PACIFIC COAST

FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN

FOR THE U.S. PORTION OF THE

CALIFORNIA CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

7700 NE AMBASSADOR PLACE, SUITE 101

PORTLAND, OR 97220

(503) 820-2280

(866) 806-7204

WWW.PCOUNCIL.ORG

FEBRUARY 2013
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ECOSYSTEM PLAN DEVELOPMENT TEAM

Ms. Yvonne deReynier, Chair (NMFS/NWR, Seattle, WA); Dr. John Field, Vice-Chair (NMFS/SWFSC, 

Santa Cruz); Mr. Michael Burner (Council Staff, Portland, OR); Dr. Larry Gilbertson, Quinault Fisheries, 

Taholah, WA); Dr. Melissa Haltuch (NMFS/NWFSC, Seattle, WA); Dr. Samuel Herrick 

(NMFS/SWFSC, La Jolla, CA); Dr. Phil Levin (NMFS/NWFSC, Seattle, WA); Mr. Joshua Lindsay 

(NMFS/SWR, Long Beach, CA); Dr. Andrew Leising (NMFS/SWFSC, Pacific Grove, CA); Mr. Corey 

Niles (WDFW, Montesano, WA); Ms. Cyreis Schmitt (ODFW, Newport, OR); Dr. Richard Scully 

(IDFG, Lewiston, ID); Ms. Deborah Wilson-Vandenberg (CDFW, Monterey, CA); Dr. Lisa Wooninck 

(ONMS, Monterey, CA); with legal counsel from Mr. Judson Feder (NOAA/GC, Long Beach, CA).

The Ecosystem Plan Development Team and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert

assistance provided by: Ms. Anna Holder, Ms. Caroline McKnight, Ms. Melanie Parker, and Mr. Eric 

Wilkins of CDFW; Mr. Peter Hassemer of IDFG; Mr. Colby Brady, Dr. Peter Dygert, Dr. James Hilger, 

Dr. Isaac Kaplan, Ms. Debra Lambert, Ms. Elizabeth Petras, Dr, Lauren Saez; Ms. Barbara Seekins, Mr. 

Jerry Sutton, Ms. Sarah Towne, Dr. Waldo Wakefield, Dr. Brian Wells, and Dr. Mary Yoklavich of 

NMFS; Mr. Robert Jones and Ms. Sandra Zeiner of NWIFC; Ms. DeAnna Erickson, Ms. Arlene Merems, 

Mr. Patrick Myrick, and Mr. Derek Wiley of ODFW; Mr. Edward Hibsch of PSMFC; Ms. Heather Reed 

and Mr. Eric Kraig of WDFW; Mr. Brian Corrigan, Mr. Daniel Hardin, and Ms. Peggy Murphy of USCG; 

Mr. Dave Hillemeier of Yurok Tribe Fisheries; and numerous other agency and tribal personnel in 

completing this report. 

The Ecosystem Plan Development Team and the Council staff also express their thanks for the expertise 

and guidance provided by the 2010-2013 members of the Ecosystem Advisory SubPanel: Mr. Merrick 

Burden, Mr. Paul Dye, Mr. Ben Enticknap, Ms. Kathy Fosmark, Mr. Steven Fukuto, Dr. Terrie Klinger, 

Mr. Geoff LeBon, Mr. Don Maruska, Mr. Scott McMullen, Mr. Nate Stone, Mr. Dan Waldeck, and Mr. 

Frank Warrens.

All of the images in this document were either created for the document or are used by permission of or 

(if a government agency) by citation to the image’s owner. Images herein that are credited to a particular 

individual or to a business may not be reproduced for use elsewhere without express permission of the 

image’s owner. Images herein that are credited to a government agency may not be reproduced for use 

elsewhere without providing appropriate credit to that government agency. FEP cover image: Blue 

Marble: Next Generation, Reto Stöckli, NASA Earth Observatory

This document may be cited in the following manner:

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion 

of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem – Public Review Draft, February 2013. (Document 

prepared for the Council and its advisory entities.) Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.

A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Award Number FNA10NMF4410014.

Public Review Draft FEP ii February 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACL

AM

AP

CalCOFI

CCE

CDFW

CFGC

CITES

Council

CPS

CZMA

DLCD

DPS

EAS

EEZ

EFH

ENSO

EPDT

ESA

ESU

FAO

FEP

FMP

HAB

HAPC

HCR

HMS

ICES

IATTC

INPFC

IPHC

ISC

JMC

JTC

MMPA

MSA

MSY

NMFS

NMS

NOAA

NPAFC

OCN

ODFW

ODSL

OFWC

OPRD

PacFIN

PDO

PICES

PSMFC

RCA

RecFIN

SAFE

SMCA

SONC

SRG

SSC

U & A

U.S.

USFWS

WCPFC

WDFW

WFWC

annual catch limit

accountability measure

advisory panel 

California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations

California Current Ecosystem, or California Current Large Marine Ecosystem 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG, for “. . . and Game”

California Fish and Game Commission

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Coastal Pelagic Species

Coastal Zone Management Act

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Distinct Population Segment (under the Endangered Species Act)

Ecosystem Advisory SubPanel

Exclusive Economic Zone

Essential Fish Habitat

El Niño/Southern Oscillation

Ecosystem Plan Development Team

Endangered Species Act

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (under the Endangered Species Act)

Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)

Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Fishery Management Plan

Harmful algal bloom

Habitat Area of Particular Concern

Harvest control rule

Highly Migratory Species

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission

International Pacific Halibut Commission

International Scientific Committee (of the WCPFC process)

Joint Management Committee (of the U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty process)

Joint Technical Committee (of the U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty process)

Marine Mammal Protection Act

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

maximum sustainable yield

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Marine Sanctuary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission

Oregon coastal natural (coho salmon)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Deparment of State Lands

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Pacific Fisheries Information Network

Pacific Decadal Oscillation

Pacific ICES; formally, the North Pacific Marine Science Organization

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Rockfish Conservation Area

Recreational Fisheries Information Network

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (Reports for Council FMPs)

State Marine Conservation Area (of California)

Southern Oregon and Northern California (salmon complex)

Scientific Review Group (of the U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty process)

Scientific and Statistical Committee

Usual and Accustomed (fishing areas, of Treaty tribes)

United States of America

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission

Public Review Draft FEP iii February 2013
Contents

1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 How this Document is Organized ................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Schedule and Process for Developing and Amending the FEP and the Ecosystem Initiatives 

Appendix................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 State-of-the-Ecosystem Reporting ................................................................................................ 3

2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 4

3 California Current Ecosystem Overview .............................................................................................. 6

3.1 Geography of the Ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 6

3.1.1 General Description and Oceanographic Features of the CCE............................................. 6

3.1.2 Major Bio-Geographic Sub-Regions of the CCE.................................................................. 8

3.1.3 Political Geographic and Large-Scale Human Demographic Features of the CCE............ 12

3.2 Biological Components and Relationships of the CCE .............................................................. 15

3.2.1 Biological Components....................................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Species Interactions............................................................................................................. 27

3.3 CCE Abiotic Environment and Habitat....................................................................................... 31

3.3.1 Geological Environment ..................................................................................................... 33

3.3.2 Water Column Temperature and Chemical Regimes.......................................................... 37

3.3.3 CCE Vegetation and Structure-Forming Invertebrates....................................................... 38

3.3.4 Human Effects on Council-Managed Species’ Habitat....................................................... 43

3.4 Fisheries of the CCE ................................................................................................................... 51

3.4.1 Historical CCE Fisheries..................................................................................................... 51

3.4.2 Current Fisheries................................................................................................................. 56

3.4.3 Fishing Communities.......................................................................................................... 82

3.5 Fisheries and Natural Resource Management in the CCE.......................................................... 88

3.5.1 Council Fisheries Management........................................................................................... 90

3.5.2 Tribe and State Fisheries................................................................................................... 102

3.5.3 Multi-State, Multi-Tribe and State-Tribal Entities............................................................ 118

3.5.4 International Science and Management Entities............................................................... 120

3.6 Sources for Chapter 3................................................................................................................ 126

4 Addressing the Effects and Uncertainties of Human Activities and Environmental Shifts on the 

Marine Environment ................................................................................................................................. 134

4.1 Changes in Fish Abundance within the Ecosystem .................................................................. 135

4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Fish Abundance............................................... 135

4.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Non-Fishing Human Activities on Fish Abundance ......... 139

4.1.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers of Fish Abundance .................................................. 141

Public Review Draft FEP iv February 2013
4.2 Changes in the Abundance of NonFish Organisms within the Ecosystem............................... 143

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Non-Fish Abundance....................................... 143

4.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Non-Fishing Activities on Non-Fish Abundance .............. 150

4.2.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers of Non-Target Species ............................................ 150

4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Biophysical Habitat ................................................. 152

4.3.1 Commercial Fisheries with Mobile Fishing Gears............................................................ 153

4.3.2 Commercial Fisheries with Fixed Fishing Gears.............................................................. 155

4.3.3 Recreational Fisheries....................................................................................................... 156

4.4 Changes in Fishing Community Involvement in Fisheries and Dependence Upon Fisheries 

Resources.............................................................................................................................................. 157

4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishery Resource Availability on Fishing Communities.......... 158

4.4.2 Costs of Participating in Fisheries ........................................................................................... 161

4.4.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers for Fishing Communities .............................................. 161

4.5 Aspects of Climate Change Expected to Affect Living Marine Resources within the CCE .... 165

4.5.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 165

4.5.2 Ocean pH .......................................................................................................................... 166

4.5.3 Oxygen.............................................................................................................................. 167

4.5.4 Upwelling, Phenology, and Changes in Existing Climate Patterns .................................. 168

4.6 Sources for Chapter 4................................................................................................................ 170

5 PFMC Policy Priorities for Ocean Resource Management............................................................... 178

5.1 Species of Particular Interest to the Council............................................................................. 178

5.1.1 Anadromous Species......................................................................................................... 178

5.1.2 Species protected through an overfished species rebuilding program .............................. 179

5.1.3 Species dependent upon a fixed habitat type .................................................................... 180

5.1.4 Species and locations with tribal treaty rights to fishing .................................................. 181

5.1.5 Internationally-managed species....................................................................................... 181

5.2 Fish Habitat............................................................................................................................... 182

5.3 Fisheries.................................................................................................................................... 182

5.3.1 Communities with a Dependency on Fishery Resources.................................................. 183

5.3.2 Tribal Fishing Communities ............................................................................................. 184

5.3.3 Brief Duration Fisheries.................................................................................................... 184

5.3.4 Location-Constrained Fisheries ........................................................................................ 185

5.4 Ecosystem Structure and Function............................................................................................ 186

5.5 Sources for Chapter 5................................................................................................................ 187

6 Bringing Cross-FMP and Ecosystem Science into the Council Process........................................... 188

6.1 Bringing More Ecosystem Information into Stock Assessments.............................................. 188

6.2 Annual Reports on Ecosystem Indicators................................................................................. 189

Public Review Draft FEP v February 2013
1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) is to enhance the Council’s species-specific 

management programs with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations and management 

policies that coordinate Council management across its Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and the 

California Current Ecosystem (CCE). An FEP should provide a framework for considering policy 

choices and trade-offs as they affect FMP species and the broader CCE.

The needs for ecosystem-based fishery management within the Council process are:

1. Improve management decisions and the administrative process by providing biophysical 

and socio-economic information on CCE climate conditions, climate change, habitat 

conditions and ecosystem interactions.

2. Provide adequate buffers against the uncertainties of environmental and human-induced 

impacts to the marine environment by developing safeguards in fisheries management 

measures.

3. Develop new and inform existing fishery management measures that take into account 

the ecosystem effects of those measures on CCE species and habitat, and that take into 

account the effects of the CCE on fishery management.

4. Coordinate information across FMPs for decision-making within the Council process and 

for consultations with other regional, national, or international entities on actions 

affecting the CCE or FMP species.

5. Identify and prioritize research needs and provide recommendations to address gaps in 

ecosystem knowledge and FMP policies, particularly with respect to the cumulative 

effects of fisheries management on marine ecosystems and fishing communities.

The FEP is meant to be an informational document. It is not meant to be prescriptive relative to Council 

fisheries management. Information in the FEP, results of the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA), 

and the Annual State of the California Ecosystem Report may be available for consideration during the 

routine management processes for fisheries managed in each FMP. How exactly these items will affect 

fishery management decisions is at the discretion of the Council.

1.2 How this Document is Organized

This FEP takes its organization from the Council’s Purpose and Need statement, in Section 1.1. Chapter 

2 provides the FEP’s Objectives, a more detailed exploration of what the FEP would do to meet its 

Purpose and Need. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the CCE from a variety of physical, biological, 

and socio-economic perspectives and disciplines. Chapter 4 discusses the cumulative effects and 

uncertainties of environmental shifts and human activities on the marine environment. Chapter 5 

discusses Council CCE policy priorities across its FMPs, so that ocean resource management and policy 

processes external to the Council (e.g. West Coast Governors’ Alliance on Ocean Health, National Ocean 

Council, international fishery and ocean resource management bodies) may be made aware of and may 

better take into account those priorities. Chapter 6 broadly discusses processes for bringing ecosystem 

science into the Council process. In addition to this main FEP, there is an FEP Appendix A that proposes 

an ecosystem-based fishery management initiative process for the FEP’s use into the future.

Public Review Draft FEP 1 February 2013
1.3 Schedule and Process for Developing and Amending the FEP and the 

Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix

In November 2009, the Council appointed two new ad hoc advisory bodies, the Ecosystem Plan 

Development Team (EPDT) and the Ecosystem Advisory SubPanel (EAS). Throughout 2010-2012, these 

advisory bodies, with review and cooperation from the Council and its permanent advisory bodies, 

developed a draft FEP for public review. At its November 2012 meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, the Council 

provided the EPDT with instructions for revising the draft FEP in preparation for sending the FEP out for 

a public review period. This Public Review Draft FEP, plus the Public Review Draft FEP Ecosystem 

Initiatives Appendix are together provided for public review, in compliance with Council direction from 

November 2012. The Council is scheduled to consider adopting a final FEP at its April 6-11, 2013 

meeting in Portland, Oregon. 

Once the Council has adopted a final FEP, the main body of the FEP will not be amended until the 

Council determines that an FEP review and revision process is necessary. At that time, the Council may 

consider appointing new ad hoc advisory bodies to review and recommend revisions to the FEP. The 

Council does not anticipate initiating an FEP review process until at least 2018. In addition to the main 

body of the FEP, which consists of Chapters 1-6, the Council may choose to add one or more appendices 

to the FEP without opening the main body of the FEP to revision. 

Appendix A to the FEP is the Public Review Draft Ecosystem Initiatives appendix that: 1) provides the 

public with an opportunity to review and comment on a potential FEP initiative process; 2) provides a 

fleshed-out example FEP Initiative 1 that, if forwarded by the Council, would begin a process to prohibit 

fishing for unfished lower trophic level (forage) fish species within the U.S. West Coast Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ); and 3) provides additional potential cross-FMP initiatives for review and 

consideration by the Council and the public.

At its November 2012 meeting, the Council directed the EPDT to specify a draft process by which the 

Council would consider modifying the Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix. The EPDT proposes that each 

year at the Council’s November meeting, the Council and its advisory bodies: 

• review progress to date on any ecosystem initiatives the Council already has underway;

• review the list of potential ecosystem initiatives provided in Appendix A to the FEP and 

determine whether any of those initiatives merit Council attention in the coming year;

• if new initiatives are chosen for Council efforts, request background materials from the 

appropriate entities; and

• beginning in November 2017, assess whether to initiate a review and update of the FEP.

Each initiative in Appendix A includes suggestions for background information needed to support 

consideration of the initiative and suggestions for the expertise needed on an ad hoc team to develop the 

initiative. If the Council determines that it wishes to address a new ecosystem initiative, it would begin 

by requesting relevant background information from the appropriate agencies and other entities, which 

would then be made available to the Council and its advisory bodies at a subsequent Council meeting, 

scheduled at the Council’s discretion. Upon review of the background informational materials, the 

Council will decide whether to further pursue that initiative, and request nominations for appointments to 

an ad hoc team to be tasked with developing the initiative. Any materials developed through the ad hoc 

team process would, as usual with Council advisory body materials, be made available for review and 

comment by all of the Council’s advisory bodies and the public during the Council’s policy assessment 

and development process.

Public Review Draft FEP 2 February 2013
1.4 State-of-the-Ecosystem Reporting

At its November 2011 meeting, the Council expressed support for an annual state-of-the-ecosystem report 

to the Council. The Council suggested that the report should:

• Be bounded in terms of its size and page range to about 20 pages in length;

• Not wait for the “perfect” science to become available, that there may be scientific information 

that does not come with definitive answers and numbers, but which may be useful for the Council 

to consider.

At its November 2012 meeting, the Council received a draft Annual State of the California Current 

Ecosystem Report. That report was intended as an example to the Council and the public of a summary 

report that would briefly synthesize those results of the California Current IEA that might be most useful 

to the Council’s major decisions on potential harvest levels for its managed species groups. The Council 

and its advisory bodies reviewed the draft report, provided suggestions for future reports by commenting 

on the information in the report that appeared to be most useful to the Council process, and asked if 

NOAA Fisheries Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers might collaborate on developing the 

report annually into the future. The Council re-iterated its guidance that report not exceed 20 pages in 

length, and be tailored to providing information on indicators directly relevant to Council decisionmaking. Information in the report is intended to improve the Council and public’s general understanding 

of the status and functions of the CCE and is not tied to any specific management measures or targets for 

Council managed species. When the Council received future annual ecosystem reports, it anticipates 

continuing to review the reports contents so that they may be tailored to best meet management needs. 

The Council requests that NOAA Fisheries provide annual reports on the state of the CCE at the 

Council’s November meetings. Further discussion of the annual ecosystem report is provided in Section 

6.2 of the FEP.

Public Review Draft FEP 3 February 2013
2 Objectives

The FEP objectives, listed below, are intended to address the purpose and need statement in Section 1.1. 

This FEP and related activities are together expected to further integrate management across all Council

FMPs, while recognizing that the Council’s authority is generally limited to managing fisheries and the 

effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem, protected species, and to consultations on the effects of nonfishing activities on essential fish habitat (EFH). The Council’s work often requires Council members to 

think about their larger goals for the CCE, including and beyond goals they may have for managing 

fisheries. Chapter 5 of this FEP, PFMC Policy Priorities for Ocean Resource Management, discusses the 

Council’s CCE policy priorities as they apply to ocean resource management and policy processes 

external to the Council. Thus, Chapter 2 provides Council objectives for Council work, while Chapter 5 

provides the Council’s aspirations for the work of others within the CCE, given Council priorities for the 

fish stocks and fisheries it manages.

The Council’s four existing FMPs each have suites of goals and objectives that differ in their precise 

language, but have five common themes consistent with an ecosystem approach to fishery management: 

avoid overfishing, minimize bycatch, maintain stability in landings, minimize impacts to habitat, and 

accommodate existing fisheries sectors. The Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) FMP has an additional goal 

of providing adequate forage for dependent species. The following FEP objectives are intended to build 

upon the Council’s four FMPs by recognizing that, through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA), the United States supports the ongoing participation of its citizens in 

commercial and recreational fisheries off its coasts, while also requiring that fish stocks be conserved and 

managed for optimum yield.

1. Improve and integrate information used in Council decision-making across the existing 

FMPs by: 

a. Describing the key oceanographic, physical, biological, and socioeconomic 

features of the CCE and dependent fishing communities;

b. Identifying measures and indicators, and informing reference points to monitor 

and understand trends and drivers in key ecosystem features;

c. Identifying and addressing gaps in ecosystem knowledge, particularly with 

respect to the cumulative and longer-term effects of fishing on marine 

ecosystems;

d. Examining the potential for a science and management framework that allows 

managing fish stocks at spatial scales relevant to the structure of those stocks.

2. Build toward fuller assessment of the greatest long-term benefits from the conservation 

and management of marine fisheries, of optimum yield, and of the tradeoffs needed to 

achieve those benefits while maintaining the integrity of the CCE through: 

a. Assessing trophic energy flows and other ecological interactions within the CCE;

b. Assessing the full range of cultural, social, and economic benefits that fish and 

other living marine organisms generate through their interactions in the 

ecosystem;

c. Improving assessment of how fisheries affect and are affected by the present and 

potential future states of the marine ecosystem.

Public Review Draft FEP 4 February 2013
3. Provide administrative structure and procedures for coordinating conservation and 

management measures for the living marine resources of the U.S. West Coast EEZ: 

a. Guiding annual and regular reporting of status and trends to the Council;

b. Providing a nexus to regional, national, and international ecosystem-based 

management endeavors, particularly to address the consequences of non-fishing 

activities on fisheries and fish habitat;

c. Identifying ecological relationships within the CCE to provide support for crossFMP work to conserve non-target species essential to the flow of trophic energy 

within the CCE. 

Public Review Draft FEP 5 February 2013
3 California Current Ecosystem Overview

3.1 Geography of the Ecosystem 

The geographic range for this FEP is the entire U.S. West Coast EEZ, shown in Figure 3.1.1. The 

Council recognizes that the EEZ does not encompass all of the CCE, nor does it include all of the waters 

and habitat used by many of the Council’s more far-ranging species. The Council also recognizes the 

importance of freshwater and estuarine ecosystems to the CCE and may expand this intitial effort to 

include these ecoregions in the future. The Council also does not believe that designating the EEZ as the 

FEP’s geographic range in any way prevents it from receiving or considering information on areas of the 

CCE or other ecosystems beyond the EEZ.

3.1.1 General Description and Oceanographic Features of the CCE

The CCE is comprised of a major 

eastern boundary current, the 

California Current, which is 

dominated by strong coastal 

upwelling, and is characterized by

fluctuations in physical conditions 

and productivity over multiple 

time scales (Parrish et al. 1981, 

Mann and Lazier 1996). Food 

webs in these types of ecosystems 

tend to be structured around 

coastal pelagic species that exhibit 

boom-bust cycles over decadal

time scales (Bakun 1996, 

Checkley and Barth 2009, Fréon 

et al. 2009). By contrast, the top 

trophic levels of such ecosystems 

are often dominated by highly 

migratory species such as salmon, 

tuna, billfish and marine 

mammals, whose dynamics may 

be partially or wholly driven by 

processes in entirely different 

ecosystems, even different 

hemispheres. Ecosystems 

analogous to the CCE include 

other shelf and coastal systems, 

such as the currents off the 

western coasts of South America 

and Spain.

The CCE essentially begins where the west wind drift (or the North Pacific Current) reaches the North 

American continent. The North Pacific Current typically encounters land along the northern end of 

Vancouver Island, although this location varies latitudinally from year to year. This current then splits 

into the southward-flowing California Current heading south (shown in Figure 3.1.2) and the northwardflowing Alaska Current. The “current” in the California Current is a massive southward flow of water 

Public Review Draft FEP 6 February 2013
ranging from 50 to 500 kilometers offshore (Mann and Lazier, 1996). Beneath this surface current, flows 

what is known as the California Undercurrent in the summer, which then surfaces and is known as the 

Davidson current in winter. This current moves water poleward from the south in a deep yet more narrow 

band of water typically close to and offshore of the continental shelf break (Hickey 1998, Checkley and 

Barth 2009). The southward-flowing California Current is typically considered distinct from the winddriven coastal upwelling jets that develop over the continental shelf during the spring and summer, which 

tends to be driven by localized forcing and to vary on smaller spatial and temporal scales than offshore 

processes (Hickey, 1998). Jets result from intensive wind-driven coastal upwelling, and lead to higher 

nutrient input and productivity; they in turn are influenced by the coastal topography (capes, canyons and 

offshore banks), particularly the large capes such as Cape Blanco, Cape Mendocino and Point 

Conception. The flow from the coastal upwelling jets can be diverted offshore, creating eddies, fronts 

and other mesoscale changes in physical and biological conditions, and even often linking up to the 

offshore California Current (Hickey, 1998). 

Superimposed on the 

effects of these shifting 

water masses that drive 

much of the interannual 

variability of the CCE, 

are substantive changes in 

productivity that often 

take place at slower rates, 

during multi-year and 

decadal periods of 

altering ocean condition 

and productivity regimes. 

Climatologists and 

oceanographers have 

identified and quantified 

both the high and low 

frequency variability in 

numerous ways. The El 

Niño/Southern Oscillation 

(ENSO) is the dominant 

mode of interannual 

variability in the 

equatorial Pacific, with 

impacts throughout the 

rest of the Pacific basin 

(including the California 

Current) and the globe 

(Mann and Lazier 1996). 

During the negative (El 

Niño) phase of the ENSO 

cycle, jet stream winds 

are typically diverted 

northward, often resulting 

in increased exposure of 

the West Coast of the 

U.S. to subtropical 

weather systems (Cayan

Figure 3.1.2: Dominant current systems off the U.S. West Coast

Public Review Draft FEP 7 February 2013
and Peterson 1989). Concurrently in the coastal ocean, the effects of these events include reduced 

upwelling winds, a deepening of the thermocline, intrusion of offshore (subtropical) waters, dramatic 

declines in primary and secondary production, poor recruitment, growth and survival of many resident 

species (particularly salmon and groundfish), and northward extensions in the range of many tropical 

species. 

While the ENSO cycle is generally a high-frequency event (taking on the order of three to seven years to 

complete a cycle), lower frequency variability has been associated with what is now commonly referred 

to as the Pacific (inter)Decadal Oscillation, or PDO (Mantua et al. 1997). The PDO is the leading 

principal component of North Pacific sea surface temperatures (above 20° N. lat.), and superficially 

resembles ENSO over a decadal time scale. During positive regimes, coastal sea surface temperatures in 

both the Gulf of Alaska and the California Current tend to be higher, while those in the North Pacific 

Gyre tend to be lower; the converse is true in negative regimes. The effects of the PDO have been 

associated with low frequency variability in over 100 physical and biological time series throughout the 

Northeast Pacific, including time series of recruitment and abundance for commercially important coastal 

pelagics, groundfish and invertebrates (Mantua and Hare 2002). 

3.1.2 Major Bio-Geographic Sub-Regions of the CCE 

Although there are many ways of thinking about 

dividing the CCE into sub-regions, Francis et al. 

(2008) have suggested three large-scale CCE subregions: 

• Northern sub-region extending from the 

northern extent of the CCE off 

Vancouver Island to a southern border 

occurring in the transition zone between 

Cape Blanco, OR and Cape Mendocino, 

CA; 

• Central sub-region extending southward 

from that transition zone to Point 

Conception, CA; and 

• Southern sub-region from Point 

Conception to Punta Baja, on the central 

Baja Peninsula. 

Francis and co-authors suggested these three subregions based on various oceanographic and 

ecological characteristics with a focus on the 

Council’s Groundfish FMP. A different set of 

sub-regions may be more appropriate in the 

context of other issues and analyses, such as subregions tailored to reflect the population 

structures of various fish species and stocks.

Each of these three major CCE sub-regions 

experiences differences in physical and 

oceanographic features such as wind stress and 

freshwater input, the intensity of coastal 

Public Review Draft FEP 8 February 2013
upwelling and primary productivity, and in the width and depth of the continental shelf. Regional scale 

features like submarine ridges and canyons add to the distinct character of each sub-region. These 

physical and oceanographic differences then translate into differences in the ecosystem structure of each 

sub-region. The portions of the three CCE sub-regions lying within the U.S. EEZ are discussed in more 

detail, below.

3.1.2.1 Northern sub-region: Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA to Cape Blanco, OR

This sub-region is approximately 375 miles long, extending from its northernmost point at Cape Flattery, 

WA to Cape Blanco, OR. The upwelling winds for which the CCE is known are relatively weak in this 

sub-region, yet at the same time, some of the CCE’s most productive areas are found within this region

(Hickey and Banas 2008). The southward flowing California Current is also relatively weak in this subregion and the flow can even shift poleward off the Washington coast when the bifurcation of the North 

Pacific current shifts southward.

A key feature of this sub-region is the abundant freshwater input from the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the 

Columbia River, which provide a steady supply of terrestrial nutrients to the euphotic zone. In the 

absence of all other forces, a large freshwater discharge like that observed at the Columbia River mouth 

behaves as a “buoyancy flow,” where a buoyant freshwater jet rides over the dense saline oceanic water 

and moves poleward (Wiseman and 

Garvine 1995). Two generalized flow 

regimes have been observed with the 

Columbia River freshwater plume: (1) 

southward upwelling-favorable wind stress 

causes the Columbia River plume to 

meander southward and offshore and (2) 

northward downwelling-favorable wind 

stress causes the plume to meander 

poleward and along the coastline.

The Columbia River Estuary and its 

seaward-extending plume is a zone of 

highly mixed river and ocean water and 

high primary productivity. Although most 

plume nitrate originates from coastally 

upwelled water, river-supplied nitrate can 

help maintain ecosystems during delayed 

upwelling (Hickey et al. 2010).

Phytoplankton biomass concentrations are 

generally higher off the Washington coast 

than off the Oregon coast despite mean 

upwelling-favorable wind stress averaging 

three times stronger off the Oregon coast 

(Banas et al. 2008). Since phytoplankton 

flourish in the nutrient-rich environment of 

upwelled water, it would be expected that 

Oregon would have higher biomass 

concentrations. Banas et al. (2008) 

provides evidence that the high 

concentrations of biomass off Washington 

are due to the Columbia River plume.

Public Review Draft FEP 9 February 2013
The U.S./Canada border divides this sub-region artificially. Based on biological and oceanographic 

features, the Northern sub-region extends northward to Brooks Peninsula on Vancouver Island. Brooks 

Peninsula is generally considered to mark the rough border between the CCE and the Gulf of Alaska 

marine ecosystems (Lucas et al. 2007). The continental shelf is relatively wide in this sub-region and 

broken up by numerous submarine canyons and oceanic banks. Hickey (1998) describes two major 

canyons, Astoria and Juan de Fuca and one major bank, Heceta Bank, all of which are important both 

oceanographically and for fisheries productivity. 

Features like the Juan de Fuca eddy and Heceta Bank also help retain nutrients and plankton in coastal 

areas. The many submarine canyons in this region can also intensify upwelling, adding to primary 

productivity. These and other factors combine to produce chlorophyll concentrations in this sub-region 

that can be five times higher than off Northern California, despite the weaker upwelling winds (Hickey 

and Banas 2008).

3.1.2.2 Central sub-region: Cape Blanco to Point Conception

In the region just north of Cape Blanco, the shelf begins to narrow, winds and upwelling intensify, and 

coastal waters move offshore. At or near Cape Blanco, what had been a simple, lazy southward current 

becomes a maze of swirling eddies and turbulent coastal flows that continue approximately 170 miles 

southward to Cape Mendocino (Botsford and Lawrence 2002). The area between Cape Blanco and Cape 

Mendocino experiences the strongest winds and upwelling in the CCE. This transition area also includes 

the southern boundary of oil rich, subarctic zooplankton. This sub-region then continues southward for 

another approximately 465 miles to Point Conception.

The Mendocino Escarpment is another key geological feature of this region, the largest east-west

submarine ridge within the U.S. West Coast EEZ, extending westward from Cape Mendocino to just 

beyond the 200 

nm EEZ 

boundary, as if 

pointing toward 

the Steel Vendor 

Seamount at 

40°21.30’ N. lat., 

129°27.00’W. 

long. South of 

the Mendocino 

Escarpment, the 

continental shelf 

narrows, creating 

notably different 

habitat ranges for 

bottom-dwelling 

organisms

(Williams and 

Ralston 2002). 

This area south of 

Cape Mendocino 

also features 

several submarine 

canyons 

Public Review Draft FEP 10 February 2013
(Vizcaino Canyon, Noyo Canyon, Bodega Canyon, Monterey Canyon, and Sur Canyon) that enhance the 

high relief shelf and slope structure and demersal fish habitats. Biogeographic barriers extend out to sea 

because of strong winds related to the high relief coastal mountains and the funneling of air at high speeds 

from the Klamath and Sacramento basins to the coast. There are several distinct upwelling zones in this 

sub-region near major points, such as Point Reyes, northern Monterey Bay, and Point Sur. Outflow from 

the Sacramento River system through the San Francisco Bay Delta region is a significant source for 

freshwater input into the CCE in this sub-region.

3.1.2.1 Southern sub-region: Point Conception to Mexico border

This approximately 

236 mile long subregion is substantially 

different from the 

north and central 

areas. The topography 

is complex, the shelf is 

typically more narrow 

and shallow than to 

the north, and the 

coastline suddenly 

changes from a northsouth to an east-west 

orientation at Point 

Conception. This area 

of the coast is also 

sheltered from largescale winds and is a 

transition point 

between large-scale 

wind-driven areas to 

the north and the 

milder conditions of 

the Southern 

California Bight. There is also a cyclonic gyre in the Bight area that mixes cooler CCE water with 

warmer waters from the southeast (Hickey and Banas 2003). To the east of a line running south of Point 

Conception, winds are weak, while further offshore, to the west, wind speeds are similar to those along 

the continental shelf of the central sub-region. The Santa Barbara Channel remains sheltered from strong 

winds throughout the year. 

In contrast to the relatively contiguous continental shelf in the central sub-region, the offshore region 

from Port San Luis to the Mexican border encompasses some of the most diverse basin and ridge 

undersea topography along the U.S. West Coast. Islands top many marine ridges and some of the most 

southerly topographical irregularities are associated with the San Andreas Fault. This complex 

topography, in combination with the influence of sub-tropical waters from the south, results in a marine 

community very different from more northern sub-regions.

Like in the Northern sub-region, the international boundary divides what could be considered a common 

region. Based on ecology and oceanography, the Southern sub-region extends south to Punta Baja, 

Mexico (30° N. latitude). A fourth sub-region of the CCE exists in Mexican waters, reaching from Punta 

Baja to the tip of the Baja Peninsula at Cabo San Lucas (U.S. GLOBEC 2004). 

Public Review Draft FEP 11 February 2013
3.1.3 Political Geographic and Large-Scale Human Demographic Features of the CCE

From north to south, the CCE includes waters offshore of Canada’s province of British Columbia, the 

U.S. states of Washington, Oregon, and California and Mexico’s states of Baja California and Baja 

California Sur. This FEP is a product of a U.S. fishery management process, which means that it focuses 

on the effects of U.S. citizens, government entities, businesses, and economies on the U.S. portion of the 

CCE. 

The Council has 14 voting members and five non-voting members. The voting Council members include:

• The directors of state fish and wildlife departments from California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho, or their designees.

• The Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service or his or her designee.

• A representative of a federally-recognized West Coast Native American tribe.

• Eight private citizens who are familiar with the fishing industry, marine conservation, or both. 

These citizens are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by the governors 

of the member states. These eight members include one obligatory member from each state and 

four at-large members who may come from any state.

There are also five non-voting members who assist Council decision-making. They represent: the Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), which coordinates data and research for the Pacific states; 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which serves in an advisory role; the State of Alaska, 

because both fish and the people who fish for them migrate to and from Alaskan waters; the U.S. 

Department of State, which is concerned with management decisions with international implications; and 

the U.S. Coast Guard, which is concerned with enforcement and safety issues.

Figure 3.1.3: West Coast EEZ Fishery Management Authorities

Public Review Draft FEP 12 February 2013
Marine waters off the U.S. are divided into an array of jurisdictions (Figure 3.1.3) under a host of laws. 

West Coast states have management responsibility for those ocean fisheries targeting species that 

primarily occur inshore of the state marine boundary of 3 nm. Off the northern Washington coast, four

treaty Indian tribes have Usual and Accustomed fishing areas that include marine waters out to 40 nm 

offshore. Domestically, inter-state coordination for state fisheries managed separately from the Council 

process is facilitated by the PSMFC. The federal government has explicitly extended non-tribal 

management authority over Dungeness crab, which occurs in both state and federal waters, to the states of 

Washington, Oregon and California (16 U.S.C. §1856). 

The Council is responsible for managing fisheries that primarily occur within federal waters, 3-200 nm 

offshore, and separates management for those fisheries into four fishery management plans: coastal 

pelagic species, groundfish species, highly migratory species, and salmon species. Tribes and states that 

participate in the Council 

process also participate in 

U.S.-Canada bi-national 

management processes for 

Pacific halibut, Pacific 

whiting (also known as 

hake), Pacific salmon, and 

albacore. The Council 

shares management of 

highly migratory species 

with the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management 

Council, and both councils 

and their member states 

and territories together 

participate in international 

management bodies for the 

central Pacific Ocean. 

More detailed information 

on Council, state, tribal, 

and international fisheries 

and management processes 

is available in Section 3.4.

Major West Coast 

commercial fishing ports

over the 2000-2011 period, 

by volume, include: ports 

in the Southern California 

port area, mainly San 

Pedro, Terminal Island, 

Port Hueneme and 

Ventura; northern Oregon 

ports, mainly Newport and 

Astoria; and southern 

Washington ports of 

Chinook and Westport. 

Major West Coast 

recreational fishing areas 

Figure 3.1.4: Human Population Density in the Western U.S.

Public Review Draft FEP 13 February 2013
over the 2004-2011 period include southern California, north-central California, central Oregon, and the 

Washington coast off Grays Harbor, although recreational fisheries are generally more active off 

California than off Washington or Oregon. For more detailed information, see Section 3.4. 

West Coast urban areas, those with human populations greater than 1,000 people per square mile, include: 

the eastern and southern shore of Puget Sound, Washington; metropolitan areas of Oregon’s Willamette 

Valley; California’s capital in Sacramento, connecting into the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay; 

and the southern California metropolitan areas surrounding Los Angeles and San Diego. Figure 3.1.4 

shows U.S. population density by square mile, from the 2010 U.S. census data. 

Human activities that compete with fishing for ocean space include: non-consumptive recreation, 

dredging and dredge spoil 

disposal, military exercises, 

shipping, offshore energy 

installations, submarine 

telecommunications cables, 

mining for minerals, sand and 

gravel, and ocean dumping and 

pollution absorption. See 

Section 3.3.4 for additional 

discussion. In addition to 

human activities within the 

ocean, human institutions have 

created a host of different types 

of marine protected areas off the 

West Coast, many of which are 

closed to some or all fishing 

activities. The largest West 

Coast EEZ marine protected 

areas with fisheries restrictions 

or prohibitions are the Council’s 

group of EFH Conservation 

Areas – also see Section 3.3.4. 

Also significant in size, and with 

varying types of protections, are 

the five West Coast National 

Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs): 

Channel Islands NMS, Cordell 

Bank NMS, Gulf of the 

Farallones NMS, Monterey Bay 

NMS, and Olympic Coast NMS. 

The Council works with the 

West Coast NMSs to develop 

EFH conservation areas within 

sanctuary boundaries (Figure 

3.1.5). There are numerous 

additional state marine protected 

Areas (MPAs,) which are 

discussed in more detail in 

Section 3.3.4.

Figure 3.1.5: West Coast EFH Conservation Areas and National Marine 

Sanctuaries

Public Review Draft FEP 14 February 2013
3.2 Biological Components and Relationships of the CCE

3.2.1 Biological Components

This section defines the major biological components of the CCE in terms of trophic levels – a biological 

component’s position within the larger food web. A biological component’s trophic level is roughly 

defined by its position in the food chain. Lower trophic level species consist of or feed predominantly on 

primary producers (phytoplankton, etc.) Higher trophic level species are largely top predators such as 

marine mammals, birds, 

sharks and tunas.

As shown in Figure 3.2.1 from 

Field et al. (2006), the CCE 

contains a diverse array of 

species, most of which make a 

relatively modest contribution 

to the energy flow within the 

ecosystem. Because the flow 

of energy is more of a “food 

web” than a “food chain”, the 

species of the CCE do not 

neatly divide into clearly 

delineated trophic levels (for 

example, an organism may eat 

a prey item and also eat items 

that its prey eats), except at 

the highest and lowest levels. 

This FEP, below, discusses 

CCE species within broad 

trophic level categories, while 

recognizing that most CCE 

species do not occupy a single 

trophic level and may occupy 

multiple trophic levels, 

particularly when considering 

changes that occur over the 

course of their life as they 

change both their size and 

feeding preferences. 

3.2.1.1 High trophic non-fish species: mammals, birds, and reptiles of the CCE

Marine mammals, seabirds and marine reptiles of the CCE tend to occupy the system’s mid- to higher 

trophic levels, and are generally protected species, although many were also historically targeted for 

harvest. Many of the largest populations forage in the CCE seasonally, and breed elsewhere, such as fur 

seals (breed in the Bering Sea), Humpback whales (breed off Mexico or central America) sooty 

shearwaters (breed in New Zealand), and leatherback turtles (breed in the western tropical Pacific). 

Similarly, top predators that do breed in the CCE, such as sea lions and elephant seals, often migrate or 

forage elsewhere seasonally, although most of the larger seabird populations that breed within the CCE

(such as common murres, auklets and gulls) typically do not have extensive foraging ranges. The 

literature on movements and migrations for any given population is substantial, but Block et al. (2011) 

Figure 3.2.1: The significant food web of the Northern CCE. Height of 

boxes is scaled to standing biomass of species or groups names, width of 

lines between groups represents biomass flux of prey to predators. Benthic 

energy pathways are shown in red, while pelagic energy pathways are shown 

in blue. This “snapshot” represents the model values for the 1960 time 

period, as reported in Field et al. (2006).

Public Review Draft FEP 15 February 2013
provide an excellent synthesis of the range of 

movements for many of these (and highly 

migratory fish) populations based on a concerted 

effort to tag top ocean predators over the past 

decade as part of the Tagging of Pacific Predators 

program. Additionally, Block et al. (2011) 

describe the seasonal patterns of productivity, 

thermal variability and other ocean processes that 

drive many of these movements. Seasonal 

patterns appear to be the greatest drivers of 

migrations and variable distributions, although 

inter-annual and longer term climate variability 

also shapes the distribution and abundance of 

many of these higher trophic level species. The 

response of populations that breed in the CCE to 

such variability is often difficult to determine, 

although high sea lion pup mortalities have clearly 

been associated with El Niño events.

Both migrant (such as sooty shearwater and black-footed albatross) and resident seabirds (such as 

common murres and rhinoceros auklets) have been described as having either warm or cool water 

affinities, and vary their distribution, abundance, productivity and even diet accordingly (Sydeman et al. 

2001; Sydeman et al. 2009). One of the most abundant migratory seabirds in the CCE, sooty shearwaters 

(Puffinus griseus), declined by as much as 90% immediately following the 1977 regime shift (Veit et al. 

1996), although numbers have been variable since that time and it remains unclear whether there was an 

actual decline in population or a shift in distribution (Bjorksted et al. 2010). Understanding such changes 

in the population dynamics of sea birds is increasingly essential for effective fisheries management, 

providing the means to minimize interactions between fisheries and threatened or endangered species 

(Crowder and Norse 2008, Howell 

et al. 2008). Large-scale seasonal 

area closures to West Coast large 

mesh drift gill-net fishery of the 

HMS FMP is an example of a 

measure implemented to minimize 

interactions with leatherback sea 

turtles that forage intensively on 

jellyfish, particularly in Central 

California, from late spring 

through the fall (Benson et al. 

2007). Since sea turtles likely 

represent one of the most 

vulnerable taxa in the CCE, and 

much of this vulnerability lies 

beyond the control of the PFMC 

and other U.S. management 

entities, issues relating to turtle 

conservation tend to be a high 

priority with respect to 

minimizing turtle-fisheries 

interactions. 

Public Review Draft FEP 16 February 2013
Although the historical 

removals described earlier 

collectively kept most 

pinniped and whale 

populations at low to 

moderate levels until the 

middle to late 20th 

century, most populations 

have increased, many 

dramatically, over the last 

several decades. 

Humpback whales in the 

CCE are now thought to 

number over 2000, blue 

whales nearly 2500, 

elephant seals 

approximately 124,000, 

California sea lions on the 

order of 270,000, and 

short-beaked common

dolphins over 400,000 animals (Carretta et al. 2012). Appreciation for the cumulative historical impacts 

of whaling and sealing, and the potential cascading impacts to marine ecosystems, has grown as many 

marine mammal populations have recovered (NRC 1996, Estes et al. 2006). Currently, many mammal 

populations appear to be approaching some level of carrying capacity, and there is no substantive 

evidence for indirect competition with fisheries for prey resources. Increasing mammal populations have 

direct impacts on many salmonid populations and have indirect impacts when combined with human 

alterations to habitat, such as dams, that serve to aggregate salmonids where they are easy prey for some 

marine mammals. Although most mammal populations experience some incidental mortality as a 

consequence of fishing operations, mortality sources generally do not exceed estimates of potential 

biological removals. One of the goals of the MMPA is that the incidental mortality or serious injury of 

marine mammals in fisheries 

should be reduced to 

insignificant levels 

approaching zero. All FMP 

are managed to be consistent 

with this goal. One fishery, the

HMS drift gillnet fishery, has 

specific management 

measures to reduce marine 

mammal interactions in 

accordance with the MMPA. 

In recent years there has been 

concern regarding high 

mortality rates for some 

cetaceans, particularly blue 

and humpback whales, caused 

by large ship strikes within 

and outside of fisheries

(Berman-Kowalewski et al. 

2010).

Public Review Draft FEP 17 February 2013
Higher trophic level mammals, birds and reptiles represent important sources of predation mortality and 

energy flow in the CCE. Estimates of the role of cetaceans in the CCE suggest that they annually 

consume on the order of 1.8 to 2.8 million tons of prey (primarily krill, but also coastal pelagic fishes, 

squids, groundfish and other prey; Carretta et al. 2008), and simple bioenergetic estimates suggest that 

pinnipeds may consume as much as an additional million tons (Hunt et al. 2000), mostly fish and squid. 

Comparable estimates for seabirds are limited; Roth et al. (2008) estimated total annual consumption by 

common murres (the most abundant resident species in the CCE) at approximately 225,000 tons; 

however, Hunt et al. (2000) estimated summer consumption by all seabirds throughout the CCE at 

considerably lower levels. There have been few efforts to explicitly model interactions between fisheries 

and marine mammal population dynamics (although, see Yodzis et al. 2001 and Bundy et al. 2009). 

However, there is a rich body of literature linking seabird productivity to prey availability that helped 

guide the development of harvest control rules for some of the earliest CPS fisheries (e.g., Anderson et al. 

1980). 

Much of the literature is synthesized in a recent manuscript that indicates a commonality in the non-linear 

response of seabirds to empirical changes in prey abundance, in which seabird productivity declines 

gradually at low to moderate levels of reduced prey availability, but declines steeply when prey 

abundance is below approximately one third of the maximum prey biomass observed in long-term studies

(Cury et al. 2011). The Cury et al. (2011) results could be used to guide appropriate management limits 

or thresholds when managing high biomass forage species that seabirds depend upon. However, the 

question of what constitutes a baseline level was not explicitly addressed, and is a key factor for 

consideration in the management of stocks that undergo substantial low frequency variability such as 

coastal pelagic species. Smith et al. (2011) evaluated a similar question, using ecosystem models and 

altering harvest rates (rather than using empirical data and evaluating functional relationships). 

Substantial impacts on food webs and higher trophic level predators were found when fishing at 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, but impacts on marine ecosystem indicators were relatively 

modest given reduced exploitation rates (despite catches remaining at close to 80% of the maximum 

achievable levels). Although additional empirical analyses and modeling efforts will improve our 

understanding of trade-offs between high trophic level predator population dynamics and fisheries, it is 

clear that such trade-offs exist, can be estimated for a multi-species system, and can be considered in the 

context of strategic decision making – as opposed to in tactical decision-making, such as setting harvest 

quotas, for which such models are generally considered inappropriate. 

3.2.1.2 Mid to High Trophic Level Fishes and Invertebrates

High trophic level fishes typically represent 

highly valued fisheries targets, rather than 

protected resources subject to take 

restrictions. A generalized breakdown 

would suggest three major communities of 

mid to high trophic level fish assemblages; 

highly migratory species (HMS,)

groundfish, and anadromous fishes 

(principally salmonids, but including 

sturgeon and other species as well). A large 

number of invertebrate species might be 

included at mid- to high trophic levels, 

however in considering invertebrates it is 

important to recognize that in many complex 

or biologically diverse communities (such as 

intertidal, kelp forest ecosystems, planktonic 

Public Review Draft FEP 18 February 2013
communities), small and generally overlooked species often represent high trophic levels and key roles 

that are well beyond the scope of this evaluation (such as various species of predatory copepods or 

jellyfish in pelagic ecosystems, or the predatory sun star, Pycnopodia spp., in intertidal ecosystems). 

Other mid- to high- trophic level invertebrates are more conspicuous elements of the ecosystem, such as 

predatory squids and various larger crab species (including Dungeness). The competitive and predatory 

impacts of nonindigenous crab species on juvenile Dungeness crab survival may negatively impact 

recruitment into the fishery (McDonald et al. 2001). Changes in physical forcing in the CCE have driven 

the recent poleward expansion of jumbo squid into the CCE increasing the potential for high levels of 

squid predation for several fish species, many that are commercially important, and potentially resulting 

in changes across trophic levels (Field et al. 2007). Seasonal patterns appear to be the greatest drivers of 

migrations and variable distributions for most mid- to higher trophic level species, both pelagic and 

benthic, although interannual and longer term climate variability also shapes the distribution and 

abundance of many of the pelagic species in particular. For example, warm years (and regimes) have 

long been known to bring desirable gamefish such as tunas and billfish farther north and inshore (MacCall 

1996, Pearcy 2002). 

The highly migratory species include swordfish, albacore and other tunas, several species of sharks 

(thresher, mako, blue, soupfin and salmon key among them; although great white, basking and sleeper 

sharks are also of high ecological and conservation concern) and a variety of (generally southern) large 

coastal piscivores such as black sea bass, white sea bass and yellowtail are all key targets for both 

commercial and recreational fisheries with long histories of exploitation. The PFMC’s HMS FMP is 

unique in that the relative impact and role of fishing activities under the jurisdiction of the PFMC for 

most HMS are generally modest, since many HMS species spend limited time subject to fisheries within 

the EEZ. Exceptions include north Pacific albacore, Pacific thresher sharks, and shortfin mako shark, 

where West Coast vessels harvest a significant fraction of North Pacific catches. The principle challenges 

associated with HMS resources (and the HMS FMP) are collaborating between the broad assemblage of 

nations and regulatory entities that are involved in HMS exploitation and management (See Section 

3.5.4.3)

Although generalized to the entire North Pacific, Sibert et al. (2006) summarizes the variability and 

differences in tuna population 

trajectories, with western Pacific 

yellowfin and bigeye declining 

steadily to near target levels,

skipjack and blue shark 

populations increasing, and 

albacore fluctuating in both 

directions. Importantly, Sibert 

et al. noted that increases in the 

biomass of some species are 

consistent with predictions by 

simple ecosystem models (e.g., 

Kitchell 1999, Cox 2002) as a 

result of declines in predation 

mortality that is consistent with 

a recent comparison of 

empirical data from fisheries 

statistics in the Central North 

Pacific region (Polovina et al. 

2009). Specifically, with 

increasing fishing pressure, 

Public Review Draft FEP 19 February 2013
catch rates (and presumably biomass) of top predators such as marlin, spearfish, sharks, and large tunas 

(bigeye and yellowfin) declined, while the catch rates of mid-trophic level species such as mahi mahi, 

pomfret and escolar increased. Polovina et al. (2009) suggested that the cumulative effect of fishing on 

high trophic levels and consistent response by mid trophic level predators indicates that the longline 

fishery may function as a keystone species in this system. The CCE portion of these stocks may have 

similar dynamics to those in the Eastern Tropical Pacific for some stocks, and those of the Central 

Northern Pacific for others. However, in the foreseeable future the key ecosystem issues associated with 

HMS population dynamics are primarily associated with high and low frequency changes in the 

availability of target stocks in response to changes in climate conditions, as manifested by seasonal 

changes in water masses, changes in temperature fronts or other boundary conditions, and changes in prey 

abundance. Management of the directed fishery also requires minimizing the bycatch of high profile 

species, such as sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. A greater appreciation of the relationships 

among climate variables, gear selectivities and the spatial distributions of both target and bycatch species 

will continue to improve management of HMS resources, and will be key to both “single species” and 

ecosystem based management approaches.

Groundfish and salmon 

occupy a range of trophic 

niches and habitats, but most 

species are considered to be 

at either middle or higher 

trophic levels. Large 

groundfish, such as cowcod, 

bocaccio, yelloweye and 

shortraker, as well as Pacific 

halibut, California halibut, 

arrowtooth flounder, Petrale 

sole, sablefish, lingcod, 

cabezon, shortspine 

thornyheads, several of the 

skates and a handful of other 

species are almost 

exclusively piscivorous, and 

feed largely on juvenile and 

adult stages of other 

groundfish, as well as forage 

fishes, mesopelagic fishes, 

and squid. A broader range 

of species, including most 

rockfish, are ominovorous 

mid-trophic level predators that may be piscivorous at times but also feed on krill, gelatinous 

zooplankton, benthic invertebrates and other prey. Pacific hake, the most abundant groundfish in the 

CCE, shows strong ontogeny in food habits, since younger, smaller hake feed primarily on euphausiids 

and shrimps, switching to an increasing proportion of herring, anchovies and other fishes (as well as other 

hake) as they reach 45-55 cm length, and are almost exclusively piscivorous by 70-80 cm.

Higher trophic level predators have a potential to play a structuring role in the ecosystem, particularly 

over smaller spatial scales (e.g., individual reefs or habitat areas). Despite the rarity of piscivorous 

rockfish relative to more abundant omnivorous or planktivorous rockfish, visual surveys have shown that 

the piscivorous species can be relatively abundant in many isolated and presumably lightly fished rocky 

reef habitats (Jagielo, et al. 2003; Yoklavich, et al. 2002; Yoklavich, et al. 2000). In rocky reefs, 

Public Review Draft FEP 20 February 2013
concentrations of smaller, fast-growing rockfish are considerably lower, while reefs thought to have 

undergone heavier fishing pressure tend to have greater numbers of smaller, fast-growing, and earlymaturing species. Similar large-scale community changes are described by Levin et al. (2006), who 

found broad-scale changes in CCE groundfish assemblages sampled by the triennial bottom trawl surveys 

on the continental shelf between 1977 and 2001. Levin et al. (2006) found declining rockfish catches, 

from over 60 percent of the catch in 1977 to less than 17 percent of the catch in 2001, with greater 

declines of larger species, while flatfish catches increased by a similar magnitude. The potential for intraguild competition or top-down forcing, in both small-scale rocky reef systems and throughout the larger 

ecosystem, is also supported by theoretical considerations and simulation models. For example, Baskett 

et al. (2006) developed a community interactions model that incorporated life history characteristics of 

pygmy and yelloweye rockfish to consider community dynamics within a marine reserve. Without 

interspecific interactions, the model predicted that larger piscivores would recover given minimal levels 

of dispersal and reserve size. However, when community interactions were taken into account, initial 

conditions like the starting abundance of the piscivores and the size of the reserve became more important 

with respect to the ultimate stable state, such that under some circumstances (low piscivore biomass, or 

high planktivore biomass) recovery could be unlikely. Such results are consistent with similar simulations 

of the potential consequences of community interactions in marine systems (MacCall 2002, Walters and 

Kitchell 2001), and speak to the importance of considering such interactions in the design, 

implementation and monitoring of recovery efforts for rebuilding species.

Anadromous species such as salmonids and sturgeon, spend their early life stages in freshwater rivers and 

streams, then out-migrate to the ocean, where they mature before returning to their natal streams to 

spawn. Large variation in the abundance and life history characteristics of many anadromous fish 

populations have been attributed to climatic conditions (e.g. PDO or ENSO; Mantua et al. 1997, Finney et 

al. 2000, Peterson and Schwing 2003, Wells et al. 2006), although this relationship is not always strong 

for all salmonids populations (Botsford and Lawrence 2002). The fresh and saltwater ecosystems off 

central California are generally the southernmost marine habitat occupied by Chinook and coho salmon. 

Climate fluctuations may exacerbate stressors on low abundance stocks, or on stocks with reduced lifehistory or habitat diversity (Lindley et al. 2009, Carlson and Satterthwaite 2011). Salmonids prey upon 

an array of lower trophic 

levels species including 

juvenile and adult stages of 

numerous fishes, squid, 

euphausiids, and various other 

invertebrates; in general,

salmon tend to forage on 

larger prey items as they reach

larger sizes (Daly et al. 2009). 

The effects of climate 

variability on the feeding 

ecology and trophic dynamics 

of adult Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.) have 

shown that salmon are 

extremely adaptable to 

changes that occur in the 

ocean environment and their 

forage base (Kaeriyama et al. 

2004). However, Pacific 

salmon populations can 

Public Review Draft FEP 21 February 2013
experience persistent changes in productivity, possibly due to climatic shifts, necessitating rapid and 

reliable detection of such changes by management agencies to avoid costly suboptimal harvests or 

depletion of stocks (Peterman et al. 2000, Dorner et al. 2008, Lindley et al. 2009). Changes in salmon 

productivity have been hypothesized to be a function of early natural mortality that is mostly related to 

predation, followed by a physiologically-based mortality when juvenile salmon fail to reach a critical size 

by the end of their first marine summer and do not survive the following winter (Beamish and Mahnken 

2001). This growth-related mortality provides a link between total mortality and climate that could be 

operating via the availability of nutrients regulating the food supply and hence competition for food (i.e. 

bottom–up regulation) (Beamish and Mahnken 2001). Strong evidence of positive spatial covariation 

among salmon stocks within Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska and between certain adjacent 

regions, with no evidence of covariation between stocks of distant regions, suggests that environmental 

processes that affect temporal variation 

in survival rates operate at regional 

spatial scales (Pyper et al. 2001).

Some subpopulations of green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris) are listed as 

threatened (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). This determination was based on 

the reduction of potential spawning 

habitat, severe threats to the spawning 

population, the inability to alleviate 

these threats with the conservation 

measures in place, and the decrease in 

observed numbers of juvenile green 

sturgeon collected in the past two 

decades compared to those collected 

historically (NMFS 2006). Other 

subpopulations are listed as NMFS

Species of Concern, since insufficient 

information is available to indicate a 

need to list the species under the ESA. 

Little is known about green sturgeon life 

history, particularly at sea. Adult green 

sturgeon inhabit estuaries during the 

summer (ODFW 2005), feeding upon 

amphipods, isopods, shrimps, clams, 

crabs, and annelid worms (Ganssle 1966, 

Radtke 1966). Temperature has been 

shown to affect both green sturgeon 

embryos (Van Eenennaam et al. 2005), 

as well as juvenile sturgeon (Allen et al. 

2006) suggesting a possible sensitivity to 

climate change. Bycatch of green 

sturgeon in the California halibut fishery 

is of management concern.

Public Review Draft FEP 22 February 2013
3.2.1.3 Low Trophic Level

Low trophic level species (secondary producers) are defined as species that feed either primarily or 

partially on the lowest trophic level and includes the following groups ordered roughly from largest to 

smallest by individual body size:

• Small pelagic fish -- includes baitfish and other forage fish, such as sardine, anchovy, 

smelts, etc., which are relatively small as adults and feed on phytoplankton and/or 

zooplankton

• Ichthyoplankton – small larval stages of fish that feed on both phytoplankton and 

zooplankton, including the larvae of the small pelagics listed above, plus the larval 

stages of large pelagic fish and groundfish, such as Pacific hake, jack mackerel, and 

rockfish 

• Euphausiids – krill, relatively large, often swarm- or school-forming crustacean 

zooplankton that feed on both phytoplankton and zooplankton

• Gelatinous zooplankton- soft-bodied zooplankton, such as jellyfish, pelagic 

gastropods (primarily pteropods), salps, doliolids and apendicularians

• Other crustacean zooplankton – this group includes shrimps, mysids, and other less

numerically dominant, but important organisms that consume both other 

zooplankton, phytoplankton, and microzooplankton

• Copepods – smaller crustacean zooplankton, often the numerically dominant multicellular organism in many areas of the CCE that feed on both phytoplankton, other 

zooplankton, and microzooplankton

• Microzooplankton – uni-cellular zooplankton that feed at high rates on 

phytoplankton, other microzooplankton, and bacteria

Small pelagic fish, such as sardine and anchovy, comprise an integral part of the CCE, feeding nearly 

exclusively on phytoplankton (typically diatoms), small pelagic crustaceans, and copepods (Emmett et al., 

2005). A large portion of what are known as the “forage fish” of the CCE are comprised of small pelagic 

fish; this group functions as the main pathway 

of energy flow in the CCE from phytoplankton 

to larger fish and the young life stages of larger 

predators (Crawford, 1987; Cury et al., 2000). 

Thus, small pelagic fish form a critical link in 

the strong, upwelling-driven high production 

regions of the CCE. Ichthyoplankton, the 

larvae of larger fish, are also a key prey 

resource for larger fish and other marine 

organisms. A summary of over 50 years of the 

ichthyoplankton community gives some sense 

of the relative abundance of various 

ecologically important species in the CCE 

(Moser et al. 2001). Six of the top 10 most 

abundant species throughout this long time 

period are northern anchovy, Pacific hake, 

Pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and rockfish 

(shortbelly rockfish and unidentified Sebastes, 

as most species are not identifiable to the 

species level). The persistent dominance of the 

icthyoplankton of relatively few CCE species 

Public Review Draft FEP 23 February 2013
indicates that the relative abundance and importance, at least in the southern part of the CCE, of these key 

species is far greater than most other lower trophic level species. Notably, the remaining four species in 

the top 10 are mesopelagic species that further account for 12 of the top 20 most abundant species. There 

are considerably fewer ichthyoplankton data for central and northern California, although survey data 

suggest that anchovy, herring, sardine and whitebait smelt have been the most abundant and important 

forage species in this region over the past 13 years (Orsi et al. 2007, Bjorkstedt et al. 2010). 

Ichthyoplankton data are more limited for the CCE north of Cape Mendocino, but existing studies suggest 

that off Washington and Oregon, Osmeridae (smelts, typically not identified to the species level) are often 

highly abundant in the nearshore shelf waters, and that tomcod and sandlance are often fairly abundant 

(see Richardson and Pearcy 1977, Kendall and Clark 1982 and Brodeur et al. 2008). 

Euphausiids, primarily the 

species Euphausia pacifica

and Thysanoessa trispinosa, 

are another key link in the 

trophic web of the CCE 

(Brinton and Townsend, 

2003). These species 

primarily eat phytoplankton 

(diatoms) and small 

zooplankton, and in turn are 

the food for many species of 

fish, birds, and marine 

mammals. Euphausiids can 

form large conspicuous 

schools and swarms that 

attract larger predators, 

including whales. Due to 

their high feeding rates, fast 

growth rates, and status as a 

key prey for many species, 

Euphausiids play a critical 

role in the overall flow of 

energy through the CCE. 

When prevalent, gelatinous zooplankton provides an alternate pathway for energy flow that may or may 

not lead to production in higher trophic levels (Brodeur et al. 2011). Gelatinous zooplankton include a 

variety of forms, from free-floating jellyfish that passively ambush zooplankton and small larval fish 

prey, to apendicularians that build large gelatinous “houses” used to filter large quantities of the smallest 

phytoplankton classes from the water column. While gelatinous zooplankton grow at high rates, and have 

high feeding rates, their bodies are mostly composed of water; as a result, gelatinous zooplankton are not 

typically a good food source for larger organisms, with the exception of certain turtles that specialize in 

gelatinous prey. Thus, systems dominated by gelatinous zooplankton as the primary predators of 

phytoplankton tend to have limited production of fish species, and are generally considered “dead-end” 

ecosystems. Typically, gelatinous zooplankton blooms are found offshore in oligotrophic regions, 

although blooms occasionally predominate nearshore during warmer periods. An exception are pteropods, 

pelagic gastropods that form large gelatinous nets, much larger than their body size, used to capture 

falling detritus in the water column. Unlike the other taxa in this group, pteropods are known to be an 

important food source for at least salmon, and possibly other fish species (Brodeur, 1990).

Public Review Draft FEP 24 February 2013
Copepods and other small crustacean zooplankton have similar roles to krill within the CCE. However, 

copepods and small crustacean zooplankton do not tend to form large dense schools, although at time for 

brief periods (a few hours to a few days), they may be found at locally higher densities as they aggregate 

near physical (e.g. horizontally along physical fronts, or vertically near the main thermocline) or 

biological discontinuities (e.g. phytoplankton “thin layers”). Copepods eat phytoplankton, 

microzooplankton, and other smaller crustacean zooplankton, and in turn are food for krill, fish larvae, 

and small pelagic fish. An important feature of many of the larger crustacean zooplankton is that they 

undergo daily vertical migrations from depths as deep as several hundred meters during the day, up to 

near the surface at night, primarily as a means to avoid visual predators, such as fish. Other small 

crustaceans, such as shrimps and mysids, tend to be less abundant, but can be important in some areas. 

Mysids often form swarms in shallow nearshore waters, and may be an important food source for 

outmigrating smolts (Brodeur, 1990). Unlike many other zooplankton, several of the dominant species of 

copepods, those of the genus Calanus and Neocalanus in particular, undergo a wintertime dormant 

period, wherein they descend to great depths (~400-1000m) for anywhere from 4-8 months of the year 

(Dahms, 1995). These copepods then emerge in the springtime to reproduce. Thus copepods have a 

marked seasonality in their availability to higher trophic levels, often leading to match-mismatch 

problems.

Unicellular microzooplankton include a 

diverse array of organisms, such as 

heterotrophic dinoflagellates, ciliates, and 

choanoflagellates. These organisms 

primarily eat other microzooplankton, 

phytoplankton, cyanobacteria, and bacteria. 

The CCE biomass of unicellular 

microzooplankton is not often high, however, 

their grazing rates are on par with the growth 

rates of phytoplankton (Li, Franks, and 

Landry, 2011). Thus, contrary to common 

belief, it is these unicellular 

microzooplankton, not crustaceans or fish, 

which consume the majority of 

phytoplankton standing stock and production 

within many areas of the CCE (Calbet and 

Landry, 2004). Important to note, is that a 

large portion of the energy that flows into 

microzooplankton does not reach higher 

trophic levels, but is returned to detrital 

pools, or recycled within the 

microozooplankton trophic level. This 

retention of energy within the unicellular 

microzooplanton trophic level is known as 

the “microbial loop” and, when prevalent, 

decreases the overall productivity of higher 

trophic levels. Unicellular microzooplankton 

are a key prey source for copepods, 

gelatinous zooplankton, and other small 

crustacean zooplankton due to their enriched 

nitrogen relative to carbon, in comparison to 

similarly sized phytoplankton. 

Public Review Draft FEP 25 February 2013
3.2.1.4 Lowest Trophic Level 

Lowest Trophic Level species are those that carry out photosynthesis, i.e. phytoplankton (also known as 

primary producers). Large multicellular plants and vegetation are described in more detail in section 

3.3.2. The most predominant phytoplankton groups within the California current include the single-celled 

phytoplankton classes:

• Diatoms – eukaryotic cells with hard silica based shells, dominant in 

upwelling areas, occasionally harmful algal bloom (HAB) forming

• Dinoflagellates – eukaryotic cells, many of which are slightly motile, often 

dominate in stratified regions, and more commonly form HABs than diatoms

• Cyanobacteria – prokaryotic cells, predominant in offshore regions, but still 

abundant in nearshore regions (~20% of phytoplankton productivity) 

Diatoms are probably the most critical phytoplankton group in terms of overall productivity and 

importance as a food resource for higher trophic levels. Diatoms grow rapidly in nearshore regions where 

upwelling provides cool, nutrient-rich water. In turn, diatoms are grazed by most of the low trophic level 

species (described above). Occasionally, certain species of diatoms may constitute HABs. Specifically, 

the diatom Pseudonitchia multiseries produces a powerful neurotoxin known as Domoic Acid that can be 

bio-accumulated in the tissues of fish (described in more detail below in section 3.3.2). While diatoms 

are an important prey for copepods, their protective silica casing (known as a frustules) prevents them 

from being readily preyed upon by smaller microzooplankton. Dinoflagellates are an important resource 

in the CCE. Dinoflagellates may outcompete 

diatoms when silica is limiting, since 

dinoflagellates do not require silica for growth. 

Dinoflagellates are also typically preferred by 

other microzooplankton and small crustacean 

zooplankton as a food source as compared to 

diatoms, due to their relatively enriched nutrient 

content, and lack of a hard Si encasement

(Kleppel, 1993; Leising et al., 2005). Because of 

this, when dinoflagellates predominate, there is a 

longer chain of organisms between phytoplankton 

and higher predators, hence a lower total transfer 

of energy to higher trophic levels (only about 30-

35% of energy is transferred upwards from each 

trophic level, thus 65-70% of the energy is lost to 

recycling, Paffenhofer, 1976; Fenchel, 1987), as 

compared to diatom-dominated systems (nearshore 

upwelling) where the diatoms may be directly 

consumed by small fish and some fish larvae. 

Cyanobacteria are more important in offshore 

regions, where, although they do not have a high 

biomass, they may have high growth rates, 

providing for rapid nutrient turnover (Sherr et al., 

2005). Cyanobacteria are primarily consumed by 

uni-cellular microzooplankton that may be prey for 

other microzooplankton. Hence food webs 

dominated by cyanobacteria tend to have a low 

biomass of higher trophic levels due to the 

relatively large number of trophic links. 

Public Review Draft FEP 26 February 2013
3.2.2 Species Interactions

In addition to their own internal dynamics, fish populations interact with, and are influenced by, other 

species. Species interactions can take a variety of forms summarized in Table 3.2.1.

Table 3.2.1: Species Interaction Types and Their General Effects

Nature of interaction Species 1 Species 2

Mutualism + +

Commensalism + 0

Predation / herbivory + -

Parasitism + -

Competition - -

+ positive effect; 0 no effect; - deleterious effect

Predation, parasitism, and herbivory all have the same general effects—a positive effect on one species 

and a negative effect on another. Competition is defined as a species interaction that has a negative effect 

on both species. Mutualism (two different species each derive benefits from the other) and 

commensalism (when two different species interact, one benefits while the other is unaffected) are less 

commonly discussed in the ecological (and especially fisheries) literature, but potentially play important 

roles for some species. 

The vast majority of information we have on species interactions involving fisheries targets is on 

predation. As evidenced in the sections above, we have a strong general understanding of the trophic 

interactions among species in the CCE. In large part, this is because it is technically simple to obtain 

stomach contents—the founding basis for an understanding of predation. Additionally, diet observations 

can be complemented with stable isotope analyses that match predator diets to known carbon and nitrogen 

signatures in prey groups (Bosley et al. 2004). However, it is important to remember that diet composition 

alone is a poor indicator of the importance of predation on prey populations. That is, just because a 

predator’s diet contains a small amount of a particular prey species, this does not mean that mortality 

from that predator is not important for prey dynamics. For example, harbor seals prefer herring and 

salmonids as prey; however, 

they also consume small 

numbers of rockfish. In some 

circumstances, this small level 

of predation by seals on 

rockfish could have important 

implications for rockfish 

population dynamics 

(Ruckelshaus et al. 2010). 

In addition to understanding 

predation, diet information 

helps to inform analyses of 

potential competitive 

interactions. Interspecific 

competition may occur when 

individuals of two separate 

species share a limiting 

resource in the same area. If 

the resource cannot support 

both populations, then, by 

Public Review Draft FEP 27 February 2013
definition, both species will suffer fitness consequences in the form of reduced growth, survival or 

reproduction. A first step in understanding competitive interactions is to document overlapping resource 

use. In the case of competition for food, this means documenting the degree to which diets overlap. For 

example, Miller and Brodeur (2007) documented the diets of 20 nektonic species in the CCE and used 

cluster analysis to group species into trophic groups with similar prey. The strength of competition will 

be greater within trophic groups than among the groups, if food is a limiting resource. Dufault et al. 

(2009) similarly summarized diet overlap between both demersal and pelagic species, and other groups 

such as marine mammals and seabirds – see Figure 3.2.2. 

Diet analyses such as those of Miller and Brodeur (2007) and Dufault et al. (2009) can be used to better 

understand the links between managed species and their prey and predators. Figure 3.2.2, below, 

illustrates links between Pacific whiting, referred to in the figure as Pacific hake, and its predators and 

Public Review Draft FEP 28 February 2013
prey, both of which classes include other Council-managed species. Diet links between species also 

connect FMPs, and imply that fishery management policies do not affect species in isolation. For 

instance, modeling studies suggest that when these linkages are included, simultaneous harvest of all 

groups at rates estimated to be sustainable based on single species maximum sustainable yield may lead to 

an erosion of ecosystem structure and declines in top predator biomass and catch (Walters et al. 2005).

Competition for non-food resources may also occur. For instance, competition for space (e.g., refuges 

from predation) is common in a number of systems (Holbrook and Schmitt 2002, Hixon and Jones 2005). 

However, such competitive interactions are difficult to demonstrate, and ecologists often rely on 

manipulative experiments to demonstrate competition. Clearly, because their habitats make sustained 

observations difficult, such experiments or related observations are difficult for many if not most of the 

targeted fish species in the CCE. As a consequence, we know little about the role of competition for 

space or other non-food resources in offshore waters of the CCE. 

Parasitism is another type of species interaction that we know little about in the California Current, but 

that is likely to be important based on the broader ecological literature (Washburn et al. 1991). Parasitism 

is the most common consumer strategy in food webs (Lafferty et al. 2008); however, parasites may affect 

hosts differently than predators affect prey. While a predator kills multiple prey individuals during its life, 

a parasite obtains nourishment from a single host during a life stage. Parasitism is often density 

dependent, and thus fisheries can directly or indirectly influence the importance of parasites. For 

example, Lafferty (2004) showed that fisheries for spiny lobsters resulted in an increase in densities of 

Public Review Draft FEP 29 February 2013
their prey, especially sea urchins. The increase in sea urchin density, however, resulted in an increase in 

disease (aka micro-parasites), which ultimately resulted in a sea urchin population crash.

In the CCE, one common example of 

parasitism involves sanddabs 

(Citharichthys sordidus) that are 

parasitized by Phrixocephalus 

cincinnatus, a blood-feeding parasitic 

copepod that attaches to the eyes of 

flatfish hosts, generally blinding one 

eye but not causing immediate 

mortality. Prevalence in host 

populations varies by study year, 

ranging from 1-3% to 83% (Kabata 

1969, Perkins and Gartman 1997). 

The effects of this dramatic example 

of parasitism on sanddab growth, 

reproduction, and population 

dynamics are currently unknown, as 

are the factors that determine 

prevalence of the parasite in host 

populations.

In addition to the direct species 

interactions described above, there are a number of important indirect effects of species interactions 

(Table 3.2.2). In general, we know that these indirect effects are important in a number of systems, but as 

with parasitism and competition, evidence of their importance in the dynamics of target species is sparse, 

at best. Nonetheless, based on the evidence in other systems (including shallow waters of the CCE), we 

can surmise that these indirect interactions may play some role in the dynamics of the population 

dynamics of target species. 

Table 3.2.2: Indirect Species Interaction Types

Type of interaction Description

Keystone predation Predation that has a disproportionate effect on a marine community, 

relative to the abundance of the predator

Trophic cascades Changes in abundance at one trophic level (e.g. predator) result in a 

reciprocal change in abundance of prey, which then leads to 

reciprocal response in prey at a lower trophic level (e.g. increased 

predator abundance leads to decreased herbivore abundance and 

increased plant abundance.)

Apparent competition Reduction of species A that results from increases in species B, 

which shares prey or other resource with species A.

Habitat facilitation One species indirectly improves the habitat of a second by altering 

the abundance of a third interactor

Apparent predation An indirect decrease in a nonprey produced by a predator or 

herbivore, e.g. when urchins reduce kelp cover they eliminate shelter 

for some rockfish species.

Public Review Draft FEP 30 February 2013
3.3 CCE Abiotic Environment and Habitat

The CCE encompasses over 2 million square kilometers of ocean surface. This large area includes many 

diverse habitat types that can be described in a variety of ways and at a variety of scales—from individual 

features like kelp beds, submarine canyons, and seamounts, to broader scale regions, like the continental 

shelf break, that share certain features coastwide. The Council’s efforts with habitat to date have been 

largely shaped by the MSA’s EFH provisions. As discussed in section 3.3.4 below, the Council has 

described EFH in detail for the species managed in all four of the FMPs, and those details are not repeated 

here. 

In general, ocean habitat can be thought of as extending from the transition between land and sea to the 

abyssal plain 4,000 meters below the surface and deeper. Key habitat for harvested species exists 

throughout the bulk of this range. The Council’s EFH for groundfish, for example, includes all waters 

from the high tide line and parts of estuaries to 3,500 meters below the surface. When considering 

anadromous species like salmonids, the range of significant habitat then extends far into terrestrial 

watersheds. A wide range of marine and coastal habitat types can be found within relatively small areas of 

the coast (e.g. the Monterey Bay area) and within 100 or so nautical miles of shore in some places where 

the continental shelf is relatively narrow.

As described in this section 3.3, habitat can be defined by geologic sediments (e.g., rocky reefs, boulder 

fields, and sandy seafloors,) or by organisms, including microbes, algae, plants, and even fallen whales

(Lundsten et al. 2010) that form biogenic habitats by creating structure or providing resources for other 

organisms. Geochemical features—such as methane seeps —also create important habitat in deep sea 

environments, as can artificial structures like jetties, piers, and offshore oil platforms in more coastal 

waters. 

Another important characteristic of marine habitats is that they can vary as much by the motion and 

physical and chemical properties of seawater (e.g., temperature, salinity, nutrient content) as by particular 

locations and geologic and biogenic structures. They can also be highly dynamic. For example, EFH for 

coastal pelagic species is described by sea surface temperature and the thermocline/mixed layer. The 

location and extent of CPS EFH—in terms of both depth and latitude—will therefore differ between 

seasons and years. As described in section 3.3.2, features like oceanic fronts and eddies, upwelling zones 

and shadows, river plumes, and meandering jets all form key habitats throughout the CCE. These features 

may show regularity of pattern, yet are all marked by seasonal and annual variability in location and size, 

and in turn, in the type and quality of 

habitat that they provide. 

The CCE’s spatial environment can be 

divided along three main dimensions: 

from north to south (latitude, and 

generally in the alongshore dimension), 

from east to west (longitude, and 

generally in the onshore-offshore 

dimension), and from the sea surface to 

the ocean floor. One key division is 

between coastal waters and the open 

ocean (the oceanic area,) with the 

divide occurring roughly at the edge of 

the continental shelf break. Coastal 

waters can be further divided into the 

Public Review Draft FEP 31 February 2013
tidal or littoral zone—existing between the high and low tide marks—and the sublittoral, or neritic zone 

which includes the waters from the low tide mark to the continental shelf break. Benthic- or demersallyassociated species are often limited to one or more of these zones.

The third major division in the marine ecosystem is between the benthic habitats of the seafloor and the

pelagic habitats of the water column. Each of these can be further subdivided based on depth and other 

features. The epipelagic (photic, e.g. where light can reach) zone is the shallowest of the pelagic zones 

and covers those waters where sunlight is strong enough for photosynthesis to drive primary production. 

The depth of this zone will vary as a function of water column structure and water clarity, varying in 

depth from a few meters to tens of meters in the neritic zone, to 200 m in the far offshore oceanic zone. 

The mesopelagic zone is the next deeper layer and the start of the aphotic zone—sunlight penetrates into 

this layer yet not enough for photosynthesis to occur. The mesopelagic zone is also typically (but not 

always) the beginning of the main thermocline. Temperature changes drastically between the top and 

bottom of the layer. The 

bathypelagic zone begins 

at 1,000 m, and where the 

waters reach depths of 

4,000 m and deeper, the 

abyssalpelagic zones 

follows. The relative 

divisions between these 

depth zones within the 

CCE change slightly in 

both the onshore-offshore 

dimension, and as a 

function on water column 

mixing and the east-west 

location of the major 

north-south currents. 

Hence these zones are 

dynamic in space and 

time. Delineation of these 

zones is of importance in 

that certain species and

fisheries are limited at 

times to particular zones, 

due to temperature, 

feeding, or reproductive 

requirements. 

The benthic zone can be similarly divided (see Section 3.3.1). Discussions concerning the Council’s 

Groundfish FMP—the most benthically-oriented of the four FMPs—tend to describe benthic habitats in 

relation to the continental shelf and slope. Habitats can be referred to as being in the nearshore, on the 

shelf (sometimes divided between the shallow and deeper shelf), or the slope. The continental shelf break, 

which describes the transition between the shelf and slope, provides key habitat for several managed 

species and is the main area covered by the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). The habitat of some 

commercially important species extends down the slope into the bathypelagic zone below 1,000 meters, 

e.g. sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis). The Council has 

closed bottom trawling in waters deeper than 700 fathoms (~1,300 meters). Detailed information on 

benthic habitat types, bathymetry, and other benthic zone features may be found in the Council’s EFH 

Review Committee’s September 2012 report to the Council (EFHRC 2012).

Figure 3.3.1: Divisions of coastal and oceanic zones, Wikimedia Commons

Public Review Draft FEP 32 February 2013
3.3.1 Geological Environment

Geologic features greatly influence current and wave patterns and provide habitats that influence species 

distributions and productivity within the CCE. The geology of benthic habitats is one among a variety of 

important ecological characteristics for managed fish species. The physical substrate or physiography of 

benthic habitats of the CCE can be described using a classification scheme developed by Greene et al. 

(1999) for deep seafloor habitats, which the Council used for describing groundfish EFH. This 

classification system organizes benthic habitat according to physical features in a hierarchical system of 

levels: megahabitat, seafloor induration, meso/microhabitats, and modifiers. Specific types of habitats in 

each level are:

• Level 1 megahabitat 

includes:

continental 

rise/apron; basin 

floor; continental 

slope; ridge, bank or 

seamount; and 

continental shelf.

• Level 2 seafloor 

induration includes:

hard or soft 

substrate.

• Level 3 

meso/microhabitat 

includes: canyon 

wall; canyon floor; 

exposure and 

bedrock; gully; 

gully floor; iceformed feature; and 

landslide.

• Level 4 modifier 

includes: bimodal 

pavement; outwash; 

and unconsolidated 

sediment.

The West Coast EEZ is 

geologically diverse and 

active. It includes all three 

types of global tectonic 

plate boundaries: 1) 

transform or strike-slip, 2) 

convergence or subduction, 

and 3) divergence or 

spreading. The Mendocino 

Figure 3.3.2: Groundfish HAPCs and Major Geological Structures [Figure 7-2 

from Groundfish FMP]

Public Review Draft FEP 33 February 2013
Triple Junction, where three 

plates meet, lies just south of

the state boundary between 

California and Oregon, 

making the region 

geologically complex. Plate 

movements result in slipping, 

uplifting, landslides and 

other changes in the 

physiographic features off 

the West Coast. 

In general, the West Coast

EEZ has a relatively narrow 

shelf, steep slope and wide 

abyssal plain. Some 

important geologic features 

are shown in Figure 3.3.2. 

The shelf, ranging from 

shore to depths of about 

2000 m, is generally less 

than 50 nm wide along most 

of the West Coast, but 

widens to about 100 nm wide 

off northern Washington and 

in the southern California 

Bight. Most of the EEZ 

north of the California Bight 

also has a narrow slope with 

deep (abyssal depth) basins 

fringed on the west by 

volcanically active ridges. 

Cape Blanco, Cape 

Mendocino and Point 

Conception are prominent 

features of the coastline and 

significantly influence 

oceanographic conditions offshore. They are often identified as boundaries separating biogeographic 

regions of the coast. Smaller capes are also dotted along the coastline and have more localized influences. 

Major offshore physiographic features of Washington and Oregon include the continental shelf, slope and 

Cascadia Basin. Low benches and hills characterize the upper slope. The lower slope intersects the deep 

sea floor of the Cascadia Basin at 2200 m depth off the north coast, and at about 3,000 m off the central 

and southern Oregon coast. Off northern California, the Eel River Basin, located on the continental shelf 

and stretching from the waters offshore of Oregon, has a high sedimentation rate, fed by the Eel, Mad, 

and Klamath Rivers. The offshore region of the southern California Bight encompasses some of the most 

diverse topography along West Coast. It is unique in that a complex series of northwest-southeastoriented basins and ridges characterizes the continental border south of Point Conception with islands 

topping most of the ridges. Below, the FEP addresses major Level 1 megahabitat types off the U.S. West 

Coast.

Public Review Draft FEP 34 February 2013
3.3.1.1 Submarine Canyons

Submarine canyons are submerged steep-sided valleys that cut through the continental slope and 

occasionally extend close to shore. They have high bathymetric complexity, provide a variety of 

ecological functions, and affect local and regional circulation patterns. Submarine canyon habitats receive 

sediment and detritus from adjacent shallow areas and act as conduits of nutrients and sediment to deeper 

offshore habitats. Canyons are complex habitats that may provide a variety of ecological functions. 

Many submarine canyons cut through the continental shelf along the West Coast. The Rogue, Astoria, 

Quinault, Willapa, Guide, and Grays submarine canyons intersect the continental shelf of Oregon and 

Washington. Off northern California, five submarine canyons occur between Cape Mendocino and Point 

Delgada, including Mendocino Canyon, Mattole Canyon, Spanish Canyon, Delgada Canyon and Eel 

Canyon. Off central California, Monterey Canyon is designated as a groundfish Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern (HAPC). Arguello and Conception Canyons occur south of Point Conception. 

Submarine canyons in the Southern California Bight generally connect to river mouths on land and 

include the Hueneme-Magu Canyon system, Dume Canyon, Santa Monica Canyon, Redondo Canyon, 

San Pedro Sea Valley, San Gabriel Canyon, Newport Canyon system, Oceanside Canyon, Carlsbad 

Canyon, La Jolla Canyon, and Loma Sea Valley.

3.3.1.2 Submarine Fans

Submarine fans often occur in association with submarine canyons when sediment is fed to the canyon 

head by seasonal flowing currents. For example, the Astoria Fan lies at the base of Astoria Canyon and is 

fed by sediments carried to the canyon head by seasonal flowing currents. Along with a portion of the 

Astoria Fan, the Willapa Fan occurs off Washington. Although rivers such as the Klamath possess gently 

sloping deltas, most of the rivers in Oregon and Washington have drowned mouths and estuaries.

In California, the Delgado Canyon, near Point Delgado, is particularly important because it transports 

considerable sediment to the Delgado Deep Sea Fan. The large Tufts Submarine Fan occurs in the deep 

basin off northern California, west of the Gorda Ridge. The Monterey Submarine Fan receives sediment 

from the Ascension Canyon, Lucia-Partington-Sur Canyons, and the Monterey –Carmel Submarine 

Canyons (Hamlin 1974). South of Point Conception, submarine fans in the Santa Monica Basin include 

the large Hueneme Fan and the small Magu and Dume Fans. In Hueneme Canyon, the Santa Clara River 

has produced a substantial delta that feeds the canyons of the Hueneme-Magu Canyon system. Turbidity 

currents traveling down Redondo Canyon and the San Pedro SeaValley have created moderate-sized fans 

in the San Pedro Basin. Turbidity currents in San Gabriel Canyon have constructed a submarine fan in the 

Catalina Basin.

3.3.1.3 Seamounts and Pinnacles

Seamounts rise steeply to heights of over 1,000 m from their base and are typically formed of hard 

volcanic substrate. They are unique in that they tend to create complex current patterns. Several unnamed 

seamounts exist along the mid- to lower-slope and on the abyssal plain in the Cascadia Basin. Within and 

adjacent to the Cascadia Margin, several major seamounts exist, including (from south to north) President 

Jackson, Vance, Cobb, Eickelberg and Union seamounts. Off California, significant seamounts include 

Gumdrop, Pioneer, Guide, Taney and Davidson off the central coast and Rodriguez, San Juan and San 

Marcos in the southern California Bight. Several of these seamounts have been identified in the 

Groundfish FMP as HAPCs, including Thompson Seamount and President Jackson Seamount off Oregon 

and Gumdrop Seamount, Pioneer Seamount, Guide Seamount, Taney Seamount, Davidson Seamount, 

and San Juan Seamount off California.

Public Review Draft FEP 35 February 2013
3.3.1.4 Ridges, Banks and Islands

A series of large 

ridges occur at the 

base of the 

continental slope 

offshore of Oregon 

and Washington

with ridge crests 

elevated 400 m to 

1000 m above the 

abyssal plain of the 

Cascadia Basin. The 

Gorda and Juan de 

Fuca ridges are 

major tectonic 

features that are 

volcanically active. 

The Gorda Ridge is 

a narrow shelf in the 

deep water offshore 

of northern 

California and 

southern Oregon. 

Near the coastline of Cape Mendocino, three active tectonic plate boundaries meet. These tectonic 

boundaries are the Cascadia Subduction Zone, the Mendocino Fracture Zone and the San Andreas Fault. 

The Mendocino Ridge associated with this boundary zone is designated as a groundfish HAPC off 

California. In southern California, the Patton Ridge, which supports Sverdrup Bank, is a major 

bathymetric feature that separates the shelf from the abyssal plain.

The continental shelf offshore of Oregon has several rocky submarine banks, creating shallow-water 

habitats within the deeper shelf waters. Four major banks include Nehalem Bank, Stonewall Bank, Heceta 

Bank, and Coquille Bank. In addition, Daisy Bank off Oregon and Cordell Bank off California have been 

designated as HAPCs for groundfish.

Islands and banks are more numerous in the southern California Bight than other areas along the West 

Coast. The major islands and banks include Richardson Rock, Wilson Rock, and San Miguel, Santa 

Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa Islands on the Santa Cruz Ridge that separates the offshore continental 

slope from the Santa Barbara Basin. The Catalina Ridge supports the Pilgrim Banks and Catalina Island; 

the San Clemente Ridge supports Santa Barbara Island, Osborn Bank, and San Clemente Island; the Santa 

Rosa-Cortes Ridge supports Begg Rock, San Nicholas Island, Nidever Bank, Dall Bank, Tanner Bank, 

and Cortes Bank. 

3.3.1.5 Rocky Reefs and Pinnacles

Rocky habitat may be composed of bedrock, boulders, or smaller rocks, such as cobble and gravel. Hard 

substrates are one of the least abundant benthic habitats, yet they are among the most important habitats 

for groundfish. Pinnacles are vertical rocky features that are tens of meters in diameter and height, 

with a cone-shaped geometry. Pinnacles are generally a product of in-place erosional processes 

Public Review Draft FEP 36 February 2013
acting on rocky outcrops. Pinnacles can be important bathymetric features that attract fish and 

invertebrates.

3.3.1.6 Fjords (Washington’s Inland Waters)

Puget Sound is a fjord formed during the last ice age when the region was repeatedly covered by a 

continental ice sheet advancing from the north. The main basin of Puget Sound is a partially-mixed 

estuary connecting through Admiralty Inlet to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and extending southward 100 km 

to Commencement Bay. The seafloor of Puget Sound is relatively deep (about 200m) and flat. The 

Sound has estuarine sills at both its seaward (Admiralty Inlet, 65 m depth) and landward (Narrows, 45 m 

depth) edges (Matsura and Cannon 1997). Four major basins (Main Basin, Whidbey Basin, Southern 

Basin, and Hood Canal) occur within Puget Sound. The bottom sediments of Puget Sound are composed 

primarily of compact, glacially formed clay layers and glacial tills. Major sources for sediments to Puget 

Sound are derived from shoreline erosion and river discharge. Sand and mud prevails in the eastern 

regions while the shores of Vancouver Island and the complex formation of the Gulf Islands have 

prominent slopes composed of bedrock and boulders.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a 160 km long channel ranging from 22 to 60 km in width with an average

depth of less than 200 m. The mouth of the Straits extends to 250 m and except for a sill south of 

Victoria, British Columbia that extends across the majority of the Strait, there are no distinctive 

bathymetric features.

3.3.2 Water Column Temperature and Chemical Regimes

Within the CCE there are roughly four common modes of water column structure:

• Well mixed nearshore waters

• Surface stratified nearshore waters

• Transition zones and fronts

• Deeply stratified offshore waters

Well-mixed (meaning that the water has only a very small change in density over depth) nearshore waters 

are typically the result of 

wind-driven mixing of 

upwelled water (Hickey, 

1998). Such waters are often 

cold and nutrient rich, and are 

the basis for the high 

productivity of the coastal 

portions of the CCE, and 

making them one of the most 

critical environments within 

the CCE. Such waters are 

typically mixed to depths up 

to 50-75 m (or the bottom, 

whichever is shallower) 

depending on water column 

structure. Well-mixed waters 

may extend up to 10-20 km 

Public Review Draft FEP 37 February 2013
offshore in places, but are typically found within approximately 5 km of the coast. Seasonally, wellmixed waters tend to coincide with the spring-summer upwelling season, although wind-based mixing 

(and occasionally upwelling) can occur at any time of year (Hickey, 1998). Being well-mixed, and near 

the surface, these waters are typically well-saturated with oxygen.

When not well-mixed (e.g. when winds are low, or upwelling is not occurring), nearshore waters may 

often be strongly stratified (meaning there are large or abrupt changes of water density vs depth). In the 

nearshore region, e.g. east of the main core of the California current, such stratified waters are often 

characterized by a shallow weakly-stratified layer near the surface (often on the order of 10-20 m), with a 

stronger pycnocline below the weakly-stratified layer, below which lies waters that are also weakly-tomoderately stratified down to the bottom. Such stratified waters may also be an important habitat, since 

they often occur after upwelling has decreased; significant residual production may occur in these waters, 

often focused and intensified near the depth of the pycnocline. Where total water column productivity 

may be lower, it is often more concentrated within a particular depth stratum, forming a type of vertical 

“hot spot” for biological interactions. Weakly-stratified nearshore waters that form upon the cessation of 

upwelling are also typically the areas where HABs may form. Nitrate levels versus depth are usually the 

inverse of temperature, such that with increasing depth and decreasing temperature, nitrate levels 

increase. When strongly stratified, such waters may be lower in oxygen content, depending on the orginal 

source of the water, and the balance between oxygen production by plants, and oxygen use for organism 

respiration and bacterial decomposition. Oxygen levels typically decrease with depth, to the “oxygen 

minimum zone,” which is typically just below to several hundred meters below the beginning of the main 

thermocline.

Between the nearshore upwelling region and the far offshore region lies the transition zone of the main 

core of the California Current, typically defined by relatively strong horizontal fronts. The front itself is 

partly what leads to the strong southward flow of the core of the CCE (Hickey, 1998). Beyond the 

transition zone lies a region of fairly well stratified waters, 

with a deep pycnocline, often at a depth of 100-200 meters. 

Surface waters are warm, and this region is characterized 

by low, yet steady primary production. 

These four major vertical water column types form four 

distinct habitats, differentiated primarily in terms of their 

temperature and primary productivity within the surface

layers where fisheries occur. Complicating the geographic 

location of these different vertical water column structures 

is the dynamic nature of the California Current. Upwelling 

strength and location varies considerably due to multiple 

factors. Additionally, the location and strength of the core 

southward flow of the California is variable, both in 

strength and location, particularly through the formation of 

coastal “jets” and large “eddies” which may spin off from 

the main current.

3.3.3 CCE Vegetation and Structure-Forming 

Invertebrates

Vegetation forms two major classes of large-scale habitats: 

large macro-algal attached benthic beds, and microalgal 

blooms. Seagrass beds are also an important macro-algal 

Public Review Draft FEP 38 February 2013
habitat within the CCE, and are considered EFH for groundfish. Much of the scientific information on 

structure-forming invertebrates has been collected in recent years, both as a result of improvements in 

scientific observation technology and as a result of funding and direction expressly provided within the 

2007 MSA reauthorization (see §408.) 

3.3.3.1 Seagrasses

Seagrass species found on the West Coast of the U.S. include eelgrass species (Zostera spp.), 

widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), and surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.). These grasses are vascular plants, 

not seaweeds, forming dense beds of leafy shoots year-round in the lower intertidal and subtidal areas. 

Eelgrass is found on soft-bottom substrates in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of estuaries and 

occasionally in other nearshore areas, such as the Channel Islands and Santa Barbara littoral. Surfgrass is 

found on hard-bottom substrates along higher energy coasts. Studies have shown seagrass beds to be 

among the areas of highest primary productivity in the world (Herke and Rogers 1993; Hoss and Thayer 

1993). Despite their known ecological importance for many commercial species, seagrass beds have not 

been as comprehensively mapped as kelp beds. Wyllie-Echeverria and Ackerman (2003) published a 

coastwide assessment of seagrass that identifies sites known to support seagrass and estimates of seagrass 

bed areas; however, their report does not compile existing GIS data. GIS data for seagrass beds were 

located and compiled as part of the groundfish EFH assessment process.

Eelgrass mapping projects have been undertaken for many estuaries along the West Coast. These 

mapping projects are generally done for a particular estuary, and many different mapping methods and 

mapping scales have been used. Therefore, the data that have been compiled for eelgrass beds are an 

incomplete view of eelgrass distribution along the West Coast. Data depicting surfgrass distribution are 

very limited—the only GIS data showing surfgrass are for the San Diego area.

3.3.3.2 Macro-algal (kelp) beds

Along the Pacific coast, there are two major canopy-forming species of kelp, the giant kelp, Macrocystis 

pyrifera, and the bull kelp, Nereocystis leutkeana. These species can form kelp forests which provide 

habitat for a diverse mix of 

species including fishes, 

invertebrates, marine 

mammals and sea birds. 

Kelp forests provide cover 

or nursery grounds for 

many adult, young of the 

year, or juvenile nearshore 

and shelf rocky reef fishes, 

such as bocaccio, lingcod, 

flatfish, other groundfish, 

and state-managed species 

including kelp basses, white 

sea bass and Pacific bonito. 

Kelp is considered EFH for 

groundfish. Common 

invertebrates inhabiting 

kelp forests include 

abalone, sea urchins, spiny 

lobsters, and crabs. Sea 

otters are also found 

associated with kelp forests. 

Public Review Draft FEP 39 February 2013
Kelp plays an important role in the diet of some reef fishes and many invertebrates (e.g., urchins and 

abalone). In addition, when plants are ripped up after storms, the resulting kelp detritus functions as 

beach enrichment or contributes nutrients to the benthic environment when drifting plants sink. 

Kelp forests are comprised of three main components—the holdfast that anchors the kelp to substrate, the 

stipes that grow upward from the holdfast toward the surface, and the canopy comprised of stipes and 

fronds that lay on the water surface, buoyed up by floats. Giant kelp forests are generally more dense, 

and three dimensional, supporting more diverse communities than bull kelp forests. While the surface 

canopy of giant kelp is often removed in winter, it is considered a perennial because often the holdfasts 

remain over winter and new stipes and fronds grow up in the spring. Bull kelp is an annual and the 

tangling of long stipes in winter storms rips up holdfasts removing entire plants. 

Along the coasts of Washington and Oregon, and southward to northern California, kelp forests are 

predominantly comprised of bull kelp in nearshore rocky reef areas, although these occur as far south as 

Point Conception. Giant kelp is distributed from Sitka, Alaska to central Baja California, forming dense 

beds from central California southward through the Southern California Bight and off the Baja Peninsula. 

Kelp forests are normally found in association with nearshore, rocky substrate – bull kelp occurs in water 

as deep as 75 feet while giant kelp forests can occupy reefs at 120 feet in areas with excellent water 

clarity. In the Southern California Bight, kelp beds also occur on sandy surfaces, where they attach to 

worm tube reefs. Several other canopy-forming species are found in lesser abundance off southern 

California and the Channel Islands including Macrocystis integrefolia, the elk kelp—Pelagophycus, 

Cystoseira and Sargassum. 

Kelp distribution, productivity, growth and persistence is dependent on a variety of factors including 

nutrient availability, severity of wave action, exposure, water quality, turbidity, sedimentation, water 

temperature, geology, pollution, and grazer abundance (e.g. sea urchins). Nitrogen and light are two of 

the most important parameters affecting kelp productivity. Under ideal environmental conditions, giant 

kelp grows up to two feet a day. It prefers nutrient-rich, cool water (50° to 60° F); in wave-exposed 

areas, fronds may reach a length of 150 feet. Hence, warmer conditions, or conditions that decrease 

coastal upwelling, decrease kelp growth (Dayton et al., 1999). Warm water events such as El Niño, in 

combination with severe storms, can wreak havoc on kelp beds—ripping out plants, reducing growth, and 

leaving only a minimal or no canopy. Seasonal effects are often more localized, and more large-scale, 

low-frequency episodic changes in nutrient availability seem to result in the most significant changes due 

to cascading community effects. For example, the status and success of understory kelps such as 

Pterogophora, Eisenia and Laminaria can be affected through competition for light, affects on growth, 

reproduction, establishment, and survivorship.

Numerous studies explored the role of sea urchins in kelp forests and the dynamics of overgrazing by 

urchins on kelp resulting in loss of whole kelp forests or the creation of “urchin barrens” (North 1983, 

Tegner and Dayton 2000). Urchin grazing can destroy kelp forests at a rate of 30 feet per year. In 

California, there is an active commercial fishery for urchins. Kelp has been commercially harvested since 

the early 1900s in California, and there was sporadic commercial harvesting in Oregon although it is 

currently prohibited. Pharmaceutical, food, industrial and forage uses of kelp include—herring-roe-onkelp, algin, stabilizers, aquaculture food for abalone, and human food products (bull kelp pickles). 

Extensive studies since the 1960s addressed concerns regarding the impact of giant kelp harvesting on the 

nearshore ecosystem. Overall, there was no evidence of long term affects of harvesting (North and Hubbs 

1968, Dayton et al 1998). Potential impacts include temporary displacement of adult or young-of-the-year 

fishes to nearby unharvested reefs, predation on those young-of-the-year by larger displaced fishes (Houk 

and McCleneghan 1968), increased growth of sub-canopy species, increased harvesting of fishes and 

invertebrates by anglers or divers when harvesters create pathways through the beds, delayed regrowth of 

kelp.

Public Review Draft FEP 40 February 2013
3.3.3.3 Microalgal blooms

The major phytoplankton classes within the CCE include diatoms, dinoflagellates, small (often termed 

“pico”-) eukaryotes, and cyanobacteria. Diatoms are mainly responsible for large productive blooms in 

the nearshore upwelling regions. Thus they often form the basis of the productive food webs in those 

areas. Dinoflagellates also bloom in upwelling and other regions, and may provide an important food 

source for microzooplankton. Dinoflagellates have a dual role, since certain dinoflagellates may form 

HABs (although a few species of diatoms may also form HABs as well). Pico-eukaryotes and 

cyanobacteria are the smallest “phytoplankton” and form only a minor portion of phytoplankton biomass, 

although their productivity rates may be high in offshore regions. Thus, these pico-phytoplankton form 

an important link in offshore food webs, and may also fuel the growth of the smallest microzooplankton 

within nearshore regions as well (Sherr et al., 2005). 

Seasonally, diatoms tend to bloom nearshore in the later winter or early spring, in a progression 

from south to north. The timing of this bloom tends to follow a change in upwelling strength, from the 

predominant downwelling condition during the fall and spring, to a net cumulative upwelling in the late 

winter early spring (Lynn et al., 2003). This change from downwelling to upwelling and the resulting 

phytoplankton blooms are termed the spring transition (Holt and Mantua, 2009). Year to year variability 

may occur in this timing, due to large scale changes in wind patterns across the Pacific basin. 

Occasionally, there are brief periods of mixing or upwelling that occur prior to the main spring transition, 

which may also result in localized phytoplankton blooms of short duration, which may disappear before 

the main spring transition time. Blooms of dinoflagellates and other phytoplankton types tend to occur 

significantly after the main spring transition. In particular, dinoflagellates often bloom in the fall period, 

upon the cessation of upwelling, as the waters stratify. 

3.3.3.4 CCE Structure-Forming Invertebrates

A host of invertebrate species of varying sizes and trophic levels inhabit the CCE. The trophic roles of 

invertebrates and vertebrates are discussed in Section 3.2. In this section, the FEP considers the scientific 

literature on invertebrates 

that serve as habitat for 

other CCE species. The 

delineation of benthic 

structure forming 

invertebrates, in 

particular corals and 

sponges, is under more 

thorough discussion 

within the Groundfish 

EFH Review Committee

for updates to Groundfish 

EFH designation

(EFHRC 2012). The 

major challenge with 

observing bottomdwelling invertebrates to 

assess and analyze their 

population structure, 

qualities as habitat (or 

not), and roles within the 

marine ecosystem is that 

Public Review Draft FEP 41 February 2013
they can only be observed alive in the places where they occur, e.g. from a human-occupied submersible,

remotely operated vehicle, or autonomous underwater vehicle, or via shallow water diving operations, any 

of which require deploying equipment that is challenging to use even on small geographic scales (Krieger 

and Wing 2002, Etnoyer and Morgan 2005, Whitmire and Clarke 2007, Yoklavich and O’Connell 2008). 

However, laboratory studies can be also used to examine habitat preferences in fishes under controlled 

conditions and provide the opportunity to introduce predation as a factor influencing habitat preference

(e.g., Ryer et al. 2004). Most of NOAA’s scientific work on deep sea corals and other structure-forming 

invertebrates has been conducted in the last four years, coming out of a deep sea coral research program 

established in the 2007 reauthorization of the MSA [16 U.S.C. §1884.] 

Tissot and co-authors (2006) narrowed the question of which invertebrate taxa and associated 

morphologies should be viewed as having the potential to serve as habitat for other species by 

characterizing structure-forming invertebrates as those that, like some coral species, add functional 

structure to benthic habitats by nature of their large size (e.g. black corals, sponges, anenomes, and sea 

pens) and through having complex morphologies (e.g., black corals, sea pens, and basket stars). 

Megafaunal invertebrates that aggregate in high numbers, such as sea urchins and sea pens, could also be 

considered structure-forming in areas where the physical environment is otherwise low-relief (Tissot et al. 

2006).

Whitmire and Clarke (2007) listed 101 species of corals identified in the U.S. West Coast EEZ, within 

which four species were classified as having adequate individual or colony size and morphological 

complexity to be considered of high structural importance: Lophelia pertusa, Antipathes dedrochristos,

Paragorgia arborea, and Primnoa pacifica. Several additional classes and individual species of coral 

were identified as being of medium structural importance: Dendrophyllia oldroydae, Bathypathes sp., 

Isidella sp., Keratoisis sp. Corals of the West Coast EEZ are distributed over a variety of bottom habitats, 

with higher concentrations on hard-bottom (not sand) and medium-to-high relief rocky habitat. With their 

morphologically complex forms, corals can enhance the relief and complexity of physical habitat 

(Whitmire and Clarke 2007), although the literature remains divided on whether West Coast deep sea 

corals serve to aggregate fish (Etnoyer and Morgan 2005, Auster 2005, Tissot et al. 2006).

Marliave and co-authors (2009) 

found quillback rockfish 

(Sebastes maliger) using

colonies of cloud sponges 

(Aphrocallistes vastus) as 

nursery habitat in southern 

British Columbia’s coastal 

waters, which are within the 

northern extent of the CCE. 

Hixon and Tissot (2007) found 

variations between the fish and 

invertebrate species assemblages 

and associations in trawled and 

untrawled areas on Coquille 

Bank off central Oregon. Pirtle 

(2005) found fish co-occurring

with a range of structureforming invertebrate species on 

both the high-relief and mud 

habitats of Cordell Bank, off 

central California.

Public Review Draft FEP 42 February 2013
3.3.4 Human Effects on Council-Managed Species’ Habitat 

The MSA defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, 

or growth to maturity.” Each 

of the Council’s four FMPs has 

defined EFH for FMP species. 

Taken together, EFH of 

Council-managed species 

ranges from the salmon 

streams of Idaho to the outer 

boundary of the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 3.3.3 shows salmon and 

groundfish EFH, which 

together encompass a wide 

variety of terrestrial, coastal, 

and marine habitats. EFH for 

Council-managed species also 

ranges from the near-surface 

waters used by coastal pelagic 

and highly migratory species, 

through the mid-water domain 

of salmon and some groundfish 

species, down to the diverse 

bottom habitats used by many 

groundfish species. As 

discussed earlier, this FEP’s 

designated geographic range is 

the West Coast EEZ. 

Therefore, this section will 

address the effects of human 

activities on CCE habitat 

within the EEZ. Extensive 

discussions of the effects of 

human activities on the 

freshwater habitat of Pacific 

salmon may be found in the 

habitat conservation plans for 

threatened and endangered 

salmon and steelhead managed 

under the Endangered Species 

Act 

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Sal

mon-Habitat/HabitatConservation-Plans/Index.cfm).

Humans have a variety of uses for the marine waters and substrate of the CCE, from direct uses like 

fishing, shipping, submarine cables, mining, recreation, or military maneuvers, to indirect uses like 

pollution and waste assimilation, oxygen-production, or nutrient cycling. The Council has direct 

responsibility for the effects of Council-managed fisheries on the EFH of FMP species. The Council is

also required to comment upon and make recommendations on activities it views as likely to 

“substantially affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat” of anadromous species (salmon) under its 

Figure 3.3.6: Groundfish and Salmon EFH of the West Coast

Public Review Draft FEP 43 February 2013
authority. For all other 

species’ EFH, the 

Council may make 

comments and 

recommendations. [16 

U.S.C. §1855.] Federal 

regulations to 

implement the MSA’s 

requirements for EFH 

at 50 CFR 

600.815(a)(7) also 

regard human activities 

that may affect species 

that are the prey of 

FMP species as having 

potential effects on 

EFH fucntionality. 

While prey species are 

not considered habitat, 

the availability of prey 

species is considered a 

component of EFH, 

similar to temperature, 

water quality, or 

sediment type. The 

loss of prey species 

within EFH may affect the ability of a managed species to use that EFH as feeding habitat – just as, for 

example, significant shifts in water quality may affect the ability of a managed species to use an EFH area 

as feeding habitat.

3.3.4.1 Fishing Activities that May Affect Habitat

In addition to describing and identifying EFH, FMPs must “minimize to the extent practicable adverse 

effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage conservation and 

enhancement of such habitat” [16 U.S.C. §1853]. The review of fishing effects on bottom habitat 

generally focuses on occurrences of fishing gear coming into contact with the sea floor, or with rocks or 

living structures attached to the sea floor. The review of fishing effects on pelagic habitat generally 

focuses on occurrences when fishing gear is lost at sea, or when fishing activities, including the 

discarding of bycatch and offal at sea, affect where prey is available in the water column. For bottom 

habitat, the Groundfish FMP, which includes gear and fisheries that may come into contact with the sea 

bottom, has the most detailed and restrictive EFH protections of the Council’s four FMPs. In large 

portions of the EEZ, the use of bottom trawl gear or other bottom tending gear (for any species or fishery) 

is prohibited – see Figure 3.1.5.

3.3.4.2 Non-Fishing Activities that May Affect Habitat

The Council has reviewed the non-fishing activities that may affect the EFH of its FMP species under 

each of its FMPs. These reviews are not limited to ocean habitat and often consider effects of non-fishing 

activities within state and freshwater habitats, particularly for species in the salmon FMP. Using 

information from the four FMPs, Table 3.3.1 aggregates non-fishing activities that may negatively affect 

CCE species’ EFH.

Public Review Draft FEP 44 February 2013
Table 3.3.1 Non-Fishing Human Activities that May Negatively Affect EFH for One or More 

Council-Managed Species

Coastal or Marine Habitat Activities Freshwater or Land-Based Habitat Activities

Alternative Offshore Energy Development

Artificial Propagation of Fish and Shellfish

Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

Desalination

Dredging and Dredged Spoil Disposal

Estuarine Alteration

Habitat Restoration Projects

Introduction/Spread of Nonnative Species

Military Exercises

Offshore Mineral Mining

Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Liquefied 

Natural Gas Projects

Over-Water Structures

Pile Driving

Power Plant Intakes

Sand and Gravel Mining 

Shipping Traffic and Ocean-based Pollution

Vessel Operation

Wastewater/Pollutant Discharge

Agriculture

Artificial Propagation of Fish and Shellfish

Bank Stabilization

Beaver removal and Habitat Alteration

Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

Construction/Urbanization

Culvert Construction

Desalination

Dam Construction/Operation

Dredging and Dredged Spoil Disposal

Estuarine Alteration

Flood Control Maintenance

Forestry

Grazing

Habitat Restoration Projects

Irrigation/Water Management

Military Exercises

Mineral Mining

Introduction/Spread of Nonnative Species

Pesticide Use

Road Building and Maintenance

Sand and Gravel Mining

Vessel Operation

Wastewater/Pollutant Discharge

Wetland and Floodplain Alteration

Woody Debris/ Structure Removal

Federal agencies are required to consult with NOAA when undertaking or permitting activities that may 

have adverse effects on EFH. While the Council does not have the staff or committee capacity to 

comment on every action that may affect EFH, it often uses its Habitat Committee to provide initial 

reviews of large-scale non-fishing projects of particular interest or concern to the Council. Taken 

together, the projects that particularly attract the Council’s notice tend to be large-scale energy projects 

that have the potential to result in the installation of man-made structures within areas designated as EFH, 

or any other land-based activities or planning processes that the Council believes may result in a 

significant loss of freshwater habitat or of the flow of freshwater itself within West Coast salmon streams. 

Some recent examples of non-fishing projects that have sparked Council review and comment have been:

• An Army Corps of Engineers policy on removing vegetation adjacent to its levees (2012)

• The U.S. Department of the Interior’s management of water flow within the Klamath River and 

the adequacy of flow available for migrating Chinook salmon (2012)

• An Army Corps of Engineers policy on removing vegetation adjacent to its levees (2011)

• The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary’s management plan review process (2011)

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s draft Environmental Impact Statement on the potential 

removal of four dams on the Klamath River (2011)

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act and the effects of that project on water flow within affected streams (2010)

Public Review Draft FEP 45 February 2013
• NOAA’s engagement in Pacific salmon restoration within the Columba River Basin and the 

Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System (2010)

• The potential effects of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permitting process for the 

Reedsport Ocean Power Technologies Wave Park on Council-managed species (2010)

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act and the effects of that project on California’s Central Valley salmon stocks (2010) 

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s consideration of the Council’s EFH recommendations in its 

implementation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project and the effects of those

projects on Council-managed salmon stocks (2009) 

• A U.S. Minerals Management Service proposal to lease areas off the outer continental shelf for 

alternative energy testing sites and the effects of that proposal on Council-managed species, 

fisheries, and EFH (2008)

In addition to and as partial mitigation for the various human activities that have the potential to 

negatively affect habitat, government agencies from small municipalities to the federal 

government have implemented a 

variety of MPAs coastwide. 

NOAA and the Council’s largescale MPAs – the EFH 

conservation areas and the National 

Marine Sanctuaries – appeared

earlier in the FEP at Figure 3.1.5. 

Below, Figures 3.3.7 through 

3.3.11 illustrate some of the many 

nearshore West Coast MPAs under 

state, county, or local jurisdiction. 

More detailed maps and MPA 

information are available in the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year 

Review of Essential Fish Habitat 

Report to the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (EFHRC 

2012).

Washington State has a variety of 

MPAs managed under the 

authorities of its different natural 

resource agencies: Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Department of 

Natural Resources, and Department 

of Ecology. Counties in 

Washington have county-specific 

MPAs and the University of 

Washington works with the state 

and counties in several research 

reserves. Many of Washington’s 

MPAs are concentrated in Puget 

Sound and on the southern portion 

Figure 3.3.7: MPAs of Northern Puget Sound, WA

Public Review Draft FEP 46 February 2013
of the outer Washington Coast, 

near Willapa Bay. Figure 

3.3.7 shows some of 

Washington’s nearshore

MPAs, highlighting those in 

northern Puget Sound.

The largest MPAs in Oregon’s 

state waters are two adjacent 

sites south of Port Orford, 

known together as the Redfish 

Rocks Marine Reserve and 

MPA – see Figure 3.3.8. No 

extractive activities are 

permitted within the marine 

reserve; within the MPA, the 

only permitted extractive 

activities are troll salmon 

fishing and crab fishing. 

These sites were proposed by 

the Port Orford Ocean 

Resource Team, a non-profit 

organization directed by 

fishermen and with a mission 

to support long-term 

sustainable fisheries in the 

Port Orford area. Developed 

locally, the Redfish Rocks 

sites were implemented 

through state legislation, first 

effective in 2009. 

California has 124 MPAs 

along the entire length of the 

state’s coast, from the Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) at the state 

border with Oregon to the Tijuana River Mouth SMCA at the U.S. border with Mexico. MPA 

designations in California include State Marine Reserves, SMCAs and State Marine Parks; the 

level of protection from extractive use varies by designation from full protection to allowance of 

limited commercial and/or recreational use. California’s approach to fisheries management 

within state waters and integrated with its participation in the Council process is described, 

including the legislation behind its MPA designation process, in Section 3.5.2.5 of the FEP. As 

discussed in that section, 2013 marks the 15th anniversary of the state’s Marine Life Protection 

Act (MLPA), which, among other things, directed the state to develop a coherent system of 

MPAs. Figures 3.3.9 through 3.3.11 show California’s MPAs, from north to south. Figure 

3.3.11 focuses on the Channel Islands in the Southern California Bight area, illustrating a 

complex combination of state and federal MPAs designed to meet the federal mandates under the 

NMSA and MSA, and state mandates under the MLPA.

Figure 3.3.8: Redfish Rocks MPAs of southern Oregon

Public Review Draft FEP 47 February 2013
Figure 3.3.9: State MPAs of Northern California

Public Review Draft FEP 48 February 2013
Figure 3.3.10: State MPAs of Southern California

Public Review Draft FEP 49 February 2013
Figure 3.3.11: State and Federal marine management areas of the Southern California Bight

Public Review Draft FEP 50 February 2013
3.4 Fisheries of the CCE 

Fisheries for a broad range of species occur within the CCE, and have since humans first inhabited North 

America’s western coastal lands. The Council’s four FMPs and analysis document for actions taken 

under those FMPs provide details on the fisheries for managed stocks, including: gear used, landings 

locations, season timing and duration, prohibitions, technical challenges, and communities that dominate 

landings. This section of the FEP is intended to look at all of the FMP fisheries together, minimizing

duplication of descriptions in the Council’s FMPs. This section provides a background on historic fishing 

in the EEZ and discusses cumulative CCE fisheries harvest, West Coast fisheries capacity levels, and the 

cumulative socio-economic effects of Council-generated fishery management measures on fishing 

communities.

3.4.1 Historical CCE Fisheries

The perception of the effects of fisheries exploitation on the environment has varied over time. Freon et

al. (2005; see also MacCall et al. 2009) have defined a set of time periods that help frame the history of 

exploitation and the accompanying evolution of associated science. The period prior to the 20th century is 

best described as the “inexhaustible” period, when conventional wisdom held that fisheries could not have 

an appreciable impact on the resources that they exploited. Prior to the 1900s, global landings were 

minimal relative to contemporary catches. During the industrial exploitation period of 1900-1950, global 

landings for some species increased, and then often decreased dramatically. The rise and fall of the 

California sardine fishery is a classic example of such industrial fisheries, and the collapses that followed 

led to what might be considered the conventional management period of 1950-1975. That period saw the 

development of most of the basic foundations of contemporary fisheries science: fisheries oceanography, 

spawner/recruit 

relationships, surplus 

production models and 

virtual population 

analysis. The 

conventional 

management period 

also saw some of the 

greatest development of 

industrial fisheries, 

coupled with the 

application of the 

newly developed 

science of fisheries 

management. 

However, the 

conventional 

management period 

also saw the world’s 

largest fisheries failure, 

the crash of the 

Peruvian anchoveta 

fishery, which had been 

responsible for up to 

one quarter of global 

Public Review Draft FEP 51 February 2013
fisheries landings at the time. The anchoveta fishery collapse had tremendous ecosystem consequences 

(Jahncke et al. 1998) and led to what Freon described next as the “doubt” period from the mid-1970s 

through the mid-1990s. This period recognized the limitations and constraints of the sciences, and saw 

renewed emphasis on the role of climate as a driver of population and fishery dynamics. Based on the 

Freon et al. suggestion of major eras of fisheries management, the ecosystem-based management period 

has emerged from the mid-1990s to the present. This period is characterized by a gradual and wide 

recognition that ecosystem factors are important to marine resource science and management, but most 

management actions tend to be based in an assemblage-based context that integrates single-species 

assessment model results. The marine and nearshore ecosystems of the CCE have been exploited at 

industrial levels for well over two centuries, and supported some of the most populous and culturally 

sophisticated Native American communities for millennia (McEvoy 1986, Trosper 2003). Figure 3.4.1

(from Field and Francis 2006) presents an accounting of the history of the most substantial marine 

resource removals over the past two centuries, illustrating both the magnitude of removals as well as the 

sequential nature of the development of the major fisheries in the region. European-era exploitation in 

this ecosystem began with the rapid conversion of the energy at the top of the food chain into 

commodities. The great whales, fur seals, elephant seals, sea lions, otters and many seabird colonies were 

transformed into oil, pelts and food. Exploitation continued with the depletion of many salmon 

populations due to fishing, the massive alteration of their freshwater habitat, and hatchery production. 

Next arose the classic tale of the rise and fall of the California sardine fishery, and subsequent fisheries 

for anchovy, mackerel, herring and squid. Throughout the past two centuries, some fisheries grew 

unsustainably fast, rapidly depleting resources (typically low turnover resources) in short pulses, 

including fisheries for: abalone, black and white seabass, and various elasmobranchs such as basking, 

soupfin and dogfish sharks. Fisheries for many groundfish, including Pacific (and California) halibut, 

sablefish, lingcod, Pacific ocean perch and other rockfish seemed to be sustainable at low levels prior to 

the development of modern industrial fisheries during the 1950s, after which high fishing effort depleted 

many stocks below sustainable levels. 

The large scale removals of marine mammal populations began in the late 18th and early 19th century, at

the scale of the entire North Pacific (Scammon 1874, Ogden 1933). Although New England whalers had 

been operating in the North Pacific since the late 1700s, they initially avoided coastal waters of the CCE

due to the “savage disposition” of California gray whales (Gordon 1987). However, whalers had been 

targeting CCE whale populations, and by the 1850s as many as a dozen shore-based whaling stations 

were spread out between Crescent City and San Diego, targeting a mix of gray, humpback and other 

whales encountered in coastal waters. 

Gray whales were subsequently 

harvested to near extinction in the 

lagoons of Baja California by the 

1870s, and the first pulse of coastal 

whaling ended shortly thereafter. 

Similarly, exploitation of sea otters, 

fur seals and elephant seals began 

during the late 19th century, with all of 

these animals taken for a mix of pelts, 

food and oil. Many of these 

populations were commercially extinct 

by the late 1800s, during which time 

sea lions, harbor seals and seabirds 

were also exploited. For example, the 

harvest of seabird eggs on the Farallon 

Islands and elsewhere was as great as 

14 million eggs between the midPublic Review Draft FEP 52 February 2013
1800s and 1900, with the result that the common murre population on the Farallons may have declined 

from nearly half a million birds to less than 5000 by the 1920s (Ainley and Lewis 1974). 

Both shoreside and at-sea whaling operations were widespread throughout the North Pacific during the 

second wave of whaling in the 1910s and 1920s, with catches of all species diminishing rapidly in the 

early 1920s (Tonnessen and Johnsen 1982, Estes et al. 2006). It is interesting to consider that these 

removals occurred in concert with the major expansion of the California sardine fishery, since stomach 

contents data from whales caught off California show humpback, as well as fin and sei whales, fed 

primarily on sardines, as well as euphausiids, anchovies, herring and other prey (Clapham et al. 1997). If 

whales historically represented a substantial fraction of sardine (and other coastal pelagic) mortality, the 

decline of whale and other predator populations (e.g., fur seals, sea lions, tunas) might have led to a 

greater than average production or availability of sardines, contributing to that fishery’s expansion

throughout the early 1920s and the early 1930s. The observation that current abundance of sardines and 

other coastal pelagic species is far lower than the historical abundance could be, in part, a function of the 

differences in predation mortality between these periods. Populations of most marine mammals in the 

CCE have recovered to, with some perhaps even exceeding, historical levels of abundance in recent 

decades. Appreciation for the historical impacts of whaling and sealing, and the potential cascading 

impacts to marine ecosystems, has grown as marine mammal populations have recovered (NRC 1996, 

Springer et al. 2003, Estes et al. 2006), and a basic understanding of the relative significance of both 

contemporary and historical trends and abundance of predators should be an integral component of an 

ecosystem approach to managing CCE fisheries. 

Figure 3.4.1: Major fisheries removals and developments within the U.S. portion of the CCE over the past two centuries

Public Review Draft FEP 53 February 2013
Salmon fishing preceded sardine fishing as the first major finfish to be exploited throughout CCE (both 

inland and offshore) waters, and salmon represented the foundation of the livelihoods of native 

communities for thousands of years prior to settlement by Europeans (McEvoy 1986, Lyman 1988). 

Unsustainable salmon removals likely began with the rapid late 19th century development of the 

Sacramento river salmon fisheries, spreading rapidly northwards as Sacramento fisheries were 

overexploited (McEvoy 1986, 1996). Fishing and canning operations quickly developed on the Columbia 

River, where the salmon fishery grew from just tens of thousands of pounds in 1866 to over 20 million 

pounds by 1876 and over 40 million by 1885 (Cobb 1930). Salmon have continued to be among the most 

valued and vulnerable fisheries in the CCE with the associated fisheries management challenges and 

habitat issues remaining the subject of continual controversy. As the bridge between freshwater, estuarine 

and marine environments, salmon have evolved complex population structures and life histories to cope 

with the variability in each of these environments. Prior to western contact, Pacific salmon had evolved 

complex meta-population structures, and the physical template provided by high quality freshwater 

habitat is thought to have provided the insurance needed for such population structures to persist under 

highly variable ocean conditions (Nickelson and Lawson 1998). Ongoing degradation of freshwater and 

estuarine habitats and the current hatchery production have contributed to a decline in the diversity of 

populations and life history types, 

increasing the vulnerability of both 

the remaining populations and the

associated fisheries to climate 

variability (Lindley et al. 2009). 

Of the major historical fisheries in 

the CCE, probably the most 

noteworthy is the Pacific sardine 

fishery, immortalized by John 

Steinbeck in Cannery Row. 

Although sardines had been fished in 

California waters since the mid1800s, markets for canned sardines 

(and later highly lucrative markets 

for fishmeal and fertilizer) did not 

develop until World War I, largely in 

response to declining salmon canning 

opportunities in California. Sardine 

fishing rapidly expanded throughout 

the coast, from British Columbia to 

Southern California, and coastwide 

landings grew from roughly 70,000 

metric tons per year in 1920 to a peak 

of over 700,000 metric tons in 1936. 

Both the sardine population and the 

fishery began to decline sharply 

shortly after World War II, with the 

sardines disappearing sequentially 

from north to south, leading to 

debates that continue to this day 

regarding the relative contributions 

of fishing and environment with 

respect to the interactions between 

fisheries and climate more generally. 

Public Review Draft FEP 54 February 2013
By the time the fishery was closed in 1968, the sardine population had declined by several orders of 

magnitude, and fluctuations were noted in other CPS fisheries as well. For example, the Pacific mackerel 

fishery being closed in 1972 as a result in declines in that population (which reversed in the late 1970s,) 

while the anchovy fishery grew in the 1960s and 1970s, apparently in response to increases in abundance. 

Decades of studies devoted to understanding the proximate causes of the sardine decline, and comparable 

declines and dynamics in other ecosystems, have lead researchers to appreciate the role of climate in 

driving variability in the abundance and productivity of coastal pelagic species, and it is now generally 

accepted that the sardine fishery exacerbated what would have likely been a natural decline in the 

abundance of sardine in the 1950s and 1960s (Baumgartner 1992, MacCall 1996, Chavez et al. 2003, 

Checkley et al. 2009). The recovery of Pacific sardines in the 1980s and 1990s was generally associated 

with changes in environmental conditions, resulting in a resurgent fishery as well as a more conservative 

management regime. However, uncertainties remain with respect to understanding the principle drivers of 

sardine productivity and the optimal management measures for balancing conservation needs with 

fisheries. 

Pacific halibut and other groundfish were harvested by coastal native cultures throughout the CCE region, 

and soon became a staple of early explorers and traders throughout the Northeast Pacific. By 1892, 

coastwide catches of halibut and other flatfish, cod, rockfish and sablefish combined were over 10 million 

pounds per year, with the majority taken from coastal inland waters of San Francisco Bay, the Columbia 

River estuary, and Puget Sound. Through the early 20th century, longline fisheries for Pacific halibut and 

sablefish expanded, as did paranzella 

(two-boat trawl) fisheries that had begun 

as early as 1876 in San Francisco. The 

introduction of otter trawls to West Coast

fisheries following World War I was 

associated with a gradual expansion of the 

trawl fleet northwards, and by the late 

1930s the center of West Coast trawling 

had shifted from San Francisco to Eureka 

(Scofield 1948). A sharp increase in 

effort and landings occurred during World 

War II, spurred on by both a need for 

inexpensive protein from flatfish and 

rockfish (much of which was ordered by 

the U.S. Army), and engine lubricant from 

the livers of dogfish, soupfin and basking 

sharks. Demand for groundfish dipped 

slightly after the war, but trawlers kept 

busy as a market for mink food 

supplemented markets for fresh and frozen 

fish. The fishery grew steadily in the 

1950s and 1960s following the postwar 

dip, and diversified as fisheries for 

Dungeness crab, pink shrimp and albacore 

tuna developed and expanded alongside 

existing fisheries for salmon and 

groundfish. 

In the late 1960s through the 1980s 

massive fleets of Japanese, Russian and 

Polish trawlers, many of them recent 

Public Review Draft FEP 55 February 2013
expatriates of declining whale fisheries, began intensively fishing the CCE’s continental shelf and slope 

waters. The size and capacity of these trawlers stood in sharp contrast to the coastal fleets of trollers, 

draggers and crab boats, and helped fuel the desire to nationalize marine resources and develop greater 

domestic fishing capacity. Senator Warren Magnuson captured the mood of the day, when he advised 

fishermen and scientists that “You have no time to form study committees. You have no time for 

biologically researching the animal. Your time must be spent going out there and catching fish... Let us 

not study our resources to death, let’s harvest them” (Magnuson 1968). As the growing conservation 

movement of that era drove passage of a plethora of environmental legislation in the early 1970s, 

environmental concerns soon matched the desire to nationalize marine resources. The Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (later reauthorized as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, or MSA) ultimately included objectives that included both 

developing domestic fisheries as well as attaining sustainability as defined by the concept of MSY, 

although the latter was treated as a “target” in the 1976 Act, and has since evolved to represent a “limit” 

reference point. 

3.4.2 Current Fisheries 

3.4.2.1 Commercial Fisheries

West Coast commercial fisheries landings data is collected within the PSMFC’s Pacific Fisheries 

Information Network (PacFIN) database. Commercial data represent landings recorded on state fish 

tickets (landings receipts,) but does not include any fisheries’ biomass removals that may occur as 

bycatch to commercial fisheries, nor does it include recreational fisheries’ removals. Thus, while 

commercial landings data cannot tell us about the cumulative effects of West Coast fisheries on the CCE, 

they can tell us about how the fisheries function within the CCE: species groups targeted by fisheries, 

how the volume of landings compares with exvessel revenues from those landings, and levels of fishery 

participation by vessels operating off the U.S. West Coast. This section of the FEP considers recent, 

2000-2011 landings 

and ex-vessel revenues 

for U.S. West Coast 

commercial fisheries.

Commercial landings 

of all species for 2000-

2011 peaked at about 

400,000 mt in 2000, 

2006 and 2011, and 

reached lows near 

310,000 mt in 2003, 

2004 and 2008 (Fig. 

3.4.2). Real exvessel 

revenues were 

generally increasing 

throughout the period 

(Fig. 3.4.2). Annual 

landings were 

dominated by CPS, 

mainly squid and 

sardine; by volume, 

CPS averaged 48% of 

total landings for the 

Public Review Draft FEP 56 February 2013
period. Groundfish followed CPS as a share of total landings, averaging 29% by volume for the period 

(Fig. 3.4.3). Dungeness crab accounted for the greatest share of exvessel revenues, an average of 31% for 

the period; groundfish had the next highest share at 17% (Fig. 3.4.4). 

Public Review Draft FEP 57 February 2013
U.S. West Coast commercial landings for 2000-2011 cover a wide range of species’ trophic levels,

ranging from 2.0 to 4.5 with an arithmetic mean and median of 3.6. Ranking the PacFIN management 

groups by their mean trophic levels from lowest to highest, shellfish are at the bottom, moving upward to 

shrimp, crab, CPS, other, groundfish, salmon, with HMS at the top of the trophic scale. Based upon the 

species composition of the commercial landings, and trophic level measures for the individual species, the 

volume weighted mean trophic level (MTL) of the annual landings is shown in Figure 3.4.5. In both 2002 

and 2007, the MTL was at its lowest level for the period, 3.2, and in both 2003 and 2006 it was at its 

highest level. In the low MTL years, species from the lower half of the trophic scale, predominately CPS, 

are above average in quantities landed, while species in the upper half of the scale, mainly groundfish, 

salmon and HMS are below average. For the high MTL years, the converse holds. 

Ports in the Southern California port area, mainly San Pedro, Terminal Island, Port Hueneme and 

Ventura, accounted for the greatest share of landings volume by PacFIN port area over the 2000-2011 

period. Ports along the northern Oregon coast, mainly Newport and Astoria, had the next highest share,

followed by ports, primarily Chinook and Westport, in the Washington external marine port area (Fig. 

3.4.6). CPS made up the significant bulk of the landings in Southern California while landings in the 

northern Oregon coast ports and in Washington external marine area consisted mainly of CPS, groundfish 

Public Review Draft FEP 58 February 2013
and shrimp. Exvessel revenues were more evenly divided among port areas for the period, with Southern 

California (CPS and HMS), the northern Oregon coast (crab, groundfish and shrimp) and Washington 

internal and external marine areas (crab, groundfish, salmon and shellfish) being the major receivers of 

commercial fisheries revenue (Fig. 3.4.7). 

The greatest shares of landings volume by PacFIN gear category were in the seine and midwater trawl 

categories (Fig. 3.4.8). Purse seine is the primary gear used in the high volume CPS fisheries, while 

midwater trawl accounts for shoreside landings in the high volume Pacific whiting fishery. The pot and 

trap gear category accounted for the greatest share of exvessel revenues over the period (Fig 3.4.9). Pots 

and traps are used to harvest relatively high valued Dungeness crab, shrimp, prawns, lobster and 

sablefish. Seine gear, based on the volume of CPS landings, also consistently accounted for a relatively 

Public Review Draft FEP 59 February 2013
high revenue share. The relatively high revenue share for the other known gear category can be mainly 

attributed to landings of high valued geoduck clams harvested using dredge gear, which falls in the “other 

known gear” category.

Public Review Draft FEP 60 February 2013
During the 2000-2011 period, the number of vessels that made landings in U.S. West Coast commercial 

fisheries remained fairly constant at around 6,000 annually (Fig. 3.4.10). Many of these vessels are 

capable of harvesting species in more than one management category, either using a single gear type (e.g. 

trawlers landing groundfish and shrimp) or multipurpose vessels that use different gear types (e.g. vessels 

landing: crab [pots] and groundfish [trawl]; crab [pots] and salmon [troll]). This multiplicity of fishing 

operations by vessels is indicated by the vessel totals in each management category shown in Figure 

3.4.10. In all years, 

more vessels 

participated in 

salmon fisheries, 

which are 

comparatively 

unrestricted in terms 

of participation, than 

in any other 

management group. 

On the other hand, 

limited entry CPS 

fisheries with the 

highest annual 

landings over the 

period had relatively 

few participants.

In 2011, 6,523 

vessels made at least 

one West Coast 

shoreside commercial 

landing of one pound 

Public Review Draft FEP 61 February 2013
or more. It is questionable how many of these vessels would be considered to be engaged in a significant 

business enterprise in the conventional sense. Assigning a reasonable criterion for distinguishing a 

significant fishing business enterprise is not within the scope of this FEP. Using a gross revenue criterion 

for example, of the 6,523 vessels only 5,128 had exvessel revenues in excess of $1,000. Nonetheless, 

Figure 3.4.11 presents the distribution of the 6,523 vessels according to their share of the total shoreside 

landings in 2011 and shows that 1,064 vessels, 16% of the total number of vessels with landings, 

accounted for more than 95% of the total harvest. This example, using the $1,000 exvessel revenue 

threshold, suggests that in 2011 there may have been far more vessels than necessary to harvest the total 

landings. This finding for 2011 must be tempered by the spatial-temporal scale and scope of West Coast 

commercial fisheries, which are subject to the vagaries of ecosystems and economic systems alike. 

Public Review Draft FEP 62 February 2013
3.4.2.2 Fish Receivers and Processors

West Coast fish processors and receivers 

process fish and shellfish in a wide variety of 

forms for sale in domestic and international 

markets. Most Council-managed species are 

processed on shore, although some species, such 

as Pacific whiting, may be processed at sea. 

Depending on the species and market 

preferences, fish may be sold live or processed 

into fresh, frozen, blast-frozen forms, canned or 

smoked or converted to fish meal, oil, or surimi. 

Dungeness crab product, as an example, is sold 

live, or as fresh or frozen whole cooked crabs, 

as well as picked meat, legs and sections. Fish 

landed or otherwise caught in West Coast tribal 

fisheries for economic purposes are routed 

through similar processing chains to those used 

by the non-tribal fisheries. Tribal fisheries also 

land fish for personal and cultural uses, which 

are usually processed locally into fresh, frozen, 

smoked or canned products and are typically 

banned by tribal regulation from entering 

commercial markets.

Regulating the Buying, Processing, and 

Selling of Seafood

Delivery, purchase, and sale of fish are activities 

regulated primarily under state law, or when 

conducted on tribal lands, under tribal law. 

Federal rules can apply to certain activities as 

well. For example, those wishing to purchase fish harvested in the groundfish individual fishing quota 

program must be issued a first receiver site license from NMFS. 

The first landing of fish from a vessel into a port or other place of delivery is the core activity regulated 

and monitored by the states and tribes. Each state and tribal government requires deliveries to be recorded 

on a marine fish receiving ticket, or “fish ticket,” that records species landed, the amount landed in weight 

or numbers of fish, and the price paid for each species or market category. The fish tickets provide an 

official record of landings on the coast and can be used for other purposes such as the assessment of 

general and special taxes and fees on fish landings. Rules on the specific items needing to be reported and 

the timing of that reporting can differ by state and by fishery but also show similarities. Contrasting 

Oregon and California, Oregon requires fish tickets to be forwarded to ODFW in paper form within five 

days or submitted electronically through the PSMFC West Coast E-Ticket system. In California, fish 

tickets are due at the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) office on the 16th and last 

day of the month, whichever is earlier, and electronic submission is not currently allowed.

Oregon and Washington regulate this system by licensing wholesale fish dealers to businesses that 

purchase fish directly from a vessel. A separate permit or license may be issued to fish buyers that 

represent a wholesale dealer or that purchase fish in a different location than the dealer’s main operation. 

In Washington, buyers on tribal lands are licensed by the tribal governments and may be dually licensed 

Public Review Draft FEP 63 February 2013
by the state. California has a similar system where the main license is referred to as a fish receiver’s 

license. In all three states, it is possible for fishermen to be licensed as a wholesale dealer or fish receiver 

and, in essence, to deliver fish to themselves. Such deliveries must be recorded on a fish ticket in the 

same manner as if the transaction occurred between separate entities. 

Processing and sales activities can fall under a variety of categories, which the states may regulate with 

one or more permit or license requirements. These categories range from the import and export of fish to 

direct sale to the public off the docks. The transport of fish is another activity that is regulated as a means 

of enforcing fish landings and importing rules. Regulations on sales, processing, and transport of fish 

differ by state, but also show many similarities. For example, Oregon requires a special permit for 

wholesale bait dealers. California has six major classes of commercial fish business licenses in addition to 

the fish receiver license and then a special permit for those businesses wanting to reduce anchovy for fish 

meal or other reduction purposes. All three states require special permits or licenses for fishing 

operations that sell directly from their vessel to a consumer or restaurant. The states and tribes can also 

differ in rules specifying how fish may be landed. For example, Washington does not allow fish to be 

landed and sold live whereas California, Oregon, and certain tribes do.

Seafood safety regulation, marketing and sustainability certification

Processors of fish and fishery products are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to develop 

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plans to help identify potential hazards and develop control strategies 

and practices. Also for food safety purposes, state agencies like the Oregon Department of Agriculture 

require additional permits for shellfish distributors, shippers, and wholesalers; shuckers and packers; 

shellfish growers; and commercial harvesters from shellfish growing areas. 

Seafood products are marketed in many ways, ranging from traditional methods such as local fishermen 

selling off their boat directly to consumers, to web-based marketing and sophisticated product coding that 

links an individual fish product to its harvester. For example, Pacific Fish Trax is an online information 

sharing system focused on West Coast fisheries. Its website provides viewers with tools to track seafood 

products, link customers and fishermen, and improve 

science, marketing and management (Figure 3.4.12).

1

 

In Oregon, four seafood commodity commissions 

under the auspices of the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, allow the fishing industry members to tax 

themselves and use the pooled funds to increase their 

commodity’s recognition, value and use. The Oregon 

Albacore Commission, Oregon Dungeness Crab 

Commission, Oregon Salmon Commission and Oregon 

Trawl Commission cooperate under the Seafood 

OREGON banner in marketing, promotion and 

education. In 2009, California’s Legislature passed the 

Sustainable Seafood Act – to develop and implement a 

voluntary sustainable seafood program to promote 

California fisheries. Actions to date include 

developing voluntary certification protocols for 

sustainable fisheries and recommendations for a 

marketing assistance program, as well as appointing an 

advisory committee.

1 Pacific Fish Trax website: http://www.pacificfishtrax.org/.

Figure 3.4.12 Example of FishTrax bar code card

Public Review Draft FEP 64 February 2013

 
Ecolabeling and fishery sustainability 

certification by recognized 

organizations can improve 

marketability and profitability. For 

example, the Monterey Bay 

Aquarium Seafood Watch program 

makes recommendations to 

consumers and businesses on which 

seafood to buy or avoid. NOAA’s 

FishWatch program provides similar 

advice to consumers.2 Several West 

Coast fishery organizations and 

commodity commissions obtained 

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) 

certification for their fisheries, 

including North Pacific albacore, 

Oregon pink shrimp, Oregon 

Dungeness crab, and Pacific whiting. 

Coastwide and state level statistics

The National Marine Fisheries Service publishes descriptive statistics on the seafood processing industry 

in the Fisheries Economics of the U.S. series. This section describes statistics for the Pacific region and 

three West Coast states from the 2009 edition of that report (NMFS 2010) and an enhanced version of the 

economic model used to estimate the economic impact created by the seafood industry (NMFS 2012). 

The fisheries under Council management are an important source of economic activity in the West Coast 

seafood processing industry. However, the West Coast seafood industry as a whole also depends on

harvest from shellfish operations and other fisheries not managed by the Council. As discussed in Section 

3.4.2.1, coastwide shellfish operations accounted for 62 percent of total landings revenue during the 

period 2006-2009. In addition, Dungeness crab fisheries, which are managed by the three states and 

several tribes individually, provides the most valuable source of landings in most years. As Table 3.4.1

indicates, seafood dealers and processors purchase shellfish and crab at the highest per pound prices with 

sablefish being the only species under Council management of similar per pound value. Foreign imports 

are another major source of economic activity in the West Coast seafood industry, as shown below.

Table 3.4.1. Total coastwide landings revenue ($ thous.) for 

the years 2006-2009 showing the relative contributions of 

finfish and shellfish harvesting

2006 2007 2008 2009

Total revenue 471,788 459,772 500,447 488,155

 Finfish & other 176,425 176,104 215,784 168,213

 Shellfish 295,363 283,668 284,663 319,942

2 http://www.fishwatch.gov/

Public Review Draft FEP 65 February 2013

 
Table 3.4.2. Coastwide average annual price ($ per pound) of 

key species and species groups.

2006 2007 2008 2009

Albacore Tuna 0.85 0.85 1.18 1.02

Crab 1.69 2.33 2.38 2.09

Flatfish 0.47 0.43 0.42 0.35

Pacific whiting 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.06

Shellfish 3.79 4.08 4.55 4.56

Rockfish 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.86

Sablefish 1.68 1.80 2.10 2.18

Salmon 1.18 1.38 1.42 0.74

Shrimp 0.61 0.65 0.70 0.50

Squid 0.25 0.27 0.31 0.28

The Fisheries Economics of the U.S. series also reports the number of seafood businesses active in the 

seafood product preparation and packaging, seafood retail sales, and seafood wholesale sales sectors in 

each of the states. These statistics are also categorized by whether the businesses hire employees or not. 

Figure 3.4.12 provides a view of the number of processing business from the PacFIN database plotted 

against landings of the major species management groups. 

Figure 3.4.12 Coastwide processor count and major management species groups landings in mt. Unique 

primary processors only (secondary plants not counted), any processor that landed >100 lb in 2000-2011. Note: 

double-counting exists, since most processors land more than one type of species. Data source: PacFIN.

Public Review Draft FEP 66 February 2013
NMFS also estimates the seafood industry’s 

economic impact—nationally, regionally, 

and statewide for each of the 23 coastal 

states—using the National and Coastal State Input/Output Model (NMFS 2012). The estimates for the 

three West Coast states are reproduced in Tables 3.4.4 through 3.4.6. 

These tables show direct economic impacts only. Direct impacts are those that “express the economic 

effects (for sales, income or employment) in the sector directly affected by the activity under 

consideration.” (NMFS 2012). The National and Coastal State Input/Output Model also estimates indirect 

and induced impacts. Indirect impacts are those that describe the economic effects created by seafood 

businesses purchasing from other industries (e.g. sales generated by the business providing goods and 

services to seafood business); and, induced impacts are those arising from employees and owners 

spending the income they have earned from seafood businesses. These activities describe the bigger 

picture of how fish harvest can affect state, regional, and national economies. Indirect, induced, and total 

economic impacts can be queried with the NMFS Interactive Fisheries Economics Tool. 

The National and Coastal State Input/Output Model is based on the same methods as used in the Fisheries 

Economics of the U.S. series, but certain enhancements have been made to the model and the values 

reported may differ between the two. For both, the primary inputs to the model are the fish and shellfish 

harvested and landed into each state and the foreign imports of seafood into each state. Various studies 

Table 3.4.3. Number of seafood businesses by state 

for 2006-2008 (NMFS 2010).

Seafood product prep. & packaging

2006 2007 2008

Washington

Non-employer firms 53 63 44

Employer firms 96 98 96

Oregon

Non-employer firms 7 0 19

Employer firms 21 22 23

California

Non-employer firms 91 121 139

Employer firms 47 49 45

Seafood sales, retail

2006 2007 2008

Washington

Non-employer firms 29 32 33

Employer firms 49 50 44

Oregon

Non-employer firms 11 11 16

Employer firms 22 23 21

California

Non-employer firms 163 222 210

Employer firms 184 182 161

Seafood sales, wholesale

2006 2007 2008

Washington

Employer firms 115 127 108

Oregon

Employer firms 16 18 18

California

Employer firms 252 300 278

Public Review Draft FEP 67 February 2013
and surveys of the seafood industry are then used to translate those landings into the estimates of direct, 

indirect, and induced economic impacts. 

Of note, the model does not take into 

account interstate movements of fish 

products. NMFS identifies this as a 

shortcoming of the model, but one 

that washes out for the model’s main 

purpose of describing national 

economic activity. The likely result 

of not accounting for interstate 

transfers of fish products is an 

underestimate of regional and state 

economic impacts where interstate 

movements of fish occur. On the 

West Coast, fish landed in one state 

are often trucked and processed or 

sold in another. For example, landings 

into Washington might be processed 

and sold in Oregon. The model also 

misses fish products that originate as 

landings into Alaska. Washington in 

particular has been a traditional 

processing and business hub for fish 

caught in Alaska. Some of the economic activities attributed to Alaska may actually occur in the West 

Coast states. At the same time, some of the activities attributed to the West Coast states might occur 

elsewhere, including Alaska. 

The model outputs reported in Tables 3.4.4 through 3.4.6. include:

• The employment impacts estimate total full-time and part-time jobs produced in each sector. 

• The income impacts that consist of wages and salaries and includes self-employment income to 

business owners.

• The sales impacts that estimate the total sales revenues made by businesses within each sector 

category.

• The value added impact is an estimate of sales revenues minus the cost of the goods and 

services needed for production. It is the estimate of the industry or industry sector’s overall 

contribution to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

NMFS advises that it is incorrect to add impacts across the income, sales, and employment impact 

categories (NMFS 2012). Fish imports contribute a substantial portion of the direct economic impacts in 

the region, especially in California and Washington. The Fisheries Economics of the U.S. identifies 

California as first in terms of overall seafood sales and value added impact in the nation, and Washington 

third, based largely on the size of the foreign imports of fish products into those states (NMFS 2010). 

In Figure 3.4.13, regional landings are shown by weight and value, with 12 year trends and average 

proportions for major West Coast management species groups, 2000-2011. Differences between landings 

values and landings volumes are clearly visible for species that are either low-value/high-volume, or highvalue/low-volume.

Public Review Draft FEP 68 February 2013
Table 3.4.4. Direct Seafood Industry Impacts for Washington, 2007-2009 (source: NMFS 2012)

2007 2008 2009

Primary dealers/processors

Employment Impacts (#) 12,118 10,901 10,714

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 346,260 312,211 307,311

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 763,424 688,353 677,550

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 369,096 332,801 327,578

Secondary wholesalers/distributors

Employment Impacts (#) 1,557 1,412 1,373

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 63,979 59,281 58,342

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 178,434 165,330 162,713

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 68,199 63,190 62,190

Importers and brokers

Employment Impacts (#) 545 479 473

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 21,815 19,194 18,919

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 1,508,480 1,327,220 1,308,219

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 62,321 54,833 54,048

Restaurants

Employment Impacts (#) 15,016 14,433 13,941

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 196,398 192,817 188,453

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 382,814 375,835 367,328

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 209,350 205,533 200,882

Grocers

Employment Impacts (#) 2,000 1,930 1,886

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 47,910 46,719 45,938

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 81,883 79,848 78,511

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 51,070 49,800 48,967

Total

Employment impact (#) 31,236 29,155 28,387

Income impact ($ thous.) 654,547 611,028 600,044

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 1,406,555 1,309,366 1,286,102

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 697,715 651,324 639,617

Public Review Draft FEP 69 February 2013
Table 3.4.5. Direct Seafood Industry Impacts for Oregon, 2007-2009 (source: NMFS 2012)

2007 2008 2009

Primary dealers/processors

Employment Impacts (#) 827 854 805

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 21,257 22,355 21,283

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 46,866 49,289 46,924

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 22,659 23,830 22,686

Secondary wholesalers/distributors

Employment Impacts (#) 366 342 332

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 14,825 14,136 13,909

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 41,896 39,949 39,306

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 15,803 15,068 14,826

Importers and brokers

Employment Impacts (#) 65 58 55

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 2,620 2,314 2,191

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 181,198 160,010 151,475

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 7,486 6,611 6,258

Restaurants

Employment Impacts (#) 5,258 5,336 5,002

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 63,371 65,688 62,299

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 123,521 128,038 121,433

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 67,550 70,020 66,408

Grocers

Employment Impacts (#) 746 742 719

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 14,817 14,943 14,612

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 25,324 25,540 24,973

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 15,794 15,929 15,576

Total

Employment impact (#) 7,262 7,332 6,913

Income impact ($ thous.) 114,270 117,122 112,103

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 237,607 242,816 232,636

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 121,806 124,847 119,496

Public Review Draft FEP 70 February 2013
Table 3.4.6. Direct Seafood Industry Impacts for California, 2007-2009 (source: NMFS 2012)

2007 2008 2009

Primary dealers/processors

Employment Impacts (#) 2,908 2,987 2,773

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 87,438 90,330 84,156

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 192,781 199,156 185,546

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 93,205 96,287 89,707

Secondary wholesalers/distributors

Employment Impacts (#) 6,410 6,624 5,565

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 267,534 282,381 240,038

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 789,282 833,084 708,165

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 285,178 301,004 255,869

Importers and brokers

Employment Impacts (#) 1,953 2,069 1,735

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 78,189 82,821 69,444

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 5,406,612 5,726,911 4,801,942

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 223,368 236,601 198,387

Restaurants

Employment Impacts (#) 35,766 36,515 31,646

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 515,559 537,638 471,468

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 1,004,879 1,047,914 918,942

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 549,560 573,095 502,562

Grocers

Employment Impacts (#) 7,534 7,929 6,854

Income Impacts ($ thous.) 193,435 203,858 176,421

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 330,599 348,413 301,519

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 206,192 217,303 188,056

Total

Employment impact (#) 54,571 56,124 48,573

Income impact ($ thous.) 1,063,966 1,114,207 972,083

Sales Impacts ($ thous.) 2,317,541 2,428,567 2,114,172

Total value added impacts ($ thous.) 1,134,135 1,187,689 1,036,194

Public Review Draft FEP 71 February 2013
Figure 3.4.13. Regional landings by weight and value, with 12-year trends and average proportions 

for each major West Coast management group, 2000-2011. (Maps courtesy of Murdock 

Environmental, data source: PacFIN.

Public Review Draft FEP 72 February 2013
3.4.2.3 Recreational Fisheries

West Coast recreational marine fisheries catch data are compiled within the PSMFC’s Recreational 

Fisheries Information Network 

(RecFIN) database. Each of the three 

states manages separate but compatible 

recreational fisheries data gathering 

programs. For marine waters, each 

state conducts a combined survey and 

sampling program to provide a 

statewide, comprehensive approach to 

recreational fishery data collection

intended to estimate total marine 

recreational catch and effort. The 

RecFIN network coordinates state 

sampling programs to provide a 

regional survey designed to gather 

information for all finfish species, from 

anglers in all modes of recreational 

fishing (i.e., shore, party/charter and 

private/rental, or skiff). Given the high 

cost of sampling, the states focus 

resources on the highest conservation 

needs and some modes and times of 

year are not sampled. Oregon has 

annually conducted the Ocean 

Recreational Boat Survey since 1979, 

with some modifications as fishing 

patterns changed (Schindler, 2012). 

California conducts the California 

Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS). 

Washington conducts two survey 

programs, one to sample recreational 

catch from boats leaving coastal ports 

and the other for Puget Sound.

Components common to the three state data collection programs include: number, length and weight (if 

possible) of fish observed in the catch, fishing effort, along with the angler’s demographic and fishing 

activity information. Most of this information is collected by dockside samplers. Onboard observers are 

used in some cases to collect information on fish that are released. Phone surveys and catch record cards 

are used as well. Other information on anglers is collected through the sale of fishing licenses, which are 

required by the states with limited exemptions (e.g. juvenile anglers). The Council relies on both state 

data gathering programs and on RecFIN to evaluate the effects of recreational fisheries on Councilmanaged species. All three states were granted a regional survey exemption from the Federal saltwater 

angler registry based on their coordination and participation in RecFIN.

Recreational catch estimates are incorporated into stock assessments, particularly for salmon, Pacific 

halibut, and some groundfish and HMS species. In addition, some estimates are used as the season 

progresses, to track groundfish catches against low bycatch allowances for some rebuilding species or to 

track healthy species of interest, or to closely monitor daily or weekly catches of Pacific halibut and 

salmon. Inseason management is necessary because of variation in the number of participating anglers 

Public Review Draft FEP 73 February 2013
and the rate at which they 

encounter fish. Managers 

use catch and effort estimates 

to forecast and structure 

seasons that provide a target 

level of fishing opportunity. 

Yet the variation in catch and 

effort can result in actual 

opportunities varying from 

those forecasted.

 

Recreational and commercial 

fisheries data are not strictly 

comparable, since the 

sampling programs for the 

different types of fisheries 

vary according to the 

operational practices of the 

various fisheries, the 

importance of the fishery, 

and the ability of the states to 

monitor them. For this FEP, 

however, recreational fisheries data offers a broad-scale perspective on fluctuations in catch volume from 

year to year and in different sections of the coast. This section of the FEP considers recent, 2004-2011, 

fisheries catches for U.S. West Coast recreational fisheries. Figures 3.4.14 and 3.4.15 show catch trends 

from 2004 through 2011, separated by RecFIN sampling area, and illustrates the often wide fluctuations

in recreational catch totals. On average, about half of the catch comes from California. 

The fluctuations seen 

each year can arise from 

variability in angler 

participation, differences 

in catch rates, or changes 

in the quotas made 

available to the 

recreational sectors. 

Cumulative recreational 

fisheries landings during 

the 2004-2011 period hit 

a low of about 3,800 mt 

in 2008, with a recent 

high in 2010 of about 

5,500 mt. The ocean 

salmon fisheries in 2006 

and 2008 were declared 

fishery disasters by the 

U.S. Department of 

Commerce. The absence 

of a salmon fishery in 

California and salmon fisheries at their lowest level in a decade in Oregon during 2008 contributed to the 

lower catch that year. Variations in catch can also result from how the catch is counted. Recreational 

Public Review Draft FEP 74 February 2013
catch numbers come from statistical estimates that will vary in precision and accuracy based on factors 

like the sampling design and the number of anglers that the state sampling program encounters. The 

states and PSMFC significantly revised West Coast recreational fisheries sampling and estimation 

methodologies after 2003, making comparisons between the periods before and after 2003 difficult.

Recreational fisheries catches are strongly focused on a few particularly popular species. Table 3.4.7

shows the top twenty species taken in the marine recreational fisheries, by weight, for each year from 

2004 through 2011. Of the Council-managed species, Chinook and coho salmon are consistently popular 

recreational targets, although recreational fishing for coho is prohibited in California. Other popular 

recreational targets 

are albacore tuna, 

several of the 

nearshore rockfish 

species, Pacific 

halibut, and Pacific 

mackerel. Many of 

the more popular 

recreational targets 

are state-managed 

species, particularly 

those taken in 

Southern California 

fisheries. All finfish 

species are 

overwhelmingly 

taken using hook and 

line gear, although 

some fish are caught 

by spear divers, and 

other gears

Public Review Draft FEP 75 February 2013
Off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and 

northern California the primary targets include 

salmon, lingcod, albacore, Pacific halibut and 

nearshore rockfishes (primarily black or blue). 

Chinook salmon can be taken in all three states 

and coho salmon can be taken in Oregon and 

Washington. The portion of the Northern Biogeographic Sub-Region [see 3.1.2] from 

Washington to north of Cape Mendocino is fairly 

similar from a recreational fisheries perspective, 

and the species diversity for rockfishes is much 

lower than areas further south. Primary targets 

along the central California coast include 

Chinook salmon, lingcod, albacore, nearshore 

and shelf rockfishes, Pacific sanddabs, and 

California halibut. The diversity of rockfishes in 

catches of the Central Sub-Region includes 25 to 

30 species, although, historically, it approached 

40 species when anglers had more access to shelf 

waters. South of Point Conception, the diversity 

of primary recreational targets significantly 

increases for southern California anglers due to 

the added influence of warmer waters and year-

round opportunities. Targets include albacore, 

yellowfin tuna, California scorpionfish, 

rockfishes (primarily vermilion, bocaccio, and 

gopher), chub mackerel, Pacific bonito, 

California halibut, the basses, yellowtail, and 

barracuda. Albacore are an ephemeral target 

north of Point Conception due to their strong 

association with warmer waters and their 

tendency to school on the seaward side of 

upwelling fronts; they are encountered closer to 

shore during years when the warmer water 

moves shoreward—such as El Niño years.

In Washington, recreational fishing for Council 

managed species is primarily boat-based, 

occurring aboard private and charter vessels that 

operate in ocean waters. Salmon angling is the 

main exception with fishing also occurring in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and in the 

state’s rivers and estuaries. Although the 

discussion here is focused on Council-managed 

finfish, shellfish populations like Dungeness crab 

and razor clams also provide popular and 

valuable recreational harvest opportunities in the 

state.

Access to ocean waters is limited by the state’s 

geography. Neah Bay, La Push, Westport, and 

Public Review Draft FEP 76 February 2013
Chinook/Ilwaco on the Columbia River are the state’s 

major access points for recreational anglers. Access is 

also limited by weather and ocean conditions, with

fishing occurring mostly during spring, summer, and 

early fall. May through September are the peak fishing 

months. 

Of marine finfish, Pacific salmon are the most popular 

target for anglers in Washington. In the years 2008 to 

2010, salmon trips accounted for 50 to 74 percent of all 

angler trips in the ocean with variations in that range 

attributable mainly to changes in salmon fishing 

opportunity. As discussed above, fishing opportunity 

for salmon can vary substantially from year to year 

based on fish abundance and quotas set by the Council, 

the state, or other management bodies. In 2008, there 

were fewer than 47,336 angler trips taken for salmon. 

In 2009, that number jumped to more than 120,409 

because of the increased quota. That jump in salmon 

activity raised the total angler trips in the ocean by 

nearly 70,000, while activity targeting other species 

remained stable or slightly decreased, demonstrating 

the popularity of salmon angling within the state. 

Bottomfish typically provided the most consistent 

recreational fishing opportunity off Washington’s coast 

and fishing seasons have been typically open all year 

round, although tight quotas for some species have the 

potential to limit the length of the season. In 2012,

WDFW had to close bottomfish opportunities off the 

state’s north coast after Labor Day weekend off 

because of higher than expected catch of the rebuilding 

yelloweye rockfish stock. The state saw an average of 

19,160 angler trips targeting bottomfish during 2008-

2010. 

Recreational fishing’s contribution to Washington’s economy was evaluated in a 2008 report 

commissioned by WDFW (TCW Economics 2008). That report estimated recreational angling to have 

contributed $393 million in total income and nearly 13,000 jobs to the state’s economy in 2006. These 

figures included all recreational fishing activities, of which freshwater fishing typically makes up around 

90 percent. Figures were also based on a USFWS (2008) survey that found anglers spent $900 million on 

fishing related activities during in 2006. This USFWS survey was conducted again for 2011 and found

recreational fishing expenditures rose to above $1 billion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2012 ). The 2008 study 

of Washington’s fishing economy also estimated that fishing for salmon and other marine finfish created 

$58 million in net economic value to anglers. Net economic value is intended as a measure of the value 

that people place on fishing opportunity and as a metric of the overall benefit that fishing provides 

anglers. The metric does not capture the economic value of or economic activity from fishing-related 

business like charter fishing operations. 

To provide a sense of who participates in the boat-based ocean fisheries off Washington, Figure 3.4.16

displays a county level look at anglers who caught Pacific halibut or salmon off the Washington coast in 

Public Review Draft FEP 77 February 2013
2011. Over 90 percent of that catch was taken by state residents and residents of the most highly 

populated counties accounted for more than half of the catch. As shown in the bottom panel of Figure 

3.4.16, counties near coastal ports contributed to the catch in much higher proportions than would be 

suggested by their share of the state’s population.

Public Review Draft FEP 78 February 2013
In Oregon, recreational 

effort for marine fish and 

salmon species in the 

ocean, coastal estuaries and 

lower Columbia River 

totaled 802,000 angler trips 

during 2007 and 738,000 

trips in 2008. Although the 

recreational salmon fishery 

was at a ten-year low, trips 

targeting salmon accounted 

for slightly more than half 

the total (55%) in 2008. 

The statewide estimated 

economic contribution (in 

personal income) from 

these trips totaled $33.5 

million in 2007 and $29.8 

million in 2008 (The 

Research Group, 2009). 

Recreational fishing is 

important to coastal 

residents, but also draws 

anglers from around the 

state and from other states. For example, many 

anglers tow boats long distances, generally from 

more populated towns and cities in central Oregon, to 

fish for marine species. Figure 3.4.16 shows the 

hometowns of boat owners who participated in the 

central Oregon coast halibut fishery and where they 

launched in 2011.

In addition, significant recreational fisheries for 

shellfish occur along the Oregon coast, contributing 

an estimated $36 million in travel expenditures alone 

during 2008 (Runyon, 2009). Fisheries for razor 

clams on the north coast and for Dungeness crab are 

especially popular. Recreational catch and effort in 

the razor clam fishery on the Clatsop beaches is 

monitored annually. Clam diggers made an estimated 

128,000 trips for razor clams, harvesting 1.8 million

clams on the Clatsop beaches in 2006. Both catch and 

effort were higher than the previous 10-year average 

of 65,000 trips and 840,000 clams (Hunter, 2008). In 

2011, recreational crabbers targeted Dungeness crab 

during an estimated 120,000 trips, including aboard 

private and charter boats, and from shore and piers 

along the Oregon coast. In total, they harvested 

1,066,000 pounds of Dungeness crab in 2011 

(Ainsworth et al. 2012). 

Public Review Draft FEP 79 February 2013
Recreational fishing in ocean waters off the state of California includes boat-based modes (occurring 

aboard private and charter vessels) in addition to a significant shore-based component. Although the 

discussion here is focused on Council-managed finfish, Californians also participate in valuable 

recreational fisheries of state managed species, such as California halibut and several basses, surfperches, 

Dungeness crab, California spiny lobster, and abalone. However, information on catch and effort of 

many state-managed species is limited due to the emphasis on collecting information on the FMP 

species—this is particularly the case for invertebrates and species that are harvested from shore. 

Recreational ocean fishing occurs year-round in California, especially in southern California where ocean 

and weather conditions are less extreme than in the northern portions of the state, permitting anglers 

greater access to the resource in winter months. Fishery regulations are often the constraining factor that 

determines when most recreational fishing occurs and regulations have become increasingly restrictive 

over the last ten years. As in other West Coast states, peak fishing months are May through September.

NMFS estimated in its Fisheries Economics of the U.S. (FEUS 2011) report that recreational ocean 

fishing contributed $710 million and more than 13,000 jobs to California’s economy in 2009. The NMFS 

report also estimated more than 1.4 million anglers made 4.6 million fishing trips for all modes of ocean 

fishing in 2009, which represents an 11 percent 

increase in number of fishing trips compared to 

2008. The increase in number of fishing trips 

seen in 2009 is likely due to the low number of 

trips that occurred in 2008, a year when no 

salmon fishing was allowed in California’s 

ocean waters. Under an average season, ocean 

salmon anglers contribute an estimated $121 

million in direct revenues to the State’s business 

sector, based on a USFWS national survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated 

recreation in 2006 and adjusted for inflation. 

Adding the indirect and induced effects of this 

initial revenue contribution, the total benefit of 

the recreational salmon fishery to California’s 

economy is normally almost $184 million. The 

USFWS 2008 survey estimated $2.4 billion was 

spent in the state of California on all recreational 

fishing (ocean and freshwater fishing combined) 

in 2006. The USFWS survey was conducted 

again in 2011, and recreational fishing 

expenditures were estimated to have decreased 

to $2.3 billion in 2009 (USFWS 2012). In the 

most recent FEUS report (2012), added-value 

angler expenditures for ocean related fishing 

activities were $1.4 billion in 2010. 

Information is limited for the state’s recreational 

invertebrate fisheries, although angler report 

cards provide some information on abalone and 

spiny lobster. An estimated 216,000 abalone 

were harvested by recreational divers in 2011, 

lower than the 2002-2011 annual average of 

Public Review Draft FEP 80 February 2013
259,000. A study completed in 2010 indicated that the contribution of the abalone fishery to the North 

Coast’s (Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties) total economic output, wages, 

employment, and to local sales taxes as: $22 million (2009$), $9 million (2009$), 211 jobs, and 

$720,000, respectively, based on direct expenditures for abalone trips. Spiny lobster are the focus of a 

popular southern California recreational fishery. Based on available information, in 2010 an estimated 

347,000 pounds of lobster were taken on 127,183 angler trips by divers or recreational anglers using hoop 

nets (D. Neilson pers. com.) 

To provide a sense of 

who participates in the 

state’s boat-based ocean 

fisheries, Figure 3.4.18

displays the county of 

residence of anglers 

who caught salmon off 

the California coast in 

2012 and their major 

port of fishing activity. 

Data are from CRFS 

interviews. At least 

eighty one percent of 

California anglers 

participating in the 

recreational salmon 

fishery resided in 

coastal counties – 2.5% 

declined to respond or 

were from out-of-state. 

Anglers from coastal 

counties in the central 

and northern portions of 

the state participated in 

the fishery at higher 

levels than anglers 

further south because 

the salmon resource is 

primarily located north 

of Point Conception 

(34°27’ N. lat). Overall 

in 2010, the most recent 

year available, 77% of 

angler trips in 

California were made 

by anglers living in 

coastal counties (NMFS 

2011).

Public Review Draft FEP 81 February 2013
3.4.3 Fishing Communities

The MSA places highest priority on 

conservation of fish stocks for the 

achievement of optimum yield. 

However, the MSA’s National 

Standard 8 requires conservation 

objectives to be achieved in a manner 

that provides for the sustained 

participation of fishing communities 

in fisheries and minimizes adverse 

impacts on fishing communities to the 

extent practicable (16 U.S.C. 1851). 

National Standard 8 also requires the 

Council to use the best available 

scientific information when weighing 

impacts to fishing communities and 

fishing participation. 

Under its Groundfish FMP, the 

Council has particularly addressed the 

Act’s direction to place highest 

emphasis on rebuilding overfished stocks, while still taking into account the needs of fishing 

communities, by also looking at the vulnerabilities of fishing communities to changes in availability of 

groundfish harvest (PFMC 2010). The Groundfish FMP at 4.6.3.2 characterizes fishing communities as 

needing “a sustainable fishery that: is safe, well-managed, and profitable; provides jobs and incomes; 

contributes to the local social fabric, culture, and image of the community; and helps market the 

community and its services and products.” Although that language is found within the Groundfish FMP, 

it reflects priorities expressed in other FMPs to manage fisheries so that both harvest and community 

participation in fisheries is sustainable over the long-term.

Under the MSA, a “fishing community” is a community that is “substantially dependent on or 

substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, 

and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in 

such community” (16 U.S.C. §1802). Social scientists have used that definition to develop profiles of 

West Coast fishing communities (Norman et al. 

2007), and to define and quantify community 

involvement in commercial fisheries and their 

vulnerability to changes in fishery conservation 

and management measures (Sepez et al. 2007, 

Clay and Olson 2008, Alsharif and Miller 2012). 

NOAA’s Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-85, Community Profiles for West Coast 

and North Pacific Fisheries: Washington, Oregon, 

California and other U.S. States (Norman et al. 

2007) provides detailed social and demographic 

analyses of over 100 West Coast communities, 

which the FEP will not repeat here. However, that 

document provides a framework for thinking about 

Public Review Draft FEP 82 February 2013
coastal communities’ 

vulnerability to changes in 

available commercial fishery 

harvest levels and available 

recreational fishing 

opportunities. 

The FEP Initiatives 

Appendix at A.2.6 suggests 

an initiative for the Council 

to look at human recruitment 

to the fisheries as a way to 

assess the long-term 

sustainability of the fishing 

communities themselves. In 

several West Coast fleets, 

the age distribution of 

fishery participants differs 

notably from the age 

distribution of West Coast 

residents. U.S. Census data 

of total populations includes 

children too young to be 

employed in fisheries, but 

even a simple comparison of 

work-force aged persons 

shows that the age 

distribution of participants in 

several West Coast fleets is 

skewed to greater ages than 

the age distribution of the 

general population – see 

Figures 3.4.17 through 

3.4.19.

Within the Council process, 

economic analyses often 

separate fishing 

communities by geography 

or by sector (e.g., 

commercial or recreational, 

treaty or non-treaty, fishing 

or processing, trawl or fixed 

gear, purse seine or longline, 

etc.) Regional economic 

models are employed to 

assess the amount of 

economic activity, in terms 

of sales, income and 

employment, that is 

generated by the business 

Public Review Draft FEP 83 February 2013
operations of economic 

entities within a 

particular geographic 

region. The input-output 

model is one type of 

economic impact model 

that tracks the flow of 

dollars within a regional 

economy. With respect to 

ecosystem-based 

management, an inputoutput model can help to 

evaluate, predict and 

assess goals and policies 

in an inter-connected 

system of sectors or 

industries comprising a 

regional economy. In 

this sense, it is akin to an 

ecological food web that 

characterizes predatorprey interactions within 

an ecosystem.

To understand the socioeconomic effects of fishery management actions, the Council uses the Fishery 

Economic Assessment Model (FEAM,) a production oriented input-output model to estimate the 

contribution of West Coast commercial fishery sectors to the total income of the coastal communities of 

Washington, Oregon and California (Seung and Waters 2005). The FEAM allows for geographic 

resolution from the state 

level down to port area 

within each state. It 

distinguishes fishery 

sectors within each 

geographic area by their 

corresponding FMP, and 

where appropriate, 

disaggregates harvests 

within a sector according 

to vessel or gear type and 

the condition in which 

they were landed (e.g. 

alive or dead). The 

FEAM3 provides 

estimates of the income 

impacts stemming from 

the dollar value added to 

3 The Fishery Economic Assessment Model (FEAM) was developed by Dr. Hans Radtke and Dr. William Jensen to estimate local, 

state and regional marginal and average income impacts for West Coast fishery landings. The FEAM model is based on the U.S. 

Forest Service IMPLAN model enhanced with fishing sector coefficients specific to West Coast fisheries. In its current configuration 

the FEAM was calibrated using coefficients from the IMPLAN’s 1998 input-output database, and PacFIN landings extractions for 

Year 2000.

Public Review Draft FEP 84 February 2013

 
landings of West Coast 

commercial species as they make 

their way from the ocean, to the 

exvessel level, and through to the 

exprocessor level of the fishery. It 

does this by deriving input-output 

multipliers, which are used to 

convert the revenues at each stage 

of the production process into 

either: (1) direct income -

exvessel income generated in the 

region of interest by the 

harvesting sector of the fishing 

industry from landings by species, 

by port and by gear; (2) indirect 

income - income generated in the 

region of interest by all industries, 

due to the iteration of industries 

purchasing from industries in 

response to landings of a particular species at the exvessel level; (3) induced income - the expenditures 

from new household income within the region of interest, generated by the direct and indirect income 

effects of landings of a particular species.

Here, the FEAM was used to estimate the total income impact from each state’s 2011 landings of species 

targeted by the major commercial fisheries occurring within the CCE (Figures 3.4.20 through 3.4.23).

From the quantities landed and the corresponding exvessel revenues for a specific fishery sector shown 

Figures 3.4.20 through 3.4.23, and the related value added from processing that volume of raw fish, the 

direct, indirect and induced incomes are calculated. These are then combined to estimate the total income 

impact generated by the fishery sector at the state and entire West Coast levels. For example, at the 

average exvessel price for each pound of Dungeness crab landed in Washington during 2011, the average 

total income impact was estimated to be $1.69 per dollar of exvessel revenue at the state level and $1.84 

per dollar of exvessel revenue coastwide; for Oregon and California these total income impacts were 

$1.68 and $1.91 respectively at the state level and $1.78 for Oregon and $2.13 for California coastwide.

Public Review Draft FEP 85 February 2013
Public Review Draft FEP 86 February 2013
Public Review Draft FEP 87 February 2013
3.5 Fisheries and Natural Resource Management in the CCE 

Many CCE fisheries are under the Council’s jurisdiction, but the Council also shares jurisdiction over or 

management responsibility for the species it manages with other entities or institutions. While the states 

and tribes participate in the Council process, they also have separate management processes linked to and 

informing the Council’s work. Beyond the EEZ, management processes for several Council species 

include multi-national processes with their own priorities and institutions. Figure 3.5.1 provides a general 

overview of the state/federal management process: the states, tribes, and federal government together 

organize and implement fisheries monitoring, data gathering, and research programs; scientific 

information is reviewed through the Council’s SSC; management measures and programs are developed 

through the Council’s advisory bodies and associated public processes; scientific analyses are again 

reviewed through the SSC for their utility within the management process; the Council uses the SSC 

recommendations and advice from its advisory bodies and the public to recommend harvest levels and 

other management measures; Council recommendations are then reviewed and partially or wholly 

implemented through federal, and then state, regulatory processes.

For species and fisheries under a federal FMP, states and tribes may adopt regulations or management 

measures that concur with federal regulations or which are more conservative than federal regulations. 

Table 3.5.1 lists the major species within the CCE and the entity or entities responsible for managing 

fisheries for those species.

Public Review Draft FEP 88 February 2013
Table 3.5.1. Management authorities for CCE fisheries, by major species or species groups

SPECIES or

SPECIES GROUP

STATE 

MANAGEMENT1

TRIBAL 

MANAGEMENT2

STATE-TRIBALFEDERAL 

MAMAGEMENT

INTERNATIONAL 

MANAGEMENT

All Salmon, except: Concur/Conservative Concur/Conservative FMP US/Canada Salmon Treaty

 Nearshore & In-river Regulation, SFMP Regulation US/Canada Salmon Treaty

All Groundfish, 

except:

Concur/Conservative Concur/Conservative

Intertribal Sharing 

Agreements

FMP US/Canada Whiting 

Treaty

 Cabezon Regulation, SFMP

California scorpionfish Regulation, SFMP

 Some Greenlings Regulation, SFMP

 Some Nearshore

 Rockfish

Regulation, SFMP Regulation

 California Halibut Regulation 

 Miscellaneous spp. Regulation Regulation

Pacific Halibut Concur/Conservative Concur

Intertribal Sharing 

Agreement

Catch Sharing Plan US/Canada Pacific Halibut 

Convention, IPHC

All Coastal Pelagic 

Species, except:

Concur/Conservative Concur/Conservative FMP

 Herring Regulation or SFMP Regulation

 Smelts Regulation or SFMP Regulation

 Squid, market Regulation or SFMP

 Miscellaneous spp. Regulation or SFMP Regulation

All Highly Migratory 

Species, except:

Concur/Conservative FMP WCPFC, IATTC, and

US/Canada Albacore 

Treaty

 Many sharks Regulation

 Miscellaneous spp. Regulation

Other fish

White seabass Regulation, SFMP

All Shellfish Regulation or SFMP Regulation

 Dungeness Crab Regulation and Tri-State 

MOU

Regulation

 Other Crabs Regulation

 Clams & Mussels Regulation Regulation

 Oysters Regulation

 Scallops Regulation

 Shrimp Regulation

 Urchins Regulation Regulation

 Miscellaneous spp. Regulation, SFMP (CA 

abalone)

Regulation

All Other Marine Life Regulation Regulation 1 State Fishery Management Plan (SFMP)

2 Several treaty tribes and Washington State have co-management responsibilities for many species

Public Review Draft FEP 89 February 2013
3.5.1 Council Fisheries Management

Fishery management councils were first authorized by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1976 [Pub. L. 94-265]. That act also established an ocean fishery conservation zone [later, the EEZ] 

beyond state marine waters out to 200 nautical miles offshore of U.S. coastlines, and gave councils areas 

of authority within the zone. The Pacific Council first met October 12-15, 1976, to begin discussions of 

shared state-federal management priorities for the fisheries within U.S. waters offshore of the U.S. West 

Coast. Over the last 30+ 

years, the Council has 

developed four FMPs and a 

Catch Sharing Plan for Pacific 

Halibut, and has addressed a 

wide range of fisheries and

environmental issues through 

amendments to those plans 

discussed in over 200 formal 

meetings and in countless 

public hearings. Major 

fishery management planning 

events in the Council’s history 

are shown in Table 3.5.2, 

many of which were 

developed in response to the 

1996 and 2007 

reauthorizations of the MSA, 

the current-day iteration of the 

1976 Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act.

Table 3.5.2: Major fishery management planning events in PFMC history

Federal Fisheries Legislation-Related Events Year Major Council Events

Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

first enacted, including assertion of 200 nm 

fishery conservation zone (later EEZ)

1976

1976 Council’s first meeting

1978 Northern Anchovy FMP final

1978 Salmon FMP final

1982 Groundfish FMP final

1984 Amendment 6 to Salmon FMP – preseason and inseason 

management framework

First West Coast salmon ESA listing: 

Sacramento Winter-run Chinook, threatened

1989

1990 Amendment 4 to Groundfish FMP – specifications and 

management measures process

1992 Amendment 6 to Groundfish FMP – limited entry program

1995 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan adopted

Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) 1996

1997 Combined Amendment 12 to Salmon FMP & Amendment 

10 to Groundfish FMP – setting parameters for salmon 

bycatch in whiting trawl fisheries

National Standard Guidelines revised 1998

Public Review Draft FEP 90 February 2013
Table 3.5.2: Major fishery management planning events in PFMC history

Federal Fisheries Legislation-Related Events Year Major Council Events

1999 Amendment 11 to Groundfish FMP – SFA provisions

1999 Amendment 8 to Northern Anchovy FMP – expanded FMP 

scope to establish CPS FMP, SFA provisions

2000 Amendment 14 to Salmon FMP – SFA provisions

2001 Amendment 14 to Groundfish FMP –permit stacking 

program for limited entry fixed gear sablefish fishery

2003 Amendments 16-1 & 16-2 to Groundfish FMP –

established groundfish rebuilding plan framework, plus 

first four groundfish rebuilding plans (darkblotched 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, canary rockfish, lingcod)

2004 HMS FMP final

2005 Amendments 19 to Groundfish FMP – EFH identification 

and coastwide protection measures

MSA reauthorized 2007

2007 Amendment 1 to HMS FMP – bigeye tuna rebuilding plan 

and FMP reorganization

National Standard 1 guidelines revised 2009

2009 Amendment 12 to CPS FMP – prohibition on krill harvest

2010 Amendment 20 to Groundfish FMP – trawl rationalization 

(catch share program) 

2011 Amendment 13 to CPS FMP, Amendment 23 to 

Groundfish FMP, Amendment 2 to HMS FMP, and 

Amendment 16 to Salmon FMP – annual catch limits 

(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs)

3.5.1.1 Cross-FMP Goals and Management Measures

While the Council develops and considers management 

programs for West Coast fisheries in four separate FMPs, 

the ideas about and priorities for management come from 

the MSA and from a regional ethos that collaboration and 

cooperation in management discussions can better sustain 

fisheries now and into the future. The goals and 

objectives of the four FMPs share five common themes 

consistent with an ecosystem approach to fishery 

management: avoid overfishing, minimize bycatch, 

maintain stability in landings, minimize impacts to 

habitat, and accommodate existing fisheries sectors. 

Those four larger themes emerge in a variety of ideas that 

are common across the FMPs, divided roughly in Table 

3.5.3:

Public Review Draft FEP 91 February 2013
Table 3.5.3 FMP Shared Goals and Objectives, by FMP Objective/Goal Number

Ecological CPS Groundfish Salmon HMS

Prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted stocks. X X X X

Provide adequate forage for dependent species. X

Describe, identify and minimize adverse impacts on essential fish 

habitat X X

Minimize bycatch (incl. protected species) and encourage full 

utilization of resources X X X X

Economic

Achieve greatest possible net benefit (economic or OY) from resource X X X X

Promote efficiency and profitability in the fishery, including stability 

of catch X X X X

Accommodate existing fishery sectors X X X X

Minimize gear conflicts. X X X

Minimize adverse impacts on fishing communities and other entities X X X

Use gear restrictions to minimize need for other management 

measures wherever practicable X

Management

Acquire biological information and develop long term research X X

Foster effective monitoring and enforcement. X X X

Establish management measures to control fisheries impacts, use 

management resources effectively X X X

Encourage cooperative international & interstate mgmt. X X X

Promote the safety of human life at sea X X

Support enhancement of stock abundance X

Promote outreach and education efforts X

Table 3.5.4 details the array of fishery conservation and management measures that the Council uses to 

implement its priorities for West Coast fish and fisheries. 

Table 3.5.4 Conservation and Management Measures Across FMPs

CPS Groundfish Salmon HMS

Annual harvest limits   

Harvest restrictions to provide prey base for other spp.  

Season limits for all or some species   

Fishing area restrictions to minimize bycatch   

Fishing area restrictions to minimize effects on EFH 

Gear restrictions to minimize bycatch    

Participation/access limitation program(s)  

Bycatch monitoring for all or some species/fisheries    

Public Review Draft FEP 92 February 2013
3.5.1.2 Ecosystem-Based Management Measures within FMPs

This section identifies existing ecosystem-based principles and management measures within current 

FMPs, particularly management measures that were either taken to mitigate the impact of fishing on the 

environment or ecosystem, or measures that take into account the effects of the biophysical environment 

on managed species. Additional protective management measures have also been promulgated under the 

ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The fisheries are managed to include these 

protection measures. For each measure listed under the species group FMPs, we indicate in brackets the 

FMP species groups or protected species that may benefit from the measure listed. The following lists, 

separated by FMP, are current through February 2013. 

Coastal Pelagic Species FMP

1. Krill harvest prohibition: The CPS FMP prohibits harvest of all species of euphausiids (krill) that 

occur within the U.S. West Coast EEZ to help maintain important predator-prey relationships and 

the long-term health and productivity of the West Coast ecosystem. These ecosystem 

conservation principle enhance fishery management by protecting, to the extent practicable, krill 

resources, which are an integral part of the ecosystem [HMS, groundfish, salmon, CPS, marine 

mammals, birds]

2. Conservative Management Strategy: The Council has demonstrated a consistently conservative 

approach to CPS harvest management in response to their ecological role as forage and 

importance to West Coast fisheries. The Council frequently reviews new science in support of 

stock assessments and management strategies and conducts annual stock assessments for the 

actively managed species because of the annual variability that can occur in the biomass of CPS. 

In the late-1990’s, the Council chose the most conservative harvest control rule for Pacific 

sardine when presented a wide range of FMP harvest policies. The rationale for this harvest 

policy, like the other harvest controls rules in the FMP, is oriented toward maximizing biomass 

versus maximizing catch. Because of this, the annual harvest levels that result from the rule 

never exceed 12 percent of the estimated biomass for that year. [HMS, groundfish, salmon, CPS, 

marine mammals, birds]

3. Environmental Indicators: The intent of the existing environmental parameter in the Pacific 

sardine harvest control rule is to explicitly adapt harvest levels in response to environmental 

variability. The existing environmental parameter is one of the Council’s priority research needs 

and new science suggests a need to 

explore a broader range of 

ecological indicators of Pacific 

sardine productivity. Additionally 

the annual Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE)

document for CPS includes an 

‘Ecosystem Considerations’ 

chapter that provides a summary of 

oceanographic trends and 

ecological indicators being tracked 

by NMFS in the CCE and 

potentially having an effect on CPS 

stocks. [CPS]

4. Cutoff Parameters: CPS harvest 

control rules have long utilized 

“Cutoff” parameters to protect a 

core spawning population and 

prevent stocks from becoming 

Public Review Draft FEP 93 February 2013
overfished. The Cutoff is a biomass level below which directed harvest is not allowed. Cutoff 

values are set at or above the overfished threshold and have the effect of automatically reducing 

harvest rates as biomass levels decline. This mechanism serves to preserve a spawning stock 

size. For Pacific sardine, the Cutoff value is 150,000 mt or three times the overfished threshold 

and is part of the Council’s conservative management approach. [HMS, groundfish, salmon, CPS, 

marine mammals, birds]

5. Monitored stock harvest strategy: The ABC control rule for monitored stocks consists of a 75% 

reduction from the species overfishing level. This precautionary approach is in response to 

greater scientific uncertainty about stock status or management. [HMS, groundfish, salmon, CPS, 

marine mammals, birds]

6. EFH: EFH for CPS finfish species is temperature-based: The east-west geographic boundary of 

EFH for CPS is defined to be all marine and estuarine waters from the shoreline along the coasts 

of California, Oregon, and Washington offshore to the limits of the EEZ and above the 

thermocline where sea surface temperatures range between 10°C to 26°C. The southern boundary 

is the United States-Mexico maritime boundary. The northern boundary is more dynamic, and is 

defined as the position of the 10°C isotherm, which varies seasonally and annually. [CPS]

7. Ecosystem Component (EC) Species: The CPS FMP contains two EC species, jacksmelt and 

Pacific herring. In recognition of their role as forage, bycatch and incidental catch of these 

species is specifically monitored, along with all other bycatch/incidental catch, annual in the CPS 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document.

8. Bycatch provisions: Incidental catch provisions are often included in annual management 

recommendations for CPS. These provisions are included to allow for small allowances of 

incidental catch of a specific CPS species, for which the directed fishery may be closed, in other 

CPS fisheries to prevent and reduce discard. [CPS]

9. ESA incidental take protections: CPS fishing boat operators and crew are prohibited from 

deploying their nets if a southern sea otter is observed within the area that would be encircled by 

the purse seine. [otters]

Groundfish FMP

1. EFH Conservation Areas: extensive, coastwide, long-term closed areas to protect groundfish EFH 

from bottom contact gear, particularly in rocky reef areas; extensive, coastwide, long-term closed 

area to freeze the footprint of West Coast trawl gear use to inshore of 700 fm depth contour. 

[Groundfish, salmon 

(particularly Chinook), 

marine mammals, seabirds]

2. Rockfish Conservation 

Areas: coastwide, 

seasonally-variable closed 

areas to minimize bycatch in 

all groundfish fisheries of 

rebuilding groundfish 

species. For cowcod and 

yelloweye rockfish, speciesspecific closed areas off the 

southern (cowcod) and 

northern (yelloweye) U.S. 

West Coast. [Groundfish, 

salmon (particularly 

Chinook), marine mammals, 

seabirds]

Public Review Draft FEP 94 February 2013
3. Salmon Conservation Zones: mid-coast, estuary-plume-focused closed areas to minimize bycatch 

in whiting fisheries of endangered and threatened salmon stocks. [Salmon, CPS, green sturgeon, 

marine mammals, seabirds]

4. Commercial fishery vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements to better enforce closed areas 

and other regulations. [Groundfish, salmon, marine mammals, seabirds]

5. Coastwide, mandatory observer program to gather total catch data from commercial fisheries. 

[All FMP species, all protected species taken as bycatch]

6. Weak stock management to curtail allowable harvest of more abundant species in order to reduce 

opportunities for incidental catch of less abundant, co-occurring species. Harvest levels for 

species managed via an overfished species rebuilding plan are usually set at a fraction of FMSY 

harvest rate. [Groundfish, salmon]

7. For less abundant stocks and stocks with little scientific information, harvest policies become 

increasingly precautionary. [Groundfish]

8. Allowable harvest of shortbelly rockfish, an abundant species with high prey value to the CCE, is 

set extremely low to accommodate incidental catch while discouraging any fishery development, 

to ensure that it retains its role as prey for other (non-human) predator species. [Groundfish, 

HMS, salmon, marine mammals, seabirds]

9. Stock assessments include literature review and discussion of relevant ecological biological, 

social and economic factors and the interactions between them, to allow SSC and Council to 

weigh impacts of those factors under different potential harvest scenarios. [Groundfish]

10. Trawl gear regulations to constrain habitat damage through a small footrope requirement 

shoreward of the RCAs, and minimize catch of juveniles through a minimum mesh size 

requirement. Fixed gear regulations to prevent lost gear from ghost fishing through a gear 

attendance requirement and, for pots, a biodegradable escape panel requirement. [Groundfish, 

salmon (particularly Chinook), marine mammals, seabirds]

11. Regulations requiring fishery participants to sort their catch by species, ensuring better long-term 

data on the hugely varied groundfish species catch and landings. [Groundfish]

12. For whiting, participation in a U.S.-Canada bilateral treaty organization to jointly manage and 

conserve Pacific whiting to ensure that harvest of the cross-boundary resource remains within 

sustainable 

parameters. 

[Groundfish, marine 

mammals, seabirds]

13. Implementation of 

the Individual 

Fishing Quota trawl 

rationalization 

program, which has 

demonstrated 

reduced bycatch of 

non-target species 

such as halibut and 

overfished species of 

concern since its 

inception in January 

2011. [Groundfish, 

Halibut]

Public Review Draft FEP 95 February 2013
Highly Migratory Species (HMS) FMP

1. FMP designates EFH for each species within the FMP, with sub-designations for the different life 

stages of those species. EFH designations for some HMS’ life stages are temperature-based, 

recognizing those species’ habits of associating with certain temperature ranges, regardless of 

where those temperatures may occur in any given season or year.

2. Sea turtle and marine mammal bycatch minimization and mitigation measures: NMFS-trained 

observers on vessels. Sea turtle protections: swordfish longline fishery prohibited west of 150° 

W. long.; prohibition on light stick possession for longline vessels operating west of 150° W. 

long.; shallow set longline fishing prohibited east of 150° W. long; seasonal area closures for 

drift gillnet in times and areas where there have been prior fishery interactions with leatherback 

sea turtles (the Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area), regulations for drift gillnet closures 

during El Niño events; equipment and handling requirements for bringing incidentally caught 

turtles onboard, and resuscitating and releasing when possible; mandatory sea turtle amd marine 

mammal training for skipper and crew participating in the drift gillnet fishery. Marine mammal 

protections: Pacific Cetacean Take Reduction Plan requires gear modifications on drift gillnet

gear (pinger and gear depth requirements). State regulations to reduce marine mammal bycatch 

using time/area closures. sea turtles, marine mammals]

3. Seabird bycatch minimization and mitigation measures: gear configuration and setting 

requirements, offal discharge requirements, equipment and handling requirements for bringing 

incidentally caught short-tailed albatross onboard, and resuscitating and releasing when possible. 

[Seabirds]

4. Bycatch limitations for 

HMS taken with nonHMS gear. [HMS]

5. HMS permitting and 

record-keeping 

requirements for U.S. 

vessels operating in the 

EEZ and on the high seas 

and landing HMS in U.S. 

ports. [HMS]

6. Selected commercial 

fishery vessel monitoring 

system (VMS) 

requirements to better 

enforce closed areas and 

other regulations. [HMS]

7. Mandatory observer 

program to gather total 

catch data from 

commercial fisheries. 

[HMS, salmon, CPS, 

groundfish]

8. Nation-wide shark-finning prohibition. [Sharks]

9. Nation-wide dolphin-safe tuna import requirements. [Marine mammals]

10. Participation in international regional fishery management organizations to develop and 

implement multinational conservation measures, such as restricting fishing around fish 

aggregating devices (FADs) for tropical tunas, and area closures to minimize bycatch of 

mammals and turtles. [HMS, marine mammals, sea turtles]

Public Review Draft FEP 96 February 2013
Salmon FMP

1. FMP designates EFH from the ocean extent of the EEZ to the shore, and inland up to all 

freshwater bodies occupied or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

and California, with exceptions for dammed streams, recognizing the long-term potential for 

managed stocks to recover in historically-used areas. [Salmon, and in marine waters, groundfish 

and CPS where EFH for those species intersects with salmon EFH]

2. Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area off Washington state to minimize bycatch of an 

overfished rockfish species in the salmon troll fisheries. Regulations restricting groundfish and 

halibut retention, coupled with inseason management to adjust those as needed. [Groundfish, 

halibut]

3. Geographic control zones that may be opened or closed to fishing on an annual basis, depending 

on a particular year’s management objectives and run forecasts, used to constrain the catch of 

salmon from less abundant runs caught in common with salmon from more abundant runs. 

[Salmon]

4. Adaptive management process that allows swift inseason regulations changes to respond as catch 

information becomes available. That same process also includes an annual retrospective analysis 

of the effectiveness of modeling and management, ensuring an ongoing refinement of predictive 

and monitoring methodologies. [Salmon]

5. Oregon coastal natural (OCN) and Columbia River coho harvest matrices that use juvenile 

salmon ocean survival as a predictor of ocean conditions, ultimately providing allowable total 

fishery impacts rates based on the return of jacks (sub-adults) to spawning streams. Also for 

OCN coho, the Council’s SSC has recommended a new predictor methodology that blends 

multiple parameters, including sea surface temperature and copepod assemblage abundance. 

[Salmon]

6. Participation in international regional fishery management organizations to ensure cooperation on 

both North 

American and 

high-seas 

multinational 

conservation 

measures to 

prevent 

overharvest. 

[Salmon]

7. Prohibition on 

the use of nets 

to fish for 

salmon within 

the EEZ to 

allow for live 

release of 

undersized 

salmon and to 

prevent bycatch 

of non-target 

species. 

[Salmon, HMS, 

groundfish]

Public Review Draft FEP 97 February 2013
3.5.1.3 CCE Species Managed Under the ESA or MMPA

Recovering ESA-listed endangered 

and threatened anadromous and 

marine species within the U.S. portion 

of the CCE is a joint effort between 

U.S. citizens, and federal, state, and 

tribal management agencies. NMFS 

has jurisdiction over recovery and 

protection of most marine and 

anadromous fish and mammal species 

of the U.S. CCE, including most 

marine mammals, sea turtles, marine 

fishes, invertebrates, and plants. Sea 

otter recovery is under the jurisdiction 

of the USFWS. The USFWS also has 

jurisdiction over recovery of CCE 

seabird species. The Council’s FMPs 

include a variety of fishery 

management measures intended to 

minimize fisheries interactions with ESA-listed species. These measures are often the result of 

consultations on the FMPs required by the ESA. As the agency implementing FMPs, NMFS must ensure 

that all federal fisheries comply with the ESA and that actions authorized by the FMPs do not jeopardize 

listed species or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. To meet this requirement, all 

FMPs have gone through ESA section 7 consultation with NMFS and with USFWS. Biological opinions, 

the outcomes of the consultations, have been completed for all federal fisheries. 

In Section 3.2, the FEP briefly describes the contributions of different species to the trophic levels of the 

CCE’s marine food web from a biological perspective. From a management perspective, the laws that are 

used to manage the different species of the EEZ do not necessarily reflect their trophic interactions, but 

instead often reflect their abundance levels as individual stocks, or as particular distinct population 

segments (DPSs) or evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of fish or other animals. Under the ESA, 

species considered for ESA protection include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 

For marine species with vast migratory ranges, a 

distinct population of a particular species may occur 

off the U.S. West Coast, while other distinct 

populations of that same species may occur 

elsewhere within the North Pacific or beyond. For 

example, Steller sea lions range across the entire 

North Pacific Ocean from coastal Japan and Korea 

to the U.S. West Coast. The portion of the Steller 

sea lion population off the U.S. West Coast is 

considered a DPS, known as the eastern DPS. The 

Steller sea lion’s U.S. western DPS, generally found 

off Alaska and farther north, remains listed as 

endangered under the ESA. NOAA has proposed 

removing the eastern DPS from ESA listing, based 

on its recovery under the ESA (77 FR 23209, April 

18, 2012).

Public Review Draft FEP 98 February 2013
Since 1991, NOAA has assessed ESA-listed salmonids for whether a particular population could be 

considered a DPS based on whether it could be considered an evolutionarily significant unit of the 

particular population (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). Using the ESU designation allows NOAA to 

acknowledge under the ESA what salmon fishing people have known for centuries – that a single stream 

can host multiple runs of the same species of salmon arriving in their freshwater habitats at different times 

of year. A spring-run Chinook for a particular river may be genetically similar to a fall-run Chinook for 

that same river, but those fish cannot breed with each other because they are not in the same breeding 

place at the same time, thus they are distinct ESU’s. The complex salmon-linked ecologies of North 

American rivers that drain to the Pacific Ocean require government agencies and the public to see salmon 

runs for their very particular roles in small geographic areas like individual streams, and for their 

ecosystem-wide roles linking the North American land mass to the Pacific Ocean. Salmon also serve as 

an important prey item for endangered southern resident killer whales, which are listed as endangered 

under the ESA. 

As shown in Table 3.5.5, ESA-listed marine or anadromous species that, in some or at all times of the 

year, may occur within the U.S. West Coast EEZ include marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and 

invertebrates.

Table 3.5.5: ESA-listed species that may occur in U.S. West Coast EEZ

Species Status

Marine Mammals

Blue whale (Baleaenoptera musculus) Endangered

Fin whale (Baleranoptera physalus) Endangered

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Endangered

Killer whales, southern resident DPS (Orcinus orca) Endangered

North Pacific Right whale (Eubalaena japonica) Endangered

Steller sea lion, eastern DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) Threatened

Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) Threatened

Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) Threatened

Birds

Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) Endangered

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) Threatened

California least-tern (Sternum antillarum browni) Endangered

Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) Candidate

Sea turtles

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered

Loggerhead turtle, North Pacific Ocean DPS (Caretta caretta) Endangered

Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) Endangered/Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Endangered/Threatened

Marine invertebrates

White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) Endangered

Black abalone (Haliotis crachereodii) Endangered

Fish

Green Sturgeon, southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris) Threatened

Pacific eulachon, southern DPS (Thaleichthys pacificus) Threatened

Yelloweye Rockfish, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Sebastes ruberrimus) Threatened

Bocaccio, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Sebastes paucispinis) Endangered

Canary Rockfish, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Sebastes pinniger)

Public Review Draft FEP 99 February 2013
Table 3.5.5: ESA-listed species that may occur in U.S. West Coast EEZ

Species Status

Yelloweye Rockfish, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Sebastes ruberrimus)

Salmonids

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Sacramento River winter ESU Endangered

Central Valley Spring ESU Threatened

California Coastal ESU Threatened

Snake River Fall ESU Threatened

Snake River Spring/Summer ESU Threatened

Lower Columbia River ESU Threatened

Upper Willamette River ESU Threatened

Upper Columbia River Spring ESU Endangered

Puget Sound ESU Threatened

Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) Hood Canal Summer Run ESU Threatened

Columbia River ESU Threatened

Coho (Oncorhynchus kistuch) Central California Coastal ESU Endangered

S. Oregon/N. CA Coastal ESU Threatened

Oregon Coast ESU Threatened

Lower Columbia River ESU Threatened

Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) Snake River ESU Endangered

Ozette Lake ESU Threatened

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Southern California DPS Endangered

South-Central California DPS Threatened

Central California Coast DPS Threatened

California Central Valley DPS Threatened

Northern California DPS Threatened

Upper Columbia River DPS Endangered

Snake River Basin DPS Threatened

Lower Columbia River DPS Threatened

Upper Willamette River DPS Threatened

Middle Columbia River DPS Threatened

Puget Sound Threatened

Marine mammals are protected 

under the MMPA, regardless 

of whether their populations 

are depleted enough to warrant 

listing as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. 

Marine mammals that may, 

during some or at all times of 

the year, occur within the CCE 

are shown in Table 3.5.6: 

Public Review Draft FEP 100 February 2013
Table 3.5.6: MMPA-protected species that may occur in U.S. West Coast EEZ

Species Stocks

Cetaceans

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Various

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) CA/OR/WA stock

Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) North Pacific stock; 

CA/OR/WA stock

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) CA/OR/WA stock

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) California coastal stock

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) CA/OR/WA offshore stock

Short-beaked common dolphin(Delphinus delphis) CA/OR/WA stock

Long-beaked common dolphin(Delphinus capensis) California stock

Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) CA/OR/WA stock

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) CA/OR/WA stock

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) CA/OR/WA stock

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) CA/OR/WA stock

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) CA/OR/WA stock

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) CA/OR/WA stock

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Eastern North Pacific 

southern resident stock

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Eastern North Pacific 

offshore stock

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) west coast transient stock

Mesoplodont beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.) - (Hubbs’ beaked whales, 

Gingko -toothed whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked 

whale, Pygmy beaked whale or Lesser beaked whale, Perrin’s beaked whale)

CA/OR/WA stocks

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) CA/OR/WA stock

Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) CA/OR/WA stock

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Eastern North Pacific stock 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) CA/OR/WA stock

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) CA/OR/WA stock

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) Eastern North Pacific stock

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Eastern North Pacific stock

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) CA/OR/WA stock

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Eastern North Pacific stock

Pinnipeds

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) U.S. stock

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) CA stock and OR & WA 

coastal stock

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) CA Breeding Stock

Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) San Miguel Island stock

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) eastern Pacific stock (U.S.)

Public Review Draft FEP 101 February 2013
3.5.2 Tribe and State Fisheries 

3.5.2.1 Northwest Tribes’ Fisheries Management

The Treaty Tribes of Oregon and Washington (Tribes) have both exclusive and shared authority to 

manage a wide variety of 

fisheries and natural 

resources affected by both 

current and future actions 

of the Council and by 

biophysical conditions 

within the CCE. The 

Tribes manage and harvest 

marine species covered by 

the Council’s FMP’s as 

well as other species 

governed by the Tribes’ 

own exclusive authorities 

or by co-management 

agreements with the states 

of Oregon and 

Washington. The Tribes 

also retain property 

interests in species they do 

not currently manage or 

harvest but may choose to 

do so at a future time.

Tribal fisheries have ancient roots and their harvests are used for commercial, personal-use and cultural 

purposes. Authorities to plan, conduct and regulate fisheries, manage natural resources and enter into 

cooperative relationships with state and Federal entities are held independently by each of the Tribes 

based on their own codes of law, policies and regulations. The independent sovereign authorities of each 

Tribe were federally recognized initially in a series of treaties negotiated and signed during 1854-1855 

(Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon (1855), Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla 

Tribes (1855), Treaty with the Yakama (1855), Treaty with the Nez Perce (1855), Treaty of Medicine 

Creek (1854), Treaty of Neah Bay (1855), Treaty of Olympia (1855), Treaty of Point Elliot (1855) and

Treaty of Point No Point (1855) and have been reaffirmed by judicial review (e.g., U.S. v. Oregon 

(SoHappy v. Smith) 302 Supp.899 (D. Oregon, 1969) and U.S. v. Washington 384 F. Supp. 312 (W. Dist. 

Wash., 1974) and administrative policies (e.g., Executive Order 13175 and Secretarial Order 3206).

Each Treaty Tribe exercises its management authorities within specific areas usually referred to as Usual 

and Accustomed (U&A) fishing locations. These areas have been adjudicated within the federal court 

system or confirmed by federal administrative procedures. The restriction of treaty-right fisheries to 

specific geographic boundaries creates place-based reliance on local resource abundance and limits the 

Tribes’ latitude for response to variations in ecosystem processes, species distributions or fisheries 

management effects.

Each Tribe has established sets of laws and policies to achieve sustainable fisheries production through 

traditional and science-based management. Regulations to control the conduct of each fishery (time, 

place, gear, etc.) are set through governmental procedures, and performance is monitored to ensure 

objectives are met. The Tribes participate as full partners with federal and state entities to ensure their 

Public Review Draft FEP 102 February 2013
criteria for resource conservation and sustainable fisheries are compatible. For example, the Tribes 

participate in the annual Pacific Salmon Commission process to preserve fishing opportunities on healthy 

salmon stocks and ensure conservation of depressed stocks of Chinook, chum and coho salmon. They also 

participate in the North of Falcon process with the State of Washington to achieve an annual set of comanagement plans for salmon fisheries within both the EEZ and terminal areas for Council action.

The Tribes’ combined regions of management interest and authority include areas outside the EEZ and 

the physical boundaries of the California Current. However, many of the species managed and harvested 

in these areas are affected by Council management and by conditions within the CCE. For example, 

Treaty salmon fisheries in the Columbia River watershed and interior (Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget 

Sound and their watersheds) and coastal waters of Washington are significantly affected by salmon 

harvest quotas and schedules in the EEZ and by general marine conditions for growth and survival. All of 

the Tribes hold a vested interest in, and participate in, the Council’s processes because salmon, other 

anadromous fishes (e.g., sturgeon spp., lamprey spp., smelt spp., trout and char spp.) and many migratory 

species of interest (e.g., marine mammals, herring, halibut) traverse and/or are affected by actions and 

activities within the EEZ and the California Current.

The four coastal Treaty Tribes (Coastal Tribes) of Washington (Makah Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, 

Hoh Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation) have broad interests in the CCE and more complex 

relationships with Council processes and decisions. The U&A’s of the Coastal Tribes overlap with the 

EEZ and they have active ocean fisheries operating under the Council’s current FMP’s (Table 3.5.5). 

Harvests in the Coastal Tribes commercial fisheries (Figures 3.5.2 – 3.5.4) provide important employment 

and entrepreneurial opportunities for their remote communities and make significant contributions to the 

coastal economy of Washington. 

Table 3.5.5: Coastal Treaty Tribes commercial fisheries

Fishery Species FMP Tribes

Longline Blackcod, Pacific halibut Groundfish Makah, Quileute, Hoh, Quinault

Bottom Trawl Groundfish Groundfish Makah

Mid-Water Trawl Whiting, Yellowtail Rockfish Groundfish Makah, Quileute

Troll Salmon Salmon Makah, Quileute, Hoh, Quinault

Purse Seine Sardine CPS Quinault

Pot Dungeness Crab Makah, Quileute, Hoh, Quinault

Manual Intertidal Razor Clam Quinault

Public Review Draft FEP 103 February 2013
Public Review Draft FEP 104 February 2013
3.5.2.2 California Tribes in the Council Process

Fisheries have been important to California tribes since time immemorial for cultural purposes, 

subsistence, and commerce-related activities. The primary stock co-managed by the Council, California, 

and the Hoopa 

Valley and Yurok 

Tribes is fall 

Chinook of the 

Klamath and Trinity 

River basins, which 

is an indicator stock 

for the Southern 

Oregon and 

Northern California 

(SONC) complex of 

the Salmon FMP. 

Klamath Basin 

spring Chinook are 

considered a 

component of the 

SONC complex;

however, comanagers have not 

yet identified 

conservation 

objectives or 

coordinated regional 

management for this 

stock. 

The Yurok Tribal fishery occurs within the lower 44 miles of the Klamath River and within a portion of 

the Trinity River below the boundary of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Hoopa Tribal fishery occurs 

in the Trinity River from approximately one mile above the confluence with the Klamath River to the 

upstream boundary of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, approximately 12 river miles. The primary 

gear type used is gill nets; however, a small portion of the Chinook harvest is taken by dip nets and hook 

and line. Fall Chinook are typically harvested from early August through mid-December, with peak 

harvest in the Klamath River estuary occurring during late August through mid September and in the 

Trinity River during late-September to early-October.

In 1993, the Interior Department Solicitor issued a legal opinion that concluded that the Yurok and Hoopa 

Valley Tribes of the Klamath Basin have a federally-protected reserved right to 50 percent of the 

available harvest of Klamath Basin salmon. Under the Council’s annual salmon management process, half 

of the annual allowable catch of Klamath River fall Chinook has been reserved for these tribal fisheries 

since 1994. Federal courts affirmed this decision in Parravano v. Masten, 70 F. 3d 539 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2546 (1996). Tribal fisheries with recognized Federal fishing rights occur on the 

Yurok and Hoopa Valley Indian reservations located on the Lower Klamath and Trinity Rivers, 

respectively. These fisheries are regulated by their respective governments..

The Yurok Tribal Council regulates the fall and spring Chinook fishery via annual Harvest Management 

Plans, which are based upon the tribal allocation and subsequent regulations regarding sub-area quotas, 

conservation measures, and potential commercial fisheries. When the Tribal Council allows a portion of 

Public Review Draft FEP 105 February 2013
the allocation to go to commercial fishing, then most harvest is taken in the estuary where commercial 

fisheries are held. Subsistence fisheries are spread throughout the reservation.

The Hoopa Tribal Fishery is conducted in accordance with the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Fishing Ordinance. 

Fishing by tribal members occurs within the exterior boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council is the sole authority responsible for the conduct of the tribe’s fishery, 

enforces the fishing ordinance, and ensures collection of harvest statistics through its Fisheries 

Department.

The tribal fisheries normally set aside a small (unquantified) number of fish for ceremonial purposes. 

Subsistence needs are the next highest priority use of Klamath River fall Chinook by the Tribes. The 

subsistence catch has been as high as 32,000 fish since 1987, when separate tribal use accounting was 

implemented. Generally, commercial fishing has been allowed when the total allowable tribal catch was 

over 11,000 –16,000 adult KRFC (PFMC, 2008).

Commercial sales from the Yurok and/or Hoopa Valley Reservation Indian fall gillnet fisheries occurred 

in 1987-1989, 1996, 1999-2004, and 2007-2011. Average commercial catch of fall Chinook was about 

17,200 in those years, most of which occurred in the estuary of the Yurok Reservation. Commercial sales 

also occurred in spring gillnet fisheries in 1989, 1996, 2000-2004, and 2007-2011, with an annual average 

of about 1,200 fish sold; however, these were typically spring Chinook (as identified from Trinity River 

Hatchery coded wire tags) harvested in the estuary during the fall season (early August). Detailed 

Klamath Basin tribal fishery data can be found in the Council’s annual Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation Document: Review of Ocean Salmon Fisheries.

3.5.2.3 Washington Fisheries Management

Legislative Mandate and Management Areas 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was created to “preserve, protect, perpetuate, 

and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters”

(Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.04.012). This legislative mandate also instructs WDFW to 

conserve fish and wildlife “in a manner that does not impair” the resources while also:

• seeking to “maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state”; 

• promoting “orderly fisheries”; and

• enhancing and improving the recreational and commercial fishing in the state. 

WDFW recognizes this conservation mission also requires the protection, preservation, management, and 

restoration of natural environments and ecological communities as well as management of human uses for 

public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs (WDFW 20124

).

4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.

―Mission and Goals: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/mission_goals.html.

―Rules Information Center: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations. 

―WFWC Policy Documents: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies.html.

Public Review Draft FEP 106 February 2013

 
WDFW divides 

management of coastal 

fisheries from those in 

inner waters. Inner waters 

begin at Cape Flattery 

and include the U.S. 

portions of the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and Strait 

of Georgia, the San Juan 

Islands, Hood Canal, and 

Puget Sound. Marine 

areas on the coast and in 

inner waters include 

estuaries, with the 

transition to freshwater 

management areas 

occurring at the mouth of 

rivers and streams. 

WDFW’s Council-related activities focus mainly on the coastal region, although WDFW’s management 

activities for salmonids extend well into the inner marine and freshwater areas of the state. The 

Department’s legislative mandate covers “offshore waters” in addition to state waters, which the State 

Legislature defined as the “marine waters of the Pacific Ocean outside the territorial boundaries of the 

state, including the marine waters of other states and countries (RCW 77.08.010(33)). The state has direct 

authority to manage the offshore activities of state residents and vessels that are registered or licensed 

with the state. WDFW also pursues its mission in offshore waters through collaboration and coordination 

with federal, state, and tribal partners; formal engagement in intergovernmental forums, and 

interjurisdictional enforcement of state, federal, and international laws. WDFW’s collaborative efforts

also include the co-management relationship the state has with tribal governments that hold rights to fish

and to manage the fishing activities of their members. 

WDFW’s management is, on the whole, highly integrated with Council managed fisheries. As in Oregon 

and California, the state is responsible for tracking commercial landings and recreational catch from 

vessels landing into state ports. 

State Policy Process and Fisheries 

WDFW consists of the Director, responsible for general operation and management of the agency, and the 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC), which establishes policy and provides direction 

and oversight over the agency’s conservation and management activities. The WFWC consists of nine 

citizen members that are appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Washington State 

Senate. 

The WFWC’s policy role includes rulemaking over the time, place, and manner of fishing activities, 

although the authority to issue some rules has been delegated to the Director (RCW 77.12.047). 

Regulations are issued through the process established by the states’ Administrative Procedure Act, 

Regulatory Fairness Act, and State Environmental Policy Act. The WFWC takes input and deliberates on 

proposed policies and regulations in formal meetings and informal hearings that are open to the public 

and held throughout the state. More information on the WFWC and the state’s rulemaking process can be 

found on the WFWC’s website (WDFW 2012). 

Public Review Draft FEP 107 February 2013
The WFWC Policy C-3603 guides WDFW’s involvement in the Council process. Preservation, 

protection, and perpetuation of the living marine resources through coordinated management of fisheries 

is WDFW’s guiding principle. Among other things, this policy instructs WDFW’s representatives to:

• Support harvest strategies that promote optimum long-term sustainable harvest levels.

• Seek the views of the public, including those who represent consumptive and non-consumptive 

interest groups;

• Support initiatives and existing programs that more closely align the harvest capacity with the 

long-term sustained harvest quantities of marine resources, including individual quota programs 

and license and effort limitations programs;

• Support tribal fisheries that are consistent with the applicable federal court orders while 

recognizing the need for management flexibility to optimize fishing opportunity;

• Consider the social implications, impacts on fishing dependent communities, net economic 

benefits to the state , and 

other factors when 

taking positions on 

resource allocation

issues; 

• Take a precautionary 

approach in the 

management of species 

where the supporting 

biological information is 

incomplete and/or the 

total fishery-related 

mortalities are unknown; 

and,

• Support consideration of 

the use of risk-averse 

management tools to 

protect the resources in

the face of management 

uncertainty. 

To facilitate integration between state rules and Council management, the WFWC has delegated 

rulemaking authority to the Director over rules pertaining to the harvest of fish and wildlife in the EEZ. 

WDFW incorporates many federal regulations issued through the Council process into state rules. Among 

other things, this allows for the enforcement of Council-recommended regulations in state courts. 

Other WFWC policies that are of relevance to WDFW’s engagement on the Council include:

• Policy C3012 – Forage Fish Management Policy, Goals and Plan

• Policy C3601 – Management Policy for Pacific Halibut

• Policy C3611 – Marine Fish Culture

• Policy C3613 – Marine Protected Areas 

• Policy C3619 – Hatchery and Fishery Reform

The full set of policies can be viewed and tracked on the WFWC website (WDFW 2012). 

Public Review Draft FEP 108 February 2013
The state has a few major commercial fisheries targeting species that are not included in Council’s FMPs 

or for which Council management is limited. Dungeness crab is the highest value fishery, followed by 

pink shrimp and spot prawn. The state also allows limited harvest of anchovy for license holders of the 

baitfish fishery. The state has only one emerging commercial fishery program in place, now targeted at 

hagfish. The state has closed state waters off the coast to commercial fishing for groundfish and Pacific 

sardines. The state does not have a commercial nearshore fishery and has also chosen to not allow the live 

fish fishery that has developed in Oregon and California. The major recreational fisheries on the coast are 

boat based and target primarily salmon, halibut, groundfish (a.k.a. bottomfish), sturgeon, and albacore 

tuna. 

3.5.2.4 Oregon Fisheries Management5

The major policies affecting Council FMP species include: the Oregon Food Fish Management Policy, 

the Oregon Conservation Strategy, the Nearshore Strategy, and the Oregon Native Fish Conservation 

Policy. Oregon’s statutory Food Fish Management Policy (ORS §506.109) is intended to provide for the 

optimum economic, commercial, recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of 

the citizens of the state. This policy includes the following broad goals:

• Maintain all species of food fish at optimum levels and prevent the extinction of any indigenous 

species.

• Develop and manage the lands and waters of this state to optimize the production, utilization and 

public enjoyment of food fish.

• Permit an optimum and equitable utilization of available food fish.

• Develop and maintain access to the lands and waters and the food fish resources thereon.

• Regulate food fish populations and the utilization and public enjoyment of food fish in a 

compatible manner with other uses of the lands and waters and provides optimum commercial 

and public recreational benefits.

• Preserve the economic contribution of the sports and commercial fishing industries, consistent 

with sound food fish management practices.

• Develop and implement a program for optimizing the return of Oregon food fish for Oregon’s 

recreational and commercial fisheries.

Seven Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) members are appointed by the Governor and 

formulate general state programs and policies concerning management and conservation of fish and 

wildlife resources. The Legislature has also granted the OFWC the authority to adopt regulations for 

seasons, methods and limits for recreational and commercial take and sale as well as other restrictions and 

procedures for taking, possessing or selling food fish, with the exception of oysters. Oyster production 

and commercial harvest is regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

5 ODFW Fishery and Fish Resource Information: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/

ODFW Nearshore Strategy: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/nearshore/strategy.asp

ODFW Conservation Strategy: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/

Oregon Revised Statutes (Chapters 496-501 & 506-513): http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/

Oregon Fisheries Rules: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/OARs/index.asp#Fish

Oregon State Ocean Planning Information: http://www.oregonocean.info/

Public Review Draft FEP 109 February 2013

 
In addition to federal 

license limitation 

programs for some 

FMP species, Oregon 

limits participation in 

ten state waters 

fisheries: sardine, 

salmon troll, 

Dungeness crab, pink 

shrimp (trawl,) black 

rockfish/blue rockfish/ 

nearshore fish, 

scallop, sea urchin, 

bay clams (diving,) 

roe-herring, and brine 

shrimp. Oregon 

fisheries are generally 

open, unless closed or 

otherwise restricted by 

regulation. Although 

fisheries currently 

fully utilize many 

food fish species in 

Oregon waters, some 

are underutilized. 

Under Oregon’s Developmental Fisheries Program underutilized species are identified and categorized 

according to whether they are actively managed and whether they have the potential to support an 

economically viable fishery. Currently, there are no species that have been identified as not currently 

actively managed off Oregon under another state or federal management plan and that have the potential 

to be economically viable. Some underutilized species have been identified as underutilized yet have not 

shown the potential to be a viable fishery. Fishing for these species is open and is regulated indirectly 

through fishery regulations for other species, gears, seasons and areas.

The Oregon Conservation Strategy is a blueprint, based on best available science, for conservation of the 

state’s native fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Nearshore Strategy is a component of the Oregon 

Conservation Strategy for marine resources from shore to 55 meters. Its purpose is to promote actions 

that will conserve ecological functions and nearshore marine resources to provide long-term ecological, 

economic and social benefits. The Nearshore Strategy is also intended to contribute to the larger domain 

of marine resource management processes, such as the Council, by guiding management, research and 

monitoring, and education and outreach actions toward priority nearshore issues and areas that have not 

received adequate attention, rather than duplicate efforts by other management processes. The purpose of 

the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy is to ensure the conservation and recovery of native fish in 

Oregon. This policy identifies three goals: prevent the serious depletion of native fish, maintain and 

restore naturally produced fish, and foster and sustain opportunities for fisheries consistent with the 

conservation of naturally produced fish and responsible use of hatcheries. 

ODFW has authority to manage and set harvest restrictions for marine protected areas, including 

marine gardens, habitat refuges and research reserves. Marine gardens are areas targeted for educational 

programs that allow visitors to enjoy and learn about intertidal resources. Habitat refuges are specially 

protected areas needed to maintain the health of the rocky shore ecosystem and are closed to the take of 

marine fish, shellfish and marine invertebrates. Research reserves are used for scientific study or 

Public Review Draft FEP 110 February 2013
research including baseline studies, monitoring, or applied research. In addition, ODFW has authority to 

manage shellfish preserves, which are closed to clam harvesting.

For marine reserves, the state Legislature has authorized the establishment of five reserves to date – see 

also Section 3.3.4. To implement these marine reserves, rule-making authorities of the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL), and the Oregon Parks 

and Recreation Department (OPRD) must be coordinated. ODFW has authority to regulate fishing 

activities in the reserves. ODSL has authority for managing submerged lands and OPRD has authority 

for managing Oregon’s ocean shore, which includes public beaches, state parks, and intertidal areas along 

the entire coast.

The federal Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) 

provides the Oregon Department 

of Land Conservation and 

Development (DLCD) with 

regulatory authority to review 

various federal actions in or 

affecting the state's coastal zone 

for consistency with the Coastal 

Management Program. DLCD 

reviews various NMFS 

regulations, including those 

recommended by the Council, 

for consistency. Also under the 

Oregon Department of Land 

Conservation and 

Development’s Coastal 

Management Program, the 

Oregon Territorial Sea Plan is 

designed to carry out Oregon’s 

statewide planning goal for 

ocean resources: To conserve 

marine resources and ecological 

functions for the purpose of 

providing long-term ecological, 

economic, and social value and 

benefits to future generations. 

The Territorial Sea Plan 

provides an ocean management 

framework, identifies the 

process for making resource use 

decisions, provides a rocky 

shores management strategy, 

and identifies uses, including 

ocean energy, of the seafloor 

and the territorial sea. 

Public Review Draft FEP 111 February 2013
3.5.2.5 California Fisheries Management6

Within California’s Natural Resources Agency there is the Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) and the 

CDFW administered by the 

Director. While the Director 

can exercise some regulatory 

authority, the majority is 

accomplished by the CFGC. 

The CFGC is comprised of 

five commisisoners appointed 

by the governor and 

confirmed by the Senate, who 

have been granted increasing 

management authority for the 

state’s marine resources by 

the Legislature. They 

regularly meet 11 times per 

year to address resource 

issues and adopt management 

measures, and they may 

schedule additional special 

meetings to gain information 

on specific issues or take 

emergency actions. 

The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) was passed in 1998 and effective in 1999, and introduced a 

new paradigm in the management and conservation of California's marine living resources. The MLMA 

was developed in part based on many of the tenets of the MSA. The MLMA’s overriding goal is to 

ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of California’s living marine resources, including 

the conservation of healthy and diverse marine ecosystems. Through the MLMA, the Legislature 

delegated greater management authority to the CFGC and the CDFW. Key features of the MLMA 

include: 

• Application to entire ecosystems rather than only to exploited marine resources, with an overarching priority of resource sustainability.

• Recognizing the state’s resources for their use benefits, aesthetic and recreational enjoyment, and 

value for scientific research and education.

• Shifting the burden of proof towards initially demonstrating that fisheries and other activities are 

sustainable, rather than requiring demonstration of harm to initiate action.

• Requiring an ecosystem-based approach to management rather than focusing on single fisheries, 

and the development of FMPs as the framework for management—initially specifying 

development of FMPs for the nearshore fishery and white seabass.

6 CDFW Nearshore Fishery Management Plan: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/nfmp/ 

California Coastal Commission: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html 

California Code of Regulations Title 14: http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ 

California Fish and Game Code (Sections 2850-2863, 7050-7090, 8585-8589.7)

California Fish and Game Commission: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/ 

California Ocean Protection Council, http://www.opc.ca.gov/ 

Marine Life Protection Act: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/ 

Public Resources Code (Sections:30000-30900, 35500-35515): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Public Review Draft FEP 112 February 2013

 
• Requiring development of a master plan that prioritizes fisheries according to the need for 

comprehensive management through FMPs.

• Recognizing the importance of habitat by mandating its protection, maintenance, and restoration. 

• Minimizing bycatch and rebuilding depleted stocks.

• Emphasizing science-based management developed in collaboration with all interested parties so 

that stakeholders are more involved in decision making and all aspects of management. 

• Recognizing the long-term interests of people dependent on fishing; adverse impacts of 

management measures on fishing communities are to be minimized.

• Annual reporting on the status of the state’s resources and their management.

With respect to regulating new or developing fisheries, the MLMA did not prohibit development of new 

fisheries. The MLMA recognized the need to be more precautionary in allowing existing fisheries to 

expand, or to encourage the initiation and growth of new fisheries that would be sustainable from the 

onset. 

Developing FMPs was mandated by the MLMA—to date, fishery management and/or recovery plans are 

completed for the State’s nearshore, white seabass, market squid and abalone fisheries. The state’s FMPs

are prepared by CDFW and adopted by the CFGC. A spiny lobster FMP is in progress and completion of 

an FMP for California halibut is a priority. 

Concurrent with implementation of the MLMA, the Legislature enacted the Nearshore Fisheries 

Management Act (NFMA) to address the need to protect nearshore finfish species due to limited 

biological data, lack of stock status information and an expanding commercial live fishery. The NFMA 

recognized the importance of recreational and commercial fisheries for nearshore finfish species and 

provided management authority to the CFGC for those fisheries operating within state waters. The 

NFMA defined specific nearshore finfish species to be managed within one mile of the shoreline and 

established minimum size limits for nine species. All designated species, except for California 

sheephead, are also included in the federal Groundfish FMP. A state commercial limited entry nearshore 

fishery permit was established and annual fees associated with the permit are deposited into a dedicated 

fund established under the NFMA. Funds may be used for research or management purposes, such as 

developing fishery management plans or stock assessments, or for enforcement involving education and 

outreach. Imperative to nearshore management under the NFMA, and mandated under the MLMA, is the 

state’s nearshore FMP, which provides a framework for managing 19 nearshore species (16 of which are 

also federally managed,) including fishery control rules more conservative than those in the federal

Groundfish FMP and incorporating marine 

protected areas into fishery management. 

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) 

was passed and made effective in 1999 and 

directs the state to reevaluate and redesign 

California’s system of MPAs to: increase 

coherence and effectiveness in protecting 

the state’s marine life and habitats, marine 

ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as 

well as to improve recreational, educational 

and research opportunities provided by 

marine ecosystems subject to minimal 

human disturbance. The MLPA also 

requires the best readily available science 

be used in the redesign process, as well as 

Public Review Draft FEP 113 February 2013
the advice and assistance of scientists, resource managers, experts, stakeholders and members of the 

public.

California has taken a regional approach to developing a network of integrated MPAs along its 1,100 mile 

coastline in accordance with the MLPA – see also Section 3.3.4. The statewide coastal network includes 

124 MPAs and 16 special closures covering approximately 848 sq mi of state waters and representing 

approximately 16% of all coastal state waters including those already adopted or proposed for the north 

coast (Point Arena north to the CA/OR border). Currently, almost 461 sq mi of state waters have been set 

aside as no-take marine reserves to observe their transition to an unfished state and evaluate ecosystem 

impacts on marine resources. These MPAs are expected to benefit California’s marine resources 

including species under federal FMPs.

The California Coastal Act (or the Coastal Act) commenced California's coastal zone management rules 

as the means to regulate projects with possible impacts on use of land and water in the coastal zone. The 

Coastal Act permanently established the California Coastal Commission as the reviewing or governing 

body over the coastal zone. 

Along with the [San Francisco] 

Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission, the 

Coastal Commission is one of 

California's two designated 

coastal management agencies 

for the purpose of 

administering the federal 

CZMA in California. The 

Coastal Commission mission 

is to: “...protect, conserve, 

restore, and enhance 

environmental and humanbased resources of the 

California coast and ocean for 

environmentally sustainable 

and prudent use by current and 

future generations.” 

The California Ocean Protection Act (COPA) was implemented in 2003 to better integrate and coordinate 

regulations and agencies, both state and federal, responsible for protecting and conserving the state's 

ocean resources. One objective of the COPA is to “...encourage cooperative management with federal 

agencies, to protect and conserve representative coastal and ocean habitats and the ecological processes 

that support those habitats.” The COPA established the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), a cabinet level 

oversight body, which actively works to facilitate coordination among various agencies on activities 

promoting ocean health and helps prioritize ocean resource needs. In addition, a Trust Fund overseen by 

the OPC was developed to insure best use of the state’s limited resources for ocean resource management. 

Although the MLMA lays out policies for achieving sustainability, it does not provide a specific method 

for measuring sustainability of California’s vast marine resources. In 2009, California’s Legislature 

passed the Sustainable Seafood Act requiring the state’s OPC to develop and implement a voluntary 

sustainable seafood promotion program for California. The directives of the state program include 

development of protocols for guidance on certification of sustainable fisheries to internationallyrecognized standards, a marketing and assistance program for fisheries ultimately certified, a competitive 

grant and loan program for assisting in certification, an eco labeling component and an advisory 

Public Review Draft FEP 114 February 2013
committee. While the CDFW is not directly involved in the efforts to establish this program, it will 

provide biological data and expert consultation on the state’s fisheries for sustainability determinations.

California limits participation in the following commercial fisheries (some of which may also be 

restricted through federal FMPs): nearshore live fishery, urchin (diving), lobster, herring, rock crab, 

Dungeness crab, sea cucumber (diving and trawl), market squid, salmon, spot prawn (trap), California 

halibut (trawl), and northern pink shrimp (trawl). An additional limitation exists for the drift gill net and 

set gill net fisheries, which limits the number of participants specifically using each gear type (drift and 

set gill net) rather than the species taken by the gear. Further species or fisheries in California that are 

monitored through the use of non-restrictive permits are: anchovy, golden prawn (trawl), ridgeback prawn 

(trawl), swordfish (hook-and-line or harpoon only), bay shrimp, northern rock crab, southern pink shrimp 

(trawl), ghost shrimp, Tanner crab, marine aquaria collection, tidal invertebrates, and coonstripe shrimp 

(trawl). These non-restrictive permits do not limit the number of fishery participants, but are useful for 

indicating whether or not there is increased interest or potential development of market demand that 

would otherwise be unknown. Additional regulations may or may not be applicable to these nonrestricted permits such as (but not limited to): size limits, trip limits, season closures, area closures and 

gear restrictions. In recent years, California recognized developing fisheries, for Kellet’s whelk and 

hagfish, which are not currently covered under existing FMPs or limited permits. 

The major recreational fisheries in California are boat-based and target groundfish, salmon, tunas and 

other highly migratory species, California halibut, surf perches and sea basses. Retention of several 

sensitive species including white shark, Garibaldi, giant (black) sea bass, gulf and broomtail groupers, and 

all species of abalone other than red abalone are prohibited in regulations. 

3.5.2.6 Idaho Fisheries Management

Although Idaho is landlocked, it contains much of the Columbia River basin’s salmon and steelhead 

spawning and rearing habitat in the middle and upper Snake River system (Waples et al 1991). The Snake 

River provides EFH for ESA-listed sockeye, spring, summer and fall Chinook salmon and summer 

steelhead (Ford et al 2010). Of these, only fall Chinook salmon are substantially affected by ocean 

fisheries. All are caught in fisheries in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game manages sport fisheries for Chinook salmon and steelhead to 

minimize incidental take of ESA-listed wild fish and ensure adequate return of hatchery fish for brood 

stock needs (Hassemer, personal communication). The Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock tribes also 

pursue these anadromous fishes within Idaho. Historically, Idaho had an abundance of anadromous coho 

salmon, Pacific lamprey and sturgeon. Snake River Coho were declared extinct in 1986. In the mid 1990s, 

the Nez Perce Tribe initiated a program to restore coho to the Clearwater River. Lamprey have dwindled 

to near extirpation in Idaho with only 48 crossing Lower Granite Dam in 2011 (Columbia River DART). 

White sturgeon rarely use fish ladders but have maintained a landlocked population mostly in Hells 

Canyon of the Snake River. 

Historically, the Snake River spring/summer Chinook run exceeded 1 million fish, but was reduced to 

near 100,000 fish by the mid 1950s (Mathews and Waples 1991). The Columbia’s largest tributary, the 

Snake River and its tributaries lie mostly in Idaho and to a lesser extent in eastern Washington and

Oregon. The Snake River fall Chinook run was about 72,000 in the 1940s and about 29,000 in the 1950s, 

but remained the most important natural production area for Columbia basin fall Chinook. Prior to the 

1960s, the Snake River was considered the most important drainage in the Columbia River system for the 

production of anadromous fishes (Waples et al 1991). Dam construction on the upper Snake River 

substantially reduced the distribution and abundance of Snake River fall Chinook salmon (Irving and 

Public Review Draft FEP 115 February 2013
Bjornn 1981). Although considerable high quality spawning and rearing habitat remain in Idaho for

spring and summer Chinook in the Salmon and Clearwater tributaries, their numbers have also declined in 

large part due to mortality during the outmigration through eight mainstem reservoirs and dams on the 

lower Snake River and Columbia.

Only limited Snake River fall Chinook spawning occurred downriver from Snake River km 439, the site 

of Oxbow Dam. The construction of Brownlee Dam in 1959 at Snake River km 459, Oxbow Dam 

(1961; RKm 439), and Hells Canyon Dam (1967; RKm 397) eliminated the primary production areas of 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Chinook were prevented from accessing 58% of prime spawning 

habitat as early as 1901 with the construction of Swan Falls Dam at RKm 734 (Parkhurst 1950). River 

habitat was further reduced with the construction of four fish-passable dams on the lower Snake River: 

Ice Harbor Dam (1961; RKm 16), Lower Monumental Dam (1969; RKm 67), Little Goose Dam (1970; 

RKm 113), and Lower Granite Dam (1975; RKm 173). Apart from the possibility of deep-water 

spawning in lower areas of the river, the main-stem Snake River from the upper limit of the Lower 

Granite Dam reservoir to Hells Canyon Dam (approximately 165 km) and the lower reaches of the 

Imnaha, Grande Ronde, Clearwater, and Tucannon Rivers are the only remaining areas available for fall 

Chinook salmon spawning in the Snake River Basin (Waples et al 1991). In 2009, state, federal and tribal 

fisheries projects released 5.4 million fall Chinook smolts in the free flowing reach of the Snake River 

and tributaries between Lower Granite Reservoir and Hells Canyon Dam7

. In 2011, 25,541 adult fall

Chinook salmon returned to this river reach (Columbia River DART), a smolt-to-adult return rate of 

0.5%. Although most of these adults came from the smolt releases, Idaho Power’s river flow management 

from Hells Canyon Dam since the early 1990s has benefited fall Chinook natural spawning and 

incubation in the Snake River. Additionally, cold-water releases from Dworshak Reservoir on the North 

Fork Clearwater River have improved migration conditions for juvenile fall Chinook. The main fisheries 

for Idaho-reared fall Chinook are in the ocean and lower Columbia River, with total exploitation rates of 

40% to 50% 

(Ford et al.

2010). Of the 

25,541 adult fall 

Chinook crossing 

Lower Granite 

Dam in 2011, 

only 952 (4%) 

were caught and 

only 210 (<1%) 

were harvested in 

Idaho sport 

fisheries (IDFG 

unpublished data 

2012). Only 28% 

of the adults 

caught were 

adipose finclipped and legal 

to harvest. The 

2011 Joint Staff 

Report prepared 

by the Oregon 

and Washington 

7 Fish Passage Center: http://www.fpc.org/

Public Review Draft FEP 116 February 2013

 
Departments of Fish and Wildlife estimate that 8,097 wild adult fall Chinook crossed Lower Granite Dam 

in 2011.This was the second largest run of naturally produced fall Chinook since their near collapse in 

1975.

Habitat restoration, improved hatchery fish health, and improved juvenile fish passage technology at the 

lower Snake River dams have increased the return of spring and summer Chinook to an average of 56,000 

from 1996 through 2004 (Columbia River DART), 40% (22,400) of which were wild fish (IDFG 

unpublished data). Although spring and summer Chinook are rarely harvested in the CCE, they are listed 

as threatened and managed under the ESA. When there is a harvestable surplus of hatchery spring and 

summer Chinook, and when there are sufficient natural spawners to allow for some incidental mortality, 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game opens state fisheries. After accounting for the number of spawners 

needed to fully seed hatcheries in the Snake River basin, the surplus production is allocated equally 

between sport and tribal fisheries. Sport allocation for spring/summer Chinook in Idaho was 17,300 in 

2011 and is 29,490 in 2012 (IDFG unpublished data 2012). The lower value is closer to the average 

annual allocation for the recent decade.

Summer steelhead support the largest anadromous fishery in Idaho. Idaho’s adult steelhead generally

leave the ocean between June and October and are caught in state and tribal fisheries in the lower 

Columbia River. They are caught in fisheries in Idaho from mid-July through April. Spawning occurs in 

April and May. About 200,000 steelhead cross lower Granite Dam annually and about 76% are adipose 

fin clipped and available for harvest. In recent years, about 50% of the adipose-clipped steelhead are 

harvested (IDFG unpublished data).

Public Review Draft FEP 117 February 2013
3.5.3 Multi-State, Multi-Tribe and State-Tribal Entities

In addition to the Council process, there are West Coast multi-state or state-tribal natural resource 

management processes that affect fisheries management within the CCE.

3.5.3.1 Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Established in 1947, the PSMFC is an interstate compact agency that helps resource agencies and the 

fishing industry sustainably manage Pacific Ocean resources in a five-state region. PSMFC’s member 

states are California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. Each state is represented by three 

Commissioners. PSMFC participates in both the PFMC and North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council processes as a non-voting member of each Council.

PSMFC has no regulatory or management authority. It serves as a neutral party, providing for 

collective participation by member states on topics of mutual concern and offering a forum for 

discussion and consensus-building. Its primary purpose is to promote and support policies and actions 

to conserve, develop, and manage these fishery resources. It coordinates research activities, monitors 

fishing activities, and facilitates a wide variety of projects. PSMFC staff collect data and maintain 

databases on salmon, steelhead, and other marine fish for fishery managers and the fishing industry. 

For example, PSMFC maintains the PacFIN and the Pacific RecFIN databases, which the Council and 

others rely on for timely and accurate data for management. Other major projects or programs relevant 

to Council management include the habitat program, the West Coast groundfish observer program, the 

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag and coded wire tag programs, the aquatic habitat data project 

(StreamNet), the West Coast economics data program, an aquatic invasive species prevention program, 

and the Pacific ballast water group.

The PSMFC is also charged with convening the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee to discuss issues 

and with making reports to Congress on Dungeness Crab management. Under the MSA at Section 306, 

authority to manage the non-tribal ocean Dungeness crab fishery is delegated to the states of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. Each state may adopt and enforce State laws and regulations 

governing fishing and 

processing in the EEZ adjacent 

to that state in any Dungeness 

crab fishery for which there is 

no federal FMP in effect. By 

memorandum of agreement, 

the state fishery directors have 

agreed to take mutually

supportive actions to further

the management and

maximize the sound economic

and biological utilization of

the crab resource when

appropriately requested by the

Director of one of the other 

three cooperating state

agencies. Decisions about 

West Coast openings of the 

commercial season based on 

crab soft shell condition are 

made under this agreement. 

Public Review Draft FEP 118 February 2013
3.5.3.2 North of Falcon Process

The “North of Falcon” process is an annual salmon management planning process involving 

representatives from salmon treaty tribes, the states of Washington and Oregon, and the federal 

government. Its name refers to the geographic area it addresses, salmon and fisheries management 

north of Cape Falcon, Oregon. The North of Falcon process is intended to support the Council’s 

annual salmon management process by providing a series of advance public discussions of alternatives 

for the coming year’s salmon seasons. Each November, the Council hears from its SSC and Salmon 

Technical Team on methodologies used to develop, support, and later assess the effects of, that year’s 

salmon season management parameters. In the winter months, salmon scientists update the models 

intended for use in the subsequent year’s fisheries. Beginning in February, managers working within 

the North of Falcon process start their review of new science and management information for salmon 

fisheries. The North of Falcon process allows managers to both prepare for Council action in March 

and April to set the year’s salmon season parameters, and to prepare for shifts in state- or tribe-specific 

regulations intended to keep the applicable fisheries within their allocations.

3.5.3.3 Intertribal Fisheries Commissions

The Northwest treaty tribes of Washington and Oregon formed two commissions in the mid-1970s to 

pursue common objectives and provide coordinated services to their memberships. The Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) was formed by agreement among the Warm Springs, 

Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes in 1977. The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

(NWIFC) was formed in 1976 by its 21 member tribes (Lummi, Nooksack, Swinomish, Upper Skagit, 

Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, Skokomish, 

Suquamish, Port Gamble S’Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Makah, Quileute, 

Hoh and Quinault). The commissions are governed by their member tribes, which appoint 

commissioners to develop policy and guidance for their operations. All actions and policies created are 

by unanimous consent of the membership.

The commissions do not possess inherent, sovereign authority but, upon consent, can represent 

member tribes in local and regional fisheries management venues. The commissions provide mostly 

coordinating, advisory and technical services to support tribal natural resources management efforts 

and provide mechanisms for unified actions to address joint issues and needs.

3.5.3.4 West Coast Governors’ Alliance on Ocean Health

The West Coast Governors’ Agreement (later “Alliance” on Ocean Health (WCGA) was created in 2006 

as a unique regional partnership among Washington, Oregon and California to protect and manage coastal 

and ocean resources and the economies they support along the entire West Coast. The WCGA’s is 

intended to forward coastwide priorities on:

• Ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches;

• Protecting and restoring healthy ocean and coastal habitats;

• Promoting the effective implementation of ecosystem-based management of our ocean and 

coastal resources;

• Reducing adverse impacts of offshore development;

• Increasing ocean awareness and literacy among our citizens;

• Expanding ocean and coastal scientific information, research, and monitoring; and

• Fostering sustainable economic development throughout our diverse coastal communities.

Public Review Draft FEP 119 February 2013
Upon completing an action plan in 2008, ten Action Coordination teams, comprised of volunteers with 

expertise in priority areas, were created to develop and implement work plans to achieve high priority 

regional goals of addressing: climate change, integrated ecosystem assessments, marine debris, ocean 

awareness and literacy, polluted runoff, renewable ocean energy, seafloor mapping, sediment 

management, Spartina eradication, and sustainable coastal communities. The recently adopted federal 

National Ocean Policy identifies the WCGA as the regional ocean governance partnership for the West 

Coast and one of nine such entities recognized throughout the United States. For advancing functional, 

resilient estuarine and nearshore marine ecosystems along the West Coast, the WCGA has endorsed a 

working relationshin with the newly-formed Pacific Marine Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership, a group 

convened by the PSMFC.

3.5.4 International Science and Management Entities

For FMP species, the United States is a party with Canada in three treaties addressing fisheries for 

transboundary stocks: Pacific salmon, Pacific whiting, and North Pacific albacore. The United States is 

also a party with Canada on the Pacific Halibut Convention. Pacific Halibut is not an FMP species, but 

is taken as bycatch in some FMP fisheries and the Council has a Catch Sharing Plan for Pacific halibut 

taken off the U.S. West Coast. In addition, the U. S. is a party to several multi-lateral treaties addressing 

fisheries for HMS FMP species, and is a party to several agreements to conserve marine resources 

worldwide.

3.5.4.1 Pacific Halibut

The U.S./Canada Pacific Halibut convention established the International Pacific Halibut Commission

(IPHC, originally called the International Fisheries Commission) in 1923 for the preservation of Pacific 

halibut in waters off Canada and the United States of America. Its mandate is research on and 

management of the stocks, including monitoring the fishery, conducting research, assessing stock 

condition and setting the allowable harvest for management areas. Halibut fisheries off Washington, 

Oregon and California are within IPHC’s management area 2A. The states, halibut treaty tribes, and 

NMFS together develop an annual Catch Sharing Plan for Pacific halibut fisheries off the US West Coast, 

which the Council and IPHC review and adopt annually.

3.5.4.2 Salmon

The U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty was signed in 

1985 and sets long-term goals for the benefit of the 

salmon and the two countries. The Pacific Salmon 

Commission is the body formed by the governments 

of Canada and the United States to implement the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Commission itself does 

not regulate the salmon fisheries, but provides

regulatory advice and recommendations to the two 

countries. It is responsible for all salmon originating 

in the waters of one country that are subject to 

interception by the other, that affect management of 

the other country's salmon or that biologically affect 

the stocks of the other country. The Pacific Salmon 

Commission must also take into account the 

conservation of steelhead trout while fulfilling its 

other functions. The role of the Pacific Salmon 

Commission is to: conserve Pacific Salmon in order to

Public Review Draft FEP 120 February 2013
achieve optimum production, to divide harvests so that each country reaps the benefits of its investment in 

salmon management. 

High seas salmon management in the North Pacific Ocean, for waters beyond the EEZs of any countries, 

is conducted under the multi-lateral Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North 

Pacific Ocean. That Convention authorized the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC,) 

the parties to which are the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Russia. The NPAFC replaced the 

1952-1992 International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC,) the international high-seas salmon 

management commission that, among other things, first separated coastal waters around the North Pacific 

into scientific study areas. Off the U.S. West Coast, we still sometimes use and refer to INPFC science 

and management areas: Vancouver (north of 47°30’ N. lat.), Columbia (between 47°30’ and 43°00’ N. 

lat.), Eureka (between 43°00’ and 40°30’ N. lat.), Monterey (between 40°30’ and 36°00’ N. lat.), and 

Conception (south of 36°00’ N. lat.). The NPAFC’s Convention recognizes that its participant nations 

invest in conservation and salmon freshwater habitat protection in accordance with their national 

priorities, so takes the stance that fisheries for anadromous stocks should be conducted within EEZs to 

ensure that the benefits of those investments accrue to the nations making the investments. To that end,

the Convention prohibits directed fishing for 

anadromous fish within North Pacific high 

seas waters, and the NPAFC provides a 

forum for an international exchange of 

science, management, and enforcement 

information in support of its Convention.

3.5.4.3 Whiting

The U.S./Canada Pacific Whiting Treaty

was signed in 2003 and establishes agreed 

percentage shares of the transboundary 

stock of Pacific whiting (also known as 

Pacific hake). It also creates a process 

through which U.S. and Canadian scientists 

and fisheries managers recommend the total 

catch of Pacific whiting each year. The 

agreement anticipates that stakeholders from 

both countries will have significant input 

into this process. The Agreement, 

implemented for the first time in 2012, 

created four bodies to assist in the 

assessment and sustainable management of 

the shared whiting resource:

• The Joint Management Committee 

(JMC) is charged with determining 

the total annual allowable whiting 

catch;

• An industry Advisory Panel (AP) 

is charged with reviewing the 

management of the fishery and 

making recommendations to the 

JMC regarding the overall total 

allowable catch;

Public Review Draft FEP 121 February 2013
• The Joint Technical Committee (JTC) is charged with annually providing the JMC with a stock 

assessment that includes scientific advice on the annual potential yield of the offshore whiting 

resource; 

• The Scientific Review Group (SRG) is charged with providing an independent peer review of 

the work of the JTC. 

Amendment 23 to the Groundfish FMP exempted the Pacific whiting stock from the FMP’s annual catch 

limit requirements based on the harvest policies of the Agreement. However, the Agreement’s harvest 

policy is based on the Groundfish FMP’s original 40-10 harvest control rule, which involves a 

precautionary adjustment to the harvest rate when the stock drops below the 40 percent of its unfished 

stock size (i.e. B40%, the recommend abundance level for producing maximum sustainable yield from the 

stock). The main difference between this approach and the current harvest policies of the Groundfish 

FMP is that the Agreement does not require a scientific uncertainty buffer between the overfishing limit

and the acceptable biological catch. Under the Agreement, the JMC may recommend a different harvest 

policy “if the scientific evidence demonstrates that a different rate is necessary to sustain the offshore 

hake/whiting resource.”

3.5.4.3 HMS Species

Because of the wide-ranging movements of highly migratory stocks, all management unit species in the 

HMS FMP are covered under international agreements. Vessels from the U. S. and many other nations 

harvest HMS FMP species throughout the Pacific Ocean and effective management of the stocks 

throughout their ranges requires international cooperation. The MSA requires adoption of annual catch 

limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) and other provisions to prevent and end overfishing 

and rebuild fisheries. However, a stock or stock complex may not require an ACL and AMs if it qualifies 

for a so-called “international exception” for stocks managed under an international agreement to which 

the United States is a party. However, if the 

Secretary of Commerce determines that an 

HMS FMP Management Unit Stock is 

overfished or approaching overfished due to 

excessive international fishing pressure, and 

for which there are no management measures 

to end overfishing under an international 

agreement, the Secretary and/or the Council

must take action under MSA Section 304(i). 

This section requires the Secretary, with the 

Secretary of State, to take action at the 

international level to end overfishing. 

Further, within one year, the Secretary and/or 

Council shall recommend domestic 

regulations to address the relative impact of 

U.S. vessels on the stock and recommend to 

Congress, international actions to end 

overfishing and rebuild, taking into account, 

the relative impact of vessels of other nations 

and vessels of the U.S.

The U.S. and Canada manage cross-border 

albacore fisheries interactions through a 

bilateral treaty. The U.S. is a member of the 

Public Review Draft FEP 122 February 2013
multi-lateral Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which is responsible for the 

conservation and management of fisheries for tunas and other species taken by tuna-fishing vessels in the 

eastern Pacific Ocean. The U.S. is also a member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (WCPFC), which plays a parallel role in the western and central Pacific (generally, west of 

150° W. longitude). 

The U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty took effect in 1982 and has been renegotiated several times to address 

limitations on access to North Pacific albacore tuna by fishing vessels of one country operating in the 

jurisdiction of the other. The Treaty is a framework that allows fishing in the host country beyond 12 

nautical miles during the fishing season. Until 2012, the two countries have agreed to a reciprocal fishing 

regime that specified conditions for vessels fishing of waters of the other country. Pursuant to the treaty, 

the United States and Canada annually exchange lists of fishing vessels that may fish for albacore tuna in 

each other’s waters. The vessels agree to abide by the provisions of the Treaty, which include vessel 

marking, recordkeeping, and reporting. It also allows the fishing vessels of each country to enter 

designated fishing ports of the other country to conduct several types of business transactions including 

the landing of albacore without payment of duties; transshipment of catches to any port of the flag state; 

selling catches for export or locally; and obtaining fuel, supplies, repairs, and equipment on the same 

basis as albacore tuna vessels of the other country. The Treaty allows Canadian albacore vessels to land 

their catch in the U.S. ports of Bellingham and Westport, Washington; Astoria, Coos Bay, and Newport, 

Oregon; and Eureka, California. 

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) was established in 1949 for the conservation and 

management of fisheries for tunas, tuna-like species, and other species of fish taken incidentally by tuna 

fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Currently, there are 21 members of the IATTC: Belize, 

Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, France, Guatemala, 

Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu, and 

Venezuela. The Cook Islands is a Cooperating Non-Member. 

The IATTC is 

responsible for the 

conservation and 

management of fisheries 

for tunas and other 

species taken by tunafishing vessels in the 

eastern Pacific Ocean. 

The Tuna Conventions 

Act of 1950 provides the 

United States with the 

federal authority to 

implement the measures 

adopted by the IATTC. 

In 2003, the IATTC 

adopted a resolution that 

approved the Antigua 

Convention, a major 

revision of the original 

convention establishing 

the IATTC. It brings the convention current with respect to internationally accepted laws on the 

conservation and management of oceanic resources, including a mandate to take a more ecosystem-based 

approach to management. The Antigua Convention entered into force in 2010.

Public Review Draft FEP 123 February 2013
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission was created in 2004 under the Convention on the 

Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. 

The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation 

and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks. The United States signed the Convention in 2000 and 

ratified it in 2007, thereby becoming a member of the WCPFC. The U.S. domestic procedures for 

ratification of the Convention were completed in June 2007. There are 25 Members of the Commission: 

Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, 

Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New 

Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, and 

Vanuatu. American Samoa, Guam, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Tokelau, Wallis, Futuna, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are Participating Territories, and Belize, Indonesia, 

Panama, Senegal, Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador, Thailand, and Vietnam are Cooperating Non-members. 

The International Scientific Committee (ISC), under the auspices of the WCPFC, enhances scientific 

research and cooperation for conservation and rational utilization of the species of tuna and tuna-like 

fishes which inhabit the North Pacific Ocean during a part or all of their life cycle. The ISC conducts 

HMS stock assessments that, within the U.S., are used to develop harvest management measures within 

the Pacific and Western Pacific Fishery Management Councils. The ISC also develops proposals for 

conduct of and coordinates international and national programs of research addressing such species.

Other International Fisheries Agreements and Action Plans: The HMS FMP provides a framework for 

the United States to meet its obligations under other international agreements to which the U.S. is a party. 

United Nations Implementing Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks 

and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks interprets the duties of nations to cooperate in conserving and 

managing fisheries resources, and dictates that coastal states (i.e., nations) may not adopt measures that 

undermine the effectiveness of regional measures to achieve conservation of the stocks. The U.S. is also 

a member of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO,) which has implications 

for HMS management. In 1995, the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries developed a Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries, which more than 170 member countries, including the U.S., have adopted. 

Pursuant to this Code of Conduct, the U.S. has adopted the Agreement to Promote Compliance with 

International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas and four 

International Plans of Action: 1) for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, for the 

Conservation and Management of Sharks , for the Management of Fishing Capacity, and to Prevent, Deter 

and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

3.5.4.4 Other International Forums

The Tri-National Sardine Forum began in 2000 and provides an annual opportunity for international 

coordination and collaboration among industry, scientists, and managers from Mexico, the U.S. and 

Canada for the sardine stock. The forum promotes coordinated coastwide data collection for sardine 

stock assessments, and promotes science and fishery management information-sharing. This forum is 

science-focused and there is no treaty governing the multi-national management of CCE sardines.

In 1902, northern Atlantic Ocean nations established the International Council for the Exploration of the 

Sea (ICES,) an international partnership for the cooperative exploration of ocean and fisheries science. In 

1992, northern Pacific Ocean nations, including those that had long been ICES members, established the 

North Pacific Marine Science Organization, known as PICES for “Pacific ICES.” PICES meets annually 

to promote and coordinate multi-national marine science within the North Pacific Ocean north of 30°00’ 

N. lat. Its member nations are the U.S., Canada, Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia.

Public Review Draft FEP 124 February 2013
The North American Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 decreed that all migratory birds and their parts 

(including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic 

law that affirms, or implements, the United States' commitment to four international conventions (with 

Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Each of the 

conventions protect selected species of birds that are common to both countries (i.e., they occur in both 

countries at some point during their annual life cycle). 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 27 

U.S.T. 108) establishes a system of import/export regulations to prevent the over-exploitation of plants 

and animals listed in three appendices to the Convention. Different levels of trade regulations are 

provided depending on the status of the listed species and the contribution trade makes to decline of the 

species. Procedures are provided for periodic amendments to the appendices. CITES went into force 

worldwide in 1975. Within the U.S., the ESA is the implementing legislation for CITES. Executive Order 

11911, signed April 13, 1976, designated Management and Scientific Authorities to grant or deny 

requests for import or export permits. 

Western Hemisphere Convention (Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the 

Western Hemisphere; 56 Stat. 1354; TS 981.) Under this 1940 treaty, the governments of the U.S. and 17 

other American republics expressed their wish to "protect and preserve in their natural habitat 

representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds" and to 

protect regions and natural objects of scientific value. The nations agreed to take actions to achieve these 

objectives, including the adoption of "appropriate measures for the protection of migratory birds of 

economic or esthetic value or to prevent the threatened extinction of any given species." Within the U.S., 

the ESA is the implementing legislation for the Western Hemisphere Convention (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 

87 Stat. 884). 

Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific 

Ocean. Discussions to implement an agreement on limiting bottom fishing effort within the high seas 

waters of the North Pacific Ocean (FAO Statistical Area 61) have not yet resulted in a final international 

convention to regulate high seas bottom fisheries in accordance with United Nations General Assembly 

Resolution 61/105. The last multilateral meeting to discuss this convention occurred in 2011, with the 

following countries participating: Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, the U.S., and Chinese Taipei.

Public Review Draft FEP 125 February 2013
3.6 Sources for Chapter 3

Ainley, D.G. and T.J. Lewis. 1974. The history of Farallon Island marine bird populations, 1954-1972. Condor 76: 

432-446.

Ainsworth, J. C., M. Vance, M. V. Hunter, and E. Schindler. 2012. The Oregon recreational dungeness crab fishery, 

2007-2011.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report 2012-04, Marine Resources 

Program, Newport, OR. 62p. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/shellfish/crab/reports.asp

Allen, L.G., D. J. Pondella, M.H. Horn, (eds) 2006. The Ecology of Marine Fishes, University of California Press, 

Berkeley.

Allen, P. J., M. Nicholl, S. Cole, A. Vlazny, and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2006. Growth of Larval to Juvenile Green Sturgeon in 

Elevated Temperature Regimes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:89-96.

Alsharif, K.A. and N. Miller. 2012. Data Envelopment Analysis to Evaluate the Reliance and Engagement of Florida 

Communities on Gulf of Mexico Commercial Red Snapper Fisheries. Fisheries 37: 19-26.

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, K.F. Mais, and R.R. Kelly. 1980. Brown pelicans as anchovy stock indicators and their 

relationships to commercial fishing. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 

21:54-61.

Auster, P. J. 2005. Are deep water corals important habitat for fishes? Cold-water corals and ecosystems (A. 

Freiwald and J.M. Roberts (eds.), 1244 p. Springer, New York, NY.

Bakun, A. 1996. Patterns in the Ocean: Ocean Processes and Marine Population Dynamics. California Sea Grant.

Banas, N.S., P. MaCready, and B.M Hickey. 2008. The Columbia River plume as cross-shelf exporter and alongcoast barrier. doi. 10.101b. Cont. Shelf Res. 2008.03.011: 292-301.

Baskett, M.L., M. Yoklavich and M.S. Love. 2006. Predation, competition, and the recovery of overexploited fish 

stocks in marine reserves. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 1214-1229.

Baumgartner, T.R., A. Soutar and V.Ferreira-Bartrina. 1992. Reconstructions of the history of Pacific sardine and 

northern anchovy populations over the past two millennia from sediments of the Santa Barbara Basin, 

California. CalCOFI Reports 33: 24-40.

Beamish, R.J., Mahnken, C. 2001. A critical size and period hypothesis to explain natural regulation of salmon 

abundance and the linkage to climate and climate change. Prog. Oceano. 49: 423-437.

Bedford, D. 2001. In California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report, Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. 

Klingbeil and E.J. Larson (eds). California Department of Fish and Game, Sea Grant Publication SG01-11 

University of California, pgs 277-281.

Benson, S. R., T. Eguchi, D. G. Foley, et al. 2011. Large-scale movements and high-use areas of western Pacific 

leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea. Ecosphere 2(7):art84. doi:10.1890/ES11-00053.1

Berman-Kowalewski, M., Gulland, F.M.D., et al. 2010. Association between blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

mortality and ship strikes along the California Coast. Aquatic Mammals 36: 59–66.

Block, B., I.D. Jonsen, S. Jorgensen et al. 2011. Tagging of Pacific pelagics: tracking apex marine predator 

movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475: 86-90.

Bjorkstedt E, Goericke R, McClatchie S, Weber E, Watson W, Lo N, Peterson B, Emmett B, Peterson J, Durazo R, 

Gaxiola-Castro G, Chavez F, Pennington JT, Collins CA, Field J, Ralston S, Sakuma K, Bograd S, 

Schwing F, Xue Y, Sydeman W, Thompson SA, Santora JA, Largier J, Halle C, Morgan S, Kim SY, 

Merkens K, Hildebrand J, Munger L. 2010. State of the California Current 2009–2010: regional variation 

persists through transition from La Niña to El Niño (and back?). California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations Report 51:39–69.

Bjorkstedt, E.P., R. Goericke, S. McClatchie et al. 2011. State of the California Current 2010–2011: Regional 

variable responses to a strong (but fleeting?) La Niña. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations Report 52: 36-69.

Blaxter JHS (1992) The effect of temperature on larval fishes. Neth J Zool 42:336–357.

Block, B., I.D. Jonsen, S. Jorgensen et al. 2011. Tagging of Pacific pelagics: tracking apex marine predator 

movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475: 86-90.

Bograd, S. J., C. G. Castro, E. Di Lorenzo, D. M. Palacios, H. Bailey, W. Gilly, and F. P. Chavez (2008), Oxygen 

declines and the shoaling of the hypoxic boundary in the California Current, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 

L12607, doi:10.1029/2008GL034185.

Bosley, K. L., J. W. Lavelle, R. D. Brodeur, W. W. Wakefield, R. L. Emmett, E. T. Baker, and K. M. Rehmke. 

2004. Biological and physical processes in and around Astoria submarine Canyon, Oregon, USA. Journal 

of Marine Systems 50:21–37.

Public Review Draft FEP 126 February 2013
Botsford, L., and Lawrence, C.A. 2002. Patterns of covariability among California Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, 

Dungeness crab, and physical oceanographic conditions. Prog. Ocean. 53: 283-305.

Brinton, E. and Townsend, A. 2003. Decadal variability in abundances of the dominant euphausiid species in 

southern sectors of the California Current. Deep-Sea Research II 50: 2449-2472.

Brodeur, R.D. 1990. A synthesis of the food habits and feeding ecology of salmonids in marine wa- ters of the North 

Pacific. FRI-UW-9016, Fisher- ies Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

Brodeur, R.D., W.T. Peterson, T.D. Auth, H.L. Soulen, M.M. Parnel, and A.A. Emerson. 2008. Abundance and 

diversity of coastal fish larvae as indicators of recent changes in ocean and climate conditions in the 

Oregon upwelling zone. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 366:187-202.

Brodeur, R.D. J. J. Ruzicka and J. H. Steele. Investigating Alternate Trophic Pathways through Gelatinous 

Zooplankton and Planktivorous Fishes in an Upwelling Ecosystem Using End-to-End Models 

Interdisciplinary Studies on Environmental Chemistry—Marine Environmental Modeling & Analysis, Eds., 

K. Omori, X. Guo, N. Yoshie, N. Fujii, I. C. Handoh, A. Isobe and S. Tanabe, pp. 57–63. © by 

TERRAPUB, 2011.

Bundy, A., J.J. Heymans, L. Morissette, and C. Savenkoff. 2009. Seals, cod and forage fish: A comparative 

exploration of variations in the theme of stock collapse and ecosystem change in four Northwest Atlantic 

ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography 81: 188-206

Carlson, S.M., and Satterthwaite, W.H. 2011. Weakened portfolio effect in a collapsed salmon population complex. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68: 1579-1589.

Carretta, J.V., K. A. Forney, E. Oleson et al. 2010. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010. 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-476. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2010.pdf.

Cayan, D.R. and D.H. Peterson. 1989. The influence of North Pacific atmospheric circulation on streamflow in the 

west. Geophysical Monograph 55: 375-397.

Chan, F., J. Barth, J. Lubchenko, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. Peterson, and B. Menge (2008), Emergence of anoxia 

in the California Current large marine ecosystem, Science, 319, 920.

Chavez, F.P., J. Ryan, S.E. Lluch-Cota and M.Niquen. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal 

change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217-221.

Checkley, D.M. and J.A. Barth. 2009. Patterns and processes in the California Current System. Progress in 

Oceanography 83: 49–64.

Checkley, D.B., J. Alheit, Y. Oozeki and C. Roy. 2009. Climate change and small pelagic fish. Cambridge 

University Press: Cambridge.

Clapham, P.J., S. Leatherwood, I. Szczepaniak, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1997. Catches of humpback and other whales 

from shore stations at Moss Landing and Trinidad, California, 1919-1926. Marine Mammal Science 13:3: 

368-394. 

Clay, P.M. and J. Olson. 2008. Defining “Fishing Communities”: Vulnerability and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. Human Ecology Review 15: 143-160.

Cobb, J.N. 1930. Pacific Salmon Fisheries. Appendix XIII to the Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for 

1930. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1092. 

Cox, S.P., T.E. Essington, J.F. Kitchell, et. al. 2002. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific 

Ocean, 1952-1998. II. A preliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna 

dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1736-1747.

Columbia River DART (Data in Real Time) Columbia Basin Research, School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences, 

University of Washington. Accessed 05/11/12: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/

Crawford, R. J. M. 1987. Food and population variability in five regions supporting large stocks of anchovy, 

sardines, and horse mackerel. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 5:735–757.

Crowder, L. and E. Norse. 2008. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine 

spatial planning. Marine Policy 32: 772-778.

Cury, P., A. Bakun, R. J. M. Crawford, A. Jarre, R. A. Quiñones, L. J. Shannon, and H. M. Verheye. 2000. Small 

pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems. 

ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:603–618.

Cury, P.M., I.L. Boyd, S. Sylvain Bonhommeau, et al. 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—onethird for the birds. Science 334 : 1703-1706.

Dahms HU (1995) Dormancy in the Copepoda — an overview. Hydrobiologia 306:199–211

Daly, E.A., Brodeur, R.D., and Weitkamp, L.A. 2009. Ontogenetic shifts in diets of juvenile and subadult coho and 

Chinook salmon in coastal marine waters: Important for marine survival? T. Am. Fish. Soc. 138: 1420-

1438.

Public Review Draft FEP 127 February 2013
Dayton, P.K., Tegner, M.J., Edwards, P.B., and Riser, K.L. 1999. Temporal and spatial scale of kelp demography: 

The role of oceanographic climate. Ecological Monographs, 69:219-250.

Di Lorenzo E., Schneider N., Cobb K. M., Chhak, K, Franks P. J. S., Miller A. J., McWilliams J. C., Bograd S. J., 

Arango H., Curchister E., Powell T. M. and P. Rivere, 2008: North Pacific Gyre Oscillation links ocean 

climate and ecosystem change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08607, doi:10.1029/2007GL032838.

Dorner, B., Peterman, R.M., Haeseke, S.L. 2008. Historical trends in productivity of 120 Pacific pink, chum, and 

sockeye salmon stocks reconstructed by using a Kalman filter . Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65(9): 1842-1866.

Dufault, A.M., K. Marshall, and I.C. Kaplan. 2009. A synthesis of diets and trophic overlap of marine species in the 

California Current. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-103, 81 p.

Emmett, R. L., R. D. Brodeur, T. W. Miller, S. S. Pool, P. J. Bentley, G. K. Krutzikowsky, and J. McCrae. 2005. 

Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) abundance, distribution, and ecological relationships in the Pacific 

Northwest. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish. Invest. 46:122–143.

Essential Fish Habitat Review Committee. 2012. Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year Essential Fish Habitat Report to 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Phase 1: New Information. 452 pp.

Estes, J.A., D. P. DeMaster D.F. Doak, T.M. Williams R.L. Brownell (Editors). 2006. Whales, Whaling, and Ocean 

Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Etnoyer, P. and L. Morgan. 2005. Habitat-forming deep-sea corals in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Cold-water corals 

and ecosystems (A. Freiwald and J.M. Roberts (eds.), 1244 p. Springer, New York, NY.

Fabry, V.J., Seibel, B.A., Feely, R.A., and Orr, J.C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and 

ecosystem processes. ICES JMS, 65:414-432.

Field, J.C. and R.C. Francis. 2006. Considering ecosystem-based fisheries management in the California Current. 

Marine Policy 30: 552-569.

Field, J.C., R.C. Francis, and K. Aydin. 2006. Top-down modeling and bottom-up dynamics: linking a fisheriesbased ecosystem model with climate hypotheses in the Northern California Current. Progress in 

Oceanography 68: 238-270.

Field, J.C., Baltz, K., Phillips, A.J., Walker, W.A. 2007. Range expansion and trophic interactions of the jumbo 

squid, Dosidicus gigas, in the California Current. CalCOFI Rep. 48: 131-146.

Finney, B.P., Gregory-Eaves, I., Sweetman, J., Douglas, M.S.V., Smol, J.P. 2000. Impacts of Climatic Change and 

Fishing on Pacific Salmon Abundance Over the Past 300 Years. Sci. 290: 795-799.

Ford, M. (ed.), T. Cooney, P. McElhany, N. Sands, L. Weitkamp, J. Hard, M. McClure, R. Kope, J. Myers, A. 

Albaugh, K. Barnas, D. Teel, P. Moran and J. Cowen. 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Northwest. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-113, 281 p.

Fréon, P., P. Cury, L. Shannon and C. Roy. 2005. Sustainable exploitation of small pelagic stocks challenged by 

environmental and ecosystem changes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 76: 385-462.

Fréon, P., J. Arístegui, A. Bertrand, R.J. Crawford, J.C. Field, M.J. Gibbons, L. Hutchings, H. Masski, C. Mullon, 

M. Ramdani, B. Seret, M. Simier and J. Tam. 2009. Functional group biodiversity in Eastern Boundary 

Upwelling Ecosystems questions the wasp-waist trophic structure. Progress in Oceanography 83: 97-106.

Ganssle, D. 1966. Fishes and Decapods of San Pablo and Suisun Bays. In: D.W. Kelley (ed.) Ecological Studies of 

the Sacramento San Joaquin Estuary: Part I; Zooplankton, Zoobenthos, and Fishes of San Pablo and Suisun 

Bays, Zooplankton and Zoobenthos of the Delta. California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin 

133.

Gordon, B.L. 1987. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Boxwood Press: Pacific Grove.

Greene, H.G., M.M. Yoklavich, R.M. Starr, V.M. O'Connell, W.W. Wakefield, D.E. Sullivan, J.E. McRea, and 

G.M. Cailliet. 1999. A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats. Oceanologica ACTA. Vol. 22: 6, 

pp. 663-678.

Hamlin, J. S., Jr. 1974, The Structure of the Upper Monterey Submarine Fan Valley. M.S. Thesis, Naval

Postgraduate School, U.S. Navy, Monterey, CA.

Herke, W. H. and B. D. Rogers. 1993. Maintenance of the estuarine environment. Pages 263-286 in C. C. Kohler 

and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Hickey, B.M. 1998. Coastal oceanography of Western North America from the tip of Baja California to Vancouver 

Island. In A.R. Robinson and K.H. Brink (editors) The Sea, Volume 11. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Hickey, B.M. and N.S. Banas. 2008. Why is the northern end of the California Current system so productive? 

Oceanography 21 (4): 90-107.

Public Review Draft FEP 128 February 2013
Hickey BM, Kudela RM, Nash JD, Bruland KW, Peterson WT, MacCready P, Lessard EJ, Jay DA, Banas NS, 

Baptista AM, Dever EP, Kosro PM, Kilcher LK, Horner-Devine AR, Zaron ED, McCabe RM, Peterson J, 

Orton P, Pan J, Lohan MC. 2010. River influences on shelf ecosystems: Introduction and synthesis. Journal 

of Geophysical Research, 115: C00B17, doi:10.1029/2009JC005452.

Hixon, M. A., and G. P. Jones. 2005. Competition, predation, and density-dependent mortality in demersal marine 

fishes. Ecology 86:2847–2859.

Hixon, M.A., B.N. Tissot. 2007. Comparison of trawled vs untrawled mud seafloor assemblages of fishes and 

macroinvertebrates at Coquille Bank, Oregon. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 344: 

23-34.

Holbrook, S. J., and R. J. Schmitt. 2002. Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality 

in damselfishes. Ecology 83:2855–2868.

Holt, C.A., Mantua, N. 2009. Defining the spring transition: regional indices for the California Current System. 

Mar.Eco.Prog.Sers. 393:285-299.

Houde ED. 1989. Comparative growth, mortality, and energetics of marine fish larvae: temperature and implied 

latitudinal effects. Fishery Bulletin U.S. 87:471-495.

Howell, E., D. Kobayashi, D. Parker and G. Balazs. 2008. TurtleWatch: a tool to aid in the bycatch reduction of 

loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. Endangered Species 

Research 5:267-278.

Hoss, D. E. and G. W. Thayer. 1993. The importance of habitat to the early life history of estuarine dependent 

fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 14:147-158.

Hunt, G.L. Jr., H. Kato and S.M. McKinnell. 2000. Predation by marine birds and mammals in the subarctic North 

Pacific Ocean. PICES Scientific Report No. 14.

Hunter, Matthew, 2008. 2006 Clatsop Beach Razor Clam Fishery Status Report, Shellfish/Estuarine Habitat 

Projects Data Report, ODFW. 17p. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/docs/Razor_2006.pd 

Irving, J. S., and T. C. Bjornn. 1981. Status of Snake River fall Chinook salmon in relation to the Endangered 

Species Act. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpubl. manuscr., 55 p. Available: Idaho 

Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.

Jagielo, T.H., A. Hoffman, J. Tagart and M. Zimmermann. 2003. Demersal groundfish densities in trawlable and 

untrawlable habitats off Washington: implications for the estimation of habitat bias in trawl surveys. 

Fishery Bulletin 101: 545-565.

Jahncke, J., D.M. Checkley Jr. and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 2004. Trends in carbon flux to seabirds in the Peruvian upwelling 

system: effects of wind and fisheries on population regulation. Fisheries Oceanography 13:208-223

Kabata, Z. 1969. Phrixocephalus cincinnatus Wilson, 1908 (Copepoda: Lernaeoceridae): Morphology, 

metamorphosis, and host-parasite relationship. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 26:921–934.

Kaeriyama, M., Nakamura, M., Edpalina, R., Bower, J.R., Yamaguchi, H., Walker, R.V., Myers, K. W. 2004. 

Change in feeding ecology and trophic dynamics of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the central Gulf 

of Alaska in relation to climate events. Fish. Oceano. 13(3): 197–207.

Kaplan, B., C.J. Beegle-Krause, D. French McCay, A. Copping, S. Geerlofs, eds. 2010. Updated Summary of 

Knowledge: Selected Areas of the Pacific Coast. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. OCS Study BOEMRE 

2010-014.

Kendall, A.W. Jr. and J.R. Clark. 1982. Ichthyoplankton off Washington, Oregon, and Northern California AprilMay 1980. NWAFC Proc. Rep. 82-11, 44 p.

Kitchell, J. F., C. Boggs, X. He, and C. J. Walters. 1999. Keystone predators in the Central Pacific. In Ecosystem 

approaches to fisheries management, p. 665 – 683. Univ. Alaska Sea Grant Rep. AL -SG-99-01, 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Kleypas, J.A., Buddemeier, R.W., Archer, D., Gattuso, J.-P., Langdon, C., and Opdyke, B.N. 1999. Geochemical 

consequences of increased atmospheric cardon dioxide on coral reefs. Science, 284:118-120.

Krieger, K. J., Wing, B. L., 2002. Megafauna associations with deep-water corals (Primnoa spp.) in the Gulf of 

Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471, 83–90.

Lafferty, K.D.; Allesina, S.; Arim, M.; Briggs, C.J.; De Leo, G.; Dobson, A.P.; Dunne, J.A.; Johnson, P.T.J.; Kuris, 

A.M.; Marcogliese, D.J. 2008. Parasites in food webs: the ultimate missing links Ecology letters 11:533-

546 

Lafferty, K.D. Fishing for lobsters indirectly increases epidemics in sea urchins. Ecological Applications 14: 1566-

1573

Public Review Draft FEP 129 February 2013
Levin, P.S., E.E. Holmes, K.R. Piner and C.J. Harvey. 2006. Shifts in a Pacific Ocean fish assemblage: the potential 

influence of exploitation. Conservation Biology 20: 1181-1190.

Levin, P. and B. Wells, eds. 2011. Discussion Document: Development of an Annual Report on Conditions in the 

California Current Ecosystem. Pacific Fishery Management Council November 2011 Agenda Item H.1.b., 

Attachement 1. Available online: http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/H1b_ATT1_DD_CA_ECO_NOV2011BB.pdf

Li QP, Franks PJS, Landry MR (2011) Microzooplankton grazing dynamics: -parameterizing grazing models with 

dilution experiment data from the California Current Ecosystem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 438:59-69.

Lindley, S.T., Grimes, C.B., Mohr, et. al. 2009. What caused the Sacramento River fall Chinook stock collapse? 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-447.

Loggerwell, E. A., N. J. Mantua, P. W. Lawson, R. C. Francis, and V. N. Agostini. 2003. Tracking environmental 

processes in the coastal zone for understanding and predicting Oregon coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) marine 

survival. Fish. Oceanogr. 126:554-568.

Lundsten, L., Schlining, K. L., Frasier, K., Johnson, S. B., Kuhnz, L. A., Harvey, J. B. J., Clague, G., and 

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 2010. Time-series analysis of six whale-fall communities in monterey canyon, california, 

USA. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 57:1573-1584.

Lyman, R.L. 1988. Zoogeography of Oregon coast marine mammals: the last 3,000 years. Marine Mammal Science 

4:3: 247-264.

MacCall, A.D. 1996. Patterns of low-frequency variability in fish populations of the California Current. CalCOFI 

Reports 37: 100-110.

MacCall, A.D. 2002. Fishery management and stock rebuilding prospects under conditions of low frequency 

environmental variability and species interactions. Bul. Mar. Sci. 70(2):613-628.

MacCall, A.D. 2009. A short scientific history of the fisheries. In Checkley, D., J. Alheit, Y. Oozeki and C. Roy 

(editors) Climate Change and Small Pelagic Fish. Cambridge University Press.

Magnuson, W.G. 1968. The opportunity is waiting... make the most of it. In D.W. Gilbert (editor) The Future of the 

Fishing Industry of the United States. University of Washington Publications in Fisheries 4: 7-9.

Mann, K.H. and J.R.N. Lazier. 1996. Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems. Blackwell: Cambridge.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation 

with impacts on salmon production. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78:6:1069-1079.

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal of Oceanography 58:1: 35-44.

Marliave, J.B., K.W. Conway, D.M. Gibbs, A. Lamb, and C. Gibbs. 2009. Biodiversity and rockfish recruitment in 

sponge gardens and bioherms of southern British Columbia, Canada. Mar. Biol. 156: 2247-2254.

Mathews, G. and R. Waples 1991. Status Review for Snake River Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon. U.S. Dept. 

of Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-F/NWC-200.

Matsura, H. and G.A. Cannon. 1997. Wind Effects on Sub-Tidal Currents in Puget Sound. Journal of Oceanography 

53: 53-66.

McClatchie, S., R. Goericke, G. Auad and K. Hill. 2010. Re-assessment of the stock-recruit and temperature-recruit 

relationships for Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax). Ca. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67: 1782-1790.

McDonald, P.S., Jensen, G.C., Armstrong, D.A. 2001. The competitive and predatory impacts of the nonindigenous 

crab Carcinusmaenas (L.) on early benthic phase Dungeness crab Cancermagister Dana. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 258(1): 39–54.

McEvoy, A.F. 1986. The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980. 

Cambridge University Press.

McEvoy, A.F. 1996. Historical interdependence between ecology, production, and management in California 

fisheries. In D. Bottom, G. Reeves and M. Brookes (editors) Sustainability Issues for Resource Managers. 

USDA Forest Service Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-370. pp 45-53.

Miller, T.W.; Brodeur, R.D. 2007. Diet of and trophic relationships among dominant marine nekton within the 

Northern California Current ecosystem. Fishery Bulletin. 105: 548-559

Moser, H. G., R. L. Charter, P. E. Smith, D. A. Ambrose, W. Watson, S. R. Charter, and E. M. Sandknop. 

2001.Distributional atlas of fish larvae and eggs in the Southern California Bight region: 1951-1998. 

CalCOFIAtlas 34. 166pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. National Coastal and State Input/Output Model website. Accessed on 

October 10, 2012: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=160:1:3937876959984309

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2010. U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, 175p. Available at: 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

Public Review Draft FEP 130 February 2013
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, 172p. Available at: 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened 

Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon. April 6, 2005. 

Federal Register 70(65):17386-17401.

National Research Council. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Committee on Ecosystem 

Effects of Trawling Phase 1—Effects of Bottom Trawling on Seafloor Habitats. National Academies Press, 

136p.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. National Academy Press: Washington DC.

Nickelson, T. E. and P. W. Lawson. 1998. Population viability of coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Oregon coastal 

basins: application of a habitat-based life history model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55:2383-2392.

Norman, K., J. Sepez, H. Lazrus, N. Milne, C. Package, S. Russell, K. Grant, R.P. Lewis, J. Primo, E. Springer, M. 

Styles, B. Tilt, and I. Vaccaro. 2007. Community profiles for West Coast and North Pacific fisheries–

Washington, Oregon, California, and other U.S. states. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-85, 602 p.

North, W.J. and Hubbs, C.L. 1968. Utilization of kelp-bed resources in southern California. California Department 

of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin, pp. 264.

Ogden, A. 1933. Russian sea-otter and seal hunting on the California coast: 1803-1841. Quarterly of the California 

Historical Society 12: 217-251.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Wildfish: Chapter 6. 

Http://www.dfr.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Research&Reports/WildFish/Chapter6.html.

Orsi, J. A., J. A. Harding, S. S. Pool, R. D. Brodeur, L. J. Haldorson, J. M. Murphy, J. H. Moss, E. V. Farley, Jr., R. 

M. Sweeting, J. F. T. Morris, M. Trudel, R. J. Beamish, R.L. Emmett, and E. A. Fergusson. 2007.

Epipelagic fish assemblages associated with juvenile Pacific salmon in neritic waters of the California 

Current and the Alaska Current. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 57:105–155.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2012. Proposed Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for the 

2013-2014 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and Amendment 21-2 to the Pacific Coast Fishery 

Management Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (May 2012 draft.)

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2011. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. 158 p. (excluding 

Appendices).

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2010. Appendix E to the 2011-2012 Groundfish Harvest Specifications Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement: Update of the 2006 Community Vulnerability Analysis. 

(http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/1112GF_SpexFEIS_ApdxE_vulnerability_analyis_100806b.pdf)

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2008. Assessment of factors affecting natural area escapement shortfall of 

Klamath River fall Chinook salmon in 2004-2006. (Document prepared for the Council and its advisory 

entities.) Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 

97220-1384.

Palacios, D.M., S.J. Bograd, R. Mendelssohn, F.B. Schwing. 2004. Long-term and seasonal trends in stratification in 

the California Current, 1950-1993. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109: 12 pp.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries-Part VII. Snake River from above the Grande 

Ronde River through the Payette River. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 40, 95 p.

Parrish, R.H., C.S. Nelson and A. Bakun. 1981. Transport mechanisms and reproductive success of fishes in the 

California Current. Biological Oceanography 1:2: 175-203.

Parrish, R.H., F.B. Schwing, and R. Mendelssohn. 2000. Midlatitude wind stress: The energy source for climate 

regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 9: 224-238.

Pearcy et al. 1988.

Pearcy, W.G. 2002. Marine nekton off Oregon and the 1997-98 El Niño. Progress in Oceanography 54: 399-403

Perkins, P. S., and R. Gartman. 1997. Host-Parasite Relationship of the Copepod Eye Parasite, Phrixocephalus 

cincinnatus, and Pacific Sanddab(Citharichthys sordidus) Collected from Wastewater Outfall Areas. 

Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 96:87–104.

Peterman, R.M., Pyper, B.J., Grout, J.A. 2000. Comparison of parameter estimation methods for detecting climateinduced changes in productivity of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(1): 

181-191.

Public Review Draft FEP 131 February 2013
Peterson, W.T., Schwing, F.B. 2003. A new climate regime in northeast pacific ecosystems. GEOPHY. RES. LET. 

30: 1896-1899.

Pirtle, J. 2005. Habitat-based assessment of structure-forming megafaunal invertebrates and fishes on Cordell Bank, 

California. http://cordellbank.noaa.gov/science/pirtle_invertfishhab_ms_thesis.pdf

Polovina, J.J., M. Abecassis, E.A. Howell and P. Woodworth. 2009. Increases in the relative abundance of midtrophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific, 1996-2006. 

Fishery Bulletin 107: 523-531.

Pyper, B.J., Mueter, R.J., Peterman, R.M., Blackbourn, D.J., Wood, C.C. 2001. Spatial covariation in survival rates 

of Northeast Pacific pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58(8): 1501-1515.

Radtke, L.D. 1966. Distribution of Smelt, Juvenile Sturgeon, and Starry Flounder in the Sacramento San Joaquin 

Delta with observations on Food of Sturgeon. In: D.W. Kelley (ed.) Ecological Studies of the Sacramento 

San Joaquin Estuary: Part II; Fishes of the Delta. California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin 

133.

Research Group, The. 2009. Oregon Marine Recreational Fisheries Economic Contributions in 2007 and 2008, 

ODFW and Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA) 30 p. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/commercial/docs/ODFW_Marine_Rec_Ec_Effects_2008.pdf

Richardson, S. L., and W. G. Pearcy. 1977. Coastal and oceanic fish larvae in an area of upwelling off Yaquina Bay, 

Oregon. Fish. Bull., U.S. 75:125-145.

Riebesell, U., Zondervan, I., Rost, B., Tortell, P.D., Zeebe, R.E., and Morel, F.M.M. 2000. Reduced calcification of 

marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2. Nature, 407:364-367.

Roth, J.E., N. Nur, P. Warzybok and W.J. Sydeman. 2008. Annual prey consumption of a dominant seabird, the 

common murre, in the California Current system. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:1046-1056.

Ruckelshaus, M., Essington, T., and Levin, P.S. (2009) How science can inform ecosystem-based management in 

the sea: Examples from Puget Sound. In: Ecosystem-based management for the Oceans: Applying 

resilience thinking. (McLeod, K.L. and Leslie, H.M., eds.) Island Press. Pp 201-226.

Runyon, Dean, 2009. Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Viewing, and Shellfishing in Oregon, 2008 State and County 

Expenditure Estimates. ODFW, 23p + appendices. 

Ryer, C.H., A.W. Stoner, R.H. Titgen. 2004. Behavioral mechanisms underlying the refuge value of benthic habitat 

structure for two flatfishes with differing anti-predator strategies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 268:231-243.

Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the northwestern coast of North America. John H. Carrmany and 

Co. (Reprinted by Manessier Publishing Co. 1969).

Schindler, Eric, Mark Freeman, and Bryan Wright, 2012, Sampling Design of the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s Ocean Recreational Boat Survey (ORBS), ODFW, 27 p. available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/docs/ORBS_Design.pdf

Scofield, W.L. 1948. Trawling gear in California. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 72.

Sepez, J., K. Norman, and R. Felthoven. 2007. A quantitative model for ranking and selecting communities most 

involved in commercial fisheries. NAPA Bulletin 28: 43-56.

Seung, C.K. and E.C. Waters. 2005. A review of regional economic models for Alaska fisheries. Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, NMFS, AFSC Processed Report 2005-01, 129 pp.

Sibert J, J. Hampton, P. Kleiber, and M. Maunder. 2006. Biomass, size, and trophic status of top predators in the 

Pacific Ocean. Science 314:1773–1776.

Smith, A.D.M., C.J. Brown, C.M. Bulman, et al. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine 

ecosystems. Science 333: 1147-1150.

Springer, A.M., J.A. Estes, G.B. van Vliet, T.M. Williams, D.F. Doak, E.M. Danner, K.A. Forney, and B. Pfister. 

2003. Sequential megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific Ocean: an ongoing legacy of industrial whaling? 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 21: 12223-12228.

Sydeman, W.J., Hester, M.M., Thayer, J.A., et al. 2001. Climate change, reproductive performance and diet 

composition of marine birds in the southern California Current System. Progress in Oceanography 49: 309-

329.

Sydeman, W.J., K.L. Mills, J.A. Santora, S.A. Thompson, D.F. Bertram, K.H. Morgan, J.M. Hipfner, B.K. Wells, 

S.G. Wolf. 2009. Seabirds and climate in the California Current – a synthesis of change. California 

Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 50:82-104.

TCW Economics. 2008. Economic analysis of the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries in Washington 

State. December 2008. Sacramento, CA. With technical assistance from The Research Group, Corvallis, 

OR.

Public Review Draft FEP 132 February 2013
Tegner, M.J. and P.K. Dayton. 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, 57: 579-589.

Tissot, B.N., M.M. Yoklavich, M.S. Love, K. York, and M. Amend. 2006. Benthic invertebrates that form habitat on 

deep banks off southern California, with special reference to deep sea corals. Fish. Bull. 104: 167-181.

Tonnessen, J.N. and A.O. Johnsen. 1982. The History of Modern Whaling. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Trosper, R.L. 2003. Resilience in pre-contact Pacific Northwest social ecological systems. Conservation Ecology 

73:3:6.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: 

State Overview - September 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 

Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. January 2008.

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/reports2011.html

Van Eenennaam, J.P., J. Linares-Casenave, X. Deng, and S.I. Doroshov. 2005. Effect of incubation temperature on 

green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:145-154.

Veit, R.L., P. Pyle and J.A. McGowan. 1996. Ocean warming and long-term change in pelagic bird abundance 

within the California Current system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 139: 11–18.

Walters, C. J., V. Christensen, S. J. Martell, and J. F. Kitchell. 2005. Possible ecosystem impacts of applying MSY 

policies from single-species assessment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:558.

Walters, C. and J.F. Kitchell. 2001. Cultivation/depensation effects on juvenile survival and recruitment: 

implications for the theory of fishing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 39-50.

Waples, R, R.P. Jones, B. R. Beckman, and G. A. Swan. 1991. Status Review for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-201. 73 p.

Washburn, J. O., D. R. Mercer, J. R. Anderson, and others. 1991. Regulatory role of parasites: impact on host 

population shifts with resource availability. Science 253:185–188.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. WDFW websites on its mission and goals, regulations, and 

policies: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov.

Weber, M.L. and B. Heneman. 2000. Guide to California’s Marine Life Management Act. The California Marine 

Life Management Project and Commonweal. Common Knowledge Press, Bolinas, CA.

Wells, B.K., Grimes, C.B., Field, J.C., and Reiss, C.S. 2006. Covariation between the average lengths of mature 

coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and the ocean 

environment. Fish. Ocean. 15: 67–79

Whitmire, C.E. and Clarke M.E. 2007. State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific Coast: California to 

Washington. pp. 109‐154. In: S.E. Lumsden, Hourigan T.F., Bruckner A.W. and Dorr G. (eds.) The State of 

Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo., CRCP‐3, Silver Spring, MD 365 pp. 

http://coris.noaa.gov/activities/deepcoral_rpt/Chapter3_PacificCoast.pdf

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. Fish. Bull. 100: 836-855.

Wiseman, W.J. Jr., and R. W. Garvine. 1995. Plumes and coastal currents near large river mouths. Estuaries. 18 (3): 

509-517.

Wyllie-Echeverria, S. W. and J. D. Ackerman. 2003. The seagrasses of the Pacific Coast of North America. Pages 

199 – 206 in E. P. Green and F. T. Short, editors. World Atlas of Seagrasses. University of California Press, 

Berkeley.

Yoklavich, M.M., H.G. Greene, G.M. Cailliet, et al. 2000. Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a 

submarine canyon: an example of a natural refuge. Fisheries Bulletin 98: 625-641.

Yoklavich, M.M., G.M. Cailliet, R.N. Lea, et al. 2002. Deepwater habitat and fish resources associated with the Big 

Creek Ecological Reserve. CalCOFI Reports 43: 120-140.

Yoklavich, M.M., O’Connell, V., 2008. Twenty years of research on demersal communities using the Delta 

submersible in the Northeast Pacific. In: Reynolds, J.R., Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping 

Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program.

Yodzis, P. 2001. Must top predators be culled for the sake of fisheries? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:2: 78-

84.Ainley, D.G. and T.J. Lewis. 1974. The history of Farallon Island marine bird populations, 1954-1972. 

Condor 76: 432-446.

Public Review Draft FEP 133 February 2013
4 Addressing the Effects and Uncertainties of Human Activities and 

Environmental Shifts on the Marine Environment

The purpose of this chapter is to consider 

the potential effects of human activities 

and environmental processes on the CCE. 

In Chapter 3, the FEP describes the CCE 

from a wide variety of disciplines and 

perspectives. Chapter 4 is intended to 

broadly look at how human and 

environmental forces may, singly or 

combined, have effects on Councilmanaged resources. For those effects that 

can be addressed by fishery management 

measures, the Council can improve and 

integrate the information that supports 

decision-making across its FMPs. 

Ultimately, the Council could use this FEP 

to inform fishery management measures to help 

buffer against uncertainties resulting from those 

effects, and to support greater long-term stability 

within the CCE and for its fishing communities. 

Chapter 4 discusses five broad categories of effects, whether from human actions or environmental shifts, 

of changes within the marine environment. Because the Council’s work is focused on fisheries 

management requirements and challenges, this chapter focuses on the types of effects that are most 

relevant to the Council work and which can be linked back to MSA guidance and direction. This chapter 

discusses potential changes in the following areas of Council interest or responsibility: fish abundance 

within the CCE (Section 4.1), the abundance of nonfish organisms within the CCE (Section 4.2), changes 

in biophysical habitat within the CCE (Section 4.3), changes in fishing community involvement in 

fisheries and dependence upon fishery resources (Section 4.4), and aspects of climate change expected to 

affect living marine resource populations within the CCE (Section 4.5). 

A suite of laws guide the issues NOAA and the Council must consider in making fisheries management 

decisions: MSA, NEPA, ESA, MMPA, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and 

others. NEPA particularly requires that we assess the cumulative effects of the proposed action, taken 

together with other “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR 1508.7 – see 

Figure 4.1.) This FEP’s objectives, detailed in Chapter 2, call for the Council to use information 

generated from the ecosystem fishery management planning process to support its work within existing 

FMPs by broadening scientific information available on the cumulative ecological effects of management 

actions taken for FMP species and their fisheries. The scientific questions, processes, and tools discussed 

in Chapter 6 are all intended to work towards this goal by ultimately improving the quality of ecological 

information available to inform Council decision-making. In Chapter 5, the FEP provides guidance on 

the Council’s priorities for how other management and private entities considering action within the CCE 

might best account for the nation’s long-term needs for productive CCE fisheries. The FEP’s Ecosystem 

Initiatives Appendix proposes several potential fisheries management initiatives that the Council could 

undertake to address some of the effects of human activities and environmental shifts on the marine 

environment.

Figure 4.1: Cumulative Effects under NEPA

Public Review Draft FEP 134 February 2013
4.1 Changes in Fish Abundance within the Ecosystem 

Three major factors drive changes in the abundance and distribution of fished species in ecosystems: 

removals by fishing (and consequent changes in community structure and energy flow/predation within 

ecosystems), removals or habitat loss unrelated to fishing (typically such impacts are greater in 

freshwater, estuarine and nearshore systems), and shifts in climate that lead to both direct and indirect 

changes in productivity (including indirect effects such as changes in the abundance of prey or predators). 

Any and all of these effects can have cascading and cumulative impacts on ecosystem structure and 

energy flow in marine ecosystems that could lead to unexpected changes or surprises with respect to 

marine resource and fisheries management activities. 

4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Fish Abundance

The consequence of fishing removals is typically predictable at the single species level, but less so at the 

community or ecosystem level. By both definition and design, fishing can result in substantial reductions 

in standing biomass of targeted populations and in moderate to severe shifts in the size and age structures 

of those populations. When adequate data exist, the consequences of fishing are relatively easy to 

monitor and estimate; however, the subsequent real or potential effects on predators, prey, or competitors 

within the ecosystem (and their predators, prey, competitors, etc) are much less tractable. Marine fisheries 

management in the U.S. and elsewhere is based on the idea that the reproductive strategies of harvested 

fish and shellfish populations will compensate for regular and sustained harvest of those populations. 

Compensatory processes are varied, complex and often poorly understood (see Rose et al. 2001 for a 

thorough review). Both theory and observations indicate that populations that are below their theoretical 

carrying capacities are capable of growing at faster rates and producing more young than would be 

needed in an unharvested population. However, such processes may only be relevant over one to a few 

decades, and over longer time scales, management concerns will ultimately include consideration of how 

population dynamics and evolutionary processes may shift in response to longer-term ecosystem 

processes, including sustained fishing pressure and global climate change.

In U.S. fisheries management, the implicit assumption is that if single species management approaches 

are able to successfully maintain the aggregate of fish stocks and populations close to target levels 

(usually by fishing at rates slightly 

lower than MSY or MSY proxies), 

then the ecosystems in which such 

stocks exist are likely to be 

“healthy.” Limited evidence from 

food web models is consistent with 

the notion that the health of the 

whole of the ecosystem is equal to 

the status of sum of its managed 

parts (Worm et al. 2009). 

However, the concept of a “healthy 

ecosystem” is subjective and not 

defined in objectively quantifiable 

terms. A “healthy” and fished or 

otherwise human-disturbed 

ecosystem is dramatically different 

from the ecosystem in its unfished 

state. We have yet to develop a 

clear or comprehensive 

Public Review Draft FEP 135 February 2013
understanding of the possible long term consequences to ecosystems from maintaining entire assemblages 

and communities of fish and invertebrates at abundance levels and with associated size or age structures 

that are notably different from where they would be in an undisturbed state (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, 

Hall 1999, Stokes and Law 2000, Longhurst 2006). From an ecosystem perspective, fisheries remove fish 

and other organisms from the sea that would have otherwise entered energy or nutrient pathways within 

their food web. 

The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act commissioned a panel to develop “recommendations to expand the 

application of ecosystem principles in 

fishery conservation and management 

activities” (MSA at §406). Among other 

things, the panel suggested the rationale 

for surplus production is unclear if fishing 

is examined from an ecosystem context, 

since most production within an ecosystem 

prior to the advent of modern fisheries was 

simply recycled within that ecosystem 

(EPAP 1999). The consequences of 

various levels of fishing (or other impacts) 

include changes in the ecological 

relationships among competitors, prey and 

predators, and those consequences are 

rarely accounted for in single-species 

models. While any fishing activity will 

have some impact on an ecosystem, the 

levels of fishing that may trigger 

ecosystem-wide effects are unknown, and 

probably vary dramatically among 

ecosystems. Evidence for large scale 

shifts in community and ecosystem 

structure as a consequence of intensive 

fishing has been documented in 

ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical 

waters, and temperate shelf communities 

have been observed to have undergone 

large scale shifts as a result of intensive 

removals of target and non-target species 

(Hall 1999, Jennings and Kaiser 1999, 

Worm et al. 2009). There is general 

scientific consensus that overfishing is 

associated with large scale ecosystem 

impacts. However, there is less consensus 

over how to develop a more holistic 

perspective on the trade-offs between 

harvest levels that can be modeled as 

sustainable for single-species and the 

cumulative effects of harvesting multiple 

species on ecosystem “health and 

integrity” (Francis 2001, Longhurst 2006, 

Gaichas 2008).

Public Review Draft FEP 136 February 2013
There are few examples of comprehensive efforts to evaluate the integrated and cumulative effects of 

fishing activities on marine ecosystems, since the scientific work needed to develop a comprehensive 

understanding of these effects is still under development. There has been one example of this type of 

evaluation, in which the cumulative consequences to the ecosystem of a range of fishing rates and harvest 

levels (from highly precautionary management to aggressive yield-maximizing harvest strategies) were 

evaluated for all groundfish fisheries in the EEZ off of Alaskan waters (NMFS 2004). The ultimate 

preferred alternative was associated with harvest strategies that adopted conservative harvest levels 

without explicitly embracing the transition to an ecosystem approach. There is also some empirical and 

model-based evidence of consequences to overall ecosystem productivity and yield when those are 

evaluated in multi-species models, rather than a suite of single-species models (May 1979, Walters et al. 

2005, Steele et al. 2011), 

which indicates that 

exploiting lower trophic 

level species at maximum 

rates will lead to reduced 

productivity of higher 

trophic level species. 

More recently, both 

empirical and modelbased research has 

demonstrated that 

dependent predators are 

likely to be notably 

affected when their prey 

populations are depleted 

to levels lower than the 

typical thresholds adopted 

by fisheries managers 

(Cury et al. 2011, Smith 

et al. 2011); examples 

from the California 

Current were included in 

both of these analyses. 

For the CCE, both empirical evidence and simulation studies have suggested that there are likely to be 

impacts and interactions at broad-scale levels between the harvests of some assemblages on the 

productivity and abundance of others. Most of these have focused on interactions between lower trophic 

level species and their predators, or on very large-scale fisheries such as that for Pacific whiting. For 

example, Kaplan et al. (2012) evaluated the extent to which different fishing fleets (targeting different 

assemblages of species) acted in either an additive or combined (cumulative) manner using an Atlantis 

model of the Calfornia Current. They found a range of indirect effects of different fisheries on species 

other than those targeted. Their simulations indicated that increased fishing for Pacific whiting led to 

increases in the relative abundance of small planktivores, large flatfish, shortbelly rockfish and pandalid 

shrimp. By contrast, changes in the effort of the purse seine fleet (targeting small planktivores) led to a 

range of responses; increases led to increased productivity of krill, salmon and myctophids. With respect 

to cumulative effects, they found that the biomass of small planktivores (forage fishes) was lowest when 

all fishing was ceased, due to the increased abundance of higher trophic level piscivorous fishes. 

While these simulations represent a major step forward in efforts to integrate the consequences of various 

fisheries on the food web, many of the models used in such approaches are not always capable of 

predicting or replicating trophic cascades or other “ecological surprises” (Shaeffer et al. 2001, Folke et al. 

Public Review Draft FEP 137 February 2013
2004, Baum and Worm 2009). A 

tremendous amount of research and 

effort has been invested in evaluating the 

extent to which sound single-species 

management may or may not be 

considered comparable to successful 

ecosystem-based management. 

Although the science needed to address 

such questions objectively and 

comprehensively is still in its relatively 

early stages (and is often limited by 

inadequate data), the Council’s FEP

development process resulted in the 

Council recommending a host of 

ecosystem-based revisions to its 

Research and Data Needs document and 

in adding potential ecosystem initiatives 

to the FEP’s Ecosystem Initiatives 

Appendix that could improve the 

scientific basis for addressing such 

issues in a management context.

Beyond the combined potential effects 

of managing suites of species to their 

estimated MSY levels, fishing often 

shifts or truncates the age- and size 

(length)- structure of fish populations, as

older and larger individuals are typically 

subjected to higher cumulative mortality 

rates once they are fully selected by 

fisheries (Murawski et al. 2001). When 

well understood or quantified, some of 

the consequences of changes to the age 

and size structure of a population can be 

explicitly addressed in population stock 

assessments. For example, more than half of the current stock assessments for West Coast rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.) explicitly considered size-dependent fecundity (in which larger, older fish produce 

proportionately greater numbers of eggs or larvae), in the estimation of the reproductive potential of the 

population (as opposed to the often made assumption that spawning biomass is proportional to spawning 

output). Interestingly, while Spencer et al. (2007) and Spencer and Dorn (2013) found that accounting for 

such factors resulted in significant changes in management reference points, in some examples the 

consequences also included more optimistic perceptions of productivity, as estimated by the steepness of 

the spawner/recruit relationship. However, other indirect effects may be more subtle, or more difficult to 

formally quantify. For example, studies have shown larger, older mothers invest comparably more 

energetic resources into egg or larval quality (Marteinsdottir and Steinarsson 1998, Berkeley et al. 2004b, 

Sogard et al 2008), and concerns have also been raised regarding the potential consequences to migratory 

behavior on populations for which younger fish “learn” migratory patterns from older, larger groups or 

individuals (Petigas et al. 2010, MacCall 2012). 

In addition to the consequences of age or size truncation on the reproductive potential, there are likely 

consequences to population stability as well, such that truncation of size and age structure (and perhaps 

Public Review Draft FEP 138 February 2013
simply population reduction more generally) can lead to greater population variability and instability 

(Hsieh et al. 2006, Anderson et al. 2008, Shelton and Mangel 2011). The mechanisms may be varied, but 

have long been thought to relate to the significance of a broad age and/or size structure in buffering 

environmental variability (Leaman and Beamish 1984, Warner and Chesson 1985, Secor 2007). Shifts in 

age structure can increase the overall variance in recruitment (Lambert 1990; Marteinsdottir and 

Thorarinsson 1998; Worden, et al. 2010, Shelton and Mangel 2011), which has led to concerns over the 

effect of fishing on the response of populations to specific time scales of variability in the environment, as 

the dominant time scales of environmental variability are likely to change with climate change (Planque 

et al. 2010, Hollowed et al. 2011). The FEP’s Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix proposes, in Section A.2.1, 

a potential initiative to investigate the long-term effects of both current and potential future Council 

harvest policies on age-and size- distribution in managed stocks. Current harvest control rules set a target 

level of female spawning biomass as an MSY proxy, while future harvest control rules may also explicitly 

consider the population age or length structure.

4.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Non-Fishing Human Activities on Fish Abundance

The consequence of 

removals or habitat loss 

not directly related to 

fishing, and exclusive of 

climate change, vary

significantly depending 

on the species and habitat 

type in question. In 

freshwater systems (e.g. 

for salmonids and other 

anadromous species), the 

impacts are tremendous 

and severe, with indirect 

effects of habitat loss and 

alteration, and direct 

losses of smolts that

suffer mortality as a 

result of being run 

through turbines (see 

section 3.3.4). Direct 

mortalities or indirect 

impacts on carrying capacity can also result from dredging and dredge spoil disposal, offshore energy 

installations, saltwater intakes or other human activities and habitat alterations. Such effects are typically 

greatest on anadromous, estuarine, nearshore species, or offshore species with a nearshore juvenile stage, 

although future effects are likely to extend further offshore as a consequence of wave or wind energy 

structures, aquaculture operations, or other offshore development activities. Some indirect effects could 

be a consequence of past, present and future human activities that influence the abundance and 

distribution of other predators of managed species as well. At the scale of most of the PFMC managed 

resources of the CCE, few such activities have notable or major impacts on FMP stocks or complexes 

other than salmonids, although both catastrophic events (e.g., oil spills) and future human activities that 

could have larger footprints (e.g,. wave energy, offshore aquaculture) could be associated with broader 

scale impacts on managed species. 

As a key energy pathway and bridge between freshwater, estuarine and marine environments, salmon 

have evolved complex population structures and life histories to cope with the variability in each of these 

Public Review Draft FEP 139 February 2013
environments (Nickelson and Lawson 1998, Mantua and Francis 2004, Lindley et al. 2009). However, 

this evolutionary strategy has been threatened by the combined impacts of habitat loss, hydropower, 

excessive harvest and hatcheries (NRC 1996a); problems that were exacerbated during generally poor 

environmental conditions throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Hare et al. 1999). Consequently, current 

salmon populations may lack the life history diversity and high quality freshwater habitat that acts as a 

buffer against the intrinsic variability in their ocean habitat. For example, the marine waters off of central 

California are generally the southernmost habitat occupied by Chinook salmon, most of which are 

associated with the Sacramento River system and San Francisco Bay estuary. These freshwater and 

estuarine ecosystems have been massively altered by dams, water diversion, flow alteration, pollution, 

nutrient loading and the introduction of non-native species. Simultaneously, these salmon are at the edge 

of the habitat range for this species, and consequently are likely to experience the strongest environmental 

impacts from regional and basin scale variability in ocean conditions. The combination of more extreme 

climate fluctuations and a reduction of life history and habitat diversity have led to additional strain on 

these populations, and represents a long-term threat to their sustainability and persistence (Lindley et al. 

2009, Carlson and Satterthwaite 2011).

Indirect consequences of altered freshwater and estuarine environments also include the facilitation of 

predation pressure on managed species by other (native) components of the ecosystem, most frequently 

pinnipeds and seabirds, and often as a result of altered or expanded distribution and changes in behavior. 

There have been three eras of human relationships with pinnipeds and seabirds. The first involved 

subsistence and commercial hunting, harassment and pesticide contamination (described in greater detail 

in section 3.4.1). Subsequent declines in many marine mammals and seabirds ended in the early 1970s 

with the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental protection laws. This 

began the second era, in which killing or harassment of pinnipeds and sea birds was prohibited, which in 

turn facilitated the rapid population recovery of these species (e.g., Caretta et al 2011). As a result of 

localized interactions between populations and individuals of mammals and birds that threaten 

conservation efforts to protect or rebuild salmonid and other populations, we may now be entering into a 

third era. In this era, biologists will observe and quantify the risk associated with predator interactions 

with managed fish species, and respond with management actions when warranted.

For example, sea lions have posed substantial conservation problems to steelhead, Chinook and other 

salmon populations throughout the California Current, with very high profile management issues 

associated with reducing these 

impacts at both the Ballard Locks 

in Seattle and the base of 

Bonneville dam on the Columbia 

River (NMFS 1997, IMST 1998). 

Similarly, Caspian terns and 

double crested cormorants have 

been estimated to consume

millions of salmonid smolts per 

year in the lower Columbia River. 

In both instances, increased 

vulnerability of salmonids to 

predation was facilitated by human 

activities; the increased 

vulnerability of salmon to 

predation as they hold near dams 

and other structures, and the 

creation of nesting habitat for terns 

and cormorants as a result of manPublic Review Draft FEP 140 February 2013
made islands (the consequence of dredge spoils) on the lower Columbia (Roby and Collis 2011). In the 

latter case, there are no historical records of terns nesting in the Columbia River estuary before 1984, 

when about 1,000 pairs apparently moved from Willapa Bay to nest on East Sand Island (NWP&CC 

2004). However, by 2011, the East Sand Island tern colony was the largest in the world with 7,000 

breeding pairs that consumed an estimated 4.8 million salmon smolts, and an additional 13,000 breeding 

pairs of double-crested cormorant colony (the largest colony in western North America) consuming an 

estimated 20.5 million salmon smolts. Piscivorous bird colonies have also increased on man made islands 

further up the Columbia, including John Day and McNary pools (Evans et al 2012). Past and future 

management efforts include both non-lethal and lethal removals of problem sea lions to protect salmon, 

and relocation of colonies and reduction of available nesting habitat in order to better manage avian 

predation on salmon smolts (Roby 2011). It is highly likely that such activities will continue as threats to 

recovering or at-risk species arise.

4.1.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers of Fish Abundance

Although current management strategies and reference points for many stocks and species are often based 

on a reference “unfished” biomass level, the abundance of an unfished resource is rarely constant over 

time. Rather, species, communities and ecosystems are in a constant state of flux and variation, 

responding to changes in the physical and biological environment and multiple temporal and spatial 

scales. The ocean-atmospheric climate system in the Pacific, and throughout the world, is characterized 

by large scale interannual (e.g., ENSO) and interdecadal (e.g., PDO) variability in physical properties that 

in turn lead to dramatic changes in both lower and higher trophic level productivity and dynamics. In the 

CCE, at least part of the mechanism for the impacts on productivity are the physical circulation patterns 

that often favor some source waters over others, which in turn contributes to large-scale variability in 

primary and secondary production in this ecosystem (Chelton et al. 1982, Peterson and Schwing 2003, 

Checkley and Barth 2009). 

Numerous detailed studies of physical and biological time series indicate that there is coherence between 

various indicators of this physical forcing and biological indices of biomass, productivity and recruitment 

of a wide range of stocks 

throughout the region 

(Mantua et al. 1997, 

McGowan et al. 1998, 

Hollowed et al. 2001, 

Mantua and Hare 2001, King 

et al. 2011). For high 

turnover species (such as 

market squid), abundance 

and productivity can change 

within months, and 

subsequent impacts on 

fisheries catches can be 

dramatic. From 1997 to 

1999, market squid catches 

fluctuated from ~70,000 mt, 

to ~3,000 mt and back to 

90,000 mt, thought to be 

almost exclusively a 

function of high frequency 

variability in abundance in 

response to high frequency 

Public Review Draft FEP 141 February 2013
environmental variability. Nearly all migratory stocks, including Pacific sardine, Pacific salmon, Pacific 

whiting, and virtually all highly migratory species, vary their movement patterns and distributions in 

relation to this variability. Typically, there are responses in recruitment, growth and productivity as well, 

although these may only be observed over longer time scales. 

Low frequency variation in productivity is also an important factor; in general, there appear to have been 

shifts to lower values of zooplankton biomass, salmon smolt marine survival rates, and other indices of 

productivity for West Coast species following an apparent 1977~1999 regime shift, with higher values for 

similar time series in the North Pacific (Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea). During this period, the West 

Coast observed higher productivity and abundance of Pacific sardine, particularly during warm years that 

were otherwise associated with lower productivity of many species (Jacobson and MacCall 1996, 

Rykaczewski and Checkley 2008, Song et al. 2012), demonstrating that there will be species and 

assemblages or species that do better or worse under different conditions. This information has been 

influential in fisheries management decisions, including the environmentally driven control rule for 

California sardine harvest policy, and the differential treatment of pre- and post-1976 ecosystem 

properties and abundance levels for the purposes of estimating groundfish reference points by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. There is only one unfished groundfish stock that has been carefully 

evaluated, shortbelly rockfish, which indeed does demonstrate considerable variability (coupled with an 

apparent long-term decline) in abundance (Field et al. 2007). However, relative abundance time series of 

other unfished or lightly exploited species indicate comparable patterns (Moser et al. 2000) and both 

simulations of groundfish model results and evaluation of the significance of climate factors indicate that 

there should be non-trivial changes in the abundance and productivity of many stocks (beyond the more 

noticeable higher-frequency variation observed in recruitment) for many species in the absence of fishing 

(Schirripa and Colbert 2006, Field et al. 2010, Zabel et al. 2011).

Although historical records of both climate conditions and the abundance of different stocks are difficult 

to come by, these patterns of long-term variability held in the early 1900s, and it seems increasingly clear 

that these patterns are typical of this ecosystem, as suggested by the high production of California salmon 

observed in the 1880s (McEvoy 1986), historical recognition of the massive changes in distribution and 

abundance of fishes and their prey associated with El Niño events (Hubbs 1948, Wooster and Fluharty 

1985, MacCall 1996), a century’s worth of massive changes in the abundance and distribution of coastal 

pelagics and tunas in the southern California Current (MacCall 1996), and a growing volume of 

paleological evidence that demonstrates that variability in the production of sardines, salmon and other 

species on such time scales has likely been occurring for thousands of years (Baumgartner et al. 1992, 

Finney et al. 2002, Field et al. 2006). However, it is becoming increasingly evident that recent patterns of 

variability are not necessarily consistent with historical patterns index (Di Lorenzo et al., 2008). With 

global climate change, variability patterns 

will likely deviate further from those of the 

past. This issue will be addressed more 

comprehensively in section 4.5. Despite 

uncertainties with respect to precise 

mechanisms of change, fisheries 

management decision-making should seek 

scientific tools that recognize that shifts in 

productivity exist and can matter to fish 

populations and the ecosystem. Further 

research should improve both our 

understanding of the processes that drive 

such variability, and the means by which 

such knowledge can and should be used in 

management decisions.

Public Review Draft FEP 142 February 2013
4.2 Changes in the Abundance of NonFish Organisms within the Ecosystem 

U.S. laws and regulations 

differentiate incidental mortality of 

protected, nonfish species (e.g., 

marine mammals, sea turtles) from 

directed fishing mortality. In terms 

of the overall effects, however, the 

same question applies – What are the 

ultimate effects of successive, 

human-caused mortality over time? 

Many of the higher trophic order 

non-targeted species, particularly 

marine mammals, were historically 

targeted by human hunting and their 

populations may still be recovering 

from periods of intense targeting. 

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Non-Fish Abundance

Although fisheries may affect non-target species in a variety of ways, impacts may be divided into two 

broad categories, direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are those directly related to the action, 

particularly those that occur at the same time and place as the action, such as non-target species being 

caught or taken during the prosecution of the fishery (incidental catch or bycatch) or habitat can be altered 

through direct contact with fishing gear. For indirect effects, there is some intermediate cause-and-effect 

between the action and the actual effect being evaluated; indirect effects may occur at a distance in time 

or place from the action, such as reductions in prey base that serve as forage. Although bycatch is often 

considered the most serious direct effect of fisheries on non-target species(Dayton et al. 1995), other 

potentially important fishing effects include: direct or indirect damage to habitat-forming organisms or 

benthic communities (Auster 1998), behavioral aggregation of scavengers from bycatch discards, and the 

indirect effects of target species reduction (Botsford et al. 1997).

Nonfish organisms in the CCE include everything from phytoplankton, zooplankton, and larger 

invertebrates within a size range typically smaller than fish, up to birds and marine mammals at sizes 

typically much larger than fish. Thus, nonfish organisms include both the major prey and the major 

predators of our managed fisheries species; these two groups are incredibly diverse. U.S. laws that 

require the monitoring and reduction of incidental catch and bycatch include: the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq. The MSA requires that FMPs establish standardized reporting methodologies to assess the amount 

and type of bycatch occurring within fisheries, and that conservation and management measures for 

fisheries minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality [16 U.S.C. 1853, 1851]. These protections extend to 

target and non-target species, with additional laws providing protections to species not managed under the 

MSA.

For example, pursuant to the MMPA, NOAA has promulgated specific regulations that govern the 

incidental take of marine mammals during fishing operations (50 CFR Part 229). Section 118 of the 

Public Review Draft FEP 143 February 2013
MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the 

level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 

1387(c)(1)). The regulations designate three categories of fisheries, based on relative frequency of 

incidental serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals in each fishery:

I. frequent incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals

II. occasional incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals

III. remote likelihood of/no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine 

mammals

Annually, NMFS publishes a List of Fisheries, which classifies each U.S. commercial fisheries 

into one of these categories. The classification of a fishery in the List determines whether 

participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, 

observer coverage, and Take Reduction Plan requirements. In the most recent List of Fisheries, 

out of the 53 classified fisheries that operate out of California, Oregon and Washington, none 

were Category I fisheries, nine were Category II fisheries and the remaining 44 were Category III 

fisheries (76 FR 73912, November 29, 2011). The nine West Coast Category II fisheries, those 

that include occasional incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals:

• California halibut, white seabass and other species set gillnet fishery

• California yellowtail, barracuda and white seabass drift gillnet fishery

• California thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet fishery

• Washington Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet fishery (including all non-tribal 

fishing in inland waters south of U.S. – Canada border and eastward of the BonillaTatoosh line)

• California spot prawn pot fishery

• California Dungeness crab pot fishery

• Oregon Dungeness crab pot fishery

• Washington coastal Dungeness crab pot fishery

• Washington/Oregon/California sablefish pot fishery

Of these Category II fisheries, the 

California thresher shark and 

swordfish drift gillnet fishery of the 

HMS FMP (discussed below) and 

the sablefish pot fishery of the 

Groundfish FMP are Councilmanaged fisheries. The sablefish 

fishery has been classified as a 

Category II fishery based on a 2006 

event when a humpback whale

(Megaptera novaeangliae), became 

entangled with a sablefish pot 

vessel’s gear. Because humpback 

whales are listed as endangered 

under the ESA, even a single 

encounter with or mortality from 

fishing gear can be notable as a 

percent of that species potential 

biological removal level.

Public Review Draft FEP 144 February 2013
Jannot et al. (2011a) summarized the interactions of the West Coast groundfish fishery with marine 

mammals, seabirds, and turtles, based on observer data for that fishery. That report found that, over the 

2002-2009 period, 22 marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle species were caught incidentally, killed, or 

seriously injured through interactions with groundfish fishing vessels, gear, or vessel personnel. 

Incidental interactions noted by Jannot et al. (2011a) included both lethal and non-lethal interactions. 

During that 2002-2009 period, a single leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) was taken, found 

entangled in sablefish pot fishing gear. Having only a single data point for sea turtle take over an eight 

year period makes estimating turtle interactions for the fishery challenging, but turtle interactions are 

assumed to be rare. For marine mammals, direct cetacean interaction is rarely observed, although five 

cetacean species are known to have either interacted with the fishery through potentially injurious contact 

with a vessel or through lethal take as bycatch by fishing gear: Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), 

Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Unsurprisingly, the 

highly abundant California sea lion is the pinniped species that most commonly interacts with the 

groundfish fishery, with higher bycatch rates occurring south of Cape Mendocino, CA, where they are 

most abundant. The Jannot et al. (2011a) analysis of groundfish fishery bycatch found that, of the seabird 

species incidentally taken in the groundfish fisheries, the most commonly taken species during the 2002-

2008 period was black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), with northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) 

being the most commonly taken species in 2009. 

The Northwest 

Fisheries Science 

Center (2011) 

summarized the 

potential impact of 

the CCE 

groundfish 

fisheries on 

species (mammals, 

birds, turtles, fish) 

listed as threatened 

or endangered 

under the ESA in 

its Risk 

Assessment of 

U.S. West Coast 

Groundfish 

Fisheries to 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Marine Species. 

While there are 

limited data for 

some ESA-listed 

marine species, 

interactions between most ESA-listed marine species and the U.S. West Coast groundfish fisheries are 

infrequent enough to either not affect listed populations, or to not hinder the potential recovery of listed 

populations. However, there is low observer coverage for most fixed gear fleets, meaning that the 

potential for indirect or unobserved effects (Bearzi et al. 1999, DeMaster et al. 2001, DeMaster et al. 

Public Review Draft FEP 145 February 2013
2006, Robbins et al. 2007) can cause considerable uncertainty in characterizing population level impacts 

from this gear type.

Of the Council-managed fisheries, only the groundfish fisheries use bottom-contacting gear, raising the 

potential for the fishery to have direct effects on benthic non-fish organisms. Benthic invertebrate 

communities are susceptible to damage from fishing gear, which can reduce habitat complexity by 

smoothing bedforms, damaging emergent epifauna, and removing invertebrate species that produce 

structures such as burrows (Auster 1998, Turner et al. 1999). Bottom trawling and other benthic fishing 

gear has been shown to damage corals and sponges that may be very slow to recover from such 

disturbance (Miller et al. 2012). 

Like the sablefish pot fishery, the classification of the California thresher shark and swordfish large mesh 

draft gillnet fishery as a Category II fishery is based on a participating vessel’s recent encounter with a 

humpback whale. In 2009, a fisherman in this fishery reported an accidental entanglement of a humpback 

whale with his gear and, although he successfully cut the whale free, that the whale escaped with gear still 

entangling its fins. Based on the amount of gear still on the animals, this incident was considered a 

serious injury. As noted above, a single humpback whale serious injury or mortality from fishing gear 

can be notable as a percent of that species potential biological removal level. Outside of this humpback 

whale interaction, this sector of the HMS fisheries has a history of increasingly restrictive management 

measures intended to monitor and reduce bycatch levels for marine mammals and sea turtles. Federal 

regulations for this fishery include Protected Resource Area closures for leatherback and loggerhead sea 

turtles. The leatherback closure occurs annually from August 15 through November 15 along central 

California when leatherbacks are in the area foraging. The loggerhead Protected Resource Area, off 

southern California, is in place only during El Niño periods, when loggerhead sea turtles are more 

abundant within the U.S. EEZ.

HMS fisheries are subject to monitoring by NMFS-trained observers. NMFS’s Southwest Region

manages the observer program for HMS fisheries and tracks observed target and incidental catch in both 

the drift gillnet and deep-set longline fisheries. Both of these fisheries cause entanglement and sometimes 

mortality of ESA-listed species. NMFS has evaluated these fisheries and developed incidental take 

statements of ESA-listed marine mammals and sea turtles for the entanglements and mortality caused by 

the fisheries. These incidental take statement numbers are including in the Council’s HMS SAFE 

documents. The 2012 

SAFE Report for HMS 

fisheries through 2011 

included the incidental 

take statement for the drift 

gillnet fishery for these 

species: fin whale, 

humpback whale, sperm 

whale, green turtle, 

leatherback turtle, 

loggerhead turtle, and 

olive ridley turtle. For the 

more recently developed 

deep-set longline HMS 

fishery, the 2012 SAFE 

Report included the 

incidental take statement 

for four turtle species: 

green turtle, leatherback 

Public Review Draft FEP 146 February 2013
turtle, olive ridley turtle, and loggerhead turtle. (PFMC 2012) The absolute number of animals 

anticipated and observed to be taken incidentally is low for all species, but historic data from these 

fisheries indicate that takes are possible. Green olive ridley, and loggerhead turtles are particularly 

uncommon in these fisheries, except in El Niño years, or under other conditions when temperatures off 

the U.S. West Coast may increase to levels tolerable to these species.

CPS vessels fish with roundhaul gear (e.g. purse seine or lampara nets), which are encircling type nets 

deployed around a school of fish or part of a school. Using purse seine gear and management directives 

like area and time closures, CPS fishery participants can usually target single-species schools and 

minimize bycatch of non-target species (CPS FMP). The most common incidental catch in the CPS 

fishery (99% of the time) is another CPS species (e.g., Pacific mackerel incidental to the Pacific sardine 

fishery). Within the CPS fishery, bycatch and interactions with protected species are and have been 

monitored through dockside sampling, logbooks, and occasional observer programs when funding has 

been available. Information from dockside monitoring and logbooks are reported annually in the CPS 

SAFE. 

NMFS has conducted consultations related to the CPS fishery on ESA-listed sea birds, marine mammals, 

and fish stocks and determined that fishing activities are not likely to jeopardize protected species. 

NMFS’s most recent section 7 consultation on the operation and prosecution of the Pacific sardine fishery 

determined that fishing activities conducted under the CPS FMP and its implementing regulations are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction 

of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of any such species, 

specifically including ESA-listed salmon. As a result of a consultation with the USFWS, and although 

interactions with sea otters and the CPS fishery are extremely rare, with only two known instances of 

otters jumping in and out of nets during 

fishing, reporting requirements and 

conservation measures are in place to 

avoid interactions with sea otters: CPS 

nets may not be deployed in an area 

where a sea otter is observed and can be 

encircled by the purse seine; any sea 

otter entanglements within CPS nets, 

regardless of whether the animal 

escapes without harm, must be reported 

to NMFS within 24 hours of the 

occurrence; and CPS vessel operators 

must record and report on all vessel or 

gear interactions with otters, (defined 

as otters within encircled nets or coming 

into contact with nets or vessels, 

including but not limited to 

entanglement) with their purse seine 

net(s) or vessel(s). 

The salmon troll fisheries in federal waters off the U.S. West Coast are Category III fisheries under the 

MMPA List of Fisheries, with no known encounters with marine mammals. Within Washington State’s 

Puget Sound waters, the salmon gillnet fishery is a Category II fishery for its interactions with Dall’s 

porpoise, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal. The Puget Sound salmon gillnet fishery is not a Councilmanaged fishery, although the salmon populations targeted in that fishery are either of interest to Council 

process participants or also occur within federal waters for some portion of their lives. Like the CPS 

fisheries, the federal waters salmon troll gear fisheries use a gear type that can more readily avoid direct 

Public Review Draft FEP 147 February 2013
interactions with non-fish species. West Coast salmon fishing is concentrated northward of central 

California, where most species of sea turtles rarely occur, although leatherback sea turtles have been 

observed throughout the CCE as far north as British Columbia. There are no known interactions between 

the salmon troll fishery and sea turtles. While the salmon fisheries have not been evaluated for their 

potential direct effects on seabirds, troll gear has not been the subject of international or national concern 

for its effects on seabirds (e.g. NMFS 2001).

While direct effects are relatively easy to indentify and quantify, at least to the extent that reliable data 

exists on the amount or type of bycatch or areas with potential contact with gear, indirect effects although 

often as apparent, can be extremely difficult to quantify or determine the level of impact. For example, 

depletion of a prey stock may reduce the food supply of the predator and therefore may have a negative 

effect on the predator stock. However, given that most species feed on a variety of prey, it is very 

difficult to know how large the effect will be. Is the forage fish a vital prey item, or will the predator just 

shift to different prey? Additionally, interactions between species are seldom straightforward, and there 

can be several effects involved which can further complicate things. 

For example, all species of the CPS FMP are critical members of the ecosystem, since they are the major 

grazers on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and in some cases fish larvae and small fish (in the case of market 

squid and mackerel). In turn, these species are preyed upon by a large variety of higher predators, such as 

fish, large marine invertebrates, marine mammals, and birds, and are generally thought of as part of a 

more general “forage” fish assemblage. Removal of these species, through fishing, therefore imparts a 

potential impact on the entire ecosystem, with krill in particular being noted as such an important resource 

that all harvest of them is prohibited. Of the remaining targeted CPS, if enough of them were removed 

from the system, it is possible that there could be two effects: 1) an increase in the abundance of their 

prey, as the prey are released from predation pressure, and 2) a decrease in the survival and/or 

reproductive success of their predators. However, what is unclear is whether enough of any of these 

particular species could be removed in such numbers as to have these effects, particularly, since once one 

targeted species is removed, it is very possible that other similar species could fill their role in the 

ecosystem. 

Removal of sardines 

or anchovies from 

the system, for 

example, could 

potentially result in 

an increase in other 

small pelagic fishes 

(such as herring or 

smelts) that preyed 

on a similar prey 

base, such that large 

swings in plankton 

were unlikely. 

The extent to which 

different species and 

niches are 

interchangeable as 

predators is likely to 

be limited, at least 

to some extent, due 

to subtle differences 

Public Review Draft FEP 148 February 2013
in prey size spectrum and life histories that likely relate to the low frequency variations that characterize 

these populations (e.g., Arthur 1976, Van der Lingen et al. 2006, Rykaczewski and Checkley 2008). The 

extent to which these species may be interchangeable as prey is less clear. Although there are some 

indications that some predators may tend to forage preferably on one species rather than another (e.g., it 

has been suggested that albacore forage more exclusively on anchovies rather than sardines according to 

Glaser 2010), most studies have shown most piscivorous predators to have more opportunistic diets, and 

many documented predators of sardines showed no signs of population duress or decline during periods 

of low sardine abundance in the CCE from the 1950s through the 1980s when their diets reflected an 

absence of this prey resource (Hannesson et al. 2009 and references therein). Although the CPS fishery 

targets, including sardine, anchovy, and mackerel, make up a significant fraction of the forage base, there 

are a wide range of other forage species, including the juvenile stages of many larger marine fish species, 

that provide alternative forage opportunities for predators. These type of indirect impacts of fishing have 

proven more difficult to quantify in anything but broad terms (Cury et al. 2011, Smith et al. 2011), 

however attempts to quantify the effects typically suggest relatively modest impacts when exploitation 

rates are below single-species based MSY levels. These results, combined with the observation that there 

have historically been no obvious declines of predators linked to historical declines or fluctuations in CPS 

populations, suggests that substantial impacts on predators in the CCE are unlikely under the existing 

management regime. Similarly, Kaplan et al. (2012) found that indirect trophic effects of groundfish 

fisheries on marine mammals in the CCE appear to be negligible. 

Non-targeted species can also be inadvertently affected by activities associated with vessel operation 

(e.g., contaminant and noise pollution, introduction of invasive species, marine debris and habitat 

modifications caused by vessel anchorings). Under normal operation of fishing vessels, discharges of 

lubricating petroleum products are inevitable (Lin et al. 2007, Rosenberg 2009). Petroleum products 

consist of thousands of chemical compounds that 

can be particularly damaging to marine biota 

because of their extreme toxicity, rapid uptake, and 

persistence in the environment (Johnson et al. 

2008). Normal vessel operation also increases 

underwater noise. When background noise levels 

increase, many marine mammals amplify or 

modify their vocalizations which may increase 

energetic costs or alter activity budgets when 

communication is disrupted among individuals 

(Holt et al. 2009, Dunlop et al. 2010). Fisheries 

may also contribute to the amount of marine debris 

encountered by non-target species in the form of 

lost fishing gear and trash disposed overboard 

(Keller et al. 2010, Watters et al. 2010). Marine 

debris, especially plastics, produces fragments that 

can be ingested by many marine organisms, 

resulting in mortality (Derraik 2002, Thompson et 

al. 2004, Browne et al. 2008). Marine debris in the 

form of lost fishing gear continues to “fish” by 

trapping fish, invertebrates, seabirds and marine 

mammals (Kaiser et al. 1996, Good et al. 2010) 

and may affect populations behaviorally by 

concentrating individuals both a t the water’s 

surface (FAD – floating aggregation devices; 

Aliani and Molcard 2003)) and on the bottom 

(artificial reefs; Stolk et al. 2007). 

Public Review Draft FEP 149 February 2013
4.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Non-Fishing Activities on Non-Fish Abundance

The California Current IEA team has developed indicators for 23 anthropogenic pressures on the CCE. 

For many of the non-fisheries related pressures, they found that pressures were relatively constant over 

the short-term and most were within historic long-term averages (Agenda Item K.3.a, Supplemental 

Attachment 1, November 2012 PFMC.) However, inorganic and organic pollution and invasive species 

showed decreasing trends over the short-term, but were still within historic levels. Conversely, dredging, 

shellfish aquaculture, coastal engineering, commercial shipping activity and marine debris in the northern 

CCE have been increasing over the short-term, but were still within historic levels. Seafood demand, 

sediment and freshwater input have been constant over the short-term, but are above historic levels, while 

offshore oil and gas activity and benthic structure construction are at historically low levels. Of particular 

note is that the indicator for disease was increasing over the short-term and was at historically high levels

during the last five years of this dataset.

Importantly, none of these pressures act upon the ecosystem in a vacuum (i.e. many pressures are acting 

simultaneously on populations), and 

we have little understanding about 

whether the effects of multiple 

pressures will be additive, synergistic 

or antagonistic on populations of 

interest. Moreover, these 

anthropogenic pressures will interact 

with the underlying effects of climatic 

and oceanographic pressures.

The extent to which these diverse 

threats influence non-target species 

will depend on exposure of species to 

these threats and their susceptibility 

to threats once exposed. To date, 

there are no comprehensive risk 

analyses of these non-fisheries threats 

to species of interest to the Council. 

4.2.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers of Non-Target Species

As discussed section 4.1.3, a number of climatic and environmental factors can influence the population 

size and dynamics of marine species not targeted by fisheries. The same processes that influence targeted 

fish populations will also affect non-target species. Thus, large-scale interannual variability (e.g., ENSO) 

and interdecadal (e.g., PDO) variability can lead to dramatic changes in both lower and higher trophic 

level productivity and dynamics. As discussed previously, in the CCE, the impacts on productivity are 

related to the physical circulation patterns that often favor some source waters over others, which in turn 

contribute to large-scale variability in primary and secondary production. 

Small nonfish organisms have very rapid growth, and high turnover, and are thus much more directly 

responsive to changes in environmental variability. Large marine organisms, such as birds and mammals, 

are relatively slow growing, and live for longer periods, and thus may have less of a direct response to 

climate variability, although they still somewhat integrate the impacts of climate over their lifetimes, and 

may also have critical stages (e.g. egg production by birds) that can respond at shorter time scales to 

environmental drivers. In both cases, however, environmental variability may be expected to have some 

influences over these ecosystem components which might then have impacts upon managed fisheries 

species. 

Public Review Draft FEP 150 February 2013
Plankton are well known to be correlated in various ways with climate variability. For example, oceanic

levels of chlorophyll-a (see Figure 4.2.1,) which roughly tracks phytoplankton biomass, is correlated with 

trends in the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (a.k.a. NPGO index (Di Lorenzo et al., 2008)). Thus the 

increased recent variability in this index may be indicating increased variability in phytoplankton 

biomass, which could then affect fisheries species through bottom-up impacts. Additional similar impacts 

through bottom-up processes driven by climate variability are further described in sections 4.5 and 3.2. 

Beyond correlations of abundance (and/or productivity) with these major climate signals, a potentially 

more critical aspect of the response to climate variability in plankton would be major community shifts. 

An example of how a plankton community may change as a function of environmental drivers can be 

seen in the coastal Oregon copepod community index (Hoof and Peterson 2006, Peterson et al. 2012). 

Roughly tracking the PDO, there are observed switches between a zooplankton community dominated by 

northern vs southern copepod species. The key difference being that the northern group has more lipids 

in their bodies, and is thus a richer food source, likely promoting higher productivity in fish, versus the 

southern community, which has less lipid, and thus likely favors smaller fish or invertebrates. Currently, 

the system off of Oregon appears to oscillate between these two communities; however, it is possible that 

under long-term change, there might be a more permanent switch to one community over the other. It is 

also not clear if other portions of the community, such as phytoplankton, may undergo similar changes in 

species composition. Such changes 

in species and community 

composition driven by 

environmental factors might not lead 

to large changes in measured 

plankton abundance and/or biomass 

and productivity, but could still 

effect large changes in the trophic 

web if such changes lead to drastic 

changes in prey quality for higher 

tophic level organisms. 

The impacts of climate variability on 

large non-fish organisms, such as 

birds and marine mammals within 

the CCE are harder to estimate, and 

are thus harder to assess than impacts 

on managed fisheries species. Longlived marine mammals and birds 

effectively integrate the effects of 

climate variability over their 

lifespan, however, some species have 

particularly sensitive periods. For 

instance, marine birds have been 

shown to have connections between 

their reproduction in a particular year 

or season, and climate conditions or 

prey supply (Sydeman et al., 2006, 

Byrd et al., 2008). Similarly, whales 

and other marine mammals may not 

be as sensitive in their total growth 

over their lifetime to interannual 

variability, but their reproductive 

Public Review Draft FEP 151 February 2013
output during any 

particular season 

may be sensitive 

to more 

immediate 

climatic controls. 

Since both birds 

and marine 

mammals are 

important 

predators on both 

fisheries managed 

species, and the 

prey of fisheries 

managed species 

(particularly 

seabirds and 

whales feeding on 

krill), changes in 

the overall longterm abundance 

of these groups as 

a result in changes 

in demographic output through climate-related controls could have significant impacts on managed 

fisheries species. The extent of such impacts are currently unknown, and complicated to forecast. 

4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishing on Biophysical Habitat

Aside from the direct consequences of mortality to the target populations themselves, the effects of 

fishing gear on marine habitat, particularly benthic marine habitat, is thought to be among the most 

significant impacts of fishing on the marine environment. Although virtually all fishing gear can impact 

the structure and biota of a given bottom habitat, the significance of the impact can be difficult to fully 

predict and quantify. There are natural background levels of disturbance to all types of benthic 

communities as a consequence of large scale activities such as storms, wave action, tidal currents, and 

geological events, as well as smaller scale actions such as bioturbation or predator feeding activities (Hall 

1994, Kaiser et al. 2002). Consequently, shallow habitats are typically subject to greater natural 

disturbance than deeper habitats, such that the biota in such habitats may be more resilient to certain 

levels of disturbance than those in deeper or less disturbed habitats. It is generally acknowledged that for 

fishing activities to have ecologically significant impacts, the disturbance must exceed the background 

levels and frequency of the natural disturbance regime (Kaiser et al. 2002). Where fishing does exceed 

background levels of disturbance, the impacts of fishing will also vary as a consequence of the magnitude 

and spatial extent of the disturbance, the complexity of the habitat substrate, the configuration and towing 

speed of the gear, and other factors (Collie 2001, NRC 2002). For example, depending upon the habitat 

type, intensive but spatially localized disturbance may have relatively lower ecological impacts than more 

infrequent, but wide-spread, fishing disturbance (Kaiser et al. 2002). Another important consideration is 

the recovery rate for the return of the ecosystem to a state that existed before a disturbance. In some 

instances, altered habitat may not return to its pre-disturbance state. 

Under the MSA, each FMP must contain an assessment of the potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH

for management unit species. CPS fisheries have has little effect on physical substrates, because the 

contact between pelagic round haul gears and the bottom is rare and the opportunity for damage to 

Public Review Draft FEP 152 February 2013
benthos or the substrate is through lost gear (PFMC 1998). Similarly, HMS fisheries use pelagic fishing 

gears and fishing effects on biophysical habitat are presumed to be negligible or unknown, and not

described (PFMC 2007). At the time EFH was adopted in the Salmon FMP (PFMC 1999), there were no 

studies that indicated direct gear effects on salmon EFH from PFMC-managed fisheries. 

As described in the Groundfish FMP, Appendix 2C (2006), limited empirical data from the West Coast 

coupled with information from literature reviews showed that bottom trawl gear has effects on 

biophysical habitat. Information on the habitat effects of gears other than trawls was very limited, and 

empirical data were generally non-existent for West Coast habitats and fisheries. Based on this limited 

information, indices of sensitivity and recovery for the effects of fishing gears on bottom habitats were 

developed. The general results of the sensitivity analyses in the Groundfish FMP showed a nearly 

consistent ranking by substrate/macrohabitat type almost regardless of gear type from the most adversely 

impacted to least: biogenic > hard bottom > soft sediment. It also suggested the relative rankings of gear 

from highest to lowest impact: dredges > bottom trawls > pots & traps (no empirical data available for 

nets and hook & line 

gears). Although very 

little research exists, 

the various types of 

nets are generally 

considered to have 

much less impact on 

the seabed than

dredges and trawls, 

and hook-and-line 

methods have the least 

impact (PFMC 2006). 

The Council’s 

Groundfish EFH 

designations are 

currently under review 

and the EFH Review 

Committee is 

developing new 

sensitivity analysis 

methods for this 

review (EFHRC 

2012). General 

impacts of the gear 

types with the 

potentially greatest effects on habitat are described below.

4.3.1 Commercial Fisheries with Mobile Fishing Gears

4.3.1.1 Groundfish Trawl Fishery

The Groundfish FMP is the only Council FMP managing fisheries that use gear that regularly contacts the 

ocean floor. As a result, the Council, its advisory bodies, and associated agencies have halibut dto devote 

considerable energy to identifying groundfish EFH even under data poor conditions, and assessing and 

mitigating for the effects of bottom contacting gear on EFH. Impacts of bottom trawling to physical and 

biogenic habitats include removal of vegetation, corals, and sponges that may provide structure for prey 

species; disturbance of sediments; and possible alteration of physical formations such as boulders and 

Public Review Draft FEP 153 February 2013
rocky reef formations (National Research Council, 2002). Mid-water trawl gear is used to harvest Pacific 

whiting, shrimp, and other species. Mid-water trawl gear is not intended to as bottom-contacting gear, and

effects are generally limited to the effects of (1) removal of prey species, (2) direct removal of adult and 

juvenile groundfish, (3) occasional, usually unintentional, contact with the bottom, and (4) effects 

resulting from loss of trawl gear, potentially resulting in impacts to bottom habitats and ghost fishing.

Trawl effort for groundfish, measured in number of tows, dropped 60% between 1991 and 2001. 

Between the 1991–1993 and 1998–1999 periods the number of annual tows for groundfish declined from 

28,489 to 11,487. 

Based on distance 

trawled estimated 

from logbook 

data, limitedentry groundfish 

trawl effort 

continued to 

decline through 

2004. Trawl 

effort (estimated 

distance trawled) 

over most habitat 

types is low and 

decreasing, 

compared to 

historical levels

(Figure 4.3.1).

4.3.1.2 Pink Shrimp Trawl Fishery

The trawl fishery for pink shrimp off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and Northern California operates 

in much the same way and has similar types of impacts to biophysical habitat as the trawl fishery for 

groundfish. Pink shrimp trawling, however, is concentrated in the muddy soft bottom areas pink shrimp 

inhabitat. Soft mud habitat tends to recover more swiftly from the effects of trawling than rocky, hard 

bottom habitat. Shrimp trawl effort mainly occurs at 200m depth or shallower. In Oregon, 53 vessels 

participated in the fishery during 2010 and totaled 20,600 hours on the bottom, remaining in the low 

range seen in the fishery since 2003. 

4.3.1.3 Geoduck Fishery

The commercial fishery for geoducks in Washington uses water jets to dislodge sediment from around the 

geoduck, which allows it to be removed from the substrate. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) addresses 

fishing effects on habitat for commercial geoduck harvesting in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and San Juan Archipelago (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2008). Commercial harvest 

occurs in specific leased areas called tracts, at subtidal water depths between 18 and 70 feet. Commercial 

geoduck tracts commonly encompass soft sand or sand and silt substrate. The topography of the tracts 

varies, but most are relatively flat or are gently sloping. 

Harvest activities, particularly the use of water jets, and to a lesser degree vessel anchoring, diver 

movement and the dragging of hoses and collection bags, temporarily disturb bottom sediments and 

unintentionally remove and damage organisms on and in the substrate in the vicinity of the harvest. 

Harvesting geoducks temporarily leaves behind a series of holes where the clams are extracted, sediments 

Public Review Draft FEP 154 February 2013
displaced, and fine particles suspended. On average, harvest holes are about 15 inches wide, 3 inches 

deep and the depth to which disturbance was measured is 18 inches. The time for them to refill can range 

from days to months. Disturbance is limited to the area that is harvested each year (1732 – 2380 acres). 

Soft-bodied animals may be inadvertently damaged and displaced from within the substrate by the water 

jets and those brought to the surface are exposed to predation by fish, crab, and other predators and 

scavengers. Tubeworms may be broken apart, while very small animals may be suspended and carried 

away by currents.

The HCP reports research results that indicate transport and deposition of sediment put into suspension by 

harvest activities has minimal impacts on the physical environment within the tract and adjacent areas. 

The amount of sediment re-suspended by harvest activities is negligible. Substrate disturbance, 

subsequent sediment suspension and eventual deposition, and impacts to fauna on the tracts cause 

temporary, local effects, confined to the track and immediate vicinity.

4.3.2 Commercial Fisheries with Fixed Fishing Gears

In general, the effects of fishing gear on habitat for non-Council fisheries, especially fisheries for 

shellfish, is less well described. Saez, et al (in press) characterized eleven fixed gear fisheries on the 

West Coast, including longline, trap/pot and set gillnet anchored to the bottom. Fishing areas within 

operational depth ranges are described for each fishery (Table 4.1), and gives a general indication of 

habitats potentially affected. Saez et al (in press) graphically reported quarterly commercial landings 

aggregated by PacFIN port complex as a proxy for fishery effort for each fishery. Although many fixed 

gear fisheries operate in shallow depths close to the coast, fishing with sablefish pots and longlines occurs 

as deep as 450 fathoms and up to 80 kilometers offshore. 

Table 4.1. Fishery operational depths (in fm) summarized by state (Table 2 from Saez, et al, in press).

Fishery CA depth 

(fm)

OR depth 

(fm)

WA depth 

(fm)

Coonstripe shrimp 20-301 20-302 X

California nearshore live fish 0-203 X X

California halibut/white seabass set gillnet 15-504 X X

Dungeness crab 10-401 5-502 5-605

Hagfish 50-1251 80-1202 50-1255

Pacific halibut longline X 30-1506 30-1506

Rock crab 10-351 X X

Sablefish longline 100-4507 100-4507 100-4507

Sablefish traps 100-3757 100-3757 100-3757

Spiny lobster 0-401 X X

Spot prawn 100-1501 60-1752 70-1205

Sources: 1. CDFW; 2. ODFW; 3. CDFW fishery regulations, Title 14 CCR § 1.90 (d);4. NMFS (2008); 5. WDFW; 6. IPHC; 

7. NMFS West Coast Groundfish Observer Program

4.3.2.1 Dungeness Crab Fishery

The commercial Dungeness crab fishery off the West Coast is one of the largest of the fixed gear 

fisheries, in terms of the amount of fishing gear deployed. With the recent implementation of pot limits in 

all three states, approximately 400,000 pots are allowed to be fished annually, primarily on sandy 

substrates within ten miles of shore, from central California north to the Canadian border. Anecdotal 

Public Review Draft FEP 155 February 2013
information suggests that about 10% of pots may be lost each year as an unavoidable consequence of 

fishing largely during harsh winter conditions. 

Limited information is available on the fishery’s effects on habitat. Each pot is fished singly and may be 

deployed to the bottom, retrieved to unload catch, and re-deployed nearly on a daily basis through the 

peak months of the season. Effects on habitat may include crushing, burying, or exposing marine flora 

and fauna under the footprint of the pot or vicinity if its buoy line scrapes along the bottom with currents 

and tides. In the sandy areas 

typically fished, some local 

sediment disturbance can occur. 

Crab pots and lines may also add 

temporary habitat structure while 

fished on the bottom. Over the 

longer term, perhaps several years, 

a derelict pot can add structure to a 

variety of habitats, depending on 

where currents, tides, vessel traffic 

or other factors may deposit it on 

the seafloor. Observations of 

recovered derelict gear shows a 

variety of algae and sessile marine 

invertebrates attach themselves to 

derelict pots and lines. Underwater 

observations also show that crabs 

and other marine life may take 

refuge in the derelict pots. All 

three states require that pots have 

escape mechanisms (“rotten 

cotton”), so that derelict pots do not 

continue to ghost fish. 

4.3.2.1 Sablefish and Halibut Longline Fisheries

As indicated in Table 4.1 above, the sablefish fishery operates in deeper waters than most West Coast 

fixed gear fisheries and farther from shore. The fishery for Pacific halibut is generally shallower than the 

sablefish fishery, but the fisheries do overlap in the 100-150m range. Empirical data are scant on the 

effects of longline gear on biophysical habitat on the West Coast. Movements of lines with currents along 

the bottom and as gear is being set and hauled may have the greatest impacts, perhaps increasing 

turbidity, severing or crushing sessile, structure-forming invertebrates, and altering sediments that may be 

in the path of lines. 

4.3.3 Recreational Fisheries 

Little is known about the effects of recreational gears on biophysical habitat. The primary recreational 

fishing gear on the West Coast is hook-and-line. As with other recreational gears, its effects on 

biophysical habitat are not well-studied on the west coast, but are likely small and quite localized. 

Individual fishing lines may sever or tangle small amounts of kelp fronds if gear is fished in areas with 

kelp. Lost gear, such as sinkers, leaders, etc. also contributes to marine debris on the seafloor, shorelines, 

and structure-forming biota. 

Public Review Draft FEP 156 February 2013
The recreational Dungeness crab fishery occurs in bays and nearshore coastal areas from central 

California northward. Fishing effort information is limited. Recreational pots are smaller and lighter than 

commercial pots although they may have similar types of impacts on benthic habitats.

Effort in the razor clam 

fishery in large, sandy 

stretches of beaches on 

the Oregon and 

Washington coasts can be 

intense during low tides. 

Digging with shovels or 

clam guns occurs in the 

surf zone and vicinity. 

Sediments and infauna are 

disturbed in this high 

energy environment, 

although holes are often 

filled in within minutes or 

by the next tidal cycle. 

Harvesting of mussels, 

abalone, or other shellfish 

with some hand tools 

from rocks and rocky 

areas may have very 

minor localized, but 

longer-lasting effects on 

habitat. 

4.4 Changes in Fishing Community Involvement in Fisheries and Dependence 

Upon Fisheries Resources 

Like any community, fishing communities are affected by a variety of internal and external pressures, 

many of which are beyond the scope or control of Council fishery management programs. Fishing 

communities are necessarily located in coastal areas, which serve a wide variety of marine and other 

industries – from regional shipping hubs, to destination tourism locations, to submarine cable landing 

stations. Council decisions affect how much of which species of fish are taken within larger-scale 

geographic areas, but do not control whether and how coastal municipalities maintain harbor facilities, 

coastal community investments in attracting industries other than fishing, transportation infrastructure 

between fish landing facilities and major fish markets, or myriad other factors that affect income 

generated and quality of life within fishing communities. 

Council decisions directly affect the amount of managed species available in any one year, but are less 

likely to affect the prices West Coast fishing operations receive for their catch. Ex-vessel revenues for 

West Coast species are often linked to the species’ prices in the worldwide market and West Coast 

fisheries for most species tend to be exvessel price-taking, rather than price-setting. Ex-vessel revenue is 

the proximate effect of selling fish (or, for recreational fisheries, the expenditures incurred can serve as a 

minimum measure of willingness to pay for the recreational fishing experience.) The movement of fish 

or the fishing experience as commodities within the economy, and resulting expenditures from revenues 

may be considered largely cumulative effects of an action or of the Council’s activities as a whole. Other 

Public Review Draft FEP 157 February 2013
socioeconomic effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the pleasure 

derived from private recreational fishing, diving, kayaking, or beachcombing, are less quantifiable but 

may also be considered in Council decision-making.

Below, this section considers the direct and indirect effects of fishery resource availability on fishing 

communities, what may be known about the cost of participating in West Coast fisheries, and 

environmental and climate drivers for fishing communities.

4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of Fishery Resource Availability on Fishing 

Communities

Section 3.4 provides an overview of West Coast fisheries, with figures showing the ports in which

landings of managed species groups occur, and discusses factors affecting their timing. Here, the ports 

selected for each West Coast state were based on their hierarchical contribution to the state’s total annual 

average landings over the 2000-2011 period. Figures 4.3 through 4.8 compare total landings in 

California, Oregon and Washington with the corresponding overall revenues per pound (the weighted 

average exvessel price of all landings) to characterize fishery activity in each port in terms of the value to 

volume ratio. For example the southern California ports of San Pedro, and central Californaia ports of 

Moss Landing, Port Hueneme and Ventura, where landings are dominated by coastal pelagic species, tend 

to be relatively low value per unit landed but high volume in nature. Conversely, fishery activity in 

Monterey and San Francisco, as well as the northern ports of Eureka and Crescent City, where relatively 

large amounts of crab, groundfish and salmon are landed, tends to be more high value per unit landed but 

low volume. The Oregon ports of Astoria, Newport and Coos Bay, where groundfish make up the bulk of 

the landings, can be protrayed as low value but high volume, whereas Brookings, Garibaldi, Columbia 

River and Port Orford, having relatively higher landings of crab, shrimp and salmon, are more high value 

but low volume. In Washington, Westport appears to be low value per unit landed but high volume while 

the ports of Chinook, Bellingham Bay, Seattle, Neah Bay, Blaine, Shelton, Grayland and LaConner, with 

relatively greater landings of salmon and crab, would be considered high value but low volume in type. 

Public Review Draft FEP 158 February 2013
While Council decisions primarily affect landings volumes, fishery management programs can also affect 

the prices commercial vessels receive for their landings, the prices fish processors receive for their 

processed product, and the volume and prices recreational charterboat operations receive for the charter 

fishing experiences they offer. The goals and objectives of the Council’s groundfish trawl rationalization 

program, for example, include creating “individual economic stability,” and increasing “operational 

flexibility” (PFMC and NMFS 2010). These broadly worded goals recognize that, when fishermen can 

plan ahead, and their management programs provide flexibility in when and where they land their fish, 

they can take better advantage of shifting seafood prices. 

For some fisheries, like those for albacore, fishing must occur when the species in question is migrating 

through a particular region. For other species, like Dungeness crab, fishing must be timed for both 

biological (avoiding breeding season) and market (avoiding soft-shell season) reasons. Recreational 

fisheries, particularly those in the northern sections of the coast, are often constrained by seasonal 

weather. Washington’s charterboat operators may be willing to take customers in January, but their 

customers are less willing to join a January charter than a July charter. The Council can improve stability 

for fishery participants and fishing communities by developing management programs that provide some 

level of predictability in available harvest levels and season timing and duration. 

The WCGA’s 2008 Action Plan identifies many of the indirect effects that losses of fishing opportunities 

have on fishing communities: aging or declining port facilities and infrastructure, losses of traditional 

waterfront businesses, increasing housing costs associated with coastal community economic shifts 

toward attracting tourism revenue and second home buyers, and lack of inland-to-waterfront 

Public Review Draft FEP 159 February 2013
transportation infrastructure (WCGA 2008). The WCGA’s Sustainable Coastal Community Action Team 

elaborated further on these indirect effects of losses of fishing opportunity. That team’s 2011 work plan 

identified multiple factors that threaten fisheries sustainability and the ongoing existence of coastaldependent businesses and working waterfronts, including: a lack of a stable regulatory regime, which 

impedes business planning, 

lack of understanding from 

the general public about the 

land-sea connection, 

particularly about how 

degradations of terrestrial 

habitat may also affect 

marine species populations, 

reduced access to ports as a 

result of lack of funding for 

dredging and sediment 

management, insufficiently 

maintained port 

infrastructure, and a lack of 

opportunities to certify and 

sell locally-sourced seafoods 

(WCGA 2011).

The predominant fishery conservation and management issues facing the Council now and in the future 

deal with integrating physical, ecological and economic systems into an analytical framework directed 

toward maximizing the benefits that the CCE is capable of providing society. Society’s interest in 

ecosystem-based fisheries management reflects the total economic value it derives from fishery resources 

given the full range of goods and services they are capable of providing. Critical in this regard will be 

appropriate extraction levels for commercially and recreationally targeted species that take into account 

their interaction with other species having commercial, recreational or charismatic value. 

The Council’s basic harvest control rule for CPS exemplifies the ecosystem-based fisheries management 

approach when setting annual harvest quotas by accounting for the importance of CPS as forage for 

commercially important, recreationally important and protected species predators (PFMC 1998). The 

challenge at this juncture is to incorporate the economic value of harvested and protected predators into 

the harvest control rule to achieve optimal use of CPS resources from society’s standpoint. For example, 

if fishery management explicitly considers the economic value of species being harvested or protected, 

then the ecosystem/economic modeling approach could indicate under what ecological-economic 

conditions a CPS harvest quota might be reduced to increase the harvest or populations of more valuable 

predators (Hannesson et al. 2009, Hannesson and Herrick 2010). The ecosystem/economic modeling 

approach may indicate that it is advisable to reduce harvest levels on low-value feed species (e.g. anchovy 

and sardine) to provide the potential for increases in the harvest volume and value of species that feed on

these species. An ecosystem/economic modeling approach would allow us to include significant 

ecological and technological interactions among species in the calculation of their optimum yields and the

extent to which these interactions affect their relative economic value. 

There are numerous types of values ascribed to the organisms populating an ecosystem, and there will be 

tradeoffs between different ecosystem services or functions in order to achieve optimal use of the marine 

ecosystem. Recognition of these values and of ecosystem services has given rise to the current move in 

fisheries governance toward ecosystem-based management. Achievement of ecosystem-based fisheries 

management will be a lengthy, complicated process, one that engages diverse scientific methodologies in 

an interdisciplinary exercise to identify and describe all aspects of the linkages between complex natural 

and socioeconomic systems. The key here is to broaden the focus of traditional fisheries conservation and 

Public Review Draft FEP 160 February 2013
management science from a relationship between a target species and a commercial or recreational 

fishery, to a more comprehensive outlook that embraces all species in terms of their trophic, ecological, 

habitat and fishery interactions, and most importantly their relationship to all of society. Only when the 

consequences of human actions and values are 

highlighted throughout the ecosystem can the 

entire range of tradeoffs be made apparent and 

considered in conservation and management 

decision-making.

4.4.2 Costs of Participating in 

Fisheries

The economic effects of fisheries management 

on fishing communities and on the nation as a 

whole are related to the costs of managing and 

participating in the fisheries and to the 

benefits derived not just by fishermen, but 

also by the larger fishing community, and by 

U.S. citizens. A thorough cost-benefit 

analysis requires detailed variable and fixed 

cost data. Variable costs typically include: 

labor (crew and hired captain expenses), fuel, 

trip provisions (food, groceries, etc), 

expendable gear and equipment, maintenance

and repairs, and any other costs that vary with 

the amount of fishing effort expended. Fixed 

costs are incurred whether the vessel fishes or 

not, and typically include: vessel 

depreciation, interest payments, insurance, 

legal fees, office expenses, business licenses 

and fees, fishing permits, professional 

services, mooring/slip fees, drydock, routine 

vessel and gear maintenance and related 

purchases, supplies, salaries, and other. We 

routinely collect fisheries revenue and 

landings data, but cost data is often not 

collected at all, or only collected for specific 

research projects. 

4.4.3 Environmental and Climate Drivers for Fishing Communities

Environmental and climate drivers that may affect fish abundance are discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.5. 

Drivers that affect fish abundance also affect harvest levels available to human communities. Beyond the 

effects of fish abundance on fishing communities (Section 4.4.1) are the topographic and hydrological 

effects of climate change. Fishing communities are usually geographically located on or near the coast, 

and coastal communities face a variety of known and unknown challenges that may be associated with 

global climate change. Documenting all of the potential effects of near-term climate variability and longterm climate change on West Coast fishing communities is beyond the scope of this FEP. However, some 

major potential concerns for the coastal communities of Washington, Oregon, and California are 

discussed in this section.

Public Review Draft FEP 161 February 2013
4.4.3.1 Near-term climate variability related to ENSO and PDO

As discussed earlier in this FEP, 

interannual climatic shifts like 

ENSO, and interdecadal shifts 

like PDO, can alter both the 

status of marine stocks, and how 

humans experience climate on 

land. During El Niño periods, 

jet stream winds are often 

diverted northward, which can 

result in increased exposure of 

the U.S. West Coast to 

subtropical weather systems 

(Cayan et al. 1999). Along the 

coastline, this increase in 

southerly weather systems, 

coupled with elevated relative 

sea levels that are also 

associated with El Niño events, 

leads to increased storm damage 

and beach erosion in coastal 

areas (Storlazzi and Griggs 

2000). While such events often 

cause dramatic shoreline 

impacts and property damage, we are not aware of studies that have evaluated the direct or indirect 

impacts to fisheries infrastructure or profitability, although the impacts on species catchability and the 

resulting profitability of different fishing strategies as a consequence of El Niño have been evaluated and 

shown to be substantial in case studies. For example, Dalton (2001) showed that El Niño events had 

positive impacts on the abundance and catch rates of albacore and negative impacts on the abundance of 

Chinook salmon, sablefish and squid in Monterey Bay, with cascading impacts on both prices and 

profitability in all of those fisheries. 

The changes in weather patterns more generally also leads to higher than normal rainfall in the 

southwestern U.S., with associated flooding and sediment dispersal more likely to occur from central 

California southward. By contrast, the northwestern U.S. experiences lower than normal precipitation 

during such events, often resulting in drought conditions both from lack of rainfall in the lowlands and 

from reduced snowpack in the mountains (Karl et al. 2009). During El Niño periods, the reduced 

precipitation in the northwestern U.S. has a direct effect on stream levels, reducing spawning and 

migration habitat for salmon. Drought conditions in the northwest also tend to result in more intense and 

more frequent forest fires, although northwestern forest fires most frequently occur east of the Cascade 

Mountain range, away from coastal communities. Conversely, La Niña periods bring unusually dry and 

hot conditions to the southwestern U.S., and wetter than normal conditions to the northwestern U.S. 

While the buildup of snowpack associated with La Niña years can be beneficial to salmon during spring 

snowmelt periods, increased northwest flooding can also move streamwater outside of streambed habitat 

into areas not hospitable to salmon spawning, such as agricultural fields or roadways. Reduced 

precipitation in the already dry southwestern U.S. often results in more frequent and more intense forest 

fires, which can occur in southwestern coastal communities. Reduced precipitation can also lead to more 

intense conflict over water rights in southwestern water systems that are already oversubscribed by 

multiple users. 

Public Review Draft FEP 162 February 2013
4.4.3.2 Sea-Level Rise in Association with Climate Change

At the large-scale, the U.S. West Coast is relatively high-relief, meaning that the land often rises sharply 

from the ocean, making inundation from sea-level rise less of a concern for some undeveloped areas of 

the coast. However, several urban areas, including San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound, are highly 

developed near low-lying shoreline, and are expected to be vulnerable to sea-level rise in the coming 

decades (Snover et al. 2007, Cloern et al. 2011). Even less-developed portions of the West Coast may be 

subject to accelerated erosion in association with sea-level rise, particularly where sandy dunes dominate 

the coastline. 

In 2012, the U.S. National Research Council published a report evaluating sea-level rise for the U.S. West 

Coast in the years 2030, 2050, and 2100, in response to requests from the states of Washington, Oregon, 

and California for more information on where and how sea-level rise might affect the West Coast (NRC 

2012). The report responds to the states’ requests for information on the contributors to global sea-level 

rise, regional and local values for sea-level rise, climate-induced changes in storm-frequency and 

magnitude, the response of coastal habitats to sea-level rise and storminess, and the role of habitats and 

natural environments in providing protection from inundation and waves. In general, the report concludes 

that sea-level rise may have less of an effect north of Cape Mendocino, CA, where an upward-lifting 

tectonic plate will counteract the effects 

of melting polar ice, and more of an 

effect south of Cape Mendocino, where 

the coast’s tectonic plate is sinking 

relative to surrounding plates. Storm 

frequency and intensity, however, is 

expected to increase coastwide, 

particularly in El Niño years, when 

Pacific Basin sea surface heights 

increase along the eastern Pacific Ocean 

(NRC 2012). 

As with near-term climate shifts, fishing 

communities can start to prepare for sealevel rise by seeking out projections for 

their particular geographic regions. 

Projections may be less certain at smaller 

spatial scale, but can still help 

communities think about and plan for 

projected changes for their region. The 

three West Coast states, both 

individually and collectively through the 

WCGA, have been seeking state-level 

information and are organizing statelevel planning on addressing the effects 

of climate change. Treaty tribes that 

participate in the Council process are 

also participants in regional and nationwide efforts by native peoples to better 

prepare for sea-level rise and other 

effects of global climate change (e.g., 

FSS 2012). 

Public Review Draft FEP 163 February 2013
4.4.3.3 Hydrologic Cycle Shifts in Association with Climate Change

Climate change has already 

had measurable effects on 

the North American 

hydrologic cycle in the 20th 

century, and those effects 

are predicted to continue 

through the 21st century. 

For communities along the 

U.S. West Coast, 

hydrologic cycle shifts will 

differ along the length of 

the coast. Hot and dry 

sections of the southwestern 

U.S., particularly including 

coastal areas of the 

Southern California Bight, 

are predicted to become 

hotter and dryer, with 

longer droughts and more 

floods when rainfall occurs. 

The Northwest is also 

predicted to experience 

more droughts and floods, 

less precipitation falling as 

snow, as well as earlier 

spring snowmelt periods, all 

of which will together 

exacerbate longer 

summertime droughts. Glaciers in U.S. western mountains, including those in Alaska, have been 

shrinking over the 20th century and are expected to continue to shrink through the 21st century. 

Freshwater supply conflicts already make water rights allocation difficult throughout the western U.S. As 

the U.S. population increases, particularly in drier regions, those conflicts are expected to increase (NRC 

2012). 

4.4.3.4 Shoreline Ecological Shifts in Association with Climate Change

With sea-level rise increasing coastal erosion and encroaching on wetlands, and with rainfall occurring in 

more brief and dramatic events, more sediment will likely be shifting to and around coastal areas. For 

some coastal communities, sediment shift may mean loss of beaches and connected tourism income, or 

loss of estuarine habitat. For other communities, more rapidly shifting sediment may mean increased 

needs for frequent dredging. More urbanized coastal communities with hardened shorelines may see 

more landslides and other dramatic erosion events. The western U.S. has been subject to a dramatic 

infilling and loss of wetlands habitat over the last 150 years, leaving less protection from coastal storms 

and erosion for humans, and less nursery habitat for fish. Although coastal development mitigation and 

environmental protection strategies now take better account of the need to retain the ecosystem services 

provided by wetlands, habitat restoration is unlikely to occur at a fast enough rate to counter the predicted 

sediment transport effects associated with climate change. 

Public Review Draft FEP 164 February 2013
4.5 Aspects of Climate Change Expected to Affect Living Marine Resources 

within the CCE

Climate change is expected to lead to substantial changes in physical characteristics and dynamics within 

the marine environment, with complex and interacting impacts to marine populations, fisheries and other 

ecosystem services (Scavia et al. 2002, Harley et al. 2006, Doney et al. 2012). Three major aspects of 

future climate change that will have direct effects on the CCE are: ocean temperature, pH (acidity versus 

alkalinity) of ocean surface waters, and deep-water oxygen. Globally by 2050, ocean temperatures on 

average are expected to rise at least 1°C (by the most conservative estimates, IPCC 2007), while at the 

same time, ocean pH in the upper 500m has steadily been decreasing (becoming more acidic, aka “ocean 

acidification”) at a rate of approximately -0.0017 pH per year (Byrne et al., 2010). On a more regional 

basis within the CCE, deep-water oxygen levels have shown a steady and relatively rapid decrease since 

the mid 1980’s (Bograd et al., 2008, McClatchie et al., 2010). These three factors are linked: ocean 

temperature affects ocean pH, ocean temperature and deep water oxygen levels both can be controlled by 

large scale circulation patterns, and primary production can affect both oxygen and pH (Gilly et al. 2013). 

All three factors show long-term trends and decadal-scale variance similar to changes in the PDO 

(Mantua et al., 1997) and North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (DiLorenzo et al., 2008) climate signals. In 

addition to these three large-scale aspects of climate change, some more immediate and localized aspects 

of climate change observed in coastal marine ecosystem include: intensification of upwelling (Bakun, 

1990, Schwing and Mendelssohn, 1997), changes in phenology (Bograd et al., 2009), and changes in the 

frequency and intensity of existing interannual and interdecadal climate patterns (Yeh et al. 2009, CCIEA 

2012, and references therein). Substantial changes in weather and precipitation patterns will also affect 

snowpack, streamflow, river temperatures and other aspects of freshwater habitat, with tremendous real 

and potential consequences to the future productivity and sustainability anadromous resources such as 

salmon (Mantua and Francis 2004, Crozier et al. 2008).

Due to its expected significant impacts, the Council will eventually find it necessary to consider the 

effects of climate change on Council-managed species, whether those effects include a localized change 

in prey abundance for one species, or a large-scale shift in species composition within the CCE. The 

FEP’s Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix, in Section A.2.8, the FEP suggests an initiative to help bring 

Council priorities for the information it needs about future predicted shifts in fish population abundance 

to the scientists and scientific programs assessing the vulnerability of natural resources and human 

communities to climate change.

4.5.1 Temperature

Temperature within the CCE is monitored reliably via several methods. Surface temperatures are 

sampled via satellite on relatively high temporal (daily) and spatial (several km) scales. In situ and some 

sub-surface temperatures are less frequently monitored by buoys and ship-based measurements. Gliders 

and shore-stations provide additional measurements at lower spatial coverage. CCE water temperature 

measurements have been taken for a longer span of time than any other measurements, providing 

excellent background data to evaluate current and historic trends (e.g. the CALCOFI program). 

Increasing temperature will have both direct and indirect effects on all managed species within the CCE. 

For cold-blooded species, vital rates will change as a function of temperature, specifically growth and 

development rates, which could lead to changes in size-at-age relationships, and/or changes in egg 

production rates (Houde, 1989; Blaxter, 1992). Certain species with upper thermal limit tolerances, may 

become locally extirpated in some areas, or conversely expand into new territories that were once too 

cold. Other, more mobile species, may change their depth/and or spatial range in response to increasing 

Public Review Draft FEP 165 February 2013
temperature, typically through a northward shifting of population boundaries. Climate change has already 

been associated with poleward range expansions of marine species; animals with the highest turnover 

rates appear to show the most rapid distributional responses to warming (Perry et al., 2005; Burrows et 

al., 2011), suggesting that those with slower life histories could be more vulnerable to such impacts. 

Most recently, Hazen et al. (2012) evaluated likely changes in the distribution of available habitat to a 

suite of higher trophic level predators (including many HMS species), and predicted that available habitat 

would change by up to 35% for some species, with corresponding northward shift in species ranges and 

biodiversity across the North Pacific.

Indirect effects on managed species include changes in both basic primary and secondary production 

rates, and/or community composition of the lower trophic levels which provide the food base for managed 

species. It is also likely that along with increased warming, there has been an increase in thermal 

stratification within the CCE (Palacios et al., 2004), which may lead to a decrease in overall primary 

production, through a reduction in the effectiveness of upwelling bringing nutrients to the surface layers. 

Thus we may expect system-wide changes in productivity or changes in the centers of productivity over 

the next 50 years. Related to changes in temperature, there may also be associated changes in the timing 

of the onset of spring’s seasonal upwelling, which could have widespread effects on total production, the 

match-mismatch of certain trophic interactions, and possible community shifts (Loggerwell et al., 2003; 

Holt and Mantua, 2009).

4.5.2 Ocean pH

Measurement of ocean pH requires in situ water sampling, and cannot currently be conducted via remote 

means. However, because of the relatively tight coupling of ocean pH with atmospheric forcing, 

biogeochemical models may be used in some cases to determine ocean pH at higher temporal and spatial 

frequency than in situ sampling would allow. In fact, historic ocean pH levels used for calculating long 

term trends have mostly been calculated using biogeochemical-atmospheric models (Fabry et al., 2008). 

There is much less data available, both temporally and spatially concerning ocean pH than nearly all other 

physical-chemical measurements, partly because up until recently, it was believed that the ocean was 

relatively “self-buffering” and would not undergo significant changes in pH. With the recent recognition 

that pH is indeed decreasing, and that this may be detrimental to many marine organisms, monitoring of 

pH has increased, particularly 

in coastal regions. 

Decreasing ocean pH (ocean 

acidification) will have direct 

effects on certain species within 

the CCE. Primarily, decreasing 

pH makes it more difficult for 

shell-bearing species (such as 

corals, bivalves, gastropods, 

and crustaceans) to make their 

shells (Kleypas et al., 1999; 

Riebesell et al., 2000; Fabry et 

al., 2008). Decreased pH may 

possibly impact the larvae and 

young stages of fish, although 

studies documenting such 

effects on fish are sparse (see 

Fabry et al. 2008, and 

Public Review Draft FEP 166 February 2013
references therein). The most significant impact likely for the managed species within the CCE would be 

if decreasing pH caused changes in plankton productivity or community composition. Currently, the 

likeliness and extent of such effects are poorly known, but could be considerable. As changes in ocean 

pH roughly track changes in atmospheric pCO2 levels, it is expected that as pCO2 continues to rise, ocean 

pH will continue to steadily decrease, making changes in ocean plankton production and community 

structure more likely in the future. It is important to note that there is considerable daily, seasonal, and 

decadal scale variability in ocean pH, overlain on the overall long-term trend (reviewed in Fabry et al., 

2008). Thus many oceanic species are already exposed to considerable variability in ocean pH compared 

to the rate of long-term change, and thus have some natural resilience to such changes.

Although pH within the surface waters is highly related to atmospheric processes (e.g. the CO2 content of 

the air), coastal upwelling may act to further decrease upper ocean pH. Waters at depths from 150-400 m 

are typically low in pH relative to the surface, since these waters are relatively “older”, and hence have 

had more time for biological processes like respiration to occur, which naturally reduce pH (Feely et al., 

2008). When water from these depths upwells towards the surface, as occurs seasonally within the CCE, 

the pH of the upper water column will decline. This results in a shoaling of the depth at which organisms 

can no longer make calcareous shells, thus restricting or possibly eliminating (when upwelling is strong 

enough to reach directly to the surface) their available depth habitat range (Feely et al., 2008). Such 

effects are temporally variable, as they are directly related to the strength and duration of seasonal coastal 

upwelling, with surface pH rapidly returning to its pre-upwelling, atmospherically-equilibrated state upon

the cessation of upwelling. A recently-convened blue ribbon panel on ocean acidification in Washington 

State waters noted the potential for upwelling off the Washington coast to exacerbate the near-term 

effects of ocean acidification on northern CCE nearshore waters (Feely et al., 2012).

4.5.3 Oxygen

Oxygen levels have been measured for many decades throughout the CCE (e.g.CalCOFI), traditionally 

via in situ sampling, followed by ship-board analysis. Oxygen cannot be measured remotely via satellites 

or other means. However, recent technological advances have enabled the development of in situ oxygen 

sensors that can provide fairly rapid subsurface measurements of oxygen (Tengberg et al., 2006). 

Modeling in situ oxygen levels is problematic in most cases, since it requires complex atmosphericphysical-biological coupled models with accurate mixing schemes, although such models do exist and can 

be applied in some areas with decent success (Najjar and Keeling, 2000). Thus, modeling may provide a 

limited ability to fill in data gaps, and make limited predictions of water oxygen content.

Within the CCE, there has been a notable decrease in deep-water oxygen levels since the mid 1980’s 

(Bograd et al., 2008, Chan et al., 2008). Much of this reflects a shoaling of the oxygen minimum zone 

throughout the Eastern Tropical Pacific, California Current, and North Pacific, in which the depth of the 

oxygen level thought to be constraining or lethal for most marine species becomes shallower (closer to the 

surface), compressing the available water column habitat for fishes with high oxygen demands. These 

low oxygen waters are a natural feature of the Eastern Pacific Rim and other regions characterized by 

high surface productivity and/or the upwelling of oxygen-poor source waters (Helly and Levin 2004). 

However, the ongoing decrease in deep water oxygen levels is most likely a result of changes in oxygen 

content of the source waters of deeper parts of the CCE, more of a basin-wide phenomenon affecting 

large regions of the CCE (Bograd et al., 2008, Stramma et al. 2011), and one expected to continue or 

intensify with global change (Rykaczewski and Dunne. 2010). On top of the long term, system-wide 

changes in deeper water oxygen are regional-scale events that may further decrease oxygen levels. 

Particularly, strong surface primary production may sink out before being remineralized in surface layers, 

leading to a higher respiratory demand in deeper waters. 

Public Review Draft FEP 167 February 2013
Within the oxygen minimization 

zone, species diversity declines 

to a smaller suite of species that 

have adapted to cope with low 

oxygen waters. In the CCE, the 

benthic inhabitants of the 

oxygen minimization zone are 

the well known deepwater

complex species (Dover sole, 

thornyheads and sablefish), 

which have evolved a range of 

adaptive strategies including 

metabolic suppression, slow 

growth rates, late ages at 

maturity, and ambush (rather 

than active searching) predation 

methods (Vetter and Lynn 1997, 

Koslow et al. 2000). However, 

the effects of low oxygen levels on marine organisms that are not tolerant of such conditions are fairly 

well known: death in most cases if the organisms cannot avoid the area, or reduced growth for those 

species with moderate tolerance. Consequently, the combination of a steady decrease in baseline oxygen 

levels in deep water, with occasional periods of heightened primary production without concomitant 

surface grazing, have sometimes led to large hypoxic or even anoxic zones in deeper waters, resulting in 

massive fish kills (e.g. recent events off Oregon coast; Chan et al., 2008). 

Over the longer term, the likelihood of oxygen decrease events may increase, as will a more gradual 

compression of available habitat for less tolerant species. For example, McClatchie et al. (2010) 

evaluated potential scenarios for hypoxia to affect the habitat of cowcod (Sebastes levis), a rebuilding 

shelf species that is a key management species in the California Current. They found that as much as 

37% of deep (240-350 m) cowcod habitat is currently affected by hypoxia, but that if the current trends of 

a shoaling oxygen minimization zone continue for 20 years, this could increase to 55% of deep habitat, as 

well as an additional 18% of habitat in the 180 to 240 m depth range. For deeper water species the 

impacts could be even greater; for example blackgill rockfish (S. melanostomus) have a much deeper 

depth distribution (among the deepest of the larger slope-dwelling Sebastes) and may be at considerably 

greater risk to the longer-term impacts of shoaling. Moreover, changes in the characteristics and 

dynamics of the oxygen minimization zone could lead to changes in the forage base for blackgill rockfish, 

which are described as foraging primarily on mesopelagic fishes that undergo diel migrations from the 

edge of the oxygen minimization zone to surface waters in order to feed. A comparison of the depth of 

the oxygen minimization zone and long term records of fish communities suggests that oxygen 

minimization zone shoaling may be shifting the distribution of blackgill rockfish’s mesopelagic prey 

species (Koslow et al. 2011). Such habitat compression is also likely to affect highly migratory species, 

such as tunas and marlin, with the irony that such compression could increase the vulnerability of such 

predators to fishing (by concentrating their habitat), while decreasing their long term carrying capacity 

and productivity (Prince and Goodyear 2006, Stramma et al. 2011).

4.5.4 Upwelling, Phenology, and Changes in Existing Climate Patterns

As described by Bakun (1990) global warming has led to an intensification of alongshore wind stress, 

which in turn has led to an intensification of coastal upwelling, as has been documented both around the 

globe, and specifically within the CCE (Schwing and Mendelssohn, 1997). Within the CCE, this longterm intensification is most notable during April to July, and is of greater magnitude than the typical 

Public Review Draft FEP 168 February 2013
seasonal variability. Such an increase in upwelling should lead to cooler surface waters and higher 

productivity, however, the long-term trend of increasing SST has masked this effect, leading to overall net 

higher water temperatures (Schwing and Mendelssohn, 1997). 

There have also been changes in the major existing climate patterns, e.g. the PDO, NPGO, and 

ENSO(MEI). The MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index), which is an indicator of occurrence and strength of 

El Niño conditions, has seen an increasing trend, with more positive values since 1977. Positive values 

are associated with warmer surface water and weaker upwelling. Hence this climate indicator would 

suggest a relative decrease in productivity of the CCE since 1977. The North Pacific Gyre Oscillation 

(NPGO) index is a low frequency signal of the sea surface heights over the NE Pacific, and has been 

linked to salinity and Chl-a within the CCE (Di Lorenzo et al., 2008). Since 1975, the NPGO has seen 

more extreme and/or longer duration events than previously (CCIEA 2012). Thus chl-a and salinity 

within the CCE may also be experiencing heightened extremes and durations of those extremes. The 

PDO is a low frequency signal of SST across the N. Pacific that has been related to biological 

productivity (Mantua et al., 1997). The PDO has also seen a change since 1977, with generally more 

positive (indicative of warmer SSTs and hence likely lower productivity) values since that time (CCIEA 

2012). However, over the past 7 years, the PDO has declined (albeit with a sharp increase in 2010), thus 

possibly indicating higher productivity over this shorter time span.

These changes in upwelling and major climate patterns result in changes to the phenology of physical and 

biological events within the CCE. Within the CCE, since it is primarily an upwelling driven ecosystem, 

of particular importance is the change in upwelling phenology. This is in addition to the above described 

change in upwelling intensification. Recent trends over the past 5 years indicate an earlier timing to the 

start of upwelling in the south, and a later start to upwelling in the north (CCIEA 2012), with an earlier 

start of upwelling likely leading to higher integrated productivity. In any case, changes in the timing of 

upwelling may result in match-mismatch between predators and their prey, if those timings are somewhat 

uncoupled (e.g. salmon entering the ocean may have a different timing set by terrestrial forcing, as 

opposed to the timing of upwelling initiation). Changes in the timing of upwelling will also likely have 

impacts all the way up the food chain to the top level predators and consumers, since it is the timing and 

strength of upwelling that primarily controls primary productivity of the CCE, and thereby overall 

productivity. However, the exact nature of how upwelling phenology may change is not clear, as it is 

affected by many factors, such as wind patterns, SST, mixing, stratification, circulation etc., and may vary 

by region. These physical factors, SST, mixing, wind etc., are in turn controlled by interrelated largescale patterns – which are undergoing both long-term changes, and changes in their strength and 

variability as described above – therefore further complicating prediction of ecosystem response. An 

important secondary effect of changes in upwelling strength and phenology are potential changes in upper 

ocean pH. As described above, upwelled water may act to further decrease the surface ocean pH. Thus 

changes in upwelling phenology are also likely to change seasonal and long-term patterns of ocean pH. 

Public Review Draft FEP 169 February 2013
4.6 Sources for Chapter 4

Al-Humaidhi, A. W., M. A. Bellman, J. Jannot, and J. Majewski. 2012a. Observed and estimated total bycatch of 

green sturgeon and Pacific eulachon in the 2002-2012 U.S. west coast fisheries. West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, NWFSC, Seattle, WA.

Al-Humaidhi, A. W., M. A. Bellman, J. Jannot, and J. Majewski. 2012b. Observed and estimated total bycatch of 

salmon in the 2002-2012 U.S. west coast fisheries. West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NWFSC, Seattle, WA.

Aliani, S. and A. Molcard. 2003. Hitch-hiking on floating marine debris: macrobenthic species in the Western 

Mediterranean Sea. Hydrobiologia 503:59-67.

Allen, B. M. and R. P. Angliss. 2011. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2010. NMFS-AFSC-223, United 

States Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.

Anderson, C. N. K., et al. 2008. Why fishing magnifies fluctuations in fish abundance. Nature 452, 835-839.

Arthur, D.K. 1976. Food and feeding of larvae of three fishes occurring in the California Current, Sardinops sagax, 

Engraulis mordax, and Trachurus symmetricus. Fishery Bulletin 74: 517–530.

Auster, P. J. 1998. A conceptual model of the impacts of fishing gear on the integrity of fish habitats. Conservation 

Biology 12:1198-1203.

Barlow, J. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in California waters. Part 1: Ship surveys in summer and fall of 1991. 

Fishery Bulletin 93:1-14.

Baum, J.K. and B. Worm. 2009. Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. Journal of 

Animal Ecology 78: 699–714.

Baumgartner, T.R., A. Soutar and V.Ferreira-Bartrina. 1992. Reconstructions of the history of Pacific sardine and 

northern anchovy populations over the past two millennia from sediments of the Santa Barbara Basin, 

California. CalCOFI Reports 33: 24-40.

Bearzi, G., E. Politi, and G. N. di Sciara. 1999. Diurnal behavior of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins in the 

Kvarnerić (Northern Adriatic Sea). Marine Mammal Science 15:1065-1097.

Bellman, M. A. and S. A. Heppell. 2007. Trawl Effort Distribution off the U.S. Pacific Coast: Regulatory Shifts and 

Seafloor Habitat Conservation.in J. Heifetz, J. DiCosimo, A. J. Gharrett, M. S. Love, V. M. O’Connell, and 

R. D. Stanley, editors. Biology, assessment, and management of North Pacific rockfishes. Alaska Sea 

Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Bellman, M. A., A. W. Al-Humaidhi, J. Jannot, and J. Majewski. 2011. Estimated discard and catch of groundfish 

species in the 2010 U.S. west coast fisheries. West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NWFSC, Seattle, WA.

Berkeley, S. A., and E. D. Houde. 1978. Biology of two exploited species of halfbeaks, Hemiramphus brasiliensis 

and H. balao from southeast Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 28:624-644.

Berkeley, S. A., C. Chapman, and S. M. Sogard. 2004a. Maternal age as a determinant of larval growth and survival 

in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology 85: 1258–1264.

Berkeley S.A., M. A. Hixon, R. J. Larson, and M. S. Love. 2004b. Fisheries sustainability via protection of age 

structure and spatial distribution of fish populations. Fisheries (Bethesda) 29(8): 23–32.

Berkeley, S.A. 2006. Pacific rockfish management: are we circling the wagons around the wrong paradigm? Bull. 

Mar. Sci., 78(3): 655–668.

Brodeur, R. D., E. A. Daly, R. A. Schabetsberger, and K. L. Mier. 2007. Interannual and interdecadal variability in 

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) diets in relation to environmental changes in the northern 

California Current. Fish. Oceanog.16:395-408.

Browne, M. A., A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe, and R. C. Thompson. 2008. Ingested microscopic 

plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental science & 

technology 42:5026-5031.

Bobko, S. J. and S. A. Berkeley. 2004. Maturity, ovarian cycle, fecundity and age-specific parturition of black 

rockfish, Sebastes melanops. Fish. Bull., U.S. 102: 418–429.

Bograd,S.J., I.Schroeder, N. Sarkar, X.Qiu, W.J.Sydeman, and F. B. Schwing. 2009. Phenology of coastal upwelling 

in the California Current. Geophysical Research Letters 36. L01602, doi:10.1029/2008GL035933

Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson. 1997. The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. 

Science 277:509-515.

Burrows, M.T., D.S. Schoeman, L.B. Buckley, P. Moore, E.S. Poloczanska, K.M. Brander, C. Brown, J.F. Bruno, 

C.M. Duarte, B.S. Halpern, J. Holding, C.V. Kappel, W. Kiessling, M.I. O’Connor, J.M. Pandolfi, C. 

Public Review Draft FEP 170 February 2013
Parmesan, F.B. Schwing, W.J. Sydeman, A.J. Richardson. 2011. The Pace of Shifting Climate in Marine 

and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Science 334, 652-655.

Byrd GV, Sydeman WJ, Renner HM, Minobe S (2008) Responses of piscivorous seabirds at the Pribilof Islands to 

ocean climate. Deep-Sea Res II 55:1856–1867

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, E. Oleson, K. Martien, M. M. Muto, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, D. 

Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. J. Brownell, J. Robbins, D. K. Mattila, K. Ralls, and M. C. Hill. 2011. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-476, United States 

Department of Commerce, La Jolla, CA.

Carlson, S.M., and Satterthwaite, W.H. 2011. Weakened portfolio effect in a collapsed salmon population complex. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 1579-1589.

Carter, H. R., U. W. Wilson, R. W. Lowe, M. S. Rodway, D. A. Manuwal, J. E. Takekawa, and a. J. L. Yee. 2001. 

Population trends of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR– 2000-0012, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Cayan, D.R., K.T. Redmond and L.G. Riddle. 1999. ENSO and hydrologic extremes in the western United States. 

Journal of Climate 12: 2881–2893.

Chelton, D.B., P.A. Bernal and J.A. McGowan. 1982. Large-scale interannual physical and biological interactions in 

the California Current. Journal of Marine Research 40:4: 1095-1125.

Cloern JE, Knowles N, Brown LR, Cayan D, Dettinger MD, et al. (2011) Projected Evolution of California's San 

Francisco Bay-Delta-River System in a Century of Climate Change. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24465. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024465

Collie, J.S., S.J. Hall, M.J. Kaiser and I.R. Poiner. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea 

benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 785-799.

Crozier, L.G., A. P. Hendry, P. W. Lawson, T. P. Quinn, N. J. Mantua, J. Battin,R. G. Shaw, R. B. Huey. 2008. 

Potential responses to climate change in organisms with complex life histories: evolution and plasticity in 

Pacific salmon. Evolutionary Applications 1: 252–270.

Cury, P.M., I.L. Boyd, S. Bonhommeau, et al. 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for 

the birds. Science 334: 1703-1706.

Dalton, M.G. 2001. El Niño, expectations, and fishing effort in Monterey Bay, California. Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management 42, 336–359.

Dayton, P. K., S. F. Thrush, M. T. Agardy, and R. J. Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquat. 

Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 5:205-232.

DeMaster, D. P., C. W. Fowler, S. L. Perry, and M. F. Richlen. 2001. Predation and Competition: The Impact of 

Fisheries on Marine-Mammal Populations over the Next One Hundred Years. Journal of Mammalogy 

82:641-651.

DeMaster, D. P., A. W. Trites, P. Clapham, S. Mizroch, P. Wade, and e. al. 2006. The sequential megafaunal 

collapse hypothesis: testing with existing data. Progress in Oceanography 68:329-342.

Derraik, J. G. B. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 44:842-852.

Dickey, D.H. 2011. Analysis of Fishing Vessel Casualties: A Review of Lost Fishing Vessels and Crew Fatalities, 

1992-2010. United States Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis. 53 pp. 

(https://homeport.uscg.mil/cgibin/st/portal/uscg_docs/MyCG/Editorial/20120111/FVStudy_92_10.pdf?id=797383ed5247572b4b23265f5

3939e366665a1f6)

Doney, S.C., M. Ruckelshaus, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Barry, F. Chan, C.A. English, H.M. Galindo, J.M. Grebmeier, A.B. 

Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N.N. Rabalais, W.J. Sydemanand L.D. Talley. 2012. Climate Change 

Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Annual Review in Marine Science, 4, 11-37.

Dunlop, R. A., D. H. Cato, and M. J. Noad. 2010. Your attention please: increasing ambient noise levels elicits a 

change in communication behaviour in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277:2521-2529.

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP). 1999. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: A report to congress 

by the ecosystem principles advisory panel. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration: Silver Spring, Maryland.

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek. 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in monterey bay national marine 

sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12:1204-1214.

Essential Fish Habitat Review Committee. 2012. Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year Essential Fish Habitat Report to 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Phase 1: New Information. 452 pp.

Public Review Draft FEP 171 February 2013
Evans, A.F., N.J. Hostetter, D.D. Roby, et al. 2012. Systemwide Evaluation of Avian Predation on Juvenile 

Salmonids from the Columbia River Based on Recoveries of Passive Integrated Transponder Tags. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 975-989.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, J.M. Hernandez- Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for upwelling of 

corrosive “acid- ified” water onto the continental shelf. Science, 320(5882), 1490-1492.

Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, M. Chadsey, eds. 2012. Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification in 

Washington State Marine Waters, Washington Shellfish Initiative Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean 

Acidification. NOAA OAR Special Report: Advance Copy November 2012. 

(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1201016.pdf)

Field, D.B., Baumgartner, T.R., Charles, C.D., Ferreira-Bartrina, V., Ohman, M.D., 2006.Planktonic foraminifera of 

the California current reflect 20th-century warming. Science 311: 63–66.

Field, J.C., E.J. Dick, M. Key, M. Lowry, Y. Lucero, A. MacCall, D. Pearson, S. Ralston, W. Sydeman, and J. 

Thayer. 2007. Population dynamics of an unexploited rockfish, Sebastes jordani, in the California Current. 

pp 451-472 in J. Heifetz, J. Dicosimo, A.J. Gharrett, M.S. Love, V. M. O’connell and R.D. Stanley 

(editors) Proceedings of the Lowell-Wakefield Symposium on the Biology, Assessment and Management 

of North Pacific Rockfish. University of Alaska Sea Grant: Anchorage, Alaska.

Field, J.C., A.D. MacCall, R.W. Bradley, and W.J. Sydeman. 2010. Estimating the impacts of fishing on dependant 

predators: a case study in the California Current. Ecological Applications 20: 2223-2236.

Finney, B.P., I. Gregory-Eaves, J. Sweetman, M.S.V. Douglas, and J.P. Smol. 2000. Impacts of Climatic Change 

and Fishing on Pacific Salmon Abundance Over the Past 300 Years. Science 290: 795-799.

First Stewards Symposium. 2012. First Stewards: Coastal Peoples Address Climate Change, July 17-20, 

Washington, D.C.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, et al. 2004. Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem 

Management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 557-581.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, P. F. Olesiuk, and K. C. Balcomb. 2009. Linking killer whale survival and prey 

abundance: food limitation in the oceans' apex predator? Biology Letters.

Gaichas, S.K. 2008. A context for ecosystem-based fishery management: Developing concepts of ecosystems and 

sustainability. Marine Policy: 32: 393-401.

Gilly, W, J.M. Beman, S.Y. Litvin and B. Robison. 2013. Oceanographic and Biological Effects of Shoaling of the 

Oxygen Minimum Zone. Annual Reviews in Marine Science 5:393–420. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine120710-100849.

Glaser, S.M. 2010. Interdecadal variability in predator-prey interactions of juvenile North Pacific albacore in the 

California Current System. Marine Ecology Progress Series 414: 209-221.

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 60:39-50.

Hall, S.J. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 32: 179-239.

Hall, S.J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Blackwell Science: Oxford, England.

Hare, S.R., Mantua, N.J., Francis, R.C. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaskan and west coast salmon. 

Fisheries, 24: 6-14.

Hannah, Bob, and Steve Jones. 2012. Annual Pink Shrimp Review. ODFW Newsletter to the Shrimp Industry, dated 

February 10, 2012. 12 p. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/docs/shrimp_newsletter2012.pdf

Hannesson, R., S.F. Herrick and J.C. Field. 2009. Ecological and economic considerations in the conservation and 

management of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

66: 859–868.

Harley, C.D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. 

Tomanek, and S.L. Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology 

Letters, 9: 228–241.

Hazen, E.L., S. Jorgensen, R.R. Rykaczewski, S.J. Bograd, D.G. Foley, I.D. Jonsen, S.A. Shaffer, J.P. Dunne, D.P. 

Costa, L.B. Crowder and B.A. Block. 2012. Predicted habitat shifts of Pacific top predators in a changing 

climate. Nature Climate Change, advance online publication.

Helly J.J. and L.A. Levin.2004 Global distribution of naturally occurring marine hypoxia on continental margins. 

Deep Sea Research 51:1159-1168.

Hollowed, A.B. et al. Effects of climate change on fish and fisheries: forecasting impacts, assessing ecosystem 

responses, and evaluating management strategies. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 984-985 (2011).

Public Review Draft FEP 172 February 2013
Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, V. Veirs, C. K. Emmons, and S. Veirs. 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

125:EL27-EL32.

Hollowed, A. B., K. M. Bailey, and W. S. Wooster. 1987. Patterns in recruitment of marine fishes in the Northeast 

Pacific Ocean. Biological Oceanography 5(2):99-131.

Hollowed, A.B., M. Barange, S. Ito, S. Kim, H. Loeng, and M.A. Peck. 2011. Effects of climate change on fish and 

fisheries: forecasting impacts, assessing ecosystem responses, and evaluating management strategies. ICES

J. Mar. Sci. 68, 984-985.

Hooff, R. C., and W. T. Peterson. 2006. Copepod biodiversity as an indicator of changes in ocean and climate 

conditions of the northern California current ecosystem. Limnology and Oceaonography 51: 2607–2620

Hsieh, C. H. et al. 2006. Fishing elevates variability in the abundance of exploited species. Nature 443, 859-862.

Hubbs, C.L. 1948. Changes in the fish fauna of western North America correlated with changes in ocean 

temperature. Journal of Marine Research 7: 459: 482.

Hunsicker, M.E., L. Ciannelli, K.M. Bailey, et al. 2011. Functional responses and scaling in predator–prey 

interactions of marine fishes: contemporary issues and emerging concepts. Ecology Letters: 14: 1288–

1299.

Hutchings, J. A., and R. A. Myers. 1993. Effect of age on the seasonality of maturation and spawning of Atlantic 

cod, Gadus morhua, in the northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

50:2468-2474.

Independent multidisciplinary science Team (IMST) 1998. Pinniped and sea bird predation: Implications for 

recovery of threatened stocks of in Oregon under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical 

Report 1998-2 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Governor’s Natural Resource Office. 

Salem, OR.

Jacobson, L.D. and A.D. MacCall. 1995. Stock-recruitment models for Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 566-577.

Jannot, J., E. Heery, M. A. Bellman, and J. Majewski. 2011a. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals, seabirds, and 

sea turtles in the US west coast commercial groundfish fishery, 2002-2009. West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, NWFSC, Seattle, WA.

Jannot, J. E., M. A. Bellman, and J. Majewski. 2011b. Pacific halibut bycatch in the U.S. west coast groundfish 

fishery from 2002 through 2010. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program, Seattle, WA.

Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34: 

201-351.

Johnson, M. R., C. Boelke, L. A. Chiarella, P. D. Colosi, K. Greene, K. Lellis, H. Ludemann, M. Ludwig, S. 

McDermott, J. Ortiz, D. Rusanowsky, M. Scott, and J. Smith. 2008. Impacts to marine fisheries habitat 

from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-209, 

Gloucester, MA.

Kaiser, M., B. Bullimore, P. Newman, K. Lock, and S. Gilbert. 1996. Catches in'ghost fishing' set nets. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 145:11-16.

Kaiser, M.J., J.S. Collie, S.J. Hall, S. Jennings and I.R. Poiner. 2002. Modification of marine habitats by trawling 

activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries 3: 114-136.

Kaplan, I.C., I.A. Gray and P.S. Levin. 2012. Cumulative impacts of fisheries in the California Current. Fish and 

Fisheries.

Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

Cambridge University Press. 196 pp. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impactsreport.pdf.

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, and C. McGourty. 2010. Distribution and abundance of 

anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the US West Coast. Marine pollution bulletin 

60:692-700.

King, J. R., Agostini, V. N., Harvey, C. J., McFarlane, G. A., Foreman, M. G. G., Overland, J. E., Di Lorenzo, E., 

Bond, N. A., and Aydin, K. Y. 2011. Climate forcing and the California Current ecosystem. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science 68: 1199–1216.

Koslow, J.A., G.W. Boehlert, J.D.M. Gordon, R.L. Haedrich, P. Lorance, and N. Parin. 2000. Continental slope and 

deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 548–557.

Koslow, J., R. Goericke, A. Lara-Lopez and W. Watson. 2011. Impact of declining intermediate-water oxygen on 

deepwater fishes in the California Current. Mar. Eco. Prog. Ser. 436, 207–218.

Public Review Draft FEP 173 February 2013
Lambert, T. C. 1987. Duration and intensity of spawning in herring Clupea harengus as related to the age structure

of the population. Marine Ecology Progress Series 39:209-220.

Lambert, T. C. 1990. The effect of population structure on recruitment in herring. Journal du Conseil International 

pour l’Exploration de la Mer 47:249-255.

Leaman, B. M., and R. J. Beamish. 1984. Ecological and management implications of longevity in some northeast 

Pacific groundfishes. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 42:85-97.

Lewin, W. C., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational 

fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367.

Lin, B., C. Y. Lin, and T. C. Jong. 2007. Investigation of strategies to improve the recycling effectiveness of waste 

oil from fishing vessels. Marine Policy 31:415-420.

Lincoln, J. and D. Lucas. 2010. Commercial Fishing Deaths -- United States, 2000-2009. Morbidity and Mortality 

Weekly Report, 59(27): 842-845. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5927a2.htm)

Lincoln, J. and D. Lucas. 2008. Commercial Fishing Fatalities -- California, Oregon, and Washington, 2000-2006. 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57(16): 426-429. 

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5716a2.htm)

Longhurst, A. 2006. The sustainability myth. Fisheries Research 81: 107-112.

MacCall, A.D. 1996. Patterns of low-frequency variability in fish populations of the California Current.CalCOFI 

Reports 37: 100-110.

MacCall, A.D. 2012. Data-limited management reference points to avoid collapse of stocks dependent on learned 

migration behavior. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 69: 267-270.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation 

with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78:6:1069-1079.

Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal of Oceanography 58:1: 35-44.

Mantua, N. and R.C. Francis. 2004. Natural Climate Insurance for Pacific Northwest Salmon and Salmon 

Fisheries:Finding Our Way through the Entangled Bank. American Fisheries Society Symposium 43: 121–

134.

Manuwal, D. A., H. R. Carter, T. S. Zimmerman, and D. L. Orthmeyer. 2001. Biology and Conservation of the 

Common Murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: Natural History and 

Population Trends. Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR– 2000-0012, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Washington, D.C.

Marteinsdottir, G., and A. Steinarsson. 1998. Maternal influence on the size and viability of cod (Gadus morhua L.) 

eggs and larvae. Journal of Fish Biology 52:1241-1258.

Marteinsdottir, G., and K. Thorarinsson. 1998. Improving the stock recruitment relationship in Icelandic cod (Gadus 

morhua) by including age diversity of spawners. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

55:1372-1377.

May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, R.M. Laws. 1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. 

Science 205: 267-277.

McEvoy, A.F. 1986. The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980. 

Cambridge University Press.

McEvoy, A.F. 1996. Historical interdependence between ecology, production, and management in California 

fisheries. In D. Bottom, G. Reeves and M. Brookes (editors) Sustainability Issues for Resource Managers.

USDA Forest Service Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-370.pp 45-53.

McGowan, J.A., D.R. Cayan and L.M. Dorman. 1998. Climate, ocean variability and ecosystem response in the 

Northeast Pacific. Science 281: 210-217.

Miller, R. J., J. Hocevar, R. P. Stone, and D. V. Fedorov. 2012. Structure-Forming Corals and Sponges and Their 

Use as Fish Habitat in Bering Sea Submarine Canyons. PLoS One 7.

Moser, H. G., R.L. Charter, W. Watson, D. A. Ambrose, J. L. Butler, S. R. 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. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations 

Reports 41:132-147.

Murawski, S. A., P. J. Rago, and E. A. Trippel. 2001. Impacts of demographic variation in spawning characteristics 

on reference points for fishery management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 58: 1002– 1014.

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. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-28, 172 p.

Public Review Draft FEP 174 February 2013
NMFS Alaska Region, NOAA, Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (2004), available at http://www. 

fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/final062004/COVER.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, 172p. Available at: 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Data report and summary analyses of the California and Oregon pink 

shrimp fisheries. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Final United States National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental 

Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. 22 pp. 

(https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seabirds/npoa/npoa.pdf)

National Research Council (NRC). 1996a. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National 

Academy Press: Washington DC.

National Research Council: Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington. 2012. Sea-Level 

Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. The National 

Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 201 pp.

Nickelson, T. E. and P. W. Lawson. 1998. Population viability of coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Oregon coastal 

basins: application of a habitat-based life history model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55:2383-2392.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2011. Risk assessment of U.S. West Coast groundfish fisheries to threatened 

and endangered marine species. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, WA.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWP&CC) 2004. Lower Columbia salmon and steelhead recovery and 

sub-basin Plan. Technical foundation Volume III

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 1730.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2007. Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Appendix F. Life 

History Accounts and Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions. 57p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2005. Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Appendix C, Part 2. Pacific 

Coast Groundfish, Effect of Fishing Gears on Habitat, West Coast Perspective. Prepared by MRAG 

Associates.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Appendix A. Description of 

Adverse Effects of Fishing on Salmon Essential Fish Habitat and Actions to Encourage the Conservation 

and Enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat. 109p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1998. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, Appendix D. 

Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, 39p.

Perry, A.L., P.J. Low, J.R. Ellis and J.D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. 

Science 308, 1912-1915.

Peterson,W.T., C.A. Morgan, J.O. Peterson, J.L. Fisher, B.J. Burke and K. Fresh. 2012. Ocean ecosystem indicators 

of salmon marine survival in the Northern California Current. Available online at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/documents/peterson_etal_2011.pdf

Petitgas, P., D.H. Secor, I. McQuinn, G. Huse, and N. Lo. 2010. Stock collapses and their recovery: mechanisms 

that establish and maintain life-cycle closure in space and time. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1841–

1848.

Planque, B. et al. How does fishing alter marine populations and ecosystems sensitivity to climate? J. Mar. Syst. 79, 

403-417 (2010).

Prince, E.D. and C.P. Goodyear. 1996. Hypoxia-based habitat compression of tropical pelagic fishes. Fisheries 

Oceanography 15: 451–464.

Peterson, W.T. and F.B. Schwing. 2003. A new climate regime in the northeast Pacific ecosystems. Geophysical 

Research Letters 30:17:17528-17533.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. 

Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl Fishery; Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Including Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, OR. June 2010.

Public Review Draft FEP 175 February 2013
Robbins, J., J. Barlow, A. M. Burdin, J. Calambokidis, C. Gabriele, P. Clapham, J. Ford, R. LeDuc, D. K. Mattila, T. 

Quinn, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. Straley, J. Urban, P. Wade, D. Weller, B. H. Witteveen, K. Wynne, and M. 

Yamaguchi. 2007. Comparison of humpback whale entanglement across the North Pacific Ocean based on 

scar evidence. Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission.

Roby, D.D and K. Collis. 2011. Research, monitoring and evaluation of avian predation on salmonid smolts in the 

lower and mid-Columbia River. Draft 2011 Annual Report to Bonneville Power Administration and the 

U.S. Corps of Engineers.

Rose, K.A., J.H. Cowan Jr., K.O. Winemiller, R.A. Myers and R. Hilborn. 2001. Compensatory density dependence 

in fish populations: importance, controversy, understanding and prognosis. Fish and Fisheries 2: 293-327.

Rosenberg, A. A. 2009. AoA Region: North West Pacific Ocean. Pages 141-145 UNEP and IOC-UNESCO. An 

Assessment of Assessments, Findings of the Group of Experts. Start-up Phase of a Regular Process for 

Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment including Socio-economic 

Aspects.

Rykaczewski, R.R. and D.M. Checkley, Jr. 2008. Influence of ocean winds on the pelagic ecosystem in upwelling 

regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 1965–1970.

Rykaczewski, R.R. and J.P. Dunne. 2010. Enhanced nutrient supply to the California Current Ecosystem with global 

warming and increased stratification in an earth system model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045019.

Saez, Lauren, Dan Lawson, Monica DeAngelis, Elizabeth Petras, Sarah Wilkin, and Christina Fahy, (in Press), 

Understanding United States West Coast Entanglements: Large Whales, Fixed Gear Commercial Fisheries, 

and Their Co-occurrence. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. 

Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, J.G. Tutus. 2002. Climate change impacts on 

U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25: 149-164.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, et al. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591-597.

Schwing, F.B., and Mendelssohn, R. 1997. Increased coastal upwelling in the California Current system. JOURNAL 

OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 102, NO. C2, P. 3421, 1997 doi:10.1029/96JC03591

Secor, D. H. 2000a. Longevity and resilience of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine Science 

57:808-815.

Secor, DH. 2000b. Spawning in the nick of time? Effect of adult demographics on spawning behavior and 

recruitment in Chesapeake Bay striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:403-411.

Shelton, A.O. and M. Mangel. 2011. Fluctuations of fish populations and the magnifying effects of fishing. Proc. 

Nat. Acad.Sci. 108: 7075-7080. 

Smith, A.D.M., C.J. Brown, C.M. Bulman, et al. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine 

ecosystems. Science 333: 1147-1150.

Snover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for 

Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. In association with and 

published by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, Oakland, CA.

Sogard, S.M., Berkeley, S.A. and R. Fisher. 2008. Maternal effects in rockfishes Sebastes pp.: a comparison among 

species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 360: 227-236.

Song, H., A. J. Miller, S. McClatchie, E. D. Weber, K. M. Nieto, and D. M. Checkley Jr. (2012), Application of a 

data-assimilation model to variability of Pacific sardine spawning and survivor habitats with ENSO in the 

California Current System. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, C03009, doi:10.1029/2011JC007302.

Spencer, P.D. and M..W. Dorn (2013). Incorporation of weight-specific relative fecundity and maternal effects in 

larval survival into stock assessments. Fisheries Research 138:159-167.

Spencer, P., Hanselman, D., Dorn, M. (2007). The effect of maternal age of spawning on estimation of Fmsy for 

Alaskan Pacific ocean perch. In: Heifetz, J., DiCosimo, J., Gharrett, A.J., Love, M.S., O’Connell, V.M., 

Stanley, R.D. (Eds.), Biology, Assessment, and Management of North Pacific Rockfishes. Alaska Sea 

Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 513–534.

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 29:436-459.

Steele, J.H., D.J. Gifford and J.S. Collie. 2011. Comparing species and ecosystem-based estimates of fisheries 

yields. Fisheries Research 111: 139-144. 

Stokes, K. and R. Law. 2000. Fishing as an evolutionary force. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208: 307-309.Stolk, 

P., K. Markwell, and J. M. Jenkins. 2007. Artificial reefs as recreational scuba diving resources: a critical 

review of research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15:331-350.

Public Review Draft FEP 176 February 2013
Stokes, K. and R. Law. 2000. Fishing as an evolutionary force. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208: 307-309.

Storlazzi, C.D. and G.B. Griggs. 2000. Influence of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on the evolution of 

central California's shoreline. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 236-249. doi: 10.1130/0016-

7606.

Stramma, L, E.D. Prince, S. Schmidtko, J. Luo, J.P. Hoolihan, M. Visbeck, D.W.R. Wallace. P. Brandt and A. 

Körtzinger. 2011. Expansion of oxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat for tropical pelagic 

fishes. Nature Climate Change 2:33–37. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1304.

Sydeman, W. J., R. W. Bradley, P. Warzybok, C. L. Abraham, J. Jahncke, K. D. Hyrenbach, V. Kousky, J. M. 

Hipfner, and M. D. Ohman. 2006. Planktivorous auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus responses to ocean 

climate, 2005: Unusual atmospheric blocking? Geophysical Research Letters 33:L22S09.

Tegner, M. J. and P. K. Dayton. 2000. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing in Kelp Forest Communities. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science 57:579-589.

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle, and A. E. 

Russell. 2004. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304:838-838.

Turner, S. J., S. F. Thrush, J. E. Hewitt, V. J. Cummings, and G. Funnell. 1999. Fishing impacts and the degradation 

or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6:401-420.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Short-tailed albatross Recovery Plan. Anchorage, AK.

Van der Lingen, C.D., L. Hutchings and J.G. Field. 2006. Comparative trophodynamics of anchovy Engraulis 

encrasicolus and sardine Sardinops sagax in the southern Benguela: are species alternations between small 

pelagic fish trophodynamically mediated? African Journal of Marine Science 28: 465–477.

Vetter, R. D. and E.A. Lynn. 1997. Bathymetric demography, enzyme activity patterns, and bioenergetics of deepliving scorpaenid fishes (genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus): paradigms revisited. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 155: 173-188.

Walters, C.W., V. Christensen, S. J. Martell, and J. F. Kitchell. 2005. Single-species versus ecosystem harvest 

management: ecosystem structure erosion under myopic management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62: 558-568.

Ward, E. J., E. E. Holmes, and K. C. Balcomb. 2009. Quantifying the effects of prey abundance on killer whale 

reproduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:632-640.

Washington Sea Grant. 2011. Bringing albatross conservation to West Coast groundfish fisheries: Progress on 

outreach efforts in the longline fleet. Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Warner, R. R. and P. L. Chesson. 1985. Coexistence mediated by recruitment fluctuations – a field guide to the 

storage effect. Am. Nat. 125: 769–787.

Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 2008. Habitat Conservation Plan for Washington Department of Natural 

Resources’ Geoduck Fishery. 99p.

Watters, D., M. Yoklavich, M. Love, and D. Schroeder. 2010. Assessing marine debris in deep seafloor habitats off 

California. Marine pollution bulletin 60:131-139.

West Coast Governors’ Alliance on Ocean Health (WCGA). 2011. Sustainable Coastal Communities Action 

Coordination Team: Final Work Plan. December 2011. 

(http://www.westcoastoceans.org/media/sccworkplanfinal12192011.pdf)

West Coast Governors’ Alliance on Ocean Health (WCGA). 2008. West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean 

Health Action Plan: Washington Governor Gregoire, Oregon Governor Kulongoski, California Governor 

Schwarznegger. May 2008. (http://www.westcoastoceans.org/index.cfm?content.display&pageID=135)

Wooster, W.S. and D.L. Fluharty (editors).1985. El Niño North: Nino Effects in the Eastern Subarctic Pacific 

Ocean. Washington Sea Grant: Seattle.

Worden, L., L.W. Botsford, A. Hastings and M.D. Holland. 2010. Frequency responses of age-structured 

populations: Pacific salmon as an example. Journal of Theoretical Population Biology 78, 239-249.

Worm, B., R. Hilborn, J.K. Baum, et al. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325: 578-585.

Wright, P. M. and F. J. Gibb. 2005. Selection for birth date in North Sea haddock and its relation to maternal age. J. 

Anim. Ecol. 74: 303–312.

Yeh, S.W., J.S. Kug, B. Dewitte, M.H. Kwon, B.P. Kirtman and F.F. Jin.2009. El Niño in a changing climate. 

Nature, 461, 511-U70.

Zabel, R.,W., P.S. Levin, N. Tolimieri adn N. Mantua. 2011. Interactions between climate and population density in 

the episodic recruitment of bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis, a Pacific rockfish. Fisheries Oceanography, 20: 

294–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2011.00584.x

Zador, S. G., A. E. Punt, and J. K. Parrish. 2008. Population impacts of endangered short-tailed albatross bycatch in 

the Alaskan trawl fishery. Biological Conservation 141:872-882.

Public Review Draft FEP 177 February 2013
5 PFMC Policy Priorities for Ocean Resource Management 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide non-Council entities with information on some of the Council’s

highest priority concerns for non-fishing activities within the West Coast EEZ. It is current as of April 

2013, may be modified at any time after that, and must be considered within the larger suite of Council 

management programs and documents. This chapter discusses species, habitat types, fisheries and 

ecological functions of particular concern to, or that may strongly drive, the Council’s policies for CCE 

resources. Unlike Chapters 2 and 4, the purpose of Chapter 5 would not be to guide future Council work, 

but to provide external entities with guidance on Council priorities for the CCE’s status and functions. 

External entities that may be interested in the Council’s ecosystem-based management planning process 

and in the Council’s cumulative management priorities may include federal or state agencies conducting 

activities within the CCE, marine use planning bodies such as the National Ocean Council or West Coast 

Governors’ Alliance on Ocean Health, and international fishery and ocean resource management bodies.

The PFMC is one of eight regional fishery management councils authorized by the MSA and is 

responsible for the management of fisheries of the living marine resources of the U.S. EEZ (3-200 nm) 

off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. In addition to having management responsibility 

for 100+ species of fish and their associated fisheries of the U.S. West Coast EEZ, the PFMC is 

responsible for reviewing non-fishing activities that may affect EFH for Council-managed species. 

Cumulatively, EFH for Council-managed species extends throughout the U.S. West Coast EEZ, and

inshore of the EEZ to encompass salmon rivers as far east as Idaho. Council priorities for its managed 

species may be found within its four FMPs. In general, the Council is interested in and may have 

concerns with any projects that have potential adverse effects on living marine resources, the biological 

diversity of marine life, the functional integrity of the marine ecosystem, or to important marine habitat or 

associated biological communities.

5.1 Species of Particular Interest to the Council 

The Council has jurisdiction over fish, which the MSA defines as “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all 

other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.” NOAA and the 

USFWS administer recovery programs for all species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 

and administer protection programs for marine mammals under the MMPA. The USFWS manages 

protection programs for bird species, including seabirds, under the MBTA. The Council is concerned 

with the potential effects of non-fishing activities that could directly or indirectly harm or kill any of its 

managed species at any of their life stages, which are identified and discussed in detail in the FMPs. 

There are, however, some species and species groups that are likely to be more vulnerable to the effects of 

non-fishing activities on their life cycles and habitats. 

5.1.1 Anadromous Species

Among species within PFMC fishery management plans, salmon are unique in that they are obligated to 

spend the spawning, incubation, juvenile and a portion of both juvenile migration and adult-spawning 

migration stages of their lives in fresh water. Thus, the survival of individual populations and stocks of 

salmon are dependent on not only responsible fisheries management practices, but also on conservation of 

water quality and quantity for each spawning and rearing tributary, and on land-based activities taking 

into account the unique challenges and life cycles of salmonid species within each tributary. 

Public Review Draft FEP 178 February 2013
NOAA and the USFWS work with the states, tribes, municipalities, and private entities to develop 

recovery plans for salmon 

species listed under the ESA. 

Each of these recovery plans 

is intended to take into 

account the unique needs of 

particular runs of salmon 

within the geographic areas 

addressed by the plans. 

Recovery efforts for 

threatened and endangered 

West Coast salmon runs 

guide how and where nonfishing activities may affect 

salmon populations, and how

those activities might be 

required to mitigate for their 

effects. For non-fishing 

activities that may take place 

within the West Coast EEZ, 

the Council would be 

particularly concerned with 

those activities that:

• May block, through physical, chemical, or other means, salmonid access to or from the entryways 

(mouths) of their tributary rivers;

• Physically harm or directly kill salmon through entrainment in man-made devices;

• Physically or otherwise alter EFH for anadomous species in a way that reduces the functionality 

of that habitat

• Reduce the availability of salmon prey species through removal by physical, chemical, or other 

means;

• Serve to alter, through auditory herding or other means, migratory paths of either the anadromous 

species or their predators such that predators have increased access to wild salmonid populations;

• Introduce non-native species that would compete with, prey upon, have the potential to introduce 

diseases to, or which could alter the genetic composition of native salmonids;

• Have the effect of concentrating wild stock parasites or diseases.

5.1.2 Species protected through an overfished species rebuilding program

The MSA requires that fishery management councils identify species that are overfished, prevent 

overfishing, and rebuild those stocks that have been identified as overfished. Since 1998, the Pacific 

Council has developed and implemented rebuilding plans for several of its managed species. Most of the 

species protected through overfished species rebuilding programs are long-lived, slow-to-mature rockfish 

species. Thus, although these species are successfully rebuilding, the life-history characteristics of 

several rebuilding species prevent swift recovery even when directed fishing for those species is 

prohibited. For example, target rebuilding years for cowcod and yelloweye rockfish under prohibitions 

on directed take are 2068 and 2074, respectively (50 CFR 660.40). 

For species with solely marine lifecycles (i.e. not anadromous), the Council’s rebuilding programs focus 

on minimizing or eliminating directed catch and minimizing opportunities for incidental catch. 

Therefore, the Council would be particularly concerned with non-fishing activities taking place within the 

Public Review Draft FEP 179 February 2013
West Coast EEZ or within rebuilding species EFH that might jeopardize the ability of managed species to 

rebuild to their optimum population levels, such as activities that:

• Physically harm or directly kill 

rebuilding species through 

entrainment in man-made 

devices;

• Physically or otherwise alter 

EFH for rebuilding species in a 

way that reduces the 

functionality of that habitat

• Reduce the availability of the 

prey of rebuilding species 

through removal by physical, 

chemical, or other means;

• Serve to alter, through auditory 

herding or other means, 

migratory paths of rebuilding 

species’ predators, such that 

predators have increased 

access to rebuilding species’ 

populations;

• Disaggregate or otherwise disrupt rebuilding species during their spawning, parturition, or larvalsettling seasons;

• Introduce non-native species that would compete with, prey upon, have the potential to introduce 

diseases to, or which could alter the genetic composition of native species

5.1.3 Species dependent upon a fixed habitat type

The Council’s FMPs define EFH for managed species. Some species have wide-ranging habitat, while 

others are dependent on fixed habitat types. Species dependent upon fixed habitat types may range in 

type from site-loyal rockfish species that, as adults, exist only in particular depth ranges on rocky habitats, 

to species that are pelagic as adults but which require fixed habitat for spawning, to species that can only 

exist within a particular seawater 

temperature range.

For species that are dependent upon a fixed 

habitat type, the Council would be 

particularly concerned with non-fishing 

activities taking place within the West 

Coast EEZ or within species-specific EFH 

that might jeopardize the ability of 

managed species to use that habitat for 

spawning, feeding, breeding, or growth to 

maturity. Discussions of non-fishing 

activities that may affect managed species’ 

EFH may be found within the Council’s 

FMPs and the potential for those activities 

to affect EFH is not repeated here. 

Public Review Draft FEP 180 February 2013
5.1.4 Species and locations with tribal treaty rights to fishing

As discussed in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3, there are numerous western Treaty Tribes that co-manage a 

variety of fish species and marine areas with the West Coast states and the U.S. government, and which 

participate in Council management processes. Fishing rights for Treaty Tribes are connected with the 

Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing areas of those tribes, meaning that an action that affects the status 

of a managed species that occurs within a particular tribe’s U&A fishing area must be assessed not just 

for its effects on the status of the species and its habitat as a whole, but also for its effects on the 

availability of that resource to tribal fisheries within the particular U&A fishing area. For example, a 

non-fishing activity that does not affect the overall status of the West Coast sablefish stock, but which 

could reduce the sablefish available for harvest off the northern Washington coast, would be subject to 

additional scrutiny for its effects on tribal treaty rights. Council managed species that are also caught in 

tribal treaty fisheries include salmon, Pacific halibut, and groundfish occurring off the northern 

Washington coast. 

California tribal 

fishing rights are 

associated with 

Klamath basin 

salmonids. For 

tribal treaty 

species, the 

Council would 

have the same 

concerns as those 

discussed in 5.1.1 

and 5.1.2 under 

the types of nonfishing activities 

with the potential 

to affect salmon 

and species 

managed under 

rebuilding plans, 

but with particular 

focus on effects 

that might occur 

within tribal U&A fishing areas.

5.1.5 Internationally-managed species

As discussed in Section 3.5.4, several Council-managed species range across the U.S. EEZ boundaries 

into the EEZs of other nations, or into international waters. Non-fishing activities that may affect the 

status of internationally-managed stocks could disrupt the nation’s participation within a variety of 

international forums. In addition to salmon, which is discussed as a species group of Council interest in 

Section 5.1.1, the Council would be particularly concerned with non-fishing activities taking place within 

the West Coast EEZ or within managed species EFH that might affect the status of Pacific halibut, Pacific 

whiting, highly migratory species, and sardines. For internationally-managed species, the Council would 

have the same concerns as those discussed in 5.1.2 under the types of non-fishing activities with the 

potential to affect species managed under rebuilding plans.

Public Review Draft FEP 181 February 2013
5.2 Fish Habitat

Under the MSA, fishery management councils must describe and identify EFH for managed species. 

With regard to non-fishing activities that may affect EFH, the Council may comment on activities that 

may affect fishery resources under its authority, and shall comment on activities that may affect EFH of 

anadromous species, such as salmon. The MSA defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” 16 U.S.C. §1802. That definition, in 

combination with the diverse life histories of the 100+ species under Council management, has 

necessarily resulted in a large geographic area defined as EFH for the cumulative group of Councilmanaged species. As discussed in Section 5.1.3, the Council is concerned with non-fishing activities that 

may affect species with strong linkages to and dependency upon fixed or particular habitat. Similarly, the 

Council would be concerned with non-fishing activities that have the potential to affect managed species 

habitat that is itself vulnerable to long-term alteration. Each of the Council’s FMPs, their EFH 

appendices, and 

applicable NEPA 

analyses should be 

consulted for 

assessments of the types 

of human activities 

expected to have a 

potential negative effect 

on EFH for Councilmanaged species. While 

all fish habitat is of 

interest to the Council, 

some habitat types, the 

habitat needs of some 

species, and some types 

of habitat disturbance 

are of particular concern 

to the Council for their 

effects on the ecosystem 

as a whole, such as 

activities that:

• Disturb or kills structure-forming invertebrates or vegetation in a manner that either prevents 

those species from recovering within the affected area within their mean generation times, or 

which reduces the known distribution of those species;

• Alter the geological structure of the habitat such that the habitat cannot maintain or recover its 

functionality unaided;

• Alter the chemical composition, turbidity, or temperature of the seawater such that the habitat 

cannot recover to its pre-disturbance state – see also Section 4.5.

5.3 Fisheries

The Council manages the West Coast fisheries for species within its four FMPs: CPS, groundfish, HMS, 

and salmon. However, participants in the Council process also participate in state-, tribal-, and 

international-management processes for West Coast species outside of the FMPs. Therefore, while the 

Council is particularly interested in non-fishing activities that may disturb or prevent fishing activities of 

Council-managed fisheries, Council process participants are also concerned with non-fishing activities 

that may affect all fishing opportunities for West Coast fishing communities. Some fishing communities 

Public Review Draft FEP 182 February 2013
and fishing types may be more vulnerable to disturbance by non-fishing activities than others, as detailed 

below. 

5.3.1 Communities with a Dependency on Fishery Resources

Norman and colleagues (2007) provided summary descriptions of communities that, for West Coast and 

Alaska fisheries, meet the MSA’s definition of a fishing community: “substantially dependent on or 

substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, 

and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in 

such community” (16 U.S.C. §1802). West Coast fishing communities vary in their levels of involvement 

in fisheries and dependency on fishery resources (Sepez et al. 2007). The Council is charged with not 

discriminating between residents of 

different States (16 USC §1851); 

therefore, it would be concerned 

with non-fishing activities that 

disproportionately affect fisheries 

access to fishery resources in a 

particular community or 

geographic area, and with activities 

that may have a more broad-scale 

effects. Activities of potential 

concern to the Council include 

those that:

• Directly take or otherwise 

deplete local populations 

of marine species;

• Block or significantly 

revise (whether 

temporarily or 

permanently) physical 

access between a fishing 

community and the marine 

fishing grounds its vessels 

commonly use;

• Increase pollutant loads in 

the habitats of managed 

species such that those 

pollutants may 

bioaccumulate in the flesh 

of targeted species;

• Increase the hazards to 

navigation for vessels;

• Have not undergone local 

consultation with the 

affected communities 

before implementation.

Public Review Draft FEP 183 February 2013
5.3.2 Tribal Fishing Communities

As discussed in Section 5.1.4, the fisheries of western treaty tribes are geographically constrained to their 

U&A fishing areas. As a result, non-fishing activities under consideration for development within a U&A 

fishing area must be considered for their potential effects on local access to CCE marine resources. 

Changes in the accessibility of fishery resources to treaty tribes, whether due to ecosystem processes or 

management policy, have the potential to profoundly affect treaty Indian communities. Fishery resources 

not only fuel local economies, but also provide a significant portion of treaty tribal members’ diets, and 

are deeply entwined in tribal culture and 

identity. If an activity affects local access to 

fishery resources, tribal fleets cannot follow 

fishery resources beyond U&A boundaries. 

If changes are extreme, such as with total loss 

of access to traditional tribal resources, tribal 

communities would be forced to make 

revolutionary changes in fishing strategies, 

dietary habits, and cultural ties. In recent 

years, treaty tribes that participate in the 

Council process have joined with U.S. Indian 

Tribes across the nation to strategize on tribal 

response and adaptation to climate change, 

including addressing shifts to or loss of 

fishery resources (e.g. ICCWG 2009, 

Swinomish 2010).

In addition to maintaining local access to 

fishery resources, treaty tribes are concerned 

with activities that may increase pollutant 

loads within the flesh (bioaccumulation) of 

species targeted by tribal fisheries (Kann et 

al. 2010). In 2011, the U.S. EPA approved 

new and stricter water quality standards for 

Oregon, influenced in part by fish 

consumption surveys of Oregon and 

Washington tribes. The State of Oregon 

found the fish consumption survey conducted 

by the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish 

Commission (CRITFC 1994) to be 

particularly relevant to Oregon fish 

consumers generally, recognizing that both

tribal and non-tribal Oregonians are likely to 

consume more fish annually than members of 

the U.S. population at large (ORDEQ 2008).

5.3.3 Brief Duration Fisheries

Brief duration or derby fisheries occur in situations where harvest levels are low relative to effort levels or 

fleet capacity. This situation is often exacerbated by reduced seasons, quotas, or harvest guidelines when 

the abundance of a particular stock declines resulting in a limited harvestable surplus. Historically, 

commercial and recreational fisheries for Pacific halibut and salmon, as well as commercial fisheries for 

Public Review Draft FEP 184 February 2013
Pacific sardine have periodically experienced reduced harvest opportunities resulting in brief duration 

fisheries.

Brief-duration fisheries often create an economic incentive to participate in a fishery during a narrow and 

inflexible period of time. The Council generally tries to minimize the occurrence of derby fisheries 

through license limitation and rationalization programs. Derby fisheries present several challenges,

including the possibility that participants will need to fish during unfavorable weather conditions, fishing 

effort levels, and/or market conditions. However, brief duration fishing opportunities can represent a 

substantial portion of a fisherman’s income and additional challenges from poorly-timed non-fishing 

activities could be devastating if they limit or curtail a vessel’s participation at a critical time. Nonfishing activities that could adversely affect a fishing vessel’s participation in a fishery include, but are 

not limited to, port facility construction or improvement projects, interruptions to necessary supplies 

(fuel, ice, etc.), and dredging or jetty operations that impede bar crossings.

5.3.4 Location-Constrained Fisheries

Fisheries can be constrained to a limited area due to regulatory restriction (fishery or non-fishery) or due 

to the biology and/or distribution of the target stock. West Coast groundfish fisheries are often limited to 

particular depth zones to avoid interactions with overfished species, which at times can force boats to 

concentrate in near-shore waters or require transit to areas of greater depth. Salmon fisheries often target 

a particular species or run by fishing in areas near river mouths or in specific depths. Fisheries for Pacific 

halibut and groundfish can tend to concentrate on areas with benthic structure, such as banks and reefs. 

Fisheries for coastal pelagic species, particularly market squid and to a lesser extent Pacific sardine, often

rely on aggregations of individuals in areas of favorable temperature, food sources, or spawning habitat.

Location-constrained fisheries can be particularly vulnerable to non-fishery ocean uses that also require 

specific locations (aquaculture facilities, marine protected areas, offshore energy development, military 

operations, undersea cable placement etc.). The Council would be concerned with non-fishing activities 

that would restrict or displace fishing opportunities that are place-based and therefore difficult to relocate. 

The Council regularly engages in ocean zoning matters and participates in regional and national 

coordination efforts such as the WCGA and other coastal marine spatial planning initiatives. The Council 

is interested in coordinated spatial planning efforts as a means of considering non-fishing marine 

activities while preserving fishing opportunities and protecting areas that are critical to locationconstrained fisheries.

Public Review Draft FEP 185 February 2013
5.4 Ecosystem Structure and Function

Ecosystems are in a constant state of change, and an ecosystem’s structure and function will change over 

time regardless of the level of human intervention with that ecosystem. However, there will be some 

human activities that have immediate and obvious effects on an ecosystem’s structure and function, such 

as a large-scale oil spill. And, there will be some human activities that have had, and may continue to 

have, increasing effects on an ecosystem’s structure and function over time, such as anthropogenic sound 

in the oceans. 

Fishing, by its nature, alters the structure and function of the ecosystem. In the U.S., however, the MSA 

requires fishing to be managed so that “a supply of food and other products may be taken and that 

recreational benefits may be obtained, on a continuing basis; irreversible or long-term adverse effects on 

fishery resources and the marine environment are avoided; and there will be a multiplicity of options 

available with respect to future uses of these resources.” (16 U.S.C. §1802). The MSA’s forward looking 

requirement that we manage fisheries so as to ensure their continuing use by future generations is in 

keeping with worldwide efforts to characterize sustainable human use of the environment.

The U.N.’s Convention on Biological Diversity specifies that a target of an ecosystem approach to 

managing human interactions with natural resources is “conservation of ecosystem structure and function 

should be conserved to maintain ecosystem services” (COP 5 2000). The ecosystem service that most 

concerns the Council is fishing – in other words, the ability of the CCE to support, on an ongoing basis, 

sustainable fisheries that provide food and recreation to the nation’s human population. While the 

Council is charged with ensuring that fishing itself is sustainable, it is also concerned with non-fishing 

activities that may jeopardize the roles of fish, animals, and plants within the CCE, and their dynamic 

relationships to each other and to 

humans.

While the Council recognizes 

that not all human activities 

within the marine environment 

are governed by laws that require 

management to ensure use of the 

environment by future 

generations, this is the standard 

that the Council holds for nonfishing activities that may affect 

Council-managed species. 

Therefore, the Council would be 

concerned with any non-fishing 

activities that have the potential 

to jeopardize the Council’s shortor long-term ability to manage 

West Coast fisheries so as to 

provide food and recreation to 

this and future generations of 

Americans.

Public Review Draft FEP 186 February 2013
5.5 Sources for Chapter 5

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, 

Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report 94-3. 183 pp. Available 

online: http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-3report.pdf.

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Fifth Ordinary Meeting (COP 5) 15-26 May 

2000. Nairobi, Kenya. Decision V/6: Ecosystem Approach.

Intertribal Climate Change Working Group. 2009. A Tribal White Paper on Climate Change Adaptation and 

Mitigation. 13 pp. Available online: http://209.206.175.157/documents/climatechange.pdf

Kann, J., L. Bowater and S. Corum. 2010. Middle Klamath River Toxic Cyanobacteria Trends, 2009. Aquatic 

Ecosystem Sciences LLC. and Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources. 25 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report [W.A. Karp, L.L. Desfosse., S.G. Brooke, 

Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 pp.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Human Health Focus Group Report: Oregon Fish and Shellfish 

Consumption Rate Project. DEQ Water Quality Division. 72 pp. Available online: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. 2010. Swinomish Climate Change Initiative Climate Adaptation Action Plan. 

Office of Planning and Community Development. 144 pp.

Public Review Draft FEP 187 February 2013
6 Bringing Cross-FMP and Ecosystem Science into the Council 

Process

Incorporating ecosystem science into the 

Council process will be a two-part 

process. The first part is to identify and 

act on opportunities to improve the 

quantity and quality of ecosystem 

information used in the science that 

supports Council decision-making, 

particularly stock assessments. The 

second part is to bring a new wholepicture assessment of the CCE into the 

Council process. Throughout the 

development period for this FEP, the 

Council and its advisory bodies have 

discussed the type of scientific 

information and analyses needed to 

bring more ecosystem considerations 

into Council decision-making. 

The November 2012 draft version of the 

FEP included recommendations for 

ecosystem science that could be conducted to support cross-FMP understanding of the CCE, and to 

improve ecosystem information available to decision-makers considering issues relevant to particular 

FMPs. At its November 2012 meeting, the Council moved the ecosystem science recommendations from 

the draft FEP into its draft 2013 Research and Data Needs document, due for final Council consideration 

and adoption in March 2013. To address some of the major trends in scientific needs revealed during the 

FEP development process, the FEP appendix also includes several potential ecosystem initiatives directed 

at improving the ecosystem science available to Council decision-making.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the FEP’s Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix proposes ecosystem-based fishery 

management process through which the Council and its advisory bodies could analyze a variety of crossFMP issues to bring a better understanding of the status and functions of the CCE into the Council’s 

policy planning and decision-making processes. Each of the initiatives would require some background 

scientific work, although some of the initiatives are far more science-focused than policy-focused, 

including: an initiative on the potential long-term effects of Council harvest policies on age- and sizedistribution in managed stocks, a bio-geographic region identification and assessment initiative, a crossFMP socio-economic effects of fisheries management initiative, and an effects of climate shift initiative. 

With the exception of an initiative to prevent the future development of fisheries for currently unfished 

lower trophic level species, the Council has not yet determined whether it wishes to pursue any of the 

potential ecosystem-based management initiatives. 

6.1 Bringing More Ecosystem Information into Stock Assessments

While Council management decisions address a host of issues requiring wide-ranging science support and 

analysis, stock assessments and other harvest-level support science are the largest category of science 

products directly used in the Council process. Simultaneous to the FEP development process, the 

Council’s SSC has been considering a process to bring ecosystem considerations into stock assessments. 

 Figure 6.1: Two-part process to bring ecosystem science to the Council 

Public Review Draft FEP 188 February 2013
Recognizing the status of stock assessments as both frequently conducted and heavily used Councilrelated science, the SSC recommended in September 2010: 

“. . . that a subset of stock assessments be expanded to include ecosystem considerations. 

This would likely require the addition of an ecologist or ecosystem scientist to the Stock 

Assessment Teams (STATs) developing those assessments. The SSC’s Ecosystem-Based 

Management subcommittee should develop guidelines for how ecosystem considerations 

can be included in stock assessments.” (H.1.c., Supplemental SSC Report)

Based on this recommendation and on the management and activity cycles (Council Operating Procedure 

9) for the Council’s four FMPs, the first element of incorporating ecosystem science into the Council 

process could be addressed by a collaboration between NMFS’s science centers and the SSC to bring 

ecosystem considerations into some portion of near-future stock assessments. There are three means by 

which ecosystem considerations could be incorporated into near-future stock assessments. First, 

assessments could include expanded ecosystem information in the overview text of the assessment 

document, as is currently included in Council stock assessments in a limited fashion and also in the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council stock assessments. Assessment documents typically summarize 

existing research on predator-prey interactions, as well as the impact of climate, habitat and/or predation 

on natural mortality, growth, fecundity, migrations, recruitment variability, and shifts in distribution that 

may affect availability to the fishery or survey. These topics could be expanded to more fully incorporate 

ecosystem considerations.

Second, stock assessment models and/or relevant model sensitivity runs that explicitly include ecosystem 

interactions, such as those described above, could be developed. The selection of specific stocks for 

which assessment models with ecosystem considerations are developed should be identified in 

collaboration with the SSC. There are at least three modeling approaches that might be considered for 

incorporating ecosystem interactions: 1) modifying relevant model parameters, 2) adding an 

environmental index of an ecosystem process (i.e. treating the ecosystem information as a data time series 

with a measure of variance), and 3) modifying the population dynamics equations using an index of an 

ecosystem process (treating the ecosystem information as known without error). Current stock assessment 

models have the technical capability to incorporate all of the above approaches given strong scientific 

evidence for including ecosystem considerations into stock assessment models.

Finally, hypotheses on ecosystem considerations for or impacts on a specific stock could be investigated 

by using them to define alternative states of nature as the basis for the decision tables within current 

single species stock assessments, which are provided to managers as guidance for setting catches. 

Preferred methods for including ecosystem considerations into single species stock assessments should be 

addressed in the stock assessment terms of reference provided by the Council’s SSC. Since the additional 

expertise necessary to include ecosystem considerations into stock assessments will likely extend beyond 

that of the current stock assessment teams, single species stock assessments will require the commitment 

and active participation by agency ecologists and fisheries oceanographers. 

6.2 Annual Reports on Ecosystem Indicators

In November of 2012 the EPDT, in collaboration with the California Current IEA Team, provided the 

first iteration of a Report on the State of the CCE to the Council and its advisory bodies (K.3.a., 

Supplemental Attachment 1). This report was the result of an EPDT recommendation for bringing 

additional ecosystem information into the Council process, through the regular delivery of a synthesis of 

environmental, biological and socio-economic conditions that may act as either drivers or indicators of 

impacts to the productivity, distribution or socioeconomic conditions of managed fish populations and 

their associated fisheries. Based on the Council’s recommendation, the report was limited to 20 pages in 

Public Review Draft FEP 189 February 2013
length, and recognized that several additional sources (many of which included greater technical details) 

on the state of the CCE are in existence, including: the CalCOFI State of the California Current report, 

PaCOOS quarterly summaries, and the emerging California Current IEA. The intent of the November 

2012 Report was to focus on clear, straightforward explanations of the trends and indicators most relevant 

to Council managed fisheries, particularly with respect to how and why such indicators were relevant to 

Council consideration. 

The report included a relatively modest suite of some of the key physical and lower trophic level 

indicators commonly associated with changes in physical and biological conditions throughout the CCE 

over both broad (e.g., basin scale indices, such as the ENSO or the PDO) and more regional spatial scales 

(regional examples include upwelling indices, copepod biomass anomalies and relative abundance time 

series of coastal pelagic species). Other indicators included status and trends for salmon and groundfish 

populations, trends in marine mammal populations, catch statistics for major West Coast fisheries, trends 

in fleet diversity and a suite of additional indicators of human activities in the CCE (benthic structures, 

shipping activity, nutrient input to freshwater systems, offshore oil and gas activity). The overarching 

objective was to concisely synthesize a wide array of both natural and man-made processes that do or 

may have impacts (both positive and negative) on both the productivity of Council-managed resources 

and the socioeconomic well-being of the communities that depend upon them. 

Although some of the selected 

indicators in the first report were more 

intuitive than others, and some that the 

EPDT or other advisory bodies had 

suggested for inclusion were not 

available for the first report, the report 

was generally well received by advisory 

bodies and should serve as a template 

for future efforts. The Council and its 

advisory bodies also offered 

considerable advice for improving 

future reports, which should guide the 

development of and indicator choices 

for the November 2013 report called for 

in Section 1.4 of the FEP. As the SSC 

noted, “The report is an important first 

step in providing the Council family 

with an ecosystem perspective on West 

Coast fish stocks, fisheries, and coastal 

communities... The report will likely 

evolve over time, depending on which 

indicators are available and best suited 

to addressing ecosystem concerns 

identified by the Council” (K.3.c., 

Supplemental SSC Report). If the state 

of the ecosystem report becomes a 

routine product for informing the 

Council on CCE status and trends, it 

should help the Council improve its 

capabilities to bring ecosystem 

considerations into its decision-making 

processes.

Public Review Draft FEP 190 February 2013