HomeConservationMarineNFMP

Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (NFMP)

California Coast

The Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (NFMP) is presented in four sections:

Section 1 presents the background of the NFMP as well as the NFMP Project.

Section 2 includes the environmental analysis (Fish and Game Code Section 781.5), including a review of alternatives and options, some of which were recommended by constituents in the review of the initial draft NFMP. In addition, it provides responses to public comment.

Section 3 includes regulations that would implement the NFMP Project's management strategy.

Section 4 includes public comments and responses.

 

List of Tables

  • Table 1.1-1 (PDF)
    Contribution of management measures to ecological goals and objectives of the Marine Life Management Act and to the objectives of the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan
  • Table 1.2-1 (PDF)
    Nearshore species matrix showing ranking and criteria used to determine level of concern
  • Table 1.2-2 (PDF)
    Commercial databases used in NFMP data analyses, summaries, reports, etc.
  • Table 1.2-3 (PDF)
    Recreational databases used in NFMP data analyses, summaries, reports, etc.
  • Table 1.2-4 (PDF)
    MRFSS estimated number of fishing trips in thousands by mode for northern California
  • Table 1.2-5 (PDF)
    MRFSS estimated number of fishing trips in thousands by mode for southern California
  • Table 1.2-6 (PDF)
    Averages in pounds for commercial and recreational landings combined, from two time periods, 1983-1989 and 1993-1999 for cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfish
  • Table 1.2-7 (PDF)
    Total recreational, commercial, and combined landings in pounds from two time periods, 1983-1989 and 1993-1999 for cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfish
  • Table 1.2-8 (PDF)
    Economic input of new dollars to local coastal economies from recreational angling in the nearshore area in 1998 and 1999 (adjusted for inflation and expressed in year 2000 dollars)
  • Table 1.2-9 (PDF)
    Economic contribution of new dollars to local coastal economies from recreational angling in the nearshore area, in 1998 and 1999 (adjusted for inflation and expressed in year 2000 dollars), in terms of economic output, earnings, and employment
  • Table 1.2-10 (PDF)
    Economic contribution of new dollars to local coastal economies from recreational angling in the nearshore area in 1998 and 1999, in terms of economic output, earnings, and employment
  • Table 1.2-11 (PDF)
    Commercial nearshore finfish landings and ex-vessel value, by year, for 19 nearshore finfish species with all commercial gear types combined (excluding trawl)
  • Table 1.2-12 (PDF)
    Average annual commercial landings, pounds, and value, for NFMP species during 1989-1999, all gears except trawl
  • Table 1.2-13 (PDF)
    Economic contribution of nearshore finfish commercial fishing to local port economies, based on average landings by all gears except trawl, during 1989-1999 inclusive
  • Table 1.2-14 (PDF)
    Economic contribution of new dollars to local coastal economies from non-extractive nearshore recreation in 1996 (adjusted for inflation and expressed in year 2000 dollars), in terms of output, earnings, and employment
  • Table 1.2-15 (PDF)
    Factors Related to the 19 Species Included in the California NFMP
  • Table 1.2-16 (PDF)
    Nearshore Fish Stocks within the NFMP
  • Table 1.2-17 (PDF)
    Individual species regulations for the recreational nearshore fishery from pre-1991 to 2001
  • Table 1.2-18 (PDF)
    State regulations, gear restrictions, and Federal regulations affecting commercial fishing for nearshore fish
  • Table 1.2-19 (PDF)
    2000-2001 Optimum yield and allocation for nearshore rockfishes (including California scorpionfish) in metric tons by area
  • Table 1.3-1 (PDF)
    Factors Considered in Reviewing Regional Management Approaches
  • Table 1.3-2 (PDF)
    Possible scenario of implementation of management measures and tools on a regional basis
  • Table 1.3-3 (PDF)
    Comparison of Four Types of Restricted Access Program
  • Table 1.4-1 (PDF)
    Recreational Data Sources
  • Table 1.4-2 (PDF)
    Potential of fishery-dependent monitoring and fishery-independent assessment studies to provide essential fishery information
  • Table 1.4-3 (PDF)
    Goals and Current, Short, and Long-term Research Implementation

List of Figures

  • Figure 1.2-1 (PDF)
    Range distributions for egg nests, juvenile and adult cabezon
  • Figure 1.2-2 (PDF)
    Common and entire range distribution for adult kelp greenling
  • Figure 1.2-3 (PDF)
    Common and entire range distribution for adult rock greenling
  • Figure 1.2-4 (PDF)
    Range distirbution for larval, juvenile, and adult California sheephead
  • Figure 1.2-5 (PDF)
    Major marine ports and headlands of northern California
  • Figure 1.2-6 (PDF)
    Major marine ports and headlands of central California
  • Figure 1.2-7 (PDF)
    Major marine ports and headlands of southern California
  • Figure 1.2-8 (PDF)
    Estimated statewide commercial landings of cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfishes (including California scorpionfish) in pounds for all gears combined from 1989-1999
  • Figure 1.2-9 (PDF)
    Estimated statewide commercial landings in pounds for hook-and-line, trap, and gill and trammel net gear from 1989-1999
  • Figure 1.2-10 (PDF)
    Estimated statewide commercial landings of cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfishes (including California scorpionfish) in pounds for gill and trammel nets from 1989-1999
  • Figure 1.2-11 (PDF)
    Estimated statewide commercial landings of cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfishes (including California scorpionfish) in pounds for hook-and-line gear from 1989-1999
  • Figure 1.2.12 (PDF)
    Estimated statewide commercial landings of cabezon, California sheephead, greenlings, and nearshore rockfish (includes California scorpionfish) in pounds for trap gear from 1989-1999
  • Figure 1.2-13 (PDF)
    Comparison of nearshore rockfish landings with and without group unspecified, group red, and group small rockfish
  • Figure 1.2-14 (PDF)
    Northern and southern California recreational landings (Source: MRFSS) of cabezon in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-15 (PDF)
    Northern and southern California recreational landings (Source: MRFSS) of California sheephead in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-16 (PDF)
    Northern and southern California recreational landings (Source: MRFSS) of greenlings (kelp greenlings, rock greenlings, and greenling genus) in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-17(PDF)
    Northern and southern California recreational landings (Source: MRFSS) of nearshore rockfish (including California scorpionfish) in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-18 (PDF)
    Statewide recreational (Source: MRFSS) and commercial (Source: CALCOM) landings of cabezon in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-19 (PDF)
    Statewide recreational (Source: MRFSS) and commercial (Source: CALCOM) landings of California sheephead in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-20 (PDF)
    Statewide recreational (Source: MRFSS) and commercial (Source: CALCOM) landings of greenlings (kelp greenlings, rock greenlings, and greenling genus) in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-21 (PDF)
    Statewide recreational (Source: MRFSS) and commercial (Source: CALCOM) landings of nearshore rockfishes (includes California scorpionfish) in pounds from 1983-2000. No recreational data available from 1990-1992
  • Figure 1.2-22 (PDF)
    Northern California rockfish and lingcod management area for 2000 and 2001
  • Figure 1.2-23 (PDF)
    Southern California rockfish and lingcod management area for 2000 and 2001
  • Figure 1.3-1 (PDF)
    California's marine districts and counties
  • Figure 1.3-2 (PDF)
    Flow of information and recommendations between the regional advisory committees, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Fish and Game Commission. The numbers track the flow of recommendations and information over time
  • Figure 1.3-3 (PDF)
    Northern California marine protected areas
  • Figure 1.3-4 (PDF)
    Central California marine protected areas
  • Figure 1.3-5 (PDF)
    Southern California marine protected areas
  • Figure 1.4-1 (PDF)
    Flow of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent information through the management process

List of Appendices

Acknowledgements

Nearshore Advisory Committee Members and Alternates

The Department would like to thank the members and alternates in the Nearshore Advisory Committee who helped frame the NFMP. Their continued support will guarantee effective implementation. Participants on the committee are:

Environmental

  • Reyna, Karen. Pacific Ocean Conservation Network. San Francisco, CA
  • Wing, Kate. Natural Resources Defense Council. San Francisco, CA
  • Geever, Joe. Member American Oceans Campaign. Playa de Rey, CA

Recreational

  • Kirk, Paul. Angler. Eureka, CA
  • Malone, Mike. Angler. Sebastopol, CA
  • Humphrey, Bob. Diver. Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Strickland, Bob. Angler. San Jose, CA
  • Oba, Richard. Angler. Richmond, CA
  • Webb, Jim. Angler. Cambria, CA
  • Massengill, Ron. Angler. Cambria, CA
  • Kvaas, Art. Angler. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Ball, Tom. Angler. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Frasco, Eric. Diver. Manhattan Beach, CA
  • Meister, Paul. Diver. Manhattan Beach, CA
  • Griffith, Barbara. Angler. Escondido, CA
  • Wilson, Jim. Angler. Tustin, CA

Commercial

  • Hensel, Kenyon. Fisherman. Crescent City, CA
  • Stanley, Don. Fisherman. Eureka, CA
  • Bassler, Jim. Fisherman. Fort Bragg, CA
  • Platt, Dan. Fisherman. Fort Bragg, CA
  • Wong, Larry. Fisherman. San Francisco, CA
  • Ferrari, Lou. Fisherman. San Francisco, CA
  • James, Bill. Fisherman. Pismo Beach, CA
  • Colomy, Jim. Fisherman. Ventura, CA
  • Hoeflinger, Chris. Fisherman. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Campbell, Bruce. Fisherman. Vista, CA
  • Healy, Roger. Fisherman. Laguna Beach, CA
  • Solomon, Donna. Buyer. Moss Landing, CA
  • Johnson, B.J. Buyer. Nipomo, CA

Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Operators (Charter Boats)

  • Ingles, Robert. Half Moon Bay, CA
  • Neil, Darby. Morro Bay, CA
  • Fletcher, Robert. San Diego, CA
  • Strasser, Paul. San Pedro, CA

Academic

  • Larson, Ralph. Professor. Department of Biology San Francisco State University. San Francisco, CA
  • Cailliet, Gregor. Professor. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. Moss Landing, CA
  • Lowe, Christopher. Professor. Department of Biological Science, CSU, Long Beach. Long Beach, CA
  • Anderson, Todd. Professor. Department of Biology San Diego State University. San Diego, CA

NFMP Staff 2000-2002

The Nearshore Fishery Management Plan has been in analysis and design phases since January 2000. The efforts of many staff have contributed to the final document. The Department acknowledges the concerted work of the following CDFG staff:

  • Ashcraft, Susan. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Barsky, Kristine. Senior Marine Biologist. CDFG. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Bedford, Dennis. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Carlo, Mary Ann. Office Technician. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Collier, Patrick. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Eureka, CA
  • Collins, Robson. CEA 1. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Curtis, Joshua. Research Analyst I, CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Fluharty, Marilyn. Environmental Specialist III. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Geibel, John. Senior Marine Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Gregory, Paul. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Hammer, Bernice. Associate Program Analyst. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Hardy, Robert. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Morro Bay, CA
  • Isaac, George. Environmental Specialist III. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Kalvass, Peter. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Fort Bragg, CA
  • Karpov, Kon. Senior Marine Biologist. CDFG. Fort Bragg, CA
  • King, Howatt. Research Analyst I. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Klingbeil, Rick. Supervising Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Larson, Mary. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Lea, Robert. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Lohse, Angela. Marine Biologist. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Mattson, Donna. Scientific Aide. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Maytorena, Marty. Patrol Lieutenant. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Mello, John. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Eureka, CA
  • Moore, Tom. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Bodega Bay, CA
  • Napoli, Tom. Environmental Specialist III. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Olivas, Tim. Patrol Lieutenant. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Ono, David. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Perez, Colleena. Research Analyst I. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Prall, Mike. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Eureka, CA
  • Price, Jason. Marine Biologist. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Read, Robert. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Reilly, Paul. Senior Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Riske, Steve. Patrol Lieutenant. CDFG. Bodega Bay, CA
  • Rojek, Nora. Associate Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Schwartz, Jesse. Graduate Student. Biology Dept., Boston University. Boston, MA
  • Smiley, Jeff. Scientific Aide. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Spear, Frank. Regional Patrol Chief. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Spratt, Jerry. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Thomas, Dave. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Thomson, Cindy. Economist. National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, CA
  • Vejar, Alex. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Walters, Kevin. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Weinstein, Joe. Statistical Methods Analyst III. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA

NFMP 2002 Lead Authors

In October 2001, the first NFMP draft was given an eight month extension by the Commission so that the comments from the public, the analysis of the peer review panel, and additional writing by the staff could be included in improving the document. The core staff of authors and editors committed to redrafting the original document included:

  • Aseltine-Neilson, Debbie. Research Analyst II. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Barnes, Tom. Senior Marine Biologist Specialist. CDFG. La Jolla, CA
  • Bishop, Traci. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Dawson, Cyndi. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Leos, Robert. Research Analyst II. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Osorio, Dave. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Owen, Sandra. Research Manager I. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Ryan, Connie. Research Manager I. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Schultze, Don. Senior Marine Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Citrus Heights, CA
  • Tillman, Terry. Senior Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Woodland, CA
  • Weber, Michael. Marine Advisor. CA Fish & Game Commission. Huntington Beach, CA
  • Wertz, Lisa. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Bodega Bay, CA
  • Wilson-Vandenberg, Deb. Research Manager I. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • VenTresca, David. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Yaremko, Marci. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Sacramento, CA

The 2002 Restricted Access Team

Restricted Access is the process of limiting the California commercial fishing fleet to match the size of the fishing resource. The Restricted Access process runs parallel to the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan, and will be adopted into regulation separate from the NFMP. Input from the team has helped frame the ultimate structure of the preferred alternative of the NFMP. The Department would like to thank the following team members for their hard work in meeting with members of the public, specifically the fishing industry, in an attempt to bring a fair and equitable resolution to the issue of Restricted Access. The team includes:

  • Barsky, Kristine. Senior Marine Biologist. CDFG. Santa Barbara, CA (lead)
  • Bishop, Traci. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Santa Barbara, CA
  • Heneman, Burr. Director. California Ocean Policy Project. Bolinas, CA
  • Key, Meisha. Statistical Methods Analyst I. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Tillman, Terry. Senior Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Weber, Michael. Marine Advisor. CA Fish & Game Commission. Huntington Beach, CA

The 2001-2002 Constituent Involvement Team

The Department is committed to public involvement in the initial draft, redraft and finalization of the NFMP. This includes input from the public, industry, conservation interests, academics and special advisory panels. The Constituent Involvement Team carried responsibility for the inclusion of all members of the public. That team included:

  • Leos, Maura. Office Technician. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Mastrup, Sonke. Deputy Director. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Pattison, Christine. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Morro Bay, CA
  • Ramsey, Jonathan, Marine Biologist. CDFG. Eureka, CA
  • Roberts, Ed. Marine Biologist. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Ryan, Connie. Research Manager I. CDFG. Belmont, CA (lead)
  • Tanaka, Travis. Marine Biologist, CDFG. Monterey, CA

The 2002 Fishery Control Rule Authors

Fishery Control Rules are the preferred management objective in the 2002 redraft of the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. Over the period of the redraft, an inspired and energetic team added both insight and substance the the Fishery Control Rules, resulting in the development of depth and breadth to their application for NFMP. To that team, the Department would like to extend its gratitude for the significant 'value-added' material in that critical section.

  • Barnes, Tom. Senior Marine Biologist Specialist. CDFG. La Jolla, CA
  • Heneman, Burr. Director. California Ocean Policy Project. Bolinas, CA
  • Kaufman, Les. Associate Professor of Biology. Boston University. Boston, MA

Reviewers

  • MacCall, Alec. Fisheries Biologist. NMFS. Santa Cruz, CA
  • Mangel, Marc. Professor. UCSC. Santa Cruz, CA

The 2002 Environmental Document Legal Team

Certain state agencies, operating under their own regulatory programs, generate a plan or other environmental review document that serves as the functional equivalent of an EIR. The Environmental Document for the NFMP required the focus of a CEQA analyst with support from the legal branch of CDFG. The Department would like to thank the following people for attention to the important analysis of impacts from the NFMP framework:

  • Malcolm, Ann. Deputy General Counsel. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Mattox, John. Staff Counsel. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Milton, Joe. Staff Counsel. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Tasto, Bob. Environmental Scientist IV. CDFG. Monterey, CA

The 2001-2002 Research Protocols Team

A multi-disciplinary, interagency team of biologists, statisticians and marine managers designed research strategies and protocols for collaborative nearshore research. Their work has initiated the implementation phase of the NFMP. The team includes:

  • Aseltine-Neilson, Debbie. Research Analyst II. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Barnes, Tom. Senior Marine Biologist Specialist. CDFG. La Jolla, CA
  • Bergen, Mary. Environmental Scientist IV. CDFG. Ojai, CA
  • Bennett, Bill. Postdoctoral Researcher. Bodega Marine Lab. Bodega Bay, CA
  • Cailliet, Greg. Professor. Moss Landing Marine Labs, Moss Landing, CA
  • Chun, Calvin. Statistical Methods Analyst III. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Dawson, Cyndi. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Geibel, John. Senior Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Heneman, Burr. Director. California Ocean Policy Project. Bolinas, CA
  • Karpov, Kon. Senior Marine Biologist. CDFG. Fort Bragg, CA
  • Kaufman, Les. Associate Professor of Biology. Boston University. Boston, MA
  • King, Chad Research Analyst I/GIS. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Klingbeil, Rick. Supervising Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • Larson, Ralph Professor. San Francisco State University. San Francisco, CA
  • Lea, Robert. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Leos, Robert. Research Analyst II. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Osorio, David. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Parrish, Richard NMFS. Pacific Grove, CA
  • Prall, Michael. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Eureka, CA
  • Schwartz, Jesse. Graduate Student. Boston University, Boston, MA
  • Spratt, Jerry. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Tillman, Terry. Senior Biologist Specialist. CDFG. Sacramento, CA
  • Valle, Chuck. Associate Biologist. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA
  • VenTresca, David. Associate Marine Biologist. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Walters, Kevin. Marine Biologist. CDFG. Belmont, CA
  • Weinstein, Joe. Statistical Methods Analyst III. CDFG. Los Alamitos, CA

The Peer Review Panel - NFMP 2001-2002

Peer Review is the process of convening a panel of scientists to review any proposed Fishery Management Plan. The Peer Review Panel analyzes the strengths and weakness of the Plan and recommends strategies that will guide and secure a scientific basis for management. Under the guidance of Bill Leet and Chris Dewees of UC Davis, a Peer Review Panel of five marine biologists was established. The Department would like to thank the contributions of the peer reviewers:

  • Gunderson, Don. Professor. Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. UW. Seattle, WA
  • Larson, Doug. Marine Economist. U.C Davis. Davis, CA
  • Sampson, Dave. Assoc. Professor of Fisheries. OSU. Newport, OR
  • Starr, Rick. Sea Grant Advisor. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Moss Landing, CA
  • Vetter, Russ. National Marine Fisheries Service. La Jolla, CA

The 2002 Technical Editing and Graphics Design Team

The Department is committed to producing documents that can communicate the complexity of resource management to the public, and provide a forum for the public's response. The technical editing and graphics design team worked with the authors to produce a more public- oriented version of the original 2001 draft NFMP. The Department wishes to thank the design and technical editing team:

  • Aseltine-Neilson, Debbie. Research Analyst II. CDFG. San Diego, CA
  • Leos, Maura Office Technician. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Owen, Sandra. Research Manager I. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Park, Mi Ra. Research Analyst I/GIS. CDFG. Monterey, CA
  • Patyten, Mary. Research Writer. CDFG. Monterey, CA

The 2002 Nearshore Fishery Management Plan Redraft Coordination Team

David Bunn, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, CDFG, is an active supporter and mentor, providing guidance on the role of the Marine Life Management Act in fishery management plans. His direction contributed to a plan which is consistent with CDFG policies and that will provide for a sustainable fishery long into the future.

Patricia Wolf, Regional Manager for the CDFG Marine Region in Los Alamitos, provided oversight, coordination with the Directorate and Fish and Game Commission, and active support for the development of broad initiatives and the public process.

Eric Knaggs, Research Manager with CDFG in Monterey, provided active facilitation of staff, resources, time and space for the completion of the NFMP redraft.

Tom Barnes, CDFG Senior Marine Biologist, and Deb Wilson-Vandenberg, Research Manager, were instrumental in researching, writing and editing the NFMP document. Their persistence guaranteed the overall excellence of the document.

Mike Weber, Marine Advisor for the California Fish and Game Commission, was the general editor for Section I of the NFMP redraft. His guidance was essential in keeping the plan consistent with the Marine Life Management Act. He has pioneered a new style of public document, one that allows for broad public understanding and utility.

Nancy Wright, Research Analyst with CDFG in Monterey, was the NFMP redraft coordinator.

The Department would like to thank these people for the dedication and tenacity they showed in the development of the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan.

Personal Communications

Lea, Robert N. Associate Marine Biologist. Marine Resources Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Monterey, CA.

Moser, Geoffrey. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA.

Vetter, Russ. National Marine Fisheries Service. La Jolla, CA.

Section 3: Regulations

Section 4: Comments and Responses to Comments

Section IV, entitled "NFMP Comments and Response to Comments," contains the public comments received on the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan since May 9, 2002. Over 500 comments were received on the May 9, 2002 version of the proposed NFMP. The Department, on behalf of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), prepared written responses to all these public comments submitted to the Commission regarding the proposed Nearshore Fishery Management Plan.

Comments Received at Meetings and Hearings

Comments Received Through Written Correspondence

Acronyms and Definitions

  • APA
    Administrative Procedures Act
  • CALCOM
    Commercial fishery database from landing receipts with species composition applied
  • CCR
    California Code of Regulations
  • CEQA
    California Environmental Quality Act
  • CMASTR
    Commercial fishery database from landing receipts Commission
    California Fish and Game Commission
  • Council
    Pacific Fisheries Management Council
  • CPFV
    Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel
  • CRANE
    Cooperative Research and Assessment of Nearshore Ecosystems
  • Department
    Department of Fish and Game
  • EFI
    Essential Fishery Information
  • FGC
    Fish and Game Code
  • IFS
    Individual Fishing Shares
  • ITQ
    Individual Transferable Quotas
    • MRFSS
    Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Study
  • MLMA
    Marine Life Management Act
  • MLPA
    Marine Life Protection Act
  • MPAs
    Marine Protected Areas
  • MSY
    Maximum Sustainable Yield
  • NMFS
    National Marine Fisheries Service
  • OY
    Optimum Yield
  • PFMC
    Pacific Fishery Management Council
  • PRBO
    Point Reyes Bird Observatory
  • SIMON
    Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network
  • TAC
    Total Allowable Catch
  • USFWS
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Executive Summary

This Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (NFMP) is presented in four sections. Section 1 presents the background of the NFMP as well as the NFMP Project. Section 2 includes the environmental analysis (Fish and Game Code Section 781.5), including a review of alternatives and options, some of which were recommended by constituents in the review of the initial draft NFMP. In addition, it provides responses to public comment. Section 3 includes regulations that would implement the NFMP Project's management strategy. Section 4 includes the Public Comments and Responses.

Below is a brief summary of each of the chapters in Section 1.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 begins by placing the NFMP within the context of the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) goals, objectives, policies, and mandates. Applying the MLMA to the nearshore fishery begins with a definition of problems in the fishery that require management attention. Chapter 1 includes a consensus problem statement developed by the NFMP Advisory Committee, which is composed of constituents with diverse interests in the nearshore fishery.

The Department applied the MLMA to problems identified in the statement in developing a set of goals and objectives for management of the nearshore fishery through the NFMP. The five goals are to:

  • Insure long-term resource conservation and sustainability
  • Employ science-based decision-making
  • Increase constituent involvement in management
  • Balance and enhance socio-economic benefits
  • Identify implementation costs and sources of funding

Each goal is accompanied by objectives, all of which are based directly upon the MLMA. Some objectives include more detailed guidance recommended by the Department.

To meet the MLMA mandate for adaptive management, the NFMP establishes a hierarchical framework within which adjustments to the management of the nearshore fishery can be made in a responsible and timely manner. This framework structure begins with regular review of the management of the fishery. The NFMP provides examples of the types of the biological and socio-economic issues that may trigger a change in management.

In response to this review, the Department may recommend that the Fish and Game Commission take one of four types of action:

  • Amendment of the FMP, in order to change species covered by the NFMP, for instance;
  • Full Rulemaking Action, in order to adopt management measures that will have a long-term effect, grant discretion in their application, and may have impacts that have not been analyzed previously;
  • Notice Action, in order to alter a management measure, such as an annual quota, that has been classified as routine through full rulemaking; and
  • Prescribed Action for management actions that are non-discretionary such as closure of a fishery when a quota has been reached.

Each of these actions represents a different degree of change in management and requires a different level of analysis and regulatory process. Amendment of an FMP requires the most analysis and process, including an environmental analysis, while the Department may carry out a Prescribed Action without prior public notice.

Chapter 2: Background

Chapter 2 begins with a description of the process that the Department used in selecting the 19 species of nearshore finfish proposed for management under the NFMP. This process relied upon such criteria as changes in catch levels, special biological characteristics, and special habitat needs. The 19 species are:

Black rockfish
Black-and-yellow rockfish
Blue rockfish
Brown rockfish
Cabezon
Calico rockfish
California scorpionfish
California sheephead
China rockfish
Copper rockfish
Gopher rockfish
Grass rockfish
Kelp greenling
Kelp rockfish
Monkeyface prickleback
Olive rockfish
Quillback rockfish
Rock greenling
Treefish
Sebastes melanops
Sebastes chrysomelas
Sebastes mystinus
Sebastes auriculatus
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Sebastes dallii
Scorpaena guttata
Semicossyphus pulcher
Sebastes nebulosus
Sebastes caurinus
Sebastes carnatus
Sebastes rastrelliger
Hexagrammos decagrammus
Sebastes atrovirens
Cebidichthys violaceus
Sebastes serranoides
Sebastes maliger
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Sebastes serriceps
 
 

Chapter 2 then describes the history and socio-economics of the fishery. The NFMP focuses upon extractive uses, that is, commercial and recreational fishing. A description is presented of the types of statistical information on commercial and recreational fishing that are available, together with their strengths and weaknesses. The chapter then describes general trends in the nearshore commercial and recreational fisheries in the 1980s and 1990s. The chapter presents statistics on trends in the commercial fishery by gear (chiefly, hook-and-line gear, traps, and gill and trammel nets); discusses reasons for increased landings in the 1990s, including the growth of the live-fish market; and presents trends in recreational fishing.

The chapter then analyzes the socio-economic dimensions of the nearshore fishery. It presents general estimates of the economic activity generated by both commercial and recreational fishing. The chapter also analyzes economic values associated with non-extractive uses.

Both state and federal management authorities are then described, including recent federal and state management actions regarding nearshore fish. The State has active management jurisdiction over 4 of the 19 species: California sheephead, cabezon, rock greenling, and kelp greenling.

Chapter 3: Management Measures for Sustainable Nearshore Fisheries

The core of the NFMP Project is the management strategy, which aims at meeting the MLMA's primary goal of sustainability by meeting several objectives:

  • preventing overfishing
  • rebuilding depressed stocks
  • ensuring conservation
  • promoting habitat protection and restoration

The NFMP Project meets these requirements and the goals and objectives of the NFMP by employing five general measures. Each of these measures addresses an aspect of fishery management; together they form an integrated approach to meeting the MLMA guidelines.

  1. Fishery Control Rule: The NFMP describes a Fishery Control Rule that includes three stages, recognizing the practical level of knowledge and understanding of the fishery. As knowledge increases, management can become less precautionary. The Fishery Control Rule provides a protocol for determining sustainable levels of fishing that then are enforced through the adoption of specific management tools such as size limits, time/area closures, or gear restrictions.
  2. Regional Management: The NFMP recognizes the significant geographical differences in the nearshore fishery and proposes developing management tailored to conditions specific to each of four regions.
  3. Marine Protected Areas: The NFMP uses marine protected areas (MPAs) to ensure that the MLMA's objectives for protection of habitat and ecosystem integrity as well as sustainable fisheries are met. The NFMP recognizes the authority of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) to design a Master Plan for MPAs in California. The Master Plan will make recommendations on specific sites for MPAs, implementation and phasing, funding, monitoring, enforcement, and management. The NFMP includes a recommended approach to MPAs, which should be referenced when citing MPAs to benefit nearshore finfish.
  4. Restricted Access: The NFMP bases its approach to restricted access upon the Fish and Game Commission's restricted access policy, and presents four initial options for regional restricted access programs in the commercial fishery.
  5. Allocation: The NFMP builds upon the allocation policy adopted by the Commission in December 2000. Total allowable catch will be allocated between commercial and recreational fisheries based on historical catches, on a regional level.

Finally, effective implementation of the NFMP's measures will benefit from transfer of management authority to the State for some or all of the nearshore species currently managed under the federal groundfish fishery management plan.

Chapter 4: Research to Support the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan

The NFMP continues with a research plan that aims to support effective and adaptive management of the nearshore fishery by acquiring and applying essential fishery information (EFI), as required by the MLMA. The chapter begins with a discussion of the relevance of specific types of EFI to the management tools described in the previous chapter on the management strategy. The chapter then describes past and current fishery-dependent monitoring of commercial and recreational fisheries and identifies weaknesses in this monitoring. The limited past and current fishery-independent assessment activities of the Department are reviewed together with their shortcomings.

The chapter then describes eight types of EFI, in order of priority:

  • spatial and temporal estimates of abundance
  • total mortality by species, as well as temporally and spatially
  • age and growth characteristics
  • recruitment
  • ecological interactions
  • reproductive characteristics
  • distribution of stocks
  • movement patterns

The chapter then sets forth a research protocol that aims to fill gaps in EFI, as required by the MLMA. The research plan rests on two bases: improvement of existing fishery-dependent and fishery-independent monitoring and assessment, and a systematic program of research and monitoring in a discrete set of reference sites.

The chapter also describes EFI for the socio-economic dimensions of the fishery, including employment, expenditures and fishery costs, resource demand and net economic value, and revenue. The chapter also describes a research plan for filling gaps in information.

The chapter closes with a review of past and current collaborative research and commits the Department to encourage similar collaboration in designing and implementing the research plan.

Chapter 5: Implementation and Costs

Implementing the broad agenda of the NFMP will focus the Department's energy and budget on management, enforcement and research. Management will focus on the continuous need to collect and analyze reliable data, adapt management to new circumstances and information, and to convene meetings for the public and special interest groups. Enforcement ensures compliance with NFMP regulations and collaborates with scientific staff in conducting research from enforcement vessels. Research will move marine management from a species-based focus to an ecosystem-based, broad scale understanding of environmental events. It will move fishery management from a precautionary estimate of allowable catch to a scientific understanding for fishery facilitation.

Funding for the NFMP implementation will be spread between management, enforcement and research.