16.05.2015 Views

2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...

2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...

2008 Annual Monitoring Report (pdf 10.9MB) - Bolsa Chica ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Bolsa</strong> <strong>Chica</strong> Lowlands Restoration <strong>Monitoring</strong><br />

<strong>2008</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />

Less common fish captured over the year included bonefish (Albula vulpes), California lizardfish<br />

(Synodus lucioceps), and an unidentified juvenile rockfish (Sebastes sp.). All were captured in low<br />

numbers. Only one California needlefish (Strongylura exilis) was captured (in April <strong>2008</strong>), though a<br />

school of them was observed from the boat at Station 1 in October but not captured. No striped mullet<br />

(Mugil cephalus) were captured in the basin but were regularly observed, particularly in October, in<br />

schools in the shallows along the riprap of the basin.<br />

Ca. butterfly ray in the beach seine.<br />

The total mass (g) of fish captured in <strong>2008</strong> is presented in Table 1-6. A<br />

total of 55 kg of fish was captured at Station 1, 68% of which was made<br />

up of elasmobranchs, primarily bat ray (Myliobatis californica), round<br />

stingray (Urobatis halleri), gray smoothhound (Mustelus californicus),<br />

and California butterfly ray (Gymnura marmorata). Topsmelt,<br />

yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), and California halibut were also<br />

major contributors to overall mass at Station 1. A smaller total mass of<br />

19 kg of fish was captured at Station 2, dominated by topsmelt (45%),<br />

jacksmelt (17%), and diamond turbot (12%).<br />

It is important to note when reviewing these tables that survey intensity varied slightly between<br />

stations due to variations in large beach seine haul sizes, so direct comparisons between stations and<br />

quarters should be made carefully. In addition, the sampling biases between gear types make lumping<br />

of the catch of all gears together inappropriate. To standardize for the area sampled and to allow direct<br />

comparisons in density and biomass between stations, Figure 1-8 presents the mean density<br />

(individuals/m 2 ) by gear by quarter for each station. The results of the first sampling in October 2007<br />

are included as well.<br />

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 43

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!