1.3.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 121

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3. Protection, restoration, and research of rockfish habitats and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem

3.1.1 Continue to 

prevent, report, 

and remove 

derelict fishing 

gear from 

nearshore 

environments.

Nearshore 

(< 30 m) 

protection/ 

restoration

1 Removals 1x 

every 5 

years. FY1-5 

and beyond

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

NWS 

Commission, 

DNR, MRCs, 

Academia, 

Fishers, 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

NWS 

Commission, 

DNR, MRCs, 

Academia, 

Fishers

86,423 Removals completed in much of 

Puget Sound, important to 

preserve habitat. See Appendix 

V (most applicable to bocaccio). 

Costs detailed in action 3.1.1, 

3.1.2, and 3.1.3.

3.1.2 Assess potential 

of native kelp 

(and possibly 

eelgrass) 

restoration 

projects through 

mapping 

projects and 

begin kelp 

restoration 

R&D plantings. 

Continue to 

prevent, report, 

and remove 

derelict fishing 

gear from 

nearshore 

environments

1 FY1-5 and at 

least every 

10 years 

after.

Removals 1x 

every 5 years

*WDFW, 

*DNR, 

*NMFS, PS 

Restoration 

Fund, NWS 

Commission, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

*WDFW, 

*NWSF, 

NWS 

Commission, 

DNR, MRCs, 

Academia, 

Fishers

743,125 743,125 743,125 743,125 743,125 This is important for bocaccio 

recruitment and rockfish prey. 

See Appendix V. Removals 

completed in much of Puget 

Sound, important to preserve 

habitat. See Appendix V. 

3.1.3 Assess nonindigenous 

species to 

determine if 

they are 

degrading or 

impairing 

rearing habitats.

3 FY5 and 

every 10 

years after. 

*WDFW, 

*DNR, 

*NMFS, Sea 

Doc Society, 

MRCs, REEF, 

Academia, 

*DNR, PS 

Restoration 

Fund, NWS 

Commission, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

Academia

743,125 743,125 743,125 743,125 743,125 Needed to assess how invasives

may affect recovery. Appendix 

IV and V (overlap between 

nearshore and deep water in this 

action).This is important for 

bocaccio recruitment and 

rockfish prey. See Appendix V. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 122

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.2 Protect and 

restore 

deepwater 

(> 30 m) 

benthic habitat. 

Assess nonindigenous 

species to 

determine if 

they are 

degrading or 

impairing 

rearing habitats 

1 FY5 and 

every 10 

years after.

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

MRCs, Local 

Fishers and 

Fisher 

Groups, 

*DNR, Sea 

Doc Society, 

MRCs, REEF, 

Academia

180,942 See Appendix IV. Cost details 

included in action 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 

and 3.2.3. Needed to assess how 

invasives may affect recovery. 

Appendix IV and V (overlap 

between nearshore and deep

water in this action).

3.2.1 Continue 

programs to 

prevent, report, 

and remove 

derelict fishing 

gear from 

deepwater 

environments. 

Protect and 

restore 

deepwater 

(> 30 m) 

benthic habitat

1 Removals 

annually for 

first 5 years, 

then every 

10 years 

after. 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

MRCs, Local 

Fishers and 

Fisher 

Groups, 

1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 Needed to preserve habitat and 

decrease bycatch. Appendix IV. 

See Appendix IV. Cost details 

included in action 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 

and 3.2.3.

3.2.2 Periodic 

assessments of 

sediment 

disposal 

practices to 

determine if 

they are 

limiting 

recovery. 

Continue 

programs to 

prevent, report, 

and remove 

derelict fishing 

gear from 

deepwater 

environments

3 FY4 and 

every 5-10 

years after. 

Removals 

annually for 

first 5 years, 

then every 

10 years 

after

*NMFS, 

*USACOE, 

*EPA, 

ECY*WDFW

, *NMFS, 

*NWSF, 

MRCs, Local 

Fishers and 

Fisher Groups

1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 1,130,705 Needed for adaptive 

management. Appendix VI. 

Needed to preserve habitat and 

decrease bycatch. Appendix IV. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 123

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.2.3 Assess if 

artificial reefs 

are needed for 

listed rockfish 

recovery. 

Periodic 

assessments of 

sediment 

disposal 

practices to 

determine if 

they are 

limiting 

recovery

3 FY 4 and 5 

and every 5-

10 years 

after

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

Academia, 

Interested 

Angling 

Organizations

*USACOE, 

*EPA, ECY

127,043 60,177 May enhance habitat. Appendix 

IV. Needed for adaptive 

management. Appendix VI. 

3.3 Assess impact 

of bioaccumulants 

and other 

contaminants 

on listed 

rockfish 

survival, health, 

productivity, 

and behavior.

Assess if 

artificial reefs 

are needed for 

listed rockfish 

recovery

1 FY1-5 and 

every 5 years 

after

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

*ECY, *EPA, 

NWFSC, 

Academia

Interested

Angling 

Organizations

128,564 128,564 128,564 128,564 128,564 Will engender refining actions to 

reduce contaminant threats. See 

Appendix VI. May enhance 

habitat. Appendix IV.

3.3.1 Clean up (or 

cap) 

contaminated 

sediments, 

reduce 

contaminant 

inputs Assess 

impact of bioaccumulants 

and other 

contaminants 

on listed 

rockfish 

survival, health, 

productivity, 

and behavior

1 Annually *ECY, 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*USACOE, 

*EPA*

NWFSC, 

Academia

128,564 128,564 128,564 128,564 128,564 Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed.

Will engender refining actions to 

reduce contaminant threats. See 

Appendix VI.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 124

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.4 Prevent and 

reduce nutrient 

input Clean up 

(or cap) 

contaminated 

sediments, 

reduce 

contaminant 

inputs

1 Annually 

through 

recovery

*ECY, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

Local and 

State 

Jurisdictions, 

Residents*EC

Y, *WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*USACOE, 

*EPA

Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed.

Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed.

3.5 Develop 

ecological 

models to 

evaluate critical 

life stages 

dictating 

rockfish 

population 

growth and 

understand the 

impacts climate 

change, OA, 

predation, and 

competition 

may have to 

limit recovery.

Prevent and 

reduce nutrient 

input 

1 FY2-5 and 

beyond. 

Annually 

through 

recovery

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

ECY, DNR, 

Academia

Local and 

State 

Jurisdictions, 

Residents

Cost for model inaction 1.8 will 

be built on in actions 3.5.1, 

3.5.2, and 3.5.3. (Costs included 

in those actions)

3.5.1 Predict, assess, 

and manage for 

habitat changes 

as related to 

climate change, 

OA, and 

synergistic 

effects in the 

DPSs. Develop 

ecological 

models to 

evaluate critical 

life stages 

dictating 

rockfish 

population 

growth, and 

understand the 

impacts climate 

change, OA, 

1 FY3, 4, and 

5 and every 

5 years after. 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

ECY, DNR, 

Academia*

95,314 95,314 95,314 Needed to plan and adaptively 

manage habitats used by listed 

rockfish. Appendix VII. Cost for 

model inaction 1.8, will be built 

on in actions 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 

3.5.3. (Costs included in those 

actions.)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 125

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

predation, and 

competition 

may have to 

limit recovery 

3.5.2 Determine 

conditions 

under which 

predation could 

limit recovery. 

Predict, assess, 

and manage for 

habitat changes 

as related to 

climate change, 

OA, and 

synergistic 

effects in the 

DPSs

2 FY3 and 

every 5 years 

after. 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, Sea 

Doc Society, 

Academia

ECY, DNR

166,942 166,942 Needed for adaptive 

management. Needed to plan 

and adaptively manage habitats 

used by listed rockfish. 

Appendix VII.

3.5.3 Determine the 

potential for 

interspecific 

competition to 

limit recovery 

within the DPSs 

using field 

studies. 

Determine 

conditions 

under which 

predation could 

limit recovery

3 FY4 and 

every 10 

years after. 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

Academia

166,942 154,942 166,942 Needed for adaptive 

management. 

3.6 Assess disease 

to determine if 

it is limiting 

recovery. 

Determine the 

potential for 

interspecific 

competition to 

limit recovery 

within in the 

DPSs using 

field studies

2 FY1 and 5 

and every 5 

years after. 

*NWFSC, 

*NMFS, 

Academia, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

Aquaria*WD

FW, 

Academia

38,750 154,942 38,750 Needed for adaptive 

management. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 126

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.7 Assess effects 

of hatchery 

salmon releases 

to determine if 

they are 

limiting 

recovery. 

Assess disease 

to determine if 

it is limiting 

recovery

2 FY2, 3, and 

4 and every 

10 years 

after. 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

*NWFSC, PS 

Treaty Tribes

Academia, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

Aquaria

38,750 185,128 185,128 185,128 38,750 Needed for adaptive 

management. 

3.8 Evaluate effects 

of 

anthropogenic 

noise on ESAlisted rockfish 

behavior and 

productivity to 

determine if it 

is limiting 

recovery.

Assess effects 

of hatchery 

salmon releases 

to determine if 

they are 

limiting 

recovery

2 FY3, 4, and 

5 and every 

10 years 

after. 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, 

NWFSC, 

Academia PS

Treaty Tribes

159,295 159,295 159,295 159,295 Needed for adaptive 

management. 

3.9 Continue oil 

spill prevention 

and response. 

2 Throughout 

recovery.

*ECY, *EPA, 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

NWFSC, 

Academia

0 0 0 0 0 Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed. 

Needed for adaptive 

management. 

3.10 Continue state 

and Federal 

review of 

permitted 

activities to 

minimize 

impacts to 

rockfish 

habitats and 

their prey base. 

Continue oil 

spill prevention 

and response

1 Throughout 

recovery.

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

*ECY, *DNR, 

*Army Corps 

of Engineers, 

*EPA, 

*DFO*ECY, 

*NMFS

0 0 0 0 0 Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 127

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3.11 Continue to 

enforce habitat 

protection laws 

and regulations; 

improve as 

warranted to 

protect listed 

rockfish habitat. 

Continue state 

and Federal 

review of 

permitted 

activities to 

minimize 

impacts to 

rockfish 

habitats and 

their prey base

1 Throughout 

recovery. 

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

*ECY, *DNR, 

*Army Corps 

of Engineers, 

*EPA, *DFO

0 0 0 0 0 Action is being carried out; 

continuation of action is needed.

4. Implement Education and Outreach Plan

4.1 Improve 

rockfish 

identification 

and 

documentation 

of bycatch

1 FY1-5 and 

annually 

after

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWIFC, 

Seattle 

Aquarium, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

Recreational 

and 

Commercial 

Fishers

59,447 59,447 59,447 59,447 59,447 More accurate bycatch estimates 

will inform management. 

Appendix I and Appendix II.

4.2 Encourage 

avoidance of 

rockfish and 

educate anglers 

why it is 

preferred over 

release at 

depth/increase 

use of best 

practices to 

mitigate 

barotrauma. 

Improve 

rockfish 

identification 

and 

documentation 

of bycatch

1 FY1-5 and 

every 10 

years after. 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWIFC, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

Recreational 

and 

Commercial 

Fishers Seattle 

Aquarium, 

39,447 39,447 39,447 39,447 39,447 Anticipated to help limit 

mortality. Appendix I. More 

accurate bycatch estimates will 

inform management. Appendix I 

and Appendix II.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 128

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

4.3 Improve 

knowledge of 

rockfish life 

history and 

habitat usage, 

the role rockfish 

play in the 

ecosystem, and 

current efforts 

to recover 

rockfish. 

1 FY1-5 and 

annually 

after. 

*WDFW, 

*NMFS, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

Recreational 

and 

Commercial 

Fishers, 

NWIFC.

12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224 Action needed to make listed 

rockfish relevant to stakeholders. 

Appendix I. Anticipated to help 

limit mortality. Appendix I. 

4.4 Improve 

understanding 

of rockfish 

fishing 

regulations. 

1 FY1-5 and 

annually 

after. 

*WDFW, *PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

*NMFS, 

NWSI, 

MRCs, 

Recreational 

and 

Commercial 

Fishers

12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224 Action needed to decrease 

rockfish bycatch. Appendix I. 

Action needed to make listed 

rockfish relevant to stakeholders. 

Appendix I. 

4.5 Continue the 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program, create 

an Innovative 

Fishing 

Program and 

other outreach 

projects to 

further 

cooperative 

fishing research 

and fishers’ 

engagement in 

rockfish 

recovery

1 FY1-5 and 

every other 

year through 

recovery

*NMFS, 

*WDFW, 

*NWFSC, PS 

Treaty Tribes, 

SeaDoc 

Society, 

Recreational 

and 

Commercial 

Fishers

39,375 39,375 39,375 39,375 39,375 Will garner support for recovery 

and form cooperative methods to 

collect trusted data in a costeffective manner. Appendix I. 

5. Secure financial support for ESA-listed rockfish recovery

5 Seek a variety 

of types of 

funds, including 

Federal, state, 

and private 

grants over a 

long time frame 

1 Throughout 

recovery

All Insufficient funding limits 

recovery. Costs included in 

current operating costs. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 129

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

5.1 Establish 

cooperative 

funding 

agreements 

among state, 

Federal, and 

private entities 

to avoid 

redundancy and 

extend the 

scope of 

available funds 

Seek a variety 

of types of 

funds, including 

Federal, state, 

and private 

grants over a 

long time frame

1 Throughout 

recovery

All Insufficient funding limits 

recovery. Costs included in 

current operating costs. 

Insufficient funding limits 

recovery. Costs included in 

current operating costs.

5.2 Establish 

cooperative 

funding 

agreements 

among state, 

Federal, and 

private entities 

to avoid 

redundancy and 

extend the 

scope of 

available funds 

1 Throughout 

recovery

All Insufficient funding limits 

recovery. Costs included in 

current operating costs. 

TOTAL Cost (First 5 Years)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 130

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

VII. LITERATURE CITED

Ainsworth, C.H., J.F., Samhouri, D.S. Busch, W.W.L. Cheung, J. Dunne, T.A. Okey. 2011. Potential 

impacts of climate change on Northeast Pacific marine foodwebs and fisheries. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science. Volume 68, pages 1217-1229.

Ambrose, R.F. and B.V. Nelson. 1982. Inhibition of giant kelp recruitment by an introduced alga. 

Botanica Marina, 25:265– 267.

Anderson, T.W. 1983. Identification and development of nearshore juvenile rockfishes (genus Sebastes) 

in central California kelp forests. Calif. State Univ, Fresno, Calif., p. 216, Unpublished Thesis.

Anderson, T. J. and M. M. Yoklavich. 2007. Multiscale habitat associations of deepwater demersal fishes 

off central California. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 105, pages 168-179.

Andrews, K., K. Nichols, A. Elz, N. Tolimieri, C. Harvey, D. Tonnes, D. Lowry, R. Pacunski, & L. 

Yamanaka. 2015. Cooperative research: ESA-listed Puget Sound rockfish. Powerpoint presentation 

for the NWFSC Rockfish Biological Review Team, November 13, 2015.

Antonelis, K., D. Huppert, D. Velasquez, and J. June. 2011. Dungeness crab mortality due to lost trap and 

a cost-benefit analysis of trap removal in Washington State waters of the Salish Sea. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 31(5), pages 880-893. 

Antonelis, K. with Natural Resources Consultants, December 10, 2013. Personal communication, e-mail 

to Dan Tonnes (NMFS) regarding rockfish found in removed derelict crab pots.

Antonelis, K. 2013. Derelict Gillnets in the Salish Sea: Causes of gillnet loss, extent of accumulation and 

development of a predictive transboundary model. Master’s thesis. University of Washington School 

of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Seattle, WA.

Arima E. and J. Dewhirst. 1990. Nootkans of Vancouver Island. IN: W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast (p. 391). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2010. Biological Assessment of the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal 

Agency dredge management program. 118 pages.

Artamonova, V.S., A.A. Makhrov, D.P. Karabanov, A.Y. Rolskiy, Y.L. Bakay, and V.I. Popov. 2013. 

Hybridization of beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) with small redfish (Sebastes viviparus) and 

diversification of redfish (Actinopterygii: Scorpaeniformes) in the Irminger Sea. Journal of Natural 

History. Volume 47, pages 1791-1801.

Bailey, A., H. Berry, A. Bookheim, and D. Stevens. 1998. Probability-based estimation of nearshore 

characteristics. In Puget Sound Research ’98 proceedings: Washington State Convention and Trade 

Center, Seattle, Washington, March 12 and 13, 1998, p. 580–588. Puget Sound Water Quality Action 

Team, Olympia, WA.

Babcock, E.A. and A.D. MacCall. 2011. How useful is the ratio of fish density outside versus inside notake marine reserves as a metric for fishery management control rules? Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 68, pages 343-359. doi:10. 1139/F10-146.

Banks, A.S. 2007. Harbor seal abundance and habitat use relative to candidate marine reserves in Skagit 

County, Washington. Western Washington University.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 131

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Bargmann, G.G. 1977. The recreational hook and line fishery for marine fish in Puget Sound, 1968-1973. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Progress Report No. 33.

Bassett, C., B. Polagye, M. Holt, J. Thomson. 2012. A vessel noise budget for Admiralty Inlet, Puget 

Sound, Washington (USA). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Volume 132.6, pages 

3706-3719.

Beaudreau, A.H., and T.E. Essington. 2007. Spatial, temporal, and ontogenetic patterns of predation on 

rockfishes by lingcod. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 136, pages 1,438-

1,452.

Beaudreau, A.H. and T.E. Essington. 2009. Development of a new field-based approach for estimating 

consumption rates of fishes and comparison with a bioenergetics model for lingcod (Ophiodon 

elongatus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 66(4), pages 565-578.

Beaudreau, A.H. and T.E. Essington. 2011. Use of pelagic prey subsidies by demersal predators in rocky 

reefs: insight from movement patterns of lingcod. Marine Biology. Volume 158, pages 471-483. 

Beaudreau, A. H., P.S. Levin, and K.C. Norman. 2011. Using folk taxonomies to understand stakeholder 

perceptions for species conservation. Conservation Letters. Volume 4, pages 451-463.

Beaudreau, A.H. and P.S. Levin. 2014. Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing 

data‐poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecological Applications. Volume 24(2), pages 244-256.

Berkeley, S.A., C. Chapman, and S.M. Sogard. 2004. Maternal age as a determinant of larval growth and 

survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology. Volume 85, pages 1258-1264. 

Bickel, S., J.M. Hammond, and K. Tang. 2011. Boat-generated turbulence as a potential source of 

mortality among copepods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Volume 401, 

pages 105–109.

Bickley, L.K., A.R. Brown, D.J. Hosken, P.B. Hamilton, G. Le Page, G.C. Paull, S.F. Owen, and C.R. 

Tyler. 2012. Interactive effects of inbreeding and endocrine disruption on reproduction in a model 

laboratory fish. Evolutionary Applications. Volume 6(2), pages 279-289. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-

4571.2012.00288.x.

Bjorge, A., T. Bekkby, V. Bakkestuen, and E. Framstad. 2002. Interactions between harbour seals, Phoca 

vitulina, and fisheries in complex coastal waters explored by combined geographic information 

system (GIS) and energetics modeling. ICES J. Mar. Sci.: Journal du Conseil. Volume 59, pages 29.

Blain, B. 2014. The effects of barotrauma and deepwater-release mechanisms on the reproductive 

viability of yelloweye rockfish in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Master’s Thesis, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks. December 2014.

Boas, F. and G. Hunt. 1921. Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, based on data collected by George Hunt (Part I). 

In Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the 

Smithsonian Institution (1913-1914). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Bobko, S. J., and S. A. Berkeley. 2004. Maturity, ovarian cycle, fecundity, and age‐specific parturition of 

black rockfish, (Sebastes melanops). Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 102:418-429.

Boehlert, G.W. 1984. Abrasive effects of Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA ash upon epidermis of 

yolk sac larvae of Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi). Marine Environmental Research. 

Volume 12, pages 113-126.

Boehlert, G. W., W. H. Barss, and P. B. Lamberson. 1982. Fecundity of the widow rockfish, Sebastes 

entomelas, off the coast of Oregon. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. Volume 80, pages 881-884.

Boehlert, G.W. and J.B. Morgan 1985. Turbidity enhances feeding ability of larval Pacific herring 

(Clupea harengus pallasi). Hydrobiologia. Volume 123, pages 161-170.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 132

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Boersma, P.D., P. Kareiva, W F. Fagan, J.A. Clark, and J.M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered 

species recovery plans? Bio-Science. Volume 51, pages 643-649.

Bradbury, I.R., S. Bowman, T. Borza, P.V.R. Snelgrove, J.A. Hutchings, P.R. Berg, N. RodriguezEzpeleta, J. Lighten, D.E. Ruzzante, C. Taggart and P. Bentzen. 2014. Long Distance Linkage 

Disequilibrium and Limited Hybridization Suggest Cryptic Speciation in Atlantic Cod. PLoS ONE, 9.

Brewer, P.G. and E. T. Peltzer. 2009. Limits to Marine Life. Science. Volume 324, pages 347-348. 

Brodeur, R.D., T.D. Auth, T. Britt, E.A. Daly, M.N.C. Litz, R.L. Emmett. 2011. Dynamics of Larval and 

Juvenile Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Recruitment in Coastal Waters of the Northern California Current. 

ICES CM 2011/H:12.

Bromaghin, J, M.M. Lance, E. W. Elliot, S.J. Jeffries, A.A. Gutierrez, and John M. Kennish. 2013. New 

insights into the diets of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Salish Sea revealed by analysis of fatty 

acid signatures. Fish. Bulletin. Volume 111, pages 13-26. doi:10.7755/FB.111.1.2.

Browning, H. 2013. Evidence of habitat associations and distribution patterns of rockfish in Puget Sound 

from archival data (1974-1977). Thesis, University of Washington School of Marine and 

Environmental Affairs. 

Buckley, R. M. 1997. Substrate associated recruitment of juvenile Sebastes in artificial reef and natural 

habitats in Puget Sound and the San Juan Archipelago, Washington. Tech. Rep. RAD97-06, 320. 

Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Buonaccorsi, V. P., C. A. Kimbrell, E. A. Lynn, and R. D. Vetter. 2005. Limited realized dispersal and 

introgressive hybridization influence genetic structure and conservation strategies for brown rockfish, 

Sebastes auriculatus. Conservation Genetics. Volume 6, pages 697-713.

Burns, R. 1985. The shape and forms of Puget Sound. Published by Washington Sea Grant, and 

distributed by the University of Washington Press. 100 pages. 

Burr, J. C. 1999. Microsatellite analysis of population structure of quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) 

from Puget Sound to Alaska. Master’s thesis. Univ. Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA.

Busch, D.S., C.J. Harvey and P. McElhany. 2013. Potential impacts of ocean acidification on the Puget 

Sound food web. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 70(4), pages 823-833.

Buzzell B., M.M. Lance, A. Acevedo-Gutierrez. 2014. Spatial and temporal variation in river otter 

(Lontra canadensis) diet and predation on rockfish (Genus Sebastes) in the San Juan Islands, 

Washington. Aquatic Mammals. Volume 40(2), pages 150-161.

Cailliet, G. M., E. J. Burton, J. M. Cope, and L. A. Kerr (eds). 2000. Biological characteristics of 

nearshore fishes of California: A review of existing knowledge. Final Report and Excel Data Matrix, 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. California Department of Fish and Game.

Canino, M. and R. C. Francis. 1989. Rearing of Sebastes larvae (Scorpaenidae) in static culture. 

University of Washington, Technical Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource 

Assessment and Conservation Engineering Division, FRI Tech. Rep. 8917. 8 pages.

Carr, M.H. 1991. Habitat selection and recruitment of an assemblage of temperate zone reef fishes.

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Volume 146, pages 113-137.

Carr, M. H. 1983. Spatial and temporal patterns of recruitment of young of the year rockfishes (genus 

Sebastes) into a central California kelp Forest. Master's thesis, San Francisco State University, CA 

94132. 104 pages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 133

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Carr, M.H. and C. Syms. 2006. Chapter 15: Recruitment. pp. 411-427 In Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella II, 

and M.H. Horn (eds.) The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

Carr, M.H. and D.C. Reed. In press. Chapter 17: Shallow Rocky Reefs and Kelp Forests. In: H. Mooney 

and E. Zavaleta (eds). Ecosystems of California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Caselle, J.E., M.H. Carr, D. Malone, J.R. Wilson and D.E. Wendt. 2010. Can we predict interannual and 

regional variation in delivery of pelagic juveniles to nearshore populations of rockfishes (genus 

Sebastes) using simple proxies of ocean conditions? California Cooperative Fisheries Investigations 

Reports. Volume 51, pages 91-105.

Casper, B.M., M.E. Smith, M.B. Halvorsen, H. Sun, T.J. Carlson and A.N. Popper. 2013. Effects of 

exposure to pile driving sounds on fish inner ear tissues. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 

Part A. Volume 166, pages 352-360.

Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix Population Models. Sinauer.

Chen, L. C. 1971. Systematics, variation, distribution, and biology of rockfishes of the subgenus 

Sebatomus (Pisces, Scorpaenidae, Sebastes). Bulletin of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. 

Volume 18. 155 pages.

Chung, W.S., N.J. Marshall, S.A. Watson, P.L. Munday, and G.E. Nilsson. 2014. Ocean acidification 

slows retinal function in a damselfish through interference with GABAA receptors. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology. Volume 207, pages 323-326.

Clark, T.W. and R.L. Wallace. 2002. Understanding the Human Factor in Endangered Species Recovery: 

An Introduction to Human Social Process. Endangered Species Update 2002. Volume 19(4), pages 

87-94.

Cloutier, R.N. 2011. Direct and indirect effects of marine protection: rockfish conservation areas as a case 

study. Master’s Thesis, Biological Sciences Department, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, 

Canada.

Collias, E., N. McGary, and C. A. Barnes. 1974. Atlas of physical and chemical properties of Puget 

Sound and its surrounding approaches. WSG-74-1. Univ. Washington, Dept. Oceanography, Seattle.

Collie, J., M. Rochet and R. Bell. 2013. Rebuilding fish communities: the ghost of fisheries past and the 

virtue of patience. Ecological Applications. Volume 23(2), pages 374-391.

Collins, B. D. and A.J. Sheikh. 2005. Historical reconstruction, classification, and change analysis of 

Puget Sound tidal marshes. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Conboy, G.A. and D.J. Speare. 2002. Dermal Nematodosis in Commercially Captured Rockfish (Sebastes

spp.) from Coastal British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Comparative Pathology. Volume 127(2-3),

pages 211-213.

Cope, B. and M. Roberts. 2012. Review and synthesis of available information to estimate human impacts 

to dissolved oxygen in Hood Canal. Draft for stakeholder review. September 14, 2012.

Cordell, J.R., C. Levy, J.D Toft. 2012. Ecological impacts of invasive tunicate associated with artificial 

structures in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Biological Invasions. Volume 15(6), pages 1303-1318.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 43 pp.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 134

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes

ruberrimus, Pacific Ocean inside waters population and Pacific Ocean outside waters population, in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 75 pages. 

COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 49 pp. 

www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

Cox, T.M., R.L. Lewison, R. Zydelis, L.B. Crowder, C. Safina, and A.J. Read. 2007. Comparing 

effectiveness of experimental and implemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. 

Conservation Biology. Volume 21(5), pages 1155-1164. 

Currat, M., M. Ruedi, R.J. Petit, and L. Excoffier. 2008. The hidden side of invasions: Massive 

introgression by local genes. Evolution. Volume 62, pages 1908-1920.

Dalton, M.M. et al., eds. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for our Landscapes, 

Waters, and Communities, NCA Regional Input Reports. Oregon Climate Change Research Institute. 

Daníelsdóttir, A.K., D. Gíslason, K. Kristinsson, M. Stefánsson, T. Johansen, C. and Pampoulie. 2008. 

Population structure of deep-sea and oceanic phenotypes of deepwater redfish in the Irminger Sea and 

Icelandic continental slope: are they cryptic species? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

Volume 137, pages 1723-1740.

DeMott, G.E. 1983. Movement of tagged lingcod and rockfishes off Depoe Bay, Oregon. M.Sc. 

Thesis. Oregon State Uni. 55 pages.

DFO. 2009. Recovery Potential Assessment of Bocaccio in British Columbia waters. DFO Can. Sci. 

Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2009/040. 

DFO. 2011. Regional Science Advisory Process on the Pacific Review of Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes 

ruberrimus), September 22, 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/011. iv + 16 p.

DFO. 2011a. Pacific region integrated fisheries management plan – groundfish. February 21, 2011 to 

February 20, 2013. Updated: February 16, 2011, Version 1.0.

DFO. 2012. Stock Assessment for the inside population of Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in 

British Columbia, Canada for 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/084 13 pages. 

DFO. 2015. Groundfish 2015 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Summary. Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2015/ground-fond-sm-2015-en.html.

Dinnel, P. A., Armstrong, D. A., Miller, B. S. and R. F. Donnelly. 1986. Puget Sound Dredge Disposal 

Analysis disposal site investigations: Phase 1 trawl studies in Saratoga Passage, Port Gardner, Elliot 

Bay and Commencement Bay, Washington. FRI-UW-8615. 

Deiwert, R.E., D.A. Nagtelgal, and K. Hein. 2005. A Comparison of the Results of the 1998 Georgia 

Strait Creel Survey with an Independent Observer Program. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 2716, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

Don, C.N. 2002. Evaluation of near-shore buffer zones of the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

relative to their function as a marine protected area. Master’s Thesis. School of Marine Affairs, 

University of Washington. 91 pp.

Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, J.A. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. 

Annual Review of Marine Science. Volume 1, pages 169-192. 

Downing, J. The Coast of Puget Sound: Its Processes and Development. Washington Sea Grant, 

University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1983. 126 p. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 135

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Doty, D. C. Buckley, R. M, and J. E. West. 1995. Identification and protection of nursery habitat for 

juvenile rockfish in Puget Sound, Washington. Pages 181-190 in E. Robichaud (ed.) Proceedings of 

Puget Sound Research ’95 Conference. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, WA.

Drake J. S., E. A. Berntson, J. M. Cope, R. G. Gustafson, E. E. Holmes, P. S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R. S. 

Waples, S. M. Sogard, and G. D. Williams. 2010. Status of five species of rockfish in Puget Sound, 

Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye 

Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish 

(Sebastes proriger). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFSNWFSC-108, 234 pages.

Duffy, E. J., D. A. Beauchamp, R. M. Sweeting, R. J. Beamish, J. S. Brennan. 2010. Ontogenetic Diet 

Shifts of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Nearshore and Offshore Habitats of Puget Sound. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 139, pages 803-823.

Dulvy, N. K., Y. Sadovy, and J. D. Reynolds. 2003. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish 

and Fisheries. Volume 4, pages 25-64.

Eisenhardt, E. 2001. A marine preserve network in San Juan channel: is it working for nearshore rocky 

reef fish? School of Aquatic and Fishery Science, University of Washington. Puget Sound Research 

pages 1-14. 

Ebbesmeyer, C. C., G. A. Cannon, C. A. Barnes. Synthesis of current measurements in Puget Sound, 

Washington. Volume 3: Circulation in Puget Sound: an interpretation based on historical records of 

currents. NOAA Technical Memorandum 1984. NOS OMS; 5: 1-73.

Ebert, T. A. 1999. Plant and Animal Populations: Methods in Demography. Academic Press.

Ecology, Department of. (Ecology). 2010. Controlling Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/toxicchemicals/study_final.html. 

Embrey, S. S. and E. L. Inkpen. 1998. Water quality assessment of the Puget Sound Basin, Washington, 

nutrient transportation in rivers, 1980–93. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation 

Report, pages 97 to 4,270.

Engås, A., S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A.V, Soldal, A.V. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local 

abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 53, pages 2238-2249.

Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna 

and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 65, pages 414-432. 

Favaro, B., Rutherford, D.T., Duff, S.D., and I.M. Cote. 2010. Bycatch of rockfish and other species in 

British Columbia spot prawn traps: Preliminary assessment using research traps. Fisheries Research 

Volume 102, pages 199-206.

Favaro, B., Duff, S.D., and I.M. Cote. 2012. A trap with a twist: evaluating a bycatch reduction device to 

prevent rockfish capture in crustacean traps. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

doi.10.1093/icesjms/fss138.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, J.M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for Upwelling 

of Corrosive Acidified Water onto the Continental Shelf. Science 320, 5882:1490-1492. 

Feely, R.A., S. Alin, J. Newton, C. Sabine, M. Warner, A. Devol, C. Krembs, and C. Maloy. 2010. The 

combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing, and respiration on pH and carbon saturation in an 

urbanized estuary. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science Volume 88, pages 442-449. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 136

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, M. Chadsey. 2012. Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification in 

Washington State Marine Waters. NOAA OAR Special Report. 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1201016.html.

Field, J. C. and S. Ralston. 2005. Spatial variability in rockfish (Sebastes spp.) recruitment events in the 

California Current System. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 62:2199-2210.

FishBase. 2010. Life-history of bocaccio, www.fishbase.org. Database accessed May 20, 2010.

Fisher, R., S. M. Sogard, and S. A. Berkeley. 2007. Trade-offs between size and energy reserves reflect 

alternative strategies for optimizing larval survival potential in rockfish. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 344: 257‐270.Forcada, J., and J.I. Hoffman. 2014. Climate change selects for heterozygosity in 

a declining fur seal population. Nature, 511: 462-465.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, L. G. Barrett-Lennard, A. B. Morton, R. S. Palm, and K. C. Balcomb. 1998. 

Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British 

Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 76, pages 1456 to 1471.

Ford, M.J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. 

Conservation Biology, 16: 815-825.

Ford, M. 2015. Results of NOAA BRT review of new genetics information, memo from the NWFSC to 

PRD, December 9, 2015.

Frankham, R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation, 126: 131-140.

Franklin, I.R. and R. Frankham. 1998. How large must populations be to retain evolutionary potential? 

Animal Conservation. 1:69-73.Friedwald, J. 2009. Causes and consequences of the movement of 

temperate reef fishes. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 89 pages.

Frid, A., M. McGreer, D.R. Haggarty, J. Beaumont and E.J. Gregr. 2016. Rockfish size and age: the 

crossroads of spatial protection, central place fisheries and indigenous rights. Global Ecology and 

Conservation 8: 170-182.

Friedwald, J. 2009. Causes and consequences of the movement of temperate reef fishes. PhD

Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 89 pages.

Gaines, S. D. and J. Roughgarden. 1987. Fish in offshore kelp forests affect recruitment to intertidal 

barnacle populations. Science, New Series. Volume 235(4787) (Jan. 23, 1987), pages 479 to 481.

Gaines, S.D., C. White, M.H. Carr, and S.R. Palumbi. 2010. Designing marine reserve networks for both 

conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

107:18286-18293. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906473107.

Gaydos, J., K.C. Balcomb III, R.W. Osborne, and L. Dierauf. 2004. Evaluating potential infectious 

disease threats for southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca: a model for endangered species. 

Biological Conservation. Volume 117(3), pages 253-262. 

Gharrett, A.J., A.P. Matala, E.L. Peterson, A.K. Gray, Z. Li, and J. Heifetz. 2005. Two genetically distinct 

forms of rougheye rockfish are different species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

Volume 134, pages 242-260.

Gibson, C. 2013. NWSC and NWIFC report prepared for NOAA Protected Resources Division: 

Preventing the Loss of Gillnets in Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/puget_sound_

derelict_gill_net_prevention_report.pdf.

Gilardi, K. V., D. Carlson-Bremer, J.A. June, K. Antonelis, G. Broadhurst, and T. Cowan. 2010. Marine 

species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net 

removal. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 60(3), pages 376-382.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 137

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Gill, D.A., M.B. Mascia, G.N. Ahmadia, L. Glew, S.E. Lester, M. Barnes, I. Craigie, E.S. Darling, C.M. 

Free, J. Geldmann, S. Holst, O.P. Jensen, A.T. White, X. Basurto, L. Coad, R.D. Gates, G. Guannel, 

P.J. Mumby, H. Thomas, S. Whitmee, S. Woodley, H.E. Fox. 2017. Capacity shortfalls hinder the 

performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature Volume 543, pages 665-669

Gislason, H., N. Daan, J. C. Rice, and J. G. Pope. 2010. Size, growth, temperature and the natural 

mortality of marine fish. Fish and Fisheries. Volume 11, pages 149 to 158.

Good, T. P., J.A. June, M.A. Etnier, and G. Broadhurst.2010. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the 

Northwest Straits: Patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(1): 39-50.

Goyette, D., D. Brand and M. Thomas. 1988. Prevalence of idiopathic liver lesions in English sole and 

epidermal abnormalities in flatfish form Vancouver Harbour, British Columbia, 1986. Regional 

Program Report 87-09 Environment Canada, Vancouver, B.C.

Greene, C. and A. Godersky. 2012. Larval rockfish in Puget Sound surface waters. Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, NOAA.

Griffiths, D. and C. Harrod. 2007. Natural mortality, growth parameters, and environmental temperature 

in fishes revisited. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 64, pages 249-255.

Grossman, E. E., Stevens, A., Gelfenbaum, G., Curran, C. 2007. Nearshore Circulation and WaterColumn Properties in the Skagit River Delta, Northern Puget Sound, Washington: Juvenile Chinook 

Salmon habitat Availability in the Swinomish Channel: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5120. 96 pages.

Gunderson, D.R., Vetter R.D. 2006. Temperate rocky reef fishes. Marine Metapopulations, J.P. Kritzer 

and P.E. Sale (eds.), Elsevier.

Gunther, E. Field notes on Makah uses of kelp. 0614-002. Box 3, Folder 23. Makah miscellaneous notes. 

Erna Gunther papers, 1871-1981. University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections, Seattle, 

WA.

Haggarty, D. 2014. Rockfish conservation areas in B.C: Our current state of knowledge. Prepared for the 

David Suzuki Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. 

Haggarty, D.R., J.B. Shurin and K.L. Yamanaka. 2016. Assessing population recovery inside British 

Columbia’s Rockfish Conservation Areas with a remotely operated vehicle. Fisheries Research 183: 

165-179. 

Halderson, L. and L. J. Richards. 1987. Habitat use and young of the year copper rockfish (Sebastes 

caurinus) in British Columbia. Pages 129 to 141 in Proceedings of the International Rockfish 

Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Report, 87-2, Fairbanks, AK.

Hallenbeck, T.R., R.G. Kvitek, J. Lindholm. 2012. Rippled scour depressions add ecologically significant 

heterogeneity to soft-bottom habitats on the continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 

Volume 468, pages 119-133.

Halos, D., S.A. Hart, P. Hershberger, R. Kocan. 2005. Ichthyophonus in Puget Sound Rockfish from the 

San Juan Islands Archipelago and Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Journal of Aquatic Animal 

Health. Volume 19(3), pages 222-227. 

Hamel, N., J. Joyce, M. Fohn, A. James, J. Toft, A. Lawver, S. Redman and M. Naughton (eds.). 2015. 

2015 State of the Sound: report on the Puget Sound Vital Signs. November 2015. 86 pp. 

www.psp.wa.gov/sos.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 138

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Hamilton, M.W. 2008. Evaluation of management systems for KSn fisheries and potential application to

British Columbia's inshore rockfish fishery. M.R.M. Thesis, School of Resource and Environmental 

Management, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. 

Hamilton, T.J., A. Holcombe, M. Tresguerres. 2014. CO2-induced ocean acidification increases anxiety in 

Rockfish via alteration of GABAA receptor functioning. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

Biological Sciences, 281 no. 1775 20132509.

Hanson, B., R. W. Baird, J. K. B. Ford, J. Hempelmann-Halos, D. M. Van Doornik, J. R. Candy, C. K. 

Emmons, G. S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K. L. Ayres, S. K. Wasser, K. C. Balcomb, K. Balcomb-Bartok, 

J. G. Sneva, and M. J. Ford. 2010. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by southern 

resident killer whales in their summer range. Endangered Species Research. Volume 11, pages 69-82.

Harley, C.D.G., Hughes, A.R., Hultgren, K.M., Miner, B.G., Sorte, C.J.B., Thornber, C.S., Rodriguez, 

L.F., Tomanek, S.L., Williams, 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. 

Ecology Letters 9:2:228-241.

Hannah, R. W., P. S. Rankin, and M. T. Blume. 2014. The divergent effect of capture depth and 

associated barotrauma on post-recompression survival of canary (Sebastes pinniger) and yelloweye 

rockfish (S. ruberrimus). Fisheries Research Volume 157, pages 106-112.

Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin, 180. 740 pages.

Harvey, C. J. 2005. Effects of El Niño events on energy demand and egg production of rockfish

(Scorpaenidae: Sebastes): a bioenergetics approach. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 103, pages 7-83.

Harvey, C. J., N. Tolimieri, and P. S. Levin. 2006. Changes in body size, abundance, and energy 

allocation in rockfish assemblages of the Northeast Pacific. Ecological Applications. Volume 16, 

1,502-1,515.

Harvey, C.J., J. C. Field, S. G. Beyer, and S. M. Sogard. 2011. Modeling growth and reproduction of 

chilipepper rockfish under variable environmental conditions. Fisheries Research. Volume 109(1), 

pages 187-200. 

Haw, F. and R. Buckley. 1971. Saltwater fishing in Washington. Stanley N. Jones, Seattle.

Hayden-Spear, J. 2006. Nearshore habitat associations of young-of-year copper (Sebastes caurinus) and 

quillback (S. maliger) rockfish in the San Juan Channel, Washington. Master of Science Dissertation, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 38 pages.

Heath, D.D. and D.M. Blouw. 1998. Are maternal effects in fish adaptive or merely physiological side 

effects. In Maternal Effects as Adaptations. Oxford University Press, New York. 178-201.

Hedgecock, D. and J.P. Davis. 2007. Heterosis for yield and crossbreeding of the Pacific oyster 

Crassostrea gigas. Aquaculture. Volume 272, pages S17-S29.

Hershberger, P.K., K. Stick, B. Bui, C. Carroll, B. Fall, C. Mork, J.A. Perry, E. Sweeney, J. Wittouck. J. 

Winton, and R. Kocan. 2002. Incidence of Ichthyophonus hoferi in Puget Sound Fishes and Its 

Increase with Age of Pacific Herring. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. Volume 14(1), pages 50-56. 

Hilborn, R., T. P. Quinn, D. E. Schindler, and D. E. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries 

sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 100, pages 6,564 to 6,568.

Hochhalter S. J. and D. J. Reed. 2011. The effectiveness of deepwater release at improving survival of 

discarded yelloweye rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 31(5), 

pages 852-860. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 139

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Hoffman, J.I., F. Simpson, P. David, J.M. Rijks, T. Kuiken, M.A. Thorne, R.C. Lacy, and K.K. 

Dasmahapatra. 2014. High-throughput sequencing reveals inbreeding depression in a natural 

population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 111, pages 3775-3780.

Hoglund, J. 2009. Evolutionary Conservation Genetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Holles, S., S.D. Simpson, A.N. Radford, L. Berton, and D. Lecchini. 2013. Boat noise disrupts orientation 

behavior in a coral reef fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 485, pages 295-300.

Hordyk, A., K. Ono, K. Sainsbury, N. Lonergan and J. Prince. 2015a. Some explorations of the life 

history rations to describe length composition, spawning-per-recruit, and the spawning potential ratio. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 72(1). pages 204-216.

Hordyk, A., K. Ono, S. Valencia, N. Loneragan and J. Prince. 2015. A novel length-based empirical 

estimation method of spawning potential ratio (SPR), and tests of its performance, for small-scale, 

data-poor fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 72(1), pages 217-231

Hsieh, C.H., C.S. Reiss, J.R. Hunter,J.R. Beddington, R.M. May, and G. Sugihara. 2006. Fishing elevates 

variability in the abundance of exploited species. Nature. Volume 443, pages 859-862.

Hutchings, J.A. and J.D. Reynolds. 2004. Marine Fish Population Collapses: Consequences for Recovery 

and Extinction Risk. BioScience. Volume 54(4), pages 297-309.

Hutchinson, I. 1988. The biogeography of the coastal wetlands of the Puget Trough: deltaic form, 

environment, and marsh community structure. Journal of Biogeography, pages 729-745.

Hyde, J., C. Kimbrell, J. Budrick, E. Lynn, and R. Vetter. 2008. Cryptic speciation in the vermilion 

rockfish (Sebastes miniatus) and the role of bathymetry in the speciation process. Molecular Ecology.

Volume 17, pages 1122-1136.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Solomon et al., Eds. 2007. The Physical Science 

Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jagielo, T., A. Hoffmann, J. Tagart, and M. Zimmermann. 2003. Demersal groundfish densities in 

trawlable and untrawlable habitats off Washington: implications for the estimation of habitat bias in 

trial surveys. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 101(3), pages 545-565.

Jarvis, E. T. and G. G. Lowe. 2008. The effects of barotrauma on the catch-and-release survival of 

southern California nearshore and shelf rockfish (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 65, pages 1286-1296.

Jeffries, S. J., P. J. Gearin, H. R. Huber, D. L. Saul, and D. A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of seal and sea lion haul 

out sites in Washington. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia.

Jeffries S.J., H.R. Huber, J. Calambokidis, and J. Laake. 2003. Trends and status of harbor seals in 

Washington State: 1978-1999. Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 67, pages 207-218.

Johnson, S. W., M. L. Murphy, and D.J. Csepp. 2003. Distribution, habitat, and behavior of rockfishes, 

Sebastes spp., in nearshore waters of southeastern Alaska: observations from a remotely operated 

vehicle. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 66, pages 259-270.

Johnson, D.W. 2006a. Predation, habitat complexity, and variation in density-dependent mortality of 

temperate reef fishes. Ecology. Volume 87, pages 1179-1188. 

Johnson, D.W. 2006b. Density dependence in marine fish revealed at small and large spatial scales. 

Ecology. Volume 87, pages 319-325.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 140

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Johnson, D.W. 2007. Habitat complexity modifies post-settlement mortality and the recruitment dynamics 

of a marine fish. Ecology. Volume 88, pages 1716-1725. 

Keller, L.F. and D.M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution. Issue 17, pages 230-241. 

Keller, A. A., W. W. Wakefield, C. E. Whitmire, B. H. Horness, M. A. Bellman and K. L. Bosley. 2014. 

Distribution of demersal fishes along the U.S. west coast (Canada to Mexico) in relation to spatial 

fishing closures (2003-2011). Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 501, pages 169-190.

Kendall, A. W. and W. H. Lenarz. 1986. Status of early life history studies of northeast Pacific rockfishes. 

Proceedings of the International Rockfish Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Report, 

87-2, Fairbanks 99701.

Kennedy, D.I.D. and R.T. Bouchard. 1990. Northern Coast Salish. IN: W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of 

North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast (p. 441). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution.

Kilgore, K.J., S.T. Maynord, M.D. Chan, R.P Morgan II. 2001. Evaluation of Propeller-Induced Mortality 

on Early Life Stages of Selected Fish Species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

Volume 21, pages 947–955.

Klinger, T. 2015. The role of seaweeds in the modern ocean. Perspectives in Phycology. Volume 2(1),

pages 31-39.

Lance, M. M., and S. J. Jeffries. 2007. Temporal and spatial variability of harbor seal diet in the San Juan 

archipelago. Contract Rep. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Lance, M.M., W.Y. Chang, S.J. Jeffries, S.F. Pearson, and A.A. Guitierrez. 2012. Harbor seal diet in 

northern Puget Sound: implications for the recovery of depressed fish stocks. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. Volume 464, pages 257-271.

Landahl, J. T., L. L. Johnson, J. E. Stein, T. K. Collier, and U. Varanasi. 1997. Approaches for 

determining effects of pollution on fish populations of Puget Sound. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society. Volume 126, pages 519-535.

Larson, R. J. 1980. Competition, habitat selection, and the bathymetric segregation of two rockfish 

(Sebastes) species. Ecological Monographs. Volume 50, pages 221-239.

Lea, R. N., R. D. McAllister, and D. A. VenTresca. 1999. Biological aspects of nearshore rockfishes of

the genus Sebastes from Central California with notes on ecology related to sportfishes. Fish Bulletin 

177. California Department of Fish and Game Marine Region. 

Leaman, B. M. 1991. Reproductive styles and life-history variables relative to exploitation and 

management of Sebastes stocks. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30, pages 253-271.

Lee, J., W. Palsson, C. Muns, M. Racine, B. Berejikian, M. Rust, T. Wright, and K. Massee. 2008. A 

multilateral research program to investigate culture-based rebuilding using lingcod (Ophiodon 

elongatus) as a model species. Proposal to the Puget Sound Recreational Fishery Enhancement Fund. 

(Available from J. Lee, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 

98501.)

Levin, P. S., J. A. Coyer, R. Petrik, and T. P. Good. 2002. Community-wide effects of nonindigenous 

species on temperate reefs. Ecology. Volume 83, pages 3,182-3,193.

Levings, C.D. and R.M. Thom. 1994. Habitat changes in Georgia Basin: Implications for resource 

management and restoration. In R. C. H. Wilson, R. J. Beamish, F. Aitkens, and J. Bell (eds.), Review 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 141

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

of the marine environment and biota of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and Juan de Fuca Strait, p. 

300–351. Proceedings of the British Columbia/Washington Symposium on the Marine Environment. 

Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1948.

Link J.S and P.J. Auster. 2013. The challenges of evaluating competition among marine fishes: Who 

cares, when does it matter, and what can one do about it? Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 89(1), 

pages 213-247.

London, J.M., M.M. Lance, and S.J. Jeffries. 2002. Observations of harbor seal predation on Hood Canal 

salmonids from 1998 to 2000. Final Report, Studies of Expanding Pinniped Populations, NOAA 

Grant No. NA17FX1603, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PSMFS Contract No. 02-15. 

20 pages.

Longhurst, A. 2002. Murphy’s Law revisited: longevity as a factor in recruitment to fish populations. 

Fishery Research. Volume 56, pages 125-131. 

Lönnstedt, O.M. and P. Eklöv. 2016. Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles 

influence larval fish ecology. Science. Volume 352(6290), pages 1213-1216.

Love, M.S., M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus 

Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30, pages 225 -243.

Love, M. S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorstein. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of 

California Press. 404 pages.

Marliave, J., K.W. Conway, D.M. Gibbs, A. Lamb, and C. Gibbs. 2009. Biodiversity and rockfish 

recruitement in sponge gardens and bioherms of southern British Columbia, Canada. Marine Biology.

(2009) 156:2247–2254DOI 10.1007/s00227-009-1252-8

Markel, R.W. 2011. Rockfish recruitment and trophic dynamics on the west coast of Vancouver Island: 

fishing, ocean climate, and sea otters. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia

Marshall, K.N., I.C. Kaplan, E.E. Hodgson, A. Hermann, D.S. Busch, P. McElhany, T.E. Essington, C.J. 

Harvey and E.A. Fulton. 2017. Risks of ocean acidification in the California Current food web and 

fisheries: ecosystem model projections. Global Change Biology. Volume 23(4), pages 1525-1539.

Martinis, J. 2015. Saltwater fishing journal. Third edition. Evergreen Pacific Publishing, 158 pages.

Matthews, K.R. 1989. A comparative study of habitat use by young-of-the year, sub-adult, and adult 

rockfishes on four habitat types in Central Puget Sound. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. Volume 88, pages 

223-239. 

Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. 

Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget 

Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D.

McBride, A., Wolf, K. and E. Beamer. 2006. Skagit Bay habitat nearshore mapping. Prepared for the 

Skagit River System Cooperative. Available at skagitcoop.org.

McClelland, E. K. and K.A. Naish. 2007. What is the fitness outcome of crossing unrelated fish 

populations? A meta-analysis and an evaluation of future research directions. Conservation Genetics.

Volume 8, pages 397-416.

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. Technical memorandum 

NMFS- NWFSC-42. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 142

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

McKechnie, I. 2007. Investigating the complexities of sustainable fishing at a prehistoric village on 

western Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Journal for Nature Conservation. Volume 

15(3), pages 208-222.

Miller, B. S. and S. F. Borton. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: Maps and data 

source sheets. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, 3 volumes.

Mills, K. L., T. Laidig, S. Ralston, and W. J. Sydeman. 2007. Diets of top predator indicate pelagic 

juvenile rockfish (Sebastes spp.) abundance in the California current system. Fisheries Oceanography. 

Volume 16(3), pages 273-283.

Mitchell, D. 1990. Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington. IN: 

W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast (p. 340). 

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Moore, S.K., V.L. Trainer, N.J. Mantua, M.S. Parker, E.A. Laws, L.C. Backer, L.E. Fleming. 2008. 

Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health. 

Environmental Health, 6(Suppl 2):S4. 

Morley, S., J. D. Toft, and K. M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal 

habitats of a Puget Sound urban estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. Volume 35, pages 774-784. 

Moser, H. G. 1967. Reproduction and development of Sebastodes paucispinis and comparison with other 

rockfishes off southern California. Copeia. Volume 4, pages 773-797.

Moser, G. H. and G. W. Boehlert. 1991. Ecology of pelagic larvae and juveniles of the genus Sebastes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30, pages 203-224.

Moser, H. G., R. L. Charter, W. Watson, D. A. Ambrose, J. L. Butler, J. Charter, and E. M. Sandknop. 

2000. Abundance and distribution of rockfish (Sebastes) larvae in the southern California Bight in 

relation to environmental conditions and fishery exploitation. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 

Volume 41, pages 132-147.

Moulton, L. and B. Miller. 1987. Characterization of Puget Sound marine fishes: Survey of available data. 

Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Report FRI-UW-8716. 97 pages.

Mueller-Blenkle, C., P.K. McGregor, A.B. Gill, M.H. Anderson, J. Metcalfe, V. Bendall, P. Sigray, D.T. 

Wood, and F. Thomsen. 2010. Effects of pile-driving noise on the behavior of marine fish. COWRIE 

Technical Report 06-08. 57 pages.

Mumford, T. F. 2007. Kelp and eelgrass in Puget Sound. Technical Report 2007-5. Prepared in support of 

the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. 27 pages.

Munday, P.L., D.L. Dixon, J.M. Doelson, G.P Jones, M.S. Pratchett, G.V. Devitsina, and K.B. Doving. 

2009. Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 106, pages 1848-1852.

Murphy, M. L., S. W. Johnson, and D. J. Csepp. 2000. A comparison of fish assemblages in eelgrass and 

adjacent subtidal habitat near Craig Alaska. Alaska Fishery Bulletin. Volume 7.

Musick, J.A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes: The American Fisheries Society 

Initiative. Fisheries. Volume 24, pages 6-14.

Naish, K. A., J. E. Taylor III, P. S. Levin, T. P. Quinn, J. R. Winton, D. Huppert, and R. Hilborn. 2007. 

An evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery enhancement hatcheries on wild populations 

of salmon. Advances In Marine Biology. Volume 53, pages 61-194.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 143

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Investigation of scientific information on the impacts 

of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC28.

NMFS. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Assessment of Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

Management Plan. NMFS, Northwest Region, with Assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December 2004. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/salmon_steelhead/ps-chnk-eis.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants. Federal Register 75, 22276-22290. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/04/28/2010-9847/endangered-and-tthreatened-wildlifeand-plants-threatened-status-for-the-puget-soundgeorgia-basin#h-19.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation on the implementation of the area 2A (U.S. West Coast) 

halibut catch sharing plan for 2014-2016. NMFS Consultation Number 2014/F/WCR/403.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Biological Report: Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio. West 

Coast Region, Protected Resources Division. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Yelloweye 

rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Office of Protected Resources, Seattle, Washington 

April 2016. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. 2017 quarter 2 update through June 30, 2017. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2017/second/q2-2017-stockstatus-summary-changes.pdf

NRC (Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.). 2008. Rates of marine species mortality caused by derelict 

fishing nets in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for the Northwest Straits Initiative. 16 pages.

NRC 2011. Deepwater sidescan sonar surveys for derelict fishing nets and rockfish habitat. Submitted to 

Northwest Straits Foundation. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/deepwate 

r_nets_surveys_dnr.pdf.

NRC 2012. Spatial distribution and magnitude of derelict shrimp pots and their potential impacts to 

rockfish in the Puget Sound. Submitted to Northwest Straits Foundation and NOAA Protected 

Resources Division. September 20, 2012.

NRC 2013. Deepwater derelict fishing gear removal protocols. Identifying and Assessing the Feasibility 

of Removal of Deepwater Derelict Fishing Nets from Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for NOAA 

and Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Foundation. 

NRC. 2014. Rockfish bycatch in shrimp pots and updated estimates of the magnitude of derelict shrimp 

pots in Puget Sound. NRC.

Newton, J. A., C. Bassin, A. Devol, M. Kawase, W. Ruef, M. Warner, D. Hannafious, and R. Rose. 2007. 

Hypoxia in Hood Canal: An overview of status and contributing factors. Proceedings of the 2007 

Georgia Basin Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 144

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Nichol, D. G., and E. K. Pikitch. 1994. Reproduction of darkblotched rockfish off the Oregon coast. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 123(4), 469‐481.

Nicholls, R. J. and A. Cazenave. 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science. Volume 

328(5985), pages 1517-1520.

Northwest Straits Initiative (NWSI). 2014a. Derelict gear removal. 

http://www.derelictgear.org/Progress/ARRA-Project.aspx, accessed April 1, 2014. 

Northwest Straits Initiative (NWSI). 2014b. Derelict gear database, updated April 4, 2014.

Nearshore Habitat Program. 2001. The Washington state shore zone inventory. Washington Department 

of Natural Resources, Olympia. 

Northwest Straits Commission. 2011. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

http://www.derelictgear.org/Progress/ARRA-Project.aspx.

O’Connell, V. M. and C. W. Carlile. 1993. Habitat-specific density of adult yelloweye rockfish Sebastes 

ruberrimus in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. Volume 91, pages 304-309.

O’Farrell, M. R. and L. W. Botsford. 2005. Estimation of change in lifetime egg production from length 

frequency data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 62, pages 1,626-1,639.

O’Farrell, M. R. and L. W. Botsford. 2006. Estimating the status of nearshore rockfish (Sebastes spp.) 

populations with length frequency data. Ecological Applications. Volume 16(3), pages 977-986.

O'Grady, J.J., B.W. Brook, D.H. Reed, J.D. Ballou, D.W. Tonkyn, and R. Frankham. 2006. Realistic 

levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biological 

Conservation. Volume 133, pages 42-51.

Olander, D. 1991. Northwest coastal fishing guide. F. Amato Publications, Portland, Oregon. 232 pages.

Olesiuk, P. F., M. A. Bigg, G. M. Ellis, S. J. Crockford, and R. J. Wigen. 1990. An assessment of the 

feeding habits of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, based on 

scat analysis. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Orr, J. W., M. A. Brown, and D. C. Baker. 2000. Guide to rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) of the genera 

Sebastes, Sebastolobus, and Abelosebastes of the northeast Pacific Ocean, Second Edition. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-117. 56 pages.

Osterberg, A. 2012. Developing a Network of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound. A Synthesis 

Report on Challenges, Opportunities and Policy Options. A report prepared for the Puget Sound 

Partnership under WA Sea Grant Hershman Fellowship program.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2014. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery - Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE). 2014. December 2014, www.pcouncil.org

Pacunski, R., Palsson, W., Greene, H. G, and Gunderson, D. 2008. Conducting Visual Surveys with a 

Small ROV in Shallow Water. Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska, J. R. Reynolds and 

H. G. Greene (eds.). Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

doi:10.4027/mhmta.2008.08

Pacunski, R., W. Palsson, and H. G. Greene. 2013. Estimating Fish Abundance and Community 

Composition on Rocky Habitats in the San Juan Islands Using a Small Remotely Operated Vehicle. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Program. Olympia, WA. 

Paddack, M.J. and J.A. Estes. 2000. Kelp forest fish populations in marine reserves and adjacent exploited 

areas of central California. Ecological Applications. Volume 10(3), pages 855-870.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 145

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Palsson, W.A. 1997. The response of rocky reef fishes to marine protected areas in Puget Sound. The

Design & Monitoring of Marine Reserves. Univ. British Columbia Fisheries Centre Research

Reports. Volume 5(1), pages 22-23.

Palsson, W.A. and R.E. Pacunski. 1995. The response of rocky reef fishes to harvest refugia in Puget 

Sound. Pages 224-234, In: Puget Sound Research ’95, Volume 1, Puget Sound Water Quality 

Authority, Olympia, WA.

Palsson, W. 2002. Personal communication, via email from Wayne Palsson, Groundfish Program 

Coordinator, WDFW, to Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, one of the Puget Sound 

Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA EIS authors, re Puget Sound sport groundfish 

harvest, December 23, 2002. 

Palsson, W.A., R.E. Pacunski, and T.R. Parra. 2004. Time will tell: Long-term observations of the 

response of rocky habitat fishes to marine reserves in Puget Sound. 2003. Georgia Basin/Puget Sound 

33 Research Conference Proceedings, T.W. Droscher and D.A Fraser, eds. Puget Sound Action

Team, Olympia.

Palsson, W. A., R. E. Pacunski, T. R. Parra, and J. Beam. 2008. The effects of hypoxia on marine fish 

populations in southern Hood Canal, Washington. American Fisheries Society Symposium. Volume 

64, pages 255-280.

Palsson, W. A., T. Tsou, G. G. Bargmann, R. M. Buckley, J. E. West, M. L. Mills, Y. W. Cheng, and R. 

E. Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, FPT 09-04, Olympia, WA.

Pampoulie, C. and A.K. Danielsdottir. 2008. Resolving species identification problems in the genus 

Sebastes using nuclear genetic markers. Fisheries Research. Volume 93, pages 54-63.

Parker, S.J., H.I. McElderry, P.S. Rankin, and R.W. Hannah. 2006. Buoyancy Regulation and Barotrauma 

in Two Species of Nearshore Rockfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 135, 

pages 1213-1223.

Peterson S.H., M.M. Lance, S.J. Jeffries, A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. 2012. Long distance movements and 

disjunct spatial use of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the inland waters of the Pacific Northwest. 

PLoS ONE. Volume 7, Issue 6, e39046.

Pietsch, T.W. and J.W. Orr. 2015. Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis. 

NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18, 106 p. doe:10.7755/PP.18

Popper, A. N. and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal 

of Fish Biology. Volume 75(3), pages 455-489.

Pribyl A. L., C. B. Schreck, M. L. Kent, and S.J. Parker. 2009. The differential response to 

decompression in three species of nearshore Pacific rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. Volume 29, pages 1479-1486.

Pribyl A. L., M. L. Kent, S. J. Parker, and C. B. Schreck. 2011. The response to forced decompression in 

six species of Pacific rockfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 140, pages 

374-383.

PSAT (Puget Sound Action Team). 2007. 2007 Puget Sound update, ninth report of the Puget Sound 

Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA. 260 pages.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). 1987. Puget Sound environmental atlas. Puget Sound

Estuary Program, Olympia, WA.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 146

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Punt, A. E. and S. Ralston. 2007. A management strategy evaluation of rebuilding revision rules for 

overfished rockfish stocks. Pages 329-351 in J. Heifetz, J. DiCosimo, A. J. Gharrett, M. S. Love, V. 

M. O'Connell, and R. D. Stanley (eds.), Biology, Assessment, and Management of North Pacific 

Rockfishes. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-07-01.

Rankin, P.S., R.W. Hannah, M.T.O. Blume, T.J. Miller-Morgan, DVM CertAqV, J.R. Heidel, DVM 

DACVP. 2017. Delayed effects of capture-induced barotrauma on physical condition and behavioral 

competency of recompressed yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus. Fisheries Research. Volume 

186(1), pages 258-268.

Renker, A.M. and E. Gunther. 1990. Makah. IN: W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, 

Vol. 7: Northwest Coast (p. 422). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Reum, J. C. P. 2006. Spatial and temporal variation in the Puget Sound food web. A thesis submitted in 

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science. University of 

Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences.

Rice, C. A. 2007. Evaluating the biological condition of Puget Sound. Ph.D. dissertation University of 

Washington, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences. 270 pages.

Rice, C. A., J.J. Duda, C.M. Greene, and J.R. Karr. 2012. Geographic patterns of fishes and jellyfish in 

Puget Sound Surface Waters, Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem 

Science. Volume 4, pages 117-128.

Richards, L. J. 1986. Depth and habitat distributions of three species of rockfish (Sebastes) in British 

Columbia: observations from the submersible PISCES IV. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 

17(1), pages 13-21.

Rocha-Olivares, A., R. Rosenblatt, and R. Vetter. 1999. Cryptic species of rockfishes (Sebastes: 

Scorpaenidae) in the Southern Hemisphere inferred from mitochondrial lineages. Journal of 

Heredity. Volume 90, pages 404-411.

Roche, E.T. and B.W. Halstead. 1972. The venom apparatus of California rockfishes (Family 

Scorpaenidae). In California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin. Volume 156, pages 1-49.

Rochman, C.M., A. Tahir, S.L. Williams, D.V. Baxa, R. Lam, J.T. Miller, F. The, S. Werorilangi and S.J. 

Teh. 2015. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and 

bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientific Reports. Volume 5.

Rosenthal, R. J., L. Haldorson, L. J. Field, V. Moran-O’Connell, M. G. LaRiviere, J. Underwood, and M. 

C. Murphy. 1982. Inshore and shallow offshore bottomfish resources in the southeastern Gulf of 

Alaska. Alaska Coastal Research and University of Alaska, Juneau. 166 pages.

Roques, S., J.M. Sevigny, and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Evidence for broadscale introgressive hybridization 

between two redfish (genus Sebastes) in the North-west Atlantic: a rare marine example. Molecular 

Ecology. Volume 10, pages 149-165.

Ruggerone, G. T., and F. A. Goetz. 2004. Survival of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) in response to climate-induced competition with pink salmon (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 61, pages 1,756-1,770.

Ruckelshaus, M., T. Essington, and P. S. Levin. 2009. How science can inform ecosystem-based 

management in the sea: Examples from Puget Sound. In K. L. McLeod and H. M. Leslie (eds.), 

Ecosystem-based management for the oceans: Applying resilience thinking, p. 392. Island Press, 

Washington, DC. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 147

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C.S. Wong, 

D.W.R. Wallace,, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T-H. Peng, Kozyr, T. Ono, A.F. Rios. 2004. The oceanic 

sink for CO2. Science. Volume 305, pages 367-371.

Sanga, R. 2015. US EPA Region 10 Sediment Cleanup Summary. Presentation at Sediment Management 

Annual Review Meeting (SMARM) 2015, May 6, Seattle, WA. 

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/civilworks/dredging/SMARM%202015/SangaEPA%2

0SMARM%20presentation-15.pdf.

Sawchuk, J.H. 2012. Angling for Insight: Examining the recreational fishing community’s knowledge, 

perceptions, practices, and preferences to inform rockfish recovery planning in Puget Sound, 

Washington. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, School of Marine and Environmental 

Affairs, Seattle, WA. 199 pages. 

Sawchuk J.H., A.H. Beaudreau, D. Tonnes, and D. Fluharty. 2015. Using stakeholder engagement to 

inform endangered species management and improve conservation. Marine Policy 54:98-107.

Schiel, D.R. and M.S. Foster. 2015. The Biology and Ecology of Giant Kelp Forests. University of 

California Press. Oakland, California, USA. 416 pages.

Schroeder, D. and M. Love. 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. 

CalCOFI Rep. Volume 43, pages 182-190.

Schwenke, P. 2012. History and extent of introgressive hybridization in Puget Sound rockfishes (Sebastes 

auriculatus, S. caurinus, and S. maliger). Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, School of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Seattle, WA. 77 pages. 

Shaffer, J. A. Doty, D. C., Buckley, R. M., and J. E. West. 1995. Crustacean community composition and 

trophic use of the drift vegetation habitat by juvenile sp1itnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 123, pages 13-21.

Shanks, A.L. and G.L. Eckert. 2005. Population persistence of California Current fishes and benthic 

crustaceans: a marine drift paradox. Ecological Monographs. Volume 75(4), pages 505–524.

Shanks, A.L., B.A. Grantham, and M.H. Carr. 2003. Propagule Dispersal Distance and the Size and 

Spacing of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, Vol. 13(1), Supplement: The Science of 

Marine Reserves: S159-S169.

Siegle M.R., E.B. Taylor, K.M. Miller, R.E. Withler, and K.L. Yamanaka. 2013. Subtle population 

genetic structure in yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) is consistent with a major 

oceanographic division in British Columbia, Canada. PLoS ONE, 8.

Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal 

estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: An unappreciated function. In V.S. Kennedy (ed.), 

Estuarine Comparisons, pages 343-364. Academic Press, New York.

Simenstad, C.A., M. Ramirez, J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, J. Toft, B. Craig, C. Davis, 

J. Fung, P. Bloch, K. Fresh, D. Myers, E. Iverson, A. Bailey, P. Schlenger, C. Kiblinger, P. Myre, W. 

Gerstel, and A. MacLennan. 2011. Historical change of Puget Sound shorelines: Puget Sound 

nearshore ecosystem project change analysis. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2011-01. Olympia, 

Washington: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Simpson, S.D., P.L. Munday, M.L. Wittenrich, R. Manassa, D.L. Dixson, M. Gagliano, and H.Y. Yan. 

2011. Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish. Biology Letters. 

Volume 7(6), pages 917-920.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 148

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device 

on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.), Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 49, pages 1357-1365.

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, and A. Popper. 2010. A noisy 

spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution. Volume 25(7), pages 419-427.

Sobel, J. and C. Dahlgren. 2004. Marine reserves: a guide to science, design, and use. Island Press, 1718 

Conneticut Ave., Suite 300 NW, Washington, DC 20009. 

Sogard, S.M., S.A. Berkeley, R. Fisher. 2008. Maternal effects in rockfishes Sebastes spp.: A comparison 

among species. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 360, pages 227-236.

Speich, S., and T. R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of Washington marine bird colonies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Report. Volume 88(6), pages 1-510.

Springer, Y.P., C.G. Hays, M.H. Carr and M.R. Mackey. 2010. Towards ecosystem-based management of 

marine macroalgae: the bull kelp, Nereocystis luetkeana. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An 

Annual Review. Volume 48, pages 1-42.

Stankey, G.G. and B. Shindler. 2006. Formation of Social Acceptability Judgments and their Implications 

for Management of Rare and Little-Known Species. Conservation Biology. Volume 20, pages 28-37. 

Stanley, R. D., K. Rutherford, and N. Olsen. 2001. Preliminary status report on bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis). Stock Assessment Division, Science Branch, Pacific Region Fisheries and Oceans, 

Canada. Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7. 

Stanley, R.D., M. McAllister, and P. Starr. 2012. Updated stock assessment for bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat 

Research Document 2012/109. 73 pages.

Starr, R.M., D.E. Wendt, C.L. Barnes, C.I. Marks, D. Malone, G. Waltz, K.T. Schmidt, J. Chiu, A.L. 

Launer, N.C. Hall and N. Yochum. 2015. Variation in responses of fishes across multiple reserves 

within a network of Marine Protected Areas in temperate waters. PLoS One 10(3): e0118502

Stein, D. L., B. N. Tissot, M. A. Hixon, and W. Barss. 1992. Fish-habitat associations on a deep reef at 

the edge of the Oregon continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. Volume 90, pages 540-551.

Steneck, R.S., M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.M. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, and M.J. Tegner. 

2002. Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental 

Conservation. Volume 29(4), pages 436-459.

Stewart, H. 1977. Indian fishing: early methods on the Northwest coast. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington Press.

Strickland, R. 1983. The Fertile Fjord, Plankton in Puget Sound. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, WA.

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 98195. 145 pages.

Studebaker, R. S., K. N. Cox, and T. J. Mulligan. 2009. Recent and historical spatial distributions of 

juvenile rockfish species in rocky intertidal tide pools, with emphasis on black rockfish. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 138, pages 645-651. 

Squire, J. L and S. E. Smith. 1977. Anglers’ guide to the United States Pacific Coast, U.S. department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

139 pages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 149

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Szpak, P., T.J. Orchard, A.K. Salomon, and D.R. Gröcke. 2013. Regional ecological variability and 

impact of the maritime fur trade on nearshore ecosystems in southern Haida Gwaii (British Columbia, 

Canada): Evidence from stable isotope analysis of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) bone collagen. 

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. Volume 5(2), pages 159-182.

Tallmon, D. A., G. Luikart., and R.S. Waples. 2004. The alluring simplicity and complex reality of 

genetic rescue. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Volume 19, pages 489-496.

Thomson, R. E. 1994. Physical oceanography of the Strait of Georgia-Puget Sound-Juan de Fuca Strait 

System. In R. C. H. Wilson, R. J. Beamish, F. Aitkens and J. Bell (eds.), Review of the marine 

environment and biota of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait, pages 36-98. 

Proceedings of the BC/Washington Symposium on the Marine Environment, January 13 and 14, 

1994. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1948.

Tolimieri, N. and P. S. Levin. 2005. The roles of fishing and climate in the population dynamics of 

bocaccio rockfish. Ecological Applications. Volume 15, pages 458-468.

Tolimieri, N., K. Andrews, G. Williams, and P. S. Levin. 2009. Home range size and patterns of space 

use for lingcod, copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish in Puget Sound in relation to diel and tidal 

cycles. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 380, pages 229-243.

Tonnes, D. 2012. Editor. Rockfish Recovery in the Salish Sea: Research and Management Priorities. 

NOAA Fisheries Service. 

Tonnes, D., M. Bhuthimethee, J. Sawchuk, N. Tolimieri, K. Andrews and K. Nichols. 2016. Yelloweye 

rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. NOAA 

West Coast Region, Protected Resources Divisions, Seattle Office. 77 pages.

Turner, H. 1976. Ethnozoology of the Snoqualmie.

Unsworth, J. 2015. Letter from the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to Chris Yates 

regarding the early Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan (May 1, 2015). 

Unsworth, J. 2016. Letter from the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to Chris Yates 

regarding the Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan (November, 7 2016).

Van Cleve, F.B., G. Bargmann, M. Culver, and the MPA Work Group. 2009. Marine protected areas in 

Washington: Recommendations of the Marine Protected Areas Work Group to the Washington State 

Legislature. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00038.

van der Straaten, N., A. Jacobson, D. Halos, P. Hershberger, A. A. Kocan, and R. Kocan. 2005. 

Prevalence and Spatial Distribution of Intraerythrocytic Parasite(s) in Puget Sound Rockfish 

(Sebastes emphaeus) from the San Juan Archipelago, Washington (USA). Journal of Parasitology.

Volume 91(4), pages 980-982.

von Biela, V.R., S.D. Newsome, J.L. Bodkin, G.H. Kruse, and C.E. Zimmerman. 2016. Widespread kelpderived carbon in pelagic and benthic nearshore fishes suggested by stable isotope analysis. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science. Volume 181, pages 364-374.

Wallace, J.R. 2007. Update to the status of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) off the U.S. West 

Coast in 2007, Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 150

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Wang, S. S. 2005. Groundfish habitat associations form video survey with a submersible off the 

Washington State coast. Master of Science thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Waples, R. S., K. Hindar, and J.J. Hard. 2012. Genetic risks associated with marine aquaculture. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-119: 1-149.

Warner, R. R. and P. L. Chesson. 1985. Coexistence mediated by recruitment fluctuations: A field guide 

to the storage effect. The American Naturalist. Volume 125, pages 769-787.

Washington, P. 1977. Recreationally important marine fishes of Puget Sound, Washington. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center. 122 pages.

Washington, P. M., R. Gowan, and D. H. Ito. 1978. A biological report on eight species of rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.) from Puget Sound, Washington. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center Processed 

Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010a. Commercial and recreational 

fisheries in Puget Sound potential impact on rockfish (draft). Submitted to NOAA on March 3, 2010.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010b. Rule-making order, CR-103e, 

emergency rule closing several commercial fisheries in Puget Sound. Order No. 10-191.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. Final Puget Sound Rockfish Recovery 

Plan: policies, strategies and actions. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00035/apr2011_rockfish_conservation_plan.pdf.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011b. Unpublished catch data 2003 – 2009. On 

file with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandpoint Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. Puget Sound recreational fishery sample 

data, 1989-current. Fish Program, Fish Management Division, Puget Sound Sampling Unit. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012b. Washington State species of concern 

lists. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/lists/search.php?searchby=simple&search=rockfish&or

derby=AnimalType%2CCommonName. (Accessed January 29, 2012.)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012c. Conservation plan for ESA listed rockfish 

in Puget Sound. Reducing the impact of fisheries and research activities on yelloweye rockfish, 

canary rockfish and bocaccio rockfish. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service by 

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/rockfish/wdfw_permit_applications.html

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. Puget Sound Recreational Salmon and 

Marine Fish Enhancement Program Goals and Objectives. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/psrfef/docs/psrfef_goals_and_objectives_final_01022014.pdf. 

(Accessed May 20, 2015.)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014. 2011/2012/2013/2014 Sportfishing 

regulations and rules pamphlet. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01185/wdfw01185.pdf. (Accessed 

August 20, 2014.) 

WDFW. 2014a. Personal communication, via email to Dan Tonnes (NMFS) and Robert Pacunski 

(WDFW), regarding WDFW estimates of catch from recreational anglers in Puget Sound for 2003 –
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 151

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

2011. Personal communication, email to Dan Tonnes, NMFS West Coast Region Protected Resources

Division, regarding by-catch in 2012-2011 Puget Sound recreational fisheries, January 7, 2014.

WDFW. 2015. Comments on the Early Review Document of the Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan, from 

James Unsworth, WDFW, to Chris Yates, NMFS Protected Resources Division, May 1, 2015.

WDFW. 2016. Personal communication, via email to Jennifer Sawchuk (NMFS) and Ryan Lothrop 

(WDFW), regarding WDFW test boat fishery data and rockfish bycatch from 2003 – 2016. Personal 

communication, email to Jennifer Sawchuk, NMFS Protected Resources Division, May 2, 2016.

Washington State Legislature. 2012. Final Bill Report, ESB 5661, Derelict Fishing Gear. Olympia, 

Washington. 

Weis, L.J. 2004. The effects of San Juan County, Washington, marine protected areas on larval rockfish 

production. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of 

Science, University of Washington.

Weispfenning, A. J. 2006. Study of nearshore demersal fishes within candidate marine reserves in Skagit 

County Washington. Master of Science thesis. Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. 

Wessen, G. 1990. Prehistory of the Ocean Coast of Washington. IN: W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast (p. 412). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

West, J. and S. O’Neill. 1998. Persistent pollutants and factors affecting their accumulation in rockfishes 

(Sebastes spp.) from Puget Sound, Washington. In: Puget Sound Research ’98 Proceedings. Puget 

Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA. 948 pages.

West, J. E., S. M. O’Neill, G. Lippert, and S. Quinnell. 2001a. Toxic contaminants in marine and 

anadromous fish from Puget Sound, Washington: Results of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring 

Program fish component, 1989–1999. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

West, J., S. O'Neill, D. Lomax, and L. Johnson. 2001b. Implications for reproductive health in quillback 

rockfish (Sebastes maliger) from Puget Sound exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls. Puget Sound 

Research '01. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Bellevue, WA.

Westrheim, S. J. and W. R. Harling. 1975. Age-length relationships for 26 scorpaenids in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean. Technical Report 565, Fisheries and Marine Service Research Division, Nanaimo, 

British Columbia. 

Whitaker, D.J., M.L. Kent, J.A. Sakanari. 1996. Kudoa miniauriculata n. sp. (Myxozoa, Myxosporea) 

from the musculature of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) from California. The Journal of 

Parasitology. Volume 82(2), pages 312-315. 

Willi, Y., J. Van Buskirk, and A.A. Hoffmann. 2006. Limits to the adaptive potential of small 

populations. In Annual Review Of Ecology Evolution And Systematics. pages 433-458.

Williams, E. H. and S. Ralston. 2002. Distribution and co-occurrence of rockfishes (family: Sebastidae) 

over trawlable shelf and slope habitats of California and southern Oregon. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 

100, pages 836-855.

Williams, G. D., P.S. Levin, and W. A. Palsson. 2010. Rockfish in Puget Sound: An ecological history of 

exploitation. Marine Policy. Volume 34, pages 1,010-1,020.

Wilson, R.C.H., R.J. Beamish, F. Aitkens, and J. Bell. 1994. Review of the marine environment and biota 

of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan De Fuca Straits. Proceedings of the BC/Washington 

symposium on the marine environment, January 13 and 14, 1994. 1994 Canadian Technical Report of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No. 1948.199.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 152

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Wootton, J. T., and C.A. Pfister. 2013. Experimental separation of genetic and demographic factors on 

extinction risk in wild populations. Ecology. Volume 94, pages 2117-2123.

Yamanaka, K.L., and A.R. Kronlund. 1997. Inshore rockfish stock assessment for the west coast of 

Canada in 1996 and recommended yields for 1997. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2175.

Yamanaka, K. L. and L. Lacko. 2001. Inshore rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus, S. maliger, S. caurinus, S. 

melanops, S. nigrocinctus, and S. nebulosus) stock assessment for the West Coast of Canada and 

recommendations for management. Secretariat Research Document, Canadian Science Advisory. 

2001/139.

Yamanaka, K. L., L. C. Lacko, R. Witheler, C. Grandin, J. K. Lochead, J.-C. Martin, N. Olsen, and S. S. 

Wallace. 2006. A review of yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus along the Pacific coast of 

Canada: biology, distribution and abundance trends. Research Document 2006/076. Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. 54 pages.

Yamanaka K.L. and G. Logan. 2010. Developing British Columbia’s inshore rockfish conservation 

strategy. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management and Ecosystem Science. Volume 2, 

pages 28-46. 

Yamanaka, K.L., McAllister, M. M., Etienne, M-P., Obradovich, S.G., Haigh, R., and Olesiuk, P.F. 2011. 

Stock Assessment for the inside population of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in British 

Columbia, Canada for 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/129. xiv + 134 p.

Yoklavich, M. 1998. Marine harvest refugia for West Coast rockfish: a workshop. M. Yoklavich. Pacific 

Grove, California, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. 

Yoklavich, M. M., H. G. Greene, G. M. Cailliet, D. E. Sullivan, R. N. Lea, and M. S. Love. 2000. Habitat 

associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: an example of a natural refuge. Fishery 

Bulletin. Volume 98, pages 625-641.

Young, M. A., P. J. Iampietro, R. G. Kvitek, and C. D. Garza. 2010. Multivariate bathymetry-derived 

generalized linear model accurately predicts rockfish distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 415, pages 247-261.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan 153

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX I: EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

APPENDIX II: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX III: BAROTRAUMA RESEARCH AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

APPENDIX IV: BENTHIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

APPENDIX V: NEARSHORE HABITAT AND KELP CONSERVATION

APPENDIX VI: SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY

APPENDIX VII: CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

APPENDIX VIII: FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ROCKFISH CONSERVATION

APPENDIX IX: PREDATION

APPENDIX X: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 154

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX I

EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

OVERVIEW

This appendix describes in detail the particular audiences, objectives, and projects for outreach and 

education to support the recovery of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio (hereafter listed rockfish) of the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (summarized in Table 1 at the end of this appendix) (also see Section V. A. 

Recovery Program, Recovery Action Outline). As described in the Recovery Plan (Section V. Recovery 

Program, Recovery Action 4), education, outreach, and public involvement are prioritized because

understanding, support, and participation from stakeholders are fundamental to successful conservation 

(Stankey and Shindler 2006). This support is particularly essential for the aspects of management that rely

upon self-regulation and self-reporting by user groups, such as in recreational fisheries (Haw and Buckley 

1968; Reynard and Hilborn 1986).

Historically, overfishing associated with targeted fisheries and bycatch from both the recreational and 

commercial sectors was the main cause of rockfish decline in Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009; Williams 

et al. 2010; Drake et al. 2010). Despite increasingly restrictive management measures, including the 

recent non-retention rule for recreational fishing and the closure of some commercial fisheries with 

rockfish bycatch, bycatch remains a threat to listed rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2010; 

WDFW 2011) within some portions of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

Recreational anglers and divers are more likely to encounter rockfish as compared with other 

stakeholders. Actions by recreational anglers will play an important role in decreasing rockfish mortality 

that is due to incidental catch. Only about 13 percent of local recreational anglers are part of formal 

organizations, such as Puget Sound Anglers or the Coastal Conservation Association (Sawchuk 2012; 

Sawchuk et al. 2015). As such, communicating with these stakeholders is challenging because of their 

large numbers and lack of formal representation. Therefore, recreational anglers are the primary audience 

and focus of education and outreach, in addition to commercial fishers, divers, the general public, and 

students.

Research Informing Education and Outreach to Puget Sound Recreational Anglers

NOAA Fisheries partnered with the University of Washington to conduct a survey of recreational anglers 

in Puget Sound to inform recovery planning, especially with regard to recreational angler education and 

outreach (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). The survey took place in the summer of 2011 and was 

representative of boat-based recreational anglers (n = 443) in the marine catch areas that overlap with the 

U.S. portion of the ranges of the DPS (WDFW Marine Catch Areas 6 through 13). The results provided a 

baseline understanding of recreational anglers’ knowledge about rockfish biology, regulations, and 

identification abilities; perceptions of threats to rockfish; preferences for recovery; and other information 

necessary for targeted education and outreach (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015).

This outreach and education plan is based on the results of this research and on the findings and principles 

laid out in several other peer-reviewed publications (Kellert 1985; Mascia et al. 2003; Stankey and 

Shindler 2006; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007; Granek et al. 2008; Verweij et al. 2010; Beaudreau et al. 2011). 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 155

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Goal

The overarching goal of this education and outreach plan is to develop a high degree of rockfish 

knowledge and stewardship that will lead to increased engagement by stakeholders in rockfish 

conservation (Granek et al. 2008). 

Target Audience(s): (1) Recreational anglers, (2) commercial fishers, (3) SCUBA divers, (4) the general 

public, and (5) students, through both formal and informal venues.

This plan provides specific objectives and projects for each audience. Table 1 at the end of this appendix 

summarizes objectives and projects.

(1) Recreational Anglers

Objectives:

1. Improve rockfish identification and subsequently the accuracy of bycatch reporting.

2. Encourage rockfish catch avoidance and illustrate to anglers why it is preferred over release 

at depth.

3. Increase the use of best practices to mitigate barotraumas when rockfish are encountered.

4. Improve knowledge of rockfish life history, habitat usage, and the role rockfish play in the 

Puget Sound ecosystem to better communicate the importance of conservation.

5. Improve understanding of rockfish fishing regulations and current efforts to recover rockfish.

6. Encourage further angler engagement in rockfish recovery to increase support for rockfish 

conservation.

Objective 1: Improve rockfish identification and accuracy of bycatch reporting. 

Rationale: Research has found that recreational anglers’ ability to identify rockfish by species was 

generally poor (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). Of the boat-based angling population surveyed (n = 

443), 31 percent of anglers correctly identified yelloweye rockfish and 5 percent correctly identified 

bocaccio. Correct identification was considerably higher among anglers who stated they had fished for 

rockfish in the past, but lower for anglers who had never targeted rockfish. Thus, because rockfish are 

scarce and fewer anglers will catch rockfish, it is anticipated fewer anglers may be familiar enough with 

rockfish to properly identify species in the field. 

Project(s):

Distribute rockfish identification materials at boat launches, marinas, dive shops, boating supply stores, 

boat shows, organized angler meetings, angler websites, agency websites, and other areas where Puget 

Sound anglers congregate. Prioritize boat launches and marinas with the highest traffic (Everett, 

Shilshole, and Alki attract the majority of anglers; others with high use include Point Defiance, Redondo, 

Mukilteo, Anacortes, Bellingham, Port Townsend, Olympia, Potlatch, and Friday Harbor; hereafter 

referred to as “angler contact locations”).

 Continue to broadly distribute the WDFW Species Identification Card, or “fish bycatch log” 

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/bottomfish/identification/rockfish/rockfish_species_id.pdf), which 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 156

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

allows fishers to correctly identify and create daily species tallies of fish they release. These totals 

can then be reported to dockside creel samplers when encountered.

 Research and develop a mobile app to aid 

in rockfish identification (current apps do 

not include rockfish, though FishID, 

Find-A-Fish, and other existing resources 

could be expanded) and disseminate this 

information as it becomes available 

through web-based forums and signage.

If an app is decided upon, integrate 

upload of photos taken by anglers with 

mapping apps and fish identification to 

collect data in real time. 

 Use social media, such as Facebook, to 

increase the frequency of views of photos 

of different types of rockfish. 

Anticipated Outcome(s): Improved 

identification of rockfish and/or use of photos for 

verification of bycatch will increase the accuracy 

of bycatch estimates that are necessary for rockfish management and recovery (Palsson et al. 2009). 

Further, more accurate identification is anticipated to decrease confusion among anglers who may 

frequently encounter more common rockfish species and presume that all populations are healthy

(Beaudreau et al. 2011). 

Evaluation and Measurement: 

• Number of identification materials taken from angler contact locations

• Number of uploads of identification apps

• Visits to websites with identification information and relevant social media posts

• Completion of identification signs at angler contact locations 

Objective 2: Encourage rockfish catch avoidance and educate anglers why it is preferred over release at 

depth (recompression).

Rationale: Recent research has found that long-term survival and changes in productivity and 

reproduction are difficult to predict in rockfish successfully descended following barotrauma (Schroeder 

and Love 2002; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011). However, survival rates and 

embryo viability in yelloweye rockfish are high (Blain 2014). Predicting long-term effects of 

recompression is problematic because of the difficulty in controlling the many variables that may 

influence long-term survival, such as angler experience, time at the surface, thermal shock, and depth of 

capture, making avoidance greatly preferred over capture and release (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis 

and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011). There is also evidence that bycatch reduction 

measures implemented across a variety of users are not as successful as the experimental bycatch 

reduction measures implemented by managers and scientists (Cox et al. 2007). Therefore, while 

Rockfish signage at Sequim/John Wayne Marina. In 

2017, educational signage was installed at all major 

boat launches in Puget Sound.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 157

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

recompression is preferred when a rockfish is caught, the best-case scenario for recovery is a reduction in 

bycatch.

Project(s): 

 Distribute materials at angler contact locations and develop new strategies that help anglers avoid 

rockfish bycatch. 

 Continue to work with anglers to communicate current regulations that prevent rockfish bycatch. 

Anticipated Outcome(s): Anglers practice techniques for catch avoidance, and mortality, bycatch, and 

incidence of barotrauma is reduced.

Evaluation and Measurement: 

• Number of catch avoidance materials taken from angler contact locations

• Educational website traffic

Objective 3: Increase the use of descending devices.

Rationale: Research has shown that releasing rockfish at depth may reduce immediate mortality rates 

and effects of barotrauma. However, angler experience and handling time may be significant factors 

affecting survival (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 

2011), illustrating the importance of education and outreach. Further, the study of boat-based anglers in 

Puget Sound revealed that very few anglers (approximately 3 percent) were releasing rockfish at depth. In 

addition, a small number of anglers had attempted to puncture the swim bladder (Sawchuk 2012), which 

could cause bacterial infections or mortality. 

Project(s): 

 Distribute information on how to safely release rockfish at depth, in addition to the rockfish catch 

avoidance materials described in Objective 2. 

 Consider requiring the use of descending devices (i.e., via WDFW regulation). Continue or 

expand the WDFW and Puget Sound Anglers project in which descending devices are purchased 

and distributed for free or at reduced cost. More widely disseminate educational recompression 

videos, such as Milton Love’s video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiZFghwVOyI.

Anticipated Outcome(s): More anglers releasing rockfish bycatch at depth, safely and with reduced 

mortality. 

Evaluation and Measurement: 

• Number of distributed materials on descending techniques and descending devices 

Objective 4: Improve knowledge of rockfish life history, habitat usage, and ecological role in Puget 

Sound.

Rationale: Anglers aware of rockfish longevity are more likely to support conservation efforts (Sawchuk 

2015). Many anglers are not aware of other aspects of basic rockfish life history and their contribution to 

the overall ecosystem (Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015). User groups usually value and exhibit 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 158

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

knowledge of species viewed as having economic, utilitarian, or cultural significance (Kellert 1985; 

Martin-Lopez et al. 2007). With rockfish fisheries closed, anglers may not value rockfish recovery efforts 

unless they understand the contributions of rockfish to the ecosystem that supports species that anglers

perceive as having value (Kellert 1985; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007). There is anecdotal evidence that some 

anglers are apathetic toward rockfish (Sawchuk 2012), despite rockfish constituting a significant portion 

of the total fish community in Puget Sound (approximately 11 percent by species) (Donnelly and Burr

1995; Palsson et al. 2009). There are also food web dynamics to consider. For example, larval and 

juvenile rockfish are an important prey source for Chinook salmon and coho salmon (Daley et al. 2009). 

An understanding of the many ways rockfish influence fishing, even when not targeted, would increase 

interest among anglers. 

Project(s): 

 Distribute materials on rockfish life history, habitat usage, and the role rockfish play in the Puget 

Sound ecosystem at angler contact locations. 

 Create a short (3 to 5 min.) video to educate anglers about rockfish and what anglers can do to 

protect them, and use existing educational videos, such as this regional video on stock 

assessments at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbWMdpavUE.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Anglers with greater knowledge about rockfish biology and ecology are 

expected to become more supportive of rockfish recovery measures (Kellert 1985; Martin-Lopez et al. 

2007; Granek et al. 2008; Sawchuk et al. 2015).

Evaluation and Measurement: 

• Number of rockfish educational materials taken from angler contact locations

• Completion and distribution of the education video 

Objective 5: Improve understanding of rockfish fishing regulations and current efforts to recover 

rockfish.

Rationale: Many anglers were not aware of the current rockfish regulations in 2011, a year after two 

major regulation changes occurred (no recreational take of rockfish and no bottom fishing below 120 feet)

(Sawchuk 2012). While approximately 90 percent of boat-based anglers fishing for bottom fish were 

aware of the “no rockfish retention” regulation, only about 40 percent knew about the 120-foot depth 

restriction while bottom fishing that is intended to decrease the chance of rockfish bycatch and 

barotraumas. Of the anglers who stated they fished for salmon, 36 percent did not know about the no 

retention regulation (Sawchuk 2012). Many anglers also expressed a concern about the lack of

enforcement of existing regulations (Sawchuk 2012). Though efforts to expand knowledge of these 

regulatory changes have continued since 2011, it is still likely that many anglers do not fully understand 

the regulations in place for rockfish, let alone the reasons behind them.

Project(s): 

 Create and distribute material that is designed to help anglers understand rockfish fishing 

regulations and current research and management recovery efforts at angler contact locations in 

coordination with WDFW. Consider further highlighting rockfish regulations in WDFW fishing

regulation pamphlet.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 159

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

 Promote existing WDFW materials in new ways. Emphasize the WDFW Turn in Poachers (TIP)

program through social media to enable and encourage anglers to report illegal fishing activity,

and consider a joint WDFW/NMFS incentive program to increase use of the TIP program. 

 Promote FishMapp or other apps that show anglers the locations of area closures in Washington. 

Integrate closure mapping apps with fish identification and photo upload apps (see Objective 1) to 

enable greater ease of use. Also, promote Fish WA webmap service that shows closed areas but 

also directs anglers to Major Fishing Areas where fishing prospects are strong.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased angler understanding of the regulations is anticipated to improve

compliance. Similarly, an understanding of current efforts to recover rockfish, in the form of regulations, 

research, or information about the recovery planning process, is expected to foster increased awareness of

the challenges facing rockfish recovery and generate support for the recovery process. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of materials taken from angler contact locations

• Use of the TIP program

• Uploads of mappings apps

• Hits on webpages containing regulations relevant to rockfish

Objective 6: Encourage further recreational angler engagement in rockfish recovery to increase support 

for rockfish conservation.

Rationale: Anglers bring a variety of experience and 

expertise to research and monitoring projects. 

Cooperative projects with anglers and 

managers/scientists may increase the perceived 

legitimacy of the research outcomes and the consequent

management decisions, resulting in better compliance 

with regulations (Kuperan and Sutinen 1998). When

anglers are encouraged to take responsibility for helping 

solve management problems it often results in improved 

stewardship of resources (Granek et al. 2008). Group 

processing of information may also help reconcile 

differences between anglers and managers/scientists 

who use different sources and time frames to come to 

differing conclusions about the resources (Verweij et al. 

2010). 

Additionally, there have been successful examples of 

anglers educating other anglers. Puget Sound Anglers 

has created and disseminated an angler education guide 

on rockfish species identification and barotrauma 

reduction. Just as gear adoption is typically greater 

when gear is created by a local angler (Jenkins 2010), Rockfish identification aid developed by Puget Sound 

Anglers.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 160

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

education and outreach may also be more effective when done by local anglers. 

Project(s): 

 Create an Innovative Fishing Initiative that is designed to promote more cooperative research, 

monitoring, or compliance partnership programs with local anglers, divers, WDFW, NMFS, 

MRCs, and other interested local groups in addition to the projects already completed or

underway. Ideally, new programs would be duplicated by other collaborators in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin region and build on the foundation of previous work, expanding to a

research and conservation collaborative with stakeholders. 

 Encourage further angler education by meeting with angler groups to understand how NMFS and 

WDFW can support their education efforts through reposting their materials on the agency 

websites, notifying them of funding opportunities, providing background or scientific materials, 

or providing other support.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased efficacy of rockfish education and outreach, and increased numbers 

of anglers participating in education, outreach, and stewardship. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of research projects conducted by the Initiative

• Percentage of anglers that know regulations, use descending devices, and understand the unique 

life history of rockfish.

(2) Commercial Fishers

Objectives:

1. Continue and expand education and outreach to prevent new lost fishing gear, including:

o net handling techniques for newer entrants to commercial fisheries to decrease the

likelihood of lost nets and pots that could cause mortality to rockfish or harm habitat

o encourage the use of strong yet biodegradable nets

o educate anglers about reporting lost gear for expedient retrieval

2. Improve commercial fishers’ knowledge about:

o the longevity of rockfish

o the importance of rockfish to the ecosystem and commercially targeted species

Objective 1: Continue and expand outreach to prevent new lost fishing gear, including net handling 

techniques for newer entrants to commercial fisheries to decrease the likelihood of lost nets and pots; 

encourage the use of strong yet biodegradable nets; and educate fishermen about reporting lost gear for 

expedient retrieval.

Rationale: Derelict nets can kill rockfish and derelict pots harm their habitat. Antonelis (2013) found 

that the majority of lost gillnets were lost by new entrants into the fishery and/or lost because of a lack of 

experience and understanding of the area. Currently, the Northwest Straits Foundation (NWSF) and 

WDFW have a program designed to increase outreach around preventing lost fishing gear (Gibson 2013).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 161

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

In addition, the use of biodegradable gear would shorten the lifetime of the net and thus the amount of 

time it would incidentally catch rockfish and harm habitat if lost.

Project(s): Support education and outreach efforts directed at newer and existing fishery entrants 

through funding or other in-kind support.

Anticipated Outcome(s): 

Fewer derelict nets and pots, decreased mortality because of newly lost nets, and a decreased amount of 

time that nets and pots pose a threat to rockfish and their habitat.

Evaluation and Measurement:

• New derelict gear found and reported by commercial fishermen

• Number of participants in the various education efforts

Objective 2: Improve commercial fishers’ knowledge about the longevity of rockfish and their 

importance to the ecosystem and the commercially targeted species.

Rationale: User groups usually value and exhibit knowledge of species of economic, utilitarian, or 

cultural significance (Kellert 1985; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007). With the rockfish fishery currently closed 

and expected to remain so into the foreseeable future, commercial fishermen may not value rockfish 

unless they understand the contributions of rockfish to the ecosystem.

Project(s): 

 Partner with NWSF and WDFW to include in their materials used to train new entrants into 

fisheries descriptions of rockfish life history/ecology and potential management actions resulting

from bycatch, prioritizing halibut, shrimp pot, and salmon fishery participants.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased knowledge about how rockfish bycatch could affect management of 

fisheries, such as salmon or halibut, is also anticipated to promote efforts to avoid bycatch and net loss. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• The number of newly lost nets and pots, the number of reports of lost gear, and gear innovations 

to prevent or mitigate the loss of commercial fishery gear will be tracked to measure progress 

toward this objective. 

(3) SCUBA Divers

Objectives:

1. Improve rockfish identification and reporting.

2. Improve knowledge of rockfish life history, habitat usage, and the role rockfish play in the 

Puget Sound ecosystem.

3. Utilize current citizen science and develop a young-of-year survey program to encourage 

more diver engagement in rockfish recovery.

Objective 1: Improve rockfish identification and reporting.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 162

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Rationale: Accurate identification of rockfish species, particularly young-of- year rockfish that may be

encountered by SCUBA divers, would increase knowledge of the listed species and potentially increase

diver investment in rockfish and the utility of future or ongoing cooperative research projects.

Project(s): 

Distribute rockfish identification materials (see example on next page) at Puget Sound boat launches, 

marinas, dive shops, boating supply stores, boat shows, organized diver meetings, diver websites, agency 

websites, and other areas where divers congregate, prioritizing known diver locations (e.g., Hood Canal, 

Alki, Friday Harbor, etc.).

 Encourage diver organizations (e.g., REEF) to continue training for accurate species

identification, location documentation, how to report sightings, and general rockfish stewardship.

 Encourage reports/pictures of listed rockfish to rockfishid@noaa.gov.

 Develop a rockfish YOY guidebook for scuba divers.

 Utilize social media to increase the viewing frequency of photos of different types of rockfish and 

recognize success in accurate reporting. 

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased accuracy and reporting of rockfish sightings will contribute to our 

knowledge of rockfish distribution. More accurate identification is also anticipated to decrease confusion 

by some stakeholders who may frequently see the more common rockfish species and presume that all 

species are doing well (Beaudreau et al. 2011), thereby increasing stewardship of the listed species. 

Evaluation and Measurement: Number of 

submissions to rockfishID@noaa.gov and participants 

actively searching for listed YOY will be tracked to 

measure progress toward this objective.

Objective 2: Improve knowledge of rockfish life 

history, habitat usage, and the role rockfish play in the 

Puget Sound ecosystem.

Rationale: User groups with an understanding of 

species biology (e.g., rockfish longevity) were more 

likely to support conservation efforts. Additionally, user 

groups usually value and exhibit knowledge of species 

viewed as having economic, utilitarian, or cultural 

significance (Kellert 1985; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007). 

Without understanding the history of rockfish fisheries

and subsequent population decline, divers may not 

value rockfish recovery efforts unless they understand 

the contributions of rockfish to the ecosystem (Kellert 

1985; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007). Rockfish constitute a 

significant portion of the total fish assemblage in Puget 

Sound and are likely present on many popular dive Rockfish scuba outreach flyer developed by NOAA’s 

communication team.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 163

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

sites, but divers may not be aware of their contributions to the greater ecosystem. 

Project(s): 

 Distribute materials at angler/diver contact locations designed to help divers understand rockfish 

life history, habitat usage, and the role rockfish play in the Puget Sound ecosystem.

 Create a short (3 to 5 min.) video to educate stakeholders (same as Objective 4 for Recreational 

Anglers) about rockfish and what they can do to protect them, and use existing educational 

videos, such as this regional video on stock assessments at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbWMdpavUE.

 Engage the dive community through informal presentations at non-profit institutions and clubs 

heavily populated with recreational divers.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Divers with greater knowledge of rockfish and their role in the ecosystem are 

anticipated to become more supportive of and involved with rockfish recovery measures (Kellert 1985; 

Martin-Lopez et al. 2007; Granek et al. 2008; Sawchuk 2012; Sawchuk et al. 2015).

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of rockfish educational materials taken from diver locations, presentations delivered to 

interested stakeholder groups and completion and distribution of the education video will be 

tracked to measure progress toward this objective. Track number of reports of rockfish by divers 

in response to NOAA flyer (previous page). 

Objective 3: Utilize current citizen science and encourage more diver engagement in rockfish recovery 

to increase support for rockfish conservation, in particular through development of a citizen YOY survey 

protocol.

Rationale: Divers already bring a variety of experience, expertise, and often enthusiasm to research and 

monitoring projects (e.g., REEF). Citizen divers would be able to collect data over wider spatial and 

temporal scales than current funding of research groups would allow. In addition, cooperative projects 

that include divers, anglers, and managers/scientists may provide more robust data resulting from variable 

sampling approaches that minimize overall bias (Beaudreau et al. 2011). Cooperative projects may also 

increase the perceived legitimacy of the research outcomes and the consequent management decisions, 

resulting in better compliance with regulations (Kuperan and Sutinen 1998). 

Project(s): 

 As described above, create an Innovative Fishing Initiative that is designed to further promote

cooperative research, monitoring, or compliance partnership programs with local divers, anglers, 

WDFW, NMFS, MRCs, and other interested local groups in addition to the projects already 

completed or are underway. New programs would ideally be created so they may be duplicated 

by other collaborators in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin and build on the foundation of previous 

work, expanding to a research and conservation collaborative with stakeholders. 

 Encourage diver education by meeting with diver groups to understand how NMFS and WDFW 

can support their education efforts through reposting their materials on the agency websites, 

notifying them of funding opportunities, providing background or scientific materials, or 

providing other support.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 164

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

 Develop a citizen science YOY survey program that will collect data throughout the five basins 

of Puget Sound. This work will provide valuable data on spatial and temporal dynamics of 

rockfish recruitment and provide a tangible path for divers to aid in the recovery of listed 

rockfish.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased efficacy of rockfish education and outreach, and increased numbers 

of divers participating in education, outreach, and stewardship. This outreach is anticipated to increase 

diver stewardship and support for rockfish recovery and lead to a closer working relationship and 

exchange of ideas between divers and managers/scientists. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of research projects conducted by the Initiative and number of joint meetings will be 

tracked to measure progress toward this objective.

(4) General Public

Objectives:

1. Improve knowledge of rockfish life history and their role in the Puget Sound ecosystem, 

especially with regard to ecosystem benefits from rockfish recovery.

2. Increase public support for funding of rockfish recovery.

3. Improve the public’s knowledge about the steps they can take to support rockfish recovery 

and improve the Puget Sound ecosystem. 

Objective 1: Improve knowledge of rockfish life history in the Puget Sound ecosystem, especially with 

regard to ecosystem benefits (such as benefits to salmon) from rockfish recovery.

Rationale: Support and participation from stakeholders are fundamental to successful conservation and 

are often a function of literacy on the issues (Stankey and Shindler 2006). Because rockfish recovery will 

require sustained support over decades, stakeholder involvement is essential. Like outreach to anglers, it 

will be important to highlight the role rockfish play in the ecosystem. Members of the public may also be 

more likely to support recovery when they understand how long-lived rockfish can be and when they 

understand the ecosystem links that rockfish have to salmon, which are better understood and supported 

in the region.

Project(s): 

 Partner with the Seattle Aquarium and other environmental education groups to expand their 

outreach material about rockfish (i.e., kits that could be used by a variety of educators) explaining 

the importance of rockfish in Puget Sound, as well as use information already produced (by the 

Seattle Aquarium or others). Distribute this information through social media, YouTube, 

websites, press releases, signs, aquaria and zoos, and other public places.

 Coordinate with the Seattle Aquarium to introduce rockfish information into the Seattle Beach 

Naturalist Program curriculum and other outreach programs. Build upon and expand current 

activities (i.e., games, art, etc.) that help people connect with rockfish, such as the Seattle 

Aquarium’s rockfish scavenger hunt. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 165

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased understanding of rockfish that will translate into long-term public 

support for rockfish recovery. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Numbers of programs using outreach material distributed by the Seattle Aquarium and other 

environmental education groups. 

• Partner with the Seattle Aquarium and other aquaria to evaluate progress toward objective and 

consider using their internal evaluation of success.

Objective 2: Increase public support and backing for funding of rockfish recovery.

Rationale: Recovery will be long term and require support from the public to be successful, including 

funding (Stankey and Shindler 2006). 

Project(s): 

 Partner with WDFW, zoos and aquaria, non-profit organizations, and conservation organizations 

to develop a campaign around supporting rockfish recovery efforts (i.e., combine funding for 

aforementioned projects). Encourage partners to evaluate the feasibility of new and innovative

fundraising, such as crowd-funding recovery work. WDFW currently has a rockfish recovery 

fund that is supported by license sales; consider how this fund could be increased by related sales, 

such as a rockfish license plate. 

Anticipated Outcome(s): Increased support and funding for rockfish recovery.

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Rockfish funding provided to WDFW and other organizations will be tracked to measure 

progress toward this objective.

Objective 3: Improve the public’s knowledge about the steps they can take to support rockfish recovery 

and improve the Puget Sound ecosystem on which rockfish and other species depend. 

Rationale: Some of the threats faced by rockfish, such as poor water quality, climate change, and ocean 

acidification, are the result of (or exacerbated by) accumulation of non-point source pollution and will 

require, in part, behavioral changes by the public to reduce these sources of pollution. 

Project(s): 

 Use existing NOAA Fisheries Service material that directs people to take local actions 

(http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/education/takeaction/index.html) and, with partner 

organizations, further develop calls to action that can aid recovery. Disseminate these messages

via social media, websites, festivals, and other public events. Add social media links to all signs, 

brochures, websites, etc. to broaden public outreach. Emphasize that what is good for rockfish is 

good for the ecosystem at large, and that every positive action helps. Use the existing “5-ways” 

stewardship handout and create others for further dissemination. Use consistent branding in

outreach to recreational anglers.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 166

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Anticipated Outcome(s): Small-scale, local changes in behavior that reduce threats to rockfish.

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of materials disseminated will be tracked to measure progress toward this objective.

(5) Formal and Informal Education for Students

Objectives:

1. Improve knowledge of rockfish life history and their role in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

ecosystem, especially with regard to interactions with salmon and other species.

2. Improve knowledge about the steps young people can take to support rockfish recovery and 

about the role of management in the recovery process.

Objective 1: Improve knowledge of rockfish life history and the role rockfish play in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem, especially with regard to interactions with salmon and other species.

Rationale: Rockfish recovery will require support for many decades, and current students may become 

recreational anglers, commercial fishers, and decision-makers.

Project(s): 

 Expand NMFS school and classroom work to include rockfish in the curriculum using the STEM 

approach and aligning all efforts with Next Generation Science Standards. 

 Develop and disseminate new lessons or units specifically on rockfish.

Anticipated Outcome(s): Long-term support for rockfish recovery and education of future recreational 

anglers, commercial fishers, and decision-makers. 

Evaluation and Measurement:

• Number of lessons developed and disseminated.

Objective 2: Improve awareness among young adults and children about the available steps to support 

rockfish recovery and about the role of management in the recovery process. 

Rationale: Some of the threats faced by rockfish, such as poor water quality, climate change, and ocean 

acidification, are the result of (or exacerbated by) accumulation of non-point source pollution and will 

require behavior changes by the public to reduce these impacts. It is also important to connect the role of 

management to recovery to achieve support for recovery actions for future generations.

Project(s): 

 Use existing and create new material that directs students to take local actions (as mentioned 

above, “5-ways stewardship”: prevent toxic chemicals from entering waterways, help prevent 

water pollution, minimize plastics use and waste, minimize driving, etc.), and develop further

calls to action with partner organizations that can aid recovery and disseminate these messages 

through outreach to schools. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 167

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

 Use social studies standards to help students understand connections between humans and oceans 

and the roles civic engagement have in sustainable resource management. 

Anticipated Outcome(s): Small-scale, long-term local changes in behavior that reduce threats to 

rockfish recovery.

Evaluation and Measurement: 

• Integration of rockfish educational material in school materials

Table 1. Summary of rockfish outreach and education projects.

Objectives Project(s)

Recreational Anglers

1. Improve rockfish 

identification and bycatch 

documentation.

• Widely disseminate existing identification materials (WDFW, 

Puget Sound Anglers) to angler contact locations.

• Create signs for boat launches.

• Consider mobile fishing apps for improved rockfish 

identification.

2. Educate anglers about the 

importance of rockfish catch 

avoidance.

• Increase distribution of existing catch avoidance materials 

(WDFW) to angler contact locations, including information 

about why it is preferred over catch and release at depth. 

3. Educate anglers about how to 

safely release rockfish at 

depth to decrease 

barotraumas.

• Disseminate information at angler contact locations on best 

handling techniques. 

• Consider, with WDFW, requiring use of descending devices; 

continue/expand current WDFW/Puget Sound Angler program 

that distributes devices free or at reduced cost. 

4. Improve knowledge of 

rockfish life history, habitat 

use, and the role they play in 

the ecosystem.

• Create and distribute at angler contact locations material to help 

anglers better understand rockfish; use existing material. 

• Create a short educational video.

5. Improve understanding of 

regulations and current 

efforts to recover rockfish.

• Use existing WDFW materials and create new ones on 

regulations and recovery actions for distribution at angler 

contact locations.

6. Encourage more angler 

engagement in rockfish 

recovery.

• Continue and expand cooperative rockfish research with 

anglers; promote further education of anglers by anglers. 

Commercial Fishers

1. Continue education to 

prevent new derelict gear 

loss; improve new entrants’ 

net handling capabilities.

• Support the Northwest Straits Commission/WDFW and other 

entities in their education and outreach efforts for new entrants 

into fisheries through funding or other in-kind contributions. 

2. Improve fishers’ knowledge 

about rockfish life history 

and their role in the 

ecosystem.

• Partner with the Northwest Straits Commission/WDFW to 

include life history and ecological information in their net loss 

trainings, as well as information about how rockfish bycatch 

could affect their bottom line. 

Divers
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 168

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Objectives Project(s)

1. Improve rockfish 

identification and YOY 

documentation.

• Widely disseminate existing identification materials (WDFW, 

Puget Sound Anglers) to diver contact locations.

• Cooperate with local groups already doing identification (e.g., 

REEF/Seattle Aquarium).

• Encourage reports of listed rockfish documented by divers to 

rockfishid@noaa.gov.

2. Improve knowledge of 

rockfish life history, habitat 

use, and the role they play in 

the ecosystem.

• Create and distribute at diver contact locations material to help 

divers better understand rockfish.

• Create a short educational video.

3. Encourage more diver 

engagement in rockfish 

recovery.

• Continue and expand cooperative rockfish research with divers; 

promote further education of divers by divers.

General Public

1. Improve knowledge of 

rockfish life history and their 

role in the ecosystem.

• Use existing material from the Seattle Aquarium/other partners 

and distribute further through social media, press releases, 

public places, etc. 

• Develop an Outreach Kit; resources, such as hands on model of

“Rosy the Rockfish;” and identification tip handouts.

• Coordinate with Seattle Aquarium to introduce more rockfish 

information into their Beach Naturalist curriculum and other 

outreach programs. 

2. Increase support for funding 

of rockfish recovery.

• Partner with zoos/aquaria to develop a campaign around 

supporting rockfish recovery efforts. Encourage partners to 

consider crowd funding. 

3. Improve knowledge about 

the steps the public can take 

to support recovery.

• Use existing “5-ways stewardship” handout and create others for 

further dissemination. Use consistent branding in outreach to 

recreational anglers. 

Formal and Informal Student Education

1. Improve children’s 

knowledge about rockfish 

life history and their role in 

the ecosystem.

• Expand NOAA fisheries current school and classroom work to 

include rockfish in the curriculum using the STEM approach

and diversity initiatives and aligning efforts with Next 

Generation Science Standards. 

• Create a rockfish mural painting contest to raise awareness.

2. Improve knowledge about 

the steps children can take to 

support rockfish recovery.

• Use existing and create new calls to action to help children 

understand ways they can help rockfish recovery through 

informed, everyday choices. Use social studies standards to help 

students understand connections between oceans and humans, 

and the role of governance and civic engagement in resource 

management. 

Finally, because improving knowledge about rockfish and their role in the ecosystem is a priority for all 

stakeholders, we have worked with partners to develop a graphic to communicate this often complex 

information in a simplified manner. This graphic is intended to create more awareness about rockfish and 

their role in the Puget Sound ecosystem, as well as to provide increased recognition of rockfish-related 

outreach products.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 169

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

CONCLUSION

This appendix describes in detail the particular audiences, objectives, and projects for outreach and 

education to support the recovery of listed rockfish. Education, outreach, and public involvement are

prioritized because understanding, support, and participation from stakeholders are fundamental to 

successful conservation. Early partnerships with recreational fishers, scuba divers, and WDFW has led to 

the initiation and completion of successful conservation/education projects. Sustained effort will be 

needed to expand and diversify these partnerships and further support listed rockfish recovery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Peggy Foreman for her contributions to this appendix. 

REFERENCES

Antonelis, K. 2013. Derelict Gillnets in the Salish Sea: Causes of gillnet loss, extent of accumulation and 

development of a predictive transboundary model. Master’s thesis. University of Washington School 

of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Seattle, WA.

Beaudreau, A.H., P.S. Levin P.S., K.C. Norman. 2011. Using folk taxonomies to understand stakeholder 

perceptions for species conservation. Conservation Letters. Volume 4, pages 451-463.

Blain, B. 2014. The effects of barotrauma and deepwater-release mechanisms on the reproductive 

viability of yelloweye rockfish in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Thesis presented to the faculty of 

the University of Alaska Fairbanks in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master 

of Science.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 170

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Cox, T.M., R.L. Lewison, R. Zydelis, L.B. Crowder, C. Safina, and A.J. Read. 2007. Comparing 

effectiveness of experimental and implemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. 

Conservation Biology. Volume 21(5), pages 1155-1164. 

Daley, E.A., R.D. Brodeur, and L.A. Weitkamp. 2009. Ontogenetic shifts in diets of juvenile and subadult 

coho and Chinook salmon in coastal marine waters: important for marine survival? Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society. Volume 138(6), pages 1420-1438.

Donnelly, R.F. and R.L. Burr. 1995. Relative abundance and distribution of Puget Sound trawl-caught 

demersal fishes. Proceeding of Puget Sound Research. Volume 2, pages 860-868.

Drake J.S., E.A. Berntson, J.M. Cope, R.G. Gustafson, E.E. Holmes, P.S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R.S. 

Waples, S.M. Sogard, and G.D. Williams. 2010. Status of five species of rockfish in Puget Sound, 

Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye 

Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish 

(Sebastes proriger). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-108.234 

pp.

Gibson, C. 2013. NWSC and NWIFC report prepared for NOAA Protected Resources Division: 

Preventing the Loss of Gillnets in Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/puget_sound_

derelict_gill_net_prevention_report.pdf.

Granek, E.F., E.M.P. Madin, M.A. Brown, W. Figueira, D.S. Cameron, Z. Hogan, G. Kristianson, P. De 

Villiers, J.E. Williams, J. Post, S. Zahn, and R. Arlinghaus. 2008. Engaging recreational fishers in 

management and conservation: global case studies. Conservation Biology. Volume 22(5), pages 

1125-1134.

Haw, F. and R.M. Buckley. 1968. The ability of Washington anglers to identify some common marine 

fishes. California Fish and Game. Volume 54, pages 43-48. 

Jarvis, E.T. and C.G. Lowe. 2008. The effects of barotrauma on the catch-and-release survival of southern 

California nearshore and shelf rockfish (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 65, pages 1286-1296.

Jenkins, L.D. 2010. Profile and influence of the successful fisher-inventor of marine conservation 

technology. Conservation Society. Volume 8, pages 44-54.

Kellert, S.R. 1985. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management. Volume 49, pages 528-536.

Kuperan, K. and J.G. Sutinen. 1998. Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy and compliance in fisheries.

Law and Society Review. Volume 32(2), pages 309-338.

Martin-Lopez, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to 

pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation. Volume 139, pages 67-82.

Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T.A. Dobson, B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.A. McKean, and N.J. Turner. 

2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology. Volume 17(3), pages 649-650. 

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, FPT 09-04, Olympia, WA.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 171

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Pribyl A.L., C.B. Schreck, M.L. Kent, and S.J. Parker. 2009. The differential response to decompression 

in three species of nearshore Pacific rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

Volume 29, pages 1479-1486. 

Pribyl A.L., M.L. Kent, S.J. Parker, and C.B. Schreck. 2011. The response to forced decompression in six 

species of Pacific rockfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 140, pages 374-

383.

Renyard, T.S. and R. Hilborn. 1986. Sport angler preferences for alternative regulatory methods. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 43, pages 240-242.

Sawchuk, J.H. 2012. Angling for Insight: Examining the recreational fishing community’s knowledge, 

perceptions, practices, and preferences to inform rockfish recovery planning in Puget Sound, 

Washington. Master Thesis, University of Washington. School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. 

Sawchuk J.H., A.H. Beaudreau, D. Tonnes, and D. Fluharty. 2015. Using stakeholder engagement to 

inform endangered species management and improve conservation. Marine Policy. Volume 54, pages

98-107.

Schroeder, D. and M. Love. 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. 

CalCOFI Rep. Volume 43, pages 182-190. 

Stankey, G.G., and B. Shindler. 2006. Formation of Social Acceptability Judgments and their 

Implications for Management of Rare and Little-Known Species. Conservation Biology. Volume 20, 

pages 28-37. 

Sutinen, J., and R.J. Johnston. 2003. Angling management organizations: integrating the recreational 

sector into fishery management. Marine Policy. Volume 27, pages 471-487. 

Verweij, M.C., W.L.T. van Densen, and A.J.P. Mol. 2010. The tower of Babel: Difference perceptions 

and controversies on change and status of North Sea fish stocks in multi-stakeholder settings. Marine 

Policy. Volume 34, pages 522-533. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. Final Puget Sound Rockfish Recovery 

Plan: policies, strategies and actions. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00035/apr2011_rockfish_conservation_plan.pdf.

Williams, G.D., P.S. Levin, P. S., W.A. Palsson. Rockfish in Puget Sound: An ecological history of 

exploitation. Marine Policy. Volume 34, pages 1010-1020.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 172

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX II

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Rockfish Bycatch Management in the U.S. Portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs

OVERVIEW

This appendix provides guidance for managing the risk of fisheries bycatch of yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio (hereafter listed rockfish) within the boundaries of the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin DPSs, as discussed in the Recovery Plan (Section II. E. Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal 

Listing). Direct harvest is not allowed under current Washington State (non-tribal) fishery regulations, 

though bycatch from some fisheries does occur. Recommendations for fishery management to protect

listed rockfish are based on the general principles described below, which are used to conserve rockfish

within the range of the DPSs under Canadian jurisdiction (Yamanaka and Logan 2010), and are included

in numerous publications regarding rockfish conservation on the West Coast (i.e., Parker et al. 2000). 

These principles were used to inform Section V. A. Recovery Action 2, Fisheries Management, consistent 

with recovery goals in the Recovery Plan. 

As described in the Recovery Plan (Section V. Recovery Program, Recovery Action number 4):

Fishery Management Principles:

1. Improve knowledge of listed rockfish status and spatiotemporal habitat usage.

2. Account for all bycatch to the greatest extent practicable with statistically valid estimation techniques.

3. Limit bycatch mortality to risk-averse, precautionary guidelines at appropriate scales.

4. Potentially establish areas that are closed to fisheries with potential bycatch mortality in accordance 

with the priorities listed in Table 3.

5. Enforce fishery regulations, with emphasis patrols directed at newly enacted rules.

The following sections expand upon these principles for their application to U.S. waters of the DPSs. 

1. Improve knowledge of stock status and spatiotemporal habitat usage.

Improving knowledge of listed rockfish status includes enhanced information about abundance, spatial 

structure, diversity and productivity (population characteristics), and habitat associations. This requires 

investigations of both historical and contemporary population characteristics, and investigations listed in 

Table 1 should be prioritized for each management unit:
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 173

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 1. Research needs to assess stock status and habitat use by Management Unit.

Research Need (P: Primary data need, S: Secondary data need)

San 

Juan

Main 

Basin

Hood 

Canal

South 

Puget 

Sound

Canada

ROV and other surveys for species presence/ 

demographic information and habitat associations

(spatial structure) +*

P P P S P

High-resolution benthic habitat mapping* S2 P P P S

Historical spatial data archive (consisting of 

fishery/research records, fishing guide books, and 

interview-derived data)

P P P P S

Larval abundance surveys S S S S S

Annual nearshore/young-of-year surveys P P P P P

Identification of genetic structure (for bocaccio). P P P P P

2 Greene and Barrie (2011) have developed high resolution habitat maps for much of the San Juan Basin. Additional 

mapping is needed in the eastern and southern portion of this basin.

* Additionally, these data can then be used to develop a rockfish connectivity/habitat suitability model. + Surveys should occur periodically (at minimum every 5 years) as part of continued adaptive management and 

monitoring of recovery actions and population status. 

2. Account for all bycatch with statistically valid estimation techniques.

Accounting for commercial and recreational fishery bycatch of listed rockfish is essential for estimating

mortality rates and subsequent impacts to population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

recovery. Most non-tribal commercial fisheries that targeted rockfish/bottom fish have been closed by 

WDFW over the past several decades; thus, it is likely that the greatest risk of bycatch comes from 

recreational fisheries and a few remaining commercial fisheries. Accurately enumerating bycatch for 

recreational fisheries is extremely difficult. The WDFW recreational bycatch estimates for listed rockfish

are highly variable—ranging from zero to several hundred in 1 year (WDFW 20121

). This variability may 

be due to a number of factors, including: 1) low encounter frequency for listed rockfish; 2) poor species 

identification of rockfish by many anglers in Puget Sound2

; 3) the lack of creel survey data on fishing 

trips from marinas, private docks, or other places without a public boat launch; 4) the frequency of angler 

interviews at public boat ramps (10 to 20 percent of trips), which could lead to sporadic or episodic 

documentation of bycatch, especially when combined with low rockfish encounter rates; and 5) underreporting bycatch for various reasons, including an incomplete understanding of regulations.

The Pacific States Fishery Management Council has developed methods to determine the ratio of lethal 

and non-lethal take for listed rockfish bycatch, depending on the depth of capture (PFMC 2008, 2014). 

This assessment method should be modified, as appropriate, pending further long-term survival and 

productivity studies of released listed rockfish and the use of descending devices.

 

1 WDFW. 2012. Fishery conservation plan submitted to NOAA. 

2 Sawchuk, J. 2012, Sawchuk et al. 2015. (5 percent of bocaccio and 31 percent of yelloweye rockfish correctly 

identified to species by recreational anglers).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 174

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Further fisheries assessment in most of the DPSs (in all areas outside the San Juan Islands/Strait of Juan 

de Fuca) (see Tables 3 and 4 below) areas are needed to complete this action. This can be done by 

integrating ongoing rockfish ROV survey data and additional bycatch risk data. This action could result in 

a peer-reviewed report that recommends: a) pursuit of additional protective measures (as warranted) 

and/or b) additional data collection. This report could be used to inform further communication and action 

on this topic. 

3. Limit bycatch mortality to risk-averse, precautionary guidelines at appropriate scales.

Outside of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are managed under the

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio have been designated as “overfished.” Yelloweye rockfish were declared 

overfished in 2002 (Taylor 2011) and bocaccio were declared overfished in 1996 (Field 2011). Bocaccio 

were declared “rebuilt” in 2017 (He and Field 2017). The “overfished” designation is for stocks estimated 

to be below 25 percent of unexploited biomass (B25%) and require the development of a Rebuilding Plan.

Rebuilding Plans typically include analyses to determine the minimum time to recover to biomass 

maximum sustainable yield (BMSY; biomass that enables a fish stock to deliver maximum sustainable 

yield) and the fishing mortality that is consistent with stock recovery within the required timeframe of the 

MSA. While ESA-listed rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not managed under the provisions 

of the MSA, the Rebuilding Plans for coastal yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio nonetheless provide 

insight into implementing fisheries management in Puget Sound consistent with recovery for the 

following reasons:

• The Biomass (B) of yelloweye rockfish or bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin has not 

been determined throughout the full range of each DPS. In Canada, yelloweye rockfish biomass is 

estimated to be 12 percent of the unfished stock size on the inside waters of Vancouver Island 

(DFO 2011). The median estimate of bocaccio biomass is 3.5 percent of its unfished stock size 

(though this included Canadian waters outside of the DPSs area) (Stanley et al. 2012). It is very 

likely, given the information available, that levels are well below B25%.

• Rebuilding Plans are developed with best available science and analysis of the probabilities of 

species recovery, and important aspects of the life history of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are 

generally better understood for coastal populations compared to listed rockfish of the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. 

• The current Rebuilding Plans for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio outside the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin include important life-history information and exploitation ceilings, with 

annual mortality rates equating to 20 percent to 30 percent of natural mortality (Table 2). 

Table 2. Natural mortality and fisheries mortality within rebuilding plans.

FSPR rebuild (fisheries mortality 

per spawning biomass recruit)

Natural mortality

(instantaneous)

Fisheries mortality

(instantaneous)

Yelloweye rockfish 0.0095 0.0462381 0.205458

Bocaccio 0.0467 0.15 0.3113333

Using the framework and exploitation ceilings of the Rebuilding Plans for listed rockfish requires the 

assumption that basic life history of coastal yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio are similar to the listed 

DPSs in Puget Sound. This is likely the case, with the caveat that productivity of rockfish in Puget Sound
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 175

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

may be reduced compared to coastal rockfish. West et al. (2014) found that quillback rockfish (Sebastes 

maliger) growth from oceanic to inland waters of the Salish Sea was reduced, which was attributed to a 

potential combination of water properties (temperature and salinity), habitat quality, fishery exploitation,

and pollution. In addition, most of the Puget Sound Basins are relatively isolated because of the sills at 

Deception Pass, Tacoma Narrows, and Hood Canal. These sills likely reduce larval transport from one 

basin to the next. Based on these considerations, fishery management assessments for listed rockfish in 

the Puget Sound/Georgian Basin DPSs should, to the greatest extent practicable, use exploitation rates 

that are below rates used for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio under MSA rebuilding scenarios. 

Where sufficient data are available, assessing the effects of bycatch mortality on population viability of 

rockfish should occur in the context of 1) the percentage of the population killed; 2) the impacts on 

population demographics from selectivity; and 3) the spatial scope of specific impacts (on a management 

unit scale, as appropriate). To date, there is only very coarse information on the amount of bycatch, where 

the bycatch occurs, and the overall population size for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. The Recovery Plan includes research projects to increase our knowledge of 

population size and demographic characteristics, but gaining additional precision on bycatch from 

fisheries may be difficult. 

Appropriate Scales for Assessing Mortality

To protect metapopulation structure, precautionary mortality rates should be measured on the scale of 

each of the four management units in the U.S. portion of the DPSs. At present, there are no population 

estimates in the management units aside from the San Juan management unit; thus, the application of 

assessing mortality rates at the management unit scale should occur after there are empirically derived 

population estimates for each species in each management unit. 

4. Potentially establish areas that are closed to fisheries with potential bycatch mortality in 

accordance with the priorities listed in Table 3 and Table 4.

This Recovery Plan identifies conservation or protected areas as a potential action to address fishery 

interactions and support recovery in accordance with the priorities listed in Table 3 and further details in 

Table 4. Refer to the threats assessment within the Recovery Plan for risk of bycatch from fisheries that 

provides rationale for these priorities (Tables 5-13 in Recovery Plan). The protection of specific areas that 

host rockfish can reduce threats and contribute to the restoration of population abundance, and size and 

age diversity. The benefits of conservation from protection areas has been well documented in the 

literature (Aburto-Oropeza 2011; Guidetti et al. 2014; Frid et al. 2016), and the need for these areas was 

also called for by WDFW (WDFW 2011), though pursuing this management approach has recently been 

de-emphasized by WDFW (WDFW 2015; WDFW 2016). Marine protected areas (MPAs) for rockfish 

and other species with similar life histories have been key for protection in networks of MPAs that have 

been developed in several states and countries, particularly on the west coast of North America in Alaska; 

British Columbia, Canada; Oregon; California; and Baja California Sur, Mexico.

WDFW put regulations into place in 2010 to limit bycatch; however, as identified in the threats 

assessment, the San Juan Basin and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca may be at high risk for bycatch (see 

Tables 3 and 4), though the extent of this bycatch is not well understood. We recommend beginning the 

scientific and public process to better track bycatch and bycatch risk, and assess the need for establishing

marine protected or rockfish conservation areas for this high priority area to protect listed rockfish, with 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 176

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

potential designation after the first 5 years of implementation of this plan. These areas also have the most 

rockfish habitat. In other areas where additional information is needed, we recommend further assessment 

to determine whether spatial protection or other improved fisheries management protections are needed. 

Table 3. Relative priorities for MPA/RCA establishment by Management Area

Management Unit within U.S. portion of 

the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

RCAs/MPAs - Relative Priority 

Yelloweye rockfish Bocaccio*

San Juan/Strait of Juan de Fuca High Priority Low Priority

Main Basin Medium Priority Low Priority

Hood Canal Low Priority Low Priority

South Sound Low Priority Low Priority

* Bocaccio move more as adults than yelloweye rockfish, which have very high site fidelity; therefore, the benefits of 

RCAs/MPAs to bocaccio may be less than the benefits to yelloweye rockfish. 

Priorities were calculated by examining effort (commercial effort and type and recreational fishing trips and type), available 

rockfish habitat, existing protections to protect rockfish by each management unit, and risk to listed rockfish decline as a result 

of spatial and genetic isolation. 

Table 4. Detailed Assessment for Priorities for MPA/RCA establishment by Management Area.

Mgmt.

Unit

Fisheries 

w/ 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk1

Rec. 

Trips 

(Bottom

Fish) 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. 

Trips 

(Halibut) 

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. Trips 

(Salmon)

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Rec. 

Trips 

(Other)

Rockfish 

Bycatch 

Risk2

Significant 

Regulations 

Affecting 

Rockfish 

Bycatch w/ 

Known High 

Compliance3

Spatial 

Isolation Risk

(Genetics + 

Geography) 4

Rockfish 

Habitat5

(sq. mi.)

Priority 

Ranking

Canada - - - - - - - - N/ARCA 

network 

exists

San 

Juan Is / 

Strait of 

Juan de 

Fuca

Halibut 

longline –

High risk

Salmon 

fisheries –

Low risk

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Low risk

78,202

High risk

58,688 

High risk

436,977 

Moderate 

risk

15,489

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

Moderate 

genetic 

Moderate 

spatial

533 High

Main 

Basin

(includes

Whidbey

Basin)

Salmon 

fisheries –

Low risk

Halibut 

longline –

More 

information 

needed for 

assessment

109,228

High risk

12,896 

Low risk

1,457,346 

Moderate 

risk

52,373

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

Moderate 

genetic 

Moderate 

spatial

361 Medium
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 177

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Low risk

South 

Sound

NA 30,102

Low risk

0 

N/A

122,933 

Low risk

16,237

Unknown 

risk

WDFW 

closure of 

most 

commercial 

fisheries with 

rockfish 

bycatch; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

High genetic

High spatial

102.4 Low

Hood 

Canal

Shrimp 

fisheries –

Moderate

risk

3,028 

Low risk

132

Very Low 

risk

56,042 

Low risk

11,097

Unknown 

risk

Long-term 

WDFW 

recreational 

bottom fish 

closure; no 

recreational 

rockfish 

targeting or 

retention

High genetic

High spatial

66.8 Low

1 Risk is rated by considering both risk of bycatch by fishery/fishing type and number of trips/effort for both commercial and recreational 

fisheries. 

2 Includes 2010-2014 WDFW creel survey trip estimates. Risk is rated by considering both risk of bycatch by fishery and number of trips. 3 In 2010, WDFW also put into place a no retention regulation and 120-ft. depth restriction while bottom fishing to decrease rockfish bycatch in 

recreational fisheries (this regulation is difficult to enforce, compliance is unknown, and it does not apply to fishers targeting halibut) and closed 

several commercial fisheries (see list in Recovery Plan, Section F. and full list of fisheries and bycatch risk in Section E. Table 4). 4 This column considers listed rockfish decline as a result of spatial and genetic isolation, which can exacerbate fisheries effects. Hood Canal and 

South Sound waters also both have long residency times and Hood Canal is subject to episodes of low dissolved oxygen. 5 Includes nearshore and deepwater critical habitat prior to exclusions, designated in 2014 for each of the listed rockfish under section 4(a)(3)(A) 

of the ESA (79 Fed. Reg. 68041, November 13, 2014).

Note: recreational shrimp fisheries are not listed in the table. Though we assess this fishery to be low risk, further information about the risk of 

this fishery as well as the effects of the commercial fishery will be integrated into this assessment as it becomes available. 

Though there are some marine reserves within the Puget Sound region, they cover a relatively small area

and most do not encompass rockfish habitat and are poorly enforced (Don 2002). While existing reserves

that encompass rockfish habitat generally support higher densities of rockfish than outside areas (Palsson 

et al. 2009), most reserves in Puget Sound were established over several decades with unique and 

somewhat unrelated ecological goals. Therefore, given these traits of existing reserves, their net benefit to 

listed rockfish abundance, productivity, and spatial structure is probably very small (75 Fed. Reg. 22276, 

April 28, 2010). Recreational anglers targeting bottom fish are limited to depths shallower than 120 feet 

(36.6m), which if enforced, provides good protection for deepwater yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio. 

However, this rule addresses one fishery sector, and other recreational and commercial fisheries result in 

bycatch that is difficult to quantify. As a result, additional risk assessments in the San Juan area in 

particular are warranted.

Some of the guidance for this section comes from a workshop held for creating marine harvest refugia for 

West Coast rockfish (Yoklavich 1998), a document specifying the establishment criteria of no-take 

refuges for rockfish in Puget Sound (Palsson 2004), and from a Salish Sea rockfish workshop conducted 

in 2011 (Tonnes 2012).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 178

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

There are numerous terms used to refer to 

protected areas in the water, including marine 

protected areas, marine reserves, marine 

sanctuaries, bottom fish recovery zones, and 

stewardship areas, among others. We refer to 

two separate types of protected areas that could 

be used to contribute to listed rockfish recovery 

(see side panel). If correctly established, a 

network of Rockfish Conservation Areas 

(RCAs) or Marine Reserves/Protected Areas (or 

a combination) will contribute to listed rockfish 

recovery. These protected area types are 

referred to as “reserves” within this appendix. 

Many researchers have documented that wellestablished and well-enforced reserve systems 

have numerous positive effects, such as increased species abundance, biomass, richness, size, and 

reproductive output (e.g., Cote et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003; Lester et al. 2009; Molloy et al. 2009; 

Edgar et al. 2014; and others). 

The biological goals for additional reserves in the U.S. portion of the rockfish DPSs should include:

• Support metapopulation diversity/restore overall abundance/protect and maintain spawning 

biomass to sustainable levels.

• Enable proportionally appropriate size and age structure of a population.

• Buffer for uncertainty regarding fish populations, habitat changes over time, etc.

• Buffer for natural (e.g., disease) or anthropogenic (e.g., oil spills) catastrophic events.

• Benefit as many forage species as possible.

• Enhance protection of rockfish habitat and prey resource habitat where warranted.

In order to best achieve these biological goals a reserve system should have the following attributes:

• 20 to 30 percent of listed rockfish habitat, within a particular management unit, free from risk of 

bycatch.

• Potential “replicate” reserve and non-reserve sites that enhance effectiveness monitoring and 

adaptive management (and index monitoring sites).

• Proximity between sites that enables larval and juvenile connectivity.

3

• Multiple sites that cover a range and diversity of listed rockfish habitats.

The ecological design (size/shape, number, and location of sites) of a reserve system should consider the 

following factors:

• Quality and diversity of habitats protected—perhaps the most important factor. A diversity of 

habitats are required to support different species and ontogenetic stages (e.g., Yoklavich 1998;

 3 Connectivity could be estimated based on surveys and modeling that accounts for local oceanographic conditions 

and larval behavior, etc. See Shanks et al. 2003.

The term Rockfish Conservation Area (RCAs)

refers to specific areas designed to rebuild 

rockfish stocks. An RCA has specific fishing

restrictions intended to eliminate catch/bycatch of 

rockfish at the site and to protect rockfish 

habitats.

The term Marine Reserve or Marine Protected 

Area refers to specific designated areas that: 1) 

may offer habitat protections above and beyond 

adjacent non-reserve sites, and 2) prohibit harvest 

of fish and invertebrates within the site. Marine 

Reserves or Marine Protected Areas usually 

protect a greater diversity of fish, invertebrates,

and habitats than RCAs.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 179

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Carr and Raimondi 1999; Crowder et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2005; Shanks et al. 2003; Parnell et 

al. 2006).

• Fishery management (and enforcement/compliance rates, potential effects of displaced fisheries) 

measures occurring outside of the reserve system, and relative risk of bycatch inside and outside 

the reserves.

• Home ranges of the targeted species (e.g., Shanks et al. 2003; STAC 2008) and their prey species 

(diet and seasonal movement patterns), recognizing that benefits of reserves usually increase with 

size (Edgar et al. 2014).

• Characteristics of local benthic habitats (rugosity, slope, flow velocity, substrates) and variability 

in these attributes that might produce a dynamic patch-based complex of habitat types.

• Existing fish and invertebrate population characteristics (abundance/size distributions and relative 

diversity of fish and invertebrate species).

• Evidence of historical occupancy and abundance of target species.

• Onshore to offshore corridors to encompass a range of depths.

• Proximity to and quality of rearing/settlement habitats.

• Localized oceanographic features such as tidal gyres, tidal pumps, wind forcing, and estuarine 

circulation (some of these features may determine recruitment areas and/or larval retention and 

connectivity to adjacent rockfish habitats).

• Adjacency to existing reserves or no-take areas.

• Adjacency to marine mammal haul-out sites and a predation risk assessment (e.g., Lance et al. 

2012).

In addition to biological and ecological considerations and attributes, recognizing Puget Sound Treaty 

tribal rights and input is essential to the process of potential reserve design and designation. The 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (Frank 2003) provided a suggested General Assessment 

Framework for proposed marine protected areas in Puget Sound. This assessment framework included a 

number of questions, many of which provide a template for communication with co-managers and 

stakeholders, and socioeconomic analysis for a reserve system. These questions are summarized below: 

1) What is the threat, problem, or situation that is triggering the proposal for an MPA?

2) What is the current status of the resource and what is the desired future status (goals and 

objectives) that will result from the proposed management action?

3) What are the specific goals and objectives identified for the proposed affected area (including the 

anticipated time periods over which the goals and objectives will be achieved)?

4) Is the scientific information sufficient to determine need and an appropriate response?

5) Which marine resource(s) is targeted by the research and recovery proposal?

6) How does this proposal fit in with harvest management plans and habitat management plans (for 

upland, nearshore, and deepwater areas) related to the targeted resource?

7) What other alternatives, voluntary or regulatory, will achieve the same goals and objectives

(identified in response to question 2 above) with less impact on tribes exercising their treaty 

rights?

8) How will progress be monitored and “success” be measured? Who will conduct these monitoring 

and evaluation activities?

9) How will adaptive management be utilized to modify the goals and objectives of the MPA?
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 180

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

10) Who are the parties that make the decisions? On what basis?

In addition to the guidance within Frank (2003), including other socioeconomic factors within the process

of reserve design and designation is essential to development of a reserve system that can succeed 

biologically. There have been several recent assessments of marine reserve creation in Puget Sound that 

discussed socioeconomic considerations, such as access and stakeholder participation (Van Cleave et al.

2009; Osterberg 2012). As part of local attempts to recover bottom fish, McConnell and Dinnel (2002) 

developed a “social matrix” to grade eight potential marine reserve sites in Skagit County. The factors 

considered included valuations of the degree of historical monitoring, commercial salmon fishing, sport 

salmon fishing, tribal salmon fishing, present degree of habitat protection, ease of stewardship, 

educational value, local sport fisher agreement, local commercial fisher agreement, and local diver 

agreement (McConnell and Dinnel 2002). Additional socioeconomic issues associated with the 

establishment of reserves that should be considered include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Best practices for constituent communication (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee 2014).

• Engaging communities in marine protected areas: concepts and strategies (Davies et al. 2014).

• Lessons learned from recent marine protected area designations in the United States (Bernstein et 

al. 2004).

Monitoring and Adaptive Management of Reserves:

A detailed monitoring and adaptive management plan will need to be developed for any reserve system in 

Puget Sound. The framework for such a plan should include:

• Phased implementation to allow surveys to occur prior to designation, and assessment of the 

presence of target species and habitats.

• Development of regional and/or site-specific management plans regarding allowed activities, 

outreach, enforcement, and monitoring.

• Periodic fishery-independent (e.g., ROV, scuba) surveys within reserves and reference sites (e.g.,

Babcock and MacCall 2011) to document potential changes to habitat characteristics, listed 

rockfish (and prey) habitat associations, abundance, and population characteristics enabling a 

calculation of length-based spawning potential ratio.

• Results from these surveys and other research actions will be used to inform future management 

and research and be made available to stakeholders. 

• Ongoing coordination with stakeholders regarding the success and any necessary adaptive 

management of conservation areas. 

5. Enforce fishery regulations.

Currently, enforcement of some recreational and commercial fisheries may be insufficient to protect 

against intentional catch or unintentional bycatch (Drake et al. 2010). Literature on reserves identifies 

enforcement as a key factor in the success of protected areas (e.g., Edgar et al. 2014). Therefore, despite 

challenges presented by limited resources and the large areal extent of the recreational and commercial 

fishery operational areas, enforcement is imperative. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 181

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

A Canadian study that compared creel survey reports to actual observer-generated information on 

recreational fishing boats in the Georgia Strait found substantial differences in the two data sets. The 

number of released fishes observed was significantly higher than those reported by anglers during creel 

surveys (Deiwert et al. 2005). This incorrect accounting may be particularly problematic for the listed 

deepwater species of rockfish that may not survive their release (Palsson et al. 2009). 

There may be various reasons for this regulatory non-compliance. Sawchuk (2012) found that many 

recreational anglers within the DPSs in Puget Sound were not aware of some of the regulations intended 

to protect rockfish. While approximately 90 percent of boat-based anglers fishing for bottom fish were 

aware of the “no rockfish retention” regulation, only about 40 percent knew about the 120-foot (36.6-m) 

depth restriction while bottom fishing (Sawchuk 2012). Of the anglers who stated they fished for salmon,

36 percent did not know about the no retention regulation (Sawchuk 2012). Many anglers also expressed 

a concern about insufficient enforcement of existing regulations and poaching when questioned about 

their perceived risks to rockfish (Sawchuk 2012). The 120-foot (36.6-m) depth restriction regulation may 

be especially difficult to enforce because boats drift into deeper waters and because an enforcement 

officer may not be able to tell which type of fish an angler is targeting (e.g., halibut vs. lingcod)

(Sawchuk 2012). 

Additional on-the-water patrols may help to ensure recreational bycatch is not under-reported and that 

regulations enacted to protect listed rockfish are known and followed. In particular, there should be more 

emphasis on enforcing the recently enacted 120-foot depth limit while bottom fishing and assessing the 

enforcement probabilities of that regulation. If RCAs or MCAs are utilized, patrols should focus on those 

areas, which could be more straightforward to enforce. 

Though most commercial fisheries with rockfish bycatch have been closed, further enforcement for that 

sector is recommended. Enforcement coordination with WDFW and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes is 

important to decrease or prevent listed rockfish bycatch, particularly with regard to fisheries that target 

halibut, shrimp/spot prawns, and bottom fish.

CONCLUSION

This appendix provides guidance for managing the risk of fisheries bycatch of listed rockfish within the 

boundaries of the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs. These recommendations were

based on general principles already used to conserve rockfish within the range of the DPSs under 

Canadian jurisdiction (Yamanaka and Logan 2010), and are included in numerous publications regarding 

rockfish conservation on the West Coast (i.e., Parker et al. 2000). The establishment of these principles, 

most notably marine reserves/RCAs, would require robust attention to tribal treaty rights and guidance 

(Frank 2003) as well as socioeconomic considerations in order to lead to their designation, compliance, 

and ultimate biological success.

REFERENCES

Aburto-Oropeza, O., B. Erisman, G.R. Galland, I. Mascareñas-Osorio, E. Sala and E. Ezcurra. 2011. 

Large recovery of fish biomass in a no-take marine reserve. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23601
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 182

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Babcock, E.A. and A.D. MacCall. 2011. How useful is the ratio of fish density outside versus inside notake marine reserves as a metric for fishery management control rules? Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 68, pages 343–359. doi:10. 1139/F10-146.

Bernstein, B., S. Iudicello, and S. Stringer. 2004. Lessons learned from the recent marine protected area 

designations in the United States. A report to the National Marine Protected Areas Center NOAA. 

Final Report, June 11, 2004. 

Carr, M.H. and P.T. Raimondi, P. T. 1999. Marine protected areas as a precautionary approach to 

management. Reports of California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Volume 40, pages 

71-76.

Cote, I.M., I. Mosqueira, and J.D. Reynolds. 2001. Effects of marine reserve characteristics on the 

protection of fish populations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Fish Biology. Volume 59, pages 178-189.

Crowder, L.B., S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueira, and J. Priddy. 2000. Source-sink population dynamics and the 

problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 66(3), pages 799-820.

DFO. 2011. Regional Science Advisory Process on the Pacific Review of Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes 

ruberrimus), September 22, 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/011. iv + 16 p.

Deiwert, R.E., Nagtelgal D.A, Hein K. 2005. A Comparison of the Results of the 1998 Georgia Strait 

Creel Survey with an Independent Observer Program. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 2716, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

Don, C.N. 2002. Evaluation of Near-shore Buffer Zones of the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Relative to their Function as a Marine Protected Area Network. Masters Thesis, University of 

Washington Graduate School.

Drake J.S., E.A. Berntson, J.M. Cope, R.G. Gustafson, E.E. Holmes, P.S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R.S. 

Waples, S.M. Sogard, and G.D. Williams. 2010. Status of five species of rockfish in Puget Sound, 

Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye 

Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish 

(Sebastes proriger). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-108. 234 

pages.

Edgar, G.J., R.D. Stuart-Smith, T.J. Willis, S. Kininmonth, S.C. Baker, S. Banks, N.S. Barrett, M.A. 

Becerro, A.T.F. Bernard, J. Berkhout, C.D. Buxton, S.J. Campbell, A.T. Cooper, M. Davey, S.C. 

Edgar, G. Forsterra, D.E. Galvin, A.J. Irigoyen, D.J. Kushner, R. Moura, P.E. Parnell, N.T. Shears, G. 

Soler, E.M.A. Strain, and R.J. Thomson. 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine 

protected areas with five key features. Nature. Volume 506, pages 216-220. 

Field, J.C. 2011. Rebuilding analysis for bocaccio in 2011. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/Bocaccio_Rebuild_2013.pdf.

Frank, B. 2003. Tribal guidance for Marine Protected Areas. Letter to the Secretary of Commerce.

Frid, A., M. McGreer, D.R. Haggarty, J. Beaumont and E.J. Gregr. 2016. Rockfish size and age: the 

crossroads of spatial protection, central place fisheries and indigenous rights. Global Ecology and 

Conservation. Volume 8, pages 170-182.

Gell, F.R. and C.M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Volume 18, pages 448-455. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 183

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Greene, H.G. and Barrie, J.V. (eds.). 2011. Potential marine benthic habitats and shaded seafloor relief, 

southern Gulf Islands and San Juan Archipelago, Canada and U.S.A. Geological Survey of Canada, 

Open File 6625, 4 sheets.

Guidetti, P., P. Baiata, E. Ballesteros, A. DiFranco, B. Hereu, E. Macpherson, F. Micheli, A. Paid, P. 

Panzalis, A.A. Rosenberg, M. Zabala and E. Sala. 2014. Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean 

marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. PLoS ONE 9(4): e91841

He, X. and J.C. Field. 2017. Draft stock assessment update. Status of bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis, in 

the Conception, Monterey and Eureka INPFC areas for 2017. Agenda Item F.4 Attachment 3. June 

2017

Lance, M.M., W.Y. Chang, S.J. Jeffries, S.F. Pearson, and A.A. Guitierrez. 2012. Harbor seal diet in 

northern Puget Sound: implications for the recovery of depressed fish stocks. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. Volume 464, pages 257-271.

Lester, S.E., B.S. Halpern, K. Grorud-Colvert, J. Lubchenco, B.I. Ruttenberg, S.D. Gaines, S. Airame, 

and R.A. Warner. 2009. Biological effects with no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series. Volume 384, pages 33-46.

Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. 2014. Best practices for constituent 

communication. Recommendations to the Department of Commerce and the Department of the 

Interior. 

McConnel, M.L. and P.A. Dinnel. 2002. Rocky reef bottomfish recovery in Skagit County Phase II final 

report Assessment of eight potential marine reserve sites and final site recommendations. Skagit 

County Marine Resources Committee. October 2002. 

Molloy, P.P., I.B. McLean, and I.M. Cote. 2009. Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: A 

global meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 46, pages 743-751.

Murawski, S.A., S.E. Wigley, M.J. Fogarty, P.J. Rago, and D.G. Mountain. 2005. Effort distribution and 

catch patterns adjacent to temperate MPAs. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 62, pages 1150-

1167.

Osterberg, A. 2012. Developing a Network of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound. A Synthesis 

Report on Challenges, Opportunities and Policy Options. A report prepared for the Puget Sound 

Partnership under WA Sea Grant Hershman Fellowship program.

Pacunski, R., W. Palsson, and H. G. Greene. 2013. Estimating Fish Abundance and Community 

Composition on Rocky Habitats in the San Juan Islands Using a Small Remotely Operated Vehicle. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Program. Olympia, WA. 

Palsson, W.A. 2004. The development of criteria for establishing and monitoring no-take refuges for 

rockfishes and other rocky habitat fishes in Puget Sound. 

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, FPT 09-04, Olympia, WA.

Parker, S.J., S.A. Berkeley, J.T. Golden, D.R. Gunderson, J. Heifetz, M.A. Hixon, R. Larson, B.M. 

Leaman, M.S. Love, J.A. Musick, V.M. O'Connell, S. Ralston, H.J. Weeks, and M.M. Yoklavich. 

2000. Management of Pacific Rockfish. Fisheries. Volume 25, pages 22-30.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 184

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Parnell, P.E., P.K. Dayton, C.E. Lennert-Cody, L.L. Rasmussen, and J.J. Leichter. 2006. Marine reserve 

design: optimal size, habitats, species affinities, diversity, and ocean microclimate. Ecological 

Applications. Volume 16(3), pages 945-962.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2008. Groundfish Management Team (GMT) report on 

the development of a discard mortality matrix for ocean and estuary recreational fisheries. MS 

Report: 15.

PFMC. 2014. Groundfish Management Team (GMT) report on proposed discard mortality for cowcod, 

canary, and yelloweye rockfish released using descending devices in the recreational fishery. 

Supplemental GMT Report 2.

Roberts, C. M., J.P. Hawkins, and F.R. Gell. 2005. The role of marine reserves in achieving sustainable 

fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences.

Volume 360(1453), pages 123-132.

Sawchuk, J.H. 2012. Angling for Insight: Examining the recreational fishing community’s knowledge, 

perceptions, practices, and preferences to inform rockfish recovery planning in Puget Sound, 

Washington. Master Thesis, University of Washington. School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. 

Sawchuk J.H., A.H. Beaudreau, D. Tonnes, and D. Fluharty. 2015. Using stakeholder engagement to 

inform endangered species management and improve conservation. Marine Policy. Volume 54, pages 

98-107.

Scientific and Statistical Committee. 2000. Statement on default maximum sustainable yield fishing rate 

within the harvest rate policy. Supplemental SSC Report D. 13, 2: June. 

Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). 2008. Science and Technical Advisory Committee 

of Oregon’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) on Size and Spacing of Marine Reserves 

Workshop. Charleston, OR. 

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/docs/resources/oregon_size_and_spacing_workshopreport.pdf.

Shanks, A.L., B.A. Grantham, and M.H. Carr. 2003. Propagule Dispersal Distance and the Size and 

Spacing of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications Volume 13(1), Supplement: The Science of 

Marine Reserves: S159-S169.

Siegle, M.R., E.B. Taylor, K.M. Miller, R. E. Withler, and K.L. Yamanaka. 2013. Subtle population 

structure in yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) is consistent with a major oceanographic 

division in British Columbia, Canada. 

Stanley, R.D., M. McAllister, and P. Starr. 2012. Updated stock assessment for bocaccio (Sebastes 

paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat 

Research Document 2012/109. 73 pages.

Taylor, I.G. 2011. Rebuilding analysis for yelloweye rockfish base on the 2011 update stock assessment.

Tonnes, D. 2012. Editor. Rockfish Recovery in the Salish Sea: Research and Management Priorities. 

NOAA Fisheries Service

Van Cleve, F.B., G. Bargmann, M. Culver, and the MPA Work Group. 2009. Marine Protected Areas in 

Washington: Recommendations of the Marine Protected Areas Work Group to the Washington State 

Legislature. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 185

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. Final Puget Sound Rockfish Recovery 

Plan: policies, strategies and actions. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00035/apr2011_rockfish_conservation_plan.pdf.

WDFW. 2012. Puget Sound recreational fishery sample data, 1989-current. Fish Program, Fish 

Management Division, Puget Sound Sampling Unit. 

WDFW. 2015. Comments on the Early Review Document of the Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan, from 

James Unsworth, WDFW, to Chris Yates, NMFS Protected Resources Division, May 1, 2015.

WDFW. 2016. Comments on the Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan, from James Unsworth, WDFW, to Chris 

Yates, NMFS Protected Resources Division, November 7, 2016.

West, J. E., T.E. Helser, and S.M. O'Neill. 2014. Variation in quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) 

growth patterns from oceanic to inland waters of the Salish Sea. Bulletin of Marine Science.

Volume 90(3), pages 747-761.

Yamanaka, K.L. and L.C. Lacko. 2001. Inshore Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus, S. maliger, S. caurinus, 

S. melanops, S. nigrocinctus, and S. nebulosus) Stock Assessment for the West Coast of Canada and 

Recommendations for Management. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. Volume 139, page 102. 

Yamanaka K.L. and G. Logan. 2010. Developing British Columbia’s inshore rockfish conservation 

strategy. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management and Ecosystem Science. Volume 2, 

pages 28-46.

Yoklavich, M. 1998. Marine harvest refugia for West Coast rockfish: a Workshop. NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-255. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 186

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX III

BAROTRAUMA RESEARCH AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

OVERVIEW

Barotrauma is a source of mortality for rockfish and is identified as a high threat in the Recovery Plan

(Section II. E. Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing). This appendix outlines research, 

outreach, and adaptive management to understand and mitigate impacts of barotrauma. All species of 

rockfish, including yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish), can be injured or killed by

barotrauma effects when caught in fisheries or during research activities.

For rockfish caught in waters deeper than 60 feet (18.3 m), the primary cause of injury and death is often 

barotrauma. Barotrauma occurs when rockfish are brought up from depth and exposed to significant 

changes in pressure. The rapid decompression causes over-inflation and/or rupture of the swim bladder, 

which can result in multiple injuries, including organ torsion, stomach eversion, and exophthalmia 

(bulging eyes), among other damage (Parker et al. 2006; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2011). These 

injuries cause various levels of disorientation, which can result in fish remaining at the surface after they 

are released and making them subject to predation, damage from solar radiation, and gas embolisms 

(Hannah and Matteson 2007; Palsson et al. 2009). Injuries can include harm from differences in water 

pressure experienced by fish brought to the surface from depth (barotraumas), differences in water 

temperatures between the sea and surface, and hypoxia upon exposure to air. The severity of these injuries 

and probability of mortality may be dictated by the amount of time fish are held out of the water and their 

general handling on deck (Jarvis and Lowe 2008). Physical trauma may lead to increased vulnerability to 

predation after fish are released at the surface and as the fish returns to the sea floor, or when the fish is 

recovering on the bottom (Palsson et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011; Rankin et al. 2017). Barotrauma injuries 

are species-specific (Hannah and Matteson 2007; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Hochhalter 2012) and incidence 

of barotrauma may by highest in the areas with the highest fishing pressure (management units include 

the Main/Whidbey Basin and the San Juan Basin). 

Washington State regulation requires all species of rockfish in Puget Sound to be released (WDFW 2013).

If released at the surface, some rockfish can descend by themselves while others cannot, depending upon 

the depth of capture and other conditions (Hannah et al. 2008; Hochhalter 2012). In recent years, a 

number of devices have been developed to enable the release of rockfish at or near the depth of capture to 

improve survival. Some studies of rockfish released at depth indicate good short-term survival (Parker et 

al. 2006; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Hochalter and Reed 2011). However, questions about long-term survival 

probability and effects on productivity and reproduction remain (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and 

Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011). A study of yelloweye rockfish caught in the hook-andline fishery found that individuals released at depth with a decompression device had much higher 

survival rates than those released at the surface (Hochalter and Reed 2011). Another study demonstrated 

that rosy rockfish (Sebastes rosaceus) with barotrauma-induced exophthalmia (bulging eyes) 

recompressed in a controlled chamber showed improved visual function after 4 days and further 

improvement at 1 month (Rogers et al. 2011).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 187

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

There are many variables that may influence long-term survival of recompressed rockfish, such as angler 

experience and handling, thermal shock, and depth of capture (Schroeder and Love 2002; Jarvis and 

Lowe 2008; Pribyl et al. 2009; Pribyl et al. 2011). There is also evidence that bycatch mortality reduction 

measures implemented across a variety of resource users do not perform as well as the experimental 

bycatch mortality reduction measures implemented by managers and scientists (Cox et al. 2007). Further, 

a recent study of boat-based anglers in Puget Sound revealed that few anglers have tried to release 

rockfish at depth (approximately 3 percent), while a smaller number of anglers attempted to puncture the 

swim bladder (Sawchuk 2012), which could cause bacterial infections or mortality and is therefore not 

recommended. 

Figure 1. Fitted logistic curve of the proportion of yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish surviving 48 

hours after hook-and-line capture and recompression as a function of capture depth (m). 

(Image from Hannah et al. 2014.)

Recent research found that short-term (48 hours) survival for recompressed yelloweye rockfish was 95.1

percent, while 77.8 percent of canary rockfish survived when caught in less than 328 feet (100 m) (Figure 

1) (Hannah et al. 2014). The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) Groundfish Management 

Team also estimated mortality rates incorporating release with descending devices for cowcod, canary, 

and yelloweye rockfish (PFMC 2014) by developing a generalized linear model of the proportion of fish 

released dead by depth and by species based on information from observer program data (PFMC 2008). 

The 2014 rates accounted for reduced mortality as a result of being rapidly returned to depth, mitigating 

barotrauma, sun exposure, and surface predation-related mortality. The estimation method incorporated 

short-term mortality rates from cage studies and longer-term mortality rates from acoustic tagging studies. 

The mortality estimates and associated confidence intervals in each depth bin were estimated using a 

Bayesian Hierarchical Method, which accounted for variation between species and the sample size of 

each species using data from the latitude of the focal species (PFMC 2014). The report did not include 

discard mortality rates for bocaccio. Thus, only the discard mortality rates for yelloweye rockfish are 

reported below (Table 1).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 188

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Table 1. Bayesian Hierarchical Method: Total discard mortality (%) estimates by depth bin for 

yelloweye rockfish at the surface, and reflecting the use of descending devices incorporating

short-term mortality, long-term mortality, unaccounted for mortality, and upper 60, 75, 90, 

and 95 percent confidence intervals as precautionary buffers for uncertainty. (Source: PFMC 

2014.)

Depth 

(fm)

Current 

Surface 

Mortality

Mortality w/

Descending 

Device

Estimate

w/ 60% CI

Estimate

w/ 75% CI

Estimate

w/ 90% CI

Estimate

w/ 95% CI

0-10 22% 22%1 22%1 22%1 22%1 22%1

10-20 39% 22% 23% 24% 26% 27%

20-30 56% 22% 23% 24% 24% 27%

30-50 100% 23% 24% 25% 27% 28%

50-100 100% 35% 39% 45% 57% 65%

>100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1

The value reflects surface mortality because mortality estimates for descending devices are not expected to exceed 

surface release.

There is also some emerging evidence that 

female yelloweye rockfish can remain 

reproductively viable after recompression. 

A recent study conducted in Alaska found 

that fifteen recompressed female yelloweye 

rockfish remained reproductively viable 1 

to 2 years after the event (Blain 2014) and 

one yelloweye rockfish in Hood Canal 

(observed by WDFW ROV surveys, see 

photo at right) was gravid several months 

after recompression. Blain (2014) also 

found no evidence that embryo quality was 

adversely affected 1 to 2 years after the 

recompression event in the study. This 

emerging research requires more study to assess the long-term effects that barotrauma and recompression 

may have on productivity.

Barotrauma Research and Management Priorities

We prioritize the following suite of measures to minimize barotrauma-related mortality to yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio (also see Section V. A. Recovery Program, Recovery Action Outline):

1) Catch avoidance. Given the uncertainty regarding the long-term survival, health, and productivity of 

released fish, avoidance of catch and bycatch is the first priority. 

Action—Education and Outreach: Until additional research is conducted to better understand 

techniques to avoid bycatch, NOAA, WDFW, and other partners will continue to conduct outreach 

and education to advise anglers to avoid known rockfish habitat areas and to move to a different 

Yelloweye rockfish observed in ROV research in Hood Canal. 

This fish was found gravid after suffering from barotrauma. 

Photo courtesy of WDFW.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 189

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

location if a rockfish is caught. See Appendix I, Education, Outreach, and Public Involvement, for 

further details.

2) Listed rockfish should be released with a descending device. Although catch avoidance is greatly 

preferred over recompression because of questions regarding long-term survival and productivity, 

releasing rockfish at depth likely reduces the effects of barotrauma (Parker et al. 2006; Jarvis and 

Lowe 2008; Hochalter and Reed 2011; Pribyl et al. 2012).

Action—Education and Outreach4

: Because angler experience and knowledge are important 

variables in successful rockfish recompression, education is needed on how to identify rockfish to 

species and efficiently use a descending device consistent with WDFW recommendations and best 

practices guidelines. See Appendix I, Education, Outreach, and Public Involvement.

Action—Mandatory Release with Descending Devices: Fisheries with risk of rockfish bycatch 

should be required to have a descending device on board and ready to use.

3) Research should be conducted on rockfish catch avoidance methods and long-term survival and 

productivity of rockfish after use of descending devices in single and multiple catch-andrecompress events.

Action—Research of Catch Avoidance Methods: In cooperation with WDFW, Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes, and other partners, NOAA will investigate new ways to avoid incidental catch of rockfish. 

Research should occur regarding potential fishing gear that may be used to decrease or eliminate 

listed rockfish bycatch. This type of research would include lure or bait size/color, hook size/shape, 

distance of the lure/bait off the bottom, etc. 

Action—Research into Recompression Effects: Because barotrauma injuries can be species-specific 

(Hannah and Matteson 2007; Jarvis and Lowe 2008; Hochhalter 2012), research specific to listed 

rockfish will best inform long-term survival estimates. Research conducted on more abundant 

populations of yelloweye rockfish and especially bocaccio outside of the ranges of the DPSs (i.e., 

outer coast) is preferred. Research should address the following variables: (1) long-term survival 

after single and multiple catch-and-recompression events, (2) productivity (reproductive output), (3) 

susceptibility to predation, (4) behavioral changes, and (5) other long-term physiological impacts of 

recompressed fish. 

4) Adaptive Management. Fisheries managers should review new research results on a periodic basis 

and make appropriate recommendations or regulatory changes as part of adaptive management.

CONCLUSION

This appendix provides guidance for managing the risk of barotrauma to listed rockfish within the 

boundaries of the U.S. portion of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs. For rockfish caught in waters 

 4 The Puget Sound Anglers (PSA) have already conducted numerous education and outreach efforts to demonstrate 

recompression techniques to fishers, and NOAA and WDFW have provided funding to PSA to purchase and 

distribute descending devices to local anglers. The PSA has distributed the devices to the saltwater fishing guides 

that operate in the Puget Sound area and we have distributed some descending devices to local tribal fishermen. A 

continuation of these efforts is needed.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 190

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

deeper than 60 feet (18.3 m), the primary cause of injury and death is often barotrauma. Barotrauma 

occurs when rockfish are brought up from depth and exposed to significant changes in pressure. Proposed 

barotrauma research and management priorities are detailed here that would provide both short-term and 

long-term solutions to this mortality risk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Chris Lunsford and Cara Rodgveller for their helpful reviews.

REFERENCES

Blain, B. 2014. The effects of barotrauma and deepwater-release mechanisms on the reproductive 

viability of yelloweye rockfish in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Thesis presented to the faculty of 

the University of Alaska Fairbanks in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master 

of Science. 

Don, C.N. 2002. Evaluation of near-shore buffer zones of the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

relative to their function as a marine protected area. Master’s Thesis. School of Marine Affairs, 

University of Washington. 91 pages.

Cox, T.M., R.L. Lewison, R. Zydelis, L.B. Crowder, C. Safina, and A.J. Read. 2007. Comparing 

effectiveness of experimental and implemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. 

Conservation Biology. Volume 21(5), pages 1155-1164. 

Hannah, R. and K.M. Matteson. 2007. Behavior of nine species of pacific rockfish after hook-and-line 

capture, recompression, and release. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 136, 

pages 24-33.

Hannah, R., S.J. Parker, and K.M. Matteson. 2008. Escaping the Surface: The Effect of Capture Depth on 

Submergence Success of Surface-Released Pacific Rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. Volume 28(3), pages 694-700.

Hannah, R.W., P.S. Rankin, and M.T. Blume. 2014. The divergent effect of capture depth and associated 

barotrauma on post-recompression survival of canary (Sebastes pinniger) and yelloweye rockfish (S. 

ruberrimus). Fisheries Research 157: 106-112.

Hochhalter, S.J., and D.J. Reed. 2011. The effectiveness of deep-water release at improving survival of 

discarded yelloweye rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 31(5), 

pages 852-860. 

Hochhalter, S.J. 2012. Modeling submergence success of discarded yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes 

ruberrimus) and quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger): Towards improved estimation of total fishery 

removals. Fisheries Research. Volume 127, pages 142-147. 

Jarvis, E.T. and C.G. Lowe. 2008. The effects of barotrauma on the catch-and-release survival of southern 

California nearshore and shelf rockfish (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 65, pages 1286-1296.

Rankin, P.S., R.W. Hannah, M.T.O. Blume, T.J. Miller-Morgan, DVM CertAqV, J.R. Heidel, DVM 

DACVP. 2017. Delayed effects of capture-induced barotrauma on physical condition and behavioral 

competency of recompressed yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus. Fisheries Research.

Volume 186(1), pages 258-268
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 191

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2008. Groundfish Management Team (GMT) report on 

the development of a discard mortality matrix for ocean and estuary recreational fisheries. MS 

Report: 15.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2014. Groundfish Management Team (GMT) report on 

proposed discard mortality for cowcod, canary, and yelloweye rockfish released using descending 

devices in the recreational fishery. Supplemental GMT Report 2.

Palsson, W. A., T. Tsou, G. G. Bargmann, R. M. Buckley, J. E. West, M. L. Mills, Y. W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, FPT 09-04, Olympia, WA.

Parker, S.J., H.I. McElderry, P.S. Rankin, and R.W. Hannah. 2006. Buoyancy Regulation and Barotrauma 

in Two Species of Nearshore Rockfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 135, 

pages 1213-1223.

Pribyl A.L., C.B. Schreck, M.L. Kent, and S.J. Parker. 2009. The differential response to decompression 

in three species of nearshore Pacific rockfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

Volume 29, pages 1479-1486. 

Pribyl A.L., M.L. Kent, S.J. Parker, and C.B. Schreck. 2011. The response to forced decompression in six 

species of Pacific rockfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 140, pages 374-

383.

Pribyl A.L., C.B. Schreck, M.L. Kent, K.M. Kelley, and S.J. Parker. 2012. Recovery potential of black 

rockfish, Sebastes melanops Girard, recompressed following barotrauma. Journal of Fish Diseases.

Volume 35(4), pages 275-286. 

Rogers, B., C. Lowe, and E. Fernández-Juricic. 2011. Recovery of visual performance in rosy rockfish 

(Sebastes rosaceus) following exophthalmia resulting from barotrauma. Fisheries Research.

Volume 112, pages 1-7. 

Sawchuk, J.H. 2012. Angling for Insight: Examining the recreational fishing community’s knowledge, 

perceptions, practices, and preferences to inform rockfish recovery planning in Puget Sound, 

Washington. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington. School of Marine and Environmental 

Affairs. 

Schroeder, D., and M. Love. 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. 

CalCOFI Report. Volume 43, pages 182-190. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2013. Washington Sportfishing Rules. Olympia, 

Washington. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01500/wdfw01500.pdf.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 192

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX IV

BENTHIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

OVERVIEW

This appendix summarizes the known and potential threats to benthic habitats to better inform actions to 

support the recovery of yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish) of the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin. Listed rockfish typically occupy deep waters which have been relatively unobserved and studied;

thus, potential threats to these habitats are generally poorly documented and understood. As described in 

the Recovery Plan (Section II. E. Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing) and in the Critical 

Habitat designation, the known and potential threats include derelict fishing gear, dredging and sediment 

disposal, invasive species, artificial reefs (which could act to both augment or threaten habitat),

alternative energy structures, and cable laying. We list research to understand the magnitude and effects 

of these threats and potential management actions to mitigate the effects (also see Section V. A. Recovery 

Program). Climate change and ocean acidification (addressed in Appendix VII), and sediment and water 

quality (addressed in Appendix VI) likely affect benthic habitats as well.

Derelict Fishing Gear

Derelict fishing gear poses a threat to marine organisms and their habitat. Derelict nets and shrimp pots 

are two known types of derelict fishing gear in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin that can kill rockfish and 

their prey (Good et al. 2010; NRC 2012). Nets are lost because of inclement weather, tidal and current 

action, catching (snagging) upon the seafloor, the weight of catch causing submersion, vessels 

inadvertently traveling through them, or a combination of these and additional factors (NRC 2008). Many 

nets hang on bottom structure that is also attractive to rockfish. This structure consists of high-relief rocky 

substrates or boulders located on sand, mud, or gravel bottoms (Good et al. 2010). The combination of 

complex structure and currents tend to stretch derelict nets open and suspend them within the water 

column, making them more deadly to marine biota (Good et al. 2010; NMFS 2013).

Derelict gear can persist for decades in the marine environment, causing mortality to marine organisms of 

all types, including mammals, birds, fish (including rockfish), and invertebrates, while also degrading 

habitat through scour, obstruction, and sediment entrapment (Morton 2005; Gilardi et al. 2010; Good et 

al. 2010; Antonelis 2013). Specifically, fine sediments may be trapped out of the water column, creating a 

layer of soft sediment over rocky areas that changes habitat quality and suitability for benthic organisms 

(Good et al. 2010). Lost nets can cover substrate used by rockfish for shelter and pursuit of food, 

rendering the habitat unavailable, and can also reduce the abundance and availability of rockfish prey 

(Good et al. 2010). As of 2014, 479 derelict nets were estimated within Puget Sound, of which 274 are in 

shallower water (< 105 feet (32 m)) and 205 are in deeper water (> 105 feet (32 m)). By management 

unit, 241 shallower water nets and 199 deeper water nets are thought to be in the San Juan/Georgia Strait 

Basin; 23 shallower water nets and 4 deeper water nets in the Main Basin; 7 shallower water nets in South 

Puget Sound; and 3 shallower water nets and 2 deeper water nets in Hood Canal (NWSI 2014b).

Other types of lost fishing gear could also pose a threat to listed rockfish and their habitats. Recreational 

and commercial shrimp and crab fishermen employ pots that rest on the seafloor. When these pots are 

lost, they may continue to catch fish and invertebrates (Matsuoka et al. 2005; Favaro et al. 2010). Derelict 

shrimp pots have been documented to catch juvenile rockfish, though the overall extent of bycatch is 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 193

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

unknown (NRC 2012), while derelict crab pots have generally not been found to result in bycatch of

rockfish. An estimated 12,193 commercial and recreational crab pots and an estimated 326 to 651 shrimp 

pots are lost annually in Puget Sound (Antonelis et al. 2011; NRC 2012; NMFS 2014a). However, a sidescan survey in a limited area of Puget Sound showed a much higher number of shrimp pots than would be 

expected from reports of lost gear (NRC 2012). 

Suggested Research: Derelict Nets

The habitat impacts of derelict nets in waters less than 98.4 feet (30 m) are well documented (e.g., Good 

et al. 2010), in addition to the potential causes of net loss by commercial fishermen (Gibson 2013). Future 

proposed research thus emphasizes the extent and potential benefits of removing deep-water nets:

 Additional side-scan sonar surveys of deepwater rockfish habitats would locate and enumerate 

potential net targets. Net targets should be verified with drop camera or ROV surveys, which can 

also provide insight to the effects of deepwater nets to fish and habitat. 

 Continue deepwater net removal investigations and research.

 Assess the “Category 3: Possible changes to gear” recommendations in Gibson (2013). These 

ideas may require research/experimentation to determine effectiveness prior to widespread use.

 Explore the use of longitudinal suspender lines (e.g., Chehalis River and Columbia River 

fisheries), which are heavier and allow more force to be applied from the surface to the leadline 

during the recovery of an entangled net. 

 Explore the use of a breakaway leadline as used in Alaska and Columbia River fisheries. This 

enables a net to drift over a snag without hanging up the entire net, although it does not provide a 

fisherman the solid pull that can help free leadline from a snag (and thus beyond the spot where 

another portion of gear might get hung up).

 Explore the use of low frequency pingers (e.g., Fumunda) attached in locations other than the 

corkline that could assist in locating lost gear with hydrophones; for tracking purposes, a lower 

frequency carries farther.

 Explore the use of a corrosive link to attach sections of leadline to a recovery float. For example, 

a line rolled inside a tube with a trigger mechanism attached to a corrosive link, whereby a tube 

opens and the float inflates with gas capsules.

 Explore the use of biodegradable webbing to avoid the long-term persistence of derelict nets. 

 Explore the efficacy of mesh depth restrictions as in the salmon gillnet fisheries in British 

Columbia and Alaska (i.e., change net gear-depth limit such that the vertical mesh count is 

restricted, limiting the extended distance between corkline and leadline to 60 or 90 meshes deep).

 Conduct a collaborative fisheries research project that is designed to test the efficacy of mesh 

limits/net depth restrictions.

Suggested Projects: Derelict Net Prevention

Gibson (2013) provided recommendations to prevent the loss of nets in order to avert the re-accumulation 

of gillnets in current and future saltwater gillnet fisheries. She developed a list of best practices that 

gillnet fishers could employ to reduce the loss of nets, and recommended the following discrete projects 

to further the derelict gillnet prevention effort:

 Preparation of a comprehensive guide to best fishing practices that is tailored to each gillnet 

fishery, and, where possible, include bathymetric information specific to local areas of high relief. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 194

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Make such a guide widely available through port offices and fishing gear supply stores in 

Bellingham, Anacortes, Seattle, Friday Harbor, and elsewhere.

 Provide free, annual training on “trade secrets” for newcomers to the fishery. For example, new 

non-treaty gillnetters in Puget Sound are required to take a “Fish Friendly” class provided by 

WDFW if they fish in areas 7/7A. However, there are more newcomers to the treaty fisheries who 

also would benefit from further training.

 Establish a peer-based incentive system to monitor gillnet gear that would otherwise be left 

unattended, prioritizing areas where the likelihood of net entanglement and/or loss is high.

Suggested Research: Derelict Shrimp Pots

Based on the observations and results from the shrimp pot loss analysis and side-scan sonar surveys 

conducted by NRC (2012), the following are recommendations for research priorities to further 

understand the potential impact to rockfish of derelict (or active) shrimp pots in Puget Sound:

 Further explore rockfish bycatch rates in shrimp pots from WDFW Hood Canal test fishery data.

 Investigate side-scan sonar survey targets reported in the study to verify they are shrimp pots and 

not crab pots, record presence or absence of live and dead rockfish by species, and estimate 

length of time pots have been derelict.

 Investigate the length of time shrimp pots remain viable when derelict in order to fully understand 

the potential impacts shrimp pots have on rockfish.

 Assess the potential for derelict shrimp pots to affect localized, isolated populations of rockfish in 

areas where effort and pot loss are high.

Suggested Projects: Derelict Shrimp Pots and Crab Pots

The following are recommendations for management actions aimed at reducing shrimp pot loss and 

rockfish mortality in the recreational shrimp pot fishery, in addition to a general project relative to crab 

pot loss:

 Initiate an education program for recreational fishers to help minimize shrimp pot loss.

 Fishers should be encouraged to release live-caught rockfish at depth, similar to what is currently 

being proposed in the sport finfish fishery, in order to minimize mortality because of barotrauma.

 An assessment of timing the opening of the shrimp fishery to coincide with mild tides to see if pot

loss rates are reduced compared to days with larger tide cycles. 

 Though actively fished and/or derelict crab pots do not appear to result in bycatch of rockfish, 

support of crab pot loss prevention and removal efforts would nonetheless avoid potential impacts 

to benthic habitats. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 195

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Invasive / Non-Indigenous Species

Invasive or non-indigenous species (NIS) are an emerging threat to biogenic habitat in Puget Sound and 

are poorly understood, but could potentially pose a threat to listed rockfish. NIS may alter community 

dynamics, remove or degrade habitat, and are more likely to colonize stressed habitats (Bax et al. 2003; 

Occhipinti-Ambrogi and Savini 2003). For example, Sargassum muticum is an introduced brown alga that 

is now common throughout much of Puget Sound (Drake et al. 2010). The degree to which S. muticum

influences native macroalgae, eelgrass, or rockfish is not presently understood; however, research has 

shown it alters macroalgal communities (Britton-Simmons 2004). In addition, several species of nonindigenous tunicates have been identified in Puget Sound. For example, Ciona savignyi spread from one 

location in 2004, to 86 percent of sites surveyed in Hood Canal within 2 years (Drake et al. 2010). The 

exact impact of invasive tunicates on rockfish or their habitats is unknown, but results in other regions 

(e.g., Levin et al. 2002) suggest the potential for introduced invertebrates to have widespread impacts on 

rocky reef fish populations (NMFS 2013a). A recent assessment of three tunicate species of concern (S. 

clava, D. vexillum, and C. savignyi)

that are relatively new to the region 

suggests that their effects may not be 

as consequential as previously thought; 

however, their distributions and effects 

may not have reached full potential.

The authors of the assessment 

therefore recommend these tunicate 

species remain a high priority for 

monitoring (Cordell et al. 2012). As 

novel NIS are expected to increase 

over time (Levine and D’Antonio 

2003), understanding their potential 

effects on rockfish and exploring 

potential control methods may be

necessary for a complete recovery 

effort.

Suggested Research and Projects: Invasive Species

We recommend an assessment of the possible impacts S. muticum, C. savignyi, S. clava, and D. vexillum

may have on rockfish and their habitat. If adverse impacts (such as altered rockfish behavior, habitat 

usage, etc.) are found, we recommend a feasibility assessment of the removal, or other control efforts, of 

non-indigenous species along the seafloor, in addition to understanding ways to stem their spread. 

The non-native tunicate, Ciona. Photo by Adam Obaza.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 196

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Artificial Reefs

There have been few artificial habitat projects in Puget Sound since the 1980s and it is uncertain if 

additional reefs would contribute to recovery of listed rockfish. Though most of Puget Sound lacks 

natural rocky reefs, listed rockfish have been documented among non-rocky, but relatively complex 

benthic habitats. The use of these non-rocky habitats may be a unique ecological feature of rockfish along 

the Pacific coast. As such, the restoration of listed rockfish populations through the use of artificial reefs 

may or may not address a factor that limits recovery. Historically, hundreds of bottom trawl vessels fished 

in Puget Sound, and the extent of alteration to the seafloor from this fishery has not been determined. 

Given these uncertainties, WDFW’s Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan guides placement of future 

artificial habitats in areas with degraded benthic habitats (WDFW 2010). There have been recent 

proposals to conduct research on newly 

placed artificial reefs in conjunction with 

removal of some of the over 20 known tire 

reefs in Puget Sound (Holmes and Tobeck 

2011).

Creation of an artificial reef is a complex 

process involving extensive planning, 

monitoring, and coordination among Federal 

and state agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, fishers, and the general public. 

Placement of a reef requires thorough 

evaluation of project goals, habitat 

characteristics, oceanographic setting, and 

responsibility for long-term maintenance. 

Artificial habitats consist of materials such as 

boulder piles, concrete rubble, tires, 

shipwrecks, and other materials that are not native to the local benthic habitat (NMFS 2014a), or can 

consist of materials that are native to local habitats but have been lost or removed (e.g., large driftwood in 

Puget Sound). Rockfishes are found among artificial habitats relatively soon after their placement 

(Palsson et al. 2009). These habitats attract fish from the surrounding environment (Laufle and Pauley 

1985), but more research may help evaluate the ecological performance of fishes at man-made vs. natural 

reefs (Love et al. 2005; Granneman and Steele 2014) because many variables may ultimately affect 

production (Bohnsack 1989). Therefore, any potential artificial reefs created for rockfish recovery must 

be carefully planned to enable maximum potential effectiveness, and assessed in terms of their impacts on 

fish and benthic habitats. Material type, size, depth, proximity to existing natural reefs and submerged 

aquatic vegetation, substrate type, and other factors may all affect rockfish productivity on an artificial 

reef (Buckley 1997; NOAA 2007; Jiang et al. 2013). 

The first step to adequately designing an artificial reef would be to conduct a demographic sensitivity 

analysis to determine which life stages create potential bottlenecks for rockfish recovery (Gerber and 

Heppell 2004). With that information, a specific reef design could be developed to enhance vulnerable 

life stage(s). As adult rockfish may consume juveniles, it may be beneficial to separate adult and juvenile 

habitat (Buckley 1997).

Quillback rockfish inhabiting an artificial reef in central 

Puget Sound. Photo by Adam Obaza.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 197

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Studies completed thus far show that there could be a potential basis for enhancement of rockfish 

populations by artificial structures. Buckley (1997) found that juvenile rockfish occupy small refuge 

habitats within reef systems. Many of the artificial reefs in Puget Sound were constructed of large 

materials that did not have this refuge habitat. Manipulation of existing artificial reefs to include refuge 

habitat could increase production of juvenile rockfish. Ontogenetic and life history factors are important 

considerations because artificial reefs may not increase biomass if bottlenecks to the population occur in 

other habitats used in different life history stages, and because increased production is more likely for 

highly territorial or philopatric species that may be habitat limited (Bohnsack 1989). 

However, Bohnsack (1989) cautions that because artificial reefs are effective fish attractors, they may 

make the resident fish more susceptible to fishing, requiring other management measures be taken instead 

of, or in conjunction with, artificial reefs to prevent further depletion of listed stocks.

Suggested Research and Projects: Artificial Reefs

Proposed artificial reef project(s) in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin should be approached as a controlled 

experiment to assess fish population and benthic habitat response using Before-After-Control-Impact 

Paired Series (BACIPS) design (Osenberg et al. 2002). In particular, the experimental artificial reef 

placement should be prioritized in areas of degraded habitats (e.g., previously placed tire reefs). 

CONCLUSION

As compared with fishing-related impacts, the effects of reductions in benthic habitat quality and quantity 

on listed rockfish are relatively unknown. This lack of knowledge stems in part from the nature of listed 

rockfish habitat, which is deep and relatively inaccessible. However, habitat-related issues are often of 

great concern in recovering diminished populations and evidence of derelict net impacts in particular

suggests a potential source of rockfish mortality. Therefore, further research into their effects on listed 

rockfish and their benthic habitat is warranted to enhance recovery. 

REFERENCES

Antonelis, K., D. Huppert, D. Velasquez, and J. June. 2011. Dungeness crab mortality due to lost trap and 

a cost-benefit analysis of trap removal in Washington State waters of the Salish Sea. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 31(5), pages 880-893. 

Antonelis, K. 2013. Derelict Gillnets in the Salish Sea: Causes of Gillnet Loss, Extent of Accumulation 

and Development of a Predictive Transboundary Model (Master’s thesis). University of Washington 

School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Seattle, WA.

Bax, N., A. Williamson, M. Aguero, E. Gonzalez, and W. Geeves. 2003. Marine invasive alien species: a 

threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy. Volume 27, pages 313-323.

Britton-Simmons, K.H. 2004. Direct and indirect effects of the introduced alga Sargassum muticum on 

benthic, subtidal communities of Washington State, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Volume 277, pages 61-78.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are High Densities of Fishes at Artificial Reefs the Result of Habitat Limitation or 

Behavioral Preference? Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 44(2), pages 631-645.

Buckley, R.M. 1997. Substrate associated recruitment of juvenile Sebastes in artificial reef and natural 

habitats in Puget Sound and the San Juan Archipelago, Washington. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife Technical Report. RAD97-06. 320 pages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 198

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Cordell, J.R., C. Levy, J.D. Toft. 2012. Ecological impacts of invasive tunicate associated with artificial 

structures in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Biological Invasions. Volume 15(6), pages 1303-1318.

Drake J.S., E.A. Berntson, J.M. Cope, R.G. Gustafson, E.E. Holmes, P.S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R.S. 

Waples, S.M. Sogard, and G.D. Williams. 2010. Status of five species of rockfish in Puget Sound, 

Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye 

Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish 

(Sebastes proriger). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFSNWFSC-108, 234 pages.

Favaro, B., D.T. Rutherford, S.D. Duff, and I.M. Côté. 2010. Bycatch of rockfish and other species in 

British Columbia spot prawn traps: preliminary assessment using research traps. Fisheries Research.

Volume 102, pages 199-206.

Gerber, L.R., and S.S. Heppell. 2004. The use of demographic sensitivity analysis in marine species 

conservation planning. Biological Conservation. Volume 120, pages 121-128.

Gibson, C. Preventing the Loss of Gillnets in Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries. 2013. Prepared by the 

Northwest Straits Commission with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Available at: 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/puget_sound_

derelict_gill_net_prevention_report.pdf.

Gilardi, K. V., D. Carlson-Bremer, J.A. June, K. Antonelis, G. Broadhurst, and T. Cowan. 2010. Marine 

species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net 

removal. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 60(3), pages 376-382.

Good, T. P., J.A. June, M.A. Etnier, and G. Broadhurst.2010. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the 

Northwest Straits: Patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 60(1),

pages 39-50.

Granneman, J.E., and M.A. Steele. 2014. Fish growth, reproduction, and tissue production on artificial 

reefs relative to natural reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science.

Holmes, R. and R. Tobeck. 2011. Proposal for a scientific study of artificial reefs in Puget Sound. 

Coastal Conservation Association.

Jiang, Y.E., P.M. Chen, Z.J. Lin, and Z.Q. Fang. 2013. Comparison of effectiveness of various artificial 

reef materials for fish attraction. Journal of Applied Oceanography. 3, page 17.

Laufle, J.C. and G.B. Pauley. 1985. Fish colonization and materials comparisons on a Puget Sound 

artificial reef. Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 37(1), pages 227-243.

Levin, P.S., J.A. Coyer, R. Petrik, and T.P. Good. 2002. Community-wide effects of nonindigenous 

species on temperate reefs. Ecology. Volume 83, pages 3,182-3,193.

Levine, J.M. and C.M. D’Antonio. 2003. Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international 

trade. Conservation Biology. Volume 17(1), pages 322-326.

Matsuoka, T., T. Nakashima, and N. Nagasawa. 2005. A review of ghost fishing: scientific approaches to 

evaluation and solutions. Fisheries Science. Volume 71, pages 691-702.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. Draft Biological Report: Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and 

Bocaccio. Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. National Artificial Reef Plan (as amended): 

guidelines for siting, construction, development and assessment of artificial reefs. 51 pages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 199

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Straits Initiative (NWSI). 2014a. Derelict gear removal. Available at: 

http://www.derelictgear.org/Progress/ARRA-Project.aspx, accessed April 1, 2014. 

Northwest Straits Initiative (NWSI). 2014b. Derelict gear database, updated April 4, 2014.

Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. (NRC). 2008. Rates of marine species mortality caused by derelict 

fishing nets in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for the Northwest Straits Initiative. 16 pages.

NRC. 2010. Deepwater sidescan sonar surveys for derelict fishing nets and rockfish habitat. Submitted to 

Northwest Straits Foundation. Also as electronic communication from Kyle Antonelis, sent February 

23, 2011.

NRC. 2012. Spatial distribution and magnitude of derelict shrimp pots and their potential impacts to 

rockfish in the Puget Sound. Submitted to the Northwest Straits Foundation and NOAA protected 

Resources Division. September 20, 2012.

NRC. 2014. Rockfish bycatch in shrimp pots and updated estimates of the magnitude of derelict shrimp 

pots in Puget Sound. NRC. 

Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. and D. Savini. 2003. Biological invasions as a component of global change in 

stressed marine ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 46, pages 542-551.

Osenberg, C.W., M. Colette, J. St. Mary, A. Wilson, and W.J. Linberg. 2002. A quantitative framework to 

evaluate the attraction-production controversy. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences. Volume 59, 

pages S241-S221.

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, FPT 09-04, Olympia, WA.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 200

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX V

NEARSHORE HABITAT AND KELP CONSERVATION

OVERVIEW

Nearshore habitat protection and restoration in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin is identified as a high 

priority action in the Recovery Plan (see Section VI. Implementation Schedule and Preliminary Cost 

Estimates) and is outlined in this appendix. The nearshore is generally defined as habitats contiguous with 

the shoreline from extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 98 feet (30 m) relative to mean lower 

low water. This area generally coincides with the maximum depth of the photic zone and can contain 

physical or biological features essential to the conservation of many fish and invertebrate species. This 

habitat also experiences a high rate of disturbance from anthropogenic activities.

Prior to European settlement, Puget Sound shorelines were a mosaic of coastal lagoons and expansive 

deltas interspersed with bluffs supporting immense trees. Human development since the early 1800s has 

transformed and simplified Puget Sound shorelines. Approximately one-third of the shoreline has been 

altered for industrial uses, infrastructure, and housing (Broadhurst 1998). Virtually all of the large 

shoreline trees were cut by the late 1800s (Prasse 2006). 

The alteration of Puget Sound shorelines has been found to impact a variety of marine life, ranging from 

invertebrate fauna (Sobocinski 2003) to surf smelt egg viability (Rice 2006), but consequences of the 

alteration of Puget Sound shorelines on rockfish habitat are less understood. One of the more prominent 

nearshore habitats are the floating and submerged kelp beds (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae, 

Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) that support the highest densities of most juvenile rockfish 

species (Matthews 1990; Halderson and Richards 1987; Carr 1983; Hayden-Spear 2006). Kelp habitat

provides structure for feeding, predation refuge, and reduced currents that enable energy conservation for 

juveniles (see Section II. Biological Background). Kelp is photosynthetic and requires high ambient light 

levels and a lack of fine sediment in the water column that can reduce light or smother the gametophytes 

(Mumford 2007). There are over 20 annual or perennial species of kelp in Puget Sound; two species have 

a floating canopy and the other species have non-floating stipulate or prostrate canopies (Mumford 2007). 

When solid substrates occur in lower intertidal and subtidal zones, kelp is often the dominant aquatic flora 

and forms dense canopies (Mumford 2007). Kelp are attached with a root-like structure, called a holdfast, 

to solid substrates such as bedrock, large rocks or pebbles, clam shells, or artificial substrates. Kelp grows 

in areas of high to moderate wave energy or currents to depths as great as 65 feet (20 m) (Mumford 

2007). Most kelp species form blades 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 m) long, though the one floating variety within 

the range of the three DPSs (Nereocystis luetkeana) grows to over 33 feet (10 m) long.

Given the importance of kelp (and naturally rocky/complex shorelines) to juvenile rockfish, this appendix 

emphasizes research and conservation of these areas, noting that restoration of the nearshore targeted for 

salmon and general ecosystem recovery will likely complement the recovery of listed rockfish. We note 

that previous nearshore restoration planning for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and the recent Strategies of 

Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound provide important roadmaps for conserving the

shorelines of Puget Sound. Restoring the nearshore, even in areas that are unlikely to be occupied by 

listed rockfish, will nonetheless support important ecosystem functions—such as the production of 

rockfish prey (i.e., surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 201

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

In 2010, WDFW and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed and

submitted a proposal to NOAA for ESA section 6 funding to advance the management and restoration 

needs of kelp habitats and associated at-risk rockfish species assemblages (WDFW 2010). The proposal 

has not been funded to date. WDFW has been conducting research, monitoring, and evaluation programs 

for nearshore fishes and fish habitat for over 20 years, and DNR has been conducting research and 

monitoring on nearshore habitats since 1988. This appendix uses an abbreviated version of the section 6 

proposal as a template for conserving nearshore habitats particularly important to rockfish.

Rearing in the nearshore is thought to play a critical role in the successful recruitment of juvenile rockfish 

(Love et al. 1991), yet there is much to be learned about how nearshore conservation and restoration 

efforts within Puget Sound may be adapted to specifically address the survival and recovery of listed 

rockfish. The distribution and dynamics of kelp are poorly understood in Puget Sound, and the overall 

trend in abundance is ambiguous. The WDFW and DNR section 6 proposal provided three goals related 

to kelp and rockfish:

1) Provide a straightforward basis for understanding and measuring the distribution of kelp in Puget 

Sound.

2) Provide a food web model characterizing life stage-specific rockfish use of nearshore habitats. This 

would include a stable isotope study of kelp-derived carbon in rockfish diets.

3) Provide a basis for identifying changes in kelp abundance and depth distribution, along with their 

causes, that can be used to prioritize conservation and restoration actions, with special reference to 

rockfishes.

Effectively addressing recovery of kelp-dependent species like rockfish (including bocaccio) requires an 

understanding of the relative abundance and spatial distribution of kelp and, ultimately, the mechanisms 

by which these characteristics change in Puget Sound. Available data typically address the relative 

abundance and distribution of only two floating species (Nereocystis luetkeana and Macrocystis 

integrifolia), and the lack of surface expression of non-floating species has historically prevented costeffective monitoring (Mumford 2007). A review of historical data (Thom and Hallum 1990) suggested a 

58 percent increase in floating kelp beds in Puget Sound since the earliest mapping in the 1850s 

(Mumford 2007). However, anecdotal evidence 

of losses exists for central Puget Sound (Thom 

and Hallum 1990), but these data are 

spatiotemporally coarse. Mumford (2007) noted 

reports from concerned citizens regarding losses 

of kelp beds around Bainbridge, Fox, and 

Marrowstone Islands and personally observed the 

loss of over 90 percent of beds in southern Puget 

Sound. DNR mapped floating and non-floating 

kelp using helicopter-based shoreline surveys 

along 11 percent and 31 percent, respectively, of 

the 3,061-mile (4,926-km) Puget Sound shoreline

as part of the ShoreZone inventory (Nearshore 

Habitat Program 2001). These surveys scored 

kelp abundance into three categories (absent, patchy, or continuous) within variable-length, 

A black rockfish utilizing Nereocystis luetkeana off 

Whidbey Island. Photo by Adam Obaza
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 202

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

geomorphologically defined shoreline segments averaging 0.5 mile (0.8 km), but the width of the kelp 

footprint (i.e., perpendicular to the shoreline) and therefore total area was not addressed. 

These ShoreZone inventory surveys cannot reliably identify changes in kelp distribution, and subsequent 

efforts should consider more robust monitoring techniques. In addition, DNR has obtained photographic 

data using aerial overflights on floating kelp taken at the same time each year from 1989 through 2009 

(van Wagenen). However, these surveys cover only the outer coast and the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

eastward to just north of Port Townsend. Berry et al. (2005) showed that kelp canopy area generally 

increased during the first 15 years of this monitoring, but identified localized losses. The kelp canopy may 

have expanded as a result of a decrease in herbivores such as urchins (from increases in the sea otter 

population and human harvest of urchins in areas of increased kelp abundance [Estes et al. 2004]), and 

reductions in kelp canopy may have occurred because of loss of cobble and exposed bedrock, a loss of 

detritus feeders, an increase in herbivores, declining water quality, and illegal harvest (Mumford 2007). 

The causal basis of regional changes in kelp distribution or composition in Puget Sound, however, remain

poorly understood. 

Despite the fact that kelp habitats are among the most biodiverse and functionally valuable in the world, 

they have garnered relatively little attention in Puget Sound (Mumford 2007). The functions, ecosystem 

services, and products provided by kelp in Puget Sound are poorly documented, and are widely assumed 

based on data collected largely outside Puget Sound.

Suggested Research Projects

Here we provide objectives to assess and implement conservation actions for nearshore habitat and kelp 

that support listed rockfish recovery (also see Section V. A. Recovery Program and Section VI. 

Implementation Schedule and Preliminary Cost Estimates).

Objective 1: Literature Review and Food Web Model Development

Develop an approach to advance the management and restoration needs of nearshore habitats and their atrisk rockfish species assemblage.

Action: Objective 1 is to conduct a literature review and build a food web model focused on kelprockfish habitat associations and other important kelp community interactions. This model would provide 

an explicit structure for identifying the ecosystem links and vulnerabilities to rockfishes, characterize 

hypothesized stressors to kelp (historical, current, future), and describe their associated uncertainties. 

Parameter estimates developed for the model could be used in the food web models developed as part of 

the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment by the NOAA Fisheries Science Center.

Methodology: Develop a food web model of kelp ecosystems where rockfishes, particularly the ESAlisted species, are the focus. This model can be developed from a literature review and expert judgments 

that identify the links, stressors, and threats to rockfishes and kelp. Historical, current, and anticipated 

stressors to rockfishes and kelp can be addressed for both aspects of kelp life history (e.g., kelp 

sporophyte and gametophyte) and for different climate change scenarios (e.g., changes in sea level, ocean 

acidification).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 203

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

The model could then be used to guide development of conservation and restoration approaches, and 

research to fill critical information gaps (Objective 3). The magnitude of threats to kelp in Puget Sound 

could be estimated and ranked in order of severity. Seafloor modification data can then be examined for 

potential impacts on rockfishes and their habitat, such as areas with a high intensity of marine 

transportation, tidal and wave energy development, anchoring, and other modification. These threats 

could then be quantified in terms of their geographic, temporal, and physical magnitude through existing 

empirical data and expert judgment that employ Bayesian Belief Networks (Marcot et al. 2001) or other 

systems used to characterize uncertainty surrounding expert opinion.

Harvey and colleagues (2010) published a food web model for the central basin of Puget Sound. They 

constructed a mass-balance model consisting of 65 functional groups, including a floating kelp group. 

This model operated at the scale of an oceanographic subbasin, and therefore the intricacies of the food 

web within smaller-scale kelp habitats were not addressed. The same group will be developing a food 

web model for all of Puget Sound. Like their most recent effort, this model will analyze the Puget Sound 

marine ecosystem at the scale of oceanographic subbasins. The food web model proposed here would 

draw upon Harvey et al. (2010), and have the detail to contribute to ongoing Puget Sound-wide food web 

modeling efforts as part of the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment by NOAA Fisheries Science Center.

Individual projects that should be conducted to augment model development include assessments of some 

hypothesized reasons for localized kelp decline, including (1) overabundance of and grazing by urchins 

and kelp crab (Pugettia producta), possibly because of the decline of their predators (i.e., cabezon, cod, 

and rockfish) (see Section II. Biological Background); (2) nearshore alteration including disruption of 

localized and regional sediment supplies; (3) boat traffic and nearshore development; and (4) pollution. In 

addition, a stable isotopes analysis would complement this work by providing an additional quantitative 

basis for food web linkages.

Objective 2: Improve Understanding of Historical and Current Kelp Abundance and Distribution

Action: All existing datasets could be assembled to reconstruct an historical picture of kelp in Puget 

Sound. Annual eelgrass surveys for Puget Sound, currently conducted by DNR, could be expanded to 

include non-floating kelp. This process would result in the first estimate of the current abundance and 

distribution of non-floating kelp throughout Puget Sound based on probabilistic sampling using 

underwater videography. Long-term changes in floating kelp abundance could be assessed by conducting 

an aerial photography-based survey of greater Puget Sound and updating the trends analysis of Thom and 

Hallum (1990). Changes in non-floating kelp could be assessed through diver-based surveys of a limited 

number of sites with historical information available for comparison. Together, these data sets could 

provide a basis for addressing important objectives in managing kelp habitat in Greater Puget Sound.

Methodology: Past and current kelp abundance and distribution can be assessed by compiling historical 

data sets, collecting additional monitoring data, and comparing similar data sets to detect trends over time. 

This work should be divided into three sub-projects, based on considerations related to sampling 

methodology and available information: 

• Floating kelp, the type with the most extensive existing information, should be assessed through 

collecting aerial photography-based data on its current distribution, and by updating the trends 

analysis work of Thom and Hallum (1990) by mapping floating kelp throughout Puget Sound using 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 204

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

the long-term monitoring methods used for the outer coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca (van Wagenen 

1989-2009).

• Non-floating kelp and macroalgae have substantially less existing information and greater sampling 

challenges. Trends in non-floating kelp and macroalgae could be assessed through re-sampling diverbased surveys at a minimum of five sites within Puget Sound. This comparison would provide

information on changes at key sites, but the results would be limited in their geographic scope.

• The current abundance and distribution of non-floating kelp and macroalgae throughout Puget Sound 

could be determined5 through expanding existing probabilistic sampling methods developed for longterm eelgrass monitoring, including the development of a standardized survey method for local 

volunteers. This work would provide the first estimate of non-floating kelp and macroalgae 

abundance and depth distribution throughout Puget Sound, and contribute important fundamental 

information on a critical habitat that would be used for management, modeling, marine spatial 

planning, and research.

Objective 3: Develop Conservation and Restoration Approaches

Action: Develop protection, conservation, and restoration approaches for kelp and macroalgae habitats by 

providing a review of kelp restoration literature, with a special focus on rockfish habitat needs; providing 

methods for monitoring restoration effectiveness; and making recommendations for protection and 

conservation measures, and how to conduct a pilot restoration effort.6

Methodology: To accomplish this objective, three approaches could be taken: (1) assemble and 

synthesize the literature on kelp conservation and restoration, notably that from California (e.g., Vasquez 

and McPeak 1994) and Puget Sound (e.g., Elliott Bay Marina mitigation) (see Carney et al. 2005), in 

addition to kelp cultivation, primarily in China; (2) analyze the impact of different kelp stressors (i.e., 

grazers, development, and pollution) and identify ways to minimize them; and (3) identify management 

measures and restoration approaches to recover kelp.

Guidelines could be developed for improved management and restoration of kelp. WDFW and DNR

cooperatively manage kelp by virtue of their responsibility for stewardship of the marine bedlands (DNR) 

and management of fish and wildlife and elements of their habitat, including marine vegetation (WDFW

2010). NOAA Fisheries also has a role as kelp is designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern for 

 5 Habitat mapping sonar could also be considered and possibly conducted in conjunction with other surveys (i.e., for 

derelict gear or other needed habitat surveys). 

6 The Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF), the Northwest Straits Commission, and others are currently working to 

restore kelp coverage at select locations in Puget Sound by developing a comprehensive restoration plan, including 

piloting restoration projects and monitoring. In April 2015, the PSRF was awarded a 1.5 million dollar grant from 

the Paul G. Allen Ocean Challenge to cultivate macroalgae at one site in Hood Canal. The goal of the 5-year study is 

to assess the impact of kelp restoration for extracting dissolved carbon dioxide and other excess nutrients in the 

water to mitigate for ocean acidification and eutrophication in Puget Sound. Additionally, the PSRF maintains a 

citizen science program, KELP WATCH, to help monitor and protect kelp in Puget Sound for a more 

comprehensive picture of kelp coverage. Help the Kelp is a similar organization in Canada that is helping to 

document and restore kelp coverage in the Salish Sea. In January 2015, the Northwest Straits Commission launched 

the Salish Sea International Kelp Alliance to help protect and restore kelp in Washington and British Columbia. 

Their goals are to monitor changes in local kelp populations, foster awareness about the ecological and cultural 

importance of kelp, promote citizen science contributions to regional research, and provide a forum for exchanging 

relevant information and ideas.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 205

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Pacific Coast Groundfish, a subset of Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, that receives additional scrutiny during the regulatory process, in 

addition to the review of projects under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. As threats are identified, systematic 

reviews of current management practices for kelp and other submerged vegetation could occur, resulting 

in a more coordinated approach.

Additional Objective: Systematic surveys of young-of- year rockfishes should occur annually within each 

of the basins of Puget Sound. Survey locations and frequency of surveys should be expanded from the 

WDFW surveys. These surveys should assess nearshore habitats for seasonality and densities of juvenile 

rockfish in general because juvenile rockfishes are often difficult to identify visually. Bocaccio and other 

nearshore associated rockfishes (e.g., copper rockfish) use similar habitats. These surveys could be 

integrated with the above-mentioned surveys of kelp habitats as well as potential sites for restoration/kelp 

outplanting, and where possible, could occur opportunistically with surveys targeting other species, such 

as juvenile salmonids. 

Anticipated Results

• A conceptual model for the kelp food web that explicitly highlights rockfish-kelp interactions and that 

informs the Atlantis food web model for Puget Sound.

• A Puget Sound-wide map of the historical and current footprints for selected kelp and macroalgae 

morphotypes or in some cases, species, based only on existing data.

• A preliminary analysis of the change in the kelp footprint for selected kelp morphotypes or, in some 

cases, species.

• Recommendations for a conservation and restoration plan, including monitoring needs for kelp 

habitats that emphasize rockfish habitat needs. 

CONCLUSION

Nearshore habitat protection and restoration in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin is identified as a high 

priority action in the Recovery Plan because the nearshore is thought to play a critical role in the 

successful recruitment of juvenile rockfish. There is much to be learned about how nearshore 

conservation and restoration efforts within Puget Sound may be adapted to specifically address the 

survival and recovery of listed rockfish. Given the importance of kelp and the nearshore to juvenile 

rockfish, we have identified research and conservation of these areas including understanding and 

measuring the distribution of present day and historical distribution of kelp, developing a food web model 

to help investigate possible causes of kelp decline (including possible trophic cascades), and provide a 

basis for identifying changes in kelp abundance, along with their causes, that can be used to prioritize 

conservation and restoration actions within a specialized region-wide conservation plan. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Emily Bishop for her review of this appendix. We thank WDFW and DNR for providing 

permission to use their ESA section 6 application as a framework for this appendix.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 206

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

REFERENCES

Berry, H. D., T.F.Mumford, and P. Dowty. 2005. Using historical data to estimate changes in floating 

kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana and Macrocystis integrifolia) in Puget Sound, Washington. In 

Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound George Basin Research Conference. Puget Sound Action Team, 

Olympia, Washington (Volume 9).

Carr, M. H. 1983. Spatial and temporal patterns of recruitment of young of the year rockfishes (genus 

Sebastes) into a central California kelp Forest. Master's thesis, San Francisco State University, CA 

94132. 104 pages.

Carney, L.T., J. R. Waaland, T. Klinger, and K. Ewing. 2005. Restoration of the bull kelp Nereocystis 

luetkeana in nearshore rocky habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 302, pages 49-61. 

Estes, J.A., E.M. Danner, D.F. Doak, B. Konar, A.M. Springer, P.D. Steinber, M.T. Tinker, and T.M. 

Williams. 2004. Complex trophic interactions in kelp forest ecosystems. Bulletin of Marine Science.

Volume 74(3), pages 621-638. 

Halderson, L. and L.J. Richards. 1987. Habitat use and young of the year copper rockfish (Sebastes 

caurinus) in British Columbia. Pages 129 to 141 in Proceedings of the International Rockfish 

Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Report, 87-2, Fairbanks, AK.

Harvey, C.J., K.K. Bartz, J. Davies, T.B. Francis, T.P. Good, A.D. Guerry, B. Hanson, K.K. Holsman, J. 

Miller, M.L. Plummer, J.C.P. Reum, L.D. Rhodes, C.A. Rice, J.F. Samhouri, G.D. Williams, N. 

Yoder, P.S. Levin, and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 2010. A mass-balance model for evaluating food web 

structure and community-scale indicators in the central basin of Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-106, 180 pages.

Hayden-Spear, J. 2006. Nearshore habitat associations of young-of-year copper (Sebastes caurinus) and 

quillback (S. maliger) rockfish in the San Juan Channel, Washington. Master of Science Dissertation, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 38 pages.

Love, M.S., M.H. Carr, and L.J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the 

genus Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30(1-2), pages 225-243. 

Marcot, B.G., R.S. Holthausen, M.G. Raphhael, M.M. Rowland, and M.J. Wisdom. 2001. Using Bayesian 

belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives 

from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 153, pages 29-

52. 

Matthews, K.R. 1990. A comparative study of habitat use by young-of-the-year, subadult, and adult 

rockfishes on four habitat types in central Puget Sound. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 88, pages 223-239. 

Mumford, T.F. 2007. Kelp and Eelgrass in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 

2007-05. Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. 

Nearshore Habitat Program. 2001. The Washington state ShoreZone inventory. Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Prasse, K. 2006. Images of America: Camano Island. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco California.

Rice, C.A. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and 

embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and Coasts.

Volume 29(1), pages 63-71.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 207

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Sobocinski, K.L. 2003. The impact of armoring on supratidal beach fauna of Central Puget Sound. 

University of Washington.

Thom, R.M. and L. Hallum. 1990. Long-term changes in the areal extent of tidal marshes, eelgrass 

meadows and kelp forests of Puget Sound. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Seattle, WA. FRI-UW-9008. Wetland Ecosystem Team, Fisheries Research Institute, 

University of Washington. 

Van Wagenen, B. 1989-2009. Washington coastal kelp resources, Port Townsend to the Columbia River. 

A series of annual reports to the Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Vasquez, J.A. and R.H. McPeak. 1994. A new tool for kelp restoration. Fifth International Conference on 

Habitat Enhancement. 

Velimirov, B, J.G. Field, C.L. Griffiths, and P. Zoutendyk. 1977. The ecology of kelp communities in the 

Benguela upwelling system: Analysis of biomass and spatial distribution. Helgoland Marine 

Research. Volume 30, pages 495-518.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010. WDFW and Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) Section 6 Proposal Submitted to NOAA Fisheries: Restoration and Management of 

Kelp Habitats and Associated At-risk Rockfish Assemblages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 208

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX VI

SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY

OVERVIEW

This appendix provides background and recommended efforts and research priorities regarding sediment 

and water quality contaminants and listed rockfish. Human activities have introduced many toxic 

chemicals into Puget Sound that alter water and sediment quality and affect listed rockfish along with 

their habitats and prey. Subsequently, contaminants are identified in this recovery plan as a high threat to 

listed rockfish (Section II. E. Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing). Contaminants enter 

from direct and indirect pathways, including surface runoff, inflow from fresh and salt water, aerial 

deposition, discharges from wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows, oil spills, and 

migrating biota (Crowser et al. 2007). Once harmful contaminants enter Puget Sound, their retention and 

flushing is controlled by the toxic persistence of the chemical, ocean circulation and climate, and the 

physical structure of the basins. Because Puget Sound has several sills that restrict water movement and 

mixing, persistent chemicals have relatively long residence times. In addition, many marine species 

exhibit a high degree of residency within Puget Sound that results in increased chemical exposure through 

benthic and pelagic food webs (West et al. 2008; O’Neill and West 2009).

Relatively recent analyses indicate that 1 percent of the marine sediments in Puget Sound are highly 

degraded by chemical contamination, whereas 57 percent show intermediate degrees of deterioration and 

42 percent remain relatively clean (Long et al. 2001). Hot spots for contaminated sediments are centered 

near major urban areas where industrial and domestic activities are concentrated. Locations of particular 

concern include Bellingham Bay, Fidalgo Bay, Everett Harbor and Port Gardner, Elliott Bay, 

Commencement Bay, Sinclair Inlet and other sites near Bremerton, and Budd Inlet (Long et al. 2001;

EVS Environmental Consultants 2003), but contamination can extend widely into some rural bays and 

may include nursery areas for many of the species in Puget Sound. Analyses of contaminants in fish and 

mussels suggest that some pollutants are most abundant in the Main Basin and South Puget Sound 

(Mearns 2001; O’Neill and West 2001; West et al. 2001a; EVS Environmental Consultants 2003). 

During the past few decades, regulatory actions, improved waste handling, and ongoing cleanup efforts 

have led to improvements in regional water quality. Important actions taken include the cessation of PCB 

production and DDT use in the 1970s and the elimination of most dioxin and furan emissions from pulp 

and paper mills during the 1980s and early 1990s. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating 

point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Permits are issued for discharges 

from industrial and municipal wastewater facilities and describe limitations for allowed discharge based 

on technology or water quality standards. 

In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states. Since its introduction in 

1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to our nation’s water 

quality; however, there are questions about whether permit requirements and standards are sufficient to 

protect habitat and wildlife. Progress has been made in the cleaning and containment of the 31 Superfund 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 209

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

sites in the Puget Sound basin, of which at least 11 leaked contaminants into coastal waters. Advances in 

the control of point-source pollution have also taken place. Environmental levels of many organochlorine 

residues (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, furans, organochlorine pesticides, and chlorophenols) have declined 

significantly during the past several decades (Gray and Tuominen 2001; Mearns 2001; Grant and Ross 

2002; EVS Environmental Consultants 2003). For example, mean PCB concentrations in harbor seal pups 

from Puget Sound fell from more than 100 mg/kg wet weight in 1972 to about 20 mg/kg wet weight in 

1990 (Calambokidis et al. 1999). Despite these improvements, the presence of some chemicals (e.g., 

PCBs and DDT) in coastal habitats and wildlife has stabilized since the early 1990s and is not expected to 

decline further for decades (Calambokidis et al. 1999; Grant and Ross 2002). By contrast, environmental 

levels of many emerging contaminants, which are typically poorly regulated, are likely increasing (Pal et 

al. 2010).

Atmospheric transport of pollutants is another important contaminant source for marine ecosystems. 

Because of the prevailing wind patterns of the northern hemisphere, a number of substances (e.g., PCBs, 

DDT, other pesticides, dioxins, furans, and metals) are carried from Asia to the northeastern Pacific 

(Iwata et al. 1993; Tanabe et al. 1994).

In 2006, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) partnered with other agencies to identify 

an initial list of the chemicals of concern that may harm the Puget Sound ecosystem (Ecology 2011).

Several persistent bioaccumulative toxicants (PBTs) and metals identified may pose a threat to rockfish. 

PBTs are highly fat soluble and have poor water solubility, which allows them to accumulate in the fatty 

tissues of organisms. Many PBTs can bioaccumulate and biomagnify such that long-lived, mid- and 

upper-trophic level species, such as rockfish, accumulate relatively large amounts of these compounds 

throughout their lives and have body burdens several orders of magnitude greater than species with 

shorter life spans at lower trophic levels.

The primary toxic chemicals of concern to the health and recovery of listed rockfish include the 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorines (e.g., PCBs and DDTs), brominated flame 

retardants such as the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), other endocrine disruptors, and 

mercury/methylmercury. Here, we briefly describe the use of, associated health effects from, and 

regulation for these chemicals of concern.

PAHs. PAHs are both man-made and naturally occurring. They are created during the partial burning of 

petroleum products such as oil, gas, and coal. In laboratory studies, PAHs have caused tumors, 

reproductive problems, and birth defects; can affect the immune system; and are known animal 

carcinogens. Temporal monitoring of Puget Sound sediments has shown higher levels of PAH 

concentrations in 2000 than in the early 1990s (Partridge et al. 2005), especially in some urban bays 

(PSAT 2007). 

PCBs. PCBs in sediment from Puget Sound have increased in concentration beginning in 1930, reaching 

peak levels in the early 1960s (Lefkovitz et al. 1997; Johannessen et al. 2008). Some benthic species have

shown location-specific declines in PCB concentrations. For example, reductions in PCB concentrations 

in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) in Sinclair Inlet likely are due to reduced PCB input (e.g., from 

contaminated sediment removal, enhanced wastewater treatment, and stormwater outfall retrofits) 

(O’Neill et al. 2011). However, little to no decline was observed in English sole from non-urban sampling 

sites in the Central and South Puget Sound Basins (West and O’Neill 2007). DDT was first used as an 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 210

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

insecticide in the late 1930s and its use increased until 1960. Because of its toxic effects on wildlife 

(Cottam and Higgins 1946) and its potential health risk to humans, the general use of DDT was banned in 

the U.S. in the 1970s. Although environmental levels of PCBs and DDTs have substantially declined 

since they were banned, they are still found in high concentrations in the Puget Sound ecosystem. 

PBDEs. Brominated flame retardants (e.g., PBDEs) have been used in the manufacturing of furniture, 

electronics, textiles, and other household products. Several PBDE forms have been linked to 

neurodevelopmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity in laboratory animals. In Puget Sound, 

PBDEs in English sole, Pacific herring, and coho salmon may have decreasing or stable trends, likely 

because of voluntary cessation of penta-BDE and octa-BDE production almost a decade ago (West et al. 

2011).

ECDs. Endocrine disruptors can act as hormone mimics or blockers. These disruptors may be linked to 

pharmaceuticals and personal care products (e.g., diagnostic agents and cosmetics). Exposure to 

xenoestrogens, a group of endocrine disruptors, has led to feminization and possible reproductive 

disruption of some male fish in Puget Sound by triggering abnormal vitellogenin production (West et al. 

2001b), a protein normally produced in adult female fish and associated with egg production. 

Mercury. Mercury is a naturally occurring compound that can also be released into the air from industrial 

pollution. It exists in many forms and is found in numerous man-made products, including auto switches, 

thermometers, dental waste, and batteries. Methylmercury is an organic compound with a widespread 

presence in the aquatic environment and is known to bioaccumulate. In 2003, Washington State began 

implementing a mercury reduction plan to reduce and eliminate mercury in consumer products. 

Nutrient input. In addition to chemicals and metals, sediment and water quality in Puget Sound is also 

influenced by sewage, animal waste, and other nutrient inputs. Ecology has been monitoring water 

quality, including fecal coliform, nitrogen, ammonium, and dissolved oxygen (DO), in Puget Sound for 

decades. In 2005, 8 of 39 sites sampled were classified as highest concern, and 10 were classified as high 

concern. Portions of Hood Canal have episodic periods of low DO, but the relative role of nutrient input 

from humans in exacerbating the episodes is in doubt (Cope and Roberts 2012). Rockfish move out of 

areas with DO less than 2 mg/L; however, in one instance when low DO waters were quickly upwelled to 

the surface in 2003, about 26 percent of the local rockfish population was killed (Palsson et al. 2009). In 

addition to Hood Canal, periods of DO are becoming more widespread in waters south of Tacoma 

Narrows (Palsson et al. 2009). Hypoxia and other synergistic effects will be discussed in the climate 

change and ocean acidification sections below. 

Microplastics. Microplastics are an emerging concern for marine ecosystems. Microplastics come from

large plastic trash that has been reduced into smaller pieces or they may also come from manufactured 

plastics such as microbeads in products like facial soap, body wash, and toothpaste. Microplastics and 

their effects on marine ecosystems have not been studied as widely as other contaminants, but recent 

studies have shown that they can affect fish larvae both chemically and physically, increasing rates of 

mortality (Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016). Gut content analysis of several rockfish in California found 

microplastics (Rochman et al. 2015). Some countries, including Canada in which part of the DPSs occur, 

have banned plastic microbeads from cosmetic products in an effort to limit their deleterious effects on 

ecosystems. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 211

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Toxic Chemicals in Rockfish and Other Benthic Species

The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) is a coordinated effort by several agencies to 

assess trends in the quality of the Puget Sound environment. It is generally focused on three classes of 

contaminants, including PCBs, PAHs, PBDEs, and other endocrine disrupting compounds. In the past, the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) monitored contaminant concentrations in several 

benthic species, including three species of rockfish (copper [Sebastes caurinus], quillback [S. maliger], 

and brown [S. auriculatus]). The WDFW’s PSEMP unit currently evaluates contaminant levels in English 

sole (Parophrys vetulus) that are considered an appropriate indicator species for contaminants that 

accumulate in sediment and that inhabit benthic environments like listed rockfish (PSAT 2007). WDFW’s 

PSEMP unit has also monitored contaminant concentrations in pelagic species, such as Pacific herring,

(Clupea pallasii) and several salmon species (Oncorhynchus spp.). Herring are prey for many species, 

including rockfish, and play an important role in transferring contaminants to upper trophic-level species.

PSEMP also has a long-term sediment monitoring program in which ten sediment stations have been 

monitored annually since 1989 (see Partridge et al. 2005; Dutch et al. 2011a, 2011b), though program 

funding has decreased in recent years.

Marine sediment can act as a repository by burying contaminants but may also be a source of contaminant 

exposure for benthic food webs. About 32 percent of the sediments in Puget Sound are considered 

moderately or highly contaminated, primarily in urban bays (PSAT 2007; Palsson et al. 2009). Organisms 

that live in or ingest these sediments transfer persistent toxicants up the food web to higher-level 

predators like rockfishes and to wider geographic areas through dispersal of both primary consumers and 

their predators. 

Because most adult rockfish have high site fidelity, their contaminant profiles likely reflect their local 

environment (West and O’Neill 1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that contaminants such as PCBs, 

chlorinated pesticides (e.g., DDT), and PBDEs appear in the tissues of rockfish collected in urban areas 

(Palsson et al. 2009). Male rockfish collected in urban areas (e.g., Elliot Bay, Sinclair Inlet, and

Commencement Bay) had high concentrations of mercury and PCBs compared to rockfish in other areas 

and to females in the same areas (West and O’Neill 1998; West et al. 2001a; PSAT 2007). This trend is 

also found in other benthic species. PAH exposure in English sole from urban areas was three to four 

times higher than English sole from non-urban areas (PSAT 2007). Concentrations of PBDEs in English 

sole were 10 times higher in urban areas than English sole from the Georgia Strait (PSAT 2007). 

Toxicants can also be found in fish tissue in all regions of Puget Sound (PSAT 2007), including high 

levels of mercury and hydrocarbons in rockfish in rural areas of the San Juan Islands (West et al. 2002). 

West et al. (2011) found that contaminant levels in English sole from urban locations have so far showed 

no declining trend in PCBs, PBDEs, and EDCs (endocrine disruptors) (failed target), while most nonurban locations showed no increasing trend (met target). PAHs appear to be declining in English sole 

from three urban locations and were low in non-urban locations (see Figure 1).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 212

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 1. Summary of current conditions and long-term time trends in contaminants for English sole in 

various regions of the Greater Puget Sound, Washington. (Adapted from West et al. 2011.)

Rockfish occupy similar environments to English sole, but in contrast are at a higher trophic level and 

thus have been shown to have higher concentrations of PBTs (PSAT 2007). Yelloweye rockfish is Puget 

Sound had the highest measured concentrations of mercury of all fish species tested (West et al. 2001). 

Trophic-level effects were evident in PCB concentrations in English sole (62 ng/g), quillback rockfish 

(121 ng/g), and lingcod [Ophiodon elongates] 270 ng/g) sampled from Elliot Bay, where English sole 

feed at a lower trophic level than quillback rockfish and lingcod (West and O’Neill 2012). 

In part, rockfish rely on pelagic prey, such as Pacific herring, and thus may be more exposed to toxic 

chemicals originating from a spatial range greater than that directly used by a given rockfish. Several 

PBTs bind to particles in the water column or to lipids in biota (De Wit 2002). Pelagic species, including 

larval and juvenile rockfish, can be exposed to these PBTs through bioconcentration (i.e., direct 

partitioning from the water column) or diet. Concentrations of PCBs in herring from Puget Sound are 3 to 

9 times higher and DDT concentrations are 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than in herring from the Strait of 

Georgia (West et al. 2008). The higher levels of contamination are likely because herring are a resident

species in Puget Sound and primarily feed in areas with regional contaminant sources (West et al. 2008). 

Resident Chinook salmon also have higher levels of PCBs and PBDEs than Chinook salmon that migrate 

out of Puget Sound (O’Neill et al. 2004; O’Neill and West 2009). Thus, larval and juvenile rockfish in the 

more urban basins (i.e., in southern/central Puget Sound) may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants 

than rockfish from northern Puget Sound (Palsson et al. 2009).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 213

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Several factors that may influence the bioaccumulation and concentration levels of contaminants in 

species include the marine distribution of the individual, the general proximity to urban and non-urban 

areas, trophic status, and age and sex of the individual. Lastly, lipid (fat) content is a factor because many 

persistent pollutants are lipophilic compounds. During reproduction, females may transfer some PBTs to 

their young. Generally, reproductive females have lower PBT levels than adult males. For example, male 

quillback rockfish sampled from Elliot Bay had increasing PCB concentrations with age and higher total 

PCB concentrations than female quillback rockfish of the same age (West and O’Neill 2012).

Potential Adverse Health Effects in Rockfish and Other Benthic Species from Exposure to Toxic 

Chemicals

Exposure to toxic chemicals can affect the health and viability of a population (e.g., via mortality, 

reproductive impairment, and growth). Sublethal effects may also harm an individual’s fitness; for 

example, by altering thyroid function, which can affect metabolic rate, respiration, and the nervous 

system (Meador et al. 2002). Once PBTs are liberated from lipid storage in fish and become mobilized 

(e.g., during reproduction), they circulate to more sensitive target tissues. Thus, PBT toxicity will vary 

throughout an individual’s life. 

There are no studies to date that define specific adverse health effects thresholds for specific toxicants in 

any rockfish species; however, it is likely that PCBs pose a risk to rockfish health and fitness (Palsson et 

al. 2009). The threshold for PCBs in wild juvenile salmonids is 2.4 μg PCBs per g lipid, above which fish 

would be expected to exhibit some adverse health effects ranging from sublethal as described in the above 

paragraph to lethal (Meador et al. 2002). Adult male quillback rockfish sampled from Elliot Bay had 

higher PCB concentrations than this threshold (West et al. 2011). West et al. (2011) also found some male 

rockfish from Elliot Bay have lower growth rates than females, whereas non-urban male and female 

rockfish had similar growth rates and had PCB concentrations below the Meador et al. (2002) threshold. 

The differences in growth rate may result from higher contaminant concentrations (Drake et al. 2010).

Johnson et al. (2008) observed vitellogenin induction in male English sole (i.e., evidence of reproductive 

dysfunction). Exposure was highest in fish at urban sites near high stormwater discharge input, combined 

sewer overflows, and wastewater discharge (Johnson et al. 2008). Nearly half of male English sole from 

Myrtle Edwards Park in Elliot Bay produced vitellogenin (Johnson et al. 2008). Reduced reproductive 

function in English sole from contaminated areas effectively decreases productivity (Landahl et al. 1997). 

Reproductive function in rockfish is also likely affected by contaminants (Palsson et al. 2009). West et al. 

(2001b) detected vitellogenin in 2 of 11 male quillback rockfish sampled from Elliot Bay. 

Estrogenic compounds, once combined, can enhance toxicity and thus deleterious effects can occur at 

lower doses or exposures. Brian et al. (2007) provide evidence of mixture effects on fitness and fecundity 

in flathead minnow exposed to five estrogenic chemicals. Of particular importance, reproductive 

performance was affected even when the concentrations of chemicals in the mixture were at levels below 

“no-effect-observed-concentrations” (Brian et al. 2007). These results highlight the need for risk 

assessments to include an examination of mixture effects from exposure to estrogenic mixtures to prevent 

underestimating the actual risk to the species.

Contaminant-induced immunotoxicity (e.g., increased disease susceptibility) has been observed in several 

fish and wildlife species. In addition to disease susceptibility in English sole as the result of PAH 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 214

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

exposure (Collier and Varanasi 1991), Johnson et al. (2002) found that risk of PAH-induced health effects 

(e.g., liver disease and impacts to growth and reproduction) increased as PAH concentration in the 

sediment exceeded a threshold of 1,000 parts per billion. Exposure to PBDEs can also increase disease 

susceptibility in juvenile salmon (Arkoosh et al. 2010). Rockfish are susceptible to diseases and parasites 

(Love et al. 2002). Although the impact of diseases and parasites in Puget Sound rockfishes is unknown,

stress associated with poor water quality may exacerbate the incidence and severity of naturally occurring 

diseases to the point of directly or indirectly decreasing survivorship of rockfish (Palsson et al. 2009).

Few studies have examined the effects of microplastics on animals. A recent lab experiment found that 

European perch larvae exposed to microplastic particles at levels currently present in seas inhibited 

hatching of fertilized eggs, stunted larval growth, and decreased activity rates and predator-avoidance 

strategies, thus increasing mortality rates (Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016). The larvae also preferentially ate 

microplastic particles instead of plankton. These findings may be of concern for many marine species 

because microplastic particles often accumulate in shallow coastal areas where developmental stages of 

many organisms in addition to fish occur (Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016).

The full effects of contaminants on rockfish remain unknown. In Table 1 we summarize the contaminants 

and their effects discussed in this section. The recovery potential for rockfish may be directly impacted by 

contamination in urban embayments, such as Elliot Bay and Sinclair Inlet. In these contaminated areas, 

we might expect to find relatively high densities of rockfish exposed to high levels of toxicants. Because

past fishing effort was likely higher on portions of rockfish populations in more rural areas with lower 

levels of toxic pollution (i.e., the San Juan Basin), more contaminated, urban rockfish may contribute 

disproportionately to spawning potential (Palsson et al. 2009). Such a scenario could limit recovery of 

listed rockfish by limiting the lifetime egg production of females and the effective breeding potential of 

males.

Table 1: Summary of persistent bioaccumulative toxicants (PBTs) and potential effects to fish health.

Contaminant Effects on Productivity and/or Diversity of Fish

PAHs Cancer, reproductive problems, birth defects, immune suppression

PBDEs Impaired neurological development, immune suppression

ECDs (Endocrine disruptors)

(i.e., xenoestrogens)

Reproductive disruption, reduced fitness and fecundity

Mercury/methylmercury Impaired neurological development

Organochlorines 

(i.e., PCBs, DDTs)

Cancer, impaired development

PCBs Lower growth rates, reduced fitness and fecundity

Microplastics Suppressed egg hatching and larval growth, altered predator-avoidance 

behavior and feeding behavior, and increased mortality rates

All of the above Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxicants (PBTs)May result in a disproportionately high spawning biomass from 

contaminated rockfish because most rockfish are in non-urban areas 

with higher fishing pressure
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 215

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Recommended Efforts and Research Priorities

There have been few studies that have investigated the direct effects of contaminants on rockfish and 

there are no current toxicant monitoring or research efforts for rockfish in Puget Sound. Furthermore, 

over the past 15 years, the WDFW budget designated for status and trend monitoring of toxicants in Puget 

Sound has been cut in half (TWG Vital Signs summary 2013). Because of this long-term lack of funding, 

monitoring for toxicants in salmon has been eliminated and monitoring for toxicants in English sole and 

Pacific herring has been reduced. The development of a sampling method and initiation of a monitoring 

plan for endocrine disrupters in English sole has also never been funded. Current monitoring for toxicants 

in English sole includes eight locations every other year (previously included 20 locations every year). 

Previous funding provided monitoring of six herring stocks each year; current funding supports three 

stocks every other year. Additionally, metals are analyzed in both English sole and herring at a reduced 

rate of approximately every 5 years. Currently, Ecology conducts annual sediment quality monitoring at 

ten long-term monitoring stations.

In addition to reinstating and continuing the above monitoring to previous levels, the Puget Sound 

Ecosystem Monitoring Program Toxics Work Group recommends evaluating contaminants of emerging 

concern. The work group is prioritizing a suite of chemicals for monitoring. Finally, research and 

monitoring to better understand the effects of contaminants on rockfish specifically would aid in 

prioritizing recovery actions and management, and efforts to minimize or remediate contaminant input 

would aid in recovery. We recommend the following rockfish-specific research and actions to address 

contaminants (also see Section V. A. Recovery Program):

 Determination of thresholds at which rockfish at all life history stages may be affected by the 

primary contaminants in Puget Sound summarized in this appendix (PAHs, organochlorines [e.g., 

PCBs and DDTs], brominated flame retardants such as the PBDEs, other endocrine disruptors, 

and mercury/methylmercury) along with coordination with appropriate agencies, such as the 

Puget Sound Partnership, to monitor these contaminants in rockfish and limit them in Puget 

Sound (through both efforts to decrease contaminant inputs and remediation).

 Risk assessments examining effects from exposure to estrogenic mixtures and mixtures of other 

PBTs. 

 Long-term research comparing concentrations of PBTs in rockfish and their larvae in urban and 

non-urban areas and assessing the possible effects on productivity and population viability.

 Determine levels of microplastics in rockfish at all life stages in Puget Sound, study the 

transmission of microplastics in the food web (e.g., do rockfish larvae and adults eat them directly 

or accumulate them from their prey?), study the direct and indirect effects of microplastics on 

rockfish, and understand how individual-level effects of microplastics on individual rockfish may 

affect populations. 

Dredging and Sediment Disposal

Most dredging within Puget Sound occurs in and near deltas of local rivers to maintain navigation 

channels and access to existing marinas. Dredging often occurs in areas with a variety of contaminated 

sediments that can be released into the water column by the dredging and disposal process. These 

contaminants may be taken up by phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, demersal fish, 

forage fish, and other fishes (Army Corps of Engineers 2010), which can then be bioaccumulated by long-
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 216

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

lived predators such as rockfish. As discussed above, many of these contaminants are associated with 

disease and with the disruption of behavior and immune system functions (West et al. 2001b; Palsson et 

al. 2009). In addition, dredging removes benthic invertebrates that form lower trophic levels of the food 

web. Re-colonization studies suggest that recovery (generally meaning the later phase of benthic 

community development after disturbance when species that inhabited the area prior to disturbance begin

to re-establish) may not straightforward, and can be regulated by physical factors that include particle size 

distribution, currents, and compaction/stabilization processes following disturbance (Sardá et al. 2000; 

Gilkinson et al. 2005). 

The Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency lead the administration of the Puget 

Sound Dredge Disposal Agency (PSDDA) program, and dredging projects are regulated by the Army 

Corps of Engineers through section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are five non-dispersive disposal 

sites in the ranges of the DPSs where currents are slow enough that dredged material is deposited on the 

disposal site. There are two dispersive sites in the DPSs that exhibit higher current velocities that move

dredged material onto adjacent benthic environments (NMFS 2014). Most of the dredge disposal sites are 

not located over prime adult rockfish habitats, though sediment disposal could nonetheless alter benthic 

habitats used by listed rockfish and their prey by altering local bathymetry and sediment quality (in 

positive or negative ways). Sediment disposal is unlikely to exacerbate bioaccumulation within listed 

rockfish because 1) the PSDDA program has resulted in a net removal of contaminated sediments within 

Puget Sound and 2) this trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Over the past 22 years, 

approximately 5 percent of the dredged sediment has been deemed too contaminated for in-water disposal 

and was disposed of at upland sites. As an example, nearly 50 percent of the dredged sediments of Elliot 

Bay and the Duwamish River area have been disposed of at upland locations. 

Suggested Research and Actions—Dredging and Sediment Disposal

We recommend the assessment of possible modifications to dredging and disposal to conserve listed 

rockfish and their habitat. Our recommended actions include: 

 Assess the spatial and temporal extent of dredging activities and the deposition of dredge spoils, 

and require dredge spoil to be placed in approved upland disposal sites where appropriate.

 Assess potential sublethal effects of contaminants for the various life stages of listed rockfish (or 

surrogate) health, behavior, and productivity. 

 Analyze the dissolved and particulate PCB and PBDE in the open waters of the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. This may be accomplished through ongoing studies or new studies initiated 

under the PSDDA program. 

 Include PBDEs on the list of potentially bioaccumulative substances that require testing under the 

PSDDA program.

 Continue to develop models and/or conduct field tests to determine the trajectory of drift, 

concentrations, and deposition of sediment disposed of at the dispersive sites.

 Annually assess new scientific research for bioaccumulative compounds encountered under the 

PSDDA program, including new and existing literature regarding effect thresholds (that include 

synergistic and sublethal effects) for aquatic species. 

 Develop a long-term database of dredge and fill activities to provide a spatial dataset that, when 

superimposed with rockfish habitat, would likely inform management actions to minimize 

impacts.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 217

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

CONCLUSION

This appendix provided background, recommended efforts, and research priorities regarding sediment and 

water quality contaminants and listed rockfish. The primary toxic chemicals of concern include PAHs, 

organochlorines, brominated flame retardants such as the PBDEs, other endocrine disruptors, and 

mercury/methylmercury. We briefly described the use of, associated health effects from, and regulation 

for these chemicals of concern and research and recovery efforts.

REFERENCES

Arkoosh, M.R., D. Boylen, J. Dietrich, B.F. Anulacion, G. Ylitalo, C.F. Bravo, L.L. Johnson, FJ. Loge, 

and T.K. Collier. 2010. Disease susceptibility of salmon exposed to polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs). Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 98,pages 51-59.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2010. Biological Assessment of the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal 

Agency dredge management program. 118 pages.

Brian, J.V., C.A. Harris, M. Scholze, A. Kortenkamp, P. Booy, M. Lamoree, G. Pojana, N. Jonkers, A. 

Marcomini, and J.P. Sumpter. 2007. Evidence of estrogenic mixture effects on the reproductive 

performance of fish. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 41, pages 337-344.

Calambokidis, J., S. Jeffries, P.S. Ross, and M. Ikonomu. 1999. Temporal trends in Puget Sound harbor 

seals. Final Report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Puget Sound Water Quality

Action Team, Cascadia Research, Olympia, Washington.

Collier, T.K., and U. Varanasi. 1991. Hepatic activities of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes and biliary 

levels of xenobiotics in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) exposed to environmental contaminants. 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 20, pages 462-473.

Collier, T.K., S.M. O’Neill, J.E. West, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. Toxic chemical contaminants and Puget 

Sound. Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference, Vancouver, BC. 

Cope, B. and M. Roberts. 2012. Review and Synthesis of Available Information to Estimate Human 

Impacts to Dissolved Oxygen in Hood Canal. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 and 

Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Cottam, C. and E. Higgins. 1946. DDT: Its Effect on Fish and Wildlife. US Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 11.

De Wit, C.A. 2002. An overview of brominated flame retardants in the environment. Chemosphere.

Volume 46, pages 583-624.

Crowser et al. 2007. Hart Crowser, Inc.; Washington Department of Ecology; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and Puget Sound Partnership. Phase 1: Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical Loadings 

to Puget Sound. Ecology Publication Number 07-10-079. October 2007. Olympia, Washington.

Drake J.S., E.A. Berntson, J.M. Cope, R.G. Gustafson, E.E. Holmes, P.S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R.S. 

Waples, S.M. Sogard, and G.D. Williams. 2010. Status review of five rockfish species in Puget Sound, 

Washington: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. 

ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus), and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger). U.S. Dept. 

Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-108, 234.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 218

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Dutch, M., S. Weakland, and B. Chandramouli. 2011a. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products and 

Perfluorinated Chemicals in Puget Sound Sediments. Poster presentation – 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem 

Conference, October 25-27, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Poster. Publication 11-03-041.

Dutch, M., and S. Weakland. 2011b. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) In Puget Sound 

Sediments – A Baseline Update (2004-2011). Poster presentation - 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem 

Conference, October 25-27, 2011, Vancouver, BC. Poster. Publication 11-03-056.

EVS Environmental Consultants. 2003. Status, trends and effects of toxic contaminants in the Puget 

Sound environment. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, Washington.

Garrett, C. 2004. Priority substances of interest in the Georgia Basin: profiles and background

information on current toxics issues. GBAP Publication Number EC/GB/04/79, Canadian Toxics 

Work Group, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force, Victoria, British Columbia, and 

Olympia, Washington.

Gilkinson, K.D., D.C. Gordon, Jr., K.G. MacIsaac, D.L. McKeown, E.L.R. Kenchington, C. Bourbonnais, 

W.P. Vass. 2005. Immediate impacts and recovery trajectories of macrofaunal communities following 

hydraulic clam dredging on Banquereau, eastern Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 

62(5), pages 925-947.

Grant, S. C. H. and P. S. Ross. 2002. Southern resident killer whales at risk: toxic chemicals in the British 

Columbia and Washington environment. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2412: 123.

Gray, C. and T. Tuominen. 2001. The Fraser River is getting cleaner: will it continue to improve? In T.

Droscher, editor. Proceedings of the 2001 Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Action 

Team, Olympia, Washington.

Iwata, H., S. Tanabe, N. Sakai, and R. Tatsukawa. 1993. Distribution of persistent organochlorines in the 

oceanic air and surface seawater and the role of ocean on their global transport and fate. 

Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 27, pages 1080-1098.

Johannessen, S.C., R.W. Macdonald, C.A. Wright, B. Burd, D.P. Shaw, A. van Roodselaar. 2008. Joined 

by geochemistry, divided by history: PCBs and PBDEs in Strait of Georgia sediments. Marine 

Environmental Research. Volume 66, pages S112-S120.

Johnson, L.L., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2002. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds 

for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to protect estuarine fish. Aquatic Conservation: Marine 

and Freshwater Ecosystems. Volume 12, pages 517-538.

Johnson, L.L., D.P. Lomax, M.S. Myers, O.P. Olson, S.Y. Sol, S.M. O’Neill, J. West, and T.K. Collier. 

2008. Xenoestrogen exposure and effects in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Puget Sound, WA. 

Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 88, pages 29-38.

Landahl, J.T., L.L. Johnson, T.K. Collier, J.E. Stein, and U. Varanasi. 1997. Marine pollution and fish 

population parameters: English sole (Pleuronectes vetulus) in Puget Sound, WA. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. Volume 126, pages 519-535.

Lefkovitz, L.F., V.I. Cullinan, and E.A. Crecelius. 1997. Historical trends in the accumulation of 

chemicals in Puget Sound. NOAA technical memorandum NOS ORCA III. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

Long, E.R., M. Dutch, S. Aasen, C. Ricci, and K. Welch. 2001. Spatial extent of contamination, toxicity 

and associated biological effects in Puget Sound sediments. In T. Droscher, editor. Proceedings of the 

2001 Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, Washington.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 219

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Lönnstedt, O.M. and P. Eklöv. 2016. Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles 

influence larval fish ecology. Science. Volume 352(6290), pages 1213-1216.

Love, M.S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorstein. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of 

California Press. 404 pages.

Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, J.E. Stein. 2002. Use of tissue and sediment-based threshold concentrations of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the US Endangered 

Species Act. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Volume 12, pages 493-516.

Mearns, A.J. 2001. Long-term contaminant trends and patterns in Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de 

Fuca, and the Pacific Coast. In T. Droscher, editor. Proceedings of the 2001 Puget Sound Research 

Conference. Puget Sound Action Team. Olympia, Washington.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Threatened Status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye and Canary Rockfish and Endangered Status for the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Bocaccio Rockfish. Federal Register 

75:22276- 22290. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Biological Report: Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio. Northwest 

Region, Protected Resources Division. 

PSAT (Puget Sound Action Team). 2007. 2007 Puget Sound update, ninth report of the Puget Sound 

Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA. 260 pages.

O’Neill, S.M., J.E. West, G.M. Ylitalo, C.A. Sloan, M.P. Krahn, and T.K. Collier. 2004. Concentrations 

of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish from Puget Sound, WA, USA. Poster 

presentation: SETAC World Congress and 25th Annual Meeting in North America of Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry. Portland, Oregon.

O’Neill, S.M. and J.E. West. 2009. Marine distribution, life history traits, and the accumulation of 

polychlorinated biphenyls in Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. Volume 138, pages 616-632. 

O’Neill, S., J. West, and G. Ylitalo. 2011. Options to reduce toxic threats to Chinook salmon in marine 

waters of the Salish Sea. 2011 Salish Sea Conference. Vancouver, BC, October 26, 2011.

Pal, A., K.Y. Gin, A.Y. Lin and M. Reinhard. 2010. Impacts of emerging organic contaminants on 

freshwater resources: review of recent occurrences, sources, fate and effects. Science of the Total 

Environment. Volume 408, pages 6062-6069

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife.

Partridge, V., K. Welch, S. Aasen, and M. Dutch. 2005. Temporal Monitoring of Puget Sound Sediments: 

Results of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, 1989-2000. Publication No. 05-03-016.

PSAT (Puget Sound Action Team). 2007. State of the sound 2007. Publication PSAT:07-01. Puget Sound 

Action Team, Olympia, WA. 

Rochman, C.M., A. Tahir, S.L. Williams, D.V. Baxa, R. Lam, J.T. Miller, F. The, S. Werorilangi, and S.J. 

Teh. 2015. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves 

sold for human consumption. Scientific Report. Volume 5, pages 14340.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 220

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Silva, E., N. Rajapakse, and A. Kortenkamp. 2002. Something from “nothing” – Eight weak estrogenic 

chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. 

Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 36, pages 1751-1756.

Sardá, R., S. Pinedo, A. Gremare, and S. Taboada. 2000. Changes in the dynamics of shallow sandybottom assemblages due to sand extraction in the Catalan Wester Mediterranean Sea. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science. Volume 57, pages 1446-1453.

Tanabe, S., H. Iwata, and R. Tatsukawa. 1994. Global contamination by persistent organochlorines and 

their ecotoxicological impact on marine mammals. Science of the Total Environment. Volume 154, 

pages 163-177.

Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2011. Toxic chemicals in Puget Sound. Assessment of 

Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011. Publication No. 11-03-055.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2013. Sediment Quality in Central Puget Sound, Changes 

over a Ten-Year Period. Publication 13-03-021. Environmental Assessment Program, Marine

Monitoring Unit. Olympia, WA. 

West, J.E., and S.M. O'Neill. 1998. Persistent pollutants and factors affecting their accumulation in 

rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) from Puget Sound, Washington. Pages 336-345 in R. Strickland, editor. 

Puget Sound Research 1998 Conference Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 

Olympia, Washington.

West, J.E., S.M. O’Neill, G. Lippert, and S. Quinnell. Toxic contaminants in marine and anadromous 

fishes from Puget Sound, Washington. Results of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Fish 

Component, 1989-1999. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, 

WA, 98501-1091. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01026/wdfw01026.pdf

West, J.E. and S.M. O'Neill. 2007. Thirty years of persistent bioaccumulative toxics in Puget Sound: time 

trends of PCBs and PBDE flame retardants in three fish species. 2007 Research in the Georgia Basin 

and Puget Sound Conference. Puget Sound Action Team. Vancouver, B.C.

West, J.E., S.M. O’Neill, G. Lippert, and S. Quinnell. 2001a. Toxic contaminants in marine and 

anadromous fish from Puget Sound, Washington: Results of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring 

Program fish component, 1989–1999. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

West, J., S. O’Neill, D. Lomax, and L. Johnson. 2001b. Implications for reproductive health in rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.) from Puget Sound exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls. In T. Droscher, editor. 

Proceedings of the Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Action Team. Olympia, 

Washington.

West, J.E., S.M. O’Neill, and G.M. Ylitalo. 2008. Spatial extent, magnitude, and patterns of persistent 

organochlorine pollutants in Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) populations in the Puget Sound (USA) 

and Strait of Georgia (Canada). Science of the Total Environment. Volume 394, pages 369-378.

West, J.E., S.M. O’Neill, J. Lanksbury, G.M. Ylitalo, and S. Redman. 2011. Current conditions, time 

trends and recovery targets for toxic contaminants in Puget Sound fish: the Toxics in Fish Dashboard 

Indicator. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01364/wdfw01364.pdf

West, J. and S. O’Neill. 2012. Poster: Toxic Contaminants as a Stressor in demersal rockfishes (Sebastes

spp.) from Puget Sound. Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program. Available at

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/pbtsinrockfish

jwest.pdf.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 221

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX VII

CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

OVERVIEW

This appendix identifies the known and potential effects of climate change and ocean acidification (OA) 

on listed rockfish, their prey sources, and their habitats within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Notably, 

these different stressors, in addition to other anthropogenic stressors, such as nutrient addition, will likely 

have synergistic and cumulative effects that are difficult to predict or attribute to any single source, and as 

identified in the Recovery Plan (see Section E. Factors Contributing to Decline and Federal Listing), the 

threat level is high. At the end of each section, general priorities for research and associated actions are 

identified.

Climate change priorities include investigating listed rockfish-specific responses to temperature changes 

and synergistic climate change effects, and investigating the restoration and analysis of the potential 

capabilities of seaweeds and sea grasses in nearshore areas to provide juvenile rockfish habitat, support 

rockfish prey, ameliorate unfavorable water quality conditions, and, if indicated, promote conservation 

and restoration of seaweed and sea grass habitats, which is also a priority for OA. 

Lastly, OA priorities include investigating listed rockfish-specific responses to changing pH levels, 

including effects on growth, physiology, productivity, and behavioral responses; targeting quantification 

of regional factors that contribute to OA and developing cooperation among appropriate agencies to 

reduce their effects; and analyzing the potential for protected areas to ameliorate the synergistic effects of 

contaminants, climate change, and OA and their many secondary effects (e.g., disease, decreased 

productivity, increased hypoxia, etc.).

Background—Climate Change

Since pre-industrial times, global concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, 

and nitrous oxides have increased considerably (IPCC 2007). Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have 

increased from approximately 280 ppm 250 years ago to present levels of approximately 387 ppm, mostly 

because of the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). Nearly half of this increase has 

occurred in the past three decades (IPCC 2007), and around one-third of the CO2 produced in the last 200 

years has been taken up by oceans (Sabine et al. 2004). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations may exceed 500 

ppm and global temperatures may rise by at least 2°C by approximately 2050 to 2100 (Hoegh-Guldberg 

et al. 2007; Feely et al. 2008). These values have not occurred on earth for at least the past 420,000 years, 

during which time most extant marine organisms evolved (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). 

In addition to anthropogenic climate change, the ocean along the Pacific Coast of North America is 

influenced by a number of natural climatic factors such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation, during which their warm and cool phases affect ocean temperature and 

stratification (Mantua and Hare 2002). These and other naturally occurring factors strongly influence 

inter-annual and inter-decadal variability in ocean conditions and can confound the effects of 

anthropogenic climate change (Mantua and Hare 2002; Chavez et al. 2003). The effects of climate change 

include, but are not limited to, changes in temperature, distribution shifts of species, OA, changes in 

primary production, changes in biodiversity, declining mid-water oxygen concentrations, changes in 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 222

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

upwelling and vertical mixing, sea-level rise, erosion, and more severe and frequent inundation of lowlying areas from the combined effects of rising sea levels and intensified and more frequent storms 

(Harley et al. 2006; IPCC 2007; Feely et al. 2008; Fabry et al. 2008; Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; 

Ainsworth et al. 2011; Feely et al. 2012; Dalton et al. 2013; Mauger et al. 2015; others). Ocean 

acidification co-occurs with climate change and, like climate change, is caused by anthropogenic CO2

emissions. The following subsections discuss more commonly studied responses to climate change: 

temperature change and sea-level rise, in addition to some of the synergistic impacts the multiple effects 

of climate change may cause. OA and its effects will be discussed in a separate section. 

Temperature Change

In all but six of the years from 1980 to 2014, the Puget Sound region warmed. In the 21st century, 

warming is projected to be at least double that experienced in the 20th century, and could be nearly 10 

times greater. Specifically, by the 2050s, the average year in the Puget Sound region is projected to be 

+4.2 degrees F (range: +2.9 to +5.4 degrees F) warmer under a low greenhouse gas scenario (Mauger et 

al. 2015). 

The close correspondence between Puget Sound air and water temperatures (Moore et al. 2008a) indicate 

that not only will Puget Sound water temperatures increase, but that the annual period with temperatures 

exceeding 55.4°F (13°C) will greatly expand (Moore et al. 2008b). Larval recruitment in rockfish is

strongly linked to particular climate conditions (Love et al. 2002); thus, this life stage may be particularly

susceptible to changes in temperature.

Increased temperature may have many effects on the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ecosystem and marine 

species, including, but not limited to, distribution shifts of marine species that may involve introduction 

or elimination of some invasive species and diseases, increased cases and duration of harmful algal 

blooms (HABs), sea level rise (SLR), decreased primary production, increased stratification, and hypoxia 

(Harley et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2008b; Feely et al. 2010; Feely et al. 2012). 

Long-term warming could result in northerly shifts for some rockfish, in addition to decreased larval 

survival and decreased maximum size and fecundity because temperature, atmospheric pressure, ocean 

circulation, and other factors affect growth, survival, and density of rockfishes (PFMC 2011).

Sea-Level Rise

Sea water thermal expansion because of ocean warming and water mass input from land ice melt and land 

water reservoirs contribute to SLR (IPCC 2007). In addition to natural perturbations of the climate 

system, anthropogenic activities such as groundwater extraction and deforestation may exacerbate SLR,

particularly in low-elevation urbanized coastal zones (Church and White 2006). 

Sea level has risen by an average of 0.07 ± 0.01 inch (1.7 ± 0.3 mm)/year since 1950 after remaining 

relatively stable for approximately the last 3,000 years (Church and White 2006; Nicholls and Cazenave 

2010). However, satellite data collected more recently (from 1993 to 2009) recorded rates of 0.13 ± 0.02 

inches (3.3 ± 0.4 mm)/year, suggesting that SLR may be accelerating (Ablain et al. 2009). Global SLR is 

projected to increase by approximately 23.6 inches (60 cm) by 2100 (IPCC 2007) to as much as 3.28 feet 

(1 m) because of recently identified declines in polar ice sheet mass (Pfeffer et al. 2008). However, 

Washington State is situated above an active subduction zone, which may mean that SLR could differ 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 223

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

from the global average, depending on the activity of the zone (Dalton et al. 2013). Puget Sound lowlands 

are thought to be more stable in the north, but are tilting downward toward Tacoma in the south. This 

subsidence may amplify SLR and could effectively double the rate in areas of South Puget Sound, such as 

Olympia (Craig 1993).

In south Puget Sound, SLR could, among other impacts, contaminate surface and groundwater; cause 

shoreline erosion and landslides, which may lead to a loss of tidal and estuarine habitat (Craig 1993); and 

may cause shifts in species distribution (Harley et al. 2006). The effect on the nearshore is of particular 

note because it is used by juvenile bocaccio, and likely has a critical role in their successful recruitment 

(Love et al. 1991).

Although rates vary by location, sea level rose over the last century at many areas along the shorelines of 

Puget Sound. Sea levels are projected to continue to rise over the next century, with a wide range of 

possible future amounts, depending on the rate of global emissions (Mauger et al. 2015). 

Synergistic and/or Cumulative Effects of Climate Change

The synergistic and/or cumulative effects of climate change may have numerous impacts on the marine 

environment. This section discusses some of those potential impacts. 

Increasing CO2 results in lower sea surface O2 concentrations. Brewer and Peltzer (2009) reported that 

ocean zones devoid of aerobic life will expand as a result of rising CO2 concentrations. The O2 deficit 

may be exacerbated and deepened by reduced ventilation of the mid-water from ocean warming and local 

eutrophication events. Further reductions of O2 subsequently follow because hypoxia often increases 

respiration. These synergistic effects may cause a physiological strain on marine animals that could 

impair their performance and result in energy use that would otherwise be used for predation, 

reproduction, and other functions (Brewer and Peltzer 2009), thereby reducing overall fitness and 

productivity. 

Ainsworth et al. (2011) modeled five rarely studied, climate change-induced effects and their cumulative 

or synergistic impacts on marine food webs, including changes in the annual mean level of primary 

production, latitudinal range shifts of fish and invertebrates because of temperature changes, changes in 

the size structure of zooplankton communities, ocean acidification, and ocean deoxygenation. The 

analysis primarily examined fisheries landings and fisheries biomass in addition to other ecosystem 

characteristics. Model results revealed that fisheries landings generally declined to a greater extent in 

response to the cumulative effects of the five climate effects than would have been expected additively 

from each of the effects alone, and indicates possible synergies between the effects (Ainsworth et al. 

2011). The model also revealed that though total biomass of fished and unfished functional groups both 

declined, the unfished groups declined to a lesser extent in response to the synergistic climate effects 

(Ainsworth et al. 2011). Harley et al. (2006) similarly found that fishing pressure may exacerbate effects 

of climate change.

Estuaries experience increased frequency and severity of hypoxia because of the combined effects of 

increased greenhouse gases causing temperature rise and increased stratification. These effects, in

combination with nutrient loading, may become especially problematic in areas of Puget Sound where 

water circulation is restricted, such as in Hood Canal and South Puget Sound (Newton et al. 2002). 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 224

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

In Puget Sound, the magnitude, frequency, and duration of harmful algal blooms (HAB) may increase 

with higher sea surface temperatures, lower pH, and changes to vertical mixing, upwelling, and 

precipitation caused by increased greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007; Moore et al. 2008b; Mauger et al. 2015).

For example, increased sea surface temperature could not only increase the spatial range in some species

responsible for HAB, but could also extend the duration of HABs because many harmful algae species 

require higher temperatures. Higher temperatures may be prolonged because of climate change (Moore et 

al. 2008b). Additionally, when HABs decompose they may cause serious declines in dissolved oxygen in 

the marine environment (Moore et al. 2008b), which could produce hypoxic conditions. 

Current Monitoring and Research, and Recommended Efforts and Research Priorities

There are a number of academic and agency groups involved in monitoring the potential effects of climate 

change on water quality in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) has 

been monitoring temperature, pH, sediment, and other measures for many years in Washington marine 

waters. The Washington Department of Ecology has also been monitoring marine waters at over 40 

stations. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Northwest Climate Science Center, and 

other regional groups conduct research into climate change and its effects. Adaptation and management 

will require continued and expanded monitoring of water quality, the nearshore habitat, and potential 

climate change effects as well as development of models of the impacts of climate change. Specifically, a 

better understanding of the relative impact of different regional drivers on climate change effects will aid 

in an understanding of management and mitigation possibilities. However, much research is also required 

for specific impacts of climate change on rockfish and therefore we recommend the following research 

and actions: 

• Determine rockfish-specific responses (particularly by life stage and species) in any behavioral, 

physiological, or ecological aspect relevant to survival, reproduction, and growth to maturity in 

relation to changes in temperature and synergistic climate change effects. 

• Investigate the capabilities of seaweeds and sea grasses in nearshore areas to provide juvenile 

rockfish habitat, support rockfish prey, and ameliorate unfavorable water quality; and pending 

research outcomes, take appropriate management actions. 

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: WORLDWIDE AND IN PUGET SOUND

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution approximately 250 years ago, the amount of 

anthropogenic CO2 has steadily increased by over 100 parts per million (IPCC 2007), which may have 

serious implications for ocean conditions and marine life (Feely et al. 2012). The ocean absorbs roughly 

one-third of the CO2 from the atmosphere (Sabine et al. 2004) and the net effect is ocean acidification 

(OA). OA is defined as an overall reduction in the ocean’s pH, the concentration of carbonate ion (CO3

2-

,

required for calcifying organisms), and the saturation states of aragonite and calcite (Fabry et al. 2008; 

Feely et al. 2008; Doney et al. 2009; Feely et al. 2010). 

The worldwide projected pH decrease is 0.3 to 0.4 for the 21st century, equivalent to an approximately 

150 percent increase in H+ and a 50 percent decrease in CO3

2-

, which is essential for the biology and 

survival of a wide range of marine organisms (Fabry et al. 2008; Doney et al. 2009).

The west coast of the United States is particularly vulnerable to enhanced OA associated with seasonal 

upwelling because the Pacific Coast’s continental shelf is relatively narrow. While narrow shelves have 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 225

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

historically driven upwelling that results in high productivity on the west coast, they now induce more 

corrosive water to reach coastal marine organisms (Feely et al. 2010). Deep ocean waters, naturally 

under-saturated with respect to calcium carbonate and corrosive to shelled organisms, are expanding 

toward the ocean surface at the rate of 3.3 to 6.6 feet (1 to 2 m) per year in the North Pacific (Feely et al. 

2008). Feely et al. (2008) have demonstrated that even a decrease in emissions output today would not 

prevent even more corrosive waters in the future from reaching Pacific coastlines, which could affect 

many marine organisms. 

The pH of the Northeast Pacific Ocean surface waters decreased by 0.1, which corresponds with +26 

percent increase in H+ concentration since the pre-industrial era and by 0.027 from 1991 to 2006. The pH 

of Washington’s waters is projected to continue to decrease by 0.14 to 0.32 by 2100, which corresponds 

to an increase in H+ concentration of +32 to +109 percent (Mauger et al. 2015). 

In Puget Sound, water circulation is influenced by four basins (Whidbey, Main, Hood Canal, and South 

Sound) of varying depths, carved out by glaciers connected by shallow sills that check the flow of water. 

The northern and central areas of Puget Sound are affected primarily by inflow from the Pacific Ocean at 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca in deep waters, and the upper layer outflow is through Admiralty Inlet (Feely et 

al. 2010). This oceanic inflow influences OA in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the 

inflow varies seasonally and interannually (Feely et al. 2012). Water is well-mixed but corrosive during 

wintertime, and more stratified with more corrosive waters in the deeper layer during the summer and fall 

(Feely et al. 2012). The southern areas of Puget Sound typically exhibit slow flushing, restricted mixing, 

and stronger stratification (Newton et al. 2002). As an urban estuary, Puget Sound also has large fluxes of 

nutrients and pollutants in addition to fresh water, organic matter, and sediment inputs that affect 

circulation (Feely et al. 2010). 

Ocean Acidification Effects on Marine Organisms and Rockfish

Trophic and Prey Effects

OA will adversely affect calcification, or the precipitation of dissolved ions into solid calcium carbonate 

(CaCo3) structures, for a number or marine organisms, which could alter trophic functions and the 

distribution and/or availability of prey for a variety of marine life (Fabry et al. 2008; Feely et al. 2010). 

Euthecosomatous pteropods are a significant CaCO3 producer and may be first among the major groups of 

planktonic calcifiers to experience reduced calcification because of their geography, physical structure 

(highly soluble aragonite shells), and saturation state (Fabry et al. 2008; Bednarsek et al. 2014). As OA 

causes the saturation state of calcite and aragonite to decrease, it is expected that these organisms will 

produce under-calcified or thinner structures. Pteropod dissolution damage is already occurring in the 

California Current Ecosystem (Bednarsek et al. 2014). Though implications of these effects on rockfish 

have not been studied, a 10 percent decrease in pteropod production could lead to a 20 percent decrease in 

mature body weight in pink salmon (Fabry et al. 2008).

While pteropods are expected to experience severe effects of OA earlier than other marine organisms, 

there are still many other important groups that rely on calcium carbonate that could be impacted by OA. 

Coccolithophores, a type of unicellular phytoplankton, are some of the most abundant primary producers

in marine habitats and are important to coastal ecosystems. After their calcium carbonate coccoliths 

(microscopic plates that cover the planktonic cells) are formed, coccolithophores are vulnerable to 

dissolution unless the surrounding sea water contains saturating concentrations of carbonate ions (Feely et 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 226

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

al. 2010). Foraminifera, molluscs, and some species of echinoderms also demonstrate reduced 

calcification and sometimes dissolution of CaCO3 skeletal structures because of OA. Fertilization rates, 

early development, and larval size are negatively affected by high CO2 concentrations in a number of 

groups, such as sea urchins, some molluscs, and copepods (Fabry et al. 2008), which are important prey 

items for larval and juvenile rockfish (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002).

Research on the impacts to various copepod species from OA has been substantial relative to other marine

species, and it reveals that copepod responses to OA vary by species and life stage (Feely et al. 2012).

There is evidence that OA may cause decreased growth, egg production, and hatching success, and 

increased mortality (Feely et al. 2012; Mayor et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2012). Fitzer et al. (2012) also 

demonstrated that even if copepods adapt to OA conditions, there may be a trade-off between 

reproductive effort and self-maintenance because high levels of pCO2 (partial pressure or concentration of 

CO2 in the blood) may negatively affect feeding and respiration rates for some species. 

OA may also cause alterations in the food web through behavioral changes. For example, some of the 

zooplankton and fish that feed on euthecosomatous pteropods could switch to other prey types, but that 

switch could result in greater predation pressure on some species of juvenile fish (Fabry et al. 2008).

Increased temperature and OA have been linked to impaired immune systems of marine organisms, such 

as shellfish and fish, and increased disease frequency (Feely et al. 2012). It is likely that changes in hostparasite relationships will change with ocean conditions and vary among species (Feely et al. 2012). 

Further research is needed to understand the implications of OA on trophic functions in the Puget Sound

ecosystem and their effects on rockfish. Thus far, studies conducted in other areas have shown that the 

effects of OA will be variable (Ries et al. 2009) and species-specific (Miller et al. 2009). As mentioned 

above, though organisms may be able to overcome corrosive conditions through responses such as 

modifying internal fluid chemistry, these responses could be energetically costly and may reduce 

productivity, growth, or survivorship (Wood et al. 2008; Fitzer et al. 2012; Feely et al. 2012). 

Direct Effects on Rockfish

Adult fish generally have the ability to largely control internal physiology, including acid-base 

equilibrium. Conversely, early life history stages of fish often lack the physiological control mechanisms 

present in adults (Feely et al. 2012). For example, early larval stages lack gills, an important organ for 

maintaining acid-base balance, making some larval stages more sensitive to changes in ocean chemistry. 

These sensitivities may vary among fish species and life history stages (Feely et al. 2012). Although fish 

appear to be among the most tolerant of marine animals to changes in ocean chemistry, their mechanisms 

to compensate for these changes have been shown to reduce growth and reproductive output, thereby 

decreasing lifetime productivity (Fabry et al. 2008).

There have been very few published studies to date on direct effects of OA on rockfish. In a recent study, 

OA was found to affect juvenile rockfish behavior (Hamilton et al. 2014). Light/dark recognition and 

determination of object proximity, characterized as “anxiety” by the authors, significantly changed in

juvenile splitnose rockfish (Sebastes diploproa) after 1 week of exposure to OA conditions that are 

projected for the next century off the California shore. The study indicated that OA could have severe 

effects on rockfish behavior (Hamilton et al. 2014). However, when rockfish were returned to control sea

water, they resumed their normal behavior after 12 days. Copper rockfish (S. caurinus) exhibited reduced 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 227

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

critical swimming speed, depressed aerobic scope, changes in metabolic enzyme activity, and increases in 

the expression of transcription factors and regulatory genes when exposed to low pH seawater while blue 

rockfish (S. mystinus) showed no significant changes in those traits but did significantly change 

expression of muscle structural genes, suggesting acclimatization potential (Hamilton et al. 2017). 

Additional research is needed to understand listed rockfish responses to OA, especially with regard to 

effects on fitness and productivity.

In other fishes, there is evidence that OA conditions expected in this century could have serious 

consequences on behavior and sensory functions important to recruitment, settlement, prey and predator 

detection, and overall survival (i.e., Munday et al. 2009; Simpson et al. 2011; Chung et al. 2014). For 

example, larval orange clownfish (Amphiprion percula) in experimentally CO2-enriched conditions 

experienced impairment of olfactory cues that resulted in the inability to avoid predators and in choosing 

inappropriate habitat, both of which are likely to result in higher mortality (Munday et al. 2009). These 

conditions also affected auditory capabilities in recently settled juvenile orange clownfish, resulting in 

these fishes failing to avoid potential predators (Simpson et al. 2011). These results could also be 

significant across other functions where hearing is important, such as habitat selection and orientation, 

and these functions are also important for rockfish. 

Synergistic Effects of OA, Other Anthropogenic Stressors, and Natural Biological and Physical 

Functions in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin

Some natural biological and physical functions in Puget Sound cause water to be corrosive and hypoxic, 

such as restricted circulation and mixing, respiration, and strong stratification, especially in Hood Canal 

and South Puget Sound (Newton et al. 2002; Feely et al. 2010). However, naturally occurring poor water 

quality conditions typically driven by climate forcing and geology are exacerbated by anthropogenic 

activities such as OA, nutrient enrichment, and habitat modification/loss (Feely et al. 2010). 

The Department of Ecology has found that nitrate concentrations in Puget Sound are increasing (Krembs 

et al. 2012), which could cause areas of increased primary production. As large amounts of phytoplankton 

die and sink, they decrease DO levels and lower pH through respiration, which could fuel hypoxic 

conditions in stratified waters (Feely et al. 2012). The southern part of Hood Canal basin exhibits these 

hypoxic conditions and contains some of the lowest pH levels and aragonite saturation states observed in 

Washington coastal waters (Feely et al. 2010). These areas, with naturally occurring hypoxic and 

corrosive conditions, are particularly susceptible to additional anthropogenic pressures (Feely et al. 2010; 

Feely et al. 2012). However, the relative importance of anthropogenic nutrient input in exacerbating these 

episodes in Hood Canal still warrants further investigation (Cope and Roberts 2012). 

Synergistic stressors may cross thresholds for some organisms living near the edge of their physiological 

tolerances, causing ecosystem shifts that may result in mass mortalities (Chan et al. 2008). Typically, 

rockfish move out of areas with DO less than 2 mg/L (2 ppm); however, when low DO waters in Hood 

Canal upwelled to the surface in 2003, about 26 percent of the rockfish population was killed (Palsson et 

al. 2009). Therefore, synergistic changes in water quality may occur too quickly for rockfish to safely 

avoid the area and can result in mortality. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 228

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Potential Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Mitigation for Listed Rockfish in Puget Sound

Techniques to locally mitigate for the effects of climate change and OA are in the early stages of 

development. Several of these options are discussed in this section. 

Phytoplankton, seaweeds, seagrasses, macroalgae, and other marine primary producers remove carbon 

from the atmosphere and/or water column through photosynthetic and metabolic activities. Recent 

research shows these organisms contribute approximately 50 percent of global carbon fixation and up to 

70 percent of global carbon storage (Chung et al. 2011). Some seaweeds and seagrasses could potentially 

mitigate excess carbon in marine habitats (Chung et al. 2011), providing potential for the local drawdown 

and short-term mitigation of carbon in Puget Sound (Feely et al. 2012). Native or established species in 

Washington State such as Ulva spp., Palmaria palmata, Porphyra spp., Laminaria spp., Nereocystis 

luetkeana, Macrocystis pyrifera, Sargassum muticum, and Zostera spp. have high photosynthetic rates 

(Chung et al. 2011; Feely et al. 2012). Although high photosynthetic rates tend to be associated with high 

carbon assimilation rates, variable amounts of fixed carbon may be re-released through respiration and 

decomposition (Feely et al. 2012). Thus, local potential for mitigation will likely be determined by rerelease of carbon and other oceanographic processes (Feely et al. 2012). However, this mitigation 

potential has not been tested, which highlights the need for conservation and restoration of existing 

seagrasses and seaweeds (Feely et al. 2012). 

Along with other mitigation strategies, Marine Reserves (or Rockfish Conservation Areas) are

additionally recommended as a tool to buffer against the effects of climate change because fishing has 

been found to potentially exacerbate the effects of climate change (Harley et al. 2006; Ainsworth et al. 

2011). The stable communities generated in marine reserves may be more resilient to climate disturbances 

(Hughes et al. 2003). 

Minimizing regional air pollution may help reduce regional OA effects. Increases in ambient atmospheric 

CO2 levels in Seattle and over Dabob Bay and Twanoh vary across daily and monthly time scales but are 

generally associated with traffic (commute hours) and weather events (warm, calm days) in Seattle (Feely 

et al. 2012). In addition to minimizing CO2, efforts to minimize regional air pollution may help because 

high concentrations of atmospheric nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) can also acidify 

marine waters (Feely et al. 2012).

Current Monitoring and Research, and Recommended Efforts and Research Priorities

With funding from the Washington State Legislature and Federal investments from NOAA and the U.S. 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (US IOOS), the Washington Ocean Acidification Center (WOAC) 

has recently developed an expanded ocean acidification monitoring network. This tool will collect data on 

marine species and the physical and chemical properties of marine waters along the Washington coast and 

in Puget Sound. The monitoring includes high-priority plankton species to assess effects to their shells as 

well as pH, pCO2, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, oxygen, nutrients, chlorophyll, salinity, 

and temperature. In addition, they have been able to maintain and support three research buoys, several 

monitoring cruises, and improve sensor quality at nearshore, shellfish, and basin sites (Figure 1). 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 229

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 1. WOAC monitoring network. White, red, and black diamonds are ship cruise stations; blue 

dots are OA buoys (or soon to be); pink dots are OA moorings; orange dots are shellfish 

grower sites; and crosses are nearshore monitoring stations, including those of WA DNR 

(purple). (Excerpted from WOAC Integrated Monitoring for Ocean Acidification in 

Washington’s Waters science information sheet (2015).) 

The Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF), the Northwest Straits Commission, and others are currently 

working to restore kelp coverage at select locations in Puget Sound by developing a comprehensive 

restoration plan including piloting restoration projects and monitoring. In April 2015, the PSRF was 

awarded a 1.5 million dollar grant from the Paul G. Allen Ocean Challenge to cultivate macroalgae at one 

site in Hood Canal. The goal of the 5-year study is to assess the impact of kelp restoration for extracting 

dissolved carbon dioxide and other excess nutrients in the water to mitigate for ocean acidification and 

eutrophication in Puget Sound. If successful, the kelp restoration in Puget Sound could protect shellfish 

and other sensitive species from the effects of ocean acidification, which would benefit listed rockfish not 

only by protecting prey resources but also by supplementing habitat for juvenile life stages. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification Scientific Summary of OA in Washington State Marine 

Waters provided several recommendations for research and monitoring to further understanding of the 

status and trends of OA in Puget Sound (Feely et al. 2012). Research activities include development of a 

monitoring network, identification and quantification of contributing factors to OA, characterization of
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 230

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

local marine organisms’ responses to OA and associated stressors, and building capacity for short-term 

forecasting and long-term predictions and models (Feely et al. 2012) that could inform adaptive 

management.

We recommend the following rockfish-specific OA research and actions (also see Section V. A. Recovery 

Program):

• Investigate responses of listed rockfish life history stages to OA, focusing on growth, survival,

and reproduction.

• Investigate physiological thresholds of each life history stage of listed rockfish (or other rockfish 

species) to decreased pH. 

• Investigate and quantify regional contributing factors to OA and cooperate with appropriate 

agencies to reduce their effects. 

• Determine the potential of kelp, seaweeds, and/or seagrasses to mitigate the effects of OA and 

support listed rockfish habitat.

• Determine the potential capabilities of protected areas for listed rockfish and rockfish prey 

species to ameliorate the synergistic effects of contaminants, climate change, and OA and their 

many effects (e.g., disease, decreased productivity, increased hypoxia, etc.).

CONCLUSION

This appendix identified the known and potential effects of climate change and OA on listed rockfish, 

their prey sources, and their habitats within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Notably, these different 

stressors, in addition to other anthropogenic stressors, such as nutrient addition, will likely have 

synergistic and cumulative effects that are difficult to predict and the threat level is high. Climate change 

priorities include investigating listed rockfish-specific responses to temperature changes and synergistic 

climate change effects, and investigating the restoration and analysis of the potential capabilities of 

seaweeds and sea grasses in nearshore areas to provide juvenile rockfish habitat, support rockfish prey, 

ameliorate unfavorable water quality conditions, and, if indicated, promote conservation and restoration 

of seaweed and sea grass habitats. Priorities related to OA include investigating listed rockfish-specific 

responses to changing pH levels, including effects on growth, physiology, productivity, and behavioral 

responses; targeting quantification of regional factors that contribute to OA and developing cooperation 

among appropriate agencies to reduce their effects; and analyzing the potential for protected areas to 

ameliorate the synergistic effects of contaminants, climate change, and OA and their many secondary 

effects.

REFERENCES

Ablain, M., A. Cazenave, G. Valladeau, S. Guinehut. 2009. A new assessment of the error budget of 

global mean sea level rate estimated by satellite altimetry over 1993-2008. Ocean Science. Volume 

5(2), pages 193-201. 

Ainsworth, C.H., J.F., Samhouri, D.S. Busch, W.W.L. Cheung, J. Dunne, T.A. Okey. 2011. Potential 

impacts of climate change on Northeast Pacific marine foodwebs and fisheries. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science. Volume 68, pages 1217–1229.

Bednarsek, N., R.A. Feely, J.C.P Reum, B. Peterson, J. Menkel, J.R. Alin, B. Hales. 2014. Limacina 

helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 231

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

the California Current Ecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences. Volume 

281, pages 20140123. 

Brewer, P.G. and E.T. Peltzer. 2009. Limits to Marine Life. Science. Volume 324, pages 347-348. 

Chan, F., J.A. Barthy, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W.T. Peterson, and B.A. Menge. 2008. 

Emergence of anoxia in the California current large marine ecosystem. Science. Volume 319, 5865:

pages 920-920.

Chavez, F.P., J. Ryan, S.E. Lluch, and M. Niquen. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and back: 

Multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science. Volume 299, pages 217-221.

Chung, I.K., J. Beardall, S. Mehta, D. Sahoo, and S. Stojkovic. 2011. Using marine macroalgae for 

carbon sequestration: A critical appraisal. Journal of Applied Phycology. Volume 23(5), pages 877–

886.

Chung, W.S., N.J. Marshall, S.A. Watson, P.L. Munday, and G.E. Nilsson. 2014. Ocean acidification 

slows retinal function in a damselfish through interference with GABAA receptors. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology. Volume 207, pages 323-326. 

Church, J.A. and N.J. White. 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical 

Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

Craig, D. 1993. Preliminary assessment of sea-level rise in Olympia, WA: Technical and policy 

implications. Policy and Program Development Division, Olympia Public Works Department, 

Olympia. 

Crooks, S., J. Rybczyk, K. O’Connell, D.L. Devier, K. Poppe, and S. Emmett-Mattox. 2014. Coastal Blue 

Carbon Opportunity Assessment for the Snohomish Estuary: The Climate Benefits of Estuary 

Restoration. Report by Environmental Science Associates, Western Washington University, 

EarthCorps, and Restore America’s Estuaries. 

Cope, B. and M. Roberts. 2012. Review and Synthesis of Available Information to Estimate Human 

Impacts to Dissolved Oxygen in Hood Canal. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 and 

Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Dalton, M.M. et al., eds. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for our Landscapes, 

Waters, and Communities, NCA Regional Input Reports. Oregon Climate Change Research Institute. 

Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, and J.A. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2

Problem. Annual Review of Marine Science. Volume 1, pages 169-192. 

Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna 

and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 65, pages 414-432.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, J.M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for Upwelling 

of Corrosive Acidified Water onto the Continental Shelf. Science. Volume 320, 5882: pages 1490-

1492. 

Feely, R.A., S. Alin, J. Newton, C. Sabine, M. Warner, A. Devol, C. Krembs, and C. Maloy. 2010. The 

combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing, and respiration on pH and carbon saturation in an 

urbanized estuary. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science. Volume 88, pages 442-449. 

Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, and M. Chadsey. 2012. Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification 

in Washington State Marine Waters. NOAA OAR Special Report. 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1201016.html.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 232

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Fitzer, S.C., G.S. Caldwell, A.J. Close, A.S. Clare, R.C. Upstill-Goddard, and M.G. Bentley. 2012. Ocean 

acidification induces multi-generational decline in copepod naupliar production with possible conflict 

for reproductive resource allocation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.

Volume 418, pages 30-36.

Hamilton, T.J., A. Holcombe, and M. Tresguerres. 2014. CO2-induced ocean acidification increases 

anxiety in Rockfish via alteration of GABAA receptor functioning. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

Biological Sciences. Volume 281(1775), pages 20132509.

Hamilton, S.L., C.A. Logan, H.W. Fennie, S.M. Sogard, J.P. Barry, A.D. Makukhov, L.R. Tobosa, K. 

Boyer, C.F. Lovera, and G. Bernardi. 2017. Species-specific responses of juvenile rockfish to elevated 

pCO2: from behavior to genomics. PloS one 12(1): e0169670

Harley, C.D.G., Hughes, A.R., Hultgren, K.M., Miner, B.G., Sorte, C.J.B., Thornber, C.S., Rodriguez, 

L.F., Tomanek, and S.L., Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. 

Ecology Letters. Volume 9(2), pages 228-241.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, 

P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. 

Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean 

acidification. Science. Volume 318(5857), pages 1737-1742. 

Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. HoeghGuldberg, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S.R. Palumbi, J.M. 

Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of 

coral reefs. Science. Volume 301, pages 929-933. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Solomon et al., Eds. 2007. The Physical Science 

Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Krembs, C., J. Bos, S. Albertson, M. Keyzers, L. Friedenberg, J. Ruffner, B. Sackmann, B., and C. 

Maloy. 2012. POSTER: South Puget Sound 2011 and 2012 in review: Aerial and water column 

observations from Ecology’s long-term monitoring program. Accessible at Washington Department of 

Ecology: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1203052.pdf.

Love, M. S., M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus 

Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30, pages 225-243.

Love, M.S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorstein. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of 

California Press. 404 pages.

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Oceanography. Volume 58, pages 35-

44.

Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. 

Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget 

Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D.

Mayor, D.J., N.R. Everett, and K.B. Cook. 2012. End of century ocean warming and acidification effects 

on reproductive success in a temperate marine copepod. Journal of Plankton Research. Volume 34(3), 

pages 258-262.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 233

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Miller, A.W, A.C. Reynolds, C. Sobrino, and G.F. Riedel. 2009. Shellfish Face Uncertain Future in High 

CO2 World: Influence of Acidification on Oyster Larvae Calcification and Growth in Estuaries. PLoS 

ONE, 4:5 e5661.

Moore, S.K., N.J. Mantua, J.P. Kellogg, and J.A. Newton. 2008a. Local and large-scale climate forcing of 

Puget Sound oceanographic properties on seasonal to interdecadal timescales. Limnology and 

Oceanography. Volume 53(5), pages 1746-1758. 

Moore, S.K., V.L. Trainer, N.J. Mantua, M.S. Parker, E.A. Laws, L.C. Backer, and L.E. Fleming. 2008b. 

Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health. 

Environmental Health, 6 (Suppl 2):S4. 

Munday, P.L., D.L. Dixon, J.M. Doelson, G.P. Jones, M.S. Pratchett, G.V. Devitsina, K.B. Doving. 2009. 

Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 106, pages 1848-1852. 

Newton, J. and K. Van Voorhis. 2002. Seasonal Patterns and Controlling Factors of Primary Production 

in Puget Sound’s Central Basin and Possession Sound. Publication # 02-03-059. Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Olympia, Washington. 

Nicholls, R. J. and A. Cazenave. 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science. Volume 

328(5985), pages 1517-1520.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2011. Discussion document: development of an annual 

report on conditions in the California current ecosystem (draft). http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/H1b_ATT1_DD_CA_ECO_NOV2011BB.pdf

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. 

Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife.

Pfeffer, W. T., J.T. Harper, S. O’Neil. 2008. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21stCentury Sea-Level Rise. Science. Volume 321 (5894), pages 1340-1343. 

Ries, J.B., A.L. Cohen, and D.C. McCorkle. 2009. Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-

induced ocean acidification. Geology. Volume 37(12), pages 1131-1134.

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C.S. Wong,

D.W.R. Wallace,, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T-H. Peng, Kozyr, T. Ono, and A.F. Rios. 2004. The 

oceanic sink for CO2. Science. Volume 305, pages 367-371.

Salathe, E.P., P.W. Mote, and M.W. Wiley. 2007. Considerations of selecting downscaling method for 

integrated assessment of climate change impacts. International Journal of Climatology. Volume 27(12), 

pages 1611-1621.

Simpson, S.D., P.L. Munday, M.L. Wittenrich, R. Manassa, D.L. Dixson, M. Gagliano, and H.Y. Yan. 

2011. Ocean Acidification erodes crucial auditory behavior in a marine fish. Biological Letters: 

rsbl20110293. 

Washington Ocean Acidification Center (WOAC) 2015. Monitoring sites of the WOAC. University of 

Washington. https://environment.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pages-from2015_0129_WOAC_one-pagers_integrated_monitoring_FINAL.pdf.

Wood, H. L., J. I. Spicer, and S. Widdicombe. 2008. Ocean acidification may increase calcification rates, 

but at cost. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biology. Volume 275, pages 1767-1773.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 234

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Zhang, D., S. Li, G. Wang, and D. Guo. 2012. Impacts of CO2-driven seawater acidification on survival, 

egg production rate and hatching success of four marine copepods. Acta Oceanologica Sinica. Volume 

30(6), pages 86-94.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 235

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX VIII

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ROCKFISH CONSERVATION

The Recovery Plan identifies long-term, sustained funding as an integral part of recovery. This appendix 

(Table 1) includes potential funding sources for several strategies identified in this document to support 

recovery, including education and outreach, bycatch reduction, monitoring, research of many kinds, 

habitat restoration, cooperative research, and coordination between NMFS, co-managers and other 

entities. 

Table 1. Potential funding sources for rockfish conservation.

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

Outreach 

and

Education

Projects that enhance fish populations 

including: (1) engaging anglers in data 

collection, (2) enhancing marine habitats, 

and (3) educating anglers about 

barotrauma.

May 1 

deadline, 

annually

$500 to 

$5000

West Marine

http://www.westmarine.c

om/webapp/wcs/stores/se

rvlet/PressRoomView?la

ngId=1&storeId=11151&

catalogId=10001&nav=L

eftNav&page=PressRelease-2013-03-06

Marine debris prevention, education, and 

outreach partnership projects. Eligible 

applicants are institutions of higher 

education, non-profits, for-profit 

organizations, regional fishery 

management councils / commissions, 

state, local, and tribal governments.

October 

deadline 

for letter of 

intent, 

January 

deadline 

for 

proposal

$15,000 to 

$100,000

NOAA Fisheries Marine 

Debris Program 

http://marinedebris.noaa.

http://www.grants.gov/vi

ewopportunity.html?oppId=

279133

Projects may vary in scope from 

interpreting historical or cultural 

resources in NOAA’s care to capturing 

oral histories of employees or 

constituents.

November 

deadline, 

annually

$12,000 NOAA Preserve America 

Grant

www.preserveamerica.no

aa.gov

Five major types of projects are funded: 

(1) habitat project activities that restore 

and/or preserve fish/wildlife habitat, (2) 

research projects that increase knowledge 

of fish / wildlife species, (3) education 

projects that inform or provide hands-on 

experience to enhance understanding of 

fish / wildlife and their habitat, (4) facility 

development projects that provide or 

enhance access to fish / wildlife-related 

recreational opportunities, (5) artificial 

production projects that rear and release 

fish or wildlife for public recreation or to 

restore populations (all production 

projects must be pre-approved by WDFW 

to apply). Individual citizens, non-profits, 

schools, universities, and political 

subdivisions, such as conservation 

districts and tribes may apply.

Every 2 

years, 

starting 

with 2015-

2017 grant 

round. 

Check 

website for 

application 

deadlines 

(the 2015 

deadline 

was 

February 

28)

Variable. 

In the 

2015-2017 

grant round 

$1.36 

million was 

available. 

The 

program 

strives to 

make funds 

available to 

a large 

number of 

grantees.

WDFW Aquatic Lands 

Enhancement Account 

(ALEA) Volunteer 

Cooperative Grant 

Program

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grant

s/alea/

Further details at: 

https://alea.fluidreview.c

om/
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 236

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

Outreach 

and 

Education 

(continued)

EPA is looking to support locally focused 

environmental education (EE) projects 

that increase public awareness and 

knowledge about environmental issues. 

Projects should promote environmental 

stewardship and help develop informed, 

knowledgeable and responsible citizens in 

the community(ies) in which the project 

is located.

Approx. 

April 8, 

deadline

Approx., 

but no 

more than, 

$91,000

Environmental Education 

Grants Program, 

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Details: 

http://go.usa.gov/cytgJ

Background:

http://go.usa.gov/3u7Xw

Bycatch 

Reduction

Seek to develop technological solutions 

and changes in fishing practices to 

minimize bycatch. Could include 

barotrauma reduction, bycatch in pot 

fisheries, derelict nets, etc. 

March or 

April 

deadline, 

annually

$2,500,000 

potentially 

distributed 

among 

different 

projects

Bycatch Reduction 

Engineering Program, 

NOAA Fisheries 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/by_catch/bycatch_BRE

P.htm

WWF holds an International Smart Gear 

Competition each year, designed to 

inspire innovative ideas for fishing 

devices that reduce bycatch.

August 

deadline 

usually, 

annually

$30,000 

grand 

prize, also 

have 

smaller 

prizes (total 

prizes are 

$65,000)

WWF 

http://worldwildlife.org/i

nitiatives/internationalsmart-gear-competition

NOAA CRWG (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

NOAA CRP (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

Research

Research priorities may change year to 

year. In 2014/2015, priorities included 

maximizing fishing opportunities and 

jobs; improving the cost effectiveness and 

capacity for fishery observations; 

increasing the supply, quality, and 

diversification of domestic seafood; and 

improving the quality and quantity of 

fishery information from U.S. territories.

December 

1 deadline, 

usually,

annually

Variable NOAA SaltonstallKennedy Grant Program

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/mb/financial_services/s

khome.htm

Research into the persistence and 

chemical impacts of marine debris. 

Original, hypothesis-driven projects that 

address one of these focus areas is the 

subject of this funding opportunity.

February 

deadline, 

annually

$25,000 -

$200,000

NOAA Marine Debris 

Program 

http://marinedebris.noaa.

gov/funding/welcome.ht

ml

Bold, innovative, multi-partner, 

interdisciplinary ocean exploration 

projects in the following areas of interest: 

(1) physical, chemical, and biological 

characterizations of unknown or poorly 

known regions of the deep ocean, 

especially areas deeper than 1,640 feet 

(500 m); (2) baseline characterization of 

marine archaeological resources at any 

Preproposal 

October, 

full 

proposal 

due 

January

$50,000 to

$1.5 

million, 

depending 

on 

appropriati

ons

NOAA Ocean 

Exploration and Research 

Program

http://oceanexplorer.noaa

.gov/about/what-wedo/fundingopportunities.html
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 237

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

depth; and (3) technology that advances 

ocean exploration and has application to 

NOAA-related missions.

Research 

(continued)

WSG-sponsored research combines 

scientific excellence and a focus on 

problems and opportunities that ocean 

users and managers face, such as resource 

management, sustainable coastal 

development, and ecosystem health. 

January 

deadline, 

annually

Variable WA SeaGrant 

http://wsg.washington.ed

u/research/index.html

Email wsgrfp@uw.edu to 

be added to the RFP 

notification list. 

Research applications will focus on 

examining ocean acidification (OA) in the 

context of eutrophication, hypoxia, and 

other stresses in coastal environments. 

This research will project regional 

impacts to economically important 

species and ecosystem services and 

provide a wider ecosystem context for the 

single-species studies and carbonate 

system measurements and monitoring 

undertaken by NOAA and other agencies.

Variable $300,000

to

$500,000 

per yr. per 

proposal;

for 3 yr. 

proposals 

only, total 

available 

for 3 yrs. is 

$1,500,000

NOAA/ NOS/ NCCOS/ 

CSCOR 

http://www.grants.gov/w

eb/grants/viewopportunity.html?oppId=

259279

Contact Elizabeth Turner 

603-862-4680 

The Biological Oceanography Program 

supports research in marine ecology 

broadly defined: relationships among 

aquatic organisms and their interactions 

with the environments of the oceans or 

Great Lakes. Projects submitted to the 

program for consideration are often 

interdisciplinary efforts that may include 

participation by other OCE Programs. 

(for academia only) 

February 

15, 

annually

Variable, 

recent 

awards 

have been 

as much as 

$990,000

National Science 

Foundation, Biological 

Oceanography 

http://www.nsf.gov/fundi

ng/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_

id=11696&org=NSF&sel

_org=NSF&from=fund

Past awards can be seen 

at link above

The Chemical Oceanography Program 

supports research into the chemical 

components, reaction mechanisms, and 

geochemical pathways within the ocean 

and its interfaces with earth and 

atmosphere. Major emphases: material 

inputs/ outputs from marine waters; 

ortho-chemical and biological production 

and transformation of chemical 

compounds and phases; and determination of reaction rates and equilibria. 

Research into chemistry, distribution of 

inorganic/ organic substances introduced 

or produced within marine environments 

including those from estuarine waters to 

the deep sea encouraged. 

(for academia only)

February 

15, 

annually

Variable, 

recent 

awards 

have been 

as much as 

$825,000

National Science 

Foundation, Chemical 

Oceanography

http://www.nsf.gov/fundi

ng/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_

id=11698&org=NSF&sel

_org=NSF&from=fund

Past awards can be seen 

at link above

The Physical Oceanography Program 

supports research on a range of topics 

associated with the structure and 

movement of the ocean, with the way in 

which it transports, with the way the 

February 

15, 

annually

Variable, 

recent 

awards 

have been 

National Science 

Foundation, Physical 

Oceanography
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 238

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

ocean’s physical structure interacts with 

the biological and chemical processes 

within it, and with interactions between 

the ocean and the atmosphere, solid earth,

and ice that surround it. 

(for academia only)

as much as 

$2,450,000

http://www.nsf.gov/fundi

ng/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_

id=12729&org=NSF&sel

_org=NSF&from=fund

Past awards can be seen 

at link above

Research 

(continued)

The Packard Foundation solicits grants to 

support the collection of clear, consistent 

and useful data on the state of marine 

resources to fill information gaps and 

manage those resources more effectively.

Variable Variable The Packard Foundation 

https://www.packard.org/

what-we-fund/grantsdatabase/

The Walton Foundation seeks to secure 

healthy, sustainable fisheries through 

policy changes, innovations in fisheries 

management and market pressure. Grants 

may be funded that develop scientific 

information and tools to enable better 

fisheries management, safeguard critical 

fish habitats, strengthen the capacity of 

fishermen, and governments to rebuild 

fisheries and promote fishery policies and 

programs that create positive incentives to 

encourage responsible fishing.

Variable Variable The Walton Foundation

http://www.waltonfamily

foundation.org/grants/gra

nt-proposals

Funds work that supports acoustics 

research and mapping.

Variable Variable NOAA Ocean Acoustics 

Program 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/pr/acoustics/

WDFW ALEA Volunteer 

Cooperative Grant 

Program (details under 

Outreach and Education)

NOAA CRWG (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

NOAA CRP (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

Habitat 

Restoration

In cooperation with the NOAA 

Restoration Center, the NOAA Marine 

Debris Program supports locally driven, 

community-based marine debris 

prevention and removal projects. These 

projects benefit coastal habitat, 

waterways, and wildlife, including 

migratory fish.

End of 

October or 

early 

November 

deadline, 

annually

$15,000 to

$250,000

NOAA Fisheries Marine 

Debris Program 

http://marinedebris.noaa.

gov/funding/welcome.ht

ml

Funding priorities for this program 

include: (1) disposal opportunities: 

provide collection bins at strategic ports 

for commercial fishermen to unload gear; 

(2) regulation: collaborate with state 

managers to address legal impediments of 

derelict fishing gear removal; (3) 

October 

deadline, 

annually

$25,000 to

$150,000

NFWF, NOAA Fisheries 

Marine Debris Program, 

Covanta Energy, 

Schnitzer Steel 

Industries, Inc. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 239

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

technological innovation: identify, test, 

and deploy innovations to address 

accidental introduction of derelict fishing 

gear into the marine environment and 

innovations to reduce the effectiveness of 

gear once lost; and (4) outreach and 

education: educate the public about the 

impacts of derelict fishing gear and 

Fishing for Energy initiatives to make 

measurable change.

http://www.nfwf.org/fishi

ngforenergy/Pages/home.

aspx

NOAA’s Community-based Restoration 

Program is currently soliciting 

applications for restoration projects that 

use a habitat-based approach to foster 

species recovery and increase fish 

production. The funding opportunity will 

focus on projects that will aid in 

recovering Endangered Species Act-listed 

species and rebuilding sustainable fish 

populations or their prey.

April 6, 

2016, 

likely 

annually

$100,000 

to

$5,000,000 

over a 1 to 

3 yr. 

project

NOAA-NMFS Habitat 

Conservation

http://www.habitat.noaa.

gov/funding/coastalrestor

ation.html

Contact Kate Brogan 

301-427-8030

Habitat 

Restoration 

(continued)

Variable Variable WDFW ALEA Volunteer 

Cooperative Grant 

Program (details under 

Outreach and Education)

NOAA CRWG (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

NOAA CRP (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

Cooperative 

Research

Projects should address areas identified 

under Section 318 of the MSRA: 

(1) Collecting data to improve, 

supplement, or enhance stock 

assessments, including use of fishing 

vessels/ acoustics /other marine tech. 

(Sect. 318(c)(i)).

(2) Assessing the amount and type of 

bycatch or post-release mortality 

occurring in a fishery (Section 318(c)(ii)).

(3) Conducting conservation engineering 

projects designed to reduce bycatch, 

including avoidance of post-release 

mortality, reduction of bycatch in high 

seas fisheries, and transfer of such fishing 

techniques to other nations (Section 

318(c)(iii)).

(4) Identifying habitat areas of particular 

concern and conducting projects relevant 

to the conservation of habitat (Section 

318(c)(iv)).

(5) Collecting and compiling economic 

and social data (Section 318(c)(v)).

October 

deadline, 

annually

$20,000-

$200,000

Cooperative Research 

Working Group 

(CRWG), NOAA 

Fisheries

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/by_catch/docs/cooperat

ive_research_working_gr

oup_tor.pdf

Internal NOAA grant; 

document saved to 

shared drive

Proposal should be sent 

to Keith Bosley
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 240

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

Fisheries Innovation Fund: supports a 

variety of projects focusing on sustainable 

fisheries through community programs, 

innovations in gear, etc. 

October 

deadline, 

annually

$50,000 to 

$200,000 

which can 

be used 

over 2 

years

NFWF, NOAA Fisheries, 

Moore Foundation, and 

Walton Foundation. 

http://www.nfwf.org/Pag

es/fisheriesfund/home.as

px#.Uctg48rotRw

Funded by Congress, the CRP allows 

scientists and fishermen to work together 

to improve understanding of the complex 

interactions between fishery resources 

and fishing practices. Program projects 

cover a range of research topics, 

including bycatch reduction. Awarded 

regionally.

Variable Variable Cooperative Research

Program (CRP), NOAA 

Fisheries 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.

gov/cooperativeresearch/index

NOAA-NMFS 

(MARFIN)

(details under Other –

Species Recovery)

Monitoring

NOAA CRWG (details 

under Cooperative 

Research)

NOAA SaltonstallKennedy Grant Program 

(see details under 

Research)

Other 

(Species 

Recovery)

Species Recovery grants to states and 

tribes may support management, research, 

monitoring, and outreach activities that 

provide direct conservation benefits to 

listed species, recently de-listed species, 

and proposed and candidate species that 

reside within a given state. 

October 

deadline, 

annually

Variable NOAA section 6 funds to 

States and Tribes 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/pr/conservation/states/g

rant.htm

Apply to Grants.gov.

The Marine Fisheries Initiative 

(MARFIN) is a competitive Federal 

assistance program that funds projects 

seeking to optimize research and 

development benefits from U.S. marine 

fishery resources through cooperative 

efforts involving the best research and 

management talents to accomplish 

priority activities. Projects funded under 

MARFIN provide answers for fishery 

needs covered by the NMFS Strategic 

Plan, available from NMFS, particularly 

those goals relating to: rebuilding overfished marine fisheries, maintaining 

currently productive fisheries, and 

integrating conservation of protected 

species and fisheries management. 

Funding priorities for MARFIN are 

formulated from recommendations 

received from non-scientific and technical 

Variable, 

last 

deadline 

was 

October 

2014

Up to 

$525,000

NOAA-NMFS 

(MARFIN)

http://www.grants.gov/w

eb/grants/viewopportunity.html?oppId=

258831

Contact Robert Sadler 

727-551-5760
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 241

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Topic Details Frequency Amount Granter

experts and from NMFS research and 

operations officials. No preference 

between short- and long-term projects.

NOAA-NMFS Habitat 

Conservation

(details under Habitat 

Restoration)

WDFW ALEA Volunteer 

Cooperative Grant 

Program (details under 

Outreach and Education)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 242

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Appendix IX: 

Predation

OVERVIEW

This appendix briefly summarizes what is known about predation on rockfish, with an emphasis on the 

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, and outlines research projects related to predation that would improve 

recovery implementation (also see Section V. A. Recovery Program). As rockfish progress from larvae to 

adult, they transition from a common prey item to mid-level trophic consumers in rocky reef ecosystems. 

Therefore, rockfish experience varying degrees of predation pressure throughout their life cycle that may 

have a broader effect on population status. Given the number of anthropogenic stressors yelloweye 

rockfish and bocaccio face in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, understanding the effect of predation at 

each life stage is necessary to comprehensively identify sources of mortality and assess recovery 

potential. 

Rockfish are integral components of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin food web, a complex suite of 

predator/prey relationships among many species in the region (Figure 1). Any abundance shifts in species 

in the food web, through artificial or natural processes, may cause substantial changes to an ecosystem. 

Fishing and reductions in habitat quality and quantity, along with numerous other factors, have already 

led to many such changes throughout marine and estuarine systems of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 

Understanding implications of predation is further complicated by a lack of historical data on abundance 

and community structure. Filling data gaps in food web relationships under a variety of conditions (e.g.,

no-take areas, habitat type) will enable managers to recover listed rockfish more efficiently.

Figure 1. Diagram of the Puget Sound food web from Harvey et al 2010.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 243

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

While quantitative values of natural mortality are 

preferred, they are generally difficult to estimate 

(Parker et al 2000) and their calculation is beyond the 

scope of this appendix. Instead, the general impacts of 

natural mortality via predation are discussed in relation 

to recovery actions.

Predation of Rockfish by Life Stage

Larvae/Pelagic Juveniles. Rockfish begin their lifecycle as pelagic larvae and develop into a pelagic 

juvenile stage (Figure 2) that lasts approximately 120 

days for most rockfish and 150 days for bocaccio 

(Shanks et al. 2003; Laidig 2010; Ralston et al. 2013). 

During these stages, individuals are strongly influenced by oceanic currents and upwelling (Bjorkstedt et 

al. 2002) and are less able to take shelter among structure that may provide refuge from predators. As a 

result, a diverse group of predators forage on larval rockfish during this vulnerable period. Juvenile 

Chinook salmon and coho salmon rely on these life stages as prey during their first months at sea (Hunt et 

al. 1999; Daly et al. 2009). Larval rockfish have also been found inside market squid (Loligo opalescens)

(Brodeur et al. 1987). An ongoing theme regarding larval rockfish abundance is the importance of oceanic 

conditions. Research into timing of seabird reproduction and rockfish growth has shown synchronization 

with upwelling (Black et al. 2010). This correlation may partially explain why many species of seabird 

consume rockfish (Hatch and Sanger 1992; Sydeman et al. 1997; Becker et al. 2007). Given the relative 

high abundance of rockfish larvae and diversity of species that rely upon them, the first stages of their 

lives are ecologically significant for their energy export to predators. 

Despite high mortality, in part driven by predation, there 

is little concern regarding the impact of consumption of 

early life stages on rockfish populations. Laidig et al.

(2007) showed that the effects of oceanic conditions on 

larval survival, as opposed to consumption by predators, 

may have the greatest effect on year class strength. 

Predators may actually serve to aid in management as 

their diet composition can be used to determine rockfish 

abundance (Mills et al. 2007) and further quantify the 

relationship between oceanic and climate variables and 

rockfish reproduction. Rockfish larvae are an important 

component of the pelagic food web and further research 

into the factors that influence their abundance will aid 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio recovery, though 

predation at this stage is currently of lesser concern as 

compared with other life stages.

Known Rockfish Predators by Life Stage

Larvae and Pelagic Juveniles

o Salmon

o Seabirds

o Market Squid

Benthic Juvenile

o Larger juvenile rockfish

o Adult rockfish

o Lingcod

Adult Rockfish

o Lingcod

o Pinnipeds

Figure 2. Illustration of larval rockfish by 

C. Makeyev.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 244

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Suggested Research Projects: 

• Relative Predation in Puget Sound

• Stage Based Predation Model

Benthic Juveniles. After their pelagic stages, juvenile rockfish recruit to structured habitats such as kelp, 

seagrass (Zostera marina), and rocky reefs (Buckley 1997). Yelloweye rockfish often recruit in deep 

water (> 100 feet) to rocky structures and cloud sponges. Bocaccio frequently settle in shallower water 

amongst vegetation that provides shelter. Piscivorous fishes are the most frequent predator of rockfish 

during this life stage, including adult rockfish (Kinoshita et al. 2013), lingcod (Beaudreau and Essington 

2007), and kelp greenling (Hobson et al. 2001). Juvenile bocaccio are relatively large compared with 

other species of rockfish during this life stage and are known to prey upon them as well. 

Unlike the larval and pelagic juvenile stages, predation during the benthic juvenile stage (Figure 3) may 

limit population growth (Love et al. 1991; Hobson et al.

2001). The degree of limitation on the adult life stage is 

not entirely clear, as predation may fluctuate based on the 

number of rockfish in the area. This relationship, known 

as density-dependence, would reduce annual variation in 

the number of rockfish entering the next age class. 

Johnson (2006) found that manipulation of both predator 

abundance (juvenile bocaccio) and habitat complexity 

(kelp density) during multiple experiments using both 

caged and open units altered the level of density 

dependence in juvenile rockfish.

Areas with increased habitat complexity (i.e., refuges 

such as rocky reef and kelp) exhibit lower mortality, and 

juvenile rockfish populations become more dependent on 

recruitment success and less on predation (Johnson 2007; 

Kamimura and Shoji 2013). The alteration of the 

nearshore of Puget Sound, and possible loss/reduction of 

bull kelp in Puget Sound may have simplified rearing 

habitats that would be preferred by juvenile yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio, which may result in 

increased vulnerability to predation. Juvenile rockfish that have settled into benthic habitats are still 

vulnerable to predation (Figure 4), but levels of predation are a function of rockfish recruit abundance and 

habitat complexity. 

Suggested Research Projects are discussed further below:

• Relative Predation in Puget Sound

• Ocean acidification and predation risk

• Stage-based Population Model

• Habitat-based Predation

• Predation associated with artificial reefs and differing habitat types

Figure 3. Illustration of young-of-year 

yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio by C. 

Makeyev.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 245

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Adults. As rockfish reach their subadult and adult life 

stages, they often move to deeper water and associate 

more closely with reef structure (Love et al. 1991; Bolton 

2014). This shift in habitat, along with greater sizes 

(Jorgensen et al. 2006; Frid et al. 2013) and venomous 

spines (Roche and Halstead 1972), results in reduced 

predation rates on subadult and adult rockfish, particularly 

relative to other fishes in the same environment (Figure 

5). Given that rockfish are long-lived, slow growing, and 

exhibit increasing reproductive output with size but with 

inconsistent interannual reproduction, it is evolutionarily 

beneficial that adults are able to survive for many years to 

increase chances of reproductive success. Primary 

predators on these life stages include pinnipeds and large lingcod (Tinus 2012; Ward et al. 2012). Relative 

to other items in their diet, rockfish compose a small component of harbor seal forage (Lance et al. 2012). 

However, harbor seal populations have increased in Puget Sound since the early 20th century (Jeffries et 

al. 2003). Therefore, even if rockfish are a small component of their diet, the increased population may 

lead to greater total rockfish consumption. Lingcod are capable of ingesting larger rockfish, but their diet 

is primarily composed of individuals between 1.6 to 9.5 inches (4 to 24 cm), providing further evidence of 

a size refuge in larger rockfishes (Beaudreau and Essington 2007). Of fourteen prey items analyzed in 

lingcod, adult rockfish were the least preferred prey item, followed by subadult rockfish (Tinus 2012). 

Based on this literature, rockfish experience relatively little predator pressure during subadult and adult 

life stages (Figure 6).

Suggested Research Projects are described further below:

• Relative Predation in Puget Sound

• Stage-based Population Model

• Habitat-based Predation

• Predation associated with artificial reefs

Figure 4. Photo of lingcod and youngof-year rockfish in British Columbia 

(Eiko Jones http://www.eikojonesphotography.com)
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 246

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 5. Diet composition of lingcod relative to prey abundance (from Tinus 2012).
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 247

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Figure 6. The general trend of rockfish predation ( ) throughout various life stages depicted alongside 

the primary predators at each life stage. During the pelagic larvae and pelagic juvenile phases, 

rockfish are consumed by seabirds (represented by the rhinoceros auklet) and salmon. Lingcod 

and rockfish frequently consume benthic juveniles while pinnipeds and lingcod most 

frequently consume adult rockfish. Note that this relationship over time is conceptual only and 

the actual trend may not be linear.

Predation and Rockfish Conservation Areas

Design and implementation of reserves, such as the rockfish conservation areas discussed in this recovery 

plan (see Section II. F. Conservation Measures, Research, and Monitoring, and Appendix II. Fisheries 

Management), is complicated and frequently controversial. An often criticized element of reserves is 

failing to account for the impact of natural mortality through predation that may offset any benefit of 

reduced fishing pressure. Inconsistency among study results within reserves further confuses the issue. 

For example, Cloutier (2011) found that rockfish conservation areas in British Columbia had 1.6 times the 

rockfish density as reference areas while Haggarty et al. (2016) found no difference in rockfish density or 

size structure between protected and unprotected areas in the same region. The increase in predators 

within a marine reserve may actually benefit the ecosystem as it re-establishes top predators that kept 

their prey from reaching populations that would adversely affect habitat (Shears and Babcock 2002). For 

example, removal of top predators may allow herbivores, such as urchins and kelp crabs, to become so 

great in number that they prevent establishment of kelp forests. A definitive analysis of the benefit of 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 248

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

marine reserves to rockfish recovery is beyond the scope of this appendix (see Section II. F. Conservation 

Measures, Research and Monitoring and Appendix II. Fisheries Management); however, we provide a 

discussion of existing literature on rockfish predation.

As per the previous section regarding 

predation throughout the various 

rockfish life stages, natural mortality 

within a reserve would be inevitable, 

particularly in earlier life stages. The 

question as to whether natural predation 

would increase through protection of 

upper level consumers (e.g., lingcod) to 

a point that rockfish populations were 

more vulnerable in reserves is more 

complex. Beaudreau and Essington 

(2007) found an increased concentration 

of rockfish in lingcod gut contents 

within reserves. However, there was no 

incorporation of surrounding rockfish 

density into this study. That is, reserves may 

have had a greater abundance of available 

rockfish prey and predation could have 

increased commensurate with this difference in prey availability. In Oregon, lingcod predation on 

rockfish was very low compared with rockfish abundance (Tinus 2012) (Figure 3). The depth ranges of 

lingcod overlap in only a small subset of the listed species’ ranges, suggesting predation may impact only 

a small portion of the population. Rockfish found in harbor seal scat are also relatively low (Lance et al.

2012). 

Given the variable predation across life stages, understanding the stage most responsible for population 

growth would clarify if potential increased predation would influence recovery. Unfortunately, no stagebased population model of rockfish exists that would determine key life stages for conservation of the

species (Crowder et al. 1994). That rockfish may consume individuals in earlier life stages, or even 

smaller individuals within the same life stage (Johnson 2006), further complicates this issue as increases 

in adult rockfish or recovery of larger species (e.g., bocaccio) may adversely affect recruitment. If 

predation is density dependent, as has been shown in the literature (Johnson 2006), then predators may 

adjust their diets toward rockfish during years of higher recruitment. Density-dependent predation on 

rockfish would support the hypothesis that lingcod consume additional rockfish in reserves (compared to 

non-reserves) because of increased prey availability. Further research would help clarify some of these 

issues, but given the complexity of coastal systems the outcomes would likely reveal tradeoffs involved in 

establishment of marine reserves and may not show a definitive benefit or harm from reserve creation.

If additional research shows that natural mortality via predation is nullifying the benefit of rockfish 

conservation areas, measures may need to be taken to adjust the recovery approach. These measures may 

include selective removal of lingcod from reserves, if possible, and/or adjustment of reserve design and 

Figure 7. Depth distribution of lingcod (Beadreau 

and Essington 2011) and listed rockfish species. 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 249

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

distribution. Adaptive management of rockfish recovery based on the best available science will increase 

the chances of success. 

Proposed Research

Relative Predation in Puget Sound. Beaudreau and Essington (2007) found that lingcod consume more 

rockfish inside reserves in the San Juan Islands. However, rockfish have also been found to be a lower 

preference prey item for lingcod (Tinus 2012). A broader effort on evaluating the relative impact of 

predation on rockfish should be completed throughout the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin along with a focus 

on existing marine reserves and include a scat-based assessments of pinniped predation. This work could 

incorporate lingcod gut content analysis along with 

rockfish and lingcod density measures across a range of 

habitat types and regions of Puget Sound. Surveys for 

various rockfish predators in Puget Sound already exist to 

some degree, including pinnipeds (Jeffries 2013), seabirds 

(Ward et al. 2015), and adult rockfish (Pacunski et al.

2008). Some of these surveys could be altered to create a 

more comprehensive index of predators; for example,

ROV surveys could be conducted to more explicitly 

monitor habitats used by lingcod. The results of this study 

would evaluate overlap among rockfish and their predators 

and be incorporated into consideration and potential design 

of rockfish conservation areas.

Ocean Acidification and Predation Risk. The burning of 

fossil-fuels has led to additional concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that leads to increased absorption in 

the oceans (Appendix VII. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification). The increased concentration of CO2

lowers pH in a process known as ocean acidification (Feely et al. 2010). The consequences of ocean 

acidification are not yet fully understood. However, Hamilton et al. (2014) showed that decreased pH may 

impact a rockfish’s ability to determine proximity to objects and light/dark preference. Rockfish may rely 

on these senses to avoid predators and therefore ocean acidification may impact the ability of rockfish to 

avoid predation. Further research in the field and lab would help determine the potential population 

impacts to rockfish.

Stage-Based Population Model. In order to determine the most important life stage for recovery of 

rockfish populations, a stage-based population model that incorporates known life history parameters and 

stressors should be created. The results of this model could be incorporated into various aspects of 

management. For the purposes of this appendix, it would clarify if the stages most vulnerable to predation 

(e.g., larvae, pelagic, and benthic juvenile) inform long-term population trends. If one of those stages, in 

particular the benthic juvenile stage, is limiting, then further research should be conducted to quantify that 

impact and assess if methods to improve survival are available. 

Habitat-based Predation. Recently settled yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio in the benthic juvenile stage 

likely experience variable survival based on their surrounding habitat. For example, rockfishes in 

structured habitats, such as eelgrass or kelp, may have lower predation rates than in soft-bottom areas 

with low relief. Furthermore, within-habitat characteristics (e.g., kelp density or eelgrass height) may also 

Figure 8. Yelloweye rockfish taken 

from lingcod gut. Photo used with 

permission from Ron Garner.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 250

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

affect predation. Research on the relationship between habitat and predation of benthic juveniles would 

improve population models and may inform habitat protection and restoration projects in the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin. 

Predation Associated with Artificial Reefs and Differing Habitat Types. There are already a number of 

artificial reefs in Puget Sound and there are potential plans for several more in the future. Placement of 

these structures can be controversial and a great deal of research effort has addressed their environmental 

impact (Bohnsack 1989; Granneman and Steele 2015). However, the effect of these structures to rockfish 

populations is not well known, though some preliminary research has shown that design may be altered to 

benefit YOY (West et al. 1994). As artificial reefs are likely to remain in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin and 

could expand in the future, evaluating predation of rockfish on these structures (as well as existing 

anthropogenic structure) would help improve their location and design for recovery of listed rockfish.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the role that natural processes, such as predation, play in rockfish recovery is integral to 

appropriate management. Though information on predators across life stages on some Sebastes species is 

available, the degree of population loss through predation as it relates to rockfish recovery is not fully 

understood. Research into various aspects of this process and incorporation of all relevant existing 

literature will provide a strong scientific background for making management decisions. 

REFERENCES:

Beaudreau, A.H. and T.E. Essington. 2007. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic patterns of predation on 

rockfishes by lingcod. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 136(5), pages 1438-

1452

Beaudreau, A.H. and T.E. Essington. 2011. Use of pelagic prey subsidies by demersal predators in rocky 

reefs: insight from movement patters of lingcod. Marine Biology. Volume 158(2), pages 471-483

Becker, H.B., M.Z. Peery, and S.R. Beissinger. 2007. Ocean climate and prey availability affect the 

trophic level and reproductive success of the marbled murrelet, an endangered seabird. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series. Volume 329, pages 267-279.

Bjorkstedt, E.P., L.K. Rosenfeld, B.A. Grantham, Y. Shkedy, and J. Roughgarden. 2002. Distributions of 

larval rockfishes Sebastes spp. across nearshore fronts in a coastal upwelling region. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. Volume 242, pages 215-228.

Black, B.A., I.D. Schroeder, W.J. Sydeman, S.J. Bograd, and P.W. Lawson. 2010. Wintertime ocean 

conditions synchronize rockfish growth and seabird reproduction in the central California Current 

ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Volume 67, pages 1149-1158.

Bohnsack, J.A., 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or 

behavioral preference? Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 44(2), pages 631-645.

Bolton, H.M. 2014. Habitat associations and predictive distribution models of commercially important 

rockfish species along California’s Central Coast. Capstone Projects and Theses. Paper 592.

Brodeur, R.D., H.V. Lorz, and W.G. Pearcy. 1987. Food habitats and dietary variability of pelagic nekton 

off Oregon and Washington, 1979-1984. NOAA Technical Report, NMFS 57. 32 pages.

Buckley, R.M. 1997. Substrate associated recruitment of juvenile Sebastes in the artificial reef and natural 

habitats in Puget Sound and the San Juan Archipelago, Washington. Doctoral Dissertation, University 

of Washington. 320 pages.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 251

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Cloutier, R.N. 2011. Direct and indirect effects of marine protection: Rockfish Conservation Areas as a 

case study. Master’s Thesis, Simon Fraser University. 70 pages. 

Crowder, L.B., D.T. Crouse, S.S. Heppell, and T.H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the impact of Turtle 

Excluder Devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecological Applications. Volume 4(3), pages 

437-445

Daly, E.A., R.D. Brodeur, and L.A. Weitkamp. 2009. Ontogenetic shifts in diets of juvenile and subadult 

coho and Chinook salmon in coastal marine waters: important for marine survival? Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society. Volume 138, pages 1420-1438

Feely, R.A., S.R. Alin, J. Newton, C.L. Sabine, M. Warner, A. Devol, C. Krembs, and C. Maloy. 2010. 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Volume 88, pages 442-449 

Frid, A., B. Connors, A.B. Cooper, and J. Marliave. 2013. Size-structured abundance relationships 

between upper- and mid-trophic level predators on temperate rocky reefs. Ethology Ecology and 

Evolution. Volume 25(3), pages 253-268.

Granneman, J.E. and M.A. Steele. 2015. Effects of reef attributes on fish assemblage similarity between 

artificial and natural reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 72(8), pages 2385-2397.

Haggarty, D.R., J.B. Shurin, and K.L. Yamanaka. 2016. Assessing population recovery inside British 

Columbia’s Rockfish Conservation Areas with a remotely operated vehicle. Fisheries Research.

Volume 183, pages 165-179.

Hamilton, T.J., A. Holcombe, and M. Tresguerres. 2014. CO2-induced ocean acidification increases 

anxiety in rockfish via alteration of GABAA receptor functioning. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

B. Volume 281, pages 20132509.

Harvey, C.J., K.K. Bartz, J. Davies, T.B. Francis, T.P. Good, A.D. Guerry, B. Hanson, K.K. Holsman, J. 

Miller, M.L. Plummer, J.C.P. Reum, L.D. Rhodes, C.A. Rice, J.F. Samhouri, G.D. Williams, N. 

Yoder, P.S. Levic, and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 2010. A mass-balance model for evaluating food web 

structure and community-scale indicators in the Central Basin of Puget Sound. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-106. 180 pages.

Hatch, S.A. and G.A. Sanger. 1992. Puffins as samplers of juvenile Pollock and other forage fish in the 

Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 80, pages 1-14.

Hobson, E.S., J.R. Chess, and D.F. Howard. 2001. Interannual predation on first-year Sebastes spp. by 

three northern California predators. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 99, pages 292-302.

Hunt, S.L., T.J. Mulligan, and K. Komori. 1999. Oceanic feeding habits of Chinook salmon, 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, off northern California. Fisheries Bulletin. Volume 97, pages 717-721.

Jeffries, S., H. Huber, J. Calambokidis, and J. Laake. 2003. Trends and status of harbor seals in 

Washington State: 1978-1999. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 67(1), pages 207-218.

Jeffries, S. 2013. Final Report: Aerial surveys of pinniped haulout sites in Pacific Northwest inland 

waters. Report to U.S. Navy for Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011-CTO JP02. 6 pages.

Johnson, D.W. 2006. Predation, habitat complexity, and variation in density-dependent mortality of 

temperate reef fishes. Ecology. Volume 87(5), pages 1179-1188.

Johnson, D.W. 2007. Habitat complexity modifies post-settlement mortality and recruitment dynamics of 

a marine fish. Ecology. Volume 88(7), pages 1716-1725.

Kamimura, Y. and J. Shoji. 2013. Does macroalgal vegetation cover influence post-settlement survival 

and recruitment potential of juvenile black rockfish Sebastes cheni. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science. Volume 129, pages 86-93.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 252

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Kinoshita, H., Y. Kamimura, K. Mizuno, and J. Shoji. 2013. Night-time predation on post-settlement 

Japanese black rockfish Sebastes cheni in a macroalgae bed: effect of body length on the predation 

rate. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 71(4), pages 1022-1029.

Laidig, T.E. 2010. Influence of ocean conditions on the timing of early life history events for blue 

rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) off California. Fisheries Bulletin. Volume 108(4), pages 442-449.

Laidig, T.E., J.R. Chess, and D.F. Howard. 2007. Relationship between abundance of juvenile rockfishes 

(Sebastes spp.) and environmental variables documented off northern California and potential 

mechanisms for the covariation. Fisheries Bulletin. Volume 105(1), pages 39-48.

Lance, M.M., W.Y. Chang, S.J. Jeffries, S.F. Pearson and A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. 2012. Harbor seal diet 

in northern Puget Sound: implications for the recovery of depressed fish stocks. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. Volume 464, pages 257-271.

Love, M.S., M.H. Carr, and L.J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the 

genus Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 30, pages 225-243.

Mills, K.L., T. Laidig, S. Ralston, and W.J. Sydeman. 2007. Diets of top predators indicate pelagic 

juvenile rockfish (Sebastes spp.) abundance in the California Current Ecosystem. Fisheries 

Oceanography. Volume 16(3), pages 273-283.

Pacunski, R.E., W.A. Palsson, H.G. Greene, and D.R. Gunderson. 2008. Conducting visual surveys with a 

small ROV in shallow water. Pages 109-128 in Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska, J.R. 

Reynolds and H.G. Greene (eds.). Alaska Sea Grant Program, AK-SG-08-03. 282 pages.

Parker, S.J., S.A. Berkeley, J.T. Golden, D.R. Gunderson, J. Heifetz, M.A. Hixon, R. Larson, B.M. 

Leamna, M.S. Love, J.A. Musick, and V.M. O’Connell. 2000. Management of Pacific rockfish. 

Fisheries. Volume 25(3), pages 22-30.

Ralston, S., K.M. Sakuma, and J.C. Field. 2013. Interannual variation in pelagic juvenile rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.) abundance – going with the flow. Fisheries Oceanography. Volume 22(4), pages 288-

308.

Roche, E.T. and B.W. Halstead. 1972. The venom apparatus of California Rockfishes. Fish Bulletin.

Volume 156, pages 1-49.

Shanks, A.L., B.A. Grantham, and M.H. Carr. 2003. Propagule dispersal distance and the size and 

spacing of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13(1 Supplement: The Science of Marine 

Reserves): S159-S169.

Shears, N.T. and R.C. Babcock. 2002. Marine reserves demonstrate top-down control of community 

structure on temperate reefs. Oecologia. Volume 132, pages 131-142.

Sydeman, W.J., K.A. Hobson, P. Pyle, and E.B. McLaren. 1997. Trophic relationships among seabirds in 

central California: combined stable isotope and conventional dietary approach. The Condor. Volume

99, pages 327-336.

Tinus, C.A. 2012. Prey preference of lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), a top marine predator: implications 

for ecosystem-based fishery management. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 110, pages 193-204.

Ward, E.J., P.S. Levin, M.M. Lance, S.J. Jeffries, and A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. 2012. Integrating diet and 

movement data to identify hot spots of predation risk and areas of conservation concern for 

endangered species. Conservation Letters. Volume 5, pages 37-47.

Ward, E.J., K.N. Marshall, T. Ross, A. Sedgley, T. Hass, S.F. Pearson, G. Joyce, N.J. Hamel, P.J. Hodum,

and R. Faucett. 2015. Using citizen-science data to identify local hotspots of seabird occurrence. 

PeerJ. 2015 Jan 15;3:e704. doi: 10.7717/peerj.704. eCollection 2015.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 253

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

West, J.E., R.M. Buckley, and D.C. Doty. 1994. Ecology and habitat use of juvenile rockfishes (Sebastes 

spp.) associated with artificial reefs in Puget Sound, Washington. Bulletin of Marine Science. Volume 

55(2-3), pages 344-350.
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 254

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Appendix X

Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan

Over 100 public comments were provided on the draft Rockfish Recovery Plan through various media,

including online at regulations.gov, one of the public meetings hosted throughout the region, or email. 

The comments were summarized into categories and are displayed in the table below. Along with each 

comment are locations where that topic may be reviewed in the final Recovery Plan. In some cases, the 

recovery plan was substantially revised on the basis of a public comment. For example, an entire 

appendix (Appendix IX) was drafted in response to concerns over natural predation impacting listed 

rockfish. In other cases, a change was not made but the issue had already been addressed in the referenced 

section. 

Number of 

Commenters Comment Summary

Comment 

Type

See Agency Response 

In

61

Don’t support RCAs because 

existing regulations are 

sufficient/current regulations 

need time to work (e.g., 120-ft 

rule and no retention)

Oral and 

Written II.E

51 Don’t support RCAs because 

tribes would be exempt 

Oral and 

Written I.C, Appendix II

49

Don't support RCAs because of 

concerns about predation 

(lingcod and pinniped 

mentioned)/think there should be 

more focus on limiting predation

Oral and 

Written II.B, II.E, Appendix IX

36

Think more should be done to 

limit tribal commercial bycatch 

(longliners and gillnetters noted)

Written

I.C, II.E, V.B.2.1, 

Appendix II, Appendix 

III

30

Don’t believe there is science to 

support RCAs from current 

Canada, Puget Sound examples

Oral and 

Written III.A, Appendix II

24

Think more should be done to 

limit pollution/need more 

specifics about pollution 

prevention in Plan

Written V.A.3.3, V.A.3.4, 

V.A.3.9, Appendix VI

23 Support use of descending 

devices for conservation

Oral and 

Written Appendix III

15 More should be done to remove 

derelict gear

Oral and 

Written

II.F, Appendix I, 

Appendix IV

10 More should be done to restore 

and or protect habitat

Oral and 

Written

V.A.3, Appendix IV, 

Appendix V

6

There should be sunset provision 

in Plan, so that after delisting 

RCAs would be re-opened 

Written III.C, V.A.2.3

4 Do support RCAs/ MPAs and all 

of Plan Written
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 255

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

3

Would like to see more 

justification/changes to delisting

or downlisting (DDL) criteria

Oral and 

Written IV.C

2

Spatial structure and age 

structure within DDL criteria is 

too vague. DDL criteria is not 

precautionary enough (should 

protect female rockfish & 

measures to prevent localized 

depletion)

Written IV.C

2

Minimum time at certain 

population levels in DDL criteria 

is too short. Number of sampling 

events to judge DDL criteria are 

too few

Written IV.C

2

Would like improved 

enforcement of existing 

regulations

Oral V.A.2.6

1

Don’t agree that FLEP should be 

used in the DDL criteria. Don’t 

believe that rockfish in Puget 

Sound have similar productivity 

to coastal rockfish

Written IV.C

1

Don’t agree with MPAs because 

they would infringe upon tribal 

treaty rights

Written I.C

1

NMFS should engage more with 

the public on rockfish recovery 

issues

Oral II.F, V.A.4, Appendix I

1 Make sure rockfish recovery 

efforts build on previous work Oral II, Appendices II-VII 

and IX

1

Support MPAs provided they are 

planned in a scientifically robust 

manner

Oral III.A, Appendix II

1

Believes NMFS should work 

cooperatively with other 

governments that manage 

resource (e.g., Canada)

Oral I.C

1

Believes the San Juan Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge add to 

rockfish projection Oral Appendix II

CONCLUSION

Public and agency comments (in addition to peer reviews) led to several revisions to the final Recovery 

Plan. The most significant changes were revisions to the delisting and downlisting criteria, a more 

detailed description of fisheries, and a refined assessment of risk of bycatch of yelloweye rockfish and 

bocaccio for each Management Unit. We revised the plan to prioritize the Management Units for the 
Yelloweye Rockfish and Bocaccio Recovery Plan Appendices 256

2017 | National Marine Fisheries Service

establishment of additional fisheries protections and added additional scientific information regarding the 

efficacy of reserves. We also revised the Recovery Plan by identifying the need for additional time to 

monitor the effectiveness of existing fisheries regulations and enforcement prior to starting the process of 

designating MPAs/RCAs. In response to public comments regarding predation on rockfish, we created 

Appendix IX that summarizes what is known about predation on rockfish, with an emphasis on the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin, and outlines research projects related to predation that would improve recovery 

implementation.