U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-57

Species Allocation

of Sebastes and Sebastolobus sp.

Caught by Foreign Countries

from 1965 through 1976

off Washington, Oregon, and

California, USA

December 2003
NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS Series

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not

appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the

scientific and technical literature.

The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the

NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the

Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which

has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries

Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science

Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum

series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries

Science Center.

Reference throughout this document to trade names

does not imply endorsement by the National Marine

Fisheries Service, NOAA.

This document should be cited as follows:

Rogers, J.B. 2003. Species allocation of Sebastes and

Sebastolobus sp. caught by foreign countries from

1965 through 1976 off Washington, Oregon, and

California, USA. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-57, 117 p.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-57

Species Allocation

of Sebastes and Sebastolobus sp.

Caught by Foreign Countries

from 1965 through 1976

off Washington, Oregon, and

California, USA

Jean Beyer Rogers

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division

2032 SE OSU Drive

Newport, Oregon 97365

December 2003

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret), Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC

are available online at the Northwest Fisheries Science

Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov)

Copies are also available from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone orders (1-800-553-6847)

e-mail orders (orders@ntis.fedworld.gov)

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


List of Figures ...................................................................... v


List of Tables ...................................................................... vii


Executive Summary ................................................................. xi


Acknowledgments .................................................................. xiii


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


Methods and Results ................................................................. 7


Step 1. Catch by Area, Year, and Category ............................................. 7


Step 2. Defining Rockfish Fishing Strategies/Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Step 3. Catch Allocation to Fishing Strategies/Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


Step 4. Derive and Apply Species Compositions to Assemblage Catch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Comparison with Previous Estimates ................................................ 35


Discussion ........................................................................ 41


Citations .......................................................................... 45


Appendix A: Catch by INPFC Area, Calendar Year, and Reporting Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Appendix B: Defining Rockfish Fishing Strategies/assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


Appendix C: Catch Allocation to Fishing Strategies/assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


Appendix D: Derive and Apply Species Compositions to Assemblage Catch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


Appendix E: Comparison with Previous Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


iii 
iv

LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1. Map of INPFC areas off Washington, Oregon and California, United States . . . . . . . . . 4


Figure 2. Foreign catch off Washington, Oregon, and California by INPFC area . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Figure 3. Foreign catch off Washington, Oregon, and California by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Figure 4. Proportion of total foreign rockfish catch (t) off Washington, Oregon, and California in


1966-1976 by species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Figure 5. Change in dominance of top seven species in the 1966-1976 Washington, Oregon, and


California foreign catch by INPFC area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Figure 6. Catch estimates from this paper (NEW) versus recent stock assessments (OLD) for


species with highest percentage change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Figure A-1. Comparison of possible borders between Soviet “Washington” and “British Columbia”


reporting areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


Figure A-2. Japanese block reporting areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


Figure B-1. Comparison of ordination scores and cluster designations for the four most-frequently


occurring clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


Figure C-1. Soviet Union survey changes in Pacific hake strategies over time and INPFC area . . . 89


Figure C-2. Comparison of Soviet Union assemblage-designated catches by INPFC area and year


based on three methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


Figure D-1. Comparison of percents by weight (y axes) for species dominating the four most


frequently occurring Soviet Union research assemblages by INPFC area and year (x


axes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109


Figure D-2. Comparison of the catches of four species in the Soviet Union surveys by year and


bottom depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110


v 
vi

LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. Common and scientific names for species mentioned in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Table 2. Summary of decisions made in deriving foreign catch estimates for 1966-76 off the 

coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (WOC) by INPFC area and calendar 

year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Table 3. Step one results: Catch (t) by INPFC area and year for each country and reporting 

category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Table 4. Decisions and assumptions made in allocating foreign rockfish catch to species . . . . . 19 

Table 5. Step three results: Allocation of catch to assemblages (Assem.) by year and INPFC . 20 

Table 6. Consequences (t) of changing species identification in the Soviet Union survey data 

(Survey ) and using Method 1 versus Method 2 to allocate catch (Method ) . . . . . . . . a b 28 

Table 7. Step four results: Allocation to species of foreign rockfish catch (t) off the Washington, 

Oregon, and California in 1966-1976 by INPFC area and year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Table 8. Foreign catch (t) estimates from this paper (New) versus recent stock assessments (Old) 

for comparable years and areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Table A-1. Comparison of available estimates of Soviet rockfish catch (t) off Washington, Oregon, 

and California during 1965-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

Table A-2. Comparison of Soviet catch (t) estimates in 1966-68 in the literature versus calculations 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 

Table A-3. Calculation of Soviet catch (t) in U.S. Vancouver INPFC area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 

Table A-4. Japanese catch (t) estimates reported by fishing year off Washington, Oregon, and 

California during 1965-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

Table A-5. Comparison of estimates of Japanese catch (t) reported by calendar year off Washington, 

Oregon, and California during 1965-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 

Table A-6. Calculation of Japanese catch (t) in U.S. portion of Vancouver INPFC area . . . . . . . . 62 

Table A-7. Comparison of available estimates of foreign catch (t) for other countries off 

Washington, Oregon, and California during 1965-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Table B-1. Comparison of available species composition information on shelf and slope rockfish 

assemblage catches during 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 

Table B-2. Comparison of sources with information on incidental rockfish catch from targeting 

Pacific hake during or soon after 1966-76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

Table B-3. Missing weights and replacement data for Soviet Union survey data from 1966-76 of the 

U.S. West Coast (south of lat. 48 30'N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 68 

Table B-4. Comparison of clusters of tows from the 1966-76 Soviet surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

Table C-1. Regulations and agreements affecting foreign fisheries off the U.S. West Coast in 

1966-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

vii 
Table C-2. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the


coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California in 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73


Table C-3. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the


coasts of Washington and Oregon in 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75


Table C-4. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coast


of California in 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


Table C-5. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the


coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California in 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78


Table C-6. Allocation of Soviet Union rockfish catch (t) (above line) to rockfish assemblages using


method employing information from commercial fisheries (Method 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Table C-7. Distribution of Soviet Union survey tows by year and INPFC area for the four most


frequent assemblages in all years and areas combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


Table C-8. Comparison of Soviet Union catch ratios in surveys versus commercial catches . . . . . 82


Table C-9. Allocation of Soviet Union rockfish catch (t) (above line) to rockfish assemblages using


method employing information from Soviet Union surveys (Method 2) (below line) . 83


Table C-10. Allocation of Japanese rockfish catch (t) (above line) to assemblages (below line) . . . 85


Table C-11. Comparison of available fishery species compositions during 1965-76 . . . . . . . . . . . 86


Table C-12. Allocation of Polish rockfish catch (t) to assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87


Table C-13. Allocation of Bulgarian and East German rockfish 1976 catch (t) to assemblages . . . 88


Table D-1. Estimates of Conception INPFC area landings (t) by species percentages . . . . . . . . . . 92


Table D-2. Estimates of Monterey INPFC area landings by species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93


Table D-3. Estimates of Eureka INPFC area landings by species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94


Table D-4. Oregon landings estimates for the Columbia INPFC area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95


Table D-5. Columbia area landings made in Washington and Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96


Table D-6. U.S. Vancouver INPFC area landings estimates based on landings in PFMC area 3B +


3CS (Tagart 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97


Table D-7. Species compositions based on observed catches in 1977-83 (incidental hake) and


domestic landings (slope and shelf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98


Table D-8. Species compositions for incidental hake and slope based on Soviet Union survey


assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99


Table D-9. Species compositions for north shelf and south shelf based on Soviet Union survey


assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101


Table D-10. Soviet Union catch (t) allocated to species by INPFC area and year . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103


Table D-11. Japanese catch (t) allocation to individual species by year and INPFC area . . . . . . . 106


viii 
Table D-12. Allocation of catch (t) for Poland, East Germany, and Bulgaria using the average of 

Method 1 and Method 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 

Table E-1. U.S. Vancouver INPFC area P.o.p. assessment foreign catch (t) derivations versus new 

estimates (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 

Table E-2. Columbia INPFC area comparison of P.o.p. assessment calculations with new estimates 

(t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 

Table E-3. U.S. Vancouver INPFC area yellowtail and canary assessment calculations versus new 

values (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

Table E-4. Columbia INPFC area (COL) yellowtail and canary assessment calculations versus new 

estimates (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

Table E-5. Differences between new estimates (t) for Pacific ocean perch (P.o.p.), yellowtail, and 

canary and those used previously in the stock assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

ix 
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


Estimates of foreign Sebastes and Sebastolobus catch (rockfish) occurring off the West 

Coast of the United States (U.S.) in 1965-76 may affect stock status determination for several 

species of fish. Although this catch was substantial, only four rockfish stock assessments during 

this 1965-76 period have included foreign catch estimates for those years. Species with estimates

are Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), yellowtail rockfish (S. flavidus), canary rockfish (S. 

pinniger), and darkblotched rockfish (S. crameri). Those estimates were also only for the 

Columbia and U.S. Vancouver International Pacific International North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (INPFC) Statistical Areas. 

Stock assessment authors (cited throughout this document) used different techniques for 

each of these four species to estimate foreign catch by year and INPFC area. The authors had to 

allocate catch to species because the foreign countries reported rockfish catch only as “rockfish,” 

“Pacific ocean perch,” or “other rockfish,” with limited information on actual species 

composition. Allocation to INPFC area was also necessary because the Soviet Union generally 

reported by U.S. state boundary, and none of the countries separated United States versus 

Canadian catch in the Vancouver INPFC area. Japanese catches additionally had to be allocated 

to calendar year because they were reported by fishing year. Use of different techniques to 

allocate foreign catch to individual species, year, and INPFC area resulted in overlapping 

allocation of catch in many years. 

This document provides a consistent method of allocating foreign catch to all Sebastes 

and Sebastolobus species by year and INPFC area. All available pertinent literature and data for 

the period from 1965-76 were compiled and analyzed. Allocation involved four steps: 1) select 

and derive estimates by species category, year, and INPFC area; 2) define fishing strategies (and 

resulting species catch assemblages) used by the foreign fleet; 3) assign catch to fishing 

strategy/catch assemblage by year and INPFC area; and 4) apply rockfish species compositions to 

each assemblage-year-INPFC-area catch. Accomplishment of the four allocation steps involved 

many decisions, most of which were specific to each country. 

Soviet Union catch was both the largest component of total foreign catch and most 

difficult to allocate. Literature found in step one had a wide range of 1966-68 catch estimates 

and two methods of allocating to INPFC area. There was also conflicting information on both the 

northern boundary of Washington-reported catch and species placement in catch categories (this 

catch may or may not include all of Washington plus some British Columbia, Canada). Catch in 

1966-68 was chosen by deriving independent estimates using vessel sightings and catch per 

vessel day. INPFC estimates were chosen based on vessel sighting allocations. U.S. catch in the 

Vancouver INPFC area before 1975 was estimated by subtracting Columbia-to-Conception 

INPFC areas catch from Washington-to-California reported catch. This assumed the northern 

boundary of Soviet catch reported as “Washington” was the U.S.-Canadian border. After 1974, 

foreign trawl fishing was not allowed in the U.S. portion of Vancouver INPFC, so catch in that 

area was assumed zero. Catch categories could not be resolved, so all catch categories were 

combined. Categories could not then be used as a proxy for catch assemblage in step three. Two 

alternative methods for steps three and four were developed and the results averaged. One 

method relied on over-flight and nearby-vessel observations of catch, regulations, on-board 

observer data (after 1976), and U.S. commercial catch species compositions. The other method 

assumed that the commercial fleet fished similarly to the 1966-76 Soviet Union surveys. Survey

boats often fished with (and scouted for) the fleet in those years. Survey data was analyzed to 

provide assemblage catch ratios and assemblage species compositions. 

xi 
Japan had the next largest catch but allocation was easier. Japan consistently reported by 

INPFC area and “Pacific ocean perch” versus “Other” catch categories, although use of the 

categories may have changed in response to regulations after 1972. They also appeared to use 

fishing strategies similar to those used by the United States commercial trawl fleet. Allocation 

decisions involved allocation from fishing year to calendar year, from Vancouver INPFC area to 

U.S. and Canada, and use of catch categories. Although calendar-year catch estimates by INPFC 0 0 area were available from some sources, information by 1 longitude by 0.5 latitude block was 

available only for fishing year (1 November - 31 October). In order to use that block data to 

estimate U.S. catch in Vancouver INPFC area, fishing year catch was assumed to occur in the 

later year (the year of the 31 October date), an assumption consistent with many literature 

sources. Catch categories were assumed to represent Slope (Pacific ocean perch) versus Shelf 

(Other) assemblages, except after 1972 when one-half Other was allocated to Slope. Shelf and 

Slope species compositions in the U.S. landings data were then applied to the catch categories. 

Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany, and Republic of Korea did not fish off the U.S. West 

Coast until the end of the time period and had minimal catch. All countries except Republic of 

Korea fished with trawl gear and appeared to employ strategies similar to the Soviet Union. 

Soviet Union catch allocation methodology was therefore used for those countries. Republic of

Korea rockfish catch was mainly from longline and was assumed to be all Pacific ocean perch. 

The estimates in this document decreased foreign catch estimates for Pacific ocean perch 

and canary rockfish, and increased catch for the remaining assessed species. Estimated foreign 

catch for 1965-76 was highest (>10000 t) for Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), shortbelly 

rockfish (S. jordani), widow rockfish (S. entomelas), bocaccio (S. paucispinis), splitnose rockfish 

(S. diploproa), darkblotched rockfish (S. crameri), and yellowtail rockfish (S. flavidus). Change 

in the total catch (foreign plus domestic) for 1965-76 was greatest for Pacific ocean perch 

(decreased), shortspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascanus) (increased), and widow rockfish 

(increased). 

xii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Jack Tagart (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Donald Gunderson 

(University of Washington), Richard Methot (National Marine Fisheries Service), Bill Barss 

(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife), S. J. Westrheim, Jim Ianelli (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center), Jim Bottom (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center), Cid Hughes (contractor for MES, Inc.), and 

Kathleen Jewett (National Marine Fisheries Service) improved the document through their 

helpful comments on earlier drafts. Bernie Goiney (National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center), Will Daspit (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission), Patricia A. 

Cook (National Marine Fisheries Service), and the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine 

Science Center library staff were extremely helpful in locating and providing requested 

documents and data. Donald Gunderson and Brad Pattie (Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife) located additional documents which added to the completeness of the document. 

Donald Gunderson, Jack Tagart, Jim Golden, and Dan Ito (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center) also kindly searched their files and memories to provide 

information on previous methods of foreign catch allocation. Joe Pennisi (Royal Seafood), 

Richard Parrish (National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory), 

Bert Larkins, S. J. Westheim, Gordon White, and Brad Pattie took time to tell me their personal 

observations on the early foreign fisheries. Jim Ianelli and Ric Brodeur (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center) provided access to the Soviet Union 

survey data. Cid Hughes (contractor for MES, Inc.) helped edit and format the document for 

publication. Tonya Ramsey (National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center) supplied the INPFC area map. 

xiii 
xiv

INTRODUCTION


Accurate assessment of fish stock status is dependent upon accurate knowledge of 

historical catch. A stock is overfished if present spawning biomass is less than 25% of unfished 

spawning biomass (PFMC 2000). The unfished level and percentage decline can change if the 

amount of historical catch is altered (Rogers et al. 2000). Increasing historical catch estimates 

typically leads to higher stock assessment estimates of unfished biomass and may result in 

greater estimated declines in spawning biomass. 

Substantial historical foreign catch occurred off the United States (U.S.) coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California (WOC) during 1966-76. Before October 1966, the U.S. had 

jurisdiction only within 3 nautical miles (nmi) of the coast (USBCF 1967). During the remainder 

of the period, U.S. jurisdiction was extended to 12 nmi (USBCF 1967). In the earliest years, the 

foreign fleets fished outside those boundaries with few restrictions. Agreements were made 

regarding closed areas and targeting (USBCF 1967, 1968; TSC 1969, 1971), but catch quotas 

were not instituted until 1973 (TSC 1973). In March of 1977, the Magnuson Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act extended the jurisdiction to 200 nmi (INPFCa 1977). 

Rockfish (both Sebastes and Sebastolobus in those years) were a major component of the 

foreign catch during 1966-76, but catches were not specified to species. Soviet fishermen did not 

separate rockfish catch until 1973 (Parks and Dark 1972, Parks 1974, Fraidenburg et al. 1977, 

INPFCa 1975), and then into two categories with unclear specifications (Larkins 1975, VNIRO 

1978). Japan sorted into “Pacific ocean perch” (POP) versus “Other Rockfish” (Other) in all 

years. POP is a market term that included unknown amounts of species other than Pacific ocean 

perch (P.o.p.) (INPFCa 1974, Westrheim et al. 1972) (See Table 1 for scientific names of species 

referred to in this document). 

Foreign catch before 1977 has been included in only four WOC rockfish stock 

assessments, with estimates for only Columbia INPFC area and the U.S. portion of the 

Vancouver International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Statistical Area (INPFC area) 

(Figure 1). Those assessments are Pacific ocean perch (Ianelli et al. 2000) and canary (STAT 

1999) in the Columbia and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas, darkblotched coast-wide (Rogers et al. 0 0 2000), and yellowtail in the Eureka, Columbia, and S. Vancouver INPFC areas (lat. 49 -47 30'N) 

(Tagart et al. 2000). 

 The four assessments differed in method of allocation of foreign catch to INPFC area, 

year, and species. Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail, and canary estimates were adopted from 

earlier assessments of the species. Pacific ocean perch relied on estimates from Westrheim et al. 

(1972), Gunderson et al. (1977), and Fraidenburg et al. (1978). Allocations to the U.S. portion of

the Vancouver INPFC area were from Ianelli et al. (1992). Yellowtail relied on Tagart (1988), 

while canary used estimates from Golden and Demory (1984), with allocations to the U.S. 

portion of the Vancouver INPFC area from Sampson and Stewart (1994). Darkblotched 

estimates were 10% of Pacific ocean perch estimates (Rogers et al. 2000). 

It is important that allocation of foreign catch to individual rockfish be completed in a 

consistent manner. This would ensure that all foreign catch is allocated, yet the same catch is not 

allocated to more than one species. The darkblotched assessment review panel (STAR 2000) 

recommended development of a commonly agreed upon methodology. They also suggested 

utilizing rockfish species compositions from recently available Soviet survey data from 1965-76. 
2

Common Name Genus Species

black rockfish Sebastes melanops nearshore

blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus nearshore

brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus nearshore

olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides nearshore

quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger nearshore

nearshore (north)

shelf (south)

bocaccio rockfish Sebastes paucispinis shelf

canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger shelf

chameleon rockfish Sebastes phillipsi shelf

chilipepper rockfish Sebastes goodei shelfb

 (south)

cowcod rockfish Sebastes levis shelf (north)

flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus shelf

greenblotched rockfish Sebastes rosenblatti shelf

greenspotted rockfish Sebastes chlorostictus shelf

greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus shelf

halfbanded rockfish Sebastes semicinctus shelf

pink rockfish Sebastes eos shelf

pinkrose rockfish Sebastes simulator shelf

pygmy rockfish Sebastes wilsoni shelf

redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki shelf

redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger shelf

rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus shelf

rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus shelf

shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani shelf

silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis shelf (north)

speckled rockfish Sebastes ovalis shelf

starry rockfish Sebastes constellatus shelf

stripetail rockfish Sebastes saxicola shelf

tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus shelf

vermilion rockfish Sebastes miniatus shelf

yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus shelf

yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus shelfb

widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas shelfb

Assemblage

copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus

Table 1. Common and scientific names for species mentioned in this document. Although presently

Sebastes are rockfish and Sebastolobus are thornyheads, we referred to both as rockfish, as was

done in 1965-77. For those Genus, only the first part of the common name is used in the

document. Assemblage designations for rockfish are according to PFMC (2000).

a
3

Common Name Genus Species

shelf (south)

slope (north)

aurora rockfish Sebastes aurora slope

blackgill rockfish Sebastes melanostomus slope

darkblotched rockfish Sebastes crameri slope

Pacific ocean perch 

(P.o.p.) rockfish Sebastes alutus slopeb

 (north)

rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus slope

sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus slope

shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis slope

splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa slope

yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi slope

dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliatus unknown

harlequin rockfish Sebastes variegatus unknown

northern rockfish Sebastes polyspinis unknown

longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis deepwater

shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus deepwater

Dover sole Microstomus pacificus deepwater

sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria deepwater

Pacific hake Merluccius productus midwater

Assemblage

bank rockfish Sebastes rufus

Table 1. Common and scientific names for species mentioned in this document. Although presently

Sebastes are rockfish and Sebastolobus are thornyheads, we referred to both as rockfish, as was

done in 1965-77. For those Genus, only the first part of the common name is used in the

document. Assemblage designations for rockfish are according to PFMC (2000).a

 Continued.

a A “north” assemblage is in Eureka, Columbia, and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas, “south” is Monterey and

Conception INPFC areas.

b

 The species may also be caught in midwater as bycatch from targeting Pacific hake.
Figure 1. Map of INPFC areas off Washington, Oregon and California, United States. Areas referred to 

in this document are often shortened to: Washington, Oregon, and California = WOC; 

Washington and Oregon = WO; Washington = W; Oregon = O; California = C; Conception 

INPFC = CON; Monterey INPFC = MON; Eureka INPFC = EUR; Columbia INPFC = COL; 

U.S. Vancouver = UVAN (no British Columbia); entire Vancouver = VAN (includes part of 

British Columbia). 

4 
Allocation could be made based on knowledge of fishing strategies and the resulting 

species in the catch (assemblages). Rockfish species separate based on bottom depth, depth in 

the water column, and latitude (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Different target species therefore lead to 

different fishing strategies, which in turn lead to different species in the catch, including both 

targeted and not targeted (incidental) species (Rogers 1994). 

The specific objective of this document was to use information on fishing strategies and 

assemblages to allocate all WOC foreign rockfish catch in 1965-76 to species by year and INPFC 

area. Catch allocation involved: 1) selection and estimation of WOC rockfish foreign catch for 

1965-76 by INPFC area, year, and reporting category; 2) definition of fishing strategies/catch 

assemblages; 3) partition of catch by fishing strategy/ catch assemblage; and 4) application of 

assemblage species proportions to assemblage catch in each area and year. After completing the 

allocation, it was compared to those done previously in stock assessments. Additionally, it was 

discovered that there was no foreign catch in these areas in 1965, so the data in this document 

covers 1966-76. 

INPFC areas referred to in this document are often shortened in tables and figures as 

follows: Washington, Oregon, and California = WOC; Washington and Oregon = WO; 

Washington = W; Oregon = O; California = C; Conception INPFC = CON; Monterey INPFC = 

MON; Eureka INPFC = EUR; Columbia INPFC = COL; U.S. Vancouver = UVAN; entire 

Vancouver = VAN. 

5

6

METHODS AND RESULTS


Combined methods and results were presented separately for each allocation step and the 

final comparison with past estimates. A summary is provided at the beginning of each step, 

referring to tables and figures with final results, as well as decisions involved and their potential 

consequences. Decisions and calculations required were often complex and specific to each 

country, so each summary is followed by detailed information. This detailed information refers 

to tables and figures placed in separate appendices for each step. Those appendix tables include 

intermediate worksheets leading to the final results and data summaries for difficult-to-obtain 

literature. 

Step 1. Catch by Area, Year, and Category 

Summary 

In step one, catch was allocated by INPFC area, calendar year, and reporting category. 

Catch estimates during 1966-76 were available in the literature for the Soviet Union (1966-76), 

Japan (1966-76), Poland (1973-76), Republic of Korea (1975-76), Bulgaria (1976), and East 

Germany (1976). International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Proceedings and documents 

were the primary source of information. Other sources included United States Bureau of 

Commercial Fisheries, Reports of the Technical Sub-Committee of the International Trawl 

Fishery Committee Regulations (re-named Technical Sub-Committee of the International 

Groundfish Committee in 1972), and International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 

Statistical Yearbooks. 

Utilizing available catch estimates involved several decisions (Table 2). Original catch 

reports from foreign countries were not always available, and sources citing them did not always 

agree. Sources also disagreed on how to allocate reported catches to INPFC area and calendar 

year. Estimates for the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area were not available in literature, so they had 

to be calculated from combined U.S. and Canadian Vancouver INPFC area catch. Details of the 

calculations varied by country, but for all countries except the Republic of Korea, U.S. 

Vancouver INPFC area catch in 1975-76 was assumed to be zero. Foreign trawling was 

prohibited in that area in those years (TSC 1976). 

Resulting catch used for allocation to fishing strategy/species assemblage is in Table 3. 

Most rockfish catch occurred in 1966-68 in Columbia and Monterey INPFC areas (Figure 2). 

The Soviet Union caught most of the fish (Figure 3). 

Details 

Soviet Union 

Soviet Union catch decisions greatly influenced total foreign catch (Table 2). Catch 

reports written by the Soviet Union were available only for 1974-76 (Soviet Union unpubl. data, 

VNIRO 1978) (Table A-1). In those years, they used market categories “Rockfishes” (Rockfish) 

versus “Other Rockfishes” (Other). Original reports were not available for 1973, but sources 

7

reported sorting into Other versus POP (Fraidenburg et al. 1977, Parks 1975). Sources cited in 

Table A-1 assigned various names to pre-1973 unsorted rockfish and the 1974-76 “Rockfishes” 

category. Rockfish is the term used for those catches, regardless of names used in the citations. 

Catch estimates were matched when necessary. 

The Soviet Union reported catch by INPFC area only for 1973 (Parks 1975), 1975, and 

1976 (VNIRO 1978). Except for 1966-68, differences among catch estimates in Table A-1 in 

Appendix A were based on method of INPFC area allocation. 

1966-68 Catches—Catch estimates for 1966 were available from only a few sources and had a 

wide range (Table A-1). WOC estimates were either 40,000-50,000 t (Forrester et al. 1978, 

Canada 1969) or about 10,000 t (TSC 1967, INPFCa 1969, FAJ 1973, USBCF 1968). USBCF 

(1968) stated the 10,000 t came only from Washington and Oregon. There were also 

inconsistencies in the citations. INPFCa (1969) reported 10,000 t, yet cited Canada (1969), 

which actually had a 50,000 t estimate. Forrester et al. (1978) stated Soviet “catches in the 

Columbia-to-Charlotte INPFC areas rose to 45,000 t in 1967,” yet their 1966 estimate for those 

areas totaled 74,000 t. 

Most sources consistently reported WOC estimates of 37,611 t in 1967 and 16,251 t in 

1968 (Table A-1). The exceptions were the much lower 10,000 t in 1967 and 5,000 t in 1968 

(Canada 1969, FAJ 1973). 

To examine further the 1966-68 discrepancies, catch is estimated using information on 

effort and catch rates (Table A-2). (Summaries of citations utilized are in Tables C2-C5.) Effort 

was vessel days by vessel size category. Monthly average numbers of vessels sighted off WO in 

1966-67 were taken from Hitz (1970). Monthly average number of vessels off California in 1966 

and WO in 1968 were estimated from information in USBCF (1966, 1968). Effort directed 

specifically towards rockfish in 1966 was estimated from information in INPFCa (1966), USBCF 

(1966, 1967), Jewel et al. (1966) and Pattie (1966). The Soviet Union targeted both slope 

rockfish and Pacific hake in May and part of August 1966 (USBCF 1966). Sources varied on the 

amount of rockfish targeting in 1967 (INPFCa 1967, USBCF 1967). The maximum estimate is 

used: 1 January to 13 April 1967 (INPFCa 1967). In 1968, all effort during that period was 

considered rockfish-directed (USBCF 1968). Four estimated catch rates (t rockfish per trawl 

vessel day) were applied to the effort estimates (Table A-2). For all estimates, it is assumed the 

fleet fished every day. The estimated ranges were generally comparable to the range of estimates 

in literature. 

8

Table 2.	 Summary of decisions made in deriving foreign catch estimates for 1966-76 off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California 

(WOC) by INPFC area and calendar year. Potential bias is the maximum amount the catch resulting from the decision is over or under 

the alternatives. Decisions are listed in order in which they were done and amount of bias may depend upon the earlier decisions. For 

U.S. Vancouver (UVAN) allocations, the bias is based on comparing allocating all or none of the Vancouver catch to the U.S. portion. 

9 
Table 3. Step one results: Catch (t) by INPFC area and year for each country and reporting category. Catches in bold assumed to be all Pacific 

ocean perch. 

* “/” indicates “or” 

10 
Table 3. Step one results: Catch (t) by INPFC area and year for each country and reporting category. Catches in bold assumed to be all Pacific 

ocean perch. Continued. 

11

Figure 2. Foreign catch off Washington, Oregon, and California by INPFC area. 

Figure 3. Foreign catch off Washington, Oregon, and California by country. 

12

Two rockfish catch rates (high and low) were derived by applying a range of vessel-size 

catch ratios to April 1966 vessel and catch estimates. In April 1966, U.S. Bureau of Commercial 

Fisheries estimated the Soviet fleet of 22 medium and 7 large vessels caught less than 450-855 t 

per day (USBCF 1966). Large vessels were variously estimated to catch 2.6 (Ketchen 1980), 3.2 

(Bailey et al 1982), 2-6 (Polutov et al. 1966), 5-6 (USBCF 1967), or up to 6-7 (USBCF 1968) 

times that of a medium vessel in the same time period. A low catch rate of 30 t per large vessel 

day was based on the assumption that in the April 1966 fleet, 2.6 medium vessels equaled 1 large 

vessel (15 large vessels = 22 medium vessels and 7 large vessels) and the fleet caught 450 t per 

day. A high catch rate of 85 t per large vessel day was based on the assumption that in the April 

1966 fleet, 7 medium vessels equaled 1 large vessel (10 large vessels = 22 medium vessels and 7 

large vessels) and the fleet caught 855 t per day. For 1967 and 1968, those catch rates were 

reduced by 67% and 35% respectively, using reductions in domestic P.o.p. catch rates 

(Westrheim et al. 1972). 

The fleet would therefore have the equivalent of 10-15 large vessels 

(7 + [22/7] to 7 + [22/2.6]), 

with large vessel catch per day of less than 30-85 t (<450/15 to 855/10). 

The other two catch rates were for Soviet fleets fishing off Canada and Alaska. One was 

1966-68 information provided by Ketchen (1980) for British Columbia, Canada. He estimated 

that all vessels made four tows per day, and provided rockfish catch per tow by calendar quarter, 

year, and vessel size. The other was average Soviet catch per month and vessel size off Alaska in 

1964 (one year after the fleet arrived) (Polutov et al. 1966). Those estimates are used only for 

1967, one year after the fleet began fishing WOC. 

After considering all information, higher estimates were selected for all three years. The 

high estimates for 1967 and 1968 were chosen because they were found in the majority of 

literature. The calculations indicate 1968 may be overestimated (Table A-2), but they did not 

include incidental rockfish caught while targeting Pacific hake. For 1966, 41,000 t was used, 

rather than the 10,000 t or 50,000 t alternatives. The selected estimate was intermediate in the 

calculations, while the minimum calculation was twice 10,000 t (Table A-2). The 41,000 t also 

came from Forrester et al. (1978), who was one of the sources of selected 1967 and 1968 

estimates. 

Allocation to INPFC area—When the Soviet Union did not report by INPFC area, they used 

state or province boundaries. In 1966-72, they reported by larger statistical areas (Parks and 

Dark 1972, Parks 1974). In most, if not all of those years, they reported by WO versus 

California. The area to the north was British Columbia (BC). In 1974, they reported catch by 

U.S. state boundary (Soviet Union unpubl. data, Parks 1976). 

The boundary between their WO- and BC-reported catches is unclear (Figure A-1). In 

describing Soviet Union reporting areas for 1967-70, Parks and Dark (1972) presented a 1971 0 map with the boundary at 48 30'N. A table of 1967-73 Soviet Union catch “as reported by the 0 Soviet Union to the U.S.” also placed the boundary at 48 30'N (INPFCa 1975). That table cited 

Larkins (1975), but actually used only his 1973 estimate (Table A-1). Larkins (1975) presented a 0 combined table for all nations, with the boundary specified as 47 30'N. Ketchen (1977, 1980) 

stated the boundary changed from year to year, but inconsistently described the changes. 0 Ketchen (1977) placed it at 48 30'N in 1968, 1971, and 1972, between PFMC Areas 3C and 3B 0 (Figure A-1) in 1969 and 1970, and 47 30'N in 1974 and 1975. Ketchen (1980) said the 1968-69 0 boundary was 47 30'N (which he equated with the bottom of PFMC Area 3B). Tables in 

Ketchen (1980) placed the 1968-72 boundary between PFMC Areas 3C and 3B. 

13

One way of allocating Soviet Union catches to INPFC area was to place WO catch in the 

Columbia INPFC area and part or all of BC catch in the Vancouver INPFC area. This would be 0 accurate if the Soviet Union used 47 30'N as the boundary between WO and BC (Figure A-1). 

Forrester et al. (1983) placed WO in the Columbia INPFC area for 1971, 1972, and 1974, and 

stated BC was Vancouver and Charlotte INPFC areas combined (Table A-1). 

An alternative method was based on U.S. and Canadian vessel sighting reports (Parks and 

Dark 1972, U.S. 1973, Parks 1974, Parks 1975, Parks 1976). This was available for 1967-72 and 

1974. Catch per INPFC area and month was calculated by multiplying quarterly catch as 

reported by the Soviet Union by proportions of fishing vessels sighted in each INPFC area within 

the reporting area (Parks and Dark 1972). Assuming correct information on Soviet Union 

reporting area boundaries, this method would adjust for any yearly boundary changes. Columbia 

INPFC area catch was always less than WO catch, while Vancouver INPFC area catch was often 

more than BC catch (Table A-1). 

The vessel-sighting method of allocation to INPFC area was selected. It provided the 

only allocations for Conception-to-Eureka INPFC areas. In addition, the 1967 and 1968 catch 0 calculations in Table A-2 indicate the boundary between WO and BC was above 47 30'N. The 

calculations for WO included vessels sighted in the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area, yet only the 

1968 high estimate exceeded the selected literature estimates for WO. If the Soviet Union had 

included only Columbia INPFC area catch in WO, the catch estimates would logically have been 

greater than their reports. 

The U.S. portion of the Vancouver INPFC area was calculated for 1967-72 and 1974 by 

subtracting Conception-to-Columbia INPFC areas catch from WOC catch estimates (Table A-3). 

For 1973, the 1972 and 1974 average percent U.S. was used. This method assumed the vessel 

sighting allocations to INPFC area were accurate and the Soviet Union boundary between WO 

and BC was the U.S.-Canadian border (Figure A-1). U.S. Vancouver INPFC area catch was 

estimated at 25-99% (59% average) of the total Vancouver INPFC area catch, and 50% of the 

Washington catch. 

The method of allocating to INPFC area and calculating the U.S. Vancouver portion 

could have led to either over or under-estimation of total catch in 1967-74 (Table 2). If the 0 Soviet Union reported WO catch using a 48 30'N cutoff and the vessel sighting method was 

correct, some U.S. Vancouver INPFC area catch in 1967-72 and 1974 may have occurred in 0 Canada (Figure A-1). If the reporting border was 47 30'N, catch was underestimated. 

Since 1966 catch was available only for WOC combined, vessel sightings were used to 

allocate it to INPFC area. December catch was solely from Monterey (USBCF 1967). The low 

estimate and Ketchen’s estimate in Table A-2 indicated 15% of the 1966 catch occurred in 

December. Monterey INPFC area catch was therefore estimated at 6150 t (15% of 41,000 t 

WOC catch). Maps of vessel locations off the coasts of Oregon and Washington were not 

substantially different in 1966 and 1967 (Hitz 1970), so remaining 1966 catch was placed in the 

U.S. Vancouver and Columbia INPFC areas using 1967 percentages, 21% and 79% respectively. 

14

Japan 

Catch reports written by Japan were available for almost all years and market categories 

(Takahashi 1968, FAJ 1969-70, Yamaguchi 1971-76, Sasaki 1977) (Table A-4). All sources 

consistently reported catch by two market categories: Other and POP. 

Japanese catch decisions had less effect than Soviet Union decisions on total foreign 

rockfish catch (Table 2). Japan almost always reported by INPFC area rather than state 0 0 boundaries. POP catch and trawl hours in 1 longitude by 0.5 latitude blocks were also 

available, aiding allocation to the U.S. portion of the Vancouver INPFC area. Yearly 

information, however, was presented in terms of fishing year (1 November to 31 October) rather 

than calendar year. 

Allocation to calendar year—Sources had two ways of allocating catch from fishing year to 

calendar year. One was to assign all catch to the later year (1 November 1966 - 31 October 

1967 = 1967). This was done by Fraidenburg et al. (1977) and Canada (1969). Calendar year 

estimates were also derived by summing catch by month (Table A-5). Although only monthly 

reports for 1966-1968 (INPFCb 1967-69) could be located, yearly estimates from Forrester et al. 

(1978, 1983) and Larkins (1975) equaled the summed months for those years. 

Although the summed monthly estimates were more accurate representations of calendar 

year, all fishing year catch was assigned to the later year. This was done to utilize the 10 

0 longitude by 0.5 latitude block data, which were available only by fishing year. This choice may 

have under- or over-estimated the catch depending upon allocation of 1968 Other rockfish catch 

to INPFC area (Table 2). 

Allocation to INPFC area—To allocate catch to the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area, catch and 

0 0 effort were assumed to be distributed evenly within the 1 longitude by 0.5 latitude reporting 

blocks. Based on area calculations, the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area included 63% of the long. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125-126 W by lat. 48 -48.5 N block, 77% of the 126 -127 W by 47.5 -48 N block, 4% of the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 -127 W by 48 -48.5 N block, and all 47.5 -48 N blocks less than 126 W (Figure A-2). The 

U.S. Vancouver INPFC area catch of POP was calculated by applying those percentages to each 

block’s catch and then totaling the catches (Table A-5). For Other rockfish, catch by block was 

not available, so trawling hours were used as a proxy for catch. The proportion of Vancouver 

INPFC area trawling hours spent in the U.S. zone was applied to Vancouver INPFC area catch 

estimates (Table A-5). Less than 42% POP and 40% Other was allocated to the U.S. portion. 

Other rockfish in 1968 had to be allocated to INPFC area. Catch was only available for 

WOC rather than INPFC area (Fraidenburg et al. 1977). Trawl effort (hours) in that year was 

477 (24.5%) in U.S. Vancouver INPFC area (Table A-6), 1106 (56.8%) in Columbia INPFC 

area, 355 (18.2%) in Eureka INPFC area and 9 (0.5%) in Monterey INPFC area (INPFCa 1969). 

Those percentages of trawl effort were applied to the total catch (810 t). 

Poland 

Catch estimates for Poland were available for 1973-76 (Table A-7). Decisions involved 

use of 1973 catch, allocation of 1974 catch to INPFC area, choice of catch in 1975, and 

disposition of “other species” catch in 1976 (Table 2). The 1973 P.o.p. catch (8 t) was not used. 

It was found in only one source (Murai et al. 1981) and was not included previously in P.o.p. 

assessments (Fraidenburg et al. 1978). In 1974, U.S. Vancouver catch (26 t) was calculated by 

subtracting Columbia INPFC area catch (94 t) (Fraidenburg et al. 1978) from WOC catch (120 t) 

(Murai et al.1981). P.o.p. estimates in Conception-to-Eureka INPFC areas were not available for 

1975. They were assumed zero, but may have been 104 t. Total selected catch for 1975 was 

15

2534 t (Table A-7). This was 104 t less than the 2638 t WOC estimate from Murai et al. (1981). 

For 1976, the lower range from Murai (unpubl. data a) was used. This was compatible with 

Murai et al. (1981). The upper estimate included “other species,” which may or may not contain 

rockfish. 

Bulgaria and East Germany 

Only one source had Bulgarian and East German catch estimates (Table A-7). Gunderson 

(unpubl. data) derived POP and Other rockfish estimates by applying 1976 Soviet Union catch 

ratios (POP/ Pacific hake and Other rockfish/Pacific hake by INPFC area) to 1976 Bulgarian and 

East German Pacific hake catch. Those POP estimates for Vancouver and Columbia INPFC 

areas were utilized as P.o.p. by Fraidenburg et al. (1978). That methodology was used to derive 

the catch estimates, but ratios were based on Soviet Union catch selected for this document 

(details are presented in Table C-12). 

Republic of Korea 

Decisions for Republic of Korea catch were choice of estimates and allocation to the U.S. 

Vancouver INPFC area in 1976 (Table 2). Republic of Korea estimates by year and INPFC area 

were available only in handwritten notes (Murai unpubl. data b) (Table A-7), so those estimates 

were used. Estimates for combined Conception-to-Vancouver INPFC areas differed only slightly 

from WOC rockfish catch reported by Pruter (unpubl. data), Murai et al. (1981), and NMFS 

(1977). Republic of Korea rockfish catch in 1976 was from longline (Table A-7), so some may 

have occurred in the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area. The U.S. portion was calculated by 

subtracting Columbia and Eureka INPFC area catch from WOC catch (208 – 179 = 29 t). 

Step 2. Defining Rockfish Fishing Strategies/Assemblages 

Summary 

Potential catch assemblages of rockfish species resulting from foreign fishing strategies 

were defined using three types of information. The first type was assemblage definitions used by 

U.S. fisheries managers (included in Table 1). The second type was species compositions from 

known fishing strategies employed in years as close to 1966-76 as possible. The third type was 

mutivariate analysis of Soviet Union survey catch data collected off WOC in 1966-76. 

All three sources agreed that there were rockfish assemblages targeted in deeper versus 

shallow water and an assemblage caught incidentally while targeting Pacific hake. We will refer 

those assemblages as Slope (assemblage targeted in deeper water ), Shelf (assemblage targeted in 

shallower water) and Hake Incidental (assemblage caught while targeting Pacific hake). The 

Soviet Union survey data and present definitions further indicated that species caught while 

targeting rockfish in shallower water in more southern areas were distinct from those caught 

while targeting rockfish in shallow water mainly in areas to the north. We refer to those as 

Southern Shelf (assemblage caught with that strategy) and Northern Shelf (assemblage caught 

with that strategy). Available species compositions from known strategies did not include data 

from California, so there was no information on a possible Southern Shelf assemblage. Current 

definitions also separated near-shore species from shelf species. The foreign fleet did not 

generally fish nearshore, so we did not define a separate nearshore assemblage. When catch of 

those species did occur, it was included in the shelf assemblages. 

16

Details 

Current Definitions 

Strategies targeting rockfish using bottom trawls are presently believed to catch three 

assemblages: near-shore, shelf, and slope rockfish (Table 1, PFMC 2000). Shortspine and

longspine are caught with sablefish and Dover sole using bottom trawls at slope depths. Those 

species are, however, sometimes caught with slope rockfish (Rogers and Pikitch 1992). Some 

shelf and slope rockfish species may also be caught in midwater fisheries. Widow are targeted in 

midwater with yellowtail caught incidentally (Tagart et al. 2000). Pacific hake are also targeted 

in midwater with incidental catches of widow, yellowtail, Pacific ocean perch (Dorn 1998), and 

chilipepper (Rogers and Bence 1992). 

Known Strategies in Early Years 

Assemblages caught in early years were consistent with current definitions (Tables B-1, 

B-2). Oregon and Washington commercial fisheries market categories in 1966-76 represented 

slope (POP) and shelf (Other) (Douglas 1998). The only difference from current species 

placement was that shortspine catch was included in slope rockfish and black in shelf rather than 

near-shore rockfish (Table B-1). Bottom trawl surveys investigating P.o.p. (a slope species) in 

1965 (Westrheim 1967) and 1968-70 (Gunderson 1997) caught species compositions consistent 

with slope rockfish. The 1965 surveys, however, had shallower average bottom depth and caught 

higher proportions of shelf rockfish. 

Two sources of known midwater Pacific hake targeting indicated about 1% rockfish to 

Pacific hake with yellowtail and widow the primary incidental rockfish species (Table B-2). One 

set of data was from the 1966-67 domestic Pacific hake fishery, which operated off northern 

Oregon and Washington (Nelson 1970). The other was from the foreign fishery in Eureka and 

Columbia INPFC areas after 1976 when pelagic gear was required (Edwards et al. 1981). 

Foreign trawling was restricted in U.S. Vancouver INPFC area and most of the Monterey INPFC 

area after 1975 (INPFCa 1975). In 1977, 10 tows were observed in the Monterey INPFC area, 

and there was no incidental catch of rockfish (French et al. 1978). 

Two other sources provided coast-wide information, one using midwater gear with no 

specific target and the other targeting Pacific hake without a specific gear (Table B-2). Rockfish 

species caught in a 1977 midwater survey with a 3.2 cm (1.25 in) codend liner were mainly 

yellowtail and widow. In the Monterey INPFC area, however, shortbelly dominated (Dark et al. 

1980). The Pacific hake joint-venture fishery began in 1978 and was not restricted in terms of 

gear, except possibly a minimum mesh size of about 5 cm (2 in) (TSC 1969). Fish were caught 

by U.S. fishermen and delivered at-sea to foreign vessels. The 1978-83 percentage of rockfish to 

Pacific hake was less than 2% and widow and yellowtail again dominated in the northern areas. 

Monterey INPFC area incidental rockfish catch was chilipepper and bocaccio, however only a 

small amount was caught. 

Soviet Survey Data 

To supplement information on known strategies, Soviet survey data collected during 

1966-76 was analyzed. As mentioned, the darkblotched assessment review panel requested this 

data be examined to help allocate foreign catch to species (STAR 2000). The principal mission 

of the survey was to investigate fishery resources off U.S. and Mexican coasts for future Soviet 

exploitation (USBCF 1966). Soviet research vessels also sometimes accompanied the fishing 

fleet to locate schools of fish (USBCF 1966, 1967). Survey assemblages may therefore give an 

indication of foreign fleet commercial strategies. The survey was, however, not subject to 

17

commercial fleet regulations (offshore distance, mesh size, closed areas, etc.) (USBCF 1966). 

The survey used “flare” bottom trawls with codend mesh of 2 cm (0.8 in) and vertical opening of 

6-8 m (Ermakov and Stepanenko 1996). 

Catch weight of rockfish species and Pacific hake in individual hauls was used to define 

groups of species which were consistently caught together. Information available was either 

catch weight, catch number, or both. When both were available, the average weight for each 

species (Table B-3) was calculated. When only numbers were available, average weight was 

multiplied by number to estimate species weight. Species that averaged less than 2% of catch 

weight or were in less than 2% of tows were not included in the multivariate analyses, because 

rarely occurring species can distort such analyses. All species, however, were used to compare 

tows after they were grouped together. 

Multivariate techniques were group average clustering (Sneath and Sokal 1973) of a 

Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index (Bray and Curtis 1957) and detrended correspondence analysis 

(DCA) (Hill 1979). Those techniques have been used to define species assemblages in more 

recent catch data (Rogers and Pikitch 1992). Many small clusters of tows split off at very high 

levels of dissimilarity. To achieve a few clusters which could represent assemblages, clusters 

were selected at different levels (Table B-4). Assemblages were defined using four clusters with 

the most tows: Slope (cluster A), Hake Incidental (cluster B), South Shelf (cluster C), and North 

Shelf (cluster F). The South Shelf assemblage was more similar to the Hake Incidental 

assemblage than to the North Shelf assemblage, so the two shelf groups could not be combined. 

The names were based on dominant species, tow locations, bottom depth, and distance the gear 

was above bottom (Table B-4). Those four groups contained 92% of the 4301 tows. DCA 

ordination analyses were consistent with separation of the species dominating those four 

assemblages (Figure B-1). The first axis separated Slope versus shelf species. The second axis 

separated South Shelf versus North Shelf species. 

Step 3. Catch Allocation to Fishing Strategies/Assemblages 

Summary

 Strategies were described and reporting categories considered as a proxy for catch 

assemblage. Descriptions for each country were based on regulations, overflight surveillance and 

other observations, and catch ratios of rockfish to Pacific hake. Regulations were primarily 

available in Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee (TSC). 

Original U.S.-Canadian surveillance reports on locations of vessels and observed catches were 

available only for Washington from small vessels in 1966 (Jewell et al. 1966, Pattie 1966) and 

overflights in 1967-68 (WSFD unpubl. data). Secondary sources for 1966-68 surveillance were 

available in USBCF and INPFCa publications and in Hitz (1970). For rockfish-to-Pacific-hake 

catch ratios, Pacific hake catches were selected and calculated similarly to rockfish catch (see 

catch section above). 

Allocation was not always clear-cut. Ratios of Pacific-hake-to-rockfish in commercial 

catches and ratios of assemblage catches in Soviet Union surveys were both utilized. Decisions 

made are summarized in Table 4. Allocations were made using two methods for all countries 

except Japan. The first method allocated 11% to Hake Incidental, 21% to Shelf, and 68% to 

Slope for all years and INPFC areas combined. The second method allocated 37% to Hake 

Incidental, 31% to Shelf assemblages, and 32% to Slope assemblages. Actual percentages were 

likely intermediate between the two methods presented in Table 5. 

18

Table 4. Decisions and assumptions made in allocating foreign rockfish catch to species. 

19

Table 5.	 Step three results: Allocation of catch to assemblages (Assem.) by year and INPFC. Method 1 

uses Method 1 for Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany and Method 3 for Japan. 

Method 2 uses Method 2 for Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany and Method 3 

for Japan. 

20

Table 5.	 Step three results: Allocation of catch to assemblages (Assem.) by year and INPFC. Method 1


uses Method 1 for Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany and Method 3 for Japan. 


Method 2 uses Method 2 for Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany and Method 3

for Japan. Continued.


* Hake Inc. = Hake Incidental. 

21 
Details 

Soviet Union 

Description of fishing strategies—As mentioned, early research data helped the Soviet Union 

develop commercially profitable fishing strategies. The commercial fleet began full-scale fishing 

off the U.S. West Coast in April 1966. It mainly targeted P.o.p. and other rockfish in greater than 

100 fathom off Oregon (USBCF 1966, Table C-2). In late April, Soviet Union research vessels 

working with the fleet discovered large concentrations of Pacific hake (USBCF 1966). In May, 

the commercial fleet began to target that species (Hitz 1970), and from late May until October it 

was their primary target (INPFCa 1966). A 1967 Soviet Union report based on 1965-66 survey 0 0 data recommended trawl fisheries targeting Pacific hake and slope species in 40 -55 N (Eureka 

INPFC area and north) (Novikov and Chernyi 1967). Recommended slope targets included 

P.o.p. (in the north), splitnose and darkblotched (in the south), sablefish, and Dover sole areawide. The fleet first moved to California in December 1966, fishing off San Francisco (USBCF 

1967). In May and June 1967, research vessels worked with the fleet in that same area (USBCF 

1967). 

Regulations progressively discouraged rockfish targeting after 1968 (Table C-1). 

Although Pacific hake was the primary Soviet Union target off WO in 1967 and 1968, slope 

rockfish were still targeted from January until the middle of April (INPFCa 1967, USBCF 1968, 

Tables C-3, C-5). During those months Pacific hake schools were completing an annual 

spawning migration to Southern California. Pacific hake post-spawning schools arrived off 

central California in early March in 1966-71, on their way to Oregon (Ermakov 1974). The 

Soviet Union also targeted rockfish off California before 1969. In December 1966, the fleet was 

in an area off central California where domestic fishermen caught rockfish (USBCF 1967). In 

1967, rockfish were targeted off California either alone or with sablefish or Pacific hake (Table 0 C-4). In 1969, the Soviet Union agreed to not target rockfish south of 48 10'N. They also agreed 

to not fish selected rockfish areas in Northern California to Washington with vessels greater than 

33 m (110 ft) from 1 December - 14 April. The smallest Soviet Union fishing vessel was 29 m 

(95 ft) (Hitz 1968). Probably due to those regulations, the ratio of rockfish to Pacific hake 

dropped substantially after 1968 (Table C-6). Regulations in subsequent years progressively 

discouraged targeting rockfish in the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area (Table C-1). 

Regulations also restricted inshore Soviet Union Pacific hake fishing strategies after 1966 

(Table C-1). Although Pacific hake were first discovered in 100-200 fathom in April, in June 

and July 1966, most Pacific hake targeting was between the Columbia River and Grays Harbor, 

Washington inside 60 fathom (USBCF 1966, Table C-2). Pacific hake generally move inshore in 

June and July (Bailey et al. 1982) and form large schools close to shore off southern Washington 

(Nelson 1970). In October 1966, the U.S. took jurisdiction over the area within 12 nmi of the 

coast (USBCF 1967). In November, the Soviet Union agreed to fish only outside 12 nmi off WO 

(USBCF 1966), which generally falls between 30 and 100 fathom (Hitz 1970). In February 1967, 

they also agreed to not fish selected areas seaward of 12 nmi (USBCF 1968). One area was less 

than 60 fathom between the Columbia River and Grays Harbor (Nelson 1970). In July through 

November 1967, however, the Soviet Union still fished for Pacific hake in other areas as shallow 

as 37-60 fathom (WSFD unpubl. data, Table C-3). 

As rockfish targeting was discouraged and inshore fishing was restricted, midwater gear 

usage may have increased. Catch rates of Pacific hake are generally much higher using midwater 

than bottom trawls (Hipkins 1967). In the early years, there was evidence that the Soviet Union 

targeted Pacific hake on-bottom with rockfish. In 1966 off Oregon and Washington, species 

specific to the shelf assemblage (canary and greenstripe) were noted with Pacific hake catches 

(Table C-2). Nelson and Larkins (1970) stated that on the shelf, Pacific hake generally form 

large post-spawning feeding schools in daytime just off-bottom (within 10 fathom of the bottom). 

Over the slope, the schools are more off-bottom (Nelson and Larkins 1970). Off Monterey 

22

before 1969, Pacific hake and rockfish were targeted together (Tables C- 4, C-5). The high 

percentage of rockfish to Pacific hake in Monterey and Eureka INPFC areas in 1967 and 1968 

(34-333%) and the April-May timing of the Pacific hake catch (Table C-4) indicates the fleet 

may not have been targeting off-bottom post-spawning schools. 

Actual observations of midwater versus bottom trawling were limited. The first midwater 

trawling (using pairs of medium vessels) was observed by overflight surveillance at the end of 

June 1966 (USBCF 1966). Single vessels may also have towed in midwater, but this would not 

be evident from the air. Pair trawling was said to increase in 1967, but in 1968 medium vessels 

began to be replaced by large vessels. Although pair trawls caught up to 90 t (100 tons) in a tow 

(USBCF 1966), large vessels had processing plants on board, reducing the need for support 

vessels. By August of 1968, large stern trawlers working alone were catching up to 36 t of 

Pacific hake in a single tow. In 1974-76, Canadian observers reported Soviets fished off-bottom 

(INPFCa 1977). Ermakov and Stepanenko (1996) stated on-bottom trawls were the main fishing 

gear for foreign fishermen until they were prohibited in 1971. Available information on Soviet 

Union-U.S. agreements, however, first mentioned that prohibition in 1977 (Table C-1). 

Mesh size used by the Soviet fleet appeared to be relatively small for commercial gear but 

larger than in their survey mesh. In 1966, a vessel catching Pacific hake and some canary off 

Washington was noted with 5 cm (2 in) codend mesh (Jewell et al. 1966). In 1967, Soviets were 

noted catching rockfish and Pacific hake with 5-8 cm (2-3 in) codend mesh in the Monterey 

INPFC area (USBCF 1967). In 1968, sablefish and Pacific hake were caught with 9-10 cm 

(3.5-4 in) mesh in the Eureka INPFC area (USBCF 1968). In November 1968, the Soviet Union 

agreed to a minimum mesh size of 6-7 cm (2.4-2.8 in) (Table C-1). 

Reporting categories—Soviet Union reporting categories were of limited use in allocating to 

catch assemblage. As mentioned earlier, catch was not divided until 1973. Subsequent divisions 

were unclear. The All-Union Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO) 

in Moscow said “Rockfishes” in 1974 was P.o.p., while Other was yellowtail, redstripe, 

splitnose, darkblotched, widow, and silvergray (Larkins unpubl. data). Larkins questioned this 

because it seemed unlikely 871 t of P.o.p. was caught off California with only 19 t of other 

species. Comparing 1973 POP to 1974-76 Rockfish indicates the categories were not equivalent. 

POP was 17% of the total rockfish catch in the Columbia INPFC area and 10% in the Eureka 

INPFC area. Rockfish in 1974-76 was 96-99% of the catch in both areas (Table 3). VNIRO later 

also appeared unsure of the sorting, reporting 1975-76 catch as “Other Rockfish” versus 

“Rockfish (P.O.P.?)” (VNIRO 1978). (It is not known whether P.o.p. as used by the Soviets was 

a category or a species). Forrester et al. (1983) and Fraidenburg et al. (1977), however, assigned 

Rockfish to P.o.p. in 1974-76. 

Allocation methods—After considering the above information on fishing strategies, two 

methods of allocating catch to assemblage were derived. One method was based mainly on 

commercial strategy information, including Soviet Union targeting from the literature 

descriptions and rockfish-to-Pacific-hake ratios in known commercial Pacific hake strategies. 

The other method relied on Soviet Union survey ratios of Pacific hake to rockfish and 

assemblage catch ratios. 

Method 1—For Method 1, Hake Incidental was allocated 1% of Soviet Union Pacific 

hake catch in each year and INPFC area (Table C-6). The range of known commercial 

percentages was 0.2-1.7% (Table B-2). Percentages higher than 1% often exceeded total rockfish 

catch. Any remaining rockfish catch in Eureka-U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas was allocated to 

Slope. 

For the Monterey INPFC area, where it was less clear which rockfish species were 

targeted, the remainder was allocated to Shelf and Slope using Soviet Union survey data. Survey 

vessels were noted working with the fleet in the Monterey INPFC area in 1967, the year of 

23

greatest catch. Since Soviet Union commercial mesh size was larger than their survey mesh, the 

smallest bodied-species (shortbelly, half-banded, and pygmy [Table B-3 ]) were excluded in 

computing the ratio. Mesh size of 4.5" (11 cm) does not catch shortbelly (Lenarz 1980). To 

compute the ratio, Northern and Southern Shelf catch were combined into Shelf. Ratios were 

calculated for three time periods: 1966-68, 1969-70, and 1971-76. Those periods reduced yearto-year variation from limited samples (Table C-7), yet allowed changes in strategy (rockfish 

targeting in 1966-68, midwater gear possibly required after 1970). The result was about one-half 

Shelf and one-half Slope in 1966-67, which appeared reasonable. They were noted fishing in 

100-150 fathom (Tables C-2, C-4) and Southern Shelf averaged 95 fathom (Table B-4). 

Method 1 rules were: 

1. 1% of the Pacific hake catch by year and INPFC area = Hake Incidental; 

2.	 For U.S. Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka INPFC areas:


remaining rockfish catch = Slope;


For Monterey INPFC area: 

remaining rockfish catch is allocated to Slope or Shelf by survey proportions of 

large-bodied rockfish species during three time periods. 

Method 2—While the first method seemed reasonable, it didn’t account for several 

observations in the literature. There were possible changes in Pacific hake targeting over time or 

by INPFC area. Shelf assemblage catches were noted in catches north of the Monterey INPFC 

area. Finally, Soviet fleet mesh nets of 5-8 cm (2-3 in) probably caught some smaller-bodied 

species in the Monterey INPFC area. 

To see if Soviet Union survey data could be used to further allocate fleet catch to fishing 

strategy/assemblage, comparisons were conducted. Rockfish-to-Pacific-hake survey catch ratios 

were compared to those for the fleet by year and INPFC area (Table C-8). Rockfish catches were 

similarly distributed across time except that the survey had large catches of rockfish in the 

Monterey INPFC area in 1974 (mainly shortbelly), while the Soviet Union commercial fleet did 

not. Pacific hake catches were not similarly distributed. Fleet Pacific hake catch was more 

evenly distributed over time (Table C-8). The survey had overall higher ratios of rockfish to 

Pacific hake than the fleet, but Pacific hake survey catch increased in 1975-76, with a higher 

proportion of tows in Hake Incidental. A higher proportion of Pacific hake catch was also made 

in Hake Incidental over time, especially in Monterey and Eureka INPFC areas (top of Figure 

C-1). 

Changes also occurred within the survey Hake Incidental assemblage by year and INPFC 

area. Those changes may be associated with increased fleet targeting of Monterey INPFC area 

post-spawning schools after 1968 and increased use of midwater gear over time. The percentage 

of Pacific hake to rockfish in that assemblage generally dropped over time (bottom of Figure 

C-1). This was especially true in the Monterey INPFC area. Gear depth above bottom tended to 

rise over time, although information was often missing (bottom of Figure C-1). 

Method 2 used information on survey changes within Hake Incidental over time and 

INPFC area, but not the proportion of survey catch in Hake Incidental. The same three time 

periods as in Method 1 were used (1966-68, 1969-70, and 1971-76). Soviet Union fleet catch of 

Pacific hake by period and INPFC area was multiplied by corresponding percentages of rockfish 

to Pacific hake in survey Hake Incidental tows (Table C-9). Those percentages were greater than 

or less than 1%, depending upon the area and period. Any remaining catch was allocated to 

Slope, South Shelf, and North Shelf assemblages, based on their proportions in the survey data. 

24

Method 2 rules were: 

1. 	 Pacific hake catch multiplied by percentage rockfish/Pacific hake in survey Hake 

Incidental assemblage by INPFC area during three time periods = Hake Incidental; 

2. 	 Remaining rockfish catch is allocated to Slope, Northern Shelf, and Southern Shelf 

based on survey ratios by INPFC area during three time periods. 

Actual assemblage designation probably falls between the two estimates. Figure C-2 

compares catch allocation to assemblage from the two methods as well as using survey 

proportions by year without adjustment. Although the Soviet Union caught some shelf species in 

the Columbia and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas, shelf catch in adjusted survey assemblages was 

high given the fleet was targeting mainly slope rockfish and Pacific hake. Soviet Union fleet 

mesh size (5-10 cm) was between the survey 2 cm and 11 cm, which doesn’t catch shortbelly, so 

an intermediate amount of shortbelly was likely. Survey Hake Incidental percentages, which 

included large amounts of shortbelly, allocated all rockfish catch in 1967 Monterey INPFC area 

to that assemblage, yet literature indicates rockfish were also targeted alone or with sablefish 

(Table C-4). 

Japan 

Description of fishing strategies—Information on Japanese fishing strategies indicates they 

used trawls to target P.o.p. and Pacific hake with rockfish. They also had a longline fishery for 

sablefish which caught very small amounts of POP and Other, primarily in the Vancouver INPFC 

area. Japan began fishing off WOC at the end of 1966 (INPFCb 1967). In 1967, they were 

observed with trawl catches of Pacific hake with ocean perch; ocean perch; P.o.p.; and long-line 

catches of sablefish with P.o.p. and lingcod (USBCF 1966). Ocean perch probably was another 

name for rockfish. In September 1967, they had three fleets licensed for experimental Pacific 

hake trawling (USBCF 1968). This was apparently on-bottom because their findings mentioned 

problems with the rugged bottom. One source stated Japan did not initiate Pacific hake fisheries 

off the U.S. coast until 1971 and stopped in 1975 (Kaczynski 1981). Pacific hake catch, 

however, was reported in fishing years 1970-76. 

Japan did not appear to develop an off-bottom Pacific hake strategy. The percentage of 

rockfish in the combined Pacific hake and rockfish trawl catch remained high throughout the 

time period (Table C-10). The percentages were generally comparable to those in Northern and 

Southern Shelf and Slope Soviet Union survey assemblages (Table B-4). This indicates Japan 

was either not accessing the large, relatively pure midwater Pacific hake schools, and/or was 

continuing to primarily target rockfish. Species compositions reported by Japan did not rule out 

either on-bottom or off-bottom strategies. They were mainly chilipepper and widow, in addition 

to P.o.p. (although chilipepper in 1974 represented several species) (Table C-11). Both 

chilipepper and widow can be caught on-bottom or off-bottom. Domestic widow landings in 

recent years are caught more often with bottom gear than with midwater gear (Williams et al. 

2000). Observer reports for the Vancouver INPFC area and northward in 1974-76 indicated 

Japan fished more on-bottom than the Russians because they were able to fish over more uneven 

topography (INPFCa 1977). 

Japan also did not appear to be as affected by regulations as were the Russians. Japan 

agreed to reduce trawl effort on rockfish in 1969 and agreed not to target rockfish after 1971 

(Table C-1). In spite of that, the percentage of rockfish to Pacific hake did not change 

substantially after 1970 (Table C-10). Japan also continued to fish within the 12 nmi limit after 

the U.S. took jurisdiction. In 1967, Japan said they did not recognize that limit (USBCF 1966). 

Finally, there was no indication that Japan used as small a mesh as the Soviet Union. 

Mesh size reported for 1967 (U.S. 1967) and 1974 (FAJ 1974) both agreed that Japanese trawlers 

used 8-10 cm (3.5-4 in) codend mesh (Table C-11). 

25

Reporting Categories—Sorting of Japanese catches into POP vesrus Other may have changed 

after 1972 regulations (INPFCa 1974). In 1973-74, POP was regulated in Columbia and 

Vancouver INPFC areas, with a very small limit (16 t) in the Columbia INPFC area. After 1972, 

almost all Columbia INPFC area catch was reported as Other. Japan said increased catch in the 

Other category was because of more interest in species other than P.o.p. and more careful sorting 

of POP (INPFCa 1974). Species composition for Other in 1973-1974, as reported by Japanese 

fishing companies, indicates another reason. That category was 17% P.o.p. (Table C-11). To 

prevent unlimited catch of P.o.p. reported in the Other category, all rockfish combined were 

regulated in 1975-76. In those years, Japan reported all rockfish catch as Other. 

Allocation Method—Based on the above information, all Japanese catch was allocated to either 

Slope or Shelf using market category information. This assumed no Hake Incidental strategy. 

Since longline strategy catch was very limited and no species compositions were available, it was 

included with the trawl catch. In consideration of sorting differences due to regulations, one-half 

of Other was assigned to POP in northern areas after 1972. This involved reassignment of 1332 t 

in the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area and 933 t in the Columbia INPFC area (Table 3). 

Method 3 rules were: 

1.	 1973-1976 in Columbia and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas:


POP + 0.5 Other = Slope,


0.5 Other = Shelf; 

2.	 For all other years and INPFC areas:


POP = Slope,


Other = Shelf.


Poland 

Fishing strategy descriptions—Poland appeared to target both rockfish and Pacific hake. In 

1973, observed catches in Vancouver were dogfish, hake, and red snapper (INPFCa 1974). Red 

snapper was probably P.o.p. In 1974, trawlers were noted around Heceta Bank, Oregon (INPFCa 

1975, U.S. 1975). Hake catches were observed (U.S. 1975). In 1975, they agreed to no longer 

target rockfish (INPFCa 1975, Table C-1). In the first half of 1975, they fished primarily near 

San Francisco, California. Moderate catches of small hake and large catches of rockfish were 

reported (U.S. 1975). Targeting Pacific hake off the U.S. West Coast continued throughout the 

rest of 1975-76 (INPFCa 1976). It is not known whether Poland fished on- or off-bottom for 

Pacific hake. The percentages of rockfish to Pacific hake were relatively low, but somewhat 

higher than for the Soviet Union in those years (Table C-12). 

Reporting categories—Poland reported catch in 1975-76 with limited species compositions 

(Table C-11). In 1975, most rockfish catch was not designated to species. In 1976, rockfish 

catch was mainly splitnose or yellowtail. There was a substantial amount of “other species” 

catch, which it was assumed did not contain rockfish. It seems unlikely, however, that they could 

catch only splitnose and yellowtail without also catching other rockfish. 

Allocation method— Since there appeared to be similarities between Soviet Union and Poland 

fishing strategies, the two methods (Method 1 and Method 2) developed for Soviet catch were 

employed to allocate 1975-76 catch (Table C-12). Polish catch in 1974 was found only in P.o.p. 

stock assessments (Gunderson et al. 1977). Since it not known if other rockfish were caught, 

those catches were left as P.o.p. species. 

26

Bulgaria and East Germany 

Total rockfish catch was estimated using the method of Gunderson (unpubl. data). This 

catch was allocated to rockfish assemblages based on the two methods (Method 1 and Method 2) 

developed for the Soviet Union (Table C-13). This was consistent with the assumption made to 

derive the total catches: similar fishing strategies for those three countries. 

Republic of Korea 

Republic of Korea rockfish catch was primarily from longline gear and all catch was 

specified as POP. Longline gear fishes more selectively than trawl gear, so it was all assumed to 

be P.o.p. species. 

Step 4. Derive and Apply Species Compositions to Assemblage 

Catch 

Summary 

Many decisions were required in this step. They are included in Table 4. Two decisions 

which had a substantial influence were changing some species identification in the Soviet survey 

data and averaging Method 1 and Method 2 species catches by year and INPFC area (Table 6). 

Two sets of species compositions were derived. One set was based on available 

commercial data and applied to Method 1 assemblage catch for the Soviet Union, Poland, 

Bulgaria, and East Germany. Those Shelf and Slope compositions were also applied to Japanese 

assemblage catches because codend mesh size appeared comparable to that in the domestic fleet. 

The other set was based on Soviet Union species compositions for Hake Incidental, Slope, 

Southern Shelf, and Northern Shelf. Those were applied to Method 2 assemblage catch. 

Averaged catch-by-species was about one-fourth P.o.p. with ten other species constituting 

most of the catch (Figure 4). Unspecified catch was less than 1% of the total. Dominant species 

changed by INPFC area (Figure 5). Catch by species by INPFC area and year are in Table 7. 

Details 

Commercial compositions 

Hake Incidental species compositions were selected from both foreign and joint-venture 

fleet observer data collected during 1977-83 (Table B-2). Compositions from the Soviet Union 

and Polish fleets were used for Eureka and Columbia INPFC areas. Those data were not 

available for Monterey and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas, so joint venture data were utilized. 

Those compositions by INPFC area were applied to each year in 1966-76. Using foreign 

compositions for Eureka and Columbia INPFC areas versus joint-venture for all INPFC areas, 

increased catch for yellowtail and decreased widow catch in Method 1 estimates. 

Species compositions in domestic landings before 1977 were used for Shelf and Slope. 

Compositions by shelf and slope market categories were not available for California. In addition, 

Washington market sample compositions were not expanded by catch, and may not be 

representative of the fishery. Therefore all available information was compiled on species catch 

by INPFC area and year for years before 1977 (Tables D1-D6). Landings were divided into slope 

27

a Table 6. Consequences (t) of changing species identification in the Soviet Union survey data (Survey ) b and using Method 1 versus Method 2 to allocate catch (Method ). 

a Survey = changes in black to yellowtail, widow to blue, flag to redbanded, and chilipepper to unidentifed. b M ethod = M ethod 1- ([M ethod 1+M ethod 2]/2). 

28

Figure 4. Proportion of total foreign rockfish catch (t) off Washington, Oregon, and California in 1966­

1976 by species. (Only the dominant ten species are identified.) 

Figure 5. Change in dominance of top seven species in the 1966-1976 Washington, Oregon, and 

California foreign catch by INPFC area. Total catch is only selected species. 

29

Table 7. Step four results: Allocation to species of foreign rockfish catch (t) off the Washington, 

Oregon, and California in 1966-1976 by INPFC area and year. 

30

Table 7. Step four results: Allocation to species of foreign rockfish catch (t) off the Washington, 

Oregon, and California in 1966-1976 by INPFC area and year. Continued. 

31

Table 7. Step four results: Allocation to species of foreign rockfish catch (t) off the Washington, 

Oregon, and California in 1966-1976 by INPFC area and year. Continued. 

32

Table 7. Step four results: Allocation to species of foreign rockfish catch (t) off the Washington, 

Oregon, and California in 1966-1976 by INPFC area and year. Continued. 

33

and shelf species by INPFC area and two periods, which allowed for lacking or incomplete 

sampling in many years. Unspecified rockfish could not be divided between shelf and slope 

based on species, so that catch was divided based on percentages in the known species catch by 

INPFC area and time period. 

Soviet Union survey compositions 

Soviet Union survey species compositions were first examined by year and INPFC area to 

see if there were time periods of distinct change. There was variation due to small sample sizes, 

but there did not appear to be a change in Hake Incidental and Shelf compositions after the 12 

nmi limit was instituted in early 1967 (Figure D-1). What was noticeable was a change in those 

assemblages between 1969 and 1970 in the Columbia and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas. Blue 

and black were dominant species before 1970, while yellowtail and widow occurred only after 

1969 (Figures D-1, D-2). 

Further investigation indicated widow was misidentified as blue and yellowtail as black 

before 1970. All four species were caught over similar depths, with most large tows in 50-150 

fathom (Figure D-2). Both black and blue are classified as near-shore species, while widow and 

yellowtail are found at shelf depths (Table 1). Percentages for black in Northern Shelf (29% in 

Table B-4) and yellowtail in domestic Shelf (35-62% in Table B-1) were similar. Widow and 

blue had a wider latitudinal range for all survey catches and nearly pure catches of widow and 

blue also formed similar clusters of tows (Clusters L and K) (Table B-4). 

Soviet Union surveys also reported catches of flag and chilipepper in the northern INPFC 

areas (Table D-9). Redbanded first appeared in Soviet Union data in 1971 in the Columbia and 

U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas and 1972 in Eureka and Monterey INPFC areas. After those years, 

both flag and redbanded were in the data in all areas. Chilipepper catches in Columbia and U.S. 

Vancouver INPFC areas occurred primarily in 1966-68. Chilipepper is fished commercially only 

off California, although it can occur northward to Canada (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). The species 

resembles P.o.p., bocaccio, and redstripe, which occur more frequently in the northern areas 

(Eschmeyer et al. 1983); and Japan in 1973 used “chilipepper” to refer to several species 

(INPFCa 1974). 

Based on those preliminary analyses and species literature review, compositions for 

Soviet Survey assemblages were derived by INPFC area and the three time periods used for 

assemblage ratios (1966-69, 1970-71, and 1972-76) (Tables D-8, D-9). Black before 1970 was 

assumed to be yellowtail and blue before 1970 was assumed to be widow. This substantially 

increased yellowtail and widow catches in the final estimates, but they were still less than 

estimated using Method 1 (Table 6). All flag in Eureka-U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas were 

changed to redbanded, and all chilipepper in Columbia and U.S. Vancouver INPFC areas was 

assigned to unidentified rockfish. 

Averaging Method 1 and Method 2 

After species compositions were applied to estimates from Method 1 and Method 2 for 

catches by Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany, the catch for each species was 

averaged by year and INPFC area. Comparing Method 1 estimates to the average showed 

substantial differences for P.o.p., shortbelly, widow, and yellowtail (Table 6). 

Estimates were averaged with the belief that actual species compositions, as well as 

assemblage designations, were between the two sets of compositions. The primary difference 

between compositions was the amount of shortbelly versus chilipepper or bocaccio in the 

Monterey INPFC area Shelf (versus Southern Shelf) and Hake Incidental (Figure D-3). Domestic 

mesh size was (11-13 cm) 4.5-5" during 1965-76 (PFMC 1992). As mentioned earlier, this size 

34

mesh would not catch shortbelly (Lenarz 1980). Soviet fleet mesh size was intermediate between 

domestic and survey sizes, at least for Shelf and Slope. Both sets also had other assumptions that 

were likely violated (Table 4). Averaging the two estimates could reduce biases from each 

method. 

The commercial percentages had more shortspine versus splitnose in Slope (Figure D-3). 

This could have been bias from discarding. Domestic fishermen discarded rockfish based on 1 species (splitnose in particular [J. Pennisi ]), size, or a combination (shortspine smaller than 33

cm [13 in]) (Rogers et al. 1998). United States fishermen and biologists who observed the 

foreign fleet during 1966-76 agreed rockfish were not discarded because of either size or species 1 2 3 4 (J. Pennisi , G. White , B. Larkins , and B. Pattie ). The higher percentages of domestic fleet

shortspine may also have been from fishing deeper than the Soviet Union survey. 

Both the domestic fleet and the Soviet Union survey were allowed to fish in areas 

restricted to the foreign fleet. This may have biased the species compositions. The domestic 

fleet, however, may have had greater incentive to fish those areas. Logically, Soviet Union 

researchers would not study or explore areas they could not utilize commercially. 

Comparison with Previous Estimates 

Summary 

Previous foreign catch estimates for 1965-76 have been accepted for many years, so it is 

important to understand how they differ from estimates produced in this document. The greatest 

percentage differences in combined domestic and foreign catch for 1965-1976 were for P.o.p., 

shortspine, and widow (Figure 6). Ratios of new to old domestic plus foreign catches were: 

6.9 - widow, 1.9 - shortspine, 1.2 - chilipepper and bocaccio, 1.1 - yellowtail and darkblotched, 

0.8 - canary, and 0.52 - P.o.p. Stock assessments for several species, including widow, 

shortspine, chilipepper, and bocaccio, did not include foreign catch estimates for that period. 

P.o.p., canary, and yellowtail foreign catch estimates were developed before 1985 and calculation 

details were not always available or remembered by the authors. Therefore an attempt was made 

to repeat the methods using available information and citations. 

In the new calculations, P.o.p. and canary estimates were reduced, while yellowtail 

estimates were increased (Table 8). P.o.p. estimates decreased primarily because some of the 

nominal catches assumed to be pure P.o.p. were allocated to other species. The U.S. portion of

the Vancouver area catch was also reduced. Canary was reduced because one-half of Japanese 

Other in 1973-76 was assigned to POP, the assessment overestimated some nominal catch, and 

canary was a small component of Hake Incidental. Yellowtail was increased because the Eureka 

catch was added, yellowtail was a dominant member of both Hake Incidental and Shelf, and the 

original method tried to not use catch already allocated to P.o.p. 

1

J. Pennisi, Royal Seafood, M unicipal W harf, M onterey, CA 93440. Pers. commun., 2001. 

2

G. White, 1150 SW 11th St., Newport, OR 97365. Pers. commun., 2001. 

3

B. Larkins, 14203 Cove Ct., Anacortes, W A. Pers. commun., 2001. 

4

B. Pattie, W DFW , 600 Capitol W ay N., Olympia, W A 98501. Pers. commun., 2002. 

35 
Figure 6. 	Catch estimates from this paper (NEW) versus recent stock assessments (OLD) for species 

with highest percentage change. Unshaded bars are foreign catch, shaded are domestic. 

OLD = 2000 assessments of P.o.p. and widow and 1998 assessment of shortspine. 

36

c

Table 8. Foreign catch (t) estimates from this paper (New) versus recent stock assessments (Old) for comparable years and areas.

a

 Inanelli et al. (2000). 

b

 Rogers et al. (2000). 

 STAT (1999) and Williams et al.

d

 Tagart et al. (2000). 

e

 Williams et al. (2000). 

f

 Rogers et al. (1998). 

g

 Ralston et al. (1998). 

h MacCall et al. (1999). 

(1999) 

37 
Details 

P.o.p. 

The most recent P.o.p. stock assessment (Ianelli et al. 2000) used estimates developed by 

Westrheim et al. (1972), Gunderson et al. (1977), and Fraidenburg et al. (1978), with U.S. 

portion of the Vancouver INPFC area estimates from Ianelli et al. (1992). The earlier 

assessments had P.o.p. foreign catch for Vancouver and Columbia INPFC areas. Ianelli et al. 

(1992) presented combined U.S. Vancouver and Columbia INPFC area foreign catch. After 

subtracting Columbia INPFC area catch, it was evident the U.S. portion was 75% of the 

Vancouver INPFC area catch in all years. 

Sufficient information was available to closely repeat the estimates of Westrheim et al. (1972), 

Gunderson et al. (1977), and Fraidenburg et al. (1978) (Appendix E, Tables 1 and 2). They allocated 42­

100% of the BC-reported Soviet Union catch to the Vancouver INPFC area. For 1965-1967, Vancouver 

catch was estimated based on fleet activity and monthly catch rates (Westrheim et al. 1967). For 

1968-70, BC catch was allocated to Vancouver versus Charlotte INPFC areas based on observed 

vessel activity (Westrheim et al. 1967). In 1971, 1972, and 1974, all BC catch was placed in the 

Vancouver INPFC area (Table E-1). WO Soviet Union catch was allocated to the Columbia 

INPFC area (Table E-1). Except in 1974, Soviet Union catch reported as Rockfish (or POP) was 

assumed to be P.o.p. In 1974, Soviet Union Other was allocated to P.o.p. Japanese catch for 

fishing year was allocated to the later year and POP was assumed to be P.o.p. Polish P.o.p. 

estimates in 1975-76 were based on species compositions supplied by Poland (Morski unpubl. 

data, Murai unpubl. data a). Polish 1974 catches could not be found in the literature. Bulgaria 

and East Germany estimates were based on assuming the same ratios of Pacific-hake-to-rockfish 

and POP to Other as in 1976 Soviet catch (Gunderson unpubl. data). POP estimates were then 

allocated to P.o.p. species. 

New estimates differed from those in the assessments in several ways (Tables E-1, E-2). 

Some of those involved choice of market category catches to which species or U.S. proportions 

are applied (starting catches). Soviet Union catch was allocated to INPFC area based on 

overflight estimates. This generally increased the Vancouver INPFC area starting catch estimates 

and decreased the Columbia INPFC area estimates in 1967-72. In 1973-76, the starting catch 

included all Soviet Union rockfish catch, while the assessment used POP, Other, or Rockfish. 

Starting catch estimates for Soviet Union 1966 Columbia INPFC area were also substantially 

higher. The assessments used the lower value (10,000 t) from the range considered. For the 

Japanese catch, 1⁄2 of the other catch was allocated to POP in 1973-76, which made the starting 

catches higher in both areas in those years. Considering all countries, years, and areas combined, 

allocating nominal catch to other species caused the greatest reduction in P.o.p. catch (Table 

E-5). U.S. Vancouver INPFC area percentages were also 33%-75% lower than the 75% used in 

the assessment. 

Canary and Yellowtail 

Canary and yellowtail foreign catch for 1967-76 used in recent stock assessments are 

based on estimates first developed in 1984. STAT (1999) used canary foreign catch estimates 

from Golden and Demory (1984), with 44.3% Vancouver INPFC area allocation to U.S. portion 

from Sampson and Stewart (1994). Tagart et al. (2000) used yellowtail foreign catch estimates 

from Tagart (1988), with U.S. Vancouver INPFC area allocations from Tagart (1993). Tagart 

(1988) made minor adjustments to one of the estimates produced by Tagart (1984). Tagart 

(1993) allocated those catches (placed under the whiting fishery) to three areas: Eureka/S. 

Columbia, N. Columbia, and S. Vancouver. All Columbia INPFC area catch was placed in 

N. Columbia; all Vancouver INPFC area catch from 1967-74 and 2% Vancouver INPFC area 

catch from 1975-76 in S. Vancouver. Tagart and Wallace (1996) specified this catch was in the 

U.S. portion. 

38 
Tagart (1984) and Golden and Demory (1984) worked together developing foreign catch 

5 estimates for yellowtail and canary (J. Golden ). Using information supplied in both 

assessments, their calculations were nearly replicated (Tables E-3, E-4). Some of the catch they 

utilized was based on subtracting estimates from different methods of allocation to INPFC area 

(Soviet Union) or calendar year (Japan). For one of their methods, they subtracted 1967-72 

Soviet Union P.o.p. estimates from Gunderson et al. (1977) (Rockfish based on state boundary 

allocation to INPFC area), from Soviet Union Rockfish from Fraidenburg et al. (1977) (based on 

overflight allocation to INPFC area). If the amount allocated to P.o.p. was greater than the 

Rockfish estimates, the left-over catch was set to zero (Tagart 1984). For Japanese Other they 

selected maximum estimates from Forrester et al. (1978) (allocation to calendar year based on 

monthly estimates) or Fraidenburg et al. (1977) (allocation based on fishing year to later year). 

To that catch, they applied domestic landing species compositions minus P.o.p. (Golden and 

Demory 1984). This was the method later chosen by Tagart (1988) for yellowtail estimates. 

Golden and Demory (1984) also used those estimates, but averaged the 1967-72 Soviet Union 

canary catch with another estimate. For that estimate, they applied domestic catch compositions 

including P.o.p. to all Soviet Union Rockfish in Fraidenburg et al. (1977). 

The new yellowtail and canary estimates were overall higher for yellowtail and lower for 

canary (Tables E-3, E-4, E-5). New Soviet Union starting values were higher for 1965-72 

because they included all Soviet Union rockfish catch rather than just Other catch. New Japanese 

starting values were less in early years because only one method of allocation to calendar year 

was used. Japanese starting values in 1973-76 were also less because one-half of Other was 

placed in POP. The percentage of U.S. catch in the Vancouver INPFC area was 2-76% less than 

in yellowtail assessments and 44% less to 31% more than in canary assessments. The percentage 

yellowtail in total catch was generally higher than applied previously. That was because much of 

the Soviet Union catch was allocated to the Hake Incidental. Yellowtail is a dominant member 

of both the Hake Incidental and Northern Shelf assemblages. The canary percentage was reduced 

because that species is only a minor component of Hake Incidental. Some of the difference in 

canary estimates was also due to a skipped year in the assessment. 

5 J. Golden, 3000 NE M ossy Ln, Toledo, OR, 97391.	 Pers. commun., 2001. 

39 
40

DISCUSSION


Use of historical foreign catch estimates from this document could affect previously made 

stock status determinations for eight rockfish, five of which are considered overfished (Table 8). 

The overfished species are P.o.p., canary, widow, darkblotched, and bocaccio. Revised foreign 

catch estimates for 1965-76 would decrease foreign catch for P.o.p. and canary during that time 

period by 60% and 50%, respectively. Darkblotched estimates would increase by 20%. Widow 

and bocaccio assessments have not included any foreign catch estimates (Williams et al. 2000, 

MacCall et al. 1999). Foreign catch for bocaccio was higher than for widow in modeled years, 

but was a smaller proportion of total catch. Estimates in this document would also increase catch 

for species not presently overfished, including yellowtail, shortspine, and chilipepper. Although 

the first year in many stock assessment models is after 1966 (Table 8), catch in earlier years 

could affect assumed historical catch or indicate the model should start with an earlier year. 

Foreign catch estimates improve on previous estimates because the same catch is not 

applied to more than one species. Foreign rockfish catch in 1966-76 U.S. Vancouver plus 

Columbia INPFC areas has been over-allocated for all years except 1966, 1974, and 1976. Catch 

used in the P.o.p. assessment (Ianelli et al. 2000) admittedly contained unknown quantities of 

other rockfish species (Gunderson et al. 1977). Some of that catch was also allocated to canary 

(STAT 1999), yellowtail (Tagart et al. 2000), and darkblotched (Rogers et al. 2000). This was 

done intentionally for darkblotched (10% of P.o.p. foreign catch) and canary (partially). For 

canary (partially) and yellowtail, it resulted from comparing foreign catch estimates derived using 

different methods of allocation to calendar year and INPFC area. 

Another improvement in this document is that allocation to the U.S. Vancouver from the 

Vancouver Area used information from the foreign fisheries and was done consistently for all 

species. The new allocations used the best available information on foreign catch to allocate 

Vancouver catch. That information included WOC catch minus Conception-to-Columbia INPFC 

area catch, catch and effort by small area blocks, and areas closed to fishing by regulations. 

Although Soviet Union reporting area boundaries were not clearly defined, some BC 

catch may have previously been included in the U.S. Vancouver INPFC area. In early P.o.p. 

assessments, Gunderson et al. (1977) and Fraidenburg et al. (1978) stated the boundary between 0 Soviet-reported WO and BC was 48 30'N. Given that boundary, their Vancouver catch was all 

from Canadian waters. In 1992, 75% of this catch was allocated to the U.S. portion (Ianelli et al. 6 7 1992). The basis of this percentage could not be easily determined (J. Ianelli and D. Ito ). Ito et 

al. (1987) stated U.S. fishermen caught 75% of their 1972-76 P.o.p. Vancouver INPFC area 

catch in the U.S. portion, so this may have been the basis of the allocation. 

In addition to preventing overestimation, the allocations in this document allow inclusion 

of almost all foreign catch between the Mexican and Canadian borders. The darkblotched and 

yellowtail assessments were for areas reaching into California, yet California foreign rockfish 

catch estimates were not included in those assessments (nor any other assessment). In addition, 

1974 Soviet Union catch reported as Rockfish (versus Other) was never included in any 

assessment. Given uncertainty in 1974 Soviet Union sorting into categories (Larkins 1975), 

Gunderson et al. (1977) assumed Other was P.o.p. In subsequent years, Rockfish was assumed to 

be P.o.p. (Fraidenburg et al. 1978). Yellowtail and canary authors (Tagart 1984, Golden and 

Demory 1984) also allocated catch from Other in 1974, assuming that category contained the 

same species as in other years and for other countries. 

6 J. Ianelli, 7600 Sandpoint W ay NE, Seattle, W A 98115. Pers. commun., 2000. 

7 D. Ito, 7600 Sandpoint W ay NE, Seattle, W A 98115.	 Pers. commun., 2000. 

41 
As a final improvement, this is the first time all available information on targeting and 

species compositions has been used to allocate catch to species. Recognizing that some rockfish 

catch was incidental while targeting Pacific hake, and applying species compositions specific to 

that assemblage probably resulted in more accurate catch estimates. P.o.p. estimates were based 

on assuming all unspecified rockfish catch was P.o.p. Yellowtail foreign catch was placed under 

an at-sea whiting (another name for Pacific hake) strategy in the assessment (Tagart et al. 2000), 

but yellowtail, canary, and darkblotched assessment authors allocated based only on species 

compositions in domestic catches. Domestic fishermen in 1965-76 targeted Pacific hake only in 

a 1966-67 experimental fishery. Yellowtail was a dominant member of both the domestic shelf 

assemblage and incidental catch from targeting Pacific hake, but canary, darkblotched, and P.o.p. 

were a small percentage of the incidental catch. 

Although the current methods may have led to improved allocations, it must be 

recognized that catch estimates even prior to allocation were uncertain. Soviet catch estimates 

were particularly questionable. Fraidenburg et al. (1977) regarded them as minimum estimates 

only. Surveillance information was sometimes in direct conflict with Soviet-reported areas of 

catch. The substantial difference in 1966 literature estimates is evidence of uncertainty in the 

early years. Calculations made in this document based on vessel sightings and catch per vessel 

day justified selecting the higher 1966 estimate, but even those data were uncertain. 

It should also be recognized that while allocations to species were based on the best 

available knowledge, they required many assumptions and decisions. Several decisions 

substantially affected catch estimates for P.o.p., shortbelly, widow, yellowtail, blue, and black 

(Table 5). Some decisions did, however, balance the effects of other decisions. Other 

uncertainties were not evaluated directly. 

Some Soviet Union survey species identification was questioned and changed, but other 

species may have been incorrectly identified. Many rockfish species appear similar and 

identification in the 1960’s was still evolving. Yellowmouth is often caught with P.o.p. and 

appears very similar. It was not officially designated as a separate species until 1967 (Westrheim 

and Tsuyuki 1967). Douglas (1998) and Fraidenburg et al. (1977) reported yellowmouth 

landings beginning in 1965, probably based on knowledge of the species previous to the official 8 description (W. Barss ). Yellowmouth was not specified in the Soviet Union survey data until 

1971 and then in only small amounts, so it was probably included as P.o.p. Even U.S. observer 

data were uncertain. Early observers often lacked experience in rockfish identification, so some 

errors were expected (French et al. 1977). 

Although available species compositions for the 1965-76 foreign rockfish catch were 

questionable, comparisons with estimates in this document should be noted. Early observer data 

from the 1967 Japanese fishery was consistent with estimates in this document. P.o.p. was 67%

of total catch (U.S. 1967), while estimated 1967 Japanese catch of P.o.p. was 73% of rockfish 

catch. Species compositions reported by Japan, however, differed from the results. If the 1974 

Other market category species composition reported by Japan (Appendix C, Table 11) is applied 

to 1974 Other Japanese catch (Table 3), bocaccio catch would be reduced and chilipepper, 

widow, black, yelloweye, and silvergrey increased. Poland reported catch was also almost 

entirely splitnose and yellowtail catches in 1976, while the new 1976 estimates were 10% 

yellowtail and 4% splitnose for that year. A final discrepancy was that the new 1973 Soviet 

Union catch estimate for P.o.p. in the Columbia INPFC area was 849 t, while the Soviet Union 

reported 539 t as POP. 

8 W . Barss.	 ODFW , 2040 SE M arine Science Dr., Newport, OR 97365. Pers. commun. 2001. 

42 
The analyses in this document did help demonstrate the persistence of rockfish 

assemblages over time. Species assigned to slope and shelf assemblages were the same as those 

used presently by managers (PFMC 2000). The exception was that shortspine is now considered 

part of an assemblage with sablefish, Dover sole, and longspine rather than slope rockfish. Some 

overlap between those two assemblages is, however, recognized (Rogers 1994). Pacific hake 

incidental rockfish caught by factory trawlers are now primarily yellowtail, widow, and P.o.p. 

(Dorn 1998). Yellowtail and widow were dominant in the foreign incidental catch compositions 

used in this document. 

In summary, this document provides a consistent method of allocating foreign catch in 

1965-76 to all rockfish species. It eliminates allocation of the same catch from the U.S. 

Vancouver and Columbia INPFC areas to more than one species. This document also provides

an allocation for foreign catch in the Conception-to-Eureka INPFC areas, which have never 

previously been considered in any stock assessment Compilations of literature in this document

eliminate possible prior confusion regarding different methods of allocation to INPFC area and 

year. All known BC catch was eliminated from U.S. Vancouver estimates. Defining species 

catch assemblages using 1965-76 data demonstrated the persistence of rockfish assemblages over 

time. Allocating foreign catch to Pacific hake incidental catch, slope rockfish, and shelf rockfish 

assemblage species compositions potentially improved upon previous allocations based solely on 

foreign reporting category or domestic catch. While there are uncertainties both in the total 

foreign catch and in catch allocation which may never be resolved, all available information was 

utilized to estimate species catch as accurately as possible. 

Recommendations are to use foreign catch estimates in this document in rockfish stock 

assessments. If stock assessment authors prefer another method of estimating foreign catch, 

these catches could be considered as an alternative. Modeling should be used to determine the 

effect of these catches on estimated levels of unfished spawning biomass and percent declines in 

spawning biomass. 

43

44

CITATIONS


Bailey, K. M., R. C. Francis, and P. R. Stevens. 1982. The life history and fishery of Pacific whiting, 

Merluccius productus. CalCOFI Rep., Vol XXIII (81-98). 

Barss, W. H. and E. L. Niska. 1978. Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) and other rockfish 

(Scorpaenidae) trawl landings in Oregon 1963-1977. Oregon Dept. Fish Wildl. Infor. Rep. 78-6. 

5 p. 

Berger, J., J. Wall, and R. Nelson, Jr. 1984. Summary of U.S. observer sampling of foreign and 

joint-venture fisheries in the northeast Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea, 1983. (Document 

submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

Vancouver, B.C., Canada, October 1984). Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, National 

Marine Fish. Serv., NOAA, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112. 

Bray, J. R. and J. T. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern 

Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 27:325-349. 

Canada (Canadian Section of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1969. Estimated 

annual catches of Pacific ocean perch by nation, 1959-1968. Unpubl. manuscr., 2 p. (Document 

1231 submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, October 1969.) 

(Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point 

Way NW, Seattle, WA. 98115-0070.) 

Dark, T. A., M. O. Nelson, J. J. Traynor, and E. P. Nunnallee. 1980. The distribution, abundance, and 

biological characteristics of Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus, in the California-British 

Columbia region during July-September 1977. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(3-4):17-33. 

Dorn, M. W. 1998. Fine-scale fishing strategies of factory trawlers in a midwater trawl fishery for 

Pacific hake (Merlucius productus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:180-198. 

Douglas, D. A. 1998. Species composition of rockfish in catches by Oregon trawlers, 1963-1993. 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wild. Mar. Prog. Data Ser. Rep. 575 p. 

Edwards, K. D., T. C. Dark, R. French, R. Nelson, Jr., and J. Wall. 1981. A summary of foreign Pacific 

whiting catches and trawl positions in the Washington-California region, 1977-1980. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-11, 206 p. 

Ermakov, Y. K. 1974. The biology and fishery of Pacific hake, Merluccius productus, Ph.D. 

dissertation, Pac. Sci. Inst. Mar. Fish. Oceanogr. (TINRO), Vladivostok, USSR (as cited in 

Bailey et al. 1982). 

Ermakov, Y. K. and M. A. Stepanenko. 1996. Variations of fish biomass in Vancouver, and 

Washington-Oregon regions (the Pacific coast of North America) under intensive anthropogenic 

impact. J. Ichthyology, 36(1):24-29. 

Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hammann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of North 

America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts, 336 p. 

FAJ (Fishery Agency of Japan). 1969. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the northeastern 

Pacific ocean, 1968 (from Nov. 1967 to Oct. 1968). Unpubl. manuscr., 14 p. (Document 1189 

submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission.) (Available from Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 

98115-0070.) 

FAJ (Fishery Agency of Japan). 1970. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the northeastern 

Pacific ocean, 1969. Unpubl. manuscr., 13 p. (Document 1303 submitted to the International 

45

North Pacific Fisheries Commission.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. 

Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

FAJ (Fishery Agency of Japan). 1973. Data on the Pacific ocean perch fishery in the northeastern 

Pacific - IV Development and history of the Japanese trawl fishery through 1972. Unpubl. 

manuscr., 1 p. (Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

October 1973.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 

7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

FAJ (Fishery Agency of Japan). 1974. Vessel and gear specifications of the Japanese fisheries in the 

North Pacific in 1974. Unpubl. manuscr., 3 p. (Document submitted to the International North 

Pacific Fisheries Commission., October 1974.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 

Natl. Ma.r Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

FAJ (Fishery Agency of Japan). 1975. Species composition of rockfish, other flatfish, and other fishes 

in northeastern Pacific ocean, 1974. Unpubl. manuscr., 3 p. (Document submitted to the 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, October 1975) (Available from Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 

 98115-0070.) 

Forrester, C. R., R. G. Bakkala, K. Okada, and J. E. Smith. 1983. Groundfish, shrimp, and herring 

fisheries in the Bering Sea and northeast Pacific – historical catch statistics, 1971-1976. INPFC 

Bull. 41. 

Forrester, C. R., A. J. Beardsley, and Y. Takahashi. 1978. Groundfish, shrimp, and herring fisheries in 

the Bering Sea and northeast Pacific – historical catch statistics through 1970. INPFC Bull. 37. 

Fraidenburg, M. E., J. E. Smith, W. H. Barss, and T. Jow. 1977. Minimum estimates of the all nation 

removals, North American trawl species composition and cpue for “other rockfish” in the 

northeastern Pacific ocean. WA Dept. Fish. Tech. Rep. 34, 26 p. 

Fraidenburg, M. E., S. J. Westrheim, and R. L. Demory. 1978. The status of Pacific ocean perch 

(Sebastes alutus) stocks off British Columbia, Washington and Oregon in 1977. Unpubl. 

manuscr., 28 p. (Report to the Tech. Sub-Committee to the Inter. Groundfish. Comm., October 

1978.) (Available from Donald Gunderson, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sci., Box 355020, 

Seattle, WA 98195.) 

French, R., R. Nelson, Jr., J. Wall, and D. Hennick. 1978. Data from the observations of foreign fishing 

fleets off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington 1977. Unpubl. manuscr., 39 p. 

(Document 2067 submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission by the U.S. 

National Section, September 1978.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. 

Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

French, R., J. Wall, and V. Wespestad. 1977. The catch of rockfish other than Pacific ocean perch by 

Japan and USSR in the Gulf of Alaska. Unpubl. manuscr., 24 p. (Document 1998 submitted to 

the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission by the U.S. National Section, September 

1977.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 

Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

Golden, J. T. and R. L. Demory. 1984. A progress report on the status of canary rockfish (Sebastes 

pinniger) in the INPFC Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka areas in 1984. Appendix 6 in Pacific 

Fishery Management Council. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1996 and 

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 29 p. 

Gunderson, D. R. 1997. Spatial patterns in the dynamics of slope rockfish stocks and their implications 

for management. Fish. Bull., U.S. 95:219-230. 

46

Gunderson, D. R. Unpubl. data. Notes on methods and results estimating Bulgaria and East German 

1976 P.o.p. and Other Rockfish catch by INPFC area. (Available from Donald Gunderson, 

School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sci., Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195.) 

Gunderson, D. R., J. E. Smith, J. G. Robinson, and T. Jow. 1975. North American landings of species in 

the “other rockfish” category, with time series data on cpue. Unpubl. manuscr., 11 p. 

(Document 1789 submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, October 

1974.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 

Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070). 

Gunderson, D. R., S. J. Westrheim, R. L. Demory and M. E. Fraidenburg. 1977. The status of Pacific 

ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) stocks off British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon in 1974. 

Fish. Mar. Serv. Res. Dev. Tech. Rep. 690, 63 p. 

Hill, M. O. 1979. DECORANA - A FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and 

reciprocal averaging. Ecology and Systematics, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14850, 52 p. 

Hipkins, F. W. 1967. Midwater trawl, telemetry gear prove value on Puget Sound hake. Nat. Fish. 

47(10):10B-11B, 15B. As cited in Nelson (1970). 

Hitz, C. R. 1968. Catalogue of the Soviet fishing fleet. Nat. Fish. 48(13):9-24. 

Hitz, C. R. 1970. Operation of the Soviet trawl fleet off the Washington and Oregon coasts during 1966 

and 1967. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Circ. 332:53-76. 

Ianelli, J. N., D. H. Ito, and M. Wilkins. 1992. Status and future prospects for the Pacific ocean perch 

resource in waters off Washington and Oregon as assessed in 1992. Appendix C in Status of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1992 and Recommended Acceptable Biological 

Catches for 1993. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 

97201, 45 p. 

Ianelli, J. N., M. Wilkins, and S. Harley. 2000. Status and future prospects for the Pacific ocean perch 

resource in waters off Washington and Oregon as assessed in 2000. Appendix to the Status of 

the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 2000 and Recommended Acceptable Biological 

Catches for 2001, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 

97201, 54 p. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1966. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1967. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1968. Proceedings of the fifteenth annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1969. Proceedings of the sixteenth annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1974. Proceedings of the 21st annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1975. Proceedings of the 22nd annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1976. Proceedings of the 23rd annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

47

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1977. Proceedings of the 24th annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1979. Proceedings of the 26th annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

th INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1980. Proceedings of the 27 annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1981. Proceedings of the 28th annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC. 

INPFCa (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1982. Proceedings of the 29th annual 

meeting. Vancouver B.C., INPFC 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1967. Statistical Yearbook 1967. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1968. Statistical Yearbook 1968. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1969. Statistical Yearbook 1969. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1980. Statistical Yearbook 1980. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1981. Statistical Yearbook 1981. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1982. Statistical Yearbook 1982. 

Vancouver B.C. 

INPFCb (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission). 1983. Statistical Yearbook 1983. 

Vancouver B.C. 

Ito, D. H., D. K. Kimura, and M. E. Wilkins. 1987. Status and future prospects for the Pacific ocean 

perch resource in waters off Washington and Oregon as assessed in 1986. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-113, 50 p. 

Jewell, E. D., G. DiDonato, and D. E. Day. 1966. Observations of the Russian fishing fleet by 

Washington State Department of Fisheries biologists while aboard the chartered troller Hulda I. 

Unpubl. manuscr., 23 p. (Available from Brad Pattie, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, 

WA 98501.) 

Kaczynski, V. 1981. Foreign fleets in the N.E. Pacific hake fisheries: economic efficiency analysis. 

Inst. Marine Studies, Univer. Wash./ Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Cooperative Agreement Project 

Report. Unpubl. manuscr., 85 p. (Available in HAL database documents held by PacFIN, 7600 

Sandpoint Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

Ketchen, K. S. 1977. A summary of foreign and domestic fisheries for groundfish off the west coast of 

Canada, 1964-1975. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Man. Rep. Ser. 1423, 35 p. 

Ketchen, K. S. 1980. Reconstruction of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) stock history in Queen 

Charlotte Sound part I. Estimation of foreign catches, 1965-1976. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 1570, 46 p. 

Larkins, H. A. 1975. All-nation removals of groundfish and herring from the Eastern Bering Sea and 

northeastern Pacific ocean, 1967-1973. Unpubl. manuscr., 11 p. (Document 1753 submitted to 

48

the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, June 1975.) (Available from Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 

98115-0070). 

Larkins, H. A. Unpubl. data. March 9, 1976 Memo to NMFS and other biologists. (Available from 

Donald Gunderson, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sci., Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195). 

Lenarz, W. 1980. Shortbelly rockfish, Sebastes jordani: a large unfished resource in waters off 

California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(3-4):34-40. 

Lynde, M. V. H. 1986. The historical annotated landings (HAL) database: documentation of annual 

harvest of groundfish from the northeast Pacific and eastern Bering Sea from 1956-1980. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC 103, 197 p. (Data available from PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint Way 

N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

MacCall, A. D., S. Ralston, D. Pearson, and E. Williams. 1999. Status of bocaccio off California in 

1999 and outlook for the next millennium. Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery through 1999 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2000, 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First 

Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 45 p. 

Miller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. CDFG, Fish Bull. 

157. 249 p. 

Morski Instytut Rybacki. Unpubl. data. Tables for Polish Nominal Catches in North East Pacific/ 

INPFC Columbia and Vancouver subareas for January - December 1975 by species, months, and 

vessel class, W Gdynia, Poland. April 10, 1976. (Available from Donald Gunderson, School of 

Aquatic and Fisheries Sci., Box 355020, Seattle, WA. 98195.) 

Murai, S. Unpubl. data a. Reported Polish Catches (t) in the Northeastern Pacific ocean - 1976. 

Summary table evidently based on a 1977 processed report, Polish nominal catch in northeast 

Pacific/INPFC statistical area for Jan-Dec., 1976 by months, subareas and species/metric tons. 

W Gdynia, Poland. (Available in HAL database documents held by PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint 

Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA. 98115.) 

Murai, S. Unpubl. data b. Tables of Republic of Korea catch for P.o.p. in 1975 and 1976 by gear and 

INPFC area and California, Oregon, and Washington for 1976. (Available in HAL database 

documents held by PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

Murai, S., H. A. Gangmark, and R. R. French. 1981. All-nation removals of groundfish, herring, and 

shrimp from the Eastern Bering Sea and Northeast Pacific Ocean, 1964-1980. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-14. 40 p. 

Nelson, M. O. 1970. Pacific hake fishery in Washington and Oregon coastal waters. U.S. Fish Wildl. 

Serv., Circ. 332:43-52. 

Nelson, M. O. and H. A. Larkins. 1970. Distribution and biology of Pacific hake: a synopsis. U.S. Fish 

Wildl. Serv., Circ. 332:24-33. 

Nelson, R., Jr., J. Wall, and J. Berger. 1983. Summary of U.S. observer sampling of foreign and 

joint-venture fisheries in the northeast Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea, 1982. (Document 

submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

Anchorage, Alaska, October 1983). Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine 

Fish. Serv., NOAA, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112. 

Nitsos, R. J. 1965. Species composition of rockfish (family Scorpaenidae) landed by California otter 

trawl vessels, 1962-1963. Pac. Mar. Fish Comm. Rpt. (17):55-60. 

49

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center). 1977. Fishery 

statistics of the Republic of Korea for 1976 in the Eastern Bering Sea and Northeastern Pacific 

ocean as provided to the U.S. by the Republic of Korea. Unpubl. manuscr., 5 p. (Document 

submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1977.) (Available 

in HAL database documents, PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

Novikov, N. P. and E. I. Chernyy. 1967. Soviet fishery prospects in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. [In

English and Russian]. Rybnoye Khozyaystvo, Moscow, USSR (3):5-7. 

Parks, N. 1974. Allocation of U.S.S.R. trawl catches in 1972 by INPFC statistical areas and month. 

Unpubl. manuscr., 3 p. (Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, October 1974). (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. 

Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070). 

Parks, N. 1975. Allocation of U.S.S.R. and Republic of Korea groundfish catches in 1973 by Halibut 

Conservation Areas in the Bering Sea and INPFC statistical areas in the Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean. Unpubl. manuscr., 7 p. (Document submitted to the International North Pacific 

Fisheries Commission, June 1975.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. 

Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

Parks, N. 1976. Allocation of U.S.S.R. and Republic of Korea groundfish catches in 1974 by Halibut 

Conservation Areas in the Bering Sea and INPFC statistical areas in the Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean. Unpubl. manuscr., 6 p. (Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, May 1976). (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. 

Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070). 

Parks, N. B. and T. A. Dark. 1972. Allocation of U.S.S.R. and South Korean trawl catches by INPFC 

statistical areas by month, 1967-70. Unpubl. manuscr., 12 p. (Document 1515 submitted to the 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1972.) (Available from Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 

98115-0070.) 

Pattie, B. H. 1966. Further observations of the Russian fishing fleet while aboard the chartered troller 

Hulda I. Unpubl. manuscr., 2 p. (Available from Brad Pattie, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., 

Olympia, WA 98501.) 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1992. Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery 

through 1992 and recommended acceptable biological catches for 1993. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 82 p. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2000. Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery 

through 2000 and recommended acceptable biological catches for 2001. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 40 p. 

Polutov, L. A,. L. L. Lagunov, P. G. Nikulin, V. D. Verein, and V. G. Dorzdov. 1966. Commercial 

fishes of Kamchatka. Petrapavlovsk, Kamchatka, U.S.S.R. (as cited in Ketchen 1980). 

Pruter, A. Unpubl. data. 1977. Memo to W. H. Neibohm regarding Republic of Korea catch estimates 

made by B. Larkins. (Available in HAL database documents held by PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint 

Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

Ralston, S., D. Pearson, and J. Reynolds. 1998. Status of the chilipepper rockfish stock in 1998. 

Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1998 and Recommended 

Acceptable Biological Catches for 1999, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 99 p. 

Rogers, J. B. 1994. Assemblages of groundfish caught using commercial fishing strategies off the coasts 

of Oregon and Washington from 1985-1987. PhD Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

OR. 134 p. 

50

Rogers, J. B., and J. R. Bence. 1992. Review of fishery and auxiliary data for chilipepper rockfish in the 

Eureka/Conception/Monterey INPFC areas. Appendix F in Status of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery through 1992 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1993, 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First 

Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 18 p. 

Rogers, J. B., and E. K. Pikitch. 1992. Numerical definition of groundfish assemblages caught off the 

coasts of Oregon and Washington using commercial fishing strategies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

49:2648-2656. 

Rogers, J. B., T. Builder, P. Crone, J. Brodziak, R. D. Methot, R. J. Conser, and R. Lauth. 1998. Status 

of the shortspine thornyhead resource in 1998. Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery through 1998 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1999, 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First 

Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 64 p. 

Rogers, J. B., R. D. Methot, T. L. Builder, and K. Piner. 2000. Status of darkblotched rockfish (Sebastes 

crameri) resource in 2000. Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

through 2000 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001, Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 

97201, 71 p. 

Sampson, D. B., and E. M. Stewart. 1994. Status of canary rockfish resource off Oregon and 

Washington in 1994. Appendix G in Pacific Fishery Management Council. Status of the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1994 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 

1995. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 62 p. 

Sasaki, T. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1977. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

Northeastern Pacific, 1976. Submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. 

Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical 

classification. Freeman, San Francisco. 573 p. 

Soviet Union. Unpubl. data. Statistics Form NI for 1974. (Available from Donald Gunderson, School of 

Aquatic and Fisheries Sci., Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195.) 

STAR (Stock Assessment Review). 2000. Darkblotched rockfish STAR panel meeting report. In: 

Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery through 2000 and recommended acceptable 

biological catches for 2001. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., 

Portland, OR 97201, 17 p. 

STAT (Stock Assessment Team). 1999. Status of the canary rockfish resource off Oregon and 

Washington in 1999. Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 

1999 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2000. Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 111 p. 

Takahaski, Y. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1968. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific ocean, 1967. Unpubl. manuscr., 10 p. (Document 1086 submitted to the 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

Tagart, J. V. 1984. Update of the yellowtail rockfish status of stocks. Appendix 8 in Status of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and Recommendations for management in 1985. Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 37 p. 

Tagart, J. V. 1985. Estimated domestic trawl rockfish landings, 1963-1980. Unpubl. manuscr. and data. 

Wash. Dep. Fish. (Available in HAL database documents held by PacFIN, 7600 Sandpoint Way 

N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115.) 

51

Tagart, J. V. 1988. Status of the yellowtail rockfish stocks in the International North Pacific Fishery 

Commission Vancouver and Columbia areas. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS 

48, 57 p. 

Tagart, J. V. 1993. Status of the yellowtail rockfish resource in 1993. Appendix E, Status of the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1993 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 

1994. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 51 p. 

Tagart, J. V. Unpubl.data. (Available from Jack V. Tagart, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 

98501.) 

Tagart, J. V., and F. R. Wallace. 1996. Status of the yellowtail rockfish resource in 1996. Appendix D, 

Volume II to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1996 and Recommended 

Acceptable Biological Catches for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First 

Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 166 p. 

Tagart, J. V., F. R. Wallace, and J. N. Ianelli. 2000. Status of the yellowtail rockfish resource in 2000. 

In: Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 2000 and 

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 127 p. 

TSC (Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee). 1967. Report of the 

technical sub-committee (TSC) of the International Trawl Fishery Committee. Minutes of the 

Eighth Annual Meeting. Nanaimo, B.C. 

TSC (Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee). 1969. Report of the 

technical sub-committee (TSC) of the International Trawl Fishery Committee. Minutes of the 

Tenth Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA. 

TSC (Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee). 1971. Report of the 

technical sub-committee (TSC) of the International Trawl Fishery Committee. Minutes of the 

Twelfth Annual Meeting. Vancouver, B.C. 

TSC (Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee). 1973. Report of the 

technical sub-committee (TSC) of the International Trawl Fishery Committee. Minutes of the 

Fourteenth Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA. 

TSC (Technical sub-committee of the International Trawl Fishery Committee). 1976. Report of the 

technical sub-committee (TSC) of the International Trawl Fishery Committee. Minutes of the 

Seventeenth Annual Meeting. Newport, OR. 

USBCF (United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). 1966. Commercial Fisheries Review 28 

(4-11). 

USBCF (United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). 1967. Commercial Fisheries Review 29 (1-12). 

USBCF (United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). 1968. Commercial Fisheries Review 30 (1-12). 

USBCF (United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). 1969. Commercial Fisheries Review 31 (1-12). 

U.S. (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center). 	 1967. Cruise reports of U.S. 

observers aboard Japanese stern trawlers in the Gulf of Alaska during 1967. Unpubl. manuscr., 

10 p. (Document 1017 submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

October 1967.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 

NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

U.S. (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center). 1973. Allocation of 

U.S.S.R. and South Korean trawl catches in 1971 and 1972, respectively, by INPFC statistical 

areas and month. Unpubl. Manuscr., 3 p. (Document 1607 submitted to the International North 

52

Pacific Fisheries Commission). (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. 

Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070). 

U.S. (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center). 1975. Foreign fisheries off 

Washington, Oregon, and California August 1974 to July 1975. Unpubl. manuscr., 4 p. 

(Document 1784 submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission.) (Available 

from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

VNIRO (All-Union Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography). 1978. U.S.S.R. 

groundfish catches (m.t.) in the northeastern Pacific by INPFC area, 1975-1977. Unpubl. 

manuscr., 3 p. (Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

September 1978.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 

NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

WFSD (Washington State Fisheries Department). Unpubl. data. Foreign fishery surveillance reports, 

Flights 1-12, July 17, 1967-Oct. 4, 1968, 33 p. (Available from Brad Pattie, WDFW, 600 Capitol 

Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Westrheim, S. J. 1967. G. B. Reed groundfish cruise reports, 1963-1966. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Tech. Rep. 

30. 47 p. 

Westrheim, S. J., and H. Tsuyuki. 1967. Sebastodes reedi, a new scorpaenid fish in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 24(9):1945-1954. 

Westrheim, S. J., D. R. Gunderson, and J. M. Meehan. 1972. On the status of Pacific ocean perch 

(Sebastes alutus) stocks off British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon in 1970. Fish. Res. Bd. 

Can. Tech. Rep. 326. 44 p. 

Williams, E. H., A. D. MacCall, S. V. Ralston, and D. E. Pearson. 2000. Status of the widow rockfish 

resource in Y2K. Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 2000 

and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001. Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 122 p. 

Williams, E., S. Ralston, A. D. MacCall, D. Woodbury, and D. E. Pearson. 1999. Stock assessment of 

the canary rockfish resource in the waters off Southern Oregon and California in 1999. In: 

Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery through 1999 and Recommended 

Acceptable Biological Catches for 2000. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First 

Ave., Portland, OR 97201, 75 p. 

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1971. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific in 1970 (Nov. 1969-Oct. 1970). Unpubl. manuscr., 17 p. (Document 1407 

submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, August 1971.) (Available 

from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1972. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific in 1971 (Nov. 1970-Oct. 1971). Unpubl. manuscr., 9 p. (Document 1492 

submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1972.) (Available 

from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070.) 

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1973. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific (Nov. 1971-Oct. 1972). Unpubl. manuscr., 17 p. (Document submitted to 

the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1973.) (Available from Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 

98115-0070.) 

53

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1974. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific, 1973. Unpubl. manuscr., 21 p. (Document submitted to the International 

North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1974.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115­

0070.) 

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1975. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific, 1974. Unpubl. manuscr., 18 p. (Document submitted to the International 

North Pacific Fisheries Commission, August 1975.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115-0070). 

Yamaguchi, H. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1976. Outline of the Japanese groundfish fishery in the 

northeastern Pacific, 1975. Unpubl. manuscr., 24 p. (Document submitted to the International 

North Pacific Fisheries Commission, September 1976.) (Available from Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NW, Seattle, WA 98115­

0070). 

54

APPENDIX A: CATCH BY INPFC AREA, CALENDAR


YEAR, AND REPORTING CATEGORY 

INPFC areas referred to in this document are often shortened in tables and figures as 

follows: Washington, Oregon, and California = WOC; Washington and Oregon = WO; 

Washington = W; Oregon = O; California = C; Conception INPFC = CON; Monterey INPFC = 

MON; Eureka INPFC = EUR; Columbia INPFC = COL; U.S. Vancouver = UVAN; entire 

Vancouver = VAN. 

55

Table A-1. Comparison of available estimates of Soviet rockfish catch (t) off Washington, Oregon, and California during 1965-76. If sources 

used other names, catches are placed under categories by matching amounts. Estimates used in this document are in bold. Number 

preceding symbol ( ) is the total value for the block of cells indicated. For example, under year 1973, the B.C. (Larkins cited)

total amount for POP and Other is 1911. 

56

Table A-1. Comparison of available estimates of Soviet rockfish catch (t) off Washington, Oregon, and California during 1965-76. Continued.

a

 Rockfishes 

b

 Pacific ocean perch, a category name used by Soviet Union 

c

 Other rockfishes, a category name used by Soviet Union 

d

 British Columbia 

e

 VAN + CHARLOTTE 

f Catch placement based on Soviet reports, surveillance indicates significant fishing in N. and S. California 

57

Table A-2. Comparison of Soviet catch (t) estimates in 1966-68 in the literature versus calculations.

a

 Indicates numbers of vessels sighted fishing rockfish, where 1966 and 1967 were based on Hitz (1970) and 1968 is based on USBCF (1968). 


b

 Indicates effort of 2.6 medium vessels equal 1 large vessel, and daily catch of large vessels is 30 t.


c

 Indicates effort of 7 medium vessels equals 1 large vessel, and daily catch of large vessels is 85 t.


d

 Uses catch/tow and tows/day presented in Ketchen (1980). 


e

 The range of estimates in Table A-1. 


f Estimates utilize catch per month estimates in Polutov et al. (1966).


58

Table A-3. Calculation of Soviet catch (t) in U.S. Vancouver INPFC area. WOC estimates are from 

Forrester et al. (1978) for 1966, Larkins (1975) for 1967-72, and Soviet Union (Unpubl. 

data) for 1974. VAN, COL, EUR, and MON estimates are from Parks and Dark (1972) for 

1967-70, U.S. (1973) for 1971, and Parks (1974-76) for 1972-74. For 1967-72 and 1974, 

UVAN is calculated by subtracting the combined COL, EUR, MON, and CON areas (COLCON) from WOC estimates. For 1966, catch in the MON area is estimated using vessel 

sighting and catch estimates (see page 12 for more information). The remainder is divided 

between VAN, COL, and EUR using 1967 proportions. In 1973, the 1972 and 1974 average 

percentage for combined rockfish in the U.S portion (77%) was applied to VAN estimates. 

59

Table A-4. Japanese catch (t) estimates reported by fishing year off Washington, Oregon, and California during 1965-76. Estimates used are in 

bold.

a

 Pacific ocean perch, a category name used by Japan. 

b Other rockfishes, a category name used by Japan. 

60

Table A-5. Comparison of estimates of Japanese catch (t) reported by calendar year off Washington, Oregon, and California during 1965-76. 

Estimates used in this document are in bold. Number preceding symbol ( ) is the total value for the block of cells indicated. For 

example, 144 is total value for for EUR, MON, and CON for 1968 in the Fraidenburg et al. 1977 citation.

a

 Pacific ocean perch, a category name used by Japan. 

b

 Other rockfishes, a category name used by Japan. 

c Charlotte + VAN 

61

Table A-6. Calculation of Japanese catch (t) in U.S. portion of Vancouver INPFC area. Block information was from maps in FAJ (1968)[67], 

(1969) [68], (1970) [69];Yamaguchi (1971 )[70], (1972) [71], (1973) [72], (1975) [74], (1976) [75]; and Sasaki (1977) [76]. Block 

letters refer to designations in Figure A2. VAN = Vancouver INPFC area, UVAN = U.S. portion of the Vancouver INPFC. For the 

POP market category, the UVAN catch is calculated by applying the percentages to the Block catches. For the Other market 

category, the hours trawled in the U.S. portion were calculated using the same percentages. The percentage of VAN hours trawled in 

the U.S. was then applied to the VAN catch to derive the UVAN catch. Data from 1 November - 31 October was assigned to the later 

(31 October) year. 

62

Table A-7. Comparison of available estimates of foreign catch (t) for other countries off Washington, 

Oregon, and California during 1965-76. Estimates used in this document in bold. Murai et 

al. (1981) estimates are considered “rockfish” if there is an estimate in one of their two 

categories and they did not put a dash in the other category. 

* 1975 tows were all trawl. 1976 tows were all longline. 

? Data unknown. 

63

Figure A-1.	 Comparison of possible borders between Soviet “Washington” and “British Columbia” 

reporting areas. Shaded area with horizontal lines is the U.S. Vancouver INPFC. Shaded 

area with diagonal lines is the PFMC Area 3B. Cross-hatched area is the overlap between 

the two areas. 

Figure A-2. 	 Japanese block reporting areas. Bold line is the U.S.-Canadian border. Percentages are the 

estimated area of the block in the U.S. Letters in blocks correspond to columns in 

Appendix Table A-6. 

64

APPENDIX B: DEFINING ROCKFISH FISHING


STRATEGIES/ASSEMBLAGES


65

Table B-1. Comparison of available species composition information on shelf and slope rockfish 

assemblage catches during 1966-76. Published data was compiled, except Gunderson 

(1997), which presented the summary. Line separates species into slope or deepwater (top) 

versus shelf or nearshore (bottom) species as presently defined (PFMC 2000). Species less 

than 0.5% in all compositions were not included. Blank spaces indicates no catch of the 

species. 

66

Table B-2. Comparison of sources with information on incidental rockfish catch from targeting Pacific hake during or soon after 1966-76. 

Species comprising less than 0.5% in all sources are not included. 

* ? indicates that the number of tows is unknown. 

67 
Table B-3. Missing weights and replacement data for Soviet Union survey data from 1966-76 of the U.S. 

West Coast (south of lat. 48 30'N). Total number of tows is 4366. Tows with missing 0

weights have numbers for that species but no weight data. Tows with weight and numbers 

have information on both. Weight per fish is average for tows with information on both 

weights and numbers. Units of weight are unknown, but believed to be kilograms. 

68

Table B-4. Comparison of clusters of tows from the 1966-76 Soviet surveys. Named clusters are those 

used in this document. % dissimilar = Bray-Curtis index. Catches of species in bold were 

used in clustering tows. Only species with > 0.5% in any cluster are included. 

69

Figure B-1.	 Comparison of ordination scores and cluster designations for the four most-frequently 

occurring clusters (designated by letters assigned in Table B-4). Top graph is plot of DCA 

ordination species scores. Outlines enclose species which average greater than 10% of the 

tow catch in the four most-frequently occurring clusters. Species enclosed are: A - P.o.p., 

shortspine, darkblotched, and splitnose; B - hake, widow, and shortbelly; C - bocaccio and 

chilipepper; and F - black, canary, and yellowtail. Bottom graph plots the average ordination 

tow scores by cluster, with area of bubble directly related to number of tows. The four 

clusters with the most tows are designated with letters assigned in Table B-4. 

70

APPENDIX C: CATCH ALLOCATION TO FISHING


STRATEGIES/ASSEMBLAGES


71

Table C-1. Regulations and agreements affecting foreign fisheries off the U.S. West Coast in 1966-77. 

72

Table C-2. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California in 1966. Categories under vessel number are: All 

(includes support vessels), M = medium fishing vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing 

vessels (stern trawlers).1 

73

Table C-2. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California in 1966. Categories under vessel number are: All 

(includes support vessels), M = medium fishing vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing 1 vessels (stern trawlers). Continued. 

a

 I. = Island, H. = Harbor, R. = River. Off = distance offshore. b

 S.F. indicates San Francisco. 

c

 unloading 

d one pair 

74

Table C-3. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington and Oregon in 1967. Categories under vessel number are: All (includes support 

vessels), M = medium fishing vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing vessels (stern 

trawlers).* 

75

Table C-3. 	 Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington and Oregon in 1967. Categories under vessel number are: All (includes support 

vessels), M = medium fishing vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing vessels (stern 

trawlers).* Continued. 

* I. = Island, H. = Harbor, B. = Bank, C. = Cape, R. = River. Off = distance offshore, Depth = bottom depth. inc = 

incidental. 

76

Table C-4. 	 Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coast of 

California in 1967. Categories under vessel number are: All (includes support vessels), M = 

medium fishing vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing vessels (stern trawlers).* 

* L.A. = Los Angeles, CA, n. CA = northern California, C. = City, S.F. = San Francisco, CA., Off = distance 

offshore, Depth = bottom depth. 

77

Table C-5. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California in 1968 (WA and OR are above the line; CA is below). 

Categories under vessel number are: All (includes support vessels), M = medium fishing 

vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing vessels (stern trawlers).* 

78

Table C-5. Available vessel sighting information for the Soviet Union fishery operating off the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California in 1968 (WA and OR are above the line; CA is below). 

Categories under vessel number are: All (includes support vessels), M = medium fishing 

vessels (side trawlers), and L = large fishing vessels (stern trawlers).* Continued. 

* n. CA = northern California, C. = Cape, R. = River, H . = Harbor, S.F. = San Francisco, CA., Off = distance 

offshore, Depth = bottom depth. 

79

Table C-6. Allocation of Soviet Union rockfish catch (t) (above line) to rockfish assemblages using method employing information from 

commercial fisheries (Method 1) (below line). Rockfish (t) and Pacific hake (t) are from literature or derived. Rockfish in Hake 

Incidental are assumed to be 1% of Pacific hake catch. Rockfish not allocated to Pacific hake are then allocated to either Slope or 

Shelf. Slope versus Shelf percentages for MON are based on Soviet Union survey catches of commercial-sized rockfish. Precision 

shown is less than used in calculations. For 1966, for example, Hake Incidental rockfish in COL is 101,120*0.01 = 1,011.2 t. 

Rockfish minus Hake Incidental is 27,531.5 - 1,011.2 = 26,520.3, which is assumed 100% Slope assemblage. 

80

Table C-7. Distribution of Soviet Union survey tows by year and INPFC area for the four most frequent 

assemblages in all years and areas combined. 

. 

81

Table C-8. Comparison of Soviet Union catch ratios in surveys versus commercial catches. Catch (t) distribution is based on dividing catch for a 

given year and INPFC by the total catch in all years and INPFC areas. Conception INPFC is not included in the comparison because 

there was no fleet catch. 

82

Table C-9. Allocation of Soviet Union rockfish catch (t) (above line) to rockfish assemblages using method employing information from Soviet 

Union surveys (Method 2) (below line). Rockfish in Hake Incidental are assumed to be the percentage of Pacific hake catch in 

survey Hake Incidental by INPFC and year. Rockfish not allocated to Pacific hake are then allocated to either North Shelf, South 

Shelf, or Slope based on their relative percentages in Survey catches. Precision shown is less than used in calculations. Using COL 

1966 as an example, 101,120 t Pacific hake * 6.7949% = 6871 t rockfish in Hake Incidental. Rockfish not in Hake Incidental is 

27,531.5- 6871= 20660.5 t. North Shelf is then 34.5543% of 20660.5 = 7139 t, South Shelf is 5.0582 % of 20660.5 = 1045 t and 

Slope is 60.3875% of 20660.5 = 12476 t. 

83

Table C-9. 	 Allocation of Soviet Union rockfish catch (t) (above line) to rockfish assemblages using method employing information from Soviet 

Union surveys (Method 2) (below line). Rockfish in Hake Incidental are assumed to be the percentage of Pacific hake catch in 

survey Hake Incidental by INPFC and year. Rockfish not allocated to Pacific hake are then allocated to either North Shelf, South 

Shelf, or Slope based on their relative percentages in Survey catches. Precision shown is less than used in calculations. Using COL 

1966 as an example, 101,120 t Pacific hake * 6.7949% = 6871 t rockfish in Hake Incidental. Rockfish not in Hake Incidental is 

27,531.5- 6871= 20660.5 t. North Shelf is then 34.5543% of 20660.5 = 7139 t, South Shelf is 5.0582 % of 20660.5 = 1045 t and 

Slope is 60.3875% of 20660.5 = 12476 t. Continued. 

84

Table C-10. Allocation of Japanese rockfish catch (t) (above line) to assemblages (below line). No catch 

occurred in 1966. Catch for POP, Other, and Hake COL, MON, and CON are from 

literature (Forrester et al. 1978, 1983). UVAN is calculated (see Table A-6). Slope = POP

and Shelf = Other except in UVAN and COL in 1973-76. In those years, slope = POP+1/2 

Other and shelf = 1/2 Other. 

85

Table C-11. Comparison of available fishery species compositions during 1965-76. Compositions were 

either from U.S. observers or as reported by foreign countries.* 

* Chilipepper represented several unidentified species. 

86 
Table C-12. Allocation of Polish rockfish catch (t) to assemblages. No U.S. Vancouver catch is assumed 

because trawling was not allowed there. Rockfish catch is from Morski Instytut Rybacki 

(unpubl.data) [1975], Murai (unpubl. data a) [1976]. Pacific hake catch is from Kaczynski 

(1981) [1975] and Murai (unpubl. data a) [1976]. Methods of allocation are based on those 

developed for the Soviet Union. 

87

Table C-13. Allocation of Bulgarian and East German rockfish 1976 catch (t) to assemblages. Pacific 

hake and rockfish catch estimates are from Gunderson (unpubl. data); steps in allocating 

Pacific hake to INPFC area and estimating rockfish from Pacific hake are shown. Methods 

of allocation to assemblage are based on those developed for the Soviet Union. 

88

Figure C-1. 	Soviet Union survey changes in Pacific hake strategies over time and INPFC area. Top

graph is percent of Pacific hake catch (weight) by assemblage. Segments of the bars 

represent Pacific hake target (black), slope (gray), south shelf rockfish (diagonals), and 

north shelf rockfish (white). Solid white bars indicate no data for that period (example 

1971 and 1972). Bars shown are for area-year combinations with at least 20 tows. Bottom 

graph is for the Pacific hake assemblage only. It is a comparison of the distance the gear is 

towed above the bottom (solid bars) and the ratio of rockfish-to-Pacific-hake catch weight 

(diamonds). Information is shown for area-year combinations with at least 5 tows. 

89

Figure C-2. 	Comparison of Soviet Union assemblage-designated catches by INPFC area and year based 

on three methods. Top is method 1, middle is method 2, and bottom are survey multivariate 

designations. Segmented bars are: black = Hake Incidental, gray = slope, diagonals = South 

Shelf or Shelf (commercial), white = North Shelf. Solid white bars indicate no data for that 

period. (“Rockfish Catch” is the percent distribution of rockfish catch into assemblages.) 

90

APPENDIX D: DERIVE AND APPLY SPECIES


COMPOSITIONS TO ASSEMBLAGE CATCH


91

Table D-1. 	 Estimates of Conception INPFC area landings (t) by species percentages. Nitsos (1965) 

landings are for the ports of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay, CA. Fraidenburg et al. (1977) 

extrapolated California port samples to the entire Conception landings. 

92

Table D-2. 	 Estimates of Monterey INPFC area landings by species. California landings are from Nitsos 

(1965) for the ports of Fort Bragg and San Francisco in 1962 and Fort Bragg, San Francisco, 

and Monterey in 1963. Shortspine, Pacific ocean perch, and splitnose are nominal catches, 

and the rest are based on expanded port samples (Nitsos 1965). North American trawler 

landings are from Fraidenburg et al. (1977) (which used Gunderson et al. 1975) except for 

Pacific ocean perch which are from the HAL data base (Lynde 1986). Nitsos (1965) 

landings for flag were reported by Fraidenburg et al. (1977) as redbanded. 

93

Table D-3. 	 Estimates of Eureka INPFC area landings by species. California landings are from Nitsos 

(1965) for the port of Eureka. Shortspine, Pacific ocean perch, and splitnose are nominal 

catches and, the rest are based on expanded port samples (Nitsos 1965). Oregon landings are 

from Douglas (1998) based on the only year in which both Oregon market categories (POP 

and other rock) were sampled for PFMC Area 2A. North American landings are from 

Gunderson et al. (1975) and Fraidenburg et al. (1977). North American landings for Pacific 

ocean perch are from the HAL data base (Lynde 1986). They extrapolated California data to 

the total North American catch. 

94

Table D-4. Oregon landings estimates for the Columbia INPFC area. Douglas (1998) landings are 

presented only for years in which each PFMC area within the INPFC area was sampled. 

Barss and Niska (1978) extrapolated to areas not sampled to produce an INPFC estimate. 

95

Table D-5. Columbia area landings made in Washington and Oregon (PFMC areas 3A, 2C, and 2B) are 

based on data from Tagart (1985). Columbia area landings for North Amercian trawlers are 

calculated by expanding Oregon data to the total North American catch (Fraidenburg et al. 

1977). Pacific ocean perch landings are those found in the stock assessment for that species 

(Fraidenburg et al. 1978). 

96

Table D-6. 	U.S. Vancouver INPFC area landings estimates based on landings in PFMC area 3B + 3CS 

(Tagart 1985). Prior to 1969, the "POP" market category in Washington was not sampled 

(included in Tagart (1985) unidentified rockfish). Fraidenburg et al. (1977, 1978) expanded 

available information to all years for the entire Vancouver INPFC. 

97

Table D-7. Species compositions based on observed catches in 1977-83 (incidental hake) and domestic landings (slope and shelf). Periods are: 

e = early (1966-71) and l = late (1972-76). Percentages less than 0.5% were not presented. 

98

Table D-8. Species compositions for incidental hake and slope based on Soviet Union survey assemblages. Periods are: e = early (1966-68), 

m = mid (1969-70), and l = late (1971-76). Percentages less than 1% are not shown. 

99

Table D-8. Species compositions for incidental hake and slope based on Soviet Union survey assemblages. Periods are: e = early (1966-68), 

m = mid (1969-70), and l = late (1971-76). Percentages less than 1% are not shown. Continued. 

100

Table D-9. Species compositions for north shelf and south shelf based on Soviet Union survey assemblages. Periods are: e = early 

(1966-68), m = mid (1969-70), and l = late (1971-76). Percentages less than 1% are not shown. 

101

Table D-9. Species compositions for north shelf and south shelf based on Soviet Union survey assemblages. Periods are: e = early 

(1966-68), m = mid (1969-70), and l = late (1971-76). Percentages less than 1% are not shown. Continued. 

102

Table D-10. Soviet Union catch (t) allocated to species by INPFC area and year. Catch is rounded to 

the nearest t. 

103

Table D-10. Soviet Union catch (t) allocated to species by INPFC area and year. Catch is rounded to the 

nearest t. Continued. 

104

Table D-10. Soviet Union catch (t) allocated to species by INPFC area and year. Catch is rounded to the 

nearest t. Continued. 

* Starting catches before allocation to species. 

105 
Table D-11. Japanese catch (t) allocation to individual species by year and INPFC area. Catch is 

rounded to the nearest t. 

106

Table D-11. Japanese catch (t) allocation to individual species by year and INPFC area. Catch is 

rounded to the nearest t. Continued. 

* Starting catches before allocation to species. 

107 
Table D-12.	Allocation of catch (t) for Poland, East Germany, and Bulgaria using the average of 

Method 1 and Method 2. Catch is rounded to the nearest t. Species with less than 1 t in all 

categories are not included. Start totals are catch before allocation; differences are from 

rounding. 

* Starting catches before allocation to species. 

108 
Figure D-1.	 Comparison of percents by weight (y axes) for species dominating the four most frequently 

occurring Soviet Union research assemblages by INPFC area and year (x axes). Under 

shelf, the MON is the S. shelf assemblage and the other areas are the N. shelf assemblage. 

109

Figure D-2. Comparison of the catches of four species in the Soviet Union surveys by year and bottom depth. Size of the bubble is directly 

related to the size of the catch. 

110

APPENDIX E: COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS


ESTIMATES


111

Table E-1. U.S. Vancouver INPFC area P.o.p. assessment foreign catch (t) derivations versus new estimates (t). 

112

Table E-2. Columbia INPFC area comparison of P.o.p. assessment calculations with new estimates (t). 

113

Table E-3.	 U.S. Vancouver INPFC area yellowtail and canary assessment calculations versus new values (t). Bold indicates used in 

assessments. Area is given only when it changes from the above value. B.C. = British Columbia, S. VAN = southern Vancouver 

INPFC. 

114

Table E-3.	 U.S. Vancouver INPFC area yellowtail and canary assessment calculations versus new values (t). Bold indicates used in 

assessments. Area is given only when it changes from the above value. B.C. = British Columbia, S. VAN = southern Vancouver 

INPFC. Continued. 

115

Table E-4.	 Columbia INPFC area (COL) yellowtail and canary assessment calculations versus new estimates (t). Bold indicates used in 

assessments. New includes 1976 Bulgaria and East Germany catch (29 t yellowtail, 13 t canary). Area listed when it changes (N. = 

north). 

116

Table E-5. Differences between new estimates (t) for Pacific ocean perch (P.o.p.), yellowtail, and canary and those used previously in the stock 

assessments. Start = catch to which percentages are applied. Yellowtail areas in parentheses are used in the stock assessment. 

117


Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov).

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-NWFSC56 MacCall, A.D., and T.C. Wainwright (editors). 2003. Assessing extinction risk for West Coast salmon.

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-56, 198 p. NTIS PB2003-104642.

55 Builder Ramsey, T., et al. 2002. The 1999 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Pacific West Coast upper

continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-55, 143 p. NTIS PB2003-104641.

54 Krahn, M.M., et al. 2002. Status review of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the

Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-54, 133 p. NTIS

PB2003-104520.

53 Waknitz, F.W., T.J. Tynan, C.E. Nash, R.N. Iwamoto, and L.G. Rutter. 2002. Review of potential

impacts of Atlantic salmon culture on Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-53,

83 p. NTIS PB2002-108143.

52 Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2001. Determination of a tissue and sediment threshold for

tributyltin (TBT) to protect prey species of juvenile salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act.

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-52, 21 p. NTIS PB2002-103161.

51 Emmett, R.L., P.J. Bentley, and G.K. Krutzikowsky. 2001. Ecology of marine predatory and prey

fishes off the Columbia River, 1998 and 1999. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC51, 108 p. NTIS PB2002-101699.

50 Turk, T.A., et al. 2001. The 1998 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Pacific West Coast upper continental

slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-50, 122 p. NTIS PB2002-101700.

49 Nash, C.E. (editor). 2001. The net-pen salmon farming industry in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-49, 125 p. NTIS PB2002-100948.

48 Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2001. Use of tissue and sediment based threshold concentrations

of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. U.S.

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-48, 40 p. NTIS number pending.

47 Johnson, L.L. 2001. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds for polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons to protect estuarine fish. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-47, 30 p.

NTIS number pending.